Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1The end of the quotation may have been GW? wiufaefata a c2 XXXVI LAWS OF MANU. our Manu-smriti, partly in better versions!. As the Grzhyasdtra agrees also in a number of its rules very characteristically with Manu, it is not improbable that its author may have drawn on the original of the latter. But before one can be perfectly confident on this point, it is necessary that some difficult questions regarding the critical condition of S4nkh4yana’s text should be cleared up more fully than has been done hitherto. More important than the passages from the last work is the evidence which the KAmandakiya Nitis4ra furnishes, where twice opinions of the Manavas and once an opinion of Manu are quoted, but rejected in favour of the views of the author’s teacher, KAnakya Kauftilya. In one case the doctrine, attributed to the ManavaA, agrees with the teaching of our Manu-smriti. We read in the discussion on the number of the praksitis, the constituent elements of the mamdala or political circle to which a king must pay attention, Kam. Nit. VII, 24-25, ‘With respect to this (question) the Manavas record that five constituent elements, the ministers and the rest, belong severally to each of the twelve kings. But those original twelve (kings) and those (others), the ministers and the rest, (are) seventy-two (in number, and form) the whole circle of constituent elements”? Our Manu-smriti states, VII, 155-156, that twelve kings belong to the mamdala, and adds ver. 157,‘ The minister, the kingdom, the fortress, the treasury, and the army are five other (constituent elements of the circle); for these are mentioned in connexion with each (of the first twelve); thus the whole circle (consists), briefly (speaking, of) seventy-two (constituent p3rts). The other two passages differ. According’ to Kamandaki II, 3, the Manavas teach that the sciences, which a king must study, are three only, the threefold (Veda), the theory of professions and trades, and the * Oldenberg, Sénkh. Gri. S, in the Indische Studien, vol. xv, p. 11. * Sera TORO Te Te FTE Ty | WATE Wenitcraate START: WARN ATT ATE ATS WATTS AT | Affe ean ag WeafwTaTeTy aut Tread according to the commentary wrafirat fant instead of the senseless WRFMBITWAT of the text. INTRODUCTION. XXXVil
2Gri. S, in the Indische Studien, vol. xv, p. 11. * Sera TORO Te Te FTE Ty | WATE Wenitcraate START: WARN ATT ATE ATS WATTS AT | Affe ean ag WeafwTaTeTy aut Tread according to the commentary wrafirat fant instead of the senseless WRFMBITWAT of the text. INTRODUCTION. XXXVil science of government, ‘ because the science of dialectics or reasoning is a subdivision of the threefold (Vedic lore’),’ while Manu VII, 43 enumerates five branches of learning, or at least four, if either Medhatithi’s or Ndrdyana’s explanation of the term Atmavidy4, rendered in the translation by ‘ the knowledge of the (supreme) Soul,’ is accepted?. Again, we hear, KAmandaki XI, 67, that Manu fixed the number of ministers (amatya), which the king must appoint, at twelve. But according to Manu VII, 54, no more than seven or eight are required. These quotations show that KAmandaki knew a work, attributed to Manu, which contained rules on the duties of kings, and in some respects agreed with the seventh chapter of our Manu-smriti. If I conclude that this must have been the old Méanava Dharma-sitra, it is because Kamandaki twice alludes to it by the title MAnavaz, literally ‘those who study a work proclaimed by Manu, or, more freely rendered, ‘the Manava school.’ It is a very common practice of Indian authors to refer in this manner to the books restricted to special schools. But I know of no case where the doctrines of the Manava Dharmasdstra, or of any other work which is destined for all Aryans and acknowledged as authoritative by all, are cited in the same or ina similar way. Nor is it usual to contrast, as Kamandaki does, the rules taught by Manu with those of other teachers and afterwards to reject them®. If a Hindu writer on law finds it necessary to set aside an opinion of Manu, he either passes by it in silence or he interprets the passage where it occurs in accordance with the principles of some other Smr#ti with tant anet caccttfafefa fae fe arae: | won eq fermnd Suaredtfegat aan gn ® With respect to Medhatithi’s and Narfyasa's explanations, see the note to the translation. I will add that Kam. Nit. II, 7, wreatfeqaarer ‘ The science of dialectics (is) a means of fully recognising the Soul or Self,’ speaks in favour of N&rdyasa’s explanation, and that it would perhaps have been befter if I had placed the latter in the text. ? As the learned editor of the Nitisira (Preface, p. 2) asserts that its author was a Buddhist, it might be conjectured that the latter treated Manu with small respect, because he belonged to a heterodox sect. But it ought to be noted that no proof is offered for the above assertion, and that the work contains no trace of Buddhism. - Xxxvill LAWS OF MANU.
3But it ought to be noted that no proof is offered for the above assertion, and that the work contains no trace of Buddhism. - Xxxvill LAWS OF MANU. which he himself agrees. Hence it is not doubtful that Kamandaki’s references point to a work of Manu which, though highly esteemed, did not hold the same paramount position as Bhrigu’s version of Manu’s laws, In other words, Kamandaki’s Manu must have been the property of a particular school, and that was just the case with the MAanava Dharma-sitra. The fact that all the known Dharma-sfitras contain a more or less detailed description of the duties of kings agrees well with this supposition, and so does the circumstance that Kamandaki’s Nitisdra is either really an ancient work, composed long before the beginning of our era, or at least a later recension of such an old book?. These are all the certain indications of the former existence of a Manava Dharma-sitra which I have been able to find. It is possible that the same work is also alluded to in some verses of the twelfth and thirteenth Parvans of the Mahdbhérata. But this question is, as we shall see below, surrounded with great difficulties, and its solution somewhat doubtful. Among the passages, discussed above, none are so important as Vasish¢ha’s quotations. The remainder contribute, however, to give a more definite idea of the range of subjects included in the lost work, and they confirm the conclusion, drawn from the former, that the Manava Dharma-sitra closely resembled our Manu-smriti. The investigations concerning the last point, the question if any traces of a connexion of our Manu-smriti with the writings of the MAnava school are discoverable, have hitherto led, as stated above, to a negative result. They were, of course, directed to a comparison of the Manava Grihya-sitra with the Dharmasdstra, as both works of } The work claims to be the composition of a pupil of Kandragupta’s famous minister, Aazakya Kaufilya or Kaufalya, to whom a portion of the Maigalaarana is dedicated, and who is frequently referred to as the Guru or teacher. Though there is no clear evidence corroborating this statement, there is also none to rebut it. In favour of this claim speaks the fact that the name of the author is a nomen gentile. For among the ancient writers the practice of signing their books with the family-name is almost universal. Later it seems to have fallen into disuse. The Nitisdra is quoted by the oldest commentator of Manu, Medhatithi. INTRODUCTION. XXXIX
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.
1The end of the quotation may have been GW? wiufaefata a c2 XXXVI LAWS OF MANU. our Manu-smriti, partly in better versions!. As the Grzhyasdtra agrees also in a number of its rules very characteristically with Manu, it is not improbable that its author may have drawn on the original of the latter. But before one can be perfectly confident on this point, it is necessary that some difficult questions regarding the critical condition of S4nkh4yana’s text should be cleared up more fully than has been done hitherto. More important than the passages from the last work is the evidence which the KAmandakiya Nitis4ra furnishes, where twice opinions of the Manavas and once an opinion of Manu are quoted, but rejected in favour of the views of the author’s teacher, KAnakya Kauftilya. In one case the doctrine, attributed to the ManavaA, agrees with the teaching of our Manu-smriti. We read in the discussion on the number of the praksitis, the constituent elements of the mamdala or political circle to which a king must pay attention, Kam. Nit. VII, 24-25, ‘With respect to this (question) the Manavas record that five constituent elements, the ministers and the rest, belong severally to each of the twelve kings. But those original twelve (kings) and those (others), the ministers and the rest, (are) seventy-two (in number, and form) the whole circle of constituent elements”? Our Manu-smriti states, VII, 155-156, that twelve kings belong to the mamdala, and adds ver. 157,‘ The minister, the kingdom, the fortress, the treasury, and the army are five other (constituent elements of the circle); for these are mentioned in connexion with each (of the first twelve); thus the whole circle (consists), briefly (speaking, of) seventy-two (constituent p3rts). The other two passages differ. According’ to Kamandaki II, 3, the Manavas teach that the sciences, which a king must study, are three only, the threefold (Veda), the theory of professions and trades, and the * Oldenberg, Sénkh. Gri. S, in the Indische Studien, vol. xv, p. 11. * Sera TORO Te Te FTE Ty | WATE Wenitcraate START: WARN ATT ATE ATS WATTS AT | Affe ean ag WeafwTaTeTy aut Tread according to the commentary wrafirat fant instead of the senseless WRFMBITWAT of the text. INTRODUCTION. XXXVil
2Gri. S, in the Indische Studien, vol. xv, p. 11. * Sera TORO Te Te FTE Ty | WATE Wenitcraate START: WARN ATT ATE ATS WATTS AT | Affe ean ag WeafwTaTeTy aut Tread according to the commentary wrafirat fant instead of the senseless WRFMBITWAT of the text. INTRODUCTION. XXXVil science of government, ‘ because the science of dialectics or reasoning is a subdivision of the threefold (Vedic lore’),’ while Manu VII, 43 enumerates five branches of learning, or at least four, if either Medhatithi’s or Ndrdyana’s explanation of the term Atmavidy4, rendered in the translation by ‘ the knowledge of the (supreme) Soul,’ is accepted?. Again, we hear, KAmandaki XI, 67, that Manu fixed the number of ministers (amatya), which the king must appoint, at twelve. But according to Manu VII, 54, no more than seven or eight are required. These quotations show that KAmandaki knew a work, attributed to Manu, which contained rules on the duties of kings, and in some respects agreed with the seventh chapter of our Manu-smriti. If I conclude that this must have been the old Méanava Dharma-sitra, it is because Kamandaki twice alludes to it by the title MAnavaz, literally ‘those who study a work proclaimed by Manu, or, more freely rendered, ‘the Manava school.’ It is a very common practice of Indian authors to refer in this manner to the books restricted to special schools. But I know of no case where the doctrines of the Manava Dharmasdstra, or of any other work which is destined for all Aryans and acknowledged as authoritative by all, are cited in the same or ina similar way. Nor is it usual to contrast, as Kamandaki does, the rules taught by Manu with those of other teachers and afterwards to reject them®. If a Hindu writer on law finds it necessary to set aside an opinion of Manu, he either passes by it in silence or he interprets the passage where it occurs in accordance with the principles of some other Smr#ti with tant anet caccttfafefa fae fe arae: | won eq fermnd Suaredtfegat aan gn ® With respect to Medhatithi’s and Narfyasa's explanations, see the note to the translation. I will add that Kam. Nit. II, 7, wreatfeqaarer ‘ The science of dialectics (is) a means of fully recognising the Soul or Self,’ speaks in favour of N&rdyasa’s explanation, and that it would perhaps have been befter if I had placed the latter in the text. ? As the learned editor of the Nitisira (Preface, p. 2) asserts that its author was a Buddhist, it might be conjectured that the latter treated Manu with small respect, because he belonged to a heterodox sect. But it ought to be noted that no proof is offered for the above assertion, and that the work contains no trace of Buddhism. - Xxxvill LAWS OF MANU.
3But it ought to be noted that no proof is offered for the above assertion, and that the work contains no trace of Buddhism. - Xxxvill LAWS OF MANU. which he himself agrees. Hence it is not doubtful that Kamandaki’s references point to a work of Manu which, though highly esteemed, did not hold the same paramount position as Bhrigu’s version of Manu’s laws, In other words, Kamandaki’s Manu must have been the property of a particular school, and that was just the case with the MAanava Dharma-sitra. The fact that all the known Dharma-sfitras contain a more or less detailed description of the duties of kings agrees well with this supposition, and so does the circumstance that Kamandaki’s Nitisdra is either really an ancient work, composed long before the beginning of our era, or at least a later recension of such an old book?. These are all the certain indications of the former existence of a Manava Dharma-sitra which I have been able to find. It is possible that the same work is also alluded to in some verses of the twelfth and thirteenth Parvans of the Mahdbhérata. But this question is, as we shall see below, surrounded with great difficulties, and its solution somewhat doubtful. Among the passages, discussed above, none are so important as Vasish¢ha’s quotations. The remainder contribute, however, to give a more definite idea of the range of subjects included in the lost work, and they confirm the conclusion, drawn from the former, that the Manava Dharma-sitra closely resembled our Manu-smriti. The investigations concerning the last point, the question if any traces of a connexion of our Manu-smriti with the writings of the MAnava school are discoverable, have hitherto led, as stated above, to a negative result. They were, of course, directed to a comparison of the Manava Grihya-sitra with the Dharmasdstra, as both works of } The work claims to be the composition of a pupil of Kandragupta’s famous minister, Aazakya Kaufilya or Kaufalya, to whom a portion of the Maigalaarana is dedicated, and who is frequently referred to as the Guru or teacher. Though there is no clear evidence corroborating this statement, there is also none to rebut it. In favour of this claim speaks the fact that the name of the author is a nomen gentile. For among the ancient writers the practice of signing their books with the family-name is almost universal. Later it seems to have fallen into disuse. The Nitisdra is quoted by the oldest commentator of Manu, Medhatithi. INTRODUCTION. XXXIX
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.