Transliteration of Oriental Alphabets adopted for the Trans- lations of the Sacred Books of the East . . -357
VASISH7V/A.
1 Vaaishf'Aa Dharmasastra II, 51.
a VlM<sh/!Aa Dharmasastra XXIV, 5.
s Vasish/Aa Dharma-saatra XXX, n. Similar invocations of teachers at the end of Sutras occur frequently, c. g. Asvalayaaa .SYauta-sutia XII, 15, 14; Rig- vidhana V, 3, 4; Yaska, Nirukta, Roth, p. 216.
Xll VASISH77/A.
expression to the devotion felt by the author for the fitshi, 'Adoration to Vasish/^a, 6atayatu, the son of Mitra and Varuwa and of Urva^l.' The epithets used in this last pas- sage conclusively show that the Vasish/V&a after whom the Dharma-sutra is named, is the individual who, according to the Brahmanical tradition, is the Rtshi of a large portion of the seventh MaWala of the Rig-veda and the progenitor of the Vdsish///a clan of Brahmans, and who in some hymns of the Rig-veda appears as the purohita or domestic priest of king Sudas and the rival of VLyvamitra, and in other Suktas as a half mythical being. For the verses Rig-veda VII, 33, 11-14 trace the origin of this Vasish/^a to the two sons of Aditi, Mitra and Varu«a, and to the Apsaras Urva^i, and contain the outline of the curious, but disgusting story of his marvellous birth, which Sayawa narrates more cir- cumstantially in the commentary on verse u. Moreover, the word Satayatu, which in the Dharma-sutra is used as an epithet of Vasish/^a, occurs Rig-veda VII, 18, ai in close connexion with the Rishi's name. Saya^a explains it in his commentary on the latter passage as ' the destroyer of many demons,' or, ' he whom many demons seek to destroy,' and takes it as an epithet of the sage Parlyara, who is named together with Vasish/^a. It would, however, seem that, if the verse is construed on strictly philological principles, neither Sayawa's interpretation, nor that suggested by the Dharma-sutra can be accepted, and that .Satayatu has to be takeri as a proper name 1. But, however that may be, it is not doubtful that we may safely infer from the expressions used in the last sentence of the Dharma-sutra, that the Vasish/^a to whom the invocation is addressed and the composition of the work is ascribed, either immediately or through the medium of pupils, is the individual named in the Rig-veda. The connexion of the Dharma-sutra with one of the ^/shis of the Rig-veda which is thus established, possesses a particular interest and importance, because it corroborates the statement of Govindasvamin, the commen- tator of Baudhayana, that the Institutes of Vasish.V/a were
1 See Petersburg Dictionary, s. v. satayatu.
INTRODUCTION. Xlll
originally studied by and authoritative for the Bahvr/£as, the 7v?z'gvedins alone, and afterwards became an authority for all Brahmans l. In the introduction to Gautama it has been shown that a similar assertion which Govinda makes with regard to the Gautama Dharma-sutra can be corrobo- rated by a considerable amount of external and internal evidence. It has been pointed out that not only the fact that the spiritual pedigrees of the .-Oandoga schools enu- merate several Gautamas, but also the partiality for texts of the Sama-veda, which the Institutes of Gautama show on several occasions, strongly support the tradition that the Gautamiya Dharmajastra originally was the exclusive property of a school of Samavedins. In the case of the Vasish/X/a Dharmajastra indications of the latter kind are, if not entirely wanting, at least very faint. The number of Vedic passages quoted is, no doubt, large ; but few among them belong to the class of Mantras which are recited during the performance of grihya. rites, and must be taken from the particular recension of the Veda to which the per- former belongs. Besides, the texts of this description which actually occur, do not bear the mark of a particular Veda or .Sakha. The numerous texts, on the other hand, which are quoted in support or explanation of the rules, are taken im- partially from all the three ancient Vedas. For this reason it would be dangerous to use the references to a dozen Rika,s in chapters XVII and XXVI, as well as to the legend of .Suna^sepa, which is told only in works belonging to the Rig-
1 See Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, p. xlix, note 3. As GovindasviminY statements possess a considerable importance, I give here the whole com- mentary on Baudhlyana I, i, 2, 6, according to my two MSS., C.I. and C.T. :
c. i. ; qwJi c. T.]
C. I.;
C. T. J
mi*ii4!H*i«r
XIV VASISIirffA.
veda, as a proof that the Vasish///a Dharma^astra is the work of a jRzgvedin. Under these circumstances the three pas- sages, mentioning Vasish/^a's name, and especially the last which identifies him with the Rtshi of the Rig-veda, have a particularly great importance, as they are the only pieces of internal evidence which can be brought forward in favour of Govindasvamin's valuable statement. But the latter is, even without any further corroboration, credible enough, because no reason is apparent why Govinda should have invented such a story, and because his assertion fully agrees with the well-established facts known about the other existing Dharma-sutras, which all were composed not for the benefit of the Aryans in general, but in order to regulate the conduct of particular sections of the Brah- manical community.
There is, however, one point in Govindasvamin's state- ment which requires further elucidation. He says that the Barrvrz'/£as, i.e. the Rigved'ms in general, formerly studied the Vasish///a Dharma^astra. It might, therefore, be in- ferred that the work possessed equal authority among the A^valayanlyas, the 5ankhayaniyas, the MaWukayanas, and all the other schools of the Rig-veda, and that it belonged to the most ancient heirlooms of its adherents. That is, however, improbable for several reasons. For, first, neither the A^valayaniyas nor the -Sankhayaniyas of the present day study or attach any special importance to the Vasish- Ma Dharma^astra. Secondly, if the Vasish//*a Dharma- jastra had ever been the common authority on Dharma in all the different schools of the Rig-veda, it would be neces- sary to ascribe to it an antiquity which it clearly does not possess. All Sutras were originally composed for a single school only. Where we find that the same Sutra is adopted by several Ka.ra.uas, as is the case with the Dhaf ma-sutra, which both the Apastambiyas and the Hairawyake^as study, and with the ^fayana-sutra, which the Bharadvafas and the Hairawyake^as have in common, it is evident that the later school did not care to compose a treatise of its own on a certain subject, but preferred to take over the composi- tion of an earlier teacher. If, now, a Sutra on a certain
Introduction. Xv
subject were acknowledged by all the schools of one Veda, it would follow that it must belong to the most ancient books of that Veda, and must have been adopted succes- sively by all its later schools. In such a case the Sutra must certainly show signs of its great antiquity. But if we look for the latter in the Vasish//fca Dharma-sutra, the trouble will be in vain. Though that work contains" a good deal that is archaic, yet, as will be shown presently, its numerous quotations from Vedic writings and older Dharma-sutras clearly prove that it does not belong to the oldest productions of its class, but takes even among the still existing Institutes of the Sacred Law only a secondary rank. Under these circumstances the correct interpretation of Govindasvamin's words will be, that ac- cording to the Brahmanical tradition, known to him, some school of J?2gvedins, the name of which he did not know, or did not care to give, originally possessed the V&sish/^a Dharma.rastra as its exclusive property, and that the work later, through the action of the special law schools, acquired general authority for all Brahmans. It is a pity that no authentic information regarding the name of that school of ./?/gvedins has been handed down. But, considering the fact that Vedic schools are frequently named after Vedic J?*shis, it seems not improbable that it was called after the Vasish/^a whose authority the Dharma-sutra invokes, and that we may assume the former existence of a Velsish//*a school, a Sutra-£ara#a, of the Rig-veda l, founded perhaps by a teacher of the Vasish/^a gotra. This conjecture, which, it must be confessed, is not supported by any cor- roborative evidence from the Brihmanical tradition, will explain why the title-pages of this and of the first part speak, of a school of Vasish//fca.
The position of the VasishMa Dharma-sutra in Vedic literature can be defined, to a certain extent, by an analysis
1 A school of VasishMas, belonging to the S&ma-veda, certainly existed in ancient times. I have formerly put forward a. conjecture that the Vfisish/Aa Dharmasastra might belong to that school (Digest of Hindu Law Cases, p. xxii, first edition). But Govindasvamin's explicit statement makes it evident that it has to be abandoned.
XVI VASISH7WA.
of its numerous quotations from the Sa/whitds, Brdhmawas, and the older Sutras. By this means it will become evident that the work belongs to a period when the chief schools of the three ancient Vedas had been formed and some of the still existing Dharma-sutras had been composed. Faint indications will be found which make it probable that the home of the school to which it belonged, lay in the northern half of India, north of the Narmada and of the Vindhyas. As regards the quotations from the Sruti, the revealed texts of the Hindus, they are chiefly taken from the Rig-veda and from three recensions of the Ya^-ur-veda. Passages from the Rig-veda-sawhitd are quoted IV, 21 ; XVII, 3-4 ; and XXVI, 5-7. With respect to the quota- tions in the latter chapter it must, however, be noted that its genuineness is, as will be shown in the sequel, not above suspicion. A Brahma#a of the Rig-veda seems to be referred to in XVII, 2, 32, 35. But the extracts, given there, agree only in part with the text of the Aitareya, and it is probable that they are taken from some lost composi- tion of the same class. A curious Sutra, II, 35, shows a great resemblance to the explanations of Vedic passages given by Yaska in the Nirukta1. The passage points either to a connexion of the author with the school of the Nairuktas or, at least, to an acquaintance with its princi- ples. Among the schools of the Ya^ur-veda, that of the Ka/y&as is twice referred to by name, XII, 29 ; XXX, 5. But Professor Weber, who kindly looked for the quotations in the Berlin MS. of the Kanaka, has not been able to find them. A third passage, I, 37, said to be taken from the ATclturmasyas, i.e. the portion of a Sawhiti which treats of the ^Titurmasya sacrifices, actually occurs in the Kanaka. But, as it is likewise found in the -/Taturmasya-kawdfo, of the Maitrayawiyas, it must remain uncertain from which of the two recensions of the Black Ya^ur-veda it has been quoted. The chapter on the duties of women, vers. 6-8, contains a
1 This resemblance has not escaped Kn'shwapaHrfita, who says in his com- mentary, r«i<t>3i*iti{<4i »i«atM <lfa II Wlfj'rtWmif< U 'sw *1*1 fa f^5~
Introduction. Xvii
long quotation which, in spite of some small discrepancies, seems to have been taken from the Taittiriya-jsa/«hit4 of the Black Ya^"ur-veda. Passages of the Taittiriya Arawyaka are quoted or referred to X, 35 and XXIII, 23, The White Ya^ur-veda is mentioned several times as the Va^a- saneyi-j-akha or the Vi^asaneyaka. The former expression occurs III, 19 and XXIII, 13. The quotations, marked as taken from the Va^asaneyaka, XII, 31, XIV, 46 are found in the >Satapatha-brahma«a, and another passage of the same work is quoted I, 45, without a specification of the source. A very clear proof that the author of the Dharma-sutra knew the Va^asaneyi-sawhita is furnished by the Mantra, given II, 34. The text, quoted there, occurs in three different 6"akhas, that of the Va^-asaneyins, that of the Taittiriyas and the Atharva-veda, and in each shows a few variae lectiones. Its wording in the Vl^asaneyi- sa;«hita literally agrees with the version, given in the Sutra. The Sama-veda is referred to III, 19, and par^ ticular Samans are mentioned in the borrowed chapter XXII, 9. A passage from the Nidana, probably a work on Stomas and metres, which belonged to the Bhallavins, an ancient school of Samavedins, occurs 1, 14-16. An Upani- shad, connected with the Atharva-veda, the Atharvajiras, is mentioned in the borrowed chapter XXII, 9, and the existence of the Atharva-veda is pre-supposed, also, by ' the vows called 5iras/ which are alluded to in the suspicious chapter XXVI, n, and are said to be peculiar to the Atharvavedins *. The chapters, which are undoubtedly genuine, contain no allusion to the fourth Veda.
