The Positive Background of Hindu Sociology c13.s3.t1: 1. Brihaspati's Sūtra
The Positive Background of Hindu Sociology c13.s3.t1
- Language
- English
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.
Linked texts (1)
- Bārhaspatyasūtra — Bṛhaspati, Sanskrit