Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Hindu Law and Custom (Recht und Sitte) c7: I. The Sources

Hindu Law and Custom (Recht und Sitte) c7

Language
English

I. The Sources

c7.1

§ 1. *The sources of law in general.* In India as in other oriental countries the law (*vyavahāra*) is an integral part of religion and ethics (*dharma*) and the law-books (*dharmaśāstras*) therefore offer us overwhelming data about religious purification and penance, prayer and sacrifice, pohibitions about food and drink, punishment in hell and rebirth, philosophy, eschatology, creation, funeral ceremonies and sacrifices to the dead, the study of the Veda and asceticism, the manner of living and customs of Brahmans and Kings and other things which we do not generally expect in a law-book. Many Dharmaśāstras give nothing at all about law proper and only a few later compilations such as the Nāradasmṛti may be called purely juridical works. According to the law-books the Vedas should be regarded as the first and foremost source of the *dharma* which are therefore frequently quoted, specially in the Dharmasūtras which generally follow the Vedas very closely and may, on the whole, be regarded as the oldest source of law. The Vedas in a narrow sense contain many data about sacrifices, penances, prayers and other features of the *dharma*, which are important for the history of customs, but they contain only occasional notices about legal affairs. What the Dharmasūtras quote from the Vedas on this subject, is based partly upon mere juridical construction of utterances originally absolutely irrelevant; for example, Āp. 2, 14, 11 quotes a Vedic passage—the purport of it is that Manu divided his property among his sons—to demonstrate that unequal division of property is forbidden. Actual references to legal institutions such as e. g. compensation for murder (§ 44), are of course of great value for the earliest history

c7.2

Oriental conception of law.

c7.3

Vedas, the primary source of law.

c7.4

of law. In the Dharmasūtras on the contrary, so far as they have come down to the present time, are always found particular sections about the law of inheritance, law of government, legal procedure and other features of law proper as it was taught and traditionally handed down in the oldest schools of the Brahmans. Even in those cases where the Dharmasūtras are called by the general designation Dharmaśāstra in Mss. they can be easily recognised by their style which they have in common with other Sutra-works such as, for example, the grammatical and the philosophical Sūtras. Their connection with the Vedas is most evident where they are still handed down as part of a greater collection of Sūtras belonging to one or another Śakhā of the Veda, such as, e. g., the Āpastambīya Dharmasūtra.

c7.5

The second stage of the legal literature is represented by the very numerous metrical works which have come down to the present time under the name of Dharmaśāstra or Smṛti. They differ from the Dharmasūtras composed partly or wholly in prose, first in form, inasmuch as they are throughout written in verse, mostly in simple ślokas, then however also in their character, of which in § 5. Yet these works, to which the Mānava-dharmaśāstra, the most esteemed and illustrious of all Indian law-books, belongs, appear partly to have originated out of older Dharmasūtras and are, therefore, at all events, connected with the Vedic literature, indirectly at least. The name Smṛti which is given to the Dharmasūtras and Dharmaśāstras and also to many other works, properly signifies "memory", in the sense that the memories of the holy Ṛṣis of antiquity are recorded in them in contradistinction to Śruti, "revelation", i. e. the Vedas, which is given the greater authority in points of dispute. The Mah. too may be reckoned among the Smṛtis without hesitation; it is treated on the same footing as a Dharmaśāstra and is quoted as authority, not only in the mediaeval and modern law-books, but it was regarded as the great Smṛti, based on the Veda and proclaimed by Vyāsa, even by the famous Kumārila of the eighth century A. C. The epic literature includes also the Purāṇas which are mentioned as a source of law already in Gaut. 11, 19 and which are actually frequently quoted in the later law-books (§ 10).

c7.6

The latest stage of Indian legal literature is formed by the commentaries and systematic works which have been developed from the Smṛtis from the early mediaeval age. As the products of a new age and inspired by mighty princes and ministers, these extensive compilations gradually drove the Smṛtis so completely out of vogue that at the time of the establishment of British rule in Eastern India, the Mitākṣarā, a law compendium of the eleventh century, was the standard work in the greater part of India. For the historical study of Indian Law, for which the clearing of the beginnings must be of particular importance, this group of works, whose number is legion, is important and indispensable, specially as they are helpful to understand the Smṛtis.

c7.7

Besides the traditions contained in their holy books, in the Vedas and the Smṛtis, the Brahmanical authors of the Smṛtis themselves recognise as the third source of law the ways of living and the teachings of pious men Sadācāra, Śiṣṭāgama, etc. In connection with law proper particular customs and manners of particular countries, castes and families are often emphasised as standard, of course only so far as they are not opposed to the sacred law.¹ The important position given in this respect to the customary law is certainly thoroughly in conformity with facts and renders it a duty to those who deal with the history of law to search after the traces and survivals of the Indian customary law. This task is all the more important, because the inclination to theorise and the class interest have strongly influenced the Brahmans in their juridical literary activity, so that their rules of law cannot be accepted without criticism. Of course the sources of Indian customary law are scanty. Only for the present day a rich and trustworthy material is at our disposal in the laborious collections of English scholars. For earlier times, besides the reports of Greek, Chinese, Arabic and other foreign observers, occasional data in the epigraphical, historical and poetical literature are particularly valuable.

c7.8

¹ Kātyāyana is most emphatic on this point. He says that the customary law shall be recorded in books and as much care should be paid to it as to the Veda:—यस्य देशस्य यो धर्मः प्रवृत्तः सर्वकालिकः । श्रुतिस्मृत्य-विरोधेन देशदृष्टः स उच्यते ॥ देशस्यानुमतेनैव व्यवस्था या निरूपिता । लिखिता तु

c7.9

§ 2. The proper Dharmasūtras. The term Dharmasūtra in its proper sense applies only to those works which still form part of a greater collection of Sūtra works. The best preserved and earliest investigated and printed of these Dharmasūtras is that of Āpastamba (Āpastambha). The Āpastambīs or Āpastambs are a sect of Brahmans still represented in Southern India.¹ According to the census report of 1891, there were, e.g. in Bombay (Presidency Division), 267 "Āpastambs"; in Berar too "Apatambs" are found among the Brahmans.² Already the Mahārṇava says that their home was in Southern India, to the south of the Godāvarī and that they were in this country already at an early period is further evidenced by a Pallava inscription of the fifth or sixth century A. D.³ The Veda followed by

c7.10

¹ Bühler SBE 2, XXXff.

c7.11

² Cf. BG. 18, 1, 111 (Puna); 21, 89 f. (Belgaum); census of India, 1891, 8, 183 (Bombay); 6, CXVI (Berar).

c7.12

³ Bühler l. c. Fleet I. A. 5, 135.

c7.13

सहः धार्या मुद्रिता राजमुद्रया ।। शास्त्रवचनतो रच्या तां निरीक्ष्य विनिक्षिपेत् । See quotation in Devaṇṇabhaṭṭa's Smṛticandrikā, vol. III. Part I, p. 58. Translator.

c7.14

the Āpastambīyas is the Black Yajurveda, and in fact they represent one of the five sub-divisions of the Khāṇḍikīya school which on its part is a branch of the Taittirīya school.¹ Their canonical work, however, at the present day is, and perhaps has been since when they became a particular school, the great Kalpasūtra in 30 closely connected chapters, of which our Dharmasūtra (ed. Bühler) forms the 28. and the 29. chapters. Its contents chiefly deal with the study of the Veda and other duties of the Brahman students, purifications, forbidden foods, penances, duties of Snātakas and Gṛhasthas and similar other subjects of the sacred law. Of secular law, only the law of marriage and inheritance and criminal law are briefly dealt with, but in a singular manner. Linguistically this work is full of archaic and anomalous forms and phraseology which can be explained only on the hypothesis that it was finished before the canon of Sanskrit language established by Pāṇini attained to ruling power. This fact combined with a few other criteria has induced Bühler to assign the date of composition of this Dharmasūtra to the fourth or the fifth century B.C.² The reference to Śvetaketu, who appears as a Vedic teacher even in the Śatapathabrāhmaṇa and the Chāndogyopaniṣad, in Āpastamba (1, 5, 4 ff.) as of a modern avara, is of particular importance in this respect.³ On the other hand, this author cannot be one of the earliest Vedic leaders of schools, for according to the tradition, which is corroborated by the result obtained by comparing the preserved works, Baudhāyana: and other authorities anticipated him as founders of new schools.¹

c7.15

¹ Simon, Beitr. zur Kenntnis d. ved. Schulen 18 f.

c7.16

² Hopkins (C. H. I. p.249) says that Āp. is probably not older than the second century B.C. The archaisms in the language, in his opinion, may be due to the fact that the Andhras retained linguistic peculiarities long after Pāṇini fixed the northern usage. Tr.

c7.17

³ I have tried to prove that Āp. is the oldest Dharmasūtra. See Ind. Hist. Quart. 1927, pp. 607-611. Tr.

c7.18

¹ Bühler l. c. XV-XXX.

c7.19

As regards the home of Āpastamba (no matter what real name lies hidden behind this patronymic), he distinguishes himself as an inhabitant of the South by referring (2, 17, 17) to a custom prevailing among the peoples of the North (*udīcya*) with disapprobation. Perhaps he was a native of the Andhra land i.e. the country between the Godāvarī and the Kṛṣṇā, because he quotes the Taittirīyāraṇyaka in that version which is prevalent among the Andhra Brahmans, and also according to the notice in the Mahārṇava, already referred to, the Āpastamba-school had its seat in the Andhra land. The southern home of this school likewise indicates a comparatively late origin for it, for the South is generally not at all mentioned in the Vedic Saṃhitās and the Andhras in the Aitareyabrāhmaṇa still appear to be barbarians.²

c7.20

² Ibid. XXXIII-XXXVII.

c7.21

The Dharmasūtra of Hiraṇyakeśin is closely connected with that of Āpastamba, and its unimportant differences from it, consisting chiefly of variations in readings, have been collected by Bühler in an appendix to his second edition of the Āp. Of the collection of Sūtras of the Hiraṇyakeśin school, consisting of 36 chapters, the Dharmasūtra represents the 26. and the 27. chapters.³ The tradition says that Āpastamba preceded Hiraṇyakeśin,⁴ who dissented from the older Āpastamba school and founded a new school settled between the Sahya mountains (in the Konkan and further south) and the Southern Sea, which, however, even now appears to admit its dependence on the Āpastamba-school.⁵ The fact that a Hairaṇyakeśabrāhman is mentioned in a Pallava inscription of the fifth or the sixth century A. D., affords a lower limit for the date of the separation of this school from the Āpastambīyas which, however, took place probably much earlier.¹ For the authenticity of by far the greater part of the Āpastambīyadharmasūtra, we find a much wished for confirmation in the exactly corresponding text of Hiraṇyakeśin's Dharmasūtra.

c7.22

³ West and Bühler (3rd. ed.) 34.

c7.23

⁴ WIL (2nd. ed.) 110.

c7.24

⁵ Bühler l. c. XXIV, XXXI; L.. v. Schröder, MS. 1, XXVII. Also according to BG 13, 1, 73f. there are still in Thana pretty numerous Brahman sects which bear the designation "Apastamba Hiranyakeshi".

c7.25

¹ Bühler l. c. XXXIII. XXIV.

c7.26

Baudhāyana (Bodhāyana) is the alleged author of the oldest Dharmasūtra to the Yajurveda and it has been preserved as part of a Sūtra collection.² Its high antiquity at once follows from the tradition recorded in two interpolated passages in Baudh. (ed. Hultzsch) itself, that the Baudhāyana-school is older than the Āpastamba-school and that on the whole it is the oldest of the Sūtra-schools connected with the text of the Taittirīya.³ However, also a comparison between the contents of the two works which are related to each other and not seldom agree with each other verbatim, shows that Āp. is the younger author, for he expresses stricter and therefore probably later views than Baudh. about adopted sons, levirate, Paiśāca marriage, about the preference given to the eldest son in inheritance and other points. The same is the case with their corresponding Gṛhyasūtras, and the style too of Baudh. is more archaic and awkward than that of Āp.

c7.27

² Bühler l. c. XVIII-XXII; SBE. 14, XXXV-XXXIX.

c7.28

³ According to Meyer, Rechtsschriften (passim), Baudh. is the oldest Dharmasūtra. Tr.

c7.29

The subjects dealt with by Baudh. are multifarious; thus he discusses the difference of customs in various lands, the duties of the Brahmacārin and the Snātaka, contamination and purification, sacrifice, mixed castes, duties of the king and the executive duty of the penal judge, hearing of the witnesses, the marriage law, penances, law of inheritance, position of women, bathing, the five great sacrifices and the four stages of life (*āśrama*), regulations about food, sacrifice offered to the dead, rules for ascetics, householders, hermits, minor sacrifices, penances and propitious ceremonies. Nevertheless the fourth Praśna of this work which is almost wholly composed in Ślokas, is probably a modern interpolation, and even the third Praśna is not above all suspicions,¹ although many doubtful things in it, such as the Adhy. 6 about *prasṛtiyāvaka*, now receives some support from the analogous passages in the newly discovered Hārita. The original position of the Dharma-sūtra within the whole Kalpasūtra of the Baudhāyana school may be fixed pretty accurately from the mutual references inspite of the wretched manuscript materials; the arrangement of the work seems to have been similar to that of the Āpastambīyas.²

c7.30

¹ SBE 14, XXXIII-XXXV.

c7.31

² Ibid. XXX, cf. Caland, Altind. Ahnencult 18f.

c7.32

In the Mss. it is generally called the Baudhāyana-dharmaśāstra, for which reason Hultzsch has chosen this title for his edition;³ yet the designation Dharmasūtra too occurs⁴ in the Haug Ms. 163, and also the designation Baudhāyanasūtra is found in quotations out of the Baudh. As regards the continuation of the Baudhāyana school,⁵ Bühler knows modern Baudhāyanīyas only from hearsay; neither does this term occur in the census reports for the year 1891. On the other hand a Brahman studying the Sūtras of Bodhāyana is mentioned in an inscription of Vijayanagara of 1354-5 A. D., and under the title Pravacanasūtra which is certified also in the literature, this work is mentioned in an inscription of the ninth century likewise belonging to the South. The family of the famous Sāyaṇa too belonged to the Baudhāyana school.¹ As the Mss. of this Dharmasūtra come mostly from the South and the contents of the same exhibit a close acquaintance with the South and the literature thereof, it may well be taken for granted that this school like that of Āp. was originated in the South.²

c7.33

³ In H.'s new ed. it is called Dharmasūtra. Tr.

c7.34

⁴ Cf. ZDMG 31, 130 f.

c7.35

⁵ Bühler, SBE 14. XXIX, XLII.

c7.36

¹ Burnell, Tanjore Catalogue, 20b; Clemm, Ṣaḍviṃśabrāhmaṇa, 16.

c7.37

² Bühler l. c. XLIff.

c7.38

§ 3. The revised Dharmasūtras. Those Dharmasūtras may be called revised Dharmasūtras which are not actually handed down in the manuscripts as part of a collection of Vedic Sūtras but in form and contents are like the proper Dharmasūtras and are quoted in the law-books of the mediaeval age or even earlier. The best preserved of these works, so far as it is yet known, is the Dharmasūtra of Gautama (ed. Stenzler) wholly written in prose. The Gautamas are mentioned in literature as a sub-division of the school of Rāṇāyaṇīyas belonging to the Sāmaveda, and from Kumārila we learn about Gautama’s Dharmasūtra that it is fundamentally a work belonging only to the Chandogas, i. e. the followers of the Sāmaveda.³ The Rāṇāyaṇīyas had their principal seat in Mahārāṣṭra and Telinga-sāmavedīs are still said to exist in eastern Hyderabad who are considered as Rāṇāyaṇīyas and are divided into 7 gotras one of which is called Gautama.⁴ Of course the occurrence of the name of the Gautama school here may be accidental, as is the case with the Gautam-Brahmans in Bombay and other places⁵ for Gautama is a well-known gotra name. That our Gautamīya Dharmaśāstra belongs to the Sāmaveda, is confirmed by an examination of its sources, for the whole of the 26. Adhy. is taken word for word from a Brāhmaṇa of the Sāmaveda, the Sāmavidhāna; the five Vyāhṛtis(1, 51) are wholly derived from this Veda and the expiatory prayers (19, 12) are partly taken from it.¹

c7.39

³ Simon, Ved. Schulen 28-31; Kum., Tantravārttika 179; Bühler SBE 14, XI; 25, 613.

c7.40

⁴ Simon l.c. 27; J. Wilson, Indian caste 2, 54.

c7.41

⁵ Census of India 1891, 8, 184.

c7.42

¹ Bühler SBE 2, XLVII f.

c7.43

The contents which often appear to be very archaic, deal with the sources of law, duties of the Brahman students, ascetics and fathers of families, the laws of marriage, rules of salutation, the position of the Brahmans, the sacrifices and other obligations of a Snātaka, the modes of life of the four Varṇas, the duties of the king, law and justice, impurity and the removal thereof, sacrifice offered to the dead, the study of the Veda, the position of women, Prāyaścitta and the law of inheritance All these things are dealt with as in proper Dharmasūtras, only metrical passages are altogether wanting. The repetition of the last word in every Adhy. is an archaism, but on the other hand the language contains few obsolete forms and also the system of mixed castes including the Yavanas (4, 21) gives the impression of a modern origin.

c7.44

The quotations from Gaut. are of primary importance for the determination of the age of this work, of which the one in Baudh. 1, 2, 7 and the reference to a view of the son of Utathya i. e. of Gaut. in M. 3, 16, may be traced in substance, if not literally, in Gaut. 11, 20 and 4, 26.² About the quotation in Vas. see below. The Bṛh. 25, 38 too quotes our Gaut. (28, 18). Of older law teachers Gaut. mentions only M. (21, 7), by which however, is meant not the well-known law-book of M. but an older work (cf. § 4) if it does not refer merely to the mythical first parent M. who is often quoted as an authority. Another important fact is that Baudh. appears to have borrowed the last Adhy. of his third Praśna from Gaut.¹ With the conclusion reached by Bühler (in his translation), that the Gaut. is the oldest of the preserved (printed) Dharmasūtras, agrees, by the way, also the view of its editor Stenzler, who in his manuscript remains (ZDMG 47, 621) held Gaut. to be the oldest author on Dharma on the ground of a notice derived from earlier times. Gaut. should probably be placed centuries before Āp. and perhaps even before Baudh.²

c7.45

² l.c. XLIX ff., cf. West and Bühler (3rd. Ed.) 34, 39.

c7.46

¹ Bühler l.c. LI.

c7.47

² Meyer (Rechtsschriften, passim) says that Gaut. is the last of the Dharamasūtras. He even suggests (p. 119) that Gautama used the commentaries on M. though elsewhere (p. 324) he says that Gaut. must be older than Bṛh. Tr.

c7.48

The Dharmaśāstra of Vasiṣṭha³ unfortunately has been preserved only in wretched uncommentaried and often incomplete manuscripts. Führer was able to use four complete Mss. for his edition, but other Mss. contain, instead of 30 Adhy. only 6 or 10, or 21¼ such as the Calcutta edition, or 28½ or 29½ Adhy.⁴ Internal evidences too indicate that Adhy. 25-30 are mostly appendages to a work—the torso—probably of an earlier date, although isolated passages from Adhy. 28 are quoted already in the Mit. Even in the earlier portions some Sūtras are hopelessly corrupt.⁵ Nevertheless we should never fail to understand that this work consisting of a mixture of prose and verses and in many comparable passages still showing the archaic Triṣṭubh instead of the later Anuṣṭubh of M. and other authors, is directly to be reckoned among the proper Dharmasūtras, and in a quotation it is even called "Vasiṣṭhasūtra".⁶ The passage 5, 6 f. which of course is derived from the TS is quite Vedic.

c7.49

³ Cf. Bühler SBE 14, IX-XXVIII and Indian Studies 5, 6 (1895).

c7.50

⁴ Cf. Führer, Vās. 5; Jolly ZDMG. 31, 130; Eggeling, Cat. No. 1253 ff.

c7.51

⁵ Bühler l.c. and ZDMG 31, 704 ff.; Böhtlingk ZDMG 31, 480 ff

c7.52

⁶ Vivādacint. 152.

c7.53

The subject matter of Vas. likewise resembles that of the Dharmasūtras and includes *inter alia* the sources and the jurisdiction of law, the duties and the origin of the four castes, specially the Brahmans, the law of hospitality, impurity and the removal thereof, laws about women, the daily duties, the four Āśramas, the law of marriage, the obligations of the hermit and the ascetic, the position of the fathers of families and Snātakas, the study of the Veda, the rules of salutation, restrictions about food, excommunication out of the caste, legal procedure, the law of inheritance, the mixed castes, duties of a king, public and private penances and charitable gifts and institutions. Moreover, the rules of Vas. are in many cases of a particularly primitive character; thus in 1, 28 ff. he enumerates like Āp. only six forms of marriage instead of the orthodox eight, but designates the purchase of women as the "form of human marriage" (mānuṣa-vivāha).

c7.54

According to Govindasvāmin and even according to Kumārila (8. century) the Dharmaśāstra of Vas. was studied only by the followers of the Rgveda, but was however, recognised on all hands¹. That these notices do not relate to the other Smṛtis ascribed to Vas. may be proved by the ancient quotations from the Vas. which can be traced only in this work. In this Smṛti Vas. has been specially quoted or referred to three times as authority, and in some way or other the whole reminds one of the Vasiṣṭha known to us from the Rgveda which also corroborates its connection with the Rgveda. As Vas. evinces a leaning towards the works of northern India in his quotations of Vedic Saṃhitās and Sūtras, this part of India is probably his birth place or the land of origin of his school. This could hardly have been concluded from the designation holy land he gives to the modern North-Western Provinces, because this theory of holy land was a common property in the Brahmanical tradition and is found also elsewhere, e. g. in Baudh. and M.

c7.55

¹ Kum. l.c.; Bühler SBE 14, XI; SBE 25, 613.

c7.56

As regards Vas.'s relation with other teachers of law, quotations from Yama, Prajāpati, Hārīta, Gautama and Manu are found in Vas. The quotations from the three first mentioned authors are not present in the Smṛtis ascribed to them. The quotation from Gaut. in 4, 36, seems to refer to Gaut. 14, 44. Particularly interesting are the numerous quotations from M. (cf. §5), which so far as they are not references merely to the mythical M. are manifestly derived from a work which was in substance related to our M. but was yet composed like the Dharmaśūtras in a mixture of prose and verses, partly Triṣṭubh. On the other hand our M. 8, 140 contains a quotation from Vas. which actually occurs in our Vas. 2, 51. Accordingly our Vas. is older than M. but later than Gaut., yet one should always ascribe a high antiquity to a Vedic school which was connected with the Ṛgveda and apparently belonged to Northern India, and so our work may be placed several centuries before Christ.

c7.57

The Vaiṣṇava Dharmaśāstra or the Viṣṇusmṛti,¹ a very extensive work in 100 Adhy., is presented as a revelation from the god Viṣṇu in the introductory portion and the final chapter. Also in several other passages of this work he (Viṣṇu) holds conversation with the goddess of the earth. Yet we have here manifestly the remodelling of the work by a member of the Viṣṇuite sect of the Bhāgavatas. The main stock of our book which is also quoted under the name Viṣṇusūtra, thoroughly resembles the Dharmaśūtras in form and substance and in the metrical passages it agrees in many cases word for word with these works and with M. and other metrical Smṛtis as well. Still more important are the special relations of our Vi. with the Kāṭhakagṛhyasūtra and other works of the Kāṭhaka school, out of the Veda,--the Kāṭhaka,--of which school many of the Mantras cited by Vi., are taken while passages common with the Gṛhyasūtra of this school, which are often very extensive, are seen particularly in connection with the Śrāddha ritual, Vaiśvadeva sacrifice and the Vṛṣotsarga. As these rites are performed within every Vedic school only according to its special ritual, Vi. may directly be regarded as the Kāṭhaka Dharmasūtra which was alienated from its special school and became a generally recognised law book by the same process as is demonstrated by historical evidences in the cases of Gaut. and Vas. Even at the time of Govindarāja (12. century) a Sūtra work of the Katha school about Dharma seems to have been in existence, for the Smṛtimañjarī quotes a rule in prose of a Kathasūtrakṛt about the atonement for the murder of a Brahman, which, however, cannot be found in Vi¹.

c7.58

¹ Cf. my translation SBE 7 and edition in the Bibl. Ind.

c7.59

¹ Bühler. SBE, 25, XXI.

c7.60

The canonical works of the Katha school whose original home was in the Punjab and Kashmir may be reckoned among the oldest remains of Indian literature. Of course our work in its present form, even excepting the Viṣṇuite interpolations, contains a series of passages of modern character, such as the mention of the seven days of the week including the designation of the Thursday as jaiva (78, 1-7), the passages about widow-burning (25, 14 and 20, 39), about books pustakas (18, 44 and 23, 56), about places of pilgrimage in all parts of India (85, 1-52), about Trimūrti (30, 7), the vague definition of the limits of the Aryan land 84, 4 (Āryāvarta), etc. Even though most of the passages of this sort may be readily rejected as later interpolations yet the age of the redaction of our work as it is now existing, still remains doubtful to some extent.¹ The juridical sections seem to belong to its oldest part specially the duties of the king in Adhy. 3 and the penal law in Adhy. 5 and also the law of inheritance along with the doctrine of mixed castes in 15-18, while the laws of debt and legal proceedings in 6-14 appear to be less ancient. The Adhy. 19- 96 deal with sacrifices to the manes, impurity, laws about women, the sacraments, the study of the Veda, sins and the penances for them including the doctrine of hell and the transmigration of the soul, the duties of the Gṛhastha and the Snātaka, the Śrāddha, charitable gifts and the duties of the Vānaprasthas and the ascetics. The language shows few archaisms but is also almost completely free from corrupt readings, because the text was probably commented upon carefully already at an early period. There are no references to older teachers of law and also Vi. in his turn is not quoted by other Smṛtis. In subject matter, next to its relations with M. those with Y. are most remarkable. The Viṣṇuite revision of our work can by no means be assigned to a period earlier than the third century A. D. if the Greek designation of the Thursday is ascribed to the reviser

c7.61

¹ Meyer (Rechtsschriften, pp. 195-252) has tried to prove that Vi. is later than Yājñavalkya but considerably older than Gaut. (p. 253). In a word he is an "elender Skribent." Neither does Meyer believe that Vi. had undergone a rehandling at the hand of a Vaiṣṇava, but he does not give any reason for it. The legal chapters in Vi. taken to be old by Jolly, are of a late date according to Meyer. Tr.

c7.62

The newly discovered and still unpublished Dharmaśāstra of Hārita consists of 30 Adhy. like Vas. but is, however, more extensive than any of the above mentioned works excepting Vi. Before the appearance of the Ms. of this work which until now is the only one available, discovered by V. S. Islampurkar in Nasik,² a Dharmasutra of Hārita was known only from quotations and from them I in 1889 compiled the Vyavahārādhyāya of H. and W. Caland in 1893 gave a synopsis of H.’s treatment of the Śrāddha ritual in his “Ahnencult”. These passages, so far as they appear to be ancient in language and substance may be traced almost fully in the Ms.,¹ but on the other hand the metrical quotations among them about legal procedure and law of debt, whose modern character I had pointed out, are not found in it. Apparently these quotations are derived from a later work, as several metrical works of modern times ascribed to H. are still in existence (§8). Other ancient quotations mostly in prose, on the other hand, about Śrāddha, impurity, penances, rules about food and bathing and other parts of the sacred law, are found in the Ms. although our work seems to have undergone much damage since the time of Hemādri (13. century) who gives an enormous mass of such quotations. In the fourteenth century the Dharmasūtra of H. is frequently quoted in the famous commentary of Mādhava on the Parāśarasmṛti, and the editor of this work, V. S. Islampurkar, who has been already mentioned, has traced most of these quotations in this Ms. Of other ancient Smṛtis the Sūtra-work of Uśanas (§4) in Adhy. 4 contains a reference to the view of H. about the issues of a union with a Śūdrā which remarkably agrees with a passage in H. 21 (Caland).² It must be admitted at all events that U. refers to the special case where a son is born of such a union.

c7.63

² I owe to Bühler the chance of being able to use this Ms., who had it brought from India and placed it at my disposal along with his copy of a part of the same.

c7.64

¹ Yet Meyer (Rechtsschriften, p. 225) says that H. is certainly a late “Machwerk” (bungling work). Tr.

c7.65

² Correspondence by letter.

c7.66

As thus the existence of H. in the mediaeval age and earlier is proved as satisfactorily as in the case of the works hitherto dealt with, the H. also agrees with them in form and substance as far as possible. The se, which on the whole is predominant, alternates in Anuṣṭubhs and Triṣṭubhs; the verses are often introduced with the typical athāpyudāharanti of the Dharmasūtras; quotations from the Veda are pretty frequent. The contents deal with the sources of law, Brahmacārins, Upakurvāṇaka as well as Naiṣṭhika, Snātakas and Gṛhasthas, Vānaprasthas and Yatis, restrictions about food, Pratigraha, Ṛtvij, Śrāddha, including Paṅktidūṣakas and Paṅktipāvanas, duties of the Snātaka, Dharma in general, the five Pākayajñas, study of the Veda and Brahmacarya, Yama and Niyama, impurity and the removal thereof, penances for various infringements, procedure with the witnesses, judicial affairs and the temporal law, laws about women, principal sins, fooding of the Brahmans, particular penances, expiatory prayers etc. In one of the quotations from H. which however, I cannot trace in the Ms., there appears to be a reference to the Śrāddhakalpa in the Śrautasūtra of H. (Caland)¹.

c7.67

¹ Correspondence by letter.

c7.68

The particular Vedic school too out of which this work has arisen, can be determined. On the ground of a passage mentioning Maitrāyaṇī quoted in a commentary, Bühler first gave out the suggestion that the H. is Maitrāyaṇīya². Caland has adduced two other quotations from H. to corroborate this suggestion (loc. cit.) in which likewise Maitrāyaṇī is mentioned and he has pointed out cases of remarkable agreements between other quotations and the Maitrāyaṇīyapariśiṣṭa and the Mānavaśrāddhakalpa. The Ms. contains not only the quotation of Bühler all the quotations forwarded by Caland, but it shows other connections with the Maitrāyaṇīya school, for it even introduces the bhagavān maitrāyaṇiḥ and quotes Mantras from the Maitrāyaṇīya Saṃhitā, such as the well-known Mantra śatadāyo vīro in Maitrāyaṇīya Saṃhitā 1, 7, 5.

c7.69

² SBE 14, XX.

c7.70

The comparatively numerous quotations from H. Āp. and Baudh.¹ also indicate that he was a Sūtrakāra of the Black Yajurveda; however, none of these passages is found in the Ms. The Ms. is derived from Nasik, this city is at the same time the find-spot of two Mss. of the Maitrāyaṇīya Saṃhitā. The Maitrāyaṇīyas otherwise lived farther in the north, probably in the neighbourhood of the Kathas who are closely related to them and by them are reckoned among the oldest Vedic schools². The word *kaphella* used in a quotation, which is a Kashmirian word according to the commentary (Hemādri 3, 1, 559), seems to indicate a Kashmirian home for H.

c7.71

¹ l.c. Index s. v. Hārīta.

c7.72

² L. von Schröder, MS. 1, XIX ff.

c7.73

Our H. is perhaps the oldest Smṛti in existence. H. does not refer to older works on law, and when he quotes Prajāpati, M. (manur abravīt is the probable reading for munir abravīt in about 19 cases) and Ācāryāḥ and if it often agrees almost word for word with all the other Smṛtis, such analogies do not indicate borrowing, but are derived from the common tradition of the Vedic schools. Unfortunately, the Ms. is throughout so full of mistakes that an edition of the important work on the basis of the same is inconceivable. We should hope, therefore, that other Mss. may be discovered and particularly the ancient commentary referred to by Hemādri 3, 1, 559³.

c7.74

³ Aufrecht C. C. 766.

c7.75

Much more correct than the H.-Ms. is Bühler’s Ms. of the Vaikhānasa-sūtra in the Vienna University Library, consisting of a “Gṛhya” in 7 Praśnas and a “Gṛhyadharma” in 4 Praśnas. The latter chiefly deals with the four Āśramas in which 4 kinds of Brahmacārins and Gṛhasthas respectively and 2 kinds of Vānaprasthas along with numerous sub-divisions, have been distinguished (Pr. 1), and it also deals with the special religious duties of the Vānaprastha, Snāna, Bhojana, Snātakadharma, the ways of life of the Vānaprastha and the Bhikṣu, mixed castes etc. (2,3) and the pravaras (4). The law proper is not touched in this work which of course is a Gṛhyadharma and not a Dharmasūtra; the duties of the forest hermits who, as is well-known, are called Vaikhānasa after Vikhanas appearing in this work as an authority (ityāha vikhanāḥ), are more exhaustively dealt with in this work. The term Vaikhānasa occurs already in Gaut. 3 2, and Baudh. 2, 11, 14 and M. 6, 21 refer to the vaikhānasa-śāstram or matam when describing the duties of the forest hermit, by which, accordtng to the commentators, is meant a Sūtra-work of Vikhanas about the duties of the Vānaprastha¹. Has this work been preserved in our Ms.? The Śrāmaṇakāgni or the establishment of the fire śrāmaṇakīyena vidhānena, the exact time for retiring into the forest (putraṃ pautraṃ ca dṛṣṭvā), distinction between the Sapatnīka, who is accompanied by his wife, and the Apatnīka who goes alone into the forest (1, 6-8; 2, 1 ff.) and many other rules characteristic of our work are actually seen in the Smṛtis, while other things, such as the Phenapa, Audumbara, Kuṭicaka and other kinds of hermits, may be, on the other hand, traced only in the Purāṇas or in the Mah. in the present state of our knowledge. The numerous passages connected with the cult of Nārāyaṇa appear to be very recent which like a red band stretches over the whole length of this Sūtra-work. Further, the expression budhavāra too occurs in it (Bühler)². The allusion to widow-burning too in Vai. gṛ. 7, 2 should be considered as a sign of its late origin: sahamaraṇe...dampatī dāhayati, if sahamaraṇa here is not to be explained in any other way (§20). The Vaikhānasa school is clearly considered one of the youngest schools of the Black Yajurveda according to Mahādeva (WIL 110). The connection of this work with this Veda is proved by the quotations of Mantras from it and the reference to the Yajuḥsaṃhitā. Many Mantras, however, a point emphasised to me by Dr. Caland¹, appear to be quite post-Vedic and in the case of Yajus texts, mere Pratikas would have been sufficient. If this work forms the counterpart of the still unpublished Vaikhānasa-śrautasūtra², it may be reckoned among the class of proper Dharmasūtras. As the prospect of a treatment of the whole Vaikhānasa-sūtra has been announced from a certain quarter, I shall not go deeper into this matter.

c7.76

¹ Bühler SBE 25, XXVII-XXIX.

c7.77

² Correspondence by letter.

c7.78

¹ Correspondence by letter.

c7.79

² Cf. Aufrecht l. c. 610.

c7.80

§ 4. The secondary and fragmentary Dharmasūtras. The composition of Sūtra-works on Dharma may be traced even in the hoary antiquity, for they have been mentioned even in Patañjali's Mahābhāṣya and even in Yāska's Nirukta a series of legal maxims in Sūtra style have been quoted³. But on the other hand the extinction of many Vedic Sūtracaraṇas and the rise of numerous metrical works on Dharma could not at any time drive the Sūtra style wholly out of vogue, so that a Sūtra-work on Dharma can be assigned to the oldest period of Indian law, only when there are other criteria, specially those furnished by ancient quotations. Thus the small Budhasmṛti⁴ which contains a concise treatment in prose of the Saṃskāras, sacrifices, Varṇa, Āśrama and Rājadharma, is by no means authenticated by quotations. Budha is not mentioned in the lists of authors of law-books in Y., Par., Paithīnasi, Śaṅkhalikhita and in the Padmapurāṇa and even in the law-books of the middle ages he is very rarely mentioned. A metrical text which Hemādri 2, 1, 150 quotes from Budha is not found in his Smṛti as it has been published. Accordingly it is probably a modern compilation. More important is the yet unpublished Uśanas¹, composed in a mixture of prose and verses, among which even Tr̥ṣṭubh is found, which in 7 Adhy. deals with contamination and purification, castes, penances, Śrāddhas, selling of prohibited articles and punishments. The greater part of the Śrāddhakalpa and long passages from the Śaucakalpa in this yet unpublished work are quoted by Hemādri, and a few passages also in the Mādhavīya². On the other hand this Uśanas does not contain any one of the 21 texts, mostly in verse, which are ascribed to him in the Mit. Likewise also the texts regarding law proper are wanting in it which Viramitrodaya, Mayūkha and other juridical works quote from this author, as well as the quotations concerning all parts of Dharma in other Dharmanibandhas. Our U. on its side seems to quote a verse from Manu³; and it also refers to M. frequently as an authority⁴ which of course, however, does not mean much, and quotes Vasiṣṭha, Hārīta, Śaunaka, and Gautama in a passage about the issues of a marriage between a Brahman and a Śūdra⁵.

c7.81

³ Cf. West and Bühler (3rd. ed.) 37 f.

c7.82

⁴ Eggeling, Cat. No. 1323 ; Dhs. (Bomb.) 854-56 and the Madr. ed. ; Burnell, Tanjore Cat. 125 ; Weber, Verzeichnis No. 1753.

c7.83

¹ West and Bühler (3rd. ed.) 36 ; Mandlik 291 f. ; Eggeling 1316 ; ZDMG 31, 129 and Tag. Lect. 53.

c7.84

² I owe this reference to Dr. W. Caland of Breda who in the most liberal manner also placed at my disposal his collations of 4 Mss. of this work.

c7.85

³ Cf. Bühler SBE 25, XXXV. The reading manur āha is found also in the Haug. Ms. and two Mss. used by Mandlik. Dr. Caland is of opinion that the prose passage following these words, is not the quotation but the fragment of a verse reminiscent of M. 5, 62, preceding them, is the real quotation and regarding the sumantur āha he draws attention to an analogous quotation from Sumantu in Hemādri.

c7.86

⁴ Cf. Bühler l. c. LXII.

c7.87

⁵ l. c. XXVII ; ZDMG l. c.

c7.88

which exactly agrees in a remarkable manner with M. 3, 16. Three of these quotations, though not exactly in the same form, appear in our Vas. 1, 24 ff., Hār. 21 (cf. above, §3) and Gaut. 4 26. Accordingly our U. would be later than M., Vas., Hār., and Gaut., but older than Hemādri (13. century) and at all events it is but incomplete as we have it, for many of the old quotations are not found in it and some of the most important features of Dharma are not dealt with in it at all. The Mss. are truly very bad and contain large lacunae particularly in Adhy. 1 and 2. The ancient Ṛṣi Uśanas is considered the author of another Smṛti¹ as well, which contains some prose passages. This work, however, which has been published, many times already, is clearly not the U. of the quotations as none of them are found in it. It consists of 618 Ślokas and 2 Sūtras in prose in the 9. Adhy. which deal with the daily duties—Śrāddha, impurity, penance and often agrees verbatim with M.

c7.89

¹ Dhs. (Calc.) 1, 501-554.

c7.90

The small Smṛti of Kāśyapa² or Upakāśyapa deals at first in prose but afterwards is Ślokas, with the duties of the Gṛhastha, Acāra and Prāyaścitta. Yet this work may at best be but a sketch of the original Dharma-sūtra of Kāśyapa who is well-known as a Ṛṣi and a teacher of law, for he is frequently referred to as author of Ślokas and prose texts on the law of inheritance, pious gifts and other parts of the law, which are not found in this work. Atri, famous as a Ṛṣi and even quoted by M. 3, 16 as a teacher of law, is considered to be the author of various Smṛtis and one of them which is still unpublished,³ consisting of 9 Adhy., shows a mixture of prose and verse, e.g., Adhy. 1-3, 6 and 9 contain altogether 61 Ślokas while Adhy. 4 wholly and Adhy. 7 and 8 for the most part, are written in prose. Its contents exclusively deal with penance and expiation in this world and the next for various sins and transgressions and is mostly identical with the published Laghu-Atri, which however, contains a short prose section only in the fourth Adhy. and with the Vṛddha Atri¹ which has also been published and is closely related to the latter; only in the last named work I was able to trace a quotation occurring in the Dharmanibandhas (Mādh. 1, 432). Śātātapa (or Vṛddha-Ś., Bṛhacchātātapa) is referred to by Y. and Parāśara as a teacher of law and is often quoted by Hemādri, Vijñāneśvara and other mediaeval writers as the author of rules mostly in verse about penances, contamination, charitable gifts, alms, Śrāddha and other features of the sacred law. At least one of these quotations, in prose, concerning the penance for murdering a Brahman (Mit. on Y. 3, 243) occurs at the beginning of the Ms. described by Eggeling Cat. 3 No. 1362, which in 12 Adhy. deals with Vaiśvadeva and Śrāddha sacrifices, rules of diet, impurity and other religious questions in a mixture of prose and verses. Related with this Ś. is the Dharmaśāstra of the same author² (Ibid. No. 1361)—at first in prose but later on containing 139 verses. The Smṛti of Vṛddha-Ś. on the other hand is quite a different work consisting only of 63 verses and 2 prose passages, in which Mandlik (326) has found a quotation from this author in the Nirṇayasindhu.

c7.91

² Dhs. (Bomb.) 856 ff., cf. Eggeling 1317; Burnell 124.

c7.92

³ Eggeling No. 1305 f.; Burnell 124; ZDMG 31, 128.

c7.93

¹ Dhs. (calc.) 1, 1-12; 47-59

c7.94

² Mandlik, who found in it a reference to the *trimūrti* clearly describes (326f) the same work.

c7.95

The unpublished Bṛhaspati³ in prose in the manuscript collection of the R. As. Soc. in London, has nothing to do with the renowned teacher of the same name of whom so many metrical texts on law proper are quoted, but rather seems to be a religious work of a new sect. From certain aspects the most interesting of all these works is the Smṛti of Śaṅkha (Bṛhat or Vṛddha-Ś.)¹ in 18 Adhy., two of which 11 and 12, are written partly in prose and the rest, however, are throughout written in verse. The multifarious contents of this work deal with Varṇa and Āśramadharma, baths, ablutions, prayers, the holiness of the Gāyatrī, offering of water to the manes, Śrāddha, purification and penances. I find nearly 30 Ślokas quoted from Adhy. 4, 8, 9, 11, 16 and 17 alone in Mit, (on Y. 3, 30, 260, 264, 290, 293, 309), Madh. (1, 236, 238, 250, 274, 284) and in Jīmūtavāhana’s Dāyabhāga (p. 212), so that the authenticity of this Smṛti is sufficiently warranted for. Of course many other quotations, particularly the prose ones, are not found in it; yet the verse about parivitti (17, 43) seems to agree with a prose rule on this subject quoted in Mit. on Y. 3, 265. Thus this work represents, as Bühler has aptly remarked, a stage of transition from the Dharmasūtras to the metrical Smṛtis.

c7.96

³ Tag. Lect. 52.

c7.97

¹ Dhs. (calc.) 2, 343-374; Eggeling No. 1357 f.; Burnell 127; Mandlik 314 f.; West and Bühler (3rd. ed.) 40 f.

c7.98

Of the fragments of Dharmasūtras which are known only from solitary quotations, those on the whole may be regarded as the oldest which are referred to in other Dharmasūtras. Particular interest attaches to the ancient quotations from a Sūtra-work of Manu or the Mānavas², on account of their relation with the law-book of the same name. Thus a remarkable quotation from a Mānavam about the slaughter of animals is found in Vas. 4, 5-8. The passage, partly in prose and partly in verse, is exactly in the style af ancient Dharmasūtras and may have been derived from a Mānavam Dharmasūtram,³ supposedly the source of the Mānavam Dharmaśāstram, for the metrical portion of this quotation occurs in M. 5, 41, 48, only with this difference that in M. 5, 48 meat-eating is forbidden without exception in conformity with the later principle of ahiṃsā. The other quotations from M. in Vas. including the stereotyped *manurabravīt*, are in verse, and 6 of them are found in our M. word for word or with slight modifications, but 3 (Vas. 12, 16 ; 19, 37 ; 23, 43) cannot be traced in M. Leaving out Vas., the above mentioned passage (M. 5, 41) occurs also in the Śaṅkhā.-gṛhya 2,16, 1. Even Gaut. 21,7, refers to a prose M. as an authority for the maxim that the first three principal sins are inexpiable and our M. (11, 90-92, 104 f., 147) too teaches practically the same thing, for the penances prescribed there are equivalent to suicide. About the rather doubtful quotation from M. in the Dharmasūtra of Uśanas see above and p. 21, note 3. The two passages about the teachings of the Mānavāḥ in the Nitisāra of Kāmandaki 2, 3 and 7, 24 f. (=M. 7. 155-157) appear to be ancient, and the Mānavāḥ in it appear to be a Vedic school, though not yet generally recognised. More such references are found also in the latest of Smṛtis, e.g. in a quotation from Kātyāyana in Ratn. 332, where a view of the Mānavāḥ about the punishment for theft is quoted which approximately corresponds to our M. 9, 270.

c7.99

² Bühler SBE 25, XXXI-XXXVIII.

c7.100

³ I have tried to prove (Ind. Hist. Quart. 1927 pp. 808 ff.) that a Sūtra work of the Mānava School was never in existence. Tr.

c7.101

See §3 for the ancient quotations from Hārīta. The metrical quotations from Yama in Vas. 11, 20; 14, 30; 18, 13-16; 19, 48 need not have been derived from a Dharmasūtra of the mythical "King of Dharma." Of the Sūtra texts quoted in the mediaeval and modern Dharmanibandhas, I shall first mention a prose text, of course a solitary one, of Vṛddha or Bṛhan-Manu, about the penance for a Brahman who has stolen gold ¹. The "Old" or "Great" M. is moreover considered to be the author of Ślokas whose recent origin is betrayed by the reference to the signs Aja and Kanyā of the Zodiac, the right of inheritance of the widows, and other points. Compare § 8. Long prose texts mixed with metrical ones, about all the features of the Dharma are ascribed to the two brothers Śaṅkha and Likhita¹ whose names have become proverbial for their righteousness, and who are already pointed out by Parāśara 1, 24 as the standard authority for the Dvāpara age. According to Kumārila² the work of Śaṅkha-Likhita was in his time followed (parigṛhīta) mostly by the school of the Vājasaneyins, although, as is the case with all the books of the Vedic schools, it was at the same time considered as binding on everybody in general. Independent of it, Caland has proved that the texts of these two brothers about Śrāddha, collected by him, accurately agree both in the Mantras and in the ceremonies, with the rites of the Vājasaneyins³.

c7.102

¹ Herberich, Zitate aus Vṛddhamanu (Würzb. 1893) No. 82.

c7.103

¹ P. V. Kane has collected the quotations from Śaṅkha-Likhita and in his opinion the date of their Smṛti should be placed between 360 B. C. and the first century A. C. Tr.

c7.104

² Tantravārttika 179 ; Colebrooke, Ess. 1, 339 (Ed. Cowell).

c7.105

³ Altind. Ahnencult 100, 136 ff., 252 f., 264.

c7.106

On the other hand, the Dharmasūtra of Paithīnasi, likewise consisting mostly of prose texts and important for the law proper, seems to belong to the Atharvaveda, as Bloomfield has already conjectured⁴ and Caland⁵ proved the probability of, on the ground of the similarity of the Śrāddhakalpa of this author, collected by him from quotations, with the Atharva ritus. The prose quotation about adoption from a Kātiyalaugākṣisūtra might also have been derived from a Gṛhyasūtra. Similarly a rule in prose about the damage done to merchandises is associated with the name of Kātyāyana who, as is well-known, was a Sūtrakāra of the White Yajurveda. It is quoted by Medhātithi on M. 8, 215, from a Kātyāyanīyaṃ Sūtram ¹. Kātyāyan Brahmans are still found e.g. in Puna, although it is not clear whether they are connected with the Vedic school of the same name or not. See §9 for the metrical Smṛti of Kātyāyana. A Kātyāyanagṛhya is quoted by Hemādri 3, 1, 1324, which is different from the Pāraskara and contains a cross reference to the Śrautasūtra. Isolated prose rules of Devala, Pracetas, Bhṛgu, Vyāsa and others are also quoted, who are known to us otherwise only as authors of metrical Smṛtis.

c7.107

⁴ Kauś. XVIII.

c7.108

⁵ l. c. 99, 109 f.

c7.109

¹ Bühler IA, 14, 324.

c7.110

§ 5. *The Law-book of Manu.* Comparatively only a few miserable remnants of the almost innumerable Vedic schools, in which the Sūtras known to us from the Caraṇavyūha and other works were once taught, have been preserved to the present day; and this is the case also with the Dharmasūtras. Of the Brahmans who are still acquainted with their ancient literature—their number on the whole is not large—only a portion, the class of the Vaidikas, adhere to the ancient customs of learning by heart the canonical works of their particular school and to recite them for alms ². Also in the social life of the Brahmans the classification based on the differences of the study of the Veda is disappearing before classifications based on other grounds, mostly of a geographical nature. Thus, for example, intermarriage is not allowed between the Kankanasths and Devarukhes in Puna, but inside of these two sects there is connubium ³ between the Rigvedis and the Apastambs or Yajurvedis. Besides the Vaidikas, we find the Śrotriyas and Hotṛs, who are familiar with the Śrautasūtras and know how to perform sacrifices according to them; the Yājñikas who study the Gṛhyasūtras and perform the Saṃskāras according to them; the Jyotiṣins—astrologers, the Śāstrins or Dharma-śāstrins who are familiar with the law-books and can explain them, and other specialists¹ whose number is still very great at a centre of Sanskrit learning such as the Sanskrit College in Benares.

First 110 of 860 passages. Read on

Linked texts (128)