History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c62.18

v4.c62.18

Arthaśāstra has been a synonym for daṇḍanīti. When the Āp. Dh. S. II. 5.10.16 requires the king to appoint as purohita a brāhmaṇa well-versed in dharma and artha, it is clear that Āpastamba has in view dharmaśāstra and arthaśāstra. The Anuśāsanaparva says that Bṛhaspati and others composed arthaśāstras (39.10–11). Droṇaparva 6.1 speaks of a science of artha composed by Manu (*Mānavī arthavidyā*). Vide Jayaswal in 'Manu and Yājñavalkya' (pp. 5, 7, 16, 25, 26, 41, 42, 50, 84, for Manu and Artha). Śānti (71. 14) states that a king whose sole concern is with arthaśāstra does not secure dharına and kāma and that all the wealth of such a king vanishes in (the pursuit of) improper objects. Vide Śānti 302. 109 which speaks of arthaśāstra as resorted to by the best among kings. The Rāmāyaṇa (II. 100. 14) states that Sudhanvā, Upādhyāya of Rāma, was an adept in arthaśāstra. The arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya starts with the statement that it is the quintessence of all the arthaśāstras composed by former teachers in the whole world and at the end Kauṭilya states that that śāstra which is a means of acquiring and guarding the earth is arthaśāstra. This mentions two of the four objects of daṇḍanīti stated in the Kauṭilīya itself (as shown in *n.* 8 above). Only two objects are mentioned by Kauṭilya (as in Śānti 69. 102) since they are the first and principal ones to be gained by the practice of the science of government. It is not meant that there was, as regards the topics to be dealt with, any distinction between Daṇḍanīti and Arthaśāstra. The four objects mentioned by Kauṭilya are always placed before the kṣatriya by Manu (VII. 99–100), Śānti 102. 57 and 140. 5, Yāj. I. 317, Nītisāra I. 18 (while I. 8 mentions only two purposes of rājavidyā). At the end (XV. 1) Kauṭilya states '*artha* is the sustenance of human beings, that is, the earth peopled by men That śāstra which is a means of acquiring and guarding that earth is arthaśāstra.' Men derive their sustenance from the earth and all wealth also arises from the earth. Mr. Jayaswal (Hindu Polity p. 5) is not right when he translates 'Artha is human population.' Vide U. Ghoshal's 'Hindu Political Theories' p. 74 n and p. 76 for the various interpretations of this passage by Jayaswal and others. Authors a few centuries later than both the Mahābhārata and the Kauṭilīya treat the two as identical. Daṇḍin in his Daśakumāracarita (VIII.) expressly says that Viṣṇugupta composed his work on daṇḍanīti for the Maurya king in 6000 ślokas, though the Kauṭilīya states at the very beginning that the work is an arthaśāstra. Daṇḍin in the same context refers to 'Arthaśāstras as helping to polish the intellect' and speaks of some of the predecessors mentioned by Kauṭilya as writers on the śāstra (viz. the Arthaśāstra).¹¹ The Amarakośa treats the two as identical.¹² Medhātithi on Manu VII. 43 holds that the word 'Daṇḍanīti' therein refers to the works of Cāṇakya and others. The Mitākṣarā on Yāj. I. 313 paraphrases daṇḍanīti by arthaśāstra and on Yāj. I. 311 explains daṇḍanīti as the lore useful in the acquisition and guarding of wealth (only the two objects mentioned by Kauṭilya in connection with arthaśāstra). According to the Śukranītisāra (IV. 3.56) 'that is said to be arthaśāstra in which instruction about the conduct of kings and the like is given without coming in conflict with Śruti and Smṛti and in which the acquisition of wealth with great skill is taught'.