The Positive Background of Hindu Sociology c14.s9.t6.60

c14.s9.t6.60

But it is interesting here to recall that all those treatises on *dharma*, *artha* or *kāma* which are known to be "original" as the works composed by an individual master or his followers (school) almost invariably describe themselves as summaries or compilations of the works written by previous sages. The place of "old masters" is an inevitable item in the documents of Indian thought. Once we are adequately oriented to this item we should be careful not to make any great fuss about the problem of originality of the alleged author's own contribution in Hindu *śāstras*. In other words, a *nibandha*, nay, a *bhāṣya* is not virtually to be treated as less original than the work on which the *bhāṣya* is written or on the basis of which the *nibandha* is compiled. Should the statements of the authors about their borrowings, compilations or summaries from "old masters" be taken at their face value, and not treated as occasioned by mock modesty or perhaps excessive indulgence in genuine humility, we have only to take them essentially as *nibandhas* although they have not cared to quote the texts *verbatim* such as has been done by the writers of *nibandhas* in so many words. A man like Hemādri, Chaṇḍeśvara or Mitra-Miśra could easily have paraphrased in their own language all the texts they have reproduced with just an indication as to the source in the form of *iti Manuh*, *iti Agnih* and so forth. In that case they might have acquired the same place *proforma* in the imagination of the reading public as, say, Kauṭalya, Manu, Kāmandaka, Brihaspati, Śukra and others.