Politische Polemiken im Staatslehrbuch des Kauṭalya by Friedrich WilhelmReview by: Ludwik SternbachJournal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 80, No. 4 (Oct. - Dec., 1960), pp. 378-379Published by: American Oriental SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/595891 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 13:29

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal ofthe American Oriental Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:29:23 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Journal of the American Oriental Society, 80.4 (1960) Journal of the American Oriental Society, 80.4 (1960)

section in particular testifies. In view of this fact it is surprising that the author (despite his remark on p. ix) has not consistently followed a standard system of transliteration. For the non-Sanskritist this might often prove difficult (cf. Itareya, pp. 84, 181 (but not p. 158); dhrvd, p. 82; srti, passim; bhrama (for bhrama), p. 173), and even the San- skritist may have to refer to a dictionary in order to discover what a graph like jigrksayd (p. 8) stands for. The case of laksand for lakcsana men- tioned above might also be the result of this kind of transliteration.-This volume offers much valu-

section in particular testifies. In view of this fact it is surprising that the author (despite his remark on p. ix) has not consistently followed a standard system of transliteration. For the non-Sanskritist this might often prove difficult (cf. Itareya, pp. 84, 181 (but not p. 158); dhrvd, p. 82; srti, passim; bhrama (for bhrama), p. 173), and even the San- skritist may have to refer to a dictionary in order to discover what a graph like jigrksayd (p. 8) stands for. The case of laksand for lakcsana men- tioned above might also be the result of this kind of transliteration.-This volume offers much valu-

Politische Polemiken im Staatslehrbuch des Kau-

talya. By FRIEDRICH WTT,HTT.M. Pp. 158.

(Miinchner Indologische Studien Band 2.) Wiesbaden: OTTO HARRASSOWITZ, 1960.

In 1912, Hermann Jacobi raised for the first time the question of other authors or schools men- tioned in Kautilya's Arthasastra (K.) (Ctber die Echtheit des Kautillya; in Sitzungsberichte der kon. Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin 1912, XXXVIII). He observed that the word dcdrydh was mentioned in K. fifty-three times, apare twice, eke twice, Mdnavah five times, Bdrhaspatyadh six times, Ausanasdh six times, Bhdradvdjah seven times, Viasdldksah six times, Pdrdaardh four times, Pdrdiarah once, Pardsarah once, Pisunah six times, Kaunapadantah four times, Vdtavyddhih five times, Bahudantiputrah once, A,mbhiyah once, etc.

According to H. Jacobi, K. mentioned his

predecessors" one-hundred fourteen times. These

predecessors expressed different views than those included in K., since they were authorities in niti. The question arose then whether these views were really views of other schools or whether

they were used by the author of K. in order to enliven the discussion on different subject-matters dealt with in K. Did K. contain fictitious discus- sion? or was it a scholarly work which reflected the views of different schools on various subject- matters dealing with niti with an argumentation by the author of K. for or against one or the other view? This question was discussed by many com- mentators on K. such as Jacobi, Jolly, Keith, Meyer, Kane, Jayaswal, Ganapati, Rangaswami Aiyangar and others.

Politische Polemiken im Staatslehrbuch des Kau-

talya. By FRIEDRICH WTT,HTT.M. Pp. 158.

(Miinchner Indologische Studien Band 2.) Wiesbaden: OTTO HARRASSOWITZ, 1960.

In 1912, Hermann Jacobi raised for the first time the question of other authors or schools men- tioned in Kautilya's Arthasastra (K.) (Ctber die Echtheit des Kautillya; in Sitzungsberichte der kon. Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin 1912, XXXVIII). He observed that the word dcdrydh was mentioned in K. fifty-three times, apare twice, eke twice, Mdnavah five times, Bdrhaspatyadh six times, Ausanasdh six times, Bhdradvdjah seven times, Viasdldksah six times, Pdrdaardh four times, Pdrdiarah once, Pardsarah once, Pisunah six times, Kaunapadantah four times, Vdtavyddhih five times, Bahudantiputrah once, A,mbhiyah once, etc.

According to H. Jacobi, K. mentioned his

predecessors" one-hundred fourteen times. These

predecessors expressed different views than those included in K., since they were authorities in niti. The question arose then whether these views were really views of other schools or whether

they were used by the author of K. in order to enliven the discussion on different subject-matters dealt with in K. Did K. contain fictitious discus- sion? or was it a scholarly work which reflected the views of different schools on various subject- matters dealing with niti with an argumentation by the author of K. for or against one or the other view? This question was discussed by many com- mentators on K. such as Jacobi, Jolly, Keith, Meyer, Kane, Jayaswal, Ganapati, Rangaswami Aiyangar and others.

able material and comment on a subject well worth pursuing. In a possible second edition of this work, a more comprehensive treatment based on a full analysis of the texts and including such re- lated topics as brahman as akcsara and a more detailed study of the Vedantic varnavada would for example be most welcome. A good bibliography and the verbatim quotation of the original texts in certain passages of fundamental importance would also considerably enhance the usefulness of this

interesting study. D. SEYFORT RUEGG

Niw DELHI

able material and comment on a subject well worth pursuing. In a possible second edition of this work, a more comprehensive treatment based on a full analysis of the texts and including such re- lated topics as brahman as akcsara and a more detailed study of the Vedantic varnavada would for example be most welcome. A good bibliography and the verbatim quotation of the original texts in certain passages of fundamental importance would also considerably enhance the usefulness of this

interesting study. D. SEYFORT RUEGG

Niw DELHI

The author of the book under review does not

give a straightforward answer to this question but

prepares the groundwork for it. He gives a trans- lation of each, or almost each, polemical quotation from "other authorities" included in K, then its

philological interpretation and the stylistical in-

terpretation as well as analyses in detail the con- tents of these quotations. He does so in separate chapters with the quotations of Bharadvaja, other authorities, quotations of acaryah and quotations of different schools. He unfortunately did not use, however, the Bhattasvamin's commentary on K., the Pratipadapaiicikayam. At the end of each of these chapters he gives an analysis of the views

expressed by these authorities. At the end of his work he gives his conclusions which could be sum- marised as follows:

1. The style of different quotations and replies of the author of K. is the same as the prosaic style used by the author of K.

2. The replies contradict, as a rule, the views

expressed by the different authorities, authorities, dcdrydh, or schools but there is no determinable disagreement (entscheiden- der Widerspruch) in the contents of the

appropriate chapters. 3. The contents of K. is a typical sastra con-

taining polemics and deductions. 4. The polemics represent a scholarly approach.

The contents of K. gives a valuable inside view of different theories on different prob- lems dealing with niti.

The main part of the book containing the translation of each or almost each argumentative quotation from the authorities included in K., is

The author of the book under review does not

give a straightforward answer to this question but

prepares the groundwork for it. He gives a trans- lation of each, or almost each, polemical quotation from "other authorities" included in K, then its

philological interpretation and the stylistical in-

terpretation as well as analyses in detail the con- tents of these quotations. He does so in separate chapters with the quotations of Bharadvaja, other authorities, quotations of acaryah and quotations of different schools. He unfortunately did not use, however, the Bhattasvamin's commentary on K., the Pratipadapaiicikayam. At the end of each of these chapters he gives an analysis of the views

expressed by these authorities. At the end of his work he gives his conclusions which could be sum- marised as follows:

1. The style of different quotations and replies of the author of K. is the same as the prosaic style used by the author of K.

2. The replies contradict, as a rule, the views

expressed by the different authorities, authorities, dcdrydh, or schools but there is no determinable disagreement (entscheiden- der Widerspruch) in the contents of the

appropriate chapters. 3. The contents of K. is a typical sastra con-

taining polemics and deductions. 4. The polemics represent a scholarly approach.

The contents of K. gives a valuable inside view of different theories on different prob- lems dealing with niti.

The main part of the book containing the translation of each or almost each argumentative quotation from the authorities included in K., is

378 378

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:29:23 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Reviews of Books Reviews of Books

exhaustive and very well treated. Particularly in- teresting are the chapters dealing with quotations of Bharadvaja, the main " other authority " quoted in K. The author's analysis of the contents of the views of these authorities is very profound and the chapter of Bharadvaja, in texts other than in K., is extremely useful and informative. This re- viewer regrets, however, that the author gives the translation only of the quotations of these authori- ties but does not reproduce the Sanskrit text from K. and, as far as Bharadvaja is concerned, from other texts (Mahabharata, Ramayana, R.gveda, Puranas, Jatakas, etc.).

As to the conclusions, this reviewer accepts all of them with the exception of the second one. His impression is that the quotations from other sources were included in order to show dissenting views from those of the author of K. and to dis- agree in a "very determinate manner" from those views. This kind of polemics is well-known to Sanskrit literature. The Kamasftra of Vatsya- yana, for instance, was prepared in a similar style and method. Vatsyayana stated the views of dif- ferent authorities (Gonardiya, Carayania, Suvarna- nabha) several times and dissented from them in a determined manner. In many Dharmasastras and

exhaustive and very well treated. Particularly in- teresting are the chapters dealing with quotations of Bharadvaja, the main " other authority " quoted in K. The author's analysis of the contents of the views of these authorities is very profound and the chapter of Bharadvaja, in texts other than in K., is extremely useful and informative. This re- viewer regrets, however, that the author gives the translation only of the quotations of these authori- ties but does not reproduce the Sanskrit text from K. and, as far as Bharadvaja is concerned, from other texts (Mahabharata, Ramayana, R.gveda, Puranas, Jatakas, etc.).

As to the conclusions, this reviewer accepts all of them with the exception of the second one. His impression is that the quotations from other sources were included in order to show dissenting views from those of the author of K. and to dis- agree in a "very determinate manner" from those views. This kind of polemics is well-known to Sanskrit literature. The Kamasftra of Vatsya- yana, for instance, was prepared in a similar style and method. Vatsyayana stated the views of dif- ferent authorities (Gonardiya, Carayania, Suvarna- nabha) several times and dissented from them in a determined manner. In many Dharmasastras and

Studies in the Middle Way. By CHRISTMAS HUMPHREYS. Pp. 169. New York: THE

MACMILLAN COMPANY, 1959.

Through his articles and books Christmas Hum- phreys, the author of the volume under review, has already shown himself to be a professing Buddhist and ardent advocate of 'the Way of Zen'. In this third edition of his Studies in the Middle Way, which is enlarged by six new chapters, Humphreys presents a collection of essays that comprise a re- cording of his inner experience, appealing to the reader's intuition with the voice of "what I be- lieve." All the contents stem from Buddhism, to which he deeply commits himself. Distinguishing himself from the partisan type of a Buddhist, how- ever, Humphreys holds that "Buddhism has no monopoly of Truth, for it is but a branch . . . of a Tree of Wisdom which antedates all known re- ligions and will outlive them all," and all religions, according to him, are but "varied coloured suits of clothing" of the mind. Embraced in this all-

Studies in the Middle Way. By CHRISTMAS HUMPHREYS. Pp. 169. New York: THE

MACMILLAN COMPANY, 1959.

Through his articles and books Christmas Hum- phreys, the author of the volume under review, has already shown himself to be a professing Buddhist and ardent advocate of 'the Way of Zen'. In this third edition of his Studies in the Middle Way, which is enlarged by six new chapters, Humphreys presents a collection of essays that comprise a re- cording of his inner experience, appealing to the reader's intuition with the voice of "what I be- lieve." All the contents stem from Buddhism, to which he deeply commits himself. Distinguishing himself from the partisan type of a Buddhist, how- ever, Humphreys holds that "Buddhism has no monopoly of Truth, for it is but a branch . . . of a Tree of Wisdom which antedates all known re- ligions and will outlive them all," and all religions, according to him, are but "varied coloured suits of clothing" of the mind. Embraced in this all-

Dharmasutras the divergent views are opinions of different schools. The same can be observed in Nilakantha's Araddha-mayikha, Varaha-mihira (Brhat-jataka) and many other texts.

It may be regretted that the author in his con- clusion on the last page of his valuable work re- peated without due consideration the worn-out argument that it could be deduced from the Dasa- kumaracarita that a Kautiliya Arthasastra text composed in slokas might exist (visnuguptena maurydrthe sadbhih slokasahasraih samhcsiptd). This quotation of Dandin refers probably to Kautilya-Canakya-Visnpgupta, the moralist who was author, or was considered as author, of thousands of sayings, aphorisms and maxims which were known to exist under the name of Canakya and were collected in six different versions of Ca.nakya's aphorisms.

Although this reviewer does not agree with all what was said by F. Wilhelm in his work, he con- siders it as a very useful work and a valuable addi- tion to the scanty literature on the subject.

LUDWIK STERNBACH Nuw YOBK

Dharmasutras the divergent views are opinions of different schools. The same can be observed in Nilakantha's Araddha-mayikha, Varaha-mihira (Brhat-jataka) and many other texts.

It may be regretted that the author in his con- clusion on the last page of his valuable work re- peated without due consideration the worn-out argument that it could be deduced from the Dasa- kumaracarita that a Kautiliya Arthasastra text composed in slokas might exist (visnuguptena maurydrthe sadbhih slokasahasraih samhcsiptd). This quotation of Dandin refers probably to Kautilya-Canakya-Visnpgupta, the moralist who was author, or was considered as author, of thousands of sayings, aphorisms and maxims which were known to exist under the name of Canakya and were collected in six different versions of Ca.nakya's aphorisms.

Although this reviewer does not agree with all what was said by F. Wilhelm in his work, he con- siders it as a very useful work and a valuable addi- tion to the scanty literature on the subject.

LUDWIK STERNBACH Nuw YOBK

inclusive non-partisan approach to Buddhism are theosophy, psychology, Taoism and various religio- philosophical thoughts of non-Buddhist stock wherever they are considered to share, in the quest of Truth, a common denominator with Buddhism.

The same subjective and latitudinarian attitude appears in Humphreys' treatment of the different branches of Buddhism and their respective doc- trines. He is not interested in critical textual presentations nor in an objective analysis of dogmas. Throughout the volume he maintains a position upon which he believes all the Buddhist doctrines of apparent divergence converge and where he discovers the essential spirituality of Buddhism; that is 'the Way of Zen'. This convic- tion moves him to present a given Buddhist doc- trinal category so as to coalesce with, or perhaps better still, consurnmmate in that Way which points to "that which is beyond unity and diversity."

This necessarily imposes serious limitations on the usefulness of this volume for the reader who does not share the same approach to Buddhism.

inclusive non-partisan approach to Buddhism are theosophy, psychology, Taoism and various religio- philosophical thoughts of non-Buddhist stock wherever they are considered to share, in the quest of Truth, a common denominator with Buddhism.

The same subjective and latitudinarian attitude appears in Humphreys' treatment of the different branches of Buddhism and their respective doc- trines. He is not interested in critical textual presentations nor in an objective analysis of dogmas. Throughout the volume he maintains a position upon which he believes all the Buddhist doctrines of apparent divergence converge and where he discovers the essential spirituality of Buddhism; that is 'the Way of Zen'. This convic- tion moves him to present a given Buddhist doc- trinal category so as to coalesce with, or perhaps better still, consurnmmate in that Way which points to "that which is beyond unity and diversity."

This necessarily imposes serious limitations on the usefulness of this volume for the reader who does not share the same approach to Buddhism.

379 379

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:29:23 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions