In connection with the A ̄pastambadharmasu ̄tra reference must be made to the
Hiran.yakes ́idharmasu ̄tra, which can hardly be considered a dharmasu ̄tra in its own
right. It does belong to the preserved Hiran.yakes ́ikalpasu ̄tra of the Taittı ̄ryya
branch of the Black Yajurveda, but it nearly literally corresponds to, i.e.
borrows from, the A ̄pastambadharmasu ̄tra. Bühler has listed a number of variant
readings in an appendix to his edition of the A ̄pastambadharmasu ̄tra (3rd ed.,
1932: 197–212); for a more general comparison of both texts see Kane (1968:
91–4).
Even as, but far less clearly defined than, the A ̄pastamba-dharmasu ̄tra, the
Baudha ̄yanadharmasu ̄tra too, forms the final part of a kalpasu ̄tra belonging to the
BlackYajurveda, which, however, has been the object of additions throughout.
In the preserved text of the Baudha ̄yanakalpasu ̄tra thedharmasu ̄tra occupies
pras ́nas35 to 38, preceded by the s ́rautasu ̄tra and other ritual texts (pras ́nasI to
29), the s ́ulbasu ̄tra (pras ́na30), and the gr.hyasu ̄tra (pras ́nas31 to 34). There is
general agreement that only the first two pras ́nas(35–6), out of four, belong to
the original dharmasu ̄tra. The first two pras ́nasare divided into concurrent
adhya ̄yasandkan.d.ika ̄s(“sections”): 11 and 22 in the first, 10 and 18 (17 and
18, on renunciation, seem to have been added from an extraneous source) in the
second. The last two pras ́nasare divided into adhya ̄yasonly, 10 in the third, 8 in
the fourth. References to the Baudha ̄yanadharmasu ̄tra may, therefore, appear con-
fusing: four digits (of which the second is often omitted) for the first two pras ́nas,
three only for the third and the fourth.
Even though the name of the Sage Vasis.t.ha (also Vas ́is.t.ha) is traditionally
associated with the R.gveda, the Vasis.t.ha- (orVa ̄sis.t.hadharmasu ̄tra, like the
Gautamadharmasu ̄tra, does not belong to any vedic school. Also like Gautama,
it is divided only into adhya ̄yas, here numbered throughout from one to thirty.
Paucity of manuscripts (cf. Alois Anton Führer’s editions 1883, 1914, and
1930) and absence of written commentary (except for a mid-nineteenth-
century one by K
̈
r.s.n.apan.d.ita; an earlier one, by Yajñasva ̄min, is lost) have left
the text of the Vasis.t.hadharmasu ̄tra highly corrupt.
In addition to the four (or five, including Hiran.yakes ́i) major dharmasu ̄tras,a
text variously called Vaikha ̄nasadharmapras ́naorVaikha ̄nasasma ̄rtasu ̄tra (edited
and translated by Willem Caland in the Bibliotheca Indica series, works 242
and 251, 1927, 1929) qualifies both as a gr.hyasu ̄tra (pras ́nasI to 7) and as a
dharmasu ̄tra (pras ́nas8 to 10). Even though the name vaikha ̄nasaappears in the
dharmasu ̄tras of Gautama, Baudha ̄yana, and Vasis.t.ha, and even though the
Manusmr.ti(6.21) seems to allude to a Vaikha ̄nasa treatise, the text in its present
form is more recent, with a strong leaning toward Vais.n.avism (see Colas in this
volume).
Among the many lost dharmasu ̄tras from which extracts have been preserved
in later texts, the Ha ̄rı ̄tadharmasu ̄tra (Jolly 1928: 505–24, on law only) is one of
the more prominent ones. The topics ofdharma dealt with in these fragments,
in prose and in verse, are so varied that Kane (1968: 133) suggested that the
Ha ̄rı ̄tadharmasu ̄tra may have been one of the most extensive dharmasu ̄tras. Also
well represented in quotations is a dharmasu ̄tra attributed to S ́an.kha and Likhita,
106 ludo rocher