The Positive Background of Hindu Sociology c10.s14.7

c10.s14.7

Whilst these anthropologico-sociological discussions of Meyer may not disturb as a rule the ordinary indologists he has, however, thrown a bomb-shell into their atmosphere of placid *status quo* by entering the domain of chronology (p. vi). In his analysis (1) Viṣṇu's treatise is not an old *Dharmasūtra*, dependent as it is greatly on Manu and Yājñavalkya, (2) Yājñavalkya is a very "unoriginal writer," who borrows from every nook and corner, especially form Nārada and Kauṭalya, (3) Gautama does not belong to the head but rather to the tail of the *Smriti* series, (4) Kauṭalya does not utilize Manu, Yājñavalkya, Viṣṇu etc. and not even Baudhāyana, (5) commencing with Manu, at any rate, the works are not those of schools but individuals, compilers who make collections from books, and (6) Nārada is older than Manu.