History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s7.13.2

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.