# Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra

The Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra (Baudhāyana Śrautasūtra or Baudhāyanaśrautasūtram) is a Late Vedic text dealing with the solemn rituals of the Taittiriya Shakha 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, as edited by Willem Caland and translated by C.G. Kashikar, in part in his "Srautakosa", and as a whole later on.

## Quotes

* Ayu went eastwards, the Kuru-Pañcalas and Kasi-Videha are (his descendants) the Ayavas; (And) Amavasu (went) westwards, the Gandharas, Parsus and Arattas are (his descendants) the Amavasyavas.
** BSS 18:44. As quoted in Talageri, S. (2000). The Rigveda: A historical analysis. New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan.
* “The Apsaras Purvacitti was her Urvasi’s) sister. She thought, "My sister has been living among human beings for a long time. I shall meet her." (Even after) Coming to her, she could not meet her. She resided with the herd of sheep in her (Urvasi’s) possession because such was the appearance of old ladies. She assumed the form of a wolf and caused a violent stir up (in the herd of sheep). A young ram, still sucking its mother was tied to a foot of her (Urvasi’s) bed. She (Purvacitti) snatched it away. As it was stolen away, (Urvasi) wept, "My ram is stolen". Hearing it, the king jumped up. He approached her (Purvacitti). He met (came close to) her. Transformed as a female ichneumon, she went to him. She deprived him of his inner garment. She (Purvacitti) generated lightning. She (Urvasi) saw him naked in the light of the lightning. The king came and said, "I could not help; my ram had indeed disappeared."(2) (Urvasi said-) "I shall leave thee." (Pururava said-) "What is happened?" (Urvasi replied-) "I saw you naked." After her departure the king, with the harm already done, and suffering from grief, wandered. Brhaspati, son of Angiras said to him, "I shall cause you to perform the Sada sacrifice. I shall help thee in the wandering." Brhaspati made him perform the Sada sacrifice. After having returned from the Avabhrta (the king) saw her (Urvasi). The sons approached her and said, "Do thou take us there where thou are going. We are strong. Thou hast put our father, one of you two, to grief." She said, "O sons, I have given birth to you together. (Therefore) I stay here for three nights. Let not the word of the brahmana be untrue." The king wearing the inner garment lived with her for three nights. He shed semen virile unto her. She said, "What is to be done?" "What to do?", the king responded. She said, "Do thou fetch a new pitcher?" She disposed it into it. In Kurukshetra, there were ponds called Bisavati. The northern-most among then created gold. She put it (the semen) into it (the pond). From it (the banks of the pond) came out the Asvattha tree surrounded by Sami. It was Asvattha because of the virile semen, it was Sami by reason of the womb. Such is the creation of (Asvattha tree) born over Sami. This is its source. It is indeed said, "Gods attained heaven through the entire sacrifice." When the sacrifice came down to man from the gods, it came down upon the Asvattha (tree). They prepared the churning woods out of it; it is the sacrifice. Indeed, whichever may the Asvattha be, it should be deemed, as growing on the Sami (tree). When it is said, "Thou art Urvasi, Ayu and Pruvasas," one utters the names of the father and the sons. This may also be taken in general sense. After her departure, the king, with the harm already done, and suffering from grief, wandered. Brhaspati, son of Angiras said to him, "I shall cause thee perform the Aupasada sacrifice; thereby thy harm will disappear." Brhaspati, son of Angiras made him perform the Aupasada sacrifice. Thereby his harm disappeared. The Sadaupasada (sacrifices) are also known as Paururavasau. One who desires to obtain wealth, him should one cause to perform he Sada. In his sacrifice the Bahispavamana is in ten Stomas. …….
** 18.45 BSS. tr. Kashikar (2003) quoted in Is There Vedic Evidence for the Indo-Aryan Immigration to India? By V. Agarwal

## Quotes about the Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra
### Quotes about BSS 18:44

* One must be extremely wary of using at least the Vedic versions of this legend to construct real history of human migrations, otherwise we would have to deduce an emigration from India in the direction of Central Asia. There is absolutely no need to read modern and colonial Aryan invasion and migration theories into ancient ritual texts.
** Agarwal, Vishal: Is there Vedic evidence for the Indo-Aryan Immigration to India "Archived copy" (PDF). Dialogue (Journal of Astha Bharati). 8 (1): 122–145. July–September 2006.
* An over-arching theme in the versions of the Purur ava-Urvasi legend in the Vedic texts is the semi-divine origin of the Vedic ritual. The yajna is said to have reached mankind through Pururava, who got it through semi-divine beings, the Gandharvas, via the intervention of Urvasi, who herself was an apsaraa and belonged to the Gandharvas. Coupled with the Baudhayana Srautasutra 18.44-45 passage, we may interpret the names of Ayu and Amavasu to mean that the former represents the ancestor of peoples (Kuru- Panchalas and Kasi-Videhas) who are ‘alive and bright’, and ‘vibrant’ or ‘moving’ 39 because they sacrificed to the Devas. In contrast, the Gandharis, Parsus and Arattas did not perform Vedic sacrifices for Devas and hoarded their ‘possessions in their homes’, due to which they were ‘stationary’ or ‘dead’ and ‘devoid of light’, like the ‘amavasya’ or moonless night. This interpretation would be completely consistent with later traditions concerning the conformity to orthopraxy by the Kurus etc., and the lack of the same in the case of Arattas etc.
** Is There Vedic Evidence for the Indo-Aryan Immigration to India? By V. Agarwal. Dialogue (Journal of Astha Bharati). 8 (1): 122–145. July–September 2006.
* It is beyond dispute that the interpretation Witzel gives to this passage does not accord with its syntax. This was pointed out, though without considering details, by Elst... This text cannot serve to document an Indo-Aryan migration into the main part of the subcontinent.
** George Cardona. Cardona (2002), "The Indo-Aryan Languages"
* The passage (from Baudha_yana S'rautasu_tra), part of a version of the Puruuravas and Urva'sii legend concerns two children that Urva'sii bore and which were to attain their full life span, in contrast with the previous ones she had put away. On p. 397, line 8, the text says: saayu.m caamaavasu.m ca janayaa.m cakaara 'she bore Saayu and Amaavasu.' Clearly, the following text concerns these two sons, and not one of them along with some vague people. Grammatical points also speak against Witzel's interpretation. First, if amaavasus is taken as amaa 'at home' followed by a form of vas, this causes problems: the imperfect third plural of vas (present vasati vasata.h vasanti etc.) would be avasan; the third plural aorist would be avaatsu.h. I have not had the chance to check Witzel's article again directly, so I cannot say what he says about a purported verb form (a)vasu.h. It is possible, however, that Elst has misunderstood Witzel and that the latter did not mean vasu as a verb form per se. Instead, he may have taken amaa-vasu.h as the nominative singular of a compound amaa- vasu- meaning literally 'stay-at-home', with -vas-u- being a derivate in -u- from -vas. In this case, there is still what Elst points out: an abrupt elliptic syntax that is a mismatch with the earlier mention of Amaavasu along with Aayu. Further, tasya can only be genitive singular and, in accordance with usual Vedic (and later) syntax, should have as antecedent the closest earlier nominal: if we take the text as referring to Amaavasu, all is in order: tasya (sc. Amaavaso.h). Finally, the taddhitaanta derivates aayava and aamaavasava then are correctly parallels to the terms aayu and amaavasu. In sum, everything fits grammatically and thematically if we straightforwardly view the text as concerning the wanderings of two sons of Urva'sii and the people associated with them. There is certainly no good way of having this refer to a people that remained in the west.
** George Cardona, quoted in Is There Vedic Evidence for the Indo-Aryan Immigration to India? By V. Agarwal
* 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.
** Elst, Koenraad. (1999) Update on the Aryan Invasion Theory ISBN 81-86471-77-4
* The most explicit statement of immigration into the Subcontinent.
** Ram Sharan Sharma. Advent of the Aryans in India. Manohar: New Delhi 1999.
* (The Srauta Sutra of Baudhayana) "refers to the Parasus and the arattas who stayed behind and others who moved eastwards to the middle Ganges valley and the places equivalent such as the Kasi, the Videhas and the Kuru Pancalas, and so on. In fact, when one looks for them, there are evidence for migration.
** Romila Thapar quoted in Vishal Agarwal (2005), On Perceiving Aryan Migrations in Vedic Ritual Texts. Purātattva, issue 36
* There is the following direct statement contained in the (admittedly much later) BSS, 18.44:397.9 sqq which has once again been over-looked, not having been translated yet: ‘Ayu went eastwards. His (people) are the Kuru-PañcAla and the KASI-Videha. This is the Ayava (migration). (His other people) stayed at home in the West. His people are the GAndhArI, ParSu and AraTTa. This is the AmAvasava (group)’.
** Michael Witzel, Rgvedic history: poets, chieftains and polities. in : The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia: Language, Material Culture and Ethnicity edited by George Erdosy (Papers by Michael Witzel and P. Oktor Skjærvø), Walter de Gruyter, Berlin-New York, 1995. Quoted in Talageri, S. (2000). The Rigveda: A historical analysis. New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan.
* The reason for this unpleasant pattern of falsely attributing silly opinions to me is probably not far to seek. It is the fact that I have exposed a mistake made by Witzel in a crucial part of his pro-AIT argumentation. In his paper “Rgvedic history”, he had mistranslated a verse from the Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra (18.44:397.9) to the effect that Ayu’s clan “went eastwards” while Amavasu’s clan “stayed at home in the west”, meaning in Afghanistan or Iran. So, there at long last was the hoped-for Vedic testimony to the Aryan invasion from the west, the “missing link” between Vedic literature and the elusive invasion. Pro-AIT crusaders like R.S. Sharma (Advent of the Aryans, p.87-89) have gleefully invoked the Harvard professor’s prestige in reproducing his OIT-shattering translation of Baudhayana, “the most explicit statement of an immigration into the Subcontinent”. But the translation was wrong. Like the “missing link” between ape and man found in Piltdown, it was a hoax, though presumably a somewhat bonafide hoax. As Prof. George Cardona and other authorities have meanwhile confirmed, the sentence describes how from a middle position (which we can infer to be somewhere in Haryana, India), one clan went east to the Ganga basin and another went west into Afghanistan. I have never accused Prof. Witzel of deceit or fraud. I prefer to live by Napoleon’s dictum: “Never attribute to malice what can be explained through incompetence”,-- or in this case, through over-enthusiasm for a long-hoped-for “discovery”. When people are very very thirsty, they start to see an oasis on the horizon; no malice intended, just self-delusion. Only, after his innocent mistake had been highlighted, Witzel’s reaction was rather unsportsmanlike. He claimed that it was all due to a printing error. That sounds a bit random for such a precise and sensational reading. As if you can put monkeys at a typewriter and let them produce an AIT-friendly translation by coincidence. What’s the big deal about standing corrected once in a while?
** Elst, Koenraad (2007). Asterisk in bharopiyasthan: Minor writings on the Aryan invasion debate.
* Kazanas rejects Michael Witzel’s attempt [1995:320-321] to find a testimony of the Aryan invasion in the Baudhāyana Śrauta Sūtra (BSS 18.44). According to Witzel, the text has Purūravas and Urvaśī’s son Amāvasu “stay home” somewhere in Afghanistan while his brother Āyu “migrates” into India. This would provide the “missing link” between the AIT and Sanskrit literature, which to the dismay of the AIT school had failed to provide any testimony of the Aryan invasion. But just as the Piltdown Man proved to be a false trail in the search for the evolutionary “missing link” between ape and man, Witzel’s translation proves to be incorrect.... On that point, we couldn’t agree more, having been the first to analyse Witzel’s rendering as a mistranslation [Elst 1999:164-165]. The passage actually refers to a westward emigration by Amavasu from India, in particular from the Saraswati basin, whence his brother Ayu migrated eastward into the Ganga basin. Amavasu’s progeny is described as including the Gāndhāris, the Persians (Parśu) and the Arāţţas, located in Iran or Afghanistan. This was already assumed in passing in earlier translations of the BSS (surveyed by Vishal Agarwal [2002]), starting with Willem Caland in 1904. Though Witzel’s translation has by now been rejected by all specialists who have cared to speak out [e.g. Cardona & Dhanesh 2007:38-40], there was an objective need for Kazanas to draw attention to it, viz. because it has remained quite influential, especially in the Indian polemic against the OIT. Thus, Romila Thapar and Ram Sharan Sharma have used this passage as evidence for the AIT, so that it has passed into the received wisdom in Indian academic circles.
** Elst, Koenraad (2018). Still no trace of an Aryan invasion: A collection on Indo-European origins.
* Among more recent attempts, motivated explicitly by the desire to counter the increasing skepticism regarding the Aryan invasion theory, the most precise endeavour to show up an explicit mention of the invasion turns out to be based on mistranslation... In fact, the meaning of the sentence is really quite straightforward, and doesn’t require supposing a lot of unexpressed subjects: “Ayu went east, his is the Yamuna-Ganga region”, while “Amavasu went west, his is Afghanistan, Parshu and West Panjab”. Though the then location of “Parshu” (Persia?) is hard to decide, it is definitely a western country, along with the two others named, western from the viewpoint of a people settled near the Saraswati river in what is now Haryana. Far from attesting an eastward movement into India, 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 into the Ganga basin. The fact that a world-class specialist has to content himself with a late text like the Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra, and that he has to twist its meaning this much in order to get an invasionist story out of it, suggests that harvesting invasionist information in the oldest literature is very difficult indeed.
** Elst, Koenraad (1999). Update on the Aryan invasion debate New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan.
* This passage consists of two halves in parallel, and it is unlikely that in such a construction, the subject of the second half would remain unexpressed, and that terms containing contrastive information (like "migration" as opposed to the alleged non- migration of the other group) would remain unexpressed, all left for future scholars to fill in. It is more likely that a non-contrastive term representing a subject indicated in both statements, is left unexpressed in the second: that exactly is the case with the verb pravavrâja "he went", meaning "Ayu went" and "Amavasu went". Amavasu is the subject of the second statement, but Witzel spirits the subject away, leaving the statement subject-less, and turns it into a verb, "amâ vasu", "stayed at home". In fact, the meaning of the sentence is really quite straightforward, and doesn't require supposing a lot of unexpressed subjects: "Ayu went east, his is the Yamuna-Ganga region", while "Amavasu went west, his is Afghanistan, Parshu and West Panjab". Though the then location of "Parshu" (Persia?) is hard to decide, it is definitely a western country, along with the two others named, western from the viewpoint of a people settled near the Saraswati river in what is now Haryana. Far from attesting an eastward movement into India, 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.” The fact that a world-class specialist has to content himself with a late text like the BSS, and that he has to twist its meaning this much in order to get an invasionist story out of it, suggests that harvesting invasionist information in the oldest literature is very difficult indeed. Witzel claims (op.cit., p.320) that: "Taking a look at the data relating to the immigration of Indo-Aryans into South Asia, one is struck by a number of vague reminiscences of foreign localities and tribes in the Rgveda, in spite [of] repeated assertions to the contrary in the secondary literature." But after this promising start, he fails to quote even a single one of those "vague reminiscences".”
** Elst, Koenraad (1999). Update on the Aryan invasion debate New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan. quoted in Is There Vedic Evidence for the Indo-Aryan Immigration to India? By V. Agarwal