Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1While it thus appears not incredible that Baudhdyana really was the first Sdtrakdéra of the Taittirtyas, the numerous quotations which his works contain, permit us to form an idea of the extent of the Vedic and profane literature known to him. Among the Vedic works which he adduces as authorities, or otherwise refers to, the three sections of the Taittiriya-veda, the Samhita, the Brahmaza, and the Aramyaka, naturally take the first place. For the Aranyaka he seems to have used the Andhra version, as Dh. S. II, 10, 18, 7, 11 references to the seventy-first Anuvaka of the tenth Prap4zaka occur. Two long passages, Dh. S. I, 2, 4, 3-8; II, 6, 11, 1-8, which apparently have been taken from the Satapatha-brahmaza, testify to his acquaintance with the White Yagur-veda. Baudhayana does not say expressly that he quotes from the Brahmaza of the Vagasaneyins, but Govinda has no hesitation in pointing to the Satapatha as their source. It is remarkable that the fact noticeable in Apastamba’s quotation from the Satapatha reappears here, and that the wording of the two quotations does not fully agree with the printed text of the Brahmavza. The differences in the first passage are, no doubt, partly owing to corruptions and interpolations in Baudh4yana’s text; but that cannot be said of the sécond', References to the SAma-veda and the Sdmans occur repeatedly, and the passage from the Nidana of Bhallavins regarding the geographical extent of true Brah- 1 Professor Eggeling has lately discussed the question of the discrepancies between Apastamba’s quotations from the Brahmana of the Vagasaneyins and the existing text. I can only agree with him that we must wait for a comparison of all those quoted, with both the recensions of the Satapatha, before we draw further inferences from the fact. See Sacred Books of the East, vol, xii, p. xl. xl BAUDHAYANA.
2I can only agree with him that we must wait for a comparison of all those quoted, with both the recensions of the Satapatha, before we draw further inferences from the fact. See Sacred Books of the East, vol, xii, p. xl. xl BAUDHAYANA. manical learning, which Vasisht#a adduces, is given I, 1, 2, 11-12. From the Rig-veda a few expiatory hymns and verses, such as the Aghamarshaaa and the Taratsamandis, are quoted. The Atharva-veda is not referred to by name,’ but the existence of Atharvaza schools may be inferred from the mention made of the vows called Siras, II, 8, 14, 2. Among the authorities on the Sacred Law, mentioned in the Dharma-sftra, Katya I, 2, 3, 46, Maudgalya II, 2, 4, 8, and Aupagandhani II, 2, 3, 33, do not occur in other works of the same class!. Harita, who is mentioned II, 1, 2, 21, and who probably was a teacher of the Maitrayantya school, is named by Vasishtka and Apastamba also. The Gautama who is quoted I, 1, 2, 7 and II, 2, 4, 17, is, as has been shown in the Introduction to Gautama, most probably the author of the still existing Institutes of Gautama. To the arguments for the latter view, adduced there, I may add that two other passages of the Dharma-sitra, II, 6, 11, 15 and 26, point toa close connexion between Baudhayana’s and Gautama’s works. The former of the two Sftras contains, with the exception of one small clause in the beginning, exactly the same description of the duties of a hermit in the forest as that given by Gautama ITI, 26-35. The second Sftra states, just as Gautama’s rule III, 36, that the venerable teacher (4#4ry4z) prescribes one order only, that of the householders. The reason given for this opinion differs, however, according to Baudh4yana, from that adduced in Gautama’s text. The almost literal identity of the first long passage makes it not improbable that Baudh4yana borrowed in this instance also from Gautama without noting the source from which he drew. On the other hand, the argument drawn from the fact that the tenth Adhydya of Prasna IIT has been taken from Gautama’s . Sfatra loses its force since, as I have shown above, it is improbable that the third Prasna formed part of Baudha- 1 Possibly Kasyapa, whose name occurs in a Sloka, I, 11, 21, 2, may also be an ancient teacher to whom Baudhfyana refers. In the Grihya-s{itra a teacher called S<ki is repeatedly quoted, and once, I, 11 (end), his opinion is contrasted with that of Baudh4yana and of Asdrya, i.e, Baudhdyana’s teacher. The Grihya-sfitra refers also to Atreya, KAsakritsna, and Badari. INTRODUCTION. xli yana’s original work. A metrical work on the Sacred Law seems to be quoted II, 2, 4,14-15. For, as the second verse, adduced there, says that the penance for one who
3The Grihya-sfitra refers also to Atreya, KAsakritsna, and Badari. INTRODUCTION. xli yana’s original work. A metrical work on the Sacred Law seems to be quoted II, 2, 4,14-15. For, as the second verse, adduced there, says that the penance for one who - violated his Guru’s bed has been declared above, it seems impossible to assume that the two Slokas belonged to the versified maxims of the Dharma current among the learned Brahmans. If this quotation is not an interpolation, it proves that, side by side with the Dharma-sitras, metrical treatises on the Sacred Law existed in very early times}. One quotation, finally, which gives a verse from the dialogue of the daughters of Usanas and Vréshaparvan seems to have been taken from an epic poem. The verse is actually found in the Mahabharata I, 78, 10, and again 34, where the altercation between Sarmish##4 and Devayani forms part of the Yayatyupakhy4na. Considering what has been said above regarding the state of the text of the Dharmasitra, and our imperfect knowledge of the history of the Mahabharata, it would be hazardous to assert that the verse proves Baudh4yana’s acquaintance with Vy4sa’s great epic. It will be safer to wait for further proofs that it was known to the Sftrakaras, before one bases far-going speculations on this hitherto solitary quotation. The arguments which may be brought forward to show that Baudhayana’s home lay in Southern India are not as strong as those which permit us to determine the native country of Apastamba. The portions of the Sftras, known to me, contain no direct mention of the south except in the desanirzaya or disquisition on the countries, Dharma-sitra I, 1, 2, where certain peculiar customs of the southern Brahmans are enumerated, and some districts of Southern India, e.g. Kalinga, are referred to as barbarous countries which must not be visited by Aryans. These utterances show an acquaintance with the south, but by no means prove that Baudhayana lived there. A more significant fact is that Baudhayana declares, I, 1, 2, 4, ‘going to sea’ to be a custom prevailing among the northern Brahmans, and afterwards, II, 1, 22, places that act at the head of the Pata- * See also West and Biihler, Digest of Hindu Law Cases, p. xxvii, and ed. xiii BAUDHAYANA.
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.
1While it thus appears not incredible that Baudhdyana really was the first Sdtrakdéra of the Taittirtyas, the numerous quotations which his works contain, permit us to form an idea of the extent of the Vedic and profane literature known to him. Among the Vedic works which he adduces as authorities, or otherwise refers to, the three sections of the Taittiriya-veda, the Samhita, the Brahmaza, and the Aramyaka, naturally take the first place. For the Aranyaka he seems to have used the Andhra version, as Dh. S. II, 10, 18, 7, 11 references to the seventy-first Anuvaka of the tenth Prap4zaka occur. Two long passages, Dh. S. I, 2, 4, 3-8; II, 6, 11, 1-8, which apparently have been taken from the Satapatha-brahmaza, testify to his acquaintance with the White Yagur-veda. Baudhayana does not say expressly that he quotes from the Brahmaza of the Vagasaneyins, but Govinda has no hesitation in pointing to the Satapatha as their source. It is remarkable that the fact noticeable in Apastamba’s quotation from the Satapatha reappears here, and that the wording of the two quotations does not fully agree with the printed text of the Brahmavza. The differences in the first passage are, no doubt, partly owing to corruptions and interpolations in Baudh4yana’s text; but that cannot be said of the sécond', References to the SAma-veda and the Sdmans occur repeatedly, and the passage from the Nidana of Bhallavins regarding the geographical extent of true Brah- 1 Professor Eggeling has lately discussed the question of the discrepancies between Apastamba’s quotations from the Brahmana of the Vagasaneyins and the existing text. I can only agree with him that we must wait for a comparison of all those quoted, with both the recensions of the Satapatha, before we draw further inferences from the fact. See Sacred Books of the East, vol, xii, p. xl. xl BAUDHAYANA.
2I can only agree with him that we must wait for a comparison of all those quoted, with both the recensions of the Satapatha, before we draw further inferences from the fact. See Sacred Books of the East, vol, xii, p. xl. xl BAUDHAYANA. manical learning, which Vasisht#a adduces, is given I, 1, 2, 11-12. From the Rig-veda a few expiatory hymns and verses, such as the Aghamarshaaa and the Taratsamandis, are quoted. The Atharva-veda is not referred to by name,’ but the existence of Atharvaza schools may be inferred from the mention made of the vows called Siras, II, 8, 14, 2. Among the authorities on the Sacred Law, mentioned in the Dharma-sftra, Katya I, 2, 3, 46, Maudgalya II, 2, 4, 8, and Aupagandhani II, 2, 3, 33, do not occur in other works of the same class!. Harita, who is mentioned II, 1, 2, 21, and who probably was a teacher of the Maitrayantya school, is named by Vasishtka and Apastamba also. The Gautama who is quoted I, 1, 2, 7 and II, 2, 4, 17, is, as has been shown in the Introduction to Gautama, most probably the author of the still existing Institutes of Gautama. To the arguments for the latter view, adduced there, I may add that two other passages of the Dharma-sitra, II, 6, 11, 15 and 26, point toa close connexion between Baudhayana’s and Gautama’s works. The former of the two Sftras contains, with the exception of one small clause in the beginning, exactly the same description of the duties of a hermit in the forest as that given by Gautama ITI, 26-35. The second Sftra states, just as Gautama’s rule III, 36, that the venerable teacher (4#4ry4z) prescribes one order only, that of the householders. The reason given for this opinion differs, however, according to Baudh4yana, from that adduced in Gautama’s text. The almost literal identity of the first long passage makes it not improbable that Baudh4yana borrowed in this instance also from Gautama without noting the source from which he drew. On the other hand, the argument drawn from the fact that the tenth Adhydya of Prasna IIT has been taken from Gautama’s . Sfatra loses its force since, as I have shown above, it is improbable that the third Prasna formed part of Baudha- 1 Possibly Kasyapa, whose name occurs in a Sloka, I, 11, 21, 2, may also be an ancient teacher to whom Baudhfyana refers. In the Grihya-s{itra a teacher called S<ki is repeatedly quoted, and once, I, 11 (end), his opinion is contrasted with that of Baudh4yana and of Asdrya, i.e, Baudhdyana’s teacher. The Grihya-sfitra refers also to Atreya, KAsakritsna, and Badari. INTRODUCTION. xli yana’s original work. A metrical work on the Sacred Law seems to be quoted II, 2, 4,14-15. For, as the second verse, adduced there, says that the penance for one who
3The Grihya-sfitra refers also to Atreya, KAsakritsna, and Badari. INTRODUCTION. xli yana’s original work. A metrical work on the Sacred Law seems to be quoted II, 2, 4,14-15. For, as the second verse, adduced there, says that the penance for one who - violated his Guru’s bed has been declared above, it seems impossible to assume that the two Slokas belonged to the versified maxims of the Dharma current among the learned Brahmans. If this quotation is not an interpolation, it proves that, side by side with the Dharma-sitras, metrical treatises on the Sacred Law existed in very early times}. One quotation, finally, which gives a verse from the dialogue of the daughters of Usanas and Vréshaparvan seems to have been taken from an epic poem. The verse is actually found in the Mahabharata I, 78, 10, and again 34, where the altercation between Sarmish##4 and Devayani forms part of the Yayatyupakhy4na. Considering what has been said above regarding the state of the text of the Dharmasitra, and our imperfect knowledge of the history of the Mahabharata, it would be hazardous to assert that the verse proves Baudh4yana’s acquaintance with Vy4sa’s great epic. It will be safer to wait for further proofs that it was known to the Sftrakaras, before one bases far-going speculations on this hitherto solitary quotation. The arguments which may be brought forward to show that Baudhayana’s home lay in Southern India are not as strong as those which permit us to determine the native country of Apastamba. The portions of the Sftras, known to me, contain no direct mention of the south except in the desanirzaya or disquisition on the countries, Dharma-sitra I, 1, 2, where certain peculiar customs of the southern Brahmans are enumerated, and some districts of Southern India, e.g. Kalinga, are referred to as barbarous countries which must not be visited by Aryans. These utterances show an acquaintance with the south, but by no means prove that Baudhayana lived there. A more significant fact is that Baudhayana declares, I, 1, 2, 4, ‘going to sea’ to be a custom prevailing among the northern Brahmans, and afterwards, II, 1, 22, places that act at the head of the Pata- * See also West and Biihler, Digest of Hindu Law Cases, p. xxvii, and ed. xiii BAUDHAYANA.
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.