Apastamba Dharma-sutra

by Āpastamba | 1879 | 60,011 words

The Dharmasutra of Āpastamba forms a part of the larger Kalpasūtra of Āpastamba. It contains thirty praśnas, which literally means ‘questions’ or books. The subjects of this Dharmasūtra are well organized and preserved in good condition. These praśanas consist of the Śrautasūtra followed by Mantrapāṭha which is used in domestic rites and is a colle...


FOR all students of Sanskrit philology and Indian history Āpastamba's aphorisms on the sacred law of the Aryan Hindus possess a special interest beyond that attaching to other works of the same class. Their discovery enabled Professor Max Müller, forty-seven years ago, to dispose finally of the Brahmanical legend according to which Hindu society was supposed to be governed by the codes of ancient sages, compiled for the express purpose of tying down each individual to his station, and of strictly regulating even the smallest acts of his daily life[1]. It enabled him not only to arrive at this negative result, but also to substitute a sounder theory the truth of which subsequent investigations have further confirmed, and to show that the sacred law of the Hindus has its source in the teaching of the Vedic schools, and that the so-called revealed law codes are, in most cases, but improved metrical editions of older prose works which latter, in the first instance, were destined to be committed to memory by the young Aryan students, and to teach them their duties. This circumstance, as well as the fact that Āpastamba's work is free from any suspicion of having been tampered with by sectarians or modern editors, and that its intimate connection with the manuals teaching the performance of the great and small sacrifices, the Śrauta and Gṛhya-sūtras, which are attributed to the same author, is perfectly clear and indisputable, entitle it, in spite of its comparatively late origin, to the first place in a collection of Dharma-sūtras.

The Āpastambīya Dharma-sūtra forms part of an enormous Kalpa-sūtra or body of aphorisms, which digests the teaching of the Veda and of the ancient Ṛṣis regarding the performance of sacrifices and the duties of twice-born men, Brāhmaṇas, Kṣatriyas, and Vaiśyas, and which, being chiefly based on the second of the four Vedas, the Yajur-veda in the Taittirīya recension, is primarily intended for the benefit of the Adhvaryu priests in whose families the study of the Yajur-veda is hereditary.

The entire Kalpa-sūtra of Āpastamba is divided into thirty sections, called Praśnas, literally questions[2]. The first twenty-four of these teach the performance of the so-called Śrauta or Vaitānika sacrifices, for which several sacred fires are required, beginning with the simplest rites, the new and full moon offerings, and ending with the complicated Sattras or sacrificial sessions, which last a whole year or even longer[3]. The twenty-fifth Praśna contains the Paribhāṣās or general rules of interpretation[4], which are valid for the whole Kalpa-sūtra, the Pravara-khaṇḍa, the chapter enumerating the patriarchs of the various Brahmanical tribes, and finally the Hautraka, prayers to be recited by the Hotraka priests. The twenty-sixth section gives the Mantras or Vedic prayers and formulas for the Gṛhya rites, the ceremonies for which the sacred domestic or Gṛhya fire is required, and the twenty-seventh the rules for the performance of the latter[5]. The aphorisms on the sacred law fill the next two Praśnas; and the Śulva-sūtra[6], teaching the geometrical principles, according to which the altars necessary for the Śrauta sacrifices must be constructed, concludes the work with the thirtieth Praśna.

The position of the Dharma-sūtra in the middle of the collection at once raises the presumption that it originally formed an integral portion of the body of Sūtras and that it is not a later addition. Had it been added later, it would either stand at the end of the thirty Praśnas or altogether outside the collection, as is the case with some other treatises attributed to Āpastamba[7]. The Hindus are, no doubt, unscrupulous in adding to the works of famous teachers. But such additions, if of considerable extent, are usually not embodied in the works themselves which they are intended to supplement. They are mostly given as śeṣas or parisiśhṭas, tacked on at the end, and generally marked as such in the MSS.

In the case of the Āpastamba Dharma-sūtra it is, however, not necessary to rely on its position alone, in order to ascertain its genuineness. There are unmistakable indications that it is the work of the same author who wrote the remainder of the Kalpa-sūtra. One important argument in favour of this view is furnished by the fact that Praśna XXVII, the section on the Gṛhya ceremonies has evidently been made very short and concise with the intention of saving matter for the subsequent sections on the sacred law. The Āpastambīya Gṛhya-sūtra contains nothing beyond a bare outline of the domestic ceremonies, while most of the other Gṛhya-sūtras, e.g. those of Āśvalāyana, Śāṅkhāyana, Gobhila, and Pāraskara, include a great many rules which bear indirectly only on the performance of the offerings in the sacred domestic fire. Thus on the occasion of the description of the initiation of Aryan students, Āśvalāyana inserts directions regarding the dress and girdle to be worn, the length of the studentship, the manner of begging, the disposal of the alms collected, and other similar questions[8]. The exclusion of such incidental remarks on subjects that are not immediately connected with the chief aim of the work, is almost complete in Āpastamba's Gṛhya-sūtra, and reduces its size to less than one half of the extent of the shorter ones among the works enumerated above. It seems impossible to explain this restriction of the scope of Praśna XXVII otherwise than by assuming that Āpastamba wished to reserve all rules bearing rather on the duties of men than on the performance of the domestic offerings, for his sections on the sacred law.

A second and no less important argument for the unity of the whole Kalpa-sūtra may be drawn from the cross-references which occur in several Praśnas. In the Dharma-sūtra we find that on various occasions, where the performance of a ceremony is prescribed, the expressions yathoktam, 'as has been stated,' yathopadeśam, 'according to the injunction,' or yathā purastāt, 'as above,' are added. In four of these passages, Dh. I, 1, 4, 16; II, 2, 3, 17; 2, 5, 4; and 7, 17, 16, the Gṛhya-sūtra is doubtlessly referred to, and the commentator Haradatta has pointed out this fact. On the other hand, the Gṛhya-Sūtra refers to the Dharma-sūtra, employing the same expressions which have been quoted from the latter. Thus we read in the beginning of the chapter on funeral oblations, Gṛhya-sūtra VIII, 21, 1, māsiśrāddhasyāparapakṣe yathopadeśaṃ kālāḥ, 'the times for the monthly funeral sacrifice (fall) in the latter (dark) half of the month according to the injunction.' Now as neither the Gṛhya-sūtra itself nor any preceding portion of the Kalpa-sūtra contains any injunction on this point, it, follows that the long passage on this subject which occurs in the Dharma-sūtra II, 7, 16, 4-22 is referred to. The expression yathopadeśam is also found in other passages of the Gṛhya-sūtra, and must be explained there in a like manner[9]. There are further a certain number of Sūtras which occur in the same words both in the Praśna on domestic rites, and in that on the sacred law, e.g. Dh. I, 1, A; I, 1, 2, 38; I, 1, 4, 14. It seems that the author wished to call special attention to these rules by repeating them. Their recurrence and literal agreement may be considered an additional proof of the intimate connection of the two sections.

Through a similar repetition of, at least, one Sūtra it is possible to trace the connection of the Dharma-sūtra with the Śrauta-sūtra. The rule ṛtve vā jāyām, 'or (he may have conjugal intercourse) with his wife in the proper season', is given, Dh. II, 2, 5, 17, with reference to a householder who teaches the Veda. In the Śrauta-sūtra it occurs twice, in the sections on the new and full moon sacrifices III, 17, 8, and again in connection with the Cāturmāsya offerings, VIII, 4, 6, and it refers both times to the sacrificer. In the first passage the verb, upeyāt, is added, which the sense requires; in the second it has the abbreviated form, which the best MSS. of the Dharma-sūtra offer. The occurrence of the irregular word, ritve for ṛtvye, in all the three passages, proves clearly that we have to deal with a self-quotation of the same author. If the Dharma-sūtra were the production of a different person and a later addition, the Pseudo-Āpastamba would most probably not have hit on this peculiar irregular form. Finally, the Gṛhya-sūtra, too, contains several cross-references to the Śrauta-sūtra, and the close agreement of the Sūtras on the Vedic sacrifices, on the domestic rites, and on the sacred, both in language and style, conclusively prove that they are the compositions of one author[10].

Who this author really was, is a problem which cannot be solved for the present, and which probably will. always remain unsolved, because we know his family name only. For the form of the word itself shows that the name Āpastamba, just like those of most founders of Vedic schools, e.g. Bhāradvāja, Āśvalāyana, Gautama, is a patronymic. This circumstance is, of course, fatal to all attempts at an identification of the individual who holds so prominent a place among the teachers of the Black Yajur-veda.

But we are placed in a somewhat better position with respect to the history of the school which has been named after Āpastamba and of the works ascribed to him. Regarding both, some information has been preserved by tradition, and a little more can be obtained from inscriptions and later works, while some interesting details regarding the time when, and the place where the Sūtras were composed, may be elicited from the latter themselves. The data, obtainable from these sources, it is true, do not enable us to determine with certainty the year when the Āpastambīya school was founded, and when its Sūtras were composed. But they make it possible to ascertain the position of the school and of its Sūtras in Vedic literature, their relative priority or posteriority as compared with other Vedic schools and works, to show with some amount of probability in which part of India they had their origin, and to venture, at least, a not altogether unsupported conjecture as to their probable antiquity.

As regards the first point, the Caraṇavyūha, a supplement of the White Yajur-veda which gives the lists of the Vedic schools, informs us that the Āpastambīya school formed one of the five branches of the Khāṇḍikīya school, which in its turn was a subdivision of the Taittirīyas, one of the ancient sections of Brāhmaṇas who study, the Black Yajur-veda. Owing to the very unsatisfactory condition of the text of the Caraṇavyūha it is unfortunately not possible to ascertain what place that work really assigns to the Āpastambīyas among the five branches of the, Khāṇḍikīyas. Some MSS. name them first, and others, last. They give either the following list, 1. Kāleyas (Kāletas), 2. Sāṭyāvanins, 3. Hiraṇyakeśins, 4. Bhāradvājins, and 5. Āpastambins, or, 1. Āpastambins, 2. Baudhāyanins or Bodhāyanins, 3. Satyāṣāḍhins, 4. Hiraṇyakeśins, 5. Aukheyas[11]. But this defect is remedied to, a certain extent by the now generally current, and probably ancient tradition that the Āpastambīyas are younger than, the school of Baudhāyana, and. older than that of Satyāṣāḍha Hiraṇyakeśin. Baudhāyana, it is alleged, composed the first set of Sūtras connected with the Black Yajur-Veda, which bore the special title 'pravacana,' and he was succeeded by Bhāradvāja, Āpastamba, and Satyāṣāḍha Hiraṇyakeśin, who all founded schools which bear their names[12].

This tradition has preserved two important pieces of in-formation. First, the Āpastamba school is what Professor Max Müller appropriately calls a Sūtracaraṇa, i.e. a school whose founder did not pretend to have received a revelation of Vedic Mantras or of a Brāhmaṇa text, but merely gave a new systematic arrangement of the precepts regarding sacrifices and the sacred law. Secondly, the Sūtras of Āpastamba occupy an intermediate position between the works of Baudhāyana and Hiraṇyakeśin. Both these statements are perfectly true, and capable of being supported by proofs, drawn from Āpastamba's own and from other works.

As regards the first point, Professor Max Müller has already pointed[13] out that, though we sometimes find a Brāhmaṇa of the Āpastambīyas mentioned, the title Āpastamba-brāhmaṇa is nothing but another name of the Taittirīya-brāhmaṇa, and that this Brāhmaṇa, in reality, is always attributed to Tittiri or to the pupils of Vaiśampāyana, who are said to have picked up the Black Yajur-veda in the shape of partridges (tittiri). The same remark applies to the collection of the Mantras of the Black Yajur-veda, which, likewise, is sometimes named Āpastamba-Saṃhitā. The Caraṇavyūha states explicitly that the five branches of the Khāṇḍīkīya school, to which the Āpastambīyas belong, possess one and the same recension of the revealed texts, consisting of 7 Kāṇḍas, 44 Praśnas, 651 Anuvākas, 2198 Pannāsīs, 19290 Padas[14], and 253,868 syllables, and indicates thereby that all these five schools were Sūtracaraṇas.

If we now turn to Āpastamba's own works, we find still clearer proof that he laid no claim to the title Ṛṣi, or inspired seer of Vedic texts. For (Dharma-sūtra I, 2, 5, 4-5 says distinctly that on account of the prevalent transgression of the rules of studentship no Ṛṣis are born, among the Avaras, the men of later ages or of modern times, but that some, by virtue of a residue of the merit which they acquired in former lives, become similar to Ṛṣis by their knowledge of the Veda. A man who speaks in this manner, shows that he considers the holy ages during which the great saints saw with their mind's eye the uncreated and eternal texts of the Veda to be past, and that all he claims is a thorough acquaintance with the scriptures which had been handed down to him. The same spirit which dictated this passage is also observable in other portions of the Dharma-sūtra. For Āpastamba repeatedly contrasts the weakness and sinfulness of the Avaras, the men of his own times, with the holiness of the ancient sages, who, owing to the greatness of their 'lustre,' were able to commit various forbidden acts without diminishing their spiritual merit[15]. These utterances prove that Āpastamba considered himself a child of the Kali Yuga, the age of sin, during which, according to Hindu notions, no Ṛṣis can be born. If, therefore, in spite of this explicit disclaimer, the Saṃhitā and the Brāhmaṇa of the Black Yajur-veda are sometimes called Āpastamba or Āpastambīya, i.e. belonging to Āpastamba, the meaning of this expression can only be, that they were and are studied and handed down by the school of Āpastamba, not that its founder was their author, or, as the Hindus would say, saw them.

The fact that Āpastamba confined his activity to the composition of Sūtras is highly important for the determination of the period to which he belonged. It clearly shows that in his time the tertiary or Sūtra period of the Yajur-veda had begun. Whether we assume, with Professor Max Müller, that the Sūtra period was one and the same for all the four Vedas, and fix its limits with him between 600-200 B.C., or whether we believe, as I am inclined to do, that the date of the Sūtra period differed for each Veda, still the incontestable conclusion is that the origin of the Āpastambīya school cannot be placed in the early times of the Vedic period, and probably falls in the last six or seven centuries before the beginning of the Christian era.

The correctness of the traditional statement that Āpastamba is younger than Baudhāyana may be made very probable by the following considerations. First, Baudhāyana's and Āpastamba's works on Dharma have a considerable number of Sūtras in common. Thus in the chapter on Penances not less than seven consecutive Sūtras, prescribing the manner in which outcasts are to live and to obtain readmission into the Brahmanical community for their children, occur in both treatises[16]. Besides this passage, there are a number of single Sūtras[17] which agree literally. Taken by itself this agreement does not prove much, as it may be explained in various ways. It may show either that Baudhāyana is older than Āpastamba, and that the latter borrowed from the former, or that the reverse was the case. It may also indicate that both authors drew from one common source. But if it is taken together with two other facts, it gains a considerable importance. First, Āpastamba holds in several cases doctrines which are of a later origin than those held by Baudhāyana. With respect to this point the puritan opinions which Āpastamba puts forward regarding the substitutes for legitimate sons and regarding the appointment of widows (niyoga), and his restriction of the number of marriage-rites, may be adduced as examples. Like many other ancient teachers, Baudhāyana permits childless Āryans to satisfy their craving for representatives bearing their name, and to allay their fears of falling after death into the regions of torment through a failure of the funeral oblations, by the affiliation of-eleven kinds of substitutes for a legitimate son. Illegitimate sons, the illegitimate sons of wives, the legitimate -and illegitimate offspring of daughters, and the children of relatives, or even of strangers who may be solemnly adopted, or received as members of the family without any ceremony, or be acquired by purchase, are all allowed to take the place and the rights of legitimate sons[18]. Āpastamba declares his dissent from this doctrine. He allows legitimate sons alone to inherit their father's estate and to follow the occupations of his caste, and he explicitly forbids the sale and gift of children[19].

In like manner he protests against the custom of making over childless widows to brothers-in-law or other near relatives in order to obtain sons who are to offer the funeral oblations to the deceased husband's manes, while Baudhāyana has as yet no scruple on the subject[20]. Finally, he omits from his list of the marriage-rites the Paiśāca vivāha, where the bride is obtained by fraud[21]; though it is reluctantly admitted by Baudhāyana and other ancient teachers. There can be no doubt that the law which placed the regular continuance of the funeral oblations above all other considerations, and which allowed, in order to secure this object, even a violation of the sanctity of the marriage-tie and other breaches of the principles of morality, belongs to an older order of ideas than the stricter views of Āpastamba. It is true that, according to Baudhāyana's own statement[22], before his time an ancient sage named Aupajaṅghani, who is also mentioned in the Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa, had opposed the old practice of taking substitute's for a legitimate son. It is also very probable that for a long time the opinions of the Brāhmaṇa teachers, who lived in different parts of India and belonged to different schools, may have been divided on this subject. Still it seems very improbable that of two authors who both belong to the same Veda and to the same school, the earlier one should hold the later doctrine, and the later one the earlier opinion. The contrary appears the more probable assumption. The same remarks apply to the cases of the Niyoga and of the Paiśāca marriage[23].

The second fact, which bears on the question how the identity of so many Sūtras in the two Dharma-sūtras is to be explained, affords a still stronger proof of Āpastamba's posteriority to Baudhāyana. For on several occasions, it appears, Āpastamba controverts opinions which Baudhāyana holds, or which may be defended with the help of the latter's Sūtras. The clearest case of this kind occurs in the chapter on Inheritance, where the treatment of the eldest son on the division of the estate by the father is discussed. There Āpastamba gives it as his own opinion that the father should make an equal division of his property 'after having gladdened the eldest son by some (choice portion of his) wealth,' i.e. after making him a present which should have some value, but should not be so valuable as to materially affect the equality of the shares[24]. Further on he notices the opinions of other teachers on this subject, and states that the practice advocated by some, of allowing the eldest alone to inherit, as well as the custom prevailing in some countries, of allotting to the eldest all the father's gold, or the black cows, or the black iron and grain, is not in accordance with the precepts of the Vedas. In order to prove the latter assertion he quotes a passage of the Taittirīya Saṃhitā, in which it is declared that 'Manu divided his wealth among his sons,' and no difference in the treatment of the eldest son is prescribed. He adds that a second passage occurs in the same Veda, which declares that 'they distinguish the eldest son by (a larger portion of) the heritage,' and which thus apparently countenances the partiality for the first-born. But this second passage, he contends, appealing to the opinion of the Mīmāṃsists, is, like many similar ones, merely a statement of a fact which has not the authority of an injunction[25]. If we now turn to Baudhāyana, we find that he allows of three different methods for the distribution of the paternal estate. According to him, either an equal share may be given to each son, or the eldest may receive the best part of the wealth, or, also, a preferential share of one tenth of the whole property. He further alleges that the cows, horses, goats, and sheep respectively go to the eldest sons of Brāhmaṇas, Kṣatriyas, Vaiśyas and Śūdras. As authority for the equal division he gives the first of the two Vedic passages quoted above; and for the doctrine that the eldest is to receive the best part of the estate, he quotes the second passage which Āpastamba considers to be without the force of an injunction[26]. The fact that the two authors' opinions clash is manifest, and the manner in which Āpastamba tries to show that the second Vedic passage possesses no authority, clearly indicates that before his time it had been held to contain an injunction. As no other author of a Dharma-sūtra but Baudhāyana is known to have quoted it, the conclusion is that Āpastamba's remarks are directed against him. If Āpastamba does not mention Baudhāyana by name, the reason probably is that in olden times, just as in the present day, the Brahmanical etiquette forbad a direct opposition against doctrines propounded by an older teacher who belongs to the same spiritual family (vidyāvaṃsa) as oneself.

A similar case occurs in the chapter on Studentship[27] where Āpastamba, again appealing to the Mīmāṃsists, combats the doctrine that pupils may eat forbidden food, such as honey, meat, and pungent condiments, if it is given to them as leavings by their teacher. Baudhāyana gives no explicit rule on this point, but the wording of his Sūtras is not opposed to the doctrine and practice, to which Āpastamba objects. Baudhāyana says that students shall avoid honey, meat, pungent condiments, &c.; he further enjoins that pupils are to obey their teachers except when ordered to commit crimes which cause loss of caste (patanīya); and he finally directs them to eat the fragments of food given to them by their teachers. As the eating of honey and other forbidden substances is not a crime causing loss of caste, it is possible that Baudhāyana himself may have considered it the duty of a pupil to eat any kind of food given by the teacher, even honey and meat. At all events the practice and doctrine which Āpastamba blames, may have been defended by the wording of Baudhāyana's rules[28].

The three points which have been just discussed, viz. the identity of a number of Sūtras in the works of the two authors, the fact that Āpastamba advocates on some points more refined or puritan opinions, and, especially, that he labours to controvert doctrines contained in Baudhāyana's Sūtras, give a powerful support to the traditional statement that he is younger than that teacher. It is, however, difficult to say how great the distance between the two really is. Mahādeva, as stated above, places between them only Bhāradvāja, the author of a set of Sūtras, which as yet have not been completely recovered. But it seems to me not likely that the latter was his immediate predecessor in the vidyāvaṃsa or spiritual family to which both belonged. For it cannot be expected that two successive heads of the school should each have composed a Sūtra and thus founded a new branch-school. It is more probable that Baudhāyana and Bhāradvāja, as well as the latter and Āpastamba, were separated by several intervening generations of teachers, who contented themselves with explaining the works of their predecessors. The distance in years between the first and the last of the three Sūtrakāras must, therefore, I think, be measured rather by centuries than by decades[29].

As regards the priority of Āpastamba to the school of Satyāṣāḍha Hiraṇyakeśin, there can be no doubt about the correctness of this statement. For either Hiraṇyakeśin himself, or, at least, his immediate successors have appropriated Āpastamba's Dharma-sūtra and have inserted it with slight modifications in their own collection. The alterations consist chiefly in some not very important additions, and in the substitution of more intelligible and more modern expressions for difficult and antiquated words[30]. But they do not extend so far as to make the language of the Dharma-sūtra fully agree with that of the other sections of the collection, especially with the Gṛhya-sūtra. Numerous discrepancies between these two parts are observable. Thus we read in the Hiraṇyakeśi Gṛhya-sūtra that a Brāhmaṇa must, ordinarily, be initiated in his seventh year, while the rule of the Dharma-sūtra, which is identical with Āp. Dh. I, 1, 1, 18, prescribes that the ceremony shall take place in the eighth year after conception. The commentators, Mātṛdatta on the Gṛhya-sūtra and Mahādeva on the Dharma-sūtra, both state that the rule of the Gṛhya-sūtra refers to the seventh year after birth, and, therefore, in substance agrees with the Dharma-sūtra. They are no doubt right. But the difference in the wording shows that the two sections do not belong to the same author. The same inference may be drawn from the fact that the Hiraṇyakeśi Gṛhya-sūtra, which is much longer than Āpastamba's, includes a considerable amount of matter which refers to the sacred law, and which is repeated in the Dharma-sūtra. According to a statement which I have heard from several learned Brāhmaṇas, the followers of Hiraṇyakeśin, when pronouncing the saṃkalpa or solemn pledge to perform a ceremony, declare themselves to be members of the Hiraṇyakeśi school that forms a subdivision of Āpastamba's (āpastambāntargatahiraṇyakeśiśākhādhyāyī . . . aham). But I have not been able to find these words in the books treating of the ritual of the Hiraṇyakeśins, such as the Mahesabhaṭṭī. If this assertion could be further corroborated, it would be an additional strong proof of the priority of Āpastamba, which, however, even without it may be accepted as a fact[31]. The distance in time between the two teachers is probably not so great as that between Āpastamba and Baudhāyana, as Mahādeva mentions no intermediate Sūtrakāra between them. Still it is probably not less than 100, or 150 years.

The results of the above investigation which show that the origin of the Āpastamba school falls in the middle of the Sūtra period of the Black Yajur-veda, and that its Sūtras belong to the later, though not to the latest products of Vedic literature, are fully confirmed by an examination of the quotations from and references to Vedic and other books contained in Āpastamba's Sūtras, and especially in the Dharma-sūtra. We find that all the four Vedas are quoted or referred to. The three old ones, the Ṛk, Yajus, and Sāman, are mentioned both separately and collectively by the name trayī vidyā, i.e. threefold sacred science, and the fourth is called not Atharvāṅgirasaḥ, as is done in most ancient Sūtras, but Atharva-veda[32]. The quotations from the Ṛk and Sāman are not very numerous. But a passage from the ninth Maṇḍala of the former, which is referred to Dh. I, 1, 2, 2, is of some extent, and shows that the recension which Āpastamba knew, did not differ from that which still exists. As Āpastamba was an adherent of the Black Yajur-veda, he quotes it, especially in the Śrauta-sūtra, very frequently, and he adduces not only texts from the Mantra-Saṃhitā, but also from the Taittirīya-Brāhmaṇa and Āraṇyaka. The most important quotations from the latter work occur Dh. II, 2, 3, 16-II, 2, 4, 9, where all the Mantras to be recited during the performance of the Bali-offerings are enumerated. Their order agrees exactly with that in which they stand in the sixty-seventh Anuvāka of the tenth Prapāṭhaka of the recension of the Āraṇyaka which is current among the Āndhra Brāhmaṇas[33]. This last point is of considerable importance, both for the history of the text of that book and, as we shall see further on, for the history of the Āpastambīya school.

The White Yajur-veda, too, is quoted frequently in the Śrauta-sūtra and once in the section on Dharma by the title Vājasaneyaka, while twice its Brāhmaṇa, the Vājasaneyi-brāhmaṇa, is cited. The longer one of the two passages, taken from the latter work, Dh. I, 4, 12, 3, does, however, not fully agree with the published text of the Mādhyandina recension. Its wording possesses just sufficient resemblance to allow us to identify the passage which Āpastamba meant, but differs from the Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa in many details[34]. The cause of these discrepancies remains doubtful for the present[35]. As regards the Atharva-veda, Āpastamba gives, besides the reference mentioned above and a second to the Āṅgirasa-pavitra[36], an abstract of a long passage from Atharva-veda XV, 10-13, regarding the treatment of a Vrātya, i.e. a learned mendicant Brāhmaṇa, who really deserves the title of an atithi, or guest[37]. It is true that Āpastamba, in the passage referred to, does not say that his rule is based on the Atharva-veda. He merely says that a Brāhmaṇa is his authority. But it seems, nevertheless, certain that by the expression a Brāhmaṇa, the Brāhmaṇa-like fifteenth book of the Atharva-veda is meant, as the sentences to be addressed by the host to his guest agree literally with those which the Atharva-veda prescribes for the reception of a Vrātya. Haradatta too, in his commentary, expresses the same opinion. Actual quotations from the Atharva-veda are not frequent in Vedic literature, and the fact that Āpastamba's Dharma-sūtra contains one, is, therefore, of some interest.

Besides these Vedic texts[38], Āpastamba mentions, also, the Aṅgas or auxiliary works, and enumerates six classes, viz. treatises on the ritual of the sacrifices, on grammar, astronomy, etymology, recitation of the Veda, and metrics[39]. The number is the same as that which is considered the correct one in our days[40].

As the Dharma-sūtra names no less than nine teachers in connection with various topics of the sacred law, and frequently appeals to the opinion of some (eke), it follows that a great many such auxiliary treatises must have existed in Āpastamba's time. The Ācāryas mentioned are Eka, Kaṇva, Kāṇva, Kuṇika, Kutsa, Kautsa, Pushkarasādi, Vārshyāyaṇi, Śvetaketu, and Hārita[41]. Some of these persons, like Hārita and Kāṇva, are known to have composed Sūtras on the sacred law, and fragments or modified versions of their works are still in existence, while Kāṇva, Kautsa, Pushkarasādi or Paushkarasādi, as the grammatically correct form of the name is, and Vārshyāyaṇi are quoted in the Nirukta, the Prātiśākhyas, and the Vārttikas on Pāṇini as authorities on phonetics, etymology, and grammar[42]. Kāṇva, finally, is considered the author of the still existing Kalpa-sūtras of the Kāṇva school connected with the White Yajur-veda. It seems not improbable that most of these teachers were authors of complete sets of Aṅgas. Their position in Vedic literature, however, except as far as Kāṇva, Hārita, and Śvetaketu are concerned, is difficult to define, and the occurrence of their names throws less light on the antiquity of the Āpastambīya school than might be expected. Regarding Hārita it must, however, be noticed that he is one of the oldest authors of Sūtras, that he was an adherent of the Maitrāyaṇīya Śākhā[43], and that he is quoted by Baudhāyana, Āpastamba's predecessor. The bearing of the occurrence of Śvetaketu's name will be discussed below.

Of even greater interest than the names of the teachers are the indications which Āpastamba gives, that he knew two of the philosophical schools which still exist in India, viz. the Pūrvā or Karma Mīmāṃsā and the Vedānta. As regards the former, he mentions it by its ancient name, Nyāya, which in later times and at present is usually applied to the doctrine of Gautama Akṣapāda. In two passages[44] he settles contested points on the authority of those who know the Nyāya, i.e. the Pūrvā Mīmāṃsā, and in several other cases he adopts a line of reasoning which fully agrees with that followed in Jaimini's Mīmāṃsā-sūtras. Thus the arguments[45], that 'a revealed text has greater weight than a custom from which a revealed text may be inferred,' and that 'no text can be inferred from a custom for which a worldly motive is apparent,' exactly correspond with the teaching of Jaimini's Mīmāṃsā-sūtras I, 3, 3-4. The wording of the passages in the two works does not agree so closely that the one could be called a quotation of the other. But it is evident, that if Āpastamba did not know the Mīmāṃsā-sūtras of Jaimini, he must have possessed some other very similar work. As to the Vedānta, Āpastamba does not mention the name of the school. But Khaṇḍas 22, 23 of the first Paṭala of the Dharma-sūtra unmistakably contain the chief tenets of the Vedāntists, and recommend the acquisition of the knowledge of the Ātman as the best means for purifying the souls of sinners. Though these two Khaṇḍas are chiefly filled with quotations, which, as the commentator states, are taken from an Upaniṣad, still the manner of their selection, as well as Āpastamba's own words in the introductory and concluding Sūtras, indicates that he knew not merely the unsystematic speculations contained in the Upaniṣads and Āraṇyakas, but a well-defined system of Vedāntic philosophy identical with that of Bādarāyaṇa's Brahma-sūtras. The fact that Āpastamba's Dharma-sūtra contains indications of the existence of these two schools of philosophy, is significant as the Pūrvā Mīmāṃsā occurs in one other Dharma-sūtra only, that attributed to Vasiṣṭha, and as the name of the Vedānta school is not found in any of the prose treatises on the sacred law.

Of non-Vedic works Āpastamba mentions the Purāṇa. The Dharma-sūtra not only several times quotes passages from 'a Purāṇa' as authorities for its rules[46], but names in one case the Bhaviṣyat-purāṇa as the particular Purāṇa from which the quotation is taken[47]. References to the Purāṇa in general are not unfrequent in other Sūtras on the sacred law, and even in older Vedic works. But Āpastamba, as far as I know, is the only Sūrakāra who specifies the title of a particular Purāṇa, and names one which is nearly or quite identical with that of a work existing in the present day, and he is the only one, whose quotations can be shown to be, at least in part, genuine Paurāṇic utterances.

Among the so-called Upa-purāṇas we find one of considerable extent which bears the title Bhaviṣya-purāṇa or also Bhaviṣyat-purāṇa[48]. It is true that the passage quoted in the Dharma-sūtra from the Bhaviṣyat-purāṇa is not to be found in the copy of the Bhaviṣya-purāṇa which I have seen. It is, therefore, not possible to assert positively that Āpastamba knew the present homonymous work. Still, considering the close resemblance of the two titles, and taking into account the generally admitted fact that most if not all Purāṇas have been remodelled and recast[49], it seems to me not unlikely that Āpastamba's authority was the original on which the existing Upa-purāṇa is based. And in favour of this view it may be urged that passages, similar to Āpastamba's quotation, actually occur in our Paurāṇic texts. In the Jyotishpracāra section of several of the chief Purāṇas we find, in connection with the description of the Path of the Manes (pitṛyāṇa)[50], the assertion that the pious sages, who had offspring and performed the Agnihotra, reside there until the general destruction of created things (ā bhūtasaṃplavāt), as well as, that in the beginning of each new creation they are the propagators of the world (lokasya saṃtānakarāḥ) and, being re-born, re-establish the sacred law. Though the wording differs, these passages fully agree in sense with Āpastamba's Bhaviṣyat-purāṇa which says, 'They (the ancestors) live in heaven until the (next) general destruction of created things. At the new creation (of the world) they become the seed.' In other passages of the Purāṇas, which refer to the successive creations, we find even the identical terms used in the quotation. Thus the Vāyup., Adhy. 8, 23, declares that those beings, which have gone to the Janaloka, 'become the seed at the new creation' (punaḥ sarge . . . bījārthaṃ tā bhavanti hi).

These facts prove at all events that Āpastamba took his quotation from a real Purāṇa, similar to those existing. If it is literal and exact, it shows, also, that the Purāṇas of his time contained both prose and verse.

Further, it is possible. to trace yet another of Āpastamba's quotations from 'a Purāṇa.' The three Purāṇas, mentioned above, give, immediately after the passages referred to, enlarged versions of the two verses[51] regarding the sages, who begot offspring and obtained 'burial-grounds,' and regarding those who, remaining chaste, gained immortality[52]. In this case Āpastamba's quotation can be restored almost completely, if certain interpolations are cut out. And it is evident that Āpastamba has preserved genuine Paurāṇic verses in their ancient form. A closer study of the unfortunately much neglected Purāṇas, no doubt, will lead to further identifications of other quotations, which will be of considerable interest for the history of Indian literature.

There is yet another point on which Āpastamba shows a remarkable agreement with a theory which is prevalent in later Sanskrit literature. He says (Dh. II, 11, 29, 11-12), 'The knowledge which Śūdras and women possess, is the completion of all study,' and 'they declare that this knowledge is a supplement of the Atharva-veda.' The commentator remarks with reference to these two Sūtras, that 'the knowledge which Śūdras and women possess,' is the knowledge of dancing, acting, music, and other branches of the so-called Arthaśāstra, the science of useful arts and of trades, and that the object of the Sūtras is to forbid the study of such matters before the acquisition of sacred learning. His interpretation is, without doubt, correct, as similar sentiments are expressed by other teachers in parallel passages. But, if it is accepted, Āpastamba's remark that 'the knowledge of Śūdras and women is a supplement of the Atharva-veda,' proves that he knew the division of Hindu learning which is taught in Madhusūdana Sarasvatī's Prasthānabheda[53]. For Madhusūdana allots to each Veda an Upa-veda or supplementary Veda, and asserts that the Upa-veda of the Atharva-veda is the Arthaśāstra. The agreement of Āpastamba with the modern writers on this point, furnishes, I think, an additional argument that he belongs to the later Vedic schoolmen.

In addition to this information regarding the relative position of the Āpastambīya school in ancient Sanskrit literature, we possess some further statements as to the part of India to which it belongs, and these, as it happens, are of great importance for fixing approximately the period in which the school arose. According to the Brahmanical tradition, which is supported by a hint contained in the Dharma-sūtra and by, information derivable from inscriptions and the actual state of things in modern India, the Āpastambīyas belong to Southern India and their founder probably was a native of or resided in the Āndhra country. The existence of this tradition, which to the present day prevails among the learned Brahmans of Western India and Benares, may be substantiated by a passage from the above-mentioned commentary of the Caraṇavyūha[54],which, though written in barbarous Sanskrit, and of quite modern origin, possesses great interest, because its description of the geographical distribution of the Vedas and Vedic schools is not mentioned elsewhere. The verses from a work entitled Mahārṇava, which are quoted there, state that the earth, i.e. India, is divided into two equal halves by the river Narmadā (Nerbudda). and that the school of Āpastamba prevails in the southern half (ver. 2). It is further alleged (ver. 6) that the Yajur-veda of Tittiri and the Āpastambīya school are established in the Āndhra country and other parts of the south and south-east up to the mouth of the Godāvarī (godāsāgara-āvadhi). According to the Mahārṇava the latter river marks, therefore, the northern frontier of the territory occupied by the Āpastambīyas. which comprises the Marāṭha and Kāṇara districts of the Bombay Presidency, the greater part of the Nizām's dominions, Berar, and the Madras Presidency with the exception of the northern Sirkārs and the western coast. This assertion agrees, on the whole, with the actual facts which have fallen under my observation. A great number of the Deśastha-brāhmaṇas in the Nāsik, Puṇa, Ahmadnagar, Sātārā, Sholāpur, and Kolhāpur districts, and of the Kāṇarā or Karṇāṭaka-brāhmaṇas in the Belgām, Dhārvāḍ, Kalāḍghī, and Karvāḍ collectorates, as well as a smaller number among the Cittapāvanas of the Koṅkaṇa are Āpastambīyas. Of the Nizām's dominions and the Madras Presidency I possess no local knowledge. But I can say that I have met many followers of Āpastamba among the Teliṅgana-brāhmaṇas settled in Bombay, and that the frequent occurrence of MSS. containing the Sūtras of the Āpastambīya school in the Madras Presidency proves that the Caraṇa there must count many adherents. On the other hand, I have never met with any Āpastambīyas among the ancient indigenous subdivisions of the Brahmanical community dwelling north of the Marāṭhā country and north of the Narmadā. A few Brāhmaṇas of this school, no doubt, are scattered over Gujarāt and Central India, and others are found in the great places of pilgrimage in Hindustan proper. The former mostly have immigrated during the last century, following the Marāṭhā chieftains who conquered large portions of those countries, or have been imported in the present century by the Marāṭhā rulers of Gwalior, Indor, and Baroda. The settlers in Benares, Mathurā, and other sacred cities also, have chiefly come in modern times, and not unfrequently live on the bounty of the Marāṭhā princes. But all of them consider themselves and are considered by the Brāhmaṇas, who are indigenous in those districts and towns, as aliens, with whom intermarriage and commensality are not permitted. The indigenous sections of the Brāhmaṇas of Gujarāt, such as the Nāgaras, Kheḍāvals, Bhārgavas, Kapilas, and Motālās, belong, if they are adherents of the Yajur-veda, to the Mādhyandina or Kāṇva schools of the White Yajur-veda. The same is the case with the Brāhmaṇas of Rajputāna, Hindustan, and the Pañjab. In Central India, too, the White Yajur-veda prevails; but, besides the two schools mentioned above, there are still some colonies of Maitrāyaṇīyas or Mānavas[55]. It seems, also, that the restriction of the Āpastambīya school to the south of India, or rather to those subdivisions of the Brahmanical community which for a long time have been settled in the south and are generally considered as natives of the south, is not of recent date. For it is a significant fact that the numerous ancient landgrants which have been found all over India indicate exactly the same state of things. I am not aware that in any grant issued by a king of a northern dynasty to Brāhmaṇas who are natives of the northern half of India, an Āpastambīya is mentioned as donee. But among the southern landgrants there are several on which the name of the school appears. Thus in a śāsana of king Harihara of Vidyānagara, dated Sakasaṃvat 1317 or 1395 A.D., one of the recipients of the royal bounty is 'the learned Ananta Dīkṣita, son of Rāmabhaṭṭa, chief of the Āpastambya (read Āpastambīya) śākhā, a scion of the Vasiṣṭha gotra[56].' Further, the eastern Cālukya king Vijayāditya II[57], who ruled, according to Dr. Fleet, from A-D. 799-843, presented a village to six students of the Hiraṇyakeśi-sūtra and to eighteen students of the Āpastamba, recte the Āpastamba-sūtra. Again, in the abovementioned earlier grant of the Pallava king Nandivarman, there are forty-two students of the Āpastamba-sūtra[58] among the 108 sharers of the village of Udayacandramaṅgalam. Finally, on an ancient set of plates written in the characters which usually are called cave-characters, and issued by the Pallava king Siṃhavarman II, we find among the donees five Āpastambhīya Brāhmaṇas, who, together with a Hairaṇyakesa, a Vājasaneya, and a Sāma-vedī, received the village of Maṅgadūr, in Veṅgŏrāṣṭra[59]. This inscription is, to judge from the characters, thirteen to fourteen hundred years old, and on this account a very important witness for the early existence of the Āpastambīyas in Southern India.

Under the circumstances just mentioned, a casual remark made by Āpastamba, in describing the Śrāddhas or funeral oblations, acquires considerable importance. He says (Dh. II, 7, 17, 17) that the custom of pouring water into the hands of Brāhmaṇas invited to a Śrāddha prevails among the northerners, and he indicates thereby that he himself does not belong to the north of India. If this statement is taken together with the above-stated facts, which tend to show that the Āpastambīyas were and are restricted to the south of India, the most probable construction which can be put on it is that Āpastamba declares himself to be a southerner. There is yet another indication to the same effect contained in the Dharma-sūtra. It has been pointed out above that the recension of the Taittirīya Āraṇyaka which Āpastamba recognises is that called the Āndhra text or the version current in the Āndhra country, by which term the districts in the south-east of India between the Godāvarī and the Kṛṣṇā have to be understood[60]. Now it seems exceedingly improbable that a Vedic teacher would accept as authoritative any other version of a sacred work except that which was current in his native country. it would therefore follow, from the adoption of an Āndhra text by Āpastamba, that he was born in that country, or, at least, had resided there so long as to have become naturalised in it. With respect to this conclusion it must also be kept in mind that the above-quoted passage from the Mahārṇava particularly specifies the Āndhra country (āndhrādi) as the seat of the Āpastambīyas. It may be that this is due to an accident. But it seems to me more probable that the author of the Mahārṇava wished to mark the Āndhra territory as the chief and perhaps as the original residence of the Āpastambīyas.

This discovery has, also, a most important bearing on the question of the antiquity of the school of Āpastamba. It fully confirms the result of the preceding enquiry, viz. that the Āpastambīyas are one of the later Caraṇas. For the south of India and the nations inhabiting it, such as Kaliṅgas, Draviḍas, Andhras, Colas, and Pāṇḍyas, do not play any important part in the ancient Brahmanical traditions and in the earliest history of India, the centre of both of which lies in the north-west or at least north of the Vindhya range. Hitherto it has not been shown that the south and the southern nations are mentioned in any of the Vedic Saṃhitās. In the Brāhmaṇas and in the Sūtras they do occur, though they are named rarely and in a not complimentary manner. Thus the Aitareya-brāhmaṇa gives the names of certain degraded, barbarous tribes, and among them that of the Andhras[61], in whose country, as has been shown, the Āpastambīyas probably originated. Again, Baudhāyana, in his Dharma-sūtra I, i, quotes song verses in which it is said that he who visits the Kaliṅgas must purify himself by the performance of certain sacrifices in order to become fit for again associating with Aryans. The same author, also, mentions distinctive forbidden practices (ācāra) prevailing in the south (loc. cit.). Further, Pāṇini's grammatical Sūtras and Kātyāyana's Vārttikas thereon contain rules regarding several words which presuppose an acquaintance with the south and the kingdoms which flourished there. Thus Pāṇini, IV, 2, 98, teaches the formation of dākṣiṇātya in the sense of 'belonging to or living in the south or the Dekhan,' and a Vārttika of Kātyāyana on Pāṇini, IV, 1, 175, states that the words Cola and Pāṇḍya are used as names of the princes ruling over the Kola and Pāṇḍya countries, which, as is known from history, were situated in the extreme south of India. The other southern nations and a fuller description of the south occur first in the Mahābhārata[62]. While an acquaintance with the south can thus be proved only by a few books belonging to the later stages of Vedic literature, several of the southern kingdoms are named already in the oldest historical documents. Aśoka in his edicts[63], which date from the second half of the third century B.C., calls the Colas, Pāṇḍyas, and the Keralaputra or Ketalaputra his pratyantas (pracantā) or neighbours. The same monarch informs us also that he conquered the province of Kaliṅga and annexed it to his kingdom[64], and his remarks on the condition of the province show that it was thoroughly imbued with the Aryan civilisation.[65]. The same fact is attested still more clearly by the annals of the Ceta king of Kaliṅga, whose thirteenth year fell in the 165th year of the Maurya era, or about 150 B.C.[66] The early spread of the Aryan civilisation to the eastern coast-districts between the Godāvarī and the Kṛṣṇā is proved by the inscriptions on the Bhaṭṭiprolu relic caskets, which probably belong to the period of 200 B.C.[67] Numerous inscriptions in the Buddhist caves of Western India[68], as well as coins, prove the existence during the last centuries before, and the first centuries after, the beginning of our era of a powerful empire of the Andhras, the capital of which was probably situated near the modern Amarāvati an the lower Kṛṣṇā. The princes of the latter kingdom, though great patrons of the Buddhist monks, appear to have been Brahmanists or adherents of the ancient orthodox faith which is founded on the Vedas. For one of them is called Vedisiri (vediśrī), 'he whose glory is the Vedi,' and another Yañasiri (yajñasrī), 'he whose glory is the sacrifice,' and a very remarkable inscription on the Nānāghāt[69] contains a curious catalogue of sacrificial fees paid to priests (dakṣiṇā) for the performance of Śrauta sacrifices. For the third and the later centuries of our era the information regarding Southern India becomes fuller and fuller. Very numerous inscriptions, the accounts of the Buddhist chroniclers of Ceylon, of the Greek geographers, and of the Chinese pilgrims, reveal the existence and give fragments, at least, of the history of many kingdoms in the south, and show that their civilisation was an advanced one, and did not differ materially from that of Northern India.

There can be no doubt that the south of India has been conquered by the Aryans, and has been brought within the pale of Brahmanical civilisation much later than India north of the Vindhya range. During which century precisely that conquest took place, cannot be determined for the present. But it would seem that it happened a considerable time before the Vedic period came to an end, and it certainly was an accomplished fact, long before the authentic history of India begins, about 500 B.C., with the Persian conquest of the Pañjab and Sindh. It may be added that a not inconsiderable period must have elapsed after the conquest of the south, before the Aryan civilisation had so far taken root in the conquered territory, that, in its turn, it could become a centre of Brahmanical activity, and that it could produce new Vedic schools.

These remarks will suffice to show that a Vedic Caraṇa which had its origin in the south, cannot rival in antiquity those whose seat is in the north, and that all southern schools must belong to a comparatively recent period of Vedic history. For this reason, and because the name of Āpastamba and of the Āpastambīyas is not mentioned in any Vedic work, not even in a Kalpa-sūtra, and its occurrence in the older grammatical books, written before the beginning of our era, is doubtful[70], it might be thought advisable to fix the terminus a quo for the composition of the Āpastambīya-sūtras about or shortly before the beginning of the era, when the Brahmanist Āndhra kings held the greater part of the south under their sway. It seems to me, however, that such a hypothesis is not tenable, as there are several points which indicate that the school and its writings possess a much higher antiquity. For, first, the Dharma-sūtra contains a remarkable passage in which its author states that Śvetaketu, one of the Vedic teachers who is mentioned in the Śatapatha-Brāhmaṇa and in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, belongs to the Avaras, to the men of later, i.e. of his own times. The passage referred to, Dh. I, 2, 5, 4-6, has been partly quoted above in order to show that Āpastamba laid no claim to the title Ṛṣi, or seer of revealed texts. It has been stated that according to Sūtra 4, 'No Ṛṣis are born among the Avaras, the men of later ages, on account of the prevailing transgression of the rules of studentship;' and that according to Sūtra 5, 'Some in their new birth become similar to Ṛṣis by their knowledge of the Veda (śrutarshi) through a residue of merit acquired in former existences.' In order to give an illustration of the latter case, the author adds in Sūtra 6, 'Like Śvetaketu.' The natural, and in my opinion, the only admissible interpretation of these words is that Āpastamba considers Śvetaketu to be one of the Avaras, who by virtue of a residue of merit became a Śrutarshi. This is also the view of the commentator Haradatta, who, in elucidation of Sūtra 6, quotes the following passage from the Chāndogya Upaniṣad (VI, 1, 1-2):

'1. Verily, there lived Śvetaketu, a descendant of Aruṇa. His father spake unto him, "O Śvetaketu, dwell as a student (with a, teacher); for, verily, dear child, no one in our family must neglect the study of the Veda and become, as it were, a Brāhmaṇa in name only."

'Verily, he (Śvetaketu) was initiated at the age of twelve years, and when twenty-four years old be had learned all the Vedas; he thought highly of himself and was vain of his learning and arrogant.'

There can be no doubt that this is the person and the story referred to in the Dharma-sūtra. For the fact which the Upaniṣad mentions, that Śvetaketu learned all the Vedas in twelve years, while, the Smṛtis declare forty-eight years to be necessary for the accomplishment of that task, makes Āpastamba's illustration intelligible and appropriate. A good deal more is told in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad about this Śvetaketu, who is said to have been the son of Uddālaka and the grandson of Aruṇa (āruṇeya). The same person is also frequently mentioned in the Śatapatha-Brāhmaṇa. In one passage of the latter work, which has been translated by Professor Max Müller[71], it is alleged that he was a contemporary of Yājñavalkya, the promulgator of the White Yajur-veda, and of the learned king Janaka of Videha, who asked him about the meaning of the Agnihotra sacrifice, Now, as has been shown above, Āpastamba knew and quotes the White Yajur-veda and the Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa. The passage of the latter work, which he quotes, is even taken from the same book in which the story about Śvetaketu and Janaka occurs. The fact, therefore, that Āpastamba places a teacher whom he must have considered as a contemporary of the promulgator of the White Yajur-veda among the Avaras, is highly interesting and of some importance for the history of Vedic literature. On the one hand it indicates that Āpastamba cannot have considered the White Yajur-veda, such as it has been handed down in the schools of the Cāṇvas and Mādhyandinas, to belong to a remote antiquity. On the other hand it makes the inference which otherwise might be drawn from the southern origin of the Āpastambīya school and from the non-occurrence: of its name in the early grammatical writings, viz. that its founder lived not long before the beginning of our era, extremely improbable. For even if the term Avara is not interpreted very strictly and allowed to mean not exactly a contemporary, but a person of comparatively recent times, it will not be possible to place between Śvetaketu and Āpastamba a longer interval than, at the utmost, two or three hundred years. Śvetaketu and Yājñavalkya would accordingly, at the best, find their places in the fourth or fifth century B.C., and the Śatapatha-Brāhmaṇa as well as all other Vedic works, which narrate incidents from their lives, must have been composed or at least edited still later. Though little is known regarding the history of the Vedic texts, still it happens that we possess some information regarding the texts in question. For we know from a statement made by Kātyāyana in a Vārttika on Pāṇini IV, 3, 105, and from Patañjali's commentary on his words that the Brāhmaṇa proclaimed by Yājñavalkya, i.e. the Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa of the White Yajur-veda, was considered to have been promulgated by one of the Ancients, in the times of these two writers, i.e. probably in the fourth and second centuries B.C.[72] These considerations will show that it is necessary to allow for Āpastamba a much higher antiquity than the first century B.C.

The same inference may also be drawn from another series of facts, viz. the peculiarities of the language of his Sūtras. The latter are very considerable and very remarkable. They may be classed under four heads. In the Āpastambīya Dharma-sūtra we have, first, archaic words and forms either occurring in other Vedic writings or formed according to the analogy of Vedic usage; secondly, ancient forms and words specially prescribed by Pāṇini, which have not been traced except in Āpastamba's Sūtras; thirdly, words and forms which are both against Vedic usage and against Pāṇini's rules, and which sometimes find their analogies in the ancient Prakrits; and fourthly, anomalies in the construction of sentences. To the first class belong, kravyādas, I, 7, 21, 15, carnivorous, formed according to the analogy of ṛśādas; the frequent use of the singular dāra, e.g. II, 1, 1, 17-18, a wife, instead of the plural dārāḥ; salāvṛkī, I, 3, 10, 19, for sālavṛkī; the substitution of ḷ for r in pleṅkha, I, 11, 31, 14; occasional offences against the rules of internal and external Sandhi, e.g. in agṛhyamānakāraṇaḥ, I, 4, 12, 8; in skuptvā, I, 11, 31, 22, the irregular absolutive of skubh or of sku; in pādūna, I, 1, 2, 13; in adhāśanaśāyin, I, 19, 2, 21 and in sarvatopeta, I, 6, 19, 8; the neglect of the rule requiring vṛddhi in the first syllable of the name Pushkarasādi, I, 10, 28, 1; the irregular instrumentals vidyā, I, 11, 30, 3, for vidyayā, and niḥśreyasā, II, 7, 16, 2, for niḥśreyasena; the nominatives dual āvam, I, 7, 20, 6, for āvām, and kruñcakrauñca, I, 5, 17, 36 for °krauñcau; and the potentials in īta, such as prakṣālayīta, I, 1, 2, 28; abhiprasārayīta, I, 25 6, 3, &c.

Among the words mentioned by Pāṇini, but not traced except in the Dharma-sūtra, may be enumerated the verb stṛh, to do damage, I, 11, 31, 9; the verb sṛṅkh, to sneeze, from which sṛṅkhānikā, I, 5, 16, 14, and niḥśṛṅkhana, II, 2, 5, 9, are derived; and the noun vedādhyāya, I, 9, 24, 6; II, 4, 8, 5, in the sense of a student of the Veda. Words offending against rules given by Pāṇini, without being either archaic or Prakritic, are e.g. sarvānnin, I, 6, 18, 33, one who eats anybody's food, which, according to Pāṇini V, 2, 9, should be sarvānnīna; sarpaśīrṣin, I, 5, 17, 39; annasaṃskartṛ, a cook, II, 3, 6, 16; dhārmya, righteous, for dharmya, I, 2, 7, 21, and elsewhere; dīvitṛ, a gambler, II, 10, 2, 5, 13, for devitṛ, the very remarkable form prāśñāti, I, 1, 4, 1, for prāśnāti, finds an analogy in the Vedic śnyaptre for śnaptre[73] and in Pali, pañha from praśña for praśṇa; and the curious compounds avāṅgagra, I, 1, 2, 38, parāṅgāvṛtta, II, 5, 10, 11, where the first parts show the forms of the nominative instead of the base, and pratisūryamatsyaḥ, I, 3, 11, 31, which as a copulative compound is wrong, though not without analogies in Prakrit and in later Sanskrit[74]. The irregular forms caused by the same tendencies as those which effected the formation of the Prakrit languages, are, aviprakramiṇa, II, 2, 5, 2, for aviprakramaṇa, where an a standing in thesi has been changed to i; sāṃvṛttiḥ, II, 3, 6, 13, sāṃvartete, II, 5, 11, 20, and paryānta, I, 3, 9, 21, and I, 3, 11, 33 (compare Marāṭhi āṃt for antaḥ), in each of which a standing before a nasal has been lengthened; aṇika, I, 6, 19, 1, the initial a of which stands for ṛ, if it really has the meaning of ṛṇika, as some commentators asserted; anulepaṇa, I, 3, 11, 13; I, 11, 32, 5, with the Prakritic change of na to ṇa; vyupajāva, I, 2, 8, 15, with va for pa; ṛtve for ṛtvye, where y seems to have been absorbed by the following e; apaśśayīta, I, 11, 32, 16, for apāśrayita, and bhatṛvyatikrama, I, 10, 28, 20, where r has been assimilated to the preceding, or has been lost before the following consonant. The irregularities in the construction are less frequent. But in two Sūtras, I, 3, 10, 2, and I, 3, 11, 31, some words which ought to stand in the locative case have the terminations of the nominative, and it looks as if the author had changed his mind about the construction which he meant to use. In a third passage II, 10, 26, 20, śiśnacchedanaṃ savṛṣaṇasya, the adjective which is intended to qualify the noun śiśna has been placed in the genitive case, though the noun has been made the first part of a compound.

The occurrence of so many irregularities[75] in so small a treatise as the Dharma-sūtra is, proves clearly that the author did not follow Pāṇini's grammar, and makes it very unlikely that he knew it at all. If the anomalous forms used by Āpastamba all agreed with the usage of the other Sūtrakāras, known to us, it might be contended that, though acquainted with the rules of the great grammarian, he had elected to adopt by preference the language of the Vedic schools. But this is by no means the case. The majority of the irregular forms are peculiar to Āpastamba. As it is thus not probable that Āpastamba employed his peculiar expressions- in obedience to the tradition of the Vedic schools or of his particular school, he must have either been unacquainted with Pāṇini or have considered his teachings of no great importance. In other words, he must either have lived earlier than Pāṇini or before Pāṇini's grammar had acquired general fame throughout India, and become the standard authority for Sanskrit authors. In either case so late a date as 150 B. C. or the first century B.C. would not fit. For Patañjali's Mahābhāṣya furnishes abundant proof that at the time of its composition, in the second century B.C., Pāṇini's grammar occupied a position similar to that which it holds now, and has held since the beginning of our era in the estimation of the learned of India. On linguistic grounds it seems to me Āpastamba cannot be placed later than the third century B.C., and if his statement regarding Śvetaketu is taken into account, the lower limit for the composition of his Sūtras must be put further back by 150-200 years.

But sufficient space has already been allotted to these attempts to assign a date to the founder of the Āpastambīya school, the result of which, in the present state of our knowledge of the ancient history of India, must remain, I fear, less certain and less precise than is desirable. It now is necessary to say, in conclusion, a few words about the history of the text of the Dharma-sūtra, and about its commentary, the Ujjvalā Vṛtti of Haradatta. The oldest writer with a known date who quotes the Āpastambīya Dharma-sūtra is Saṅkarācārya[76], c. 800 A.D. Even somewhat earlier Kumārila, c. 750, refers repeatedly to a law-book by Āpastamba[77]. But it is improbable that he had our Dharma-sūtra before him. For he says, p. 138, that Āpastamba expressly sanctions local usages, opposed to the teaching of the Vedas, for the natives of those districts where they had prevailed since ancient times. Now, that is just an opinion, which our Dharma-sūtra declares to be wrong and refutes repeatedly[78]. As it seems hazardous to impute to a man, like Kumārila, ignorance or spite against Āpastamba, I am inclined to assume that the great Mīmāṃsaka refers to some other work, attributed to Āpastamba, perhaps the metrical Āpastamba-smṛti which Aparārka quotes very frequently[79]. Among the commentators on Smṛtis the oldest, who quote the Dharma-sūtra, are Medhātithi, the author of the Manubhāṣya, and Vijñāneśvara, who composed the Mitākṣarā, the well-known commentary on Yājñavalkya's Dharma-śāstra during the reign of the Cālukya king Vikramāditya VI, of Cālukya towards the end of the eleventh century. From that time downwards Āpastamba is quoted by almost every writer on law. But the whole text, such as it is given in my edition[80], is vouched for only by the commentator Haradatta, who wrote his Ujjvalā Vṛtti, at the latest, in the fifteenth century A.D. or possibly 100 years earlier[81] . Haradatta was, however, not the first commentator of the Dharma-sūtra. He frequently quotes the opinions of several predecessors whom he designates by the general expressions anyaḥ or aparaḥ, i.e. another (writer). The fact that the Ujjvalā was preceded by earlier commentaries which protected the text from corruption, also speaks in favour of the authenticity of the latter, which is further attested by the close agreement of the Hiraṇyakeśi Dharma-sūtra, mentioned above.

As regards the value of the Ujjvalā for the explanation of Āpastamba's text, it certainly belongs to the best commentaries existing. Haradatta possessed in the older Vṛttis abundant and good materials on which he could draw; he himself apparently was, well versed in Hindu law and in Sanskrit grammar, and distinguished by sobriety and freedom from that vanity which induces many Indian commentators to load their works with endless and useless quotations. His explanations, therefore, can mostly be followed without hesitation, and, even when they appear unacceptable, they deserve careful consideration.

Footnotes and references:


Max Müller, History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 133 seq.


Burnell, Indian Antiquary, 1, 5 seq.


The Śrauta-sūtra, Pr. I-XV, has been edited by Professor R. Garbe in the Bibliotheca Indica, and the remainder is in the press.


See Professor Max Müller's Translation in S. B. E., vol. xxx.


The Gṛhya-sūtra has been edited by Dr. Winternitz, Vienna, 1887.


On the Śulva-sūtras see G. Thibaut in 'the Pandit,' 1875, p. 292.


Burnell, loc. cit.


Āśvalāyana Gṛhya-sūtra I, 19, ed. Stenzler.


See the details, given by Dr. Wintemitz in his essay, Das altindische Hochzeitsrituell, p. 5 (Denkschr. Wiener Akademie, Bd. 40).


See Dr. Winternitz, loc. cit


Max Müller, Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit, p. 371. A MS. of the Caraṇavyūha, with an anonymous commentary, in my possession, has the following passage:


Max Müller, Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., p. 194. These statements occur in the introduction of Mahādeva's commentary on the Śrauta-sūtra of Hiraṇyakeśin (Weber, Hist. Sansk. Lit., p. 110, 2nd ed.) and, in an interpolated: passage of Bhāradvājā's Gṛhya-sūtra (Winternitz, op. cit., p. 8, note i), as well as, with the omission of Bhāradvājā's name, in interpolated passages of p. xvii Baudhāyana's Dharma-sūtra (II, 5, 9, 14) and of the same author's Gṛhya-sūtra (Sacred Books of the East, vol. xiv, p. xxxvi, note 1). Adherents of a Pravacana-sūtra, no doubt identical with that of Baudhāyana, the Pravacanakartā (Sacred Books of the East, vol. xiv, p. xxxvi), are mentioned in a land grant, originally issued by the Pallava king Nandivarman in the beginning of the eighth century A.D., see Hultzsch, South Indian Inscriptions, vol. ii, p. 361 seqq.; see also Weber, Hist Sansk. Lit., p. 110, 2nd ed.


Max Müller, op. cit., p. 195.


See also Weber, Ind. Lit., p. 98, 2nd ed.


Dharma-sūtra II, 6, x 3, 1-10; II, 10, 27, 4.


Baudh. Dh. II, 1, 2, 18-23 = Āp. Dh. I, 10, 29, 8-14.


E.g. Āp. Dh. I, 1, 2, 30; I, 2, 6, 8-9; I, 5, 15, 8 correspond respectively to Baudh. Dh. I, 2, 3, 39-40; I, 2, 3, 38; II, 21 3, 29.


Baudh. Dh. II, 2, 3, 17 seqq.


Āp. Dh. II, 5, 13, 1-2, 11.


Āp. Dh. II, 10, 27, 2-7.


Āp. Dh. II, 5, 11 and 12.


Baudh. Dh. II, 21 3, 33.


For another case, the rules, referring to the composition for homicide, regarding which Āpastamba holds later views than Baudhāyana, see the Festgruss an R. von Roth, pp. 47-48.


Āp. Dh. II, 6, 13, 13, and II, 6, 14, 1


Āp. Dh. II, 6,14, 6-13.


Baudh. Dh. II, 2, 3, 2-7.


Āp. Dh. I, 1, 4, 5-7.


Cases, in which Āpastamba's Gṛhya-sūtra appears to refer to, or to controvert, Baudhāyana's Gṛhya-sūtra, have been collected by Dr. Wintemitz, op. cit., p. 8. Dr. Burnell, Tanjore Catalogue, p. 34, too, considers Baudhāyana to be older than Āpastamba, because his style is so much simpler. With this remark may be compared Dr. Winternitz's very true assertion that Baudhāyana's style resembles sometimes, especially in the discussion of disputed points, that of the Brāhmaṇas. On the other hand, Dr. R. G. Bhāṇḍārkar, Second Report on the Search for Sanskrit MSS., p. 34, believes Baudhāyana to be later than Āpastamba and Bhāradvāja, because he teaches other developments of sacrificial rites, unknown to the other two Sūtrakāras. This may be true, but it must not be forgotten that every portion of Baudhāyana's Sūtras, which has been subjected to a critical enquiry, has turned out to be much interpolated and enlarged by later hands.


The subjoined pedigree of the Sūtrakāras of the Black Yajur-veda will perhaps make the above remarks and my interpretation of the statements of Mahādeva and the other authorities mentioned above more intelligible:--


See Appendix II to Part I of my second edition of Āpastamba's Dharma-sūtra, p. 117 seqq.


Compare also Dr. Winternitz's remarks on the dependence of the Gṛhya-sūtra of the Hiraṇyakeśins on Āpastamba's, op. cit., p. 6 seqq., and the second edition of the Āp. Dh., Part 1, p. xi.


Āp. II, 29, 12.


The Taittirīya Āraṇyaka exists in three recensions, the Karṇāṭa, Drāviḍa, and the Āndhra, the first of which has been commented on by Sāyaṇa.


Compare on this point Professor Eggeling's remarks in Sacred Books of the East, vol. xii, p. xxxix seqq.


See the passage from the Caraṇavyūhabhāṣya given below, ver. 10.


Āp. Dh. I, 2, 2.


Āp. Dh. II, 3, 7, 12-17.


Some more are quoted in the Śrauta-sūtra, see Professor Garbe in the Gurupūjākaumudī, p. 33 seqq.


Āp. Dh. II, 4, 8, 10.


See also Max Müller, Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., p. 111.


p. Dh. I, 6, 19, 3-8; I, 10, 2 8, 1-2; I, 4, 13, 10; I, 6, 18, 2; I, 6, 19, 12; I, 10, 28, 5, 16; I, 10, 29, 12-16.


Max Müller, loc. cit., p. 142.


A Dharma-sūtra, ascribed to this teacher, has been recovered of late, by Mr. Vāman Ṣāstrī Islāmpurkar. Though it is an ancient work, it does not contain Āpastamba's quotations, see Grundriss d. Indo-Ar. Phil. und Altertumsk, II, 8, 8.


Āp. Dh. II, 4, 8, 13; II, 6, 14, 13.


Āp. Dh. I, 1, 14, 8, 9-10.


Āp. Dh, I, 6, 19, 13; I, 10, 29, 7.


Āp. Dh. II, 9, 24, 6.


Aufrecht, Catalogus Catalogorum, p. 400.


Max Müller, Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., pp. 40-42. Weber, Literaturgeschichte, pp. 206-208. Though I fully subscribe to the opinion, held by the most illustrious Sanskritists, that, in general, the existing Purāṇas are not identical with the works designated by that title in Vedic works, still I cannot believe that they are altogether independent of the latter. Nor can I agree to the assertion that the Purāṇas known to us, one and all, are not older than the tenth or eleventh century A.D. That is inadmissible, because Bêrūnī (India, I, 131) enumerates them as canonical books. And his frequent quotations from them prove that in 1030 A. D. they did not differ materially from those known to us (see Indian Antiquary, 19, 382 seqq.). Another important fact bearing on this point may be mentioned here, viz. that the poet Bāṇa, who wrote shortly after 600 A.D., in the Sṝhatshacarita, orders his Paurāṇika to recite the Pavanaprokta-purāṇa, i.e. the Vāyu-purāṇa (Harshacarita, p. 61, Calcutta ed.). Dr. Hall, the discoverer of the life of Harsha, read in his copy Yavanaprokta-purāṇa, a title which, as he remarks, might suggest the idea that Bāṇa knew the Greek epic poetry. But a comparison of the excellent Ahmadābād and Benares Devanāgarī MSS. and of the Kaśmīr Śāradā copies shows that the correct reading is the one given above. The earlier history of the Purāṇas, which as yet is a mystery, will only be cleared up when a real history of the orthodox Hindu sects, especially of the Śivites and Viṣṇuites, has been written. It will, then, probably become apparent that the origin of these sects reaches back far beyond the rise of Buddhism and Jainism. It will also be proved p. xxxi that the orthodox sects used Purāṇas as text books for popular readings, the Purāṇapāṭhana of our days, and that some, at least, of the now existing Purāṇas are the latest recensions of those mentioned in Vedic books.


Vāyup., Adhy. .50, 208 seqq.; Matsyap., Adhy. 123, 96 seqq.; Viṣṇup. II, 8. 86-89; H. H. Wilson, Viṣṇup., vol. ii, pp. 263-268 (ed. Hall).


Āp. Dh. II, 9, 23,4-5.


An abbreviated version of the same verses, ascribed to the Paurāṇikas, occurs in Saṅkarācārya's Comm. on the Chāndogya Up., p. 336 (Bibl. Ind.).


Weber, Ind. Stud. I, 1-24.


Caraṇavyūhabhāṣya, fol. 15a, 1- 4 seqq.:--


See Bhāū Dājī, Journ. Bombay Br. Roy. As. Soc. X, 40. Regarding the Maitrāyaṇīyas in Gujarāt, of whom the Caraṇavyūha speaks, compare my Report on the Search for Sanskrit MSS., 1879-80, p. 3.


Colebrooke, Essays, II, p. 264, ver. 24 (Madras ed.).


See Hultzsch, South Indian Inscriptions, vol. i, p. 31 seqq., and Indian Antiquary, vol. xx, p. 414 seqq.


Āpastambha may be a mistake for Āpastamba. But the form with the aspirate occurs also in the earlier Pallava grant and in Devapāla's commentary on the Kaṭhaka Gṛhya-sūtra.


Ind. Ant. V, 133.


See Cunningham, Geography, p. 527 seqq.; Burnell, South Ind. Pal., p. 14, note 2.


Aitareya-brāhmaṇa VII, 18.


Lassen, Ind. Alterthumskunde, I. 684, 2nd ed.


Edict II, Epigraphia Indica, vol. ii, pp. 449-450, 466.


Edict XIII, op. cit., pp. 462-465, 470-472.


See also Indian Antiquary, Vol. xxiii, p. 246.


Actes du 6ième Congrès Int. d. Orient., vol. iii, 2, 135 seqq., where, however, the beginning of the Maurya era is placed wrongly in the eighth year of Aśoka.


Epigraphia Indica., vol. ii, p. 323 seqq.


See Burgess, Arch. Surv. Reports, West India, vol. iv, pp. 104-114 and vol. v, p. 75 seqq.


Op. cit., vol. v, p. 69 seqq. Its date probably falls between 150-140 B.C.


The name Āpastamba occurs only in the gaṇa vidādi, which belongs to Pāṇini IV, 1, 104, and the text of this gaṇa is certain only for the times of the Kāśikā, about 690 A.D. The Śrauta-sūtra of Āpastamba is mentioned in the nearly contemporaneous commentary of Bhartṛhari on the Mahābhāṣya, see Zeitschr. d. Deutschen Morg. Ges., vol. xxxvi, p. 654.


Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., p. 421 seq.


This famous Vārttika has been interpreted in various ways; see Max Müller, Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., pp. 360-364; Goldstücker, Pāṇini, pp. 132-140; Weber, p. xliii Ind. Stud. V, 65-74; XIII, 443, 444. As regards the explanation of Kātyāyana's and Patañjali's words, I side with Kaiyaṭa and Professor Goldstücker. But I am unable to follow the latter in the inferences which he draws from the fact, that Kātyāyana and Patañjali declare Yājñavalkya and other sages to be as ancient as those whose Brāhmaṇas and Kalpas are designated by the plural of adjectives formed by the addition of the affix in to the names of the promulgators. Though Pāṇini asserts, IV, 3, 105, that only those Brāhmaṇas which are known by appellations like Bhāllavinaḥ, Kauṣītakinaḥ, &c, have been proclaimed by ancient sages, and though Kātyāyana and the author of the Great Commentary add that this rule does not hold good in the case of the work called Yājñavalkāni Brāhmaṇāni, it does not necessarily follow, as Professor Goldstücker thinks, that an extraordinarily long interval lies between Pāṇini and Kātyāyana-so long a period that what Pāṇini considered to be recent had become ancient in Kātyāyana's time. Professor Weber has rightly objected to this reasoning. The difference between the statements of the two grammarians may have been caused by different traditions prevailing in different schools, or by an oversight on the part of Pāṇini, which, as the scene of Yājñavalkya's activity seems to have been Videha in eastern India, while Pāṇini belonged to the extreme north-west, is not at all improbable. As regards the two dates, I place, following, with Professor Max Müller, the native tradition, Kātyāyana in the fourth century B.C., and Patañjali, with Professors Goldstücker, Kern, and Bhāṇḍarkar, between 178-140 B.C.


Wackernagel, Altindische Grammatik, vol. i, p. xxxiii.


See Zeitschr. d. Deutschen Morg. Ges., vol. xl, p. 539 seq.; Epigraphia Indica, vol. i, p. 3.


Many more may be collected from the other divisions of the body of Sūtras. See Winternitz, op. cit., p. 13 seqq.; Gurupūjākaumudī, p. 34 seq.


See Deussen, Vedānta, p. 35.


Tantravārttika, pp. 138, 139, 142, 174,175, 179, Benares ed.


Āp. Dh. I, 1, 14, 8, 9-10; II, 6, 14, 10-13; II, 6, 15, I.


Āp. Dh., Introd., p. x.


Āpastambīya Dharma-sūtram, second edition, Part i, Bombay, 1892; Part ii, Bombay, 1894.


It seems not doubtful that Haradatta, the author of the Ujjvalā, is the same person who wrote the Anākula Vṛtti on the Āpastambīya Gṛhya-sūtra, an explanation of the Āpastambīya Gṛhya-mantras (see Burnell, Ind. Ant. I, 6), and the Mitākṣarā Vṛtti on the Dharma-sūtra of Gautama. From the occurrence in the latter work of Tamil words, added in explanation of Sanskrit expressions, it follows that Haradatta was a native of the south of India. I am not in a position to decide if our author also wrote the Padamañjarī Vṛtti on the Kāśikā of Vāmana and Jayāditya. This is Professor Aufrecht's opinion, Catalogus Catalogorum, p. 715 seq. See also my remarks in the Introd. to the second ed., p. viii.

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: