06 The Baudhāyana Dharmasūtra

06 The Baudhāyana Dharmasūtra

This has been edited several times (text by Dr. Hultzsch at Leipzig in 1884, text in the Ānandāśrama collection of smṛtis and in the Mysore Government Oriental Series in 1907 with the commentary of Govindasvāmin; translated in S. B. E., Vol. 14, with an Introduction). The Mysore edition has been used in this work. Baudhāyana is a teacher of the Kṛṣṇayajurveda. A complete set of the Baudhāyanasūtras has not yet been recovered and has not been as carefully preserved as the sūtras of Āpastamba and Hiraṇyakeśin. Dr. Burnell arranges Baudhāyana’s sūtras into six sūtras, the Śrautasūtra in 19 praśnas (probably); Karmāntasūtra in 20 adhyāyas; Dvaidhasūtra in four praśnas; Gṛhyasūtra in four praśnas; Dharmasūtra in four praśnas; Śulvasūtra in three adhyāyas. The commentators offer no indication as to the place originally assigned to the gṛhya, dharma and śulva sūtras in the whole collection. Dr. Caland in his mono graph (A.D. 1903) ‘Uber das Rituelle sūtra des Baudhāyana’ gives on p. 12 the contents of the Baudhāyanasūtra as follow: Praśnas I-XXI Śrauta, XXII-XXV Dvaidha, XXVI XVIII Karmānta; XXIX-XXXI Prāyaścitta; XXXII Śulvasūtra; XXXIII-XXXV Gṛhyasūtra, XXXVI Gṛhyaprāyaścitta; XXXVII Gṛhyaparibhāsā; XXXVIII-XLI Gṛhyapariśiṣṭa; XLII-XLIV Pitṛmedha; XLV Pravara; XLVI-XLIX Dharma. Dr. Caland edited nine praśnas of the Śrautasūtra for the B. I. Series (A. D. 1904). Dr. R. Shamsastri published for the Mysore University (in 1920) the Baudhāyanagṛhyasūtra with paribhāṣā, gṛhyaśesa, Pitṛmedhasūtra. The Gṛhyasūtra cites the view of Baudhāyana himself (1.7). The Baudhāyana-dharma refers to the Gṛhya and presuppose it in several places (vide note 54). In the Baudhāyanagṛhya (III. 9. 6) we have a reference to padakāra Ātreya, Vṛttikāra Kauṇḍinya, Pravacanakāra Kāṇva Bodhāyana, and Sūtrakāra Āpastamba.¹ A similar passsage occurs in the Bhāradvāja Gṛhyasūtra. In the Baudhāyana-dharma-sūtra (II. 5.27 Ṛṣitarpaṇa) we have Kāṇva Bodhāyana, Āpastamba sūtrakāra and Satyāṣāḍha Hiraṇyakeśin one after another. These references show that Kāṇva Bodhāyana was an ancient sage when the Baudhāyana-dharmasūtra was written and that he could not have been the author of the gṛhya or the dharmasūtras of Baudhāyana. Baudhāyana may have been a descendant of this Kāṇva Bodhāyana. This surmise is supported by Govindasvāmin who explains Baudhāyana occurring in Baudhāyanadharinasūtra 1. 3. 13 as Kāṇvāyana. In the dharmasūtra Baudhāyana is himself cited as an authority several times (e.g. I. 4. 15 and 24, III. 5. 8, III. 6. 20). In all these places the Mysore edition reads Bodhāyana, while the Ānandāśrama reads Baudhāyana. In one or two places he is styled ‘bhagavān (III. 6. 20). Several explanations are offered by the commentator Govindasvāmin (on I. 3. 13). He says that it is the practice of the Ācāryas to refer to themselves in the third person (as Medhātithi says on Manu. ²) or that the author of the dharmasūtra is a pupil of Baudhāyana as the Manusmṛti is promulgated by Bhṛgu, the pupil of Manu, or there was some other Baudhāyana whose works have not come down to us.

Confusion results from the lists of sages in tarpaṇa mentioned in several Gṛhyasūtras. The passage from Baudhāyana gṛ is quoted in note¹. In that passage Kāṇva Bodhāyana is called ‘pravacanakāra’ and Āpastamba is called ‘sūtrakāra’, while Satyāsādha, Hiraṇyakeśa, Vājasaneya, Yājñavalkya, Bharadvāja and Āgniveśya are merely named without any addition, In the Baud. Dh. S. quoted in the same note Kāṇva Baudhāyana (without the epithet ‘pravacanakāra’), Āpastamba sūtrakāra and Satyāsādha Hiraṇyakeśin are named. Two questions arise about the three names viz. (1) are the sages mentioned in the tarpaṇa passages the authors of the sūtra works in which they occur; (2) what is the import of the words pravacanakāra and sūtrakāra applied to Kāṇva Bodhāyana and Āpastamba respe ctively and do those words suggest that Kāṇva Bodhāyana is much earlier than Āpastamba. The present writer thinks that the authors of the Gṛhyasūtras were different from Kāṇva Bodhāyana and Āpastamba to whom water is directed to be offered in the tarpaṇa part of those works. They might be descendants of Kāṇva Bodhāyana and Āpastamba who are included in the sages for tarpaṇa.

If Kāṇva Bodhāyana and Āpastamba mentioned in the tarpaṇa passage were also the authors of the Bodhāyana and Āpastamba gṛhyasūtras it is very difficult to believe that they recommended to the generations that would come after them to offer water to them in tarpaṇa. The word pravacana³ occurs frequently in the Upaniṣads viz. Tai. Up. 9, Kaṭha II. 23 and Muṇḍaka III. 2.4 (nāyam-ātmā pravacanena labhyaḥ). The Tai. Up. (I. 9), after setting out the opinions of two sages, mentions the view of Nāka Maudgalya that svādhyāya (study of the Veda) and pravacana (expounding or exposition i.e. teaching) is tapas (i.e. they should be striven for). The Ṛgveda I. 162. 1 employs the form ‘pravakṣyāmaḥ’ (we shall loudly proclaim in the sacrifices the valorous deeds of the swift horse born among Gods). The Āp. Gṛ. while dilating upon the offering of Madhuparka once a year to one’s teacher, father-in-law, king &c. when they pay a visit, provides that one should offer only once and not every year Madhuparka to a famous expounder (of the Veda and its meaning) acc. to Haradatta (on Āp. Gṛ. V. 13. 20. (sakritpravaktre citrāya). In these words (pravacanakāra and sūtrakāra) there is no suggestion of time or early or late in time. The only difference is that the expounder may compose his work in any way (which may be prolix or otherwise), but a sūtrakāra has to be brief and compose his work in an appropriate style.

The following are the contents of the Baudhāyana-dharmasūtra :- Praśna I :- Sources of dharma, who are śiṣṭas, pariṣad, different practices of northern and southern India, countries where śiṣṭas reside and where mixed castes reside, prāyaścitta for visiting countries of the latter type; 2 Studenthood for 48, 24 or 12 years, time of upanayana and the girdle, skin, staff appropriate to each caste, duties of brahmacārin, eulogy of brahmacarya; 3. The duties of the snātaka who has completed his studies and observances but has not yet married; 4. Directions about carrying the earthen jar (in the case of the snātaka); 5. Bodily and mental śauca, purification of various substances, impurity on birth and death, meaning of sapiṇḍa and sakulya, rules of inheritance, purification on touching a corpse or a woman in her menses or on dog-bite, what flesh and food was allowed and forbidden; 6. Purification from the point of view of sacrifice, purification of clothes, ground, grass, fuel, vessels, and articles used in sacrifice; 7. Rules about the importance from the sacrificial point of view of sacrifice, of the sacrificial utensils, priests, the sacrificer and his wife, ghee, cooked offerings, the victim, soma and fires; 8. The four varṇas and the sub-castes; 9. Mixed castes; 10. The duties of kings, the five great sins and punishments for them, punishments for killing birds; witnesses; 11. The eight forms of marriage, holidays; Praśna II. 1 Prāyaścittas for brahmahatyā and other great sins, Prāyaścittas for a bramachārin violating his vow of celibacy, for marrying a sagotra girl, for marrying before elder brother, sins lesser than the great ones, description of such penances as Parāka, Kṛcchra, Atikṛcchra; 2. Partition of heritage, larger share for the eldest, the several substitutes for an aurusa son, exclusion from inheritance, dependence of women, prāyaścitta for adultery by men and women, rules about niyoga, means of subsistence in distress, continuous duties of the house-holder such as Agnihotra &c.; 3. The daily duties of the householder such as bathing, ācamana, Vaiśvadeva, giving food; 4. Sandhyā; 5. Rules about the manner of bathing, of Ācamana, worship of the sun, and about the method of propitiating (’tarpaṇa’) gods, sages and pitṛs; 6. The five great daily yajñas; the four castes and their duties; 7. Regulations about dinner; 8. Śrāddha; 9. Eulogy of sons and spiritual benefit from sons; 10. Rules about sannyāsa; Praśna III. 1 Modes of subsistence for the two kinds of householders, Sālīna and Yāyāvara; 2. The means of subsistence called ‘Ṣaṇnivartanī’; 3. The duties of the forest hermit and his means of livelihood; 4. Prāyaścitta for not observing the vows of brahmacārin or householder; 5. Method of reciting Aghamarṣaṇa, the holiest of texts; 6. The ritual of prasṛtayāvaka; 7. The purificatory homa called Kūṣmāṇḍa; 8. The penance called cāndrāyaṇa; 9. The recital of the Vedas without taking food; 10. Theories about purification for sin, purifying things; Praśna IV. 1. Prāyaścittas of various kinds viz. for eating forbidden food or drink &c.; 2. Prāṇāyāmas and Aghamarṣaṇa as purifiers in case of several sins; 3. Secret prāyaścittas; 4. Various Vedic texts as prāyaścittas; 5. Means of securing siddhi by means of japa, homa, iṣṭi and yantra: the penances called Kṛcchra, Ati-Kṛcchra, Sāntapana, Parāka, Cāndrāyaṇa; 6. The muttering (japa) of holy texts, the iṣṭis; 7. Praise of Yantras, various Vedic texts used in homa; 8. Censure of those who enter on the means of siddhi out of great greed, permission to get these things done through another in certain circumstances.

The extant Dharmasūtra does not appear to have come down intact. The fourth praśna is most probably an interpolation. Most of the eight chapters of that praśna are full of verses, the portion in prose being very small. The last three chapters (6-8) are entirely in verse. The style is quite different from that of the first two praśnas. The first five chapters of the fourth praśna dealing with prāyaścittas are more or less superfluous, the same subject having been dealt with in II. 1. and III. 4-10. Some of the sūtras in the earlier praśnas are repeated verbatim in the fourth, e.g. II, I, 33-34 and IV. 2. 10-11 (avakīrṇi-prāyaścitta). The third praśna also is not free from doubt. The tenth chapter of the third praśna is, as said above, taken from Gautama. The sixth chapter of the third praśna agrees very closely in phraseology with the 48th chapter of the Viṣṇudharmasūtra. But it is rather difficult to say which is the borrower. Dr. Jolly (S. B. E. Vol. VII. p. XIX) is inclined to think that both borrowed from a common source. It seems more probable that Viṣṇu borrows from Baudhāyana, as the Viṣṇudharmasūtra uses the form ‘punīta’ in place of ‘punatha’ (in Baud.) and as the Viṣṇudharmasūtra omits all reference to Rudra (Baud. III. 6. 12.) and omits the words “gaṇān paśyati, gaṇādhipatim paśyati … bhagavān Bodhāyanaḥ” (Baud. III. 6. 20.). In the Mysore edition all the four praśngs of the Dharmasūtra are divided into adhyāyas, but the Mss used by Būhler appear to have divided the first two praśnas into kaṇḍikās and the last two into adhyāyas. There are many repetitions even in the first two praśnas, which therefore make one rather doubtful about the authenticity of the first two praśnas also in their entirety. For example II. 6. 11 and 31 have identical; parts in II, 7 22 and II. 10.53 the same verse (“aṣṭau grāsā” &c.) is quoted. Such repetitions are frequent in the two last praśnas e.g. III. 2. 16 and III. 3. 23; III. 4. 5 and III.7. 12. Some of the quotations ascribed to Baudhāyana in the Mitāksarā and other works are not taken from the dharmasūtra, but from the Gṛhyasūtra or its supplements (e.g. the words ’ekāṃ śākhāmadhīte śrotriyaḥ" quoted in the Mit. on Yāj. III. 24 which are cited by Hultzsch (on p. 125), are taken from the Gṛhya (vide note 78 below).

Though the fourth praśna appears to be interpolated, yet the interpolation must have taken place early enough. Viśvarūpa on Yāj. I. 64 quotes Baud. Dh. S. IV. 1. 15-16 (trīṇi varṣānyṛtumatī) expressly as Baudhāyana’s and on Yāj. I. 72 quotes Baud. Dh. S. IV. 1. 22 (bhartuḥ pratiniveśena &c.) by name. The Mit, on Yāj. III. 305 quotes (as Baudhāyana’s) a long passage, Baudh. Dh. S. IV. 1. 5-11. Śaṅkarācārya on Bṛ. Up. IV. 5. 15 quotes Baud. II. 10. 2 “brahmacaryavān pravrati as smṛti. Yāj. I. 71 is almost the same as Baud. Dh. II. 2. 58 (Somaḥ śaucam &c)

The Dharmasūtra of Baudhāyana is somewhat loose in structure and is not concise. Govindasvāmin remarks (on I. 2. 19) that Baudhāyana does not aim at brevity.⁴ Several subjects are treated of in two places and often without any logical connection with what precedes or follows. Rules of inheritance (dāya-bhāga) occur in the midst of rules about prāyaścitta (in II. 2.); rules about holidays (anadhyāya) occur immediately after the eight forms of marriage and the condemnation of the sale of a daughter (I. 11). Rules about snātaka occur in two places (1. 3 and II. 3. 10 ff.). Baudhāyana quotes at least 90 Verses introduced by the words “athāpyudāharanti”, more than 80 being from the first two praśnas alone. There are over two hundred other verses, about 80 of which occur in the first two praśnas and about ten are Vedic. Some of the verses even in the first two praśnas do not appear to be quotations e.g. I. 1. 16, II. 2. 1, II. 3. 50, II. 3. 52-54 and 56. A verse quoted is in the Vaṃśastha metre (IV. 3. 14); there are two verses in the Upajāti metre taken as a quotation (II. 3. 18). There are some prose quotations introduced with the words “athāpyudāharanti” (e.g. II. 4. 5 and II. 6. 30 which refers to the asura Kapila son of Prahlāda). The language of the Baud. Dh. S. is archaic and often departs from the Pāṇinean standard. Baudhāyana employs such un-Pāninean forms as “gṛhya” (for gṛhītyā in II. 5. 1), pūjya (II. 9. 5.), “adhigacchānaḥ” (in II. 9.9.), ānayitvā (III. 3. 6), “punatha” (in III. 6. 5, probably a quotation), “tebhiḥ” (for taiḥ in III. 2. 16, a quotation). In several places Baudhāyana states opposite views and then gives his own opinion on the point, e.g. Baud. I. 5. 105-109 (about impurity on birth); II. 1. 49-51.

As regards the literature known to Baudhāyana the following points may be noted. All the four Vedas are mentioned by name in II. 5. 27 (tarpaṇa). He quotes very frequently the Taittirīya Saṃhitā, Tai. Brāhmaṇa and the Tai. Āraṇyaka (in the Āndhra recension). Well-known hymns of the Ṛgveda such as the Aghamarṣaṇa, the Puruṣasūkta and also simple ‘ṛks’ are frequently referred to. In III. 10 (which is almost the same as Gautama 19) there is a sūtra enumerating the Upaniṣads, the Saṃhitas of all the Vedas and several sāmans as purificatory texts. There are long quotations taken from the Śatapathabrāhmaṇa (XI. 3. 3.1 ff and XI. 5. 6.3) in Baud. (1. 2. 52 about brahmacāri and II. 6. 7-9 about brahmayajña). It is noteworthy that in the tarpaṇa there is an invocation of the Atharvaveda and immediately afterwards of the Atharvāṇgirasaḥ. The same is found in the Baudhāyanagṛhya also (III. 2. 9 and 22). In the Upaniṣads (Bṛhadāraṇyaka II. 4. 10, IV. 1. 2) it is the word Atharvāngirasaḥ that stands for the Atharvaveda. Baudhāyana quotes a gāthā of the Bhāllavins (I. 1. 29) about the geographical limits of Āryāvarta. Vasiṣṭha adduces the same verse (I. 15) and says that it is taken from the Nidāna work of the Bhāllavins. The Nirukta also mentions a school of Vedic interpretation called Naidānāḥ. It is difficult to say what Nidāna works contained. Itihāsa and Purāṇa occur in the tarpaṇa (II. 5. 27). The aṅgas of the Vedas occur in I. 1. 8 and the six aṅgas in II. 8. 2. Whether the word “rahasya” in II. 8. 3 means the Āraṇyakas (as Govindasvāmin explains) is doubtful. Baudhāyana mentions a Vaikhānasa-śāstra in II. 6. 16, which appears to refer to the work of Vikhanas on hermits and speaks of Srāmaṇaka (the rites prescribed by Vikhanas for initiation as hermit), just as Gautama does. Among the authors on dharma mentioned by name are: Aupajaṅghani (II. 2. 33 for the view that only aurasa son was to be recognised and not the other kinds of sons⁵), Kātya (1.2. 47), Kaśyapa (or Kāśyapa in other editions, I. 11. 20 on the point that a woman bought cannot be a patnī), Gautama (I. 1. 23 and II. 2. 70), Prajāpati (II, 4. 15 about failure in Sandhyopāsana, and II. 10. 71 about sannyāsa), Manu (IV. 1. 14 and IV. 2. 16), Maudgalya (II. 2. 61, about observances of a widow being restricted only to six months after her husband’s death), Hārita (II. 1. 50). Baud. I. 2. 7 quotes a verse, which Vasiṣṭha ascribes to Hārīta (Vas. II. 6). As to Gautama, vide p. 33 above. Manu is only mentioned in the fourth praśna, the authenticity of which, as said above, is very doubtful. Baudhāyana II. 2. 16 (about the efficacy of Aghamarṣaṇa) closely agrees with Manu XI. 260. The first reference to Manu’s teaching cannot be traced in the Manusmṛti. Prajāpati (in III. 9. 21) seems to stand for god Brahmā and not for any real or mythical writer on dharma. One remarkable piece of information contained in Baudhāyana (II. 6. 30) is that he quotes from a work (of the Brāhmaṇa class in language) a prose passage wherein the division into four aśramas is ascribed to an asura Kapila, son of Pralhāda. In II. 2.79 Baudhāyana quotes a gāthā from the dialogue between the daughter of Uśanas and the king Vṛṣaparvan, which is nearly the same as Mahābhārata I. 78. 10 and 34. Baud. quotes the view of Ācāryas (II. 6. 29 ) as Gautama does. In several places he refers to the views of his predecessors on dharma as “others” (eke, apare ) e.g. I. 4. 23, I 1. 5. 16, I. 6. 105-106, II. 5. 2. In II, 3. 18 two verses in the Upajāti metre are quoted as sung by “anna” (food). From the numerous quotations in verse cited by Baudhāyana on topics of dharma, it follows that the Dharmasūtra was preceded by a considerable number of works on dharma in verse. Būhler (SBE vol. XIV, p. XLIII) says that Vijñāneśvara was the first writer who quoted the Baud. D. S. But there are writers who flourished centuries before Vijñāneśvara that regarded Baudhāyana as a writer on dharma and either quoted his words or pointedly referred to them. Śabara in his bhāṣya on Jaimini I. 3. 3 says that the rule in the Smṛtis about the period of Vedic study being 48 years is opposed to the Vedic injunction “one who has begot sons and whose hair are dark should consecrate the sacrificial fires⁶.” This must be regarded as referring to the words of Baudhāyana (I. 2. 1). Śabara uses the same word “Vedabrahmacarya” that Baud. employs. It is true that Gautama and Āpastamba both refer to the rule about 48 years, but they do not employ the word “veda-brahmacarya.” The Tantravārtika⁷ of Kumārila says that the words of Āpastamba (II. 6. 15. 1) which seem to accept the validity of local and family usages (even though opposed to Smṛti tradition) stand refuted by the words of Baudhāyana (I. 1. 19-24) who cites only such censured usages as are opposed to Sṃrti. Kumārila appears to think that Baudhāyana attacks the extant work of Āpastamba, i.e, the present Baud. is later than the present Āpastamba. It is not necessary to follow Kumārila implicitly as regards chronological details, where he is speaking of writers that flourished over a thousand years before him. But his opinion deserves weight. The Tantravārtika quotes a Smṛti passage which bears a close resemblance to Baudhāyana (II. 3. 28)⁸. In the commentary of Viśvarūpa (who as we shall see below flourished about 800 A. D.) on Yājñavalkya, Baudhāyana is quoted at least nine times in the chapter on ācāra alone. Vide Viśvarūpa on Yāj. I. 21, 26, 29, 53, 64, 69, 72, 79, 195 (Trivandrum edition), where Baud. I. 5. 14, I. 2. 30, I. 5. 5, I. 1. 17, IV. 1. 15, IV. 1. 18, IV. 1. 22, IV. 1. 20 and I. 5. 47 are respectively quoted. There are very few variations from the present text and the only serious variation is as regards the last (I. 5. 47) which is in prose (while Viśvarūpa quotes a verse). It is remarkable that Viśvarūpa quotes several verses from the fourth praśna, which shows that even if the fourth praśna be an interpolation, it is comparatively an ancient one. The Mit. also (on Yāj. III. 306) quotes a long passage from the fourth praśna (IV. 1. 5-11). The words of the Śākuntala⁹ that the first precept is that a girl is to be given away to a meritorious person are probably a reminiscence of Baud. IV. 1. 12. Medhātithi on Manu. V. 117 quotes Baudhāyana I. 5. 47 and on IV. 36 quotes Baud. I. 4. 2 (which is mutilated as printed). On Manu. V. 114 he says that all the rules about purification of substances are contained in Baudhāyana-smṛti. On Manu. V. 118, he quotes Baud. I. 5. 50.

About the home of Baudhāyana it is difficult to advance any positive conclusion. In modern times Baudhāyanīyas are mostly confined to the south. We know that Sāyana, the great commentator of the Vedas, was a Baudhāyanīya. A grant of Nandivarma, a Pallava, of the 9th century mentions Brāhmaṇas of the pravacana-sūtra as recipients.¹⁰ As Baudhāyana is called pravacanakāra in the Gṛhyasūtra Būhler thinks (S. B. E. vol. 14 p. XLII) that the Brāhmaṇas belonged to the Baudhāyanacaraṇa. Būhler is probably right. In the grant most of the donees are students of the Āpastamba Sūtra. First the Gotra, then the Sūtra and then the name of the donee are introduced in the grant. Therefore as some of the donees are said to be students of “pravacanasūtra”, it follows that “pravacana” stands for some sūtra school. It appears that sūtra and pravacana are two different things, whatever the latter term may mean. Baudhāyana is called pravacanakāra and Āpastamba is styled sūtrakāra. We are told by the Baudhāyana-gṛhysūtra¹¹ that a Brāhmaṇa who studied sūtra and pravacana was styled “bhrūṇa.” Būhler was inclined to hold that Baudhāyana was a southern teacher for several reasons. Baudhāyana mentions customs of the south and includes sea-faring as a custom peculiar to the north (I. 1. 20), while in another place he places sea-faring at the head of sins (patanīyas) lesser than the mortal ones (II. 1. 41). Therefore it is said that he was not a northern teacher. But as against this we have to remember that Baudhāyana (I. 1. 29) quotes with approval a verse in which the countries of Avanti (Ujjain), Aṅga, Magadha, Surāṣṭra (Kathiawar) and Dakṣiṇāpatha are declared to be the home of mixed castes. Dakṣiṇāpatha was generally supposed to be the whole peninsula south of the Narmadā. Baudhāyana, if he was a native of the south, would not have spoken of his country as the home of mixed castes only, unless he put a restricted meaning on the word Daksiṇāpatha (which sometimes meant in later days Mahārāṣṭra). Vide J. B. B. R. A. S. for 1917 p. 620. Though as stated above, the question of the home of Baudhāyana is a difficult one, yet if a definite inclination has to be shown, then I am disposed to agree with Būhler that the author of Baud. Dh. 8. was a southerner. It is important to note that Baud. wants to expound the dharmas declared in the Veda, in the Smṛtis and those practised by śiṣṭas (I. 1. 1-4) and defines śiṣṭas (1. 1. 5-6) as those who possess certain moral qualities and who understand the Veda together with other supporting śāstras. He sets out first the five peculiar usages of the southern part, two of which are the usages of marrying one’s maternal uncle’s or paternal aunt’s daughter, These two are even now in vogue in some parts of Mahārāṣṭra and the South among certain sub-divisions of brāhmaṇas and were not prevalent in the north. Baudhāyana impartially sets forth five practices of the south and five of the north that were opposed to ancient śāstras and his own view appears to have been that in the case of all persons belonging to Āryāvarta (whether they be in the northern or southern parts) both sets of five practices in sūtras (19 and 20) were not to be followed. In that connection he quotes several (three) views about Āryāvarta and two verses more, one of which names the countries in which there is mixture of castes and the 2nd mentions some countries like Āratta (Panjab), Sauvīra, Puṇḍra, Vaṅga, Kaliṇga, sojourn in which made a person liable to undergo an expiation. The countries mentioned in the first verse are all (except Dakṣiṇāpatha) to the north of the Narmadā. It is quite probable that he did not like the usage of marrying one’s maternal uncle’s or paternal aunt’s daughter even for southern people. It should be noted that almost all the countries in the 2nd verse are north of the Narmadā. Further, Dakṣiṇāpatha appears to have meant a country roughly like modern Mahārāṣṭra long before the Christian era; vide ASWI. Vol. V. p. 60 which shows that in an inscription (No. 1) of Nanaghat (Poona District) Vedisiri is mentioned as king of Dakṣiṇāpatha. Vide ASWI Vol. IV. p. 110 and Rudradāman’s inscription (E. I. Vol. VIII at p. 44, where Sātakarṇi is said to have been lord of Dakṣiṇāpatha). The fact that Āpastambīyas, Hiraṇyakeśins and Baudhāyanīyas have congregated much more in the south than in the north for centuries supports the above statement. The words Uttarāpatha and Dakṣiṇāpatha were never strictly defined. For example, in the Sanjan plates (supposed to be spurious) of Buddhavarasa (E. I. Vol. 14 p. 144 at p. 149 about 700 A. D.) we meet with the words ‘Uttarāpathādhipati-Śri-Harṣadevaparājayopalabdhogra-pratāpah’ i.e. king Harṣa is said to have been lord of Uttarāpatha. If we turn to the Harṣacarita of Bāṇa (first paragraph after two initial verses of the 5th Ucchyāsa) we read ‘Atha kadācid-rajā Rājyavardhanam-āhūya Hūṇān hantum…cirantanairamātyaiḥ… kṛtvā sābhisāram-uttarāpatham prāhiṇot’. This shows that Śthāṇvīśvara (modern Thanesar) was not included in Uttarāpatha in Bāna’s days. Uttarāpatha occurs in the Hathigumpha Inscription of Khāravela (E.I. Vol. XX. p. 71 at p. 79 and p. 88). Pāṇini knows the word as in V. 1. 77 ‘Uttarāpathenāhṛtam ca’ (Uttarāpathenāhṛtam auttarāpathikam, Uttarāpathena gacchati auttarapathikaḥ). About Dakṣiṇāpatha the Mahābhāṣya says that large lakes are called ‘Sarasī’ in Dakṣiṇāpatha (Kielhorn’s ed. Vol. I. p. 73). The word ‘Dakṣiṇāpatha oocurs in the gaṇa ‘dhūmādi’ (Pān. IV. 2. 127).

The extant Baudhāyanadharmasūtra is certainly later than Gautama, as it mentions Gautama twice by name and as one quotation at least is found in the extant Gautama. Besides Baudhāyana quotes by name several teachers on dharma, while Gautama quotes only one, Manu. Baudhāyana is far removed from the times on the Upaniṣads. Baud. (II. 7. 15) quotes a verse which is itself an adaptation of a passage from the Chāndogya-upaniṣad.¹² He quotes Harīta. It is uncertain whether the Hārītadharmasūtra, a manuscript of which was discovered by the late Vaman Sastri Islāmpurkar at Nasik, is the one intended. Būhler thought that the work of Baudhāyana was earlier than that of Āpastamba by a century or two. His first reason was that Kāṇva Baudhāyana receives homage in the tarpaṇa before Āpastamba and Hiraṇyakeśin and that the same order is observed in the Baudhāyana-gṛhyasūtra. But this reason is far from convincing. It may be conceded that Baudhāyana was regarded as the oldest (or the most authoritative or respectable) of the three schools of the Black Yajurveda. But from this it does not at all follow that the extant dharma-sūtra of the Baudhāyanīyas is earlier than that of the Āpastambīyas. For aught we know the sūtra compiled for the school of Baudhāyana may be later than the sūtra manual of the Āpastambīyas. We saw above that orthodox opinion, represented by Kumārila, regards Baudhāyana’s work as later than Āpastamba’s. All the three founders of the three schools are mentioned in the Baudhāyanagṛhya and dharmasūtra. One may equally argue with good reason that both these works knew a sūtra work of Āpastamba and that the extant dharmasūtra of Āpastamba is that work. Another reason assigned for the priority of Baudhāyana’s work over Āpastamba’s is that, though both have numerous sūtras that agree almost word for word, a comparison of the views of the two writers shows that Āpastamba lays down stricter and more puritanic (and therefore later) views on certain points than Baudhāyana. Gautama, Baudhāyana and Vasiṣṭha mention several secondary sons, while Āpastamba is silent about them, Gautama, Baudhāyana (II. 2. 17, 62), Vasiṣṭha and even Viṣṇu approve of the practice of niyoga, while Āpastamba condemns it (II. 6, 13.1-9). Gautama and Baudhāyana (1. 11. 1) speak of eight forms of marriage, while Āpastamba speaks of only six and omits Prājāpatya and Paiśāca (II. 5. 11. 17-20 and II. 5. 12. 1-2). Baudhāyana (II. 2. 4-6) allowed a larger share to the eldest son on a partition, while Āpastamba condemns such a procedure (II. 6. 14. 10-14). The Baudhāyana-gṛhyasūtra (II. 4, 6) allows upanayana to rathakāra, while Āpastamba (gṛhya 4. 10. 1-4) does not do so (dharmasūtra I. 1. 1. 19). These points are hardly conclusive on the question of date. From very ancient times there was great divergence of opinion among the doctors of the law on most, if not on all, of these points. There is no hard and fast rule that these doctrines were upheld by early writers and condemned by later ones. Baudhāyana himself quotes the views of an ancient writer, Aupajaṅghani, who condemned all secondary sons. The verses that Baudhāyana quotes on this point (II. 2. 34-36) are quoted by Āpastamba also but without the author’s name (Āp. II. 6. 13. 6), there being variants only in the first verse. Niyoga was allowed by Manu (9. 56-63) and then condemned (9. 64-68) and Bṛhaspati refers to this attitude of Manu (vide Kullūka on Manu 9. 68). Even so late a writer as Yājñavalkya (II. 131) approves of niyoga. About the rathakāra being allowed to consecrate the sacred fires there is a discussion in the sūtras of Jaimini (VI. 1. 44 ff). Vedic passages supported both methods viz. equal division among sons and the bestowal of a larger share on the eldest. Even Yājñavalkya (II. 118) allows a larger share to the eldest son. Therefore, hardly anyone of the circumstances relied upon by Būhler as indicating a later age for Āpastamba is conclusive or convincing. The third ground for placing Baudhāyana before Āpastamba is that the style of the former is simpler and older as compared with the latter’s. That Baudhāyana is simpler than Āpastamba may be admitted. But this may be due to the fact that Baudhāyana has been tampered with more than Āpastamba. On the other hand Āpastamba contains more un-Pāṇinean forms, more uncouth constructions, more words in an archaic sense than is the case with Bandhāyana. All that is almost certain about the age of the Baudhāyana-dharmasūtra is that it is later than the work of Gautama, that its style, its doctrines and its general out-look on different subjects do not compel us to assign it a later date than that of the other dharmasūtras. We have adduced evidence to show that long before the days of Śabara (whose latest date cannot be later than 500 A. D.) the Baudhāyana-dharmasūtra was an authoritative smṛti; it follows that the dharmasūtra must be placed somewhere between 500-200 B. C. Numerous sūtras are identical in Baudhāyana and Āpastamba e. g. Āp. I. 1. 2. 30 = Baud. I. 2. 40-41, Āp. I. 2. 6. 8-9 = Baud. I. 2. 39, Āp. I. 5. 15. 8 = Baud. I. 2. 31, Āp. I. 11. 31. 11 and 16 = Baud. II. 3. 39 and 32. There are several verses that occur in both e.g. Baud. II. 1. 42 = Āp. I. 9. 27. 11, Baud. II. 2. 34-36 = Āp. II. 6. 13. 6 (three verses condemning secondary sons), Baud. II. 10. 63 = Āp 11. 9. 21. 10, Baud. II. 7. 22-23 = Āp. II. 4. 9. 13. (two verses) Baud. II. 6. 36 = Āp. II. 9. 24. 8. Besides these there are numerous Vedic quotations that are common to both. All this, however, does not establish anything about their relative position. The Vasiṣṭha-dharmasūtra also has numerous quotations in common with Baud. Vide Vas. I. 15. = Baud. I. 1. 28, Vas. III. 5, 6, 11, 20, 56 = Baud. I. 1, 10, 12, 11, 8 and I. 5. 58. (respectively); Vas. 6. 20-21 = Baud. II. 7. 22-23; Vas. VIII. 17 = Baud. II. 2. 1; Vas. XI. 27-28 = Baud. II. 8. 21-22; Vas. XVI. 34 = Baud. I. 10. 35, Vas. XVII. 73 = Baud. IV. 1. 17, Vas. XVII. 86 = Baud. I. 5. 102; Vas. XXII. 10 = Baud. I. 1. 33. It is to be noted that some of these quotations (Baud, II. 8. 21-22, I. 10. 35) occur in the extant Manusmṛti (III. 125-126 and VIII. 98). There are a few prose sūtras in Vas that are transformed into verse in Baud. and vice versa e.g. Vas. III. 41 (prose) = Baud. 1. 5. 20 (quoted as a verse), Vas. III. 57 (quoted as a verse) = Baud. I. 6. 19-20. It is not likely that one borrows from the other. There are two other possible explanations, viz. that both Baud. and Vas. (and Manu also) quote from or adapt a common source or that the three works have been tampered with and interpolations introduced at every step. The latter alternative is too sweeping as the number of verses is very large and makes all the old sūtras except that of Gautama valueless for all chronological purposes. One cannot subscribe to the view that such extensive interpolations took place as the latter theory demands. The first alternative appears more reasonable. What that common source was, whether it was a regular work in verse or whether there was a floating mass of such popular verses as Būhler holds, are questions that present very great difficulties. It is not easy to believe that there hundreds of floating verses on dharma no body knew by whom composed, on which writers of the centuries preceding the Christian era drew for supporting their opinions. That does not sound as a very likely procedure. It is more probable that such verses were contained in a work or works now lost.

I tried on pp. 29-31 of the first edition to bring forward arguments on both sides of the question whether Baudhāyana Dh. S. is earlier or later than Āpastamba and on p. 30 stated that the Baud. Dh. 8. may be placed between 500 B. C. and 200 B. C. Dr. Ram Gopal (p. 76 of his work) trots out the plea that I am inconsistent. I have given above an answer to this charge in the case of my remarks about Gautama. So I do not want to rebut here the charge of inconsistency. I am prepared to place Baudhāyana Dh. S. between 600 B. C, to 300 B. C. All these dates are more or less tentative and there is no finality about them at least at present.

In the tarpaṇa, Baud. (II. 5. 21) mentions several appellations of Gaṇeśa, viz. Vighna, Vināyaka, Sthūla, Varada, Hastimukha, Vakratuṇḍa, Ekadanta, Lambodara. But this affords no certain clue as to date. The worship of Vināyaka is found in tho Mānavagṛhya also. In the tarpaṇa (II. 5. 23) we have the seven planets mentioned in the order of the days of the week and also Rāhu and Ketu; besides the twelve names of Viṣṇu occur in II. 5. 24. In II. 1. 44 Baud. speaks of the profession of an actor or of a teacher of dramaturgy (Nāṭyācārya) as an upapātaka. Several sūtras attributed to Baudhāyana on the subject of adoption in the Dattakamimāṃsā and other later works are taken from the Baudhāyanagṛhyaśeṣasūtra (II. 6), the sūtras agreeing very closely with Vasiṣṭha (15.1-9).

According to Burnell the oldest commentator on the Baudhāyanaśrauta-sūtra was Bhavasvāmin, whom he placed in the 8th century. The commentary of Govindasvāmin on the Dharmasūtra is a learned one and is generally to the point. He appears to be a very late writer.