Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s6: 6. The Baudhāyana Dharmasūtra

History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s6

Language
English

Contents

6. The Baudhāyana Dharmasūtra

v1.c6.s6.1

This has been edited several times (text by Dr. Hultzsch at Leipzig in 1884, text in the Ānandāśrama collection of smṛtis and in the Mysore Government Oriental Series in 1907 with the commentary of Govindasvāmin; translated in S. B. E., Vol. 14, with an Introduction). The Mysore edition has been used in this work. Baudhāyana is a teacher of the Kṛṣṇayajurveda. A complete set of the Baudhāyanasūtras has not yet been recovered and has not been as carefully preserved as the sūtras of Āpastamba and Hiraṇyakeśin. Dr. Burnell arranges Baudhāyana's sūtras into six sutras, the Śrautasūtra in 19 praśnas (probably); Karmāntasūtra in 20 adhyāyas; Dvaidhasutra in four praśnas; Gṛhyasūtra in four praśnas; Dharmasūtra in four praśnas; Śulvasūtra in three adhyāyas. The commentators offer no indication as to the place originally assigned to the *gṛhya*, *dharma* and *śulva sūtras* in the whole collection. Dr. Caland in his monograph (A. D. 1903) ‘Uber das Rituelle sūtra des Baudhāyana’ gives on p. 12 the contents of the Baudhāyanasūtra as follows:—Praśnas I–XXI Śrauta, XXII–XXV Dvaidha, XXVI–XXVIII Karmānta; XXIX–XXXI Prāyaścitta, XXXII Śulvasūtra, XXXIII–XXXV Gṛhyasūtra, XXXVI Gṛhyaprāyaścitta; XXXVII Gṛhyaparibhāṣā, XXXVIII–XLI Gṛhyapariśiṣṭa; XLII–XLIV Pitṛmedha, XLV Pravara, XLVI–XLIX Dharma. Dr. Caland edited nine *praśnas* of the Śrautasūtra for the B. I. Series (A. D. 1904). Dr. R. Shamsastri published for the Mysore University (in 1920) the Baudhāyanagṛhyasūtra with *paribhāṣā*, *gṛhyaśeṣa*, Pitṛmedhasūtra. The Gṛhyasūtra cites the view of Baudhāyana himself (I. 7). The Baudhāyana-dharma refers to the Gṛhya and presupposes it in several places (vide note 54). In the Baudhāyanagṛhya (III. 9. 6) we have a reference to *padakāra* Ātreya, Vṛttikāra Kauṇḍinya, pravacanakāra Kaṇva Bodhāyana, and Sūtrakāra Āpastamba.68a A similar passage occurs in the Bhāradvāja Gṛhyasūtra. In the Baudhāyana-dharmasūtra (II. 5. 27 Ṛṣitarpaṇa) we have Kaṇva Bodhāyana, Āpastamba sūtrakāra and Satyāṣāḍha Hiraṇyakeśin one after another. These references show that Kaṇva Bodhāyana was an ancient sage when the Baudhāyana-dharmasūtra was written and that he could not have been the author of the gṛhya or the dharma sūtras of Baudhāyana. Baudhāyana may have been a descendant of this Kaṇva Bodhāyana. This surmise is supported by Govindasvāmin who explains Baudhāyana occurring in Baudhāyanadharmasūtra I. 3. 13, as Kāṇvāyana. In the dharmasūtra Baudhāyana is himself cited as an authority several times (e. g. I. 4. 15 and 24, III. 5. 8, III. 6. 20). In all these places the Mysore edition reads Bodhāyana, while the Ānandāśrama reads Baudhāyana. In one or two places he is styled 'bhagavān' (III. 6. 20). Several explanations are offered by the commentator Govindasvāmin (on I. 3. 13). He says that it is the practice of the Ācāryas to refer to themselves in the third person (as Medhātithi says on Manu⁶⁹) or that the author of the dharmasūtra is a pupil of Baudhāyana as the Manusmṛti is promulgated by Bhṛgu, the pupil of Manu, or there was some other Baudhāyana whose works have not come down to us.

v1.c6.s6.2

68a अथ दक्षिणतः प्राचीनावीतिनो वैशम्पायनाय कलिङ्गवे तित्तिरये उखायोख्यायात्रेयात्रेयाय पदकाराय कौण्डिन्याय वृत्तिकाराय कण्वय बोधायनाय प्रवचनकारायापस्तम्बाय सूत्रकाराय सत्याषाढाय हिरण्यकेशाय वाजसनेयाय याज्ञवल्क्याय भारद्वाजायग्निवेश्यायाचार्येभ्य ऊर्ध्वरेतोभ्यो वानप्रस्थेभ्यो वंशस्थेभ्य एकपत्नीभ्यः कल्पयामीति. The epithets must be understood as arranged above, since elsewhere the epithet सूत्रकार is specially appropriated to आपस्तम्ब. The हिरण्यकेशिगृह्य (II. 20. 1, ed. by Kirste in 1889) makes this clear. It reads 'आत्रेयाय पदकाराय कौण्डिन्याय वृत्तिकाराय सूत्रकारेभ्यः सत्याषाढाय प्रवचनकर्तृभ्य आचार्येभ्यः &c. भारद्वाजगृह्य (quoted by Dr. Caland in 'Uber das Rituelle &c. p. 3. n. 2) reads 'बोधायनाय भरद्वाजाय सूत्रकारायोपस्तम्बाय सर्वेभ्यः सूत्रकारेभ्यः &c.'

v1.c6.s6.3

⁶⁹ 'प्रायेण ग्रन्थकाराः स्वमतं परापदेशेन ब्रुवते.'

v1.c6.s6.4

The following are the contents of the Baudhāyana-dharmasūtra:—*Praśna* I:—Sources of *dharma*, who are *śiṣṭas*, *pariṣad*, different practices of northern and southern India, countries where *śiṣṭas* reside and where mixed castes reside, prāyaścitta for visiting countries of the latter type; 2. Studenthood for 48, 24 or 12 years, time of *upanayana* and the girdle, skin, staff appropriate to each caste, duties of *brahmacārin*, eulogy of *brahmacarya*; 3. The duties of the *snātaka* who has completed his studies and observances but has not yet married; 4. directions about carrying the earthen jar (in the case of the *snātaka*); 5. bodily and mental *śauca*, purification of various substances, impurity on birth and death, meaning of *sapiṇḍa* and *sakulya*, rules of inheritance, purification on touching a corpse or a woman in her menses or on dog-bite, what flesh and food was allowed and forbidden; 6. Purification from the point of view of sacrifice, purification of clothes, ground, grass, fuel, vessels, and articles used in sacrifice; 7. Rules about the importance from the sacrificial point of view of sacrifice, of the sacrificial utensils, priests, the sacrificer and his wife, ghee, cooked offerings, the victim, *soma* and fires; 8. The four *varṇas* and the sub-castes; 9. Mixed castes; 10. the duties of kings, the five great sins and punishments for them, punishments for killing birds, witnesses; 11. The eight forms of marriage, holidays; *Praśna* II. 1. Prāyaścittas for *brahmahatyā* and other great sins, prāyaścittas for a *brahmachārin* violating his vow of celibacy, for marrying a *sagotra* girl, for marrying before elder brother, sins lesser than the great ones, description of such penances as Parāka, Kṛcchra, Atikṛcchra; 2. Partition of heritage, larger share for the eldest, the several substitutes for an *aurasa* son, exclusion from inheritance, dependence of women, prāyaścitta for adultery by men and women, rules about *niyoga*, means of subsistence in distress, continuous duties of the house-holder such as Agnihotra &c.; 3. The daily duties of the householder such as bathing, ācamana, Vaiśvadeva, giving food; 4. *Sandhyā*; 5. Rules about the manner of bathing, of Ācamana, worship of the sun, and about the method of propitiating (‘*tarpaṇa*’) gods, sages and pitṛs; 6. The five great daily *yajñas*; the four castes and their duties; 7. regulations about dinner; 8. Śrāddha; 9. eulogy of sons and spiritual benefit from sons; 10. rules about *saṃnyāsa*; *Praśna* III. 1 modes of subsistence for the two kinds of householders, Śālīna and Yayāvara; 2 the means of subsistence called ‘Śaṇṇivartanī’; 3. the duties of the forest hermit and his means of livelihood; 4. prāyaścitta for not observing the vows of *brahmacārin* or householder; 5. method of reciting *Aghamārṣaṇa*, the holiest of texts; 6. the ritual of *praśṛtayāvaka*; 7 the purificatory *homa* called Kūṣmāṇḍa; 9. the penance called *cāndrāyaṇa*; 9 the recital of the Vedas without taking food; 10. theories about purifications for sin, purifying things; *Praśna* IV. 1. prāyaścittas of various kinds viz. for eating forbidden food or drink &c.; 2. *prāṇāyāmas* and *Aghamārṣaṇa* as purifiers in case of several sins; 3. secret prāyaścittas; 4. Various Vedic texts as prāyaścittas; 5. Means of securing *siddhi* by means of *japa*, *homa*, *iṣṭi* and *yantra*: the penances called Kṛcchra, Ati-Kṛcchra, Sāntapana, Parāka, Cāndrāyaṇa; 6 the muttering (japa) of holy texts, the iṣṭis; 7 praise of *Yantras*, various Vedic texts used in *homa*; 8 censure of those who enter on the means of *siddhi* out of great greed, permission to get these things done through another in certain circumstances.

v1.c6.s6.5

The extant Dharmasūtra does not appear to have come down intact. The fourth *praśna* is most probably an interpolation. Most of the eight chapters of that *praśna* are full of verses, the portion in prose being very small. The last three chapters (6-8) are entirely in verse. The style is quite different from that of the first two *praśnas*. The first five chapters of the fourth praśna dealing with prāyaścittas are more or less superfluous, the same subject having been dealt with in II. 1 and III. 4-10. Some of the sūtras in the earlier *praśnas* are repeated *verbatim* in the fourth, e. g. II. 1. 33-34 and IV. 2. 10-11 (avakīrṇi-prāyaścitta). The third *praśna* also is not free from doubt. The tenth chapter of the third *praśna* is as said above taken from Gautama. The sixth chapter of the third *praśna* agrees very closely in phraseology with the 48th chapter of the Viṣṇudharmasūtra. But it is rather difficult to say which is the borrower. Dr. Jolly (S. B. E. Vol. VII. p. XIX) is inclined to think that both borrowed from a common source. It seems more probable that Viṣṇu borrows from Baudhāyana, as the Viṣṇudharmasūtra uses the form 'punīta' in place of 'punātha' (in Baud.) and as the Viṣṇu-Dharmasūtra omits all reference to Rudra (Baud. III. 6. 12.) and omits the words "gaṇān paśyati, gaṇādhipatiṁ paśyati ... bhagavān Bodhāyanaḥ" (Baud III. 6. 20.). In the Mysore edition all the four *praśnas* of the *Dharmasūtra* are divided into *adhyāyas*, but the Mss used by Bühler appear to have divided the first two *praśnas* into kaṇḍikās and the last two into adhyāyas. There are many repetitions even in the first two praśnas, which therefore make one rather doubtful about the authenticity of the first two praśnas also in their entirety. For example II. 6. 11 and 31 are indentical; in II. 7, 22 and II. 10. 53 the same verse ("aṣṭau grāsā" &c.) is quoted. Such repetitions are frequent in the two last praśnas e. g. III.2.16 and III.3.23; III.4.5 and III.7.12. Some of the quotations ascribed to Baudhāyana in the Mitākṣarā and other works are not taken from the *dharmasūtra*, but from the Gṛhyasūtra or its supplements (e. g. the words 'ekaṁ śākhām-adhīte śrotriyaḥ" quoted in the Mit. on Yāj. III. 24, which are cited by Hultzsch (on p. 125) are taken from the Gṛhya (vide note 78 below).

v1.c6.s6.6

The Dharmasūtra of Baudhāyana is somewhat loose in structure and is not concise. Govindasvāmin remarks (on I. 2. 19.) that Baudhāyana does not aim at brevity.⁷⁰ Several subjects are treated of in two places and often without any logical connection with what precedes or follows. Rules of inheritance (dāya-bhāga) occur in the midst of rules about prāyaścitta (in II. 2.); rules about holidays (anadhyāya) occur immediately after the eight forms of marriage and the condemnation of the sale of a daughter (I. 11). Rules about *snātaka* occur in two places (I. 3 and II. 3. 10 ff.). Baudhāyana quotes at least 90 verses introduced by the words "athāpyudāharanti," more than 80 being from the first two praśnas alone. There are over two hundred other verses, about 80 of which occur in the first two praśnas and about ten are Vedic. Some of the verses even in the first two praśnas do not appear to be quotations e. g. I. 1. 16, II. 2. 1, II. 3. 50, II. 3. 52-54 and 56. A verse quoted is in the Vaṁśastha metre (IV. 3. 14); there are two verses in the Upajāti metre taken as a quotation (II. 3.18). There are some prose quotations introduced with the words "athāpyudāharanti" (e. g. II. 4. 5 and II. 6. 30 which refers to the *asura* Kapila, son of Prahlāda). The language of the Baud. Dh. S. is archaic and often departs from the Pāṇinean standard. Baudhāyana employs such un-Pāṇinean forms as "gṛhya" (for gṛhītvā in II. 5. 1), pūjya (II. 9. 5.), "adhigacchānaḥ" (in II. 9. 9.), ānayitvā (III. 3. 6), "punatha" (in III. 6. 5, probably a quotation), "tebhiḥ" (for taiḥ in III. 2. 16, a quotation). In several places Baudhāyana states opposite views and then gives his own opinion on the point, e. g. Baud. I. 5. 105-109 (about impurity on birth); II. 1. 49-51.

v1.c6.s6.7

⁷⁰ ननु द्विजातिषु स्वकर्मस्थेषु इति सूत्रांयतव्यं किमिति सूत्रद्वयारम्भः । सत्यं, अयं ह्याचार्यो नातीव ग्रन्थलाघवाभिप्रायो भवति ।

v1.c6.s6.8.1

As regards the literature known to Baudhāyana the following points may be noted. All the four Vedas are mentioned by name in II. 5. 27 (*tarpaṇa*). He quotes very frequently the Taittirīya Saṁhitā, Tai. Brāhmaṇa and the Tai. Āraṇyaka (in the Āndhra recension). Well-known hymns of the Ṛgveda such as the Aghamarṣaṇa, the Puruṣasūkta and also simple '*ṛks*' are frequently referred to. In III. 10 (which is almost the same as Gautama 19) there is a sūtra enumerating the Upaniṣads, the Saṁhitās of all the Vedas and several *sāmans* as purificatory texts. There are long quotations taken from the Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa (XI. 3. 3. 1 ff and XI. 5. 6. 3) in Baud. (1.2.52 about *brahmacāri* and II.6. 7-9 about *brahmayajña*). It is noteworthy that in the *tarpaṇa* there is an invocation of the Atharvaveda and immediately afterwards of the Atharvāṅgirasaḥ. The same is found in the Baudhāyanagṛhya also (III. 2. 9 and 22). In the Upaniṣads (Bṛhadāraṇyaka II. 4. 10, IV. 1. 2) it is the word Atharvāṅgirasaḥ that stands for the Atharvaveda. Baudhāyana quotes a *gāthā* of the Bhāllavins (I. 1. 29) about the geographical limits of Āryāvarta. Vasiṣṭha adduces the same verse (I. 15) and says that it is taken from the Nidāna work of the Bhāllavins. The Nirukta also mentions a school of Vedic interpretation called Naidānāḥ. It is difficult to say what Nidāna works contained. *Itihāsa* and *Purāṇa* occur in the *tarpaṇa* (II. 5. 27). The *aṅgas* of the Vedas occur in I. 1. 8 and the six *aṅgas* in II. 8.

v1.c6.s6.8.2

2. Whether the word "rahasya" in II. 8. 3 means the Āraṇyakas (as Govindasvāmin explains) is doubtful. Baudhāyana mentions a Vaikhānasa-śāstra in II. 6. 16, which appears to refer to the work of Vikhanas on hermits and speaks of Śrāmaṇaka (the rites prescribed by Vikhanas for initiation as hermit), just as Gautama does. Among the authors on *dharma* mentioned by name are: Aupajaṅghani (II. 2. 33 for the view that only *aurasa* son was to be recognised and not the other kinds of sons⁷¹), Kātya (I. 2. 47), Kaśyapa (or Kāśyapa in other editions, I. 11. 20 on the point that a woman bought cannot be a *patnī*), Gautama (I. 1. 23 and II. 2. 70), Prajāpati (II. 4. 15 about failure in Sandhyopāsana, and II. 10. 71 about *sannyāsa*), Manu (IV. 1. 14 and IV. 2. 16), Maudgalya (II. 2. 61, about observances of a widow being restricted only to six months after her husband's death), Hārīta (II. 1. 50). Baud. I. 2. 7 quotes a verse, which Vasiṣṭha ascribes to Hārīta (Vas. II. 6). As to Gautama, *vide* p. 17 above. Manu is only mentioned in the fourth praśna, the authenticity of which, as said above, is very doubtful. Baudhāyana II. 2. 16 (about the efficacy of *Aghamarsaṇa*) closely agrees with Manu XI. 260. The first reference to Manu's teaching cannot be traced in the Manusmṛti. Prajāpati (in III. 9. 21) seems to stand for god Brahmā and not for any real or mythical writer on *dharma*. One remarkable piece of information contained in Baudhāyana (II. 6.

v1.c6.s6.8.3

30) is that he quotes from a work (of the Brāhmaṇa class in language) a prose passage wherein the division into four āśramas is ascribed to an *asura* Kapila, son of Pralhāda. In II. 2. 79 Baudhāyana quotes a *gāthā* from the dialogue between the daughter of Uśanas and the king Vṛṣaparvan⁷², which is nearly the same as Mahābhārata I. 78. 10 and 34. Baud. quotes the view of *Ācāryas* (II. 6. 29) as Gautama does. In several places he refers to the views of his predecessors on *dharma* as "others" (*eke, apare*) e. g. I. 4. 23, I. 5. 16, I. 6. 105-106, II. 5. 2. In II. 3. 18 two verses in the Upajāti metre are quoted as sung by "*anna*" (food). From the numerous quotations in verse cited by Baudhāyana on topics of *dharma*, it follows that the Dharmasūtra was preceded by a considerable number of works on *dharma* in verse. Bühler (SBE vol. XIV, p. XLIII) says that Vijñāneśvara was the first writer who quoted the Baud. D. S. But there are writers who flourished centuries before Vijñāneśvara that regarded Baudhāyana as a writer on *dharma* and either quoted his words or pointedly referred to them. Śabara in his *bhāṣya* on Jaimini, I. 3. 3 says that the rule in the Smṛtis about the period of Vedic study being 48 years is opposed to the Vedic injunction "one who has begot sons and whose hair are dark should consecrate the sacrificial fires⁷³." This must be regarded as referring to the words of Baudhāyana (I. 2. 1). Śabara uses the same word "Vedabrahmacarya" that Baud. employs.

v1.c6.s6.8.4

It is true that Gautama and Āpastamba both refer to the rule about 48 years, but they do not employ the word "*veda-brahmacarya*." The Tantravārtike of Kumārila says that the words of Āpastamba (II. 6. 15. 1) which seem to accept the validity of local and family usages (even though opposed to Smṛti tradition) stand refuted by the words of Baudhāyana (I. 1. 19-24) who cites only such censured usages as are opposed to Smṛti. Kumārila appears to think that Baudhāyana attacks the extant work of Āpastamba, i. e. the present Baud. is later than the present Āpastamba. It is not necessary to follow Kumārila implicitly as regards chronological details, where he is speaking of writers that flourished over a thousand years before him. But his opinion deserves weight. The Tantravārtika quotes a Smṛti passage which .bears a close resemblance to Baudhāyana (II. 3. 28)⁷⁵. In the commentary of Viśvarūpa (who as we shall see below flourished about 800 A. D.) on Yājñavalkya, Baudhāyana is quoted at least nine times in the chapter on *ācāra* alone. Vide Viśvarūpa on Yāj. I. 21, 26, 29, 53, 64, 69, 72, 79, 195 (Trivandrum edition), where Baud. I. 5. 14, I. 2. 30, I. 5. 5, I. 1. 17, IV. 1. 15, IV. 1. 18, IV. 1. 22, IV. 1. 20 and I. 5. 47 are respectively quoted. There are very few variations from the present text and the only serious variation is as regards the last (I. 5. 47) which is in prose (while Viśvarūpa quotes a verse).

v1.c6.s6.8.5

It is remarkable that Viśvarūpa quotes several verses from the fourth *praśna*, which shows that even if the fourth praśna be an interpolation, it is comparatively an ancient one. The Mit. also (on Yāj. III. 306) quotes a long passage from the fourth praśna (IV. 1. 5-11). The words of the Śākuntala⁷⁶ that the first precept is that a girl is to be given away to a meritorious person are probably a reminiscence of Baud. IV. 1. 12. Medhātithi on Manu. V. 117 quotes Baudhāyana I. 5. 47 and on IV. 36 quotes Baud. I. 4. 2 (which is mutilated as printed). On Manu. V. 114 he says that all the rules about purification of substances are contained in Baudhāyana-smṛti. On Manu. V. 118, he quotes Baud. I. 5. 50.

v1.c6.s6.9

⁷¹ One of the verses (अप्रमत्ता रक्षत तन्तुमेनं) is referred to by शबरस्वामी on पू. मी. सू. I. 2. 13 (अपराधात् कर्तुश्च पुत्रदर्शनम्).

v1.c6.s6.10

⁷² स्तुवतो दुहिता त्वं वै याचतः प्रतिगृह्णतः । अथा॒हं स्तूयमानस्य ददतोऽप्रतिगृह्णतः ॥

v1.c6.s6.11

⁷³ शबर's words are 'अष्टाचत्वारिंशद्वर्षाणि वेदब्रह्मचर्यचरणं जातपुत्रः कृष्णकेशोऽग्नीनादधीत-इत्यनेन विरुद्धम्' on I. 3. 3, and again on I. 3. 4 'अपुंस्त्वं प्रच्छादयन्तश्चाष्टाचत्वारिंशद्वर्षाणि ब्रह्मचर्यं चरितवन्तः बौधायन's words are अष्टाचत्वारिंशद्वर्षाणि पौराणं वेदब्रह्मचर्यम्. Compare गौ. ध. सू. 2. 52 and आ. ध. सू. I. 1. 2. 12.

v1.c6.s6.12

⁷⁴ तन्त्रवार्तिक p. 139 'आपस्तम्बवचनं तु बौधायनेन स्मृतिविरुद्धदुष्टाचारोदाहरणान्येव प्रयच्छता निराकृतम्'. The words in the बौ. ध. सू. (I. 1. 22) 'तत्र तत्र देशप्रामाण्यमेव स्यात्' are opposed to the words of आपस्तम्ब 'एतेन देशकुलधर्मा व्याख्याताः.'

v1.c6.s6.13

⁷⁵ तन्त्रवार्तिक p. 993 ‘ तथा च स्मृतिः । ...धारयेद्वैणवं दण्डं शुभे रौक्मे च कुण्डले—इत्यादि सूपपत्स्यते ।’ Baud. has वैणवं दण्डं धारयेद्रुक्मकुण्डले च. Compare मनु IV. 36. It is probable that the तन्त्रवार्तिक combines बौ. and मनु.

v1.c6.s6.14

⁷⁶ ‘ गुणवते कन्यका प्रदेया इति तावत्प्रथमः कल्पः ’ शाकुन्तल 4th Act; while Baud. has ‘ दद्याद्गुणवते कन्यां नग्निकां ब्रह्मचारिणे ’.

v1.c6.s6.15

About the home of Baudhāyana it is difficult to advance any positive conclusion. In modern times Baudhāyanīyas are mostly confined to the south. We know that Sāyaṇa, the great commentator of the Vedas, was a Baudhāyanīya. A grant of Nandivarma, a Pallava, of the 9th century mentions Brāhmaṇas of the *pravacana-sūtra* as recipients.⁷⁷ As Baudhāyana is called pravacanakāra in the Gṛhyasūtras Bühler thinks (S. B. E. vol. 14 p. XLII) that the Brāhmaṇas belonged to the Baudhāyanacaraṇa. Buhler is probably right. In the grant most of the donees are students of the Āpastamba Sūtra. First the Gotra, then the Sūtra and then the name of the donee are introduced in the grant. Therefore as some of the donees are said to be students of "pravacanasūtra," it follows that "pravacana" stands for some sūtra school. It appears that *sūtra* and *pravacana* are two different things, whatever the latter term may mean. Baudhāyana is called pravacanakāra and Āpastamba is styled sūtrakāra. We are told by the Baudhāyana-gṛhyasūtra⁷⁸ that a Brāhmaṇa who studied *sūtra* and *pravacana* was styled "bhrūṇa." Bühler was inclined to hold that Baudhāyana was a southern teacher for several reasons. Baudhāyana mentions customs of the south and includes sea-faring as a custom peculiar to the north (I. 1. 20), while in another place he places sea-faring at the head of sins (*patanīyas*) lesser than the mortal ones (II. 1. 41). Therefore it is said that he was not a northern teacher. But as against this we have to remember that Baudhāyana (I. 1. 29) quotes with apparent approval a verse in which the countries of Avanti (Ujjain), Aṅga, Magadha, Surāṣṭra (Kathiawar) and Dakṣiṇāpatha are declared to be the home of mixed castes. Dakṣiṇāpatha was generally supposed to be the whole peninsula south of the Narmadā. Baudhāyana, if he was a native of the south, would not have spoken of his country as the home of mixed castes only, unless he put a restricted meaning on the word Dakṣiṇāpatha (which sometimes meant in later days Mahārāṣṭra). Vide J. B. B. R. A. S. for 1917 p. 620.

v1.c6.s6.16

⁷⁷ I. A. vol. 8, pp. 273-274.

v1.c6.s6.17

⁷⁸ The whole passage is interesting 'उपनीनमात्रो व्रतानुचारी वेदानां किंचिदधीत्य ब्राह्मणः। एकां शाखामधीत्य श्रोत्रियः। अङ्गाध्याय्यनूचानः। कल्पाध्यायी ऋषिकल्पः। सूत्रप्रवचनाध्यायी भ्रूणः। चतुर्वेदादृषिः। अत ऊर्ध्वं देवः।' बा. गृ. सू. I. 7. 2-8.

v1.c6.s6.18.1

The extant Baudhāyanadharmasūtra is certainly later than Gautama, as it mentions Gautama twice by name and as one quotation at least is found in the extant Gautama. Besides Baudhāyana quotes by name several teachers on *dharma*, while Gautama quotes only one, Manu. Baudhāyana is far removed from the times of the Upaniṣads. Baud. (II. 7. 15) quotes a verse which is itself an adaptation of a passage from the Chāndogya-upaniṣad.⁷⁹ He quotes Hārīta. It is uncertain whether the Hārītadharmasūtra, a manuscript of which was discovered by the late Vaman Śāstrī Islampurkar at Nasik, is the one intended. Bühler thought that the work of Baudhāyana was earlier than that of Āpastamba by a century or two. His first reason was that Kāṇva Baudhāyana receives homage in the *tarpaṇa* before Āpastamba and Hiraṇyakeśin and that the same order is observed in the Baudhāyana-gṛhyasūtra. But this reason is far from convincing. It may be conceded that Baudhāyana was regarded as the oldest (or the most authoritative or respectable) of the three schools of the Black Yajurveda. But from this it does not at all follow that the extant *dharma-sūtra* of the Baudhāyanīyas is earlier than that of the Āpastambīyas. For aught we know the sūtra compiled for the school of Baudhāyana may be later than the sūtra manual of the Āpastambīyas. We saw above that orthodox opinion, represented by Kumārila, regards Baudhāyana's work as later than Āpastamba's.

v1.c6.s6.18.2

All the three founders of the three schools are mentioned in the Baudhāyanagṛhya and dharma sūtra. One may equally argue with good reason that both these works knew a sūtra work of Āpastamba and that the extant dharmasūtra of Āpastamba is that work. Another reason assigned for the priority of Baudhāyana's work over Āpastamba's is that, though both have numerous sūtras that agree almost word for word, a comparison of the views of the two writers shows that Āpastamba lays down stricter and more puritanic (and therefore later) views on certain points than Baudhāyana. Gautama, Baudhāyana and Vasiṣṭha mention several secondary sons, while Āpastamba is silent about them. Gautama, Baudhāyana (II. 2. 17, 62), Vasiṣṭha and even Viṣṇu approve of the practice of *niyoga*, while Āpastamba condemns it (II. 6. 13. 1-9). Gautama and Baudhāyana (I. 11. 1) speak of eight forms of marriage, while Āpastamba speaks of only six and omits Prājāpatya and Paiśāca (II. 5. 11. 17-20 and II. 5. 12. 1-2). Baudhāyana (II. 2. 4-6) allowed a larger share to the eldest son on a partition, while Āpastamba condemns such a procedure (II. 6. 14. 10-14). The Baudhāyana-gṛhyasūtra (II. 4. 6) allows upanayana to *rathakāra*, while Āpastamba (gṛhya 4. 10. 1-4) does not do so (dharmasūtra I. 1. 1. 19). These points are hardly conclusive on the question of date. From very ancient times there was great divergence of opinion among the doctors of the law on most, if not on all, of these points.

v1.c6.s6.18.3

There is no hard and fast rule that these doctrines were upheld by early writers and condemned by later ones. Baudhāyana himself quotes the views of an ancient writer, Aupajaṅghani, who condemned all secondary sons. The verses that Baudhāyana quotes on this point (II. 2. 34-36) are quoted by Āpastamba also but without the author's name (Ap. II. 6. 13. 6), there being variants only in the first verse. *Niyoga* was allowed by Manu (9. 56-63) and then condemned (9. 64-68) and Bṛhaspati refers to this attitude of Manu (vide Kullūka on Manu 9. 68). Even so late a writer as Yājñavalkya (II. 131) approves of *niyoga*. About the *rathakāra* being allowed to consecrate the sacred fires there is a discussion in the sūtras of Jaimini (VI. 1. 44 ff). Vedic passages supported both methods *viz.* equal division among sons and the bestowal of a larger share on the eldest. Even Yājñavalkya (II. 118) allows a larger share to the eldest son. Therefore hardly anyone of the circumstances relied upon by Bühler as indicating a later age for Āpastamba is conclusive or convincing. The third ground for placing Baudhāyana before Āpastamba is that the style of the former is simpler and older as compared with the latter's. That Baudhāyana is simpler than Āpastamba may be admitted. But this may be due to the fact that Baudhāyana has been tampered with more than Āpastamba.

v1.c6.s6.18.4

On the other hand Āpastamba contains more un-Pāṇinean forms more uncouth constructions, more words in an archaic sense than is the case with Baudhāyana. All that is almost certain about the age of the Baudhāyana-dharmasūtra is that it is later than the work of Gautama, that its style, its doctrines and its general out-look on different subjects do not compel us to assign it a later date than that of the other dharmasūtras. We have adduced evidence to show that long before the days of Śabara (whose latest date cannot be later than 500 A.D.) the Baudhāyana-dharmasūtra was an authoritative smṛti; it follows that the dharmasūtra must be placed somewhere between 500-200 B. C. Numerous sutras are identical in Baudhāyana and Āpastamba e. g. Ap. I. 1. 2. 30 = Baud. I. 2. 40-41, Āp. I. 2. 6. 8-9 = Baud. I. 2. 39, Ap. I. 5. 15. 8 = Baud. I. 2. 31, Āp. I. 11. 31. 11 and 16 = Baud. II. 3. 39 and 32. There are several verses that occur in both *e.g.* Baud. II. 1. 42 = Ap. I. 9. 27. 11, Baud. II. 2. 34-36 = Āp. II. 6. 13. 6 (three verses condemning secondary sons), Baud. II. 10. 63 = Āp. 11. 9. 21. 10, Baud. II. 7. 22-23 = Āp. II. 4. 9. 13. (two verses), Baud. II. 6. 36. = Āp. II. 9. 24. 8. Besides these there are numerous Vedic quotations that are common to both. All this, however, does not establish anything about their relative position. The Vasiṣṭha-dharmasūtra also has numerous quotations in common with Baud. Vide Vas. I. 15. = Baud. I. 1. 28, Vas. III. 5, 6, 11, 20, 56 = Baud. I. 1.

v1.c6.s6.18.5

10, 12, 11, 8 and I. 5. 58 (respectively); Vas. 6. 20-21= Baud. II. 7. 22-23; Vas. VIII. 17 = Baud. II, 2, 1; Vas. XI. 27-28 = Baud. II. 8. 21-22; Vas. XVI. 34 = Baud. I. 10. 35, Vas. XVII. 73 = Baud. IV. 1. 17, Vas. XVII. 86 = Baud. I. 5. 102; Vas. XXII. 10 = Baud. I. 1. 33. It is to be noted that some of these quotations (Baud. II. 8. 21-22, I. 10. 35) occur in the extant Manusmṛti also (III. 125-126 and VIII. 98). There are a few prose sūtras in Vas. that are transformed into verse in Baud. and *vice versa* e. g. Vas. III. 41 (prose) = Baud. I. 5. 20 (quoted as a verse), Vas. III. 57 (quoted as a verse) = Baud. I. 6. 19-20. It is not likely that one borrows from the other. There are two other possible explanations, viz. that both Baud. and Vas. (and Manu also) quote from or adapt a common source or that the three works have been tampered with and interpolations introduced at every step. The latter alternative is too sweeping as the number of verses is very large and makes all the old sūtras except that of Gautama valueless for all chronological purposes. One cannot subscribe to the view that such extensive interpolations took place as the latter theory demands. The first alternative appears more reasonable. What that common source was, whether it was a regular work in verse or whether there was a floating mass of such popular verses as Bühler holds, are questions that present very great difficulties.

v1.c6.s6.18.6

It is not easy to believe that there were hundreds of floating verses on *dharma* no body knew by whom composed, on which writers of the centuries preceding the Christian era drew for supporting their opinions. That does not sound as a very likely procedure. It is more probable that such verses were contained in a work or works now lost.

v1.c6.s6.19

⁷⁹ Baud. 'अथाप्युदाहरन्ति-यथाहि तूलमैषीकमग्नौ प्रोतं प्रदीव्यते। तद्वत्सर्वाणि पापानि दह्यन्ते ह्यात्मयाजिनः॥'; compare छान्दोग्योपनिषद् V. 24. 3. 'तद्यथैषीकातूलमग्नौ प्रोतं प्रदूयेतैवं हास्य सर्वे पाप्मानः प्रद्यन्ते' &c.

v1.c6.s6.20

In the *tarpaṇa*, Baud. (II. 5. 21) mentions several appellations of Gaṇeśa, viz. Vighna, Vināyaka, Sthūla, Varada, Hastimukha,, Vakratuṇḍa, Ekadanta, Lambodara. But this affords no certain clue as to date. The worship of Vināyaka is found in the Mānavagṛhya also. In the *tarpaṇa* (II. 5. 23) we have the seven planets mentioned in the order of the days of the week and also Rahu and Ketu; besides the twelve names of Viṣṇu occur in II. 5. 24. In II. 1. 44 Baud. speaks of the profession of an actor or of a teacher of dramaturgy (Nāṭyācārya) as an upapātaka. Several sūtras attributed to Baudhāyana on the subject of adoption in the Dattakamīmāṁsā and other later works are taken from the Baudhāyanagṛhyaśeṣasūtra (II. 6), the sūtras agreeing very closely with Vasiṣṭha (15. 1-9).

v1.c6.s6.21

According to Burnell the oldest commentator on the Baudhāyanaśrauta-sūtra was Bhavasvāmin, whom he placed in the 8th century. The commentary of Govindasvāmin on the Dharmasūtra is a learned one and is generally to the point. He appears to be a very late writer.

Linked texts (15)