________________
PARALIPOMENA ZUM SARVASARVĀTMAKATVAVADA II
307
306
ALBRECHT WEZLER
from the problem of the diffusion and frequency of human sacrifice, it is the secrecy (that must have surrounded it), the fear of arousing the suspicion of a general public or the organs of state that must have domina the participants) which makes one hesitate to regard such sacrifice to have been a probable, or at least the most probable, source of supply of human flesh, etc. Now in the commentary on an unknown Vikşayurveda text, the Vrksåropanaprakäravyakhya of Sadasivavyäsa - the edition of which we also owe to R. P. DAS", there is a passage in which it is clearly stated that the bones, marrow and flesh needed should be taken from Sastraghatena yo mrto Thava sulaprotena yo wytas tadySamanușasya ..., i.e. "from a man who has been slain with a weapon or impaled on the stake". One cannot, however, be sure that this forms an original piece of information, based on the author's own observation; it might likewise be merely part of Sadāśivavyāsa's erudition;" for precisely the same expressions, and in identical sequence at that, are repeatedly met with in the Arthasastra. Significantly enough all references are to the last but one adhikarana, i.e. the fourteenth, "Concerning secret practices" (aupanişada), viz. 14.2.28, 14.3.4, 64 and 79 (sastrahatasya fulaprotasya vă puruşasya/purpisah)." The evidence of the AS - in which the Vrksäyurveda is mentioned for the first time in Indian literature (see above p. 301) - is particularly welcome as it definitely proves that the use of parts or products of human corpses was known at least in a certain kind of ancient Indian magic and sorcery. On the other hand, it is this magical context that creates a problem regarding the qualifications of the man whose fesh etc., can or should be used, viz. Sastrahata and Silaprola: Are they to be taken as a specific condition indispensable for the magical cure to be effective or are they a general quality inevitably to be present in the qualified, in that only flesh, etc., of such a person can at all be thought of being available? The implication this alternative has is clear: Only in the latter case would it seem
possible to regard, without further ado, the statements found in the Vrkşåropanaprakäravyakhya and especially in the Arthasastra as pieces of evidence giving information about the source(s) of procurement of human corpses or parts of them for practical or magical purposes. In order to answer this question we have first to determine the meanings of the decisive expressions fastrahata and Sulaprota in the AS. The latter does not pose any problem as it quite clearly denotes a man who has been sentenced to death and has been executed by a method apparently widely used in ancient and mediaeval India, viz. by impaling. In view of the juxtaposition of the two attributes it is legitimate to examine first whether fastrahata might likewise refer to a person on whom a death sentence has been carried out, but then, of course, with the sword. Although this method was also known in India," it can't be what is intended by this expression here; for this attribute is found applied, in the same section of the AS, viz. 14.3.69, to a cow which is thus qualified as "killed with a weapon" (MEYER and KANGLE)" or "a sword/knife". Following the dictionaries (PW, MONIER-WILLIAMS, etc.) one may, of course, consider also the possibility that Sastrahata means "fallen (warrior]"; and there is, no doubt, some likelihood that not all corpses of warriors or soldiers fallen in battle were always ritually cremated. But this seems to be too narrow a meaning especially as in AŚ 14.3.14 the expression svayamurta is met with (said of a Brahmin) and it suggests itself to take it as standing in direct opposition to Sastrahata; for MEYER's assumption that what is meant is a man who has committed suicide, is far from convincing, not only because of general semantic considerations (the root mr means "to die") but also, as rightly pointed out by KANGLE," because of the parallel at AS 2.2.9 (where svayammsta (scil. hastin) stands in opposition to a hastighätin)." "Dies naturally, the correct meaning of svayanmyta at 14.3.14 (and other places), then points, for fastrahata, in the direction of "one who has met with death by violence (except for those who have been executed by impaling)",
"CI. P. V. KANE, History of the Dharmasastra, Vol. III, Poona 1973, p. 400.
arriculturists, but also between the killing of human beings as part of or essential element of a ritual act, on the one hand, and outside any sacrificial contexts, on the other. This point apart, one wonders that C. VON FÜRER-HEIMENDORF did not deem human sacrifice even worth mentioning (according to the "Index") in his book on Tribal Populations and Cultures of the Indian Subcontinent, (HDO 11.7), LeidenKöln 1985.
Note that at 14.3.15 a masculine go is referred to that is slaughtered in the funeral rites of a Brahmin (brahmananya prerakarya yo gaur midryare ...). Regarding vegetarianism In the AS see H. SCHARFE: Untersuchungen zur Staatsrechtslehre des Kowalya, Wiesbaden 1968, p. 291ff.
"See his dissertation (cf. fn. 14). p. 485 (beginning of $23).
" J. J. MEYER, Das altindische Buch vom Well- und Staarsleben ..., Leipzig 1926. p. 652, n. 2.
The suspicion is aroused by the fact that the sequence of the two qualifications is the same as in the Arthasastra, but first of all by the expression Salaprofena in the place of which one would rather expect Süláropanena.
"R. P. KANGLE, The Kauçiliya Arthasastra, P. II, Bombay 1963, p. 584 n.
"Another parallel, not less significant than that mentioned by KANGLE, Is AS 2.26.12 (cf. note 35, above).
42 At 14.3.70 Galaprotasya alone occurs; should we emend the text here and read also Sastraharasya Sulaprotasya wd? As for 14.3.58 see below, n. 48.
