David Slakter

This thesis draws attention to the tension between the binding claims of dharma and the obligations of the king (qua state) to protect the material interests of his subjects. I argue that a significant part of the Mahābhārata can be understood as a response to this dilemma, and that a developed political philosophy and theory of justice is found therein. The picture of justice delineated within the Mahābharata emphasizes the ceteris paribus priority of dharma when the king or other functionaries of the state consider how they should act. When dharmas conflict or the demands of certain dharmas conflict with the king’s fundamental obligation to defend his subjects against violence and deprivation however, he reserves the right to decide how to act in such an instance. To prevent abuse in such situations, the king must be virtuous. In the context of the Mahābhārata, this means acting for the sake of the kingdom and his subjects, rather than for his own interest. The king demonstrates his virtue by his prior willingness to submit to the demands of dharma even when they are contrary to his material interests, while a king who shows himself to value his own flourishing over that of his subjects may find himself justly deposed by a more righteous king.

In the Āgamaḍambara (‘Much Ado About Religion’), Bhaṭṭa Jayanta presents an argument for an inclusivist approach to the problem of religious diversity, building upon some of the arguments given in his Nyāyamañjarī. Although his arguments are restricted to consideration of a form of Hinduism particular in time and place, I argue that Jayanta’s solution to the problem of religious diversity has wide-ranging relevance and some applicability to contemporary debates in the philosophy of religion. I consider possible pluralist objections to inclusivism, such as those given by John Hick in An Interpretation of Religion and elsewhere. In response to these objections, I argue that an inclusivism like Jayanta’s addresses all the reasons someone might have for adopting a pluralist position and in fact does so better than the pluralists by remaining within a live religious tradition.

This paper calls attention to matsyanyaya, or state of nature theories, in classical Indian thought, and their significance. The focus is on those discussions of matsyanyaya found in the law books, political treatises and the Mahabharata epic. The significance and relevance of matsyanyaya theories are shown through a comparison with early modern state of nature theories and an elaboration on the possible place of rights and dharma in matsyanyaya and the consequences of this for classical Indian political theory