The Laws of Manu — SBE Vol. 25 (trans. Georg Bühler, 1886)
English·1879–1910·trans. Georg Bühler·567 passages
The text · part 2 of 27
p. 8
[25] Cc
XXXIV LAWS OF MANU.
and mention Manu as the authority for the rule taught. With respect to these references it seems to me not probable that they have been taken from the Manava Dharma-sitra. We shall see below! that from the earliest times the mythical Manu, the father of mankind, was considered as the founder of the social and moral order, and that he was considered to have first taught or revealed religious rites and legal maxims. Hence I believe that these four verses give nothing more than an expression of the belief that their doctrines go back to the first progenitor of men?. The first three among them either contradict or find no counterpart in our Manu-smriti. The fourth agrees in substance with Manu XI, 260-261. But it occurs ina chapter which is probably spurious, or, at least, full of interpolations, Whatever view may be taken concerning these passages, the allegation that the Manava DharmasQitra, known to Vasish¢ha, closely resembled, but was not identical with our Manu, need not be modified.
If we look for other traces of the Sdtra, quoted by Vasishtha, it is possible that Gautama, who mentions an opinion of Manu, XXI, 7, refers to it. His Dharma-siitra is even older than Vasish¢/a’s, and long anterior to our Manu-smriti. But the possibility that Gautama refers not to a rule of the Manava Dharma-sitra, but to a maxim generally attributed to the mythical Manu, is not altogether excluded. Gautama says, ‘Manu (declares that) the first three (crimes, the intentional murder of a Brahmaaza, drinking Sur4, and the violation of a Guru’s bed) cannot be expiated®’ The wording of the Sdtra shows that it is not a quotation, but a summary of Manu’s opinion. Our Manu-smriti explicitly teaches, XI, 90, the same doctrine with respect to the intentional murder of a Brahmaza, and, if my explanation of XI, 147 is accepted, also with respect to the intentional drinking of Sura. As regards the third offence, there is no
1 See p. lviii.
® The meaning of the phrase in the verse, occurring in the quotation from the Manava Dharma-siitra, is probably the same.
> ftfa wanrafadyarter ag: The same opinion is expressed in the Mahabharata XII, 165, 34, but not attributed to Manu,
INTRODUCTION. XXXV
direct statement. But the expiations, prescribed XI, 104- 105, amount to a sentence of death. Hence our Manusmriti, too, practically declares the crime to be inexpiable during the offender’s lifetime. Its original, the Dharmasitra, may, therefore, be supposed to have had the rule which Gautama attributes to Manu. Nevertheless, owing to the circumstances mentioned above, Gautama’s passage cannot be adduced as a perfectly certain proof of the early existence of the MAanava Dharma-sitra.
Its original, the Dharmasitra, may, therefore, be supposed to have had the rule which Gautama attributes to Manu. Nevertheless, owing to the circumstances mentioned above, Gautama’s passage cannot be adduced as a perfectly certain proof of the early existence of the MAanava Dharma-sitra.
Among the remaining Dharma-sftras! there is only the fragment attributed to Usanas which seems to quote a Satra of Manu. At the beginning of the first chapter? we find a very corrupt passage containing a prose-quotation which according to two of my MSS. belongs to Manu, but according to a third to Sumantu. As the latter copy is, however, clearly more incorrect than the other two, and as a Sfitra by Sumantu is not known from other sources, the reading of the first two seems to be preferable. The contents of the quotation which apparently prescribes that on the death of an infant, of an emigrant, of one who keeps no sacred fires, of one who kills himself by starvation or by self-cremation, and of one slain in battle, no period of impurity need be kept, agree with the teaching of our Manusmriti, V, 78, 89, 94, 98.
There is, further, one among the Vedic books on the ritual, the SAnkhayana Grzhya-sdtra, which possibly refers to the Manava Dharma-sitra. This work quotes the verse, Manu V, 41, which, as has been shown above, occurred also in the Dharma-sitra as well as several other Slokas of
1 Regarding the passage of Apastamba II, 16, 1, which ascribes the revelation of the Sraddhas to Manu, see below, p. lix.
2 I transcribe the whole beginning of the work, W4 WHATHT BTS Perret: ws eqers araTfaes: qk agfoR a un TrETyT ~~ ~~ aque 0 wes Syraced qrafrae sears (7) warwaframagy Feed 6 Wen aterre afemfataerrenet ge FIAT Thos two MSS.; the third reads, SWSIET Y YALE | and further on, WATAwrfa arfirer® t It is impossible to restore the whole passage. The end of the quotation may have been GW? wiufaefata a c2
XXXVI LAWS OF MANU.
The end of the
quotation may have been GW? wiufaefata a c2
XXXVI LAWS OF MANU.
our Manu-smriti, partly in better versions!. As the Grzhyasdtra agrees also in a number of its rules very characteristically with Manu, it is not improbable that its author may have drawn on the original of the latter. But before one can be perfectly confident on this point, it is necessary that some difficult questions regarding the critical condition of S4nkh4yana’s text should be cleared up more fully than has been done hitherto. More important than the passages from the last work is the evidence which the KAmandakiya Nitis4ra furnishes, where twice opinions of the Manavas and once an opinion of Manu are quoted, but rejected in favour of the views of the author’s teacher, KAnakya Kauftilya. In one case the doctrine, attributed to the ManavaA, agrees with the teaching of our Manu-smriti. We read in the discussion on the number of the praksitis, the constituent elements of the mamdala or political circle to which a king must pay attention, Kam. Nit. VII, 24-25, ‘With respect to this (question) the Manavas record that five constituent elements, the ministers and the rest, belong severally to each of the twelve kings. But those original twelve (kings) and those (others), the ministers and the rest, (are) seventy-two (in number, and form) the whole circle of constituent elements”? Our Manu-smriti states, VII, 155-156, that twelve kings belong to the mamdala, and adds ver. 157,‘ The minister, the kingdom, the fortress, the treasury, and the army are five other (constituent elements of the circle); for these are mentioned in connexion with each (of the first twelve); thus the whole circle (consists), briefly (speaking, of) seventy-two (constituent p3rts). The other two passages differ. According’ to Kamandaki II, 3, the Manavas teach that the sciences, which a king must study, are three only, the threefold (Veda), the theory of professions and trades, and the
* Oldenberg, Sénkh. Gri. S, in the Indische Studien, vol. xv, p. 11.
* Sera TORO Te Te FTE Ty | WATE Wenitcraate START: WARN ATT ATE ATS WATTS AT | Affe ean ag WeafwTaTeTy aut Tread according to the commentary wrafirat fant instead of the senseless WRFMBITWAT of the text.
INTRODUCTION. XXXVil
Gri. S, in the Indische Studien, vol. xv, p. 11.
* Sera TORO Te Te FTE Ty | WATE Wenitcraate START: WARN ATT ATE ATS WATTS AT | Affe ean ag WeafwTaTeTy aut Tread according to the commentary wrafirat fant instead of the senseless WRFMBITWAT of the text.
INTRODUCTION. XXXVil
science of government, ‘ because the science of dialectics or reasoning is a subdivision of the threefold (Vedic lore’),’ while Manu VII, 43 enumerates five branches of learning, or at least four, if either Medhatithi’s or Ndrdyana’s explanation of the term Atmavidy4, rendered in the translation by ‘ the knowledge of the (supreme) Soul,’ is accepted?. Again, we hear, KAmandaki XI, 67, that Manu fixed the number of ministers (amatya), which the king must appoint, at twelve. But according to Manu VII, 54, no more than seven or eight are required. These quotations show that KAmandaki knew a work, attributed to Manu, which contained rules on the duties of kings, and in some respects agreed with the seventh chapter of our Manu-smriti. If I conclude that this must have been the old Méanava Dharma-sitra, it is because Kamandaki twice alludes to it by the title MAnavaz, literally ‘those who study a work proclaimed by Manu, or, more freely rendered, ‘the Manava school.’ It is a very common practice of Indian authors to refer in this manner to the books restricted to special schools. But I know of no case where the doctrines of the Manava Dharmasdstra, or of any other work which is destined for all Aryans and acknowledged as authoritative by all, are cited in the same or ina similar way. Nor is it usual to contrast, as Kamandaki does, the rules taught by Manu with those of other teachers and afterwards to reject them®. If a Hindu writer on law finds it necessary to set aside an opinion of Manu, he either passes by it in silence or he interprets the passage where it occurs in accordance with the principles of some other Smr#ti with tant anet caccttfafefa fae fe arae: | won eq fermnd Suaredtfegat aan gn
® With respect to Medhatithi’s and Narfyasa's explanations, see the note to the translation. I will add that Kam. Nit. II, 7, wreatfeqaarer ‘ The science of dialectics (is) a means of fully recognising the Soul or Self,’ speaks in favour of N&rdyasa’s explanation, and that it would perhaps have been befter if I had placed the latter in the text.
? As the learned editor of the Nitisira (Preface, p. 2) asserts that its author was a Buddhist, it might be conjectured that the latter treated Manu with small respect, because he belonged to a heterodox sect. But it ought to be noted that no proof is offered for the above assertion, and that the work contains no trace of Buddhism.
- Xxxvill LAWS OF MANU.
But it ought to be noted that no proof is offered for the above assertion, and that the work contains no trace of Buddhism.
- Xxxvill LAWS OF MANU.
which he himself agrees. Hence it is not doubtful that Kamandaki’s references point to a work of Manu which, though highly esteemed, did not hold the same paramount position as Bhrigu’s version of Manu’s laws, In other words, Kamandaki’s Manu must have been the property of a particular school, and that was just the case with the MAanava Dharma-sitra. The fact that all the known Dharma-sfitras contain a more or less detailed description of the duties of kings agrees well with this supposition, and so does the circumstance that Kamandaki’s Nitisdra is either really an ancient work, composed long before the beginning of our era, or at least a later recension of such an old book?. These are all the certain indications of the former existence of a Manava Dharma-sitra which I have been able to find. It is possible that the same work is also alluded to in some verses of the twelfth and thirteenth Parvans of the Mahdbhérata. But this question is, as we shall see below, surrounded with great difficulties, and its solution somewhat doubtful. Among the passages, discussed above, none are so important as Vasish¢ha’s quotations. The remainder contribute, however, to give a more definite idea of the range of subjects included in the lost work, and they confirm the conclusion, drawn from the former, that the Manava Dharma-sitra closely resembled our Manu-smriti.
The investigations concerning the last point, the question if any traces of a connexion of our Manu-smriti with the writings of the MAnava school are discoverable, have hitherto led, as stated above, to a negative result. They were, of course, directed to a comparison of the Manava Grihya-sitra with the Dharmasdstra, as both works of
} The work claims to be the composition of a pupil of Kandragupta’s famous minister, Aazakya Kaufilya or Kaufalya, to whom a portion of the Maigalaarana is dedicated, and who is frequently referred to as the Guru or teacher. Though there is no clear evidence corroborating this statement, there is also none to rebut it. In favour of this claim speaks the fact that the name of the author is a nomen gentile. For among the ancient writers the practice of signing their books with the family-name is almost universal. Later it seems to have fallen into disuse. The Nitisdra is quoted by the oldest commentator of Manu, Medhatithi.
INTRODUCTION. XXXIX
For among the ancient writers the practice of signing their books with the family-name is almost universal. Later it seems to have fallen into disuse. The Nitisdra is quoted by the oldest commentator of Manu, Medhatithi.
INTRODUCTION. XXXIX
necessity frequently treat of the same subjects. On comparing the corresponding portions of the two works, Professor Jolly! found no special agreement with respect to the ages prescribed for the performance of the Samskaras, with respect to the marriage-rites and to the rules for the conduct of students and of Snatakas. Nor was he able to discover in the Manu-smriti any of the curious technical terms and phrases used in the Grthya-sftra, while the somewhat closer resemblance in the Mantras of the Vaisvadeva ceremony and in a few other points turned out to be without conclusiveness on account of the concurrent agreement of other Grthya-sitras. Dr. von Bradke’s reexamination of the question? did not yield any other result. I can only bear witness to the general correctness of these remarks. Though it is possible to adduce some passages, not mentioned by Professor Jolly’, in which the Grzhyasitra shows a special affinity with the Smrtti, the very great differences which occur in other sections‘, the absence of an agreement in particularly characteristic rules®, and the
1 On the Vishzu Dharma-sfitra and the Ka¢haka; Transactions of the Royal Bavarian Academy, 1879, ii, p. 82 seq.
? Journal of the German Oriental Society, vol. xxxii, p. 438.
3 Among the rules which specially agree, I may mention one from the section on the Initiation, Man. Gri, S0.1, a2 (end), WY Rey WER [Wt] | ATATA- TY) aver: Yet wae a afafer: By Ww ‘Next he shall go out to beg, first, to his mother and to other females who are friendly, or to as many as may be near.’ These S{itras correspond to Manu II, 50, ‘Let him first beg food of his mother, or of his sister, or of his own maternal aunt, or of (some other) female who will not disgrace him (by a refusal).’ Iam not aware that this rule occurs in any other Smriti.
* Among the very great discrepancies I would point to such as those occurring in the section on the marriage-rites. The Manu-smriti III, 30-34, describes the well-known eight modes by which a woman may be obtained from her family. But the M4nava Grthya-sfitra I, 7-8, knows two only, the Brahma and the Saulka rites, the latter of which corresponds to the Asura or Manusha rite of the other Smritis, and sanctions the purchase of the bride from her parents.
But the M4nava Grthya-sfitra I, 7-8, knows two only, the Brahma and the Saulka rites, the latter of which corresponds to the Asura or Manusha rite of the other Smritis, and sanctions the purchase of the bride from her parents.
5 The absence of an agreement in characteristic rules is particularly noticeable in the chapter on the study of the Veda and the stoppages of the Veda study. There the general rules, e.g. regarding the beginning, length, and ending of the school-term, which are found also in other Smrttis, agree in both works. But none of those special prescriptions which the Manava Grihya-sitra gives for the time when and the ceremonies with which particular portions of the Maitrayani Samhita are to be learnt can be traced in the Manu-smatti.
xl LAWS OF MAND.
non-occurrence of Mantras, peculiar to the Maitrayaztya- Manava school in the Manu-smriti, do not permit us to consider them as decisive for the settlement of the question. On the other hand, this negative result does not preclude the possibility that the supposed connexion between the original of the Manu-smrzti and the Manava school may nevertheless have existed. For the examples of the Hairanyakesas and Madhyamdinas show that the Satras, adopted by a school, are not always composed by one and the same teacher, but sometimes are made up of fragments originally belonging to different authors. In the case of the MAadhyamdinas the author of the Srauta-sitra is a KAaty4yana, while the Gvzhya-sitra bears the name of a Paraskara. In the case of the Hairazyakesas the Dharmasfitra, though it is ascribed to Hirazyakesin Saty4shadha, is in reality the work of Apastamba, and differs both in its language and in its contents very much from the Grthya-sitra’. Moreover, the Hairazyakesa Kayanastra has been taken over, as its colophon clearly proves, from the Bhéradvagas. It is, therefore, still possible that the ancient Manava Dharma-sitra was considered as the special property of the MAnavas, but was not composed by the same teacher as the Grzhya-sitra, or that, though both works had the same author, the materials for their composition were borrowed from different sources. Either supposition would explain the discrepancies between the two works. If we now could show that some other work belonging to the Manava Karama shows a special affinity to the Manu-smrtti, the view that the original of the latter was first the property of that school might be still upheld. A renewed examination of the various treatises, studied and claimed as their own by the MAnavas, has convinced me that such a connecting link is actually found among them. This is the Srdddhakalpa, a description of the ordinary funeral sacrifices which the M4nava Grthyasitra does not treat in detail, but barely touches in the sections on the Ash/¢aka rites (II, 8-9). If this treatise has not been taken into consideration by Professor Jolly and
1 Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, p. xxiii.
INTRODUCTION, xli
If this treatise has not been taken into consideration by Professor Jolly and
1 Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, p. xxiii.
INTRODUCTION, xli
Dr. von Bradke, the reason is that it is not contained in Professor Haug’s collection of the MAnava Siftras, the only one which has hitherto been accessible to European students. In my copy of the works of the Manava school it stands after the Pravarddhyd4ya'. It consists of four short Khandas. The first begins with the words, ‘Now we will explain the rules for the funeral sacrifices,’ and treats of the following points: the invitation of qualified Brahmazas, their hospitable reception with the Arghya in the house of the sacrificer, the invocations asking the Visvedevas and the manes to attend, and the burnt oblations offered to Soma, Yama, and Agni. The Mantras which are to be used seem, if not all, at least for the greater part, to have been taken from the Maitrayant Samhita. This section shows hardly any special agreement with the Manu-smrtti, except in the rule, known also from other Dharma-sitras, which prescribes the entertainment of two guests at the rite in honour of the gods, and of three at the offering to the manes or of one on either occasion, as well as in the number and the deities of the burnt oblations which precede the Sraddha (Manu III, 123,211). But the second Khanda, which contains the description of the Sraddha ceremony, opens with a couple of verses, the first of which corresponds almost literally? with Manu III, 274. The only important difference is that at the end the words ‘in the rainy season and under (the constellation) Magh4%’ take the place of Manu’s ‘when the shadow of the elephant falls towards the east.’ It must be noted that, though Vishzu LXXVIII, 52-53 and Vasish¢ha XI, 40 have passages which contain similar prayers of the manes, their wording differs very considerably from that of the Sraddhakalpa and of
* My MS. of the writings of the Manava Xarana, which was copied in 1864-65 at Nasik, includes, besides the Samhita and the Upanishad, counted as the fifth Kfsda, all the portions of the Srauta-s{itra, known from Professor Haug’s MSS. together with the Kumfra or Kumfrila Bh4shya and portions of a later vrttti by Misra Balakrishna, as well as the Grzhya-sfitra with its Bhashya, the Paraxakhya, by Bhaffa Ashfavakra (not by Kumarila, as I conjectured in West and Bithler’s Digest, p. 46, note a), and the Sraddhakalpa.
+ fia a: eyes aren at UTICA | aT MyUfibat wig WAUYZ Th xlii LAWS OF MANU.
46, note a), and the Sraddhakalpa.
+ fia a: eyes aren at UTICA | aT MyUfibat wig WAUYZ Th xlii LAWS OF MANU.
the Manu-smrsti. The second verse! bears a faint resemblance to Manu III, 202, as it declares that water offered in vessels of gold, silver, or Udumbara ‘ becomes imperishable.’ The following prose portion has little in common with Manu’s rules. Curiously enough, it prescribes that the funeral cakes are to be offered after the guests have finished their meal, a custom which Manu III, 261 attributes to ‘some.’ The section closes with some Slokas?, the last of which is nearly identical with Manu III, 283. The chief difference is, that in the first line the word Sraddhe, ‘ at a SrAddha,’ occurs instead of snAtvé, ‘after his bath.’ The second var.lect.samahita/, ‘with aconcentrated mind,’ instead of dvigottamad,‘a Brahmaza, is found in the Southern MSS. of Manu. The next section, which is not numbered in the colophon as Khamda 3, but separately, treats of the Abhyudaya, or Vriddhi-sraddha, the funeral oblations which must be offered on all joyful occasions, such as the celebration of the birth of a son, a wedding, and so forth®. As Manu mentions this variety of the Sraddha only incidentally, III, 254, the contents of this Khazda find no counterpart in the Smvtti. But among its numerous Slokas one line agrees literally with Manu IX,186a‘*. The fourth and last section of the Kalpa, which is marked as the Parisishta, the addenda, gives miscellaneous rules regarding the times when Sraddhas may be performed, the manner in which the fulfilment of certain special wishes may be secured, and the persons to be entertained on such occasions. It consists chiefly of tahrag warty onmggty wl eweaumt aie wyaTega @ (sic)
* ay yarreuracararraata “afi (sic) | Wray ITUTATE- Weta: fey u ars saa eenferpaa weTTA (sic) | ufeategarfa faerat area afr: n ate wiaafe: foyer wren: | Hate wirntfn faqaafarwafafs u sft aTraarewat frate: we: OATH: t
> Beginning WQ afaure QTSATANTA: We Colophon, xf ar YTTATSA
‘ marargak ard fry fis: watt n
INTRODUCTION. xiii
verses, seven' of which are either quite or nearly identical with passages of the Manu-smriti III, 82, 125-126, 145, 185, 148, and 186, while another, which teaches that the invited Brahmanas and the sacrificer must remain chaste ‘because the manes dwell with them?,’ agrees in substance with Manu III, 189. Two among the seven Slokas, those corresponding to Manu III, 125-126, occur also in the V4sishtha and Baudh4yana Dharmasastras. The remainder are not traceable in the ancient Sitras.
Two among the seven Slokas, those corresponding to Manu III, 125-126, occur also in the V4sishtha and Baudh4yana Dharmasastras. The remainder are not traceable in the ancient Sitras.
These remarks show that the Manava Sraddhakalpa consists, like many other handbooks of Vedic schools, of several pieces, which probably have been composed successively at different times. Even the whole treatise may be possibly later than the Gvzhya-sitra, and may have been added in order to supplement its too curt rules on funeral sacrifices. But in spite of these admissions, the fact that it contains so many verses partly or wholly agreeing with the Manu-smriti, keeps its importance for the point under consideration. If an adherent of the MAnava school found it necessary to compose a treatise on a subject like the Sraddhas, he would, as a matter of course, base it on the usage and the teaching of his school. Hence it may be assumed that the verses which he inserted were current in
1a, Ghee: Waerweieaar wT weysasarie fap: sfraretqn In the corresponding verse of Manu, Medh. and Gov. read SITET instead of Kulldka's WITRQN b. gt 28 wifers [wl] Cdaprew wi wgepEetfa a mersee frac (%] u afwat twarst @ ge wreware: | Tafa [aria] act eter werwteg [Weg] frert (t] a fara a want fa [fates] qua 9 [a] fronfeaa: went WUT GTAATT AWAIT ST TN. ATATAS ATS F SETS WY TSI atest fazaft dy [yy] wheat 9 dtr ¢ tere ferrren 4 weenfe (sa) ae fer: [4] | wages fader area: dfs UlTq7aT: The fifth and sixth verses have been transposed by a mistake of the copyist.
* yaycnifam fan: [Ree] fare: eae Bi aware m Ufa wagaanfca: (sic) u xliv LAWS OF MANU.
ATATAS ATS F SETS WY TSI atest fazaft dy [yy] wheat 9 dtr ¢ tere ferrren 4 weenfe (sa) ae fer: [4] | wages fader area: dfs UlTq7aT: The fifth and sixth verses have been transposed by a mistake of the copyist.
* yaycnifam fan: [Ree] fare: eae Bi aware m Ufa wagaanfca: (sic) u xliv LAWS OF MANU.
the latter, and it is not improbable that they may have occurred in one of its written works. As, further, the Manu-smr7ti rests on a MAanava Dharma-sitra, and has derived from the latter a number of its verses, the most natural explanation of the partial agreement between the Sraddhakalpa and the Smriti is that both have drawn on the same source, the Manava Dharma-siitra. If that is so, the latter must have been considered as authoritative by the MAnavas, and have been their peculiar property. Though several links in this chain of arguments must unfortunately remain hypothetical, it seems to me, especially if taken together with Professor Jolly’s and Dr. von Schréder’s above-mentioned discoveries regarding the relation of the books of the Ka¢/aka school to those of the Maitrayaniya- Manavas and of the Vishzu-smrti to the Manu-smriti, sufficiently strong to show that also this part of Professor Max Miiller’s hypothesis is more than an ingenious conjecture. In conclusion, I may mention that two other circumstances—a certain agreement between the Maitrayanabrahmamopanishad and the Manu-smriti, as well as the preference which the latter shows for North-western India in its description of the countries where pure Aryan customs prevail (II, 17-22)—may also point to a connexion of the Manu-smrtti and of its original with the Manava school. In the Upanishad VI, 37, we find quoted, as a generally known maxim, a verse which occurs Manu III, 76. Two other verses, Manu VI, 76-77, agree in substance with Maitr. Up. III, 41, and some of Manu’s statements regarding the Atman and the results of the gunas or qualities closely correspond to the doctrines taught in the Upanishad*. On a closer examination these resemblances lose, however, a good deal of their significance. For the ideas expressed in Manu III, 76 are likewise traceable in a Vedic passage quoted in Vasishzka’s Dharmastra. The comparison of the human body to an impure dwelling (Manu VI, 76-77) reappears even in Buddhistic works®, The corresponding philosophical tenets, finally,
1 Sacred Books of the East, vol. xv, p. 298, note 1. ? See below, p. Ixxiii. * Dhammapada, 147-150; Johanntgen, Das Gesetzbuch des Manu, p. 93.
INTRODUCTION. xlv
xv, p. 298, note 1. ? See below, p. Ixxiii. * Dhammapada, 147-150; Johanntgen, Das Gesetzbuch des Manu, p. 93.
INTRODUCTION. xlv
occur in a portion of the Manu-smr#ti which probably is not ancient 1, and they are held by several of the special schools of philosophy. As regards the passages in Manu’s second chapter which praise the holiness of the districts between the Drvishadvati and the Sarasvati, and between the Yamuna and the Ganga, they may indicate, as Dr. Johanntgen thinks*, that the home of the school which produced the Manava Dharma-sitra lies in those districts. If that were certain, it would agree well enough with the facts known regarding the ancient seats of the MAnavas. The latter are a North-western sect, and extended, as the Maharaava asserts®, from the Maydra hill to Gugarat. Unfortunately, however, the Dharma-sitras of Vasish¢#a and Baudhayana contain almost exactly the same statements as Manu, and hence the verses of the latter possibly mean nothing more than that the M4navas, like many other Vedic schools, considered India north of the Vindhyas, and especially the districts adjoining the sacred rivers, as the true home of Brahmanism and of Aryan purity.
Il.
While the preceding discussion has shown that our Manava DharmasAstra is based on a Manava Dharma-sitra which probably was the exclusive property of the Maitrayaniya-MA4nava school, we have now to consider some questions connected with the conversion of the locally authoritative Sdtra into a law-book claiming the allegiance of all Aryans and generally acknowledged by them. The problems which now have to be solved, or at least to be attempted, are the following: 1. what circumstances led to the substitution of a universally binding Manava Dharmasastra for the manual of the Vedic school? 2. why was so prominent a position allotted to the remodelled Smrtti>?
1 See below, p. Ixix.
2 Loc. cit. pp. 109-110.
2 Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, p. xxxi; and L. von Schroder, Maitrayast Samh. I, pp.xxiv-xxviii. The ancient inscriptions name Maitrayaza Brahmamas as donees in the Central India Agency and Gugarat. The Manava school still exists in the latter country and in KhAndesh.
xlvi LAWS OF MANU.
3. how was the conversion effected? and 4. when did it probably take place?
I, pp.xxiv-xxviii. The ancient inscriptions name Maitrayaza Brahmamas as donees in the Central India Agency and Gugarat. The Manava school still exists in the latter country and in KhAndesh.
xlvi LAWS OF MANU.
3. how was the conversion effected? and 4. when did it probably take place?
Though the absence of all historical information, and “even of a trustworthy tradition, makes it impossible to give full and precise details in answering the first question, it is yet, I think, possible to recognise the general cause which led to the production of that class of secondary Smritis to which the Manava Dharmasdstra belongs}. This cause lies, it seems to me, in the establishment of special law schools which were independent of any particular Sakha of the Veda, and which supplanted the Vedic Karamas as far as the teaching of the sacred law is concerned. Evident as it is that the Vedic schools first systematised and cultivated the six sciences which, on account of their close connexion with the Veda, are called its Angas or limbs, it is no less apparent that, as the materials for each of these subjects accumulated and the method of their treatment was perfected, the enormous quantity of the matter to be learnt, and the difficulty of its acquisition depressed the Vedic schools from their high position as centres of the intellectual life of the Aryas, and caused the establishment of new special schools of science, which, while they restricted the range of their teaching, taught their curriculum thoroughly and intelligently. In the Vedic schools a full and accurate knowledge of the sacred texts was, of course, always the primary object. In order to gain that the pupils had to learn not only the Samhit4 text of the Mantras and Brahmazas, but also their Pada, Krama, and perhaps still more difficult p4tkas or modes of recitation. This task no doubt required a considerable time, and must have fully occupied the twelve terms of four and a half or five and a half months which the Smritis give as the average duration of the studentship for the acquisition of one Veda. As long as the Angas consisted of short simple treatises, it was also possible to
’ Regarding the various classes of secondary Smritis, see West and Biihler, Digest, p. 32, third edition.
® See Manu III, 1, and IV, 95, as well as the parallel passages quoted in the notes,
INTRODUCTION. xl vii
As long as the Angas consisted of short simple treatises, it was also possible to
’ Regarding the various classes of secondary Smritis, see West and Biihler, Digest, p. 32, third edition.
® See Manu III, 1, and IV, 95, as well as the parallel passages quoted in the notes,
INTRODUCTION. xl vii
commit them to memory and to master their contents in the twelve terms, consisting of the seven or eight dark fortnights from the month Pausha to Vaisdkha?. But when the Kalpa or ritual alone reached dimensions as in the Sftras of the Baudhdyaniyas and Apastambtyas, while the grammar developed into as artificial a system as that of Pazini, it became a matter of sheer impossibility for one man to commit to memory and to fully understand the sacred texts together with the auxiliary sciences, especially as the number of the latter was increased in early times by the addition of the Nyaya or Parva Mim4msé, the art of interpreting the rules of the Veda*. The members of the Vedic schools were then placed before two alternatives. They might either commit to memory all the Vedic texts of their Sakhas together with the Angas, renouncing the attempt at understanding what they learnt, or they had to restrict the number of the treatises which they learnt by heart, while they thoroughly mastered those which they acquired. Those who adhered to the former course became living libraries, but were unable to make any real use of their learning. Those who adopted the second alternative might become great scholars in the science of the sacrifice, grammar, law or astronomy, but they could not rival with the others in the extent of the verbal knowledge of the sacred books. Thus the Vedic schools ceased to be the centres of intellectual, and were supplanted by the . special, schools of science.
The present: state of learning in India proves beyond doubt that this change actually took place in the manner described, and direct statements in the ancient text-books, as well as their condition, allow us to recognise the various stages which led up to it. The true modern representatives of the ancient Karamas are the so-called Vaidiks, men who, mostly living on charity, devote their energy exclusively to the acquisition of a verbal knowledge of the
' See Manu IV, 98, and the parallel passages quoted in the note. According to some Smrstis the Aigas might be studied at any time out of term (Vas. XIII, 7).
2 Regarding the early existence of the Parva Mtmfms4, see Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, p. xxvii; and the verse on the constitution of a Parishad, quoted Baudh. I, 1, 8; Vas. III, 20.
xl viii LAWS OF MANU.
XIII, 7).
2 Regarding the early existence of the Parva Mtmfms4, see Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, p. xxvii; and the verse on the constitution of a Parishad, quoted Baudh. I, 1, 8; Vas. III, 20.
xl viii LAWS OF MANU.
sacred texts and of the Angas of their SAkh4s as well as of some other works, more or less closely connected with the Veda. A perfect Vaidik of the Asvalayana school knows the Rig-veda according to the Samhita, Pada, Krama, Gata and Ghana PAtkas, the Aitareya Brahmama and Aranyaka, the ritualistic Satras of Asvalayana, Saunaka’s Pratisakhya and the Siksha, Yaska’s Nirukta, the grammar of PAzini, the Vedic calendar or Gyotisha, the metrical treatise called the K#andas, Yagiavalkya’s Dharmasdstra, portions of the Mahabharata, and the philosophical Sidtras of KawAda, Gaimini, and Badardyaza. Similarly the Vaidiks of the Yagus, Saman, and Atharvan schools are able to recite, more or less perfectly, the whole of the works of their respective SAkh4s as well as some other non-Vedic books?. But it would be in vain to expect from such men an explanation of the literary treasures which they possess. It is not the professional Vaidik who can perform the great sacrifices according to the Srauta-sAtras, interpret the intricate system of Pazini’s grammar, or decide a knotty point of law according to the Dharma-sitra or the secondary Smrti which he knows by heart. For these purposes one must go to quite different classes of men. The performance of the great Srauta sacrifices lies in the hands of the Srotriya or Srauti, who unites with a thoroughly verbal knowledge of the sacred texts of his S4kh4 a full acquaintance with the meaning of the Srauta-sitras and with the actual kriy4 or manual work, described in the Prayogas. The Srauti, as well as his humbler fellow-worker, the so-called Yagiika or Bha¢fagi, who knows the Grihya-sftras and performs the rites prescribed for domestic occurrences, likewise. both belong to the representatives of the Vedic schools. They make, however, no pretence to a knowledge of the whole range of the Angas, but content themselves with studying the Kalpa, or parts of it, and perhaps the Siksha?, Real
1 Regarding the necessity for a Vaidik to learn non-Vedic books, see Vas. XXVII, 6.
* Regarding the present condition of the Vedic schools and of Vedic learning, see Haug, Brahma und die Brahmanen, p. 47; and R. G. Bh&sdarkar’s careful paper, ‘The Veda in India’ (Ind. Ant. III, 132 sqq.) From personal observa-
INTRODUCTION. xlix
p. 6
* Regarding the present condition of the Vedic schools and of Vedic learning, see Haug, Brahma und die Brahmanen, p. 47; and R. G. Bh&sdarkar’s careful paper, ‘The Veda in India’ (Ind. Ant. III, 132 sqq.) From personal observa-
INTRODUCTION. xlix
proficiency in the other still surviving Angas, grammar, law, and astronomy is to be found only with those Pamdits who fulfil their duty of studying the Veda by committing to memory a few particularly important sections, such as the Pavam4ni-hymns of the Rig-veda or the Satarudriya of the Yagur-veda, or by confining themselves to the few verses which occur in the Brahmayagiia and the Samdhyavandana!, Their chief aim is to be perfect in one or more of the special sciences which they study, without reference to a particular Vedic school. Thus, though a Pasdit who chiefly devotes himself to the sacred law may belong to the Vedic school of Baudh4yana or Apastamba, he will not make Baudhd4yana’s or Apastamba's Dharma-sitra the starting-point of his studies. On the contrary, it will frequently happen that he possesses no knowledge of the Dharma-sitra of his school, except a few passages quoted in the commentaries and digests. If he has read the whole work, he will consult it only as one of the many utterances of the ancient sages. He will not attribute to it a higher authority than to other Smr‘tis, but interpret it in accordance with the rules of the secondary Dharmasastras of Manu or Y4giiavalkya. A good illustration of this state of things is furnished by SAyava-MAdhava’s treatment of Baudh4yana in his Vyavaharamadhava, a treatise on civil and criminal law supplementing his commentary on Pardsara’s Smriti. Though he himself tells us, in the introduction to the Pardsara-smriti-vydkhya?, that he belonged to the school of Baudhayana, and though he seems to have written a commentary on Baudhayana’s Sdtras, he relies, e.g. for the law of Inheritance, not on Baudhayana’s DharmasOtra, but on Vig#anesvara’s exposition of Y4giiavalkya. He quotes Baudhdyana only in three places*. As far as the law is concerned, Sdyaa follows the theories of the tion I can add to Professor Bhandarkar’s statements that Vaidiks of the White Yagur-veda are found also in Northern India. I have also heard of Vaidiks of the Sama-veda among the Parvatiyas in the Panjab, and of the Atharva-veda in the Central India Agency.
1 Bhandarkar, loc. cit. p. 132 note.
* Parasara-smriti-vyakhya, p. 3, ver. 7 (Calcutta edition).
* Burnell, Dayavibhaga, pp. 9, 39, “ .
[25]
p. 1
I have also heard of Vaidiks of the Sama-veda among the Parvatiyas in the Panjab, and of the Atharva-veda in the Central India Agency.
1 Bhandarkar, loc. cit. p. 132 note.
* Parasara-smriti-vyakhya, p. 3, ver. 7 (Calcutta edition).
* Burnell, Dayavibhaga, pp. 9, 39, “ .
[25]
p. 1
special law school of his time and of his country, without particular reference to the teaching of his Vedic Karama. This depression of the Vedic Karamas through special schools, which took over the scientific cultivation of a most important portion of the Angas, is not of modern date. It goes back to a time which lies long before the beginning of the historical period of India. We have various indications in the ancient books which force us towards this conclusion. Thus YAska’s Nirukta, a work which undoubtedly belongs to a very early period, quotes Vaiy4karazas, grammarians ; Nairuktas, etymological exegetes ; and Yagaikas, ritualists ; and contrasts their conflicting opinions’. If these schools were at issue with respect to grammatical or exegetical questions, it follows that the subjects which they taught were no longer cultivated by the same persons as auxiliary branches of the Vedic lore, but that each had received in a special school a separate development as an independent science. The actual condition in which the various Angas have been preserved, fully agrees with this view. It shows that two at least, grammar and astronomy, slipped away from the control of the Vedic Xarazas in very early times. For not one of those schools, the text-books of which have survived, possesses a grammatical or an astronomical handbook of its own. P4Azini’s Ash¢ddhyAdyt is the sole representative of the Vyakaraza class of the Angas, and is equally acknowledged by the followers of all Vedas. But grammar, as taught by P4zini, is no longer a mere handmaiden of the Vedavidya. It is an independent science which lays down the laws, applicable to the whole Sanskrit language, and treats what we now call the classical Sanskrit as the standard of Aryan speech, the Vedic forms as anomalies. As the numerous quotations of older schools and older teachers in Pazini’s own work, in the Pratisakhyas, and in Y4ska’s Nirukta clearly show, a very considerable number of more ancient works did precede the Ashfadhyayi, and the latter is undoubtedly the final outgrowth of a long scientific development?, A good many of the lost
1 Nirukta I, 12; V, 11; VII, 4; XIII, 9. * See Max Miiller, History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 150, who says
INTRODUCTION. li
* See Max Miiller, History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 150, who says
INTRODUCTION. li
works seem to have treated grammar from the same standpoint as Paxini’s book. But it may be reasonably supposed that the earliest among them mainly or even exclusively taught the rules applicable to the Vedic texts, studied by the several Karazas to which the authors belonged. This stage of grammatical research belongs, however, to a remote past. Indian grammar, as it first becomes known to us, is no longer entirely subservient to the wants of the Vedastudy, but works, though it still takes account of the Veda, for its own ends.
The science of astronomy is still more loosely connected with the Vedic schools. All the traces of its really having been an Anga consist in the small treatise, entitled Gyotisha, of which two slightly different recensions are extant, one belonging to the Rig-veda and one to the Yagur-veda. All the other works on this subject, even the ancient ones such as the Gargt Samhita, as well as the VAsish¢4a Samhita and Siddhanta, show no connexion with the Veda or Vedic schools, except that their authorship is ascribed to Rishis or descendants of the families of Rishis.
As regards the sacred law, the fact that such late offshoots of the Vedic tree, as the Apastambiyas and the Hairazyakesas, possess Dharma-sitras, proves that this subject much longer formed part of the curriculum of the Vedic schools. But already one of the most ancient grammarians of the historical period of India, Patajgali, hints that in his times the Dharma was taught not only in the Vedic but also in special schools. For on the one hand he refers to the Dharma-sitras!, on the other he teaches the formation of a special word, dharmavidya, which denotes ‘a person who studies or knows the dharmavidya, the science of the sacred law?.’ Possibly the word dharmasAstra, the Institutes of the sacred law, which occurs most appropriately that the Hindus ought to speak not of the Pasinyadya vaiyakaraz4h, but of the Pasinyantas.
1 See the remarks on P4vini I, 1, 47.
2 See the remarks on Panini IV, 2, 60 (vol. ii, p. 248, Kielhom). I follow Dr. Kielhorn, who prints the words ‘ vidya 4anangakshatradharmatripOrva’ as a remark of Patafgali, not as a Varttika of Katyayana.
d2 lii LAWS OF MANU.
1 See the remarks on P4vini I, 1, 47.
2 See the remarks on Panini IV, 2, 60 (vol. ii, p. 248, Kielhom). I follow Dr. Kielhorn, who prints the words ‘ vidya 4anangakshatradharmatripOrva’ as a remark of Patafgali, not as a Varttika of Katyayana.
d2 lii LAWS OF MANU.
occasionally in his Bhashya!, may also point to manuals, studied by the special schools, which differed from the Dharma-sitras. But it is not absolutely conclusive, as a Dharma-sitra too may be called a Dharmasdstra, because it teaches the sacred law. If we go back to still earlier times we find the existence of special law schools clearly indicated even in some of the Dharma-sitras. The passages which are most explicit on this point are those which describe the constitution of a Parishad or an assembly of learned men, entitled to decide doubtful law cases. For we read, Vasish¢ha III, 20, and Baudhdyana I, 1, 8, ‘ Four men who each know one of the four Vedas, a student of the Mim4msa, one who knows the Angas, one who recites (the works on) the sacred law (dharmapa¢haka), and three Brahmamas belonging to (three different) orders (constitute) an assembly consisting of, at least, ten (members)?.’ Here the reciter or teacher of the sacred law is named side by side with him who knows the Angas. As the two works in which the verse occurs are Dharma-sitras belonging to the Kalpa section of the Angas, it is evident that the teacher of the sacred law must be a person who specially devotes himself to the study of that subject, and knows more than one Dharma-sitra. Hence it follows that special law schools must have existed at the time when these two Dharma-sitras were composed*, It may also be that already then these special schools had elaborated
' See Katydyana’s Varttika 39 on Pasini I, a, 64, and Patafgali’s remarks thereon (Kielhorn, Mah. vol. i, p. 242).
2 See also Manu XII, 111; and above, p. xxv.
3 The significance of the passage quoted comes out still stronger, if we compare Gautama’s rule (XXVIII, 49), which differs very considerably: ‘ They declare that an assembly (parishad, shall consist) at least (of) the ten following (members, viz.) four men who have completely studied the four Vedas, three men belonging to the (three) orders enumerated first, (and) three men who know (three) different (institutes of) law.’ Gautama says nothing of men specially devoted to the study of the sacred law. He requires three persons, knowing three different Dharma-siitras. He and Apastamba are perfectly aware of the fragmentary character of their rules, and particularly refer their pupils (Gaut. XVI, 49; Ap. I, 3,11, 38) in certain cases to the teaching of other schools, which, being comprised under the general term Smriti, have authority, provided the teachers were orthodox Sish¢as (Gaut. I, 2; Ap. I, 1, 1,2; Vas. J, 4; Baudh. I, 1, 1, 3).
_
INTRODUCTION. ~ Iii! *
XVI, 49; Ap. I, 3,11, 38) in certain cases to the teaching of other schools, which, being comprised under the general term Smriti, have authority, provided the teachers were orthodox Sish¢as (Gaut. I, 2; Ap. I, 1, 1,2; Vas. J, 4; Baudh. I, 1, 1, 3).
_
INTRODUCTION. ~ Iii! *
manuals of their own which differed from the Dharmasitras, In favour of this opinion the metrical quotation at Baudhayana II, 4, 14-15 may be adduced, as it seems to have been taken from a work in Anushtubh-Slokas?. Though the unsatisfactory state of the text of Baudhayana does not allow us to insist too strongly on this passage, it is undeniable that the formation of special law schools must inevitably lead after a short time to the composition of manuals for their use. It is, no doubt, true that their founders possessed in the Dharma-sfitras, the number of which, to judge from the quotations, must have been very great, plentiful materials on which they could base their investigations. But the treatment of a science from a new point of view was in itself an incentive to the production of new manuals, and there were in the case of the special law schools also other reasons which made such a course desirable. Minute as the Dharma-sitras generally are on the majority of the topics connected with the moral duties of Aryas, their arrangement of the rules is frequently unsystematic, and their treatment of the legal procedure, the civil and the criminal law, with the exception of one single title, the dayavibh4ga, i. e. the law of inheritance and partition, extremely unsatisfactory. With respect to the other titles, the Dharma-sitras give nothing more than a few hints, intended to indicate the general principles, but they never proceed systematically, and always show most embarrassing omissions. From the standpoint of the Vedic schools, a more detailed and orderly treatment of these matters was, of course, irrelevant, as their chief aim was to point out the road to the acquisition of spiritual merit, and to guard their pupils against committing sin. Though some of their members might be called upon, and no doubt actually were destined in later life, to become practical lawyers, as Dharmdadhikarins, i.e. legal advisers of kings and chiefs, or as judges, and to settle the law between man and man, the few general principles which they had learnt during their course of instruction would suffice for their wants. For the details
1 Sacred Books of the East, vol. xiv, p. xli.
4 a liv. LAWS OF MANU.
legal advisers of kings and chiefs, or as judges, and to settle the law between man and man, the few general principles which they had learnt during their course of instruction would suffice for their wants. For the details
1 Sacred Books of the East, vol. xiv, p. xli.
4 a liv. LAWS OF MANU.
were settled according to the law of custom, which, as the Dharma-s(tras themselves indicate, was in ancient times even a greater power in India than it is in our days. When the sacred law became a separate science to which men devoted all or the best part of their energy, the case became different. However much the specialists might be convinced of the supreme importance of the moral side of the Dharma, they could not possibly shut their eyes against the glaring deficiencies of the old text-books, and they were, of a necessity, driven to remedy them. In order to effect this, two courses were open to them. They might either remodel the old existing works or compose entirely new ones. As might be expected from the universal tendency, observable throughout the whole of the sacred literature of India, they gave preference to the former alternative, and the result of their work was that class of the secondary Sm~ritis, the chief surviving representatives of which are the Dharmasdstras of Manu and YAgiavalkya. These works reveal their origin by the following marks. They are the exclusive property of the special law schools, and they show a fuller and more systematic treatment of all legal topics, while, at the same time, more or less clear traces of older redactions, connected with the Vedic schools, are to be found. They are free from all signs of sectarian influence, or of having been composed, like many of the later Digests, at royal command. They, finally, exhibit unmistakable marks of being school-books. If we examine our Manu-smriti with respect to these points, its connexion with an older Vedic work has been shown above, and the fact that it is, and has been ever since we have any information regarding its existence, in the keeping of the Pazdits, who especially devote themselves to the study of law, will be patent to every student of the Dharmasdstras. That it treats all legal topics more fully and more systematically than the Dharma-sitras, and especially devotes much more space to those subjects which are briefly noticed in the latter works, is no less evident. It will suffice here to point out the fact that the description of the duties of the king, including
INTRODUCTION, Ww
It will suffice here to point out the fact that the description of the duties of the king, including
1 About the same ratio, 367: 1009 is found in Yagfavalkya's Smriti.
? Thus in the Gautamtya, seven pages of the text out of thirty-four are filled with legal matters; in the Vasish¢ha, twelve pages out of eighty-one; in the Apastambtfya, ten ont of ninety-eight ; and in the Baudhayantya, about seven out of a hundred and fifteen,
® Other secondary Smritis, e.g. YagAavalkya’s (III, 330-334), give much ‘more detailed statements regarding the rewards to be obtained. But in substance they always agree with Manu.
Ivi LAWS OF MANU:
YagAavalkya’s (III, 330-334), give much ‘more detailed statements regarding the rewards to be obtained. But in substance they always agree with Manu.
Ivi LAWS OF MANU:
If we accept the conclusion which the preceding discussion tends to establish, that the special law schools produced the first and the most ancient division of the secondary Smritis on the basis of older Dharma-sftras, and that one among these schools, which, however, cannot be further specified, turned the Manava Dharma-sitra into our metrical Smriti!, we obtain also satisfactory answers to two other questions. First, it becomes explicable why the latter work shows so little connexion with the special doctrines and usages of the Manavas. If adherents of the Vedic Manava school, as Professor E. Hopkins conjectures?, had undertaken the revision of their Dharma-sitra, they would not have forgotten to mention such ceremonies as those which, according to their Grzhya-sitra, must be performed on beginning the study of particular portions of their Samhit43, and, above all, they would have allowed Mantras belonging to the Maitrayazi Sakha to stand. Again, if the task had fallen to the share of the members of some other Vedic school, we should find some points mentioned which were of special interest to them. The entire absence of all distinctive marks of any Vedic school which the Manu-smriti exhibits can only be explained on the hypothesis that it was remodelled by persons for whom such minute distinctions had no interest, and who concentrated their attention on those rules which they considered essential for all Aryas. Secondly, the view expressed above furnishes us with an answer to the question why the Manv-smriti, like all other works of its class, emphatically claims the allegiance of all Hindus. It is obvious that every special law school must assert, if its labour is not to be in vain, the general applicability of its doctrines and rules to all mankind.
If we now turn to the second point, what reasons induced the special law schools to select just the Manava Dharma-sitra among the large number of similar works
This view, which I first taught in my lectures on the Hindu law, delivered in the Vienna University during the winter, 1881-82, has been accepted by Professor J. Jolly, Tagore Lectures, p. 41, and Lecture II passim, as well as p. 347 (end).
* Proceedings of the American Oriental Society, October, 1883, p. xix.
5 See above, p. xxxix, note 5.
INTRODUCTION.' Ivii
for the basis of their studies and to recast it, the answer is not difficult to find. The reason for this selection, and for the high veneration in which the Manu-smriti has been held and is still held by Hindus, lies, without doubt, ° in the myths which, since very early times, have clustered round the name of Manu, and in progress of time have been more and more developed and brought into a system.
In Vedic mythology, Manu, or Manus, as he is also called in the Rig-veda, is the heros eponymos of the human race, and by his nature belongs both to gods and to men. As a divine being he is described as the son of the Aditya Vivasvat and of ‘the female of equal colour, whom Vivasvat’s wife, Sarazy, made to take her place’, or as the offspring of Svayambhd, self-existent Brahman ?. In the same quality he is invoked at the sacrifices as pragapati, the Lord of created beings®, and in Kutséyana’s hymn of praise, which is quoted in the Maitrayana Brahmazopanishad (V, 1), he is identified with Brahman, the supreme Soul‘. In the systematised theology of the Nairuktas he appears as one of the deities residing in heaven®. His human character comes out still more frequently. He is named in the Rig-veda together with other sages of a remote antiquity ®, the Taittiriya-samhita speaks of him as of the father of a family who divides his estate among his sons’, and the Satapatha-brahmaza opens one of its legends regarding him with a passage which represents him as following the usual daily customs of men °.
Manu’s position as the progenitor of mankind is usually
1 Valakhilya IV, 1; Atharva-veda VIII, 10,24; Sat. Br. XIII, 4, 3, 3; and Nirokta XII, 10,
* See the Vedic sloka quoted Nirukta III, 4, about which more will be said below. A third account, Valakhilya III, 1, makes him the son of Samvarana, who possibly may be identical with the Ashi mentioned RV. V, 33, 10.
* The edition reads annam, food. But Professor Max Miiller’s MS. has correctly Manu (S. B. E. XV, p. 303 note). My copy has AW.
5 Nirukta XII, 33-34. ® RV. I, 80, 16; I, 113, 16, &c.
T Taitt. Samh. III, 1, 9, 4.
® Sat. Br. I, 8,1; Sacred Books of the East, vol. xii, p. 216, ‘In the moming they bronght to Manu water for washing, just as they (are wont to) bring (water) for washing the hands.’