History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s7.13
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s7.13
- Language
- English
v1.c6.s7.13.1
He quotes the views of ten writers on *dharma* by name, viz. Eka (I. 6. 19. 7), Kaṇva (I. 6. 19. 3 and I. 10. 28. 1), Kāṇva (I. 6. 19. 7), Kuṇika (I. 6. 19. 7), Kutsa (I. 6. 19. 7), Kautsa (I. 6. 9. 4 and 7, I. 10. 28. 1), Puṣkarasādi (I. 6. 19. 7, I. 10. 28. 1), Vārṣyāyaṇi (I. 6. 19. 5 and 8, I. 10. 28. 2), Śvetaketu (I. 4. 13. 19 and I. 2. 5. 6), Hārita (I. 4. 13. 11, I. 6. 18. 2, I. 6. 19. 12, I. 10. 28. 1, 5 and 16, I. 10. 29. 12 and 16). Some of the names (viz. Kautsa, Vārṣyāyaṇi, and Puṣkarasādi) occur in the Nirukta. He quotes the view of Śvetaketu in Śvetaketu’s own words (in I. 4. 13. 20) that even a married man should every year stay with his teacher for two months to refresh his studies and gives it as his own opinion that Śvetaketu’s view is opposed to the Śāstras (the Vedas). In another place (I. 1. 4. 5-6) he speaks of Śvetaketu as an *avara* (a person belonging to later ages) and as one who on account of the remnant of his meritorious actions done in a former life or lives was able to grasp the four Vedas in a short time. It is usual to see in this a reference to Śvetaketu in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad (VI. 1. 1-2), where it is stated that Śvetaketu mastered all the Vedas in twelve years. But this identification is somewhat of doubtful value. Āpastamba quotes Śvetaketu as a teacher of *dharma*. The quotation from Śvetaketu given by Āpastamba has nothing corresponding to it in the Upaniṣad.
v1.c6.s7.13.2
Besides the Chāndogya Upaniṣad appears to make a distinction between two Śvetaketu’s (in VI. 1 and VI. 8), one being called Āruṇeya and the other Āruṇi (son of Aruṇa). Hārita, whose views are cited so frequently, is quoted by Baudhāyana (II. 1. 50) and also by Vasiṣṭha (II. 6.). From the two sutras (I. 6. 19. 3 and 7) it follows that Kaṇva and Kāṇva are two distinct writers. The Kumbhakonam edition reads Kāṇva in I. 10. 28. 1, while Bühler reads Kaṇva there. Kāṇva Bodhāyana is a teacher, whose name occurs in the *ṛṣitarpaṇa* in many works. The view ascribed to Kāṇva by Āpastamba in I. 6. 19. 7 seems to be the same as that of the Baudhāyana-dharmaśūtra (I. 2. 19⁸⁷). It has been shown above that there are close parallels in thought and expression between Baudhāyana and Āpastamba. In several places Āpastamba seems to be controverting the views of Baudhāyana or similar views held by others. Āpastamba condemns the view of giving the paternal wealth to the eldest son as opposed to the Vedas and explains the Vedic text (Tai. S. II. 5. 2. 7 quoted above) about the eldest son being endowed with all wealth as a mere *anuvāda* and not a *vidhi* (vide Āp. Dh. S. II. 6. 14. 6-13). Baudhāyana cites both the texts of the Tai. S. about equal division among sons and about the eldest son's larger share and seems to favour the latter view by putting it last (II. 2. 2-7.). Similarly the discussion in Āpastamba (I. 1. 4.
v1.c6.s7.13.3
5-12) about a *brahmacārin* eating the leavings (*ucchiṣṭa*) of his *guru*, provided the things are not directly forbidden by Śruti, seems to be directed against Baudhāyana (II. 1. 25-26). Although Āpastamba does not expressly quote Gautama, he appears to have had before him the Gautama-dharma-sūtra. He speaks of a smṛti (II. 6. 15. 25) that lays down that *upanayana* confers *adhikāra* on a man for śāstric actions and that before *upanayana* one is free to do anything and to eat anything. This, as interpreted by Haradatta, refers to Gautama (II. 1)⁸⁸. There are striking coincidences between Gautama and Āpastamba, e. g. Gaut. I. 19. = Āp. I. 1. 1. 41 (about some teachers prescribing the yellow robe to a *brahmacārin*), Gaut. I. 3 = Āp. II. 6. 13. 7 (about the violation of *dharma* by the great in former ages), Gaut. 9. 52 = Āp. I. 11. 31. 13), Gaut. 23. 9 = Āp. 1. 9. 25. 2; Gaut. 16. 19 = Āp. I. 3. 9. 14-15). Āpastamba frequently refers to the views of his predecessors in the words 'eke' (I. 1. 2. 37, 38, 41; I. 1. 4. 17; I. 2. 5. 20; I. 2. 6. 4; I. 3. 9. 3; I. 3. 11. 3 &c.) and 'aparam' (II. 6. 15. 22). It is somewhat remarkable that in many of these cases (where 'eke' occurs), the views are those either held by Gautama or ascribed by him also to others, e. g. Āp. I. 1. 2. 38 about the staff of a *brahmacārin* refers to Gaut. I. 23; Āp. I. 1. 2. 41 is almost same as Gaut. I. 19, Āp. I. 2. 5. 20 seems to refer to Gaut. 1. 54-59, Āp. 1. 3. 9.
v1.c6.s7.13.4
3 (the view of some that Vedic study lasts for four months and a half) seems to refer to Gaut. 16. 2, and Āp. I. 3. 11. 3 (about not studying after dining at a sacrifice for deities that are manuṣya-prakṛti) pointedly refers to Gaut. 16. 34 which contains the word 'manuṣyayajñabhojana'. Āpastamba twice quotes verses from a Purāṇa (I. 6. 9. 13, II. 9. 23. 3) and in one place gives in prose the view of a Purāṇa (I. 10. 29. 7.)⁸⁹. Āpastamba (II. 9. 24. 6) speaks of the view of a Bhaviṣyat-purāṇa (about creation of the world after a periodic dissolution). In one place Āpastamba (II. 11. 29. 11-12) says that 'the knowledge that exists (traditionally) among women and śūdras is the furthest limit of *vidyā* and it is said to be a supplement of the Atharvaveda.' Here he probably refers to Arthaśāstra, which according to the caraṇavyūha, is the Upaveda of the Atharvaveda. Āpastamba refers (II. 7. 16. 1) to Manu as founder of the institution of śrāddha. But this appears to be a reference to Manu, the mythical progenitor of mankind, and not to the Manusmṛti. It is noteworthy that Āpastamba (II. 7. 17. 8) quotes a verse, which is the same as Anuśāsanaparva 90. 46 (sambhojanī nāma &c.).