Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s41: 54. Saṁgraha or Smṛtisaṁgraha

History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s41

Language
English

54. Saṁgraha or Smṛtisaṁgraha

v1.c6.s41.1

This work is frequently cited by the Mitākṣarā, Aparārka, the Smṛticandrikā and other works on all topics of dharma. The quotations on vyavahāra are copious and are very important for the history of Hindu Law. A few of the important views of the Saṁgrahakāra are set out below. He gives the requisite characteristics of a plaint in five verses.⁴⁷⁹ According to him documents are of two kinds, rājakīya and jānapada. The ordeals from dhaṭa (balance) to poison (i. e. four) are prescribed in cases where the subject matter is of great value (i. e. above 500 paṇas), while kośa and the (other)

v1.c6.s41.2

⁴⁷⁹ Vide मिता० on याज्ञ. II. 6, स्मृतिच० (व्य. p. 36), व्यवहारमयूख (p. 12), वीर० (p. 68).

v1.c6.s41.3

ordeals (in all three) are prescribed in disputes for lesser sums.⁴⁸⁰ This is slightly opposed to Nārada (ṛṇādāna verse 336) according to whom the five ordeals from tulā to kośa were prescribed in substantial disputes.⁴⁸¹ The Saṁgrahakāra has in view the seven ordeals spoken of by Nārada (ṛṇādāna verses 252, 337, 343), while Bṛhaspati and Pitāmaha enumerate nine. He defines dāya as the wealth that is handed down through father and mother.⁴⁸² He held that ownership arose from the dictates of śāstra and was not an affair of the world (laukika) and puts forward two reasons in support of his theory, viz. if ownership were laukika, then it would not be possible to make such assertions as 'his wealth has been wrongfully seized by another' and the texts (vide Gautama X. 39) laying down the means of acquisition of wealth for the several varṇas would be meaningless.⁴⁸³ Dhāreśvara held the same view. These views were elaborately criticized by the Mit. According to the Saṁgrahakāra,⁴⁸⁴ partition creates ownership in the son as regards paternal wealth (in which he has no rights by birth). Dhāreśvara entertained the same opinion, which was vehemently controverted by the Mit., holding that partition takes place of that in which one has already ownership. Accordingt o the Saṁgraha,⁴⁸⁵ ownership does not consist in being able to dispose of a thing at one's sweet will, since it is the śāstra that prescribes the proper disposal or application of all things. The Saṁgraha⁴⁸⁶ laid down that the special share given to the eldest son, the practice of niyoga and the offering of a cow are all forbidden in the present age. Dhāreśvara also held the same view about the eldest son's rights and the Mit. also approves of it and quotes anonymously the same verse (on Yāj. II. 117). The Saṁgraha in two verses, apparently following Manu 9. 182-183, lays down that, if of several full brothers one has a son, all thereby have issue and that, if one out of the several wives of a person has a son, all the co-wives may be regarded as putravatī. The Smṛticandrikā says that Devasvāmī explained this dictum of the Saṁgrahakāra. The Saṁgraha says that the widow of a separated coparcener dying childless would inherit his whole estate if she submitted to *Niyoga* at the behests of her elders.⁴⁸⁷ This was also the opinion of Dhāreśvara and was refuted according to the Smṛticandrikā by Viśvarūpa. The Mit. also criticizes this view. He names Manu in connection with the succession of a person dying without leaving any one out of the twelve kinds of sons.⁴⁸⁸ He has in view Manu 9. 185. According to the Saṁgrahakāra the order of succession to a sonless man is :— widow, the daughter who is a putrikā, mother, paternal grandmother, father, full brothers, half-brothers, the line of the father (pitṛsantati), the grandfather's line, the great-grand-father's line, other sapiṇḍas, sakulyas, the preceptor, the pupil, a fellow-student, a learned Brāhmaṇa. The Mit. notes that relying on Manu (9. 217) Dhāreśvara placed the paternal grandmother after the mother and before the father (thus agreeing with the Saṁgraha). The Saṁgraha says that homicide and other offences when commited with force are called *sāhasa*.⁴⁸⁹

v1.c6.s41.4

⁴⁸⁰ घटादीनि विषान्तानि गुर्वर्थेषु दापयेत् । कोशादीनि पुनस्त्रीणि लघ्वर्थेषु यथाक्रमम् ॥ स्मृतिच० (व्य. 98); परा. मा. III. p. 153.

v1.c6.s41.5

⁴⁸¹ कोशान्तानि तुलादीनि गुरुष्वर्थेषु दापयेत् ।

v1.c6.s41.6

⁴⁸² पितृद्वारागतं द्रव्यं मातृद्वारागतं च यत् । कथितं दायशब्देन तद्विभागोधुनोच्यते ॥ परा. मा. III. p. 478.

v1.c6.s41.7

⁴⁸³ अस्यापहृतमेतेन न युक्तं वक्तुमन्यथा । विहितोऽर्थागमः शास्त्रे यथावर्णं पृथक् पृथक् ॥ प्रतिग्रहाजिवाणिज्यशुश्रूषाख्या यथाक्रमम् । स्मृतिच० (व्य. p. 257).

v1.c6.s41.8

⁴⁸⁴ क्रियते स्वं विभागेन पुत्राणां पैतृकं धनम् । स्वत्वे सति प्रवर्तन्ते तस्माद्धर्माः पृथक् क्रियाः ॥ स्मृतिच० (व्य. p. 259.).

v1.c6.s41.9

⁴⁸⁵ न च स्वमुच्यते तद्यत्स्वेच्छया विनियुज्यते । विनियोगोत्र सर्वस्य शास्त्रेणैव नियम्यते।

v1.c6.s41.10

⁴⁸⁶ यथा नियोगधर्मो नो नानुबन्ध्यावधोपि वा । तथोद्धारविभागोपि नैव संप्रति वर्तते ॥ स्मृतिच० (व्य. p. 266); परा. मा. III. p. 492.

v1.c6.s41.11

⁴⁸⁷ भ्रातृषु प्रविभक्तेषु संसृष्टेष्वप्यसत्सु च । गुर्वाद्वेशान्नियोगस्था पत्नी धनमवाप्नुयात् ॥ परा. मा. III. p. 533.

v1.c6.s41.12

⁴⁸⁸ अशेषात्मजहीनस्य मृतस्य धनिनो धनम् । केनेदानीं ग्रहीतव्यमित्येतन्मनुनोच्यते ॥ स्मृतिच० (व्य. p. 290. ).

v1.c6.s41.13

⁴⁸⁹ मानुष्यमारणाक्षीनि हृतानि प्रसभं यदि । साहशानीति कथ्यन्ते यथाख्यास्यान्यथ वा पुनः ॥ स्मृतिच० (व्य. p. 7).

v1.c6.s41.14

It will be seen from the above that the views of the Saṁgrahakāra closely agreed with those of Dhāreśvara in many respects and were not approved of by the Mit. and other later writers. In vyavahāra the Saṁgraha certainly marks a far more advanced stage than Yājñavalkya and Nārada, whose works do not contain the controvertial questions about ownership, partition etc. As Dhāreśvara agrees very closely with the Smṛtisaṁgraha it may be argued that they were not separated by a long interval of time. It has to be also noted that Viśvarūpa and Medhātithi do not refer to the Saṁgraha. It is not unlikely that the Saṁgraha was in vogue in the territory ruled over by Bhoja of Dhārā and was therefore followed by Bhoja Dhāreśvara. Taking all things into consideration the Saṁgraha was probably compiled between the 8th and 10th centuries of the Christian era. The Smṛticandrikā no doubt says in one place that the Saṁgrahakāra follows the views of Dhāreśvara.⁴⁹⁰ But this statement should not be emphasized and interpreted too literally. All that it means is that both held the same opinion. There is no intention to state that Dhāreśvara preceded the Saṁgrahakāra. Chronology was never the strong point of Indian commentators, particularly when the writers whose opinions were referred to flourished several centuries earlier. We know that Bhāruci and Dhāreśvara preceded the Mitākṣarā which names both; but the Sarasvatīvilāsa in several places (e. g. pp. 347, 361, 383) says that Bhāruci cannot tolerate the view of Vijñāneśvara and also says that Dhāreśvara and Devasvāmī follow the view of Vijñānayogin (p. 395).

v1.c6.s41.15

⁴⁹⁰ संग्रहकारस्य धारेश्वरमतानुसारित्वात् ।

v1.c6.s41.16

The Smṛticandrikā quotes several verses from the Saṁgraha on topics of śrāddha in which Gautama, Kātyāyana, Parāśara, Manu, Yājñavalkya, Yama and Śaunaka are cited by name.⁴⁹¹

v1.c6.s41.17

⁴⁹¹ For example : याज्ञवल्क्यो विसर्गात्प्राक् पात्रमुत्तानमिच्छति। यमो विसर्जनं कृत्वा गृहकर्तापि शौनकः ॥ प्रीतिप्रश्नादि देवानां पूर्वं कात्यायनादयः ।' स्मृतिच० (II. p. 484); compare या. I. 248. 'यस्मिंस्ते संस्रवाः पूर्वमर्घ्यपात्रे निवेशिताः। पितुःपात्रं तदुत्तानं कृत्वा विप्रान् विसर्जयेत् ॥'.

Linked texts (9)