|
Under the circumstances just mentioned, a casual remark made by Āpastamba,
in describing the Srāddhas or funeral oblations, acquires considerable
importance. He says (Dh. II, 7, 17, 17) that the custom of pouring water into
the hands of Brāhmanas invited to a Srāddha 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 Āranyaka 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 Krishnā have to be understood 1.
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
Mahārnava 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 Mahārnava 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 Karanas.
For the south of India and the nations inhabiting it, such as Kalingas,
Dravidas, Andhras, Kolas, and Pāndyas, 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 Samhitās. In the Brāhmanas and in the Sūtras
they do occur, though they are named rarely and in a not complimentary manner.
Thus the Aitareya-brāhmana gives the names of certain degraded, barbarous
tribes, and among them that of the Andhras 2,
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 Kalingas 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 (ākāra) prevailing in
the south (loc. cit.). Further, Pānini'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
Pānini, IV, 2, 98, teaches the formation of dākshinātya in the sense of
'belonging to or living in the south or the Dekhan,' and a Vārttika of
Kātyāyana on Pānini, IV, 1, 175, states that the words Kola and Pāndya are
used as names of the princes ruling over the Kola and Pāndya 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 1. 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. Asoka in his edicts 2,
which date from the second half of the third century B.C., calls the Kolas,
Pāndyas, and the Keralaputra or Ketalaputra his pratyantas (prakantā) or
neighbours. The same monarch informs us also that he conquered the province of
Kalinga and annexed it to his kingdom 3,
and his remarks on the condition of the province show that it was thoroughly
imbued with the Aryan civilisation. 4.
The same fact is attested still more clearly by the annals of the Keta king of
Kalina, whose thirteenth year fell in the 165th year of the Maurya era,
or about 150 B.C. 5
The early spread of the Aryan civilisation to the eastern coast-districts between the
Godāvarī and the Krishnā is proved by the inscriptions on the Bhattiprolu
relic caskets, which probably belong to the period of 200 B.C. 1
Numerous inscriptions in the Buddhist caves of Western India 2,
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 Krishnā. 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 (vedisrī), 'he whose glory is the Vedi,' and another Yańasiri (yagńasrī),
'he whose glory is the sacrifice,' and a very remarkable inscription on the
Nānāghāt 3
contains a curious catalogue of sacrificial fees paid to priests (dakshinā)
for the performance of Srauta 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 Pańgab 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 Karana 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 1, 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 Svetaketu, one of the Vedic teachers who is
mentioned in the Satapatha-Brāhmana and in the Khāndogya Upanishad, 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 Rishi, or seer of revealed texts. It has been stated
that according to Sūtra 4, 'No Rishis 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, [paragraph continues] 'Some in their new birth become similar to Rishis by
their knowledge of the Veda (srutarshi) 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 Svetaketu.' The natural, and in my opinion, the
only admissible interpretation of these words is that Āpastamba considers
Svetaketu to be one of the Avaras, who by virtue of a residue of merit became a
Srutarshi. This is also the view of the commentator Haradatta, who, in
elucidation of Sūtra 6, quotes the following passage from the Khāndogya
Upanishad (VI, 1, 1-2):
'1. Verily, there lived Svetaketu, a descendant of Aruna. His father spake
unto him, "O Svetaketu, 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 Brāhmana in name only."
'Verily, he (Svetaketu) 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 Upanishad mentions, that Svetaketu
learned all the Vedas in twelve years, while, the Smritis 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
Khāndogya Upanishad about this Svetaketu, who is said to have been the son of
Uddālaka and the grandson of Aruna (āruneya). The same person is also
frequently mentioned in the Satapatha-Brāhmana. In one passage of the latter
work, which has been translated by Professor Max Müller 1,
it is alleged that he was a contemporary of Yāgńavalkya, the promulgator of
the White Yagur-veda, and of the learned king Ganaka of Videha, who asked him
about the meaning of the Agnihotra sacrifice, Now, as has been shown above,
Āpastamba knew and quotes the White Yagur-veda and the Satapatha-brāhmana. The passage of the latter work, which he quotes, is
even taken from the same book in which the story about Svetaketu and Ganaka
occurs. The fact, therefore, that Āpastamba places a teacher whom he must have
considered as a contemporary of the promulgator of the White Yagur-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 Yagur-veda, such as it has been handed down in the schools
of the Kānvas 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
Svetaketu and Āpastamba a longer interval than, at the utmost, two or three
hundred years. Svetaketu and Yāgńavalkya would accordingly, at the best, find
their places in the fourth or fifth century B.C., and the Satapatha-Brāhmana 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 Pānini IV, 3, 105, and from Patańgali's
commentary on his words that the Brāhmana proclaimed by Yāgńavalkya, i.e. the
Satapatha-brāhmana of the White Yagur-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. 1
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 Pānini, which have not been
traced except in Āpastamba's Sūtras; thirdly, words and forms which are both
against Vedic usage and against Pānini'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 risādas; the frequent use of the singular
dāra, e.g. II, 1, 1, 17-18, a wife, instead of the plural dārāh; salāvrikī,
I, 3, 10, 19, for sālavrikī; the substitution of l for r in plenkha, I,
11, 31, 14; occasional offences against the rules of internal and external Sandhi, e.g. in
agrihyamānakāranah, 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 adhāsanasāyin, I,
19, 2, 21 and in sarvatopeta, I, 6, 19, 8; the neglect of the rule requiring
vriddhi in the first syllable of the name Pushkarasādi, I, 10, 28, 1; the
irregular instrumentals vidyā, I, 11, 30, 3, for vidyayā, and nihsreyasā, II,
7, 16, 2, for nihsreyasena; the nominatives dual āvam, I, 7, 20, 6, for āvām,
and kruńkakrauńka, I, 5, 17, 36 for °krauńkau; and the potentials in īta,
such as prakshālayīta, I, 1, 2, 28; abhiprasārayīta, I, 25 6, 3, &c.
Among the words mentioned by Pānini, but not traced except in the
Dharma-sūtra, may be enumerated the verb strih, to do damage, I, 11, 31, 9; the
verb srinkh, to sneeze, from which srinkhānikā, I, 5, 16, 14, and
nihsrinkhana, 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 Pānini, without being either archaic or Prakritic, are
e.g. sarvānnin, I, 6, 18, 33, one who eats anybody's food, which, according to
Pānini V, 2, 9, should be sarvānnīna; sarpasīrshin, I, 5, 17, 39;
annasamskartri, a cook, II, 3, 6, 16; dhārmya, righteous, for dharmya, I, 2, 7,
21, and elsewhere; dīvitri, a gambler, II, 10, 2, 5, 13, for devitri, the very
remarkable form prāsńāti, I, 1, 4, 1, for prāsnāti, finds an analogy in the
Vedic snyaptre for snaptre 1
and in Pali, pańha from prasńa for prasna; and the curious compounds avāngagra,
I, 1, 2, 38, parāngāvritta, II, 5, 10, 11, where the first parts show
the forms of the nominative instead of the base, and pratisūryamatsyah, I, 3,
11, 31, which as a copulative compound is wrong, though not without analogies in
Prakrit and in later Sanskrit 2.
The irregular forms caused by the same tendencies as those which effected the
formation of the [paragraph continues] Prakrit languages, are, aviprakramina, II, 2, 5, 2, for
aviprakramana, where an a standing in thesi has been changed to i; sāmvrittih,
II, 3, 6, 13, sāmvartete, II, 5, 11, 20, and paryānta, I, 3, 9, 21, and I, 3,
11, 33 (compare Marāthi āmt for antah), in each of which a standing before a
nasal has been lengthened; anika, I, 6, 19, 1, the initial a of which stands for
ri, if it really has the meaning of rinika, as some commentators asserted;
anulepana, I, 3, 11, 13; I, 11, 32, 5, with the Prakritic change of na to na;
vyupagāva, I, 2, 8, 15, with va for pa; ritve for ritvye, where y seems to have
been absorbed by the following e; apassayīta, I, 11, 32, 16, for apāsrayita,
and bhatrivyatikrama, 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, sisnakkhedanam savrishanasya, the adjective which is intended to qualify
the noun sisna 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 1
in so small a treatise as the Dharma-sūtra is, proves clearly that the author
did not follow Pānini'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 [paragraph continues] Vedic schools or of his particular school, he must have
either been unacquainted with Pānini or have considered his teachings of no
great importance. In other words, he must either have lived earlier than Pānini
or before Pānini'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 Patańgali's
Mahābhāshya furnishes abundant proof that at the time of its composition, in
the second century B.C., Pānini'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 Svetaketu 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 Uggvalā Vritti of Haradatta. The
oldest writer with a known date who quotes the Āpastambīya Dharma-sūtra is Sankarākārya 1,
c. 800 A.D. Even somewhat earlier Kumārila, c. 750, refers repeatedly to a
law-book by Āpastamba 2. 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 3. As
it seems hazardous to impute to a man, like Kumārila, ignorance or spite against
Āpastamba, I am inclined to assume that the great Mīmāmsaka refers to some
other work, attributed to Āpastamba, perhaps the metrical Āpastamba-smriti
which Aparārka quotes very frequently 1.
Among the commentators on Smritis the oldest, who quote the Dharma-sūtra, are
Medhātithi, the author of the Manubhāshya, and Vigńānesvara, who composed
the Mitāksharā, the well-known commentary on Yāgńavalkya's Dharma-sāstra
during the reign of the Kālukya king Vikramāditya VI, of Kālukya 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 2, is vouched for only by
the commentator Haradatta, who wrote his Uggvalā Vritti, at the latest, in the
fifteenth century A.D. or possibly 100 years earlier 3
. 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 anyah or aparah, i.e. another (writer). The fact that the
Uggvalā 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 Hiranyakesi Dharma-sūtra,
mentioned above.
As regards the value of the Uggvalā for the explanation of Āpastamba's
text, it certainly belongs to the best commentaries existing. Haradatta possessed in the older Vrittis 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.
Suggested Further Reading
|
|
