History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s41.14

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).