Indian Antiquary Vol 62

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Charles E A W Oldham, S Krishnaswami Aiyangar, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarka
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 268

246
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
specific characteristics." In fact Dinnâga's view is that porception apprehends only the visesas of an object, as opposed to Prasastapâda's doctrine that bare perception, álocanamátra, gives' svarûpa, that is, both the visesas and tho sámánya. The standard illustration of perception in the Nyáyabindu, that of nila, is perhaps significant; for according to the dogmatists the object, visaya, of each sense was divided into a number of primary varieties, nila being one such of rúpa. It looks therefore as if the specific characteristic apprehended by perception consisted of the dharmas making up one of these primary varieties. Arthakriyá again indicates that it is this first moment in perception alone which is effective and that it is so as determining our attitude to the object, whether of attraction or repulsion; it is therefore a correction the Nyâyaj view on this point and is paramarthasat, because on the plane of samurti the point-instant alone is real and everything else intellectual construction. How far later Buddhist logicians developed Dinnâga's theories on this aspect of perception seems to me a matter for further enquiry and on more rigorous lines than those followed by Professor Stcherbatsky, whose views about the thing in itself should for the present be regarded with much reserve.
[DECEMBER, 1933
enough, and nothing is to be gained by discussing the disputed matters, on which his views seem to me demonstrably wrong. But it should be stated clearly that his contention that Asoka was not a Buddhist is definitely incompatible with the evidence now available. If he had suggested on the strength of the edicts that we are mistakenly inclined to see too deep a gulf between Hinduism and Buddhism at that period, his view would have been worth considering; for it is possible to hold that Buddhism was not then regarded as further outside the Hindu fold than, say, the worship of Krsna that must have been already in its early stages. Those who like speculation might even think that in Aśoka's reign Buddhism reached the parting of the ways and took the road which lod both to its becoming a world religion and to its separation from Hinduism with the consequence of ultimate extinction in the land of its origin. I should also point out that no discussion of the Asoka legends is of any value which ignores, as is done here and in another recent publication I have been reading, Przyluski's now famous book on the subject, in which the original authorities are translated from the Chinese and brilliantly interpreted.
The above discussion suggests the one obvious weakness in his equipment, a certain blindness to the historical development of ideas. This is plainly
visible in his attribution to the earliest Buddhism of the dharma theory as set out in the Abhidharmakosa, and equally to my mind in his assumption that the form which the Sâmkhya system took in the classical period was already fully present in its original formu. lation. Buddhist philosophy and logic took many generations of laborious thinking to work out, and we cannot hope to understand either completely unless we are alive to the various steps by which they evolved. But the day for such understanding has hardly arrived yet, and will not do so till all the available texts are published and the higher criticism has been applied to them.
Though I have insisted on a side of the book which rouses a spirit of opposition in me, its real value is not impaired thereby, and I would observe that a work so powerful and so original cannot expect immediate and entire acceptance, and that it has advanced our knowledge to a degree that will take much time for assimilation. Our grateful recognition of the author's achievement will be best shown by a more prolonged critical consideration than I have been able to give it for the purpose of this review. E. H. JOHNSTON, THE MAURYAN POLITY. By V. R. RAMACHANDRA DIKSHITAR. Madras University Historical Series, No. VIII. 10x7 inches; pp. viii, 394. Univer. sity of Madras, 1932. The subject of the political institutions of the Mauryan dynasty is so well-worn, not to say thread. bare, a theme, that nothing that is both new and true about it is to be expected except from specia. lists, and the author of these reprinted lectures, who is clearly no specialist, would have been better advised to keep to the beaten track and avoid con. troversial matter so far as possible. In the passages where he does so, he shows he can write sensibly
Much space is given up in this book to a consider. ation-on faulty lines of the date of the Artha
sástra of Kautilya; as it is evidently not yet realised that there is no hope of arriving at a definite date till much more research has been done, it may be of use to mention those points which are fundamental. Firstly only two quotations in literature are of real importance; that from the Pratijñáyaugandharayana, assuming that the play is by a kavi of the first rank and that therefore it is Kautilya who is the borrower, gives us the upper limit, the author of the play being acquainted with Asvaghosa's Buddhacarita. The lower limit is given by Sura's Játakamálá, but is unfortunately uncertain in its effect (I never said, pace the author, that this work of Sura's was translated into Chinese in 434 A.D.) Next a stringent lexicographical examination is required for words such as pustaka, nirájana, nivi, etc., which seem to belong to a late period; the earliest occurrence of each word in other works or inscriptions should be noted. There may also be words which dropped out of use in a later period. elsewhere should be examined. Thus prakṛti was Further all technical terms and their earliest use evidently borrowed from that Samkhya school, which postulated eight prakṛtis as the primary constituents of the individual. Any cultural indications, such as the use of war chariots, must by considered. Finally, detailed comparison is necesSary of the exact stage of Kautilya's political catogories and legal conceptions. Important work has already been done in this last direction, but with inconclusive results for want of bearing in mind that, while the Arthasdstra is a unitary work, free from extensive interpolation, other legal and political works have had not the same fortune; much The indications at present point to some date in the circumspection is required in drawing conclusions. early centuries of our era, but it would be absurd to be dogmatic till some scholar of encyclopedic
knowledge and sound judgment is prepared to spend years examining the evidence.
E. H. JOHNSTON