{"collection":"Hinduism","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/hin/sbe14/sbe1403.htm","path":"hin/sbe14/sbe1403.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe14/sbe1403.htm","text":"THE case of the Baudh\u00e2yana Dharma-s\u00fbtra is in many respects analogous to that of the Institutes of the Sacred Law, current in the schools of \u00c2pastamba and Hiranyakesin. Like the latter, it is the work of a teacher of the Black Yagur-veda, who composed manuals on all the various subdivisions of the Kalpa, and founded a S\u00fbtra-karana, which is said to exist to the present day 1. The Br\u00e2hmanical tradition, too, acknowledges these facts, and, instead of surrounding Baudh\u00e2yana's work with a halo of myths, simply states that it was originally studied by and authoritative for the followers of the Taittir\u00eeya-veda alone, and later only became one of the sources of the Sacred Law for all Br\u00e2hmans 2. Moreover, the position of Baudh\u00e2yana among the teachers of the Yagur-veda is well defined, and his home, or at least the home of his school, is known. But here the resemblance stops. For while the S\u00fbtras of \u00c2pastamba-and Hiranyakesin have been preserved in care-fully and methodically arranged collections, where a certain place is assigned to each section of the Kalpa, no complete set of the Sutras of Baudh\u00e2yana's school has, as yet; been found, and the original position of the detached portions which are obtainable is not quite certain. Again, while the works of \u00c2pastamba and Hiranyakesin seem to have been kept free from extensive interpolations, several parts of\n[paragraph continues] Baudh\u00e2yana's S\u00fbtras have clearly received considerable additions from later hands.\nAccording to the researches of Dr. A. Burnell 1, whose long residence in Southern India and intimate acquaintance with its Br\u00e2hmanical libraries have made him the first authority on the literature of the schools of the Taittir\u00eeya-veda, the S\u00fbtras of Baudh\u00e2yana consist of six sections, viz. 1. the Srauta-s\u00fbtras, probably in nineteen Prasnas; 2. The Karm\u00e2nta-s\u00fbtra in twenty Adhy\u00e2yas; 3. The Dvaidha-s\u00fbtra in four Prasnas; 4. The Grihya-s\u00fbtra in four Prasnas; 5. The Dharma-s\u00fbtra in four Prasnas; 6. The Sulva-s\u00fbtra in three Adhy\u00e2yas. The results of the search for Sanskrit MSS. in other parts of India, and especially in Western India, do not differ materially from those obtained by Dr. Burnell. The Grihya-s\u00fbtra, which in Western India occasionally bears the title Sm\u00e2rta-s\u00fbtra 2, contains, however, nine instead of four Prasnas. The MSS. of the Baudh\u00e2yana-s\u00fbtras, which contain the text alone, are all incomplete, mostly very corrupt and in bad order, and rarely give more than a small number of Prasnas on detached subjects. The copies in which the text is accompanied by a commentary are in a better condition. Thus the Kalpavivarana of Bhavasv\u00e2min 3 extends over the whole of the Srauta-s\u00fbtra, and over the Karm\u00e2nta and the Dvaidha-s\u00fbtras. It shows the proper sequence of the Prasnas on Srauta sacrifices, and that probably the Karm\u00e2nta and the Dvaidha immediately followed the Srauta-s\u00fbtra. But there is no hint in the MSS. or in the commentaries how the Grihya, Dharma, and Sulva-s\u00fbtras were originally placed. With respect to these sections, it is only possible to judge from the analogy of the other extant sets of Kalpa-s\u00fbtras\nand from internal evidence. On these grounds it may be shown that the order, adopted by Dr. Burnell, is probably the correct one. For the beginning of the Grihya-s\u00fbtra 1 shows by its wording that it was not a separate treatise, but was immediately connected with some preceding Prasna. The analogy of the collections of the \u00c2pastamb\u00eeyas, the Hairanyakesas, the Kathas, and other schools permits us to infer that it stood after the Srauta-s\u00fbtra. It is further clear that, in its turn, it was succeeded by the Dharma-s\u00fbtra. For two passages of the latter work, 1, 2, 3, 15, and II, 8, 15, 9, clearly contain references to the Grihya-s\u00fbtra. In the former, the author gives the rule regarding the length of the staff to be carried by a student, as well as the general principle that the staff must be cut from a tree fit for sacrificial purposes. With respect to the latter clause he adds that the details have been given above.' As the Dharma-s\u00fbtra contains nothing more on this subject, it follows that the expression 'above' must refer to Grihya-s\u00fbtra II, 7, where the usual detailed rules regarding the employment of particular woods for the several varnas are given. In the second passage Baudh\u00e2yana says that the rules for the performance of funeral sacrifices have been fully explained in the section on the Ashtak\u00e2homa, which occurs Grihya-s\u00fbtra II, 17-18. It is, therefore, perfectly certain that Baudh\u00e2yana, just like \u00c2pastamba, placed the Prasnas on the Sacred Law after those on the domestic ceremonies, and that the Dharma-s\u00fbtra was not a separate work. Under these circumstances it becomes highly probable that the Sulva-s\u00fbtra formed, as is the case in other sets of Kalpa-s\u00fbtras, the conclusion of the whole. Thus the only treatise, whose position remains doubtful, is the Pravarakhanda, the list of the Br\u00e2hmanical gotras and of their deified ancestors 2. Possibly it may have stood at the end of the Srauta-s\u00fbtra.\nThe destruction of the continuity of Baudh\u00e2yana's Kalpa-s\u00fbtra has had the consequence which is commonly observable in other dismembered works, that several of its detached portions have received considerable additions from later and, as it would seem, from several hands. There can be no doubt that a small portion only of the nine Prasnas, found in the Western copies of the Grihya-s\u00fbtra, really belongs to Baudh\u00e2yana. For the description of the Grihya rites, which strictly follows the general plan laid down in the first S\u00fbtra, is completed in two or three Prasnas 1. Next follows a Prasna on the anukritis, rites resembling those comprised in the subdivisions treated before, and then a Prasna on pr\u00e2yaskittas, or expiations of mistakes committed during, and of the neglect of, the performance of the Grihya-karm\u00e2ni. The remaining Prasnas are filled with a medley of paribh\u00e2sh\u00e2s, general rules, and of full descriptions of ceremonies, some of which have been given before, while others are added afresh. Many of the newly-added rites do not belong to the ancient Br\u00e2hmanical worship, but to the Paur\u00e2nic religions, the service of Siva, Skanda, N\u00e2r\u00e2yana, and other deities, and some show an admixture of T\u00e2ntric elements. In some of the later Prasnas, especially IV and V, the language closely resembles that of the first three, and shows the same stereotyped phrases and the same Vedic anomalous forms. But in other sections, particularly VI-IX, we find, instead of S\u00fbtras, the common Anushtubh Sloka throughout, and expressions peculiar to the metrical Smritis and the Pur\u00e2nas. At the end of most Adhy\u00e2yas we read the phrase, ity \u00e2ha Baudh\u00e2yanah, or bhagav\u00e2n Baudh\u00e2yanah, 'thus speaks Baudh\u00e2yana, or the divine Baudh\u00e2yana.' Finally, while the first three Prasnas are divided into Kandik\u00e2s or Khandas, the following ones consist of Adhy\u00e2yas or chapters. These differences, as well as the fact that the most important Grihya rites, arranged according to a special plan, are done with in the\nfirst three Prasnas, necessarily lead to the conclusion that the whole remainder does not belong to Baudh\u00e2yana, but consists of so-called Parisishtas, which were composed by the adherents of his school. Further, the fact that the last six Prasnas do not show everywhere the same style and language, makes it probable that the additions were made at different times and by different persons.\nThe Dharma-s\u00fbtra seems to have undergone exactly the same fate as the Grihya-s\u00fbtra. It will be obvious even to the readers of the translation that its fourth Prasna is a later addition. It consists of two parts. The first, which ends with the fourth Adhy\u00e2ya, treats of penances, both public and secret ones. The second, Adhy\u00e2yas 5-8, describes the means of obtaining siddhi, the fulfilment of one's desires, and recommends for this purpose the offering of the Ganahomas after a previous sanctification of the worshipper by means of a course of austerities. The first part is perfectly superfluous, as the subject of penances has already been discussed in the first sections of the second Prasna, and again in chapters 4-10 of the third Prasna. Its rules sometimes contradict those given before, and in other cases, eg. IV, 2, 10-12, are mere repetitions of previous statements. The introduction of the means of gaining siddhi, on the other hand, is without a parallel in other Dharma-s\u00fbtras, and the subject is entirely foreign to the scope of such works. Its treatment, too, shows that chapters 5-8 do not belong to the author of the bulk of the Dharma-s\u00fbtra. For the description of the preparatory 'restraints' or austerities contains somewhat more detailed rules for a number of penances, e.g. the Krikkhras and the K\u00e2ndr\u00e2yana, which have already been described in the preceding Prasnas. Moreover, the style and the language of the whole fourth Prasna are very different from those of the three preceding ones, and the differences observable are exactly the same as those between the first five and the last four Prasnas of the Grihya-s\u00fbtra. The epic Sloka nearly throughout replaces the aphoristic prose, and the common slipshod Sanskrit of the Pur\u00e2nas appears instead of the archaic forms. Finally, the fourth Prasna is divided into\n[paragraph continues] Adhy\u00e2yas, not into the Kandik\u00e2s or Khandas and Adhy\u00e2yas which are found in the first two Prasnas.\nThis latter peculiarity is also observable in the third Prasna, and raises a suspicion against the genuineness of that part also. For, though the third Prasna in style and language resembles the first two, it is hard to believe that the author should, for no apparent reason, suddenly have changed the manner of dividing his work towards its end. This suspicion is further strengthened by two other circumstances. First, Prasnas I-II really exhaust the discussion of the whole Dharma, and the third offers supplementary information only on some points which have been touched upon previously. Secondly, several Adhy\u00e2yas of Prasna III seem to have been borrowed from other works, or to be abstracts from them. Thus the tenth chapter has certainly been taken from the Gautam\u00eeya Dharmas\u00e2stra, the sixth bears a very close and suspicious resemblance to Vishnu XLVIII 1, and the third looks very much like a short summary of the doctrine of Vikhanas, whose lost S\u00fbtra contained the original rule of the order of the Vaikh\u00e2nasas or hermits, living in the forest. These circumstances justify, it seems to me, the assumption that Baudh\u00e2yana's original Dharma-s\u00fbtra consisted, like \u00c2pastamba's, of two Prasnas only, and that it received, through followers of his school, two separate additions, first in very ancient times Prasna III, where the style of the master is strictly followed, and later Prasna IV, where the language and phraseology of the metrical Smritis are adopted. It ought to be noted that Govindasv\u00e2min, too, does not take the whole of the four Prasnas for Baudh\u00e2yana's composition. With respect to several passages 2 where Baudh\u00e2yana's name is introduced in order to give weight to the rules, he says that the S\u00fbtras may belong to 'a pupil.' I do not think that the criterion which he uses can be relied on in every case, because oriental authors without doubt occasionally speak of themselves as of third\npersons. But the fact that the commentator, though an orthodox Hindu, had misgivings as to the genuineness of portions of the work, is not without significance. It seems also that even the first two Prasnas are not quite free from interpolations. Thus the Kandik\u00e2s on the Tarpana 1 are certainly much enlarged by additions, the verse at I, 5, 11, 36, a repetition of I, 5, 9, 5, and some prose quotations which are introduced by the words ath\u00e2py ud\u00e2haranti, 'now they quote also,' standing usually before verses only, are at least suspicious. That the genuineness of many single passages should be doubtful, is no more than might be expected, not only on account of the separation of the Dharma-s\u00fbtra from the other parts of the Kalpa, but also because the work, as we shall see further on, remained for a long time without the protection of a commentary. The practical conclusion to be drawn from this state of things is that the greatest caution must be observed in using the Baudh\u00e2yana Dharma-s\u00fbtra for historical purposes, and that it will be advisable to draw no inferences regarding Baudh\u00e2yana's relation to other teachers and schools from the last two Prasnas, and not to trust too much to historical inferences drawn from single passages of the first two.\nThe position which Baudh\u00e2yana occupies among the teachers of the Taittir\u00eeya-veda has already been discussed in the Introduction to \u00c2pastamba. It has been shown that according to the Br\u00e2hmanical tradition preserved by Mah\u00e2deva, the commentator of the Hiranyakesi-s\u00fbtras, he composed the first S\u00fbtra for the followers of his S\u00e2kh\u00e2. Internal and external evidence has also been adduced, proving that he certainly was more ancient than \u00c2pastamba and Hiranyakesin. It is now possible to bring forward some further facts bearing on these points. First, in the section on the Tarpana, the libations of water offered to various deities, Rishis, and the manes, II, 5, 9, 14, K\u00e2nva Baudh\u00e2yana receives his share immediately after the Rishis of the Veda and before \u00c2pastamba, the S\u00fbtrak\u00e2ra, and\n[paragraph continues] Saty\u00e2sh\u00e2dha Hiranyakesin. The same order is observed in the distribution of the offerings at the Sarpabali, described in the Grihya-s\u00fbtra 1, where the following teachers of the Yagur-veda are specially named, viz. Vaisamp\u00e2yana, Phuli\u1e45gu, Tittiri, Ukha, Aukhya, \u00c2treya the author of the Pada-text, Kaundinya the author of the commentary, K\u00e2nva Baudh\u00e2yana the author of the Pravakana, \u00c2pastamba the author of the S\u00fbtra, and Saty\u00e2sh\u00e2dha Hiranyakesin. Neither of these two passages belongs to Baudh\u00e2yana. They are both clearly interpolations. But they show that Mah\u00e2deva's statement, which makes Baudh\u00e2yana the first expounder of the Kalpa among the Taittir\u00eeyavedins, agrees with the tradition of the Baudh\u00e2yan\u00eeyas themselves. For not only the place allotted to Baudh\u00e2yana's name, but still more the title Pravakanak\u00e2ra which he receives, show that the followers of his school placed him before and above all other teachers of the ritual. The term pravakana, which literally means 'proclaiming or recitation,' has frequently the technical sense of 'oral instruction,' and is applied both to the traditional lore contained in the Br\u00e2hmanas, and to the more systematic teaching of the A\u1e45gas 2. If, therefore, a teacher is called the author of the Pravakana of a S\u00e2kh\u00e2, that can only mean that he is something more than a common S\u00fbtrak\u00e2ra, and is considered to be the originator of the whole 'system of instruction among its followers. The epithet K\u00e2nva, which Baudh\u00e2yana receives in both the passages quoted above, indicates that he belonged to the Vedic Gotra of the Kanvas. It deserves to be noted that Govindasv\u00e2min, too, on I, 3, 5, 13, explains the name Baudh\u00e2yana by K\u00e2nv\u00e2yana 3.\nThe style of Baudh\u00e2yana's works furnishes, as Dr. Burnell has pointed out 1, another argument for their high antiquity. Compared with the S\u00fbtras of \u00c2pastamba and Hiranyakesin they are much simpler in their arrangement, and the complete absence of that anxiety to save 'half a vowel' which characterises the fully developed S\u00fbtra-style is very remarkable. The last point has been noticed by Govindasv\u00e2min also. In commenting on I, 2, 3, 17-18, where Baudh\u00e2yana first permits students to beg food of men of all castes, and afterwards explains that he means \u00c2ryans who follow their lawful occupations, he says 2, '(If anybody should ask), \"Why give two S\u00fbtras, while one S\u00fbtra, ('A student shall ask) \u00c2ryans who follow their lawful occupations,' would have sufficed?\" (his objection will be) correct. For this teacher is not particularly anxious to make his book short.' In other cases we find a certain awkwardness in the distribution of the subject matter, which probably finds its explanation through the fact that Baudh\u00e2yana first attempted to- bring the teaching of the Taittir\u00eeyas on the Dharma into a systematic form. Thus the rules on the law of inheritance are given without any apparent necessity and against the custom of the other S\u00fbtrak\u00e2ras in two different chapters, I, 5, 11, 9-16 and II, 2, 3, 1-44. The section on purification, too, is divided into two separate portions, I, 4, 6-10 and I, 6, 13-15, and the second which treats of the purification of the vessels at sacrifices, properly ought to have been placed into the Srauta-s\u00fbtra, not into the Dharma-s\u00fbtra. Again, the discussion of several topics is repeatedly interrupted by the introduction of rules belonging to different subjects, and Govindasv\u00e2min's ingenuity is often taxed to the utmost in order to find the reason why certain S\u00fbtras which apparently\nare unconnected with the main subject have been inserted. A third argument for the great antiquity of Baudh\u00e2yana's S\u00fbtras, derived from the archaic character of some of his doctrines, has been discussed in the Introduction to \u00c2pastamba 1. The number of instances where Baudh\u00e2yana's rules are based on a more ancient order of ideas than \u00c2pastamba's might be increased very considerably. But, as now the comparison of the two works is open to all students, I omit the cases contained in the two Dharma-s\u00fbtras, and content myself with adducing one more from the less accessible Grihya-s\u00fbtras. It is a well-known fact that the ancient Vedic ritual in certain cases admitted S\u00fbdras, and particularly the Rathak\u00e2ra or carpenter, who, according to all accounts, has S\u00fbdra blood in his veins, to a participation in the Srauta rites. The Taittir\u00eeya-br\u00e2hmana even gives certain Mantras to be recited by the Rathak\u00e2ra at the Agny\u00e2dh\u00e2na sacrifice 2. Now Baudh\u00e2yana, who, Dh. S. I, 9, 17, 6, derives the origin of the Rathak\u00e2ras from a Vaisya male and S\u00fbdra female, apparently reckons him amongst the twice-born, and explicitly allows him to receive the sacrament of the initiation. He says, Grihya-s\u00fbtra II, 5, 8-9, 'Let him initiate a Br\u00e2hmana in spring; a Kshatriya in summer, a Vaisya in autumn, a Rathak\u00e2ra in the rainy season; or all of them in spring 3.' But \u00c2pastamba, who shows great hostility against the mixed castes, and emphatically denies the right of S\u00fbdras to be initiated, gives the same rule regarding the seasons for the initiation both in his Grihya and Dharma-s\u00fbtras 4. He, however, omits the Rathak\u00e2ra in both cases. There can be no doubt that \u00c2pastamba's exclusion of the carpenter, which agrees with the sentiments prevailing in modern Br\u00e2hmanical society, is an off-shoot of a later doctrine, and as both he and Baudh\u00e2yana\nbelong to the same vidy\u00e2vamsa, or spiritual family, this difference may be used as an argument for his posteriority to Baudh\u00e2yana. In connexion with this rule of Baudh\u00e2yana's it ought to be mentioned that even in the present day certain subdivisions of the modern Sut\u00e2rs or carpenters actually wear the Br\u00e2hmanical thread, and, in spite of the adverse teaching of the S\u00e2stras, find Br\u00e2hmans willing to perform the ceremony of investiture for them.\nWhile it thus appears not incredible that Baudh\u00e2yana really was the first S\u00fbtrak\u00e2ra of the Taittir\u00eeyas, the numerous quotations which his works contain, permit us to form an idea of the extent of the Vedic and profane literature known to him. Among the Vedic works which he adduces as authorities, or otherwise refers to, the three sections of the Taittir\u00eeya-veda, the Samhit\u00e2, the Br\u00e2hmana, and the \u00c2ranyaka, naturally take the first place. For the \u00c2ranyaka he seems to have used the Andhra version, as Dh. S. II, 10, 18, 7, 11 references to the seventy-first Anuv\u00e2ka of the tenth Prap\u00e2thaka occur. Two long passages, Dh. S. I, 2, 4, 3-8; II, 6, 11, 1-8, which apparently have been taken from the Satapatha-br\u00e2hmana, testify to his acquaintance with the White Yagur-veda. Baudh\u00e2yana does not say expressly that he quotes from the Br\u00e2hmana of the V\u00e2gasaneyins, but Govinda has no hesitation in pointing to the Satapatha as their source. It is remarkable that the fact noticeable in \u00c2pastamba's quotation from the Satapatha reappears here, and that the wording of the two quotations does not fully agree with the printed text of the Br\u00e2hmana. The differences in the first passage are, no doubt, partly owing to corruptions and interpolations in Baudh\u00e2yana's text; but that cannot be said of the second 1. References to the S\u00e2ma-veda and the S\u00e2mans occur repeatedly, and the passage from the Nid\u00e2na of Bh\u00e2llavins regarding the geographical extent of true Br\u00e2hmanical\nlearning, which Vasishtha adduces, is given I, 1, 2, 11-12. From the Rig-veda a few expiatory hymns and verses, such as the Aghamarshana and the Taratsamand\u00ees, are quoted. The Atharva-veda is not referred to by name, but the existence of \u00c2tharvana schools may be inferred from the mention made of the vows called Siras, II, 8, 14, 2. Among the authorities on the Sacred Law, mentioned in the Dharma-s\u00fbtra, K\u00e2tya I, 2, 3, 46, Maudgalya II, 2, 4, 8, and Aupagandhani II, 2, 3,33, do not occur in other works of the same class 1. H\u00e2r\u00eeta, who is mentioned II, 1, 2, 21, and who probably was a teacher of the Maitr\u00e2yan\u00eeya school, is named by Vasishtha and \u00c2pastamba also. The Gautama who is quoted I, 1, 2, 7 and II, 2, 4, 17, is, as has been shown in the Introduction to Gautama, most probably the author of the still existing Institutes of Gautama. To the arguments for the latter view, adduced there, I may add that two other passages of the Dharma-s\u00fbtra, II, 6, 15 and 26, point to a close connexion between Baudh\u00e2yana's and Gautama's works. The former of the two Sutras contains, with the exception of one small clause in the beginning, exactly the same description of the duties of a hermit in the forest as that given by Gautama III, 26-35. The second Sutra states, just as Gautama's rule III, 36, that the venerable teacher (\u00e2k\u00e2ry\u00e2h) prescribes one order only, that of the householders. The reason given for this opinion differs, however, according to Baudh\u00e2yana, from that adduced in Gautama's text. The almost literal identity of the first long passage makes it not improbable that Baudh\u00e2yana borrowed in this instance also from Gautama without noting the source from which he drew. On the other hand, the argument drawn from the fact that the tenth Adhy\u00e2ya of Prasna III has been taken from Gautama's S\u00fbtra loses its force since, as I have shown above, it is improbable that the third Prasna formed part of Baudh\u00e2yana's\noriginal work. A metrical work on the Sacred Law seems to be quoted II, 2, 4, 14-15. For, as the second verse, adduced there, says that the penance for one who violated his Guru's bed has been declared above, it seems impossible to assume that the two Slokas belonged to the versified maxims of the Dharma current among the learned Br\u00e2hmans. If this quotation is not an interpolation, it proves that, side by side with the Dharma-sutras, metrical treatises on the Sacred Law existed in very early times 1. One quotation, finally, which gives a verse from the dialogue of the daughters of Usanas and Vrishaparvan seems to have been taken from an epic poem. The verse is actually found in the Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata I, 78, 10, and again 34, where the altercation between Sarmishth\u00e2 and Devay\u00e2n\u00ee forms part of the Yay\u00e2tyup\u00e2khy\u00e2na. Considering what has been said above regarding the state of the text of the Dharma-s\u00fbtra, and our imperfect knowledge of the history of the Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata, it would be hazardous to assert that the verse proves Baudh\u00e2yana's acquaintance with Vy\u00e2sa's great epic. It will be safer to wait for further proofs that it was known to the S\u00fbtrak\u00e2ras, before one bases far-going speculations on this hitherto solitary quotation.\nThe arguments which maybe brought forward to show that Baudh\u00e2yana's home lay in Southern India are not as strong as those which permit us to determine the native country of \u00c2pastamba. The portions of the Sutras, known to me, contain no direct mention of the south except in the desanirnaya or disquisition on the countries, Dharma-s\u00fbtra I, 1, 2, where certain peculiar customs of the southern Br\u00e2hmans are enumerated, and some districts of Southern India, eg. Kali\u1e45ga, are referred to as barbarous countries which must not be visited by \u00c2ryans. These utterances show an acquaintance with the south, but by no means prove that Baudh\u00e2yana lived there. A more significant fact is that Baudh\u00e2yana declares, I, 1, 2, 4, 'going to sea' to be a custom prevailing among the northern Br\u00e2hmans, and afterwards, II, I, 22, places that act at the head of the Patan\u00eeyas,\nthe more serious offences causing loss of caste. It is probable that by the latter rule he wished to show his stand-point as a southerner. But the most conclusive argument in favour of the southern origin of the Baudh\u00e2yan\u00eeyas is that they, like the \u00c2pastamb\u00eeyas and all other adherents of the Taittir\u00eeya schools, are entirely confined to the Dekhan, and are not found among the indigenous subdivisions of the Br\u00e2hmans in Central and Northern India. This fact is, if not explicitly stated, at least implied by the passage of the Mah\u00e2rnava quoted in the Introduction to \u00c2pastamba 1. It is proved by the present state of things, and by the evidence of the land grants of the southern dynasties, several of which have been made in favour of Baudh\u00e2yan\u00eeyas. Thus we find a grant of Bukkar\u00e2ya, the well-known ruler of Vigayanagara 2, dated Sakasamvat 1276 or 1354-5 AD., in which a Br\u00e2hmana, studying the Baudh\u00e2yan\u00eeya-s\u00fbtra, is mentioned as the donee of a village in Mais\u00fbr. Again, in an inscription of Nandivarman Pallavamalla, which its editor, the Rev. Mr. Foulkes, places in the ninth century A D. 3, a considerable number of Br\u00e2hmanas of the Pravakana-s\u00fbtra are named as recipients of the royal bounty, together with some followers of the \u00c2pastambha 4 school. As we have seen that Baudh\u00e2yana is called in the Grihya-s\u00fbtra the Pravakanak\u00e2ra, it is not doubtful that the Pravakana-s\u00fbtra of this inscription is the S\u00fbtra of his school. The villages which the grantees received from Nandivarman were situated on the P\u00e2l\u00e2r river in the Kitt\u00fbr districts of the Madras Presidency. Besides, the interesting tradition which asserts that M\u00e2dhava-S\u00e2yana, the great commentator of the Vedas, was a Baudh\u00e2yan\u00eeya 5 is another point which may be brought forward as evidence for the location of the school in Southern India. Further,\nit must not be forgotten that most and the best MSS. of Baudh\u00e2yana's S\u00fbtras are found in Southern India. There are also some faint indications that the Andhra country is the particular district to which Baudh\u00e2yana belonged. For his repeated references to voyages by sea and his rule regarding the duty payable on goods imported by sea show that he must have lived in a coast district where sea-borne trade flourished, and the fact that he uses the Andhra recension of the Taittir\u00eeya \u00c2ranyaka makes it probable that he was an inhabitant of the eastern coast.\nMy estimate of the distance between Baudh\u00e2yana and \u00c2pastamba and of that between the latter and the historical period of India has been given in the Introduction to \u00c2pastamba, pp. xxii and xliii, and I have nothing further to add on that subject. The oldest witness for the existence of the Srauta-s\u00fbtra of Baudh\u00e2yana is its commentator Bhavasv\u00e2min, whom Dr. Burnell places in the eighth century A. D. The Dharma-s\u00fbtra is first quoted by Vig\u00f1\u00e2nesvara, circiter 1080-1100 AD. Several of the passages adduced by him are, however, not traceable in the MSS.\nAs regards the materials on which the translation is based, I had at my disposal six MSS. of the text and two copies of Govindasv\u00e2min's commentary, the Bodh\u00e2yan\u00eeya-dharmavivarana 1, one of which (C. I.) gives the text also. These MSS. belong to two chief groups, a northern and a southern one. The northern group contains two subdivisions. The first comprises (1) D., a MS. bought by me for the Government of Bombay at Ahmad\u00e2b\u00e2d (no. 6 of the Dekhan College collection of 1868-69), and about one hundred or one hundred and fifty years old; (2) P., an old MS. of my own collection, bought in 1865 at Puna; (3, 4) B. and Bh., two modern transcripts, made for me in Baroda and Bombay, Among these, D. alone is of real value, as P., B., and Bh. faithfully reproduce all its clerical errors and add a good many new ones. The second subdivision of the northern group is represented by K., a modern transcript, made for\nthe Government of Bombay at Kolh\u00e2pur in the southern Mar\u00e2tha country (Elphinstone College collection of 1867-68, Class VI, no. 2). The MSS. of the northern group, which give the vulgata current since the times of N\u00eelakantha.(1650 A. D.) and Mitramisra (circiter 2 700 A. D.) in Western and Central India, can be easily recognised by the omission of the third Adhy\u00e2ya of Prasna IV, and by their placing IV, 5, 1 b-25 after IV, 7, 7. One of the chief differences between K. and the other MSS. of the northern group is the omission of II, 5, 8, 4-II, 6, 11, 15 in the latter. The southern group of MSS. is formed by M., a slovenly Devan\u00e2gar\u00ee transcript of a Grantha MS., no. 610/1929 of the Madras Government collection 1, and by the text of C. L, a Devan\u00e2gar\u00ee copy of the MS. of Govindasv\u00e2min's commentary, presented by Dr. Burnell to the India Office library 2, The second copy of the commentary, C. T., a Telugu paper MS. from Tanjore, I owe to the kindness of Dr. Burnell.\nAs might be expected, on account of the southern origin of the Baudh\u00e2yan\u00eeya school, M. gives on the whole the best form of the text. It also carefully marks the Kandik\u00e2s 3 in the first two Prasnas, ignoring the Adhy\u00e2yas altogether, and contains at the end of each Prasna the first words of each Kandik\u00e2, beginning with the last and ending with the first, after the fashion which prevails in the MSS. of the Taittir\u00eeya Samhit\u00e2, Br\u00e2hmana, and \u00c2ranyaka. Very close to M. comes Govinda's copy, where, however, as in most northern MSS., the Adhy\u00e2yas alone are marked. It is, however, perfectly certain that in some very difficult passages, which are disfigured by ancient corruptions, he corrected the text conjecturally 4 In a certain number of cases the northern MSS. present better and older readings than M. and C. I. 5 Under these\ncircumstances it has not been possible to follow the commentary or M. throughout. Though they had to be made the basis, they had in many passages to be set aside in favour of readings of the northern group. In some cases I have also been obliged to make conjectural emendations, which have all been mentioned in the notes. Three S\u00fbtras, I, 8, 16, 13-15, have been left untranslated, because the MSS. offer no safe basis for a conjectural restoration, and the commentary is defective.\nGovinda, who, as Dr. Burnell informs me, is said to be a modern writer, seems to have composed his vivarana without the aid of older vrittis. Though he apparently was well acquainted with the writings belonging to the Taittir\u00eeya-veda, with the ritual and with the common law-books, he has not succeeded in explaining all the really difficult passages. Sometimes he is clearly mistaken, and frequently he passes by in silence words or whole S\u00fbtras, the sense or the general bearing of which is by no means certain. Though it would be ungrateful on my part to underrate the importance of his work for my translation, I cannot place him in the same rank with Haradatta, the commentator of \u00c2pastamba and Gautama, and can only regret that no older commentary based on the living tradition of the Baudh\u00e2yan\u00eeyas has been available. If such a work were found, better readings and better explanations of many difficult passages would probably come to light. With the materials at my disposal the translation has been a work of some difficulty, and in trying to settle the text I have often experienced the feeling of insecurity which comes over the decipherer of a difficult inscription when the facsimiles are bad. The short Adhy\u00e2ya on adoption, given in the appendix to the Dharma-s\u00fbtra, has been taken from the Sm\u00e2rta or Grihya-s\u00fbtra. It does not belong to Baudh\u00e2yana, but is frequently quoted by the writers on civil law, who wrote in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries of our era.\nxxix:1 I must here state that during my residence in India I have never met with a follower of Baudh\u00e2yana's school, and cannot personally vouch for its existence. But many Pandits have assured me that many Baudh\u00e2yan\u00eeyas are to be found among the Telingana and Karn\u00e2taka Br\u00e2hmans.\nxxix:2 See Govinda's statement, quoted. above, p. xiii.\nxxx:1 See Burnell, Catalogue of a Collection of Sanskrit MS., pp. 24-26, 28, 34-35, and Tanjore Catalogue, pp. 18a-20b, and especially his remarks at pp. 18 b and 20 a.\nxxx:2 This title is found in the best copy known to me, Elphinstone College Collection of 1867-68, Class B. I, no. 5, which has been prepared from the MS. of Mr. Limaye at Ashte. The other copies of the work, found in Western India, eg. no. 4 of the same collection and my own copy, are in a bad state, as they are derived from a MS. the leaves of which were out of order.\nxxx:3 Burnell, Catalogue of a Collection of Sanskrit MSS., no. LXXXVIII, and Tanjore Catalogue, no. CXVII.\nxxxi:1 According to the Elph. Coll. MS., Cl. I, B. 5, and my copy, it runs thus:\nxxxi:2 Burnell, Catalogue of a Collection of Sanskrit MSS., no. CXVIII.\nxxxii:1 Elphinstone College Collection, no. 5, according to which all quotations have been made, gives three Prasnas, my own MS. two Prasnas. The number of the Khandas is, however, the same.\nxxxiv:1 See also Jolly, Sacred Books of the East, vol. vii, p. xix.\nxxxiv:2 E.g. Dharma-s\u00fbtra III, 5, 7\nxxxv:1 Baudh\u00e2yana Dharma-s\u00fbtra II, 5, 8-9.\nxxxvi:1 Baudh\u00e2yana Grihya-s\u00fbtra IV, 3 (fol. 29, B. 5, Elph. Coll. copy, no. 5),\nSee also Weber, Hist. Ind. Lit., p. 91 note; Max M\u00fcller, Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., p. 223; Burnell, Catalogue of a Collection of Sanskrit MSS., p. 14, no. LIII.\nxxxvi:2 See Max M\u00fcller, Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., p. 109.\nxxxvi:3 The discovery that Baudh\u00e2yana bore also the name K\u00e2nva makes it possible p. xxxvii to refer \u00c2pastamba's quotation of an opinion of a K\u00e2nva, I, 6, 19, 7, to Baudh\u00e2yana, instead of to a teacher of the white Yagur-veda, Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, p. xxvi.\nxxxvii:1 Tanjore Catalogue, p. 20b.\nxxxviii:1 Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, pp. xviii-xx.\nxxxviii:2 See Weber, Indische Studien X, 12.\nxxxviii:4 Grihya-s\u00fbtra II, 4, 10, 5; Dharma-s\u00fbtra I, 1, 1, 18.\nxxxix:1 Professor Eggeling has lately discussed the question of the discrepancies between \u00c2pastamba's quotations from the Br\u00e2hmana of the V\u00e2gasaneyins and the existing text. I can only agree with him that we must wait for a comparison of all those quoted, with both the recensions of the Satapatha, before we draw further inferences from the fact. See Sacred Books of the East, vol. xii, p. xl.\nxl:1 Possibly K\u00e2syapa, whose name occurs in a Sloka, I, 11, 21, 2, may also be an ancient teacher to whom Baudh\u00e2yana refers. In the Grihya-s\u00fbtra a teacher called S\u00e2l\u00eeki is repeatedly quoted, and once, I, 11 (end), his opinion is contrasted with that of Baudh\u00e2yana and of \u00c2k\u00e2rya; i.e. Baudh\u00e2yana's teacher. The Grihya-s\u00fbtra refers also to \u00c2treya, K\u00e2sakritsna, and B\u00e2dari.\nxli:1 See also West and B\u00fchler, Digest of Hindu Law Cases, p. xxvii, 2nd ed.\nxlii:1 Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, p. xxx; see also L. von Schr\u00f6der, Maitr\u00e2yan\u00eeya Samhit\u00e2, p. xxvii.\nxlii:2 Journal of the Bombay Branch. of the Royal Asiatic Society, XII, 349-351.\nxlii:3 Indian Antiquary, VIII, 273-284.\nxlii:4 As all the older inscriptions hitherto published give \u00c2pastambha instead of \u00c2pastamba, I am now inclined to consider the former as the original form of the name.\nxlii:5 Burnell, Tanjore Catalogue, p. 20 b, remarks on no. CCXXVI.\nxliii:1 It ought to be noted that in the south of India the forms Bodh\u00e2yana and Bodh\u00e2yan\u00eeya are invariably used for Baudh\u00e2yana and Baudh\u00e2yan\u00eeya. But it seems to me that the southerners are in error, as the affix \u00e2yana requires vriddhi in the first syllable.\nxliv:1 Taylor, Catalogue Raisonn\u00e9e (!), I, p. 190. The clerical errors in my transcript are exceedingly numerous, and mostly owing to the faulty rendering of the value of the Grantha characters, which seem not to have been familiar to the copyist. There are also some small lacunae, and the last leaf has been lost.\nxliv:2 See Burnell, Catalogue of a Collection of MSS., p. 35, no, CXVII.\nxliv:3 I alone am responsible for the title Kandik\u00e2, given to the small sections. M. marks only the figures. D. and the better northern MSS. show only breaks at the end of the Kandik\u00e2s and their first words at the end of the Prasnas.\nxliv:4 See eg. Dharma-s\u00fbtra I, 2, 3, 35, note.\nxliv:5 See eg. Dharma-s\u00fbtra I, 5, 11, 35; II, I, 2, 36; II, 2, 3, 3; II, 2, 4, 10; II, 3, 6, 3; II, 7, 12, 5; III, 9, 2.","title":"SBE 14: Introduction to Baudh\u00e2yana","type":"page"}