History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s21.16.3

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.