02 Sources of Dharma

  1. Sources of Dharma

The Gautamadharmasūtra1 says ’the Veda is the source of dharma and the tradition and practice of those that know it (the Veda).’ So Āpastamba2 says ’the authority (for the dharmas) is the consensus of those that know dharma and the Vedas.’ Vide also the Vasiṣṭhadharmasūtra3 (I. 4-6). The Manusmṛti4 lays down five different sources of dharma ’the whole Veda is (the foremost) source of dharma and (next) the tradition and the practice of those that know it (the Veda); and further the usages of virtuous men and self-satisfaction.’ Yājñavalkya5 declares the sources in a similar strain ’the Veda, traditional lore, the usages of good men, what is agreeable to one’s self and desire born of due deliberation–this is traditionally recognised as the source of dharma.’ These passages make it clear that the principal sources of dharma were conceived to be the Vedas, the Smṛtis, and customs. The Vedas do not contain positive precepts (vidhis) on matters of dharma in a connected form; but they contain incidental references to various topics that fall under the domain of dharmaśāstra as conceived in later times. Such information to be gathered from the Vedic Literature is not quite as meagre as is commonly supposed. In another place6 I have brought together about fifty Vedic passages that shed a flood of light on marriage, the forms of marriage, the different kinds of sons, adoption of a son, partition, inheritance, śrāddha, strīdhana. To take only a few examples. That brotherless maidens found it difficult to secure husbands is made clear by several Vedic passages. ‘Like (a woman) growing old in her parents’ house, I pray to thee as Bhaga from the seat common to all7’. Vide also Ṛgveda I. 124. 7, IV. 5. 5 and Atharvaveda I. 17. 1 and Nirukta III. 4-5. These passages constitute the basis of the rules of the Dharmasūtras and the Yājñavalkyasmṛti against marrying a brotherless maiden8. This bar against marrying a brotherless maiden seems to have been due to the fear that such a girl might be an appointed daughter (putrikā) and that a son born of such a girl would be affiliated to his mother’s father. This custom of putrikā is an ancient one and is alluded to in the Ṛgveda, according to Yāska9. Ṛgveda X. 85 is a very interesting hymn as regards marriage ; verses from it are used even to this day in the marriage ritual10. It shows that in the remote Vedic age the marriage rite resembled in essence the Brāhma form as described in the Dharmasūtras and Manu.11 But the purchase of a bride (i.e. what is called Āsura marriage in later literature) was not unknown in the Vedic age. A passage of the Maitrāyaṇīyasaṁhitā ((I. 10. 11) is referred to in the Vasiṣṭhadharmasūtra12 in this connection, viz. ‘she who being purchased by the husband’. The Gāndharva form is hinted at in the words13 ‘when a bride is finelooking and well adorned, she seeks by herself her friend among men’. The importance of the aurasa son was felt even in the remote Vedic ages. ‘Another (person) born of another’s loins, though very pleasing, should not be taken, should not be even thought of (as to be taken in adoption14)’. The Taittirīya-saṁhitā (VI. 3.10.5) propounds the well-known theory of the three debts15. The story of Śunaḥśepa in the Aitareya-brāhmaṇa (VII. 3) suggests that a son could be adopted even when there was an aurasa son. The Taittirīya-saṁhitā (VII. 1. 8. 1) tells the story of Atri who gave an only son in adoption to Aurva. The Kṣetraja son of the Dharmasūtras is often referred to in the earliest Vedic literature. ‘What (sacrificer) invites you (Aśvins) in his house to a bed as a widow does a brother-in-law or a young damsel her lover’16. The Taittirīya-saṁhitā makes it clear that a father could distribute his wealth among his sons during his own life-time, ‘Manu divided his property among his sons’ &c.17 Another passage of the same Saṁhitā seems to suggest that the eldest son took the whole of the father’s wealth ’therefore people establish their eldest son with wealth’18. Even in the Vedic ages the son excluded the daughter from inheritance ‘a son born of the body does not give the paternal wealth to (his) sister’19. A passage of the Taittirīya-saṁhitā is relied upon by ancient and modern writers on dharmaśāstra for the exclusion of women in general from inheritance: ’therefore women being destitute of strength take no portion and speak more weakly than even a low person’20. The Ṛgveda eulogises the stage of studenthood and the Śatapathabrāhmaṇa speaks of the duties of the Brahmacārin such as not partaking of wine and offering every evening a samidh to fire21. The Taittirīya-saṁhitā (VI. 2. 8.5) relates22 how Indra consigned Yatis to wolves (or dogs) and how Prajāpati prescribed a Prāyaścitta for him. The Śatapathabrāhmaṇa speaks of the king and the learned brāhmaṇa as the upholders of the sacred ordinances.23 The Taittirīyasaṁhitā says ’therefore the Sūdra is not fit for sacrifice24.’ The Aitareya Brāhmaṇa tells us that when a king or other worthy guest comes, people offer a bull or a cow25. The Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa speaks of Vedic study as yajña and the Taittirīya-āraṇyaka26 enumerates the five yajñas, which are a prominent feature of the Manusmṛti. The Ṛgveda eulogises the gifts of a cow, horses, gold and clothes27. Another passage of the Ṛgveda28 (thou art like a prapā in a desert) is relied upon by Śabara on Jaimini (I. 3. 2) and by Viśvarūpa on Yājñavalkya as ordaining the maintenance of prapās (places where water is distributed to travellers). The Ṛgveda condemns the selfish man who only caters for himself29.

The foregoing brief discussion will make it clear that the later rules contained in the dharmsūtras and other works on dharmaśāstra had their roots deep down in the most ancient Vedic tradition and that the authors of the dharmasūtras were quite justified in looking up to the Vedas as a source of dharma. But, as said above, the Vedas do not profess to be formal treatises on dharma; they contain only disconnected statements on the various aspects of dharma; we have to turn to the smṛtis for a formal and connected treatment of the topics of the dharmaśāstra. Vide Prof. S. C. Bannerjee’s ‘Dharmasūtras, a Study’ pp. 514-533 for Vedic passages cited in major Dharmasūtras and pp. 533-539 for references to them by name or by initial word or words.

Before proceeding further a few preliminary remarks must be made. Ancient Sanskrit writers and modern historians of Sanskrit Literature divide ancient Sanskrit works into three groups, viz. the Vedic Samhitās (Ṛgveda, Yajurveda, Sāmaveda and Atharvaveda ), the Brāhmaṇas (including the early Upaniṣads like the Bṛhadāraṇyaka) and Sūtras. The first two groups together constitute Veda or Śruti (as Śabara says on P. M. S. II. 1. 33 ‘Mantrāś-ca Brāhmaṇam ca Vedaḥ’). Sūtras are not Veda, but many of them are connected with the Veda and contain numerous mantras. Kalpa is one of the six auxiliary lores (aṅgas) of the Veda and this group is generally later in time than the Brāhmaṇas, though some sūtra works appear to have been composed even in the times of the Tai. Ār. II. 10 and of the Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad (II.4.10 and IV.5.11). A distinction is drawn between Kalpa and Kalpasūtra by the Tantravārtika.30 The word Kalpa (or rather Kalpasūtra) is used in two senses, one comprehensive including the aphoristic works on Vedic ritual, on the domestic ceremonies and also on law, government and administration of justice; the other sense covers only those aphoristic works that deal with Vedic sacrifices and matters related thereto. If the first sense is taken then Kalpasūtras are classified into three classes, viz.(1) Śrautasūtras that deal with solemn Vedic sacrifices, mentioned or discussed in the Vedas and Brāhmaṇas; (2) Gṛhyasūtras that deal with domestic ceremonies such as Upanayana, marriage and with daily and periodical rites and employ mantras for them mostly from one Śākhā of the Veda; (3) Dharmasūtras (also depending on the Vedas as the highest authority) that treat of some of the topics dealt with in the Gṛhyasūtras but add provisions on matters concerning economic life, politics, government, civil and criminal law. A complete Kalpa in the first sense should cover all the three divisions. It is highly doubtful whether each Veda Śākhā had originally a complete set of the three kinds of works covered under the word Kalpa. This will be briefly dealt with a little below.

Recently (1959) Dr. Ram Gopal has brought out a large work on ‘India of Vedic Kalpasūtras’ containing over five hundred closely printed pages. The title of the work is rather misleading. It does not deal with the Śrautasūtras beyond very briefly stating what they contain and distinguishing their contents from those of the Gṛhya and Dharmasūtras. His work is concerned only with the details gathered from the Gṛhya and Dharmasūtras and he has nothing to say about the development of the several topics dealt with in these two classes during the long period of at least 2000 years after the sūtra period (which he places between 800 - 500 B. C. on p. 89). His work should have been entitled “Indian Life as depicted in Gṛhya and Dharmasūtras”. As far as it goes it is a tolerable thesis, though rather prolix, dogmatic and over-disputatious. Having confined himself to the Gṛhya and Dharmasūtras, it should have been his business to discuss all points concerning at least the principal Gṛhya and Dharmasūtras. But he leaves important matters concerning several sūtras untouched. For example, on p. 54 he observes ‘many sūtras in the Gaut. Dh. S. appear to be of doubtful authenticity and it is an important task for future researchers to determine precisely the spurious sūtras interpolated in the original Dharmasūtra’. One feels that he should himself have tackled that task at least about some representative Gṛhya sūtras and the Gautama-dharma-sūtra (which he places on p. 84 among the oldest class of Śrauta, Gṛhya and Dharmasūtras and when on p. 82 he holds that Gautama is undoubtedly the oldest writer on Smārta Dharma) by a thorough examination of chapters and passages in them and should have pointed out the criteria why certain sūtras are held to be spurious and so forth. He need not have included in the thesis the description of the flora and fauna &c. (pp. 103-109) or if he wanted to include these subjects he should have devoted more space. Nor was there any need for him to discuss (as he does on pp. 100-103 ) the varying limits of Āryāvarta, since that subject had been dealt with at length by me in H. of Dh. Vol. II pp. 11-16. He hardly adds anything substantial to what I stated on that topic twentytwo years ago. He could have referred to Vol. II of H. Dh, pp. 11-16 and added bits of information that did not occur therein.

  1. वेदो धर्ममूलम्। तद्विदां च स्मृतिशीले। गौ. ध. सू. I. 1-2. ↩︎

  2. धर्मज्ञसमयः प्रमाणं वेदाश्च। आप. ध. सू. I.1.1.2. ↩︎

  3. श्रुतिस्मृतिविहितो धर्मः। तदलाभे शिष्टाचारः प्रमाणम्। शिष्टः पुनरकामात्मा। ↩︎

  4. वेदोखिलो धर्ममूलं स्मृतिशीले च तद्विदाम्। आचारश्चैव साधूनामात्मनस्तुटिरेव च॥ मनुस्मृति II.6. ↩︎

  5. श्रुतिः स्मृतिः सदाचारः स्वस्य च प्रियमात्मनः। सम्यक्सङकल्पजः कामो धर्ममूलमिदं स्मृतम्॥ याज्ञ. I.7. ↩︎

  6. Vide JBBRAS. Vol. XXVI (1922), pp. 57-82. ↩︎

  7. अ॒मा॒जूरि॑व पि॒त्रोः सचा॑ स॒ती स॑मा॒नादा सद॑स॒स्त्वामि॑ये॒ भग॑म्। ॠग्वेद II.17.7. ↩︎

  8. अरोगिनणीम् भ्रातृमतीमसामानार्षगोत्रजाम्। याज्ञ. I.53. Vide also मनु III.11. ↩︎

  9. Vide Ṛgveda III.31.1. and Nirukta III.4. ↩︎

  10. e.g. the verse गृ॒भ्णामि॑ ते सौभग॒त्वाय॒ (ॠग्वेद X.85.36.). Vide आप. गृ. सू. IV.4. ↩︎

  11. गौ. ध. सू. IV.4; बौ. ध. सू. I.11.2 : आप. ध. सू. II.5.11.17 : मनु III.27. ↩︎

  12. वसिष्ठधर्मसूत्र I. 36-37 : note आप. ध. सू. II.6.13.11 where the word ‘purchase’ is tried to be explained away and also पू. मी. सू. VI.1.15. ‘क्रयस्य धर्ममात्रत्वम्’ ↩︎

  13. भ॒द्रा व॒धूर्भ॑वति॒ यत्सु॒पेशा॑: स्व॒यं सा मि॒त्रं व॑नुते॒ जने॑ चित्। ॠग्वेद X.27.12. ↩︎

  14. न॒हि ग्रभा॒यार॑णः सु॒शेवो॒ऽन्योद॑र्यो॒ मन॑सा॒ मन्त॒वा उ॑। ॠग्वेद VII.5.8. ↩︎

  15. जायमनो वै ब्राह्मणस्त्रिभिरॄणवा जायते ब्रह्मचर्येण ॠषिभ्यो यज्ञेन देवेभ्यः प्रजया पितृभ्यः। ↩︎

  16. को वां॑ शयु॒त्रा वि॒धवे॑व दे॒वरं॒ मर्यं॒ न योषा॑ कृणुते स॒धस्थ॒ आ। ॠग्वेद X.40.2 ↩︎

  17. मनुः पुत्रेभ्यो दायं व्यभजत्। तै. सं. III.1.9.4. This passage is relied upon by आप. ध. सू. II.6.14.11. and बौ. ध. सू. II.2.2. ↩︎

  18. तस्माज्ज्येष्ठं पुत्रं धनेन निरवसाययन्ति। तै. सं. II.5.2.7. This passage is referred to by आप. ध. सू. II.6.14.12 and बौ. ध. सू. II.2.5. ↩︎

  19. ‘न जा॒मये॒ तान्वो॑ रि॒क्थमा॑रैक्’ ॠग्वेद III.31.2; vide निरुक्त III.5. for explanations of this verse. ↩︎

  20. तस्मात्स्त्रियो निरिन्द्रिया अदायादीरपि पापात्पुंस उपस्तितरं वदन्ति। तै. सं. VI.5.8. Here the portion spoken of is really that of the soma beverage. Vide बौ. ध. सू. II.2.47. for reliance on this passage and also हरदत्त (on आप. ध. सू. II.6.14.1.) and सरस्वतीविलास (para. 21 and 336). Vide also शतपथब्रा. IV.4.2.13 for a similar passage. ↩︎

  21. ब्र॒ह्म॒चा॒री च॑रति॒ वेवि॑ष॒द्विष॒: स दे॒वा॑नां भव॒त्येक॒मङ्ग॑म्। ॠग्वेद X.109.5. The शतपथब्रा. (XI.5.4.18.) reads ‘तदाहुः । न ब्रह्मचारी सन्मध्वश्नीयात्.’ Compare मनु II.177. Vide शतपथब्रा. XI.3.3.1. for samidh. ↩︎

  22. इन्द्रो यतीन् सालावृकेभ्यः प्रायच्छत्।मेधातिथि (on मनु XI.45) quotes this Vide ऐ. ब्रा. 7.28. and ताण्ड्यमहाब्रा. 8.1.4, 13.4.17 and अथर्ववेद II.5.3. ↩︎

  23. एष च श्रोत्रियSचैतौ ह वै द्वौ मनुष्येषु धृतव्रतौ। शतपथ V.4.4.5. ↩︎

  24. तस्माच्छूद्रो यज्ञेऽनवकॢप्तः। तै. सं. VII.1.1.6. ↩︎

  25. तद्यथैवादो मनुष्यराजे आगतेन्यस्मिन्वार्हत्युक्षाणं वा वेहतं वा क्षदन्त एवमस्मा एतत्क्षदन्ते यदग्निं मथ्नन्ति। ऐ. ब्रा. I.15. Compare वसिष्ठधर्मसूत्र 4.8 and या. I.109. ↩︎

  26. पञ्च वा एते महायज्ञाः सतति प्रतायन्ते सतति सन्तिष्ठन्ते देवयज्ञः पितृयज्ञो भूतयज्ञो मनुष्ययज्ञो ब्रह्मयज्ञः। तै. आ. 2.10.7. ↩︎

  27. उ॒च्चा दि॒वि दक्षि॑णावन्तो अस्थु॒र्ये अ॑श्व॒दाः स॒ह ते सूर्ये॑ण। हि॒र॒ण्य॒दा अ॑मृत॒त्वं भ॑जन्ते वासो॒दाः सो॑म॒ प्र ति॑रन्त॒ आयु॑:॥ ॠग्वेद X.107.2. ↩︎

  28. धन्व॑न्निव प्र॒पा अ॑सि॒ त्वम॑ग्न इय॒क्षवे॑ पू॒रवे॑ प्रत्न राजन्। ॠग्वेद X.4.1. ↩︎

  29. केव॑लाघो भवति केवला॒दी। ॠग्वेद X.117.6. ↩︎

  30. On P.M.S. I, 3, 11, (for which vide H. Of Dh. Vol. V. 1274 n. 2077). ↩︎