2023-02-16 11:11:59 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
96
Political Concepts in Ancient India
not denounce a Dvairājya. The passage which
has led Altekar to observe that "the Arthaśāstra
does not approve of it" and Jayaswal to believe
that Kautilya himself characterises Dvairājya
"as a constitution of rivalry and mutual conflict
leading to final destruction", in fact, contains
the view of the Acarya and not of Kautilya him-
self. Kautilya quotes the above view of the
Ācārya only to say a no against it.²
This extract shows that it is the opinion of the
Acarya (and not of Kautilya) that a Dvairājya meets
destruction through mutual hatred etc. This ex-
tract further shows that the reference to Dvairājya
occurs in the context of a comparative assessment
of Dvairājya and Vairajya. That both remarks
about Dvairājya and Vāirājya embody the opinion
of the Ācārya is clear from the particle tu in the
sentence vairājyam tu etc. R. Shamasastry attri-
butes to the Acarya only the remark on Vairājya.
(See AS. Trans., p. 353). This rendering is not
happy. R. G. Basak's Bengali translation of the
above extract gives both the remarks as the view of
the Acarya. (AS. Bengali, Vol. II., p. 178).
4. dvairajyam anyonya-paksa-dveşāṇurāgābhyāṁ paraspara-
samgharşeņa vā vinaśyati (AS' VIII. 2).
5. Altekar, Ibid. p. 38.
6. Jayaswal, Hindu Polity, p. 81.
7. Cf. dvairajya-vairājyayoḥ
dvairā jyam anyonyapakşa-
dveşānurāgābhyaim parasparasamgharşeņa vā vinaśyati.
vairājyam tu prakṛticittagrahaṇāpekṣi yathā sthitam anyair
bhujyate ityācāryaḥ, netikautilyah. (AŚ. VIII. 2).
Digitized by
Google
Original from
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Political Concepts in Ancient India
not denounce a Dvairājya. The passage which
has led Altekar to observe that "the Arthaśāstra
does not approve of it" and Jayaswal to believe
that Kautilya himself characterises Dvairājya
"as a constitution of rivalry and mutual conflict
leading to final destruction", in fact, contains
the view of the Acarya and not of Kautilya him-
self. Kautilya quotes the above view of the
Ācārya only to say a no against it.²
This extract shows that it is the opinion of the
Acarya (and not of Kautilya) that a Dvairājya meets
destruction through mutual hatred etc. This ex-
tract further shows that the reference to Dvairājya
occurs in the context of a comparative assessment
of Dvairājya and Vairajya. That both remarks
about Dvairājya and Vāirājya embody the opinion
of the Ācārya is clear from the particle tu in the
sentence vairājyam tu etc. R. Shamasastry attri-
butes to the Acarya only the remark on Vairājya.
(See AS. Trans., p. 353). This rendering is not
happy. R. G. Basak's Bengali translation of the
above extract gives both the remarks as the view of
the Acarya. (AS. Bengali, Vol. II., p. 178).
4. dvairajyam anyonya-paksa-dveşāṇurāgābhyāṁ paraspara-
samgharşeņa vā vinaśyati (AS' VIII. 2).
5. Altekar, Ibid. p. 38.
6. Jayaswal, Hindu Polity, p. 81.
7. Cf. dvairajya-vairājyayoḥ
dvairā jyam anyonyapakşa-
dveşānurāgābhyaim parasparasamgharşeņa vā vinaśyati.
vairājyam tu prakṛticittagrahaṇāpekṣi yathā sthitam anyair
bhujyate ityācāryaḥ, netikautilyah. (AŚ. VIII. 2).
Digitized by
Original from
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN