Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1‘34. Gautama declares that (they become) pure at once (after bathing). ‘35. If (a person) dies in a foreign country and (his Sapizdas) hear (of his death) after the lapse of ten days, the impurity lasts for one (day and) night. ‘36. Gautama declares that if a person who has kindled the sacred fire dies on a journey, (his Sapizdas) shall again ‘In some MSS. a whole chapter on the results of various sins in a second birth is inserted after Adhyaya XIX. But Haradatta does not notice it; see Stenzler, Gautama, Preface, p. iii. 3 In quoting the Vasishtka Dh. I always refer to the Benares edition, which is accompanied by the commentary of Krishnapandita Dharmadhikarin, called Vidvanmodini, lviii GAUTAMA. celebrate his obsequies, (burning a dummy made of leaves or straw,) and remain impure (during ten days) as (if they had actually buried) the corpse.’ The first of these two quotations or references apparently points to Gautama Dh. XIV, 44, where it is said, that ‘if an infant dies, the relatives shall be pure at once.’ For, though Vasishtka’s Stra 34, strictly interpreted, would mean, that Gautama declares the relatives to be purified instantaneously, both if an infant dies and if a miscarriage happens, it is also possible to refer the exception to one of the two cases only, which are mentioned in Sdtra 33. Similar instances do occur in the Sitra style, where brevity is estimated higher than perspicuity, and the learned commentator of Vasish¢#a does not hesitate to adopt the same view. But, as regards the second quotation in Siatra 36, our Gautama contains no passage to which it could possibly refer. Govindasvamin, in his commentary on the second reference to Gautama in Baudhayana’s DharmasAstra II, 2, 71, expresses the opinion that this Sftra, too, is taken from the ‘other’ Gautama Dharma-s(tra, the former existence of which he infers from Baudh4yana’s passage. And curiously enough the regarding the second funeral actually is found in the metrical Vrzddha-Gautama ! or Vaishvava Dharma-sastra, which, according to Mr. Vaman Shastrt Islampurkar *, forms chapters 94-115 of the Asvamedha-parvan of the Mahabharata in a Malay4lam MS. Nevertheless, it seems to me very doubtful if Vasishtda did or could refer to this work. As the same rule occurs sometimes in the Srautasitras 5, I think it more probable that the Srauta-sdtra of the Gautama school is meant. And it is significant that the Vriddha-Gautama declares its teaching to be kalpakodita ‘enjoined in the Kalpa or ritual.’ Regarding Gautama’s nineteenth chapter, which appears in the Vasish¢za Dharmasdstra as the twenty-second, I have ? Dharmasdstra samgraha (Gibanand), p. 627, Adhy. 20, 1 seqq. 2 Pardsara Dharma Samhita (Bombay Sansk. Series, No. xlvii), vol. i, p. 9. ® See e.g. Ap. Sr. Sd. INTRODUCTION. lix
2Dharmasdstra samgraha (Gibanand), p. 627, Adhy. 20, 1 seqq. 2 Pardsara Dharma Samhita (Bombay Sansk. Series, No. xlvii), vol. i, p. 9. ® See e.g. Ap. Sr. Sd. INTRODUCTION. lix already stated above that it is not taken directly from Gautama’s work, but from Baudhdyana’s. For it shows most of the characteristic readings of the latter. Buta few new ones also occur, and some Sitras have been left out, while one new one, a well-known verse regarding the efficacy of the Vaisvanara vratapati and of the Pavitreshdi, has been added. Among the omissions peculiar to Vasish¢ha, that of the first Sdtra is the most important, as it alters the whole character of the chapter, and removes one of the most convincing arguments as to its original position at the head of the section on penances. Vasish¢ha places it in the beginning of the discussion on penances which are generally efficacious in removing guilt, and after the rules on the special penances for the classified offences. These facts will, I think, suffice to show that the Gautama Dharmasdstra may be safely declared to be the oldest of the existing works on the sacred law!. This assertion must, however, not be taken to mean, that every single one of its Sdatras is older than the other four Dharmasitras. Two interpolations have already been pointed out above’, and another one will be discussed presently. It is also not unlikely that the wording of the Sdtras has been changed occasionally. For it is a suspicious fact that Gautama’s language agrees closer with Pazini’s rules than that of Apastamba and Baudhayana. If it is borne in mind that Gautama’s work has been torn out of its original connection, and from a school-book has become a work of general authority, and that for a long time it has been studied by Pandits who were brought up in the traditions of classical grammar, it seems hardly likely that it could retain much of its ancient peculiarities of language. But I do not think that the interpolations and alterations can have affected the general character of the book very much. It is too methodically planned and too carefully arranged to admit of any very great changes. The fact, too, that in 1 Professor Stenzler, too, had arrived independently at this conclusion, see Grundriss der Indo-Ar. Phil. und Altertumsk., vol. ii, Pt. 8, p. 5. 2 See p. lvii. lx GAUTAMA.
3It is too methodically planned and too carefully arranged to admit of any very great changes. The fact, too, that in 1 Professor Stenzler, too, had arrived independently at this conclusion, see Grundriss der Indo-Ar. Phil. und Altertumsk., vol. ii, Pt. 8, p. 5. 2 See p. lvii. lx GAUTAMA. the chapter borrowed by Baudhdyana the majority of the variae lectiones are corruptions, not better readings, favours this view. Regarding the distance in time between Gautama on the one hand, and Baudh4yana and Vasish¢za on the other, I prefer not to hazard any conjecture, as long as the position of the Gautamas among the schools of the Samaveda has not been cleared up. So much only can be said that Gautama probably was less remote from Baudhayana than from Vasish¢##a. There are a few curious terms and rules in which the former two agree, while they, at the same time, differ from all other known writers on Dharma. Thus the term bhikshu, literally a beggar, which Gautama ? uses to denote an ascetic, instead of the more common yati or sannyAsin, occurs once also in Baudhayana’s Siitra. The same is the case with the rule, III, 13, which orders the ascetic not to change his residence during the rains. Both the name bhikshu and the rule must be very ancient, as the Gainas and Buddhists have borrowed them, and have founded on the latter their practice of keeping the Vasso, or residence in monasteries during the rainy season. As the position of the Gautamas among the Séman schools is uncertain, it will, of course, be likewise inadvisable to make any attempt at connecting them with the historical period of India. The necessity of caution in this respect is so obvious that I should not point it out, were it not that the Dharmasd4stra contains one word, the occurrence of which is sometimes considered to indicate the terminus a quo for the dates of Indian works. The word to which I refer is Yavana. Gautama quotes, IV, 21, an opinion of ‘some,’ according to which a Yavana is the offspring of a SQdra male and a Kshatriya female. Now it is well known that this name is a corruption of the Greek *IaFwy, an Ionian, and that in India it was applied, in ancient times, to the Greeks, and especially to the early Seleucids who kept up intimate relations with the first Mauryas, as well as later to the Indo-Bactrian and Indo-Grecian kings who from the beginning of the second century B.C. ruled 4 Gaut. Dh. III, 2, 11; see also Weber, Hist. Ind. Lit., p. 327 (English ed.) INTRODUCTION. Ixi
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.
1‘34. Gautama declares that (they become) pure at once (after bathing). ‘35. If (a person) dies in a foreign country and (his Sapizdas) hear (of his death) after the lapse of ten days, the impurity lasts for one (day and) night. ‘36. Gautama declares that if a person who has kindled the sacred fire dies on a journey, (his Sapizdas) shall again ‘In some MSS. a whole chapter on the results of various sins in a second birth is inserted after Adhyaya XIX. But Haradatta does not notice it; see Stenzler, Gautama, Preface, p. iii. 3 In quoting the Vasishtka Dh. I always refer to the Benares edition, which is accompanied by the commentary of Krishnapandita Dharmadhikarin, called Vidvanmodini, lviii GAUTAMA. celebrate his obsequies, (burning a dummy made of leaves or straw,) and remain impure (during ten days) as (if they had actually buried) the corpse.’ The first of these two quotations or references apparently points to Gautama Dh. XIV, 44, where it is said, that ‘if an infant dies, the relatives shall be pure at once.’ For, though Vasishtka’s Stra 34, strictly interpreted, would mean, that Gautama declares the relatives to be purified instantaneously, both if an infant dies and if a miscarriage happens, it is also possible to refer the exception to one of the two cases only, which are mentioned in Sdtra 33. Similar instances do occur in the Sitra style, where brevity is estimated higher than perspicuity, and the learned commentator of Vasish¢#a does not hesitate to adopt the same view. But, as regards the second quotation in Siatra 36, our Gautama contains no passage to which it could possibly refer. Govindasvamin, in his commentary on the second reference to Gautama in Baudhayana’s DharmasAstra II, 2, 71, expresses the opinion that this Sftra, too, is taken from the ‘other’ Gautama Dharma-s(tra, the former existence of which he infers from Baudh4yana’s passage. And curiously enough the regarding the second funeral actually is found in the metrical Vrzddha-Gautama ! or Vaishvava Dharma-sastra, which, according to Mr. Vaman Shastrt Islampurkar *, forms chapters 94-115 of the Asvamedha-parvan of the Mahabharata in a Malay4lam MS. Nevertheless, it seems to me very doubtful if Vasishtda did or could refer to this work. As the same rule occurs sometimes in the Srautasitras 5, I think it more probable that the Srauta-sdtra of the Gautama school is meant. And it is significant that the Vriddha-Gautama declares its teaching to be kalpakodita ‘enjoined in the Kalpa or ritual.’ Regarding Gautama’s nineteenth chapter, which appears in the Vasish¢za Dharmasdstra as the twenty-second, I have ? Dharmasdstra samgraha (Gibanand), p. 627, Adhy. 20, 1 seqq. 2 Pardsara Dharma Samhita (Bombay Sansk. Series, No. xlvii), vol. i, p. 9. ® See e.g. Ap. Sr. Sd. INTRODUCTION. lix
2Dharmasdstra samgraha (Gibanand), p. 627, Adhy. 20, 1 seqq. 2 Pardsara Dharma Samhita (Bombay Sansk. Series, No. xlvii), vol. i, p. 9. ® See e.g. Ap. Sr. Sd. INTRODUCTION. lix already stated above that it is not taken directly from Gautama’s work, but from Baudhdyana’s. For it shows most of the characteristic readings of the latter. Buta few new ones also occur, and some Sitras have been left out, while one new one, a well-known verse regarding the efficacy of the Vaisvanara vratapati and of the Pavitreshdi, has been added. Among the omissions peculiar to Vasish¢ha, that of the first Sdtra is the most important, as it alters the whole character of the chapter, and removes one of the most convincing arguments as to its original position at the head of the section on penances. Vasish¢ha places it in the beginning of the discussion on penances which are generally efficacious in removing guilt, and after the rules on the special penances for the classified offences. These facts will, I think, suffice to show that the Gautama Dharmasdstra may be safely declared to be the oldest of the existing works on the sacred law!. This assertion must, however, not be taken to mean, that every single one of its Sdatras is older than the other four Dharmasitras. Two interpolations have already been pointed out above’, and another one will be discussed presently. It is also not unlikely that the wording of the Sdtras has been changed occasionally. For it is a suspicious fact that Gautama’s language agrees closer with Pazini’s rules than that of Apastamba and Baudhayana. If it is borne in mind that Gautama’s work has been torn out of its original connection, and from a school-book has become a work of general authority, and that for a long time it has been studied by Pandits who were brought up in the traditions of classical grammar, it seems hardly likely that it could retain much of its ancient peculiarities of language. But I do not think that the interpolations and alterations can have affected the general character of the book very much. It is too methodically planned and too carefully arranged to admit of any very great changes. The fact, too, that in 1 Professor Stenzler, too, had arrived independently at this conclusion, see Grundriss der Indo-Ar. Phil. und Altertumsk., vol. ii, Pt. 8, p. 5. 2 See p. lvii. lx GAUTAMA.
3It is too methodically planned and too carefully arranged to admit of any very great changes. The fact, too, that in 1 Professor Stenzler, too, had arrived independently at this conclusion, see Grundriss der Indo-Ar. Phil. und Altertumsk., vol. ii, Pt. 8, p. 5. 2 See p. lvii. lx GAUTAMA. the chapter borrowed by Baudhdyana the majority of the variae lectiones are corruptions, not better readings, favours this view. Regarding the distance in time between Gautama on the one hand, and Baudh4yana and Vasish¢za on the other, I prefer not to hazard any conjecture, as long as the position of the Gautamas among the schools of the Samaveda has not been cleared up. So much only can be said that Gautama probably was less remote from Baudhayana than from Vasish¢##a. There are a few curious terms and rules in which the former two agree, while they, at the same time, differ from all other known writers on Dharma. Thus the term bhikshu, literally a beggar, which Gautama ? uses to denote an ascetic, instead of the more common yati or sannyAsin, occurs once also in Baudhayana’s Siitra. The same is the case with the rule, III, 13, which orders the ascetic not to change his residence during the rains. Both the name bhikshu and the rule must be very ancient, as the Gainas and Buddhists have borrowed them, and have founded on the latter their practice of keeping the Vasso, or residence in monasteries during the rainy season. As the position of the Gautamas among the Séman schools is uncertain, it will, of course, be likewise inadvisable to make any attempt at connecting them with the historical period of India. The necessity of caution in this respect is so obvious that I should not point it out, were it not that the Dharmasd4stra contains one word, the occurrence of which is sometimes considered to indicate the terminus a quo for the dates of Indian works. The word to which I refer is Yavana. Gautama quotes, IV, 21, an opinion of ‘some,’ according to which a Yavana is the offspring of a SQdra male and a Kshatriya female. Now it is well known that this name is a corruption of the Greek *IaFwy, an Ionian, and that in India it was applied, in ancient times, to the Greeks, and especially to the early Seleucids who kept up intimate relations with the first Mauryas, as well as later to the Indo-Bactrian and Indo-Grecian kings who from the beginning of the second century B.C. ruled 4 Gaut. Dh. III, 2, 11; see also Weber, Hist. Ind. Lit., p. 327 (English ed.) INTRODUCTION. Ixi
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.