1

નવા વોનીબોએ बौधायन श्रौतसूत्रम् फल न कलामूलशास्त्र कलामूल लघुसार राबूनाराम निशास्त्र कलालशास्त्र कल व कलामूलशास्त्र कलामूल सानूशास्त्र कलामूलमात्र निशास्त्र कलानुलशास्त्र का त्र कलामलशास्त्र कलाग लामून्दशा VOLUME गुलशास्त्र INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL CENTRE FOR THE ARTS The Baudhayana Śrautasûtra together with an English translation is being presented here in four volumes. There will be other volumes also presenting Bhavasvamin’s bhāṣya and the word-index of the sutra-text. The Baudhayana Śrautasutra belongs to the Krsna Yajurveda Taittiriya recension. It represents the oral lectures delivered by the teacher Baudhāyana, hence is the oldest śrauta-text. The text is revised here in the light of the variant readings recorded by W. Caland in his first edition (Calcutta 1906), and is presented in a readable form. The mantras forming part of the sutras have been fully rendered into English. The translation is supplied with notes giving reference to the mantras and explanations of the ritual. The work is expected to serve as an advancement of Taittiriya ritualistic studies. बौधायन श्रौतसूत्रम् THE BAUDHAYANA ŚRAUTASŪTRA कलामूलशास्त्र-ग्रन्थमाला KALĀMŪLAŠĀSTRA SERIES इ.गा.रा.क. के. क. मू.शा - ३५ I.G.N.C.A. K.M.S. - 35 बौधायन श्रौतसूत्रम् THE BAUDHAYANA ŚRAUTASŪTRA CRITICALLY EDITED AND TRANSLATED BY C.G. KASHIKAR VOLUME ONE INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL CENTRE FOR THE ARTS NEW DELHI AND MOTILAL BANARSIDASS PUBLISHERS PVT. LTD. DELHI First Published: 2003 Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts All rights reserved. No part of the publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means, without written permission of the publishers. Published by INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL CENTRE FOR THE ARTS Central Vista Mess, Janpath, New Delhi-110001 in association with MOTILAL BANARSIDASS PUBLISHERS PVT. LTD. Bungalow Road, Jawahar Nagar, Delhi 110 007 ISBN: 81-208-1853-9 (Vol. I) ISBN: 81-208-1852-0 (Set) Price: Rs. 4200.00 (Set) Typeset by Neographics K-2071 (1st Floor), Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi-110019 Printed in India at Shri Jainendra Press, A-45, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110 028 PREFACE I am extermely happy to present to the world of scholars the text of the Baudhāyana Śrautasutra together with an English translation and notes. The first critical edition of this Śrautasūtra was prepared by W. Caland and was published in three volumes by the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Calcutta (1904-13). Its second edition-a reprint-was published at New Delhi in 1982. My translation is of course based on Caland’s edition. A faithful translation of any ancient text, particularly a Vedic text, involves a thorough understanding of the text. Consequently I have paid close attention to the rich treasure of variant readings recorded by Caland in his Foot- notes. As a result of my close study of the text in all aspects and the numerous variant readings, I have improved the text at numerous places. Sometimes I have had to resort to emendation of certain readings. In my notes to the translation I have noted all such places where I have chosen a reading different from that of Caland’s printed text. The text printed herein is thus, the Baudhāyana Śrautasûtra text in a revised form. I have excluded the Śulbasūtra (Praśna XXX) and the Pravarapraśna for reasons mentioned in the Introduction. A new critical edition of the Baudhayana Śrautasūtra needs to be undertaken. Caland had utilised a number of manuscripts of the text for his edition. He has, however, left numerous doubtful places, particularly in Praśnas X-XIX. The Mackenzie Collection manuscript No. xxviii (new number 92), a Descriptive Cata- logue of the Oriental MSS collected by Lt. Col. Mackenzieedited by H.H. Wilson Vol. I. p.6 rendered him valuable help in defining the text and also the order of the text. Numerous textual difficulties still exist, and these require to be solved. Many more manuscripts of the Baudhayana Śrautasutra which were not available to Caland have fortunately been discovered and stored in manuscript-libraries. These manuscripts are indeed a great treasure which needs to be exploited. One may perhaps find among them manuscripts representing the tradition of Mackenzie manuscripts or even a better preserved tradition. The study of Śrautasūtras is far advanced since Caland published his edition. Consequently a new critical edition undertaken by an expert brain will be welcome. Since the text presented herein is only a revision of Caland’s text, I have not found it necessary to reproduce the variant readings recorded by Caland in his Footnotes. The Vedic texts by their very nature were not fully comprehensible by themselves to a student of literature and religion. Hence, the various means like the Bhāṣyas, Tīkās, Paddhatis and Prayogas came to be produced from time to time. The old commentators among them were rather brief because in their view only a few hints were sufficient for the elucidation of the text in hand. The later vi BAUDHAYANAŚRAUTASŪTRA commentators, on the other hand, wrote in rather a liberal manner because they thought the reader of their time was in need of detailed explanations. In modern times when modern dialects have become the vehicle of all communication and when visions of understanding have considerably widened, it became imperative to explain all old texts, particularly the Vedic, through translation and notes in modern languages. Many of the Kalpasūtras have been translated into English, German, Dutch, French and other languages. The Baudhāyana Śrautasutra holds a prominent position among the Kalpasūtras for various reasons. It is extensive and dilates upon the sacrificial religion in a comprehensive manner. Full understanding of this text is essential for the scientific knowledge of the Vedic religion and culture. No complete translation of this significant text has been attempted so far in any language. Some portions of it have been rendered into English in detached manner in the various parts of the Śrautakosa published by the Vaidika Samshodhana Mandala at Pune. Herein the mantras have not been translated. Yasuke Ikari has translated in English the tenth chapter of this text laying down the piling up of the Fire-altar (Agnicayana) in the Volume of Agni (Berkley, 1983) again without the translation of the mantras. A complete English translation of the Baudhāyana Śrautasutra was therefore a desideratum, and it is my privilege to fill in the gap. In my translation I have mostly translated the mantra side by side with the injunctive part of a sutra. The Taittirīya- texts comprise both the mantra-portions and the Brāhmaṇa-portions. There is definite correlation between the mantra and the Brahmana. One cannot be fully understood without the other. This is true of the prose formulas and also of the verses. Such verses as are common to the Rgveda may bear loose relation to the ritual. I have not translated the Puronuvākyā and Yājyā verses which may hardly be said to have close relation to the ritual. While translating a mantra I have kept in view the relation of the mantra to the corresponding Brāhmaṇa. In this behalf I have consulted the commentaries by Bhatta Bhaskara and Sāyaṇa on the Taittiriya texts, who I believe, even though remote in time from the Taittiriya texts, were mostly conversant with that relation through their intimate knowledge of the continued ritual tradition. Even then I have not ignored the principles of Philology in translating the mantras. In translating the Sūtra-text I have consulted Bhavasvamin’s Bhāṣya and also the commentary Subodhini as far as it is available. Even then certain points have remained obscure to me. Footnotes are added to the translation. References to the original sources of the mantra and Brahmana passages are given in the Footnotes. The Dvaidhasutra always goes in concurrence with the main text. Caland has, in his edition of the text, tried to give the references to the main text while presenting the Dvaidhasūtra. In some cases references have not been given by him.PREFACE vii I have tried my best to give at such places the references to the main text. The same thing applies to the Karmantasūtra also. I have tried to make the translation as literal as possible. Words essential for clear understanding have been put in parenthesis. Bhavasvamin’s vivarana on a major portion of the Baudhayana Śrautasūtra is available in manuscripts. Caland had intended to edit this vivarana which is a veritable source for good understanding of Baudhāyana’s text. He however abandoned his design since the manuscript-material available to him was utterly insufficient. He has stated, “Perhaps I may in later times fulfil also this promise. (Preface to Vol. II p. xi). He however could not do so. T.N. Dharmadhikari has prepared a critical edition of the vivarana after a careful study of the available defective manuscripts. He has tried his best to present a readable text of the vivarana and has recorded the variants in Foot-notes. The vivarana is appended. A Glossary is also appended. The index of words prepared by my student Smt. Leena Sabnis will be found useful for a scientific study of the text. I am grateful to the authorities of the Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts, New Delhi, for assigning the project to me. I have tried to complete it to the best of my ability. The Centre granted me all facilities for the carrying out of the project. I am glad to acknowledge the help which I have received in completing the project. Caland’s scholarly monograph Uber das rituelle Sūtra des Baudhāyana was a constant help to me. Many decades have passed since Caland published his monumental work. Knowledge of the ritualistic religion has considerably advanced during this time, and it has become possible to add to our knowledge of Baudhāyana’s text. I have also consulted Caland’s voluminous work on other Vedic texts and the scholarly work of Indian and western scholars including J.Gonda’s History of Indian Literature. I thank Kumari Saroj Deshpande for neatly preparing the typescript of the translation. When in 1903 he published his important monograph Über das rituelle Sūtra des Baudhayana, W. Caland concluded by saying, “Möchte es mir gelingen sein, ein Interesse für diesen Text zu wecken” (p. 65). By simultaneously publishing his important edition of the Baudhāyana Srautasūtra, he may be said to have laid the foundation not only of the all-round study of this oldest Srautasūtra but also of the Śrauta texts in general. Since then significant research work has been done in the field of the ritual Sūtras. I hope this edition of the revised text together with translation and Bhavasvamin’s vivarana will give a new impetus to the study of the Vedic ritualistic religion. Pune, October 2, 2001 Gandhi Jayanti C.G. KASHIKAR CONTENTS Preface Introduction

1. The Baudhayana Corpus
2. Baudhayana-the Pravacanakāra
3. Authorship of the Baudhayana Śrautasūtra
4. The Baudhāyana Śrautasūtra and the Taittiriya-texts
5. The Baudhāyana Śrautasūtra and other Vedic Recensions 6. Linguistic Peculiarities of the Baudhāyana Śrautasūtra 7. Literature on the Baudhayana Śrautasūtra
6. The Chronology of the Baudhāyana Śrautasūtra
7. The Home of the Baudhāyaniyas TEXT AND TRANSLATION TOPIC V xi xi xii xiii xix xxi XXV xxix xxxi xl PRAŚNA PAGES FULL-MOON AND NEW-MOON SACRIFICES I. 1-21 2-65 THE SETTING UP OF THE SACRED FIRES II. 1-21 66-121 DASADHYAYIKA III.1-31 122-185 Resetting of the Fires III.1-3 122 Agnihotra-offering III.4-7 129 Agnihotra-prayers III.8-9 135 Pindapitṛyajña III.10-11 140 Agrayana Sacrifice III.12 144 Prayers During Journey III.13-14 148 The Sacrificer’s Duties at the Full-moon and New-moon Sacrifices .Duties of the Brahman Duties of the Hotṛ THE ANIMAL-SACRIFICE CĂTURMASYAS Vaiśvadevaparvan Varuṇapraghāsaparvan Sākamedhaparvan Śunāsiriyaparvan III.15-22 150 III.23-26 168 III.27-31 174 IV.1-11 186-227 V.1-18 228-275 V.1-4 228 V.5-9 238 V.10-17 252 V.18 272

ABBREVIATIONS App APSS AśvŚS AV BaudhŚS BhārŚS DhS GS JAOS JBr JBRAS KausBr KāthŚS Apparently Apastamba Śrautasūtra Aśvalāyana Śrautasūtra Atharvaveda Samhitā Baudhāyana Śrautasūtra Bharadvaja Śrautasūtra Dharma Sutra Grhya Sūtra Journal of American Oriental Society Jaiminiya Brāhmaṇa Journal of Bombay Royal Asiatic Society Kausītaki Brāhmaṇa Kathaka Śrautasūtra KatyŚS Katyāyana Śrautasūtra KS Kāthaka Samhita ManSS Mānava Śrautasūtra MS Maitrāyaṇī Samhitā MSS Manuscripts RV SadBr SānkhGS ŚBr ŚS ŚuS Rgveda Samhita Şadvimsa Brāhmaṇa Sankhayana Gṛhya Sūtra Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa Śānkhāyana Sūtra Śulba Sūtra TĀ Taittiriya Aranyaka TandBr Tandya Brāhmaṇa TBr Taittiriya Brāhmaṇa TS Taittiriya Samhitā VādhŚS Vādhūla Śrautasūtra VS VSK Vājasaneyi Samhitā Vājasaneyi Samhitā Kāņva

INTRODUCTION

1. The Baudhayana Corpus The Baudhayana Śrautasūtra forms the initial and prominent part of the Baudhayana corpus.’ This corpus comprises the Śrauta, Prayaścitta, Śulba, Grhya, Pitṛmedha, Pravara and Dharma Sutras. Tradition ascribes all these Sūtras to Baudhayana. While preparing his critical edition of the Baudhāyana Śrautasūtra (BaudhŚS), W. Caland examined all available manuscripts of the above-mentioned types of the Sūtra-texts ascribed to Baudhāyana, and formulated the order of the Baudhayana corpus.2 In the printed edition of the Śrautasūtra the Śulbasūtra forms the Praśna XXX. The Pravarasutra printed at the end is without the consecutive Praśna number. 14 Subsequent to the Śrautasūtra there is the Gṛhyasutra3 comprising four Praśnas including the Prayaścitta. “This Sūtra the greater part of which is no doubt comparatively old, is composed in the Baudhāyana style; discussions, motivations and even implicit polemics are not absent. The Gṛhyasütra proper is followed by the so-called Grhya-Paribhāṣāsūtra which consists of two Praśnas. Being generally speaking a collection of additions and enlarge- ments, it seems to owe its curious title to the desire of the compiler, not only to add some more definitions and general rules of interpretation but also, following the example of the Karmantasūtra of the Śrauta manual, to collect these in separate chapters annexed to the discussions of the Grhya rites. This collection may in the course of time have become the nucleus of the present two Praśnas. That this text has been recast and greatly enlarged is beyond all doubt. There is yet another Grhya part, namely, the Grhyaparisiṣṭa-or Grhyaseṣasūtra which comprises four Prašnas consisting of older and later material. Rites which occur also in other works of this class and create the impression of being Vedic-for instance the Yamayajña in 1.21 and the Vṛṣotsarga in 3.16-existed in all probability long before the compilation of these paralipomena. This collection has, on the other hand, received considerable additions many of which are much later than the composition of the proper Grhyasutra. The latest additions do not belong to the Vedic, but to the post-Vedic Hindu (so-called Purāņic) rituals, and xii BAUDHAYANAŚRAUTASŪTRA concern the cult of typically Hinduist deities viz. Śiva, Durgā, and Skanda. Parallels, if any, occur only in other doubtless late specimens of this literature and further in works of the Puranic and Agamic genres.5 8 The Baudhayana Pitṛmedhasūtra comprises three Praśnas; the Baudhāyana Pravarasutra consists of only one Praśna.7 The last portion of the Baudhāyana corpus, namely, the DharmasutraR comprises four Praśnas; Prašna IV is an interpolation. This Dharmasūtra is later than the Gautama Dharmasutra which is referred to in the Baudhayana Dharmasūtra.
2. Baudhāyana-the Pravacanakāra Mahadeva, at the beginning of his commentary on the Satyāṣādha Kalpasūtra, pays homage to the Sūtrakāras of the Taittiriya recension where Baudhayana is mentioned first. This denotes that among the followers of the Taittiriya recension Baudhāyana was taken to be the seniormost teacher. In the Utsarjana-rite to be performed by a boy who has udergone the Upanayana rite the gods, Rṣis, Acāryas and the Pitrs are beseeched to be present and receive honour. Here the list of the Acāryas of the Taittirīya recension begins with Baudhāyana who is called as a pravacanakāra.o Apastamba is called as a sūtrakāra. In other Taittiriya Sūtra-texts also the list begins with Baudhayana. Thus the entire Taittiriya tradition respects Baudhayana as the seniormost ācārya. It calls Baudhāyana’s text as a pravacana and each of the other texts as a Sutra. There is a difference in a pravacana and a Sūtra. A pravacana is a discourse which is orally delivered. A Sutra is not so; it is a collection of sūtras which are composed. Naturally a pravacana is extensive; sutrais brief. Brevity is a comparative term. While in the texts like Pāṇini’s Aṣṭādhyāyī the author would try his utmost to attain brevity in his expression even by saving half a mātrā, it cannot be so in the other types of Sūtra-texts like the Kalpasūtras. The Kalpasūtras came to be composed with a specific purpose. It was difficult to perform any ritual simply by studying the mantra and the Brahmana concerned. A guide laying down the ritual following a particular Veda in a regular order was a necessity. Such manuals had to be studied closely side by side with the actual Veda. In order that the strain on the memory of the person concerned should be minimum, the manual had to be as short as possible. Consequently the manuals came to be composed in sutra-form. At the same time the concise sutra-form left certain ambiguities; so that Bhāṣyas and Paddhatis were composed in order to fill in the vacuum. The case of a pravacana was different; a detailed running exposition INTRODUCTION xili afforded much facility to the priest in performing his part of the ritual. Even then by its very nature the ritual is such a thing that a full understanding of the on-going rite was next to impossible. One therefore finds that even a pravacana was provided with a Bhāṣya and a Prayoga. … That the BaudhSS is a pravacana is shown also by the use of demonstra- tive pronouns with deictic force, i.e. imām diśaṁ nīrasyati 1.6; athe’mām abhimṛśati 1.19; imām disaṁ nītvāII.8; imām diśam nirasya IV.6; ¿yaty agre haraty athe’yaty athe’yati II.17; ittham aśvaṁ visāsate’tthā3m XV.30. Baudhāyana has in his lectures prescribed the mantras generally in extenso. There are of course exceptions. Looseness in uniformity may also point out the character of oral discourses. In Praśna X (Cayana) and also in Praśna XI (Vājapeya) the rule of sakalapatha has exceptions. In connection with the duties at the Full- moon and the New-moon sacrifices the BaudhSS prescribes sipping of water with the verse payasvatir oṣadhayaḥ… at two places (III.15,22) which indicates looseness. The formula taya devatayā … and the verse tā asya südadohasaḥ are very frequently prescribed in the Praśna (X) for Cayana. Once they are given (X.21) there is no need to repeat them in subsequent occurrences. Therefore Baudhāyana very often simply says tayādevataṁ kṛtvā sūdadohasaṁ karoti. But in X.36 where he has referred simply to tayadevata and sūdadohasa a few times, at one place he has repeated the formula and the verse which is probably due to oral transmission. The general practice of Baudhāyana is that once he has prescribed a mantra in extenso, he mentions it by pratika at a subsequent occurrence or occurrences. There are certain exceptions to this rule. The verse mano jyotir… is given in extenso in BaudhSS III.18 and again in III.29. The formula vedo’si vittir asiis given in III.30 in extensoand also immediately afterwards with a small change. All this points to the fact that Baudhayana orally transmitted the discourses to his disciples. Probably he was the first ācārya who set the ritual of the Taittirīya recension in order for the facility in performance, and orally explained it to his pupils. 10
3. Authorship of the Baudhāyana Śrautasūtra Tradition assigns the authorship of the entire Baudhayana Kalpasütra to Baudhāyana. Before tackling the wider problem, it will be proper to confine the discussion to the authorship of the BaudhŚS alone. Leaving out the Sulba, Gṛhya, Pitṛmedha, Pravara and Dharma Sutras, the Śrautasūtra itself covers Praśnas I-XXIX. Its broad divisions are: the main Sutra I-XIX, Dvaidha XX-XXIII, Karmanta XXIV-XXVI, and Prayaścitta XXVII-XXIX. xiv BAUDHAYANASRAUTASŪTRA Can we attribute the authroship of these four broad divisions of this Sūtra– text to a single ācārya Baudhāyana? Prima facieit may be taken that Baudhāyana himself composed all the four divisions. The claim will have, however, to be substantiated by strong evidence. The character of a pravacana would be one of the points to be considered. Keeping aside for the time being the main Sūtra, the Dvaidha may be examined first. The Dvaidhasūtra presupposes the main text. It records the different views of the acaryas of the Baudhayana school on the various rites, and while doing so, it always refers to the main text. The names of the following ācāryas are mentioned therein: Añjīgavi, Atreya, Adya or Ajya, Artabhāgiputra, Aupamanyava, Aupamanyavīputra, Kātya, Jyāyān Kâtyāyana, Kauṇapatantri, Gautama, Dīrghavātsya, Baudhāyana, Mangala, Maitreya, Maudgalya, Dakṣiṇākāra Rāthītara, Rāthītara and Śālīki. It is to be noted that this list of the acaryas includes the name of Baudhayana himself. The Dvaidhasūtra therefore cannot be said to have been composed by Baudhāyana himself. At the same time it has to be conceded that the different views on the various rites prevailed at the time of the composition of the main text itself. It may, therefore, be said that the Dvaidhasūtra was composed by some pupil of Baudhāyana or pupil’s pupil at a time not very distant from the date of the composition of the main text. Generally there is correspondence between the main text and the Dvaidhasutra. There is however no Dvaidhasūtra for the Pravargya (Praśna IX), the Aśvamedha (Praśna XV), Samāvartana (XVII.39-44), Naiṣṭyayana (XVII.45-46), Vrātyastoma (XVIII.24-26), Bhāllavistoma (XVIII.27-30) and the Ekāhas (XVIII.37-52). In the Dvaidhasutra each topic is introduced by saying vyākhyāsyāmaḥ e.g. athāto’gnikalpaṁ vyākhyāsyāmaḥ (XXII.1). This shows that the Dvaidhasutra was equally understood as an authority for the prescription of the ritual. A comparison of the views recorded in the Dvaidha with the original injunctions recorded in the main text shows that corre- sponding injunctions are sometimes wanting in the main text.11 Generally a unit of the Dvaidhasūtra first reproduces the pratika referring to a point for discussion from the main text, and then records the different views on that point held by the Acaryas of the Baudhayana school. The different views may be two in minimum and any number-five or six-in maximum. In most cases the injunction recorded in the main text is the view of some Acarya, in many cases, of Baudhayana. In such cases the unit begins with the remark that the sutra, that is, the view reproduced therein is the view of such and such teacher, and then records the views held in that INTRODUCTION XV behalf by Acāryas. Sometimes the injunction recorded in the main text is an optional one. In such a case the Dvaidhasūtra mentions the names of the Acāryas advocating those respective views. Obviously the occasion for the variety of views arises out of the absence of a direct injunction in the Brāhmaṇa concerned. There is no source to understand the practice in respect of the omitted item which Brāhmaṇakāra himself intended. It was natural that in course of time different practices were introduced in the various geographical areas. These became known to the ritual-world when the priestly class had occasions to come together and undertake ritualistic performances in coordination. Among the various Acāryas two names occur prominently-Baudhāyana and Śālīki. It is observed that Baudhāyana gen- erally represents the conservative view while Śālīki lays stress on simplicity and convenience.12 It is interesting to note that whatever divergent view on some topic might have been expressed by any of the other Śrautasūtras, it is almost found advocated by some Acārya belonging to the Baudhayana school. It seems that during the period of the ritualistic activities of the Baudhayana school which immediately succeeded the Brāhmaṇa period, the ritual-tradition was strong and that the lively interest in practices gave rise to different views in regard to the topics not prescribed or discussed in the Brāhmaṇas. The Karmantasūtra which covers Praśnas XXIV-XXVI provides the explications of sacrificial rituals. It supplements or clarifies the rituals laid down in the main text. At the opening it makes certain general observations. It also lays down the objectives of certain rituals and rites. While the main text employs the present tense in all its prescriptions, the Karmantasūtra em- ploys the present tense and the potential mood in a mixed manner. Like the main text it also speaks in details so much so that sometimes the detailed description becomes monotonous. In this respect the Khanḍikās 14 and 15 of Praśna XXV are worthy of note. The topic is the rites to be performed by the Adhvaryu at early dawn on the pressing day of the Agnistoma. Khaṇḍikā 14 lays down Baudhāyana’s view while the Khandika 15 lays down Śālīki’s view. Both the Khandikās are identical. The difference is that while accord- ing to Baudhayana the ladles filled with clarified butter are to be carried directly to the Uttaravedi, according to Śālīki they are first to be carried towards the Agnidhrīya chamber and then towards the Uttaravedi. Sometimes the Karmantasütra provides an optional injunction. While BaudhŚS II.18 prescribes the offering of the Pūrṇahuti with the verse sapta xvi BAUDHAYANAŚRAUTASŪTRA te agne… the Karmanta XXIV.17 mentions a prose formula, agnaye pṛthivyai vāyave ’ntarikṣāya sūryāya dive varuṇāyā’dbhyaḥ svāhā. The commentary subodhini on II.18 treats this formula as an option. While II.18 prescribes milk as the oblation for the Agnihotra, Karmānta XXIV.17 mentions the clarified butter. While II.18 prescribes the wiping of the Agnihotra-ladle first in the upward and then in the downward direction, Karmanta XXIV.17 prescribes the reverse order. Sometimes one comes across in the Karmanta a mere repetition of a rite prescribed in the main text, e.g. the formulas to be recited for the drawing out and the depositing of the Āhavanīya fire are prescribed in the main text (III.4); they are repeated in the Karmanta (XXIV.30). Karmanta XXIV.30 is an exact copy of III.4 prescribing the Agnihotra-rite. The Karmanta has taken cognisance of one who has not set up the sacred fires; XXIV. 32 speaks about the Pinḍapitṛyajña and XXIV.33 about the Agrayana to be performed by one who has not set up the fires. The Rājasuya is prescribed in BaudhŚS XII. The Karmanta XXVI.3 lays down also a variety of the Rajasuya called Añjaḥsava according to Baudhāyana and another variety of the same according to Śālīki. It also lays down a different kind of the Rājasūya, namely, the Patantaka. The Vādhūla Śrautasūtra (X) has not mentioned any variety of the Rājasūya. As regards the setting up of the fires, BaudhŚS II.12 mentions a piece of wood of a tree struck by lightning among the substances to be put into the fire-places before the setting of fires. As substitute for such a tree, the Karmānta (XXIV.14) has mentioned a tree dried up by cold or by wind. Neither the Vādhūla nor any other Śrautasūtra has mentioned these substitutes. The characteristics mentioned above point to the conclusion that the Karmāntasūtra was composed not by Baudhāyana but by somebody belong- ing to the Baudhāyana school at a late date. The traditional position of the Karmanta subsequent to the Dvaidha supports the conclusion. Praśnas XXVII-XXIX are called the Prayaścittasutra. They deal with the expiation-rites in respect of ritual-deficiencies in the Agnihotra, Darśa- Pūrṇamāsa, Cãturmāsyas, Nirūḍhapaśu, Agnistoma, Agnicayana, Ekāhas and Sattras. Besides the expiation-rites the section includes the incidental rites, the so-called Anugrahas and certain other topics befitting the charac- ter of the Karmanta. Most of the Śrautasūtras have allotted only one chapter for the expiation-rites. It needs to be observed that we find in the main text expiation-rites laid down side by side with the Adhvaryava at different places. No expiation-riteINTRODUCTION xvii is mentioned for the Agnyadheya. We find expiation-rites prescribed in regard to the deficiencies in the Agnihotra-rite at the following places: nine in Praśna XIV (Aupānuvākya), four in Praśna XIII (Işțikalpa), one in the Dvaidha (XX.19) and two in the Karmanta (XXIV 23;31). For the Darsa- Pūrṇamāsa: three in Praśna III. 15-22 (Yājamāna), four in Praśna XIII (Iṣṭikalpa), one in Praśna XVII.50 (Kāmya Darśa-Pūrṇamāsa). For the Nirūḍhapaśu: one in Prašna XIV (Aupānuvākya). For Agniṣṭoma: sixteen in Praśna XIV (Aupānuvākya). In regard to the Pravargya, all expiation-rites have been laid down in Praśna IX (Pravargya) together with the main rite. These facts show that Baudhayana intended to lay down the expiation-rites side by side with the Adhvaryava; he did not intend to collect the expiation- rites separately in any Prašna. Some follower of the Baudhayana school felt it necessary to devote special space to the expiation-rites in the Sūtra-text following the practice of the other Śrautasūtras. While doing so, he took care not to touch the expiation-rites already dealt with in the Sutra-text following the Taittiriya texts. He recorded such expiation-rites as had become estab- lished in his time. For example, BaudhŚS XXIX. 3 has prescribed an incidental rite in case the moon does not become visible at night. the Sūtrakāra has prescribed the offering of two spoonfuls with the verses navonavo bhavati jāyamānaḥ… and yam ādityā aṁśumāрyāyayanti… (TS.II.4.14). · Here is a secondary employment of these two verses which are originally prescribed as the puronuvākyā and the yājyā to be recited by the Hot in an Işti to be performed by one who is suffering from a chronic disease (TSII.3.5). It is difficult to believe that all the three Prašnas were composed by one and the same person. We do not know whether the incidental rites, the Anugrahas and the Karmantalike portion were added by the Acārya who composed the additional Prāyaścitta-portion. There are clear indications which show that there was still another hand at work who newly added, particularly in the form of Kārikā, more expiation-rites in regard to the Agnihotra, Darśa-Pūrṇamāsa and other routine rites. It may thus be taken for certain that the Prayaścittasūtra (Praśnas XXVII-XXIX) was composed not by Baudhayana but by one or more Acaryas of the school some time later. We also do not know about the time when the present order of the three Prašnas of the Prayaścittasūtra was fixed.13 Now the main text, Praśnas I-XIX, may be examined from two view- points. Firstly, whether it contains any portion whose authorship normally xviii BAUDHAYANAŠRAUTASŪTRA attributed to Baudhayana may be doubtful, and secondly whether the order of the text fixed by the tradition and adopted in the printed edition was fixed by Baudhayana himself. There is evidence to show that in the main text certain portions were misplaced at a very early period.

In this connection Praśna II laying down the ritual of the setting of fires may be cited as an important case. A close study of the ritual and the text- portion describing it shows that the original order of the various Khandikās and other portions must have been different from what it is at present. Praśna II laying down the Agnyādheya comprises twentyone Khaṇḍikās. Dvaidha (XX.16-18) and Karmanta (XXIV.12-17) also deal with this rite. In the main text BaudhŚS II.12 must have been the first Khanḍikā; Khaṇḍikā 1 speaking about the pronouncement the second; Khandikās 3-4 dilating upon the choosing of the priests the third and the fourth; the Khaṇḍikā 2 prescribing the begging of the sacrificial place the fifth; Khandikās 13-14 speaking about the offering of the Brahmaudana the sixth and the seventh; Khanḍikās 8-11 laying down the Gopitṛyajña eighth to eleventh; and Khaṇḍikās 15-21 prescribing the rites beginning with the heating of the kindling woods and ending with the ancillary Istis twelfth to the nineteenth. Out of the remaining three Khaṇḍikās (5-7) Khaṇḍikā 5 records the formulas beginning with simhe me manyuḥ etc. called pāpmano vinidhayaḥ which do not belong to the Taittirīya recension. Hence they were repro- duced by somebody for ready use.15 Khaṇḍikās 6-7 are of the nature of the Karmāntasūtra. They, however, do not fit in with the present Karmāntasūtra. The basic Soma-sacrifice, namely, the Agnistoma is prescribed in Praśnas VI-VIII, and the Pravargya rite is prescribed in Praśna IX. Even though the position of the Pravargya as Prašna IX was already fixed in the period of Bhavasvāmin (eighth century A.D.) who in his Bhāṣya explains the Pravargya subsequent to the Agnistoma, it cannot be the original order. The Pravargya Praśna covers the preparation of the Mahāvīras and other imple- ments, the preparation and the offering of the Gharma, the disposal of the Pravargya-implements, the expiation-rites, and the Avantaradikṣā to be observed in connection with the learning of the Pravargya-mantras forming part of the Taittiriya Aranyaka - all in a single Praśna. Because the Pravargya rite involves the mantras contained in the Taittiriya Āraṇyaka, Baudhāyana must have assigned to it a position at the end of the entire pravacana. It is very important to observe that the Dvaidha and the Karmanta Sūtras have not taken note of the Pravargya; from the Agnistoma they have proceeded 16 INTRODUCTION xix to Agnicayana. Even though the order of the Pravargya was changed for convenience, the ritual was undoubtedly laid down by Baudhāyana. Some portion of the Sutra-text was lost in tradition. There are two types of the Sautrāmaṇī sacrifice in the Taittiriya-tradition-Caraka and Kaukili. While the Sautrāmaṇī in the Caraka tradition is preserved,17 that in the Kaukili tradition is lost. That it originally existed is clear from Bhavasvāmin’s statement in his Bhāṣya that the Baudhāyanasūtra for the Kaukilī Sautrāmaṇī is lost. There is an internal evidence which supports this fact. There is a sutra in the Karmanta (XXIV 11) dvau sautrāmaṇyām, meaning that there are two (offerings to Aditi) in the Sautrāmaṇī. In the Caraka Sautrāmaṇī prescribed in the BaudhŚS there is no offering to Aditi. In the Kaukili Sautrāmaṇī two pots of cooked rice are to be offered to Aditi.18 Thus the reference to Sautrāmaṇī in the Karmantasūtra points to the Kaukilī Sautrāmaṇī which Baudhāyana must have prescribed, and which was lost. In the Taittiriya tradition the duties to be performed by the Hotr̥ priest in the pre-Soma rites have been prescribed. In BaudhŚS III.27-31 one comes across the duties to be performed by the Hotṛ in the Full-moon and the New- moon sacrifices and also a few hints for those in the Animal-sacrifice. In Sāyaṇa’s commentary on BaudhŚS Praśna 119 there are citations from Baudhayana’s Hautraśesa Praśna which probably lays down the hautra for the Nirūḍhapaśu and the Caturmasyas following the Taittiriya Brāhmaṇa. This Hautraseşṣa Praśna may have been the composition of some scholar of the Baudhāyana school. The Kāṭhaka Citis have been prescribed in BaudhŚS XIX. Neither the Dvaidhasūtra nor the Karmāntasūtra has taken account of the Kathaka Prašna. In this Praśna mantras have been cited in extenso even in the case of repetition. While BaudhŚS X. 48 has used the word carameṣṭaka, BaudhŚS XIX. 10 employs the word antyestakā. Bhavasvāmin has not written commen- tary on this Praśna. Probably Praśna XIX was added by some follower of the Baudhāyana school. 4. The Baudhāyana Śrautasūtra and the Taittiriya- texts There is ample evidence to show that the redaction of the Taittiriīya recension was complete and fixed when Baudhayana delivered his dis- courses on the sacrificial religion. In his sūtras Baudhayana first gives the full mantra and then lays down the injunctive part. Not only does he cite the mantras in the order as they are found in the Taittiriya Samhită, most parts XX BAUDHAYANAŚRAUTASŪTRA of the Taittiriya Brāhmaṇa and also the Taittirīya Āraṇyaka, but also cites relevant Brāhmaṇa passages introducing them with atha vai bhavati.20 Even though Baudhāyana generally cites mantras from the Taittiriya texts in extenso, he cites by pratika the Puronuvākyā - Yājyā verses collected in the concluding Anuvākas of many Prapathakas of many of the Kāṇḍas of the Samhita and also some other verses. He also cites the mantras to be recited by the Adhvaryu or the sacrificer by saying anucchandasam or by referring to the specific Anuvāka; e.g. while prescribing the Vişņu-strides to be taken by the sacrificer at the Full-moon or the New-moon sacrifice, he records the first formula and further says iti caturbhir anucchandasam. In the Agnicayana while prescribing the pouring down of she-goat’s milk in a continuous stream over the leaf of Calotropis gigantea placed on the north-western uppermost brick, he says (X.48) tat pratipadyate namas te rudra manyava ity āʼntam etam anuvākam nigadya dvitīyam trtīyam.” He continues to refer to the Taittiriya text in similar terms. Further while speaking about the offering of the vasordhārā, he instructs tat pratipadyate’gnāviṣṇā sajoṣase’ti sarvām āʼntam vasordhārām (X.54). 22 21 There is another piece of evidence which is equally strong. In the Taittirīya Samhita comprising seven kāndas the third Kāṇḍa is traditionally known as the upānuvākya.23 Bhaṭṭa Bhaskara and Sāyaṇa have taken note of the designation aupānvākyain their commentaries on Kanda III. Upānuvākya means the supplementary scripture. It supplements the mantra and brāhmaṇa recorded in the original sections. Bhatta Bhaskara and Sāyaṇa have eluci- dated the mantra - and brāhmaṇa-portions of this Kāṇḍa with reference to the relevant topics contained in the original sections. Baudhāyana has devoted an entire independent Praśna, namely, the fourteenth, to the explanations of the mantra-brāhmaṇa contained in Kāṇḍa III. This indi- cates that the Taittiriya texts in the Sarasvatapatha stood in the established tradition in Baudhāyana’ time. Among the Sūtrakāras belonging to the Taittiriya recension, Baudhayana alone has remained true to the tradition of recognising the independent position of the aupānuvākya. The other Sūtrakāras have deemed all the Taittiriya texts as one entity, and have laid down the rituals by exploiting the entire material as a whole. Even the Vādhūla Śrautasūtra has followed the same procedure. The aupānuvākya Kāṇḍa (III) comprises five Prapathakas, and the BaudhŚS XIV serially deals with their contents in Khaṇḍikās 1-22 of that Prašna. In the remaining eight Khaṇḍikās (23-30) it lays down injunctions following TBr 1.4.1-5.3. INTRODUCTION xxi Baudhayana thus expanded the extent of his aupānuvākya Praśna because, even though the TBr-portion is really anārabhyādhīta, it is related to the portions dealing with the Soma-rites prescibed in the TS Kāṇḍa III. The Baudhayana Dvaidhasutra presupposes the entire aupānuvākya Praśna XIV. As already observed, the tradition of the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa was established before Baudhayana delivered his discourses. It is, however, to be noted that Baudhāyana has scarcely employed verses from the Acchidrakāṇḍa (TBr III.7) and the Upahomas (TBr II.4,5). The other Sūtrakaras of the Taittiriya recension from Bharadvāja downwards have, on the other hand, fully employed verses from these portions.24 5. The Baudhayana Śrautasūtra and other Vedic Recensions By their very nature, ritual-practices in the Vedic and the post-Vedic periods were in a rather dynamic condition. The ritualistic religion was a collective activity which was bound to be influenced by the ritual-traditions being maintained within the surrounding areas. There is therefore no wonder that even in the BaudhŚS we come across certain borrowings from the Vedic recensions. In the Agnistoma sacrifice fire from the Ahavanīya in the Prāgvarśa shed and Soma are carried over to the Mahāvedi on the Upavasatha day (BaudhŚS VI 30). The Adhvaryu carries forward the fire with the verse ud agne tiṣṭhā ’nu mām etc. which is not traced to the Taittiriya texts. This verse is found in the Vādhūlasūtra (VādhŚS VI.19.21) with a little variation and a small modification in the employment. According to BaudhŚS VII.8 the Adhvaryu hands over two darbha-blades to the Udgātṛ or to the Prastoty with the formula ṛksāmayor upastaraṇam asi mithunatvāya prajātyai or silently. This formula which is not traced to the Taittiriya texts is employed in VadhŚS VII.7.13. This shows Baudhāyana’s close association with the Vādhūla tradition. The Agnyādheya prescribed by Baudhāyana includes, among others, two rites, namely, the reciting of the formulas called papmano vinidhyaḥ and the Gopitṛyajña which are absent in the other Taittiriya Sūtra- texts. The VadhŚS has recorded in the Prapathaka XV (Parisesa) the formulas papmano vinidhayaḥ with certain variations; the Sūtra has also referred (1.1.8) to the cooking of a cow as a part of the Agnyadheya. We find some Kathaka element in Baudhayana’s prescriptions. BaudhŚS X. 24 prescribes the laying of a stump of darbha-grass on the site chosen for the Citi either with the formula vāk tvā samudra upadadhātu etc. or silently. xxii BAUDHAYANAŚRAUTASŪTRA pre- This formula which is reproduced as a pratika is borrowed from KS XXXVIII 13. ĀpsS XIX.11.11 has prescribed this formula with a little modification in the Săvitra Kāṭhaka Cayana. In BaudhŚS X.44 the Vibhakti brick is scribed to be piled up with the verse agne stomam manāmahe cited by pratika. The verse is not traced to the Taittiriya texts even though the Brāhmaṇa from the TS (V.5.6.1) says agne stomam manāmaha ity āha. The verse is found in KS XX.14; MS IV.10.2; RVV.13.2 Most probably it was borrowed from the KS. In the Agnyādheya Praśna Baudhāyana (II.12) has prescribed the setting of the Āhavanīya at a distance of twelve steps (vikrāma) following TBI.1.2. The Karmantasūtra (XXIV.1) however thought it advisable to mention the different numbers of steps (prakrama) for a brāhmaṇa, a Rājanya and a Vaiśya following in essence KS VIII.13. Baudhāyana (VII.9) has prescribed the formula agnir ha daivīnām viśām etc. in connection with the choosing of the sacrificer at the Savaniya animal- sacrifice in Agnistoma. It is not found in the Taittiriya texts; it is traced in part to MS III.9.8. It is found also in ŚBr III.7.4.10 where the choosing takes place at the Agniṣomiya animal-sacrifice. It is difficult to locate the exact source of the Baudhāyana citation. W. Caland has, in the introduction to his edition of the Satapatha Brāhmaṇa in the Kāṇviya recension 25 discussed the relationship of the Kāṇvīya Satapatha Brāhmaṇa with the Śrautasūtras of the Kṛṣṇa Yajurveda, particularly with the BaudhSS. He has drawn attention to the similarities in linguistic features and also certain ritual features. If a few features are found to be similar in these two texts in the ocean of linguistic and ritualistic details, they cannot lead one to any drastic conclusion. But Caland has found a few instances where a reference made in the Vājasaneya Brāhmaṇas to the Carakādhvaryus is not traced to any of the available Brāhmaṇas of the Kṛṣṇa Yajurveda, but is traced to the BaudhŚS. From this fact he hastens to conclude as follows: “The ritual of Baudhayana must have been known to the authors of the Vājasaneya Brāhmaṇas, that his Sūtra is prior to it…. How then are we to account for the agreement of Baudhāyana with the white Yajurveda ? It is not without hesitation that I venture to offer a conjecture on this point. From the researches of Bühler regarding the texts of Baudhāyana we know that the name of this author probably was Kāṇva Baudhayana. Now could not Baudhāyana originally have been a Kanva i.e. a follower of the Kanva school of the White Yajurveda and subsequently gone over to the Black Yajurveda refining many reminiscences of his former Śakha? This renunciation of INTRODUCTION xxiii school might then have taken place before the final redaction of the two Vājasaneya Brāhmaṇas the authors of which may have known his ritual but could not but regard him as a renegade. In this way alone, it seems to me, can we account for the hostility which the texts of the white Yajurveda show towards a Kāņva to whom it is prohibited to offer any sacrificial fee if they are among the Prasarpakas. Now it is very remarkable that while Apastamba, Bharadvaja and Hiranyakeśin exclude the Kāņvas from the receipt of Dakṣiņās, this prohibition is not made by Baudhāyana though it could be natural enough if my conjecture were right and Baudhāyana had once been a Kānva.” (pp. 99-101) This strange conjecture of Caland needs serious consideration. Firstly, Caland has inferred that since the view of ‘some’ teachers expressed in the Vājasaneya Brāhmaṇas is not traced to any of the Kṛṣṇa Yajurveda recensions, but is found in the BaudhŚS, the latter must be taken to have been known by both the Vajasaneya Brāhmaṇas. These Brāhmaṇas often mention a different ritualistic view belonging to the Carakādhvaryus or ‘some’ teach- ers. At present we know only three or four recensions of the Carakādhvaryus i.e. Kṛṣṇa Yajurveda. Patanjali has mentioned in his Mahābhāṣya one hundred and one recensions of Yajurveda out of which eightysix belonged to the Kṛṣṇa Yajurveda. It is not impossible that the Brahmaṇakāras were aware of such a recension, not known to us, representing the ritualistic view which might have been mentioned in that Brāhmaṇa and which is found also in the BaudhŚS. Moreover, it is certainly to be borne in mind that, barring the numerous so-called Sāmveda Brāhmaņas, no Brāhmaṇa text was composed subsequent to any Śrautasūtra. Traditionally the mantra-brāhmaṇa are apauruşeya, and Śrautasūtras are pauruşeya. These two types of literature must be chronologically distinguished. Therefore the BaudhaŚS cannot be taken to have been composed before the Vajasaneya Brāhmaṇas. Secondly, in the Baudhayana texts (GS III.9.6; DHS II.6) the author is mentioned as Kāṇva Baudhāyana, that is, Baudhāyana belonging to the Kanva gotra. This gotra is mentioned in the Baudhāyana Pravarasūtra (21 and 54; also ApPravaraS XXIV 8.2-3). This Kanva was of course different from the Vajasaneya Kanva. Caland’s conjecture on the basis of the identical name Kanva that Baudhāyana first was a follower of Kāṇva recension and later adopted the Taittiriya recension is therefore absurd. Caland has taken the support of one more fact: Dakṣiņās are to be given away to the visitors (prasarpaka) at a Soma sacrifice. Bharadvāja, Āpastamba and Satyāṣāḍha xxiv BAUDHAYANAŚRAUTASŪTRA Hiranyakeŝin (also Vaikhānasa) have said that one should not give Dakṣiņās to those belonging to the Kanva and Kasyapa gotras. Caland has also noted a similar statement from KāthS XXVIII.4. Such a prohibition is however not found in the BaudhŚS. This was natural, Caland says, because Baudhāyana was primarily a Kānva. In this connection it may be noted that the absence of such prohibition is found in many other Śrautasūtras also, e.g. Vadhula, Mānava, Āśvalāyana, Šārikhāyana, Lāṭyāyana, Drāhyāyaṇa and Vaitāna. So there is nothing special about Baudhāyana. The non-Baudhayana Taittirīya Sūtras observed the prohibition probably under the influence of the Kāṭhakas. It is important to note that the KatyŚS (X.2.32) itself belonging to the Vājasaneyas prohibits the giving away of Dakṣiņās to those belonging to the Kanva and Kasyapa gotras. It is therefore evident that the prohibition of giving away Dakṣiņās to the followers of the Kanva gotra has nothing to do with the alleged relation between Kanva and Baudhayana. Caland’s conjec- ture regarding the Kaṇva-Baudhāyana relationship is therefore groundless. The Samaveda claims great significance in the characterisation of a Soma-sacrifice. The individuality of a Soma-sacrifice mostly depends upon the specifications given in the Sāmaveda-brāhmaṇas. Even then the Sutra- texts of Yajurveda have something to prescribe in respect of the Adhvaryu’s duties. Baudhāyana generally follows the Tandya Mahābrāhmaṇa in dealing with the Ekāhas and the Ahinas. Even then he has maintained his individu- ality in that behalf on the authority of the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa. The Vratyastoma prescribed in the TaṇḍBr. and in BaudhŚS XVIII.24-26 is not laid down in the TBr. Bhallavistoma prescribed in BaudhŚS XVIII.27 is not traced to the TāṇḍBr nor to the TBr. In the Dvaidhasutra (XXIII.13) is prescribed the Gobala Daśarātra sacrifice which is not found in the TandBr. The Dvaidha, the Karmanta and the Prāyaścitta Sūtras seem to have come under the influence of the Rgveda. BaudhŚS XXVIII.2 has prescribed the Pavitreşti which may be performed as an incidental or optional rite. The puronuvākyā and yājyā verses prescribed herein for the Ájyabhāga offering to Soma are from the Rgveda, namely, yo dhārayā pāvakayā (IX.101.2; ĀśvŚS II.12.3) and ā kalaśeṣu dhāvati (IX.17.4, AśvŚS II.12.4). In the Agnistoma sacrifice the Pātnīvata draught is taken from the Agrayana vessel (BaudhŚS VIII.14). The Karmantasūtra (XXV.23) wanted to explicate that rite. It says, “This (Pātnīvata draught) drawn from the Agrayaṇa vessel is taken for thirtythree divinities. Where are they involved in the offering? In the Pātnīvata draught. It is said in the scripture, ‘Do thou (O Agni) carry over INTRODUCTION XXV and the thirtythree gods together with their wives for the sacrificial drink, be exhilerated.”” (RV IIL.6.9). This half verse is the latter part of the verse which is recited as the yajya for the Pātnīvata offering. cf. AśvŚS V.19. Here is an indication of the deep insight of the ritualists and of the rationale of the rite. Baudhāyana has employed a verse even from the Atharvaveda. He has prescribed the laying of Durva grass as a brick in Agnicayana (X.24). The verse is āyane te parāyaṇe etc. (AV VI.106.1) 6. Linguistic peculiarities of the Baudhāyana Śrautasūtra W. Caland has in his critical study of the BaudhŚS recorded information on grammar (morphology and syntax), style and lexicography of the BaudhŚS.26 This oldest Śrautasūtra is obviously under the influence of the Vedic language; it has retained many peculiarities of the Vedic language. Caland has already brought out the linguistic peculiarities of the BaudhSS. Any further attempt on this account would indeed be superfluous. Even then, with a view to making this Introduction complete, I would like to present here some select examples even though it would be a mere repeti- tion. A word-index appended to this edition would supply valuable informa- tion to a conscientious reader for his ritualistic and critical study of the text. Morphology: Nominal inflection: locatives in -an: sve dhaman X. 59; XI.13; XVII.1 carman VI.28; XV.17; sirṣan 1.2; V.7; XXI.12; antar ātman X.24 Hetero. Loc. Plu. : avântaradiśāsu XV. 19 abl: antataḥ IV.10; IX,13; širṣataḥ X.57; sirastaḥ XV.29; chandogataḥ XIV.4; hotṛtaḥ XIV.4 Conjugation. pres. du. sinasṭaḥ V. 7; pratyanaktaḥ V.8; opta. pranauyāt XIV.10; prasauyāt XXV.7; prayauyāt XXVII.35; opta. in-īta: kāmayīta II.1; dhārayīta. IX.19; anumantrayīta XII.10; anujñāpayīta XXVI.12; pres. 3rd per. parisere VII.15; IX.4; saye VI.7 duhe XXI.1 Conjunctives of the present system: smayāsai, kaṇḍūyāsai VI.6; anuparivartayādhvai XI.7; pūrayādhvai XX.28 Aorist. root - aorist: aparivṛthāḥ VII.5; abhinimruktāt VII.5; guḥVI.10; a-aorist: aparādhvam XX.28; redupli. aorist: adidṛśam XXI.13; s - aorist: ahauṣit; III.14; udasrākṣit XV.31; anuprahārṣiḥ VI.11; is-aorist: smayiṣṭhāḥ VI.5; samcārīt VI.17; sis-aorist: ajyāsisi XXVI.12; sa-aorist: akṛṣi XXVI 12; pass. aorist: apūri, adarŝi XX.1. xxvi BAUDHAYANAŚRAUTASŪTRA Absolutives ending with- am: abhiṣekam II.9; viparyāsam II.10; apratīkṣam IV.11; pratilepam IX.3; vyatiṣangamIX.7; avacchedam XXII.12; pratyākhyāyam XXV.15; pratisaṁkhyāyam XXIX.13; with nominal base: hastagraham, nāmagrāham XIV.17 Intensive: marmrjyate X.2; XI.6; desiderative: ditset, nidhitseta III.29; lipsante, lipseta V.16; pupüṣamāṇaḥ XIV.13; ārtset XIV.16; siṣādhayişet XXI.14; cikalpayişet XXVI.1 Dvandva comp. with neut. ending: svaruraśanam IV.4; rajjudāma IX.5; yugalangalam X.25; tṛṇavamsam XXVII.4; plu. śamīparṇakarīrasaktūn V.5 Syntax: Genitive with dative function: athā’sya vratopetasya śākhām ācchaiti 1.1; athā’syai’ṣā pūrvedyur eva pāśubandhiki vedir vimitā bhavati IV.1; evam asya pradakṣinam haviṣām avattam bhavati XXII.13; with ablative function: atha pratihitasya dhanur ādāya XII.12 Words ending with dative -ai of feminine stems ending in -ā to denote ablative-genitive sense: etasyai māṁsam II.11; dviguṇāyai ca triguṇāyai cā’ntau saṁdadhāti IV.5; chāyāyai că ” tapataś ca saṁdhau XIV.3; śvetāyai śvetavatsāyai payaḥ XII.5; dative for ablative:- ā saṁsthāyai VI.6; uttarāyai śroṇeh; dative for instrumental: uttānāyai jāghanyai devānām patnīr yajati nīcyā agnim IV.10; na caturthāya prakrāmati III.20 Relative clause beginning with the pronoun sa: sa yo balavāṁs tam āha V.15; sayaḥ same bhūmyai svād yoner rūḍhaḥ… tam upatisthate IV. 1; sa yady u hai’ko dīksate’hīno bhavati XXVIII.12; Sometimes this sa is superfluous. sa ye ha ke cai’tasyai māṁsam labhante II.11; sayavanta ṛtvijas ta enat samavamṛśanti VI.19 Use of neu. tad in the sense of tatra: yatra “pas tad yanti V.9, X.18 Verb. Active used for passive: praṇītāsu praneṣyatsu XXII.1 Present tense with ha sma to denote past tense: tad dha smai’tat pūrve saṁvatsaram samavasāyā “sate XVI.13; atro ha smā”ha baudhāyanaḥ, iti ha smā”ha śālīkiḥ often in the Dvaidhasūtra. Tmesis. Just as in the Brāhmaṇa-texts, so in the BaudhŚS also one comes across a large number of cases of tmesis. e.g. uc ca māṛṣṭy ava ca mārṣṭi II.18; āvā hayaty ā vā hārayati IV.1; sam hai’va rohati IX.4; abhy enam āhvayate hotā VII.17; pari samidham sinaști 1.15; ati tam srjati XII.18; upai’tena grahena rama VII.20 etc.INTRODUCTION xxvii Prepositions: tiraḥ with locative: tiras carman VI.28; agrena with accu.: uttaraṁ śālākhandam agrena IX.1; adhiwith abl.: vasatīvarībhyo’dhy apo nihṣicya VIII.1: ito’ dhi X.22.; abhi with accu.: sado ‘bhi VIII.2; yupam abhi X.11 Particles. nu and nvai preceded by iti. A sentence beginning with iti nu forms a proposition followed by another which is different e.g. iti nu yadi samnayati, yadyu vai na saṁnayati I.1; iti nv ekam athā’ param XXVIII.20. A sentence beginning with itī nvai (=nu vai) indicates a conclusion. e.g. itī nvai imā iṣṭayo vyākhyātāḥ XIII.1; XXV.4. The particles ha and vai often occur following the style of the Brahmanas. Many times they are preceded by u (u ha, u vai). Then they form a proposition followed by another. e.g. sayady u hāʼgado bhavati punar aiti XIV.27. The particle vāva denoting assertion. e.g. eṣa vāva svargyaḥ panthā yad vaṣaṇkārapatha iti XVI.9. api. Style: Adverbs, u: tā u cet….. sa u cet XVI 4. Sometimes it is preceded by katham, Since the BaudŚS is a pravacana, one comes across in it certain distinctive marks which are rather absent in the Sūtra-texts, or at least are rather keenly felt. A teacher orally giving a discourse would have in his discourse a reflection of depicting a picture of the ritual which he might be visualising at the time. Speaking about the time-span, he says dvādaśyāṁ vyuṣṭāyām II.20; tisṛṣu vyuṣṭāsu XVII.6; srucā pañcamīm juhoti VI.4. When he has to employ a lengthy mantra-portion, he would say something like iti pratipadya ity ataḥ III.18 etc. Sometimes one meets with a natural alliteration: susambħṛtān sambhārān punar eva sambharati 11.6; susambhṛtān sambharaṇyām sambhṛtya VII.6. The prefix su- is joined to a past participle to denote abundance: susambhṛta (above); sūpanibaddha VI.25; susamtṛpta 1.18; suvicita VI.14; sudhupita IX.3. The use of the verbal form āste, āsate with a present participle is typical: ramayanto jāgarayanta āsate XV.3; dhūnvanta āsate IX.8; tām te pibanto ramamāṇā mahīyamānā āsate IX.11; gopayann āste X.1. Similarly the form eti or yanti: stṛṇann eti III.30; utkhidann eti XI.5; hotur vaśaṁ yanti IV.2. The use of the past participle prajñāta is typical: prajñātaṁ nidadhāti X.54; prajñāte barhiṣi nidhāya IV.5 explained by Bhavasvamin as yathā na samsriyete pratyabhijñāte tathā nidhāya. Ellipse: ubhau yājyām painī ça (that is, husband and wife) V.8; ubhau samīkṣata āhavaniyaṁ ca (Āhavanīya and Gārhapatya) III.28; atithīnām upasthām eti xxviii BAUDHAYANAŚRAUTASŪTRA VI.6= upasthanam eti. Bhavasvāmin explains taiḥ saha saṁgacchata ity arthaḥ, Payāṁsi víśāsti VI.34 “(The Adhvaryu) gives directions as regards the man- agement of the milk.” When any action is to be done by somebody, not by a specific person, plural verbal form is used: athā’ smai madhuparkaṁ ca gāṁ ca prahuḥ VI.17; hvayanti patnim hvayanti hotaram IV.7. When various views are to be expressed, the pronouns eka and apara are used e.g. tasmād yajñavāstu nā ’bhyavetyam iti, ahorātrāv ity ekam, yāvad agnayaḥ śītāḥ syur ity etad ekam, yāvad enam abhivarṣed ity etad aparam XXVI.7. Because a ritual is to be carried on with the collaboration of a number of persons, it becomes essential for the Adhvaryu, the chief executive priest, to give directions (sampraiṣa) to different persons at one and the same time. This is customary to all Yajurveda-Sūtrakāras. In the BaudhŚS however the occasions are more frequent, and the calls indeed are beautiful composi- tions. e.g. brahman pravargyena pracariṣyāmo hotar gharmam abhiṣṭuhy agnid rauhiņau puroḍāśāv adhiśraya pratiprasthātaḥ pravargyaṁ vihara prastotaḥ sāmāni gāya IX.6. “O Brahman, we shall proceed with the Pravargya-rite; O Hotr̥, do you recite verses in praise of the Gharma; O Agnidh, do thou put on fire the two Rauhina cakes; O Pratiprasthātṛ, do you arrange the Pravargya - imple- ments; O Prastotṛ, do you chant the (relevant) Sāmans”. One of the peculiarities of Baudhayana is that his Adhvaryu has many occasions to call upon the sacrificer to do his duties, and he does so by addressing him with the words ehi yajamāna “Come on, O sacrificer.. When there is an occasion for the Hotṛ or for the Udgātr to perform his part of the ritual, the Sūtrakāra refers to it by the expression yathā sa veda, yatha te viduḥ, yathāvedam (VI.27; VII.1;14). When there is an occasion for a discussion of a certain topic, Baudhāyana has used the term mīmāṁsā following the practice of the Brāhmaṇa-texts; e.g. athā’ta āprīṇām eva mīmāṁsā X.11; atha’taḥ prayāṇasyai’va mīmāṁsāVI.9; X.17; atha’ to bhasmana eva’tivṛddhasya mīmāṁsāX.18; atha’taḥ sarpaṇasyai’va mīmāṁṣāXVI.9; athā’ta utthānānām eva mīmāṁsā XIX.5. When Baudhāyana has to refer to a view of some teachers in respect of some ritualistic item, he does so by saying iti vadantah following the Brahmaņa style, e.g. anu hai’ke samyanti pasava iḍe’ti vadantaḥ VII.12. The next sutra in such an instance is negative, and it begins with tad u tathā na kuryāt. The linguistic peculiarities recorded above cover all the four divisions of the BaudhŚS. It cannot however, be claimed on the basis of these peculiarities that one and the same author composed the entire BaudhŚS. It was quite natural that the immediate descendants of Baudhāyana who INTRODUCTION xxix fulfilled the mission of their teacher naturally imitated his style while doing their job. 7. Literature on the Baudhāyana Śrautasūtra 30 Generally the Śrautasutras are provided with means of comprehension such as the Bhāṣya, Ṭīkā, Paddhati, Kārikā and Prayoga. Bhavasvamin composed a Bhāṣya called vivaraṇa on the BaudhŚS. The Bhasya on Prasnas I-XVIII; XX-XXVI is available in manuscript-form.28 The Bhasya on Praśna I (Darśa-Pūrṇamāsa) is published.29 The manuscripts of the Bhasya are broken and have a corrupt text. W. Caland had thought of editing this Bhāṣya, but he abandoned the idea on account of defective manuscript- material. The Bhāṣya is short. Bhavasvamin aimed at elucidating only such points as were abstruse in his opinion. He lived in the eighth century A.D. Bhatta Bhaskara the commentator of the Taittiriya texts who lived before Sāyaṇa speaks respectfully about Bhavasvāmin. Personal names ending with - svāmin probably belonged to a specific period, e.g. Bhavasvāmin, Bharatasvāmin, Skandasvāmin, Kṣīrasvāmin etc. Most of them were Mīmāmsakas. An inscription dated Śaka 627 mentions a cluster of brāhmaṇa- names ending with -svāmin( cf. JBBRASIII 208, Bombay 1851). An undated inscription also gives such names (JAOSVI.589, cf. A. Weber, History of Indian Literature p. 79 and note). Burnell (p.26) has placed Bhavasvamin in the eighth century A.D. Bhavasvamin’s bhāṣya, the oldest on the oldest Śrautra- sūtra, needs to be published in the interest of the history of the ritualistic religion. The attempts towards that direction are therefore welcome. Sāyaṇa has written a commentary on Praśna I (Darsa-Pūrṇamāsa).29 He was a follower of the Baudhayana school; therefore he cited the BaudhŚS in his commentary on the TS at the beginning; subsequently he shifted to the ApŚS. Vasudeva Dikṣita of Thanjavur wrote a commentary called mahāgnisarvasva on the tenth Praśna (Agnicayana) of the BaudhŚS and also on XVII.11-16 (Ekādaśinī). Both are in manuscript-form. Venkaṭeśvara wrote a commentary on the Karmāntasūtra (XXIV-XXVI), Dvārakānātha- yajvan wrote a commentary on the Prayaścittasutra (XXVII-XXIX) and also on the Sulbasūtra (Praśna XXX in Caland’s edition). Mahādeva Vājapeyin of Thanjavur has written a commentary called subodhini on Praśnas I-VIII.31 It is extensive and is based on the vivarana of Bhavasvamin. It reproduces relevent portions from the Dvaidha and the Karmânta while elucidating the main Sutra, and renders great help in XXX BAUDHAYANASRAUTASŪTRA understanding the text. At the beginning of his commentary Mahadeva Vājapeyin has given his geneology and has also given information about his patron, the Maratha King of Thanjavur. Other members of his family also composed works pertaining to the Baudhayana rituals.32 This family was resident of Shahajirājapuram-modern Tiruvisanalloor near Kumbakonam (Thanjavur district). Shahajirājapuram was donated by Shahaji the ruler of Thanjavur as an agrahāra to fortysix learned Pandits well-versed in the different branches of Sanskrit learning. Mahadeva Vājapeyin who lived in the seventeenth century A.D. was the Adhvaryu of Tryambakarāya Makhin, Minister of Thanjavur. Tryambakarāya was the younger brother of Narasimharāya, father of Anandaraya Makhin who wrote, among other works, the Aśvalāyanasūtravṛtti. Sometimes the subhodhini gives readings of the Sūtra-text which are different from those in the printed text. Since it closely follows the vivarana of Bhavasvamin, its different renderings may be said to have the same value as that of the vivaraṇa, because many times Bhavasvamin who is too short in his explanations is silent on the elucidation of certain words from the Sūtra- text. Mahādeva Vājapeyin often cites passages from several Śrautasūtras. Being a South Indian, he quotes, among others, the Drāhyāyaṇa Śrautasūtra of Samaveda which was followed in Tamil Nadu. He never quotes the Latyāyana Śrautasūtra which was followed in Gujarat and Varanasi. The late and detailed production of the subodhini suffers at the same time from a draw-back, namely, that sometimes it is not definite about the old tradition of the Sūtra; at certain places it gives optional renderings. Coming to the Prayoga literature, we meet with the oldest Prayogakāra, namely, Kesavasvāmin who wrote his prayogasāra presenting the manuals of all the major sacrifices.33 Kesavasvāmin is referred to by Rāmāgnicit in his Vṛtti on Dhūrtasvamin’s bhāṣya on the ApŚS. Rudradatta, the commentator of the ApŚS often cites Kesavasvamin. Besides the commentary on BaudhŚS I (Darśa-Pūrṇamāsa) Sāyaṇa composed manuals called yajñatantrasudhānidhi of several rituals.34 Anantadeva wrote several works on Dharmaśāstra. In his samskārakaustubha he has given the pedigree of his patron family. His patron, named Bājbahadur, was reigning in Himalayan territories. Anantadeva’s literary career may be assigned to the third quarter of the seventeenth century (1645-75). There are Prayogas written by persons belonging to the family of Seṣa which, originally resident of Nanded on the bank of river Godavari in Marathawada (Mahārashtra) migrated to Varanasi in the six- INTRODUCTION xxxi teenth century A.D. and won great honour among the Pandits of Varanasi. A member of the Navahasta family is also credited with the composition of Prayogas following the BaudhSS. Gopala wrote a manual known as Gopalakārikā dilating upon the Darśa-Pūrṇamāsa and Agnicayana. 8. The Chronology of the Baudhayana Śrautasūtra The chronology of the BaudhŚS, indeed of any Śrautasūtra, is a vexed problem. As we have already seen, there are the Śrauta, Grhya and Dharma Sūtras which are ascribed to Baudhāyana. There are also the Sulba, the Pravara, the Gṛhyaparibhāṣa and the Gṛhyaśeṣa Sūtras with which Baudhayana’s name is associated. W. Caland35 has enumerated all these Sūtra-texts and has also made an attempt to fix their order in the tradition. It cannot be said that all these works were compiled by one and the same person. The pravacana style of the BaudhŚS is absent in the other Sutra-texts. Even in regard to the BaudhŚS we have seen that the Dvaidha, the Karmānta and the Prayaścitta sections were the compositions of the descendants of Baudhayana. Therefore while speaking about the chronology of the BaudhŚS, I have in view Praśnas I-XVIII (excluding the Kathaka Praśna XIX) of the BaudhŚS which are before us in the literary form given to Baudhāyana’s lectures by his disciples. It is appropriate first to fix the relative chronology before attempting to fix the date. Mahadeva has paid homage to the Taittiriya Sūtrakāras at the beginning of his commentary vaijayanti on the SatyāṣādhaŚS. Here he has begun with the name of Baudhāyana, and his order of the Sūtrakāras is mostly acceptable also as a chronological one. From the linguistic pecularities of the BaudhŚS as already recorded, it becomes obvious that Baudhāyana was very much under the influence of the idiom of the Taittiriya mantra and Brahmana which formed the basis of his ritual discourses. It was natural that all the nuances of the Vedic language should flow down in his composition. One of the points helping fixation of relative chronology of the Śrautasūtras is the position of paribhāṣā among them. In most of the Śrautasutras one comes across the paribhāṣā, long or short, laid down at the beginning or in the middle, recorded collectively or in a scattered manner. The Karmanta section of the BaudhSS has at its beginning eleven Khaṇḍikās which bear some similarity with the paribhāṣā. The Prayaścitta section contains a Khanḍikā (XXVII. 14) of a similar nature. The main Sutra includes nothing like the paribhāṣā. This is in full consonance with its pravacana character. xxxii BAUDHAYANAŚRAUTASŪTRA The Purva Mīmāṁsā character of discussion is another point in consid- eration of chronology. Certain Śrautasūtras bear the character of discussion as found in the Purva Mimāmsā sūtras. They can therefore be said to have been composed subsequent to the Purva Mīmāṁsā sūtras. The BaudhŚS does not possess any Pūrva Mīmāmsā element. It can therefore be easily taken to have been composed prior to the composition of the Purva Mīmāmsā sūtras. The Taittiriya Śrautasūtras are of course closely related to the Samhită, Brāhmaṇa and Aranyaka of the Taittirīyas. Almost all Śrautasūtras of this recension presuppose all the Taittiriya texts as have come down in tradition. The BaudhŚS has, however, not cited any verses from the Upahoma and Acchidrakanda sections of the TBr (II.4,5; III.7) as we have already seen. This indicates that in Baudhāyana’s time certain parts of the TBr had not attained full recognition. This points to the high antiquity of the BaudhŚS. The other Śrautasūtras belonging to the Taittirīya recension are: Bharadvaja, Āpastamba, Satyāṣāḍha Hiranyakešin, Vaikhānasa and Vādhūla. The first four out of these are also in the chronological order. The common feature is that all of them are composed in sutra-style. The time-span. between the Bharadvāja-the first and the Vaikhānasa-the last covers a few hundreds of years. Barring minor differences, the ritualistic pattern of all of them is almost the same. While the BaudhŚS often quotes brāhmaṇa- passages from the Taittiriya recension, the BhārŚS quotes only a few, and refers to them by saying iti vijñāyate; brāhmaṇavyākhyātamor yathāsamāṛnātam. While the BaudhSS is silent about the Upahomas and the Acchidrakāṇḍa of the TBr, the BharŚS has cited a few verses from them. An important difference between the BaudhŚS and the other Taittiriya Sūtras concerns the close relationship between the mantra and its ritualistic employment. In some cases it is observed that while the BaudhŚS is particu- lar in maintaining that relationship, the other Sutra-texts bear a rather loose relation. In BaudhŚS III.21 there is a bunch of four formulas to be recited by the sacrificer as a part of the prayers pertaining to the performance of the Full-moon and the New-moon sacrifices. They are to be recited after the Viṣṇukrama formulas. With the first aganma suvaḥetc. the sacrificer prays to the Āhavanīya. With subhur asi śreṣṭho etc. he prays to Aditya. With idam aham amum etc, he drives away his enemies. With saṁ jyotiṣā bhūvam he touches himself. According to BhārŚS IV.20.8, the sacrificer prays to Aditya with all the four formulas. ApSS IV.14.11 says that the sacrificer prays to Aditya with ĀpŚS INTRODUCTION xxxiii the verse aganma suvaḥ etc. The Sūtra is silent about the subsequent three formulas which however may be presumed. The relevant Brāhmaṇa (TS 1.7.6) enlightens the rite. It is remarkable that the BaudhŚS, rather than the other Sutras, faithfully follows the intent of the Brāhmaṇa, and may be said to be recording the tradition prevalent in the period of the Brāhmaṇa. There are numerous other points in the Taittiriya ritualistic tradition where the BaudhŚS differs from others. After the Anuyāja offerings in the Avabhṛtha in the Agniṣṭoma (VIII.20) the Adhvaryu holds the ladle upon the water with samudre te hṛdayam apsv antaḥ…… He fills it with water with sam tvā višantu oṣadhir uta” paḥ. He offers water into water with yajñasya tvā yajñapate vidhema svāhā. Now the Avabhṛtha-material whichever is besmeared with Soma is scattered upon the water with the verse avabhṛtha nicańkuna…. He takes water into folded palms with sumitrā na āpa oṣadhayaḥ santu; he throws it towards that direction where his enemy lies with durmitrās tasmai … . Touching water, he floats (or they float) the residue of Soma together with the skin of black antelope with devir āpa eșa vo garbhas … (TS 1.4.45). He touches the drops, does not consume them. BhārSS XIV 22.14- 17 prescribes as follows: with samudre te…. the Adhvaryu strikes into water the ladle filled with the residue of Soma. Wherever a drop of Soma appears, he consumesit with apsu dhautasya… (TS III.2.5.6). According to some teachers he should merely touch them. They pray to the Avabhṛtha-material with devīrāpa … ÄpŚS XIV.20.10-21.1 prescribes similarly. Here it will be observed that Baudhāyana’s prescriptions are more closely in association with the TS- formulas. There is also difference in the marking of the formulas. Bhaṭṭa Bhaskara and Sāyaṇa on TS I.4.45 have followed Baudhayana. A typical case is the employment of the formula apsu dhautasya… (TSIII.2.5.7). Baudhāyana (VIII.17) has employed it at its proper place after the offering of the Hāriyojana goblet, so also BhārŚS (XIV.19.3) and ĀpŚS (XIII.17.9). As seen above, BhārŚS and ApSS have reemployed that formula in relation to the Avabhṛtha. Here is an enlargement of the ritual. Sometimes it is observed that while the BaudhŚS has marked the distinction between the Adhvaryu and the sacrificer in regard to the utterance of the formula, the BhārŚS and the ApŚS have ignored it. According to BaudhŚS VI.5 the Adhvaryu hands over to the sacrificer the horn of black antelope on the occasion of his initiation for the Agnistoma. The Adhvaryu hands it over with indrasya yonir asi; the sacrificer receives it with mā mā himsîḥ. The BhārŚS (X.6.13) and the ApŚS (X.9.17) ask the xxxiv BAUDHAYANAŚRAUTASŪTRA Adhvaryu to hand it over with the combined formula indrasya yonir asi mā mā himsiḥ. The propriety of Baudhāyana’s prescription is obvious. Another passage may be looked into. TS 1.3.11.1 reads adbhyas tvau’ṣadhibhyo mano me hārdi yaccha tanūṁ tvacam naptāram ašīya. TS VI.4.1 provides a Brāhmaṇa- explanation only for mano me hārdi yaccha. Baudhāyana (IV.10) divides the above-mentioned mantra-portion into two and explains, “with adbhyas tvau’sadhibhyo mano me hardi yaccha the sub-offerer wipes out his hands on the sacrificial grass; with tanum tvacam putram naptāram ašīya (the sacrificer) gazes at the smoke (issuing out of the cooked cuttings of the anus of the animal in the animal-sacrifice).” Bhaṭṭa Bhaskara on TSI.3.11 agrees to this. BhārŚSVII.21.13-14 lays down, “with adbhyas tvau’ṣadhibhyaḥ the Pratiprasthātṛ wipes out the smearing on the sacrificial grass; with mano me hārdi yaccha (etc.) he touches himself.” Here the remaining formula tanum tvacam putraṁ naptāram asiya may be understood. By ‘he’ it is proper to understand the Pratiprasthaṭr in consideration of the Brahmaṇa- explanation in TS VI 4.1 Bharadvaja’s prescription for mano me hārdi yaccha is acceptable; but the subsequent portion, if presumed, cannot be applicable. ApŚS VII.26.12 generally agrees with Bharadvāja. Baudhāyana’s employment of tanum tvacam putram naptāram asiyawhich is distinct from Bharadvaja and Apastamba is the reasonable one. Numerous other cases of this nature can be found out. The instances cited above are adequate to indicate the partial artifici- ality of the prescription of Bharadvāja and Āpastamba and their consequent posteriority. The Satyāṣāḍha Kalpasūtra and the Vaikhānasa Śrauasūtra are admittedly later than the BharSS and the ApŚS. The Vadhula Śrautasūtra (VādhŚS) deserves consideration for ascer- taining the comparative chronology of Śrautasūtras. VādhŚS first became known to the scholarly world when W. Caland published a few parts of it in four instalments (Acta orientalia Vols. I-VI, Lugduni Batavorum 1924-28). After a long time M. Witzel shed some light on the extent and character of that text. 36 In 1993 B.B. Chaube37 published a critical edition of this Sūtra based on the manuscripts and other material available to him. Yasuke Ikari of the Kyoto University in Japan has now undertaken the project of publish- ing in Roman script yet another critical edition of this Sūtra-text. He has succeeded in securing the original manuscript of that text from Kerala. It will be published in instalments, and will probably be an improvement over the edition published earlier. This is not the place to go into the merits of the printed editions. My remarks will be confined to the contribution of the VādhŚS towards the comparative chronology of the BaudhŚS. 38 INTRODUCTION XXXV As already observed, Mahādeva, the author of commentary vaijayantī on the Satyāṣāḍha Kalpasūtra has mentioned VādhŚS as the last one among the Taittiriya Sutras. There must be some reason behind it. An examination of the mantras employed in the VādhŚS shows that the text of those mantras is at variation in many places from those in the Taittiriya texts. These variations cannot be set aside as modifications occurred in oral transmission or as scribal errors. The VādhŚS probably belonged to some branch of the Taittiriyas other than the Khāṇḍikeya to which the other Taittirīya Sūtras belong. The character of the VadhŚS is close to that of the BaudhŚS; there is even literal agreement in many cases. Vādhūla is extensive in his prescrip- tions. He cites the mantras in extenso in his specific style. He often quotes Brāhmaṇa-passages from the Taittiriya recension-perhaps to a larger extent than Baudhayana. The Vadhūla manuscript even contains numerous Brāhmaṇa-passages, not exhaustive, which are known as anvākhyāna. One comes across deictic use of pronouns. The language is archaic. The so-called sütra-marking is not of a uniform character. There is no clear division of Praśna, Prapathaka and Anuvāka. There is also a Patala division. The beginning sutra of the next Patala is often employed as the end of the present Pațala. All these features lead to the conclusion that the VādhSS is a pravacana like the BaudhŚS. A comparison of the contents of the BaudhSS with those of the VādhŚS shows that the two texts go parallel to a certain extent. The available VādhŚS- text has not laid down the Ekāhas, the Ahīnas and the Sattras. It is remarkable that the fourteenth Prapathaka, a short one, records the duties of the sacrificer in those rituals and also the incidental rites. In Chaube’s edition of the VādhŚS the Agnyādheya forms the first Prapāṭhaka. All other recensions, except the Vaikhanasa Śrautasūtra, begin with the Darsa- Pūrṇamāsa in consonance with the general Yajurveda tradition. From the information supplied by Ikari about the Kerala MSS of VadhŚS it appears that the VadhSS also began with the Darŝa-Purṇamāsa. Caland has acknowledged the close relationship between the BaudhŚS and the VadhSS. From the larger number of Brāhmaṇa-citations in the VādhŚS he had expressed the possibility of the anteriority of Vādhūla to Baudhayana. The VadhSS was known to the author or authors of the Dvaidha, the Karmânta and the Prayaścitta Sutras. There is no evidence to infer that Vādhula was known to Baudhayana the author of the main Sūtra- xxxvi BAUDHAYANASRAUTASŪTRA text. 39 Like Baudhāyana, Vādhūla gives at the outset a list of things required for the performance of the ritual under discussion. A comparison of these things with those mentioned by Baudhāyana shows a little difference here and there. A clear indication of Baudhāyana’s anteriority over Vadhula is the treatment of third Kanda of the TS known as Aupānuvākya. That Kanda has recorded such mantras and the Brāhmaṇa-portions as support mainly the mantra-and Brāhmaṇa-portions laying down the Soma-sacrifice. Baudhāyana has independently dealt with the Aupānuvākya Kāṇḍa in Praśna XIV; he has not at all touched it while prescribing the Soma-sacrifice on the basis of the principal portion of TS. This is not so with Vādhūla who, even though he is aware of the Aupānuvākya Kāṇḍa, has suitably exploited the provisions made in this Kānda side by side with the main portions. The Agnyādheya is prescribed in Praśna II of the BaudhŚS. As already observed, the Khaṇḍikās of this Praśna are not in the proper order. The regular procedure is given in Khaṇḍikās 12-21. It is remarkable that the VādhŚS has nothing parallel to Khaṇḍikās 1-11 of the BaudhŚS except that the formulas called papmano vinidhayaḥ are recorded in the Pariseșa. The Karmānta (BaudhSS XXIV.15) has mentioned different periods at which the rite of setting the fires should commence, namely, one year before or twleve days or thirteen days or one day before, which agree with Kath. VII. 15. These options are absent in the VadhŚS. According to Baudhayana the formal choosing of all seventeen priests takes place at the setting up of fires. The other Taittirīya Sūtrakāras ask the sacrificer to choose them at the Agniṣṭoma - the proper occasion for the functioning of all of them. It is striking that the choosing of priests is not met with in any part of the available VadhSS. In Prapathaka III of the VādhŚS Kaṇḍikās 1-10 are assigned as the yājamānawherein we find certain expiation-rites in respect of the Agnihotra and the Darsa-Purnamasa which are apparently to be performed by the sacrificer. In Prapathaka XIV there are certain expiation-rites to be observed by the sacrificer initiated for a Soma-sacrifice. Nowhere does one come across the expiation-rites to be performed by the Adhvaryu. Prapathaka XIII of the VadhŚS is devoted to the Pravargya-rite. In all Taittiriya Sūtra-texts the expiation-rites pertaining to the Pravargya and the Avantaradīkṣā to be undergone by the sacrificer for learning by heart the Pravargya-mantras contained in the Taittiriya Aranyaka are prescribed side by side with the Pravargya-rite and the disposal of the Pravargya-implements.INTRODUCTION xxxvii These are absent in this Prapathaka. Prapāṭhakas VI and VII prescribe the Agniṣṭoma. While laying down the procedure of the Agnistoma and while speaking about the subsequent Soma-sacrifices, Vādhula refers to the Ukthya, Şoḍaśin and Atirātra sacrifices. A barren cow is to be offered to Mitra-Varuna as the Anubandhya animal-sacrifice after the performance of the Udayaniyeṣṭi in a Soma-sacrifice. Baudhāyana (ŚS VIII.21) has men- tioned the offering of Amikṣā as a substitute to the animal. Vādhūlā (VII.22.55) has not allowed this substitute. BaudhŚS XV.24 prescribes the wholesale employment of the fourteen verses towards the armouring of the royal sacrificer. The verses are recorded in TS IV. 6.6 and the Brahmana is given in TBr III.9.4. It would be interesting to have a look on the employment of the relevant TS-verses - twenty in all. BaudhŚS XV.24 prescribes: अथ यजमानं वर्मसंनहनीयाभिः संनह्यति जीमूतस्येव भवति प्रतीकमिति चतुर्दशभिर्यथारूपम् । अथ रथमुपतिष्ठते वनस्पते वीड्वङ्गो हि भूया इति तिसृभिरनुच्छन्दसम् । अथ दुन्दुभिमुपश्वासयत्युपश्वासय पृथिवीमुत द्यामिति तिसृभिरनुच्छन्दसम् । Thus Baudhayana asks the Adhvaryu to equip the sacrificer with the various implements and weapons while reciting the fourteen verses one by one, and then in triads. He presumes the proper understanding on the part of the Adhvaryu. VādhŚS XI. 15.56-16.14 prescribes: वर्मसंनहनीयेनानुवाकेन यजमानं संनह्यति || जीमूतस्येव भवति प्रतीकमिति ॥ He further gives instructions to be carried out reciting each subsequent verse (ekayā) and then in triads. Thus Vādhūla prescribes the equipment of the sacrificer as prescribed in the Anuvāka; he furthermore thinks it desirable to give several directions to be carried out with the several verses. Apastamba (XX 16.4-14) does not refer to the Anuvāka in laying down the injunctions; he mentions each verse and lays down the action to be carried out with it. A comparison of the instructions given in these three Sūtra-texts shows that their attitude towards explanation is gradually modified. Vādhūla was inclined to give detailed instructions as compared to Baudhāyana. A thorough comparison of the BaudhŚS and the VadhSS will shed welcome light on their mutual relationship. I have given these details of the VadhŚS because of its close affinity with the BaudhŚS and also because the study of the VadhŚS is still in its infancy. From this comparative study it may be concluded that Vādhula was posterior to Baudhayana the author of the main Baudhayana text. The VadhSS was Xxxviii BAUDHAYANASRAUTASÜTRA composed before the composition of the Dvaidha, Karmanta and Prayaścitta sections of the BaudhŚS. Not much time passed between Baudhāyana and the composer or composers of the Dvaidha and Karmanta. Consequently the chronological difference between Baudhāyana and Vadhūla could be very little. If a definite chronology is to be attempted, I am inclined to assign the period 800 B.C. to 600 B.C. to the BaudhŚS. This span covers three steps : (i) composition of the main text of the BaudhŚS, (ii) composition of the VādhŚS, and (iii) the composition of the Dvaidha, Karmanta and Prayaścitta sections. The main part of the BaudhŚS is thus the oldest among the Kalpasūtras belonging to the Taittirīya recension. The chronological relationship of the BaudhŚS with the Śrautasūtras belonging to the other existing recensions of the Kṛṣṇa Yajurveda, namely the Kāthaka, Kapisthala-Katha and the Maitrāyaṇī is a point to be consid ered. Two Śrautasūtras, the Manava and the Vārāha, belong to the Maitrāyaṇī recension; the Manava is senior to the Vārāha. The MānŚS is a Sūtra-text, not a pravacana. It therefore cannot be older than the BaudhŚS; it is junior to the latter. The Maitrāyaṇī recension was of course in need of a Śrautasūtra. Even though the Maitrāyaṇīya ritualists must have found some device for setting their ritual in order, it seems the actual Sütra-composition was undertaken at a rather late date. 40 41 The Kathaka Śrautasūtra (KāṭhŚS) is unfortunately lost. It comprised thirtynine Adhyāyas, vide Devapāla’s commentary on the Laugākṣi (Kāṭhaka) Gṛhyasūtra. Suryakānta has published in his Kāṭhakasaṁkalana11 extracts from the Kathaka Brāhmaṇa collected from manuscript-collections pre- served in Lahore, and from Devapāla’s commentary on the Laugākṣi Gṛhyasūtra; those from the KāthŚS-one collected from a manuscript and many others from the commentaries by Karka and Devayājñika on the KatyŚS (edited by A. Weber, Berlin 1859), and a few quotations from the Crhyasutra of the Kathakas collected from various sources. The first among the Śrautasūtra-passages lays down the group of Divaḥ Śyeni and Apāghā Istis. The passage is said to have formed the fourth Patala (that is, Kaṇḍikā forming part of some Adhyāya). It is striking that citations from the KāthŚS composed in north-western India have been reproduced by the commenta- tors of the KatyŚS which was composed in the north-eastern part. Probably some followers of the Kāṭhaka school had migrated towards the north-east with whom the Vājasaneyins came into contact. Sometimes Katha and Maitra (=Maitrāyaṇīya) passages are cited together. The Kathaka Śrautasūtra is so INTRODUCTION xxxix called because it belongs to the Kathaka recension. The author of the Kathaka Gṛhyasūtra was Laugākṣi. Even though Karka and Devayājñika have cited in their commentaries passages from the KāṭhŚS mostly under the designation ‘Katha’ or ‘Kāthaka’, at about a dozen places they have quoted under the name ‘Laugakṣi’. It may therefore be said that Laugākṣi was the name of the author of the KāthSS also. 42 It would rather be hasty to assess the character of the KāṭhŚS as a whole on the basis of only a few available extracts. The TBr together with the TÃ deals with the Kāṭhaka citis, and the mantra and Brāhmaṇa for the Divaḥ Śyeni and Apāghā Iṣṭis are recorded in TBr III.12.1-4. The Taittiriya Śrautasütras have referred to these Istis. Thus the Taittiriyas have from the very beginning borrowed certain ritual - elements from the Kathakas. A study of all the KathŚS - passages so laboriously collected by Suryakānta shows that the Sūtrakāra has described the ritualistic items in a detailed manner. He has not adopted the sutra - style; he is a pravacanakāra. Hence the Śrautasūtra must have been composed in very old days. There are certain indications showing the archaic language and archaic ritualistic elements. There is deictic use of demonstrative pronouns. An interesting point arises out of the definition of prakrama. A long KāthŚS - passage is cited in the commentary on the KatyŚS while prescribing the measuring of the Mahāvedi for the Agnistoma. The measuring of the Mahāvedi is prescribed in detail, and while doing so the Sútrakāra gives the definition of prakrama and pada: tripadaḥ prakramo’rdhacaturthapado vā padam pañcadašāngulam dvādaśāngulam vā (Kāṭhakasaṁkalana p.16, KātyŚS edn. p. 687). Here two things are worthy of attention: firstly, the Sūtrakāra, while prescribing the measuring also gives the definition of prakrama and of pada. Here is the pravacana style of speaking all things together. While prescribing the measuring of the Mahāvedi (VI.22) Baudhāyana has not given the definition of prakrama; he simply uses that word. In Baudh. ŚulbaS (1.5) he has given the definition. Here Kāthaka’s pravacana style seems to be more prominent than that of Baudhayana. Secondly, while Baudhāyana defines a prakrama as dvipada, Kāthaka defines it as tripada and even ardhacaturthapadai.e. three and half padas. It may be observed that the longer prakrama of Kathaka points to an older period. According to Baudhāyana (SuS.1.9) a pada consists of fifteen angulas while Kathaka allows the option of fifteen or twleve. A few other points may be noted: the Caturmasya sacrifices to be completed consecutively in five days as an option are attributed to Katha xl BAUDHAYANAŚRAUTASŪTRA (p.12, KātyŚS edn p. 554). These are not mentioned in the BaudhŚS main text nor in the Karmanta. The Anugrahika (Parisiṣṭa) of the ManŚS has mentioned it. In the sūtra for Divah Syeni the Sūtrakāra has given two Ślokas, and in that for the Apagha one Śloka. Parallel construction is found in BaudhŚS Prāyaścitta. Such features pointing to a late date may perhaps be the additions made by some follower of the Kāṭhaka school in course of time. This should however not speak against the conclusion of the Kāṭhaka main Sūtra-text being a pravacana and therefore being as old as, if not earlier than, the BaudhŚS. Just as Baudhayana may be said to have been the first teacher setting the Taittirīya rituals in order immediately after the Brāhmaṇa period, similarly Kāṭhaka (Laugākṣi) may be said to have been the first teacher setting the Kathaka rituals in order. The comparative chronology of the BaudhŚS, the VadhŚS, the MānŚS and the KāthSS is noteworthy. The Kapisthala-Katha sub-recension does not seem to possess an inde- pendent Śrautasūtra. 9. The Home of the Baudhayaniyas Since the last few centuries the followers of the Baudhayana school have been the inhabitants of Karnataka and Kerala. These regions should how- ever not be understood as their original home. Baudhāyana who may be regarded as the first teacher who, immediately after the Brāhmaṇa-period, set the Taittiriya rituals to order in the pravacana form, must have lived in the north-western parts of India where the Taittiriya and all other recensions of the Kṛṣṇa Yajurveda took their root and flourished. We find the following geographical references in the BaudhŚS43: āraṭṭaVIII.13; Karaskara XVIII.13; Kalinga II.3; XVIII. 13; Kāśīvideha XVIII.44; Kurukṣetra XVIII.45; kurupañcāla XVIII.44, Kurubrahman XVIII.26; khāṇḍavaprasthaXVII.18, gāndhāra XVIII.13; 44; pañcāla XVIII.25; plākṣa prasravaṇa XVI.29; 30; bisavatī (pl) XVIII. 45; mahāvarṣa II.3; mūjavat II.3 VI.14; varṣiṣthiya prastha XVIII.49; videha II.3; saphāla XVIII.13; sarasvati (river) XII.8; XVI.29; XXII.18; suvarņasavanī XVIII.45; sauvîra XVIII.13. Some of these localities and places were most probably intimately known to Baudhayana or his descendants; the others were known merely by hearsay. There was close contact of the Taittiriyas and therefore of Baudhāyana with the followers of the Kathaka** and the Maitrāyaṇī recensions which flourished in the Panjab and the other north-western parts. There is also 44 INTRODUCTION xli evidence (e.g. the Kāthaka citis) which shows that Baudhayana was in the neighbourhood of the Kathakas. The river Sarasvati which was flowing in his neighbourhood was held in respect (BaudhŚS XII.8) as we find also in TBr (1.7.5). It would therefore be proper to hold that Baudhāyana was living in the Panjab. It is not possible to restrict the region any more. 45 Suryakanta15 has expressed his displeasure over the dominent position assigned by scholars of cultural history of ancient India to the Apastambas and Baudhayanas setting aside the rightful claim of the Kāṭhaka recension as representing the oldest Yajurvedic ritual-tradition. He has further deemed the so-called dominant position of the Apastambas and Baudhayanas as “a deliberate attempt at misrepresentation.” It may, however, be observed that recent researches have proved that the original home of the Apastambas and Baudhayanas was in northern India, not in southern India. Therefore there is no question of any dominance. The Kathas, even though they established colonies in eastern and central India as the epigraphical evidence shows, maintained their position in the Panjab and Kashmir. Due to frequent political unrest they received a severe setback in their main land and their colonies outside also vanished. The Baudhāyanas and the Āpastambas could maintain their traditions because they migrated towards south India-the area which was politically peaceful. Anyway the disappearance of the KathŚS is a great loss to the Vedic literature and to the history of the ritualistic religion. The Vadhūlas may have been living on the eastern border of the regions occupied by the Baudhayanins. Since a very long historical period the Baudhayanins left their land. Why they left, when they left, under which conditions they left–all these questions remain without any answer under the present state of our knowledge of the economic and cultural conditions of northern India in ancient times. Those of the Baudhayaniyas who chose to stick to their places possibly adopted a different Vedic school-Kāṭhaka or Maitrāyaṇī. Baudhayanins have been living in Karnataka at least for the last six centuries. Sāyaṇa the well-known commentator of several Vedic texts lived at Vijayanagar in Karnataka in the fourteenth century A.D. He was a follower of the Baudhayana school. In the entire northern India no follower of the Taittiriya recension has been living since the last few centuries. The ritual- istic tradition indicates the association of certain Vedic schools in the various regions. The performance of a Soma-sacrifice-the principal ritual-neces- sitates the collaboration of a Baudhayanin, an Asvalayanin and a Kauthumin. xlii BAUDHAYANAŚRAUTASŪTRA The tradition was that a Rgvedin of the Aśvalāyana school should have as the Adhvaryu a follower of the Baudhāyana school. In several religious tracts composed in the medieval period the prominence of the Baudhāyana school in the field of religious life is keenly felt. The supremacy of the Baudhayanins was maintained in Maharashtra where the Aśvalāyanins lived in large numbers for many centuries. Later on the Apastambins from Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh came in contact with the Maharashtrians. The result was that an Äśvalāyanin was allowed to have an Apastambin as his Adhvaryu provided a matrimonial relationship had been established. Followers of the various Vedic schools have been living in different parts of India. The prevalence of the different Vedic schools in historical period has been traced; and this history has been helpful in compiling the history of the Vedic literature and culture. The efforts need to be continued further. The history of each Vedic school prevailing at present in the specific region should be traced to the place where it took its roots with the help of the literary and historical records and the tradition which is fortunately main- tained even to a small extent in spite of the social and economic revolution. Such a history, if compiled, will be a veritable source for the social and cultural history of India. 1. 2. 3. FOOTNOTES The name Baudhāyana is spelt in two ways. In some manuscripts it is written as Baudhāyanawhile in many others, particularly written in Karnataka and the adjoining regions where the Baudhayana school flourished in the historical period, it is written as Bodhayana. I had therefore resorted to that spelling so far. Gramnatically, however, the suffix ayana affixed to the word budhawith the meaning of gotrāpatyawould involve the vṛddhi of the initial vowel. Hence it is reasonable to read the word as Baudhāyana. cf. W. Caland, “Über das rituelle Sūtra des Baudhāyana”, Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlāndes Band XII No. 1, Leipzig 1903, pp. 12-13. It is further to be noted that Bodhāyana is Prakṛtisation of Baudhāyana. Baudhayana Gṛhyasutra together with the Grhyaparibhāṣāsūtra and the Grhyaseṣasutra edited by R. Samasastry, Mysore 1920 cf. J. Gonda, “A History of Indian Literautre”, The Ritual Sutras, Wiesbaden 1977, p. 584 4. 5. J. Gonda, op. cit. p. 586 6. 7. cf. W. Caland, Pitṛmedhasūtrāṇi, Leipzig 1896 (Praśna I only), C.H. Raabe, Bijdrage tot de Kennis van het Hindoesche Dooden ritueel, Leyden 1911 Prašnas I-II; R.Samasastry, Baudhayana Grhyasutra Mysore 1920 Praśna I-III. cf. W. Caland, Baudhāyana Śrautasutra, Vols, I-III, Calcutta 1904-13; The Pravaraprasna is printed at the end without consecutive numbering. 8. 9. 10. 11. 13. INTRODUCTION Edited by Umeshchandra Pandya, Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series, Varanasi 1972 Baudhayana Gṛhyasūtra III.9.6; Kāṇvāya bodhāyanāya pravacanakārāya. xliii The other Śrautasütras which claim the character of a pravacana are the Vādhūla Śrautasūtra belonging to the Taittiriya recension, the Jaiminiya Śrautasūtra belong- ing to the Jaiminiya recension of the Samaveda, and the Kathaka Śrautasūtra. e.g. XX.19; Duayor homa iti cf. III.4; XX.10: patnyām avidyamānāyām; XX.8: carumukheşʊ iti, XX.13; abhikrāmaṁ juhotī’ti; XX.13: pañcamasyā’vadānasyā ‘bhivṛddhyā iti etc. The first three items of Dvaidha in the Pasúbandha section do not speak about the Nirüḍhapaśu; they deal with the optional animal-sacrifices. The topic sphyena’gnïdhro nighnann anveti hotuḥ padāni’ti XX.26 is not traced to the original Sūtra. The topic ašiḥṣu iti XXIII.8 is not traced to the main text, Dvaidha XXIII. 19 the last Khandikā of the Dvaidhasutra lays down the Dvaidhasūtra for the Sarvatomukha sacrifice; it is found in some manuscripts as a separate folio. The main text has not prescribed this sacrifice. Its position even in the Dvaidha is insecure. Kesavasvamin has reproduced this Khandika in his prayogasara in extenso. The Dvaidha on the Sarvatomukha has recorded the views of Baudhayana, Śālīki, Aupamanyava, Gautama, Maudgalya and Añjigavi. When there is no main text for the Sarvatomukha, what was the source for the various topics selected for the Dvaidha? And how should one trust the genuinenss of the different views attributed to the Acaryas? Sāvitra offerings are prescribed in the Vajapeya sacrifice vide TBr 1.3.5.1: sāvitrāṇi juhoti karmaṇaḥ karmaṇaḥ purastāt. While Baudhāyana enumerates seventeen occa- sions for Sāvitra offerings-fourteen prior to the pressing day and three on the pressing day, Śāliki prescribes only three offerings on the pressing day. One reads in XXVIII.8 āʼmāvāsyasya kālād iti vyākhyātaḥ. This refers to ā’māvāsyasya kālāt paurṇamāsasya kālo nā’tîyāt etc. XXVIII.12. It is difficult to explain the disturbed order of the text. 14. cf. C.G. Kashikar, “The text-problem of the Baudhāyana Ādhāna-sūtra” ABORI XXIX parts i-iv 1949, pp. 107-117; “Baudhāyana Śrautasūtra II-A Fresh Study”, Journal of the Gangānāth Jha Research Institute, Allahabad, Vol. XV parts 34, pp. 155-159; cf. also Caland, op. citp.7. Incidentally it may be noted that a few lines in BaudhŚS VI,8 read like the Karmanta and those in BaudhŚS VII.4 read like Dvaidha, 15. The formulas pāpmano vinidhayaḥ recorded in the Prapathaka XV (Pariseṣa) of the Vādhūla Śrautasūtra (pp. 367-368) are rather different. The Pariseșa also records the formulas to be recited by the sacrificer at the various rituals. 16. In the Katyāyana Śrautasūtra the Pravargya chapter is the last one (XXVI). In the Satyaṣāḍha Kalpasūtra the Pravargya comes at the end of the Śrauta portion (XXIV). Similarly in the Vadhula Śrautasūtra (Prapathaka XIII). In the Bharadvāja Śrautasūtra it is conveniently inserted as Praśna XI into the Praśnas laying down the Agnistoma (cf. Intro. p. Ixxvi). Äpastamba and Vaikhānasa have attached the Pravargya to the Agnistoma for convenience. The Mānava Srautasūtra (new edn., Delhi 2001) has not attached the Pravargya to the Agnistoma. 17. BaudhŚS XVII. 31-38 18. cf. ApŚS XVII 5.5; 10.10. 19. Baudhayana Śrautasütra with the commentaries by Bhavasvamin and Sāyaṇa, Praśna I (Darśapūrṇamāsa) Sonepat, Bahalgadh 1982 xliv BAUDHAYANAŚRAUTASŪTRA 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. BaudhŚS XIV, 1 etc cf. BaudhŚS III.21 cf. also VI.9;12; VII.8; IX.8.12; XIII.32;40 etc cf. Jaimini’s Pūrva Mīmāṁsāsūtra V.3.25 cf. C.G. Kashikar, “Taittiriya Brāhmaṇa in relation to the Sutrakaras”, Pratidānam, F. B.J. Kuiper Felicitation Volume, The Hague-Paris, 1968 pp. 398-408 25. Kandas I-VII, Lahore 1926, Delhi 1983, pp. 96-101 26. W. Caland, op. cit. pp. 41 ff. 27. The VādhulaŚS is also replete with Praisas. 28. Bhavasvamin has not commented upon the Avāntaradīkṣā–a section of the Pravargya rite (IX. 19-20) 29. 30. Sonepat, Bahalgadh 1982 e.g. II.6 fafura nudlari yara; 11.6 youfici fazırdì 24: 11.6 3ufafa Yazdi fezufuta far; 11.80 पिण्डपितृयज्ञस्थान आधानस्योपवसथगवीति स्थापनार्थ लोहितोपप्रवर्तनं तण्डुलप्रक्षालनेन कार्यम् ॥ . १० केवलस्य लोहितस्य विशिष्टदेशप्रवर्तनासंभवात् सामर्थ्यादुदगग्रे प्रवर्तयितव्या इति ॥ १२ अपि वा इत्यनुकल्पः पूर्वत्र वाशब्दाभावात् ॥ . १२ जलान्तर्मृत् सूदः । ४. १८. ’ भयेडकः रक्तहृष्टरोमा मेष " उङ्गेर” इति प्रसिद्ध : 31. See the Catalogues of the TMSSM Library, Thanjavur; Oriental Institute, Baroda; Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune; Bharat Itihas Samshodhak Mandal, Pune; Vaidika Samsodhana Mandala, Pune; Govt. Oriental Manuscripts Library, Madras (Chennai); Scindia Oriental Institute, Ujjain 32. 33. 34. For detailed information about the Thanjavur rulers and their contribution to the advancement of learning, see Introduction to Sāhendravilāsa edited by V. Raghavan, and also Jivanandanam edited by Duraiswami Iyer, pp. 9-12 Madras His Prayogas are available in manuscript form on the following sacrifices: Agnyādheya, Agnihotra, Darśa-Purṇamāsa, Cãturmãsyas, Nirudhapaśu, Agnistoma, Ukthya, Sodasin, Atirātra, Aptoryāma, Sarvatomukha, Bṛhaspatisava, Dvādašāha, Paundarika, Mahāvrata and Agnicayana. cf. TMSSM Library, Thanjavur, MSS Nos. 2599, 2603 35. W. Caland, op. cit. pp. 12-13 36. Michael Witzel, “Eine fünfte Mitteilung über das Vādhülasūtra.” Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik, Reinbek (Germany). 1975 37. B.B. Chaube, Vādhülaśrautasūtram, Hoshiarpur 1993 Yasuke Ikari, Vadhula Śrautasūtra 1.1-1.4 (Agnyādheya, Punaradheya) A New Critical edition of the Vādhūla Śrautasütra I, Zinbun (Annals of the Institute for Research in Humanity). Kagaku, Kyoto University, No. 30 (1995) 39. Besides the direct reference to Vādhūlaka in BaudhŚS XXIX.1, one may refer to the Işti to be performed in connection with the Animal-sacrifice (BaudhŚS XX.25; VādhSS V.1.17-18) and the optional offerings to Rākā and Sinivālī in the Darsa- Pūrṇamāsa (BaudhSS XXIV.29; VadhŚS II.12.44-48). B.B. Chaube has attempted (Intro. pp. 60-61) to show the anteriority of Vādhūla to Baudhāyana: There are two cases where Vādhula has used words which may be said to have been comparatively older, Vādhūla is one of the Pravara-names mentioned in the Baudhayana Pravarasŭtra. INTRODUCTION xlv 40. In two places the views expressed by Baudhayana under the designation eke are found in the VadhŚS. This much is the basis for his claim. Kathaka Gṛhyasūtra edited by W. Caland, Lahore 1922, Laugākṣi Gṛhyasūtra edited by Madhusudana Kaul, Shrinagar 1928; 1934 41. Suryakanta, Kāthakasaṁkalana, Lahore 1943; Delhi 1983. Earlier Raghu Vira had published the citations selected from Devayājñika’s Paddhati on the KatyŚS in the Journal of Vedic Studies, Vols. I-II, Lahore 1932, 1934. Suryakanta’s valuable work was partially utilised in the compilation of the Śrautakosa (Vol. I cf. Sanskrit Section Preface p. 27; English Section, Part 1, Intro. p. 16) published by the Vaidika Samsodhana Mandala, Pune. cf. also C.G. Kashikar, A Survey of the Śrautasutras, Journal of the University of Bombay, September 1966, Vol. XXXV (New Series) Part 2, Arts Number (No. 41) 1968, p. 76. A subsequent contribution to the study of the Kathaka recension was made by A. Witzel when he critically edited the Katha Aranyaka together with a German translation (Nepal Research Publication No. 2) Kathmandu (1979). Suryakanta’s scholarly work deserves still closer attention. A study of even the stray passages is likely to shed welcome light on the character of the Kathaka recension in particular and the Yajurveda literature in general. 42. pp. 55, 92, 208, 355, 393, 399 (twice), 669, 834, 836 (twice) 43. cf. W. Caland, Baudhāyana Šrautasūtra, Vol. III Index of Proper Names, p. 4, New Delhi 1982. 44. Suryakanta has made an attempt in his Introduction to the Kāthakasaṁkalana to equate the Kathas with the Hattis or Hittites, the Khata or Kheta of the Egyptian monuments, Khatta or Khate of the Assyrians and Kheta or Khitti of the Hebrews. His equations are however too fanciful, based on very meagre evidence. It is indeed hard to believe that the name of one of the Vedic schools, namely, Katha, was accepted for the entire community of the original region of the Kathas and that the people of that region migrated to several other parts of the world. 45. Suryakanta, op. cit. Intro. p. XXVI.

CHINTAMANI GANESH KASHIRAR. M.A., D.Litt., is a well-known authority on the Vedic literature. religion and culture whose contributions are internationally acknowledged. A score of book…….. critical editions, translations and general studies written in Sanskrit, English and Marathi languages are to his credit. A hundred research papers written by him are published in oriental journals of international repute, He attended several sessions of All India Oriental Conference as also International Sanskrit Conference and presented research papers which have been widely appreciated. He is the Chairman of the Regulating Council of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. Pune. He was closely associated for many years with the Vaidika Samsodhana Mandala, Pune, Centre for Advanced Study in Sanskrit, University of Pune an the Project of encyclopaedic Dictionary of Sanskrit on historical Principles. Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute. Pune.”