History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s6.18.5

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.