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

( 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.

( 13 )

which has been expanded by Benfey, with remarkable learning, into an important treatise; just as another sentence from the same eminent scholar developed in the hands of Bopp into the science of Comparative Philology. In its technical form the Indian science of polity first became known by the publication of the Kâmand- aki-Nîtisâra with selections from the commentary (edited by Râjendralâl Mitra and others in Bibliotheca Indica, 1861-1884). The next stage is represented by two valuable publications of Professor Formichi, a translation of the work of Kâmandaki and a treatise entitled Gli Indiani e la loro Scienza politica (Bologna, 1890). In 1908 a notable paper by Professor Hillebra- ndt drew attention to a number of quotations from a prose work ascribed to Cânakya, also known as Vishnu- gupta and Kautilya, which was plainly the original authority upon which the later scholastic expositions by Kâmandaki and others were based. Prof. Hillebra- ndt was unaware at the time that this original trea- tise had already been discovered in South India, and that the discoverer, Pandit Shama Shastri of Mysore, had published an article dealing with it in the Indian Antiquary (1905, pp. 5 sqq.) and had commenced to issue a translation in the Mysore Review (1906-9, completed in the Indian Antiquary for 1909–10), of which publications notice was taken in Mr Vincent Smith's Early History of India (Oxford, 1907, pp. 134 sqq.) The text was edited by Pandit Shama Shastri (Mysore Government Oriental Library Series : Biblio- theca Sanskrita, No. 37) in 1909, in which year, having

( 14 ) been favoured with a perusal of proof-sheets I was able to draw attention (J. R. A. S. pp. 446-71) to tne extreme importance of the work. In 1911-12 Professor Jacobi in two very valuable papers (Kultur-Sprach- und Literaturhistorisches aus dem Kautilîya and Uber die Echtheit des Kautilîya in the Berlin Academy Sitzungsberichte, 1911, pp. 954-973, 1912, pp. 832-849) discussed the bearings of the work upon the Indian literary and linguistic history and argued forcibly for its authenticity. We have also to take note of interest- ing discussions of the work by Prof. Jolly, Lexika- lisches aus dem Arthashâstra (Indogermanische For- schungen, xxxi., pp. 204-10), Kollektaneen zum Kautilîya Arthashâstra (Z. D. M. G., 1914, pp. 345-359), Dr Johannes Hertel, Literarisches aus dem Kautilîyashâstra (Vienna Oriental Journal, xxiv, pp. 416-422), and Dr Jarl van Charpentier, En Indisk hand- bok i statslara fran 300 f. kr. (Nordisktidskrift, 1913, pp. 353-369), Narendra Nath Law, Studies in Ancient Hindu Polity (Based on the Arthashâstra of Kautilya) (vol. I., London, etc., 1914) and a partial commentary compiled by Dr `I. Sorabji, as a pupil of Prof. Jolly, and published at Allahabad in 1914. A revised trans- lation by Pandit Shama Shastri is now passing through the press. The information contained in the Arthashâstra is still far from exhausted,and the interest in it may be expected continually to increase. As Prof. Jacobi has mentioned, Cânakya frequently quotes his predecessors, both schools and individuals, the style often assuming almost the form of a discuss- ion ; and it is clear that in (say) the fifth and fourth

( 15 ) centuries B. c. the subject of royal policy was a recogniz- ed topic. The schools are the Mânavas, Bârhaspatyas, Aushanasas, Ambhîyas (no doubt, of Taxila ) and Parâ- sharas,and the individuals Bhâradvâja, Vishâlâksha, Pi- shuna, Kaunpadanta, Vâtavyâdhi and Bâhudantî-putra. It is, therefore, of interest to find that in the account of the science occurrig in the Mahâbhârata (cited by Prof. Jacobi, 1911, p.973)* some of these names occur. There we are told that the founder of the science was Brahmâ himself, whose work was abridged by Shiva in a treatise entitled Vaishâlâksha, and then further abridged in succession by Indra, who compiled the Bâhudantaka, Brihaspati the Bârhaspatya, and Kavi ( Ushanas ), the (Aushanasa) treatise-of which the last-mentioned is named along with those of Manu, Indra, Bhâradvāja, and Gaurashiras in another passage of the same book (c. 58, 2-3), also in 1. 98, 36 and elsewhere in the lite- rature(e.g. sâma aushanasa in the Jânakī harana, x.26). †एतत्ते राजधर्म्माणं नवनीतं युधिष्ठिर । बृहस्पतिर्हि भगवान्नायं धर्मं प्रशंसति ॥ १ ॥ विशालाक्षश्च भगवान्काव्यश्चैव महातपाः । सहस्राक्षो महेन्द्रश्च तथा प्राचेतसो मनुः ॥ २ ॥ भरद्वाजश्च भगवाँस्तथा गौरशिरा मुनिः । राजशास्त्र प्रणेतारो ब्राह्मणा ब्रह्मवादिनः ॥ ३ ॥ शा० अ० ५७

• Also cited by Dr G. Oppert in his Weapons, Army Organisation And Political Maxims of the Ancient Hindus, 1880, p 35. B.Datta. † I have introduced here the original shlokas for the benefit of the reader. B. Datta.

( 16 ) तानुवाच सुरान्सर्वान्स्वयंभूर्भगवाँस्ततः । श्रेयोऽहं चिन्तयिष्यामि व्येतुवोभीः सुरोत्तमाः ॥ २८ ॥ ततोऽध्यायसहस्राणां शतं चक्रे स्वबुद्धिजम् । यत्र धर्मस्तथैवार्थः कामश्चैवानुवर्णितः ॥ २९ ॥ संचिक्षेप ततः शास्त्रं महास्त्रं ब्रह्मणा कृतम् ॥ ५९ ॥ वैशालाक्षमिति प्रोक्तं तदिन्द्रः प्रत्यपद्यत । दशाध्यायसहस्राणि सुब्रह्मण्यो महातपाः ॥ ६० ॥ मघवानपि तच्छास्त्रं देवात्प्राप्य महेश्वरात् । प्रजानां हितमन्विच्छन्संचिक्षेप पुरंदरः ॥ ६१ ॥ सहस्रैः पञ्चभिस्तात यदुक्तं बाहुदन्तकम् । अध्यायानां सहस्रैस्तु त्रिभिरेव बृहस्पतिः । संचिक्षेपेश्वरो बुद्ध्या बार्हस्पत्यं यदुच्यते ॥ ६२ ॥ अध्यायानां सहस्रेण काव्यः संक्षेपमब्रवी

( 17 ) The Nîti literature of Burma is of a different character. In the Tibetan, however, where we find also quasi-independent works on government, there are translations of Sanskrit texts in verse ascribed (1) to Masuraksha and (2) to Nâgârjuna. The Javanese has, besides a professed translation of the Kâmandakî Nîtisâra, also some minor tracts, perhaps representing the late moral anthology which bears the name of Cânakya. If the short text which is here edited were represen- tative of the ancient Bârhaspatya doctrine, it would have a considerable interest. Unfortunately, this is far from being the case. It professes, indeed, like the Brihaspati Smriti, to be dictated to Indra by his Purohita. But what follows is a brief and strangely disjointed exposit- ion of the subject. Its date, as it stands, seems from an apparent mention of the Yâdvas of Devagiri to be brought down at least to the twelfth century A.D. It refers, in passages which, however, may be suspected of interpolation (see notes to II. 8–35, III. 8–16, 33–7, 119–33), to the sects of the Shaivas, Vaishnavas, and Shâktas and names their sacred domains (kshetras), some of which may not be ancient. It does not seem to contain the matter indicated by the citations in the Arthashâstra of Kautilya (pp. 6, 29, 63, 177, 192 of the edition). It displays some grammatical peculiarities, e.g. neuters for masculines (which may sometimes be explained as accusatives obscured by the elliptical sûtra style and vice versa), accusative after vi-shvas (which, however, occurs elsewhere), and even the forms samgrahet (which should perhaps be samgrahayet, as, the correct samgrihnîyât occurs several times) and divyât

( 18 )

(old subjunctive of dîv ; see Lexx.). Finally, it presents some confusions (e.g. I. 36, II. 34, V. 17), probably due to the MSS., and one strange word kusumânta, which, though it can hardly be for Musalmân, might conceiv- ably be a roundabout expression for Pallava (or pall- ava=vita). It is not, however, the case that nothing can be said on the other side. Apart from the suspected interpolat- ions, the tone and style, and even the disjointed and miscellaneous character of the work, produce a sense of antiquity : it is hard to conceive of such a treatise being deliberately compiled by persons acquainted with the Nîtisâra of Kâmandaki and the Shukranîti. Some of the expressions, e.g. atibhedayet (I. 52), alamkârayet (IV. 10), are in the old Arthashâtra style, as are the proverbial expressions (e.g. I. 29, 100, II. 11, v. 13, IV. 12). The name Tishya, as applied to the fourth, or Kali, age, recurs in the Mahâbhârata and Harivamsha. A connection with the Bârhaspatyas may be seen in the restriction of the royal sciences to one, namely dandanîti (Arthashâstra, p.6), although they add vârttâ (which again is represented in our text by krishigorakshabânijyâni, II. 4; cf. Arthashâstra, p. 8, krishipâshupâlye bânijyâ ca vârttâ). The importance attached to the Lokâyta and Bauddha doctrines also points to the same direction. The term Kâpâlika, as applied to adherents of the Kâmashâstra, requires explanation; but some Shaiva sects e.g. the Pâshupatas encourage erotic ideas. Upon the whole we should perhaps not be mistaken in maintaining that the text does, though rather remotely, derive from the ancient Bârhaspatya system. We might compare it with such treatises as the existent Vedângas,

( 19 ) or with the Atharvaveda Parishishtas, which contain undoubtedly ancient matter along with strange lexico- graphical and grammatical features (e.g. homayet and even namaskaret ; see the edition by Negelein and Bolling, Leipzig 1909–10, index). They belong to the backwaters of priestly studies preserved in Southern India, when the general interest was transferred to such subjects as Nyâya, Vedânta, law, and grammar. A Ms. of the work seems to be recorded as in private possession in South India (see Oppert’s ‘List,’ vol. 1. No. 4642).* This ms. has not been procurable; but by the kindness of Prof. Rangâchârya, late Curator of the Government Oriental MSS. Library in Madras, I have been favoured with a Devanâgarî copy of another ms., which is under his charge. Upon this (M) I have based the text, recording the slight variants of the Royal Asiatic Society’s Whish ms. (W—noted in Winternitz’s catalogue under No. 160 (3), p. 219). Both originals are in Grantha character, and they derive not remotely from a common source.¹ The punctuation follows almost invariably the Madras copy : the numbering of the Sûtras has been added. As the treatise is definitely : a Sûtra, a commentary must have been designed. Does a copy exist, perhaps under Oppert’s I. No. 6961 Bârhaspatya-sûtra-tîkâ (no longer traceable) ? It might contain something

• There is another ms. of the work with Shri Pandit T. Ganapati Shastri of Travancore. He writes to me in his letter dated 22nd Dec. 1920 thus--‘As desired in your letter, I shall arrange on receipt of your printed forms of Bârhaspatya to note down the variants.’ These I have not yet received. B. Datta.

1. Whether. this common source was the actual Madras ms.

( 20 ) interesting, more especially as it is not quite clear that the text in its six adhyáyas is complete². I hope shortly to be in possession of a Nîti-sûtra ascribed to Cânakya. * or not, I am unable to demonstrate. That it was in the Grantha character is proved by the confusions between e and hi (v. 15); au and n (read as n: III. 118, IV. 38, v. 22); m and h (I. 5, II. 8, 18, III. 76, 81, 92, v. 11); k and t (I. 54, 76, III. 81, 92, 131, v. 13); k and tt (III. 122); g and bh (III. 67); c and v (III. 26–7); c and p (II. 39); nc and sc (II. 73, III. 23, 87, 102); j and bh (II. 33); nd and ndr (III. 41); nd and ndh (II. 43); t and m (v. 26); n and r (I. 7); nu and nri (I. 54); p and v (v. 27); la and li (II. 9) vra and vri (v 26). 2. We may here enumerate the chief grammatical peculiarities above referred to. Some of them may be due to the elliptical Sutra style, while some masculine plurals in ani from nouns in a may be conjectured to be ms. errors, final n (Grantha, etc.) having been read as ni. Also double gender in such nouns is common : (a) neuter for masc. : abhiprayam (v. 9); artham ? (VI. 9); asavani (III. 57); upayani (IV. 43); kalaham (IV. 36); kamam ? (II. 47); devalayani (III. 56); dharmam ? (II. 46); pratikaram (IV. 50); mantrani (III. 8, elsewhere masc. : different sense ?); moksham ? (II. 48); lobham (I. 22) vadham (II. 49); shabdam (IV. 33, known elsewhere); svaram (IV. 17); vishaya (III. 113 ?). (b) compounds with adi in various genders, having no obvious concord : I. 12, 57, 64, 65, 106; II. 16, 19; III. 15. (c) masc for neuter : aushadhah (III. 139); kshetsah (III. 119-122; also neut.); phalah (III. 73); see also III. 9. (d) arj-for arj : II. 7, 9, 13. (e) suparihritya (v. 15) and divyat (III. 46, 47) are archaic. As regards Sandhi, I have usually normalized, sometimes leaving h in pause, where it is legitimate.

• This has now been printed as an appendix to the second edition of Kautilya Arthashástra by Pt. Shama Shastri.

( १ )

1. INDEX OF PROPER NAMES AND OTHER IMPORTANT WORDS. अर्जुन २४६॥ बौद्ध २।६, १५, २८, ३४॥ ३। ५, ६१॥ असुर ३।१३५॥ भद्रकाली ३।१२८॥ आर्हत २।७, ६॥ भूत ३।१३५॥ इतिहास ३।३१॥ महेश्वर २।२६॥ इन्द्र पृ० १॥ म्लेच्छ ३।११७॥ कर्ण २४६॥ यक्ष ३:१३५॥ कापालिक २।६, ६, १२, २१, ३१॥ यवन ३।११७॥ कुमार ३।१२६॥ योगिनी ३।१३७॥ कुसुमान्त १।६८, १०४-०५॥ राक्षस ३।१३५॥ कूश्माण्ड ३।१३५॥ राम २४६॥ ३।५८॥ कृत ३।१४६॥ लोकायत २।५, ८, १२, १६, २६॥ ३।१२५॥ क्षपणक २।१४, २२, २३, ३३॥ ३।१२५॥ वाच

Wait, let's look at the format. The prompt says: "Transcribe all text on this ancient Indian Warfare / Statecraft / Dhanurveda / Maritime Science / Rajanitishastra page line by line into pure, clean Markdown in Unicode Devanagari. Include all Sanskrit sutras, shlokas, military maneuvers, archery techniques, naval vessel diagrams, political discourses, Hindi translation, and commentary. Prefix each line with line marker like , . Output line markers for every line. Do NOT output LaTeX math syntax."

Let's check if presenting two columns side by side separated by spaces/table or two columns sequentially is better. Usually, a 2-column layout in an index is read row-by-row or column-by-column? In index pages, each row has: Col 1 | Col 2 Let's see: Row 1: अङ्ग ३१०८॥ \t गङ्गा ३८२॥ Row 2: अतिभोग ३६७॥ \t गङ्गा-द्वार ३१२२॥ Row 3: अनन्त ३१२०॥ \t गज-क्षेत्र ३१२२॥ Row 4: अम्बष्ठ ३१०३॥ \t गोदावरी ३८२॥ Row 5: अवन्ति ३६४॥ \t घृतमाला ३८२॥ Row 6: अविमुक्तक ३१२५॥ \t चोल ३१२०४॥ (or : १२०४