History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s5.9

v1.c6.s5.9

The literature known to the Gautama-dharmasūtra was extensive. Besides the Vedic saṁhitās and Brāhmaṇas it mentions the following works; Upaniṣads (19. 13), the Vedāṅgas (8. 5 and 11. 19), Itihāsa (8. 6), Purāṇa (8. 6 and 11. 19), Upaveda (11. 19), dharmaśāstra (11. 19). That he borrows a chapter from the Sāmavidhāna-brāhmaṇa has been mentioned above. He borrows the first six sūtras of the 25th chapter from the Taittirīya Āraṇyaka (11.18). The śramaṇaka (in Gautama III. 26) is, according to Haradatta, the Vaikhānasa-śāstra (either composed by Vikhanas or treating of the duties of hermits). Gautama refers to Ānvīkṣikī (XI. 3). The only teacher of *dharma* he quotes by name in Manu (in 21.7) who is cited for the proposition that there is no expiation for the three sins of *brahmahatyā*, drinking wine and violation of the bed of the *guru*. Haradatta says that in the extant Manusmṛti the same propositions are laid down about *brahmahatyā* and *surāpāna* (in Manu 11. 89 and 146 respectively), but that as to violation of *gurutalpa* a passage from the Manusmṛti has to be searched out (i. e. such a passage is not found there). From this Bühler drew the conclusion that Gautama refers to the dharmasūtra attributed to Manu (and not to any versified Manu-smṛti). But Bühler is not right in drawing this inference. In the first place in spite of what Haradatta says there *are* verses in the extant Manusmṛti (XI.104-105) which say that death is the expiation for violation of the *guru’s* bed. In the second place there is nothing to show, even if Haradatta were correct, that Gautama refers only to a *dharmasūtra* of Manu and not to a versified work. Besides Manu, Gautama frequently quotes certain views ascribed to the ‘Ācāryas’ (e. g. III. 35, IV. 18). What teachers are meant by the word ‘Ācāryāḥ’ (which occurs in the Nirukta, in Kauṭilya and various other works), it is difficult to say.