cart (Mrichchakatika) which are realistic in their tone are of greater value to us. If we eliminate the love affairs in these tales, Dashakumāracharita also is of value in explaining the customs of the times.
Another way to determine how far the injunctions of dharma were likely to be followed is to find out how far they were indorsed by the science called niti. Nīti was a science of moral precepts like dharma science, but the great difference between dharma and nīti was that dharma's authority was due to the fact that it was based on Vedic literature, while nîti derived its authority from its innate worth.[1] Nīti stands in the same relation with dharma as the wisdom literature stood with the prophetical and the legal literature (revealed and ritualistic) amongst the ancient Hebrews.
The sciences nīti and dharma were not supposed to oppose each other but were only complementary. In fact there is a good deal in common between dharma and niti. Their relation may be graphically represented by two circles cutting each other half way. Nīti was less imperative in its tone than dharma.[2]
- ↑ In the later Sanskrit literature, and the various vernacular literatures, dharma has received the meaning "Religion," and nīti that of "Morality," but a sharp distinction of this kind was not made in the times we are speaking of.
- ↑ There was a sort of academic distinction between dharma and niti. The writers on nīti speak of four faculties (Vidyā) of learning: Trayī, Anvikshikī, Vārtā, and Danda-niti. Of these, Trayī, which meant Vedic lore, was specially recommended to Brāhmana; Vārtā, science of profit and loss, agriculture, and cattle, was specially recommended for Vaishya; and Danda-nīti (nīti for the ruler), was intended for the king. Dharma-shāstras formed a division of Trayī, and the bulk of nīti was put in the books on Danda-niti. There was another attempt at classification of sciences and adjustment of the relations of dharma and nīti. Sciences were
