Baudhāyanīya Contributions to Smārta Hinduism

Vedic Sākhās: Past, Present, Future. Proceedings of the Fifth International Vedic Workshop, Bucharest 2011, edited by Jan E.M. Houben, Julieta Rotaru and Michael Witzel. Harvard Oriental Studies, Opera Minora 9 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 2016), pp. 591–606. Baudh¯ayan¯ıya Contributions to Sm¯arta Hinduism Timothy Lubin Introduction Sma ¯rta Hinduism, the religious tradition defined by adherence to the precepts of the Vedic ritual codes and the Dharmaśa ¯stras, began to take shape with the composition of the Grhyasu¯ tras and Dharmasu¯ tras, normative codes rooted in the separate priestly ˚ but showing an increasing tendency to mutual influence and cross-reference. traditions ¯rta tradition that first began to emerge in the Grhyasu Distinctive features of Sma ¯ tras include: ˚ • standardization of domestic ceremony (eventually including image worship) through the liberal application of Vedic mantras, the use of the homa as a ritual framing device, and the adaptation of Śrauta procedural rules and patterns;1 • the creation of the sequence of samsk ˙ a¯ras, with the upanayana rather than the ¯ marriage rite as the first, and as definitive of Arya status; • the assertion of Brahmin customary practice as the default standard or norm, with modifications for other social classes; • broader application of pr¯ ayaścittas and special vratas as ethical practices and legal remedies;2 and • formal recognition of the authority of a ¯ra as an extracanonical basis for right ¯ ca action — and in particular the validity of folk practices (e.g., those of women). Here I highlight the Baudha¯yana tradition’s contribution, especially on the first and last points, and its larger significance for the later Sma¯rta tradition. In spite of its historical importance, and in spite too of having been discussed in some detail by Caland in ���� and surveyed mid-century by Gonda, the Baudh¯ ayanagrhyasu ¯tra (with its lengthy later ˚ additions) has still not been studied adequately.3 This corpus, if more heterogeneous and unwieldy than the canons of other Vedic schools, reveals more clearly than most the steps 1 See Lubin forthcoming a. 2 The latter three processes are the subject of Lubin ����. 3 Among the Yajurveda caran.as, the Baudh¯ ayana school laid claim to special authority as the tradition of Kan.va Baudh¯ ayana the pravacanaka ¯ra — the original expounder and no mere ¯traka su ¯ra (BGS �.�.�). At the same time, the BGS as it stands is many-layered, including numerous modifications and later additions that accommodated new practices and introduced new structuring principles within a Vedic (or Vedicizing) rubric. The BDhS is similarly composite. Timothy Lubin by which Vedic ritualists set about forging a flexible, broad-based religion that retained a palpable connection with the old Vedic cult. The grhyas¯utra of the Baudh¯ayana school is the longest of the genre, especially if we ˚ later extensions, the paribh¯ include its a.s¯ utra and the śes.a- or pariśis..tas¯ as¯ utra. Like the appendices of other Grhyas¯ utras, the various chapters of the Śes.a probably were added well into the middle of˚ the first millennium ce, but the paribh¯ a.sa utra more likely was ¯s¯ composed not far from the time of the Dharmas¯ utras, and seems to have been intended to make explicit the relation between the Grhya rites of the school and the ideals of the emergent Dharma. Containing much that could ˚ be called ‘grhya-br¯ ahman.a’, it is almost unique in the late Vedic corpus. ˚ Efforts to Systematize the Domestic Rites The Grhyas¯ utras take as their subject the extremely diverse ceremonial practices associated ˚ family and everyday life, including many kinds of offering rites. The Śrauta fire with the offerings had already been distinguished from the simple household versions through a long process of elaboration and codification according to a rule-based system devised by priestly specialists. At a certain point, it became desirable to attempt a similar sort of codification of non-Śrauta practice. This codification seems to have been aimed at finding ways to solemnize the household rites with mantras, some of which were adapted from Śrauta applications, and to show how the domestic offerings paralleled and could suffice instead of the more elaborate multi-fire cult (even though that cult was still recommended). The notion that the domestic ritual was a reduced form of the Śrauta practice is made explicit in many places. For example, V¯ ar¯ utra begins (VGS �.�–�): ahagrhyas¯ ˚ hrasvatv¯at p¯akayajñah. | hrasvam˙ hi p¯ aka ity¯ acaks.ate | darśap¯ urn.am¯ asaprakrtih. p¯akayajñavidhir apray¯ ajo’nanuy¯ ajo’s¯ amidhen¯ıkah. | ˚ [It is called] ‘simple worship’ because of its brevity. For what is brief is known as ‘p¯ aka’. The rule for simple worship follows the paradigm for the new-and-full-moon rites, omitting the preliminary offerings, closing offerings, and kindling recitation. Indeed, the Taittir¯ıyasamhit¯ ˙ a and the Śatapathabr¯ ahman.a describe the id.¯ a offering several times as a p¯ akayajña (e.g., TS �.�.�.�–�; ŚBM �.�.�.��), explaining in one place that it is the weakest part (tanis..tham) of the ritual (ŚBM �.�.�.��), and noting further on (�.�.�.��–��) that completion is provided by following the id.¯a with the anuy¯ ajas (an element which V¯ar¯aha explicitly notes is missing in a p¯ akayajña).4 At �.�.�.��, it is the agnihotra that is called a p¯ akayajña, because the priest licks the remainder of the milk. 4 We also learn of Manu’s rule of offering thrice daily, for prosperity (TS �.�.�–��; made the basis of a story in ŚBM �.�.�.�). Although TS explains p¯ aka as meaning ‘simple’, the Grhyas¯ utras seem to understand the word to refer to cooked food, associating it with sth¯ aka ˚ al¯ıp¯ (e.g. MGS �.�.��, which takes the word as the general term for the whole ritual). Smith (����) argues in favor of the meaning ‘simple offering’ as the older sense. The term p¯ akayajña used already in TS �.�.�.�–�, in a metaphorical explanation of the Id.¯ a offering in an is..ti ritual: p¯akayajñám˙ va´ ¯ ánv a¯hit¯ ´ agneh. paśáva úpa tis..tanta íd.a¯ khálu vaí p¯akayajñáh. (“Cattle attend the p¯ akayajña of one who has laid the [Śrauta] fires, for the p¯ akayajña is the Id.¯ a”). Cf. TS �.�.�.�–�, where the akayajña = Vaiśya’s drink, a p¯ ¯miks.¯a : “Gruel is the drink of the Rajanya; gruel is as it were harsh; the Rajanya is as it were harsh [�], it is the symbol of the thunderbolt, (and serves) for success. Curds (is the drink) of the Vaiçya, it is the symbol of the sacrifice of cooked food, (and serves) for ���  Baudh¯ayan¯ıya Contributions to Sm¯arta Hinduism One important marker of the simplicity of a p¯ akayajña is the fact that priestly staffing is reduced to just one (GGS �.�.�–�): brahmaivaika rtvik | p¯ akayajñes.u svayam˙ hot¯ a bhavati | ˚ The Brahman is the sole priest; in simple worship one becomes one’s own hotr. ˚ One of the conceptual approaches employed in the Grhyas¯ utras was to extend the category of p¯akayajña to cover every conceivable form of˚ domestic rite, even in cases where worship is not the central purpose of the rite. To do this, the category of p¯ akayajña was subdivided into exceedingly broad types. A few versions of this can be found. The ¯ shortest is Aśval¯ ¯ ayana’s (AśvGS �.�.�): huta: “being offered in the fire” (agnau h¯ uyam¯ ah.) an¯ prahuta: “[being offered] not in the fire” (anagnau) brahman.i huta: “[being offered] in the feeding of brahmins” (br¯ ahman.abhojane) A fourth category occurs in some Grhyas¯ ˙ ayana utras, viz. those of P¯araskara (�.�.�),5 Ś¯ankh¯ ˚ (�.�.�), K¯at.haka (��.�–�), and Jaimini (�.�):7 6 huta: offered with homa, e.g. aks.atahoma / s¯ ayampr¯ atarhoma ahuta: offering without homa, e.g. srastar¯ 8 arohan.a prahuta: offered with homa and bali (and pr¯ aśana: Harihara), e.g., paks.a ¯di / KGS pin.d.apitryajña ˚ aśita: with feeding of brahmins only9 pr¯ prosperity. Milk (is the drink) of the Brahman, the Brahman is brilliance, milk is brilliance; verily by brilliance he endows himself with brilliance and milk.” For Manu’s vrata of morning, midday, and evening (drinks; offerings?): . . . garbha iva khalu v¯ a es.a yad d¯ıks.ito yad asya payo vratam ˙ bhavaty a ¯tm¯anam eva tad vardhayati | trivrato manur a ¯s¯ıd dvivrat¯ a asur¯ a ekavrat¯ ah. [�] dev¯ as | pr¯ atar madhyamdine ˙ s¯ ayam ˙ tan manor vratam ¯ as¯ıt p¯ akayajñasya r¯ upam ˙ pus..tyai | “Manu was wont thrice to take drink, the Asuras twice, the gods once [�]. Morning, midday, evening, were the times of Manu’s drinking, the symbol of the sacrifice of cooked food, (serving) for prosperity” (TS �.�.�–�� commenting on TS �.�.��.� and �.�.�.�–�). 5 Gad¯ adhara mentions and answers a objection: nan¯ upadiśyam¯ an¯ a evaite catv¯ aro bhavanti | prak¯ arakathanam ˙ pravrttiviśes.akaratv¯ abh¯av¯ad anarthakam iti cen n¯ anarthakam ˙ prak¯ ar¯antaras¯ucan¯ at | “But ˚it is four [ritual modes] that are being taught. If one says it is arthatv¯ meaningless to speak of ‘ritual modes’ since there is no distinction of procedure, [in fact,] it is not meaningless, because the very purpose [of the s¯ utra] is to indicate the difference of mode.” 6 On the parallel readings of P¯ ¯ araskara and Aśval¯ ayana at this point, Oldenberg observes (����, �� n.): “it seems to me that we have here before us the opening Sûtras of a lost text from which this passage has been copied both by S ânkhâyana ˙ and Pâraskara.” A śloka quoted at ŚGS �.��.�: huto’gnihotrahomena, ahuto balikarman.a ¯ | prahutah. pitrkarman.a ¯ pr¯ aśito br¯ahman.e hutah. | “[An offering is] huta by means of an Agnihotra fire-libation ˚ (homa), ahuta by means of a bali-rite, prahuta by means of an ancestor-rite, and pr¯ aśita when it is ‘offered’ in a brahmin.” 7 It is this fourfold division that Manu (�.��) dismisses as not worth one-sixteenth part of a japayajña, an offering of mantra-recitation. 8 Thus, KGS ��.�: upah¯ aro. 9 Harihara in his comment on PGS �.�.� cites as an example the vr.sotsarga (paraphrasing PGS �.��.�): “feeding brahmins after cooking p¯ ayasa out of milk taken ˚ from all the cows” (sarv¯ as¯ am˙ gav¯am ˙ payasi p¯ ayasam˙ śrapayitv¯a br¯ahman.abhojanam); KGS ��.�: “the sweet milk and the rice dish for [brahmins] who are fed” (madhuparko brahmaudanaś ca pr¯ aśit¯an¯am). ��� Timothy Lubin While there is agreement that huta applies to rites in which an offering is poured into the fire, and that pr¯ aśita refers only to the feeding of brahmins, differing explanations are given for ahuta and prahuta. In particular, it is not clear whether an ahuta can include a bali offering; Harihara commenting on P¯ araskaragrhyas¯ utra specifies that an ahuta rite ˚ includes neither a homa nor a bali (ahuto homabalirahita m˙ karma yath¯ a srastar¯ arohan.am), whereas a prahuta includes both, and the feeding of brahmins (pr¯ aśana) besides. Baudh¯ayana makes a different extension of the model: the categories huta and prahuta are retained, while the name of a third class, a¯huta, has usually been considered a variant of ahuta,10 though the rationale given here takes ¯ a- to signify that something is received (¯ ad¯ıyate) after the homa. The artificiality of Baudh¯ayana’s classification stands out in the fact that the last four classes are each named for a particular rite which is sole member of its ‘class’. Moreover, unlike all the other classes of this type, the names of these four do not include any form of the word huta. This list, with the definitions offered in the s¯ utra, is as follows: BGS �.�.�–��: huta: “when [the offering] is made in the fire” (yad dh¯ uyate) prahuta: “when, after a fire-offering, something is given” (yad dhutv¯ a d¯ıyate) ahuta: “when, after a fire-offering and a gift, something is received” (yad dhutv¯ ¯ a dattv¯ a c¯ ad¯ıyate) ulagava: “when they skewer pieces of cow-meat on spits and cook them” (yac ś¯ ch¯ules.u ani śrapayanti ) ¯paniks.ya 11 gavy¯ baliharan.a: “when they scatter food for the gods of the household” (yad grhy¯ abhyo devat¯abhyo’nnam ˙ samprakiranti ˙ ) ˚ pratyavarohan.a: “when they adopt the low bed from season to season” (yad rto rtum ˙ pratyavarohanti ) ˚ ˚ ahoma: “when food is prepared during the ek¯ as..tak¯ a.s.taka rite” (yad ek¯ a.s.tak¯ ay¯ am annam ˙ kriyate)12 The paribh¯ a.s¯a rules of the Karm¯ utra appended to the BŚS (��.�) give the same antas¯ list; there, it is clear that the identification of seven types reflects a desire for symmetry between the three seven-member classes of rites outlined there — p¯ akayajña, haviryajña, somayajña — as stated in BGPS �.�.��. Although the word samsth¯ ˙ a does not appear here, this threefold division is cer� tainly based on the division of worship into somayajñasamsth¯ ˙ a, haviryajñasamsth¯ ˙ a, and p¯akayajñasamsth¯ ˙ a introduced in the Baudh¯ ayanaśrautas¯utra ��.�:���.�� ff., itself an ex� pansion of the twofold division found in L¯ a.ty¯ ayanaśrautas¯utra �.�.��–��. Later versions of the threefold division appear in Gautamadharmas¯ utra �.��–�� and Vaikh¯ anasasm¯ artas¯utra �.�. In his ���� dissertation (pp. ���–���), Makoto Fushimi noticed that this rubric was applied first to the ek¯ aha soma-service, then extrapolated to a list of seven soma rituals (only the order of the seven varying in the different lists). The samsth¯ ˙ a rubric was 10 E.g., Gonda ����a, ���. 11 em.; upaniks.y¯ a N; upanitya Bh; folio missing in B; here and in similar contexts, M and C have upan¯ıks.ya (M listing upaniks.ipya as a variant). 12 Mentioned already at BŚS �.��.�. ���  Baudh¯ayan¯ıya Contributions to Sm¯arta Hinduism subsequently extended to cover haviryajñas and p¯ akayajñas as well, but with decreasing specificity. Only four haviryajñas are common to all the lists. The p¯akayajñas remain quite ill-defined. L¯at.y¯ayana does not treat p¯ akayajñas as a separate samsth¯ ˙ a at all; rather, he lists seven soma rites, and seven haviryajñas. An undifferentiated p¯ akayajña appears simply as the seventh haviryajña. It is Baudh¯ayana, first in the Śrautas¯utra and then in the Grhyas¯ utra, who expands the samsth¯ ˙ a model to include a full set of seven p¯akayajñas to˚complement the two Śrauta sets. To do this, Baudh¯ayana starts with three of the terms using the element huta, redefining them, and adding four other distinctive rites. This tripartite mapping of Vedic ritual is finally adopted by Gautamadharmas¯ utra and Vaikh¯ anasasm¯ artas¯utra, whose similar lists of p¯ akayajñas differ markedly from Baudh¯ayana’s, which has only the as..tak¯ a in common with them. BŚS ��.�/BGS �.�.�-�� Gautamadharma- Vaikh¯ anasasm¯ arta- utra �.��–�� s¯ utra �.� s¯ huta as..tak¯ a sth¯ al¯ıp¯aka prahuta p¯arvan.a ¯grayan.a a ¯huta a śr¯addha as..tak¯ a ś¯ ulagava śr¯avan.¯ı pin.d.apitryajña baliharan.a agrah¯ ayan.¯ı m¯ asiśr¯ a˚ ddha pratyavarohan.a caitr¯ı caitr¯ı as..tak¯ ahoma aśvayuj¯ı ¯śvayuj¯ı a The difference between these three lists of seven p¯ akayajñas can probably be explained by the fact that Baudh¯ayana wants the seven types to cover the full range of Grhya ritual, whereas Gautama and Vaikh¯anasa are using the seven p¯ akayajñas within a ˚still larger schema, to fill out a list of forty “samsk¯ ˙ aras” that begins with the life-cycle ceremonies (which are the samsk¯ ˙ aras, properly speaking) plus the five mah¯ ayajñas. In Baudh¯ayana’s classification, the samsk¯ ˙ aras proper are themselves sorted into the first three categories: huta, prahuta, ¯ ahuta. Alone among the Grhyas¯ utras, Baudh¯ayana systematically applies the p¯ akayajña ˚ model as an organizing principle for presenting the rites and structuring the text: praśna �, after presenting the classification, describes huta-type rites; praśna � covers rites of the other six types; and praśna � discusses variants (anukrti ) of each type. (Praśna � is devoted to pr¯ ayaścittas.) ˚ It is not clear why the as..tak¯ ahoma was not included as a huta rite, but it is noteworthy that all of the last four involve offerings of food without fire, that is, as bali or pin.d.a. Offerings to Rudra are prominent in this group. The ś¯ ulagava (or ¯ıś¯ anabali, also described in ŚŚS �.��13 ) is treated as distinct from the earlier classes probably because it is dedicated to Rudra, who is especially associated with household affairs and the well-being of people and herds, but is not a recipient of fire-offerings in the Śrauta cult. The central ritual acts are the ritual slaughter of a cow (or optionally a ram or a goat), the offering of the blood, the omentum, and other pieces of meat sprinkled with ghee and roasted on skewers, followed by the sprinking of the herd 13 Caland ����, ��. ��� Timothy Lubin with the remaining ghee and dishwater from cleaning the bowl. These acts are subsumed within the homa prakrti, probably to make the rite conform to the Vedic fire-ritual model. The most startling˚ option proposed by Baudh¯ayana, though, is mentioned in the last breath, after the option of using a ram or a goat (BGS �.�.��): ¯ıś¯ an¯ aya sth¯ al¯ıp¯ akam ˙ v¯ a śrapayanti | tasm¯ ad etat sarvam ˙ karoti yad gav¯ a k¯ aryam | Or else they cook a Sth¯al¯ıp¯aka for ¯Iś¯ana; thereby, he does all those things which are to be done with a cow. It is probably not possible to say how ancient this prescription is, but the fact that it has been accepted as belonging to the Grhyas¯ utra proper and not relegated at least to the Paribh¯ a.s¯ ˚ utra or to the Śes.a suggests that it may be a relatively early “vegetarian” as¯ option prefiguring the substitution by certain Maharasthtrian M¯adhvas of dough animals (pis..tapaśu) or pots of ghee (¯ ajyapaśu) for the animal victims in Śrauta rituals in recent centuries — a practice going back at least ��� years — and the Kerala innovation of using rice folded into banana leaves for the same purpose.14 Such a radical substitution is not condoned in Śrauta ritual texts, even later ones such as the Trik¯ an.d.aman.d.ana of Bh¯askara Miśra (��th or ��th c.), with its long chapter on substitutions (pratinidhi ), which does however endorse the replacement of certain missing parts of the animal by ladlings of ghee (�.��, and �.��–�� in general). ¯ Intimations of Aśramas and Sad¯ ac¯ ara Perhaps because of the prominent role of the p¯ akayajña model in the Baudh¯ayana school, the Grhyaparibh¯ a.sa utra, which may belong to an age not far removed from the that ¯s¯ of the˚early Dharmas¯ utras, reflects at some length on the nature of this ritual category. The sixth khan.d.a of the first praśna deliberately explicates the concept of p¯ akayajña by connecting p¯aka with pakva, ‘cooked food’, which is said to be part of all the domestic offerings: vis.n.ava a ¯hut¯ıs.u n¯amakaran.opanis.kr¯ aman.a¯nnapr¯ aśanop¯ akarmavrates.u ca pakvahomah. sy¯ an n¯ apakv¯ ah. p¯ akayajñ¯ ah. sarvatra pakvahomam˙ kury¯ ad iti | etena homad¯anapr¯ aśan¯ ani vy¯ akhy¯at¯ ani bhavanti pakv¯ aj juhoti pakv¯ad dad¯ati pakv¯ at praśn¯ at¯ıti p¯ akayajñ¯as tasm¯ad dhutaprahut¯ahutes.u pakvah. k¯ arya iti | (BGPS �.�.�–�) ahuti s to Vis.n.u, and in the naming, first outing, feeding with rice, opening In ¯ of studies, and [initiation-]regimen, there should be an ‘offering of cooked food’ (pakvahoma). [As they say:] “Simple worship rites should not be raw (apakva), so one should make an offering of cooked food in all of them.” By this [maxim], offerings, gifts, and feedings are explained: he offers from the cooked food, one gives of cooked food, one feeds with cooked food — that is why they are called p¯ akayajñas; therefore, cooked food is to be used in huta, prahuta, and ¯ ahuta rituals. 14 Smith ����, ��–��. ���  Baudh¯ayan¯ıya Contributions to Sm¯arta Hinduism The notion of these ‘simple’ offerings involving food hearkens back to the id.a ¯ and the a, and Manu’s milk drink, all alluded to in the Taittir¯ıyasamhit¯ amiks.¯ ¯ ˙ a (the Veda of the Baudh¯ayanas). However, in line with the Baudh¯ayan¯ıya analysis, the huta, prahuta, and ahuta rites are said further to constitute pakvahomas (and thus not merely pakvayajñas). ¯ The sixth praśna of the first khan.d.a of the Grhyaparibh¯a.s¯ utra, moreover, ends with as¯ a ��-stanza eulogy for envisioning the p¯ ˚ as a tree: akayajñas ath¯ apy ud¯ aharanti | yath¯a subh¯ umijo vrks.ah. sum¯ ulah. supratis..thitah. | bahuś¯akhah. supus.˚ paś ca phalav¯ an upayujyate || �� devad¯ anavagandharvaih. r.sibhih. pitrbhis tath¯ a| api˚maśakaiś˚ca pip¯ılikaih. || �� paks.ibhih. .sat.padaiś c¯ evam ˙ hi p¯ akayajñes.u sarvam etat pratis..thitam | hutah. subh¯ umir vijñey¯ a m¯ ulam ˙ prahuta ucyate || �� ahuto ’tra pratis..th¯ ¯ anam ˙ yajñavrks.o mahocchrayah. | bahvyas tasya smrt¯ ah. ś¯ akh¯ ˚ p¯ ah. supus . ah. suphalopag¯ ah. || �� ˚ mantrabr¯ ahman.atattvajñaih. sudr.s.t¯ as t¯a up¯ asakaih. | evam ˙ hi yajñavrks.asya yo ’bhijñah ˚ śrotriyah smrtah || �� . . . ˚ ˚ d¯arasy¯ aharan.am ˙ kury¯ at karmety evam ˙ vipaścitah. | subh¯ umim ˙ ca sum¯ ulam ˙ ca supratis..th¯ anam eva ca || �� vrks.am ˙ pus.paphalopetam ˙ bahuś¯ akham ˙ sa paśyati | ˚ anam jñ¯ ˙ subh¯ umir ¯ ac¯aro m¯ ulam ˙ śraddh¯ a pratis..thitih. || �� ks.am¯ ahims¯ ˙ adamah. ś¯ akh¯ ah. satyam ˙ pus.paphalopagam | jñ¯anopabhogyam ˙ buddh¯ an¯ am˙ grhin.¯ am˙ yajñap¯ adapam ||�� ˚ ak¯amahatay¯ a buddhy¯ a tyakt¯ ahank¯ ˙ aralobhay¯ a| niścay¯ adhyavas¯ ay¯abhy¯ am ˙ caks.urbhy¯ am˙ sa tu paśyati || �� tasyaiko vajrasank¯ ˙ aśah. krodhah. paraśur ucyate | tenaiva m¯ a cchinan moh¯ at ty¯ ajyah. krodho grhes.v atah. || �� ˚ grh¯a m¯ ulam ˙ hi yajñ¯an¯ am ˙ grh¯ a hy ¯ anrn.yak¯ aran.am | ˚h¯ gr a hy ¯ aśramap¯ uj¯ artham ˙ ˚sthityartha˚m ˙ ca grh¯ ah. smrt¯ ah. || �� ˚ ˚ ˚ p¯akayajñ¯ a haviryajñ¯ ah. somayajñ¯ aś ca te trayah. | sthit¯a m¯ ules.u yajñes.u 15 pram¯ ad¯ı tes.u s¯ıdati | iti || �� ��. So too they cite as illustration: As a tree, sprung from good soil, with good roots, firm grounding, with many branches, fine blossoms, full of fruit, is used ��. by gods, titans, and angels, by sages and by the ancestors, by birds, bees, flies, and ants, ��. so too in the simple worship rites, all this [world] stands firm: the huta is to be recognized as having good soil; the prahuta is called the root, ��. the ¯ ahuta is the firm grounding; the tree of worship is lofty! Numerous are its branches, laden with blossoms and fine fruits. 15 yajñes.u ] H C Caland; vrks.es.u M; �.�.��–�� is treated as the beginning of �.� by Caland ˚ samsth¯ and H; stanzas on the other two ˙ as follow in H. ��� Timothy Lubin ��. Those [branches] are easily perceived by worshippers who really know the mantras and br¯ahman.as, for he who understands the tree of worship is deemed learned. ��ab. The wise know thus: one should perform the rite of taking a wife. ��cd–��. [Thus] one sees a tree with good soil, good roots, and firm grounding, with fine blossoms and fruits, and many branches. Knowledge is the good soil; customary practice is the root; faith is the firm grounding. ��ab. Patience, harmlessness, and restraint are the branches. Truth is endowed with blossoms and fruits. ��cd–��. One sees the knowledge-yielding worship-tree of insightful household� ers by means of an intellect unassailed by desire and devoid of egotism and greed, and with eyes of resolution and perseverance. ��. Of this [tree], the only axe is anger, which is like a lightning-bolt. So fell it not thereby from folly! — hence, anger is to be avoided in the household. ��. For the household is the root of worship rites, the household is the means of discharging one’s debts, the household is for the sake of the religious life (¯ aśrama) and veneration (p¯ a ); and the household is considered to be for the uj¯ sake of rectitude. ��. P¯ akayajñas, haviryajñas, and somayajñas — these three stand at the roots [that are the modes of] worship; the negligent man sits [idly] among them.16 This hymn becomes an occasion for praising the household and the marital state as the best of all modes of life, as the ¯ aśrama par excellence, in which all the congenital debts are discharged (�.�.��). Stanzas ��–�� conjure the image of the holy, dispassionate, almost saintly householder, who possesses a wisdom derived from zealous ritual observance: “One sees the knowledgeyielding worship-tree of insightful householders by means of an intellect unassailed by desire and devoid of egotism and greed, and with eyes of resolution and perseverance.” In fact, none of the old Grhyas¯ utras refers to the notion of a ¯śrama, and even the Dharmas¯ utras know it only as ˚a set of options to be considered after the period of study — not itself regarded as an ¯ aśrama — is over. The BGPS however opens with a discussion of the various occasions for brahmacarya, abstinence from sexual activity. First, there is the period of studentship culminating in the sam¯ avartana rite; BGPS calls this the aśrama of brahmacarya (�.�.�, referring back to the basic rules covered in the BGS per ¯ se). “The brahmacarya practiced thereafter is that by which one becomes free of debts.” In fact, the very first sentence of the BGPS quotes TS �.�.��.� on the three congenital 16 As Caland, who translated this passage (����, ��–��), observed in a footnote (“Was bedeutet?”), the meaning of this stanza is obscure. Caland’s manuscripts, as well as the Honnavar edition, read yajñes.u where the Mysore edition has vrks.es.u. s¯ıdati, often used to ˚ its secondary meaning, to denote sitting down at a fire-offering, may be used here ironically with ‘despond’ or ‘be dejected’, but the image is also suggested of a negligent worshipper sitting at ¯ the sacrifices as one might sit listlessly under a tree. Ramacandra ¯ reads sthit¯ Suri a m¯ ules.u yajñes.u pram¯ at tes.u s¯ıdati, and explains thus: anekes.¯ ad¯ am anyes.¯ am˙ yajñ¯ an¯ am˙ m¯ular¯ upes.u es.u yajñes.u pram¯ade krte duh.kh¯ıbhavati (“In these worship-rites which figure as the roots of various ˚ when there is carelessness, one becomes unhappy.”) other worship-rites, ���  Baudh¯ayan¯ıya Contributions to Sm¯arta Hinduism debts of every man — a doctrine that becomes central to Dharmaś¯astra ethics. From there, it launches into a discussion of brahmacarya, distinguishing between the regimen of Veda study (which it specifies as constituting an ¯ aśrama) and other periods of chastity observed at the wedding and during the married state, which fulfill the second and third debts. The entire passage runs thus (BGPS �.�.�–��): atha vai bhavati “j¯ ayam¯ ano vai br¯ ahman.as tribhir rn.av¯ a j¯ayate brahmacaryen.a r.sibhyo yajñena devebhyah. prajay¯ a pitrbhyah.” ˚ iti [TS �.�.��.�] | � | brah� ˚ macaryam ˙ vy¯akhy¯ asy¯amah. | � | ¯a sam¯ ˚ avartan¯ ad evaitad bhavati “n¯ ac¯ırn.avrato brahmac¯ ar¯ı bhavati” iti tad etad a ¯śramam ˙ vy¯ akhy¯ atam 17 | � | ata u ¯rdhvam ˙ brahmacaryam ˙ yen¯ anrn.o bhavati | � | svad¯ ara ity ekam | � | mantravatprayoga ity ekam | � | rt¯ av ity˚aparam | � | ath¯ adhi 18 brahmacaryam viv¯ ahe trir¯atram | � | rtau trir¯ ˚ atram | � | am¯ av¯asy¯ ay¯am˙ paurn.am¯ asy¯am ˙ śr¯ addham ˙ datv¯a bhuktv¯ a ˚ atram | �� | parastr¯ısu div¯ caikar¯ a ca y¯a vajj¯ ıvam | �� | agny¯a dheye dv¯a daśa- . r¯ atram | �� | ¯ agrayan.es..tipaśubandh¯ an¯am upavasathes.v ekar¯ atram | �� | evam eva sarves.u vedakarmasu | �� | c¯ aturm¯ asyes.u samvatsaram ˙ | �� | yath¯ apra- yogam anyes.u yajñakratus.v anyatra rtau d¯ırghasattres.u dharmavrates.u ca | �� | tad etad dharmyam ˙ pun.yam ˙ putryam ¯ ayus.yam ˙ svargyam ˙ yaśasyam ¯ anrn.yam iti vy¯ akhy¯atam ˙ brahmacaryam | �� | ˚ �.�.�. Now there is [a br¯ ahman.a]:19 “A brahmin, as he is being born, is born endowed with three debts: to the sages [he pays] with brahmacarya; to the gods, with worship; to the ancestors, with progeny” [TS �.�.��.�]. �. We shall explain brahmacarya. �. Now up until the sam¯ avartana, there is this [br¯ ahman.a]: “There can be no brahmac¯ arin who does not follow the regimen [viz. brahmacarya].” This ¯ aśrama has been explained [in BGS proper]. �. From that point onward, [it is] brahmacarya by which one becomes debt-free. �. “One’s own wife [only]” is one [kind of brahmacarya]. �. “Copulating20 with mantras” is [another] one. �. [Chastity] “during [the menstrual] period” is another. �. Now, concerning brahmacarya: At the wedding, [it lasts] three nights. �. During the [menstrual] period, three nights. ��. At the new moon, at the full moon, and when one has given or eaten śr¯ addha offerings, one night. ��. With respect to women belonging to another, or during the day, [brahmacarya should last] as long as one lives. ��. At the “Laying of the Fires,” twelve nights. ��. On the fast-days preceding the harvest and animal sacrifices, one night. ��. Likewise in all rites of the Veda (vedakarmasu). ��. In the Four-Monthly offerings, a year. ��. [It lasts] in accordance with [the normal] practice in other rites of worship; [it is observed] except during the [wife’s] fertile period in the case of lengthy sattras and dharma-regimens. ��. This indeed confers dharma, merit, sons, long life, heaven, and glory, and pays off the debts: so brahmacarya is explained. Then the second debt is addressed: four modes of worship (yajña) are defined — 17 ¯śramam tad etad a ˙ vy¯ akhy¯ atam ] N B Bh Ch C; tad¯ aśramo vy¯ akhy¯atah. M 18 adhi ] ath¯ ath¯ adi N 19 Here and in �.�.�, �.�.�, �.�.�, �.�.��, �.�.�, �.��.�, etc., the phrase atha vai bhavati is used to introduce a quotation in the br¯ ahman.a or a ¯ran.yaka style. Similarly: �.�: ity evais.a ukto bhavati. The phrase does not occur in the BGS proper; it is found in BGŚS �.��.�, �.�.��, �.�.�, �.��.� (reprise of Taittir¯ıy¯ aran.yaka). 20 prayoga for samprayoga as in �.�.�� below. ��� Timothy Lubin sv¯ adhy¯ aya-yajña, japa-yajña, karma-yajña, and m¯ anasa[-yajña] — and these are then correlated with the four ¯ aśramas. The inclusion of brahmacarya suggests familiarity with Manu’s system, and the fact that the fourth is called the yati probably means that this passage is no later than Manu; later Dharmaś¯astras introduce the term samny¯ ˙ asin. Some manuscripts (e.g., B and N) list the v¯ anaprastha second and the grhastha third, which corresponds much better with the sequence of modes of yajña.21 ˚This order, which is not in accord with Manu’s sequential order, is thus likely to be original, and perhaps older than Manu. In any case, none of these practices is said to be forbidden to the householder, and in the following section, the BGPS asserts that because all forms of worship are available to the grhastha, “therefore it is said that the household is the better state” (tasm¯ ad grh¯ ˚ �.�.�). ah. śreya iti, ˚ From all this, the BGPS concludes with another maxim, a general rule (an actual paribh¯ a, in fact), followed by two gnomic stanzas, and a repetition of the paribh¯ a.s¯ a.sa¯ rule (�.�.��–��). These propound the authority of ¯ ac¯ ara: tasm¯ad ¯ ac¯arah. pram¯ an.am˙ | samsth¯ ˙ a ¯ac¯arah. kriy¯ ah. samtatir ˙ iti nityabh¯av¯at 22 | 23 �� | tasm¯ ad yah. kaścana kriy¯ av¯an sat¯am anumat¯ ac¯arah. sa śrotriya eva vijñeyah. | �� | ath¯ apy ud¯aharanti — nis.eke garbhasamsk¯ ˙ are j¯ atakarmakriy¯ asu ca | vidhivat samskr ˙ t¯a mantraiś c¯ırn.avratasam¯apan¯ ah. | ˚ śrotriy¯ a iti te jñey¯ ah. ś¯ akh¯ap¯ ar¯ aś ca ye dvij¯ah. || vidhivad grhya ye p¯ an.im rtau c¯ırn.avrat¯av ubhau | mantravat samprayoge tau br¯ ahman˚ yam . ˙ garbham ˚¯ adadhuh. || iti | �� | tasm¯ ad ¯ ac¯ arah. pram¯ an.am | �� | ��. Therefore, practice (¯ ara) is the standard. The ritual formats (samsth¯ ac¯ ˙ ah.), [regular] practice, the ritual acts, the continuous tradition: these [all provide a standard], since they are constant. ��. Therefore, whoever performs ritual acts following the practice approved by the good men (sat¯ am), he is to be deemed “learned.” ��. They also cite: “Those who have been duly sanctified with mantras in the impregnation-rite, in the sacrament of the fetus, and in the rites of the birth-ceremony, and who have followed the vrata [of brahmacarya] to completion — those twice-born who have crossed to the far shore of their branch of the Veda are to be known as ‘learned’. 21 C and Ch have M’s readings; Bh, a modern ms., makes the order of modes of sacrifice (. . . karmayajño japayajño . . . ) and of a ¯śramas (. . . grhasthav¯ anaprastha . . . ) agree both with each other and with the Classical order set by Manu. ˚ 22 nityabh¯av¯at ] Ch; nity¯ abh¯ at M C Bh; nity¯ av¯ ave naimitikas ta B; nityam abh¯ ˙ bh¯ at H; ity av¯ ¯c¯ a aryah. N; the variant readings mostly assume the more common compound-final abh¯ av¯at (or abh¯ave), with B attempting to rationalize it through an implicit contrast between nitya and naimittika, two general categories of rite. 23 The import of this phrase is unclear to me. H makes of it a separate s¯ utra, punctuating between each of the first four words with commas, and reading iti nityam ˙ bh¯ av¯at at the end. ¯ The editor Ramacandra ¯ explains it thus (vol. �, p. �): itiśabdah. p¯ Suri urvas¯ utr¯ad anuvrtte pram¯ ˙ an.e anveti | samsth¯ ah. = bah¯un¯ am˙ śis..ta ¯n¯ am abhr¯ant¯an¯am aikamatyam | a ¯c¯ arah. = sad¯ ac¯a˚ rah.| ah. = vedokt¯ kriy¯ ah., tadanugun.asmrtyukt¯ ˙ ar¯ aś ca samsk¯ ah. | santatih. = parampar¯ a | ete catv¯ aro ’pi pram¯ an.abh¯ut¯ a iti y¯ ˚ m avat | kutah. nitya ˙ bh¯ av¯ at = sad¯ atanatv¯ ad v¯ ¯m iti śes.ah. | a | tes.a ���  Baudh¯ayan¯ıya Contributions to Sm¯arta Hinduism Those who, having ‘taken the hand’ [i.e., married] according to the rules, both [spouses] following the rule [of brahmacarya] during the [menstrual] period, they implant a Brahmin fetus when they copulate while reciting mantras.”24 ��. Therefore, practice is the standard. The maxim, “customary practice is a/the standard,” seems to anticipate the importance of ¯ ara in the Dharmaś¯astric principle that the three “roots of dharma” (dharmam¯ ac¯ ah.) ul¯ are śruti (Vedic revelation), smrti (expert authority), and a ara (the exemplary practice ¯c¯ ˚ of well-trained, ‘twice-born’ men). More striking still is the specification that authoritative practice is that “approved by good men” (sat¯ am anumat¯ arah.), a criterion expressed more concisely in Dharmaś¯astra ac¯ as sat¯ am ¯ac¯arah., or simply sad¯ac¯ arah.: vedah. smrtih. sad¯ arah. (MDh �.��a); ac¯ ˚ śrutih. smrtih. sad¯ arah. (Y¯ajñDh �.�a, P¯arDh �.��c); ac¯ ˚ vedo ’khilo dharmam¯ ulam˙ smrtiś¯ıle ca tadvid¯ am | ˚ ac¯ ¯ araś caiva s¯ adh¯un¯ am ¯ atmanas tus..tir eva ca || (MDh �.�) Parallel formulations replace sat-, sat¯ am, or s¯ adh¯ am with śis..t¯ un¯ am, ‘the learned’, an¯ as indeed does Baudh¯ ayanadharmas¯ utra (�.�–�): upadis..to dharmah. prativedam | . . . sm¯ arto dvit¯ıyah. | trt¯ıyah. śis..t¯ agamah. | BDhS ˚ The Law is taught in each Veda. What is given in the tradition is the second, and the conventions of cultured people are the third. [Olivelle’s translation] The question may be asked, Why should the ‘practice of the good’ and the ‘practice of the learned’ be considered equivalent. Our passage in the BGPS suggests that it is not merely learning in the texts of the Veda but awareness of actual practice that makes one learned, since that practice itself is a pram¯an.a, a criterion or means of knowing dharma, alongside the Śruti. Vasis..thadharmas¯ utra (�.�–�) in fact adopts the same terms: śrutismrtivihito dharmah. | tadal¯abhe śis..t¯ ac¯ arah. pram¯ an.am | ˚ Dharma is ordained in the Vedas and expert tradition. Where their guidance is lacking, the practice of cultured people is the standard. ¯ Apastambadharmas¯ utra (�.�.�) seems to take established practice as the primary standard of dharma, attributing it rather circularly to dharma-knowers: ath¯ ato s¯amay¯ ac¯ arik¯ an dharm¯ an vy¯ akhy¯ asy¯ amah. | dharmajñasamayah. pram¯an.am | ved¯ aś ca | Now we shall explain the laws consisting in agreed-upon practice. The consen� sus of dharma-knowers is the standard. And the Vedas. 24 Thus the editions; for br¯ ˙ the N and B read br¯ ahman.yam, ahman.y¯ ˙ “in a Brahmin woman.”; am, Ch, a modern Grantha ms., emends thus: br¯ ahman.y(¯ ˙ Bh has brahman.yam. a)m; ˙ ��� Timothy Lubin It is noteworthy that the direct authority of the Vedas is cited almost as an afterthought.25 The commentator Haradatta explains samaya as paurus.ey¯ı vyavasth¯ a, ‘human norms’, restricted to ‘those who know dharma’; this shows that Baudh¯ayana means the consensus only of śis..tas. However, of the four old Dharmas¯ utras, only Baudh¯ayana’s elaborates on the qualifications of a śis..ta in this context (BDhS �.�.�–�), and in doing so echoes the Grhyaparibh¯ a.s¯ utra’s explanation of the śrotriya: as¯ ˚ śis..t¯ ah. khalu vigatamatsar¯ a nirahamk¯ ˙ ar¯ ah. kumbh¯ıdh¯ any¯alolup¯ a dambhadarpa- lobhamohakrodhavivarjit¯ ah. || dharmen.¯ adhigato yes.a¯m ˙ . ah. | śis..t¯ ˙ vedah. saparibrmhan as tadanum¯ anajñ¯ah. śruti- pratyaks.ahetavah. | iti || ˚ Now, cultured people are those who are free from envy and pride, possess just a jarful of grain, and are free from covetousness, hypocrisy, arrogance, greed, folly, and anger. As it is said: Cultured people are those who have studied the Veda together with its supplements in accordance with the Law, know how to draw inferences from them, and are able to adduce as proofs express vedic texts. [Olivelle’s translation] The difference here is that, where the śrotriya is praised by the Grhyaparibh¯ a.s¯ utra for as¯ following “the practice approved by the good men” (sat¯ ˚ ac¯ am anumat¯ arah., �.�.��), the Dharmas¯ utra’s śis..ta can support such practice by deriving it, by analogy, from “explicit proofs from the Veda.” Given the Baudh¯ayan¯ıyas’ more developed reflections on the criteria for taking practice (¯ ac¯ara) as a standard of dharma, it may be significant that while most early dharma authorities accept in general terms that certain non-standard practices should be recognized ¯ as valid within regional bounds (ApDhS �.��.�; GDhS ��.��–��; BDhS �.��.��; VDhS �.��, ��.�), and while they even mention an occasional example (ApDhS¯ �.��.�, �.��.��), only Baudh¯ ayanadharmas¯ utra maps such deśadharmas in any detail. BDhS �.�.�–� lists five distinctive practices accepted by society (lokah.) in the South (including cross-cousin marriage), and five distinctive of the North. Conclusion Even without turning to the Grhyaśes.as¯ utra, which contains the latest additions to the Baudh¯ayan¯ıya s¯ utra canon — the˚ Vedicized p¯ a rites26 and the discussions of how actually uj¯ to go about initiating a Ks.atriya or a Vaiśya into Veda-study (chapters dating probably to the early or middle first millennium CE) — we can see that the Baudh¯ayan¯ıyas carried forward the program of the Grhya s¯ aras to a fuller and further degree than most utrak¯ ˚ other schools, often making explicit what the others only suggested. They extended the akayajña classification so as to place the Grhya rites on a par with the Śrauta sacrifices, p¯ while at the same time attempting to use the ˚ p¯ akayajña categories to organize those rites within a textual rubric. The tradition further preserves, in the Grhyaparibh¯ a.sa utra, a body of reflections ¯s¯ ˚ on the status and authority of Grhya Vedic practice and its exponents that parallels or ˚ 25 A similar foregrounding of practice as the primary standard occurs in Manu: a ¯c¯ arah. paramo dharmah. śrutyuktah. sm¯arta eva ca, MDh �.���ab. 26 On these, see Harting ����, Geslani ����, and Lubin forthcoming a. ���  Baudh¯ayan¯ıya Contributions to Sm¯arta Hinduism perhaps even prefigures the notions of a ¯śrama and of a ara as a pram¯ ¯c¯ an.a that we know otherwise only from the Dharmas¯ utras and the later Dharmaś¯astra. We can recognize here in Baudh¯ayana’s distinctive voice several of the themes that become established doctrine in Sm¯arta Hinduism. ���  Abbreviations, Sanskrit Editions and Manuscripts ¯ ApDhS ¯ Apastambadharmas¯ utra: ed. tr. P. (Dorpat, ����–����) Olivelle, Dharmas¯utras (Oxford, ����) H R¯amacandra S¯ uri ����–���� ¯ AśvGS ¯ Aśval¯ ayanagrhyas¯utra: ed. tr. A.F. KGS K¯athakagrhyas¯ . utra: ed. W. Caland Stenzler ����–���� ˚ (Lahore, ����) ˚ B ms. ��/����-���� of the Bhandarkar Ori� LŚS L¯aty¯ayanaśrautas¯ utra: ed. A. ¯ Ca. . ental Research Institute, Pune Ved¯antav¯ag¯ıśa (Calcutta, ����–����) BGS Baudh¯ayanagrhyas¯ utra: ed. Sharma M Shama Shastri ���� ˚ Shastri ����; R¯amacandra S¯uri ����–����; R¯amaśarman Muddud¯ıks.ita ���� MDh M¯anavadharmaś¯astra: ed. tr. Patrick Olivelle (Oxford, ����) BGPS Baudh¯ayanagrhyaparibh¯as.a¯s¯ utra: ed. Sharma Shastri ����; ˚ R¯amacandra S¯ uri MGS M¯anavagr ˚ hyas¯ utra: ed. Friedrich ����–����; R¯amaśarman Muddud¯ıks.ita Knauer (St. Petersburg, ����) ���� N ms. �.��� of the National Archives, Kath� mandu = NGMPP reel A ���/� BGŚS Baudh¯ayanagrhyaśes.as¯ utra: ed. Sharma Shastri ����;˚ R¯amacandra S¯ uri PGS P¯araskaragrhyas¯ utra: ed. tr. A. F. Sten� ����–����; R¯amaśarman Muddud¯ıks.ita zler ����–���� ˚ ���� P¯arDh P¯ar¯aśaradharmaś¯astra: ed. V.S. Is� Bh Devanagari ms. belonging to Vid� lampurkar (Bombay, ����–����) van V. Subrahman.ya Datt¯atreya Bhat.t., ˙ ayanagrhyas¯ ŚGS Ś¯ankh¯ utra: ed. Oldenberg Citrigemat.h, Gokarna, Karnataka, trans- ˚ th ���� cribed in early �� c. from Tigalari script original ˙ ayanaśrautas¯ ŚŚS Ś¯ankh¯ utra: ed. A. Hille� brandt (Calcutta, ����–����) BŚS Baudh¯ayanaśrautas¯ utra: ed. W. Caland (Calcutta, ����–����) ŚBM Śatapathabr¯ahman.a (M¯adhyandina): ed. Albrecht Weber (Bombay, ����) BDhS Baudh¯ayanadharmas¯ utra: ed. tr. Oli- velle, Dharmas¯utras (Oxford, ����) ˙ TS Taittir¯ıyasamhit¯ a: ed. Albrecht Weber (Leipzig, ����–����) C R¯amaśarman Muddud¯ıks.ita ���� VDhS Vasis.t.hadharmas¯ utra: ed. tr. P. Oliv� Ch Grantha ms. D���� of the Government elle, Dharmas¯ utras (Oxford, ����) Oriental Manuscript Library, Chennai VGS V¯ar¯ahagrhyas¯ utra: ed. Raghu Vira GDhS Gautamadharmas¯ utra: ed. tr. P. Oli- (Delhi, ����) ˚ velle, Dharmas¯utras (Oxford, ����) Y¯ajñDhdharmaś¯astra: ed. tr. A.F. Stenzler GGS Gobhilagrhyas¯ utra: ed. F. Knauer (Berlin/London, ����) ˚ ���  References Caland, Willem. ����. Über das rituelle S¯ utra des Baudh¯ayana. Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, vol. ��:�. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus. ——— . ����. Ś¯ankh¯ utra (English translation and notes). Edited with ˙ ayana-Śrautas¯ introduction by Lokesh Chandra. Nagpur, ����; reprint ����, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Fushimi, Makoto.����. Baudh¯ ayana Śrautas¯utra: Development of the Ritual Text in Ancient India. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University. Geslani, Marko. ����. The Ritual Culture of Appeasement: Ś¯ anti Rites in Post-Vedic Sources. Doctoral dissertation, Yale University. Gonda, Jan. ����a. The Ritual S¯ utras. (A History of Indian Literature, �:�.) Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. ¯-S¯ ——— . ����b. “The Baudh¯ayana-Grhya-Paribh¯as.a utra.” In Beiträge zur Indien- forschung: Ernst Waldschmidt zum˚��. Geburstag gewidmet, ���–���. Berlin: Mu� seum für Indische Kunst. Harting, Pieter Nicolaas Ubbo. ����. Selections from the Baudh¯ ayana-Grhyapariśis..ta- utra. AmersfOort: J. Valkhoff & Co. s¯ ˚ Lubin, Timothy. ����. “The Transmission, Patronage, and Prestige of Brahmanical Piety from the Mauryas to the Guptas.” In Boundaries, Dynamics and Construction of Traditions in South Asia, edited by Federico Squarcini, ��-���. Kykéion studi e testi I, Scienze delle religioni �. Firenze: Firenze University Press. ——— . ����. “The N¯ılarudropanis.ad and the Paippal¯ ˙ a: A Critical Edition adasamhit¯ and Translation of the Upanis.ad and N¯ar¯ayan.a’s D¯ıpik¯ a.” In The Atharvaveda and its Paippal¯ ada Ś¯ a: Historical and Philological Papers on a Vedic Tradition, edited akh¯ by Arlo Griffiths and Annette Schmiedchen, ��–���. Geisteskultur Indiens, Texte und Studien �� = Studia Indologica Universitatis Halensis. Aachen: Shaker Verlag. ——— . ����. “The Vedic Homa and the Standardization of Hindu P¯ a.” In Homa uj¯ Variations: The Study of Ritual Change across the Longue Durée, edited by Richard Payne and Michael Witzel, ���–���.. Oxford Ritual Studies. New York: Oxford University Press. ——— . forthcoming b. Atharvaśiras: Historical Study, Critical Edition, and Transla� tion, Gonda Indological Studies. Leiden: Brill. ˙ ayanagrihyam.” Indische Studien, ��: �–���. Oldenberg, Hermann. ����. “Das ǯankh¯ ˚ ��� Timothy Lubin ¯ macandra Su Ra ¯ ri. ����–����. Sri Grhyas¯utram Bodh¯ ayan¯ a ’caryapran.¯ıtam; vidv¯ an- man.d.aly¯ a samp¯ ˙ aditam; R¯ ˚ astr¯ı-Suri-viracitay¯ amacandraś¯ a “Sañj¯ıvin¯ı”-sam¯ akhyay¯ a vy¯ akhyay¯ a sam¯alankr ˙ tam; Bhalacandraś¯ astrin¯am viśis..tabh¯ umik¯ asahitam; Ananta- bhattai samśodhitam ˙ ˚/ Classical manual for Hindu domestic ceremonies, according to the Baudhayana school in the Taittiriya recension of Yajurveda, � vols. [second title in vols. �-� only]. Honnavar, Karnataka: Śri Subrahman.yapr¯acyavidy¯ap¯ıt.ham. ¯ maśarman Muddud¯ıks.ita, Man.akk¯al. ����. Mahars.ibodh¯ Ra ayanapran.¯ıtah. sm¯ arta- utragranthah.. Cennanagara [Madras]: Jñ¯anas¯agara Mudr¯aks.araś¯al¯a. kalpas¯ Shama Sastri, R. ����. Bodh¯ ayanagrhyas¯utram / The Bodhâyana Grihyasutra. ˚ Oriental Library Publications, Sanskrit ˚ Series, ��/��. Mysore: University of Mysore/Government Branch Press. Smith, Brian K. ����. “The Unity of Ritual: The Place of the Domestic Sacrifice in Vedic Ritualism.” Indo-Iranian Journal, ��: ��–��. Smith, Frederick M. ����. The Vedic Sacrifice in Transition: A Translation and Study askara Miśra. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research an.d.aman.d.ana of Bh¯ of the Trik¯ Institute. Stenzler, Adolf Friedrich. ����–����. Grhyas¯ an.i / Indische Hausregeln, Sanskrit utr¯ ¯ ˚ und Deutsch. I: Açval¯ayana (�–�) — II: P¯ araskara (�–�). Abhandlungen der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, III: �; IV:�; VI:�; Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes VI:�; IX:�. Leipzig: Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft. ���  ´ AKH VEDIC S ¯ ¯ AS PAST, PRESENT, FUTURE Proceedings of the Fifth International Vedic Workshop Bucharest 2011 Edited by JAN E.M. HOUBEN, JULIETA ROTARU & MICHAEL WITZEL Cambridge 2016 DEPARTMENT OF SOUTH ASIAN STUDIES HARVARD UNIVERSITY Distributed by SOUTH ASIA BOOKS, COLUMBIA, MO ?????????????????? ???????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????? ?? ????????????? ???? ???????? ???????? ????? ????????????? ??? ???? ????????? ??????????????????????????????????? ???????????? ?????????? ????????????? ?? ???? ???? ????? ?????????? ????? ?????????? ???????? ???? ?????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????? ??????????????????????????????????? ???????????? ??????????????????????????? ??????????????????? ????????????????????????????? ????????? ? ???? ?????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??? ????? ??? ????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ??? ??????????? ??? ???? ??????? ?????????? ??????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????? ???????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????? ?? ?????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????? ?????????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????? ???????????????? ????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????? ?????????????????????????????? ? ??????????????????? ???????????????????????? ? ??? ????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???