13. Manavadharmasutra - Did it exist?

Volume I: Part I pp. 143–148

13. Manavadharmasutra - Did it exist?

13. Mânavadharmasūtra—Did it exist?

Following the orthodox view of Western Sanskrit scholars that most of the dharmasūtras are older than almost all, if not all, the metrical smṛtis, I gave the first place of honour to the dharmasūtras of Gautama and otherṣ But my own views differ to a great extent from those of the orthodox school of Sanskritists represented by Max Müller and Bühler. It is high time to state here my views about the existence of a Mânava-dharma-sūtra supposed to be the original of our extant Manu.

Some western scholars, particularly Max Müller and Weber, started the ingenious theory that the extant Manu smṛti was a recast or remodelling of an ancient Mânavadharma-sūtra. Max Müller went so far as to enunciate the bold generalisation "There can be no doubt, however, that all the genuine dharma-śāstras which we possess now, are without any exception, nothing but more modern texts of earlier sūtra works on kuṭadharrmas belonging originally to certain Vedic caraṇas " ( H. A. S. L. pp. 134-135 ). For this sweeping generalisation there were very few data when it was made, as is admitted by Bühler. This theory of Max Müller was as hasty, as unfounded and as uncritical as several other theories of his such as that about the renaissance of Sanskrit Literature in the early centuries of the Christian era, about the absence of the art of writing in India before Pāṇini and about the uniform employment of the śloka 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 smṛti being a recast of the Mânavadharmasūtra. One of the main planks of Max Müller's edifice was the now exploded theory about the non-employment of the anuṣṭubh during the sūtra period , which he tentatively placed between 600 B. C.—200 B. C. ) for continuous compositioṇ In spite of the fact that one of the main planks has totally collapsed Bühler makes strenuous efforts to rehabilitate Max Müller's theory by additional ā priori arguments ( S. B. E. vol. 25, pp. XVIII–XXIII and XXXI–XXXIX ). The main points brought forward by Bühler are:— ( I ) The Vasiṣṭha Dh. S. ( IV. 5-8 ) contains four sūtras, the first of which is ‘The Mânava says that one may kill an animal only in honouring the Manes, gods and guests'. There follow two verses and a passage in prose with iti at the enḍ Bühler argues that all the four sūtras are quotations and as the extant Manusmṛti is in verse, they must be regarded as taken from the Mānavadharmasūtra. (II) There are other quotations in Vasiṣṭha attributed to Manu which either contradict the present Manusmṛti or have no counterpart in the latter. Bühler draws special attention to the fact that Vasiṣṭha (19, 37) quotes a Māṇava śloka which is not in the anuṣṭubh metre and which has nothing corresponding to it in the extant Manusmṛti. (III) A fragment of Uśanas quotes an opinion of Manu about impurity, which is in prose.¹ Bühler himself points out that here one mṣ reads 'Sumantuh' for 'Manuh'. Therefore, this argument is of very little use in establishing 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 viewṣ There is no 'iti' at the end to show that it is a quotatioṇ (IV) Kāmandakakīya Nītisāra (II. 3) says that according to the Māṇavas the vidyās to be studied by a king are three, viz. the three Vedas, Vārtā, and Daṇḍanīti and that what is called Ānvīkṣikī is but a branch of trayī; while the Manusmṛti (7. 43) appear to regard the four as distinct vidyās.² Kāmandaka (XI. 67) says that Manu prescribed that the council of ministers should consist of twelve;³ while Manu (7. 54) says that the 'sacivas' should be seven or eight. Bühler therefore argues that Kāmandaka has in mind the Mānavadharmasūtra and not the Manusmṛti and on the word ‘Mānavāḥ’ makes the following observations ‘It is a very common practice of Indian authors to refer in this manner to the books restricted to special schoolṣ But I know of no case where the doctrines of the Mānavadharmasāstra 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 Kāman-daka is only paraphrasing the words of Kauṭilya in the above two placeṣ⁴ Further, it is noteworthy that Kāmandaka employs the word ‘Manuḥ’ while Kauṭilya uses the word ‘Mānavāḥ’ (about the number of ministers). Therefore, according to the Kāmandakīyanītisāra there was no difference between the two, viz. the words ‘Manuḥ’ and ‘Mānavāḥ’ denoted the same thing, a work. What Bühler means by his emphasis on the word ‘Mānavāḥ’ is not quite clear. Early writers like Kumārila and Viśvarūpa employ the word ‘Māna-vam’ with reference to the Manusmṛti just as they use the word Vāsiṣṭham to denote the Vāsiṣṭhadharmasūtra (vide Tantra-vārtika pp. 167, 194 and Viśvarūpa on Yāj. III. 245 and 257). Śaṅkara in his bhāṣya on Bṛ. Upaniṣad I. 4. 17 applies the word ‘Mānava’ to the Manusmṛti ‘Mānave ca sarvā pravṛttiḥ kāmāhetukyeveti’ (referring to Manu II. 4). Besides, there is hardly any conflict between the views of the Mānavas and the Manusmṛti on the point of the number of the vidyāṣ The Mānavas knew that Ānvīkṣikī was counted as a fourth vidyā but said that it was really comprehended in the study of the Vedaṣ The Manusmṛti only lays down from whom the vidyās were to be learnt. As regards the number of ministers, we cannot afford to forget that the Manusmṛti (7. 60) allows more ministers than seven or eight. Another explanation also is possible. In the final remodelling of the Manusmṛti from its original in verse it is not unlikely that a few changes were made. ( V ) On the strength of the preservation of the complete set of the sūtra works of Āpastamba on śrauta, gṛhya and dharma (also of Baudhāyana and Hira-ṇyakeśin ), it is urged that the Mānava caraṇa had a sūtra on dharma. The Mānavasrautasūtra (parts 1-5 edited by Dr. Knauer and the chāyāna by Miss Gelder at Leipzig in 1921) and the Mānava-gṛhyasūtra (edited by Dr. Knauer in 1897 and recently in the Gaikwad Oriental Series) are extant. Bühler admits (S. B. E. vol. 25, p. XXXVIII) that the main pillars of his arguments are the quotations ascribed to Manu in the Vasisthadharmasūtra.

The four sūtras of Vasiṣṭha (IV. 5-8) which are the sheet anchor of Bühler's argument have been dealt with above under Vasiṣṭha (pp. 102 ff). If, as Bühler says, the four sūtras are one quotation, since ‘iti’ occurs at the end of the 8th sūtra, then we have here a quotation within a quotation, as ‘iti’ occurs also in sūtra 5. But this would be absurḍ Besides, sūtra 8 is really summarised from some Brāhmaṇa passage as indicated above. The proper construction of the four sūtras is as follows:— The fifth sūtra merely summarises the views of the Manusmṛti to be gathered from Manu V. 41 and 48. The word ‘Mānavam’ stands for the Manusmṛti just as it does in the Tantravārtika and in Viśvarūpa. Then the two verses of Manu are quoteḍ 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 Manusmṛti the following points deserve consideratioṇ The Vasisthadharmasūtra contains numerous verses identical with those of the Manusmṛti. Most of the quotations attributed to Manu 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 Vasiṣṭha had before him not the Manusmṛti, but the Mānavadharmasūtra. Besides, Bühler is not right in saying that Vasiṣṭha 11. 23, 12. 16 and 23. 43 either contradict or find no counterpart in our Manu ( S. B. E. vol. 25, p. XXXIV ). Vasiṣṭha 11. 23 corresponds with Manu 3. 245-246.⁵ of the three contradicts anything contained in the Manusmṛti. Vasiṣṭha 23. 43 (about Śiśukṛcchra ) has nothing correspond- ing to it word for word in our Manu, but it seems to be an echo of Manu 11. 211.⁶ In Vasiṣṭha 12. 16 ( paryagnikaraṇam hy-etan-anurāha Prajāpatiḥ ) there is nothing that contradicts our Manu ; that half and the preceding verses bear a close correspondence to Baudhāyana Dh. S. I. 4. 2. Similarly, Bühler’s argument about Mānava śloka in the Triṣṭubh metre is not quite sounḍ The text of Vasiṣṭha is far from satisfactory. On the non-occurrence of that verse or a correspond- ing śloka in our Manu no superstructure can be built. Vasi- ṣṭha quotes ( 4. 37 ) a sūtra or opinion of Gautama which is not found in the extant Gautamadharmasūtra. Verses ascri- bed to Vasiṣṭha in the nibandhas are not found in the printed text of Vasiṣṭha.

The analogy of the works of the schools of Āpastamba and others can furnish no proof. There are on the other hand weighty grounds for discarding that analogy altogether. It is a remarkable fact that excepting the three caraṇas ( of the Black Yajurveda ) of Āpastamba, Baudhāyana and Hiraṇya- keśin that arose and flourished in the southern portion of India, no caraṇa of any of the other Vedas has an extant dhar- masūtra ascribed to the founder of the sūtra-caraṇa. An explanation is suggested in the following lineṣ The Brāhma- ṇas in southern India were in the very early days of their colonisation surrounded by an alien culture and by alien customṣ It was necessary therefore to formulate distinctly the rules of general conduct for the Aryan community in southern India, that studied the Black Yajurveda. The same necessity did not exist in northern India, where the members of the sūtracaraṇas knew their ordinary everyday duties very well, and were more or less a homogeneous community with the same ideals and culture. Therefore, in the beggining when manuals of Śrauta and Gṛhya ceremonies were first com- posed, it was not thought necessary to compose set treatises on dharma for each caraṇa. Some of the rules of conduct were embodied in the gṛhya 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 sūtra works in the Āpastamba and other caraṇas of the Yajurveda in southern India perme- ated to northern and central India, the leaders of the caraṇas cast about for works that would complete the works of their caraṇas and bring them in a line with those of Āpastamba and otherṣ Therefore the various caraṇas seized upon seve- ral dharmasūtras 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 schoolṣ The fact that, though Gautama and Vasiṣṭha are said to have been specially studied by the students of the Sāmaveda and the Ṛgveda respectively, there is hardly anything in these dharma- sūtras that specially connects them with the two Vedas affo- rds some corroboration of the above hypothesiṣ This assimi- lation of independent dharmasūtras into individual sūtracara- ṇas probably took place before or in the first centuries of the Christian era. Śabara (on Jaimini I. 3. 4) seems to make fun of the dharmasūtras when he says that the direction to observe brahmacarya for forty-eight years was a device of those who wanted to hide their impotence (Gautama 2. 52, Āp. Dh. S. 1. 2. 11–12, Bauḍ Dh. S. I. 2. 1 speak of brah- macarya for 48 years). This shows that these dharmasūtras could not have been regarded as very authoritative by all early writerṣ Jaimini I. 3. 11 (according to Śabara) denies the independent authority of Kalpasūtraṣ It appears that the Māṇava school, which according to the Caraṇavyūha was a sub-division of the Maitrāyaṇīya, dwindled in numbers very