(Successors of Bharadvaf a down to fellow-pupil of Apastamba, number unknown.) (Successors after the schism down to the present day.)
Apastamba, 3rd Sutrakara, and founder of A pastamba-/htra«a,
(Successors of Apastamba down to fellow-pupil of SatyasharfAa Hirawyakeiin, number
unknown.) (Successors of Apastamba down to the present day.)
Satyftshfc/Aa Hirattyak&rin, 4th Sutrakara, and founder of Hirawyakeji-
(Successors of Satyasharftia Hirawyakejin down to the present day.) After the schism of Satyasha^Aa Hirawyake^in the pedigree has not been con- tinned, though Mahadeva asserts that several other Sutrakaras arose. But to •A-ork it out further would be useless.
3 See Appendix II to Part I of my second edition of Apastamba's Dharma- sutra, p. 117 seqq.
Introduction. Xxv
Gr/hya-sutra that a Brahmawa must, ordinarily, be initiated in his seventh year, while the rule of the Dharma-sutra, which is identical with Ap. Dh. I, i, i, 18, prescribes that the ceremony shall take place in the eighth year after conception. The commentators, Matmlatta on the Grthya.- sGtra and Mahadeva on the Dharma-sutra, both state that the rule of the Grzhya-sutra refers to the seventh year after birth, and, therefore, in substance agrees with the Dharma-sutra. They are no doubt right. But the differ- ence 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 Hira«yake^i Grzhya-sutra, which is much longer than Apastamba's, includes a con- siderable amount of matter which refers to the sacred law, and which is repeated in the Dharma-sutra. According to a statement which I have heard from several learned Brah- mawas, the followers of Hira;/yake.nn, when pronouncing the sawkalpa or solemn pledge to perform a ceremony, declare themselves to be members of the Hirawyakeji school that forms a subdivision of Apastamba's (apastam- bantargatahirawyak&yLyakhadhyayi . . . aham). But I have not been able to find these words in the books treating of the ritual of the Hira«yake.rins, such as the Mahejabha//!. 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 l. The distance in time between the two teachers is probably not so great as that between Apastamba and Baudhayana, as Mahadeva mentions no intermediate Sutrakara between them. Still it is probably not less than 100 or 150 years.
The results of the r.bove investigation which show that
the origin of the Apastamba school fails in the middle
of the Sutra period of the Black Ya^ur-veda, and that
its Sutras 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 Grihya- sfitra of the Hirawyakejins 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 Sutras, and especially in the Dharma-sutra. We find that all the four Vedas are quoted or referred to. The three old ones, the ftik, Ya^s, and Saman, are mentioned both separately and collectively by the name trayi vidya, i.e. threefold sacred science, and the fourth is called not Atharvangirasa^, as is done in most ancient Sutras, but Atharva-veda l. The quotations from the Rik and Saman arc not very numerous. But a passage from the ninth MaWala of the former, which is referred to Dh. I, i, 3, 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 ad- herent of the Black Ya^oir-veda, he quotes it, especially in the .Srauta-sutra, very frequently, and he adduces not only texts from the Mantra-sawhita, but also from the Taittirlya- brahmawa and Ara/zyaka. The most important quotations from the latter work occur Dh. II, 2, 3, i6-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 Prapa///aka of the recension of the Arawyaka which is current among the Andhra Brahmawas 2. 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 Ya^ur-veda, too, is quoted frequently in the
vSrauta-sutra and once in the section on Dharma by the
title Va^asaneyaka, while twice its Brahma«a, the Va^a-
saneyi-brahmawa, 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 suf-
ficient resemblance to allow us to identify the passage
which Apastamba meant, but differs from the .Satapatha-
1 A p. Dh. II, n, 29, 12.
a The Taittiriya Arawyaka exists in three recensions, the Kaw/a/a, Dravu/a, and the Andhra, the first of which has been commented on by Sayawa.
Introduction. Xxv11
brahmawa in many details l. The cause of these discrepancies remains doubtful for the present 2. As regards the Atharva- veda, Apastamba gives, besides the reference mentioned above and a second to the Ahgirasa-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 Brahma#a, who really deserves the title of an atithi, or guest 4. It is true that Apastamba, in the passage referred to, does not say that his rule is based on the Atharva- veda. He merely says that a Brahmawa is his authority. But it seems, nevertheless, certain that by the expression a Brahmawa, the Brahma//a-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-sutra contains one, is, therefore, of some interest.
Besides these Vedic texts5, Apastamba mentions, also, the Ahgas 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 6. The number is the same as that which is considered the correct one in our days 7.
As the Dharma-sutra 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 A&iryas mentioned
are Eka, Ka«va, Ka«va, Ku«ika, Kutsa, Kautsa, Push-
1 Compare on this point Professor Eggeling's remarks in Sacred Books of the East, vol. xii, p. xxxix seqq.
See the passage from the .^arattavyuhabhashya given below, ver. 10.
Ap. Dh. I, 2, 2, 2. * Ap. Dh. II, 3, 7, 12-17.
Some more are quoted in the .Srauta-sfitra, see Professor Gaibe in the Gurupiyakaumudi, p. 33 scqq.
Ap. Dh. II, 4, 8, 10.
See also Max Mliller, Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., p. 1 1 1.
XXVlii APASTAMBA.
karasadi. Varshyayawi, JSVetaketu, and Harita1, Some of these persons, like Harita and Ka«va, are known to have composed Sutras on the sacred law, and fragments or modified versions of their works are still in existence, while Kawva, Kautsa, Pushkarasadi or Paushkarasadi, as the grammatically correct form of the name is, and Varshyayawi are quoted in the Nirukta, the Prati-rakhyas, and the Varttikas on P£#ini as authorities on phonetics, etymology, and grammar 2. Ka«va, finally, is considered the author of the still existing Kalpa-sutras of the Kawva school connected with the White Ya^ur-veda. It seems not improbable that most of these teachers were authors of complete sets of Ahgas. Their position in Vedic literature, however, except as far as Ka«va, Harita, and .SVetaketu are concerned, is difficult to define, and the occurrence of their names throws less light on the antiquity of the Apas- tambiya school than might be expected. Regarding Harita it must, however, be noticed that he is one of the oldest authors of Sutras, that he was an adherent of the Maitrayamya vSakha 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 Purva or Karma Mimawsa 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 Akshapada. In two passages 4 he settles contested points on the authority of those who know the Nyaya, i. e. the Purva M!ma;«sa, and
1 Ap. Dh. 1,6, 19, 3-8; I, 10, 28, 1-2; 1,4, 13,10; 1,6, 18,2; 1,6, 19, 12;
I, 10, 28, 5, 16; I, 10, 29, 12-16. a Max Mtiller, loc. cit., p. 142.
3 A Dharma-sfitra, ascribed to this teacher, has been recovered of late, by Mr. Vaman Shastrf Islampnrkar. Though it is an ancient work, it does not contain Apastamba's quotations, see Grundriss d. Indo-Ar. Phil, und Altertumsk.,
II, 8, 8.
4 Ap. Dh. II, 4, 8, 13; II,6,i4, 13.
Introduction. Xxix
in several other cases he adopts a line of reasoning which fully agrees with that followed in Gaimini's Mimawsa-sutras. Thus the arguments l, 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 Mimawsa-sutras 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 Mima;/zsa-sutras of Gaimini, he must have pos- sessed some other very similar work. As to the Vedanta, Apastamba does not mention the name of the school. But Kha«<^as 22, 23 of the first Pa/ala of the Dharma-sutra 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 Kha«das are chiefly filled with quota- tions, 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 Sutras, indicates that he knew not merely the unsystematic speculations contained in the Upanishads and Arawyakas, but a well-defined system of Vedantic philosophy identical with that of Badardyawa's Brahma-sutras. The fact that Apastamba's Dharma-sutra contains indications of the ex- istence of these two schools of philosophy, is significant as the Purva Mimawzsa occurs in one other Dharma-sutra only, that attributed to VasishMa, 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 Purd«a.
The Dharma-sutra not only several times quotes passages
from ' a Pura«a ' as authorities for its rules 2, but names in
one case the Bhavishyat-purd;za as the particular Pura«a
from which the quotation is taken3. References to the
1 Ap. Dh. I, i, 14, 8, 9-10. * Ap. Dh. I, 6, 19, 13 ; I, 10, 39, 7.
3 Ap. Dh. II, 9, 24, 6.
xxx APASTAMBA.
Pura#a in general are not unfrequent in other Sutras on the sacred law, and even in older Vedic works. But Apastamba, as far as I know, is the only Sutrakara who specifies the title of a particular Pura«a, 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 Paurawic utterances.
Among the so-called Upa-pura/ras we find one of con- siderable extent which bears the title Bhavishya-purawa or also Bhavishyat-purawa l. It is true that the passage quoted in the Dharma-sutra from the Bhavishyat-purawa is not to be found in the copy of the Bhavishya-purawa which I have seen. It is, therefore, not possible to assert positively that Apastamba knew the present homonymous work. Still, considering the close resemblance of the two titles, and taking into account the generally admitted fact that most if not all Purawas have been remodelled and recast2, it seems to me not unlikely that Apastamba's
1 Aufrecht, Catalogus Catalogorum, p. 400.
