Kautilya is the other name for Chanakya, although this is often disputed by some who believe Kautilya and Chanakya were two different people. Arthashastra is a very well known book on statecraft, it talks about all the things a king should know and do to run his kingdom effortlessly. The book is so detailed that for example, it even covers what kind of punishment should one receive for the kind of crime they have done. The true essence of this Shlok from Arthashastra This Shlok is taken from the tenth section of this book which talks about warfare related things. Kautilya stresses on the not-so-obvious things.
|Published (Last):||21 April 2007|
|PDF File Size:||13.74 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||8.24 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
These books are currently out of copyright in India as per the Indian Copyright Act Please check copyright law within your country before downloading the books. In case of any issues send us an email. But Pataii. To an ordinary Sanskrit Pandit in India the phrase connotes no special significance. It is always taken for granted that such works, where expressions like "Iti Kautalyal;," "Iti Baudhayana;" etc.
The attribution to schools will not find favour with an orthodox Pandit. Not that we do not accept any school as such. But it is more reasonable to assume that originally a certain Jaimini or Badarayana flourished and propounded certain doctrines which were accepted and followed by their devoted disciples. To-day while one Hindu follows Apastamba his neighbor follows Baudhayana.
This means that the former belongs to the Apastamba school while the latter is of the Baudhayana school.
What is the underlying idea? Originally when Apastamba propounded his theory it appealed to certain members of the community. They followed them and then their descendants. Thus the school automatically came into being. But it may be asked, how could we explain the peculiar use of "Iti Kautilya," "Iti Baudhayana.
The answer is simple. In India literature is broadly classified into two heads, the sutra and the beeja. The sutra is an original work composed by master minds on a certain subject or subjects. It may be philosophy, theology. The sutras in themselves are a strenuous reading and especially so, when they deal with abstruse and technical sciences.
It was not possible for all persons to grasp them. Hence interpreters came into being. Their works were bhashyas or interpretations of the sutras in popular style. The sutrakaras generally-there are also exceptions,used the phrase "Iti Baudhayana. On the other hand a bhashyakara could not speak with such definiteness. For, oftentimes, more than one interpretation may be placed upon a certain phrase or passage.
It depends to a large extent on the ingenuity of the writer. Some interpretations might be ingenious but could not win general approval. Therefore, the bhaskaras are justified in omitting their names. In the light of this can we still maintain that Iti Kautilya is a serious argument against the authenticity of the work?
We cannot follow Prof. This science has been composed by Kautalya, easily understandable, correct in the exposition of truth and in the use of words, and all free from errors. Meyer in his translation of the Arthashastra furnishes a convincing reply.
A later writer who wanted to palm off his own lubrication of that of his school on the name of the famous statesman, would surely have faltered somewhere. From this view-point the higher criticism must acknowledge the authenticity of the Kautaliya.
There has been a war of words about the name Kautalya. Some manuscripts contain the word Kautilya while others Kautalya. It is asked whether a minister would style himself Kautilya meaning "Mr. Crooked" or "Crookedness personified". Granting that it is Kautilya, such nicknames are not uncommon in ancient India. Mention may be made of a few; Vatavyadhi the wind-diseased is no other than Uddhava, a relative of Krishna according to the Puranas.
Kaunapadanta the teeth of the Rakshasas is identified with Indra, the God of Heaven. To advance such feeble arguments with regard to the name of the author, demonstrates their weakness in all nakedness.
There is, however, another reading Kautalya which may be adopted with advantage and which may silence all controversy so far as this particular topic goes. Not only is there the authority of the manuscripts for this but also there is inscriptional evidence besides lexicographical.
Ganapati Sastri says that the term Kautilya is certainly a misnomer. For, neither the term Kautilya nor its root Kutila as explained in the Nighantas Gotra and crooked. On the other hand the word Kutala is mentioned by Kesavasvamin in his NiHarthar savasamkepa as meaning both Gotra and an ornament. It is then obvious that the name is derived from the root Kutala. If it is granted that the patronymic is Kutala then we cannot grammatically derive Kautilya but only Kautalya. Secondly, there is the testimony which bears to the fact that all the manuscripts of the text and the commentaries relating to the same invariably contain the expression Kautalya and not Kautilya.
It is difficult to understand how Indian and European scholars have failed to notice this in handling the manuscripts when editing and publishing them. Evidently Jolly discarded the correct reading Kautalya. It may he that in his opinion it was a wrong reading. That Kautalya is the correct reading is attested to by another literary evidence. Last but not the least is the invaluable inscriptional evidence supplied to us by D.
He writes: "I have found an inscription from the village near Dholka in Gujarat which in clearly reads Kautalya. It records that Vastupala the famous Jain minister of the Vaghela king who built a temple of Gajesvara in as equated to Kautalya in statesmanship. This inscription is valuable to us in more than one respect.
Not only does it show that the name Kautilya is the misspelling of the name Kautalya but also it bears witness to the fact that Kautalya is acknowledged to be a statesman and not at as Gotra and crooked.
On the other hand the word Kutala is mentioned by Kesavasvamin. It silences two important arguments in regard to the name of the author and the authenticity of the work.
But it may be asked why the name Kautilya also sticks on in some Indian literature. Only one explanation can be offered and that is due to the ingenuity with which Visakhadatta invested his character Kautilya in his famous play Judrartikmsa.
For the purpose of his play he perhaps drew from his imagination a name which being a twisting of the original name answered his purpose well. Kautalya is known not by one or two names, but by a number of names. These are Vatsyayana, Kautalya. Dramila, Yami, Vishnugupta, Angula. The Vaijayantl of Yadavaprakasa cir A. The same value should be attached to the other interpretation of Visakhadatta in regard to the name Kautilya: Because he had peverted and crooked views, people called him Kautilya though his name was really Kautalya.
To add to this is the fact that Kamandaka speaks of him in a term of great respect generally used when speaking of sages. Kamandaka adds that he belonged to an eminent family and was a past master of all the four Vedas, who, by force of intelligence and skill. Kamandaka does not stop there but concludes that section by saying that it was the same politician who was the author of the well-known Arthashastra, the very cream of political science. Vatsyayana is the author of the extant Kamasutra.
There is another Vatsyayana the commentator of the Natayashastra of Gautama. Both the Vatsyayanas may be the same as Prof. Rangaswami Aiyangar seems to think.
But the really interesting feature is the identification of Kautalya with Vatsyayana. His aim, even according to the Arthashastra. It extended beyond and looked to the common good and welfare of the citizens at large. These are indeed the primary functions even of the modern state in spite of all our vaunted constitutional progress. This narrow outlook on politics did not appeal to a versatile man like that of Kautalya. He wanted the state to rest on an economic foundation.
His aim was the ultimate realisation by the people of the state of the four objects of human existence. If this were his policy, it may not be far wrong to state that he could have been the author of a Dharmashastra, Arthashastra, Kamashastra. There is therefore some justification for the assumption that Kautalya was no other than Vatsyayana. The following coincidences endorse the statement:- 1 The style followed and the method adopted in the Kamasutraare exactly the same as are met with in the extant Arthashastra.
Vatsyayana like Kautalya seems to have composed aphorisms and comments. As against these remarkable coincidences, the differences are only few and far between.
Even here the Arthasastra is a practical manual of administration and hence must formulate regulations of a comprehensive character.
It does not mean a recommendation or acceptance of the principle. The Kamasutra discusses the question from an entirely different aspect. It is indeed difficult to explain why Kautalya has been known by so many names. One explanation is that due to his popularity as well as his rare skill and policy, different people endowed him with different ,titles.
Mallanaga is another name. This seems to fit in especially in view of the fact that Sakara, in the first Act of J1rcchakatika. It may be again that Nanda is the name of a country and perhaps Kautalya is a native of that Nanda country. He was styled an elephant among the Nandas who were the people of the Nanda country.
It is from these four that all other knowledge, wealth and human prosperity is derived. In the absence of governance, the strong will swallow the weak. In the presence of governance, the weak resists the strong. Those who are unrighteous, should not work in civil and criminal courts. Those who lack integrity in financial matters or fall for the lure of money must not be in revenue collection or treasury, states the text, and those who lack integrity in sexual relationships must not be appointed to Vihara services pleasure grounds.
Mind over matter – a Shlok from Arthashastra by Kautilya
After dethroning the Nandas, he installs Chandragupta as the new king. It is not mentioned in Dipavamsa , the oldest of these chronicles. Vamsatthappakasini also known as Mahvamsa Tika , a commentary on Mahavamsa provides some more details about the legend. Its author is unknown, and it is dated variously from 6th century CE to 13th century CE. The most well-known version of the Jain legend is contained in the Sthaviravali-Charita or Parishishta-Parvan, written by the 12th century writer Hemachandra. These legends are contained in the commentaries churnis and tikas on canonical texts such as Uttaradhyayana and Avashyaka Niryukti. Both are based on a now-lost Prakrit-language Brihatkatha-Sarit-Sagara, which itself is based on the now-lost Paishachi language Brihatkatha by Gunadhya.