The Purāṇas say that Ugrasena-Mahāpadma was so powerful that he uprooted all the Kshatriya like Paraśurāma, brought the whole earth under one royal umbrella, and made himself eka-rāṭ, sole monarch. Let us pause here for a moment and see what this means. I have told you that shortly before Buddha lived, that part of India which was Aryanised was divided into sixteen different states, of which, excepting two, all were petty kingships. But the process of centralisation had begun, and we find that these tiny kingships had already developed into four monarchies in the time of Buddha. Gradually these monarchies themselves were being dissolved and coalesced into one, but they did not culminate into a full-fledged imperialism until a century after the demise of Buddha. We have seen above how the Magadha Empire gradually extended and swallowed not only the Kāsi-Kosala country of the Ikshvākus, but also the Avanti territory of the Pradyotas and the Kauśāmbī kingdom of the Vatsas. And when Ugrasena-Mahāpadma has been expressly represented by the Purāṇas to have exterminated the Kshatriyas and brought the earth under his sole sway, it means, I think, that he made himself master of about that whole portion of India which was familiar to the Aryans, i.e. of almost all the sixteen countries into which India was divided in Buddha’s time and which I have already enumerated about the beginning of this lecture. In other words, Ugrasena-Mahāpadma was a chakravartin or universal monarch. The idea of Chakravartin is very ancient in India. The Aitareya-Brāhmaṅa, e.g. makes mention of some kings, who, after their anointing, conquered the whole earth and performed a horse-sacrifice. What we have in this connection to bear in mind is that by ‘earth’ is meant not the whole earth as it is known to us at the present day but rather the earth as it was known to the Aryans at the time when the Chakravartin is said to have lived and conquered. Mahāpadma was thus but one Chakravartin and was the Chakravartin of the period we have selected. Kauṭilya in his Arthaśāstra106 speaks of the Chakravartin as if the latter was not a novel ruler at all in his day and tells us that his domain coincided with the greater portion of the space between the Himalayas and the ocean and with an area of a thousand yojanas. This no doubt answers to the extent of the Mauryan Empire, and as from the language of Kauṭilya the Chakravartin was not an unfamiliar figure in his time, it appears that there was at least one Chakravartin before the Mauryas came to power, and there is, therefore, nothing strange in our taking Mahāpadma to be a Chakravartin on the authority of the Purāṇas. It is time therefore to give up the view that the Indians fort first time gained their idea of Chakravartin from Alexander’s invasion.
1II.21.
2Text.1. 197; Trans, SBE. II. 38.
3JRAS., 1904, 87-8.
4Jat.I.80.
5Ibid.III.364.
6Ibid.III.115-6.
7Ibid.IV.,390.
8SBB.III.270.
9JARS.,1910,445-6.
10See also the name Avantī-Dakshiṇāpatha occurring in the jāt III. 468. 16. Jat./3/
11II. 287. 15.
12In the Divyāvadāna (Cowell and Neil, p. 407) Takshaśilā is placed in the Uttarāpatha. But it is not clear that this Uttarāpatha excluded Madhyadeśa.
13Harshacharita (BSPS. LXVI), p. 210.
14(GOS.I), p.94. I.8.
15JBBRAS., XIV. 26 ; I.A. V111, 46.
16II.211. I & ff.
17Jāt. IV. 454. 11.
18ASR.XV. 31.
19Mahābhārata, Sabhā 21. 1-3.
20Index to the Jātakā (Jāt. VII, 92) under Bārāṇasi-mahānadī.
21Jāt.IV. 104. 15, 18.
22Ibid. IV. 119. 28; V. 177, 12, etc.
23Ibid. IV. 119. 29; V. 312. 19, etc.
24Ibid. IV. 119).29; VI. 131, 11, etc.
25Ibid.IV.119.26,etc.
26Ibid.IV.15.20,etc.
27JRAS.,1909,p.1066 & ff.
28See e.g. Jāt. III. 270. 15.
29ASR. I. 320.
30ASI., AR., 1903-4, 82-3.
31Jāt. III. 454. 19-20.
32VIII. 5. 37-9.
33ASR. I. 304-5, also JRAS, 1898,503.
34ASR.XI. 12 ; JRAS, 1898,313.
35XIII. 5. 4.9.
36I.2.0
37IV.I.
38PR.,WC,1909-10,44
39II. 19
40Jāt.,V.317.24.
41IA.,XXII.174.
42In the Sutta–Nipāta (V. 977) the Assaka(Aśmaka) country has been associated with Muḷaka with its capital Patiṭṭhāna and mentioned as situated immediately to the south of the latter but along the river Godavārī (Vs.977 & 1010-1). See also p.4 and n.3 Supra.
43Jāt .III.3.3-4.
44Assaka is similarly contrasted with Avanti in Jāt. V, 317.24 In the Dīgha-Nikāya, Kalinga, Assaka, and Avanti are contradisitinguished (SBB. III. 270) where Assaka must have comprised Muḷaka.
45Jāt, I. 191.II; II. 47. II. etc., etc. In the Māhābhāratā, capitals of Gandhāra are mentioned, viz. Takshaśilā and Pushkarāvati, the former situated to the east and the latter to the west of the Indus. Aśoka’s time Takshaśilā does not appear to have been the the capital of Gandhāra, for from his Rock Edict XIII we see that Gandhāra was not in his dominions proper but was feudatory to him. On the other hand, from Separate Orissa Edict I we learn Takshaśilā was under him as one of his sons was stationed there. Evidently Takshaśilā was not the capital of Gandhāra in Aśoka’s time. This agrees with the statement of Ptolemy that the Gandharai(Gandhāra) country was to the west of the Indus with its city Proklais i.e. (Pushkarāvati) (IA. XIII. 348-49).
46Jāt. IV. 454&ff.
47Ibid., I.262 & ff and 409 &ff.
48Pargitar, 23.4.
49(ASS.Ed.),p.565,V. 72; I am in debted for this reference to Mr. Harit Kirshna Deb.
50Jāt.,IV. 458.13; III. 97.23;I. 262.8;V.354.9;II.345.19;IV.104.22&25
51Vāyu-P.(ASS.Ed.),p.376,VS.108.-2;Vishṇu.P.,pt IV.cap.19.
52Jāt.IV.437.16.
53Mr. S. V. Venkateswara Ayyar’s The Ancient History of Magadha (1A., xlv. 8-16 & 28-31); Mr. K. P. Jayaswal’s The Śaiśunaka and Maurya Chronology etc. (JBO S., 1915, 67&ff).
54Pargiter, pp. 7 & 66.
55Bhāsa speaks of this family as prākaśa-rājarshi-nāmadheyo and Ved-ākshara-samavāya pravishto(Pratijriā-Y.p.34).
56This seems to have been an heir-loom of the Bhrāta family to which Udayana belonged and which was noted for proficiency in music (Pratijriā-Y,pp.34-5).
57Jāt.III.384.
58Vāsavadattā herself says that her father was called Māhāsena on account of his large army (tasya bala-pārimana-niṛerittaiṁ nāṁadheyaṁ Mahāsenaiti—Svapna-V.,20.).
59In the same drama Udayana speaks of Pradyota as prithivyāṁrāja-vaṁśyanām = uday-āsta-maya-prabhuh. (p. 67).
60p.358.
61pp.60-1
62There can be no doubt that Mahāsena sent succour to Udayana as the latter acknowledges it. (Svapna V., p.68).
63Jāt.III.157.
64For the anecdote about Udayana and Piṇḍola, see Jāt. IV,375.
65III. 7.
66Pratijñā-Y., 35.
67III. 62-3. I am indebted to Mr. H. K. Deb for this reference.
68(BSS. Ed.) pp. 189 & 306.
69This identification was first proposed by Mr.K.P. Jayaswal (JBORS.,1915,107)
70II.111.
71Jāt.,IV. 144 & ff.72
72Maj-N., II.112
73Jā, III. 405.
74Aṅg.--N., III. 57.
75Most of these arguments have been already urgd by W. Geiger in this transaction of the Mahā-vaṁsa (PTS.Ed.), Intro. xliv & ff.
76I admit that Udayana’s marriage with Pādmāvatī was of a political character, and that it is quite possible to argue that it does not matter if the hero represented is in his decline of age. On the other hand, however, we have to note first that Svapna-Vāsavadattā is not a political drama like Mudrā-Rākshasa. Secondly, what I cannot understand is the love-sickness of the newly wedded couple which is certainly described in the drama and which such a dramatist of fine delicate sentiment. Bhāsa would c
ertainly have suppressed if he had thought as that Udayana was on the other side of fifty. On p.35 Udayana specks of himself as being pierced by the sixth arrow of the God of love. On p.49 Vidūshaka refers to the Madan-agni-dāha of Udayana casued by his second marriage and intensified by the ereavement of his first queen. In Act.V we are told that Pādmāvāti is laid up with a headache, of course caused through love-sickness, to remove which her meeting with Udayana is being arranged for. I am sure that all these references to the love-sickness of the lovers Bhsa would have studiously avoided according to him they had been an ill-assorted couple.
77Sutta-Nipāta, p.185, v,38.
78II.163.
79Mahavagga,v.1.1 &ff.
80VIII.1.15.
81SBE. XXII. INTRO. xiii.
82Jāt.II.403.15
83Ibid.III.121-2 make Kosaladevī to be Ajātaśatru’s mother, and Saṁ. N. I.84 speaks of him as bhāgineyya to Pasenadi. But this is a mistake, because in the Chullavagga Ajātaśatru is invariably called Vedehiputto.
84Mahāvagga viii.1.4,& ff.
85Thera-gatha (trans.), 269.
86Ibid., 65.
87Chullavagga, vii.3.5
88Jāt., v.261.2, Digha-N.I.85;SBB., II.94.
89Jāt. III. 121-2.
90Jāt. II.237 & 403-4; IV. 343; Sam-N. I 83-5.
91I.26; Mahāvagga, vi. 28. 7 & ff.
92SBE. xxii. intro. xiv.
93IV.1.
94Pargiter, 22 & 69.
95III.57 & ff.
96Pargiter, 21 & 68.
97SBE. XI. intro. xvi
98IV. 32.
99Mahāvaṁsa (trans.Geiger), Intro., lix
100Mahābodhivaṁsa, 98.
101Pargiter, 22.
102V.15.
103In this respect the Purāṇas agree among themselves. They however differ in regard to the sequence of thir rule, some saying that they all reigned conjointly, and some, in succession.
104Mahābodhivaṁsa, 98.
105IA.,XLIV,49-50.
106p. 338.
~ Lecture III ~
ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY, PART I
Literature on Hindu Polity
In this and the next lecture I propose to deal with the administrative history of the period. This history may be of two kinds: (1) history of the literature bearing upon the science and art of government and (2) history setting forth the actual practices and systems of administration prevalent in the period. The latter is not possible without the former. It is, therefore, absolutely necessary to know beforehand what sort of literature was extant in our period relating to political science, or Arthaśāstra as it was called.
South India has recently become a land of discoveries. Not many years ago the students of ancient Indian poetics were taken by surprise by the discovery of Bhāmaha’s work on Alaṁkāra in Trivandrum. The dramas of Bhāsa, celebrated dramatist who preceded Kālidāsa, for a long time remained hidden from modern eyes until they were discovered seven years ago at the same place, viz. Trivandrum. Such was the case with the Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya. That a work dealing with the science of politics was composed by Kauṭilya had been testified to by various more or less early Indian writers who have not only referred to the author but also given quotations from his work. But the work had been looked upon as entirely lost, and it was a great though agreeable surprise to every scholar and antiquarian when, in the January number of the Indian Antiquary, 1905, Mr. R. Shamasastry not only announced the discovery of this work at Tanjore but actually published a translation of some of its chapters. The whole book was afterwards edited and translated by the same scholar and is being more and more eagerly and thoroughly studied, but it will be still long before we are able to show what flood of light it throws not only on ancient polity but also on economics, law, ethics and so forth.
When the Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya was first published, it evoked a great deal of criticism more or less of an adverse nature. But now there is a consensus of opinion among scholars that on the ground of the archaic style and the social and religious life depicted therein the work has certainly to be assigned to the period B.C. 321-296 as it claims to belong. Any student who has even cursorily read the book knows that it bristles with quotations from the authors of the Arthaśāstra who were prior to Kauṭilya It therefore follows that if these authors were known to Kauṭilya, their works were certainly known and studied in the period we have selected, especially as it immediately precedes Chandragupta, the founder of the Maurya dynasty, whose prime-minister Kauṭilya was. It is therefore very important to know who are these authors that have been referred to by Kauṭilya. The list of those that I have been able to frame is as follows:—
Schools
1. Mānavāḥ, pp. 6, 29, 63, 177, 192.
2. Bārhaspatyāḥ, pp. 6, 29, 63, 177, 192, 373.
3. Auśanasāḥ, pp. 6, 29, 63, 177, 192.
4. Pārāśarāḥ, p. 63.
5. Āmbhīyāḥ1, p. 33.
The order in which the schools are mentioned is not uniform.
Individual Authors
6. Bhāradvāja, pp. 13, 27, 32, 253, 320, 325, 380.
7. Viśālāksha, pp, 13, 27, 32, 320,326, 380.
8. Parāśara2, pp. 13, 27, 32, 321, 326.
9. Pisuna3, pp. 14, 28, 33, 251, 321, 327.
10. Kauṇapadanta4, pp. 14, 33, 321, 327.
11. Vātavyādhi, pp. 14, 33, 261, 322, 328.
12. Bāhudantīputra5, p. 14.
These authors (Nos. 6-12) are specified in the above serial order.
These have been mentioned but once. Of these again Chārāyaṅṅ and Ghoṭa(ka)-mukha have been mentioned by Vātsyāyana as authors of the different parts of the Science of Erotics.
13. Kātyāyana
p. 251.
14. KaṇiṅkaBhāradvāja
„
15. Dīrgha-Chārāyaṇa
„
16. Ghoṭamukha
„
17. Kiñjalka
„
18. Piśunaputra
„
Now the question arises have any of these names been mentioned anywhere? Those who have read the Mahābhārata need not be told that some of these certainly occur in the Śānti-Parvan. Chapter 58 of this Parvan sets forth no less than seven names of the authors of the treatises on kingly duties. They are (1) Bṛihaspati, (2) Viśālāksha, (3) Kāvya, (4) Mahendra, (5) Prāchetasa Manu, (6) Bhāradvāja and (7) Gauraśiras. Except the last, viz. Gauraśiras, all are identifiable with the names specified by Kauṭilya. Bṛihaspati must be the founder of the Bārhaspatya, Kāvya, the same as Śukra, of the Auśanasa, and Manu, of the Mānava School. In regard to Manu it is to be noted that here he has been called Prāchetasa which distinguishes him from Svāyamhhuva Manu, the author of the Dharma-śāstra, and from Vaivasvata Manu, the first king of the human species.6 Bhāradvāja of the Śānti-Parvan must be the Bhāradvāja mentioned in Kauṭilya’s Arthaśāstra. There thus remains one name, viz. Mahendra. He is identical with Bāhudantin, the first component of the name Bāhudantiputra referred to by Kauṭilīya as we shall see shortly.
It was indeed a wise move on the part of the Calcutta University to have prescribed for M.A. History, the chapters of the Śānti-Parvan, which treat as Rājadharma i.e. the duties of the king, and which in fact, give us good glimpses into the condition of the science of polity before the time of Kauṭilya. We have seen that Chapter 58 of this Parvan gives the names of the authors of Rājaśāstra which all except one agree with those mentioned by Kauṭilya. Let us now proceed a step further and see what the immediately next chapter teaches us. This chapter gives us a genesis of the science of polity—how it arose and how it underwent alterations. Daṇḍanīti or Science of Polity, we are told, was first brought out by Brahmā. It treated not only of the objects of the worldly life, viz. dharma, performance of religion duties, artha, attainment of wrealth and kāma, gratification of sensual desires, but also of moksha or final beatitude, and consisted of one hundred thousand chapters. As the period
of the human life was gradually decreasing, his colossal work was also undergoing abridgement. The god Śiva was the first to shorten it into a treatise called Vaiśālāksha after him and consisting of ten thousand chapters. The divine Indra then abridged it into a work comprising five thousand chapters and styled Bāhudantaka after him. Bṛihaspati further reduced it to a work containing three thousands chapters and designated Bārhaspatya after him. Last came Kavi or Uśanas, who still further shortened it into a treatise composed of a thousand chapters only. Now the original work composed by Brahmā is said to have treated of dharma, artha, kāma and moksha, and comprised one hundred thousand chapters. In Chapter 335 of the Śānti-Parvan we have another tradition narrated about this work. There its authorship has been ascribed to eight sages, who read it out to the god Nārayāṇa. The god was exceedingly pleased with what he heard, and said: “Excellent is this treatise that ye have composed consisting of a hundred thousand verses…… Guided by it Svāyamhhuva Manu will himself promulgate to the world its code of dharma, and Uśanas and Bṛihaspati compose their treatises based upon it.” We are then told that this original work of the sages will last up to the time of king Uparicharu and disappear upon his death. Curiously enough, Vātsyāyana, author of the Kāmasūtra, mentions at the beginning of this work a third tradition which is a combination of the first two. Prajāpati or Brahmā, says he, created people and recited to them a work consisting of one hundred thousand chapters to enable them to attain dharma, artha,and kāma. That part which related to dharma was separated by Manu, and those which related to artha and kāma were separated by Bṛihaspati and Nandin respectively. We thus see that according to the tradition mentioned both in Chapter 59 of the Śānti-Parvan and by Vātsyāyana the original knowledge about the work on dharma, artha and kāma emanated from Brahmā. The first abridgement of Daṇḍanīti, we have seen, is ascribed to Śiva after whom it was named Vaiśālāksha. The term Vaiśālāksha is derived from Vaiśālāksha, which is another name for Śiva. The author Viśālāksha mentioned Kauṭilīya must therefore be taken to refer to the god Śiva himself.7 The second abridgement was brought out by Indra, and, we are informed, was called Bāhudantaka. Indra’s elephant, Airāvata, because he had four i.e. many (bahu) tusks, could be called Bahudanta or Bāhudanta; and because Indra possessed Bāhudanta or Bāhudanta i.e. Airāvata, he could be called Bahudanta or Bāhudantin. And it is from the first of these names that the science of polity composed by him was styled Bāhudantaka. The second name can be recognised in Bāhudantiputra mentioned by Kauṭilīya. There can be no doubt that the first component of the latter is Bāhudanti; and not Bāhudantī; i.e. the ending i is short and not long and that Bāhudanti; must here denote Indra8. In regard to the second component putra, we have got an exactly analogous case in Piśunaputra. We have seen that Kauṭilya mentions not only Piśuna but also Piśunaputra. The word putra in all probability signifies here ‘a follower.’ Thus in the Mṛichchhakaṭika those, who follow the science of theft originated by the god Kārtikeya, are called Skandaputras by Śarvilaka.9 Bāhudantiputra must therefore denote a follower of Bāhudantin, i.e. of the system of the Arthaśāstra laid down by him. Piśunaputra must similarly denote a follower of the system of Piśuna or Nārada, who, we know, was an authority on the rāja-dharma and is referred to by Bāṇa in his Kādambarī.10 The third abridgement is attributed to Bṛihaspati and is designated Bārhaspatya. For the fourth, Kāvya or Uśanas was responsible. The of his work is not specified, but it must have been Auśanasa. In Chapter 59 of the Śānti-Parvan we have a specific mention not only of four of the seven authors of Arthaśāstra enumerated in Chapter 58 but also of the works standing to their credit. It is somewhat curious that Manu, Bhāradvāja and Gauraśiras have here been passed away. But the probable explanation is that these were sages and consequently human beings, whereas those noticed above were either gods or demi-gods and that the object of the tradition narrated in Chapter 59 is to establish the sacred character and the extreme antiquity of the Arthaśāstra by showing how it was handed down from Brāhmā through the various gods and at the same time more and more abridged in this process of transmission. Of course, Manu and his work must have been well-known at this time, for in the Droṇa-Parvan we find that one of his qualifications to become the generalissimo of the Kaurava army Droṇāchārya makes a pointed mention of his proficiency in Mānavī Artha-vidyā.11 This clearly indicates that a work on Arthaśāstra composed by Manu was well-known, and was held in such high repute that proficiency in it was considered to be a great merit to a general. About Bhāradvāja I shall say something further in the sequel, but no reference to the work of Gauraśiras I have been able to trace in the Mahābhārata.
Lectures on the Ancient History of India Page 7