08 Hiraṇyakeśi-Dharmasūtra

08 Hiraṇyakeśi-Dharmasūtra

The Hiraṇyakeśi-dharmasūtra forms the 26th and 27th praśnas of the Hiraṇyakeśi-kalpa. The Śrauta-sūtra has been published by the Ānandāśrama Press (Poona). The Hiraṇyakeśi-gṛhya-sūtra was edited with extracts from the commentary of Mātṛdatta by Dr. Kirsto (Vienna, 1889). The Gṛhya forms the 19th and 20th praśnas of the Kalpa, each praśna being divided into eight paṭalas. The Śrauta-sūtra is largely based on the Śrauta-sūtra of Āpastamba Tho Gṛhya-sūtra is indebted to the Gṛhya-sūtra of Bhāradvāja. The Dharmasūtra of Hiraṇyakeśin can hardly be called an independent work. Hundreds of sūtras are borrowed word for word from the Āpastamba Dharmasūtra. The Dharmasūtra of Hiraṇyakeśin is therefore the oldest voucher for the authenticity of Āpastamba’s text and is very valuable for checking the latter.

The Hiraṇyakeśins form a sūtra-caraṇa of the Khāṇḍikeya section of the Taittirīyaśākhā and were formed later than the Āpastambīya School. In a grant of the Kongu kings dated in 454 A. D. Brāhmaṇas of the Hiraṇyakeśi School are mentioned (I. A. vol. V. page 136). According to the Mahārṇava quoted in the commentary of the Caraṇavyūha, the Hiraṇyakeśins were to be found in the south-west between the Sahya mountain and the ocean and near Paraśurāma (i.e. in the Konkan). There are at present many Brāhmaṇas in the Ratnagiri District who call themselves Hiraṇyakeśins. The Dattaka-mīmāṃsā of Nanda-paṇḍita twice quotes passages from the commentary of Śabarasvāmin on the sūtra of Satyāṣāḍha. If he was identical with the great commentator of the Pūrva-mīmāmsā (which is almost certain), then we would have unimpeachable evidence for the existence of the works of the Hiraṇyakeśins long before 200-400 A. D.

Būhler in his second edition of the Āpastamba-dharmasūtra (1893) gave (in appendix II) the various readings of the Hiraṇyakeśi-dharmasūtra from two MSS. I secured a modern transcript of the Hiraṇyakeśi-dharmasūtra from the Deccan College collection (No. 138 of 1881-82), which contains the text and also the commentary of Mahādeva thereon. There are 18 folios for the sūtra and 101 for the commentary. That ms. presents some readings which are not noticed by Būhler as found in the two mss. consulted by him. For example, the ms. reads “saptama āyuṣkāmamaṣṭame brahmavarcasakāmam (reversing the order of years in Āp. I. 1. 1. 21-22), omits the words “yadi snāyāt daṇḍavat plavet” (from Āp. I. 1. 2. 30.), reads ‘vastrāṇyeva vasītobhaya &c.’ (Āp. I. 1. 3. 9 omits vasīta), reads ‘gurave’ for ‘ācāryāya’ in Āp. I. 1. 3. 31. The ms. of the Hiraṇyakeśi-dharmasūtra contains certain additions to the sūtras of Āpastamba. For example, a sūtra ‘kṣāralavaṇa madhumāṃsāni ca varjayet’ is added after Āp. II. 9. 22. 14, a sūtra ’teṣām pūjā śreyasyātmanaḥ kāryā’ occurs after Āp. II. 9. 25. 8, and the sūtra ‘sarva-dharmāṇām svadharmānuṣṭhānāniyameṣu ca yuktaḥ syāt’ occurs after Āp. II. 9.25. 13. The manuscript contains a few verses, that are not found in the Āpastamba-dharmasūtra, introduced by the words ‘athāpyudāharanti’¹, (except in one case viz. ‘putreṇa’, &c.). The manuscript also omits certain sūtras found in Āp. e.g. ‘varṇajyāyasām cetarair varṇaiḥ’ (Āp. II. 5. 11. 8), ‘anyatra rāhudarśanāt’ (Āp. II. 7. 17. 25), ‘athopanayanaṃ tata udakopasparśanam’ (Āp. I. 1. 1. 36.). In the case of some sūtras the readings of Hiraṇyakeśin present a smoother and more classical Sanskrit than that of Āpastamba and are manifestly attempts to bring them in line with the requirements of the śiṣṭas at the time when the Āpastambasūtras were taken over into the Hiraṇyakeśi school. Hiraṇyakeśisūtra has ‘pādonam’ and ‘ardhonam’ for ‘padunam’ and ‘ardhena’ of Āpastamba (I. 1. 2. 13-14), ‘asandarśane’ for ‘asandarśe’ (Āp. I. 1. 2. 29), ‘aglāniḥ’ for ‘aglāṃsnuḥ’ (Āp. I. 1. 3. 22) ‘prakṣālayet’ for ‘prakṣālayīta’ (Āp. I. 1. 3. 36), ‘kartṛpatyam’ for ‘kartapatyam’ (Āp. I. 2. 5. 3), ‘yathāśakti’ for ‘śaktivisayeṇa’ (Āp. II. 5. 12. 1). Another noticeable feature is that the arrangement of the sūtras into sub-sections is a good deal different in the two works. Būhler notes that from the 13th khaṇḍikā (6th paṭala) of the second praśna both the manuscripts consulted by him do not indicate the paṭalas. The Deccan College manuscript does not number them from the second paṭala in the second praśna. The number of paṭalas in the first praśna of Hiraṇyakeśi is eight, while Āpastamba has eleven paṭalas in each of the two praśnas. The distribution of sūtras in the khaṇḍikās is therefore different in the two works. Hiraṇyakeśi has 31 khaṇḍikās in the first praśna and 20 in the second. Besides, a few of the khaṇḍikās are differently placed. The first khaṇḍikā of Hiraṇyakeśi (first praśna) stops after Āp. I. 1. 2. 1, the third reaches up to Āp. I. 1. 4. 6: Āp. I. 8. 22 and 23 (the adhyātmāpaṭala) come in Hiraṇyakeśi immediately after Āp. I. 6. 19 and are Hiraṇyao I. 6. 20; Āp. I. 7. 20 and 21 = Hir. I. 6. 21-22; Āp. I. 9. 24 and 25. 1-4 = Hir. I. 6. 23; Āp. I. 9. 25. 4-13 and I. 9. 26. 1-10 = Hir. I. 7. 24; Āp. I. 9. 26. 11-14 and 1. 9. 27 = Hir. I. 7. 25; Āp. I. 10. 28 = Hir. I. 7. 26; Āp. I. 11. 31. 1-10 = Hir. 1. 8. 29; Āp. I. 11. 31. 11-23 = Hir. I. 8. 30. In the second praśna the variance in distribution of sūtras into khaṇḍikās is still greater. Besides, Āp. II. 4. 8-9 are placed in Hiraṇyakeśi before Āp. II. 3. 6-7 and Āp. II. 6. 13-15 before Āp. II. 5. 10-11. Sometimes a single sūtra of Āpastamba is split up into two and placed in two different khaṇḍikās, e.g. Āp. I. 9. 25. 4 is split into Hir. I. 6. 23. 31 and I. 7. 24. 1 (the portion from ‘rājānam gatvā’ being the first sūtra of Hiraṇyakeśi, 24th Khaṇḍikā.

The com. of Mahādeva Dīkṣita called Ujjvalā, is almost word for word the same as that of Haradatta’s Ujjvalā. That one has borrowed from the other admits of no doubt and Būhler thinks that Mahādeva is the borrower. But there is hardly anything to turn the scales in favour of Haradatta. Sometimes Mahādeva’s commentary contains more matter than Haradatta’s (e.g. on the sūtras ‘Saptame brahmavarcasakāmam &c’, ‘Upanayanam vidyārthasya śrutitaḥ’, ‘dvādaśāvarardhyam’ and sometimes Haradatta contains more explanation (e.g. on ’tasmiṅśca vidyākarmāntam’ &c.; on ’nāpsu slāghamānaḥ snāyāt’, on ‘pāṇisaṃkṣubdhenodakenaika &c.’. Mahādeva differs from Haradatta’s explanation of the word ‘atha’, which the former takes in the sense of ‘ānantarya or adhikāra’, while the latter takes it only in the sense of ‘ānantarya’. That Mahādeva also is an early writer follows from the fact (noted by Buhler p. 117 n) that portions of his commentary are contained in the Munich Ms. of Haradatta dated Vikrama-Saṃvat 1668 (1611-12 A.D.). It is to be noted that Haradatta after saluting Gaṇeśa at the beginning of his Ujjvalā does obeisance to Mahādeva (which may mean God Śiva or the author Mahādeva if he was the guru or father of Haradatta). Mahādeva often comments on the sūtras found in Āpastamba and not on the readings of them as existing in the Hiraṇyakeśi school; e.g. he comments on ‘padūnam’, on ‘adhāsanaśāyi’ for ardhāsanaśāyi (the reading of the sūtra), on ‘ātmasvastyayanārthena’ (Āp. II. 5. 11. 9) for ‘svastyayanārthena’ of the ms. of Hir. The explanations of the two writers sometimes differ, as for example on ‘ācāryādhīnas syādanyatra patanīyebhyaḥ’ (Āp. I. 1. 2. 19²). One more circumstance that is worthy of note is that the Ujjvalā of Haradatta does not contain many quotations from Smṛtis as compared with his commentary on the Gautamadharmasūtra. Although one may be inclined to hold that it is Mahādeva who borrows, it must be clearly recognized that there is hardly any positive evidence in support of such a view. There is a commentary called Vaijayantī on the Hiraṇyakeśi-srauta-sūtra. This Mahādeva is very likely identical with the Mahādeva who commented upon the dharmasūtra.