2. Sources of Dharma

Volume I: Part I pp. 6–11

2. Sources of Dharma

2. Sources of Dharma The Gautamadharmasūtra² says ‘the Veda is the source of dharma and the tradition and practice of those that know it (the Veda).’ So Āpastamba³ says ‘the authority (for the dharmas) is the consensus of those that know Vedaṣ’ Vide also the Vasisthadharmasūtra⁴ (I. 4-6). The Manusmṛti⁵ lays down five different sources of dharma ‘the whole Veda is (the foremost) source of dharma and (next) the tradition and the practice of those that know it (the Veda); and further the usages of virtuous men and self-satisfactioṇ’ yajña-valkya⁶ declares the sources in a similar strain ‘the Veda, traditional lore, the usages of good men, what is agreeable to one’s self and desire born of due deliberation—this is traditionally recognised as the source of dharma.’ These passages make it clear that the principal sources of dharma were conceived to be the Vedas, the smṛtis, and customṣ The Vedas do not contain positive precepts (vidhis) on matters of dharma in a connected form ; but they contain incidental references to various topics that fall under the domain of dharmaśāstra as conceived in later timeṣ Such information to be gathered from the Vedic Litera- ture is not quite as meagre as is commonly supposeḍ In another place⁷ I have brought together about fifty Vedic passages that shed a flood of light on marriage, the forms of marriage, the different kinds of sons, adoption of a son, partition, inheritance, śrāddha, strīdhana. To take only a few exampleṣ That brotherless maidens found it difficult to secure husbands is made clear by several Vedic passageṣ ‘Like (a woman) growing old in her parents' house, I pray to thee as Bhaga from the seat common to all⁸. Vide also Ṛgveda I. 124. 7, IV. 5. 5 and Atharvaveda I. 17. 1 and Nirukta III. 4–5. These passages constitute the basis of the rules of the Dharmasūtras and the Yājñavalkya- smṛti against marrying a brotherless maiden⁹. This bar against marrying a brotherless maiden seems to have been due to the fear that such a girl might be an appointed daughter (putrikā) and that a son born of such a girl would be affiliated to his mother's father. This custom of putrikā is an ancient one and is alluded to in the Ṛgveda, according to Yāska¹⁰. Ṛgveda X. 85 is a very interesting hymn as regards marriage ; verses from it are used even to this day in the marriage ritual¹¹. It shows that in the remote Vedic age the marriage rite resem- bled in essence the Brāhma form as described in the Dharma- sūtras and Manu¹². But the purchase of a bride (i. e. what is called Āsura marriage in later literature) was not unknown in the Vedic age. A passage of the Maitrāyaṇīyasamhitā (( I. 10. 11) is referred to in the Vasisthadharmasūtra¹³ in this con- nection, viz. ‘she who being purchased by the husband’. The Gāndharva form is hinted at in the words¹⁴ ‘when a bride is fine-looking and well adorned, she seeks by herself her friend among men’. The importance of the aurasa son was felt even in the remote Vedic ageṣ ‘Another (person) born of another’s loins, though very pleasing, should not be taken, should not be even thought of (as to be taken in adoption¹⁵)’. The Taittirīya-saṃhitā propounds the well-known theory of the three debts¹⁶. The story of Śunaḥśepa in the Aitareya-brāhmaṇa (VII. 3) suggests that a son could be adopted even when there was an aurasa soṇ The Taittirīya-saṃhitā (VII. 1. 8. 1) tells the story of Atri who gave an only son in adoption to Aurva. The Kṣetraja son of the Dharmasūtras is often referred to in the earliest Vedic literature. ‘What (sacrificer) invites you (Aśvins) in his house to a bed as a widow does a brother-in-law or a young damsel her lover’¹⁷. The Taittirīya-saṃhitā makes it clear that a father could distribute his wealth among his sons during his own life-time. ‘Manu divided his property among his sons’ &c.¹⁸ Another passage of the same saṃhitā seems to suggest that the eldest son took the whole of the father’s wealth ‘therefore people establish their eldest son with wealth’¹⁹. Even in the Vedic ages the son excluded the daughter from inheritance ‘a son born of the body does not give the paternal wealth to (his) sister’²⁰. A passage of the Taittirīya-saṃhitā is relied upon by ancient and modern writers on Dharmaśāstra for the exclusion of women in general from inheritance: ‘therefore women being destitute of strength take no portion and speak more weakly than even a low person’²¹. The Ṛgveda eulogises the stage of studenthood and the Śatapathabrāhmaṇa speaks of the duties of the Brahmacārin such as not partaking of wine and offering every evening a samidh to fire²². The Taittirīya-saṃhitā (VI. 2. 8. 5) relates²³ how Indra consigned Yatis to wolves (or dogs) and how Prajāpati prescribed a Prāyaś-citta for hiṃ The Śatapathabrāhmaṇa speaks of the king and the learned brāhmaṇa as the upholders of the sacred ordinances²⁴. The Taittirīyasamhitā says 'therefore the Śūdra is not fit for sacrifice'²⁵. The Aitareya Brāhmaṇa tells us that when a king or other worthy guest comes, people offer a bull or a cow²⁶. The Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa speaks of Vedic study as yajña and the Taittirīya-āraṇyaka²⁷ enumerates the five yajñas, which are a prominent feature of the Manusmṛti. The Ṛgveda eulogises the gifts of a cow, horses, gold and clothes²⁸. Another passage of the Ṛgveda²⁹ (thou art like a prapā in a desert) is relied upon by Śabara on Jaimini (I. 3. 2) and by Viśvarūpa on Yājñavalkya as ordaining the maintenance of prapās (places where water is distributed to travellers). The Ṛgveda condemns the selfish man who only caters for himself³⁰.

The foregoing brief discussion will make it clear that the later rules contained in the dharmasūtras and other works on dharmaśāstra had their roots deep down in the most ancient Vedic tradition and that the authors of the dharmasūtras were quite justified in looking up to the Vedas as a source of dharma. But, as said above, the Vedas do not profess to be formal treatises on dharma; they contain only disconnected statements on the various aspects of dharma; we have to turn to the smṛtis for a formal and connected treatment of the topics of dharmaśāstra. Vide Prof. S. C. Bannerjee's ‘Dharmaśūtras, a Study’ pp. 514-533 for Vedic passages cited in major Dharmaśūtras and pp. 533-539 for references to them by name or by initial word or wordṣ

Before proceeding further a few preliminary remarks must be made. Ancient Sanskrit writers and modern historians of Sanskrit Literature divide ancient Sanskrit works into three groups, viz. the Vedic Samhitās ( Ṛgveda, Yajurveda, Sāmaveda and Atharvaveda ), the Brāhmaṇas (including the early Upaniṣads like the Bṛhadāraṇyaka) and Sūtraṣ The first two groups together constitute Veda or Śruti ( as Śabara says on P. M. S. II. 1. 33 ‘Mantrās-ca Brāhmaṇam ca Vedaḥ’ ). Sūtras are not Veda, but many of them are connected with the Veda and contain numerous mantraṣ Kalpa is one of the six auxiliary lores (angas) of the Veda and this group is generally later in time than the Brāhmaṇas, though some sūtra works appear to have been composed even in the times of the Tai. Ār. II. 10 and of the Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad (II. 4. 10 and IV. 5. 11). A distinction is drawn between Kalpa and Kalpasūtra by the Tantravārtika.³¹ The word Kalpa (or rather Kalpasūtra) is used in two senses, one comprehensive including the aphoristic works on Vedic ritual, on the domestic ceremonies and also on law, government and administration of justice; the other sense covers only those aphoristic works that deal with Vedic sacrifices and matters related thereto. If the first sense is taken then Kalpasūtras are classified into three classes, viz. Śrautasūtras that deal with solemn Vedic sacrifices, mentioned or discussed in the Vedas and Brāhmaṇas; (2) Gṛhyasūtras that deal with domestic ceremonies such as Upanayana, marriage and with daily and periodical rites and employ mantras for them mostly from one Śākhā of the Veda; (3) Dharmaśūtras (also depending on the Vedas as the highest authority) that treat of some of the topics dealt with in the Gṛhyasūtras but add provisions on matters concerning economic life, politics, government, civil and criminal law. A complete Kalpa in the first sense should cover all the three divisionṣ It is highly doubtful whether each Veda Sākhā had originally a complete set of the three kinds of works covered under the word Kalpa. This will be briefly dealt with a little below. Recently (1959) Dr. Ram Gopal has brought out a large work on ‘India of Vedic Kalpasūtras’ containing over five hundred closely printed pageṣ The title of the work is rather misleading. It does not deal with the Śrautasūtras beyond very briefly stating what they contain and distinguishing their contents from those of the Gṛhya and Dharmasūtraṣ His work is concerned only with the details gathered from the Gṛhya and Dharmasūtras and he has nothing to say about the development of the several topics dealt with in these two classes during the long period of at least 2000 years after the sūtra period (which he places between 800–500 B. C. on p. 89). His work should have been entitled “Indian Life as depicted in Gṛhya and Dharmasūtras”. As far as it goes it is a tolerable thesis, though rather prolix, dogmatic and over-disputatiouṣ Having confined himself to the Gṛhya and Dharmasūtras, it should have been his business to discuss all points concerning at least the principal Gṛhya and Dharmasūtraṣ But he leaves important matters concerning several sūtras untoucheḍ For example, on p. 54 he observes ‘many sūtras in the Gaut. Dh. S. appear to be of doubtful authenticity and it is an important task for future researchers to determine precisely the spurious sūtras interpolated in the original Dharmasūtra¹.’ One feels that he should himself have tackled that task at least about some representative Gṛhya sūtras and the Gautama– dharma-sūtra (which he places on p. 84 among the oldest class of Śrauta, Gṛhya and Dharmasūtras and when on p. 82 he holds that Gautama is undoubtedly the oldest writer on Smārta Dharma) by a thorough examination of chapters and passages in them and should have pointed out the criteria why certain sūtras are held to be spurious and so forth. He need not have included in the thesis the description of the flora and fauna &c. (pp. 103–109) or if he wanted to include these subjects he should have devoted more space. Nor was there any need for him to discuss ( as he does on pp. 100–103 ) the varying limits of Āryāvarta, since that subject had been dealt with at length by me in H. of Dh. Vol. II pp. 11–16. He hardly adds anything substantial to what I stated on that topic twenty–two years ago. He could have referred to Vol. II of H. Dh. pp. 11–16 and added bits of information that did not occur thereiṇ