Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1The worlds, rivers, oceans, the quarters of the compass, mountains, trees, men, Kinnaras, Rakshas, birds, tame and wild beasts, and snakes, the imperishable and the perishable, both the immovable and the movable. 16. Whatever course of action they adopted in a former creation, even that 18>, That the great elements enter together with their functions (karman)*. 28. But to whatever course of action the Lord at first appointed each (kind of 1 The sixteen constituent parts are, according to Nilakastha, the five gross elements and the eleven organs. * Nilakawha takes mahanti bhitAni, ‘the great elements,’ in the sense of ‘the subtile elements, and the great ones, the mahattattvas’ (bhitani sikshmavi mahénti mahattatattvani). * This line is a good example, showing how the same words of the ancient school-tradition were made to serve different purposes. XC LAWS OF MANU. alone they adopt in each succeeding creation. 17. They turn to noxiousness or harmlessness, gentleness or ferocity, virtue or sin, truth or falsehood, according to the disposition with which they were (first) created; hence that (particular course of action) beings), that alone it has spontaneously adopted in each succeeding creation. 29. Whatever he assigned to each at the (first) creation, noxiousness or harmlessness, gentleness or ferocity, virtue or sin, truth or falsehood, that clung(afterwards)spontaneously to it. pleases each. The remainder of Vydsa’s narrative, which continues through the following twenty-six verses, may be omitted, as, further on, it presents few points of contact with our Smriti. It must, however, be noticed that, according to verses 25-26, ‘the Lord assigned to his creatures their names and conditions, in accordance with the words of the Veda.’ This idea agrees with Manu I, 21, but the wording of the two passages differs very considerably. The lesson which the facts, revealed by the above discussion, teach, is a double one. First, they clearly. show that the editor of our metrical Manu-sm7iti has not drawn on the Mah4bhd4rata, but that the authors of both works have utilised the same materials. Secondly, they make it highly probable that the materials, on which both works are based, were not systematic treatises on law and philosophy, but the floating proverbial wisdom of the philosophical and legal schools which already existed in metrical form. The first point is so evident that it seems to me unnecessary to waste any more words on it. With respect to the second conclusion, I would point out that it is made unavoidable by the peculiar character of the differences found in closely connected Slokas, by the occurrence of identical lines and pddas in verses whereof the general sense differs, and by the faint, shadowy resemblance in words and ideas, observable in other pieces. I may add, further, that the supposition that each special school possessed such a body of metrical maxims is perfectly well founded. INTRODUCTION. xc
2I may add, further, that the supposition that each special school possessed such a body of metrical maxims is perfectly well founded. INTRODUCTION. xc As has been rcpeatedly stated, the text-books of the ancient Vedic schools, the Sftras and the Upanishads, contain already a not inconsiderable proportion of Anushéubh verses which sometimes recur in identical or slightly varying forms. Hence it is no more than might be expected that the teachers of the special schools should have continued in the path of their predecessors, and should have gradually augmented the stock of their ‘Spruchweisheit, until it extended to all legal and philosophical topics, and the accumulation of these detached verses made it easy and tempting. to convert the old aphoristic. handbooks into metrical treatises!, The answer, which we are thus obliged to give to the question whence the editor of our Manu-smrti took his:additional. materials, agrees.very closely. with Professor Hopkins’ hypothesis, who, as mentioned above, considers the law-book to be a conglomerate of the Manava Dharma-sdtra and of the floating sayings attributed to Manu, the father of mankind. The latter restriction seems to me unadvisable, because among the mass of corresponding pieces found. in the Mahdbh4rata comparatively few are attributed to the PragApati, and because a Hindu who was 1 The probability of the existence of such a body of metrical maxims would become still more apparent, if it were possible to enter here on a comparison of portions of the older Purazas with the Mahabharata and the metrical Smritis, as well as on a detailed consideration of the ancient Buddhist literature. Though the difficulty and magnitude of such a task forbid its being attempted in this Introduction, I cannot refrain from inserting a few general hints. The Purazas contain a good deal that is identical with or similar to passages of the Mahabh4rata and Manu, and it is in many cases impossible to assume that the corresponding verses have been borrowed from the latter works, The Purfas, some of which, like the Vayu, even in their present shape, go back to a very respectable antiquity, are popular sectarian compilations of mythology, philosophy, history, and the sacred law, intended, as they are now used, for the instruction of the unlettered classes, including the upper divisions of the S{idra varma, the so-called SaééAfidras, It was only natural that their authors should have appropriated suitable portions of the floating metrical wisdom of the philosophical and legal schools,
3The comparison of the ancient Buddhist literature is particularly instructive, because the Buddhists are a special philosophical school, and because their oldest works, though mostly consisting of prose, include a considerable number of Slokas, among which a certain number, as, for instance, in the Dhammapada, shows affinities to verses of the MahAbharata and even of Manu. They probably took over a certain stock of ancient metrical maxims, and added a great number of new ones, XCll LAWS OF MANU. thoroughly convinced of the truth of the dogma that Manu first taught the sacred law, would not hesitate to ascribe to that sage all the maxims which seemed to him to bear the stamp of authenticity, even if others attributed them to different authorities. The answer to the next question, whether the conversion of the Manava Dharma-sitra was effected at one time or by degrees, and whether Bhvzgu’s recension has to be considered as the immediate offspring or as a remoter descendant of the Stra, must, I think, be answered, as has been tacitly assumed in the preceding discussion, in the sense of the first alternative. Not long ago it seemed that the contrary opinion was the more probable one. But the closer one examines the facts which at first sight seem to lead up to the inference that Bhrigu’s Manu-samhita forms the last link in a long chain of metrical Manu-smritis, the more one sees that they possess no, or very little, importance. On the other hand, those arguments which speak in favour of our text being, if not the first, at least one of the first attempts at a conversion of a Vedic school-book into a special law-book, gain by the same process in force and increase in number. The points which have been brought forward in order to prove that the existing text of Manu has suffered many recasts are, first, its numerous contradictory passages; secondly, the explicit statement of the Hindu tradition in the preface to the Narada-smriti; thirdly, the quotations from a Brihat Manu and a Vriddha Manu met with in the medieval Digests of law; and fourthly, the untraceable or partly traceable quotations from Manu’s Dharmasdstra found in some of the older Sanskrit works.. The existence of these facts is undeniable. But it is not difficult to show that they are partly useless as arguments, and partly, under a better interpretation, lead to quite other conclusions. Thus in weighing the value of the argument drawn from the occurrence of contradictory passages, two circumstances, which mostly have been left out of account, must be kept in mind: first, that it is a common habit of Indian authors to place conflicting opinions, supported by authorities of equal weight, side by side, and to allow an option, or to INTRODUCTION. XCill
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 worlds, rivers, oceans, the quarters of the compass, mountains, trees, men, Kinnaras, Rakshas, birds, tame and wild beasts, and snakes, the imperishable and the perishable, both the immovable and the movable. 16. Whatever course of action they adopted in a former creation, even that 18>, That the great elements enter together with their functions (karman)*. 28. But to whatever course of action the Lord at first appointed each (kind of 1 The sixteen constituent parts are, according to Nilakastha, the five gross elements and the eleven organs. * Nilakawha takes mahanti bhitAni, ‘the great elements,’ in the sense of ‘the subtile elements, and the great ones, the mahattattvas’ (bhitani sikshmavi mahénti mahattatattvani). * This line is a good example, showing how the same words of the ancient school-tradition were made to serve different purposes. XC LAWS OF MANU. alone they adopt in each succeeding creation. 17. They turn to noxiousness or harmlessness, gentleness or ferocity, virtue or sin, truth or falsehood, according to the disposition with which they were (first) created; hence that (particular course of action) beings), that alone it has spontaneously adopted in each succeeding creation. 29. Whatever he assigned to each at the (first) creation, noxiousness or harmlessness, gentleness or ferocity, virtue or sin, truth or falsehood, that clung(afterwards)spontaneously to it. pleases each. The remainder of Vydsa’s narrative, which continues through the following twenty-six verses, may be omitted, as, further on, it presents few points of contact with our Smriti. It must, however, be noticed that, according to verses 25-26, ‘the Lord assigned to his creatures their names and conditions, in accordance with the words of the Veda.’ This idea agrees with Manu I, 21, but the wording of the two passages differs very considerably. The lesson which the facts, revealed by the above discussion, teach, is a double one. First, they clearly. show that the editor of our metrical Manu-sm7iti has not drawn on the Mah4bhd4rata, but that the authors of both works have utilised the same materials. Secondly, they make it highly probable that the materials, on which both works are based, were not systematic treatises on law and philosophy, but the floating proverbial wisdom of the philosophical and legal schools which already existed in metrical form. The first point is so evident that it seems to me unnecessary to waste any more words on it. With respect to the second conclusion, I would point out that it is made unavoidable by the peculiar character of the differences found in closely connected Slokas, by the occurrence of identical lines and pddas in verses whereof the general sense differs, and by the faint, shadowy resemblance in words and ideas, observable in other pieces. I may add, further, that the supposition that each special school possessed such a body of metrical maxims is perfectly well founded. INTRODUCTION. xc
2I may add, further, that the supposition that each special school possessed such a body of metrical maxims is perfectly well founded. INTRODUCTION. xc As has been rcpeatedly stated, the text-books of the ancient Vedic schools, the Sftras and the Upanishads, contain already a not inconsiderable proportion of Anushéubh verses which sometimes recur in identical or slightly varying forms. Hence it is no more than might be expected that the teachers of the special schools should have continued in the path of their predecessors, and should have gradually augmented the stock of their ‘Spruchweisheit, until it extended to all legal and philosophical topics, and the accumulation of these detached verses made it easy and tempting. to convert the old aphoristic. handbooks into metrical treatises!, The answer, which we are thus obliged to give to the question whence the editor of our Manu-smrti took his:additional. materials, agrees.very closely. with Professor Hopkins’ hypothesis, who, as mentioned above, considers the law-book to be a conglomerate of the Manava Dharma-sdtra and of the floating sayings attributed to Manu, the father of mankind. The latter restriction seems to me unadvisable, because among the mass of corresponding pieces found. in the Mahdbh4rata comparatively few are attributed to the PragApati, and because a Hindu who was 1 The probability of the existence of such a body of metrical maxims would become still more apparent, if it were possible to enter here on a comparison of portions of the older Purazas with the Mahabharata and the metrical Smritis, as well as on a detailed consideration of the ancient Buddhist literature. Though the difficulty and magnitude of such a task forbid its being attempted in this Introduction, I cannot refrain from inserting a few general hints. The Purazas contain a good deal that is identical with or similar to passages of the Mahabh4rata and Manu, and it is in many cases impossible to assume that the corresponding verses have been borrowed from the latter works, The Purfas, some of which, like the Vayu, even in their present shape, go back to a very respectable antiquity, are popular sectarian compilations of mythology, philosophy, history, and the sacred law, intended, as they are now used, for the instruction of the unlettered classes, including the upper divisions of the S{idra varma, the so-called SaééAfidras, It was only natural that their authors should have appropriated suitable portions of the floating metrical wisdom of the philosophical and legal schools,
3The comparison of the ancient Buddhist literature is particularly instructive, because the Buddhists are a special philosophical school, and because their oldest works, though mostly consisting of prose, include a considerable number of Slokas, among which a certain number, as, for instance, in the Dhammapada, shows affinities to verses of the MahAbharata and even of Manu. They probably took over a certain stock of ancient metrical maxims, and added a great number of new ones, XCll LAWS OF MANU. thoroughly convinced of the truth of the dogma that Manu first taught the sacred law, would not hesitate to ascribe to that sage all the maxims which seemed to him to bear the stamp of authenticity, even if others attributed them to different authorities. The answer to the next question, whether the conversion of the Manava Dharma-sitra was effected at one time or by degrees, and whether Bhvzgu’s recension has to be considered as the immediate offspring or as a remoter descendant of the Stra, must, I think, be answered, as has been tacitly assumed in the preceding discussion, in the sense of the first alternative. Not long ago it seemed that the contrary opinion was the more probable one. But the closer one examines the facts which at first sight seem to lead up to the inference that Bhrigu’s Manu-samhita forms the last link in a long chain of metrical Manu-smritis, the more one sees that they possess no, or very little, importance. On the other hand, those arguments which speak in favour of our text being, if not the first, at least one of the first attempts at a conversion of a Vedic school-book into a special law-book, gain by the same process in force and increase in number. The points which have been brought forward in order to prove that the existing text of Manu has suffered many recasts are, first, its numerous contradictory passages; secondly, the explicit statement of the Hindu tradition in the preface to the Narada-smriti; thirdly, the quotations from a Brihat Manu and a Vriddha Manu met with in the medieval Digests of law; and fourthly, the untraceable or partly traceable quotations from Manu’s Dharmasdstra found in some of the older Sanskrit works.. The existence of these facts is undeniable. But it is not difficult to show that they are partly useless as arguments, and partly, under a better interpretation, lead to quite other conclusions. Thus in weighing the value of the argument drawn from the occurrence of contradictory passages, two circumstances, which mostly have been left out of account, must be kept in mind: first, that it is a common habit of Indian authors to place conflicting opinions, supported by authorities of equal weight, side by side, and to allow an option, or to INTRODUCTION. XCill
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.