बार्हस्पत्य सूत्र / अर्थशास्त्र (महर्षि बृहस्पति - प्राचीन दण्डनीति, राजधर्म एवं कूटनीति सटीक)

UC-NRLF B 4 027 060 BL 1215 P65 B73 1921 MAIN

इस पृष्ठ पर कोई पाठ (टेक्स्ट) मौजूद नहीं है। यह केवल एक सादा/अलंकृत आवरण (endpaper/decorative pattern) पृष्ठ है।

इस पृष्ठ पर कोई लिखित पाठ उपलब्ध नहीं है (यह एक सादा/रिक्त पृष्ठ है)।

इस पृष्ठ पर कोई पाठ (टेक्स्ट) अथवा श्लोक अंकित नहीं है; यह एक रिक्त (कोरा) पृष्ठ है।

THE PUNJAB SANSKRIT SERIES, No. ONE.

THE PUNJAB SANSKRIT SERIES OR A COLLECTION OF RARE AND UNPUBLISHED SANSKRIT WORKS. EDITED BY THE WELL-KNOWN AND EMINENT SCHOLARS OF INDIA, EUROPE AND AMERICA. No. I. LAHORE (INDIA.) THE PUNJAB SANSKRIT BOOK DEPOT. 1921.

ॐ ✻ बार्हस्पत्य सूत्रम् ✻ अर्थात् ॥ बार्हस्पत्य अर्थशास्त्रम् ॥ BRIHASPATI SUTRA OR THE SCIENCE OF POLITICS ACCORDING TO THE SCHOOL OF BRIHASPATI EDITED WITH AN INTRODUCTION AND ENGLISH TRANSLATION BY DR. F. W. THOMAS, M. A., LIBRARIAN, INDIA OFFICE LIBRARY, LONDON. THE DEVANAGARI TEXT PREPARED FROM HIS EDITION (IN ROMAN SCRIPT), WITH INTRODUCTORY REMARKS AND INDEXES BY PT. BHAGAVAD DATTA, B. A., Professor of Sanskrit and Superintendent, Research Department, D. A. V. College, Lahore. PUBLISHED BY MOTI LAL BANARSI DASS, PROPRIETORS The Punjab Sanskrit Book Depot, Lahore. 1921.

LAHORE: PRINTED BY BHAIRO PRASADA AT THE “VIDYA PRAKASA” PRESS.

BL 1215 P65 B73 1921 MAIN ॥ ओ३म् ॥ विश्वानि देव सवितर्दुरितानि परासुव । यद् भद्रं तन्न आसुव ॥ INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.

1. ANTIQUITY OF ARYAN POLITY. The Arthashâstras have been in existence in Aryâvarta as a separate literature from very early times. The superiority of Dharmashâstras over Arthshâstras is referred to in the Smriti ascribed to Yâjnavalkya in the following shloka :— स्मृत्योर्विरोधे न्यायस्तु बलवान्व्यवहारतः । अर्थशास्त्रात्तु बलवद्धर्मशास्त्रमिति स्थितिः ॥ २।२१ ॥ The same is said in the Bhavishya Purâna as quoted in the Aparârka :— स्मृत्यर्थेन विरोधे तु अर्थशास्त्रस्य बाधनम् ॥ Nârada Smriti also remarks in the same way :— धर्मशास्त्रार्थशास्त्राभ्यामविरोधेन यत्नतः । संपश्यमानो निपुणं व्यवहारगतिं नयेत् ॥ यत्र विप्रतिपत्तिः स्याद्धर्मशास्त्रार्थशास्त्रयोः । अर्थशास्त्रोक्तमुत्सृज्य धर्मशास्त्रोक्तमाचरेत् ॥ १।३७।३८॥ In his well-known Arthashâstra, Kautilya (not later than 3rd century B. C.) says that a literature bearing this title was extant in his days, and that he compiled his treatise after seeing the works of his predecessors. His words are :— पृथिव्या लाभे पालने च यावन्त्यर्थशास्त्राणि पूर्वाचार्यैः प्रस्थापितानि प्रायशस्तानि संहृत्यैकमिदमर्थशास्त्रं कृतम् । (Second edition, p. 1). 683101

( 2 ) Not only Kautilya, but also works anterior to him refer to this literature. In Caraṇavyûha the forty-ninth Parishishta of the Atharvaveda we read:— तत्र ऋग्वेदस्यार्थशास्त्रमुपवेदः।................... ............................ब्रह्मवेदस्यायुर्वेदोपवेदः। अभिचारकार्थशास्त्रमित्युच्यते॥ ३॥ This second view that the Arthashâstra is the Upaveda of Rigveda is held in the Caraṇavyûha ascribed to Shaunaka. वेदानामुपवेदाश्चत्वारो भवन्ति।................. अथर्ववेदस्य 'अर्थशास्त्रम्' । (चतुर्थः खण्डः)। It is clear then that Arthashâstra claims a great antiquity in the history of Sanskrit literature. II. BRIHASPATI AND HIS ARTHASHASTRA. Pancatantra (textus simplicior 12th century A.D. according to Dr. J. Hertel) has a reference to a nîti maxim of Brihaspati. सुहृत्सं विष्णुगुप्तस्य मित्राप्तिर्भार्गवस्य च। बृहस्पतेरविश्वासो ❄ नीतिसन्धिस्त्रिधा स्थितः॥२४१॥ Bhoja in his Yuktikalpataru (11th century A. D.) while refering to the nîti literature says:— *Compare with this the teaching of Mahâbhârata:— विश्वासयेत्परांश्चैव विश्वसेच्च न कस्यचित्। पुत्रेष्वपि हि राजेन्द्र विश्वासो न प्रशस्यते॥ अविश्वासो नरेन्द्रणां गुह्यं परममुच्यते॥महा०शा०८५।३३।३४॥

( 3 ) नीतिर्बृहस्पतिप्रोक्ता तथैवोशनसीपरा । उभयोरविरुद्धात्र निरूप्या नीतिरुत्तमा ॥ p, 2. Ashvaghosha in his Buddha Carita (about first century A. D.) has remarked about Brihaspati :— यद्राजशास्त्रं भृगुराङ्गिरा वा न चक्रतुर्वंशकरावृषी तौ । तयोः सुतौ तौ च ससर्जतुस्तात् क.लेन शुक्रश्च बृहस्पतिश्च॥१।४६॥ The well-known Kâmasûtras of Vâtsyâyana not only refer to Brihaspati as the compiler of an Artha- shâstra but state that he lived about the beginning of creation. The whole account runs thus :— प्रजापतिर्हि प्रजाः सृष्ट्वा तासां स्थितिनिबन्धनं त्रिवर्गस्य साधनमध्यायानां शतसहस्रेणाग्रे प्रोवाच ॥५॥ तस्यैकदेशिकं मनुः स्वायंभुवो धर्माधिकारिकं पृथक्चकार ॥६॥ बृहस्पतिरर्थाधिकारिकम् ॥ ७ ॥ Bhâsa also refers to a Bárhaspatya Arthashástra in his Pratimâ Nâtaka :— रावणः —“...काश्यपगोत्रोऽस्मि साङ्गोपाङ्गं वेदमधीये,मानवीयं धर्मशास्त्रं, माहेश्वरं योगशास्त्रं,बार्हस्पत्यमर्थशास्त्रं, मेधातिथेर्न्याय- शास्त्रं, प्राचेतसं श्राद्धकल्पं च ।” प्रतिमा नाटक p, 79. The Mahâbhârata has the following to say on this point :— नीतिं बृहस्पतिप्रोक्तं भ्रातृन्मेऽग्राहयत्पुरा । वन० ३२।६१॥ So we know that the Bârhspatya Shâstra claims a great antiquity in the history of Aryan literature. III. THE ORIGINAL WORK OF BRIHASPATI. The question now arises, as to whether the origi- nal work of Brihaspati was composed in verse or sûtras

( 4 ) or in the mixed style. No doubt some sûtra literature along with gâthâ and other works, was extant even before the time of the compilation of the Brâhmanas because the Shatapatha Brâhmana (सूत्राण्यनुव्याख्यानानि का० १४ अ० ७ ब्रा० ३ कं० ११) alludes to it, but it is not sure whether it had come into vogue at times as early as those of Swâyambhava Manu and Brihaspati, the preceptor of Indra. IV. MANAVA DHARMA SHASTRA. Scholars like Max Muller and Buhler held that the Dharmashâstra of Manu was originally a composition in the mixed style of sûtrasand shlokas. Buhler tried his best to put forward this theory with such proofs as he could gather. One of his strongest proofs was a passage मानवं सूत्रमुदाहरन्ति which he found in Vâsishtha Dharm ashâstra. Now it is sure that the original work of Manu- had passed through the hands of several editors,as for example Bhrigu, Nârada etc., when it reached the compiler of Vâs. Dh. and that a carna of the Krishna Yajur Veda namely the Mânava had also come into existence. It is, thereforer, quite clear that a school of the Mânavas had come into existence even before the 3rd century B. C. The Arthashâstra of Kautîlya refers to a certain author of this very school. The views of the Mânavas represented in this Arthashâstra differ widely from the Smriti of Manu. It is, therefore, evident that the school consisted of authors who differed greatly. It was this great difference which troubled Buhler very much when he could find no reason as to why the teachings of the Sm- riti differed from the Mânava Grihya Sûtra. The whole of sûtra literature of the Mânava school came into existence after the Mânava carna had been established, and hence

( 5 ) we can safely conclude that the original Smriti of Manu was purely in verse. As quoted by Buhler on the authority of Nârada, we know that the original work of Manu began with a verse (shloka, as Nârada says). On the other hand all works in sûtra or the mixed style begin almost with a sûtra. Again Dhammapada (circa 4th century B.C.) has two verses which are only a Pali version with some change of words of the text of Manu Smriti. अभिवादनशीलस्य नित्यं वृद्धो- | अभिवादनसीलस्स निच्चं वड्ढाप- पसेविनः । चत्वारि तस्य वर्धन्त | चायिनो । चत्तारो धम्मा वड्ढन्ति आयुर्विद्या यशोबलम् ॥२।१२१॥ | आयु वण्णो सुखं बलं ॥८।६*॥ न तेन वृद्धो भवति येनास्य | न तेन थेरो होति येनऽस्स पलितं शिरः। यो वै युवाप्यधीयान- | फलितं सिरो। परिपक्को वयो तस्स स्तंदेवाः स्थविरं विदुः ॥२।१५६॥ | मोघजिण्णोति वुच्चति ॥१९।५॥ Kautiliya Arthashástra also as referred to on pages 101-03 and 199 of his "Lectures on the Ancient History of India" by Shri D. R. Bhandarkar has two verses of Manu Smriti with slight changes only. नास्य छिद्रं परो विद्याद्विद्या- | नास्य गुह्यं परे विद्युश्छिद्रं च्छिद्रं परस्य तु। गूहेत्कूर्म इवाङ्गानि | विद्यात्परस्य च। गूहेत्कूर्मइवाङ्गानि रक्षेद्विवरमात्मनः ॥७।१०५॥ | यत्स्याद्विवृतमात्मनः ॥ कौ० पृ० २६

• Read here the note of Max Muller on page 33 of Vol. X Part I of S.B.E

( 6 ) संवत्सरेण पतति पतितेन सहा- | संवत्सरेण पतति पतितेन समा चरन् । याजनाध्यापनाद्यौनान्न तु | चरन्। याजनाध्यापनाद्यौनात्तैश्चा- यानासनाशनात् ॥११।१८०*॥ | न्योऽपि समाचरन्॥ कौ०पृ०२१६† Here, Professor D. R. Bhandarkar following the lead of Buhler arrives at the result that ‘ the verses (above quoted) were not composed by Kautilya but were utilised by him from some work which was in existence long before he wrote or the (metrical) Manu Smriti was compiled.’ This is nothing but a prejudice in order to bring down the date of Manusmriti. First a theory is started—Manusmriti is accepted to belong to a later date,—and then if any work anterior to that date is found containing the verses of Manusmriti, (although not mentioning this fact but still indicating that the verses are not his own) it is said that the work in ques- tion and the Manusmriti both utilised a material of a very old period. Both this assumption and conclusion do not seem to be convincing. Last of all we may refer to two verses, to be found in the 18th Sarga of Valmiki Ramayana, where the author of that work explicitly says that the following two shlokas were sung by Manu :—

• Vasistha 1. 22 ; Baudhayana II. 1. 35 and Vishnu. † My friend Pandit Nanak Chandra B. A. informs me that Maskri and Hardatta on Gautama Dharma Sutra have got the first half of this verse on the name of Kanva. They both give समाचरन् in place of सहाचरन्, Hardatta at the same time quotes the full verse from Manu also with the words इति मानवम् . There also the first half of the verse has समाचरन् and the second half has exactly the same words as in the present day Manu.

( 7 ) श्रूयते मनुना गीतो श्लोकौ चारित्र वत्सलौ । गृहीतौ धर्मकुशलैस्तत्तथा चरितं हरे ॥ ३१ ॥ राजभिर्धृतदण्डास्तु कृत्वा पापानि मानवाः । निर्मलाः स्वर्गमायान्ति सन्तः सुकृतिनो यथा ॥ ३२ ॥ शासनाद्वा विमोक्षाद्वा स्तेनः स्तेयाद्विमुच्यते । राजा त्वशासन्पापस्य तदवाप्नोति किल्विषम् ॥ ३३ ॥ The verse 32nd is Manusmriti VIII. 38, and verse 33rd is Manu VIII. 316. It may, therefore, after this beief discussion be safely concluded that the original Smriti of Manu was like the present one composed in verse.1 V. THE SMRITI OF BRIHASPATI. Like its original, the Manusmriti, the Smriti of Brihaspati was also in verse. That work is however lost now (if it may not be unearthed by some future researches). The small collection of some shlokas which is generally called the Brihaspati Smriti is but a child’s play as compared with the Bárhaspatya Shástra referred to in the Mahábhárata. Professor Julius Jolly collected fragments of Brihaspatismriti from different law books and and their commentaries, for translating them in the S. B. E. Vol. XXXIII But these fragments are also incomplete. An exhaustive collection of all the sayings of Brihaspati will not be a fruitless task for some future scholar.2 1 I hope to discuss this subject in detail at some later date. 2 After the above lines were written I read in the Vedic Magazine that Pandit Jaideva Vidyalankar of the Gurukul Kangri is busy with this work and will shortly bring out this useful collection.

( 8 ) VI KAUTILYA AND BRIHASPATI. Just as the views attributed to the school of Manu by Kautilya and his follower Kâmandaka are not to be met with in the present law-book of Manu, so also the views ascribed to the school of Brihaspati by Kautilya are not found in the collected fragments of Brihaspati. Brihaspati is referred to on six different occasions by Kautilya. See pages. 6, 29, 63, 177, 192, and 375. (Text, second edition) VII. THE BARHASPATYA SUTRAM AND ITS DATE. The present sûtras even if they do, possess but a very remote connection with the Bárhaspatya shâstra. Even pruned of their sectarian matter, they do not appear to belong to any of the adherents of the original school of Brihaspati. These sûtras may only here and there contain a view of the old Bárhaspatya school. As regards the date of this work, nothing can be said with certainty. The guess of Dr. F. W. Thomas may turn out to be a true one. This much however, is certain that the work is not anterior to the sixth or seventh century A. D.*

• Pandit Jai Deva in the Vedic Magazine already referred to says that the work is posterior to Kalidas, for the reason that in his Meghaduta Kalidas refers to Kankhal alone, while Hardwar or Gangadvara which is a Shaiva tirtha of a recent origin is not at all mentioned by him. This Gangadvara is mentioned in Barhaspatya sutra III. 122. Hence the work is posterior to the recognition of Hardwar as a sacred place.

( 9 ) VIII. A BARHASPATYA SAMHITA. There is another treatise connected with the name of Brihaspati. It is the Bârhaspatya Samhitā. We find it often quoted in the गजलक्षण प्रकरण of लक्षणप्रकाश of वीरमित्रोदय. It is in the form of a dialogue between Nahusha and Brihaspati. The work is in the mixed style of prose and verse. This Samhitâ also, as is apparent from the numerous quotations in the above mentioned work, bears no connection with the present sûtras. ————— IX. WAS BRIHASPATI A CARVAKA ? No doubt, there was a great atheistic logician Brihaspati by name; but was he the writer on polity ? Somadeva Suri (10th century A. D.) says in his Yashastilaka बृहस्पतिनीतय इवादेवमातृका (p. 13 Nir- nayasagar 1901) and his commentator Shrutasagar Suri says बृहस्पतिनीतय इव । यथा बृहस्पतिनीतयश्चार्वाकशास्त्राणि देवं सर्वज्ञादिविशेषं न मन्यन्ते । So, according to the com- mentator the Nîtikâra Brihaspati was the renowned Cârvâka. However, all the previous quotations go against this view. Brihaspati the politian, being connected with Manu and others of the theistic school, was certainly a theist. Somadeva and his commentator confuse the two Brihaspatis. There have been thus three eminent persons at least known by the name Brihaspati in the literary history of Bhârata. The first and the most well-known was Brihaspati, the writer on polity; secondly Brihaspati, the cârvâka logician, and thirdly the person who wrote the samhitâ.

( 10 ) X. PARALLEL PASSAGES. (१) आत्मवान् राजा १।१   आत्मवान् नृपः । कामन्दकी नीतिसार २।३६ (२) कालिकाभिधान पाषण्डी २।१३ पाषण्डी । नीतिवाक्यामृत पृ० ८२ On this the commentary says कापालिकादि पाषण्डिनम् । (३) अर्थमर्थेन २।४६     अर्थेनार्थोपार्जनम् । नी० वा० अमृत पृ० ११९ (४) गुरुवचनमलङ्घनीयम् २।७३ गुरुवचनमनुल्लङ्घनीयम्। नी०वा० अमृत पृ० ४४ (५) अष्टादशतीर्थानि निरूपयेत  “सेनापतिर्गणको राजश्रेष्ठी ३।२२ दण्डाधिपो मन्त्री महत्तरो बल- वत्तरश्चत्वारो वर्णाश्च तुरङ्गबलं पुरोहितोऽमात्यो महामाहात्यश्चे- त्यष्टादश राज्ञां तीर्था भवन्ति ।” quoted by श्रुतसागरसूरि on p. 91 of यशस्तिलक Nirnayasagar edition. ब्राह्मे मुहूर्ते उत्थानम् । धर्म- A common saying of the मर्थञ्च चिन्तयेत् २।४।१।   Dharmashâstras. Cf. Manu IV. 92. (७) गजोऽगजेनेव ६।६    गजेन गजबन्धनमिव । नी० वा० अमृत पृ० ११९ (८) धनमूलं जगत् ६।१०    “धनमार्जय काकुत्स्थ धन मूलमिदं जगत्” । quoted by Ramchandra Budhendra on नीतिशतक 31 (Nirnayasagar edition 1917)

( 11 ) These sûtrās of Brihaspati were originally published in LE MUSEON Troisieme Série—Tome

1. No. 2, 16 Mars 1916. The text printed there, was in the Roman script. To this, Dr. F. W. Thomas had attached his valuable introduction and translation. By the kind permission of the publishers—The Uni- versity Press Cambridge—of that journal, through Professor Balkrishna M. A.; the editor of the Vedic Magazine, was able to publish this material in his journal for the month of October 1920. The deva- nâgari text of the sûtrās printed in the Vedic Magazine was prepared by me. During its preparation I was thinking if the text with the introductien and trans- lation of Dr. F. W. Thomas could be preserved in a book form. Even Professor Balkrishna desired the same. This became soon practicable, when the publishers of the present edition undertook this task. In the end I should thank my friends Pandits Vishva Bandhu Shâstri M. A. and Nanak Chand B. A. and my pupil Desh Raj for going through the proof-sheets. DAYANANDA ANGLO VEDIC COLLEGE, LAHORE, } BHAGAVADDATTA December, 1920.

( 12 ) A BRIHASPATI SUTRA. The text here edited with a translation was brought to notice in the course of a search for a celebrated treatise, also ascribed to a Brihaspati, namely the exponent of the Lokâyata or Cârvâka doctrine, the crude corporealism of India. The discovery of this work, to judge from the quotations in the Sarva- darshana-samgraha and elsewhere, would contribute notably to the entertainment of students of Sanskrit literature. The present treatise is not devoid of interest, but the interest is of a different character. The work is in one respect unique, being an exposition of the Science of Royal Policy in Sûtra style. This Indian science may claim no ordinary place in the history of culture, since two of its suceedanea, the policy in fable and the game of chess, still styled the Royal Game, have made the conquest of the world. In its pure form as a science of monarchical government it does not seem to have passed beyond the Indian sphere, that is the sphere dominated by Indian culture, including Further India, the Malay countries, Central Asia, and Tibet : for, though the Muhammadans have a science of govern- ment, which may go back to pre-Islamic Persia, it does not seem to betray an Indian inspiration. And Macchi- avelli's Prince, if influenced at all, as is à priori quite conceivable, by oriental models, would derive rather from the Muhammadan than the Indian. The propagation of the policy in fable (the Fables of Pilpay) was first adumbrated by Sir William Jones, in a sentence*

* From the Third Annual Discourse : prefixed to his translaton of the Hitopadesha.