Indian Antiquary Vol 47

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

Page 205

JULY, 1918)
ON THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE KAUTILIYA
189
and 371), was Bâbhravya Pañoala. Now it is very remarkable indeed that Vatsya yana quotes the Bâbhraviyas four tinies (pp. 70, 96, 247, 303). The conclusion is that here we have a school in which the doctrines of its supposed or actual founder, Babhravya Pancala, were traditionally handed down. The rest of the authorities named by Vâtsyâyana, treat of the seven parts of the Kamasastra severally, which cannot therefore be looked upon as products of distinct schools. For, it is indeed not possible to assume that there ever existed distinct schools which had specialised only in subjects like the Science of Courtesans, Seduction of a Maiden or Intercourse with Prostitutes. The respective works are, as Vâteyâyana himself unequivocally states, written by definite individuals: Dattaka, Carayana, Suvarnanabha, Chotakamukha, Gonardiya and Kucumira. As was shown above, 1911, p. 959, note 2, Ghotakamukha and Carayana are also mentioned in the Kauțiliya and Gonardiya in the Mahabhâsya. As out of the above-named authors Dattaka is, according to Vâteyâyana, the oldest and had been commissioned by the courtesans of Pâţaliputra to write his work, therefore he must have lived, as I have stated in the above-cited place, at the earliest in the second half of the fifth century B.o.; for Pâtaliputra became the capital of Magadha only in the middle of that century. It clearly follows, therefore, that individual authors had begun writing on the subject already in the fourth century B.c.?
Vâtsyâ yana himself finally being the last author is now to be considered. Vâtsyâyana is the gotra name, the personal name is Mallanâge (Com. p. 17: Vâtsyâyana iti xvagotranimittà samdkhya, Mallanâga iti samskärika). Already Subandhu calls the author of the Kamasutra Mallanága, (p. 89) to which passage the commentator adds a quotation from the Visvakona. The personal name rendere it indubitable that the Kámasútra is not the work of a school but that of an individual writer. Moreover, Vâteyâyana was the regenerator of the Kamasastra, which in his time was utsannakalpam, all but extinct. That he is much later than Kautilya, I have shown above, 1911, pp. 962-3, foot-note 1; he can scarcely be prior to the third century A.D.
To the reasons already adduced for assuming & considerable difference in point of time between Kautilya and VAtayAyans may be added that the latter looked upon abstention from meat diet as meritorious (mam sabhaknanddithya satrdd eua nirdranan dharma!, p. 12), while in Kautilya's time there was no such thing. In the sanddhyaksa a number of animals are named which should not be slaughtered (especially in the abhayavanas), but meat diet was not tatooed. For, otherwise Kautilya would not give rules regarding the sale of meat, e.g., "only the flesh of freshly slaughtered animals and cattle (mrgapasandm) should be sold, and it should be devoid of bones; the bones ought to be compensated with most of the same weight. No animal should be sold of which the head, feet and bones have been severed, which has an offensive smell or had fallen dead." The disinclination towards meat-eating has been on the increase since very early times. In the time of Brahmaņgs some already forbid beef; while, on the other hand, Yajsavalkya raises no objection to tender beef, Satapatha Brahm. III l. 2. 21 ; in later times many Brahman asceties were converted to complete vegetarianism. The motive power in this movement appears to be the duty of ahimed imposed upon the fourth Asrama, tie pariurdjakas (also in Kantillya, p. 8: arvepdm ahmad). Buddhists and Jainas raised the ahimad, though not at the outset, still with certainty in later times, to a general religious commandment. Asoka's example and edicts must have exercised the most powerful influence. In the Mahabharata occurs & polemic against animal sacrifice and the recommendation of vegetable sacrifice as a substitute for it. The prohibition of meateating follows naturally the abstention from killing. In India extrome principles become established in the long run: the more stringent rule appears to be the more correct one; the Indians fight shy of cultivating lax habits. An important role was played in these matters probably by the women. Do they not appear even nowadays as the guardians of the orthodox tradition, though the men might be prepared to renounce it ?