Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1[x4] b Xvili VASISHTHA. of mankind. The latter view seems, however, the more likely one, as it is customary in the Smrttis to ascribe the revelation of social institutions, ceremonies, and penances to Pragapati, who, in the older works, occupies much the same position as Brahm, the creator, in the later religious systems. It is not impossible that some of the references to Yama, e.g. XI, 20, have to be explained in the same manner. But other passages, attributed to Yama, e.g. XVIII, 13-16, seem to have been taken from a work which was considered the production of the Dharmara4ga. Of course, none of the Yamasmr‘tis, which exist in the present day, can be meant. The quotations from Manu are numerous!. They have all been taken from a book attributed to a Manu, and possess a very high interest for the history of the present metrical Manusmziti. For the prose passage from the Manava, given IV, 5, furnishes the proof that the author of the Vasish¢a Dharmasastra quotes from a Dharma-sitra attributed to a Manu, while other quotations show that the MAnava Dharma-siitra contained, also, verses, some of which, e.g. XIX, 37, were Trishéubhs, and that a large proportion of these verses has been embodied in Bhvzgu’s version of the Manusmrzti. Fifteen years ago? I first called attention to Vasish¢ka’s prose quotation from the Ma4nava, and pointed out that, if the MSS. of the V4sish¢a DharmasAstra were to be trusted, a small piece of the lost Manava - Dharma-sitra, on which the present Manusmrzti is based, had been found. The incorrectness and the defective state of the materials which I then had at my disposal did not allow me to go further. Since that time several, comparatively speaking, good MSS. of the Institutes of Vasish¢#a and many inferior ones have been found, and all, at least all those which I have examined, give the quotation in prose exactly in the same form. The fact that Vasishzka gives, in IV, 5,@ prose quotation from Manu may, therefore, be considered as certain®, Moreover several of the best MSS. 1 They occur VAsishtha Dharmas4stra I,17; III, 2; IV, 5-8; XI, 23; XII, 16; XIII, 16; XIX, 37; XX, 18; XXIII, 43; XXVI, 8. ; 2 Digest of Hindu Law Cases, p. xxxi, note, first edition. 3 Such, I suppose, will be the opinion of all European scholars. Those Hindus INTRODUCTION. xix
21 They occur VAsishtha Dharmas4stra I,17; III, 2; IV, 5-8; XI, 23; XII, 16; XIII, 16; XIX, 37; XX, 18; XXIII, 43; XXVI, 8. ; 2 Digest of Hindu Law Cases, p. xxxi, note, first edition. 3 Such, I suppose, will be the opinion of all European scholars. Those Hindus INTRODUCTION. xix show, by adding the particle ‘iti’ at the end of Satra 8, that the quotation from the M4nava is not finished with Sftra 5, but includes the two verses given in Sftras 6 and 7 and the second prose passage in Sitra 8. Among the verses the first is found entire in the metrical Manusmriti, and the second has likewise a representative in that work, though its concluding portion has been altered in such a manner that the permission to slaughter animals at sacrifices has been converted into an absolute prohibition to take animal life. Sdtra 8, which again is in prose, has no counterpart in the metrical Manusm~r‘ti, as might be expected from its allowing ‘a full-grown ox’ or ‘a full-grown he-goat’ to be killed in honour of a distinguished Brahmaza or Kshatriya guest. A closely corresponding passage is found in the Satapatha-brahmama, and a verse expressing the same opinion in the Yagfavalkya Smr‘ti, the versification of a Dharma-sftra of the White Yagur-veda. As the last part of the quotation resembles the text of the Brahmava and its language is very archaic, it is quite possible that, though belonging to the passage from the MAnava-sitra, it contains a Vedic text, taken from some hitherto unknown Braéhmaza which Manu adduced in support of his opinion. On this supposition the arrangement of the whole quotation would be as follows. Stra 5 would give the original rule of the author of the Manava in an aphoristic form; Sdtras 6-7 would repeat the same opinion in verse, the latter being probably Slokas current among the Brahmanical community; and Sfatra 8 would give the Vedic authority for the preceding sentences. This arrangement would be in strict conformity with the plan usually followed by the authors of Dharma-sitras. But whether Satra 8 contains a second original aphorism of the Manava Dharma-sitra or a Vedic passage, it seems indisputable that the author of the Vasisht#a Dharma-sitra knew a treatise attributed to a teacher called Manu, which, like all other Dharma-sitras, was partly written in apho- who allow their religious convictions to get the better of their reason, will perhaps prefer Krishzapandita’s ingenious, but unsound explanation of the words iti ma4navam, by iti manumatam, ‘such is the opinion of Manu.’ b2 xX . VASISHTHA.
3VASISHTHA. ristic prose and partly in verse. The passage furnishes, therefore, the proof for Professor Max Miiller’s conjecture that our metrical Manusmz‘ti, like all the older works of the same class, is based on the Dharma-sfitra of a Vedic Sfitra-karaza. In connexion with this subject it may be mentioned that the Institutes of Vasish#Za contain, besides the above-mentioned passages, no less than thirty-nine verses’, which are not marked as quotations, but occur in Bhvigu’s metrical Manusamhit4. Some of them present more or less important variae lectiones. Moreover, there are four verses which, though Vasish¢#a attributes them to Harita and Yama?, are included in our Manusmrzti and treated as utterances of the father of mankind. The bearing of both these facts on the history of the Manusmrzti is obvious. But the frequency of the references to or quotations from Manu which Vasishtha makes, teaches another important lesson. Like the fact that Manu is the only individual author to whom Gautama refers 3, it shows that in ancient times Manu’s name had as great a charm for the Brahman teachers as it has for those of the present day, and that the old M4nava Dharma-sitra was one of the leading works on the subject, or, perhaps, even held that dominant position which the metrical Manusmrtti actually occupied in the Middle Ages and theoretically occupies in our days. It is interesting to observe that precisely the same inference can be drawn from the early Sanskrit inscriptions. If these speak of individual authors of Smr‘tis, they invariably place Manu’s name first 4. Vasishtha gives only one quotation from Harita, II, 6. HArita was one of the ancient Sitrak4ras of the Black Yagur-veda, who is known also to Baudhayana. From a passage which Krishvapandita quotes in elucidation of 1 VAsishtha Dharmasastra.I, 22; II, 3,10, 27, 48; III, 5,11, 60; V, 2; VI, 6, 8,11,13,19; VIII, 7,15; X, 21-22; XI, 27-28, 32, 35; XIII, 48; XIV, 13, 16,18; XVI, 18, 33-34; XVII, 5,8; XVIII, 14,15; XIX, 48; XX, 18; XXV, 4-5, 73 XXVII, 3. 3 Vasishtha Dharmasastra II, 6; XVIII, 14-15; XIX, 48. 3 Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, p. lvii. * See e.g. the grant of Dhruvasena I, dated Samvat, i.e. Guptasamvat 207, Pl. i, 1. 7; Ind. Ant., vol. iv, p. 105. INTRODUCTION. Xxi
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[x4] b Xvili VASISHTHA. of mankind. The latter view seems, however, the more likely one, as it is customary in the Smrttis to ascribe the revelation of social institutions, ceremonies, and penances to Pragapati, who, in the older works, occupies much the same position as Brahm, the creator, in the later religious systems. It is not impossible that some of the references to Yama, e.g. XI, 20, have to be explained in the same manner. But other passages, attributed to Yama, e.g. XVIII, 13-16, seem to have been taken from a work which was considered the production of the Dharmara4ga. Of course, none of the Yamasmr‘tis, which exist in the present day, can be meant. The quotations from Manu are numerous!. They have all been taken from a book attributed to a Manu, and possess a very high interest for the history of the present metrical Manusmziti. For the prose passage from the Manava, given IV, 5, furnishes the proof that the author of the Vasish¢a Dharmasastra quotes from a Dharma-sitra attributed to a Manu, while other quotations show that the MAnava Dharma-siitra contained, also, verses, some of which, e.g. XIX, 37, were Trishéubhs, and that a large proportion of these verses has been embodied in Bhvzgu’s version of the Manusmrzti. Fifteen years ago? I first called attention to Vasish¢ka’s prose quotation from the Ma4nava, and pointed out that, if the MSS. of the V4sish¢a DharmasAstra were to be trusted, a small piece of the lost Manava - Dharma-sitra, on which the present Manusmrzti is based, had been found. The incorrectness and the defective state of the materials which I then had at my disposal did not allow me to go further. Since that time several, comparatively speaking, good MSS. of the Institutes of Vasish¢#a and many inferior ones have been found, and all, at least all those which I have examined, give the quotation in prose exactly in the same form. The fact that Vasishzka gives, in IV, 5,@ prose quotation from Manu may, therefore, be considered as certain®, Moreover several of the best MSS. 1 They occur VAsishtha Dharmas4stra I,17; III, 2; IV, 5-8; XI, 23; XII, 16; XIII, 16; XIX, 37; XX, 18; XXIII, 43; XXVI, 8. ; 2 Digest of Hindu Law Cases, p. xxxi, note, first edition. 3 Such, I suppose, will be the opinion of all European scholars. Those Hindus INTRODUCTION. xix
21 They occur VAsishtha Dharmas4stra I,17; III, 2; IV, 5-8; XI, 23; XII, 16; XIII, 16; XIX, 37; XX, 18; XXIII, 43; XXVI, 8. ; 2 Digest of Hindu Law Cases, p. xxxi, note, first edition. 3 Such, I suppose, will be the opinion of all European scholars. Those Hindus INTRODUCTION. xix show, by adding the particle ‘iti’ at the end of Satra 8, that the quotation from the M4nava is not finished with Sftra 5, but includes the two verses given in Sftras 6 and 7 and the second prose passage in Sitra 8. Among the verses the first is found entire in the metrical Manusmriti, and the second has likewise a representative in that work, though its concluding portion has been altered in such a manner that the permission to slaughter animals at sacrifices has been converted into an absolute prohibition to take animal life. Sdtra 8, which again is in prose, has no counterpart in the metrical Manusm~r‘ti, as might be expected from its allowing ‘a full-grown ox’ or ‘a full-grown he-goat’ to be killed in honour of a distinguished Brahmaza or Kshatriya guest. A closely corresponding passage is found in the Satapatha-brahmama, and a verse expressing the same opinion in the Yagfavalkya Smr‘ti, the versification of a Dharma-sftra of the White Yagur-veda. As the last part of the quotation resembles the text of the Brahmava and its language is very archaic, it is quite possible that, though belonging to the passage from the MAnava-sitra, it contains a Vedic text, taken from some hitherto unknown Braéhmaza which Manu adduced in support of his opinion. On this supposition the arrangement of the whole quotation would be as follows. Stra 5 would give the original rule of the author of the Manava in an aphoristic form; Sdtras 6-7 would repeat the same opinion in verse, the latter being probably Slokas current among the Brahmanical community; and Sfatra 8 would give the Vedic authority for the preceding sentences. This arrangement would be in strict conformity with the plan usually followed by the authors of Dharma-sitras. But whether Satra 8 contains a second original aphorism of the Manava Dharma-sitra or a Vedic passage, it seems indisputable that the author of the Vasisht#a Dharma-sitra knew a treatise attributed to a teacher called Manu, which, like all other Dharma-sitras, was partly written in apho- who allow their religious convictions to get the better of their reason, will perhaps prefer Krishzapandita’s ingenious, but unsound explanation of the words iti ma4navam, by iti manumatam, ‘such is the opinion of Manu.’ b2 xX . VASISHTHA.
3VASISHTHA. ristic prose and partly in verse. The passage furnishes, therefore, the proof for Professor Max Miiller’s conjecture that our metrical Manusmz‘ti, like all the older works of the same class, is based on the Dharma-sfitra of a Vedic Sfitra-karaza. In connexion with this subject it may be mentioned that the Institutes of Vasish#Za contain, besides the above-mentioned passages, no less than thirty-nine verses’, which are not marked as quotations, but occur in Bhvigu’s metrical Manusamhit4. Some of them present more or less important variae lectiones. Moreover, there are four verses which, though Vasish¢#a attributes them to Harita and Yama?, are included in our Manusmrzti and treated as utterances of the father of mankind. The bearing of both these facts on the history of the Manusmrzti is obvious. But the frequency of the references to or quotations from Manu which Vasishtha makes, teaches another important lesson. Like the fact that Manu is the only individual author to whom Gautama refers 3, it shows that in ancient times Manu’s name had as great a charm for the Brahman teachers as it has for those of the present day, and that the old M4nava Dharma-sitra was one of the leading works on the subject, or, perhaps, even held that dominant position which the metrical Manusmrtti actually occupied in the Middle Ages and theoretically occupies in our days. It is interesting to observe that precisely the same inference can be drawn from the early Sanskrit inscriptions. If these speak of individual authors of Smr‘tis, they invariably place Manu’s name first 4. Vasishtha gives only one quotation from Harita, II, 6. HArita was one of the ancient Sitrak4ras of the Black Yagur-veda, who is known also to Baudhayana. From a passage which Krishvapandita quotes in elucidation of 1 VAsishtha Dharmasastra.I, 22; II, 3,10, 27, 48; III, 5,11, 60; V, 2; VI, 6, 8,11,13,19; VIII, 7,15; X, 21-22; XI, 27-28, 32, 35; XIII, 48; XIV, 13, 16,18; XVI, 18, 33-34; XVII, 5,8; XVIII, 14,15; XIX, 48; XX, 18; XXV, 4-5, 73 XXVII, 3. 3 Vasishtha Dharmasastra II, 6; XVIII, 14-15; XIX, 48. 3 Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, p. lvii. * See e.g. the grant of Dhruvasena I, dated Samvat, i.e. Guptasamvat 207, Pl. i, 1. 7; Ind. Ant., vol. iv, p. 105. INTRODUCTION. Xxi
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.