History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s6.8
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s6.8
- Language
- English
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.