History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s13.3

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.