Dharma
Sutra
THE
SACRED LAWS OF THE ARYAS AS TAUGHT IN THE SCHOOLS OF APASTAMBA, GUATAMA,
VASISHTHA, AND BAUDHAYANA
TRANSLATED
BY GEORG BULER.
PART
I
APASTAMBA
AND GAUTAMA (1879)
Sacred
Books of the East, Volume II
F.
Max Müller, editor
(The
Dharma Sutras)
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION TO APASTAMBA
INTRODUCTION TO GAUTAMA
APASTAMBA'S APHORISMS ON THE SACRED LAW.
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 Snataka
The Duties of a Householder
Inheritance
Funeral Mations
The Four Orders
The King
GAUTAMA'S INSTITUTES OF THE SACRED LAW.
Initiation
Purification
Studentship
The Ascetic
The Hermit
The Householder
Saluting
Times of Distress
A King and Brahmana versed in the Vedas
The Duties of a Snatka
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
Dharma Sutras (Bühler tr.)
Title Page, Contents, Sacred Books of
the East Vol 2
Introdution to apastamba
Introdution to Gautama
APASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 1, KHANDA, 1.
APASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 1, KHANDA, 2.
APASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 1, KHANDA 3.
APASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 1, KHANDA 4.
APASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 2, KHANDA 5.
APASTAMBA PRASNA 1, PATALA 2, KHANDA 6.
APASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 2, KHANDA 7.
APASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 2, KHANDA 8.
APASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 3, KHANDA 9.
APASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 3, KHANDA 10.
APASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 3, KHANDA 11.
APASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 4, KHANDA 12.
APASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 4, KHANDA 13.
APASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 4, KHANDA 14.
APASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 5, KHANDA 15.
APASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 5, KHANDA 16.
APASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 5, KHANDA 17.
APASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 6, KHANDA 18.
APASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 6, KHANDA 19.
APASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 7, KHANDA 20.
APASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 7, KHANDA 21.
APASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 8, KHANDA 22.
APASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 8, KHANDA 23.
APASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 9, KHANDA 24.
APASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 9, KHANDA 25.
APASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 9, KHANDA 26.
APASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 9, KHANDA 27.
APASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 10, KHANDA
28.
APASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 10, KHANDA
29.
APASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 11, KHANDA
30.
APASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 11, KHANDA
31.
APASTAMBA PRASNA I, PATALA 11, KHANDA
32.
APASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 1, KHANDA 1.
APASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 1, KHANDA 2.
APASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 2, KHANDA 3.
APASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 2, KHANDA 4.
APASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 2, KHANDA 5.
APASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 3, KHANDA 6.
APASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 3, KHANDA 7.
APASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 4, KHANDA 8.
APASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 4, KHANDA 9.
APASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 5, KHANDA
10.
APASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 5, KHANDA
11.
APASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 5, KHANDA
12.
APASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 6, KHANDA
13.
APASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 6, KHANDA
14.
APASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 6, KHANDA
15.
APASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 7, KHANDA
16.
APASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 7, KHANDA
17.
APASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 8, KHANDA
18.
APASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 8, KHANDA
19.
APASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 8, KHANDA
20.
APASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 9, KHANDA
21.
APASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 9, KHANDA
22.
APASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 9, KHANDA
23.
APASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 9, KHANDA
24.
APASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 10, KHANDA
25.
APASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 10, KHANDA
26.
APASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 10, KHANDA
27.
APASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 11, KHANDA
28.
APASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 11, KHANDA
29.
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 CHAPTER XXVIII.
apa00
Introduction
to apastamba.
FOR all students of Sanskrit philology
and Indian history apastamba'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
apastamba-sutras:-
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 Manava-dharma-sutra, the
so-called Laws of Manu, are the Sutras. These are works which presuppose the
development of the prose literature of the Brahmanas (like the
Aitareya-brahmana, Taittirtya-brahmana, &c.) These Brahmanas, again,
presuppose, not only the existence, but the collection and arrangement of the
old hymns of the four Samhitas. The Sutras 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 Manava-dharma-sutra) 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 Sutras
is known by the nameof Kalpa-sutras, or rules of ceremonies. These are avowedly
composed by human authors, while, according to Indian orthodox theology, both
the hymns and Brahmanas are to be considered as revelation. The Sutras
generally bear the name of their authors, like the Sutras of asvalayana,
Katyayana, &c., or the name of the family to which the Sutras belonged. The
great number of these writings is to be accounted for by the fact that there
was not one body of Kalpa-sutras binding on all Brahmanic families, but that
different old families had each their own Kalpa-sutras. These works are still
very frequent in our libraries, yet there is no doubt that many of them have
been lost. Sutras 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 (Samhitas), of Brahmanas, and of Sutras. 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
Brahmanas and Sutras, belonging to one or the other of the four principal
Vedas.
Now one of the families following the
Yagur-veda was that of the Manava (cf. Karanavyuha). There can be no doubt that
that family, too, had its own Sutras. Quotations from Manava-sutras are to be
met with in commentaries on other Sutras; and I have found, not long ago, a MS.
which cortains the text of the Manava-srauta-sutras, though in a very
fragmentary state. But these Sutras, the Srauta-sutras, treat only of a certain
branch of ceremonies connected with the great sacrifices. Complete Sutra works
are divided into three parts: 1. the first (Srauta), treating on the great
sacrifices; 2. the second (Grihya), treating on the Samskaras, or the
purificatory sacraments; 3. the third, (Samayakarika or Dharma-sutras),
treating on emporal duties, customs, and punishments. The last two classes of
Sutras seem to be lost in the Manava-sutra. This loss is. however, not so great
with regard to tracing the sources of the Manava-dharma-sastra, because
whenever we have an opportunity ofcomparing Sutras 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 Manava- samayakarika-sutras,
I have taken another collection of Sutras, equally belonging to the Yagur-veda,
the Sutras of apastamba. In his family we have not only a Brahmana, but also
apastamba Srauta, Grihya, and Samayakarika-sutras. Now it is, of course, the
third class of Sutras, 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 Brahmakarin, a
Gihastha, laws of inheritance, duties of a king, forbidden fruit, &c., I
find that the Sutras contain generally almost the same words which have been
brought into verse by the compiler of the Manava-dharma-sutra. I consider,
therefore, the Sutras as the principal source of the metrical Smritis, such as
the Manava-dharma-sastra, Yagnavalkya-dharma-sastra, &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 Samhitas, or of passages of the
Brahmanas, often retaining the same old words and archaic constructions which
were in the original. This is indeed acknowledged by the author of the
Manava-dharma-sastra, when he says (B. II, v. 6), 'The roots of the Law are the
whole Veda (Samhitas and Brahmanas), the customs and traditions of those who
knew the Veda (as laid down in the Sutras), the conduct of good men, and one's
own satisfaction.' The Manava-dharma-sastra may thus be considerd as the last
redaction of the laws of the Manavas. 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-samhita.
He certainly cannot be considered as the author of a Manava-dharma-sutra, 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 apastamba'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-sutras,
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-sutras.
The Apastamblya Dharma-sutra forms part
of an enormous Kalpa-sutra 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, Brahmanas, Kshatriyas, and Vaisyas. and which,
being chiefly based on the second of the four Vedas, the Yagur-veda in the
Taittiriya 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-sutra of apastamba 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
Vaitanika 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 Paribhashas or general rules
of interpretation [3], which are valid for the whole Kalpa-sutra, 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 two
Prasnas; and the Sulva-sutra[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-sutra in the
middle of the collection at once raises the presumption that it originally
formed an integral portion of the body of Sutras 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 apastamba [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-sutra, 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-sutra has been edited by
Dr. Winternitz, Vienna, 1887.
5. On the Sulva-sutras 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 apastamba
Dharma-sutra 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-sutra. 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 apastambiya Grihya-sutra contains noth ing beyond a bare
outline of the domestic ceremonies, while most of the other Grihya-sutras, e.
g. those of Asvalayana, Sankhayana, Gobhila, and Paraskara, 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, asvalayana 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 apastamba's
Grihya-sutra, 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
apastamba 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-sutra may be drawn from the cross-references
which occur in several Prasnas. In the Dharma-sutra we find that on various
occasions, where the performance
[1. Asvalayana Grihya-sutra 1, 19, ed.
Stenzler.]
of a ceremony is prescribed, the
expressions yathoktam, 'as has been stated,' yathopadesam, 'according to the
injunction,' or yatha purastat, '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-sutra
is doubtlessly referred to, and the commentator Haradatta has pointed out this
fact. On the other hand, the Grihya-Sutra refers to the Dharma-sutra, employing
the same expressions which have been quoted from the latter. Thus we read in
the beginning of the chapter on funeral oblations, Grihya-sutra VIII, 21, 1,
masisraddhasyaparapakshe yathopadesam kalah, '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-sutra itself nor any preceding portion
of the Kalpa-sutra contains any injunction on this point, it, follows that the
long passage on this subject which occurs in the Dharma-sutra II, 7, 16, 4-22
is referred to. The expression yathopadesam is also found in other passages of
the Grihya-sutra, and must be explained there in a like manner[1]. There are
further a certain number of Sutras 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 Sutra it is possible to trace the connection of the Dharma-sutra
with the Srauta-sutra. The rule ritve va gayam, '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-sutra it occurs
twice, in the sections on the new and full moon sacrifices III, 17, 8, and
again in connection with the Katurmasya 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, upeyat, is added, which the sense requires; in the second it has the
abbreviated form, which the best MSS. of the Dharma-sutra 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-sutra were the production of a different person and a later addition,
the Pseudo-apastamba would most probably not have hit on this peculiar
irregular form. Finally, the Grihya-sutra, too, contains several
crossreferences to the Srauta-sutra, and the close agreement of the Sutras 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 apastamba, just like those of most founders of Vedic
schools, e. g. Bharadvaga, asvalayana, 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
apastamba 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 Sutras 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 apastambiya school was
founded, and when its Sutras were composed. But they make it possible to
ascertain the position of the school and of its Sutras 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
Karanavyuha, a supplement of the White Yagur-veda which gives the lists of the
Vedic schools, informs us that the apastambiya school formed one of the five
branches of the Khandikiya school, which in its turn was a subdivision of the
Taittiriyas, one of the ancient sections of Brahmanas who study, the Black Yagur-veda.
Owing to the very unsatisfactory condition of the text of the Karanavyuha it is
unfortunately not possible to ascertain what place that work really assigns to
the apastambiyas among the five branches of the, Khandikiyas. Some MSS. name
them first, and others, last. They give either the following list, 1. Kaleyas
(Kaletas), 2. Satyavanins, 3. Hiranyakesins, 4. Bharadvagins, and 5.
apastambins, or, I. apastambins, 2. Baudhayanins or Bodhayanins, 3.
Satyashadhins, 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 Baudhayana, and.
older than that of Satyashadha Hiranyakesin. Baudhayana, it is alleged, composed
the first set of Sutras connected with the Black Yagur-Veda, which bore the
special title 'pravakana,' and hel,~, was succeeded by Bharadvaga, apastamba,
and Satyashadha Hiranyakesin,who all founded schools which bear their names[2].
[1. Max Müller, Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit,
p. 371. AMS. of the Karanavyuha, 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 Mahadeva's commentary on
the Srauta-sutra of Hiranyakesin (Weber, Hist. Sansk. Lit., p. 110, 2nd ed.)
and, in an interpolated: passage of Bharadvaga's Grihya-sutra (Winternitz, op.
cit., p. 8, note i), as well as, with the omission of Bharadvaga's name, in
interpolated passages of Baudhayana's Dharma-sutra (II, 5, 9, 14) and of the
same author's Grihya-sutra (Sacred Books of the East, vol. xiv, p. xxxvi, note
i). Adherents of a Pravakana-sutra, no doubt identical with that of Baudhayana,
the Pravakanakarta (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 apastamba school is what Professor
Max Müller appropriately calls a Sutrakarana, i.e. a school whose founder did
not pretend to have received a revelation of Vedic Mantras or of a Brahmana
text, but merely gave a new systematic arrangement of the precepts regarding
sacrifices and the sacred law. Secondly, the Sutras of apastamba occupy an
intermediate position between the works of Baudhayana and Hiranyakesin. Both
these statements are perfectly true, and capable of being supported by proofs,
drawn from apastamba'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
Brahmana of the apastambiyas mentioned, the title apastamba-brahmana is nothing
but another name of the Taittiriya-brahmana, and that this Brahmana, in
reality, is always attributed to Tittiri or to the pupils of Vaisampayana, 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 apastamba-samhita. The
Karanavyuha states explicitly that the five branches of the Khandikiya school,
to which the apastambiyas belong, possess one and the same recension of the
revealed texts, consisting Of 7 Kandas. 44 Prasnas, 651 Anuvakas, 2198
Pannasis, 19290 Padas[2], and 253,868 syllables, and indicates thereby that all
these five schools were Sutrakaranas.
If we now turn to apastamba'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-sutra 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-sutra. For apastamba 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 apastamba 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 Samhita and the Brahmana
of the Black Yagur-veda are sometimes called apastamba or apastambiya, i.e.
belonging to apastamba, the meaning of this expression can only be, that they
were and are studied and handed down by the school of apastamba, not that its
founder was their author, or, as the Hindus would say, saw them.
The fact that apastamba confined his
activity to the composition of Sutras is highly important for the determination
of the period to which he belonged. It clearly shows that in his time the
tertiary or Sutra period of the Yagur-veda had begun. Whether we assume, with
Professor Max Müller, that the Sutra period was one and the same for all the
four Vedas, and fix its limits with him
[1. Dharma-sutra 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 Sutra period differed for
each Veda, still the incontestable conclusion is that the origin of the
apastambiya 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 apastarnba is younger than Baudhayana may be made very probable
by the following considerations. First, Baudhayana's and apastamba's works on
Dharma have a considerable number of Sutras in common. Thus in the chapter on
Penances not less than seven consecutive Sutras, 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 Sutras [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 Baudhayana is older than apastamba, 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,
apastamba holds in several cases doctrines which are of a later origin than
those held by Baudhayana. With respect to this point the puritan opinions which
apastamba 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, Baudhayana permits childless aryans 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
[1. Baudh. Dh. II, 1, 2, 18-23 = ap. Dh.
I, 10, 29, 8-14.
2. E.g. ap. Dh. I, 1, 2, 30; I, 2, 6,
8-9; I, 5, 15, 8 correspond respectively to Baudh. Dh. I, 2, 3, 39-40; I, 2, 3,
38; II, 21 3, 29.]
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]. apastamba
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 Paisaka
vivaha, 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 apastamba. It is true that, according to Baudhayana's own
statement[5], before his time an ancient sage named Aupaganghani, who is also
mentioned in the Satapatha-brahmana, 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 Brahmana 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. ap. Dh. II, 5, 13, 1-2, 11.
3. ap. Dh. II, 10, 27, 2-7.
4. ap. 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 Paisaka marriage[1].
The second fact, which bears on the
question how the identity of so many Sutras in the two Dharma-sutras is to be
explained, affords a still stronger proof of apastamba's posteriority to
Baudhayana. For on several occasions, it appears, apastamba controverts
opinions which Baudhayana holds, or which may be defended with the help of the
latter's Sutras. 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 apastamba 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 Taittiriya Samhita, 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 apastamba holds
later views than Baudhayana, see the Festgruss an R. von Roth, pp. 47-48.
2 ap. Dh. II, 6, 13, 13, and II, 6, 14,
1]
opinion of the Mimansists, 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 Baudhayana, 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 Brahmanas, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas and
Sudras. 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 apastamba 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 apastamba 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-sutra but Baudhayana is known to have quoted it, the conclusion is
that apastamba's remarks are directed against him. If apastamba does not
mention Baudhayana 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 (vidyavamsa) as oneself.
A similar case occurs in the chapter on
Studentship [3] where apastamba, again appealing to the Mimamsists, 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. Baudhayana
gives no explicit rule on this point, but the wording of his Sutras is not
opposed to the doctrine and practice, to which apastamba objects. Baudhayana
says that students
[1. ap. Dh. II, 6,14, 6-13. Baudh. Dh.
II, 2, 3, 2-7.
2. ap. 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 (pataniya); 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 Baudhayana 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 apastamba
blames, may have been defended by the wording of Baudhayana's rules [1].
The three points which have been just
discussed, viz. the identity of a number of Sutras in the works of the two
authors, the fact that apastamba advocates on some points more refined or
puritan opinions, and, especially, that he labours to controvert doctrines
contained in Baudhayana's Sutras, 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 Bharadvaga, the author of a set of Sutras,
which as yet have not been completely recovered. But it seems to me not likely
that the latter was his immediate predecessor in the vidyavamsa or spiritual
family to which both belonged. For it cannot be expected that two successive
heads of the school should each have composed a Sutra and thus founded a new
branch-school. It is
[1. Cases, in which apastamba's
Grihya-sutra appears to refer to, or to controvert, Baudhayana's Grihya-sutra,
have been collected by Dr. Wintemitz, op. cit., p. 8. Dr. Burnell, Tanjore
Catalogue, p. 34, too, considers Baudhayana to be older than apastamba, because
his style is so much simpler. With this remark may be compared Dr. Winternitz's
very true assertion that Baudhayana's style resembles sometimes, especially in
the discussion of disputed points, that of the Brahmanas. On the other hand,
Dr. R. G. Bhindirkar, Second Report on the Search for Sanskrit MSS., p. 34,
believes Baudhayana to be later than apastamba and Bharadvaga, because he
teaches other developments of sacrificial rites, unknown to the other two
Sutrakaras. This may be true, but it must not be forgotten that every portion
of Baudhayana's Sutras, which has been subjected to a critical enquiry, has
turned out to be much interpolated and enlarged by later hands.]
more probable that Baudhayana and
Bharadvaga, as well as the latter and apastamba, 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 apastamba to
the school of Satyashadha Hiranyakesin, there can be no doubt about the
correctness of this statement. For either Hiranyakesin himself, or, at least,
his immediate successors have appropriated apastamba's Dharma-sutra 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-sutra fully agree with that of the other sections of the collection,
especially with the Grihya-sutra. Numerous discrepancies between these two
parts are observable. Thus we read in the Hiranyakesi
[1. The subjoined pedigree of the
Sutrakaras of the Black Yagur-veda will perhaps make the above remarks and my
interpretation of the statements of Mahadeva and the other authorities
mentioned above more intelligible:-
Khandika, taught the Taittiriya
recension of the Black Yagur-veda.
(Successors of Khandika, number unknown,
down to)
Baudhayana, Pravahanakarta, i.e. 1st
Sutrakara, and founder of Baudhayana-karana.
(Successors of Baudhayana down to
fellow-pupil of Bharadvaga, number unknown.)
(Successors of Baudhayana after the
schism down to the present day.)
Bharadvaga, 2nd Sutrakara, and founder
of Bharadvaga-karana.
(Successors of Bharadvaga down to
fellow-pupil of apastamba, number unknown.)
(Successors after the schism down to the
present day.)
apastamba, 3rd Sutrakara, and founder of
apastamba-karana.
(Successors of apastamba duwn to
fellow-pupil of Satyashadha Hiranyakesin, number unknown.)
(successors of apastamba down to the
present day.)
Satyashadha Hiranyakesin, 4th Sutrakara,
and founder of Hiranyakesikarana.
(Successors of Satyashadha Hiranyakesin
down to the present day.)
After the schism of Satyashadha
Hiranyakesin the pedigree has not been continued, though Mahadeva asserts that
several other Sutrakaras arose. But to work it out further would be useless.
2. See Appendix II to Part I of my
second edition of apastamba's Dharma-sutra, p. 117 seqq.]
Grihya-sutra that a Brahmana must,
ordinarily, be initiated in his seventh year, while the rule of the
Dharma-sutra, which is identical with ap. Dh. I, 1, 1, 18, prescribes that the
ceremony shall take place in the eighth year after conception. The commentators,
Matridatta on the Grihya-sutra and Mahadeva on the Dharma-sutra, both state
that the rule of the Grihya-sutra refers to the seventh year after birth, and,
therefore, in substance agrees with the Dharma-sutra. 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-sutra, which is much longer than apastamba's, includes a
considerable amount of matter which refers to the sacred law, and which is
repeated in the Dharma-sutra. According to a statement which I have heard from
several learned Brahmanas, 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 apastamba's
(apastambantargatahiranyakesisakhadhyayi . . . aham). But I have not been able
to find these words in the books treating of the ritual of the Hiranyakesins,
such as the Mahesabhatti. If this assertion could be further corroborated, it
would be an additional strong proof of the priority of apastamba, 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 apastamba and
Baudhayana, as Mahadeva mentions no intermediate Sutrakara 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 apastamba school falls in the middle of the
Sutra period of the Black Yagur-veda, and that its Sutras 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-sutra of the Hiranyakesins on
apastamba's, op. cit., p. 6 seqq., and the second edition of the ap. Dh., Part
1, p. xi.]
examination of the quotations from and
references to Vedic and other books contained in apastamba's Sutras, and
especially in the Dharma-sutra. We find that all the four Vedas are quoted or
referred to. The three old ones, the Rik, Yagus, and Saman, are mentioned both
separately and collectively by the name trayi vidya, i.e. threefold sacred
science, and the fourth is called not Atharvangirasah, as is done in most
ancient Sutras, but Atharva-veda. The quotations from the Rik and Saman 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 apastamba knew, did not differ from that which still exists. As apastamba
was an adherent of the Black Yagur-veda, he quotes it, especially in the
Srauta-sutra, very frequently, and he adduces not only texts from the
Mantra-samhita, but also from the Taittiriya-Brahmana and aranyaka. 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 Anuvaka of the tenth Prapathaka of the
recension of the aranyaka which is current among the andhra Brahmanas [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 apastambiya
school.
The White Yagur-veda, too, is quoted
frequently in the Srauta-sutra and once in the section on Dharma by the title
Vagasaneyaka, while twice its Brahmana, the Vaasaneyi-brahmana, 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 Madhyandina
recension. Its wording possesses just sufficient resemblance to allow us to
identify the passage which apastamba meant, but differs from the Satapatha-
[1. ap. II, 29, 12.
The Taittiriya aranyaka exists in three
recensions, the Karnata, Dravida, and the andhra, the first of which has been
commented on by Sayana.]
Brahmana in many details[1]. The cause
of these discrepancies remains doubtful for the present [2]. As regards the
Atharva-veda, apastamba 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 Vratya, i.e. a learned
mendicant Brahmana, who really deserves the title of an atithi, or guest [4].
It is true that apastamba, in the passage referred to, does not say that his
rule is based on the Atharvaveda. He merely says that a Brahmana is his
authority. But it seems, nevertheless, certain that by the expression a
Brahmana, the Brahmana-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 Vratya. 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
apastamba's Dharma-sutra contains one, is, therefore, of some interest.
Besides these Vedic texts[5], apastamba
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-sutra 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 apastamba's time. The akaryas
mentioned are Eka, Kanva, Kanva, Kunika, Kutsa, Kautsa, Pushkarasadi,
[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
Karanavyuhabhashya given below, ver.10.
3. ap. Dh. I, 2, 2.
4. ap. Dh. II, 3, 7, 12-17.
5. Some more are quoted in the
Srauta-sutra, see Professor Garbe in the Gurupugakaumudi, p. 33 seqq.
6. ap. Dh. II, 4, 8, 10.
See also Max Müller, Hist. Anc. Sansk.
Lit., p. 111.]
Varshyayani, Svetaketu, and Harita [1].
Some of these persons, like Harita and Kanva, are known to have composed Sutras
on the sacred law, and fragments or modified versions of their works are still
in existence, while Kanva, Kautsa, Pushkarasadi or Paushkarasadi, as the
grammatically correct form of the name is, and Varshyayani are quoted in the
Nirukta, the Pratisikhyas, and the Varttikas on Panini as authorities on
phonetics, etymology, and grammar [1]. Kanva, finally, is considered the author
of the still existing Kalpa-sutras of the Kanva 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 Kanva, Harita, and Svetaketu are concerned, is difficult to define, and
the occurrence of their names throws less light on the antiquity of the
apastambiya school than might be expected. Regarding Harita it must, however,
be noticed that he is one of the oldest authors of Sutras, that he was an
adherent of the Maitrayaniya Sakha [3], and that he is quoted by Baudhayana,
apastamba'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 apastamba gives, that he knew two of
the philosophical schools which still exist in India, viz. the Purva or Karma
Mimamsa and the Vedanta. As regards the former, he mentions it by its ancient
name, Nyaya, which in later tirnes and at present is usually applied to the
doctrine of Gautama Akshapada. In two passages [4] he settles contested points
on the authority of those who know the Nyaya, i.e. the Purva Mimamsa, 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-sutra, ascribed to this
teacher, has been recovered of late, by Mr. Virnan Shastri Islampurkar. Though
it is an ancient work, it does not contain apastamba's quotations, see
Grundriss d. Indo-Ar. Phil. und Altertumsk, II, 8, 8.
4. ap. 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 Mimamsa-sutras.
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 Mimamsa-sutras 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 apastamba did not know the
Mimamsa-sutras of Gaimini, he must have possessed some other very similar work.
As to the Vedanta, apastamba does not mention the name of the school. But
Khandas 22, 23 of the first Patala of the Dharma-sutra unmistakably contain the
chief tenets of the Vedantists, and recommend the acquisition of the knowledge
of the atman 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 apastamba's own words in the introductory and concluding Sutras,
indicates that he knew not merely the unsystematic speculations contained in
the Upanishads and Aranyakas, but a well-defined system of Vedantic philosophy
identical with that of Badarayana's Brahma-sutras. The fact that apastamba's
Dharma-sutra contains indications of the existence of these two schools of
philosophy, is significant as the Purva Mimamsa occurs in one other
Dharma-sutra only, that attributed to Vasishtha, and as the name of the Vedanta
school is not found in any of the prose treatises on the sacred law.
Of non-Vedic works apastamba mentions
the Purana. The Dharma-sutra not only several times quotes passages from 'a
Purana' as authorities for its rules [2], but names in one case the
Bhavishyat-purana as the particular Purana from which the quotation is taken
[3]. References to the
[1. ap. Dh. I, 1, 14, 8, 9-10
2. ap. Dh, I, 6, 19, 13; I, 10, 29, 7.
2. ap. Dh. II, 9, 24,6.]
Purana in general are not unfrequent in
other Sutras on the sacred law, and even in older Vedic works. But apastamba,
as far as I know, is the only Surakara who specifies the title of a partirular
Purana, 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 Pauranic utterances.
Among the so-called Upa-puranas we find
one of considerable extent which bears the title Bhavishya-purana or also
Bhavishyat-purana [1]. It is true that the passage quoted in the Dharma-sutra
from the Bhavishyat-purana is not to be found in the copy of the
Bhavishya-purana which I have seen. It is, therefore, not possible to assert
positively that apastamba 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 Puranas have been remodelled and recast [2],
it seems to me not unlikely that apastamba'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 Puranas 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 Puranas known to us, one and
all, are not older than the tenth or eleventh century A.D. That is
inadmissible, because Bêruni (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 Bana, who wrote shortly after 600 A.D., in the Srihatshakarita, orders
his Pauranika to recite the Pavanaprokta-purana, i.e. the Vayu-purana
(Harshakarita, p. 61, Calcutta ed.). Dr. Hall, the discoverer of the life of
Harsha, read in his copy Yavanaprokta-purana, a title which, as he remarks,
might suggest the idea that Bana knew the Greek epic poetry. But a comparison
of the excellent Ahmadabad and Benares Devanagari MSS. and of the Kasmir Sarada
copies shows that the correct reading is the one given above. The earlier
history of the Puranas, 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 Puranas as text
books for populpr Teadings, the Puranapathana of our days, and that some, at
least, of the now existing Puranas are the latest recensions of those mentioned
in Vedic books.]
authority was the original on which the
existing Upapurana is based. And in favour of this view it may be urged that
passages, similar to apastamba's quotation, actually occur in our Pauranic
texts. In the Gyotishprakara section of several of the chief Puranas we find,
in connection with the description of the Path of the Manes (pitriyana)[1], the
assertion that the pious sages, who had offspring and performed the Agnihotra,
reside there until the general destruction of created things (bhutasamplavat),
as well as, that in the beginning of each new creation they are the propagators
of the world (lokasya samtanakarah) and, being re-born, re-establish the sacred
law. Though the wording differs, these passages fully agree in sense with
apastamba's Bhavishyat-purana 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 Puranas, which refer
to the successive creations, we find even the identical terms used in the
quotation. Thus the Vayup., Adhy. 8, 23, declares that those beings, which have
gone to the Ganaloka, 'become the seed at the new creation' (punah sarge ...
bigartham ta bhavanti hi).
These facts prove at all events that
apastamba took his quotation from a real Purana, similar to those existing. If
it is literal and exact, it shows, also, that the Puranas of his time contained
both prose and verse.
Further, it is possible. to trace yet
another of apastamba's quotations from 'a Purana.' The three Puranas, 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. Vayup., 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 ap. Dh. II, 9, 23,4-5.]
regarding those who, remaining chaste,
gained immortality[1]. In this case apastamba's quotation can be restored almost
completely, if certain interpolations are cut out. And it is evident that
apastamba has preserved genuine Puranic verses in their ancient form. A closer
study of the unfortunately much neglected Puranas, no doubt, will lead to
further identifications of other quotations, which will be of considerable
interest for the history of Indian literature.
There is yet another point on which
apastamba shows a remarkable agreement with a theory which is prevalent in
later Sanskrit literature. He says (Dh. II, 11, 29, 11-12), 'The knowledge
which Sudras and women possess, is the completion of all study,' and 'they
declare that this knowledge is a supplement of the Atharva-veda.' The
commentator remarks with reference to these two Sutras, that 'the knowledge
which Sudras and women possess,' is the knowledge of dancing, acting, music,
and other branches of the so-called Arthasastra, the science of useful arts and
of trades, and that the object of the Sutras is to forbid the study of such
matters before the acquisition of sacred learning. His interpretation is,
without doubt, correct, as similar sentiments are expressed by other teachers
in parallel passages. But, if it is accepted, apastamba's remark that 'the
knowledge of Sudras and women is a supplement of the Atharva-veda,' proves that
he knew the division of Hindu learning which is taught in Madhusudana
Sarasvati's Prasthanabheda [2]. For Madhusudana allots to each Veda an Upa-veda
or supplementary Veda, and asserts that the Upa-veda of the Atharva-veda is the
Arthasastra. The agreement of apastamba with the modern writers on this point,
furnishes, I think, an additional argument that he belongs to the later Vedic
schoolmen.
In addition to this information
regarding the relative position of the apastambiya school in ancient Sarlskrit
literature, we possess some further statements as to the
[1. An abbreviated version of the same
verses, ascribed to the Paurinikas, occurs in Sahkarakarya's Comm. on the
Khandogya Up., p. 336 (Bibl. Ind.).
2. Weber, Ind. Stud. I, 1-24.]
part of India to which it belongs, and
these, as it happens, are of great importance for fixing approximately the
period in which the school arose. According to the Brahmanical tradition, which
is supported by a hint contained in the Dharina-sutra and by, information
derivable from inscriptions and the actual state of things in modern India, the
apastambiyas belong to Southern India and their founder probably was a native
of or resided in the andhra country. The existence of this tradition, which to
the present day prevails among the learned Brahmans of Western India and
Benares, nlay be substantiated by a passage from the above-mentioned commentary
of the Karanavyuha[1],which,
[1. Karanavyuhabhashya, fol. 15a, 1- 4
seqq.:-
]
though written in barbarous Sanskrit,
and of quite modern origin, possesses great interest, because its description
of the geographical distribution of the Vedas and Vedic schools is not
mentioned elsewhere. The verses from a work entitled Mahanava, which are quoted
there, state that the earth, i.e. India, is divided into two equal halves by
the river Narmada (Nerbudda). and that the school of apastamba prevails in the
southern half (ver. 2). It is further alleged (ver. 6) that the Yagur-veda of
Tittiri and the apastambiya school are established in the andhra country and
other parts of the south and soutth-east up to the mouth of the Godavari
(godasagara-avadhi). According to the Maharnava the latter river marks,
therefore, the northern frontier of the territory occupied by the apastambiyas.
which comprises the Maratha and Kanara districts of the Bombay Presidency, the
greater part of the Nizam's dominions, Berar, and the Madras Presidency with
the exception of the northern Sirkars and the western coast. This assertion
agrees, on the whole, with the actual facts which have fallen under my
observation. A great number of the Desastha-brahmanas in the Nasik, Puna,
Ahniadnagar, Satara, Sholapur, and Kolhapur districts, and of the Kanari or
Karnataka-brahmanas in the Belgam, Dharvad, Kaladghi, and Karvad collectorates,
as well as a smaller number among the Kittapavanas of the Konkana are
apastambiyas. Of the Nizam's dominions and the Madras Presidency I possess no
local knowledge. But I can say that I have met many followers of apastamba
among the Telingana-brahmanas settled in Bombay, and that the frequent
occurrence of MSS. containing the Sutras of the apastambiya school in the
Madras Presidency proves that the Karana there must count many adherents. On
the other hand, I have never met with any apastambiyas among the ancient
indigenous subdivisions of the Brahmanical community dwelliing north of the
Marathi country and north of the Narmada. A few Brahmanas of this school, no
doubt, are scattered over Gugarat and Central India, and others are found in
the great places of pilgrimage in Hindustan proper. The former mostly have
immigrated during the last century, following the Maratha chieftains who
conquered large portions of those countries, or have been imported in the
present century by the Maratha rulers of Gwalior, Indor, and Baroda. The
settlers in Benares, Mathura, and other sacred cities also. have chiefly come
in modern times, and not unfrequently live on the bounty of the Maratha
princes. But all of them consider themselves and are considered by the
Brahmanas, who are indigenous in those districts and towns, as aliens, with
whom intermarriage and commensality are not permitted. The indigenous sections
of the Brahmanas of Gugarat, such as the Nagaras, Khedavals, Bhargavas,
Kapilas, and Motalas, belong, if they arc adherents of the Yagur-veda, to the
Madhyandina or Kanva schools of the White Yagur-veda. The same is the case with
the Brahmanas of Ragputana, Hindustan, and the Paingab. In Central India, too,
the White Yagur-veda prevails; but, besides the two schools mentioned above,
there are still some colonies of Maitrayaniyas or Manavas[1]. It seems, also,
that the restriction of the apastambiya school to the south of India, or rather
to those subdivisions of the Brahmanical community which for a long time have
been settled in the south and are generally considered as natives of the south,
is not of recent date. For it is a significant fact that the numerous ancient
landgrants which have been found all over India indicate exactly the same state
of things. I am not aware that in any grant issued by a king of a northern
dynasty to Brahmanas who are natives of the northern half of India, an
apastambiya is mentioned as donee. But among the southern landgrants there are
several on which the name of the school appears. Thus in a sasana of king
Harihara of Vidyanagara, dated Sakasamvat 1317 or 1395 A.D., one of the
recipients of the royal bounty is 'the learned Ananta Dikshita, son of
Ramabhatta, chief
[1. See Bhau Dagi, Journ. Bombay Br.
Roy. As. Soc. X, 40. Regarding the Maitrayaniyas in Gugarat, of whom the
Karanavyuha speaks, compare my Report on the Search for Sanskrit MSS., 1879-80,
p. 3.]
of the apastambya (read apastambiya)
sakha, a scion of the Vasishtha gotra [1].' Further, the eastern Kalukya king
Vigayaditya 112, who ruled, according to Dr. Fleet, from A-D. 799-843,
presented a village to six students of the Hiranyakesi-sutra and to eighteen
students of the apastamba, recte the apastamba-sutra. Again, in the
abovementioned earlier grant of the Pallava king Nandivarman, there are
forty-two students of the Apastambha-sutra [3] among the 108 sharers of the
village of Udayakandramangalam. Finally, on an ancient set of plates written in
the characters which usually are called cave-characters, and issued by the
Pallava king Simhavarman II, we find among the donees five apastambhiya
Brahmanas, who, together with a Hairanyakesa, a Vagasaneya, and a Sama-vedi,
received the village of Mangadur, in Vengorashtra [4]. This inscription is, to
judge from the characters, thirteen to fourteen hundred years old, and on this
account a very important witness for the early existence of the apastambiyas in
Southern India.
Under the circumstances just mentioned,
a casual remark made by apastamba, in describing the Sraddbas or funeral
oblations, acquires considerable importance. He says (Dh. II, 7, 17, 17) that
the custom of pouring water into the hands of Brahmanas invited to a Sraddha
prevails among the northerners, and he indicates thereby that he himself does
not belong to the north of India. If this statement is taken together with the
above-statcd facts, which tend to show that the apastambiyas were and are
restricted to the south of India, the most probable construction which can be
put on it is that apastamba declares himself to be a southerner. There is yet
another indication to the same effect contained in the Dharma-sutra. It has
been pointed
[1. Colebrooke, Essays, II, p. 264, ver.
24 (Madras ed.).
2. See Hultzsch, South Indian
Inscriptions, vol. i, p. 31 seqq., and Indian Antiquary, vol. xx, p. 414 seqq.
3 apastambha may be a mistake for
apastamba. But the form with the aspirate occurs also in the earlier Pallava
grant and in Devapala's commentary on the Kathaka Grihya-sutra.
4. Ind. Ant. V, 133.]
out above that the recension of the
Taittiriya aranyaka which apastamba recognises is that called the andhra text
or the version current in the andhra country, by which term the districts in
the south-east of India between the Godavari and the Krishna have to be
understood [1]. Now it seems exceedingly improbable that a Vedic teacher would
accept as authoritative any other version of a sacred work except that which
was current in his native country. it would therefore follow, from the adoption
of an andhra text by apastamba, that he was born in that country, or, at least,
had resided there so long as to have become naturalised in it. With respect to
this conclusion it must also be kept in mind that the above-quoted passage from
the Maharnava particularly specifies the andhra country (Andhradi) as the seat
of the apastambiyas. It may be that this is due to an accident. But it seems to
me more probable that the author of the Maharnava wished to mark the andhra
territory as the chief and perhaps as the original residence of the apastambiyas.
This discovery has, also, a most
important bearing on the question of the antiquity of the school of apastamba.
It fully confirms the result of the preceding enquiry, viz. that the
apastambiyas are one of the later Karanas. For the south of India and the
nations inhabiting it, such as Kalingas, Dravidas, Andhras, Kolas, and Pandyas,
do not play any important part in the ancient Brahmanical traditions and in the
earliest history of India, the centre of both of which lies in the north-west
or at least north of the Vindhya range. Hitherto it has not been shown that the
south and the southern nations are mentioned in any of the Vedic Samhitas. In
the Brahmanas and in the Sutras they do occur, though they are named rarely and
in a not complimentary manner. Thus the Aitareya-Brahmana gives the names of
certain degraded, barbarous tribes, and among them that of the Andhras [2], in
whose country, as
[1. See Cunningham, Geography, p. 527
seqq.; Burnell, South Ind. Pal., p. 14, note 2.
2. Aitareya-brahmana VII, 18.]
has been shown, the apastambiyas
probably originated. Again, Baudhayana, in his Dharma-sutra I, i, quotes song
verses in which it is said that he who visits the Kalingas must purify himself
by the performance of certain sacrifices in order to become fit for again
associating with Aryans. The same author, also, mentions distinctive forbidden
practices (akara) prevailing in the south (loc. cit.). Further, Panini's
grammatical Sutras and Katyayana's Varttikas thereon contain rules regarding
several words which presuppose an acquaintance with the south and the kingdoms
which flourished there. Thus Panini, IV, 2, 98, teaches the formation of
dakshinatya in the sense of 'belonging to or living in the south or the
Dekhan,' and a Varttika of Katyayana on Panini, IV, 1, 175, states that the
words Kola and Pandya are used as names of the princes ruling over the Kola and
Pandya countries, which, as is known from history, were situated in the extreme
south of India. The other southern nations and a fuller description of the
south occur first in the Mahabharata [1]. While an acquaintance with the south
can thus be proved only by a few books belonging to the later stages of Vedic
literature, several of the southern kingdoms are named already in the oldest
historical documents. Asoka in his edicts[2], which date from the second half
of the third century B.C., calls the Kolas, Pandyas, and the Keralaputra or
Ketalaputra his pratyantas (prakanta) or neighbours. The same monarch informs
us also that he conquered the province of Kalinga and annexed it to his kingdom
[3], and his remarks on the condition of the province show that it was
thoroughly imbued with the Aryan civilisation. [4]. The same fact is attested
still more clearly by the annals of the Keta king of Kalinga, whose thirteenth
year fell in the 165th year of the Maurya era, or about 150 B.C.[5] The early
[1. Lassen, Ind. Alterthurnskunde, I.
684, 2nd ed.
2. Edict II, Epigraphia Indica, vol. ii,
pp. 449-450, 466.
3. Edict XIII, op. cit., pp. 462-465,
470-472.
See also Indian Antiquary, Vol. xxiii,
p. 246.
Actes du 6ième Congrès Int. d. Orient.,
vol. iii, 2, 135 seqq., where, however, the beginning of the Maurya era is
placed wrongly in the eighth year of Asoka.]
spread of the Aryan civilisation to the
eastern Coastdistricts between the Godavari and the Krishna is proved by the
inscriptions on the Bhattiprolu relic caskets, which probably belong to the
period of 200 B.C.[1] Numerous inscriptions in the Buddhist caves of Western
India[2], as well as coins, prove the existence during the last centuries
before, and the first centuries after, the beginning of our era of a powerful
empire of the Andhras, the capital of which was probably situated near the
modern Amaravati an the lower Krishna. The princes of the latter kingdom,
though great patrons of the Buddhist monks, appear to have been Brahmanists or
adherents of the ancient orthodox faith which is founded on the Vedas. For one
of them is called Vedisiri (vedisri), 'he whose glory is the Vedi,' and another
Yanasiri (yagnasri), 'he whose glory is the sacrifice,' and a very remarkable
inscription on the Nanaghat [3] contains a curious catalogue of sacrificial
fees paid to priests (dakshina) for the performance of Srauta sacrifices. For
the third and the later centuries of our era the information regarding Southern
India becomes fuller and fuller. Very numerous inscriptions, the accounts of
the Buddhist chroniclers of Ceylon, of the Greek geographers, and of the
Chinese pilgrims, reveal the existence and give fragments, at least, of the
history of many kingdoms in the south, and show that their civilisation was an
advanced one, and did not differ materially from that of Northern India.
There can be no doubt that the south of
India has been conquered by the Aryans, and has been brought within the pale of
Brahmanical civilisation much later than India north of the Vindhya range.
During which century precisely that conquest took place, cannot be determined
for the present. But it would seem that it happened a considerable time before
the Vedic period came to an end, and it certainly was an accomplished fact,
long before the
[1. Epigraphia Indiep., vol. ii, p. 323
seqq.
2. See Burgess, Arch. Surv. Reports,
West India, vol. iv, pp. 104-114 and vol. v, p. 75 seqq.
3. Op. cit., vol. v, p. 69 seqq. Its
date probably falls between 150-140 B.C.]
authentic history of India begins, about
500 B.C., with the Persian conquest of the Pangab and Sindh. It may be added
that a not inconsiderable period must have elapsed after the conquest of the
south, before the Aryan civilisation had so far taken root in the conquered
territory, that, in its turn, it could become a centre of Brahmanical activity,
and that it could produce new Vedic schools.
These remarks will suffice to show that
a Vedic Karana which had its origin in the south, cannot rival in antiquity
those whose seat is in the north, and that all southern schools must belong to
a comparatively recent period of Vedic history. For this reason, and because
the name of apastamba and of the apastambiyas is not mentioned in any Vedic
work, not even in a Kalpa-sutra, and its occurrence in the older grammatical
books, written before the beginning of our era, is doubtful [1], it might be
thought advisable to fix the terminus a quo for the composition of the
apastambiya-sutras about or shortly before the beginning of the era, when the
Brahmanist andhra kings held the greater part of the south under their sway. It
seems to me, however, that such a hypothesis is not tenable, as there are
several points which indicate that the school and its writings possess a much
higher antiquity. For, first, the Dharma-sutra contains a remarkable passage in
which its author states that Svetaketu, one of the Vedic teachers who is
mentioned in the Satapatha-Brahmana and in the Khandogya Upanishad, belongs to
the Avaras, to the men of later, i.e. of his own times. The passage referred
to, Dh. I, 2, 5, 4-6, has been partly quoted above in order to show that
apastamba laid no claim to the title Rishi, or seer of revealed texts. It has
been stated that according to Sutra 4, 'No Rishis are born among the Avaras,
the men of later ages, on account of the prevailing transgression of the rules
of studentship;' and that according to Sutra 5,
[1. The name apastamba occurs only in
the gana vidadi, which belongs to Panini IV, 1, 104, and the text of this gana
is certain only for the times of tile Kasika, about 690 A.D. The Srauta-sutra
of apastamba is mentioned in the nearly contemporaneous commentary of
Bhartrihari on the Mahabhashya, see Zeitschr. d. Deutschen Morg. Ges., vol.
xxxvi, p. 654.]
'Some in their new birth become similar
to Rishis by their knowledge of the Veda (srutarshi) 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 Svetaketu.' The natural, and in my
opinion, the only admissible interpretation of these words is that apastamba
considers Svetaketu to be one of the Avaras, who by virtue of a residue of
merit became a Srutarshi. This is also the view of the commentator Haradatta,
who, in elucidation of Sutra 6, quotes the following passage from the Khandogya
Upanishad (VI, 1, 1-2):
'1. Verily, there lived Svetaketu, a
descendant of Aruna. His father spake unto him, "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 Brahmana in name
only."
'Verily, he (Svetaketu) was initiated at
the age of twelve years, and when twenty-four years old be 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-sutra. For the fact which the
Upanishad mentions, that Svetaketu learned all the Vedas in twelve years,
while, the Smritis 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 Khandogya Upanishad about this
Svetaketu, who is said to have been the son of Uddalaka and the grandson of
Aruna (aruneya). The same person is also frequently mentioned in the
Satapatha-Brahmana. In one passagt; of the latter work, which has been
translated by Professor Max Müller[1], it is alleged that he was a contemporary
of Yagnavalkya, the promulgator of the White Yagur-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
Yagur-veda and
[1. Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., p. 421 seq.]
the Satapatha-brahmana. The passage of the latter work, which he quotes, is even taken from the same book in which the story about Svetaketu and Ganaka occurs. The fact, therefore, that apastamba places a teacher whom he must have considered as a contemporary of the promulgator of the White Yagur-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 Yagur-veda, such as it has been handed down in the schools of the Kanvas 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 apastambiya 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 contemporary, but a person of comparatively recent times, it will not be possible to place between Svetaketu and apastamba a longer interval than, at the utmost, two or three hundred years. Svetaketu and Yagnavalkya would accordingly, at the bes