The Mauryan Polity c12.29

c12.29

(4) It is argued again that the discussions in the *Arthaśāstra* generally end by stating the author's opinion with the words: “Iti Kauṭalyaḥ . . .”⁴ We generally find this mention of the name of the teacher in texts emanating from schools, *e.g.*, Jaimini in the *Pūrvamīmāṃsa Sūtra*, Bādarāyaṇa in the *Vedānta Sūtra*, Baudhāyana in the *Baudhāyana-Dharmaśāstra*. But Patañjali does not state his opinion by saying “Iti Patañjali.” Much is made of the expressions “Iti Kauṭalyaḥ” and “neti Kauṭalyaḥ” which occur as many as 72 times in the work. To an ordinary Sanskrit Pandit in India the phrase connotes no special significance. It is always taken for granted that such works, where expressions like “Iti Kauṭalyaḥ,” “Iti Baudhāyanaḥ,” etc. occur, are the works ascribed to these authors. The attribution to schools will not find favour with an orthodox Pandit. One could not divine reasons for supposing that Jaimini’s *Pūrvamīmāṃsa Sūtra*, Bādarāyaṇa’s *Vedānta Sūtra* or Baudhāyana’s *Dharmasūtra* belong to schools and not to individual authors. Not that we do not accept any school as such. But it is more reasonable to assume that originally a certain Jaimini or Bādarāyaṇa flourished and propounded certain doctrines which were accepted and followed by their devoted disciples. To-day while one Hindu follows Āpastamba his neighbour follows Baudhāyana. This means that the former belongs to the Āpastamba school while the latter is of the Baudhāyana school.