Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1* See Max Miiller, History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 150, who says INTRODUCTION. li works seem to have treated grammar from the same standpoint as Paxini’s book. But it may be reasonably supposed that the earliest among them mainly or even exclusively taught the rules applicable to the Vedic texts, studied by the several Karazas to which the authors belonged. This stage of grammatical research belongs, however, to a remote past. Indian grammar, as it first becomes known to us, is no longer entirely subservient to the wants of the Vedastudy, but works, though it still takes account of the Veda, for its own ends. The science of astronomy is still more loosely connected with the Vedic schools. All the traces of its really having been an Anga consist in the small treatise, entitled Gyotisha, of which two slightly different recensions are extant, one belonging to the Rig-veda and one to the Yagur-veda. All the other works on this subject, even the ancient ones such as the Gargt Samhita, as well as the VAsish¢4a Samhita and Siddhanta, show no connexion with the Veda or Vedic schools, except that their authorship is ascribed to Rishis or descendants of the families of Rishis. As regards the sacred law, the fact that such late offshoots of the Vedic tree, as the Apastambiyas and the Hairazyakesas, possess Dharma-sitras, proves that this subject much longer formed part of the curriculum of the Vedic schools. But already one of the most ancient grammarians of the historical period of India, Patajgali, hints that in his times the Dharma was taught not only in the Vedic but also in special schools. For on the one hand he refers to the Dharma-sitras!, on the other he teaches the formation of a special word, dharmavidya, which denotes ‘a person who studies or knows the dharmavidya, the science of the sacred law?.’ Possibly the word dharmasAstra, the Institutes of the sacred law, which occurs most appropriately that the Hindus ought to speak not of the Pasinyadya vaiyakaraz4h, but of the Pasinyantas. 1 See the remarks on P4vini I, 1, 47. 2 See the remarks on Panini IV, 2, 60 (vol. ii, p. 248, Kielhom). I follow Dr. Kielhorn, who prints the words ‘ vidya 4anangakshatradharmatripOrva’ as a remark of Patafgali, not as a Varttika of Katyayana. d2 lii LAWS OF MANU.
21 See the remarks on P4vini I, 1, 47. 2 See the remarks on Panini IV, 2, 60 (vol. ii, p. 248, Kielhom). I follow Dr. Kielhorn, who prints the words ‘ vidya 4anangakshatradharmatripOrva’ as a remark of Patafgali, not as a Varttika of Katyayana. d2 lii LAWS OF MANU. occasionally in his Bhashya!, may also point to manuals, studied by the special schools, which differed from the Dharma-sitras. But it is not absolutely conclusive, as a Dharma-sitra too may be called a Dharmasdstra, because it teaches the sacred law. If we go back to still earlier times we find the existence of special law schools clearly indicated even in some of the Dharma-sitras. The passages which are most explicit on this point are those which describe the constitution of a Parishad or an assembly of learned men, entitled to decide doubtful law cases. For we read, Vasish¢ha III, 20, and Baudhdyana I, 1, 8, ‘ Four men who each know one of the four Vedas, a student of the Mim4msa, one who knows the Angas, one who recites (the works on) the sacred law (dharmapa¢haka), and three Brahmamas belonging to (three different) orders (constitute) an assembly consisting of, at least, ten (members)?.’ Here the reciter or teacher of the sacred law is named side by side with him who knows the Angas. As the two works in which the verse occurs are Dharma-sitras belonging to the Kalpa section of the Angas, it is evident that the teacher of the sacred law must be a person who specially devotes himself to the study of that subject, and knows more than one Dharma-sitra. Hence it follows that special law schools must have existed at the time when these two Dharma-sitras were composed*, It may also be that already then these special schools had elaborated ' See Katydyana’s Varttika 39 on Pasini I, a, 64, and Patafgali’s remarks thereon (Kielhorn, Mah. vol. i, p. 242). 2 See also Manu XII, 111; and above, p. xxv. 3 The significance of the passage quoted comes out still stronger, if we compare Gautama’s rule (XXVIII, 49), which differs very considerably: ‘ They declare that an assembly (parishad, shall consist) at least (of) the ten following (members, viz.) four men who have completely studied the four Vedas, three men belonging to the (three) orders enumerated first, (and) three men who know (three) different (institutes of) law.’ Gautama says nothing of men specially devoted to the study of the sacred law. He requires three persons, knowing three different Dharma-siitras. He and Apastamba are perfectly aware of the fragmentary character of their rules, and particularly refer their pupils (Gaut. XVI, 49; Ap. I, 3,11, 38) in certain cases to the teaching of other schools, which, being comprised under the general term Smriti, have authority, provided the teachers were orthodox Sish¢as (Gaut. I, 2; Ap. I, 1, 1,2; Vas. J, 4; Baudh. I, 1, 1, 3). _ INTRODUCTION. ~ Iii! *
3XVI, 49; Ap. I, 3,11, 38) in certain cases to the teaching of other schools, which, being comprised under the general term Smriti, have authority, provided the teachers were orthodox Sish¢as (Gaut. I, 2; Ap. I, 1, 1,2; Vas. J, 4; Baudh. I, 1, 1, 3). _ INTRODUCTION. ~ Iii! * manuals of their own which differed from the Dharmasitras, In favour of this opinion the metrical quotation at Baudhayana II, 4, 14-15 may be adduced, as it seems to have been taken from a work in Anushtubh-Slokas?. Though the unsatisfactory state of the text of Baudhayana does not allow us to insist too strongly on this passage, it is undeniable that the formation of special law schools must inevitably lead after a short time to the composition of manuals for their use. It is, no doubt, true that their founders possessed in the Dharma-sfitras, the number of which, to judge from the quotations, must have been very great, plentiful materials on which they could base their investigations. But the treatment of a science from a new point of view was in itself an incentive to the production of new manuals, and there were in the case of the special law schools also other reasons which made such a course desirable. Minute as the Dharma-sitras generally are on the majority of the topics connected with the moral duties of Aryas, their arrangement of the rules is frequently unsystematic, and their treatment of the legal procedure, the civil and the criminal law, with the exception of one single title, the dayavibh4ga, i. e. the law of inheritance and partition, extremely unsatisfactory. With respect to the other titles, the Dharma-sitras give nothing more than a few hints, intended to indicate the general principles, but they never proceed systematically, and always show most embarrassing omissions. From the standpoint of the Vedic schools, a more detailed and orderly treatment of these matters was, of course, irrelevant, as their chief aim was to point out the road to the acquisition of spiritual merit, and to guard their pupils against committing sin. Though some of their members might be called upon, and no doubt actually were destined in later life, to become practical lawyers, as Dharmdadhikarins, i.e. legal advisers of kings and chiefs, or as judges, and to settle the law between man and man, the few general principles which they had learnt during their course of instruction would suffice for their wants. For the details 1 Sacred Books of the East, vol. xiv, p. xli. 4 a liv. 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.
1* See Max Miiller, History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 150, who says INTRODUCTION. li works seem to have treated grammar from the same standpoint as Paxini’s book. But it may be reasonably supposed that the earliest among them mainly or even exclusively taught the rules applicable to the Vedic texts, studied by the several Karazas to which the authors belonged. This stage of grammatical research belongs, however, to a remote past. Indian grammar, as it first becomes known to us, is no longer entirely subservient to the wants of the Vedastudy, but works, though it still takes account of the Veda, for its own ends. The science of astronomy is still more loosely connected with the Vedic schools. All the traces of its really having been an Anga consist in the small treatise, entitled Gyotisha, of which two slightly different recensions are extant, one belonging to the Rig-veda and one to the Yagur-veda. All the other works on this subject, even the ancient ones such as the Gargt Samhita, as well as the VAsish¢4a Samhita and Siddhanta, show no connexion with the Veda or Vedic schools, except that their authorship is ascribed to Rishis or descendants of the families of Rishis. As regards the sacred law, the fact that such late offshoots of the Vedic tree, as the Apastambiyas and the Hairazyakesas, possess Dharma-sitras, proves that this subject much longer formed part of the curriculum of the Vedic schools. But already one of the most ancient grammarians of the historical period of India, Patajgali, hints that in his times the Dharma was taught not only in the Vedic but also in special schools. For on the one hand he refers to the Dharma-sitras!, on the other he teaches the formation of a special word, dharmavidya, which denotes ‘a person who studies or knows the dharmavidya, the science of the sacred law?.’ Possibly the word dharmasAstra, the Institutes of the sacred law, which occurs most appropriately that the Hindus ought to speak not of the Pasinyadya vaiyakaraz4h, but of the Pasinyantas. 1 See the remarks on P4vini I, 1, 47. 2 See the remarks on Panini IV, 2, 60 (vol. ii, p. 248, Kielhom). I follow Dr. Kielhorn, who prints the words ‘ vidya 4anangakshatradharmatripOrva’ as a remark of Patafgali, not as a Varttika of Katyayana. d2 lii LAWS OF MANU.
21 See the remarks on P4vini I, 1, 47. 2 See the remarks on Panini IV, 2, 60 (vol. ii, p. 248, Kielhom). I follow Dr. Kielhorn, who prints the words ‘ vidya 4anangakshatradharmatripOrva’ as a remark of Patafgali, not as a Varttika of Katyayana. d2 lii LAWS OF MANU. occasionally in his Bhashya!, may also point to manuals, studied by the special schools, which differed from the Dharma-sitras. But it is not absolutely conclusive, as a Dharma-sitra too may be called a Dharmasdstra, because it teaches the sacred law. If we go back to still earlier times we find the existence of special law schools clearly indicated even in some of the Dharma-sitras. The passages which are most explicit on this point are those which describe the constitution of a Parishad or an assembly of learned men, entitled to decide doubtful law cases. For we read, Vasish¢ha III, 20, and Baudhdyana I, 1, 8, ‘ Four men who each know one of the four Vedas, a student of the Mim4msa, one who knows the Angas, one who recites (the works on) the sacred law (dharmapa¢haka), and three Brahmamas belonging to (three different) orders (constitute) an assembly consisting of, at least, ten (members)?.’ Here the reciter or teacher of the sacred law is named side by side with him who knows the Angas. As the two works in which the verse occurs are Dharma-sitras belonging to the Kalpa section of the Angas, it is evident that the teacher of the sacred law must be a person who specially devotes himself to the study of that subject, and knows more than one Dharma-sitra. Hence it follows that special law schools must have existed at the time when these two Dharma-sitras were composed*, It may also be that already then these special schools had elaborated ' See Katydyana’s Varttika 39 on Pasini I, a, 64, and Patafgali’s remarks thereon (Kielhorn, Mah. vol. i, p. 242). 2 See also Manu XII, 111; and above, p. xxv. 3 The significance of the passage quoted comes out still stronger, if we compare Gautama’s rule (XXVIII, 49), which differs very considerably: ‘ They declare that an assembly (parishad, shall consist) at least (of) the ten following (members, viz.) four men who have completely studied the four Vedas, three men belonging to the (three) orders enumerated first, (and) three men who know (three) different (institutes of) law.’ Gautama says nothing of men specially devoted to the study of the sacred law. He requires three persons, knowing three different Dharma-siitras. He and Apastamba are perfectly aware of the fragmentary character of their rules, and particularly refer their pupils (Gaut. XVI, 49; Ap. I, 3,11, 38) in certain cases to the teaching of other schools, which, being comprised under the general term Smriti, have authority, provided the teachers were orthodox Sish¢as (Gaut. I, 2; Ap. I, 1, 1,2; Vas. J, 4; Baudh. I, 1, 1, 3). _ INTRODUCTION. ~ Iii! *
3XVI, 49; Ap. I, 3,11, 38) in certain cases to the teaching of other schools, which, being comprised under the general term Smriti, have authority, provided the teachers were orthodox Sish¢as (Gaut. I, 2; Ap. I, 1, 1,2; Vas. J, 4; Baudh. I, 1, 1, 3). _ INTRODUCTION. ~ Iii! * manuals of their own which differed from the Dharmasitras, In favour of this opinion the metrical quotation at Baudhayana II, 4, 14-15 may be adduced, as it seems to have been taken from a work in Anushtubh-Slokas?. Though the unsatisfactory state of the text of Baudhayana does not allow us to insist too strongly on this passage, it is undeniable that the formation of special law schools must inevitably lead after a short time to the composition of manuals for their use. It is, no doubt, true that their founders possessed in the Dharma-sfitras, the number of which, to judge from the quotations, must have been very great, plentiful materials on which they could base their investigations. But the treatment of a science from a new point of view was in itself an incentive to the production of new manuals, and there were in the case of the special law schools also other reasons which made such a course desirable. Minute as the Dharma-sitras generally are on the majority of the topics connected with the moral duties of Aryas, their arrangement of the rules is frequently unsystematic, and their treatment of the legal procedure, the civil and the criminal law, with the exception of one single title, the dayavibh4ga, i. e. the law of inheritance and partition, extremely unsatisfactory. With respect to the other titles, the Dharma-sitras give nothing more than a few hints, intended to indicate the general principles, but they never proceed systematically, and always show most embarrassing omissions. From the standpoint of the Vedic schools, a more detailed and orderly treatment of these matters was, of course, irrelevant, as their chief aim was to point out the road to the acquisition of spiritual merit, and to guard their pupils against committing sin. Though some of their members might be called upon, and no doubt actually were destined in later life, to become practical lawyers, as Dharmdadhikarins, i.e. legal advisers of kings and chiefs, or as judges, and to settle the law between man and man, the few general principles which they had learnt during their course of instruction would suffice for their wants. For the details 1 Sacred Books of the East, vol. xiv, p. xli. 4 a liv. 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.