Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Stud. 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. veda (VIII, 20, 24; VIII, 22, 12), was Krivi, take us far off from the north-west, the earliest seat of Aryan civilization, into the country of the Kuru-Pafi#dlas in Hindostan proper. But it must be borne in mind that the K4¢/aka, if it may be identified with the ‘ Karaka-sékha,’ must have been the Veda of all the Xarakas except perhaps the Maitrdyamtyas and KapishéZalas, and may have been altered and enlarged, after the Ka¢#as and Karakas had spread themselves across Hindostén, The Sitras of a SAkha which appears to have sprung up near the primitive home of Aryan civilization in India, which was probably the original home of the Kazsas at the same time, may be far older than those of mere Stra schools of the Black Yagur-veda, which have sprung up, like the Apastamba school, in South India, i.e. far older than the fourth or fifth century B.C. But sufficient space has been assigned to these attempts at fixing the age of the K4¢/aka-sfitras which, besides remaining only too uncertain in themselves, can apply with their full force to those parts of the Vishzu-sdtra only, which have been traced in the KatZaka Grihya-sitra. It will be seen afterwards that even these sections, however closely connected with the sacred literature of the Kathas, have been tampered with in several places, and it might be argued, therefore, that the whole remainder of the Vishzusitra, to which the K4¢saka literature offers no parallel, may be a subsequent addition. But the antiquity of the great majority of its laws can be proved by independent arguments, which are furnished by a comparison of the Vishzu-sitra with other works of the same class, whose antiquity is not doubted. In the foot-notes to my translation I have endeavoured to give as complete references as possible to the analogous passages in the Smritis of Manu, YAgiiavalkya, Apastamba, and Gautama, and in the four Gvzhya-sitras hitherto printed. A large number of analogous passages might have been traced in the Dharma-sitras of VAsish¢/a ? ' See Biihler, Introd. to Apastamba, p. xliii. 2 See the Benares edition (1878), which is accompanied with a Commentary ’ by Krishnapandita Dharmadhikarin, I should have given references to this INTRODUCTION. XVii
2' See Biihler, Introd. to Apastamba, p. xliii. 2 See the Benares edition (1878), which is accompanied with a Commentary ’ by Krishnapandita Dharmadhikarin, I should have given references to this INTRODUCTION. XVii and Baudh4yana as well, not to mention Hirazyakesin’s Dharma-sitra, which, according to Dr. Biihler, is nearly identical with the Dharma-sitra of Apastamba. Two facts may be established at once by glancing at these analogies, viz. the close agreement of this work with the other Sdtra works in point of form, and with all the above-mentioned works in point of contents. As regards the first point, the Sdtras or prose rules of which the bulk of the Vishzu-sdtra is composed, show throughout that characteristic laconism of the Satra style, which renders it impossible in many cases to make out the real meaning of a Sitra without the help of a Commentary; and in the choice of terms they agree as closely as possible with the other ancient law-books, and in some cases with the Grzhya-sftras as well. Numerous verses, generally in the Sloka metre, and occasionally designed as ‘Gath4s,’ are added at the end of most chapters, and interspersed between the Sfitras in some; but in this particular also the Vish#u-sitra agrees with at least one other Dharma-sitra, the Vasish¢Za-smriti, and it contains in its law part, like the latter work, a number of verses in the ancient Trishtubh metre’. Four of these Trishzubhs are found in the VAsisht#a-smrzti, and three in Y4ska’s Nirukta as well, and the majority of the Slokas has been traced in the former work and the other above-mentioned law-books, and in other Smritis. In point of contents the great majority both of the metrical and prose rules of the Vishzu-sitra agrees with one, or some, or all of the works named above. The Grthya-sitras, excepting the Kathaka Grihya-s(itra, naturally offer a far smaller number of analogies with it than the Smritis, still they exhibit several rules, in the Sndtaka-dharmas and otherwise, that have not been traced in any other Smr?ti except the work here translated. Among the Smr‘tis again, each single one may be seen work, the first complete and reliable edition of the Vasisht#a-smriti, in the footnotes to my translation, but for the fact that it did not come into my hands till the former had gone to the press. For Baudhayana I have consulted a Munich MS. containing the text only of his Sfitras (cod. Haug 163). 1 XIX, 23, 24; XXIII, 61; XXIX, 9,10; XXX, 47 (see Nirukta II, 4; . Vasishtha II, 8-10) ; LVI, 27 (see Vasishvha XXVIII, 15); LIX, 30; LXXII, 73 LXXXVI, 16. 7] b XViil VISHNU.
3For Baudhayana I have consulted a Munich MS. containing the text only of his Sfitras (cod. Haug 163). 1 XIX, 23, 24; XXIII, 61; XXIX, 9,10; XXX, 47 (see Nirukta II, 4; . Vasishtha II, 8-10) ; LVI, 27 (see Vasishvha XXVIII, 15); LIX, 30; LXXII, 73 LXXXVI, 16. 7] b XViil VISHNU. from the references to contain a number of such rules, as are only met with in this work, which is a very important fact because, if the laws of the Vishvu-sitra were found either in all other Smr‘tis, or in one of them only, its author might be suspected of having borrowed them from one of those works. As it is, meeting with analogous passages now in one work, and then in another, one cannot but suppose that the author of this work has everywhere drawn from the same source as the other Satrak4ras, viz. from ancient traditions that were common to all Vedic schools. There are, moreover, a number of cases in which this work, instead of having borrowed from other works of the same class, can be shown to have been, directly or indirectly, the source from which they drew, and this fact constitutes a third reason in favour of the high antiquity of its laws. The clearest case of this kind is furnished by the VAsish¢hasmriti, with which this work has two entire chapters in common, which are not found elsewhere. I subjoin in a note the text of VasishtAa XXVIII, 10-15, with an asterisk to those words which contain palpable mistakes (not including blunders in point of metre), for comparison with Chapter LVI of this work in the Calcutta edition, which is exceptionally correct in this chapter and in Chapter LXXXVII, which latter corresponds to Vasishtha XXVIII, 18-221. In both ? atacufaatia TeTqEAT: WOT | Vat why Sar yaa Ars TUT nson writ wraara Ttrarfefate (7) @ naan *afrasm: wearer: amnifa areata (7) t *aneeerfa arnt rag cat WaT waa Yerad word & war Faaafa 4 after (?) areata aay He eETaT wagn waafgaraaigciaggaa aeraay | TA ATIT T TyS (?) @ arvat naan atenrsagiatta Tent 4 Waat ata eT! INTRODUCTION. xix
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.
1Stud. 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. veda (VIII, 20, 24; VIII, 22, 12), was Krivi, take us far off from the north-west, the earliest seat of Aryan civilization, into the country of the Kuru-Pafi#dlas in Hindostan proper. But it must be borne in mind that the K4¢/aka, if it may be identified with the ‘ Karaka-sékha,’ must have been the Veda of all the Xarakas except perhaps the Maitrdyamtyas and KapishéZalas, and may have been altered and enlarged, after the Ka¢#as and Karakas had spread themselves across Hindostén, The Sitras of a SAkha which appears to have sprung up near the primitive home of Aryan civilization in India, which was probably the original home of the Kazsas at the same time, may be far older than those of mere Stra schools of the Black Yagur-veda, which have sprung up, like the Apastamba school, in South India, i.e. far older than the fourth or fifth century B.C. But sufficient space has been assigned to these attempts at fixing the age of the K4¢/aka-sfitras which, besides remaining only too uncertain in themselves, can apply with their full force to those parts of the Vishzu-sdtra only, which have been traced in the KatZaka Grihya-sitra. It will be seen afterwards that even these sections, however closely connected with the sacred literature of the Kathas, have been tampered with in several places, and it might be argued, therefore, that the whole remainder of the Vishzusitra, to which the K4¢saka literature offers no parallel, may be a subsequent addition. But the antiquity of the great majority of its laws can be proved by independent arguments, which are furnished by a comparison of the Vishzu-sitra with other works of the same class, whose antiquity is not doubted. In the foot-notes to my translation I have endeavoured to give as complete references as possible to the analogous passages in the Smritis of Manu, YAgiiavalkya, Apastamba, and Gautama, and in the four Gvzhya-sitras hitherto printed. A large number of analogous passages might have been traced in the Dharma-sitras of VAsish¢/a ? ' See Biihler, Introd. to Apastamba, p. xliii. 2 See the Benares edition (1878), which is accompanied with a Commentary ’ by Krishnapandita Dharmadhikarin, I should have given references to this INTRODUCTION. XVii
2' See Biihler, Introd. to Apastamba, p. xliii. 2 See the Benares edition (1878), which is accompanied with a Commentary ’ by Krishnapandita Dharmadhikarin, I should have given references to this INTRODUCTION. XVii and Baudh4yana as well, not to mention Hirazyakesin’s Dharma-sitra, which, according to Dr. Biihler, is nearly identical with the Dharma-sitra of Apastamba. Two facts may be established at once by glancing at these analogies, viz. the close agreement of this work with the other Sdtra works in point of form, and with all the above-mentioned works in point of contents. As regards the first point, the Sdtras or prose rules of which the bulk of the Vishzu-sdtra is composed, show throughout that characteristic laconism of the Satra style, which renders it impossible in many cases to make out the real meaning of a Sitra without the help of a Commentary; and in the choice of terms they agree as closely as possible with the other ancient law-books, and in some cases with the Grzhya-sftras as well. Numerous verses, generally in the Sloka metre, and occasionally designed as ‘Gath4s,’ are added at the end of most chapters, and interspersed between the Sfitras in some; but in this particular also the Vish#u-sitra agrees with at least one other Dharma-sitra, the Vasish¢Za-smriti, and it contains in its law part, like the latter work, a number of verses in the ancient Trishtubh metre’. Four of these Trishzubhs are found in the VAsisht#a-smrzti, and three in Y4ska’s Nirukta as well, and the majority of the Slokas has been traced in the former work and the other above-mentioned law-books, and in other Smritis. In point of contents the great majority both of the metrical and prose rules of the Vishzu-sitra agrees with one, or some, or all of the works named above. The Grthya-sitras, excepting the Kathaka Grihya-s(itra, naturally offer a far smaller number of analogies with it than the Smritis, still they exhibit several rules, in the Sndtaka-dharmas and otherwise, that have not been traced in any other Smr?ti except the work here translated. Among the Smr‘tis again, each single one may be seen work, the first complete and reliable edition of the Vasisht#a-smriti, in the footnotes to my translation, but for the fact that it did not come into my hands till the former had gone to the press. For Baudhayana I have consulted a Munich MS. containing the text only of his Sfitras (cod. Haug 163). 1 XIX, 23, 24; XXIII, 61; XXIX, 9,10; XXX, 47 (see Nirukta II, 4; . Vasishtha II, 8-10) ; LVI, 27 (see Vasishvha XXVIII, 15); LIX, 30; LXXII, 73 LXXXVI, 16. 7] b XViil VISHNU.
3For Baudhayana I have consulted a Munich MS. containing the text only of his Sfitras (cod. Haug 163). 1 XIX, 23, 24; XXIII, 61; XXIX, 9,10; XXX, 47 (see Nirukta II, 4; . Vasishtha II, 8-10) ; LVI, 27 (see Vasishvha XXVIII, 15); LIX, 30; LXXII, 73 LXXXVI, 16. 7] b XViil VISHNU. from the references to contain a number of such rules, as are only met with in this work, which is a very important fact because, if the laws of the Vishvu-sitra were found either in all other Smr‘tis, or in one of them only, its author might be suspected of having borrowed them from one of those works. As it is, meeting with analogous passages now in one work, and then in another, one cannot but suppose that the author of this work has everywhere drawn from the same source as the other Satrak4ras, viz. from ancient traditions that were common to all Vedic schools. There are, moreover, a number of cases in which this work, instead of having borrowed from other works of the same class, can be shown to have been, directly or indirectly, the source from which they drew, and this fact constitutes a third reason in favour of the high antiquity of its laws. The clearest case of this kind is furnished by the VAsish¢hasmriti, with which this work has two entire chapters in common, which are not found elsewhere. I subjoin in a note the text of VasishtAa XXVIII, 10-15, with an asterisk to those words which contain palpable mistakes (not including blunders in point of metre), for comparison with Chapter LVI of this work in the Calcutta edition, which is exceptionally correct in this chapter and in Chapter LXXXVII, which latter corresponds to Vasishtha XXVIII, 18-221. In both ? atacufaatia TeTqEAT: WOT | Vat why Sar yaa Ars TUT nson writ wraara Ttrarfefate (7) @ naan *afrasm: wearer: amnifa areata (7) t *aneeerfa arnt rag cat WaT waa Yerad word & war Faaafa 4 after (?) areata aay He eETaT wagn waafgaraaigciaggaa aeraay | TA ATIT T TyS (?) @ arvat naan atenrsagiatta Tent 4 Waat ata eT! INTRODUCTION. xix
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.