9Mṛichchhakaṭika (BSS), The word putra was used to denote also the follower of a religious system. Thus nigaṇṭha-putto signified a Jaina (Maj-N.I. 227, where Sachchaka is so called).
10See p.90, n. 2.
11IA., XLVI,95.
12TSS.Ed.112.
13Prof Jacobi explains it in a different manner (loc.cit 843 and 845). Although the verse in question distinctly says that Kauṭilya’s work is both a Sūtra and a Bhāshya, he seems to think it, apparently on the authority of the same verse, that it is, not a Sūtra, but rather a Bhāshya!
14The second of these stanzas occurs also in the Pratijñā=yaugandharāyaṇa (TSS.Ed., 62), and the first in the Parāśara=dharmasaṁhitā (BSS. Ed. I. ii. 272).
15SBE., XXV., Intro.xc.
16One more verse from Kauṭilya is worth considering in this connection. It occurs on p. 217, and begins with saṁvatsareṇa patati. The same verse is met with in Manu, XI. 180, Vāsishṭha, I.22 and Bāudhāyana, II. i.35. As there were some subjects common to the Arthaśāstra and the Dharmāśastra, it is very difficult to say whether Kauṭilyā borrowed the verse from some work on the Dharmāśāstra, such as Manu, Vasishṭha or Baudhayana or from some work on the Arthaśāstra. Of course, the name Dharmāśāstra was know to Kauṭilya (p.10).
17HASL., 68 & ff.
18Pāṇini, 78 & ff.
19p.9.
20The Auśanasa Arthaśāstra similarly seems to have been a discourse of the sage Uśanas to Prahlāda (Śanti-P.,139.69).
21p. 10.
22Like Arthaśāstra Kauṭilya (p. 10) places Dharmaśāstra also under Itihāsa. I suspect that Dharmaśāstra, too, like Arthaśāstra was originally of metrical composition before it assumed the Sūtra form. This alone can explain, I think, why verses have been introduced into the DharmaSūtras, just as they are in Kauṭilīya. As in the latter case we know they were borrowed from previous works on Arthaśāstra, those in the Dharmasūtras have been must similarly have been borrowed from previous works of that science which must therefore be supposed to have been metrical in form. And I suspect that the original Manusmṛiti, and, not the present recast one, was prior even to the Dharmasūtras, especially as verses from the latter have been traced to the former. I hope I may find time to work out this theory fully.
23The word uddhṛita is taken in the sense of reformed by Prof. Jacobi (loc.cit 837),which is scarcely admissible, I am afraid.
24Kauṭilya, pp. 7 &10.
25Kauṭilya, 7.
26It has been stated above that the order in which Kauṭilya mentions the first seven of the individual authors of the Arthasāśtras is uniform. This no doubt raises the presumption that he would have us believe that they lived in that chronological sequence, and apparently receives confirmation from the fact that thrice (on p. 13-4, 27-8 & 32-3) Kauṭilya mentions them in such a way as to show that the doctrine of one are refuted by his immediate successor in that order of specification. There are, on the other hand, some weighty considerations which run counter to this theory. On p. 320 & ff., Kauṭilya says that of the calamities pertaining to the seven Prakṛitis or components of Sovereignty viz.(1) svāmī (2)amātya (3)janapada (4)durga, (5)kosa, (6)daṇḍa, and (7)mitra, the first is more serious than the immediate second, according to the Acharyas or the recognized authorities on the Arthasāśtras. This is not, however, the view of Bhāradvāja,Viśalāksha, Parāśara,. Piśuna Kauṇapadanta and Vātavyādhi, who are mentioned in this specific order bv Kautilva of (1) and (2) more serious than (1) with Viśalāksha, and so on and so on. It will be seen that the order in which the Seven Prakritis are enumerated is fixed by the Acharyas who are different from Bharadvaja,Viśalaksha and so forth. And what I cannot therefore understand is how the six consecutive pairs (l)-(2), (2)-(3) and so forth of this series come to be taken up respectively by the six consecutive authors of Kauṭilya’s enumeration. Are we to suppose that through some inexorable destiny Bhāradvāja, because he came first, had to take up for the discussion of relative importance the first pair only and then there was a lull till Viśātaksha appeared, and just because he was the second, he too had to take up the second and the second pair only, and so on and so on Again, on p. 325 and ff. the same unalterable necessity seems to have assigned the question of relative heinousness between the Kopajāḥ and Kamajaḥ doshāḥ to Bhāradvāja because he came first. Then it appears there was a trace for some time to further discussion till Visalaksha the second arose. Then it was felt necessary to deduce two pairs out of the three Kopajāḥ doshāḥ, assign the first of these to Viśātaksha, and reserve the second till the advent of his successor, Parasara, and so on and so on. Surely historical development of the Arthasāśtras could not have taken place according to this exact unalterable programme.
27By Maharshis we perhaps have to understand here the eight sages to whom the original work on polity has been attributed in Chapter 335 of the Śānti-Parvan. The name Maya suggests the Asura Maya, the Architect, referred to in the Sabhā-Parvan.
28VII 20-1 & 23. I need scarcely say that this Kāmandaka cannot be identified with the sage Kāmandaka mentioned in the Śānti-P., 123,10 &ff., as this would bring the final redaction of the Mahābhārata down to the 7th century A.D.—which is an impossibility. This chapter sets from a dialogue between Kāmandaka and Aṅgarishṭha, but, as a matter of fact, we do not hear of the latter at all in Kāmandaka’s Arthaśāstra. Secondly, in this chapter Kāmandaka is discoursing on a religious subject which has hardly anything to do with the Arthaśāstra and absolutely nothing with the Arthaśāstra and absolutely nothing with the peculiar doctrines of Kāmandaka, the political philosopher.
29Uddyoga-P., 33.36; Śānti-P., 67.11.
30The same is the case with the Manusmṛiti, some Ślokas from which are reproduced in the Mahābhārata verbatim and some freely rendered in verse. This does not therefore warrant the conclusion as has been drawn by some scholars that part of the epic which agrees most closely in its citations with the code of Manu is later than that portion which does not coincide. In my opinion, it rather points to the inference that the portion that coincides may be as old as that which does not.
31EI., IV . 248 & 251.
32It is worthy of note that this story occurs in all the recensions of the Mahābhārata. It must, therefore, be of a very early origin.
33These differ from the dues which men promised to pay to Manu according to the version of Kauṭilya. This shows that the Śānti-Parvan could not have borrowed the tradition from Kauṭilya.
34III. 92 and ff. This may also be compared to the beginning of Ulūka-Jātaka (Jāt. II. 352).
35This agrees with the etymology of the word given in the Śānti-P., 59-125.
36(Senart’s Edition), I, 347-8.
37Spence Hardy’s Manual of Buddhism, 128; Burmese Damathat (Richardson’s Ed.) 7; Rockhill’s Life of the Buddha, 1-9.
38I. 10.1.
3971.10.
4075.10.
41p- 190.
X.46-7; cf. also Vishṇu, III. 66-7.
42V.1.5.14.
43XII. 3.5.1.
44See Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics under the word Chakravartin.
45V. 77.
46A History of Mediæval Political Theory in the West, Vol, I. by A.J. Carlyle, p. 148 and ff.
47I. 70.
48Kauṭilya, pp. 11-2.
49Instances of people having killed their kings are also found in the Budhist Jātakas, e.g., Jat. nos. 73 and 432.
50Kauṭilya, p. 275 ; also verse beginning with tatas=sa dushṭapṛakritiḥ on p., 257.
51Anuśāsana-P., 61.32-3 ; also Śānti-P., 92.9, which attributes a similar doctrine to the sage Vāmadeva.
52I may have to say something of these institutions next year, but even in this lecture I have shown a little farther on how the town and provincial communities had to be consulted by a king even in regard to his succession.
53148. 21-7. Sagara also is said to have exiled his eldest son Asamañjas at the desire of the people beca
use he used to drown their children on the river Sarayū (Śānti.P., 579.).
54II.2, 15 and ff. Yayāti similarly crowned his youngest son, king only after satisfying the people who strongly protested because they at first thought that the eldest prince was being unnecessarily set aside.
55Uddyoga-P., 131, 12 & ff.; this curious doctrine has been set forth also in Śānti-P., 69,79 & ff.; and in Anusāśana-P., 61. 34 & 36.
~ Lecture IV ~
ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY, PART II
Saṁgha Form of Political Government
In my last lecture I referred to the monarchical form of Government and the various notions prevalent in regard to the origin and nature of kingship. I then told you that there was also another form of Government called Saṁgha or Gaṇa. Let us now see what its characteristic features were. Before, however I discuss this question, it is necessary to state that it was Prof. Rhys Davids who first pointed out that this form of Government was flourishing side by side with monarchy in North India about the time of the rise of Buddhism. It was afterwards Mr. K. P. Jayaswal, who perceived the importance of this subject and brought it to the more prominent notice of the students of ancient Indian history. In the article be has published1 he has collected much information bearing upon it, from which it is possible to draw a number of interesting conclusions. It is a pity that no scholar has so far come forward to further advance our knowledge of the question. This task, therefore, I set to myself in the present lecture, which, it will be seen, presents the subject in a somewhat different light.
Most of you will perhaps wonder what the word Saṁgha and Gaṇa could mean and how in particular they could denote any non-monarchical form of Government, or Government of the many as I have told you before. The words mean a corporate collection, an aggregation of individuals for a definite purpose. The terms were certainly known to Pāṇini, and were thus current about the middle of the 7th century B. C. to which period he has to be assigned. They occur in no less than three of his Sūtras. One of these is Saṁgh-odghau gaṇa-praśaṁsayoḥ.2 This Sūtra is very important, but unfortunately its proper meaning has not been perceived. The word saṁgha comes from the root saṁ+han, “to collect, to gather.” The regular noun form from it is saṁghāta, which means merely ‘a collection or assemblage.’ But there is another noun derived from it, though it is irregularly formed, viz. saṁgha. Pāṇini is, therefore, compelled to make special sūtra to acknowledge its existence in the spoken language and to tell us that it does not signify a mere collection as the other word, viz. saṁghāta, does, but, a gaṇa, i.e. a special kind of collection, or a corporate collection as I have just said. It will thus be seen that the technical senses of these words were known to Pāṇini.
Saṁgha or Gaṇa is, therefore, not a promiscuous conglomeration, but a combination of individuals for a definite object, in other words, a corporate body. It will be seen that there can be as many kinds of Saṁghas as there are different purposes with which they can be constituted. And, as a matter of fact, it was so in ancient India, and especially in the period with which we are dealing. If we have a fraternity composed of persons devoted to a particular set of religious beliefs, we have a religious Saṁgha, the most typical example of which is the Buddhist Saṁgha. It is a mistake to suppose that Buddha was the first religious founder to appropriate the term Saṁgha to the brotherhood originated by him. The Pāli Canon itself mentions no less than seven religious teachers like Buddha who were his contemporaries, viz. Pūraṇa-Kassapa, Makkhali-Gosāla, and so forth. These have all been called Saṁghino, heads of Saṁghas, Gaṇino, heads of Gaṇas and Gaṇāchariyā, teachers of Gaṇas.3 It will thus be perceived that the brotherhood founded by Buddha was not the only religious order known as Saṁgha but even in his time there were no less than seven which were similary styled Saṁgha or Gaṇa. Nay, these heads of religious Saṁghas are said to have been Samaṇa-Brāhmaṇa,4 which means that while some of these Saṁghas were Śramaṇa, others were Brahmanical, orders. This clearly shows that there were sects of Brahmanical ascetics also which were designated Saṁghas or Gaṇas.5 Saṁgha, as a word for ‘a religious order’, was common both to the Brahmanical and non-Brāhmanical sects.
So much for the Saṁgha or body formed for a religious purpose. But we may also have a Saṁgha for the purpose of trade and industry or in other words, a trade or craft guild. You will be surprised if I tell you that from about 500 B.C. to 600 A.D. India was studded with craft guilds of various types showing how well industry and trade were specialised and developed. This is not the place to give an account of these guilds or Śreṇis as they were technically called. These I hope to describe in one of my lectures some year. What I here want to say is that the Śreṇis were really Saṁghas and have been so called by Kauṭilya in his Artha-śāstra.6 Kauṭilya distinguishes between three kinds of Saṁghas, one of which is vārt-opajīvin, i.e. dependent upon industry, and is also styled Śreṇin by him.
A third class of Saṁgha is āyudha-jīvin as Pāṇini calls it, or śastr-opajivin as Kauṭilya styles it, both expressions meaning ‘(a corporation) subsisting on arms.’ This Saṁgha as a rule, denoted tribal bands of mercenaries, and constituted one kind of the king’s army.7 Pāṇini mentions several of them, some situated in Vāhīka and some in Trigarta, both parts of the Panjāb. But perhaps the most interesting, referred to by him are the Yaudheyas, Parśus, Asuras and Rakshases. Of the Yaudheyas I shall speak later on. Parśus are certainly the Persis, or old Persians, and Asuras the Assyrians.8 Rakshases must be the same as Rākshasas, an aboriginal race referred to in early Sanskrit works, and in particular the Rāmāyaṇa. This indicates that some of the mercenary bands at any rate were foreigners. What the exact constitution of this Saṁgha was is far from clear. But as these fighting bands have all been called Saṁgha, there must have been some code of rules according to which they were formed and continued their existence. At any rate, a Yodhājīva or mercenary soldier, who was a gāmani, is mentioned in the Saṁyutta-Nikāya9 as discoursing with Buddha. As the word gāmani, i.e. grāmaṇī shows, he must have been the head of a fighting Saṁgha. From his talk with Buddha it seems that there were many old Āchāryas among them who themselves were soldiers and who held out to those dying on the battle-field the hope of becoming one with Sarañjita gods.
There are two or three other classes of Saṁghas which have been referred to in the Buddhist and Brahmanical literature, but there is no need of mentioning them here, as the instances I have already given are enough to show what a Saṁgha or Gaṇa really signifies. A Saṁgha is a corporate body of individuals formed for a definite purpose. Let us now turn to the political Saṁgha, which, as I have already told you, denotes the rule of the many, and which again was of three or four different kinds. It is really difficult to translate this Saṁgha by any single English word, but the term ‘republic’ as understood in old Greek political philosophy, makes the nearest approach to it. What is to be remembered is that this Saṁgha possessed not Sovereign One but Sovereign Number. At this stage it is necessary to inform you that ordinarily the words saṁgha and gaṇa are used synonymously, but that the term gaṇa is also used in a specific sense, viz. to denote a particular kind of political Saṁgha. But I may be asked to state here, at the outset, what authority at all I have for saying that there were political Saṁghas. Now, the Āyāraṁga-Sutta,10 a well-known Jaina Canonical work, lays down certain rules in regard to the tours of the Jaina monks and nuns and tells us in one place what countries they are not to visit. The countries that are so tabooed are a-rāya (i.e. where there is no ruler), juva-rāya (where the ruler is a youngster), do-rajja (government by two), and also gaṇa-rāya (i.e. where Gaṇa is the ruling authority). As all the states which the Jaina Brotherhood is ordained to avoid are unquestionably of a political nature, no reasonable doubt can be entertained as to this Gaṇa being a political Gaṇa. Another authority also can be cited, though it is of a somewhat later period. A work of the Northern Buddhists called the Av
adāna-śataka (Circa 100 B.C.) speaks in its avadāna No.88 of certain merchants as having gone from the Madhya-deśa or Middle Country to the Dekkan. And there we are told that when they were asked as to how their country was governed, they replied by saying that kechid=deśā Gaṇ-ādhīnāḥ kechid=rāj-ādhīnā iti “some territories are subject to Gaṇas and some to Kings.” Evidently Gaṇa is here contrasted with Rājan, and as the latter represents and ‘the political rule of One’ the former must be taken to represent the political rule of Many.’ Again, Pāṇini gives a Sūtra viz.janapada-śabdāt Kshatriyād-añ,11 which means that the affix añ comes in the sense of a descendant after a word which, while denoting a country, expresses also a Kshatriya tribe or clan. To this Kātyāyana adds a vārtika, viz. Kshatriyād=eka-rājāt Saṁgha-pratishedhārtham. It is true, as Pāṇini says, that the affix is to be applied to a word e.g. Pañchāla which denotes both a Kshatriya tribe and the country inhabited by them. But Kātyāyana says that this Kshatriya tribe must be eka-rāja, i.e. possessed of Individual Sovereign in order to exclude a Kshatriya tribe which is a Saṁgha, i.e. a Kshatriya tribe which has Collegiate Sovereign. This exactly agrees with what Kauṭilya tells us. I have just told you that he distinguishes between three kinds of Saṁghas, one of which is vārt-opajīvin or a craft guild and another śastr-opajivin or a mercenary tribal band. The third Saṁgha, he says, is raja- Śabd-opajīvin, i.e. an organisation all the members of which bear the title rajan.12 In my last lecture I informed you that the Lichchhavis and the Mallas were typical examples of this Saṁgha. These tribes have been constantly mentioned in the Buddhist Pāli Canon. And the Majjhima-Nikāya in one place distinctly calls them Saṁgha and Gaṇa.13 We were introduced here to a discussion between Buddha and a Jaina monk called Sachchaka. In the course of the discussion the former asked whether Pasenadi, king of Kosala, or Ajātaśatru, king of Magadha, had power to banish, burn, or kill a man in his dominions. At the time of this discussion, some Lichchhavis were present. And by pointing to them Sachchaka answers Buddha, saying that if the Saṁghas and Gaṇas, like the Lichchhavis or the Mallas, had this power in their own vijita or kingdom, certainly Pasenadi and Ajātaśatru did possess it. This indicates that the Lichchhavis and the Mallas were Saṁghas or Gaṇas and had their own territory where their power was supreme. It is thus clear that Saṁgha denotes ‘a rule by numbers’.
Lectures on the Ancient History of India Page 11
