History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s9.6
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s9.6
- Language
- English
v1.c6.s9.6.1
The Vas. Dh. S. quotes largely from the Ṛgveda and other Vedic *Saṃhitās*. Among the Brāhmaṇas, the Aitareya and Śatapatha are frequently cited. The Vājasaneyaka (Vas. 12. 31 and 23. 13) and the Kāṭhaka (Vas. 12. 24 and 30. 5) are mentioned by name. The Tai. Āraṇyaka is quoted in Vas. 23. 23. The Upaniṣads and Vedānta occur in 22. 9. Vasiṣṭha quotes a *gāthā* of the Bhāllavins from their Nidāna work about the extent of the home of Brāhmanism, which is quoted by Baudhāyana also (Dh. S. I. 1. 27). He speaks of the *aṅgas* of the Veda (3. 23 and 13. 7) and gives their number as six (3. 19). Itihāsa and Purāṇa are mentioned in 27. 6. The science of words (grammar), of omens and portents and of astrology and astronomy (Nakṣatravidyā) are referred to in 10. 20-21. He prohibits the learning of the language of the Mlecchas (in 6. 41). Vas. quotes a verse that states that the view holding the *aprāmāṇya* of the Vedas leads to perdition (12. 41). In Vas. II. 8-11 occurs the Vidyāsūkta in four verses that we meet with in the Nirukta (II. 4). Vasiṣṭha calls his own work dharmaśāstra (in 24. 6) and probably refers to other works on *dharma* in the words 'one who studies dharmas' (in 3. 19). The study of dharmaśāstra as a penance for even mortal sins is spoken of in 27. 19. Vas. quotes several authors on dharmaśāstra. He quotes a verse from Hārīta (in II. 6) which occurs in Baudhāyana also with slight variations (Baud. Dh. S. I. 2. 7), though without the author's name.
v1.c6.s9.6.2
The two halves of this verse are almost the same as the latter halves of Manu. 2. 171-172. Bühler is therefore not quite accurate when he says without qualification that the verse attributed to Hārīta occurs in Manu (p. XX, S. B. E. vol. XIV). Vas. quotes Gautama twice (in 4. 35 and 37) about impurity on death, the first corresponding to Gautama (14. 41), while there is nothing in Gautama to correspond to the 2nd. Vas. quotes a verse (11. 20) which mentions Yama by name and embodies the latter's views. Vas. (18. 13-15) quotes three ślokas sung by Yama, one of which (14) is the same as Manu 4. 80 and another (15) is very similar to Manu 4. 81. Another śloka of Yama is quoted by Vas. (19. 48) which is almost the same as Manu 5. 93. From these facts and others Bühler draws the conclusion (S. B. E. vol. XIV, p. XX) that these verses were taken from the Mānavadharmasūtra, which occupied the same position in Vasiṣṭha's day as the Manusmṛti does at present. I demur to this conclusion, which will be discussed later on in detail (under Manusmṛti). Vas. (14. 30-32) quotes ślokas of Prajāpati, the first of which mentions Yama by name. Vas. 14. 16-19 and 24-27 are quoted as ślokas of Prajāpati, three of which (14. 16, 18 and 24) are practically the same as Manu. 4. 248, 249 and 5. 127. Vas. 14. 19 contains a *pāda* which occurs in Manu 4. 212. It is remarkable that the Vas. Dh. S. cites Vasiṣṭha himself with great reverence (as *bhagavān*) in 2. 50 (about the rate of interest), 24.
v1.c6.s9.6.3
5 (about Kṛcchra penance), 30. 11. In numerous places the Vas. Dh. S. either refers to Manu by name or quotes the views of Manu (under the form ‘iti Mânavam’) or a śloka of Manu (with the words ‘Mānavam ślokam). All these passages have an important bearing on the age of the Manusmṛti and on the supposed existence of a Mānavadharma-sūtra. They therefore deserve to be carefully examined. Vas. I. 17 is in prose (about local, family or caste usages) and summarises the views of Manu. The absence of the word ‘iti’ before ‘abravīn’ Manuḥ’ and the form of the sūtra itself clearly establishes that Vas. is not directly quoting a sūtra of Manu. That sūtra is only a summary of our Manu I. 118. Vas. 3. 2 (which is preceded by the words ‘Mānavam ślokam’) is Manu II. 168. And so are Vas. 13. 16, 20. 18, which are Manu 4.117 and 11.151 (with very slight variations). That the latter existed in Vasiṣṭha's text is vouched for by Aparārka (p. 1075). Vas. 4. 5 is in prose and cites the view of Manu that animals may be sacrificed only for worshipping and honouring the manes, deities and guests¹⁰⁵. There is hardly anything to show that it is a direct quotation from Manu and not a summary of Manu's views. The sūtra briefly summarises the views that we find expressed in our Manu 5. 22, 32, 41 and 42 (the words of 42 ‘eṣvartheṣu paśuṁ hiṁsan’ are interesting and bear a close resemblance to ‘paśuṁ hiṁsyād’ in Vas.). That sūtra is followed by a verse which is the same as Manu 5. 41.
v1.c6.s9.6.4
It is to be noted that the same verse occurs in the dharmasūtra of Viṣṇu (51. 64) which reads ‘nānyatreti kathaṁcana’ for ‘nānyathetyabravīn Manuḥ’. This change appears to have been purposely made to keep up the impression that the Viṣṇu-Dh. S. emanated from Viṣṇu himself and so could not have borrowed from a human author. Vas. 4. 7 is very similar to Manu 5. 48. Bühler (S. B. E. Vol. 25, p. xxxi) is wrong in taking Vas. 4. 8 as a quotation from the Mānava-dharmasūtra. There is nothing to show that it is so taken. It is more probably a quotation from or a summary of a Brāhmaṇa passage (compare a quotation in Aparārka on Yāj. I. 109, which is similar). Vide note 46. Vas. 23.43 (where Manu is referred to as prescribing an easy penance called Śiśukṛcchra for children and old men) corresponds more or less with Manu 11. 211 and 219 and Vas. 26. 8 has evidently Manu 11. 260 in view. There are only two places in Vasiṣṭha where the name of Manu occurs for which it is not possible to point out a corresponding verse in the Manusmṛti. They are Vas. 12. 16 and 19 37. The latter is cited as a Mānavaśloka and is in the Upajāti metre.¹⁰⁶ Because this is not found in our Manu, Bühler and other Western scholars seem to think that the verse is taken from the Mānava-dharmasūtra which once existed in mixed prose and verse and is now lost. But as will be shown elsewhere this hypothesis is based, to say the least, on very slender foundations.
v1.c6.s9.6.5
Besides these two that are not found in our Manu, there are about forty verses that are common to the Vas. Dh. S. and the Manusmṛti and about a dozen verses which, though not strictly identical, are more or less similar. There are several prose sūtras of Vas. which correspond to the verses of Manu almost word for word.¹⁰⁷ The hypothesis that commends itself to me is that Vas. contains borrowings from the Manusmṛti or its purer ancient original in verse.