Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1ii, p- 361 seqq.; see also Weber, Hist. Sansk. Lit., p. 110, and ed. 1 Max Miiller, op. cit., p. 195. 3 See also Weber, Ind. Lit., p. 98, and ed. [2] XViil APASTAMBA. clearer proof that he laid no claim to the title Rishi, or inspired seer of Vedic texts. For (Dharma-sitra I, 2, 5, 4-5) he says distinctly that on account of the prevalent transgression of the rules of studentship no Rishis are born among the Avaras, the men of later ages or of modern times, but that some, by virtue of a residue of the merit which they acquired in former lives, become similar to Rishis by their knowledge of the Veda. A man who speaks in this manner, shows that he considers the holy ages during which the great saints saw with their mind's eye the uncreated and eternal texts of the Veda to be past, and that all he claims is a thorough acquaintance with the scriptures which had been handed down to him. The same spirit which dictated this passage is also observable in other portions of the Dharma-sdtra. For Apastamba repeatedly contrasts the weakness and sinfulness of the Avaras, the men of his own times, with the holiness of the ancient sages, who, owing to the greatness of their ‘lustre,’ were able to commit various forbidden acts without diminishing their spiritual merit!. These utterances prove that Apastamba considered himself a child of the Kali Yuga, the age of sin, during which, according to Hindu notions, no Rishis can be born. If, therefore, in spite of this explicit disclaimer, the Saszhité and the Brahmamza of the Black Yagur-veda are sometimes called Apastamba or Apastambiya, i.e. belonging to Apastamba, the meaning of this expression can only be, that they were and are studied and handed down by the school of Apastamba, not that its founder was their author, or, as the Hindus would say, saw them. The fact that Apastamba confined his activity to the composition of Sftras is highly important for the determination of the period to which he belonged. It clearly shows that in his time the tertiary or Sdtra period of the Yagur-veda had begun. Whether we assume, with Professor Max Miller, that the Sftra period was one and the same for all the four Vedas, and fix its limits with him 1 Dharma-sitra II, 6, 13, 1-10; II, 10, 27, 4. INTRODUCTION. X1X between 600-200 B.C., or whether we believe, as I am inclined to do, that the date of the Sitra period differed for each Veda, still the incontestable conclusion is that the origin of the Apastambiya school cannot be placed in the early times of the Vedic period, and probably falls in the last six or seven centuries before the beginning of the Christian era.
2The correctness of the traditional statement that Apastamba is younger than Baudhayana may be made very probable by the following considerations. First, Baudhayana’s and Apastamba’s works on Dharma have a considerable number of Sfitras in common. Thus in the chapter on Penances not less than seven consecutive Sitras, prescribing the manner in which outcasts are to live and to obtain readmission into the Brahmanical community for their children, occur in both treatises’. Besides this passage, there are a number of single Sftras? which agree literally. Taken by itself this agreement does not prove much, as it may be explained in various ways. It may show either that Baudhdyana is older than Apastamba, and that the latter borrowed from the former, or that the reverse was the case. It may also indicate that both authors drew from one common source. But if it is taken together with two other facts, it gains a considerable importance. First, Apastamba holds in several cases doctrines which are of a later origin than those held by Baudhayana. With respect to this point the puritan opinions which Apastamba puts forward regarding the substitutes for legitimate sons and regarding the appointment of widows (niyoga), and his restriction of the number of marriage-rites, may be adduced as examples. Like many other ancient teachers, Baudhdyana permits childless Aryans to satisfy their craving for representatives bearing their name, and to allay their fears of falling after death into the regions of torment through a failure of the funeral oblations, by the affiliation 1 Baudh. Dh. II, 1, 2, 18-23 =Ap. Dh. I, 10, 29, 8-14. 2 E.g. Ap. Dh. I, 1, 2, 30; I, 2, 6, 8-9; I, 5, 15, 8 correspond respectively to Baudh. Dh. I, 2, 3, 39-40; I, 2, 3, 38; I, a, 3, 29. b 2 XX APASTAMBA. of eleven kinds of substitutes for a legitimate son. _Illegitimate sons, the illegitimate sons of wives, the legitimate and illegitimate offspring of daughters, and the children of relatives, or even of strangers who may be solemnly adopted, or received as members of the family without any ceremony, or be acquired by purchase, are all allowed to take the place and the rights of legitimate sons’. Apastamba declares his dissent from this doctrine. He allows legitimate sons alone to inherit their father’s estate and to follow the occupations of his caste, and he explicitly forbids the sale and gift of children *.
3Apastamba declares his dissent from this doctrine. He allows legitimate sons alone to inherit their father’s estate and to follow the occupations of his caste, and he explicitly forbids the sale and gift of children *. In like manner he protests against the custom of making over childless widows to brothers-in-law or other near relatives in order to obtain sons who are to offer the funeral oblations to the deceased husband’s manes, while Baudhayana has as yet no scruple on the subject*. Finally, he omits from his list of the marriage-rites the Paisdéa vivaha, where the bride is obtained by fraud‘; though it is reluctantly admitted by Baudhayana and other ancient teachers. There can be no doubt that the law which placed the regular continuance of the funeral oblations above all other considerations, and which allowed, in order to secure this object, even a violation of the sanctity of the marriage-tie and other breaches of the principles of morality, belongs to an older order of ideas than the stricter views of Apastamba. It is true that, according to Baudhdyana’s own statement®, before his time an ancient sage named Aupaganghani, who is also mentioned in the Satapathabrahmaza, had opposed the old practice of taking substitutes for a legitimate son. It is also very probable that for a long time the opinions of the Brahmaza teachers, who lived in different parts of India and belonged to different schools, may have been divided on this subject. Still it seems very improbable that of two authors who both belong to the same Veda and to the same school, the * Baudh. Dh. II, 2, 3, 17 seqq. 2 Ap. Dh. II, 5, 13, 1-2, 11. * Ap. Dh. II, 10, 27, 2-7. * Ap. Db. II, 5, 11 and 12. § Baudh. Dh. II, 2, 3, 33. INTRODUCTION. XX1 earlier one should hold the later doctrine, and the later one the earlier opinion. The contrary appears the more probable assumption. The same remarks apply to the cases of the Niyoga and of the Paisa#a marriage !.
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.
1ii, p- 361 seqq.; see also Weber, Hist. Sansk. Lit., p. 110, and ed. 1 Max Miiller, op. cit., p. 195. 3 See also Weber, Ind. Lit., p. 98, and ed. [2] XViil APASTAMBA. clearer proof that he laid no claim to the title Rishi, or inspired seer of Vedic texts. For (Dharma-sitra I, 2, 5, 4-5) he says distinctly that on account of the prevalent transgression of the rules of studentship no Rishis are born among the Avaras, the men of later ages or of modern times, but that some, by virtue of a residue of the merit which they acquired in former lives, become similar to Rishis by their knowledge of the Veda. A man who speaks in this manner, shows that he considers the holy ages during which the great saints saw with their mind's eye the uncreated and eternal texts of the Veda to be past, and that all he claims is a thorough acquaintance with the scriptures which had been handed down to him. The same spirit which dictated this passage is also observable in other portions of the Dharma-sdtra. For Apastamba repeatedly contrasts the weakness and sinfulness of the Avaras, the men of his own times, with the holiness of the ancient sages, who, owing to the greatness of their ‘lustre,’ were able to commit various forbidden acts without diminishing their spiritual merit!. These utterances prove that Apastamba considered himself a child of the Kali Yuga, the age of sin, during which, according to Hindu notions, no Rishis can be born. If, therefore, in spite of this explicit disclaimer, the Saszhité and the Brahmamza of the Black Yagur-veda are sometimes called Apastamba or Apastambiya, i.e. belonging to Apastamba, the meaning of this expression can only be, that they were and are studied and handed down by the school of Apastamba, not that its founder was their author, or, as the Hindus would say, saw them. The fact that Apastamba confined his activity to the composition of Sftras is highly important for the determination of the period to which he belonged. It clearly shows that in his time the tertiary or Sdtra period of the Yagur-veda had begun. Whether we assume, with Professor Max Miller, that the Sftra period was one and the same for all the four Vedas, and fix its limits with him 1 Dharma-sitra II, 6, 13, 1-10; II, 10, 27, 4. INTRODUCTION. X1X between 600-200 B.C., or whether we believe, as I am inclined to do, that the date of the Sitra period differed for each Veda, still the incontestable conclusion is that the origin of the Apastambiya school cannot be placed in the early times of the Vedic period, and probably falls in the last six or seven centuries before the beginning of the Christian era.
2The correctness of the traditional statement that Apastamba is younger than Baudhayana may be made very probable by the following considerations. First, Baudhayana’s and Apastamba’s works on Dharma have a considerable number of Sfitras in common. Thus in the chapter on Penances not less than seven consecutive Sitras, prescribing the manner in which outcasts are to live and to obtain readmission into the Brahmanical community for their children, occur in both treatises’. Besides this passage, there are a number of single Sftras? which agree literally. Taken by itself this agreement does not prove much, as it may be explained in various ways. It may show either that Baudhdyana is older than Apastamba, and that the latter borrowed from the former, or that the reverse was the case. It may also indicate that both authors drew from one common source. But if it is taken together with two other facts, it gains a considerable importance. First, Apastamba holds in several cases doctrines which are of a later origin than those held by Baudhayana. With respect to this point the puritan opinions which Apastamba puts forward regarding the substitutes for legitimate sons and regarding the appointment of widows (niyoga), and his restriction of the number of marriage-rites, may be adduced as examples. Like many other ancient teachers, Baudhdyana permits childless Aryans to satisfy their craving for representatives bearing their name, and to allay their fears of falling after death into the regions of torment through a failure of the funeral oblations, by the affiliation 1 Baudh. Dh. II, 1, 2, 18-23 =Ap. Dh. I, 10, 29, 8-14. 2 E.g. Ap. Dh. I, 1, 2, 30; I, 2, 6, 8-9; I, 5, 15, 8 correspond respectively to Baudh. Dh. I, 2, 3, 39-40; I, 2, 3, 38; I, a, 3, 29. b 2 XX APASTAMBA. of eleven kinds of substitutes for a legitimate son. _Illegitimate sons, the illegitimate sons of wives, the legitimate and illegitimate offspring of daughters, and the children of relatives, or even of strangers who may be solemnly adopted, or received as members of the family without any ceremony, or be acquired by purchase, are all allowed to take the place and the rights of legitimate sons’. Apastamba declares his dissent from this doctrine. He allows legitimate sons alone to inherit their father’s estate and to follow the occupations of his caste, and he explicitly forbids the sale and gift of children *.
3Apastamba declares his dissent from this doctrine. He allows legitimate sons alone to inherit their father’s estate and to follow the occupations of his caste, and he explicitly forbids the sale and gift of children *. In like manner he protests against the custom of making over childless widows to brothers-in-law or other near relatives in order to obtain sons who are to offer the funeral oblations to the deceased husband’s manes, while Baudhayana has as yet no scruple on the subject*. Finally, he omits from his list of the marriage-rites the Paisdéa vivaha, where the bride is obtained by fraud‘; though it is reluctantly admitted by Baudhayana and other ancient teachers. There can be no doubt that the law which placed the regular continuance of the funeral oblations above all other considerations, and which allowed, in order to secure this object, even a violation of the sanctity of the marriage-tie and other breaches of the principles of morality, belongs to an older order of ideas than the stricter views of Apastamba. It is true that, according to Baudhdyana’s own statement®, before his time an ancient sage named Aupaganghani, who is also mentioned in the Satapathabrahmaza, had opposed the old practice of taking substitutes for a legitimate son. It is also very probable that for a long time the opinions of the Brahmaza teachers, who lived in different parts of India and belonged to different schools, may have been divided on this subject. Still it seems very improbable that of two authors who both belong to the same Veda and to the same school, the * Baudh. Dh. II, 2, 3, 17 seqq. 2 Ap. Dh. II, 5, 13, 1-2, 11. * Ap. Dh. II, 10, 27, 2-7. * Ap. Db. II, 5, 11 and 12. § Baudh. Dh. II, 2, 3, 33. INTRODUCTION. XX1 earlier one should hold the later doctrine, and the later one the earlier opinion. The contrary appears the more probable assumption. The same remarks apply to the cases of the Niyoga and of the Paisa#a marriage !.
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.