Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s47: 60. Viśvarūpa

History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s47

Language
English

60. Viśvarūpa

v1.c6.s47.1

The commentary of Viśvarūpa called Bālakrīḍā on the Yājñavalkya-smṛti has been recently published in two parts by M. M. T. Gaṇapati Śāstri in the Trivandrum Sanskrit Series. The Mit. states in the introductory verses that the dicta of Yāj. were expanded by the voluminous or ample (*vikaṭa*) explanations of Viśvarūpa. In commenting on Yāj. I. 81 the Mit. tells us that Viśvarūpa looked upon the words of Yāj. I. 79 (*tasmin yugmāsu saṁviśet*) as a *niyama*. In Viśvarūpa's commentary on Yāj. I. 80 (*evaṁ gacchan* &c.) we do find that the verse of Yāj. and similar passages of Manu (3. 45), Vasiṣṭha and Gautama (5. 1) are understood to contain a *niyama* and not a *parisaṁkhyā*.⁵²⁹ On Yāj. III. 24 the Mit. informs us that Viśvarūpa, Medhātithi and Dhāreśvara looked upon certain texts of Ṛṣyaśṛṅga on *aśauca* as in conflict with well-known smṛtis and discarded them. Mr. S. Sitaram Śāstri published (in 1900 at Madras) the text and translation of Viśvarūpa's comment on inheritance and Mr. Setlur also published the vyavahāra section. In the following pages the Trivandrum edition is relied on.

v1.c6.s47.2

⁵²⁹ मानवं तु 'ऋतुकालाभिगामी स्यात्' इति ... नियमपरतयैव व्याख्येयम् । एतेनैव... वासिष्ठं व्याख्यातम् । ... गौतमौयं त्वृतुपरिसंख्यार्थं 'ऋतावुपेयात्' इति केचित् । ...तस्मात्तदपि नियमार्थमेव व्याख्येयम् ।

v1.c6.s47.3

The printed com. of Viśvarūpa on the *vyavahāra* section is extremely meagre and scarcely merits the epithet *vikaṭa* applied to it by the Mit. But the comment of Viśvarūpa on the *ācāra* and *prāyaścitta* sections is truly voluminous and compares favourably with the Mit. The style of Viśvarūpa is simple and forcible and resembles that of the great Śaṅkarācārya. He quotes profusely from Vedic works, mentions the Carakas and Vājasaneyins (on Yāj 1. 32), the Kāṭhaka (on Yāj. III. 237 and 243) and very often supports his position by quotations from the Ṛgveda (e. g. on Yāj. II. 121 and 206), the Brāhmaṇas (e. g. the Śatapatha on Yāj. 1. 53 and III. 257) and from the Upaniṣads (e. g. on Yāj. II. 117, the well-known Chāndogya passage about the ordeal for theft and on Yāj. I. 50 Chāndogya II. 23. 10 about the three branches of *dharma*). He speaks of the *pada-pāṭha* and the *kramapāṭha* as due to human agency (on Yāj. III. 242). He frequently quotes the Gṛhyasūtras of Pāraskara and less frequently those of Bhāradvāja and Āśvalāyana. He cites a host of smṛtikāras.⁵³⁰ Most of the quotations attributed to Svayambhū are found in the extant Manusmṛti, but this is not the case with the quotations ascribed to Bhṛgu (vide p. 138 above). Most of the quotations from Bṛhaspati (even on such topics as repayment of debts, sureties, the rights of śūdrāputra) are in prose, only a few being in verse (e. g. a verse about ordeals on Yāj. II. 117, a verse about the method of partition on Yāj. II. 153). It appears therefore that Viśvarūpa either knew a work of Bṛhaspati in prose on arthaśāstra in which occurred a few verses or he had before him a prose work of Bṛhaspati and a versified smṛti of Bṛhaspati, both of which he regarded as the compositions of the same author. He quotes a verse (on Yāj. I. 328) from Viśālākṣa, a well-known writer on politics quoted even by Kauṭilya. He refers to the arthaśāstra of Uśanas along with that of Bṛhaspati. Kauṭilya is nowhere quoted by name. The learned editor of Viśvarūpa thinks (Intro. p. V) that Viśvarūpa took Bṛhaspati and Viśālākṣa as *ārṣa* writers long anterior to Yāj. and therefore used their *dicta* to elucidate and support Yāj., while he omits Kauṭilya because he thought Kauṭilya to be posterior to Yāj. This argument contains several fallacies. In the first place it is wrong because Viśvarūpa quotes verses from Nārada and Kātyāyana to supplement Yāj. There is nothing to show that Viśvarūpa regarded Nārada and Kātyāyana also as anterior to Yāj. and we have seen above that they are several centuries later than the smṛti of Yāj. Moreover Kauṭilya himself looked upon both Bṛhaspati and Viśālākṣa as high authorities and so Viśvarūpa might have quoted them rather than Kauṭilya. Even taking the latest date assigned to Kauṭilya (about 3rd century A. D.), he flourished several centuries before Viśvarūpa. It is impossible to believe that Viśvarūpa was in possession of the exact chronological relation of Yāj. and Kauṭilya. Many scholars, besides, place Kauṭilya's work centuries before Yāj. It appears, however, that Viśvarūpa had the work of Kauṭilya before him. On Yāj. I. 307 he speaks of ministers tested by the four allurements (*upadhā*) of *dharma*, *artha*, *kāma* and *bhaya*. This is an echo of Kauṭilya (I. 10). On Yāj I. 343 Viś. refers to the view of some that a march should be made when neighbouring chiefs are overwhelmed in calamities.⁵³¹ This is the view of Kauṭilya almost in the same words. On Yāj. I. 341 Viś. speaks of the manifold aspects of the work of a minister, some words of his comment being almost identical with Kauṭilya's.

v1.c6.s47.4

⁵³⁰ The स्मृतिकारs mentioned by name are : अङ्गिरस्, अत्रि, आपस्तम्ब, उशनस्, कात्यायन, काश्यप, गार्ग्य, वृद्धगार्ग्य, गौतम, जातूकर्ण (or-र्णि), दक्ष, नारद, पराशर, पारस्कर, पितामह, पुलस्त्य, पैठीनसि, बृहस्पति, बौधायन, भारद्वाज, भृगु, मनु, वृद्धमनु, यम, याज्ञवल्क्य, वृद्धयाज्ञवल्क्य, वसिष्ठ, विष्णु, व्यास, शङ्ख, शातातप, शौनक, संवर्त, सुमन्तु, स्वयंभु (i. e. मनु), हारीत.

v1.c6.s47.5

⁵³¹ तथा चाहूः-सामन्तव्योर्थ्यसनसाम्येन यातव्यं तममित्रमेव यांयात्-इति । विश्वरूप; compare 'तुल्यसामन्तव्यसने यातव्यममित्रं वा इत्यमित्रमभियायात्। कौटिल्य VII. 5; किं पुनस्तन्मन्त्रणीयम्। उक्तं च दिक्प्रचारदूतसं प्रेषण-कापटिकोदास्थित- गृहपतिकवैदेहकतापसव्यञ्जनानवस्थितचारप्रपञ्चनिरूपणपरप्रयुक्तकापटिकायुच्छेद्दुर्गादिकरणकन्या संप्रदानकुमारचिन्ता-अन्तःपुरप्रचाराद्यनेकविधं च । विश्वरूप. The words कापटिको ... व्यञ्जन occur in कौटिल्य (I. 11) and कौटिल्य has chapters on राजपुत्ररक्षण (i. e. कुमारचिन्ता), अवरुद्धवृत्त (i. e. अन्तःपुरप्रचार), दुर्गविधान and दूतप्रणिधि.

v1.c6.s47.6

Viśvarūpa's work is thoroughly saturated with the lore of the Pūrvamīmāṁsā. He quotes Jaimini by name (on Yāj. I. 225 where Jaimini VI. 8. 15 is quoted). Curiously enough he applies the term *nyāya* to Mīmāṁsā. He takes ‘nyāya-mīmāṁsā’ in Yāj. I. 3 as one *vidyā*, while he notes that others explain *nyāya* as the system of logic propounded by Akṣapāda. He quotes the sūtras of Jaimini as those of Yājñikas who know *nyāya* (e. g. on Yāj. I. 53 he quotes Jaimini I. 3. 16 and on Yāj I. 87 he quotes Jaimini VI. 8. 17). He applies the epithet *naiyāyika* to a mīmāṁsaka like Śabara and speaks of the mīmāṁsakas as *nyāyavidaḥ*.⁵³² He mentions the Śābarabhāṣya by name (on Yāj. III. 243) and in several places quotes the very words of Śabara (e. g. on Yāj. III. 181).⁵³³ He quotes the ślokavārtika of Kumārila (I. 12 the verse ‘sarvasyaiva hi &c.) in his introductory remarks. In his comment on Yāj. I. 7 he cites over fifty verses in the nature of *kārikās* dealing with the relation of śruti and smṛti and kindred topics. These verses are his own composition, as in one of them he assures us that a certain point will be dealt with by him in detail in the section on śrāddha.⁵³⁴ In interspersing his commentary with *kārikās* of his own and in their style and pithiness he greatly resembles Kumārila. Throughout his work he relies upon mīmāṁsā maxims and methods of discussion. For example, on Yāj. I. 4-5 he discusses the rule of Jaimini II. 4. 8 ff (about 'sarvaśākhāpratyayam ekaṁ karma') in its application to smṛtis ; on Yāj. I. 225 he relies upon the position that words like *yava* and *varāha* are to be taken as employed in the Vedas in the same sense in which *śiṣṭas* use them (vide Jaimini I. 3. 9) ; on Yāj. II. 144 he speaks of wealth (dravya) being puruṣārtha, where he alludes to the well-known distinction between *kratvartha* and *puruṣārtha*, the subject of Jaimini's 4th chap. His commentary on Yāj. III 212, 237, 262 are fine examples of his superb skill in the interpretation and reconciliation of apparently conflicting texts.

v1.c6.s47.7

⁵³² न्यायविदश्च धार्मिकाः 'आंपे वा सर्वधर्मः स्यात्', न्यायविदश्च याज्ञिकाः सर्वार्थत्वात्पुत्रार्थे न प्रयोजयेदित्याहुः (this is जैमिनि VI. 8. 17); न च लक्ष्यमाणस्य विशेषणं विवक्ष्यत इति न्यायविदः (on याज्ञ. III. 250). The last is a well-known मीमांसान्याय. "तथा च नैयायिकाः 'नहि वचनस्यातिभारोस्ति' इत्याहुः." These words occur in शाबरभाष्य on जैमिनि III. 2. 3.

v1.c6.s47.8

⁵³³ तथा चोक्तं 'चोदना भूतं भवन्तं भविष्यन्तम् इत्याद्येवंजातीयकमर्थं शक्नोत्यवगमयितुम्' इति । This is शाबरभाष्य p. 4 (B. I. edition).

v1.c6.s47.9

⁵³⁴ सर्वं चैतत्प्रपञ्चेन वक्ष्यामः श्राद्धसंग्रहे । विश्वरूप part I. p. 16.

v1.c6.s47.10

Though Viśvarūpa was a past master in Purvamīmāṁsā lore, his philosophical views seem to have been identical with those of the great Śaṅkara. According to him, *mokṣa* results from correct knowledge alone and the whole saṁsāra is due to *avidyā*.⁵³⁵ He quotes anonymously one of Gauḍapāda's kārikās⁵³⁶ (III. 5) on Yāj. III. 134.

v1.c6.s47.11

⁵³⁵ In his com. on याज्ञवल्क्य III. 66 he says 'अपवर्गार्थं हि पारिव्राज्यं ज्ञानैक-साधनं न तत्र कर्मणा प्रयोजनमित्युक्तमेव' ; 'तस्याग्रहणात्मकेनाविद्योत्थत्वान्नपञ्च-स्त्येवमादिचोद्यानवकाश एव । ... तत्त्वेन ग्रहणे नान्यद्वस्त्वन्तरमस्तीति ब्रह्मविदां स्थितिः ।'.

v1.c6.s47.12

⁵³⁶ तथा चाह-यथैकस्मिन्घटाकाशे रजोधूमादिभिर्युते । न सर्वे संप्रयुज्यन्ते सुखं दुःखं तथात्मनः ॥ इति । तथान्यैरपि-धूमपूर्णघटानां च यस्यैकस्यैव रेचनम् । उत्पाट्य क्रियते तत्र जायते व्योम निर्मलम् ॥ इति. In the Ānandāśrama edition of गौडपाद the fourth *pāda* is तद्वज्जीवा सुंखादिभिः. I could not trace the *kārikā* धूमपूर्ण ०.

v1.c6.s47.13

He speaks on Yāj. III. 103 of Nārada who knew the Veda of music (gītivedavid), of purāṇa (on III. 175), and quotes verses (on Yāj. III. 85) from an abhidhānakośa (lexicon) and from a Nāmaratnamālā (on III. 266). He speaks of the śloka of Bhikṣā-ṭana (on III. 66). He is in this probably referring to the Bhikṣā-ṭanakāvya,⁵³⁷ which is mentioned by the Sāhityadarpaṇa. Among commentators he mentions Asahāya's bhāṣya on Gautama by name (on Yāj. III. 263). On Yāj. III. 256 he explains Mleccha as *pulindas* and *Tājikas* (i. e. Arabs).

v1.c6.s47.14

⁵³⁷ Vide I. O. cat. p. 1448 for the भिक्षाटनकाव्य of शिवभक्तिदास alias उत्प्रेक्षा-वल्लभ who names वाल्मीकि, कालिदास and the कादम्बरी of बाण.

v1.c6.s47.15

It has been shown above (§ 34 pp. 169-170) how Viśvarūpa's text of Yāj. varied in some respects from that of the Mit. ; how he frequently refers to the views of commentators of Yāj. earlier than himself ( in the words ' apare, ' ' anye ' ), how he proposes several explanations of the same words in several cases.

v1.c6.s47.16

Dr. Jolly (Journal of Indian History 1924, pp. 7-8 ) says that the citations of Viś. in the Smṛticandrikā about his having refuted the views of Dhāreśvara cannot be traced in the printed Bālakrīḍā, as also the reference to Viś. in the Mit. on Yāj. I. 81 and II. 135. It has been shown above (note 529) that the printed Viś on Yāj. I. 80 *does* contain the view attributed to it by the Mit. As regards the Mit. on Yāj. II. 135 it has to be noted that the Mit. does not mention Viś. by name there, but only speaks of ' bhagavān ācārya,⁵³⁸ ' which words are interpreted by the Subodhinī and the Bālambhaṭṭī as referring to Viśvarūpa. It is true that the printed Viś. does not contain in so many words the explanation attributed by the Mit. to ' bhagavān ācārya. ' But it is worth considering that in the printed Viś. the two quotations from Manu and Śaṅkha do occur and are put in the mouth of an objector and are explained away in a way somewhat similar to that put forth in the Mit.⁵³⁹ As regards the passages of the Smṛticandrikā, the matter requires careful examination. The Smṛticandrikā ( II. p. 294 Gharpure's ed. ) says that according to the Saṁgrahakāra a widow was allowed to succeed to her sonless husband's wealth if she submitted to *niyoga*, that the same was the view of Dhāreśvara and that Viśvarūpa refuted the view of Dhāreśvara. In no place does the printed Viś. name Dhāreśvara. The words of the Smṛticandrikā are not to be taken literally. It will be shown below that the author, Devaṇṇa-bhaṭṭa, flourished about 1200 A. D., while Dhāreśvara flourished between 1000-1050 A. D. Devaṇṇa had no correct idea of their relative chronological position. It has been shown above (p. 249) how though Asahāya is named by the Mit., the Sarasvatī-vilāsa very often says that Asahāya does not like (or tolerate) the views of Vijñāneśvara. Similarly the same work (para 392) says that Dhāreśvara and Devasvāmin do not tolerate the view of Vijñā-neśvara, but Dhāreśvara is one of the predecessors of Vij. actually named by him. So all that the Smṛticandrikā means is that Dhāreśvara and Viśvarūpa differed in their views on the particular points mentioned by it. The word *patnī* is taken by Viś. to mean a widow who is pregnant at the time of her husband's death and quotes the sūtras of Vasiṣṭha and Gautama in support of his view as *jñāpakas*. So this view entirely differs from the view of Dhāre-śvara that the widow of a sonless person succeeds if she submits to *niyoga*. The Smṛticandrikā (II. p. 300) says that the Saṃgraha-kāra placed the father's mother immediately after the mother and before the father, that the Saṃgrahakāra relied on the same argu-ments that were employed by Dhāreśvara and that Viśvarūpa and others refuted those arguments. The passage in the printed Viś. is somewhat corrupt in this place. Viś. *does* place the mother before the father on the ground of the word *mātā* occurring first when the word ‘pitarau’ or the compound ‘*mātāpitarau*’ is expanded. The comment does mention the verse of Manu (9. 217) about the grandmother, but it makes no clear sense, as it stands.⁵⁴⁰ For the reason given above Rai Bahadur M. M. Chakravarti (JASB for 1912, p. 345 and for 1915, p. 322) is not right when he places Viśvarūpa later than Bhojadeva because of the remarks of the Smṛti-candrikā.

v1.c6.s47.17

⁵³⁸ The words of the Mit. are : यदपि मतं पिता हरेदपुत्रस्य रिक्थं भ्रातर एव वा ( मनु 9. 185 ) इति मनुस्मरणात्, तथा-स्वर्यातस्य ह्यपुत्रस्य भ्रातृगामि द्रव्यं तदभावे पितरौ हरेयातां ज्येष्ठा वा पत्नीति शङ्खस्मरणाच्च अपुत्रस्य धनं भ्रातृगामीति प्राप्तं भरणं चास्य कुर्वीरन् स्त्रीणामाजीवनक्षयादित्यादिवचनाच्च भरणोपयुक्तं धनं पत्नी लभत इत्यपि स्थितम् । एवं स्थिते बहुधने अपुत्रे स्वर्यात भरणोपयुक्तं पत्नी गृह्णाति शेषं च भ्रातरो यदा तु पत्नीभरणमात्रोपयुक्तमेव द्रव्यमस्ति ततो न्यूनं वा तदा किं पत्न्येव गृह्णाति उत भ्रातरोपीति विरोधे पूर्वबलीयस्त्वज्ञापनार्थ पत्नी दुहितर इत्यारब्धमिति । तदप्यत्र भगवानाचार्यो न मृष्यति । यतः । पिता हरेदपुत्रस्य ... इति विकल्पस्मरणान्नेवं क्रमपरमपि तु धनग्रहणेऽधिकारप्रदर्शनमात्रपरम् । तच्चासत्यापि पत्न्यादिगणे घटते इति व्याचचक्षे ।

v1.c6.s47.18

⁵³⁹ ननु एतदप्यस्ति । ' पिता हरे ... वा ' इति । मातन्द्यसत्यामेतद् द्रष्टव्यम् । कथं शङ्खवचनं ' स्वर्यातस्य ... पत्नी ' इति । उक्तलक्षणपत्नीदुहितृभावे सोदर्यभ्रात्रभिप्रायं तत् । विश्वरूप.

v1.c6.s47.19

⁵⁴⁰ क्षत्रियादिषु पुत्राणां तु पितरि मातुरभावे ‘पितुर्माता हरेद् धनम्’ इत्यदस्य विषयः।

v1.c6.s47.20

In the works of Jīmūtavāhana (viz. the Dāyabhāga and the Vyavahāramātṛkā), in the Smṛticandrikā, the Hāralatā, and other later works like the Sarasvatīvilāsa, the views of Viśvarūpa are frequently cited and discussed. Several such citations have been already examined by me (JBBRAS for 1926, pp. 200-204). From considerations of space I do not repeat here the discussion of those passages. In the Gṛhastharatnākara⁵⁴¹ of Caṇḍeśvara (D.C. No. 44 of 1883-4, folio 133a) the explanation of Viśvarūpācārya on Yāj. I. 135 is cited, which does not exactly tally with the printed Viś. Hemādri⁵⁴² refers to Viśvarūpa's explanation given in his section on partition which does not occur in the printed text. The result of the examination of these citations is that the printed text of Viś. is in the main genuine, but that in a few cases (particularly in the vyavahāra section) it is corrupt or deficient.

v1.c6.s47.21

⁵⁴¹ विश्वरूप on याज्ञ. I. 135 is तथा चाम्नायः । तस्माद्वर्षत्यप्रावृतो न व्रजेत्--इति । अयं मे वज्रः पाप्मानमहतात्--इत्येतदेव मन्त्रस्य कात्स्न्यंम् । यदा वर्षति गच्छेत् तदैवमिति व्याख्येयम् ।, while the गृहस्थरत्नाकर says 'अयं मे वज्रः सर्वे पाप्मानपहन्ति--इति सर्वे मन्त्रं पठन् वर्षत्यपावृतो (? प्रावृतो) गच्छेद् यावन्मन्त्र-समाप्तिः ऊर्ध्वमनियमः । तावतैवातिपाप्मनोपहत्तत्वादिति विश्वरूपाचार्यः ।

v1.c6.s47.22

⁵⁴² भ्राता वा भ्रातृपुत्रो वा सपिण्डः शिष्य एव च । सपिण्डक्रियां कृत्वा कुर्यादाभ्युदयिकं ततः ॥ इत्यत्र वचने अभ्युदयशब्देन आभ्युदयिकं श्राद्धं विभागप्रकरणे विश्वरूपा-चार्येण व्याख्यातम् । चतुर्वर्ग० (कालनिर्णय p. 43).

v1.c6.s47.23

Though Viś. holds the same view as the Mit. that ownership does not for the first time arise on partition but that partition takes place of what is already (jointly) owned, yet on numerous points the two disagree. A few of them may be set out here.

v1.c6.s47.24

(1) Viś. allows (on Yāj. II. 118) the father unrestricted freedom of distribution of property among his sons during his life-time, while the Mit. expressly says that this power of unequal distribution is restricted to self-acquired property.

v1.c6.s47.25

(2) Viś. (on Yāj. II. 119) allows a share of property to the widows of predeceased sons and grandsons of a man when a partition takes place during his lifetime. The Mit. restricts the words 'patnyaḥ' to the father's own wives when he effects a partition during his lifetime.

v1.c6.s47.26

(3) Viś. connects the words 'without detriment to the paternal estate' (in Yāj. II. 122) with the words 'whatever else is acquired by himself' and not with 'maitra' (gifts from a friend) and 'audvāhika' (gifts on marriage), while the Mit. connects the half verse 'whatever else is acquired by the man himself without detriment to the paternal estate ' as a qualifying clause to the next half verse and to another verse ' kramād abhyāgatam &c. ' In the Mit. the two verses ' pitṛdravyāvirodhena &c. ' and ' kramād &c. ' occur consecutively, while in Viś. they are separated by three verses and Viś. takes the verse ' kramād ' &c. as referring to the re-opening of a partition for a son born after partition.

v1.c6.s47.27

( 4 ) Viś. allows *niyoga* only to *śūdras* in general and to kṣatriya kings in case of danger of extinction of line ( vide com. on Yāj. I. 69 and II. 131 ), while Mit. forbids *niyoga* in general and holds the texts speaking of it as applicable to a girl who is only betrothed and not married.

v1.c6.s47.28

( 5 ) Viś. appears to allow one share out of ten to the son of a sūdra wife from a brāhmaṇa without restriction of any kind, while Mit. restricts the share to estates other than land acquired by gift.

v1.c6.s47.29

( 6 ) Viś. interprets the expression ' half share ' ( in Yāj. II. 138 ) with reference to the illegitimate son of a *śūdra* as meaning ' some portion, not necessarily exactly half,' while Mit. interprets it literally.

v1.c6.s47.30

( 7 ) Viś. allows a widow to succeed to her husband if she is pregnant at his death, while Mit. allows a widow to succeed without any restriction except that of chastity.

v1.c6.s47.31

( 8 ) Viś. restricts the word ' duhitaraḥ 'in ' patnī duhitaraścaiva ' ( Yāj. II. 138 ) to *putrikā* only and so does not allow all daughters whatever to succeed, while Mit. does not introduce any such qualification.

v1.c6.s47.32

( 9 ) Viś. reads ' anyodaryasya saṁsṛṣṭi ' for anyodaryastu &c.' and 'sodaro ' for ' saṁsṛṣṭo ' in Yāj. II. 143 and his interpretation of the verse is entirely different from that of the Mit.

v1.c6.s47.33

( 10 ) Viś. reads ' ādhivedanikaṁ caiva ' for ' ādhivedanikādyaṁ ca ' of Mit. and holds that *bandhudatta, śulka* and *anvādheyaka strīdhana* of a childless woman goes on her death to her full brother; while Mit. connects these three with the preceding verse and takes the half verse ' atītāyām ' as laying down a general rule of succession to *strīdhana* of all kinds and interprets ' bāndhavāḥ ' as meaning ' husband and the rest '.

v1.c6.s47.34

( 11 ) Viś. takes the verse ' adhivinna-striyai ' &c. ( on Yāj. II. 152 ) as applicable to a wife superseded without any ground of supercession allowed by the texts; while Mit. does not introduce any such qualification.

v1.c6.s47.35

As Viśvarūpa quotes Kumārila's Ślokavārtika and is mentioned by the Mit. as an authoritative commentator it follows that he flourished between 750 A. D. and 1000 A. D. A greater approximation as to the date of Viśvarūpa can be made, if the identity of Viśvarūpa with Sureśvara be held established. Sureśvara, as he himself tells us in the Naiṣkarmyasiddhi, the Taittirīyopaniṣadbhāṣya-vārtika and other works, was a pupil of the great Śaṅkarācārya whose generally accepted period is 788-820 A. D. Mādhavācārya in several works of his quotes as Viśvarūpa's passages from the well-known works of Sureśvara. For example, the Parāśara-Mādhavīya (vol. I, part I, p. 57) quotes a kārikā of Sureśvara as that of Viśvarūpācārya.⁵⁴³ In the Vivaraṇaprameyasaṁgraha (Vizianagaram series p. 92) also Mādhava quotes a verse from the Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad-bhāṣya-vārtika as Viśvarūpa's.⁵⁴⁴ In the Puruṣārthaprabodha⁵⁴⁵ of Brahmānanda-bhāratī (ms. in Bhau Daji collection, Bombay) composed in 1476 (probably of the Śaka era) the author speaks of the Naiṣkarmyasiddhi as a work of Viśvarūpa. In the Saṁkṣepa-Śaṅkara-jaya Viśvarūpa is said to be the author of the two vārtikas on Śaṅkara's bhāṣya.⁵⁴⁶ According to tradition embodied in the various lives of Śaṅkara, the latter had four pupils, Sureśvara, Padma-pāda, Toṭaka and Hastāmalaka. Several works mention Viśvarūpa as one of the four pupils and omit the name Sureśvara. For example, in the Dvādaśa-vākya-vivaraṇa of Gopāla (Aufrecht's Oxf. cat. No. 557, p. 227 b) the four pupils of Śaṅkara are named as Viśvarūpa, Padmanābha, Toṭaka and Hastāmalaka. In the Māna-sollāsa-vṛttānta-vilāsa of Rāmatīrtha we are expressly told that Sureśvara is another name of Viśvarūpa, a pupil of Śaṅkara (vide Mitra's Notices vol. V, No. 1763, p. 82). In the Saptasūtra-saṁnyāsapaddhati (Mitra's Notices, vol. VI, p. 296) the four pupils are said to eb Svarūpācārya, Padmācārya, Toṭaka and Pṛthvīdhara. The Guru-vaṁśakāvya (Vanivilas ed.) identifies Sureśvara and Viśvarūpa (II. 59) and makes him a pupil of Kumārila and Śaṅkara. It may therefore be held as fairly established that Viśvarūpa and Sureśvara are identical. Some corroboration is afforded by the fact that Viśvarūpa quotes Gauḍapāda the 'paramaguru' of Śaṅkara and holds the same philo-sophical views as those of Śaṅkara. Just as Viśvarūpa quotes Kumārila's Ślokavārtika, Sureśvara also in his Taittirīyopaniṣad-bhāṣya-vārtika quotes a *kārikā* of Kumārila and styles the latter Mīmāṁsakaṁ-manya.⁵⁴⁷ This shows that Sureśvara treated Kumārila with scant respect, which seems unlikely if he was at any time Kumārila's pupil. Viśvarūpa in his introduction⁵⁴⁸ performs an obeisance to the Sun, the great serpent (Śeṣa), Tilaksvāmin and Vināyaka. The Bhāmatī of Vācaspati-miśra has a similar salutation. Vācaspati-miśra wrote his Nyāyasūci-nibandha in 841-42 A. D. i. e. he was almost a contemporary of Śaṅkara and his pupils. The learned editor of Viś. tells us that in a commentary on Viś. called Vacanamālā Sureśvara is bracketed with Manu and Yogīśvara (Yājñavalkya) as an expounder of Śāstra (i. e. dharmaśāstra).⁵⁴⁹ Therefore that commentator looked upon Viś. and Sureśvara as identical. From all these several considerations it follows that Viśvarūpa flourished about 800-825 A. D. But this problem presents further difficulties. The mutual relations of Sureśvara, Bhavabhūti, Umbeka and Maṇḍana are a great puzzle. I have dealt with this question in JBBRAS for 1928, pp. 289-293. The conclusions arrived at there are that Maṇḍana's literary activity lies between 690-710, that of Umbeka between 700-730 and Sureśvara's between 810-840 A. D. and that Umbeka and Bhavabhūti are identical, but that Maṇḍana and Sureśvara are separated by about 100 years.

v1.c6.s47.36

⁵⁴³ इदं च वाक्यं नित्यकर्मविषयत्वेन वार्तिके विश्वरूपाचार्य उदाजहार-आम्रे फलार्थे इत्यादि ह्यापस्तम्बस्मृतेर्वचः । फलवत्त्वं समाचष्टे नित्यानामपि कर्मणाम् ॥ The sūtra of आपस्तम्ब is आप. ध. सू. I. 7. 20. 3 and the कारिका occurs in the बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद्भाष्यवार्तिक (I. 1. 97).

v1.c6.s47.37

⁵⁴⁴ The verse is on p. 640 of the बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद्भाष्यवार्तिक.

v1.c6.s47.38

⁵⁴⁵ इत्येवं नैष्कर्म्यसिद्धौ ब्रह्मांशैमंहावित्तमैः । श्रीमद्भिर्विश्वरूपाख्यैराचार्यैः करुणार्णवैः ॥ (folio 6).

v1.c6.s47.39

⁵⁴⁶ इत्थं स उक्तो भगवत्पदेन श्रीविश्वरूपो विदुषां वरिष्ठः । चकार भाष्यद्वयवार्तिके (ते!) आज्ञा गुरूणां ह्यविचारणीया ॥ संक्षेपशङ्करजय 13.68 (Aufrecht's Oxford Cat p. 257).

v1.c6.s47.40

⁵⁴⁷ मोक्षार्थी न प्रवर्तेत तत्र काम्यनिषिद्धयोः । नित्यनैमित्तिके कुर्यात्प्रत्यवायजिहासया ॥ इति मीमांसकंमन्यैः कर्मोक्तं मोक्षसाधनम् । तै. उ. भाष्यवार्तिक I. 9-10. The verse मोक्षार्थी &c. is श्लोकवार्तिक (संबन्धाक्षेपपरिहार verse 110).

v1.c6.s47.41

⁵⁴⁸ प्रणम्यार्कं महानागं तिलकस्वामिनं तथा । विनायकं च सद्बोभिः स्मृतिरुद्द्योत्यते मया ॥ विश्वरूप; vide याज्ञ. I. 289 आदित्यस्य सदा पूजां तिलकस्वामिनस्तथा । महागण-पतेश्चैव कुर्वन् सिद्धिमवाप्नुयात् ॥. The भामती has मार्तण्डतिलकस्वामिमहागण-पतीन् वयम् । विश्ववन्द्यान्नमस्यामः सर्वसिद्धिविधायिनः ॥. तिलकस्वामी would mean तिलकप्रियः स्वामी. The मिताक्षरा reads तिलकं स्वामिनस्तथा.

v1.c6.s47.42

⁵⁴⁹ अवनम्य मनुसुरेश्वरयोगीश्वरतीव्रकिरणगुरुचरणान् । शास्त्राणां व्याकर्तॄन् कर्तॄनपि देवता निखिलाः ॥ One of the verses at the end of the वचनमाला is भवभूतिनिबन्धनादधौ तिमिरीमप्रतिपादिके गुरोः । सकटाक्षनिरीक्षणप्लवं (वः!) पतितं मामयमुद्धरिष्यति ॥. Vide Tri. Cat. of Madras Govt. mss. for 1919-22, pp. 4458-4460 for वचनमाला.

v1.c6.s47.43

Dr. Jolly has brought together in the Journal of Indian History (vol. III. pp. 1-27) some valuable information about Viśvarūpa.

v1.c6.s47.44

In several later works a digest called Viśvarūpa-nibandha is frequently cited. That appears to be the composition of another Viśvarūpa altogether. For example, the ṣaṇ-ṇavati-śrāddha-nirṇaya of Śivabhaṭṭa (which is later than 1650 A. D.) tells us that Viśvarūpācārya composed a *vivaraṇa* (commentary) on the Śrāddhakalikā.⁵⁵⁰ The Kṛtyacintāmaṇi of Śivarāma (D. C. No. 221 of 1879) quotes several⁵⁵¹ verses from Viśvarūpanibandha on Sapiṇḍa relationship in marriage, which are not found in the Bālakrīḍā, but which agree remarkably with the words of the Mit. on Yāj. I. 53. The Varṣakriyākaumudī (pp. 378, 380) mentions Viśvarūpa-nibandha and quotes two verses cited therein. The Tithi-nirṇaya-sarvasamuccaya (later than 1450 A. D.) quotes certain *kārikās* of Viśvarūpa on the 18 varieties of Ekādaśī.⁵⁵² The Kālanirṇayasiddhāntavyākhyā (composed in 1653 A. D.) quotes certain verses of Viśvarūpa on the question of the disposal of food prepared for a marriage when a period of impurity on death supervenes.⁵⁵³ The Nirṇayasindhu also quotes verses of Viśvarūpa. From these data it follows that a Viśvarūpa composed a commentary on Śrāddhakalikā and also wrote a digest on matters of ācāra and other topics of dharma in prose and verse. Raghunandana in his Udvāhatattva (ed. by Jivananda, p. 116) names a Viśvarūpa-samuccaya. It is likely that it is the same as Viśvarūpa-nibandha.

v1.c6.s47.45

⁵⁵⁰ अत एवोक्तं श्राद्धकलिकायां--मासिकानि सपिण्डं च अमावास्या तथाऽब्दिकम् । अनेनैव तु कर्तव्यं यस्य भार्या रजस्वला ॥ इति । अनेनैव कर्तव्यं न त्वान्नान्नादिनेति च कलिकाविवरणेपि श्रीमद्विश्वरूपाचार्यव्याख्यानम् । Ms. in the Bhadkamkar Collection, folio 7 b.

v1.c6.s47.46

⁵⁵¹ विश्वरूपनिबन्धे । एवमुक्तप्रकारेण पितृबन्धुषु सप्तमात् । ऊर्ध्वमेव विवासत्वं पञ्चमान्मातृबन्धुतः ॥ सन्तानो भिद्यते यस्मात्पूर्वजादुभयत्र च । तमादाय गणे (गणेद् ) धीमान्वरं यावच्च कन्यकाम् ॥ इति । कृत्यचिन्तामणि folio 150. The Mit. says 'सन्तानभेदेपि यतः सन्तानभेदस्तमादाय गणयेद्यावत्सप्तम इति सर्वत्र योजनीयम् ।'.

v1.c6.s47.47

⁵⁵² एवं स्मार्ताभिप्रायेण विश्वरूपेणापि अष्टादश भेदा उक्ताः । Ms. in Bhadkamkar collection folio 19 a.

v1.c6.s47.48

⁵⁵³ Ms. in Bhadkamkar collection folio 137 b on verse 82.

Linked texts (30)