Aditya, the supposed author of an Arthasastra
By Maurice Winternitz
Summary
Aditya, often attributed as the author of an *Arthasastra*, has been critically examined in scholarly discourse. G. and H. Q. (pp. 384f) argue that Jayaswal’s *Aditya Arthasistra* relies on a misinterpretation of *जप, Gr. S.*, specifically verses 11, 12, and 16, where the commentator Nirdyana provides the correct interpretation. Narayana’s reading was earlier adopted in Aditya-Stenzler’s 1864 German translation, which rendered a verse as “fighting on the side of the Sun or Usanas,” clarifying it does not imply facing the Sun or Venus during battle. Jayaswal’s interpretation aligns with H. Oldenberg’s translation (*Sacred Books of the East*, vol. xxix, p. 234), which references Aditya or Usanas’ battle formations. However, Stenzler had already cited the *Mahabharata* (3.211.100.20) and Mallinatha’s commentary on *Kumarasambhava* (11.43), which supports the correct reading. Kautilya’s *Arthashastra* (10.3.36) further corroborates this, stating armies should face the Sun’s direction (*prsthatas siryam*). These references confirm Narayana’s interpretation is accurate, disproving the existence of an *Arthasastra* by Aditya. Additionally, the *Apastamba-Gryha-sitra* cannot validate an *Arthasastra* during the period when the *Kalpa-sitras* were still
Conclusion
This analysis conclusively refutes the existence of an "Arthasastra of Aditya," demonstrating that Jayaswal's attribution rests on flawed interpretations of key texts. By prioritizing Nirdyana's correct commentary over misreadings in the Japa Grhya Sutra and Aditya's own text, the study reaffirms the accuracy of Stenzler's and Kautilya's accounts. The evidence from the Mahabharata and Mallinatha's commentary further invalidates claims linking Aditya to an independent Arthasastra. This conclusion not only clarifies historical misattributions but also underscores the importance of rigorous textual analysis in resolving scholarly debates about ancient Indian political treatises.