A History of Sanskrit Literature c31.s1.9

c31.s1.9

Doctrines of Artha seem early to have found, like those on Dharma, expression in didactic verse. The *Mahābhārata*¹ assures us that Brahman, the creator, was the author of a work in 100,000 sections on the three topics, that Çiva as Viçālākṣa reduced it to 10,000 in consideration of the brevity of life, that Indra brought it down to 5,000, and that finally Indra's work, called *Bāhudantaka*, from an epithet of his, was reduced by Bṛhaspati to 3,000, and by Uçanas to 1,000, sections. The *Kauṭilīya Arthaçāstra* mentions Bṛhaspati, Bāhudantīputra, Viçālākṣa, and Uçanas as authorities, and the *Kāmasūtra* ascribes Dharma to Manu, Artha to Bṛhaspati, and Kāma to Nandin. The epic itself contains sections which deal with polity, such as Kaṇika's lecture to Dhṛtarāṣṭra² regarding the merciless destruction of enemies, several of Vidura's speeches,³ and other scattered sections, while we may find traces⁴ of actual use of a formal *Arthaçāstra* in one or two passages. There is no doubt that the Smṛtis of Manu,⁵ Yājñavalkya,⁶ and Viṣṇu⁷ made use of texts of this sort in compiling their contents, and both Yājñavalkya⁸ and Nārada⁹ expressly provide that in case of divergence between Arthaçāstra and Dharmaçāstra the latter must prevail. That in fact it did is, of course, a very different question; as we have seen, the Dharma texts are ideal as compared with the Arthaçāstra; they deal after all with duty and morality as the basis of law; the Arthaçāstra is concerned with profit, and it is not concerned with religion or duty save in so far as it can use the former to advance the interest of the prince, or the latter is good policy to win popular affection, for instance, in a conquered state. But none the less the Arthaçāstra or, as it is equally called, Nītiçāstra, science of conduct, Rājanīti, conduct of kings, or Daṇḍanīti, policy of punishment, was respected by the poets who lived at royal courts; Bhāsa in his *Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa* and *Pratimānāṭaka*, Kālidāsa, Bhāravi, Māgha, and their followers show their skill in Nīti as they do in Kāma. It was left to the Buddhists to protest as does the *Jātakamālā*,¹⁰ where the royal doctrine that right should be followed only so far as it does not conflict with profit, is hotly denounced and the science of Nīti condemned. In this, however, Buddhism merely showed its incapacity for accommodating itself effectively to Indian conditions of life and thought.