Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Chambers 712 (Berlin Royal Library), fol. 12b. 2 Comp. Paraskara-Grthya I, 2, 5: aravipradinam eke. INTRODUCTION. 5 sages. But whether the author of this passage really supposed this Guzdkhya S4nkhdyana to be the author of the Sankhayana-sitras, or not, we shall be justified in following rather the unanimous statements of the texts previously quoted, and in accepting in accordance with them, as the full name of our Sdtrakara, the name Suyagifia S4nkha4yana. The Grthya-sitra which has been here translated presupposes, as all Grzhya-sitras do, the existence of the Srauta-sitra, with which it is intimately connected and which is referred to in the Gvzhya in several instances}. Here the question arises whether the Gvzhya-sftra was composed by the same author to whom the authorship of the Srauta-sitra belongs, so that the two texts form together, and would, in the conception of their author, be intended to form, one great body of Satras, or, on the other hand, whether the Grhya-sitra is a later addition to the Srauta-sitra. On this question I have ventured, in the preface to my German edition of SAankhayana ?, to offer a few remarks which, however, I feel bound to say do not seem to myself quite decisive. I there pointed out that the Grzhyastra contains a few aphorisms which we should rather expect would have found their place in the Srauta-sitra, if the two texts were composed by the same author and on a common plan®. But, apart from the possibility that in a work of such considerable extent as that collection of Sfitras would be, such trifling incongruences or irregularities might very easily escape the attention even of a very careful author, there is still another objection that may be urged against the inference drawn by me from such passages. It can be shown‘ that the Grzhya texts which we possess are based to some extent on one common original, from which they have taken verbatim, or nearly verbatim, a certain number of aphorisms. Thus if we were to suppose that Sankhayana, 1 See, for instance, Grzhya I, 16, 1 (Srauta IV, 16, 2). 3 Indische Studien, vol. xv, pp. 11, 12. ® The Sitras with reference to which I made that observation are I, 8, 14; 14, 13-15; II,15,10. Comp. Srauta-siitra II, 7,12; IV, 21. * I intend to give some proofs of this in the General Introduction to the Grihya-sitras which will be given in the second volume of these translations, 6 SANK HAYANA-GRIHYA-SUTRA.
2Comp. Srauta-siitra II, 7,12; IV, 21. * I intend to give some proofs of this in the General Introduction to the Grihya-sitras which will be given in the second volume of these translations, 6 SANK HAYANA-GRIHYA-SUTRA. or whosoever the author of this Gvzhya-sitra may have been, found the aphorisms on which I once based my argument, in that original text, this would explain the occurrence of those passages in a portion of the great body of Satras different from that in which we should expect to meet them. Now several of the passages in question recur identically in other Grzhya texts, so that we may infer indeed that they are taken from that lost original, and we have no means to judge whether the other similar passages are not taken from it also. I believe, therefore, that the opinion which I once pronounced regarding the relation in which the two Sfitra texts stand to each other, cannot be vindicated, and that it is better to leave that question unanswered until perhaps further discoveries throw a new light on it. For the reconstruction of the correct text of the Sankhayana-Grihya, and occasionally also for its interpretation, it is of considerable importance that we possess, besides the Devanagari MSS. of the text and of the commentaries, a South Indian MS. written in the Grantha character (MS. Whish 78 in the library of the Royal Asiatic Society, London) which contains a Grzhya based on that of Sankhayana and following it, during the greater part of the work, nearly word for word'. It is designated in the MS., at the end of the single Adhyayas, as ‘Kaushitaka-Grihya.’ It therefore professes to follow the teaching of the same Brahmavza which is adhered to also by the Sfitra school of Sankhdyana. A metrical commentary, which in the MS. follows after the text, names in its opening Sloka a teacher Sambavya as the author of this Sdtra. The Sloka runs thus: Natva Kaushitaka#aryam Sambavyam sitrakv7ttamam grihyam tadiyam samkshipya vyakhydsye bahuvismrztam. (‘Having bowed to the most excellent author of Satras, to Sdmbavya, the Af#arya belonging to the Kaushitaka school, I shall compose a short commentary on his Grzhya, which has been forgotten by many.’) The name of this SAmbavya does not occur among the 1 Comp. the statements given with regard to that text in my German edition of Sankhayana, Indische Studien, XV, 4 seq. ’ INTRODUCTION. 7 teachers enumerated in the description of the Tarpana ceremony, neither in SA4nkhA4yana IV, 10, nor in Asvalayana III, 4; but in the list of the Sambavya-Grzhya itself it is found (see above, p. 4); and besides it seems to me also to be mentioned in Asvalayana-Grthya IV, 8, 24, in which passage it will scarcely be considered too bold to conjecture SAmbavya instead of Samvatya.
34); and besides it seems to me also to be mentioned in Asvalayana-Grthya IV, 8, 24, in which passage it will scarcely be considered too bold to conjecture SAmbavya instead of Samvatya. Though the MS. of the SAmbavya-Grzhya is very confused, and full of blunders of all sorts, yet it deserves to be attentively studied by all scholars who are accustomed to look, if not in theory yet in practice, on the agreement of a few Vedic text MSS., or of a few Indian commentaries, as if it had a claim to an unassailable authority to which European Orientalists would have no right to deny their faith. In the Sankh4yana-Grvzhya a number of passages are found in which corrupt readings or perverse explanations are supported by all the Sankhayana MSS. and by all the Sankh4yana commentaries, and if, by a rare and fortunate chance, the SAmbavya Grantha MS., which is unaffected by the blunders of the Devanagari MSS., had not been discovered in the south of the peninsula, these readings and explanations would seem to rest on the unanimous agreement of tradition. Perhaps it seems unnecessary to dwell on this point, for very few Orientalists, if any, would be prepared to assert that Indian tradition is infallible. But when looking over many of the editions and translations of the Vedic texts, even such as have been published in the last years, one finds plentiful occasion to observe that in hundreds of passages tradition has been practically treated, by scholars of very high merit, as if it had an authority not very far removed from infallibility. A case like that of which we have to speak here, in which a whole set of MSS., and occasionally also of commentaries, can be tested by a MS. ofa nearly related text, written in a different character and in a distant part of India, will strengthen our belief that we are right in judging for ourselves, even if that judgment should oppose itself to such authorities as Narayava or Ramagandra or Gayarama. Perhaps it will not be out of place to add here, as an 8 SANKHAYANA-GRIHYA-SOTRA. illustration of these remarks, a few observations on one of the passages in which the rejection of the traditional S4nkh4yana reading, together with the traditional SAankhayana explanation, is confirmed by the Sambavya MS., though no doubt, even without the aid of that MS., we ought to have formed the right conclusions for ourselves. At SAnkhayana II, 4, 1. 2 the traditional reading is: Mama vrate hridayam te dadhami mama 4ittam anu kittam te astu | mama vaéam ekaman4 gushasva Brzhaspatish “v4 niyunaktu mahyam iti | kamasya brahma- Aaryasy sav iti. Sankhayana is treating here of the Upanayana, or the initiation of the student who is received by a teacher and intends to study the Veda with him. The teacher on that occasion is to pronounce the Mantra which we have just transcribed, and which translated into English would run thus:
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.
1Chambers 712 (Berlin Royal Library), fol. 12b. 2 Comp. Paraskara-Grthya I, 2, 5: aravipradinam eke. INTRODUCTION. 5 sages. But whether the author of this passage really supposed this Guzdkhya S4nkhdyana to be the author of the Sankhayana-sitras, or not, we shall be justified in following rather the unanimous statements of the texts previously quoted, and in accepting in accordance with them, as the full name of our Sdtrakara, the name Suyagifia S4nkha4yana. The Grthya-sitra which has been here translated presupposes, as all Grzhya-sitras do, the existence of the Srauta-sitra, with which it is intimately connected and which is referred to in the Gvzhya in several instances}. Here the question arises whether the Gvzhya-sftra was composed by the same author to whom the authorship of the Srauta-sitra belongs, so that the two texts form together, and would, in the conception of their author, be intended to form, one great body of Satras, or, on the other hand, whether the Grhya-sitra is a later addition to the Srauta-sitra. On this question I have ventured, in the preface to my German edition of SAankhayana ?, to offer a few remarks which, however, I feel bound to say do not seem to myself quite decisive. I there pointed out that the Grzhyastra contains a few aphorisms which we should rather expect would have found their place in the Srauta-sitra, if the two texts were composed by the same author and on a common plan®. But, apart from the possibility that in a work of such considerable extent as that collection of Sfitras would be, such trifling incongruences or irregularities might very easily escape the attention even of a very careful author, there is still another objection that may be urged against the inference drawn by me from such passages. It can be shown‘ that the Grzhya texts which we possess are based to some extent on one common original, from which they have taken verbatim, or nearly verbatim, a certain number of aphorisms. Thus if we were to suppose that Sankhayana, 1 See, for instance, Grzhya I, 16, 1 (Srauta IV, 16, 2). 3 Indische Studien, vol. xv, pp. 11, 12. ® The Sitras with reference to which I made that observation are I, 8, 14; 14, 13-15; II,15,10. Comp. Srauta-siitra II, 7,12; IV, 21. * I intend to give some proofs of this in the General Introduction to the Grihya-sitras which will be given in the second volume of these translations, 6 SANK HAYANA-GRIHYA-SUTRA.
2Comp. Srauta-siitra II, 7,12; IV, 21. * I intend to give some proofs of this in the General Introduction to the Grihya-sitras which will be given in the second volume of these translations, 6 SANK HAYANA-GRIHYA-SUTRA. or whosoever the author of this Gvzhya-sitra may have been, found the aphorisms on which I once based my argument, in that original text, this would explain the occurrence of those passages in a portion of the great body of Satras different from that in which we should expect to meet them. Now several of the passages in question recur identically in other Grzhya texts, so that we may infer indeed that they are taken from that lost original, and we have no means to judge whether the other similar passages are not taken from it also. I believe, therefore, that the opinion which I once pronounced regarding the relation in which the two Sfitra texts stand to each other, cannot be vindicated, and that it is better to leave that question unanswered until perhaps further discoveries throw a new light on it. For the reconstruction of the correct text of the Sankhayana-Grihya, and occasionally also for its interpretation, it is of considerable importance that we possess, besides the Devanagari MSS. of the text and of the commentaries, a South Indian MS. written in the Grantha character (MS. Whish 78 in the library of the Royal Asiatic Society, London) which contains a Grzhya based on that of Sankhayana and following it, during the greater part of the work, nearly word for word'. It is designated in the MS., at the end of the single Adhyayas, as ‘Kaushitaka-Grihya.’ It therefore professes to follow the teaching of the same Brahmavza which is adhered to also by the Sfitra school of Sankhdyana. A metrical commentary, which in the MS. follows after the text, names in its opening Sloka a teacher Sambavya as the author of this Sdtra. The Sloka runs thus: Natva Kaushitaka#aryam Sambavyam sitrakv7ttamam grihyam tadiyam samkshipya vyakhydsye bahuvismrztam. (‘Having bowed to the most excellent author of Satras, to Sdmbavya, the Af#arya belonging to the Kaushitaka school, I shall compose a short commentary on his Grzhya, which has been forgotten by many.’) The name of this SAmbavya does not occur among the 1 Comp. the statements given with regard to that text in my German edition of Sankhayana, Indische Studien, XV, 4 seq. ’ INTRODUCTION. 7 teachers enumerated in the description of the Tarpana ceremony, neither in SA4nkhA4yana IV, 10, nor in Asvalayana III, 4; but in the list of the Sambavya-Grzhya itself it is found (see above, p. 4); and besides it seems to me also to be mentioned in Asvalayana-Grthya IV, 8, 24, in which passage it will scarcely be considered too bold to conjecture SAmbavya instead of Samvatya.
34); and besides it seems to me also to be mentioned in Asvalayana-Grthya IV, 8, 24, in which passage it will scarcely be considered too bold to conjecture SAmbavya instead of Samvatya. Though the MS. of the SAmbavya-Grzhya is very confused, and full of blunders of all sorts, yet it deserves to be attentively studied by all scholars who are accustomed to look, if not in theory yet in practice, on the agreement of a few Vedic text MSS., or of a few Indian commentaries, as if it had a claim to an unassailable authority to which European Orientalists would have no right to deny their faith. In the Sankh4yana-Grvzhya a number of passages are found in which corrupt readings or perverse explanations are supported by all the Sankhayana MSS. and by all the Sankh4yana commentaries, and if, by a rare and fortunate chance, the SAmbavya Grantha MS., which is unaffected by the blunders of the Devanagari MSS., had not been discovered in the south of the peninsula, these readings and explanations would seem to rest on the unanimous agreement of tradition. Perhaps it seems unnecessary to dwell on this point, for very few Orientalists, if any, would be prepared to assert that Indian tradition is infallible. But when looking over many of the editions and translations of the Vedic texts, even such as have been published in the last years, one finds plentiful occasion to observe that in hundreds of passages tradition has been practically treated, by scholars of very high merit, as if it had an authority not very far removed from infallibility. A case like that of which we have to speak here, in which a whole set of MSS., and occasionally also of commentaries, can be tested by a MS. ofa nearly related text, written in a different character and in a distant part of India, will strengthen our belief that we are right in judging for ourselves, even if that judgment should oppose itself to such authorities as Narayava or Ramagandra or Gayarama. Perhaps it will not be out of place to add here, as an 8 SANKHAYANA-GRIHYA-SOTRA. illustration of these remarks, a few observations on one of the passages in which the rejection of the traditional S4nkh4yana reading, together with the traditional SAankhayana explanation, is confirmed by the Sambavya MS., though no doubt, even without the aid of that MS., we ought to have formed the right conclusions for ourselves. At SAnkhayana II, 4, 1. 2 the traditional reading is: Mama vrate hridayam te dadhami mama 4ittam anu kittam te astu | mama vaéam ekaman4 gushasva Brzhaspatish “v4 niyunaktu mahyam iti | kamasya brahma- Aaryasy sav iti. Sankhayana is treating here of the Upanayana, or the initiation of the student who is received by a teacher and intends to study the Veda with him. The teacher on that occasion is to pronounce the Mantra which we have just transcribed, and which translated into English would run thus:
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.