A History of Hindu Political Theories from the Earliest Times to the End of the First Quarter of the Seventeenth Century A.D. c8.s3.90

c8.s3.90

Not only does the sage Utathya conceive the king's righteous rule to be the foundation of the ordered existence of the people, but he also rises to the conception of righteousness being the bounden duty of the king. The king, he says in the opening lines of his address, exists for the sake of righteousness and not for self-gratification (dharmāya rājā bhavati na kāmakaraṇāya tu). The creatures, he continues, depend upon righteousness which in its turn depends upon the king: the king who rightly upholds virtue is indeed a king (lit. the lord of the world). The sages themselves, Utathya says further on, after casting their eyes on both the worlds created that exalted being of a king with the idea that he would be the guardian of virtue. This line of argument leads the teacher in the course of the above address to introduce, apparently for the first time, a sharp contrast between the good king and the tyrant. If the king practises righteousness, it is urged, he attains very nearly the position of a god, while he goes to hell if he does the reverse. The person through whom righteousness flourishes is verily called a king (rājan), while he through whom it decays is called by the gods the destroyer of righteousness (vriṣala). Of the same nature is the distinction drawn by the sage between the haughty and the modest king. One becomes a king, he says, by vanquishing pride and a slave by succumbing to it.∗