07 Dharmasūtra of Āpastamba

07 Dharmasūtra of Āpastamba

7. Dharmasutra of Āpastamba. This has been edited several times (viz. by Būhler in the Boinbay Sanskrit Series with large extracts from Haradatta’s commentary called Ujjvalā and also at Kumbhakonam with the complete commentary of Haradatta and translated by Būhler with an introduction in S. B. E. vol. II). The Apastan bakalpasūtra of the Taittiriya Sākhā of the black Yajurveda is divided into 30 pruśnas. According to Būhler, the first 24 praśnas contain the treatment of Srauta sacrifices; the 25th contains paribhūṣās, pravarakhanda, and Hautraka prayers to be recited by Hotr priests ; 26th and 27th praśnas constitute the Gșhyasūtra, the 28th and 29th Dharmasūtra and the 30th praśna is Sulvasūtra. Būhler seems to be slightly inaccurate here. According to Caundappa, who commented on the Āpastambiya sūtras in the 14th century, the Āpastambiyaman trapātha forms the 25th and 26th praśnas of the Kalpasūtra and the Gșhyasūtra forms 27th prasna.80 The Srauta-sūtra of 80 पंचविशेष षइविंशे गृहमन्त्राः प्रपञ्चिताः । प्रश्नेथ सप्तर्विशे स्याब्रह्मतन्त्रविधिक्रमाती

(Dr. Winternitz’s edition of Āp. Maptrapātha p. IX ). The editor farthek states (p. IX n. 2) that Paribhāṣās form part of the 24th praśn a nu not of the 25th, as Būhler says.

SPOON:

FOUND

191

Hlistory of Dharmaśāstrd

Apastamba was edited by Dr. Garbe in the B. I. series ; the Gșhya and Mantrapātha were edited by Dr. Winternitz. The Gșhya with the commentary of Sudarsanārya has been edited in the Mysore Govt. Oriental series by Pandit Mahadeva Sastri ( in 1893). It is divided into eight patalas and 23 khandas. According to the Caranavyūha, Āpastamba (or “bha” as written in many southern mss.) is one of the five sub-divisions of the Khāndikiya school of the Taittiriyaśākha of the Black Yajurveda. Whether the author of the Āpastambiya Srauta, Gșhya and Dharma sūtras is the same is difficult to detormine. One sūtra in the Āpastambadharma (II. 2. 5. 17 ) is the same as Ap. Srauta (III. 17. 8 and VIII. 4. 6). Oldenberg (S. B. E. vol. 30, p. XXXII) does not subscribe to Būhler’s view (S. B. E. Vol. II, pp. XIII-XIV ) that the authors of the Ap. Srauta and Duerme were identical and gives it as his own view that another person of the same school might have imitated the style of the author of the Srauta. Whatever may be said of the identity of the authorship of the Srauta and Dharma sūtras, the Gșhya and Dharma seem to be very closely related and both seem to be the compositions of the same author. The Ap. Gșhya-sūtra, as compared with the Āśvalāyana-gphya or Gobhilagphya, is extremely brief and leaves out many rules that are given in other Grhya works. For example, about the choice of a girl, the Ap. Gr. gives only one worthwhile rule (I. 3. 18 )81, the other rules (1. 3. 10-17 ) are of a trivial character such as that the girl that is sleepy or weeping or leaves the house when the bridegroom’s party comes to choose her or when the girl’s name is that of a river, nakṣatra or tree or she has a name in which the penultimate letter is r or 1 &c. but all those rules in the grhyasūtra (including the one in sūtra 18 ) are recommendatory and a marriage entered into against these rules would have been valid even in old times. The most important rule, breach of which would have made tho marriage void, is stated in Ār. Dh. S. II. 5. 11. 15-16 ) viz. that the gotra of the bride’s father and of the bridegroom must not be the same and there must be no sapiṇda relationship between the two on the mother’s and father’s side.

Dr. Ram Gopal says on p. 57 (of his work ) that I am not accurate when I state about the choice of a girl that Āp. Gr. S. gives only a single rule (I quoted that rule ). I added that it was the Ap. Dh. S. (II. 5. 11. 15-16 ) that provides that the girl must not be a sagotra or sapinda. Dr. Ram Gopalk awayed by

_81 बन्धुशीललक्षणसंपनामरोगामुपयच्छेत ।

RE'

FOUNDED

1917

7. Dharmasītra of Aprstamba

mere numbers. He points out that there are ten sūtras in Ap. Gṭ, about the choice of a marriageable girl. What I wanted to emphasise was that only one rule of Āp. Gr. was worth something and I quoted that rule. A marriage entered in defiance of all the ten rules in Āp. Gľ, would have been quite valid even in those days. I wanted to illustrate how Āp. Gr. S. was scrappy and omitted even vital matters. The rules (only two) forbidding a sagotra or sapinda girl for marriage were vital and breach of them would have made the marriage void. Ap. Gr. S. I. 3. 21 is not Āpastamba’s opinion; it is the view of others (Yasyām manascakṣuṣor-nibandhas-tāsyām-rddhir-netaradādriyetetyeke ). Even this rule is recommendatory and not obligatory and a marriage in defiance of it would have been quite valid in those days and would be valid also in these days. That view occurs also in the Kāmasūtra III. 1, 14. Vide H. of Dh. vol. II, p. 432 note 1025 for further information. In the 2nd volume of H. of Dh, on pp. 437-38, I mentioned this prohibition of sagotra and sapravara marriages and recommended on pp. 498-99 that the legislature should intervene and loosen the absolute bar against sagotra and sapravara marriages. The Indian Parliament (by Act 25 of 1955, called the Hindu Marriage Act) has removed the bar against Sagotra and Sapiṇda marriages to a great extent. Vide sections 3 (f and g) and 5 of that Act. The Āp. Grhya is silent about the forms of marriage, about holidays, about the duties of brahmacūrins and such other subjects which are generally treated of in other Grhyasūtras. These subjects are dealt with in the Āp. Dh. S, and there are several places where the Dharma sutra presupposes the existence of the Grhya and refers to it, Compare Āp. Dh. S. II. 1, 2. 10-1182 with Ap. Gr. S. III. 7 (particularly sūtras 1, 17, 23 ). Vide note 54 above. Some sūtras are identical in the Grhya and Dharma, e. g. Āp. Dh. S. I. 1.2. 38 and Gșhya IV. 11. 15-16 ( about the staff of Brahmacārin); Āp. Dh. 8. II. 4. 8.7 and Grhya V. 13, 19. In some cases the Grhya sūtra itself seems to refer to the teachings of the Dharmasūtra,

82

La FITESI41:1 7919712: grada zzliegia:’t 3719. .; 37arait येन स्थालीपाकेन याजयति । एवमत ऊ दक्षिणावर्जमुपोषिताभ्यां पर्वसु कार्यः । yavaraiazitia flū zietanziarienia zoa i 3719. I. . Vide also 8119. 37. . 11. 7. 17.G’pag yag nata: 949719 ET TIETOTTEÜ lisailarenginia’ and 3719., 7. 7. 8. 21. 9 ‘gaa: nagariño शेषस्य प्रासावरायें प्राश्नीयात् ; ‘उभयतः परिषेचनं यथा पुरस्तात् ’ अमि., JI. 2. 3. 17 and 3|17. T. 1. 2. 3. ; ‘TATE … TET FOR 17. A. II. 2. 5. 4 refers to 3774. I. p. V. 13. 2-19.

llistory of Dhurmuśīstrou

e. g. Gṛhya 8.21. 1 and Dharma II. 7. 16. 6-7. All these facts make it highly probable, if not certain, that the Grhya and Dharma sūtras were composed by the same author and that the details of certain topics were purposely omitted in the Gșhya to avoid repetition. The Smṛticandrikā (III. p. 458 ) distinctly asserts that the author of the Dharmasūtra and the Grhyasūtra was the same.

The contents of the Āp. dharma-sūtra are :

1. the authoritative sources of ilharm are the Vedas and the usages of those who know tharma; the four urnas, their precedence ; definition of ācārya and his greatness, time for upanayana according to the varṇas and according to one’s desire ; prāyascitta if proper time for upanayana is gone, he whose father, granc-father and great-grand-father had no upanayana performed becomes patita, but he can be purified by prāya citta ; the duties of brahmacūrin, residence with teacher for 48 years, 36, 25 or 12 years ; rules of conduct for brahinacūrin, his staff girdle and garment, rules about begging for food, bringing fuel and offering to fire; the vows of a brahmacārin are his tapos; rules about saluting teacher and others according to varṇas ; giving daksiṇā to the teacher at the end of study; rules for enātaka ; rules about holidays and about the time and place for Vedic study; rules about holidays apply to study of the Veda and not to the use of mantras in Vedic rites; the five great daily yajñas to the bhūtas, men, gods, pitrs, and sages ; honouring men of higher castes, old men, parents, brothers and sisters and others; method of inquiring about one’s health &c. according to warnas; occasions of wearing yajñopavita; times and manner of ūcamana; rules about forbidden and permitted food and drink; the avocation of a vanij not allowed to a brāhmana except in distress; rules forbidding the sale or exchange of certain things; grave sins (pataniya ), such as theft, the murder of a brāhmana or other man, causing abortion, incest, drinking wine etc; other sins are not so grave, though they make the perpetrator impure : discussion of some metaphysical questions such as the knowledge of the soul, Brahma, the moral faults that lead to perdition such as anger, avarice, hypocrisy &c; the virtues that lead to the highest goal, such as absence of anger or avarice &c. truthfulness. tranquility; compensation for killing a Ksatriya, Vaiśya, or Śūdra and women ; prāyaścitta for killing a Brāhmania and an Atreyi Brāhmaṇa woman, for killing a guru oria Systriya ; prāyaścitta for violating the bed of a guru, for drhiking wire

2. Dharmasūtra of Apastamba

and for theft of gold; prāyaścittas for killing several birds, cows and bulls, and for abusing those who should not be abused, for sexual intercourse with a Sūdra woman, for taking forbidden food and drink &c.; rules about Kṛcchra for twelve nights; what constitutes theft; how one should act towards a fallen (patita ) guru and mother; various opinions about prāyascitta for viola ting guru’s bed; prāyaścitta for a husband who has intercourse with another woman and for wife’s adultery ; prāyaścitta for killing a bhrūna (a learned brāhmana); brāhmaṇa was not to wield arms, except in self-defence against hodily injury ; prāyaścitta for abhiśasta ; prāyaścittas for lesser sins; various views about snataka ( Vidyāsnātaka, Vratasnātaka and Vidyavratasnātaka); the observances (vratas ) of snātaka as regards garments, answe ring calls of nature, about scandalous talk, about not seeing the rising or setting Sun, avoiding moral faults such as anger ; 11 (praśna) the householder’s observances commence on marriage (pānigrahana); Tules of conduct for a householder about taking food and fasting, about sexual intercourse ; all the varṇas attain unmeasured bliss by performing their duties and are re-born in conditions appropriate to their actions and by means of evil deeds are re-born in evil surroundings e. g. a brāhmana who is a thief or a murderer of a brāhmaṇa becomes a Cāṇdāla, a similarly guilty rūjanya becomes a paulkasa; the three higher castes should after bathing perform Vaiśvadeva ; Sūdras may cook food for their masters of higher castes under the supervision of Aryas ; Offerings (bali) of cooked food; guests (atithi) should be first offered food, then children, old men, sick persons and pregnant women (and then the householder himself); no one should be refused food when he comes at the end of Vaiśvadova; rules of receiving guests, such as unlearned brāhamanas, ksatriyas, vaisyas and sūdras; an house holder should always wear an upper garment or his sacred thread may serve that purpose ; in the absence of a brāhmaṇa teacher, a brāhmana may learn from a ksatriya or vaiśya teacher; duties of a married man when his teacher comes as a guest ; duty of house holder to teach and to observe the rules of conduct laid down for him ; in case of doubt as to a guest’s caste and character, how to proceed ; who is an atithi ; praise of honouring an atithi ; procedure in case an atithi comes to a king or to one who has consecrated fires ; to whom and when madhuparka is to be offered; the six nigas of Veda named ; all including dogs and candālas should be given food after Vaiśvadeva ali gifts to be made with water ; one must not give at the expansiy

STI

FOUNDED

58

of servants and slaves ; one may subject himself, wife and sons to privations (but not servants); amount of food to be taken by brahmacūrin, householder, hermit &c.; occasions for begging are the teacher, marriage, sacrifice, maintenance of parents and avoidance of the cessation of some worthy observance (like (ugnihotra); the peculiar karmans of brāhmanas and the other oastes; rules of war; the king to appoint a pirohila skilled in dharma and art of government, who is to carry out punishments and penances; punishments including death sentence according to the gravity of the offences, but a brāhmaṇa was not to be killed or injured or to be made a slave; rule of the road; a man of the lower caste by practising his duties rises higher and higher when re-born and a man of the higher castes goes lower by audharma; one should not marry another wife, when the first has children and is helpful in the performance of dharma; rules about marriageable girl, i. e. she must not be sagotra and sapinda of the mother; six forms of marriage viz, brāhma, ārsa, daiva, gāndharva, āsura, raksasa; preference among the six; rules of conduct after marriage; sons born of wives of the same caste can perform the duties appropriate to the father’s caste and inherit parent’s property; the son of a woman who was once married or who is not married according to prescribed forms or who is not of the same caste is censured; whether the son belongs to the begetter (or to him on whose wife he is begotten); there can be no gift or sale of a child; partition during father’s lifetime a

equal division; exclusion from inheritance of the impotent, lunatics and sinners; the inheritance in the absence of son goes to nearest sapinda, then to the teacher and then to the pupil, or the daughter and ultimately to the king; the opinion of some that the largest share goes to the eldest son is opposed to the Vedas; no partition between husband and wife; usages of countries and families not to be followed if opposed to the Vedas; impurity on death of agnates, cognates &c; gifts to be made at proper time, place and to proper person; śrūddhas; times of śrūddha; materials required at śrāddha; food (including flesh) appropriate at śrāddhas; what brāhmaṇas are to be called at sriddha; the four īśrumas; rules about parivrāj i. e. sannyāsin; the duties of forest hermit; praise of the meritorious and condem nation of evil-doers; special rules about kings; founding of his capital and palace; position of the sabhā; extirpation of thieves; gifts of land and wealth to brāhmaṇas; protection people; persons exempt from taxation, such as Śrotriyas, women of all pastes, students and ascetics; punishment of youngworten for

POONA"

1. Dharmasūtru of Apastamba

59

adultery; punishment varied according as the woman wronged was Arya or Sūdra; punishments for abuse and for homicide ; punishments for various breaches of conduct; dispute between cowherd and master; the perpetrator, the abettor and one who approves of the act are all guilty; who are to docide disputes; in case of doubt decision by inference and by divine proof (ordeals ); punishment for perjury; all other dharmas should be learnt, according to some, from women and people of all castes.

Each of the two praśnus of the Āpastamba-dharma-sūtra is divided into eleven patalas, there being 32 and 29 khandikūs in the two patalas respectively. The Dharmasūtra is written in a more concise and compact style than that of Baudhāyana and has more archaio and un-Pāṇinean forms than any other extant Dharmasūtra. For example, the following are against the rules of Pānini; Adhāsana ( for adha āsana ) in I. 1. 2. 21, aglamsnu (1. 2. 3. 22 ), muhūnsca (I. 2. 8.22 ), agļhyamāna (I. 4., 12. 8), sarvatopeta (for ‘sarvata upeta’) in 1.6.19.9, sakhim (for sakhim) in I. 7. 21. 9. Haradatta points out in many places that the current reading was un-Pāṇinean and therefore he read differently (0.g. in II. %. 5. 2 he reads • aviprakramana’, while the current reading was ‘aviprakramina !:)83. This makes it probable that in the original text there must have been many more un-Pāninean forms than in the one preserved by Haradatta. There are many unfamiliar or rare words used by Apastamba, i. e. ananiyoga (1. 6. 19. 12), anaiscārika (I. 8. 22. 1), kartapatya (I. 2.5.3), vyupatoda and vyupajāva (-‘pa’) in I. 2. 8. 15, brahmaha sainstuta (I. 1. 1. 32). We meet with strange forms of certain words, such as paryānta (1. 3. 9. 21 ), praśāsta (II. 8. 19. 3), anatyaya (I. 1. 1. 21, for anatyaya ), brahmojjham (for-ojjliah ) in I. 7. 21. 8, śvāvit (1. 5. 17. 37), ṣthevana (I. 11. 30. 19 for sthivana ), ācāryadāre (for-dāreșu) in I. 2. 7. 27. Though the Ap. Dluarnasūtra is mainly in prose, there are versos here and there.Somo of the verses are expressly stated to be taken from other sources by being introduced with the word “udaharanti” or with “athāpyudābaranti" e. g. I. 6. 19.13 (two ślokas from a Purana), 1. 6. 19. 15 (compare Manu 8. 317 and Vas. 19. 44 ), I. 11. 31. 1, I. 11. 32. 24, II. 4. 9.13 (two verses, same as Baud. II. 7. 22-23), II. 7. 17.8, II. 6. 13.6 (three verses almost the same as in Baud. II. 2. 34-36 ), II. 9. 23. 4-5 (two ślokas from a Purāṇa ). Besides these, there are several isolated verses, most of which seem to be quotations, though not introduced with words liko “udāharanti

83 saptor H EPA hafta i astropped: 1 FAITE OTETTUATOT TIT

History of Dhurnusūstra

They aro I. 4. 14. 25, 1. 6. 19.14 (the first pāda of which is Manu 4.212 ), I. 9. 27. 10, I. 9. 27. 11 (same as Baud. II. 1. 42 ), II. %. 4. 14 (compare Manu III. 101 ). Some of these verses are defective in metre, there being nine syllables in one anustubh pāda as in 1. 9. 27. 10, II. 9. 23. 4-5, II. 2. 4. 14. One of the verses is in tho classical Upajāti metre (II. 7. 17. 18), while another closely approaches that metre (I. 9. 27. 11). Besides these, there are a few half-verses, II. 5. 11. 5-6 ( same as latter half of Vanaparva 133. 1), II. 9. 21 10 ( Manu 6. 43 has the first pāda ). Thus in all there are about twenty verses, of which at least six occur in

Baudhāyana. Some sūtras that are printed as prose are parts of vorses, e. g. I. 2. 5. 11. Besidese these, there are several verses in the patalas dealing with metaphysics (1.8. 22. 4-8 and I. 9.23. 1-3 ) that are pieced together largely from Upanisad passages. Āpastamba in several places employs the first person plural about himself, e. g. I. 1. 1.27, I. 8. 23. 4. Haradatta points out that in his day there was difference in the text as handed down in Northern and in Southern India.85

Āpastamba quotes, besides the Saihitūs, the Brālmanas very frequently (e. g., I. 1.1, 10-11, 1.1.3.9, I. 1. 3. 26, I. 2.7.7, 1. 2. 7. 11, I. 3. 10,8), He quotes the Vājasaneyaka (1. 5. 17. 31 ) and the Vājasaneyi-brāhmana (I. 4. 12. 3 on svādhyāya), he speaks of the Upaniṣads (II. 2. 5. 1), his quotations (II. 2. 3. 16-11. 2. 4.1-9) from the Tai. Aranyaka agree, according to Būhler, with the text current in the Andhra country. He speakg8Sa of the six angas of the Veda (in II. 4. 8. 10), and I added from the Kumbhakonam edition (which I was then using ) and the next sūtra enumerates chandas, kalpu, grammar, jyotisa, Nirukta, Śikṣā (phonetics ) and Chandoviciti (metrics ) which are seven etc.’ I find that Haradatta reads Chandaḥkalpa as one word and explains Chando Vedas-tatkalpayati … iti Chandahkalpaḥ Kalpasūtrāṇi’. This is an extremely far-fetched explanation. Everywhere the Vedāngas are six. No other writer mentions so far as I know Chandah-kalpa as an anga

84 SATENIIG STENOTE4… TUTTÀg FAU: Fruta TUTA: 1) 3974. 1.1.1.27; . ATASHITEL KitareTECZTA: 1. 8. 22. 3; 310 Ciri Traalane.

Foga: I. 8. 23. 4. 63 On the sutra अन्यत्र राहुदर्शनात् (II. 7. 17. 25 ) he says ‘उदीच्यास्त्वंतत्मायेण

age fat i per garaTIETIH’. B5 a vesi ai i gra: hell 6915toi zutêi fatti sirni sairaita 39

घ. सू. II. 4. 8. 10-11. The मुण्डकोप० [. 5. reads शिक्षा कल्पाडयाकरणनिरुक्तं yrar oghaifai The artit. I. 2. reads’hi pitan.

D ulu: 1 of: ITT: I HITI I FTA F T 1 Flyhil sirapt47911

FOUNDED

9. Dharmasūtra of Āpastamba

I pointed out the discrepancy relying on the two sutras is printed. I thought that the word Chandas was printed inadvor tontly (before ‘Kalpa’). There is a further inelegance. If the reading Chandah-kalpa be accepted, then the word Chandas is used in the same sentence in two senses viz. Veda and metro, Besides, Vedāngas are all related to the Vedas and Kalpa in the context of the enumeration of Vedāngas would only mean ritual of Vedic sacrifices’ and in Chandah-kalpa the word Chandas’ then would be redundant. He speaks of the six reigns of the Veda ( II. 4. 8. 10 ) and in the next sūtra enumerates Chandas, Kalpa, grammar, Jyotiṣa, Nirukta, Siksa, (phonetics ) und Chandoviciti (metrics ), which are soven (Siksā boing probably intended to boincluded in grammar). There are passages in Apastamba which agree with the Nirukta, e. g. the definition of ācārya 16. He quotes the views of ten writers on dhurmu by name, viz. Eka (I. 6. 19.7), Kanva (1.6.19.3 and I. 10. 28. 1), Kāpva (I. 6. 19.7 ), Kuṇika (1. 6. 19.7), Kutsa (I. 6. 19.7), Kautsa (I. 6. 9.4 and 7, 1. 10. 28. 1), Puskarasādi (I. 6. 19.7, 1. 10. 28. 1), Vārsyāyani (I. 6. 19, 5 and 8, 1. 10. 28.2), Svetaketu (I. 4. 13. 19 and 1.7, 5. 6), Harita (1. 4, 13, 11, 1, 6. 18. 2, 1. 6. 19. 12, 1. 10. 28,1, 5 and 16, 1. 10.29. 12 and 16). Some of the names (viz. Kautsa, Vārsyāyani, and Puskarasādi ) occur in the Nirukta. He quotes the view of Svetaketu in śvetaketu’s own words ( in I. 4. 13. 20 ) that even a married man should every year stay with his teacher for two months to refresh his studies and gives it as his own opinion that Svetaketu’s view is opposed to the Śāstras (the Vedas). In another place (I. 1. 4. 5-6 ) le speaks of Svetaketu as an avara (a person belonging to later ages ) and as one who on account of the remnant of his merito rious actions done in it foriner life or lives was able to grasp the four Vedas in a short time. It is usual to see in this a reference to Svetaketu in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad ( VI. 1. 1-2), where it is stated that Svetaketu mastered all the Vedas in twelve years. But this identification is somewhat of doubtful value. Apastamba: quotes Svetaketu as a teacher of dharma. The quotation from Svetaketu given by Āpastamba has nothing corresponding to it in the Upaniṣad. Besides, the Chāndogya Upanisad appears to Diake a distinction between two Svetaketus ( in VI. I and VI. 8). one being called Āruṇeya and the other Ārupi ( son of Arunak 3o Araiagaita 31714: ’ 3719. 9. I. 1.1, 14 ; ‘31191g: AH

geri geta sirgarquiangala gira ET’ Ti 1.4 and TORTA THIE : ( quoted in the Fi II. 3.)History of Dharmaśāstra

Hārsta, whose views are cited:so frequently, is quoted by Baudhā yana (II. 1. 50 ) and also by Vasistha (II. 6.). From the two sūtras (1.6.19.3 and 7 ) it follows that Kanya and Kanva are two distinct writers. The Kumbhakonam edition reads Kāṇva in I. 10. 28. 1, while Būhler reads Kanva there. Kāṇva Bodhāyana is a teacher, whose name occurs in the rṣitar pana in many works. The view ascribed to Kānva by Apastamba in I.6.19.7 seems to bo the same as that of the Baudhāyana-dharmasūtra (I. 2. 1987). It has been shown above that there are close parallels in thought and oxpression between Baudhāyana and Apastamba. In several places Apastamba seems to be controverting the views of Baudhāyana or similar views held by others. Āpastamba condemns the view of giving the paternal wealth to the eldest son as opposed to the Vedas and explains the Vedic text (Tai. S. II. 5.2.7, quoted above ) about the eldest son being endowed with all wealth as a

nere anuvāda and not a vidhi (vide Ap. Dh. S. II. 6. 14. 6-13). Baudhayana cites both the texts of the Tai. S. about equal division among sons and about the oldest son’s larger share and seems to favour the latter view by putting it last (11. 2. 2-7). Similarly, the discussion in Apastamba (I. 1. 4. 5-12 ) about it brahmacūrin eating the leavings (ucchiṣta ) of his guru, provided the things are not directly forbidden by Sruti, soons to be directed against Baudhāyana (II. 1. 25-26). Although Ā.pastamba does not expressly quote Gautama, he appears to have had before him the Gautama-dharma-sūtra. He speaks of it smrti (II. 6. 15. 25) that lays down that upunayana confers rulhilcāra on a man for sastric actions and that before upanayan ono is free to do any thing and to eat anything, This, as inter preted by Haradatta, refers to Gautama (II. 1). There are striking coincidences between Gautama and Āpastamba, 0, $. Gaut. I. 19. = Ap. I. 1. 1. 41 (about some teachers prescribing the yellow robe to a brahmacārin), Gaut. I. 3 = Ap. 11. 6. 13.7 ( about the violation of dharma by the great in fornier ages ), (Gaut. 9. 52 = Ap. I. 11. 31. 13, Gaut. 23. 9. = Ap. 1. 9. 25. 2; Gaut, 16. 19 = Ap. I. 3.9. 14-15 ). Apastamba frequently refers to the views of his predecessors in the words ’eke’ (I. 1.2.

87 311397#:17 schiant ava: 1 … FRET WT Winnisidrant a

aut gratife: 17 379. . F. 1. 6. 19. 2. 3 and 7. llcre various views on the question as to whose food should be partaken hy hegning are set forth. Bandhāyana says orrer: Harur:’ whiclymentes with 71

HATT &c. 89 3 URTA: stratura i Al Fati auti 19. 3. a T.GR. 23-25;

ATT TROR: TAITE: OTA YHT: I MEHTE 1o. v. 1 -2.

1

5111,

UTEX

OONA

. Dhurmasītra of Āpustandu.

37, 38, 41;1. 1. 4. 17; I. 2. 5. 20; I. 2. 6. 4. , I. 3. 9.3, I. 3. 11. 3 &c.) and aparam’ (II. 6. 15. 22 ). It is somewhat remarkable that in many of these cases (where ’eke’ occurs ), the views are those either held by Gautama or ascribed by him also to others, e. g. Āp. I. 1. 2. 38 about the staff of a brahmacūrin refers to Gaut. I. 23; Āp. I. 1. 2. 41 is almost same as Gant. I. 19, Ap. I. 2. 5. 20 seems to refer to Gaut. 1, 54-59, Ap. 1.3. 9. 3 (the view of some that Vedic study lasts for four months and a half) seems to refer to Gaut. 16. 2, and Ap. 1.3.11. 3 (about not studying after dining at a sacrifice for deities that are manusya-prakrti) pointedly refers to Gaut. 16. 34 which contains the word ‘manusyayajñabhojana’. Apastamba twice quotes verses from a Purāṇa (I. 6. 9. 13, II. 9. 23. 3) and in one place gives in prose the view of a Purana (1. 10. 29.7.)89. Āpastamba (II. 9. 24. 6) speaks of the view of a Bhaviṣyat purāṇa ( about creation of the world after a periodic dissolution). In one place Apastamba (II. 11. 29. 11-12 ) says that the knowledge that exists (traditionally ) among women and sūdras is the furthest limit of vidyū and it is said to be a supplement of the Atharvaveda.’ Here he probably refers to Arthaśāstra, which according to the caranavyuha, is the Upaveda of the Atharva veda. Āpastamba refers (II. 7. 16. 1) to Manu as founder of the institution of śrāddha. But this appears to be a reference to Manu, the mythical progenitor of mankind, and not to the Manusmrti. It is noteworthy that Āpastamba (II. 7. 17. 8) quotes a verse, which is the same as Anuśāsanaparva 90. 46 ( sambhojani nāma &c.).

The Apastambadharmasūtra stands in a peculiar relation to the Pūrvamimāṁsā. It is the only extant Dharmasūtra that contains many of the technical terms and doctrines of the Mimāṁsā. He says (I. 1. 4.8)’ a positive Vedic text is more cogent than an usage which merely leads to an inforence (of its being based on a Vedic text now lost 90 ). This refers to Jaimini’s rule (I. 3. 3)” if there is a conflict between an express Vedic

89 ‘यो दिसार्थमभिकान्तं हन्ति मन्युरेव मन्युं स्पृशति न तस्मिन्दोष इति पुराणे, आप, ध.

. 1. 10. 29, 7; this seems to be a summary of a verse like the one in Baudhāyana ( Dh. S. I. 10, 12 ) and Vasistha (III. 18) i nto

जातं यो इन्पादाततायिनम् । न तेम भ्रणहा स स्थान्मन्युस्तं मन्युट्टाछति।

(Baud. has आयापकं कुले and अणहा भवति). 90 ‘अतिहि पलीयरयासमानिकादाचारात्’ आप. ध. सू; विरोधे वनपेक्ष्य स्यादसति मत

ATATT? 8. 1. . Vide also forage yetiot quite: ’ *14. 9. 8. 1. 11.30. 9 for the lame position

POORA

FOUNDE

19.17

text and Smrti, the latter is to be disregarded : but if there be no confliot an inference (may be made that the Smrti is based upon some Sruti)". In another place Āpastamba says (1. 4. 12. 11 ) ‘where an action is done on account of finding pleasure therefrom (i. e. from a worldly motive ), there is no ( inference of its being based on ) Sastra’. This is the same as Jaimini’s teaching (IV. 1. 2 )’. He speaks of the convention (samy) of those who know Nyāya (i. e. Mimāṁsā ) that angas ( such as the Kalpasūtras are ) cannot be designated the Vedas ( which are the principal), which is clearly a reference to Purvamimālisa (1. 3. 11-14)” and he says that those who know Nyāya lay down that a mere unurūda (affirming or reciting) of what is well known to all is not a positive rule ( a vidhi ), which is similar to Jaimini’s rule93. The dictum of Āpastamba that the word “sale” (kraya ) applied to a bride in some Vedic texts is merely figura tive closely resembles Jaimini’s94 remarks on the same point.

The remark of Āpastamba that the rules of anadhyāya only apply to Vedic study and not to the recital of mantras at sacri fices corresponds to a rule in Jaimini’s almost in the same words. These examples show that in Āpastamba’s day Mimā msā doctrines had been far advanced and that works existed that dealt with Mimāmsā topics (Nyāyas ). The correspondence in language with the Pūrvamīmāmsāsūtra is so close that one is tempted to advance the view that Āpastamba knew the extant Mimāṁsā-sūtra or an earlier version of it that contained almost the same expressions. It cannot be said that all these passages are later interpolations. They have all been explained by Haradatta and one of the sūtras referring to Mimāṁsā topics ocours in so early a work as the commentary of Viśvarūpa (on Yāj. 1. 7) who quotes “ Brāhmanoktā vidhayaḥ" &c. ( Āp. I. 4. 12. 10). The last passage is quoted by Medhātithi also (on Manu II. 6).

91 ‘यत्र तु प्रीत्युपलब्धितः प्रवृत्तिर्न तत्र शास्त्रमस्ति। आप.; यस्मिन्प्रीतिः पुरुषस्य तस्य

FOSCHTUHOT W ATC . . . Vidc also 3:17. W. 1. . •4,9-10’ un

me agierea rota i sirardeauaand aaasara’ g. tl. 1. 1.3.4. 92 yi a Turquesteia AT: 14 M. u. 7.11. 4. 8. 13. 93 per farget Aarvararaq: 3119. 4.8. 11. 6. 14. 13.; ‘several a

farisiqarerentrerara: ’ g. . # VI, 7.30. 94 a45: THATYAI TAIP Foru: 1 319. y. . 11. 6. 1 -12;

**974 LAATSTE g. pt. E. VI. 1. 15. 95 “feat Feuauqu: para a constatat APETUTY’ 3119. . . 1. 4. D. 9; but

प्रति विधानाहा सर्वकालं प्रयोगः स्यात्कर्मार्थत्वात्मयोगस्य’ पू. मी. सू. XII. THA

FOUNDED

FOUNDED

7. Dharmasūtra of Apastamba

65

The dharmasūtra of Āpastamba has been quoted from very ancient times as authoritativo. Sabara in his bhāsya on Jaimini VI. 8. 18 quotes one sūtra of Āpastamba and a paraphrase of another. 96. The Tantravārtika refers to the sūtras of Apa stamba about local and family usages, 97 about drinking wine and about the conflict between the views of Baudhāyana and Apastamba (vide above page 46 also ). Saṅkarācārya in his bhāsya on Brahmasūtra IV. 2. 14 quotes Āpastamba I. 7. 20. 3 (about the planting of trees for fruit as a meritorious act and the collateral benefits of shade and fragrance ). He also cites (on Brahmasūtra II. 1. 1. ) about the Supreme Soul a half verss from Apastamba (I. 8. 23. 2) 98. In his bhāsya on Brhad aranyaka, he cites Ap. Dh. S. I. 5. 15. 1 (upāsane gurunam &c.). Ap. Dh. S.. (II. 9. 23. 3-5) quotes from a Purana two verses which are very similar to two verses quoted by Saṅkarācārya in his Bhasya on Chan. Up. V. 10. 1. Viśvarupa on Yai. III. 252 refers to one verse and a half quoted by Apastamba (I.9.25. 11 Tri. ed.) and explains it. The two patalas of Apastamba (I.8. 22 and 23 ) dealing with adhyātma (philosophy ) were commented upon by Saṅkarācārya, who, from the general style and method of the commentary (vide Trivandrum edition of the adhyat mapatala) seems to be the same as the great ācārya. Sureśvara in his Vārtika (I. 1. 97) on Śhaṅkara’s bhūsya on the Brha dāraṇyakopaniṣad quotes the sūtra about the planting of mango ( Āpastamba I. 7. 20. 399) troos. Viśvarūpa, who according to Madhava, was the the same as Suresvara,100 quotes (Trivandrum edition) in his commentary on Yājñavalkya (ācāra and vyavahāra only) Apastamba’s sūtras about twenty times. The quotations show that the text of Apastamba was identical with the 96 " यथैव स्मृतिः ‘धर्मे च अर्थे च कामे च नातिचरितव्या’ इति, ‘धर्मप्रजासंपने बारे

नाग्यां कुर्षीत’ इति च एवमिदमपि स्मर्यत एव ‘अन्यतरापाये अग्यां कुर्वीत’ इति । शबर. आप. says ‘धर्मप्रजासम्पने दारे नान्यां कुर्वीत । अन्यतराभावे कार्या प्रागम्यायात!

II. 5. 11. 12-13. 97 तन्त्रवार्तिक p. 138 ‘प्रतिदर्श व्यवस्थया। आपस्तम्बेन संहृत्य दुष्टादुष्टत्वमावतम् ॥.

This has in view ‘एतेन देशकालधर्मा व्याख्याताः’ आप. ध. सू. II. 6. 15. 1; यापि चापस्तम्बस्मृतिवचनानुल्यबलत्वाशङ्का भवेत्सापि तस्माद् बाह्मणः सुरां न पिवेदिति

एतेन प्रत्यक्षश्रुतिविधिना निराकृतेति नैवं विप्राचारमामाण्यमाशकितव्यम्।। 98 परमात्मानमेव प्रकरयापस्तम्बः पठति ‘तस्मारकायाः प्रभवन्ति सर्वे स मूलं शापतिकः स

नित्यः.. 99 आने फलाथै इत्यादि ह्यापस्तम्बस्मृतेर्वचः। फलवत्त्वं समाचष्टे नित्यानामपि कर्मणान,

बृहदारण्यकमाण्यवार्तिक. आपस्तम्ब’s words are तपथा आने फला निमिते मापी

गन्ध इत्यनूत्पयेते एवं धर्म चर्यमाणमा अनूत्पद्यन्ते।” 100 Vide my article in JBBRAS for 1922 pp. 205-206,

66

one printed, barring a few variations that are no more than mere slips on the part of the soribes of Mss. In his commentary on Yāj. III. 237 Viśvarūpa quotes eighteen sūtras of Āpagtamba (I. 9.24. 6-23) consecutively which are the same as those in the printed text. Medhātithi quotes Āpastamba II. 5. 11. 2, II. 4. 7. 16, II. 8. 19, 20, 1. 4. 14. 30-31 on Manu II. 247, III. 102, III, 273 and VIII 357 respectively and appears to refer to Āpastamba I. 4. 13. 6 (about “om”) on Manu II. 83. The Mitākṣarā has several quotations and Aparārka contains about two hundred sūtras of Āpastamba, though rather in a mutilated form. But it is not necessary to refer to these and other later works in detail, since Haradatta’s commentary, as will be shown later on, was written about the time of Aparārka. Thus from the days of Sabara ( 400 A. D. at the latest) to 1100 A. D. we have a host of writers who youch for the authenticity of the extant text of Āpastamba.

About the home and personal history of Apastamba little is known. Apastamba is not an ancient name. It does not occur in the Vedic texts. It occurs in the gana “Bidādi" in Pāṇini IV.1. 104. Dr. Ram Gopal (on p. 75 of his work ) thinks rather naively that the occurrence of @pastamba’s name in the Bidādigana iends some support to the view that Āpastamba is earlier than Pāṇini. The Bidadi-gana has nothing to do with literary works, but is concerned only with the addition of a termination to the words in the gana in the sense of (gotrāpatya) * a descendant from grandson downwards but not a son’. Bida’s

son would be Baidi, but his grandson would be Baida. Besides, this gana contains about fifty words in the Ganapātha now available. Āpastamba is the 14th in the list. Moreover, the ganas are liable to be added to as illustrated by what is said above on Kambojādigana. Besides, the mere occurrence of the word Apastamba in the Bidādi-gana does not convey that the person mentioned is the author of the Gphya or Dharma-sūtra known now as Āpastamba’s. All that can be held to follow from the Bidādi-gana is that a person named Apastamba and his descendants named after him were known at the time. He speaks of himself as belonging to later ages (avara). Vide Āpastamba 101 I. 2. 5. 4. and II. 6. 13. 9. In the tarpana he is generally mentioned after Bodhāyana and before Satyāsādha Hirapyakeśin

(vide note 68a above). Therefore according to tradition his school was elder or more authoritative than that of Hipamyakesin In one place Apastamba refers to a peculiar śrāddha ustige of 101 Heralsang app THAT ARE ’ and ‘prenatay and car: ‘.

POOM

. Dharmusūtra of Aprastambu

67

the udicyas (II. 7. 17. 17 ).102 Apastamba must be supposed to have embodied in his work tha usages of his own country. If he specially mentions the usages of a particular locality, it would follow that he did not hail from that looality. But the exact meaning of “Udicya” is doubtful. Haradatta quotes a verse of the grammarians, according to which the Country north of the Saravati was called “Udicya”. According to the Mahārṇava quoted in the commentary on the Caranavyūhata the Apastambiyas were to be found to the south of the Narmada, in the south-east, that is, in Andhra and the territory about the mouth of the Godavari. Therefore it is natural to suppose that Āpastamba’s school had its origin in the south and probably in

Āndhra.

Now that rather puerile arguments have been advanced by Dr. Ram Gopal about the home of Āpastamba, Baudhāyana and Hiranyakesin (on pp. 96-100), a more thorough reply is given here by reference to numerous grants and inscriptions,

Dr. Ram Gopal does not bother about inscriptions and copper plate grants. I had referred in the first edition (of 1930 ) to Pallava grants in general and mentioned a specific one in I. A. Vol. V, p. 155. In that grant five out of the eight donees

102

TTET Fanarti atitra 1991; on this GR reads a verse of the grammarians viz. druga fata : sfruta de Tui fait TATU #1 : Ta srcaret and adds moi vari camera congratai

harrari. Homidri in matracararo (III. 1. p. 1350 ) quotes the same Apastamba sūtra and the Verse arua &c but reads Forrit for it. Is strat the modern Rāpti, & tributary of the Sarayū or is it turi near Honavar in north Canara or any other rlver ? This verse occurs in the Kāsikā on Pan 1. 1. 75. Pāṇini in VI, 3, 120 explains the word Sarāvati as meaning abounding in reeds, which may be applicable to many rivers, Dr. Ram Gopal, after referring to the different Identifications, made by various scholars (pp. 95-96). finds that in the Rāmāyaṇa ( II. 68. 13-16) occurs a river called Saradandā and at once jumps to the conclusion that Saradanda’conveys

almost the same sense as Saravati’ (p. 96). Saravati is formed from sara with affix ‘matup. ’ Has’ danda’ the same sense as matup’? I should like to know where it is so stated. The usual meanings “danda’ are a staff, army, punishment or fine., and one of the ffur upāyas in Rājaniti. One should like to know how Saradanda (willele is a compound word having two separate nouns) can have the sapien sense as Sarāvati (which is forined by a noun and an allis vetup. Stition a

are Āpastambhiyas, one is Gautama Hairanyakeśa Sasthikumāra, one is Vājasaneyaka and one more Sāmavedin.

(2) There is another grant earlier than the above (of 4th century A. D.) viz. the Gorantla plates of king Attivarman edited in I. A. vol. IX. pp. 102-3, in which the donee Kottisarman described as ’ Āpastambhasūtra- Ra-yajus-sāmavide.

(3) Kadagatturu plates of Western Ganga King Durvinita, Circa 555-605 A. D. vide Ep. Carn. Vol. XI. Mi. 110 ); the donee was Skandhasarman of the Bhāradvājagotra and Apastambhasūtra.

(4) Kopparam plates of Cālukya Pulakesin II. (E. I. Vol. XVIII pp. 259-261, the donos being Vedaśarman of the sandily āyana gotra and of the Apastambhasūtra.

(5) Ederu plates of Eastern Cālukya Vijayaditya II ( Circa 799-843 A. D.; vide E. I. Vol. V. pp. 119-122. Grant to a Apas tambha brāhmaṇa of the Kāśyapa gotra and Apastambhasutra.

(6) Grant of Eastern Cālukya king Bhima II (10th cent ury A. D.); vide South Indian Inscriptions Vol. I. pp. 43 ff.

(7) Charter of Pallava king Narasimha - varman II (about 711 A. D.) in Sanskrit but in early Telugu, Kannada characters and the donge is described as a student of Apa stambasūtra, of Rathitara gotra named Kumāramandaśarınan.

All these are specially cited by me for Āpastambhiyas as donees, Now about Bodhāyana ( Baudhāyana). It has been seen above that Bodhāyana is called ‘pravacanakāra’ in the passages on tarpana (vide note 68 a above) and hence in some early grants the donees are describod as students of Pravacana or Pravacana sutra or-carana or-Kalpa, though in the South Indian records from the 11th century A. D. and onwards the Baudhāyana-sūtra does occur.

(1) Sringeri plates of Avinīta (circa 495-555 A. D.) in Mysore Arch. Rep. 1916 pp. 34-35, where two of three donees are students of Pravacana-kalpa ;

(2) Bangalore Residency Plates of Western Ganga king Avinita (c. 495-555 A, D.) in Mys. Arch. Rep. 1911;

(3) Uttanūr plates of Durvinita (Mys. Arch. Ron 1416), where 48 brāhmaṇas of Taittiriya-oarana and Pravdane Ana stamba-sūtra are mentioned.

STITUSY ROOKA

FOUNDED

1917

ht. Dharmasūtra of Apastamba

(4) and (5) Guminareddipura Plates of Durvinita (circae 555-605 A. D.) in Mys. Arch. Rep. 1912 pp. 31-32 ) and Nallala Grant of Durvinita (Mys. Arch. Rep. 1924 p. 70 ) where donees are of pravacana-kalpa.

(6) Alūr grant of Yuvaraja Nārasimha (c. 800 A. D.), Mys. Arch, Rep. 1924 p. 75) where doneo is of Pravacana-Kalpa.

(7) Udāyendiram grant of Pallava king Nandivarman, 8th century A. D. (E. I. Vol. III. pp. 145 ff) issued from Kāñci-pura to the donee of Pravacanasūtra named Kulaśarman.

(8) Raykota plates of Skandaśisya (E. I. Vol. V. pp. 49 f (about 9th century A. D.). The donee is Madhavaśarma of the Vatsagotra and of the Pravacanasūtra.

A comparative statement of the students of the sutras ( Āpastamba, Bodhāyana, Hiranyakeğin ) from a few grants will be extremely instructive :

1. In the Udayendiram plates (of 8th century A. D.) of Nandivarman Pallavamalla in S. I. I. Vol. II, pp. 361 f thoro are 39 donees of Ap. Sūtra, 16 of Pravacanasūtra and 4 Babyr cas (Rgvedins). The number of donees actually named is 59, though on p. 368 it is stated that the donees were 108.

2. In the Tandauṭtottam Pallava plates of 8th century A. D. in $. I. I. Vol. II. pp. 517ff, among the 244 donoes, 139 are Āpastambiyas, 24 of the Pravacanasūtra, 2 of Āgnivesyasūtra, 1 of Asvalāyana.

3. In the grant of Eastern Cālukya Narendramrgarāja 9th century A. D. (8. I. I. Vol. I. pp. 31ff ), of the 24 donees, 18 are Apastamblyas, 6 are Hiraṇyakeśins (but these latter are mention ed first ).

4. In the unpublished Karandai plates of Chola King Rajendra I (1019-20 A. D.), out of 1080 donees, about 620 are Āpastambiyas, 55 Baudhāyaniyas, 42 Satyāsādha (i. e. Hiranya kesins). Vide Annual Report on Indian Epigraphy for 1949-50 pp. 3 and 17 No. 57. The grant consists of 55 plates falling in three groups. The first group is of three plates entirely in Sanskrit written in grantha characters. It gives the king’s genean logy and records the gift of the village Tribhuvana-mahādex agrahāra to a number of brāhmanas. Second group of 52 platos lo in Tamil language, gives details of lands included in the villages the boundaries of the village and the officials connected with the

History of Dharmaśūstra grant. The third group of 30 plates also in Tamil merely contains the names of the brālimaṇa donees of the village.

The age of the Āpastamba-dharmasūtra can be settled within only approximate limits. It is probably later than the Gautaina Dharma-sutra and also the Baudhāyayana dharmasutra and before 400 A. D. it was an authoritative smrti work according to Sabara. Āpastamba is enumerated by Yājñavalkya as a writer on dharma (1. 5) and by Saṅkha-Likhita. Its grammar which often deviates from Panini leads one to infer that he flourished a little before or immediately after Pānini. As he quotes the views of ten writers on Dharma śāstra he cannot be placed amongst the early writers on Dharma. It is doubtful whether the provision that one should not take food from a Sargha can be taken to refer to Buddhist sangha. Pāṇini employs the word sangha in several sūtras (IV. 3. 127, V. I. 58, V. 2.52 ), but in all these there is no clear indication of the ideas attached to the Buddhist Sangha. Ap. Dh. S. I. 6. 18. 31 (avidhinā ca pravrajitaḥ) provides that one should not take food from one who has become an ascetic without observing the rules about entering that order. This does not necessarily mean that he refers to Buddhist and Jain monks. As Sannyasa became popular many must have pretended to be sannyāsins without first observing the rules for entering that order. The Āp. Dh. 8. was probably composed at a time when the Mimāṁsā system had already been founded. Hence if a tolerably definite period is demanded, then the Āp. Dh, 8. should have to be assigned to the period of 450-350 B, C, and not 600-300 B.C. (as in the first edition).

On p. 84 of the first edition I tried to explain why we have a complete set of srauta, gļhya and dharma sūtras for Baudhi yana and others (all belonging to the Kșspa-yajurveda) and why an Aśvalāyana-dharmasūtra for Rgvedins and Gobhila dharmasūtra for sāmavedins or Pāraskara (or Kātiya ) Dharma. sūtra for Sukla Yajurveda had not coine down to us. Dr. Ram Gopal would not miss an opportunity to criticize the H. of Dh. as he does on pp. 51-52. I have had often to show in this edition the worth of his research.

But on the subject of Āpastamba’s home which he holds to have been in North India his remarks display the tantastic nature of some of his researches. He relies on fom, pietas of internal evidence to corroborate his view that Apastakaba - home was in the North. First, he renarks ’ a number of words which

POONA

190

7. Dharmasūtra of Apastamba

71

aro of rare occurrence in Sanskrit and which are peculiar to the sūtras of Āpastamba are current even now in the language which is spoken in Kuru-Pañcāla and its neighbourhood.’ He cites p. 96 only two words, viz. ghola (a horse ) and bhayedala (dangerous or furious ram), both from Ap. Srauta (XV. 3. 12 and XV. 19. 4 respectively) ‘ājyasthālim rauhiṇakapāle ca parimaṇdale-ghota-prakāre’ Āp. Śr. XV. 3. 12 and ‘atha yadi grdhraḥ salāvṛki bhayedako dirgha-mukhyulūko…sakunir ( Ap. XV. 19. 4). He cites no similar words from either the Grhyasūtra or Dharmasūtra of Āp. He remarks ‘Āp. S.S. XV. 3. 12 employs the word Ghoṭa to denoto a horse, and the word Tist is used in Hindi in the same sense’. His idea appears to be (though he does not make a very clear statement ) that as Hindi is now spoken in what was called Kuru-Pañcāla in ancient times and Hindi-speaking people use the word ghodā (for horse ) now, the ancient Ap. Ś. S. which employs the word ghoṭa in the same sense should be regarded as composed in north India. Research means careful endeavour and inquiries to discover facts by the scientific study of a subject. If Dr. Ram Gopal had inquired of non-Hindi people in Delhi such as Bengalis, Gujaratis and Mahārāstrians (of whom large numbers are now residents of Delhi) he would have found that all these groups of people employ the same word for a horse respectively in Bengali, Gujarati and Marathi. If he had referred to the Amarakośa 1026 he would have found that ghotaka is held by that comparatively early work as a synonym of aśva ( ghotake viti-turaga-turanga svaturangamāḥ). If he had carried his inquiries further he would have found that the Kamasutra 1026 of Vātsyāyana (in I. 1.4) mentions a predecessor named Ghoṭakamukha, who wrote . work on Kanyāsamprayuktakādhikarana and who was so called probably because he had a long neck like that of a horse. In the Arthaśāstra of Kautilya the name ‘Ghota-mukha’is cited in V.5.11 as that of a minister. Ghotaka or ghota therefore looks anoient enough as a purely Sanskrit word. An eminent epigra.

102 a The Amarakosa cannot be placed later than the 5th century A. D, and

may be a century or two earlier, Vide H. of Dh, Vol. V. p. 840 note 1367 for authorities,

102 b The Kamasutra is assigned to the 4th century A, D. by Winternitz in

History of Indian Literature, Vol. III ( 1922, Gernan) p. 540 and Mr. II. C. Chakladar in Asutosh Mookerji Silver Jubilee Vol. III IT holds that it should be placed in the middle of the 3rd cotton A.D.; so the author Ghotakamukba would liave to be placed Desi about the first century A, D., if not earlier.

MORA

FOUNDE

191772

phist who knows all the south Indian languages informs me that the linguists regard the word as Dravidian and connect it with Telugu gurramu and Kannada Kudire or kudure. If the word ghota be Dravidian, Dr. Ram Gopal’s argument would recoil on him like a boomerang. The same reasoning applies to the word ‘bhayedaka’( bhayahetubhūtah adakah, & dangerous ram). That word is compounded of bhaya ( danger) and edaku (ram ). The word ‘bhaya’ by itself occurs even in the Rgveda at least a dozen times and otaka means ‘ram’ according to Amarakośa 102 , Meṣa is a synonym of ’edaka’ and both these words occur in the present day Marathi. Edaka is one of the three unclean (amedhya ) animals acc. to Sat. Br. XII. 4. 1. 4. Edaka is the 2nd word in ‘ajādi-gana’ (‘ajādyataṣtıp’ Pān. IV, 1.4). When Pāṇini mentions a gana with ādi it must be presumed that at least the first three of the words in the gana were known to him, though we know that in some ganas somo words were inserted later. Following the reasoning of Dr. Ram Gopal one may as well say that Āpastamba’s home was in Mabarastra where both words (ghodā and edakā) are found in the people’s speech and the latter word at least was known before Pāṇini. Both these words were regarded as Sanskrit in the centuries before and after the Christian era by lexicogra phers and odaka was known many centuries before Christ, when there was no Hindi language in existence at all. This argument of Dr. Ram Gopal, it would be seen, is ridiculous and worthless.

On p. 97 Dr. Ram Gopal relies, for propping his hypothesis that Apastamba came from the north on certain phonetic tendencies that characterize modern Hindi. He instances only one word viz. Sikṣā (in Āp. Dh. S. II. 4. 8. 11) which is one of the six Vedāngas and compares it with Hindi ‘sikha’. This is on a par with his reliance on ghotaka and adaka referred to above. Sikha in Hindi means to learn or a pupil, while Śīksā or Śikṣā is a name for a Vedānga and śikha in the sense to learn’ is derived from the root siksa (to learn, ‘Siksate ‘) and

sikba’ (pupil) is derived from ‘sisya’. I feel grave doubts whether Dr. Ram Gopal is aware of the real technical meaning of ‘Siksā’ or Sikṣā’ occurring in the Upaniṣads and other ancient works. Vide note 85 a above where the Tai. Up. employs the dirgha’i in Sikṣā and briefly enumerates the subjects of that vedānga and Āp. belonging to the Krśṇa Yajured, uses the word as Śikṣā but Mupdaka employ, śikṣā. Vid the samo note.)

FOUNDED

1917

7. Dharmasūtra of Apastamba

73

It was probably written at a time when Jaimini had founded his school. Hence we shall not be far wrong if we assign it to some period between 600-300 B. C. On several points his views are opposed to those of his predecessors, e.g. he rejects secondary sons, condemns niyoga, does not admit Paisāca and Prājāpatya as valid forms of marriage (vido above page 50). There aro other points also wherein Āpastamha differs from Gautama and the other sūtrakāras. Gautama (IV. 14-17) and Baudhāyana (I. 8. 7-12 ) give long lists of mixed castes and Gautama includes Yavana among them. Āpastamba is silent on this point. But this has hardly any bearing on chronology. Even the Vedic works mention the Nisada and the Pūrvainimāṁsāsūtra has a special adhikarana (VI. 1. 51 ) devoted to him; the Br. Upaniṣad Inentions (IV.3. 22 and 37 ) such castes as Cāndāla, and the Gitā mentions the śvapāka. The Ap. Srauta speaks of the Niṣūda (9, 14. 12-13). The Āp. Dh. S. (11. 1. %. 6) mentions Cāndāla, Paulkasa and Vaiṇa. Gautama (17. 30 ) forbids the eating of the flesh of cows and bulls, while Ap. (I. 5. 7. 30-31 ) seems to allow it and cites the Vājasaneyaka for support. In this connection it has to be noted that Vasistha also has a similar sūtra (14. 46). Āp. (I. 9. 27. 10) prescribes a penance for one who practises usury and lays down that one should not eat at the usurer’s (I. 6. 18. 22 ), while Gautama appears to allow usury to a Brāhmana as a calling if done through an agent (X. 6). Baudhāyana, on the other hand, quotes verses that condemn usury in strong language as even worse than brahma hatyā, holds that a Brāhmaṇa who is a usurer should be treated as a sūdra and allows the first two castes to practise usury only towards atleists, śūdras and such like persons (I. 5. 79-81). So these differences of Ap. from others are hardly conclusive as to his chronological position.

Dr. Ram Gopal on p. 75 of his work refers to the fact that I place Āpastamba between 600 B. O. and 300 B. O. (on p. 45 of H. Dh. vol. I), and then remarks that’(he) adduces no cogont arguments in support of his view’ and then patronizingly adds * It is not possible in the present state of researches into Vedic literaturo, to assign precise dates to individual sūtrakāras and we at the most determine approximately the lower and uppor limits of the sūtra period. We are, therefore, not going to discuss here the possibility of assigning dates to individual authors’. I am going to show that he himself adduces hus.se cogent arguments’ for the dates he assigns. In the first place,

H.D. - 10

1917

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

History of Dharınatastra

period between 600 B. O. to 300 B, C. (to whioh I assigned Apastamba ) is not, I hope it will be admitted by most people, a precise date at all and is far more unprecise than what Dr. Ram Gopal would assign to him (as I am going to point out below from his own work). On p. 89 of his work Dr. Rani Gopal remarks ‘inost of the sūtras were composed betweon circa 800 B. C. and 500 B. C. From the general words employed by him on p. 90 it appears to be his view that not only the Srauta and Gșhya sūtras but other sūtras also and Dharmasūtras were composed between 800 B. O. to 500 B. C. On p. 84 of his work he mentions four groups of sūtras ( srauta, gphya and dharma). He himself says that all the sitras belonging to the 4th group seem to be later than the beginning of the Christian era’. This group should be omitted from consi. deration. The first group contains 11 sūtra works (Srauta, Grhya and Dharma), the 2nd group contains 10 sūtra works (all except Ap. Dh. S. being either Srauta or Gphya). The third group contains eight works, all either Srauta or Grhya except Vasistha Dh. S., of which only the sūtra portion (and not verses) is included in this group. He regards all the sūtras in group one and most of those in group 2 as earlier than Pāṇini. The main prop of his dates for the three classes of sūtras is Papini’s date. On p. 86 he states that divergent views have been expressed by eminent scholars about Pāṇini’s date ranging from 7th century B. O. to 4th century B. C. In this welter of diffe ring views Dr. Ram Gopal fixes the dats of Pānini at about 600 B.C-550 B.O (p. 88). What is the strony evidence on which he relies for this date? It is only this that he holds Patañjall’. date to be 150 B. C. and affirms that there is a near unanimity among scholars about this date. Then he conjectures (pp. 87-88) that a period of at least two centuries intervened between Patañjali and Katyāyana (the author of the vārtikas on Pāṇini) and that another period of at least 200 years must be held to separate Kātyāyana and Pāṇini (pp. 87-88). My aim is only to show how large a part conjectures play in these dates of Katyāyana and Panini. Taking, however, for the moment these conjectures as good arguments, three groups of sūtra works ( 29 in all) set out by Dr. Ram Gopal have to be squeezed into a period of three hundred years, the third group being later than the second and the 2nd group later than first. For all the three groups the total period allotted is 300 years (807 B to 500 B. C.). The first group is the largest and it would to be unjust to say that the largest group (viz. the first ) should be

1917

[

7. Dharmasūtra of Apastamba

75

allotted 125 years (out of 300 ), that is, the first group flourished between 800 B. O. to 675 B. C. according to Dr. Ram Gopal, tbe 2nd group may be allotted 100 years (i. e. 675-575 B.C.) and the third group of only 8 works may be assigned 75 years i. e. from 575 B C to 500 B. O, The Srauta, Gphya and Dharma sūtras of Apastamba are placed in the 2nd group by Dr. Ram Gopal i. A. Apastamba himself is placed between 675 B.C.-575 B.C. by him. It would be noticed that this dating of the learned Doctor for Apastamba is far more precise than my date for Āpastamba (on p. 45 of vol. I of H. Dh.) viz. 600 B. O, to 300 B, C. While saying that it is impossible to assign precise dates to individual sutrakāras and professing not to give precise dates to them, he puts the authors of ten sūtra works within the short span of about 100 years and assigns individual authors of the 2nd group of the Sūtra works to the period from about 675 B. C. to 575 B.C. Scholars will note the great disparity that Dr. Ram Gopal exhibits between his precepts and his performance.

This is not the place to discuss at length the dates of Patanjali and Pāṇini. But a few words must be said on account of the importance attached to those dates by some scholars in settling the chronology of Dharmasūtra works. Dr. D. C. Siroar advances arguments for questioning the date 150 B: O. for Patanjali and himself holds that Patanjali flourished about 100 A. D. ( vide I. H. Q. Vol. 15 pp. 633-38). The date 150 B, C. for Patañjali is mainly based on Mahābhāṣya reforences to Puṣyamitra (Sunga ruler between about 187 B. O. to 151 B. C.). On Vārtika 7 to Pāṇini I. 1.69 (svain rūpam etc.) the Mahābhāṣya cites the instances of ‘Pusgamitrasabha’ and ‘Candraguptasabha;’ on Vārtikas 3 and 4 on Pāṇ. III. 1. 26 it cites (Puṣyamitro yajate yājakā pājayantiti tatra bhavitavyan Pusgamitro pājayate yājakā yajantiti…tam (tyāgam ) ca Pusyamitrah karoti yajakā prayojayante). Again, on Vārtika 1 on Dān. III.2. 123 (vartamāne lag) the Mahābbāṣya says ‘iha Puṣyamitram yājayāmaḥ’. There are several difficulties in the case of these passages. There are what are called in grammar ‘mūrdhābhiṣikta’ exainples (i. e. stock examples ) not necessarily contemporaneous with the author but handed down traditionally. Patanjali himself speak’s of murdhabhiṣiktam-udābarañain’ (Kielhorn’s ed. Vol. 1. p. 144 on Pān. I. 1. 57). In the very first passage ‘Candrannan tasabhā’ is certainly such an example, since even if Patan att be assigned to 150 B.O., Candragupta flourished at least 1500 years before him and Patañjali could not have known it personal but

WOUNDED

History of Dharmuśāstra

only by tradition or hearsay. Then we have to keep in mind the vicissitudes through which, according to the Vākyapadiya ( II. verses 484-490 ) of Bhartphari, the Malābhāsya passed in the early centuries of the Christian era. It is narrated there that “Sangraha (a very extensive work on Pāṇini’s grammar attributed to Vyādi) was practically lost, that the great teacher Patažījali composed a work called Mahābhāṣya containing the seeds of all nyāyas, but persons with undeveloped intellects could not ascertain its import, that Baiji, Saubhava and Haryakṣa flooded that work of the sage (viz. Patañjali) by following baseless reasonings. The traditional interpretation of (Sanskrit) grammar which slipped from the disciples of Patañjali remained in course of time among the southern people merely in the form of a work ( in Manuscripts). After securing the tradition from a mountain (in the south ) Caudrāoārya and others following the essence of the bhāṣya made it blossom forth in various ways.’ 1026

The Vākyapadiya is certainly not later than 600 A.D., though there are some scholars who place it not later than tho 3rd century A. D. (vide, for example, Shri Sadhu Ram in J. G. J. R. I. Vol. IX pp. 135-151). Whatever the date of the Vakya padiya, we cannot be certain that the present Mss. and editions of the Mahābhāṣya represent an exact reproduction of wliat Patañjali composed. All that I want to emphasise is that we should not be cocksure about the date of the Mahābhāṣya and not regard 150 B. C. as a certain date for Patañjali’s Mahābhāṣya but should regard it only a possible or at the most a probable one.

Then as to the period of two centuries at least between Patañjali and Kātyāyana and between Katyāyana and Panini suggested by Dr. Ram Gopal, I have to urge certain objections. Pāṇini’s family is said to have been living in Salatura in North West India (supposed to be mentioned in Pāṇ. IV. 3. 94) and Panini is designated Salāturlya by later classical writers like Bhāmaha ( in Kavyālankāra VI. 62-63). Salātura is identified by Cunningham in ‘Ancient Geography of India’ pp. 66-67 with Lahur, a small town north-west of Ohind in the angle

STITUTA

102c प्रायेण संक्षेपरुचीनल्पविद्यापरिग्रहान् । संप्राप्य वयाकरणान् संग्रहेऽस्तमुपागते ॥ कृतेऽध

पतसलिना गुरुणा तीर्थदर्शिना। सर्वेषां ज्यायबीजामा महाभाष्ये नियन्धने । जिसौभव हर्यक्षेः शुष्कतर्कानुसारिभिः । आर्षे विप्लाविते अन्धे मंग्राहप्रतिकञ्चके । यः पतलियम्यो भ्रष्टो ग्याकरणागमः । काले स दाक्षिणात्येषु अन्धमात्रे व्यवस्थितः ॥ पानागम सतना भाग्यपीजानुसारिभिः। स नीतो बहशाणत्वं चन्माचार्यादिभिः पुनः । थावालय II, verses 484-89.

1917

. Dharmasūtra of Apastamba

botween the Kabul river and the Indus. Kātyāyana (the author of Vārtikas ) is supposed to have been a dākṣiṇātya on account of a rather jocular 112cl remark of the Mahābhāṣya on the first Vārtika. There were no printing presses in those days and works were propagated by means of oral transmission or by making inanuscripts and by the process of learned and ambitious writers visiting royal courts or rich men and pariṣads or samitis. For example, in the Br. Up. Vi. 2 and Chāndogya Up. (V. 3 )102e Svetaketu Aruneya is said to have repaired to the Pariṣad or Samiti of the Pancāla people or country (between the foot of the Himālayas and the river Yamunā) and a Rājanya asked him five questions. Learned Brāhmanas were a specially favoured class in ancient India. Learned works froin one part of Bhārata spread quickly to even distant parts of the country in a short time on account of the visits of learned men to subhus patronized by kings, their ininisters and rich men. Rājasekhara (about 900 A. D.) in his Kāvyaniināṁsā (chap. XX pp. 54-55) gives valuable information. He says that the king should convenie asseinblios of poets and when the king is a poet all people becomo poets. The king should construct a hall for examining poems and that be should emulate 1021 (kings like ) Vāsudeva, Sātavā hana, Sudraka, Sāhasānka and others (who presided over sabhās in their days ) by bestowing honours and gifts, that between itssemblies for discussions about poetic works he should order discussions in Sastras. The king should arrange meetings of brāhmaṇas for exainining the worth of poetic and Sāstric works and quotes two verses, one referring to the examination of poets liko Kālidāsa and Bharavi in Ujjaiyini and the other referring to writers on Sāstrus in Pātaliputra and uxpressly names Panini, Vyā:li, Vararuci (Kātyāyana ) and Patanjali as having been examined. Thus there were even in ancient times means for rapid transmission of really valuable works to distant lands.

for his proposition that Katyayana is separated from Panini by at least two centuries (p. 87 ) Dr. Rain Gopal relias mainly

102d लोकतोऽर्धप्रयुक्त शब्दप्रयोगे शात्रेण धर्मनियमो यथा लौकिकवैदिकेषु । वार्तिक ; महाभाष्य

says on this fuarga TOTETT Tune eta a quiet er bilan

वैदिकेष्विति प्रयुञ्जते। 1020 Herist says " #371 TITEIT HATARRHEI 1026 श्रूयते चोजयिन्यां काव्यकारपरीक्षा । इह कालिदासमेण्ठावत्रामररूपसूरभास

हरिचन्द्रचन्द्रगुप्तौ परीक्षिताविह विशालायाम् ॥ भूयते च पाटलिपुत्रे शासकारपरि

अनोपवर्षवर्षाविह पाणिनिपिङ्गालाविह व्याधिः । परराधिपताली इह परीक्षिताः ख्याति F : Fio TATHT p. 55.

78

History of Dharmastistra

on two circumstances viz. considerable change in Sanskrit idiom between Pāṇini’s time and Kātyāyana’s time and ( secondly ) much time must have passed before a grammar composed in Northwest India could become so popular as to induce an author from the South to compose Vārtikas thereon. The first circums tance is worth little. Even in these days of the diffusion of primary education, daily newspapers, railways, radio progra mmes, a regional language like Marathi spoken in Berar and Khandesh varies in some details from the same language as spoken in Poona, Satara and the Konkan. The changos noted by Katyāyana are not at all fundamental. Pāpini himnself refers to many differences and mentions by name ten predecos sors viz. Apisali (Vi. 1. 92), Kāsyapa (1. 2. 25, VIII. 68). Gārgya (VIII. 3. 20, VIII. 4. 67), Gālava (VI. 3. 61, VIII. 4. 67). Cakravarmaṇa (VI. I. 130), Bhāradvāja (VII.2.63), Sākatāyana (III. 4. 111, VIII. 3. 18, VIII. 4. 50 ), Sakalya (1. 1. 16, VI. 1. 127, VIII. 37. 9, VIII. 4. 51 ), Senaka (V. 4. 112), Sphotāyana (VI. 1. 123). Pāṇini, moreover, refers to ‘Ācāryas’ in general in VII. 3, 49 and VIII. 4. 52. He also speaks of eastern ācāryas in III. 4. 18 and northern ācāryas in VI. 3. 32 (mātara-pitara udicām ‘). This last citation shows that, though Panini cane himself from northwest India, Sanskrit was spoken even in tho Extreme north much beyond Pāṇini’s home and the people used the form ‘Mātarapitarau ’ instead of ‘Mātāpitarau’ as required by Pāṇini. This state of things existed even before Pāṇini in the time of Yāska, who states that the verbal forin Savati is used by the Kamboja people in the sense of ‘gati’, but only a derivative from it viz. sayaḥ’ is used by the Arya people (and not the verbal form ). This shows that in Yāsku’s time the Kambojas were not accepted as Āryas, though their language was basically the same as that of the Aryas. 1028

Haradatta 102 he says what was not present to the mind of the Sūtrakāra (Panini) or what was not noticed by him is clearly stated by the Vākyakāra (Katyāyana ) and the Blasyakāra ( clearly states ) what was not noticed by the Vakyakāra. To illustrate, Pānini says ‘Kambojāl-luk’ (IV. 1.-175) meaning that the king of Kamboja is called Kamboja. Katyayana adds &

— - - —…————-… —– —- - - 102 8 yaramaFairroga na CAF

FIRTI E II. 2. It may be noted that in the Pāli Assalāyanasutta ed. by Pischel 1880 ) p. 10 it is stated that there are no distinctions of castes among Sum yavana)

and Kamboja people, Kamboja is the Pamir region. D o 102 h et says ‘DIRTOTAER 9 Foto Triat

TV4 H oont on natt p. 7,

7. Dharmasūtra of Apastamba

79

vārtika ‘Kamboja dibhyo lug-vacanam codādyartham’. Patan jali in his Bhāsya specifies ‘Coda, Karlera and Kerala’ as the words included in Kambojādi-gana but in the Ganapatha at the end of the Siddhantakaumudi (Nir, ed. of 1929 ) Saka and Yavana are further additions to the words of that gana. Pānini dwelling in north-West India either forgot to include Cola (or Coda) and Kerala or did not know those names or it is possible that those nainos were first coined about the time of Pāṇini or even after him but Kātyāyana coming later and being a southernor included Coun (or Cola) and Kerala. This shows how the Gana pātha ag now printed is not necossarily valid for Pāpini’s time,

The 2nd circumstance relied upon by Dr. Ram Gopal has been answered above by reference to the role of pariṣads and by what kings should do and did in ancient India for the encoura gement and diffusion of Sanskrit literature,

Panini mentions ten predecessors by name, besides eastern und northern ācāryas. But Katyāyana mentions only a few names such as Pauṣkarasīdi (Vārtika 3 on Pan. VIII, 4, 48 ), Vājapyāyana (Vārtika 35 on Pāṇ. I. 2. 64 ), Vyādi (Vārtika 45. on Pān. I. 2. 64). I am aware that Patañjali notices different readings in the Vārtikas (on which he comments) such as by the Saunigas (about 6 times) and by the Bhiradvājiyas ( about ten times ). But considering the huge number 112i of Vārtikas On the Astādbyāyi this is a mere flea-bite. Similarly, it appears that a few Vārtikas other than those of Kātyāyana existed in Patanjali’s day. Taking all these things into consideration, Kātyāyana may be said to have flourished one hundred years or at the most 150 years before Patañjali i. e. 300 B. C.-250 B. C., conceding for argument that Patañjali flourished about 150 B. C. But if Patanjali is held to have flourished in the first century A. D., Katyāyana would have to be brought down to about 150 B.O. to 100 B.O.

If Kātyāyana is placed at about 300 B. C.-250 B, C. Pāniu should be placed at 450 B. C.-400 B. C.

Pāṇini’s sūtras themselves furnish some material to show that he did not flourish in the early phases of the sūtra period

hoa

102i Printed Vārtikapātha (without author’s name ) contains Vārtika’s in

Kielhorn’s edition printed in large type number 4200. Vide pp. 193-2274 Vol. VII (in Marathi) i,“e, Marathi translation of Patañjali’s Mahābhtbox by M, M. Vusudeva shastri Abhyankar for details about the qum of Vārtikas,

!

FOUN

19

but rather in the later phases of it. A few references to some of Pānini’s sūtras on literary works and a few other matters will be helpful in arriving at a tentative date for Pānini. Pāṇini says ‘Purāṇaprokteṇu brāhmanakalpesu’ (IV. 3. 105), which means the affix nini is applied to Brāhmaṇa works and Kalpa works, provided these are declared by ancient (inunis ). The oxamples are Bhāllavinaḥ and Sātyāyaninah from Bhallu and Satyāyana. This clearly shows that in Pāṇini’s times there were sātra works both ancient and not ancient (i, e. composed nearer his time ).

According to Pāṇini IV. 3. 105 as it stands the termination nini would not apply to Brāhmana works and Kalpasūtras that were not ancient. Kātyāyana adds a vārtika that ‘wini’ will not apply to Yājñavalkya’s and other Brāhmanas though they are equally purāṇaprokta (and so we shall have ‘Yajnavalkāni’ and ‘Saulabhāni’ Brāhmaṇāni. The Kāśikā says that it is reported in the ākhyānas that Yājavalkya and others do not belong to old times and the sūtrakāra acts on that. 1021 An example of an ancient Kalpa is Paingikalpa. Then there are the two sūtras Pārāśarya-silalibhyām bhikṣunatasūtrayoh’ and ‘Karmandakṣśāsvād-inih’ (IV, 3.110-111). These show that before Pāṇini wrote Bhikṣu-sūtras by Pārāśarya and Karmanda and Natasūtras by Silalin and Kṛśāśva had baen composed While Baud. Dh.S. (II. 1. 43-44) includes among Upapātakas the profession of actors (rangopajivana) and the profession of

102i This raises an interesting question, Patanjali names • Yajnavalkāng

Brāhmanāni’ and ‘Saulabhāni’. What are these? The present writer suggests that Yajnavalkāni are those passages of the ;)k. Up. (11, 2-3, IV. 1-4) in which Yājnavalkya propounds perennial philosophy to Janaka and other questioners, Saulabhāni Brāhmanāni may he those passages of the Br. Up. (II. 4 and IV.5) in which Maitreyi is instructed by Vājāavalkya. Sulabhā Maitreyi is one of the three women to wboru water is offered in the tarpana. The Br. Up, is divided into six adbyāyas and each adhyāya is divided into parts called brāhmanas, From this interpretation, if accepted by scholars, it would follow that in Panini’s time the Br. Up. passages mentioned above were not regarded as composed hy a cirantana sage but in Kātyāyana’s days, those Passages had come to be regarded as old and therefore Kātyāyana had to frame a special vārtika about them. The Kaśikā passage is **1ts Pareigt arena atafi qu a *#7:1 It is noteworth that TIaradatta on Āp. D. S. II 2.5. 13-14 · Figureratelier Forty aurr( a),’ remarks ferdinates a la tietan genaires:

NO

FOUNDED

1917

7. Dharmasūtra of Apastamba

81

the teaching of danoing (Nātyācārya), these facts amount to this that before Panini and in his day also the profession of actors appears to have been not looked down upon in North-West India, while Baudhāyana, an inhabitant of the southern parts of India ( as I noted ), looked down upon it.

Panini has the sūtra adhikrtya kṛte granthe’ (IV. 3. 87) and then follows ‘Siśukranda-Yamasabha-dvandvendrajananā dibhyas-chah.’(IV. 3. 88 ), which means that the affix ‘cha’ (i. o. Iya) is added to denote a book composed with reference to children’s cries, the assoinbly of Yama, dvandva compounds and words in the Indra-jananādi-gana (0. g. Siśukrandiya, Yama sabhiya, Kirātārjuniya, Indrajananiya etc.). This shows that much secular literature had already been produced in Panini’s days. A Vārtika may be mentioned in connection with the date of Pānini. The sūtra is ‘adhikstya krte granthe (Pān. IV. 3.87) and the vārtika is . Lubākhyāyikābhyo bahulam’. Tho. sūtra states as a general rule that works composed with reference to something have the affix ‘aṇ’(a) added to the word denoting the matter e. g. a work concerning Subhadrā would be called Saubhadra. Kātyāyana says that in the case of the literary genre called Akhyāyikās this termination is in most cases not added. Patañjali cites the names of two literary works called Akhyāyikās viz. Vasavadatta and Sumanottarā, 102k where the termination is not found but also names an ākhyāyikā oalled Bhaimarathi where the termination an’ was applied.

The above shows that in Pāṇini’s time ākhyāyikās existed and they ended in the affix aṇ, while Kātyāyana know many akhyāyikās (mark the plural) which showed no termination.

For deciding the question of the home of Apastamba Dr. Ram Gopal relies upon what Åp. Gs. (II. 14. 1.6.) says about Simantonnayana ( parting of the hair for a pregnant woman) and about the two verses employed therein from the Āpastambiya Mantrapātha (praśna II, 10th Khanda, verses 12-13). In that

102k For the story of Sumana and Uttara, vide Dr. V. S Agrawal’s interest.

ing paper about it based upon Pali works and commentaries in * Poona Orientalist. Vol. VII pp. 197-200. Vide also Pagini IV, 2. 59-60.

Tadadbite tadveda’ and ‘kratūkth&di - sūtrāntāt-thak’ and the Maha bbāsya thereon for the existence of an extensive sūtra literature in the times of Pāṇini and Patañjali. Pagini thus camo towards the later phases of the sutra literaturo. Therefore, to assiga bim to about 450-400 B. C. would appoar to be the most proper and probable date.“History of Dharmafāstra

ceremony the husband directs two men to sing verses (gāthis ) to the accompaniment of a lute. The two verses are 1031 “The people of Sālva declared this Yaungandhari alone is our king’, the people who (reside ) along thy banks, O Yamunā, whogo (dominion) revolves all round ( if the reading is vivștta-cakre ). The people of the brāhmaṇa class who reside along thy banku and over whom your dominion runs or exists; O river ( 80 and so).” Áp. Gr. S. says the first vurse of the two is to be sung

1021 The 919.7.1.14.3-6 are: oftega… Haya Kar ate

गायतामिति वीणागायिनी संज्ञास्ति । उत्तरयोः पूर्वा साल्वानां ब्राह्मणानामितरा नदी निर्देशन यस्यां वसन्ति ।.

The two verses from thic Apastambiya-mantrapātha ( ed. by Wiaternitz) II. 11. 12-13 are : Frunia 7 Trāna rafmag: 1 fare inter यमुने तव ।। सोम एवं नो राजेत्याहु ह्मणीः प्रजाः । विवृत्तचक्रा आसीनारतीरेणासो तक। Vido H. of Dh. Vol. II. pp. 224-225 and note 519 for various readings in both verses, references to Yaugandhari, Sālvas and Salvāvayava in Panini, the Kūśika and in the parvans of Mahābhārata. In the first verse, unless we uoderstand prajāḥ’ after salviḥ,’ the meaning would be ‘women of Sālva’ declared &c. The difficulty is what is the cxact reading of the third pada in both verses, free or for - as vocative, or fa i r or EST O. The word * vivftta’ occurs even in the Rgveda (X.27.21), lo Yaj. Smsti 1.266 we have प्रवृत्तचक्रता rendered by the Mitaksara as अप्रतिहताज्ञता. If the reading is far :, then it would be an adjective of Fift: and would mean

E i. e. ‘on whom your wheel (i. e, power or dominion ) revolves’. Prof. Hazra objects to my rendering of the word ‘cakra as ‘dominion’ and in a matter of fact way asks how a river is to havo dominion and asserts ‘cakra’ should be taken to mean ‘army’. This is useless as it is not the army that is relevant in the work here but the people dwelling on the banks of the river. Rg. poets looked upon great rivers as goddesses, implored them to aceept their prayer (Rg. X.75. 5-6 ) and state that Sarasvati vanquishes their enemies (Rg. II.30.8). It should be noted that Vedic mantras are prescribed for some purposes not actually expressed in them, but even op the basis of a single word that has somo remote connection with the act for which it is prescribed. For example, the Mantra satyenotta bhita bhūmih’ &c., which is Ap. Mantrapātha 1.6.1 and which occurs in Rg. X. 85. 1. and Atharvaveda XIV, 1, 1 (but not in Tai. S.) is recited (acc. to Ap. Gr. II.5.19 Uttarā rathasyottambhani) at the time of supporting the chariot in which the powly married pair is to start for the husband’s home, simply because the word ‘attabhita’ occurs therein, though in the Rgveda verse what is said to be sup ported is the earth and the heaven. Even in modern lines at the time of a bath in any river old people repeat theyorso di Imam me Gange” etc. (Rg. X.75.5). Vido Dharmasindi paga/1375 for Snana-vidhi (Nir. ed. of 1926). Vide a long paper on Signaatonor yana by J. Gonda in East and West Journal (Rome) vol vit op 12-31.

1

POONA

FOUNDED

7. Dharmasītra of Apostambo

for Salva people and the other verse for brahmanas and referenos to river (in the vocative ) on which they reside is to be made. The author of Ap. Gr. found two verses in the Mantrapātha of nearly the same import and having nearly the same words. He had to assign & proper viniyoga to each of the two verses. Straightforwardly construed, acc. to Ap. Gr. the first verse (in which ‘Sālvīh’ are expressly mentioned ) should be sung in the case of all people of Sālva country (whether brāhmanas, ksatriyas or vaisyas ) and the 2nd verse was to be sung in the case of brāhmaṇas (other than Sālva brahmanas). This leaves a lacuna viz, what verse, if any, is to be sung for Ksatriyas and Vaiyyas who do not belong to the Sālva country. It is possible that brāhmanas are meant to be only illustrative (pradarsanar tham ) i. e. brāhmanas and others not belonging to the Salva country should employ the 2nd verse. It would be seen how several interpretations are given by Haradatta and Sudarsanā. carya on account of these difficulties. Among the first twelve verses in Ap. M. P. II. 11 five are common to both Rg. and Tai. S. and two (viz. verses 10-11 ) occur in Rg., Atharvaveda and Tai. S. That shows that the Āp. M. P., though collected for Apastambiyas, could be drawn upon or referred to by others who were not Apastambiyas but studied soine other śakhī. Siman tonnayana was a practice common to all persons (at loast of the three varṇas ) in those days. It should be noted that anong the gphyasūtras there is great divergence about the details of Simantonnayana and about the verge to be sung. Aśvalayana. (I. 14. 6-7), Hiraṇyakeğin, Baud. Gr. (1. 10.9), Bhāradvāja and Paraskara (I. 15. 7-8) prescribe in this sainskāra only one verse and that too in honour of king Soma and no mention is made of sālvik’ as in Āp. Gr. S. These Gr. sūtras were not bound to follow strictly the Apastambiya Mantrapātha, while Āp.Gr, was so bound. It is also remarkable that the Gr. sūtras of Gobhila, Khadira, Laugikși and Vaikhānasa are silent avon about the singing of a particular verse by lute players. Paras kara says that acc. to some the verse appointed (i. o. prescribed. niyukta,) must be sung. Pāraskara probably refers by this to the Āp. Gr. simply because in the Ap. M. P. (which is a compil ation made by somebody who is not now definitely known) a verse occurs in which Sālva people are mentioned and because that verse (one of two verses ) prescribed by Ap. Gr. was gung in Simantonnayana, it would be a wild conjecture on the part of anybody including Dr. Ram Gopal to say that the author of Gr. 8. came from the Sālva country. Owing to the defectos

84

History of Dharmasriard

his outlook and methods, I propose not to refer to Dr. Ram Gopal’s work hereafter as far as possible. This volume would become very bulky if I were to reply to all his arguments, many of them baseless and inane.

I must say a few words about another recent work on Dharmasūtras. Dr. S. C. Banerji (of Maulana Azad College, Calcutta) recently published in 1962 ) a work on ‘Dharma sutras, a study in their origin and development’. He has summarised in the first 73 pages the contents of a portion of my History of Dharmaśāstra (published so far back as 1930 ) that dealt with the Dharniasūtras, quotes from them and refers to them dozens of times (sometimes four or five times on the same page). He is fond of adding sage remarks of which a few specimens are quoted below, though he admits on p. 7 (n. 1) ’ for chronological questions relating to the works, we have taken Kane ( HDH Vol. I) as the chief authority. The work comprises several articles which Dr. Banerji contributed to some journals at different times. For example he contributed reconstruction of Hārsta-dharmasūtra in J.O.I. (Baroda, 1958) pp. 14-37, which, with a few additions, appears in his work on pp. 257-287, re-construction of Atri, Cyavana, Bhāradvāja and Devala in JOI. (Baroda) Vol. VI, now represented in Dharma gutras ’etc. pp. 244-257; reconstruction of Uśanas in ABORI vol. 39, pp. 85-100 ( 1953 ) now appears in Dharmasutras’ as pp. 340-44, ‘Flora and Fauna of Dharmasūtras ‘in J. O. I. ( Baroda ) vol. V, pp. 345-359 are set out now in ‘Dharnasūtrasi pp. 206-228. He is more in collector than a scholar doing original and thorough research on his own account. He has given useful tables and appondices for workers on Sanskrit studies. He often writes rather pompously and does little arduous or valuable research himself. More than thirty-five years ago, 1 collected passages from Saṅkha-Lik hitasūtra (published in ABORI vol. VII-VIII) found in printed works. Since then & good many works on Dharnia-śāstra have been printed. He does not make an effort to supplement what was not included by me and yet remarks (on p. 239 n. 1)‘P. V. Kane has collected, though not exhaustively, many passages ascribed to Saṅkha Likhita’, but he excludes my collection from his work nor does ho make the collection exhaustive by his own effort and research. On p. 73 he proposes to study the diversified contents of Dharma sotras under four main heads viz. (A) Ācāra, (BD Prayasoitta, (0) Vyavabāra, ‘(D) Rajadharma. Under A be makes four sube

STITUT

FOUNDED

97

9. Dharmasūtra of À pastamba

heads (1) Sampluribs, (s) Sraddha, (3) Aśauca, (4) Dravya suddhi and some miscellaneous rules. To Upanayana and Vivāha he devotes pp. 73-80, to Srāddha pp. 81-85, to Aśauon pp. 85-89 and to Dravyasuddhi pp. 89-95; B. Prayascitta, con cept of Prayascitta, classification of sins and modes of expiation; all this is disposed of in pp. 95-99. Then C: Vyavahāra includ ing judicial procedure, inheritance and succession and partition are allotted pp. 109-120; D. Rājadharma is disposed of in pp. 121-125. Social, cultural, religious and economic conditions reflected in Dharmasūtras are discussed under ten heads viz. Varnāśramadharma; system of education; food and drink; position of women; law and administration; religion and philo sophy; Apaddharma; manners, morals, customs and amusements; Brahmanical supremacy and position of śūdras; economic life: all these are given in pp. 126-265. On p. 73 ( note 1 ) he is plea sed to observe ‘P. V. Kane in his HDH Vol. II. briefly indicates the contents of this literature in tracing the evolution of a parti cular rite, custom or institution from the earliest times through different stages. But, as is usual in a work like his, there is no systematic, critical and comparative study of the contents of Dharmasūlras in it. The present attempt is made with a view to 52.pplying this need.’ Although he refers in the Bibiliography at the end of the book (on p. 54 ) to the History of Dharınaśāstra ( Vol. 1-V ), it appears to me that he has either not read volumes III to V of that History or ignored them with what motives I cannot understand. Vol. III was published in 1946, Vol. IV in 1953 and Vol. V part I in 1958, at least several years before his present volume (published in 1962 ). There is not a single reference, so far as I could see, to those volumes in pp. 73-205. The subject of śrāddha which he disposes of in four pages (81-85) was treated by me in Vol. IV pp. 334-551 by tracing its history from Vedic times, in the sūtras, Smṛtis and comparatively modern works; the subject of Prāyaścittas, sins and expiations w88 dealt with in Vol. IV pp. 1-178, which he disposed of in pp.95-99. Asauca to which Dr. Banerji assigned four pages was dealt with hy nie in the same volume (IV) at pp. 267-309 and Drayya. suddhi in Vol. IV pp. 309-333. Dr. Banerji spares for Vyaya. hāra (including judicial procedure, inheritance, succession, partition) pp. 109-120 and for Rajadharma pp. 121-125 ). while I devote pp. 1-241 in Vol. III. to Rājadharma anche begin it with a summary of what Āp. Dh. S. states and I treat “Vyavahāra’ in pp. 242-824 (in Vol. III). How far he attempts ‘a systematic, oritical and comparatite

86

study of the contents of the Dharmasūtras ‘(to quote his own words ) in his book is for Sanskrit scholars to judge. I should like to say (begging his pardon) that he appears to me to be a conceited writer. I shall set out only one but an important instance. In the first vol. of H. of Dh. I devoted pp. 213-221 to Katyāyana. I began by calling him one of a triumvirate in the realm of ancient Hindu Law and proceduro and based my remarks on quotations contained in a dozen works and authors. I stated (on p. 213 ) that Kātyāyana appears to have taken Nārada and Bphaspati as his models in the treatment of Vyavahāra. I referred to a work called Karmapradipa of Katyāyana in Jivananda’s collection of Smṛtis and hold (on p. 221 ) that that author is different from Kātyāyana, the Jurist. In 1933 I published “Kātyāyana-smṛtisāroddhāra’ in which I brought together 973 verses of Kātyāyana on Vyavahāra alone, extracted from twenty works, which work is mentioned by Dr. Banerji in his Bibliography on p. 542. Later on Prof. Ranga Swami Aiyangar collected over a hundred verses of Katyayana the jurist and published them in one of the papers presented to me on my 61st birthday (vide Kane Festschrift pp. 7–17). About Kātyayana the jurist with whom I dealt on pp. 213-218 (in Vol. I. of H. of Dh.) I stated ‘All known quotations of Katyayana are in verse’ (p. 218 ). About this Dr. Banerji on p. 241 of his work remarks that Kane is not accurate when he asserts that * all known…… Verse’ and in connection with my remark about Medhātithi’s reference to a sūtra of Kātyāyana that we must either suppose that he ( Medhātithi) is referring to some other work of Kātyāyana than the one in verse from which hundreds of verges are cited by other writers or that Katyāyana’s work on Vyavahāra also contained some prose passages’ (p. 218), Dr. Banerji remarks (pp. 241-42 ) that I am not right in drawing the inference and that ‘our collection of prose passages attributed to Katyāyana by different writers proves conclusively that neither of the inferences of Kane is tenable’. My first inference based on Medhātithi quoting a sūtra of Katyāyana was that Katyayana also wrote another work in sūtra style. Dr. Banerji says this inference is wrong. Then it follows that Katyayana did not write another work in prose. My second inference was that Kātyāyana’s work on Vyavahāra might have contained prose passages. This, he says, is wrong; if so, it follows that Kātyāyana’s Vyavabāra did not contain prose passages. He is inconsistent in this. On p. 53 (at the top left hand golumn No. 7 under the caption ‘minor writert on Dharmasūtot me

SUU

7. Dharmashtra of Apastamba

87

statos about Katyāyana " it may be pointed out that Kane does not mention the fact that to this author are ascribed sūtras also in addition to verses on Smrti”. Before saying anything more I shall examine the prose extracts from Kātyāyana which Dr. Banerji sets out on pp. 295-296. They are only eleven and taken from seven digests and commentaries. His method seeins to lo to take up printed Sanskrit nibandhas and commentaries and look at the Index of names of authors quoted or to read hurriedly some passages and when the name Kātyāyana (or any other writer about whom he wants to write ) appears, to put it down in his collection without troubling to trace it to its sourco. set out the quotations in the learned author’s own order.

Number and quotation

Work from rohich tuken

and page therein 1 Athāto nityasnānam nadyādau Grhastharantnakara

……pratisincet

p. 208 2 aparahṇe vratopāyanlyamaśnita Kștya-kalpataru

Gshasthakāṇda p. 141 3 ā caturthyā yadahaḥ

Kștyaratnākara p. 320 sampadyate tadabah 4 ābhyudayike yugmānāśayet Caturvarga-cintimani

I. p. 141 5 Grāmyābhir-osadhibhiḥ sahānnena Smṛticandrikā on sraddha

……uttarās-tarpayanti (Mysore ed.) pp. 252-3 6 Chāgosra-mesanālabhya … II p. 203 of above work

vāhrtya pacet 7 Pindavacca pascima pratipattiḥ Gṛhastharatnākara p. 284 8 Sāvitryā brāhmanam-upanayita Kr̥tyakalpataru,

……88rvesam vā sĀvitri Brabmacario p. 106 9 Sauvarṇa-rājataudumbara Smrtioandrikā on

……patrapuṭādiṣu vā

śrāddha p. 291 10 Striyaḥ…pratipadi … … … Kṛtyaratnākara p. 323

māvāsyāyām sarvam 11 Svāhākārapradanahomah

Manyarthamuktāvali of Kullūka p. 93 (i.e. on

Manu III. 85.) Dr. Banerji forgets or ignores that Kātyāyana is a name borne by several eminent authors. There is Kātyāyana, author of the Vārtikas on Pāṇini, who is held to have flourished some conturies before the Christian era, there is an extensive Kat yang-brautasūtra which also is a work of a period before the Christian era. I dealt with a third Katyāyana in H. of Dh. VotI

who was a jurist and whom I assigned to the period between the 4th and 6th century A. D. (p. 218 of vol. I, ed. of 1930 ). Dr. Banerjee appears to accept this date (p. 242 of his work). If the learned doctor had carefully read the prose passages attributed to Kātyāyana in medieval nibandhas set out by hini on pp. 295-296, he would have found that all of them refer to snāna, śrāddha and none refers to law and judicial procedure at all. A cautious scholar would have paused before fathering those passages on Kātyāyana the jurist. The doctor’s reading is neither deep nor vast and, not being cautious, he gives free rein to his imagination. The doctor has probably not read or heard that there is a pariṭista in nine kandikās attributed to Katyāyana and attached to the Pāraskaragrhyasūtra (which also is spoken of as Kātiya). I shall show that most of the prose passages he sets out (on pp. 295-296 ) as Kātyāyana’s oocur in that Parisista (Gujarati Progs ed. of 1917 )* as follows :

No.1 athāto…pratisincet-Oocurs on p. 410 of pār. Gr;No. 2 is in Katyāyana’s srautasūtra II. 1. 10; No.3 ‘a caturthyā…tadahah is on p. 423 Sraddhasūtra, kandikā 6; No. 4 ābhyudayike…sayet in Śrāddhasūtra, whole of Kandikā 6; No. 5’ grāmyabhir…… tarpayanti’ and No. 6 Chāgs……pacet’ occur on p. 519 of of the Gujarati Press ed. of Pāraskara Gr.; No. 7 pindāvacca …… pratipattiḥ occurs in Karmapradipa p. 9 alias Chāndogāhnika (in B. I. series, Cal. 1909 ); No. 8 ‘savitrya…… Vā Sāvitri’-compare Paraskara Gr. (kāṇds 2, kandika 3. ‘Gayatrim, brahmaṇāya - nubrūyāt, Tristubham rājanyasya, Jagatīm vaisyasya, sarveṣām vā Gayatrim’, 7-10). It should be noted that Aparārka (p. 33 ) quotes from kātyāyana the passage ‘Gayatryā, tristtubba …… jagaty…. sarveṣām vā gāyatrim’; the passage as quoted in the Kr̥tyakalpataru is almost the same as in Pār. Gr. and is attri buted to Katyāyana by Aparār a probably because the Par. Gr. is also called Kātiya Gr. and, as shown above (p. 18), Pāraskara is another name of Kātyāyana. No. 9 Sauvarya……putādiṣu vā occurs in the Sraddhasūtra, Kandikā 2 (p. 443. Gujarati press ed.); No.10 «striyaḥ…pratipadi…… māvāsyāyām sarvam’- is the whole of kandikā 9 of the Srāddhasūtra ( Gujarati press ed. p. 538, except the first three words ); No. 11 .svāhā… homah’

The editor notes that the mos, of Kr̥tyakalpataru does not attributes No. 8 to Kātyāyana, but as Aparārka on p. 33 attributes av almost identical passage to Kātyāyana, his name is inserted by the editor before this passage. The passage as read by Aparārka is : D गायत्रीम्। अनुयादिति शेष:. The Kr̥tyakalpataru probably suthmerikes Plr. Gr. in its own words,

TOOMA

FOUNDEO

7. Dharmasutra of Apastamba

89

these words of Kullūka are an echo of Katyāyana - srauta - sūtra VI. 10. 20-24 ‘pratinigadya homāḥ…svābākārapradanah.’ The two passages (2,7) out of eleven are so brief that to find their source is like searching for & pin in a haystack. I had to spend hours in tracing the sources of these passages. All these passages, it is clear, do not refer to any juridical matter. Dr. Banerji has often stated as shown above that I had not proved conclusively my propositions. I hope that scholars will concede that I have conclusively proved at least one thing viz. what Dr. Banerji regarded (on p. 242, line 4) as con clusively proved by him has been conclusively proved to be wrong. After this exhibition of his carefulness and scholarship I do not want to expose his vanity and shallowness. He is very anxious to impress on his readers his cleverness and industry. On page 229 of H. of Dh. I, I briefly dealt with Pracetas and remarked that in both Mit. and Aparārka we find prose passages and verses cited from Pracetas. At the end I said a few prose quota tions from Pr. are noted in the Smrtioandrika and by Haradatta. On p. 242 Dr. Banerji could not avoid saying in his usual manner

Kane is not absolutely accurate in holding that a few proge quotations etc.’ He cites about 61 passages (prose) from Pracetas of which 34 are extracted from the Mit, Aparārka and Smrtioan drikā to which works I had expressly referred. In order to reduce the bulk of the volume I did not set out any prose passages. That is all. I never said that only a few prose passages of Pracetas are known to nibandhas.

The commentary of Haradatta called Ujjvala-vṛtti is the only one so far recovered. For an account of Haradatta, vide sec. 86. The Smrticandrikā (I, page 25 ) quotes a passage from the bhūsya of Apastamba (11.6.15.19-20) and (II p.300) quotes the explana tion of the bhāsyakāra on Ā pastamba II. 6, 14. 1. Both these passages are not found in the commentary of Haradatta, though in the latter case, Haradatta holds the same view as that of the Bhāsyakāra. Similarly, the Viramitrodaya’ (Vyavahāra, page 671) quotes the bhāsyakāra of Āpastamba, but that quotation does not agree with Haradatta. Haradatta himself does not call his work bhāsya, but vrtti. Besides, the Subodhini on the Mitāksarā (on Vai II. 132 ) quotes a passage from the Apastambadharma vrtti which is found in Haradatta on Āp. II. 6. 14. 1. Haradara himself oites sometimes two or three other interpretations on the game sūtra (e. g. on Ap. I. 2. 5. 2; I. 3. 10. 6; I. 5. 15. 20:12 3 16). So the bhāsyakūra was probably one of his predecessore

POONS

FOUND

90

It appears from the Kalpataru of Lakṣmidhara that Kapardin wrote a bhāsya on Ap. Dh. S. e. g. the Brahmacāri kānda of that work on p. 15 quotes Āp. Dh. S. II. 2. 1, 2-5 and remarka ’etacca nityānām-eva karmanām phalāntaram-iti Kapardibhāsyam’; also on p. 257 it quotes Āp. Dh. S. I. 3. 11. 27 34 and cites एकसकः एकचरः शृगाल इति कपर्दी. Laksmidhara on Sraddha cites the explanation of Āp. Dh. S. II. 7.17. 21 ‘Svitri…sūdrot. panno brāhmanyāmityete sraddhe…panktidīgaṇā bhavanti’ and Haradatta seems to have taken it from Kapardin. In Naiyatakāla-kanda it quotes Kapardibhāṣya on Āp. Dh. S. I. 17. 37 (pp. 239 and 306 ); on pp. 275-6 Āp. Dh. S. I. 2. 7. 19-21 are quoted and Kapardibhāṣya on Ugratah sūdrato vāharet’ is quoted. From a corrupt passage in Mr. Gharpure’s edition of the Smrticandrikā ( 2nd part p. 419 ) it follows that Dhūrta svāmin had either composed a bhāsya on Āp. Dh. S. (the reference is to Ap. Dh. I. 5. 17. 18 and 20 suktam ca’ and

Suktam cāparayogam’ or that he had in some other work referred to Āp. aphorisms and explained them. Dhūrtasvāmin wrote a bhāsya on the Srauta-sūtra of Āpastamba, the first vol. of which was published in G. O. S. in 1956.

In Aparārka, Haradatta, Smṛticandrikā and other works there are numerous quotations in verse ascribed to Āpastamba. These quotations are concerned with topics of Āhnika, Srāddha, and Prāyaścitta. The Smṛticandrikā (III. pp. 423 and 426 ) quotes a Stotrāpastamba. Haradatta on Gautama (22. 18 ) quotes several verses on prāyaścitta from Āpastamba. Threo of these verses are found in the Apastamba-smrti in verse (Jivananda’s collection vol. I pp. 567-584 chap. I verses 16, 19, 31 ). The Smrti printed by Jivananda contains about 207 verses in ten chapters on prāyaścitta and purifications. But the quota tions from the Smrticandrikā and Aparārka show that the verse Āpastamba was a much larger work and since they regarded the versified work as equally authoritative with the sūtra work, the versified smrti must have been comparatively an ancient work,

Shri. A. N. Krishna Aiyangar in Kunhan Raja Felicitation Volume (pp. 392–397 ) points out that there are some additional sūtras of Āp. Dh. S. In the Rangaswami Aigangar Comh Korb (pp. 367-369 ) an account is given of an Apastambasmrti pagal Adyar Library in six patalas and 800 grantha.

27