History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s6.18
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s6.18
- Language
- English
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.