Indian Antiquary Vol 47

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

Page 208

192
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
(JULY, 1918
literary form, especially when [845] its author writes simultaneously also a commentary ; this took place when the sciences detached themselves entirely from the school proper.
We have set forth the foregoing reflections regarding the different kinds of schools in India in order to clear up the point whether the Kauțiliya could be the product of a school. If such were the case, we ought to expect a Sûtra-work, as, however, the Kauriliya is not a Sätra but rather a Bhâsya, which designation is also expressly given to it by an ancient author; therefore the work is presumably that of an individual author, as shown by many a peculiarity, material and formal, which has come to our notice in the course of our inquiry. We must now investigate if there is reason for doubting the common Indian tradition that Kautilya himself is the author of the work under discussion.
In the first place, it must be emphasised that, as already shown by Hillebrandt, throughout the Indian middle ages Kautilya was with one accord looked upon as the suthor of the Arthasastra under reference. I single out only the evidence of Dandin, who places in the mouth of a character in the Daśakumarac. Chap. VIII, the words : iyam (scil. dandanitih) idáním âcârya-Vis muguptena Mauryarthe sadbhih slokasahasraih samkripta : here with is the time, the author, purpose, extent of the work most definitely given, in complete accordance with the data of the Kauțilîya itself. The passages in which the facts in question are given are, in addition to the opening sentence of the work quoted above verbatim, the last verse of I1, of II 10, and the last three verses at the very end of the work. The first question is: whether these verses may not be later additions. This supposition is impossible in the case of the end verses of Il and II 10. For were we to strike off these verses, then those chapters would lack the usual metrical conclusion. There is in the Kauțiliya (as in the Kimasútra) the rule that every chapter must end with at least une verse.13 Further, as regards the three verses at the end of the work, it is well-known that that is the place where authors give information about themselves and their work ; it must be specially emphasised that the Kåmasûtra, which in other respects also agrees [846) in outward form with the Arthasastra, ends with eight verses containing information about the work, the sources, the author, the purpose and the justification. Lastly, the introductory words, which, indeed, do not contain Kautilya's name, cannot be dispensed with and find besides their parallel in the Kamasútra, where similarly, before the enumeration of the Prakaraņas, but in greater detail, the relation of the work to its sources has been set forth. Accordingly the expunging of the doubtful passages would result in gaping blanks; the amputation is therefore not foasible.
Let us now examine the contents of the above passages. The introductory words say that the contents of the works of all previous masters have been compressed in the Arthasastra before us. If the Kauțiliya were the product of a school it would have in that case appealed to the tradition of the school itself and not to older teachers, who would be looked upon as the leaders of rival schools. The wording of this passage points thus to an individual author, independent of every school. The same follows from the end verse of I l, which reads as follows:
sukhagrahanavijñeyam tattvârthapadaniscitami Kautilyena kertam kastram vimuktagranthavistaram il
1 Only an apparent exception to this rule is XIV l, where a mantra in prose follows the last verse: for, this mantra is probably a gloss intended to supplement the agi mantra mentioned in that verse. Otherwise when mantras are laid down (XIV 3), the directions for use are always appended to them introduced by the words: elasya prayogah. There are no such directions in this instance.