About The Book
The Baudhayan a Srautasutra together with an English translation is being presented here in four volumes. There will be other volumes also presenting Bhavasvamins bhasya and the word-index of the sutra-text. The Baudhayana Srautasutra belongs to the Krsna Yajurveda Taittiriya recension. It represents the oral lectures delivered by the teacher Baudhayana, hence is the oldest srauta-text. The text is revised here in the light of the variant readings recorded by W. Caland in his first edition (Calcutta 1906), and is presented in a readable form. The mantras forming part of the sutras have been fully rendered into English. The translation is supplied with notes giving reference to the mantras and explanations of the ritual. The work is expected to serve as an advancement of Taittiriya ritualistic studies.
About The Author
CHINTAMANI GANESH KASHIKAR, M.A., D.Litt., is a well-known authority on the Vedic literature, religion and culture whose contributions are internationally acknowledged. A score of books- critical editions, translations and general studies written in Sanskrit, English and Marathi languages are to his credit. A hundred research papers written by him are published in oriental journals of international repute. He attended several sessions of All India Oriental Conference as also International Sanskrit Conference and presented research papers which have been widely appreciated. He is the Chairman of the Regulating Council of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute,Pune. He was closely associated for many years with the Vaidika Samsodhana Mandala, Pune, Centre for Advanced Study in Sanskrit, University of Pune and the Project of encyclopaedic Dictionary of Sanskrit on historical Principles, Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute, Pune.”
I am extermely happy to present to the world of scholars the text of the Baudhdyana Srautasutra together with an English translation and notes. The first critical edition of this Srautasutra was prepared by W. Caland and was published in three volumes by the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Calcutta (1904-13). Its second edition-a reprint-was published at New Delhi in 1982. My translation is of course based on Caland’s edition. A faithful translation of any ancient text, particularly a Vedic text, involves a thorough understanding of the text. Consequently I have paid close attention to the rich treasure of variant readings recorded by Caland in his Foot- notes. Asa result of my close study of the text in all aspects and the numerous variant readings, I have improved the text at numerous places. Sometimes I have had to resort to emendation of certain readings. In my notes to the translation I have noted all such places where I have chosen a reading different from that of Caland’ s printed text. The text printed herein is thus, the Baudhayana Srautasutra text in a revised form. I have excluded the Sulbasutra (Prasna XXX) and the Pravaraprasna for reasons mentioned in the Introduction.
A new critical edition of the Baudhayana Srautasutra needs to be undertaken. Caland had utilised a number of manuscripts: of the text for his edition. He has, however, left numerous doubtful places, particularly in Prasnas X-XIX. The Mackenzie Collection manuscript No. xxviii (new number 92), a Descriptive Cata- logue of the Oriental MSS collected by Lt. Col. Mackenzieedited by H.H. Wilson Vol. I. p.6 rendered him valuable help in defining the text and also the order of the text. Numerous textual difficulties still exist, and these require to be solved. Many more manuscripts of the Baudhayana Srautasutra which were not available to Caland have fortunately been discovered and stored in manuscript-libraries. These manuscripts are indeed a great treasure which needs to be exploited. One may perhaps find among them manuscripts representing the tradition of Mackenzie manuscripts or even a better preserved tradition. The study of Srautasutras is far advanced since Caland published his edition. Consequently a new critical edition undertaken by an expert brain will be welcome. Since the text presented herein is only a revision of Caland’s text, I have not found it necessary to reproduce the variant readings recorded by Caland in his Footnotes.
The Vedic texts by their very nature were not fully comprehensible by themselves to a student of literature and religion. Hence, the various means like the Bhasyas, Tikas, Paddhatis and Prayogas came to be produced from time to time. The old commentators among them were rather brief because in their view only a few hints were sufficient for the elucidation of the text in hand. The later commentators, on the other hand, wrote in rather a liberal manner because they thought the reader of their time was in need of detailed explanations. In modem times when modern dialects have become the vehicle of all communication and when visions of understanding have considerably widened, it became imperative to explain all old texts, particularly the Vedic, through translation and notes in modern languages.
Many of the Kalpasutras have been translated into English, German, Dutch, French and other languages. The Baudhayana Srautasutra holds a prominent position among the Kalpasutras for various reasons. It is extensive and dilates upon the sacrificial religion in a comprehensive manner. Full understanding of this text is essential for the scientific knowledge of the Vedic religion and culture. No complete translation of this significant text has been attempted so far in any language. Some portions of it have been rendered into English in detached manner in the various parts of the Srautakosa published by the Vaidika Samshodhana Mandala at Pune. Herein the mantras have not been translated. Yasuke Ikari has translated in English the tenth chapter of this text laying down the piling up of the Fire-altar (Agnicayana) in the Volume of Agni (Berkley, 1983) again without the translation of the mantras.
A complete English translation of the Baudhayana Srautasutra was therefore a desideratum, and it is my privilege to fill in the gap. In my translation I have mostly translated the mantra side by side with the injunctive part of a sutra. The Taittiriya- texts comprise both the mantra-portions and the Brahmana-portions. There is definite correlation between the mantra and the Brahmana. One cannot be fully understood without the other. This is true of the prose formulas and also of the verses. Such verses as are common to the Rgveda may bear loose relation to the ritual. I have not translated the Puronuvakya and Yajya verses which may hardly be said to have close relation to the ritual. While translating a mantra I have kept in view the relation of the mantra to the corresponding Brahmana. In this behalf I have consulted the commentaries by Bhatta Bhaskara and Sayana on the Taittiriya texts, who I believe, even though remote in time from the Taittiriya texts, were mostly conversant with that relation through their intimate knowledge of the continued ritual tradition. Even then I have not ignored the principles of Philology in translating the mantras.
In translating the Sutra-text I have consulted Bhavasvamins Bhasya and also the commentary Subodhini as far as it is available. Even then certain points have remained obscure to me. Footnotes are added to the translation. References to the original sources of the mantra and Brahmana passages are given in the Footnotes. The Dvaidhasutra always goes in concurrence with the main text. Caland has, in his edition of the text, tried to give the references to the main text while presenting the Dvaidhasutra. In some cases references have not been given by him.
I have tried my best to give at such places the references to the main text. The same thing applies to the Karmantasutra also. I have tried to make the translation as literal as possible. Words essential for clear understanding have been put in parenthesis.
Bhavasvamin’s vivarana on a major portion of the Baudhayana Srautasutra is available in manuscripts. Caland had intended to edit this vivarana which is a veritable source for good understanding of Baudhayana’s text. He however abandoned his design since the manuscript-material available to him was utterly insufficient. He has stated, “Perhaps I may in later times fulfil also this promise.” (Preface to Vol. II p. xi). He however could not do so. T.N. Dharmadhikari has prepared a critical edition of the vivarana after a careful study of the available defective manuscripts. He has tried his best to present a readable text of the vivarana and has recorded the variants in Foot-notes. The vivarana is appended. A Glossary is also appended. The index of words prepared by my student Smt. Leena Sabnis will be found useful for a scientific study of the text.
I am grateful to the authorities of the Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts, New Delhi, for assigning the project to me. I have tried to complete it to the best of my ability. The Centre granted me all facilities for the carrying out of the project. I am glad to acknowledge the help which I have received in completing the project. Caland’ s scholarly monograph Uber das rituelle Sutra des Baudhayana was a constant help to me. Many decades have passed since Caland published his monumental work. Knowledge of the ritualistic religion has considerably advanced during this time, and ithas become possible to add to our knowledge of Baudhayana’s text. I have also consulted Caland’s voluminous work on other Vedic texts and the scholarly work ofIndian and western scholars including J.Gonda’s History of Indian Literature. I thank Kumari Saroj Deshpande for neatly preparing the typescript of the translation.
When in 1903 he published his importan t monograph Uber das rituelle Sutra des Baudhayana, W. Caland concluded by saying, “Mochte es mir gelingen sein, ein Interesse fur diesen Text zu wecken” (p. 65). By simultaneously publishing his important edition of the Baudhayana Srautasutra, he may be said to have laid the foundation not only of the all-round study of this oldest Srautasutra but also of the Srauta texts in general. Since then significant research work has been done in the field of the ritual Sutras. I hope this edition of the revised text together with translation and Bhavasvamins vivarana will give a new impetus to the study of the Vedic ritualistic religion.
1. The Baudhayana Corpus
The Baudhayana Srautasutra forms the initial and ‘prominent part of the Baudhayana corpus. This corpus comprises the Srauta, Prayascitta, Sulba, Grhya, Pitrmedha, Pravara and Dharma Sutras. Tradition ascribes all these Sutras to Baudhayana. While preparing his critical edition of the Baudhayana Srautasutra (BaudhSS), W. Caland examined all available manuscripts of the above-mentioned types of the Sutra-texts ascribed to Baudhayana, and formulated the order of the Baudhayana corpus. In the printed edition of the Srautasutra the Sulbasutra forms the Prasna XXX. The Pravarasutra printed at the end is without the consecutive Prasna number.
Subsequent to the Srautasutra there is the Grhyasutra” comprising four Prasnas including the Prayascitta. “This Sutra the greater part of which is no doubt comparatively old, is composed in the Baudhayana style; discussions, motivations and even implicit polemics are not absent.,, The Grhyasutra proper is followed by the so-called Grhya-Paribhasasutra which consists of two Prasnas. Being generally speaking a collection of additions and enlarge- ments, it seems to owe its curious title to the desire of the compiler, not only to add some more definitions and general rules of interpretation but also, following the example of the Karmantasutra of the Srauta manual, to collect these in separate chapters annexed to the discussions of the Grhya rites.
This collection may in the course of time have become the nucleus of the present two Prasnas. That this text has been recast and greatly enlarged is beyond all doubt.” There is yet another Grhya part, namely, the Grhyaparisista-or Grhyasesasutra which comprises four Prasnas consisting of older and later material. Rites which occur also in other works of this class and create the impression of being Vedic-for instance the Yamayajna in 1.21 and the Vrsotsarga in 3.16-existed in all probability long before the compilation of these paralipomena. This collection has, on the other hand, received considerable additions many of which are much later than the composition of the proper Grhyasutra. The latest additions do not belong to the Vedic, but to the post-Vedic Hindu (so-called Puranic) rituals, and concern the cult of typically Hinduist deities viz. Siva, Durga, and Skanda. Parallels, if any, occur only in other doubtless late specimens of this literature and further in works of the Puranic and Agamic genres.
The Baudhayana Pitrmedhasutra” comprises three Prasnas; the Baudhayana Pravarasutra consists of only one Prasna. The last portion of the Baudhayana corpus, namely, the Dharmasutra comprises four Prasnas; Prasna IV is an interpolation. This Dharmasutra is later than the Gautama Dharmasutra which is referred to in the Baudhayana Dharmasutra.
2. Baudhyana-the Pravacanakara
Mahadeva, at the beginning of his commentary on the Satyasadha Kalpasutra, pays homage to the Sutrakaras of the Taittiriya recension where Baudhayana is mentioned first. This denotes that among the followers of the Taittiriya recension Baudhayana was taken to be the seniormost teacher. In the Utsarjana- rite to be performed by a boy who has udergone the Upanayana rite the gods, Rsis, Acaryas and the Pitrs are beseeched to be present and receive honour. Here the list of the Acaryas of the Taittiriya recension begins with Baudhayana who is called as a pravacanakara. Apastamba is called as a sutrakara: In 0ther Taittiriya Sutra-texts also the list begins with Baudhayana. Thus the entire Taittiriya tradition respects Baudhayana as the seniormost acarya. It calls Baudhayana’ s text as a pravacana and each of the other texts as a Sutra. There is a difference in a pravacana and a Sutra. A pravacana is a discourse which is orally delivered. A Sutra is not so; it is a collection of sutras which are composed. Naturally a pravacana is extensive; sutra is brief. Brevity is a comparative term. While in the texts like Panini’s Astadhyayi the author would try his utmost to attain brevity in his expression even by saving half a matra, it cannot be so in the other types of Surra-texts like the Kalpasutras. The Kalpasutras came to be composed with a specific purpose. It was difficult to perform any ritual simply by studying the mantra and the Brahmana concerned. A guide laying down the ritual following a particular Veda in a regular order was a necessity. Such manuals had to be studied closely side by side with the actual Veda. In order that the strain on the memory of the person concerned should be minimum, the manual had to be as short as possible. Consequently the manuals came to be composed in sutra-form. At the same time the concise sutra-form left certain ambiguities; so that Bhasyas and Paddhatis were composed in order to fill in the vacuum. The case of a pravacana was different; a detailed running exposition afforded much facility to the priest in performing his part of the ritual. Even then by its very nature the ritual is such a thing that a full understanding of the on-going rite was next to impossible. One therefore finds that even a pravacana was provided with a Bhasya and a Prayoga.
That the BaudhSS is a pravacana is shown also by the use of demonstra- tive pronouns with deictic force, i.e. imam disam nirasyati 1.6; athe’mam abhimrsatiII9; imam disam nitvaII.8; imam disam nirasyaIV.6; iyaty agre haraty athe’yaty athe’yati II.I7; ittham asvam visasate’ttha3m XY.30. Baudhayana has in his lectures prescribed the mantras generally in extenso. There are of course exceptions. Looseness in uniformity may also point out the character of oral discourses. In Prasna X (Cayana) and also in Prasna XI (Vajapeya) the rule of sakalapatha has exceptions. In connection with the duties at the Full- moon and the New-moon sacrifices the BaudhSS prescribes sipping of water with the verse payasvatir osadhasah. … at two places (IILI5 ,22) which indicates looseness. The formula taya devataya … and the verse ta asya suladohasah … are very frequently prescribed in the Prasna (X) for Cayana. Once they are given (X.2I)there is no need to repeat them in subsequent occurrences. Therefore Baudhayana very often simply says tayadevatam krtva sudadohasam karoti. But in X.36 where he has referred simply to tayadevata and sudadohasa a few times, at one place he has repeated the formula and the verse which is probably due to oral transmission. The general practice of Baudhayana is that once he has prescribed a mantra in extenso, he mentions it by pratika at a subsequent occurrence or occurrences. There are certain exceptions to this rule. The verse mana jyotir … is given in extenso in BaudhSS III.I8 and again in III.29. The formula vedo’sivittirasiisgiven in III.30 in extenso and also immediately afterwards with a small change. All this points to the fact that Baudhayana orally transmitted the discourses to his disciples. Probably he was the first acarya who set the ritual of the Taittiriya recension in order for the facility in performance, and orally explained it to his pupils.
3. Authorship of the Baudhayana Srautasutra
Tradition assigns the authorship of the entire Baudhayana Kalpasutra to Baudhayana. Before tackling the wider problem, it will be proper to confine the discussion to the authorship of the BaudhSS alone. Leaving out the Sulba, Grhya, Pitrmedha, Pravara and Dharma Sutras, the Srautasutra itself covers Prasnas I-XXIX. Its broad divisions are: the main Surra I-XIX, Dvaidha XX-XXIII, Karmanta XXIV-XXVI, and Prayascitta XXVII-XXIX. Can we attribute the authroship of these four broad divisions of this Sutra- text to a single acarya Baudhayana? Prima facieit may be taken that Baudhayana himself composed all the four divisions. The claim will have, however, to be substantiated by strong evidence. The character of a pravacana would be one of the points to be considered. Keeping aside for the time being the main Sutra, the Dvaidha may be examined first. The Dvaidhasutra presupposes the main text. It records the different views of the acaryas of the Baudhayana school on the various rites, and while doing so, it always refers to the main text. The names of the following acaryas are mentioned therein: Anjigavi, Atreya, Adya or Ajya, Artabhagiputra, Aupamanyava, Aupamanyaviputra, Katya,jyayan Katyayana, Kaunapatantri, Gautama, Dirghavatsya, Baudhayana, Mangala, Maitreya, Maudgalya, Daksinakara Rathitara, Rathitara and Saliki. It is to be noted that this list of the acaryas includes the name of Baudhayana himself. The Dvaidhasutra therefore cannot be said to have been composed by Baudhayana himself. At the same time it has to be conceded that the different views on the various rites prevailed at the time of the composition of the main text itself. It may, therefore, be said that the Dvaidhasutra was composed by some pupil of Baudhayana or pupil’s pupil at a time not very distant from the date of the composition of the main text.