Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Dh. 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
2lv 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.’
3Gautama 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.
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.
1Dh. 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
2lv 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.’
3Gautama 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.
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.