05 The Dharmasūtra of Gautama

This has been printed several times (there is Dr. Stenzler’s edition of 1876, the Calcutta edition of 1876, the Ānanadāśrama edition with the commentary of Haradatta, and the Mysore Government edition with the bhāṣya of Maskarin; it was translated by Būhler in S. B. E., Vol. II. with an introduction). The Anandāśrama edition of 1910 which is incorrect in a few places (e. g. 21.7) has been used in this work. This dharmasūtra is, as we shall see, the oldest of those we have. The Gautama dharmasūtra was specially studied by followers of the Sāmaveda (see note 55 above). The commentary on the Caraṇavyūha tells us that Gautama was one of the nine sub-divisions of the Rāṇāyanīya school of the Sāmaveda. A teacher Gautama is mentioned frequently in the Lāṭyāyanaśrautasūtra (e.g. I. 3. 3 and I. 4. 17) and in the Drāhyāyanaśrauta (e.g. I. 4. 17, IX. 3. 15) of the Sāmaveda. The Gobhilagṛhya (III. 10. 6) which belongs to the Sāmaveda cites Gautama as an authority. Therefore it is not improbable that a complete Gautamasūtra embodying Śrauta, Gṛhya and Dharma doctrines once existed. There are other indications pointing to the close connection of the Gautamadharmasūtra with the Sāmaveda. Chapter 26 of the dharmasūtra about Kṛcchra penance is the same, almost word for word, as the Sāmavidhāna¹ Brāhmaṇa (I. 2, Burnell’s ed.).

Among the purificatory texts (21 in number) mentioned in Gau. Dh. S. (19.12) there are nine that are Sāmans. The mention of the five utterances (‘Vyāhṛtis’) ‘resembles the number in the Vyāhṛtisāma² though the order is different. It is, however, to be noted that Gautama is a generic name. In the Kaṭhopaniṣad, both Naciketas (II. 4. 15, II. 5. 6) and his father (I. 1. 10) are styled Gautama. In the Chāndogyopaniṣad there is a teacher Hāridrumata Gautama (IV. 4.3).

Dr. Ram Gopal in his Ph. D. thesis ‘India of Vedic Kalpasūtras’ (1959) charges me (on p. 53) with being inconsistent as regards the Gautama-dharmasūtra. This book is probably his first serious work on ancient Sanskrit literature and society and I am afraid that he is more dogmatic in several conclusions of his than the facts warrant. About Gautama Dharmasūtra I made (in the first edition of the H. of Dh. Vol. I published so far back as 1930) two points viz. (1) that it was originally an independent work and not attached to any particular Vedic Śākhā; (2) that it was subsequently adopted by Sāmavedins as their Dharmasūtra probably because it contained a few indications of leanings towards the Sāmaveda. I pointed out some of those indications, but also showed that Gautama’s name was connected with the Kaṭhas of the Kṛṣṇa Yajurveda also, as in the Kaṭhopaniṣad both Naciketas and his father are referred to as Gautama and because the Tantravārtika (about 650-700 A. D.) asserted that Gaut. Dh. S. was accepted or adopted by the Sāmavedins as their Dharmasūtra. I could have added many other matters in support of my theory but thought that it was unnecessary to do so. The duty of all scholars when dealing with ancient works or matters more than a thousand years old is to marshall the necessary or available facts with honesty and, if they do not all point to the same conclusion, to declare, if possible, one’s opinion in favour of one probability as against another. There is no inconsistency in doing this and it is always possible that different scholars may hold widely divergent views about the age and other matters relating to a writer or work (particularly an ancient one). I need cite only one example. The Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya has been available in print for half a century. There are hundreds of papers and books on various aspects of the Arthaśāstra. Yet on the question of the age of the Arthaśāstra depending on the same materials there are at least two divergent views, some scholars assigning it to 300 B. C. (Jacobi, Sham Shastry and Jayaswal), while others like Jolly and Winternitz bring down the work to 300 A. D.

Now that the charge of inconsistency has been made against me, I should like to say something more here. Gotama is a famous ṛṣi in the Ṛgveda. The name occurs at least eighteen times in the Ṛgveda mantras and is employed in almost all cases (from nominative to vocative). Rahūgaṇa Gotama is the rṣi of Ṛgveda I. 74-93 and the word Rahūgaṇāḥ (plural) occurs in Ṛg. I. 78. 5. Nodhā Gautama is the ṛṣi of hymns 58-64 of Ṛgveda I and of hymn 88 of Ṛg. VIII. Nodhāḥ (vocative) occurs in Ṛg. I. 64. 1. Nodhāḥ Gotama occurs in Ṛg. I. 62.13 and Nodhāḥ (nom. sing.) in Ṛg. I. 61. 14, I. 124. 4. Vāmadeva Gautama is the sage of almost all hymns in Ṛgveda-mandala IV (viz. hymns 1-41 and 45-48). In Ṛg. IV. 4. 11 Vāmadeva speaks of Gotama as his father. It is well-known that the verses of the Sāmaveda are taken from the Ṛgveda (except about 75). In the Index of the words in the Sāmaveda, prepared and published in the Nirnayasagara Press by the Swamis Vishveshvarananda and Nityananda in 1908, the words Gotama, Gautama, Nodhas, Vāmadeva and Rahūgaṇa do not occur at all. In the two Vaṃśas attached to Bṛ. Up. II. 6. 1 and IV, 6. 2, the name of Gautama occurs thrice among the 60 generations or so from Brahman (n.) to Pautimāṣya. It is rather remarkable that Śvetaketu Āruṇeya’s father is addressed as Gautama by Pravābaṇa Jaivali in Bṛ. Up. VI. 2. 4-13. It may further be noted that in the daily tarpaṇa (satiating with water) of gods, sages and pitṛs, (as required by Manu II. 176 also), the Āśv. Gṛ III. 1. 5. mentions several³ sages among whom Gautama is mentioned. But in the tarpaṇa for Sāmavedins now followed the sages to whom water is offered are only thirteen viz. Rāṇāyana, Śāṭyamugra, Vyāsa, Bhāguri, Auluṇḍi, Gaulgulavi, Bhānumānaupamanyava, Kārāṭi, Maśaka Gārgya, Vārṣagaṇya, Kuthuma, Śālihotra, Jaimini; and it ends ’trayodaśaite me Sāmagācāryāḥ svasti kurvantu tarpitāḥ’; vide Sanskrit Intro. to Shri Satavlekar’s edition of Sāmaveda Saṃhitā p. 6. It would be noticed that, though Jaimini is mentioned in it, Gautama is not.

As compared with the number of Śrautasūtras and Gṛhyasūtras of the Vedas there is a paucity of Dharmasūtras. It is well-known that at present there are only a few Vaidikas of the Sāmaveda in the whole of India and some large tracts of India, have no Vaidikas of Sāmaveda at all. Probably the Sāmavedin Vaidikas must have been much less in numbers even in ancient and medieval times as compared with the Vaidikas of the Ṛgveda and the Yajurveda. Even supposing that there was some Dharmasūtra of the Sāmaveda composed some centuries before Christ, gradually it might have faded out and the small number of Sāmavedins that still existed in scattered parts of India adopted the Gautama Dharmasūtra which as shown above shows some Sāmaveda connections.

The Gautama Dharmasūtra appears to have been held in high esteem by Kumārila, as in his Tantravārtika he quotes or clearly refers to Gautama Dh. S. at least a dozen times, but quotes Āp. Dh. S. and Baudhāyana Dh. S. only a few times; vide the author’s paper on ‘Tantra-vārtika and Dharmaśāstra Works’ in JBBRAS, New Series Vol. I. (1925) pp. 95-102. Kumārila remarks that the two Sūtras (P. M. S.I. 3. 15-16)⁴ deal with the question of whether the (several) Gṛhyasūtras and Gautama and other (Dharmasūtras) are restricted in application or are all-embracing and then comes the passage set out in note 55 above, where after excluding Purāṇas, Mānava (i.e. the Manusmṛti) and Itihāsa (i.e. Mahābhārata) he starts with Gautama as the first in enumerating the Dharmasūtras and remarks that Gautamiya (Dharmasūtra) and Gobhiliya (i.e. Gobhila gṛhyasūtra) are accepted or adopted by the Chandogas (i.e. Sāmavedins). The word ‘parigṛhita’ employed by Kumārila is very suggestive. One is said to adopt or accept what was at one time not one’s own. Adoption of a son is called ‘Putraparigraha’ and marriage is called ‘dāraparigraha’.

Not only Kumārila but an earlier famous writer on Logic and Philosophy viz. Dharmakīrti in his Nyāyabindu appears to suggest that Gautama was chief among the exponents of Dharmaśāstra.⁵

Dr. Ram Gopal relies (on p. 52) mainly on two circumstances, viz (1) that chapter 26 of Gaut. Dh. S. dealing with expiations called Kṛcchras is identical with Sāmavidhāna Br. I. 2 and argues that it is not unreasonable to assume that the Gautama-dharma-sūtra borrowed it from that Brāhmaṇa; (2) that the majority of the purificatory texts prescribed in Gaut. Dh. S. (19. 13 ) belong to the Sāmaveda. I shall discuss the second point first. The relevant sūtra is set out in the note in transliteration and with explanations in some cases.⁶

The most important matter about this passage is that the whole of Gaut. Dh. S. chap. 19 (not merely one sūtra or sentence beginning with the word ‘Upaniṣadaḥ’) is identical with Baud. Dh. S. III. 4 (except a few variations) and also with Vas. Dh. S., Chap. 22 (except a few items). It may be argued that all three borrow from a common source and that such borrowing of a whole chapter cannot alter the character of the three sūtra works. We have to find that source-that is all; but even if we find it, the Baud. Dh. S. still belongs to the Kṛṣṇa Yajurveda and Vas. Dh. S. is the Dh. S. for Ṛgvedins according to Kumārila. In view of the fact that Baud. Dh. S. (I. 1. 25) mentions Gautama’s views as set out a little later it is most likely that Baud. Dh. borrows from Gaut. Dh. S. the passage about expiations.

Dr. Ram Gopal is rather inaccurate when he says (p. 52) that the majority of the purificatory texts are from the Sāmaveda. Restricting oneself only to the number of texts specified (which are 21) there are only ten texts that are Sāmavedic (essentially nine only as Rathantara and Bṛhat are two consecutive verses of the Sāmaveda, Pūrvāroika). But there are other important details of this sūtra that deserve consideration. The first purificatory text is Upaniṣads, which are enormous in extent as compared with the Sāman texts and all the Vedic Saṃhitās are several thousand times more extensive than all the specified Sāmans. Therefore, this argument comes practically to nothing as proof of the assertion that the Gaut. Dh. S. was from the first affiliated to the Sāmaveda. The other argument about one chapter (26) being borrowed from Sāmavidhāna Br. leads nowhere. If the Baudhāyana Dh. S. even after borrowing a chapter from another source, does not cease to be a sūtra of the Kṛ. Yajurveda, there is no reason why the same reasoning cannot hold good as to the Gaut. Dh. S. Dr. Ram Gopal refers (on p. 53) to passages from Lāṭyāyana (I. 3. 3, I. 4. 7) and Drāhyāyaṇa (II. 3. 15) Śrautasūtras that speak of Gautama and from Gobhila Gṛ. (in III. 10.6 refers to Gautama’s views on Aṣṭakā Śrāddhas) and that certain sūtras of Gobhila Gṛ. agree closely with Gautama’s (p. 53 and notes p. 56).

From these two circumstances it does not follow at all that Gautama (of the Dharmasūtra) belonged to the Sāmaveda. That would be begging the question. Gobhila’s is comparatively a rare name among ancient sages connected with Vedic Literature, while the name Gautama is a very ancient one, has been closely connected with the Ṛgveda and the Kṛṣṇa Yajurveda occurs in the tarpaṇa for Ṛgvedins, is quoted by Āp. Ś. S. (I. 3. 33) and Baud. Dh. S. Therefore, one may say with good reason that Gobhila, Lāṭyāyana and others refer to or follow the views of Gautama, one of the most famous and ancient sages.

It should be noted that Gautama’s views are mentioned twice in the Ās. Ś. S. The first passage refers to the controversial question of śrāddha in honour of three paternal ancestors of a person when one or two of the three are alive. This subject has been dealt with in H. of Dh. Vol. IV pp. 511 ff. The author of Āś. Śr. S. in II. 6. 16-23 states the differing views of Gāṇagāri, Taulvali and Gautama, and states his own conclusions. Similarly, Āś. Śr. S. in V. 6. 22 refers to the view of Gautama that it is the hotṛ priest that first partakes of camasa oblations in the hotṛ’s vaṣaṭkāra. Āp. Śr. sūtra (I. 3. 11) refers to the view of Gautama. These passages may lead one to conjecture that Gautama had composed a śrautasūtra also, which is not now available. We have many such instances where out of the three classes of the sūtras of a Vedic caraṇa (viz. Śrauta, Gṛhya and Dharma) often one or even two are wanting or not available. There is no Lāṭyāyana Gṛhya nor Dharma sūtra, though Lāṭyāyana Śr. S. exists, there is the Gobhila G. S. and the Khādira Gṛhya sutra but no Gobhila or Khādira Ś. S. nor Dharmasūtra. We have Āśv. S. S. and G. S., Mānava Ś. S. and G. S., Drāhyāyaṇa and Jaiminīya Ś. S. and Gṛ. S. but no Dharmasūtra belonging to these caraṇas. In the case of Gautama, we may make several conjectures viz. that all three classes of sūtras composed by or attributed to Gautama once existed but two of them are now not available, or that Gautama Dharmasūtra was an independent work or that the Gautama mentioned in some Śrautasūtras is different from the author of the Dharmasūtra. One thing is clear that Gautama being a gotra name was borne by many persons from the times of the Ṛgveda and that some of such persons were Ṛgvedins. One solid fact is that Gautama’s is the earliest of the extant Dharmasūtras (though some sūtras may be of doubtful authenticity) and the view in the present state of our knowledge that his was an independent Dharmasūtra has the greatest probability. This view would explain why the Gaut. Dh. S., though the oldest of Dharmasūtras conforms with Pāṇini’s grammar far more than the Āpastamba Dh. S. and Baud. Dh. S. do. The latter two, being a compact part of the Kalpasūtra and transmitted orally from one generation to another, retained many un-Pāṇinian forms while the Gaut. Dh. Ś. being originally unconnected with any definite school could be easily amended according to the requirements of those memorizing or reading it. Besides, there is no direct evidence before Kumārila that Gautama was adopted by the Sāmavedins and as to how many centuries before him.⁷ My view is that the author of Āpastamba Dh. S. was a southerner and wrote either at a time when Pāṇini’s work was not composed at all or before it spread throughout India.

Writers of Sūtras sometimes refer to or quote sūtras of other schools. For example, Gautama’s view (stated in XI. 20) is mentioned in the Baudhāyana Dh. S. I. 1, 25. Baud. Dh. S. stated five differences in the usages of the peoples of the south and of the north, and states the view of some that a person (of one region) if he followed the practice of another region would incur sin and that the custom in a country (southern or northern) would be authoritative in that country alone and notes that Gautama holds this latter view to be wrong. This establishes that Gautama Dh. S. came before Baud. Dh. S. (and before the earliest part of it.).⁸

According to Haradatta the dharmasūtra has 28 chapters. The Calcutta edition adds one chapter on Karmavipāka after chapter 19. In many places Gautama unmistakably refers to his own previous dicta; e.g. Yathoktam vā (23. 16) refers to 23. 10; 23. 26 refers to 17. 8-26; 17. 18 refers to 15. 18. The following are briefly the contents of the Gautamadharmasūtra:-

1. Sources of dharma, rules about interpretation of texts, time of Upanayana for the varṇas, the appropriate girdle, deer skin, cloth and staff for each Varṇa, rules about śauca and ācamana, method of approaching the teacher;

2. Rules about those not invested with sacred thread, rules for the brahmacārin, control of pupils, period of study;

3. The four āśramas, the duties of brahmacārin, bhikṣu, and vaikhānasa;

4. Rules about the house-holder, marriage, age at the time of marriage. eight forms of marriage, sub-castes;

5. Rules about sexual intercourse on marriage, the five great daily sacrifices, the rewards of gifts, madhuparka, method of honouring guests of the several castes;

6. Rules about showing respect to parents, relatives (male and female) and teachers, rules of the road;

7. Rules about the avocations of a brāhmaṇa, avocations for him in distress, what articles a brāhmaṇa could not sell or deal in;

8. The forty saṃskāras and the eight spiritual qualities (such as dayā, forbearance &c.);

9. The observances for a snātaka and householder;

10. The peculiar duties of the four castes, the responsibilities of the king, taxation, sources of ownership, treasure-trove, guardianship of minor’s wealth;

11. Rājadharma, the qualities of the king’s purohita;

12. Punishments for libel, abuse, assault, hurt, adultery and rape, theft in the case of the several varṇas and rules about money-lending and usury and adverse possession, special privileges of brāhmaṇas as to punishments; payment of debts, deposits;

13. Rules about witnesses, falsehoods when excusable;

14. Rules of impurity on birth and death;

15. Śrāddha of five kinds, persons not fit to be invited at Śrāddha;

16. Upākarma, period of Vedic study in the year, holidays and occasions for them;

17. Rules about food allowed and forbidden to brāhmaṇas and other castes;

18. The duties of women, niyoga and its conditions, discussion about the son born of niyoga;

19. The causes and occasions, of prāyaścitta, five things that remove sin (japa, tapas, homa, fasting, gifts), purificatory Vedic prayers, holy food for one who practises japa, various kinds of japas and gifts, appropriate times and places for japa &c.;

20. Abandoning a sinner who does not undergo prāyaścitta and the way of doing it;

21. Sinners of various grades, mahāpātakas, upapātakas &c.;

22. Prāyaścittas for various sins such as brahmahatyā, adultery, killing a Kṣatriya, Vaiśya, Śūdra, cow and other animals &c.;

23. Prāyaścitta for drinking wine and nasty things, for incest and un-natural offences, and for several transgressions by brahmacārin;

24. Secret prāyaścittas for mahāpātakas and upapātakas;

25. Other secret penances;

26. The penances called Kṛcchra and Atikṛcchra;

27. The penance called Cāndrāyaṇa;

28. Partition, strīdhana, re-union, twelve kinds of sons, inheritance.

The Gautama-dharmasūtra is written entirely in prose and it contains no verses either quoted or composed by the author himself, as is the case with the other dharmasutrās. Here and there occur sūtras that look like portions of Anuṣṭubh verses e.g. 23. 27⁹. The language of Gautama agrees far more closely with the standard set up by Pāṇini than the dharmasūtras of Baudhāyana and Āpastamba. It is not very easy to account for this difference. It is obvious that commentators and generations of students that were brought up in the tradition of the Pāṇinean grammar tampered with the text and improved it in accordance with their notions of correct Sanskrit. But why this process should not have been carried out to the same extent in the case of Āpastamba it is difficult to say. A conjecture may be hazarded that the Āp. Dh. S. being a well-knit component of the Āp. Kalpa and being studied as such was less liable to being tampered with than the Gautama Dh. S., which probably did not in its origin belong to any particular kalpa. The same commentator, Haradatta, explained both Gautama and Āpastamba. Haradatta, who, as will be seen later on, was a great grammarian, shows in several places that the current reading was ungrammatical from the Pāṇintan stand-point and that he preferred readings that were in consonance with Pāṇini’s rules¹⁰ There are still a few un-Pāṇinean words, e.g. in 1. 14 (‘dvāviṃśateḥ for dvāviṃśāt’) and 9. 52 (kulaṃkula). The Tantravārtika (p. 99) appears to discuss the various readings in Gautama (I. 45¹¹). A few sūtras quoted from Gautama in the Mitākṣarā (e.g. the sūtra ‘utpatyaiva arthsvāmitvam labhante), the Śmṛticandrikā (dvyaṃśam vā pūrvajaḥ syāt) and other works are not found in the extant text. This fact along with the fact of an interpolation of one chapter makes it clear that the present text of Gautama is of somewhat doubtful authority.

The literature known to the Gautama-dharmasūtra was extensive. Besides the Vedic saṃhitās and Brāhmaṇas it mentions the following works; Upaniṣads (19. 13), the Vedāṅgas (8. 5 and 11. 19), Vākovākya¹² and Itihāsa (8. 6.), Purāṇa (8. 6 and 11. 19), Upaveda (11. 19), dharmaśāstra (11. 19). That he borrows a chapter from the Sāmavidhāna-brāhmaṇa has been mentioned above. He borrows the first six sūtras of the 25th chapter from the Taittirīya Āraṇyaka (11. 18). The Śramaṇaka (in Gautama III. 26) is, according to Haradatta, the Vaikhānasa-śāstra (either composed by Vikhanas or treating of the duties of hermits). Gautama refers to Ānvīkṣiki (11. 3). The only teacher of dharma he quotes by name in Manu (in 21.7), who is cited for the proposition that there is no expiation for the three sins of brahmahatyā, drinking wine and violation of the bed of the guru. Haradatta says that in the extant Manusmṛti the same propositions are laid down about brahmahatyā and surāpāna (in Manu 11. 89 and 146 respectively), but that as to violation of gurutalpa a passage from the Manusmṛti has to be searched out (i.e. such a passage is not found there). From this Būhler drew the conclusion that Gautama refers to the dharmasūtra attributed to Manu (and not to any versified Manu-smṛti). But Būhler is not right in drawing this inference. In the first place in spite of what Haradatta says there are verses in the extant Manusmṛti (XI. 104-105) which say that death is the expiation for violation of the guru’s bed. In the second place, there is nothing to show, even if Haradatta were correct, that Gautama refers only to a dharmasūtra of Manu and not to a versified work. Besides Manu, Gautama frequently quotes certain views ascribed to the ‘Ācāryas’ (e.g. III. 35, IV, 18). What teachers are meant by the word ‘Ācāryāḥ’ (which occurs in the Nirukta, in Kautilya and various other works), it is difficult to say. Probably the word means ’the general traditional view of most writers in that particular śāstra on a particular point.’ Vide the author’s paper on ‘The meaning of Ācāryāḥ’ in ABORI Vol 23 pp. 206-213. In numerous places Gautama refers to the views of his predecessors in the words ’eke’ (2. 15, 40 and 56, 3. 1, 4. 17, 7.23 &c.) and ’ekesām’ (28. 17 and 38). This proves that Gautama was preceded by great literary activity in the sphere of dharmaśāstra. Gautama 11. 28 seems to be a reminiscence of the Nirukta (II. 3)¹³

The earliest reference to Gautama as an author on dharma occurs in the Baudhāyanadharmasūtra. Baudhāyana discusses the authoritativeness of usages peculiar to the north or the south and quotes Gautama as saying that it is wrong to hold that certain customs must be held authoritative in certain countries (even though opposed to Vedic tradition and smṛti). This refers to G. Dh. S. 11. 20. In another place Baudhāyana gives it as his view that a Brāhmaṇa, if he cannot make a living by teaching, officiating as a priest or by gifts, should earn his livelihood as a Kṣatriya and quotes the views of Gautama as opposed to this¹⁴. The extant Gautama on the other hand teaches the same view as that of Baudhāyana¹⁵. Būhler made the plausible suggestion that the sūtra in the extant Gautama is an interpolation. Govindasvāmī, the commentator of Baudhāyana, suggests that another Gautama is referred to by Baudhāyana. It is possible to suggest that in the Ms. of Gautama used by Baudhāyana the sūtra about living as a Kṣatriya did not occur and the next sūtra about living as a Vaiśya alone occurred. Chapter 19 of the Gautamadharmasūtra which forms an introduction to prśyaścittas in Gautama seems to have been borrowed wholesale by Baudhāyana (III. 10) with slight changes. That Baudhāyana borrows follows from the fact that the chapter in Baudhāyana occurs in the middle of the discussion about prāyaścittas and not as an introduction, which is the case in Gautama. Baudhāyana treats of penances in several places (II. 1, III. 5. 10 and VI. 1. 4). There are, besides, many sūtras in both Gautama and Baudhāyana that exhibit a close correspondence, e.g. Gautama III. 25-34 and Baudhāyana II. 6. 17 about Vaikhānasa, Gaut. 3. 3 and 35 and Baud. II. 6. 29, Gaut. 15. 29 and Baud. II. 8. 2, Gaut. 23. 8-10 and Baud. II. I. 12-14, Gaut. 24. 2 and Baud. II. 3. 8. The Āp. Dh. S. II. 6. 15. 25 speaks of Smṛti as laying down that up to upunayana there is no adhikāra for homa. This probably refers to Gautama II. 1-3. The Vasiṣṭhadharmasūtra also quotes the views of Gautama in two places (4. 35 and 37, impurity on death). The first refers to Gautama 14. 41 but the second cannot be traced in the extant Gautama. Chapter 22 of Vasiṣṭha is borrowed from the Gautamadharmasūtra, chapter 19. There are besides many sūtras that are the same or almost the same in Gautama and Vasiṣṭha, e.g. Gautama 3. 31-33 and Vas. 9. 1-3, Gaut. 3.26 and Vas. 9. 10, Gaut. 1. 44 and Vas. 3. 37, Gaut. 1. 40 and Vas. 3. 38, Gaut. 1. 45-46 and Vas. 3. 48, Gaut. 1. 28 and Vas. 3. 49, Gaut. 14. 5-7 and Vas. 4. 24-26. Gautama is referred to in the Manusmṛti (III. 16 ) as the son of Utathya. Gautama is one of the authors of dhurmaśūstras enumerated in Yājñavalkya (1. 5). Aparārka quotes a verse from the Bhaviṣyapurāṇa which speaks of Gautama’s prohibition about drinking.¹⁶ Similarly, Kullūka (on Manu XI. 146) quotes a verse from the same Purāṇa which refers to Gautama 23. 2. Kumārila in his Tantravārtika quotes over a dozen sūtras from Gautama which present the same text as we have¹⁷. Gautama 11. 29 and 12. 4 are quoted by Śaṃkara in his bhāṣya on Vedāntasūtra III. 1. 8 and I. 3. 38 respectively. Viśvarūpa in his commentary on Yājñavalkya quotes numerous sūtras from Gautama. In Medhātihi’s bhāṣya on Manu the writer more frequently quoted than any other is Gautama (e.g. on Manu II. 6, VIII. 125 &c.).

The foregoing discussion about the literature known to the Gautama Dh. S. and the authors and works that mention Gautama or quote the dharmasūtra helps us in arriving at the approximate age of the dharmasūtra. He is separated by a long interval from the Sāmavidhāna Brāhmaṇa. He is later than Yāska and wrote at a time when Pāṇini’s system was either not in existence or had not attained a prominent position. The extant text was known to Baudhāyana and Vasiṣṭha and was in the same state long before 700 A. D. The sūtra betrays no knowledge of the onslaught delivered on Brahmanism by Buddha and his followers. He uses the term bhikṣu (3. 10) instead of the term parivrājaka that occurs in Baudhāyana, Āpastamba and other sutra works and lays down that a bhikṣu is to stay in one place in the rains, which reminds one of the Buddhist ‘bhikkhu’ and ‘Vasso ‘.¹⁸ Gautama cites the opinion of some that Yavana is the offspring of a Kṣatriya male and a Śūdra female (4. 17). It is supposed by many scholars that the Yavanas became known to the Indians only at the time of Alexander’s invasion and hence every work in which the word yavana occurs must be later than 320 B. C. Būhler (S. B. E. vol. II. Intro. LVI.) seems to suggest that the sūtra where the word Yavana occurs in Gautama may be an interpolation. This is not a satisfactory explanation.

Dr. Ram Gopal (on p. 54) finds fault with me for my criticism of Dr. Būhler. Unfortunately, he appears to have not correctly grasped the situation. Gaut. Dh. S. 4. 17 (tebhya eva …pāraśava-yavana-karaṇa-śūdrāñ-śūdretyeke) does not express Gautama’s view but only states the view of some writers that if a śūdra woman has union with a brāhmaṇa, a kṣatriya, vaiśya or a śūdra the child begotten would respectively be a Pāraśava, a Yavana, a Karaṇa, a Śūdra. Būhler tried to show that this was an interpolation. At the time when Būhler first wrote his introduction to Vol. II. of the S. B. E. almost all Western writers regarded the occurrence of the word ‘Yavana’ in a Sanskrit work as enough ground for relegating it to 300 B. C. or to a later date. Būhler’s words on p. LVI of the edition of 1879 (SBE Vol. II) are “As there is no historical evidence to show that the Indians became acquainted with the Greeks before the invasion of Alexander in the 4th century B. C. it has been held that works containing the word Yavana cannot have been composed before 300 B. C.” Then he refers to Gautama’s text not being trustworthy and then to Rudradāman’s inscription (vide E. I. Vol. VIII at p. 43) in which Tushāspa is described as Yavanarāja and asserts that Tushāspa was not a Greek but a Persian. Supposing Tushāspa had been a Persian there is no reason why he could not or might not have been called or described as Yavanarāja in Kathiawad in the 2nd century A. D. Vide H. of Dh. S. Vol. V. p. 516 note 743 where it is shown that Yavana is an exact reproduction of the word Ionian (from Ionia, which was originally a strip of mountainous coast in Asia Minor in which Miletus was in the 6th century B. C. the richest city in the Greek world. Even the M. B. (Śāntiparva 207. 43, Ch. ed.) has ‘Yauna—Kamboja—Gandhārāḥ Kirāta Barbaraiḥ saha) and Aśoka in his 5th Rock Edict has ‘Yona-Kāmboja-Gandhārānam.’ If Būhler had even then held the view which he sets forth in his Introduction in the second edition, he could have easily said in the Introduction to his first edition that even if the Sūtra in which the word ‘Yavana’ occurs was not an interpolation, the date of Gautama need not be affected by the mere occurrence of the word ‘Yavana’ in a sūtra that embodies the view of others. Būhler avoided in the Introduction to his first edition being definite about the age of Gautama owing to the word ‘Yavana’ in Gautama, because he had not the courage at that time to differ from the current of western opinion. Dr. Ram Gopal in a research thesis shirks the important task of determining which sūtras of Gautama are spurious and yet devotes nearly one page to this. I had only the first edition in the library I used. It would have been enough if he had simply said that Dr. Būhler later expressed his views about the occurrence of the word ‘Yavana’ definitely in the Introduction to the 2nd edition, though he did not do so in the Introduction to the first edition.

One may ask, if Būhler believes that the Indians borrowed their alphabet centuries before Alexander from the neighbours of the Greeks, why it is improbable that the Indians may not have heard of the word Yavana centuries before Alexander and why Yavanas may not have resided in India long before that date. Taking all these things into consideration tho Gautama-dharmasūtra cannot be placed later than the period between 600-400 B. C.

Haradatta wrote a learned commentary on the Gautama-dharmasūtra called Mitākṣarā. For an account vide sec. 87 below. In numerous places he quotes the explanations of other commentators of Gautama (e.g. 9. 53; 10. 12, 56, 66; 11. 17; 12. 32; 21, 9 &c.)

The Bhāṣya of Maskarin, son of Vāmana, is a learned one. It has been published in Mysore Govt. Oriental Library Series. The Kṛtyakalpataru of Lakṣmīdhara in its several parts refers to Maskarin e.g. on Gaut. Dh. S. III. 10-24 (anicayo bhikṣuḥ… anārambhi) the Mokṣakāṇḍa of Kalpataru quotes the views of Bhartṛyajña, Asahāya, and Maskarin. The Naiyatakāla-kāṇḍa mentions in several pages the views of Maskarin on Gautama’s sūtras (vide pp. 23, 248, 257). In the Gṛhastharatnākara of Caṇḍeśvara (p. 330) ācārya Maskarin on Gaut. Dh. S. IX. 57 is mentioned. Therefore, it follows that the bhāṣya of Maskarin is certainly not later than 1100 A. D. and may be assigned to the period 900-1100 A. D. This bhāṣya is far more extensive than Haradatta’s commentary, and it is not unlikely that being much earlier has been made use of by Haradatta. But, as there were other early bhāṣyas of Bhartṛyajña and Asahāya (which are not yet available in print) it is difficult to say whether Haradatta borrows from the older ones or from Maskarin. For example, on Gaut. I. 6 (tulya-balavirodhe vikalpaḥ) the bhāṣya extends to three printed pages. The same is the case with regard to Gaut. III. 1 (bhāṣya of four printed pages), III. 11 (three printed pages on anicayo bhikṣuḥ) V. I. (ṛtāvupeyāt, three pages), IX. 1 (three pages), XI. 29 (varṇāśramāḥ svasvadharma etc.), XXIII, 27 and 28 (five pages on each).¹⁹ Maskarin quotes profusely from at least thirty Smṛtis, some of them being both in prose and verse such as Uśanas, Kaṅva, Kātyāyana, Jātūkarṇin, Paiṭhīnasi, Prajāpati, Bhārgava, Lokāksi, Vyāghra.

Asahāya seems to have written a bhāṣya on Gautama; vide sec. 59 below.

Some special matters presented by Gaut. Dh. S. may be briefly stated here: (1) He attaches the greatest importance to the eight moral qualities (Dayā etc.) specified in VIII. 23-24 and declares that he who has undergone the forty saṃskāras (mentioned in VIII. 14-22) but is not endowed with the eight ‘ātmaguṇas’ does not attain Sāyujya and Sūlokya with brahman, while he who possesses the eight qualities attains Sāyujya and Sālokya even though he may be endowed with only a fraction of the forty saṃskāras; (2) He emphasizes (11, 20) that only such usages of countries, castes and families are valid and authoritative as are not opposed to the Vedas; (3) Women are not independent as regards the performance of religious duties, that a woman is to be married before the appearances of menses, that a guardian who does not arrange for a girl’s marriage incurs sin and that a girl after waiting for three menstrual periods should herself choose her husband possessing the requisite qualities and when she does so she should return the ornaments given to her by her father’s family; (4) That an offender if a brāhmaṇa was not to receive bodily punishment (XII. 43); (5) he allowed niyoga if the husband died childless (XVIII. 4-8).

The Mitākṣarā, the Smṛticandrikā, Hemādri, Mādhava and other writers quote a śloka-Gautama. Vide Parāśara-Mādhavīya, vol. I, part I, p. 7. Aparārka, Hemādri and Mādhava quote Vṛddha-Gautama, while the Dattakamimāṃsā (p. 72) quotes Vṛddha-Gaut. and Bṛhad-Gaut. side by side on the same point. These are later works. Jīvānanda publishes a smṛti of Vṛddha-Gautama in 22 chapters and about 1700 verses (part II, pp. 497-636), where it is said that Yudhiṣṭhira asked Kṛṣṇa about the dharmas of the four castes. This smṛti seems to have been originally taken from the Āśvamedhikaparva of the Mahābhārata, as Mādhava and others cite verses occurring in it as from that parva (vide Parāśaramādhavīya vol. I, part I, pp. 108-110).