The Mauryan Polity c11.s2.t3: Evidence of the Arthaśāstra
The Mauryan Polity c11.s2.t3
- Language
- English
Evidence of the Arthaśāstra
c11.s2.t3.1
It has been pointed out elsewhere that the *Arthaśāstra* belonged to the school of early Hinduism when the Vedic modes of worship were still extant and when the Vedic sacrifices and rites were yet common.¹ Though it is impossible to build anything like a theory on the disputed phrase *śākyājīvikādīn* still there are scholars who wish to speak of the influence of Buddhism and even Jainism in the *Arthaśāstra*.² There was very little influence, if there was any influence at all. There is no denying the fact that religious speculation was rife in this age owing to the expansion of the philosophic sects of the dissenting Hindus. The prohibition of the *Kauṭalīya* in regard to householders from taking the fourth *āśrama* or *sannyāsa*³ under penalty of punishment may go to prove the fact that the Maurya state extened so much patronage to the members of the ascetic sect by providing for free boarding and perhaps lodging, that every householder found the ascetic life more attractive and more advantageous than that of a family life (*samsāra*) with all its obligations and responsibilities. There are other circumstances in the book to warrant the belief that indiscriminate *sannyāsa* was the order of the day, and that, when once an ascetic did not find it profitable, he turned back to the mundane world. Him the state provided with some means of livelihood by employing him to set purposes, such as to act as a *cāra*, a *gūḍhapuruṣa*. The fact again that Kauṭalya wrote for his king (*narendra*), and the statement that the king gave audience to ascetics, physicians, *ācāryas*, and others from the chamber of the sacred fire (*agnyāgāra*) are further proofs that Candragupta was out and out Brahmanical in his religion. Heretics and members of dissenting sects were also shown due consideration by the state; and toleration was the principal doctrine, in matters religious and social.
c11.s2.t3.2
¹ See *Z.I.I.*, Vol. VII, pt. 2.
c11.s2.t3.3
² See *J.R.A.S.*, 1929.
c11.s2.t3.4
³ Bk. I, ch. 19.
c11.s2.t3.5
According to Tāranātha, the Tibetan historian, Cāṇakya continued to be the chief minister of Bindusāra, son and successor of Candragupta.¹ If this tradition has any basis at all, it must be admitted that the same policy must have been continued and that Bindusāra’s religion must have been the established religion of the land. This is further corroborated by the *Mahāvaṃśa*.
c11.s2.t3.6
¹ See also *Pariśiṣṭaparvan*, ed. Jacobi, p. 62.