The Kāmasūtra: Vātsyāyana's Attitude toward Dharma and Dharmaśāstra

Author(s): Ludo Rocher

Source: Journal of the American Oriental Society , Jul. - Sep., 1985, Vol. 105, No. 3,
Indological Studies Dedicated to Daniel H. H. Ingalls (Jul. - Sep., 1985), pp. 521-529
Published by: American Oriental Society

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/601526

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Journal of the American Oriental Society

This content downloaded from

202.41.10.109 on Sat, 08 Feb 2025 13:42:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE KAMASUTRA: VATSYAYANA'S ATTITUDE TOWARD
DHARMA AND DHARMASASTRA

LUDO ROCHER

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

THE FIRST SUTRA of Vatsyayana's KamasUtralThat means that in any period of life in which one of
pays homage, not only to kama, but to all three the elements of the trivarga is the primary one, the
components of the trivarga: other two should be natural adjuncts of it, and that,
under no circumstances, any one of the trivarga should
dharmarthakamebh vo namah ( 1. 1. 1). be detrimental to the other two.2 Again, later in the
same chapter:

The reason for this initial statement is provided in the

next sutra: trivargasadhakam vat s ad dva vor vaikasva lea punah /
kdrvanm tad api kurv'ta na tv ekdrtham dvibtadha-

.?istre prakrtatvat (I . 1.2).

kam / / (1.2.51)'

To be sure, a similar statement also appears in the

dharmagastra. Says Manu:
Neither Schmidt's ("Weil sie in dem Lehrbuche immer
wiederkehren") nor Upadhyaya's ("The three Aims of dharmarthav ucyate ?reyah kammarthau dharma eva
Life that are dealt with in this Shastra") translations ca /

adequately express the meaning of this sUtra. What artha eveha va sreyas trivarga iti tu sthitih / / (2.224)
Vatsyayana claims is that he pays homage to dharma,
artha, and kama, because they are the three There is a difference, though. Whereas the passages
topics which are "genuine, relevant" (prakrrta) to a dealing with the trivarga in the KamasUtra quite
sastra, i.e., to any sastra.
The fact that all three elements of the trivarga are
interconnected has been stressed elsewhere in the 2 Anvon-vanubaddha is more than "in such a manner that
they may harmonize together" (Burton), "eins an das andere
KamasUtra. In a sequence of sUtras which will be
anknupfend" (Schmidt), or "in such a way as to harmonize
discussed later in this article, and in which Vatsyayana
suggests that different aspects of the trivarga shall be
with each other" (Upadhyaya). Anubaddha clearly suggests
that one element is primary and the other one or two
the primary ones in different periods of a person's life
subordinate to it. Cf. L. Rocher: "The Technical Term
(kUlam vibha/ya), at the same time he emphasizes that,
throughout life, 'Anubandha' in Sanskrit Legal Literature," ABORI 35, 1955,
221-228. The commentator provides examples for the follow-
ing combinations: dharma ?arthanubaddha, ?kamanubad-
anyonyanubaddham parasparasyanupaghatakam tri-
dha, 'arthakamd-nubaddha; artha ? 'dharmdnubaddha; kdma--
vargam seveta (1.2.1).
nubaddha, Wdharmakamanubaddha; kama ?dharmdnubad-
dha, 'arthanubaddha, Wdharmdrthanubaddha.
3 With 1.2.51--and 1.2.1 mentioned earlier-compare, with
' References to the text of the Kamasitra are according
reference to the king, Artha-astra 1.7.3-5 (also 15.1.29- 30):
to the edition, with Ya~odhara's commentary, Jayamangala, dharmarthav irodhena kamamn seveta na nihsukhah stoat.
Kashi Sanskrit Series 29, Benares 1929. 1 will occasionallysamamn ix' trivarganh ani'onidnubaddham. eko hi' athi'dsevito
quote the translations by Richard Burton and F. F. Arbu-dharmdrthakmndanmni dtmdnam itarau ca pf-davati. The rela-
thnoth (1863; I use the Panther Book ed., London 1963), tion between the Kamasutra and Kautilya's Artha~dstra has
Richard Schmidt (Berlin 1907), and S. C. Upadhyaya (Bom-received much attention in the scholarly literature; it will only
bay 1961).
occasionally be referred to in this article. Cf., especially,

521

This content downloaded from

202.41.10.109 on Sat, 08 Feb 2025 13:42:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 522 Journal of the American Oriental Society 105.3 (1985)

naturally fit into the general contexts, the verse from kama both the objection and its refutation contain
the Manusmrti stands all alone. It has no connection explicit-and comparative-references to the other
whatever with the preceding or following verses. Also, two. The objection (1.2.40-45), attributed to the
it is one of the few verses for which the footnotes in Arthacintakah,6 maintains that acts of kama are
Biihler's translation fail to refer to similar statements in contrary to (prat'anTka) the two principal goals in life:
other dharmasastra texts. dharma and artha (dharmiirthao oh pradhanavoh).
Not only is dharma-and artha-referred to in the They therefore lead to all kinds of undesirable results:
KamasUtra. Vatsyayana also establishes a relative contact with wicked people, unworthy enterprises,
hierarchy among the three elements of the trivarga. defilement, forfeiture of one's future, negligence,
Commenting on the initial sitra mentioned earlier rashness, distrust, etc. Many individuals attached to
Ya'odhara points out that in the compound dhar- acts of kama are known to have met with disaster.7
marthakamebh vah Vatsyayana intentionally fails to Following the argument that acts of kama are like
comply with a rule of the Astadhyayi (2.2.33: ajadyan- food-both kama and food are necessary to sustain the
tamr), according to which artha should have been body-, Vatsyayana subsequently claims that acts of
mentioned first in the dvandva compound. Whether or kama, far from being contrary to dharma and artha,
not the author was conscious of violating a rule of actually are their natural outcome (1.2.47: phalabhuitii
Panini's grammar, the fact remains that the Kamasutra, ca dharniarthayoh). Moreover, unlike the unqualified
i.e., a text on kama, opens with the word dharma. siddhantas on dharma and artha, at this point
Elsewhere in the text (1, ch. 2) Vatsyayana defines Vatsyayana admits (1.2.48) that the pursuit of kama,
dharma first, artha second, and kama last. The even as certain other activities, does involve risks
definitions are then followed by the unequivocal which one ought to be alert to. One does not refrain
statement: from cooking food simply because that might attract
beggars, nor does one refuse to sow barley just because
tesam samavaye piurvah pirvo garTyan (1.2.14).5 wild animals might eat a part of it.
In the discussion on the appropriateness of compos-
The important point here is, first, that the KamasUtra ing a treatise on kdma Vatsyayana introduces the
operates within the framework of the trivarga, and, opinion of Acaryas (1.2.18-21) that, of course, dharma
second, that even the Kamasutra places kama at a requires a Nastra because it is alaukika, and so does
lower level than artha and considers dharma to be the artha, because its success depends on the mastery of
highest of the three goals in life. the proper means (upayapratipatti). On the contrary
This impression is further confirmed by the fact that kama which, even among animals, comes naturally and
Vatsyayana is clearly on the defensive, both for the instinctively, does not require a Nastra. In this case
pursuit of kama generally, and for his writing a treatise Vatsyayana's answer (1.2.22-24) does not introduce
on it in particular. Differently from the discussions- the concepts of dharma and artha, but he does claim
each time with a negative purvapaksa and a positive that there is a difference between kama of animals and
siddhanta-on the necessity to practice dharma and humans: here too, humans have to acquire the proper
artha, in which the other two elements of the trivarga means of success and, therefore, need a sastra.
are not even alluded to, in the case of the pursuit of Far more revealing for Vatsyayana's views on the
trivarga and the place of kama within it are the final
J. Jolly: "Kollektaneen zum Kautillya Arthagastra," ZDMG 'lokas of the Kamasitra. Not less than four times
68, 1914, 345-359 at 351-354; Friedrich Wilhelm: "Die (7.2.53, 54, 57, 59) Vatsyayana makes it a point to
Beziehungen zwischen Kamasfitra und Arthagastra," ZDMG dispel the notion that the main purpose of the
116, 1966, 291-3 10.

4 Cf. 4.1.55, on faithful wives (narwah sadvrttam isritdh):

dharmam artham tathi kimam labhante ... See also 7.2.53, 6 Burton: "those who think that Artha is the chief object to
58, below. be obtained"; Schmidt: "die Opportunisten"; Upadhyaya:
' More specifically with regard to the Kamasutra Vatsyayana "the champions of Artha"; Wilhelm (op. cit., p. 299): "Polito-
insists that its study, and the study of its afigas, be undertaken logen."
without interfering with the time reserved for the study of ? Notice that the first example of individuals who were
dharma and artha, and their afigas: dharmarthafigavidydkalan ruined by kama (1.2.44) corresponds literally to Artha?5stra
anuparodhajan kamasastram tadahgavidvas ca puruso 'dhf- 1.6.5: yatha Ddnhdakyo nama Bhojah kamdd brahmanakan-
yTta (1.3.1). yiam abhimanyamanah sabandhurdstro vinandia.

This content downloaded from

202.41.10.109 on Sat, 08 Feb 2025 13:42:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ROCHER: The Kdmasitra: Vastavana's Attitude Toward Dharma and Dharmasastra 523

Kamasfitra is to promote raga. On the contrary, he treasury, army, etc.; these are elements of artha;
composed his book therefore lokaviitrii is founded in artha.8
Strictly speaking the last sutra states that, "also
brahmacarVena parena ca sarnidhind (7.2.57). when it comes to a courtesan, (sil.. the most important
element of the trivarga is artha)." This is the interpreta-
tion of the commentary, followed by Schmidt. On the
other hand, since stitras 1.2.15-17 are meant to provide
exceptions-different exceptions-to sUtra 1.2.14 in
A person who truly understands the message of the
the cases of kings and courtesans, one might be
Kamasiitra knows how to control his senses:
tempted to consider Burton's interpretation (followed
by Upadhyaya): "Again, Kama being the occupation of
asya sFastrasla tativajio bhavativ eva jitendrivah (58). public women, they should prefer it to the other two."9
There is even a more far-reaching exception to the
Twice he insists that the Kamasiitra promotes not one superiority of dharma-and artha-vis-A-vis kama in
but all three elements of the trivarga: the Kamasiitra. I referred earlier to a sequence of
sUtras in which Vatsydyana advises his readers to pay
special attention to different elements of the trivarga in
dharmam artham (a kihmam ca . paiswati etasma
different periods (kalam vihhajvya)'0 of an individual's-
tattvaiah (53);
ideal-life span of one hundred years. Even though
raksan dharrndrthakamdnirm sthitimn svim lokavar-
these rules are prefixed with the proviso ani on ainuhad-
tinTm asva sastrasva tattvajniah (58).
dham parasparasranupaghatakam (1.2.1). the text
continues:
And, even as dharma-and artha-figure in the very
first siutra of the text they are given a place in its final
stanza: halve vidriigrahanadTn arthan kiiinam ca vauvane
sthavire iharniam moksanz (av 1.2.2-4).

tad etat kugalo vidvim dharmdrthdv avaloka van /

nitiragdtmakah km?Tprayunijanah prasidhyati /1(59) I intentionally print the text without dividing it into
separate suitras. According to Burton: "He should
acquire learning in his childhood, in his youth and
middle age he should attend to Artha and Kama, and
* * * in his old age he should perform Dharma, and thus
seek to gain Moksha." Upadhyaya follows Burton to a
certain extent but totally neglects the term arthdn: "'In
Notwithstanding all this there
childhood, he should devote himself to acquiring
exceptions to the rule that dhar
knowledge; in youth, he should engage in worldly
most important element of the
pleasures, and in his old age, he should aspire to
are introduced immediately afte
salvation through the practice of Dharma." The only
tesram samavdye piurvah piirv
correct interpretation, based on a proper separation of
exceptions concern kings and co
the sutras, is Schmidt's: "in der Kindheit beschaftige
man sich mit der Erlangung des Wissens und Thnlichen
arthaS ca rijiiah. tanntilakatvallok
ca (1.2.15-17).

Cf. Arthagastra 1.7.6-7 (immediately after 1.7.3-5 quoted

The first sutra unambiguously states that, when it earlier): artha eva pradhana iti Kautilyah. arthamnalau hi
comes to the king, the most important element of the dharmakirmav iti.
trivarga is artha. In connection with the second sUtra 9 Cf. 6.1.1-3. below.
the commentator reasons as follows: Iokayitrii is the 10 Cf. Mahabharata 12.69.68ab (CE): dharmas carthas ca
correct behavior of the varnas and asramas; this can be kamag ca sevitavvo 'tha kalatah. For the discussions on the
maintained only by means of protection provided by priorities of the different elements of the trivarga in the
the king; to provide protection the king has to be rantiparvan, see Alfred Hillebrandt: Altindische Politik, Jena:
strong; to be strong the king needs an adequate Fischer, 1923, pp. 16-20.

This content downloaded from

202.41.10.109 on Sat, 08 Feb 2025 13:42:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 524 Journal of the American Oriental Society 105.3 (1985)

Gegenstanden des Artha. Und in der Jugend mit der The second means of acquiring wealth is a universal
Liebe." Im reifen Alter mit Dharma und Erlbsung." one: inheritance. The first alternative is more interesting
It is indeed clear that, syntactically, vidvcgrahanaddin in that it lists four distinctive activities which are
arthdn belong together, all the more so because of the recognized in the dharma?astras as the lawful occupa-
definition of artha elsewhere in the Kamasiltra: tions for the brahmana, ksatriya, vaigya, and gidra,
respectively.'4 I have described elsewhere'5 how, except
*~id X bahhn~ih iran l apas~udhan X abhhndo apskaram itra- in cases of emergency, in the dharmagastras the
dlndni atjanarn ar/itasVa vivardhanain arthah ( 1.2.9). occupations (vrtti) and rules of behavior generally are
strictly associated with-and different for-the several
However unusual it may be to have vidka or vid'cgra- varnas. Here again, while explicitly'6 operating within
hana included under artha, the first period of life as the framework of the four varnas, the Kamasfitra goes
envisaged by Vatsyayana encompasses the time of against the grain of the dharmaiastras insofar as it lays
hrahmnacari'a. Elsewhere in the text (1.4.1) Vatsyayana down uniform rules for all householders, irrespective
again makes it clear that his treatise on kama addresses of their varnas. It even includes in its audience the
itself to a man who is grhitavidva "having acquired the householder of the AUdra class, leaving unanswered the
necessary learning"' 12 and gacrhapatvyam adhigamva question how a ACidra can have completed his hrahma-
"having advanced to the stage of a householder." carva and become grhltavidya prior to engaging in the
Finally, since a man does not necessarily live the ideal activities prescribed by the KamasUtra.
life span of one hundred years (1.2.1: Kat -iur vai Even though Vatsyayana means to lay down uniform
puru.yah), Vatsyayana is willing to relax the strict rules for householders of all varnas,'7 he introduces
repartition of the three goals of life, however with one restrictions of his own. In the first place, he addresses
exception: himself solely to those householders who are nagarakas.
Burton translated nagaraka as "citizen"; Schmidt: "der
anit iatvabd diuso 'athopapadanm vC seveta. hrahma- Elegant"; Upadhyaya, incorporating a passage from
(arsvam eva t1e d vidvX grahanat ( .2.5-6). the commentary: "a refined and educated gentleman (a
poor man cannot adopt the role of a refined and
In other words, even though Vatsydyana deviates educated gentleman)." Recognizing the well-to-do and
from a basic principle of dharmaiastra in that he urbane ndgarakas as a separate class of people and
assigns different elements of the trivarga as the primaryprescribing special rules for their behavior is, of course,
ones at different stages of life, he does so plainly within
totally foreign to the dharmaiastras. The term is,
the framework of the diramas established by the however, well known in other branches of Sanskrit
dharma texts. The Iuvan he has in mind is one who has literature. Pdnini even devotes a separate rule to it:
completed his period of brahmacarya on the one
hand,'3 and who is not yet sthavire, i.e., vanaprasthye,
14 The term nirvesa is rare in the dharmagastras. It occurs
on the other.
in a verse attributed to Brhaspati (13.34): artizans who
work cooperatively shall take their nirvega proportionately
* * *
to their individual labor. An identical verse appears in the
Sukranitisara (4.794). The variant form nirvista occurs-
In the sUtra mentioned earlier (1.4.1), in which
only-in the Gautamasmrti (10.40-42), in connection with
Vdtsyayana lays down that he addresses himself to
specific ways of acquiring wealth for the four varnas,
individuals who have reached the status of house-
in addition to the general one, inheritance: brahmanasiadhi-
holders, he also enumerates the means by which they
kamn labdhamn ksatrivasva vijitam nirvistam vaiwasuidraioh.
should assure their livelihood:
Even though the correspondence is not verbatim, the close
verbal relationship of the Kamastitra, not with the Manusmrti-
pratigrahajav akravanirvegadhigatair arthair anvaavga-
Vatsyayana refers to Manu as the composer of the dhar-
lair uhhavair va.
maiastra (1. 1.6)-but with the Gautamasmrti, is intriguing.
'5 See L. Rocher: "Caste and Occupation in Classical India:
The Normative Texts," Contributions to Indian Sociology
' Unless ca after kdmaTna implies anuvrtti of arthdn: kdmamn.s. 9, 1975, 139-151.
[arthaii] ca vauvane. 16 Cf. 3.2.1: sarvavarnikam.
'2 Cf. 3.1.2: .srutavdn. I7 Cf. Jayamangald ad 1.4.1: calurvarnivanm grhasthani
3 See below for the time for women to study the Kamaslitra.
adhikriia idan .sadstratn.

This content downloaded from

202.41.10.109 on Sat, 08 Feb 2025 13:42:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ROCHER: The Kdmasitra: Vdtsydyana 's Attitude Toward Dharma and Dharmasastra 525

[vaui] nagarat kutsanapravinqavoh (4.2.128). 8 sparsav'isesavisave tv asma abhimanikasukhanuviddha

phalavativ arthaprathtih pradhamnat kdmah (1.2.12).
SrTfa Chandra Vasu'9 rightly points out that nagaraka
"always denotes a person having the vices or virtues of This specific type of kama is the one which the
a town, such as a thief or an artist." In the case of the Kdmastitra is concerned with:
KamasUtra I would slightly alter Vasu's formulation:
Vdtsydyana's nagaraka is the kind of person who has tam kamasitrdn nagarakajanasamavdihc c(a prati-
both all the virtues and all the vices inherent in urban padVate (1.2.13).
living.
Vatsyayana introduces yet another restriction in the For his activities in the area of kama the nagaraka is
subject matter of the Kamasiitra. Not only he addresses given a special name: ndyaka, a term which is known to
himself to those householders who are ndgarakas. He the Alamkara literature, from the Bharatiyandtyasastra
is, moreover, concerned with their activities in the one onward, and which is the usual term for the "hero" in
area only: kama. Sanskrit plays.22
Even though it is not always clear what the dhar-
magastras mean when they use the term kama whether * * *

in its technical sense as one of the elements of the

trivarga, or in its more general meaning of "wish, Vatsyayana's treatment of women, when looked
desire"-, at least one thing is beyond doubt: kama, in upon against the background of dharma and dhar-
the dharmagdstras, always has a negative, pejorative masastra, is far more complex than his treatment of
connotation.20 An offense committed kamatas is invari-men. I can only touch on a few aspects of this problem
ably more serious-and deserves a more severe punish- in the present article.
ment-than the same offense committed akamatas. According to Vdtsyayana women too, are supposed
Kamatas and akamatas correspond to the distinction to study the Kamasitra and its afigas. Since there is no
between "intentional" and "unintentional" offenses. period of brahmacarva for women as there is for men,
For Vatsyayana, on the contrary, kama is a positive they ought to study the ?astra even before they reach
concept. He formulates a definition of it which, if not the time of yauvana:
actually borrowed from some Nydya-Vai'esika text, at
least operates with the terminology of these darsanas:2' prag yauvanat sin [kdmasiaram tadangavidi'i? ca
adhlTyia] (1.3.2).
srotratvak(aksurjihvaghranam atmasamrnuktena ma-
nasa adhisthitanam svesu svesu v'isa}'esiv inukiidpatah They may also continue to do so after marriage, but
pravrttih kamah (1.2.1 1). this depends on the intentions of their husbands:

This general definition of kama is followed by a more

prattia palyur ahhipraiat (I .3.3).23
specific one:

These positive statements are, however, followed by an

objection attributed to Acaryas: instructing women in
1 This rule seems to indicate that the reading nagarika, which
often appears in Kamasutra editions instead of nagaraka, the
is kamasastra is futile,
wrong. A nagarika is a person who "protects" the city, as in
the Arthaiastra (2, ch. 36 and elsewhere); he is the "City- ositdm sdstragrahanasi ahhavat (1.3.4),
Superintendent" (Kangle). Cf. Panini 4.4.33: [sthansthacau]
raksati. which seems to imply both that women are not entitled
'9 The Ashtidhyiavl of Panini, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, to study a ?astra (comm.: tasam sqastranadhikdrat) and
1962 (originally, 1891), p. 746. that they are not intellectually capable of doing so
20 E.g., Manu 2.2ab: kdmdtrnata na prasastd na (aivehastY
akainati; ibid. 2.13ab: arthakamesv asaktanam dharmaifia- 22 For the qualities required in a nalvaka, see 6.1.12.
namn vidhh' ate (variously explained by the commentators). 23 The rules of behavior for a married woman in the
21 Cf., e.g., Vaikesikasutra 5.2.15: atmendrivamano'rthasanm- Kdmasuitra are very similar to those of the dharmaiastras.
nikarsdt sukhaduhkhe; Tarkasamgrahadipika ? 43: atma E.g., the section on the ekacarinT "the single wife" (4.1.1-42),
manasa samrnujate mana indriv'ena indrivam arthena; tatah opens with the statement: hhdri'i ekaearinf gadhavwirambhd
praty'aksam jininam utpad'ate. devavat patim anukalv'ena varteta.

This content downloaded from

202.41.10.109 on Sat, 08 Feb 2025 13:42:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
526 Journal of the American Oriental Society 105.3 (1985)

(cf. 1.3.12). Even though Vatsyayana goes on to defend being considered more respectable than the former.
his original position-women are familiar with the Even though the dharmasastras recognize the paunar-
practice (pravoga) of kama, and practice is based on bhava "the son of a punarbhui" as one of the normally
the ?astra ( 1.3.5) , the ensuing discussion is, at best, eight-kinds of sons, the punarbhhi is obviously in
ambivalent, and ends up stressing women's knowledge violation of other principles of dharma'astra, such as
of the sixty-four subsidiary viedi'.s rather than the eternal faithfulness to her previous husband (e.g.,
?astra itself. Manu 5.160-161), etc.; she is therefore a far less
in any case, Vatsyayana does provide the ncivaka desirable wife than the kany a'. Vatsyayana simply
with a female counterpart: na cika. Differently from the defines the punarbhui8 as a widow who seeks remar-
single24 ndivaka the Kdmasuitra distinguishes three typesriage:
of na ikk.s, using a terminology which is well known to
the dharma~astras:
vidhava tv indrivadaurha/i'Id atura hhoginamn guna-

sampannam c'a lya punar x'indet sd punarhhih

arafa nii'ikis tisrah kany} punarhhar ve.tia ca (1.5.4).
(4.2.39).

The term kani'a is pivotal in marriage as conceived

by the dharma texts. It appears explicitly in six of The status of the courtesan is, in a way, rather
Manu's eight definitions of different types of mar- uncomplicated in the dharmasastras. The courtesan,
riage (3.27-34), it is understood in one, and replaced whether she be called veshd ganikd, pan astrY, etc., is
by suta- in another. irrespective of whether the maiden hardly mentioned in these texts.29 On the other hand,
is given away (kanlyadana), or whether she goes away the few references that do occur, are invariably
on her own as in the gandharva marriage, or whether pejorative. There are no statements on courtesans in
she is abducted (kanviaharana), the bride of the particular; the term always appears as one item in long
dharma'astras is invariably a kanj'a.25 The entire third series of individuals upon whom the dharmasastras do
adhikarana of the Kamasfitra is devoted to Kanyasam- not look favorably. On a few occasions the courtesan is
pra'uktakam; for Vatsyayana, even as for the dhar- listed among those individuals from whom no one,
masastras, a kan va- is not only unmarried (3.1. 1; especially not a brahman, should accept any food.30
26
anani'apurv-) but also a virgin. More often than not vesyas are mentioned in one
The status of Vatsyayana's second type of nyVika, breath with thieves (e.g., Visnu 51.7); "clever harlots"
the punarbha, is more complex in the dharmasastras. (nipundh pa~jyastriyah), even as thieves and the like,
27
Definitions vary in detail whether a widow or one are "public thorns (in the side of the king's subjects)"
who abandoned her husband, whether still a virgin or (Manu 9.259). As such, the king should provoke them,
not, etc.-, but they all agree that the punarbhui is by means of "spies wearing various disguises" (Manu
parapzirvd "one who previously belonged to another 9.260), to commit their crimes, and, subsequently,
man." Many dharma texts treat her very much at the inflict on them the punishment they deserve (Manu
same level with the svairinT "the independent, wanton 9.261). Brothels (e.g., Manu 9.264) are one in a long
woman." Most explicit is the Naradasmrti (12.45-53): list of places which should be guarded by "companies
it divides women who are parapuirvd into seven kinds, of soldiers, stationary or patrolling," this time not
three of which are punarbhhu, four svairinT, the latter because they themselves are places of evil, but because
a variety of scoundrels are likely to hang out around
24 Except for the threefold distinction linigatas (2.1.1). For them. Notwithstanding all this the courtesan is one of
subdivisions of the navaka, in a variety of texts on alamkara the main characters of the Kamasitra. One of its seven
and kama, see Richard Schmidt: Beitrzge zur indisehen adhikaranas the sixth is entirely devoted to her:
Erotik, 3Berlin: Barsdorf, 1922 (originally, 1901), pp. 108-148. Vaigikam. The chapter opens with the matter-of-fact
25 Cf. L. Rocher, "The SUItras and gastras on the Eight statement:
Types of Marriage," Ludwik Sternback Felicitation Volume,
Lucknow: Akhila Bharatiya Sanskrit Parishad, 1979, pp. 207-
214. 2x For punarbhuivrtta, see 1.2.39-59.
26 Kanvyvisrambhana-the topic of 3, ch. 2-results in the 29 Hence the paucity of dharma texts used in L. Sternbach's
girl being vimuktakanyvabhdva (3.2.38). Texts on Courtezans in Classical Sanskrit, Hoshiarpur:
27 For definitions of punarbhil, see, e.g., Schmidt: Beitrage VVRI, 1953.
zur indisehen Erotik, pp. 148-150. 30 Manu 4.209, 219; cf. Visnu 51.7, Vasistha 14.10, etc.

This content downloaded from

202.41.10.109 on Sat, 08 Feb 2025 13:42:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ROCHER: The Kdmasutra: Vdtsi'dyana's Attitude Toward Dharma and Dharmadstra 527

ve.si'indm purusadhigame ratir vrtti.sca sargat. ratitah certain specific conditions." Even (api; repeated 1.5.20:
pfrav'artanam wsxatThavikanm krtrimnam artharthani. parastriYam api) a married woman can be a navika,
tad api svahhavikavad ruPpayet (6.1 . 1-3). but there have to be different reasons for it (ani'aka-
ranava!at) than those that prevail in the case of the
It is clear that Vatsyayana ranks at the same level other three types: offspring or pleasure.33
three types of women who are, in the eyes of the In other words, even in the kama~astra adultery is
dharmasastras, very different. Even though the Kama- placed at a different level than kama with the other
sutra, like the dharmasastras, praises most highly three kinds of nalikds. Vatsyayana devotes not less
kama with an ananivapu-rva (1.5.1), and even though than fifteen sUtras (1.5.6-20) to enumerating the
kama with a punarbhui is attributed to her being reasons (karana) for which a man is allowed to seduce
indrii adaurbalvad atura (4.2.39), the overriding, com- a married woman. This list of reasons, which is too
mon criterion for Vatsyayana's list of three na v'ikas is long and detailed to reproduce here, appropriately
that these women, at the time of their relationship with concludes with the sUtra:
the na vaka, are not attached to another man. Kama
with married women raises, even for Vatsyayana, a iti sihasik lam na kev'alaml ragad eva iWi paraparigra-
different set of problems. hagan anak arandn i ( 1.5.2 1).
Adultery is, of course, strongly censured by the
dharmagastras.3' The same idea is reflected in the
It is one of the best specimens to illustrate the extent to
Kamastitra:
which the KamasUtra occasionally emulates the "Mach-
iavellian" tendencies of the Artha~astra;34 more than
most other passages in the KamasUtra it justifies
[kamah] . .. paraparigrhita-su . .. .pratisiddhah (1.5.2).
Winternitz's description of Vatsyayana as "the Indian
Machiavelli of love."35

Yet, Vatsyayana devotes far more attention-the entire

fourth adhikarana is called Paradarikam to the * * *

opinion of his predecessor Gonikaputra, who is said to

have been the author of a book on the subject ( 1.1. 16).
Immediately after the suitra enumerating the three The dharma~dstras make it very clear that the only

types of na-vikas the Kamasuitra continues: true union in marriage is the one between two members
of the same varna.36 Here again the KamasUtra operates
within the categories of the dharma texts:
anm akaranava.sat paraparigrhhtapi paksiki caturfhTti
Gonikdputrah (1.5.5).

kaimag catursu varnesu savarnatah !astrata.s ca anan-

The existing translations32 fail to do justice to X'apurvaan.? pra ujwiannanah putrio vaasraso lauki-
Ganikaputra's statement, in particular to the term ka.s ca bhavati (1.5. 1);
paksiki used in it. The suitra means that, even according
to the author of Paradarikamn, the fourth type of
also:
navika is paksikT "optional, allowable only under

Cf. Jayamanigala: putrat sukhac ca v'ad anvat karanam

3' E.g., Manu 4.133-134; 8.352 sqq. tadvasat.

34 Even the way in which the arguments are presented: sa

Burton: "Gonikaputra has expressed an opinion that there
is a fourth kind of Nayika, viz., a woman who is resorted to on manveta ... va. . . va. . ., etc. (1.5.6 sqq.), is remini-
yada
some special occasion even though she be previously married scent of certain passages of Kautilya. Cf. Arthaiastra: yadi va
to another"; Schmidt: "Aus anderen Grunden wird selbst eine pasyet.. . (7.1.32, 33); vadi va man'etaa... (7.1.34-37;
von einem anderen geheiratete Frau zu einer Vierten, die man 7.4.5-19; 7.6.8-10); etc.
besuchen darf, sagt Gonikaputra"; Upadhyaya: "According to 3 Geschichte der indisehen Litteratur, vol. 3, Leipzig:
Gonikaputra, however there is yet a fourth type of Nayika: Amelang, 1920, p. 537; History of Indian Litterature, vol. 3,
one who is already married to another, but who is resorted to transl. Subhadra Jha, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1967, p. 621.
for some special reason (i.e., other than the reasons of 36 E.g., Manu 3.43ab: panigrahanasamskarah savarna-supa-
procreation or pleasure)." disyate. Cf. Yajniavalkya 1.62a; Visnu 24.5; etc.

This content downloaded from

202.41.10.109 on Sat, 08 Feb 2025 13:42:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
528 Journal of the American Oriental Society 105.3 (1985)

Vatsyayana himself, however, provides a reason for his

savarna iam ananyaputrvdi}aam .slralo 'dhigatayvan
dharmo 'rthah putrah sarnbandha/h paksavrddhir statement concerning love "with the grain":
anupaskrid rahis ca (3. 1. 1).37
sukharthatvat.

Among marriages the partners of which belong

to different varnas the dharma~astras censure most Under influence of the commentary on this term:
severely the one in which the wife is of a higher varna tadanTm sukharthaiva pravrtthih na putrartha, Burton
than the husband.38 Yet, they acknowledge its existence translates: "The object of practising Kama with such
and describe in great detail the offspring of all possible women is pleasure only"; similarly Schmidt: "da
types of pratiloma marriages. On the subject of kama sie nur zum Vergnugen dient"; even more explicitly,
"against the grain" the Kdmasiitra is as clear and even Upadhyaya: "Since this relation is entered into for
less tolerant than the dharma~astras; even as kama mere pleasure."
with a married woman (see above) kama "against the Translating sukharthaiva pravrtthih as "a relation
grain" is forbidden. After praising kama among mem- entered into for mere pleasure," is misleading. It
bers of the same varna the text continues: creates the wrong impression that, ideally, sukha ought
to be subordinated to, if not replaced by, something far
adviparlta ulhamanarnisu paraparigrhTlahs ca pratisid- more valuable. In reality sukha is a positive concept in
dhah (1.5.2). its own right, not a negative concept, in the Kamasutra.
It figures prominently throughout Vatsyayana's text.
Finally, the dharmaiastras, while not recommending As we saw earlier, sukha appears in the definition of
anulonia marriages, at least consider them less objec- the special kind of kama (pradhanyat kamah) which is
tionable than the pratilona type. Here too, they the subject matter of the Kamasuitra (1.2.12, above).
describe in detail the offspring of the different possible Differently from relationships with women of higher or
combinations. Even though Vatsyayana is aware that lower rank,40 only the meeting of equals assures mutual
an anuloma relationship is undesirable,39 he assimilates sukha:
love with women of a lower varna with love with
punarbhhis, vesvas, and others: parasparasukhasiada krTda v'atra pray vu vate /
v1esawanfl (eandon i'am sambandhah sa vidhhvate / /
avaravarrndsv' aniravasitasu vesadsu punarhhC~su ca na (3.1.25)
.sisto na pratisiddhah sukharthatvat (1.5.3).
Sukha is also the reason why the Kamasutra
The Kamasutra gave no reason why love "against the advocates one particular form of marriage: the gan-
grain" is forbidden; only the commentator did: dharva marriage. In the lists of eight types of marriage
mentioned, in declining order of respectability, in the
ekaniena dharmavirodhitvdt. dharmasastras,4' the gandharva marriage occupies the
sixth place. It is not the worst type of marriage; raksasa
and paiiaca rank even lower. Yet, it is the only form of
3 Cf. the more general statement: marriage the definition of which refers to kama. For

samasvid dah sahakrida vivahadh samgatani ca / instance, Manu:

tddrsair eva kdrvdni nottamair napi vadhamaih / /
(3.1.22) iccha van yon asamyogah kan ia vi. a varasva ca/
38 See L. Rocher: "Notes on Mixed Castes in Classical gandharvah sa tu vi/ie'o maithun'ah kdmasamnbha-
India," The Adyar Libary' Bulletin 44-45 (Dr. K. Kunjunni vah //(3.32)

Raja Felicitation Volume), 1980-1981, 132-146 at 140. On

mixed castes generally, see P. V. Kane: History of Dhar- The author of the Kamasutra is obviously aware of
mastdstra, vol. 2, Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research the eight forms of marriage of the dharmasastras. At
Institute, 1941, pp. 69-104; more recently, Horst Brinkhaus: one point (3.1.21) he even prescribes the four superior
Die alten Mischkastensysteme, Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1978.
39 Cf. 3.1.24cd: as'laghvo hTnasambandhah so pi sadbhir 40 See note 39.
vinindyate; 3.1.26cd: na tv eva hTnasambandham kuryat 4' See my article on the forms of marriage, mentioned
sadbhir vininditam. above.

This content downloaded from

202.41.10.109 on Sat, 08 Feb 2025 13:42:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ROCHER: The Kdmasutra: Va-ts-va'Yana's Attitude Toward Dharma and Dharmasdstra 529

forms: brahmana, prajapatya, arsa, and daiva, "depend- makatvat "because it is based on affection,"45 the very
ing on local customs" (desavrttisatmat).42 He also first reason is sukhatvat "because it leads to happiness"
alludes (3.5.29) to the fact that the gandharva form is (comm.: sukhahetutvat).
madhvama "middlemost, average." Yet, the text (3,
ch. 5) only deals at length with the gandharva marriage,
then (3.5.24-27) briefly describes-without mention- * * *

ing their names the paiiaca and raksasa forms, and

concludes:
Sukha may well be the basic concept which sets the
Kamasuitra apart from the texts on dharma. The
puirvah pairvah pradlhanan svizd vivaho dharmasam-
dharma~astras lay down positive and negative rules;
sthiteh /43
not performing activities prescribed by the former as
Iurx'ahhave tatah kcrl o vo xa uttara uttarah / /
well as doing what is forbidden by the latter entails
(3.5.28)
unpleasant consequences both in the present and in
future existences. The Kamasuitra operates, as far as
Literally speaking this verse might apply only to the
possible, within the concepts and guidelines of the
three--lower types of marriage discussed immedi-
dharmagastras, but it also has a purpose of its own: it
ately before the ?loka. Yet, it clearly aims at all eight
aims at providing sukha.46 Perhaps the Jayamangala,
forms of marriage recognized by the dharma~astras,
commenting on the sfitra (1.5.3) which "neither pre-
since the following verse (3.5.29) adds that the gan-
scribes nor forbids" kama with women of a lower
dharva marriage, even though it is only a "middlemost"
varna and punarbhas, ves~'ias, etc. captures best the
one, nevertheless should be considered to be the right
true meaning of the Kamasuitra's sukha. Ya~odhara
kind of union (sadvoga . .. pa/itah). Also, the last
points out that kama with these women leads to sukha,
verse of the chapter (3.5.30) unequivocally proclaims
here and now, because if a man decides to abstain from
the gandharva marriage as the best possible form
it, it is not forced upon him by any 9astra, and, if he
(gancmharvah pra'aro rnatah). Four reasons are given
chooses to engage in it, there is no 9astra to censure his
for Vatsyayana's preference for the gandharva mar-
actions.
riage: besides ahahuklevat "because it does not create
excessive anguish," avaranat "because it avoids the
cumbersome procedure of courtship,"44 and anuraga-
45 Cf. 3.5.29ab: vxv'dhlnirn hi Wxiviharnn anurdgah phalam
42 See note 44.
vatah. This notwithstanding the fact that the main purpose of
43Notice the expression DHA RMAsamsthiteh. the Kamasfitra is not to promote rnga (see above).
14 Varanavidlhanam is the title of the twenty-third prakarana46 Notice that Vai~esikasutra 5.2.15 (see note 21), the
(3.1.1-21), at the end of which Vatsyayana recommends the terminology of which I compared with Vatsyayana's definition
four superior forms of marriage (see above). of kama, is a definition of sukhaduhkhe.

This content downloaded from

202.41.10.109 on Sat, 08 Feb 2025 13:42:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms