• Keine Ergebnisse gefunden

Citations of the artha-äästra, as such, in dharma- öästra works are extremely rare

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Aktie "Citations of the artha-äästra, as such, in dharma- öästra works are extremely rare"

Copied!
20
0
0

Wird geladen.... (Jetzt Volltext ansehen)

Volltext

(1)

A Newly-discovered Contact between Arthasästra

and Dharmasastra : the Role of Bharucin

J. Duncan M. Deeeett, London

When the late Professor T. R. Chintämani introduced to the world'

the work of Rju-vimala, alias Bharucin, the long-lost ancient commen¬

tator upon the Manu-smrti, he made it possible to do far more than he

himself, with a cursory survey, was able to visualise. At the kind sug¬

gestion of Professor (then Dr.) V. Raghavan the present writer acquired

from the manuscript library at the University of Travancore, Trivan-

drum, a devanägari copy of the old, damaged, copy of Bhärucin's

Manusästra-vivarana {alias 'the Vivarana'), written in the Malayälam

script, and, after some delays, has been able to commence the task of

transcribmg and translating it.'"* The copy commences with the last

sections of Book VI. A perusal of Book VII was hardly commenced when

it became obvious that Bhärucin was making considerable use of Kau-

tilya's Arthasästra, though it was not clear whether he used any particular

commentary thereupon, and though he did not refer to that work or to

its author by name. Citations of the artha-äästra, as such, in dharma-

öästra works are extremely rare. The two sästras stand for different

approaches to the problems of self-government and society, and we are

familiar with the rule that in the case of conflict between them (which is

envisaged as a matter of course) the dharma-sästra must prevail.^ The

citation of the Arthasästra of Kautilya in Varadaräja's digest is indeed

remarkable.^

However, it has been evident for long that the Manu-smrti, which

owes a great deal of its popularity and importance to its attempt to

cover all aspects of religious and civil law and politics exhaustively and

' BMruci, a new commentator on Manusmrti, Proceedings and Transactions

of the Twelfth All-India Oriental Conference (1943—4), vol. 2, Benares, 1946,

pp. 352—60. The coimection between Medhätithi and Bhärucin is proposed

at pp. 357 ff.

The text with translation, introduction and notes, is to be published by

the (Centre du sud-est asiatique. University of Brussels.

2 Yäjfiavalkya-smrti, IL 21. The relationship between the äästras is still

a matter for debate. The view of K. V. RaStgaswämi AiYAifoÄa seems to

the present writer to be correct. It is expressed passim in his works : see, e. g.

Rajadharma, Adyar, 1941, 13, 82—3, 93—3, 132—4; Indian Cameralism,

Adyar, 1949, 46—52. See Brhaspati-smrti, vyav. I, 113; Kane (cit. inf.). Ill, 9-10, 868.

' Vyavahära-nirnaya, ed. K. V. R. AiyaStgäe and A. N. K^iisH^rA AiVAir-

GÄB, Adyar, 1942, 284^5 (cf. Kaut. 3. 14, 29—31, Kä^tgle's odn., p. 120).

(2)

A Newly-discovered Contact between Arthasästra and Dharmasastra 135

(difficult though this was) consistently, in the course of that arduous

task combined artha-sästra material with the fundamentally dharma-

sästra character of the scheme. Book VII, which is devoted to räja-

dharma, a term which covers constitutional law, governmental policy,

statecraft, and politics under the somewhat misleading expression

'duties of the king', would naturally require some attention to artha¬

sästra. Manu in fact plainly shows this dependence by actually using

terms* which are meaningless without reference to that science. The

same tendency is evident also in the Mahäbhärata, where also encyclope-

dism was (more luxuriantly) at work.^ But the brevity of Manu demanded

something of a commentary from the first, though more evidently in

Book VII than in any other of the twelve books. One of the most striking

features of Book VII is the author's simple adherence to artha-sästra

technique until nearly the end of his exposition, when, fearing that, if he

added no caveant lectores, his overall scheme would be spoiled, he inserted

passages palliating the picture of unethical opportunism he had already

painted and subordinating his material to fundamental dharmic princip¬

les. But this is a feature which cannot be treated here.

Since Manu, and Yäjnavalkya too, used arthasästra material, it is

clear that commentators upon them would be justified in turning to

arthasästra authorities for the elucidation and supplementation (where

necessary) of their texts. In view of the dichotomy between the sästras a

certain self-consciousness would be expected, and we have seen how rare

such references to the arthasästra are. However, it has been known since

BüHLEE published his translation of Manu (1886) that commentators

other than Medhätithi on VII. 156 used either the Kämandakiya Niti¬

sästra, or a prose work ft-om the same school.Much more significant are

the quotations of Brhaspati's arthasästra work by Visvarüpa in his

Bälakridä on the Yäjnavalkya-smrtl (I. 307, 323) and a citation by the

same author of Visäläksa Ibid. 328. These quotations have been available

since 1922 and attention was pointedly drawn to them in 1924.^^ The

* E.g. at VII. 154. The view that Manu relied on an arthasästra work

anterior to Kaut, has much to recommend it. This is not the place to reexa¬

mine the evidence, but see R. P. KÄStgle, Manu and Kautilya, Indian Anti¬

quary (New Ser.), I, 1 (advertised in 1963/4 but not yet como to hand).

E.g. MBh. XII. 101, 44. The meaning of these types of array is to be

found out from tho arthasästra.

6a G. Bühleb, Laws of Manu, S. B. E. vol. 25, Oxford, 1886, on M. VII.

155—6. J. Jolly, "Arthai^ästra und Dharma^ästra," ZDMG., Ixvii, 1913,

49—96, at 96: "... in Wirklichkeit aber aus einem Prosawerk über Niti, und zwar augenscheinlich aus K. A. 258 entnommen sind."

T. Ganapati Öästbi, introd. to Arthasästra of Kaufalya. .., Pt. II

(Triv. Skt. Ser. 80), Trivandrum, 1924, p. 7.

(3)

136 J. Duncan M. Dberett

delicate balance between the äästras could not be inverstigated without

further references and identifications, which would allow us to see how

much specialists in one school would permit themselves to utilise the

other, and subject to what conventions. Strangely the known utilisations

of the arthasästra by Medhätithi have not been studied, and this failure

is unaccounted for.

The principal commentaries on the Manu-smrti were published con¬

veniently in two volumes by V. N. Mandalika (Mandlik).« The

commentary of KuUüka, who belongs to the 13th century,' has been

published frequently, and the text of Manu there given can be called the

vulgate Manu. Kullüka makes extensive use of Medhätithi, but almost

everywhere abridges or merely plagiarises him without acknowledgement.

Where Medhätithi (hereafter referred to as Medh.) is most interesting,

whether in his long and involved mimämsä disquisitions, or in his

illuminating and sometimes comical practical illustrations, Kullüka

omits the material. What is most characteristic about Medh. could be

obtained only from Medh. himself. No other commentator upon Manu

so far published, excepting Govindaräja (c. 1050—1080) who plagiarises

Medh., gives anythmg like the attention to his text that Medh. gave, and

because of his vast size and complexity of explanation in some places

Medh. himself became scarce. Accordmg to GaSgänätha Jhä's explana¬

tion of what took place,» a northern Indian ruler was obliged to have a

jirnoddhära made in the course of the 14 th century, as a result of which

we have manuscripts, all more or less corrupt, descended from a restora¬

tion of the commentary from materials which were not only scarce but

damaged. About the time when Kaut, was discovered and the results

were causing their imprecedented excitement Jhä was approaching, and

undertaking, the gigantic task of revising the previous editions of Medh.,

publishing his translation, and finally (1932—9) publishing his revised

text (which deviates from his translation). It never occmred to him to

consult the Arthasästra for the purposes of settlmg his text. Admittedly

that differed in many respects (which require explanation) from the then

available Kaut. But since his researches into dharmasästra material were

exhaustive, as evidenced by his two volumes of notes and explanations,

• Mdnava-Dharma Sästra (Institutes of Manu) with the commentaries of

Medhätithi ..., 2 vols., Bombay, 1886. J. R. Ghäbpube's edition (which is

rare) closely followed it.

' P. V. Kane, History of Dharmasastra, I, Poona, 1930, 359 ff. It was

with the aid of this commentary that Sir William Jones learnt his Manu¬

smrti.

' MM. GAiroÄNÄTHA Jhä. Manu-Smrti with the 'Manubhä?ya' of Medhäti¬

thi, III, Calcutta, 1939, 'Editor's Apologia,' pp. i—ii.

(4)

A Newly-discovered Contact between Arthasästra and Dharmasästra 137

it is remarkable that he did not think of turning to the then notorious and

controversial Kautilya.

Jhä's translation of Book VII of the Manu-bhäsya appeared in 1924.

In 1923 in Lahore was published J. Jolly's edition of Kautilya (Vol. I),

at p. 11 of the Introduction to which the reliance of Medhätithi upon the

Arthasästra is noted. Since Jhä does not take up Jolly's identification

of Medh.'s source (samäna-tantra, i.e. a treatise on a similar subject**)

as Kaut. (cf. pp. 401, 409 of Jhä's trans.), we can be confident that he

did not see Jolly's book. The point was taken up by T. Ganapati

Sästrin also in 1924, with no further result.*'' Jhä's text of Medh. pub¬

lished so many years later likewise shows no reaction to the discovery.

Jolly had found that Medh. used Kaut, at VII, 61 and 81, where the

section (II) is referred to as Adhyaksapracära. He adds that Medh. uses

Kaut, without acknowledgement at VII, 53, 54, and 104. The matter

is not pursued further, nor does anyone inquire why Medh. used only

these passages or in that form. Apparently independently of Jolly,

Pändurahga V. Käne in the first volume of his History of Dharmasästra

(1930) notes Medh.'s dependence on Kaut, at VII, 54, 148, and 155.»

A brief note by Käne evoked no further response from Jhä than Jolly's

note had done, and indeed provoked no further research from anyone,

including Käne himself. Another learned writer, K. V. RaSgaswämi

AiyaStgäe, whose contributions to the study of both arthaSästra and

dharmaäästra are well known, seems to have ignored both the discovery

and its implications. The recent author of the authoritative text of Kaut,

and its translation,'" R. P. Kängle, whose additions to our knowledge

of the Arthasästra are unique, apparently decided against utilising Medh.

for his textual apparatus except at 1. 12, 23—4 (p. 30 of the trans.).

His reason may possibly have been that Medh.'s correspondence with

Kaut, was not sufficiently precise, or was fieeting and insecure, in view

of the doubts as to the reliability of the jirnoddhära text to which we

have referred, and that uncertainties in his apparatus should not be

increased thereby.

The questions remained, did Medh. copy from Kaut., and if he did

are his readings useful for determining the text of that very difficult and

ill-evidenced work ? To these questions a possible field of clarification

has been opened up by the rediscovery of the Vivarai^ia, unknown alike

to Jolly, Meyer, Jhä, T. Ganapati Sästein, Käne, and Kängle.

T. Gajstapati ÖästbI, ubi cit. sup., at pp. 7—8.

Ibid., p. 8. » Op. cit., p. 270.

1° Kautiliya Arthasästra, Pt. II (Univ. of Bombay Stud., Skt., Pkt. and

Pali, No. 2), Bombay, 1963.

(5)

138 J. Duncan M. Derrett

The result is very curious. The passages which Medh. takes without

acknowledgement from Kaut, are not obtained from the Arthasästra

direct, but from Bhärucin, who is quoting, with occasional adjustments,

from Kaut. This signifies that Medh. did not know (since Bhär. does not

refer to his own source by name) that he was reproducing the Arthasästra.

The passages which Medh. himself refers to as a samäna-tantra (an

obtrusively anonymous source) are not present in Bhär. Likewise the

quotations of Medh. from the Adhyaksapracära are missing from Bhär.

This leaves it open to be supposed that an anonymous work which was

essentially an excerpt from the Arthasästra, and another section passing

under the name Adhyaksapracära were available (with commentaries?)

to Medh., but the passages quoted (evidently) from Kaut, indirectly

from Bhär. were not otherwise available. The curiosity is deepened by the

fact that these passages are taken from various places in the Arthasästra

and not from one or more closely linked sections. However, the general

tentative conclusion that Medh., who was supplied with many copies

and versions of Manu, could not be furnished with a complete copy of the

Arthasästra under the name of the Kautiliya seems inescapable.

Something even more unexpected emerges. Of no writer on Manu

does Medh. make more constant and close use than Bhärucin, especially

in Book VII. Yet Medh.'s knowledge of Bhär. himself seems to derive

solely from one manuscript. This is after all not unlikely. But the

evidence is all too compelling that that manuscript was defective. It seems

that in places he could not read it. Some of the many deviations of Medh.

from Bhär. can be explained most readily upon the footing that his

Bhär. was here and there illegible or unintelligible."

This is by no means an impossibility. Medh. wrote somewhere between

about A. D. 825 and 900, according to the opinion of that expert and

conservative dater of dharma-Sästra works, Käne, an opinion which

Jhä accepts." By that period regional scripts had diverged so widely

as to make Sanskrit works unintelligible in a foreign desa. If Bhär. was a

Tamilian or Malayäli (which is not unlikely)i2a his work would have had

11 In our passage III below the content of the purohita's enticement

seems to have been illegible. For ämi?am/vi§am see p. 142 n. 24 inf. There are

more than sufficient examples in our passages without adding others from

elsewhere. Note äsevanena/eva tena (I); krcchresujkrta-krtyesu; kupyati/(na)

krsyate; anusavanarfijanubhavanam; nrttädisulanrtädisu (all in I); aväpt-

ärthahjprärthanä (IV); Kärüsam (? -samJIku-purusa (see p. 148 n. 56 inf.).

Also from VI, vargamlkarm-; sattrinasjmantrinas (bis); 'vaäyanijvarnia;

angafsanga. Gross misreadings took place in the verses at the end of VI, and

some misreading in the first öloka in II. Käne, ubi cit. sup., at p. 275.

His readings of Manu resemble in places those adopted by Mädhava in

the Parääara-mädhaviya, e.g. at VII. 49, 53, 54, 99, 134, 182, 185, 193, 194,

(6)

A Newly-discovered Contact between Artbasästra and Dharmasästra 139

to be transcribed into a northern Indian script before Medh. could read it.

Such a process always involves difficulties as soon as the subject-matter

becomes difficult, the style laconic, technical, or poetical. In such

contexts Bhär.'s manuscript was not faithfully reproduced and Medh.

was obliged to reconstruct the sense as best he could.

Apart from these discrepancies he gives the sense and actual words of

Bhär. , except where two, or one of two, processes occur : firstly his own

rethinking of the notions w"hich Bhär. adopts, as a result of which chan¬

ges, editing, amplification, illustration take place at sufficient length

to show Medh.'s own mind at work; secondly the decay or obscurity of

Medh.'s own text by the time of the jirnoddhära has given rise to edi¬

torial activity on the part of the pandits—this is usually evident from

a vapid and unconstructive tampering with what would otherwise be a

valuable text. Jhä's interference with the text might have been supposed

to be considerable from what he himself says,i^ but in fact a comparison

with Mandlik's edition reveals that his alterations were, if not few in

number, at least not very drastic.

Medh.'s dissatisfaction with Bhär. stems from the different role which

Manu was destined (to his mind) to play. Bhär. had had fewer alternative

readings before him ; fewer ideas ; fewer academic or practical problems.

Bhär. was nearer to the smrti itself in point of time and language. Far

fewer words needed to be explained, and fewer Slokas. Bhär. was old-

fashioned, and antiquated. His rarity, which is evidenced by the paucity

of citations from him in later works, and the presence of for the most

part mere references to his opinions,^* in itself suggests that his views

were as good as superseded. A detailed comparison between Medh. and

Bhär. would reveal the difference of their outlook, and their aims. We

do not know the date of Bhärucin, but it can hardly have been later

than A. D. 800, and the present writer would be content to believe that

200 (incompletely). [Mädhava may be citing 'USanas' from Bhär. on 154 at

his Äcära-k., 411, but Medh. is more likely as his source.]The correspondence

with the P. M. is not however constant, as a glance through Jhä's Notes,

Pt. 1 (1924) on 'Discoiu'se VTI' will reveal. There are instances where Bhär.

is agreed with in the (northern) Viramitrodaya (e.g. VII. 40b), but Mitra-

miöra obtained his material from all quarters, and some of his readings

have an affinity with the (distinctively southem) P.M., e.g. at VII. 49.

Medhätithi sometimes follows Bhär.'s reading of Manu, but is not bound by

him, e.g. in the order of verses at VII. 128/9. Where Bhär.'s toxt is the one

cited in Aparärka, e.g. VII. 85, we have additional evidence of Bhär.'s

version being southem. Evidence of his text standing apart from all the

surviving traditions appears in, e.g., VII. 145. However, ecclectic habits

surely did not commence after Bhäracin.

1^ Ubi cit. sup., at pp. iii — iv.

" See KÄ^iE, ubi cit., 264—6.

(7)

140 J. Duncan M. Derbbtt

it is nearer A.D. 700 than the c. 800—850 which Kane cautiously places

as Bhärucin's latest likely floruit.^^

At present the questions suitable for discussion here are these :

1. Assuming that the text of Bhär. can be established with the aid of

Medh. and Kaut, as we know them, or otherwise, can the text of Bhär.

throw light on the text of Kaut, as available about A. D. 700—800 (which

is very early in comparison with most of our evidence on that subject) ?

2. Assuming, once again, that the text of Bhär. can be established,

can it throw light on the pre-jirnoddhära text of Medh. (which would be

immensely valuable in view of the unique importance of that author) ?

3. Can a comparison of the texts of Bhär. and Medh., so established,

throw any light upon the methods of Medh., and in particular his

utilisation of previous authors ?

To all these questions this writer would be inclined to give a positive

answer, for the following reasons :

1. Bhär. obviously used a version of Kaut, anterior to those known to

some extent from records of surviving manuscript material of Kautilya

himself." His numerous deviations from Kaut, suit his purpose as a

commentator on Manu ; but one striking instance of a real distortion of

Kaut, to suit the obviously different scheme of Manu (the räja-vyasanas)"

shows that he was master of his material. The fact that he does not

bother to cite Kaut, by name shows that he expected the source to be

recognised automatically. In numerous cases he merelly alludes to Kaut,

or borrows his vocabulary without copying the passage verbatim," and

this too helps us to recognise where he is deliberately incorporating

Kaut, as distinct from merely utilising him and his science.

2. It is a matter of great difficulty to see which of Medh.'s deviations

from Bhär. are due to him and which to his restorers, especially since we

can be sure that his copy of Bhär. was defective. But there are a few

15 Ibid., 266.

" He agrees with Cn (a South Indian comm.) at 8. 3, 44 (see Käütgle's trans, ad loc); but he agrees with D at 1. 10, 7—8; 1. 11, 4, 14; and 1. 20, 15.

He agrees with GM at 1. 11, 14. D is a ms. found at Patau in Gujarat, recently

published by Mimi Jinavijayaji. Bhär. differs as frequently from D as from

the Grantha and the Malayälam mss.

" Passage I below, on M. VII. 52. We note that Bhär. cites views denied

by K., but the evidence is too slight to enable us to suppose that Bhär. was

copying from predecessors of K. On the contrary what evidence there is,

especially the verses at the end of VI below, points to Bhär.'s having K. in

front of him.

» Allusions to Kaut, appear at VII. 70 (cf. K. 2. 3, 7); 152 (cf. K. 1. 17.

34); 155 (cf. K. 6. 2, 19 (?), 21, 22); 160 (cf. K. 7. 1, 6, 20); 187 (cf. K. 10. 2).

(8)

A Newly-discovered Contact between Arthasästra and Dharmasästra 141

instances where it seems highly likely that our printed Medh. does not

represent what he could have written. The best test is whether, if Bhär.

is likely to have been clear to him, Medh. could have written what he is

represented as having written. The test applies to a couple of instances

available below.i* A general impression achieved from a preliminary

reading of Medh. with Bhär. is that the reliability of the printed text is

high, and that the damage due by the jirnoddhära is slight.

3. Medh.'s independence from Bhär. and indeed from previous writers

is proved by the overall comparison. He prefers to follow and where

necessary improve upon Bhär. in places where the latter has rare in¬

formation (e.g. from Kaut.). But his respect for Bhär., evidenced by

direct allusions to him,^" is proved in the majority of passages. It is

legitimate to ask whether without previous scholars of the stature of

Bhär. Medh. could have written his important treatise.

Better than any such general discussion is a detailed comparison of

passages, some of which Käne himself alluded to. The relationship

between the three authors, and their respective capacities to be purged

or improved as a result of this comparison, are at once evident. The pres¬

ent writer has not adopted a consistent style of romanisation, especially

in respect of resolving sandhi, preferring to follow, for the most part,

the texts as printed by Jhä and Kängle. The resulting anomalies should

not prove to be an embarrassment. In several cases the corrupt state of

the Vivarana manuscript is given, since it may be more helpful than the

conjecture which will eventually take its place in the edition.

I

Kaut. 8, 3, 38: kämajastu mrgayä dyütam striyah pänam üi caturvargah.

Manu VII, 50: pänam aksäh striyascaiva mrgayä ca yathä-kramam

etat kastatararn vidyäccatuskarn käma je garie.

Bhär. Medh. Kaut.

päna-dyütayoh pänarn päna-dyütayoh pänarn päna-sarnpat samjnä-

gariyah. tatra hi sam- gariydh. tatra hi sara- -näio 'nunmattasyon-

1* rata for rahasya in I below is doubtful ; grämya-jana-parijayaäca at the

end of I might be Medh.'s reaction to paracaya misread as parijaya, but it

looks like jirnoddhära panditry. paramarma/parama-dharma at VI is a

certain example because we know from Govindaräja ad loc. that Medh. read

paramarma at that time.

2» He is cited as Rju at M. VIII. 151 (cf. VIII. 150, Yajvan ought to be

Rju ?); as Smrti-vivarana-käräh at II. 25. The Vivararia as such is cited at

II. 6. Kane's statement that Medh. does not cite Bhär. is thus literally

(op. cit., 275) but not substantially correct.

(9)

142 J. Duncan M. Derrett

jnä-pranäsah. anunmat-

tasyonmattatva(m apre-

tajsya pretatvam sruta-

-prajnä-prahänam mit-

ra-hänih sadhhir viyo-

gah asadbhisca prayo-

gah. gitädisu cärtha-

-svapnesu^^ prasangah.

rahasya-mantra-pra- käsam, mada-vegeneti päna-dosah.

dyute jitam eväksa-vi- dusä anaksa-jnasyäpi päksikah paräjayah.

jnä-pranäidh, anunmcd-

tasyonmattatvam, apre-

tasya pretatvam kaupl-

na-prakäsamim,^^ ^ru-

ta-prajnä-prahänam,

mitra-hänih, sadbhir vi-

yogah, asadbhisca sam-

prayogah,gitädisvartha- ghnesu prasangah, rata- -mantra-prakäsanamca, mänino 'pyupahäsyatä,

gambhira-prakrter api

yat-kincana-väditä ma¬

da-vegeneti päna-dosäh.

dyüte tu jitam eväksa- -vidusä, anaksa-jnasyä¬

pi päksikah paräjayah.

mattatvam apretasya pretatvarn kaupina- -darsanam sruta-pra- jnä-prävu-^-vitta-mit-

ra-hänih sadbhir

viyogo 'narthya-sarn- yogas tantri-gita-naip- unyesu cärtha-ghnesu prasanga iti (61).

dyüte tu jitam eväksa-

-vidusä yathä Jayat-

sena-Duryodhanäb- hyäm iti (41).

tad eva vijita-dravyam ämisam vairänuband- hasca. sato 'rthasya vipratipattir asatascär- janam apratibhukta- -näso

mütra-purisa-dhärarM- -bubhuksädibhisca

vyädhi-läbha iti dyüta-

-dosäh (44 — 5). . . .

mätari ca mrtäyärn

divyatyeva kitavah.

krcchre ca pratiprstah kupyati (48 — 9).

dyüta-stri-vyasanayosca

dyütarn gariyah. yena

tadaiva jita-dravyah

tasyäpi bhavati, tathä

tan-nimitto vairänu-

bandhah jaydh sädhära- nah kevalah paräjayah anubhakta^-näsah.

mütra-purisa-vega-dhä- ranäcca sarira-tantra- -iaithilyarn, vyädhi-ni-

dänam äsevanena ksud-

rädibhiscapidätisayena .

mätaryapi ca mrtäyärn divyatyeva kitavah.

krcchresu ca prcchya-

mänah suhrdbhir api

kupyatiti dyüta-dosäh.

stri-dyüta-vyasanayor

dyüta-vyasanam gari¬

yah. yena tad eva jitarp, dravyam tasyäpi visam^'^

bhavati. tathä ca tan-

-nimitto vairänubandho

jayah, sädhärandh ke-

valam paräjayah, bhuk-

ta-näsah.

mütra-purisa-vega-dhä- ranäcca sarire Saithily- arn vyädhi-nidänam eva.

tena ksudrädibhih sva-

-pidätisayät. mätaryapi ca mrtäyärn divyatyeva.

krta-krtyesu ca na su¬

hrdbhir api krsyate.

taptäyasa-pindavat

para-dravyärii.i parihar-

ato na pratyayate ca.

ksudhite durgate 'nnä-

" kaup. has evidently dropped out from Bhär.

prahänam of Bhär. seems better. y^j. ghnesu.

Bhär. probably read ämisam. For apratibhukta?

(10)

A Newly-discovered Contact between Arthasästra and Dharmasästra 143

atri-vyasane tvapatyot- pattih pratikarma-bho-

jana-bhüyistham anusa-

vanam, dharmärtha-pa-

rigrahah. saktd ca stri

räja-hite niyoklum apa-

vahayitum vä.

atrl-mrga-vyasanayoh

stri-vyasanam gariyah.

adarsanam, käryämirn,^^

dri-vyasanäsangesu^^

räja-käryesu nirvedah.

kälätipätanarn, dharma- -lopah, päna-dosänu- bandhah, arthaghnesu

ca nrttädisu prasanga

iti.

mfgayäyärn tu vyäyä-

ma^-pitta-slesma-vad- hah?^ svedädi-näsah.

cale sthire ca käye laksa-

■paricayah. praharana- -vaisäradyopajananena äsana-paricayasceti.

dyupapattyupeksä vi-

sayatä sarva-gufia-sani-

pannasyäpi trna-vad

avajnäyeta. iti dyüta- -dosäh.

stri-vyasane tvapatyot- -pattih pratikarma-bho- jana-bhüyisthänubhava- narnP dharmärtha-pari-

grahdh. sakyä ca stri

räja-hite niyoktum apa- vahayitum vä.

stri-mrga-vyasanayoh stri-vyasanam gariyah.

adarsanam käryänäm,

stri-vyasana-sangena

räja-käryesu ca nirve¬

dah, kälätipätanarn,

dharma-lopah, päna-

dosänubandhah, artha¬

ghnesu cänrtädisu pra¬

sanga iti.

mrgayäyärn tu vyäyä-

mah pitta-slesma-band-

hah, medädi-näsah,

cale sthire vä käye lak-

sya-paricayah, praha-

rarie vaisäradyopajana- narn grämyajana-pari- jayaiceti.

stri-vyasane tu srväna- -pratikarma-bhojana- -bhümisu bhavatyeva dharmärtha-pariprasn-

ah.^^ sakyä ca stri

räja-hite niyoktum,

upärnsu-dandena vyä-

dhinä vä vyävartayi-

tum avasträvayitum vä

iti (50—1)

adarsanam kärya-nir- vedah kälätipätanäd anartho dharma-lopa- sca tantra-daurbalyam pänänubandhasceti (54).

mrgayäyärn tu vyä-

yämah slesma-pitta- -medah-sveda-näsas

cale sthite ca käye lak- sa-paricayah ... (46).

2* Possible, but less attractive than Bhär.'s parigrahah. snäna looks like

an insertion into K. due to a misunderstanding ot pratikarma.

2' Note the misreading due to the imusual word anusavanam, and the

ready confusion of the syllables sa and hhajma in some scripts.

28 The text of K. is doubtful here.

2» äaangesu is better, but the cause of our Medh.'s decline into aangena is

uncertain.

For vyäyämah.

For medah?

(11)

144 J. Duncan M. Derbett II

Medhätithi on the same.

krodha-jasydpi ca danda-päta-dosä- nubandhah arthaghnesvevänrtädisu sangah. danda-päta-väkpärusyayor danda-pätaTiam gariyah. dartda-pät-

ane hi sarira-vinäsäd asakyarn pra-

tisamdhdnam. väkpärusye tvamarsa-

-jdh krodhägnih sakyate däna-mä-

nämbhobhih samayiturn. väkpärus-

yärtlm-düsanayor väkpärusyam ga¬

riyah. tejasvino hi pärusya-vacana- citta-sanksobhe bhayam näsädayanti.

tathä ca pravädah: —

sthirarn sädhvasitam kändarn bhitvä vä ^sthi-pravesitarn

visalyam angarn kurvanti na väco

hrdayäd api

rohate säyakair^^ viddharn vanarn parasunä hatarn

väcä duruktarn bibhatsen'^'* na

sarnrohati väk-ksatarn.

bhägyäyattatväd arthasyeti na te¬

jasvino 'rthu-düsanarn ganayanti

»2 For *ädÄiw (or «;ädWw), 'painful' ? ^ For bhittvä. For 'sthi.

For wiÄ«o«2/awi ('readily','harmlessly').

s« For api Surgeons can remove deep and pamful foreign bodies from the

bone, but no surgery can remove the word from the heart. An unidentified

sükti. But Kaut, himself has a somewhat similar idea in a quotation at

8. 3, 25—6. Bhär. perhaps decided to improve upon it.

" For vanam. For btbhatsarn.

39 rohate säyakair is curiously the reading of MBh in the Roy and R.A. S.

editions, also in Kresslbb's TjD, i.e. Stebnbach's CNT at 61. 216^

*o Mandlik read btbhatsarn, which is the reading adopted in the Poona

^^i^klithe^thÄona MBh (see pp. 147, 693) nor L. Stebnbach, Mahäbhä¬

rata verses in Canakya's Compendia J.A.O S Ixxxiii 1 1963 30ff., at

p 47 no 46 notes this variant. Neither the MBh nor the Pancatantra has

Bhär's reading Medh. has the MBh. reading, which Stebnbach follows,

ubi cit The verse Dr. Stebnbach kindly tells me (a letter of 9 Ap. 1964),

is found also at SR. 385. 322 (for the abbreviations see his article). I am

obliged to Dr Stebnbach for identifying this filoka for me. Besides the MBh.

and the CNT IV the verse appears also at Sära=samuccaya, 128 (see L. Stern-

bach, Sanskrit Subhasita-sarngraha-s in Old-Javanese and Tibetan, Annals

B O.R.Inst xhii, 1963, 115 ff., at p.l40, where further references are given).

Bhärucin on M. VII, 52.

krodha-jasya tu trikasya danda-

-pätana-väk-pärusyayor danda-pä-

tanam gariyah. darfda-pätane hi

sarira-vinäsäd asakyarn pratisand- hänarn, väk-pärusye tvamarsa-jah

krodhägnih sakyate däna-mänäm-

bhobhih samayiturn. väk-pärusyär-

tha-düsanayor väk-pärusyam gari¬

yah. tejasvino hi parusa-vacanarn, citta-samksobhe bhesajänäsädyate.

tathä ca pravädarn: —

sthirarn svädhyam^^ itam gädham

bhitvä^^ stri^*-sarnpravesitam

nisalyam^^ angän krntardi na

väco hrdayäd adhi^^

sarnrohati sarair viddharn vararriP parasunä hatarn

väcä duruktarn bihhatsarn?^ na

rohati pariksatarn.*^

bhägyäyattatväd arthasya ca teja¬

svino 'rtha-düsariarn na gayMyanti.

(12)

A Newly-discovered Contact between Arthasästra and Dharmasästra 145

Bhär. on M.VII, 54.

purohitah svalpe kärye

räjnä vyäjenäksiptah

amrsyamdr^h sa-sapa-

tham ekaikam amätyam

upajapet. adhärmiko

'yam räjä. sädhu dhär-

mikam ekam kulinam

avaruddham eka-prag-

raham asämantam äta-

vikam vä pratipäday-

ämah. anyebhyasca

mantribhya etad rocate,

hhavatas tu katham iti.

pratyäkhyät^ dharmo-

padhä-suddhah.

senäpatir asatpratigra-

heriMvaksipto räjnä sar-

va-pratyaksam bahun-

ärtha-sampradänenäp-

ta-purusair ekaikam

amätyam upajaped

räja-vinäsäya. etacca

sarva-mantribhyo roca¬

te, Hha katham bhavata

iti. pratyäkhyäte 'rtho- padhä-suddhah.

parivräjikäntdh-pure

Idbdha-visväsä ekaikam

III

Medh. on the same.

purohitah svakärye rä¬

jnä vyäjenädhiksiptah bahunä 'rtha-sampra- dänenäpta-purusair

ekaikam amätyam upa¬

japet räja-vinäsäya.

'etacca sarva-mantri¬

bhyo rocate, atha kat¬

ham bhavate' iti prat-

yäkhyäne dharmopa-

dhä-suddhah.

senäpatih kenacid apa-

desena pürvavad adhik-

siptah bahunä ca sam-

pradänenäpta-purusair

ekaikam amätyam

upajapet räja-vinäsäya.

'etacca sarva-mantribh¬

yo rocate, atha katharn bhavate' iti pratyäkhy- äwe** arthopadhä-sud- dhah.

parivräjikä antah-pure labdha-visväsä ekaikam

Kaut. I, 10.«

purohitam ayäjya-yä-

janädhyäpane niyuk-

tam amrsyamärjMtn rä-

jävaksipet. sa sattri- bhih Sapatha-pürvam

ekaikam amätyam

upajäpayet adhärmiko 'yam räjä. sädhu dhär-

mikam anyam asya

tat-kuUnam aparud-

dharp,*^ kulyam eka-

-pragraharn säman-

tam*^ ätavikam aupa-

pädikarn vä pratipä-

dayämah. sarvesäm

etad rocate, katham vä

tava iti pratyäkhyäne iucih iti dharmopadhä (2-4).

senäpatir asatpragra- henävaksiptah sattri- bhir ekaikam amätyam upajäpayet lobhaniye- närthena räja-vinäsä¬

ya. sarvesäm etad roc¬

ate, katharn vä tava iti.

pratyäkhyäne iucih.

ityarthopadhä (5 — 6).

parivräjikä labdha-vi-

sväsäntah-pure krta-

*^ This marvellous piece of panditry is preserved in the Kämandakiya at

VI. 9—12, but in a truncated and cryptic form. In Soma-deva's Nitiväk-

yämrta, however, at X. 14 (text, Bombay, 1923, at p. Ul) we have explicitly

dharmärthakämabhayesu vyäjena para-citta-partk?anam upadhä.

GM read avaruddharn, as Bhär. A preferable reading T

Bhär. may originally have read -one ubique.

*^ Bhär.'s asämanta may be a scribal error.

*• Jhä's text (II, p. 18) has here a large dittographical error.

10 ZDMG 115/1

(13)

146 J. Duncan M. Deebett

amätyam upajaped rä-

ja-mahisi bhavantam

kämayate tat-krta-samä- gamopäy (lacuna)

(lacuna) äpta-purusah

kascid amätyesu man-

tram avairävayed idarn*^

pravädam upasrutya

hhavatärn nigraho räjnä

dhrta iti. tesäm eva

cänyatamah krta-sam-

vitkah pratyekarn tän

räjämätyesütsähayet.

tatra ye pratyäcaksate te bhayopadhä-suddhäh.

amätyam upajapet sä

räja-mahisi bhavantam kämayate krta-samäga- mopäyeti pratyäkhyäne kämopadhä-suddhah.

räja-prayuktä eva kecit

purusäh pravädam

äviskuryuh, krta-sama- yair amätyai räjä hany- ata iti. upalabdha-pra- vädah purohitasyäptah

kascid amätyesu man-

tram srävayet, imam

pravädam upasrutya

bhavatärn nigraho räjnä

kriyata iti. tesäm eva

cänyatamah pürvam eva

krta-sarnvitkah pratye¬

karn räjämätyesütsäha¬

yet. tatra ye pratyäca¬

ksate te bhayopadhä- -suddhäh.

IV

-satkärä mahä-mätram

ekaikam upajapet

räja-mahisi tvärn kä¬

mayate krta-samägam- opäyä, mahän arthasca te bhavisyati iti. prat¬

yäkhyäne iucih.*'' iti

kämopadhä (7 — 8).

prahavana-nimittam

eko 'mätyah sarvän

amätyän ävähayet.

tenodvegena räjä tän

avarundhyät. käpati-

kascätra pürvävarud- dhas tesäm artha-mä-

nävaksipta, ekaikam

amätyam upajapet,

asat-pravrtto 'yarn rä¬

jä, sädhu enarn hat-

vänyarn pratipädayä-

mah, sarvesäm etad

rocate, katharn vä tava

iti. pratyäkhyäne iu¬

cih. iti bhayopadhä (9-12).

Almost the whole of Bhär.'s commentary on M. VII, 147 is taken

with slight adjustment from Kaut. (1, 15). This again is repeated with

hardly an alteration in Medh. (on M. VII, 146), in a portion of text

omitted in error by G. Jhä, but present in Mandlik's edn. (on 147) and

represented in Jhä's trans, at iii, 368. It is significant that neither

dharmasästra scholar has an3rthing of his own to add from any other

source. Manu stresses secrecy, but says nothing of 'five parts'.

Bhär. Medh. Kaut.

pancängarn mantrayeta. muntra-panmngarn dar- ... mantrayeta. kar-

tad yathä karmäram- sayisyate. imänyangä- manäm ärambhopäyah

bhopäyah purusa-drav- ni karmaifäm ärambho- purusa-dravya-sampad

" malhän ... iucih seems to be an addition, as it exemplifies a variety of

upadhä which involves both artha and käma.

" Bhär. apparently uses praväda in the n. gender.

(14)

A Newly-discovered Contact between Arthasästra and Dharmasästra 147

yasampad desa-lcala-vi- bhägah vinipäta-prati-

härah kärya-siddhir iti.

tän ekaikasah prcchet

samastärnsca. hetubhih

sarvesäm, mati-pravivek- arn vidyäd. aväptärthah

kälarn nätipätayen na

ca dirgha-mantrah syät.

na ca tesäm pratyaksa-

■mantrarn mantrayet ye-

säm apakuryät. gupta-

■mantras ca syät.

päyah purusa-dravya- -sarnpat desa-käla-vi- bhägah vinipäta-prati- kärah kärya-siddhir iti.

athavä prärthanä-kälam nätipätayet tatra dirgho

mantrah syät. na tesäm

brüyät, gupta-mantrasca syät.

desa-käla-vibhägo vini- päta-pratikärah kärya- siddhir iti pancängo

mantrah (41 — 2). tän

ekaikasah prcchet sam¬

astärnsca. hetubhiscais- ärn mati-pravivekän vidyät. aväptärthah kälarn nätikrämayet.

na dirgha-kälam man¬

trayeta, na tesäm*^

paksiyair^° yesäm apa¬

kuryät. (43—6). tas-

mäd raksen mantram

(12).

Similarly the greater part of the commentary on VII, 153 is derived

from Kaut. I, 20, with its characteristic appeal to 'historical' precedent.

Once again, the material comes exclusively from the arthaäästra.

Bhär. on M. VII, 153.

kaksydntaresvantarvarn- sika-sainyädhisthito

'ntah-purarn praviset.

tatra sthavira-stri-pari-

suddhärn devim pasyen

näparisuddhäm devyä

grha-nilino^^^ hi bhrätä

Candrasenarn^^ jaghä¬

na, mätuh sayanänt-

argatam^^ ca putra^*-

Medh. on the same.

kaksäntaresvantarvam- sika-sainyädhisthito

'rdah-purarn praviset.

tatra sthavira-stri-mati-

-suddhäm devim pari-

paiyen näparisuddhärn devirn. grha-lino hi bh¬

rätä Bhadraseno mätuh

iayanäntargatah räjä-

narn jaghäna. kupuru-

Kaut. I, 20."

kaksyäntaresvantar- varnsika-sainyam tisthet. antargrha-ga- tah sthavira-stri-pari- suddhärn devirn paiyet.

devi-grhe Uno hi bhrätä Bhadrasenarn jaghäna, mätuh sayyäntargata- sca putrah Kärüsam.

läjän madhuneti vi-

*^ na ca tesärn is read in M2.

From Kä^tgle's apparatus it is clear that tho reading of this word was

much disputed. Bhär.'s effort was apparently to elucidate a corruption ?

61 The curious list of assassinations is different in Soma-deva, Nitiväkyäm.

XXIV. 35ff. (text, pp. 231—2), where the commentator refers us to the

Brhatkathä. KÄifOLB, trans., p. 56, refers to the Har?acarita. Kämandaka

(6th cent.), VII. 51ff. nearly follows K. in giving Bhadrasena, Kärü§a,

Kääiräja, Sauvira, Vairanta (sic), Järüsa, and Vidüratha. Varäha-mihira

(? 6th cent.) gives only Vidüratha and Kä^iräja in that order (Brhatsamhitä, bcxviii, 1, p. 393—4 of 1865 edn.).

'la So D. ""ä For Bhadrasena. " for -gataä. ^4 putrah.

10*

(15)

148 J. Duncan M. Deeeett

-Kärusam^^ visa-digdhe-

na nüpurena Vairan-

tam^'' jaghäna. mekha-

lä-maninä Sauvirarn

venyärn nigüdhena sast- rena Vidüratharn.^^ tas- mäd etänyäpadah-sthän- äni yatnatah parikseta.

munda-jatila-kuhaka-

-pratisamsargam bähyä-

bhisca däsibhir antah-

pura-däsinärn pratised- hayet.

sa^^-sankha-visa-digdh- ena nüpurenävantyam devi jaghäna mekhala-

yä. Sauvirarn venyärn

güdhena sastrena Vidü-

ratharn. tasmäd etäni

visrambha-sthänäni ya¬

tnatah parikseta.

munda-jatila-kuhaka-

-pratisarnsargam bähya- -däsibhir antah-pura- -däsinärri pratisedhayet.

setpa paryasya devi

Käsiräjam, visa-dig-

dhena nüpureyM Vair-

antyam, mekhalä-ma- riinä Sauvirarn,, Jälü-

tham ädarsena, veny¬

ärn güdharn sastram

krtvä devi Vidüratharn

jaghäna. tasmäd etän-

yäspadäni pariharet.

munda-jatila-kuhaka-

-pratisarnsargarn bäh-

yäbhisca däsibhih pra¬

tisedhayet. (13—18).

VI

The same phenomenon is apparent at M. VII, 154. The Sloka itself refers

to another panca-varga ('five-fold group') in a cryptic manner, and so

calls for the artha-Sästra gloss, which is a compilation.

Bhär. on M. VII, 154.

käpatikodästhita-grha- -patita^^-vaidehaka-tä-

pasa-vyancanäh. para-

marma-jnah pragalbhas chdtrah käpatikah. tad-

-artha-mänäbhyäm upa-

sarngrhya mantri brü-

yäd räjänarn märn ca

pramärbi-krtya yatra

yad akusalam pasy ( asi tat tadänim eväsrävy) ani tvayeti. pravrajyä- yalf^" pratyavasitaudä- sthitah, sa ca prajnä- sauca-yuktah. sarvän-

Medh. on the same.

käpatikodästhita-grha- -pati-vaidehika-täpasa-

-vyanjanäh. parama-

-dharma-jnäh pragalbh- acchäträlf^'^ käpatikäh.

tän artha-mänäbhyäm

upasamgrhya mantri

brüyät räjänarn märn ca

pramänarn krtvä yatra

yad akusalarn tat tadä¬

nim eväsrävyam tvaye¬

ti. pravrajyäyäh prat-

yavasita udästhitah. sa

ca prajnäsauca-yuktah sarvänna-pradäna-sa-

Kaut. I, 11; 12.

... käpatikodästhita- -grhapatika-vaideha- ka-täpasa-vyanjanän

... paramarma-jnah

pragalbhas chätrah

käpatikah. tam artha-

mänäbhyärn protsäh-

ya^^^ mantri brüyät

räjänarn märn ca pra-

niänarn krtvä yasya

yad akusalarn pasyasi

tat tadänim eva prat-

yädisa iti. pravrajyä- -pratyavasitah prajnä- sauca-yukta udästhit-

5' For Kärüsarn (GM have Kärüsarn). Has Bhär. omitted läjän ... räjarn?

But noto the omission of Jälütha below.

5° The plainest example of Medh.'s inability to read Bhär.

" So Kämand. go GM. Vidür. in puräna and MBh.

For patika. So read by K. in mss. Gl, M3, but in the singular.

GM read utsähya. '"^ The reading of D.

(16)

A Newly-discovered Contact between Arthasästra and Dharmasästra 149

na-pradänia-samarthä- yäjä prabhüta-hirar^y-

änteväsinah karma kä-

rayet. krsi-ka(rma-pha- läcca sarva-pravrajitä- rtärn gräsäcchädanä)va- sathän pratividadhyät.

tesäm ye vrtti-kämäs

te^ upajapet, evam ete-

naiva Vfttena räjärthas caritavyo bhakta-vetana-

•käle copasthätavyam iti. sarva-pravra(jitäsca svam svarn vajrgamupa- japeyuh.

karsako vrtti-ksirjah

prajnäsauca-yukto

grha-pati-vyanjanah. sa

krsi-karma kuryät ya-

thoktäyäm bhümäv iti.

väriijiko vrtti-ksinah

prajnäsauca-yukto vai-

dehaka-vyanjanah. sa

mriik-karma kuryät

[ vai),ik ] pradistäyärn

bhümäv iti samänam

pürvei^.

muttdo yatilo vä vrtti-

■kämas täpasa-vyanjano

nagaräbhyäse prabhüta-

-jatila-mundänteväsi sä-

karn yavasa-mustim vä

mäsa-dvimäsäntaritah

prakäsam asniyät.

dharma-vyanjana-gücl-

ham ca yathestam ähä-

ram. täpasa-vyanjanän-

marthäyäm bhümau

prabhüta-hiranyäyäm

däsa-karma kärayet.

krsi-karma-phalam tac-

ca sarva-pravrajitänäm gräsäcchädanävasatMn

prati vidadhyät. tesärn

ye vrttikämäs tän upa¬

japed evarn etenaiva vrt- tena räjärthas caritav- yah. bhakta-vetena-käle

copasthätavyam iti.

sarva-pravrajitäh svam

svam karmopajapeyuh.

karsako vrtti-ksiriah prajnäsauca-yukto

grha-pati-vyanjanah. sa

krsi-karma kuryäd ya-

thoktäyäm bhümäv iti.

väriijiko vrtti-ksinah

prajnäsauca-yukto vai-

dehika-vyanjanah. sa

vanik-karma kuryät

pradistäyärn bhümäv iti

samänam.

mundo jatilo vä vrtti-

-kämah täpasa-vyan- janah. sa nagaräbhyäse prabhüta-jatila-mwt),-

dänteväsi säkam yava-

-mustirn vä mäsäntari-

tam prakäsam asniyäd

dharma-vyäjena güdh¬

arn yathestam ähäram.

täpasa-vyanjanäntevä-

ah. sa värttä-karma- -pradistäyärn, bhümau prabhüta-hiranyänte-

väsi karma kärayet.

karma-phaläcca sarva- -pravrajitänäm gräsä-

cchädanävasathän pra¬

tividadhyät. vrttikäm- ämscopajapet, etenaiva veseria räjärthas cari¬

tavyo bhakta-vetana- -käle copasthätavyam iti. sarva-pravrajitäsca

svam svam vargam ev-

am^^ upajapeyuh

(1-8).

karsako vrtti-ksinah prajnäsauca-yukto grha-patika-vyanja- nah. sa krsi-karma-

-pradistäyärn bhümau

—■ iti samänam pür-

vena.

vänijiko vrtti-ksinah prajnäsauca- yukto vai-

dehaka-vyanjanah. sa

vanik-karma-pradistä -

yärn bhümau — iti

samänam pürverja.

mundo jatilo vä vrtti- -kämas täpasa-vyan- janah. sa nagaräbhyä¬

se prabhüta-munda^^-

-jatilänteväsi säkam

yava^^-mustim vä mä-

sa-dvimäsäntarampra-

käsam asniyät, güdh¬

arn istam ähäram. vai-

dehakänteväsinas cai-

For tän. GM omit the evam.

murida is omitted in D. yavasa (Bhär.) is read by GM.

(17)

150 J. Duncan M. Dbbbett

teväsinas cainam sid¬

dha-yogair arcayeyuh, sisyds cäsyopadiseyuh.

läbham nidänam^ cora-

-hhayam dusta-vadha- -bandhanam videsa-pra-

vrttim, idam adya ivo

vä bhavisyatidam vä räjä

karisyatiti. tad asya

sattrinas tat-prayuktäh sampädayeyuh.

ye cäsya räjno 'vasyarn bhartavyäs te laksaria- -vidyäm anga-vidyäm

jambhaka-vidyäm mäy-

ägatam äsrama-dharm-

arn nimitta-jnänarn cä-

dhiyamjänäh scätrinah syuh. taträjaitäh panca- -samsthä etair mardri-

bhih saha sva-visaye

para-visaye cävasthä- payet. mantri-purohita- -senäpati-yuvaräja- -dauvärikäntarvamsikä- disu sraddheya-desa- -vesa-silpa-bhäsävido

janapadopadeserui sat-

tritfoh sancärayet.

tathä kubja-vämuna- -kiräta-müka-jada- -badhirändha^^-chad-

" For agni-däham/

sinas cainam prasid-

dha-yogair artha-läbh- am agre sisyäscädise- yuh. däharn, caura-bha-

yam dusta-vadham ca

videsa-pravrttam idam

adya svo vä bhavisyati- darn vä räjä karisyatiti tasya güdha-mxintriiias tat-prayuktäh sampäda¬

yeyuh.

ye cäsya räjno vamsa-

-laksana-vidyärn sanga- -vidyäm jambhaka-vid¬

yäm müyägatam äsra-

ma-dhurmam nimitta-

-jnänarn cädhiyänä

mantrinas tatra räja

etat-panca-sarnsthäya

tair mantribhih sva-vi¬

saye 'vasthäpayef. man- tri-purohita-senäpati-

- yuvaräja-dauvärikänt- arvesikädisu sad-vyapa- deia-vesa-silpa-bhäsä- -vido janapadäpadesena mantrinah samdhäray- et.

tathä kubja-vämana- -kiräta-müka-jada- -badhirändha-nata-

nam samiddha-yogair

arcayeyuh. sisyäs cä-

syävedayeyuh asau

siddhah sämedhikah

iti. samedhäsästibhis cäbhigatänäm anga-vi- dyayä sisya-sarnjnab-

hisca karmäni,y abhi-

jane 'vasitänyädiset —

alpa-läbham agni-dä- hanfi cora-bhayarn düs-

ya-vadham tusti-dän- arn videsa-pravrtU-jnä-

nam, idam adya Svo

vä bhavisyati, idarn, vä räjä karisyati iti. tad asya güdhäh sattrinMs- ca sampädayeyuh.

(9-18).

ye cäpyasambandhino

'vasya-bhartavyäs te

laksarmm anga-vidyäm

jambhaka-vidyäm mä-

yägatam äsrama-dhar- marn nimittam antara- -cakram ityadhiyänäh sattrinah, sarnsarga-

-vidyämvä (12,1) ...

tän räjä sva-visaye mantri-purohita-senä- pati-yuvaräja-dauvä- rikäntarvamsika-pra-

sästr ... ätavikesu

sraddheya-desa-vesa- -silpa-bhäsäbhijanäpa- desän bhaktitah sämar- thyayogäccäpasarpa- yet (6).

kubja-vämana- -kiräta-müka-badhira-

-jadändacchadmäno ^

This agrees with the reading of D, minus -jada.

(18)

A Newly-discovered Contact between Arthasästra and Dharmasästra 151

mano nata-nartaka-

-gäyanädayasca striya-

scäbhyantara-cäram vi-

dyuh

vane vanacarah'^^ kdr-

yah sraminätavikäda- yah, para-pravrtti-jnä- närthäh sighräscära- -paramparäh.

parasya caite boddhav-

yäs tädrsair eva tädr-

säh, cära-sancärir)Mh sarnsthä güdhäscägüdha-

•samjnitäh.^''

-narttaka-gäyanädayah striyascäbhyantara- -cärinyotavyärn

vanecaräh käryäh, grä¬

me gräminakädayah, purusa-vyäpärärthäh sva-vyäpära-parampa- räh.

parasparam caite bod-

dhavyäs tädrsair eva

tädrsäh, väri-samcär- inasthä güdhäsca güdha- -samjnitäh.

nata-nartaka-gäyana- -vädaka-vägjivana- -kusilaväh striyascä-

bhyantararn cärarn vi-

dyuh (9).

vane vancKaräh käryäh sramanätavikädayah, para-pravrtti jnänärt- häh sighräscära-para- mparäh. (23).

parasya caite boddhav- yäs tädrsair eva tädr¬

säh, cära-sarncärinMh sarnsthä güdhäscägud- ha-sarnjnitäh. (24).

°' For vanecaräh, as D ? See next note.

" These verses appear with a commentary in Nandana's Mänava-vyäkh-

yäna (see Mandlik, p. 827), on which see the end of this note, between 154

and 155. The readings, but not the source (curiously), are indicated in Jhä,

Notes, Pt. 1, p. 254, as of 153 A and 153B (sic). But reports by Jhä are

always open to suspicion of inaccuracy. Vanecaräh is read ; for gräme grämäna- kädayah (as our Medh.) we have the variant exactly as in Bhär. ; para-pravrtti-

-jnänärtharn is read, also äighräcära (or Stghräscära) likewise correctly

parasya caite ; but sathäSca as well as güglhäsca (not -ääcä-) appears. Whence

did 154 A and 154B arise ? Did Nandana obtain them from Kaut. ? Nothing

known about that mysterious commentator suggests this. We do not know

whether he found them between 153 and 154 or between 154 and 155. It is

easy to write Slokas from a commentary into the text, since very often

commentators' quotations in Sloka form are written similarly with the

slokas of the work upon which he is commenting. Exactly this mistake was

made by Ghäbpueb himself as indicated by Jhä, Notes, Pt. 1, p. 261. The

possibility that Nandana's copy of Medh. was free from our Medh.'s errors

must be dismissed, since whatever Nandana's age he is certainly post-

jirnoddhära. That he had direct access to a copy of Bhär. seems unlikely;

but he may well have had access to a copy of the Manu-smrti into which

verses cited by Bhär. have crept in the manner stated. Käne can tell us

nothing about Nandana except that he is 'late' (op. cit., 157). Bühler

has a lot to say (op. cit., pp. cxxxiii-cxxxv). In his view Nandana must be

a southern writer, and his reasons are convincing. Moreover there are mysteri¬

ous readings and interpolations which agree with southem mss. of Manu. In

philosophical pieces he follows a commentator on Manu not otherwise

known (could it be Bhär. at second hand ?). Nandana was the son (or younger

brother) of ono Lak^mana and a friend of ono Vira-malla. Vira-malla suggests a descendant of one of the peninsular royal families, for example, Pallava,

Ganga, or Cälukya. It has an antique flavour and suggests a period earlier

than a 'very modem date'. One might guess the 17th century at the latest.

(19)

152 J. Duncan M. Dbbeett, A Newly-discovered Contact

Conclusion

It is perhaps superfluous to dwell on the historical importance of

discovering the marmer in which the Manu-smrti has been explained

through the centuries. The availability of materials to the great com¬

mentators is as much a matter of importance as the emergence of new

ideas, and new needs for reinterpretation of the text. Why did Viävarüpa

cite Kautilya's predecessors but not, so far as we know, Kaut, himself?

From the facts which emerge from this present study it would be quite

improper to suggest that Viävarüpa was earlier than Bhärucin on that

ground alone. The chances that a complete copy of Kaut, was available

to ViSvarüpa might seem far greater than that one should be available

to Medh. ; but one cannot be sure. Nor can we assume that ViSvarüpa

did not prefer the older material, which may still have circulated with

agreeable commentaries; nor can we assume that Bhär., who was content

to quote from a metrical niti-äästra of Usanas (Sukra), did not actually

reject the predecessors of Kaut, whom Viävarüpa cites. The vast com¬

plexity of these problems is demonstrated by the discovery outlined in

this paper.

(20)

Innermongolische Arbeiten zur mongolischen

Literaturgeschichte und Folkloreforschung

Von Walthee Heissig, Bonn

Auf dem 1959 in Ula anbaatar, der Hauptstadt der Mongolischen Volks¬

republik abgehaltenen Mongolisten-Kongreß legte ein Vertreter der Chi¬

nesischen Akademie der Wissenschaften eine Übersicht über die litera¬

rische und wissenschaftliche Entwicklung der mongolischen Minderheit

Rotchinas in den bis 1959 verstrichenen zehn Jahren vor^. Aus ihm ergab

sich, daß für die Bewahrung der mongolischen Literatur und Volks¬

dichtung trotz der zahlenmäßigen Schwäche der mongolischen Minder¬

heit Erhebliches geleistet worden ist. Insgesamt nur knapp 1500000

Mongolen leben in dem Innermongolisehen Autonomen Gebiet, in Sin¬

kiang, Kukunor-Gebiet, Liao-ning und im Nonnigebiet. Im Inner¬

mongolischen Autonomen Gebiet, das seit 1947 aus einem Kern, der die

ostmongolischen Gebiete der ehemaligen Hsingan-Provinzen umfaßte,

auf seinen heutigen, die ganze Innere Mongolei umfassenden Bereich von

1117500 km ausgeweitet worden ist, bilden die Mongolen nur einen

Bruchteil der heute ungefähr 10 Millionen umfassenden Einwohnerzahl.

Im Verlag des Pekinger Minoritäteninstituts, der Mongolischen Verlags¬

druckerei mit Niederlassungen in Köke Khota (Kuei-hua), Kaigan- und

Mukden imd der Sinkiang-Minoritäten Druckerei wurden dem Bericht

zufolge seit 1947 nicht nur Parteiscbriften und Übersetzungen chinesi¬

scher Literatur, sondern auch Ausgaben der alten mongolischen Dich¬

tung gedruckt. Die alten Literaturdenkmäler der Mongolen wurden syste¬

matisch gesammelt und ediert. In den Bibliotheken des Minoritäten¬

instituts in Peking, in Köke Khota und Ulanhot (früher Wangyehmiao)

wurden mehr als Dreitausend alter Handschriften und Drucke gesam-

melt^. Besondere Aufmerksamkeit fiel der Aufzeichnung und Veröffent¬

lichung der mündlich tradierten Volksliteratur zu. Gesammelt wurden

Märchen, Gedichte, Lieder, Reimsprüehe, Ependichtung, Legenden,

Sprichwörter, Spruchdichtung, Lobsprüche, Segenswünsche^. Die Rhap-

1 Dumdatu ulus-un mongyol ündüsüten-ü kelen fokiyal-un arban kedün jil-

ün kögjil ba tegün-ü sudululyan-u afil-un bayidal, Sonder-Abdruck für den

Kongreß; ^Studia Mongoliea II, Fase. 25, Ulaanbaatar 1961, 9—24 (chin.

Text, 25—37).

2 Weng Tu-chibn, op. cit., 7: öbör mxmgyol-un öbertegen fasaqu oron-iyar üfekü-dü. qayudin keblel ba yar biöimel materiäl-i yurban mingya ilegüü füil-i öoylayuluysan bay ina.

3 op. cit., 7: Arad-un aman jfokiyal-un material-du üliger. silüg. dayuu.

qolboya. tuuli. domoy. jiüir üge. kelemürii -yin üge. maytayal. irügel jferge bui.

I

m

Referenzen

ÄHNLICHE DOKUMENTE

The observed mismatch may be explained by the fact that the model was trained heavily with biochar sorbents of relatively low S BET (83% datasets with S BET < 400 m 2 /g) as

significantly change, as inhibition of methanogens using 2-BES prevents loss of biofilm activity 349. or biofilm from

To understand how other-regarding preferences can be addressed to strengthen PEB, reviewing the experimental findings helps us to identify the underlying mechanisms (i.e.

Effects of electrokinetic phenomena on bacterial deposition monitored by quartz crystal microbalance with dissipation

The world needs effective thermal insulation of buildings for pollution control and energy savings. Optimum thermal, fire and acoustic insulations are achieved by using

In particular, we focus on the thermodynamic aspects of the adsorption process, including dimensional inconsistency of fitted parameters, Temkin isotherm assumptions,

Correlations of dissolved organic carbon (DOC), total nitrogen (TN), ammonia (NH4), and total phosphorus (TN) concentration with selected variables (C3/Tryp and specific

Prediction of soil organic carbon and the C:N ratio on a national scale using machine learning and satellite data: A comparison between Sentinel-2, Sentinel-3 and Landsat-8