History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s10.4
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s10.4
- Language
- English
v1.c6.s10.4.1
In determining the age of the Viṣṇudharmasūtra one is confronted with a difficult problem. Some of the chapters undoubtedly contain material which is comparatively old and on a level with the ancient Dharmasūtras of Gautama and Āpastamba. Such are the chapters about rājadharma and punishments (3 and 5), the rules about twelve sons and the mixed castes (15-16), funeral rites and mourning (21 and 22). But there are very large portions of the work that bear a clear impress of a later date. The Viṣṇudharmasūtra and the Manusmṛti have at least 160 identical verses. But this is not all. There are hundreds of sūtras which are merely the prose equivalents of verses from the Manusmṛti. For example, Viṣṇu 2. 3 and Manu 2. 16, Viṣṇu 3. 4 and 6 and Manu 7. 69-70, Viṣṇu 3. 7-10 and Manu 7. 115, Viṣṇu 3. 11-15 and Manu 7. 116-117, Viṣṇu 4. 1-13 and Manu 8. 132-137, Viṣṇu 5. 4-7, and Manu 9. 237, Viṣṇu 20. 1-21, and Manu I. 67-73, Viṣṇu 51. 7-10 and Manu 4. 209-212, Viṣṇu 59. 21-25 and Manu 3. 70, Viṣṇu 62. 224 and Manu 2. 59, Viṣṇu 71. 48-52 and Manu 4. 80, and Viṣṇu 96. 14-17 and Manu 6. 46 agree almost word for word. The verses that are identical in both are found in all the chapters of the Manusmṛti from the second to the last, the largest number (about 47) occurring in the 5th and chapters eleven, two, and three respectively contributing 25, 24, and 19 verses.
v1.c6.s10.4.2
Therefore the question whether the extant Viṣṇudharmasūtra borrows from Manu or *vice versa* or whether both borrow from a common original assumes very great importance. As the correspondence extends over several hundred verses of the Manusmṛti, the last hypothesis of borrowing from a common original does not recommend itself to me. No such common source is known to have existed and to say that there were hundreds of floating popular verses whose authorship was unknown and which were drawn upon by both works appears to me to be an extremely gratuitous and unsatisfactory assumption. In my opinion it is the extant Viṣṇudharmasūtra that borrowed the verses *ad hoc* or adapted them from the Manusmṛti. There are several lines of reasoning that strengthen this hypothesis. There are some verses that are identical in both, in which the name of Manu occurs, which the Viṣṇudharmasūtra omits by making slight verbal changes. For example, Viṣṇu 23. 50 substitutes 'tat parikīrtitam' for 'Manur-abravīt' in Manu 5. 131 and Viṣṇu 51. 64 reads 'nānyatreti kathaṁcana' for Manu 5. 41 'nānyatretyabravīn-Manuḥ' (this last occurs in Vas. 4. 6). The reason for these changes is obvious. The Viṣṇu-dharmasūtra professes to be a direct revelation from Viṣṇu and it is in keeping with this assumed role that not one human author is mentioned by name in the sūtra. Therefore where the name of Manu occurred in any verse, it was purposely omitted.
v1.c6.s10.4.3
Another reason why the sūtra must be presumed to be the borrower is the character of the extant work itself. It is a kind of hotchpotch and contains verses that are identical with those of other works. For example, several verses of the Bhagavadgītā occur in the Viṣṇudharmasūtra. Viṣṇu 20, 48-49 and 51-52 are the same as Gītā 2. 13. 23, 24, 28; Viṣṇu 72. 7 and Gītā 13. 14-18 are almost identical. Viṣṇu 96. 97 and the first half of 98 are the same as Gītā 13. 1-2, except that in keeping with its character of a revelation to the Earth, the Viṣṇudharmasūtra substitutes 'vasudhe' for 'kaunteya' and 'bhāvinī' for 'bhārata.' Several verses of the Yājñavalkya-smṛti are identical with those of the Viṣṇudharmasūtra. For example, Viṣṇu 6. 41 and Yāj. 2. 53, Viṣṇu 8. 38 and Yāj. II. 79, Viṣṇu 9. 33 and Yāj. 2. 97, Viṣṇu 17. 17 and Yāj. 2. 138, Viṣṇu 17. 23 (first half) and Yāj. 2. 210 (latter half), Viṣṇu 62. 9 and Yāj. I. 21, Vi. 63. 51 and Yāj. I. 117 are identical. Besides these there are hundreds of prose sūtras that are identical with passages of Yājñavalkya. For example, Vi. 3. 72-74 = Yāj. II. 1-4; Vi. 3. 82 = Yāj. I. 318-320 (rules about land grants); Vi. 5. 65-69 = Yāj. II. 217-220, Vi. 5. 73 = Yāj. II. 221; Vi. 45. 3-12 = Yāj. 3. 209-211 (about diseases suffered by sinners); Vi. 60. 24 = Yāj. I. 17; Vi. 96. 55-79 = Yāj. 3. 84-90 (about 360 bones of the body); Vi. 96. 80-88 = Yāj. 3. 100-102 (about the number of arteries, veins, muscles etc.); Vi. 96. 89-92 = Yāj. 3. 93-99. Dr.
v1.c6.s10.4.4
Jolly thinks that Yājñavalkya borrows from Viṣṇu the whole of the anatomical section (vide S. B. E. vol. VII, p. XX). With great respect I differ from this opinion. There is nothing to show that the anatomical details were first given to the world by Viṣṇu. They must have first been embodied in works on medicine such as those of Caraka and Suśruta¹¹¹ and were probably copied by Dharmasūtra writers. But if there is any borrowing between Viṣṇu and Yājñavalkya I think from the character of the Viṣṇudharmasūtra that it is the sūtra that must be regarded as borrowing from Yājñavalkya. There are several matters in the extant Viṣṇudharmasūtra which are wanting in Yājñavalkya and which induce one to place the extant sūtra later than Yājñavalkya, viz. the name ‘Jaiva’ for Thursday (Vi. 78. 5), the long list of tīrthas (Vi. chap. 85) which include Śrīparvata and the five rivers of the south called southern Pañcanada, the importance of the conjunction of the moon and Jupiter on a full moon day (Vi. 49. 9-10), the vague definition of Āryāvarta¹¹² (Vi. 84. 4). The verse in Viṣṇu 54. 33 (about half prāyaścitta for boys and old men) is ascribed to Aṅgiras by the Mitākṣarā (on Yāj. III. 243).