History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s47.16

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.