The Mauryan Polity c5.s2.t6.15

c5.s2.t6.15

(c) Shāma Śāstri's contention is that Yājñavalkya and not Kauṭalya would have to be regarded as the borrower, for there are certain technical terms which Kauṭalya appears to have used in a more original and appropriate sense. For example, *śapathavākyānuyoga* of the *Kauṭalīya* means 'trial of a criminal on oath' whereas Yājñavalkya's *ayuktam śapatham* means 'an improper oath'. The term *ayukta* in the *Kauṭalīya* means 'an official' while *ayogya* of Yājñavalkya means 'improper'. Gaṇapati Śāstri has pointed out against this, that *śapatha* of the *Smṛti* is in the opinion of Kauṭalya an unauthorised demand for statements on oath.⁴ Similarly *yoga* and *niyoga* mean a 'privilege'. One having *yoga* is *yukta* and one deserving of *yoga* is *yogya*. Thus the difference between *yogya* and *yukta* is but nominal, and both really mean the same thing. It is then evident, as the learned scholar concludes, that Kauṭalya was indebted to the smṛtis and his position in respect of the smṛtis was that of a commentator. It therefore follows that the contention that Yājñavalkya is posterior to Kauṭalya is untenable.¹