Preface

PREFACE

Bhandarkar Oriental Research InstitutePREFACE TO FIRST EDITION

The third volume of the History of Dharmaśāstra was published in October 1946. In the brief preface to that volume I intiniated that the remaining topics of Dharmaśāstra would be dealt with in one volume. But as I proceeded with the task I found that that was a miscalculation. To present in one volume all the topics that remained in the manner and on the scale that I had adopted in the first three volumes was found to be impossible. Besides, as my age advanced, I could not maintain the same speed and finish the whole history in a few years as I intimated I would do in the preface to the third volume. Therefore, I had to decide, however reluctantly, to spread the remaining work over two volumes. Owing to the scarcity of paper and paucity of skilled workers, this volume has been in the press for more than three years. This volume deals with eight topics, viz. Pātaka, Prāyaścitta, Karmavipāka, Antyesti, Āsauca, Suddhi, Srāddha and Tirthayātrā. These subjects are of great interest to anthropologists. There was great temptation for me, when dealing with these topics, to indulge in dwelling upon similar beliefs, usages and rites des cribed in such works as Frazer’s “Golden Bough.’ For two reasons, however, I have rarely succumbed to this temptation. In the first place, there was the fear of increasing the bulk of the work which has already assumed enormous proportions. In the second place, dwelling on comparisons of ancient and medieval Indian usages and rites with similar usages and rites found elsewhere is liable to serious misunderstanding. Frazer’s volumes are largely made up of materials concerning the beliefs, usages and rites of very primitive people. It appeared to me that readers of such comparisons might be led to think that people in ancient and medieval India were at a primitive stage of culture, while as a matter of fact they had a very high culture in most matters, although they retained certain beliefs and usages derived from remote antiquity. Many cultured societies retain some usages that belong to periods of antiquity. The queen in France was not to leave for a whole year the room in which the death of her consort was announced to her. Wretched old women deemed to be witches were pred secuted and sentenced to death in England up to the beginning center

POONA

1917

Research Institute

History of Dharmaśāstra

of the eighteenth century, while Manu (IX. 290) more than two thousand years ago prescribed the mild punishment of a fine of two hundred panas for all incantations intended to destroy life, for magic rites and for raising ghosts and goblins. My main aim has throughout been to discover, collect, classify and interpret the facts of the various departments of Dharmaśāstra and my endeavour has been, as far as in me lies, to present the truth with detachment and intellectual integrity and without bias (except what might have been unconsciously engendered in my mind owing to my being born and brought up in & brāhmana family ) to show the continuity, the developments and transformations in Indian beliefs, rites and usages throughout the ages and, while bringing the past in its causal relations with the present, to indicate and suggest future trends and changes in these matters.

The fifth and last volume will mainly deal with the following subjects: vratas and utsavas; śānti rites; kāla and muhūrta; paurāṇa-dharma; the influence of the Pūrvamimāmsā and other śāstras on dharmaśāstra; the cosmological, religious and philosophical background of dharmaśāstra; the fundamental aspects of our culture through the ages; the impact of modern social and other ideas and trends on the dogmas and ideals of dharmaśāstra and the future of the latter. This by itself is rather an ambitious programme. Now that I am over seventy-three years of age and suffering from several ailments I have mis givings whether I would be able to write this last volume and publish it while all mental and physical faculties are sound. I am myself extremely anxious to write this last volume as early as possible and bring to a conclusion an undertaking to which I have devoted all my leisure for over thirty years regardless of monetary losses and bodily ailments. With that object in view I have given up either entirely or very largely most of my other activities and engagements and have thereby offended many of my friends.

This volume also is full of quotations, references to inscriptions and judicial decisions. The reasons for this have

† Prof. J. B. Bury, a distinguished Professor of History in the Cambridge University, thought that freedom from bias was not possible and was not also desirable, since a man writing history completely ree from bias would produce a colourless and dull work. Vide Selected Essays’ (edited by Harold Temperley, 1930) p. 70.

FOUNDED 1917

L” Bora Riau

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

Preface

been stated at length in the preface to the second volume and therefore they need not be repeated here. The list of additions to this volume is much larger than in the preceding volumes. I may be pardoned for frankly stating the reason. The first and second volumes of the History of Dharmaśāstra were published so far back as 1930 and 1941 respectively. No second edition of these has yet been called. It seems to me quite possible that during my life-time no second edition of the volumes of the History, or at least of this volume, might appear. Therefore, I tried to incorporate by way of additions such in. formation as had escaped me while the work was being written in order to make it as complete as possible.

I now discharge the pleasant duty of acknowledging my obligations to others. Bloomfield’s Vedic Concordance, the Vedic Index of Professors Macdonell and Keith, and the volumes of the Sacred Books of the East have been very useful in pre paring this volume as in the case of its predecessors. Parama haṁsa Swāmi Kevalānanda Sarasvati of Wai has been a tower of strength in all matters of doubt and difficulty and has helped me by offering prompt guidance in solving some intricate problems. I am highly obliged to Mr. S. N. Savadi of the Bhandarkar Oriental Institute, Poona, for help in the correction of proofs and to Mr. P. M. Purandare, Advocate (O.S.). Bombay High Court, and Tarkatirtha Raghunath Shāstri Kokie of Lonavla for reading the printed sheets as they came and making valuable suggestions,

It is difficult to name all those who in various ways, during the progress of this volume for over six years, kindly rendered assistance, but I should like to make special mention of Prof. K, V. Rangaswami Aiyangar, Mr. A. N. Krishna Aivangar Dr. A. S. Altekar, Dr. S. K. Belvalkar, Prof. G, H, Bhatt. Mr. Bhabatosh Bhattacharya, Mr. N. G. Chapekar, Dr. R. N. Dandekar. Mr. D. B. Diskalkar, Dr. G.S. Gai, Prof. P. K. Gode. Tarka-tirtha Laksmanashāstri Joshi, Mr. G. H. Khare, Pandit Balacharya Khuperkar, Dr. Umesha Mishra, Dr. V. Raghavan. Prof. L. Renou, Prof. H. D. Velankar. Thanks are due to these scholars and many others for help and interest in this volume. I am conscious that in spite of so much help and generous encouragement from friends there are in this volume several D mistakes, the sole responsibility for which rests on my shoulders In a work replete with thousands of quotations and references

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

iv

History of Dharmaśāstra

it is quite likely that many slips have escaped my attention.g For these and for the elision of a few diacritical marks and the displacement of parts of Sanskrit letters in the process of printing the indulgence and forgiveness of all readers are sought. I sincerely thank the Manager of the Aryabhushan Press Poona, for carrying out the work of printing this volume with care in spite of difficulties caused by paper and labour shortage.

BOMBAY 10-10-1953 S

P. V. KANE

$ I take this opportunity of correcting two mistakes that I regret I committed in the third volume of the History of Dharmasastra. In note 1886 on p. 968 (of vol. III) I refer to a work of Mr. Batuknath Bhattacharya that contains a full treatment of Kalivariya. I suggested in that note that Mr. Bhattacharya probably retouched his thesis after 1937 though it was written in 1933, in view of the fact that he referred to the Smrtimuktāphala (which was published in 1937 by Mr. Gharpure). Through oversight I forgot that Mr. Bhattacharya had expressly stated that he used the transcript of a ms. of the Smrtimuktāphala specially made for him. Therefore, I was wrong in my surmise that he probably retouched his thesis and I must say that the thesis as published in 1943 is the same as that written in 1933 for the Jogendrachandra Ghose Research Prize. The second mistake refers to Dr. U. N. Ghosal on p. 32 (of vol. III). I stated it is not possible to hold as Jayaswal, U. Ghosal and others do that the theory of social contract was the earlier one and the theory of divine right of kings was later on propound ed by the Manusmrti to support the brābmana empire of Pusya mitra’. In writing this sentence my memory was at fault. I find that Dr. Ghosal does not hold the view that I attributed to him. In the Indian Historical Quarterly’ (vol. 23, pp. 68-70) Dr. Ghosal justly protests against my bracketing him with Jayaswal, but I cannot help observing that the last sentence in the paper shows unexpected acerbity. In his whole career as a che writer Dr. Ghosal was not probably guilty of a single slip and could not therefore bring himself to believe that my mistake might have been bona Valede

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute