Social Life in Ancient India: Studies in Vatsyayana's Kamasutra c5.s3.39

c5.s3.39

Mahāmahopādhyāya Haraprasad Sastri in his *Magadhan Literature* has, on the other hand, sought to push back the date of the *Kāmasūtra* to the first century A.C., his argument being that "Vātsyāyana flourished at a time when the memory of the scandal (of Kuntala Śātakarṇi) was fresh. So he may be placed in the first century A.D.; for, the public memory is far short and in one or two generations, people forget these scandals."¹ Here the Mahāmahopādhyāya, unlike Jolly, considers the political data as the deciding factor, but accepting his conclusion we are met by the difficulty that in the first century A.C., we have no evidence of Ābhīra monarchs ruling side by side with the Andhras. Both according to epigraphic as well as Pauranic evidence, the Ābhīras rose to power in the third century A.C., so that the date of Vātsyāyana who is no less acquainted with the scandals of the Ābhīra court than with those among the Andhras, cannot be placed in the first century A.C. Moreover, we have ample evidence to show that court scandals are referred to by Indian writers many centuries after they took place. Vātsyāyana himself refers to the scandal of Dāṇḍakya, the Bhoja² who must have lived many centuries prior to the composition of the *Kāmasūtra*. Visākhadatta in his *Mudrārākṣasa* refers to court intrigues and scandals many centuries older than his time. The *Bṛhat Saṃhitā* refers to scandals like that of king Vidūratha who was killed by his queen with a sharp instrument hid in her hair and to a Kāśirāja who was similarly killed with a poisoned anklet³ and there is nothing to show that they lived about the same time as Varāha-mihira. Aśvaghoṣa in the fourth chapter of his *Buddhacarita* relates scandals most of which were far removed in date from his. We are therefore unable to see eye to eye with MM. Haraprasad Sastri with regard to the date fixed by him for the Kāmasūtra.