Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s55: 68. Bālarūpa

History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s55

Language
English

68. Bālarūpa

v1.c6.s55.1

In the Smṛtisāra of Harinātha (I. O. cat. No. 301, folio 128a ff) there is a long passage setting out the views of Bālarūpa on the question of the succession to a childless man. In the Vivādacandra⁶²⁶ of Misaru-miśra the opinions of Bālarūpa (Bālarūpamata)

v1.c6.s55.2

⁶²⁶ दुहितॄणामभावे तदन्वयस्तत्पुत्रादिर्विभजेदित्यर्थः । मातुरन्वय इति बालरूपकृतः । विवादचन्द्र (D. C. ms. No. 57 of 1883-84) folio 33a; बालरूपमते तु संसृष्टसहोदरत्वमपि संसृष्टविभागग्रहणे हेतुः । *ibid.* folio 35a.

v1.c6.s55.3

that the words of Yāj. (II. 117 tābhya ṛte'nvayaḥ) mean the offspring of the mother and on the succession to reunited coparceners are cited. In the Vivādacintāmaṇi of Vācaspati⁶²⁷ the views of Bālarūpa are frequently cited. Relying on the words of Parāśara, Bālarūpa held that an unmarried daughter was entitled to preference over a married one as an heir to a sonless man. As regards the verse of Hārīta that if a young widow was *karkaśa* (quarrelsome, 'suspected of unchastity' according to others), then she was to be given maintenance alone (out of her husband's estate), Bālarūpa's view was that it refers to the widow of a re-united coparcener.⁶²⁸ Bālarūpa was of opinion that *ātmabandhus*, *pitṛbandhus* and *mātṛbandhus* succeeded in the order stated.⁶²⁹ The Kālādarsa of Ādityabhaṭṭa names Bālarūpa among the authorities on which it relies. This shows that Bālarūpa wrote not only on *vyavahāra* but also on *kāla*.

v1.c6.s55.4

⁶²⁷ अपुत्रस्य कुमारी रिक्थं गृह्णीयात्तदभावे वोढा चेति पराशरवचनात्तथैवात्र क्रम इति बालरूपः। विवादचिन्तामणि p. 153.

v1.c6.s55.5

⁶²⁸ संसृष्टिभार्यापरमिति बालरूपः। विवादचिन्तामणि p. 152.

v1.c6.s55.6

⁶²⁹ एतेषां क्रमेणाधिकारः। बालरूपोप्येवम्। विवादचिन्तामणि p. 155.

v1.c6.s55.7

As Harinātha and the Vivādacandra mention Bālarūpa he is certainly earlier than about 1250 A. D. The important question is whether Bālaka and Bālarūpa are identical. I think, though with some hesitation, that they are identical. The difficulty is caused by the fact that Harinātha speaks of 'the author of Bālarūpa,' which implies that Bālarūpa is a *work* and *not an author*, while the others speak of Bālarūpa as an *author*. The Dāyabhāga always speaks of Bālaka and never of Bālarūpa, while the Mithilā writers, Misaru-miśra, Vācaspati and Harinātha, speak of Bālarūpa and not of Bālaka. Bālaka is not mentioned by any writer belonging to a province other than Bengal. It is not likely that there were two early authors belonging to the same locality on *vyavahāra* bearing two names so nearly the same as Bālaka (or Bāla) and Bālarūpa. Moreover if we read one quotation from the Dāyabhāga between the lines (vide note 621) where Jīmūtavāhana makes fun of Bālaka by charging him with having exposed his *Bālarūpatva* (being Bālarūpa, being childish) it appears that the Dāyabhāga looked upon Bālaka and Bālarūpa as identical. If so Bālaka or Bālarūpa becomes an ancient writer, who flourished certainly before 1100 A. D. As he held the same views as Śrīkara and an antiquated view about the rights of the daughter's son he must not be later than 1050 A. D.

Linked texts (3)