Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Kumirila 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 °.
2The 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.
3Though 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.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Kumirila 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 °.
2The 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.
3Though 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.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
No commentary for this page.