- Mānavadharmasutra-Did it exist?
143
- Mānavadharmasutra-Did it exist ? Following the orthodox view of Western Sanskrit scho lars that most of the dharinasūtras are older than almost all, if not all, the metrical smrtis, I gave the first place of honour to the dharmasutras of Gautama and others. But my own views differ to a great exteut from those of the orthodox school of Sanskritists represented by Max Mūller and Būhler. It is high time to state here my views about the existence of a Mānava-dharma-sūtra supposed to be the original of our extant Manu.
Some western scholars, particularly Max Mūller and Weber, started the ingenious theory that the extant Manu. smrti was a recast or remodelling of an ancient Mānavadhar masūtra. Max Mūller went so far as to enunciate the bold generalisation “There can be no doubt, however, that all the genuine dharma-sāstras which we possess now, are without any exception, nothing but more modern texts of earlier sūtra works on kuladharmas belonging originally to certain Vedic caranas" (H. A. S. L. pp. 134-135). For this sweeping gene ralisation there were very few data when it was made, as is admitted by Bihler. This theory of Max Mūller was as hasty, as unfounded and as uncritical as several other theo. ries of his such as that about the renaissance of Sanskrit Lite rature in the early centuries of the Christian era, about the absence of the art of writing in India before Pānini and about the uniform employment of the sloka for literary purposes in his so-called sūtra period and earlier. Western Scholars had to give up such theories before the stern logic of facts, but they have tenaciously clung to the theory about the Manu smrti being a recast of the Mānavadharmasūtra. One of the main planks of Max Mūller’s edifice was the now exploded theory about the non-employment of the anustubh during the sūtra period ( which he tentatively placed between 600 B. C.-200 B. C. ) for continuous composition. In spite of the fact that one of the main planks has totally collapsed Būhler makes strenuous efforts to rehabilitate Max Mūller’s theory by additional a priori arguments (S. B. E. vol. 25, PPA XVIII-XXIII and xxxI-XXXIX). The main points brought forward by Būhler are:-(I) The Vasistha Dh. S. (IV. 5 contains four sūtras, the first of which is The Mānava sayan that one may kill an animal only in honouring the Mones, gode
144
and guests’. There follow two verses and a passage in prose with iti at the end. Buhler argues that all the four sūtras are quotations and as the extant Manusmrti is in verse, they must be regarded as taken from the Mānavadharma sūtra. (II) There are other quotations in Vasintha attributed to Manu which either contradict the present Manusmrti or have no counterpart in the latter. Būhler draws special attention to the fact that Vasistha (19, 37) quotes & Mānava Sloka which is not in the anustubh metre and which has nothing corresponding to it in the extant Manusmrti. (III) A fragment of Uganas quotes an opinion of Manu about impurity, which is in prose.144 Būhler himself points out that here one ins. reads ‘Sumantuḥ’ for ‘Manuh’. Therefore, this argument is of very little use in establi shing 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) Kāmanda kiya.nītisāra (II. 3) says that according to the Mānavas the villyas to be studied by a king are three, viz. the three Vedas, Vārtā, and Dandaniti and that what is called Anviksiki is but a branch of trayī; while the Manusmrti ( 7. 43 ) appear to reyard the four as distinct vidyas,148 Kimandaka (XI. 67 ) says that Manu prescribed that the council of ministers should consist of twelve ;146 while Manu (7. 54 ) says that the * 8ucivas’ should be seven or eight. Biihler therefore argues that Kimandaka has in mind the Minavadharmasūtra and
144 In No. 044 of Vjśrīmbāg ( 1 ) in the Deccan Colloge there is a frag.
mont of Uśnnas where we rearl 3TURY … (gar) HATTE I am देशान्तररथे चानग्निके वोराध्वाने (?) अनाशकेमिप्रवेशे युद्धहते च सद्यः शौचम्. The words बाले देशान्तरस्थे 00cur in Manu b. 78 in the samo connection. For tho rest, compare Manu 5. 93 and 95. We must probably read UITTET T ATH. No. 191 of A 1881-82 is another fragment of Usadas which contains the same passage. Būhler’s mss. read सद्यः शौचानष्टपतिताभितनिन्दिताचारैर्न सह संवसेत् and he proposes
Thetha.. 146 The words of the Azefa are: Sijaeterli faat fogalfet a Trapa
आन्वीक्षिकों चात्मविद्या वार्तारम्भांश्च लोकतः ॥ 146 147** says ‘GRA HELE SITE atestia etila: 1 3997 fakin
faut A RAHU '
STITUT
FOUNDED
- Mānavadharmasūtra-Did it exist ?
145
not the Manusmrti and on the word ‘Mānavah’ 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 Kūman daka is only paraphrasing the words of Kautilya in the above two places.147 Further, it is noteworthy that Kāmandaka employs the word ‘Manuh’ while Kautilya uses the word
Mānavāḥ’ (about the number of ministers). Therefore, acco rding to the Kāmandakiyanītisāra there was no difference between the two. viz. the words “Manuli’ and ‘Māna vāh’ denoted the same thing, a work. What Būhler means by his emphasis on the word “Mānavāh’ is not quite clear. Early writers like Kumārila and Viśvarūpa employ the word ‘Māna vam’ with reference to the Manusmrti just as they use the word Vāsigtham to denote the Vūsisthadharmasūtra (vide Tantra-vārtika pp. 167, 194 and Viśvarūpa on Yāj. III. 245 and 257). Śhaṅkara in his bhāsya on Br. Upanisad I. 4. 17 applies the word . Mānava’ to the Manusmrti Mānave ca sarvā pravrttih kūmahetukyeveti’ ( referring to Manu 11. 4). Besides, there is hardly any conflict between the views of the Mānavas and the Manusmrti on the point of the number of the vidyās. The Mānavas knew that Anviksiki was counted as a fourth vidyā but said that it was really comprehended in the study of the Vedas. The Manusmști only lays down from whom the vidyās were to be learnt. As regards the number of ministers, we cannot afford to forget that the Manusmrti (7.60 ) allows more ministers than seven or eight. Another explanation also is possible. In the final remodelling of the Manusmrti from its original in verse it is not unlikely that a few changes were made. (V) On the strength of the preser vation of the complete set of the sūtra works of Apastamba on srauta, grbya and dharma (also of Baudhāyana and Hira ụyakesin ), it is urged that the Mānava carana had a sūtia on dharma. The Mānavasrautasūtra ( parts 1-5 edited by Dr. Knauer and the chayana by Miss Gelder at Leipzig in 1921)
147
sept araf questa la Araar: 1 afartat gairera A 1,2; ‘मन्त्रिपरिषदं द्वादशामात्यान कुर्वीतेति मानवाः षोडशेति बार्हस्पत्या Parfaitetaat: ’ Para I16.
146
History of Dhurmusāstra
and the Mānava-grlyasūtra (edited by Dr. Knauer in 1897 and recently in the Gaikwad Oriental Series) are extant. Būhler admits (S. B. E. vol. 25, p. XXXVIII) that the main pillars of his arguments are the quotations ascribed to Manu in the Vasiṣthadharmasūtra.
The four sūtras of Vasistha (IV. 5-8 ) which are the sheet anchor of Būhler’s argument have been dealt with above under Vasiṣtha (pp. 102 ff). If, as Būhler says, the four sūtras are one quotation, since iti’ occurs at the end of the 8th sutra, then we have here a quotation within a quotation, as iti’ occurs also in sūtra 5. But this would be absurd. Besides, sutra 8 is really summarised from some Brāhmana passage as indicated above. The proper construction of the four sūtras is as follows:- The fifth sūtra merely summarises the views of the Manusmrti to be gathered from Mann V. 41 and 48. The word “Mānavam’ stands for the Manusmrti just as it does in the Tantravartika and in Viśvarūpa. Then the two verses of Manu are quoted. In the 8th sūtra a Brāhmaṇa passage is cited in support of the position that sacrificing an animal is not ‘killing’ (that leads to sin ).
As regards the few quotations which cannot be found in the extant Manusmrti the following points deserve consideration. The Vasisthadharmasūtra contains numerous verses identical with those of the Manusmrti. Most of the quotations attributed to Mapu are found in the Manusmṛti. Hence even if a few quotations are not found in our Manu, we cannot at once jump to the conclusion that Vasistha had before him not the Manusmrti, but the Māna vadharma sūtra. Besides, Būhler is not right in saying that Vasiṣtha 11. 23, 12. 16 and 23. 43 either contradict or find no counterpart in our Manu (S. B. E. vol. 25, p. XXXIV ). Vasistha 11. 23 corresponds with Manu 3. 245-246.148 None
148
martier Tentara Fagarafa Perfa: 1 g: Free STEESE TESTU 37 11 Chg 11. 23. Should we not road Fazana, which would correspond to the word दासवर्ग in Manu? मनु reads ‘असं स्कृतप्रमीताना त्यागिनां कुलयोषिताम् । उच्छिष्टं भागधेयं स्याद् दर्भेषु विकिरश्च यः ॥ उच्छेषणं भूमिगतमजिह्मस्याशठस्य च । दासवर्गस्य तत्पिश्ये ATTETI Tall’ 3. 245-240. The close correspondence botrkot Vas. and Manu in idons and phraseology should be spoon marked.
Four
- Mānavadharmasūtra-Did it exist ?
147
of the three contradicts anything contained in the Manusmrti. Vasistha 23. 43 (about Sisukrcchra ) has nothing correspond ing to it word for word in our Manu, but it seerns to be an echo of Manu 11.211.149 In Vasistha 12. 16 ( paryagnikaranam hy-etan-manurāha Prajāpatiḥ ) there is nothing that contra dicts our Manu; that half and the preceding verses bear a close correspondence to Baudhāyana Dh. S. I. 4. 2. Similarly, Būhler’s argument abont Manava sloka in the Tristubh metre is not quite sound. The text of Vasistha is far from satisfa ctory. On the non-occurrence of that verse or a correspond ing sloka in our Mapu no superstructure can be built. Vasi stha quotes ( 4. 37 ) a sūtra or opinion of Gautama which is not found in the extant Gautamadharmasūtra. Verses ascri bed to Vasistha in the nibandhas are not found in the printed text of Vasistha.
The analogy of the works of the schools of Apastamba and others can furnish no proof. Tbere are on the other hand weighty groupds for discarding that analogy altogether. It is a remarkable fact that excepting the three carunas (of the Black Yajurveda ) of Apustamba, Baudhāyana and Hiranya kesin that arose and tourished in the southern portion of India, no carana of any of the other Vedas has an extant dhar masutra ascribed to the founder of the sūtra-curandı. An explanation is suggested in the following lives. The Brābina nas in southern India were in the very early days of their colonisation surrounded by an alien culture and by alien customs. It was necessary therefore to formulate distinctly the rules of general conduct for the Aryan community in.
149 afh8 ( 23. 43 ) ‘31*: STARTER THE BATT IST: RVA JE TO
चतुरही परौ ॥ अनुग्रहार्थ विप्राणां मनुर्धर्मभृतां वरः । बालवृदातुरेष्वेवं शिशु megtarea ll; AT 11. 245’ 54Ė TITETË Api HUTCAI FATTI त्र्यहं परं च नाइनीयात्प्राजापत्यं चरन् द्विजः ॥. It would be noticed that the शिशकृच्छ comes to one-third of the प्राजापत्यकृच्छ, as the शिश
FATTUT ( 2. 11. 218 ) is a milder edition of the 777879. The Spritet for minors and women was one-half or one-third of that for adult males (vide at. .. II. 1.61. and Bistria 38 ): m. 47. 4. (II. 1.85 ) doscribos the four day’s observant the seg for women, minors, and old men, 14. III. 319 ORIM TK पादकृच्छ्र.
148
southern India, that studied the Black Yajurveda. The same necessity did not exist in northern India, where the members of the sūtracaranas knew their ordinary every day duties very well, and were more or less a homogeneous community with the same ideals and culture. Therefore, in the beggining when manuals of Srauta and Gșhya ceremonies were first com posed, it was not thought necessary to compose set treatises on dlarına for each carana. Some of the rules of conduct were embodied in the gļhya sūtras because they were germane to the subjects treated of in them (such as the duties of brah macārins and householders, holidays etc.). Works, however, dealing with the general usages prevalent among the Aryan community in various parts of northern India must have been composed early enough. When the knowledge of the existe nce of the complete set of the sutra works in the Apastamba and other carunas of the Yajurveda in southern India perme ated to northern and central India, the leaders of the caranas cast about for works that would complete the works of their curanus and bring them in a line with those of Apastamba and others. Therefore the various caraṇas seized upon seve ral dbarmasūtras and adopted them in their schools for study. This must have occurred at a comparatively early date. For Kumārila, as we saw above, enlightens us as to what dharma sūtras were specially studied in which Vedic schools. The fact that, though Gautama and Vasistha are said to have been specially studied by the students of the Sāmaveda and the Rgveda respectively, there is hardly anything in these dharma sūtras that specially connects them with the two Vedas affo rds some corroboration of the above hypothesis. This assimi lation of independent dharmasūtras into individual sūtracara ṇas probably took place before or in the first centuries of the Christian era. Sabara (on Jaimini I. 3. 4 ) seems to make fun of the dharmasūtras when he says that the direction to observe brahmucarya for forty-eight years was a device of those who wanted to hide their impotence (Gautama 2. 52, Ap. Dh. S. I. 1. 2. 11-12, Baud. Dh. S. I. 2. 1 speak of brah.. macarya for 48 years ). This shows that these dharmasutras could not have been regarded as very authoritative by all early writers. Jaimini I. 3. 11 (according to Sabara ) denies
the independent authority of Kalpasūtras. It appears that ..the Mānava school, which according to the Caraya vyuhanson sub-division of the Maitrāyaụiya, dwindled in numbers very
- Mānavadharmasūtra-Did it exist ?
149
early. Kumārila, who was a most learned and profound stu dent of the various branches of Sanskrit literature, nowhere mentioned the Mānavadharmasūtra as studied by followers of the Black Yajurveda, though he mentions Baudhāyana and Apastamba as studied by them. He places the Manusmrti even higher than the Gautamadharmasūtra and betrays no knowledge of the existence of the Mānavadharmasūtra. Vißva rūpa who is generally identified with Sureśvara, the pupil of Śhaṅkara, remarks that the Mānavacarana is not existent (or found ) 160
The foregoing discussion will, it is hoped, induce every impartial critic to endorse the conclusion that, on the materials so far available, the theory that the Mānavadharmasūtra once existed and that the extant Manusmrti is a recast of that Sūtra must be held not proved.