Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1: Volume 1

History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1

Language
English

Contents

Volume 1

History of Dharmasastra

v1.c1.1

( ANCIENT AND MEDIÆVAL RELIGIOUS AND CIVIL LAW )

v1.c1.2

BY

v1.c1.3

PANDURANG VAMAN KANE, M. A., LL. M.

v1.c1.4

ADVOCATE, HIGH COURT, BOMBAY ; VICE-PRESIDENT AND FELLOW OF THE ROYAL ASIATIC SOCIETY, BOMBAY BRANCH ; SOMETIME PROFESSOR OF SANSKRIT, ELPHINSTONE COLLEGE, BOMBAY ; AUTHOR OF 'A HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS' ETC.

v1.c1.5

Vol. I

v1.c1.6

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute Copies can be had direct from the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona (4), Ind Price Rs. 15 per copy, exclusive of Postage

v1.c1.7

Presented in memory of Dr. R

v1.c1.8

Printed by V. G. Paranjpe, M. A., LL. B., D. Litt., at th Bhandarkar Institute Press, 198 (17) Sadashiv, Poona No. 2, and Published by S. K. Belvalkar, M. A., Ph. D., at the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona No.

Table of Contents

v1.c2.1

| | | | Pages |
| List of Abbreviations | ... | ... | –xv |
| Additions and corrections | ... | ... | V–xII |
| Synopsis of contents | ... | ... | XIII–XLVIII |
| History of Dharmaśāstra | ... | ... | 1–467 |
| General Index | ... | ... | 468–502 |
| Appendix A – List of [missing text] on Dharmaśāstra | ... | 503–676 |
| Appendix B – List of Authors on Dharmaśāstra | ... | 677–760 |

List of Abbreviations

v1.c3.1

A. Br. = Aitareya Brāhmaṇa.

v1.c3.2

.Ānan. / or / Ānan. P. = Ānandāśrama series, Poona.

v1.c3.3

.Āp. / or / Āp. Dh. S. = Āpastamba-dharmasūtra.

v1.c3.4

Āp. Gṛ. S. = Āpastambagṛhyasūtra.

v1.c3.5

A. S. B. = Asiatic Society of Bengal.

v1.c3.6

Baud. or Bau. Dh. S. or Baud. Dh. S. = Baudhāyana-dharmasūtra (Mysore edition).

v1.c3.7

Bau. Gṛ. S. = Baudhāyanagṛhyasūtra (Mysore edition by Dr. Shama Śāstri).

v1.c3.8

B B R A S. = Bombay Branch, Royal Asiatic Society.

v1.c3.9

Bom. H. C. R. = Bombay High Court Reports.

v1.c3.10

Bom. L. R. = Bombay Law Reporter (edited by Messrs. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal).

v1.c3.11

B. I. or B. I. S. = Bibliotheca Indica series, Calcutta.

v1.c3.12

Bṛ. Upaniṣad or Bṛ. Up. = Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad.

v1.c3.13

B. S. or BSS. = Bombay Sanskrit series.

v1.c3.14

Cat. = Catalogue.

v1.c3.15

Caturvarga. = Caturvarga-cintāmaṇi of Hemādri (B. I. series).

v1.c3.16

C. O. = Calcutta Oriental Series.

v1.c3.17

D. C. = Deccan College collection of Sanskrit mss. now lodged at the Bhandarkar Oriental Institute, Poona.

v1.c3.18

Dh. S. = Dharmasūtra.

v1.c3.19

E. C. = Epigraphia Carnatica.

v1.c3.20

E. I. = Epigraphia Indica.

v1.c3.21

.Gau. / Gaut. = Gautama-dharmasūtra (Ānandāśrama edition).

v1.c3.22

Gṛ. S. = Gṛhya-sūtra.

v1.c3.23

H. A. S. L. = Max Müller's History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature.

v1.c3.24

Hir. = Hiraṇyakeśi-dharmasūtra.

v1.c3.25

H. O. S. = Harvard Oriental series.

v1.c3.26

Hp. cat. or Hp. Nepal cat. = Mahāmahopādhyāya Haraprasad Śāstrī's catalogue of palmleaf and paper mss. belonging to Durbar Library, Nepal.

v1.c3.27

I. H. Q. = Indian Historical Quarterly.

v1.c3.28

I. L. R. = India Law Reports series, Bom. standing for Bombay, Cal. for Calcutta, All. for Allahabad and Mad. for Madras series.

v1.c3.29

Ind. Ant. or I. A = Indian Antiquary.

v1.c3.30

I. O. cat. = Catalogue of the Sanskrit mss. at the India Office in London (ed. by Dr. Eggeling).

v1.c3.31

JASB. = Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal.

v1.c3.32

JBBRAS = Journal of the Bombay Branch, Royal Asiatic Society.

v1.c3.33

JBORS = Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society.

v1.c3.34

JRAS = Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain.

v1.c3.35

Jivananda Sm. = Dharmaśāstra-saṁgraha, published by Jivananda at Calcutta in 1876 (two parts).

v1.c3.36

L. R. I. A. = Law Reports, Indian Appeals, the number of the volume being inserted between L. R. and I. A.

v1.c3.37

Mad. H. C. R. = Madras High Court Reports.

v1.c3.38

M. Gṛ. S. or Mānava Gṛ. S. = Mānava-Gṛhyasūtra.

v1.c3.39

Mit. = Mitākṣarā on Yājñavalkya.

v1.c3.40

Moo. I. A. = Moore's Indian Appeals.

v1.c3.41

N. = Nāradasmṛti (ed. by Dr. Jolly).

v1.c3.42

P. Gṛ. S. = Pāraskaragṛhyasūtra.

v1.c3.43

P. S. series = Punjab Sanskrit series.

v1.c3.44

Ṛg. = Ṛgveda.

v1.c3.45

R. u. S. = Recht und Sitte (by Dr. Jolly).

v1.c3.46

S. B. E. = Sacred Books of the East Series.

v1.c3.47

S. B. H. = Sacred Books of the Hindus Series.

v1.c3.48

Tai. = Taittirīya.

v1.c3.49

Tai. S. = Taittirīya-saṁhitā.

v1.c3.50

Tri. Cat. = Triennial Catalogue of Madras Government Sanskrit mss.

v1.c3.51

Tri. ed. = Trivandrum edition.

v1.c3.52

Vāj. S. = Vājasaneya-Saṁhitā.

v1.c3.53

Vas. or Vas. Dh. S. = Vasiṣṭhadharmasūtra (B. S. series).

v1.c3.54

Viś. = Viśvarūpa.

v1.c3.55

Viṣṇu Dh. S. or Vi. = Viṣṇudharmasūtra (ed. by Dr. Jolly).

v1.c3.56

V. S. = Vedāntasūtra.

v1.c3.57

W. B. = West and Bühler's Digest of Hindu Law (3rd ed.).

v1.c3.58

Yāj. = Yājñavalkyasmṛti.

v1.c3.59

आ. गृ. सू. or आप. गृ. or आप. गृ. सू. = आपस्तम्बगृह्यसूत्र.

v1.c3.60

आप. ध. सू. or आ. ध. सू. = आपस्तम्बधर्मसूत्र.

v1.c3.61

ऐ. ब्रा. = ऐतरेयब्राह्मण.

v1.c3.62

काम. = कामन्दकीयनीतिसार.

v1.c3.63

कौ. = कौटिल्य's अर्थशास्त्र (Dr. Shamasastri's edition).

v1.c3.64

गौ. or गौ. ध. सू. = गौतमधर्मसूत्र.

v1.c3.65

चतुर्वर्ग. = चतुर्वर्गचिन्तामणि.

v1.c3.66

जीमूत. = जीमूतवाहन.

v1.c3.67

ताण्ड्य. = ताण्ड्यमहाब्राह्मण.

v1.c3.68

तै. आ. = तैत्तिरीयारण्यक.

v1.c3.69

तै. ब्रा = तैत्तिरीयब्राह्मण.

v1.c3.70

तै. सं = तैत्तिरीयसंहिता.

v1.c3.71

नि. सि. = निर्णयसिन्धु.

v1.c3.72

परा. मा. = पराशरमाधवीय (B. S. series).

v1.c3.73

पा. = पाणिनि's अष्टाध्यायी.

v1.c3.74

पू. मी. सू. = पूर्वमीमांसासूत्र.

v1.c3.75

प्रायश्चित्तम. = प्रायश्चित्तमयूख of नीलकण्ठ.

v1.c3.76

बौ. गृ. = बौधायनगृह्यसूत्र.

v1.c3.77

बौ. ध. सू. = बौधायनधर्मसूत्र.

v1.c3.78

मद. पा. = मदनपारिजात (B. I. series).

v1.c3.79

मनु. = मनुस्मृति.

v1.c3.80

मिता० = मिताक्षरा मेधा० = मेधातिथि's भाष्य on मनुस्मृति या. or याज्ञ. = याज्ञवल्क्यस्मृति. वि. चि. = विवादचिन्तामणि of वाचस्पतिमिश्र. वि. र. = विवादरत्नाकर (B. I. edition). विश्वरू. = विश्वरूप on याज्ञ. (Tri. ed). वीर. = वीरमित्रोदय (on व्यवहार ed. by Jivananda). व्य. म. = व्यवहारमयूख of नीलकण्ठ (my edition). व्य. मा. = व्यवहारमातृका of जीमूतवाहन. शतपथ or शतपथब्रा. = शतपथब्राह्मण. सं. कौ. = संस्कारकौस्तुभ of अनन्तदेव. सरस्वती० or स. वि } = सरस्वतीविलास. स्मृतिच. = स्मृतिचन्द्रिका (ed. by Mr. J. R. Gharpure).

Additions and Corrections

v1.c4.1

( **N. B. Errors in printing that can be easily detected have been passed over** ).

v1.c4.2

Sec. 4 pp. 12-20 *The Dharmasūtra of Gautama.* Mr. Batakrishna Ghose ( in I. H. Q. vol. III for 1927, p. 607 ff ) has an exhaustive note on the mutual relations of Gautama, Baudhāyana and Āpastamba. He holds that Gautama is not the oldest extant author, that Āp. and Gautama stand in the same relation as Manu and Yājñavalkya, that Baudhāyana-dharmasūtra is not older than Āpastambadharmasūtra, that the reference to the views of some in Gautama 15. 30 may easily be to Āp. Dh. S. II. 7. 21. Some of the reasons on which he relies for these views have already been examined in the body of the work. That the extant sūtra of Gautama has been in some places revised may be admitted ; but that Gautama as an author on dharma preceded Āpastamba's work cannot be denied. There is nothing of chronological value so far as Gautama is concerned in Āpastamba's rejection of the view of Śvetaketu that even a married man should continue Veda-study. That Āpastamba says nothing about mixed castes is on a par with his silence as to *niyoga* and the secondary sons. Āpastamba knew the lowest castes such as Cāṇḍāla and Paulkasa and Vaiṇa ( Āp. Dh. S. II. 1. 2. 6 ). As to beef-eating allowed by Āpastamba, vide p. 45 of text and Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa ( S. B. E. vol. 26 p. 11 where beef-eating is not allowed to a dīkṣita ). Doctors of law were not agreed on many points of dharma and hence no certain chronological conclusion about individual authors can be drawn merely from their views on certain points. It is not correct to say as Mr. Ghose does that Āpastamba knows no fines for crimes. Āpastamba does say that in case of dispute between litigants elders were to decide, that in case of doubt they were to decide by inference or divine proof, that witnesses were to tell the truth and that if the witnesses were found to be false they were to be fined ( II. 11. 29. 5-8 ). This shows that fines were not unheard of in Āpastamba's days and if he omits a detailed statement the reason must be sought for elsewhere than in his being prior to all dharmasūtras. Fines for crimes are as old as the Taittirīya Saṁhitā II. 6. 10. 2.

v1.c4.3

Sec. 9 p. 56 l. 18 read ‘note 41’ for ‘note 46.’

v1.c4.4

Sec. 10 p. 60 ll. 25-27. After the words ‘the sūtra is in close relation to one of the oldest schools of the Yajurveda, viz. Kaṭha’ the following should be added ‘Vācaspati in his Śrāddhakalpa alias Pitṛbhaktitaraṅgiṇī says that the sūtra of Viṣṇu is meant for students of the Kaṭhaśākhā, as Viṣṇu is a sūtrakāra of that Śākhā’; **यच्चाग्निं परिस्तीर्य पौष्णं श्रपयित्वा पूषा गा इति विष्णुस्मृतावुक्तं तत्कठशाखिपरं तस्य तत्सूत्रकारत्वात्** (ms. of **पितृभक्ति°** in the India Office, folio 17a (I. O. cat. p. 556 No. 1730). The sūtra referred to is **विष्णुधर्मसूत्र** 86. 9.

v1.c4.5

Sec. 11 p. 71 Vide Ind. Ant. vol. 25 for 1896 pp. 147-48 for an account of the ms. of the Hārītadharmasūtra found by the late Pandit Vaman Śāstri Islampurkar.

v1.c4.6

Sec. 13 p. 84 l. 10 read ‘110’ for ‘108’.

v1.c4.7

Sec. 14 *The Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya.* There is a perennial stream of articles and works inspired by the Arthaśāstra. Some of them that appeared after this work was sent to the press and some that had appeared before but had been omitted through oversight are noticed here. Dr. Stein has a note on the word ‘suruṅgā’ occurring in the Arthaśāstra and its connection with the Greek word ‘syrinx’; (vide I. H. Q. vol. I. pp. 429-432) and holds that the Arthaśāstra must be later than the 2nd century B. C. The same scholar contributes a note on ‘Pāṇḍyakavāṭa’ occurring in the Arthaśāstra II. 11 (in I. H. Q. vol.IV p. 778) and concludes from comparison with Bṛhat-saṁhitā and other works that the list of countries cannot be earlier than 6th century A. D. I am glad to note that the veteran *savant* Dr. Jolly (in ‘Zeitschrift für Indologie and Iranistik’ for 1927 pp. 216-221) approves of my view that the original name was Kauṭilya and not Kauṭalya. In the Nidhanpur plate of Bhāskarvarman (E. I. vol. 19 p. 245, at p. 248) donees of Kauṭilya-gotra are mentioned. The verse in the second Act of the Mālatīmādhava of Bhavabhūti (**गुणापेक्षाशून्यं कथमिदममुष्यान्तमथवा कुतोपत्यस्नेहः कुटिलनयनिष्णातमनसाम् ।**) contains a hit at the name Kauṭilya and his teaching. Mr. E. H. Johnston contributes in the J R A S for 1929 pp. 77-102 an article on ‘two studies in the Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya,’ wherein he examines the works of Aśvaghoṣa, the Laṅkāvatāra and the Jātakamālā and holds that the Arthaśāstra is not much earlier than Aśvaghoṣa and not later than 250 A. D. It is gratifying to see that from the untenable position of relegating the Arthaśāstra to the 3rd century A. D., western scholars are receding to the first century of the Christian era. Prof. Benoy Kumar Sarkar contributes an appreciative and lengthy review of Dr. Meyer's work ‘Das altindische Buch vom Welt-&c’ in the Indian Historical Quarterly for 1928 pp. 348-383. Dr. Meyer has brought out another work ‘on Hindu Law-books and their relation with one another and with Kauṭilya’ (über das Wesen der altindischen Rechtsschriften &c.). This work compels admiration for the author's patience and industry, but is seriously marred throughout by wild generalisations, perverse and startling propositions unsupported by weighty evidence. He makes Gautama the latest of the Smṛtis and Nārada one of the earliest, places Nārada several centuries before the Christian era, regards the compiler of the Yājñavalkyasmṛti as a stupid brāhmaṇa. He is blissfully ignorant of the references to Gautama occurring in the Tantravārtika, which I collected in my paper on ‘the Tantravārtika and the dharmaśāstra literature’ (JBBRAS vol. I new series for 1925 pp. 66-67). He propounds the absurd theory that the Brāhmaṇas were people like gypsies roving about in bands without any morals or principles of conduct. I can agree with some of his conclusions, viz. the non-existence of a Mānavadharmasūtra, the non-existence of a floating mass of verses on which authors of dharmaśāstra could draw. Mr. Batakrishna Ghose submits Dr. Meyer’s work to a scholarly and trenchant criticism in I. H. Q. for 1928 vol. IV. pp. 570-592. Prof. D. R. Bhandarkar has recently published in a book-form his lectures on ‘some aspects of ancient Hindu polity.’ Vide I. H. Q. vol. V (1929) p. 780 for an article on ‘salaries and allowances in Kauṭilya’.

v1.c4.8

Sect. 15 pp. 105-107 *Vaikhānusadharmapraśna*. Dr. Eggers recently published (Göttingen, 1929) his work 'Das Dharmasūtra der Vaikhānasa', which is reviewed in JRAS for 1929 pp. 916-918.

v1.c4.9

Sec. 29 pp. 129-131 *Sumantu*. For a dharmasūtra of Sumantu, vide Madras Tri. cat. of Sanskrit mss. (1919-1922) pp. 5160-62.

v1.c4.10

Sec. 31 p. 154 read 'In other places' for 'In another places'.

v1.c4.11

Sec. 34 pp. 170-175 *Yājñavalkyasmṛti*. Dr. Hans Losch writes a monograph on '*Die Yājñavalkyasmṛti un Beitrag zur Quellen-kunde des Indischen Rechts*' (Leipzig 1927). His conclusions may be briefly summarised as follows: (I) the text of Yājñavalkya that we have and that is commented upon is not the original, but is enlarged with interpolations such as Vināyakaśānti and Grahaśānti (which are borrowed from Agnipuraṇa chap. 266 and 164 respectively by the compiler of Yāj. Smṛti), the section on rājadharma (which is a versified copy of ideas contained in arthaśāstra literature), verses 60-205 of the third chapter (of Yāj.) : (II) the 2nd book of Yāj. (on vyavahāra) is a later addition corresponding to an older redaction of the Agnipuraṇa; (III) that the first and 3rd books of Yāj. are a recast of an ancient text which has been better preserved in the Garuḍapurāṇa. I have shown in my history of Sanskrit Poetics that the Agnipuraṇa was compiled about 900 A. D. and in this book it has been shown that the Garuḍapurāṇa must have been compiled about the same time, that it summarises Parāśarasmṛti and that it presents a text of Yāj. which is intermediate between that of Viśvarūpa and that of the Mitākṣarā. Dr. Loesh's work adduces no proofs that would shake these conclusions. I am pleased to find that Mr. Chintaharana Chakravarti holds (JASB for 1928 vol. 24 p. 467) that the *nīti* portion of Garuḍapurāṇa belongs to the 9th or 10th century. The indefatigable scholar Dr. Meyer appears to have criticized Dr. Losch in a monograph (vide review of it by Mr. Batakrishna Ghose in I. H. Q. for 1929 pp. 367-375). Mr. Batakrishna Ghose holds that vyavahāra did not originally form part of the Yājñavalkya smṛti on the ground that otherwise it is very difficult to explain its absence in the Garuḍapurāṇa. But this is quite unconvincing. We have no sure criterion for judging on what bases the eclectic purāṇas (Agnipurāṇa and Garuḍapurāṇa) proceeded. But in the case of the Garuḍapurāṇa the omission of the vyavahāra section is easily explicable in several ways. The Garuḍapurāṇa was concerned more with purely religious matters and so omitted the rather secular chapter on vyavahāra. One might ask, why did the Agnipurāṇa omit the first and third kāṇḍas of Yājñavalkya if they existed in its day. One may with equal logic argue that those two kāṇḍas did not exist in the Yājñavalkya smṛti when the Agnipurāṇa was compiled.

v1.c4.12

P. 181 The late Sir Ramakrishna Bhandarkar outdid even Western scholars in assigning Yājñavalkya to a date not earlier than the 6th century A. D. In his work ‘Vaiṣṇavism and Śaivism’ (p. 148) the learned doyen of modern Sanskrit studies in Western India holds that the worship of Gaṇeśa is a late one, as it is not mentioned in the Gupta inscriptions. The veteran scholar did not notice the points brought out in my book (such as the mention of nakṣatras from Kṛttikā). He is willing to assign Amarasiṁha to the 5th or 6th century A. D. (ibid. p. 45). The great lexicographer mentions Vināyaka and his synonyms (such as ekadanta &c), but the words Mita, Sammita that are given as the appellations of Vināyaka in Yāj. are conspicuous by their absence in Amara's lexicon. Hence the conclusion is that Amara wrote centuries after Yājñavalkya and that Vināyaka worship had taken a complexion before Amara flourished that was very different from what it was in Yājñavalkya's day.

v1.c4.13

Mita and Sammita occur as names of Maruts in the Taittirīya Saṁhitā.

v1.c4.14

P. 186 That गजच्छाया and व्यतीपात had nothing to do with 'rāśis' follows from the following. ‘योगो मघात्रयोदश्यां कुञ्जरच्छायसंज्ञितः । भवेन्मघायां संस्थे च शाशिन्यर्के करे स्थिते ॥ (quoted in कृत्य रत्नाकर p. 319 as from ब्रह्मपुराण); श्रवणाश्विधनिष्ठाऽर्द्रनागदैवतमस्तके । यद्यमा रविबारेण व्यतीपातः स उच्यते ॥ quoted in प्रायश्चित्ततत्त्व of रघुनन्दन as from बृहन्मनु.

v1.c4.15

Sec. 38 pp. 213-221 *Kātyāyana.* Mr. Narayana Chandra Bandopadhyaya has recently published (Calcutta 1927) about 800 verses of Kātyāyana on vyavahāra culled from five *nibandhas.* In the Hindu Law Quarterly recently started in Bombay I am editing a reconstruction of Kātyāyana on vyavahāra (reconstructed text from twenty *nibandhas*, references to the places whence verses are taken, translation, notes &c.). About 300 verses have been printed in the first two issues for January and April 1930.

v1.c4.16

Sec. 38 p. 215 read ‘Manu’ for Bhṛgu’ in l. 11.

v1.c4.17

Sec. 39 pp. 221-223 *Aṅgiras.* In the 2nd Act of the Mālatīmādhava (p. 104 of Bhandarkar’s edition) we have a prose quotation from Aṅgiras ‘गीतश्चायमर्थोङ्गििरसा यस्यां मनश्चक्षुषोर्निबन्धस्तस्यामृद्धिरिति’. In the Āpastambagṛhya (I. 3. 19-21) this is cited without name as the view of some ‘बन्धुशीललक्षणसंपन्नामरोगामुपयच्छेत । बन्धुशीललक्षणसंपन्नः श्रुतवानरोग इति वरसंपत् । यस्यां मनश्चक्षुषोर्निबन्धस्तस्यामृद्धिर्नेतरदाद्रियेतेत्येके’. It is not likely that Bhavabhūti who was a great scholar would commit a mistake and it is extremely probable that he had a sūtra of Aṅgiras before him.

v1.c4.18

Sec. 44 pp. 226-227 *Pitāmaha.* Dr. Karl Scriba collected together from several *nibandhas* about 200 verses of Pitāmaha and published them with translation (Die Fragmente des Pitāmaha, Leipzig, 1902) on the eight constituents of karaṇa (i. e. the court of justice), fifty *chalas*, twenty-two wrongs (in which king acted *suo motu*), ordeals (162 verses) and the four kinds of ascetics.

v1.c4.19

Sec. 64 pp. 275-279 *Dhāreśvara Bhojadeva.* In the Madras Tri. Cat. of Sanskrit Mss. for 1919-1922 p. 4562 No 3078 there is a ms of Bhujabalanibandha by Bhojarāja in 18 chapters on astrological matters in relation to vratas, marriage &c.

v1.c4.20

In the Kṛtyaratnākara of Caṇḍeśvara quotations from a Kṛtyasamuccaya of Bhūpāla or Bhūpālasamuccaya are cited (at pp. 278, 289, 449, 461, 496 &c). It appears that this is entirely a different work from the Rājamārtāṇḍa and the Bhujabalabhīma.

v1.c4.21

Sec. 68. p. 285. l. 20 read ‘Misarumisra’ for ‘Harinātha’.

v1.c4.22

Sec. 71. pp. 294-296 *Kāmadhenu*. That Bhoja was not the author of the Kāmadhenu follows from the following words of the कृत्यरत्नाकर (p. 156) 'एतानि वाक्यानि अलवणतृतीयाव्रतबोधकवाक्यमध्ये भूपालकामधेनुकल्पतरुषु लिखितानि.' At p. 30 of the same work the कामधेनु is spoken of as equal in authority to the Rājā (राजतुल्ययोगक्षेम). These references show that the Kāmadhenu was not regarded by Caṇḍeśvara as the work of Bhūpāla (or Bhojadeva); other passages of the Kṛtyaratnākara where Gopāla, Kalpataru, and Bhūpāla are spoken of in the same breath indicate that Gopāla was as great an authority as the Kalpataru; and knowing as we do that Caṇḍeśvara looked upon Kāmadhenu, Kalpataru, Pārijāta, Prakāśa and Halāyudha as his best authorities, it follows that Gopāla was the author of the Kāmadhenu. Vide कृत्यरत्नाकर pp. 277, 443 (गोपालभूपालकल्पतरुपारिजातेषु तु).

v1.c4.23

Sec. 72 pp. 298-299 *Halāyudha*. There is a Ms. of a work called Paṇḍitasarvasva in the Madars Tri. cat. of Sanskrit mss. for 1919-22 p. 5165. In the manuscript itself there is no reference to the author or his parentage. It is a large work and deals with वर्णाश्रमाचार, दैवतिथिनिरूपण, उपवास, शौच, अशौच, श्राद्ध, ज्योतिःशास्त्र, विवाहादिसंस्कार, दान, प्रायश्चित्त, प्रतिष्ठा, स्त्रीधर्म, दिव्य, अभक्ष्यविचार, शुद्धि. From the style it seems more likely that it is not the work of Halāyudha.

v1.c4.24

In the Ekādaśītattva (Jivananda vol. II p. 51) and Śuddhitattva (Jivananda vol II p. 327) Halāyudha is said to be the author of Saṁvatsarapradīpa.

v1.c4.25

Sec. 73 pp. 301-306 *Bhavadevabhaṭṭa*.

v1.c4.26

There was another work of Bhavadevabhaṭṭa called Sambandha-viveka. This work is mentioned in the Saṁskāratattva (Jivananda vol I p. 890) and in the Vivāhatattva (vol. II p. 143).

v1.c4.27

Sec. 74 pp. 306-308 *Prakāśa*.

v1.c4.28

The Vivādaratnākara and other Ratnākaras of Caṇḍeśvara generally refer to Prakāśa only, but sometimes Caṇḍeśvara speaks of Smṛtimahārṇavaprakāśa e. g. on p. 326 of Kṛtyaratnākara we have 'जाबालमत्स्यपुराणवाक्यपरामर्शात्क्षिप्रामि-सकलपुत्रैः साग्निभिश्चेतरपुत्रैरेकोद्दिष्टं कार्यमिति स्मृतिमहार्णवप्रकाशकार इति

v1.c4.29

कल्पतरौ लिखितमन्यैश्चानुमोदितं तल्लघु. This also shows that Smṛtimahārṇavaprakāśa was a work referred to by the Kalpataru and so earlier than 1100 A. D.

v1.c4.30

Sec. 87 pp. 354-359 *Hemādri*. In the Marathi Quarterly of the Bhārata-itihāsa-saṁśodhaka-maṇḍala, vol. X part 2 p. 84, Mr. Y. K. Deshpande quotes from a work called Bhānuvijaya of the Mahānubhāva sect passages wherein Hemādri is charged with having been won over by Turks (Mahomedans) and with having brought about the imprisonment of Bhānubhaṭṭa alias Bhāskara Kaviśvara Vyāsa (a Mahānubhāva saint) ‘जरि करावा रणकन्दन । हेमाद्रि तुर्का लागले पण । दिल्लीश्वरें देवोनि धन । मंत्री या वश्य केला ॥ भानुगुणीं असाहणेपणें । अहिता प्रेरिलें दुर्जनें । तुर्का कांई असे आंगवणें । हेमाद्रियेची बंधाविलें ॥’.

v1.c4.31

But in the absence of other corroborative evidence hardly any reliance can be placed on this charge, as it might have been levelled at Hemādri in revenge for his imprisoning a leader of a dissenting sect like that of the Mahānubhāvas.

v1.c4.32

P. 359 In the Śivadigvijaya (printed at Baroda in śake 1817) at p. 442 Hemāḍapanta (Hemādri) is credited with having brought from Laṅkā (Ceylon) in śake 1193 (1271-2 A. D.) the ‘Piśācca lipi’ (Moḍī script).

v1.c4.33

P. 368 l. 16 Read ‘contemplate’ for ‘complete’.

v1.c4.34

P. 398 foot note 969 Read ‘अलभत सुनयं’ for ‘अलभत तनयं.’

Synopsis of Contents

v1.c5.1

Sec. 1 *Meaning of dharma* : ... pp. 1-4

v1.c5.2

Defies exact rendering in English - In the Ṛgveda, used as adjective or noun - means 'upholder or supporter' in some Ṛgvedic passages - in most Ṛgveda passages means 'religious ordinances or rites' and in rare cases 'fixed principles or rules of conduct' -- in Aitareya-brāhmaṇa dharma means 'whole body of religious duties-' in Chāndogya-Upaniṣad *dharma* means 'peculiar duties of āśramas-' *dharma* came to mean 'duties and privileges of a person as a member of the Āryan community, as member of one of the varṇas or as in a particular stage of life' - the same meaning in Taittirīya Upaniṣad (I. 11), Bhagavadgītā, Manusmṛti and other smṛtis - according to Medhātithi, dharma five-fold viz., varṇadharma, āśramadharma, varṇāśramadharma, naimittikadharma, guṇadharma - this meaning of dharma taken in this work - definitions of dharma according to Jaimini, Vaiśeṣikasūtra, Hārīta, Mahābhārata and Buddhist works - subjects treated in this work, viz. sources of dharma, contents of works on dharma, their chronology.

v1.c5.3

Sec. 2 *Sources of dharma* : ... pp. 4-7

v1.c5.4

According to Gautama, Āpastamba, Vasiṣṭha, Manu, Yājñavalkya -- principal sources were Veda, smṛtis and custom - Vedas do not contain positive precepts on dharma, but give information incidentally - examples from Vedic literature suggesting dharmaśāstra rules.

v1.c5.5

Sec. 3 *When dharmaśāstra works were first composed* ... pp. 8-10

v1.c5.6

It is difficult to say when composed - Nirukta (III. 4-5) exhibits controversies about inheritance and quotes a verse (śloka) from some work on dharma - Bühler's view about such verses -- Gautama and Baudhāyana speak of dharmaśāstra - Baudhāyana and Āpastamba mention numerous sages on *dharma* - Vārtika of Kātyāyana and Jaimini speak of dharmaśāstra - Patañjali on dharmasūtrakāras - dharmaśāstra works existed prior to Yāska or at least before 600 B. C. and in 2nd century B. C. dharmasūtras had become authoritative - method of dealing with the whole dharmaśāstra literature followed in this book, first dharmasūtras, then early metrical smṛtis like those of Manu and Yājñavalkya, later versified smṛtis, then commentaries and digests, such as the Mitākṣarā - chronology of early writers very difficult to settle - Max Müller's view that works in continuous śloka metre followed sūtra works not acceptable.

v1.c5.7

Sec. 4 Dharmasūtras :* ... pp. 10-12

v1.c5.8

Many of them formed part of the Kalpa and were studied in distinct sūtra-caraṇas - dharmasūtras of Āpastamba and Baudhāyana presuppose gṛhyasūtras of their *caraṇa* - no dharmasūtras extant corresponding to the śrauta and gṛhya sūtras of Āśvalāyana, Śāṅkhāyana and Mānava-Tantravārtika on what dharmasūtra was studied in what particular Vedic Śākhā - all dharmasūtras gradually became authoritative in all schools - close connection between gṛhyasūtras and dharmasūtras on certain topics - scope of dharmasūtras - gṛhyasūtras sometimes refer to dharmasūtras - points of distinction between dharmasūtras and the other smṛtis.

v1.c5.9

Sec. 5 Dharmasūtra of Gautama :* ... pp. 12-20

v1.c5.10

Gautama's is the oldest extant dharmasūtra - specially studied by followers of Sāmaveda - Gautama one of the nine subdivisions of the Rāṇāyanīya school of Sāmaveda - Gautamadharmasūtra points to close connection with Sāmaveda - Gautama refers to his own previous dicta - contents of 28 chapters of Gautamadharmasūtra - the work is entirely in prose - Gautama's language agrees more with Pāṇini's rules than Āpastamba's - explanation of this - Haradatta prefers Pāṇinian readings of Gautama's text - some sūtras of Gautama quoted in the Mitākṣarā and other works not found in extant text - extent of literature known to Gautama - the only author named is Manu - the meaning of 'ācāryāḥ' whose views are cited by Gautama - earliest reference to Gautama on dharma is in Baudhāyana-dharmasūtra - Baudhāyana (III. 10) borrows chap. 19 of Gautama - close correspondence between many other sūtras of Gautama and Baudhāyana - Vasiṣṭha (4. 34 and 36) refers to views of Gautama -Vasiṣṭha's 22nd chap. is borrowed from 19th of Gautama - many sūtras the same in Gautama and Vasiṣṭha - Gautama referred to by Manu as son of Utathya - Gautama referred to by Yājñavalkya, Bhaviṣyapurāṇa, Kumārila, Śaṁkarācārya, Medhātithi - Gautama's reference to *Yavana* - probable age between 600 - 400 B. C. - Haradatta and Maskarin commented on Gautama - Asahāya also did so - śloka - Gautama and Vṛddha - Gautama.

v1.c5.11

Sec. 6 *Baudhāyana-dharmasūtra* : ... pp. 20-32

v1.c5.12

Baudhāyana is a teacher of the Black Yajurveda - arrangement of Baudhāyana kalpa according to Dr. Burnell and Dr. Caland - Baudhāyanagṛhya presupposes the Baudhāyanadharmasūtra - gṛhya (III.9.6) speaks of pravacanakāra Kaṇva Bodhāyana and sūtrakāra Āpastamba - tarpaṇa in Baudhāyana-dharmasūtra (II. 5. 27) mentions Kaṇva Bodhāyana, Āpastamba and Hiraṇyakeśin - contents of Baudhāyana-dharmasūtra - extant sūtra has not come down intact - fourth praśna probably an interpolation - third praśna also not free from doubt - Baudhāyana III. 10 taken from Gautama - Baudhāyana III. 6 agrees closely with Viṣṇudharmasūtra 48 - Dr. Jolly thinks both borrowed from a common source - probably Viṣṇu borrows from Baudhāyana - repetitions exist even in the first two praśnas - form and structure of Baudhāyana - quotes numerous verses, even in the first two praśnas - language of Baudhāyana often departs from Pāṇinian standard - literature known to Baudhāyana - several authors on dharma together with their views mentioned by Baudhāyana - Asura Kapila said to be originator of āśramas- Śabara, Kumārila, Viśvarūpa and Medhātithi refer to Baudhāyana dharmasūtra - home of Baudhāyana - Baudhāyana is styled pravacanakāra and Āpastamba sūtrakāra - Bühler holds that Baudhāyana was a southern teacher - age of Baudhāyana dharmasūtra - later than Gautama - Bühler's reasons for placing Baudhāyana a century or two earlier than Āpastamba not convincing - divergences between Baudhāyana and Āpastamba - style of Baudhāyana compared with that of Āpastamba - Baudhāyana to be placed between 500-200 B. C. - numerous sūtras of Baudhāyana identical with those of Āpastamba and Vasiṣṭha - Baudhāyana mentions several appellations of Gaṇeśa, just as Mānavagṛhya does and mentions seven planets, Rāhu and Ketu - Govindasvāmin commented on Baudhāyana.

v1.c5.13

Sec. 7 *Dharmasūtra of Āpastamba*: ... pp. 32-46

v1.c5.14

The Āpastambakalpasūtra of the Black Yajurveda divided into 30 praśnas, dharmasūtra constituting 28th and 29th praśnas thereof - Āpastamba is one of the five subdivisions of the Khāṇḍikeya school of Taittirīyaśākhā - Āpastambagṛhya and dharma sūtras are compositions of same author - some sūtras of the two are identical - Āp. gṛhya does not treat of some topics as they are dealt with in dharma sūtra - contents of Āp. dharmasūtra - form and structure of Āp. dharmasūtra - Āp. is more archaic and un-Pāṇinian than any other dharmasūtra - many unfamiliar words in Āp. - several verses quoted in Āp. - literature known to Āp. - Āp. mentions six aṅgas of Veda and ten writers on dharma by name - Śvetaketu and Āp. - Hārīta quoted frequently by Āp. - Āp. controverts several views - striking coincidences between Gautama and Āp. - Āp. quotes a verse from Purāṇa and speaks of the view of Bhaviṣyatpurāṇa - Āpastamba and Manu - Āpastamba presupposes many rules of the Mīmāṁsā and agrees closely with Jaimini's sūtras - age of Āp. Dh. S. - quoted by Śabara, Kumārila, Śaṁkarācārya, Viśvarūpa and Medhātithi - home and personal history of Āpastamba not known - Āp. is later than Gautama and probably Baudhāyana - his age between 600-300 B. C. - Āp. condemns *niyoga*, rejects secondary sons, does not admit *paiśāca* and Prājāpatya forms of marriage - divergence between the views of Āp. and Gautama and other sūtrakāras - Haradatta's is the only commentary extant on Āp. - Āpastamba smṛti in verse.

v1.c5.15

Sec. 8. Hiraṇyakeśidharmasūtra :* ... pp. 46-50

v1.c5.16

Hiraṇyakeśidharmasūtra forms 26th and 27th *praśnas* of the Hiraṇyakeśikalpa-Hiraṇyakeśin's can be hardly called an independent work, as it borrows hundreds of sūtras word for word from Āp. - a few additions made to Āp. in Hiraṇyakeśi Dh. S. - Hiraṇyakeśin's readings are smoother and more classical than Āpastamba's - arrangement of sūtras also is somewhat different in the two - com. of Mahādeva called Ujjvalā on Hiraṇyakeśin is almost the same as Haradatta's on Āp. - Bühler thinks Mahādeva borrows from Haradatta - Mahādeva's com. in a few places contains more matter than Haradatta's and Mahādeva differs from Haradatta.

v1.c5.17

Sec. 9 Vasiṣṭha-dharmasūtra :* ... pp. 50-60

v1.c5.18

Different editions of Vasiṣṭha contain different numbers of chapters - Kumārila says it was specially studied by Ṛgvedins - explanation of this statement - nothing special in the Vasiṣṭhadharmasūtra to connect it with Ṛgveda - contents of the Vasiṣṭhadharmasūtra - style of Vas. Dh. S. resembles Gautama's - many sūtras of Vas. identical with Gautama and Baudhāyana - form of Vasiṣṭha dharmasūtra resembles Baudhāyana dharmasūtra - Medhātithi and Mitākṣarā quote from almost all chapters of extant Vasiṣṭha and so does Viśvarūpa - literature known to Vasiṣṭha - Vasiṣṭha prohibits learning language of Mlecchas - authors on dharmaśāstra named by Vasiṣṭha - Vasiṣṭha's references to the views of Manu are made with reference to a work of Manu almost identical with the present Manusmṛti and do not compel us to formulate the existence of a Mānava-dharmasūtra - Bühler wrong in taking Vas. Dh. S. 4. 8 as a quotation from Mānavadharmasūtra - Only Vas. Dh. S. 12.16 and 19. 37 where Manu is quoted have no corresponding verses in the present Manusmṛti - Over forty verses are entirely common to Vas. and present Manusmṛti - conclusion that Vas. contains borrowings from the present Manusmṛti or its prototype in verse - Vas. Dh. S. 22 is same as Gautama 19 - Dr. Jolly's view that Vas. Dh. S. 28.10-15 and 18-22 are borrowed from Viṣṇudharmasūtra chap. 56 and 87 or its original the Kāṭhakadharmasūtra is wrong - home of Vas. to the north of Narmadā, according to Bühler - this is mere speculation - earliest reference to Vasiṣṭha as a writer on dharma is in Manu (8-140) - age of Vasiṣṭha - Vasiṣṭha's views are ancient, praticularly about secondary sons, about Dattaka son, about niyoga and remarriage - he mentions only six forms of marriage - but in other matters differs from Gaut. or Baudh. viz. on adoption, on documents - Vas. Dh. S. between 300-100 B. C. - whether Vas. 18. 4 (Rāmaka v. l. Romaka) contains a reference to the Romans - Vṛddha-Vasiṣṭha, an early compilation - there is a Bṛhad Vasiṣṭha and a Jyotir Vasiṣṭha - Yajñasvāmin commented upon Vas. Dh. S.

v1.c5.19

Sec. 10 *Viṣṇudharmasūtra*: ... pp. 60-70

v1.c5.20

Viṣṇu Dh. S. contains 100 chapters and yet sūtra not extensive-several chap. (40, 42, 76) contain only one sūtra and one verse - first chap. and last two are entirely in verse, the rest in mixed prose and verse - Viṣṇu Dh. S. closely connected with Kaṭhaśākhā - Dr. Jolly says chap. 21, 67, 73 and 86 of Viṣṇu closely correspond with Kāṭhaka gṛhya - but Viṣṇu Dh. S. is not the work of the author of Kāṭhaka gṛhya - contents of Viṣṇu Dh. S. - Viṣṇu resembles Vas. Dh. S. - its peculiar feature that it professes to be revealed by God Viṣṇu - its style, easy and diffuse - work contains old and new material - hundreds of sūtras are prose renderings of hundreds of verses occurring in our Manu - hypothesis of a common origin or borrowing by both from a floating mass of verses untenable - extant Viṣṇudharmasūtra borrows from Manu - Viṣṇu contains verses identical with the Bhagavadgītā and Yājñavalkya smṛti - Dr. Jolly's view that Yājñavalkya borrows his anatomical section from Viṣṇu not correct - Viṣṇu Dh. S. contains long list of tīrthas, the word Jaiva for Jupiter - those wanting in Yājñavalkya - extant Viṣṇu Dh. S. later than Manusmṛti and Yājñavalkyasmṛti - Viśvarūpa does not quote a single sūtra of Viṣṇu by name, though he refers to Viṣṇu (ch. 97) for orders of saṁnyāsins - Mitākṣarā quotes hardly any verse from Viṣṇu - Aparārka and Smṛticandrikā quote Viṣṇu profusely-verses were added at a late date to original sūtra - literature known to Viṣṇu Dh. S. - Viṣṇu mentions the seven days of the week, recommends the practice of *satī*, speaks of pustakas, of many good and evil omens among which the sight of yellow-robed Buddhist ascetics is included - it prohibits speech with Mlecchas and journeys to Mleccha countries, it dilates on worship of Vāsudeva - though Viṣṇu agrees in some respects with Kāṭhaka-gṛhya, on some points it differs from it -- date of older kernel of Viṣṇu may be 300 to 100 B.C. - additions made after 3rd century A.D. and before 7th century - some sūtras agree closely with Nārada - Bṛhad Viṣṇu and Vṛddha Viṣṇu and Laghu Viṣṇu - Nandapaṇḍita's com. on the Viṣṇu Dh. S. - probably Bhāruci also commented on it.

v1.c5.21

Sec. 11 The dharmasūtra of Hārīta :* ... pp. 70-75

v1.c5.22

Baudhāyana, Āpastamba and Vasiṣṭha quote Hārīta as an authority - Mr. Islampurkar secured a ms. of Hārīta-dharmasūtra at Nasik in 30 chapters - contents of that ms. - its relation to Maitrāyaṇīyasaṁhitā - it mentions the Kaśmīrian word "Kaphella" -- quotations in commentaries and digests show that Hārīta dealt exhaustively with the same topics that are found in other dharmasūtras - Kumārila mentions Hārīta as dharmaśāstrakāra but does not assign him to any particular caraṇa as he does Āpastamba and others-notable doctrines of Hārīta - mentions worship of Gaṇeśa - Hārīta's verses on vyavahāra quoted in nibandhas are later than the sūtra - Laghu Hārīta and Vṛddha Hārīta - latter in verse is later than Yājñavalkya, Nārada and Kātyāyana.

v1.c5.23

Sec. 12 *The dharmasūtra of Śaṅkha-Likhita* : ... pp. 75-79

v1.c5.24

From Tantravārtika it appears that dharmasūtra of Śaṅkha-Likhita was studied by Vājasaneyins - Mahābhārata (Śānti 23) contains story of brothers Śaṅkha and Likhita - Various compilations ascribed to Śaṅkha alone or Likhita alone or to both - Restoration of Dharmasūtra in Annals of Bhandarkar Institute (vol. VII, VIII) - Verse Śaṅkhasmṛti stricter than prose Śaṅkha - Likhita - com. on dharmasūtra mentioned in Kalpataru and Vivādaratnākara - doctrines of dharmasūtra similar to those of other dharmasūtras - speaks of twelve secondary sons - allows *niyoga* - speaks of several ordeals - defines Āryāvarta as between Sindhu - Sauvīra and Kāmpilya - Literature known to Śaṅkha Likhita - probable age between 300-100 B. C.

v1.c5.25

Sec. 13 *Mānavadharmasūtra : Did it exist ?* ... pp. 79-85

v1.c5.26

MaxMüller and Weber responsible for the theory that the extant Manusmṛti was a recast of an ancient Mānavadharmasūtra now lost - hardly any data for the sweeping generalisation of Max-Müller that all genuine dharmaśāstras are nothing but more modern texts of earlier sūtra works on *kuladharma* - one main plank of this theory that the continuous employment of the śloka metre was unknown in the sūtra period is now exploded - Bühler supports Max Müller's theory by some additional arguments - Vasiṣṭha IV. 5-8 on which Bühler relies not properly understood by him - Vasiṣṭha (19-37) quotes a Mānava śloka which is not in the Anuṣṭubh metre and not found in extant Manu and Bühler thinks it is taken from Mānavadharmasūtra - Bühler's reliance on a fragment of Uśanas which is corrupt is not worth consideration - Bühler relies on Kāmandakīyanītisāra (II. 3. and XI. 67) where Mānavas are said to hold that there are three vidyās for a king and that Manu said that king's council should consist of 12 ministers - These views not the same in extant Manu- Bühler's conclusion not correct - Kāmandaka is only paraphrasing Kauṭilīya - Bühler's generalisation about Mānava or Mānavāḥ without foundation - Kumārila, Śaṅkara, and Viśvarūpa all employ 'Mānava' for Manusmṛti - Bühler relies on analogy of the complete set of Āpastamba and Baudhāyana sūtras for holding that a Mānavadharmasūtra existed - Proper explanation of Vas. Dh. S. IV. 5-8 - Bühler not right in saying that Vas. Dh. S. 11. 23, 12. 16, 23. 43 either contradict Manu or find no counterpart therein - analogy of Āpastamba sūtras of no use - excepting the three caraṇas of the Black Yajurveda, no caraṇa of any Veda has a dharmasūtra attributed to the founder of that caraṇa - an explanation suggested - existing materials not sufficient to establish theory that a Mānavadharmasūtra once existed.

v1.c5.27

Sec. 14 *Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya* : ... pp. 85-104

v1.c5.28.1

First translated by Dr. Shāma Sāstri and text published in 1909 - other editions - numerous works and articles inspired by the publication of Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra - Kauṭilīya is oldest extant work on Arthaśāstra - scope of arthaśāstra and relation to dharmaśāstra - arthaśāstra an upaveda of Atharvaveda - purpose of this śāstra - rule in case of conflict between Dharmaśāstra and Arthaśāstra - Cāṇakya, Kauṭilya and Viṣṇugupta are names of the same person - glowing tribute paid to Cāṇakya or Viṣṇugupta by Kāmandakīyanītisāra, Tantrākhyāyikā, Daṇḍin - Bāṇa and Pañcatantra on Kauṭilya as author of Arthaśāstra - Bṛhatkathā of Guṇāḍhya contained his story - Mudrārākṣasa connects his name with Kuṭila - controversy as to whether Kauṭilīya can be the work of a busy minister of Candragupta Maurya - Jolly, Winternitz and Keith hold that extant work is not by the minister of Candragupta - Megasthenes' silence about Cāṇakya explained - whether the Kauṭilīya is the product of a school or of an individual author - Kauṭilya's views cited about 70 times in the work in the third person - explanation of this - Dr. Jolly wrong in his explanation of *apadeśa* (in XV.

v1.c5.28.2

1) - Keith thinks that an author would not parade an uncomplimentary epithet like Kauṭilya (derived from kuṭila) - Is the name Kauṭilya or Kauṭalya - works on gotra and pravara give various forms such as Kauṭali, Kauṭilya and Kauṭili - form, style and contents of the Kauṭilīya - a few verses interspersed in the work, generally at the end - in all 340 verses excluding *mantras* - some verses are certainly quotations - work abounds in numerous technical and rare words - deviations from Pāṇini - summary of contents - section on judicial administration interesting - greatest correspondence between Kauṭilīya and Yājñavalkya - some striking examples - it is Yājñavalkya that borrows - reasons - Yājñavalkya represents a far too advanced stage of juristic principles than Kauṭilya - close agreement between Manu smṛti and Kauṭilya also - but they differ on *niyoga*, as to nomenclature of vyavahārapadas, about heirship of mother and paternal grandmother, on remarriage of widows, divorce, gambling - Kauṭilīya long anterior to the extant Manusmṛti - Kauṭilya's five references to Mānavas explained - references to Svāyambhuva and Prācetasa Manu contained in the Mahābhārata suggest that there were two works in verse on dharma and politics attributed to these or perhaps one work containing both, subsequently recast as the extant Manusmṛti - only two views ascribed to Mānavas in Kauṭilīya not found in extant Manusmṛti - in the dharmasthīya section the only other authors or schools cited are Bārhaspatyas and Auśanasas - none of the dharmasūtras of Gautama and others are anywhere quoted by name - views cited on the question as to whom a child belongs (to the begetter or to him on whose wife it is begotten) can be traced to Baudhāyana, Gautama and Vasiṣṭha - views of Ācāryas cited in the Kauṭilīya - Kauṭilīya later than Gautama and Āpastamba but earlier than extant Manusmṛti - date of Kauṭilīya - it is certainly not later than 2nd century A.

v1.c5.28.3

D. and not earlier than 325 B. C. - schools named by Kauṭilya and also individual authors - views of Ācāryas are quoted over fifty times and Kauṭilya differs in each case - meaning of 'ācāryas' - literature known to Kauṭilya - Sanskrit official language and the work mentions guṇas of composition - Kauṭilīya agrees with Kāmasūtra in several respects - Dr. Jolly and Prof. Keith opine that both works composed about same time - points of difference between the two works - countries and peoples mentioned by Kauṭilya -- silks from Cīna and blankets from Nepal - corporations of Licchavis, Vṛjikas and others mentioned - meaning of ‘rājaśabdopajīvinaḥ’ (in XI-I) - best breeds of horses - Mlecchas sold or pledged children - references to Buddhists and Ājīvakas - weights to be made from stones of Magadha and Mekala - doubtful whether Kauṭilya knew extant text of Mahābhārata - most of the stories cited as illustrations by Kauṭilya occur in the Mahābhārata, but some divergence exists in the case of Janamejaya, Māṇḍavya - Kauṭilya's knowledge of drugs and of rasa (mercury) - references to shrines of Śiva, Skanda &c. - traditional date of 300 B. C. more likely to be correct than 3rd century A. D. approved of by Dr. Jolly and Winternitz - two commentaries on Kauṭilīya, Nayacandrikā of Mādhavayajvan and Pratipadapañcikā of Bhaṭṭasvāmin - sūtras attributed to Cāṇakya - several nīti collections in verse ascribed to Cāṇakya are later than Kauṭilīya.

v1.c5.29

Sec. 15 Vaikhānayadharmasūtra* : ... pp. 105-107

v1.c5.30

Vaikhānasa is one of the six sūtra caraṇas of the black Yajurveda mentioned by Mahādeva in his Vaijayantī on Satyāṣāḍha śrautasūtra - Vaikhānasa occurs in Gautama, Baudhāyana, Vasiṣṭha (9. 10) and Manu (6. 21) - Vaikhānasadharmapraśna divided into three praśnas - contents of the work - its age later than Gautama and Baudhāyana - names more mixed castes than even some of the verse smṛtis - devotion to Nārāyaṇa looms very large in the work - Dr. Caland's view that Manusmṛti borrows from Vaikhānasagṛhya not correct.

v1.c5.31

Sec. 16 Atri* : ... pp. 107-110

v1.c5.32

Atri named in Manu (III. 16) - Ātreyadharmaśāstra in nine adhyāyas - summary of contents - form of Atradharmaśāstra - several works styled Atri-smṛti - summary of Atrisaṁhitā printed by Jīvānanda - Atri quoted as an authority on adoption - Laghu Atri and Vṛddhātreyasmṛti - Mahābhārata (Anuśāsana 65. 1) quotes a verse of Atri.

v1.c5.33

Sec. 17 Uśanas* : ... pp. 110-116

v1.c5.34

Uśanas wrote on politics, as Kauṭilīya shows - Mahābhārata (Śānti 56. 29-30) refers to work of Uśanas on politics - Nītiprakāśikā on Śukra as arranger of rājaśāstra - An Auśanasa dharmaśāstra in verse - contents - peculiar views of Uśanas about offspring of intercaste marriages - several verses common to Uśanas and Manu - names the views of numerous writers on dharma - Haradatta and Smṛticandrikā knew a work of Uśanas dealing with all branches of dharma - Uśanas smṛti in verse - verses of Uśanas on vyavahāra - Śukranītisāra edited by Oppert.

v1.c5.35

Sec. 18 Kaṇva and Kāṇva* : ... pp. 116-117

v1.c5.36

Āp. Dh. S. (I. 6. 19) shows that Kaṇva and Kāṇva were two distinct authors - verses of Kaṇva quoted in Smṛticandrikā.

v1.c5.37

Sec. 19 *Kaśyapa and Kāśyapa* : ... pp. 117-118

v1.c5.38

Baudhāyana (Dh. S. I. 11.20) cites a verse in which Kaśyapa's view is contained - there was a dharmasūtra of Kāśyapa - a Kāśyapa smṛti in prose contained in Deccan College Mss. - contents thereof - Smṛticandrikā includes Kāśyapa among 18 upasmṛtis.

v1.c5.39

Sec. 20 *Gārgya* : ... p. 119

v1.c5.40

A sūtra work of Gārgya on dharma existed - Gārgya and Vṛddha Gārgya - a Gārgīsaṁhitā on astronomy and astrology - Jyotir Gārgya and Bṛhad Gārgya.

v1.c5.41

Sec. 21 *Cyavana* : p. 119

v1.c5.42

Seems to have written a sūtra work on dharma.

v1.c5.43

Sec. 22 *Jātūkarṇya* : ... pp. 119-120

v1.c5.44

A verse of Vṛddha Yājñavalkya names Jātūkarṇya as a dharma śāstrakāra - quotations in verse in Mitākṣarā and later works.

v1.c5.45

Sec. 23 *Devala* : ... p. 120

v1.c5.46

A dharmasūtra of Devala existed once - Mitākṣarā and other works also contain quotations in verse on ācāra, vyavahāra, srāddha - this latter a later compilation - Devalasmṛti in 90 verses on purifications is also a late work - jurist Devala flourished about the same time as Bṛhaspati and Kātyāyana.

v1.c5.47

Sec. 24 *Paiṭhīnasi* : ... pp. 121-122

v1.c5.48

An ancient sūtrakāra, as Viśvarūpa quotes his sūtras - Dr. Jolly thinks he belongs to Atharvaveda - Paiṭhīnasi on *satī*, inheritance, on absence of untouchability under certain circumstances.

v1.c5.49

Sec. 25 *Budha* : ... p. 123

v1.c5.50

A sūtrakāra cited by Hemādri, Aparārka, Kalpataru and Jīmūtavāhana - a brief compilation and not very early in age.

v1.c5.51

Sec. 26 *Bṛhaspati* : ... pp. 123-126

v1.c5.52

An ancient teacher of arthaśāstra mentioned in Kauṭilīya - Mahābhārata (Śānti 59. 80-85) credits him with compression of vast work of Brahmā on *trivarga* and mentions several of his views - Kāmasūtra speaks of Bṛhaspati as writer on *artha* - peculiar views of Bṛhaspati according to Kauṭiliya - Bṛhaspati also wrote a prose work on vyavahāra and prāyaścitta - probably the authors of the two are different - 700 verses on vyavahāra ascribed to Bṛhaspati are quoted in the Mitākṣarā - this is an independent work composed between 300-500 A. D. - smaller compilations in verse ascribed to Bṛhaspati - Bārhaspatya Arthaśāstra edited by Dr. Thomas is a late work.

v1.c5.53

Sec. 27 Bharadvāja and Bhāradvāja :* ... pp. 126-128

v1.c5.54

A śrautasūtra and gṛhya of Bhāradvāja exist - Viśvarūpa's work establishes existence of a sūtra work on dharma of Bharadvāja - there was smṛti in verse also attributed to Bhāradvāja - Kauṭilīya shows that Bhāradvāja was an ancient author on politics - some views of Bhāradvāja - Mahābhārata on Bhāradvāja - verses on vyavahāra attributed to Bhāradvāja - this probably different from work on politics.

v1.c5.55

Sec. 28 Śātātapa :* ... pp. 128-129

v1.c5.56

A sūtra work of Śātātapa on dharma dealing with prāyaścitta, śrāddha and ācāra must have existed - verses of Śātātapa quoted in Mitākṣarā and other later works - this is probably different from smṛti work - several verse compilations ascribed to Śātātapa - Vṛddha Śātātapa and Bṛhat Śātātapa.

v1.c5.57

Sec. 29 Sumantu :* ... pp. 129-131

v1.c5.58

A sūtra work on ācāra and prāyaścitta ascribed to Sumantu existed - Yājñavalkya and Parāśara do not enumerate Sumantu among expounders of dharma - Sumantu mentioned in Mahābhārata and Bhāgavata - verses from Sumantu on dharma are cited by Aparārka - this is a different work - numerous verses on vyavahāra quoted from Sumantu in Sarasvatīvilāsa.

v1.c5.59

Sec. 30 The Smṛtis :* ... pp. 131-135

v1.c5.60

Two senses of the word smṛti, viz. all orthodox ancient non-Vedic works (such as Pāṇini's grammar, Śrauta sūtras, Mahābhārata Manu, &c.) and (a narrower sense) dharmaśāstra - smṛti, a source of dharma according to Gautama and others - number of smṛtis went on increasing - Yājñavalkya enumerates twenty writers of smṛtis, Parāśara 19 - Tantravārtika speaks of 18 dharmasaṁhitās - Caturviṁśatimata gives views of 24 writers - a smṛti called Ṣaṭ-triṁśan-mata - Paiṭhīnasi enumerates 36 and so does Aparārka - Vṛddha Gautama enumerates 57 - Vīramitrodaya enumerates 18 smṛtis, 18 upasmṛtis and 21 more- total number of smṛtis about 100 - these are products of widely separated ages - some entirely in prose, some entirely in verse, some are mixed - chronology of smṛtis presents perplexing problems - two or three smṛtis go under the same name, e. g. Hārīta, Atri, Śātātapa - sectarian zealots fabricate certain smṛtis - the prefixes laghu, bṛhat and vṛddha applied to smṛtis - well-known verses are ascribed to different authors, as authors quote from memory.

v1.c5.61

*Sec. 31 The Manusmṛti:* ... pp. 135-158

v1.c5.62

Numerous editions - Manu as the father of mankind in the Ṛgveda and other Vedas - Manu and the deluge in Śatapatha-brāh-maṇa - Manu in the Nirukta - Manu quoted as law-giver in Gautama, Āpastamba and Mahābhārata - introduction to Nāradasmṛti and Manu - how the Manusmṛti is narrated - four versions of Svāyaṁ-bhuva śāstra according to Bhaviṣyapurāṇa - almost impossible to say who composed extant Manusmṛti - Bühler’s theory that our Manu is a recast of Mānavadharmasūtra shown above to be unsustainable - the Mānavagṛhya differs from Manusmṛti in several particulars - Vināyakaśānti of Mānavagṛhya and tests for selecting a bride not contained in our Manu - Mahābhārata distinguishes between Svāya-mbhuva Manu and Prācetasa Manu, former promulgating dharma-śāstra - these two works combined in the present Manu - extant Manu has 12 chapters and 2694 verses - its style - contents of Manu-smṛti - extent of literature known to Manusmṛti - the author of the Manusmṛti is not the first legislator - age of Manusmṛti - external evidence it: Medhātithi’s is first extant commentary - Viśvarūpa quotes 230 verses - Śaṅkara, Kumārila and Śabara refer to Manu - Bṛhaspati had the present text of Manu before him - Aśvaghoṣa in his Vajrasūcī quotes several verses from ‘Mānavadharma’ some of which are found in our Manu - Rāmāyaṇa (Kiṣkindhā 18. 30-32) contains Manu VIII. 318 and 316 - Manu attained present form long before 2nd century A. D. - there are earlier and later strata in Manu - contradictory statements as to Brāhmaṇa marrying a śūdra woman, about appropriate forms of marriage, about niyoga, about flesh-eating - Bühler's conclusion is that cosomological and philosophical portions in 1st and 12th books, rules about mixed castes and duties of castes in 10th book are later additions - all additions made before 3rd century A. D.- Manusmṛti has not suffered several recasts - quotations cited as Vṛddha Manu and Bṛhan-Manu are later than Manusmṛti - extant Manu older than Yājñavalkya - Manu mentions Yavanas, Kāmbojas, Śakas, Pahlavas and Cīnas - extant Manusmṛti composed between 2nd century B. C. and 2nd century A. D. - relation of Mahābhārata and Manu - conflict of views between Mandlik, Hopkins and Bühler - Hopkins holds that there was a mass of floating verses ascribed to mythical Manu on which both Manusmṛti and Mahābhārata drew - Bühler says that the floating mass of verses was not all attributed to Manu - Manu mentions stories and names that occur in the Mahābhārata but these names go into Vedic antiquities - Manu never names the Mahābhārata, while the latter often refers to 'rājadharmas or śāstra of Manu' or to 'what Manu said' - Both Hopkins and Bühler hold that the Anuśāsanaparva and Śāntiparva knew a Manusmṛti, but earlier books, whenever they speak of Manu, refer to floating mass of popular verses - this conclusion not correct - final conclusion, viz., long before 4th century B. C. there was a dharmaśāstra in verse attributed to Svāyambhuva Manu, there was another work on rājadharma attributed to Prācetasa Manu, that probably there was one work, then between 200 B. C. and 200 A. D. Manusmṛti was recast - extant Mahābhārata later than extant Manusmṛti - influence of Manu spread to Cambodia and others countries beyond India- Manu had several commentators, Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Kullūka, Nārāyaṇa, Rāghavānanda, Nandana and Rāmacandra - Asahāya commented on Manu - Udayakara is another commentator and so is Dharaṇīdhara - Nārāyaṇa flourished between 1100-1300 A. D. - Rāghavānanda later than 1400 A. D. - Vṛddha-Manu and Bṛhan-Manu - explanation as to how these originate.

First 187 of 11,187 passages. Read on

Linked texts (117)