History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s48.5

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).