Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Further, the fact that the last six Prasnas do not show everywhere the same style and language, makes it probable that the additions were made at different times and by different persons. The Dharma-sitra seems to have undergone exactly the same fate as the Gréhya-sftra. It will be obvious even to the readers of the translation that its fourth Prasna is a later addition. It consists of two parts. The first, which ends with the fourth Adhydya, treats of penances, both public and secret ones. The second, Adhydyas 5-8, describes the means of obtaining siddhi, the fulfilment of one’s desires, and recommends for this purpose the offering of the Gazahomas after a previous sanctification of the worshipper by means of a course of austerities. The first part is perfectly superfluous, as the subject of penances has already been discussed in the first sections of the second Prasna, and again in chapters 4-10 of the third Prasna. Its rules sometimes contradict those given before, and in other cases, e.g. IV, 2, 10-12, are mere repetitions of previous statements. The introduction of the means of gaining siddhi, on the other hand, is without a parallel in other Dharma-sitras, and the subject is entirely foreign to the scope of such works. Its treatment, too, shows that chapters 5-8 do not belong to the author of the bulk of the Dharma-sittra. For the description of the preparatory ‘restraints’ or austerities contains somewhat more detailed rules for a number of penances, e.g. the Krikkhras and the X4ndrayama, which have already been described in the preceding Prasnas. Moreover, the style and the language of the whole fourth Prasna are very different from those of the three preceding ones, and the differences observable are exactly the same as those between the first five and the last four Prasnas of the Grthya-sitra. The epic Sloka nearly throughout replaces the aphoristic prose, and the common slipshod Sanskrit of the Purazas appears instead of the archaic forms. Finally, the fourth Prasna is divided into [14] c XXXIV BAUDHAYANA, Adhyayas, not into the Kazdikas or Khandas and Adhydyas which are found in the first two Prasnas.
2Finally, the fourth Prasna is divided into [14] c XXXIV BAUDHAYANA, Adhyayas, not into the Kazdikas or Khandas and Adhydyas which are found in the first two Prasnas. This latter peculiarity is also observable in the third Prasna, and raises a suspicion against the genuineness of that part also. For, though the third Prasna in style and language resembles the first two, it is hard to believe that the author should, for no apparent reason, suddenly have changed the manner of dividing his work towards its end. This suspicion is further strengthened by two other circumstances. First, Prasnas I-II really exhaust the discussion of the whole Dharma, and the third offers supplementary information only on some points which have been touched upon previously. Secondly, several Adhydyas of Prasna III seem to have been borrowed from other works, or to be abstracts from them. Thus the tenth chapter has cer- _ tainly been taken from the Gautamiya Dharmasdstra, the sixth bears a very close and suspicious resemblance to Vishnu XLVIII}, and the third looks very much like a short summary of the doctrine of Vikhanas, whose lost Sdtra contained the original rule of the order of the Vaikhanasas or hermits, living in the forest. These circumstances justify, it seems to me, the assumption that Baudhdyana’s original Dharma-sitra consisted, like Apastamba’s, of two Prasnas only, and that it received, through followers of his school, two separate additions, first in very ancient times Prasna III, where the style of the master is strictly followed, and later Prasna IV, where the language and phraseology of the metrical Smritis are adopted. It ought to be noted that GovindasvAmin, too, does not take the whole of the four Prasnas for Baudha« yana’s composition. With respect to several passages? where Baudhdyana’s name is introduced in order to give weight to the rules, he says that the Sftras may belong to ‘a pupil” Ido not think that the criterion which he uses can be relied on in every case, because oriental authors without doubt occasionally speak of themselves as of third 1 See also Jolly, Sacred Books of the East, vol. vii, p. xix, 2 E. g. Dharma-siitra III, 5, 7. INTRODUCTION. XXXV
3vii, p. xix, 2 E. g. Dharma-siitra III, 5, 7. INTRODUCTION. XXXV persons. But the fact that the commentator, though an orthodox Hindu, had misgivings as to the genuineness of portions of the work, is not without significance. It seems also that even the first two Prasnas are not quite free from interpolations. Thus the Kavdik4s on the Tarpama? are certainly much enlarged by additions, the verse at I, 5, 11, 36, a repetition of I, 5, 9, 5, and some prose quotations which are introduced by the words athapy udaharanti, ‘now they quote also,’ standing usually before verses only, are at least suspicious. That the genuineness of many single passages should be doubtful, is no more than might be expected, not only on account of the separation of the Dharma-sitra from the other parts of the Kalpa, but also because the work, as we shall see further on, remained for a long time without the protection of a commentary. The practical conclusion to be drawn from this state of things is that the greatest caution must be observed in using the Baudhayana Dharma-sitra for historical purposes, and that it will be advisable to draw no inferences regarding Baudhayana’s relation to other teachers and schools from the last two Prasnas, and not to trust too much to historical inferences drawn from single passages of the first two. The position which Baudhayana occupies among the teachers of the Taittiriya-veda has already been discussed in the Introduction to Apastamba. It has been shown that according to the Brahmanical tradition preserved by Mahadeva, the commentator of the Hirazyakesi-sAtras, he composed the first Sfitra for the followers of his Sakha, Internal and external evidence has also been adduced, proving that he certainly was more ancient than Apastamba and Hirazyakesin. It is now possible to bring forward some further facts bearing on these points. First, in the section on the Tarpawa, the libations of water offered to various deities, Rishis, and the manes, II, 5, 9, 14, Kaxzva Baudhdyana receives his share immediately after the Rzshis of the Veda and before Apastamba, the Sftrakdra, and 1 Bandhayana Dharma-sttra II, 5, 8-9. C2 XXXVI 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.
1Further, the fact that the last six Prasnas do not show everywhere the same style and language, makes it probable that the additions were made at different times and by different persons. The Dharma-sitra seems to have undergone exactly the same fate as the Gréhya-sftra. It will be obvious even to the readers of the translation that its fourth Prasna is a later addition. It consists of two parts. The first, which ends with the fourth Adhydya, treats of penances, both public and secret ones. The second, Adhydyas 5-8, describes the means of obtaining siddhi, the fulfilment of one’s desires, and recommends for this purpose the offering of the Gazahomas after a previous sanctification of the worshipper by means of a course of austerities. The first part is perfectly superfluous, as the subject of penances has already been discussed in the first sections of the second Prasna, and again in chapters 4-10 of the third Prasna. Its rules sometimes contradict those given before, and in other cases, e.g. IV, 2, 10-12, are mere repetitions of previous statements. The introduction of the means of gaining siddhi, on the other hand, is without a parallel in other Dharma-sitras, and the subject is entirely foreign to the scope of such works. Its treatment, too, shows that chapters 5-8 do not belong to the author of the bulk of the Dharma-sittra. For the description of the preparatory ‘restraints’ or austerities contains somewhat more detailed rules for a number of penances, e.g. the Krikkhras and the X4ndrayama, which have already been described in the preceding Prasnas. Moreover, the style and the language of the whole fourth Prasna are very different from those of the three preceding ones, and the differences observable are exactly the same as those between the first five and the last four Prasnas of the Grthya-sitra. The epic Sloka nearly throughout replaces the aphoristic prose, and the common slipshod Sanskrit of the Purazas appears instead of the archaic forms. Finally, the fourth Prasna is divided into [14] c XXXIV BAUDHAYANA, Adhyayas, not into the Kazdikas or Khandas and Adhydyas which are found in the first two Prasnas.
2Finally, the fourth Prasna is divided into [14] c XXXIV BAUDHAYANA, Adhyayas, not into the Kazdikas or Khandas and Adhydyas which are found in the first two Prasnas. This latter peculiarity is also observable in the third Prasna, and raises a suspicion against the genuineness of that part also. For, though the third Prasna in style and language resembles the first two, it is hard to believe that the author should, for no apparent reason, suddenly have changed the manner of dividing his work towards its end. This suspicion is further strengthened by two other circumstances. First, Prasnas I-II really exhaust the discussion of the whole Dharma, and the third offers supplementary information only on some points which have been touched upon previously. Secondly, several Adhydyas of Prasna III seem to have been borrowed from other works, or to be abstracts from them. Thus the tenth chapter has cer- _ tainly been taken from the Gautamiya Dharmasdstra, the sixth bears a very close and suspicious resemblance to Vishnu XLVIII}, and the third looks very much like a short summary of the doctrine of Vikhanas, whose lost Sdtra contained the original rule of the order of the Vaikhanasas or hermits, living in the forest. These circumstances justify, it seems to me, the assumption that Baudhdyana’s original Dharma-sitra consisted, like Apastamba’s, of two Prasnas only, and that it received, through followers of his school, two separate additions, first in very ancient times Prasna III, where the style of the master is strictly followed, and later Prasna IV, where the language and phraseology of the metrical Smritis are adopted. It ought to be noted that GovindasvAmin, too, does not take the whole of the four Prasnas for Baudha« yana’s composition. With respect to several passages? where Baudhdyana’s name is introduced in order to give weight to the rules, he says that the Sftras may belong to ‘a pupil” Ido not think that the criterion which he uses can be relied on in every case, because oriental authors without doubt occasionally speak of themselves as of third 1 See also Jolly, Sacred Books of the East, vol. vii, p. xix, 2 E. g. Dharma-siitra III, 5, 7. INTRODUCTION. XXXV
3vii, p. xix, 2 E. g. Dharma-siitra III, 5, 7. INTRODUCTION. XXXV persons. But the fact that the commentator, though an orthodox Hindu, had misgivings as to the genuineness of portions of the work, is not without significance. It seems also that even the first two Prasnas are not quite free from interpolations. Thus the Kavdik4s on the Tarpama? are certainly much enlarged by additions, the verse at I, 5, 11, 36, a repetition of I, 5, 9, 5, and some prose quotations which are introduced by the words athapy udaharanti, ‘now they quote also,’ standing usually before verses only, are at least suspicious. That the genuineness of many single passages should be doubtful, is no more than might be expected, not only on account of the separation of the Dharma-sitra from the other parts of the Kalpa, but also because the work, as we shall see further on, remained for a long time without the protection of a commentary. The practical conclusion to be drawn from this state of things is that the greatest caution must be observed in using the Baudhayana Dharma-sitra for historical purposes, and that it will be advisable to draw no inferences regarding Baudhayana’s relation to other teachers and schools from the last two Prasnas, and not to trust too much to historical inferences drawn from single passages of the first two. The position which Baudhayana occupies among the teachers of the Taittiriya-veda has already been discussed in the Introduction to Apastamba. It has been shown that according to the Brahmanical tradition preserved by Mahadeva, the commentator of the Hirazyakesi-sAtras, he composed the first Sfitra for the followers of his Sakha, Internal and external evidence has also been adduced, proving that he certainly was more ancient than Apastamba and Hirazyakesin. It is now possible to bring forward some further facts bearing on these points. First, in the section on the Tarpawa, the libations of water offered to various deities, Rishis, and the manes, II, 5, 9, 14, Kaxzva Baudhdyana receives his share immediately after the Rzshis of the Veda and before Apastamba, the Sftrakdra, and 1 Bandhayana Dharma-sttra II, 5, 8-9. C2 XXXVI 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.