DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.52359#0023
INTRODUCTION. xix
chapters Vishzzu has mainly prose Sutras and throughout
a perfectly correct text, whereas VasishZ/za has bad Slokas
which; supported as they are by the Commentary or by the
metre or by both, can only be accounted for by carelessness
or clerical mistakes in some cases, and by a clumsy versifica-
tion of the original prose version preserved in this work in
others. Another chapter of the Vishzzu-sutra, the forty-
eighth, nowhere meets with a parallel except in the third
Pravna of the Dharma-sutra of Baudhayana, where it recurs
almost word for word. An examination of the various
readings in both works shows that in some of the Slokas
Baudhayana has better readings, while in one or two others
the readings of Vishzzu seem preferable, though the un-
satisfactory condition of the MS. consulted renders it unsafe
to pronounce a definitive judgment on the character of
Baudhayana’s readings. At all events he has a few Vedic
Mantras more than Vishzzu, which however seem to be very
well-known Mantras and are quoted by their Pratikas only.
But he omits the two important Sutras 9 and 10 of Vishzzu,
the latter of which contains a Mantra quoted at full, which,
although corrupted (see Va^as. Sa/zzh. IV, is) and hardly
intelligible, is truly Vedic in point of language; and he adds
on his part a clause at the end of the whole chapter1, which
inculcates the worship of Gazze^a or Siva or both, and would
be quite sufficient in itself to cast a doubt on the genuine-
ness and originality of his version. It is far from improbable
that both Vasish/Zza and Baudhayana may have borrowed
OTTfa ( = 4tanfiT Vishnu LVI, 27)
q^Trfll 3MII
VishnuLVI,i5,i6,thebestMSS.read^^ HHI 1^1
but the Calc. ed. and one London MS. have I I like Va-
sishZAa. Of Vishnu LXXXVII the latter has an abridged version, which
contains the faulty readings (‘ the skin of a black antelope,’
Comm.) and (as an epithet of the earth = Vishnu
LXXXVII, 9).
1 nnnfMqfir fW wh 1
b 2
chapters Vishzzu has mainly prose Sutras and throughout
a perfectly correct text, whereas VasishZ/za has bad Slokas
which; supported as they are by the Commentary or by the
metre or by both, can only be accounted for by carelessness
or clerical mistakes in some cases, and by a clumsy versifica-
tion of the original prose version preserved in this work in
others. Another chapter of the Vishzzu-sutra, the forty-
eighth, nowhere meets with a parallel except in the third
Pravna of the Dharma-sutra of Baudhayana, where it recurs
almost word for word. An examination of the various
readings in both works shows that in some of the Slokas
Baudhayana has better readings, while in one or two others
the readings of Vishzzu seem preferable, though the un-
satisfactory condition of the MS. consulted renders it unsafe
to pronounce a definitive judgment on the character of
Baudhayana’s readings. At all events he has a few Vedic
Mantras more than Vishzzu, which however seem to be very
well-known Mantras and are quoted by their Pratikas only.
But he omits the two important Sutras 9 and 10 of Vishzzu,
the latter of which contains a Mantra quoted at full, which,
although corrupted (see Va^as. Sa/zzh. IV, is) and hardly
intelligible, is truly Vedic in point of language; and he adds
on his part a clause at the end of the whole chapter1, which
inculcates the worship of Gazze^a or Siva or both, and would
be quite sufficient in itself to cast a doubt on the genuine-
ness and originality of his version. It is far from improbable
that both Vasish/Zza and Baudhayana may have borrowed
OTTfa ( = 4tanfiT Vishnu LVI, 27)
q^Trfll 3MII
VishnuLVI,i5,i6,thebestMSS.read^^ HHI 1^1
but the Calc. ed. and one London MS. have I I like Va-
sishZAa. Of Vishnu LXXXVII the latter has an abridged version, which
contains the faulty readings (‘ the skin of a black antelope,’
Comm.) and (as an epithet of the earth = Vishnu
LXXXVII, 9).
1 nnnfMqfir fW wh 1
b 2