The Sacred Laws of the Âryas, Part I: Âpastamba and Gautama — SBE Vol. 2 (trans. Georg Bühler, 1879)

It will, then, probably become apparent that the origin of these sects reaches back far beyond the rise of Buddhism and Jainism. It will also be proved

INTRODUCTION. XXxXi

authority was the original on which the existing Upapurana is based. And in favour of this view it may be urged that passages, similar to Apastamba’s quotation, actually occur in our Paurdsic texts. In the Gyotishprakéra section of several of the chief Puranas we find, in connection with the description of the Path of the Manes (pitrzyaza)1, the assertion that the pious sages, who had offspring and performed the Agnihotra, reside there until the general destruction of created things (4 bhitasamplavat), as well as, that in the beginning of each new creation they are the propagators of the world (lokasya samt4nakara#) and, being re-born, re-establish the sacred law. Though the wording differs, these passages fully agree in sense with Apastamba’s Bhavishyat-puraza which says, ‘ They (the ancestors) live in heaven until the (next) general destruction of created things. At the new creation (of the world) they become the seed.’ In other passages of the Purdzas, which refer to the successive creations, we find even the identical terms used in the quotation. Thus the Vayup., Adhy. 8, 23, declares that those beings, which have gone to the Ganaloka, ‘ become the seed at the new creation’ (puna sarge... bigartham ta bhavanti hi).

These facts prove at all events that Apastamba took his quotation from a real Purdza, similar to those existing. If it is literal and exact, it shows, also, that the Purazas of his time contained both prose and verse.

Further, it is possible to trace yet another of Apastamba’s quotations from ‘a Puraza.’ The three Purdzas, mentioned above, give, immediately after the passages referred to, enlarged versions of the two verses? regarding the sages, who begot offspring and obtained ‘burial-grounds, and that the orthodox sects used Purdsas as text books for popular readings, the Puraapa¢hana of our days, and that some, at least, of the now existing Purd#as are the latest recensions of those mentioned in Vedic books.

1 VAyup., Adhy. 50, 208 seqq.; Matsyap., Adhy. 123, 96 seqq.; Vishaup. II, 8. 86-89; H. H. Wilson, Vish#up., vol. ii, pp. 263-268 (ed. Hall).

2 Ap. Dh. IIL, 9, 23, 4-5:

XXXii APASTAMBA.

regarding those who, remaining chaste, gained immortality’. In this case Apastamba’s quotation can be restored almost completely, if certain interpolations are cut out. .And it is evident that Apastamba has preserved genuine Paurdzic verses in their ancient form. A closer study of the unfortunately much neglected Purdwzas, no doubt, will lead to further identifications of other quotations, which will be of considerable interest for the history of Indian literature.

A closer study of the unfortunately much neglected Purdwzas, no doubt, will lead to further identifications of other quotations, which will be of considerable interest for the history of Indian literature.

There is yet another point on which Apastamba shows a remarkable agreement with a theory which is prevalent in later Sanskrit literature. He says (Dh. II, 11, 29, 11-12), ‘The knowledge which Sddras and women possess, is the completion of all study,’ and ‘they declare that this knowledge is a supplement of the Atharva-veda.’ The commentator remarks with reference to these two Sdtras, that ‘the knowledge which Sddras and women possess,’ is the knowledge of dancing, acting, music, and other branches of the so-called Arthasdstra, the science of useful arts and of trades, and that the object of the Sitras is to forbid the study of such matters before the acquisition of sacred learning. His interpretation is, without doubt, correct, as similar sentiments are expressed by other teachers in parallel passages. But, if it is accepted, Apastamba's remark that ‘the knowledge of Sdidras and women is a supplement of the Atharva-veda, proves that he knew the division of Hindu learning which is taught in Madhusddana Sarasvati’s Prasthanabheda?. For Madhusidana allots to each Veda an Upa-veda or supplementary Veda, and asserts that the Upa-veda of the Atharva-veda is the Arthasdstra. The agreement of Apastamba with the modern writers on this point, furnishes, I think, an additional argument that he belongs to the later Vedic schoolmen.

In addition to this information regarding the relative position of the Apastambiya school in ancient Sanskrit literature, we possess some further statements as to the

1 An abbreviated version of the same verses, ascribed to the Paurdzikas, occurs in Sankarasarya’s Comm. on the KAandogya Up., p. 336 (Bibl. Ind.). * Weber, Ind. Stud. I, 1-24.

INTRODUCTION, XXXili

part of India to which it belongs, and these, as it happens, are of great importance for fixing approximately the period in which the school arose. According to the Brahmanical tradition, which is supported by a hint contained in the Dharma-sitra and by information derivable from inscriptions and the actual state of things in modern India, the Apastambiyas belong to Southern India, and their founder probably was a native of or resided in the Andhra country. The existence of this tradition, which to the present day prevails among the learned Brahmans of Western India and Benares, may be substantiated by a passage from the above-mentioned commentary of the Karazavytha', which,

1 Karanavy(habhashya, fol. 15°, 1. 4 seqq. :— wa wreatat aeat Sarees (?) arnetarat away fer wafer 1 nrenetaragenferent fegrat (?) amaavatate: aay

15°, 1. 4 seqq. :— wa wreatat aeat Sarees (?) arnetarat away fer wafer 1 nrenetaragenferent fegrat (?) amaavatate: aay arama: (2) 1 gacegty Aegramfhrr sat | we weTsa Grog ater | atar aicatfita | afqutweant yreniars [ee] vert nan waar efqa ait (sic) WURTITTSTIAT | Travan? footrest | aaarfetinag: wan anaferat gren[aregt] oat atyet eterat wert maatwornt « aTaafnniirt: wg a OMT FONT AUT Mgr wenfefyacraty WA Teta TETITTTTAT 8H Nt TAL UA awit: [: wfcatfier] | atctrat [fa] aad @ yret great feat wun eoranteafeaurgyatmenant arate (sic) | ayia dfaat ercergt wfafeat use wenfeatarcentagt AqaArTATA (sic) | fecerdyt [far] uret wyrTey (sic) afarat visu macataTas

TATRA: | erat anarlratary rarzat wfafear wen wyapaoyrs arate (2) WHT (sic) | areata [a] aren s arated? wfafea neu afean WET Biegy fre i arnaeta [Aa] Azer rem wer [are] drain ngqon (2)

XXXiV APASTAMBA.

though written in barbarous Sanskrit, and of quite modern origin, possesses great interest, because its description of the geographical distribution of the Vedas and Vedic schools is not mentioned elsewhere. The verses from a work entitled Maharwava, which are quoted there, state that the earth, i.e. India, is divided into two equal halves by the river Narmada (Nerbudda), and that the school of Apastamba prevails in the southern half (ver. 2). It is further alleged (ver. 6) that the Yagur-veda of Tittiri and the Apastambiya school are established in the Andhra country and other parts of the south and south-east up to the mouth of the Godavari (goddsdgara-A4vadhi). According to the Maharzava the latter river marks, therefore. the northern frontier of the territory occupied by the Apastambiyas, which comprises the Maratha and Kanara districts of the Bombay Presidency, the greater part of the Niz4m’s dominions, Berar, and the Madras Presidency, with the exception of the northern Sirkars and the western coast. This assertion agrees, on the whole, with the actual facts which have fallen under my observation. A great number of the Desastha-brahmazas in the Nasik, Puma, Ahmadnagar, Satara, Sholapur, and Kolhapur districts, and of the Kawara or Karv4/aka-brahmamas in the Belgam, Dharvad, Kaladghi, and Karvdd collectorates, as well as a smaller number among the Xittap4vanas of the Konkaza are Apastambiyas. Of the Nizim’s dominions and the Madras Presidency I possess no local knowledge. But I can say that I have met many followers of Apastamba among the Telingana-brahmazas settled in Bombay, and that the frequent occurrence of MSS. containing the Satras of the Apastambiya school in the Madras Presidency proves that the Karaza there must count many adherents. On the other hand, I have never met with any Apastambiyas among the ancient indigenous subdivisions of the Brahmanical community dwelling north of the Marasha country and north of the Narmada. <A few Brahmamas of this school, no doubt, are scattered over Gugardt and Central India, and others are found in the great places of

INTRODUCTION, XXXV

<A few Brahmamas of this school, no doubt, are scattered over Gugardt and Central India, and others are found in the great places of

INTRODUCTION, XXXV

pilgrimage in Hindustan proper. The former mostly have immigrated during the last century, following the Mar4zha chieftains who conquered large portions of those countries, or have been imported in the present century by the Mar47#é rulers of Gwalior, Indor,and Baroda. The settlers in Benares, Mathurd, and other sacred cities also, have chiefly come in modern times, and not unfrequently live on the bounty of the Mar4¢s4 princes. But all of them consider themselves and are considered by the Brahmazas, who are indigenous in those districts and towns, as aliens, with whom intermarriage and commensality are not permitted. The indigenous sections of the Brahmazas of Gugarat, such as the Ndagaras, Khed4vals, Bhargavas, Kapilas, and Motilas, belong, if they are adherents of the Yagur-veda, to the MAdhyandina or KAzva schools of the White Yagur-veda. The same is the case with the Brahmamas of Ragputana, Hindustan, and the Pag#gab. In Central India, too, the White Yagur-veda prevails; but, besides the two schools mentioned above, there are still some colonies of Maitrayaxiyas or Manavas'. It seems, also, that the restriction of the Apastambiya school to the south of India, or rather to those subdivisions of the Brahmanical community which for a long time have been settled in the south and are generally considered as natives of the south, is not of recent date. For it is a significant fact that the numerous ancient landgrants which have been found all over India indicate exactly the same state of things. I am not aware that in any grant issued by a king of a northern dynasty to Brahmawas who are natives of the northern half of India, an Apastambiya is mentioned as donee. But among the southern landgrants there are several on which the name of the school appears. Thus in a sAsana of king Harihara of Vidy4nagara, dated Sakasamvat 1317 or 1395 A.D., one of the recipients of the royal bounty is ‘the learned Ananta Dikshita, son of Ramabhaféa, chief

1 See Bhatt Dagi, Journ. Bombay Br. Roy. As. Soc. X, 40. Regarding the Maitrayafyas in Gugarat, of whom the Karamavyfha speaks, compare my Report on the Search for Sanskrit MSS., 1879-80, p. 3.

c2

XXXVi APASTAMBA.

Bombay Br. Roy. As. Soc. X, 40. Regarding the Maitrayafyas in Gugarat, of whom the Karamavyfha speaks, compare my Report on the Search for Sanskrit MSS., 1879-80, p. 3.

c2

XXXVi APASTAMBA.

of the Apastambya (read Apastambiya) sakha, a scion of the Vasish¢ha gotra!” Further, the eastern KAlukya king Vigayaditya II?, who ruled, according to Dr. Fleet, from A.D. 799-843, presented a village to six students of the Hirazyakesi-sitra and to eighteen students of the Apastamba, recte the Apastamba-sitra. Again, in the abovementioned earlier grant of the Pallava king Nandivarman, there are forty-two students of the Apastambha-sitra ® among the 108 sharers of the village of Udayakandramangalam. Finally, on an ancient set of plates written in the characters which usually are called cave-characters, and issued by the Pallava king Simhavarman II, we find among the donees five Apastambhiya Brahmawas, who, together with a Hairazyakesa, a Vagasaneya, and a S4ma-vedi, received the village of Mangadar, in Vengdrash¢ra*. This inscription is, to judge from the characters, thirteen to fourteen hundred years old, and on this account a very important witness for the early existence of the Apastambiyas in Southern India.

Under the circumstances just mentioned, a casual remark made by Apastamba, in describing the Sraddhas or funeral oblations, acquires considerable importance. He says (Dh. II, 7, 17, 17) that the custom of pouring water into the hands of Brahmazas invited to a Sraddha prevails among the northerners, and he indicates thereby that he himself does not belong to the north of India. If this statement is taken together with the above-stated facts, which tend to show that the Apastambiyas were and are restricted to the south of India, the most probable construction which can be put on it is that Apastamba declares himself to be asoutherner. There is yet another indication to the same effect contained in the Dharma-sitra. It has been pointed

1 Colebrooke, Essays, II, p. 264, ver. 24 (Madras ed.)

2 See Hultzsch, South Indian Inscriptions, vol. i, p. 31 seqq., and Indian Antiquary, vol. xx, p. 414 seqq.

3 Apastambha may be a mistake for Apastamba. But the form with the aspirate occurs also in the earlier Pallava grant and in Devapala’s commentary on the Kashaka Grihya-sftra.

* Ind. Ant. V, 135.

INTRODUCTION. XXXVii

i, p. 31 seqq., and Indian Antiquary, vol. xx, p. 414 seqq.

3 Apastambha may be a mistake for Apastamba. But the form with the aspirate occurs also in the earlier Pallava grant and in Devapala’s commentary on the Kashaka Grihya-sftra.

* Ind. Ant. V, 135.

INTRODUCTION. XXXVii

out above that the recension of the Taittirtya Arazyaka which Apastamba recognises is that called the Andhra text or the version current in the Andhra country, by which term the districts in the south-east of India between the GodAvart and the Kvishz4 have to be understood '. Now it seems exceedingly improbable that a Vedic teacher would accept as authoritative any other version of a sacred work except that which was current in his native country. It would therefore follow, from the adoption of an Andhra text by Apastamba, that he was born in that country, or, at least, had resided there so long as to have become naturalised in it. With respect to this conclusion it must also be kept in mind that the above-quoted passage from the Maharaava particularly specifies the Andhra country (Andhradi) as the seat of the Apastambiyas. It may be that this is due to an accident. But it seems to me more probable that the author of the Maharzava wished to mark the Andhra territory as the chief and perhaps as the original residence of the Apastambiyas.

This discovery has, also, a most important bearing on the question of the antiquity of the school of Apastamba. It fully confirms the result of the preceding enquiry, viz. that the Apastambiyas are one of the later Karanas. For the south of India and the nations inhabiting it, such as Kalingas, Dravidas, Andhras, Kolas, and Pandyas, do not play any important part in the ancient Brahmanical traditions and in the earliest history of India, the centre of both of which lies in the north-west or at least north of the Vindhya range. Hitherto it has not been shown that the south and the southern nations are mentioned in any of the Vedic Samhités. In the Brahmazas and in the Sidtras they do occur, though they are named rarely and in a not complimentary manner. Thus the Aitareya-brahmana gives the names of certain degraded, barbarous tribes, and among them that of the Andhras*, in whose country, as

1 See Cunningham, Geography, p. §27 seqq.; Burnell, South Ind. Pal., p. 14, note 2. 2 Aitareya-brahmama VII, 18.

XXXVili APASTAMBA.

Thus the Aitareya-brahmana gives the names of certain degraded, barbarous tribes, and among them that of the Andhras*, in whose country, as

1 See Cunningham, Geography, p. §27 seqq.; Burnell, South Ind. Pal., p. 14, note 2. 2 Aitareya-brahmama VII, 18.

XXXVili APASTAMBA.

has been shown, the Apastambiyas probably originated. Again, Baudhayana, in his Dharma-sitra I, 1, quotes some verses in which it is said that he who visits the Kalingas must purify himself by the performance of certain sacrifices in order to become fit for again associating with Aryans. The same author, also, mentions distinctive forbidden practices (4#4ra) prevailing in the south (loc. cit.). Further, Pazini’s grammatical Sdtras and KAatydyana’s VAarttikas thereon contain rules regarding several words which presuppose an acquaintance with the south and the kingdoms which flourished there. Thus PAzini, IV, 2, 98, teaches the formation of dakshivatya in the sense of ‘belonging to or living in the south or the Dekhan,’ and a VArttika of Katyayana on Pawini, IV, 1, 175, states that the words Kola and Pawzdya are used as names of the princes ruling over the Kola and Pazdya countries, which, as is known from history, were situated in the extreme south of India. The other southern nations and a fuller description of the south occur first in the Mahabharata’. While an acquaintance with the south can thus be proved only by a few books belonging to the later stages of Vedic literature, several of the southern kingdoms are named already in the oldest historical documents. Asoka in his edicts 2, which date from the second half of the third century B.Cc., calls the Kolas, Pazdyas, and the Keralaputra or Ketalaputra his pratyantas (prakanté) or neighbours. The same monarch informs us also that he conquered the province of Kalinga and annexed it to his kingdom’, and his. remarks on the condition of the province show that it was thoroughly imbued with the Aryan civilisation*. The same fact is attested still more clearly by the annals of the Keta king of Kalinga, whose thirteenth year fell in the 165th year of the Maurya era. or about 150 B.c.5 The early

' Lassen, Ind. Alterthumskunde, I, 684, and ed.

? Edict II, Epigraphia Indica, vol. ii, pp. 449-450, 466.

* Edict XIII, op. cit., pp. 462-465, 470-472.

* See also Indian Antiquary, vol. xxiii, p. 246.

5 Actes du 6®me Congrés Int. d. Orient., vol. iii, 2, 135 seqq., where, however, the beginning of the Maurya era is placed wrongly in the eighth year of Asoka.

INTRODUCTION. XXXIX

449-450, 466.

* Edict XIII, op. cit., pp. 462-465, 470-472.

* See also Indian Antiquary, vol. xxiii, p. 246.

5 Actes du 6®me Congrés Int. d. Orient., vol. iii, 2, 135 seqq., where, however, the beginning of the Maurya era is placed wrongly in the eighth year of Asoka.

INTRODUCTION. XXXIX

spread of the Aryan civilisation to the eastern coastdistricts between the Godavari and the Krishna is proved by the inscriptions on the Bha/tiprolu relic caskets, which probably belong to the period of 200 B.c.1| Numerous inscriptions in the Buddhist caves of Western India’, as well as coins, prove the existence during the last centuries before, and the first centuries after, the beginning of our era of a powerful empire of the Andhras, the capital of which was probably situated near the modern Amaravati on the lower Kréshva. The princes of the latter kingdom, though great patrons of the Buddhist monks, appear to have been Brahmanists or adherents of the ancient orthodox faith which is founded on the Vedas. For one of them is called Vedisiri (vedisri), ‘he whose glory is the Vedi, and another Yaaasiri (yag#asri), ‘he whose glory is the sacrifice, and a very remarkable inscription on the Nanaghat * contains a curious catalogue of sacrificial fees paid to priests (dakshiz4) for the performance of Srauta sacrifices. For the third and the later centuries of our era the information regarding Southern India becomes fuller and fuller. Very numerous inscriptions, the accounts of the Buddhist chroniclers of Ceylon, of the Greek geographers, and of the Chinese pilgrims, reveal the existence and give fragments, at least, of the history of many kingdoms in the south, and show that their civilisation was an advanced one, and did not differ materially from that of Northern India.

There can be no doubt that the south of India has been conquered by the Aryans, and has been brought within the pale of Brahmanical civilisation much later than India north of the Vindhya range. During which century precisely that conquest took place, cannot be determined for the present. But it would seem that it happened a considerable time before the Vedic period came to an end, and it certainly was an accomplished fact, long before the xl APASTAMBA.

1 Epigraphia Indica, vol. ii, p. 323 seqq.

2 See Burgess, Arch. Surv. Reports, West India, vol. iv, pp. 104-114 and vol. v, p. 75 seqq.

3 Op. cit., vol. v, p. 39 seqq. Its date probably falls between 150-140 B.C.

authentic history of India begins, about 500 B.C., with the Persian conquest of the Pa#igaband Sindh. It may be added that a not inconsiderable period must have elapsed after the conquest of the south, before the Aryan civilisation had so far taken root in the conquered territory, that, in its turn, it could become a centre of Brahmanical activity, and that it could produce new Vedic schools.

It may be added that a not inconsiderable period must have elapsed after the conquest of the south, before the Aryan civilisation had so far taken root in the conquered territory, that, in its turn, it could become a centre of Brahmanical activity, and that it could produce new Vedic schools.

These remarks will suffice to show that a Vedic Karana which had its origin in the south, cannot rival in antiquity those whose seat is in the north, and that all southern schools must belong to a comparatively recent period of Vedic history. For this reason, and because the name of Apastamba and of the Apastambiyas is not mentioned in any Vedic work, not even in a Kalpa-sfitra, and its occurrence in the older grammatical books, written before the beginning of our era, is doubtful }, it might be thought advisable to fix the terminus a quo for the composition of the Apastambiya-s(itras about or shortly before the beginning of the era, when the Brahmanist Andhra kings held the greater part of the south under their sway. It seems to me, however, that such a hypothesis is not tenable, as there are several points which indicate that the school and its writings possess a much higher antiquity. For, first, the Dharma-s(tra contains a remarkable passage in which its author states that Svetaketu, one of the Vedic teachers who is mentioned in the Satapatha-brahmama and in the K“&dndogya Upanishad, belongs to the Avaras, to the men of later, i.e. of his own times. The passage referred to, Dh. I, 2, 5, 4-6, has been partly quoted above in order to show that Apastamba laid no claim to the title Rishi, or seer of revealed texts. It has been stated that according to Sftra 4, ‘No Rzshis are born among the Avaras, the men of later ages, on account of the prevailing transgression of the rules of studentship ;’ and that according to Satra 5,

1 The name Apastamba occurs only in the gaza vidadi, which belongs to Pazini 1V, 1, 104, and the text of this gaza is certain only for the times of the K4sika, about 630 A.D. The Srauta-sitra of Apastamba is mentioned in the nearly contemporaneous commentary of Bhartrzhari on the MahabhAshya, see Zeitschr. d. Deutschen Morg. Ges., vol. xxxvi, p. 654.

INTRODUCTION. xli

‘Some in their new birth become similar to Rishis by their knowledge of the Veda (srutarshi) through a residue of merit acquired in former existences.’ In order to give an illustration of the latter case, the author adds in Sdtra 6, ‘Like Svetaketu.’ The natural, and in my opinion, the only admissible interpretation of these words is, that Apastamba considers Svetaketu to be one of the Avaras, who by virtue of a residue of merit became a Srutarshi. This is also the view of the commentator Haradatta, who, in elucidation of SQtra 6, quotes the following passage from the K#andogya Upanishad (VI, 1, 1-2):

This is also the view of the commentator Haradatta, who, in elucidation of SQtra 6, quotes the following passage from the K#andogya Upanishad (VI, 1, 1-2):

‘1. Verily, there lived Svetaketu, a descendant of Aruma. His father spake unto him, “O Svetaketu, dwell as a student (with a teacher); for, verily, dear child, no one in our family must neglect the study of the Veda and become, as it were, a Brahmaza in name only.”

‘Verily, he (Svetaketu) was initiated at the age of twelve years, and when twenty-four years old he had learned all the Vedas; he thought highly of himself and was vain of his learning and arrogant.’

There can be no doubt that this is the person and the story referred to in the Dharma-sftra. For the fact which the Upanishad mentions, that Svetaketu learned all the Vedas in twelve years, while the Smritis declare fortyeight years to be necessary for the accomplishment of that task, makes Apastamba’s illustration intelligible and appropriate. A good deal more is told in the K/andogya Upanishad about this Svetaketu, who is said to have been the son of Udd4laka and the grandson of Aruma (4rumeya). The same person is also frequently mentioned in the Satapatha-brahmama. In one passage of the latter work, which has been translated by Professor Max Miller}, it is alleged that he was a contemporary of Yag#avalkya, the promulgator of the White Yagur-veda, and of the learned king Ganaka of Videha, who asked him about the meaning of the Agnihotra sacrifice. Now, as has been shown above, Apastamba knew and quotes the White Yagur-veda and xlii APASTAMBA,

1 Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., p. 421 seq.

Now, as has been shown above,
Apastamba knew and quotes the White Yagur-veda and

1 Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., p. 421 seq.

xlii APASTAMBA, the Satapatha-brahmamza. The passage of the latter work, which he quotes, is even taken from the same book in which the story about Svetaketu and Ganaka occurs. The fact, therefore, that Apastamba places a teacher whom he must have considered as a contemporary of the promulgator of the White Yagur-veda among the Avaras, is highly interesting and of some importance for the history of Vedic literature. On the one hand it indicates that Apastamba cannot have considered the White Yagur-veda, such as it has been handed down in the schools of the Kanvas and Madhyandinas, to belong to a remote antiquity. On the other hand it makes the inference which otherwise might be drawn from the southern origin of the Apastambiya school and from the non-occurrence of its name in the early grammatical writings, viz. that its founder lived not long before the beginning of our era, extremely improbable. For even if the term Avara is not interpreted very strictly and allowed to mean not exactly a contemporary, but a person of comparatively recent times, it will not be possible to place between Svetaketu and Apastamba a longer interval than, at the utmost, two or three hundred years. Svetaketu and YA4gé#avalkya would accordingly, at the best, find their places in the fourth or fifth century B.C., and the Satapatha-brahmama as well as all other Vedic works, which narrate incidents from their lives, must have been composed or at least edited still later. Though little is known régarding the history of the Vedic texts, still it happens that we possess some information regarding the texts in question. For we know from a statement made by KAatydyana in a V4rttika on Pazini IV, 3, 105, and from Pata#gali’s commentary on his words that the Brahmawa proclaimed by Yag#avalkya, i.e. the Satapatha-brahmaza of the White Yagur-veda, was considered to have been promulgated by one of the Ancients, in the times of these two writers, i.e. probably in the fourth and second centuries B.C.?

1 This famous Varttika has been interpreted in various ways; see Max Miiller, Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., pp. 360-364; Goldstiicker, Pazini, pp. 132-140; Weber,

INTRODUCTION. xlili

These considerations will show that it is necessary to allow for Apastamba a much higher antiquity than the first century B.C.

Anc. Sansk. Lit., pp. 360-364; Goldstiicker, Pazini, pp. 132-140; Weber,

INTRODUCTION. xlili

These considerations will show that it is necessary to allow for Apastamba a much higher antiquity than the first century B.C.

The same inference may also be drawn from another series of facts, viz. the peculiarities of the language of his Sitras. The latter are very considerable and very remarkable. They may be classed under four heads. In the Apastambiya Dharma-s@tra we have, first, archaic words and forms either occurring in other Vedic writings or formed according to the analogy of Vedic usage; secondly, ‘ancient forms and words specially prescribed by Paziai, which: have not been traced except in Apastamba’s Sdtras; thirdly, words and forms which are both against Vedic usage and against Pazini’s rules, and which sometimes find their analogies in the ancient Prakrits; and fourthly, anomalies in the construction of sentences. To the first class belong, kravyddas, I, 7, 21, 15, carnivorous, formed according to the analogy of rzsidas; the frequent use of the singular dara, e.g. II, 1, 1, 17-18, a wife, instead of the plural dara; salavrzki, I, 3, 10, 19, for salavrzki; the substitution of / for ry in plenkha, I, 11, 31, 143 occa-

Ind. Stud. V, 65-74; XIII, 443, 444. As regards the explanation of Katyayana’s and Pataf@gali’s words, I side with Kaiya¢a and Professor Goldstiicker. But I am unable to follow the latter in the inferences which he draws from the fact, that Katyayana and Patafgali declare Yagflavalkya and other sages to be as ancient as those whose Brahmazas and Kalpas are designated by the plural of adjectives formed by the addition of the affix in to the names of the promulgators. Though Pamini asserts, IV, 3, 105, that only those Brahmazas which are known by appellations like Bhallavinak, Kaushitakinak, &c., have been proclaimed by ancient sages, and though Katya4yana and the author of the Great Commentasty add that this rule does not hold good in the case of the work called Yag#avalkani Bréhmamani, it does not necessarily follow, as Professor Goldstiicker thinks, that an extraordinarily long interval lies between Pazini and Katyayana—so long a period that what Pasini considcred to be recent had become ancient in Katyayana’s time. Professor Weber has rightly objected to this reasoning. The difference between the statements of the two grammarians may have been caused Ly different traditions prevailing in different schools, or by an oversight on the part of Pasini, which, as the scene of Yagfavalkya’s activity seems to have been Videha in eastern India, while Pazini belonged to the extreme north-west, is not at all improbable. As regards the two dates, I place, following, with Professor Max Miiller, the native tradition, K&tyayana in the fourth century B.c., and Patafgali, with Professors Goldstiicker, Kem, and Bhamdarkar, between 178-140 B.C.

xliv APASTAMBA.

As regards the two dates, I place, following, with Professor Max Miiller, the native tradition, K&tyayana in the fourth century B.c., and Patafgali, with Professors Goldstiicker, Kem, and Bhamdarkar, between 178-140 B.C.

xliv APASTAMBA.

sional offences against the rules of internal and external Sandhi, e.g. in agrzhyamanak4razaf, I, 4, 12, 8; in skuptv4, I, 11, 31, 22, the irregular absolutive of skubh or of sku; in pAddna, I, 1, 2, 13; in adh4sanasayin, I, 1, 2, 21; and in sarvatopeta, I, 6, 19, 8; the neglect of the rule requiring vv¢ddhi in the first syllable of the name PushkarasAdi, I, 10, 28, 1; the irregular instrumentals vidy4, I, 11, 30, 3, for vidyay4, and niksreyasa, II, 7, 16, 2, for niksreyasena; the nominatives dual avam, I, 7, 20, 6, for AvAm, and kru#kakrauZha, I, 5, 17, 36 for °*krau#éau; and the potentials in ita, such as prakshalayita, I, 1, 2, 28; abhiprasdrayita, I, 2, 6, 3, &c. Among the words mentioned by Pazini, but not traced except in the Dharma-sitra, may be enumerated the verb strih, to do damage, I, 11, 31, 9; the verb svinkh, to sneeze, from which srvznkhanika, I, 5, 16, 14, and niksrinkhana, II, 2, 5, 9, are derived; and the noun vedadhyaya, I, 9, 24, 6; II, 4, 8, 5, in the sense of a student of the Veda. Words offending against rules given by Pazini, without being either archaic or Prakritic, are e.g. sarvannin, I, 6, 18, 33, one who eats anybody’s food, which, according to Paszini V, 2, 9, should be sarvannina; sarpasirshin, I, 5, 17, 39; annasamskartrz, a cook, II, 3, 6,16; dharmya, righteous, for dharmya, I, 2, 7, 21, and elsewhere; divitrz, a gambler, II, 10, 25, 13, for devitrz, the very remarkable form pras#ati, I, 1, 4, 1, for prasnfti, finds an analogy in the Vedic snyaptre for snaptre? and in Pali, pa#ha from pras#a for prasna; and the curious compounds avéngagra, I, 1, 2,38, parang4vritta, II, 5, 10,11, where the first parts show the forms of the nominative instead of the base, and pratisdryamatsyaé, I, 3, 11, 31, which as a copulative compound is wrong, though not without analogies in Prakrit and in later Sanskrit. The irregular forms caused by the same tendencies as those which effected the formation of the

1 Wackernagel, Altindische Grammatik, vol. i, p. xxxiii. ® See Zeitschr. d. Deutschen Morg. Ges., vol. xl, p. 539 seq-; Epigraphia Indica, vol. i, p. 3.

INTRODUCTION. xlv

The irregular forms caused by the same tendencies as those which effected the formation of the

1 Wackernagel, Altindische Grammatik, vol. i, p. xxxiii. ® See Zeitschr. d. Deutschen Morg. Ges., vol. xl, p. 539 seq-; Epigraphia Indica, vol. i, p. 3.

INTRODUCTION. xlv

Prakrit languages, are, aviprakramiza, II, 2, 5, 2, for aviprakramaaa, where an a standing in thesi has been changed to i; sdmvrittik, II, 3, 6, 13, sAmvartete, II, 5, £1, 20, and pary4nta, I, 3, 9, 21, and I, 3, 11, 33 (compare Mard¢hi Amt for antah), in each of which a@ standing before a nasal has been lengthened ; azika, I, 6, 19, I, the initial 2 of which stands for 72, if it really has the meaning of rizika, as some commentators asserted ; anulepaza, I, 3, 11, 13; I, 11, 32, 5, with the Prakritic change of na to ma; vyupagAva, I, 2, 8, 15, with va for pa; ritve for ritvye, wherey seems to have been absorbed by the following ¢; apassayita, I, 11, 32, 16, for apAsrayita, and bhatrzvyatikrama, I, 10, 28, 20, where 7 has been assimilated to the preceding, or has been lost before the following consonant. The irregularities in the construction are less frequent. But in two Satras, I, 3, 10, 2,and I, 3,13, 31, some words which ought to stand in the locative case have the terminations of the nominative, and it looks as if the author had changed his mind about the construction which he meant to use. Ina third passage II, 10, 26, 20, sisnakkhedanam savrishanzasya, the adjective which is intended to qualify the noun sisna has been placed in the genitive case, though the noun has been made the first part of a compound.

The occurrence of so many irregularities! in so small a treatise as the Dharma-sftra is, proves clearly that the author did not follow Pazini’s grammar, and makes it very unlikely that he knew it at all. If the anomalous forms used by Apastamba all agreed with the usage of the other Sitrakdras, known to us, it might be contended that, though acquainted with the rules of the great grammarian, he had elected to adopt by preference the language of the Vedic schools. But this is by no means the case. The majority of the irregular forms are peculiar to Apastamba. As it is thus not probable that Apastamba employed his peculiar expressions in obedience to the tradition of the xlvi APASTAMBA.

1 Many more may be collected from the other divisions of the body of Sitras. See Winternitz, op. cit., p. 13 seqq.; Gurupigakaumudi, p. 34 seq.

As it is thus not probable that Apastamba employed his peculiar expressions in obedience to the tradition of the

1 Many more may be collected from the other divisions of the body of Sitras. See Winternitz, op. cit., p. 13 seqq.; Gurupigakaumudi, p. 34 seq.

xlvi APASTAMBA.

Vedic schools or of his particular school, he must have either been unacquainted with Pazini or have considered his teachings of no great importance. In other words, he must either have lived earlier than Pazini or before PAzini’s grammar had acquired general fame throughout India, and become the standard authority for Sanskrit authors. In either case so late a date as 150 B.C. or the first century B.C. would not fit. For Pata#gali's Mahabhashya furnishes abundant proof that at the time of its composition, in the second century R.C., Pazini’s grammar occupied a position similar to that which it holds now, and has held since the beginning of our era in the estimation of the learned of India. On linguistic grounds it seems to me Apastamba cannot be placed later than the third century B.C., and if his statement regarding Svetaketu is taken into account, the lower limit for the composition of his Satras must be put further back by 150-200 years.

But sufficient space has already been allotted to these attempts to assign a date to the founder of the Apastambiya school, the result of which, in the present state of our knowledge of the ancient history of India, must remain, I fear, less certain and less precise than is desirable. It now is necessary to say, in conclusion, a few words about the history of the text of the Dharma-sitra, and about its commentary, the Uggvala Vritti of Haradatta. The oldest writer with a known date who quotes the Apastambiya Dharma-sitra is Sankarék4rya'!, c. 800 A.D. Even somewhat earlier Kumirila, c. 750, refers repeatedly to a law-book by Apastamba®. But it is improbable that he had our Dharma-sitra before him. For he says, p. 138, that Apastamba expressly sanctions local usages, opposed to the teaching of the Vedas, for the natives of those districts where they had prevailed since ancient times. Now, that is just an opinion, which our Dharma-sitra declares to be wrong and refutes repeatedly®. As it seems

1 See Deussen, Vedanta, p. 35.
* Tantravarttika, pp. 138, 139, 142, 174, 175, 179, Benares ed.
5 Ap. Dh. I, 1, 14, 8, 9-10; II, 6, 14, 10-133 I, 6, 15, 1.

INTRODUCTION. xl vii

Now, that is just an opinion, which our Dharma-sitra declares to be wrong and refutes repeatedly®. As it seems

1 See Deussen, Vedanta, p. 35.
* Tantravarttika, pp. 138, 139, 142, 174, 175, 179, Benares ed.
5 Ap. Dh. I, 1, 14, 8, 9-10; II, 6, 14, 10-133 I, 6, 15, 1.

INTRODUCTION. xl vii

hazardous to impute to a man, like Kumérila, ignorance or spite against Apastamba, I am inclined to assume that the great Mim4zsaka refers to some other work, attributed to Apastamba, perhaps the metrical Apastamba-smriti which Apararka quotes very frequently'. Among the commentators on Smritis the oldest, who quote the Dharma-sitra, are Medhatithi, the author of the Manubhdshya, and Vig#anesvara, who composed the Mitakshard. the wellknown commentary on Yag#avalkya’s Dharma-sdstra during the reign of the Kdlukya king Vikramaditya VI, of Kalyaza towards the end of the eleventh century. From that time downwards Apastamba is quoted by almost every writer on law. But the whole text. such as it is given in my edition’, is vouched for only by the commentator Haradatta, who wrote his Uggvalé Vritti, at the latest, in the fifteenth century A.D. or possibly 100 years earlier *. Haradatta was, however. not the first commentator of the Dharma-sdtra. He frequently quotes the opinions of several predecessors whom he designates by the general expressions anya# or aparaf, i.e. another (writer). The fact that the Uggvalé was preceded by earlier commentaries which protected the text from corruption, also speaks in favour of the authenticity of the latter, which is further attested by the close agreement of the Hiravyakesi Dharma-sdtra, mentioned above.

As regards the value of the Uggvala for the explanation of Apastamba’s text, it certainly belongs to the best com-

1 Ap. Dh., Introd., p. x.

2 Apastambtya Dharma-s(itram, second edition, Part i, Bumbay, 1892;
Part ii, Bombay, 1894.

3 It seems not doubtful that Haradatta, the author of the Ugevala, is the same person who wrote the Anakula Vrztti on the Apastamblya Grzhya-siitra, an explanation of the Apastambiya Grihya-mantras (see Burnell, Ind. Ant. I, 6), and the Mitakshara Vvitti on the Dharma-sitra of Gautama. From the occurrence in the latter work of Tamil words, added in explanation of Sanskrit expressions, it follows that Haradatta was a native of the south of India. Iam not in a position to decide if our author also wrote the Padamaggari Vvitti on the Kasika of Vamana and Gayaditya. This is Professor Aufrecht’s opinion, Catalogus Catalogorum, p. 754 seq. See also my remarks in the Introd. to the second ed., p. viii.

xlviii APASTAMBA.

Iam not in a position to decide if our author also wrote the Padamaggari Vvitti on the Kasika of Vamana and Gayaditya. This is Professor Aufrecht’s opinion, Catalogus Catalogorum, p. 754 seq. See also my remarks in the Introd. to the second ed., p. viii.

xlviii APASTAMBA.

mentaries existing. Haradatta possessed in the older Vrittis abundant and good materials on which he could draw; he himself apparently was well versed in Hindu law and in Sanskrit grammar, and distinguished by sobriety and freedom from that vanity which induces many Indian commentators to load their works with endless and useless quotations. His explanations, therefore, can mostly be followed without hesitation, and, even when they appear unacceptable, they deserve careful consideration.

INTRODUCTION

TO

GAUTAMA.

COMPARED with the information collected above regarding the origin and the history of Apastamba’s Dharmastra, the facts which can be brought to bear on Gautama’s Institutes are scanty and the conclusions deducible from them somewhat vague. There are only two points, which, it seems to me, can be proved satisfactorily, viz. the connection of the work with the S4ma-veda and a Gautama Karana, and its priority to the other four Dharma-sitras which we still possess. To go further appears for the present impossible, because very little is known regarding the history of the schools studying the Sdma-veda, and because the Dharmasdstra not only furnishes very few data regarding the works on which it is based, but seems also, though not to any great extent, to have been tampered with by interpolators.

As regards its origin, it was again Professor Max Miller, who, in the place of the fantastic statements of a fabricated tradition, according to which the author of the Dharmasdstra is the son or grandson of the sage Utathya, and the grandson or great-grandson of Usanas or Sukra, the regent of the planet Venus, and the book possessed generally binding force in the second or Treta Yuga 4, first put forward a rational explanation which, since, has been adopted by all other writers on Sanskrit literature. He says, Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit. p. 134, ‘Another collection of Dharmasitras, which, however, is liable to critical doubts, belongs

Manu III, 19; Colebrooke, Digest of Hindu Law, Preface, p. xvii
Madras ed.); Anantayagvan in Dr. Burnell’s Catalogue of Sanskrit MSS.,
(p. 57; Parasara, Dharmasastra I, 22 (Calcutta ed.)

(2]

| GAUTAMA.

to the Gautamas, a Karaza of the Sama-veda.’ This assertion agrees with Kumirila’s statement, that the Dharmasdstra of Gautama and the Grthya-sitra of Gobhila were (originally) accepted (as authoritative) by the A/andogas or SAmavedins alone!. Kumirila certainly refers to the work known to us. For he quotes in other passages several of its Satras*.

Kumirila certainly refers to the work known to us. For he quotes in other passages several of its Satras*.

That Kuméarila and Professor Max Miller are right, may also be proved by the following independent arguments. Gautama’s work, though called Dharmasdstra or Institutes of the Sacred Law, closely resembles, both in form and contents, the Dharma-sdtras or Aphorisms on the Sacred Law, which form part of the Kalpa-sitras of the Vedic schools of Baudhayana, Apastamba, and Hirazyakesin. As we know from the Karazavytha, from the writings of the ancient grammarians, and from the numerous quotations in the Kalpa-sftras and other works on the Vedic ritual, that in ancient times the number of Vedic schools, most of which possessed Srauta, Grzhya, and Dharma-sitras, was exceedingly great, and that the books of many of them have either been lost or been disintegrated, the several parts being torn out of their original connection, it is not unreasonable to assume that the aphoristic law-book, usually attributed to the Rzshi Gautama, is in reality a manual belonging to a Gautama Karava. This conjecture gains considerably in probability, if the fact is taken into account that formerly a school of SAma-vedis, which bore the name of Gautama, actually existed. It is mentioned in one of the redactions of the Karazavyiha® as a subdivision of the Razayaniya school. The Vamsa-brahmana of the Sama-veda, also, enumerates four members of the Gautama family among the teachers who handed down the third Veda, viz. Gatrz Gautama, Sumantra Babhrava

1 Tantravarttika, p. 179 (Benares ed.), WUT mata irate Wat w afcqett

? Viz. Gautama I, 2 on p. 143; II, 45-46 on p. 112, and XIV, 45-46 on . 109, 5 Max Miiller, Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., p. 374.

INTRODUCTION. li

Gautama, Samkara Gautama, and Radha Gautama}, and the existing Srauta and Grzhya-sitras frequently appeal to the opinions of a Gautama and of a Sthavira Gautama’. It follows, therefore, that at least one, if not several Gautama Karazas, studied the SAma-veda, and that, at the time when the existing Satras of Laty4yana and Gobhila were composed, Gautama Srauta and Grthya-sdtras formed part of the literature of the Sama-veda. The correctness of the latter inference is further proved by Dr. Burnell’s discovery of a Pitvzmedha-sdtra, which is ascribed to a teacher of the SAma-veda, called Gautama °.

The correctness of the latter inference is further proved by Dr. Burnell’s discovery of a Pitvzmedha-sdtra, which is ascribed to a teacher of the SAma-veda, called Gautama °.

The only link, therefore, which is wanting in order to complete the chain of evidence regarding Gautama’s Aphorisms on the sacred law, and to make their connection with the SAma-veda perfectly clear, is the proof that they contain special references to the latter. This proof is not difficult to furnish. For Gautama has borrowed one entire chapter, the twenty-sixth, which contains the description of the Kvzk&hras or difficult penances from the SAamavidhana, one of the eight Brahmavas of the SAma-veda*. The agreement of the two texts is complete except in the Mantras (Sdtra 12) where invocations of several deities, which are not usually found in Vedic writings, have been introduced. Secondly, in the enumeration of the purificatory texts, XIX, 12, Gautama shows a marked partiality for the SAma-veda. Among the eighteen special texts mentioned, we find not less than nine SAmans. Some of the latter, like the Brzhat, Rathantara, Gyeshtka, and Mahadivakirtya chants, are mentioned also in works belonging to the Rig-veda and the Yagur-veda, and are considered by Brahmawas of all schools to possess great efficacy. But others, such as the Purushagati, Rauhiza, and Mahavairaga SAmans, have hitherto not been met with anywhere but in books belonging to the SAma-veda, and

1 See Burnell, Vamsa-brahmama, pp. 7, 9, 11, and 12. 2 See the Petersburg Dictionary, s.v. Gautama; Weber, Hist. Ind. Lit., Pp. 77 (English ed.) ; Gobhila Grzhya-s(tra III, 10, 6. > Weber, Hist. Ind. Lit., p. 84, note 89 (English ed.) * See below, pp. 292-296. d2 li - GAUTAMA.

do not seem to have stood in general repute. Thirdly, in two passages, I, 50 and XXV, 8, the Dharmasdstra prescribes the employment of five Vydhritis, and mentions in the former Sitra, that the last Vyahrzti is satyam, truth. Now in most Vedic works, three Vy4hrztis only, bhd4, bhuvad, svak, are mentioned; sometimes, but rarely, four or seven occur. But in the Vy4hvzti Saman, as Haradatta points out 3, five such interjections are used, and satyam is found among them. It is, therefore, not doubtful, that Gautama in the above-mentioned passages directly borrows from the Sama-veda. These three facts, taken together, furnish, it seems to me, convincing proof that the author of our Dharmasdstra was a SAma-vedi. If the only argument in favour of this conclusion were, that Gautama appropriated a portion of the SAmavidhdna, it might be met by the fact that he has also taken some Sitras (KXV, 1-6), from the Taittiriya Arazyaka. But his partiality for Samans as purificatory texts and the selection of the Vyahvstis from the Vyahv7ti Saman as part of the Mantras for the initiation (I, 50), one of the holiest and most important of the Brahmanical sacraments, cannot be explained on any other supposition than the one adopted above.

Though it thus appears that Professor Max Miiller is right in declaring the Gautama Dharmasdstra to belong to the Sama-veda, it is, for the present, not possible to positively assert, that it is the Dharma-sitra of that Gautama Karana, which according to the Karazavytha, quoted in the Sabdakalpadruma of RAdhdkanta, formed a subdivision of the Ravdyaniyas. The enumeration of four A#aryas, bearing the family-name Gautama, in the Vamsa-brahmama, and La¢ydyana’s quotations from two Gautamas, make it not unlikely, that several Gautama Karamas once existed among the Sdma-vedi Brahmazas, and we ‘possess no means for ascertaining to which our Dharmasdstra must be attributed. Further researches into the history of the schools of the SAma-veda must be awaited until we can do more. Probably the living tradition of the Sama-vedis of

1 See Gautama I, 50, note,

INTRODUCTION, ‘iii

Southern India and new books from the South will clear up what at present remains uncertain.

In concluding this subject I may state that Haradatta seems to have been aware of the connection of Gautama’s law-book with the SAma-veda, though he does not say it expressly. But he repeatedly and pointedly refers in his commentary to the practices of the K/andogas, and quotes the Grzhya-sitra of the Gaiminiyas!, who are a school of Sama-vedis, in explanation of several passages. Another southern author, Govindasvamin (if I understand the somewhat corrupt passage correctly), states directly in his commentary on Baudhdyana I, 1, 2, 6, that the Gautamiya Dharmasdstra was originally studied by the K/andogas alone?

In turning now to the second point, the priority of Gautama to the other existing Dharma-sftras, I must premise that it is only necessary to take into account two of the latter, those of Baudhdyana and Vasishtha. For, as has been shown above in the Introduction to Apastamba, the Satras of the latter and those of Hirazyakesin Saty4shadha are younger than Baudhdyana’s. The arguments which allow us to place Gautama before both Baudhayana and Vasish¢ha are, that both those authors quote Gautama as an authority on law, and that Baudhdyana has transferred a whole chapter of the Dharmas4stra to his work, which Vasish¢ka again has borrowed from him.

As regards the case of Baudhdyana, his references to Gautama are two, one of which can be traced in our Dharmasastra. In the discussion on the peculiar customs prevailing in the South and in the North of India (Baudh. Dh. I, 2, 1-8) Baudhayana expresses himself as follows :

1 A Grthya-sitra of the Gaimintyas has been discovered by Dr. Burnell with a commentary by Srinivasa. He thinks that the Gaiminiyas are a Sitra-sékha of the Safyayana-Talavakéras.

Dh. I, 2, 1-8) Baudhayana expresses himself as follows :

1 A Grthya-sitra of the Gaimintyas has been discovered by Dr. Burnell with a commentary by Srinivasa. He thinks that the Gaiminiyas are a Sitra-sékha of the Safyayana-Talavakéras.

2 My transcript has been made from the MS. presented by Dr. Burnell, the Giscoverer of the work, to the India Office Library. The passage runs as follows: Yatha va bodhayantyam dharmasastram kaiskid eva pathyam&nam sarvadhikaram bhavati tath4 gautamtye gobhilfye (?) #kandogair eva pathyate | vasish¢ham tu bahvrtkair eva || liv GAUTAMA.

‘1, There is a dispute regarding five (practices) both in the South and in the North.

‘2. We shall explain those (peculiar) to the South.

‘g. They are, to eat in the company of an uninitiated person, to eat in the company of one’s wife, to eat stale food, to marry the daughter of a maternal uncle or of a paternal aunt.

‘4. Now (the customs peculiar) to the North are, to deal in wool, to drink rum, to sell animals that have teeth in the upper and in the lower jaws, to follow the trade of arms and to go to sea.

‘5. He who follows (these practices) in (any) other country than the one where they prevail commits sin.

‘6. For each of these practices (the rule of) the country should be (considered) the authority.

‘7, Gautama declares that this is false.

*8. And one should not take heed of either (set of practices), because they are opposed to the tradition of those learned (in the sacred law ?).’

From this passage it appears that the Gautama Dharmastra, known to Baudhayana, expressed an opinion adverse to the authoritativeness of local customs which might be opposed to the tradition of the Sishéas, i.e. of those who really deserve to be called learned in the law. Our Gautama teaches the same doctrine, as he says, XI, 20, ‘The laws of countries, castes, and families, which are not opposed to the (sacred) records, have also authority.’

4 wa fanfrafadiquraatac: nau arta efquaeatta area: nai adacgita we ert fem we tet affemitert argetag-

arafafa ug ratfercfergaquta nun

WANT TMMATTATAT VITA vet fawtafefa mam usu ard 9a wifgaa faveziafacturstary ute

INTRODUCTION. lv

lv

As clear as this reference, is the case in which Baudhéyana has borrowed a whole chapter of our DharmasaAstra. The chapter in question is the nineteenth, which in Gautama’s work forms the introduction to the section on penances and expiation. It is reproduced with a number of various readings! in the third Prasna of Baudhayana’s Dharma-sitra, where it forms the tenth and last Adhydya. Its contents, and especially its first Stra which connects the section on penances with the preceding ones on the law of castes and orders, make it perfectly clear that its proper position can only be at the beginning of the rules on expiation, not in the middle of the discussion, as Baudhayana places it% This circumstance alone would be sufficient to prove that Baudhdayana is the borrower, not Gautama, even if the name of the latter did not occur in Baudh4yana’s Dharma-sitra. But the character of many of Baudhayana’s readings, especially of those in Sdtras 2, 10, 11, 13, and 15, which, though supported by all the MSS. and Govindasvamin’s commentary, appear to have arisen chiefly through clerical mistakes or carelessness, furnishes

1 Baudhayana’s various readings are the following: Gaut. XIX, 1= Baudh. III, 10, 1, adaware. Gaut. XIX, 2=Baudh. III, ro, 2, FAUT faon areca at arwaanfagreea wo oafrpeqraaryaraet ararararacatay a activ. Gaut. XIX, 4 left out. Gaut. XIX, 6=Baudh. III, 10, 5, Fatfewa. Gaut. XIX, 7=Bandh. III, :0, 6, yaetaa aaa; fagrat left ont. Gaut. XIX, 8 left out. Gaut. XIX, 9=Baudh. III, 10, 7, wargeTecfer wcfa. Gaut. XIX, 1o= Baudh. III, 10, 8, Cat aaa. Gaut. XIX, 12=Baudh. III, 10, 10, Jereat AeA: ; AA:. Gaut. XIX, 13=Baudh. III, 10, 11, sqaaraay Walaa. Gant. XIX, 14=Baudh. III, 10, 12, Wfafaaaatfa ; wireeaafe. Gaut. XIX, 15=Baudh. III, 10, 13, Wheat aaa want Tey asaya. Gaut. XIX, 17=Baudh. III, ro, 1g, SWENTAAHTS Ffa WST:. Gat. XIX, 18=Baudh. III, 10, 16, Faget loft out. Gaut. XIX, 20=Bandh. III, ro, 18, wanratate:.

? Baudh4yana’s treatment of the subject of penances is very unmethodical. He devotes to them the following sections: II, 1-2; Il, 2, 3, 48-53; II, 2, 4; Ill, 5-10; and the greater part of Prasna IV.

Ivi GAUTAMA.

even an additional argument in favour of the priority of Gautama’s text. It must, however, be admitted that the value of this point is seriously diminished by the fact that Baudhdyana’s third Prasna is not above suspicion and may be a later addition 1.

As regards Baudhdyana’s second reference to Gautama, the opinion which it attributes to the latter is directly opposed to the teaching of our Dharmasdstra, Baudhayana gives II, 2, 4, 16 the rule that a Brahmama who is unable to maintain himself by teaching, sacrificing, and receiving gifts, may follow the profession of a Kshatriya, and then goes on as follows ?:

‘17. Gautama declares that he shall not do it. For the duties of a Kshatriya are too cruel for a Brahmazea.’

Gautama declares that he shall not do it. For the duties of a Kshatriya are too cruel for a Brahmazea.’

As the commentator Govindasvamin also points out, exactly the opposite doctrine is taught in our DharmasAstra, which (VII, 6) explicitly allows a Brahmaza to follow, in times of distress, the occupations of a Kshatriya. Govindasvamin explains this contradiction by assuming that in this case Baudhayana cites the opinion, not of the author of our Dharmasdstra, but of some other Gautama. According to what has been said above %, the existence of two or even more ancient Gautama Dharma-sitras is not very improbable, and the commentator may possibly be right. But it seems to me more likely that the Sitra of Gautama (VII, 6) which causes the difficulty is an interpolation, though Haradatta takes it to be genuine. My reason for considering it to be spurious is that the permission to follow the trade of arms is opposed to the sense of two other rules of Gautama. For the author states at the end of the same chapter on times of distress, VII, 25, that ‘even a Brahmaza may take up arms when his life is in danger. The meaning of these words can only be, that a Brahmaza must not fight under any other circumstances.

» See Sacred Books of the East, vol. xiv, p. xxxiv seq. ? Baudh. Dh. II, 2, 4, 17.

afa maitqat fe wae areas

5 See p. lii.

INTRODUCTION. Ivii

But according to Satra 6 he is allowed to follow the occupations of a Kshatriya, who lives by fighting. Again, in the chapter on funeral oblations, XV, 18, those Brahmazas ‘who live by the use of the bow’ are declared to defile the company at a funeral dinner. It seems to me that these two SAtras, taken together with Baudhayana’s assertion that Gautama does not allow Brahmamas to become warriors, raise a strong suspicion against the genuineness, of VII, 6, and I have the less hesitation in rejecting the latter Sdtra, as there are several other interpolated passages in the text received by Haradatta?. Among them I may mention here the Mantras in the chapter taken from the Saémavidhana, XXVI, 12, where the three invocations addressed to Siva are certainly modern additions, as the old Satrak4ras do not allow a place to that or any other Paurazic deity in their works. A second interpolation will be pointed out below.

The VAasishtha Dharma-sitra shows also two quotations from Gautama; and it is a curious coincidence that, just as in the case of Baudhayana’s references, one of them only can be traced in our Dharmasdstra. Both the quotations occur in the section on impurity, Vas. IV, where we read as follows?:

‘33. If an infant aged less than two years, dies, or in the case of a miscarriage, the impurity of the Sapindas (lasts) for three (days and) nights.

‘34. Gautama declares that (they become) pure at once
(after bathing).

‘35. If (a person) dies in a foreign country and (his
Sapizdas) hear (of his death) after the lapse of ten days,
the impurity lasts for one (day and) night.