History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s14.41

v1.c6.s14.41

The Kauṭilīya knows the four Vedas, the charms and incantations of the Atharvan, the six *aṅgas*, includes under itihāsa, Purāṇas, Dharmaśāstra and Arthaśāstra; it knows the Sāṅkhya, Yoga and Lokāyata¹⁷⁸ schools of thought. It mentions Mauhūrtikas, Kārtāntikas (astrologers), Jupiter and Venus. It refers to dhātuśāstra (Metallurgy). Sanskrit was the official language and in the Śāsanādhikāra it mentions such *guṇas* of composition as mādhurya, audārya, spaṣṭatva, which show the beginnings of the Alaṁkāra śāstra. There is nothing to wonder at in this. In the second century A. D. we have the inscription of Rudradāman, which enumerates the guṇas of Kāvya. The Kauṭilīya does not mention edicts on stone or copper. It refers to Vaiśikakalājñāna (II. 27). The Kauṭilīya closely agrees with the Kāmasūtra in several respects, and the two works contain several identical passages (such as the list of kings that fell victims to intrigues and about *trivarga*). Keith argues from this that the Kauṭilīya and the Kāmasūtra are not separated by a long interval and that it is a late work. Dr. Jolly also is of the same opinion (p. 24 Intro. to Arthaśāstra). If the Kāmasūtra held up the Kauṭilīya as its model, then the two works would certainly look very much alike. There are points of difference between the two works, e. g. they differ in their attitude towards flesh-eating and the Kāmasūtra speaks of planetary influence and *lagna*, while the Kauṭilīya is silent on these points and only condemns in general terms the consulting of stars. We must note here that the Kauṭilīya (IX. 4) speaks of consulting *nakṣatras*, which were known from the earliest Vedic period and some of which were looked upon as auspicious for sacrificial purposes even in the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa (S. B. E. vol. 44, pp. 1-2) and the Śrauta and Gṛhya sūtras. The Kauṭilīya follows the Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa in the system of a *yuga* of five saṁvatsaras, in prescribing two intercalary months in a *yuga* and in saying that at the end of one *ayana* the variation between the length of the day or the night comes to six muhūrtas (vide II. 20). Keith argues that the ślokas in the Kauṭilīya are more classical than even those of the Rāmāyaṇa and that it contains correct Triṣṭubh stanzas which are wanting in the Bṛhaddevatā (a work of the 4th century B. C.). But this argument can produce no impression on those scholars who ascribe the Rāmāyaṇa to the 5th century B. C. or earlier. Nor is the date of the Bṛhaddevatā beyond the pale of discussion. There is no consensus of opinion among scholars as to the exact time when classical ślokas and correct Triṣṭubhs first came into vogue. It is to be noted that the Kauṭilīya defines *pada* as varṇasaṅghāta and not as in Pāṇini (sup-tiṅantam padam).