Georg Bühler.

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

. (page 5 of 55)
Online LibraryGeorg BühlerThe sacred laws of the Aryas : as taught in the schools of Apastamba, Gautama, Vasishtha and Baudhayana → online text (page 5 of 55)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


means for ascertaining to which our Dharma^astra must
be attributed. Further researches into the history of the
schools of the Sama-veda must be awaited until we can do
more. Probably the living tradition of the Sama-vedis of

1 See Gautama I, 50, note.



INTRODUCTION. liii



Southern India and new books from the South will clear
up what at present remains uncertain.

In concluding this subject I may state that Haradatta
seems to have been aware of the connection of Gautama's
law-book with the Sama-veda, though he does not say it
expressly. But he repeatedly and pointedly refers in his
commentary to the practices of the AV/andogas, and quotes
the Gr/hya-sutra of the (raiminlyas l , who are a school of
Sama-vedis, in explanation of several passages. Another
southern author, Govindasvamin (if I understand the some-
what corrupt passage correctly), states directly in his
commentary on Baudhayana I, 1,2, 6, that the Gautamiya
Dharmajastra was originally studied by the A7/andogas
aione 2 .

In turning now to the second point, the priority of Gau-
tama to the other existing Dharma-sutras, I must premise
that it is only necessary to take into account two of the
latter, those of Baudhayana and Vasish///a. For, as has
been shown above in the Introduction to Apastamba, the
Sutras of the latter and those of Hira#yake.rin Satyashaa^a
are younger than Baudhayana's. The arguments which
allow us to place Gautama before both Baudhayana and
Vasish//za are, that both those authors quote Gautama as
an authority on law. and that Baudhayana has transferred
a whole chapter of the Dharmajastra to his work, which
Vasish///a again has borrowed from him.

As regards the case of Baudhayana, his references to
Gautama are two, one of which can be traced in our
Dharma^astra. In the discussion on the peculiar customs
prevailing in the South and in the North of India (Baudh.
Dh. I, 2, i-8) Baudhayana expresses himself as follows :



1 A Gnhya-sutra of the <?aimin?yas has been discorered by Dr. Burncll with
a commentary by -Sniiivasa. He thinks that the Gaiminiyas are a SiUra-jakha
oi the -ia/yayana-Talavakaras.

2 My transcript has been made from the MS. presented by Dr. Hnraell, the
discoverer of the work, to the India Office Library. The passage runs as
follows: Yatha va bodhayaniyaw dharma^astra/w kau&d eva pa/Ayamanaw
sarvadbikaram bhavati tatha gautamiye gobhiliye(?) /4andogair eva paAiyate II
vasishMaw tu bahvrz'&air eva ||



liv GAUTAMA.

* i. There is a dispute regarding five (practices) both in
the South and in the North.

' 2. We shall explain those (peculiar) to the South.

' 3. They are, to eat in the company of an uninitiated
person, to eat in the company of one's wite, to eat stale
food, to marry the daughter of a maternal uncle or of
a paternal aunt.

'4. Now (the customs peculiar) to the North are, to
deal in wool, to drink rum, to sell animals that have teeth
in the upper and in the lower jaws, to follow the trade of
arms and to go to sea.

* 5. He who follows (these practices) in (any) other
country than the one where they prevail commits sin.

* 6. For each of these practices (the rule of) the country
should be (considered) the authority.

'7. Gautama declares that this is false.

'8. And one should not take heed of either (set of
practices), because they are opposed to the tradition of
those learned (in the sacred law 1 ).'

From this passage it appears that the Gautama Dharma-
sutra, known to Baudhayana, expressed an opinion adverse
to the authoritativeness of local customs which might be
opposed to the tradition of the *SIsh/as. i. e. of those who
really deserve to be called learned in the law. Our Gau-
tama teaches the same doctrine, as he says, XI, 20, 'The
laws of countries, castes, and families, which are not
opposed to the (sacred) records, have also authority.'



: inn



^ vtfir



; \\s>\\



INTRODUCTION. 1



V



As clear as this reference, is the case in which Baudha-
yana has borrowed a whole chapter of our Dharma^astra.
The chapter in question is the nineteenth, which in Gau-
tama's work forms the introduction to the section on
penances and expiation. It is reproduced with a number
of various readings l in the third Prarna of Baudhayana's
Dharma-sutra, where it forms the tenth and last Adhyaya.
Its contents, and especially its first Sutra which connects
the section on penances with the preceding ones on the
law of castes and orders, make it perfectly clear that its
proper position can only be at the beginning of the rules
on expiation, not in the middle of the discussion, as Bau-
dhayana places it*. This circumstance alone would be
sufficient to prove that Baudhayana is the borrower, not
Gautama, even if the name of the latter did not occur in
Baudhayana's Dharma-sutra. But the character of many
of Baudhayana's readings, especially of those in Sutras 2,
jo, u, 13, and 15, which, though supported by all the MSS.
and Govindasvamin's commentary, appear to have arisen
chiefly through clerical mistakes or carelessness, furnishes



1 Baudhayana's various readings are the following : Gaut. XIX, I =
Baudh. Ill, 10, 1, T*tW. Gaut. XIX, 2=Baudh. Ill, 10, 2;



?\4H li<H4Xift*H <n ^Tfcf. Gaut. XIX, 4 left out. Gaut. XIX,
6 = Baudh. Ill, 10, 5, ftlf^T. Gaut. XIX, 7 = Baudh. Ill, ro, 6,
xprcf&Tf T&-H ; rqflH4H left out. Gaut. XIX, 8 Mt out. Gaut.
XIX, 9 = Baudh. Ill, 10, 7, "wvi^l^f'ff <TCfa. Caut. XIX, 10=
Baudh. Ill, 10, 8, ^\ *raTT. Gaut. XIX, 12= Baudh. Ill, to, 10,

; ^*fui4{:. ^ aut - XIX 13= Baudh. in, 10, n,

miid(irtT. Gaut. XIX, 14= Baudh. Ill, 10, 12,
Gaut. XIX, 15 = Baudh. Ill, 10, 13,



Gaut. XIX, 17 = Baudh. Ill, TO, 15, ^^Ul-fH*!^ $fiT FTHTt. Gaut.
XIX, i8=Baudh. Ill, 10, 16, f^^^H left out. Gaut. XIX, 20=Baudh.

in, TO, 18, *%n*ifefo:.

8 Baudhayana'e treatment of the subject of penances is very un-
methodical. He devotes to them the following sections: II, 1-2;
II, 2, 3, 48-53 ; II, 2, 4 ; III, 5-10 ; and the greater part of Prasna IV.



]vi GAUTAMA.

even an additional argument in favour of the priority of
Gautama's text. It must, however, be admitted that the
value of this point is seriously diminished by the fact that
Baudhayana's third Pra^na is not above suspicion and may
be a later addition l .

As regards Baudhayana's second reference to Gautama,
the opinion which it attributes to the latter is directly
opposed to the teaching of our Dharmajastra. Baudha-
yana gives II, 2, 4, 16 the rule that a Brahmawa who is
unable to maintain himself by teaching, sacrificing, and
receiving gifts, may follow the profession of a Kshatriya,
and then goes on as follows a :

' 17. Gautama declares that he shall not do it. For the
duties of a Kshatriya are too cruel for a Brahmaa.'

As the commentator Govindasvamin also points out,
exactly the opposite doctrine is taught in our Dharma-
jastra, which (VII, 6) explicitly allows a Brahmawa to
follow, in times of distress, the occupations of a Kshatriya.
Govindasvamin explains this contradiction by assuming
that in this case Baudhayana cites the opinion, not of the
author of our Dharma^astra, but of some other Gautama.
According to what has been said above 3 , the existence of
two or even more ancient Gautama Dharma-sutras is not
very improbable, and the commentator may possibly be
right. But it seems to me more likely that the Sutra of
Gautama (VII, 6) which causes the difficulty is an inter-
polation, though Haradatta takes it to be genuine. My
reason for considering it to be spurious is that the per-
mission to follow the trade of arms is opposed to the sense
of two other rules of Gautama. For the author states at
the end of the same chapter on times of distress, VII, 25,
that ' even a Brahmaa may take up arms when his life is
in danger.' The meaning of these words can only be, that
a Brahma#a must not fight under any other circumstances.

1 See Sacred Books of the East, vol. xiv, p. xxxiv seq.
3 Baucih. Dh. II, 2, 4, 17.

%fjf jftmfiTjqi f? ^rw Tnrara n

' See p. Hi.



INTRODUCTION.



But according to Sutra 6 he is allowed to follow the occu-
pations of a Kshatriya, who lives by fighting. Again, in
the chapter on funeral oblations. XV, 18, those Brahmawas
' who live by the use of the bow ' are declared to defile
the company at a funeral dinner. It seems to me that
these two Sutras, taken together with Baudhayana's asser-
tion that Gautama does not allow Brahmawas to become
warriors, raise a strong suspicion against the genuineness,
of VII. 6, and I have the less hesitation in rejecting the
latter Sutra, as there are several other interpolated passages
in the text received by Haradatta 1 . Among them I may
mention here the Mantras in the chapter taken from the
Samavidhana, XXVI, 12, where the three invocations
addressed to Siva are certainly modem additions, as the
old Sutrakaras do not allow a place to that or any other
Paura'wic deity in their works. A second interpolation will
be pointed out below.

The Vasish///a Dharma-sOtra shows also two quotations
from Gautama ; and it is a curious coincidence that, just
as in the case of Baudhayana's references, one of them only
can be traced in our Dharma^astra. Both the quotations
occur in the section on impurity, Vas. IV, where we read
as follows *:

'33. If an infant aged less than two years, dies, or in the
case of a miscarriage, the impurity of the Sapi</as (lasts)
for three (days and) nights.

' 34. Gautama declares that (they become) pure at once
(after bathing).

' 35. If (a person) dies in a foreign country and (his
SapiWas) hear (of his death) after the lapse of ten days,
the impurity lasts for one (day and) night.

' 36. Gautama declares that if a person who has kindled
the sacred fire dies on a journey, (his SaptJK&s) shall again

1 In some MSS. a whole chapter on the results of various sins in a second
birth is inserted after Adhyaya XIX. But Haradatta does not notice it ; see
Stenzler, Gautama, Preface, p. iii.

2 In quoting the VasishMa Dh. I always refer to the Benares edition, which
is accompanied by the commentary of Krishwapam/ita Dhannadhikarin, called
Vidvaumodini.



GAUTAMA.



celebrate his obsequies, (burning a dummy made of leaves
or straw ; ) and remain impure (during ten days) as (if they
had actually buried) the corpse.'

The first of these two quotations or references apparently
points to Gautama Dh. XIV, 44, where it is said, that
'if an infant dies, the relatives shall be pure at once.'
For, though Vasish/a's SOtra 34, strictly interpreted,
would mean, that Gautama declares the relatives to be
purified instantaneously, both if an infant dies and if
a miscarriage happens, it is also possible to refer the
exception to one of the two cases only, which are mentioned
in SOtra 33. Similar instances do occur in the Sutra style,
where brevity is estimated higher than perspicuity, and
the learned commentator of Vasish//*a does not hesitate
to adopt the same view. But, as regards the second
quotation in Sutra 36, our Gautama contains no passage
to which it could possibly refer. Govindasvamin, in his
commentary on the second reference to Gautama in Bau-
dhayana's Dharma^astra II, 2, 71, expresses the opinion
that this Sutra, too, is taken from the 'other' Gautama
Dharma-sutra, the former existence of which he infers
from Baudhayana's passage. And curiously enough the
regarding the second funeral actually is found in the
metrical Vraldha-Gautama l or Vaishwava Dharma-^astra,
which, according to Mr. Vaman Shastri Islampurkar 2 , forms
chapters 94-1 15 of the A^vamedha-parvan of the Maha-
bharata in a Malayalam MS. Nevertheless, it seems to
me very doubtful if Vasish/^a did or could refer to this
work. As the same rule occurs sometimes in the Srauta-
sutras 3 , 1 think it more probable that the Srauta-sutra of
the Gautama school is meant. And it is significant that
the Wzddha-Gautama declares its teaching to be kalpa^o-
dita * enjoined in the Kalpa or ritual.'

Regarding Gautama's nineteenth chapter, which appears
in the Vasish/^a Dharma^astra as the twenty-second, I have



1 Dharmarastra sa/wgraha (Clbahand), p. 627, Adhy. 20, i seqq.

8 Parirara Dharma Sawhita (Bombay Sansk. Series, No. xlvii), vol. i, p. 9.

1 See e. g. A p. .Sr. Sfl.



INTRODUCTION. lix



already stated above that it is not taken directly from
Gautama's work, but from Baudhayana's. For it shows
most of the characteristic readings of the latter. But a few
new ones also occur, and some Sutras have been left out,
while one new one, a well-known verse regarding the
efficacy of the Vauvanara vratapati and of the Pavitreshri,
has been added. Among the omissions peculiar to Va-
sish/>&a, that of the first Sutra is the most important, as it
alters the whole character of the chapter, and removes one
of the most convincing arguments as to its original position
at the head of the section on penances. Vasish///a places
it in the beginning of the discussion on penances which are
generally efficacious in removing guilt, and after the rules
on the special penances for the classified offences.

These facts will, I think, suffice to show that the
Gautama Dharma.jastra may be safely declared to be the
oldest of the existing works on the sacred law 1 . This
assertion must, however, not be taken to mean, that every
single one of its Sutras is older than the other four Dharma-
sfltras. Two interpolations have already been pointed out
above 2 , and another one will be discussed presently. It is
also not unlikely that the wording of the Sutras has been
changed occasionally. For it is a suspicious fact that
Gautama's language agrees closer with Pawini's rules than
that of Apastamba and Baudhayana. If it is borne in
mind that Gautama's work has been torn out of its original
connection, and from a school-book has become a work of
general authority, and that for a long time it has been
studied by Pandits who were brought up in the traditions
of classical grammar, it seems hardly likely that it could
retain much of its ancient peculiarities of language. But
I do not think that the interpolations and alterations can
have affected the general character of the book very much.
It is too methodically planned and too carefully arranged
to admit of any very great changes. The fact, too, that in



1 Professor Stenzler, too, had arrived independently at this conclusion, see
Grnndriss der Indo-Ar. Phil, und Altertumsk., vol. ii, Pt. 8, p. 5.
' See p. Ivii.



Ix GAUTAMA.

the chapter borrowed by Baudhayana the majority of the
variae lectiones are corruptions, not better readings, favours
this view. Regarding the distance in time between Gautama
on the one hand, and Baudhayana and Vasish/^a on the
other, I prefer not to hazard any conjecture, as long as the
position of the Gautamas among the schools of the Sama-
veda has not been cleared up. So much only can be said
that Gautama probably was less remote from Baudhayana
than from Vasish/V&a. There are a few curious terms and
rules in which the former two agree, while they, at the
same time, differ from all other known writers on Dharma.
Thus the term bhikshu, literally a beggar, which Gautama l
uses to denote an ascetic, instead of the more common
yati or sannyasin, occurs once also in Baudhayana's Sutra.
The same is the case with the rule, III, 13, which orders
the ascetic not to change his residence during the rains.
Both the name bhikshu and the rule must be very ancient,
as the ainas and Buddhists have borrowed them, and have
founded on the latter their practice of keeping the Vasso,
or residence in monasteries during the rainy season.

As the position of the Gautamas among the SSman
schools is uncertain, it will, of course, be likewise inad-
visable to make any attempt at connecting them with the
historical period of India. The necessity of caution in
this respect is so obvious that I should not point it out,
were it not that the Dharmajastra contains one word, the
occurrence of which is sometimes considered to indicate the
terminus a quo for the dates of Indian works. The word
to which I refer is Yavana. Gautama quotes, IV, 21, an
opinion of 'some,' according to which a Yavana is the off-
spring of a Sudra male and a Kshatriya female. Now it is
well known that this name is a corruption of the Greek
'Ia/W, an Ionian, and that in India it was applied, in ancient
times, to the Greeks, and especially to the early Seleucids
who kept up intimate relations with the first Mauryas, as
well as later to the Indo-Bactrian and Indo-Grecian kings
who from the beginning of the second century B. C. ruled

* Gaut. Dh. Ill, a, 1 1 see also Weber, Hist. lad. Lit., p. 327 (English ed.)



INTRODUCTION.



over portions of north-western India. And it has been
occasionally asserted that an Indian work, mentioning the
Yavanas, cannot have been composed before 300 B. c.,
because Alexander's invasion first made the Indians ac-
quainted with the name of the Greeks. This estimate
is certainly erroneous, as there are other facts, tending to
show that at least the inhabitants of north-western India
became acquainted with the Greeks about 200 years
earlier 1 . But it is not advisable to draw any chrono-
logical conclusions from Gautama's Sutra, IV, 21. For, as
pointed out in the note to the translation of Sutra IV, 18,
the whole section with the second enumeration of the
mixed castes, IV, 17-21, is probably spurious.

The information regarding the state of the Vedic litera-
ture, which the Dharmaj-astra furnishes, is not very ex-
tensive. But some of the items are interesting, especially
the proof that Gautama knew the Taittiriya Arawyaka,
from which he took the first six Sutras of the twenty-fifth
Adhyaya ; the Samavidhana Brahmawa, from which the
twenty-sixth Adhyaya has been borrowed ; and the Athar-
va^iras, which is mentioned XIX, 12. The latter word
denotes, according to Haradatta, one of the Upanishads of
the Atharva-veda, which usually are not considered to
belong to a high antiquity. The fact that Gautama and
Baudhayana knew it, will probably modify this opinion.
Another important fact is that Gautama, XXI, 7, quotes
Manu, and asserts that the latter declared it to be impossible
to expiate the guilt incurred by killing a Brahmawa,
drinking spirituous liquor, or violating a Guru's bed.
From this statement it appears that Gautama knew an
ancient work on law which was attributed to Manu. It
probably was the foundation of the existing Mnava
Dharmajastra 2 . No other teacher on law, besides Manu,
is mentioned by name. But the numerous references to
the opinions of c some ' show that Gautama's work was not
the first Dharma-sutra.

1 See my Indian Studies, No. iii, p. 26. note i.

8 Compare also Sacred Books of the East, vol. xxv, p. xxxiv seq.



GAUTAMA.



In conclusion, I have to add a few words regarding the
materials on which the subjoined translation is based.
The text published by Professor Stenzler for the Sanskrit
Text Society has been used as the basis l . It has been
collated with a rough edition, prepared from my own
MSS. P and C, a MS. belonging to the Collection of the
Government of Bombay, bought at Belgcim, and a MS.
borrowed from a Pua S&stri. But the readings given by
Professor Stenzler and his division of the Sutras have
always been followed in the body of the translation. In
those cases, where the variae lectiones of my MSS. seemed
preferable, they have been given and translated in the
notes. The reason which induced me to adopt this
course was that I thought it more advisable to facilitate
references to the printed Sanskrit text than to insist on the
insertion of a few alterations in the translation, which would
have disturbed the order of the Sutras. The notes have
been taken from the above-mentioned rough edition and
from my MSS. of Haradatta's commentary, called Gau-
tamlya' Mitakshara, which are now deposited in the India
Office Library, Sansk. MSS. Biihler, Nos. 165-67.

1 The Institutes of Gautama, edited with an index of words by A. F. Stenzler,
London, 1876.



APASTAMBA,

APHORISMS ON THE SACRED LAW
OF THE HINDUS.



APASTAMBA,

APHORISMS ON THE SACRED LAW
OF THE HINDUS.



PRASNA I, PAFALA 1, KHAN DA 1.

1. Now, therefore, we will declare the acts pro-
ductive of merit which form part of the customs of
daily life, as they have been settled by the agree-
ment (of those who know the law).

2. The authority (for these duties) is the agree-
ment of those who know the law,

3. And (the authorities for the latter are) the
Vedas alone.

4. (There are) four castes Brihmaas, Kshatri-
yas, Vaisyas, and -Sudras.

5. Amongst these, each preceding (caste) is supe-
rior by birth to the one following.

6. (For all these), excepting Sudras and those
who have committed bad actions, (are ordained) the
initiation, the study of the Veda, and the kindling of

1. i. Samaya, 'agreement, decision,' is threefold. It includes
injunction, restriction, and prohibition.

Dharma, ' acts productive of merit,' usually translated by ' duty
or law,' is more accurately explained as an act which produces
the quality of the" soul called apftrva, the cause of heavenly bliss
and of final liberation.

2. Manu II, 6, 12 ; \ r sgn. I, 7 ; Gautama I, i.
6. Manu II, 35.

[2] B



2 APASTAMBA. I, I, I.

the sacred fire ; and (their) works are productive of
rewards (in this world and the next).

7. To serve the other (three) castes (is ordained)
for the .Sudra.

8. The higher the caste (which he serves) the
greater is the merit.

9. The initiation is the consecration in accordance
with the texts of the Veda, of a male who is desirous
of (and can make use of) sacred knowledge.

10. A Brahmarca declares that the Gayatrl is learnt
for the sake of all the (three) Vedas.

11. (Coming) out of darkness, he indeed enters
darkness, whom a man unlearned in the Vedas,
initiates, and (so does he) who, without being learned
in the Vedas, (performs the rite of initiation.) That
has been declared in a Brahmawa.

ii t As performer of this rite of initiation he shall
seek to obtain a man in whose family sacred learning
is hereditary, who himself possesses it, and who is
devout (in following the law).

13. And under him the sacred science must be



7. Manu I, 91, VIII, 410, and IX, 334; Ydgtf. I, 120.

9. The use of the masculine in the text excludes women. For
though women may have occasion to use such texts as ' O fire,
lord of the dwelling/ &c. at the Agnihotra, still it is specially
ordained that they shall be taught this and similar verses only just
before the rite is to be performed.

10. The object of the Sutra is to remove a doubt whether the
ceremony of initiation ought to be repeated for each Veda, in case
a man desires to study more than one Veda. This repetition is
declared to be unnecessary, except, as the commentator adds, in
the, case of the Atharva-veda, for which, according to a passage of
a Brhmaa, a fresh initiation is necessary. The latter rule is given
in the Vaitana-sutra I, i, 5.

13. Haradatta; 'But this (latter rule regarding the taking of



I; i, i. rNITIATION.



studied until the end, provided (the teacher) does not
fall off from the ordinances of the law.

14. He from whom (the pupil) gathers (a^inoti)
(the knowledge of) his religious duties (dharman) (is
called) the Adrya (teacher).

15. Him he should never offend.

1 6. For he causes him (the pupil) to be born (a
second time) by (imparting to him) sacred learning.

1 7. This (second) birth is the best.

1 8. The father and the mother produce the body
only.

19. Let him initiate a Brahmaa in spring, a
Kshatriya in summer, a Valyya in autumn, a Brah-
mawa in the eighth year after conception, a Kshatriya
in the eleventh year after conception, (and) a VaLjya
in the twelfth after conception.

20. Now (follows the enumeration of the years

another teacher)' does not hold good for those who have begun
to study, solemnly binding themselves to their teacher. How so?
As he (the pupil) shall consider a person who initiates and
instructs him his A$lrya, and a pupil who has been once initiated
cannot be initiated again, how can another man instruct him ? For
this reason it must be understood that the study begun with one
teacher may not be completed with another, if the first die. Com-
pare also Haradafta on I, a, 7, 26, and the rule given I, i, 4, ^6.
In our times ajso pupils, who have bound themsdves to a teacher
by paying their respects to him and presenting a cocoa-nut, in
order to learn from him a particular branch of science, must not
study the same branch of science under any other teacher.



Online LibraryGeorg BühlerThe sacred laws of the Aryas : as taught in the schools of Apastamba, Gautama, Vasishtha and Baudhayana → online text (page 5 of 55)