Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1? 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. two passages furnishes no stringent proof for the posteriority of the Manu-smrizti to that which bears Vasishz/a’s name, that, on the contrary, it perhaps merely indicates the dependence of both works on a common source, be it on some older work or on the tradition current in the Brahmazical schools. Such an objection would in most similar cases be perfectly legitimate, but in the present one it is, I think, barred by some peculiar circumstances. From the abovementioned Hindu tradition, preserved by Govindasvamin’, we learn that the Vasish#la Dharmasastra originally belonged to a school of Rig-vedins who ascribed the settlement of their laws to the famous Vedic Rishi Vasish¢ha. The rule limiting the monthly interest on secured loans to one and a quarter per cent is found also in Gautama’s Dharma-sitra XII, 29, a work which, as has been shown elsewhere’, is older than the Vasish‘4a-smvzti. But neither there nor in any other work where it occurs? is its enunciation attributed to Vasish¢za. Hence it is most probable that this addition was made by those who attributed their laws to Vasishzka, and who, therefore, had an interest in vindicating the invention of an important legal maxim for their spiritual head. If their law-book gives the rule in the form of a quotation, they probably do not mean to indicate that an older verse ascribing it to Vasish/#a existed, but that the rule itself was an ancient one, and had been taken from a law-book or from the tradition of the Brahmazical schools. With this explanation the mention of Vasishzha’s name, made in Manu VIII, 140, still remains an indication that its author knew and referred to the existing Vasishtha Dharmasastra. These passages are far too numerous to be set aside as possibly later interpolations, and there is, indeed, no circumstance connected with any of them which could lead to such a supposition. We must, therefore, admit that they clearly disprove the claim of the Manu-smriti to the first 1 See above, p. xx. ? Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, pp. liii, liv. 3 See e. g. Yaga. II, 37, and the texts of Brihaspati and Vy4sa quoted in Col. Dig. I, 26-27. INTRODUCTION. XXxi place among Indian law-books which the first chapter sets up, and that they furnish a strong support to the view according to which the Manu-smriti belongs toa later stage of literary development than the Dharma-satras.
2Dig. I, 26-27. INTRODUCTION. XXxi place among Indian law-books which the first chapter sets up, and that they furnish a strong support to the view according to which the Manu-smriti belongs toa later stage of literary development than the Dharma-satras. In turning to the second point of our supplement, it will be advisable to reconsider in detail the passages of the Vasishtha-smriti, which prove the former existence of a Manava Dharma-sitra, and which, as the preceding discussion has established the priority of the Vasish¢/a-smriti to our Manu, possess a particularly great importance. The chief passage occurs Vasish¢/a IV, 5-81, where we read: 5. The MAnava (Satra states), ‘Only when worshipping the manes and the gods, or when honouring guests, he may certainly do injury to animals.’ 6. ‘On offering the honey-mixture (to a guest), at a sacrifice and at the rites in honour of the manes, but on these occasions only, may an animal be slain; that (rule) Manu proclaimed.’ 7. ‘Meat can never be obtained without injury to living beings, and injury to living beings does not procure heavenly bliss: hence (the sages declare) the slaughter (of beasts) at a sacrifice not (to be) slaughter (in the ordinary sense of the word).’ 8. ‘Now he may also cook a full-grown ox or a fullgrown he-goat for a Brahmavza or a Kshatriya guest; in this manner they offer hospitality to such (a man),’ As has been stated in the introduction to Vasish¢/a?, all the four Sitras must be taken as a quotation, because the particle iti, ‘thus,’ occurs at the end of IV, 8, and because the identity of Sdtra 6 with Manu V, 41, as well as the close resemblance of Sdtra7 to Manu V, 48, shows that the quotation is not finished with Satra 5. If we accept this explanation ‘ fayeerfafagaramta oy feanfefe array wun aye 4 WR foytaredfa wa «ay feererrte aeterg: ven angen wifeat feat aiageret af a fer: arderen- Gr alee: non wate areas aT TATA THaPTATA AeteTT WT Rest at Teta eafrad Btaratie t ? Sacred Books of the East, vol. xiv, pp. xviii-xix, XXXil LAWS OF MANU.
3Sacred Books of the East, vol. xiv, pp. xviii-xix, XXXil LAWS OF MANU. we have in our passage the usual arrangement followed in the Dharma-sitras. First comes the prose rule, next the verses which confirm it, and finally a Vedic passage on which both the rule and the verses rest. It may be added that the explanation of the passage given by Krishnapandita Dharmadhik4rin in his commentary on Vasishéha, according to which the word Manavam, explained above by ‘the Manava (Satra),’ is to mean ‘the (opinion) of Manu’ (manumatam), cannot be upheld, for several reasons. First, the wording of the text of Sdtra 5 looks like a real quotation, not like a summary of Manu’s views by Vasishtha. This becomes quite clear, if we compare Vasishtha I, 17, where undoubtedly a rule of Manu, corresponding to Manava Dh. VII, 203, and VIII, 41, is given in Vasish¢ha’s words, ‘Manu has declared (that) the (peculiar) laws of countries, castes, and families (may be followed) in the absence of (rules of) the revealed texts?.’ Secondly, the great differences between several other passages, quoted by Vasishzka as Manu’s, and the corresponding passages of the text of our Manu-smriti, as well as the fact that the latter, as we have seen, refers to the Vasish#a Dharmasastra, do not permit us to assume, with Krishnapandita, that Vasishtha knew and referred to our Manu. If it is thus necessary to admit that Vasish¢a’s quotation is taken from a Manava Dharma-sitra, the agreement of the doctrine taught in the quotation and of a portion of the text with those of our Manu-smrzti show further that this Dharma-sitra must have been the forerunner of our metrical law-book. An examination of the other quotations from Manu, which occur in the Vasish¢/a-smriti, will show that this agreement was, though pretty close, not complete. The identity of the view, ascribed to Manu by Vasishzka I, 17, with the contents of Manu VII, 203, and VIII, 41, has already been mentioned. Vasish¢ka III, 2, a Manava Sloka is quoted which agrees literally with Manu II, 168. The same remark applies to the quotation at Vasishtha XX, 18, which is found Manu XI, 152. Another passage, Tate fety es ware aE AAT ATG: 0 INTRODUCTION.” XXXili
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? 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. two passages furnishes no stringent proof for the posteriority of the Manu-smrizti to that which bears Vasishz/a’s name, that, on the contrary, it perhaps merely indicates the dependence of both works on a common source, be it on some older work or on the tradition current in the Brahmazical schools. Such an objection would in most similar cases be perfectly legitimate, but in the present one it is, I think, barred by some peculiar circumstances. From the abovementioned Hindu tradition, preserved by Govindasvamin’, we learn that the Vasish#la Dharmasastra originally belonged to a school of Rig-vedins who ascribed the settlement of their laws to the famous Vedic Rishi Vasish¢ha. The rule limiting the monthly interest on secured loans to one and a quarter per cent is found also in Gautama’s Dharma-sitra XII, 29, a work which, as has been shown elsewhere’, is older than the Vasish‘4a-smvzti. But neither there nor in any other work where it occurs? is its enunciation attributed to Vasish¢za. Hence it is most probable that this addition was made by those who attributed their laws to Vasishzka, and who, therefore, had an interest in vindicating the invention of an important legal maxim for their spiritual head. If their law-book gives the rule in the form of a quotation, they probably do not mean to indicate that an older verse ascribing it to Vasish/#a existed, but that the rule itself was an ancient one, and had been taken from a law-book or from the tradition of the Brahmazical schools. With this explanation the mention of Vasishzha’s name, made in Manu VIII, 140, still remains an indication that its author knew and referred to the existing Vasishtha Dharmasastra. These passages are far too numerous to be set aside as possibly later interpolations, and there is, indeed, no circumstance connected with any of them which could lead to such a supposition. We must, therefore, admit that they clearly disprove the claim of the Manu-smriti to the first 1 See above, p. xx. ? Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, pp. liii, liv. 3 See e. g. Yaga. II, 37, and the texts of Brihaspati and Vy4sa quoted in Col. Dig. I, 26-27. INTRODUCTION. XXxi place among Indian law-books which the first chapter sets up, and that they furnish a strong support to the view according to which the Manu-smriti belongs toa later stage of literary development than the Dharma-satras.
2Dig. I, 26-27. INTRODUCTION. XXxi place among Indian law-books which the first chapter sets up, and that they furnish a strong support to the view according to which the Manu-smriti belongs toa later stage of literary development than the Dharma-satras. In turning to the second point of our supplement, it will be advisable to reconsider in detail the passages of the Vasishtha-smriti, which prove the former existence of a Manava Dharma-sitra, and which, as the preceding discussion has established the priority of the Vasish¢/a-smriti to our Manu, possess a particularly great importance. The chief passage occurs Vasish¢/a IV, 5-81, where we read: 5. The MAnava (Satra states), ‘Only when worshipping the manes and the gods, or when honouring guests, he may certainly do injury to animals.’ 6. ‘On offering the honey-mixture (to a guest), at a sacrifice and at the rites in honour of the manes, but on these occasions only, may an animal be slain; that (rule) Manu proclaimed.’ 7. ‘Meat can never be obtained without injury to living beings, and injury to living beings does not procure heavenly bliss: hence (the sages declare) the slaughter (of beasts) at a sacrifice not (to be) slaughter (in the ordinary sense of the word).’ 8. ‘Now he may also cook a full-grown ox or a fullgrown he-goat for a Brahmavza or a Kshatriya guest; in this manner they offer hospitality to such (a man),’ As has been stated in the introduction to Vasish¢/a?, all the four Sitras must be taken as a quotation, because the particle iti, ‘thus,’ occurs at the end of IV, 8, and because the identity of Sdtra 6 with Manu V, 41, as well as the close resemblance of Sdtra7 to Manu V, 48, shows that the quotation is not finished with Satra 5. If we accept this explanation ‘ fayeerfafagaramta oy feanfefe array wun aye 4 WR foytaredfa wa «ay feererrte aeterg: ven angen wifeat feat aiageret af a fer: arderen- Gr alee: non wate areas aT TATA THaPTATA AeteTT WT Rest at Teta eafrad Btaratie t ? Sacred Books of the East, vol. xiv, pp. xviii-xix, XXXil LAWS OF MANU.
3Sacred Books of the East, vol. xiv, pp. xviii-xix, XXXil LAWS OF MANU. we have in our passage the usual arrangement followed in the Dharma-sitras. First comes the prose rule, next the verses which confirm it, and finally a Vedic passage on which both the rule and the verses rest. It may be added that the explanation of the passage given by Krishnapandita Dharmadhik4rin in his commentary on Vasishéha, according to which the word Manavam, explained above by ‘the Manava (Satra),’ is to mean ‘the (opinion) of Manu’ (manumatam), cannot be upheld, for several reasons. First, the wording of the text of Sdtra 5 looks like a real quotation, not like a summary of Manu’s views by Vasishtha. This becomes quite clear, if we compare Vasishtha I, 17, where undoubtedly a rule of Manu, corresponding to Manava Dh. VII, 203, and VIII, 41, is given in Vasish¢ha’s words, ‘Manu has declared (that) the (peculiar) laws of countries, castes, and families (may be followed) in the absence of (rules of) the revealed texts?.’ Secondly, the great differences between several other passages, quoted by Vasishzka as Manu’s, and the corresponding passages of the text of our Manu-smriti, as well as the fact that the latter, as we have seen, refers to the Vasish#a Dharmasastra, do not permit us to assume, with Krishnapandita, that Vasishtha knew and referred to our Manu. If it is thus necessary to admit that Vasish¢a’s quotation is taken from a Manava Dharma-sitra, the agreement of the doctrine taught in the quotation and of a portion of the text with those of our Manu-smrzti show further that this Dharma-sitra must have been the forerunner of our metrical law-book. An examination of the other quotations from Manu, which occur in the Vasish¢/a-smriti, will show that this agreement was, though pretty close, not complete. The identity of the view, ascribed to Manu by Vasishzka I, 17, with the contents of Manu VII, 203, and VIII, 41, has already been mentioned. Vasish¢ka III, 2, a Manava Sloka is quoted which agrees literally with Manu II, 168. The same remark applies to the quotation at Vasishtha XX, 18, which is found Manu XI, 152. Another passage, Tate fety es ware aE AAT ATG: 0 INTRODUCTION.” XXXili
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.