Essay name: Bhasa (critical and historical study)
Author: A. D. Pusalker
This book studies Bhasa, the author of thirteen plays ascribed found in the Trivandrum Sanskrit Series. These works largely adhere to the rules of traditional Indian theatrics known as Natya-Shastra.
Page 339 of: Bhasa (critical and historical study)
339 (of 564)
External source: Shodhganga (Repository of Indian theses)
Download the PDF file of the original publication
319
literature of the period which idealizes the Br膩hma峁嘺s;
yet the picture of society presented by them is not only
not unreliable, but, barring distinct sectarian propaganda,
is more faithful. In fact, we get a good deal of realistic
information about the life of the common people, their
follies and foibles, their sports and amusements, their
virtues and vices from the J膩takas and allied literature.
As the period we have assigned to Bh膩sa is not far
distant in time from the Buddhist age, there appear to
be many similarities in the social conditions of the period.
as painted by both.
2 8
Finally, we have referred to Kautilya's Artha艣膩stra,
which we have taken as the product of the Mauryan age
and hence contemporaneous with the period we have
assigned to Bh膩sa. Non-mention of the great Br膩hma峁嘺
minister of Candragupta by Megasthenes need not be
taken to mean that Kautilya or C膩峁嘺kya was a mythical
person. For one thing, the Indika of Megasthenes is
available only in fragments; again argumentum ex
silentio cannot be relied on too much. The fact that
Kautilya is eulogized in Brahmanical literature and
depreciatory remarks occur about him in the Buddhist
and Jain works is sufficient to establish the existence
and historicity of Kautilya. The discrepancies between
Megasthenes and Kautilya need not postulate a late
date for the latter, since the alleged discrepancies have
been shown to be no discrepancies at all. Besides,
Megasthenes possessed very little critical judgment, was
unacquainted with the language and literature of India, was
often misled by wrong information received from others,
and has, at places, idealized the Indians. The arguments
of Dr. Jolly, Dr. Winternitz, Dr. Keith, Dr. Stein and
others questioning the authenticity of Kautilya's
Artha艣astra, casting doubts on the existence of Kautilya,
the famous Mauryan minister, and relegating the work
to the post-Christian period have been ably controverted
by Dr. R. Shama Sastri, Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar,
5 1 Fick, Social Organization, Chapters 1, 2; Cowell, J膩takas, Vol. I, Intr.
2 Jolly, Arthasastra, Intr., p. 34. 3 Bhandarkar, ABI, VII, p. 68. 4 For
discrepancies, cf. Jolly, op. cit., pp. 34-41; Keith, HSL, pp. 459-460; Stein,
Megasthenes und Kautilya, Wien, 1922; etc. Contra, Bhandarkar, ABI, VII, pp.
70-72; Arthas盲stra, Shama Sastri, Eng. Trans., Third Ed., Preface, pp. xxxi-xxxiii;
5 Cf. Bhandarkar, ABI, VII, p. 68; Ray Chaudhury, PHAI, Second Ed.,
p. 170; also Jolly, op. cit., Intr.
etc.
