History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s18.21
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s18.21
- Language
- English
v1.c6.s18.21.1
First the external evidence may be taken up. The bhāṣya of Medhātithi is the earliest extant commentary on the Manusmṛti and was composed about 900 A. D. as will be shown later on (sec. 36). The text commented upon by Medhātithi was the same (barring a few various readings) as the one we now possess. Therefore long before 900 A. D. the Manusmṛti was the same as now. Viśvarūpa in his commentary on Yāj. quotes over two hundred verses of the Manusmṛti either wholly or in part from all the twelve chapters beginning with the very first verse. The text that Viśvarūpa had before him was the same as the present Manusmṛti and the verses were arranged in the same order as at present. Viśvarūpa quotes eight verses (Manu XI. 108–115) from Manu (on Yāj. III. 262). Śaṅkarācārya in his Vedāntsūtra-bhāṣya quotes the Manusmṛti very frequently. For example, he quotes Manu I. 5 and 21 (on V. S. I. 3. 28), I. 27 (on V. S. IV. 2. 6), II. 87 (on V. S. III. 4. 38), X. 4 and 126 (on V. S. I. 3. 36), XII. 91 and 105-6 (on V. S. II. 1 and 11). In his bhāṣya on the Bṛ. U. he quotes Manu dozens of times and calls the Manusmṛti²⁷⁴ ‘Mānavam’ (on Bṛ. U. I. 4. 17). He looks upon the Manusmṛti as one of the authorities on which the author of the Vedāntasūtra relies.²⁷⁵ The Tantravārtika of Kumārila stands in a special relation to the Manusmṛti. *Vide JBBRAS for 1925 pp. 98–100.* He places Manu at the head of all smṛtis, even higher than the dharma-sūtra of Gautama.
v1.c6.s18.21.2
He cites numerous quotations from the first chapter of the Manusmṛti to the last. He looks upon all parts of the extant Manusmṛti as equally authoritative and regards the Manusmṛti as the highest authority on matters of *dharma*. The Mṛccha-kaṭika²⁷⁶ (9. 39) refers to the ordinance of Manu that a Brāhmaṇa sinner was not to be sentenced to death, but was to be banished. An inscription of the Valabhi king Dharasena dated in the year 252 of the Valabhi era (i. e. 571 A. D.) speaks of a king as one who obeyed the rules composed by Manu²⁷⁷ (I. A. vol. 8. p. 303 = Gupta Inscriptions p. 165). *Vide also* I. A. vol. IV. p. 105 where the same words occur in an inscription from Valabhi dated 216 of the Valabhi era (i. e. 535 A. D.). Śabarasvāmin, the bhāṣyakāra of Jaimini's sūtras, who cannot be placed later than 500 A. D. and may be a few centuries earlier still, says “Manu and others have given instruction²⁷⁸" and quotes a verse as a smṛti passage which is practically the same as Manu IX. 416 and similar to Udyoga-parva²⁷⁹ 33. 64. Aparārka and Kullūka point out how the Bhaviṣyapurāṇa expounds passages of the Manusmṛti (vide Kullūka on Manu XI. 72, 73, 100 and Aparārka pp. 1071, 1076).²⁸⁰ It will be shown below that Bṛhaspati must have composed his work before 500 A. D.
v1.c6.s18.21.3
Bṛhaspati says that the Manusmṛti occupies a pre-eminent position because it correctly represents the sense of the Veda and that a smṛti which is in conflict with Manu is not esteemed.²⁸¹ Bṛhaspati in numerous places pointedly refers to the present text of the Manusmṛti. One such quotation about *niyoga* has been cited above (note 172). Bṛhaspati says "Manu has spoken of quantities (units of weights) beginning from the mote in the sun-beam to the kārṣāpaṇa.²⁸²" This is obviously a reference to Manu 8. 132-136. Bṛhaspati says "Manu enumerated thirteen sons and just as in the absence of clarified butter, oil is a substitute, so in the absence of an *aurasa* son or a *putrikā*, the eleven kinds of son are a substitute.²⁸³" This has in view Manu 9. 158-160, 180, 127-130, where Manu speaks of the twelve sons, out of whom eleven are substitutes and advocates that a sonless man should appoint a daughter (*putrikā*, who then is the 13th kind of son). In another place Bṛhaspati declares "Manu forbade gambling as it destroys truth, purity and wealth; but others allowed it provided a share was given to the king (in the gains of gambling²⁸⁴)." This very aptly describes the attitude of Manu (9. 224) and of Yāj. (II. 201-203). Bṛhaspati says "If a man kills a cow with a weapon &c., he should perform the penance laid down by Manu, but if he kills a cow by forcible restraint, then he should perform the penance laid down by Aṅgiras or Āpastamba." The reference is to Manu XI.
v1.c6.s18.21.4
108-115, Āpastamba Dh. S. I. 9. 26. 1 and Āṅgirasa verse 27 (Jivananda, part I p. 556). In one place Bṛhaspati seems to criticise Manu (9. 219) when he says "those who declared clothes and other things to be impartible have not considered the position that the wealth of the rich may consist of clothes and ornaments.²⁸⁵" In another place Bṛhaspati says "Bhṛgu spoke of sale without ownership after deposit; listen to it attentively, I shall speak of it with more details.²⁸⁶" This keeps in view Manu 8. 4 and clearly shows that Bṛhaspati was well aware of Bhṛgu's connection with the extant Manusmṛti. Aṅgiras as quoted in the Smṛticandrikā (I. p. 7) speaks of the dharmaśāstra of Manu. In the Vajrasūci of Aśvaghoṣa (ed. by Weber) several verses are quoted as from the 'Mānavadharma' which occur in the extant Manusmṛti,²⁸⁷ though it must be admitted that there are others that do not occur. In the Rāmāyaṇa also there are verses cited as from Manu which occur in the extant Manusmṛti; vide Kiṣkindhā 18.30-32 (Gujarati Press, 1915-1920) where two verses are quoted as 'sung by Manu' which correspond to Manusmṛti VIII. 318 and 316 respectively.