science of government,' because the science of dialectics or reasoning is a subdivision of the threefold (Vedic lore[1]),' while Manu VII, 43 enumerates five branches of learning, or at least four, if either Medhâtithi's or Nârâyana's explanation of the term âtmavidyâ, rendered in the translation by 'the knowledge of the (supreme) Soul,' is accepted[2]. Again, we hear, Kâmandaki XI, 67, that Manu fixed the number of ministers (amâtya), which the king must appoint, at twelve. But according to Manu VII, 54, no more than seven or eight are required. These quotations show that Kâmandaki knew a work, attributed to Manu, which contained rules on the duties of kings, and in some respects agreed with the seventh chapter of our Manu-smriti. If I conclude that this must have been the old Mânava Dharma-sûtra, it is because Kâmandaki twice alludes to it by the title Mânavâh, literally 'those who study a work proclaimed by Manu,' or, more freely rendered, 'the Mânava school.' It is a very common practice of Indian authors to refer in this manner to the books restricted to special schools. But I know of no case where the doctrines of the Mânava Dharmarsâstra, or of any other work which is destined for all Âryans and acknowledged as authoritative by all, are cited in the same or in a similar way. Nor is it usual to contrast, as Kâmandaki does, the rules taught by Manu with those of other teachers and afterwards to reject them[3]. If a Hindu writer on law finds it necessary to set aside an opinion of Manu, he either passes by it in silence or he interprets the passage where it occurs in accordance with the principles of some other Smriti with
- ↑ (
Indic characters)
- ↑ With respect to Medhâtithi's and Nârayana's explanations, see the note to the translation. I will add that Kâm. Nît. II, 7, (Indic characters) 'The science of dialectics (is) a means of fully recognising the Soul or Self,' speaks in favour of Nârâyana's explanation, and that it would perhaps have been belter if I had placed the latter in the text.
- ↑ As the learned editor of the Nîtisâra (Preface, p. 2) asserts that its author was a Buddhist, it might be conjectured that the latter treated Manu with small respect, because he belonged to a heterodox sect. But it ought to be noted that no proof is offered for the above assertion, and that the work contains no trace of Buddhism.
