History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s6.18.3

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.