Transliteration of Oriental Alphabets adopted for the Translations of the Sacred Books of the East . . . 357
ESE ton OS ore “Pp UNIVe ASITY
Cote tb FORM
c YY we
Cz
TO
VASISHTAA.
THE VAsish¢da DharmasAstra is, like that of Gautama, the last remnant of the Sfitras of a Vedic school, which, as far as our knowledge goes at present, has perished, together with the greater part of its writings. We owe the preservation of its Dharma-sftra probably to the special law schools of India, which, attracted as it would seem by its title and the legend connecting it with Vasish¢/a Maitravaruzi, one of the most famous Azshis of the Rig-veda and a redoubtable champion of Brahmanism, made it one of their standard authorities. The early existence of a legend according to which the V4sisht#a Dharma-sfitra was considered either to be a work composed by the Xéshi Vasish¢ha, or at least to contain the sum of his teaching on the duty of man, is indicated by several passages of the work itself. For the Dharma-sitra names Vasishz/a, or appeals to his authority on no less than three occasions. First, we find a rule on lawful interest, which is emphatically ascribed to Vasish¢/a}. ‘Learn the interest for a money lender, the Sftra says, ‘declared by the word of Vasishtha; five m4shas (may be taken) for twenty (karshdpavas every month).’ Again, at the end ofa long string of rules? which contain the observances to be kept by sinners who undergo Krzkkhra penances, Vasishtha’s name is brought forward as the authority for them, and the last words are, ‘Thus speaks the divine Vasish¢ha.’ Finally, the concluding Sdtra of the whole work? gives xii VASISHTHA.
1 Vasishtha Dharmasastra IT, 51.
2 Vasishtha Dharmasastra XXIV, 5.
8 VAsishtha Dharmas4stra XXX,11. Similar invocations of teachers at the end of Sitras occur frequently, e.g. Asvalayana Srauta-sitra XII, 15,14; Rigvidhana V, 3, 4; YAska, Nirukta, Roth, p. 216,
gives
1 Vasishtha Dharmasastra IT, 51.
2 Vasishtha Dharmasastra XXIV, 5.
8 VAsishtha Dharmas4stra XXX,11. Similar invocations of teachers at the end of Sitras occur frequently, e.g. Asvalayana Srauta-sitra XII, 15,14; Rigvidhana V, 3, 4; YAska, Nirukta, Roth, p. 216, xii VASISHTHA.
expression to the devotion felt by the author for the AXzshi, ‘Adoration to Vasish¢a, Satayatu, the son of Mitra and Varuna and of Urvasi.’ The epithets used in this last passage conclusively show that the Vasish¢/a after whom the Dharma-stitra is named, is the individual who, according to the Brahmanical tradition, is the Rishi of a large portion of the seventh Mazdala of the Rig-veda and the progenitor of the Vasishz#a clan of Brahmans, and who in some hymns of the Rig-veda appears as the purohita or domestic priest of king Sudas and the rival of Visvamitra, and in other Sdktas as a half mythical being. For the verses Rig-veda VII, 33, 11-14 trace the origin of this Vasish¢/a to the two sons of Aditi, Mitra and Varuva, and to the Apsaras Urvasi, and contain the outline of the curious, but disgusting story of his marvellous birth, which Sayama narrates more circumstantially in the commentary on verse 11. Moreover, the word Satay4tu, which in the Dharma-sitra is used as an epithet. of Vasish¢#a, occurs Rig-veda VII, 18, 21 in close connexion with the Rshi’s name. SAyamwa explains it in his commentary on the latter passage as ‘the destroyer of many demons, or, ‘he whom many demons seek to destroy,’ and takes it as an epithet of the sage Par4sara, who is named together with Vasish¢a. It would, however, seem that, if the verse is construed on strictly philological principles, neither Sadyava’s interpretation, nor that suggested by the Dharma-sitra can be accepted, and that Satayatu has to be taken as a proper name}. But, however that may be, it is not doubtful that we may safely infer from the expressions used in the last sentence of the Dharma-sitra, that the Vasishzka to whom the invocation is addressed and the composition of the work is ascribed, either immediately or through the medium of pupils, is the individual named in the Rig-veda. The connexion of the Dharma-sitra with one of the Rishis of the Rig-veda which is thus established, possesses a particular interest and importance, because it corroborates the statement of Govindasvamin, the commentator of Baudhayana, that the Institutes of Vasish¢za were
1 See Petersburg Dictionary, s. v. satayatu.
INTRODUCTION. Xill
v. satayatu.
INTRODUCTION. Xill
originally studied by and authoritative for the Bahvrikas, the Rigvedins alone, and afterwards became an authority for all Brahmans!. In the introduction to Gautama it has been shown that a similar assertion which Govinda makes with regard to the Gautama Dharma-siitra can be corroborated by a considerable amount of external and internal evidence. It has been pointed out that not only the fact that the spiritual pedigrees of the A/andoga schools enumerate several Gautamas, but also the partiality for texts of the Sama-veda, which the Institutes of Gautama show on several occasions, strongly support the tradition that the Gautamiya Dharmasdstra originally was the exclusive property of a school of Samavedins. In the case of the VAasishz#a Dharmasdstra indications of the latter kind are, if not entirely wanting, at least very faint. The number of Vedic passages quoted is, no doubt, large; but few among them belong to the class of Mantras which are recited during the performance of gvzhya rites, and must be taken from the particular recension of the Veda to which the performer belongs. Besides, the texts of this description which actually occur, do not bear the mark of a particular Veda or Sakh4. The numerous texts, on the other hand, which are quoted in support or explanation of the rules, are taken impartially from all the three ancient Vedas. For this reason it * would be dangerous to use the references to a dozen Rzkas in chapters XVII and XXVI, as well as to the legend of Sunafsepa, which is told only in works belonging to the Rig-
1 See Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, p. xlix, note 2. As Govindasvamin’s statements possess a considerable importance, I give here the whole commentary on Baudhayana I, 1, 2, 6, according to my two MSS., C.I. and C.T.:
ag fafafa seen cam qoufacrafagia Hart qa eifosatata wat at sharaata wine Shara vera earfeare vai Tat Mattamirsta Hales wera [THA C.1.; werd C.7.] ares 7 aa®: [1] waa aarfrarafa[\] wer a pemrarfa warfaarerfat asequatea we wtrartafa warnfa [wearfa c. 1; warfa C.T.] raattengagre uaa Fa SUMTATETAT SATA Ne wt wafer. afaada qoyfa: | fh faarnquafe a weradtefimra: | wee wafeafaranargert teat 4 xiv VASISHTHA.
1; warfa C.T.] raattengagre uaa Fa SUMTATETAT SATA Ne wt wafer. afaada qoyfa: | fh faarnquafe a weradtefimra: | wee wafeafaranargert teat 4 xiv VASISHTHA.
veda, as a proof that the Vasish#a Dharmasastra is the work of a Rigvedin. Under these circumstances the three passages, mentioning Vasish¢ha’s name, and especially the last which identifies him with the Azshi of the Rig-veda, have a particularly great importance, as they are the only pieces of internal evidence which can be brought forward in favour of Govindasv4min’s valuable statement. But the latter is, even without any further corroboration, credible enough, because no reason is apparent why Govinda should have invented such a story, and because his assertion fully agrees with the well-established facts known about the other existing Dharma-sitras, which all were composed not for the benefit of the Aryans in general, but in order to regulate the conduct of particular sections of the Brahmanical community.
There is, however, one point in Govindasvdmin’s statement which requires further elucidation. He says that the Bahvrzkas, i.e. the Rigvedins in general, formerly studied the VAsishtha Dharmasdstra. It might, therefore, be inferred that the work possessed equal authority among the Asvalayaniyas, the Sankhayantyas, the Manddkayanas, and all the other schools of the Rig-veda, and that it belonged to the most ancient heirlooms of its adherents. That is, however, improbable for several reasons. For, first, neither the Asvalayaniyas nor the Sankhdyantyas of the present day study or attach any special importance to the VAsishtha Dharmasastra. Secondly, if the Vasishtda DharmasAstra had ever been the common authority on Dharma in all the different schools of the Rig-veda, it would be necessary to ascribe to it an antiquity which it clearly does not possess. All Sdtras were originally composed for a single school only. Where we find that the same Sdtra is adopted by several Karamas, as is the case with the Dharma-sitra, which both the Apastambtyas and the Hairazyakesas study, and with the Xayana-sitra, which the Bharadvagas and the Hairazyakesas have in common, it is evident that the later school did not care to compose a treatise of its own on a certain subject, but preferred to take over the composition of an earlier teacher. If, now, a Sdtra on a certain
INTRODUCTION. XV
If, now, a Sdtra on a certain
INTRODUCTION. XV
subject were acknowledged by all the schools of one Veda, it would follow that it must belong to the most ancient books of that Veda, and must have been adopted successively by all its later schools. In such a case the Sitra must certainly show signs of its great antiquity. But if we look for the latter in the Vasish¢4a Dharma-sitra, the trouble will be in vain. Though that work contains a good deal that is archaic, yet, as will be shown presently, its numerous quotations from Vedic writings and older Dharma-sftras clearly prove that it does not belong to the oldest productions of its class, but takes even among the still existing Institutes of the Sacred Law only a secondary rank. Under these circumstances the correct interpretation of Govindasv4min’s words will be, that according to the Brahmanical tradition, known to him, some school of Rzgvedins, the name of which he did not know, or did not care to give, originally possessed the VAasish/a Dharmasastra as its exclusive property, and that the work later, through the action of the special law schools, acquired general authority for all Brahmans. It is a pity that no authentic information regarding the name of that school of Rigvedins has been handed down. But, considering the fact that Vedic schools are frequently named after Vedic Rishis, it seems not improbable that it was called after the Vasishtda whose authority the Dharma-sftra invokes, and that we may assume the former existence of a VAsishtia - school, a Sitra-karaza, of the Rig-veda?, founded perhaps by a teacher of the VAsishtka gotra. This conjecture, which, it must be confessed, is not supported by any corroborative evidence from the Brahmanical tradition, will explain why the title-pages of this and of the first part speak of a school of VAasish¢ha.
The position of the VAsisht##a Dharma-sitra in Vedic literature can be defined, to a certain extent, by an analysis
1 A school of Vasishthas, belonging to the Sfima-veda, certainly existed in ancient times. I have formerly put forward a conjecture that the Vasishtha Dharmasastra might belong to that school (Digest of Hindu Law Cases, p. xxii, first edition). But Govindasvamin’s explicit statement makes it evident that it has to be abandoned,
Xvi VASISHTHA.
I have formerly put forward a conjecture that the Vasishtha Dharmasastra might belong to that school (Digest of Hindu Law Cases, p. xxii, first edition). But Govindasvamin’s explicit statement makes it evident that it has to be abandoned,
Xvi VASISHTHA.
of its numerous quotations from the Samhitds, Brahmazas, and the older Sdtras. By this means it will become evident that the work belongs to a period when the chief schools of the three ancient Vedas had been formed and some of the still existing Dharma-s(tras had been composed. Faint indications will be found which make it probable that the home of the school to which it belonged, lay in the northern half of India, north of the Narmada and of the Vindhyas. As regards the quotations from the Sruti, the revealed texts of the Hindus, they are chiefly taken from the Rig-veda and from three recensions of the Yagur-veda. Passages from the Rig-veda-samhité are quoted IV, 21; XVII, 3-4; and XXVI, 5-7. With respect to the quotations in the latter chapter it must, however, be noted that its genuineness is, as will be shown in the sequel, not above suspicion. A Brahmawa of the Rig-veda seems to be referred to in XVII, 2, 32, 35. But the extracts, given there, agree only in part with the text of the Aitareya, and it is probable that they are taken from some lost composition of the same class. A curious Sitra, II, 35, shows a great resemblance to the explanations of Vedic passages given by Y4ska in the Nirukta!. The passage points either to a connexion of the author with the school of the Nairuktas or, at least, to an acquaintance with its principles. Among the schools of the Yagur-veda, that of the Kathas is twice referred to by name, XII, 29; XXX, 5. But Professor Weber, who kindly looked for the quotations in the Berlin MS. of the Kazs/aka, has not been able to find them. A third passage, I, 37, said to be taken from the KAaturmasyas, i.e. the portion of a Samhita which treats of the AaturmAsya sacrifices, actually occurs in the K4¢/aka. But, as it is likewise found in the KAturm4sya-k4da of the Maitrayaztyas, it must remain uncertain from which of the two recensions of the Black Yagur-veda it has been quoted. The chapter on the duties of women, vers. 6-8, contains a
' This resemblance has not escaped Krishnapandita, who says in his commentary, FRSA AAA Hata i Bienen yerqeata fere- WRT alfa i
INTRODUCTION, XVii
The chapter on the duties of women, vers. 6-8, contains a
' This resemblance has not escaped Krishnapandita, who says in his commentary, FRSA AAA Hata i Bienen yerqeata fere- WRT alfa i
INTRODUCTION, XVii
long quotation which, in spite of some small discrepancies, seems to have been taken from the Taittirtya-samhita of the Black Yagur-veda. Passages of the Taittiriya Aranyaka are quoted or referred to X, 35 and XXIII, 23. The White Yagur-veda is mentioned several times as the V4gasaneyi-sakha or the Vagasaneyaka. The former expression occurs III, 19: and XXIII, 13. The quotations, marked as taken from the Vagasaneyaka, XII, 31, XIV, 46 are found in the Satapatha-brahmavza, and another passage of the same work is quoted I, 45, without a specification of the source. A very clear proof that the author of the Dharma-sitra knew the Vagasaneyi-samhit4 is furnished by the Mantra, given II, 34. The text, quoted there, occurs in three different Sakh4s, that of the Vagasaneyins, that of the Taittiriyas and the Atharva-veda, and in each shows a few variae lectiones. Its wording in the Vagasaneyisamhita literally agrees with the version, given in the Satra. The SAdma-veda is referred to III, 19, and particular SAmans are mentioned in the borrowed chapter XXII, 9. A passage from the Nidana, probably a work on Stomas and metres, which belonged to the Bhallavins, an ancient school of Samavedins, occurs I, 14-16. An Upanishad, connected with the Atharva-veda, the Atharvasiras, is mentioned in the borrowed chapter XXII, 9, and the existence of the Atharva-veda is pre-supposed, also, by ‘the vows called Siras, which are alluded to in the suspicious chapter XXVI, 11, and are said to be peculiar to the Atharvavedins’, The chapters, which are undoubtedly genuine, contain no allusion to the fourth Veda.
As regards the older works on Dharma, the author of the Institutes of Vasish¢#a certainly knew and used a treatise, attributed to Yama, the Dharma-sftras of Manu, Harita and Gautama, and perhaps that of Baudhdyana. With respect to two verses, which, as the Sfitra says, were proclaimed by Prag4pati, XIV, 24, 30, it is somewhat doubtful, if it is meant that they have been taken from a work, attributed to Pragdpati, or that they are merely utterances, supposed to have been made by that deity for the benefit
1 See Baudhayana Dharma-siitra II, 8, 14, 2, note.
[x4] b
Xvili VASISHTHA.
[x4] b
Xvili VASISHTHA.
of mankind. The latter view seems, however, the more likely one, as it is customary in the Smrttis to ascribe the revelation of social institutions, ceremonies, and penances to Pragapati, who, in the older works, occupies much the same position as Brahm, the creator, in the later religious systems. It is not impossible that some of the references to Yama, e.g. XI, 20, have to be explained in the same manner. But other passages, attributed to Yama, e.g. XVIII, 13-16, seem to have been taken from a work which was considered the production of the Dharmara4ga. Of course, none of the Yamasmr‘tis, which exist in the present day, can be meant. The quotations from Manu are numerous!. They have all been taken from a book attributed to a Manu, and possess a very high interest for the history of the present metrical Manusmziti. For the prose passage from the Manava, given IV, 5, furnishes the proof that the author of the Vasish¢a Dharmasastra quotes from a Dharma-sitra attributed to a Manu, while other quotations show that the MAnava Dharma-siitra contained, also, verses, some of which, e.g. XIX, 37, were Trishéubhs, and that a large proportion of these verses has been embodied in Bhvzgu’s version of the Manusmrzti. Fifteen years ago? I first called attention to Vasish¢ka’s prose quotation from the Ma4nava, and pointed out that, if the MSS. of the V4sish¢a DharmasAstra were to be trusted, a small piece of the lost Manava - Dharma-sitra, on which the present Manusmrzti is based, had been found. The incorrectness and the defective state of the materials which I then had at my disposal did not allow me to go further. Since that time several, comparatively speaking, good MSS. of the Institutes of Vasish¢#a and many inferior ones have been found, and all, at least all those which I have examined, give the quotation in prose exactly in the same form. The fact that Vasishzka gives, in IV, 5,@ prose quotation from Manu may, therefore, be considered as certain®, Moreover several of the best MSS.
1 They occur VAsishtha Dharmas4stra I,17; III, 2; IV, 5-8; XI, 23; XII, 16; XIII, 16; XIX, 37; XX, 18; XXIII, 43; XXVI, 8. ; 2 Digest of Hindu Law Cases, p. xxxi, note, first edition.
3 Such, I suppose, will be the opinion of all European scholars. Those Hindus
INTRODUCTION. xix
1 They occur VAsishtha Dharmas4stra I,17; III, 2; IV, 5-8; XI, 23; XII, 16; XIII, 16; XIX, 37; XX, 18; XXIII, 43; XXVI, 8. ; 2 Digest of Hindu Law Cases, p. xxxi, note, first edition.
3 Such, I suppose, will be the opinion of all European scholars. Those Hindus
INTRODUCTION. xix
show, by adding the particle ‘iti’ at the end of Satra 8, that the quotation from the M4nava is not finished with Sftra 5, but includes the two verses given in Sftras 6 and 7 and the second prose passage in Sitra 8. Among the verses the first is found entire in the metrical Manusmriti, and the second has likewise a representative in that work, though its concluding portion has been altered in such a manner that the permission to slaughter animals at sacrifices has been converted into an absolute prohibition to take animal life. Sdtra 8, which again is in prose, has no counterpart in the metrical Manusm~r‘ti, as might be expected from its allowing ‘a full-grown ox’ or ‘a full-grown he-goat’ to be killed in honour of a distinguished Brahmaza or Kshatriya guest. A closely corresponding passage is found in the Satapatha-brahmama, and a verse expressing the same opinion in the Yagfavalkya Smr‘ti, the versification of a Dharma-sftra of the White Yagur-veda. As the last part of the quotation resembles the text of the Brahmava and its language is very archaic, it is quite possible that, though belonging to the passage from the MAnava-sitra, it contains a Vedic text, taken from some hitherto unknown Braéhmaza which Manu adduced in support of his opinion. On this supposition the arrangement of the whole quotation would be as follows. Stra 5 would give the original rule of the author of the Manava in an aphoristic form; Sdtras 6-7 would repeat the same opinion in verse, the latter being probably Slokas current among the Brahmanical community; and Sfatra 8 would give the Vedic authority for the preceding sentences. This arrangement would be in strict conformity with the plan usually followed by the authors of Dharma-sitras. But whether Satra 8 contains a second original aphorism of the Manava Dharma-sitra or a Vedic passage, it seems indisputable that the author of the Vasisht#a Dharma-sitra knew a treatise attributed to a teacher called Manu, which, like all other Dharma-sitras, was partly written in aphowho allow their religious convictions to get the better of their reason, will perhaps prefer Krishzapandita’s ingenious, but unsound explanation of the words iti ma4navam, by iti manumatam, ‘such is the opinion of Manu.’
b2 xX . VASISHTHA.
VASISHTHA.
ristic prose and partly in verse. The passage furnishes, therefore, the proof for Professor Max Miiller’s conjecture that our metrical Manusmz‘ti, like all the older works of the same class, is based on the Dharma-sfitra of a Vedic Sfitra-karaza. In connexion with this subject it may be mentioned that the Institutes of Vasish#Za contain, besides the above-mentioned passages, no less than thirty-nine verses’, which are not marked as quotations, but occur in Bhvigu’s metrical Manusamhit4. Some of them present more or less important variae lectiones. Moreover, there are four verses which, though Vasish¢#a attributes them to Harita and Yama?, are included in our Manusmrzti and treated as utterances of the father of mankind. The bearing of both these facts on the history of the Manusmrzti is obvious. But the frequency of the references to or quotations from Manu which Vasishtha makes, teaches another important lesson. Like the fact that Manu is the only individual author to whom Gautama refers 3, it shows that in ancient times Manu’s name had as great a charm for the Brahman teachers as it has for those of the present day, and that the old M4nava Dharma-sitra was one of the leading works on the subject, or, perhaps, even held that dominant position which the metrical Manusmrtti actually occupied in the Middle Ages and theoretically occupies in our days. It is interesting to observe that precisely the same inference can be drawn from the early Sanskrit inscriptions. If these speak of individual authors of Smr‘tis, they invariably place Manu’s name first 4.
Vasishtha gives only one quotation from Harita, II, 6. HArita was one of the ancient Sitrak4ras of the Black Yagur-veda, who is known also to Baudhayana. From a passage which Krishvapandita quotes in elucidation of
3 Vasishtha Dharmasastra II, 6; XVIII, 14-15; XIX, 48.
3 Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, p. lvii.
* See e.g. the grant of Dhruvasena I, dated Samvat, i.e. Guptasamvat 207, Pl. i, 1. 7; Ind. Ant., vol. iv, p. 105.
INTRODUCTION. Xxi
3 Vasishtha Dharmasastra II, 6; XVIII, 14-15; XIX, 48.
3 Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, p. lvii.
* See e.g. the grant of Dhruvasena I, dated Samvat, i.e. Guptasamvat 207, Pl. i, 1. 7; Ind. Ant., vol. iv, p. 105.
INTRODUCTION. Xxi
Vasishtha XXIV, 6, I conclude that H4rita was a Maitrayaniyal. The relation of the VAsisht#a Dharma-sitra to Gautama and Baudh4yana has already been discussed in the introduction to the translation of the former work?. To the remarks on its connexion with Baudhayana it must be added that the third Prasna of the Baudh4yana Dharma-sitra, from which Vasish¢/a's twenty-second chapter seems to have been borrowed, perhaps does not belong to the original work, but is a later, though presumably a very ancient, addition to the composition of the founder of the Baudh4yana school. The reasons for this opinion will be given below. If Baudh4yana’s third Prasna is not genuine, but has been added by a later teacher of that school, the interval between Baudhayana and the author of the Vasish¢za DharmasAstra must be a vety considerable one. I have, however, to point out that the inference regarding the priority of Baudhayana to Vasish¢ka is permissible only on the supposition that Vasish¢/a’s twenty-second chapter is not a later addition to the latter work, and that, though it is found in all our MSS., this fact is not sufficient to silence all doubts which might be raised with respect to its genuineness ; for we shall see presently that other chapters in the section on penances have been tampered with by a later hand. It will, therefore, be advisable not to insist too strongly on the certainty of the conclusion that Vasishtha knew and used Baudhayana’s work.
In the introduction to his translation of the Vishzusmriti*, Professor Jolly has pointed out two passages of Vasish¢ha which, as he thinks, have been borrowed from Vishzu, and prove the posteriority of the Vasish¢za Dharmasastra, if not to the Vishzusmriti, at least to its original, the Kassaka Dharma-s(itra. He contends that the passage Vasishtha XXVIII, 10-15 is a versification of the Sitras of Vishzu LVI, which, besides being clumsy, shows a number of
corruptions and grammatical mistakes, and that Vasishtha XXVIII, 18-22 has been borrowed from Vishnu LXX XVII. Professor Jolly’s assertion regarding the second passage involves, however, a little mistake. For the.first two Slokas, Vasisht#a XXVIII, 18-19, describe not the gift of the skin of a black antelope, which is mentioned in the first six Sfitras of Vishvu LXXXVII, but the rite of feeding Brahmans with honey and sesamum grains, which occurs Vishnu XC, 10. The three verses, Vasishtha XXVIII, 20-22, on the other hand, really are the same as those given by Vishnu LXXXVII, 8-10. It is, however, expressly stated in the Vishvzusmriti that they contain a quotation, and are not the original composition of the author of the Dharma-sfitra. Hence no inference can be drawn from the recurrence of the same stanzas in the Vasishtha Dharma-sfitra. As regards the other passage, Vasishtha XXVIII, 10-15, Professor Jolly is quite right in saying that it is a clumsy versification of Vishzu’s Sftras, and it is not at all improbable that Vasishz/a’s verses may have been immediately derived from the KAathaka. The further inference as to the priority of the ancient Kataka-sitra to Vasishzha, which Professor Jolly draws from the comparison of the two passages, would also be unimpeachable, if the genuineness of Vasish¢ha’s twenty-eighth chapter were certain. But that is unfortunately not the case. Not only that chapter, but the preceding ones, XXV-XXVII, in fact the whole section on secret penances, are, in my opinion, not only suspicious, but certainly betray the hand of a later restorer and corrector. Everybody who carefully reads the Sanskrit text of the Dharma-siatra will be struck by the change of the style and the difference in the language which the four chapters on secret penances show, as compared with the preceding and following sections. Throughout the whole of the first twenty-four chapters and in the last two chapters we find a mixture of prose and verse. With one exception in the sixth chapter, where thirty-one verses form the beginning of the section on the rule of conduct, the author follows always one and the same plan in arranging his materials. His own rules are given first in the form of aphorisms, and after
INTRODUCTION. XXiit
With one exception in the sixth chapter, where thirty-one verses form the beginning of the section on the rule of conduct, the author follows always one and the same plan in arranging his materials. His own rules are given first in the form of aphorisms, and after
INTRODUCTION. XXiit
these follow the authorities for his doctrines, which consist either of Vedic passages or of verses, the latter being partly quotations taken from individual authors or works, partly specimens of the versified maxims current among the Brahmans, and sometimes memorial verses composed by the author himself. But chapters XXV-XXVIII contain nota single Sdtra. They are made up entirely of Anush/ubh Slokas, and the phrases! ‘I will now declare,’ ‘ Listen to my words,’ which are so characteristic of the style of the later metrical Smrttis and of the Purdzas, occur more frequently than is absolutely necessary. Again, in the first twenty-four and the last two chapters the language is archaic Sanskrit, interspersed here and there with Vedic anomalous forms. But in the four chapters on secret penances we have the common Sanskrit of the metrical Sm7ztis and Purdzas, with its incorrect forms, adopted in order to fit inconvenient words into the metre. Nor is this all. The contents of a portion of this suspicious section are merely useless repetitions of matters dealt with already in the preceding chapters, while some verses contain fragmentary rules on a subject which is treated more fully further on. Thus the description of the Krikkhkra and KA4ndrayana penances, which has been given XXI, 20 and XXIV, 45, is repeated XXVII, 16,21. Further,the enumeration of the purificatory texts XXVIII, 10-15 is merely an enlargement of XXII, 9. Finally, the verses XXVIII, 16-22 contain detached rules on gifts, and in the next chapter, XXIX, the subject is begun once more and treated at considerable length. Though it would be unwise to assume that all genuine productions of the old Sdtrakaras must, throughout, show regularity and consistency, the differences between the four chapters and the remainder of the work, just pointed out, are, it seems to me, sufficient to warrant the conclusion that they do not belong to the author of the Institutes. Under these circumstances it might be assumed that the whole section is simply an interpolation. But that would be going too far. For, as other Dharma-sftras show, one or even several chapters on secret penances belonged to such works.
1 See XXV,1; XXVII, 10; XXVIII, 10, 20,
XXiVv VASISHTHA.
Under these circumstances it might be assumed that the whole section is simply an interpolation. But that would be going too far. For, as other Dharma-sftras show, one or even several chapters on secret penances belonged to such works.
1 See XXV,1; XXVII, 10; XXVIII, 10, 20,
XXiVv VASISHTHA.
Moreover, in the section on women, Vasish¢ha V, 3-4, the author makes a cross-reference to the rahasyas, the section on secret penances, and quotes by anticipation half a Sloka | which is actually found in chapter XXVIII. The inference to be drawn from these facts is, that the section on secret penances is not simply a later addition intended to supply an omission of the first writer, but that, for some reason or other, it has been remodelled. The answer to the question why this was done is suggested, it seems to me, partly by the state of the MSS. of the VAsishzha Dharmasastra, and partly by the facts connected with the treatment of ancient works by the Pawdits, which my examination of the libraries of Northern India has brought to light. MSS. of the V4sishtha Dharmasdstra are very rare, and among those found only three are complete. Some stop with chapter X, others with chapter XXI, and a few in the middle of the thirtieth Adhy4ya. Moreover, most of them are very corrupt, and even the best exhibit some Sdtras which are hopeless. These circumstances show clearly that after the extinction of the Vedic school, with which the work originated, the Sitra was for some time neglected, and existed in a few copies only, perhaps even in a single MS. The materials on which the ancient Hindus wrote, the birch bark and the palm leaves, are so frail that especially the first and last leaves of a Pothi are easily lost or badly damaged. Instances of this kind are common enough in the Gaina and Kasmir libraries, where the beginning and still more fre- . quently the end of many works have been irretrievably lost. The fate of the V4sish#a Dharmasastra, it would seem, has been similar. The facts related above make it probable that the MS. or MSS. which came into the hands of the Pandits of the special law schools, who revived the study of the work, was defective. Pieces of the last leaves which remained, probably showed the extent of the damage done, and the Pazdits set to work at the restoration of the lost portions, just as the Kasmirian Sahebram Pamdit restored the Nilamata-purdva for Maharaga Ramavirasimha. They,
* See Report on a Tour in Kasmir, Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. xii, p. 33.
INTRODUCTION. XXV
They,
* See Report on a Tour in Kasmir, Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. xii, p. 33.
INTRODUCTION. XXV
of course, used the verses which they still found on the fragments, and cleverly supplied the remainder from their _knowledge of Manu and other Smrttis, of the Mahabharata and the Purdwzas. This theory, I think, explains all the difficulties which the present state of the section on secret penances raises. Perhaps it may be used also to account for some incongruities observable in chapter XXX. The last two verses, XXX, 9-10, are common-places which are frequently quoted in the Mah4bharata, the Harivamsa, the Pavéatantra, and modern anthologies. With their baldness of expression and sentiment they present a strong contrast to the preceding solemn passages from the Veda, and look very much ‘like an unlucky attempt at filling up a break at the end of the MS. In connexion with this subject it ought, however, to be mentioned that this restoration of the last part of the VAsishzka DharmasAstra must have happened in early times, at least more than a thousand years ago. For the oldest commentators and compilers of digests on law, such as VigfiAnesvara 1, who lived at the end of the eleventh century A.D., quote passages from the section on secret penances as the genuine utterances of Vasish‘za. These details will suffice to show why I differ from Professor Jolly with respect to his conclusion from the agreement of the verses of Vasishz#a X XVIII, 10-15 with the Sftras of Vishzu LVI. With the exception of the quotations, the V4sishzsa Dharmasdstra contains no data which could be used either to define its relative position in Sanskrit literature or to connect it with the historical period of India. The occurrence of the word Romaka, XVIII, 4, in some MSS., as the name of a degraded caste of mixed origin, proves nothing, as other MSS. read Ramaka, and tribes called Rama and Réma¢ha are mentioned in the Puramas. It would be wrong to assert on such evidence that the Satra belonged to the time when the Romans, or rather the Byzantines (Rémaioi), had political relations with India. Nor will it be advisable to adduce the fact that Vasishtha
1 Thus Vasishtha XXVIII, 7 is quoted in the Mitakshara on Yagnavalkya III, 298; XXVIII, 10-15 on Yagnavalkya III, 309; and XXVIII, 18-19, 2a on Yagfiavalkya III, 310,
XXvi VASISHTHA.
Nor will it be advisable to adduce the fact that Vasishtha
1 Thus Vasishtha XXVIII, 7 is quoted in the Mitakshara on Yagnavalkya III, 298; XXVIII, 10-15 on Yagnavalkya III, 309; and XXVIII, 18-19, 2a on Yagfiavalkya III, 310,
XXvi VASISHTHA.
XVI, 10, 14,15 mentions written documents as a means of legal proof, in order to establish the ‘comparatively late’ date of the Sdtra. For though the other Dharma-sitras do not give any hint that the art of writing was known or in common use in their times, still the state of society which they describe is so advanced that people could not have got on without writing, and the proofs for the antiquity of the Indian alphabets are now much stronger than they were even a short time ago. The silence of Apastamba and the other Sftrakaras regarding written documents is probably due to their strict adherence to a general principle underlying the composition of the Dharma-s@tras. Those points only fall primarily within the scope of the Dharma-sitras which have some immediate, close connexion with the Dharma, the acquisition of spiritual merit. Hence it sufficed for them to give some general maxims for the fulfilment of the guzadharma of kings, the impartial administration of justice, and to give fuller rules regarding the half-religious ceremony of the swearing in and the examination of witnesses. Judicial technicalities, like the determination of the legal value of written documents, had less importance in their eyes, and were left either to the desakara, the custom of the country, or to the Niti and Artha-sdstras, the Institutes of Polity and of the Arts of common life. It would, also, be easy to rebut attempts at assigning the V4sish¢sa Dharma-sitra to what is usually ‘a comparatively late period’ by other pieces of so-called internal evidence tending to show that it is an ancient work. Some of the doctrines of the Sdtra undoubtedly belong to an ancient order of ideas. This is particularly observable in the rules regarding the subsidiary sons, which place the offspring even of illicit unions in the class of heirs and members of the family, while adopted sons are relegated to the division of members of the family excluded from inheritance. The same remark applies to the exclusion of all females, with the exception of putrikas or appointed daughters, from the succession to the property of males, to the permission to re-marry infant widows, and to the law of the Niyoga or the appointment of adult
INTRODUCTION.
widows, which Vasish¢ka allows without hesitation, an even extends to the wives of emigrants. But as most of these opinions occur also in some of the decidedly later metrical Smritis, and disputes on these subjects seem to have existed among the various Brahmanical schools down to a late period, it would be hazardous to use them as arguments for the antiquity of the Sdtra.
But as most of these opinions occur also in some of the decidedly later metrical Smritis, and disputes on these subjects seem to have existed among the various Brahmanical schools down to a late period, it would be hazardous to use them as arguments for the antiquity of the Sdtra.
The following points bear on the question where the original home of the Vedic school, which produced the Dharma-sfitra, was situated. First, the author declares India north of the Vindhyas, and especially those portions now included in the North-western Provinces, to be the country where holy men and pure customs are to be found, I, 8-16. Secondly, he shows a predilection for those redactions of the Veda and those Sfitras which belong to the northern half of India, viz. for the K4¢aka, the Vagasaneyisakha, and the Sftras of Manu and Harita. Faint as these indications are, I think, they permit us to conclude that the Sftra belongs to a Karama settled in the north.
As regards the materials on which the subjoined translation is based, I have chiefly relied on the Benares edition of the text, with the commentary of Kvrishnapazdita DharmAadhik4ri, and on a rough edition with the varietas lectionum from the two MSS. of the Bombay Government Collection of 1874-751, B. no. 29 and Bh. no. 30, a MS. of the Elphinstone College Collection of 1867-68, E. no. 23 of Class VI, and an imperfect apograph F. in my own collection, which was made in 1864 at Bombay. The rough edition was prepared under my superintendence by Vamanafarya Ghalkikar, now teacher of Sanskrit in the Dekhan College, Puza. When I wrote the translation, the Bombay Government MSS. were not accessible to me. I could only use my own MS. and, thanks to the kindness of Dr. Rost, Colebrooke’s MS., I. O. no. 913, from which the now worthless Calcutta editions have been derived either immediately or mediately. These materials belong to two groups. The Bombay MS. B., which comes from Benares, closely agrees with Kvishvapandita’s text; and E., though
1 See Report on Sanskrit MSS. 1874-75, p. 11.
XXVIli VASISHTHA.
purchased at Puza, does not differ much from the two. Bh., which comes from Bhuj in Ka&/, and my own MS. F. form a second group, towards which Colebrooke’s MS., I. O. no. 913, also leans. Ultimately both groups are derived from one codex archetypus.
1874-75, p. 11.
XXVIli VASISHTHA.
purchased at Puza, does not differ much from the two. Bh., which comes from Bhuj in Ka&/, and my own MS. F. form a second group, towards which Colebrooke’s MS., I. O. no. 913, also leans. Ultimately both groups are derived from one codex archetypus.
The first group of MSS. gives a fuller and in general a correcter text than the second. But it seems to me that the text of B., and still more Kvishzapandita’s, has in many places been conjecturally restored, and that the real difficulties have been rather veiled than solved. I have, therefore, frequently preferred the readings offered by the second group, or based on them my conjectural emendations, which have all been given in the notes. To give a translation without having recourse to conjectural emendations was impossible, as a European philologist is unable to avail himself of those wonderful tricks of interpretation which permit an Indian Pandit to extract some kind of meaning from the most desperate passages. In a few cases, where even the best MSS. contain nothing but a conglomerate of meaningless syllables or unconnected words, I have thought it advisable to refrain from all attempts at a restoration of the text, and at a translation. A critical edition of the VAsishtha Dharmasdstra is very desirable, and I trust that Dr. A. Fiihrer, of St. Xavier’s College, Bombay, will soon supply this want. Kvishzapandita’s commentary, for which he had not the aid of older vrittis, shows considerable learning, and has been of great value to me. I have followed him mostly in the division of the Saitras, and have frequently given his opinions in the notes, both in cases where I agree with him and in those where I differ from him, but think his opinion worthy of consideration.
In conclusion, I have to thank Professors R. von Roth, Weber, and Jolly, as well as Dr. L. von Schroder, for the verification of a number of Vedic quotations, which they kindly undertook for me, as I was unable to use my own books of reference during the translation of the work.
INTRODUCTION
TO
BAUDHAYANA.
von Roth, Weber, and Jolly, as well as Dr. L. von Schroder, for the verification of a number of Vedic quotations, which they kindly undertook for me, as I was unable to use my own books of reference during the translation of the work.
INTRODUCTION
TO
BAUDHAYANA.
THE case of the Baudhayana Dharma-sitra is in many respects analogous to that of the Institutes of the Sacred Law, current in the schools of Apastamba and Hiraxyakesin. Like the latter, it is the work of a teacher of the Black Yagur-veda, who composed manuals on all the various subdivisions of the Kalpa, and founded a Sitra-karama, which is said to exist to the present day’. The Bréhmanical tradition, too, acknowledges these facts, and, instead of surrounding Baudhayana’s work with a halo of myths, | simply states that it was originally studied by and authoritative for the followers of the Taittirilya-veda alone, and later only became one of the sources of the Sacred Law for all Brahmans*. Moreover, the position of Baudhayana among the teachers of the Yagur-veda is well defined, and his home, or at least the home of his school, is known. But here the resemblance stops. For while the Satras of Apastamba and Hiramyakesin have been preserved in carefully and methodically arranged collections, where a certain place is assigned to each section of the Kalpa, no complete set of the Sitras of Baudhdyana’s school has, as yet, been found, and the original position of the detached portions which are obtainable is not quite certain. Again, while the works of Apastamba and Hiramyakesin seem to have been kept free from extensive interpolations, several parts of
1] must here state that during my residence in India I have never met with a follower of Baudhayana’s school, and cannot personally vouch for its existence. But many Pandits have assured me that many Baudhdyantyas are to be found among the Telingana and Karnataka Brahmans.
2 See Govinda’s statement, quoted above, p. xiii,
XXX BAUDHAYANA.
Baudhayana’s Sftras have clearly received considerable additions from later hands.
But many Pandits have assured me that many Baudhdyantyas are to be found among the Telingana and Karnataka Brahmans.
2 See Govinda’s statement, quoted above, p. xiii,
XXX BAUDHAYANA.
Baudhayana’s Sftras have clearly received considerable additions from later hands.
According to the researches of Dr. A. Burnell’, whose long residence in Southern India and intimate acquaintance with its Brahmanical libraries have made him the first authority on the literature of the schools of the Taittirtya-veda, the Sftras of Baudhdyana consist of six sections, viz. 1. the Srauta-s(tras, probably in nineteen Prasnas; 2. The Karm4nta-sitra in twenty Adhyayas; 3. The Dvaidha-sitra in four Prasnas; 4. The Grzhya-sitra in four Prasnas; 5. The Dharma-sfitra in four Prasnas; 6. The Sulva-sitra in three Adhydyas. The results of the search for Sanskrit MSS. in other parts of India, and especially in Western India, do not differ materially from those obtained by Dr. Burnell. The Grzhya-sitra, which in Western India occasionally bears the title Sm4rta-sdtra?, contains, however, nine instead of four Prasnas. The MSS. of the Baudh4yana-sitras, which contain the text alone, are all incomplete, mostly very corrupt and in bad order, and rarely give more than a small number of Prasnas on detached subjects. The copies in which the text is accompanied by a commentary are in a better condition. Thus the Kalpavivaraza of Bhavasvamin® extends over the whole of the Srauta-sitra, and over the Karmanta and the Dvaidhasitras. It.shows the proper sequence of the Prasnas on Srauta sacrifices, and that probably the Karmanta and the Dvaidha immediately followed the Srauta-sitra. But there is no hint in the MSS. or in the commentaries how the Grithya, Dharma, and Sulva-siitras were originally placed. With respect to these sections, it is only possible to judge from the analogy of the other extant sets of Kalpa-sitras
1 See Burnell, Catalogue of a Collection of Sanskrit MS., pp. 24-26, 28, 34- 35, and Tanjore Catalogue, pp. 18a—aob, and especially his remarks at pp. 18b and 20a. ,
* This title is found in the best copy known to me, Elphinstone College Collection of 1867-68, Class B, I, no. 5, which has been prepared from the MS. of Mr. Limaye at Ashfe. The other copies of the work, found in Western India, e.g. no. 4 of the same collection and my own copy, are in a bad state, as they are derived from a MS, the leaves of which were out of order.
3 Burnell, Catalogue of a Collection of Sanskrit MSS., no, LXXXVIII, and Tanjore Catalogue, no. CX VII,
INTRODUCTION. “xxxi
no. 4 of the same collection and my own copy, are in a bad state, as they are derived from a MS, the leaves of which were out of order.
3 Burnell, Catalogue of a Collection of Sanskrit MSS., no, LXXXVIII, and Tanjore Catalogue, no. CX VII,
INTRODUCTION. “xxxi
and from internal evidence. On these grounds it may be shown that the order, adopted by Dr. Burnell, is probably the correct one. For the beginning of the Grvzhya-sitra! shows by its wording that it was not a separate treatise, but was immediately connected with some preceding Prasna. The analogy of the collections of the Apastambiyas, the Hairazyakesas, the Ka¢has, and other schools permits us to infer that it stood after the Srauta-sitra. It is further clear that, in its turn, it was succeeded by the Dharmasfitra. For two passages of the latter work, I, 2, 3, 15, and II, 8,15, 9, clearly contain references to the Grzhyasdtra. In the former, the author gives the rule regarding the length of the staff to be carried by a student, as well as the general principle that the staff must be cut from a tree fit for sacrificial purposes. With respect to the latter clause he adds that ‘the details have been given above.’ As the Dharma-sftra contains nothing more on this subject, it follows that the expression ‘above’ must refer to Grihyasdtra II, 7, where the usual detailed rules regarding the employment of particular woods for the several varwas are given. In the second passage Baudhayana says that the rules for the performance of funeral sacrifices have been fully explained in the section on the Ashfakahoma, which occurs Gvthya-sitra II, 17-18. It is, therefore, perfectly certain that Baudhdyana, just like Apastamba, placed the Prasnas on the Sacred Law after those on the domestic ceremonies, and that the Dharma-sdtra was not a separate work. Under these circumstances it becomes highly probable that the Sulva-sitra formed, as is the case in other sets of Kalpa-sftras, the conclusion of the whole. Thus the only treatise, whose position remains doubtful, is the Pravarakhanda, the list of the Brahmanical gotras and of their deified ancestors*. Possibly it may have stood at the end of the Srauta-siitra.
1 According to the Elph. Coll. MS., Cl. I, B. 5, and my copy, it runs thus; WU Cag: NET Wige: Yoral afoewad wawceuATaelA zfa an arRartear sia nan AT Ay ATSTTAMNA: AN
4 Burnell, Catalogue of a Collection of Sanskrit MSS., no, CXVIII,
XXXil BAUDHAYANA,
1 According to the Elph. Coll. MS., Cl. I, B. 5, and my copy, it runs thus; WU Cag: NET Wige: Yoral afoewad wawceuATaelA zfa an arRartear sia nan AT Ay ATSTTAMNA: AN
4 Burnell, Catalogue of a Collection of Sanskrit MSS., no, CXVIII,
XXXil BAUDHAYANA,
The destruction of the continuity of Baudh4yana’s Kalpastra has had the consequence which is commonly observable in other dismembered works, that several of its detached portions have received considerable additions from later and, as it would seem, from several hands. There can be no doubt that a small portion only of the nine Prasnas, found in the Western copies of the Grzhyasfitra, really belongs to Baudhdyana. For the description of the Grzhya rites, which strictly follows the general plan laid down in the first Sftra, is completed in two or three Prasnas', Next follows a Prasna on the anuks‘tis, rites resembling those comprised in the subdivisions treated before, and then a Prasna on prayasékittas, or expiations of mistakes committed during, and of the neglect of, the performance of the Gvzhya-karm4zi. The remaining Prasnas are filled with a medley of paribhdshds, general rules, and of full descriptions of ceremonies, some of which have been given before, while others are added afresh. Many of the newly-added rites do not belong to the ancient Brahmanical worship, but to the Paurdnic religions, the service of Siva, Skanda, Narfyaza, and other deities, and some show an admixture of Tantric elements. In some of the later Prasnas, especially IV and V, the language closely resembles that of the first three, and shows the same stereotyped phrases and the same Vedic anomalous forms, But in other sections, particularly VI-IX, we find, instead of Satras, the common Anush¢ubh Sloka throughout, and expressions peculiar to the metrical Smritis and the Purdzas. At the end of most Adhydyas we read the phrase, ity aha BaudhayanaZ, or bhagavan Baudhayanaf, ‘thus speaks Baudhayana, or the divine Baudh4yana.’ Finally, while the first three Prasnas are divided into Kamdik4s or Khamdas, the following ones consist of Adhy4yas or chapters. These differences, as well as the fact that the most important Grzhya rites,arranged according to a special plan, are done with in the
1 Elphinstone College Collection, no. 5, according to which all quotations have been made, gives three Prasnas, my own MS. two Prasnas. The number of the Khandas is, however, the same. ,
INTRODUCTION. XXXiil
first three Prasnas, necessarily lead to the conclusion that the whole remainder does not belong to Baudhayana, but: consists of so-called Parisishtas, which were composed by the adherents of his school. Further, the fact that the last six Prasnas do not show everywhere the same style and language, makes it probable that the additions were made at different times and by different persons.
Further, the fact that the last six Prasnas do not show everywhere the same style and language, makes it probable that the additions were made at different times and by different persons.
The Dharma-sitra seems to have undergone exactly the same fate as the Gréhya-sftra. It will be obvious even to the readers of the translation that its fourth Prasna is a later addition. It consists of two parts. The first, which ends with the fourth Adhydya, treats of penances, both public and secret ones. The second, Adhydyas 5-8, describes the means of obtaining siddhi, the fulfilment of one’s desires, and recommends for this purpose the offering of the Gazahomas after a previous sanctification of the worshipper by means of a course of austerities. The first part is perfectly superfluous, as the subject of penances has already been discussed in the first sections of the second Prasna, and again in chapters 4-10 of the third Prasna. Its rules sometimes contradict those given before, and in other cases, e.g. IV, 2, 10-12, are mere repetitions of previous statements. The introduction of the means of gaining siddhi, on the other hand, is without a parallel in other Dharma-sitras, and the subject is entirely foreign to the scope of such works. Its treatment, too, shows that chapters 5-8 do not belong to the author of the bulk of the Dharma-sittra. For the description of the preparatory ‘restraints’ or austerities contains somewhat more detailed rules for a number of penances, e.g. the Krikkhras and the X4ndrayama, which have already been described in the preceding Prasnas. Moreover, the style and the language of the whole fourth Prasna are very different from those of the three preceding ones, and the differences observable are exactly the same as those between the first five and the last four Prasnas of the Grthya-sitra. The epic Sloka nearly throughout replaces the aphoristic prose, and the common slipshod Sanskrit of the Purazas appears instead of the archaic forms. Finally, the fourth Prasna is divided into
[14] c
XXXIV BAUDHAYANA,
Adhyayas, not into the Kazdikas or Khandas and Adhydyas which are found in the first two Prasnas.