9. Vasishtha-Dharmasutra

Volume I: Part I pp. 94–112

9. Vasishtha-Dharmasutra

in the Hiranyakesi school; e. g. he comments on padūnām', on 'adhāsanaśāyi' for ardhasanaśāyi (the reading of the sūtra), on 'ātmasvastyayanārthena' (Āp. II. 5. 11. 9) for 'svastyayanārthena' of the mṣ of Hir. The explanations of the two writers sometimes differ, as for example on 'ācāryādhinas syād-anyatra pataniyebhyaḥ' (Āp. I. 1. 2. 19¹). One more circumstance that is worthy of note is that the Ujjvalā of Haradatta does not contain many quotations from Smṛtis as compared with his commentary on the Gautama dharmasūtra. Although one may be inclined to hold that it is Mahādeva who borrows, it must be clearly recognized that there is hardly any positive evidence in support of such a view. There is a commentary called Vaijayantī on the Hiranyakesi-śrauta-sūtra. This Mahādeva is very likely identical with the Mahādeva who commented upon the dharmasūtra.

9. Vasiṣṭha-dharmasūtra.

This dharmasūtra has been printed several timeṣ The collection of Jīvananda (part II, pp. 456-496) contains only 20 chapters and a portion of the 21st and so does the collection of Mr M. N. Dutt (Calcutta 1908). The Ānandāśrama collection of Smṛtis (1905, pp. 187-231) and the edition of Dr. Führer in the B. E. S. series (1916) contain thirty chapterṣ According to Dr Jolly ( R. u s, p. 6 ) some msṣ give only six or ten chapterṣ The Vasisthadharmasūtra with the commentary called Vidvanmodinī was printed at Benareṣ In the following Dr. Führer's edition has been useḍ

Kumārila (vide note 55 above) tells us that the dharmasūtra of Vasiṣṭha was specially studied by the students of the Ṛgveda, but that along with other dharmasūtras it is authoritative for all caraṇaṣ No śrauta and gṛhya sūtras of Vasiṣṭha, if they ever existed, have come down to uṣ We have therefore to fall back upon one of two hypotheses, viz. either the dharmasūtra of Vasiṣṭha is the solitary remnant of a school that might have once possessed a complete kalpa or that it was composed as an independent work on dharma and was subsequently seized upon by the students of the Ṛgveda, who had only śrauta and gṛhya sūtras of Āśvalāyana. For reasons given elsewhere I incline to the latter view. The dharmasūtra of Vasiṣṭha cites quotations from all Vedas and beyond the name Vasiṣṭha there is hardly anything special in the dharmasūtra to connect it with the Ṛgveda. It is true that in the 17th chap. several verses of the Ṛgveda (such as I. 21. 5, I. 124. 7, V. 4. 10 which occur in sūtras 3, 16 and 4 respectively ) and several passages from the story of Śunaḥśepa in the Aitareya-brāhmaṇa are quoted by the sūtra and that several hymns of the Ṛgveda, such as the asyavāmīya (Ṛg. I. 164 ), haviṣpāntiya (Ṛg. X. 88), Aghamarṣaṇa (X. 190), are referred to in the 26th chap. But there is nothing remarkable in this as some of the verses and sūktas are mentioned in the Baudhāyanadharmasūtra also. Besides, the Vaṣ Dh. S. quotes several passages from the Taittirīyasaṁhitā ( as in Vaṣ V. 7–9, which quote Tai. S. II. 5. 1-6 and Vaṣ XI. 48 which quotes Tai. S. VI. 3. 10. 5), the Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa, the Maitrāyaniya-saṃhitā (in Vaṣ I. 37 ).

The contents of the Vaṣ Dh. S. are:— I. Definition of Dharma, limits of Āryāvarta, who are sinners, the mortal sins, a brāhmaṇa can marry a girl of any of the three higher castes, six forms of marriage, the king was to regulate the conduct of people and to take the sixth part of wealth as a tax ; II. The four varṇas, greatness of ācārya, before upanayana there is no authority for religious rites, the privileges and duties of the four castes, in distress a Brāhmaṇa could subsist by resorting to the calling of a Kṣatriya or Vaiśya ; a Brāhmaṇa was forbidden to sell certain things, usury condemned, rates of interest allowed ; III. Censure of illiterate Brāhmaṇa, rules on finding treasure-trove, who are ātatāyins, when they could be killed in self-defence, pāṅktipāvanas, constitution of a pariṣad, rules about ācamana, śauca and purification of various substances ; IV. The constitution of the four castes is based upon birth and the performance of saṁskāras, the duties common to all castes, honouring guests, madhuparka, impurity on birth and death ; V. dependence of women, rules of conduct for a rajasvalā ; VI. usage is transcen- dental dharma, praise of ācāra, rules about answering calls of nature, moral characteristics of a brāhmaṇa and the peculiar characteristics of a śūdra, censure of partaking food at the houses of śūdras, rules of etiquette and good breeding ; VII the four āśramas, and the duties of a student ; VIII. Duties of an householder, honouring guests ; IX. rules for forest hermits ; rules for saṁnyāsins ; XI. six persons who deserve special honour, viz. the priest at the sacrifice, son-in-law, king, paternal and maternal uncles and a snātaka ; order of precedence in serving food, guests, rules about śrāddha, times for it, the brāhmaṇas to be invited at it, rules about agnihotra, upanayana, the proper time, staff, girdle &c. for it; method of begging for almṣ prāyaścitta for those whose upanayana is not performed; XII. rules of conduct for a snātaka; XIII. rules about the beginning of Vedic study, rules about holidays for Vedic studies, rules about falling at the feet of guru and others, guiding principles in precedence as regards respect (learning, wealth, age, relation- ship, avocation, each prior deserving more consideration than each succeeding one), rule of the road; XIV. rules about forbidden and permitted food, rules about the flesh of certain birds and animals; XV. rules of adoption, about excommunication of those who revile the Vedas or perform sacrifice for śūdras and for other sins; XVI. About administration of justice, king as guardian of minors, threefold pramāṇas, viz. documents, witnesses and possession; rules about adverse possession and about king's advisers; qualifications of witnesses; perjury condoned in certain cases; XVII. praise of aurasa son; conflicting views about kṣetraja son, viz. whether he belongs to the begetter or to him on whose wife he is begotten; twelve kinds of sons; partition between brothers, grounds of exclusion from partition, rules of niyoga, rules about grown-up unmarried girl, rules of inheri- tance, king as ultimate heir; XVIII. pratiloma castes such as caṇḍāla, no Vedic studies for śūdras or in their presence; XIX. king's duty to protect and to punish; importance of purohita, XX. about prāyaścittas for various acts unknowingly or knowingly done; XXI. prāyaścitta for adultery by śūdra and others with women of the Brāhmaṇa caste or for cow-killing: XXII. prāyaścitta for eating forbidden food, sacred texts that purify in case of sins; XXIII. penances for Brahmacārin having sexual intercourse, for drinking wine &c.; XXIV. Kṛcchra and Atikṛcchra; XXV. secret penances and penances for lesser sins; XXVI-VII. virtues of prāṇāyāma, Vedic hymns and Gāyatrī as purifiers; XXVIII. praise of women, eulogy on Vedic mantras like Aghamarṣaṇa and of gifts; XXIX. rewards of gifts, brahmacarya, tapas &c. ; XXX. eulogy of dharma, truth and brāhmaṇa.

The Vaṣ Dh. S. resembles in several respects the other dharmasūtras described above. It contains almost the same subjects and is similarly composed in prose interspersed with verseṣ The Vaṣ Dh. S. is in style like the Gautamadharmasūtra and has many sūtras identical with or closely resembling those of the latter. Vide. p. 18 above. It has also several sūtras closely corresponding with the sūtras of Baudhāyana. Grave doubts have been entertained about the authenticity of the whole of the text of the Vaṣ Dh. S. as the msṣ contain varying numbers of chapters from 6 to 30, and as the text is hopelessly corrupt in several places (e. g. vide note 108 below). The Vaṣ Dh. S. contains many verses which bear the impress of a comparatively late age. Chapters 25–28 are entirely in verse, while there are other chapters (like III. 2–12, VI. 1–13, XI. 20–42) which contain many verses interpcsed between prose passageṣ In this respect Vasiṣṭha's work is on a par with Baudhāyana's, in the fourth praśna of which there are chapters entirely consisting of verseṣ It has therefore been argued that the text of Vasiṣṭha was tampered with freely, particularly as regards the chapters at the enḍ But as shown below it will have to be admitted that the interpolations, whatever they may be, were made at a very early perioḍ The Mitākṣarā quotes Vaṣ by name about 80 times and the quotations are taken from almost every chapter from the first to the last. For example, Mit. quotes Vaṣ 27. 1 on Yāj. III. 310, Vaṣ 27. 21 on Yāj. III. 323, Vaṣ 28. 7 on Yāj. III. 297, Vaṣ 28. 18, 19 and 22 on Yāj. III. 309. Even Medhātithi quotes Vasiṣṭha over twenty timeṣ The quotations are mostly taken from the first chapter to the 21st. Only one quotation from the last few chapters (viz. 27. 16) has been found in Medhātithi (on Manu XI. 211) and that too is not quoted as Vasiṣṭha's, but is ascribed to ‘ otherṣ ’ Viśvarūpa, who flourished about the first quarter of the 9th century quotes Vaṣ about thirty times in his commentary on the ācāra and vyavahāra sections of Yāj. These quotations hardly differ in any respect from the text of Dr. Führer's edition and are scattered over almost all chapters from the 1st to the 17th, six quotations being taken from chapters 3 and 17 each. In the prāyaścitta section Viśvarūpa quotes Vaṣ even more frequently. Besides several sūtras from the 1st, 4th, 10th and 11th chapters, he quotes here no less than 22 sūtras of the 20th chap. and 9 of the 21st. More- over sūtras 37 and 39 of the 23rd chap. are quoted (on Yāj. III 281-282). What is more remarkable is that two verses (2-3) of the 28th chapter are ascribed to Vasiṣṭha and explained in detail (on Yāj. III. 256), while Vaṣ 28. 4 is quoted without the author's name. These facts make it certain that the Vaṣ Dh. S. contained in Viśvarūpa's day all the chapters from the first to the 28th and also the 28th. Śaṅkara in his bhāṣya in Br. Upa- niṣad (III. 5. 1) quotes Vaṣ X. 4 and on Br. Up. IV. 5. 15 he H. D.—13 quotes Vaṣ VII. 3. The Vaṣ Dh. S. quotes numerous verses preceded by the words “athāpyudāharanti”, which is the case with Baudhāyana also. The word ‘Udāharanti’ or ‘athāpyudāharanti’ occur in Vaṣ about 42 timeṣ In Chap. 14 alone the words ‘api hyatra Prajāpatyān ślokān-udāharanti’ occur thrice viz., once before verses 16–19 (of which verses 16 and 18 are the same as Manu IV. 248–49 and are quoted from a Purāṇa in Āp. Dh. S. I. 6. 19. 13); again before verses 24–27 of which 24 is the same as Manu V. 137 and Bauḍ Dh. S. I. 5. 56); and a third time before Vaṣ 14. 30–32. The words ‘ Mānavam ślokamudāharanti’ occur four times in Vaṣ viz. in 3. 2 (same as Manu II. 168 ), in Vaṣ 19. 37 (which is in Indravajrā metre), in Vaṣ 20. 18 (same as Manu 11. 151 with slight variations). In some cases where the word ‘udāharanti’ is used in Vaṣ the verse occurs in Vaṣ, Bauḍ Dh. S. and Manu also. For example, Vaṣ I. 22 = Manu 11. 180 = Bauḍ Dh. S. II. 1. 62; Vaṣ 2.30 = Manu 10. 91 = Bauḍ Dh. S. II. 1. 52; Vaṣ 5. 3 = Manu 9. 3 = Bauḍ Dh. S. II. 2. 46; Vaṣ 11. 27–28 = Manu 3. 125–26 = Bauḍ Dh. S. II. 8. 21–22; Vaṣ 11.25 = Manu 3. 225 = Bauḍ Dh. II. 8. 14 (with slight variation). In Āp. Dh. S. II. 6. 13. 6 (the verse apramattā rakṣatha &c), Bauḍ Dh. S. II. 2. 36, Vaṣ 17. 9 the same verse occurs preceded by ‘udāharanti’. Some verses, though not introduced with the words ‘athāpyudāharanti’ or with ‘udāharanti’ occur in all three e. g. Vaṣ 3. 5, 6 and 11 are same as Manu 12. 114, 115 and Manu 2. 157 respectively, and as Bauḍ Dh. I. 1. 10, 12 and 11 respectively. The same verses are sometimes found in three different sūtra workṣ For example, Āp. Dh. S. II. 4. 9. 13 = Bauḍ Dh. S. II. 7. 22–23 (both works introduce with ‘athāpyudāharanti’) = Vaṣ 6. 20–21 (without āthāpyu. &c ). In many cases Āp. Dh. S. and Vaṣ have great verbal agreement in their sūtras e. g. compare Āp. I. 4. 12. 8 and Vaṣ I. 7; Āp. I. 5. 15. 16 with Vaṣ 23. 33; Āp. I. 9. 25. 1–2, Gautama 23. 9. 11 with Vaṣ 20. 13; Āp. II. 8. 17. 22 (on ‘pańktīpāvana’) with Vaṣ 3. 19, Gaut. 15. 28, Manu III. 185. Vaṣ quotes a verse (gāthā ) from the Nidāna (work) of the Bhāllavins (a Sāmaveda Śākhā ). ² Compare Āp. Dh. S. II. 6. 13. 5 (utpādayituḥ putra iti Brāhmaṇam) with Vaṣ 17. 63 (aniyuktāyām-utpanna utpādayituḥ putro bhavati- tyāhuḥ). Vaṣ has many sūtras on several topics very similar in language to Gautama. Compare Vaṣ XI. 16 and 14 with Gaut. 15. 3 and 5 (on śrāddha); Vaṣ XI. 49–51, 71–73 with Gaut. I. 6, 12–14; Vaṣ 17. 42–45 with Gaut. 28. 3–8; Vaṣ 13. 8 ff with Gaut. 16.5 ff (on anadhyāya). Chapters VI–IX of Gautama have many sūtras very similar to Vasiṣṭha’ṣ

But the relation between Vaṣ and the Manusmṛti is most important ; at least 61 verses of the extant Manusmṛti are identical with Vasiṣṭha’s (except for a word or a letter or two in a few cases). Of these some expressly mention the quotation as ‘Mānavam ³, or ‘Mānavam ślokam’ (vide above), or use the word ‘udāharanti’ about seventeen times, leaving no doubt as to whether they are quotationṣ Vaṣ IV. 5 and XVI. 30 are in prose but use the very words of the Manu-smṛti viz. Manu 5. 22, 32, 42 and Manu 8. 68 respectively. Some of the verses quoted in Vaṣ contain the word (Manu) as in IV. 6. There are at least five verses in Vaṣ three pādas of which are the same as in the verses of the extant Manu (compare Vaṣ 3. 59 and M. 5. 123, Vaṣ 6. 43 and M. 12.109, Vaṣ 26. 14 and M. 4. 146, Vaṣ 30. 7 and Manu 7. 84 and six passages that contain half verses that are common to Vaṣ and Manu (Vaṣ 3. 8 and M. III. 128. Vaṣ 6. 11 and M. 4. 52, Vaṣ 8. 8 and M. 3. 103 and Vaṣ 10. 5 and M. 2. 83, Vaṣ 13. 16 (Mānava-śloka) and Manu 4. 117, Vaṣ 18. 10 (Pārāśavo...tyāhuḥ) and M. 9. 178. Several verses occur without these words being prefixed, but most of them seem to be quotations (e. g. Vaṣ II. 3 which combines Manu. II. 169 and 170, IV. 6 which is Manu 5. 41, VI. 6 and 8 which is Manu IV. 157 and 158). Some of these verses introduced with the words ‘athāpi’ &c. as well as some of those not so introduced are in the regular classical Upajāti, Upendravajrā or Indravajrā (vide. I. 38, X. 20 for verses with athāpi &c. and VI. 9 and 25, X, 17, XVI. 36 for verses without them). Some of the verses are in the ancient Triṣṭubh form (e. g. VI. 3 and 30, VIII. 17, XVII. 71). In one verse (VI. 5) there are twelve letters in the first pāda and eleven in the rest. One quotation with words “athāpi” &c. is in prose (II. 5). There are a few un-Pāṇinean forms like ‘Vivadanti’ in XIV. 47 (vide Pāṇini I. 3. 47). It looks as if the dharma- sūtra once ended with the 24th chapter, where we have an injunction (in sūtra 6) against imparting the dharmasūtra to one who is not a son or pupil. The same sūtra occurs in Baudhāyana Dh. S. IV. 4. 9 and the succeeding sūtra is the same in both. But the words 'prāyaścitta has been described in the rahasya sections for playing false to the husband' (in Vaṣ V. 4) apparently refer either to chapters 25-28 (which contain rahasya penances ) or to some prototype of those chapters now lost.

The Vaṣ Dh. S. quotes largely from the Ṛgveda and other Vedic Samhitāṣ Among the Brāhmaṇas, the Aitareya and Śatapatha are frequently citeḍ The Vājasaneyaka (Vaṣ 12. 31 and 23. 13) and the Kāṭhaka (Vaṣ 12. 24 and 30. 5) are menti- oned by name. The Tai. Āraṇyaka is quoted in Vaṣ 23. 23. The Upaniṣads and Vedānta occur in 22. 9. Vasiṣṭha quotes a gāthā of the Bhāllavins from their Nidāna work about the extent of the home of Brahmanism, which is quoted by Baudhā- yana also (Dh. S. I. 1. 27). He speaks of the aṅgas of the Veda (3. 23 and 13. 7) and gives their number as six (3. 19). Itihāsa and Purāṇa are mentioned in 27. 6. The science of words (grammar), of omens and portents, and of astrology and astronomy (Nakṣatravidyā) are referred to in 10. 20-21. He prohibits the learning of the language of the Mlecchas (in 6. 41). Vaṣ quotes a verse that states that the view holding the aprāmāṇya of the Vedas leads to perdition (12. 41). In Vaṣ II. 8-11 occurs the Vidyāsūkta in four verses that we meet with in the Nirukta (II. 4). Vasiṣṭha calls his own work dharmaśāstra (in 24. 6) and probably refers to other works on dharma in the words 'one who studies dharmas' (in 3. 19). The study of dharmaśāstra as a penance for even mortal sins is spoken of in 27. 19. Vaṣ quotes several authors on dharmaśāstra. He quotes a verse from Hārīta (in II. 6) which occurs in Baudhāyana also with slight variations (Bauḍ Dh. S. I. 2. 7), though without the author's name. The two halves of this verse are almost the same as the latter halves of Manu. 2. 171-172. Bühler is there- fore not quite accurate when he says without qualification that the verse attributed to Hārīta occurs in Manu (p. XX, S. B. E. vol. XIV). Vaṣ quotes Gautama twice (in 4. 35 and 37) about impurity on death, the first corresponding to Gautama (14. 41), while there is nothing in Gautama to correspond to the 2nḍ Vaṣ quotes a verse (11. 20) which mentions Yama by name 9. Vasiṣṭha Dharmasūtra and embodies the latter's viewṣ Vaṣ (18. 13–15) quotes three ślokas sung by Yama, one of which (14) is the same as Manu 4. 80 and another (15) is very similar to Manu 4. 81. Another śloka of Yama is quoted by Vaṣ (19. 48) which is almost the same as Manu 5. 93. From these facts and others Bühler draws the conclusion (S. B. E. vol. XIV, p. XX) that these verses were taken from the Mānavadharmasūtra, which occupied the same position in Vasiṣṭha's day as the Manusmṛti does at present. I demur to this conclusion, which will be discussed later on in detail (under Manusmṛti). Vaṣ (14. 30–32) quotes ślokas of Prajāpati, the first of which mentions Yama by name⁴. Vaṣ 14. 16–19 and 24–27 are quoted as ślokas of Prajāpati, three of which (14. 16, 18 and 24) are practically the same as Manu. 4. 248, 249 and 5. 127. Vaṣ 14. 19 contains a pāda which occurs in Manu 4. 212. It is remarkable that the Vaṣ Dh. S. cites Vasiṣṭha himself with great reverence (as bhagavān) in 2. 50 (about the rate of interest), 24. 5 (about Kṛcchra penance), 30. 11. In numerous places the Vaṣ Dh. S. either refers to Manu by name or quotes the views of Manu (under the form ‘ iti Mānavam ’) or a śloka of Manu (with words ‘ Mānavam ślokam ’). All these passages have an important bearing on the age of the Manusmṛti and on the supposed existence of a Mānavadharmasūtra. They therefore deserve to be carefully examineḍ Vaṣ I. 17 is in prose (about local, family or caste usages) and summarises the views of Manu. The absence of the word ‘ iti ’ before abravin ‘ Manuḥ ’ and the form of the sūtra itself clearly establish that Vaṣ is not directly quoting a sūtra of Manu. That sūtra is only a summary of our Manu I. 118. Vaṣ 3. 2 (which is preceded by the words ‘ Mānavaṃ ślokam ’ is Manu II. 168. And so are Vaṣ 13. 16, 20. 18, which are Manu 4. 117 and 11. 151 (with very slight variations). That the latter existed in Vasiṣṭha’s text is vouched for by Aparārka (p. 1075). Vaṣ 4. 5 is in prose and cites the view that animals may be sacrificed only for worshipping and honouring the manes, deities and guests ⁵. There is hardly anything to show that it is a direct quotation from Manu and not a summary of Manu’s viewṣ The sūtra briefly summaries the views that we find expressed in our Manu 5. 22, 32, 41 and 42 (the words of 42 ‘eṣvartheṣu paśuṁ hiṁsan’ are interesting and bear a close resemblance to ‘paśuṁ hiṁsyād’ in Vaṣ). That sūtra is followed by a verse which is the same as Manu 5. 41. It is to be noted that the same verse occurs in the dharmasūtra of Viṣṇu (51. 64) which reads ‘ nānyatretī kathamcana ’ for ‘nānyathety bravin Manuḥ’. This change appears to have been purposely made to keep up the impression that the Viṣṇu Dh. S. emanated from Viṣṇu himself and so could not have borrowed from a human author. Vaṣ 4. 7 is very similar to Manu 5. 48. Bühler (S. B. E. Vol. 25, P. XXXI) is wrong in taking Vaṣ 4. 8 as a quotation from the Mānavadharmasūtra. There is nothing to show that it is so takeṇ It is more probably a quotation from or a summary of a Brāhmaṇa passage (compare a quotation in Aparārka on Yaj. 1. 109, which is similar). Vas 23. 43 (where Manu is referred to as prescribing an easy penance called Śiśukṛcchra for children and old men) corresponds more or less with Manu 11. 211 and 219 and Vaṣ 26. 8 has evidently Manu 11. 260 in view. There are only two places in Vasiṣṭha where the name of Manu occurs for which it is not possible to point out a corresponding verse in the Manusmṛti. They are Vaṣ 12. 16 and 19. 37. The latter is cited as a Mānava- śloka and is in the Upajāti metre. ⁶ Because this is not found in our Manu, Bühler and other Western scholars seem to think that the verse is taken from the Mānavadharmasūtra which once existed in mixed prose and verse and is now lost. But, as will be shown elsewhere, this hypothesis is based, to say the least, on very slender foundationṣ Besides these two that are not found in our Manu, there are about forty verses that are common to the Vaṣ Dh. S. and the Manusmṛti and about a dozen verses which, though not strictly identical, are more or less similar. There are several prose sūtras of Vaṣ which correspond to the verses of Manu almost word for worḍ⁷ The hypothesis that commends itself to me is that Vaṣ contains borrowings from the Manusmṛti or its purer ancient original in verse.

In the words ‘Śrāmaṇakenāgnimādhāya’ (Vaṣ 9. 10), the sūtra of Vikhanas seems to be referred to. Gautama (Dh. S. 3. 26 ) contains the same wordṣ Vasiṣṭha's 22nd chap. is the same as Gautama's 19th and Baudhāyana's tenth in the 3rd praśna and seems to have been borrowed from Gautama. Vasiṣṭha refers to the views of others in the words 'eke' or 'anye' (Vaṣ 1. 12, 13, 25 ; 4. 10 ; 17. 66 ; 20. 2 ). Dr. Jolly (S. B. E. vol. VII, p. XVIII ) thinks that Vaṣ 28. 10-15 and 18-22 are borrowed from the Viṣṇudharmasūtra chap. LVI and LXXXVII or its original the Kāṭhakadharmasūtra. Dr. Jolly is not right with regard to both the placeṣ Bühler has already pointed out his mistake as to the second passage (S. B. E. vol. XIV p. XXII ). The verses in Vaṣ 28. 10-15 occur in several smṛtis (vide Śaṅkhasmṛti, 10th chap. in Jīvananda's eḍ part II. pp. 356-357 for the same verses ). Vasiṣṭha, chap. 28, verses 1-6 occur in Atriṣmṛti VI. 1-6 ( Ānaṇ collection of Smṛtis) with slight variations of which the first five are quoted as Atri's by the Gṛhastharatnākara p. 245 and verse 6 ('agnerepatyam' occurs in Padmapurāṇa, Vanaparva 200. 128 (Ch. eḍ), Saṁvarta (77) Inscriptionṣ Vide H. of Dh. Vol. II. p. 1272, No. 5 (in some cases the third pāda of ‘Agnerepatyam’ is different). Verses 18-22 of Vaṣ 28 occur in the Atri Smṛti VI. 7-11 and in Viṣṇu Dh. S., chap. 87 (last two verses are the same as Vaṣ 28. 21–22 ) and Viṣṇu Dh. S. 90. 10 (in prose) is nearly the same as Vaṣ 28. 18-19. Besides Vaṣ 28. 11 occurs in Bauḍ Dh. S. IV. 3. 7. Hence it is hardly proper for any scholar to make the dogmatic assertion that one particular smṛti must have borrowed from any other. The rather very corrupt passage in Vasiṣṭha (16. 21-23 ⁸) very closely resembles a passage of Śaṅkha, which is cited by Viśvarūpa on Yaj. I. 305 and by the Kṛtya-kalpataru.

Bühler is of opinion that the home of the school to which the Vaṣ Dh. S. belonged lay to the north of the Narmadā and the Vindhya (S. B. E. vol. XIV p. XVI). When it is extremely problematical whether the Vaṣ Dh. S. was the product of a school, it is idle to speculate as to the home of the Vaṣ Dh. S. Bühler’s is no more than a mere conjecture and it is better to admit that we know nothing positive at present on the point.

The earliest work to refer to Vasiṣṭha as an authority on dharma is our Manu (8. 140), saying that Vaṣ allowed 1/80th of the principal as interest per month. This appears to refer to the rule in Vaṣ 2. 50. We saw above that Vaṣ borrows from the Manusmṛti, which in its turn quotes a rule of Vasiṣṭha. The explanation of this is twofolḍ Both the Manusmṛti and Vaṣ have received later additions and further it is possible that the present Vaṣ Dh. S. is the work of some one who had received the teachings of Vaṣ through a succession of teachers and discipleṣ Yāj. mentions (1.4) Vasiṣṭha as a writer on dharma. The Tantravārtika as seen above (note 55) remarks that the Vaṣ Dh. S. was studied by Ṛgvedinṣ The same work when speaking of works on dharma puts Manu, Gautama and Vasiṣṭha in the forefront.⁸ It appears that Śabara on P. M. S. VI. 1. 10 quotes or summarizes Vaṣ I.32 and 36 when he says ‘Vikrayoṣpi śrūyate, śatamadhiratham duhitṛmate dadyāt, ārṣe gomithunamiti’. Vasiṣṭha I.32 and 36 are ‘gomithunena cārṣaḥ tasmādduhitṛmate’dhiratham śatam deyam-itiha krayo vijñāyate.’ The words 'tasmāḍ..deyam' do occur in Āp. Dh. S. II. 6. 13. 11 but not in the definitions of the forms of marriage in Vaṣ The words 'adhiratham śatam duhitṛmate' occur in Sāṇ Gr. I. 8. 36, but not in connection with any form of marriage (both do not enumerate the forms of marriage). Viśvarūpa, Medhātithi and other early commentators largely quote from Vaṣ The verse 'agnerapatyam' (Vaṣ 28.16) occurs in the Ragim copperplate of Tivaradeva of the last quarter of the 8th century (Fleet's Gupta Inscription No. 81.). Therefore the existence of a work of Vasiṣṭha on dharma at least in the first centuries of the Christian era is vouched for with certainty and the authenticity of its text is supported by eminent writers from the 7th century downwardṣ Aparārka quotes passages from the Bhaviṣyapurāṇa which have in view the present text of Vaṣ ⁹ Some of the views held by Vasiṣṭha are very ancient. For example, he speaks of the twelve secondary sons, assigns a very inferior position to the Dattaka son (17th chapter), allows niyoga (17. 56 ff) and the remarriage of child widows (17. 74). Like Āpastamba he mentions only six forms of marriage (1. 28–29), brāhma, daiva, ārṣa, gāndharva, kṣātra and mānuṣa. In some respects his views are different from those of early writers like Gautama and Baudhāyana. He prohibits the marriage of a Brāhmaṇa with a śūdra woman (I. 25–26 ). Vide Bauḍ Dh. S. I. 8. 2 for the contrary view. He elaborates rules of adoption (15th chapter) which are not found in Gaut. or Bauḍ or Āpastamba. He speaks of documents as one of the three means of proof (Vaṣ 16. 10–15), while Gautama, Āpa-stamba and Baudhāyana are silent on the point, though in Gautama (13. 4) there appears to be a reference to documentṣ Taking all these things into consideration it may be said that Vasiṣṭha is later than Gautama, Āpastamba and Baudhāyana, but much earlier than the beginnings of the Christian era and may tentatively be assigned to the period between 300–100 B. C. It has been asserted by an eminent authority (Cambridge History of India vol. I, p. 249 ) that Vasiṣṭha 18. 4 (vaiśyena brāhmaṇyām-utpanno Rāmako bhavatītyāhuḥ) probably contains a reference to the Romanṣ This assumption is gratuitous and does not deserve serious consideratioṇ The reading Romaka (on which the learned writer relies) is not supported by the best msṣ and it is most hazardous to seize with avidity on a variant reading and to build an imposing structure of chronology thereoṇ The offspring of a Vaiśya male from a brāhmaṇa woman is designated Rāmaka by Vasiṣṭha, while Kṛta (4. 15) and Bauḍ Dh. S. (I. 9. 7) calls such an offspring Vaidehaka; so Rāmaka has as much to do with the Romans as with Rameseṣ In the nibandhas there are several quotations ascribed to Vasiṣṭha which are not found in the printed Dharmasūtra. For example, Haradatta on Gaut. (22. 18) quotes a verse in the Upajāti metre which is not found in the present text ¹⁰

The author of the extant Vaṣ Dh. S. appears to have been eclectic. His sūtra contains dozens of verses that occur in the extant Manusmṛti. Similarly, many of the verses quoted by him in the words ‘athāpyudāharaṇti’ or the word ‘udāharaṇti’ occur also in the Āp. Dh. S. and more often in Bauḍ Dh. S., which latter just like Vaṣ employs the words ‘athāpyudāharaṇti’ over forty timeṣ Towards the end of the present text (edition of Vaṣ, chap. 30. 9-10) occurs the verse ‘yā dustyajā’ &c., which is found in Vanaparva 2. 36, Śānti-parva 174, 55 and 276. 12 and Anuśāsana 7. 21. The last sūtra (of Vasiṣṭha Dh. S.) contains an obeisance to Vasiṣṭha who is described as the son of Mitrāvaruņa from Urvaśī and as Śatayātu (who possessed hundred magic spells or against whom a hundred magic speels were employed). Rg. VII. 33. 11 refers to the birth of Vasiṣṭha from Urvaśī and calls him Maitrāvaruṇa and in Rg. VII. 18. 21 we have the half verse ‘Pra ye gṛhāda- madus-tvayā Parāśaraḥ Śatayātur-Vasiṣṭhaḥ’. Sāyana takes ‘Śatayātuḥ’ as meant for Śakti, son of Vasiṣṭha.

If we rely on the number of verses common to Manu and Vasiṣṭha or on references to ‘Mānavam’ (Vaṣ IV. 5.) or ‘Mānava-śloka’ 13. 16, 20. 18 or simply ‘Manu’ (Vaṣ I. 17, IV. 6, XI. 23, XII. 16) and also consider the very large number of verses and passages common to the Manusmṛti, Vaṣ Dh. S. and Āp. Dh. S., it would have to be held that the extant Vaṣ Dh. S. is a re-hash of the Āp. Dh. S., Bauḍ Dh. S. and Manu (as it existed before it was remodelled about the beginning of the Christian era or a century or two earlier). It would not be irrelevant, if most of the passages from Vasiṣṭha that are based on or refer to Vedic works are referred to here and examineḍ First, as to the Ṛgvedic Literature. Vaṣ IV. 2 mentions Purusasūkta (Ṛg. X. 90), Vaṣ 17. 3-4 quote portions of Ṛg. I. 21. 5 and Ṛg. V. 4. 10 (last pāda, Vaṣ 17. 16. (praticīnam gacchāti putratvam) refers to Ṛg. I. 124. 7 and Nirukta 3. 5; Vaṣ 15. 20 refers to making a person bathe with water from a holy lake or stream with the Vedic verses beginning with ‘Āpo hi ṣṭhā’ (Ṛg. X. 9. 1 ff); Vaṣ 17. 1-2 quote from Ait. Br. (adhyāya 33. 1) and Vaṣ 17. 31-35 refer to the story of Śunaḥśepa (in Ait. Br. 33. 2-6). As to the Tai. S., Vaṣ 5. 8 quotes a long passage from Tai. S. II. 5. 1. 1-6 (the transfer of Indra's sin of killing Tvaṣṭra Viśvarūpa to women); Vaṣ 11. 48 3. 10. 5 (for the theory of three inherited obligations of brāhmaṇas which is also mentioned in Śatapatha Br. ); Vaṣ I. 37 quotes Mai. S. I. 10. 11 (‘anṛtam vā eṣā karoti yā patyuḥ kṛtā satyathānyaīṣ-carati’ &c) which also occurs in Kāthaka saṃhitā, Sthanaka 36. 5. The Kāthaka is mentioned by name twice by Vaṣ (in 12. 24 and 30. 5) and the Vājasane-yaka (meaning Śat. Br.) is mentioned thrice (Vaṣ 12. 31, 14. 46 and 23. 13 );¹¹. Vaṣ 2. 34 quotes Vāj. saṃhitā (XII. 71); Vaṣ 18. 17 quotes the words ‘nāgnim citvā rāmām upeyāt’ from the Kāthaka and in 18. 18 explains the meaning of Rāmā, which appears to be taken from the Nirukta XII. 13. Among the Brāhmaṇa works the Śatapatha Br. is the one that is often quoted; Vaṣ I. 45 quotes Śat. Br. V. 4. 2. 3 (‘brāhmaṇo vedam-ādhyam’ &c), Vaṣ 14. 46 refers to Śat. Br. III. 1. 2. 21; Vaṣ 19. 4 (vijñāyate brahmapurohitam rāṣṭram-ṛdhnotīti), which is similar to Gaut. Dh. S. XI. 13-14 and is based on Śat. Br. V. 4. 4. 5; Vaṣ 30. 3 ‘Agnir-vai brāhmaṇa iti śruteḥ’ (this is Śat. Br. I. 4. 2. 2); ‘Vaṣ 23. 23 mentions the mantra beginning with ‘Agniśca mā manyuśca’ from Tai. Ār. X. 24. 1; Vaṣ XI. 13 quotes Kathopanisad I. 7 (‘Vaiśvānarah praviśatyatithir-brāhmaṇo gṛhān’).

I might have omitted through oversight a few vedic passageṣ But those examined above show that passages from the Saṁhitās and Brāhmaṇas of Vedas other than the Ṛgveda and its Brāhmaṇas outnumber those from the Ṛgveda and its Brāhmaṇaṣ Then the question naturally arises, why was it adopted by Ṛgvedins as their Dharmasūtra (as stated by Kumārila). The answer is obviouṣ Vasiṣṭha is mentioned by name in the Dharmasūtra several times (vide above). The sūtra does rely on the Ṛgveda and its Brāhmaṇa in a few passageṣ Vasiṣṭha's is the greatest and most famous name among the ancient sages of the Ṛgveda. The whole of the 7th maṇḍala contains 104 sūktas out of 1028 in the whole of the Ṛgveda, is ascribed to Vasiṣṭha (Maitrāvaruṇī). Maṇḍalas I, IX and X have more sūktas than maṇḍala VII, but every one of the three maṇḍalas is held to have been composed by several sages (and not by one for each of them). One aspect of the Vasiṣṭha Dh. S. viz. that different msṣ of it state that it ends with different adhyāyas is very significant. If it had been from the beginning a sūtra of the Ṛgveda, then its text would have been at least as well preserved as the text of such gṛhya or dharma sūtras, as those of Āśvalāyana and Āpa- stamba. Besides, there is one remarkable circumstance. The Āśv. gr. (II. 6) which is affiliated to the Ṛg. names and briefly defines eight forms of marriage viz. Brāhma, Daiva, Prājāpatya, Ārṣa, Gāndharva, Āsura, Paiśāca and Rākṣasa. The Śānkhāyana-gṛhya (I. 12-14) only describes the religious part of the marriage ceremony and altogether omits the mention of eight forms of marriage and their definitionṣ So does the Kauśītaka-gṛhya (I. 8). The Gaut. Dh. S. IV. 4-11, Bauḍ Dh. S. I. 11. 1-9, Manu III 21 and 27-34, Kauṭilya III. 2. 1-9 name and define the same eight forms of marriage, as Āśv. Gr. doeṣ But Vasiṣṭha (I. 28-36) mentions and defines only six forms of marriage viz. Brāhma, Daiva, Ārṣa, Gāndharva, kṣātra and Mānuṣa. In this he seems to follow Āp. Dh. S. II. 5. 11, 17-20-II. 5. 12. 1-2). If Vaṣ Dh. S. had been from the first affiliated to the Ṛgveda it should have either treated the subject in the same way as Āśvalāyana or followed the Āśv. gr. and enumerated eight forms or should have been silent about the several forms of marriage (as Śāṅk. and Kauś. gr. are). This circumstance very much strengthens the theory that Vaṣ Dh. S. is eclectic and therefore followed Āp. Dh. S. in the number of forms of marriage. There is a further circumstance. Vaṣ Dh. S. differs from Āśv. Gr. not only in the number of the forms of marriage but also in the nomenclature. His Kṣātra is the same as Rākṣasa and his Mānuṣa is the same as Āsura. These two terms were probably borrowed by Vasiṣṭha from Hārita-Dharmasūtra (vide Viramitrodaya, Saṃskāra prakāśa, p. 84). As Manu says (III, 34), the Paiśāca form (in which a man has sexual intercourse secretly while the woman is asleep or intoxicated or unconscious, is the worst and most sinful forṃ Vasiṣṭha omitted it and Prājāpatya was probably going out of vogue. Therefore, these two were omitted by Vasiṣṭha. The Āsura and the Rākṣasa are declared by Bauḍ Dh. S. I 11. 12 to be in accordance with the characterstic conduct of Kṣatriyas viz. they rely principally on force either of wealth or of arms (‘atrāpi sasthāṣaptamau Kṣātra-dharmānugatau tat-pratyāyatvāt-kṣatrasya). Therefore, the Rākṣasa form which consists mainly of carrying away a girl by force (Manu 3. 33 prasahyā kanyā-haraṇam) is called kṣātra by Vaṣ Vasiṣṭha might have been moved by such sentiments as are expressed by Devapāla on Kāṭhakagṛhya XV ‘prasahyāpahārād-rākṣaso vivāhaḥ, tatra kim prakārābhīdhānena, evamasaṃvijñātopagamāt Paiśācopi prakāravacanam nārhati pāpatvāt’. Manu (in 8. 165, 168 declares that all transactions brought about by force or fraud should be held invalid (akṛta). There are also other points on which Vaṣ differs from all three gṛhyasūtras of the Ṛgveda or from Śāṅ. Gr. and Kauṣ Gr. On even such a simple matter as the age of a Brāhmaṇa boy at Upanayana, Vaṣ differs from all three. They all agree that the Upanayana of a Brāhmaṇa boy may be performed from the 8th year to the 16th (Vaṣ XI. 49 and 71, Āśv. Gr. I. 19. 1–2 and 5, Śāṅ. Gr. II. I. 1, 3 and 6, Kauṣ Gr. II. I. 2, 5), they differ on the most commendable year for it. Vaṣ (XI. 49) commends the eighth year from conception, Āśv. the eighth year from birth or conception (I. 19. 1, 2), Śāṅ. Gr. (II. 1. 1 and 3) commends either the 8th year or 10th year from conception and the Kauṣ Gr. does the same. So far as I know no other Gr. or Dh. S. gives an option between the 8th or 10th year as the most commendable year for Upanayana. Gaut. (I. 6, 8), Āp. Dh. (I. 1. 19), Bauḍ Dh. (I. 2. 8), Manu (II. 36 ) prescribe as most favoured the 8th year from conceptioṇ It follows that Vaṣ did not agree with any of the three schools of Ṛgvedins, viz. Āśvalāyana, Śāṅkhāyana and Kauṣītaka and struck an independent course and his work on Dharma was later on affiliated to the Ṛgveda, when it became a fashion to have a complete set of Kalpasūtras (in three parts ) for each Veda or its recensionṣ

The above mentioned parallelisms and quotations and their extent are more than enough to lead to the conclusion that Vasiṣṭha’s Dh. S. was originally an eclectic work of an indepen- dent character and that it did not at first attach itself to the Ṛgveda.

Dr. Ram Gopal in his work (on pp. 59-60) does not agree with my conclusion and, though he has to admit (p. 59) that Vasiṣṭha Dh. S. is not known to have formed part of a Ṛgvedic Kalpa, he holds (p. 60) on the ground of close agreement of Vaṣ with the three gṛhyasūtras of Śāṇ, Āśv. and Kauṣ on the topics of upanayana, arādhyāya, snātaka and five Mahāyajñas that Vasiṣṭha’s work was from the first affiliated to the Ṛgveda. In support of his theory he draws attention on p. 67 (note 31) to twelve passages from Śānk. Gr., five from Āśv. Gr. and five from Kaus Gr. (in all 22). I do not want to enter upon a lengthy discussioṇ If about 75 passages quoted from Manu and numerous passages quoted with ‘udāharanti,’ the presence of chapters on adoption, vyavahāra, inheritance, partition, rājadharma and prāyaścittas, which are not shown to have been included in a Vedic Kalpa of the Ṛgveda do not induce a writer to admit the independent origin of Vaṣ there is no use in arguing with hiṃ It is, however, necessary to show clearly what value should be attached to his argumentṣ His contention briefly put is that the 22 passages he cites from Śāṇ Āśv. and Kauṣ gṛhya very closely agree with Vaṣ Dh. passages and therefore Vaṣ must be held to be affiliated to the Ṛgveda from the beginning. He cites Vaṣ IV. 6 as equal to Śāṇ G. S. II. 16. 1 (viz. the verse ‘madhuparke ca etc.). But this verse is Manu V. 41 and both Vaṣ and Śāṇ might have borrowed it from Manu (and what is most important Manu’s name occurs in the verse itself). Dr. Ram Gopal cites Vaṣ VI: 21 (āhitāgniranad- vāṁśca &c) as equal to Śāṇ II. 16. 5. Therefore he concludes that Vaṣ is indebted to Śāṇ It is very fine research indeeḍ There are two verses ‘Aṣṭau grāsā’ &c. and ‘āhi- &c’ in Vaṣ VI. 20-21. Both of these are cited in Bauḍ Dh. S. II. 7. 22-23 and Āp. Dh. S. II. 4. 9. 13 (in both those verses occur with the caption ‘athāpyudāharanti’). It is noteworthy that the Kalpataru (Brahmacārikāṇḍa p. 124) cites ‘aparimitam brahmacāriṇaḥ (part of the verse ‘astau grāsā’) and the verse ‘anadvān brahmacārī ca āhitāgniśca &c as from Vasiṣṭha, Āpastamba, Hārīta and Yama. Śāṇ Gr. II. 16 cites only one of these two verses and that too in a modified form (as ‘Anadvān agnihotram ca’ ( this is a bad reading and the verse becomes ungrammatical). Therefore, this ‘proves that Śāṇ gr borrows one of two ancient verses quoted by both Āp. and Bauḍ and Vaṣ borrows both. Sāṇ Gr. II. 16 has six verses, of which the first ('madhuparke' &c) is Manu V. 41 (reads 'yajñe' for 'some'). The 3rd verse (Naikagrāmiņa &c') is Manu III. 103 (the 4th pāda in Sāṇ is different which is rather obscure in Manu). Sāṇ Gr. II. 16. 5 has been dealt with above.¹² Upākarma is a very common rite even up to this day. So the provisions in the texts on this rite agree. Dr. Ram Gopal cites Vaṣ 13. 5 as agreeing with Sāṇ Gr. IV. 6. 7-8. There is not much verbal agreement between the two as the note will show¹³ but there is at least as much or more verbal agreement with Gaut. and Manu. A thorough examination of all the twenty-two equations in Dr. Ram Gopal's work (p. 67) would cover about a dozen pageṣ The domestic rites and their subsidiary matters being common to dvijas, there is a good deal of uniformity as well as some difference in details in the sūtras connected with different Vedic Śākhāṣ For example, compare Bauḍ Dh. S. I. 2. 14-16 with Āp. Dh. S. I. 2 33-38, also with Gaut. I. 15-23. Mere agreement of a few sūtras with others on simple and common matters relating to Upanayana, Anadhyāya and the like hardly proves anything about their affiliation with any particular Veda or Vedic caraṇa. I regret to say that Dr. Ram's remarks on the passages of Vaṣ and the three Gr. sūtras attached to the Ṛgveda are misleading and also incapable of proving his thesiṣ

So early a writer as Viśvarūpa cites (on Yaj. I. 19) the views of a writer called Vṛddha-Vasiṣṭha. The Mit. on Yaj. (II. 91) quotes the definition of a jayapatra (judgment) from Vṛddha-Vasiṣṭha and on III. 20 quotes him about impurity on miscarriage. On Yaj. III. 310 the Mit. quotes Vasiṣṭha 27. 4 and then in the very next verse quotes a long passage from Vṛddhavasiṣṭha in prose and verse setting forth an expiatioṇ The same passage occurs also in Aparārka on the same verse. Aparārka quotes in all 18 verses (two of which define the form and contents of a jayapatra (of a court of justice) and one prose passage. The Kalpataru profusely quotes Vasiṣṭha in Gṛhastkakāṇḍa (41 times), in Vyavahārakāṇḍa (37 times) and Brahmacārikāṇḍa (15 times), yet never quotes Vṛddha Vasiṣṭha in these three. In Dānakanda (p. 189) it quotes two verses on gocarma and the reward of gifts of land of the extent of gocarma from Vṛddha-Vasiṣṭha¹⁰. The Smṛticandrikā quotes about 20 verses from Vṛddha-Vasiṣṭha on āhnika and śrāddha; Bhaṭṭoji in his gloss on the Caturviṁśatimata (p. 12) seems to quote a prose passage from Vṛddha-Vasiṣṭha. From the above it follows that Vṛddha-Vasiṣṭha was an early compilation and dealt with almost all such topics (including Vyavahāra) as are dealt with by Yāj. The Mit. also quotes on Yāj. III 287 a Bṛhad-Vasiṣṭha. The Smṛticandrikā (III. p. 300) quotes a few verses from a Jyotir-Vasiṣṭha. The I. O. catalogue (No. 1339 p. 392) speaks of a Vasiṣṭha-smṛti in ten *adhyāya*s about the religious observances and duties enjoined on devotees of Viṣṇu.

That Yajñavālmin wrote a commentary on the Vaṣ Dh. S. follows from Govindasvāmin's comment on Bauḍ Dh. S. (II. 2. 51), where he quotes Vaṣ 21. 13 and Yajñavālmin's comment thereoṇ