Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Positive Background of Hindu Sociology c13: Chapter X. From Harṣa to Hemādri (c. 600-1300)

The Positive Background of Hindu Sociology c13

Language
English

Contents

Chapter X. From Harṣa to Hemādri (c. 600-1300)

c13.2

Economics, politics, jurisprudence and sociology as developed on Indian soil have grown in intimate *liaison* with the exact sciences. Their relations, first, with philosophy and metaphysics, and secondly, with *belles lettres* are equally profound. These interactions are to be seen as much in the Vedic culture-complex as in the Śākyan *milieu* (*c* 600 B.C.). They are equally manifest in the evolution of Hindu positivism from, say, Kauṭalya to Kālidāsa, or from Pāṇini to Varāhamihira (*c* B.C. 300-600 A.C.). The impact of "science," philosophy and literature on the "social" *vidyās* or *śāstras* as well as of the latter on the former, in one word, the "functional" relations characterize the subsequent epochs as well of cultural expansion in India.

c13.3

From Harṣa to Hemādri (*c* 600-1300) we encounter the same *rapprochements* between the diverse disciplines. From Chaṇḍeśvara to Rāmmohun Roy (1772-1833), the last of the mediaevals and the first of the moderns, also, the story of growth in the juxtaposition and mutual interactions of the diverse branches of intellectual activity is a signal fact of India's literary history. The interactions are embodied, in the first place, in unacknowledged influences, nay, assimilations of one another. In the second place, direct quotations of words or phrases and wholesale incorporations of chapters, sections or paragraphs occupy in important place in this regard. And finally, criticisms, often hostile and relentless of one another, are no less prominent. The "scientific," philosophic, metaphysical and literary perspectives of the *Dharma*, *Artha*, *Nīti* and allied treatises are therefore to be explored and appraised as much in the case of the period from Harṣa to Hemādri as in that of the others.

c13.4

From the *Rigveda* to the *Kāmandakīnīti* none of the documents of Hindu positivism can, as we have seen, be dated without controversy. We have observed also that no matter what be the epoch, age or century in which the books more or less in the form in which they are available today got their final forms, the materials or *data* contained in these texts can be traced several centuries back in every instance. This is an aspect of Hindu culture bearing on absolute as well as relative chronology that ought to be remembered in connection with every epoch.

c13.5

At the threshold of the period that we are now starting, namely, that from the Vardhana Empire to the Chola Empire, or from Harṣa to Hemādri, from, say, A.C. 600 to 1300 let us once more get oriented to this fundamental fact of Hindu culture-history. Without reference to the exact dates of the final redaction of the texts we have to remember that among the master-minds of Śākyasimha's age (c. 600 B.C.)¹ there were grammarians of the Pāṇini cycle, whose comprehensive work on Sanskrit language stands the most rigorous test of modern philologists as a monument of logical insight and thorough-going research. There were the chemists, botanists and zoologists of the Charakan school whose encyclopaedic work in *Āyurveda* (the science of life) continues to be the basis of Hindu medical practitioners even today. Then there were the sociologists who, following the lead of the eponymous culture-hero Manu, were the compilers of the *Dharmaśāstras*, *Smritiśāstras*, *Nītiśāstras* etc., each of which is at once the Hindu *Yi-King* and *Li-King* and partly also the *Shu-King*. It was out of this class of literature that about two hundred years after Śākyasimha Kauṭalya derived materials for the Hindu *Chou-li*, called the *Arthaśāstra*. We have also to call attention to the discussions on the human anatomy, physiology and psychology as well as psycho-analysis (?) initiated by the Nandis, Śvetaketus, Bābhravyas, Dattakas and others which were in the course of centuries to constitute the foundations of Vātsyāyana's *Kāmasūtra* (science of enjoyment with special reference to love). There remain still to be mentioned the students of the *Upaniṣads* and *Darśanas*, those systems of psychology, logic and metaphysics whose name was legion. Last but not least come, again, the Vyāsas, eponymous heroes, the compilers of Vedic literature, and subsequently also of the *Mahābhārata*.

c13.6

¹ B. K. Sarkar: *Chinese Religion Through Hindu Eyes* (Shanghai 1916), pp. 51-52.

Six Fundamental Formative Forces in Positivism

c13.s1.1

By the commencement of the sixth century A.C. most of the sciences whose "unwritten" beginnings, so to say, are to be found in the sixth century B.C. were definitely established in chapter and verse. For the classification of arts and sciences, *vidyās* and *kalās*, from the standpoint of formal logic, such as may indicate the lines of evolution in positivism and secular endeavours during the next seven hundred years we may single out the following rubrics :

c13.s1.2

1. The *Dharmaśāstras*, with their commentaries and digests.
2. The *Nītiśāstras*.
3. The *Vārttāśāstras*.
4. The *Śilpaśāstras*.
5. The *Purāṇas* with their *Upapurāṇas*. Since Gupta times these encyclopædic treatises have gone on expanding in all the three dimensions, so to say. From the seventh to the end of the thirteenth century each one of the *Purāṇas* that has been mentioned in the previous epoch maintained its position as a library of world-culture in the intellectual *milieu* of India.

c13.s1.3

Each one of the eighteen *Purāṇas* can be drawn upon not only for the topics of *Dharmaśāstras* but for those of *Vārttāśāstras*. In the modern compilation on gems and precious stones entitled *Maṇimālā*, for instance, all the *Purāṇas* have been used as authorities.²

c13.s1.4

² By Saurindra Mohun Tagore, Calcutta, 1881, vol. II., p. 1034. For the *Dharmaśāstra* data of the *Purāṇas* see P. V. Kane : *History of Dharmaśāstra* (Poona 1930), pp. 164-167.

c13.s1.5

The tenacity of the Pauranic tradition in modern times, so far as political thought is concerned, may be seen to some extent in a recent work in Bengali. The *Agni Purāṇa* has been utilized by Madhusudan Bhattāchārya for his Ratnamāla, Vol. I. (*Hindu Rājanīti*, Calcutta 1904, 1909). It is a book of Bengali translations with original Sanskrit texts as footnotes. Incidentally be it observed that he has made use of the *Kāśī-Khaṇḍa*, the *Devī Bhāgavata*, the *Śrīmad Bhāgavata* and the *Gītā* as well. As containing very often whole treatises on *dharma*, *nīti* and *vārttā* these *Purāṇas* and *Upa-Purāṇas* are valuable documents of positivism for the seven hundred years in question.

c13.s1.6

6. The *Mahābhārata*. This great epic has been functioning as the fifth *Veda* or the *Veda* of the people since it acquired its more or less present form in Gupta times. From the seventh to the thirteenth century it may be taken to have maintained its influence and, like the *Purāṇas*, to have been growing all the time in bulk. If the *Purāṇas* are Encyclopædias, the *Mahābhārata* is the Encyclopædia of Encyclopædias. Naturally therefore in order to come into contact with the Hindu command over the realities of life as comprehended in *kāma*, *dharma*, *artha*, *nīti*, *vārttā* and *śilpa* one does not have to go out of the milieu of the *Mahābhārata*. While dealing with the humanism and secularism of Hindu India from Harṣa to Hemādri we can always safely trust ourselves to the contents of the *Mahābhārata*.

c13.s1.7

It is interesting to observe that in the extensive work on *Hindu Rājanīti*, a Bengali translation of Sanskrit originals referred to above, the following *Parvans* (Books) of the *Mahābhārata* have been used: 1. *Sabhā*, 2. *Vana*, 3. *Udyoga*, 4, *Bhīṣma*, 5. *Droṇa*, 6. *Śānti*, 7. *Anuśāsana*. We understand how the *Mahābhārata* tradition in politics has been ruling the thought of the orthodox scholars of today and continues to be a living force even in the twentieth century.

c13.s1.8

The same is to be said of the *Rāmāyaṇa* also. The following *Kāṇḍas* (Cantos) of the *Rāmāyaṇa* have been utilized by Bhaṭṭāchārya as documents of political thought: 1. *Ādi*, 2. *Ayodhyā*, 3. *Araṇya*, 4. *Kiṣkindhyā*, 5. *Sundara*, 6. *Laṅkā*, 7. *Uttarā*. Naturally, therefore, for the period from Harṣa to Hemādri the two epics are invaluable as sources of *nīti* philosophy.

c13.s1.9

In order to make the list of sources for Hindu positivism complete we should have to add to these six groups of literature, first, the *belles lettres*, stories, legends, etc., and secondly, denominational works like those of the Buddhists and Jainas. The literature contained in the Indian vernaculars, especially of the North can hardly demand recognition at this stage.³ For all practical purposes the provincial languages like Bengali, Hindi etc. grew into important dimensions after the thirteenth century. But so far as the South Indian Tamil is concerned, the literature was important enough to be discussed for the age of the Guptas. For the period from the Vardhanas to the Cholas Tamil inscriptions and books constitute of course a substantial guide to Hindu positivism.

c13.s1.10

³ See the chapter on Language in C. V. Vaidya: *History of Mediaeval Hindu India*, Vol. II. (Poona 1924), pp. 167-172, and Vol. III. (1926), pp. 471-474.

c13.s1.11

Broadly speaking, the most fundamental formative forces as well as evidences of energism in worldly speculations and secular enterprise during this period are to be seen in the six rubrics enumerated above.

Bhāṣyas and Nibandhas of Smriti Śāstras

c13.s2.1

The work of Nārada, Brihaspati and Kātyāyana as *Smriti* writers of the later Gupta period was continued during the seventh and eighth centuries by quite a number of jurists. Without being precise or even approximative we may mention the following :—1. Vyāsa (c 650), 2. Paulastya (c 700), 3. Pitāmaha (c 750), 4. Dakṣa (c 800), 5. Angiras (c 800), 6. Yama (c 800). They all wrote regular *Dharmaśāstras* in verse in the literary tradition established by Manu and Yājnavalkya.

c13.s2.2

The number of *Smriti* writers was great. The need of *bhāṣyas* (commentaries) was felt, and already as contemporaries of original writers like Yama, Angiras etc. commentators like Asahāya (c 800), Samvarta (c 800) and Bhartriyajna (c 800) are seen flourishing. And they are important enough to be quoted by subsequent scholars.⁴

c13.s2.3

⁴ Kane : *History of Dharmaśāstras* Vol. I. (Poona 1930) pp. 221, 225, 227, 233, 238, 242, 250, 252.

1. Medhātithi and Viśvarūpa

c13.s2.t1.1

Two of the greatest commentary writers lived in the ninth century. The first is Medhātithi⁵ (c 850 A.C.) celebrated for his commentary on Manu. The author was probably an inhabitant of Kashmir as Bühler suggested. Jolly considered him to be a Southerner. Medhātithi knows of a *Vārttā* treatise by Brihaspati and is familiar with the *Artha* treatises of Brihaspati, Uśanas and Kauṭalya. He is the author of an original *Smriti* work also, namely, the *Smritiviveka*.

c13.s2.t1.2

⁵ Kane, pp. 224, 252-254, 261-263, 265, 269-270, 275, Winternitz III, p. 449.

c13.s2.t1.3

The other great man in this line was Viśvarūpa (c 800-825) whose commentary on Yājnavalkya is called *Vālakrīḍā*. The author was perhaps a contemporary of Śankarāchārya (c 800), and may have been one of his pupils or followers. He is one of those jurists who make use of *Arthaśāstra* texts, e.g., those of Brihaspati, Viśālākṣa, and possibly Kauṭalya.

c13.s2.t1.4

Bhruchi (c 850) is perhaps a contemporary of Viśvarūpa.

c13.s2.t1.5

The *Chaturviṁśatimata* (c 850), complete in 525 verses, embodies the essence of 24 sages, namely, Manu, Yājñavalkya, Atri, Viṣṇu, Vaśiṣṭha, Vyāsa, Uśanas, Āpastamba, Vatsa, Hārīta, Guru (Brihaspati), Nārada, Parāśara, Gārgya, Gautama, Yama, Baudhāyana, Dakṣa, Śaṁkha, Angiras, Śatātapa, Sāṁkhya (Sāṁkhyāyana) and Saṁvarta. This synthetic compilation belongs to the age of Medhātithi and Viśvarūpa.

2. Śrīkara

c13.s2.t2.1

The tenth century saw several great works.⁶ The synthetic jurist Śrīkara (*c* 950) is the author perhaps of a commentary or of a Nibandha i.e. digest. He is said to have filled in the gaps of Smritis and established order out of chaos. He may have been greatly under the influence of Yājnavalkya. According to Chaṇḍeśvara in his *Rājanītiratnākara* (ch. XV) Śrīkara had views on public law i.e. politics as well. He held that the revenues of the state have the poor and the helpless as some of their *amśī* (co-sharers or owners).

c13.s2.t2.2

⁶ Kane, pp. 238-239, 242, 268; See the *Rājanītiratnākara* by Chaṇḍesvara, ed. by K. P. Jayaswal (Patna 1924) pp. 40, 81.

c13.s2.t2.3

The doctrine quoted by Chaṇḍeśvara runs thus: *rājadhane dīnānāthādisakalaprāṇinām aṁśītvam*. The poor, the orphans, and all other creatures are *amśī* or co-sharers with the king in his wealth, property or revenues. It is on this argument that a state cannot be partitioned between the sons just as ordinary property can be (*Rājyam abibhājyam*). The recognition of this distinction between personal property and the state in a categorical manner marks a great progress in political thought. We touch the concept of an abstract political organism which is independent of dynasties, individual attributes and personal equations. The unknown or rather lost treatise of Śrīkara is thus to be credited with having propounded a tenet of major importance in the world’s political speculations.

c13.s2.t2.4

Then, again, the category, *amśitva* (co-sharership), as enjoyed by the poor etc., possesses a more than ordinary significance in speculative politics. It is something essentially distinct from the commonplace thought in constitution or public law which says that the king is the servant, benefactor or protector of the people. We are forced to understand that in point of civil law these enumerated classes are his equals or at any rate colleagues so far as the use of wealth, i.e. the state, is concerned. Naturally, therefore, it is possible to read something of socialistic “idealism” into this doctrine. Śrīkara the jurist, although interested in private law (e.g. the law of property) has made a tremendous contribution to public law by enunciating this dictum. It is worth repeating that Śrīkara is here not talking of ordinary charity, philanthropy or dole but of the *right of co-sharers* to the national revenues. It is understood, of course, that we find ourselves here not in *Realpolitik* but in speculation.

c13.s2.t2.5

It is on account of this doctrine of the distinction between the state and other properties that a definitely practical object in constitutional law can be served. The theorists do not want that the state should be inherited by anybody except the eldest son. The people who are not used to primogeniture in private law are likely not to appreciate it in public law. Hence the importance of the theory which establishes the socialistic copartnership of the masses in the affairs of the body politic.

c13.s2.t2.6

The doctrine of Śrīkara, which was handed down by Gopāla in his *Smṛiti-Kāmadhenu* (c 1100) and Lakṣmīdhara in his *Smṛiti-Kalpataru* (c 1159) and was considered important enough to be utilized by Chaṇḍeśvara in his *Rājanīti-Ratnākara* (c 1370), has another part. It runs thus: *Vahunāyakatvādrājyavinaśaścha*. The state may be destroyed on account of the plurality of leaders or rulers. This is a fresh argument against the partition of the state among the king's sons on the lines of the partition of private property. Altogether Śrīkara's logic against the application of the ordinary law of inheritance to the state-affairs is the greatest single contribution of Hindu India to social science in the tenth century.

c13.s2.t2.7

The *Ṣaṭtriṁśanmata* (c 950) is a compilation from 36 sages. It appears to be older than the *Mitākṣarā*, *Smṛitichandrikā*, Aparārka and others.

c13.s2.t2.8

The *Smṛitisamgraha* (c 1000) is a collection between Viśvarūpa or Medhātithi and the *Mitākṣarā* or the *Smṛitichandrikā*. It may be taken to have flourished in king Bhoja's territory, Dhārā, and may have been compiled by or in the age of the king-jurist Bhoja Dhāreśvara.

c13.s2.t2.9

The eleventh century is very important in certain respects.⁷ Bhoja Dhāreśvara (c 1050), king of Dhārā, whose name is associated with works on the most diverse subjects like grammar, medicine, astronomy, politics (*Yuktikalpataru*) and so forth is known to have written commentaries, digests and even independent works on *Smriti*.

c13.s2.t2.10

⁷ Kane, pp. 258, 277, 279, 281, 290.

c13.s2.t2.11

Devasvāmin's (c 1050) *Smritisamuchchaya*, a digest like that by Śrīkara, was composed during the age of Vijnāneśvara.

3. Jitendriya, Bālaka and Yogloka

c13.s2.t3.1

Bengal's⁸ contribution to law during the eleventh century is mentionable. Jitendriya (c 1050), author of an original work on *Smriti*, was an inhabitant of Bengal. He is quoted by Jīmūtavāhana in *Kālaviveka* as well as *Dāyabhāga* but is eclipsed by him. The *Dāyabhāga* doctrine that the widow succeeds to her deceased husband's estate has been traced to Jitendriya.

c13.s2.t3.2

⁸ Kane, pp. 283, 284, 286.

c13.s2.t3.3

Bālaka (c 1100), also an inhabitant of Bengal, wrote an independent work on *Smriti*. He is quoted by Jīmūtavāhana, Raghunandana and Śūlapāṇi.

c13.s2.t3.4

Yogloka (c 1100), another inhabitant of Bengal, is the author of an independent *Smriti*. His views on *Kāla* and *Vyavahāra* were popular in his days. Jīmūtavāhana used to make fun of Yogloka's claims to being exponent of a new logic (*nava-tārkikam-manya*).

4. Vijnāneśvara

c13.s2.t4.1

Greater than all his predecessors in the *bhāṣya* (commentary) line and indeed the greatest for all ages is Vijnāneśvara (c 1100), whose *Mitākṣarā* commentary on Yājnavalkya is influential until today throughout India, including Bengal also for certain purposes. He is said to have flourished during the reign of the Western Chālukya King, Vikramānka Vikramāditya VI. of Kalyāni, who ruled for half a century (1076-1126). This is the same Vikramānka about whom Bilhana wrote the *Vikramānkacharita* and whose son, king Someśvara (1127-1138), wrote the *Mānasollāsa*, a treatise on *Nītiśāstra* or politics in 1131.⁹

c13.s2.t4.2

⁹ The text of *Mānasollāsa* Vol. I. has been edited by G. K. Shrigondekar (Gaekwad Baroda Series, Baroda 1925), see p. VI. cf. Smith : *Oxford History of India* (1919) p. 202. See also Kane, Vol. I p. 290.

5. Gopāla and Lakṣmīdhara

c13.s2.t5.1

Several other writers of the eleventh century deserve notice :¹⁰

c13.s2.t5.2

¹⁰ Kane, pp. 293, 295, 297, 315; See Rājanītiratnākara ed. by K. P. Jayaswal (Patna 1924) p. 81.

c13.s2.t5.3

1. Gopāla (c 1100): *Kāmadhenu*. He took interest in Artha topics also and composed *Rājanīti-Kāmadhenu*. In Chaṇḍeśvara's *Rājanīti-Ratnākara* ch. XV. (c 1325) he is described as having held the view along with Lakṣmīdhara and Śrīkara that among the "owners" of a state are to be named the poor and the helpless.

c13.s2.t5.4

2. Halāyudha I. (c 1100) : *Nibandha*. The author was perhaps a contemporary of Dhāreśvara and Jitendriya. His name is cited often by Lakṣmīdhara (c 1125) and Chaṇḍeśvara (c 1325). He was probably an inhabitant of Mithilā.

3. Govindarāja (c 1124)

c13.s2.t6.1

(i) Commentary on *Manu*,
(ii) *Smritimanjari*, an original work.

c13.s2.t6.2

The contributions of the diverse regions of India to the evolution of Hindu law in the twelfth century¹¹ were no less significant than in the previous century. Lakṣmīdhara (c 1150) wrote *Smriti Kalpataru*. The author was foreign minister of Govindachandra, the Gahadavāl or Rāṭhor Emperor of Kanauj (1104-1154). His influence on Bengal and Mithilā was very great. He is quoted by Aniruddha, Ballālasena, Śūlapāṇi and Raghunandana of Bengal. He was plagiarized by Chaṇḍeśvara (1315).

c13.s2.t6.3

¹¹ Kane, pp. 289, 300, 314, 315, 317, 318, 325-30, 332, 337, 340.

c13.s2.t6.4

Lakṣmīdhara took great interest in political philosophy also. The *Rājadharma* section of his *Smriti-Kalpataru* was substantial enough to be used by Chaṇḍeśvara of Mithilā in his *Rājanīti-Ratnākara* (c 1370).

c13.s2.t6.5

Aparāditya (c 1150) wrote a commentary (called *Aparārka*) on Yājnavalkya. He was a ruler of Northern Konkan (Bombay).

6. Jīmūtavāhana and Ballālasena

c13.s2.t7.1

It is during this epoch that the great Bengali jurist Jīmūtavāhana (c 1150) flourished. His *Dharmaratna*, *Smriti* work, has a section on inheritance called *Dāyabhāga*, the code so dominant in Bengal. Two other sections are known, namely, *Kālaviveka* and *Vyavahāramātṛikā*. According to the *Dāyabhāga*, as is well known, the widow succeeds to her husband's interests on his death even if he be joint with his brother. His date has been placed between the eleventh and the sixteenth century.

c13.s2.t7.2

Aniruddha (c 1160) wrote *Haralatā*. The author was a guru of king Ballālasena of Bengal and helped him in the preparation of *Dānasāgara* (the Sea of Gifts).

c13.s2.t7.3

Ballālasena (1170), King of Bengal, was the author of four works :

c13.s2.t7.4

1. *Āchārasāgara*.
2. *Pratiṣṭhāsāgara*, relating to the dedication of reservoirs of water and temples.
3. *Dānasāgara* dealing with the sixteen great gifts.
4. *Adbhūtasāgara*, dealing with the rites calculated to remove celestial and terrestrial potents. The work was completed by his son Lakṣmaṇasena.

c13.s2.t7.5

Parāśara (c 1200) wrote an independent *Smriti*.

c13.s2.t7.6

Śrīdhara's (1200) *Smrityarthasāra* is quoted as an authority by the *Smritichandrikā* and Hemādri.

c13.s2.t7.7

An influential jurist of the age is Halāyudha II. (1200), author of the *Brāhmaṇasarvasva*. He was the son of the judge (*dharmādhyakṣa*) of King Lakṣmaṇasena of Bengal and was himself made a judge.

c13.s2.t7.8

Two great Southerners¹² of the thirteenth century belong to the very first rank among Hindu socio-legal philosophers. The first is Devanabhatta, author of *Smriti-chandrikā* (c 1250). This digest even now exercises an influence in judicial decision second only to the *Mitākṣarā*.

c13.s2.t7.9

¹² Kane, pp. 258, 289, 346, 354-359.

7. Hemādri

c13.s2.t8.1

The other great jurist of the age is Hemādri (c 1300), author of *Chaturvarga-chintāmaṇi*. This is an encyclopædic treatise of socio-legal topics. Portions published up till now (*Bibliotheca Indica Series*) already cover 6000 pages. Much remains yet to be printed.¹³ The author was a Southerner, being a minister of King Mahādeva (1260-1271) and Rāmachandra (1271-1309). He describes himself also as being the keeper of this king's archives or state records. The *Chintāmaṇi* was the standard work of the Maraṭha and Telugu territories.

c13.s2.t8.2

¹³ *Chaturvarga-Chintāmaṇi* text (edited by Bharata Chandra Siromani) in the Bibliotheca Indica Series Vol. I. *Danakhanda* (Calcutta 1873) pp. 891-893, 951-953, 1001-1003, 1029-1048.

c13.s2.t8.3

For the purposes of sociological thought in the field of positivism no work is more valuable than Hemādri's. The division of his great treatise which is given over to *Dāna*, charities or gifts furnishes an objective picture of the morals, manners and sentiments in regard to "social service," community work, public benefactions etc. And as this division is based on the *Purāṇas* and other treatises including the *Mahābhārata* such as preceded and were formative forces in the epoch of Hemādri its importance as a document of Hindu social institutions for the entire period from Harṣa downwards is considerable.

c13.s2.t8.4

*Ārogyadāna* (gift of health) is one of the *anantaphaladānas* (gifts fraught with eternal or infinite effects) described in chapter XIII of the *Dānakhaṇḍa*. The establishment of *ārogyaśālā* (cure-houses or hospitals) is to be found among the suggestions cited from *Nandī Purāṇa* and *Skanda-Purāṇa*.

c13.s2.t8.5

The construction of bridges on roads and rivers is one of the measures quoted by Hemādri from the *Viṣṇudharmottara Purāṇa* as calculated to offer relief to the travellers (*pānthaśuśruṣā*). For gifts in the form of wells Hemādri's authorities are the *Viṣṇudharmottara*, *Nandī-Purāṇa*, *Āditya-Purāṇa*, *Viṣṇu-Purāṇa*, and *Devī-Purāṇa*.

c13.s2.t8.6

For the planting of trees for public convenience Hemādri quotes the *Skaṇḍa*, *Nandī*, *Vāyu*, *Devī*, *Matsya*, and other *Purāṇas*, as well as the *Mahābhārata*.

c13.s2.t8.7

Hemādri's master, the Yādava King Rāmdeva of Deogiri, was the contemporary of the Karṇāṭa King of Mithilā, Hari Simhadeva (1304-1324), at whose court the celebrated writer of *Smṛti* and *Nīti*, Chaṇḍeśvara, flourished. Rāmadeva had to fight against and surrender to the Mussalman forces under Malik Kafur sent by Alauddin Khilji in 1309. Hari Simhadeva failed to withstand the attack of the Mussalman army under Ghiyasuddin Tughlak and retired into Nepal in 1324. They were thus two of the last independent Hindu Kings in two different parts of India. Hemādri and Chaṇḍeśvara were thus contemporaries and represent the last strands of Hindu social thought in politics and jurisprudence on the eve of Moslem contacts.¹⁴ A chapter of Hindu culture may then be closed indifferently with either of these two great thinkers. Let us close a period with Hemādri and embark upon a new one with Chaṇḍeśvara.

c13.s2.t8.8

¹⁴ The *Rājanītiratnākara* by Chandesvara (Patna 1924) pp. i, j, l, r.

c13.s2.t8.9

It is worth while to observe that Chaṇḍeśvara’s *Rājanīti-Ratnākara* was not composed while Harisimha was still reigning. It appears to have been written under King Bhaveśa who was perhaps the first ruler set up by the Tughlaks of Delhi as their feudatory. In that event Chaṇḍeśvara’s political treatise is virtually one of the first Hindu works produced under new socio-political (Hindu-Moslem) conditions. It is therefore by all means to be treated as somewhat different from the work of Hemādri.

c13.s2.t8.10

Certain works like those of Viśvarūpa, Vijnāneśvara and Aparārka, are formally known as commentaries. But contentually they ought to be described as *nibandhas*.

c13.s2.t8.11

The style of *nibandhas* may be seen from Hemādri’s work. Hemādri has made it a point to give the meanings even of individual words whenever necessary. Besides, lengthy interpretations or explanations in prose are to be found every now and then. It is not out of place to observe that Hemādri’s name is to be found in the third person.

c13.s2.t8.12

The *Kalpataru*, the *Smriti Chandrikā*, and the *Chaturvarga-chintāmaṇi* are *nibandhas* i.e. digests of different *Smritis* or *Dharmasūtras*. They represent the synthesis attempted at by the compilers and may be placed in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.¹⁵ Such digests are more important from the standpoint of law and politics than mere commentaries on individual *Smritis*.

c13.s2.t8.13

¹⁵ Kane, p. 247.

c13.s2.t8.14

The influence of *Smriti* politics on orthodox scholarship in modern Bengal is considerable. The *Smritis* or *Dharmaśāstras* as sources of political (*nīti*) thought have been utilized by a contemporary writer, Madhusūdan Bhattāchārya of Nadia, for his *Ratnamālā*¹⁶ (Garland of Gems) or Collection of Extracts. The following texts are to be found in his references:—1. *Manu*, 2. *Atri*, 4. *Hārīta*, 5. *Yājnavalkya*, 6. *Parāśara* 7. *Gautama*, 8. *Vaśiṣṭha*. The chronological order has not been used in this enumeration.

c13.s2.t8.15

¹⁶ Vol. I. *Hindu Rājanīti* (Calcutta, first edition 1904. Second edition 1909). The treatise, covering as it does 960 pages, consists of Bengali translation as text and Sanskrit original as footnotes.

Nītiśāstras

1. Brihaspati's Sūtra

c13.s3.t1.1

The epoch from Harṣa to Hemādri may rightly commence with the *Bārhaspatya-sūtram*.¹⁷ This is a *Sūtra* treatise of *Nītiśāstra* ascribed to Brihaspati, exponent of the cult of *pauruṣa* or manliness as the architechtonic force in human affairs. *Pauruṣe niṣṭhito devo*, says he (II, 61). It is on manliness that fate is established. He is, again, the exponent of the doctrine that it is because of *Daṇḍanīti* that the sun is the ruler of men (III, 76).

c13.s3.t1.2

¹⁷ Edited in Devanagari character by B. Datta. Text and transl., by F. W. Thomas (Lahore 1921).

c13.s3.t1.3

The treatise is complete in six short chapters. The *sūtras* are really aphoristic, mostly pithy and very often incomplete as sentences. The entire work is in prose. One may find the Kauṭalyan style in certain aphorisms.

c13.s3.t1.4

At II. 1, Thomas is right in taking *guṇa* in an untechnical sense. But it is better to render *guṇavato rājyam* by "Kingship (state of sovereignty) belongs to the qualified" rather than by "Sovereignty belongs to one possessing advantages," as he does. Accordingly II, 2, *vidyāguṇorthaguṇāh sahāyaguṇāścha* may be rendered more precisely as "Learning (or knowledge) is a qualification, wealth is a qualification and aid (aliance or friendship) is also a qualification."

c13.s3.t1.5

III, 1. (*jitakleśasya pauruṣam*) is translated by Thomas as "Manliness is the quality of one superior to weakness." He renders *kleśa*=weakness. But the sense requires that it should be rendered as difficulties, troubles, pains etc. We then understand Brihaspati as saying that "manliness comes through conquest of difficulties and troubles etc." It is only then that Brihaspati's message about *pauruṣa* can become explicit in the next verse which describes the manner of acquiring it. *Deśāntaravāsena jitakleśo bhavati*. In Thomas's rendering "one becomes superior to weakness by residence in other countries." More appropriately, we should say that it is by residence in other countries that one becomes conqueror of difficulties and troubles, etc. The word "weakness" applies to something subjective inherent in the person himself while *kleśa* as used by Brihaspati is something external to the person, engendered by the circumstances or conditions of life. It is by overpowering those unfavourable or unpleasant conditions that the person acquires the mental or moral attributes of *pauruṣa*.

c13.s3.t1.6

An interesting feature of this treatise is the geographical section in chapter III (64-148). The earth is divided into seven *dvīpas*, "islands," regions or continents and has an area of fifty crores of *yojanas*. The continents are named as Karma, Bhoga, Atibhoga, Divya, Śringāra, Siddha and Kaivalya. At 105 there is a reference to the Yādava Kānchī *Viṣaya* (country). This leads Thomas to suspect the twelfth century as the age of this treatise or rather perhaps of this line (p. 17). But the context, again, is suspected by him as an interpolation. In any case the name Yādava as that of a tribe or family need not necessarily bring even this particular line down to the twelfth century.

c13.s3.t1.7

India is known as *Bhārataḥ Khaṇḍaḥ* (72). The different regions of India are mentioned along with their areas in *yojanas*. The *Yavanaviṣayāḥ* (Yavana countries) are mountainous and are located in *Mlechchhadeśa* (117). Brihaspati enumerates the *puṇyakṣetras* (sacred places or points of pilgrimage) also, namely, the eight *Vaiṣṇava*, the eight *Śaiva*, and the eight *Śākta*. The mountains as seats of the gods are specially enumerated. The four Pauranic ages are described with reference to the qualities of the races living in each. The fourth age is not called *Kali* but *Tisya* (140). And men of this age are described as "proficient in *Daṇḍa nīti*" (146). Bhārata is known as *Karmabhūmi* or land of action (134).

c13.s3.t1.8

The problem of auspicious (*śubha*) and inauspicious (*aśubha*) sights and sounds has a place in chapter IV. (20-26).

c13.s3.t1.9

Brihaspati has given us a bit of his mind in the following *sūtras*: "People are happy when relatives are in trouble" (10). Relatives, cruel in their hidden hearts, cause troubles or relatives (11). The most dangerous of all fears is that from relatives. *Sarvabhayeṣu jnātibhayam ghoram* (12). Friendship is like a drop of water on a leaf (14). The conception of such *Realpolitik* in human relations is not peculiar to Brihaspati among the social or political philosophers of Asia or Europe.

c13.s3.t1.10

In Chapter VI. 10-12 Brihaspati announces *dhanamūlam jagat* (the world has its roots in wealth) and *sarvāṇi tatra santi* (everything is to be found there). Further, we are told that the man without wealth is as it were dead, a *Chaṇḍāla* (pariah).. In these messages an indologist might be tempted to suspect the germ of the Marxist "economic interpretation of history." But Brihaspati is not a monist. He makes his position clear in the very next *sūtra* (13) which says that "in the same manner (*evam*) one should acquire learning which is the root of *dharma* (*dharmamūlām cha vidyām arjayet*). He does not stop at this point, however, but promulgates *vidyāmūlam jagat* (the world has its roots in *vidyā*) as well as *vidyā punah sarvam*, i.e. knowledge again is all (15).

c13.s3.t1.11

Brihaspati is thus a pluralist. He is not prepared to discover the roots of anything in one particular force, but finds each and every force as of some value in the making of man's personality, *dharma* and what not. And this position is in keeping with what in the domain of religion is known as heinotheism as contrasted with polytheism. In heinotheism every god is adored for the time being as the Supreme Being, so to say, in regard to man and the universe. No one god can claim this status exclusively. On every occasion we have to remember "the other gods" who are equally to be adored in the same terms. *Artha* is thus nothing more than a god of this heinotheistic Hindu *nīti* philosophy.

c13.s3.t1.12

At V. 30. *ityāhāchāryo brihaspatih* (Thus said the preceptor Brihaspati). The work begins as follows: *brihaspatirathāchārya indrāya nītisarvasvam upadiśati* (Now the preceptor Brihaspati is teaching Indra the whole substance of *Niti*). Brihaspati is thus mentioned by name twice.

c13.s3.t1.13

In I. 112 the preceptor is not mentioned by name but is described as the *bhagavān āchāryah surendraguruh* (divine preceptor, the *guru* of the gods). In II. 75 the message is given as simply that of the *guru*. III. 148, IV. 50, and VI. 15 also indicate nothing but the *āchārya* and the *guru*.

c13.s3.t1.14

Altogether, one will have to take the treatise as a compilation of aphorisms fathered upon Brihaspati. On account of the somewhat archaic character of the language it possesses some special interest. But otherwise as a compilation on *Nītiśāstra* it does not do much credit to the compiler. One cannot of course overlook the fact that the work is fragmentary.

c13.s3.t1.15

The work is perhaps posterior to Kālidāsa (c 400). In the *Meghadūta* Kālidāsa speaks of Kamkhal but ignores Hardwar or Gaṅgādvāra,¹⁸ possibly because as a Śaiva sacred place the latter spot is comparatively recent. But in the *Bārhaspatya sūtra* III, 122, Gaṅgādvāra is mentioned as a *Kṣetra* (p. 8). The material may perhaps be old, as old at least as the Kauṭalyan *Arthaśāstra*. But because of some comparatively recent names the compilation may have to be placed somewhere in the age of Harṣavardhana (c 650), if not still later. Be it observed at once that the spirit of Harṣavardhana in certain respects, at any rate, is the farthest removed from the atmosphere of this *Sūtra*. The references to the Bauddha (II. 9, 15, 34) are entirely un-Harṣalike.

c13.s3.t1.16

¹⁸ This observation of Pandit Jayadeva's is quoted by the editor of the Lahore text (1921).

c13.s3.t1.17

According to Brihaspati the Buddhist family is destroyed either in the present generation or in that of the sons and grandsons (34). The Buddhist is one of those *pāṣaṇḍas* (abominable creatures) or heretics with whom contact is forbidden even in thought (35). Such mores (II. 12-35, III. 15) are promulgated in regard to the other heretics, for example, the *Laukāyatika*, the *Kāpālika* and the *Kṣapaṇaka*. The presence of such prejudices, on the one hand, as well as the mention of *Tāntrikas* (III. 144) as important in the *Dvāpara* age, on the other, may easily suggest an epoch in which the late *Mahāyāna* and the neo-Hindu systems are jumbled together in the social polity. The compiler does not happen to be a symbol of *rapprochement* or synthesis and reconciliation between the diverse elements. We can believe of course that even in the epoch of Harṣa's eclecticism not every Indian was an eclecticist like the Emperor himself. The anti-heretical and anti-Buddhist sentiments of previous epochs have therefore found a place side by side with the pro-Tantrik sentiments of the age of Harṣa and his successor (600-800) in this queer collection that goes by the name of Brihaspati.

2. Somadeva’s Nītivākyāmrita

c13.s3.t2.1

Somadeva (c 950) is known to be a Jaina by faith, but in his *Nītivākyāmrita*¹⁹ there is hardly any trace of Jainism outside of the very first chapter. Indeed it is throughout a-religious. The treatise is really a book of *Nīti-śāstra*, pure and undefiled. As such, Somadeva's work is a fine specimen of tenth century Hindu culture in the realm of social philosophy. The true *Nīti* spirit is embodied in the *Nītivākyāmrita*, in which, therefore, may be seen registered the progress and expansion of positivism during the Indian Middle Ages.

c13.s3.t2.2

¹⁹ Gopalanarayana Co. Bombay.

c13.s3.t2.3

It is indeed questionable if Somadeva is a genuine Jaina when we see that he commences his work with salutation to Gaṇeśa in the orthodox Brāhmaṇical manner. Perhaps like many other Jainas he represents in his life and thought the conquest of electicism in Brāhmaṇic-Jaina religious intercourse.

c13.s3.t2.4

What is still more interesting is that in his orientations to group life, the society and the state, Somadeva is fundamentally at one with Brihaspati. There is nothing to choose between the two in the emphasis on *puruṣa-kāra*, *pauruṣa* (manliness), etc.

c13.s3.t2.5

The arrow does not shoot out of the bow of itself from the hands of the man who depends on *daiva* (chance or luck), says Somadeva (ch. XXIX). It is to the person who depends on *pauruṣa* that there is the problem of gain or loss (*pauruṣāvalambinorthānarthayoh sandehah*). But to the fellow dependent on *daiva* loss is certain. The relations between *daiva* (luck, chance, fate) and *pauruṣa* (human energy, exertion, manhood) are those between life and medicine. It is with such philosophy of faith in the efficacy of *pauruṣa* as capable of deciding the issue between success and failure or life and death, that Somadeva analyzes the relations between man and man, prince and prince, state and state. In his treatise, then, we are to encounter action, active life, the ability to transform the external conditions, activism.

c13.s3.t2.6

The atmosphere of the *Nītivākyāmrita* introduces us to the fundamental milieu of *vikrama* (prowess), *puruṣakāra* (energism), *vijigīṣu* (aspirant to conquest), *sārvabhauma* (world-ruler) and so forth. We are talking the language of Kauṭalya on a large scale. In *Bārhaspatya* *sūtra* the key is Kauṭalyan, materialistic, secular, energistic. But perhaps because it is too short and fragmentary, Kauṭalyaism does not come out in a well-formed manner. But Somadeva is out and out Kauṭalyan.

c13.s3.t2.7

Even the chapters are generally Kauṭalyan in phraseology. The thirtyone *samuddeśas* (topics) are indicated below:

c13.s3.t2.8

1. *Dharma* (duties), 2. *Artha* (wealth), 3. *Kāma* (enjoyment), 4. Six enemies, 5, Learning and Age, 6. *Ānvīkṣikī* (metaphysics), 7. *Trayī* (Vedas) 8. *Vārttā* (farming, cattle-breeding and commerce), 9. *Daṇḍanīti*, 10. Ministers, 11. The Family Priest, 12. The General, 13. The Representative or Ambassador, 14. The Spies, 15. *Vichāra* or Discrimination, 16. The Vices, 17. The King, 18. The Officers, 19. The Country, 20. The Forts, 21. The Treasure, 22. The Army, 23. The Ally, 24. Guarding the King against dangers, 25. Daily Routine, 26. Good Conduct, 27. Morals and Manners, 28. Judicial affairs, 29. The Six Guṇas (attitudes) *vis-à-vis* other states, 30. War, 31. Marriage.

c13.s3.t2.9

The *Nitivākyāmrita* (ch. on the six guṇas) has a very significant message. It furnishes hope to everybody,—to the small man, to the ruler of the petty state. “Even when planted on earth carelessly, the tree becomes firm-rooted, “says he (*avajnayāpi bhūmāvāropitastarurbhavati vaddhamūlah*). “Does not likewise the king? (*Kim punarna bhūpatih?*). That is, a ruler who somehow gets hold of a territory eventually establishes his dominion over it. Indeed, as we are told, “nobody’s territory is derived from his family (*Na hi kulagatā kasyāpi bhūmih*). The Earth is to be enjoyed only by the hero (*vīrabhogyā vasundharā*).” And that is why even the “small man”

c13.s3.t2.10

or the ruler of a small territory, provided he be furnished with *upāyas* (diplomatic methods) and prowess as well as lucky in devoted subjects can become *sārvabhaumah* or universal monarch.

c13.s3.t2.11

Somadeva is an uncompromising hater of subjection. In case one is too powerless one should seek protection in order to avoid being meat to others (*śakti-hīnah saṁśrayam kuryādyadi na bhavati pareṣāmāmiṣam*).

c13.s3.t2.12

He is discussing the position of the "small man" in international politics. What is the most expedient policy for a ruler that happens to be weak? Somadeva is emphatic in his answer, which is as follows:

c13.s3.t2.13

"For a person with the sense of self-respect death is preferable to disgrace (*apamānena varam mānino maraṇam*)." Further, "one should not sell oneself by living according to the will of another (*na parechchhānuvartanenātmavikrayah*)."

c13.s3.t2.14

And yet Somadeva is not carried away by idealism too far. He can think of the chances, the hopes, the fortunes of the future relations.

c13.s3.t2.15

But of course protection is to be sought only in case there be the prospects of an eventual good turning up in the future (*āyatikalyāne sati kasmimśchit samvandhe parasamśrayah śreyān*). That is, the weak is not advised to seek protection of others under all circumstances. He must have to consider the pros and cons carefully and then when he decides upon seeking somebody's tutelage he has only to utilize it with a view to the long run effect. It is the conjuncture of circumstances that he has to study all the time.

c13.s3.t2.16

Finally, it should be observed that in social atmosphere *Bārhaspatya-sūtra* and *Nitivākyāmrita* are as the poles asunder. In Somadeva (ch. I.) the message is one of equality. The highest of all social dealings and attitudes consists in sameness or equality to all beings (*sarvasattveṣu hi samatā sarvācharaṇānām param charaṇam*), says he. It is the farthest removed from Brihaspati's prejudices of all sorts. We are here led to the doctrine of equality *vis-à-vis* not only men but all sentient beings. And so far as human beings are concerned, Somadeva is equally precise and positive. Among the ways of acquiring *dharma* he attaches the first importance to *ātmavat paratra kuśalavrittichintamam*, i.e., the cultivation of thoughts regarding other people's welfare as one's own. In his analysis of *dharma* he propagates the doctrines of *tyāga*, i.e., self-sacrifice or gifts and charities as well as of *tapas*, i.e., the control of senses and the mind. Last but not least, the doctrine of *ahimsā* or non-injury to animals finds its proper place in his moral system. Neither in this world nor in the next can any action, we are told, leading to the injury of living beings, be productive of good results. The conduct of persons who do not perform *vratas* (ceremonies) but whose minds are not given to killing can lead to heaven (*ajighāmsumanasām vratariktamapi charitam svargāya jāyate*). In these and similar passages of chapter I, entitled *Dharmasamuddeśe* we encounter the catechism of Jaina religion and morals.

c13.s3.t2.17

A very noteworthy feature of *Nitivākyāmrita* remains to be mentioned in this estimate, short as it is. Just after offering salutation to Gaṇeśa Somadeva offers another salutation. This, however, is not to a god or the *guru* but to the *rājya*, the state. The *rājya* is there conceived by him as *dharmārthaphala*, i.e., as an organism of which the fruits are *dharma* and *artha*. The conception of the king as the maker of time is well-known in *Śukranīti* (I. lines 43-44). It is specially to be observed that Somadeva does not use the category *rājā* or the ruler but *rājya*, the entire socio-political complex. In so far as the *rājya* has been adored by the author of the *Nītivākyāmrita* as the source of *dharma* and *artha* he must be credited with having made a contribution of extraordinary value in the history of human thought. It is here that we encounter the doctrine of *étatisme* in a nutshell. It is perhaps the greatest single contribution of the tenth century to Indian social philosophy.

3. Bhoja's Yuktikalpataru

c13.s3.t3.1

The literary activities and propaganda of Rājā Bhoja of Dhārā (Malwa) during the eleventh century (*c* 1050) have been handed down as a venerable tradition in India. A textbook of *Nītiśāstra* is also ascribed to his pen or patronage. While dealing with this work it is necessary to get oriented to the "Vikramādityas" of Indian culture.

c13.s3.t3.2

The association of gods and *Riṣis* with the works on *Nīti* and allied topics, and the tradition about their vast size and large number, as well as the custom of attributing works to one's *gurus* (teachers or preceptors) make the problem of a systematic treatment of Hindu political, social or economic science all the more difficult. Equally puzzling is the association of works with historical characters, men of real flesh and blood, round whom, however, legends like those of Alexander and Charlemagne have grown up mystifying their age, *locale* as well as personality. One such work is *Yuktikalpataru*, giving "an account of all requirements in a royal court," as Aufrecht observes in the *Catalogus Catalogorum*. The work was first noticed by Rajendralal Mitra, and since his time, has been drawn upon by Indologists in their treatment of things Indian, specially secular matters. The work is attributed to King Bhoja (Vikramāditya) of Dhārā in Malwa and has been described by the author as compiled from *nibandhas* or treatises of various *munis* or masters on the subjects. The following account of the work is being given from the manuscript (108 leaves, written in Bengali character, belonging to Prof. Ādityarām Bhattāchārya) in the possession of the Pāṇini Office.²⁰

c13.s3.t3.3

²⁰ Available in print from another manuscript (Calcutta Oriental Series, 1917).

c13.s3.t3.4

The botanical name of the work has been explained at the beginning just after the salutation to Kṛiṣṇa, “the Parameśvara, who by undoing the happiness of Kamsa did really promote his happiness, who is worshipped by the gods and is really unadorable,” and to the “makers of Śāstras whose words purify good men, even for the hearing.” Just as a *Kalpa-vrikṣa* or the wishing-tree (like the wishing-cow), celebrated in Hindu mythical lore, yields the satisfaction of all desires, so “wise men by resorting to this *Kalpataru* (the treatise so-called) can achieve the most longed-for objects.” The root of this tree is *Daṇḍanīti* (the science of punishment), the stem is *Jyotiṣa* (implying astronomy, astrology, horoscope and mathematics according to the conception of the Hindus), the branches and flowers are the diverse *Vidyās* which deal with the facts observed (or the phenomenal world), the fruits are unknown, and the *rasa* or sap is the nectar of the good, i.e., promotes their welfare.” “That *Kalpataru* should be respected by kings and ministers, who ought to study their affairs and deliberate on them according to its dictates as well as those of other *śāstras*.'' ''This is most conductive to the welfare of kings and promotes also the weal of others'' (i.e., people).

c13.s3.t3.5

Thus the very definition of the term *Yukti-Kalpataru*, as the title of a book, introduces the topics of a *Nīti Śāstra*; and, as a matter of fact, all the subjects dealt with in the work are the proper themes of works like *Śukranīti*. The following table of contents in the *Yukti Kalpataru* would indicate that the work is, like the *Artha-śāstra*, *Kāmandakīnīti*, *Śukranīti*, and *Ghaṭakarpara-nīti*, really a socio-economic and socio-political treatise, and is an additional document of Hindu secular literature in the field of *Dharmasūtras*, *Arthaśāstras* or *Nītiśāstras* :

c13.s3.t3.6

1. *Nīti śāstra*. 2. *Guru* (Preceptor) and *Purohita* (Priest). 3. *Amātya* (Land Revenue Officer). *Mantrī* (Foreign minister) and *Dūta* (Ambassador). 4. *Lekhaka* (Scribe) and *Jyotirjna* (Astronomer). 5. *Purādhyakṣa* (Mayor or Superintendent of the City), *Vanādhyakṣa* (Superintendent of Parks and Forests). 6. *Koṣavardhana* (Development of Financial resources). 7. *Rājadāyāda* (Sharers of the royal income). 8. *Kriṣi karma* (Agriculture). 9. *Rathin* (Charioteer), *Sādi* (Horsemen or Cavalry). 10. *Gajāroha* (Art of elephant mounting, driving etc.) 11. *Yāna* (Land and Water conveyances). 12. *Yātrā* (Expeditions). 13. *Vigraha* (Warfare). 14. *Chara* (Spy). 15. *Dūtalakṣaṇa* (Characteristics of ambassadors and spies). 16. *Sandhi* (Truce and Peace). 17. *Āsana* (Siege). 18. *Dvaidha* (Duplicity—a military technical term in siege-craft). 19. *Āśraya* (Seeking refuge or protection). 20. *Daṇḍa* (Punishment).

c13.s3.t3.7

21. *Mantra* (Policy or statecraft). 22-3. *Dvandva* (Rivalry and hostilities undertaken under two sets of circumstances, e.g., i. *Akritrima*, i.e., conditions of natural fortifications and, ii. *Kritrima*, i.e., conditions of artificial barriers and barricades, etc.), described with quotations from *Nīti Śāstra*, Garga, and one Bhoja.

c13.s3.t3.8

24. *Pura-nirmāṇa* (Building of cities). 25. *Kāla* (Auspicious time). 26. The *Vasati* (Arrangement of various wards or quarters) described by quotations from Bhoja and Parāśara. 27. *Doṣaguṇa* (Good and bad effects, according to Astrology). 28. *Vāstu* (Houses). 29. *Dingnirṇaya* (Directions). 30. *Lakṣaṇa* (Style or characteristics of buildings). 31. *Māna* (Measurements). 32. *Doṣaguṇa* (good and bad effects). 33. *Kālanirṇaya* (When to begin building new houses). 34. *Vāstu pravesakāla* (When to enter new houses). 35. *Dvāranirṇaya* (Laying out of doors). 36. *Prāchīra* (walls). 37-41. *Vāstudaṇḍa* (Various measurements of houses), *Vināśa griha*, *Ranga*-and *Rāja-griha* (the twelve kinds of buildings).

c13.s3.t3.9

42. *Āsanas* (Thrones). 43. *Khaṭikās* (Bedsteads). 44. *Pīṭha* (Stools made of metals, stones or wood). 45. *Chhatras* (Umbrellas). 46. *Dhvajā* (Flags). 47. *Chāmara* (Flap). 48. *Chasaka* (Drinking vessels). 49. *Vastra* (Clothes). 50. *Alankāra* (Ornaments).

c13.s3.t3.10

51. Diamond. 52. *Padmarāga* (Species of emerald). 53-4. Examination, prices etc., of diamonds. 55. Examination of *Vidruma* (Corals). 56. *Gomeda*. 77-8. Pearls—their examination and prices. 59. *Vaiduryya*, *Indranīla* (Sapphire). 60. *Chhāyā* (Transmitted Light). 61. *Marakata* (Emerald, its origin, and good and bad effects). 62. *Puṣparāga* (Topaz). 63. *Bhiṣmamaṇi*.

c13.s3.t3.11

64. *Pulaka*. 65. *Sphatika* (Quartz). 66. *Ayaskānta*. 67. *Śaṅkha* (Conch).

c13.s3.t3.12

68. *Astra* (Missile). 69. *Khaḍga* (Dagger). 70. *Dhanu* (Bow). 71. *Bāṇa* (Arrow). 72-3. *Yātrā* (Expedition), the proper time for it. 74. *Nīrājanā* (Ceremony with horses and elephants).

c13.s3.t3.13

75-9. Horses—Testing, their defects, how to strike them, etc. 80. *Ritucharyyā* (Seasons—and seasonal treatment of horses). 81-2. Elephants. 83-5. The Examination, Merits and Defects of Bulls. 86. Buffaloes. 87. Deer. 88. Dogs. 89. Goats. 90-3. Carriages of various kinds.

c13.s3.t3.14

94. *Naukā Kāṣṭha* (Woods or timber for boats). 95. Boats of various kinds.

4. Lakṣmīdhara and 5. Gopāla

c13.s3.t4.1

The eleventh and twelfth centuries were important in political speculation as in legal discussions. Certain authors were exponents of law and politics at the same time. The Jaina scholar Hemachandra's *Laghu Arhannīti* is, like *Śukranīti*, a comprehensive treatise although within a small compass. Then we have Lakṣmīdhara²¹ (c 1100-1160) who wrote a substantial section on *Rājanīti-Kalpataru* in his great work, *Smriti-Kalpataru*. He was the foreign minister of King Govindachandra of Kanauj (1105-43) and was a powerful statesman.

First 123 of 296 passages. Read on

Linked texts (100)