Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s21: 34. The Yājñavalkyasmṛti

History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s21

Language
English

Contents

34. The Yājñavalkyasmṛti

v1.c6.s21.1

This Smṛti has been published dozens of times. In the following the Nirṇayasāgara edition edited by Śāstri Moghe (1892 A. D.) has been used and the Trivandrum edition when speaking of Viśvarūpa.

v1.c6.s21.2

The name of Yājñavalkya is one of the most illustrious among Vedic sages. He is credited with having promulgated the White Yajurveda. In the Śāntiparva (chap. 312) we are told that there was a rupture between Vaiśampāyana and his pupil Yājñavalkya and that by worshipping the Sun the latter received the revelation of the White Yajurveda, the Śatapatha &c. The accounts in the Viṣṇu (3. 5), the Bhāgavata (XII. 6. 61-74) and other purāṇas differ somewhat from the one in the Mahābhārata, but all agree on the fact of the strained relations between Yājñavalkya and his teacher. The Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa in several places alludes to the dialogues of Yājñavalkya and king Janaka of Videha on agnihotra (S. B. E. vol. 44 p. 46). Vide Śatapatha (ed. by Weber) XI. 6. 2. At the end of the Śatapatha we are told that Vājasaneya Yājñavalkya promulgated the bright Yajus formulæ from the Sun.³⁰⁶ In the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad Yājñavalkya appears as a great philosopher teaching the recondite doctrines of Brahma and immortality to one of his two wives, the philosophically minded Maitreyī (II. 4 and IV. 5). In the same Upaniṣad Yājñavalkya is represented as carrying away the one thousand cows set apart by Janaka for the most learned Brāhmaṇa (III. 1. 1-2) and Yājñavalkya is said to have imparted to Janaka the knowledge of the destiny of the soul after it is released from the bonds of flesh and worldly affections. Kātyāyana in his Vārtika on Pāṇini (IV. 3. 105)³⁰⁷ speaks of the Brāhmaṇas of Yājñavalkya and very heated controversies have raged round the correct interpretation of the Vārtika and the Mahābhāṣya thereon (*vide* Max Müller's Ancient Sanskrit Literature p. 360, Goldstücker's Pāṇini, p. 132 ff and S. B. E. vol. 12 pp. xxxv-xxxviii). It is to be noted that in the Yājñavalkyasmṛti itself³⁰⁸ (III. 110) the author, whoever he may be, claims the authorship of the Āraṇyaka that he received from the Sun and the Yogaśāstra composed by him. This is simply put in to glorify the Yājñavalkya-smṛti as the work of a great and ancient sage, philosopher and yogin. From the style and the doctrines of the smṛti it is impossible to believe that it was the work of the same hand that gave to the world the Upaniṣad containing the boldest philosophical speculation couched in the simplest yet the most effective language. Even orthodox Indian opinion was not prepared to admit the unity of authorship in the case of the smṛti and the Āraṇyaka. The Mitākṣarā says at the beginning that a certain pupil of Yāj. abridged the dharmaśāstra in the form of a dialogue.³⁰⁹ It will be shown later on that, though the sage who promulgated the Āraṇyaka and the author of the smṛti cannot be identical, yet the Yājñavalkya-smṛti is much more closely connected with the White Yajurveda and the literature particularly belonging to it than with any other Veda.

v1.c6.s21.3

³⁰⁶ आदित्यानीमानि शुक्लानि यजूंषि वाजसनेयेन याज्ञवल्क्येनाख्यायन्ते । शतपथ XIV. 9. 4. 33.

v1.c6.s21.4

³⁰⁷ पुराणप्रोक्तेषु ब्राह्मणकल्पेषु । पा. III. 3. 105.

v1.c6.s21.5

³⁰⁸ ज्ञेयं चारण्यकमहं यदादित्यादवाप्तवान् । योगशास्त्रं च मन्प्रोक्तं ज्ञेयं योगमभीप्सता । याज्ञ. III. 110.

v1.c6.s21.6

³⁰⁹ याज्ञवल्क्यशिष्यः कश्चित्प्रश्नोत्तररूपं याज्ञवल्क्यप्रणीतं धर्मशास्त्रं संक्षिप्य कथयामास ।

v1.c6.s21.7

The Yājñavalkyasmṛti contains (in the Nirṇayasāgara ed. of 1892) 1010 verses, while the Trivandrum edition with the commentary of Viśvarūpa contains 1003 verses and Aparārka gives 1006 (Ānandāśrama edition). The difference in the number is mostly due to the fact that Viśvarūpa in the first section on ācāra omits five verses that occur in the Mitākṣarā.³¹⁰ As regards one of them (the verse 'rathyākardamatoyāni' I. 197 according to the Mit.) Viśvarūpa notices it and says that some read it after the verse "mukhajā vipruṣā" and that it adds nothing to what precedes. Aparārka explains that verse. In the second section on vyavahāra Viśvarūpa reads verses³¹¹ which do not exist in the Mitākṣarā nor in Aparārka. On the other hand Viśvarūpa seems to doubt the authenticity of the well-known verse on re-union and reads it also differently³¹² (anyodaryasya saṁsṛṣṭī). Not only this but in some cases the arrangement of verses is not the same in both Viśvārūpa and the Mit. For example, verses 14-29 of the prāyaścitta section present very different sequences in both. What is verse 29 in the Trivandrum edition is verse 19 in the Mit. Besides the Mit. reads one verse (III. 23 ā dantajanmanaḥ &c.) which is wanting in Viśvarūpa and is also not commented upon by Aparārka. Viśvarūpa adds two half verses,³¹³ which do not occur in the Mit. and Aparārka. There is further a good deal of variance in the readings adopted by Viśvarūpa and the Mit., though the meaning is not often affected. For example, the two verses enumerating the names of writers on dharma are differently worded in both.³¹⁴ But Medhātithi favours the reading of Viśvarūpa.³¹⁵ Viśvarūpa reads "asvattaṁ lokavidviṣṭam" (I. 155) and notices a reading "asvantam", while the Mit. reads "asvargyam loka·&c.". Both the Mit. and Aparārka read "pitā pitāmaho bhrātā &c." (I. 63), while Viśvarūpa reads "pitā mātāmaho bhrātā", remarks that "mātāmaha" is put in earlier as a guardian for marriage for metrical reasons and then notices "pitā pitāmaho bhrātā" as a various reading. Even in the days of Viśvarūpa there were various readings in Yāj. (*Vide* com. on I. 1, 2, 51, II. 119, 179 etc.).

v1.c6.s21.8

³¹⁰ Viz. the verses आज्ञासंपादिनीं (I. 76), रथ्याकर्दमतोयानि (I. 197), यावद्धस्तस्य पादौ (I. 207), two half verses तथाच्छादनदानं च (I. 232) and अपहृता इति तिलान् (I. 234), दध्यन्नं (I. 289).

v1.c6.s21.9

³¹¹ For example, the verse आगमेन विशुद्धेन भोगो याति प्रमाणताम् । अविशुद्धागमो भोगः प्रामाण्यं नाधिगच्छति । (Tri. ed. II. 29) and कुलानि जातयः श्रेण्यो गणान् जनपदानपि । स्वधर्माच्चलितान् राजा विनीय स्थापयेत्पथि ॥ (Tri. ed. II. 34) do not occur in the Mit. The first is नारद (ऋणादान 85) and also occurs in the अग्निपुराण 253. 56-57.

v1.c6.s21.10

³¹² अत्रापरे पूर्वश्लोकविवरणस्थानीयमिमं श्लोकं पठन्ति अन्योदर्यस्य संसृष्टी &c. (II. 143).

v1.c6.s21.11

³¹³ The two half verses are ब्राह्मणस्य दशाहं तु भवति प्रेतसूतकम् । (19 a) and प्रायानाशकशस्त्राग्निविषायैरिच्छतां स्वयं (24 b) in Tri. ed.

v1.c6.s21.12

³¹⁴ Vide note 258 above.

v1.c6.s21.13

³¹⁵ अतः स्मर्तृपरिगणना मनुर्विष्णुर्यमोङ्गिरा इति निर्मूला तथा हि पैठीनसि-बौधायन-प्रचेतःप्रभृतयः शिष्टैरेवंरूपाः स्मर्यन्ते । न च परिगणनायामन्तर्भाविताः । मेधा० on मनु II. 6.

v1.c6.s21.14.1

The Agnipurāṇa affords an excellent check for the consideration of the text of the Yājñavalkyasmṛti. A good-sized monograph will be required to deal exhaustively with the questions raised by the comparison of the vyavahāra portion of the Agnipurāṇa with Yājñavalkya's vyavahāra-kāṇḍa. I shall only briefly examine the materials and state the conclusions at which I have arrived. We know that Viśvarūpa, the first extant commentator of Yāj., flourished about 800-825 A. D. The author of the Mitākṣarā flourished about 250 years later. Interesting results follow by a comparison of the text that these two commentators had before them with the Agnipurāṇa. I shall select chap. 256 of the Agnipurāṇa for a detailed examination. It contains 36 verses which all occur in Yāj. II. (verses 118-153 of Tri. ed. and verses 114-149 of the Mit. ). It is found that the Agnipurāṇa agrees with the text of 12 verses word for word as contained in Viśvarūpa and 19 verses as contained in the Mit. Viśvarūpa puts three verses between the two verses ‘pitṛdravyāvināśena &c’ and ‘kramādabhyāgataṁ dravyaṁ’, while the Mit. brings the two verses together. Agnipurāṇa agrees with Viś. In several cases the readings of the Agnipurāṇa agree with Viśvarūpa’s text and not with that of the Mit. For example, Agni. reads ‘kāryāḥ patnyaḥ samāṁśikāḥ’ with Viś. (119), reads ‘bhūryā . . . dravyam-eva vā . . . putrasya cobhayoḥ’ with Viś. (124), reads ‘pitṛdravyāvināśena’ (and not ‘°vyāvirodhena’ as Mit. does) with Viś.

v1.c6.s21.14.2

(122), reads ‘dadyāt-cāpaharec-cāṁśaṁ’ with Viś. (142 b), reads ‘patitas-tatsutaḥ klībaḥ’ with Viś. (144 a), reads ‘aprajāyāmatītāyām’ with Viś. (148). The Agnipurāṇa however in a far larger number of cases agrees with the readings of the Mit. Agni (256. 8) reads with the Mit. (122) ‘vibhākteṣu suto jātaḥ savarṇāyāṁ vibhāgabhāk,’ Agni. (256. 10) reads ‘mātāpyaṁśaṁ samaṁ haret’ with the Mit. (123), while Viś. (127) reads ‘mātāpyaṁśaṁ samāpnuyāt.’ Viśvarūpa’s reading leaves it undecided as to what the share of the mother is to be, while the Mit. makes it definite by stating that it is equal (to that of a son). Agni (256. 12) reads ‘catustri-dvyeka-bhāgāḥ syuḥ’ and ‘viḍjāstu dvyekabhāginaḥ’ with the Mit. (125); Agni. (256. 21) reads ‘-rdhabhāgikaṁ’ with the Mit. (134). Agni. (256. 27) reads ‘andho’cikitsyarogādyā’ with the Mit. (140), while Viś. (144) reads ‘rogī ca.’ The reading of the Mit. makes provision by the word ‘ādya’ for other persons like deaf-mutes mentioned in other smṛtis as not entitled to inherit, while Viś. has to put a forced interpretation on ‘ca’ as including such persons. The Agni (256.33) reads ‘vyayaṁ dadyāc-ca sodayaṁ’ with the Mit. (146), while Viś. (150) reads ‘dāpyaś-ca sodayaṁ’. Agni (256. 36) reads ‘vibhāgabhāvanā jñeyā gṛha-kṣetraiś-ca yautakaiḥ’ with the Mit. (149), while Viś. (153) reads ‘°bhāvanādeyagṛha-kṣetrakayautakaiḥ’. Here the former reading is easy and gives a complete sentence. With Viś. we have to separate ‘°bhāvanā’ and ‘ādeya &c.’.

v1.c6.s21.14.3

Besides no predicate (like jñeyā or kāryā) is expressly mentioned in the verse if we take the reading of Viś. and the ‘ka’ in ‘kṣetraka’ is a redundancy. We find that the tendency of the readings of the Mit. is to smooth down harsh or involved constructions and that the Agnipurāṇa presents most of the changes in the text found in the Mit. but not found in Viś. In the same direction points the fact that Agni (256. 35) reads ‘na dattam strīdhanam yasyai’ with the Mit. (148) and not ‘yasyā’ as Viś. (152) does, as ‘yasyai’ is grammatically more regular than ‘yasyāḥ’ with the form ‘dattam’. But as against this we may note that both Viś. and Agni read ‘aprajāyāmatītāyām’, while the Mit. reads ‘atītāyāmaprajasi’. The reading ‘aprajasi’ is correct according to Pāṇini (V. 4. 122) and not ‘aprajāyām’. Therefore the conclusion that follows is that the text of Yāj. preserved in the Agnipurāṇa is intermediate between the text of Viśvarūpa and that of the Mitākṣarā. As Viśvarūpa flourished about 800-825 A. D., the Agnipurāṇa represents a text of Yājñavalkya current somewhat later i. e. about 900 A. D. In my ‘History of Sanskrit Poetics’ (pp. III-V) I established, from the fact that the extant Agnipurāṇa quotes Daṇḍin and Bhāmaha and knew the theory of *dhvani*, that it was composed about 900 A. D. That date is strikingly corroborated by the evidence derived from the chapters on vyavahāra discussed above.

v1.c6.s21.14.4

It is no doubt true that the Agni presents some readings that are found neither in Viś. nor in the Mit. For example, it reads (256. 4) ‘tābhya ṛte ’rpayet’, while both Viś. and Mit. read ‘tābhya ṛte’nvayaḥ’. It is probable that this is an error of the copyists or the reading may be due to the difficulty of understanding the meaning of ‘anvayaḥ’ there. Agni reads (256. 5) ‘svayam-arjayet’ for ‘svayam-arjitam’ (of Viś. and Mit.), and ‘jātopi dāsyāṁ śūdrasya’ (256. 20) for ‘°śūdreṇa’ (of Viś. and Mit.). A detailed examination of the other chapters on vyavāhāra will yield the same results. But it cannot be undertaken here. A few examples may however be cited. Viś. (II. 167) reads ‘pālo yeṣāṁ ca te mocyā daiva- rājapariplutah’, Agni (257. 14) ‘pālo yeṣām tu te mocyā daivarājapariplutāḥ’, while Mit. (163) reads ‘pālo yeṣām na te ... tāḥ’. Similarly Viś. (II. 179) and Agni (257. 26) read ‘svakuṭumbāvirodhena deyam’ while the Mit. (175) reads ‘svam kuṭumbāvirodhena’. Viś. (II. 203) reads ‘galat-sabhikavṛddhistu’, while both Agni (257. 49) and Mit. (199) read ‘glahe śatikavṛddhestu’, which certainly is an easier reading. Agni 258. 45 occurs in Mit. (255), but is wanting in Viśvarūpa. Yāj. II. 228 in Viś. becomes in the Mit. verse 263, Agni. following the order of Viśvarūpa.

v1.c6.s21.15

The total number of verses on vyavahāra in Agnipurāṇa, chap. 253-258, is 315. Out of this the first 31 are not taken from Yāj. All of them except the first half verse and verse 31 (chap. 253) occur in Nārada. Of the remaining 284 verses, only 4½ (Agni 253. 35, 255. 43a, 255. 49b and 50, 258. 83) do not occur in Yāj. (in both Viś. and Mit.). There are also a few verses that occur in the Agnipurāṇa and in Viśvarūpa, but not in the Mit. and also a few verses that are common to the Mit. and Agni but are not found in Viś. The first three verses of Yāj. II are compressed by the Agni-purāṇa into 1½ verses.

v1.c6.s21.16.1

The Garuḍapurāṇa affords, like the Agnipurāṇa, material help towards examining the authoritativeness of the text of the first and third sections of Yāj. The Agnipurāṇa does not expressly say that it drew upon Yāj., but the Garuḍapurāṇa is explicit on the point. In chap. 93. 1. it is expressly said that the *dharma* formerly promulgated by Yājñavalkya is being narrated 'Yājñavalkyena yat (yaḥ?) pūrvam dharmam (dharmaḥ?) proktam (°taḥ?) kathaṁ Hare । tan me kathaya keśighna yathā tattvena Mādhava ॥'. Chapters 93-106 contain dharmaśāstra material more or less taken from the Yājñavalkysmṛti. There are 376 verses in these chapters. Considerations of space forbid any detailed examination of this material. A few salient facts only are brought out here. Chapters 93-102 deal with the several topics (prakaraṇas) of the first kāṇḍa in the same order, the only exception being the topic of rājadharma (I. 309-368), which is omitted in the Garuḍapurāṇa. Chapters 102-106 treat of topics that occur in the third kāṇḍa of Yāj. and contain 121 verses only. In these chapters the order of the prakaraṇas in Yāj. is not observed at all, but Garuḍa speaks of them in the following order, vānaprastha-prakaraṇa, yati, karmavipāka, prāyaścitta, aśauca and āpaddharma (the last two being the first two prakaraṇas in Yāj.). A feature which strikes one as regards the Garuḍapurāṇa (particularly chap. 102-106) is that a few verses only of Yāj.

v1.c6.s21.16.2

are repeated word for word, that very often the Garuḍapurāṇa gives only a summary by omitting and transposing the words and phrases of the original and that sometimes it adds verses of its own. This may be illustrated by what the Garuḍa says on vānaprastha and yati (chap. 102-103, 12 verses in all). Chap. 102 begins 'vānaprasthāśramaṁ vakṣye tac-chṛṇvantu maharṣayaḥ । putreṣu bhāryām nikṣipya vanaṁ gacchet sahaiva vā ॥.' The latter half is a paraphrase of Yāj. III. 45a. Then III. 45b-46 (Mit.) = Garuḍa 102. 2-3a (with slight variations), III. 47 = Garuḍa 102- 4 b-5a ; III. 48 = 3b-4a; III. 49-50 = Garuḍa 5b ('pakṣe māsetha vāśnīyād-dantolūkhaliko bhavet, which summarises and retains some words of the original ), III. 71 = Garuḍa 102. 6a (cāndrāyaṇī svapedbhumau karma kuryāt phalādinā, which includes a few words of III. 49b also), III. 52 = Garuḍa 6b-7a (the last pāda in Garuḍa is 'yogābhyāsāt dinam nayet', while in Yāj. it is 'śaktyā vāpi tapas caret'), III. 53 = Garuḍa 102. 7. Chap. 203 contains only five verses. III. 56, 58-59 = Garuḍa 103. 1b-4a (with variants) and then Garuḍa adds 1½ verses which are not found in Yāj. (viz. 'bhavet-paramahaṁso vā ekadaṇḍī yamāditaḥ ॥ siddhayogas-tyajan deham-amṛtatvam-ihāpnuyāt। dātātithipriyo jñānī gṛhī śrāddhepi mucyate ॥'). The mere fact that a prakaraṇa is omitted in the Garuḍapurāṇa should cast no doubt on the existence of that prakaraṇa in the original Yāj. We do not know on what principles the borrowing took place.

v1.c6.s21.16.3

Besides we find that such prakaraṇas as Vināyakaśānti and grahaśānti are included in the Garuḍa (chap. 100-101), while rājadharma-prakaraṇa is omitted. We know that 'rājadharma' figures in the sūtras and Manu, but none of the ancient dharmasūtras, nor the Manusmṛti speaks of Vināyaka. Hence conclusions must be drawn only from what positively occurs in the Garuḍapurāṇa and not from the absence of any topic in it. The Garuḍapurāṇa sometimes follows the arrangement and form of the verses presented in Viś., sometimes it agrees with the Mit. and sometimes it is independent. For example, the two verses enumerating the authors of dharmaśāstras (Yāj. I. 4-5 = Garuḍa 93. 4-5) follow the readings of Viś., but not those of the Mit. In the 3rd kāṇḍa, verses 14-19 of the Mit. are differently arranged by Viś., and Viś. omits (as does Aparārka also) one verse found in the Mit. (III. 23) as said above, while the Mit. omits two half verses that are found in Viś. (vide note 313). The verse 'ā danta &c.' occurs in the Garuḍapurāṇa and the two half verses in Viś. omitted by the Mit. are also omitted in Garuḍa. So far the Gāruḍapurāṇa agrees with the arrangement preserved in the Mit. But it does not agree entirely with the Mit. The verse 'ādanta &c' is III. 23 in the Mit. and occurs before 'ahastvadatta°' but in the Garuḍa it occurs before 'trirātraṁ daśarātraṁ vā' (which is III. 18 in the Mit.). Besides verse 22 of the Mit.

v1.c6.s21.16.4

is read differently in the Garuḍa (daśa dvādaśa varṇā- nām tathā pañcadaśaiva ca । trimśad dināni ca tathā bhavati preta-sūtakam ). It must therefore be said that the Garuḍapurāṇa represents an intermediate stage of readings between Viś. and the Mit. As the Garuḍapurāṇa was a popular work read by and recited for the benefit of slightly educated or illiterate people, it often introduces changes to suit their understanding. For example, the Mit. (I. 296 ) reads ( as also Viś. ) ‘sūryaḥ somo mahīputraḥ somaputro bṛhaspatiḥ ’, while Garuḍa reads ( chap. 101. 2 ) ‘sūryaḥ somo *maṅgalaś* ca *budhaś* caiva bṛhaspatiḥ,’ thus substituting the well-known words Maṅgala and Budha for mahīputra and somaputra. The verse ‘kṛtāgnikāryo bhuñjīta’ (I. 31 in the Mit. ) is placed by Viś. after ‘ekadeśam – upādhyāya,’ while the Mit. places it three verses earlier. The Garuḍapurāṇa here agrees with the Mit. In some cases Garuḍa strikes an independent path. For example, in Yāj. I. 11 Viś. reads ‘māse’to jātakarama ca,’ the Mit. reads ‘māsyete jātakarama ca’ while Garuḍa ( chap. 93. 11 ) gives the easy reading ‘prasave jātakarama ca’. Mit. reads (Yāj. I. 76 b) ‘tyajan dāpyastṛtīyāṁśam--adravyo bharaṇaṁ striyāḥ’; Viś. omits the whole verse, while Garuḍa omits I. 76a (of Mit.) and reads the other half as ‘śuddhām tyajaṁstṛtīyāṁśam dadyādābharaṇaṁ striyāḥ’ (95. 23b). Verses I. 91-92 of the Mit. on the offspring of mixed marriages are differently read by Viś. ( I. 90-91 ), while the Garuḍa ( 96.

v1.c6.s21.16.5

1b ) has the same half verse as the Mit. I. 91a and the same half verse ( 96. 3 a ) as Viś. ( 91b ) and reads the two half verses between them as ‘jāto’mbaṣṭhastu śūdrāyāṁ niṣādaḥ parvatopi vā ॥ māhiṣyaḥ kṣatriyājjāto vaiśyāyāṁ mlecchasamjñitaḥ’.

v1.c6.s21.17

The foregoing makes it clear that the text that the Garuḍapurāṇa had before it could not have been older than that commented upon by Viśvarūpa and that it represents a stage intermediate between Viś. and the Mit.

v1.c6.s21.18

The above gives rise to an important question whether one can detect several strata in the Yājñavalkyasmṛti. From the fact that the sūtra of Śaṅkha-Likhita cites Yājñavalkya among the promulgators of dharmaśāstras (vide note 137), while Yāj. himself includes Śaṅkha-Likhita among the propounders of dharma (note 258), it may be plausibly said that Śaṅkha-Likhita refer to an earlier Yājñavalkyasmṛti than the extant one. Beyond this there is no evidence to establish that there was an earlier version of the present smṛti. A comparison of the readings of Viśvarūpa and the Mit.

v1.c6.s21.19

with those in the Agni and Garuḍa purāṇas has established that the text of the smṛti no doubt underwent slight verbal changes between 800 and 1100 A. D. and that a few verses were added and also omitted during these centuries. But the text remained in the main the same from 700 A. D. What the original smṛti contained, whether it was in prose or verse or both and whether it dealt with only ācāra and prāyaścitta sections are questions on which conjectures may be advanced, but there are no substantial materials for arriving at even tolerably certain conclusions.

v1.c6.s21.20

Yājñavalkya's work is more systematic than that of Manu. He divides the work into three sections and relegates all topics to their proper positions and avoids repetition. He treats of almost all subjects that we find in Manu, but his treatment is always concise and he makes very great and successful efforts at brevity. The result is that for the 2700 verses of Manu, he requires only a little over a thousand. He often compresses two verses of Manu into one, *e. g.* Manu II. 243, 247-248 are equal to Yāj. I. 49, Manu III, 46-48 and 50 are concisely put in one verse by Yāj. (I. 79); vide also Manu IV. 7-8 and Yāj. I. 128 (contain almost same words also), Manu IV. 84-85 and Yāj. I. 141. In a few cases Manu and Yāj. convey the same meaning in one verse without compression, *e. g.* Manu III. 70 and Yāj. I. 102, Manu III. 119 and Yāj. I. 110, Manu VII. 171 and Yāj. I. 348, Manu VII. 205 and Yāj. I. 349. The correspondence of Yājñavalkya's words with the text of Manu is in most cases very close, so much so that one cannot help feeling that Yāj. had the Manusmṛti before him and purposely made an attempt to abridge the somewhat loose expressions of Manu. The passages set forth above as examples of compression will also serve as illustrations of this fact. The word Kāya (from Ka) is used by both in the sense of 'prājāpatya form of marriage' (Manu III. 38 and Yāj. I. 60); vide also Manu II. 109 and Yāj. I. 28, Manu III. 43-44 and Yāj. I. 62, Manu V. 26-27 and Yāj. I. 178-179, Manu VII. 56 and Yāj. I. 312 for further close agreement in phraseology. Yāj. adds some subjects which have either no counterpart in our Manu or which are only noticed in passing by Manu. The Manusmṛti contains nothing corresponding to the Vināyakaśānti and Grahaśānti of Yāj. (I. 271-308). Yāj. gives a detailed treatment of five kinds of ordeals (II. 95-113), while Manu makes only a cursory reference to the ordeals of fire and water (VIII. 114). Yāj.

v1.c6.s21.21

contains considerable anatomical and medical matter (III. 75-108), which is wanting in Manu. On the other hand there are some subjects on which Yāj. is silent though they are dealt with in detail by Manu. This is the case with the account of the origin of the world.

v1.c6.s21.22

The whole of the Yājñavalkya-smṛti is written in the classical Anuṣṭubh metre. Though the author's great aim has been to be concise, his verses are hardly ever obscure. The style is flowing and direct. There are not many un-Pāṇinian expressions, though he employs ‘pūjya’ in I. 293 and ‘dūṣya’ in II. 296. In the latter case both Viśvarūpa and Aparārka avoid the fault by reading differently. The verse ‘kulāni jātayaḥ śreṇyo’ is ungrammatical (Tri. ed. II. 34), as ‘jāti’, and ‘śreṇi’ must be in the accusative case. According to the Mit. Yājñavalkya addressed his words to Sāmaśravas and other sages (vide com. on I. 1. 178 and 330-333). In this the Mit. is probably drawing upon the Bṛ. Up. (III. 1. 2) where Yāj. asks Sāmaśravas to take away the 1000 cows. The sages interpose (vide III. 118, 129) as in Manu, while the great teacher is passing in review one topic after another. The teacher himself addresses his auditors (as in I. 178 ‘śruṇudhvam’).

v1.c6.s21.23.1

It is said that the sages approached Yājñavalkya in Mithilā and requested him to impart to them the dharmas of the varṇas, āśramas and others. The contents of the work may be briefly summarised as follows:— Kāṇḍa I. fourteen *vidyas*; twenty expounders of dharma, sources of dharma; constitution of a *pariṣad*, the *saṁskāras* from Garbhādhāna to marriage, upanayana, its time and other details, every day duties of brahmacārī, persons fit to be taught, what things and actions a brahmacārī was to avoid, period of studenthood; marriage, qualifications of girl to be married, limits of *sapiṇḍa* relationship, intercaste marriages; the eight forms of marriage and the spiritual benefits therefrom, guardians for marriage, Kṣetraja son, grounds of supercession of wife, duties of wife; principal and intermediate castes, duties of householder and keeping sacred domestic fire, the five great daily yajñas; honouring a guest, madhuparka, grounds of precedence, rule of the road, privileges and duties of the four varṇas, ten principles of conduct common to all, means of subsistence of a householder, and solemn vedic sacrifices; duties of *snātaka*, days of cessation from study; rules about prohibited and allowed food and drink; rules about flesh-eating; purifications of various materials, such as metal or wooden vessels; gifts, who is fittest to accept them, who should accept gifts, rewards of gifts, gift of cow, rewards of other gifts, highest gift is knowledge;

v1.c6.s21.23.2

śrāddha, proper time for it, proper persons to be invited at it, unfit persons, the number of Brāhmaṇas to be invited, procedure of śrāddha, various śrāddhas such as pārvaṇa, vṛddhi, ekoddiṣṭa; sapiṇḍīkaraṇa; what flesh to be offered at śrāddha, reward of offering śrāddhas; propitiatory ceremonies as regards Vināyaka and the nine grahas; rājadharma, king's qualifications, ministers, *purohita*, royal edicts, king's duties of protection, administration of justice, taxation and expenditure, allotment of the day to various duties, constitution of maṇḍala, the four expedients, the six guṇas, fate and human effort, impartiality in punishment; units of measure and weight, grades of fine; Kāṇḍa II. members of hall of justice, judge, definition of vyavahārapada, rules of procedure, plaint, reply, taking security, indicia of a false party or witness, conflict of dharmaśāstra and arthaśāstra; means of proof, documents, witnesses, possession; title and possession, gradation of courts, force, fraud, minority and other grounds of invalidity, finding of goods; treasure trove; debts, rates of interest, debts of joint family, what debts of father son need not pay; devolution of debts; suretyship of three kinds, pledge; deposit; witnesses, their qualifications and disqualifications; administering oaths, punishment for perjury; documents; ordeals of balance, water, fire, poison and holy water;

v1.c6.s21.23.3

partition, time of it, wife's share on partition, partition after father's death, property not liable to partition, joint ownership of father and son; twelve kinds of sons; illegitimate son of śūdra, succession to a sonless man, re-union, exclusion; husband's power over wife's *strīdhana*; boundary disputes; dispute between master and herdsman; sale without ownership; invalidity of gift, rescission of sale; breach of contract of service; slavery by force; violation of conventions; non-payment of wages; gambling and prize fighting; abuse, defamation and slander; assault, hurt etc.; sāhasa; partnership; theft; adultery; miscellaneous wrongs; review of judgment; Kāṇḍa III. cremation and burial; offering of water to various deceased persons; for whom no mourning was to be observed and no water to be offered; periods of mourning for various persons; rules for mourners; impurity on birth; instances of immediate purification on death or birth; means of purification, such as time, fire, ritual, mud etc ; rules of conduct and livelihood in distress ; rules for forest hermit ; rules for a *yati* ; how the individual soul is clothed in a body ; various stages of the fœtus, number of bones in the body, the various organs such as liver, spleen etc. ; the number of arteries and veins ; reflection over ātman, use of music in the path of *mokṣa* ; how the originally pure ātman is born among impure surroundings ; how some sinners are born as various kinds of animals or inanimate things ;

v1.c6.s21.23.4

how *yogin* attains immortality ; three kinds of actions due to *sattva*, *rajas* and *tamas* ; means of *ātmajñāna* ; the two paths, one to immortality and the other to heaven ; the various diseases from which sinners suffer ; purpose of prāyaścittas ; names of 21 hells ; the five mortal sins, and other acts similar to them ; upapātakas ; prāyaścittas for Brāhmaṇa murder or for killing other persons ; prāyaścittas for drinking wine, for other mortal and venial sins and for killing animals of various sorts ; greater or lesser expiation according to time, place, age, ability ; ostracising the non-conformist sinner ; secret expiations; ten *yamas* and *niyamas*; Sāntapana, mahāsāntapana, taptakṛcchra, parāka, cāndrāyaṇa and other expiations ; rewards of reading this smṛti.

v1.c6.s21.24

Besides the four vedas, Yāj. refers to the Vedāṅgas as six and enumerates fourteen vidyās ( four Vedas, six aṅgas, purāṇa, nyāya, Mīmāṁsā, dharmaśāstra ). He refers to the Āraṇyaka and Yoga-śāstra composed by himself. Āraṇyakas in general are spoken of in I. 145 and Śukriya Āraṇyaka in III. 309. The Upaniṣads are mentioned in III. 189, where purāṇas are mentioned in the plural. Itihāsas, Purāṇa, Vākovākya, and Nārāśaṁsī gāthās are mentioned in I. 45 ( also I. 101 for purāṇa and itihāsa ). He enumerates at the commencement nineteen authors on *dharma* besides himself. But it is remarkable that in the body of the work not one individual author of a dharma-śāstra is mentioned by name. He speaks of Ānvīkṣikī ( Metaphysics ) and Daṇḍanīti ( I. 311 ). He lays down the dictum that where dharmaśāstra and arthaśāstra conflict, the former shall prevail ( II. 21 ). He speaks of smṛtis in general ( II. 5 and I. 154 ). In III. 189 he speaks of sūtras and bhāṣyas. What works are intended it is most difficult to say ; the only extant bhāṣya which can be said with certainty to be older than the extant Yāj. smṛti is that of Patañjali. He refers to other writers on dharma in the word ' eke ' ( I. 36 ). The view referred to there occurs in Baud. Dh. S. I. 2. 4.

v1.c6.s21.25

Yājñavalkya agrees very closely with the Viṣṇudharmasūtra. What conclusions are to be drawn therefrom has been discussed above (see sec. 10). Similarly there is close correspondence between the Kauṭilīya and Yāj. If there is any borrowing at all, it must follow from the date above assigned to the Kauṭilīya that it is Yāj. who borrows. There are numerous passages in Yāj. that show remarkable agreement with the text of Manu. But there are several points on which Yāj. differs from Manu and shows in general a more advanced state of thought and feeling than the Manusmṛti. The following are the principal points wherein Yāj. differs from Manu. Manu seems to allow a Brāhmaṇa to marry a śūdra girl (III. 13), while Yāj. emphatically states it as his opinion that this is wrong (I. 59); Manu first describes the practice of *niyoga* and then severely condemns it (9. 59-68), while Yāj. does not condemn it (I. 68-69). Manu enumerates eighteen vyavahārapadas; Yāj. does not expressly enumerate them in one place, though he defines vyavahārapada and adds verses of a miscellaneous character (*prakīrṇaka*) in his section on vyavahāra. Manu is silent about the rights of inheritance of the widow of a sonless man and gives only a vaguely expressed order of succession, while Yāj. places the widow at the head of all heirs and enumerates several classes of heirs in a regular order. Manu condemns gambling outright (9. 224-226), while Yāj. brought it under state control and made it a source of revenue to the king (II. 200-203). There are several other matters which Yāj. treats at much greater length and more systematically than Manu, e. g. ordeals (as indicated above), means of proof in courts (Manu altogether ignoring documentary evidence, though he knew documents 8. 51-52), rules of procedure in courts (compare Manu 8. 53-56 with Yāj. II. 5-11 and 16-21), the doctrine of possession and prescription (Yāj. II. 24-29 and Manu 9. 44 and 54). All these points tend to show that the Yājñavalkya smṛti is much later than the extant Manusmṛti.

v1.c6.s21.26

The Yājñavalkya-smṛti seems to have taken the section on Vināyakaśānti from the Mânavagṛhya-sūtra (II. 14); verses 281-283 of Yāj. (I) occur in the Mānavagṛhya II. 14, but in a different order.³¹⁶ The Mānavagṛhya takes the Vināyakas to be four, while Yāj. says that there is a single Vināyaka, whose appellations are Mita. &c.

v1.c6.s21.27

³¹⁶ अथातो विनायकान् व्याख्यास्यामः। शालकटङ्कटश्च कूष्माण्डराजपुत्रश्चोस्मितश्च (पुत्रश्च मितश्च ?) देवयजनश्चेति। मानवगृह्य II. 14. 1-2; विनायकः कर्मविघ्नसिद्ध्यर्थं विनियोजितः। ...मितश्च संमितश्चैव तथा सालकटङ्कटौ । कूष्माण्डराजपुत्रश्च जपेत् स्वाहासमन्वितान् । नामभिर्बलिमन्त्रैश्च नमस्कारसमन्वितैः ॥ याज्ञ. I. 267. 281-82 (Tri. ed.). The Mit. seems to have read; ‘०कटङ्कटो । कूष्माण्डो राजपुत्रश्च.’

v1.c6.s21.28

The details of information about Vināyaka in Yāj. (I. 272-276) appear to be versified from the prose³¹⁷ of the M. Gṛ. S. The details of worship also and the *mantra* (Yāj. I. 291) are taken from the same work (*vide* M. Gṛ. S. II. 14. 30 for the *mantra*). At one time the section on Vināyakaśānti was thought to be a sure indication of the late date of Yāj. But since the discovery of the Mānavagṛhya that position had to be given up. In the Baudhāyana-dharmasūtra (II. 5. 21) we have Vināyaka and his several appellations (in the *tarpaṇa*). Aparārka on Yāj. I. 275 quotes a long passage from the Baijavāpa gṛhya which bears a very close correspondence in phraseology to the passage from the M. Gṛ. S. quoted above and which gives the names of the four Vināyakas as Mita, Saṁmita, Śālakaṭaṅkaṭa and Kūṣmāṇḍa-rājaputra.

v1.c6.s21.29

³¹⁷ एतैरधिगतानामिमानि रूपाणि भवन्ति । लोष्टं मृद्नाति । तृणानि छिनत्ति । अङ्गेषु लेखान् लिखति । अपः स्वप्नं पश्यति । मुण्डान् पश्यति । जटिलान् पश्यति । काषायवाससः पश्यति । उष्ट्रान् सूकरान् गर्दभान् दिवाकीर्त्यांर्दीनन्यांश्चाप्रयतान् स्वप्नान् पश्यति । अन्तरिक्षं क्रामति । अध्वानं व्रजन्मन्यते पृष्ठतो मे कश्चिदनुव्रजति । एतैः खलु विनायकै-राविष्टा राजपुत्रा लक्षणवन्तो राज्यं न लभन्ते । कन्याः पतिकाम्या लक्षणवत्यो भर्तृन्न लभन्ते । ... कृषिकराणां कृषिरल्पफला भवति । मानवगृह्य II. 14. 3-21 (ed. by Knauer)

v1.c6.s21.30

The Yājñavalkya-smṛti stands in a very intimate relation to the white Yajurveda and the literature that clusters round it. Most of the *mantras* quoted (in part) or referred to by Yāj. occur in the Ṛgveda as well as in the Vājasaneya-saṁhitā (e. g. in Yāj. I. 22, 24, 229, 230, 238, 239, 247). But there are a few *mantras* that do not occur in the Ṛgveda, but only in the Vājasaneya-saṁhitā or other saṁhitās (e. g. ‘yavosi’ in Yāj. I. 230, which is Vāj. S. 5. 26, ‘ye samānā in Yāj. I. 254 which is Vaj. S. 19. 45, ‘imam deva’ and ‘udbudhyasva’ in Yāj. I. 300 which are Vaj. S. 9. 40 and 15. 54, ‘annāt pariśrutaḥ’ and ‘kāṇḍāt’ in Yāj. I. 301 which are Vāj. S. 19. 75 and 13. 20). Verses (Yāj. III. 191-197) are a paraphrase of certain passages of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, so much so that the very words of the latter are used throughout in the former, as the quotations given below will show.³¹⁸ Then again Yāj. very closely agrees with the Pāraskaragṛhyasūtra as was pointed out by Dr. Stenzler in his introduction to the edition of Yāj. (1849, Berlin) and in the journal of the German Oriental Society (VII. 527). Viśvarūpa points out that Yāj. I. 142-143 are based upon Pāraskara. The mantra ‘ayam me vajraḥ’ in Yāj. I. 135 (Trivandrum ed.) is given in Pāraskara-gṛhya II. 7. 7. In the following also there is close verbal correspondence³²⁰ between Yāj. and the P. Gṛ. S; Yāj. III. 1-2 and P. Gṛ. S. III. 10. 1, 5, 8-9 and 12; Yāj. III. 3 and P. Gṛ. S. III. 10. 16 and 19-20; Yāj. III. 4 and P. Gṛ. S. III. 10. 46-47; Yāj. III. 16 and P. Gṛ. S. III. 10. 26-27. Similarly the verses of Yāj. on śrāddha (I. 217-270) offer many points of contact with the śrāddha-kalpa of Kātyāyana edited by Dr. Caland (pp. 127-130 of his work ‘Ahnencult &c.’ From these facts Dr. Jolly concludes that Yājñavalkya’s work goes back to a dharmasūtra of the White Yajurveda (R. u. S. p. 21). In another place Dr. Jolly hazards another conjecture based on the close correspondence between Yāj. and the Viṣṇudharmasūtra that he probably belonged to the Kaṭhaka school of the Black Yajurveda (Journal of Indian History, 1924, p. 7). Yāj. also shows great similarity to the Kauṭilīya and borrows the Vināyaka-śānti from the Mânavagṛhyasūtra. From these facts one may argue at least with as much logic and force as underlies Dr. Jolly's guess-work that Yāj. probably belonged to the Mānava school of the Black Yajurveda or to the school of Kauṭilya. If Yāj. knew his business as a writer on Dharmaśāstra, he must have consulted the works of his predecessors and his work is bound to show traces of that fact. One may conclude at the most that the author of the Yājñavalkyasmṛti may have possibly been a student of the White Yājurveda and so the *mantras* of the White Yājurveda and the Gṛhyasūtra of Pāraskara were far more familiar to him than the other Vedas, sūtras, smṛtis, and other works. No such conclusions that there was a dharmasūtra of the White Yajurveda and that the Yājñavalkyasmṛti was based thereon are warranted by the facts so far discovered.

v1.c6.s21.31

³¹⁸ स ह्याश्रमैर्विजिज्ञास्यः समस्तैरेवमेव तु । द्रष्टव्यस्त्वथ मन्तव्यः श्रोतव्यश्च द्विजातिभिः ॥ याज्ञ. III. 191; compare बृहदारण्यक II. 4. 5. and IV. 5. 6 ‘आत्मा वा अरे द्रष्टव्यः श्रोतव्यः &c.’; य एनमेवं विन्दन्ति ये चारण्यकमाश्रिताः । उपासते द्विजाः सत्यं श्रद्धया परया युताः ॥ क्रमात्ते संभवन्त्यर्चिरहः शुक्लं तथोत्तरम् । अयनं देव-लोकं च सवितारं सवैद्युतम् ॥ ततस्तान् पुरुषोभ्येत्य मानसो ब्रह्मलौकिकात् । &c. याज्ञ. III. 192-194; compare बृहदारण्यक VI. 2. 15 ते य एवमेतद्विदुर्ये चामी अरण्ये श्रद्धां सत्यमुपासते तेर्चिरभिसंभवन्ति ... तान् वैद्युतान्पुरुषो मानस एत्य ब्रह्म-लोकान् गमयति.’ The next three verses of Yāj. summarise बृहदारण्यक VI. 2. 15 using the last words of the latter ‘कीटाः पतङ्गा यदिदं दन्दशूकम्’.

v1.c6.s21.32

³¹⁹ पौषमासस्य रोहिण्यामष्टकायामथापि वा । जलान्ते छन्दसां कुर्यादुत्सर्गं विधिवद् द्विजः ॥ याज्ञ. I. 142; compare पारस्कर II. 12. 1-2. (Venkatesvara press ed.) ‘पौषस्य रोहिण्यां मध्यमायां वाष्टकायामध्यायानुत्सृजेरन् । उदकान्तं गत्वा &c.’

v1.c6.s21.33

³²⁰ ७. ४.सप्तमाद् दशमाद्वापि ज्ञातयोभ्युपयन्त्यपः । अप नः शोशुचदघमनेन पितृदिङ्मुखाः ॥ याज्ञ. III. 3; ‘सर्वे ज्ञातयोपोभ्यवयन्त्यासप्तमात्पुरुषाद्दशमाद्वा । ... सव्यस्थानभि-कक्षापsequentialनेयाप नः शोशुचदघमिति दक्षिणामुखा निमज्जन्ति ।’ पारस्कर III. 10. 16 and 19-20.

v1.c6.s21.34

For settling the date of Yāj. we need not consider the evidence after the 9th century. For in the first quarter of that century (as we shall see later on) Viśvarūpa wrote his extensive commentary on Yāj. That he was separated from Yāj. by many centuries follows from several considerations. Not only had numerous various readings arisen in the text of Yāj. when he wrote, but various interpretations of the same words and verses of Yāj. had arisen. For example, he gives several meanings of the words ‘putronanyāśritadravyaḥ’ (in Yāj. II. 47), ‘sāmudrāḥ’ (II. 41); he gives different interpretations of I. 265, II. 160, II. 173 &c. He refers to the interpretations of his predecessors in several places by the word ‘anye’ (I. 3, 25, 155, 169; II. 21, 119, 121; III. 201, 209, 246 &c.). In several places he appears to be referring to two other interpretations than his own (vide on III. 250, the words ‘kecittu’ and ‘anye tu’ and the same words on III. 261 and 264). That Viśvarūpa had before him actual commentaries on Yāj. and was not merely giving scholastic interpretations started by himself is made very clear in several cases by. his actually citing certain portions from those works. On I. 252 Viśvarūpa says ‘others take from somewhere the following śloka (then the śloka is quoted), but this śloka is of no help, as its origin is not known’.³²¹ Similar words occur in the comment³²² on Yāj. III. 222. On II. 193 he styles some predecessor as ‘paṇḍitammanya’ and on III. 257 he ridicules a predecessor who regards the verse of Manu IV. 222 as an arthavāda by saying that that commentator wanted to show off that he knew the technical term arthavāda.³²³ It is not unlikely that Viśvarūpa in this last passage refers to some ancient commentator of Manu such as Asahāya. In the Prāyaścittamayūkha,³²⁴ Nīlakaṇṭha (Benares edition of 1879) says that Śaṅkara in his Bhāṣya on Brahmasūtra (III. 4. 43) explained the application of Yāj. III. 226. Unfortunately in the printed editions of Śaṅkara I could not find this. But from the Bhāmatī where Yāj. III. 226 is explained, it is clear that the passage must have occurred in the text of Śaṅkara used by the Bhāmatī. Dr. Jolly lays great emphasis in assigning a late date to Yāj. on the fact that Kumārila, who cites Manu, Gautama, Āpastamba, Baudhāyana frequently, ignores the Yājñavalkya-smṛti altogether. But this silence of the great mīmāṁsaka can only mean that he did not assign the same pre-eminent and venerable position to Yāj. that he assigned to Manu, Gautama and others. Dr. Jolly himself is prepared to place Yāj. three or four centuries earlier than Kumārila. It will be shown hereafter that Nārada and Bṛhaspati cannot be placed later than 500 A. D. and may have flourished two or three centuries earlier still. On a comparison of their doctrines with those of Yāj. it will have to be conceded that they represent a far greater advance in juristic principles and exactitude than Yāj. So the latter cannot be placed later than the 3rd century A. D. As Yāj. is shown above to have followed the Manusmṛti and the Kauṭilīya his smṛti cannot be placed earlier than the first century B. C. We shall not be therefore far from the truth if we place his smṛti somewhere between the first century B. C. and the third century of the Christian era. In the Laṅkāvatārasūtra (ed. by B. Nanjio, 1923, Kyoto) gāthas 814-816 are ‘Kātyāyanaḥ sūtrakartā yājñavalkastathaiva ca ... Valmīko Masurākṣaśca Kauṭilya Āśvalāyanaḥ l ... ’. From the context it appears that the author of the smṛti is referred to as Yājñavalka.

v1.c6.s21.35

³²¹ अन्ये तु कुतश्चिदागमट्येमं श्लोकं पठन्ति-‘यः सपिण्डीकृतं प्रेतं पृथक्पिण्डेन योजयेत् । विधिघ्नस्तेन भवति पितृहा चोपजायते ॥ इति । अयं त्वस्पष्टमूलत्वादकिञ्चित्करः । विश्वरूप on या. I. 252.

v1.c6.s21.36

³²² अन्ये तु कुतश्चिदागमय्येमं श्लोकं पठन्ति--रागाद् द्वेषात् प्रमादाद्वा स्वतः परत एव वा । यो हन्याद् ब्राह्मणं कश्चित् स सर्वो ब्रह्महा भवेत् ॥ इति । तस्याविज्ञातमूलत्वाद् विचार्यम् । विश्वरूप on या. III. 222,

v1.c6.s21.37

³²³ अन्ये तु भुक्त्वातोऽन्यतमस्यान्नमित्येवमादीन्यर्थवादत्वेन व्याचक्षते । ... न चात्र किंचिदर्थवादसारूप्यमस्य स्यात् । अतोर्थवादो नाम वाक्यप्रकारोस्ति तमप्यहं जानामीत्येतावनेवाभिप्रायः । इत्युपेक्षणीयम् । विश्व० on याज्ञ. III. 257.

v1.c6.s21.38

³²⁴ श्रीशङ्कराचार्यास्तु कामतोव्यवहार्यस्तु इत्यकारप्रश्लेषेणेदं याज्ञवल्क्यवचो बहिस्तूभयथा स्मृतेराचाराच्चेति सूत्रे रुतप्रायश्चित्तनैष्ठिकब्रह्मचर्यादिपरम् ॥ प्रायश्चित्तम. p. 7.

v1.c6.s21.39.1

Dr. Jolly (*R. u. S.* p. 21) following Dr. Jacobi (*Z D M G* 30, p. 306) thinks that Yāj. shows an acquaintance with Greek astrology. Dr. Jacobi’s position amounts to this that the naming of the week days after the planets was established among the Greeks towards the end of the 2nd century A. D. and as the names of the week days and the arrangement of the planets in correspondence with them was borrowed by the Indians from the Greeks, no Indian work which enumerates the week days or arranges the planets in the well-known sequence (of Sun, Moon, Mars &c.) could have been composed before the third century after the Christ. As is very often the case with Western Sanskrit scholars in matters of Indian chronology, this grand generalisation is based upon very slender data. The premises are mere assumptions without hardly any evidence worth the name to support them. No one knows exactly when the week-days were named and who were the people that first employed the current names of the week-days. It is well-known that as far back as the days of Herodotus the Egyptians had a presiding deity for each day and that in the times of Julius Cæsar there were days of Saturn (*vide* I. A. vol. 14, p. 1, General Cunningham’s article for the Indian origin of week-days). At least from the third century B.

v1.c6.s21.39.2

C., as vouched for by the 13th edict of Aśoka, India was in close touch with Syria and Egypt, where Buddhist missionaries had been sent by Aśoka while Antiochus and Ptolemy ruled in the two countries respectively. Therefore, if Indians at all borrowed the week-days and the arrangement of planets from foreigners, there is nothing to prevent us from holding that they borrowed them from the Egyptians. The earliest dated Indian record wherein a week-day is mentioned is the Eraṇ Inscription of 484 A. D. (Gupta Inscriptions p. 89) where we have “Suraguror divase.” It is to be noticed that Yāj. does not mention the week-days. In I. 296 he mentions the nine *grahas* in order as the Sun, the Moon, Mars (the son of the earth), Mercury (the son of Soma), Jupiter, Venus, Saturn, Rāhu, Ketu. No one can gainsay that at least the Sun, the Moon, Bṛhaspati and Venus were known to the Ṛgvedic India. Bṛhaspati in the highest heaven is spoken of in the Ṛgveda³²⁵ and the conjunction of Jupiter and Tiṣya (constellation of Puṣya) is spoken of in the Tai. Brāhmaṇa.³²⁶ We know so very little of the ancient astronomical science in ancient India that one must think twice before dogmatising. Yāj. nowhere mentions the zodiacal signs (rāśis) and probably did not know them. Not only so, in his day the *nakṣatras* were still arranged from Kṛttikā to Bharaṇī as was the case in the Tai. S. IV. 4. 10. Vide Yāj. I. 268 (Kṛttikādi bharaṇyantam). We know from Varāhamihira that in the 5th century A. D.

v1.c6.s21.39.3

the signs of the zodiac and the arrangement of *Nakṣatras* from Aśvinī to Revatī were established facts in all parts of India. Therefore Yāj. who uses the ancient arrangement of Nakṣatras cannot be placed so late as the 4th century A. D. When Yāj. (I. 80) speaks of "susthe indau" we should not, following such commentaries as the Mit., connect the words with the signs of the zodiac or the houses of the horoscope. Viśvarūpa does not speak of *rāśis* in this connection, but of Nakṣatras only. From very ancient times certain Nakṣatras had come to be regarded as auspicious or suitable for particular acts. The Tai. ³²⁷Br. directs that one should not finish a thing or begin to sacrifice on a nakṣatra with an evil name. The same Brāhmaṇa says that ploughing was to be begun on the Maitra asterism (Anurādhā) and consecration of fire on the Āditya nakṣatra. Even the Ṛgveda speaks of auspicious days³²⁹ and the Tai. Br. speaks of Deva-nakṣatras and Puṇyāhas, and says that a daughter should be given away in marriage on the Svāti nakṣatra if she was desired to be her husband's favourite.³³⁰ Vide Baudhāyana Gṛhya (I. 1) for the marriage nakṣatras; also Āp. Gr. S. II. 15. 12-14, Gobhila Gṛhya 4. 4. 28 and 2. 1. 1. Therefore, when Yāj. speaks of planets being badly placed (I. 307), or of Vyatīpāta, Gajacchāyā and the passing (saṁkrama) of the Sun (I. 218), we have no right to connect this with the *rāśis*. In III.

v1.c6.s21.39.4

171 and 172 he speaks of only the conjunction of planets and of the passage (of them) through *tārās* and *nakṣatras*. The Baud. Dh. S. II. 5. 23 speaks of the nine *grahas* in the same order as that of Yāj. Therefore there is hardly any evidence to show that Yāj. knew more astrology than was current in the days of the Brāhmaṇas and the Gṛhyasūtras. Yāj. (in II. 240-241) speaks of the fine to be imposed on those who counterfeited "nāṇakas" (coins) and on those examiners of "nāṇakas" who falsely declared a good coin to be counterfeited and *vice versa*. Mr. Jayasval (Calcutta Weekly Notes, vol. 17, p. clix) says that nāṇaka is the gold coin of the Kushans bearing the picture of the Goddess Nanaia and that the Kushans did not rise to importance before 78 A. D. This would place Yāj. after 100 A. D. But it must be remembered that this connection between the Goddess Nanaia and the word "nāṇaka" is quite conjectural and that the chronology of the Kushans is far from being settled.

v1.c6.s21.40

³²⁵ बृहस्पति॑: प्रथ॒मं जाय॑मानो म॒हो ज्योति॑षः पर॒मे व्यो॑मन्। ऋग्वेद 4. 50. 4.

v1.c6.s21.41

³²⁶ बृहस्पतिः प्रथमं जायमानस्तिष्यं नक्षत्रमभिसंबभूव । तै. ब्रा. 3. 1. 1. 5.

v1.c6.s21.42

³²⁷ तस्मादश्लीलनामन्नक्षत्रे नावस्येन्न यजेत यथा पापाई कुरुते तादृगेव तत्। तै. ब्रा. I. 5. 2. 6.

v1.c6.s21.43

³²⁸ मैत्रेण कृषन्ते ... आदित्येन आदधते । तै. ब्रा. 1. 8. 4. 2.

v1.c6.s21.44

³²⁹ स्तोतारं॑ विप्रः सु॒दिन॒त्वे अहा॑म् । ऋग्वेद VII. 88. 4.

v1.c6.s21.45

³³⁰ यान्येव देवनक्षत्राणि तेषु कुर्वीत यत्कारी स्यात् पुण्याह एव कुरुते । तै. ब्रा. I. 5. 2. 9; यां कामयेत दुहितरं प्रिया स्यादिति तां निष्ट्यायां दद्यात् । तै. ब्रा. I. 5. 2. 3.

v1.c6.s21.46

Yāj. speaks of the sight of yellow-robed people as an evil omen (I. 273), which is probably a reference to the Buddhists; though it has to be remembered that he prescribes old yellow (*kāṣāya*) robes for his seeker after *mokṣa* (III. 157). He speaks of the founding of monasteries of Brāhmaṇas learned in the Vedas (II. 185). The philosophical doctrines contained in the third section (verses 64-205) approach that phase of the Vedānta that was taught by Śaṅkara. *Vide* particularly III. 67, 69, 109, 119, 125, 140. He employs in elucidating the philosophy of ātman the well-known examples of ghaṭākāśa and of the reflection of the Sun in water (III. 144), of the various ornaments made from gold, of the spider spinning webs out of his own body (both in III. 147), of the actor representing various parts (III. 162). All these illustrations frequently occur in Śaṅkara's Śārīrakabhāṣya (e. g. ghaṭākāśa on II. 1. 14, spider on II. 1. 25). All these points, however, are of very little use in arriving at a definite age for the smṛti of Yāj. The foregoing discussion has established that Dr. Jolly's date (viz. 4th century A. D. in R. u. S., p. 21) is much later than the data warrant. There is nothing to prevent us from holding that the extant smṛti was composed during the first two centuries of the Christian era or even a little earlier.

v1.c6.s21.47

Besides the Yājñavalkyasmṛti we have to reckon with three other works connected with the name of Yājñavalkya, viz. Vṛddha Yāj., Yoga-Yāj., and Bṛhad-Yāj. All these three works are comparatively ancient. Viśvarūpa quotes (vide note 219 above) two verses of Vṛddha-Yājñavalkya saying that many writers on dharma have been born and will be born and enumerating ten such writers. The Mit. and Aparārka quote Vṛddha-Yājñavalkya frequently. One quotation cited from Vṛddha-Yāj. by Mādhava refers to the means of proof in case of doubt whether there was a partition.³³¹ So Vṛddha-Yāj. wrote also on Vyavahāra. Most of the quotations occur in the prāyaścitta section. It is interesting to note that one of these quotations in Aparārka³³² regards the touch of Pārasikas as on the same level with that of Cāṇḍālas, Mlecchas and Bhillas. The Dāyabhāga³³³ says that Jītendriya cited the words of Bṛhad-Yājñavalkya (viz. "sodaro nānyamātṛjaḥ"). The Mit. cites Bṛhad-Yājñavalkya on prāyaścitta. So this also is a work that must be held to be earlier than 1000 A. D. Yāj. himself is styled Yogīśvara by the Mit. and other works, but Yoga-Yājñavalkya is a different work from the Yāj. smṛti and existed probably prior to the latter work. Yāj. (in III. 110) claims the Yogaśāstra to be his own work. So either Yāj. the author of the smṛti composed such a work or the author of the smṛti in order to glorify it claimed that he was the same as the author of a well-known Yogaśāstra ascribed to a Yājñavalkya. At all events Yoga-Yājñavalkya existed certainly much earlier than 800 A. D. Vācaspatimiśra in his commentary on the Yogasūtrabhāṣya quotes a half verse from Yogī-Yājñavalkya.³³⁴ Vācaspati wrote his Nyāyasūcinibandha in 898 (of the Vikram era) i. e. 841-42 A. D. Aparārka quotes profusely from Yoga-Yājñavalkya. One of the quotations (on III. 198-201) is an Āryā (on the duration of a mātrā³³⁵). The quotations refer to prāṇāyāma, Gāyatrī, bathing, tarpaṇa and jñāna. His position is that even a householder becomes *mukta* by performing his duties, by contemplating on *ātman* and by knowledge of the Vedānta, that the highest goal is reached by a combination of jñāna and *karma* and that the view that *mokṣa* results from knowledge alone is a sign of indolence.³³⁶ The Parāśaramādhavīya quotes a verse from Yogī-Yāj. saying that only the Brāhmaṇas can pass through the four āśramas, the Kṣatriya through three (excluding the last), the Vaiśya through two and the Śūdra only through one (viz. that of householder).³³⁷ Kullūka on Manu (3. 1) quotes the view of Yogī-Yāj. that Brahmacarya extended to twelve years or five for each of the four Vedas.³³⁸

First 60 of 79 passages. Read on

Linked texts (19)