365bet娱乐

169
when Buddhism had deteriorated. Admitting this for a
moment, how can Mr. Sankar explain the same derogatory
remarks about the Buddhist monks in the Pratij帽膩 and
Avi, which he has assigned to the author of the M峁沜ch ?2
It is on the other hand a well-known fact that a new
religion is generally looked down upon in its infancy, and
gradually increases in its following. Dr. Winternitz
surmises that 艢奴draka was really a Sudra who found
better treatment from Buddhism than from the orthodox
religion; but this is not borne out by the internal evidence
since the author praises Br膩hma峁嘺-bhojana,
Mr. Padhye, a well-known Buddhist scholar, has also
shown that the religious atmosphere as portrayed in
Bh膩sa, 艢奴draka and K膩lid膩sa places S奴draka later
than the Car, and K膩lid膩sa the last of the three."
etc.
6. The science of thieving as propounded by
Sajjalaka in the Car (p. 75) and Sarvilaka in the M峁沜ch
(p. 57) tells the
tells the
same story. 艢arvilaka mentions
Kartikeya as the patron deity and Kanaka艣akti,
Devavrata, Bhaskaranandin and Yog膩c膩rya as masters in
the art. Sajjalaka, on the other hand, invokes the aid
of Kharapata. As the name occurs in a later work from
the South, viz., the Mattavil膩sa, it is contended that
the Car got it from the Southern tradition and hence it
is an adaptation of the M峁沜ch. Now, it should be noted
that the Kau峁璱liya Artha艣膩stra also mentions Kharapata,
stating that the details as to the particular implements of
torture to be used in the particular case, measure of
punishment, etc., should be learnt from Kharapata. This
shows that before Kautilya, the treatise by Kharapata
was well known. It is only in later literature, that a
confusion is made between Kharapata and M眉ladeva,
and hence it is useless to infer from the identity stated
in later literature, that Kharapata is the same as M奴ladeva,
and that the works mentioning Kharapata are later than
M奴ladeva, the hero of S奴draka's Padmaprabh峁泃aka.
Hence, the mention of Kharapata in Kautilya's
1 AMV, 2. pp. 57-58. Cf. Pratij帽膩, pp. 43-45 : 啶呧�樴�� 啶�啶灌�嵿ぎ啶｀き啶距さ啶� 啷� 啶堗す啶距ぎ啶む�嵿い啶忇��
啶膏ぎ啶｀�忇�� 啶呧き啶�啶� 啶︵��啶呧う啶� 啷� [agha峁� bahma峁嘺bh膩va峁� | 墨h膩mattae峁嘺
sama峁嘺e峁嘺 abhaya峁� d墨adi | ] etc. Avi, p. 72 : 啶曕た啶｀�嵿ぃ啷佮�栢�� 啶溹��啶掂う啶� 啶｀�椸�嵿�椸え啷嵿ぇ啶班じ啶�啶｀た啶� 啷� [ki峁囜箛ukhu j墨vadi 峁嘺ggandharasama峁噄膩 | ] Mr. Sankar
enumerates these two viz, Pratij帽膩 and Avi among the works of 艢奴draka,
AMV, 2, p. 64. 3 Geschichte der indischen Lit, III, pp. 205 ff. 4 OC, VII,
Summaries, pp. 168-170; also, IC, 1937, pp. 61-72 5 Kaut. Arth., IV, 8 p. 221:
啶むじ啷嵿く啷嬥お啶曕ぐ啶｀�� 啶�啷嵿ぐ啶�啶距ぃ啶� 啶�啷嵿ぐ啶灌ぐ啶｀�� 啶�啷嵿ぐ啶оぞ啶班ぃ啶�啶掂ぇ啶距ぐ啶｀�� 啶� 啶栢ぐ啶�啶熰�嵿�熰ぞ啶︵ぞ啶椸ぎ啶�啷囙い啷� 啷� [tasyopakara峁嘺峁� pram膩峁嘺峁� prahara峁嘺峁� pradh膩ra峁嘺mavadh膩ra峁嘺峁� ca kharapa峁�峁�膩d膩gamayet | ] 6 Sankar, AMV, 2, p. 56,