A History of Sanskrit Literature c27.s2.13

c27.s2.13

A characteristic which in greater or less degree pervades the whole of the scientific literature is the love of subdivision and of inventing distinctions. Everything has to be schematized without regard to the nature of the subject-matter. Thus in the *Kāmasūtra* even the meticulous specification of detail of this kind is carried out with perfect solemnity, and in the sphere of international relations as treated in the *Arthaçāstra*, in lieu of concrete investigation of actual relations between historical tribes, we have a complete scheme of theoretical connexions based on the possibility of relations with adjacent and more distant kingdoms.¹ The historical method in fact is normally lacking, yielding to the more attractive habit of analysis of a somewhat superficial character and deduction from bases which have not been sufficiently established. In the subdivisions of which India is so fond there is often much ingenuity in finding legitimate grounds of distinction, but there is always present the tendency to lose sight of the broad and important lines of demarcation while concentrating on minutiae. Moreover the practice of accepting as given what has been traditionally handed down has a serious effect. It often results in ingenious efforts to reinterpret the old, in lieu of frankly abandoning it, thus causing waste of energy in subtleties, as when the traditional account of inference is rendered quite differently with equal assurance by each commentator.¹ In other cases it brings about the acceptance and defence by sophistic grounds of what is plainly untenable. There was, of course, constant progress, for instance in the sphere of law, but it was hampered by the necessity of making out that change was not really taking place, and that new customs were really allowed by Manu or some other Smṛti. In astronomy we see even a competent author like Brahmagupta attacking sensible innovations of Āryabhaṭa on the score that they depart from traditional knowledge.