English
n, if we believes A WP*^0®'^'** customs of good men, by wh rtIjiVt!!^ of * authoHty, that U, of Sruti ani ^etoousw inferred. '^(^|T^: flj 1. ^i^n5^n^ii tnftpn ,tce .dft .44. T5-^OeStuaien.^-P- Srauta- akd smabta-s^tbas, 99 It might therefore be best to distmgaish between Smriti or tradition in general, and the Smritis or law- books in particalar. We might then speak of arauta" and ^m^r/d-siitras, comprehending by the former name all Siitras, the source of which can be traced in the Sruti ; by the latter those of which no such source exists, or at least, is known to exist.^ The title of Smritis in the plural (or Smriti-prabandh&s) might be left, for conve- nience sake, to such works as Sayana is speaking of, which are composed not in Siitras but in lokas. It ought to be remembered, however, that the same sub* jects which are treated in the metrical Smritis of Manuand others, had similarly been treated in Siitras (6rauta, grihya, and sftmay&ch&rika), and that the principal difference between the two lies, not in their matter, but in their age, and their style. ^ Thusy tmdrtam karma is well defined bj Sha^guruiiishja in the Sarvanukramanibh&shja, as 'nishek&di 6inai§&n&ntam smriti- grihjaTihitam karma.' In the Commentarj on AiKvalftyana's 6ranta*8iktra8 it is said^ that, if observances like rinsing the mouthy &C.9 are prescribed in the Srauta-s^tras (as they are for instance ASvaL i. 1. 3.), this is only done in order to show that such observances are acknowledged and presupposed bj the Srauta- sdtras, though they belong to the province of the Grihya cere- ttoniet. H 2 ^XCI.UX>EX> I-ROM TUB SBUn. ^ ^er place, partly from the Vedj ^^^ ^tber sources ; and the same a] ^^^Z^^ to all tlie ^Vedfi-ngas and Sir ^^ -^"^^^NTorks, sixcli. as tlxe epic and pai ^pWs do xio^ only know by heart the 1^ ^be otlier "V^ed^anga and Smriti comp ^ (inber A^valayana, Haudb&yana, Ap ^^^^^^ ^ ^^ ^^^^^tbera, as ^Ixo antbors of these books to -virttie and final beatitude is t matters, the purpose of wbic t* ^.^S^ <^ o*^^'^ imatters, the purpose of whic \^^^!^ te^^sX^^ tfft' "^ according to the custom ^ *l^*^ ^^ <>*^ PP^^®" ***** **'*^y ** **^e Vedftngas, 1 ' iiS"^ S'^\.<e, ^.^O ^ge in the Pur&tiLas and Itihaa' ^ in the Pur&Tjias and Itibasas.' **- Ac*'';^^*^^' ■g^ws.Q^'^^ **** *^ S&kala pr&tisakya, VftO<^ WV* -<*^\vftVO extracted from it different \tv :^ef'^e* tnetre, and grammar, and bro k the S^ <r \t®^*' ^X^ K^^ f?i^^^^ ,,,(31^. '^^''^ ^^n^^ '^pi JX>ST sAKHJiiS. 101 he had rinsed his mouth, by a man who is clean, who holds a pavitra in his hand, who is invested with the sacred thread, &c., an acquaintance with all these things, such as rinsing, &c., is presupposed. The twilight prayers, too, are referred to in the preceding Siitras, when it is said, that a man who does not perform hb twilight prayers is impure, and unworthy of every sacrifice. Several other instances occur; and it is therefore necessary to explain now immediately those other precepts called s&mayftch&rika (temporal). Sdmaydchdrtka is de-^ rived from samaya (agreement) and dchdra (custom). Samaya^ a human agreement, is of three kinds : vidhi, injunction ; . niyama^ restriction ; pra- tiahedha^ prohibition. Rules founded upon samaya are called samaydchdrasj from which the adjective sdmaydchdrtka* Dharma (virtue) is the quality of the individual self, which arises from action, leads to happiness and final beatitude, and is called api^rva^ supernatural. But, in our Siitra, dharma means law, and has for its object dharma as well as adharma: things to be done and things to be avoided. " It might be said, however," continues the Com- mentator Haradatta, alluding to the same controversy which we saw before treated of by S&yana, " that if samaya (human agreement) be the authority for the law, it would be difficult to deny the same authority to the Bauddhas and their laws, to worship the holy sepulchre, &c.; and therefore Apastamba has added the next Siitra : ^ H 3 .otion against this division and terini l^^Ti to tlie Brahmans tHemselves, is — to Bsy wbether certain SmUrta-sAt: ^^ J ^pon some lost S^kli^L o£ the 'V& ^*^^^^. ns ^^ ^^^ Kalpa-siitras, there ca *^/.^^tided on Sruti, if hy this n **^® Ij only the hymns, hut also th ^ -^eda. Bixt there are only feiw a ^ ^^ ^h^^^gjamanas, to the ceremonies d *t^ '^^^tras ; and the fei^v' passages -^ ^ are X p ^ s^ ^ P . ^ ^^fttras ; ana tne le-w passages "w 3 /^^y^^i,1y'^ Sruti in tlieir support, ar I /}. ^'^'^^-g^e Ara^yakas and Upanisliads, t '2ea -O^^edic literature. Ajb to the Ac tat>j.^^ ^ j^les of conduct -with regaird tc ^^^njh ^H^^^tJ*^®^' even Indian writers ad ^^ aiL^*^X ^-<r -^^^ vague allusions to thei ^ a*, , ^*^ iV*'^*** prove that these laws t '-^^%t^ ^ t^^jfS ^?^* 7^^^^ o longer exia ^^^ieJ"*^ t>^=^^l '^ ^^^^'i *^'* i-^stance \>y I ^ oT ^:*==^^i5**^ °'' Apastambas SUmav ^>^ a^!?**=^'^^"'7^ *%^^ examined mor .V'/^^tions. _ * '^^*/^'i™pHes a reason wh sacrificial) and sT^r-hycz (domes ,^en explamed, ^xid as ihesTel o* ^as to be performed by 5^ % >^^ it •V-' LOST &AKEA8. 103 were both omniscient, how could there be difference of opinion between them?' If this be not so, a distinction must be made ; and this has been done by Apastamba in his next Siitra: ' And the Vedas (are of authority).' ^ This Siitra is explained by Haradatta in the fol* lowing manner: — "The Vedas are the highest au-* thority for good and bad; and none of the objections made before could apply to the Yedas, which are faultless from all eternity, evident by themselves, and, as they were revealed, unaffected by the faults of human authors* Therefore, while to us those agreements are of authority which were made by men who knew the law, the Vedas, again, were the au- thority for those men themselves, like Manu, &c. And although we have not before our eyes a Veda, which is the source of these laws, we must still con- elude that Manu and the rest had," * 2 Some^yara, who calls himself a son of M&dhava, and of whose work '' Tantra-yarttikatika " there is a manuscript at the R. I. H. (No. 1030.), dated Sam vat, 1552, goes eyen a step farther, and says that, although rules of the Smritis may be against the sacred lawy the Veda must notwithstanding be considered as their source, because the Smritis themselyes maintain that tbe Veda is the highest authority, an admission which the followers of Buddha protest against Cf. p. 80. iW <(IU4!!Mlf^fH<,f^ H 4 x^osrx ax k:h Xs. ^enis are <yf cttxthority which, ^^ t:neu> the laxoj "^ -^ ,^," HctT^a.^a-ttsk x^xnarks, with i >§l ^^^^ ^^'^ttha.t every agreenoent becon w t^** <T^ ^i> 0® only xnstde l>y xnen like Mani •K^^e ^^o< -O^ ^ <iO^ o"* *l^a* Mania knew th ^e%* \><^^^ j^'^^o'^'^ I*eople answer, that B V> Avp^'^^' ^TL? .^ t^ * tnowleage of the divin •^Vo "^-V ^^^ ^txt ^ ^^*i ^lo of Manu ; an \<y'^'\<^^^^^^^'^^^ tilings V>e ascribed to Mai \^\ -^ e> '^^^'^ ^ce^^ence wKicU he acquired \ co^^^v^^^^o^ '^^^ '* woviia fee the same for Bi \ ^^^ive^^^f 'C^^^ c^^Z^ verse^ s • If Buddha kno <^ ^i^ ai*^'i*r*'^'* ^"^ *^^ TJpanishads, thi ^ ^^'^Ce'^liv^ *i tb ^^ecture. and calls it n6t , "^.iirt^ *o*^* V* t tbeltidians tliemBelves observed, ^'^^rS. **** *C<^*! ao*"''~ ^^ ^Pila and Buddha. v^*,jvet'*%Vl>V* ** ^'^^^ ^' diflFerent person ■^®.,. ^*. t^®^o^ addba was born at Trna-vtn. 1 ^tt\d *® ^* **iab- ^et of *^f S&nkhya (PanchaAikha B '^^^e- ^ -toet^ ^YkO^' .^oAA^^^^aaborn atKapila-vastu,l *'*tf*^*^ toC* Vv4^^ € tbe^aP^^as. seem to prove the id *Lot** *** \e^ ib* -Bf o^^' conjecture, the same ii ^l^o\ar^,- a.bt&V5*A' pfttan*'^ ill \atw^ f',:;tbit* ♦*® "*t^?^S °®''?*r ot ** ''^"S* system, are merged inl ^ Sw ^ >^ tSi* *** *^^ ^^'Sa system might I nVeVoP--*- LOST sAkhAs. 105 commit themselves to novel theorieSi but almost always repeat what existed before in the tradition of their schools; a fact which at once increases and diminishes the usefulness of their works. Thus we find in the case before us, that Apastamba himself, whose S&tras Haradatta explains, entertained a simi- lar opinion on this subject.