Certain white indologists have interpreted the structural similarity between the kauTilIya arthashAstra & the kAmasUtra as evidence for the latter being modeled after the former. They also want to see both as gupta era texts. We see that as a tenuous claim. While both texts were
redacted multiple times after their original composition, their core material is essentially that of their original composers. We believe they simply represent text lying at the junction of the older sutra & new classical era. The older sUtra-s going back to the gR^ihya& shrauta
texts of that genre were primarily composed for memorization & were expanded by the student using the oral commentaries received during his training. Some of those commentaries from a later age were written down. By the end of the sUtra period writing was more in vogue even for
technical works. Hence, the extreme economy of the older sUtra-s was no longer needed &the sUtra-like material was presented in a more relaxed form -- this is the style of the sUtra-like parts of both the arthashAstra of kauTilya & kAmasUtra. These were followed or interspersed
with metrical verses, which now took on the weight of the memorized component. Thus, the stylistic similarity of the arthashAstra & kAmasUtra indeed suggest that they are texts from the same time window but their originals were composed well before the gupta age.
1 of the colophons of the arthashAstra says: svayam eva viShNuguptash chakAra sUtraM cha bhAShyaM cha | Given the stylistic similarity between the kAmasUtra & the arthashAstra one could say that at least the prose material was from the original "sUtra" composition of viShNugupta
Now what was the bhAShya? It doesn't seem like any of the material of the arthashAstra as it survives is an autocommentary. Hence, it is possible that the original commentary it came with has been entirely lost or influenced the redaction & was partly included in versified form
Many years ago, I had seen a text called the chANakya-TIka published by Datar & the chANakya-sUtra published by Gairola. While these need more study, the former doesn't seem to be a later commentary -- it could have been inspired by the original viShNugupta bhAShya. The sUtra-s
of chANakya on the other hand seem to be a later collations of sUtra-s attributed to chANakya. It remains unclear if any of these originally went with the kauTilIya text.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The archaic skandapurANa lists the daitya dynasty & the order of incarnation-s differently from the narratives of other purANa-s: 1. hiraNyakashipu: slain by viShNu (nR^isiMha) 2. hiraNyAkSa: slain by viShNu (varAha) 3. andhaka: slain by rudra 4. prahlAda: slain by indra & viShNu
5. virochana: slain by indra 6. bali: trampled by viShNu
The archaic skandapurANa places the battle between daitya-s led by prahlAda & the gods occurs during the churning of the world-ocean.
The archaic skandapurANa has a 3 three-way sectarian spat in the varAha episode. 1. The shaiva assertion is seen in the form of the claim that varAha was able to kill hiraNyAkSha only with rudra's chakra. 2. After killing hiraNyAkSha, varAha mates with his consorts in his porcine
chANakya-sUtra: prakR^iti-kopaH sarva-kopebhyo garIyan |
This might be interpreted in 2 ways by itself: of all the insurrections the uprising of the <ministers | of the masses> is the most serious.
bhAravI expands on the same in a verse thus:
aNUr apy upahanti vigrahaH prabhumantaH prakR^iti-prakopajaH |
akhilaM hi hinasti bhUdharaM taru-shAkhANta-nigharShajo .analaH ||
Here it is clear that he likens the prakR^itikopa seizing a kingdom to the forest fire arising from the friction among the terminal branches of a tree
The terminal branches of the tree = the terminal branches of the state -- i.e., the masses. Hence, the sUtra indicates that the most serious uprising is that of the masses. This illustrates an example of how the sUtra-s of the arthashAstra tradition likely had a bhAShya which was
The kharoShThI arthashAstra digest manuscript collected in TSP by Nassim Khan & described by Strauch with possible relationship to the chAkShushIya arthashAstra indicates how the tradition might have been transmitted to central Asia by the kuShANa-s; the said document was likely
composed in the kuShAna empire & buried at an old shrine/college in what's today "Khyber Pakhtunkhwa". However, we should mention that the central Asia connection was already there even in the kauTilIya text which mentions sAmUra pelts -- sable pelt (?) which steppe Iranians use
Sternbach also recovered several maxims of chANakya from C.Asian fragments in Qara Khitai/Uighur domains; As an aside, the Jewish indologist Sternbach used the correct term Greater India, unlike denialist terms South Asia etc of other white indologists.
This handle is primarily a supplement for: manasataramgini.wordpress.com
Can please tell me what interests you therein:
I began recording these first around 25 years ago. At that time Indian internet usage was relatively low and I was much younger too. I changed the style of entries once this medium opened up. India is a young country & I sense that the majority of folks here are younger than me
Hence, I want to see if there is some change in interests/perspectives. I know some issues are eternal on H SM, like active support for Aryan autochthony, love jihad, Pakistan, BJP/NDA. But those apart I wonder about other matters that might interest the rising gens.
Revised: Numbers in the RV. Note that they are mostly "Benfordian" except for 3 and 7. These were clearly over-represented by ~3-5 times suggesting that they had a special significance. A whole sUkta to the ashvin-s 1.34 of hiraNyastUpa is one of triads.
3 comes in several key compounds such as tridhAtu: 26 x It means 3 divisions or parts. This term was perhaps ancestral to the later trihumoral theory of traditional medicine given a mantra to the ashvin-s: " trir no ashvinA divyAni bheShajA ...tridhAtu sharma vahataM shubhas patI
Another common compound trivandhura (10x) is also strongly associated with the car of the ashvin-s. The other common compound is trivarutha (11x) meaning triple fortification. This brings to mind the circular & square fortifications associated with the Sintastha-Andronovo complex
I currently see the matter as being somewhat complicated. There is definitely a clear ancestral component going back to early IE & earlier I-An. However, the case might be made for specific Greek-Aryan parallels in linguistic& philological terms. When viewed probabilistically
(Bayesian if you like), this builds up quite a bit; e.g., lu~N/la~N formations, word for arrow eis:iShu; liT usage in epic language; geometric formulation of altars, certain specific epic motifs... making some kind of specific link between Gr & Aryan more probable than the
alternative. This had led earlier to the suggestion of Greco-Armeno-Aryan, Phrygian probably in that mix. However, over the past 5 years, the archaeogenetic evidence has decisively (IMO) pushed the evidence in favor of the alternative branching Balto-Slavic+Aryan. This would mean