History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s63.8

v1.c6.s63.8

The Smṛtis mentioned by him in the two works of his are given below.⁷¹⁰ Besides he mentions the Vāyupurāṇa (on Manu III. 232) and Purāṇa in general (on Manu I. 74 and 80). He frequently quotes the Gṛhyasūtras, also the Bahvṛcagṛhyapariśiṣṭa, the Yogasūtra. He says (on Manu 2. 23) that Mleccha countries like Andhra and others were not fit for performing sacrifices. He appears to have held like Medhātithi the view that *mokṣa* was to be attained by a combination of *jñāna* and *karma*.⁷¹¹ As compared with the bhāṣya of Medhātithi his commentary is very concise. Kullūka largely drew upon Medhātithi and Govindarāja, mentions them hundreds of times, criticizes⁷¹² both of them and particularly holds up Govindarāja to ridicule often enough.⁷¹³ Kullūka notes that Govindarāja in opposition to Medhātithi and Bhojadeva arranged Manu 8. 181-184 differently (putting 8. 182 as the last of those four verses). In the printed edition there is no comment of Govindarāja on the verses of the 9th chapter from verse 72. But it appears that the Dāyabhāga had that part of the commentary, as it quotes the views of Govindarāja on the rights of the daughter's son which could have appeared only on Manu IX. 130-136.