History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s21.16
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s21.16
- Language
- English
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’.