History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s7.34

v1.c6.s7.34

and by Śaṅkha-Likhita. Its style and grammar (which is un-Pāṇinean in the extreme) entitle it to great antiquity. There is no clear reference to Buddhism and other schisms anywhere. It appears to look upon Śvetaketu as not far removed from its own epoch. It was probably written at a time when Jaimini had founded his school. Hence we shall not be far wrong if we assign it to some period between 600--300 B. C. On several points his views are opposed to those of his predecessors, e. g. he rejects secondary sons, condemns *niyoga*, does not admit Paiśāca and Prājāpatya as valid forms of marriage (vide above page 29). There are other points also wherein Āpastamba differs from Gautama and the other sūtrakāras. Gautama (IV. 14-17) and Baudhāyana (I. 8. 7-12) give long lists of mixed castes and Gautama includes Yavāna among them. Āpastamba is silent on this point. But this has hardly any bearing on chronology. Even the Vedic works mention the Niṣāda and the Pūrvamīmāṁsāsūtra has a special adhikaraṇa (VI. 1. 51) devoted to him; the Bṛ. Upaniṣad mentions (IV. 3. 22 and 37) such castes as Cāṇḍāla, and the Gītā mentions the Śvapāka. The Āp. Śrauta speaks of the Niṣāda (9. 14. 12-13). The Āp. Dh. S. (II. 1. 2. 6) mentions Cāṇḍāla, Paulkasa and Vaiṇa. Gautama (17. 30) forbids the eating of the flesh of cows and bulls, while Āp. (I. 5. 7. 30-31) seems to allow it and cites the Vājasaneyaka for support. In this connection it has to be noted that Vasiṣṭha also has a similar sūtra (14. 46). Āp. (I. 9. 27. 10) prescribes a penance for one who practises usury and lays down that one should not eat at the usurer's (I. 6. 18. 22), while Gautama appears to allow usury to a Brāhmaṇa as a calling if done through an agent (X. 6). Baudhāyana, on the other hand, quotes verses that condemn usury in strong language as even worse than brahmahatyā, holds that a Brāhmaṇa who is a usurer should be treated as a śūdra and allows the first two castes to practise usury only towards atheists, śūdras and such like persons (I. 5. 79-81). So these differences of Āp. from others are hardly conclusive as to his chronological position.