Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
15 See e.g. Taitt. Samh. I, 7, 1,3; II, 5,9, 1; IIL, 3, 2,15 V, 4, 10, 5. Ix LAWS OF MANU. a longer story contained in such a work". It is probably on account of this legend that ‘Manu, the offspring of the Sun,’ receives in the Mahabharata? the epithet Sraddhadeva, which may be rendered either ‘the deity of the Srdddha,’ or, perhaps better, ‘he whose deity is the Sraddha, i. e. the Sraddha-worshipper.’ Closely connected with Manv’s position as inventor of sacrifices is the ancient myth, mentioned above, which makes him the father of Id4; and from the same idea spring probably the legends regarding his bull, whose voice destroyed the demons, and regarding the sacrifice of his wife, Manavi?. That Manu was credited with the revelation of Mantras has been stated above* in the remarks on the passages from the three redactions of the Yagur-veda and of the Tandya-brahmana. The older works, however, nowhere attribute to him entire hymns, but mostly small numbers of verses only. The same is the case in the Index of the Rishis of the White Yagur-veda, while the Sarvanukramami of the Rig-veda ascribes five entire Sdktas, VIII, 27-31, to Manu Vaivasvata, as well as a few verses to Manu Apsava and to Manu Samvaramza. An interesting passage in the beginning of the last section of the K/4ndogyopanishad® informs us that that work was revealed by Brahma (Hiranyagarbha) to Pragdpati (Kasyapa), by Pragapati to Manu, and by Manu to mankind. This legend proves that the ancient Vedic schools believed Manu to have taught more than a few verses and hymns. It also helps us to understand better the phrase of the four Vedic books quoted, ‘All 1 If Professor Max Miiller, India, What can it teach us? pp. 234-235 and 365, thinks that Apastamba’s passage betrays a consciousness of the later origin of the Sraddha rites, Iam unable to follow him. It seems to me more probable that it is only intended to explain the holiness and efficacy of the funeral sacrifices, and why they secure heaven for the worshipper and the worshipped ancestor. In the Brahmasas similar introductions, in which the Devas play the part of Manu, are prefixed to the descriptions of most sacrifices. As the Sraddhas specially concern men, the father of mankind is very appropriately represented as their inventor. 3 Mah. XII, 121, 29. ® Sacred Books of the East, vol. xii, pp. 29-30; see also the passages and essays quoted there in note I. * See p. xvi. * Sacred Books of the East, vol. i, p. 144. INTRODUCTION. Ixi Manu said is medicine.’ As has been pointed out above, the assertion contained in this sentence is so general that it makes us suspect the existence of many sayings of Manu on religious subjects. Though the X44ndogya is probably not as ancient as the Samhitds of the Yagur-veda, or even as the TAzdya, and though it hence would be more than hazardous to assume that this very passage is alluded to in
2Though the X44ndogya is probably not as ancient as the Samhitds of the Yagur-veda, or even as the TAzdya, and though it hence would be more than hazardous to assume that this very passage is alluded to in the latter, the idea that Manu acted as mediator between * Brahman and mankind, and that he taught the way to © final liberation, may yet belong to very early times, and may have been one of the causes which led to the sweeping generalisation. The same passages probably testify also to the early existence of the belief that Manu first settled the Dharma, which, as the preceding discussion shows, is but a natural outgrowth from the conceptions which make him the founder of the moral and social order of the world. The published Samhités and Brahmazas contain, as far as I know, no explicit statement on this subject. But an allusion to it seems to occur in the passage of the Taittiriya-samhita which declares that Manu divided his estate among his sons. Baudhdyana’, at least, has taken it in this sense, as he places it at the head of his rules on inheritance. The oldest direct testimony on this point is the Sloka quoted in Y4ska’s Nirukta III, 4, which says, ‘According to the sacred law the inheritance goes without a distinction to the children of both sexes, (that) Manu, the offspring of the Self-existent (Svayambhuva), has declared at the beginning of the creation®.’ The text shows the Vedic accents, the use of which appears to be confined to the Samhitaés and Brahmamas. As the verse is emphatically called a Sloka, it cannot have been taken 3 Sacred Books of the East, vol. xiv, p. 224. _ 3 Ido not share Professor von Roth’s misgivings (Nirukta, Notes, pp. 24-26) regarding the genuineness of this verse, and of the whole legal discussion in sections 4-6 of the third book of the Nirukta. We know now that the views of the ancient authors on the succession of daughters differed very considerably. Hence the incidental discussion of this vexed question in the Nirukta need not raise any suspicion. Similar digressions are not uncommon in other Vedic works, The difficulty with respect to the compound sikslokabhyam, in the words introducing the verse, disappears if it is taken as a Dvandva, and not, as Professor von Roth seems to do, as a Karmadhfraya, Ixii LAWS OF MANU.
3Similar digressions are not uncommon in other Vedic works, The difficulty with respect to the compound sikslokabhyam, in the words introducing the verse, disappears if it is taken as a Dvandva, and not, as Professor von Roth seems to do, as a Karmadhfraya, Ixii LAWS OF MANU. from a work of the former class. It probably belongs to one of the lost accented Brahmamas. That it did not form part of the Manava Dharma-sitra follows, not only from the use of the accents, but also from its contents. Its doctrine does not agree with that of our Manu-smrtti, which, with respect to the greater part of the rules on inheritance, may be considered as a faithful representative of the original Dharma-sitra. Though Manu IX, 131-139 strongly insists on the right of an appointed daughter, and, indeed, of every daughter who has no brothers, to succeed to the paternal estate, he nowhere lays down the rule, which, according to Y4ska, is taught in our verse, that daughters under all circumstances share equally with sons. To daughters who have brothers Manu allots one-fourth of a share. In the Dharma-sAtras the verses which contain the phrase ‘manur abravit, thus Manu has said,’ or equivalents thereof, become more frequent. The passages of Vasishzka and of S4nkh4yana in which it occurs have been discussed above. Two verses of this description are found in Baudhayana’s Dharma-satra (IV, 1, 13; 2, 15), anda considerable number in Usanas’ aphoristic Dharmasdstra!. In the Mahabhérata?, in our Manu-smriti itself, in the Narada-smriti®, and in other secondary law-books it is also of common occurrence. Its real meaning is, as Professor Hopkins (loc. cit.) has pointed out, no other than that the rule to which it is appended was thought to be ancient and indisputable. Hence it is sometimes used vicariously for appeals to the teaching of the Veda‘ and of Pragdpati. That the cause of 1 Instances of this kind occur, especially in the Sraddhakalpa, chapter IV, wate wa wR: aeTgqarrEtem: afrarerqurdty (sic) w -—=— waarrarrans afafrefaare 2 wey ganararat afermroeryCa (sic) Wand in chapter VI, WW: QUaerrre arifa aforerar) wager mererfar aq: sergctanin n wypATatfa Yestha WraTaT: pt ari wcqrafaqerat atsart Aquat -—--~eAtTe wT Yrreuet- waqrTaty u ? Proceedings of the American Oriental Society, October, 1883, p. xix. 3 J. Jolly, Tagore Lectures, p. 46. * Compare e. g. Vas. XVII, 10-11, and Manu IX, 182-3. INTRODUCTION. Lxili its adoption was not the existence of a primeval Manava Dharma-sitra or SAstra, but the belief in the revelation of the law by Manu is proved also by the wide divergence of the doctrines attributed to the father of mankind from each other and from the teaching of the Manu-smriti.
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.
15 See e.g. Taitt. Samh. I, 7, 1,3; II, 5,9, 1; IIL, 3, 2,15 V, 4, 10, 5. Ix LAWS OF MANU. a longer story contained in such a work". It is probably on account of this legend that ‘Manu, the offspring of the Sun,’ receives in the Mahabharata? the epithet Sraddhadeva, which may be rendered either ‘the deity of the Srdddha,’ or, perhaps better, ‘he whose deity is the Sraddha, i. e. the Sraddha-worshipper.’ Closely connected with Manv’s position as inventor of sacrifices is the ancient myth, mentioned above, which makes him the father of Id4; and from the same idea spring probably the legends regarding his bull, whose voice destroyed the demons, and regarding the sacrifice of his wife, Manavi?. That Manu was credited with the revelation of Mantras has been stated above* in the remarks on the passages from the three redactions of the Yagur-veda and of the Tandya-brahmana. The older works, however, nowhere attribute to him entire hymns, but mostly small numbers of verses only. The same is the case in the Index of the Rishis of the White Yagur-veda, while the Sarvanukramami of the Rig-veda ascribes five entire Sdktas, VIII, 27-31, to Manu Vaivasvata, as well as a few verses to Manu Apsava and to Manu Samvaramza. An interesting passage in the beginning of the last section of the K/4ndogyopanishad® informs us that that work was revealed by Brahma (Hiranyagarbha) to Pragdpati (Kasyapa), by Pragapati to Manu, and by Manu to mankind. This legend proves that the ancient Vedic schools believed Manu to have taught more than a few verses and hymns. It also helps us to understand better the phrase of the four Vedic books quoted, ‘All 1 If Professor Max Miiller, India, What can it teach us? pp. 234-235 and 365, thinks that Apastamba’s passage betrays a consciousness of the later origin of the Sraddha rites, Iam unable to follow him. It seems to me more probable that it is only intended to explain the holiness and efficacy of the funeral sacrifices, and why they secure heaven for the worshipper and the worshipped ancestor. In the Brahmasas similar introductions, in which the Devas play the part of Manu, are prefixed to the descriptions of most sacrifices. As the Sraddhas specially concern men, the father of mankind is very appropriately represented as their inventor. 3 Mah. XII, 121, 29. ® Sacred Books of the East, vol. xii, pp. 29-30; see also the passages and essays quoted there in note I. * See p. xvi. * Sacred Books of the East, vol. i, p. 144. INTRODUCTION. Ixi Manu said is medicine.’ As has been pointed out above, the assertion contained in this sentence is so general that it makes us suspect the existence of many sayings of Manu on religious subjects. Though the X44ndogya is probably not as ancient as the Samhitds of the Yagur-veda, or even as the TAzdya, and though it hence would be more than hazardous to assume that this very passage is alluded to in
2Though the X44ndogya is probably not as ancient as the Samhitds of the Yagur-veda, or even as the TAzdya, and though it hence would be more than hazardous to assume that this very passage is alluded to in the latter, the idea that Manu acted as mediator between * Brahman and mankind, and that he taught the way to © final liberation, may yet belong to very early times, and may have been one of the causes which led to the sweeping generalisation. The same passages probably testify also to the early existence of the belief that Manu first settled the Dharma, which, as the preceding discussion shows, is but a natural outgrowth from the conceptions which make him the founder of the moral and social order of the world. The published Samhités and Brahmazas contain, as far as I know, no explicit statement on this subject. But an allusion to it seems to occur in the passage of the Taittiriya-samhita which declares that Manu divided his estate among his sons. Baudhdyana’, at least, has taken it in this sense, as he places it at the head of his rules on inheritance. The oldest direct testimony on this point is the Sloka quoted in Y4ska’s Nirukta III, 4, which says, ‘According to the sacred law the inheritance goes without a distinction to the children of both sexes, (that) Manu, the offspring of the Self-existent (Svayambhuva), has declared at the beginning of the creation®.’ The text shows the Vedic accents, the use of which appears to be confined to the Samhitaés and Brahmamas. As the verse is emphatically called a Sloka, it cannot have been taken 3 Sacred Books of the East, vol. xiv, p. 224. _ 3 Ido not share Professor von Roth’s misgivings (Nirukta, Notes, pp. 24-26) regarding the genuineness of this verse, and of the whole legal discussion in sections 4-6 of the third book of the Nirukta. We know now that the views of the ancient authors on the succession of daughters differed very considerably. Hence the incidental discussion of this vexed question in the Nirukta need not raise any suspicion. Similar digressions are not uncommon in other Vedic works, The difficulty with respect to the compound sikslokabhyam, in the words introducing the verse, disappears if it is taken as a Dvandva, and not, as Professor von Roth seems to do, as a Karmadhfraya, Ixii LAWS OF MANU.
3Similar digressions are not uncommon in other Vedic works, The difficulty with respect to the compound sikslokabhyam, in the words introducing the verse, disappears if it is taken as a Dvandva, and not, as Professor von Roth seems to do, as a Karmadhfraya, Ixii LAWS OF MANU. from a work of the former class. It probably belongs to one of the lost accented Brahmamas. That it did not form part of the Manava Dharma-sitra follows, not only from the use of the accents, but also from its contents. Its doctrine does not agree with that of our Manu-smrtti, which, with respect to the greater part of the rules on inheritance, may be considered as a faithful representative of the original Dharma-sitra. Though Manu IX, 131-139 strongly insists on the right of an appointed daughter, and, indeed, of every daughter who has no brothers, to succeed to the paternal estate, he nowhere lays down the rule, which, according to Y4ska, is taught in our verse, that daughters under all circumstances share equally with sons. To daughters who have brothers Manu allots one-fourth of a share. In the Dharma-sAtras the verses which contain the phrase ‘manur abravit, thus Manu has said,’ or equivalents thereof, become more frequent. The passages of Vasishzka and of S4nkh4yana in which it occurs have been discussed above. Two verses of this description are found in Baudhayana’s Dharma-satra (IV, 1, 13; 2, 15), anda considerable number in Usanas’ aphoristic Dharmasdstra!. In the Mahabhérata?, in our Manu-smriti itself, in the Narada-smriti®, and in other secondary law-books it is also of common occurrence. Its real meaning is, as Professor Hopkins (loc. cit.) has pointed out, no other than that the rule to which it is appended was thought to be ancient and indisputable. Hence it is sometimes used vicariously for appeals to the teaching of the Veda‘ and of Pragdpati. That the cause of 1 Instances of this kind occur, especially in the Sraddhakalpa, chapter IV, wate wa wR: aeTgqarrEtem: afrarerqurdty (sic) w -—=— waarrarrans afafrefaare 2 wey ganararat afermroeryCa (sic) Wand in chapter VI, WW: QUaerrre arifa aforerar) wager mererfar aq: sergctanin n wypATatfa Yestha WraTaT: pt ari wcqrafaqerat atsart Aquat -—--~eAtTe wT Yrreuet- waqrTaty u ? Proceedings of the American Oriental Society, October, 1883, p. xix. 3 J. Jolly, Tagore Lectures, p. 46. * Compare e. g. Vas. XVII, 10-11, and Manu IX, 182-3. INTRODUCTION. Lxili its adoption was not the existence of a primeval Manava Dharma-sitra or SAstra, but the belief in the revelation of the law by Manu is proved also by the wide divergence of the doctrines attributed to the father of mankind from each other and from the teaching of the Manu-smriti.
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.