History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s14.29.3

v1.c6.s14.29.3

Two of the views ascribed to the Mānavas by Kauṭilya are the sama as those which Kāmandaka (II. 3 and XI. 67) ascribes to Manu. According to the Mānavas, the *vidyas* to be studied by a prince were three, viz. trayī, vārtā and daṇḍanīti, what is called ānvīkṣikī being but a branch of trayī; and the council of ministers was to consist of twelve. The Manusmṛti (7. 43) appears to regard the *vidyās* as four and lays down (7. 54) that the Council should consist of seven or eight *sacivas*. Bühler and others on account of this difference in the views of the Mānavas and the Manusmṛti thought that Kauṭilya was referring to the Mānvadharmasūtra. In my humble opinion the evidence for the existence of a Mānavadharmasūtra is practically nil, as detailed above in section 13. From the references to Svāyambhuva Manu and Prācetasa Manu contained in the Mahābhārata, particularly in the Śānti and Anuśāsana *parvans* it appears that there were two works in verse on *dharma* and politics attributed to these two or there was one work containing both. These works were subsequently recast as the Manusmṛti. It is therefore that some difference is noticed between the views ascribed to the Mānavas and the extant Manusmṛti. Besides there is no real conflict in the matter of *vidyās*. The Manusmṛti does not positively say that the *vidyas* are four and not three; it simply says from whom trayī and the other three are to be learnt. The Manusmṛti (in 7. 60) allows more ministers than seven or eight.