| Part of a series on |
| Hindu scriptures |
|---|
| Vedas |
| Rigveda · Samaveda Yajurveda · Atharvaveda |
| Vedangas |
| Shiksha · Chandas Vyakarana · Nirukta Kalpa · Jyotisha |
| Upanishads |
| Rig vedic Aitareya |
| Puranas |
| Brahma puranas Brahma · Brahmānda Brahmavaivarta Markandeya · Bhavishya |
| Itihasa |
| Mahabharata (Bhagavad Gita) |
| Other scriptures |
| Manu Smriti Artha Shastra · Agama Tantra · Sūtra · Stotra Dharmashastra Divya Prabandha Tevaram Ramcharitmanas Yoga Vasistha |
| Scripture classification |
| Śruti · Smriti |
| Timeline |
| Hindu texts |
The Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra (BSS) is a Late Vedic text dealing with the solemn rituals of the Taittiriya school of the Black Yajurveda that was composed in eastern Uttar Pradesh during the late Brahmana period. It was first published in 1904-23 by the Asiatic Society of Bengal, as edited by Willem Caland [1] and translated by C.G. Kashikar, in part in his "Srautakosa", and as a whole later on.[2]
Contents |
Baudhayana, the traditional author of the Sutra, originally belonged to the Kanva school of the White Yajurveda. W. Caland has adduced materials that indicate Baudhayana's shift from this tradition to that of the Taittiriya school.[3] This agrees with the geographical position of the text between the eastern (Bihar) territory of the White Yajurveda and the western ones the Taittiriyas (Uttar Pradesh).[4] However, Baudhayana is quoted many times in the text as speaking; the work thus is clearly the work of his students and his school, the Baudhayanas.
The text is important as it is one of the earliest Srautasutras, next to that of the Vadhula sub-school of the Taittiriyas, which was situated a little further west than the Baudhayanas.[4] Both belong to the late Brahmana period and share late Vedic "southeastern" grammatical peculiarities with the Madhyandinas, Kanvas and Jaiminiyas.[5] Both schools (as well as some other early Sutras) agree in incorporating a number of Brahmana passages in their text. They also have some unusual similarities in quoting Mantras. However, the BSS is most important in that it clearly shows the first steps taken by late Vedic ritualists towards the Sutra style, with ever increasing degree of conciseness, culminating in the minimal style of the Katyayana Srautasutra and the short formulas of Pāṇini. This feature has been overlooked until Makoto Fushimi showed, in his recent Harvard thesis (2007),[6] the many separate devices that were used by the Baudhayanas in creating a Sutra. They include, among others, certain 'headwords' that indicate and thus abbreviate the description of a certain ritual action or rite, and they also include a new classification of all Shrauta rituals. The result is uneven: the BSS is still a Shrautasutra in progress. In an appendix section it also discusses the opinions of ritual specialists other than Baudhayana, who is then quoted as well. It has been argued that the composition of the BSS was due to the desire of 'eastern' Vedic kings, such as those of strongly emerging Kosala and Videha, to establish proper Vedic rituals in their non-Vedic territory [7] The same orthoprax development is seen in the redaction in Kosala or Videha of the Vajasaneyi Samhita with its western three-tone recitation, as compared to its source, the two-tone Shatapatha Brahmana.[8]
Among the dozen or so Brahmana passages found in the BSS [9], one Brahmana deals with the Pururavas-Urvashi legend that is also recounted in other Vedic texts, such as Shatapatha Brahmana and Vadhula Shrautasutra (Anvakhyana). The myth is also found, in ever changing forms, in the Mahabharata and later texts, such as a drama of Kalidasa. The myth tells the story of Pururavas and Urvasi, their separation and their reunion that is known from a highly poetic dialogue hymn of the Rigveda (10.95).[10] After they were separated, Pururavas wandered around, 'raving', as a text has it, but he also performed certain fire rituals. BSS 18.45 and Satapatha Brahmana 11.5.1 indicate that the wanderings of Pururavas took place in Kurukshetra. In a late Vedic text, the boundaries of Kurukshetra, between the Sarasvati (Ghaggar-Hakra) and Drshadvati (Chautang) rivers, correspond roughly to the modern state of Haryana: according to the Taittiriya Aranyaka 5.1.1., the Kurukshetra region is south of Turghna (Srughna/Sugh in Sirhind, Punjab), north of the Khandava Forest (Delhi and Mewat region), east of Maru (=desert) and west of Parin see map in Witzel (1984) [11]
Pururavas and Urvasi had two sons, Ayu and Amavasu. According to Vadhula Anvakhyana 1.1.1, yajna rituals were not performed properly before the attainment of the Gandharva fire and the birth of Ayu who ensures the continuation of the human lineage that continues down to the Kuru kings, and beyond.
A recent translation of this legend has given rise to a heated controversy. As some recent Indian right wing politicians and writers deny any immigration into the Panjab from Central Asia of (Rg)vedic tribes [12][13] into South Asia they also argue against Vedic passages that point to immigration. Such passages are difficult, though not impossible to detect [14]. However, a few recent Indologists and other writers have noted that "there is no textual evidence in the early literary traditions unambiguously showing a trace of" an Indo-Aryan migration.[15] A translation by M. Witzel (1989) of one passage of the BSS has been invoked as evidence in favor of the Aryan Migration and therefore became the object of much controversy: Then, there is the following direct statement contained in (the admittedly much later) BSS (=Baudhāyana Śrauta Sūtra) 18.44:397.9 sqq which has once again been overlooked, not having been translated yet: "Ayu went eastwards. His (people) are the Kuru Panchala and the Kasi-Videha. This is the Ayava (migration). (His other people) stayed at home. His people are the Gandhari, Parsu and Aratta. This is the Amavasava (group)" (Witzel 1989: 235).[16]
Based on Witzel's article, historians like Romila Thapar state that this passage contained literary evidence for Aryan migration.[17] The historian Ram Sharan Sharma argued that this passage is "the most explicit statement of immigration into the Subcontinent." [18]
However, in 1998 Koenraad Elst criticized Witzel's translation of the BSS passage and stated: "this text actually speaks of a westward movement towards Central Asia, coupled with a symmetrical eastward movement from India's demographic centre around the Saraswati basin towards the Ganga basin." [19] The passage or parallel passages were later discussed by other Indologists like George Cardona, Hans Hock and (in part) Toshifumi Goto [20], who also diverged from Witzel's translation, as well as earlier, Willem Caland, C.G. Kashikar and D.S. Triveda[21]
However, the translation by the late Austrian Indologist and Brahmana specialist Hertha Krick (1982), and in part T. Goto (2000),[20] agree with Witzel's.[22] Krick writes (in German:) "Westwards Amavasyu (or: he stayed home in the west, as his name says 'one who has goods/possessions at home')". The only published reaction so far to the controversy by Witzel has appeared already in 2001 (in EJVS 7-3, notes 45-46)[23]. He discusses in detail the various possibilities for an interpretation of the passage and concludes "Whatever interpretation one chooses, this evidence for movements inside the subcontinent (or from its northeastern borders, in Afghanistan) changes little about the bulk of evidence assembled from linguistics and from the RV itself that points to an outside origin of Vedic Sanskrit and its initial speakers." On the other hand in latest discussions veteran archaeologist like B.B. Lal finds witzel's translation to be erroneous as he suggests the mention of westward movements of some Rig-vedic clans to be the case rather than any movements from Central asia or Afghanistan[24].