Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s8: 8. Hiraṇyakeśi-dharmasūtra

History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s8

Language
English

8. Hiraṇyakeśi-dharmasūtra

v1.c6.s8.1

The Hiraṇyakeśi-dharmasūtra forms the 26th and 27th *praśnas* of the Hiraṇyakeśi-kalpa. The Śrauta sūtra has been published by the Ānandāśrama Press (Poona). The Hiraṇyakeśi-gṛhya-sūtra was edited with extracts from the commentary of Mātṛdatta by Dr. Kirste (Vienna, 1889). The Gṛhya forms the 19th and 20th *praśnas* of the Kalpa, each *praśna* being divided into eight *paṭalas*. The Śrauta-sūtra is largely based on the Śrauta-sūtra of Āpastamba. The Gṛhya-sūtra is indebted to the Gṛhya-sūtra of Bhāradvāja. The Dharmasūtra of Hiraṇyakeśin can hardly be called an independent work. Hundreds of sūtras are borrowed word for word from the Āpastamba Dharmasūtra. The Dharmasūtra of Hiraṇyakeśin is therefore the oldest voucher for the authenticity of Āpastamba's text and is very valuable for checking the latter, The Hiraṇyakeśins form a sūtra-caraṇa of the Khāṇḍikeya section of the Taittirīyaśākhā and were formed later than the Āpastambīya School. In a grant of the Kongu kings dated in 454 A. D. Brāhmaṇas of the Hiraṇyakeśi School are mentioned (I. A. vol. V. page 136). According to the Mahārṇava quoted in the commentary of the caraṇavyūha, the Hiraṇyakeśins were to be found in the south-west between the Sahya mountain and the ocean and near Paraśurāma (i. e. in the Konkan). There are at present many Brāhmaṇas in the Ratnagiri District who call themselves Hiraṇyakeśins. The Dattaka-mīmāṁsā of Nanda-paṇḍita twice quotes passages from the commentary of Śabarasvāmin on the sūtra of Satyāṣāḍha. If he was identical with the great commentator of the Pūrva-mīmāṁsā (which is almost certain), then we have unimpeachable evidence for the existence of the works of the Hiraṇyakeśins long before the fifth century A. D.

v1.c6.s8.2

Bühler in his second edition of the Āpastamba-dharmasūtra (1893) gave (in appendix II) the various readings of the Hiraṇyakeśi-dharmasūtra from two MSS. I secured a modern transcript of the Hiraṇyakeśi-dharmasūtra from the Deccan College collection (No 138 of 1881-82), which contains the text and also the commentary of Mahādeva thereon. There are 18 folios for the sūtra and 101 for the commentary. That ms. presents some readings which are not noticed by Bühler as found in the two mss. consulted by him. For example, the ms. reads "saptama āyuṣkāmamaṣṭame brahmavarcasakāmam (reversing the order of years in Āp. I. 1. 1. 21-22), omits the words "yadi snāyāt daṇḍavat plavet' (from Āp. I. 1. 2. 30.), reads 'vastrāṇyeva vasītobhaya &c.' (Āp. I. 1. 3. 9 omits vasīta), reads 'gurave' for 'ācāryāya' in Āp. I. 1. 3. 31. The ms. of the Hiraṇyakeśi-dharmasūtra contains certain additions to the sūtras of Āpastamba. For example, a sūtra 'kṣāralavaṇa-madhu-māṁsāni ca varjayet' is added after Āp. II. 9. 22. 14, a sūtra 'teṣāṁ pūjā śreyasyātmanaḥ kāryā' occurs after Āp. II. 9. 25. 8, and the sūtra 'sarva-dharmāṇām svadharmānuṣṭhānāniyameṣu ca yuktaḥ syāt' occurs after Āp. II. 9. 25. 13. The manuscript contains a few verses, that are not found in the Āpastambadharmasūtra, introduced by the words 'athāpyudāharanti¹⁰³,' (except in one case viz. 'putreṇa, &c.) The manuscript also omits certain sūtras found in Āp. e. g. 'varṇajyāyasāṁ cetarair varṇaiḥ' (Āp. II. 5. 11. 8), 'anyatra rāhudarśanāt' (Āp. II. 7. 17. 25), 'athopanayanaṁ tata udakopasparśanam' (Ap. I. 1. 1. 36.). In the case of some sūtras the readings of Hiraṇyakeśin present a smoother and more classical Sanskrit than that of Āpastamba and are manifestly attempts to bring them in a line with the requirements of the śiṣṭas at the time when the Āpastambasūtras were taken over into the Hiraṇyakeśi school. Hiraṇyakeśisūtra has 'pādonam' and 'ardhonam' for 'padūnam' and 'ardhena' of Āpastamba (I. 1. 2. 13-14), 'asandarśane' for 'asandarśe' (Āp. I. 1. 2. 29), 'aglāniḥ' for 'aglāṁsnuḥ' (Āp. I. 1. 3. 22), 'prakṣālayet' for 'prakṣālayīta' (Āp. I. 1. 3. 36), 'kartṛpatyam' for 'kartapatyam' (Āp. I. 2. 5.3) 'yathāśakti' for 'śaktiviṣayeṇa' (Āp. II. 5. 12. 1). Another noticeable feature is that the arrangement of the sūtras into subsections is a good deal different in the two works. Bühler notes that from the 13th khaṇḍikā (6th paṭala) of the second praśna both the manuscripts consulted by him do not indicate the *paṭalas*. The Deccan College manuscript does not number them from the second paṭala in the second *praśna*. The number of paṭalas in the first *praśna* of Hiraṇyakeśi is eight, while Āpastamba has eleven paṭalas in each of the *two praśnas*. The distribution of sūtras in the khaṇḍikās is therefore different in the two works. Hiraṇyakeśi has 31 khaṇḍikās in the first *praśna* and 20 in the second. Besides a few of the khaṇḍikās are differently placed. The first khaṇḍikā of Hiraṇyakeśi (first *praśna*) stops after Āp. I. 1. 2. 1, the third reaches up to Āp. I. 1. 4. 6; Āp. I. 8. 22 and 23 (the adhyātmapaṭala) come in Hiraṇyakeśi immediately after Āp. I. 6. 19 and are Hiraṇya. I. 6. 20; Āp. I. 7. 20 and 21=Hir. I. 6. 21-22; Āp. I. 9. 24 and 25. 1--4=Hir. I. 6. 23; Āp. I. 9. 25. 4-13 and I. 9. 26. 1-10=Hir. I. 7. 24; Āp. I. 9. 26. 11-14 and I. 9. 27=Hir. I. 7. 25; Āp. I. 10. 28=Hir. I. 7. 26; Āp. I. 11. 31. 1-10=Hir. I. 8. 29; Āp. I. 11. 31. 11-23=

v1.c6.s8.3

¹⁰³ 'पशवश्च मुक्तादाणा अश्मा चालवणोधृ (द्धृ) तः। एतद् ब्राह्मण ते पण्यं तन्तुभारजनीकृतः॥' after आप. ध. सू. I. 7. 21. 4.; अध्यापर्क कुले जातं यो हृष्याद़ाततायिनम्। न तेन भ्रूणहा भवति मन्युस्तं मन्युमृच्छतीति । which is हिरण्यकेशि I. 7. 27. 8 and comes after आप. ध. सू. I. 10. 29. 7; पुत्रेण लोकाञ्जयति पौत्रेणामृतं सृते । अथ पुत्रस्य पौत्रेण नाप्नोति ब्रध्नस्य विष्टपम् ॥ दौहित्रस्तत्प्रतिमञ्चेति यत्प्राप्तं महद्द्वयम् । ब्राह्मादेवास्त्वधिकारिणः ॥ after आप. II. 5. 12. 4; 'वेदाध्यायी पञ्चाग्निखिसुपर्णो ज्येष्ठसामिकः । ब्राह्मदेयानुसन्तानी पञ्चैते पङ्क्तिपावनाः ॥' after आप. ध. सू. II. 7. 17. 21. The verse अध्यापकं is quoted in Baud. Dh. S. I. 10. 12 and Vas. III. 18 and for पुत्रेण &c. compare मनु 9. 137.

v1.c6.s8.4

Hir. I. 8. 30. In the second *praśna* the variance in distribution of sūtras into khaṇḍikās is still greater. Besides Āp. II. 4. 8-9 are placed in Hiraṇyakeśi before Āp. II. 3. 6-7 and Āp. II. 6. 13-15 before Āp. II. 5. 10-11. Sometimes a single sūtra of Āpastamba is split up into two and placed in two different khaṇḍikās, e. g. Āp. I. 9. 25. 4 is split into Hir. I. 6. 23. 31 and I. 7. 24. 1 (the portion from ‘rājānam gatvā’ being the first sūtra of Hiraṇyakeśi’s 24th Khaṇḍikā.

v1.c6.s8.5

The com. of Mahādeva Dīkṣita called Ujjvalā, is almost word for word the same as that of Haradatta’s Ujjvalā. That one has borrowed from the other admits of no doubt and Bühler thinks that Mahādeva is the borrower. But there is hardly anything to turn the scale in favour of Haradatta. Sometimes Mahādeva’s commentary contains more matter than Haradatta’s (e. g. on the sūtras ‘Saptame brahmārcasakamam &c. ‘Upanayanam vidyārthasya śrutitaḥ’, ‘dvādaśāvarardhyam’) and sometimes Haradatta contains more explanation (e. g. on ‘tasmiṁśca vidyākarmāntam &c.; on ‘nāpsu ślāghamānaḥ snāyāt’, on ‘pāṇisaṁkṣubdhenodakenaika &c.’). Mahādeva differs from Haradatta’s explanation of the word ‘atha’, which the former takes in the sense of ‘ānantarya or adhikāra’, while the latter takes it only in the sense of ‘ānantarya’. That Mahādeva also is an early writer follows from the fact (noted by Bühler p. 117n) that portions of his commentary are contained in the Munich Ms. of Haradatta dated Vikrama-Saṁvat 1668 (1611-12 A. D.). It is to be noted that Haradatta after saluting Gaṇeśa at the beginning of his Ujjvalā does obeisance to Mahādeva (which may mean God Śiva or the author Mahādeva if he was the *guru* or father of Haradatta). Mahādeva often comments on the sūtras as found in Āpastamba and not on the readings of them as existing in the Hiraṇyakeśi school; e. g. he comments on ‘padūnaṁ’, on ‘adhāsanaśāyī’ for ardhāsanaśāyī (the reading of the sūtra), on ‘ātmasvastyayanārthena’ (Āp. II. 5. 11. 9) for ‘svastyayanārthena’ of the ms. of Hir. The explanations of the two writers sometimes differ, as for example on ‘ācaryādhīnas syād-anyatra patanīyebhyaḥ’ (Āp. I. 1. 2. 19¹⁰⁴). One more circumstance that is worthy of note is that the Ujjvalā of Haradatta does not contain many quotations from Smṛtis as compared with his commentary on the Gautamadharmasūtra. Although one may be inclined to hold that it is Mahādeva who borrows, it must be clearly recognized that there is hardly any positive evidence in support of such a view. There is a commentary called Vaijayantī on the Hiraṇyakeśi-śrauta-sūtra. This Mahādeva is very likely identical with the Mahādeva who commented upon the dharmasūtra.

v1.c6.s8.6

¹⁰⁴ हरदत्त explains ‘आचार्याधीनो भवेदित्युपनयनान्ते यत्संशासनं तत्सिद्धयैवाचार्याधीनता-नूद्यते,’ while महादेव makes it a विधि ‘आचार्याधीनतया स्थातव्यमिति विधिः’.

Linked texts (5)