Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1But 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 following points bear on the question where the original home of the Vedic school, which produced the Dharma-sfitra, was situated. First, the author declares India north of the Vindhyas, and especially those portions now included in the North-western Provinces, to be the country where holy men and pure customs are to be found, I, 8-16. Secondly, he shows a predilection for those redactions of the Veda and those Sfitras which belong to the northern half of India, viz. for the K4¢aka, the Vagasaneyisakha, and the Sftras of Manu and Harita. Faint as these indications are, I think, they permit us to conclude that the Sftra belongs to a Karama settled in the north. As regards the materials on which the subjoined translation is based, I have chiefly relied on the Benares edition of the text, with the commentary of Kvrishnapazdita DharmAadhik4ri, and on a rough edition with the varietas lectionum from the two MSS. of the Bombay Government Collection of 1874-751, B. no. 29 and Bh. no. 30, a MS. of the Elphinstone College Collection of 1867-68, E. no. 23 of Class VI, and an imperfect apograph F. in my own collection, which was made in 1864 at Bombay. The rough edition was prepared under my superintendence by Vamanafarya Ghalkikar, now teacher of Sanskrit in the Dekhan College, Puza. When I wrote the translation, the Bombay Government MSS. were not accessible to me. I could only use my own MS. and, thanks to the kindness of Dr. Rost, Colebrooke’s MS., I. O. no. 913, from which the now worthless Calcutta editions have been derived either immediately or mediately. These materials belong to two groups. The Bombay MS. B., which comes from Benares, closely agrees with Kvishvapandita’s text; and E., though 1 See Report on Sanskrit MSS. 1874-75, p. 11. XXVIli VASISHTHA. purchased at Puza, does not differ much from the two. Bh., which comes from Bhuj in Ka&/, and my own MS. F. form a second group, towards which Colebrooke’s MS., I. O. no. 913, also leans. Ultimately both groups are derived from one codex archetypus.
21874-75, p. 11. XXVIli VASISHTHA. purchased at Puza, does not differ much from the two. Bh., which comes from Bhuj in Ka&/, and my own MS. F. form a second group, towards which Colebrooke’s MS., I. O. no. 913, also leans. Ultimately both groups are derived from one codex archetypus. The first group of MSS. gives a fuller and in general a correcter text than the second. But it seems to me that the text of B., and still more Kvishzapandita’s, has in many places been conjecturally restored, and that the real difficulties have been rather veiled than solved. I have, therefore, frequently preferred the readings offered by the second group, or based on them my conjectural emendations, which have all been given in the notes. To give a translation without having recourse to conjectural emendations was impossible, as a European philologist is unable to avail himself of those wonderful tricks of interpretation which permit an Indian Pandit to extract some kind of meaning from the most desperate passages. In a few cases, where even the best MSS. contain nothing but a conglomerate of meaningless syllables or unconnected words, I have thought it advisable to refrain from all attempts at a restoration of the text, and at a translation. A critical edition of the VAsishtha Dharmasdstra is very desirable, and I trust that Dr. A. Fiihrer, of St. Xavier’s College, Bombay, will soon supply this want. Kvishzapandita’s commentary, for which he had not the aid of older vrittis, shows considerable learning, and has been of great value to me. I have followed him mostly in the division of the Saitras, and have frequently given his opinions in the notes, both in cases where I agree with him and in those where I differ from him, but think his opinion worthy of consideration. In conclusion, I have to thank Professors R. von Roth, Weber, and Jolly, as well as Dr. L. von Schroder, for the verification of a number of Vedic quotations, which they kindly undertook for me, as I was unable to use my own books of reference during the translation of the work. INTRODUCTION TO BAUDHAYANA.
3von Roth, Weber, and Jolly, as well as Dr. L. von Schroder, for the verification of a number of Vedic quotations, which they kindly undertook for me, as I was unable to use my own books of reference during the translation of the work. INTRODUCTION TO BAUDHAYANA. THE case of the Baudhayana Dharma-sitra is in many respects analogous to that of the Institutes of the Sacred Law, current in the schools of Apastamba and Hiraxyakesin. Like the latter, it is the work of a teacher of the Black Yagur-veda, who composed manuals on all the various subdivisions of the Kalpa, and founded a Sitra-karama, which is said to exist to the present day’. The Bréhmanical tradition, too, acknowledges these facts, and, instead of surrounding Baudhayana’s work with a halo of myths, | simply states that it was originally studied by and authoritative for the followers of the Taittirilya-veda alone, and later only became one of the sources of the Sacred Law for all Brahmans*. Moreover, the position of Baudhayana among the teachers of the Yagur-veda is well defined, and his home, or at least the home of his school, is known. But here the resemblance stops. For while the Satras of Apastamba and Hiramyakesin have been preserved in carefully and methodically arranged collections, where a certain place is assigned to each section of the Kalpa, no complete set of the Sitras of Baudhdyana’s school has, as yet, been found, and the original position of the detached portions which are obtainable is not quite certain. Again, while the works of Apastamba and Hiramyakesin seem to have been kept free from extensive interpolations, several parts of 1] must here state that during my residence in India I have never met with a follower of Baudhayana’s school, and cannot personally vouch for its existence. But many Pandits have assured me that many Baudhdyantyas are to be found among the Telingana and Karnataka Brahmans. 2 See Govinda’s statement, quoted above, p. xiii, XXX BAUDHAYANA. Baudhayana’s Sftras have clearly received considerable additions from later hands.
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.
1But 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 following points bear on the question where the original home of the Vedic school, which produced the Dharma-sfitra, was situated. First, the author declares India north of the Vindhyas, and especially those portions now included in the North-western Provinces, to be the country where holy men and pure customs are to be found, I, 8-16. Secondly, he shows a predilection for those redactions of the Veda and those Sfitras which belong to the northern half of India, viz. for the K4¢aka, the Vagasaneyisakha, and the Sftras of Manu and Harita. Faint as these indications are, I think, they permit us to conclude that the Sftra belongs to a Karama settled in the north. As regards the materials on which the subjoined translation is based, I have chiefly relied on the Benares edition of the text, with the commentary of Kvrishnapazdita DharmAadhik4ri, and on a rough edition with the varietas lectionum from the two MSS. of the Bombay Government Collection of 1874-751, B. no. 29 and Bh. no. 30, a MS. of the Elphinstone College Collection of 1867-68, E. no. 23 of Class VI, and an imperfect apograph F. in my own collection, which was made in 1864 at Bombay. The rough edition was prepared under my superintendence by Vamanafarya Ghalkikar, now teacher of Sanskrit in the Dekhan College, Puza. When I wrote the translation, the Bombay Government MSS. were not accessible to me. I could only use my own MS. and, thanks to the kindness of Dr. Rost, Colebrooke’s MS., I. O. no. 913, from which the now worthless Calcutta editions have been derived either immediately or mediately. These materials belong to two groups. The Bombay MS. B., which comes from Benares, closely agrees with Kvishvapandita’s text; and E., though 1 See Report on Sanskrit MSS. 1874-75, p. 11. XXVIli VASISHTHA. purchased at Puza, does not differ much from the two. Bh., which comes from Bhuj in Ka&/, and my own MS. F. form a second group, towards which Colebrooke’s MS., I. O. no. 913, also leans. Ultimately both groups are derived from one codex archetypus.
21874-75, p. 11. XXVIli VASISHTHA. purchased at Puza, does not differ much from the two. Bh., which comes from Bhuj in Ka&/, and my own MS. F. form a second group, towards which Colebrooke’s MS., I. O. no. 913, also leans. Ultimately both groups are derived from one codex archetypus. The first group of MSS. gives a fuller and in general a correcter text than the second. But it seems to me that the text of B., and still more Kvishzapandita’s, has in many places been conjecturally restored, and that the real difficulties have been rather veiled than solved. I have, therefore, frequently preferred the readings offered by the second group, or based on them my conjectural emendations, which have all been given in the notes. To give a translation without having recourse to conjectural emendations was impossible, as a European philologist is unable to avail himself of those wonderful tricks of interpretation which permit an Indian Pandit to extract some kind of meaning from the most desperate passages. In a few cases, where even the best MSS. contain nothing but a conglomerate of meaningless syllables or unconnected words, I have thought it advisable to refrain from all attempts at a restoration of the text, and at a translation. A critical edition of the VAsishtha Dharmasdstra is very desirable, and I trust that Dr. A. Fiihrer, of St. Xavier’s College, Bombay, will soon supply this want. Kvishzapandita’s commentary, for which he had not the aid of older vrittis, shows considerable learning, and has been of great value to me. I have followed him mostly in the division of the Saitras, and have frequently given his opinions in the notes, both in cases where I agree with him and in those where I differ from him, but think his opinion worthy of consideration. In conclusion, I have to thank Professors R. von Roth, Weber, and Jolly, as well as Dr. L. von Schroder, for the verification of a number of Vedic quotations, which they kindly undertook for me, as I was unable to use my own books of reference during the translation of the work. INTRODUCTION TO BAUDHAYANA.
3von Roth, Weber, and Jolly, as well as Dr. L. von Schroder, for the verification of a number of Vedic quotations, which they kindly undertook for me, as I was unable to use my own books of reference during the translation of the work. INTRODUCTION TO BAUDHAYANA. THE case of the Baudhayana Dharma-sitra is in many respects analogous to that of the Institutes of the Sacred Law, current in the schools of Apastamba and Hiraxyakesin. Like the latter, it is the work of a teacher of the Black Yagur-veda, who composed manuals on all the various subdivisions of the Kalpa, and founded a Sitra-karama, which is said to exist to the present day’. The Bréhmanical tradition, too, acknowledges these facts, and, instead of surrounding Baudhayana’s work with a halo of myths, | simply states that it was originally studied by and authoritative for the followers of the Taittirilya-veda alone, and later only became one of the sources of the Sacred Law for all Brahmans*. Moreover, the position of Baudhayana among the teachers of the Yagur-veda is well defined, and his home, or at least the home of his school, is known. But here the resemblance stops. For while the Satras of Apastamba and Hiramyakesin have been preserved in carefully and methodically arranged collections, where a certain place is assigned to each section of the Kalpa, no complete set of the Sitras of Baudhdyana’s school has, as yet, been found, and the original position of the detached portions which are obtainable is not quite certain. Again, while the works of Apastamba and Hiramyakesin seem to have been kept free from extensive interpolations, several parts of 1] must here state that during my residence in India I have never met with a follower of Baudhayana’s school, and cannot personally vouch for its existence. But many Pandits have assured me that many Baudhdyantyas are to be found among the Telingana and Karnataka Brahmans. 2 See Govinda’s statement, quoted above, p. xiii, XXX BAUDHAYANA. Baudhayana’s Sftras have clearly received considerable additions from later hands.
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.