Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1A 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. niyas, the more serious offences causing loss of caste. It is probable that by the latter rule he wished to show his standpoint as a southerner. But the most conclusive argument in favour of the southern origin of the Baudh4yaniyas is that they, like the Apastambiyas and all other adherents of the Taittiriya schools, are entirely confined to the Dekhan, and are not found among the indigenous subdivisions of the Brahmans in Central and Northern India. This fact is, if not explicitly stated, at least implied by the passage of the Mahdraava quoted in the Introduction to Apastamba!, It is proved by the present state of things, and by the evidence of the land grants of the southern dynasties, several of which have been made in favour of Baudhayaniyas. Thus we find a grant of Bukkardya, the well-known ruler of Vigayanagara®, dated Sakasamvat 1276 or 1354-5 A.D., in which a Brahmaaa, studying the Baudh4yantya-sitra, is mentioned as the donee of a village in Maisdr. Again, in an inscription of Nandivarman Pallavamalla, which its editor, the Rev. Mr. Foulkes, places in the ninth century A.D.%, a considerable number of Brahmawas of the Pravakana-sitra are named as recipients of the royal bounty, together with some followers of the Apastambha‘ school. As we have seen that Baudhayana is called in the Grzhya-sdtra the Pravafanakara, it is not doubtful that the Prava#anasitra of this inscription is the Sdtra of his school. The villages which the grantees received from Nandivarman were situated on the P4lar river in the Kittdr districts of the Madras Presidency. Besides, the interesting tradition which asserts that MAdhava-Sayama, the great commentator of the Vedas, was a Baudhdyaniya® is another point which may be brought forward as evidence for the location of the school in Southern India. Further, 1 Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, p. xxx; see also L. von Schréder, Maitrayantya SamhitA, p. xxvii. . 3 Journal of the Bombay Braych of the Royal Asiatic Society, XII, 349-351. ® Indian Antiquary, VIII, 273-284. * As all the older inscriptions hitherto published give Apastambha instead of Apastamba, I am now inclined to consider the former as the original form of the name, 5 Burnell, Tanjore Catalogue, p. 20 b, remarks on no. CCXXVI. INTRODUCTION. xhiii
2® Indian Antiquary, VIII, 273-284. * As all the older inscriptions hitherto published give Apastambha instead of Apastamba, I am now inclined to consider the former as the original form of the name, 5 Burnell, Tanjore Catalogue, p. 20 b, remarks on no. CCXXVI. INTRODUCTION. xhiii it must not be forgotten that most and the best MSS. of Baudh4yana’s Sitras are found in Southern India. There are also some faint indications that the Andhra country is the particular district to which Baudhayana belonged. For his repeated references to voyages by sea and his rule regarding the duty payable on goods imported by sea show that he must have lived in a coast district where sea-borne trade flourished, and the fact that he uses the Andhra recension of the Taittirtya Arazyaka makes it probable that he was an inhabitant of the eastern coast. My estimate of the distance between Baudhayana and Apastamba and of that between the latter and the historical period of India has been given in the Introduction to Apastamba, pp. xxii and xliii, and I have nothing further to add on that subject. The oldest witness for the existence of the Srauta-sitra of Baudhayana is its commentator Bhavasvamin, whom Dr. Burnell places in the eighth century A.D. The Dharma-sitra is first quoted by Vigfanesvara, circiter 1080-1100 A.D. Several of the passages adduced by him are, however, not traceable in the MSS. As regards the materials on which the translation is based, I had at my disposal six MSS. of the text and two copies of Govindasv4min’s commentary, the Bodhayaniya-dharmavivaraza}, one of which (C. I.) gives the text also. These MSS. belong to two chief groups, a northern and a southern one. The northern group contains two subdivisions. The first comprises (1) D., a MS. bought by me for the Government of Bombay at Ahmad4bdd (no. 6 of the Dekhan College collection of 1868-69), and about one hundred or one hundred and fifty years old; (2) P., an old MS. of my own collection, bought in 1865 at Puwa; (3, 4) B. and Bh., two modern transcripts, made for me in Baroda and Bombay. Among these, D. alone is of real value, as P., B., and Bh. faithfully reproduce all its clerical errors and add a good many new ones. The second subdivision of the northern group is represented by K.,a modern transcript, made for 1 Tt ought to be noted that in the south of India the forms Bodhayana and Bodh4yantya are invariably used for Baudhayana and Baudhayantya. But it seems to me that the southerners are in error, as the affix dyana requires vriddhi in the first syllable, xliv BAUDHAYANA,
3But it seems to me that the southerners are in error, as the affix dyana requires vriddhi in the first syllable, xliv BAUDHAYANA, the Government of Bombay at Kolhapur in the southern Marazha country (Elphinstone College collection of 1867- 68, Class VI, no. 2). The MSS. of the northern group, which give the vulgata current since the times of Nilakaxtha (1650 A.D.) and Mitramisra (circiter 1700 A.D.) in Western and Central India, can be easily recognised by the omission of the third Adhy4aya of Prasna IV, and by their placing IV, 5, 1 b-25 after IV, 7, 7. One of the chief differences between K. and the other MSS. of the northern group is the omission of II, 5, 8, 4-II, 6, 11, 15 in the latter. The southern group of MSS. is formed by M.,a slovenly Devanagari transcript of a Grantha MS., no. +6,4% of the Madras Government collection’, and by the text of C. I., a Devandgart copy of the MS. of Govindasvamin’s commentary, presented by Dr. Burnell to the India Office library? The second copy of the commentary, C. T., a Telugu paper MS. from Tanjore, I owe to the kindness of Dr. Burnell. As might be expected, on account of the southern origin of the Baudhayaniya school, M. gives on the whole the best form of the text. It also carefully marks the KamdikAs? in the first two Prasnas, ignoring the Adhy4yas altogether, and contains at the end of each Prasna the first words of each Kazaika, beginning with the last and ending with the first, after the fashion which prevails in the MSS. of the Taittiriya Samhit4, Brahmava, and Arazyaka. Very close to M. comes Govinda’s copy, where, however, as in most northern MSS., the Adhyayas alone are marked. It is, however, perfectly certain that in some very difficult passages, which are disfigured by ancient corruptions, he corrected the text conjecturally*. In a certain number of cases the northern MSS. present better and older readings than M. and C.I.5 Under these 1 Taylor, Catalogue Raisonnée(!), I, p. 190. The clerical errors in my transcript are exceedingly numerous, and mostly owing to the faulty rendering of the value of the Grantha characters, which seem not to have been familiar to the copyist. There are also some small lacunae, and the last leaf has been lost. 3 See Burnell, Catalogue of a Collection of MSS., p. 35, no. CXVII. * IT alone am responsible for the title Kandika, given to the small sections. M. marks only the figures. D. and the better northern MSS. show only breaks at the end of the Kandik4s and their first words at the end of the Prasnas. * See e.g. Dharma-siittra I, 2, 3, 35, note. ® See e.g. Dharma-sittra I, 5,11, 35; II, 1, 2, 36; II, 2, 3, 3; II, 2, 4,103 TI, 3, 6, 3; II, 7,12, 5; III, 9, 2. INTRODUCTION, xlv
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.
1A 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. niyas, the more serious offences causing loss of caste. It is probable that by the latter rule he wished to show his standpoint as a southerner. But the most conclusive argument in favour of the southern origin of the Baudh4yaniyas is that they, like the Apastambiyas and all other adherents of the Taittiriya schools, are entirely confined to the Dekhan, and are not found among the indigenous subdivisions of the Brahmans in Central and Northern India. This fact is, if not explicitly stated, at least implied by the passage of the Mahdraava quoted in the Introduction to Apastamba!, It is proved by the present state of things, and by the evidence of the land grants of the southern dynasties, several of which have been made in favour of Baudhayaniyas. Thus we find a grant of Bukkardya, the well-known ruler of Vigayanagara®, dated Sakasamvat 1276 or 1354-5 A.D., in which a Brahmaaa, studying the Baudh4yantya-sitra, is mentioned as the donee of a village in Maisdr. Again, in an inscription of Nandivarman Pallavamalla, which its editor, the Rev. Mr. Foulkes, places in the ninth century A.D.%, a considerable number of Brahmawas of the Pravakana-sitra are named as recipients of the royal bounty, together with some followers of the Apastambha‘ school. As we have seen that Baudhayana is called in the Grzhya-sdtra the Pravafanakara, it is not doubtful that the Prava#anasitra of this inscription is the Sdtra of his school. The villages which the grantees received from Nandivarman were situated on the P4lar river in the Kittdr districts of the Madras Presidency. Besides, the interesting tradition which asserts that MAdhava-Sayama, the great commentator of the Vedas, was a Baudhdyaniya® is another point which may be brought forward as evidence for the location of the school in Southern India. Further, 1 Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, p. xxx; see also L. von Schréder, Maitrayantya SamhitA, p. xxvii. . 3 Journal of the Bombay Braych of the Royal Asiatic Society, XII, 349-351. ® Indian Antiquary, VIII, 273-284. * As all the older inscriptions hitherto published give Apastambha instead of Apastamba, I am now inclined to consider the former as the original form of the name, 5 Burnell, Tanjore Catalogue, p. 20 b, remarks on no. CCXXVI. INTRODUCTION. xhiii
2® Indian Antiquary, VIII, 273-284. * As all the older inscriptions hitherto published give Apastambha instead of Apastamba, I am now inclined to consider the former as the original form of the name, 5 Burnell, Tanjore Catalogue, p. 20 b, remarks on no. CCXXVI. INTRODUCTION. xhiii it must not be forgotten that most and the best MSS. of Baudh4yana’s Sitras are found in Southern India. There are also some faint indications that the Andhra country is the particular district to which Baudhayana belonged. For his repeated references to voyages by sea and his rule regarding the duty payable on goods imported by sea show that he must have lived in a coast district where sea-borne trade flourished, and the fact that he uses the Andhra recension of the Taittirtya Arazyaka makes it probable that he was an inhabitant of the eastern coast. My estimate of the distance between Baudhayana and Apastamba and of that between the latter and the historical period of India has been given in the Introduction to Apastamba, pp. xxii and xliii, and I have nothing further to add on that subject. The oldest witness for the existence of the Srauta-sitra of Baudhayana is its commentator Bhavasvamin, whom Dr. Burnell places in the eighth century A.D. The Dharma-sitra is first quoted by Vigfanesvara, circiter 1080-1100 A.D. Several of the passages adduced by him are, however, not traceable in the MSS. As regards the materials on which the translation is based, I had at my disposal six MSS. of the text and two copies of Govindasv4min’s commentary, the Bodhayaniya-dharmavivaraza}, one of which (C. I.) gives the text also. These MSS. belong to two chief groups, a northern and a southern one. The northern group contains two subdivisions. The first comprises (1) D., a MS. bought by me for the Government of Bombay at Ahmad4bdd (no. 6 of the Dekhan College collection of 1868-69), and about one hundred or one hundred and fifty years old; (2) P., an old MS. of my own collection, bought in 1865 at Puwa; (3, 4) B. and Bh., two modern transcripts, made for me in Baroda and Bombay. Among these, D. alone is of real value, as P., B., and Bh. faithfully reproduce all its clerical errors and add a good many new ones. The second subdivision of the northern group is represented by K.,a modern transcript, made for 1 Tt ought to be noted that in the south of India the forms Bodhayana and Bodh4yantya are invariably used for Baudhayana and Baudhayantya. But it seems to me that the southerners are in error, as the affix dyana requires vriddhi in the first syllable, xliv BAUDHAYANA,
3But it seems to me that the southerners are in error, as the affix dyana requires vriddhi in the first syllable, xliv BAUDHAYANA, the Government of Bombay at Kolhapur in the southern Marazha country (Elphinstone College collection of 1867- 68, Class VI, no. 2). The MSS. of the northern group, which give the vulgata current since the times of Nilakaxtha (1650 A.D.) and Mitramisra (circiter 1700 A.D.) in Western and Central India, can be easily recognised by the omission of the third Adhy4aya of Prasna IV, and by their placing IV, 5, 1 b-25 after IV, 7, 7. One of the chief differences between K. and the other MSS. of the northern group is the omission of II, 5, 8, 4-II, 6, 11, 15 in the latter. The southern group of MSS. is formed by M.,a slovenly Devanagari transcript of a Grantha MS., no. +6,4% of the Madras Government collection’, and by the text of C. I., a Devandgart copy of the MS. of Govindasvamin’s commentary, presented by Dr. Burnell to the India Office library? The second copy of the commentary, C. T., a Telugu paper MS. from Tanjore, I owe to the kindness of Dr. Burnell. As might be expected, on account of the southern origin of the Baudhayaniya school, M. gives on the whole the best form of the text. It also carefully marks the KamdikAs? in the first two Prasnas, ignoring the Adhy4yas altogether, and contains at the end of each Prasna the first words of each Kazaika, beginning with the last and ending with the first, after the fashion which prevails in the MSS. of the Taittiriya Samhit4, Brahmava, and Arazyaka. Very close to M. comes Govinda’s copy, where, however, as in most northern MSS., the Adhyayas alone are marked. It is, however, perfectly certain that in some very difficult passages, which are disfigured by ancient corruptions, he corrected the text conjecturally*. In a certain number of cases the northern MSS. present better and older readings than M. and C.I.5 Under these 1 Taylor, Catalogue Raisonnée(!), I, p. 190. The clerical errors in my transcript are exceedingly numerous, and mostly owing to the faulty rendering of the value of the Grantha characters, which seem not to have been familiar to the copyist. There are also some small lacunae, and the last leaf has been lost. 3 See Burnell, Catalogue of a Collection of MSS., p. 35, no. CXVII. * IT alone am responsible for the title Kandika, given to the small sections. M. marks only the figures. D. and the better northern MSS. show only breaks at the end of the Kandik4s and their first words at the end of the Prasnas. * See e.g. Dharma-siittra I, 2, 3, 35, note. ® See e.g. Dharma-sittra I, 5,11, 35; II, 1, 2, 36; II, 2, 3, 3; II, 2, 4,103 TI, 3, 6, 3; II, 7,12, 5; III, 9, 2. INTRODUCTION, xlv
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.