Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1As it is thus not probable that Apastamba employed his peculiar expressions in obedience to the tradition of the 1 Many more may be collected from the other divisions of the body of Sitras. See Winternitz, op. cit., p. 13 seqq.; Gurupigakaumudi, p. 34 seq. xlvi APASTAMBA. Vedic schools or of his particular school, he must have either been unacquainted with Pazini or have considered his teachings of no great importance. In other words, he must either have lived earlier than Pazini or before PAzini’s grammar had acquired general fame throughout India, and become the standard authority for Sanskrit authors. In either case so late a date as 150 B.C. or the first century B.C. would not fit. For Pata#gali's Mahabhashya furnishes abundant proof that at the time of its composition, in the second century R.C., Pazini’s grammar occupied a position similar to that which it holds now, and has held since the beginning of our era in the estimation of the learned of India. On linguistic grounds it seems to me Apastamba cannot be placed later than the third century B.C., and if his statement regarding Svetaketu is taken into account, the lower limit for the composition of his Satras must be put further back by 150-200 years. But sufficient space has already been allotted to these attempts to assign a date to the founder of the Apastambiya school, the result of which, in the present state of our knowledge of the ancient history of India, must remain, I fear, less certain and less precise than is desirable. It now is necessary to say, in conclusion, a few words about the history of the text of the Dharma-sitra, and about its commentary, the Uggvala Vritti of Haradatta. The oldest writer with a known date who quotes the Apastambiya Dharma-sitra is Sankarék4rya'!, c. 800 A.D. Even somewhat earlier Kumirila, c. 750, refers repeatedly to a law-book by Apastamba®. But it is improbable that he had our Dharma-sitra before him. For he says, p. 138, that Apastamba expressly sanctions local usages, opposed to the teaching of the Vedas, for the natives of those districts where they had prevailed since ancient times. Now, that is just an opinion, which our Dharma-sitra declares to be wrong and refutes repeatedly®. As it seems 1 See Deussen, Vedanta, p. 35. * Tantravarttika, pp. 138, 139, 142, 174, 175, 179, Benares ed. 5 Ap. Dh. I, 1, 14, 8, 9-10; II, 6, 14, 10-133 I, 6, 15, 1. INTRODUCTION. xl vii
2Now, that is just an opinion, which our Dharma-sitra declares to be wrong and refutes repeatedly®. As it seems 1 See Deussen, Vedanta, p. 35. * Tantravarttika, pp. 138, 139, 142, 174, 175, 179, Benares ed. 5 Ap. Dh. I, 1, 14, 8, 9-10; II, 6, 14, 10-133 I, 6, 15, 1. INTRODUCTION. xl vii hazardous to impute to a man, like Kumérila, ignorance or spite against Apastamba, I am inclined to assume that the great Mim4zsaka refers to some other work, attributed to Apastamba, perhaps the metrical Apastamba-smriti which Apararka quotes very frequently'. Among the commentators on Smritis the oldest, who quote the Dharma-sitra, are Medhatithi, the author of the Manubhdshya, and Vig#anesvara, who composed the Mitakshard. the wellknown commentary on Yag#avalkya’s Dharma-sdstra during the reign of the Kdlukya king Vikramaditya VI, of Kalyaza towards the end of the eleventh century. From that time downwards Apastamba is quoted by almost every writer on law. But the whole text. such as it is given in my edition’, is vouched for only by the commentator Haradatta, who wrote his Uggvalé Vritti, at the latest, in the fifteenth century A.D. or possibly 100 years earlier *. Haradatta was, however. not the first commentator of the Dharma-sdtra. He frequently quotes the opinions of several predecessors whom he designates by the general expressions anya# or aparaf, i.e. another (writer). The fact that the Uggvalé was preceded by earlier commentaries which protected the text from corruption, also speaks in favour of the authenticity of the latter, which is further attested by the close agreement of the Hiravyakesi Dharma-sdtra, mentioned above. As regards the value of the Uggvala for the explanation of Apastamba’s text, it certainly belongs to the best com- 1 Ap. Dh., Introd., p. x. 2 Apastambtya Dharma-s(itram, second edition, Part i, Bumbay, 1892; Part ii, Bombay, 1894. 3 It seems not doubtful that Haradatta, the author of the Ugevala, is the same person who wrote the Anakula Vrztti on the Apastamblya Grzhya-siitra, an explanation of the Apastambiya Grihya-mantras (see Burnell, Ind. Ant. I, 6), and the Mitakshara Vvitti on the Dharma-sitra of Gautama. From the occurrence in the latter work of Tamil words, added in explanation of Sanskrit expressions, it follows that Haradatta was a native of the south of India. Iam not in a position to decide if our author also wrote the Padamaggari Vvitti on the Kasika of Vamana and Gayaditya. This is Professor Aufrecht’s opinion, Catalogus Catalogorum, p. 754 seq. See also my remarks in the Introd. to the second ed., p. viii. xlviii APASTAMBA.
3Iam not in a position to decide if our author also wrote the Padamaggari Vvitti on the Kasika of Vamana and Gayaditya. This is Professor Aufrecht’s opinion, Catalogus Catalogorum, p. 754 seq. See also my remarks in the Introd. to the second ed., p. viii. xlviii APASTAMBA. mentaries existing. Haradatta possessed in the older Vrittis abundant and good materials on which he could draw; he himself apparently was well versed in Hindu law and in Sanskrit grammar, and distinguished by sobriety and freedom from that vanity which induces many Indian commentators to load their works with endless and useless quotations. His explanations, therefore, can mostly be followed without hesitation, and, even when they appear unacceptable, they deserve careful consideration. INTRODUCTION TO GAUTAMA. COMPARED with the information collected above regarding the origin and the history of Apastamba’s Dharmastra, the facts which can be brought to bear on Gautama’s Institutes are scanty and the conclusions deducible from them somewhat vague. There are only two points, which, it seems to me, can be proved satisfactorily, viz. the connection of the work with the S4ma-veda and a Gautama Karana, and its priority to the other four Dharma-sitras which we still possess. To go further appears for the present impossible, because very little is known regarding the history of the schools studying the Sdma-veda, and because the Dharmasdstra not only furnishes very few data regarding the works on which it is based, but seems also, though not to any great extent, to have been tampered with by interpolators. As regards its origin, it was again Professor Max Miller, who, in the place of the fantastic statements of a fabricated tradition, according to which the author of the Dharmasdstra is the son or grandson of the sage Utathya, and the grandson or great-grandson of Usanas or Sukra, the regent of the planet Venus, and the book possessed generally binding force in the second or Treta Yuga 4, first put forward a rational explanation which, since, has been adopted by all other writers on Sanskrit literature. He says, Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit. p. 134, ‘Another collection of Dharmasitras, which, however, is liable to critical doubts, belongs Manu III, 19; Colebrooke, Digest of Hindu Law, Preface, p. xvii Madras ed.); Anantayagvan in Dr. Burnell’s Catalogue of Sanskrit MSS., (p. 57; Parasara, Dharmasastra I, 22 (Calcutta ed.) (2] | GAUTAMA. to the Gautamas, a Karaza of the Sama-veda.’ This assertion agrees with Kumirila’s statement, that the Dharmasdstra of Gautama and the Grthya-sitra of Gobhila were (originally) accepted (as authoritative) by the A/andogas or SAmavedins alone!. Kumirila certainly refers to the work known to us. For he quotes in other passages several of its Satras*.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1As it is thus not probable that Apastamba employed his peculiar expressions in obedience to the tradition of the 1 Many more may be collected from the other divisions of the body of Sitras. See Winternitz, op. cit., p. 13 seqq.; Gurupigakaumudi, p. 34 seq. xlvi APASTAMBA. Vedic schools or of his particular school, he must have either been unacquainted with Pazini or have considered his teachings of no great importance. In other words, he must either have lived earlier than Pazini or before PAzini’s grammar had acquired general fame throughout India, and become the standard authority for Sanskrit authors. In either case so late a date as 150 B.C. or the first century B.C. would not fit. For Pata#gali's Mahabhashya furnishes abundant proof that at the time of its composition, in the second century R.C., Pazini’s grammar occupied a position similar to that which it holds now, and has held since the beginning of our era in the estimation of the learned of India. On linguistic grounds it seems to me Apastamba cannot be placed later than the third century B.C., and if his statement regarding Svetaketu is taken into account, the lower limit for the composition of his Satras must be put further back by 150-200 years. But sufficient space has already been allotted to these attempts to assign a date to the founder of the Apastambiya school, the result of which, in the present state of our knowledge of the ancient history of India, must remain, I fear, less certain and less precise than is desirable. It now is necessary to say, in conclusion, a few words about the history of the text of the Dharma-sitra, and about its commentary, the Uggvala Vritti of Haradatta. The oldest writer with a known date who quotes the Apastambiya Dharma-sitra is Sankarék4rya'!, c. 800 A.D. Even somewhat earlier Kumirila, c. 750, refers repeatedly to a law-book by Apastamba®. But it is improbable that he had our Dharma-sitra before him. For he says, p. 138, that Apastamba expressly sanctions local usages, opposed to the teaching of the Vedas, for the natives of those districts where they had prevailed since ancient times. Now, that is just an opinion, which our Dharma-sitra declares to be wrong and refutes repeatedly®. As it seems 1 See Deussen, Vedanta, p. 35. * Tantravarttika, pp. 138, 139, 142, 174, 175, 179, Benares ed. 5 Ap. Dh. I, 1, 14, 8, 9-10; II, 6, 14, 10-133 I, 6, 15, 1. INTRODUCTION. xl vii
2Now, that is just an opinion, which our Dharma-sitra declares to be wrong and refutes repeatedly®. As it seems 1 See Deussen, Vedanta, p. 35. * Tantravarttika, pp. 138, 139, 142, 174, 175, 179, Benares ed. 5 Ap. Dh. I, 1, 14, 8, 9-10; II, 6, 14, 10-133 I, 6, 15, 1. INTRODUCTION. xl vii hazardous to impute to a man, like Kumérila, ignorance or spite against Apastamba, I am inclined to assume that the great Mim4zsaka refers to some other work, attributed to Apastamba, perhaps the metrical Apastamba-smriti which Apararka quotes very frequently'. Among the commentators on Smritis the oldest, who quote the Dharma-sitra, are Medhatithi, the author of the Manubhdshya, and Vig#anesvara, who composed the Mitakshard. the wellknown commentary on Yag#avalkya’s Dharma-sdstra during the reign of the Kdlukya king Vikramaditya VI, of Kalyaza towards the end of the eleventh century. From that time downwards Apastamba is quoted by almost every writer on law. But the whole text. such as it is given in my edition’, is vouched for only by the commentator Haradatta, who wrote his Uggvalé Vritti, at the latest, in the fifteenth century A.D. or possibly 100 years earlier *. Haradatta was, however. not the first commentator of the Dharma-sdtra. He frequently quotes the opinions of several predecessors whom he designates by the general expressions anya# or aparaf, i.e. another (writer). The fact that the Uggvalé was preceded by earlier commentaries which protected the text from corruption, also speaks in favour of the authenticity of the latter, which is further attested by the close agreement of the Hiravyakesi Dharma-sdtra, mentioned above. As regards the value of the Uggvala for the explanation of Apastamba’s text, it certainly belongs to the best com- 1 Ap. Dh., Introd., p. x. 2 Apastambtya Dharma-s(itram, second edition, Part i, Bumbay, 1892; Part ii, Bombay, 1894. 3 It seems not doubtful that Haradatta, the author of the Ugevala, is the same person who wrote the Anakula Vrztti on the Apastamblya Grzhya-siitra, an explanation of the Apastambiya Grihya-mantras (see Burnell, Ind. Ant. I, 6), and the Mitakshara Vvitti on the Dharma-sitra of Gautama. From the occurrence in the latter work of Tamil words, added in explanation of Sanskrit expressions, it follows that Haradatta was a native of the south of India. Iam not in a position to decide if our author also wrote the Padamaggari Vvitti on the Kasika of Vamana and Gayaditya. This is Professor Aufrecht’s opinion, Catalogus Catalogorum, p. 754 seq. See also my remarks in the Introd. to the second ed., p. viii. xlviii APASTAMBA.
3Iam not in a position to decide if our author also wrote the Padamaggari Vvitti on the Kasika of Vamana and Gayaditya. This is Professor Aufrecht’s opinion, Catalogus Catalogorum, p. 754 seq. See also my remarks in the Introd. to the second ed., p. viii. xlviii APASTAMBA. mentaries existing. Haradatta possessed in the older Vrittis abundant and good materials on which he could draw; he himself apparently was well versed in Hindu law and in Sanskrit grammar, and distinguished by sobriety and freedom from that vanity which induces many Indian commentators to load their works with endless and useless quotations. His explanations, therefore, can mostly be followed without hesitation, and, even when they appear unacceptable, they deserve careful consideration. INTRODUCTION TO GAUTAMA. COMPARED with the information collected above regarding the origin and the history of Apastamba’s Dharmastra, the facts which can be brought to bear on Gautama’s Institutes are scanty and the conclusions deducible from them somewhat vague. There are only two points, which, it seems to me, can be proved satisfactorily, viz. the connection of the work with the S4ma-veda and a Gautama Karana, and its priority to the other four Dharma-sitras which we still possess. To go further appears for the present impossible, because very little is known regarding the history of the schools studying the Sdma-veda, and because the Dharmasdstra not only furnishes very few data regarding the works on which it is based, but seems also, though not to any great extent, to have been tampered with by interpolators. As regards its origin, it was again Professor Max Miller, who, in the place of the fantastic statements of a fabricated tradition, according to which the author of the Dharmasdstra is the son or grandson of the sage Utathya, and the grandson or great-grandson of Usanas or Sukra, the regent of the planet Venus, and the book possessed generally binding force in the second or Treta Yuga 4, first put forward a rational explanation which, since, has been adopted by all other writers on Sanskrit literature. He says, Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit. p. 134, ‘Another collection of Dharmasitras, which, however, is liable to critical doubts, belongs Manu III, 19; Colebrooke, Digest of Hindu Law, Preface, p. xvii Madras ed.); Anantayagvan in Dr. Burnell’s Catalogue of Sanskrit MSS., (p. 57; Parasara, Dharmasastra I, 22 (Calcutta ed.) (2] | GAUTAMA. to the Gautamas, a Karaza of the Sama-veda.’ This assertion agrees with Kumirila’s statement, that the Dharmasdstra of Gautama and the Grthya-sitra of Gobhila were (originally) accepted (as authoritative) by the A/andogas or SAmavedins alone!. Kumirila certainly refers to the work known to us. For he quotes in other passages several of its Satras*.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
No commentary for this page.