History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s51.8

v1.c6.s51.8

Besides the two points noted above (about widow's rights and about the grandmother), there are others on which the Mit. and Dhāreśvara disagreed: viz. Dhāreśvara held ownership to be known only from śāstra, while the Mit. held it to be *laukika* (vide Vīramitrodaya pp. 528, 536); Dhāreśvara held that the word 'duhitarāḥ' in in Yāj. stands for *putrikā* in the order of succession (Smṛti-candrikā II. p. 295-96). On other points the views of Dhāreśvara coincide with those of the Mit., viz. on the usage of giving a special share to the eldest son having fallen into desuetude, on the daughter's son's right to succession, on the father's inability to give a greater or smaller share to his sons in ancestral property on a partition during his life-time. Vide my article on Bhojadeva in JBBRAS for 1925 pp. 223-224 for details of these and other views ascribed to Bhojadeva. A few other references may be noted here. The Nirṇayāmṛta⁵⁹⁷ (p. 68) quotes a Bhojarājīya text. In the Kālaviveka of Jīmūtavāhana two verses about taking food at the time of eclipses are cited from Bhojadeva (p. 539). In several works certain views are stated to be those of a Bhūpālapaddhati or of Bhūpāla or of Rāja. The reference seems to be to a work of king Bhoja. For example, in the Dānaratnākara a Bhūpāla-paddhati and Bhūpāla are frequently quoted.⁵⁹⁸ The Samayapradīpa⁵⁹⁹ and Ācāradarśa of Śrīdatta speak of both Bhūpāla and Rāja. In other works also the views of Bhoja are often referred to as those of Rāja (the king *par excellence*). For example, the Ekāvalī⁶⁰⁰ (a work on Poetics) says that in the Śṛṅgāra-prakāśa the king accepted only one *rasa*. The Varṣakaumudī (p. 107) says that a certain verse is cited by the Gaṅgāvākyāvalī without naming the author, but as it is not cited by the Rāja and the rest, it is unauthoritative.