The writers on nīti were always men engaged in practical affairs of the state, and very often Brāhmanas. It is possible that there may be some Buddhistic writers on nīti, but as yet no such work has been discovered, though I suspect that some interpolations in Shukranīti might have been inserted by them. These Brahmanical writers always supported dharma and advised the king to see that dharma is adhered to. Even dharma advised the king to show respect to the precepts of niti. But at the same time nīti writers must have been a great check on the extravagant claims of dharma.[1]
Thus if we find any doctrine upheld both by dharma and nīti we have a reason to think that the doctrine is more likely to be followed. But if a writer on nīti does not approve of it, either by flat contradiction or silence, we have reason to doubt whether that doctrine was actually adhered to.
We have inscriptions of dates posterior to the date of the author, which material ought not be neglected in a history of caste. These inscriptions give us very little, but whatever little they give has its value. Again, almost all inscriptions are dated, and this fact makes the
- ↑ It should not be wondered at if we find persons and kings following nīti writers in preference to those of dharma. An ordinary Hindu did not care to act according to dharma, but cared only to act according to sciences (Shastras). It was by acting according to Shastras that he was to live the best life in this world and the next, and not merely by acting according to Dharma.
classified, according to the principle of objects they served. The objects of man in life were, I. Dharma (to fulfil the duty) : 2. Artha (to gain advantage); 3. Kama (to seek fulfilment of desire), and 4. Moksha (gaining heaven). In this classification nīti was supposed to form part of Artha sciences.
