6. The Baudhāyana Dharmasutra

Volume I: Part I pp. 38–53

6. The Baudhāyana Dharmasutra

6. The Baudhāyana dharmasūtra This has been edited several times (text by Dr. Hultzsch at Leipzig in 1884, text in the Ānandāśrama collection of smṛtis and in the Mysore Government Oriental Series in 1907 with the commentary of Govindasvāmin; translated in S. B. E., Vol. 14, with an Introduction). The Mysore edition has been used in this work. Baudhāyana is a teacher of the Kṛṣṇayajurveda. A complete set of the Baudhayanasūtras has not yet been recovered and has not been as carefully preserved as the sūtras of Āpastamba and Hiraṇyakeśiṇ Dr. Burnell arranges Baudhāyana’s sūtras into six sūtras, the Śrautasūtra in 19 praśnas (probably); Karmāntasūtra in 20 adhyāyas; Dvaidhasūtra in four praśnas; Gṛhyasūtra in four praśnas; Dharmasūtra in four praśnas; Śulvasūtra in three adhyāyaṣ The commentators offer no indi- cation as to the place originally assigned to the gṛhya, dharma and śulva sūtras in the whole collectioṇ Dr. Caland in his mono- graph (A. D. 1903) ‘Uber das Rituelle sūtra des Baudhāyana’ gives on p. 12 the contents of the Baudhayanasūtra as follows:— Praśnas I-XXI Śrauta, XXII-XXV Dvaidha, XXVI-XXVIII Karmānta; XXIX-XXXI Prāyaścitta; XXXII Śulvasūtra; XXXIII-XXXV gṛhyasūtra, XXXVI Grhyaprāyaścitta; XXXVII Grhyaparihāsā; XXXVIII-XLI Grhyapariśiṣṭa; XLII-XLIV Pitrmedha; XLV Pravara; XLVI-XLIX Dharma. Dr. Caland edited nine praśnas of the Śrautasūtra for the B. I. Series (A. D. 1904). Dr. R. Shamsastri published for the Mysore University the Baudhāyanagrhyasūtra with paribhāsā, grhyaśesa, Pitrmedhasūtra. The gṛhyasūtra cites the view of Baudhāyana himself (I. 7). The Baudhāyana-dharma refers to the Grhya and presuppose it in several places (vide note 54). In the Baudhāyanagrhyā (III. 9. 6) we have a reference to padakāra Ātreya, Vrttikāra Kauṇḍinya, Pravacanakāra Kaṇva Bodhāyana, and Sūtrakāra Āpastamba.¹ A similar passage occurs in the Bhāradvāja gṛhyasūtra. In the Baudhāyana-dharma-sūtra (II. 5.27 Rṣitarpana) we have Kaṇva Bodhāyana, Āpastamba sūtrakāra and Satyāṣāḍha Hiraṇyakeśin one after another. These references show that Kaṇva Bodhāyana was an ancient sage when the Baudhāyana-dharmasūtra was written and that he could not have been the author of the grhya or the dharma-sūtras of Baudhāyana. Baudhāyana may have been a descendant of his Kaṇva Bodhāyana. This surmise is supported by Govindasvāmin who explains Baudhāyana occurring in Baudhā- yanadharmasūtra I. 3. 13 as Kāṇvāyana. In the dharmasūtra Baudhāyana is himself cited as an authority several times (e. g. I. 4. 15 and 24, III. 5. 8, III. 6. 20). In all these places the Mysore edition reads Bodhāyana, while the Ānandāśrama reads Baudhāyana. In one or two places he is styled ‘bhagavān’ ( III. 6. 20 ). Several explanations are offered by the commen-tator Govindasvāmin (on I. 3. 13 ). He says that it is the practice of the Ācāryas to refer to themselves in the third person (as Medhātithi says on Manu.²) or that the author of the dharmasūtra is a pupil of Baudhāyana as the Manusmṛti is promulgated by Bhṛgu, the pupil of Manu, or there was some other Baudhāyana whose works have not come down to uṣ Confusion results from the lists of sages in tarpaṇa mention-ed in several Gṛhyasūtraṣ The passage from Baudhāyana gṛ is quoted in note ³. In that passage Kāṇva Bodhāyana is called ‘pravacanakāra’ and Āpastamba is called ‘sūtrakāra’, while Satyāṣāḍha, Hiraṇyakeśa, Vājasaneya, Yājñavalkya, Bhara-dvāja and Agniveśya are merely named without any additioṇ In the Bauḍ Dh. S. quoted in the same note Kāṇva Baudhāyana (without the epithet ‘pravacanakāra’), Āpastamba sūtrakāra and Satyāṣāḍha Hiraṇyakeśin are nameḍ Two questions arise about the three names viz. (1) are the sages mentioned in the tarpaṇa passages the authors of the sūtra works in which they occur; (2) what is the import of the words pravacanakāra and sūtrakāra applied to Kāṇva Bodhāyana and Āpastamba respec-tively and do those words suggest that Kāṇva Bodhāyana is much earlier than Āpastamba. The present writer thinks that the authors of the Gṛhyasūtras were different from Kāṇva Bodhā-yana and Āpastamba to whom water is directed to be offered in the tarpaṇa part of those workṣ They might be descendants of Kāṇva Bodhāyana and Āpastamba who are included in the sages for tarpaṇa. If Kāṇva Bodhāyana and Āpastamba mentioned in the tarpaṇa passage were also the authors of the Bodhāyana and Āpastamba gṛhyasūtras it is very difficult to believe that they recommended to the generations that would come after them to offer water to them in tarpaṇa. The word pravacana³ occurs frequently in the Upaniṣads viz. Tai. Up. 9, Katha II. 23 and Mundaka III. 2.4 (nāyam-ātmā pravacanena labhyaḥ). The Tai. Up. (I. 9 ), after setting out the opinions of two sages, mentions the view of Nāka Maudgalya that svādhyāya (study of the Veda) and pravacana (expounding or exposition i. e. teaching) is tapas (i. e. they should be striven for ). The Ṛgveda I. 162-1 employs the form ‘pravakṣyāmaḥ (we shall loudly proclaim in the sacrifices the valorous deeds of the swift horse born among Gods). The Āp. Gṛ. while dilating upon the offering of Madhuparka once a year to one’s teacher, father-in-law, king &c. when they pay a visit, provides that one should offer only once and not every year Madhuparka to a famous expounder (of the Veda and its meaning) acc. to Haradatta (on Āp. Gṛ. V. 13. 20. (sakrit- pravaktre citrāya). In these words (pravacanakāra and sūtrakāra) there is no suggestion of time or early or late in time. The only difference is that the expounder may compose his work in any way (which may be prolix or otherwise), but a sūtrakāra has to be brief and compose his work in an appropriate style.

The following are the contents of the Baudhāyana-dharma- sūtra :—Prāśna I :—Sources of dharma, who are śiṣṭas, pariṣad, different practices of northern and southern India, countries where śiṣṭas reside and where mixed castes reside, prāyaścitta for visiting countries of the latter type; 2 Studenthood for 48, 24 or 12 years, time of upanayana and the girdle, skin, staff appropriate to each caste, duties of brahmacārin, eulogy of brahmacarya; 3. The duties of the snātaka who has completed his studies and observances but has not yet married; 4. directions about carrying the earthen jar (in the case of the snātaka); 5. bodily and mental śauca, purification of various substances, impurity on birth and death, meaning of sapiṇḍa and sakulya, rules of inheritance, purification on touching a corpse or a woman in her menses or on dog-bite, what flesh and food was allowed and forbidden; 6. Purification from the point of view of sacrifice, purification of clothes, ground, grass, fuel, vessels, and articles used in sacrifice; 7. Rules about the importance from the sacrificial point of view of sacrifice, of the sacrificial utensils, priests, the sacrificer and his wife, ghee, cooked offerings, the victim, soma and fires; 8. The four varnas and the sub-castes; 9. the duties of kings, the five great sins and punishments for them, punishments for killing birds; witnesses; 11. The eight forms of marriage, holidays; Prāśna II. 1 Prāyaścittas for brahmahatyā and other great sins, Prāyaścittas for a bramacharin violating his vow of celibacy, for marrying a sagotra girl, for marrying before elder brother, sins lesser than the great ones, description of such penances as Parāka, Kṛcchra, Atikṛcchra; 2. Partition of heritage, larger share for the eldest, the several substitutes for an aurasa son, exclusion from inheritance, dependence of women, prāyaścitta for adultery by men and women, rules about niyoga, means of subsistence in distress, continuous duties of the house-holder such as Agnihotra &c.; 3. The daily duties of the householder such as bathing, ācamana, Vaiśvadeva, giving food; 4. Sandhyā; 5. Rules about the manner of propitiating ('tarpana') gods, sages and pitṛs; 6. The five great daily yajñas; the four castes and their duties; 7. regulations about dinner; 8. Śrāddha; 9. eulogy of sons and spiritual benefit from sons; 10. rules about sannyāsa; Prāśna III. 1 modes of subsistence for the two kinds of householders, Śālīna and Yāyāvara; 2. the means of subsistence called ‘Sannivartani’; 3. the duties of the forest hermit and his means of livelihood; 4. prāyaścitta for not observing the vows of brahmacārin or householder; 5. method of reciting Aghamarsaṇa, the holiest of texts; 6. the ritual of prastāyavaka; 7. the purificatory homa called Kūsmāṇḍa; 8. the penance called cāndrāyaṇa; 9 the recital of the Vedas without taking food; 10. theories about purification for sin, purifying things; Prāśna IV. 1. prāyaścittas of various kinds viz. for eating forbidden food or drink &c.; 2. Prāṇāyāmas and Aghamarṣaṇa as purifiers in case of several sins; 3. secret prāyaścittas; 4. Various Vedic texts as prāyaścittas; 5. Means of securing siddhi by means of japa, homa, iṣṭi and yantra; the penances called Kṛcchra, Ati-Kṛcchra, Sāntapana, Parāka, Cāndrāyaṇa; 6. the muttering (japa) of holy texts, the iṣṭis; 7. praise of Yantras, various Vedic texts used in homa; 8 censure of those who enter on the means of siddhi out of great greed, permission to get these things done through another in certain circumstanceṣ

The extant dharmasūtra does not appear to have come down intact. The fourth prāśna is most probably an interpolatioṇ Most of the eight chapters of that prāśna are full of verses, the portion in prose being very small. The last three chapters (6-8) are entirely in verse. The style is quite different from that of the first two praśnaṣ The first five chapters of the fourth praśna deal with prāyaścittas are more or less superfluous, the same subject having been dealt with in II. 1. and III. 4-10. Some of the sūtras in the earlier praśnas are repeated verbatim in the fourth, e. g. II. I. 33-34 and IV. 2. 10-11 ( avakirṇi-prāyaścitta ). The third praśna also is not free from doubt. The tenth chapter of the third praśna is, as said above, taken from Gautama. The sixth chapter of the third praśna agrees very closely in phraseology with the 48th chapter of the Viṣṇudharmasūtra. But it is rather difficult to say which is the borrower. Dr. Jolly (S. B. E. Vol. VII. p. XIX) is inclined to think that both borrowed from a common source. It seems more probable that Viṣṇu borrows from Baudhāyana, as the Viṣṇudharmasūtra uses the form ‘punita’ in place of ‘punatha’ (in Bauḍ) and as the Viṣṇudharmasūtra omits all reference to Rudra (Bauḍ III. 6. 12.) and omits the words “ gaṇān paśyati, gaṇādhipatim paśyati ... bhagavān Baudhāyanaḥ” (Bauḍ III. 6. 20.). In the Mysore edition all the four praśnas of the Dharmasūtra are divided into adhyāyas, but the Mss used by Bühler appear to have divided the first two praśnas into kandikās and the last two into adhyāyaṣ There are many repetitions even in the first two praśnas, which therefore make one rather doubtful about the authenticity of the first two praśnas also in their entirety. For example II. 6. 11 and 31 have identical; parts in II, 7 22 and II. 10. 53 the same verse (“astau grāsā” &c.) is quoteḍ Such repetitions are frequent in the two last praśnas e. g. III. 2. 16 and III. 3. 23; III. 4. 5 and III. 7. 12. Some of the quotations ascribed to Baudhāyana in the Mitākṣarā and other works are not taken from the dharmasūtra, but from the Gṛhyasūtra or its supplements (e. g. the words ‘ekām śākhāmādhite śrotriyaḥ” quoted in the Mit. on Yāj. III. 24 which are cited by Hultzsch (on p. 125), are taken from the Gṛhya ( vide note 78 below ).

Though the fourth praśna appears to be interpolated, yet the interpolation must have taken place early enough. Viśvarūpa on Yāj. I. 64 quotes Bauḍ Dh. S. IV. 1. 15-16 (triṇi varṣāṇyr- tumati) expressly as Baudhāyana’s and on Yāj. I. 72 quotes Bauḍ Dh. S. IV. 1. 22 (bhartuḥ pratiniveśena &c.) by name. The Mit. on Yāj. III. 305 quotes (as Baudhāyana’s) a long passage, Baudh. Dh. S. IV. 1. 5-11. Śaṅkarācārya on Br. Up. IV. 5. 15 quotes Bauḍ II. 10. 2 “brahmacaryavān pravrajati” as smṛti. Yāj. I. 71 is almost the same as Bauḍ Dh. II. 2. 58 (Somah śaucam &c) The Dharmasūtra of Baudhāyana is somewhat loose in structure and is not concise. Govindasvāmin remarks (on I. 2. 19) that Baudhāyana does not aim at brevity.⁵ Several subjects are treated of in two places and often without any logical connection with what precedes or followṣ Rules of inheritance (dāya-bhāga) occur in the midst of rules about prāyaścitta (in II. 2.); rules about holidays (anadhyāya) occur immediately after the eight forms of marriage and the condemnation of the sale of a daughter (I. 11). Rules about snātaka occur in two places (I. 3 and II. 3. 10 ff.). Baudhāyana quotes at least 90 verses introduced by the words “athāpyudāharanti,” more than 80 being from the first two praśnas alone. There are over two hundred other verses, about 80 of which occur in the first two praśnas and about ten are Vedic. Some of the verses even in the first two praśnas do not appear to be quotations e. g. I. 16, II. 2. 1, II. 3. 52–54 and 56. A verse quoted is in the Vaṁśastha metre (IV. 3. 14); there are two verses in the Upajāti metre taken as a quotation (II. 3. 18). There are some prose quotations introduced with the words “athāpyudāharanti” (e. g. II. 4. 5 and II. 6. 30 which refers to the asura Kapila son of Prahlāda). The language of the Bauḍ Dh. S. is archaic and often departs from the Pāṇinean standarḍ Baudhāyana employs such un-Pāṇinean forms as “gṛhya” (for gṛhītva in II. 5. 1), pūjya (II. 9. 5.), “adhigacchānāḥ” (in II. 9. 9.), anayītvā (III. 3. 6), “punatha” (in III. 6. 5, probably a quotation), “tebhiḥ” (for taiḥ in III. 2. 16, a quotation). In several places Baudhāyana states opposite views and then gives his own opinion on the point, e. g. Bauḍ I. 5. 105–109 (about impurity on birth); II. 1. 49–51.

As regards the literature known to Baudhāyana the following points may be noteḍ All the four Vedas are mentioned by name in II. 5. 27 (tarpana). He quotes very frequently the Taittirīya saṃhitā, Tai. Brāhmaṇa and the Tai. Āraṇyaka (in the Andhra recension). Well-known hymns of the Ṛgveda such as the Aghamarṣaṇa, the Purusaśūkta and also simple ‘ṛks’ are frequently referred to. In III. 10 (which is almost the same as Gautama 19) there is a sūtra enumerating the Upaniṣads, the Samhitās of all the Vedas and several sūmans as purificatory textṣ There are long quotations taken from the Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa (XI. 3. 3. 1 ff and XI. 5. 6. 3) in Bauḍ (I. 2. 52 about brahmacārī and II. 6. 7-9 about brahmayajña ). It is noteworthy that in the tarpana there is an invocation of the Atharvaveda and immediately afterwards of the Atharvāngiraśah. The same is found in the Baudhāyanagrhya also (III. 2. 9 and 22 ). In the Upaniṣads ( Bṛhadāraṇyaka II. 4. 10, IV. 1. 2 ) it is the word Atharvāngirasaḥ that stands for the Atharvaveda. Baudhāyana quotes a gāthā of the Bhāllavins (I. 1. 29 ) about the geographical limits of Aryāvarta. Vasiṣṭha adduces the same verse (I. 15 ) and says that it is taken from the Nidāna work of the Bhāllavinṣ The Nirukta also mentions a school of Vedic interpretation called Naidānāh. It is difficult to say what Nidāna works containeḍ Itihāsa and Purāṇa occur in the tarpana (II. 5. 27 ). The angas of the Vedas occur in I. 1. 8 and the six angas in II. 8. 2. Whether the word “rahasya” in II. 8. 3 means the Āranyakas ( as Govindasvāmin explains ) is doubtful. Baudhāyana mentions a Vaikhānasasāstra in II. 6. 16, which appears to refer to the work of Vikhanas on hermits and speaks of Śrāmaṇaka (the rites prescribed by Vikhanas for initiation as hermit), just as Gautama doeṣ Among the authors on dharma mentioned by name are : Aupajanghani (II. 2. 33 for the view that only aurasa son was to be recognised and not the other kinds of sons⁶), Kātya (I. 2. 47), Kaśyapa (or Kāśyapa in other editions, I. 11. 20 on the point that a woman bought cannot be a patnī ), Gautama (I. 1. 23 and II. 2. 70 ), Prajāpati (II. 4. 15 about failure in Sandhyopāsana, and II. 10. 71 about sannyāsa ), Manu (IV. 1. 14 and IV. 2. 16), Maudgalya (II. 2. 61, about observances of a widow being restricted only to six months after her husband’s death ), Hārīta (II. 1. 50 ). Bauḍ I. 2. 7 quotes a verse, which Vasiṣṭha ascribes to Hārīta (Vaṣ II. 6 ). As to Gautama, vide p. 33 above. Manu is only mentioned in the fourth praśna, the authenticity of which, as said above, is very doubtful. Baudhāyana II. 2. 16 (about the efficacy of Aghamarṣaṇa) closely agrees with Manu XI. 260. The first reference to Manu’s teaching cannot be traced in the Manusmṛti. Prajāpati (III. 9. 21 ) seems to stand for god Brahmā and not for any real or mythical writer on dharma. One remarkable piece of information contained in Baudhāyana (II. 6. 30 ) is that he quotes from a work (of the Brāhmaṇa class in language ) a prose passage wherein the division into four āśramas is ascribed to an asura Kapila, son of Pralhāda. In II. 2. 79 Baudhāyana quotes a gāthā from the dialogue between the daughter of Uśanas and the king Vṛṣaparvan⁷, which is nearly the same as Mahābhārata I. 78. 10 and 34. Bauḍ quotes the view of Ācāryas (II. 6. 29) as Gautama doeṣ In several places he refers to the views of his predecessors on dharma as “others” (eke, apare) e. g. I. 4. 23, I. 5. 16, I. 6. 105-106, II. 5. 2. In II. 3. 18 two verses in the Upajāti metre are quoted as sung by “anna” (food). From the numerous quotations in verse cited by Baudhāyana on topics of dharma, it follows that the Dharmasūtra was preceded by a considerable number of works on dharma in verse. Bühler (SBE vol. XIV, p. XLIII ) says that Vijñāneśvara was the first writer who quoted the Bauḍ D. S. But there are writers who flourished centuries before Vijñāneśvara that regarded Baudhāyana as a writer on dharma and either quoted his words or pointedly referred to theṃ Śabara in his bhāṣya on Jaimini I. 3. 3 says that the rule in the Smṛtis about the period of Vedic study being 48 years is opposed to the Vedic injunction “one who has begot sons and whose hair are dark should consecrate the sacrificial fires⁸.” This must be regarded as referring to the words of Baudhāyana (I. 2. 1). Śabara uses the same word “Vedabrahmacarya” that Bauḍ employṣ It is true that Gautama and Āpastamba both refer to the rule about 48 years, but they do not employ the word “veda-brahmacarya.” The Tantravārtika⁹ of Kumārila says that the words of Āpastamba (II. 6. 15. 1) which seem to accept the validity of local and family usages (even though opposed to Smṛti tradition ) stand refuted by the words of Baudhāyana (I. 1. 19-24) who cites only such censured usages as are opposed to Smṛti. Kumārila appears to think that Baudhāyana attacks the extant work of Āpastamba, i. e. the present Bauḍ is later than the present Āpastamba. It is not necessary to follow Kumārila implicitly as regards chronological details, where he is speaking of writers that flourished over a thous- and years before hiṃ But his opinion deserves weight. The Tantra- vārtika quotes a Smṛti passage which bears a close resemblance to Baudhāyana (II. 3. 28)¹⁰. In the commentary of Viśvarūpa (who flourished about 800 A. D.) on Yājñavalkya, Baudhāyana is quoted at least nine times in the chapter on ācāra alone. Vide Viśvarūpa on Yaj. I. 21, 26, 29, 53, 64, 69, 72, 79, 195 (Trivandrum edition), where Bauḍ I. 5. 14, I. 2. 30, I. 5. 1, I. 17, IV. 1. 15, IV. 1. 18, IV. 1. 22, IV. 1. 20 and I. 5. 47 are respectively quoteḍ There are very few variations from the present text and the only serious variation is as regards the last (I. 5. 47) which is in prose ( while Viśvarūpa quotes a verse ). It is remarkable that Viśvarūpa quotes several verses from the fourth praśna, which shows that even if the fourth praśna be an interpolation, it is comparatively an ancient one. The Mit. also (on Yāj. III. 306) quotes a long passage from the fourth praśna (IV. 1. 5–11). The words of the Śakuntala¹¹ that the first precept is that a girl is to be given away to a meritorious person are probably a reminiscence of Bauḍ IV. 1. 12. Medhātithi on Manu. V. 117 quotes Baudhāyana I. 5. 47 and on IV. 36 quotes Bauḍ I. 4. 2 (which is mutilated as printed). On Manu. V. 114 he says that all the rules about purification of substances are contained in Baudhāyana-smṛti. On Manu. V. 118. he quotes Bauḍ I. 5. 50.

About the home of Baudhāyana it is difficult to advance any positive conclusioṇ In modern times Baudhāyanīyas are mostly confined to the south. We know that Sāyaṇa, the great commentator of the Vedas, was a Baudhāṇīya. A grant of Nandivarma, a Pallava, of the 9th century mentions Brāhmaṇas of the pravacana-sūtra as recipientṣ¹² As Baudhāyana is called pravacanakāra in the Gṛhyasūtra Bühler thinks (S. B. E. vo!. 14 p. XLII) that the Brāhmaṇas belonged to the Baudhāyanācaraṇa. Bühler is probably right. In the grant most of the donees are students of the Āpastamba Sūtra. First the Gotra, then the Sūtra and then the name of the donee are introduced in the grant. Therefore as some of the donees are said to be students of “pravacanasūtra,” it follows that “pravacana” stands for some sūtra school. It appears that sūtra and pravacana are two different things, whatever the latter term may meaṇ Baudhāyana is called pravacanakãra and Āpastamba is styled sûtrakãra. We are told by the Baudhāyana-gṛhyasūtra¹³ that a brāhmaṇa who studied sūtra and pravacana was styled “bhrūna.” Bühler was inclined to hold that Baudhāyana was a southern teacher for several reasonṣ Baudhāyana mentions customs of the south and includes sea-faring as a custom peculiar to the north (I. 1. 20), while in another place he places sea-faring at the head of sins (pataniyãs) lesser than the mortal ones (II. 1. 41). Therefore it is said that he was not a northern teacher. But as against this we have to remember that Baudhāyana (I. 1. 29) quotes with approval a verse in which the countries of Avanti (Ujjain), Anga, Magadha, Surãstra (Kathiãwar) and Daksinãpatha are declared to be the home of mixed casteṣ Daksinãpatha was generally supposed to be the whole peninsula south of the Narmadã. Baudhāyana, if he was a native of the south, would not have spoken of his country as the home of mixed castes only, unless he put a restricted meaning on the word Daksinãpatha (which sometimes meant in later days Mahãrãstra). Vide J. B. B. R. A. S. for 1917 p. 620. Though as stated above, the question of the home of Baudhāyana is a difficult one, yet if a definite inclination has to be shown, then I am disposed to agree with Bühler that the author of Bauḍ Dh. S. was a southerner. It is important to note that Bauḍ wants to expound the dharmas declared in the Veda, in the smṛtis (I. 1. 5-6) as those who possess certain moral qualities and who understand the Veda together with other supporting sastraṣ He sets out first the five peculiar usages of the southern part, two of which are the usages of marrying one’s maternal uncle’s or paternal aunt’s daughter, These two are even now in vogue in some parts of Mahãrãstra and the South among certain sub-divisions of brāhmaṇas and were not prevalent in the north. Baudhāyana impartially sets forth five practices of the south and five of the north that were opposed to ancient sãstras and his own view appears to have been that in the case of all persons belonging to Aryavarta (whether they be in the northern or southern parts) both sets of five practices in sūtras (19 and 20) were not to be followeḍ In that connection he quotes several (three) views about Aryãvarta and two verses more, one of which names the countries in which there is mixture of castes and the 2nd mentions some countries like Āraṭṭa (Panjab), Sauvira, Puṇḍra, Vaṅga, Kaliṅga, sojourn in which made a person liable to undergo an expiatioṇ² The countries mentioned in the first verse are all (except Dakṣiṇāpatha) to the north of the Narmadā. It is quite probable that he did not like the usage of marrying one's maternal uncle's or paternal aunt's daughter even for southern people. It should³ be noted that almost all the countries in the 2nd verse are north of the Narmadā. Further, Dakṣiṇāpatha appears to have meant a country roughly like modern Mahārāṣṭra long before the Christian era; vide ASWI. Vol. V. p. 60 which shows that in an inscription (No. 1) of Nanaghat (Poona District) Vediśiri is mentioned as king of Dakṣiṇāpatha. Vide ASWI Vol. IV. p. 110 and Rudradāman's inscription (E. I. Vol. VIII at p. 44, where Śātakarṇi is said to have been lord of Dakṣiṇāpatha). The fact that Āpastambiyas, Hiraṇyakeśins and Baudhayaniyas have congregated much more in the south than in the north for centuries supports the above statement. The words Uttarāpatha and Dakṣiṇāpatha were never strictly defineḍ For example, in the Sanjan plates (supposed to be spurious) of Buddhavarasa (E. I. Vol. 14 p. 144 at p. 149 about 700 A. D.) we meet with the words ‘Uttarāpa- thādhipati-Śrī-Harsadevapārājayopalabdabhogra-pratāpaḥ’ i. e. king Harṣa is said to have been lord of Uttarāpatha. If we turn to the Harṣacarita of Bāṇa (first paragraph after two initial verses of the 5th Ucchvāsa) we read ‘Atha kadācid-rājā Rājyavardhanam-āhūya Hūṇān hantuṃ..cirantanaīramatyaīḥ... kṛtvā sābhisāram-uttarāpatham prāhiṇot’. This shows that Sthāṇvīśvara (modern Thanesar) was not included in Uttarāpatha in Bāṇa's dayṣ Uttarāpatha occurs in the Hathīgumpha Inscription of Khāravela (E. I. Vol. XX. p.71 at p. 79 and p. 88). Pāṇini knows the word as in V. 1. 77 ‘Uttarāpathenārtam ca’ (Uttarāpathenārtam auttarāpathikam, Uttarāpathena gacchati auttarāpathikaḥ). About Dakṣiṇāpatha the Mahābhāṣya says that large lakes are called ‘Sarasī’ in Dakṣiṇāpatha (Kielhorn's eḍ Vol. I. p. 73). The word ‘Dakṣiṇāpatha occurs in the gaṇa ‘dhūmādi’ (Pāṇ. IV. 2. 127).

The extant Baudhayānadharmasūtra is certainly later than Gautama, as it mentions Gautama twice by name and as one quota- tion at least is found in the extant Gautama. Besides Baudhāyana quotes by name several teachers on dharma, while Gautama quotes only one, Manu. Baudhāyana is far removed from the times of the Upaniṣadṣ Bauḍ (II, 7, 15) quotes a verse which is itself an H. D.—7 adaptation of a passage from the Chāndogya-upaniṣaḍ¹⁴ He quotes Harita. It is uncertain whether the Hārītadharmasūtra, a manuscript of which was discovered by the late Vaman Śastrī Islāmpurkar at Nasik, is the one intendeḍ Bühler thought that the work of Baudhāyana was earlier than that of Āpastamba by a century or two. His first reason was that Kāṇva Baudhāyana receives homage in the tarpaṇa before Āpastamba and Hiraṇyakeśin and that the same order is observed in the Baudhāyana-gṛhyasūtra. But this reason is far from convincing. It may be conceded that Baudhāyana was regarded as the oldest (or the most authoritative or respectable ) of the three schools of the Black Yajurveda. But from this it does not at all follow that the extant dharma-sūtra of the Baudhāyanīyas is earlier than that of the Āpastambīyaṣ For aught we know the sūtra compiled for the school of Baudhāyana may be later than the sūtra manual of the Āpastambīyaṣ We saw above that orthodox opinion, represented by Kumārila, regards Baudhāyana's work as later than Āpastamba'ṣ All the three founders of the three schools are mentioned in the Baudhāyanagṛhya and dharmasūtra. One may equally argue with good reason that both these works knew a sūtra work of Āpastamba and that the extant dharmasūtra of Āpastamba is that work. Another reason assigned for the priority of Baudhāyana's work over Āpastamba's is that, though both have numerous sūtras that agree almost word for word, a comparison of the views of the two writers shows that Āpastamba lays down stricter and more puritanic (and therefore later) views on certain points than Baudhāyana. Gautama, Baudhāyana and Vasiṣṭha mention several secondary sons, while Āpastamba is silent about theṃ Gautama, Baudhāyana (II. 2. 17, 62), Vasiṣṭha and even Viṣṇu approve of the practice of niyoga, while Āpastamba condemns it (II. 6. 13. 1–9). Gautama and Baudhāyana (I. 11. 1) speak of eight forms of marriage, while Āpastamba speaks of only six and omits Prājāpatya and Paiśāca (II. 5. 11. 17–20 and II. 5. 12. 1–2). Baudhāyana (II. 2. 4–6) allowed a larger share to the eldest son on a partition, while Āpastamba condemns such a procedure (II. 6. 14. 10–14). The Baudhāyana-gṛhyasūtra (II. 4. 6) allows upanayana to rathakāra, while Āpastamba (gṛhya 4. 10. 1–4) does not do so (dharmasūtra I. 1. 1. 19). These points are hardly conclusive on the question of date. From very ancient times there was great divergence of opinion among the doctors of the law on most, if not on all, of these pointṣ There is no hard and fast rule that these doctrines were upheld by early writers and condemned by later oneṣ Baudhāyana himself quotes the views of an ancient writer, Aupajanghani, who condemned all secondary sonṣ The verses that Baudhāyana quotes on this point (II. 2. 34-36) are quoted by Āpastamba also but without the author's name (Āp. II. 6. 13. 6), there being variants only in the first verse. Niyoga was allowed by Manu (9. 56-63) and then condemned (9. 64-68) and Bṛhaspati refers to this attitude of Manu (vide Kullūka on Manu 9. 63). Even so late a writer as Yājñavalkya (II. 131) approves of niyoga. About the rathakāra being allowed to consecrate the sacred fires there is a discussion in the sūtras of Jaimini (VI. 1. 44 ff). Vedic passages supported both methods viz. equal division among sons and the bestowal of a larger share on the eldest. Even yajña- valkya (II. 118) allows a larger share to the eldest soṇ Therefore, hardly anyone of the circumstances relied upon by Bühler as indicating a later age for Āpastamba is conclusive or convincing. The third ground for placing Baudhāyana before Āpastamba is that the style of the former is simpler and older as compared with the latter'ṣ That Baudhāyana is simpler than Āpastamba may be admitteḍ But this may be due to the fact that Baudhāyana has been tampered with more than Āpastamba. On the other hand Āpastamba contains more un-Pāṇinean forms, more uncouth constructions, more words in an archaic sense than is the case with Baudhāyana. All that is almost certain about the age of the Baudhāyana-dharmasūtra is that it is later than the work of Gautama, that its style, its doctrines and its general out-look on different subjects do not compel us to assign it a later date than that of the other dharmasūtraṣ We have adduced evidence to show that long before the days of Śabara (whose latest date cannot be later than 500 A. D.) the Baudhāyana-dharmasūtra was an authoritative smṛti; it follows that the dharmasūtra must be placed somewhere between 500-200 B. C. Numerous sūtras are identical in Baudhāyana and Āpastamba e. g. Āp. I. 1. 2. 30 = Bauḍ I. 2. 40-41, Āp. I. 2. 6. 8-9 = Bauḍ I. 2. 39, Āp. I. 5. 15. 8 = Bauḍ I. 2. 31, Āp. I. 11. 31. 11 and 16 = Bauḍ II. 3. 39 and 32. There are several verses that occur in both e. g. Bauḍ II. 1. 42 = Āp. I. 9. 27. 11, Bauḍ II. 2. 34-36 = Āp. II. 6. 13. 6 (three verses condemning secondary sons), Bauḍ II. 10. 63 = Āp. II. 9. 21. 10, Bauḍ II. 7. 22-23 = Āp. II. 4. 9. 13. (two verses), Bauḍ II. 6. 36 = Āp. II. 9. 24. 8. Besides these there are numerous Vedic quotations that are common to both. All this however, does not establish anything about their relative positioṇ The Vasiṣṭha-dharmasūtra also has numerous quotations in common with Bauḍ Vide Vaṣ I. 15. = Bauḍ I. 28, Vaṣ III. 5, 6, 11, 20, 56 = Bauḍ I. 10, 12, 11, 8 and I. 5. 58. (respectively); Vaṣ 6. 20-21 = Bauḍ II. 7. 22-23; Vaṣ VIII. 17 = Bauḍ II. 2, 1; Vaṣ XI. 27-28 = Bauḍ II. 8. 21-22; Vaṣ XVI. 34 = Bauḍ I. 10. 35, Vaṣ XVII. 73 = Bauḍ IV. 1. 17, Vaṣ XVII. 86 = Bauḍ I. 5. 102; Vaṣ XXII. 10 = Bauḍ I. 1. 33. It is to be noted that some of these quotations (Bauḍ II. 8. 21-22, I. 10. 35) occur in the extant Manusmṛti (III. 125-126 and VIII, 98). There are a few prose sūtras in Vaṣ that are transformed into verse in Bauḍ and vice versa e. g. Vaṣ III. 41 (prose) = Bauḍ I. 5. 20 (quoted as a verse), Vaṣ III. 57 (quoted as a verse) = Bauḍ I. 6. 19-20. It is not likely that one borrows from the other. There are two other possible explanations, viz. that both Bauḍ and Vaṣ (and Manu also) quote from or adapt a common source or that the three works have been tempered with and interpolations introduced at every step. The latter alternative is too sweeping as the number of verses is very large and makes all the old sūtras except that of Gautama valueless for all chronological purposeṣ One cannot subscribe to the view that such extensive interpolations took place as the latter theory demandṣ The first alternative appears more reasonable. What that common source was, whether it was a regular work in verse or whether there was a floating mass of such popular verses as Bühler holds, are questions that present very great difficultieṣ It is not easy to believe that there were hundreds of floating verses on dharma no body knew by whom composed, on which writers of the centuries preceding the Christian era drew for supporting their opinionṣ That does not sound as a very likely procedure. It is more probable that such verses were contained in a work or works now lost.

I tried on pp. 29-31 of the first edition to bring forward arguments on both sides of the question whether Baudhāyana Dh. S. is earlier or later than Āpastamba and on p. 30 stated that the Bauḍ Dh. S. may be placed between 500 B. C. and 200 B. C. Dr. Ram Gopal (p. 76 of his work) trots out the plea that I am inconsistent. I have given above an answer to this charge in the case of my remarks about Gautama. So I do not want to rebut here the charge of inconsistency. I am prepared to place Baudhāyana Dh. S. between 600 B. C. to 300 B. C. All these dates are more or less tentative and there is no finality about them at least at present.

In the tarpana, Bauḍ (II. 5. 21) mentions several appellations of Gaṇeśa, viz. Vighna, Vināyaka, Sthūla, Varada, Hastimukha, Vakratuṇḍa, Ekadanta, Lambodara. But this affords no certain clue as to date. The worship of Vināyaka is found in the Mānāvāgṛhya also. In the tarpana (II. 5. 23) we have the seven planets mentioned in the order of the days of the week and also Rāhu and Ketu; besides the twelve names of Viṣṇu occur in II. 5. 24. In II. 1. 44 Bauḍ speaks of the profession of an actor or of a teacher of dramaturgy (Nātyācārya) as an upapātaka. Several sūtras attributed to Baudhāyana on the subject of adoption in the Dattakamīmāmsā and other later works are taken from the Baudhāyanagṛhyāśeṣasūtra (II. 6), the sūtras agreeing very closely with Vasiṣṭha (15. 1-9).

According to Burnell the oldest commentator on the Baudhāyanaśrauta-sūtra was Bhavasvāmin, whom he placed in the 8th century. The commentary of Govindasvāmin on the Dharmasūtra is a learned one and is generally to the point. He appears to be a very late writer.