Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1This 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. more probable that Baudh4yana and Bharadvaga, as well as the latter and Apastamba, were separated by several intervening generations of teachers, who contented themselves with explaining the works of their predecessors. The distance in years between the first and the last of the three SdtrakAras must, therefore, I think, be measured rather by centuries than by decades}. As regards the priority of Apastamba to the school of Satydshadda Hiravyakesin, there can be no doubt about the correctness of this statement. For either Hirazyakesin himself, or, at least, his immediate successors have appropriated’ Apastamba’s Dharma-sdtra and have inserted it with slight modifications in their own collection. The alterations consist chiefly in some not very important additions, and in the substitution of more intelligible and more modern expressions for difficult and antiquated words *. But they do not extend so far as to make the language of the Dharma-sitra fully agree with that of the other sections of the collection, especially with the Grthya-sitra. Numerous discrepancies between these two parts are observable. Thus we read in the Hirazyakesi 1 The subjoined pedigree of the Sfitrakaras of the Black Yagur-veda will perhaps make the above remarks and my interpretation of the statements of Mahddeva and the other authorities mentioned above more intelligible :— Khfzdika, taught the Taittirlya recension of the Black Yagur-veda. (Successors of Khazdika, number unknown, down to) Baudhfyana, Pravaéanakarta, i.e. rst Siitrak4ra, and founder of Baudhé- yana-karana. (Successors of Baudh4yana down to fellow-pupil of Bh&radvaga, number unknown.) (Successors of Baudhayana after the schism down to the present day.) Bhfradvaga, and Sitrakdra, and founder of Bharadvaga-karama. (Successors of Bharadvaga down i fellow- pupil of Apastamba, number unknown.) rs after the down to the present day.) Apastambe, 3rd Sfitrakara, and founder of A pastamba-Aarama. (Successors of Apastamba down to fellow-pupil of Satyashadka Hiranyakesin, number unknown (Successors br Apastamba down to the present day.) SatyAshadha Hirazyakesin, 4th Sfitrakara, and founder of Hirazyakesi- Rarana. (Successors of Saty4shadsa Hirasxryakesin down to the present day.) After the schism of Satyash4da Hirazyakesin the pedigree has not been continued, though MahAdeva asserts that several other Sfitrakaras arose. But to work it out further would be useless. 2 See Appendix II to Part I of my second edition of Apastamba’s Dharmasitra, p. 117 seqq. INTRODUCTION. XXV
2But to work it out further would be useless. 2 See Appendix II to Part I of my second edition of Apastamba’s Dharmasitra, p. 117 seqq. INTRODUCTION. XXV Grihya-sitra that a Brahmava must, ordinarily, be initiated in his seventh year, while the rule of the Dharma-siatra, which is identical with Ap. Dh. I, 1, 1, 18, prescribes that the ceremony shall take place in the eighth year after conception. The commentators, Matrzdatta on the GréhyasQtra and Mahadeva on the Dharma-sitra, both state that the rule of the Grihya-sitra refers to the seventh year after birth, and, therefore, in substance agrees with the Dharma-sitra. They are no doubt right. But the difference in the wording shows that the two sections do not belong to the same author. The same inference may be drawn from the fact that the Hirazyakesi Grzhya-sitra, which is much longer than Apastamba’s, includes a considerable amount of matter which refers to the sacred law, and which is repeated in the Dharma-sftra. According to a statement which I have heard from several learned Brahmamas, the followers of Hirazyakesin, when pronouncing the samkalpa or solemn pledge to perform a ceremony, declare themselves to be members of the Hiramyakesi school that forms a subdivision of Apastamba’s (4pastambantargatahirazyakesisakhadhyayi...aham). But I have not been able to find these words in the books treating of the ritual of the Hirazyakesins, such as the Mahesabhad/i. If this assertion could be further corroborated, it would be an additional strong proof of the priority of Apastamba, which, however, even without it may be accepted as a fact '. The distance in time between the two teachers is probably not so great as that between Apastamba and Baudhayana, as Mahadeva mentions no intermediate Sdtrakara between them. Still it is probably not less than roo or 150 years. The results of the above investigation which show that the origin of the Apastamba school falls in the middle of the Sftra period of the Black Yagur-veda, and that its SQtras belong to the later, though not to the latest products of Vedic literature, are fully confirmed by an 1 Compare also Dr. Winternitz’s remarks on the dependence of the Gréhyasfitra of the Hiranyakesins on Apastamba’s, op. cit., p. 6 seqq., and the second edition of the Ap. Dh., Part I, p. xi. Xxvi APASTAMBA.
3Winternitz’s remarks on the dependence of the Gréhyasfitra of the Hiranyakesins on Apastamba’s, op. cit., p. 6 seqq., and the second edition of the Ap. Dh., Part I, p. xi. Xxvi APASTAMBA. examination of the quotations from and references to Vedic and other books contained in Apastamba’s Sftras, and especially in the Dharma-sitra. We find that all the four Vedas are quoted or referred to. The three old ones, the Aik, Yagus, and Sdman, are mentioned both separately and collectively by the name trayi vidya, i.e. threefold sacred science, and the fourth is called not Atharvangirasah, as is done in most ancient Sftras, but Atharva-veda!. The quotations from the Rzk and SAman are not very numerous. But a passage from the ninth Madala of the former, which is referred to Dh. I, 1, 2, 2, is of some extent, and shows that the recension which Apastamba knew, did not differ from that which still exists. As Apastamba was an adherent of the Black Yagur-veda, he quotes it, especially in the Srauta-sitra, very frequently, and he adduces not only texts from the Mantra-samhit4, but also from the Taittiriyabrahmava and Aranyaka. The most important quotations from the latter work occur Dh. II, 2, 3, 16-II, 2, 4, 9, where all the Mantras to be recited during the performance of the Bali-offerings are enumerated. Their order agrees exactly with that in which they stand in the sixty-seventh Anuvaka of the tenth Prapathaka of the recension of the Aranyaka which is current among the Andhra Braéhmamas *. This last point is of considerable importance, both for the history of the text of that book and, as we shall see further on, for the history of the Apastambiya school. The White Yagur-veda, too, is quoted frequently in the Srauta-sdtra and once in the section on Dharma by the title Vagasaneyaka, while twice its Brahmawa, the Vagasaneyi-brahmama, is cited. The longer one of the two passages, taken from the latter work, Dh. I, 4, 12, 3, does, however, not fully agree with the published text of the Madhyandina recension. Its wording possesses just sufficient resemblance to allow us to identify the passage which Apastamba meant, but differs from the Satapatha- 1 Ap. Dh. II, 11, 29, 12. 3 The Taittirfya Aranyaka exists in three recensions, the Karna, Dravida, and the Andhra, the first of which has been commented on by Sayama, INTRODUCTION. XXVii
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.
1This 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. more probable that Baudh4yana and Bharadvaga, as well as the latter and Apastamba, were separated by several intervening generations of teachers, who contented themselves with explaining the works of their predecessors. The distance in years between the first and the last of the three SdtrakAras must, therefore, I think, be measured rather by centuries than by decades}. As regards the priority of Apastamba to the school of Satydshadda Hiravyakesin, there can be no doubt about the correctness of this statement. For either Hirazyakesin himself, or, at least, his immediate successors have appropriated’ Apastamba’s Dharma-sdtra and have inserted it with slight modifications in their own collection. The alterations consist chiefly in some not very important additions, and in the substitution of more intelligible and more modern expressions for difficult and antiquated words *. But they do not extend so far as to make the language of the Dharma-sitra fully agree with that of the other sections of the collection, especially with the Grthya-sitra. Numerous discrepancies between these two parts are observable. Thus we read in the Hirazyakesi 1 The subjoined pedigree of the Sfitrakaras of the Black Yagur-veda will perhaps make the above remarks and my interpretation of the statements of Mahddeva and the other authorities mentioned above more intelligible :— Khfzdika, taught the Taittirlya recension of the Black Yagur-veda. (Successors of Khazdika, number unknown, down to) Baudhfyana, Pravaéanakarta, i.e. rst Siitrak4ra, and founder of Baudhé- yana-karana. (Successors of Baudh4yana down to fellow-pupil of Bh&radvaga, number unknown.) (Successors of Baudhayana after the schism down to the present day.) Bhfradvaga, and Sitrakdra, and founder of Bharadvaga-karama. (Successors of Bharadvaga down i fellow- pupil of Apastamba, number unknown.) rs after the down to the present day.) Apastambe, 3rd Sfitrakara, and founder of A pastamba-Aarama. (Successors of Apastamba down to fellow-pupil of Satyashadka Hiranyakesin, number unknown (Successors br Apastamba down to the present day.) SatyAshadha Hirazyakesin, 4th Sfitrakara, and founder of Hirazyakesi- Rarana. (Successors of Saty4shadsa Hirasxryakesin down to the present day.) After the schism of Satyash4da Hirazyakesin the pedigree has not been continued, though MahAdeva asserts that several other Sfitrakaras arose. But to work it out further would be useless. 2 See Appendix II to Part I of my second edition of Apastamba’s Dharmasitra, p. 117 seqq. INTRODUCTION. XXV
2But to work it out further would be useless. 2 See Appendix II to Part I of my second edition of Apastamba’s Dharmasitra, p. 117 seqq. INTRODUCTION. XXV Grihya-sitra that a Brahmava must, ordinarily, be initiated in his seventh year, while the rule of the Dharma-siatra, which is identical with Ap. Dh. I, 1, 1, 18, prescribes that the ceremony shall take place in the eighth year after conception. The commentators, Matrzdatta on the GréhyasQtra and Mahadeva on the Dharma-sitra, both state that the rule of the Grihya-sitra refers to the seventh year after birth, and, therefore, in substance agrees with the Dharma-sitra. They are no doubt right. But the difference in the wording shows that the two sections do not belong to the same author. The same inference may be drawn from the fact that the Hirazyakesi Grzhya-sitra, which is much longer than Apastamba’s, includes a considerable amount of matter which refers to the sacred law, and which is repeated in the Dharma-sftra. According to a statement which I have heard from several learned Brahmamas, the followers of Hirazyakesin, when pronouncing the samkalpa or solemn pledge to perform a ceremony, declare themselves to be members of the Hiramyakesi school that forms a subdivision of Apastamba’s (4pastambantargatahirazyakesisakhadhyayi...aham). But I have not been able to find these words in the books treating of the ritual of the Hirazyakesins, such as the Mahesabhad/i. If this assertion could be further corroborated, it would be an additional strong proof of the priority of Apastamba, which, however, even without it may be accepted as a fact '. The distance in time between the two teachers is probably not so great as that between Apastamba and Baudhayana, as Mahadeva mentions no intermediate Sdtrakara between them. Still it is probably not less than roo or 150 years. The results of the above investigation which show that the origin of the Apastamba school falls in the middle of the Sftra period of the Black Yagur-veda, and that its SQtras belong to the later, though not to the latest products of Vedic literature, are fully confirmed by an 1 Compare also Dr. Winternitz’s remarks on the dependence of the Gréhyasfitra of the Hiranyakesins on Apastamba’s, op. cit., p. 6 seqq., and the second edition of the Ap. Dh., Part I, p. xi. Xxvi APASTAMBA.
3Winternitz’s remarks on the dependence of the Gréhyasfitra of the Hiranyakesins on Apastamba’s, op. cit., p. 6 seqq., and the second edition of the Ap. Dh., Part I, p. xi. Xxvi APASTAMBA. examination of the quotations from and references to Vedic and other books contained in Apastamba’s Sftras, and especially in the Dharma-sitra. We find that all the four Vedas are quoted or referred to. The three old ones, the Aik, Yagus, and Sdman, are mentioned both separately and collectively by the name trayi vidya, i.e. threefold sacred science, and the fourth is called not Atharvangirasah, as is done in most ancient Sftras, but Atharva-veda!. The quotations from the Rzk and SAman are not very numerous. But a passage from the ninth Madala of the former, which is referred to Dh. I, 1, 2, 2, is of some extent, and shows that the recension which Apastamba knew, did not differ from that which still exists. As Apastamba was an adherent of the Black Yagur-veda, he quotes it, especially in the Srauta-sitra, very frequently, and he adduces not only texts from the Mantra-samhit4, but also from the Taittiriyabrahmava and Aranyaka. The most important quotations from the latter work occur Dh. II, 2, 3, 16-II, 2, 4, 9, where all the Mantras to be recited during the performance of the Bali-offerings are enumerated. Their order agrees exactly with that in which they stand in the sixty-seventh Anuvaka of the tenth Prapathaka of the recension of the Aranyaka which is current among the Andhra Braéhmamas *. This last point is of considerable importance, both for the history of the text of that book and, as we shall see further on, for the history of the Apastambiya school. The White Yagur-veda, too, is quoted frequently in the Srauta-sdtra and once in the section on Dharma by the title Vagasaneyaka, while twice its Brahmawa, the Vagasaneyi-brahmama, is cited. The longer one of the two passages, taken from the latter work, Dh. I, 4, 12, 3, does, however, not fully agree with the published text of the Madhyandina recension. Its wording possesses just sufficient resemblance to allow us to identify the passage which Apastamba meant, but differs from the Satapatha- 1 Ap. Dh. II, 11, 29, 12. 3 The Taittirfya Aranyaka exists in three recensions, the Karna, Dravida, and the Andhra, the first of which has been commented on by Sayama, INTRODUCTION. XXVii
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.