Georg Bühler.

The sacred laws of the Aryas : as taught in the schools of Apastamba, Gautama, Vasishtha and Baudhayana online

. (page 29 of 55)
Online LibraryGeorg BühlerThe sacred laws of the Aryas : as taught in the schools of Apastamba, Gautama, Vasishtha and Baudhayana → online text (page 29 of 55)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

fit for sacrificial purposes. With respect to the latter clause
he adds that " the details have been given above.' As the
Dharaia-sutra contains nothing more on this subject, it
follows that the expression 'above' must refer to Gr/hya-
sutra II, 7, where the usual detailed rules regarding the
employment of particular woods for the several varwas are
given. In the second passage Baudhayana says that the
rules for the performance of funeral sacrifices have been
fully explained in the section on the Ash/akahoma, which
occurs Grzhya-sutra II, 17-18. It is, therefore, perfectly
certain that Baudhayana, just like Apastamba, placed the
Pra^nas on the Sacred Law after those on the domestic
ceremonies, and that the Dharma-sutra was not a separate
work. Under these circumstances it becomes highly pro-
bable that the Sulva-sutra formed, as is the case in other
sets of Kalpa-sutras, the conclusion of the whole. Thus
the only treatise, whose position remains doubtful, is the
Pravarakha</a, the list of the Brahmanical gotras and of
their deified ancestors 2 . Possibly it may have stood at the
end of the .Srauta-sutra.

1 According to the Elph. Coll. MS., Cl. I, B. 5, and my copy, it runs thus:

Ti ii ^ H WT *3*n*mwT: n * 11

* Burnell : Catalogue of a Collection of Sanskrit MSS., no. CXV1II.


The destruction of the continuity of Baudhayana's Kalpa-
sutra has had the consequence which is commonly ob-
servable in other dismembered works, that several of its
detached portions have received considerable additions
from later and, as it would seem, from several hands.
There can be no doubt that a small portion only of the
nine Pr&mas, found in the Western copies of the Grz'hya-
sutra, really belongs to Baudhayana. For the description
of the Grthya. rites, which strictly follows the general plan
laid down in the first Sutra, is completed in two or three
Pramas 1 . Next follows a Pra^na on the anukrztis, rites
resembling those comprised in the subdivisions treated
before, and then a Prajna on prayaj&ttas, or expiations
of mistakes committed during, and of the neglect of, the
performance of the Grzhya-karmam. The remaining Pra-
jnas are filled with a medley of paribhashas, general rules,
and of full descriptions of ceremonies, some of which have
been given before, while others are added afresh. Many
of the newly-added rites do not belong to the ancient
Brahmanical worship, but to the Pauranic religions, the
service of Siva,. Skanda, Naraya#a, and other deities, and
some show an admixture of Tdntric elements. In- some of
the later Pra^nas, especially IV and V, the language closely
resembles that of the first three, and shows the same stereo-
typed phrases and the same Vedic anomalous forms. But
in other sections, particularly VI-IX, we find, instead of
Sutras, the common AnushAibh Sloka throughout, and ex-
pressions peculiar to the metrical Smrztis and the Pura#as.
At the end of most Adhyayas we read the phrase, ity aha
Baudhayana/z, or bhaga van Baudhayana^/ thus speaks Bau-
dhayana, or the divine Baudhayana.' Finally, while the first
three Prajnas are divided into Kadfikis or Kham/as, the fol-
lowing ones consist of Adhyayas or chapters. These differ-
ences, as well as the fact that the most important Grihya,
rites, arranged according to a special plan, are done with in the

1 Elphinstone College Collection, no. 5, according to which all quotations
have been made, gives three Prasnas, my own MS. two Pra-nas. The number
of the Khawrfas is, however, the same.


first three Prsumas, necessarily lead to the conclusion that
the whole remainder does not belong to Baudhayana, but
consists of so-called Parmsh/as, which were composed by
the adherents of his school. Further, the fact that the last
six Pra^nas do not show everywhere the same style and
language, makes it probable that the additions were made
at different times and by different persons.

The Dharma-sutra seems to have undergone exactly the
same fate as the Gnhya-sutra. It will be obvious even to
the readers of the translation that its fourth Pr&ma is a later
addition. It consists of two parts. The first, which ends
with the fourth Adhyaya, treats of penances, both public and
secret ones. The second, Adhyayas 5-8, describes the
means of obtaining siddhi, the fulfilment of one's desires,
and recommends for this purpose the offering of the
Gaahomas after a previous sanctification of the wor-
shipper by means of a course of austerities. The first part
is perfectly superfluous, as the subject of penances has
already been discussed in the first sections of the second
Pra^na, and again in chapters 4-10 of the third Prama.
Its rules sometimes contradict those given before, and in
other cases, e.g. IV, a, 10-12, are mere repetitions of pre-
vious statements. The introduction of the means of gain-
ing siddhi, on the other hand, is without a parallel in
other Dharma-sutras, and the subject is entirely foreign to
the scope of such works. Its treatment, too, shows that
chapters 5-8 do not belong to the author of the bulk of
the Dharma-sutra. For the description of the preparatory
' restraints ' or austerities contains somewhat more detailed
rules for a number of penances, e.g. the Lrikkhra.s and
the ^Tandrayaa, which have already been described in the
preceding Prajnas. Moreover, the style and the language
of the whole fourth Pra^na are very different from those of
the three preceding ones, and the differences observable are
exactly the same as those between the first five and the last
four Prajnas of the Grzhya-sutra, The epic Sloka nearly
throughout replaces the aphoristic prose, and the common
slipshod Sanskrit of the Purawas appears instead of the
archaic forms. Finally, the fourth Prama is divided into


Adhyayas, not into the KaWikas or Khaw^/as and Adhyayas
which are found in the first two Pra^nas.

This latter peculiarity is also observable in the third
Pra^na, and raises a suspicion against the genuineness of
that part also. For, though the third Prajna in style and
language resembles the first two, it is hard to believe that
the author should, for no apparent reason, suddenly have
changed the manner of dividing his work towards its end.
This suspicion is further strengthened by two other circum-
stances. First, Pra.mas I-II really exhaust the discussion
of the whole Dharma, and the third offers supplementary
information only on some points which have been touched
upon previously. Secondly, several Adhyayas of Prajna
III seem to have been borrowed from other works, -or to
be abstracts from them. Thus the tenth chapter has cer-
tainly been taken from the Gautamlya Dharmarastra, the
sixth bears a very close and suspicious resemblance to
Vishu XLVIII 1 , and the third looks very much like a
short summary of the doctrine of Vikhanas, whose lost
Sutra contained the original rule of the order of the
Vaikhanasas or hermits, living in the forest. These cir-
cumstances justify, it seems to me, the assumption that
Baudh&yana's original Dharma-sutra consisted, like Apa-
stamba's, of two Pra^nas only, and that it received, through
followers of his school, two separate additions, first in
very ancient times Pra^na III, where the style of the
master is strictly followed, and later Pra^na IV, where the
language and phraseology of the metrical Smn'tis are
adopted. It ought to be noted that Govindasvamin, too,
does not take the whole of the four Pra^nas for Baudha
yana's composition. With respect to several passages 2
where Baudhciyana's name is introduced in order to give
weight to the rules, he says that the Sutras may belong to
' a pupil.' I do not think that the criterion which he uses
can be relied on in every case, because oriental authors
without doubt occasionally speak of themselves as of third

1 See also Jolly, Sacred Books of the East, vol. vii, p. xix.
1 E. g. Dharma-sutra III, 5, 7.


persons. But the fact that the commentator, though an
orthodox Hindu, had misgivings as to the genuineness of
portions of the work, is not without significance. It seems
also that even the first two Prajnas are not quite free from
interpolations. Thus the KadHkis on the Tarpawa l are cer-
tainly much enlarged by additions, the verse at 1, 5, n, 36,
a repetition of I, 5, 9, 5, and some prose quotations which
are introduced by the words athapy udaharanti, ' now they
quote also,' standing usually before verses only, are at least
suspicious. That the genuineness of many single passages
should be doubtful, is no more than might be expected, not
only on account of the separation of the Dharma-sutra
from the other parts of the Kalpa, but also because the
work, as we shall see further on, remained for a long time
without the protection of a commentary. The practical
conclusion to be drawn from this state of things is that
the greatest caution must be observed in using the Baudha-
yana Dharma-sutra for historical purposes, and that it will
be advisable to draw no inferences regarding Baudhay ana's
relation to other teachers and schools from the last two
Pra^nas, and not to trust too much to historical inferences
drawn from single passages of the first two.

The position which Baudhayana occupies among the
teachers of the Taittiriya-veda has already been discussed
in the Introduction to Apastamba. It has been shown
that according to the Brahmanical tradition preserved by
Mahadeva, the commentator of the Hirayake^i-sutras, he
composed the first Sutra for the followers of his Sikhi.
Internal and external evidence has also been adduced,
proving that he certainly was more ancient than Apa-
stamba and Hirayak&rin. It is now possible to bring
forward some further facts bearing on these points. First,
in the section on the Tarpawa, the libations of water offered
to various deities, Rishis, and the manes, II, 5, 9, 14, Kawva
Baudhayana receives his share immediately after the Rishis
of the Veda and before Apastamba, the Sutrakara, and

1 Baudhdyana Dharma-sfitra II, 5, 8-9.
C 2


Satyashad^a Hirawyake^in. The same order is observed in
the distribution of the offerings at the Sarpabali, described in
the Gnhya-sutra \ where the following teachers of the Ya^ur-
veda are specially named, viz. Vai^ampayana, Phulingu,
Tittiri, Ukha, Aukhya, Atreya the author of the Pada-text,
Kau#dfinya the author of the commentary, Kawva Baudha-
yana the author of the Prava/ana, Apastamba the author
of the Sutra, and Satyishcu/^a Hirawyak&rin. Neither of
these two passages belongs to Baudhayana. They are both
clearly interpolations. But they show that Mahadeva's
statement, which makes Baudhelyana the first expounder
of the Kalpa among the Taittiriyavedins, agrees with the
tradition of the Baudhayaniyas themselves. For not only
the place allotted to Baudhayana's name, but still more the
title Prava^anakara which he receives, show that the fol-
lowers of his school placed him before and above all other
teachers of the ritual. The term prava^ana, which literally
means 'proclaiming or recitation,' has frequently the technical
sense of ' oral instruction,' and is applied both to the tradi-
tional lore contained in the Brahmaas, and to the more
systematic teaching of the Ahgas 2 . If, therefore, a teacher
is called the author of the Prava^ana of a Sakha, that can
only mean that he is something more than a common
Sutrak&ra, and is considered to be the originator of the
whole system of instruction among its followers. The
epithet Kawva, which Baudhayana receives in both the
passages quoted above, indicates that he belonged to the
Vedic Gotra of the Kawvas. It deserves to be noted that
Govindasvimin, too, on I, 3, 5, 13, explains the name
Baudhciyana by K^wvdyana 3 .

1 Baudhayana Gnhya-sutra IV, 8 (fol. 29, B. 5, Elph. Coll. copy, no. 5)

gfc?^ ftrftro


?l!^ITnrHlf ll. See also Weber, Hist. Ind. Lit., p. 91

note; Max Miiller, Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., p. 223; Bumell, Catalogue of a
Collection of Sanskrit MSS., p. 14, no. LIII.

2 See Max Miiller, Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., p. 109.

s The discovery that Baudhayana bore also the name Kava makes it possible


The style of Baudhayana's works furnishes, as Dr.
Burnell has pointed out 1 , another argument for their high
antiquity. Compared with the Sutras of Apastamba and
Hirawyake^in they are much simpler in their arrangement,
and the complete absence of that anxiety to save ' half a
vowel ' which characterises the fully developed Sutra-style
is very remarkable. The last point has been noticed by
Govindasvamin also. In commenting on I, 2, 3, 17-18,
where Baudhayana first permits students to beg food of
men of all castes, and afterwards explains that he means
Aryans who follow their lawful occupations, he says 2 , '(If
anybody should ask), "Why give two Sutras, while one
Sutra, ('A student shall ask) Aryans who follow their
lawful occupations,' would have sufficed?" (his objection
will be) correct. For this teacher is not particularly
anxious to make his book short.' In -other cases we find
a certain awkwardness in the distribution of the subject
matter, which probably finds its explanation through the
fact that Baudhayana first attempted to bring the teaching
of the Taittiriyas on the Dharma into a systematic form.
Thus the rules on the law of inheritance are given without
any apparent necessity and against the custom of the other
Sutrakaras in two different chapters, I, 5, n, 9-16 and II,
2, 3, 1-44. The section on purification, too, is divided into
two separate portions, I, 4, 6-10 and I, 6, 13-15, and the
second, which treats of the purification of the vessels at
sacrifices, properly ought to have been placed into the
Srauta-sutra, not into* the Dharma-sutra. Again, the dis-
cussion of several topics is repeatedly interrupted by the
Introduction of rules belonging to different subjects, and
Govindasvamin's ingenuity is often taxed to the utmost in
order to find the reason why certain Sutras which appa-

to refer Apastamba's quotation of an opinion of a Kava, I, 6, 19, 7, to Baudha-
yana, instead of to a teacher of the White Yagnr-veda, Sacred Books of the
East, vol. ii, p. xxvi.

1 Tanjore Catalogue, p. 20 b.

fafafw w^nw: i


rently are unconnected with the main subject have been
inserted. A third argument for the great antiquity of
Baudhayana's Sutras, derived trom the archaic character
of some of his doctrines, has been discussed in the Intro-
duction to Apastamba 1 . The number of instances where
Baudhayana's rules are based on a more ancient order of
ideas than Apastamba's might be increased very con-
siderably. But, as now the comparison of the two works
is open to all students, I omit the cases contained in the
two Dharma-sutras, and content myself with adducing one
more from the less accessible Grzhya-sutras. It is a well-
known fact that the ancient Vedic ritual in certain cases
admitted Sudras, and particularly the Rathakara or car-
penter, who, according to all accounts, has *Sudra blood in
his veins, to a participation in the Srauta rites. The
Taittirtya-brahmawa even gives certain Mantras to be re-
cited by the Rathakara at the Agnyadhina sacrifice 2 .
Now Baudhayana, who, Dh. S. I, 9, 17, 6, derives the
origin of the Rathakdras from a Vaijya male and Sudra
female, apparently reckons him amongst the twice-born,
and explicitly allows him to receive the sacrament of the
initiation. He says, Gnhya-sutra II, 5, 8-9, 'Let him
initiate a Brahmaa in spring, a Kshatriya in summer, a
Vai^ya in autumn, a Rathakara in the rainy season ; or all
of them in spring 3 / But Apastamba, who shows great
hostility against the mixed castes, and emphatically denies
the right of .Sudras to be initiated, gives the same rule
regarding the seasons for the initiation both in his Grthya.
and Dharma-sutras *. He, however, omits the Rathakira in
both cases. There can be no doubt that Apastamba s
exclusion of the carpenter, which agrees with the senti-
ments prevailing in modern Brahmanical society, is an off-
shoot of a later doctrine, and as both he and Baudhayana

1 Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, pp. xviii-xx.
* See Weber, Indische Studien X, 12.

* Gr/hya-sfttra II, 4, 10, 5 ; Dharma-sutra I, i, i, 18.


belong to the same vidyavawwa, or spiritual family, this
difference may be used as an argument for his posteriority
to Baudhayana. In connexion with this rule of Baudhayana's
it ought to be mentioned that even in the present day certain
subdivisions of the modern Sutrs or carpenters actually
wear the Brahmanical thread, and, in spite of the adverse
teaching of the Sastras, find Brahmans willing to perform
the ceremony of investiture for them.

While it thus appears not incredible that Baudhayana
really was the first Sutrakara of the Taittiriyas, the
numerous quotations which his works contain, permit us
to form an idea of the extent of the Vedic and profane
literature known to him. Among the Vedic works which
he adduces as authorities, or otherwise refers to, the three
sections of the Taittiriya-veda, the Sawhita, the Brahmawa,
and the Ara/zyaka, naturally take the first place. For the
Ara;zyaka he seems to have used the Andhra version, as
Dh. S. II, 10, k8, 7, IT references to the seventy-first
Anuvaka of the tenth Prapd/^aka occur. Two long pas-
sages, Dh. S. I, 2, 4, 3-8 ; II, 6, 1 1, 1-8, which apparently
have been taken from the -Satapatha-brahma^a, testify to his
acquaintance with the White Ya^ur-veda. Baudhayana does
not say expressly that he quotes from the Brahma^a of the
Va^asaneyins, but Govinda has no hesitation in pointing to
the 5atapatha as their source. It is remarkable that the
fact noticeable in Apastamba's quotation from the Sata.-
patha reappears here, and that the wording of the two
quotations does not fully agree with the printed text of
the Brahmawa. The differences in the first passage are,
no doubt, partly owing to corruptions and interpolations
in Baudhayana's text; but that cannot be said of the
second 1 . References to the Sama-veda and the Samans
occur repeatedly, and the passage from the Nidana of
Bhallavins regarding the geographical extent of true Brah-

1 Professor Eggeling has lately discussed the question of the discrepancies
between Apastamba's quotations from the Brahman a of the Vag'asaneyins and
the existing text. I can only agree with him that we must wait for a comparison
of all those quoted, with both the recensions of the -Satapatha, before we draw
further inferences from the fact. See Sacred BooV.s of the East ; vol. xii, p. xl.


manical learning, which Vasish/^a adduces, is given I, i, 2,
11-12. From the Rig-veda a few expiatory hymns and
verses, such as the Aghamarsha#a and the Taratsamandis,
are quoted. The Atharva-veda is not referred to by name,
but the existence of Atharvawa schools may be inferred
from the mention made of the vows called Siras, II, 8, 14, 2.
Among the authorities on the Sacred Law, mentioned in
the Dharma-sutra, Katya I, 2, 3, 46, Maudgalya II, 2, 4, 8,
and Aupa^andhani II, 2, 3, 33, do not occur in other works
of the same class 1 . Harita, who is mentioned II, i, 2, 21,
and who probably was a teacher of the Maitrayamya
school, is named by VasishMa and Apastamba also. The
Gautama who is quoted I, i, 2, 7 and II, 2, 4, 17, is, as has
been shown in the Introduction to Gautama, most probably
the author of the still existing Institutes of Gautama. To
the arguments for the latter view, adduced there, I may
add that two other passages of the Dharma-sutra, II, 6, u,
15 and 26, point to a close connexion between Baudhayana's
and Gautama's works. The former of the two Sutras
contains, with the exception of one small clause in the
beginning, exactly the same description of the duties of a
hermit in the forest as that given by Gautama III, 26-35.
The second Sutra states, just as Gautama's rule III, 36,
that the venerable teacher (a/arya/z) prescribes one order
only, that of the householders. The reason given for this
opinion differs, however, according to Baudhiyana, from that
adduced in Gautama's text. The almost literal identity
of the first long passage makes it not improbable that
Baudhiyana borrowed in this instance also from Gautama
without noting the source from which he drew. On the
other hand, the argument drawn from the fact that the
tenth Adhyaya of Pra^na III has been taken from Gautama's
Sutra loses its force since, as I have shown above, it is
improbable that the third Pra^na formed part of Baudhi-

1 Possibly Kasyapa, whose name occurs in a Si oka, 1, 11,21,2, may also be
an ancient teacher to whom Baudhayana refers. In the Gnhya-sutra a teacher
called Saliki is repeatedly quoted, and once, I, n (end), his opinion is contrasted
with that of Baudhayana and of AHrya, i.e. Baudhayana's teacher. The
Gnhya-sutra refers also to Atreya, KiUakr/tsna, and Badari.


yana's original work. A metrical work on the Sacred Law
seems to be quoted II, 2, 4, 14-15. For, as the second
verse, adduced there, says that the penance for one who
violated his Guru's bed has been declared above, it seems
impossible to assume that the two Slokas belonged to the
versified maxims of the Dharma current among the learned
Brahmans. If this quotation is not an interpolation, it
proves that, side by side with the Dharma-sutras, metrical
treatises on the Sacred Law existed in very early times l .
One quotation, finally, which gives a verse from the dialogue
of the daughters of tLranas and VWshaparvan seems to
have been taken from an epic poem. The verse is actually
found in the Mahabharata I, 78, 10, and again 34, where
the altercation between Sarmishfha. and Devayani forms
part of the Yayatyupakhyana. Considering what has been
said above regarding the state of the text of the Dharma-
sutra, and our imperfect knowledge of the history of the
Mahabharata, it would be hazardous to assert that the
verse proves Baudhay ana's acquaintance with Vydsa's great
epic. It will be safer to wait for further proofs that it was
known to the Sutrakaras, before one bases far-going specu-
lations on this hitherto solitary quotation.

The arguments which maybe brought forward to show that
Baudhayana's home lay in Southern India are not as strong
as those which permit us to determine the native country
of Apastamba. The portions of the Sutras, known to me,
contain no direct mention of the south except in the de^a-
nirwaya or disquisition on the countries, Dharma-sutra I, 1,2,
where certain peculiar customs of the southern Brahmans
are enumerated, and some districts of Southern India, e.g.
Kalinga, are referred to as barbarous countries which must
not be visited by Aryans. These utterances show an
acquaintance with the south, but by no means prove that
Baudhayana lived there. A more significant fact is that
Baudhayana declares, I, i, 2, 4, 'going to sea' to be a
custom prevailing among the northern Brahmans, and after-
wards, II, i, 22, places that act at the head of the Pata-

1 See also West and Buhler, Digest of Hindu Law Cases, p. xxvii, and ed.


niyas, the more serious offences causing loss of caste. It is
probable that by the latter rule he wished to show his stand-
point as a southerner. But the most conclusive argument
in favour of the southern origin of the Baudhayaniyas is
that they, like the Apastambiyas and all other adherents
of the Taittiriya schools, are entirely confined to the Dekhan,
and are not found among the indigenous subdivisions of the
Brahmans in Central and Northern India. This fact is, if not
explicitly stated, at least implied by the passage of the
Maharwava quoted in the Introduction to Apastamba 1 . It
is proved by the present state of things, and by the evidence
of the land grants of the southern dynasties, several of which
have been made in favour of Baudhayaniyas. Thus we find
a grant of Bukkaraya, the well-known ruler of Vi^ayana-
gara 2 , dated Sakasawvat 1276 or 1354-5 A.D., in which a
Brahmaa, studying the Baudhayaniya-sutra, is mentioned
as the donee of a village in Maisur. Again, in an inscrip-
tion of Nandivarman Pallavamalla, which its editor, the
Rev. Mr. Foulkes, places in the ninth century A.D. 3 , a con-
siderable number of Brahmawas of the Prava/ana-sutra
are named as recipients of the royal bounty, together with
some followers of the Apastambha 4 school. As we have
seen that Baudhayana is called in the Grzhya-sutra the
Prava^anakara, it is not doubtful that the Prava/fcana-

Online LibraryGeorg BühlerThe sacred laws of the Aryas : as taught in the schools of Apastamba, Gautama, Vasishtha and Baudhayana → online text (page 29 of 55)