Talk:The Baudhayana Dharmasutra

The text of Baudhāyana Dharmasutra has been edited several times. The Mysore edition has been used in this work.

Baudhāyana is a teacher of the Krsnayajurveda. A complete set of the Baudhāyanasutras has not yet been recovered and has not been as carefully preserved as the sutras of Apastamba and Hiranyakesin. Dr. Burnell arranges Baudhayana’s sutras into six sutras, the Śrautasutra in 19 praśnas; Karmāntasutra in 20 adhyāyas; Dvaidhasutra in four praśnas; Grhyasutra in four prasnas ; Dharmasutra in four prasnas ; Sulvasutra in three adhyāyas. The commentators do not indicate the place originally assigned to the grhya, dharma and sulva sutras in the whole collection. Dr, Caland in his monograph

Chapters of Baudhāyana Dharmasutra

The sections of Baudhāyana Dharmasutra can be denoted as follows:

• Praśnas
• Dvaidha
• Karmānta
• Prāyaścitta
• Śulvasutra
• Gṛhyasutra
• Grhyaprayascitta
• Grhyaparibhasa
• Grhyaparisista
• Pitrmedha
• Pravara
• Dharma

References from Baudhayana Dharmasutra

Dr. Caland edited nine prasnas of the Śrautasutra for the B. I. Series. Dr. R. Sham-sastri published the Baudhāyana-grhyasutra with paribhasa, grhyasesa and Pitṛmedhasutra for the Mysore University. The Grhyasutra cites the view of Baudhāyana. The Baudhāyana-dharma refers to the Grhya and pre-supposes it in several places. In the Baudhāyanagṛhya we have a reference to padanara Ātreya, Vṛttikāra Kaundinya, pravacanakāra Kanva Bodhāyana and Sutrakāra Apastamba.

A similar passage occurs in the Bharadvāja Gṛhyasutra. In the Baudhāyana-dharmasutra, there are Kanva Bodhāyana, Apastamba sutrakāra and Satyasadha Hiranyakesin one after another. These references show that Kanva Bodhāyana was an ancient sage when the Baudhāyana-dharmasutra was written and that he could not have been the author of the gṛhya or the dharmasutras of Baudhāyana. Baudhāyana may have been a descendant of this Kanva Baudhāyana. This surmise is supported by Govindasvāmin who explains Baudhāyana referred in Baudhāyanadharmasutra as Kanvayāna. In the dharmasutra, Baudhāyana is cited as an authority several times

In all these places, the Mysore edition reads Bodhāyana, while the Anandaśrama reads Baudhāyana. In one or two places he is referred to as bhagavān. Several explanations are offered by the commentator Govindasvāmin denoting that it is the practice of the Acāryas to refer to themselves in the third person. Medhatithi tells that Manu or the author of the dharmasutra is a pupil of Baudhāyana while the Manusmrti is promulgated by Bhrgu, the pupil of Manu or there was some other Baudhāyana whose works have not come down to us.

Contents of Baudhāyana Dharmasutra

The extant Dharmasutra does not appear to have come down intact. The fourth praśna is mostly an interpolation. Most of the eight chapters of that praśna are full of verses, the portion in prose is very small. The last three chapters are entirely in verse. The style is quite different from that of the first two praśnas. The first five chapters of the fourth praśna deals with prāyascittas. The same subject is also dealt with in section II and III. Some of the sutras in the earlier praśnas are repeated verbatim in the fourth. The tenth chapter of the third praśna agrees very closely in phraseology with the 48th chapter of the Viṣṇudharmasutra. The following are the contents of the Baudhayana-dharmasutra

Praśna I

1. Sources of dharma, who are śiślas, pariṣad, different practices of northern and southern India, countries where śiṣṭas and mixed caste reside, prayaścitta for visiting countries where mixed caste reside.
2. Student-hood for 48, 24 or 12 years, time of upanayana and the girdle, skin, staff appropriate to each caste, duties of brahmacarin, 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 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 varṅas and the sub-castes
9. Mixed castes
10. The duties of kings, the five great sins and punishments for them, punishments for killing birds, witnesses
11. The eight forms of marriage, holidays

Praśna II

1. Prayascittas for brahmahatyā and other great sins, prayascittas for a brahmacarin violating his vows 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, prayascitta for adultery by men and women, rules about niyoga, means of subsistence in distress, continuous duties of the house-holder such as Agnihotra
3. The daily duties of the householder such as bathing, ācamana, Vaiśvadeva, giving food
4. Sandhyā
5. Rules about the manner of bathing, of Acamana, worship of the sun and about the method of propitiating ('tarpaṇa') gods, sages and pitṛis
6. The five great daily yajnas; 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

Praśna III

1. Modes of subsistence for the two kinds of householders
2. The means of subsistence called ‘Ṣaṇnivartanī
3. The duties of the forest hermit and his means of livelihood
4. Prayascitta for not observing the vows of brahmacarin or householder
5. Method of reciting Aghamarṣaṇa, the holiest of texts
6. The ritual of prasṛtayāvaka
7. The purificatory homa called Kūṣmāṇḍa
8. The penance called Candrayaṇa
9. The recital of the Vedas without taking food
10. Theories about purifications for sin, purifying things

Praśna IV

1. Prayaścittas of various kinds for eating forbidden food or drink
2. Praṇayāmas and Aghamarṣana as purifiers in case of several sins
3. Secret prayascittas
4. Various Vedic texts as prayascittas
5. Means of securing siddhi by means of of japa, homa, iṣṭi and yantra; performance of penances called as Kṛcchra, Ati-Kṛcchra, Sāntapana, Parāka, Cāndrāyaṇa
6. The muttering of holy texts, the istis
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 circumstances.

Connection Between Viṣṇudharmasutra and Baudhayana Dharmasutra

Dr. Jolly is inclined to think that both are borrowed from a common source. It seems more probable that Viṣṇu borrows from Baudhāyana and the Viṣṇudharmasutra uses the form 'punita' in place of ‘punatha' and as the Visnu-Dharmasutra omits all reference to Rudra and omits the words “Gaṇan paśyati, gavvadhipatim pasyati . . . bhagavan Bodhayanaḥ ” .

In the Mysore edition all the four praśnas of the dharmasutra are divided into adhyāyas but the text used by Buhler appear to have divided the first two praśnas into kandikās and the last two into adhyāyas. There are many repetitions even in the first two praśnas, which creates doubt about the authenticity of the first two praśnas also in their entirety. example IT. Some of the quotations ascribed to Baudhāyana in the Mitākṣara and other works are taken from the Grhyasutra or its supplements are taken from the Grhya

The Dharmasutra of Baudhāyana is somewhat loose in structure and is not concise. Govindasvāmin remarks that Baudhāyana docs not aim at brevity. 'O Several subjects are treated of in two places and often without any Iogical connection with what precedes or follows. Rules of inheritance occur in the midst of rules about Prāyascitta; rules about holidays occur immediately after the eight forms of marriage and tile condemnation of the sale of a daiiglitcr. Rules about snalahi occur in two places. Baudhāyana quotes at least 90 verses introduced by the words “athapyuda- haranti’ 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 prasnas and about ten are Vedic. Some of the verses even in the first two praśnas do not appear to be quotations e. g. I. i. 16, II. 2. I, Jl. 3. 50, II. 3. 32-5. 1- and 56. A verse quoted is in the Vasistha metre; there are two verses in the Upajilti metre taken as a quotation. There are some prose quotations introduced with the words “athapyiidaharanti

The language of the Baudhāyana Grhyasutra is archaic and often departs from the Paninean standard. Baudhāyana employs such un-Paninean forms as “grhya”, pi-ijya, ‘‘adhigacchanah ”,. anayitva, “punatha”, tebhih ”. In several places Baudhāyana states opposite views and then gives in’s own opinion on the point, e. g. Baud. I. 5. 105-109 about impurity on biitli; II. 1. 19-51. As regards the literature known to Baudhāyana the following points may be ntued. All the four Vedas are mentioned by name in . lie quotes very frequently the Taittiriya Samhita, Taittiriya Brahmana and the Taittiriya Araṇyaka in the Andhra recension. Well-know 11 hymns of the Ṛgveda such as the Aghamarsana, the PLiuis;isid<ta and also simple 'rks' are frequently referred to. In III- 10 which is almost the same as Gautama 19 there is a sutra enumerating the Upaniṣads, the Samhitās of all the Vedas and several snānas as purificatory texts. There are long quotations taken from the Satapatha-brahmana in Baudhayan dharmasutra

It is noteworthy that in the tnrpajui there is an invocation of the 0. The Baudhayana Dharmasutra Atharvaveda and immediately afterwards of the Atharvangirasal.i. The same is found in the Baudhayanagrh5a also. In the Upanisads it is the word Atharvangi-rasah that stands for the Atharvaveda. Baudhayana quotes a gathii of the Bhallavins about the geographical limits of Aryavarta.

Vasistha adduces the same verse and sa3’s that it is taken from the Nidana work of the Bhfillavins. The Nirukta also mentions a school of Vedic interpretation called Naidanah. It is difficult to say what Nidana works contained, llihasa and Ihuana occur in the tarpaija. The of the Vedas occur in. Wheilier the word “ rahasya ” in II. 8. 3 means the Aranyakas as Govindasvamin explains is doubtful. Baudhayana mentions Vaikhanasa-.sastra in II. 6. 16, which appears to refer to the work of Vikhanas on hermits and speaks of Sramanaka, just as Gautama does, Among the authors on dharma mentioned by name are : Atipajahghani, Katya, Kasyapa or Kasyapa in other editions, I. 1 1 . 20 on the point that a woman bought cannot be a palni, Gautama, Prajapati, Mantt, Matidgalya, Harita. Baud. I. 2. 7 quotes a verse, which Vasistha ascribes to Harita. As to Gautama, uidc p. 17 above.

Manu is only mentioned in the fourth prasna, the authenticity of which, as said above, is very doubtful. Baudhayana closely agrees with Manu XI. 260. The first reference to Manu’s teaching cannot be traced in the Manusmrti. Prajapati seems to stand for god Brahma and not for any real or mythical writer on dhaniia. One remarkable piece of information contained in Baudhayana is that he quotes from a work of the Brahmana class in language a prose passage wherein the division into four asramas is ascribed to an asitra Kapila, son of Pralhada. In II. 2. 79 Baudhayana quotes a galhd from the 71 One of the verses's referred to by dialogue between the daughter of Usanas and the king Vrsaparvan, which is nearly the same as Mahabharata I. 78. to and 34. Baud, quotes the view of Acaryas as Gautama does. In several places he refers to the views of his predecessors on dharma as "others” {eke, apare) 18 two verses in the Upajiiti metre are quoted as sung by " ama ”. From the numerous quotations in verse cited by Baudha3'ana on topics of dhartna, it follows that the Dharmasutra was preceded by a considerable number of works on dharma in verse. Buhler says that Vijnanesvara was the first writer who quoted the Baud. D. S. But there are writers who flourished centuries before Vijnanesvara that regarded Baudhayana as a writer on dharma and citlier quoted his words or pointedly referred to them.

Sahara in his Wwva on Jaimini, I. 3. 3 says that the rule in the Smrtis 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 fires"’.” This must be regarded as referring to the words of Baudhaj-ana ( I. 2. i ). .Sahara uses the same word "Vedabrahmacarya” that Baud, employs. It is true that Gautama and Apastamba both refer to the rule about 48 years, but they do not cniploy'^ the word " vedii-brahmdcaryn. ”

The Tantravartike of Kumarila says that the words of Apastamba which seem to .iccept the validity oflocuJ and family usages (even though opposed to Smrti tradition) stand refuted by the words of Baudli.iyana (I. i . 1 9-24) who cites only such censured usages as are opposed to Smrti. Kumarila appears to think tliat Baudhayana attacks the extant work of Apastamba, i. e. the prc.sent Baud, is later than the present Apastamba. It is not neces.sary to follow 5%=n FT if irfFrnsPT; 1 11 are opposed to the words of ‘Kamarila implicitly as regards chronological details, where he is speaking of writers that flourished over a thousand years before him. But his opinion deserves weight. The Tantravartika quotes a Smrti passage which .bears a close resemblance to Baudhayana (H. 3. aS)’*. In the commentary of Visvarupa ( who as we shall see below flourished about 800 A. D. ) on Yajnavalkya, Baudhayana is quoted at least nine times in the chapter on dedra alone. Vide Visvarupa on Yaj. I. 21, 26, 29, 53, 6q, 69, 72, 79, 195 (Trivandrum edition), where Baud. I. 5. 14, 1. 2. 30, L 5. 5, I. 1. 17, IV. 1. 15, IV. i. 18, IV. 1. 22, IV. I. 20 and I. 5. 47 are respectively quoted. There are very few variations from the present text and the only serious variation is as regards the last (I. J. 47 ) which is in prose ( while Visvarupa quotes a verse ). It is remarkable that Visvarupa quotes several verses from the fourth praha, which shows that even if the fourth prasna be an interpolation, it is comparatively an ancient one.

The Mit. also (on Yaj. III. 306 ) quotes a long passage from the fourth prasna (IV. i. 5-1 1 ). The words of the Sakuntala’*^ that the first precept is that a girl is to be given away to a meritorious person are probably a reminiscence of Baud. IV. 1.12. Medhatithi on Manu. V. 117 quotes Baudhayana I. 5. 47 and on IV. 36 quotes Baud. I. 4. 2. On Manu. V. 114 he says that all the rules about purification of substances are contained in Baudhayana-smrti. On Manu. V, ti8, he quotes Baud. I. 5. 50.

About the home of Baudhayana it is difficult to advance any positive conclusion. In modern times Baudhayaniyas arc mostly confined to the south. We know that Sayana, the great commentator of the Vedas, was a Baudhayaniya. A grant of Nandivarma, a Pallava, of the 9th century mentions Brahmanas of x\\c- pravacana-sutra as recipients .77 As Baudhayana is called pravacanakara in the Grhyasutras Buhler thinks that the Brahmanas Compare IV. 36. It is probable that the combines and while Baud. belonged to the Baudhayanacarana. Buhler is probably right. In the grant most of the donees arc students of the Apastamba SQtra. First the Gotra, then the Sutra and then the name of the donee are introduced in the grant. Therefore as some of the donees are said to be students of “ pravacanasuira,” it follows that " pravacana ” stands for some sutra school. It appears that suira and prctvaca 7 iti arc two different things, whatever the latter term may mean. Baudhayana is called pravacamkara and Apastamba is styled sutrakara. We are told by the Baudliayana-grhysutra"® that a Bralnnana who studied sutra and pravacaita was styled “bhruna.” Buhler was inclined to hold that Baudhayana was a southern teacher for several reasons. Baudhayana mentions customs of the soutli and includes sea-faring as a custom peculiar to the north, while in another place he places sea-faring at the head of sins lesser than the mortal ones. Therefore it is said that he was not a northern teacher. But as against this we have to remember that Baudhayana quotes with apparent approval a verse in which the countries of Avanti, .\iiga, Magadha, Surastra and Daksinapatha are declared to be the home of mixed castes. Daksinapatha was generally su|iposcd to be the whole peninsula south of the Narmada. Baudhayana, if he w .as a native of the .south, would not l ave spoken of lii.s country as the home of mixed castes only, unless he put a restricted meaning on the word Daksinapatha which Huneiimes meant in later days Maharastra.

The extant Baudhavanadhannasuira is certainly later than Gautama, as it mentions Gautama twice by name and as one quotation at lca.st is found in the extant Gautama. Besides Baudhayana quotes by name several teachers on clharvui, while Gautama quotes only one, Manu. Baudhayana is far removed from the times of the Upani.sads. Baud. ( II. 7. ' 5 ) quotes a ver.se which is itself an adapi.ation of a passage from the Ch.mdogya-upanisad. He 78 The whole passage is interesting quotes Harita. It is uncertain whether the Haritadhariuasutra, a manuscript of which was discovered by the late Vaman Sastri Islam- purkar at Nasik, is the one intended. Biihler thought that the work of Haudhavana was earlier than that of Apastamba by a century or two. His first reason was that Kanva Baudhiiyana receives homage in the larpdiju before Apastainba and Hiranyake.sin and that the same order is observed in the Baudhayana-grhyasutra. But this reason is far from convincing. It may be conceded that Baudhayana was regarded as tlie oldest (or the mo.st authoritative or respectable) of the three schools of the Black Yajurveda. But from this it docs not at all follow that the extant dhanna-sutra of the Baudhayaniyas is earlier than that of the Apastambiyas.

For aught we know the sutra com- piled for the school of Baudhaj’ana may be later than the sutra manual of the Apastambas. We saw above that orthodox opinion, represented by Kumarila, regards Baudhayana’s work as later than Apastainba's. All the three founders of the three .schools are mentioned in the Baudhayana grhya and dharma sutra. One may equally argue with good reason that both these works knew a sutra work of Apastamba and that the extant dharmasutra of Apastamba is that work. Another reason assigned for the priority of Baudhayana’s work over Apastamba’s is that, though both have numerous siitras that agree almost word for word, a comparison of the view s of the two liters shows that Apastamba lavs dowti stricter and more puritanic and therefore later views tni certain points than Baudhiiyana. Gautama, Baudhayana and Vasistha mention several secondary sons, while Apastamba is silent about them. Gautama, Baudhayana, Vasistha and even Visnu apjnove ol the practice of myo^a, while Apastamba condemns it ( II. 6. 13. 1-9 )• Gautama and Baudhayana (I. ii. r) speak of eight forms of marriage, while Apastainba speaks of onlv six and omits Priijiipatya and Paisaca (II. s- II- 17-20 and II. 5.12. 1-2). Baudhayana (IF. 2. 4-6) allowed a larger share to the eldest .son on a partition, while Apa- .siamha condemns such a procedure ( II. f. I 4 - iO“i 4 )• The Baudhayana-grhyasutra ( II. 6 ) allows upanayana to mlbakdra, while Apastainba ( grhya 4. 10. i-.l) does not do so (dhannasiitra I. I. I. 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 points. There is no hard and fast rule that these doctrines were up- held by early writers and condemned by later ones. Baudhayana himself quotes the views of an ancient writer, Aupajanghani, who condemned all secondary sons. The verses that Baudhayana quotes on this point (IT. 2. ^^-’36 ) are quoted by Apastarnba also but with- out the author's name ( Ap. IL 6. 13. 6 ), there being variants only in the lirst verse. \i\o^a was allowed by Maim (9. 56-63) and then condemned (9. 64-68) and Brhaspati refers to this attitude of Manu ( vide Kulluka on Manu 9. 68 ). Even so late a writer as Yajha- valkya ( II. 131 ) approves of niyoga. About the rathakara being allowed to consecrate the sacred fires there is a discussion in the sutras of Jaimini (VI. i. 14 AT). Vedic passages supported both methods equal division among sons and the bestowal of a larger share on the eldest. E.ven Yajnavalkya ( H. 118) allows a larger share to the eldest son. Therefore hardly anyone of the circumstances relied upon by Btihler as indicating a later age for Apastarnba is conclusive or convincing. 'The third ground for placing B^iudha- yana before Apastarnba is that the style of the former is simpler and older as compared with the latter’s. That Bintdhayana is simpler than Apastarnba may be admitted. But this may be due to the fact that Baudhayana has been tampered with more than Apastarnba. On the other hand Apastarnba contains more un-Paninean forms more uncouth constructions, more words in an archaic sense than is the case with Baudhayana. .Ml that is almost certain about the age ofthe Baudhayana-dharmasiitra is that it is later than the work of Gautama, that its style, its doctrines and its general out-look on difl'erciit sub- jects do not compel us to assign it a later date than that of the other dharmasutras. We have adduced evidence to show that long before the days of Sahara ( wlu)se latest date cannot be later than 500 A.D.) the Baiidhayana-dharmasutra was an authoritative smrti ; it follows that the dharmasiitra must be placed somewhere between 500-200 B. C. Xunierotis sutras are identical in Baudhayana and Apastarnba e. g. Ap. I. r. 2. 30 = Baud. I. 2. jo-ii, .Ap. I. 2. 6. 8-9 = Baud. I. 2. 39, Ap. I. 5. 15. 8 = Baud. I. 2. 31, Ap. I. ii. 31. n and 16 = Baud. II. 3. 39and 32. Tiiere are several verses that occur in both c.g. Baud. II. [. .|2 = Ap. I. 9. 27. II, Baud. II. 2. 34-36 = Ap. II. 6. 13. 6 ( three verses condemning secondary sons ), Baud. II. 10. 63 = Ap. II. 9. 21. 10, Baud. II. 7. 22-23 =Ap. II. 4. 9 - n- (two verses). Baud. II. 6. 36.=Ap. II. 9. 24. 8. Besides these there are numerous Vedic quotations tliat arc common to both. All this, however, does not establish anything about their relative position. The Vasistha-dharmasutra also has numerous quotations in common with Baud. Vide Vas. I. 15. = Baud. I. i. 28, Vas. III. 5, 6, II, 20, 56 = Baud. 1 . I. 10, 12, ii, 8 and 1 . 5. 58 (respectively); Vas. 6. 20-21= Baud. II. 7. 22-23 i Vas. VUI. 17 = Baud. II, 2, r ; Vas. XI. 27-28 = B.iud. II. 8. 21-22 ; V-as. XVI. 34 = B.iud. I. lo. 35, Vas. XVII. 73 = Baud. IV. t. 17, Vas. XVII. 86 = Baud. I. 3. 102 ; Vas. XXII. 10 = Baud. I. i. 33. It is to be noted that some of these quotations (Baud. II. 8. 21-22, I. ro. 35 ) occur in the extant Manusinrti also ( III. 125-126 and VIII. 98 ). There are a few prose sutras in Vas. that are transformed into verse in Baud, and vice versa e. g. Vas. III. 41 (prose) = Baud. 1 . 5. 20 (quoted as a verse), Vas. III. 57 (quoted as a verse) ' = Baud. I. 6. 19-20. It is not likely that one borrows from the I other, rhere are two other possible explanations, viz. that both iBaud. and Vas. ( and Mann also ) quote from or adapt a common source or that the three works have been tampered with and inter- polations introduced at every .step. The latter alternative is too sweeping as the number of verses is very large and makes all the old sutras e.\cept that of Gautama valueless for all chronological pur- poses. One cannot subscribe to the view that such extensive inter- polations took place as the latter theory demands. The first alter- native 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 Biihler holds, are que.stions that present very great difficulties. It is not easy to believe that there were hundreds of floating verses on dJmniut no body knew by w'hom composed, on which writers of the centuries preceding the Ghri.stian era drew for supporting their opinions. 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. In the larpaija. Baud. (II. 5. 21 ) mentions several appellations of Ganesa, viz. Vighna, Vinayaka, Sthiila, Varada, Hastimukha,, V.ikratunda, Ekadanta, Lambodara. But this affords no certain clue as to date. The worship of Vinayaka is found in the M.anav.agrhya also. In the tarpaija (II. 5. 25 ) we have the seven planets mentioned in the order of the days of the week and also Rahu and Kctu ; besides the twelve names of Vi.snu occur in IJ. 5. 24. In II. 1.44 Baud, speaks of the profession of an actor or of a teacher of dramaturgy ( Natyacarya ) as an upapatakat Several sutras attributed to Baudliayana on the subject of adoption in the Dattakaminiaiiisa and oilier later works are taken from the Baudhay anagrhyasesasiitra ( II. 6 ), the siitras agreeing very closely with Vasistha (15.1-9). According to Burnell the oldest commentator on the Baudhyana- srauta-siitra was Bhavasvamin, whom he placed in the 8th century. The commentary of Govindasvamin on the Dharmasuira is a learned one and is generally to the point. He appears to be a very late writer.

Synopsis: Baudhayana is a teacher of the Black Yajurveda - arrangement of Baudhayana kalpa according to Dr. Burnell and Dr. Caland - Baudhayanagfhya presupposes the Baudhayanadharmasutra - grhya (III.9.6) speaks of pravacanakara Kanva Bodhayana and sQtrakara Apastamba - tarpana in Baudhayana-dharmasutra ( II. 5. 27 ) mentions Kanva Bodhayana, Apastamba and Hirapyakesin - contents of Baudhayana-dharmasQtra - extant sOtra has not come down intact • fourth prasna probably an interpolation - third prasna also not free from doubt - Baudhayana III. 10 taken from Gautama - Baudhayana III. 6 agrees closely with Vispudharmasutra 48 - Dr. Jolly thinks both borrowed from a common source - probably Vispu borrou’s from Baudhayana - repetitions exist even in the first two prasnas - form and structure of Baudhayana - quotes numerous verses, even in the first two prasnas - language of Baudhayana often departs from Paninian standard - literature known to Baudhayana - several authors on dharma together with their views mentioned by Baudhayana - Asura Kapila said to be originator of asramas- ^iabara, Kumarila, Visvarapa and Medhatithi refer to Baudhayana dharmasutra - home of Baudhayana - Baudhayana is styled pravacanakara and Apastamba sutrakara - Biihler holds that Baudhayana was a southern teacher - age of Baudhayana dharmasutra - later than Gautama - Buhler’s reasons for placing Baudhayana a century or two earlier than Apastamba not convincing - divergences between Btudhayana and Apastamba - style of Baudhayana compared with that of Apastamba - Baudhayana to be placed between 500-200 B. c.- nuraerous sutras of Baudhayana identical with those of Apastamba and Vasistha - Baudhayana mentions several appellations of Ganesa, just as Manavagrhya does and mentions seven planets, Rihu and Kctu - Govindasvamin commented on Baudhayana.