Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1gives 1 Vasishtha Dharmasastra IT, 51. 2 Vasishtha Dharmasastra XXIV, 5. 8 VAsishtha Dharmas4stra XXX,11. Similar invocations of teachers at the end of Sitras occur frequently, e.g. Asvalayana Srauta-sitra XII, 15,14; Rigvidhana V, 3, 4; YAska, Nirukta, Roth, p. 216, xii VASISHTHA. expression to the devotion felt by the author for the AXzshi, ‘Adoration to Vasish¢a, Satayatu, the son of Mitra and Varuna and of Urvasi.’ The epithets used in this last passage conclusively show that the Vasish¢/a after whom the Dharma-stitra is named, is the individual who, according to the Brahmanical tradition, is the Rishi of a large portion of the seventh Mazdala of the Rig-veda and the progenitor of the Vasishz#a clan of Brahmans, and who in some hymns of the Rig-veda appears as the purohita or domestic priest of king Sudas and the rival of Visvamitra, and in other Sdktas as a half mythical being. For the verses Rig-veda VII, 33, 11-14 trace the origin of this Vasish¢/a to the two sons of Aditi, Mitra and Varuva, and to the Apsaras Urvasi, and contain the outline of the curious, but disgusting story of his marvellous birth, which Sayama narrates more circumstantially in the commentary on verse 11. Moreover, the word Satay4tu, which in the Dharma-sitra is used as an epithet. of Vasish¢#a, occurs Rig-veda VII, 18, 21 in close connexion with the Rshi’s name. SAyamwa explains it in his commentary on the latter passage as ‘the destroyer of many demons, or, ‘he whom many demons seek to destroy,’ and takes it as an epithet of the sage Par4sara, who is named together with Vasish¢a. It would, however, seem that, if the verse is construed on strictly philological principles, neither Sadyava’s interpretation, nor that suggested by the Dharma-sitra can be accepted, and that Satayatu has to be taken as a proper name}. But, however that may be, it is not doubtful that we may safely infer from the expressions used in the last sentence of the Dharma-sitra, that the Vasishzka to whom the invocation is addressed and the composition of the work is ascribed, either immediately or through the medium of pupils, is the individual named in the Rig-veda. The connexion of the Dharma-sitra with one of the Rishis of the Rig-veda which is thus established, possesses a particular interest and importance, because it corroborates the statement of Govindasvamin, the commentator of Baudhayana, that the Institutes of Vasish¢za were 1 See Petersburg Dictionary, s. v. satayatu. INTRODUCTION. Xill
2v. satayatu. INTRODUCTION. Xill originally studied by and authoritative for the Bahvrikas, the Rigvedins alone, and afterwards became an authority for all Brahmans!. In the introduction to Gautama it has been shown that a similar assertion which Govinda makes with regard to the Gautama Dharma-siitra can be corroborated by a considerable amount of external and internal evidence. It has been pointed out that not only the fact that the spiritual pedigrees of the A/andoga schools enumerate several Gautamas, but also the partiality for texts of the Sama-veda, which the Institutes of Gautama show on several occasions, strongly support the tradition that the Gautamiya Dharmasdstra originally was the exclusive property of a school of Samavedins. In the case of the VAasishz#a Dharmasdstra indications of the latter kind are, if not entirely wanting, at least very faint. The number of Vedic passages quoted is, no doubt, large; but few among them belong to the class of Mantras which are recited during the performance of gvzhya rites, and must be taken from the particular recension of the Veda to which the performer belongs. Besides, the texts of this description which actually occur, do not bear the mark of a particular Veda or Sakh4. The numerous texts, on the other hand, which are quoted in support or explanation of the rules, are taken impartially from all the three ancient Vedas. For this reason it * would be dangerous to use the references to a dozen Rzkas in chapters XVII and XXVI, as well as to the legend of Sunafsepa, which is told only in works belonging to the Rig- 1 See Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, p. xlix, note 2. As Govindasvamin’s statements possess a considerable importance, I give here the whole commentary on Baudhayana I, 1, 2, 6, according to my two MSS., C.I. and C.T.: ag fafafa seen cam qoufacrafagia Hart qa eifosatata wat at sharaata wine Shara vera earfeare vai Tat Mattamirsta Hales wera [THA C.1.; werd C.7.] ares 7 aa®: [1] waa aarfrarafa[\] wer a pemrarfa warfaarerfat asequatea we wtrartafa warnfa [wearfa c. 1; warfa C.T.] raattengagre uaa Fa SUMTATETAT SATA Ne wt wafer. afaada qoyfa: | fh faarnquafe a weradtefimra: | wee wafeafaranargert teat 4 xiv VASISHTHA.
31; warfa C.T.] raattengagre uaa Fa SUMTATETAT SATA Ne wt wafer. afaada qoyfa: | fh faarnquafe a weradtefimra: | wee wafeafaranargert teat 4 xiv VASISHTHA. veda, as a proof that the Vasish#a Dharmasastra is the work of a Rigvedin. Under these circumstances the three passages, mentioning Vasish¢ha’s name, and especially the last which identifies him with the Azshi of the Rig-veda, have a particularly great importance, as they are the only pieces of internal evidence which can be brought forward in favour of Govindasv4min’s valuable statement. But the latter is, even without any further corroboration, credible enough, because no reason is apparent why Govinda should have invented such a story, and because his assertion fully agrees with the well-established facts known about the other existing Dharma-sitras, which all were composed not for the benefit of the Aryans in general, but in order to regulate the conduct of particular sections of the Brahmanical community. There is, however, one point in Govindasvdmin’s statement which requires further elucidation. He says that the Bahvrzkas, i.e. the Rigvedins in general, formerly studied the VAsishtha Dharmasdstra. It might, therefore, be inferred that the work possessed equal authority among the Asvalayaniyas, the Sankhayantyas, the Manddkayanas, and all the other schools of the Rig-veda, and that it belonged to the most ancient heirlooms of its adherents. That is, however, improbable for several reasons. For, first, neither the Asvalayaniyas nor the Sankhdyantyas of the present day study or attach any special importance to the VAsishtha Dharmasastra. Secondly, if the Vasishtda DharmasAstra had ever been the common authority on Dharma in all the different schools of the Rig-veda, it would be necessary to ascribe to it an antiquity which it clearly does not possess. All Sdtras were originally composed for a single school only. Where we find that the same Sdtra is adopted by several Karamas, as is the case with the Dharma-sitra, which both the Apastambtyas and the Hairazyakesas study, and with the Xayana-sitra, which the Bharadvagas and the Hairazyakesas have in common, it is evident that the later school did not care to compose a treatise of its own on a certain subject, but preferred to take over the composition of an earlier teacher. If, now, a Sdtra on a certain INTRODUCTION. XV
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.
1gives 1 Vasishtha Dharmasastra IT, 51. 2 Vasishtha Dharmasastra XXIV, 5. 8 VAsishtha Dharmas4stra XXX,11. Similar invocations of teachers at the end of Sitras occur frequently, e.g. Asvalayana Srauta-sitra XII, 15,14; Rigvidhana V, 3, 4; YAska, Nirukta, Roth, p. 216, xii VASISHTHA. expression to the devotion felt by the author for the AXzshi, ‘Adoration to Vasish¢a, Satayatu, the son of Mitra and Varuna and of Urvasi.’ The epithets used in this last passage conclusively show that the Vasish¢/a after whom the Dharma-stitra is named, is the individual who, according to the Brahmanical tradition, is the Rishi of a large portion of the seventh Mazdala of the Rig-veda and the progenitor of the Vasishz#a clan of Brahmans, and who in some hymns of the Rig-veda appears as the purohita or domestic priest of king Sudas and the rival of Visvamitra, and in other Sdktas as a half mythical being. For the verses Rig-veda VII, 33, 11-14 trace the origin of this Vasish¢/a to the two sons of Aditi, Mitra and Varuva, and to the Apsaras Urvasi, and contain the outline of the curious, but disgusting story of his marvellous birth, which Sayama narrates more circumstantially in the commentary on verse 11. Moreover, the word Satay4tu, which in the Dharma-sitra is used as an epithet. of Vasish¢#a, occurs Rig-veda VII, 18, 21 in close connexion with the Rshi’s name. SAyamwa explains it in his commentary on the latter passage as ‘the destroyer of many demons, or, ‘he whom many demons seek to destroy,’ and takes it as an epithet of the sage Par4sara, who is named together with Vasish¢a. It would, however, seem that, if the verse is construed on strictly philological principles, neither Sadyava’s interpretation, nor that suggested by the Dharma-sitra can be accepted, and that Satayatu has to be taken as a proper name}. But, however that may be, it is not doubtful that we may safely infer from the expressions used in the last sentence of the Dharma-sitra, that the Vasishzka to whom the invocation is addressed and the composition of the work is ascribed, either immediately or through the medium of pupils, is the individual named in the Rig-veda. The connexion of the Dharma-sitra with one of the Rishis of the Rig-veda which is thus established, possesses a particular interest and importance, because it corroborates the statement of Govindasvamin, the commentator of Baudhayana, that the Institutes of Vasish¢za were 1 See Petersburg Dictionary, s. v. satayatu. INTRODUCTION. Xill
2v. satayatu. INTRODUCTION. Xill originally studied by and authoritative for the Bahvrikas, the Rigvedins alone, and afterwards became an authority for all Brahmans!. In the introduction to Gautama it has been shown that a similar assertion which Govinda makes with regard to the Gautama Dharma-siitra can be corroborated by a considerable amount of external and internal evidence. It has been pointed out that not only the fact that the spiritual pedigrees of the A/andoga schools enumerate several Gautamas, but also the partiality for texts of the Sama-veda, which the Institutes of Gautama show on several occasions, strongly support the tradition that the Gautamiya Dharmasdstra originally was the exclusive property of a school of Samavedins. In the case of the VAasishz#a Dharmasdstra indications of the latter kind are, if not entirely wanting, at least very faint. The number of Vedic passages quoted is, no doubt, large; but few among them belong to the class of Mantras which are recited during the performance of gvzhya rites, and must be taken from the particular recension of the Veda to which the performer belongs. Besides, the texts of this description which actually occur, do not bear the mark of a particular Veda or Sakh4. The numerous texts, on the other hand, which are quoted in support or explanation of the rules, are taken impartially from all the three ancient Vedas. For this reason it * would be dangerous to use the references to a dozen Rzkas in chapters XVII and XXVI, as well as to the legend of Sunafsepa, which is told only in works belonging to the Rig- 1 See Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, p. xlix, note 2. As Govindasvamin’s statements possess a considerable importance, I give here the whole commentary on Baudhayana I, 1, 2, 6, according to my two MSS., C.I. and C.T.: ag fafafa seen cam qoufacrafagia Hart qa eifosatata wat at sharaata wine Shara vera earfeare vai Tat Mattamirsta Hales wera [THA C.1.; werd C.7.] ares 7 aa®: [1] waa aarfrarafa[\] wer a pemrarfa warfaarerfat asequatea we wtrartafa warnfa [wearfa c. 1; warfa C.T.] raattengagre uaa Fa SUMTATETAT SATA Ne wt wafer. afaada qoyfa: | fh faarnquafe a weradtefimra: | wee wafeafaranargert teat 4 xiv VASISHTHA.
31; warfa C.T.] raattengagre uaa Fa SUMTATETAT SATA Ne wt wafer. afaada qoyfa: | fh faarnquafe a weradtefimra: | wee wafeafaranargert teat 4 xiv VASISHTHA. veda, as a proof that the Vasish#a Dharmasastra is the work of a Rigvedin. Under these circumstances the three passages, mentioning Vasish¢ha’s name, and especially the last which identifies him with the Azshi of the Rig-veda, have a particularly great importance, as they are the only pieces of internal evidence which can be brought forward in favour of Govindasv4min’s valuable statement. But the latter is, even without any further corroboration, credible enough, because no reason is apparent why Govinda should have invented such a story, and because his assertion fully agrees with the well-established facts known about the other existing Dharma-sitras, which all were composed not for the benefit of the Aryans in general, but in order to regulate the conduct of particular sections of the Brahmanical community. There is, however, one point in Govindasvdmin’s statement which requires further elucidation. He says that the Bahvrzkas, i.e. the Rigvedins in general, formerly studied the VAsishtha Dharmasdstra. It might, therefore, be inferred that the work possessed equal authority among the Asvalayaniyas, the Sankhayantyas, the Manddkayanas, and all the other schools of the Rig-veda, and that it belonged to the most ancient heirlooms of its adherents. That is, however, improbable for several reasons. For, first, neither the Asvalayaniyas nor the Sankhdyantyas of the present day study or attach any special importance to the VAsishtha Dharmasastra. Secondly, if the Vasishtda DharmasAstra had ever been the common authority on Dharma in all the different schools of the Rig-veda, it would be necessary to ascribe to it an antiquity which it clearly does not possess. All Sdtras were originally composed for a single school only. Where we find that the same Sdtra is adopted by several Karamas, as is the case with the Dharma-sitra, which both the Apastambtyas and the Hairazyakesas study, and with the Xayana-sitra, which the Bharadvagas and the Hairazyakesas have in common, it is evident that the later school did not care to compose a treatise of its own on a certain subject, but preferred to take over the composition of an earlier teacher. If, now, a Sdtra on a certain INTRODUCTION. XV
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.