History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s10.15

v1.c6.s10.15

As Yājñavalkya enumerates Viṣṇu among the propounders of dharmaśāstras, it follows that a work of Viṣṇu existed in comparatively early times. What matters that work embraced it is difficult to say. It probably contained the topics found in the works of Gautama, Āpastamba and others. It may have included portions borrowed from the Kāṭhakagṛhya. When Dr. Jolly says that certain chapters of Viṣṇu agree closely with the Kāṭhakagṛhya, all that is meant is that some of the sūtras of Viṣṇu are the same or almost the same as those of the Kāṭhakagṛhya (e. g. compare Viṣṇu 21, 73 and 86 with Kāṭhakagṛhya V. 12, V. 9, and V. 3 respectively). But in all these places Viṣṇu contains more details than the Kāṭhakagṛhya. It may however be noted that in a few cases the views of the Kāṭhakagṛhya differ from those of Viṣṇu. For example, Viṣṇu (30. 1) speaks of Vedic studies for 4½ months only in the year when once they are started on the full-moon day of Śrāvaṇa or Bhādrapada, while the Kāṭhakagṛhya (I. 9. 10) gives three alternatives, viz. 4½, 5 or 5½ months; Viṣṇu prescribes that the proper year for the upanayana of a kṣatriya is the 11th from conception (27. 16), while the Kāṭhaka prescribes the 9th, without specifying whether it is from conception or birth (IV. 1. 2); Viṣṇu enumerates eight forms of marriage (24. 18), while the Kāṭhaka (II. 3 and 4) speaks of only two, Brāhma and Āsura, and is silent about the rest; Viṣṇu (46. 19-20) defines Sāntapana and Mahāsāntapana differently from the Kāṭhaka (I. 7. 3-4), but agrees with Yājñavalkya (III. 315-316). Here the recent Lahore edition of the Kāṭhakagṛhya by Dr. Caland has been used. As it used Kāṭhaka *mantras* and borrowed from the Kāṭhakagṛhya, the dharmasūtra may have been a text-book of the Kāṭhaka school and probably originated in Kashmir and Punjab which is the home of the Kaṭhas. The date of the older portion of Viṣṇu may be placed between 300 B.C. to 100 B.C. But this is no more than a mere conjecture. It is to be noted that Kumārila does not mention the Viṣṇudharmasūtra among the sūtras studied by particular schools. Then several centuries later on the whole of the sūtra was recast from the Vaiṣṇavite point of view and received large additions both in prose and verse. When these additions were made we have no exact means of determining. It is probable that they were not made very long before Viśvarūpa. At all events the additions were made long after the Yājñavalkyasmṛti and after the 3rd century. The mention of the week days makes the sūtra comparatively a late work. The earliest epigraphic mention of a week day is in the Eran inscription of 484 A. D. (vide Fleet's Gupta inscriptions pp. 88-89) and Varāhamihira (6th century) knew the week days well. The Brahmapurāṇa (28. 55) mentions Sunday and the Padmapurāṇa mentions Thursday (Brahmakhaṇḍa chap. 11. 34). The Sūrya-siddhānta (XII. 6 and 78) speaks of the lords of days. Thus although the extant Viṣṇu-dharmasūtra is a late recast, it contains a few doctrines that were held in ancient times. For example it allows a Brāhmaṇa to marry a girl of anyone of the four castes (24. 1) and does not inveigh against *niyoga* as Manu does.