Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Social Life in Ancient India: Studies in Vatsyayana's Kamasutra c5.s2: The Upper Limit of the Date of Vātsyāyana from the Authors quoted by him

Social Life in Ancient India: Studies in Vātsyāyana's Kāmasūtra c5.s2

Language
English

The Upper Limit of the Date of Vātsyāyana from the Authors quoted by him

c5.s2.1

Vātsyāyana has quoted freely from the works of earlier authors not only in his own subject, but in other departments of Sanskrit literature as well. But while he has taken care to mention the authorities whom he cites and discusses when referring to his predecessors in the science of erotics, in the other cases he has not cared to acknowledge his debt by mentioning the sources. Some of them may, however, be indicated, and we shall be enabled thereby to fix a *terminus a quo* for him on literary grounds.

c5.s2.2

There is a wonderful agreement between Vātsyāyana and the Kalpasūtra of Āpastamba. In Chapter I on the selection of a bride (*Varaṇa-vidhāna-prakaraṇam*) the *Kāmasūtra*

c5.s2.3

1 दृष्ट्वा मन्मयतन्त्रमीश्वरमतं वात्स्यायनीयं मतं
गोणीपुत्रक-मूलदेवभाषितं बाभ्रव्यवाक्यामृतम्।
श्रीमन्दीश्वर-रन्तिदेवभाषितं क्षेमेन्द्रविद्यागमं
तेनाकल्प्यत पञ्चसायक इति प्रीतिप्रदः कामिनाम्॥

c5.s2.4

has सुतां रुदतीं निष्क्रान्तां वरणे परिवर्जयेत्.¹ This is exactly the same as that given by Āpastamba in his Gṛhya-Sūtra, 1. 3. 10.² The next sūtras show only slight modifications, but making allowance for differences in reading they are exactly identical. Vātsyāyana has ³:

c5.s2.5

¹ Benares edition. p. 187.

c5.s2.6

² The Āpastambīya Gṛhyasūtra, edited by Dr. M. Winternitz, p. 4.

c5.s2.7

³ Ben, ed., pp. 187-188.

c5.s2.8

गुप्तां दत्तां घोनां पृषतामृषभां विनतां विकटां विमुण्डां शुचिदूषितां
सांकरिकीं राकां फलिनों मितां खनुजां वर्षकरीं च वर्जयेत् ।
नक्षत्रनाम्नीं नदीनाम्नीं वृक्षनाम्नीं च गर्हिताम् ।
लकाररेफोपान्तां च वरणे परिवर्जयेत् ॥

c5.s2.9

Āpastamba reads :—

c5.s2.10

दत्तां गुप्तां घोतामृषभां शरां विनतां विकटां मुण्डां मङ्कषिकां
सांकरिकां रातां पालों मितां खनुजां वर्षकारीं च वर्जयेत् ॥ ११ ॥
नक्षत्रनामा नदीनामा वृक्षनामाश्च गर्हिताः ॥ १२ ॥
सर्वाश्च रेफलकारोपान्ता वरणे परिवर्जयेत् ॥ १३ ॥

c5.s2.11

The next sūtra of Vātsyāyana again reads exactly the same as Āpastamba's Gṛhyasūtra, I. 3. 20. यस्यां मनश्चक्षुषो-निर्बन्धस्तस्यामद्वितेरामात्रियेतेत्येके.⁴

c5.s2.12

⁴ Winternitz, Ap Gr. Sūtra p. 4.

c5.s2.13

The first sūtra of the next chapter of the Kāmasūtra is again the same as in Āpastamba's Gṛhyasūtra, III. 8. 8. The Kāmasūtra has संगतयोस्त्रिरात्रमधःशय्या ब्रह्मचर्यं क्षारलवणवर्जमाहारः ; Āpastamba reads त्रिरात्रमुभयोरधःशय्या ब्रह्मचर्यं क्षारलवणवर्जनं च.⁶

c5.s2.14

⁶ Kāmasūtra. Ben. ed., p. 191; Winternitz, Ap Gr. S., p. 11.

c5.s2.15

About the sources of the Dharma also, Vātsyāyana shows a wonderful agreement with Āpastamba, but this time with his Dharmasūtra. Vātsyāyana after giving a definition of Dharma says that it should be learnt from the Vedas and from the assembly of those who know the *Dharma*, just as he says that the Kāmasūtra should be learnt from the books on the subject and the assembly of the citizens.² Āpastamba says much the same thing in his Dharmasūtra.³

c5.s2.16

⁵ Kāmasūtra. Ben. ed., p. 188. and Winternitz. Ap. Gr. S., p. 5.

c5.s2.17

² तं कामसूत्रान्नागरिकजनसमवायाच्च प्रतिपद्येत, *ibid.* p. 15.

c5.s2.18

³ *Āpastambiya Dharma Sūtra* edited by Dr. G. Buhler, C. I. E., p. 1:—

c5.s2.19

In another chapter, Vātsyāyana quotes a verse referring it simply to the *Smṛti*⁴ (*smṛtiṭaḥ*)—

c5.s2.20

⁴ *Kāmasūtra*, Ben. ed., p. 167.

c5.s2.21

वत्सः प्रस्रवने मेध्यः श्वा मृगग्रहणे शुचिः ।
शकुनिः फलपाते तु स्त्रीमुखं रतिसंगमे ॥

c5.s2.22

This verse is found in the Dharmasūtras of *Vasiṣṭha*⁵ and *Baudhāyana*⁶ with very slight and immaterial variations. With some further modifications it is found in the Saṃhitās of *Manu*⁷ and *Viṣṇu*⁸ also. Its occurrence in almost identical forms in so many works shows that it must have been borrowed from some common and ancient authority on *Dharma*. Again, in a verse in his chapter on marriage, Vātsyāyana shows an agreement in idea with Baudhāyana. Vātsyāyana says that as mutual affection between a couple is the object of all forms of marriage, therefore the *Gāndharva* form which has its basis in love, is easier to celebrate,

c5.s2.23

¹ तं श्रुतेर्धर्मसमवायाच्च प्रतिपद्येत—Benares Edition, p. 13.

c5.s2.24

⁵ *The Vāsiṣṭha Dharma-Śāstram*, edited by Dr. A. A. Fuhrer, ch. 28. 8, p. 77.

c5.s2.25

⁶ *The Bodhāyana Dharma Sūtram* edited by L. Srinivasācharya, Mysore, 1, 5, 49, p. 57. Bodhāyana reads:

c5.s2.26

⁷ *Manava Dharmaśāstra*, edited by Dr. J. Jolly, V. 130.

c5.s2.27

⁸ *Viṣṇusmṛti*, edited by Dr. J. Jolly, XXIII. 49.

c5.s2.28

अथतः सामायाचारिकान्धर्मान् व्याख्यास्यामः ॥ धर्मज्ञसमयः प्रमाणम् । वेदाश्च ॥

c5.s2.29

वत्सः प्रस्रवने मेध्यः शकुनिः फलपाते ।
स्त्रियश्च रतिसंगे श्वा मृगग्रहणे शुचिः ॥

c5.s2.30

नित्यमास्यं शुचिः स्त्रीणां शकुनिः फलपाते ।
प्रसवे च शुचिर्वत्सः श्वा मृगग्रहणे शुचिः ॥

c5.s2.31

and is free from the technicalities of a long wooing, is the best of all¹ and Baudhāyana refers to this as the opinion of some authorities.² This idea we also find in the Mahābhārata.³ From the above, it is clear that Vātsyāyana has embodied in his work at least five sūtras from the Gṛhyasūtra of Āpastamba, though we cannot feel quite certain with regard to his debt to Baudhāyana. We are not quite sure about the date of these sūtra works, but the period to which this Vedic literature belonged, is supposed to have extended to about 500 B.C.⁴

c5.s2.32

Next, we find that Vātsyāyana has embodied in his book a considerable number of passages from a work whose date is more definitely known, viz., from the Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya⁵ which is now generally considered to have been written about 300 B.C., and he has followed the method of Kauṭilya throughout the Kāmasūtra. This has led to the absurd identification of Kauṭilya with Vātsyāyana and a host of other authors in some of the Kośas or lexicons.⁶

c5.s2.33

¹ Kāmasūtra. Benares edition. 223 .

c5.s2.34

व्यङ्गानां हि विवाहानामनुरागः फलं यतः ।
मध्यमोरपि हि सद्योगो गान्धर्वस्तेन पूजितः ॥
सखत्वाद्बहुकृशादपि चावरणादिह ।
अनुरागात्मकत्वाच्च गान्धर्वः प्रवरो मतः ॥

c5.s2.35

² Baudhāyana. Mysore edition, 1, 11. 16, p. 137.

c5.s2.36

गान्धर्वमप्येकं प्रशंसन्ति सर्वे वां स्नेहानुगतत्वात् ॥

c5.s2.37

³ विवाहानां हि रम्भोऽत्र गान्धर्वः श्रेष्ठ उच्यते—Mahābhārata, Ādiparva ch. 73. verse 4, and ch. 172. v. 19.

c5.s2.38

⁴ Winternitz, Geschichte der indischen Litteratur, Bd. I, pp. 246—258.

c5.s2.39

⁵ Mr. R. Shāmashastry has brought together a number of parallel passages in the Arthaśāstra and Kāmasūtra ; see his Arthaśāstra, second edition, pp. xii-xvi.

c5.s2.40

⁶ In the Modern Review, March, 1918, p. 274, Mr. Srīś Chandra Vasu Vidyārṇava quotes the following verse from the Abhidhānacintāmaṇi :—

c5.s2.41

वात्स्यायनो मल्लनागः कुटिलश्चात्मजः ।
द्रामिलः पक्षिलस्वामी विष्णुगुप्तोऽङ्ग लश्च सः ॥

c5.s2.42

See also, A Note on the Supposed Identity of Vātsyāyana and Kauṭilya, by Mr. R. Shamashastry, in the Journal of the Mythic Society, Vol. vi, pp. 210-216.

c5.s2.43

Coming down to still later times, we observe that Vātsyāyana quotes from the *Mahābhāshya* of Patañjali. The latter observes with regard to unavoidable faults or defects in grammatical definitions, that simply because certain defects cannot be avoided, one should certainly not desist from formulating rules of interpretation (*paribhāshās*) or from giving a definition, just as one does not refrain from cooking his food merely because there are beggars to ask for a share of it, nor from sowing barley-grains simply for the reason that when the plants grow up there my be deer to destroy the corn. Vātsyāyana says the very same thing in exactly the same language with regard to defects inherent in *Kāma* or desire.¹ This quotation from the *Mahābhāshya* brings down the upper limit of the date of Vātsyāyana to the second half of the second century B.C., in round numbers to circa 150 B.C.

c5.s2.44

¹ न हि दोषाः सन्तीति परिभाषा न कर्तव्य लब्धं वा न प्रणेयम् । न हि भिक्षाः सन्तीति स्थाल्यो नाधिश्रीयन्ते । न च मृगाः सन्तीति यवा नोप्यन्ते । *Mahābhāshya* on Pāṇini. I. 1. 39. Vātsyāyana has बोद्धव्यं हि दोषेष्विव, न हि भिक्षाः सन्तीति, etc. (Beu el., p. 25); the rest is exactly the same.

c5.s2.45

Besides the above, there are many references to narrative literature in Vātsyāyana’s Kāmasūtra. In one passage,² he says that when a girl shows some signs of listening favourably to the proposals of a lover, she should be propitiated by reciting to her such stories as those of Ahalya, *Avimāraka* and *Śakuntalā*. The story of Ahalya is given in the Rāmāyaṇa about the date of which, however, there is much controversy; but Ahalya is also alluded to by Aśvaghosha in *Buddhacarita*.³ Avimāraka’s story forms the subject matter of one of the dramas of Bhāsa whom some scholars have placed about the middle of the first century B. C. while others would assign him to the third century A. C.¹ In any case there could not have been much distance in time between Bhāsa and Vātsyāyana because we find pictured in the works of the dramatist a state of society very closely resembling that depicted in the Kāmasūtra. We cannot be sure, however, that Vātsyāyana derived the story of Avimāraka from the drama because Bhāsa’s treatment of it seems to indicate that it was a well-known story like that of Udayana; and, besides, the commentary, Jayamaṅgalā, gives some particulars that are wanting in the drama.

c5.s2.46

² श्रुत्वत्यां चाहल्याऽविमारक-शाकुन्तलादीन्यन्यानिपि लौकिकानि च कथयेत्त इत्युक्तानि । Benares edition, p. 271.

c5.s2.47

³ कामं परमिति ज्ञात्वा देवोऽपि हि पुरंदरः । गौतमस्य सुनेः पत्नीमहल्यां चकमे पुरा ।। *Buddhacarita*, IV. 72

c5.s2.48

¹ Mr. K. P. Jayaswal (J. A. S.-B., 1913, p. 265) has advanced the first view while Prof. D. R. Bhandarkar (Carmichael Lectures, 1918, p. 59) supports the second one.

c5.s2.49

The story of Śakuntalā is referred to by Vātsyāyana in another place also. In his chapter on the courtship of a maiden, he says that the wooer should point out to the girl courted the cases of other maidens like Śakuntalā who situated in the same circumstances as herself obtained husbands of their own free choice and were happy by such union.² This refers to the story of the love between Śakuntalā and Dushmanta as we know it from the great drama of Kālidāsa, but Vātsyāyana was certainly not indebted to him for it; it is given very fully in the Mahābhārata.³ Aśvaghosha in the Buddhacarita also narrates how Viśvāmitra, Śakuntalā’s father, was led astray by an Apsaras whom, however, he calls Ghṛtācī instead of Menakā; in his Saundarananda-kāvya also, the same author speaks of Kaṇva who brought up Bharata, the son of Śakuntalā, and he says further that the young son of Dushmanta displayed great skill in sporting with the beasts of the forest.¹ In his *Sūtrālaṅkāra* again, Aśvaghosha speaks of Bharata as one of the great kings of India.² He was evidently well acquainted with the story of Śakuntalā. The *Kaṭṭhahāri Jātaka* certainly reminds us of the story of Duṣmanta and Śakuntalā.³ The legend, however, was known in still more ancient times, *viz.*, the period of the composition of the Brāhmaṇa portion of the Vedas. While we observe that Śakuntalā’s mother, Menakā is known as an *apsaras* in both the White and Black Yajurvedas,⁴ Śakuntalā herself is spoken of in the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa⁵ as having borne at Nādapit⁶ the great Bharata who is also called there the son of Duḥshanta, and even the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa quotes the legend as having been sung in

c5.s2.50

² याश्चान्या अपि समानजातीयाः कन्याः शकुन्तलाद्याः स्वबुद्ध्या भर्तारं प्राप्य संप्रयुक्ता मोदन्त स्म ताश्चास्या निदर्शयेत्, Kāmasūtra, Ben. ed., p. 278.

c5.s2.51

³ Ādiparva, ch. 68 ff.

c5.s2.52

¹ *Sūtrālaṃkāra* traduit en François sur la version Chinoise par Edouard Huber, p. 395.

c5.s2.53

² Fausböll’s *Jātaka* Vol. 1, No. 7. This has been pointed out by Signor P. E. Pavolini in the *Giornale della Societa Asiatica Italiana*. Vol. Ventesimo, p. 297. See also note by Mr. R. Chalmers in his English translation of the First Volume of the Jātakas, p. 20.

c5.s2.54

³ मेनका च सहजन्या चाप सरसौ—*Vājasaneyi-Saṃhitā*, xv. 16; *Taitt. Saṃ.*, 4. 4. 3. 1 *Maitrāyaṇī Saṃ.*, 11. 8. 10.

c5.s2.55

⁴ XIII. 5. 4. 11. 13, 14.

c5.s2.56

⁵ एतद् विष्णोः क्रान्तम्। तेनैतेन भरतो दौःषन्तिरेजे तेनेष्ट्वेमां व्यष्टिं व्यनशे येयं भरतानां तदेतद् गाथयाभीगीतमेताससति भरतो दौःषन्तिमुनामनु गङ्गायां वृतघ्ने ऽवभ्रात् पचम्पन्वाजतं हयानिति। अथ तृतीया। शकुन्तला नाडपित्यप्सरा भरतं दधे परः सहस्रान्निद्रायारवान्मेध्यान् य आहरद्विजित्य पृथिवीं सर्व्वमिति। अथ चतुर्थ्या। महद्य अस्तस्य न पूर्व्वं नापरे जनाः। दिवं मत्स्य इति बाहुभ्यां नोदापुः पञ्च मानवा इति।

c5.s2.57

⁶ Harisvāmin, the commentator, explains that the hermitage of Kaṇva where Śakuntalā was nurtured, was called Nādapit. See the English translation by J. Eggeling of the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa*, Part v, p. 399, foot-note 2.

c5.s2.58

विश्वामित्रो महर्षिश्च विगाढोऽपि महत्सपाः ।
दशवर्षसहस्रस्य घृताच्याप्सरसा हतः ॥
*Buddhacarita*, IV. 20.

कावः शाकुन्तलस्येव भरतस्य तरस्विनः ।
*Saundarananda Kāvya*, I. 26.

जिज्ञासमाना नागेषु कौशलं श्वापदेषु च ।
अनुचक्रुवनस्थस्य दौष्मन्ते दैवकर्म्मणाः ॥ *Ibid*, I. 36

c5.s2.59

gāthās ¹ connected with the great hero who gave his name to the whole continent of Bharatavarsha; so that the legend appears to belong to the earliest stock of legends of the Indian Aryans.

c5.s2.60

¹ The Gāthās are quoted in a fairly large number in the Brāhmaṇas and the Vedic literature generally, and they are referred to in the earliest portions of the Ṛgveda itself (I. 190, I, etc.). For the most part, these Gāthās contain historical matter singing about the mighty deeds of great heroes in still older times, as we see from the Gāthās quoted above chanting the great achievements of the eponymous hero Bharata. The Aitareya Brāhmaṇa (VII. 18) makes a distinction between the Ṛks and the Gāthās, saying that the former refer to the Gods and the latter to men. It is no wonder that with the Aryan Indians who placed spiritual concerns far above the temporal from the very earliest times, the literature dealing with the deeds of mere men fell into comparative neglect and was not preserved with the same care as was bestowed upon the Ṛks, though occasional verses were preserved in memory and transmitted orally.

c5.s2.61

Besides the above mention of certain well-known stories, there are many references throughout the work of Vātsyāyana to love-stories in general, showing that story-telling was very popular in the days of our author; and when we are reminded that the enormous mass of narratives in the Mahāvastu, Divyāvadāna and Aśvaghosha's Sūtrālaṅkāra on the one hand, and the Śānti and Anuśāsana Parvas of the Mahābhārata on the other, as well as those in the Tantrākhyāyika, were mostly embodied in their present form about the early centuries of the Christian era, we feel inclined to think that it was in this period when narrative literature flourished most in India, that his treatise on love was composed by Vātsyāyana who found the recital of love-stories the readiest means of rousing the tender passion in the hearts of maids and swains.

c5.s2.62

*The Lower Limit of the Date of Vātsyāyana from References to Kāmasūtra in later Literature.*

c5.s2.63

We may now proceed to fix the terminus ad quem for the date of Vātsyāyana from an examination of the references to his work in later literature, and for this purpose we shall take into account only those that will be immediately helpful to us. In the first place we observe that the great Kālidāsa was well acquainted with the Kāmasūtra. In describing the dalliance of the voluptuary Agnivarṇa who reminds us so much of the Kāṇva Devabhūti, Kālidāsa has often followed in Canto XIX of the Raghuvamśa, the description in the Kāmasūtra, using even its technical expressions, *e. g.*, the word *sandhayaḥ* which is used in verse 16 in the very same sense as that given by Vātsyāyana in his chapter on *Viśīrṇapratisandhāna*.¹ In verse 31, however, there is a more definite and verbal agreement. Vātsyāyana in his chapter on the means of knowing a lover who is growing cold (*Virakta-pratipatti*) gives as one of the indications of such a one मित्रकृत्यमपदिश्य अन्यत्र शेते.² Kālidāsa in describing Agnivarṇa under similar circumstances uses the very same language—मित्रकृत्यमपदिश्य पार्श्वतः प्रस्थितं तमनावस्थितं प्रियाः. Another very striking agreement has been pointed out by Mallinātha and dilated upon by modern scholars. Describing the marriage of Aja and Indumatī, Kālidāsa says that when the two touched each other’s hands, the hair on the bridgroom’s forearm stood on end and the maiden had her fingers wet with perspiration.³ Here Mallinātha quotes Vātsyāyana who speaks exactly the same thing happening under the same circumstances.⁴ In *Kumārasambhava* VII. 77, however, Kālidāsa has reversed this order, saying that it was Hara, the bridegroom, who perspired and the hair stood on end on the bride’s hand.² But the language is almost the same and we think Kālidāsa’s memory did not serve him quite right when he wrote the Kumārasambhava passage and that he improved himself, as Professor Jacobi holds, in the Raghuvamśa. The violation in the one case only proves more strongly that Kālidāsa had a knowledge of Vātsyāyana’s work and made use of it. Arguing from a similar agreement in another passage of Kālidāsa, Dr. Peterson has come to the definite conclusion that Vātsyāyana is quoted there by the poet. He refers to the following verse (in Act IV) which is considered to be one of the best in his Abhijñāna Śakuntalam.³

c5.s2.64

¹ Kāmasūtra. Ben. ed., p. 327 ff.

c5.s2.65

² This is the reading given by Mallinātha. The Kāmasūtra reads मित्रकार्यमपदिश्य, etc., Ben. ed. p. 323.

c5.s2.66

³ आसीदुरः कण्टकितप्रकोष्ठः स्विन्नाङ्गुलिः संवृते कुमारी ।

c5.s2.67

⁴ “कन्या तु प्रथमसमागमे स्विन्नाङ्गुलिः स्विन्नमुखी च भवति । पुरुषस्तु रोमाञ्चितो भवति ; एभिरनयोर्भावं परीक्षते ।” This passage, quoted by Mallinātha is slightly different from the reading in the printed editions of the Kāmasūtra where we have स्विन्नकरचरणाङ्गुलिः स्विन्नमुखी च भवति, Benares edition, p. 266.

c5.s2.68

² Die Epen Kalidasa's, p. 155. In this connection see R. Schmidt, Beitrage Zur Indischen Erotik. 1902. pp. 4-5.

c5.s2.69

³ Kalidasa's Sakuntala, the Bengali Recension, edited by Richard Pischel, p. 89.

c5.s2.70

शुश्रूषस्व गुरून् कुरु प्रियसखीवृत्तिं सपत्नीजने
भर्तुर्विप्रकृतापि रोषणतया मास्म प्रतीपं गमः।
भूयिष्ठं भव दक्षिणा परिजने भोगेष्वनुत्सेकिनी
यान्त्येवं गृहिणीपदं युवतयो वामा कुलस्याधयः॥

c5.s2.71

Dr. Peterson then goes on to say: “The first, third and fourth precepts here are taken verbally from one sūtra, the second occurs elsewhere in our book; the third we have already had. Scholars must judge: but it seems to me to be almost certain that Kālidāsa is quoting Vātsyāyana, a fact, if it be a fact, which invests our author with great antiquity.”⁴ It will be observed frm an examination of the corresponding sūtras of Vātsyāyana⁵ that in

c5.s2.72

⁴ Journal of the Anthropological Society of Bombay, 1891, p. 465; see also J. B. B. R. A. S., Vol XVIII. pp. 109-110

c5.s2.73

⁵ Dr. Peterson here evidently refers to the following sūtras of Vātsyāyana on the duties of a wife: श्वश्रू श्वशुरपरिचर्या तत्पारतन्त्र्यमनुत्तरवादिता, etc. भोगेष्वनुत्सेकः परिजने दाक्षिण्यम्॥ Benares edition, p. 230. Vātsyāyana devotes the whole of Chapter

c5.s2.74

रोमोद्गमः प्रादुरभूदुमायाः स्विन्नाङ्गुलिः पुञ्जकेतुरासीत्।

c5.s2.75

the first two lines of the verse quoted above, Kālidāsa has translated the ideas of Vātsyāyana but in the third line he has followed our author verbally. On the authority of this agreement evidently Mahāmahopādhyāya Hara Prasād Śāstri has also expressed the opinion that Kālidāsa's "knowledge of the Kāmaśāstra was very deep indeed."¹ Dushmanta's words in Act V of Śakuntalā—"नागरकवृत्त्या शान्त्यैनाम्" shows that Kālidāsa has used the word nāgaraka there in the full sense imparted to it by Vātsyāyana in his section called Nāgarakavṛttam, viz., a city-bred man skilled in speech and love-making. There is moreover, a set of sūtras in Vātsyāyana's chapter on Kanyāvisrambha which reminds the reader at once of the first act of Kālidāsa's Śakuntalā as will be seen from the translation here given: "When a girl sees that she is sought after by a desirable lover, conversation should be set up through a sympathetic friend (sakhi) who has the confidence of both; then she should smile with head bent down; when the sakhi exaggerates matters, she should take her to task and quarrel with her; the sakhi, however, should say in jest, 'This was said by her,' even when she has not done so; then when the sakhi is set aside and she is solicited to speak for herself, she should keep silent; when, however, this is insisted upon, she should mutter sweetly, 'O no! I never say any such thing' in indistinct and half-finished sentences; and she should, with a smile, cast occasional side-long glances at the lover, etc."² From what we have said above, there can be no doubt that the Kāmasūtra was known to Kālidāsa and that he

c5.s2.76

¹ Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society, Vol. II p. 186.

c5.s2.77

² Kāmanitra, Ben ed., p. 195.

c5.s2.78

III of the Bhāryādhikārika section to the mutual conduct of co-wives (p. 234ff). Corresponding to the second line of the verse Vatsyayana has नायकपचारेषु किञ्चित् कलुषिता नात्यर्थं निवेदत् ॥ १८ ॥ साच्चिप्तवचनं त्वेनं मितजनमध्यस्थमेकाकिनं वाऽप्युपालभेत न च मूलकारिका स्यात् ॥ Benaras edition, p. 227.

c5.s2.79

made verbal quotations from the work. Now Kālidāsa could not have lived later than the middle of the fifth century A. C., because he places the Hūṇas on the banks of the *Vaṅkṣu*, the Waksh or Oxus in Bactria,¹ before they had been pushed towards the west or towards the Indian frontier.² In all likelihood Kālidāsa lived during

c5.s2.80

² M. Chavannes has shown from Chinese sources that the Huns had won great power in the basin of the Oxus towards the middle of the fifth century A. C. (*Document sur les Toukiue Occiden aux*, pp. 222-3). We do not know yet exactly when the Hūṇas settled themselves in the Oxus valley. But there can be no doubt that the Hūṇas were known in India even before the time mentioned by M. Chavannes. The *Lalitavistara*, thought to have been written about three hundred

c5.s2.81

1 The passages of Kālidāsa referred to here are verses 67 and 68 *Raghuvamśa*, canto IV, beginning—विनीताध्वश्रमास्तस्य वङ्क्षुतीरविचेष्टनैः. In the *Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society* (Vol. II, p. 35 ff. and 391 ff.) Mahāmahopādhyāya Haraprasād Śāstrī has sought to place Kālidāsa about the middle of the sixth century A. C. depending on the garbled reading of Mallinātha who reads *Sindhu* instead of *Vaṅkṣu* in the line quoted above. With all due deference to the great authority of Pandit Śāstrī, I would venture to differ from him here. There cannot be the shade of a doubt that *Vaṅkṣu* is the correct reading here and not *Sindhu*. Vallabhadeva of Kashmir, who lived about five centuries earlier than Mallinātha, reads *Vaṅkṣu*, and the unquestioned genuineness and reliability of Vallabha's text as compared with that of Mallinātha has been fully established in the case of the *Meghadūta* where all those verses that had been accepted by Mallinātha as genuine, but had been rejected as spurious by modern critics like Pandit Īśvaracandra Vidyāsāgara, Gildemeister and Stenzler, are found to be absent from the text of Vallabha. The superiority of Vallabha's text thus established in the case of *Meghadūta* applies with equal force to the *Raghuvamśa*. To an editor like Mallinātha living in the far south in the fourteenth or fifteenth century, *Vaṅkṣu* or *Vakshu*, a river in Bactria, was an unfamiliar, outlandish name, and he had no hesitation in substituting for it *Sindhu* which was nearer home, forgetting though that it would have been geographically absurd for Raghu to have marched northwards from the Persian frontier and met the Hūṇas on the Indus. It is significant again, as has been shown by Professor K. B. Pathak, who first drew pointed attention to Vallabha's reading (*Ind. Ant.* 1912, p. 265 ff. and the introduction to his *Meghadūta*) that Kṣīrasvāmin who lived about four centuries earlier than Mallinātha speaks in his commentary on the *Amarakośa*, of Bactria as the province that is referred to in this passage of Kālidāsa; this shows that so late as the eleventh century, Bactria through which the river *Vakshu* or Oxus flows was considered to be the country where Kālidāsa placed the Hūṇas. *Vaṅkṣu* is a well-known river in the *Mahābhārata* (*Cf.* Sabhāparva, 51. 26). Moreover, an examination of the variants given in Mr. G. R. Nandargikar's splendid edition of *Raghuvamśa* shows that Cāritravardhana, Sumativijaya, Dinakara, Dharmameru and Vijayagaṇi, in fact, most of the great old commentators, follow Vallabha, and adopt the old reading.

c5.s2.82

the reigning period of Chandragupta Vikramāditya in the early years of the fifth century A.C.. Varāhamihira who unquestionably lived in the sixth century A.C., has in his *Brhat-Samhitā* certain chapters, specially two, named *Kāndarpikam* and *Pumstrī-Samāyoga*,¹ in which he has dealt with matters falling within the sphere of the Kāmaśāstra and in them he seems clearly to have availed himself of Vātsyāyana's work, though he nowhere mentions his name.

c5.s2.83

¹ Chapters 76 and 78 of *Brhat-Samhitā* edited by Dr. H. Kern, Calcutta, 1865.

c5.s2.84

The author of the Kāmasūtra is mentioned by name in the *Vāsavadattā* of Subandhu who is supposed to have flourished about the same time as Chandragupta Vikramāditya, viz., at the beginning of the fifth century A.C.² While describing the Vindhya mountains, Subandhu says: "It was filled with elephants and was fragrant from the perfume of its jungles, just as the Kāmasūtra was written by Mallanāga and contains the delight and enjoyment of mistresses."³ Thus from the evidence offered by Kālidāsa and Subandhu we can feel definitely certain that the Kāmasūtra was written before 400 A.C.

c5.s2.85

² Mahāmahopādhyāya Haraprasād Śāstri in the J. A. S. B. 1905, p, 253.

c5.s2.86

³ *Vāsavadattā*, translated by Dr. Louis H. Gray, p. 69.

c5.s2.87

The name Mallanāga referred to by Subandhu is the proper name of the author of the Kāmasūtra, Vātsyāyana being his gotra or family name as pointed out by the commentator and as is corroborated by some of

c5.s2.88

years after Christ (Dr. Winternitz, *Geschichte der Indischen Litteratur*, Band II, p. 200) mentions *Hūna-Lipi* as one of the scripts learned by the young Siddhārtha (*Lalitavistara* edited by Dr. S. Lefmann, Vol. I. p. 126 ; IA, 1913, p. 266). Besides Dr. J. J. Modi has shown from an examination of passages in the Avestā that the Huns were known in Persia as a wandering or pillaging nation not later than the seventh century before Christ (*R. G. Bhāndārkar Commemoration Volume*, pp. 71-76). It stands to reason therefore that the Huns should be known to the Indians also, especially since their occupation of the Oxus valley, seeing that Bactria was very well known to Vātsyāyana and was considered a part of India so late as the sixth century A. C. when Varāhamihira wrote his *Brhat-Samhitā*.

c5.s2.89

the lexicons. Two branches of the *Vatsa-gotra* to which our author belongs are mentioned by Āśvalāyana in his *Śrautasūtra*;² and in the history of Sanskrit literature, there are two great representatives, besides our author, of this family: one of them is the great poet Bāṇa, who in one of the introductory verses to his *Kādambarī* speaks of his grandfather as a scion of the Vātsyāyana family,³ and the other is the author of the *Nyāyabhāshya*. This latter has sometimes been identified with our author as in the verse from Hemacandra's *Abhidhānacintāmaṇi* quoted before⁴; but we have seen that Hemacandra in the same passage identifies our author also with Kauṭilya, Cāṇakya, or Vishnugupta who, we definitely know, preceded him by several centuries. The long period that separated these authors from Hemacandra has made him lose the historical perspective and his opinion in this connection does not deserve much consideration. Another argument based on internal evidence may be urged in favour of the identity of the two Vātsyāyanas. The *Kāmasūtra* defines *Kāma* or desire as the consciousness of the enjoyment of appropriate objects through the five organs of sense (and especially through the organ of touch) controlled and directed by the mind associated with the soul.⁵ Now, this is exactly the position held with regard to the method of direct perception or *pratyaksha* expounded in the *Nyāyasūtra* as well as in the *Bhāshya*. The *Bhāshyakāra* the reigning period of Chandragupta Vikramāditya in the early years of the fifth century A.C.. Varāhamihira who unquestionably lived in the sixth century A.C., has in his *Brhat-Samhitā* certain chapters, specially two, named *Kāndarpikam* and *Pumstrī-Samāyoga*,¹ in which he has dealt with matters falling within the sphere of the Kāma-śāstra and in them he seems clearly to have availed himself of Vātsyāyana's work, though he nowhere mentions his name.

c5.s2.90

¹ वात्स्यायन इति स्वगोत्रनिमित्ता समाख्या. मल्लनाग इति च संस्कारिकी; *Kāmasūtra*, Ben. ed., p. 17; see also note 5, p. 1.

c5.s2.91

² *Āśvalāyana Śrauta Sūtra*, Bibliotheca Indica, XII, 10. 6-7. p. 875.

c5.s2.92

³ बभूव वात्स्यायनवंशभवो द्विजो जगद्गीतगुणोऽवनीसतः। अनेकगुणाधि तपाद्यपङ्कजः कुबेरनामा इव सर्वभूः॥ *Kādambarī*, Introductory verse, 10

c5.s2.93

⁴ See footnote 6, p. 15 *ante*.

c5.s2.94

⁵ श्रोत्रत्वक्चक्षुर्जिह्वाघ्राणात्मासंयुक्तेन मनसाधिष्ठितानां स्वेषु स्वेषु विषयेषु युक्तस्यतः प्रवृत्तिः कामः। स्पर्शविशेषविषये त्वस्याभिमानिकत्वात्सुखा प्रतीतिः प्राधान्यात् कामः।—*Kāmasūtra*, Ben, ed., p. 14.

c5.s2.95

¹ Chapters 76 and 78 of *Brhat-Samhitā* edited by Dr. H. Kern, Calcutta, 1865.

c5.s2.96

The author of the Kāmasūtra is mentioned by name in the *Vāsavadattā* of Subandhu who is supposed to have flourished about the same time as Chandragupta Vikramāditya, *viz.*, at the beginning of the fifth century A.C.² While describing the Vindhya mountains, Subandhu says: "It was filled with elephants and was fragrant from the perfume of its jungles, just as the Kāmasūtra was written by Mallanāga and contains the delight and enjoyment of mistresses."³ Thus from the evidence offered by Kālidāsa and Subandhu we can feel definitely certain that the Kāmasūtra was written before 400 A.C.

c5.s2.97

² Mahāmahopādhyāya Haraprasād Sāstrī in the J. A. S. B. 1905, p, 253.

c5.s2.98

³ *Vāsavadattā*, translated dy Dr. Louis H. Gray, p. 69.

c5.s2.99

The name Mallanāga referred to by Subandhu is the proper name of the author of the Kāmasūtra, Vātsyāyana being his *gotra* or family name as pointed out by the commentator and as is corroborated by some of

c5.s2.100

years after Christ (Dr. Winternitz, *Geschichte der Indischen Litteratur*, Band II, p. 200) mentions *Hūna-Lipi* as one of the scripts learned by the young Siddhārtha (*Lalitavistara* edited by Dr. S. Lefmann, Vol. I, p. 126 ; IA, 1913, p. 266). Besides Dr. J. J. Modi has shown from an examination of passages in the Avesta that the Huns were known in Persia as a wandering or pillaging nation not later than the seventh century before Christ (*R. G. Bhāndārkar Commemoration Volume*, pp. 71-76). It stands to reason therefore that the Huns should be known to the Indians also, especially since their occupation of the Oxus valley, seeing that Bactria was very well-known to Vātsyāyana and was considered a part of India so late as the sixth century A. C. when Varāhamihira wrote his *Brhat-Samhitā*.

c5.s2.101

the lexicons. Two branches of the *Vatsa-gotra* to which our author belongs are mentioned by Āśvalāyana in his *Śrautasūtra*;² and in the history of Sanskrit literature, there are two great representatives, besides our author, of this family : one of them is the great poet Bāṇa, who in one of the introductory verses to his *Kādambarī* speaks of his grandfather as a scion of the Vātsyāyana family,³ and the other is the author of the *Nyāyabhāshya*. This latter has sometimes been identified with our author as in the verse from Hemacandra's *Abhidhānacintāmaṇi* quoted before⁴; but we have seen that Hemacandra in the same passage identifies our author also with Kautilya, Cāṇakya, or Vishnugupta who, we definitely know, preceded him by several centuries. The long period that separated these authors from Hemacandra has made him lose the historical perspective and his opinion in this connection does not deserve much consideration. Another argument based on internal evidence may be urged in favour of the identity of the two Vātsyāyanas. The *Kāmasūtra* defines *Kāma* or desire as the consciousness of the enjoyment of appropriate objects through the five organs of sense (and especially through the organ of touch) controlled and directed by the mind associated with the soul.⁵ Now, this is exactly the position held with regard to the method of direct perception or *pratyaksha* expounded in the *Nyāyasūtra* as well as in the *Bhāshya*. The *Bhāshyakāra*

c5.s2.102

¹ वात्स्यायन इति स्वगोत्रनिमित्ता समाख्या मल्लनाग इति च संस्कारिकी । *Kāmasūtra*, Ben. ed., p. 17; see also note 5, p. 1.

c5.s2.103

² *Āśvalāyana Śrauta Sūtra*, Bibliotheca Indica, XII, 10. 6-7. p. 875.

c5.s2.104

³ > बभूव वात्स्यायनवंशसंभवो द्विजो जगद्गीतगुणोऽग्रणीः सताम्।

c5.s2.105

⁴ *See footnote 6, p. 15 ante.*

c5.s2.106

⁵ श्रोत्रत्वक्चक्षुर्जिह्वाघ्राणानामात्मसंयुक्तेन मनसाधिष्ठितानां स्वेषु स्वेषु विषयेषु- पञ्चप्रवृत्तः कामः । स्पर्शविशेषविषये त्वस्याभिमानिकत्वात्तुशब्दः प्रतीतिः प्राधान्यात् कामः ।—*Kāmasūtra*, Ben, ed., p. 14.

c5.s2.107

अनेकगोत्राच्च तपाद्यपङ्कजः कुबेरनामा इव सर्वभूः ॥
*Kādambarī*, Introductory verse, 10

c5.s2.108

in his comment on Nyāyasūtras I. 1. 4 and 9, and I. 2, 20-27 makes it sufficiently clear that it is the *ātman* or soul that receives perception with the help of the mind acting through the senses upon objects.¹ This identity of view of the two Vātsyāyanas with regard to experience or perception is no doubt true, but it will be observed that this view is held also by other schools, for example, the earlier Vedānta. The *Kathopanishad* lays down in unmistakable terms that it is the soul that enjoys things acting through the mind and the senses, and the *Bhagavadgītā* upholds the same doctrine.² *Brahmasūtra*, II. 3. 18 (or 19 according to Rāmānuja) also appears to support the Upanishad view as shown by almost all the commentators.³ It is only Śaṅkara who in his comment on *Brahmasūtra*, II. 3. 29⁴ attempts to prove that pleasure and pain are the qualities of *buddhi* or intellect; but with regard to the *Vyavahārika* or *Saṃsāra* stage with which we are concerned in the Kāmasūtra, there is not much ground of difference even with Śaṅkara. It will be observed, therefore, that the doctrine of perception adumbrated by the Kāmasūtra, does not particularly belong to the *Nyāyabhāshya* but was very generally held among the philosophical schools at the time that our *Sūtra* was written, and this identity of view does not necessarily imply an identity of authors. Then again, the two Vātsyāyanas appear to have been separated by more than a century. Prof. Jacobi has shown that the *Nyāyasūtras* were composed between 200 and 450 A. D. and that the *Nyāyabhāshya* was also written during the same period, ¹ of course, towards the end of it. Mahāmahopādhyāya Dr. Satischandra Vidyābhushana has proved by a more detailed analysis that the author of the *Nyāyabhāshya* "flourished at about A. D. 400, when Chandragupta II called Vikramāditya was King of Magadha." ² By this time the author of the Kāmasūtra was, as we have already seen, an authority on erotics and, as we shall show more definitely below, at least a century had passed since he produced his work. Moreover, the styles of composition of the two authors are quite distinct. Then again, the author of the Kāmasūtra belongs most probably, as we shall show hereafter, to Western India while Dr. Vidyābhūshana assigns the writer of the *Nyāyabhāshya* to the Draviḍa country. ³ From all these considerations, we see that at present there is no valid reason for thinking that the two authors are one and the same.

c5.s2.109

¹ *Vide* the Bhāshya particularly on the following sūtras : इन्द्रियार्थसन्निकर्षोत्पन्नं ज्ञानमव्यपदेश्यमव्यभिचारि व्यवसायात्मकं प्रत्यक्षम् (I. 1. 4.) and नात्ममनसोः सन्निकर्षाभावे प्रत्यक्षोत्पत्तिः (I. 2. 21). etc; *cf.* तत्रात्मा सर्वस्य द्रष्टा, सर्वस्य भोक्ता, सर्वज्ञः, सर्वानुभावी, तस्य भोगायनं शरीरम्। भोगसाधनानीन्द्रियाणि भोक्तव्या इन्द्रियार्थाः, etc., in Vātsyāyana's comment on *Nyāyasūtra*, I. 1. 9.

c5.s2.110

² इन्द्रियाणि ह्यनाद्युविषयांस्तेषु गोचरान् । आत्मेन्द्रियमनोयुक्तं भोक्तेत्याहुर्मनीषिणः ॥ *Kathopanishad*, III. 4. Similar passages from the Upanishads might easily be multiplied. श्रोत्रं चक्षुः स्पर्शनं च रसनं घ्राणमेव च । अधिष्ठाय मनश्चायं विषयानुपसेवते ॥ *Gītā*, XIV. 9.

c5.s2.111

³ *एतदेव*, *Brahmasūtra*, II. 3. 18; *vide* Rāmānuja's commentary on the same and also that of Śrīkaṇṭha.

c5.s2.112

⁴ तल्या बुद्धेर्गुणास्तद्गुणाः इच्छा द्वेषः सुखं दुःखमित्येवमादयस्तद्गुणाः, etc. * * * बुद्धेरुपाधिधर्माध्यासनिमित्तं हि कर्तृत्वभोक्तृत्वादिलक्षणं संसारित्वम-कर्तृभोक्तृचासंसारिणो नित्यमुक्तस्य सत आत्मनः । *Śaṅkara-Bhāshya* on तद्गुणा-सारत्वात्तु तदुपदेशः प्राज्ञवत् ( *Brahmasūtra*, II. 3. 29.

c5.s2.113

¹ *Journal of the American Oriental Society*, Vol. XXXI, 1911, p. 29.

c5.s2.114

² *Indian Antiquary*, 1915, p. 88.

c5.s2.115

³ *Ibid*, pp. 87-88.

c5.s2.116

Coming back to other works in Sanskrit literature referring to Vātsyāyana, we notice that in some editions of the *Pañcatantra* there are two passages in which Vātsyāyana is mentioned by name. ⁴ However, in the *Tantrākhyāyika* which is considered to be the earliest recension of the Pañcatantra, the name of Vātsyāyana does not occur, but in enumerating the usual subjects of study it mentions first grammar and then the *Dharma*, *Artha* and *Kāma* *Śāstras* in general.¹ The *Tantrākhyāyika* has been supposed to have been written about 300 A.D.² The mention of the *Kāmasūtra* in it shows, at least, that the science of erotics had, in the third century A.D. obtained an equal footing with the sister sciences of *Dharma* and *Artha* as branches of learning that princes were required to acquire. This position it had not attained in 300 B.C., when, as we see from the *Arthaśāstra* of Kauṭilya, though *kāma* had been recognised as one of the subjects of human interest (*trivarga*), it had not as yet a *locus standi* as a science worth study, because it does not find a place in Kauṭilya's list where we find *Dharma*, *Artha*, *Itihāsa*, *Purāṇa*, and *Ākhyāna* (narratives) but not the *Kāmaśāstra*.³ In view of the fact, therefore, that it was Vātsyāyana who made popular the science which was almost extinct (*utsanna-prāya*) in his time, the presumption is that the author of *Tantrākhyāyika* had his *Kāmasūtra* in mind when he wrote the passage above referred to. What we have said about the *Tantrākhyāyika* applies with equal force to the *Parva-saṃgraha-parva* which forms the introduction to the *Mahābhārata* and gives a summary of the whole story; it is certainly later than the main body of the work and may have been composed about the time we are speaking of. It describes the *Mahābhārata* as a veritable encyclopædia that embraced in its scope the *Arthaśāstra*, the *Dharmaśāstra* and the *Kāmaśāstra*¹ showing that the science was well-known at the time this chapter was added to the epic. It is significant in this connection that the *Lalitavistara* generally assigned to the second or third century A.C.,² in its enumeration of the subjects that the young Siddhārtha learnt, does not mention the *Kāmasūtra* in general but knows various sections of the science such as *Strīlakṣaṇa*, *Puruṣalakṣaṇa*, *Vaiśika*, etc., besides many of the *Kalās*.³ We know that these subjects had been dealt with by Vātsyāyana's predecessors and that there was a monograph on *Vaiśika* by Dattaka of Pāṭaliputra, and it is no wonder that the author of the *Lalitavistara* who here seeks to exhaust all the branches of learning known under the sun, should refer to these subjects though known in his time only to a very few, and on the other hand, it seems to indicate an earlier date for the *Lalitavistara* than that of the *Kāmasūtra*, though unquestionably both of them belong to the same period, and nothing can be asserted as certain from only a negative piece of evidence.

c5.s2.117

⁴ *Pañcatantra*, edited by Dr. F. Kielhorn, p. 2, कामशास्त्रानि वात्स्यायनादीनि and p. 38, वात्स्यायनोक्तविधिना निषेव्य ; see Schmidt, *op. cit.*, p. 6.

c5.s2.118

¹ ततो धर्मार्थकामशास्त्राणि ज्ञेयानि—*The Pañcatantra* edited by Dr. J. Hertel, Harvard O.S., Vol. 14, p. 1.

c5.s2.119

² *Das Pañcatantra, seine Geschichte und seine Verbreitung* von J. Hertel, 1914, p. 9; see also Prof. Lanman's introduction to the *Pañcatantra*, Harvard O. S., Vol. 14, p. X.

c5.s2.120

³ पुराणमितिवृत्तमाख्यायिकोदाहरणं धर्मशास्त्रमर्थशास्त्रं चेतितिहासः; *Kauṭilya's Arthaśāstra*, edited by R. Shāma Shastry, p 10.

c5.s2.121

¹ अर्थशास्त्रमिदं प्रोक्तं धर्मशास्त्रमिदं महत् । कामशास्त्रमिदं प्रोक्तं व्यासेनामितबुद्धिना ॥ *Adiparva*, ch. ii, 383 (Calcutta), 384 (South Indian).

c5.s2.122

² Dr. M. Winternitz, *Geschichte der Indischen Litteratur*, Band II, p. 200.

c5.s2.123

³ *Lalitavistara*, edited by Dr. S. Lefmann, p. 156 ff.

c5.s2.124

We thus see that from the literary data given above, the earlier limit to the composition of the *Kāmasūtra* may be assigned on the basis of Vātsyāyana's quotations from the *Gṛhya* and *Dharma Sūtras*, the *Arthaśāstra* of Kauṭilya and the *Mahābhāṣya* of Patañjali and that the lower limit may be fixed at *circa* 100 A.C. based on the dates of Kālidāsa and Subandhu and, further, that there are strong reasons to believe that it was known in the third century A.C. From the historical data that the *Kāmasūtra* affords we can come to a more definite determination of Vātsyāyana's date.

Linked texts (30)