Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1The contents 1 Gobhila IV, 5 seq.; Khad. IV, 1 seq. ? Biihler, Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, pp. xi seq. XXX GRIHYA-SOTRAS. of this class of Satras indeed have hardly any connection with the subdivisions and differences of the Vedic texts handed down in the various schools; there was no reason why Brahmans, who studied various Sakh4s of the Veda, should not learn the ordinances concerning law and morals given in these Sitras as they were formulated in the same texts. The Grzhya-sftras are not so independent of the differences of the Vedic schools. The close analogy between the sacrificial ritual of the Grihya acts and that of the Srauta acts, and the consequent necessity of taking into account the Srauta ritual in the exposition of the Grihya ritual, necessarily brought the Grzhya-sdtras into closer connection with and into greater dependence on the Srauta-sftras than in the case of the Dharma-sitras’. But above all, the Grzhya ceremonies demanded the knowledge of numerous Mantras, and accordingly as these Mantras were borrowed from the one or the other Mantra Sakha?, there followed in the case of the G7vzhya text in question an intimate connection with the corresponding Mantra school®. We find accordingly as a general rule, that each Grihya-sitra presupposes a Vedic Samhita, whose Mantras it quotes only in their Pratikas‘, and that besides each Grihya-sitra presupposes a previous 1 Professor Jolly in his article on the Dharma-s(itra of Vishwu, p. 71, note 1, points out that in the eyes of Hindu commentators also the Dharma-stitras differ from the Grthya-sfitras in that the former contain rather the universal rules, while the latter contain the rules peculiar to individual schools. Cf. Weber, Indische Literaturgeschichte, 2. Aufl., S. 296. 3 It seems as though the choice of the Mantras which were to be prescribed for the Grihya ceremonies had often been intentionally made so as to comprise as many Mantras as possible occurring in the Mantra-Sakh&, which served as foundation to the Grzhya texts in question. 3 When Govindasvimin (quoted by Biihler, Sacred Books of the East, vol. xiv, p. xiii) designates the Grzhyasastrani as sarvadhikarasi, this should not be understood literally. In general it is true the Grzhya acts are the same for the disciples of all the Vedic schools, but the Mantras to be used in connection with them differ. * In the introduction to Gobhila I have treated of the special case where a Grihya-sftra, besides being connected with one of the great Samhitis, is connected also with a Gréhya-samhit& of its own, so to speak, with a collection of the Mantras to be used at the Grzhya acts. INTRODUCTION. XXXi
2* In the introduction to Gobhila I have treated of the special case where a Grihya-sftra, besides being connected with one of the great Samhitis, is connected also with a Gréhya-samhit& of its own, so to speak, with a collection of the Mantras to be used at the Grzhya acts. INTRODUCTION. XXXi knowledge of the ritual which is acquired through the study of the proper Srauta-sitra?. It is not necessary to quote the numerous places where the Grzhya-sitras either expressly refer to the Srauta-sitras, or point to them by repeating the same phrases or often even whole Satras. It will be sufficient to quote one out of many places, the opening words of the Asvalayana-Grihya, which in a way characterise this work as a second part of the Srauta-sftra : ‘The rites based on the spreading (of the three sacred fires) have been declared; we shall declare the Grzhya rites*.’ Thus it is not difficult to perceive the dependence of the Grihya-sitras on the Srauta-sitras; but there remains the much more difficult question whether in each particular case both texts are to be regarded as by the same author, or whether the Gvhya-sitra is an appendix to the Srautasdtra composed by another author. Tradition accepts the one alternative for some Sdtras ; for other Sdtras it accepts the other; thus in the domain of the Rig-veda literature Asvalayana and SankhAyana are credited with the authorship of a Srauta-s(tra as well as of a Grthya-sftra ; the same is true of Apastamba, Hirazyakesin, and other authors. On the other hand, the authorship of the Grihya-sitras which follow the Srauta-sitras of Katyayana, Laty4yana, Drahyayaaa, is not ascribed to Katyd4yana, Latyéyana, Drahydyaza, but to P4raskara, Gobhila, and KhAdira- Rarya. It seems to me that we should consider the testimony of tradition as entirely trustworthy in the second class of cases. Tradition is very much inclined to ascribe to celebrated masters and heads of schools the origin of works which are acknowledged authorities in their schools, even though they are not the authors. But it is not likely that tradition should have made a mistake in the opposite 1 In the domain of the Atharva-veda literature alone we find this relation reversed ; here the Srauta-s{tra (the Vaitana-s(tra) presupposes the Grihya-sitra (the Kausika-s(itra). Cf. Prof. Garbe’s preface to his edition of the Vaitanasitra, p. vii. This relation is not extraordinary, considering the secondary character of the Vait&na-sfitra. * Uktani vaitanikani, grihyani vakshyamas. XXXil GRIHYA-SOTRAS. direction, that e.g. it should designate P4raskara as author when KAatydyana himself was the author.
3vii. This relation is not extraordinary, considering the secondary character of the Vait&na-sfitra. * Uktani vaitanikani, grihyani vakshyamas. XXXil GRIHYA-SOTRAS. direction, that e.g. it should designate P4raskara as author when KAatydyana himself was the author. We shall not be able to trust so implicitly to tradition where it puts down the same author for the Grzhya-sitra as for the corresponding Srauta-sitra; the possibility that such data are false is so large that we have to treat them as doubtful so long as we have not discovered certain proofs of their correctness. At present, so far as I can see, we are just as little justified in considering that such a proof has been made as we are able to prove the opposite state of things. It is easy to find the many agreements in contents and expression which exist, for instance, between the Srautasitra and Grthya-sitra of Sankhdyana, or between the Srauta-sitra and the Grihya-sitra of Asvala4yana!. But these agreements cannot be considered as sufficient proof that in each case the Grzhya-sftra and the Srauta-sitra are by the same author. Even if the author of the Gvzhya-sitra was not Asvalayana or SAnkh4yana in person, still he must have been at all events perfectly familiar with the works of those teachers, and must have intended to fit his work to theirs as closely as possible, so that agreements of this kind can in no way astonish us*. On the other hand, if the Srauta-sitras and Grihya-sftras are read together, it is easy to discover small irregularities in the exposition, repetitions and such like, which might seem to indicate different authors. But the irregularities of this kind which have been detected up to the present are scarcely of such 1 The parallel passages from the Srauta-sitra and the Grihya-sitra of the M§&navas are brought together in Dr. Von Bradke’s interesting paper, ‘ Ueber das M&nava-Grzhya-sitra,’ Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlind. Gesellschaft, vol. xxxvi, p. 451. * For this reason I cannot accept the reasoning through which Prof. Biihler (Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, p. xiv) attempts to prove the identity of the author of the Srauta-s(itra and of the Dharma-siitra of the Apastambtya school. Buhler seems to assume that the repetition of the same Sftra, and of the same irregular grammatical form in the Srauta-sfitra and in the Dharma-siitra, must either be purely accidental, or, if this is impossible, that it proves the identity of the authors. But there remains a third possible explanation, that the two texts are by different authors, one of whom knows and imitates the style of the other, 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.
1The contents 1 Gobhila IV, 5 seq.; Khad. IV, 1 seq. ? Biihler, Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, pp. xi seq. XXX GRIHYA-SOTRAS. of this class of Satras indeed have hardly any connection with the subdivisions and differences of the Vedic texts handed down in the various schools; there was no reason why Brahmans, who studied various Sakh4s of the Veda, should not learn the ordinances concerning law and morals given in these Sitras as they were formulated in the same texts. The Grzhya-sftras are not so independent of the differences of the Vedic schools. The close analogy between the sacrificial ritual of the Grihya acts and that of the Srauta acts, and the consequent necessity of taking into account the Srauta ritual in the exposition of the Grihya ritual, necessarily brought the Grzhya-sdtras into closer connection with and into greater dependence on the Srauta-sftras than in the case of the Dharma-sitras’. But above all, the Grzhya ceremonies demanded the knowledge of numerous Mantras, and accordingly as these Mantras were borrowed from the one or the other Mantra Sakha?, there followed in the case of the G7vzhya text in question an intimate connection with the corresponding Mantra school®. We find accordingly as a general rule, that each Grihya-sitra presupposes a Vedic Samhita, whose Mantras it quotes only in their Pratikas‘, and that besides each Grihya-sitra presupposes a previous 1 Professor Jolly in his article on the Dharma-s(itra of Vishwu, p. 71, note 1, points out that in the eyes of Hindu commentators also the Dharma-stitras differ from the Grthya-sfitras in that the former contain rather the universal rules, while the latter contain the rules peculiar to individual schools. Cf. Weber, Indische Literaturgeschichte, 2. Aufl., S. 296. 3 It seems as though the choice of the Mantras which were to be prescribed for the Grihya ceremonies had often been intentionally made so as to comprise as many Mantras as possible occurring in the Mantra-Sakh&, which served as foundation to the Grzhya texts in question. 3 When Govindasvimin (quoted by Biihler, Sacred Books of the East, vol. xiv, p. xiii) designates the Grzhyasastrani as sarvadhikarasi, this should not be understood literally. In general it is true the Grzhya acts are the same for the disciples of all the Vedic schools, but the Mantras to be used in connection with them differ. * In the introduction to Gobhila I have treated of the special case where a Grihya-sftra, besides being connected with one of the great Samhitis, is connected also with a Gréhya-samhit& of its own, so to speak, with a collection of the Mantras to be used at the Grzhya acts. INTRODUCTION. XXXi
2* In the introduction to Gobhila I have treated of the special case where a Grihya-sftra, besides being connected with one of the great Samhitis, is connected also with a Gréhya-samhit& of its own, so to speak, with a collection of the Mantras to be used at the Grzhya acts. INTRODUCTION. XXXi knowledge of the ritual which is acquired through the study of the proper Srauta-sitra?. It is not necessary to quote the numerous places where the Grzhya-sitras either expressly refer to the Srauta-sitras, or point to them by repeating the same phrases or often even whole Satras. It will be sufficient to quote one out of many places, the opening words of the Asvalayana-Grihya, which in a way characterise this work as a second part of the Srauta-sftra : ‘The rites based on the spreading (of the three sacred fires) have been declared; we shall declare the Grzhya rites*.’ Thus it is not difficult to perceive the dependence of the Grihya-sitras on the Srauta-sitras; but there remains the much more difficult question whether in each particular case both texts are to be regarded as by the same author, or whether the Gvhya-sitra is an appendix to the Srautasdtra composed by another author. Tradition accepts the one alternative for some Sdtras ; for other Sdtras it accepts the other; thus in the domain of the Rig-veda literature Asvalayana and SankhAyana are credited with the authorship of a Srauta-s(tra as well as of a Grthya-sftra ; the same is true of Apastamba, Hirazyakesin, and other authors. On the other hand, the authorship of the Grihya-sitras which follow the Srauta-sitras of Katyayana, Laty4yana, Drahyayaaa, is not ascribed to Katyd4yana, Latyéyana, Drahydyaza, but to P4raskara, Gobhila, and KhAdira- Rarya. It seems to me that we should consider the testimony of tradition as entirely trustworthy in the second class of cases. Tradition is very much inclined to ascribe to celebrated masters and heads of schools the origin of works which are acknowledged authorities in their schools, even though they are not the authors. But it is not likely that tradition should have made a mistake in the opposite 1 In the domain of the Atharva-veda literature alone we find this relation reversed ; here the Srauta-s{tra (the Vaitana-s(tra) presupposes the Grihya-sitra (the Kausika-s(itra). Cf. Prof. Garbe’s preface to his edition of the Vaitanasitra, p. vii. This relation is not extraordinary, considering the secondary character of the Vait&na-sfitra. * Uktani vaitanikani, grihyani vakshyamas. XXXil GRIHYA-SOTRAS. direction, that e.g. it should designate P4raskara as author when KAatydyana himself was the author.
3vii. This relation is not extraordinary, considering the secondary character of the Vait&na-sfitra. * Uktani vaitanikani, grihyani vakshyamas. XXXil GRIHYA-SOTRAS. direction, that e.g. it should designate P4raskara as author when KAatydyana himself was the author. We shall not be able to trust so implicitly to tradition where it puts down the same author for the Grzhya-sitra as for the corresponding Srauta-sitra; the possibility that such data are false is so large that we have to treat them as doubtful so long as we have not discovered certain proofs of their correctness. At present, so far as I can see, we are just as little justified in considering that such a proof has been made as we are able to prove the opposite state of things. It is easy to find the many agreements in contents and expression which exist, for instance, between the Srautasitra and Grthya-sitra of Sankhdyana, or between the Srauta-sitra and the Grihya-sitra of Asvala4yana!. But these agreements cannot be considered as sufficient proof that in each case the Grzhya-sftra and the Srauta-sitra are by the same author. Even if the author of the Gvzhya-sitra was not Asvalayana or SAnkh4yana in person, still he must have been at all events perfectly familiar with the works of those teachers, and must have intended to fit his work to theirs as closely as possible, so that agreements of this kind can in no way astonish us*. On the other hand, if the Srauta-sitras and Grihya-sftras are read together, it is easy to discover small irregularities in the exposition, repetitions and such like, which might seem to indicate different authors. But the irregularities of this kind which have been detected up to the present are scarcely of such 1 The parallel passages from the Srauta-sitra and the Grihya-sitra of the M§&navas are brought together in Dr. Von Bradke’s interesting paper, ‘ Ueber das M&nava-Grzhya-sitra,’ Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlind. Gesellschaft, vol. xxxvi, p. 451. * For this reason I cannot accept the reasoning through which Prof. Biihler (Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, p. xiv) attempts to prove the identity of the author of the Srauta-s(itra and of the Dharma-siitra of the Apastambtya school. Buhler seems to assume that the repetition of the same Sftra, and of the same irregular grammatical form in the Srauta-sfitra and in the Dharma-siitra, must either be purely accidental, or, if this is impossible, that it proves the identity of the authors. But there remains a third possible explanation, that the two texts are by different authors, one of whom knows and imitates the style of the other, 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.