6. Tradition (behind the formation of Arthaśāstra)

As stated before, Kauṭalya’s Arthaśāstra is the available earliest treatise in the field. But, it is sure that there is a vast tradition behind the formation of Arthaśāstra. Some information is available from Arthaśāstra itself about the tradition of the science of wealth. At the very outset Kauṭalya has stated that he has consulted many works relating to the field and promulgated by ancient preceptors. In discussing various points he has quoted their views and stated his own position whether he agrees with them or not. In stating his disagreement he uses the words “neti Kauṭalyaḥ”. Some of the preceptors mentioned by him are not writers of any particular works, though they have made their positions clear in other works on polity. The following are the authorities referred to by him on several occasions. They are; Mānavas, Bārhaspatyas, Auśanasas, Bhāradvāja, Viśālākṣa, Pārāśara, Piśuna, Kauṇapadanta, Vātavyādhi, Bāhudantīputra and Āmbhīyāḥ (Unni N. P., 2012: xxxvii-xxxviii).

S. R. Goyal has quoted a story related to the tradition of Arthaśāstra from the epic Mahābhārata;

“According to Mahābhārata legend this work of Brahmā was abridged by Śaṅkara Viśālākṣa (in abridged form it was called Viśālākṣa) into ten thousand chapters, which in turn was reduced to 5000 chapters by Indra (whose work was called Bāhudantaka). Indra’s work was further compressed to 3000 adhyāyas by Bṛhaspati which in turn was abridged into 1000 adhyāyas by Kavya (Uśanas or Śukra). The tradition that Bṛhaspati and Uśanas were the founders of this śāstra has also been reproduced by Aśvaghoṣa, who says that Śukra and Bṛhaspati created the Rājaśāstra, which their fathers, Bhṛgu and Aṅgiras respectively, had not done though they were the founders of celebrated families” (2000: 4).

There exist similar stories behind the origin of Dharma and Kāmaśāstra.

Goyal analyses that these stories are entirely unbelievable and he then quotes:

“These stories do not at all prove that a work on trivarga consisting of one lakh chapters did indeed exist at any time. It is not possible to even imagine the existence of a voluminous work consisting of one lakh adhyāyas (not verses). The story merely testifies to the facts that the early treatises on the three sciences of trivarga were prepared by collecting and collating the floating literature on these subjects (as is specifically said about Kāmaūtra of Vātsyāyana) and that all these three sciences were originally one undifferentiated whole and only gradually emerged as different subjects” (2000: 5).

This finding of Goyal gives sufficient to an extent for the confusing problem that the mythical conception or exaggerated story on the tradition of the sciences.

Artha is not well treated as a pursuit or as a science of wealth in its textual form. We do not find any śāstra to teach how to pursue Artha as a Puruṣārtha in the sense of wealth. In course of time, the word Artha was transformed and narrowed in the meaning of political power as stated in Arthaśāstra. One of the important reasons for this problem is the Arthaśāstra itself. Because, comparing with the texts on Puruṣārthas, Artha is limited in Kauṭalya’s text only and is concentrated in the subject of statecraft. Artha signifies the acquisitive principle in man. It is considered a Puruṣārtha because for the satisfaction of the human needs and wants, material aids are a must. Also, the development of moral virtues, to a great extent, depends on economic well-being^[1]. Artha denotes all types of material goods needed for our normal living. It includes the material means for the performance of religious, social, legal and moral duties (George V. C., 1995: 52-53).

Eminent scholars like R. P Kangle and Shamasastry have discussed only about the text Arthaśāstra written by Kauṭalya and they do not mention about Artha in the sense of Puruṣārtha. All of them seem to be bewildered in front of the text Arthaśā stra. So, there are not much serious studies are available on this field and it is the need of this hour. Only peripheral descriptions are seen in all the books about Artha and Kāma. Scholars concentrate upon Dharma and Mokṣa mostly. There may be a reason for such a situation of negligence as well as misconceptions about both the Puruṣārthas.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

The luxurious and wealthy society that developed through the merchant community proclaims about the importance of utilization of prosperous resources and it is to be considered as a practical approach towards the conceptualized Puruṣārtha called Artha and the elaborate depiction of urban culture in the first chapter of this thesis is the its material representation.