Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1If, now, a Sdtra on a certain INTRODUCTION. XV subject were acknowledged by all the schools of one Veda, it would follow that it must belong to the most ancient books of that Veda, and must have been adopted successively by all its later schools. In such a case the Sitra must certainly show signs of its great antiquity. But if we look for the latter in the Vasish¢4a Dharma-sitra, the trouble will be in vain. Though that work contains a good deal that is archaic, yet, as will be shown presently, its numerous quotations from Vedic writings and older Dharma-sftras clearly prove that it does not belong to the oldest productions of its class, but takes even among the still existing Institutes of the Sacred Law only a secondary rank. Under these circumstances the correct interpretation of Govindasv4min’s words will be, that according to the Brahmanical tradition, known to him, some school of Rzgvedins, the name of which he did not know, or did not care to give, originally possessed the VAasish/a Dharmasastra as its exclusive property, and that the work later, through the action of the special law schools, acquired general authority for all Brahmans. It is a pity that no authentic information regarding the name of that school of Rigvedins has been handed down. But, considering the fact that Vedic schools are frequently named after Vedic Rishis, it seems not improbable that it was called after the Vasishtda whose authority the Dharma-sftra invokes, and that we may assume the former existence of a VAsishtia - school, a Sitra-karaza, of the Rig-veda?, founded perhaps by a teacher of the VAsishtka gotra. This conjecture, which, it must be confessed, is not supported by any corroborative evidence from the Brahmanical tradition, will explain why the title-pages of this and of the first part speak of a school of VAasish¢ha. The position of the VAsisht##a Dharma-sitra in Vedic literature can be defined, to a certain extent, by an analysis 1 A school of Vasishthas, belonging to the Sfima-veda, certainly existed in ancient times. I have formerly put forward a conjecture that the Vasishtha Dharmasastra might belong to that school (Digest of Hindu Law Cases, p. xxii, first edition). But Govindasvamin’s explicit statement makes it evident that it has to be abandoned, Xvi VASISHTHA.
2I have formerly put forward a conjecture that the Vasishtha Dharmasastra might belong to that school (Digest of Hindu Law Cases, p. xxii, first edition). But Govindasvamin’s explicit statement makes it evident that it has to be abandoned, Xvi VASISHTHA. of its numerous quotations from the Samhitds, Brahmazas, and the older Sdtras. By this means it will become evident that the work belongs to a period when the chief schools of the three ancient Vedas had been formed and some of the still existing Dharma-s(tras had been composed. Faint indications will be found which make it probable that the home of the school to which it belonged, lay in the northern half of India, north of the Narmada and of the Vindhyas. As regards the quotations from the Sruti, the revealed texts of the Hindus, they are chiefly taken from the Rig-veda and from three recensions of the Yagur-veda. Passages from the Rig-veda-samhité are quoted IV, 21; XVII, 3-4; and XXVI, 5-7. With respect to the quotations in the latter chapter it must, however, be noted that its genuineness is, as will be shown in the sequel, not above suspicion. A Brahmawa of the Rig-veda seems to be referred to in XVII, 2, 32, 35. But the extracts, given there, agree only in part with the text of the Aitareya, and it is probable that they are taken from some lost composition of the same class. A curious Sitra, II, 35, shows a great resemblance to the explanations of Vedic passages given by Y4ska in the Nirukta!. The passage points either to a connexion of the author with the school of the Nairuktas or, at least, to an acquaintance with its principles. Among the schools of the Yagur-veda, that of the Kathas is twice referred to by name, XII, 29; XXX, 5. But Professor Weber, who kindly looked for the quotations in the Berlin MS. of the Kazs/aka, has not been able to find them. A third passage, I, 37, said to be taken from the KAaturmasyas, i.e. the portion of a Samhita which treats of the AaturmAsya sacrifices, actually occurs in the K4¢/aka. But, as it is likewise found in the KAturm4sya-k4da of the Maitrayaztyas, it must remain uncertain from which of the two recensions of the Black Yagur-veda it has been quoted. The chapter on the duties of women, vers. 6-8, contains a ' This resemblance has not escaped Krishnapandita, who says in his com- mentary, FRSA AAA Hata i Bienen yerqeata fere- WRT alfa i INTRODUCTION, XVii
3The chapter on the duties of women, vers. 6-8, contains a ' This resemblance has not escaped Krishnapandita, who says in his com- mentary, FRSA AAA Hata i Bienen yerqeata fere- WRT alfa i INTRODUCTION, XVii long quotation which, in spite of some small discrepancies, seems to have been taken from the Taittirtya-samhita of the Black Yagur-veda. Passages of the Taittiriya Aranyaka are quoted or referred to X, 35 and XXIII, 23. The White Yagur-veda is mentioned several times as the V4gasaneyi-sakha or the Vagasaneyaka. The former expression occurs III, 19: and XXIII, 13. The quotations, marked as taken from the Vagasaneyaka, XII, 31, XIV, 46 are found in the Satapatha-brahmavza, and another passage of the same work is quoted I, 45, without a specification of the source. A very clear proof that the author of the Dharma-sitra knew the Vagasaneyi-samhit4 is furnished by the Mantra, given II, 34. The text, quoted there, occurs in three different Sakh4s, that of the Vagasaneyins, that of the Taittiriyas and the Atharva-veda, and in each shows a few variae lectiones. Its wording in the Vagasaneyisamhita literally agrees with the version, given in the Satra. The SAdma-veda is referred to III, 19, and particular SAmans are mentioned in the borrowed chapter XXII, 9. A passage from the Nidana, probably a work on Stomas and metres, which belonged to the Bhallavins, an ancient school of Samavedins, occurs I, 14-16. An Upanishad, connected with the Atharva-veda, the Atharvasiras, is mentioned in the borrowed chapter XXII, 9, and the existence of the Atharva-veda is pre-supposed, also, by ‘the vows called Siras, which are alluded to in the suspicious chapter XXVI, 11, and are said to be peculiar to the Atharvavedins’, The chapters, which are undoubtedly genuine, contain no allusion to the fourth Veda. As regards the older works on Dharma, the author of the Institutes of Vasish¢#a certainly knew and used a treatise, attributed to Yama, the Dharma-sftras of Manu, Harita and Gautama, and perhaps that of Baudhdyana. With respect to two verses, which, as the Sfitra says, were proclaimed by Prag4pati, XIV, 24, 30, it is somewhat doubtful, if it is meant that they have been taken from a work, attributed to Pragdpati, or that they are merely utterances, supposed to have been made by that deity for the benefit 1 See Baudhayana Dharma-siitra II, 8, 14, 2, note. [x4] b Xvili VASISHTHA.
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.
1If, now, a Sdtra on a certain INTRODUCTION. XV subject were acknowledged by all the schools of one Veda, it would follow that it must belong to the most ancient books of that Veda, and must have been adopted successively by all its later schools. In such a case the Sitra must certainly show signs of its great antiquity. But if we look for the latter in the Vasish¢4a Dharma-sitra, the trouble will be in vain. Though that work contains a good deal that is archaic, yet, as will be shown presently, its numerous quotations from Vedic writings and older Dharma-sftras clearly prove that it does not belong to the oldest productions of its class, but takes even among the still existing Institutes of the Sacred Law only a secondary rank. Under these circumstances the correct interpretation of Govindasv4min’s words will be, that according to the Brahmanical tradition, known to him, some school of Rzgvedins, the name of which he did not know, or did not care to give, originally possessed the VAasish/a Dharmasastra as its exclusive property, and that the work later, through the action of the special law schools, acquired general authority for all Brahmans. It is a pity that no authentic information regarding the name of that school of Rigvedins has been handed down. But, considering the fact that Vedic schools are frequently named after Vedic Rishis, it seems not improbable that it was called after the Vasishtda whose authority the Dharma-sftra invokes, and that we may assume the former existence of a VAsishtia - school, a Sitra-karaza, of the Rig-veda?, founded perhaps by a teacher of the VAsishtka gotra. This conjecture, which, it must be confessed, is not supported by any corroborative evidence from the Brahmanical tradition, will explain why the title-pages of this and of the first part speak of a school of VAasish¢ha. The position of the VAsisht##a Dharma-sitra in Vedic literature can be defined, to a certain extent, by an analysis 1 A school of Vasishthas, belonging to the Sfima-veda, certainly existed in ancient times. I have formerly put forward a conjecture that the Vasishtha Dharmasastra might belong to that school (Digest of Hindu Law Cases, p. xxii, first edition). But Govindasvamin’s explicit statement makes it evident that it has to be abandoned, Xvi VASISHTHA.
2I have formerly put forward a conjecture that the Vasishtha Dharmasastra might belong to that school (Digest of Hindu Law Cases, p. xxii, first edition). But Govindasvamin’s explicit statement makes it evident that it has to be abandoned, Xvi VASISHTHA. of its numerous quotations from the Samhitds, Brahmazas, and the older Sdtras. By this means it will become evident that the work belongs to a period when the chief schools of the three ancient Vedas had been formed and some of the still existing Dharma-s(tras had been composed. Faint indications will be found which make it probable that the home of the school to which it belonged, lay in the northern half of India, north of the Narmada and of the Vindhyas. As regards the quotations from the Sruti, the revealed texts of the Hindus, they are chiefly taken from the Rig-veda and from three recensions of the Yagur-veda. Passages from the Rig-veda-samhité are quoted IV, 21; XVII, 3-4; and XXVI, 5-7. With respect to the quotations in the latter chapter it must, however, be noted that its genuineness is, as will be shown in the sequel, not above suspicion. A Brahmawa of the Rig-veda seems to be referred to in XVII, 2, 32, 35. But the extracts, given there, agree only in part with the text of the Aitareya, and it is probable that they are taken from some lost composition of the same class. A curious Sitra, II, 35, shows a great resemblance to the explanations of Vedic passages given by Y4ska in the Nirukta!. The passage points either to a connexion of the author with the school of the Nairuktas or, at least, to an acquaintance with its principles. Among the schools of the Yagur-veda, that of the Kathas is twice referred to by name, XII, 29; XXX, 5. But Professor Weber, who kindly looked for the quotations in the Berlin MS. of the Kazs/aka, has not been able to find them. A third passage, I, 37, said to be taken from the KAaturmasyas, i.e. the portion of a Samhita which treats of the AaturmAsya sacrifices, actually occurs in the K4¢/aka. But, as it is likewise found in the KAturm4sya-k4da of the Maitrayaztyas, it must remain uncertain from which of the two recensions of the Black Yagur-veda it has been quoted. The chapter on the duties of women, vers. 6-8, contains a ' This resemblance has not escaped Krishnapandita, who says in his com- mentary, FRSA AAA Hata i Bienen yerqeata fere- WRT alfa i INTRODUCTION, XVii
3The chapter on the duties of women, vers. 6-8, contains a ' This resemblance has not escaped Krishnapandita, who says in his com- mentary, FRSA AAA Hata i Bienen yerqeata fere- WRT alfa i INTRODUCTION, XVii long quotation which, in spite of some small discrepancies, seems to have been taken from the Taittirtya-samhita of the Black Yagur-veda. Passages of the Taittiriya Aranyaka are quoted or referred to X, 35 and XXIII, 23. The White Yagur-veda is mentioned several times as the V4gasaneyi-sakha or the Vagasaneyaka. The former expression occurs III, 19: and XXIII, 13. The quotations, marked as taken from the Vagasaneyaka, XII, 31, XIV, 46 are found in the Satapatha-brahmavza, and another passage of the same work is quoted I, 45, without a specification of the source. A very clear proof that the author of the Dharma-sitra knew the Vagasaneyi-samhit4 is furnished by the Mantra, given II, 34. The text, quoted there, occurs in three different Sakh4s, that of the Vagasaneyins, that of the Taittiriyas and the Atharva-veda, and in each shows a few variae lectiones. Its wording in the Vagasaneyisamhita literally agrees with the version, given in the Satra. The SAdma-veda is referred to III, 19, and particular SAmans are mentioned in the borrowed chapter XXII, 9. A passage from the Nidana, probably a work on Stomas and metres, which belonged to the Bhallavins, an ancient school of Samavedins, occurs I, 14-16. An Upanishad, connected with the Atharva-veda, the Atharvasiras, is mentioned in the borrowed chapter XXII, 9, and the existence of the Atharva-veda is pre-supposed, also, by ‘the vows called Siras, which are alluded to in the suspicious chapter XXVI, 11, and are said to be peculiar to the Atharvavedins’, The chapters, which are undoubtedly genuine, contain no allusion to the fourth Veda. As regards the older works on Dharma, the author of the Institutes of Vasish¢#a certainly knew and used a treatise, attributed to Yama, the Dharma-sftras of Manu, Harita and Gautama, and perhaps that of Baudhdyana. With respect to two verses, which, as the Sfitra says, were proclaimed by Prag4pati, XIV, 24, 30, it is somewhat doubtful, if it is meant that they have been taken from a work, attributed to Pragdpati, or that they are merely utterances, supposed to have been made by that deity for the benefit 1 See Baudhayana Dharma-siitra II, 8, 14, 2, note. [x4] b Xvili VASISHTHA.
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.