History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s56.1

v1.c6.s56.1

Yogloka like Jitendriya and Bālaka is a writer about whom we know only from the works of Jīmūtavāhana and Raghunandana. He is the last of the series of writers enumerated in one place by the Kālaviveka as having dealt with the subject of *kāla* (vide note 611 above). The Vyavahāra-mātṛkā of Jīmūtavāhana very frequently⁶³⁰ cites the views of Yogloka and generally twits him with thinking himself as being a logician or a new-fangled (*nava-tārkikaṁ-manya*) logician. Both in the Kālaviveka and the Vyavahāramātṛkā Yogloka is generally cited for being refuted (e. g. pp. 457-58, 465, 483 of the Kālaviveka). It is only very rarely that Jīmūtavāhana agrees with Yogloka (as on p. 369 of the Kālaviveka). From certain passages of the Kālaviveka it follows that Yogloka composed two works, one called Bṛhad-Yogloka (larger work) and the other styled Svalpa-Yogloka (a smaller-work).⁶³¹ It appears that Yogloka was later than Śrīkara and accepted certain illustrations given by the latter.⁶³² The Vyavahāratattva of Raghunandana informs us that like Śrīkara and Bālaka, Yogloka held the view that twenty years' adverse possession of immoveables conferred ownership (vide note 624 above). The same work tells us that the Maithilas followed the view of Yogloka that the verse of Kātyāyana (yadyekadeśa-vyāptāpi... nṛṇām) was intended to apply to a case where a litigant threw down the challenge that if even one out of several items of property charged were brought home to him as having been stolen by him, he would restore all the items claimed.⁶³³