ASVALAYANA GRIHYA SUTRA

Introduction

MOST of the questions concerning the Grihya-sûtras of Âsvalâyana will be better discussed in connection with the various topics which we shall have to discuss in our General Introduction to the Grihya-sûtras. Here I would only like to draw attention to the well-known passage of the Shadgurusishya in which this commentator makes some statements about the works composed by Âsvalâyana and his teacher Saunaka. As an important point in this passage has, as I see, been misunderstood by some eminent scholars, I may be permitted here to attempt to correct this misunderstanding, though the point is less directly connected with the Grihya-sûtra. than with another side of Âsvalâyana’s literary activity.

Shadgurusishya 1, before speaking about Âsvalâyana, makes the following statement regarding Âsvalâyana’s teacher, Saunaka. “There were,” he says, “the Sâkala Samhitâ (of the Rig-veda) and the Bâshkala Samhitâ; after these two Samhitas and the twenty-one Brâhmans, who adopted the Aitareyaka above all and supplemented it with other texts, the first Kalpa-sûtra was composed by him who was worshiped by a whole host of great Rishis.” Then he speaks of Âsvalâyana – “Saunaka’s pupil was the venerable Âsvalâyana. He who knew all that he had learned from this teacher composed the sutra and announced (to Saunaka that he had done so) 2.’ Saunaka then destroyed his own sutra and decided that Âsvalâyana’s sutra should be accepted by the students of this Vedic Sâkhâ. Thus, says Shadgurusishya, there were twelve works of saunaka by which the correct knowledge of the Rig-veda was preserved, and three works of Âsvalâyana. Saunaka’s dasa granthâs were, five Anukramânis, two Vidbânas, Bârhaddaivata, Prâtisâkhya and Smârta work 1. Âsvalâyana on the other hand composed the Šrauta-sûtra in four Adhyâyas, the fourth the Griâya. Âranyaka: this is a great composition of Âsvalâyana Sûtra 2.

Here we have the interesting and important statement that the authorship of the portion of the Aitareyâranyaka which would thus be separated from the rest of this text is not attributed to Mahidâsa Aitareya, but to the author of what may be called the historical period of Vedic antiquity, to Âsvalâyana.

But what is the fourth Âranyaka to which this passage refers? It is a text that is now included, for example, in the edition of Dr. Râgendralâla Mitra as the fourth Âranyaka of the Aitareyins?

Before answering this question it is necessary to call attention to other passages referring, as it might seem, to another part, viz., the fifth part of the Âranyaka.

Sâyana, in his excellent commentary on the Rig-veda, very often quotes pañkamâranyaka as belonging to Saunaka. So in St. i, p. 112, ed. Max Müller, says: pañkamâranyaka aushnihatrikâsîtir iti khande Saunakena sûtritam surûpakritnum ûtaya iti triny endra sânasim rayim iti two iti. There is indeed a chapter in the fifth Âranyaka beginning with the words aushnihi trikâsîtih in which the words quoted by Sāyana occur. 3. Similar quotations in which the fifth Âranyaka is assigned to Saunaka are to be found in Sāyana’s commentary on the Âranyaka itself; see, for example, p.97, line 19, p.116, line 3.

Thus the authorship of both the fourth and fifth Âranyakas appears to have been attributed to teachers belonging to the Sutra period of Vedic literature, viz. to the sauna and to the Âsvalâyana. And so we find the case given by Professor Weber in his “Vorlesungen über indische Literaturgeschichte 1” and Dr. Râgendralâla Mitra in the Introduction to his edition of Aitareya Âranyaka 2.

But we have to ask ourselves: Are the two books of the Âranyaka collection attributed to these two authors really two different books? It is surprising that Shadgurusishya, speaking of the Âsvalâyana authorship of the fourth book, while intending, as he evidently does, to give a complete list of Saunaka’s compositions, does not mention the fifth Âranyaka among that author’s works. To account for this omission, the conjecture seems to suggest itself that when Shadgurusishya speaks of the fourth Âranyak as belonging to Âsvalâyana, he means the same work which Sâyana designates as the fifth and which he attributes to Saunaka. At first glance, this assumption may seem somewhat risky or unnatural; However, I believe that if we compare the two texts in question, we will find that it is very likely and even obvious. What do these two Âranyaka books contain? The fourth is very short: it does not fill more than one page in the printed edition. Its contents consist entirely of the text of the Mahânâmnî or Sakvarî verses, which seem to belong to no less remote antiquity than the average of the Rig-Vedic hymns. They may indeed be regarded as part of the Rig-Vedic Samhita, and it is only owing to the special mystical sanctity attributed to these verses that they were not studied in the village but in the forest 1 and therefore not accepted. into the body of the Samhitâ itself, but into the Âranyaka. All the Brahmanical texts refer to them, and we may even go so far as to express our opinion that some passages in the Rig-Vedic hymns themselves refer to Sakvari verses:

yak khakvarîshu brihatâ ravenendre sushmam adadhâtâ Vasishthâh (Rig-veda VII, 33, 4).
rikâm tvah posham âste pupushvân gânaatram tvo gânaati sakvarîshu (Rig-veda X, 71, 11).

So much for the fourth Âranyak. The fifth contains a description of the Mahâvrata ceremony. The first book is also devoted to the same subject, with the difference that the first book is composed in the Brâhmana style, the fifth in the Sûtra 2 style.

Which of these two books can be the one considered by Shadgurusishya to be part of the ‘Âsvalâyanasûtraka?’ It is impossible that it should be the fourth, for the verses of the Mahânâmnî have never been regarded by Indian theologians as the work of a human author; they shared the apaurushejatva of the Veda, and to say that they were composed by Âsvalâyana would be contrary to the most firmly established principles of the literary history of the Veda, as understood by the Indians and by ourselves. And even if we grant that the Mahânâmnî verses could have been assigned to Âsvalâyana by an author like Shadgurusishya—and we cannot—there is no possibility that he could have used the expression “Âsvalâyanasûtrakam” in connection with it. to the Mahânâmnîs; to apply the designation of sutra to a Mahânâmnî hymn would be no less absurd than to apply it to any sûkta of the Rik-Samhitâ. On the other hand, the fifth book of the Âranyaka is a sutra; it is the only part of the entire body of the Âranyaka collection that is composed in the Sûtra style. And he treats of a special part of the ritual of the Rig-veda, the rest of which is embodied in its entirety, with this part only omitted, in the two great sutras of the Âsvalâyana. There seems to me, therefore, no doubt that the fifth Âranyaka is really the text referred to by Shadgurusishya, though I do not know how to explain his listing of this book as the fourth. And I may add that there is a passage, so far as I know, hitherto unnoticed in the commentary of the Sâyana Sâma-veda, in which that author directly assigns the fifth Âranyaka, not, as in the commentary of the Rig-veda, to Saunaka, but to Âsvalâyana. Sâyana says there 1: yathâ bahvrikâm adhyâpakâ mahâvrataprayogapratipâdakam Âsvalâyananirmitam kalpasûtram aranyeऽdhiyamânâh pañkamam âranyakam iti vedatvena vyavaharanti.

Instead of stating that of the last two Âranyakas of the Aitareyins, one is attributed to Saunaka and the other to Âsvalâyana, we must state otherwise: neither two Âranyakas were, according to Sayana and Shadgurusishya, composed by these Sûtrakâras, but one, viz. the fifth, which forms a kind of supplement to the large body of sutras of this Karana, and which is attributed either to Saunaka or to Âsvalâyana. Perhaps further research will enable us to decide whether this Sûtra part of the Âranyaka, or we may well say that the Âranyaka part of the Sûtra, belongs to the author of the Šrauta-sûtra, or should be regarded as a remnant of an older composition, of which the part studied in the forest survived, while the part, which was taught in the village was replaced by the newer Âsvalâyana-sûtra.

There would still be many questions that the Introduction to Âsvalâyana would have to deal with; so the relation between Âsvalâyana and Saunaka, which we intended to discuss here with reference to a special point, would have to be further discussed with regard to several other aspects of it and the results that follow from it as far as the position of Âsvalâyana is concerned. in the history of Vedic literature would have to be stated. But we prefer to reserve the discussion of these questions for the General Introduction to the Grihya-sûtras.

Asvalayana Grihya Sutra Adhyaya 1 || Adhyaya 2 || Adhyaya 3 || Adhyaya 4