कल्पान्तरे विश्वासटिप्पन्यः

09 Vasiṣṭha-dharmasūtra

Vasistha-dharmasutra. This dlurmusutra has been printed several times. The collec tion of Jivanada (part II, pp. 456-496 ) contains only 20 chapters and a portion of the 21st and so does the collection of Mr. M. N. Dutt (Calcutta 1908). The Anandāśrama collection of sinītis ( 1905, pp. 187-231 ) and the edition of Dr. Fūhrer in the B. S. series (1916) contain thirty chapters. According to Dr. Jolly (R. u 8, p. 6 ) some mss. give only six or ten chapters, The Vasisthadharmasūtra with the commentary called Vidvan modini was printed at Benares. In the following Dr. Fūhrer’s

edition has been used.

Kunjārila ( vide noto 55 above ) tells us that the dharma sutra of Vasistha was specially studied by the students of tho Rgveda, but that along with other dharmasūtras it is authori tative for all caranas. No srauta and gļhya sūtras of Vasiṣtha, if they ever existed, have come down to us. We have therefore to fall back upon one of two hypotheses, viz. either the dharma sūtra of Vasistha is the solitary remnant of a school that might have once possessed a complete kalpa or that it was composed as an independent work on dharma and was subsequontly seized upon by the students of the Rgveda, who had only srauta and grhya sūtras of Āśvalāyana. For reasons given olsayhero 1 incline to the latter viow. The dharmusūtra of Vasisthiam oftes

SITU,

Tasisha

INS

CONA

104

Tatral

Ta cxplains’ rarifat magtataara Strafta Hd, while perqa makes it a parararaan URTAR

Vasiṣtha Dharmasutra

quotations from all Vedas and beyond the name Vasistha there is hardly anything special in the dharmasūtra to connect it with the Rgveda. It is true that in the 17th chap, several verses of the Rgveda (such as I. 21. 5, 1. 124. 7, V. 4. 10 which occur in gātras 3, 16 and 4 respectively ) and several passages from the story of Sunahśepa in the Aitareya-brāhmana are quoted by the sūtra and that several hymns of the Rgveda, such as the (Isyavāmiya (Rg. 1. 164 ), havispāntiya (Rg. X. 88), Aghamarsann (X. 190 ), are referred to in the 26th chap. But there is nothing remarkable in this as some of the verses and sūktas are mentioned in the Baudhāyanadharmasūtra also. Besides, the Vas, Dh. S. quotes several passages from the Taittiriyasamhita (as in Vas. V. 7-9, which quote Tai. S. II. 5. 1-6 and Vas. XI. 48 which quotes Tai. S. VI. 3. 10.5), the Satapatha-brāhmann, the Māitrāypiya-samhita (in Vas. I. 37).

The contents of the Vas. Dh. S. are:- I. Definition of Dharma, limits of Āryāvarta, who are sinners, the mortal sins, a brāhmana can marry a girl of any of the three higher castes, six forms of marriage, the king was to regulate the conduct of people and to take the sixth part of wealth as a tax ; II. The four varṇas, the greatness of ūcīrya, before upanayana there is no authority for religious rites, the privileges and duties of the four castes, in distress a Brāhmana could subsist hy resorting to the calling of a Ksatriya or Vaisya; a Brāhmana was forbidden to sell certain things, usury condemned, rates of interost allowed; III. Censure of illiterate Brāhmaṇa, rules on finding treasure-trove, who are utatūyins, when they could be killed in self-defence, who are parktipāvanas, constitution of a pariṣad, rules about ūcamana, śauca and purification of various substances;IV. The constitution of the four castes is based upon birth and the performance of samskūras, the duties common to all castes, honouring guests. madhuparka, impurity on birth and death; V. dependence women, rules of conduct for a rajasvalū ; VI. usage is transcen. dental dharma, praise of ācūra, rules about answering calls of nature, moral characteristics of a brāhmana and the peculiar characteristics of a sūdra, censure of partaking food at the houses of sūdras, rules of etiquette and good breeding ; VII the four āśramas, and the duties of a student; VIII. Duties of art householder, honouring guests; IX. rules for forest hermits; X rules for sannyūsins; XI. six persons who deserve special honom viz. the priest at the sacrifice, son-in-law, king, paternal and maternal uncles and a snātaka; order of precedence in servisi

312222

food, guests, rules about śrāddha, times for it, the brāhmaṇas to be invited at it, rules about agnihotra, upanayana, the proper time, staff, girdle &c. for it; method of begging for alms. prayascitta for those whose upanayana is not performed; XII; rules of conduct for a snūtaka ; XIII. rules about the beginning of Vedic study, rules about holidays for Vedic studies, rules about falling at the feet of guru and others, guiding principles in precedence as regards respect ( learning, wealth, age, relation ship, avocation, each prior deserving more consideration than each succeeding one ), rule of the road; XIV. rules about forbidden and permitted food, rules about the flesh of certain birds and animals; XV.rules of adoption, about excommunication of those who revile the Vedas or perform sacrifice for sūdras and for other sins; XVI, About administration of justice, king as guardian of minors, threefold pramānas, viz. documents, witnesses and possession; rules about adverse possession and about king’s advisers; qualifications of witnesses; perjury condoned in certain cases; XVII. praise of aurasa son; conflicting views about kṣetraja son, viz. whether he belongs to the begetter or to him on whose wife he is begotten; twelve kinds of sons; partition between brothers, grounds of exolusion from partition, rules of niyoga, rules about grown-up unmarried girl, rules of inheri tanoe, king as ultimate heir; XVIII. pratiloma castes such as cīṇdāla, no Vedic studies for sūdras or in their presence ; XIX. king’s duty to protect and to punish; importance of purohita , XX. about prāyascittas for various acts unknowingly or knowingly done ; XXI. prāyaścitta for adultery by Sūdra and others with wonien of the Brāhmaṇa caste or for cow-killing; XXII. prāyaścitta for eating forbidden food, sacred texts that purify in case of sins ; XXIII. ponances for Brahmacūrin having sexual intercourse, for drinking wine &o.; XXIV. Kr̥cchra and Atikṛcchra; XXV. secret penanoes and penances for lesser sins ; XXVI-VII, virtues of prāṇāyāma, Vedic hymns and Gayatri as purifiers ; XXVIII. praise of women, eulogy on Vedic mantras like Aghamarṣana and of gifts; XXIX. rowards of gifts, brahmacarya, tapas &c. ; XXX, eulogy of dharma, truth and brūhmana.

The Vas. Dh. S. resembles in several respects the other dharmasūtras described above. It contains almost the same subjects and is similarly composed in prose intersemed with verses. The Vas. Dh. S. is in style like the Gautamadkarm Asutra and has many sūtras identical with or closely resembling those

Vasiṣtha Dharmasūtra

gory

of the latter. Vide. p. 18 above. It has also several sūtras closely corresponding with the sūtras of Baudhāyana. Grave doubts have been entertained about the authenticity of the whole of the text of the Vas. Dh. S. as the mss. contain varying numbers of chapters from 6 to 30, and as the text is hopelessly corrupt in several places (e. g. vide note 108 below). The Vas. Dh. S. contains many verses which hear the impress of a comparatively late age. Chapters 25-28 are entirely in verse, while there are other chapters (like llI. 2-12, VI. 1-13, XI. 20-42 ) which contain many verses interposed between prose passages. In this respect Vasiṣtha’s work is on a par with Baudhāyana’s, in the fourth praśna of which there are chapters entirely consisting of verses. It has therefore been argued that the text of Vasistha was tampered with freely, particularly as regards the chapters at the end. But as shown below it will have to be admitted that the interpolations, whatever they may be, were made at a very early period. The Mitākṣarā quotes Vas. by name about 80 times and the quotations are taken from almost every chapter from the first to the last. For example, Mit. quotes Vas. 27. 1 on Yāj. III, 310, Vas. 27. 21 on Yāj. III. 323, Vas. 28. ng on Yāj. III. 297, Vas. 28. 18, 19 and 22 on Yāj. III. 309. Even Medhātithi quotes Vasistha over twenty times. The quotations are mostly taken from the first chapter to the 21st. Only one quotation from the last few chapters (viz. 27. 16 ) has been found in Medhātithi (on Manu XI. 211 ) and that too is not quoted as Vasistha’s, but is ascribed to others. ‘Viśvarūpa, who flourished about the first quarter of the 9th century quotes Vas. about thirty times in his commentary on the ūcūra and vyavahūra sections of Yāj. These quotations hardly differ in any respect from the text of Dr. Fūhrer’s edition and are scattered over almost all chapters from the 1st to the 17th, six quotations being taken from chapters 3 and 17 each. In the prayasoitta section Viśvarūpa quotes Vas. even more frequently. Besides several sutras from the 1st, 4th, 10th and 11th chapters, he quotes here no less than 22 sūtras of the 20th chap. and 9 of the 21st. More over, sūtras 37 and 39 of the 23rd chap. are quoted (on Yāj. lII 281-282). What is more remarkable is that two verses (2-3) of the 28th chapter are ascribed to Vasistha and explained in detail ( on Yāj. III. 256 ), while Vas. 28. 4 is quoted without the author’s name. These facts make it certain that the Vas. Dā. 8. contained in Viśvarūpa’s day all the chapters from the fing to the 23rd and also the 28th. Śankara in his bhāsya in Br. Onlar niṣad (III. 5. 1 ) quotes Vas. X. 4 and on Bṛ, Up. IV. 5. 15 he

NDED

History of Dharmaśāstro

quotes Vas. VII. 3. The Vas. Dh. S. quotes numerous verses preceded by the words “athāpyudāharanti’, which is the case with Baudhāyana also. The word ‘Udāharanti’ or the words * athāpyudāharanti’ occur in Vas. about 42 times. In Chap. 14 alone the words ‘api hyatra Prājāpatyān ślokan-udā haranti’ occur thrice viz., once before verses 16-19 (of which verses 16 and 18 are the same as Manu IV. 248-49 and are quoted from a Purāṇa in Āp. Dh. S. I. 6. 19. 13); again before verses 24-27 of which 24 is the same as Manu V. 127 and Baud. Dh. S. I. 5. 56 ); and a third time before Vas. 14. 30–32. The words “Mānavam slokamudāharanti’ occur four times in Vas. viz. in 3.2 (same as Manu II. 168 ), in Vas. 19. 37 ( which is in Indravajrā metre), in Vas. 20. 18 ( same as Manu 11. 151 with slight variations ). In some cases where the word ‘udaharanti’ is used in Vas. the verse occurs in Vas., Baud. Dh. S. and Manu also. For example, Vas. 1. 2% = Manu ll. 180 = Bard. Dh. S. II, 1.62; Vas. 2.30 = Manu 10. 91 = Baud. Dh. S. II. 1. 52 : Vas. 5. 3 = Manu 9. 3 = Baud. Dh. S. II. 2. 46; Vas. 11. 27-28 = Manu 3. 125-26 = Baud. Dh. S. II. 8. 21-22 ; Vas. 11.25 = Manu 3. 225 = Baud. Dh. II. 8. 14 ( with slight variation). In Ap. Dh. S. II. 6. 13, 6 (the verse apramatta raksatha &c), Baud. Dh. S. II. 2. 36, Vas. 17.9 the same verse occurs preceded by Sudāharanti’. Some verses, though not introduced with the words ‘athāpyudaharanti’ or with

udāharanti’ occur in all three e. g. Vas. 3. 5, 6 and 11 are same as Manu 12. 114, 115 and Manu 2. 157 respectively, and as Baud. Dh. I. 1. 10, 12 and 11 respectively. The same verses are sometimes found in three different sūtra works. For example, Āp. Dh. S. II. 4. 9. 13 = Baud. Dh. S. II. 7.22-23 (both works introduce with ‘athāpyudāharanti’) = Vas. 6. 20-21 (without āthāpyu. &o). In many cases Āp. Dh. S, and Vas. have great verbal agreement in their sūtras e. g. compare Ap. I. 4. 12. 8 and Vas. I. 77; Āp. I. 5. 15. 16 with Vas. 23. 33; Ap. 1. 9. 25.1-%, Gautama 23.9. 11 with Vas. 20. 13; Ap. II. 8.17.22 (on ‘panktipāvana) with Vas. 3. 19, Gaut. 15. 28, Manu III. 185. Vas. quotes a verse ( gāthā ) from the Nidāna (work) of the Bhāllavins (a Sāmaveda Sākha). 104a Compare Ap. Dh. 8. II. 6. 13. 5 (utpādayituḥ putra iti Brāhmaṇam ) with Vas. 17. 63 (aniyuktayām-utpanna utpādayituḥ putro bhavati

104a zure hegoal aga OTETIET I Tear aghahar oft: 1 Taig dont Ferra are u gaia 8 I. 14-15, 19..Di, 27 (28) reads Hece, omits the word fagra, reads path of Ignore table rauma, au

1917

Vasistha Dharmasūtra

tyāhuḥ). Vas. has many sutras on several topics very similar in language to Gautama. Compare Vas. XI. 16 and 14 with Gaut. 15. 3 and 5 (on śrāddha ); Vas. XI. 49-51, 71-73 with Gaut. I. 6, 12-14; Vas. 17. 42-45 with Gaut. 28. 3-8; Vas. 13 8 ff with Gaut. 16.5 ff (on anadhyāya). Chapters VI-IX of Gautama have many sūtras very similar to Vasistha’s.

But the relation between Vas, and the Manusmrti is most important; at least 61 verses of the extant Manusmrti are identical with Vasistha’s (except for a word or a letter or tro in a few cases ). Of these some expressly mention the quotation as “Mānavam 104b, or “Mānayam ślokam’ (vide above ), or use the word ‘udāharanti’ about seventeen times, leaving no doubt as to whether they are quotations. Vas. IV. 5 and XVI. 30 are in prose but use the very words of the Manu smṛti viz. Manu 5. 22, 32, 42 and Manu 8. 68 respectively. Some of the verses quoted in Vas, contain the word (Manu) as in IV. 6. There are at least five verses in Vas. three pūdas of which are the same as in the verses of the extant Manu (compare Vas. 3. 59 and M. 5. 123, Vas. 6. 43 and M. 12.109, Vas. 26. 14 and M. 4. 146, Vas. 30.7 and Manu 7. 84 and six passages that contain half verses that are common to Vas. and Manu (Vas. 3. 8 and M. III. 128. Vas. 6. 11 and M. 4. 52, Vas. 8. 8 and M. 3. 103 and Vas. 10.5 and M. 2. 83, Vas. 13. 16 ( Mānava sloka) and Manu 4, 117, Vas. 18. 10 (Pārasayo… lyāhuh) and M. 9. 178. Several verses occur without these words being prefixed, but most of them seem to be quotations (e. g. Vas. II. 3 which cornbines Manu. II. 169 and 170, IV. 6 which is Manu 5. 41, VI. 6 and 8 which are Manu IV. 157 and 158 ). Some of these verses introduced with the words ‘athāpi’ &c. as well as some of those not so introduced are in the regular classical Upajāti, Upendravajrā or Indravajrā (vide. I. 38, X. 20 for verses with athāpi &c. and VI. 9 and 25, X, 17, XVI. 36 for verses without them). Some of the verses are in the ancient Tristubh form (e. g. VI. 3 and 30, VIII. 17, XVII. 71). In one verse (VI. 5) there are twelve letters in the first pāda and eleven in the rest. One quotation with words “athāpi” &c. is in prose ( II. 5). There are a few un-Pāṇinean forms like Vivadanti :

104 b. Mānavam’ does not mean Mānava-dharma-sūtra. That is a gratuitous

assumption. Kumārila (650-700 A. D. ) quotes the extant Manusnya Mānavam on P. M. S. I. 3,2 (p. 167 of Anan. ed); TUL Aracatiti 479THTARI I… APPICHET II. This is Manu vide also note above for Māoava,

FOUNDED

1917

100

in XIV. 47 (vide Pānini I. 3. 47). It looks as if the dharma sutra once ended with the 24th chapter, where we have an injunction (in sūtra 6 ) against imparting the dharmasūtra to one who is not a son or pupil. The same sūtra occurs in Baudhāyana Dh. S. IV. 4. 9 and the succeeding sūtra is the same in both. But the words’ prāyaścitta has been described in the rahasya sections for playing false to the husband’ (in Vas. V. 4): apparently refer either to chapters 25-28 (which contain rahasya penances ) or to some prototype of those chapters now lost.

The Vas. Dh. 8. quotes largely from the Rgveda and other Vedic Samhitās. Among the Brāhmaṇas, the Aitareya and Satapatha are frequently cited. The Vājasaneyaka ( Vas. 12. 31 and 23. 13 ) and the Kathaka ( Vas. 12. 24 and 30.5) are menti oned by name. The Tai. Aranyaka is quoted in Vas. 23. 23. The Upanisads and Vedānta occur in 22. 9. Vasistha quotes a gūthū of the Bhallavins from their Nidāna work about the extent of the home of Brahmanismn, which is quoted by Baudhā yana also ( Dh. S. I. 1. 27). He speaks of the argas of the Veda (3.23 and 13.7) and gives their number as six (3.19). Itihasa and Purāṇa are mentioned in 27. 6. The science of words (grammar), of omens and portents, and of astrology and astronomy (Naksatravidyā ) are referred to in 10. 20-21. He prohibits the learning of the language of the Mlecchas (in 6.41). Vas. quotes a verse that states that the view holding the aprūmūnya of the Vedas leads to perdition (12. 41). In Vas, II. 8-11 occurs the Vidyāsūkta in four verses that we meet with in the Nirukta (II. 4). Vasistha calls his own work dharmaśāstra (in 24. 6) and probably refers to other works on dharma in the words ‘one who studies dharmas’ (in 3. 19). The study of dharmaśāstra as a penance for even mortal sins is spoken of in 27. 19. Vas. quotes several authors on dharmaśāstra. He quotes ā verse from Hārita (in II. 6 ) which occurs in Baudhāyana also with slight variations (Baud. Dh. S. I. 2.7), though without the author’s name. The two halves of this verse are almost the same as the latter halves of Manu. 2. 171-172. Būhler is there fore not quite accurate when he says without qualification that the verse attributed to Hārsta occurs in Manu (p. XX, S, B. E. vol. XIV). Vas. quotes Gautama twice (in 4. 35 and 37 about impurity on death, the first corresponding to Gautama fit 41), while there is nothing in Gautama to correspond to the end. Vas. quotes a verse (11, 20 ) which mentions Yama by nemo

FOUNDED

Vasiṣtha Dharmasūtra

101

and embodies the latter’s views. Vas. (18. 13-15 ) quotes three slokas sung by Yama, one of which (14) is the same as Manu 4. 80 and another (15) is very similar to Manu 4. 81. Another sloka of Yama is quoted by Vas. (19.48 ) which is almost the same as Manu 5. 93. From these facts and others Būhler draws the conclusion (S. B. E. vol. XIV, p. XX ) that these verses were taken from the Mānavadharmasūtra, which occupied the same position in Vasiṣtha’s day as the Manusmrti does at present. I demur to this conclusion, which will be discussed later on in detail (under Manusmrti). Vas. (14. 30-32 ) quotes slokas of Prajāpati, the first of which mentions Yama by name 1040, Vas. 14. 16-19 and 24-27 are quoted as slokas of Prajāpati, three of which (14. 16, 18 and 24 ) are practically the same as Manu. 4. 248, 249 and 5.127. Vas. 14. 19 contains a pūda which occurs in Manu 4. 212. It is remarkable that the Vas. Dh. S. cites Vasistha himself with great reverence (as bhagavān) in 2. 50 (about the rate of interest), 24. 5 (about Kr̥cchra penance ), 30. 11. In numerous places the Vas. Dh. S. either refers to Manu by naine or quotes the views of Manu (under the form

iti Mānavam’) or a sloka of Manu (with words’ Mānavam ślokam). All these passages have an important bearing on the age of the Manusmrti and on the supposed existence of a Mānavadharmasūtra. They therefore deserve to be carefully examined. Vas. I. 17 is in prose ( about local, family or caste usages) and summaries the views of Manu. The absence of the word ‘iti’ before abravin Manuh’ and the form of the sūtra itself clearly establish that Vas. is not directly quoting a

104 c Vasistha 14.16-19 and 24-27 are quoted as slokas of Prajāpati. Several

of them arc quoted in different works and ascribed to other sources, For example, Vas, 14.16 and 18 are quoted from a Purana in Ap. Dh. S. I. 6. 19. 13, and these two are practically the same as Manu IV, 248-249 and Viṣṇu Dh. S. 57. 11-12, Vas, 14. 19 is almost the same as Ap. Dh, S. I. 6. 19. 14 and a part of it is Manu IV. 212. Vas. 14. 24 is the same as Manu V. 127, Band. Dh. S. I. 5. 56, Anusāsanaparva 104. 40, Viṣṇu 23. 47,

It may be pointed out that Aparārka (p. 1322 on raj. III. 311) quotes Vas, 28. 10-11 and a prose passage (of 6 lines) in which the Aghamarsana hyon, Rg. X. 189 (dyam gaul dic), Rg. IV. 40. 5 (Hanisah sucisad ) and the Gūyatri are prescribed as expiations. Vas. 28. 10-15 occur in Viṣṇu Dh. S. chap. 56, and 28. 11-15 in Saṅkliastarti (Anan. ) X. 1-5 ( with slight variations and Vaste 11 (aghamarpanain &c.) also occurs in Baud. Dh. S. IV, 3, 12th pāda being different ) preceded by athāpyudāharanti’. Vas. 28. Talmontes are quoted as Vasistha’s in Sm. C. I. p. 187 (Gharpure’s edities L10%

sūtra of Manu. That sūtra is only a summary of our Manu I. 118. Vas. 3, 2 (which is preceded by the words ’ Mānavam slokam’ is Manu II. 168. And so are Vas. 13. 16, 20. 18, which are Manu 4. 117 and 11. 151 ( with very slight variations). That the latter existed in Vasistha’s text is vouched for by Aparārka (p. 1075). Vas. 4. 5 is in prose and cites the view of Manu that animals may be sacrificed only for worshipping and honouring the manos, deities and guests 105. There is hardly anything to show that it is a direct quotation from Manu and not a summary of Manu’s views. The sūtra briefly summaries the views that we find expressed in our Manu 5. 22, 32, 41 and 42 (the words of 42 ’eṣvarthesu paśum himsan’ are interesting and bear a olose resemblance to ‘paśum himsyād’ in Vas.). That sutra is followed by a verse which is the same as Manu 5. 41. It is to be noted that the same verse occurs in the dharwasūtra of Viṣṇu (51. 64 ) which reads ’nānyatreti kathamcana ’ for ’nānyathety bravin Manuh’. This change appears to have been purposely made to keep up the impression that the Viṣṇu Dh. S. emanated from Viṣṇu himself and so could not have borrowed from a human author. Vas. 4.7 is very similar to Manu 5. 48. Būhler (8. B. E. Vol. 25, P. XXXI) is wrong in taking Vas. 4. 8 as a quotation from the Mānavadharmasūtra. There is nothing to show that it is so takon. It is more probably a quota tion from or a summary of a Brāhamna passage (compare a quotation in Aparārka on Yāj. 1. 109, which is similar). Vas. 23. 43 ( where Manu is referred to as prescribing an easy penance called Sisukrcchra for children and old men )corresponds more or less with Manu 11. 211 and 219 and Vas. 26. 8 has evidently Manu 11. 260 in view. There are only two places in Vasiṣtha where the name of Manu occurs for which it is not possible to point out a corresponding verse in the Manusmrti. They are Vas. 12. 16 and 19. 37. The latter is cited as a Mānava sloka and is in the Upajāti metre. 106 Because this is not found in our Manu, Būhler and other Western scholars seem to think 105 pga ataug harada Toj rerni a Ala I ATAS 4.5; 918 4.8 is sponta

बाह्मणाय पा राजन्याय वाभ्यागताय महोक्षाणं वा महाजं वा पचेदेवमस्मा आतिथ्य

कुम्तीति। 106 शुल्के चापि मानवं श्लोकमुदाहरन्ति-न भिन्नकार्षापणमस्ति शुल्के न शिल्पवृत्ती न

fait againyall 7 Energia asilitê qarta nyt lll. The ra. . (p. 305) says ‘arg: grah i ani straniera a fra’ &c. Whom terse

a mois quoted by the Mat. on Yaj 1. 263. Even lateks yritess quote the verses of Manu as ‘Mānava-sloka, e. g. Aparārkt on Ya. III. 255 quotes (p. 1075) Manu XI.151 as Mānava-sloka bide is cited by Vasistha (20,18 ).

FOUNDED

Vasiṣtha Dharmasutra

103

that the verse is taken from the Mānavadharmasūtra which onde existed in mixed prose and verse and is now lost. But, as will be shown elsewhere, this hypothesis is based, to say the least, on very slender foundations. Besides these two that are not found in our Manu, there are about forty verses that are common to the Vas. Dh. S. and the Manusmrti and about a dozen verses which, though not strictly identical, are more or less similar. There are several prose sūtras of Vas. which correspond to the verses of Manu almost word for word.107 The hypothesis that commends itself to me is that Vas. contains borrowings from the Manusınști or its purer ancient original in verse.

In the words ‘Srāmanakenāgnimādhāya’ (Vas. 9. 10 ), the sūtra of Vikhanas seems to be referred to. Gautama (Dh. 8. 3. 26 ) contains the same words. Vasistha’s 22nd chap. is the same as Gautama’s 19th and Baudhāyana’s tenth in the 3rd praśna and seems to have been borrowed from Gautama. Vasistha refers to the views of others in the words ’eke’ or ‘anye’ (Vas. 1. 12, 13, 25 ; 4. 10; 17. 66 ; 20.2). Dr. Jolly (S. B. E, vol. VII, P. XVIII ) thinks that Vag. 28. 10-15 and 18-22 are borrowed from the Viṣṇudharmasūtra chap. LVI and LXXXVII or its original the Kathakadharmasūtra. Dr. Jolly is not right with regard to both the places. Būhler has already pointed out his mistake as to the second passage (S. B. E. vol. XIV p. XXII). The verses in Vas. 28. 10–15 occur in several smṛtis ( vide Saṅkhasmrti, 10th chap. in Jivananda’s ed. part II. pp. 356-357 for the same verses ). Vasistha, chap. 28, verses 1-6 occur in Atrismrti VI. 1-6 (Ānan. collection of Smṛtis ) with slight variations of which the first five are quoted as Atri’s by the Gșhastharatnākara p. 245 and verse 6 (‘agnerapatyam’occurs in Padmapurāṇa, Vanaparva 200. 128 (Ch. ed.), Samyarta 1717) and in ‘Gupta Inscriptions’ No. 81 at p. 296 and in other Inscriptions. Vide H, of Dh. Vol. II. p. 1272, No.5 (in some cases the third pāda of ‘Agner-apatym’ is different ). Verses 18-22 of Vas. 28 occur in the Atri Smṛti VI. 7-11 and in Viṣṇu Dh. S., chap. 87 (last two versos are the same as Vas. 28. 21-22)

107

8 7. 3. ‘agi hairy anal agrairṣivina PARES THERE compare E 3, 2; athy 13, 61 qurtarajaan Mata Hai Hiraga r r!!, compare AE 3, 101; THE 16. 30’ stort F स्त्रियः कुर्याद् द्विजानां सदृशा द्विजाः । शूदाणां सन्तः शूद्धाश्चात्यानामन्त्ययानमा compare with HE 8.68 stort flag fat graat HEM FETT: I

सन्तः शुवाणामन्यानामत्ययोनयः ॥’.

.-t..

104

and Viṣṇu Dh. S. 90.10 (in prose ) is nearly the same as Vas. 28. 18-19. Besides Vas. 28. 11 occurs in Baud. Dh. S. IV. 3.7. Hence it is hardly proper for any scholar to make the dogmatio assertion that one particular smrti must have borrowed from any other. The rather very corrupt passage in Vasiṣtha (16.21-23 108) very closely resembles a passage of Saṅkha, which is cited by Viśvarūpa on Yāj. I, 305 and by the Kr̥tya-kalpataru.

Būhler is of opinion that the home of the school to which the Vas. Dh. S. belonged lay to the north of the Narmadā and the Vindhya (S. B. E. vol. XIV p. XVI). When it is extremely problematical whether the Vas. Dh. S. was the product of a school, it is idle to speculate as to the home of the Vas. Dh. S. Būhler’s is no more than a mere conjecture and it is better to admit that we know nothing positive at present on the point.

The earliest work to refer to Vasistha as an authority on dharma is our Manu (8. 140), saying that Vas. allowed 1/80th of the principal as interest per month. This appears to refer to the rule in Vas, 2. 50. We saw above that Vas. borrows from the Manusmrti, which in its turn quotes a rule of Vasistha. The explanation of this is twofold. Both the Manusmṛti and Vas. have received later additions and further it is possible that the present Vas. Dh. S. is the work of some one who had received the teachings of Vas, through a succession of teachers and disciples. Yāj. mentions (1.4) Vasistha as a writer on dharma. The Tantravārtika as seen above (note 55 ) remarks that the Vas. Dh. S. was studied by Rgvedins. The same work when speaking of works on dharma puts Manu, Gautama and Vasistha in the forefront. 1084 It appears that Sabara on P. M. S. VI. 1. 10 quotes or summarizes Vas. I.32 and 36 when he says ‘Vikrayospi śrūyate, satamadhiratham duhitrmate dadyāt, ārse gomithunam iti’. Vasistha I.32 and 36 are ‘gomithunena carṣah tasmad duhitṛmatesdhiratham śatam deyam-itiha krayo vijñāyate.’

108 The printed Vas, reads " ATT TA BOTEL TUTTAR FUT | Tuaran a

TFT GEELI Treftari FF THE THIRT FOTO’. This hardly makes any sense. The कृत्यकल्पतरु presents a good reading (from शझलिखित) ’ गृध्नुपरिवारः स्यात् । कामं गृध्रो राजा श्रेयान् हंसपरिवारः । परिवाराद्धि दोषाः argueroa iasa farsi ’ 7 Toe P. 30: Fastening on (

Y 3 05) quotes Saṅkha as ‘= A Tufare: #1 g Tù HP 108 a ’ prior nooit affronta gufer: Hardering viral spretaning

एष श्रुतयः स्वनुमानाः । न च व्याकरणस्य साभिः समानार्थत्वम् । मालिक on sa I. 3. 24.

Vasiṣtha Dharmasūtra

105

The words ’tasmad…deyam’ do ocour in Ap. Dh. S. II. 6. 13. 11 but not in the definitions of the forms of marriage as in Vas. The words ‘adhiratham satam dubitsmate’ occur in Sān. Gr. I. 14. 16 and Kausi. Gr. I. 8. 36, but not in connection with any form of marriage (both do not enumerate the forms of marriage ). Viśvarūpa, Medhātithi and other early commentators largely quote from Vas. The verse’agnerapatyam’ (Vas. 28.16 ) occurs in the Ragim copperplate of Tivaradeva of the last quarter of the 8th century (Fleet’s Gupta Inscription No. 81.). Therefore the existence of a work of Vasistha on dharma at least in the first centuries of the Christian era is vouched for with certainty and the authenticity of its text is supported by eminent writers from the 7th century downwards. Aparārka quotes passages from the Bhaviṣyapurāṇa which have in view the present text of Vas. 109 Some of the views held by Vasistha are very ancient. For example, he speaks of the twelve secondary sons, assigns a very inferior position to the Dattaka son (17th chapter), allows niyoga ( 17. 56 ff) and the remarriage of child widows (17.74 ). Like Āpastamba he mentions only six forms of marriage (1.28-29 ), brāhma, daiva, ārṣa, gūndharva, kṣātra and miinusa. In some respects his views are different from those of early writers like Gautama and Baudhāyana, He prohibits the marriage of a Brāhmaṇa with a sūdra woman (I. 25-26). Vide Baud. Dh. S. I. 8. 2 for the contrary view. He elaborates rules of adoption ( 15th chapter) which are not found in Gaut. or Baud. or Āpastamba. Ho speaks of documents as one of the three means of proof (Vas. 16. 10-15 ), while Gautama, Apa stamba and Baudhāyana are silent on the point, though in Gautama (13. 4) there appears to be a reference to documents. Taking all these things into consideration it may be said that Vasistha is later than Gautama, Āpastamba and Baudhāyana. but much earlier than the beginnings of the Christian era and may tentatively be assigned to the period between 300-100 B. C. It has been asserted by an eminent authority (Cambridge History of India vol. I, p. 249 ) that Vasistha 18. 4 (vaiśyena brāhmaṇyām-utpanno Rāmako bhavatityāhuh) probably contains a reference to the Romans. This assumption is gratuitous and does not deserve serious consideration. The reading Romaka (on which the learned writer relies) is not supported by the best mss. and it is most hazardous to seize WiLL

109 ‘पसिष्ठेन समाख्यातं ब्रह्महत्याव्यपोहनम्। द्वादशरात्रमभक्षो द्वादशरात्रमुपवसेत् पी आप

Tre p. 1067 ( this is afhe 23. 38); ara que a arors RA FAQ Hurraa u19 aartall fou p. 1075 (this is a 20. 10

106

avidity on a variant reading and to build an imposing structure of chronology thereon. The offspring of a Vaiśya male from a Brāhmaṇa woman is designated Rāmaka by Vasistha, while Gautama calls him Kr̥ta ( 4. 15 ) and Baud. Dh. 8. (I. 9.7) calls such an offspring Vaidehaka; so Rāmaka has as much to do with the Romans as with Rameses. In the nibandhas there are several quotations ascribed to Vasistha which are not found in the printed Dharmasūtra. For example, Haradatta on Gaut. (22. 18 ) quotes a verse in the Upajāti metre which is not found in the present text 110

The author of the extant Vas. Dh. S. appears to have been eclectic. His sūtra contains dozens of verses that occur in the extant Manusmṛti. Similarly, many of the verses quoted by him in the words ‘athāpyudābaranti’or the word ‘udāharanti occur also in the Ap. Dh. S. and more often in Baudh. Dh. S. which latter just like Vas. employs the words. athāpyudā haranti’ over forty times. Towards the end of the present text (edition of Vas., chap. 30. 9-10) occurs the verse ‘yā dustyajā’ &c., which is found in Vanaparva 2. 36, śānti-parva 174, 55 and 276. 12 and Anuśāsana 7. 21. The last sūtra ( of Vasiṣtha Dh. S.) contains an obeisance to Vasiṣtha who is described as the son of Mitrāvaruṇa from Urvasi and as Satayātu ( who possessed hundred magic spells or against whom a hundred magic speels were employed ). Rg. VII. 33. 11 refers to the birth of Vasiṣtha from Urvasi and calls him Maitrāvarupa and in Rg. VII. 18. 21 we have the half verse ‘Pra ye gshādama madus-tvāyā Parāśaraḥ Satayātur-Vasiṣthah’. Sāyana takes

• Śatayātuh’ as meant for Sakti, son of Vasistha.

If we rely on the number of verses common to Manu and Vasistha or on references to Mānavam’ (Vas. IV.5.) or * Mānava-śloka’ 13. 16, 20. 18 or simply ‘Manu’ (Vas. I. 17, IV. 6, XI. 23, XII. 16 ) and also consider the very large number of verses and passages common to the Manusmrti, Vas., Baud. and Ap. Dh., it would have to be held that the extant Vas. Dh. 8. is a re-hash of the Ap. Dh. 8., Baud. Dh. 8. and Manu ( as it oxisted before it was remodelled about the beginning of the Christian era or a century or two earlier).

ISH

IL.

1.-.

,-..-

FOUNDED

110 The verse is: 7 arigentot 7 stuparin ang nitenta a TURIM: Da

न निवन्धनीया पद्धानतिष्ठेत् परशुं प्रगृय | The same verse is quotes in the MATTTT (on 71. III. 264 ) without the author’s name and is er een mens

777

Research Institute

Vasiṣtha Dharmasūtra

107

.. It would not be irrelevant, if most of the passages from Vasiṣtha that are based on or refer to Vedic works are referred to here and examined. First, as to the Rgvedic Literature. Vas. IV. % mentions Purusasūkta (Rg. X. 90), Vas. 17. 3-4 quote portions of Rg. I. 21. 5 and Rg. V. 4. 10 (last pāda, Vas. 17. 16. (praticinam gacchati putratyam ) refers to Rg. I. 124. 7 and Nirukta 3. 5; Vas. 15. 20 refers to making a person bathe with water from a holy lake or stream with the Vedic verses beginning with ’ Āpo hi sthā’ ( Rg. X. 9. 1 ff); Vas. 17. 1-2 quote from Ait. Br. ( adhyāya 33, 1) and Vas. 17. 31-35 refer to the story of Sunahsepa ( in Ait. Br. 33. 2-6 ). As to the Tai. S., Vas. 5.8 quotes a long passage from Tai. S. II. 5. 1. 1-6 (the transfer of Indra’s sin of killing Tvāstra Viśvarūpa to women); Vas. 11.48 quotes Tai. S. VI. 3. 10. 5 (for the theory of three inherited obligations of brāhmaṇas which is also mentioned in Satapatha Br.) ; Vas. I. 37 quotes Mai. S. I. 10. 11 (anṭtam vā eṣā karoti yā patyuḥ kritā satyathānyaiś-carati’ &c) which also occurs in Kāthaka Sambiti, Sthanaka 36. 5. The Kathaka is mentioned by name twice by Vas. (iu 12. 24 and 30. 5) and the Vājasano yaki (meaning Sat. Br.) is mentioned thrice (Vas. 12. 31, 14. 46 and 23. 13 ); 1104. Vas. 2. 34 quotes Vāj. Saibita (XII. 71 ): Vas. 18. 17 quotes the words ’nāgnim citvā rāmām upoyāt’ from the Kathaka and in 18, 18 explains the meaning of Rāmā, which appears to be taken from the Nirukta XII. 13. Among the Brāhmaṇa works the Satapatha Br. is the one that is often quoted; Vas. I. 45 quotes Sat. Br. V. 4.2.3 (‘brābmano vedam adhyam’ &o), Vas. 14, 46 refers to Sat. Br. III. 1. 2. 21; Vas. 19. 4 ( vijñāyate brahmapurohitam rāṣtram-rdhnotiti), which is similar to Gaut. Dh, S. XI. 13-14 and is based on Sat. Br. V. 4. 4. 5; Vas. 30. 3. Agnir-vai brahmana iti śruteh’ (this is Śat. Br. I. 4.2.2); ’ Vas. 23. 23 mentions the mantra beginning with ‘Agnisoa mā manyusoa ‘from Tai. Ār. X. 24. 1; Vag. XI. 13 quotes Kathopanisad I. 7 ( ‘Vaiśvānaraḥ praviśatyatithir brāhmaṇo gļhān’).

I might have omitted through oversight a few vedio passages. But those examined above show that passages from the Sarbitās and Brāhmaṇas of Vedas other than the Rgveda

Darda

1108 भार्यया सह नाभीयादवीर्यवदपत्यं भवतीति वाजसनेयके विज्ञायते ॥ वसिष्ठ

this is sagu X.5.2.9; HET T ERT HETT T uan ramah 14.16. This refers to parqu and compare Ap. Dh. S. 1.5.17, 30-Dand शतपथ ‘तस्माद्धेम्बडहोनाश्नीयात्त होवाच याज्ञवल्क्योऽश्नाम्येवाहमंसलं चेवती

NDED

108

and its Brāhmaṇas outnumber those from the Rgveda and its Brāhmanas. Then the question naturally arises, why was it adopted by Rgvedins as their Dharmasūtra ( as stated by Kumārila). The answer is obvious. Vasistha is mentioned by name in the Dharmasūtra several times (vide above). The sūtra does rely on the Rgveda and its Brāhmaṇa in a few passages. Vasiṣtha’s is the greatest and most famous name among the ancient sages of the Rgveda. The whole of the 7th mandala contains 104 siktas out of 1028 in the whole of the Rgveda, is ascribed to Vasistha (Maitrāvaruṇi). Mandalas I, IX and X have more sūktas than mandala VII, but every one of the three manlalas is held to have been composed by several sages (and not by one for each of them). One aspect of the Vasistha Dh. S. viz. that different mss. of it state that it ends with different adhyāyas is very significant. If it had been from the beginning a sūtra of the Rgveda, then its text would have been at least as well preserved as the text of such gļhya or dharma sūtras, as those of Āśvalāyana and Apa stamba. Besides, there is one remarkable circumstance. The ĀŚv. gr. (II. 6) which is affiliated to the Rg. names and briefly defines eight forms of marriage viz. Brāhma, Daiva, Prājāpatya, Arṣa, Gāndharva, Asura, Paiśāca and Rākṣasa. The Saṅkhāyana-gļhya (I. 12-14) only describes the religious part of the marriage ceremony and altogether omits the mention of eight forms of marriage and their definitions. So does the Kausitaka-gphya (1. 8). The Gaut. Dh. S. IV. 4-11, Baud. Dh. S. I. 11. 1-9, Manu III 21 and 27-34, Kautilya III, 2. 1-9 name and define the same eight forms of marriage, as Āśv. Gr. does. But Vasistha (I. 28-36 ) mentions and defines only six forms of marriage viz. Brāhma, Daiva, Ārsa, Gāndharva, kṣātra and Mūnuṣa. In this he seems to follow Ap. Dh. S. II. 5. 11, 17-20-II. 5. 12. 1-2). If Vas. Dh. S. had been from the first affiliated to the Rgveda it should have either treated the subject in the same way as Āśvalāyana or followed the Āśv. gr. and enumerated eight forms or should have been silent about the several forms of marriage (as Sāok. and Kaus. gṛ. are ). This circumstance very much strengthens the theory that Vas. Dh. S. is eclestic and therefore followed Ap. Dh. 8. in the number of forms of marriage. There is a further circumstance. Vas. Dh. S. differs from Asv. Gș, not only in the numberly of the forms of marriage but also in the nomenclature. His Klatra. the same as Rākṣasa and his Mānusa is the same as Acuta, These two terms were probably borrowed by Vasistha from

FOON

FOOD

yre 1917

Vasiṣtha Dharmasūtra

109

Hārlta-Dharmasūtra (vide Viramitrodaya, Samskāra prakāśa. p. 84). As Manu says (III. 34 ), tho Paisāca form (in which a man has sexual intercourse secretly while the woman is asleep or intoxicated or unconscious, is the worst and most sinful form. Vasistha omitted it and Prājāpatya was probably going out of vogue. Therefore, these two were omitted by Vasistha. The Asura and the Raksasa are declared by Baud. Dh. 8. I 11. 12 to be in accordance with the characterstic conduct of Ksatriyas viz. they rely principally on force either of wealth or of arms (‘atrāpi ṣaṣthasaptamau Kṣātra-dharmānugatau tat-pratya yatvāt-ksatrasya). Therefore, the Rāksasa form which consists mainly of carrying away a girl by force ( Manu 3. 33 prasahy kanyā-haranam ) is called kṣātra by Vas. Vasiṣtha might have been moved by such sentiments as are expressed by Davapāla on Kāzhakagļhya XV ‘prasahyāpahārād-rāksaso vivāhah, tatra kim prakarābhidhānona, evamasaṁvijnātopagamāt Paisacopi prakāravacanam nārhati pāpatvāt’. Manu ( in 8. 165, 168 declares that all transactions brought about by force or fraud should be held invalid (akrtu). There are also other points on wbich Vas. differs from all three grhyasūtras of the Rgveda or from Sān. Gș. and Kauṣ. Gṛ. On even such a simple matter as the age of a Brāhmana boy at Upanayana, Vas, differs from all three. They all agree that the Upanayana of a Brāhmana boy may be performed from the 8th year to the 16th (Vas. XI. 49 and 71, Āśv. Gș. I. 19. 1-2 and 5, San. Gș. II. I. 1, 3 and 6, Kauṣ. Gr. II. 1. %, 5), they differ on the most commendable year for it. Vas. (XI. 49 ) commends the eighth year from conception, Āśv. the eighth year from birth or conception (I. 19. 1,2), śān. Gr. (II. 1. 1 and 3 ) commends either the 8th year or 10th year from conception and the Kaus. Gr. does the same. So far as I know no other Gr. or Dh. S. gives an option between the 8th or 10th year as the most commendable year for Upa nayana. Gaut. (I. 6, 8 ), Āp. Dh. (I. 1. 19), Baud. Dh. (I. 2.8) Manu (II. 36 ) proscribe as most favoured the 8th year from conception. It follows that Vas. did not agree with any of the three schools of Rgvedins, viz. Aśvalāyana, Sāṅkhāyana and Kauṣitaka and struck an independent course and his work on Dharma was later on affiliated to the Rgveda, when it became a fashion to have a complete set of Kalpasūtras (in three pattet. for each Voda or its recensions.

The above mentioned parallelisms and quotations and that extent are more than enough to lead to the conclusion that

1:10

History of Dharmaśās!ra

Vasistha’s Dh. S. was originally an eclectic work of an indepen dent character and that it did not at first attach itself to the Rgveda.

Dr. Ram Gopal in his work (on pp. 59-60 ) does not agree with my conclusion and, though he has to admit (p. 59 ) that Vasistha Dh. S. is not known to have formed part of a Rgvedio Kalpa, he holds (p. 60 ) on the ground of close agreement of Vas. with the three grhyasūtras of Sān., ĀŚv. and Kaus. on the topics of upunayana, anadhyūrin, snūtake and five Mahūyajñas that Vasiṣtha’s work was from the first affiliated to the Rgveda. In support of his theory he draws attention on p. 67 (note 31 ) to twelve passages from Śānk. Gr., five from Āśv. Gr. and five from Kauṣ. Gr. (in all 22 ). I do not want to enter upon a lengthy discussion. If about 75 passages quoted from Manu and numerous passages quoted with ‘udāharanti,’ the presence of chapters on adoption, vyavahāra, inheritance, partition, rājadharma and prayascittas, which are not shown to have been included in a Vedic Kalpa of the Rgveda do not induce a writer to admit the independent origin of Vas. there is no use in arguing with him. It is, however, necessary to show clearly what value should be attached to his arguments. His contention briefly put is that the 22 passages he cites from San. Aśv. and Kauṣ. gphya very closely agree with Vas. Dh. passages and therefore Vas. must be held to be affiliated to the Rgveda from the beginning. He cites Vas. IV. 6 as equal to $ab. G. S. II. 16.1 (viz. the verse ‘madhuparke ca etc.). But this verse is Manu V. 41 and both Vas. and Sān, might have borrowed it from Manu (and what is most important Manu’s name occurs in the verse itself). Dr. Ram Gopal cites Vas.VI.:21 (āhitāgniranad vāmśca &c ) as equal to Sān. II. 16. 5. Therefore he concludes that Vas. is indebted to śān. It is very fine research indeed. There are two verses Astau grāsā’ &c. and ‘āhitāgairanadvāsinca &c’in Vas. VI. 20-21. Both of these are cited in Baud. Dh. 8. II. 7. 22-23 and Āp. Dh. S. II. 4. 9. 13 (in both those verses occur with the caption athāpyudāharanti’). It is noteworthy that the Kalpataru ( Brahmacārikānda p. 124 )cites ‘aparimitam brahmacāriṇah (part of the verse ‘aṣtau grāsā’) and the verse Canadvān brahmacāri ca āhitāgniśca &c as from Vasistha, Āpastamba, Hārita and Yama. San. Gr. II. 16 cites on a one of these two verses and that too in a modified form (as Anadian agnihotram ca’ (this is a bad reading and the verso lecomes ungrammatical). Therefore, this proves that Sān. gr burrans

Vasistha Dharmasūtra

111

one of two ancient verses quoted by both Āp. and Baud. and Vas. borrows both. Sān. Gr. II. 16 has six verses, of which the first (‘madhuparke’ &c ) is Manu V. 41 (reads ‘yajñe’ for ‘some’). The 3rd verse ( Naikagrāmina &c’) is Manu III. 103 (the 4th pūda in śān, is different which is rather obscure in Manu). Sān. Gr. II. 16. 5 has been dealt with above. 1100 Upākarma is a very common rite even up to this day. So the provisions in the texts on this rite agree. Dr. Ram Gopal cites Vas. 13. 5 as agreeing with Sān. Gs. IV. 6.7-8. There is not much verbal agreement between the two as the note will show 110c but there is at least as much or more verbal agreement with Gaut. and Manu. A thorough examination of all the twenty-two equations in Dr. Ram Gopal’s work (p. 67) would cover about a dozen pages. The domestio rites and their subsidiary matters being common to dvijas, there is a good deal of uniforinity as well as some difference in details in the sūtras connected with different Vedic Sākhas. For example, compare Baud. Dh. 8. I. 2. 14-16 with Āp. Db. S. I. 2. 33-38, also with Gaut. I. 15-23. Mere agreement of a few sūtras with others on simple and common matters relating to Upanayana, Anadhyāya and the like hardly proves anything about their affiliation with any particular Veda or Vedic carand. I regret to say that Dr. Ram’s remarks on the passages of Vas. and the three Gș. sūtras attached to the Rgveda ara misleading and also incapable of proving his thesis.

So early a writer as Viśvarūpa cites (on Yāj. I. 19 ) the views of a writer called Vṛddha-Vasistha. The Mit. on YĀj. (II. 91 ) quotes the definition of a jayapatra (judgment) from: Viddha-Vasistha and on III, 20 quotes him about impurity on miscarriage. On Yaj. III. 310 the Mit. quotes Vasistha 27.4 and then in the very next verse quotes a long passage from Vṛddhavasistha in prose and verse setting forth an expiation. The same passage occurs also in Aparārka on the same verse. Aparārka quotes in all 18 verses (two of which define the form and contents of a Jayapatra of a court of justice ) and one

110b The editor of Sān. Gọ. Dr. S. R. Sehgal has not identified the tivo

verses in san. Gľ. 11.16,3 and 5, though he has identified tcs 110c antes ARATATE I S 13,5; Teie fara

मासान् | अर्धषष्ठान् वा सां. गृ. IV.6.7-8 ; अर्धपञ्चमान् मासान् पञ्च दक्षिणायन था। गौ. XVI.2; श्रावण्यां प्रौष्ठपो वाप्युपाकृत्य यथाविधि । युक्तश्छन्दस्यिीयत RIFFT antsu HTH AC IV.95,

FOUNDED

Bhandarkar Orienta112

prose passage. The Kalpataru profusely quotes Vasistha in Gșhasthakāṇda ( 41 times ), in Vyavahārakānda (37 times) and Brahmacārikāṇda (15 times ), yet never quotes Vṭddha Vasiṣtha in these three. In Dānakanda (p. 189) it quotes two verses on ‘gocarma’ and the reward of gifts of land of the extent of gocarma from Vṛddhavasistha 1104. The Smṛticandrika quotes about 20 verses from Vrddha.Vasistha on āhnika and śrāddha ; Bhattoji in his gloss on the Caturvimśatimata (p. 12 ) seems to quote a prose passage from Vṛddha-Vasistha. From the above it follows that. Vṇddha-Vasistha was an early compilation and dealt with almost all such topics (including Vyavahāra ) as are dealt with by Yāj. The Mit, also quotus on Yaj. III 287 a Brhad Vasiṣtha. The Smṛticandrikā (III. p. 300 ) quotes a few verses from a Jyotir-Vasistha. The I. O. catalogue (No. 1339 p. 392 ) speaks of a Vasistha-smrti in ten a lhyāyas about the religious observances and duties enjoined on devotees of Viṣṇu.

That Yajñasvāmin wrote a commentary on the Vas. Dh. S. follows from Govindasvāmin’s comment on Baud. Dh. S. (II. 2.51), where he quotes Vas, 21. 13 and Yajñasyāmin’s comment thereon.