Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Positive Background of Hindu Sociology c11.s1.t9: K. V. R. Aiyangar, 1916-35

The Positive Background of Hindu Sociology c11.s1.t9

Language
English

K. V. R. Aiyangar, 1916-35

c11.s1.t9.1

The reference to Kauṭalya's part in the revolution which overturned the Nanda dynasty of Magadha and placed Chandragupta Maurya on the throne is an important item in the information furnished by the *Purāṇas* about the dynasties of the Kali age. And as according to Pargiter the Puranic lists of dynasties attained their present form about 250 A.C., K. V. R. Aiyangar¹ suggests that "Chāṇakya must have lived at some earlier period pretty far removed from the middle of the third century A.C."

c11.s1.t9.2

¹ *Ancient Indian Polity* (Madras 1916), pp. 7-10, F. E. Pargiter: *Dynasties of the Kali Age* (London 1913), pp. 69-70. The second edition, published in 1935, is virtually a reprint of the first. The chapter on Bibliography is additional. It may be pointed out (p. 186) that the writer of the paper on Chāṇakyasūtrāṇi in the *IHQ.*, 1927 is Jacobi (and not Jolly). Further, Jacobi's paper on the 'authenticity' of Kauṭalya (1912) was published not in the Z.D.M.G. but in the S.K. P.A.W.

c11.s1.t9.3

On the relations between the *Sūtras* on *Dharma* and *Artha* he may be said to believe in their synchronism, generally speaking. Certain differences in regard to *clientele* have however to be observed.

c11.s1.t9.4

For instance, the *Dharmasūtras* as manuals of duties varied according to the Vedic *charaṇas* or schools, says he, but the *Arthaśāstras* were common to followers of all Vedic schools. This fact ought to have rendered the latter more popular or universal than the former. But there is another consideration. The rules of *Dharmasūtra* are of equal interest to all classes of men. But it is none but princes and officials that can take interest in the rules of the *Arthaśāstra*. Thus each of these kinds of *Sūtras* became confined to certain special classes, the *Dharma* to the *charaṇas* and the *Artha* to the princes and officials (pp. 10-11).

c11.s1.t9.5

Altogether, a certain amount of common stuff is observable as pervading the entire *Dharma* and *Artha* literature. In regard to Kauṭalya, for instance, Jolly's paper in the *Z. D. M. G.* (1913) gives 80 parallels from Yājnavalkya and 50 each from Manu and Nārada.

c11.s1.t9.6

K. V. R. Aiyangar analyzes the resemblances and discrepancies between Kauṭalya and Manu and concludes that the latter follows the former and precedes the author of *Śukranīti*. In his judgment Yājnavalkya also is later than Kauṭalya (pp. 17-18, 109-111).

c11.s1.t9.7

As for the date or age of the *Arthaśāstra* he examines six kinds of evidence,—(1) religious, (2) political, (3) historical, (4) literary, (5) philological and (6) astronomical. In his judgment Kauṭalya's work was composed during a period in which Pāṇini's work was either unknown or had not attained wide celebrity and influence. The *Arthaśāstra* is therefore according to him pre-Pāṇinian, *i.e.* previous to 350 B.C. Besides, the *Arthaśāstra* is said to follow the *Jyotiṣa-vedāṅga*, the astronomical treatise, which according to Burgess (*J.R.A.S.* 1893, p. 752) "preserves the main features of Indian astronomical knowledge before it was modified or affected by that of the Greeks" (pp. 27, 120-127).

c11.s1.t9.8

Altogether, the Indian tradition about Kauṭalya's personality and the authenticity of the *Arthaśāstra* in every sense is accepted by him as vindicated (pp. 9-10, 27).

Cites (8)