The Mauryan Polity c12.147

c12.147

Thus it was common in ancient India that he was deemed a śiṣṭa or a cultured person who had at his finger's end knowledge of all branches. There is nothing wonderful about this fact. Again the authors of law-books, epics and the Purāṇas must have been specialists in all branches of knowledge, for, they had to handle directly or indirectly all different arts and sciences. As for Kauṭalya there is a tradition that he must have been the author of a Dharmaśāstra, an Arthaśāstra, a Kāmaśāstra and a Mokṣaśāstra. If Vātsyāyana is a synonym for Kauṭalya, and if Cāṇakya be established an authority in astrology according to Bṛhat-Saṃhitā, and again if the commentator of the Nyāyasūtra be the same as the author of the Kāmasūtra, is it not incorrect to say that one cannot have a specialised knowledge in everything? Parāśara is quoted as an authority on the Arthaśāstra by Kauṭalya and on the *Kāmaśāstra* by Vātsyāyana; while the extant works by Parāśara are a *Dharmaśāstra* and another on astrology. These, then, would tend to show "that the schools of the age did not confine themselves to certain subjects only to the exclusion of others but attempted to deal comprehensively with all or most of the sciences or subjects of interest in the period."¹