Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Age of the Nandas and Mauryas c12.s13: II. Learning, Literature and Popular Life

Age of the Nandas and Mauryas c12.s13

Language
English

Contents

II. Learning, Literature and Popular Life

Brahmanical Learning

c12.s13.t1.1

Though Buddhism gained the support of royalty and captured the hearts of sections of the people, Brahmanism continued in this period to be a great force in society. Neither the output of Brahmanical literature nor the patronage of Brahmanical scholars was impaired in any great degree. It is significant that the notices of the Greek writers of the times contain no mention of the Buddha or the popularity of his new faith, except the solitary reference of Clemens of Alexandria to philosophers who followed the precepts of Boutta¹. Even the edicts of Aśoka call upon people to honour Brahmans. The *Ārya-mañjuśrīmūlakalpa* records that Nanda was a great patron of Brahman Tārkikas, proud of their learning, to whom he gave large sums of money²; the tirade of the same text against Cāṇakya shows the extensive patronage enjoyed by Brahmanism and Brahmanic learning under Chandragupta and Bindusāra, and Kauṭilya on his part does not conceal his animosity towards Buddhism and Jainism and levies a fine of a hundred pieces on one who deceitfully brings to a dinner in honour of the gods and manes any of the śūdra ascetics of the Śākya or Ājīvaka sects¹. In fact every page of Kauṭilya’s work confirms the thoroughly Brahmanical mode of life dominating these times ; Kauṭilya speaks of the minister as one qualified in the Vedas and their six aṅgas (auxiliaries), mentions the Vedic sacraments and sacrifices, and prescribes Vedic rites and rituals to ward off every kind of evil and to procure success and prosperity to the people and the king ; he refers to free Brahmadeya lands given to Ritvigs, Ācāryas, Purohitas and Śrotriyas (II, i; III, 10) ; the work is also replete with references to tāpasas and tapovanas ; so much so that it would hardly be an exaggeration to say that, far from affecting adversely the hold of the Vedic way of life, the rise of Buddhism and Jainism had given only a fillip to Brahmanical activity in the various departments of life and literature.

c12.s13.t1.2

¹ McCrindle—*Ancient India as described in classical literature*, p. 67 *n.*

c12.s13.t1.3

² K. P. Jayaswal—*Imperial History of India*, p. 31, Sanskrit text.

Sanskrit Language

c12.s13.t2.1

Though the nascent faiths of the Buddha and Mahāvīra had attempted to by-pass the Sanskrit language and contact the masses through the vernacular tongues, Sanskrit did not lose the position as a spoken language or the medium in which subjects of theoretical and practical value were cultivated by the Brahmanas in the several centres of learning. Among such centres Taxila in the north-west and the Mauryan capital Pāṭaliputra itself in the east were the most renowned. The Bṛhatkathā and the Buddhistic tradition make Pāṇini, connected with Śālātura in the north-west, a friend of a Magadhan Nanda, and bring Cāṇakya of the Taxila college to Pāṭaliputra in quest of a scholarly disputation ; and Brahmanical tradition recorded by Rājaśekhara speaks of a court of learning at Pāṭaliputra where Upavarsha and Varsha, Pāṇini and Piṅgala, Vyāḍi, Vararuchi and Patañjali attained fame by passing their tests in Śāstras.

c12.s13.t2.2

The appellation Bhāshā which Pāṇini gives to his language and many of the rules laid down by him are not intelligible except as having reference to a spoken language. Such evidences of Sanskrit being a spoken tongue do not grow less in Kātyāyana or Patañjali, both of whom mention local and other variations and popular corruptions. That Kātyāyana was a southerner, that southerners delighted in using derivative forms (Taddhita) and that in the South, a big lake or saras was referred to as sarasi are statements of Patañjali showing the inclusion of the southern regions in the provenance of Sanskrit speech. The well-known dialogue in Patañjali (under Pāṇini II. 4. 56) between the grammarian and the charioteer, sūta, involving a grammatical subtlety bears out the fact that Sanskrit speech was not confined to either the academic circles or the learned classes of society. The use of Sanskrit in literature was so securely established that even Buddhism and Jainism which began with using the Prākṛits had to line up early with Sanskrit literary tradition.

c12.s13.t2.3

In this period the abundant variety of the Vedic morphology had got simplified considerably on both the declensional and conjugational sides and this process of simplification could be seen in progress through the Brāhmaṇas and the older Upaniṣads. It is such a Bhāṣā which Pāṇini codified in order to render it more handy. Even after him a certain amount of fluidity persisted, as evidenced by the necessity for the work of the many Vārttikakāras, but at the close of the period of our study, Patañjali's work finally fixed the language as the unchanging Saṃskṛta. The language had become sufficiently distant from that of the Vedas to be characterised as classic Sanskrit, through its employment all this time in a growing body of epic and poetic literature. The Vedic accent had changed and the free use of verbal forms had given place to what may be called the nominal style characterised by participles; a small loss of vocabulary is to be seen, as also some amount of semantic change; a few new word forms were also added to the language in this period.

Sanskrit Grammar

c12.s13.t3.1

The legends in the Sanskrit versions of the Bṛhatkathā introduce Pāṇini and Vararuchi as contemporaries of the Nandas; the Āryamañjuśrīmūlakalpa also refers to Pāṇini as a friend of the Nanda. On the basis of the Bṛhatkathā legends it was held by Max Müller, Weber and others that Pāṇini flourished about 315 B.C.; but as has been proved by several writers from Goldstücker onwards, Pāṇini and Kātyāyana could not have been contemporaries in view of the changes that the language had undergone in the days of the latter, and Pāṇini could at the latest be assigned only to 500 B.C., and in this respect, Tāranāth whose account puts Pāṇini a generation earlier than Kātyāyana is less faulty. In the period of the Nandas and Mauryas, there was indeed a great deal of grammatical activity. The Prātiśākhyas are to be referred to the post-Pāṇinian age, and between Pāṇini and Patañjali, there appeared a number of Vārttikakāras who appended their vārttikas or addenda et corrigenda (uktā-’nukta-durukta-chintana) to Pāṇini’s aphorisms.

c12.s13.t3.2

The foremost of the post-Pāṇinian grammarians is Vyāḍi, a descendant of Pāṇini himself removed from him by at least two generations, as we learn from his matronymic Dākshāyaṇa derived from Dākshi, the gotronymic of Pāṇini’s own mother. Vyāḍi followed his ancestor’s system and produced the grand work (śobhana as Patañjali describes it) called Samgraha in 100,000 verses. Patañjali held Vyāḍi in as much respect as Pāṇini himself. In fact, Bhartṛhari says at the end of the second book of his Vākyapadīya that the Mahābhāshya is based on the Samgraha. Vyāḍi’s view that vyakti or dravya constituted padārtha, as expounded in his Samgraha is cited by Kātyāyana, Patañjali (I. ii. 64), Bhartṛhari and others. A grammatical tradition noted in the Laghu-paribhāshāvṛtti ascribes the Paribhāshās or the rules for interpreting Pāṇini’s Sūtras to Vyāḍi, and some manuscripts, Vyāḍiparibhāshā and Vyāḍiparibhāshāvṛtti¹, support the tradition. Besides these a lexicon named Utpalini, containing a reference to Buddhism, is also remembered as a work of Vyāḍi. As other grammarians of this time like Kātya and Kātyāyana Vararuchi are also quoted in the lexicons, we have to suppose that besides writing grammatical treatises, the authors compiled, somewhat after the manner of the older Nighaṇṭu, lists of words as accessories to their grammatical treatises. The story in the initial book of the several versions of the Bṛhatkathā would make Vyāḍi and Vararuchi class-fellows and friends; Vyāḍi is however, as we have seen, one of the authorities quoted by Kātyāyana (I. ii.64).

c12.s13.t3.3

¹ Aufrecht, Catalogus Catalogorum I. p. 618b.

c12.s13.t3.4

The mention in these *Br̥hatkathā* legends of an Indradatta in a group of which the two others, Vyāḍi and Vararuchi, are grammarians may lead us to surmise that he too might have been a grammarian, not necessarily a contemporary, and though there is no evidence, it may be suggested that the Aindra grammar mentioned in the traditional accounts as having been superseded by the Pāṇinian and as being the basis of the Tamil system of the Tolkāppiyam and of the Sanskrit *Kālāpa*, may in reality be a work of this Indradatta.

c12.s13.t3.5

The Vārttikakāras of grammar belonging to this age are headed by one whom Patañjali refers to with reverence as Bhagavān Kātya (III. ii. 3) and correspondingly his *vārttikas* are known as Mahāvārttikas in contrast not only to the other miscellaneous *vārttikas* but to those of Kātyāyana Vararuchi himself. In his Bhāshya (IV. ii. 65), Patañjali gives the illustration ‘Mahāvārttika’ meaning ‘one who has studied the Mahāvārttika’ and in the encyclopaedic *Śr̥ṅgāra Prakāśa* of king Bhoja we actually get quotations of two *vārttikas* from the Mahāvārttikas under Pāṇini II. i. 51 and I. iv. 21. Kātya like Vyāḍi added a lexicon to his grammatical contribution.

c12.s13.t3.6

As distinct as the Mahāvārttikas, are the metrical dicta of a Vārttika character quoted by Patañjali, which, as can be made out from Bhartr̥hari, Kaiyaṭa and Nāgoji, formed part of a work called the *Ślokavārttika*. Coming chronologically after Vyāḍi were the followers of the grammar of Gautama (VI. 2. 36). The other Vārttikas referred to by Patañjali are Bhāradvājīya, Saunāga, Kroshṭīya, Saura Bhagavad and those of Kuṇi Vāḍava or Kuṇaravāḍava, all of these being later than the *vārttikas* of Kātyāyana on which they have bearing. It is not known if the *Māthurī Vr̥tti* mentioned by Patañjali under IV. iii 101 is another Vārttika.

c12.s13.t3.7

The most important of these Vārttikakāras is the one known generally as the Vārttikakāra of grammar, viz., Kātyāyana alias Vararuchi. From the literary traditions referred to, we may take him to be a contemporary of the Nandas. He is also the author of the *Vājasaneyiprātiśākhya*, where he deals with the language and the gramm ar ofthe *Vājasaneyisamhitā*, and the Kathāsaritsāgara story too makes mention of his proficiency in the Prātiśākhya taught by Vyāḍi (I. 2. 38). In this Prātiśākhya, Kātyāyana gives a number of criticisms of the relevant sūtras of Pāṇini. In his Vārttikas which number about 4,000, he subjects about 1,500 sūtras of Pāṇini to his critical observations, these comprehending on the whole about 10,000 grammatical points. Kātyāyana was neither hostile to Pāṇini nor rash in his criticism as one might be led to believe from the way Patañjali handles him; the natural phenomena of linguistic change necessitated the compilation of Kātyāyana's corrections and additions. Besides the dicta, Kātyāyana sometimes made his grammatical observations in verses which Patañjali quotes as *bhrājāḥ ślokāḥ* and Kaiyaṭa identifies as Kātyāyana's. As noticed already Patañjali speaks of him as a southerner fond of Taddhita forms, while the *Bṛhatkathā* story makes him a native of Kauśāmbi, an all-round scholar, sometime minister of Nanda at Pāṭaliputra and an incarnation of a Śivagaṇa known as Puṣpadanta. The Buddhistic *Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa* too mentions him as a minister under Nanda.

c12.s13.t3.8

The Prātiśākhyas are a class of works designed to preserve Vedic texts correctly, as handed down in their several *śākhās* or groups of *śākhās* (Prati-śākhā); and these treatises may generally be assigned to the period between Pāṇini and Patañjali according to Goldstücker, say between 600 B.C. and 200 B.C. Mention has already been made of the *Vājasaneyi Prātiśākhya* of the Vārttikakāra Kātyāyana. As Vyāḍi is several times quoted in the *Ṛgveda Prātiśākhya* ascribed to Śaunaka, we may assign that Prātiśākhya too to our period. To Vyāḍi himself is ascribed a treatise on *Veda lakṣaṇa*¹.

c12.s13.t3.9

¹ Aufrecht, *Catalogus Catalogorum* III part.

Classical Sanskrit Literature and Fine Arts

c12.s13.t4.1

The Sanskrit versions of the *Bṛhatkathā*, the Jaina *Bṛhatkathā Kośa* of Hariṣeṇa and the Buddhistic *Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa* speak of a Subandhu as a Brahman minister of Nanda, Chandragupta and Bindusāra. In Abhinavagupta's commentary on the *Nāṭya Śāstra*, *Abhinavabhāratī*, there is more than one reference to a Subandhu as a Mahākavi who composed a unique variety of dramatic composition, emboxing one act within another, and making the characters of each preceding act the spectators of its successor; the work was called the *Vāsavadattā Nātyadhārā* or the dramatic series of Vāsavadattā¹. This Vāsavadattā is the Ujjain princess figuring in Udayana's story², with which Subandhu wove one of Bindusāra himself. It is this drama of Subandhu that Vāmana quotes in his *Kāvyālaṅkārasūtravṛtti*, where we have the suggestion of Chandragupta's son having difficulties and being helped by wise ministers like Subandhu, a circumstance which is confirmed by the *Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa* referring to Bindusāra succeeding to the throne as a boy. A verse on poet Subandhu and his composition featuring Bindusāra and Vatsarāja, found in a manuscript of the *Avantisundarī* has reference only to this Subandhu whom we may take as the minister under the last Nanda and the first two Mauryan emperors.

c12.s13.t4.2

¹ See IHQ. XIX, 1943, pp. 69-71.

c12.s13.t4.3

² Kauṭilya's *Arthaśāstra* has two references to Udayana's story; one in IX. 7, his return to power after a flight and another in XIII. 2. where the ruse of capturing one fond of hunt with the aid of an alluring elephant in the *nāgavana* reminds us of Udayana's capture by Pradyota.

c12.s13.t4.4

The Jain *Bṛhatkathākośa* while mentioning Subandhu along with Chāṇakya (story 143), refers to a third minister Kavi, which too may be a reminiscence of a literary figure of these times. Of the literary activities of Kātyāyana Vararuchi, we can say something definite. Patañjali's *Mahābhāshya* opens our eyes to the rich crop of classical literature produced in these times. Among literary productions mentioned by Patañjali with the author's name is a poem by Vararuchi, *Vārarucham Kāvyam* (IV. iii. 101). In Bhoja's *Śṛṅgāra Prakāśa*, a half verse in the Vasantatilakā metre from a poetic composition of Kātyāyana is quoted³.

c12.s13.t4.5

³ Madras Ms. Vol. I Ch. I p. 45 *tathā ca Kātyāyanaḥ : 'uttārapāya jagataḥ prapitāmahena tasmāt padāt tvamasi rajjuriva pravrittā*. This is evidently a praise of the Ganges, the celestial river that descended from the heavens, and we know from the Bṛhatkathā versions that Vararuchi was a great devotee of Gaṅgā whom he propitiated and who appeared before Vararuchi every day to make him a present of gold.

c12.s13.t4.6

The other Kāvyas presupposed by Patañjali must have all been produced in this period : we have thus a good number of Ākhyānas and Ākhyāyikās on the stories of Yayāti, Yavakrita, Priyaṅgu, Sumanottarā, Bhīmaratha, Vāsavadattā and the Daivāsura and Rākshosura on the wars of the Devas and the Asuras (IV. ii. 60; IV. iii. 87-8).

c12.s13.t4.7

Perhaps more value is to be attached to the many citations of verses and parts of verses embodying a highly evolved poetic expression and metrical finish which Patañjali makes in his *Mahābhāshya*, and which should clearly convince us of the high development of Kāvya in this period. We have specimens here of verses of erotic, lyric, panegyric and gnomic poetry; of lines belonging to a poem on the Mahābhārata theme and of metrical varieties like Anushṭubh, Upajāti, Praharshiṇī, Pramitāksharā and Vasantatilakā; the grammatical kārikās disclose even greater metrical advancement, these employing even rarer metres, Vaktra, Śālini, Vamśastha, Samānī, Vidyunmālā, Toṭaka and Dodhaka. This metrical material surely points to the existence of prosodial treatises in these times, and we may not be wrong in assigning Piṅgala's *Chhandas-sūtras* to this period. In a verse in Rājaśekhara's *Kāvyamīmāmsā* enumerating the Śastrakāras examined at Pāṭaliputra, Piṅgala figures between Pāṇini and Vyāḍi¹, and Haraprasad Śāstri has drawn attention to a tradition recorded in the *Divyāvadāna* that Bindusāra put his son Aśoka to school under Piṅgala Nāga². In the *Abhinavabhārati* of Abhinavagupta we have quotations from an anushṭubh treatise of Kātyāyana on metres, in which Kātyāyana examines the emotional and thematic appropriateness of particular metres.³

c12.s13.t4.8

¹ *Kāvyamīmāmsā*, GOS, p. 55.

c12.s13.t4.9

² *Magadhan Literature*, p. 36.

c12.s13.t4.10

³ *Journal of Oriental Research*, Madras vi pp. 222-3.

c12.s13.t4.11

Whatever the date of the present text of the *Nāṭya Śāstra* of Bharata, we know that his text incorporates within itself and cites passages and verses handed down to him from the past, *ānuvamśya*. That the histrionic art was not in a crude stage at this time, but was highly developed can be gathered not only from the *Vāsavadattā Nāṭyadhārā* of Subandhu, but also from the sure evidence of Pāṇini's sūtras (IV. iii. 110-1) which say that even so early, the actors' art had been codified into two texts of aphorisms (Naṭasūtras) by two different authors Śilālin and Kṛśāśva. More important than Patañjali's reference to Sobhanikas who show Kamsavadha and Balibandhana is his reference to the actor who feels the *rasa* which he acts *rasiko naṭaḥ* (V. ii. 59). The repeated mention in the *Arthaśāstra* of accomplished courtezans, *naṭas* and *nartakas*, supports the view that dance and drama prevailed as popular and evolved forms of art at this time. The ancillary art of music too is spoken of by Kauṭilya both in its vocal and instrumental form. *Gīta*, *vādya*, *kuśilava*, *śilpakārikāḥ*, *śilpavatyah striyaḥ* (I. 12), *ātodya* (I. 21), *naṭas*, *nartakas*, *gāyanas*, *vādana* (II. i), *pāṭhya*, *nṛtta*, *nāṭya*, *vīṇā*, *veṇu*, *mṛdaṅga*, *raṅgopajīvinīs* (II. 27) and the specific mention of *prekṣā* or dramatic show seen by the king (XIII. 2)—these in Kauṭilya picture a time and society which delighted in the arts of music, dance and drama. The fine art of painting occurs in *chitrālekhya* (I. 16) ; and the numerous references to the images of gods (*devapratimās*) give a glimpse into sculptural art of these times.

c12.s13.t4.12

The dramatic variety called Vīthī as described by Bharata involves a good deal of verbal ingenuity, wit and foiling of one another in repartees. That such an art of verbal skill was cultivated in these times is shown by the frequent mention by Kauṭilya of a social entertainer called *vāgjīvana* (II. 1 ; II. 27 ; III. 14).

c12.s13.t4.13

Not only had much poetry been produced by this time, but factors of poetic appeal and appreciation had also come to be analysed ; already in Yāska we find several classes of simile or *upamā* and several words expressive of similarity (*upamā-vāchakas*); in Pāṇini, in addition to several rules involving simile, we have the actual mention of *Upamā* and *Sāmānya-śabda*. In the chapter on the writing of *Śāsana* or a royal document, Kauṭilya enumerates and defines in his *Arthaśāstra* excellences or *guṇas* pertaining to calligraphy and literary composition ; *arthakrama* or the proper order of ideas, *sambandha* or cogent development of the theme, *paripūrṇatā* or fulness in respect of idea, expression, arguments and illustrations, these being adequate and at the same time not superfluous, *mādhurya* or sweetness and charm of words and ideas, *audārya* or dignified utterance and *spashṭatva* or the use of well-known words ; in the same context, Kauṭilya speaks of *doshas* or defects of writing and composing, *vyāghāta* or mutual contradiction, *punarukta* (redundance) and *apaśabda* (grammatical flaw).

c12.s13.t4.14

*Religious literature, Purāṇa, Dharma, Śrauta and Gṛhya Sūtras*

c12.s13.t4.15

Kauṭilya defines Veda as Trayi but immediately adds that Atharvan and the Itihāsas also are Vedas (I.3); in the subsequent chapters very large use is made of the Atharvaṇic practices of Śānti, Puṣṭi and Ābhichāra; the separate mention and juxtaposition with Itihāsa shows however that the Atharvan had not yet become completely canonised and that this was the time when it was coming into increasing prominence and acceptance. Confirmation of this may be had from the Āpastamba Dharma Sūtra which defines Veda primarily as the three Vedas but says at the end that all the popular arts and lores which are current among women and śūdras are to be brought under the Atharvan (II.11.29.11-12.) The six Vedāṅgas (Arthaśāstra I.3., I.9) and Itihāsa-Purāṇa (ib.I.5, V.6) are mentioned. That some Purāṇas had already come into being is proved also by the Āpastamba Dharma Sūtra which besides referring to Purāṇas quotes verses from Purāṇas (I.6.19.13 and II.9.23.3), the metrical imperfection of a few lines here indicating their antiquity. A Bhaviṣyat Purāṇa is expressly mentioned by Āpastamba II. 9. 24. 6. Kauṭilya refers to Itivṛtta and Purāṇa (I. 5.) and to Dharma Śāstra (I. 5 and III. 1) ; he speaks of Arthaśāstra (I. 5) and Āśrama-dharma (I. 12). These as well as the numberless references to Yajana, Prāyaścitta, Śānti, Homa etc., in the Arthaśāstra show that by this time the Dharma, Śrauta and Gṛhya Sūtras had come into being and were in full force. The Vārttikakāra Kātyāyana also knows Dharmaśāstra (I. 12. 64). According to MM. Kane, to the Nanda-Maurya age could be assigned the Dharma-sūtras of Gautama, Baudhāyana, Āpastamba, Vasiṣṭha, Viṣṇu in part, Hārīta and Śaṅkha-Likhita. Bühler also considers the Āpastamba Dharma Sūtra to have been produced in the five centuries before Christ¹, and that both Gautama and Baudhāyana were earlier than Āpastamba. These Dharma sūtras form one part of the Kalpa sūtras and deal with the duties of varṇas and āśramas. The other two parts of the Kalpa sūtras are the Śrauta and Gṛhya sūtras, and we may take it that where we have Śrauta, Gṛhya and Dharma sūtras by the same author, as for instance Āpastamba, they were all of identical authorship and formed part of one integral kalpa or manual of ritual and conduct of that school. According to the ideology of these sūtras, life is not something to be lived as the body and mind please, but a disciplined activity towards sublimation through a series of sacramental acts, Vedic and domestic rites, and personal saṃskāras from the time of conception to death. Human nature is here smelted and purified in these acts of Karman and Dharma, or as Kālidāsa puts it, the raw stone of man is ground, polished, and cut into a gem of a Dvija by these processes (*Raghuvamśa* III. 18).

c12.s13.t4.16

¹ Sacred Books of the East, Vol. 2, Introduction.

Philosophy

c12.s13.t5.1

The Dharma sūtras speak of four stations of life (āśramas), student, householder, ascetic and forest-dwelling hermit. The last two stages were devoted to a life which stood in contrast to that of the first two. While the former emphasised a life of Karma or ordained acts, the latter showed the path of contentment, renunciation and the seeking of the knowledge of the soul or ātman as the means to the supreme welfare. The older Upanishads must have certainly come into being by this time and the path of ātmajñāna declared by them greatly prized. We know from Pāṇini that there were already in his days codified Sūtras bearing on the life and conduct of Bhikshus or mendicants by two different authors Pārāśarya and Karmanda (IV. iii. 110-1). These Bhikshus were also known as Parivrājakas and Maunins as the Dharma Sūtras show (Āpast. II. 9.21; Baudh. II. vi. 14; Gaut. III. 2). Gautama (III. 10. 11) refers to Upanishads and Vedānta and in the Adhyātmapaṭala (I. 8. 22-23) of the Āpastamba Dharma Sūtra we have an epitome of the doctrine of Ātmajñāna as taught in the Upanishads. However the general teaching of the Dharma Sūtras was in favour of combining an observance of Dharma with Jñāna as can be seen in Āpastamba (II. 9. 21) who refutes the doctrine of Jñāna as the sole means of welfare. The Vānaprastha of these texts is identical with Strabo’s Hylobioi or forest dwellers, a subdivision of the Śramaṇas (Greek sarmanes); their mode of life was regulated by the institutes of their school, and Baudhāyana (II. 6. 14) defines Vānaprastha as one who follows the institutes of the Vaikhānasa Śāstra which was thus a text in existence at that time.

c12.s13.t5.2

These evidences show that when Buddhism arose and even earlier still, Brahmanism had within its fold its own class of mendicants and ascetics, and that the term Śramaṇa need not refer exclusively to the Buddhist ascetics. In Kauṭilya's *Arthaśāstra* too, references are only to these Brahmanical ascetics. Kauṭilya mentions Parivrājaka, Tāpasa, Muṇḍa and Jaṭila (I. 10, 11, 12), Śramaṇas (I. 12), Vānaprastha and Yati (III. 16), Tāpasas, Tapovanas, Tapasvins, and Āśramas (II. 2, II. 35, 36, III. 9 and IV. 3), and Muṇḍas and Jaṭilas with pupils inhabiting mountain caves (XIII. 2). Kauṭilya imposes punishment on those renouncing life without making proper provision for their family (II. 1, 28) which is understandable as a stricture passed on the easy increase in the Buddhistic ascetic fold.

c12.s13.t5.3

It is remarkable that Kauṭilya refers more than once to female ascetics (I. 12; III. 3, 4). That Brahmavādinīs were not taboo within the Brahmanical fold is proved not only by the *Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upanishad* but by an illustration of Patañjali as well. Patañjali speaks of women studying the Mīmāṃsā of Kāśakṛtsna (IV. i. 14), and as Kāśakṛtsna is an author cited by Bādarāyaṇa in his *Vedānta Sūtras*, we may take it that the Mīmāṃsā of Kāśakṛtsna referred to by Patañjali was an Uttaramīmāṃsā text current in that time. But such women ascetics or students of philosophy must have been few.

c12.s13.t5.4

A certain amount of metaphysical discussion on even such topics as the exact nature and identity of the import of a word (padārtha) is seen from Kātyāyana's reference to Vyāḍi holding vyakti or dravya to be padārtha. Āpastamba twice refers to Vedic interpretation as being decided by principles of Nyāya, and as Bühler has pointed out, we have here nearly the Pūrva Mīmāṃsā Śāstra. Upavarsha, whom the legends in the *Bṛhatkathā* assign to Pāṭaliputra of this period and whom Rājaśekhara's verse also connects with Pāṭaliputra, is known from later references as an old author on Pūrva and Uttara Mīmāṃsās. More definite is Kauṭilya's reference to philosophical branches of learning and study, Ānvīkṣikī (I. 2) which, according to him, comprised Sāṅkhya, Yoga and Lokāyata. The last is a school of material philosophy; Sāṅkhya is to be taken as knowledge in general, and Yoga as observance of ordained Dharma, or other purificatory practices or Hetuvidyā. In Baudhāyana (II. vi. 30) there is an interesting discussion on āśramas ; it is said that the fourfold classification of āśramas is not authoritative, that the householder's is the only āśrama and that one Kapila, an Asura, son of Prahlāda, devised this fourfold division. It can be seen that the four āśramas fall into two groups of two, Brahmachārin and Gṛhastha observing the ordained Dharmas ; and the Vānaprastha, who retired from home to forest, and Bhikshu who was not particular about a life of Karma. The Dharmasūtrakāras as believers in Karma are, it is to be expected, always for upholding the Gṛhastha, while the philosopher will denounce the Gṛhastha's futile routine and hold up the latter āśramas as capable of bringing real solace to the soul and freedom from the threefold distress. Now Kapila, author of the Sāṅkhya, is one of our earliest philosophers who belittled Karma and advocated Jñāna or Viveka. As this path of knowledge gained greater popularity, its adherents had to be approved of and assigned a place in the accepted scheme of things, and thus probably did the āśramas amplify themselves.

c12.s13.t5.5

That philosophical debate and systematic investigation of subjects had advanced in this period is borne out by the thirty-two topics of methodology in the exposition of a system of thought, called Tantrayuktis, which Kauṭilya enumerates, defines and illustrates at the end of his work, and most of which became later part of the Nyāya system of Akshapāda.

Arthaśāstra

c12.s13.t6.1

The entire Mauryan age is dominated by two remarkable records, one of literature and the other of epigraphy, viz. the Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya and the edicts of Aśoka. It is needless to add anything here on the Arthaśāstra which has received full treatment in the historical sections. It is enough to point out that Kauṭilya refers to his own work as a critical compendium based on the Arthaśāstras, prevalent at his time, and that he refers to works of nearly a dozen writers, Bhāradvāja (Kaṇiṅka), Viśālākshā (Śiva), Parāśara, Piśuna (Nārada), Kauṇapadanta (Bhishma), Vātavyādhi (Uddhava), Bāhudantiputra (Indra), the Mānavas, the Bārhaspatyas, Auśanasas and Āmbhiyas. This active exercise of thought on polity, echoes of which are to be heard in the epic Mahābhārata, might well have been occasioned by the intense political activity of the times which were full of Saṅghas of different description and numerous small monarchies. That leaders of thought such as the Brahmans took a leading part in the political life of the country is shown by the evidence of Greek writers like Plutarch who say that the philosophers gave Alexander no less trouble than the mercenaries by reviling the princes who declared for him and encouraged the free states to revolt from his authority. The mercenaries referred to by the Greek writers were the Āyudhajivi Kshatriya Saṅghas, just as the robbers referred to by them were the Āraṭṭas (Arāṣṭras) or republicans. The genius of Chandragupta and Chāṇakya saw the danger of these numerous small free states, communities and kingships, and not only consolidated an empire and a centralised power but also set forth the scheme of the detailed working of such a huge centralised authority in a new *Arthaśāstra*.

Kāma-Śāstra

c12.s13.t7.1

While the Dharma, Śrauta and Gṛhya Sūtras are concerned with one side of life as a round of sacramental rites, performance of rituals and sacrifices, and observance of social, religious and spiritual codes of conduct, quite another side of it, the gaiety and joy of life, is represented by the numerous references to the courtezan and her milieu in the *Arthaśāstra*. The courtezans were so popular that they could be effectively employed in the machinery of state. Śilpakārikās and śilpavatyaḥ striyaḥ (I. 12), veśyās (II. 6), gaṇikas who served the king with their kuśilavakarman, singing, (II, 27); raṅgopajivinis (II. 27), kauśikastriyaḥ, gāyanas, and nartakis (XI. 1)—all formed such a vital part of the polity that a special superintendent was appointed to look after their organized management (Gaṇikādhyaksha). Not only was their life regulated by a government department, but the art of love was also codified by an eminent authority on erotics. The Mauryan capital, Pāṭaliputra, was renowned for its courtezans and Vātsyāyana tells us in his *Kāma Sūtra* (II. i. 11) that at the request of the courtezans of Pāṭaliputra, Dattaka who must have lived at this time codified the courtezan's art, Vaiśika. Kauṭilya also mentions the Vaiśikakalā (II. 27). The gay side of life is to be seen also in the dictum of Kauṭilya that one ought not to deny oneself pleasures (na nissukhaḥ syāt, I. 7) and by his allotment to the king of the sixth part of the day for enjoyment (svaira-vihāra, I. 19). The cities had halls and gardens intended for recreation (vihārārthāḥ śālāḥ ārāmāḥ, II. 1) ; gambling was in vogue especially in the republican communities to a dangerous extent (VIII. 3) ; gambling and drinking halls were provided for (II. 26, 36) ; people went to the festivals and gatherings for entertainment, utsavas, samājas and yātrās (II, 26. XIII. 2. 3), and water-sports and sylvan games were also indulged in (XIII. 2, V. 2).

Popular Worship

c12.s13.t8.1

There were temples where people worshipped images, and Kauṭilya names a number of popular deities in worship in his time. The temples (koṣṭhas) were in the north-west part of the city for gods and goddesses like Aparājita, Apratihata, Jayanta, Vaijayanta, Śiva, Vaiśravaṇa (Kubera), Aśvins and Śrī (Lakṣmī) (II. 4). Deities of Vāstu (site) and Dik (quarters) were adored (II. 4), and to ward off natural calamities or to invite natural benefits, people made offerings and oblations and incantations of peace, worshipping Fire. Rivers, Indra, Gaṅgā, Seashore, Forests (Vanayāga), Mountains, and Caityas of Rākṣasas (IV. 3). People went on pilgrimages to holy places, Puṇyasthānas (II. 35-36, III. 9-10) and Tīrthāyatanas (II. 35). Nāga-pratimās or Snake-images and Dhvaja-pratimās or flag-staffs standing for some deities were objects of worship. Persons who practised inferior magical arts invoked Bali, Śambara, Vairocana, presiding deities of several Narakas, sages like Nārada, Devala, Sāvarṇi and Gālava, Manu, Devas and Devalokas, Vedic scholars, Siddhas, Tāpasas, Brahmā, Brahmāṇī, Paulomi, Tantukaccha a great Asura, and others of his class (XIV. 1).

Popular lores

c12.s13.t9.1

A notice of works of literature, grammar or philosophy does not exhaust the branches of knowledge and lore which prevailed at this time and played an important part in popular life. Other arts and lores are reflected in the Arthaśāstra. Kauṭilya speaks of astrologers and experts in omens, mauhūrtikas and naimittikas (I. 9, 12 ; IV. 4 ; V. 3.), readers of fortune from physical features, Lakṣaṇa (I. 12) and Aṅgavidyā (XIII. 1), magicians and sorcerers (Jambhaka-vidyā, Māyā and Māyā-yoga, I. 12 and IV. 3), snake charmers (Jāṅgalivids), adepts in black magic (kṛtyābhicāraśilas IV. 4, XIV), minstrels (sūtas and māgadhas), oracles (praśna-vidyā), and readers of dreams and birds' voices (svapna-pakshi-vyāhāra, XXIII. 1). The lore of the serpent, (IV. iii. 13) mentioned even in the Upanishads, is noticed by Arrian too.

c12.s13.t9.2

Of more important subjects, Kauṭilya speaks of a highly developed art of healing, producing and counteracting diseases poisons, etc. (XII), maternity and care of the child (I. 17, kumārabhṛtyā and garbhabharman) and of the profession of the doctor, cikitsaka (I. 18). He refers to the lapidary art (II. 2), to the science of agriculture (kṛshitantra, II. 25) and the science of plant-life (vṛkṣāyurveda) and to the astronomical factors favourable for cultivation. He speaks of reading others' minds, perfumer's art, garlanding and shampoo (II. 27). There was an advanced veterinary science pertaining to the elephant and horse (II. 30, 31). Mineral science, dhātu-śāstra, is also mentioned in Kauṭilya (II. 12).

Architecture

c12.s13.t10.1

The development of architecture is seen in Kauṭilya's elaborate description of the fort and the palace and their various parts including mechanical manipulations (yantras). Secret passages within walls (gūḍha-bhitti-sañcāra) and underground ways (suraṅgas) were devised (I. 20). In the same place fire-proofing is also mentioned. Śulbaśāstra is referred to expressly (II. 12 and 25). Special buildings with suitable features are described for elephants and horses ; pleasure-halls (vihāraśālās II. 1), drinking halls with rooms, seats, garden etc. (pānāgāra II. 26, III. 8), gambling halls (dyūtāvāsa II. 36) and hospitals (II. 6) are other special types of buildings mentioned by Kauṭilya. The architectural magnificence of the Mauryan capital is borne out by the testimony of the Greek writers and by excavations. It has already been pointed out that the Arthaśāstra contains numerous references to temples and images (I. 6. 18, II. 1. 4. II. 6, 33, 36, III. 9, 10, 16, IV. 10, V. 2

c12.s13.t10.2

XIII. 1, 3.). Idols for worship were highly popular and Deva-dānas and Deva-dravyas were guarded by village elders (I. 18, II. 1), a superintendent looking after all temples (II. 6), and from a reference in Patañjali we know that the Mauryas probably augmented their revenues by a share in the fees forthcoming in the popular worship of images.

Prākṛit, Buddhistic and Jain literature

c12.s13.t11.1

The earliest literature of Buddhism and Jainism which arose and grew in Kosala and Magadha adopted the Prākṛit as its vehicle of expression. Tradition which is late and which receives support from some citations in works like the gloss of Malayagiri on a Jain work and from a reference in Bhoja’s *Śṛingāra Prakāśa*, ascribes a Prākṛit grammar to Pāṇini himself, but this is only a late attempt to invest Prākṛit with a status equal to that of Sanskrit. Equally undependable is the ascription of the Prākṛtaprakāśa on the Mahārāṣṭrī and other dialects to Vararuchi, the Vārttikakāra, for the languages dealt with here are of later form. The early Ardhamāgadhi originals of the Jain canon have not survived, what we now have being later redactions.

c12.s13.t11.2

The Buddhistic canon was in Pāli which had close affinities with Paiśāci. Pāli-Paiśāci, and in fact all the later Prākṛits, owe their origin, according to Hoernle¹ to the ways in which the non-Sanskritic populations of the different localities spoke the Sanskrit tongue. Konow² draws attention to the fact that according to a Tibetan tradition the Sthaviras or Theras had their books in Paiśāci, and that according to Pischel these Paiśāci books may be the Pāli canon. Pāli-Paiśāci dialects with slight local variations were current in wide parts of India from the north-west to the Deccan, and it is this language which influenced or bore affinities to the Dravidian.³

c12.s13.t11.3

¹ ZDMG. 64 (1910) pp, 103-4, 118.

c12.s13.t11.4

² Ibid. p. 103,

c12.s13.t11.5

³ Ibid. pp. 107-118.

c12.s13.t11.6

Any considerable or authentic Prākṛit material of this time that we possess is confined to the edicts of Aśoka. The language of these edicts is in three dialects, closely related to one another and exhibiting only slight differences, one of these the eastern, prevalent in Magadha and the language of the capital, gave rise to the later Māgadhī Prākṛit; the other two were of the west and north-west, the latter being the earliest of the three. That Aśoka adopted this language for the propagation of Dharma proves that it was widely prevalent among the people.

c12.s13.t11.7

These edicts are valuable in another direction too. For, whether one believes or not in the traditions about the Buddhistic councils and the compilation of the Pāli canon soon after the Nirvāṇa of the Buddha or in the time of Aśoka, we have the irrefutable evidence of these edicts of Aśoka to show that some Buddhistic texts were in existence at this time. The Calcutta-Bairat edict names seven texts which have been traced in the canon. Of equal value are the inscriptions on the Bharhut and Sāñchī stūpas of the second and first centuries B.C.; while their carvings presuppose Buddhajātaka legends, the inscriptions there mention actually reciter (bhāṇaka), Sūtta reciter (Sūttāntika), one versed in the five Nikāyas (Pañcanekāyika), one versed in the Piṭakas (Peṭakin) and preacher of Dhamma (Dhammakathika). These epigraphical references are some indication that at the time of Aśoka there was a Buddhistic canonical literature to which the available Pāli canon bears general resemblance.

c12.s13.t11.8

Jainism does not lag behind in recording legends of the constitution of the Ardhamāgadhī canon at Pāṭaliputra in the time of Chandragupta, and of the Jain affiliations of the Nanda and Maurya kings and ministers. To Badrabāhu, whom Jain legend brings to Karṇāṭaka along with king Chandragupta who too became a Jain, are ascribed the ten Niryuktis and the Kalpa-sūtra. While it may be true that the Jain Aṅgas have in them portions going to the Mauryan times in antiquity, it is well understood that their bulk represents very late work.

c12.s13.t11.9

CHAPTER XI

c12.s13.t11.10

MAURYAN ART

Linked texts (25)