Indian Antiquary Vol 47

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 204

188
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[ JULY, 1918
contrary Bharadvaja exchanges the places of 1 and 2, Visâlâkaḥ of 2 and 3, the Pârâsarâḥ of 3 and 4, and so on right through the series. In the other passage (pp. 325 ff.) the discussion is about the three kopajah and the four kâmâjâ dosdḥ; Bharadvaja looks upon the kamaja dosáḥ as more heinous than the kopajâh; Visâlâkṣaḥ, the second kopaja as worse than the first; the Pârâsarâh, the third worse than the second; and in the same way the kamaja dosah are gone through maintaining the same stereotyped sequence of authors, and the same fixed scheme. The question whether the historical development could have taken place in this manner, according to an unalterable rogramme, need not be seriously discussed. That Kautilya had not meant the series to be a chronological one, can besides be demonstrated in another way. For, according to it, Bharadvaja ought to be the oldest author. Now Bharadvâja attacks (p. 253) a doctrine that is explicitly attributed to Kautilya and is subsequently [840] refuted by the latter. Bharadvaja should accordingly have been not the oldest but the most modern author, and besides a contemporary of Kautilya himself! Probably the serial sequence expresses the degree of estimation which Kautilya entertained in regard to the respective predecessors, and Bhâradvâja stood in the eyes of Kautilya the lowest in the scale. Kautilya utilised, as is absolutely certain in two cases and more or less probable in the remaining, the names of his predecessors for staging an imaginary controversy as a means of enlivening his discourse! This solitary artifice strikes one as something extraordinary in a manual of instruction otherwise so sober and pertinent. It was the first step towards an artistic representation that was taken by a great writer and that remained without issue. Such liberty could be taken by a great master; it would be something unheard of in the case of a pedagogue.
From the data of the Kautilîya we can infer regarding the development of the Arthasâstra that it was at first cultivated and handed down in schools and that subsequently individual authors wrote on the subject. This evolution was already completed before the time of Kautilya, whose work bears the stamp of a strong individuality, both as regards the form and the contents. This same development, first only a scholastic tradition and then individual productions, may be demonstrated also for the Kamasastra, which, as was shown above 1911, p. 962, belongs to the same literary category as the Arthasâstra. Thus, if we except the mythical founder of the Kâmasastra, Nandin, the attendant of Siva, and the semilegendary author Svetaketu, son of Uddalaka, then the first writer on Kâmaśâstra, whose work was known to and [841] used by Vâtsyâyana, according to his own testimony (pp. 6
6 Vâtsyayana mentions, pp. 78 f., & doctrine of Auddâlaki; the commentary also one on p. 77, and p. 80 assigns a verse to him, Further, p. 4, the commentary quotes two verses according to which Auddalaki did away with the promiscuity of wives and with the consent of his father composed, as an ascetic, the Kamasastra (sukham såstram). Uddalaka sets forth Brh. Ar. VI. 4, 2 ff., the doctrine of rite coeundum and teaches the use of two maniras from which it follows that a man was permitted to have sexual relation with any woman during her menses. There must have thus actually existed a certain promiscuity of wives. We ought also perhaps to interpret the story of Jabâlâ and her son Satyakama, Chand. Up. IV. 4, 2 in the same way (and not as rendered by Deussen that Jabâlâ in her youth knocked about a good deal working as a maid-servant). According to MBh. I. 122, śvetaketu did away with the promiscuity of wives, because he was indignant at seeing that a strange Brahman should actually avail himself of the right which his father (theoretically) recognised. From what tradition has to report concerning the father and son, it is therefore explicable why the composition of a Kâmaéâstra was attributed to Svetaketu. Nor do I wish to question, the fact that doctrines relating to the Kamasastra were current under his name. In this connection it may be mentioned that pastamba I. 5, 14 ff. counts Svetaketu among the modern authors, Jolly, Recht und Sitte, p. 3 (Grundriss).