Kamashastra Discourse (Life in Ancient India)
by Nidheesh Kannan B. | 2018 | 52,434 words
This page relates ‘Textual Framework’ of the study on Kamashastra representing the discipline of Kama (i.e., ‘sensual pleasure’). The Kamasutra of Vatsyayana from the 4th century is one of the most authoratitive Sanskrit texts belonging this genre. This study focusses on the vision of life of ancient India reflected in Kamashastra.
3. Textual Framework
Following the style of Kauṭalya, Vātsyāyana also framed his work like Arthaśāstra in its structure. Kāmasūtra is divided into adhikaraṇas, adhyāyas and prakaraṇas, or books, chapters and topics respectively. The entire text is divided into seven adhikaraṇas and the first adhikaraṇa has five adhyāyas and five prakaraṇas, the second adhikaraṇa has ten adhyāyas and seventeen prakaraṇas, the third adhikaraṇa has five adhyāyas and nine prakaraṇas, the fourth adhikaraṇa has two adhyāyas and eight prakaraṇas, the fifth adhikaraṇa has six adhyāyas and ten prakaraṇas, the sixth adhikaraṇa has six adhyāyas and twelve prakaraṇas, the last and seventh adhikaraṇa has two adhyāyas and six prakaraṇas. According to Vātsyāyana, the entire work comprises of seven adhikaraṇas, thirty six adhyāyas, sixty four prakaraṇas and thousand two hundred and fifty sūtras[1].
But there exists a controversy in the number of sūtras. Radhavallabh Tripathi states:
“The number of aphorisms also presents a problem. According to Vātsyāyana himself, the number should come to 1250. However no printed edition of Kāmasūtra exactly comprises of 1250 aphorisms. In DDS’s edition they are 1492, while in Goswami’s edition, the number goes to 1683. In fact the editors and translators of Kāmasūtra have blundered by reading the verses quoted by Vātsyāyana as his own aphorisms, whereas Vātsyāyana clearly indicates that he is reproducing a verse by the way of a quotation from some earlier author, by his preceding remark—Tadetadāhuḥ (this is what they say). D&K even read a prose portion (1. 2. 29) as a verse. Also by copyists’ error, several aphorisms appear to have been split in two. The editors have not closely examined the aphorisms while making their numbers. DDS has marked two independent verses after 1. 2. 39 as one aphorism (no. 1. 2. 40)” (2005: 19-20).
Thus the discussion regarding the number of sūtras is important, but not a serious issue. Anyhow, no single word is seen expelled in any of the editions of the text, which is one of the most important things according to one who attempts a textual criticism of the Kāmasūtra. This chapter has been designed with the help of major translations of Kāmasūtra in English, Hindi and Malayalam.
Footnotes and references:
[1]:
evaṃ ṣaṭtriṃśadadhyāyāḥ, catuḥṣaṣṭiḥ prakaraṇāni, adhikaraṇāni sapta, sapādaślokasahasram | iti śāstrasya saṃgrahaḥ || (kāmasūtra, 1. 1. 23)