Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s48: 61. Bhāruci

History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s48

Language
English

61. Bhāruci

v1.c6.s48.1

The Mit. on Yāj. (I. 81) says that Bhāruci like Viśvarūpa held the view that the rule ‘ṛtau bhāryāṁ gacchet’ was a *niyama* and not a *parisaṁkhyā*. On Yāj. II 124 the Mit. says that the explanation of ‘the fourth share’ to be given to unmarried sisters offered by Asahāya and Medhātithi was the proper one and not that of Bhāruci. The Parāśaramādhavīya⁵⁵⁴ and the Sarasvatīvilāsa (para 133) inform us that Bhāruci was of opinion that unmarried sisters were only entitled to a provision for their marriage and were not entitled to a fourth share.

v1.c6.s48.2

⁵⁵⁴ भारुचिस्तु चतुर्थभागपदेन विवाहसंस्कारमात्रोपयोगि द्रव्यं विवक्षितं, अतो दायभाक्त्वमसंस्कृतकन्यानां नास्तीति मन्यते। परा. मा. vol. III, 2. p. 510.

v1.c6.s48.3

Bhāruci, being mentioned by the Mit., is certainly older than 1050 A. D. Rāmānujācārya in his Vedārthasaṁgraha (reprint from the *Pandit*, ed. of 1924, p. 154) mentions six *ācāryas* that preceded him as expounders of the Viśiṣṭādvaita system, viz. Bodhāyana, Ṭaṅka, Dramiḍa, Guhadeva, Kapardin and Bhāruci. Similarly the Yatīndramatadīpikā⁵⁵⁵ of Śrīnivāsadāsa (Ānandāśrama ed.) enumerates (p. 2) a host of teachers as the predecessors of Rāmānujācārya in propounding the Viśiṣṭādvaita system. Vyāsa is the reputed author of the Vedāntasūtras, Bodhāyana is said to have composed a *vṛtti* on the Vedānta-sūtras, called Kṛtakoṭi according to the Prapañca-hṛdaya (p. 39, Trivandrum ed.). Ṭaṅka and Brahmanandin are identical. Dramiḍa is credited with the authorship of a *bhāṣya* on the Vedānta-sūtras (which is quoted by Rāmānuja in his *bhāṣya* on II. 2. 3). Nāthamuni is said to have been the grand-father of Yāmunamuni, who was born about 916 A. D. Rāmānuja refers to him with great reverence as his teacher's teacher (*parama-guru*, vide Vedārtha-saṁgraha, p. 149) and is said to have been young when Yāmuna died (vide J R A S for 1915, p. 147 and I. A. for 1909, p. 129). It is therefore obvious that the teachers are arranged by the Yatīndramatadīpikā in chronological order. Hence Bhāruci, being placed earlier than even Dramiḍa and Nāthamuni, was comparatively an ancient author and could not have flourished later than the first half of the 9th century. Bhāruci the jurist also flourished before 1050. It is difficult to believe that there were two famous writers of the same name nearly about the same time. Hence it may provisionally be held that Bhāruci the writer on dharmaśāstra and Bhāruci the Viśiṣṭādvaita philosopher are identical. If this identity be accepted, then Bhāruci the writer on dharmaśāstra becomes comparatively an early writer, being at least as old as Viśvarūpa. His views agree on several points with those of Viśvarūpa, which is a circumstance that lends some corroboration to the date proposed for him.

v1.c6.s48.4

⁵⁵⁵ ‘व्यास-बोधायन-गुहदेव-भारुचि-ब्रह्मनन्दि-द्रमिडाचार्य-श्रीपराङ्कुश-नाथमुनि-यतीश्वरप्रभृतीनां मतानुसारेण &c.’,

v1.c6.s48.5

One interesting point about Bhāruci deserves mention here. From numerous notices contained in the Sarasvatīvilāsa it appears that Bhāruci either commented upon the Viṣṇudharmasūtra or wrote some work in which he took great pains to incorporate explanations of several sūtras of Viṣṇu. For example, para 637 tells us that Bhāruci explained the word ‘bīja’ occurring in a sūtra of Viṣṇu as ‘piṇḍa’.⁵⁵⁶ In para 674 we are told that Bhāruci explained the word ‘niṣkāraṇa’ in a sūtra of Viṣṇu and that he held that a daughter’s son has not to perform the śrāddha of his maternal grandfather if the latter has a son. Sudarśanācārya in his comment upon Āpastambagṛhya (8. 21. 2) ascribes the same view to Bhāruci and quotes the very words of Bhāruci.⁵⁵⁷ Vide J B B R A S for 1925 pp. 210-211 for further examples. There is nothing unnatural in Bhāruci, the Viśiṣṭādvaita philosopher, having composed a commentary on the Viṣṇudharmasūtra. The extant Viṣṇudharmasūtra contains doctrines peculiar to the Viśiṣṭādvaita system such as the worship of Nārāyaṇa or Vāsudeva, the four Vyūhas of Vāsudeva &c. If Bhāruci was a Viśiṣṭādvaitin he would naturally turn to the sūtra of Viṣṇu as having the greatest claim on his attention. Many of the sūtras of Viṣṇu quoted in the Sarasvatīvilāsa with the explanations of Bhāruci are not found in the printed text of Viṣṇu, on which Nandapaṇḍita commented in the first half of the 17th century. It appears that the Sarasvatīvilāsa had before it a larger version of Viṣṇu current in the south (vide note 118, p. 70 above).

v1.c6.s48.6

⁵⁵⁶ यथाह भारुचिरेतद्विष्णुवचनव्याख्यानावसरे बीजशब्दः पिण्डवाचीति । स. वि. para 637 (pp. 422-23 of Mysore ed.). The sūtra of विष्णु is ‘बीजग्रहणानुविधायमंशं गृह्णीयात्’ स. वि. para 636.

v1.c6.s48.7

⁵⁵⁷ अत्र भारुचिः । निष्कारणमिति वदता विष्णुना समनन्तरकर्तृणां पुत्रादीनां विद्यमानत्वे दौहित्रस्य न कर्तृत्वसंक्रान्तिरिति । स. वि. para 674 (p. 427). The sutra of विष्णु is दौहित्रस्य मातामहश्राद्धं निष्कारणम्. The words of सुदर्शनाचार्य are इममेवार्थं भारुचिरप्याह यस्मिन्पक्षे अपुत्रो मातामहः पुत्रिकासुतश्चाखिलद्रव्यहारी तस्मिन्पक्षे तस्य पिण्डदाननियमः इत्यादिना ग्रन्थेन ।

v1.c6.s48.8

On scores of points there is divergence between the views of Bhāruci and those of the Mit. Bhāruci differed from the Mit. as to the definition of *dāya* and *vibhāga*, he allowed *niyoga* to childless widows, while the Mit. condemned it in the case of all widows; Bhāruci, like Viśvarūpa, did not mention *sapratibandha* and *apratibandha dāya*; Bhāruci, like Viśvarūpa, held that a coparcener who concealed some joint property was not guilty of theft, while the Mit. held that he was. Vide J B B R A S for 1925 pp. 211-13 for more examples and details.

Linked texts (8)