Alternative Forms of Punishment - Canakya Book Review

[Guest guest]

Dear Prabhupadacarya prabhu,

 

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

 

I was most interested to see the following statement made by your good self

in reference to the dharma sastras: "(Canakya is) the modern authority on

such matters to be followed by us now (even perhaps above Manu), and (Srila

Prabhupada) confirms that by noting that Canakya's teachings should be

taught in our Gurukula."

 

I wonder if you could provide the reference for this. I know that Srila

Prabhupada often quoted Canakya's famous proverbs from the 'Niti-sastra',

and he would refer to him as a "great moralist and politician", but I have

never seen any reference where he suggests that we should employ the

Artha-sastra as an authoritative dharmic text. I could be wrong but I do

not think SP ever referred to it at all. In contrast to that we find more

than 220 direct references to the Manu-samhita telling us that it is the

authority on dharma - e.g. "The revealed scriptures, like Manu-samhita and

similar others, are considered the standard books to be followed by human

society. Thus the leader's teaching should be based on the principles of

such standard sastras." (Bg 3.21)

 

As an artha sastra, Canakya's text is subordinate to the dharma sastras,

although as you say he does make extensive references to them. However, the

Artha-sastra is, as stated by the author himself, specifically a "guidance

for kings in the acquisition and maintenance of a kingdom." It is the

science of "getting things done", of achieving one's material goal (artha),

where the end justifies the means, and the means can sometimes seem quite

unscrupulous, as with Canakya's unequivocal recommendation for the use of

poisoning, murder, torture, Tantric witchcraft and all kinds of duplicity

and deceit. For this reason scholars invariably compare the work with

Machiavelli's 'The Prince' and other similar works of unabashed

'realpolitik'. In fact the very name chosen by Canakya under which he wrote

the Artha-sastra - i.e. Kautilya - means "double-dealing" or "crookedness".

 

Of course, one could argue that Canakya as a devotee (although not a pure

devotee and thus not, I would suggest, an avesha jiva) was ultimately

espousing a noble end, and thus the tricky and sometimes harsh means he

recommends are acceptable with that in mind. Although he ascribes all moral

authority to the king, he no doubt expected that the king would be a moral

person who was properly discharging his God-given duties. I am sure also

that everything Canakya suggests in the Artha-sastra is fully based upon

Vedic authority. Nevertheless, I think we should treat the work with a deal

of caution, even more so than the Manu Samhita. This is especially so as the

text we now have (which incidentally was rediscovered in 1905, having for

centuries fallen into disuse in India) is considered to be very likely not

the original work of Canakya in its entirety, due its many stylistic and

linguistic variations. And again, we do not have a version presented by any

Vaishnava acharya.

 

IMHO Artha-sastra is a text which, along with other important works such as

the Manu Samhita, should be studied in the light of Prabhupada's

instructions. I still like Danavir Maharaja's suggestion that we have a

group of devotees make a thorough study of our own books, with a view to

getting in place the instructions on VAD that he has already given us, and

then go on to see how other writings could fit within and maybe augment

those instructions. Perhaps the Artha-sastra could be one of those

additional writings, although I would question whether it should be the

principal authority in this matter.

 

Yhs

Krsna Dharma das