Georg Bühler.

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

. (page 4 of 55)
Online LibraryGeorg BühlerThe sacred laws of the Aryas : as taught in the schools of Apastamba, Gautama, Vasishtha and Baudhayana → online text (page 4 of 55)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

Pawini IV, i, 104, and the text of this gawa is certain only for the times of
the Kajika, :ibout 650 A. D. The .SYauta-siitra of Apastamba is mentioned in
the nearly contemporaneous commentary of Blmitrzhari on the Mahabhajhya,
gee Zeitsch.-. d. Ifcut^hea Morg. Des., vol. xxxvi, p. 654.


' Some in their new birth become similar to /sushis by
their knowledge of the Veda (jrutarshi) through a residue
of merit acquired in former existences.' In order to give
an illustration of the latter case, the author adds in Sutra 6,
' Like 5vetaketu.' The natural, and in my opinion, the
only admissible interpretation of these words is that Apas-
tamba considers .SVetaketu to be one of the Avaras, who
by virtue of a residue of merit became a 5rutarshi. This
is also the view of the commentator Haradatta, who, in
elucidation of Sutra 6, quotes the following passage from
the A7/andogya Upanishad (VI, i, 1-2) :

' i. Verily, there lived .Svetaketu, a descendant of Arua.
His father spake unto him, t; O .SVetaketu, dwell as a
student (with a teacher) ; for, verily, dear child, no one
in our family must neglect the study of the Veda and
become, as it were, a Brahma;/a in name only."

' Verily, he (5vetaketu) was initiated at the age of
twelve years, and when twenty-four years old he had
learned all the Vedas ; he thought* highly of himself and
was vain of his learning and arrogant.'

There can be no doubt that this is the person and the
story referred to in the Dharma-siitra. For the fact which
the Upanishad mentions, that vSVetaketu learned all the
Vedas in twelve years, while the Smr/tis declare forty-
eight years to be necessary for the accomplishment of
that task, makes Apastamba's illustration intelligible and
appropriate. A good deal more is told in the AV/andogya
Upanishad about this 5vetaketu, who is said to have been
the son of Uddalaka and the grandson of Aruwa (aruweya).
The same person is also frequently mentioned in the
Satapatha-brahmawa. In one passage of the latter work,
which has been translated by Professor Max Miiller 1 , it
is alleged that he was a contemporary of Ya^avalkya, the
promulgator of the White Ya^ur-veda, and of the learned
king Ganaka of Videha, who asked him about the meaning
of the Agnihotra sacrifice. Now, as has been shown above,
Apastamba knew and quotes the White Ya^ur-veda and

1 Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., p. 421 seq.


the Satapatha-brahmawa. The passage of the latter work,
which he quotes, is even taken from the same book in
which the story about Svetaketu and kanaka occurs.
The fact, therefore, that Apastamba places a teacher whom
he must have considered as a contemporary of the pro-
mulgator of the White Ya^ur-veda among the Avaras, is
highly interesting and of some importance for the history
of Vedic literature. On the one hand it indicates that
Apastamba cannot have considered the White Ya^ur-veda,
such as it has been handed down in the schools of the
/sfawvas and Madhyandinas, to belong to a remote antiquity.
On the other hand it makes the inference which otherwise
might be drawn from the southern origin of the Apa-
stambiya school and from the non-occurrence of its name
in the early grammatical writings, viz. that its founder
lived not long before the beginning of our era, extremely
improbable. For even if the term Avara is not interpreted
very strictly and allowed to mean not exactly a contem-
porary, but a person of comparatively recent times, it will
not be possible to place between Svetaketu and Apas-
tamba a longer interval than, at the utmost, two or three
hundred years. Svetaketu and Ya^wavalkya would
accordingly, at the best, find their places in the fourth
or fifth century B. C., and the Satapatha-brahmawa as well
as all other Vedic works, which narrate incidents from
their lives, must have been composed or at least edited
still later. Though little is known regarding the history
of the Vedic texts, still it happens that we possess some
information regarding the texts in question. For we know
from a statement made by Katyayana in a Varttika on
Pawini IV, 3, 105, and from Pataw^ali's commentary on
his words that the Brahmawa proclaimed by Ya^avalkya,
i.e. the Satapatha-brahmawa of the White Ya^ur-veda, was
considered to have been promulgated by one of the
Ancients, in the times of these two writers, i.e. probably
in the fourth and second centuries B.C. 1

1 This famous Varttika has been interpreted in various ways ; see Max Miiller,
Hist. Anc.-Saiisk. Lit., pp. 360-364 ; Goldstiicker, Pawini, pp. 132-140; Weber,


These considerations will show that it is necessary to
allow for Apastamba a much higher antiquity than the
first century B.C.

The same inference may also be drawn from another
series of facts, viz. the peculiarities of the language of his
Sutras. The latter are very considerable and very remark-
able. They may be classed under four heads. In the
Apastambiya Dharma-sutra we have, first, archaic words
and forms either occurring in other Vedic writings or
formed according to the analogy of Vedic usage ; secondly,
ancient forms and words specially prescribed by Pa#ini,
which have not been traced except in Apastamba's Sutras ;
thirdly, words and forms which are both against Vedic
usage and against Paini's rules, and which sometimes
find their analogies in the ancient Prakrits ; and fourthly,
anomalies in the construction of sentences. To the first
class belong, kravyadas, I, 7, 2i ; 15, carnivorous, formed
according to the analogy of ris&das; the frequent use
of the singular dara, e.g. II, i, i, 17-18, a wife, instead of
the plural dara^; salavr/ki, I, 3, 10, 19, for salavr/kt ;
the substitution of'/ for r in plehkha, I, u, 31, 14; occa-

Ind. Stud. V, 65-74 ; XIII, 443, 444. As regards the explanation of Katy4-
yana's and Pata%-ali's words, I side with Kaiya/a and Professor Goldstiicker.
But I am unable to follow the latter in the inferences which he draws from the
fact, that Katyayana and Pata^f^ali declare Y&gtfavalkya and other sages to be
as ancient as those whose Brahmawas and Kalpas are designated by the plural
of adjectives formed by the addition of the affix in to the names of the promul-
gators. Though Pftwini asserts, IV, 3, 105, that only those Brahmawas which
are known by appellations like BhallavinaA, KaushitakinaA, &c., have been
proclaimed by ancient sages, and though Katyayana and the author of the
Great Commentary add that this rule does not hold good in the case of
the work called Ya^avalkani Brahmawani, it does not necessarily follow, as
Professor Goldstiicker thinks, that an extraordinarily long interval lies between
Pawini and Katyayana so long a period that what Pawini considered to be
recent had become ancient in Katyayana's time. Professor Weber has rightly
objected to this reasoning. The difference between the statements of the two
grammarians may have been caused by different traditions prevailing in different
schools, or by an oversight on the part of Pamni, which, as the scene of
Ya^flavalkya's activity seems to have been Videha in eastern India, while Paini
belonged to the extreme north-we^t, is not at all improbable. As regards the
two dates, I place, following, with Professor Max Miiller, the native tradition,
Katyayana in the fourth century B. c., and Pata%ali, with Professors Goldstiicker,
Kern, and BhaWarkar, between 178-140 B.C.


sional offences against the rules of internal and external
Sandhi, e.g. in agrrhyamanakara7/a/^, I, 4, 12, 8; in
skup'tva. I, u, 31, 22, the irregular absolutive of skubh
or of sku ; in paduna, I, i, 2. 13 ; in adhajana-rayin,

I, i, 2, 21 ; and in sarvatopeta, I. 6, 19, 8 ; the neglect
of the rule requiring vrzddhi in the first syllable of the
name Pushkarasadi, I, 10, 28, 1; the irregular instru-
mental vidya, I, n, 30, 3, for vidyaya, and ni/^rreyasa,

II, 7, 16, 2, for ni//^reyasena ; the nominatives dual
avam, L 7,20, 6, for avam, and kru#akraua, I, 5, 17,
36 for krauau ; and the potentials in it a, such as prak-
shalayita, I, i, 2, 28 ; abhiprasarayita, I, 2, 6, 3, &c.

Among the words mentioned by Pa//ini, but not traced
except in the Dharma-sutra, may be enumerated the verb
str/h, to do damage, I, n, 31, 9; the verb srinkh, to
sneeze, from which jr/hkhanika, I, 5, 16, 14, and ni/*-
jr^'hkhana, II. 2, 5, 9, are derived; and the noun veda-
dhyaya, I, 9, 24, 6 ; II, 4, 8, 5, in the sense of a student
of the Veda. Words offending against rules given by Pawini,
without being either archaic or Prakritic, are e.g. sar-
v an n in, I, 6, 18, 33, one who eats anybody's food, which,
according to Pa,vini V, 2, 9, should be sarvannina;
sarpa^irshin, I, 5, 17, 39 ; annasawskartr/, a cook, II,
3,6, 16; dharmy a, righteous, for dharmya, I, 2, 7, 21,
and elsewhere; divitrt, a gambler, II, 10, 25, 13, for
devitri, the very remarkable form prajwati, I, i, 4, i, for
pra^nati, finds an analogy in the Vedic jnyaptre for
jnaptre 1 and in Pali, pawha from prajwa for pra^na;
and the curious compounds avahgagra, I, i, 2,38, paran-
gavr/tta, II, 5, 10, u, where the first parts show the forms
of the nominative instead of the base, and pratisurya-
matsya//, I, 3, n, 31, which as a copulative compound is
wrong, though not without analogies in Prakrit and in later
Sanskrit 2 . The irregular forms caused by the same ten-
dencies as those which effected the formation of the

1 Wackernagel, Altindische Grammatik, vol. i, p. xxxiii.
3 See ZHtschr. d. Deutschen Morg. Ges., vol. xl, p. 539 seq. ; Epigraphia
Indica, vol. i, p. 3.


Prakrit languages, are, aviprakramiwa, II, 2, 5, 2, for
aviprakramawa, where an # standing in thesi has been
changed to i; samvrtttl/i, II, 3, 6, 13, sawvartete,
II, 5, if, 20, and paryanta, I, 3, 9, 21, and I, 3, n, 33
(compare Mara//n awt for anta^), in each of which a
standing before a nasal has been lengthened ; awika, I, 6,
19, i, the initial a of which stands for ri, if it really has
the meaning of r/wika. as some commentators asserted ;
anulepawa, 1,3, if, 13; I, n, 32, 5, with the Prakritic
change of na to wa; vyupa^-ava, I, 2, 8, 15, with va for
pa ; rz'tve for rit vye, wherej seems to have been absorbed
by the following e; apa-fjrayita, I, n, 32, 16, for ap^^ra-
yita, and bhatrzvyatikrama, I, fo, 28, 20, where r has
been assimilated to the preceding, or has been lost before the
following consonant. The irregularities in the construction
are less frequent. But in two Sutras, I, 3, 10, 2, and I, 3, i j ,
31, some words which ought to stand in the locative case
have the terminations of the nominative, and it looks as
if the author had changed his mind about the construction
which he meant to use. In a third passage II, 10, 26, 20,^edana;tf savr*shaasya, the adjective which
is intended to qualify the noun .mna has been placed in
the genitive case, though the noun has been made the
first part of a compound.

The occurrence of so many irregularities 1 in so small
a treatise as the Dharma-sCitra is, proves clearly that the
author did not follow Pa//ini's grammar, and makes it very
unlikely that he knew it at all. If the anomalous forms
used by Apastamba all agreed with the usage of the
other Sutrakaras, known to us, it might be contended that,
though acquainted with the rules of the great grammarian,
he had elected .to adopt by preference the language of the
Vedic schools. But this is by no means the case. The
majority of the irregular forms are peculiar to Apastamba.
As it is thus not probable that Apastamba employed his
peculiar expressions in obedience to the tradition of the

1 Many more may be collected from the other divisions of the body of
Siltras. See VYinteraitz, op. tit., p. 13 seqq. ; Gurupq^akaumudi, p. 34 seq.


Vedic schools or of his particular school, he must have
either been unacquainted with Pa;/ini or have considered
his teachings of no great importance. In other words, he
must either have lived earlier than Pini or before Pawini's
grammar had acquired general fame throughout India, and
become the standard authority for Sanskrit authors. In
either case so late a date as 150 B. C. or the first century
B.C. would not fit. For Pataw^ali's Mahabhashya furnishes
abundant proof that at the time of its composition, in the
second century B.C., Pawini's grammar occupied a position
similar to that which it holds now, and has held since the
beginning of our era in the estimation of the learned of
India. On linguistic grounds it seems to me Apastamba
cannot be placed later than the third century B.C., and
if his statement regarding Svetaketu is taken into account,
the lower limit for the composition of his Sutras must be
put further back by 150-200 years.

But sufficient space has already been allotted to these
attempts to assign a date to the founder of the Apastambiya
school, the result of which, in the present state of our
knowledge of the ancient history of India, must remain,
I fear, less certain and less precise than is desirable. It
now is necessary to say, in conclusion, a few words about
the history of the text of the Dharma-sutra, and about its
commentary, the U^vala Vrztti of Haradatta. The
oldest writer with a known date who quotes the Apastam-
biya Dharma-sutra is Sarikara&irya \ c. 800 A.D. Even
somewhat earlier Kumarila, c. 750, refers repeatedly to
a law-book by Apastamba 2 . But it is improbable that he
had our Dharma-sutra before him. For he says, p. 138,
that Apastamba expressly sanctions local usages, opposed
to the teaching of the Vedas, for the natives of those dis-
tricts where they had prevailed since ancient times. Now,
that is just an opinion, which our Dharma-sutra declares
to be wrong and refutes repeatedly 3 . As it seems

1 See Deussen, Vedanta, p. 35.

a Tantravirttika, pp. 138, 139, 142, 174, 175, 179, Benares ed.

3 Ap. Dh. I, i, 14, 8, 9-10; II, 6, 14, 10-13; II, 6, 15, i.


hazardous to impute to a man, like Kum&rSla, ignorance or
spite against Apastamba, I am inclined to assume that the
great Mimawsaka refers to some other work, attributed to
Apastamba, perhaps the metrical Apastamba-smr/ti which
Apararka quotes very frequently l . Among the commen-
tators on Smrztis the oldest, who quote the Dharma-sutra,
are Medhdtithi, the author of the Manubhashya, and
Vi^flfanejvara, who composed the Mitakshard, the well-
known commentary on Ya^wavalkya's Dharma-jastra during
the reign of the A'alukya king Vikramdditya VI, of
Kalyaa towards the end of the eleventh century. From
that time downwards Apastamba is quoted by almost
every writer on law. But the whole text, such as it is
given in my edition 2 , is vouched for only by the com-
mentator Haradatta, who wrote his U^fvalS. VWtti, at the
latest, in the fifteenth century A. D. or possibly 100 years
earlier 3 . Haradatta was, however, not the first commen-
tator of the Dharma-sutra. He frequently quotes the
opinions of several predecessors whom he designates by
the general expressions anysJt or apara/*, i. e. another
(writer). The fact that the \Jggva\& was preceded by
earlier commentaries which protected the text from cor-
ruption, also speaks in favour of the authenticity of the
latter, which is further attested by the close agreement
of the Hirawyakeji Dharma-sutra, mentioned above.

As regards the value of the tJggvala" for the explanation
of Apastamba's text, it certainly belongs to the best com-

1 Ap. Dh., Introd., p. x.

* Apastamblya Dharma-sutram, second edition, Part i, Bombay, 1892 ;
Part ii, Bombay, 1894.

3 It seems not doubtful that Haradatta, the author of the U<ggval&, is the
same person who wrote the Anakula Vre'tti on the Apastamblya Grrhya-sfitra,
an explanation of the Apastamblya Grihya-mantras (see Burnell, Ind. Ant. 1, 6),
and the Mhakshara Vr/tti on the Dharma-sutra of Gautama. From the
occurrence in the latter work of Tamil words, added in explanation of Sanskrit
expressions, it follows that Haradatta was a native of the south of India. I am
not in a position to decide if our author also wrote the Padamaw^ai! Vr/'tti oa
the Kirika of Vamana and (7ayaditya. This is Professor Aufrecht's opinion,
Catalogus Catalogorum, p. 754 seq. See also my remarks in the Introd. to
the second eoL, p. viii.

xlvili APASTAM1JA.

rnentaries existing. Haradatta possessed in the older
Vr/ttis abundant and good materials on which he could
draw ; he himself apparently was well versed in Hindu law
and in Sanskrit grammar, and distinguished by sobriety
and freedom from that vanity which induces many Indian
commentators to load their works with endless and useless
quotations. His explanations, therefore, can mostly be
followed without hesitation, and, even when they appear
unacceptable, they deserve careful consideration.




COMPARED with the information collected above regard-
ing the origin and the history of Apastamba's Dharma-
sutra, the facts which can be brought to bear on Gautama's
Institutes are scanty and the conclusions deducible from
them somewhat vague. There are only two points, which,
it seems to me, can be proved satisfactorily, viz. the con-
nection of the work with the Stna-veda and a Gautama
Karana., and its priority to the other four Dharma-sutras
which we still possess. To go further appears for the
present impossible, because very little is known regard-
ing the history of the schools studying the Sama-veda,
and because the Dharma^astra not only furnishes very few
data regarding the works on which it is based, but seems
also, though not to any great extent, to have been tampered
with by interpolators.

As regards its origin, it was again Professor Max Miiller,
who, in the place of the fantastic statements of a fabri-
cated tradition, according to which the author of the
Dharmajistra is the son or grandson of the sage Utathya,
and the grandson or great-grandson of LJjanas or .Sukra, the
regent of the planet Venus, and the book possessed generally
binding force in the second or Treta Yuga *, first put forward
a rational explanation which, since, has been adopted by
all other writers on Sanskrit literature. He says, Hist.
Anc. Sansk. Lit, p. 134, 'Another collection of Dharma-
sutras, which, however, is liable to critical doubts, belongs

1 Manu III, 19; Colebrooke, Digest of Hindu Law, Preface, p. xvii
Madras ed.); Anantaya^fvan in Dr. Burnell's Catalogue of Sanskrit MSS.,
(p. 57 ; Parajara, Dharmajastra I, 22 (Calcutta ed.)

[2] d


to the Gautamas, a /Tarawa of the Sama-veda.' This
assertion agrees with Kumarila's statement, that the
Dharmajastra of Gautama and the Grzhya-sutra of
Gobhila were (originally) accepted (as authoritative) by
the .Oandogas or SAmavedins alone l . Kumarila certainly
refers to the work known to us. For he quotes in other
passages several of its Sutras 2 .

That Kumarila and Professor Max Miiller are right, may
also be proved by the following independent arguments.
Gautama's work, though called Dharma^astra or Institutes
6f the Sacred Law, closely resembles, both in form and
contents, the Dharma-sutras or Aphorisms on the Sacred
Law, which form part of the Kalpa-sutras of the Vedic
schools of Baudhayana, Apastamba, and Hirayake.rin.
As we know from the ATaraavyOha, from the writings of
the ancient grammarians, and from the numerous quotations
in the Kalpa-sutras and other works on the Vedic ritual,
that in ancient times the number of Vedic schools, most of
which possessed Srauta, Gn'hya, and Dharma-sutras, was
exceedingly great, and that the books of many of them
have either been lost or been disintegrated, the several
parts being torn out of their original connection, it is not
unreasonable to assume that the aphoristic law-book,
usually attributed to the fttshi Gautama, is in reality a
manual belonging to a Gautama Parana.. This conjecture
gains considerably in probability, if the fact is taken into
account that formerly a school of Sima-vedis, which bore
the name of Gautama, actually existed. It is mentioned
in one of the redactions of the ATarawavyuha 3 as a sub-
division of the Rawiyaniya school. The Vaa-brhma7/a
of the Sama-veda, also, enumerates four members of the
Gautama family among the teachers who handed down
the third Veda, viz. Gatri Gautama, Sumantra Babhrava

1 Tantravirttika, p. 179 (Benares ed.), TWIT

* Viz. Gautama I, a on p. 143; II, 45-46 on p. na, and XIV, 45-46 on
p. 109.

J Max MUller, Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., p. 374.


Gautama, Sawkara Gautama, and Radha Gautama*, and
the existing Srauta and Grzhya-sutras frequently appeal to
the opinions of a Gautama and of a Sthavira Gautama 2 .
It follows therefore, that at least one, if not several Gau-
tama ^Taraas, studied the Sa*ma-veda, and that, at the
time when the existing Sutras of L&/yyana and Gobhila
were composed, Gautama Srauta and Grz'hya-sutras formed
part of the literature of the Sdma-veda. The correctness
of the latter inference is further proved by Dr. Burnell's
discovery of a Pitn'medha-sutra, which is ascribed, to a
teacher of the SAma-veda, called Gautama *.

The only link, therefore, which is wanting in order to
complete the chain of evidence regarding Gautama's
Aphorisms on the sacred law, and to make their connection
with the S<Una-veda perfectly clear, is the proof that they
contain special references to the latter. This proof is not
difficult to furnish. For Gautama has borrowed one entire
chapter, the twenty-sixth, which contains the description of
the IfLrikkhras or difficult penances from the Simavidh^na,
one of the eight Brhma#as of the S^ma-veda 4 . The
agreement of the two texts is complete except in the
Mantras (SOtra 12) where invocations of several deities,
which are not usually found in Vedic writings, have been
introduced. Secondly, in the enumeration of the purifica-
tory texts, XIX, 12, Gautama shows a marked partiality
for the Sdma-veda. Among the eighteen special texts
mentioned, we find not less than nine SAmans. Some of
the latter, like the Br/hat, Rathantara, Gyesh/Aa, and
Maheldiv<ikirtya chants, are mentioned also in works
belonging to the Rig-veda. and the Ya^ur-veda, and are
considered by Brdhmawas of all schools to possess great
efficacy. But others, such as the Purushagati, Rauhia,
and Mahdvaira^a Seimans, have hitherto not been met with
anywhere but in books belonging to the Sma-veda, and

1 See Burnell, Va#ua-brahmawa, pp. 7, 9, 1 1, and I a.

* See the Petersburg Dictionary, s. v. Gautama ; Weber, Hist. Ind. Lit.,
p. 77 (English ed.) ; Gobhila Grt'hya-sfitra III, 10, 6.

Weber, Hist. Ind. Lit, p. 84, note 89 (English ed.)

* See below, pp. 392-296.



do not seem to have stood in general repute. Thirdly, in
two passages, I, 50 and XXV, 8, the Dharmajastra pre-
scribes the employment of five Vyahrztis, and mentions in
the former Sutra, that the last Vyahr/ti is satyam, truth.
Now in most Vedic works, three Vyahrztis only, bhu/i,
bhuva//, sva//, are mentioned ; sometimes, but rarely, four
or seven occur. But in the Vyahrzti Saman, as Haradatta
points out l , five such interjections are used, and satyam is
found among them. It is, therefore, not doubtful, that
Gautama in the above-mentioned passages directly borrows
from the Sama-veda. These three facts, taken together,
furnish, it seems to me, convincing proof that the author of
our Dharmajastra was a Sama-vedi. If the only argument
in favour of this conclusion were, that Gautama appropriated
a portion of the Samavidhana, it might be met by the fact
that he has also taken some Sutras (XXV, 1-6), from the
Taittiriya Arayaka. But his partiality for Samans as
purificatory texts and the selection of the Vyahrztis from
the Vyalmti Saman as part of the Mantras for the initia-
tion (I, 50), one of the holiest and most important of the
Brahmanical sacraments, cannot be explained on any other
supposition than the one adopted above.

Though it thus appears that Professor Max Miiller is
right in declaring the Gautama Dharmajastra to belong to
the Sama-veda, it is, for the present, not possible to posi-
tively assert, that it is the Dharma-sutra of that Gautama
A^arawa, which according to the A'arawavyuha. quoted in
the ^abdakalpadruma of Radhakanta, formed a subdivision
of the Ra;/aya;/iyas. The enumeration of four A&iryas,
bearing the family-name Gautama, in the Vawz^a-brahmaa,
and La/yayana's quotations from two Gautamas, make it
not unlikely, that several Gautama /ifarawas once existed
among the Sama-vedi Brahmaas, and we possess no

Online LibraryGeorg BühlerThe sacred laws of the Aryas : as taught in the schools of Apastamba, Gautama, Vasishtha and Baudhayana → online text (page 4 of 55)