Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1For 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 necessity frequently treat of the same subjects. On comparing the corresponding portions of the two works, Professor Jolly! found no special agreement with respect to the ages prescribed for the performance of the Samskaras, with respect to the marriage-rites and to the rules for the conduct of students and of Snatakas. Nor was he able to discover in the Manu-smriti any of the curious technical terms and phrases used in the Grthya-sftra, while the somewhat closer resemblance in the Mantras of the Vaisvadeva ceremony and in a few other points turned out to be without conclusiveness on account of the concurrent agreement of other Grthya-sitras. Dr. von Bradke’s reexamination of the question? did not yield any other result. I can only bear witness to the general correctness of these remarks. Though it is possible to adduce some passages, not mentioned by Professor Jolly’, in which the Grzhyasitra shows a special affinity with the Smrtti, the very great differences which occur in other sections‘, the absence of an agreement in particularly characteristic rules®, and the 1 On the Vishzu Dharma-sfitra and the Ka¢haka; Transactions of the Royal Bavarian Academy, 1879, ii, p. 82 seq. ? Journal of the German Oriental Society, vol. xxxii, p. 438. 3 Among the rules which specially agree, I may mention one from the section on the Initiation, Man. Gri, S0.1, a2 (end), WY Rey WER [Wt] | ATATA- TY) aver: Yet wae a afafer: By Ww ‘Next he shall go out to beg, first, to his mother and to other females who are friendly, or to as many as may be near.’ These S{itras correspond to Manu II, 50, ‘Let him first beg food of his mother, or of his sister, or of his own maternal aunt, or of (some other) female who will not disgrace him (by a refusal).’ Iam not aware that this rule occurs in any other Smriti. * Among the very great discrepancies I would point to such as those occurring in the section on the marriage-rites. The Manu-smriti III, 30-34, describes the well-known eight modes by which a woman may be obtained from her family. But the M4nava Grthya-sfitra I, 7-8, knows two only, the Brahma and the Saulka rites, the latter of which corresponds to the Asura or Manusha rite of the other Smritis, and sanctions the purchase of the bride from her parents.
2But the M4nava Grthya-sfitra I, 7-8, knows two only, the Brahma and the Saulka rites, the latter of which corresponds to the Asura or Manusha rite of the other Smritis, and sanctions the purchase of the bride from her parents. 5 The absence of an agreement in characteristic rules is particularly noticeable in the chapter on the study of the Veda and the stoppages of the Veda study. There the general rules, e.g. regarding the beginning, length, and ending of the school-term, which are found also in other Smrttis, agree in both works. But none of those special prescriptions which the Manava Grihya-sitra gives for the time when and the ceremonies with which particular portions of the Maitrayani Samhita are to be learnt can be traced in the Manu-smatti. xl LAWS OF MAND. non-occurrence of Mantras, peculiar to the Maitrayaztya- Manava school in the Manu-smriti, do not permit us to consider them as decisive for the settlement of the question. On the other hand, this negative result does not preclude the possibility that the supposed connexion between the original of the Manu-smrzti and the Manava school may nevertheless have existed. For the examples of the Hairanyakesas and Madhyamdinas show that the Satras, adopted by a school, are not always composed by one and the same teacher, but sometimes are made up of fragments originally belonging to different authors. In the case of the MAadhyamdinas the author of the Srauta-sitra is a KAaty4yana, while the Gvzhya-sitra bears the name of a Paraskara. In the case of the Hairazyakesas the Dharmasfitra, though it is ascribed to Hirazyakesin Saty4shadha, is in reality the work of Apastamba, and differs both in its language and in its contents very much from the Grthya-sitra’. Moreover, the Hairazyakesa Kayanastra has been taken over, as its colophon clearly proves, from the Bhéradvagas. It is, therefore, still possible that the ancient Manava Dharma-sitra was considered as the special property of the MAnavas, but was not composed by the same teacher as the Grzhya-sitra, or that, though both works had the same author, the materials for their composition were borrowed from different sources. Either supposition would explain the discrepancies between the two works. If we now could show that some other work belonging to the Manava Karama shows a special affinity to the Manu-smrtti, the view that the original of the latter was first the property of that school might be still upheld. A renewed examination of the various treatises, studied and claimed as their own by the MAnavas, has convinced me that such a connecting link is actually found among them. This is the Srdddhakalpa, a description of the ordinary funeral sacrifices which the M4nava Grthyasitra does not treat in detail, but barely touches in the sections on the Ash/¢aka rites (II, 8-9). If this treatise has not been taken into consideration by Professor Jolly and 1 Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, p. xxiii. INTRODUCTION, xli
3If this treatise has not been taken into consideration by Professor Jolly and 1 Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, p. xxiii. INTRODUCTION, xli Dr. von Bradke, the reason is that it is not contained in Professor Haug’s collection of the MAnava Siftras, the only one which has hitherto been accessible to European students. In my copy of the works of the Manava school it stands after the Pravarddhyd4ya'. It consists of four short Khandas. The first begins with the words, ‘Now we will explain the rules for the funeral sacrifices,’ and treats of the following points: the invitation of qualified Brahmazas, their hospitable reception with the Arghya in the house of the sacrificer, the invocations asking the Visvedevas and the manes to attend, and the burnt oblations offered to Soma, Yama, and Agni. The Mantras which are to be used seem, if not all, at least for the greater part, to have been taken from the Maitrayant Samhita. This section shows hardly any special agreement with the Manu-smrtti, except in the rule, known also from other Dharma-sitras, which prescribes the entertainment of two guests at the rite in honour of the gods, and of three at the offering to the manes or of one on either occasion, as well as in the number and the deities of the burnt oblations which precede the Sraddha (Manu III, 123,211). But the second Khanda, which contains the description of the Sraddha ceremony, opens with a couple of verses, the first of which corresponds almost literally? with Manu III, 274. The only important difference is that at the end the words ‘in the rainy season and under (the constellation) Magh4%’ take the place of Manu’s ‘when the shadow of the elephant falls towards the east.’ It must be noted that, though Vishzu LXXVIII, 52-53 and Vasish¢ha XI, 40 have passages which contain similar prayers of the manes, their wording differs very considerably from that of the Sraddhakalpa and of * My MS. of the writings of the Manava Xarana, which was copied in 1864-65 at Nasik, includes, besides the Samhita and the Upanishad, counted as the fifth Kfsda, all the portions of the Srauta-s{itra, known from Professor Haug’s MSS. together with the Kumfra or Kumfrila Bh4shya and portions of a later vrttti by Misra Balakrishna, as well as the Grzhya-sfitra with its Bhashya, the Paraxakhya, by Bhaffa Ashfavakra (not by Kumarila, as I conjectured in West and Bithler’s Digest, p. 46, note a), and the Sraddhakalpa. + fia a: eyes aren at UTICA | aT MyUfibat wig WAUYZ Th xlii LAWS OF MANU.
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.
1For 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 necessity frequently treat of the same subjects. On comparing the corresponding portions of the two works, Professor Jolly! found no special agreement with respect to the ages prescribed for the performance of the Samskaras, with respect to the marriage-rites and to the rules for the conduct of students and of Snatakas. Nor was he able to discover in the Manu-smriti any of the curious technical terms and phrases used in the Grthya-sftra, while the somewhat closer resemblance in the Mantras of the Vaisvadeva ceremony and in a few other points turned out to be without conclusiveness on account of the concurrent agreement of other Grthya-sitras. Dr. von Bradke’s reexamination of the question? did not yield any other result. I can only bear witness to the general correctness of these remarks. Though it is possible to adduce some passages, not mentioned by Professor Jolly’, in which the Grzhyasitra shows a special affinity with the Smrtti, the very great differences which occur in other sections‘, the absence of an agreement in particularly characteristic rules®, and the 1 On the Vishzu Dharma-sfitra and the Ka¢haka; Transactions of the Royal Bavarian Academy, 1879, ii, p. 82 seq. ? Journal of the German Oriental Society, vol. xxxii, p. 438. 3 Among the rules which specially agree, I may mention one from the section on the Initiation, Man. Gri, S0.1, a2 (end), WY Rey WER [Wt] | ATATA- TY) aver: Yet wae a afafer: By Ww ‘Next he shall go out to beg, first, to his mother and to other females who are friendly, or to as many as may be near.’ These S{itras correspond to Manu II, 50, ‘Let him first beg food of his mother, or of his sister, or of his own maternal aunt, or of (some other) female who will not disgrace him (by a refusal).’ Iam not aware that this rule occurs in any other Smriti. * Among the very great discrepancies I would point to such as those occurring in the section on the marriage-rites. The Manu-smriti III, 30-34, describes the well-known eight modes by which a woman may be obtained from her family. But the M4nava Grthya-sfitra I, 7-8, knows two only, the Brahma and the Saulka rites, the latter of which corresponds to the Asura or Manusha rite of the other Smritis, and sanctions the purchase of the bride from her parents.
2But the M4nava Grthya-sfitra I, 7-8, knows two only, the Brahma and the Saulka rites, the latter of which corresponds to the Asura or Manusha rite of the other Smritis, and sanctions the purchase of the bride from her parents. 5 The absence of an agreement in characteristic rules is particularly noticeable in the chapter on the study of the Veda and the stoppages of the Veda study. There the general rules, e.g. regarding the beginning, length, and ending of the school-term, which are found also in other Smrttis, agree in both works. But none of those special prescriptions which the Manava Grihya-sitra gives for the time when and the ceremonies with which particular portions of the Maitrayani Samhita are to be learnt can be traced in the Manu-smatti. xl LAWS OF MAND. non-occurrence of Mantras, peculiar to the Maitrayaztya- Manava school in the Manu-smriti, do not permit us to consider them as decisive for the settlement of the question. On the other hand, this negative result does not preclude the possibility that the supposed connexion between the original of the Manu-smrzti and the Manava school may nevertheless have existed. For the examples of the Hairanyakesas and Madhyamdinas show that the Satras, adopted by a school, are not always composed by one and the same teacher, but sometimes are made up of fragments originally belonging to different authors. In the case of the MAadhyamdinas the author of the Srauta-sitra is a KAaty4yana, while the Gvzhya-sitra bears the name of a Paraskara. In the case of the Hairazyakesas the Dharmasfitra, though it is ascribed to Hirazyakesin Saty4shadha, is in reality the work of Apastamba, and differs both in its language and in its contents very much from the Grthya-sitra’. Moreover, the Hairazyakesa Kayanastra has been taken over, as its colophon clearly proves, from the Bhéradvagas. It is, therefore, still possible that the ancient Manava Dharma-sitra was considered as the special property of the MAnavas, but was not composed by the same teacher as the Grzhya-sitra, or that, though both works had the same author, the materials for their composition were borrowed from different sources. Either supposition would explain the discrepancies between the two works. If we now could show that some other work belonging to the Manava Karama shows a special affinity to the Manu-smrtti, the view that the original of the latter was first the property of that school might be still upheld. A renewed examination of the various treatises, studied and claimed as their own by the MAnavas, has convinced me that such a connecting link is actually found among them. This is the Srdddhakalpa, a description of the ordinary funeral sacrifices which the M4nava Grthyasitra does not treat in detail, but barely touches in the sections on the Ash/¢aka rites (II, 8-9). If this treatise has not been taken into consideration by Professor Jolly and 1 Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, p. xxiii. INTRODUCTION, xli
3If this treatise has not been taken into consideration by Professor Jolly and 1 Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, p. xxiii. INTRODUCTION, xli Dr. von Bradke, the reason is that it is not contained in Professor Haug’s collection of the MAnava Siftras, the only one which has hitherto been accessible to European students. In my copy of the works of the Manava school it stands after the Pravarddhyd4ya'. It consists of four short Khandas. The first begins with the words, ‘Now we will explain the rules for the funeral sacrifices,’ and treats of the following points: the invitation of qualified Brahmazas, their hospitable reception with the Arghya in the house of the sacrificer, the invocations asking the Visvedevas and the manes to attend, and the burnt oblations offered to Soma, Yama, and Agni. The Mantras which are to be used seem, if not all, at least for the greater part, to have been taken from the Maitrayant Samhita. This section shows hardly any special agreement with the Manu-smrtti, except in the rule, known also from other Dharma-sitras, which prescribes the entertainment of two guests at the rite in honour of the gods, and of three at the offering to the manes or of one on either occasion, as well as in the number and the deities of the burnt oblations which precede the Sraddha (Manu III, 123,211). But the second Khanda, which contains the description of the Sraddha ceremony, opens with a couple of verses, the first of which corresponds almost literally? with Manu III, 274. The only important difference is that at the end the words ‘in the rainy season and under (the constellation) Magh4%’ take the place of Manu’s ‘when the shadow of the elephant falls towards the east.’ It must be noted that, though Vishzu LXXVIII, 52-53 and Vasish¢ha XI, 40 have passages which contain similar prayers of the manes, their wording differs very considerably from that of the Sraddhakalpa and of * My MS. of the writings of the Manava Xarana, which was copied in 1864-65 at Nasik, includes, besides the Samhita and the Upanishad, counted as the fifth Kfsda, all the portions of the Srauta-s{itra, known from Professor Haug’s MSS. together with the Kumfra or Kumfrila Bh4shya and portions of a later vrttti by Misra Balakrishna, as well as the Grzhya-sfitra with its Bhashya, the Paraxakhya, by Bhaffa Ashfavakra (not by Kumarila, as I conjectured in West and Bithler’s Digest, p. 46, note a), and the Sraddhakalpa. + fia a: eyes aren at UTICA | aT MyUfibat wig WAUYZ Th xlii LAWS OF MANU.
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.