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

( 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

( ३ ) मलय ३।८६॥ | शार्दूल ३।१२२॥ मव्य ३।१२२॥ | शिव-क्षेत्र ३।१२२॥ मालव ३।६३॥ | शिव-सरस्वती ३।१२२॥ महेन्द्र ३।११४,१२२,१३२॥ | श्रीपर्वत ३ ८१,१०६॥ मेरु ३।६६॥ | श्रीशैल ३।१२३॥ यादव ३।१०४॥ | शृङ्गार ३।६७,१२०॥ रामे-यमुना ३।१२२॥ | सरस्वती ३।८८॥ रैवतक ३।८१,१११,१३१॥ | सह्य ३।८१,८६,१०६,१३०॥ लाट ३।८६॥ | सिद्ध ३।६७॥ वङ्ग ३।१०८॥ | सिन्धु ३।१०३॥ वरुण ३।८८॥ | सिंह ३।१२०॥ विदर्भ ३।६५॥ | सुराष्ट्र ३।१०१॥ विदेह ३।६६॥ | सृञ्जय ३।६१॥ विन्ध्य ३।८१,११२,१२८॥ | सैह्य ३।६३॥ विश्वामित्र ३.८६॥ | सौवीर ३।१०४॥ शक ३।१०१॥ | हिमवत् ३।७०॥ शकुन्त ३।६३॥ | हूण ३।१०३॥ शालग्राम ३।८०,१२०॥ |

❧ शतपथ ब्राह्मणम् ❧ (शुक्ल यजुर्वेदीय काण्व शाखीय ) SHATA PATHA BRAHMANA. According to the School of Kanvas, Text in DEVANAGARI CHARACTERS EDITED BY Dr. W. Caland M. A., Ph. D. It is the important Brâhmaṇa of the White Yajur Veda. This recension is of high importance for the study of the Vedic period and the editor has adjoined an extensive introduction to it, treating of the position of the Brâhman in the Vedic Literature and of its ling- uistic peculiarities as compared with the Brâhmaṇa of the cognate Shâkhâ. This edition is highly appreciated by the well-known American Sanskritist Professor C. R. Lanman. It is a voluminous text hitherto unpublished anywhere. As this is a big and expensive work, we will undertake to publish it when we get 300 perman- ent subscribers of this book. So the Colleges, Libraries and scholars, who wish to have a copy of this important Vedic work should get registered their names. २. जैमिनि गृह्यसूत्र—text in Devanâgarî characters; edited with an introduction, notes, extracts from the commentary and list of mantras etc. by Dr. W. Caland, M. A., Ph. D. (In the Press). Apply to — The Punjab Sanskrit Book Depot, Said Mitha, LAHORE, India.

ओ३म् अथ बार्हस्पत्यसूत्रम् । [ प्रथमोऽध्यायः । ] बृहस्पतिरथाचार्य इन्द्राय नीतिसर्वस्वमुपदिशति । आत्मवान् राजा ॥१॥ आत्मवन्तं मन्त्रिणमापादयेत् ॥२॥ दण्डनीतिरेव विद्या ॥३॥ धर्ममपि लोकविक्रुष्टं न कुर्यात् ॥४॥ करोति चेदाशास्यैनं¹ बुद्धिमद्भिः ॥५॥ समानैः सेव्यः ॥६॥ स्त्रीबालवृद्धैः सह न² वदेद्धर्मनीतिकृत्यानि ॥७॥ ऐन्द्रजालिकं³ न कुर्यात् ॥८॥ मन्त्रवादोत्सवौ च ॥९॥ आमयविषध्वंसनानि च ॥१०॥ न भस्मधारणम्⁴ ॥११॥

1. W अशास्येनः। 2. W र। 3. W ०जालकं। 4. M erases 11 and inserts it after 12.

२ बार्हस्पत्यसूत्रम् । नाग्निहोत्रवेदपाठादीनि च ॥१२॥ न तीर्थयात्रा ५ ॥१३॥ न राजसेवा च ॥१४॥ न स्त्रीसेवा च ॥१५॥ न म[१.ख]द्यं पिबेत् ॥१६॥ ब्राह्मणं न हन्यात् ॥१७॥ स्तेयं न कुर्यात् ॥१८॥ बहु न च स्रगनुलेपौ ६ ॥१९॥ न विषीदेत् ॥२०॥ न चातिकुप्येत् ॥२१॥ अविषये लोभमदानसंज्ञम् ७ ॥२२॥ केदारे बीजानि वापयेत् ॥२३॥ दानं कर्त्तव्यम् ॥२४॥ तदसहिष्णुता लोभः ॥२५॥ स्तेयं लोभश्च ॥२६॥ स्वद्रव्यव्ययहेतुः कामः ॥२७॥ गुरुदेवप्राज्ञनृपादिहिंसाबुद्धिः क्रोधः ॥२८॥ स्वशिरस्ताडनं च ॥२९॥

[

प्रथमोऽध्यायः । ३ बलादिषु च समं शत्रुं युद्धेन हन्यात् ॥३०॥ अन्याभियोर्थी सामदानभेदमायोपेत्तादिभिः ॥३१॥ मलवेधं न कुर्यात् ॥३२॥ मृगयातिसङ्गं च नाचरेत् ॥३३॥ स्त्रीष्वतिसङ्गादयशो व[रक]र्धते ॥३४॥ आयुश्च क्षीयते ॥३५॥ द्यूतपरतापपरापवादपातकिसमागमे समन्त्ररक्षानि परच्छिद्रा- णि विद्याव्यसनपरिहास्येन ॥३६॥ औषधोपयोगविण्मूत्रविसर्जनकस्नानदन्तधावनमैथुनोपभोग- दैवतपूजापि रहस्येन ॥३७॥ वृथा धर्मध्वजिनं न विश्वसेत् ॥३८॥ निन्देन्न च ॥३९॥ उन्मत्तजडादीन् दृष्ट्वा न हसेच्च ॥४०॥ तुल्यशीलवयोभिः क्रीडितव्यं रहस्ये ॥४१॥ गजाश्वक्रीडे व्यक्ते न द्विमूर्तम् ॥४२॥ दूषयेन्न च स्वजातिजीवत्सु ॥४३॥

8. Sic M; W [ ०योगी ]. Read ०योधिनः ? 9. W समदनानभेद । 10. W मलषं । 11. W ०गतेमस-the reading and sense are doubtful; 12. W परि० । 13. W औषधोयोग० ।
9. W स्मान । 15. For accusative after वि-श्वस् see Lexica and comp. V, 19 infra . 16. W ०जाक्रदीन् । 17. M includes रहस्ये in the next sûtra. 18. W ०अश्वरासक्रीडे । 19. M ०क्रे ।

अर्थेनानुरागेणाभिजन्मनौदार्येण पूर्वैर्भ[२ख]विष्यैरधिकत्व इच्छा कर्त्तव्या ॥४४॥ पूर्वाचरितं धर्ममनुजीविसख्यममात्यज्ञातिसुहृद्वान्धवान् समं पश्येत् ॥४५॥ बहिरन्तर्दण्डदानावतुजीविषु ॥४६॥ सामभेददानानि मन्त्रिषु ॥४७॥ सामभेददानार्थमायपिण्डानि²⁰ ज्ञातिषु ॥४८॥ अप्रियमपि वचनं शृणुयात् ॥४९॥ दुर्दिनग्रहवैषम्यत्रिजन्मनक्षत्रे गुरुकार्यप्राप्तौ²¹ न च मङ्गलानि सेवेत ॥५०॥ एकदेश²²कैरूपिणीमभिजातां स्त्रियं गमयेत् ।५१॥ अतिभेदयेन्नातिसामं नातिदानं न च स्त्रीषु दण्डो न च मायो²³पेता²⁴ कर्त्तव्या ॥५२॥ तासु न बहु वदेत् ॥५३॥ ग्रामया[३क]चकस्तुतमागधवन्दिनटनर्तक्यु²⁵पाध्यायासत्यवाद- ²⁶बटुविटवाणिजगोपालवेश्याकु²⁷नृपेष्व²⁸नृताडम्बरं वक्तव्यः॥५४॥ ²⁹संन्यासं नृपवेश्यामन्त्रवादोपजीविषु चिरं न सेवेत ॥५५॥

पाद-टिप्पणी (Footnotes / Variant Readings)

20. भेदनाना० । 21. M W ०कार्ये प्र० । 22. W ०शम; M ०शा ए० । 23. M चामयो०। 24. M W insert न । 25. Read सूत for स्तुत ? W ०नर्तत्यु० । 26. M ०जतु०; W ०जहु० । 27. W ०वेश्य० । 28. M अनु० । 29. M संन्यास ।

हिन्दी अनुवाद एवं व्याख्या (Hindi Translation & Commentary)

• सूत्र ४४: धन, अनुराग, उच्च कुल (अभिजन) तथा उदारता के द्वारा पूर्वजों एवं भावी पुरुषों से भी अधिक श्रेष्ठ बनने की इच्छा रखनी चाहिए।
• सूत्र ४५: पूर्वजों द्वारा आचरित धर्म तथा अपने आश्रितों, मित्रों, मंत्रियों, ज्ञातियों (सगे-संबंधियों) एवं बंधु-बांधवों को समदृष्टि से देखना चाहिए।
• सूत्र ४६: अपने आश्रितों/कर्मचारियों (अनुजीवियों) पर आवश्यकतानुसार बाह्य एवं आन्तरिक दण्ड तथा दान का प्रयोग करना चाहिए।
• सूत्र ४७: मंत्रियों के प्रति साम (समझाना), भेद (विभाजन) तथा दान की नीति का प्रयोग करना चाहिए।
• सूत्र ४८: अपने जाति-बंधुओं (ज्ञातिजनों) में साम, भेद, दान तथा अर्थ-पिण्ड (जीविका/अंश) का सम्यक् विभाजन करना चाहिए।
• सूत्र ४९: यदि वचन अप्रिय भी हो, किंतु हितकारी हो, तो उसे सुनना चाहिए।
• सूत्र ५०: दुर्दिन (विपत्ति का समय), ग्रहों की विषमता, जन्म-नक्षत्र की प्रतिकूलता अथवा किसी गुरुतर (अति-महत्त्वपूर्ण) कार्य के आ उपस्थित होने पर सामान्य मांगलिक अनुष्ठानों में समय व्यर्थ न करके कार्यसाधन करना चाहिए।
• सूत्र ५१: कुलीन (अभिजाता) स्त्री को किसी एक निश्चित मर्यादा/स्थान में रहने का निर्देश देना चाहिए।
• सूत्र ५२: स्त्रियों के प्रति न तो अत्यधिक भेदनीति रखनी चाहिए, न अत्यधिक साम, न अत्यधिक दान; न उन पर कठोर दण्ड करना चाहिए और न ही उनके साथ छल-कपट (माया) का व्यवहार करना चाहिए।
• सूत्र ५३: स्त्रियों के सम्मुख अधिक बातें (गुप्त रहस्य आदि) नहीं कहनी चाहिए।
• सूत्र ५४: ग्रामीण, याचक, सूत, मागध, बंदी, नट, नर्तकी, असत्यवादी उपाध्याय, ब्रह्मचारी (बटु), विट, व्यापारी, गोपालक, वेश्या तथा कुत्सित राजाओं के समक्ष असत्य का आडम्बर (आवश्यकतानुसार कूटनीतिक असत्य) कहना चाहिए।
• सूत्र ५५: राजा, वेश्या तथा मन्त्र-तंत्र से आजीविका चलाने वालों के सान्निध्य में संन्यासी को अधिक काल तक वास नहीं करना चाहिए।

प्रथमोऽध्यायः । ५ आत्मप्रभुं सेवेत ॥५६॥ आयत्यादीनति न ॥५७॥ स्त्रीद्यूतपानसक्तान्न सेवयेत् ॥५८॥ पञ्च नाडिका इष्टदेवताजपादि ३० पञ्चनाडिकायामतीतायामास्था- नम् ॥५९॥ दश नाडिका विधिः पञ्च नाडिकाः स्नानम् ॥६०॥ त्रिनाडिका भोजनम् ॥६१॥ पञ्चनाडिका हास्यक्रीडा स्निग्धैः ॥६२॥ द्विनाडिका सन्ध्या ३१ ॥६३॥ सप्त नाडिका नृत्तादयः ॥६४॥ सप्त नाडिका मैथुन[३ख]भोजनादयः । ६५॥ सप्त नाडिका सुप्तिः ॥६६॥ स्वनियमं कुर्यादप्रमादेन ॥६७॥ अश्वनियामक इव ॥६८॥ शिरःकम्पनास्थानेन स्वागतेन शिष्टताम्बूलदानेन ३२ ब्राह्मणे- त्तमान् ॥६९॥ दुर्ब्राह्मणं ३३ शिरःकम्पेन ३४ न सोपायनमपि ॥७०॥

30. M here inserts नाडिकां । 31. W सन्ध्य । 32. Sic ( not षि० ) । 33. W दुब्रा० । 34. W ०म्पन; M ०म्पनेन with सोपायनमपि in the next sûtra ।