Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
13 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 Vasishtha XXIV, 6, I conclude that H4rita was a Maitrayaniyal. The relation of the VAsisht#a Dharma-sitra to Gautama and Baudh4yana has already been discussed in the introduction to the translation of the former work?. To the remarks on its connexion with Baudhayana it must be added that the third Prasna of the Baudh4yana Dharma-sitra, from which Vasish¢/a's twenty-second chapter seems to have been borrowed, perhaps does not belong to the original work, but is a later, though presumably a very ancient, addition to the composition of the founder of the Baudh4yana school. The reasons for this opinion will be given below. If Baudh4yana’s third Prasna is not genuine, but has been added by a later teacher of that school, the interval between Baudhayana and the author of the Vasish¢za DharmasAstra must be a vety considerable one. I have, however, to point out that the inference regarding the priority of Baudhayana to Vasish¢ka is permissible only on the supposition that Vasish¢/a’s twenty-second chapter is not a later addition to the latter work, and that, though it is found in all our MSS., this fact is not sufficient to silence all doubts which might be raised with respect to its genuineness ; for we shall see presently that other chapters in the section on penances have been tampered with by a later hand. It will, therefore, be advisable not to insist too strongly on the certainty of the conclusion that Vasishtha knew and used Baudhayana’s work. In the introduction to his translation of the Vishzusmriti*, Professor Jolly has pointed out two passages of Vasish¢ha which, as he thinks, have been borrowed from Vishzu, and prove the posteriority of the Vasish¢za Dharmasastra, if not to the Vishzusmriti, at least to its original, the Kassaka Dharma-s(itra. He contends that the passage Vasishtha XXVIII, 10-15 is a versification of the Sitras of Vishzu LVI, which, besides being clumsy, shows a number of 1 He says: WATS SICA: AV A_TAU: Faral Br ayaa? | afgrears mrantfvara ataarectianra wfafergaytarana gefeare wt arritfast cfgrnrat frrargat [2] tarafafefa 2 Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, pp. liii-lv. 3 Sacred Books of the East, vol. vii, p. xviii. Xxii VASISHTHA.
2| afgrears mrantfvara ataarectianra wfafergaytarana gefeare wt arritfast cfgrnrat frrargat [2] tarafafefa 2 Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, pp. liii-lv. 3 Sacred Books of the East, vol. vii, p. xviii. Xxii VASISHTHA. corruptions and grammatical mistakes, and that Vasishtha XXVIII, 18-22 has been borrowed from Vishnu LXX XVII. Professor Jolly’s assertion regarding the second passage involves, however, a little mistake. For the.first two Slokas, Vasisht#a XXVIII, 18-19, describe not the gift of the skin of a black antelope, which is mentioned in the first six Sfitras of Vishvu LXXXVII, but the rite of feeding Brahmans with honey and sesamum grains, which occurs Vishnu XC, 10. The three verses, Vasishtha XXVIII, 20-22, on the other hand, really are the same as those given by Vishnu LXXXVII, 8-10. It is, however, expressly stated in the Vishvzusmriti that they contain a quotation, and are not the original composition of the author of the Dharma-sfitra. Hence no inference can be drawn from the recurrence of the same stanzas in the Vasishtha Dharma-sfitra. As regards the other passage, Vasishtha XXVIII, 10-15, Professor Jolly is quite right in saying that it is a clumsy versification of Vishzu’s Sftras, and it is not at all improbable that Vasishz/a’s verses may have been immediately derived from the KAathaka. The further inference as to the priority of the ancient Kataka-sitra to Vasishzha, which Professor Jolly draws from the comparison of the two passages, would also be unimpeachable, if the genuineness of Vasish¢ha’s twenty-eighth chapter were certain. But that is unfortunately not the case. Not only that chapter, but the preceding ones, XXV-XXVII, in fact the whole section on secret penances, are, in my opinion, not only suspicious, but certainly betray the hand of a later restorer and corrector. Everybody who carefully reads the Sanskrit text of the Dharma-siatra will be struck by the change of the style and the difference in the language which the four chapters on secret penances show, as compared with the preceding and following sections. Throughout the whole of the first twenty-four chapters and in the last two chapters we find a mixture of prose and verse. With one exception in the sixth chapter, where thirty-one verses form the beginning of the section on the rule of conduct, the author follows always one and the same plan in arranging his materials. His own rules are given first in the form of aphorisms, and after INTRODUCTION. XXiit
3With one exception in the sixth chapter, where thirty-one verses form the beginning of the section on the rule of conduct, the author follows always one and the same plan in arranging his materials. His own rules are given first in the form of aphorisms, and after INTRODUCTION. XXiit these follow the authorities for his doctrines, which consist either of Vedic passages or of verses, the latter being partly quotations taken from individual authors or works, partly specimens of the versified maxims current among the Brahmans, and sometimes memorial verses composed by the author himself. But chapters XXV-XXVIII contain nota single Sdtra. They are made up entirely of Anush/ubh Slokas, and the phrases! ‘I will now declare,’ ‘ Listen to my words,’ which are so characteristic of the style of the later metrical Smrttis and of the Purdzas, occur more frequently than is absolutely necessary. Again, in the first twenty-four and the last two chapters the language is archaic Sanskrit, interspersed here and there with Vedic anomalous forms. But in the four chapters on secret penances we have the common Sanskrit of the metrical Sm7ztis and Purdzas, with its incorrect forms, adopted in order to fit inconvenient words into the metre. Nor is this all. The contents of a portion of this suspicious section are merely useless repetitions of matters dealt with already in the preceding chapters, while some verses contain fragmentary rules on a subject which is treated more fully further on. Thus the description of the Krikkhkra and KA4ndrayana penances, which has been given XXI, 20 and XXIV, 45, is repeated XXVII, 16,21. Further,the enumeration of the purificatory texts XXVIII, 10-15 is merely an enlargement of XXII, 9. Finally, the verses XXVIII, 16-22 contain detached rules on gifts, and in the next chapter, XXIX, the subject is begun once more and treated at considerable length. Though it would be unwise to assume that all genuine productions of the old Sdtrakaras must, throughout, show regularity and consistency, the differences between the four chapters and the remainder of the work, just pointed out, are, it seems to me, sufficient to warrant the conclusion that they do not belong to the author of the Institutes. Under these circumstances it might be assumed that the whole section is simply an interpolation. But that would be going too far. For, as other Dharma-sftras show, one or even several chapters on secret penances belonged to such works. 1 See XXV,1; XXVII, 10; XXVIII, 10, 20, XXiVv 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.
13 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 Vasishtha XXIV, 6, I conclude that H4rita was a Maitrayaniyal. The relation of the VAsisht#a Dharma-sitra to Gautama and Baudh4yana has already been discussed in the introduction to the translation of the former work?. To the remarks on its connexion with Baudhayana it must be added that the third Prasna of the Baudh4yana Dharma-sitra, from which Vasish¢/a's twenty-second chapter seems to have been borrowed, perhaps does not belong to the original work, but is a later, though presumably a very ancient, addition to the composition of the founder of the Baudh4yana school. The reasons for this opinion will be given below. If Baudh4yana’s third Prasna is not genuine, but has been added by a later teacher of that school, the interval between Baudhayana and the author of the Vasish¢za DharmasAstra must be a vety considerable one. I have, however, to point out that the inference regarding the priority of Baudhayana to Vasish¢ka is permissible only on the supposition that Vasish¢/a’s twenty-second chapter is not a later addition to the latter work, and that, though it is found in all our MSS., this fact is not sufficient to silence all doubts which might be raised with respect to its genuineness ; for we shall see presently that other chapters in the section on penances have been tampered with by a later hand. It will, therefore, be advisable not to insist too strongly on the certainty of the conclusion that Vasishtha knew and used Baudhayana’s work. In the introduction to his translation of the Vishzusmriti*, Professor Jolly has pointed out two passages of Vasish¢ha which, as he thinks, have been borrowed from Vishzu, and prove the posteriority of the Vasish¢za Dharmasastra, if not to the Vishzusmriti, at least to its original, the Kassaka Dharma-s(itra. He contends that the passage Vasishtha XXVIII, 10-15 is a versification of the Sitras of Vishzu LVI, which, besides being clumsy, shows a number of 1 He says: WATS SICA: AV A_TAU: Faral Br ayaa? | afgrears mrantfvara ataarectianra wfafergaytarana gefeare wt arritfast cfgrnrat frrargat [2] tarafafefa 2 Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, pp. liii-lv. 3 Sacred Books of the East, vol. vii, p. xviii. Xxii VASISHTHA.
2| afgrears mrantfvara ataarectianra wfafergaytarana gefeare wt arritfast cfgrnrat frrargat [2] tarafafefa 2 Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, pp. liii-lv. 3 Sacred Books of the East, vol. vii, p. xviii. Xxii VASISHTHA. corruptions and grammatical mistakes, and that Vasishtha XXVIII, 18-22 has been borrowed from Vishnu LXX XVII. Professor Jolly’s assertion regarding the second passage involves, however, a little mistake. For the.first two Slokas, Vasisht#a XXVIII, 18-19, describe not the gift of the skin of a black antelope, which is mentioned in the first six Sfitras of Vishvu LXXXVII, but the rite of feeding Brahmans with honey and sesamum grains, which occurs Vishnu XC, 10. The three verses, Vasishtha XXVIII, 20-22, on the other hand, really are the same as those given by Vishnu LXXXVII, 8-10. It is, however, expressly stated in the Vishvzusmriti that they contain a quotation, and are not the original composition of the author of the Dharma-sfitra. Hence no inference can be drawn from the recurrence of the same stanzas in the Vasishtha Dharma-sfitra. As regards the other passage, Vasishtha XXVIII, 10-15, Professor Jolly is quite right in saying that it is a clumsy versification of Vishzu’s Sftras, and it is not at all improbable that Vasishz/a’s verses may have been immediately derived from the KAathaka. The further inference as to the priority of the ancient Kataka-sitra to Vasishzha, which Professor Jolly draws from the comparison of the two passages, would also be unimpeachable, if the genuineness of Vasish¢ha’s twenty-eighth chapter were certain. But that is unfortunately not the case. Not only that chapter, but the preceding ones, XXV-XXVII, in fact the whole section on secret penances, are, in my opinion, not only suspicious, but certainly betray the hand of a later restorer and corrector. Everybody who carefully reads the Sanskrit text of the Dharma-siatra will be struck by the change of the style and the difference in the language which the four chapters on secret penances show, as compared with the preceding and following sections. Throughout the whole of the first twenty-four chapters and in the last two chapters we find a mixture of prose and verse. With one exception in the sixth chapter, where thirty-one verses form the beginning of the section on the rule of conduct, the author follows always one and the same plan in arranging his materials. His own rules are given first in the form of aphorisms, and after INTRODUCTION. XXiit
3With one exception in the sixth chapter, where thirty-one verses form the beginning of the section on the rule of conduct, the author follows always one and the same plan in arranging his materials. His own rules are given first in the form of aphorisms, and after INTRODUCTION. XXiit these follow the authorities for his doctrines, which consist either of Vedic passages or of verses, the latter being partly quotations taken from individual authors or works, partly specimens of the versified maxims current among the Brahmans, and sometimes memorial verses composed by the author himself. But chapters XXV-XXVIII contain nota single Sdtra. They are made up entirely of Anush/ubh Slokas, and the phrases! ‘I will now declare,’ ‘ Listen to my words,’ which are so characteristic of the style of the later metrical Smrttis and of the Purdzas, occur more frequently than is absolutely necessary. Again, in the first twenty-four and the last two chapters the language is archaic Sanskrit, interspersed here and there with Vedic anomalous forms. But in the four chapters on secret penances we have the common Sanskrit of the metrical Sm7ztis and Purdzas, with its incorrect forms, adopted in order to fit inconvenient words into the metre. Nor is this all. The contents of a portion of this suspicious section are merely useless repetitions of matters dealt with already in the preceding chapters, while some verses contain fragmentary rules on a subject which is treated more fully further on. Thus the description of the Krikkhkra and KA4ndrayana penances, which has been given XXI, 20 and XXIV, 45, is repeated XXVII, 16,21. Further,the enumeration of the purificatory texts XXVIII, 10-15 is merely an enlargement of XXII, 9. Finally, the verses XXVIII, 16-22 contain detached rules on gifts, and in the next chapter, XXIX, the subject is begun once more and treated at considerable length. Though it would be unwise to assume that all genuine productions of the old Sdtrakaras must, throughout, show regularity and consistency, the differences between the four chapters and the remainder of the work, just pointed out, are, it seems to me, sufficient to warrant the conclusion that they do not belong to the author of the Institutes. Under these circumstances it might be assumed that the whole section is simply an interpolation. But that would be going too far. For, as other Dharma-sftras show, one or even several chapters on secret penances belonged to such works. 1 See XXV,1; XXVII, 10; XXVIII, 10, 20, XXiVv 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.