History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s18.49.3

v1.c6.s18.49.3

That the Mahābhārata knew several dharmaśāstras is clear from over a dozen references to dharmaśāstras, often in the plural (e. g. Śānti 167. 4, 298. 40, 341. 74; Anuśāsana 19. 89, 45. 17-20, Vanaparva 207. 83, 293. 35, 313. 105; Ādiparva 3. 32 and 77 etc.). The only place where a sūtrakāra is cited on matters of *dharma* is Anu. 19. 6; but no name is mentioned.²⁹⁷ Hastisūtra, Aśvasūtra are mentioned in Sabhā 5. 20, but no dharmasūtra or Nītisūtra occurs any where. On the other hand Bühler is not prepared to admit that the views expressly attributed to Manu in the Mahābhārata are taken from a treatise and refers them to a floating mass of verses the authorship of which was unknown and was fathered upon the mythical Manu. Distrust of ancient Indian authors could go no further. Bühler's assumptions are, to say the least, gratuitous and are prompted by his unwillingness to assign an early date to a versified smṛti of Manu. Not only are there identical verses in Manu and the Mahābhārata, but some verses of the latter (e. g. Udyoga 35. 31 and Śānti 111. 66) occur in the Nāradasmṛti (pp. 103 and 26 respectively). In my humble opinion the following seems to be the relation of the Mahābhārata and the Manusmṛti. I must state frankly that it is a mere theory, a conjecture which may be taken for what it is worth. Long before the 4th century B. C., there was a work on Dharmaśāstra composed by or attributed to Svāyambhuva Manu. This work was most probably in verse.