Talk:The Baudhayana Dharmasutra

From Hindupedia, the Hindu Encyclopedia
Revision as of 02:06, 2 December 2019 by Deval Sancheti (Talk | contribs) (Contents of Baudhāyana Dharmasutra)

The text of Baudhāyana Dharmasutra has been edited several times.[1][2][3] 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[4]

Contents of Baudhāyana Dharmasutra

The contents of Baudhāyana Dharmasutra can be denoted as follows:

Dr. Caland edited nine prahtas of the Srautasutra for the B. I. Series ( A. D. 1904 ). Dr. R. Sham- sastri published for the Mysore University ( in 1920) the Baudh.iya- nagrhyasutra with pariMulfd,, Pitrmedhasutra. The Grhyasutra cites the view of Baudhayana himself ( I. 7 ). The Baudhayana-dharma refers to the Griiya and it in several places ( vide note 54 ). In the Baudhayanagrhya ( III. 9. 6 ) we have a reference to pada'nara Atreya, Vfttikara Kaundinya, pravacanakara Kanva Bodhayana, and Sutrakara Apastamba.**^! A similar passage 68a gffsi ^%nrrr; RRRq SIW- The epithets must be understood as arranged above, since elsewhere the epithet is specially appropriated to The (II. 20. 1, <?. The Bcmdhiayam Dharmaftufra occurs in the Bharadvaja GHiyasutra. In the Baudhayana-dhamia- sutra ( II. J. 27 Rsitarpana ) \vc have Kanva Bodhayana, Apas- tamba sutrakara and Satyasadha Iliranyakcsin one after another. These references show that Kanva Bodhayana was an ancient sage when the Baudhayana-dliarniasutra was written and that he could not have been the author of the grhya or the dharma sutras of Haudhayana. Baudliayana may have been a descendant of this Kanva Bodhayana. This surmise is supported by Govindasvamin who explains Baudhiiyana occurring in Baudhayanadharmasuira I. 3. 13, as Kanvayana. In the dharmasiitra Baudhfiyana is himself cited as an authority several limes ( e. g. I. /|. 15 and 24, III. 5. 8, III. 6 . 20 ). In all these places the Mysore edition reads Bodhayana, while the Anandasrama reads Baudliayana. In one or two places he is styled ‘ bhagavan ’ ( HI. 6. 20 ). Several explanations arc ofl'ered by the commentator Govindasvamin ( on I. 3. 13). He .says that it is the practice of the Acaryas to refer to themselves in the third person ( as Medhiitithi says on Manu*’) or that the author of the dharmasiitra is a pupil of Baudhayana as the Manusmrti is promulgated by Bhrgu, the pupil of Manu, or there was some other Baudhdyana whose works have not come down to us. The following are the contents of the Baudhayana-dharmasutra; — who are sishis, pari^ad, different practices of northern and southern India, countries where reside and where mixed castes reside, praya.scitta for visiting countries of the latter type •, 2. Studenthood for 24 or 12 years, time of upauayana and Uie g'lreUe, sVm, staff appropriate to each caste, duties of /ira/j»;rt<v// 7 i/, eulogy oi hnibiiiiwaryii 3. The duties of the stidtuka who has completed his studies and observances but has not yet married ; 4. directions about carrying the earthen jar ( in the case of the ntrt/flA’rt ); 5. bodily and mental sauca, purification of various substances, impurity on birth and death, meaning of snpinda and sahilya, rules of inheritance, purification on touching a corpse or a woman in her menses or on dog-bite, what flesh and food w’as ed. by Kirate in 1889 ) makes this clear. It roads ‘ ( quoted by Dr. Caland in * Uber das Rituelle &c. p. 3. n. 2 ) reads History of DharmatSstra allowed iind forbi'ddcn ; 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 vie^^’ of sacrifice, of the sacrificial utensils, priests, the sacrificeraiul his wife, ghee, cooked offerings, the victim, soma and fires; 8. The four .S’ 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 ; ii. The eight forms of marriage, holidays ; Prasua II. i. Prayascittas for brahmabat\n and other great sins, prayascittas for a hrahmarharia violating his vow’ of celibacy, for marrying a soi^u^fra girl, for manying before elder brother, sins lesser than the great ones, description of such penances as Paraka, Krc- chra, Atikrechra; 2. Partition of heritage, larger share for the eldest, the several substitutes for an son, exclusion from inheritance, dependence of women, pravascitta for adultery by men and women, rules about means of subsistence in distress, continuous duties of the house-holder such as Agnihotra &c.; 3. The daily duties of t!ie hotiseholder such as bathing, acamana, Vaisvadeva, giving food; 4. Samihya; 5. Rules about the manntM' ol bathing, of Acamana, worship of the sun, and about the method of propitiating ( ‘ larlmuiP ) gods, sages and pitris; 6. The five great daily ; the four castes and their duties; 7. regulations about dinner; S. Sraddha ; 9. eulogy of sons and spiritual benefit from sons; ro. rules about Siniii\asa\ Pnthia HI. i modes of subsistence for the two kinds of householders, Sfilina and Yayavara; 2 the means ol subsistence called ‘ Sannivartani ’ ; 3. the duties o\ the forest her- mit and his means of livelihood; 9. pravascitta for not observing the VOW’S of hrahmarariff or householder; 5. method of reciting j^i^hiimaisNija, holiest of texts; 6. the r\{m\ prasrtayavaka 7 the purificatory homa called Kusmanda; 9. the penance called I'amirayaua \ 9 the recital of the Wdas without taking food; 10. theories about purifications for sin, purifying things; Prahia IV. I . prayascittas of various kinds viz. for eating forbidden food or drink &c.; 2. praaayamas and Af^hamarstHia as purifiers in case of several sins; 5. secret prayascittas; 4. Various Wdic texts as prayascittas; 5. Means of securing shhihi by means of japa, homa, Uti and ymitra: the penances called Krcchra, Ati-Krcchra, Santapana, Paraka, Candravana; 6 the muttering (japa) of holy texts, the istis; 7 praise ot YaulniSy various \"cdic texts used in homa; 8 censure of those w ho enter on the means of sidilhi out of great greed, permission to gel these things done through another in certain circumstances.

The extant Dharniasiitra docs not appear to have come down intact. The fourth praiua is most probably an interpolation. Most of the eight chapters of that prasmi 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 prasuas. 'The first five chapters of the fourth pnisna dealing with prayascittas are more or less siiperfliioiis, the same subject having been dealt with in FI. i and III. (-lo. Some of the sutras in the earlier are repeated rerhittim in the fourth, e. g. TT. 1. and IV. 2. lo-ii ( avakirni-prayascitta). The third pnisna also is not free from doubt. 'Fhe tenth chapter of the third pnisun is as said above taken from Gautama. 'Fhe sixth chapter of the third agrees very closely in phraseology w ith the .pSih chajner of the \'isnudharmasnrra. Ihit it is rather di/licull to say whicli is the borrower. Dr. jolly ( Vol. VII. p. XIX) is inclined to think that both borrow’ed from a common source. It seems more probable that Visnii borrows from Baudhayana, as the Xh’snudharmasnira uses the form ‘ pumta ' in place of ‘ punatha ' ( in Baud. ) and as the Visnu-Dharmasiitra omits all reference to Rudra (Baud. 1 1 1. 6. 12.) ane\ omits the words “ ganan pasyati, gavvadhipatim pasyati . . . bl.agavan Bodhayanah ” ( Batid i 1 1.6. 20. ). In the Mysore edition all the four prnsiuis of the Dhanuasnlnf are ilivided into (ttlhyavas, but the M^s used by Biihlcr appear to ha\e divided the first two into kandikas and the last two into adhyayas. 'There are manv repetitions e\ en in the first two prasnas, which therelore make one rather doubtful about the authenticity of the first two prasnas also in their entiretv. Ihu* example IT. (n i i and are indentical ; in IT, 7, 22 and IT. 10. 5 3 the same verse ( ‘^istau grasa ’’ i:^c. ) is quoted. Such repetitions are frequent in the two last prasnas e. g. III.2 .t 6 and 111.3.25 ; in..|.) and III. 7. 12. Some of the quotations ascribed to Baudhayana in the Mitaksara and other works are not taken from the ilhannasnlnr, but Irom the Grhyasiitra or its supple ments ( e. g. the words ‘ ekaih sakham-adhite sroiri\’ah ” quoted in the Mit. on Yaj. III. 24, which are cited by I lult/sch (on p. 125) are taken from the Grhya (vide note 78 below ). The Dharmasutra of Baudhayana is somewdiat loose in structure and is not concise. Govindasvamin remarks ( on i. 2. ly. ) that Baudhayana docs not aim at brevity. 'O Several subjects are treated of in two places and often without any Io<»^ical connection with what precedes or follows. Rules of inheritance (daya-bhaga) occur in the midst of rules about i^rayascitta ( in fl. 2. ); rules about holidays ( anadhyaya ) occur immediately after the eight forms of marriage and tile condemnation of the sale of a daiiglitcr (I. ii). Rules about snalahi occur in two places ( I. 3 and 11. 3. 10 il. ). Baudhayana quotes at least 90 verses introduced by the words “ athapyuda- haranti/’ more than 80 being Irom the first tw o prasnas alone. There are over two hundred other verses, about 80 of which occur in the first two prasnas and about ten are VVdic. wSomc of the verses even in the first two prasnas 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 Vaihsastha metre ( I V. 3. 14 ); there are two verses in the Upajilti metre taken as a quotation (IF. 3.18 ). There are some prose quotations introduced with the words “ athapyiidaharanti (e. g. II. 4. 5 and II. 6. 30 w hich refers to ihe iKin'ii Kapila, son of Prahlada). The language of the Baud. l)h. S. is archaic and often departs from the Paninean standard. Baudhayana employs such un-Paninean forms as “grhya” (for grhitva in II. 5. i ), pi-ijya (II. 9. 5.), ‘‘ adhigacchanah ” ( in 11 . 9. 9. ),. anayitva ( III. 3. 6 ), “ punatha” ( in 111 . 6. 5 5 probably a quotation ), tebhih ” ( for taih in III. 2. 16, ^a quotation ). In several places Baudhayana 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 Baudhayana the following points may be ntued. All the four Vedas are mentioned by name in II. 5. 27 { liirpiiijd ). lie quotes very frequently the Taittiriya Sariihita, Tai. Brainr.ana and tlie Tai. Aranyaka (in the Andhra recension ). Well-know 11 hymns of the Rgveda 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 enumeraiing the Upanisads, the Samhitas of all the Vedas and several sninaiis as purificatory texts. There arc long quotations taken from the Satapatha-brahmana ( XT. 3. 3. i ff and XI. 5. 6. 3 ) in Baud. ( 1.2.52 about hrahiinirari and 11 . 6 . 7-9 about )• 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 (III. 2. 9 and 22). In the Upanisads(, IV. 1.2) it is the word Atharvangi- rasah that stands for the Atharvaveda. Baudhayana quotes a gathii of the Bhallavins (I. i. 29 ) about the geographical limits of Aryavarta. Vasistha adduces the same verse (I. 15) 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 (II. 5. 27). The of the Vedas occur in I. i. 8 and the six afigns in II. 8. 2. Wheilier the word “ rahasya ” in II. 8. 3 means the Aranyakas ( as Govindasvamin explains ) is doubtful. Baudhayana mentions a \'aikh;masa-.sastra in II. 6. 16, which appears to refer to the work of Vikhanas on hermits and speaks of Sramanaka ( the rites prescribed by Vikhanas for initiation as hermit ), just as Gautama does, .\mong the authors on dhanm mentioned by name are : Atipajahghani ( II. 2. 33 for the view that only aurasa son was to be recognised and not the other kinds of sons’* ), Katya ( I. 2. 47 ), Kasyapa ( or K.asyapa in other editions, I. 1 1 . 20 on the point that a woman bought cannot be a palni ), Gautama ( 1 . r. 23 and II. 2. 70 ), Prajapati ( II. 4. r5 about failure- in Sandhyopasana, and II. to. 71 about samiyiisa'), Mantt (IV. i. 14 and IV. 2. 16 ), Matidgalya ( II. 2.61, about observances of a widow being restricted only to six months after her husband’s death), Harita(II. i. 50). Baud. I. 2. 7 quotes a verse, which Vasistha ascribes to Harita (Vas. 11 . 6). 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 II. 2 . 16 ( about the efficacy of Aghamarfaija ) closely agrees with Manu XI. 260. The first reference to Manu’s teaching cannot be traced in the Manusmrti. Prajapati ( in III. 9. 21 ) seems to stand for god Brahma and not for any real or mythical writer on dhaniia. One remarkable piece of information contained in Baudhayana (II. 6 . 30 ) 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 Baudlniyana quotes a galhd from the 71 One of the verses ^ ) 's referred to by % *fl. % I- ). 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 ( II. 6. 29 ) as Gautama does. In several places he refers to the views of his predecessors on dharma as "others” {eke, apare) c. g. I. 4. 23, I. 5. 16, I. 6. 105-106, II. 5. 2. In II. 3. 18 two verses in the Upajiiti metre are quoted as sung by " ama ” ( food ). From the numerous quotations in verse cited by Baudha3'ana on topics of dhartna, it follows that the Dharmasfltra was preceded by a considerable number of works on dharma in verse. Biihler (.SBK vol. XIV, p. XLIIl) 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 (II. 6. 15. X ) 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 ( which is mutilated as printed). 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 diflicult 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-siiira as recipients .77 As Baudhayana is called pravacanak.ira in the Grhyasutras Biihler thinks ( S. B. E. vol. 14 p. XLii ) 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 siilra 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 ( I. i. 20 ), while in another place he pkaces sea-faring at the head of sins (piit/vif)vis ) lesser than the mortal ones ( II. i. 41 ). Therefore it is said he was not a northern teacher. But as against this w e have to remember that Baudhayana ( I. 1.29) quotes with apparent approval a verse in w hich the countries of Avanti ( Ujjain ), .\iiga, M.agadha, Surastra ( Kathiawar ) 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). Vide J. B. B. R. A. S. for 1917 p. 620. The extant Baudhavanadhannasuira is certainly later than Gautama, as it mentions Gautama twice by name and as one quotation at 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 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 Apastainba 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 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 Apastambiyas. 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 Baudhayanagrhyaanddharma.sutm. Onemayequallyargiie with good reason that both these works knew a sutra work of Apa.stamba and that the extant dhannasiitra of Apastainba is that work. Another reason assigned for the priority of Baudhayana’s work over Apastam- ba’s is that, though both have numerous siitras that agree almost word for word, a comparison of the view s of the two w l iters shows that Apastantba lavs dowti stricter and more puritanic ( and there- iore later ) views tni certain points than Baudhiiyana. Gautama, Baudhayana and VasLstha mention several secondary sons, while .Apastainba is silent about them. Gautama, Baudhayana ( II. 2. 17, 62 ), A^asistha and even Visnu apjnove ol the practice of myo^a, while Apastainba 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.


  1. The text was first edited by Dr. Hultzsch at Leipzig in 1884.
  2. It was then edited in the Anandāśrama collection of smṛtis.
  3. It was later on edited by the Mysore Government Oriental Series in 1907 with the commentary of Govindasvamin; translated in S. B. E., Vol. 14, with an Introduction.
  4. It was published in A.D. 1903.
  5. Sutras from I-XXI
  6. Sutras from XXII-XXV
  7. Sutras from XXVI-XXVIII
  8. Sutras from XXIX-XXXI
  9. Sutras XXXII
  10. Sutras XXXIII-XXX
  11. Sutras XXXVI
  12. Sutras XXXVII
  13. Sutras XXXVIII-XLI
  14. Sutras XLII-XLIV
  15. Sutras XLV
  16. Sutras XLVI-XLIX