2023-03-12 00:19:11 by Jayashree
This page does not need to be proofread.
14
CĀŅAKYA-RĀJA-NĪTI
of editions in the CN version, and not just an addition
made exclusively by Kalee Krishen.
11. It has been said before that, in order to increase
the authority of their collections, the original compilers
attributed them to Cāṇakya. The expression original
compilers' is important, if we accept the principle of
the six versions of Cāṇakya's compendia; in the old
times ¹ the versions, i.e. compilations of maxims and
aphorisms from various sources, were established and
became so to say petrified; new compilations followed
the six patterns and if the compilers wanted to add new
aphorisms they did so usually either at the end of the
aphorisms they did so usually either at the end of the
texts or at the end of the adhyaya-s.
C
12. J. van Manen held that the attribution of the
collections to Cāṇakya was one of late origin and
that the original nīti tradition was older than and
independent from Cāṇakya's name and that perhaps
the attribution was due to some 'bad' play of words
rooted in the similarity between Cāṇakya and Saunaka.
He came to this conclusion because of the existence of
various collections of what may be called Cāṇakya
Nīti, in various parts of India without the name of
Cāṇakya attached, but simply called Nītisāra or
Nītiśāstram, the occurrence of a Nītisāra in the Garuda-
purana in connection with the name of Saunaka instead,
the occurrence in the Tibetan Tanjur of four Niti
Samgrahas, one under the name of Cāṇakya, another
under that of Nagarjuna, and still another under the
1 It is impossible to state when.
CĀŅAKYA-RĀJA-NĪTI
of editions in the CN version, and not just an addition
made exclusively by Kalee Krishen.
11. It has been said before that, in order to increase
the authority of their collections, the original compilers
attributed them to Cāṇakya. The expression original
compilers' is important, if we accept the principle of
the six versions of Cāṇakya's compendia; in the old
times ¹ the versions, i.e. compilations of maxims and
aphorisms from various sources, were established and
became so to say petrified; new compilations followed
the six patterns and if the compilers wanted to add new
aphorisms they did so usually either at the end of the
aphorisms they did so usually either at the end of the
texts or at the end of the adhyaya-s.
C
12. J. van Manen held that the attribution of the
collections to Cāṇakya was one of late origin and
that the original nīti tradition was older than and
independent from Cāṇakya's name and that perhaps
the attribution was due to some 'bad' play of words
rooted in the similarity between Cāṇakya and Saunaka.
He came to this conclusion because of the existence of
various collections of what may be called Cāṇakya
Nīti, in various parts of India without the name of
Cāṇakya attached, but simply called Nītisāra or
Nītiśāstram, the occurrence of a Nītisāra in the Garuda-
purana in connection with the name of Saunaka instead,
the occurrence in the Tibetan Tanjur of four Niti
Samgrahas, one under the name of Cāṇakya, another
under that of Nagarjuna, and still another under the
1 It is impossible to state when.