The Mauryan Polity c5.s2.t4.1

c5.s2.t4.1

As regards the Rājadharma section of the *Mahābhārata* it is difficult to accept the theory that that section must have been introduced in much later times. The Mahābhārata, at least a very considerable portion of it, is an early work, earlier than the Dharmaśāstras and the Jātakas. From the manuscript of its commentary by Vimala Bodhācārya we can gather some astronomical data which give the clue to arrive at the date of the Mahābhārata War. From this the epoch of the War is presumed to be the same as that of the Vedānga Jyotiṣa (11th or 12th Century B.C.).¹ Examining the date of the composition of the Mahābhārata "the archaic style, words and metre of the so-called duṣkara or difficult verses of the Mahābhārata furnish an additional proof in support of such a remote antiquity claimed for the epic on astronomical grounds."² "From a reference to the solstitial colure in the Ardhāśleṣa and Śraviṣṭha, it can be concluded that the Mahābhārata proper is as old as the 10th century B.C."³ If the Mahābhārata proper can be assigned to the 10th century B.C. the Rājadharma section cannot be an addition after a lapse of ten centuries and more. Again, the matter contained in the Rājadharma section is probably older than that in the extant Arthaśāstra. This section of the Mahābhārata like the Arthaśāstra aimed at collating the different views so as to give them a practical shape for use to the man at the apex of the State. Mention is here made of different authors on polity but no mention is made of Kauṭalya. Again that Kauṭalya is indebted to the Mahābhārata is seen from the several references⁴ which he makes to it. Perhaps Kauṭalya found the Rājadharma section of the Mahābhārata loose in its presentation, discussing subjects off-hand, and with no pre-conceived plan. Hence he felt the necessity for a systematic and analytical and elaborate treatment of the whole subject, and there is no gainsaying that he has succeeded in it. In regard to the Purāṇas some of them are admittedly older works than the Kauṭalīya and this is revealed to us by the fact of Kauṭalya’s acquaintance with the Purāṇas. The Upaniṣads like the Chāndogya¹ and the Dharmasūtras like that of Āpastamba² mention the Purāṇa.³ Āpastamba refers distinctly to the Bhaviṣya Purāṇa also.⁴ The opinion of Weber and Max Muller⁵ that the extant Purāṇas are independent of the works designated by that title in Vedic literature is not shared by Bühler who is disposed to believe that the existing Purāṇas are not altogether independent of those mentioned in the Vedic works.⁶ That the Purāṇas had attained celebrity and influence in the latter half of the Vedic period is obvious. And it is in no way incompatible that Kauṭalya was familiar with their contents.