Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1of Devapala’s Commentary discovered by Dr. Biihler (Kasmir Report, Nos. 11, 12), one in Devanagari, and the other in Sarada characters. INTRODUCTION. Xxili of Kazha-siitra on divers questions concerning Srauta offerings, and at the time, when the Kasmfrian Devapala wrote his Commentary on the Kazkaka Grthya-s(tra, which was, according to the Kasmirian tradition, as explored by Dr. Biihler, before the conquest of Kasmir by the Mahommedans. Devapala, in the Introduction to his work, refers to ‘thirty-nine Adhy4yas treating of the Vaitanika (= Srauta) ceremonies,’ by which the Grihya-sitra was preceded, from which statement it may be inferred that the KA4thaka Srauta-sOtras must have been a very voluminous work indeed, as the Grthya-sitra, which is at least equal if not superior in extent to other works of the same class, forms but one Adhydya, the fortieth, of the whole Kalpas(itra, which, according to Devapala, was composed by one author. It does not seem likely that the Vishzu-sitra was composed by the same man, or that it ever formed part of the Kashaka Kalpa-sitra, as the Dharma-satras of Baudhayana, Apastamba, and Hirayakesin form part of the Kalpasdtras of the respective schools to which they belong. If that were the case, it would agree with the Gvzhya-sftra on all those points which are treated in both works, such as e.g. the terms for the performance of the Samskaras or sacraments, the rules for a student and for a SnAdtaka, the enumeration and definition of the Kvzkkfras or ‘hard penances,’ the forms of marriage, &c. Now though the two works have on those subjects a number of such rules in common as occur in other works also, they disagree for the most part in the choice of expressions, and on a few points lay down exactly opposite rules, such as the Vishzusitra (XXVIII, 28) giving permission to a student to ascend his spiritual teacher’s carriage after him, whereas the other work prescribes, that he shall do so on no account. Moreover, if both works had been destined from the first to supplement one another, they would, instead of having several entire sections in common, exhibit such crossreferences as are found e.g. between the Apastamba Grihya and Dharma-sitras}; though the absence of such 1 Biihler, Introduction to Apastamba, Sacred Books, II, pp. xi-xiv. XIV VISHNU.
2between the Apastamba Grihya and Dharma-sitras}; though the absence of such 1 Biihler, Introduction to Apastamba, Sacred Books, II, pp. xi-xiv. XIV VISHNU. references might be explained, in the case of the Vishzustra, by the activity of those who brought it into its present shape, and who seem to have carefully removed all such references to other works as the original Dharmasitra may have contained. Whatever the precise nature of the relations between this work and the other Satra works of the KArdyastya-ka¢aka school may have been, there is no reason for assigning to it a later date than to the KAazhaka Srauta and Grzhya-sitras, with the latter of which it has so much in common, and it may therefore claim a considerable antiquity, especially if it is assumed, with Dr. Biihler, that the beginning of the Sftra period differed for each Veda. The Veda of the Ka¢has, the K4zhaka, is not separated from the Sftra literature of this school by an intermediate Brahmawa stage; yet its high antiquity is testified by several of the most eminent grammarians of India from Yaska down to Kaiyata'. Thus the Kathaka is the only existing work of its kind, which is quoted by the former grammarian (Nirukta X, 5; another clear quotation from the Kast#aka, XXVII, 9, though not by name, may be found, Nirukta III, 4), and the latter places the Ka/has at the head of all Vedic schools, while Patangali, the author of the Mah4bhAshya, assigns to the ancient sage Ka/ha, the reputed founder of the Katha or Kathaka school of the Black Yagur-veda, the dignified position of an immediate pupil of Vaisamp4yana, the fountain-head of all schools of the older or Black Yagur-veda, and mentions, in accordance with a similar statement preserved in the Ramayana (II, 32, 18, 19 ed. Schlegel), that in his own time the ‘ Kalapaka and the KAshaka’ were ‘ proclaimed in every village?.’ The priority of the Kazhas before all other existing schools of the Yagur-veda may be deduced from the statements of the Karazavyfha', which work assigns to them one of the first places among the divers branches of 1 See Weber, Indische Studien XIII, p. 437 seq. 2 Mahdbhishya, Benares edition, IV, fols. 82 b, 75 b. 3 See Weber, Ind. Stud. III, p. 256 seq.; Max Miiller, Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., p. 369. I have consulted, besides, two Munich MSS. of the Karanavyiha (cod. Haug 45). INTRODUCTION. XV
3437 seq. 2 Mahdbhishya, Benares edition, IV, fols. 82 b, 75 b. 3 See Weber, Ind. Stud. III, p. 256 seq.; Max Miiller, Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., p. 369. I have consulted, besides, two Munich MSS. of the Karanavyiha (cod. Haug 45). INTRODUCTION. XV the Karakas, whom it places at the head of all schools of the Yagur-veda. Another argument in favour of the high antiquity of the Kathas may be derived from their geographical position. Though the statements of the Mahaébhashya and Ramayaza regarding the wide-spread and influential position of the Katkas in ancient times are borne out by the fact that the KarazavyHha mentions three subdivisions of the Kafhas, viz. the Ka¢as proper, the Prakya Kathas, and the Kapish¢sala Kathas, to which the K4rayaniyas may be added as a fourth, and by the seeming identity of their name with the name of the Ka@aio: in the Paiigdb on the one hand, and with the first part of the name of the peninsula of Kattivar on the other hand, it seems very likely nevertheless that the original home of the Ka/¢has was situated in the north-west, i.e. in those regions where the earliest parts of the Vedas were composed. Not only the Ka@aio, but the KayPic@o0An as well, who have been identified with the Kapish¢/ala Ka/has*, are mentioned by Greek writers as a nation living in the Patgab ; and while the Pra#ya Ka/sas are shown by their name (‘Eastern Ka¢has’) to have lived to the east of the two other branches of the Ka/fas, it is a significant ‘fact that adherents of the K4rdyaziya-kazhaka school survive nowhere but in Kasmir, where all Brahmazas perform their domestic rites according to the rules laid down in the Grthya-stitra of this school®. Kasmir is moreover the country where nearly all the yet existing works of the K4azhkaka school have turned up, including the Berlin MS. of the Ka¢aka, which was probably written by a Kasmirian*. It is true that some of the geographical and historical data contained in that work, especially the way in which it mentions the Paff#alas, whose ancient name, as shown by the Satapatha Brahmama (XIII, 5, 4, 7) and Rig- 1 See Weber, Uber das Ramayana, p.g; Ind. Stud. I, p. 189 seq.; III, p 469 seq.; XIII, pp. 375, 439; Ind. Litteraturgeschichte, pp. 99, 332; Zimmer, Altindisches Leben, p. 102 seq. ? See, however, Max Miiller, Hist. Anc, Sansk. Lit., p. 333- 5 Biihler, Kasmir Report, p. 20 seq. ‘ This was pointed out to me by Dr. Biihler. Xvi VISHNU.
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.
1of Devapala’s Commentary discovered by Dr. Biihler (Kasmir Report, Nos. 11, 12), one in Devanagari, and the other in Sarada characters. INTRODUCTION. Xxili of Kazha-siitra on divers questions concerning Srauta offerings, and at the time, when the Kasmfrian Devapala wrote his Commentary on the Kazkaka Grthya-s(tra, which was, according to the Kasmirian tradition, as explored by Dr. Biihler, before the conquest of Kasmir by the Mahommedans. Devapala, in the Introduction to his work, refers to ‘thirty-nine Adhy4yas treating of the Vaitanika (= Srauta) ceremonies,’ by which the Grihya-sitra was preceded, from which statement it may be inferred that the KA4thaka Srauta-sOtras must have been a very voluminous work indeed, as the Grthya-sitra, which is at least equal if not superior in extent to other works of the same class, forms but one Adhydya, the fortieth, of the whole Kalpas(itra, which, according to Devapala, was composed by one author. It does not seem likely that the Vishzu-sitra was composed by the same man, or that it ever formed part of the Kashaka Kalpa-sitra, as the Dharma-satras of Baudhayana, Apastamba, and Hirayakesin form part of the Kalpasdtras of the respective schools to which they belong. If that were the case, it would agree with the Gvzhya-sftra on all those points which are treated in both works, such as e.g. the terms for the performance of the Samskaras or sacraments, the rules for a student and for a SnAdtaka, the enumeration and definition of the Kvzkkfras or ‘hard penances,’ the forms of marriage, &c. Now though the two works have on those subjects a number of such rules in common as occur in other works also, they disagree for the most part in the choice of expressions, and on a few points lay down exactly opposite rules, such as the Vishzusitra (XXVIII, 28) giving permission to a student to ascend his spiritual teacher’s carriage after him, whereas the other work prescribes, that he shall do so on no account. Moreover, if both works had been destined from the first to supplement one another, they would, instead of having several entire sections in common, exhibit such crossreferences as are found e.g. between the Apastamba Grihya and Dharma-sitras}; though the absence of such 1 Biihler, Introduction to Apastamba, Sacred Books, II, pp. xi-xiv. XIV VISHNU.
2between the Apastamba Grihya and Dharma-sitras}; though the absence of such 1 Biihler, Introduction to Apastamba, Sacred Books, II, pp. xi-xiv. XIV VISHNU. references might be explained, in the case of the Vishzustra, by the activity of those who brought it into its present shape, and who seem to have carefully removed all such references to other works as the original Dharmasitra may have contained. Whatever the precise nature of the relations between this work and the other Satra works of the KArdyastya-ka¢aka school may have been, there is no reason for assigning to it a later date than to the KAazhaka Srauta and Grzhya-sitras, with the latter of which it has so much in common, and it may therefore claim a considerable antiquity, especially if it is assumed, with Dr. Biihler, that the beginning of the Sftra period differed for each Veda. The Veda of the Ka¢has, the K4zhaka, is not separated from the Sftra literature of this school by an intermediate Brahmawa stage; yet its high antiquity is testified by several of the most eminent grammarians of India from Yaska down to Kaiyata'. Thus the Kathaka is the only existing work of its kind, which is quoted by the former grammarian (Nirukta X, 5; another clear quotation from the Kast#aka, XXVII, 9, though not by name, may be found, Nirukta III, 4), and the latter places the Ka/has at the head of all Vedic schools, while Patangali, the author of the Mah4bhAshya, assigns to the ancient sage Ka/ha, the reputed founder of the Katha or Kathaka school of the Black Yagur-veda, the dignified position of an immediate pupil of Vaisamp4yana, the fountain-head of all schools of the older or Black Yagur-veda, and mentions, in accordance with a similar statement preserved in the Ramayana (II, 32, 18, 19 ed. Schlegel), that in his own time the ‘ Kalapaka and the KAshaka’ were ‘ proclaimed in every village?.’ The priority of the Kazhas before all other existing schools of the Yagur-veda may be deduced from the statements of the Karazavyfha', which work assigns to them one of the first places among the divers branches of 1 See Weber, Indische Studien XIII, p. 437 seq. 2 Mahdbhishya, Benares edition, IV, fols. 82 b, 75 b. 3 See Weber, Ind. Stud. III, p. 256 seq.; Max Miiller, Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., p. 369. I have consulted, besides, two Munich MSS. of the Karanavyiha (cod. Haug 45). INTRODUCTION. XV
3437 seq. 2 Mahdbhishya, Benares edition, IV, fols. 82 b, 75 b. 3 See Weber, Ind. Stud. III, p. 256 seq.; Max Miiller, Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., p. 369. I have consulted, besides, two Munich MSS. of the Karanavyiha (cod. Haug 45). INTRODUCTION. XV the Karakas, whom it places at the head of all schools of the Yagur-veda. Another argument in favour of the high antiquity of the Kathas may be derived from their geographical position. Though the statements of the Mahaébhashya and Ramayaza regarding the wide-spread and influential position of the Katkas in ancient times are borne out by the fact that the KarazavyHha mentions three subdivisions of the Kafhas, viz. the Ka¢as proper, the Prakya Kathas, and the Kapish¢sala Kathas, to which the K4rayaniyas may be added as a fourth, and by the seeming identity of their name with the name of the Ka@aio: in the Paiigdb on the one hand, and with the first part of the name of the peninsula of Kattivar on the other hand, it seems very likely nevertheless that the original home of the Ka/¢has was situated in the north-west, i.e. in those regions where the earliest parts of the Vedas were composed. Not only the Ka@aio, but the KayPic@o0An as well, who have been identified with the Kapish¢/ala Ka/has*, are mentioned by Greek writers as a nation living in the Patgab ; and while the Pra#ya Ka/sas are shown by their name (‘Eastern Ka¢has’) to have lived to the east of the two other branches of the Ka/fas, it is a significant ‘fact that adherents of the K4rdyaziya-kazhaka school survive nowhere but in Kasmir, where all Brahmazas perform their domestic rites according to the rules laid down in the Grthya-stitra of this school®. Kasmir is moreover the country where nearly all the yet existing works of the K4azhkaka school have turned up, including the Berlin MS. of the Ka¢aka, which was probably written by a Kasmirian*. It is true that some of the geographical and historical data contained in that work, especially the way in which it mentions the Paff#alas, whose ancient name, as shown by the Satapatha Brahmama (XIII, 5, 4, 7) and Rig- 1 See Weber, Uber das Ramayana, p.g; Ind. Stud. I, p. 189 seq.; III, p 469 seq.; XIII, pp. 375, 439; Ind. Litteraturgeschichte, pp. 99, 332; Zimmer, Altindisches Leben, p. 102 seq. ? See, however, Max Miiller, Hist. Anc, Sansk. Lit., p. 333- 5 Biihler, Kasmir Report, p. 20 seq. ‘ This was pointed out to me by Dr. Biihler. Xvi VISHNU.
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.