Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Dh. 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 brahmaza in many details'. The cause of these discrepancies remains doubtful for the present *. As regards the Atharvaveda, Apastamba gives, besides the reference mentioned above and a second to the Angirasa-pavitra 3, an abstract of a long passage from Atharva-veda XV, 10-13, regarding the treatment of a Vratya, i.e. a learned mendicant Brahmaza, who really deserves the title of an atithi, or guest‘. It is true that Apastamba, in the passage referred to, does not say that his rule is based on the Atharvaveda. He merely says that a Brahmaza is his authority. But it seems, nevertheless, certain that by the expression a Brahmana, the Brahmana-like fifteenth book of the Atharva-veda is meant, as the sentences to be addressed by the host to his guest agree literally with those which the Atharva-veda prescribes for the reception of a Vratya. Haradatta too, in his commentary, expresses the same opinion. Actual quotations from the Atharva-veda are not frequent in Vedic literature, and the fact that Apastamba’s Dharma-sitra contains one, is, therefore, of some interest. Besides these Vedic texts*, Apastamba mentions, also, the Angas or auxiliary works, and enumerates six classes, viz. treatises on the ritual of the sacrifices, on grammar, astronomy, etymology, recitation of the Veda, and metrics °. The number is the same as that which is considered the correct one in our days’. As the Dharma-sdtra names no less than nine teachers in connection with various topics of the sacred law, and frequently appeals to the opinion of some (eke), it follows that a great many such auxiliary treatises must have existed in Apastamba’s time. The Afaryas mentioned are Eka, Kanva, Kanva, Kunika, Kutsa, Kautsa, Push- 1 Compare on this point Professor Eggeling’s remarks in Sacred Books of the East, vol. xii, p. xxxix seqq. 2 See the passage from the Xaranavy(ihabhAshya given below, ver. 10. 3 Ap. Dh. I, a, 2, 2. * Ap. Dh. I, 3, 7, 12-17. 5 Some more are quoted in the Srauta-sfitra, see Professor Garbe in the Gurnpfgakaumudf, p. 33 seqq. ® Ap. Dh. II, 4, 8, 10. 1 See also Max Miller, Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., p. 111. XXVili APASTAMBA.
210. 3 Ap. Dh. I, a, 2, 2. * Ap. Dh. I, 3, 7, 12-17. 5 Some more are quoted in the Srauta-sfitra, see Professor Garbe in the Gurnpfgakaumudf, p. 33 seqq. ® Ap. Dh. II, 4, 8, 10. 1 See also Max Miller, Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., p. 111. XXVili APASTAMBA. karasddi, Varshydyavi, Svetaketu, and Harita!, Some of these persons, like H4rita and Kazva, are known to have composed Sfitras on the sacred law, and fragments or modified versions of their works are still in existence, while KAzva, Kautsa, PushkarasAdi or PaushkarasAdi, as the grammatically correct form of the name is, and Varshyayami are quoted in the Nirukta, the Pratisikhyas, and the V4rttikas on Pazini as authorities on phonetics, etymology, and grammar’. Kazva, finally, is considered the author of the still existing Kalpa-sitras of the Kazva school connected with the White Yagur-veda. It seems not improbable that most of these teachers were authors of. complete sets of Angas. Their position in Vedic literature, however, except as far as Kazva, Harita, and Svetaketu are concerned, is difficult to define, and the occurrence of their names throws less light on the antiquity of the Apastambiya school than might be expected. Regarding Harita it must, however, be noticed that he is one of the oldest authors of S(tras, that he was an adherent of the Maitrayaziya Sakha 3, and that he is quoted by Baudhayana, Apastamba’s predecessor. The bearing of the occurrence of Svetaketu’s name will be discussed below. Of even greater interest than the names of the teachers are the indications which Apastamba gives, that he knew two of the philosophical schools which still exist in India, viz. the Parva or Karma Mimdémsé and the Vedanta. As regards the former, he mentions it by its ancient name, Nyaya, which in later times and at present is usually applied to the doctrine of Gautama Akshap4da. In two passages * he settles contested points on the authority of those who know the Nydya, i.e. the Parva Mimamsa, and 1 Ap. Dh. I, 6, 19, 3-8; I, 10, 28, 1-2; I, 4,13, 10; I, 6, 18, 2; I, 6, 19, 12; I, 10, 28, 5, 16; I, 10, 29, 12-16. 3 Max Miller, loc. cit., p. 142. 5 A Dharma-siitra, ascribed to this teacher, has been recovered of late, by Mr. Vaman Shastri Islampurkar. Though it is an ancient work, it does not contain Apastamba’s quotations, see Grundriss d. Indo-Ar. Phil. und Altertumsk., II, 8, 8. * Ap. Dh. II, 4, 8, 13; II, 6, 14, 13. INTRODUCTION. XXiX
3Vaman Shastri Islampurkar. Though it is an ancient work, it does not contain Apastamba’s quotations, see Grundriss d. Indo-Ar. Phil. und Altertumsk., II, 8, 8. * Ap. Dh. II, 4, 8, 13; II, 6, 14, 13. INTRODUCTION. XXiX in several other cases he adopts a line of reasoning which fully agrees with that followed in Gaimini’s Mimss4-sdtras. Thus the arguments !, that ‘a revealed text has greater weight than a custom from which a revealed text may be inferred,’ and that ‘no text can be inferred from a custom for which a worldly motive is apparent,’ exactly correspond with the teaching of Gaimini’s Mim4ms4-sdtras I, 3, 3-4. The wording of the passages in the two works does not agree so closely that the one could be called a quotation of the other. But it is evident, that if Apastamba did not know the Mim4msa-sitras of Gaimini, he must have possessed some other very similar work. As to the Vedanta, Apastamba does not mention the name of the school. But Khazdas 22, 23 of the first Pazala of the Dharma-sitra unmistakably contain the chief tenets of the Vedantists, and recommend the acquisition of the knowledge of the Atman as the best means for purifying the souls of sinners. Though these two Khazdas are chiefly filled with quotations, which, as the commentator states, are taken from an Upanishad, still the manner of their selection, as well as Apastamba’s own words in the introductory and concluding Sitras, indicates that he knew not merely the unsystematic speculations contained in the Upanishads and Aranyakas, but a well-defined system of Vedantic philosophy identical with that of Badarayaza’s Brahma-sitras. The fact that Apastamba’s Dharma-s(itra contains indications of the existence of these two schools of philosophy, is significant as the ParvA MimAmsa occurs in one other Dharma-sdtra only, that attributed to Vasish¢sa, and as the name of the Vedanta school is not found in any of the prose treatises on the sacred law. Of non-Vedic works Apastamba mentions the Purdza. The Dharma-sitra not only several times quotes passages from ‘a Purdza’ as authorities for its rules ?, but names in ‘one case the Bhavishyat-pur4za as the particular Puraza from which the quotation is taken*. References to the 1 Ap. Dh. I, 1, 14, 8, 9-10. 2 Ap. Dh. I, 6, 19, 133 1, 10, 29, 7. > Ap. Dh. II, 9, 24, 6. XXX APASTAMBA. Purdza in general are not unfrequent in other Sdtras on the sacred law, and even in older Vedic works. But Apastamba, as far as I know, is the only Sfatrakara who specifies the title of a particular Puraza, and names one which is nearly or quite identical with that of a work existing in the present day, and he is the only one, whose quotations can be shown to be, at least in part, genuine Paurazic utterances.
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. 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 brahmaza in many details'. The cause of these discrepancies remains doubtful for the present *. As regards the Atharvaveda, Apastamba gives, besides the reference mentioned above and a second to the Angirasa-pavitra 3, an abstract of a long passage from Atharva-veda XV, 10-13, regarding the treatment of a Vratya, i.e. a learned mendicant Brahmaza, who really deserves the title of an atithi, or guest‘. It is true that Apastamba, in the passage referred to, does not say that his rule is based on the Atharvaveda. He merely says that a Brahmaza is his authority. But it seems, nevertheless, certain that by the expression a Brahmana, the Brahmana-like fifteenth book of the Atharva-veda is meant, as the sentences to be addressed by the host to his guest agree literally with those which the Atharva-veda prescribes for the reception of a Vratya. Haradatta too, in his commentary, expresses the same opinion. Actual quotations from the Atharva-veda are not frequent in Vedic literature, and the fact that Apastamba’s Dharma-sitra contains one, is, therefore, of some interest. Besides these Vedic texts*, Apastamba mentions, also, the Angas or auxiliary works, and enumerates six classes, viz. treatises on the ritual of the sacrifices, on grammar, astronomy, etymology, recitation of the Veda, and metrics °. The number is the same as that which is considered the correct one in our days’. As the Dharma-sdtra names no less than nine teachers in connection with various topics of the sacred law, and frequently appeals to the opinion of some (eke), it follows that a great many such auxiliary treatises must have existed in Apastamba’s time. The Afaryas mentioned are Eka, Kanva, Kanva, Kunika, Kutsa, Kautsa, Push- 1 Compare on this point Professor Eggeling’s remarks in Sacred Books of the East, vol. xii, p. xxxix seqq. 2 See the passage from the Xaranavy(ihabhAshya given below, ver. 10. 3 Ap. Dh. I, a, 2, 2. * Ap. Dh. I, 3, 7, 12-17. 5 Some more are quoted in the Srauta-sfitra, see Professor Garbe in the Gurnpfgakaumudf, p. 33 seqq. ® Ap. Dh. II, 4, 8, 10. 1 See also Max Miller, Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., p. 111. XXVili APASTAMBA.
210. 3 Ap. Dh. I, a, 2, 2. * Ap. Dh. I, 3, 7, 12-17. 5 Some more are quoted in the Srauta-sfitra, see Professor Garbe in the Gurnpfgakaumudf, p. 33 seqq. ® Ap. Dh. II, 4, 8, 10. 1 See also Max Miller, Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., p. 111. XXVili APASTAMBA. karasddi, Varshydyavi, Svetaketu, and Harita!, Some of these persons, like H4rita and Kazva, are known to have composed Sfitras on the sacred law, and fragments or modified versions of their works are still in existence, while KAzva, Kautsa, PushkarasAdi or PaushkarasAdi, as the grammatically correct form of the name is, and Varshyayami are quoted in the Nirukta, the Pratisikhyas, and the V4rttikas on Pazini as authorities on phonetics, etymology, and grammar’. Kazva, finally, is considered the author of the still existing Kalpa-sitras of the Kazva school connected with the White Yagur-veda. It seems not improbable that most of these teachers were authors of. complete sets of Angas. Their position in Vedic literature, however, except as far as Kazva, Harita, and Svetaketu are concerned, is difficult to define, and the occurrence of their names throws less light on the antiquity of the Apastambiya school than might be expected. Regarding Harita it must, however, be noticed that he is one of the oldest authors of S(tras, that he was an adherent of the Maitrayaziya Sakha 3, and that he is quoted by Baudhayana, Apastamba’s predecessor. The bearing of the occurrence of Svetaketu’s name will be discussed below. Of even greater interest than the names of the teachers are the indications which Apastamba gives, that he knew two of the philosophical schools which still exist in India, viz. the Parva or Karma Mimdémsé and the Vedanta. As regards the former, he mentions it by its ancient name, Nyaya, which in later times and at present is usually applied to the doctrine of Gautama Akshap4da. In two passages * he settles contested points on the authority of those who know the Nydya, i.e. the Parva Mimamsa, and 1 Ap. Dh. I, 6, 19, 3-8; I, 10, 28, 1-2; I, 4,13, 10; I, 6, 18, 2; I, 6, 19, 12; I, 10, 28, 5, 16; I, 10, 29, 12-16. 3 Max Miller, loc. cit., p. 142. 5 A Dharma-siitra, ascribed to this teacher, has been recovered of late, by Mr. Vaman Shastri Islampurkar. Though it is an ancient work, it does not contain Apastamba’s quotations, see Grundriss d. Indo-Ar. Phil. und Altertumsk., II, 8, 8. * Ap. Dh. II, 4, 8, 13; II, 6, 14, 13. INTRODUCTION. XXiX
3Vaman Shastri Islampurkar. Though it is an ancient work, it does not contain Apastamba’s quotations, see Grundriss d. Indo-Ar. Phil. und Altertumsk., II, 8, 8. * Ap. Dh. II, 4, 8, 13; II, 6, 14, 13. INTRODUCTION. XXiX in several other cases he adopts a line of reasoning which fully agrees with that followed in Gaimini’s Mimss4-sdtras. Thus the arguments !, that ‘a revealed text has greater weight than a custom from which a revealed text may be inferred,’ and that ‘no text can be inferred from a custom for which a worldly motive is apparent,’ exactly correspond with the teaching of Gaimini’s Mim4ms4-sdtras I, 3, 3-4. The wording of the passages in the two works does not agree so closely that the one could be called a quotation of the other. But it is evident, that if Apastamba did not know the Mim4msa-sitras of Gaimini, he must have possessed some other very similar work. As to the Vedanta, Apastamba does not mention the name of the school. But Khazdas 22, 23 of the first Pazala of the Dharma-sitra unmistakably contain the chief tenets of the Vedantists, and recommend the acquisition of the knowledge of the Atman as the best means for purifying the souls of sinners. Though these two Khazdas are chiefly filled with quotations, which, as the commentator states, are taken from an Upanishad, still the manner of their selection, as well as Apastamba’s own words in the introductory and concluding Sitras, indicates that he knew not merely the unsystematic speculations contained in the Upanishads and Aranyakas, but a well-defined system of Vedantic philosophy identical with that of Badarayaza’s Brahma-sitras. The fact that Apastamba’s Dharma-s(itra contains indications of the existence of these two schools of philosophy, is significant as the ParvA MimAmsa occurs in one other Dharma-sdtra only, that attributed to Vasish¢sa, and as the name of the Vedanta school is not found in any of the prose treatises on the sacred law. Of non-Vedic works Apastamba mentions the Purdza. The Dharma-sitra not only several times quotes passages from ‘a Purdza’ as authorities for its rules ?, but names in ‘one case the Bhavishyat-pur4za as the particular Puraza from which the quotation is taken*. References to the 1 Ap. Dh. I, 1, 14, 8, 9-10. 2 Ap. Dh. I, 6, 19, 133 1, 10, 29, 7. > Ap. Dh. II, 9, 24, 6. XXX APASTAMBA. Purdza in general are not unfrequent in other Sdtras on the sacred law, and even in older Vedic works. But Apastamba, as far as I know, is the only Sfatrakara who specifies the title of a particular Puraza, and names one which is nearly or quite identical with that of a work existing in the present day, and he is the only one, whose quotations can be shown to be, at least in part, genuine Paurazic utterances.
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.