Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1* 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 second fact, which bears on the question how the identity of so many Sitras in the two Dharma-sitras is to be explained, affords a still stronger proof of Apastamba’s posteriority to Baudhdyana. For on several occasions, it appears, Apastamba controverts opinions which Baudhayana holds, or which may be defended with the help of the latter's Sftras. The clearest case of this kind occurs in the chapter on Inheritance, where the treatment of the eldest son on the division of the estate by the father is discussed. There Apastamba gives it as his own opinion that the father should make an equal division of his property ‘ after having gladdened the eldest son by some (choice portion of his) wealth,’ i.e. after making him a present which should have some value, but should not be so valuable as to materially affect the equality of the shares*. Further on he notices the opinions of other teachers on this subject, and states that the practice advocated by some, of allowing the eldest alone to inherit, as well as the custom prevailing in some countries, of allotting to the eldest all the father’s gold, or the black cows, or the black iron and grain, is not in accordance with the precepts of the Vedas. In order to prove the latter assertion he quotes a passage of the Taittiriya Samhita, in which it is declared that ‘ Manu divided his wealth among his sons,’ and no difference in the treatment of the eldest son is prescribed. He adds that a second passage occurs in the same Veda, which declares that ‘ they distinguish the eldest son by (a larger portion of) the heritage, and which thus apparently countenances the partiality for the first-born. But this second passage, he contends, appealing to the 1 For another case, the rules, referring to the composition for homicide, regarding which Apastamba holds later views than Baudh&yana, see the Festgrass an R. von Roth, pp. 47-48. 2 Ap. Dh. II, 6, 13, 13, and II, 6, 14, 1. Xxli APASTAMBA.
2But this second passage, he contends, appealing to the 1 For another case, the rules, referring to the composition for homicide, regarding which Apastamba holds later views than Baudh&yana, see the Festgrass an R. von Roth, pp. 47-48. 2 Ap. Dh. II, 6, 13, 13, and II, 6, 14, 1. Xxli APASTAMBA. opinion of the Mimamsists, is, like many similar ones, merely a statement of a fact which has not the authority of an injunction', If we now turn to Baudhdayana, we find that he allows of three different methods for the distribution of the paternal estate. According to him, either an equal share may be given to each son, or the eldest may receive the best part of the wealth, or, also, a preferential share of one tenth of the whole property. He further alleges that the cows, horses, goats, and sheep respectively go to the eldest sons of Brahmauzas, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas and Sfidras. As authority for the equal division he gives the first of the two Vedic passages quoted above ; and for the doctrine that the eldest is to receive the best part of the estate, he quotes the second passage which Apastamba considers to be without the force of an injunction*. The fact that the two authors’ opinions clash is manifest, and the manner in which Apastamba tries to show that the second Vedic passage possesses no authority, clearly indicates that before his time it had been held to contain an injunction. As ho other author of a Dharmastra but Baudhdyana is known to have quoted it, the conclusion is that Apastamba’s remarks are directed against him. If Apastamba does not mention Baudhdyana by name, the reason probably is that in olden times, just as in the present day, the Brahmanical etiquette forbad a direct opposition against doctrines propounded by an older teacher who belongs to the same spiritual family (vidyavamsa) as oneself. A similar case occurs in the chapter on Studentship 3, where Apastamba, again appealing to the Mimamsists, combats the doctrine that pupils may eat forbidden food, such as honey, meat, and pungent condiments, if it is given to them as leavings by their teacher. Baudh4yana gives no explicit rule on this point, but the wording of his Satras is not opposed to the doctrine and practice, to which Apastamba objects. Baudhayana says that students 1 Ap. Dh. II, 6, 14, 6-13. 2 Baudh. Dh. II, 2, 3, 2-7. > Ap. Dh. I, 1, 4, 5-7. INTRODUCTION. XXili
3Baudh4yana gives no explicit rule on this point, but the wording of his Satras is not opposed to the doctrine and practice, to which Apastamba objects. Baudhayana says that students 1 Ap. Dh. II, 6, 14, 6-13. 2 Baudh. Dh. II, 2, 3, 2-7. > Ap. Dh. I, 1, 4, 5-7. INTRODUCTION. XXili shall avoid honey, meat, pungent condiments, &c.; he further enjoins that pupils are to obey their teachers except when ordered to commit crimes which cause loss of caste (pataniya); and he finally directs them to eat the fragments of food given to them by their teachers. As the eating of honey and other forbidden substances is not a crime causing loss of caste, it is possible that Baudhayana himself may have considered it the duty of a pupil to eat any kind of food given by the teacher, even honey and meat. At all events the practice and doctrine which Apastamba blames, may have been defended by the wording of Baudhayana’s rules!. The three points which have been just discussed, viz. the identity of a number of Sftras in the works of the two authors, the fact that Apastamba advocates on some points more refined or puritan opinions, and, especially, that he labours to controvert doctrines contained in Baudhdyana’s Sdtras, give a powerful support to the traditional statement that he is younger than that teacher. It is, however, difficult to say how great the distance between the two really is. Mah4deva, as stated above, places between them only Bharadvaga, the author of a set of Sdtras, which as yet have not been completely recovered. But it seems to me not likely that the latter was his immediate predecessor in the vidyAvamsa or spiritual family to which both belonged. For it cannot be expected that two successive heads of the school should each have composed a Sdtra and thus founded a new branch-school. It is Cases, in which Apastamba’s Grthya-sfitra appears to refer to, or to controvert, Baudhayana’s Grehya-siitra, have been collected by Dr. Winternitz, op. cit., p.8. Dr. Burnell, Tanjore Catalogue, p. 34, too, considers Baudhayana to be older than Apastamba, because his style is so much simpler. With this remark may be compared Dr. Winternitz’s very true assertion that BaudhAyana’s style resembles sometimes, especially in the discussion of disputed points, that of the Brahmavas. On the other hand, Dr. R. G. Bhamdarkar, Second Report on the Search for Sanskrit MSS., p. 34, believes Baudhayana to be later than Apastamba and Bharadvaga, because he teaches other developments of sacrificial rites, unknown to the other two Sfitrakaras. This may be true, but it must not be forgotten that every portion of Bandhayana’s Sitras, which has been subjected to a critical enquiry, has turned out to be much interpolated and enlarged by later hands. XXIV APASTAMBA.
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.
1* 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 second fact, which bears on the question how the identity of so many Sitras in the two Dharma-sitras is to be explained, affords a still stronger proof of Apastamba’s posteriority to Baudhdyana. For on several occasions, it appears, Apastamba controverts opinions which Baudhayana holds, or which may be defended with the help of the latter's Sftras. The clearest case of this kind occurs in the chapter on Inheritance, where the treatment of the eldest son on the division of the estate by the father is discussed. There Apastamba gives it as his own opinion that the father should make an equal division of his property ‘ after having gladdened the eldest son by some (choice portion of his) wealth,’ i.e. after making him a present which should have some value, but should not be so valuable as to materially affect the equality of the shares*. Further on he notices the opinions of other teachers on this subject, and states that the practice advocated by some, of allowing the eldest alone to inherit, as well as the custom prevailing in some countries, of allotting to the eldest all the father’s gold, or the black cows, or the black iron and grain, is not in accordance with the precepts of the Vedas. In order to prove the latter assertion he quotes a passage of the Taittiriya Samhita, in which it is declared that ‘ Manu divided his wealth among his sons,’ and no difference in the treatment of the eldest son is prescribed. He adds that a second passage occurs in the same Veda, which declares that ‘ they distinguish the eldest son by (a larger portion of) the heritage, and which thus apparently countenances the partiality for the first-born. But this second passage, he contends, appealing to the 1 For another case, the rules, referring to the composition for homicide, regarding which Apastamba holds later views than Baudh&yana, see the Festgrass an R. von Roth, pp. 47-48. 2 Ap. Dh. II, 6, 13, 13, and II, 6, 14, 1. Xxli APASTAMBA.
2But this second passage, he contends, appealing to the 1 For another case, the rules, referring to the composition for homicide, regarding which Apastamba holds later views than Baudh&yana, see the Festgrass an R. von Roth, pp. 47-48. 2 Ap. Dh. II, 6, 13, 13, and II, 6, 14, 1. Xxli APASTAMBA. opinion of the Mimamsists, is, like many similar ones, merely a statement of a fact which has not the authority of an injunction', If we now turn to Baudhdayana, we find that he allows of three different methods for the distribution of the paternal estate. According to him, either an equal share may be given to each son, or the eldest may receive the best part of the wealth, or, also, a preferential share of one tenth of the whole property. He further alleges that the cows, horses, goats, and sheep respectively go to the eldest sons of Brahmauzas, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas and Sfidras. As authority for the equal division he gives the first of the two Vedic passages quoted above ; and for the doctrine that the eldest is to receive the best part of the estate, he quotes the second passage which Apastamba considers to be without the force of an injunction*. The fact that the two authors’ opinions clash is manifest, and the manner in which Apastamba tries to show that the second Vedic passage possesses no authority, clearly indicates that before his time it had been held to contain an injunction. As ho other author of a Dharmastra but Baudhdyana is known to have quoted it, the conclusion is that Apastamba’s remarks are directed against him. If Apastamba does not mention Baudhdyana by name, the reason probably is that in olden times, just as in the present day, the Brahmanical etiquette forbad a direct opposition against doctrines propounded by an older teacher who belongs to the same spiritual family (vidyavamsa) as oneself. A similar case occurs in the chapter on Studentship 3, where Apastamba, again appealing to the Mimamsists, combats the doctrine that pupils may eat forbidden food, such as honey, meat, and pungent condiments, if it is given to them as leavings by their teacher. Baudh4yana gives no explicit rule on this point, but the wording of his Satras is not opposed to the doctrine and practice, to which Apastamba objects. Baudhayana says that students 1 Ap. Dh. II, 6, 14, 6-13. 2 Baudh. Dh. II, 2, 3, 2-7. > Ap. Dh. I, 1, 4, 5-7. INTRODUCTION. XXili
3Baudh4yana gives no explicit rule on this point, but the wording of his Satras is not opposed to the doctrine and practice, to which Apastamba objects. Baudhayana says that students 1 Ap. Dh. II, 6, 14, 6-13. 2 Baudh. Dh. II, 2, 3, 2-7. > Ap. Dh. I, 1, 4, 5-7. INTRODUCTION. XXili shall avoid honey, meat, pungent condiments, &c.; he further enjoins that pupils are to obey their teachers except when ordered to commit crimes which cause loss of caste (pataniya); and he finally directs them to eat the fragments of food given to them by their teachers. As the eating of honey and other forbidden substances is not a crime causing loss of caste, it is possible that Baudhayana himself may have considered it the duty of a pupil to eat any kind of food given by the teacher, even honey and meat. At all events the practice and doctrine which Apastamba blames, may have been defended by the wording of Baudhayana’s rules!. The three points which have been just discussed, viz. the identity of a number of Sftras in the works of the two authors, the fact that Apastamba advocates on some points more refined or puritan opinions, and, especially, that he labours to controvert doctrines contained in Baudhdyana’s Sdtras, give a powerful support to the traditional statement that he is younger than that teacher. It is, however, difficult to say how great the distance between the two really is. Mah4deva, as stated above, places between them only Bharadvaga, the author of a set of Sdtras, which as yet have not been completely recovered. But it seems to me not likely that the latter was his immediate predecessor in the vidyAvamsa or spiritual family to which both belonged. For it cannot be expected that two successive heads of the school should each have composed a Sdtra and thus founded a new branch-school. It is Cases, in which Apastamba’s Grthya-sfitra appears to refer to, or to controvert, Baudhayana’s Grehya-siitra, have been collected by Dr. Winternitz, op. cit., p.8. Dr. Burnell, Tanjore Catalogue, p. 34, too, considers Baudhayana to be older than Apastamba, because his style is so much simpler. With this remark may be compared Dr. Winternitz’s very true assertion that BaudhAyana’s style resembles sometimes, especially in the discussion of disputed points, that of the Brahmavas. On the other hand, Dr. R. G. Bhamdarkar, Second Report on the Search for Sanskrit MSS., p. 34, believes Baudhayana to be later than Apastamba and Bharadvaga, because he teaches other developments of sacrificial rites, unknown to the other two Sfitrakaras. This may be true, but it must not be forgotten that every portion of Bandhayana’s Sitras, which has been subjected to a critical enquiry, has turned out to be much interpolated and enlarged by later hands. XXIV APASTAMBA.
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.