History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s6.8.4

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).