03 Date of Dharmaśāstra works

The important question is to find out when formal treatises on dharma began to be composed. It is not possible to give a definite answer to this question. The Nirukta (III. 4-5) shows that long before Yāska heated controversies had raged on various questions of inheritance, such as the exclusion of daughters by sons and the rights of the appointed daughter (putrikā). It is very likely that these discussions had found their way in formal works and were not merely confined to the meetings of the learned. The manner in which Yāska writes suggests that he is referring to works in which certain Vedic verses had been cited in support of particular doctrines about inheritance¹. It is further a remarkable thing that in connection with the topic of inheritance Yāska quotes a verse, calls it a Śloka and distinguishes it from a ṛk.² This makes it probable that works dealing with topics of dharma existed either composed in the śloka metre or containing ślokas. Scholars like Būhler would say that the verses were part of the floating mass of mnemonic verses, the existence of which he postulates without very convincing or cogent arguments in his Introduction to the Manusmṛti (S. B. E. vol. 25 Intro.xc). If works dealing with topics of dharma existed before Yāska, a high antiquity will have to be predicated for them. The high antiquity of works on dharmaśāstra follows from other weighty considerations. It will be seen later on that the extant dharmasūtras of Gautama, Baudhāyana and Āpastamba certainly belong to the period between 600 to 300 B. C. Gautama³ speaks of dharmaśāstras and the word dharmaśāstra occurs in Baudhāyana also (IV. 5.9). Baudhāyana speaks of a dharmapāṭhaka (I. i. 9.). Besides, Gautama quotes in numerous places the views of others in the words ‘ityeke’ (e.g. II. 15, II. 58, III. 1, IV. 21, VII. 23). He refers to Manu⁴ in one place and to ‘Ācāryas’ in several places (III. 35, IV.18). Baudhāyana mentions by name several writers on dharma, viz. Aupajaṇghani, Kātya, Kāśyapa, Gautama, Maudgalya and Hārīta. Āpastamba also cites the views of numerous sages such as those of Eka, Kaṇva, Kautsa, Hārīta and others. There is a Vārtika which speaks of Dharmaśātra⁵. Jaimini speaks of the duties of a Śūdra as laid down in the dharmaśātra⁶. Patañjali shows that in his days dharmasūtras existed and that their authority was very high, being next to the commandments of God⁷. He quotes verses and dogmas that have their counterparts in the dharmasūtras⁸. The foregoing discussion establishes that works on the dharmaśāstra existed prior to Yāska or at least prior to the period 600-300 B.C. and in the 2nd century B.C. they had attained a position of supreme authority in regulating the conduct of men.

In this book the whole of the extant literature on dharma will be dealt with as follows:- First come the dharmasūtras, some of which like those of Āpastamba, Hiraṇykeśin and Baudhāyana form part of a larger Sūtra collection, while there are others like those of Gautama and Vasistha which do not form part of a larger collection; some dharmasūtras like that of Viṣṇu are, in their extant form, comparatively later in date than other sūtra works; some sūtra works like those of Śaṅkha-Likhita and Paiṭhīnasi are known only from quotations. Then early metrical smṛtis like those of Manu and Yājñavalkya will be taken up for discussion; then later versified smṛtis like that of Nārada; there are many smṛti works like those of Bṛhaspati and Kātyāyana that are known only from quotations. The two epics, the Mahābhārata and the Rāmāyaṇa, and the Purāṇas also have played a great part in the development of the Dharmaśāstra. The commentaries on the smṛtis, such as those of Viśvarūpa, Medhātithi, Vijñāeśvara, Aparārka, Haradatta will be next passed in review and then the digests on dharma such as the works of Hemādri, Todaramalla, Nīlakaṇṭha and others.

It is very difficult to settle the chronology of the works on dharmaśāstra, particularly of the earlier ones. The present writer does not subscribe to the view of Max Mūller (H. A. S. L. p. 68) and others that works in continuous Anuṣṭubh metre followed sūtra works⁹. Our knowledge of the works of that period is so meagre that such a generalisation is most unjustifiable. Some works in the continuous śloka metre like the Manusmṛti are certainly older than the Viṣṇudharmasūtra and probably as old as, if not older than, the Vasiṣṭhadharmasūtra. One of the earliest extant dharmasūtras, that of Baudhāyana, contains long passages in the śloka metre, many of which are quotations and even Āpastamba has a considerable number of verses in the śloka metre. This renders it highly probable that works in the śloka metre existed before them. Besides, a large literature on dharma existed in the days of Āpastamba and Baudhāyana which has not come down to us. In the absence of that literature it is futile to dogmatise on such a point.

In volumes II to V both Śrautasūtras and G ṛhya-sūtras have been quoted and relied upon very frequently. In pp. 976-1255 of Volume II a comparatively full account was given of the Vedic sacrifices based on the Śrautasūtras. But no account of the Gṛhyasūtras in general was given in any of the five volumes of the History of Dharmaśāstra. Therefore, a brief statement on the gṛhyasūtras with references to some printed editions is set out below and no attempt will be made to settle their chronology. The chronology of the Dharmaśāstra given later on may be held applicable to the Gṛhyasūtras also with some unimportant modifications. The Gṛhyasūtras often refer to the Śrautasūtras of their schools e.g. the Āśv. Gṛ, begins ‘uktāni vaitānikāni gṛhyāni vāksyāmaḥ’ (the Śrauta sacrifices have been already expounded; we shall now expound the gṛhya rites). Vitāna means, acc. to Amarakośa, ‘kratu’ (vedic sacrifice) and ‘vistāra’. Gṛhya is derived from ‘gṛha’ which means ‘house or a shed’ or ‘wife’ (‘gṛhini gṛhamucyate’ in Sānti-parva 144.6 Ch ed.). The gṛhya fire was set up by a man at or after marriage or on partition of inheritance. Vide Āśv. Gṛ. S. I. 61 (Pānigrahaṇād gṛhyam paricaret), H. of Dh. Vol. II p. 678 note 1615 for other texts; Āp. Dh. S. II.7. 17. 16 ‘Sarveṣu vṛtteṣu sarvataḥ samavadāya prāśnīyād-yādthoktam’ has in view Āp. Gṛ. S. VIII. 2 1. (khaṇḍa). 9. Similarly, Āp. Dh. S. I. 1. 14. 16, II. 2. 3.17, II. 2. 5. 4. refer to provisions in Āp. Gṛ. S. ¹⁰ Similarly, a gṛhyasūtra has often in view the Dharmasūtra of its caraṇa; e.g. Āp. Gṛ. 8. 21. 1. (māsiśrāddhasyāparapakṣe yathopadeśam kālāḥ) has in view Āp. Dh. S. II. 7. 16. 4-21. It may be noted that Āp. Gṛ. IV. 11. 16-17 ( Pālāso daṇḍo…upadiśānti) occur as Āp. Dh. S. I. 1. 2. 38. It may plausibly be argued that the extant Śrauta, Gṛhya and Dharmasūtras of certain caraṇas like those of Āpastamba and Baudhāyana were composed either by one and the same person or at least by father and son or grandfather and grandson and so on. But this would not be correct in the case of several Dharmasūtras.

The gṛhyasūtras belong to the various recensions of the four vedas The gṛhyasūtras translated in volumes XXIX and XXX of the Sacred Books of the East Series are in order Śāṅkhāyana, Āśvalāyana, Pāraskara,Khādira, Gobhila, Hiraṇyakeśin, Āpastamba. The Dharmasūtras translated in Sacred Books of the East Vol. II, VII and XIV are those of Āpastamba, Gautama, Viṣṇu, Vasiṣṭha and Baudhāyana. The gṛhyasūtras belonging to the Ṛgveda are: (1) Āśvalāyana gṛ. s., published with Nārāyaṇa’s commentary by Nir. Press and in B. I. Series and with Anāvilā of Haradatta in Tri. S. S. (1923). This Gṛ. S. belongs to the Śākala Śākhā and the last verse in the Śākhā of the Ṛg. is ‘Samānīva ākūtiḥ’; (2) The Śāṅkhāyana Gṛ. S. (in six adhyāyas of which the last two appear to be later additions) commented upon by Nārāyana and published in Indische Studien, Vol. XV. pp. 1-166, and by Dr. G. R. Sehgal with a learned Introduction (1960), New Delhi; (3) The Kauṣītaka (often written as Kauṣītaki) Gṛ. S. edited by Mr. Ratna Gopal Bhatta (in the Benares S. Series, 1908) and by Dr. T. R. Chintamani, Madras, 1944 with the commentary of Bhavatrāta. These two belong to the Bāśkala Śākhā of the Ṛgveda, the last verse of which is ’tac-chaṃ-yorāvṛṇīmahe.’

The Yajurveda has two recensions Kṛṣṇa and Śukla. The former has come down to us in four schools viz. Taittiriya, Maitrāyaṇiya, Kāṭhaka and Kapiṣṭhala-kaṭha. The number of Śrauta and Gṛhya-sūtras belonging to the Kṛṣṇayajurveda is large. The more important of the Gṛ. Sutras are

1. Baudhāyana Gṛ. S. (published in Mysore Government’s Oriental Library Series, 1920);

2. Bhāradvāja Gṛhya (in three praśnas) edited by Dr. Henriette J. W. Salomons at Leiden, who gives extracts from the Bhāṣyakāra of that sūtra;

3. Āpastamba-gṛhyasūtra edited by Prof. M. Winternitz (Vienna, 1887) with copious extracts from the commentaries of Haradatta and Sudarśanācārya and in the Mysore Government Oriental Library Series and in Kashi S. Series with com. Gṛhyatātparya-darśana of Sudarśanācārya; vide P. K. Gode about this last in ABORI (1956), vol. 37 p. 55. The Mantras required are collected in a collection called Mantrapāṭha¹¹ edited by M. Winternitz (Oxford, 1897).

4. Hiraṇyakeśigṛhya (also known as Satyāṣāḍha Gṛ. S.) edited by Dr. Kirste at Vienna, 1889, with extracts from the com. of Mātṛdatta and in the Ānan. S. Series. The Mantras are given in full in the Gṛ. S. itself;

5. The Mānava-gṛhyasūtra (also called Maitrāyanīya-Mānavagṛhya) edited by Dr. Knauer and in the G. 0. Series with Aṣṭāvakra’s bhāṣya; the sūtra is divided into two parts called puruṣa; the bhāṣya calls the work Pūraṇa and ascribes it to Mānavācārya;

6. Vaikhānasa-smārta-sūtra in ten praśnas, 7 on gṛhya and 3 on dharma-published at Kumbhakonam in 1914, and by Dr. Caland in B. I. Series with English translation (1927 and 1929). The Mantras¹² required are indicated by the opening words only (pratīkas).

7. Kāṭhakagṛhyasūtra, also called Carakagṛhya, Laugākṣigṛhya or Cārāyaṇīyagṛhya, edited by Dr. Caland in D. A. V. College Series at Lahore in 1925 with extracts from three commentaries, viz. Vivaraṇa of Ādityadarśana, Paddhati of Brāhmaṇabala and bhāṣya of Devapāla. Kashmirian tradition ascribes the work to Laugākṣi.

8. Vārāha-gṛhya-sūtra. It belongs to the Vārāha sub-division of Maitrāyaṇīyas. Many of its sūtras occur also in Mānava-gṛhya-sūtra and Kāthakagṛhya. It was published in the G. O. Series (1920) and by Dr. Raghuvira (1922, Lahore).

9. Agniveśa-gṛhyasūtra, published in the Chowkhamba S.S., Vārāṇasi.

The Gṛhyasūtras belonging to the Śukla Yajurveda (Mādhyandina and Kāṇva recensions) are:

1. Pāraskara-gṛhyasūtra (also called Kātiya gṛ. s.) in three kāṇdas; edited by Stenzler at Leipzig in 1876, printed with several commentaries both in the Kashi S. Series and by the Gujarati Press in Bombay. This gṛhya has probably the largest number of commentaries, the earliest being those of Bhartṛyajña)¹³ and Karka (called Bhāṣya).

   I am inclined to hold that Pāraskara is another name of Kātyāyana, ‘Pāraskara-prabhṛtīni; ca saṃjñāyām’ Pāṇ. VI. I. 157, on which the Mahābhāṣya says ‘Pāraskaro deśaḥ’; Kātyāyana came probably from that country and was called Pāraskara also. Nāgojibhaṭṭa and other writers have assigned other meanings to that word by saying ‘pāram karoti Pāraskaraḥ.’

2. Baijavāpagṛhya:-vide Proceedings and Transactions of the 4th Oriental Conference at Allahabad, Vol. II pp. 59-67 where Pandit Bhagavad-datta gives a good deal of information and puts together on pp. 63-67 passages of Baijavāpa-gṛhya from 14 medieval works. Kumārilabhaṭṭa in Tantravārtika on P. M. S. I. 3. 11 appears to refer to the work of Baijavāpa (or-pi) ¹⁴.

The gṛhyasūtras belonging to the Sāmaveda are :

1. Gobhilagṛhyasūtra, published in the B. I. series; published in the Calcutta Sanskrit series with the com. of Nārāyaṇa, edited by Chintamani Bhattācārya (1936). The mantras required in gṛhya rites are collected in a Mantrabrāhmaṇa and the sūtra mentions only the opening words, but where the mantras are not contained in the Mantrabrāhmana they are quoted in full; this mantrapātha called Mantrabrāhmaṇa was most probably compiled before the Gobhila Gṛ. S.

2. The Khādiraghya-sūtra, published in the Mysore Govt. Library Series with the com. of Rudraskanda, son of Nārāyana. This is based on the Gobhila Gṛ. S. and is an abridgement of it;

3. Jaiminīya-gṛhya-sūtra, edited by Dr. Caland in the Punjab Oriental Series (1922);

4. The Drāhyāyaṇa-gṛhya-sūtra (published in Ānan. series, Poona).

The Atharvaveda has the Kauśika-sūtra as its Gṛhya. which was edited by Prof. Bloomfield. Vide Prof. Belvalkar Presentation Vol. pp. 28-33 for a paper by Mr. C. G. Kashikar for corrections in it and a paper ‘Kauśikasūtra and the Atharvaveda’ by Prof. Edgerton in F. W. Thomas Presentation Vol. pp. 78-81. There are several commentaries on it. It devotes a large part of it to utpātas and śāntis.