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

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.