|
This latter peculiarity is also observable in the third Prasna, and
raises a suspicion against the genuineness of that part also. For, though the
third Prasna in style and language resembles the first two, it is hard to
believe that the author should, for no apparent reason, suddenly have changed
the manner of dividing his work towards its end. This suspicion is further
strengthened by two other circumstances. First, Prasnas I-II really
exhaust the discussion of the whole Dharma, and the third offers supplementary
information only on some points which have been touched upon previously.
Secondly, several Adhyâyas of Prasna III seem to have been borrowed from
other works, or to be abstracts from them. Thus the tenth chapter has certainly
been taken from the Gautamîya Dharmasâstra, the sixth bears a very
close and suspicious resemblance to Vishnu XLVIII 1,
and the third looks very much like a short summary of the doctrine of Vikhanas,
whose lost Sûtra contained the original rule of the order of the Vaikhânasas
or hermits, living in the forest. These circumstances justify, it seems to me,
the assumption that Baudhâyana's original Dharma-sûtra consisted, like
Âpastamba's,
of two Prasnas only, and that it received, through followers of his
school, two separate additions, first in very ancient times Prasna III,
where the style of the master is strictly followed, and later Prasna IV,
where the language and phraseology of the metrical Smritis are adopted.
It ought to be noted that Govindasvâmin, too, does not take the whole of the
four Prasnas for Baudhâyana's composition. With respect to several
passages 2
where Baudhâyana's name is introduced in order to give weight to the rules, he
says that the Sûtras may belong to 'a pupil.' I do not think that the criterion
which he uses can be relied on in every case, because oriental authors without
doubt occasionally speak of themselves as of third persons. But the fact that
the commentator, though an orthodox Hindu, had misgivings as to the genuineness
of portions of the work, is not without significance. It seems also that even
the first two Prasnas are not quite free from interpolations. Thus the Kandikâs
on the Tarpana 1
are certainly much enlarged by additions, the verse at I, 5, 11, 36, a
repetition of I, 5, 9, 5, and some prose quotations which are introduced by the
words athâpy udâharanti, 'now they quote also,' standing usually before verses
only, are at least suspicious. That the genuineness of many single passages
should be doubtful, is no more than might be expected, not only on account of
the separation of the Dharma-sûtra from the other parts of the Kalpa, but also
because the work, as we shall see further on, remained for a long time without
the protection of a commentary. The practical conclusion to be drawn from this
state of things is that the greatest caution must be observed in using the Baudhâyana
Dharma-sûtra for historical purposes, and that it will be advisable to draw no
inferences regarding Baudhâyana's relation to other teachers and schools from
the last two Prasnas, and not to trust too much to historical inferences
drawn from single passages of the first two.
The position which Baudhâyana occupies among the teachers of the Taittirîya-veda
has already been discussed in the Introduction to Âpastamba. It has been shown
that according to the Brâhmanical tradition preserved by Mahâdeva, the
commentator of the Hiranyakesi-sûtras, he composed the first Sûtra
for the followers of his Sâkhâ. Internal and external evidence has also
been adduced, proving that he certainly was more ancient than Âpastamba and
Hiranyakesin. It is now possible to bring forward some further
facts bearing on these points. First, in the section on the Tarpana, the
libations of water offered to various deities, Rishis, and the manes, II,
5, 9, 14, Kânva Baudhâyana receives his share immediately after the Rishis
of the Veda and before Âpastamba, the Sûtrakâra, and Satyâshâdha
Hiranyakesin. The same order is observed in the distribution of
the offerings at the Sarpabali, described in the Grihya-sûtra 1,
where the following teachers of the Yagur-veda are specially named, viz.
Vaisampâyana, Phuliṅgu, Tittiri, Ukha, Aukhya, Âtreya the author
of the Pada-text, Kaundinya the author of the commentary, Kânva
Baudhâyana the author of the Pravakana, Âpastamba the author of the
Sûtra,
and Satyâshâdha Hiranyakesin. Neither of these two
passages belongs to Baudhâyana. They are both clearly interpolations. But they
show that Mahâdeva's statement, which makes Baudhâyana the first expounder of
the Kalpa among the Taittirîyavedins, agrees with the tradition of the Baudhâyanîyas
themselves. For not only the place allotted to Baudhâyana's name, but still
more the title Pravakanakâra which he receives, show that the followers
of his school placed him before and above all other teachers of the ritual. The
term pravakana, which literally means 'proclaiming or recitation,' has
frequently the technical sense of 'oral instruction,' and is applied both to the
traditional lore contained in the Brâhmanas, and to the more systematic
teaching of the Aṅgas 2.
If, therefore, a teacher is called the author of the Pravakana of a Sâkhâ,
that can only mean that he is something more than a common Sûtrakâra, and is
considered to be the originator of the whole 'system of instruction among its
followers. The epithet Kânva, which Baudhâyana receives in both the
passages quoted above, indicates that he belonged to the Vedic Gotra of the Kanvas.
It deserves to be noted that Govindasvâmin, too, on I, 3, 5, 13, explains the
name Baudhâyana by Kânvâyana 3.
The style of Baudhâyana's works furnishes, as Dr. Burnell has pointed out 1,
another argument for their high antiquity. Compared with the Sûtras of Âpastamba
and Hiranyakesin they are much simpler in their arrangement, and
the complete absence of that anxiety to save 'half a vowel' which characterises
the fully developed Sûtra-style is very remarkable. The last point has been
noticed by Govindasvâmin also. In commenting on I, 2, 3, 17-18, where Baudhâyana
first permits students to beg food of men of all castes, and afterwards explains
that he means Âryans who follow their lawful occupations, he says 2,
'(If anybody should ask), "Why give two Sûtras, while one Sûtra, ('A
student shall ask) Âryans who follow their lawful occupations,' would have
sufficed?" (his objection will be) correct. For this teacher is not
particularly anxious to make his book short.' In other cases we find a certain
awkwardness in the distribution of the subject matter, which probably finds its
explanation through the fact that Baudhâyana first attempted to- bring the
teaching of the Taittirîyas on the Dharma into a systematic form. Thus the
rules on the law of inheritance are given without any apparent necessity and
against the custom of the other Sûtrakâras in two different chapters, I, 5,
11, 9-16 and II, 2, 3, 1-44. The section on purification, too, is divided into
two separate portions, I, 4, 6-10 and I, 6, 13-15, and the second which treats
of the purification of the vessels at sacrifices, properly ought to have been
placed into the Srauta-sûtra, not into the Dharma-sûtra. Again, the
discussion of several topics is repeatedly interrupted by the introduction of
rules belonging to different subjects, and Govindasvâmin's ingenuity is often
taxed to the utmost in order to find the reason why certain Sûtras which
apparently are unconnected with the main subject have been inserted. A third argument
for the great antiquity of Baudhâyana's Sûtras, derived from the archaic
character of some of his doctrines, has been discussed in the Introduction to Âpastamba 1.
The number of instances where Baudhâyana's rules are based on a more ancient
order of ideas than Âpastamba's might be increased very considerably. But, as
now the comparison of the two works is open to all students, I omit the cases
contained in the two Dharma-sûtras, and content myself with adducing one more
from the less accessible Grihya-sûtras. It is a well-known fact that the
ancient Vedic ritual in certain cases admitted Sûdras, and particularly
the Rathakâra or carpenter, who, according to all accounts, has Sûdra
blood in his veins, to a participation in the Srauta rites. The Taittirîya-brâhmana
even gives certain Mantras to be recited by the Rathakâra at the Agnyâdhâna
sacrifice 2.
Now Baudhâyana, who, Dh. S. I, 9, 17, 6, derives the origin of the Rathakâras
from a Vaisya male and Sûdra female, apparently reckons him
amongst the twice-born, and explicitly allows him to receive the sacrament of
the initiation. He says, Grihya-sûtra II, 5, 8-9, 'Let him initiate a Brâhmana
in spring; a Kshatriya in summer, a Vaisya in autumn, a Rathakâra in the
rainy season; or all of them in spring 3.'
But Âpastamba, who shows great hostility against the mixed castes, and
emphatically denies the right of Sûdras to be initiated, gives the same
rule regarding the seasons for the initiation both in his Grihya and
Dharma-sûtras 4.
He, however, omits the Rathakâra in both cases. There can be no doubt that Âpastamba's
exclusion of the carpenter, which agrees with the sentiments prevailing in
modern Brâhmanical society, is an off-shoot of a later doctrine, and as both he
and Baudhâyana belong to the same vidyâvamsa, or spiritual family, this difference
may be used as an argument for his posteriority to Baudhâyana. In connexion
with this rule of Baudhâyana's it ought to be mentioned that even in the
present day certain subdivisions of the modern Sutârs or carpenters actually
wear the Brâhmanical thread, and, in spite of the adverse teaching of the Sâstras,
find Brâhmans willing to perform the ceremony of investiture for them.
|
|
