Vinaya Texts

SR No.: 007684
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: T W Rhys Davids, Hermann Oldenberg
Publisher: Oxford
Publication Year: 1881
Total Pages: 2523
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 47 MB

Page 1881

CXX
LAWS OF MANU.
by side, as equally admissible, widely divergent opinions.
This vacillation is perhaps justified in a restricted number of passages, where the text is really ambiguous or very obscure. But more commonly it seems to be due solely to an excessive veneration for the views of his predecessors, whose commentaries, in part at least, possessed a high antiquity and a great reputation, or whom he had personal reasons to respect. On several occasions he mentions certain explanations as those of the Parvas or Kiramtanas, i.e. of the ancient commentators. Thus he remarks on Manu IV, 223, 'But the exposition given above is the view of the Ancients; hence it has also been given by us.' In another case, when explaining Manu IX, 141 and 147, he notes that his interpretation is that of upadhyâya, i.e. of his own teacher from whom he learnt the Manu-samhita. Disagreeable as this want of decision may be to those who look to a commentary for a concise and authoritative explanation of its text, yet it is not without advantages. His copiousness in quoting the opinions of his predecessors makes his work extremely important for the student of the history of the Manu-smriti and of the Hindu law. The Bhashya clearly proves that Manu's text had been made for centuries an object of deep research, and that many of its verses had given rise to widely different interpretations. It shows, further, that a good many various readings existed. Finally, a comparison of the later still extant commentaries leaves no doubt that these in general are based on the Manubhashya, and that even their divergent opinions and readings are frequently derived from the earlier work. Under these circumstances the question of
* Though the opinions of others' are mentioned very frequently, and though sometimes those of three or four predecessors are contrasted, Medhâtithi gives only once the name of an earlier commentator, Manu IX, 253, tant ufum yfir: at arate fwa (?) [v.1. WTT (?)] foweni यदत्र तवं तहर्शितमधस्तात् ॥ The name seems to be Vishnusvamin. But it is uncertain what the corrupt word, preceding it, may hide.
'T PATET Triorat tarawirforefa of Compare also the remark on Manu V, 128, a forgather
Digitized by Google