DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.52359#0020
XVI
VISHAU.
veda (VIII, 20, 24; VIII, 22, 12), was Krivi, take us far off
from the north-west, the earliest seat of Aryan civilization,
into the country of the Kuru-Pan^alas in Hindostan proper.
But it must be borne in mind that the KaZ/zaka, if it may
be identified with the ‘ AViraka-Vikha,’ must have been
the Veda of all the /karakas except perhaps the Maitraya-
zziyas and KapishZ/zalas, and may have been altered and
enlarged, after the KaZ/zas and /farakas had spread them-
selves across Hindostan. The Sutras of a Sakha which
appears to have sprung up near the primitive home of Aryan
civilization in India, which was probably the original home
of the KaZ/zas at the same time, may be far older than
those of mere Sutra schools of the Black Ya^ur-veda, which
have sprung up, like the Apastamba school, in South India,
i. e. far older than the fourth or fifth century B. C.1
But sufficient space has been assigned to these attempts
at fixing the age of the KaZ/zaka-shtras which, besides re-
maining only too uncertain in themselves, can apply with
their full force to those parts of the Vishzzu-sutra only,
which have been traced in the KaZ/zaka Grzhya-sutra. It
will be seen afterwards that even these sections, however
closely connected with the sacred literature of the KaZ/zas,
have been tampered with in several places, and it might be
argued, therefore, that the whole remainder of the Vish/zu-
sutra, to which the KaZ/zaka literature offers no parallel,
may be a subsequent addition. But the antiquity of the
great majority of its laws can be proved by independent
arguments, which are furnished by a comparison of the
Vish/zu-sutra with other works of the same class, whose
antiquity is not doubted.
In the foot-notes to my translation I have endeavoured
to give as complete references as possible to the ana-
logous passages in the Smrztis of Manu, Ya^navalkya,
Apastamba, and Gautama, and in the four Gzffhya-sutras
hitherto printed. A large number of analogous passages
might have been traced in the Dharma-sutras ofVasishZ^a2
1 See Buhler, Introd, to Apastamba, p. xliii.
2 See the Benares edition (1878), which is accompanied with a Commentary
by KnshnaparatZita Dharmadhikarin. I should have given references to this
VISHAU.
veda (VIII, 20, 24; VIII, 22, 12), was Krivi, take us far off
from the north-west, the earliest seat of Aryan civilization,
into the country of the Kuru-Pan^alas in Hindostan proper.
But it must be borne in mind that the KaZ/zaka, if it may
be identified with the ‘ AViraka-Vikha,’ must have been
the Veda of all the /karakas except perhaps the Maitraya-
zziyas and KapishZ/zalas, and may have been altered and
enlarged, after the KaZ/zas and /farakas had spread them-
selves across Hindostan. The Sutras of a Sakha which
appears to have sprung up near the primitive home of Aryan
civilization in India, which was probably the original home
of the KaZ/zas at the same time, may be far older than
those of mere Sutra schools of the Black Ya^ur-veda, which
have sprung up, like the Apastamba school, in South India,
i. e. far older than the fourth or fifth century B. C.1
But sufficient space has been assigned to these attempts
at fixing the age of the KaZ/zaka-shtras which, besides re-
maining only too uncertain in themselves, can apply with
their full force to those parts of the Vishzzu-sutra only,
which have been traced in the KaZ/zaka Grzhya-sutra. It
will be seen afterwards that even these sections, however
closely connected with the sacred literature of the KaZ/zas,
have been tampered with in several places, and it might be
argued, therefore, that the whole remainder of the Vish/zu-
sutra, to which the KaZ/zaka literature offers no parallel,
may be a subsequent addition. But the antiquity of the
great majority of its laws can be proved by independent
arguments, which are furnished by a comparison of the
Vish/zu-sutra with other works of the same class, whose
antiquity is not doubted.
In the foot-notes to my translation I have endeavoured
to give as complete references as possible to the ana-
logous passages in the Smrztis of Manu, Ya^navalkya,
Apastamba, and Gautama, and in the four Gzffhya-sutras
hitherto printed. A large number of analogous passages
might have been traced in the Dharma-sutras ofVasishZ^a2
1 See Buhler, Introd, to Apastamba, p. xliii.
2 See the Benares edition (1878), which is accompanied with a Commentary
by KnshnaparatZita Dharmadhikarin. I should have given references to this