History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c5.26

v1.c5.26

MaxMüller and Weber responsible for the theory that the extant Manusmṛti was a recast of an ancient Mānavadharmasūtra now lost - hardly any data for the sweeping generalisation of Max-Müller that all genuine dharmaśāstras are nothing but more modern texts of earlier sūtra works on *kuladharma* - one main plank of this theory that the continuous employment of the śloka metre was unknown in the sūtra period is now exploded - Bühler supports Max Müller's theory by some additional arguments - Vasiṣṭha IV. 5-8 on which Bühler relies not properly understood by him - Vasiṣṭha (19-37) quotes a Mānava śloka which is not in the Anuṣṭubh metre and not found in extant Manu and Bühler thinks it is taken from Mānavadharmasūtra - Bühler's reliance on a fragment of Uśanas which is corrupt is not worth consideration - Bühler relies on Kāmandakīyanītisāra (II. 3. and XI. 67) where Mānavas are said to hold that there are three vidyās for a king and that Manu said that king's council should consist of 12 ministers - These views not the same in extant Manu- Bühler's conclusion not correct - Kāmandaka is only paraphrasing Kauṭilīya - Bühler's generalisation about Mānava or Mānavāḥ without foundation - Kumārila, Śaṅkara, and Viśvarūpa all employ 'Mānava' for Manusmṛti - Bühler relies on analogy of the complete set of Āpastamba and Baudhāyana sūtras for holding that a Mānavadharmasūtra existed - Proper explanation of Vas. Dh. S. IV. 5-8 - Bühler not right in saying that Vas. Dh. S. 11. 23, 12. 16, 23. 43 either contradict Manu or find no counterpart therein - analogy of Āpastamba sūtras of no use - excepting the three caraṇas of the Black Yajurveda, no caraṇa of any Veda has a dharmasūtra attributed to the founder of that caraṇa - an explanation suggested - existing materials not sufficient to establish theory that a Mānavadharmasūtra once existed.