Panchatantra: A reflex of Arthashastra
by M. N. Indrani | 2003 | 42,495 words
The essay studies the Panchatantra in relation to the Arthashastra by proposing that that Indian fable literature divides into educative and entertaining narratives, both traced back to the sacred Vedic texts. It highlights the 'Pancatantra' and its kin as representative of educative stories promoting ethical conduct and worldly wisdom through tale...
Miscellaneous Elements of Comparison
1. Guest The guest being another facet of the life has been regarded with due honour in Indian tradition. Following this tradition, Visnusarma explicates the idea of a guest in the context of Devasarma's story in the first tantra. Being attracted by Asadhabhuti's humble behaviour, Devasarma streches his hand of hospitality before him and said these words: The house-holders of good nature, should worship the guest with a seat of grass, water, place for dwelling and sweet words, which of course are always to be found with them.' By receiving the guest who comes to house-holder's house in the evening, travelling in the Sun, house-holders attain the dignity of a god.2 1. trnani bhumirudakam vakcaturthi ca sunrta | satametani harmyesu nocchidyante kadacana || Pancatantra Mitrabheda, Katha 4, verse-182, p. 62. trnani bhumirudakam vakcaturthi ca sunrta | etanyapi satam gehe nocchidyante kadacana || Cf. Manusmrti - III - 101. - 2. samprapto yo'tithih sayam suryodhe grhamedhinam | pujaya tasya devatvam prayanti grhamedhinah || 181 || Pancatantra Mitrabheda, Katha - 4, verse-181, p. 62.
194 By welcoming the guest with sweet words, god Agni becomes pleased. So also, by offering the seat, god Indra, by watering the feet of guest, the forefathers, and by offering arghya god Siva become pleased with the house-holder.3 On the other hand Kautilya too regards the worship of guests as one of the duties of an house-holder. He says "The duty of house-holder is earning livelihood by his own profession, marriage among his equals of different ancestral Rsis, intercourse with his wedded wife after her monthly ablution, gifts to gods, ancestors, guests, and servants, and the eating of the remainder."4 2. Punishment to the culprits In the fourth story of Devasarma and Asadhabhuti in the Mitrabheda a reference is found to the punishment for culprits. In precise, Devasarma who had lost all money arrived to a house of weaver. Having made arrangement for the stay of Devasarma in his residence, and having asked his wife to look after him, weaver went outside to drink wine. Awaiting this opportunity, his wife got herself adorned to meet her harlot. 3. 4. svagatenagnayastrpta asanena satakratuh | 1 padasaucena pitarah ardhacchambhustatha'titheh || 183|| Pancatantra Mitrabheda, Katha -4, verse-183, p. 62. grhasthasya svakarmajivastulyairasamanarsibhirvaivahyamrtugamitvam devapitratithibhrtyesu tyagasesabhojanam ca | Arthasastra, I Adhikarana (Vinayadhikarikam), IV Adhyaya, p. 14.
195 When she was about to set out, she saw her husband coming back home. In order to conceal her whereabouts, she put off her ornaments and got dishevelled. Knowing his wife's ill-relation with another person, he got enraged and fastened his wife to a pillar with rope and the weaver fell unconcious on the ground as he had drunk. In the mean time, his wife's friend came there to render help. So too his wife placed her friend in that place and left the place to meet her mate. Meanwhile, the weaver got awakened and saw for his wife. Unfortunately, he mistook the friend fastened to the pillan for his wife. Being incensed, that weaver cut off her nose and again fell unconscious. By that time, weaver's wife came there and saw pitiable condition of her friend whose nose was cut off and let her free to her house. All this was happened in the presence of Devasarma who stayed in the house of weaver. When that female friend went home, her husband (barber) asked her to bring the box of equipments. As she pushed the box rashly to him, her husband angrily threw a knife at her. Taking this opportunity, she played a mischief of blaming him for cutting her nose by the knife; and this quarrel between them was brought before the king. When the barber was being taken to hang down, Devasarma rushed to that place and spoke out the fact he had actually perceived. Knowing the truth, the barber was let free. In this context, the officers in the court declared that the wife of
196 barber was the offender. For, she should be sentenced to death. At the same time, a precept was brought to notice that "A brahmin, boy, woman, a sick person or an ascetic enjoy an exemption from capital punishment i.e, death." The law enjoins that they should be mamed. Following this law of punishment, barber's wife however already stands punished by her bad deed and the barber also was punished in the form of cutting his ears for his laying violent hands on the woman. In this declaration of punishment, two types of offenders are to be considered. One is, the woman who assists for adultry for which the punishment in the form of cutting nose is enjoined; the second is the person (barber) doing violence on a woman, for which the punishment in the form of cutting of his ears is ordained. This aspect of punishment is partly in conformity with Kautilya's statement - "when any person obets a thief or an adulterer, he, as well as the woman who voluntarily yields herself for adultry, shall have their ears and nose cut off, or pay each a fine 500 panas. While the theif or the adulterer shall pay double the above fines." In the ninteenth story of Dharmabuddhi and Papabuddhi forming the portion of Mitrabheda, Papabuddhi who was greedy of stealing the money of Dharmabuddhi, happened to be the 5. stenaparidarikayossacivyakarmani striyassangrahitayasca karnanasacchedanam pancasato va dandah pumso dvigunah || Arthasastra, I Adhikarana (Kantakasodhanam), X Adhyaya, p. 282.
197 cause for the death of his father. When the king was to adjudge the quarrel between Dharmabuddhi and Papabuddhi for occupying the wealth one from the other, he found no real witness at that time. Papabuddhi said "when there is a dispute, the documents about it are called for or, are required to be put it for examination in the absense of a document witnesses are required; and when no evidence is forth-coming, an ordeal is resorted to as the last resource - so declare the wise.6 Resorting to the divine ordeal, Papabuddhi led the king to the tree saying that let the presiding deity over the tree as the witness decide over this dispute. Next morning, in order to gain his lot, Papabuddhi made his father sit concealed in the tree to play the role of the presiding deity. Also, he asked his father to tell that Dharmabuddhi was the thief. Then, both Papabuddhi and Dharmabuddhi together with officials of the court, left to the place of the Shami tree. Then, hearing the loud voice of Papabuddhi, his father sitting hidden within the tree spoke out. "This wealth was stolen by Dharmabuddhi." Hearing this voice, the officials when looking at Dharmabuddhi as an offender, the latter ablazed the tree with materials of fire. At that time, his father suffering from the pain of death due to fire, said - "It was all because of the cruel deed of Papabuddhi." and died. Then 6. vivade'nvisaye padvam tadabhave'pi saksinah | saksyabhavattato divyam pravadanti manisinah || Pancatantra Mitrabheda, Katha XIX, verse-436, p. 181. -
198 knowing the fact, officials hang Papabuddhi to death and let Dharmabuddhi free with praise. Here, it is very clear that Papabuddhi happened himself to be the cause of his father's death. Therefore he becomes great offender, as a result, he is put to death. This type of death punishment bears congruity with Kautilya's statement as below: "When a man hurts another with a weapon, he shall pay the highest amercement; when he does so under intoxication, his hand shall be cut off; and when he causes instantaneous death he shall be put to death." Keeping this discipline of the law of punishment in view Visnusarma narrates the story of Manibhadra in the Apariksitakaraka.3 In connection with the ownership of the property Visnusarma makes a clear statement "A person who enjoys the crops for ten years continuously should be considered as the owner of the property and in his being as owner of that field there requires no other witness or any signatory authority than his own enjoyment. Kautilya says that those owners 7. kalahe dhnatah purusam citro ghatah | saptaratrasyantah mrte suddhavadhah | paksasyantaruttamah | masasyantah pancasatah samutthanavyayasca sastrena praharata uttamo dandah | madena hastavadhah | vadhe vadhah | 8. Arthasastra, I Adhikarana (Kantakasodhanam), XI Adhyaya, p. 283. Supra, p.
199 other than minors, the aged, afflicted with desease or calamities those that are sojourning a fraud are those that have deserted their country who left for ten years their property which is under the enjoyment of others should forfeit the title to it.9 9 In addition to this, buildings left for twenty years in the enjoyment of others should not be reclaimed.10 9. svasvamisambandhastu bhoganuvrttirucchinnadesanam yathasvadravyanam | yat svam dravyamanyairbhujyamanam dasavarsapyupekseta, hiyetasyaanyatra balavrddhavyadhitavyasaniprositadesatyagarajyavibhramebhyah | vimsativarsopeksitamanuvasitam vastu nanuyunjita | 1 Arthasastra, III Adhikarana (Dharmastiyam), XVI Adhyaya, pp. 238-239. 10. Vide, Manusmrti : ajadascedapogando visaye casya bhujyate | bhagnam tadvyavaharena bhokta tad dravyamarhati || (VIII. 148 )