History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s9.6.3

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.