History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s47.3

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.