Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1cit. p. 74. ? The form Utathya is a corruption of the Vedic Uéathya, and shows the substitution of a dental for a palatal, which is not uncommon in the Prakrit dialects. Hence it possesses a certain value as an additional proof for the post- Vedic origin of the Manu-smriti. INTRODUCTION. XXVil and is confirmed by an analogous passage of the aphoristic Dharmasdstra of Usanas!, the author adduces there the opinions of four older authorities, all of which are credited by the Hindu tradition with the revelation of law-books. We still possess several Smritis attributed to Atri, Saunaka, and to Gautama, as well as one said to belong to Bhrigu. With the exception of the aphoristic Gautamiya Dharmasistra all these works are modern, some being metrical recensions of older Sdtras, and some of very doubtful origin. It is, therefore, impossible that any of the existing Dharmasastras, Atri, Saunaka, and Bhyzgu, can be referred to by Manu, and, as a matter of fact, the opinions quoted cannot be traced in them. But if we turn to Gautama’s Sdtra we find among those persons who defile the company at a Sraddha dinner, and who are thus excluded from the community of the virtuous, the sddrapati, literally ‘the husband of a Sadra female?.’ The real signification of the compound seems, however, to be, as Haradatta suggests, ‘he whose only wife or dharmapatni is a Sddra.’ As it appears from Manu III, 17-19, that the opinion attributed to the son Utathya was the same, it is not at all unlikely that the Manu-smr‘ti actually quotes the still existing Sdtra of Gautama. Another reference to a lost Satra occurs at Manu VI, 21, where it is said of the hermit in the forest, ‘Or he may constantly subsist on flowers, roots, and fruit alone......, following the rule of the (Institutes) of Vikhanas.’ The original Sanskrit of the participial clause is ‘ vaikhanasamate sthita#,’ and means literally ‘abiding by the Vaikhanasa opinion.’ The commentators, with the exception of Nardyawza, are unanimous in declaring that ' Us. Dharmasastra, chap. IIT, feat Faesvatn: | at aaa | ATAT ST wafaferraratqyae yar weraife afew ere i wafa a onatin See yweat umedtia erecta: 8 warareranntin etre: 0 yea: uaatta min: = Though Usanas’ statements regarding the opinions of the ancient lawyers do not agree with those of the Manu-sm~r‘ti, except in the case of Saunaka, they are yet important, because they show that differences of opinion regarding the effects of a marriage with a S{Qdr4 did occur. See also Jolly, Tagore Lectures, p. §3. 3 Gautama XV, 18; Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, p. 255. XXVIIi LAWS OF MANU.
2See also Jolly, Tagore Lectures, p. §3. 3 Gautama XV, 18; Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, p. 255. XXVIIi LAWS OF MANU. the word Vaikhanasa here denotes a SAstra or Sdtra promulgated by Vikhanas, in which the duties of hermits were described at length!. The correctness of this opinion seems to me indisputable. For the word mata, ‘opinion,’ in Manu’s verse, requires that the preceding part of the compound should denote either a person, or a school, or a work. If we take vaikh4nasa in the sense of hermit in the forest, we obtain the meaningless translation, ‘a hermit may subsist on flowers, &c., following the opinion of hermits.’ It is, therefore, necessary to interpret vaikhanasa with the commentators in the sense of vaikhanasa sAstra, and to refer it to a particular work which taught the duties of hermits. The existence of such a book is attested not only by Manu’s commentators, but also by other ancient and modern authors. Baudhdyana mentions it explicitly’, and seems to give a short summary of its contents in the third chapter of the third Prasna of his Dharmasdstra. Haradatta, the commentator of Apastamba and Gautama, also appears to have known it. In his notes on Gautama ITI, 2, he gives the derivation of vaikh4nasa, a hermit in the forest, saying, ‘The vanaprastha is called vaikhanasa, because he lives according to the rule promulgated by Vikhanas,’ and adds, ‘For that (sage) chiefly taught that order’’ If the statements made to me by Indian Pazzdits are to be trusted, we may even hope to recover the work in course of time. It must be an exceedingly ancient book, as the secondary meaning of vaikhanasa, a hermit, which can have arisen only in the manner suggested by Haradatta‘, occurs in the 1 Medh, SRTAR ATH Wee TT Ataneren wah fafemarai aa Ferm 0 Gov. SATAMR AAMATNTATHA feat: uw Kull. Farzal wwe! Weadufarreagreaega fem: 0 Nand. terlet]zant frele}eer whe ae [5] we fe srrencter qotude: fat n Nar. teraeat STAMETAT Nt 2 Baudh. Dharma, II, 11,14; Sacred Books of the East, vol. xiv, p. 259. * Qaraat wane | feeaar wher mig sia sfa ta fe a Brae: MraTatay wfwarfed: W * The double vviddhi in vaikh4nasa is according to the analogy of the words enumerated in the akriti-gava anusatikadi, Pas. VII, 3, 20. INTRODUCTION. xxix oldest known Dharma-sftra. Under these circumstances it is not advisable to assume that it had any connexion with the Vaikhanasa S(tra#arama, a subdivision of the Taittiriyas, which seems to have been one of the youngest schools adhering to the Black Yagur-veda!, But it is evident that the ancient Vaikhanasa Sdtra, which treated of an important portion of the sacred law, preceded our Manuv-smriti.
3Another reference to the opinion of a person who is the reputed author of a still existing Dharma-sitra is found at Manu VIII, 140, where the rate of legal interest on secured loans is thus described : ‘A money-lender may stipulate, as an increase on his capital, for the interest allowed by Vasish¢ha, and take monthly the eightieth part of a hundred.’ If we turn to the Vasish#4a Dharmasdstra, we read, III, 51%,‘ Hear the interest for a money-lender, declared by Vasishtha, five mdshas (may be taken every month) for twenty (karshapazas).’ Though the wording of the Manusmriti differs from that adopted in the VAsish¢#4a DharmasAstra, the meaning of both passages is the same. The eightieth part of one hundred is one and a quarter per cent, and the same rate is obtained if five mashas are charged for twenty karshapavas, i.e. for four hundred mashas*. Both law-books, therefore, evidently refer to the same rule of Vasish¢ha. But the correctness of the further inference that the author of the Manu-smriti used the VAsish¢#a DharmasAstra is not so easily demonstrable as might seem from the extracts given above. For Vas. III, 51 itself is a quotation, marked as such by its final iti (left untranslated) and the phrase, ‘Now they quote also,’ which is prefixed to Satra 48. Hence it.might be argued that the agreement of the 1 See Professor Max Miiller, Anc. Sansk. Lit. p. 199; Professor Weber, Indische Studien, vol.i, p. 83. A portion of the Vaikhanasa Srauta-s(itra is preserved in the modern transcripts, belonging to the Bombay University and the Munich Royal Libraries, which Professor Haug had made from a Baroda MS. ? Sacred Books of the East, vol. xiv, p. 16 ; according to Dr. Fiihrer’s edition, Vas. III, so. 3 Gagannatha, in Col. Dig. I, 25, gives a somewhat different calculation. But the general sense remains the same. I follow Krishsapamdita and Haradatta on Gautama XII, 29. XXX 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.
1cit. p. 74. ? The form Utathya is a corruption of the Vedic Uéathya, and shows the substitution of a dental for a palatal, which is not uncommon in the Prakrit dialects. Hence it possesses a certain value as an additional proof for the post- Vedic origin of the Manu-smriti. INTRODUCTION. XXVil and is confirmed by an analogous passage of the aphoristic Dharmasdstra of Usanas!, the author adduces there the opinions of four older authorities, all of which are credited by the Hindu tradition with the revelation of law-books. We still possess several Smritis attributed to Atri, Saunaka, and to Gautama, as well as one said to belong to Bhrigu. With the exception of the aphoristic Gautamiya Dharmasistra all these works are modern, some being metrical recensions of older Sdtras, and some of very doubtful origin. It is, therefore, impossible that any of the existing Dharmasastras, Atri, Saunaka, and Bhyzgu, can be referred to by Manu, and, as a matter of fact, the opinions quoted cannot be traced in them. But if we turn to Gautama’s Sdtra we find among those persons who defile the company at a Sraddha dinner, and who are thus excluded from the community of the virtuous, the sddrapati, literally ‘the husband of a Sadra female?.’ The real signification of the compound seems, however, to be, as Haradatta suggests, ‘he whose only wife or dharmapatni is a Sddra.’ As it appears from Manu III, 17-19, that the opinion attributed to the son Utathya was the same, it is not at all unlikely that the Manu-smr‘ti actually quotes the still existing Sdtra of Gautama. Another reference to a lost Satra occurs at Manu VI, 21, where it is said of the hermit in the forest, ‘Or he may constantly subsist on flowers, roots, and fruit alone......, following the rule of the (Institutes) of Vikhanas.’ The original Sanskrit of the participial clause is ‘ vaikhanasamate sthita#,’ and means literally ‘abiding by the Vaikhanasa opinion.’ The commentators, with the exception of Nardyawza, are unanimous in declaring that ' Us. Dharmasastra, chap. IIT, feat Faesvatn: | at aaa | ATAT ST wafaferraratqyae yar weraife afew ere i wafa a onatin See yweat umedtia erecta: 8 warareranntin etre: 0 yea: uaatta min: = Though Usanas’ statements regarding the opinions of the ancient lawyers do not agree with those of the Manu-sm~r‘ti, except in the case of Saunaka, they are yet important, because they show that differences of opinion regarding the effects of a marriage with a S{Qdr4 did occur. See also Jolly, Tagore Lectures, p. §3. 3 Gautama XV, 18; Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, p. 255. XXVIIi LAWS OF MANU.
2See also Jolly, Tagore Lectures, p. §3. 3 Gautama XV, 18; Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, p. 255. XXVIIi LAWS OF MANU. the word Vaikhanasa here denotes a SAstra or Sdtra promulgated by Vikhanas, in which the duties of hermits were described at length!. The correctness of this opinion seems to me indisputable. For the word mata, ‘opinion,’ in Manu’s verse, requires that the preceding part of the compound should denote either a person, or a school, or a work. If we take vaikh4nasa in the sense of hermit in the forest, we obtain the meaningless translation, ‘a hermit may subsist on flowers, &c., following the opinion of hermits.’ It is, therefore, necessary to interpret vaikhanasa with the commentators in the sense of vaikhanasa sAstra, and to refer it to a particular work which taught the duties of hermits. The existence of such a book is attested not only by Manu’s commentators, but also by other ancient and modern authors. Baudhdyana mentions it explicitly’, and seems to give a short summary of its contents in the third chapter of the third Prasna of his Dharmasdstra. Haradatta, the commentator of Apastamba and Gautama, also appears to have known it. In his notes on Gautama ITI, 2, he gives the derivation of vaikh4nasa, a hermit in the forest, saying, ‘The vanaprastha is called vaikhanasa, because he lives according to the rule promulgated by Vikhanas,’ and adds, ‘For that (sage) chiefly taught that order’’ If the statements made to me by Indian Pazzdits are to be trusted, we may even hope to recover the work in course of time. It must be an exceedingly ancient book, as the secondary meaning of vaikhanasa, a hermit, which can have arisen only in the manner suggested by Haradatta‘, occurs in the 1 Medh, SRTAR ATH Wee TT Ataneren wah fafemarai aa Ferm 0 Gov. SATAMR AAMATNTATHA feat: uw Kull. Farzal wwe! Weadufarreagreaega fem: 0 Nand. terlet]zant frele}eer whe ae [5] we fe srrencter qotude: fat n Nar. teraeat STAMETAT Nt 2 Baudh. Dharma, II, 11,14; Sacred Books of the East, vol. xiv, p. 259. * Qaraat wane | feeaar wher mig sia sfa ta fe a Brae: MraTatay wfwarfed: W * The double vviddhi in vaikh4nasa is according to the analogy of the words enumerated in the akriti-gava anusatikadi, Pas. VII, 3, 20. INTRODUCTION. xxix oldest known Dharma-sftra. Under these circumstances it is not advisable to assume that it had any connexion with the Vaikhanasa S(tra#arama, a subdivision of the Taittiriyas, which seems to have been one of the youngest schools adhering to the Black Yagur-veda!, But it is evident that the ancient Vaikhanasa Sdtra, which treated of an important portion of the sacred law, preceded our Manuv-smriti.
3Another reference to the opinion of a person who is the reputed author of a still existing Dharma-sitra is found at Manu VIII, 140, where the rate of legal interest on secured loans is thus described : ‘A money-lender may stipulate, as an increase on his capital, for the interest allowed by Vasish¢ha, and take monthly the eightieth part of a hundred.’ If we turn to the Vasish#4a Dharmasdstra, we read, III, 51%,‘ Hear the interest for a money-lender, declared by Vasishtha, five mdshas (may be taken every month) for twenty (karshapazas).’ Though the wording of the Manusmriti differs from that adopted in the VAsish¢#4a DharmasAstra, the meaning of both passages is the same. The eightieth part of one hundred is one and a quarter per cent, and the same rate is obtained if five mashas are charged for twenty karshapavas, i.e. for four hundred mashas*. Both law-books, therefore, evidently refer to the same rule of Vasish¢ha. But the correctness of the further inference that the author of the Manu-smriti used the VAsish¢#a DharmasAstra is not so easily demonstrable as might seem from the extracts given above. For Vas. III, 51 itself is a quotation, marked as such by its final iti (left untranslated) and the phrase, ‘Now they quote also,’ which is prefixed to Satra 48. Hence it.might be argued that the agreement of the 1 See Professor Max Miiller, Anc. Sansk. Lit. p. 199; Professor Weber, Indische Studien, vol.i, p. 83. A portion of the Vaikhanasa Srauta-s(itra is preserved in the modern transcripts, belonging to the Bombay University and the Munich Royal Libraries, which Professor Haug had made from a Baroda MS. ? Sacred Books of the East, vol. xiv, p. 16 ; according to Dr. Fiihrer’s edition, Vas. III, so. 3 Gagannatha, in Col. Dig. I, 25, gives a somewhat different calculation. But the general sense remains the same. I follow Krishsapamdita and Haradatta on Gautama XII, 29. XXX 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.