Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s13: 13. Mānsvadharmasūtra--Did it exist?

History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s13

Language
English

13. Mānsvadharmasūtra--Did it exist?

v1.c6.s13.1

Following the orthodox view of Western Sanskrit scholars that most of the dharmasūtras are older than almost all, if not all, the metrical smṛtis, I gave the first place of honour to the dharmasūtras of Gautama and others. But my own views differ to a great extent from those of the orthodox school of Sanskritists represented by Max Müller and Bühler. It is high time to state here my views about the existence of a Mānava-dharma-sūtra supposed to be the original of our extant Manu.

v1.c6.s13.2

Some western scholars, particularly Max Müller and Weber, started the ingenious theory that the extant Manusmṛti was a recast or remodelling of an ancient Mānavadharmasūtra. Max Müller went so far as to enunciate the bold generalisation "There can be no doubt, however, that all the genuine dharma-śāstras which we possess now, are *without any exception* nothing but more modern texts of earlier sūtra works on *kuladharmas* belonging originally to certain Vedic caraṇas" (H. A. S. L. pp. 134-135). For this sweeping generalisation there were very few data when it was made, as is admitted by Bühler. This theory of Max Müller was as hasty, as unfounded and as uncritical as several other theories of his such as that about the renaissance of Sanskrit Literature in the early centuries of the Christian era, about the absence of the art of writing in India before Pāṇini and about the uniform employment of the śloka for literary purposes in his so-called sūtra period and earlier. Western Scholars had to give up such theories before the stern logic of facts, but they have tenaciously clung to the theory about the Manusmṛti being a recast of the Mānavadharmasūtra. One of the main planks of Max Müller's edifice was the now exploded theory about the non-employment of the *anuṣṭubh* during the sūtra period (which he tentatively placed between 600 B. C.–200 B. C.) for continuous composition. In spite of the fact that one of the main planks has totally collapsed Bühler makes strenuous efforts to rehabilitate Max Müller's theory by additional *a priori* arguments (S. B. E. vol. 25, pp. XVIII–XXIII and XXXI–XXXIX). The main points brought forward by Bühler are:—(I) The Vasiṣṭha Dh. S. (IV. 5-8) contains four sūtras, the first of which is 'The Mānava says that one may kill an animal only in honouring the Manes, gods and guests.' There follow two verses and a passage in prose with *iti* at the end. Bühler argues that all the four sūtras are quotations and as the extant Manusmṛti is in verse, they must be regarded as taken from the Mānavadharmasūtra. (II) There are other quotations in Vasiṣṭha attributed to Manu which either contradict the present Manusmṛti or have no counterpart in the latter. Bühler draws special attention to the fact that Vasiṣṭha (19. 37) quotes a Mānava śloka which is not in the anuṣṭubh metre and which has nothing corresponding to it in the extant Manusmṛti.

v1.c6.s13.3

(III) A fragment of Uśanas quotes an opinion of Manu about impurity, which is in prose.¹⁴⁴ Bühler himself points out that here one ms. reads ‘Sumantuḥ’ for ‘Manuḥ’. Therefore this argument is of very little use in establishing the existence of a Mānavadharmasūtra. Besides, it is possible that the mutilated passage is not a quotation at all, but a mere summary of Manu’s views. There is no ‘iti’ at the end to show that it is a quotation. (IV) Kāmandakīya-nītisāra (II. 3) says that according to the Mānavas the *vidyās* to be studied by a king are three, viz. the three Vedas, Vārtā, and Daṇḍanīti and that what is called Ānvīkṣikī is but a branch of *trayī*; while the Manusmṛti (7. 43) appears to regard the four as distinct *vidyās*.¹⁴⁵ Kāmandaka (XI. 67) says that Manu prescribed that the council of ministers should consist of twelve;¹⁴⁶ while Manu (7. 54) says that the ‘*sacivas*’ should be seven or eight. Bühler therefore argues that Kāmandaka has in mind the Mānavadharmasūtra and not the Manusmṛti and on the word ‘Mānavāḥ’ makes the following observations ‘It is a very common practice of Indian authors to refer in this manner to the books restricted to special schools. But I know of no case where the doctrines of the Mānavadharmaśāstra or of any other work, which is destined for all Aryans and acknowledged as authoritative by all, are cited in the same or similar way’ (S. B. E. vol. 25, p. XXXVIII). In the first place it has to be noted that Kāmandaka is only paraphrasing the words of Kauṭilya in the above two places.¹⁴⁷ Further it is noteworthy that Kāmandaka employs the word ‘Manuḥ’ while Kauṭilya uses the word ‘Mānavāḥ’ (about the number of ministers). Therefore according to the Kāmandakīyanītisāra there was no difference between the two, viz. the words ‘Manuḥ’ and ‘Mānavāḥ’ denoted the same thing, a work. What Bühler means by his emphasis on the word ‘Mānavāḥ’ is not quite clear. Early writers like Kumārila and Viśvarūpa employ the word ‘Mānavam’ with reference to the Manusmṛti just as they use the word Vāsiṣṭham to denote the Vasiṣṭhadharmasūtra (vide Tantra-vārtika pp. 80, 115, 642 and Viśvarūpa on Yāj. III. 245 and 257). Śaṅkara in his bhāṣya on Bṛ. Upaniṣad I. 4. 17 applies the word ‘mānava’ to the Manusmṛti ‘mānave ca sarvā pravṛttiḥ kāmahetukyeveti’ (referring to Manu II. 4). Besides, there is hardly any conflict between the views of the Mānavas and the Manusmṛti on the point of the number of the *vidyās*. The Mānavas knew that Ānvīkṣikī was counted as a fourth *vidyā* but said that it was really comprehended in the study of the Vedas. The Manusmṛti only lays down from whom the *vidyās* were to be learnt. As regards the number of ministers, we cannot afford to forget that the Manusmṛti (7. 60) allows more ministers than seven or eight. Another explanation also is possible. In the final remodelling of the Manusmṛti from its original in verse it is not unlikely that a few changes were made. (V) On the strength of the preservation of the complete set of the sūtra works of Āpastamba on śrauta, gṛhya and dharma (also of Baudhāyana and Hiraṇyakeśin), it is urged that the Mānava *caraṇa* had a sūtra on dharma. The Mānavaśrautasūtra (parts 1-5 edited by Dr. Knauer and the *chayana* by Miss Gelder at Leipzig in 1921) and the Mānava-gṛhyasūtra (edited by Dr. Knauer in 1897 and recently in the Gaikwad Oriental Series) are extant. Bühler admits (S. B. E. vol. 25, p. XXXVIII) that the main pillars of his arguments are the quotations ascribed to Manu in the Vasiṣṭhadharmasūtra.

v1.c6.s13.4

¹⁴⁴ In No. 644 of Viśrambag (I) in the Deccan College there is a fragment of Uśanas where we read उपस्पृश्य... (gap) मनुराह। बाले देशान्तरस्थे चानम्निके वोढाध्वान (१) अनाशकेऽग्निप्रवेशे युद्धहते च सद्यः शौचम्. The words बाले देशान्तरस्थे occur in Manu 5. 78 in the same connection. For the rest, compare Manu 5. 93 and 95. We must probably read देशान्तरस्थे च साग्निके. No. 191 of A 1881-82 is another fragment of Uśanas which contains the same passage, Bühler’s mss. read सद्यः शौचान्पत्तिताभितनिन्दिताचोरैर्न सह संवसेत् and he proposes शौचमिष्टमिति.

v1.c6.s13.5

¹⁴⁵ The words of the मनुस्मृति are त्रैविद्येभ्यस्त्रयीं विद्यां दण्डनीतिं च शाश्वतीम्। आन्वीक्षिकीं चात्मविद्यां वार्तांरम्भांश्च लोकतः ॥

v1.c6.s13.6

¹⁴⁶ कामन्दक says ‘द्वादशेति मनुः प्राह षोडशेति बृहस्पतिः। उशना विंशतिरिति मन्त्रिणां मन्त्रिमण्डलम् ॥

v1.c6.s13.7

¹⁴⁷ ‘त्रयी वार्ता दण्डनीतिश्चेति मानवाः। त्रयीविशेषो ह्यान्वीक्षिकीति’ कौटिल्य I. 2; ‘मन्त्रिपरिषदं द्वादशामात्यान् कुर्वीतेति मानवाः षोडशेति बार्हस्पत्याः विंशतिमित्योशनसाः’ कौटिल्य I. 15.

v1.c6.s13.8

The four sūtras of Vasiṣṭha (IV. 5-8) which are the sheet anchor of Bühler’s argument have been dealt with above under Vasiṣṭha (pp. 53-56). If, as Bühler says, the four sūtras are one quotation, since ‘*iti*’ occurs at the end of the 8th sūtra, then we have here a quotation within a quotation, as ‘iti’ occurs also in sūtra 5. But this would be absurd. Besides sūtra 8 is really summarised from some Brāhmaṇa passage, as indicated above. The proper construction of the four sūtras is as follows:— The fifth sūtra merely summarises the views of the Manusmṛti to be gathered from Manu V. 41 and 48. The word ‘Mānavam’ stands for the Manusmṛti just as it does in the Tantravārtika and in Viśvarūpa. Then the two verses of Manu are quoted. In the 8th sūtra a Brāhmaṇa passage is cited in support of the position that sacrificing an animal is not ‘killing’(that leads to sin).

v1.c6.s13.9

As regards the few quotations which cannot be found in the extant Manusmṛti the following points deserve consideration. The Vasiṣṭhadharmasūtra contains numerous verses identical with those of the Manusmṛti. Most of the quotations attributed to Manu are found in the Manusmṛti. Hence even if a few quotations are not found in our Manu, we cannot at once jump to the conclusion that Vasiṣṭha had before him not the Manusmṛti, but the Mānavadharmasūtra. Besides Bühler is not right in saying that Vasiṣṭha 11. 23, 12. 16 and 23. 43 either contradict or find no counterpart in our Manu (S. B. E. vol. 25 p. XXXIV). Vasiṣṭha 11. 23 corresponds with Manu 3. 245-246.¹⁴⁸ None of the three contradict anything contained in the Manusmṛti. Vasiṣṭha 23. 43 (about Śiśukṛcchra) has nothing corresponding to it word for word in our Manu, but it seems to be an echo of Manu 11. 211.¹⁴⁹ In Vasiṣṭha 12. 16 (paryagnikaraṇaṁ hy-etan-manurāha Prajāpatiḥ) there is nothing that contradicts our Manu; that half and the preceding verses bear a close correspondence to Baudhāyana Dh. S. I. 4. 2. Similarly Bühler's argument about Mānava śloka in the Triṣṭubh metre is not quite sound. The text of Vasiṣṭha is far from satisfactory. On the non-occurrence of that verse or a corresponding śloka in our Manu no superstructure can be built. Vasiṣṭha quotes (4. 37) a sūtra or opinion of Gautama which is not found in the extant Gautamadharmasūtra. Verses ascribed to Vasiṣṭha in the nibandhas are not found in the printed text of Vasiṣṭha (*vide* n. 108 above.)

v1.c6.s13.10

¹⁴⁸ ‘प्राक्संस्कारात्प्रमीतानां स्ववंश्यानामिति स्थितिः । भागधेयं मनुः प्राह उच्छिष्टोच्छेषणे उभे ॥ वसिष्ठ 11. 23. Should we not read स्ववश्यानाम्, which would correspond to the word दासवर्गे in Manu? मनु reads ‘असंस्कृतप्रमीतानां त्यागिनां कुल्ययोषिताम् । उच्छिष्टं भागधेयं स्याद् दर्भेषु विकिरश्च यः ॥ उच्छेषणं भूमिगतमजिह्मस्याशठस्य च । दासवर्गस्य तत्पित्र्ये भागधेयं प्रचक्षते ॥’ 3. 245-246, The close correspondence between Vas. and Manu in ideas and phraseology should be specially marked.

v1.c6.s13.11

¹⁴⁹ वसिष्ठ (23.43) ‘अहः प्रातरहर्नक्तमहरेकमयाचितम् । अहः पराकं तन्त्रैकमेवं चतुरहौ परौ ॥ अनुग्रहार्थं विप्राणां मनुर्धर्मभृतां वरः । बालवृद्धातुरेष्वेवं शिशुकृच्छ्रमुवाच ह ॥; मनु 11. 245. ‘त्र्यहं प्रातस्त्र्यहं सायं त्र्यहमद्यादयाचितम् । त्र्यहं परं च नाश्नीयात्प्राजापत्यं चरन् द्विजः ॥. It would be noticed that the शिशुकृच्छ्र comes to one-third of the प्राजापत्यकृच्छ्र, as the शिशुचान्द्रायण (मनु. 11. 218) is a milder edition of the चान्द्रायण. The प्रायश्चित्त for minors and women was one half or one third of that for adult males (vide बो. ध. सू. II. 1. 51. and आङ्गिरसस्मृति verse 33). बौ. ध. सू. (II. 1. 65) describes the four day’s observance as the कृच्छ्र for women, minors and old men. याज्ञ. III. 319 calls it पादकृच्छ्र.

v1.c6.s13.12

The analogy of the works of the schools of Āpastamba and others can furnish no proof. There are on the other hand weighty grounds for discarding that analogy altogether. It is a remarkable fact that excepting the three *caraṇas* (of the Black Yajurveda) of Āpastamba, Baudhāyana and Hiraṇyakeśin that arose and flourished in the southern portion of India, no *caraṇa* of any of the other Vedas has an extant dharmasūtra ascribed to the founder of the *sūtra-caraṇa*. An explanation is suggested in the following lines. The Brāhmaṇas in southern India were in the very early days of their colonisation surrounded by an alien culture and by alien customs. It was necessary therefore to formulate distinctly the rules of general conduct for the Aryan community in southern India, that studied the Black Yajurveda. The same necessity did not exist in northern India, where the members of the *sūtracaraṇas* knew their ordinary every day duties very well, and were more or less a homogeneous community with the same ideals and culture. Therefore in the beginning when manuals of śrauta and gṛhya ceremonies were first composed, it was not thought necessary to compose set treatises on *dharma* for each *caraṇa*. Some of the rules of conduct were embodied in the gṛhya sūtras because they were germane to the subjects treated of in them (such as the duties of Brahmacārins and householders, holidays etc.). Works, however, dealing with the general usages prevalent among the Aryan community in various parts of northern India must have been composed early enough. When the knowledge of the existence of the complete set of the sūtra works in the Āpastamba and other *caraṇas* of the Yajurveda in southern India permeated to northern and central India, the leaders of the *caraṇas* cast about for works that would complete the works of their *caraṇas* and bring them in a line with those of Āpastamba and others. Therefore the various *caraṇas* seized upon several dharmasūtras and adopted them in their schools for study. This must have occured at a comparatively early date. For Kumārila, as we saw above, enlightens us as to what dharmasūtras were specially studied in which Vedic schools. The fact that, though Gautama and Vasiṣṭha are said to have been specially studied by the students of the Sāmaveda and the Ṛgveda respectively, there is hardly anything in these dharmasūtras that specially connects them with the two Vedas affords some corroboration of the above hypothesis. This assimilation of independent dharmasūtras into individual *sūtracaraṇas* probably took place before or in the first centuries of the Christian era. Śabara (on Jaimini I. 3.4) seems to make fun of the dharmasūtras when he says that the direction to observe *brahmacarya* for forty-eight years was a device of those who wanted to hide their impotence (Gautama 2. 52, Āp. Dh. S. I. 1. 2. 11-12, Baud. Dh. S. I. 2. 1. speak of *brahmacarya* for 48 years). This shows that these dharmasūtras could not have been regarded as very authoritative by all early writers. Jaimini I. 3. 11 (according to Śabara) denies the independent authority of Kalpasūtras. It appears that the Mānava school, which according to the caraṇavyūha was a subdivision of the Maitrāyaṇīya, dwindled in numbers very early. Kumārila, who was a most learned and profound student of the various branches of Sanskrit literature, nowhere mentioned the Mānavadharmasūtra as studied by followers of the Black Yajurveda, though he mentions Baudhāyana and Āpastamba as studied by them. He places the Manusmṛti even higher than the Gautamadharmasūtra and betrays no knowledge of the existence of the Mānavadharmasūtra. Viśvarūpa who is generally identified with Sureśvara, the pupil of Śaṅkara, remarks that the Mānavacaraṇa is not existent (or found).¹⁵⁰

v1.c6.s13.13

¹⁵⁰ 'न च मानवादिचरणोपलब्धिरस्ति' p. 18 of विश्वरूप's comment on आचार section.

v1.c6.s13.14

The foregoing discussion will, it is hoped, induce every impartial critic to endorse the conclusion that on the materials so far available the theory that the Mānavadharmasūtra once existed and that the extant Manusmṛti is a recast of that sūtra must be held not proved.

Linked texts (13)