Dharma Sutras E-Book

anonymous

• Herausgeber: Seltzer Books
• Kategorie: Religion und Spiritualität
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2018

Seitenzahl: 546

Beschreibung

According to Wikipedia: "The Dharmasutras are Sanskrit texts dealing with custom, rituals and law. They include the four surviving written works of the ancient Indian tradition on the subject of dharma, or the rules of behavior recognized by a community. Unlike the later Dharmashastra, the dharmasutras are composed in prose. The oldest Dharmasutra is generally believed to have been that of Apastamba, followed by the dharmasutras of Gautama, Baudhayana, and an early version of Vasishtha. It is difficult to determine exact dates for these texts, but the dates between 500–300 BCE have been suggested for the oldest Dharmasutras."

Leseprobe

THE DHARMA SUTRAS; THE SACRED LAWS OF THE ARYAS AS TAUGHT IN THE SCHOOLS OF APASTAMBA, GUATAMA, VASISHTHA, AND BAUDHAYANA, PART I APASTAMBA AND GAUTAMA

TRANSLATED BY GEORG BÜLER.

Published by Seltzer Books

established in 1974, now offering over 14,000 books

feedback welcome: [email protected]  

Classics of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Indian literature, available from Seltzer Books:

The Bhagavad Gita of The Song Celestial translated by Sir Edwin Arnold

The Bhagavadgita with the Sanasugaiya and the Anugita

Buddhist Suttas

The Dhammapada

The Dharma Sutras

The Doctrine and Practice of Yoga

The Light of Asia by Edwin Arnold

Hindu Literature translated by Edwin Arnold

Hindoo Tales or The Adventurees of Ten Princes

Hindu Tales from the Sanskrit

Kama Sutra translated by Richard Burton

The Laws of Manu

The Loves of Krishna in Indian Painting and Poetry by Archer

The Mhabharata of Krishna-Dwaipayana Vyasa

The Ramayan of Valmiki

The Upanishads

The Vedanta-Sutras

Works of Rabindranath Tagore, 10 books

The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali

INTRODUCTION TO ÂPASTAMBA

INTRODUCTION TO GAUTAMA

ÂPASTAMBA'S APHORISMS ON THE SACRED LAW OF THE HINDUS.

General Rules, Initiation, Studentship, A Student who has returned Home, The Study of the Veda, A Student who has returned Home, Saluting, Purification, Eating, and Forbidden Food, Lawful Livelihood, Penance, Rules for a Snâtaka, The Duties of a Householder, Inheritance, Funeral Mations, The Four Orders The King

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 1, KHANDA, 2.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 1, KHANDA, 2.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 1, KHANDA 3.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 1, KHANDA 3.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 1, KHANDA 4.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 1, KHANDA 4.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 2, KHANDA 5.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 2, KHANDA 5.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA 1, PATALA 2, KHANDA 6.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA 1, PATALA 2, KHANDA 6.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 2, KHANDA 7.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 2, KHANDA 7.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 2, KHANDA 8.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 2, KHANDA 8.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 3, KHANDA 9.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 3, KHANDA 9.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 3, KHANDA 10.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 3, KHANDA 10.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 3, KHANDA 11.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 3, KHANDA 11.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 4, KHANDA 12.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 4, KHANDA 12.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 4, KHANDA 13.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 4, KHANDA 13.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 4, KHANDA 14.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 4, KHANDA 14.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 5, KHANDA 15.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 5, KHANDA 15.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 5, KHANDA 16.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 5, KHANDA 16.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 5, KHANDA 17.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 5, KHANDA 17.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 6, KHANDA 18.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 6, KHANDA 18.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 6, KHANDA 19.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 6, KHANDA 19.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 7, KHANDA 20.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 7, KHANDA 20.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 7, KHANDA 21.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 8, KHANDA 22.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 8, KHANDA 22.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 8, KHANDA 23.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 8, KHANDA 23.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 9, KHANDA 24.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 9, KHANDA 24.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 9, KHANDA 25.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 9, KHANDA 25.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 9, KHANDA 26.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 9, KHANDA 26.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 9, KHANDA 27.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 9, KHANDA 27.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 10, KHANDA 28.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 10, KHANDA 28.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 10, KHANDA 29.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 10, KHANDA 29.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 11, KHANDA 30.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 11, KHANDA 30.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 11, KHANDA 31.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 11, KHANDA 31.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 11, KHANDA 32.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 11, KHANDA 32.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 1, KHANDA 1.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 1, KHANDA 1.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 1, KHANDA 2.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 1, KHANDA 2.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 2, KHANDA 3.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 2, KHANDA 3.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 2, KHANDA 4.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 2, KHANDA 4.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 2, KHANDA 5.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 2, KHANDA 5.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 3, KHANDA 6.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 3, KHANDA 6.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 3, KHANDA 7.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 3, KHANDA 7.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 4, KHANDA 8.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 4, KHANDA 8.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 4, KHANDA 9.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 4, KHANDA 9.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 5, KHANDA 10.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 5, KHANDA 10.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 5, KHANDA 11.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 5, KHANDA 11.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 5, KHANDA 12.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 5, KHANDA 12.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 6, KHANDA 13.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 6, KHANDA 13.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 6, KHANDA 14.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 6, KHANDA 14.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 6, KHANDA 15.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 6, KHANDA 15.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 7, KHANDA 16.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 7, KHANDA 16.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 7, KHANDA 17.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 7, KHANDA 17.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 8, KHANDA 18.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 8, KHANDA 18.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 8, KHANDA 19.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 8, KHANDA 19.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 8, KHANDA 20.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 8, KHANDA 20.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 9, KHANDA 21.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 9, KHANDA 21.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 9, KHANDA 22.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 9, KHANDA 22.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 9, KHANDA 23.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 9, KHANDA 23.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 9, KHANDA 24.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 9, KHANDA 24.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 10, KHANDA 25.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 10, KHANDA 25.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 10, KHANDA 26.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 10, KHANDA 26.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 10, KHANDA 27.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 10, KHANDA 27.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 10, KHANDA 28.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 10, KHANDA 28.

ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 11, KHANDA 29.ÂPASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 11, KHANDA 29.

GAUTAMA'S INSTITUTES OF THE SACRED LAW.

Initiation, Purification, Studentship, The Ascetic, The Hermit, The Householder, Saluting, Times of Distress, A King and Brâhmana versed in the Vedas, The Duties of a Snâtka, Lawful Occupations and Livelihood, The Duties of a King, Civil and Criminal Law, Witnesses, Impurity, Funeral Oblations, The Study of the Veda, Eating, and Forbidden Food, Women, Penances, Inheritance

GUATAMA CHAPTER I

GUATAMA CHAPTER II

GUATAMA CHAPTER III

GUATAMA CHAPTER IV

GUATAMA CHAPTER V

GUATAMA CHAPTER VI

GUATAMA CHAPTER VII

GUATAMA CHAPTER VIII

GUATAMA CHAPTER IX

GUATAMA CHAPTER X

GUATAMA CHAPTER XI

GUATAMA CHAPTER XII

GUATAMA CHAPTER XIII

GUATAMA CHAPTER XIV

GUATAMA CHAPTER XV

GUATAMA CHAPTER XVI

GUATAMA CHAPTER XVII

GUATAMA CHAPTER XVIII

GUATAMA CHAPTER XIX

GUATAMA CHAPTER XX

GUATAMA CHAPTER XXI

GUATAMA CHAPTER XXII

GUATAMA CHAPTER XXIII

GUATAMA CHAPTER XXIV

GUATAMA CHAPTER XXV

GUATAMA CHAPTER XXVI

GUATAMA CHAPTER XXVII

GUATAMA CHAPTERXXVIII

INTRODUCTION TO ÂPASTAMBA.

FOR all students of Sanskrit philology and Indian history Âpastamba's aphorisms  on the sacred law of the Aryan Hindus possess a special interest beyond that  attaching to other works of the same class. Their discovery enabled Professor  Max Müller, forty-seven years ago, to dispose finally of the Brahmanical legend  according to which Hindu society was supposed to be governed by the codes of  ancient sages, compiled for the express purpose of tying down each individual to  his station, and of strictly regulating even the smallest acts of his daily life  [1]. It enabled

[1. Max Müller, History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 133 seq. The following letter, addressed to the late W. H. Morley, and published by him  in his Digest of ludian Cases, 1850, may be of interest as connected with the  first discovery of the Âpastamba-sûtras:-

9, Park Place, Oxford, July 29, 1849.

MY DEAR MORLEY,--I have been looking again at the law literature, in order to  write you a note on the sources ofManu. I have treated the subject fully in my  introduction to the Veda, where I have given an outline of the different periods  of Vaidik literature, and analysed the peculiarities in the style and language  of each class of Vaidik works. A hat I consider to be the sources of the  Mânava-dharma-sûtra, the so-called Laws of Manu, are the Sûtras. These are works  which presuppose the development of the prose literature of the Brâhmanas (like  the Aitareya-brâhmana, Taittirtya-brâhmana, &c.) These Brâhmanas, again,  presuppose, not only the existence, but the collection and arrangement of the  old hymns of the four Samhitâs. The Sûtras are tberefore later than both these  classes of Vaidik works, but they must be considered as belonging to the Vaidik  period of literature, not only on account of their intimate connection with  Vaidik subjects, but also because they still exhibit the irregularities of the  old Vaidik language. They form indeed the last branch of Vaidik literature; and  it will perhaps be possible to fix some of these works chronologically, as they  are contemporary with the first spreading of Buddhism in India, Again, in the whole of Vaidik literature there is no work written (like the  Mânava-dharma-sûtra) in the regular epic Sloka, and the continuous employment of  this rnetre is a characteristic mark of post-Vaidik writings.

One of the principal classes of Sûtras is known by the nameof Kalpa-sûtras, or  rules of ceremonies. These are avowedly composed by human authors, while,  according to Indian orthodox theology, both the hymns and Brâhmanas are to be  considered as revelation. The Sûtras generally bear the name of their authors,  like the Sûtras of Âsvalâyana, Kâtyâyana, &c., or the name of the family to  which the Sûtras belonged. The great number of these writings is to be accounted  for by the fact that there was not one body of Kalpa-sûtras binding on all  Brahmanic families, but that different old families had each their own  Kalpa-sûtras. These works are still very frequent in our libraries, yet there is  no doubt that many of them have been lost. Sûtras are quoted which do not exist  in Europe, and the loss of some is acknowledged by the Brahmans themselves.  There are, however, lists of the old Brahmanic families which were in possession  of their own redaction of Vaidik hymns (Samhitâs), of Brâhmanas, and of Sûtras.  Some-of these families followed the Rig-veda, some the Yagur-veda, the  Sama-veda, and Atharva-veda; and thus the whole Vaidik literature becomes  divided into four great classes of Brâhmanas and Sûtras, belonging to one or the  other of the four principal Vedas.

Now one of the families following the Yagur-veda was that of the Mânava (cf.  Karanavyûha). There can be no doubt that that family, too, had its own Sûtras.  Quotations from Mânava-sûtras are to be met with in commentaries on other  Sûtras; and I have found, not long ago, a MS. which cortains the text of the  Mânava-srauta-sûtras, though in a very fragmentary state. But these Sûtras, the  Srauta-sûtras, treat only of a certain branch of ceremonies connected with the  great sacrifices. Complete Sûtra works are divided into three parts: 1. the  first (Srauta), treating on the great sacrifices; 2. the second (Grihya),  treating on the Samskâras, or the purificatory sacraments; 3. the third,  (Sâmayâkârika or Dharma-sûtras), treating on emporal duties, customs, and  punishments. The last two classes of Sûtras seem to be lost in the Mânava-sûtra.  This loss is. however, not so great with regard to tracing the sources of the  Mânava-dharma-sâstra, because whenever we have an opportunity ofcomparing Sûtras  belonging to different families, but following the same Veda, and treating on  the same subjects, the differences appear to be very slight, and only refer to  less important niceties of the ceremonial. In the absence, therefore, of the  Mânava- sâmayâkârika-sûtras, I have taken another collection of Sûtras, equally  belonging to the Yagur-veda, the Sûtras of Âpastamba. In his family we have not  only a Brâhmana, but also Âpastamba Srauta, Grihya, and Sâmayâkârika-sûtras. Now  it is, of course, the third class of Sûtras, on temporal duties, which are most  likely to contain the sources of the later metrical Codes of Law, written in the  classical Sloka. On a comparison of different subjects, such as the duties of a  Brahmakârin, a Gihastha, laws of inheritance, duties of a king, forbidden fruit,  &c., I find that the Sûtras contain generally almost the same words which have  been brought into verse by the compiler of the Mânava-dharma-sûtra. I consider,  therefore, the Sûtras as the principal source of the metrical Smritis, such as  the Mânava-dharma-sâstra, Yâgñavalkya-dharma-sâstra, &c., though there are also  many other verses in these works which may be traced to different sources. They  are paraphrases of verses of the Samhitâs, or of passages of the Brâhmanas,  often retaining the same old words and archaic constructions which were in the  original. This is indeed acknowledged by the author of the Mânava-dharma-sâstra,  when he says (B. II, v. 6), 'The roots of the Law are the whole Veda (Samhitâs  and Brâhmanas), the customs and traditions of those who knew the Veda (as laid  down in the Sûtras), the conduct of good men, and one's own satisfaction.' The  Mânava-dharma-sâstra may thus be considerd as the last redaction of the laws of  the Mânavas. Quite different is the question as to the old Manu from whom the  family probably derived its origin, and who is said to have been the author of  some very characteristic hymns in the Rig-veda-samhitâ. He certainly cannot be  considered as the author of a Mânava-dharma-sûtra, nor is there even any reason  to suppose the author of this work to have had the same name. It is evident that  the author of the metrical Code of Laws speaks of the old Manu as of a person  different from himself, when he says (B. X, v. 63), 'Not to kill, not to lie,  not to steal, to keep the body clean, and to restrain the senses, this was the  short law which Manu proclaimed amongst the four castes.'Yours truly, M. M.]

him not only to arrive at this negative result, but also to substitute a sounder  theory the truth of which subsequent investigations have further confirmed, and  to show that the sacred law of the Hindus has its source in the teaching of the  Vedic schools, and that the so-called revealed law codes are, in most cases, but  improved metrical editions of older prose works which latter, in the first  instance, were destined to be committed to memory by the young Aryan students,  and to teach them their duties. This circumstance, as well as the fact that  Âpastamba's work is free from any suspicion of having been tampered with by  sectarians or modern editors, and that its intimate connection with the manuals  teaching the performance of the great and small sacrifices, the Srauta and  Grihya-sûtras, which are attributed to the same author, is perfectly clear and  indisputable, entitle it, in spite of its comparatively late origin, to the  first place in a collection of Dharma-sûtras.

The Apastamblya Dharma-sûtra forms part of an enormous Kalpa-sûtra or body of  aphorisms, which digests the teaching of the Veda and of the ancient Rishis  regarding the performance of sacrifices and the duties of twice-born men,  Brâhmanas, Kshatriyas, and Vaisyas. and which, being chiefly based on the second  of the four Vedas, the Yagur-veda in the Taittirîya recension, is primarily  intended for the benefit of the Adhvaryu priests in whose families the study of  the Yagur-veda is hereditary.

The entire Kalpa-sûtra of Âpastamba is divided into thirty sections, called  Prasnas, literally questions [1]. The first twenty-four of these teach the  performance of the so-called Srauta or Vaitânika sacrifices, for which several  sacred fires are required, beginning with the simplest rites, the new and full  moon offerings, and ending with the complicated Sattras or sacrificial sessions,  which last a whole year or even longer [2]. The twenty-fifth Prasna contains the  Paribhâshâs or general rules of interpretation [3], which are valid for the  whole Kalpa-sûtra, the Pravara-khanda, the chapter enumerating the patriarchs of  the various Brahmanical tribes, and finally the Hautraka, prayers to be recited  by the Hotraka priests. The twenty-sixth section gives the Mantras or Vedic  prayers and formulas for the Grihya rites, the ceremonies for which the sacred  domestic or Grihya fire is required, and the twenty-seventh the rules for the  performance of the latter [4]. The aphorisms on the sacred law fill the next two  Prasnas; and the Sulva-sûtra[5], teaching the geometrical principles, according  to which the altars necessary for the Srauta sacrifices must be constructed,  concludes the work with the thirtieth Prasna.

The position of the Dharma-sûtra in the middle of the collection at once raises  the presumption that it originally formed an integral portion of the body of  Sûtras and that it is not a later addition. Had it been added later, it wouid  either stand at the end of the thirty Prasnas or altogether outside the  collection, as is the case with some other treatises attributed to Âpastamba  [6]. The Hindus are, no doubt, unscrupulous in adding to the works of famous  teachers. But such additions, if of considerable extent, are usually not  embodied in the works themselves which they are intended to supplement. They are  mostly given

[1. Burnell, Indian Antiquary, 1, 5 seq. 2 The Srauta-sûtra, Pr. I-XV, has been edited by Professor R. Garbe in the  Bibliotheca Indica, and the remainder is in the press. 3. See Professor Max Müller's Translation in S. B. E., vol. xxx. 4. The Grihya-sûtra has been edited by Dr. Winternitz, Vienna, 1887. 5. On the Sulva-sûtras see G. Thibaut in 'the Pandit,' 1875, p. 292. 6. Burnell, loc. cit.]

as seshas or parisishtas, tacked on at the end, and generally marked as such in  the MSS.

In the case of the Âpastamba Dharma-sûtra it is, however, not necessary to rely  on its position alone, in order to ascertain its genuineness. There are  unmistakable indications that it is the work of the same author who wrote the  remainder of the Kalpa-sûtra. One important argument in favour of this view is  furnished by the fact that Prasna XXVII, the section on the Grihya ceremonies  has evidently been made very short and concise with the intention of saving  matter for the subsequent sections on the sacred law. The Âpastambîya  Grihya-sûtra contains noth ing beyond a bare outline of the domestic ceremonies,  while most of the other Grihya-sûtras, e. g. those of Asvalâyana, Sânkhâyana,  Gobhila, and Pâraskara, include a great many rules which bear indirectly only on  the performance of the offerings in the sacred domestic fire. Thus on the  occasion of the description of the initiation of Aryan students, Âsvalâyana  inserts directions regarding the dress and girdle to be worn, the length of the  studentship, the manner of begging, the disposal of the alms collected, and  other similar questions [1]. The exclusion of such incidental remarks on  subjects that are not immediately connected with the chief aim of the work, is  almost complete in Âpastamba's Grihya-sûtra, and reduces its size to less than  one half of the extent of the shorter ones among the works enumerated above. It  seems impossible to explain this restriction of the scope of Prasna XXVII  otherwise than by assuming that Âpastamba wished to reserve all rules bearing  rather on the duties of men than on the performance of the domestic offerings,  for his sections on the sacred law.

A second and no less important argument for the unity of the whole Kalpa-sûtra  may be drawn from the cross-references which occur in several Prasnas. In the  Dharma-sûtra we find that on various occasions, where the performance

[1. Asvalâyana Grihya-sûtra 1, 19, ed. Stenzler.]

of a ceremony is prescribed, the expressions yathoktam, 'as has been stated,'  yathopadesam, 'according to the injunction,' or yathâ purastât, 'as above,' are  added. In four of these passages, Dh. I, 1, 4, 16; II, 2, 3, 17; 2, 5, 4; and 7,  17, 16, the Grihya-sûtra is doubtlessly referred to, and the commentator  Haradatta has pointed out this fact. On the other hand, the Grihya-Sûtra refers  to the Dharma-sûtra, employing the same expressions which have been quoted from  the latter. Thus we read in the beginning of the chapter on funeral oblations,  Grihya-sûtra VIII, 21, 1, mâsisrâddhasyâparapakshe yathopadesam kâlâh, 'the  times,for the monthly funeral sacrifice (fall) in the latter (dark) half of the  month according to the injunction.' Now as neither the Grihya-sûtra itself nor  any preceding portion of the Kalpa-sûtra contains any injunction on this point,  it, follows that the long passage on this subject which occurs in the  Dharma-sûtra II, 7, 16, 4-22 is referred to. The expression yathopadesam is also  found in other passages of the Grihya-sûtra, and must be explained there in a  like manner[1]. There are further a certain number of Sûtras which occur in the  same words both in the Prasna on domestic rites, and in that on the sacred law,  e. g. Dh. I, 1, A; I, 1, 2, 38; I, 1, 4, 14. It seems that the author wished to  call special attention to these rules by repeating them. Their recurrence and  literal agreement may be considered an additional proof of the intimate  connection of the two sections.

Through a similar repetition of, at least, one Sûtra it is possible to trace the  connection of the Dharma-sûtra with the Srauta-sûtra. The rule ritve vâ gâyâm,  'or (he may have conjugal intercourse) with his wife in the proper season', is  given, Dh. II, 2, 5, 17, with reference to a householder who teaches the Veda.  In the Srauta-sûtra it occurs twice, in the sections on the new and full moon  sacrifices III, 17, 8, and again in connection with the Kâturmâsya offerings,  VIII, 4, 6, and it refers both times

[1. See the details, given by Dr. Wintemitz in his essay, Das altindische  Hochzeitsrituell, p. 5 (Denkschr. Wiener Akadernie, Bd. 40).]

to the sacrificer. In the first passage the verb, upeyât, is added, which the  sense requires; in the second it has the abbreviated form, which the best MSS.  of the Dharma-sûtra offer. The occurrence of the irregular word, ritve for  ritvye, in all the three passages, proves clearly that we have to deal with a  self-quotation of the same author. If the Dharma-sûtra were the production of a  different person and a later addition, the Pseudo-Âpastamba would most probably  not have hit on this peculiar irregular form. Finally, the Grihya-sûtra, too,  contains several crossreferences to the Srauta-sûtra, and the close agreement of  the Sûtras on the Vedic sacrifices, on the domestic rites, and on the sacred,  both in language and style, conclusively prove that they are the compositions of  one author[1].

Who this author really was, is a problem which cannot be solved for the present,  and which probably will. always remain unsolved, because we know his family name  only. For the form of the word itself shows that the name Âpastamba, just like  those of most founders of Vedic schools, e. g. Bhâradvâga, Âsvalâyana, Gautama,  is a patronymic. This circumstance is, of course, fatal to all attempts at an  identification of the individual who holds so prominent a place among the  teachers of the Black Yagur-veda.

But we are placed in a somewhat better position with respect to the history of  the school which has been named after Âpastamba and of the works ascribed to  him. Regarding both, some information has been preserved by tradition, and a  little more can be obtained from inscriptions and later works, while some  interesting details regarding the time when, and the place where the Sûtras were  composed, may be elicited from the latter themselves. The data, obtainable from  these sources, it is true, do not enable us to determine with certainty the year  when the Âpastambîya school was founded, and when its Sûtras were composed. But  they make it possible to ascertain the position of the school and of its Sûtras  in Vedic literature,

[1. See Dr. Winternitz, loc. cit.] their relative priority or posteriority as compared with other Vedic schools and  works, to show with some amount of probability in which part of India they had  their origin, and to venture, at least, a not altogether unsupported conjecture  as to their probable antiquity.

As regards the first point, the Karanavyûha, a supplement of the White  Yagur-veda which gives the lists of the Vedic schools, informs us that the  Âpastambîya school formed one of the five branches of the Khândikîya school,  which in its turn was a subdivision of the Taittirîyas, one of the ancient  sections of Brâhmanas who study, the Black Yagur-veda. Owing to the very  unsatisfactory condition of the text of the Karanavyûha it is unfortunately not  possible to ascertain what place that work really assigns to the Âpastambîyas  among the five branches of the, Khândikîyas. Some MSS. name them first, and  others, last. They give either the following list, 1. Kâleyas (Kâletas), 2.  Sâtyâvanins, 3. Hiranyakesins, 4. Bhâradvâgins, and 5. Âpastambins, or, I.  Âpastambins, 2. Baudhâyanins or Bodhâyanins, 3. Satyâshâdhins, 4.  Hiranya-kesins, 5. Aukheyas[1]. But this defect is remedied to, a certain extent  by the now generally current, and probably ancient tradition that  theApastambiyas are younger than, the school of Baudhâyana, and. older than that  of Satyâshâdha Hiranyakesin. Baudhâyana, it is alleged, composed the first set  of Sûtras connected with the Black Yagur-Veda, which bore the special title  'pravakana,' and hel,~, was succeeded by Bhâradvâga, Âpastamba, and Satyâshâdha  Hiranyakesin,who all founded schools which bear their names[2].

[1. Max Müller, Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit, p. 371. AMS. of the Karanavyûha, with an  anonymous commentary, in my possession, has the following passage:

2. Max MüllIer, Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., p. 194. These statements occnr in the  introduction of Mahâdeva's commentary on the Srauta-sûtra of Hiranyakesin  (Weber, Hist. Sansk. Lit., p. 110, 2nd ed.) and, in an interpolated: passage of  Bhâradvâgâ's Grihya-sûtra (Winternitz, op. cit., p. 8, note i), as well as, with  the omission of Bhâradvâgâ's name, in interpolated passages of Baudhâyana's  Dharma-sûtra (II, 5, 9, 14) and of the same author's Grihya-sûtra (Sacred Books  of the East, vol. xiv, p. xxxvi, note i). Adherents of a Pravakana-sûtra, no  doubt identical with that of Baudhâyana, the Pravakanakartâ (Sacred Books of the  East, vol. xiv, p. xxxvi), are mentioned in a land grant, originally issued by  the Pallava king Nandivarman in the beginning of the eighth century A.D., see  Hultzsch, South Indian Inscriptions, vol. ii, p. 361 seqq.; see also Weber, Hist  Sansk. Lit., p. 110, 2nd ed.]

This tradition has preserved two important pieces of in-formation. First, the  Âpastamba school is what Professor Max Müller appropriately calls a Sûtrakarana,  i.e. a school whose founder did not pretend to have received a revelation of  Vedic Mantras or of a Brâhmana text, but merely gave a new systematic  arrangement of the precepts regarding sacrifices and the sacred law. Secondly,  the Sûtras of Âpastamba occupy an intermediate position between the works of  Baudhâyana and Hiranyakesin. Both these statements are perfectly true, and  capable of being supported by proofs, drawn from Âpastamba's own and from other  works.

As regards the first point, Professor Max Müller has already pointed [1] out  that, though we sometimes find a Brâhmana of the Âpastambîyas mentioned, the  title Âpastamba-brâhmana is nothing but another name of the Taittirîya-brâhmana,  and that this Brâhmana, in reality, is always attributed to Tittiri or to the  pupils of Vaisampâyana, who are said to have picked up the Black YagurVeda in  the shape of partridges (tittiri). The same remark applies to the collection of  the Mantras of the Black Yagur-veda, which, likewise, is sometimes named  Âpastamba-samhitâ. The Karanavyûha states explicitly that the five branches of  the Khândîkîya school, to which the Âpastambîyas belong, possess one and the  same recension of the revealed texts, consisting Of 7 Kândas. 44 Prasnas, 651  Anuvâkas, 2198 Pannâsîs, 19290 Padas[2], and 253,868 syllables, and indicates  thereby that all these five schools were Sûtrakaranas. If we now turn to Âpastamba's own works, we find still

[1. Max Müller, op. cit., p. 195. 2 See also Weber, Ind. Lit., p. 98, 2nd ed.]

clearer proof that he laid no claim to the title Rishi, or inspired seer of  Vedic texts. For (Dharma-sûtra I, 2, 5, 4-5 says distinctly that on account of  the prevalent transgression of the rules of studentship no Rishis are born,  among the Avaras, the men of later ages or of modern times, but that some, by  virtue of a residue of the merit which they acquired in former lives, become  similar to Rishis by their knowledge of the Veda. A man who speaks in this  manner, shows that he considers the holy ages during which the great saints saw  with their mind's eye the uncreated and eternal texts of the Veda to be past,  and that all he claims is a thorough acquaintance with the scriptures which had  been handed down to him. The same spirit which dictated this passage is also  observable in other portions of the Dharma-sûtra. For Âpastamba repeatedly  contrasts the weakness and sinfulness of the Avaras, the men of his own times,  with the holiness of the ancient sages, who, owing to the greatness of their  'lustre,' were able to commit various forbidden acts without diminishing their  spiritual merit[1]. These utterances prove that Âpastamba considered himself a  child of the Kali Yuga, the age of sin, during which, according to Hindu  notions, no Rishis can be born. If, therefore, in spite of this explicit  disclaimer, the Samhitâ and the Brâhmana of the Black Yagur-veda are sometimes  called Âpastamba or Âpastambîya, i.e. belonging to Âpastamba, the meaning of  this expression can only be, that they were and are studied and handed down by  the school of Âpastamba, not that its founder was their author, or, as the  Hindus would say, saw them.

The fact that Âpastamba confined his activity to the composition of Sûtras is  highly important for the determination of the period to which he belonged. It  clearly shows that in his time the tertiary or Sûtra period of the Yagur-veda  had begun. Whether we assume, with Professor Max Müller, that the Sûtra period  was one and the same for all the four Vedas, and fix its limits with him

[1. Dharma-sûtra II, 6, x 3, 1-10; II, 10, 27, 4.]

between 600-200 B.C., or whether we believe, as I am inclined to do, that the  date of the Sûtra period differed for each Veda, still the incontestable  conclusion is that the origin of the Âpastambîya school cannot be placed in the  early times of the Vedic period, and probably falls in the last six or seven  centuries before the beginning of the Christian era.

The correctness of the traditional statement that Âpastarnba is younger than  Baudhâyana may be made very probable by the following considerations. First,  Baudhâyana's and Âpastamba's works on Dharma have a considerable number of  Sûtras in common. Thus in the chapter on Penances not less than seven  consecutive Sûtras, prescribing the manner in which outcasts are to live and to  obtain readmission into the Brahmanical community for their children, occur in  both treatises[1]. Besides this passage, there are a number of single Sûtras [2]  which agree literally. Taken by itself this agreement does not prove much, as it  may be explained in various ways. It may show either that Baudhâyana is older  than Âpastamba, and that the latter borrowed from the former, or that the  reverse was the case. It may also indicate that both authors drew from one  common source. But if it is taken together with two other facts, it gains a  considerable importance. First, Âpastamba holds in several cases doctrines which  are of a later origin than those held by Baudhâyana. With respect to this point  the puritan opinions which Âpastamba puts forward regarding the substitutes for  legitimate sons and regarding the appointment of widows (niyoga), and his  restriction of the number of marriage-rites, may be adduced as examples. Like  many other ancient teachers, Baudhâyana permits childless Âryans to satisfy  their craving for representatives bearing their name, and to allay their fears  of falling after death into the regions of torment through a failure of the  funeral oblations, by the affiliation

of-eleven kinds of substitutes for a legitimate son. Illegitimate sons, the  illegitimate sons of wives, the legitimate -and illegitimate offspring of  daughters, and the children of relatives, or even of strangers who may be  solemnly adopted, or received as members of the family without any ceremony, or  be acquired by purchase, are all allowed to take the place and the rights of  legitimate sons[1]. Âpastamba declares his dissent from this doctrine. He allows  legitimate sons alone to inherit their father's estate and to follow the  occupations of his caste, and he explicitly forbids the sale and gift of  children[2].

In like manner he protests against the custom of making over childless widows to  brothers-in-law or other near relatives in order to obtain sons who are to offer  the funeral oblations to the deceased husband's manes, while Baudbayana has as  yet no scruple on the subject[3]. Finally, he omits from his list of the  marriage-rites the Paisâka vivâha, where the bride is obtained by fraud[4];  though it is reluctantly admitted by Baudhdvana and other ancient teachers.  There can be no doubt that the law which placed the regular continuance of the  funeral oblations above all other considerations, and which allowed, in order to  secure this object, even a violation of the sanctity of the marriage-tie and  other breaches of the principles of morality, beloncrs to an older order of  ideas than the stricter views of Âpastamba. It is true that, according to  Baudhâyana's own statement[5], before his time an ancient sage named  Aupaganghani, who is also mentioned in the Satapatha-brâhmana, had opposed the  old practice of taking substitute's for a legitimate son. It is also very  probable that for a long time the opinions of the Brâhmana teachers, who lived  in different parts of India and belonged to different schools, may have been  divided on this subject. Still it seems very improbable that of two authors who  both belong to the same Veda and to the same school, the

[1. Baudh. Dh. II, 2, 3, 17 seqq. 2. Âp. Dh. II, 5, 13, 1-2, 11. 3. Âp. Dh. II, 10, 27, 2-7. 4. Âp. Dh. II, 5, 11 and 12. 5. Baudh. Dh. II, 21 3, 33.]

earlier one should hold the later doctrine, and the later one the earlier  opinion. The contrary appears the more probable assumption. The same remarks  apply to the cases of the Niyoga and of the Paisâka marriage[1].

The second fact, which bears on the question how the identity of so many Sûtras  in the two Dharma-sûtras is to be explained, affords a still stronger proof of  Âpastamba's posteriority to Baudhâyana. For on several occasions, it appears,  Âpastamba controverts opinions which Baudhâyana holds, or which may be defended  with the help of the latter's Sûtras. The clearest case of this kind occurs in  the chapter on Inheritance, where the treatment of the eldest son on the  division of the estate by the father is discussed. There Âpastamba gives it as  his own opinion that the father should make an equal division of his property  'after having gladdened the eldest son by some (choice portion of his) wealth,'  i.e. after making him a present which should have some value, but should not be  so valuable as to materially affect the equality of the shares[2]. Further on he  notices the opinions of other teachers on this subject, and states that the  practice advocated by some, of allowing the eldest alone to inherit, as well as  the custom prevailing in some countries, of allotting to the eldest all the  father's gold, or the brack cows, or the black iron and grain, is not in  accordance with the precepts of the Vedas. In order to prove the latter  assertion he quotes a passage of the Taittirîya Samhitâ, in which it is declared  that 'Manu divided his wealth among his sons,' and no difference in the  treatment of the eldest son is prescribed. He adds that a second passage occurs  in the same Veda, which declares that 'they distinguish the eldest son by (a  larger portion of) the heritage,' and which thus apparently countenances the  partiality for the first-born. But this second passage, he contends, appealing  to the

[1. For another case, the rules, referring to the composition for homicide,  regarding which Âpastamba holds later views than Baudhâyana, see the Festgruss  an R. von Roth, pp. 47-48. 2 Âp. Dh. II, 6, 13, 13, and II, 6, 14, 1]

opinion of the Mimânsists, is, like many similar ones, merely a statement of a  fact which has not the authority of an injunction[1]. If we now turn to  Baudhâyana, we find that he allows of three different methods for the  distribution of the paternal estate. According to him, either an equal share may  be given to each son, or the eldest may receive the best part of the wealth, or,  also, a preferential share of one tenth of the whole property. He further  alleges that the cows, horses, goats, and sheep respectively go to the eldest  sons of Brâhmanas, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas and Sûdras. As authority for the equal  division he gives the first of the two Vedic passages quoted above; and for the  doctrine that the eldest is to receive the best part of the estate, he quotes  the second passage which Âpastamba considers to be without the force of an  injunction [2]. The fact that the two authors' opinions clash is manifest, and  the manner in which Âpastamba tries to show that the second Vedic passage  possesses no authority, clearly indicates that before his time it had been held  to contain an injunction. As no other author of a Dharma-sûtra but Baudhâyana is  known to have quoted it, the conclusion is that Âpastamba's remarks are directed  against him. If Âpastamba does not mention Baudhâyana by name, the reason  probably is that in olden times, just as in the present day, the Brahmanical  etiquette forbad a direct opposition against doctrines propounded by an older  teacher who belongs to the same spiritual family (vidyâvamsa) as oneself. A similar case occurs in the chapter on Studentship [3] where Âpastamba, again  appealing to the Mîmâmsists, combats the doctrine that pupils may eat forbidden  food, such as honey, meat, and pungent condiments, if it is given to them as  leavings by their teacher. Baudhâyana gives no explicit rule on this point, but  the wording of his Sûtras is not opposed to the doctrine and practice, to which  Âpastamba objects. Baudhâyana says that students

[1. Âp. Dh. II, 6,14, 6-13. Baudh. Dh. II, 2, 3, 2-7. 2. Âp. Dh. I, 1, 4, 5-7.]

shall avoid honey, meat, pungent condiments, &c.; he further enjoins that pupils  are to obey their teachers except when ordered to commit crimes which cause loss  of caste (patanîya); and he finally directs them to eat the fragments of food  given to them by their teachers. As the eating of honey and other forbidden  substances is not a crime causing loss of caste, it is possible that Baudhâyana  himself may have considered it the duty of a pupil to eat any kind of food given  by the teacher, even honey and meat. At all events the practice and doctrine  which Âpastamba blames, may have been defended by the wording of Baudhâyana's  rules [1].

The three points which have been just discussed, viz. the identity of a number  of Sûtras in the works of the two authors, the fact that Âpastamba advocates on  some points more refined or puritan opinions, and, especially, that he labours  to controvert doctrines contained in Baudhâyana's Sûtras, give a powerful  support to the traditional statement that he is younger than that teacher. It  is, however, difficult to say how great the distance between the two really is.  Mahddeva, as stated above, places between them only Bhâradvâga, the author of a  set of Sûtras, which as yet have not been completely recovered. But it seems to  me not likely that the latter was his immediate predecessor in the vidyâvamsa or  spiritual family to which both belonged. For it cannot be expected that two  successive heads of the school should each have composed a Sûtra and thus  founded a new branch-school. It is

[1. Cases, in which Âpastamba's Grihya-sûtra appears to refer to, or to  controvert, Baudhâyana's Grihya-sûtra, have been collected by Dr. Wintemitz, op.  cit., p. 8. Dr. Burnell, Tanjore Catalogue, p. 34, too, considers Baudhâyana to  be older than Âpastamba, because his style is so much simpler. With this remark  may be compared Dr. Winternitz's very true assertion that Baudhâyana's style  resembles sometimes, especially in the discussion of disputed points, that of  the Brâhmanas. On the other hand, Dr. R. G. Bhindirkar, Second Report on the  Search for Sanskrit MSS., p. 34, believes Baudhâyana to be later than Âpastamba  and Bhâradvâga, because he teaches other developments of sacrificial rites,  unknown to the other two Sûtrakâras. This may be true, but it must not be  forgotten that every portion of Baudhâyana's Sûtras, which has been subjected to  a critical enquiry, has turned out to be much interpolated and enlarged by later  hands.]

more probable that Baudhâyana and Bhâradvâga, as well as the latter and  Âpastamba, were separated by several intervening generations of teachers, who  contented themselves with explaining the works of their predecessors. The  distance in years between the first and the last of the three Ritrakiras must,  therefore, I think, be measured rather by centuries than by decades [1]. As regards the priority of Âpastamba to the school of Satyâshâdha Hiranyakesin,  there can be no doubt about the correctness of this statement. For either  Hiranyakesin himself, or, at least, his immediate successors have appropriated  Âpastamba's Dharma-sûtra and have inserted it with slight modifications in their  own collection. The alterations consist chiefly in some not very important  additions, and in the substitution of more intelligible and more modern  expressions for difficult and antiquated words'. But they do not extend so far  as to make the language of the Dharma-sûtra fully agree with that of the other  sections of the collection, especially with the Grihya-sûtra. Numerous  discrepancies between these two parts are observable. Thus we read in the  Hiranyakesi

[1. The subjoined pedigree of the Sûtrakâras of the Black Yagur-veda will  perhaps make the above remarks and my interpretation of the statements of  Mahâdeva and the other authorities mentioned above more intelligible:- Khândika, taught the Taittirîya recension of the Black Yagur-veda. (Successors of Khândika, number unknown, down to) Baudhâyana, Pravahanakartâ, i.e. 1st Sûtrakâra, and founder of  Baudhâyana-karana. (Successors of Baudhâyana down to fellow-pupil of Bhâradvâga, number unknown.) (Successors of Baudhâyana after the schism down to the present day.) Bhâradvâga, 2nd Sûtrakâra, and founder of Bhâradvâga-karana. (Successors of Bhâradvâga down to fellow-pupil of Âpastamba, number unknown.) (Successors after the schism down to the present day.) Âpastamba, 3rd Sûtrakâra, and founder of Âpastamba-karana. (Successors of Âpastamba duwn to fellow-pupil of Satyâshâdha Hiranyakesin,  number unknown.) (successors of Âpastamba down to the present day.) Satyâshâdha Hiranyakesin, 4th Sûtrakâra, and founder of Hiranyakesikarana. (Successors of Satyâshâdha Hiranyakesin down to the present day.) After the schism of Satyâshâdha Hiranyakesin the pedigree has not been  continued, though Mahâdeva asserts that several other Sûtrakâras arose. But to  work it out further would be useless. 2. See Appendix II to Part I of my second edition of Âpastamba's Dharma-sûtra,  p. 117 seqq.]

Grihya-sûtra that a Brâhmana must, ordinarily, be initiated in his seventh year,  while the rule of the Dharma-sûtra, which is identical with Âp. Dh. I, 1, 1, 18,  prescribes that the ceremony shall take place in the eighth year after  conception. The commentators, Mâtridatta on the Grihya-sûtra and Mahâdeva on the  Dharma-sûtra, both state that the rule of the Grihya-sûtra refers to the seventh  year after birth, and, therefore, in substance agrees with the Dharma-sûtra.  They are no doubt right. But the difference in the wording shows that the two  sections do not belong to the same author. The same inference may be drawn from  the fact that the Hiranyakesi Grihya-sûtra, which is much longer than  Âpastamba's, includes a considerable amount of matter which refers to the sacred  law, and which is repeated in the Dharma-sûtra. According to a statement which I  have heard from several learned Brâhmanas, the followers of Hiranyakesin, when  pronouncing the samkalpa or solemn pledge to perform a ceremony, declare  themselves to be members of the Hiranyakesi school that forms a subdivision of  Âpastamba's (âpastambântargatahiranyakesisâkhâdhyâyi . . . aham). But I have not  been able to find these words in the books treating of the ritual of the  Hiranyakesins, such as the Mahesabhattî. If this assertion could be further  corroborated, it would be an additional strong proof of the priority of  Âpastamba, which, however, even without it may be accepted as a fact[1]. The  distance in time between the two teachers is probably not so great as that  between Âpastamba and Baudhâyana, as Mahâdeva mentions no intermediate Sûtrakâra  between them. Still it is probably not less than 100, or 150 years. The results of the above investigation which show that the origin of the  Âpastamba school falls in the middle of the Sûtra period of the Black  Yagur-veda, and that its Sûtras belong to the later, though not to the latest  products of Vedic literature, are fully confirmed by an

[1. Compare also Dr. Winternitz's remarks on the dependence of the Grihya-sûtra  of the Hiranyakesins on Âpastamba's, op. cit., p. 6 seqq., and the second  edition of the Âp. Dh., Part 1, p. xi.]

examination of the quotations from and references to Vedic and other books  contained in Âpastamba's Sûtras, and especially in the Dharma-sûtra. We find  that all the four Vedas are quoted or referred to. The three old ones, the Rik,  Yagus, and Sâman, are mentioned both separately and collectively by the name  trayî vidyâ, i.e. threefold sacred science, and the fourth is called not  Atharvângirasah, as is done in most ancient Sûtras, but Atharva-veda. The  quotations from the Rik and Sâman are not very numerous. But a passage from the  ninth Mandala of the former, which is referred to Dh. I, 1, 2, 2, is of some  extent, and shows that the recens:on which Âpastamba knew, did not differ from  that which still exists. As Âpastamba was an adherent of the Black Yagur-veda,  he quotes it, especially in the Srauta-sûtra, very frequently, and he adduces  not only texts from the Mantra-samhitâ, but also from the Taittirîya-Brâhmana  and Âranyaka. The most important quotations from the latter work occur Dh. II,  2, 3, 16-II, 2, 4, 9, where all the Mantras to be recited during the performance  of the Bali-offerings are enumerated. Their order agrees exactly with that in  which they stand in the sixty-sevcnth Anuvâka of the tenth Prapâthaka of the  recension of the Âranyaka which is current among the Ândhra Brâhmanas [2]. This  last point is of considerable importance, both for the history of the text of  that book and, as we shall see further on, for the history of the Âpastambîya  school.

The White Yagur-veda, too, is quoted frequently in the Srauta-sûtra and once in  the section on Dharma by the title Vâgasaneyaka, while twice its Brâhmana, the  Vâasaneyi-brâhmana, is cited. The longer one of the two passages, taken from the  latter work, Dh. I, 4, 12, 3, does, however, not fully agree with the published  text of the Mâdhyandina recension. Its wording possesses just sufficient  resemblance to allow us to identify the passage which Âpastamba meant, but  differs from the Satapatha-

[1. Âp. II, 29, 12. The Taittirîya Âranyaka exists in three recensions, the Karnâta, Drâvida, and  the Ândhra, the first of which has been commented on by Sâyana.]

Brâhmana in many details[1]. The cause of these discrepancies remains doubtful  for the present [2]. As regards the Atharva-veda, Âpastamba gives, besides the  reference mentioned above and a second to the Angirasa-pavitra [3], an abstract  of a long passage from Atharva-veda XV, 10-13, regarding the treatment of a  Vrâtya, i.e. a learned mendicant Brâhmana, who really deserves the title of an  atithi, or guest [4]. It is true that Âpastamba, in the passage referred to,  does not say that his rule is based on the Atharvaveda. He merely says that a  Brâhmana is his authority. But it seems, nevertheless, certain that by the  expression a Brâhmana, the Brâhmana-like fifteenth book of the Atharva-veda is  meant, as the sentences to be addressed by the host to his guest agree literally  with those which the Atharva-veda prescribes for the reception of a Vrâtya.  Haradatta too, in his commentary, expresses the same opinion. Actual quotations  from the Atharva-veda are not frequent in Vedic literature, and the fact that  Âpastamba's Dharma-sûtra contains one, is, therefore, of some interest. Besides these Vedic texts[5], Âpastamba mentions, also, the Angas or auxiliary  works, and enumerates six classes, viz. treatises on the ritual of the  sacrifices, on grammar, astronomy, etymology, recitation of the Veda, and  metrics [6]. The number is the same as that which is considered the correct one  in our days [7].

As the Dharma-sûtra names no less than nine teachers in connection with various  topics of the sacred law, and frequently appeals to the opinion of some (eke),  it follows that a great many such auxiliary treatises must have existed in  Âpastamba's time. The Âkâryas mentioned are Eka, Kânva, Kânva, Kunika, Kutsa,  Kautsa, Pushkarasâdi,

[1. Compare on this point Professor Eggeling's remarks in Sacred Books of the  East, vol. xii, p. xxxix seqq. 2. See the passage from the Karanavyûhabhâshya given below, ver.10. 3. Âp. Dh. I, 2, 2. 4. Âp. Dh. II, 3, 7, 12-17. 5. Some more are quoted in the Srauta-sûtra, see Professor Garbe in the  Gurupûgakaumudî, p. 33 seqq. 6. Âp. Dh. II, 4, 8, 10. See also Max Müller, Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., p. 111.]

Vârshyâyani, Svetaketu, and Hârita [1]. Some of these persons, like Hârita and  Kânva, are known to have composed Sûtras on the sacred law, and fragments or  modified versions of their works are still in existence, while Kânva, Kautsa,  Pushkarasâdi or Paushkarasâdi, as the grammatically correct form of the name is,  and Vârshyâyani are quoted in the Nirukta, the Prâtisikhyas, and the Vârttikas  on Pânini as authorities on phonetics, etymology, and grammar [1]. Kânva,  finally, is considered the author of the still existing Kalpa-sûtras of the  Kânva school connected with the White Yagur-veda. It seems not improbable that  most of these teachers were authors of complete sets of Angas. Their position in  Vedic literature, however, except as far as Kânva, Hârita, and Svetaketu are  concerned, is difficult to define, and the occurrence of their names throws less  light on the antiquity of the Âpastambîya school than might be expected.  Regarding Hârita it must, however, be noticed that he is one of the oldest  authors of Sûtras, that he was an adherent of the Maitrâyanîya Sâkhâ [3], and  that he is quoted by Baudhâyana, Âpastamba's predecessor. The bearing of the  occurrence of Svetaketu's name will be discussed below.

Of even greater interest than the names of the teachers are the indications  which Âpastamba gives, that he knew two of the philosophical schools which still  exist in India, viz. the Pûrvâ or Karma Mimâmsâ and the Vedânta. As regards the  former, he mentions it by its ancient name, Nyâya, which in later tirnes and at  present is usually applied to the doctrine of Gautama Akshapâda. In two passages  [4] he settles contested points on the authority of those who know the Nyâya,  i.e. the Pûrvâ Mîmâmsâ, and

[1. p. Dh. I, 6, 19, 3-8; I, 10, 2 8, 1-2; I, 4, 13, 10; I, 6, 18, 2; I, 6, 19,  12; I, 10, 28, 5, 16; I, 10, 29, 12-16. 2. Max Müller, loc. cit., p. 142. 3. A Dharma-sûtra, ascribed to this teacher, has been recovered of late, by Mr.  Virnan Shastri Islampurkar. Though it is an ancient work, it does not contain  Âpastamba's quotations, see Grundriss d. Indo-Ar. Phil. und Altertumsk, II, 8,  8. 4. Âp. Dh. II, 4, 8, 13; II, 6, 14, 13.]

in several other cases he adopts a line of reasoning which fully agrees with  that followed in Gaimini's Mimâmsâ-sûtras. Thus the arguments[1], that 'a  revealed text has greater weight than a custom from which a revealed text may be  inferred,' and that 'no text can be inferred from a custom for which a worldly  motive is apparent,' exactly correspond with the teaching of Gaimini's  Mimâmsâ-sûtras I, 3, 3-4. The wording of the passages in the two works does not  agree so closely that the one could be called a quotation of the other. But it  is evident, that if Âpastamba did not know the Mimâmsâ-sûtras of Gaimini, he  must have possessed some other very similar work. As to the Vedânta, Âpastamba  does not mention the name of the school. But Khandas 22, 23 of the first Patala  of the Dharma-sûtra unmistakably contain the chief tenets of the Vedântists, and  recommend the acquisition of the knowledge of the Âtman as the best means for  purifying the souls of sinners. Though these two Khandas are chiefly filled with  quotations, which, as the commentator states, are taken from an Upanishad, still  the manner of their selection, as well as Âpastamba's own words in the  introductory and concluding Sûtras, indicates that he knew not merely the  unsystematic speculations contained in the Upanishads and Aranyakas, but a  well-defined system of Vedântic philosophy identical with that of Bâdarâyana's  Brahma-sûtras. The fact that Âpastamba's Dharma-sûtra contains indications of  the existence of these two schools of philosophy, is significant as the Pûrvâ  Mîmâmsâ occurs in one other Dharma-sûtra only, that attributed to Vasishtha, and  as the name of the Vedânta school is not found in any of the prose treatises on  the sacred law.

Of non-Vedic works Âpastamba mentions the Purâna. The Dharma-sûtra not only  several times quotes passages from 'a Purâna' as authorities for its rules [2],  but names in one case the Bhavishyat-purâna as the particular Purâna from which  the quotation is taken [3]. References to the

[1. Âp. Dh. I, 1, 14, 8, 9-10 2. Âp. Dh, I, 6, 19, 13; I, 10, 29, 7. 2. Âp. Dh. II, 9, 24,6.]

Purâna in general are not unfrequent in other Sûtras on the sacred law, and even  in older Vedic works. But Âpastamba, as far as I know, is the only Sûrakâra who  specifies the title of a partirular Purâna, and names one which is nearly or  quite identical with that of a work existing in the present day, and he is the  only one, whose quotations can be shown to be, at least in part, genuine  Paurânic utterances.

Among the so-called Upa-purânas we find one of considerable extent which bears  the title Bhavishya-purâna or also Bhavishyat-purâna [1]. It is true that the  passage quoted in the Dharma-sûtra from the Bhavishyat-purâna is not to be found  in the copy of the Bhavishya-purâna which I have seen. It is, therefore, not  possible to assert positively that Âpastamba knew the present homonymous work.  Still, considering the close resemblance of the two titles, and taking into  account the generally admitted fact that most if not all Purânas have been  remodelled and recast [2], it seems to me not unlikely that Âpastamba's

[1. Aufrecht, Catalogus Catalogorum, p. 400. 2 Max Müller, Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., pp. 40-42. Weber, Literaturgeschichte, pp.  206-208. Though I fully subscribe to the opinion, held by the most illustrious  Sanskritists, that, in general, the existing Purânas are not identical with the  works designated by that title in Vedic works, still I cannot believe that they  are altogether independent of the latter. Nor can I agree to the assertion that  the Purânas known to us, one and all, are not older than the tenth or eleventh  century A.D. That is inadmissible, because Bêrûnî (India, I, 130 enumerates them  as canonical books. And his frequent quotations from them prove that in 1030 A.  D. they did not differ materially from those known to us (see Indian Antiquary,  19, 382 seqq.). Another important fact bearing on this point may be mentioned  here, viz. that the poet Bâna, who wrote shortly after 600 A.D., in the  Srîhatshakarita, orders his Paurânika to recite the Pavanaprokta-purâna, i.e.  the Vâyu-purâna (Harshakarita, p. 61, Calcutta ed.). Dr. Hall, the discoverer of  the life of Harsha, read in his copy Yavanaprokta-purâna, a title which, as he  remarks, might suggest the idea that Bâna knew the Greek epic poetry. But a  comparison of the excellent Ahmadâbâd and Benares Devanâgarî MSS. and of the  Kasmîr Sâradâ copies shows that the correct reading is the one given above. The  earlier history of the Purânas, which as yet is a mystery, will only be cleared  up when a real history of the orthodox Hindu sects, especially of the Sivites  and Vishnuites, has been written. It will, then, probably become apparent that the origin of these sects reaches  back far beyond the rise of Buddhism and Jainism. It will also be proved that  the orthodox sects used Purânas as text books for populpr Teadings, the  Purânapâthana of our days, and that some, at least, of the now existing Purânas  are the latest recensions of those mentioned in Vedic books.]

authority was the original on which the existing Upapurâna is based. And in  favour of this view it may be urged that passages, similar to Âpastamba's  quotation, actually occur in our Paurânic texts. In the Gyotishprakâra section  of several of the chief Purânas we find, in connection with the description of  the Path of the Manes (pitriyâna)[1], the assertion that the pious sages, who  had offspring and performed the Agnihotra, reside there until the general  destruction of created things (bhûtasamplavât), as well as, that in the  beginning of each new creation they are the propagators of the world (lokasya  samtânakarâh) and, being re-born, re-establish the sacred law. Though the  wording differs, these passages fully agree in sense with Âpastamba's  Bhavishyat-purâna which says, 'They (the ancestors) live in heaven until the  (next) general destruction of created things. At the new creation (of the world)  they become the seed.' In other passages of the Purânas, which refer to the  successive creations, we find even the identical terms used in the quotation.  Thus the Vâyup., Adhy. 8, 23, declares that those beings, which have gone to the  Ganaloka, 'become the seed at the new creation' (punah sarge ... bigârtham ta  bhavanti hi).

These facts prove at all events that Âpastamba took his quotation from a real  Purâna, similar to those existing. If it is literal and exact, it shows, also,  that the Purânas of his time contained both prose and verse. Further, it is possible. to trace yet another of Âpastamba's quotations from 'a  Purâna.' The three Purânas, mentioned above, give, immediately after the  passages referred to, enlarged versions of the two verses[2] regarding the  sages, who begot offspring and obtained 'burial-grounds,' and

[1. Vâyup., Adhy. .50, 208 seqq.; Matsyap., Adhy. 123, 96 seqq.; Vishnup. II, 8.  86-89; H. H. Wilson, Vishnup., vol. ii, pp. 263-268 (ed. Hall). 2 Âp. Dh. II, 9, 23,4-5.]

regarding those who, remaining chaste, gained immortality[1]. In this case  Âpastamba's quotation can be restored almost completely, if certain  interpolations are cut out. And it is evident that Âpastamba has preserved  genuine Purânic verses in their ancient form. A closer study of the  unfortunately much neglected Purânas, no doubt, will lead to further  identifications of other quotations, which will be of considerable interest for  the history of Indian literature.