1 See Burnell, Catalogue of a Collection of Sanskrit MS., pp. 24-26, 28, 34- 35, andTanjore Catalogue, pp. i8a-aob, and especially his remarks at pp. iSb and 20 a.
3 This title is found in the best copy known to me, Elphinstone College Col- lection of 1867-68, Class B. I, no. 5, which has been prepared from the MS. of Mr. Limaye at Ashte. The other copies of the work, found in Western India, e. g. no. 4 of the same collection and my own copy, are in a bad state, as they are derived from a MS. the leaves of which were out of order.
3 Burnell, Catalogue of a Collection of Sanskrit MSS., no. LXXXVIII, and Tanjore Catalogue, no. CXVII.
Introduction. Xxxi
and from internal evidence. OR these grounds it may be shown that the order, adopted by Dr. Burnell, is probably the correct one. For the beginning of the Gr/hya-sutra1 shows by its wording that it was not a separate treatise, but was immediately connected with some preceding Prajna. The analogy of the collections of the Apastambtyas, the Hairawyak&ras, the Ka/$as, and other schools permits us to infer that it stood after the .Srauta-sutra. It is further clear that, in its turn, it was succeeded by the Dharma- sutra. For two passages of the latter work, I, 2, 3, 15, and II. 8, 15, 9, clearly contain references to the Grthya- sutra. In the former, the author gives the rule regarding the iength of the staff to be carried by a student, as well as the general principle that the staff must be cut from a tree fit for sacrificial purposes. With respect to the latter clause he adds that " the details have been given above.' As the Dharaia-sutra contains nothing more on this subject, it follows that the expression 'above' must refer to Gr/hya- sutra II, 7, where the usual detailed rules regarding the employment of particular woods for the several varwas are given. In the second passage Baudhayana says that the rules for the performance of funeral sacrifices have been fully explained in the section on the Ash/akahoma, which occurs Grzhya-sutra II, 17-18. It is, therefore, perfectly certain that Baudhayana, just like Apastamba, placed the Pra^nas on the Sacred Law after those on the domestic ceremonies, and that the Dharma-sutra was not a separate work. Under these circumstances it becomes highly pro- bable that the Sulva-sutra formed, as is the case in other sets of Kalpa-sutras, the conclusion of the whole. Thus the only treatise, whose position remains doubtful, is the Pravarakha«</a, the list of the Brahmanical gotras and of their deified ancestors2. Possibly it may have stood at the end of the .Srauta-sutra.
1 According to the Elph. Coll. MS., Cl. I, B. 5, and my copy, it runs thus:
Ti ii ^ H WT *3*n*mwT: n * 11
* Burnell: Catalogue of a Collection of Sanskrit MSS., no. CXV1II.
XXXll BAUDHAYANA.
The destruction of the continuity of Baudhayana's Kalpa- sutra has had the consequence which is commonly ob- servable in other dismembered works, that several of its detached portions have received considerable additions from later and, as it would seem, from several hands. There can be no doubt that a small portion only of the nine Pr&mas, found in the Western copies of the Grz'hya- sutra, really belongs to Baudhayana. For the description of the Grthya. rites, which strictly follows the general plan laid down in the first Sutra, is completed in two or three Pramas1. Next follows a Pra^na on the anukrztis, rites resembling those comprised in the subdivisions treated before, and then a Prajna on prayaj&ttas, or expiations of mistakes committed during, and of the neglect of, the performance of the Grzhya-karmam. The remaining Pra- jnas are filled with a medley of paribhashas, general rules, and of full descriptions of ceremonies, some of which have been given before, while others are added afresh. Many of the newly-added rites do not belong to the ancient Brahmanical worship, but to the Pauranic religions, the service of Siva,. Skanda, Naraya#a, and other deities, and some show an admixture of Tdntric elements. In- some of the later Pra^nas, especially IV and V, the language closely resembles that of the first three, and shows the same stereo- typed phrases and the same Vedic anomalous forms. But in other sections, particularly VI-IX, we find, instead of Sutras, the common AnushAibh Sloka throughout, and ex- pressions peculiar to the metrical Smrztis and the Pura#as. At the end of most Adhyayas we read the phrase, ity aha Baudhayana/z, or bhaga van Baudhayana^/ thus speaks Bau- dhayana, or the divine Baudhayana.' Finally, while the first three Prajnas are divided into Ka«dfik«is or Kham/as, the fol- lowing ones consist of Adhyayas or chapters. These differ- ences, as well as the fact that the most important Grihya, rites, arranged according to a special plan, are done with in the
1 Elphinstone College Collection, no. 5, according to which all quotations have been made, gives three Prasnas, my own MS. two Pra-nas. The number of the Khawrfas is, however, the same.
Introduction. Xxx111
first three Prsumas, necessarily lead to the conclusion that the whole remainder does not belong to Baudhayana, but consists of so-called Parmsh/as, which were composed by the adherents of his school. Further, the fact that the last six Pra^nas 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-sutra seems to have undergone exactly the same fate as the Gnhya-sutra. It will be obvious even to the readers of the translation that its fourth Pr&ma is a later addition. It consists of two parts. The first, which ends with the fourth Adhyaya, treats of penances, both public and secret ones. The second, Adhyayas 5-8, describes the means of obtaining siddhi, the fulfilment of one's desires, and recommends for this purpose the offering of the Ga«ahomas after a previous sanctification of the wor- shipper 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 Pra^na, and again in chapters 4-10 of the third Prama. Its rules sometimes contradict those given before, and in other cases, e.g. IV, a, 10-12, are mere repetitions of pre- vious statements. The introduction of the means of gain- ing siddhi, on the other hand, is without a parallel in other Dharma-sutras, 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-sutra. For the description of the preparatory ' restraints ' or austerities contains somewhat more detailed rules for a number of penances, e.g. the ¥Lrikkhra.s and the ^Tandraya«a, which have already been described in the preceding Prajnas. Moreover, the style and the language of the whole fourth Pra^na 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 Prajnas of the Grzhya-sutra, The epic Sloka nearly throughout replaces the aphoristic prose, and the common slipshod Sanskrit of the Purawas appears instead of the archaic forms. Finally, the fourth Prama is divided into
XXXIV BAUDHAYANA.
Adhyayas, not into the KaWikas or Khaw^/as and Adhyayas which are found in the first two Pra^nas.
This latter peculiarity is also observable in the third Pra^na, and raises a suspicion against the genuineness of that part also. For, though the third Prajna 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 circum- stances. First, Pra.mas 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 Adhyayas of Prajna 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 Gautamlya Dharmarastra, the sixth bears a very close and suspicious resemblance to Vish«u XLVIII1, and the third looks very much like a short summary of the doctrine of Vikhanas, whose lost Sutra contained the original rule of the order of the Vaikhanasas or hermits, living in the forest. These cir- cumstances justify, it seems to me, the assumption that Baudh&yana's original Dharma-sutra consisted, like Apa- stamba's, of two Pra^nas only, and that it received, through followers of his school, two separate additions, first in very ancient times Pra^na III, where the style of the master is strictly followed, and later Pra^na IV, where the language and phraseology of the metrical Smn'tis are adopted. It ought to be noted that Govindasvamin, too, does not take the whole of the four Pra^nas for Baudha« yana's composition. With respect to several passages2 where Baudhciyana's name is introduced in order to give weight to the rules, he says that the Sutras may belong to ' a pupil.' I do 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. 1 E. g. Dharma-sutra 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 Prajnas are not quite free from interpolations. Thus the Ka«dHkis on the Tarpawa l are cer- tainly much enlarged by additions, the verse at 1, 5, n, 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-sutra 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 Baudha- yana Dharma-sutra for historical purposes, and that it will be advisable to draw no inferences regarding Baudhay ana's relation to other teachers and schools from the last two Pra^nas, 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 Hira«yake^i-sutras, he composed the first Sutra for the followers of his Sikhi. Internal and external evidence has also been adduced, proving that he certainly was more ancient than Apa- stamba and Hira»yak&rin. 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, Kawva Baudhayana receives his share immediately after the Rishis of the Veda and before Apastamba, the Sutrakara, and
1 Baudhdyana Dharma-sfitra II, 5, 8-9.
XXXVI BAUDHAYANA.
