Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Under 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. Moreover, in the section on women, Vasish¢ha V, 3-4, the author makes a cross-reference to the rahasyas, the section on secret penances, and quotes by anticipation half a Sloka | which is actually found in chapter XXVIII. The inference to be drawn from these facts is, that the section on secret penances is not simply a later addition intended to supply an omission of the first writer, but that, for some reason or other, it has been remodelled. The answer to the question why this was done is suggested, it seems to me, partly by the state of the MSS. of the VAsishzha Dharmasastra, and partly by the facts connected with the treatment of ancient works by the Pawdits, which my examination of the libraries of Northern India has brought to light. MSS. of the V4sishtha Dharmasdstra are very rare, and among those found only three are complete. Some stop with chapter X, others with chapter XXI, and a few in the middle of the thirtieth Adhy4ya. Moreover, most of them are very corrupt, and even the best exhibit some Sdtras which are hopeless. These circumstances show clearly that after the extinction of the Vedic school, with which the work originated, the Sitra was for some time neglected, and existed in a few copies only, perhaps even in a single MS. The materials on which the ancient Hindus wrote, the birch bark and the palm leaves, are so frail that especially the first and last leaves of a Pothi are easily lost or badly damaged. Instances of this kind are common enough in the Gaina and Kasmir libraries, where the beginning and still more fre- . quently the end of many works have been irretrievably lost. The fate of the V4sish#a Dharmasastra, it would seem, has been similar. The facts related above make it probable that the MS. or MSS. which came into the hands of the Pandits of the special law schools, who revived the study of the work, was defective. Pieces of the last leaves which remained, probably showed the extent of the damage done, and the Pazdits set to work at the restoration of the lost portions, just as the Kasmirian Sahebram Pamdit restored the Nilamata-purdva for Maharaga Ramavirasimha. They, * See Report on a Tour in Kasmir, Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. xii, p. 33. INTRODUCTION. XXV
2They, * See Report on a Tour in Kasmir, Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. xii, p. 33. INTRODUCTION. XXV of course, used the verses which they still found on the fragments, and cleverly supplied the remainder from their _knowledge of Manu and other Smrttis, of the Mahabharata and the Purdwzas. This theory, I think, explains all the difficulties which the present state of the section on secret penances raises. Perhaps it may be used also to account for some incongruities observable in chapter XXX. The last two verses, XXX, 9-10, are common-places which are frequently quoted in the Mah4bharata, the Harivamsa, the Pavéatantra, and modern anthologies. With their baldness of expression and sentiment they present a strong contrast to the preceding solemn passages from the Veda, and look very much ‘like an unlucky attempt at filling up a break at the end of the MS. In connexion with this subject it ought, however, to be mentioned that this restoration of the last part of the VAsishzka DharmasAstra must have happened in early times, at least more than a thousand years ago. For the oldest commentators and compilers of digests on law, such as VigfiAnesvara 1, who lived at the end of the eleventh century A.D., quote passages from the section on secret penances as the genuine utterances of Vasish‘za. These details will suffice to show why I differ from Professor Jolly with respect to his conclusion from the agreement of the verses of Vasishz#a X XVIII, 10-15 with the Sftras of Vishzu LVI. With the exception of the quotations, the V4sishzsa Dharmasdstra contains no data which could be used either to define its relative position in Sanskrit literature or to connect it with the historical period of India. The occurrence of the word Romaka, XVIII, 4, in some MSS., as the name of a degraded caste of mixed origin, proves nothing, as other MSS. read Ramaka, and tribes called Rama and Réma¢ha are mentioned in the Puramas. It would be wrong to assert on such evidence that the Satra belonged to the time when the Romans, or rather the Byzantines (Rémaioi), had political relations with India. Nor will it be advisable to adduce the fact that Vasishtha 1 Thus Vasishtha XXVIII, 7 is quoted in the Mitakshara on Yagnavalkya III, 298; XXVIII, 10-15 on Yagnavalkya III, 309; and XXVIII, 18-19, 2a on Yagfiavalkya III, 310, XXvi VASISHTHA.
3Nor will it be advisable to adduce the fact that Vasishtha 1 Thus Vasishtha XXVIII, 7 is quoted in the Mitakshara on Yagnavalkya III, 298; XXVIII, 10-15 on Yagnavalkya III, 309; and XXVIII, 18-19, 2a on Yagfiavalkya III, 310, XXvi VASISHTHA. XVI, 10, 14,15 mentions written documents as a means of legal proof, in order to establish the ‘comparatively late’ date of the Sdtra. For though the other Dharma-sitras do not give any hint that the art of writing was known or in common use in their times, still the state of society which they describe is so advanced that people could not have got on without writing, and the proofs for the antiquity of the Indian alphabets are now much stronger than they were even a short time ago. The silence of Apastamba and the other Sftrakaras regarding written documents is probably due to their strict adherence to a general principle underlying the composition of the Dharma-s@tras. Those points only fall primarily within the scope of the Dharma-sitras which have some immediate, close connexion with the Dharma, the acquisition of spiritual merit. Hence it sufficed for them to give some general maxims for the fulfilment of the guzadharma of kings, the impartial administration of justice, and to give fuller rules regarding the half-religious ceremony of the swearing in and the examination of witnesses. Judicial technicalities, like the determination of the legal value of written documents, had less importance in their eyes, and were left either to the desakara, the custom of the country, or to the Niti and Artha-sdstras, the Institutes of Polity and of the Arts of common life. It would, also, be easy to rebut attempts at assigning the V4sish¢sa Dharma-sitra to what is usually ‘a comparatively late period’ by other pieces of so-called internal evidence tending to show that it is an ancient work. Some of the doctrines of the Sdtra undoubtedly belong to an ancient order of ideas. This is particularly observable in the rules regarding the subsidiary sons, which place the offspring even of illicit unions in the class of heirs and members of the family, while adopted sons are relegated to the division of members of the family excluded from inheritance. The same remark applies to the exclusion of all females, with the exception of putrikas or appointed daughters, from the succession to the property of males, to the permission to re-marry infant widows, and to the law of the Niyoga or the appointment of adult INTRODUCTION. widows, which Vasish¢ka allows without hesitation, an even extends to the wives of emigrants. But as most of these opinions occur also in some of the decidedly later metrical Smritis, and disputes on these subjects seem to have existed among the various Brahmanical schools down to a late period, it would be hazardous to use them as arguments for the antiquity of the Sdtra.
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.
1Under 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. Moreover, in the section on women, Vasish¢ha V, 3-4, the author makes a cross-reference to the rahasyas, the section on secret penances, and quotes by anticipation half a Sloka | which is actually found in chapter XXVIII. The inference to be drawn from these facts is, that the section on secret penances is not simply a later addition intended to supply an omission of the first writer, but that, for some reason or other, it has been remodelled. The answer to the question why this was done is suggested, it seems to me, partly by the state of the MSS. of the VAsishzha Dharmasastra, and partly by the facts connected with the treatment of ancient works by the Pawdits, which my examination of the libraries of Northern India has brought to light. MSS. of the V4sishtha Dharmasdstra are very rare, and among those found only three are complete. Some stop with chapter X, others with chapter XXI, and a few in the middle of the thirtieth Adhy4ya. Moreover, most of them are very corrupt, and even the best exhibit some Sdtras which are hopeless. These circumstances show clearly that after the extinction of the Vedic school, with which the work originated, the Sitra was for some time neglected, and existed in a few copies only, perhaps even in a single MS. The materials on which the ancient Hindus wrote, the birch bark and the palm leaves, are so frail that especially the first and last leaves of a Pothi are easily lost or badly damaged. Instances of this kind are common enough in the Gaina and Kasmir libraries, where the beginning and still more fre- . quently the end of many works have been irretrievably lost. The fate of the V4sish#a Dharmasastra, it would seem, has been similar. The facts related above make it probable that the MS. or MSS. which came into the hands of the Pandits of the special law schools, who revived the study of the work, was defective. Pieces of the last leaves which remained, probably showed the extent of the damage done, and the Pazdits set to work at the restoration of the lost portions, just as the Kasmirian Sahebram Pamdit restored the Nilamata-purdva for Maharaga Ramavirasimha. They, * See Report on a Tour in Kasmir, Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. xii, p. 33. INTRODUCTION. XXV
2They, * See Report on a Tour in Kasmir, Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. xii, p. 33. INTRODUCTION. XXV of course, used the verses which they still found on the fragments, and cleverly supplied the remainder from their _knowledge of Manu and other Smrttis, of the Mahabharata and the Purdwzas. This theory, I think, explains all the difficulties which the present state of the section on secret penances raises. Perhaps it may be used also to account for some incongruities observable in chapter XXX. The last two verses, XXX, 9-10, are common-places which are frequently quoted in the Mah4bharata, the Harivamsa, the Pavéatantra, and modern anthologies. With their baldness of expression and sentiment they present a strong contrast to the preceding solemn passages from the Veda, and look very much ‘like an unlucky attempt at filling up a break at the end of the MS. In connexion with this subject it ought, however, to be mentioned that this restoration of the last part of the VAsishzka DharmasAstra must have happened in early times, at least more than a thousand years ago. For the oldest commentators and compilers of digests on law, such as VigfiAnesvara 1, who lived at the end of the eleventh century A.D., quote passages from the section on secret penances as the genuine utterances of Vasish‘za. These details will suffice to show why I differ from Professor Jolly with respect to his conclusion from the agreement of the verses of Vasishz#a X XVIII, 10-15 with the Sftras of Vishzu LVI. With the exception of the quotations, the V4sishzsa Dharmasdstra contains no data which could be used either to define its relative position in Sanskrit literature or to connect it with the historical period of India. The occurrence of the word Romaka, XVIII, 4, in some MSS., as the name of a degraded caste of mixed origin, proves nothing, as other MSS. read Ramaka, and tribes called Rama and Réma¢ha are mentioned in the Puramas. It would be wrong to assert on such evidence that the Satra belonged to the time when the Romans, or rather the Byzantines (Rémaioi), had political relations with India. Nor will it be advisable to adduce the fact that Vasishtha 1 Thus Vasishtha XXVIII, 7 is quoted in the Mitakshara on Yagnavalkya III, 298; XXVIII, 10-15 on Yagnavalkya III, 309; and XXVIII, 18-19, 2a on Yagfiavalkya III, 310, XXvi VASISHTHA.
3Nor will it be advisable to adduce the fact that Vasishtha 1 Thus Vasishtha XXVIII, 7 is quoted in the Mitakshara on Yagnavalkya III, 298; XXVIII, 10-15 on Yagnavalkya III, 309; and XXVIII, 18-19, 2a on Yagfiavalkya III, 310, XXvi VASISHTHA. XVI, 10, 14,15 mentions written documents as a means of legal proof, in order to establish the ‘comparatively late’ date of the Sdtra. For though the other Dharma-sitras do not give any hint that the art of writing was known or in common use in their times, still the state of society which they describe is so advanced that people could not have got on without writing, and the proofs for the antiquity of the Indian alphabets are now much stronger than they were even a short time ago. The silence of Apastamba and the other Sftrakaras regarding written documents is probably due to their strict adherence to a general principle underlying the composition of the Dharma-s@tras. Those points only fall primarily within the scope of the Dharma-sitras which have some immediate, close connexion with the Dharma, the acquisition of spiritual merit. Hence it sufficed for them to give some general maxims for the fulfilment of the guzadharma of kings, the impartial administration of justice, and to give fuller rules regarding the half-religious ceremony of the swearing in and the examination of witnesses. Judicial technicalities, like the determination of the legal value of written documents, had less importance in their eyes, and were left either to the desakara, the custom of the country, or to the Niti and Artha-sdstras, the Institutes of Polity and of the Arts of common life. It would, also, be easy to rebut attempts at assigning the V4sish¢sa Dharma-sitra to what is usually ‘a comparatively late period’ by other pieces of so-called internal evidence tending to show that it is an ancient work. Some of the doctrines of the Sdtra undoubtedly belong to an ancient order of ideas. This is particularly observable in the rules regarding the subsidiary sons, which place the offspring even of illicit unions in the class of heirs and members of the family, while adopted sons are relegated to the division of members of the family excluded from inheritance. The same remark applies to the exclusion of all females, with the exception of putrikas or appointed daughters, from the succession to the property of males, to the permission to re-marry infant widows, and to the law of the Niyoga or the appointment of adult INTRODUCTION. widows, which Vasish¢ka allows without hesitation, an even extends to the wives of emigrants. But as most of these opinions occur also in some of the decidedly later metrical Smritis, and disputes on these subjects seem to have existed among the various Brahmanical schools down to a late period, it would be hazardous to use them as arguments for the antiquity of the Sdtra.
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.