The Sacred Laws of the Âryas, Part II: Vâsishtha and Baudhâyana (SBE 14)

OXPOED UNIVEBSITY PBESS WAEEHOUSE 7 PATERNOSTER ROW

APASTAMBA, GAUTAMA, VkSlSETHA, AND BAUDHAYANA

Introduction to Vasish77/a Introduction to Baudhayana.

Penances for a Student. Aghamarshawa.... Prasrztiyavaka.... Kushma7z</as.... ^Tandrayawa.... Ana-matparayawa

Secret Penances Rites securing Success Parmsh/a on Adoption

Index to Parts I and II (Vols. II and XIV)

Transliteration of Oriental Alphabets adopted for the Trans- lations of the Sacred Books of the East.. • 357

The Vasish/Zza Dharmasastra is, like that of Gautama, the last remnant of the Sutras of a Vedic school, which, as far as our knowledge goes at present, has perished, together with the greater part of its writings. We owe the preserva- tion of its Dharma-sutra probably to the special law schools of India, which, attracted as it would seem by its title and the legend connecting it withVasish/^a Maitravarum, one of the most famous it'zshis of the Rig-veda and a redoubtable champion of Brahmanism, made it one of their standard authorities. The early existence of a legend according to which the Vasish//za Dharma-sutra was considered either to be a work composed by the Rishi Vasish^a, or at least to contain the sum of his teaching on the duty of man, is indicated by several passages of the work itself. For the Dharma-sutra names Vasish^a, or appeals to his authority on no less than three occasions. First, we find a rule on lawful interest, which is emphatically ascribed to Vasish/^a1. 'Learn the interest for a money lender,' the Sutra says, ' declared by the word of Vasish/^a; five mashas (may be taken) for twenty (karshapa/zas every month).' Again, at the end of a long string of rules 2 which contain the observances to be kept by sinners who undergo Krzkk/zra penances, Va- sish^a's name is brought forward as the authority for them, and the last words are, ' Thus speaks the divine Vasish//za.' Finally, the concluding Sutra of the whole work3 gives

3 Vasish^a Dharmasastra XXX, II. Similar invocations of teachers at the end of Sutras occur frequently, e.g. Asvalayana Srauta-sutra XII, 15, 14; Rig- vidhana V, 3, 4; Yaska, Nirukta, Roth, p. 216.

expression to the devotion felt by the author for the ^z'shi, 'Adoration to Vasish/Zza, Satayatu, the son of Mitra and Varu«a and of Urva.ri.' The epithets used in this last pas- sage conclusively show that the VasishZ/za after whom the Dharma-sutra is named, is the individual who, according to the Brahmanical tradition, is the Rishi of a large portion of the seventh Mandate of the Rig-veda and the progenitor of the Vasish^a clan of Brahmans, and who in some hymns of the Rig-veda appears as the purohita or domestic priest of king Sudas and the rival of Vuvamitra, and in other Suktas as a half mythical being. For the verses Rig-veda VII, 33, 11-14 trace the origin of this Vasishz^a to the two sons of Aditi, Mitra and Varu«a, and to the Apsaras Urva^i, and contain the outline of the curious, but disgusting story of his marvellous birth, which Saya/za- narrates more cir- cumstantially in the commentary on verse 11. Moreover, the word 5atayatu, which in the Dharma-sutra is used as an epithet of VasishzVfo, occurs Rig-veda VII, 18, 21 in close connexion with the ^z'shi's name. Saya/za explains it in his commentary on the latter passage as f the destroyer of many demons,' or, ' he whom many demons seek to destroy,' and takes it as an epithet of the sage Para^ara, who is named together with VasishzVza. It would, however, seem that, if the verse is construed on strictly philological principles, neither Saya/za's interpretation, nor that suggested by the Dharma-sutra can be accepted, and that 5atayatu has to be taken as a proper name *. But, however that may be, it is not doubtful that we may safely infer from the expressions used in the last sentence of the Dharma-sutra, that the Vasishz^a to whom the invocation is addressed and the composition of the work is ascribed, either immediately or through the medium of pupils, is the individual named in the Rig-veda. The connexion of the Dharma-sutra with one of the i^zshis of the Rig-veda which is thus established, possesses a particular interest and importance, because it corroborates the statement of Govindasvamin, the commen- tator of Baudhayana, that the Institutes of Vasishz^a were

1 See Petersburg Dictionary, s. v. satayatu.

originally studied by and authoritative for the Bahvrzka.s, the Rigvedins alone, and afterwards became an authority for all Brahmans *. In the introduction to Gautama it has been shown that a similar assertion which Govinda makes with regard to the Gautama Dharma-sutra can be corrobo- rated by a considerable amount of external and internal evidence. It has been pointed out that not only the fact that the spiritual pedigrees of the KAandoga, schools enu- merate several Gautamas, but also the partiality for texts of the Sama-veda, which the Institutes of Gautama show on several occasions, strongly support the tradition that the Gautamiya Dharmajastra originally was the exclusive property of a school of Samavedins. In the case of the Vasish//za Dharma^astra indications of the latter kind are, if not entirely wanting, at least very faint. The number of Vedic passages quoted is, no doubt, large; but few among them belong to the class of Mantras which are recited during the performance of grthya, rites, and must be taken from the particular recension of the Veda to which the per- former belongs. Besides, the texts of this description which actually occur, do not bear the mark of a particular Veda or.Sakha. The numerous texts, on the other hand, which are quoted in support or explanation of the rules, are taken im- partially from all the three ancient Vedas. For this reason it would be dangerous to use the references to a dozen Rikas in chapters XVII and XXVI, as well as to the legend of Suna^sepa, which is told only in works belonging to the Rig-

1 See Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, p. xlix, note 2. As Govindasvamin's statements possess a considerable importance, I give here the whole com- mentary on Baudhayana I, 1, 2, 6, according to my two MSS., CI. and C.T.:

^ fafafw ^ren wmn *^^»rbn*fa$TTO w*mb *m ^fcs^a- sftai *ro ^t sftvnRH v^t*^ $fta^r ^^ptr fffiiwt H^rfa thst ntofhmtfaosr^ ^^Tre -q^TT [ W7* c. I.; w* c. t.] ^rffr? 3 ^%: [1] ^n* ^ *^v^mftr[i]xRT ^t Tansn^TftT sfTfwTrfri w^jqrfrw?T tf^ HljHi^farftr *RRTfa [^swiftr c. 1.; ^rs?Tfa c. t.] H^jftmT^r|SfTi n irer *<? ^wnm^m^ ott^ n i u tht *mf&-

veda, as a proof that the Vasish/^a Dharma^astra is the work of a Rzgved'm. Under these circumstances the three pas- sages, mentioning Vasish//za's name, and especially the last which identifies him with the Rzshi of the Rig-veda, have a particularly great importance, as they are the only pieces of internal evidence which can be brought forward in favour of Govindasvamin's valuable statement. But the latter is, even without any further corroboration, credible enough, because no reason is apparent why Govinda should have invented such a story, and because his assertion fully agrees with the well-established facts known about the other existing Dharma-sutras, which all were composed not for the benefit of the Aryans in general, but in order to regulate the conduct of particular sections of the Brah- manical community.

There is, however, one point in Govindasvamin's state- ment which requires further elucidation. He says that the Bahvrifcas, i.e. the Rigvedins in general, formerly studied the Vasish^a Dharma^astra. It might, therefore, be in- ferred that the work possessed equal authority among the A^valayaniyas, the vSahkhayaniyas, the Ma/z^ukayanas, and all the other schools of the Rig-veda, and that it belonged to the most ancient heirlooms of its adherents. That is, however, improbable for several reasons. For, first, neither the Ajvalayaniyas nor the vSankhayaniyas of the present day study or attach any special importance to the Vasish- tka. Dharmajastra. Secondly, if the Vasish^a Dharma- jastra had ever been the common authority on Dharma in all the different schools of the Rig-veda, it would be neces- sary to ascribe to it an antiquity which it clearly does not possess. All Sutras were originally composed for a single school only. Where we find that the same Sutra is adopted by several ^Tara^as, as is the case with the Dharma-sutra, which both the Apastambiyas and the Haira^yake^as study, and with the iTayana-sutra, which the Bharadva^as and the Haira^yakcras have in common, it is evident that the later school did not care to compose a treatise of its own on a certain subject, but preferred to take over the composi- tion of an earlier teacher. If, now, a Sutra on a certain

subject were acknowledged by all the schools of one Veda, it would follow that it must belong to the most ancient books of that Veda, and must have been adopted succes- sively by all its later schools. In such a case the Sutra must certainly show signs of its great antiquity. But if we look for the latter in the Vasish/^a Dharma-sutra, the trouble will be in vain. Though that work contains a good deal that is archaic, yet, as will be shown presently, its numerous quotations from Vedic writings and older Dharma-sutras clearly prove that it does not belong to the oldest productions of its class, but takes even among the still existing Institutes of the Sacred Law only a secondary rank. Under these circumstances the correct interpretation of Govindasvamin's words will be, that ac- cording to the Brahmanical tradition, known to him, some school of iv^gvedins, the name of which he did not know, or did not care to give, originally possessed the Vasish/^a Dharmajastra as its exclusive property, and that the work later, through the action of the special law schools, acquired general authority for all Brahmans. It is a pity that no authentic information regarding the name of that school of Rtgved'ms has been handed down. But, considering the fact that Vedic schools are frequently named after Vedic Rzshis, it seems not improbable that it was called after the Vasish/^a whose authority the Dharma-sutra invokes, and that we may assume the former existence of a Vasish^a school, a Sutra-£ara/za, of the Rig-veda \ founded perhaps by a teacher of the Vasish/^a gotra. This conjecture, which, it must be confessed, is not supported by any cor- roborative evidence from the Brahmanical tradition, will explain why the title-pages of this and of the first part speak of a school of Vasish^a.

The position of the Vasish^fo. Dharma-sutra in Vedic literature can be defined, to a certain extent, by an analysis

1 A school of Vasish^as, belonging to the Sama-veda, certainly existed in ancient times. I have formerly put forward a conjecture that the Vasish^Aa Dharmasastra might belong to that school (Digest of Hindu Law Cases, p. xxii, first edition). But Govindasvamin's explicit statement makes it evident that it has to be abandoned.

of its numerous quotations from the Sawhitas, Brahmawas, and the older Sutras. By this means it will become evident that the work belongs to a period when the chief schools of the three ancient Vedas had been formed and some of the still existing Dharma-sutras had been composed. Faint indications will be found which make it probable that the home of the school to which it belonged, lay in the northern half of India, north of the Narmada and of the Vindhyas. As regards the quotations from the 5ruti, the revealed texts of the Hindus, they are chiefly taken from the Rig-veda and from three recensions of the Ya^ur-veda. Passages from the Rig-veda-sawhita are quoted IV, 21; XVII, 3-4; and XXVI, 5-7. With respect to the quota- tions in the latter chapter it must, however, be noted that its genuineness is, as will be shown in the sequel, not above suspicion. A Brahma^a of the Rig-veda seems to be referred to in XVII, 2, 32, 55. But the extracts, given there, agree only in part with the text of the Aitareya, and it is probable that they are taken from some lost composi- tion of the same class. A curious Sutra, II, 3$, shows a great resemblance to the explanations of Vedic passages given by Yaska in the Nirukta1. The passage points either to a connexion of the author with the school of the Nairuktas or, at least, to an acquaintance with its princi- ples. Among the schools of the Ya^ur-veda, that of the Ka//&as is twice referred to by name, XII, 29; XXX, 5. But Professor Weber, who kindly looked for the quotations in the Berlin MS. of the Kanaka, has not been able to find them. A third passage, I, 37, said to be taken from the ATaturmasyas, i. e. the portion of a Sa^hita which treats of the isfaturmasya sacrifices, actually occurs in the Kanaka. But, as it is likewise found in the i$faturmasya-ka;^a of the Maitraya/ziyas, it must remain uncertain from which of the two recensions of the Black Ya^ur-veda it has been quoted. The chapter on the duties of women, vers. 6-8, contains a

1 This resemblance has not escaped Knshnaparaafita, who says in his com- mentary, fH^Huro m$w 3$tfl » WTlfFjfaWTf^ II ^WtJOTfa f^-

long quotation which, in spite of some small discrepancies, seems to have been taken from the Taittiriya-sa//zhita of the Black Ya^ur-veda. Passages of the Taittiriya Ara/zyaka are quoted or referred to X, $$ and XXIII, 23. The White Ya^ur-veda is mentioned several times as the Va^a- saneyi-j-akha or the Va^asaneyaka. The former expression occurs III, 19 and XXIII, 13. The quotations, marked as taken from the Va^asaneyaka, XII, 31, XIV, 46 are found in the 5atapatha-brahma«a, and another passage of the same work is quoted I, 45, without a specification of the source. A very clear proof that the author of the Dharma-sutra knew the Va^asaneyi-sa/^hita is furnished by the Mantra, given II, 34. The text, quoted there, occurs in three different 5akhas, that of the Va^asaneyins, that of the Taittiriyas and the Atharva-veda, and in each shows a few variae lectiones. Its wording in the Va^asaneyi- sa/^hita literally agrees with the version, given in the Sutra. The Sama-veda is referred to III, 19, and par- ticular Samans are mentioned in the borrowed chapter XXII, 9. A passage from the Nidana, probably a work on Stomas and metres, which belonged to the Bhallavins, an ancient school of Samavedins, occurs I, 14-16. An Upani- shad, connected with the Atharva-veda, the Atharva^iras, is mentioned in the borrowed chapter XXII, 9, and the existence of the Atharva-veda is pre-supposed, also, by ' the vows called Siras,' which are alluded to in the suspicious chapter XXVI, 11, and are said to be peculiar to the Atharvavedins \ The chapters, which are undoubtedly genuine, contain no allusion to the fourth Veda.

As regards the older works on Dharma, the author of the Institutes of Vasish^/za certainly knew and used a treatise, attributed to Yama, the Dharma-sutras of Manu, Harita and Gautama, and perhaps that of Baudhayana. With respect to two verses, which, as the Sutra says, were pro- claimed by Pra^-apati, XIV, 24, 30, it is somewhat doubtful, if it is meant that they have been taken from a work, attributed to Pra^apati, or that they are merely utterances, supposed to have been made by that deity for the benefit

1 See Baudhayana Dharma-sutra II, 8, 14, 2, note.

of mankind. The latter view seems, however, the more

likely one, as it is customary in the Smn'tis to ascribe the

revelation of social institutions, ceremonies, and penances to

Pra^-apati, who, in the older works, occupies much the same

position as Brahma, the creator, in the later religious systems.

It is not impossible that some of the references to Yama,

e. g. XI, 20, have to be explained in the same manner.

But other passages, attributed to Yama, e.g. XVIII, 13-16,

seem to have been taken from a work which was considered

the production of the Dharmara^a. Of course, none of the

Yamasmrztis, which exist in the present day, can be meant.

The quotations from Manu are numerous1. They have

all been taken from a book attributed to a Manu, and

possess a very high interest for the history of the present

metrical ManusmWti. For the prose passage from the

Manava, given IV, 5, furnishes the proof that the author of

the Vasish///a Dharma^astra quotes from a Dharma-sutra

attributed to a Manu, while other quotations show that the

Manava Dharma-sutra contained, also, verses, some of which,

e. g. XIX, 3J, were Trish/ubhs, and that a large proportion

of these verses has been embodied in Bhrzgu's version of

the Manusm^/ti. Fifteen years ago 2 I first called attention

to Vasish/^a's prose quotation from the Manava, and

pointed out that, if the MSS. of the Vasish/^a Dharma-

jastra were to be trusted, a small piece of the lost Manava

Dharma-sutra, on which the present Manusmrzti is based,

had been found. The incorrectness and the defective state of

the materials which I then had at my disposal did not allow

me to go further. Since that time several, comparatively

speaking, good MSS. of the Institutes of Vasish^a and

many inferior ones have been found, and all, at least all

those which I have examined, give the quotation in prose

exactly in the same form. The fact that Vasish///a gives,

in IV, 5, a prose quotation from Manu may, therefore, be

considered as certain 3. Moreover several of the best MSS.

1 They occur Vasish^a Dharmasastra I, 17; III, 2; IV, 5-8; XI, 23; XII, 16; XIII, 16; XIX, 37; XX, 18; XXIII, 43; XXVI, 8.

2 Digest of Hindu Law Cases, p. xxxi, note, first edition.

3 Such, I suppose, will be the opinion of all European scholars. Those Hindus

show, by adding the particle 'iti' at the end of Sutra 8, that the quotation from the Manava is not finished with Sutra 5, but includes the two verses given in Sutras 6 and 7 and the second prose passage in Sutra 8. Among the verses the first is found entire in the metrical Manusmnti, and the second has likewise a representative in that work, though its concluding portion has been altered in such a manner that the permission to slaughter animals at sacri- fices has been converted into an absolute prohibition to take animal life. Sutra 8, which again is in prose, has no counterpart in the metrical Manusmrzti, as might be ex- pected from its allowing ' a full-grown ox ' or ' a full-grown he-goat' to be killed in honour of a distinguished Brah- ma/za or Kshatriya guest. A closely corresponding passage is found in the 5atapatha-brahma;/a, and a verse expressing the same opinion in the Ya^vtavalkya Smritl, the versifica- tion of a Dharma-sutra of the White Ya^ur-veda. As the last part of the quotation resembles the text of the Brahma/za and its language is very archaic, it is quite possible that, though belonging to the passage from the Manava-sutra, it contains a Vedic text, taken from some hitherto unknown Brahma/za which Manu adduced in support of his opinion. On this supposition the arrange- ment of tlfe whole quotation would be as follows. Sutra 5 would give the original rule of the author of the Manava in an aphoristic form; Sutras 6-J would repeat the same opinion in verse, the latter being probably.Slokas current among the Brahmanical community; and Sutra 8 would give the Vedic authority for the preceding sentences. This arrangement would be in strict conformity with the plan usually followed by the authors of Dharma-sutras. But whether Sutra 8 contains a second original aphorism of the Manava Dharma-sutra or a Vedic passage, it seems in- disputable that the author of the Vasish/^a Dharma-sutra knew a treatise attributed to a teacher called Manu, which, like all other Dharma-sutras, was partly written in apho-

who allow their religious convictions to get the better of their reason, will perhaps prefer Knshrcapararfita's ingenious, but unsound explanation of the words iti manavam, by iti manumatam, ' such is the opinion of Manu.'

ristic prose and partly in verse. The passage furnishes, therefore, the proof for Professor Max M tiller's conjecture that our metrical Manusmrzti, like all the older works of the same class, is based on the Dharma-sutra of a Vedic Sutra-£ara/za. In connexion with this subject it may be men- tioned that the Institutes of Vasish^a contain, besides the above-mentioned passages, no less than thirty-nine verses 1, which are not marked as quotations, but occur in Bhrzgu's metrical Manusawhita. Some of them present more or less important variae lectiones. Moreover, there are four verses which, though Vasish/^a attributes them to Harita and Yama2, are included in our Manusmrz'ti and treated as utterances of the father of mankind. The bearing of both these facts on the history of the Manusmrzti is obvious. But the frequency of the references to or quotations from Manu which Vasish^a makes, teaches another important lesson. Like the fact that Manu is the only individual author to whom Gautama refers 3, it shows that in ancient times Manu's name had as great a charm for the Brahman teachers as it has for those of the present day, and that the old Manava Dharma-sutra was one of the leading works on the subject, or, perhaps, even held that dominant position which the metrical Manusmrzti actually occupied in the Middle Ages and theoretically occupies in our days. It is interesting to observe that precisely the same inference can be drawn from the early Sanskrit inscriptions. If these speak of individual authors of Smrztis, they invariably place Manu's name first 4.

Vasish/yfca gives only one quotation from Harita, II, 6\ Harita was one of the ancient Sutrakaras of the Black Ya^ur-veda, who is known also to Baudhayana. From a passage which K>zsh/zapa?z^ita quotes in elucidation of

1 Vasish^a Dharmasastra I, 22; II, 3, 10, 27, 48; III, 5, 11, 60; V, 2; VI, 6, 8,11,13,19; VIII, 7, 15; X, 21-22; XI, 27-28,32, 35; XIII, 48; XIV, 13, 16, 18; XVI, 18, 33-34; XVII, 5, 8; XVIII, 14, 15; XIX, 48; XX, 18; XXV, 4-5, 7; XXVII, 3.

8 Vasish^a Dharmasastra II, 6; XVIII, 14-15; XIX, 48.

3 Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, p. lvii.

* See e.g. the grant of Dhruvasena I, dated Samvat, i.e. Guptasamvat 207, PI. i, 1. 7; Ind. Ant., vol. iv, p. 105.

Vasish^a XXIV, 6, I conclude that Harita was a Maitra- ya^iya1. The relation of the Vasish^a Dharma-sutra to Gautama and Baudhayana has already been discussed in the introduction to the translation of the former work2. To the remarks on its connexion with Baudhayana it must be added that the third Pra^na of the Baudhayana Dharma-sutra, from which Vasish/Z/a's twenty-second chapter seems to have been borrowed, perhaps does not belong to the original work, but is a later, though presumably a very ancient, addition to the composition of the founder of the Baudhayana school. The reasons for this opinion will be given below. If Baudhayana's third Pra^na is not genuine, but has been added by a later teacher of that school, the interval be- tween Baudhayana and the author of the Vasish^a Dharma- j-astra must be a very considerable one. I have, however, to point out that the inference regarding the priority of Baudhayana to Vasish^a is permissible only on the sup- position that Vasish//£a's twenty-second chapter is not a later addition to the latter work, and that, though it is found in all our MSS., this fact is not sufficient to silence all doubts which might be raised with respect to its genuine- ness; for we shall see presently that other chapters in the section on penances have been tampered with by a later hand. It will, therefore, be advisable not to insist too strongly on the certainty of the conclusion that Vasish#za knew and used Baudhayana's work.

In the introduction to his translation of the Vish/zusmrzti3, Professor Jolly has pointed out two passages of Vasish^a which, as he thinks, have been borrowed from Vish/zu, and prove the posteriority of the Vasish^/za Dharmai-astra, if not to the Vish?zusmrzti, at least to its original, the Kanaka Dharma-sutra. He contends that the passage Vasishz/za XXVIII, 10-15 is a versification of the Sutras of Vish/zu LVI, which, besides being clumsy, shows a number of

1 He says: TTOT ^ ^tcIh: I r^TTfRTO: gWTO [°*lft ^JeTTO?] ^1%^^

2 Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, pp. liii-lv.

3 Sacred Books of the East, vol. vii, p. xviii.

corruptions and grammatical mistakes, and that Vasish///a XXVIII, 18-33 has been borrowed from Vishmi LXXXVII. Professor Jolly's assertion regarding the second passage in- volves, however, a little mistake. For the first two 51okas, Vasish///a XXVIII, 18-19, describe not the gift of the skin of a black antelope, which is mentioned in the first six Sutras of Vishnu LXXXVII, but the rite of feeding Brahmans with honey and sesamum grains, which occurs Vishmi XC, 10. The three verses, Vasish/^a XXVIII, 20-22, on the other hand, really are the same as those given by Vishnu LXXXVII, 8-10. It is, however, expressly stated in the Visb.7iusmrzti that they contain a quotation, and are not the original composition of the author of the Dharma-sutra. Hence no inference can be drawn from the recurrence of the same stanzas in the Vasish//za Dharma-sutra. As regards the other passage, Vasish/^a XXVIII, 10-15, Professor Jolly is quite right in saying that it is a clumsy versification of Vishnu's Sutras, and it is not at all improbable that Vasish^a's verses may have been im- mediately derived from the Kanaka. The further inference as to the priority of the ancient Ka//zaka-sutra to Vasish^a, which Professor Jolly draws from the comparison of the two passages, would also be unimpeachable, if the genuineness of Vasish//za's twenty-eighth chapter were certain. But that is unfortunately not the case. Not only that chapter, but the preceding ones, XXV-XXVII, in fact the whole section on secret penances, are, in my opinion, not only suspicious, but certainly betray the hand of a later restorer and cor- rector. Everybody who carefully reads the Sanskrit text of the Dharma-sutra will be struck by the change of the style and the difference in the language which the four chapters on secret penances show, as compared with the preceding and following sections. Throughout the whole of the first twenty-four chapters and in the last two chapters we find a mixture of prose and verse. With one exception in the sixth chapter, where thirty-one verses form the beginning of the section on the rule of conduct, the author follows always one and the same plan in arranging his materials. His own rules are given first in the form of aphorisms, and after

these follow the authorities for his doctrines, which consist either ofVedic passages or of verses, the latter being partly quotations taken from individual authors or works, partly specimens of the versified maxims current among the Brahmans, and sometimes memorial verses composed by the author himself. But chapters XXV-XXVIII contain not a single Sutra. They are made up entirely of Anush/ubh vSlokas, and the phrases * ' I will now declare,' ' Listen to my words,' which are so characteristic of the style of the later metrical Smrztis and of the Pura;zas, occur more frequently than is absolutely necessary. Again, in the first twenty-four and the last two chapters the language is archaic Sanskrit, interspersed here and there with Vedic anomalous forms. But in the four chapters on secret penances we have the common Sanskrit of the metrical Smr/tis and Pura/zas, with its incorrect forms, adopted in order to fit inconvenient words into the metre. Nor is this all. The contents of a portion of this suspicious section are merely useless repe- titions of matters dealt with already in the preceding chapters, while some verses contain fragmentary rules on a subject which is treated more fully further on. Thus the description of the Krzkk/ira. and TTandraya/za penances, which has been given XXI, 20 and XXIV, 45, is repeated XXVII, 16, 21. Further, the enumeration of the purificatory texts XXVIII, 10-15 is merely an enlargement of XXII, 9. Finally, the verses XXVIII, 16-22 contain detached rules on gifts, and in the next chapter, XXIX, the subject is begun once more and treated at considerable length. Though it would be unwise to assume that all genuine productions of the old Sutrakaras must, throughout, show regularity and consistency, the differences between the four chapters and the remainder of the work, just pointed out, are, it seems to me, sufficient to warrant the conclusion that they do not belong to the author of the Institutes. Under these circumstances it might be assumed that the whole section is simply an interpolation. But that would be going too far. For, as other Dharma-sutras show, one or even several chapters on secret penances belonged to such works.

1 See XXV, 1; XXVII, 10 j XXVIII, io, 20.

Moreover, in the section on women, Vasish/^a V, 3-4, the author makes a cross-reference to the rahasyas, the section on secret penances, and quotes by anticipation half a 51oka which is actually found in chapter XXVIII. The inference to be drawn from these facts is, that the section on secret penances is not simply a later addition intended to supply an omission of the first writer, but that, for some reason or other, it has been remodelled. The answer to the question why this was done is suggested, it seems to me, partly by the state of the MSS. of the Vasish//za Dharma^astra, and partly by the facts connected with the treatment of ancient works by the "Pandits, which my examination of the libraries of Northern India has brought to light1. MSS. of the Vasish/^a Dharma^astra are very rare, and among those found only three are complete. Some stop with chapter X, others with chapter XXI, and a few in the middle of the thirtieth Adhyaya. Moreover, most of them are very cor- rupt, and even the best exhibit some Sutras which are hopeless. These circumstances show clearly that after the extinction of the Vedic school, with which the work origi- nated, the Sutra was for some time neglected, and existed in a few copies only, perhaps even in a single MS. The materials on which the ancient Hindus wrote, the birch bark and the palm leaves, are so frail that especially the first and last leaves of a Pothi are easily lost or badly damaged. Instances of this kind are common enough in the £aina and Ka^-mir libraries, where the beginning and still more fre- quently the end of many works have been irretrievably lost. The fate of the Vasish/^a Dharma^astra, it would seem, has been similar. The facts related above make it probable that the MS. or MSS. which came into the hands of the Pa^its of the special law schools, who revived the study of the work, was defective. Pieces of the last leaves which remained, probably showed the extent of the damage done, and the Pandits set to work at the restoration of the lost portions, just as the Ka^mirian Sahebram Pa/^it restored the Nilamata-pura/za for Maharaja Ra^avira^iwha. They,

1 See Report on a Tour in Kasmir, Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. xii, p. 33.

of course, used the verses which they still found on the fragments, and cleverly supplied the remainder from their knowledge of Manu and other Sm/'ztis, of the Mahabharata and the Pura/zas. This theory, I think, explains all the difficulties which the present state of the section on secret penances raises. Perhaps it may be used also to account for some incongruities observable in chapter XXX. The last two verses, XXX, 9-10, are common-places which are frequently quoted in the Mahabharata, the Harivaz^a, the Pa/?£atantra, and modern anthologies. With their baldness of expression and sentiment they present a strong contrast to the pre- ceding solemn passages from the Veda, and look very much like an unlucky attempt at filling up a break at the end of the MS. In connexion with this subject it ought, however, to be mentioned that this restoration of the last part of the Vasish/f/za Dharma^astra must have happened in early times, at least more than a thousand years ago. For the oldest commentators and compilers of digests on law, such as Vigvaancrvara \ who lived at the end of the eleventh century A. D., quote passages from the section on secret penances as the genuine utterances of VasishzV/a. These details will suffice to show why I differ from Professor Jolly with respect to his conclusion from the agreement of the verses of Vasish^a XXVIII, 10-15 with the Sutras of Vish/zu LVL With the exception of the quotations, the Vasish/^a Dharma.yastra contains no data which could be used either to define its relative position in Sanskrit literature or to connect it with the historical period of India. The occur- rence of the word Romaka, XVIII, 4, in some MSS., as the name of a degraded caste of mixed origin, proves nothing, as other MSS. read Ramaka, and tribes called Rama and Rama/^a are mentioned in the Pura/zas. It would be wrong to assert on such evidence that the Sutra belonged to the time when the Romans, or rather the Byzantines (Romaioi), had political relations with India. Nor will it be advisable to adduce the fact that VasishMa

1 Thus Vasish^a XXVIII, 7 is quoted in the Mitakshara on Yag-iiavalkya III, 298; XXVIII, 10-15 on Ya^/lavalkya III, 309; and XXVIII, 18-19, 22 on Yagvlavalkya III, 310,

XVI, io, 14, 15 mentions written documents as a means of legal proof, in order to establish the * comparatively late ' date of the Sutra. For though the other Dharma-sutras do not give any hint that the art of writing was known or in common use in their times, still the state of society which they describe is so advanced that people could not have got on without writing, and the proofs for the antiquity of the Indian alphabets are now much stronger than they were even a short time ago. The silence of Apastamba and the other Sutrakaras regarding written documents is probably due to their strict adherence to a general principle under- lying the composition of the Dharma-sutras. Those points only fall primarily within the scope of the Dharma-sutras which have some immediate, close connexion with the Dharma, the acquisition of spiritual merit. Hence it suf- ficed for them to give some general maxims for the fulfil- ment of the gu^adharma of kings, the impartial adminis- tration of justice, and to give fuller rules regarding the half-religious ceremony of the swearing in and the examin- ation of witnesses. Judicial technicalities, like the deter- mination of the legal value of written documents, had less importance in their eyes, and were left either to the dei-aHra, the custom of the country, or to the Niti and Artha-^astras, the Institutes of Polity and of the Arts of common life. It would, also, be easy to rebut attempts at assigning the Vasish^a Dharma-sutra to what is usually ' a comparatively late period ' by other pieces of so-called internal evidence tending to show that it is an ancient work. Some of the doctrines of the Sutra undoubtedly belong to an ancient order of ideas. This is particularly observable in the rules regarding the subsidiary sons, which place the offspring even of illicit unions in the class of heirs and members of the family, while adopted sons are relegated to the division of members of the family excluded from inheritance. The same remark applies to the exclusion of all females, with the exception of putrikas or appointed daughters, from the succession to the property of males, to the permission to re-marry infant widows, and to the law of the Niyoga or the appointment of adult

widows, which Vasish///a allows without hesitation, and even extends to the wives of emigrants. But as most of these opinions occur also in some of the decidedly later metrical Smrz'tis, and disputes on these subjects seem to have existed among the various Brahmanical schools down to a late period, it would be hazardous to use them as arguments for the antiquity of the Sutra.

The following points bear on the question where the original home of the Vedic school, which produced the Dharma-sutra, was situated. First, the author declares India north of the Vindhyas, and especially those portions now included in the North-western Provinces, to be the country where holy men and pure customs are to be found, I, 8-16. Secondly, he shows a predilection for those redac- tions of the Veda and those Sutras which belong to the northern half of India, viz. for the Kanaka, the Va^asaneyi- •s-akha, and the Sutras of Manu and Harita. Faint as these indications are, I think, they permit us to conclude that the Sutra belongs to a Ka.ra.nd. settled in the north.

As regards the materials on which the subjoined translation is based, I have chiefly relied on the Benares edition of the text, with the commentary of Krzshzza- pa.ndita, Dharmadhikari, and on a rough edition with the varietas lectionum from the two MSS. of the Bombay Government Collection of 1 874-75 \ B. no. 29 and Bh. no. 30, a MS. of the Elphinstone College Collection of 1867-68, E. no. 23 of Class VI, and an imperfect apograph F. in my own collection, which was made in 1864 at Bombay. The rough edition was prepared under my superintendence by VamanaHrya £//alkikar, now teacher of Sanskrit in the Dekhan College, Pima. When I wrote the translation, the Bombay Government MSS. were not accessible to me. I could only use my own MS. and, thanks to the kindness of Dr. Rost, Colebrooke's MS., I. O. no. 913, from which the now worthless Calcutta editions have been derived either immediately or mediately. These materials belong to two groups. The Bombay MS. B., which comes from Benares, closely agrees with Krzsh/zapaWita's text; and E., though

1 See Report on Sanskrit MSS. 1874-75, p. 11.

purchased at Pu//a, does not differ much from the two. Bh., which comes from Bhuj in Kafck, and my own MS. F. form a second group, towards which Colebrooke's MS., I. O. no. 913, also leans. Ultimately both groups are derived from one codex archetypus.

The first group of MSS. gives a fuller and in general a correcter text than the second. But it seems to me that the text of B., and still more Kr/sh/zapa^ita's, has in many places been conjecturally restored, and that the real diffi- culties have been rather veiled than solved. I have, there- fore, frequently preferred the readings offered by the second group, or based on them my conjectural emendations, which have all been given in the notes. To give a translation without having recourse to conjectural emendations was im- possible, as a European philologist is unable to avail himself of those wonderful tricks of interpretation which permit an Indian Pa;^it to extract some kind of meaning from the most desperate passages. In a few cases, where even the best MSS. contain nothing but a conglomerate of meaning- less syllables or unconnected words, I have thought it advisable to refrain from all attempts at a restoration of the text, and at a translation. A critical edition of the Vasish^a Dharma^astra is very desirable, and I trust that Dr. A. Fiihrer, of St. Xavier's College, Bombay, will soon supply this want. Krz'sh?zapa?z^ita's commentary, for which he had not the aid of older vrittis, shows considerable learning, and has been of great value to me. I have followed him mostly in the division of the Sutras, and have frequently given his opinions in the notes, both in cases where I agree with him and in those where I differ from him, but think his opinion worthy of consideration.

In conclusion, I have to thank Professors R. von Roth, Weber, and Jolly, as well as Dr. L. von Schroder, for the verification of a number of Vedic quotations, which they kindly undertook for me, as I was unable to use my own books of reference during the translation of the work.

THE case of the Baudhayana Dharma-sutra is in many- respects analogous to that of the Institutes of the Sacred Law, current in the schools of Apastamba and Hira^ya- ke^-in. Like the latter, it is the work of a teacher of the Black Ya^ur-veda, who composed manuals on all the various subdivisions of the Kalpa, and founded a Sutra-^ara^a, which is said to exist to the present day1. The Brahma- nical tradition, too, acknowledges these facts, and, instead of surrounding Baudhayana's work with a halo of myths, simply states that it was originally studied by and autho- ritative for the followers of the Taittiriya-veda alone, and later only became one of the sources of the Sacred Law for all Brahmans2. Moreover, the position of Baudhayana among the teachers of the Ya^ur-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 Sutras of Apastamba and Hira/zyakcrin 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 Baudhayana'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 Apastamba and Hira^yakej-in seem to have been kept free from extensive interpolations, several parts of

1 I must here state that during my residence in India I have never met with a follower of Baudhayana's school, and cannot personally vouch for its existence. But many Pawofits have assured me that many Baudhayanlyas are to be found among the Telingana and Kar«a7aka Brahmans.

2 See Govinda's statement, quoted above, p. xiii.

Baudhayana's Sutras have clearly received considerable additions from later hands.

According to the researches of Dr. A. Burnell1, whose long residence in Southern India and intimate acquaint- ance with its Brahmanical libraries have made him the first authority on the literature of the schools of the Tait- tiriya-veda, the Sutras of Baudhayana consist of six sections, viz. I. the Srauta-sutras, probably in nineteen Pra^nas; %. The Karmanta-sutra in twenty Adhyayas; 3. The Dvaidha-sutra in four Pra.mas; 4. The Grzhya-sutra in four Pra^nas; 5. The Dharma-sutra in four Praj-nas; 6. The 5ulva-sutra in three Adhyayas. 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 Grzhya-sutra, which in Western India occasionally bears the title Smarta-sutra2, contains, however, nine instead of four Pra^nas. The MSS. of the Baudhayana-sutras, which contain the text alone, are all incomplete, mostly very corrupt and in bad order, and rarely give more than a small number of Pra^nas on detached subjects. The copies in which the text is accom- panied by a commentary are in a better condition. Thus the Kalpavivara^a of Bhavasvamin 3 extends over the whole of the vSrauta-sutra, and over the Karmanta and the Dvaidha- sutras. It shows the proper sequence of the Pra^nas on Srauta sacrifices, and that probably the Karmanta and the Dvaidha immediately followed the 5rauta-sutra. But there is no hint in the MSS. or in the commentaries how the Grz'hya, Dharma, and vSulva-sutras were originally placed. With respect to these sections, it is only possible to judge from the analogy of the other extant sets of Kalpa-sutras

1 See Burnell, Catalogue of a Collection of Sanskrit MS., pp. 24-26, 28, 34- 35, andTanjore Catalogue, pp. i8a-2ob, and especially his remarks at pp. 18b and 20 a.

2 This title is found in the best copy known to me, Elphinstone College Col- lection 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, e. g. 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.

3 Burnell, Catalogue of a Collection of Sanskrit MSS., no. LXXXVIII, and Tanjore Catalogue, no. CXVII.

and 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 Grzhya-sutra1 shows by its wording that it was not a separate treatise, but was immediately connected with some preceding Pra.ma. The analogy of the collections of the Apastambiyas, the Haira^yakeras, the Ka^as, and other schools permits us to infer that it stood after the 5rauta-sutra. It is further clear that, in its turn, it was succeeded by the Dharma- sutra. For two passages of the latter work, I, 2, 3, 15, and II, 8, 15, 9, clearly contain references to the Grzhya- sutra. 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-sutra contains nothing more on this subject, it follows that the expression ' above ' must refer to Grihya- sutra II, 7, where the usual detailed rules regarding the employment of particular woods for the several var/zas are given. In the second passage Baudhayana says that the rules for the performance of funeral sacrifices have been fully explained in the section on the Ash/akahoma, which occurs Grz'hya-sutra II, 17-18. It is, therefore, perfectly certain that Baudhayana, just like Apastamba, placed the Pra^nas on the Sacred Law after those on the domestic ceremonies, and that the Dharma-sutra was not a separate work. Under these circumstances it becomes highly pro- bable that the vSulva-sutra formed, as is the case in other sets of Kalpa-sutras, the conclusion of the whole. Thus the only treatise, whose position remains doubtful, is the Pravarakha^a, the list of the Brahmanical gotras and of their deified ancestors2. Possibly it may have stood at the end of the Srauta-sutra.

1 According to the Elph. Coll. MS., CI. I, B. 5, and my copy, it runs thus:

TOT XlT^^feT j^TT mil HT ^g^TWT^rT??: II *ll

2 Burnell, Catalogue of a Collection of Sanskrit MSS., no. CXVIII.

The destruction of the continuity of Baudhayana's Kalpa- sutra has had the consequence which is commonly ob- servable 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 Grzhya- sutra, really belongs to Baudhayana. For the description of the Grzhya rites, which strictly follows the general plan laid down in the first Sutra, is completed in two or three Pra-mas1. Next follows a Pra^na on the anukrztis, rites resembling those comprised in the subdivisions treated before, and then a Pra^na on praya^ittas, or expiations of mistakes committed during, and of the neglect of, the performance of the Grzhya-karmam. The remaining Pra- snas are filled with a medley of paribhashas, 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 Brahmanical worship, but to the Pauranic religions, the service of Siva,, Skanda, Naraya/za, and other deities, and some show an admixture of Tantric elements. In some of the later Prajnas, especially IV and V, the language closely resembles that of the first three, and shows the same stereo- typed phrases and the same Vedic anomalous forms. But in other sections, particularly VI-IX, we find, instead of Sutras, the common Anush/ubh 51oka throughout, and ex- pressions peculiar to the metrical Smrttis and the Pura/zas. At the end of most Adhyayas we read the phrase, ity aha Baudhayana^, or bhagavan Baudhayana^, f thus speaks Bau- dhayana, or the divine Baudhayana.' Finally, while the first three Prajnas are divided into Ka^ikas or Khandas, the fol- lowing ones consist of Adhyayas or chapters. These differ- ences, as well as the fact that the most important Grzhya rites, arranged according to a special plan, are done with in the

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 KhanJas is, however, the same.

first three Pra.mas, necessarily lead to the conclusion that the whole remainder does not belong to Baudhayana, but consists of so-called ParLsish/as, which were composed by the adherents of his school. Further, the fact that the last six Prai-nas do not show everywhere the same style and language, makes it probable that the additions were made at different times and by different persons.

The Dharma-sutra seems to have undergone exactly the same fate as the Grzhya-sutra. It will be obvious even to the readers of the translation that its fourth Prajna is a later addition. It consists of two parts. The first, which ends with the fourth Adhyaya, treats of penances, both public and secret ones. The second, Adhyayas 5-8, describes the means of obtaining siddhi, the fulfilment of one's desires, and recommends for this purpose the offering of the Ga/zahomas after a previous sanctification of the wor- shipper 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 Pra.ma, and again in chapters 4-10 of the third Pra^na. Its rules sometimes contradict those given before, and in other cases, e.g. IV, 2, 10-12, are mere repetitions of pre- vious statements. The introduction of the means of gain- ing siddhi, on the other hand, is without a parallel in other Dharma-sutras, 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-sutra. For the description of the preparatory ' restraints ' or austerities contains somewhat more detailed rules for a number of penances, e.g. the Krikkkras and the isfandraya/za, which have already been described in the preceding Pra^nas. Moreover, the style and the language of the whole fourth Pra.ma 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 Pra^nas of the GWhya-sutra. The epic 61oka nearly throughout replaces the aphoristic prose, and the common slipshod Sanskrit of the Pura/zas appears instead of the archaic forms. Finally, the fourth Pra.ma is divided into [14] c

Adhyayas, not into the Ka^afikas or Kha^as and Adhyayas which are found in the first two Prajnas.

This latter peculiarity is also observable in the third Pra^na, and raises a suspicion against the genuineness of that part also. For, though the third Pra^na 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 circum- stances. First, Pra^nas 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 Adhyayas of Praj-na III seem to have been borrowed from other works, or to be abstracts from them. Thus the tenth chapter has cer- tainly been taken from the Gautamiya Dharma^astra, the sixth bears a very close and suspicious resemblance to Vishnu XLVIII1, and the third looks very much like a short summary of the doctrine of Vikhanas, whose lost Sutra contained the original rule of the order of the Vaikhanasas or hermits, living in the forest. These cir- cumstances justify, it seems to me, the assumption that Baudhayana's original Dharma-sutra consisted, like Apa- stamba's, of two Pra^nas only, and that it received, through followers of his school, two separate additions, first in very ancient times Pra^na III, where the style of the master is strictly followed, and later Pra^na IV, where the language and phraseology of the metrical Smrztis are adopted. It ought to be noted that Govindasvamin, too, does not take the whole of the four Praj-nas for Baudha* yana's composition. With respect to several passages2 where Baudhayana's name is introduced in order to give weight to the rules, he says that the Sutras 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

1 See also Jolly, Sacred Books of the East, vol. vii, p. xix.

persons. 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 Pra^nas are not quite free from interpolations. Thus the Ka/zafikas on the Tarpa/za1 are cer- tainly much enlarged by additions, the verse at I, 5, u, $6, a repetition of I, 5, 9, 5, and some prose quotations which are introduced by the words athapy udaharanti, ' 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-sutra 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 Baudha- yana Dharma-sutra for historical purposes, and that it will be advisable to draw no inferences regarding Baudhayana's relation to other teachers and schools from the last two Prajnas, and not to trust too much to historical inferences drawn from single passages of the first two.

The position which Baudhayana occupies among the teachers of the Taittiriya-veda has already been discussed in the Introduction to Apastamba. It has been shown that according to the Brahmanical tradition preserved by Mahadeva, the commentator of the Hira/zyakcri-sutras, he composed the first Sutra for the followers of his 6akha. Internal and external evidence has also been adduced, proving that he certainly was more ancient than Apa- stamba and Hira/zyakcsin. It is now possible to bring forward some further facts bearing on these points. First, in the section on the Tarpa/za, the libations of water offered to various deities, i^zshis, and the manes, II, 5, 9, 14, Ka/zva Baudhayana receives his share immediately after the i^zshis of the Veda and before Apastamba, the Sutrakara, and

1 Baudhayana Dharma-sutra II, 5, 8-9. C 2

Satyashaa^a Hira?zyake.rin. The same order is observed in the distribution of the offerings at the Sarpabali, described in the Grzhya-sutra1, where the following teachers of the Ya^ur- veda are specially named, viz. VaLyampayana, Phulingu, Tittiri, Ukha, Aukhya, Atreya the author of the Pada-text, Kaundmya. the author of the commentary, Ka/zva Baudha- yana the author of the Prava^ana, Apastamba the author of the Sutra, and Satyashad%a Hira^yake^in. Neither of these two passages belongs to Baudhayana. They are both clearly interpolations. But they show that Mahadeva's statement, which makes Baudhayana the first expounder of the Kalpa among the Taittiriyavedins, agrees with the tradition of the Baudhayaniyas themselves. For not only the place allotted to Baudhayana's name, but still more the title Prava^anakara which he receives, show that the fol- lowers of his school placed him before and above all other teachers of the ritual. The term prava^ana, which literally means ' proclaiming or recitation,' has frequently the technical sense of { oral instruction,' and is applied both to the tradi- tional lore contained in the Brahma^as, and to the more systematic teaching of the Ahgas 2. If, therefore, a teacher is called the author of the Prava^ana of a 6akha, that can only mean that he is something more than a common Sutrakara, and is considered to be the originator of the whole system of instruction among its followers. The epithet Ka^va, which Baudhayana receives in both the passages quoted above, indicates that he belonged to the Vedic Gotra of the Ka/zvas. It deserves to be noted that Govindasvamin, too, on I, 3, 5, 13, explains the name Baudhayana by Ka/zvayana 3.

1 Baudhayana Gn'hya-sutra IV, 8 (fol. 29, B. 5, Elph. Coll. copy, no. 5), ^TSJ

wm Torero ^f^^ni ^f%gircre ^tuft*? -sfHnw** Tre^raro- itw^to *^rcni swTtnsTir f^iw^re (?) ^n^fqwi ^slbftwft

3%OT*I S^^t«K Sfi^TTITJrtffT || See also Weber, Hist. Ind. Lit., p. 91 note; Max Muller, Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., p. 223; Burnell, Catalogue of a Collection of Sanskrit MSS., p. 14, no. LIII.

2 See Max Muller, Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., p. 109.

3 The discovery that Baudhayana bore also the name Ka«va makes it possible

The style of Baudhayana's works furnishes, as Dr. Burnell has pointed out1, another argument for their high antiquity. Compared with the Sutras of Apastamba and Hira/zyakcrin they are much simpler in their arrangement, and the complete absence of that anxiety to save ' half a vowel ' which characterises the fully developed Sutra-style is very remarkable. The last point has been noticed by Govindasvamin also. In commenting on I, 2, 3, 17-18, where Baudhayana first permits students to beg food of men of all castes, and afterwards explains that he means Aryans who follow their lawful occupations, he says2, '(If anybody should ask), "Why give two Sutras, while one Sutra, ('A student shall ask) Aryans 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 Baudhayana first attempted to bring the teaching of the Taittiriyas 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 Sutrakaras 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-sutra, not into the Dharma-sutra. Again, the dis- cussion of several topics is repeatedly interrupted by the introduction of rules belonging to different subjects, and Govindasvamin's ingenuity is often taxed to the utmost in order to find the reason why certain Sutras which appa-

to refer Apastamba's quotation of an opinion of a Ka«va, I, 6, 19, 7, to Baudha- yana, instead of to a teacher of the White Yag-ur-veda, Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, p. xxvi.

rently are unconnected with the main subject have been inserted. A third argument for the great antiquity of Baudhayana's Sutras, derived from the archaic character of some of his doctrines, has been discussed in the Intro- duction to Apastamba1. The number of instances where Baudhayana's rules are based on a more ancient order of ideas than Apastamba's might be increased very con- siderably. But, as now the comparison of the two works is open to all students, I omit the cases contained in the two Dharma-sutras, and content myself with adducing one more from the less accessible Grzhya-sutras. It is a well- known fact that the ancient Vedic ritual in certain cases admitted 5udras, and particularly the Rathakara or car- penter, who, according to all accounts, has Sudra blood in his veins, to a participation in the vSrauta rites. The Taittiriya-brahma^a even gives certain Mantras to be re- cited by the Rathakara at the Agnyadhana sacrifice 2. Now Baudhayana, who, Dh. S. I, 9, 17, 6, derives the origin of the Rathakaras from a VaLsya male and 5udra female, apparently reckons him amongst the twice-born, and explicitly allows him to receive the sacrament of the initiation. He says, Grzhya-sutra II, 5, 8-9, 'Let him initiate a Brahma^a in spring, a Kshatriya in summer, a Vaisya in autumn, a Rathakara in the rainy season; or all of them in spring3/ But Apastamba, who shows great hostility against the mixed castes, and emphatically denies the right of vSudras to be initiated, gives the same rule regarding the seasons for the initiation both in his Grihya. and Dharma-sutras 4. He, however, omits the Rathakara in both cases. There can be no doubt that Apastamba's exclusion of the carpenter, which agrees with the senti- ments prevailing in modern Brahmanical society, is an off- shoot of a later doctrine, and as both he and Baudhayana

1 Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, pp. xviii-xx.

3^^r srrercrgwftfl #** ***** **"? ^ ^T? T^FRfffir lib »

* Grzhya-sutra II, 4, 10, 5; Dharma-sutra 1, 1, 1, 18.

belong to the same vidyavamsa., or spiritual family, this difference may be used as an argument for his posteriority to Baudhayana. In connexion with this rule of Baudhayana's it ought to be mentioned that even in the present day certain subdivisions of the modern Sutars or carpenters actually wear the Brahmanical thread, and, in spite of the adverse teaching of the wSastras, find Brahmans willing to perform the ceremony of investiture for them.

While it thus appears not incredible that Baudhayana really was the first Sutrakara of the Taittiriyas, 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 Taittiriya-veda, the Sa/^hita, the Brahma/za, and the Ara^yaka, naturally take the first place. For the Arawyaka he seems to have used the Andhra version, as Dh. S. II, 10, 1 8, 7, ii references to the seventy-first Anuvaka of the tenth Prapa//£aka occur. Two long pas- sages, Dh. S. I, 2, 4, 3-8; II, 6, 1 1, 1-8, which apparently have been taken from the vSatapatha-brahma;za, testify to his acquaintance with the White Ya^ur-veda. Baudhayana does not say expressly that he quotes from the Brahma/za of the Va^asaneyins, but Govinda has no hesitation in pointing to the vSatapatha as their source. It is remarkable that the fact noticeable in Apastamba's quotation from the 6ata- patha reappears here, ancl that the wording of the two quotations does not fully agree with the printed text of the Brahma^a. The differences in the first passage are, no doubt, partly owing to corruptions and interpolations in Baudhayana's text; but that cannot be said of the second1. References to the Sama-veda and the Samans occur repeatedly, and the passage from the Nidana of Bhallavins regarding the geographical extent of true Brah-

1 Professor Eggeling has lately discussed the question of the discrepancies between Apastamba's quotations from the Brahmana of the Vag-asaneyins 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.

manical learning, which Vasish^a adduces, is given I, i, 2, 11-12. From the Rig-veda a few expiatory hymns and verses, such as the Aghamarsha^a and the Taratsamandis, are quoted. The Atharva-veda is not referred to by name, but the existence of Atharva/^a schools may be inferred from the mention made of the vows called 5iras, II, 8, 14, 2. Among the authorities on the Sacred Law, mentioned in the Dharma-sutra, Katya I, 2, 3, 46, Maudgalya II, 2, 4, 8, and Aupa^-andhani II, 2, 3, ^ do not occur in other works of the same class1. Harita, who is mentioned II, I, 2, 21, and who probably was a teacher of the Maitrayamya school, is named by Vasish^a and Apastamba 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-sutra, II, 6, 11, 15 and 26, point to a close connexion between Baudhayana'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 (a/£arya/z) prescribes one order only, that of the householders. The reason given for this opinion differs, however, according to Baudhayana, from that adduced in Gautama's text. The almost literal identity of the first long passage makes it not improbable that Baudhayana 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 Adhyaya of Pra^na III has been taken from Gautama's Sutra loses its force since, as I have shown above, it is improbable that the third Pra^na formed part of Baudha-

1 Possibly Kasyapa, whose name occurs in a Si oka, I, n, 21, 2, may also be an ancient teacher to whom Baudhayana refers. In the Gnhya-sutra a teacher called Saliki is repeatedly quoted, and once, 1, 11 (end), his opinion is contrasted with that of Baudhayana and of AHrya, i.e. Baudhayana's teacher. The GWhya-sutra refers also to Atreya, Kasakr/tsna, and Badari.

yana's original 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 51okas belonged to the versified maxims of the Dharma current among the learned Brahmans. 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 U^anas and Wzshaparvan seems to have been taken from an epic poem. The verse is actually found in the Mahabharata I, 78, 10, and again 34, where the altercation between Warmish tkk and Devayani forms part of the Yayatyupakhyana. Considering what has been said above regarding the state of the text of the Dharma- sutra, and our imperfect knowledge of the history of the Mahabharata, it would be hazardous to assert that the verse proves Baudhayana's acquaintance with Vyasa's great epic. It will be safer to wait for further proofs that it was known to the Sutrakaras, before one bases far-going specu- lations on this hitherto solitary quotation.

The arguments which maybe brought forward to show that Baudhayana's home lay in Southern India are not as strong as those which permit us to determine the native country of Apastamba. The portions of the Sutras, known to me, contain no direct mention of the south except in the de^a- nir/zaya or disquisition on the countries, Dharma-sutra I, I, a, where certain peculiar customs of the southern Brahmans are enumerated, and some districts of Southern India, e.g. Kalihga, are referred to as barbarous countries which must not be visited by Aryans. These utterances show an acquaintance with the south, but by no means prove that Baudhayana lived there. A more significant fact is that Baudhayana declares, I, 1, 2, 4, 'going to sea' to be a custom prevailing among the northern Brahmans, and after- wards, II, i, 22, places that act at the head of the Pata-

See also West and Buhler, Digest of Hindu Law Cases, p. xxvii, 2nd ed.

niyas, the 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 Baudhayaniyas is that they, like the Apastambiyas and all other adherents of the Taittiriya schools, are entirely confined to the Dekhan, and are not found among the indigenous subdivisions of the Brahmans in Central and Northern India. This fact is, if not explicitly stated, at least implied by the passage of the Mahar/zava quoted in the Introduction to Apastamba1. 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 Baudhayaniyas. Thus we find a grant of Bukkaraya, the well-known ruler of Vi£*ayana- gara2, dated Sakasa^vat 1276 or 1354-5 A.D., in which a Brahma^a, studying the Baudhayaniya-sutra, is mentioned as the donee of a village in Maisur. Again, in an inscrip- tion of Nandivarman Pallavamalla, which its editor, the Rev. Mr. Foulkes, places in the ninth century A.D.3, a con- siderable number of Brahma^as of the Prava^ana-sutra are named as recipients of the royal bounty, together with some followers of the Apastambha4 school. As we have seen that Baudhayana is called in the Grzhya-sutra the Prava&makara, it is not doubtful that the Prava/£ana- sutra of this inscription is the Sutra of his school. The villages which the grantees received from Nandivarman were situated on the Palar river in the ^Tittur districts of the Madras Presidency. Besides, the interesting tradi- tion which asserts that Madhava-Saya/za, the great com- mentator of the Vedas, was a Baudhayaniya5 is another point which may be brought forward as evidence for the location of the school in Southern India. Further,

1 Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, p. xxx; see also L. von Schroder, Maitra- yaatya Samhita, p. xxvii.

2 Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, XII, 349-351.

* As all the older inscriptions hitherto published give Apastambha instead of Apastamba, I am now inclined to consider the former as the original form of the name.

3 Buraell, Tanjore Catalogue, p. 20 b, remarks on no. CCXXVI.

it must not be forgotten that most and the best MSS. of Baudhayana's Sutras are found in Southern India. There are also some faint indications that the Andhra country is the particular district to which Baudhayana 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 Taittiriya Ara^yaka makes it probable that he was an inhabitant of the eastern coast.

My estimate of the distance between Baudhayana and Apastamba and of that between the latter and the historical period of India has been given in the Introduction to Apa- stamba, pp. xxii and xliii, and I have nothing further to add on that subject. The oldest witness for the existence of the wSrauta-sutra of Baudhayana is its commentator Bha- vasvamin, whom Dr. Burnell places in the eighth century A. D. The Dharma-sutra is first quoted by Vi^ane^vara, circiter 1080 -1100 A.D. Several of the passages adduced by him are, however, not traceable in the MSS.

As regards the materials on which the translation is based, I had at my disposal six MSS. of the text and two copies of Govindasvamin's commentary, the Bodhayaniya-dhar- mavivara/za1, 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 Govern- ment of Bombay at Ahmadabad (no. 6 of the Dekhan Col- lege 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 Pu//a; (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

1 It ought to be noted that in the south of India the forms Bodhayana and Bodhayaniya are* invariably used for Baudhayana and Baudhayaniya. But it seems to me that the southerners are in error, as the affix ayana requires vn'ddhi in the first syllable.

the Government of Bombay at Kolhapur in the southern Mara/^a country (Elphinstone College collection of 1 867- 68, Class VI, no. 2). The MSS. of the northern group, which give the vulgata current since the times ofNilaka/z///a (1650 A.D.) and Mitramura (circiter 1700 A.D.) in Western and Central India, can be easily recognised by the omission of the third Adhyaya of Pra^na 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 omis- sion of II, 5, 8, 4-II, 6, 11, 15 in the latter. The southern group of MSS. is formed by M., a slovenly Devanagari tran- script of a Grantha MS., no. xWV °f tne Madras Government collection1, and by the text of C. I., a Devanagari copy of the MS. of Govindasvamin's commentary, presented by Dr. Burnell to the India Office library2. The second copy of the commentary, C. T., a Telugu paper MS. from Tanjore, I owe to the kindness of Dr. Burnell.

As might be expected, on account of the southern origin of the Baudhayaniya school, M. gives on the whole the best form of the text. It also carefully marks the Ka;^ikas3 in the first two Pra^nas, ignoring the Adhyayas altogether, and contains at the end of each Pra^na the first words of each Ka/z^ika, beginning with the last and ending with the first, after the fashion which prevails in the MSS. of the Taittiriya Sawhita, Brahma7^a, and Ara^yaka. Very close to M. comes Govinda's copy, where, however, as in most northern MSS., the Adhyayas alone are marked. It is, however, perfectly cer- tain that in some very difficult passages, which are disfigured by ancient corruptions, he corrected the text conjecturally4. In a certain number of cases the northern MSS. present better and older readings than M. and C. I.5 Under these

1 Taylor, Catalogue Raisonnee (!), I, p. 190. The clerical errors in my tran- script 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.

2 See Burnell, Catalogue of a Collection of MSS., p. 35, no. CXVII.

3 I alone am responsible for the title Ka/zJika, given to the small sections. M. marks only the figures. D. and the better northern MSS. show only breaks at the end of the Karcrfikas and their first words at the end of the Prasnas.

* See e.g. Dharma-sutra I, 2, 3, 35, note.

5 See e.g. Dharma-sutra I, 5, 11, 35; II, 1, 2, 36; II, 2, 3, 3; II, 2, 4, 10; II, 3, 6; 3; 11,7,12,5; 111,9,2.

circumstances it has not been possible to follow the commen- tary 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 Sutras, 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.

Govinda, who, as Dr. Burnell informs me, is said to be a modern writer, seems to have composed his vivara/za with- out the aid of older vrzttis. Though he apparently was well acquainted with the writings belonging to the Taitti- riya-veda, with the ritual and with the common law-books, he has not succeeded in explaining all the really difficult pas- sages. Sometimes he is clearly mistaken, and frequently he passes by in silence words or whole Sutras, the sense or the general bearing of which is by no means certain. Though it would be ungrateful on my part to underrate the import- ance of his work for my translation, I cannot place him in the same rank with Haradatta, the commentator of Apa- stamba and Gautama, and can only regret that no older commentary based on the living tradition of the Baudha- yaniyas 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 expe- rienced the feeling of insecurity which comes over the decipherer of a difficult inscription when the facsimiles are bad. The short Adhyaya on adoption, given in the appendix to the Dharma-sutra, has been taken from the Smarta or Gnhya-sutra. It does not belong to Baudhayana, but is frequently quoted by the writers on civil law, who wrote in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries of our era*

i. Now, therefore, the desire to know the sacred law for their welfare (should arise) in (initiated) men.

2. He who knows and follows the (sacred law is called) a righteous man.

3. He becomes most worthy of praise in this world and after death gains heaven.

4. The sacred law has been settled by the re- vealed texts and by the tradition (of the sages).

5. On failure of (rules given in) these (two sources) the practice of the ^ish/as (has) authority.

6. But he whose heart is free from desire (is called) a.5ish/a.

7. (Acts sanctioned by) the sacred law (are those) for which no (worldly) cause is perceptible.

I. 1. The word 'now' serves, in this as in analogous cases, various purposes. It marks the beginning of the book, serves as an auspicious invocation (mahgala), and indicates that something else, the initiation, must precede the study of the sacred law. ' Therefore ' means ' because, after initiation, the neophyte is to be taught the prescribed rules regarding personal purification.' — KWsh»apa«dlta. For the wording of the Sutra compare the be- ginning of Gaimini's Mima^zsa-sutras.

7. The Sutra contains a limitation of Sutra 5. It indicates that the customs of the -Slsh/as, for which worldly motives are per- ceptible, have no authority, and are not to be followed. The principle enunciated is one inculcated by the Mimawsakas (P. M. S. [14] B

8. The country of the Aryas (Aryavarta) lies to the east of the region where (the river Sarasvati) disappears, to the west of the Black-forest, to the north of the Paripatra (mountains), to the south of the Himalaya.

9. (According to others it lies to the south of the Himalaya) and to the north of the Vindhya range (being limited east and west by the two oceans).

10. Acts productive of spiritual merit, and customs which (are approved of) in that country, must be everywhere acknowledged (as authoritative);

t 1. But not different ones, (i.e. those) of (countries where) laws opposed (to those of Aryavarta prevail).

Ij 3> 3-4)- See also Apastamba I, 1, 4, 5-10; I, 4, 12, 8; and Introduction, p. xxvii. Krzshrcapa^ita has misunderstood the Sutra. He reads, against the MSS., agr/hyamawakarawo 'dharma^, « unlawful acts are those for which no motive, i.e. no sacred source such as the Vedas, is perceptible/

8. The region where the river Sarasvati disappears is the Pat- tiala district in the Pawg-ab. The Paripatra mountains belong to the great Vindhya range, and are probably the hills in Malva. The position of the Kalakavana or Black-forest is not accurately known. But it must probably be sought in Bihar. All the MSS. as well as Knsh#apa«tfTita read in this Sutra pragadar^anat instead of pra- gadarjanat, 'to the east of the region where the river Sarasvati disappears.' This circumstance gains some importance by the fact that the Mahabhashya on Pamni II, 4, 10, quotes the same defini- tion of the Aryavarta, giving, however, instead of adan-anat pra- gadar^at, 'to the east of Adan-a, i.e. the Adarca mountains.' It seems to me not improbable that our Sutra, too, had originally pragadarrat, and that some Pandit who knew nothing about the Adarsa hills, but remembered Manu II, 21, and Baudhayana I, 1, 25, where the word vinajanat, ' the disappearance of the Sarasvati,' undoubtedly occurs, added the syllable na and forgot to correct the &, after prag.

9. The translation follows Krzshwapa«^ita's commentary, which recommends itself on account of the analogous definition of Arya- varta given by Manu II, 22.

11. My translation follows the text given by Knshwapawdlta and

12. Some (declare the country of the Aryas to be situated) between the (rivers) Ganga and Yamuna.

13. Others (state as) an alternative, that spiritual pre-eminence (is found) as far as the black antelope grazes.

14. Now the Bhallavins quote also (the following) verse in the Nidana:

15. 'In the west the boundary-river, in the east

B., and the explanation of the former, because it seems to me that the general sense which they give, is the correct one. I feel, however, not certain that the word pratilomakadharmawam, ' of those countries where opposite laws prevail,' is more than a care- less correction. The majority of the MSS. read pratilomakaksha- dharmawa^ (kalpadharma^a^), which by itself is difficult of expla- nation. But, as the text of the next Sutra contains an apparently superfluous phrase, I fear, we shall have to admit that the text is here disfigured by corruptions, which with our present MSS. it is impossible to remove with certainty.

12. K/7sh»apa«^ita reads this Sutra ' etad aryavartam itya-^a- kshate garigayamunayor antaretyeke/ and takes it as one sentence, the subject of which is { eke.' I feel no doubt that this explanation is utterly untenable, and that the first four words have nothing to do with this Sutra, the second part of which occurs also in the Bau- dhayana Dharma-sutra I, 1, 27. My opinion is that they originally belonged to Sutra 11, though the state of the MSS. at my disposal does not allow me to say how Sutra 1 1 has to be corrected. The general sense of Sutra 1 2 is, however, perfectly certain.

13. Manu II, 23; Yagwavalkya I, 2. It deserves to be noted that the black antelope (black-buck), Oryx cervicapra, selects for its home the well-cultivated, rich plains of India only, and is entirely wanting in the sandy, mountainous or forest districts, which are now, just as in ancient times, the portion of the aboriginal tribes.

14. Regarding the Bhallavins, see Max Miiller, History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, pp. 193, 364. Krzshwapaw/ita thinks that Nidana means de^anirwaya, ' the disquisition on the countries,' which is the title of a section which occurs in most modern com- pilations on law. But it will be safer to take it as the name of a Vedic work, identical with or similar to that quoted in -Saunaka's Brz"haddevata, Weber, Hist. Ind. Lit., p. 81.

15. Sindhur vidhara«i or vidharam, as B. reads, cannot be

the region where the sun rises, — as far as the black antelope wanders (between these two limits), so far spiritual pre-eminence (is found).'

1 6. ' Those religious acts which men, deeply versed in the knowledge of the three Vedas and acquainted with the sacred law, declare to be lawful, (are efficient) for purifying oneself and others.'

1 7. Manu has declared that the (peculiar) laws of countries, castes, and families (may be followed) in the absence of (rules of) the revealed texts.

18. Sinful men are, he who sleeps at sunrise or at sunset, he who has deformed nails or black teeth, he whose younger brother was married first, he who married before his elder brother, the husband of a younger sister married before the elder, the husband of an elder sister whose younger sister was married first, he who extinguishes the sacred fires, (and) he who forgets the Veda through neglect of the daily recitation.

taken with Krzshwapa^ita, as 'the ocean,' because in the latter sense sindhu is a masculine. It must be a boundary-river, pro- bably the Sarasvati. By suryasyodana, 'the region where the sun rises,' the udayagiri or 'mountain of the east' may possibly be meant.

1 6. This verse, too, is marked as a quotation by the concluding word iti, though it is not necessary that it should be taken as a quotation from the Nidana. Here, and in the sequel verses ending in iti are marked as quotations by hyphens.

17. Manu VII, 203; VIII, 41; Gautama XI, 20. £ati, ' castes,' which sometimes, and perhaps as appropriately, has been translated by ' tribes,' denotes in my opinion those numerous subdivisions of the four great vanzas, which we now find all over India, and which can be shown to have existed for a very long time. Usually the word ' caste ' is also applied to them.

18. Kn'shwapa^ita explains viraha, 'he who extinguishes the sacred fires,' by ' the destroyer of his sons or of his spiritual clients '

19. They state that there are five mortal sins (mahapataka),

20. (Viz. violating) a Guru's bed, drinking (the spirituous liquor called) sura, slaying a learned Brahma/za, stealing the gold of a Brahma^a, and associating with outcasts,

21. Either by (entering into) spiritual or matri- monial (connexion with them).

2 2. Now they quote also (the following verse): ' He who during a year associates with an outcast becomes (likewise) an outcast; not by sacrificing for him, by teaching him or by (forming) a matrimonial (alliance with him), but by using the same carriage or seat.'

23. A minor offence causing loss of caste (upa- pataka, is committed by him) who (after beginning an Agnihotra sacrifice) forsakes the sacred fires, and by him who offends a Guru, by an atheist, by him who takes his livelihood from atheists, and by him who sells the Soma (plant).

24. Three wives (are permitted) to a Brahma^a according to the order of the castes, two to a Kshatriya, one to a VaLsya and to a 6udra.

(ya^amana); but the rules given below, XX, 1 1, and XXI, 27, in the section on penances, confirm the explanation given above.

20. Vishmi XXXV, 1-2. Guru means here the father, see below, XX, 15.

21. Vishmi XXXV, 3-5. Spiritual connexion, i.e. becoming the teacher or priest of an outcast, or his pupil or spiritual client (ya^amana).

22. Identical with Manu XI, 181. It must be understood that spiritual or matrimonial connexion with an outcast causes immediate degradation, as Vishmi states expressly.

23. Vishmi XXXVII, 6, 31; Gautama XXI, n. Regarding the precise meaning of prati^ahnuyat, 'offends,' see below, XXI, 27.

24-25. Manu 111,13; Ya^navalkya I, 57; Paraskara Gn'hya- sutra I, 4, 8-1 1.

25. Some declare (that twice-born men may marry) even a female of the 6udra caste, like those (other wives), without (the recitation of) Vedic texts.

2 7. For in consequence of such (a marriage) the degradation of the family certainly ensues, and after death the loss of heaven.

29. (Viz.) that of Brahman (brahma), that of the gods (daiva), that of the iv'z'shis (arsha), that of the Gandharvas (gandharva), that of the Kshatriyas (kshatra), and that of men (manusha).

30. If the father, pouring out a libation of water, gives his (daughter) to a suitor, that (is called) the Brahma-rite.

31. If (the father) gives his daughter, decking her with ornaments, to an officiating priest, whilst a sacri- fice is being performed, that is called the Daiva-rite.

32. And (if the father gives his daughter) for a cow and a bull, (that is called) the Arsha-rite.

^^. If a lover takes a loving female of equal caste, that (is called) the Gandharva-rite.

34. If they forcibly abduct (a damsel), destroying (her relatives) by strength (of arms), that (is called) the Kshatra-rite.

35. If, after making a bargain (with the father, a

26-27. ManuIII, 14-19. 28. Apastamba 11,5, 11, 17-20.

30. Vishmi XXIV, 19; Awalayana Grz'hya-sutra I, 6, 1.

31. Vishmi XXIV, 20; A^valayana Grz'hya-sutra I, 6, 2.

32. Vishmi XXIV, 21; A?valayana Grz'hya-sutra I, 6, 3.

33. Vishmi XXIV, 23; Awalayana Grz'hya-sutra I, 6, 5.

34. Vishmi XXIV, 25; Arvalayana Grz'hya-sutra I, 6, 8.

35. Vishmi XXIV, 24; Arvalayana Grz'hya-sutra I, 6, 6.

suitor) marries (a damsel) purchased for money, that (is called) the Manusha-rite.

36. The purchase (of a wife) is mentioned in the following passage of the Veda, ' Therefore one hundred (cows) besides a chariot should be given to the father of the bride.'

37 '. (It is stated) in (the following passage of) the A'aturmasyas, 'She (forsooth) who has been bought by her husband (commits sin, as) afterwards she unites herself with strangers.'

38. Now they quote also (the following verse): 1 Lost learning comes back; when the family is lost all is lost. Even a horse becomes estimable on account of its pedigree; therefore men marry wives descended from an (unblemished) family.

39. The three (lower) castes shall live according to the teaching of the Brahma/za.

36. -Sahkhayana Grz'hya-sutra I, 14; Paraskara Grz'hya-sutra I, 8, 18 * Apastamba II, 6, 13, 12. Though Vasish/^a's quotation is less complete than Apastamba's, still the following Sutras show that he knew the conclusion of the passage, and does not take it as an authority for the sale of a daughter.

37. KrVsh»apa#</ita makes a mistake by connecting the word ' /fcaturmasyeshu ' with the next Sutra. He is right in saying that 1 the A^aturmasyas ' is the name of a book. It is, however, not a separate work, but the kam/a or section of a Vedic work treating of the A^aturmasya sacrifices (see Max Miiller, Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., p. 355). The particular work from which our quotation has been taken, is either the Maitrayamya Sa/zzhita, or the Kanaka. For, as Dr. von Schroeder informs me, Maitrayamya Sa#zhita I, 10, 11 reads 'anrz'taw va esha karoti ya patyu^z krita satyathanyau £arati,' and the title of the kanda. is ATaturmasyani. Professor Weber, Ind. Stud. V, 407, has found the same words in the A'atur- masya section of the Ka//zaka XXXVI, 5. In the translation I have added the beginning of the passage which Vasish/^a omits, accord- ing to the Maitrayamya Sa#zhita\

40. The Brahma^a shall declare their duties,

41. And the king shall govern them accordingly.

42. But a king who rules in accordance with the sacred law, may take the sixth part of the wealth (of his subjects),

44. It has been declared in the Veda, ' But he obtains the sixth part of (the merit which Brahma/zas gain by) sacrifices and charitable works.'

45. (It is further stated in the Veda), * The Brah- ma^a makes the Veda rich; the Brahma^a saves from misfortune; therefore the Brahma^a shall not be made a source of subsistence. Soma is his king.'

46. Further (another passage says), 'After death bliss (awaits the king who does not oppress Brah- ma/zas).'

42. Vishmi III, 22-25. Though the ambiguous word dhana, ' wealth/ is used in the text, it seems not doubtful that VasishMa alludes to the land-tax, which generally consists of one sixth of the produce.

44. Vishmi III, 27-28. Piirta, 'the merit gained by charitable works,' i. e. by planting trees, digging wells, and so forth. The words ' iti ha,' placed at the end of the Sutra, indicate that it is a quotation, and that vi^ayate, ' it is declared in the Veda,' has to be understood from Sutra 46. Gautama XI, 11, too, alleges that the rule is based on a Vedic passage.

45. -Satapatha-brahmawa V, 4, 2, 3. K/Yshwaparc^ita's division of the quotation into several Sutras is unnecessary. His explana- tion of an&dya, which he takes to mean ' the first of all,' is wrong. He asserts that the Brahmawa is said 'to make the Veda rich/ because by sacrificing and so forth he fulfils its object and protects it. But the phrase is probably corrupt. If it is said that Soma is the king of the Brahmawas, the object is to indicate that an earthly king is not their master, see Gautama XI, 1.

i. There are four castes (vama), Brahma/zas, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, and 6udras.

2. Three castes, Brahma^as, Kshatriyas, and Vaisyas, (are called) twice-born.

3. Their first birth is from their mother; the second from the investiture with the sacred girdle. In that (second birth) the Savitrl is the mother, but the teacher is said to be the father.

4. They call the teacher father, because he gives instruction in the Veda.

5. They quote also (the following passage from the Veda) to the same (effect): ' Of two kinds, forsooth, is the virile energy of a man learned in the Vedas, that which (resides) above the navel and the other which below (the navel) descends down- wards. Through that which (resides) above the navel, his offspring is produced, when he initiates Brahma/zas, when he teaches them, when he causes them to offer oblations, when he makes them holy. By that which resides below the navel the children of his body are produced. Therefore they never say to a 6rotriya, who teaches the Veda, "Thou art destitute of offspring." '

3. Identical with Manu II, 169a, 170*, and Vishmi XXVIII, 37- 38. The Savitri or the verse addressed to Savitrz' is found Rig-veda III, 62, 10.

5. The reading tathapyudaharanti, which several of my MSS. give, seems to me preferable to Krzsh/zapaTz^ita's udaharati. Krzsrmapa«iita explains sadhu karoti, 'makes them holy/ by adhyatmam upadbati, 'teaches them transcendental knowledge.'

6. Harita also quotes (the following verse): ' No religious rite can be performed by a (child) before he has been girt with the sacred girdle, since he is on a level with a 6"udra before his (new) birth from the Veda/

7. (The above prohibition refers to all rites) except those connected with libations of water, (the excla- mation) Svadha, and the manes.

8. Sacred learning approached a Brahma^a (and said to him), ' Preserve me, I am thy treasure, reveal me not to a scorner, nor to a wicked man, nor to one of uncontrolled passions: so (preserved) I shall be- come strong.'

9. ■ Reveal me, O Brahma^a, as to the keeper of thy treasure, to him whom thou shalt know to be pure, attentive, intelligent, and chaste, who will not offend thee nor revile thee.'

10. '(That man) who fills his ears with truth, who frees him from pain and confers immortality upon him, (the pupil) shall consider as his father and mother; him he must never grieve nor revile/

11. ' As those Brahma^as who, after receiving in- struction, do not honour their teacher by their speech, in their hearts or by their acts, will not be profitable to their teacher, even so that sacred learning (which they acquired) will not profit them/

6. Vishmi XXVIII, 40. Instead of Krzshmtpam/itaVyavadvedo na ^ayate/ 'yavadvede na ^-ayate,' which occurs in several MSS. and in the parallel passages of Manu II, 172 and other Smrz'tis, must be read.

7. Gautama II, 5. The rites referred to are the funeral rites. 8-9. Vishmi XXIX, 9-10, and introduction, p. xxiii j Nirukta

II, 21. THE FOUR CASTES; LAWFUL OCCUPATIONS. I I

12. 'As fire consumes dry grass, even so the Veda, asked for, (but) not honoured, (destroys the en- quirer). Let him not proclaim the Veda to that man, who does not show him honour according to his ability/

1 3. The (lawful) occupations of a Brahma^a are six,

14. Studying the Veda, teaching, sacrificing for himself, sacrificing for others, giving alms, and ac- cepting gifts.

15. (The lawful occupations) of a Kshatriya are three,

16. Studying, sacrificing for himself, and bestow- ing gifts;

1 7. And his peculiar duty is to protect the people with his weapons; let him gain his livelihood thereby.

18. (The lawful occupations) of a Vaiiya are the same (as those mentioned above, Sutra 16),

1 9. Besides, agriculture, trading, tending cattle, and lending money at interest,

20. To serve those (superior castes) has been fixed as the means of livelihood for a.5udra.

21. (Men of) all (castes) may wear their hair arranged according to the customs fixed (for their family), or allow it to hang down excepting the lock on the crown of the head.

13. Krzsh«apa«</ita wrongly connects the word brahmawasya with the next Sutra. For this and the next seven Sutras, compare Vishmi II, 4-14.

14. Kr/sh#apa«dita by mistake leaves out the word 'danam.'

20. I read 'tesham pari/£arya/ with the majority of the MSS., instead of Knshwapa/^ita's ' teshaw £a pari/foryaV

21. In illustration of this Sutra Krzshraap audita quotes a verse of Laugakshi, which states that Brahmawas belonging to the Vasish//£a family wore the top-lock on the right side of the head, and the members of the Atri family allowed it to hang down on

22. Those who are unable to live by their own lawful occupation may adopt (that of) the next in- ferior (caste),

23. But never (that of a) higher (caste).

24. (A Brahma^a and a Kshatriya) who have re- sorted to a Valrya's mode of living and maintain themselves by trade (shall not sell) stones, salt, hempen (cloth), silk, linen (cloth), and skins,

26. Nor prepared food, flowers, fruit, roots, per- fumes, substances (used for) flavouring (food); nor water, the juice extracted from plants; nor Soma, weapons, poison; nor flesh, nor milk, nor prepara- tions from it, iron, tin, lac, and lead,

27. Now they quote also (the following verse): 1 By (selling) flesh, lac, and salt a Brahma^a at once becomes an outcast; by selling milk he becomes (equal to) a 6udra after three days.'

28. Among tame animals those with uncloven hoofs, and those that have an abundance of hair, (must not be sold), nor any wild animals, (nor) birds, nor beasts that have tusks (or fangs).

29. Among the various kinds of grain they men- tion sesamum (as forbidden).

both sides, while the Bhrzgus shaved their heads, and the Ahgi- rasas wore five locks (kuda) on the crown of the head. Cf. Max Muller, Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., p. 53.

24. For this and the following four Sutras, see Gautama VII, 8-2 1.

26. Rasa^, 'substances used for flavouring/ i.e. 'molasses, sugar-cane, sugar, and the like/ — Krzshraapa#</ita. See also note on Gautama VII, 9.

29. Vishmi LIV, 18; Apastamba I, 7, 20, 13. Kn'sh«apa«/ita wrongly connects this Sutra wiih the preceding one.

II, 36. THE FOUR CASTES; LAWFUL OCCUPATIONS. 1 3

30. Now they quote also (the following verse): ' If he applies sesamum to any other purpose, but food, anointing, and charitable gifts, he will be born again as a worm and, together with his ancestors, be plunged into his own ordure.'

31. Or, at pleasure, they may sell (sesamum), if they themselves have produced it by tillage.

32. For that purpose he shall plough before breakfast with two bulls whose noses have not been pierced.

33. (If he ploughs) in the hot season, he shall water (his beasts even in the morning).

34. The plough is attended by strong males, pro- vided with a useful share and with a handle (to be held) by the drinker of Soma; that raises (for him) a cow, a sheep, a stout damsel, and a swift horse for the chariot.

35. The plough is attended by strong males, i.e. is attended by strong men and bullocks, provided with a useful share — for its share is useful (because) with the share it raises, i. e. pierces deep — and pro- vided with a handle for the drinker of Soma, — for Soma reaches him, — possessing a handle for him. That raises a cow, a sheep, goats, horses, mules, donkeys and camels, and a stout damsel, i. e. a beau- tiful, useful maiden in the flower of her youth.

36. For how could the plough raise (anything for him) if he did not sell grain?

34. Vag-asaneyi-sawzhita XII, 71. The translation follows the explanation given in the next Sutra as closely as possible, though the latter is without doubt erroneous. The purpose for which Vasish/^a introduces it, is to show that a Vedic text permits agri- culture to a Brahma^a who offers Soma-sacrifices.

37. Substances used for flavouring may be bar- tered for (other) substances of the same kind, be it for one more valuable or for one worth less.

38. But salt must never (be exchanged) for (other) substances used for flavouring (food).

39. It is permitted to barter sesamum, rice, cooked food, learning, and slaves (each for its own kind and the one for the other).

40. A Brahma^a and a Kshatriya shall not lend (anything at interest acting like) usurers.

41. Now they quote also (the following verses): ' He who acquiring property cheap, gives it for a high price, is called a usurer and blamed among those who recite the Veda.'

42. ' (Brahman) weighed in the scales the crime of killing a learned Brahma;za against (the crime of) usury; the slayer of the Brahmam remained at the top, the usurer sank downwards/

43. Or, at pleasure, they may lend to a person who entirely neglects his sacred duties, and is ex- ceedingly wicked,

44. Gold (taking) double (its value on repayment, and) grain trebling (the original price).

40. Maim X, 117. Kr/sh«apa«fiTita reads with MS. B., vardhu- shim na dadyatam, and explains it by vriddhim naiva prayqgu- yetam, ' they shall not take interest/ I read with the other MSS. vardhushi, and translate that term by 'usurers/ Below, Sutra 42, vardhushi is used likewise in this its usual sense.

44-47. Vishmi VI, 11-17; Colebrooke I, Dig. LXVI, where ' silver and gems ' have been added after gold, and rasa^, 'flavour- ing substances/ been translated by ' fluids/ The translation differs also in other respects, because there the Sutras stand by them- selves, while here the nouns in Sutras 44 and 47 are governed by the preceding dadyatam, ' they may lend.' They, i. e. a Brahma/;a

11,50. THE FOUR CASTES; LAWFUL OCCUPATIONS. 1 5

45. (The case of) flavouring substances has been explained by (the rule regarding) grain,

46. As well as (the case of) flowers, roots, and fruit.

47. (They may lend) what is sold by weight, (taking) eight times (the original value on repayment).

48. Now they quote also (the following verses): * Two in the hundred, three and four and five, as has been declared in the Smrzti, he may take as interest by the month according to the order of the castes.'

49. ' But the king's death shall stop the interest on money (lent); '

50. ' And after the coronation of (a new) king the capital grows again.'

and a Kshatriya. The rule, of course, refers to other castes also, and to those cases where no periodical interest is taken, but the loan returned in kind.

47. The Ratnakara quoted by Colebrooke loc. cit. takes 'what is sold by weight ' to be ' camphor and the like.' Knshwapaw^ita thinks that ' clarified butter, honey, spirituous liquor, oil, molasses, and salt' are meant. But most of these substances fall under the term rasa/$, 'flavouring substances.' The proper explanation of the words seems to be, ' any other substance not included among those mentioned previously, which is sold by weight.'

48. Vishmi VI, 2, and especially ManuVIII, 142. The lowest rate of interest is to be taken from the highest caste, and it becomes greater with decreasing respectability. According to Krz'srma- pawdita and the commentators on the parallel passage of Vishmi, Manu, and other Smrztis, this rule applies only to loans for which no security is given — a statement which is doubtlessly correct.

49-50. Both the reading and the sense of this verse, which in some MSS. is wanting, are somewhat doubtful. I read with my best MSS.,

ra^a tu mntabhavena dravyavrz'ddhiffz vina^ayet 1 puna ra^abhishekerca dravyamulaw ka, vardhate it and consider that it gives a rule, ordering all money transactions to be stopped during the period which intervenes between the death of a king and the coronation of his successor. I am, how- ever, unable to point out any parallel passages confirming this

51. ' Hear the interest for a money-lender declared by the words of Vasish/^a, five mashas for twenty (karshapa^as may be taken every month); thus the law is not violated.'