Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society c19.s10: Chapter Nine

The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society c19.s10

Language
English

Chapter Nine

c19.s10.1

1. I refer in particular to R. P. Kangle's edition and translation (Bombay, 1960–1963); F. Wilhelm, *Politische Polemiken im Staatslehrbuch des Kauṭalya* (Wiesbaden, 1960); D. Schlingloff, “Arthaśāstia Studien,” *Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Süd- und Ostasiens* 9 (1966): 1ff. H. Scharfe, *Untersuchungen zur Staatsrechtlehre des Kauṭalya* (Wiesbaden, 1968); and T. R. Trautmann *Kauṭilya and the Arthaśāstra*, (Leiden, 1971).

c19.s10.2

2. See Scharfe, *Untersuchungen*, 177–190. Scharfe in my opinion conclusively argues that the *samāhartṛ* is a provincial administrator.

c19.s10.3

3. *Daśakumāracarita* 8.

c19.s10.4

4. *AŚ* 2. 9. 34.

c19.s10.5

5. *AŚ* 2. 7. 41.

c19.s10.6

6. *AŚ* 1. 1. 1: *pṛthivyā lābhe pālane ca*.

c19.s10.7

7. *AŚ* 1. 2. 11. On the term *ānvīkṣikī* meaning “Untersuchung mit Gründen,” see P. Hacker, “Ānvīkṣikī,” *Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Süd- und Ostasiens* 2 (1958): 54–83.

c19.s10.8

8. In this connection, it seems interesting that, as Wilhelm has shown, the wording of the quotations of opponents' views stems from Kauṭilya himself (*Politische Polemiken*, 140). Even though, as Wilhelm concedes, these quotations might represent real school views, they would seem to serve primarily as models for the articulation of debate.

c19.s10.9

9. See Kangle, *Arthaśāstia*, 3: 116.

c19.s10.10

10. *AŚ* 1. 13. 5–14.

c19.s10.11

11. J. Gonda, “Ancient Indian Kingship from the Religious Point of View,” *Numen* 3 (1956): 36.

c19.s10.12

12. *PB* 2. 7. 5.

c19.s10.13

13. For a fuller exposition of this point, see J. C. Heesterman, “Power and Authority in Indian Tradition,” in *Tradition and Politics in South Asia*, ed. R. J. Moore (New Delhi, 1979), 60–85, and below, chapter 10.

c19.s10.14

14. *AŚ* 1. 6. 1. See below, chapter 10, section 9.

c19.s10.15

15. B. Breloer, *Kauṭilya Studien* (Leipzig, 1934), 3: 248.

c19.s10.16

16. *AŚ* 2. 7. 16–25.

c19.s10.17

17. *Aś* 2. 7. 24–25. *Pracārasamaṃ mahāmātrāḥ samagrāḥ śrāvayeyur aviṣamamantrāḥ, pṛthagbhūto mithyāvādī caiṣām uttamaṃ daṇḍaṃ dadyāt*. Scharfe translates: “den, der verfahrensgerecht war, sollen die sämtlichen mahāmātra einstimmig verkünden; wer von ihnen zich ausschliesst oder unwahr redet, soll die höchste Strafe geben.”

c19.s10.18

18. Scharfe, *Untersuchungen*, 229.

c19.s10.19

19. See Ch. Johnson, *Dialogus de Scaccario* (London, 1950), xxxv.

c19.s10.20

20. Unless we follow Kangle's translation, which renders the crucial phrase *samagrāḥ śrāvayeyuḥ* with “they should render accounts in full,” taking *samagrāḥ* in the improbable sense of "full (accounts)" as the object of the verb *śrāvayeyuḥ*. In that case, we are left in the dark as to the identity of the auditing authority. Since they would then have to "proclaim" (*śrāvayeyuḥ*)—not just "render"—their accounts, Kangle's translation leads to the conclusion that the assembled mahāmātras sit in judgment on each other's accounts. Such a procedure obviously would be undesirable, if not down right impossible, from the point of view of proper auditing.

c19.s10.21

21. Scharfe, *Untersuchungen*, 231. For the varuṇapraghāsa sacrifice, cf. A. Hillebrandt, *Ritualliteratur* (Strassburg, 1897), 116f.; *ĀpŚS* 8. 5. 1.

c19.s10.22

22. See above, chapter 2.

c19.s10.23

23. This does not mean, of course, that the varuṇapraghāsa is exactly identical with the festival that Kauṭilya had in mind. Rather it appears that this sacrifice in its systematized classical form derives from a similar festival on the full-moon day in Āṣāḍha. Thus its rites and the speculations connected with it can lead us to the meaning of the original festival. For the rest, one might also think of a sacrifice like the sautrāmaṇī—another sacrifice of reparation and atonement—which according to *Baudhāyana Śrautasūtra* also falls on the full-moon day of Āṣāḍha or Śrāvaṇa in the rājasūya cycle. The agnicayana—Prajāpati's reintegration—is, according to some authorities, also to be started in Āṣāḍha (*ĀpŚS* 16. 1. 2).

c19.s10.24

24. Thus *TB* 1. 6. 4. 1; cf. also *ŚB* 5. 2. 4. 1f.

c19.s10.25

25. *MS* 1. 10. 10; *KS* 36. 5.

c19.s10.26

26. *ĀpŚS* 8. 6. 20.

c19.s10.27

27. See, e.g., *AB* 7. 13.

c19.s10.28

28. *ĀpŚS* 8. 6. 22; *TB* 1. 6. 5. 2: *Priyáṁ jñātíṁ rundhyāt*, "She would lose a dear (or close) relative."

c19.s10.29

29. *TB* 3. 8. 4. 1. The two affines should lead the dog that is bathed with the horse and then killed as a scapegoat (*ĀpŚS* 20. 3. 6). It is perhaps not surprising that *BaudhŚS* 26. 10 replaces the two relatives with slaves.

c19.s10.30

30. *TB* 1. 4. 6. 12. Cf. W. Caland, *Altindsche Zauberei* (Amsterdam, 1908), no. 184.

c19.s10.31

31. A similar arrangement is to be found in the sautrāmaṇī sacrifice.

c19.s10.32

³² *TB* 1. 6. 5. 4.

c19.s10.33

³³ *MS* 1. 10. 12; *KS* 36. 7.

c19.s10.34

³⁴ *ŚB* 2. 5. 2. 6; cf. also *MS* 1. 10. 10 and *KS* 36. 5.

c19.s10.35

³⁵ *TB* 1. 6. 5. 1, 4.

c19.s10.36

³⁶ *ĀpŚS* 8. 6. 19; *TB* 1. 6. 5. 2–3.

c19.s10.37

³⁷ *TS* 1. 8. 3d.

c19.s10.38

³⁸ Perhaps the same idea can be discerned in *AB* 3. 22. 7, where the gods obtain a share in Indra's booty through his wife, Prāsahā, who is at the same time his "weapon" (*senā*). The gods put her to shame by saying to her, "Ka ('who,' or Prajāpati, her father-in-law) sees you." Thus cowering Indra's *senā*, they manage to obtain a share. In the above case of the karambha offering on the southern fire, at which Indra and the Maruts are invoked, the Maruts, or the viś, in the same way are not only bound but also obtain their share.

c19.s10.39

³⁹ *ŚB* 2. 5. 2.

c19.s10.40

²³ This idea is also expressed in another way. The adhvaryu makes an image of a ram from barley groats, the pratiprasthātṛ, an image of a ewe. After being baked in the fire, the ewe is placed in the Varuṇa milk dish on the northern vedi, the ram in the Marut milk dish on the southern vedi. Then the positions are reversed, the ewe being placed in the Marut dish, the ram in the Varuṇa dish. Here again the explanation given refers to marital union through which the creatures are released from Varuṇa's bonds (*ŚB* 2. 5. 2. 17, 36). It is to be noted that these are not real animals; they are, as *MS* 1. 10. 12 and *KS* 36. 6 say, *anṛta*-

c19.s10.41

*paśu*, “false animals,” and thereby the creatures are freed from anṛta and from Varuṇa's noose.

c19.s10.42

40. *TB* 1. 6. 4. 1; cf. *MS* 1. 10. 10; *KS* 36. 5.

c19.s10.43

41. *TB* 1. 6. 2. 2; cf. *MS* 1. 10. 6, 10; *KS* 36. 5.

c19.s10.44

42. Perhpas we should go even further: the original opposition seems to be between Varuṇa (or, in the decisive phase of the ritual, Indra) and the Maruts. This opposition was then partially replaced with the one between Prajāpati, the epitome of the classical theory of sacrifice, and his prajāḥ.

c19.s10.45

43. *ŚB* 2. 5. 2. 1, 16. Cf. *KS* 36. 5: *jagdhad vai Varuṇo gṛhṇāti*. On the evil or sin involved in appropriating food, see above, chapter 6, section 5.

c19.s10.46

44. *KS* 36. 6.

c19.s10.47

45. For this passage, see J. C. Heesterman, *The Ancient Indian Royal Consecration* (The Hague, 1957), 209–11; W. Rau, *Staat und Gesellschaft im alten Indien* (Wiesbaden, 1957), 15. A remote echo of this cycle can still be heard in *ĀpGS* 22. 12ff. Immediately after the rules for the aṣṭakā rites in the cold season, a mantra is prescribed for going out to beg; the text then goes on to explain the rules for mounting a chariot, which should face east.

c19.s10.48

46. See J. C. Heesterman, “Vrātya and Sacrifice,” *Indo-Iranian Journal* 6 (1962): 15–18. Also above, chapter 8 sections 7–9. For the ambivalence of the Maruts, see A. Bergaigne, *Mythologie Védique* (Paris, 1963), 2: 401; 3: 38. The Maruts are known to have fallen out with Indra. The word praghāsa refers to the (sinful) eating of Varuṇa's barley (*ŚB* 2. 5. 2. 1).

c19.s10.49

47. In the *Dialogus de Scaccario*, this is indeed made explicit in the obvious comparison with chess-play: “Sicut in lusili pugna committitur inter reges, sic in hoc inter duos principaliter conflictus est et pugna committitur, thesaurarium scilicet et vicecomitem qui assidet ad compotum” (Johnson's edition, 7). At the board the officers of the king's household, like Kautilya's mahāmātras, also sit as witnesses and judges. The difference is, of course, that the English king's household officers are not the same as the vicecomites, while with Kauṭilya it is exactly these persons that are included among the mahāmātras.

c19.s10.50

48. *AŚ* 2. 4. 10.

c19.s10.51

49. *ĀpDhS* 2.25.

c19.s10.52

50. See H. Losch, *Rājadharma* (Bonn, 1959), 51, 313.

c19.s10.53

51. It is therefore easy to understand why some texts read *deśarakṣitṛ*, although, as Losch makes clear, *akṣarakṣitṛ* is the right reading.

c19.s10.54

52. See Heesterman, *Consecration*, chap. 17.

c19.s10.55

53. Ibid., 153f.

c19.s10.56

54. On this point, see Heesterman, “Power and Authority in Indian Tradition,” and chapter 10. It is to be noted that the king is also considered the husband of the viś.

c19.s10.57

⁵⁵ *AŚ* 5. 6. 34: *Ayaṃ vo nikṣepaḥ, pitaram asyāvekṣadhvaṃ sattvābhijanam ātmanaśca, dhvajamātro 'yaṃ, bhavanta eva svāminaḥ, kathaṃ vā kriyatām iti*. Scharfe takes *ātmanaḥ* as referring to the pretendent (*Untersuchungen*, 219); it would, however, seem that an appeal to the mahāmātras' own quality and honor as masters of the realm is perfectly in keeping with the context.

c19.s10.58

⁵⁶ *TB* 1. 7. 3. 1.

c19.s10.59

⁵⁷ See W. C. Neale, “Reciprocity and Redistribution,” in *Trade and Markets in Early Empires*, ed. K. Polanyi et al. (Glencoe, 1957).

c19.s10.60

⁵⁸ *AŚ* 2. 10.

c19.s10.61

³¹ One is tempted to compare this with Elphinstone's “the Ceded Districts plan of having a Double Dufter,” that is, the appointment of two *dafterdars*, record keepers, of equal rank as the chief Indian officials in the district, so that they could be used as a check upon each other. See K. A. Ballhatchet, *Social*

c19.s10.62

*Policy and Social Change in Western India, 1817–1830* (London, 1957), 92; also E. Frykenberg, *Guntur District, 1788–1848* (Oxford, 1965), 127.

c19.s10.63

59. *AŚ* 2. 4. 29–30.

Linked texts (13)