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. Baudhāyanı̄ya Contributions to Smārta Hinduism Timothy Lubin Introduction Smārta Hinduism, the religious tradition defined by adherence to the precepts of the Vedic ritual codes and the Dharmaśāstras, began to take shape with the composition of the Grhyasūtras and Dharmasūtras, normative codes rooted in the separate priestly ˚ but showing an increasing tendency to mutual influence and cross-reference. traditions Distinctive features of Smārta tradition that first began to emerge in the Grhyasūtras ˚ 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 saṁskāras, with the upanayana rather than the marriage rite as the first, and as definitive of Ārya status; • the assertion of Brahmin customary practice as the default standard or norm, with modifications for other social classes; • broader application of prāyaścittas and special vratas as ethical practices and legal remedies;2 and • formal recognition of the authority of ācāra as an extracanonical basis for right action — and in particular the validity of folk practices (e.g., those of women). Here I highlight the Baudhāyana tradition’s contribution, especially on the first and last points, and its larger significance for the later Smārta 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 Baudhāyanagrhyasūtra (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. The latter three processes are the subject of Lubin ����. 3 Among the Yajurveda caran.as, the Baudhāyana school laid claim to special authority as the tradition of Kan.va Baudhāyana the pravacanakāra — the original expounder and no mere sūtrakāra (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. 2 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 grhyasūtra of the Baudhāyana school is the longest of the genre, especially if we ˚ later extensions, the paribhāsāsūtra and the śesa- or pariśistasūtra. Like the include its . . .. appendices of other Grhyasūtras, the various chapters of the Śes.a probably were added well into the middle of˚ the first millennium ce, but the paribhās.āsūtra more likely was composed not far from the time of the Dharmasūtras, and seems to have been intended to make explicit the relation between the Grhya rites of the school and the ideals of the ˚ be called ‘grhya-brāhmana’, it is almost emergent Dharma. Containing much that could . ˚ unique in the late Vedic corpus. Efforts to Systematize the Domestic Rites The Grhyasūtras 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, Vārāhagrhyasūtra begins (VGS �.�–�): ˚ hrasvatvāt pākayajñah. | hrasvaṁ hi pāka ityācaks.ate | darśapūrn.amāsaprakrtih. ˚ pākayajñavidhir aprayājo’nanuyājo’sāmidhenı̄kah. | [It is called] ‘simple worship’ because of its brevity. For what is brief is known as ‘pāka’. 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 Taittirı̄yasaṁhitā and the Śatapathabrāhman.a describe the id.ā offering several times as a pākayajña (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.ā with the anuyājas (an element which Vārāha explicitly notes is missing in a pākayajña).4 At �.�.�.��, it is the agnihotra that is called a pākayajña, 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 pāka as meaning ‘simple’, the Grhyasūtras seem to understand the word to refer to cooked food, associating it with sthālı̄pāka ˚ (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 pākayajña used already in ´ TS �.�.�.�–�, in a metaphorical explanation of the Id.ā offering in an is..ti ritual: pākayajñáṁ vā ´hitāgneh. paśáva úpa tis..tanta íd.ā khálu vaí pākayajñáh. (“Cattle attend the pākayajña of ánv ā one who has laid the [Śrauta] fires, for the pākayajña is the Id.ā”). Cf. TS �.�.�.�–�, where the pākayajña = Vaiśya’s drink, āmiks.ā: “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 ��� Baudhāyanı̄ya Contributions to Smārta Hinduism One important marker of the simplicity of a pākayajña is the fact that priestly staffing is reduced to just one (GGS �.�.�–�): brahmaivaika rtvik | pākayajñes.u svayaṁ hotā bhavati | ˚ The Brahman is the sole priest; in simple worship one becomes one’s own hotr. ˚ One of the conceptual approaches employed in the Grhyasūtras was to extend the category of pākayajña 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 pākayajña was subdivided into exceedingly broad types. A few versions of this can be found. The shortest is Āśvalāyana’s (ĀśvGS �.�.�): huta: “being offered in the fire” (agnau hūyamānāh.) prahuta: “[being offered] not in the fire” (anagnau) brahman.i huta: “[being offered] in the feeding of brahmins” (brāhman.abhojane) A fourth category occurs in some Grhyasūtras, viz. those of Pāraskara (�.�.�),5 Śāṅkhāyana ˚ (�.�.�),6 Kāt.haka (��.�–�), and Jaimini (�.�):7 huta: offered with homa, e.g. aks.atahoma / sāyamprātarhoma ahuta: offering without homa,8 e.g. srastarārohan.a prahuta: offered with homa and bali (and prāśana: Harihara), e.g., paks.ādi / KGS pin.d.apitryajña ˚ prāśita: with feeding of brahmins only9 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 vā es.a yad dı̄ks.ito yad asya payo vrataṁ bhavaty ātmānam eva tad vardhayati | trivrato manur āsı̄d dvivratā asurā ekavratāh. [�] devās | prātar madhyaṁdine sāyaṁ tan manor vratam āsı̄t pākayajñasya rūpaṁ 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 Gadādhara mentions and answers a objection: nanūpadiśyamānā evaite catvāro bhavanti | prakārakathanaṁ pravrttiviśes.akaratvābhāvād anarthakam iti cen nānarthakaṁ prakārāntarasūcanārthatvāt | “But˚it is four [ritual modes] that are being taught. If one says it is 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 sūtra] is to indicate the difference of mode.” 6 On the parallel readings of Pāraskara and Āśvalāyana 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 âṅkhâyana and Pâraskara.” A śloka quoted at ŚGS �.��.�: huto’gnihotrahomena, ahuto balikarman.ā | prahutah. pitrkarman.ā prāśito brāhman.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 prāśita 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 ��.�: upahāro. 9 Harihara in his comment on PGS �.�.� cites as an example the vr.sotsarga (paraphrasing PGS �.��.�): “feeding brahmins after cooking pāyasa out of milk taken ˚ from all the cows” (sarvāsāṁ gavāṁ payasi pāyasaṁ śrapayitvā brāhman.abhojanam); KGS ��.�: “the sweet milk and the rice dish for [brahmins] who are fed” (madhuparko brahmaudanaś ca prāśitānām). ��� Timothy Lubin While there is agreement that huta applies to rites in which an offering is poured into the fire, and that prāśita 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 Pāraskaragrhyasūtra specifies that an ahuta rite ˚ includes neither a homa nor a bali (ahuto homabalirahita ṁ karma yathā srastarārohan.am), whereas a prahuta includes both, and the feeding of brahmins (prāśana) besides. Baudhāyana makes a different extension of the model: the categories huta and prahuta are retained, while the name of a third class, āhuta, has usually been considered a variant of ahuta,10 though the rationale given here takes ā- to signify that something is received (ādı̄yate) after the homa. The artificiality of Baudhāyana’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 sūtra, is as follows: BGS �.�.�–��: huta: “when [the offering] is made in the fire” (yad dhūyate) prahuta: “when, after a fire-offering, something is given” (yad dhutvā dı̄yate) āhuta: “when, after a fire-offering and a gift, something is received” (yad dhutvā dattvā cādı̄yate) śūlagava: “when they skewer pieces of cow-meat on spits and cook them” (yac chūles.ūpaniks.ya 11 gavyāni śrapayanti ) baliharan.a: “when they scatter food for the gods of the household” (yad grhyābhyo devatābhyo’nnaṁ saṁprakiranti ) ˚ pratyavarohan.a: “when they adopt the low bed from season to season” (yad rto rtuṁ pratyavarohanti ) ˚ ˚ as..takāhoma: “when food is prepared during the ekās..taka rite” (yad ekās..takāyām annaṁ kriyate)12 The paribhās.ā rules of the Karmāntasūtra appended to the BŚS (��.�) give the same 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 — pākayajña, haviryajña, somayajña — as stated in BGPS �.�.��. Although the word saṁsthā does not appear here, this threefold division is cer� tainly based on the division of worship into somayajñasaṁsthā, haviryajñasaṁsthā, and pākayajñasaṁsthā introduced in the Baudhāyanaśrautasūtra ��.�:���.�� ff., itself an ex� pansion of the twofold division found in Lāt.yāyanaśrautasūtra �.�.��–��. Later versions of the threefold division appear in Gautamadharmasūtra �.��–�� and Vaikhānasasmārtasūtra �.�. In his ���� dissertation (pp. ���–���), Makoto Fushimi noticed that this rubric was applied first to the ekāha soma-service, then extrapolated to a list of seven soma rituals (only the order of the seven varying in the different lists). The saṁsthā rubric was E.g., Gonda ����a, ���. em.; upaniks.yā N; upanitya Bh; folio missing in B; here and in similar contexts, M and C have upanı̄ks.ya (M listing upaniks.ipya as a variant). 12 Mentioned already at BŚS �.��.�. 10 11 ��� Baudhāyanı̄ya Contributions to Smārta Hinduism subsequently extended to cover haviryajñas and pākayajñas as well, but with decreasing specificity. Only four haviryajñas are common to all the lists. The pākayajñas remain quite ill-defined. Lāt.yāyana does not treat pākayajñas as a separate saṁsthā at all; rather, he lists seven soma rites, and seven haviryajñas. An undifferentiated pākayajña appears simply as the seventh haviryajña. It is Baudhāyana, first in the Śrautasūtra and then in the Grhyasūtra, who expands the saṁsthā model to include a full set of seven pākayajñas to˚complement the two Śrauta sets. To do this, Baudhāyana 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 Gautamadharmasūtra and Vaikhānasasmārtasūtra, whose similar lists of pākayajñas differ markedly from Baudhāyana’s, which has only the as..takā in common with them. BŚS ��. �/ BGS �. �. �- ��Gautamadharmasūtra �. ��– �� huta as..takā prahuta pārvan.a āhuta śrāddha śūlagava śrāvan . ı̄ baliharan agrahāyan.ı̄ .a pratyavarohan.a caitrı̄ as..takāhoma aśvayujı̄ Vaikhānasasmārtasūtra �. � sthālı̄pāka āgrayan.a as..takā pin.d.apitryajña ˚ māsiśrāddha caitrı̄ āśvayujı̄ The difference between these three lists of seven pākayajñas can probably be explained by the fact that Baudhāyana wants the seven types to cover the full range of Grhya ritual, whereas Gautama and Vaikhānasa are using the seven pākayajñas within a ˚still larger schema, to fill out a list of forty “saṁskāras” that begins with the life-cycle ceremonies (which are the saṁskāras, properly speaking) plus the five mahāyajñas. In Baudhāyana’s classification, the saṁskāras proper are themselves sorted into the first three categories: huta, prahuta, āhuta. Alone among the Grhyasūtras, Baudhāyana systematically applies the pākayajña ˚ 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 prāyaścittas.) It is not clear why the as..takāhoma 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 Ru d r a a r e p r o m i n e n t i n t h i s g r o u p . Th e śūlagava ( o r ı̄śānabali, a l s o d e s c r i b e ŚŚS d i n �. ��13 ) i s t r e a t e d a s d i s t i n c t f r o m t h e e a r l i e r c l a s s e s p r o b a b l y b e c a u s e i t i s d e d ai c, a w t he do ti so e Rus p d e rc i a l l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h h o u s e h o ffa l d i ar s a n d t h e w e l l - b e i n g o f p e o p l e a n d h e r d s , b u it e in s t n o o f t a r e c i p fi r e - ffe o r i n g s i n t Śr h e a u t a c u l t . Th e c e n t r a l r i t u a l a c t s a r e t h e r i to u f a a l cs ol aw u g h t e r ( o r o p t i o n a l l y a r a m o r a g o a ffe t ) r, i tn h g e o o f t h e b l o o d , t h e o m e n t u m , a n d o t h e r p i e c e s o f m e a t s p r i n k l e d w i t h g h e e a n d r o a s t e d o n s k e wb ye r t s h , e f os lp l ro i w n ek di n g o f t h e h e r d 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. ˚ option proposed by Baudhāyana, though, is mentioned in the last The most startling breath, after the option of using a ram or a goat (BGS �.�.��): ı̄śānāya sthālı̄pākaṁ vā śrapayanti | tasmād etat sarvaṁ karoti yad gavā kāryam | Or else they cook a Sthālı̄pāka for Īśāna; 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 Grhyasūtra proper and not relegated at least to ˚ that it may be a relatively early “vegetarian” the Paribhās.āsūtra or to the Śes.a suggests option prefiguring the substitution by certain Maharasthtrian Mādhvas of dough animals (pis..tapaśu) or pots of ghee (ājyapaśu) 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 Trikān.d.aman.d.ana of Bhāskara 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 Āśramas and Sadācāra Perhaps because of the prominent role of the pākayajña model in the Baudhāyana school, the Grhyaparibhās.āsūtra, which may belong to an age not far removed from the that of the˚early Dharmasūtras, 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 pākayajña by connecting pāka with pakva, ‘cooked food’, which is said to be part of all the domestic offerings: vis.n.ava āhutı̄s.u nāmakaran.opanis.krāman.ānnaprāśanopākarmavrates.u ca pakvahomah. syān nāpakvāh. pākayajñāh. sarvatra pakvahomaṁ kuryād iti | etena homadānaprāśanāni vyākhyātāni bhavanti pakvāj juhoti pakvād dadāti pakvāt praśnātı̄ti pākayajñās tasmād dhutaprahutāhutes.u pakvah. kārya iti | (BGPS �.�.�–�) In āhuti s to Vis.n.u, and in the naming, first outing, feeding with rice, opening 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 pākayajñas; therefore, cooked food is to be used in huta, prahuta, and āhuta rituals. 14 Smith ����, ��–��. ��� Baudhāyanı̄ya Contributions to Smārta Hinduism The notion of these ‘simple’ offerings involving food hearkens back to the id.ā and the āmiks.ā, and Manu’s milk drink, all alluded to in the Taittirı̄yasaṁhitā (the Veda of the Baudhāyanas). However, in line with the Baudhāyanı̄ya analysis, the huta, prahuta, and āhuta rites are said further to constitute pakvahomas (and thus not merely pakvayajñas). The sixth praśna of the first khan.d.a of the Grhyaparibhās.āsūtra, moreover, ends with ˚ as a tree: a ��-stanza eulogy for envisioning the pākayajñas athāpy udāharanti | yathā subhūmijo vrks.ah. sumūlah. supratis..thitah. | bahuśākhah. supus.˚ paś ca phalavān upayujyate || �� devadānavagandharvaih. r.sibhih. pitrbhis tathā | paks.ibhih. .sat.padaiś cāpi˚maśakaiś˚ca pipı̄likaih. || �� evaṁ hi pākayajñes.u sarvam etat pratis..thitam | hutah. subhūmir vijñeyā mūlaṁ prahuta ucyate || �� āhuto ’tra pratis..thānaṁ yajñavrks.o mahocchrayah. | ˚ pāh suphalopagāh || �� bahvyas tasya smrtāh. śākhāh. supus . . . ˚ mantrabrāhman.atattvajñaih. sudr.s.tās tā upāsakaih. | ˚ śrotriyah smrtah || �� evaṁ hi yajñavrks.asya yo ’bhijñah . . . ˚ ˚ dārasyāharan.aṁ kuryāt karmety evaṁ vipaścitah. | subhūmiṁ ca sumūlaṁ ca supratis..thānam eva ca || �� vrks.aṁ pus.paphalopetaṁ bahuśākhaṁ sa paśyati | ˚ jñāna ṁ subhūmir ācāro mūlaṁ śraddhā pratis..thitih. || �� ks.amāhiṁsādamah. śākhāh. satyaṁ pus.paphalopagam | jñānopabhogyaṁ buddhānāṁ grhin.āṁ yajñapādapam ||�� ˚ akāmahatayā buddhyā tyaktāhaṅkāralobhayā | niścayādhyavasāyābhyāṁ caks.urbhyāṁ sa tu paśyati || �� tasyaiko vajrasaṅkāśah. krodhah. paraśur ucyate | tenaiva mā cchinan mohāt tyājyah. krodho grhes.v atah. || �� ˚ grhā mūlaṁ hi yajñānāṁ grhā hy ānrn.yakāran.am | ˚hā hy āśramapūjārthaṁ ˚ gr sthityartha˚ṁ ca grhāh. smrtāh. || �� ˚ ˚ ˚ pākayajñā haviryajñāh. somayajñāś ca te trayah. | sthitā mūles.u yajñes.u 15 pramādı̄ tes.u sı̄dati | 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 āhuta 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 ˚ saṁsthās follow in H. and H; stanzas on the other two ��� Timothy Lubin ��. Those [branches] are easily perceived by worshippers who really know the mantras and brāhman.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 (āśrama) and veneration (pūjā); and the household is considered to be for the sake of rectitude. ��. Pākayajñas, 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 āśrama 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 Grhyasūtras refers to the notion of āśrama, and even the Dharmasūtras know it only as˚a set of options to be considered after the period of study — not itself regarded as an āśrama — 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 samāvartana rite; BGPS calls this the āśrama 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. sı̄dati, 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. Rāmacandra Sūri reads sthitā mūles.u yajñes.u pramādāt tes.u sı̄dati, and explains thus: anekes.ām anyes.āṁ yajñānāṁ mūlarūpes.u es.u yajñes.u pramāde krte duh.khı̄bhavati (“In these worship-rites which figure as the roots of various ˚ when there is carelessness, one becomes unhappy.”) other worship-rites, ��� Baudhāyanı̄ya Contributions to Smārta Hinduism debts of every man — a doctrine that becomes central to Dharmaśāstra ethics. From there, it launches into a discussion of brahmacarya, distinguishing between the regimen of Veda study (which it specifies as constituting an āśrama) 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 “jāyamāno vai brāhman.as tribhir rn.avā jāyate brahmacaryen.a r.sibhyo yajñena devebhyah. prajayā pitrbhyah.” ˚ iti [TS �.�.��.�] | � | brah� ˚ ˚ macaryaṁ vyākhyāsyāmah. | � | ā samāvartanād evaitad bhavati “nācı̄rn.avrato brahmacārı̄ bhavati” iti tad etad āśramaṁ vyākhyātam 17 | � | ata ūrdhvaṁ brahmacaryaṁ yenānrn.o bhavati | � | svadāra ity ekam | � | mantravatprayoga ity ekam | � | rtāv ity˚aparam | � | athādhi 18 brahmacaryam vivāhe trirātram | ˚ � | rtau trirātram | � | amāvāsyāyāṁ paurn.amāsyāṁ śrāddhaṁ datvā bhuktvā ˚ caikarātram | �� | parastrı̄s.u divā ca yāvajjı̄vam | �� | agnyādheye dvādaśarātram | �� | āgrayan.es..tipaśubandhānām upavasathes.v ekarātram | �� | evam eva sarves.u vedakarmasu | �� | cāturmāsyes.u saṁvatsaram | �� | yathāprayogam anyes.u yajñakratus.v anyatra rtau dı̄rghasattres.u dharmavrates.u ca | �� | tad etad dharmyaṁ pun.yaṁ putryam āyus.yaṁ svargyaṁ yaśasyam ānrn.yam ˚ iti vyākhyātaṁ brahmacaryam | �� | �.�.�. Now there is [a brāhman.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 samāvartana, there is this [brāhman.a]: “There can be no brahmacārin who does not follow the regimen [viz. brahmacarya].” This āśrama 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 śrāddha 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 tad etad āśramaṁ vyākhyātam ] N B Bh Ch C; tadāśramo vyākhyātah. M athādhi ] athādi N 19 Here and in �.�.�, �.�.�, �.�.�, �.�.��, �.�.�, �.��.�, etc., the phrase atha vai bhavati is used to introduce a quotation in the brāhman.a or āran.yaka style. Similarly: �.�: ity evais.a ukto bhavati. The phrase does not occur in the BGS proper; it is found in BGŚS �.��.�, �.�.��, �.�.�, �.��.� (reprise of Taittirı̄yāran.yaka). 20 prayoga for samprayoga as in �.�.�� below. 18 ��� Timothy Lubin svādhyāya-yajña, japa-yajña, karma-yajña, and mānasa[-yajña] — and these are then correlated with the four āśramas. 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 Dharmaśāstras introduce the term saṁnyāsin. Some manuscripts (e.g., B and N) list the vānaprastha 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” (tasmād grhāh. śreya iti, ˚ From all this, the BGPS concludes with another maxim, a general rule (an actual paribhās.ā, in fact), followed by two gnomic stanzas, and a repetition of the paribhās.ā rule (�.�.��–��). These propound the authority of ācāra: tasmād ācārah. pramān.aṁ | saṁsthā ācārah. kriyāh. saṁtatir iti nityabhāvāt 22 | 23 �� | tasmād yah. kaścana kriyāvān satām anumatācārah. sa śrotriya eva vijñeyah. | �� | athāpy udāharanti — nis.eke garbhasaṁskāre jātakarmakriyāsu ca | vidhivat saṁskrtā mantraiś cı̄rn.avratasamāpanāh. | ˚ śrotriyā iti te jñeyāh. śākhāpārāś ca ye dvijāh. || vidhivad grhya ye pān.im ˚ yaṁ garbham rtau cı̄rn.avratāv ubhau | mantravat samprayoge tau brāhman . ˚ādadhuh || iti | �� | . tasmād ācārah. pramān.am | �� | ��. Therefore, practice (ācāra) is the standard. The ritual formats (saṁsthāh.), [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 (satām), 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 āśramas (. . . grhasthavānaprastha . . . ) agree both with each other and with the Classical order set by Manu. ˚ 22 nityabhāvāt ] Ch; nityābhāvāt M C Bh; nityābhāve naimitikas ta B; nityaṁ bhāvāt H; ity ācāryah. N; the variant readings mostly assume the more common compound-final abhāvāt (or abhāve), 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 sūtra, punctuating between each of the first four words with commas, and reading iti nityaṁ bhāvāt at the end. The editor Rāmacandra Sūri explains it thus (vol. �, p. �): itiśabdah. pūrvasūtrād anuvrtte ˚ | pramān.e anveti | saṁsthāh. = bahūnāṁ śis..tānām abhrāntānām aikamatyam | ācārah. = sadācārah . kriyāh. = vedoktāh., tadanugun.asmrtyuktāś ca saṁskārāh. | santatih. = paramparā | ete catvāro ’pi ˚ ṁ bhāvāt = sadātanatvād vā | tesām iti śesah | pramān.abhūtā iti yāvat | kutah. nitya . . . ��� Baudhāyanı̄ya Contributions to Smārta 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 ācāra in the Dharmaśāstric principle that the three “roots of dharma” (dharmamūlāh.) are śruti (Vedic revelation), smrti (expert authority), and ācāra (the exemplary practice ˚ of well-trained, ‘twice-born’ men). More striking still is the specification that authoritative practice is that “approved by good men” (satām anumatācārah.), a criterion expressed more concisely in Dharmaśāstra as satām ācārah., or simply sadācārah.: vedah. smrtih. sadācārah. (MDh �.��a); ˚ śrutih. smrtih. sadācārah. (YājñDh �.�a, PārDh �.��c); ˚ vedo ’khilo dharmamūlaṁ smrtiśı̄le ca tadvidām | ˚ ācāraś caiva sādhūnām ātmanas tus..tir eva ca || (MDh �.�) Parallel formulations replace sat-, satām, or sādhūnām with śis..tānām, ‘the learned’, as indeed does Baudhāyanadharmasūtra (�.�–�): upadis..to dharmah. prativedam | . . . smārto dvitı̄yah. | trtı̄yah. śis..tāgamah. | ˚ 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 pramān.a, a criterion or means of knowing dharma, alongside the Śruti. Vasis..thadharmasūtra (�.�–�) in fact adopts the same terms: śrutismrtivihito dharmah. | tadalābhe śis..tācārah. pramān.am | ˚ Dharma is ordained in the Vedas and expert tradition. Where their guidance is lacking, the practice of cultured people is the standard. Āpastambadharmasūtra (�.�.�) seems to take established practice as the primary standard of dharma, attributing it rather circularly to dharma-knowers: athāto sāmayācārikān dharmān vyākhyāsyāmah. | dharmajñasamayah. pramān.am | vedāś 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 brāhman.yaṁ, the N and B read brāhman.yāṁ, “in a Brahmin woman.”; Ch, a modern Grantha ms., emends thus: brāhman.y(ā)ṁ; Bh has brahman.yaṁ. ��� 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.eyı̄ vyavasthā, ‘human norms’, restricted to ‘those who know dharma’; this shows that Baudhāyana means the consensus only of śis..tas. However, of the four old Dharmasūtras, only Baudhāyana’s elaborates on the qualifications of a śis..ta in this context (BDhS �.�.�–�), and in doing so echoes the Grhyaparibhās.āsūtra’s explanation of the śrotriya: ˚ śis..tāh. khalu vigatamatsarā nirahaṁkārāh. kumbhı̄dhānyālolupā dambhadarpalobhamohakrodhavivarjitāh. || dharmen.ādhigato yes.āṁ vedah. saparibrṁhan.ah. | śis..tās tadanumānajñāh. 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 Grhyaparibhās.āsūtra for ˚ following “the practice approved by the good men” (satām anumatācārah . , �.�.��), the Dharmasūtra’s śis..ta can support such practice by deriving it, by analogy, from “explicit proofs from the Veda.” Given the Baudhāyanı̄yas’ more developed reflections on the criteria for taking practice (ācāra) 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 (ĀpDhS �.��.�; GDhS ��.��–��; BDhS �.��.��; VDhS �.��, ��.�), and while they even mention an occasional example (ĀpDhS �.��.�, �.��.��), only Baudhāyanadharmasūtra 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.asūtra, which contains the latest additions to the ˚ Vedicized pūjā rites26 and the discussions of how actually Baudhāyanı̄ya sūtra canon — the 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 Baudhāyanı̄yas carried forward the program of the Grhya sūtrakāras to a fuller and further degree than most ˚ other schools, often making explicit what the others only suggested. They extended the pākayajña classification so as to place the Grhya rites on a par with the Śrauta sacrifices, ˚ pākayajña categories to organize those rites while at the same time attempting to use the within a textual rubric. The tradition further preserves, in the Grhyaparibhās.āsūtra, a body of reflections ˚ 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: ācārah. paramo dharmah. śrutyuktah. smārta eva ca, MDh �.���ab. 26 On these, see Harting ����, Geslani ����, and Lubin forthcoming a. ��� Baudhāyanı̄ya Contributions to Smārta Hinduism perhaps even prefigures the notions of āśrama and of ācāra as a pramān.a that we know otherwise only from the Dharmasūtras and the later Dharmaśāstra. We can recognize here in Baudhāyana’s distinctive voice several of the themes that become established doctrine in Smārta Hinduism. ��� Abbreviations, Sanskrit Editions and Manuscripts ĀpDhS Āpastambadharmasūtra: ed. tr. P. (Dorpat, ����–����) Olivelle, D harmasūtras (Oxford, ����) H Rāmacandra Sūri ����–���� ĀśvGS Āśvalāyanagrhyasūtra: ed. tr. A.F. KGS Kāthakagrhyasūtra: ed. W. Caland . Stenzler ����–���� ˚ (Lahore, ����) ˚ B ms. ��/����-���� of the Bhandarkar Ori� LŚS Lātyāyanaśrautasūtra: ed. Ā. Ca. . ental Research Institute, Pune Vedāntavāgı̄śa (Calcutta, ����–����) BGS Baudhāyanagrhyasūtra: ed. Sharma M Shama Shastri ���� ˚ Shastri ����; Rāmacandra Sūri ����–����; MDh Mānavadharmaśāstra: ed. tr. Patrick Rāmaśarman Muddudı̄ks.ita ���� Olivelle (Oxford, ����) BGPS Baudhāyanagrhyaparibhās.āsūtra: ed. ˚ Rāmacandra Sūri MGS Mānavagrhyasūtra: ed. Friedrich Sharma Shastri ����; ˚ ����–����; Rāmaśarman Muddudı̄ks.ita Knauer (St. Petersburg, ����) ���� N ms. �.��� of the National Archives, Kath� mandu = NGMPP reel A ���/� BGŚS Baudhāyanagrhyaśes.asūtra: ed. Sharma Shastri ����;˚ Rāmacandra Sūri PGS Pāraskaragrhyasūtra: ed. tr. A. F. Sten� ����–����; Rāmaśarman Muddudı̄ks.ita zler ����–���� ˚ ���� PārDh Pārāśaradharmaśāstra: ed. V.S. Is� Bh Devanagari ms. belonging to Vid� lampurkar (Bombay, ����–����) van V. Subrahman.ya Dattātreya Bhat.t., ŚGS Śāṅkhāyanagrhyasūtra: ed. Oldenberg Citrigemat.h, Gokarna, Karnataka, trans˚ ���� th cribed in early �� c. from Tigalari script ŚŚS Śāṅkhāyanaśrautasūtra: ed. A. Hille� original brandt (Calcutta, ����–����) BŚS Baudhāyanaśrautasūtra: ed. W. Caland ŚBM Śatapathabrāhman.a (Mādhyandina): (Calcutta, ����–����) ed. Albrecht Weber (Bombay, ����) BDhS Baudhāyanadharmasūtra: ed. tr. OliTS Taittirı̄yasaṁhitā: ed. Albrecht Weber velle, Dharmasūtras (Oxford, ����) (Leipzig, ����–����) C Rāmaśarman Muddudı̄ks.ita ���� VDhS Vasis.t.hadharmasūtra: ed. tr. P. Oliv� Ch Grantha ms. D���� of the Government elle, Dharmasūtras (Oxford, ����) Oriental Manuscript Library, Chennai VGS Vārāhagrhyasūtra: ed. Raghu Vira GDhS Gautamadharmasūtra: ed. tr. P. Oli- (Delhi, ����) ˚ velle, Dharmasūtras (Oxford, ����) YājñDhdharmaśāstra: ed. tr. A.F. Stenzler GGS Gobhilagrhyasūtra: ed. F. Knauer (Berlin/London, ����) ˚ ��� References Caland, Willem. ����. Ü b redas rituelle Sūtra des Baudhāyana. Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, vol. ��:�. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus. ——— . ����. Śāṅkhāyana-Śrautasūtra (English translation and notes). Edited with introduction by Lokesh Chandra. Nagpur, ����; reprint ����, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Fushimi, Makoto.����. Baudhāyana Śrautasūtra: Development of the Ritual Text in Ancient India. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University. Geslani, Marko. ����. The Ritual Culture of Appeasement: Śānti Rites in Post-Vedic Sources. Doctoral dissertation, Yale University. Gonda, Jan. ����a. The Ritual Sūtras. (A History of Indian Literature, �:�.) Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. ——— . ����b. “The Baudhāyana-Grhya-Paribhās.ā-Sūtra.” In Beiträge zur Indienforschung: Ernst Waldschmidt zum˚��. Geburstag gewidmet, ���–���. Berlin: Mu� seum für Indische Kunst. Harting, Pieter Nicolaas Ubbo. ����. Selections from the Baudhāyana-Grhyapariśis..ta˚ sūtra. AmersfOort: J. Valkhoff & Co. 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 Nı̄larudropanis.ad and the Paippalādasaṁhitā: A Critical Edition and Translation of the Upanis.ad and Nārāyan.a’s Dı̄pikā.” In The Atharvaveda and its Paippalāda Śākhā: Historical and Philological Papers on a Vedic Tradition, edited 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 Pūjā.” In Homa 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. Oldenberg, Hermann. ����. “Das Çāṅkhāyanagrihyam.” Indische Studien, ��: �–���. ˚ ��� Timothy Lubin Rāmacandra Sūri. ����–����. S ri Grhyasūtram Bodhāyanā ’caryapran.ı̄tam; vidvān˚ man.d.alyā saṁpāditam; Rāmacandraśāstrı̄-Suri-viracitayā “Sañjı̄vinı̄”-samākhyayā vyākhyayā samālaṅkrtam; Bhalacandraśāstrinām viśis..tabhūmikāsahitam; Anantabhattai saṁśodhitam˚/ 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.yaprācyavidyāpı̄t.ham. Rāmaśarman Muddudı̄ks.ita, Man.akkāl. ����. Mahars.ibodhāyanapran.ı̄tah. smārtakalpasūtragranthah.. Cennanagara [Madras]: Jñānasāgara Mudrāks.araśālā. Shama Sastri, R. ����. Bodhāyanagrhyasūtram / 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 of the Trikān.d.aman.d.ana of Bhāskara Miśra. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. Stenzler, Adolf Friedrich. ����–����. Grhyasūtrān.i / Indische Hausregeln, Sanskrit ˚ und Deutsch. I: Āçvalāyana (�–�) — II: Pāraskara (�–�). Abhandlungen der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, III: �; IV:�; VI:�; Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes VI:�; IX:�. Leipzig: Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft. ��� VEDIC ŚĀKHĀS 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 ?????????????????? ???????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????? ?? ????????????? ???? ???????? ???????? ????? ????????????? ??? ???? ????????? ??????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????? ?? ???? ???? ????? ?????????? ????? ?????????? ???????? ???? ?????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????? ??????????????????????????????????? ???????????? ??????????????????????????? ??????????????????? ????????????????????????????? ????????? ? ???? ?????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??? ????? ??? ????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ??? ??????????? ??? ???? ??????? ?????????? ??????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????? ???????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????? ?? ?????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????? ?????????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????? ???????????????? ????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????? ?????????????????????????????? ? ??????????????????? ???????????????????????? ? ??? ????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???