8. Hiranyakesi-dharmasutra
Volume I: Part I pp. 91–93
The Hiraṇyakeśidharmasūtra constitutes the twenty-sixth and twenty-seventh praśnas of the larger Hiraṇyakeśikalpa. Crucially, the work attributed to Hiraṇyakeśin can hardly be deemed an independent composition, given its extensive indebtedness to the Āpastambadharmasūtra. It borrows hundreds of sūtras verbatim from Āp., though it does incorporate a few distinct additions. Stylistically, Hiraṇyakeśin's readings are often perceived as smoother and more classical than those found in Āpastamba, and the arrangement of sūtras also exhibits some variations between the two texts. Turning to the commentaries, Mahādeva's Ujjvalā on Hiraṇyakeśin shares a remarkable resemblance, being almost identical in content, to Haradatta's commentary on Āp. This close parallel led Bühler to suggest that Mahādeva's work likely borrows from Haradatta. However, it is also notable that Mahādeva's commentary, in certain instances, contains more elaborate matter than Haradatta's and occasionally presents differing interpretations.
— Synopsis by P.V. Kane, from History of Dharmaśāstra
8. Hiranyakesi-dharmasutra
8. Hiranyakeśi-dharmasūtra.
The Hiranyakeśi-dharmasūtra forms the 26th and 27th praśnas of the Hiranyakeśi-kalpa. The Śrauta-sūtra has been published by the Ānandāśrama Press (Poona). The Hiranya-keśi-gṛhya-sūtra was edited with extracts from the commentary of Mātṛdatta by Dr. Kirste (Vienna, 1889). The Gṛhya forms the 19th and 20th praśnas of the Kalpa, each praśna being divided into eight paṭalaṣ The Śrauta-sūtra is largely based on the Śrauta-sūtra of Āpastamba. The Gṛhya-sūtra is indebted to the Gṛhya-sūtra of Bhāradvāja. The Dharmasūtra of Hiranyakeśin can hardly be called an independent work. Hundreds of sūtras are borrowed word for word from the Āpas-tamba Dharmasūtra. The Dharmasūtra of Hiranyake in is therefore the oldest voucher for the authenticity of Āpastamba's text and is very valuable for checking the latter.
The Hiranyakeśins form a sūtra-caraṇa of the Khāṇḍikeya section of the Taittirīya-śākhā and were formed later than the Āpastambīya School. In a grant of the Kongu kings dated in 454 A. D. Brāhmaṇas of the Hiranyakeśi School are mentioned (i. A. vol. V. page 136). According to the Mahārṇava quoted in the commentary of the Caraṇavyūha, the Hiranyakeśins were to be found in the south-west between the Sahya mountain and the ocean and near Paraśurāma (i. e. in the Konkan). There are at present many Brāhmaṇas in the Ratnagiri District who call themselves Hiranyakeśinṣ The Dattaka-mīmāmsī of Nanda-paṇḍita twice quotes passages from the commentary of Śabarasvāmin on the sūtra of Satyāṣāḍha. If he was identical with the great commentator of the Pūrva-mīmāmsā (which is almost certain), then we would have unimpeachable evidence for the existence of the works of the Hiranyakeśins long before 200-400 A. D.
Bühler in his second edition of the Āpastamba-dharmasūtra (1893) gave (in appendix II) the various readings of the Hiranyakeśi-dharmasūtra from two MSS. I secured a modern transcript of the Hiranyakeśi-dharmasūtra from the Deccan College collection (No. 138 of 1881-82), which contains the text and also the commentary of Mahādeva thereoṇ There are 18 folios for the sūtra and 101 for the commentary. That mṣ presents some readings which are not noticed by Bühler as found in the two msṣ consulted by hiṃ For example, the mṣ reads “saptama āyuṣkāmamāṣṭame brahmavarcasakāmam (reversing the order of years in Āp. I. 1. 21–22 ), omits the words “ yadi anāyāt daṇḍavat plavet ” ( from Āp. I. 2. 30. ), reads ‘vastrān- yeva vasitobhaya &c. ’ ( Āp. I. 1. 3. 9 omits vasita ), reads ‘gurave’ for ‘ācāryāya’ in Āp. I. 1. 3. 31. The mṣ of the Hiraṇyakeśī-dharmasūtra contains certain additions to the sūtras of Āpastamba. For example, a sūtra ‘kṣaralavaṇa-madhuṃsaṃsani ca varjayet’ is added after Āp. II. 9. 22. 14, a sūtra ‘teṣāṃ pūjā śreyasyātmanaḥ kāryā’ occurs after Āp. II. 9. 25. 8, and the sūtra ‘ sarva-dharmāṇāṃ svadharmānuṣṭhāna-niyameṣu ca yuktaḥ syāt ’ occurs after Āp. II. 9. 25. 13. The manuscript contains a few verses, that are not found in the Āpastamba-dharmasūtra, introduced by the words ‘athāpyu-dāharanti1’ (except in one case viz. ‘putreṇa, &c. ’). The manuscript also omits certain sūtras found in Āp. e. g. ‘varṇajyāyasāṃ cetarair varṇaiḥ’ (Āp. II. 5. 11. 8), ‘anyatra rāhudarśanāt’ (Āp. II. 7. 17. 25), ‘athopanayanaṃ tata udakopasparśanaṃ’ (Āp. I. 1. 1. 36. ). In the case of some sūtras the readings of Hiraṇyakeśīn present a smoother and more classical Sanskrit than that of Āpastamba and are manifestly attempts to bring them in line with the requirements of the śiṣṭas at the time when the Āpastamba-sūtras were taken over into the Hiraṇyakeśī school. Hiraṇyakeśīsūtra has ‘pādonam’ and ‘ardhonam’ for ‘padunam’ and ‘ardhena’ of Āpastamba (I. 1. 2. 13-14), ‘asandarśane’ for ‘asandarśe’ (Āp. I. 2. 29), ‘aglāniḥ’ for ‘aglāṃśnuḥ’ (Āp. I. 1. 3. 22 ), ‘prakṣālayet’ for ‘prakṣālayita’ (Āp. I. 1. 3. 36), ‘kartṛpatyam’ for ‘kartapatyam’ (Āp. I. 2. 5. 3), ‘yathāśakti’ for ‘śaktiviśayeṣu’ (Āp. II. 5. 12. 1). Another noticeable feature is that the arrangement of the sūtras into sub-sections is a good deal diffe-rent in the two workṣ Bühler notes that from the 13th khaṇḍiks (6th patala ) of the second praśna both the manuscripts consulted by him do not indicate the patalaṣ The Deccan College manuscript does not number them from the second patạla in the second praśna. The number of patalas in the first praśna of Hiraṇyakesī is eight. while Āpastamba has eleven patalas in each of the two praśnaṣ The distribution of sūtras in the khaṇḍikās is therefore different in the two workṣ Hiraṇyakeśī has 31 khaṇḍikās in the first praśna and 20 in the seconḍ Besides, a few of the khaṇḍikās are diffe- rently placeḍ The first khaṇḍikā of Hiraṇyakeśī ( first praśna ) stops after Āp. I. 1. 2. 1, the third reaches up to Āp. I. 1. 4. 6 : Āp. I. 8. 22 and 23 ( the adhyātmāpatala ) come in Hiraṇyakeśī immediately after Āp. I. 6. 19 and are Hiraṇyakeśī I. 6. 20; Āp. I. 7. 20 and 21 = Hir. I. 6. 21–22; Āp. I. 9. 24 and 25. 1–4 = Hir I. 6. 23; Āp. I. 9. 25. 4–13 and I. 9. 26. 1–10 = Hir. I. 7. 24; Āp I. 9. 26. 11–14 and I. 9. 27 = Hir. I. 7. 25; Āp. I. 10. 28 = Hir. I 7. 26; Āp. I. 11. 31. 1–10 = Hir. I. 8. 29; Āp Hir. I. 8. 30. In the second praśna the variance in distribution of sūtras into khaṇḍikās is still greater. Besides, Āp. II. 4. 8–9 are placed in Hiraṇyakeśī before Āp. II. 3. 6–7 and Āp. II. 6. 13–15 before Āp. II. 5. 10–11. Sometimes a single sūtra of Āpastamba is split up into two and placed in two different khaṇḍikās, e. g. Āp. I. 9. 25. 4 is split into Hir. I. 6. 23. 31 and I. 7. 24. 1 ( the portion from ‘rājanam gatvā’ being the first sūtra of Hiraṇya- keśī, 24th Khaṇḍikā.
The coṃ of Mahādeva Dīkṣita called Ujjvalā, is almost word for word the same as that of Haradatta’s Ujjvalā. That one has borrowed from the other admits of no doubt and Bühler thinks that Mahādeva is the borrower. But there is hardly anything to turn the scales in favour of Haradatta. Sometimes Mahādeva’s commentary contains more matter than Haradatta’s (e. g. on the sūtras ‘Saptame brahmavarcasakāmam &c.’, ‘Upanayanam vidyārthasya śrutitaḥ’, ‘dvādaśāvarardhyam’ and sometimes Haradatta contains more explanation (e. g. on ‘tasmiṁśca vidyakarmāntam’ &c.; on ‘nāpsu ślaghamānaḥ snāyāt’, on ‘pāṇisaṁkṣubdhenodakenaika &c.’. Mahādeva differs from Haradatta’s explanation of the word ‘atha’, which the former takes it only in the sense of ‘ānantarya or adhikāra’, while the latter takes it only in the sense of ‘ānantarya’. That Mahādeva also is an early writer follows from the fact { noted by Buhler p. 117 n } that portions of his commentary are contained in the Munich Mṣ of Haradatta dated Vikrama-Saṁvat 1668 (1611–12 A.D.). It is to be noted that Haradatta after saluting Gaṇeśa at the beginning of his Ujjvalā does obeisance to Mahādeva ( which may mean God Śiva or the author Mahādeva if he was the guru or father of Haradatta ). Mahādeva often comments on the sūtras as found in Āpastamba and not on the readings of them as existing