Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s64: 79. Aparārka

History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s64

Language
English

Contents

79. Aparārka

v1.c6.s64.1

On the smṛti of Yājñavalkya Aparāditya wrote a voluminous commentary styled Aparārka-Yājñavalkīya-dharmaśāstra-nibandha (published in two volumes by the Ānandāśrama Press, Poona, 1903 and 1904). In a verse⁷⁶⁰ at the end and in the colophons the author is called Aparāditya, a Śilāhāra king, born in the family of Jīmūtavāhana of the Vidyādhara race. In the introductory⁷⁶¹ fifth verse also the author is styled ‘an ornament of the family of Jīmūta’ and is highly eulogised for his devotion to Śiva and his brilliant intellect.

v1.c6.s64.2

⁷⁶⁰ राष्ट्रं यस्य निरङ्कुशा वसुमती कोशः समृद्धः सुहृच्छक्तो दुर्गमनागमं क्षतपरा सेना हिता मन्त्रिणः। शास्त्रार्थामृतचर्वणाऽर्पितमतिर्विश्वैकनाथोप्यसौ शौर्यौदार्ययशोधनोममपराणिक्यो निबन्धं व्यधात् ॥ इति श्रीविद्याधरवंशप्रभवश्रीशिलाहारनरेन्द्र जीमूतवाहनान्वयप्रसूतश्रीमदपरादित्यदेवविरचिते याज्ञवल्कीयधर्मशास्त्रनिबन्धेऽपरार्के प्रायश्चित्तप्रकरणम् ।

v1.c6.s64.3

⁷⁶¹ भक्त्या यस्य सविस्मयः स्मररिपुर्बुद्ध्या च वाचस्पतिर्धिक्कान्त्या द्विषतां गणः शुचितया भास्वाञ्छमित्येन भूः । जीमूतान्वयभूषणं स विपुलां योगीश्वरेणोदिते शास्त्रे वाक्यनयानुगां वितनुते व्याख्यां सतां संमताम् ॥

v1.c6.s64.4

Aparārka's work, like the Mitākṣarā, though professedly a commentary on Yāj., is really in the nature of a digest. It is far more voluminous than the Mit. It quotes profusely from the Gṛhya and Dharma sūtras and the metrical smṛtis. Several features distinguish it from the Mit. The Mit. is generally very chary of quoting from the purāṇas, while Aparārka contains long extracts sometimes extending over pages from several purāṇas, viz, the Ādipurāṇa, the Ādityapurāṇa, the Kūrma, the Kālikāpurāṇa, Devī, Nandi, Nṛsiṁha, Padma, Brahma, Brahmāṇḍa, Bhaviṣyat, Bhaviṣyottara, Matsya, Mārkaṇḍeya, Liṅga, Varāha, Vāmana, Vāyu, Viṣṇu, Viṣṇudharmottara, Śivadharmottara, Skanda. The index at the end of the printed Aparārka gives the names of the various smṛtikāras quoted in the work. Another feature not found in the Mit. is that Aparārka quotes long passages of the dharmasūtras and explains them at length, e. g. on Yāj. III 294 (p. 1205) he quotes Gautama (Dh. S. 20. 2-9) and then offers a lengthy explanation; on Yāj. III. 294-295, he quotes long passages of Vasiṣṭha (Dh. S. 15. 11-14 and 17-21) and gives detailed explanations of them. It is probable he had not before him commentaries on these dharmasūtras. On p. 11, he gives brief summaries in the style of the Śāṅkarabhāṣya of the tenets of the Śaiva, Pāśupata, Pāñcarātra, Sāṁkhya and Yoga systems. He does not appear to have been an ardent admirer of the Advaita Vedānta though he refers to the Śārīrakamīmāṁsā.⁷⁶² In one place he sets out the arguments of those who hold that correct knowledge alone leads to *mokṣa* and of those who hold that a combination of correct knowledge and works is essential for *mokṣa* and leaves his readers to choose for themselves whatever view they take.⁷⁶³ It is remarkable that, while even the Mit. names at least six *nibandhakāras* on dharmaśāstra viz. Asahāya, Viśvarūpa, Bhāruci, Śrīkara, Medhātithi and Dhāreśvara, Aparārka observes a studied silence in the matter of citing the names of his predecessors. He employs such vague expressions as *kecit*, *anye*, *apare*, though he cites views that were ascribed by the Mit. and others to Dhāreśvara and others, e. g. on pp. 741-42 he says⁷⁶⁴ that the text of Yāj. ‘patnī duhitaraḥ’ according to some refers to the widow who submits to *niyoga* (this is the view of Dhāreśvara); on p. 744 he refers to the view of some that the word *duhitṛ* in Yāj. means only the appointed daughter (*putrikā*). This last was the view of Viśvarūpa and Śrīkara. On p. 761 he refers to the reading of some in Yāj. II. 150 as ‘sāmantā sthavirā gaṇāḥ’ which is found in Viśvarūpa (II. 154) and not in the Mit. Aparārka names (p. 926) a Vāgbhaṭa-smṛtisaṁgraha and a Smṛtimīmāṁsā of Jaimini (p. 206) from which two verses are quoted, variant readings therein are noticed and detailed explanations thereof are offered. He refers to several works and authors on astronomy and astrology such as Garga, Kriyāśraya (p. 872), Sārāvali. On pp. 570 and 572 of the printed text occur two references to a *pustaka* of rājānaka Śitikaṇṭha.⁷⁶⁵ That was probably a marginal note in a ms., the copyist or owner of which found on comparison with another ms. belonging to rājānaka Śitikaṇṭha additional matter. Aparārka quotes from Bhaṭṭa (i. e. Kumārilabhaṭṭa).⁷⁶⁶ Aparārka does not appeal as frequently to the doctrines of the Pūrvamīmāṁsā as the Mit. does and he does not generally enter into acute discussions of Pūrvamīmāṁsa in its application to Dharmaśāstra as the Mit. does. It must be said that Aparārka is much inferior to the Mit. in lucid exposition, in dialectic skill, in subtlety of argument and in the ordered presentation of heterogenous material.

v1.c6.s64.5

⁷⁶² शास्त्रं च तस्माद्वा एतस्मादात्मन आकाशः संभूतः-इत्यादिकमेकाकिन एव परमात्मनः सकलकार्यकारितामाचष्टे । तस्य च तर्कविरोधः शारीरकमीमांसाभ्यासशालिनामपरिहर एव । p. 975 on याज्ञ. III. 68.

v1.c6.s64.6

⁷⁶³ Vide pp. 1029-1034 on याज्ञ. III. 205. On p. 1034 he says ' तदनयोर्मतयोर्यन्न्याय्यं तद्ग्राह्यम्'.

v1.c6.s64.7

⁷⁶⁴ अत्र केचिदाहुः-या देवरादन्यस्माद्वापि सपिण्डाद्गुरुश्वशुरादिवचनात्पुत्रमिच्छति तद्विषयं पत्नी दुहितर इत्यादि वचनमिति ।... एतेन यदुक्तं केनचित् पत्नी दुहितर इत्यत्र दुहितृशब्देन पुत्रिकोच्यत इति तन्निरस्तं वेदितव्यम् ।.

v1.c6.s64.8

⁷⁶⁵ इति राजानकशितिकण्ठपुस्तके विशेषः । p. 572.

v1.c6.s64.9

⁷⁶⁶ ततश्च यदुक्तं भट्टेन-तस्माद्गुरुगृहे तिष्ठन् मधुमांसादि वर्जयन् । जिज्ञासानाविरुद्धत्वाद्वर्ममित्यवगम्यते ॥ इति तदनेन विरुध्यते p. 76.

v1.c6.s64.10

Some of the views that are usually associated with Jīmūtavāhana were propounded by Aparārka also. Aparārka bases the right to take a deceased person's property on the superior spiritual benefit conferred by the claimant on the person deceased.⁷⁶⁷ In several other respects also Aparārka differs from the Mit., though in general the two closely agree. For example, Aparārka prefers the father over the mother as an heir (p. 745); Aparārka explains the word 'apratiṣṭhitā' in Gautama's text (18. 22) as 'one who is issueless or is indigent or a widow,' while the Mit. explains it to mean only 'indigent.'

v1.c6.s64.11

⁷⁶⁷ तत्र प्रत्यासन्नः पूर्वं धनभाक् । यदाह मनुः । अनन्तरः सपिण्डाद्यस्तस्य तस्य धनं भवेदिति । ... संप्रदानकारकीभूतानां पित्रादीनां त्रयाणां चोदकादिदाता यश्च तत्संततिजोन्योपि तेषामेवोदकादिदाता स तस्य प्रत्यासन्नः सपिण्डः । तदत्र तु सोदरो भ्रातातिशयेन प्रत्यासन्नः समानसंप्रदानोदकादिदातृत्वात् । तत्पौत्रस्तु ततोपि व्यवहितः पितृपितामहपिण्डयोर्भिन्नसंप्रदानकत्वात् । तत्प्रपौत्रस्त्वत्यन्तव्यवहितः पिण्डत्रयेपि संप्रदानभेदात् । pp. 744-45.

v1.c6.s64.12

Whether Aparārka knew the Mit. is a vexed question. Some scholars while holding that Aparārka does criticize the Mit. explain away the non-mention of the Mit. by saying that Indian etiquette required a royal author not to mention the name of the servant of another king, while the existence of the master himself was ignored (Dr. Jolly in Journal of Indian History vol. III p. 17). It is doubtful whether any such etiquette ever existed and further Aparārka studiously avoids the express mention of every ancient commentator. Works of royal authors, such as the Madanapārijāta or the Sarasvatīvilāsa, do not appear to have followed the etiquette. In my opinion the Mit. was known to Aparārka. Aparārka reads Yāj. III. 17 as ‘Vaitānopāsanāḥ kāryāḥ kriyāśca śruticoditāḥ,’ explains the first word as a karmadhāraya compound, gives the explanation of this verse offered by others, disapproves of it and then says that others read ‘śruticodanāt’ for ‘śruticoditāḥ’.⁷⁶⁸ Viśvarūpa reads ‘vaitānikāśrayāḥ... śrutidarśanāt’ and offers no comment on this verse beyond the word ‘spaṣṭārthametat’ (it is III. 15. in the Trivandrum ed.). The Mit. does contain the reading referred to by Aparārka and the śtuti passage ‘yāvaj-jīvam’ etc. Aparārka refers on Yāj. III. 254 to the reading ‘samām’⁷⁶⁹ adopted by some, says that the latter explain the verse as prescribing the penance for three years and observes that the verse of Manu (IX. 92) does not apply, as the latter say, to him alone whose palate has merely come in contact with liquor (without his having actually swallowed it). Viśvarūpa (III. 248) does not explain the verse as prescribing a three years' penance nor does he refer to the contact of wine with the palate. The Mit. however contains both these particulars. On p. 1084 also⁷⁷⁰ Aparārka seems to be referring to the view of the Mit.

v1.c6.s64.13

⁷⁶⁸ अत्र केचिद् व्याचक्षते-विताने वेदे भवाः वैतानाः तथा उपासने गृहे भवा औपासनाः। वैतानाश्चौपासनाश्च वैतानोपासनाः क्रिया इति। तदेतदूष्याख्यानमनुपपन्नम्। वैतानोपासन्म इति हि तदा शब्दः स्यान्न पुनर्वेतानोपासना इति।... यच्च तैः श्रुतिचोदनाविति पाठं रुत्वा हेतुपरत्वेन व्याख्यातं तदपि न युक्तम्। एवं हि ते मन्यन्ते। यस्माच्छुत्या यावज्जीवमग्निहोत्रं जुहुयात्, यावज्जीवं दर्शपूर्णमासाभ्यां यजेत, इत्यादिकयावश्यकायतया विहितत्वान्न स्मृत्या शक्यमाशौचेपि तन्निवर्तनं विधातुमिति। अपरार्क p. 891: compare the मिताक्षरा ‘वितानोऽग्नीनां विस्तारस्तत्र भवा वैतानाः त्रेताग्निसोध्या अग्निहोत्रदर्शपूर्णमासाद्याः क्रिया उच्यन्ते। ... उपासनो गृह्याग्निस्तत्र भवा औपासनाः सायंमातर्होमक्रिया। उच्यन्ते ता वैतानोपासना वैदिक्यः क्रियाः कार्याः। कथं वैदिकत्वमिति चेत्। श्रुतिचोदनात्। तथााहि यावज्जीवमग्निहोत्रं जुहुयादित्यादिश्रुतिभिरग्निहोत्रादीनां चोदना स्पृष्टैव॥’.

v1.c6.s64.14

⁷⁶⁹ ‘केचिदत्र समाशब्दं बहुवचनान्तं वर्षत्रयपरत्वेन व्याचक्षते।... अस्मादेव च सुरापानापनुत्त्यर्थमिति वचनात् कृतसुरापानस्यैतद् व्रतमिति गम्यते न पुनस्तालुमात्रसंयुक्तसुरस्येति।’ अपरार्क p. 1072; compare the मिताक्षरा ‘अथवा पिण्याकं पिण्डितं त्रिसमाः वर्षत्रयपर्यन्तं रात्रौ भक्षयेत्।... यत्तु मनुवचनं कणांन्वा ... सरुन्मिशि। सुरापानापनुत्त्यर्थं बालवासा जटी ध्वजी॥ इति तत्तालुमात्रसंयोगे सुराया अबुद्धिपूर्वे द्रष्टव्यम्’. The printed text of याज्ञ. in the मिताक्षरा reads पिण्याकं ... भक्षयेत्रिसमा निशि’, the printed अपरार्क reads भक्षयेत्तु समां निशि, while विश्वरूप reads भक्षयीत समां निशि. The remarks of अपरार्क show that he had a ms. of a com. where the reading was भक्षयेत्तु समा निशि.

v1.c6.s64.15

⁷⁷⁰ 'तत्रापि ब्राह्मणीपुत्रस्य क्षत्रियां पितृभार्या गच्छतो नववार्षिकं वैश्यां षड्वार्षिकं शूद्रां त्रैवार्षिकं गुरुतल्पव्रतं भवतीत्येके मन्यन्ते । अपरार्क p. 1084; the मिताक्षरा on याज्ञ. III. 260 has 'ब्राह्मणीपुत्रस्य क्षत्रियायां मातुः सपत्न्यां गमने &c.

v1.c6.s64.16.1

The date of Aparārka can be settled within very narrow limits. The Smṛticandrikā⁷⁷¹ in several places quotes the views of Aparārka and sometimes contrasts them with those of the Mit. The Smṛticandrikā refutes the view of Aparārka that the words of Yāj. 'jyeṣṭhaṁ vā śreṣṭhabhāgena' are meant to comprehend all various modes of giving an additional share (*uddhāravibhāga*) to the eldest son on partition mentioned by Manu and others and it follows Aparārka's explanation of 'apratiṣṭhitā' in Gautama's text. It will be shown later on that the Smṛticandrikā must have been composed about 1200 A. D. If the above conclusion that Aparārka knew the Mit. and criticizes it be correct, Aparārka must have flourished after 1100 A. D. and before 1200 A. D. Here epigraphical research comes to our help. We know from the commentary that the author Aparāditya was a Śilāhāra prince of Jīmūtavāhana's family. Inscriptions of the Śilāhāras show that there were three branches of that family, one ruling in the northern Konkan at Thana, the second in the southern Konkan and the third at Kolhapur (vide JBBRAS, vol. XIII p. 10-17 for the three branches). All the branches traced their descent from Jīmūtavāhana. There is only a single inscription of the second branch which had ten kings reigning from about 808 to 1008 A.D. (JBBRAS vol. I, p. 209, E. I. vol. III. p. 292). There is no Aparāditya in this line. Vide E. I. III p. 207, 211 and 213 for several grants of the Kolhapur branch.

v1.c6.s64.16.2

Inscriptions of the northern Śilāhāras speak of two kings who are named Aparādityadeva. In JBBRAS vol. XXI, pp. 505-516 there is a grant dated *śake* 1049 (expired) of Aparādityadeva who donated a village named Vaḍavali in the Thana District to a brāhmaṇa studying the Mādhyandina recension of the Vājasaneya-saṁhita. The king is there styled once as Aparājita and several times as Aparādityadeva. He was son of Anantadeva and grand-son of Nāgārjuna and traced his descent to Jīmūtavāhana, son of Jīmūtaketu, far famed in legend and literature as an exemplar of self-sacrifice⁷⁷², e. g. in the drama Nāgānanda. In this inscription Aparādityadeva is styled *Śilāhāra-narendra* and *Jīmūtavāhanānvayaprasūta* as in the colophon of the commentary on Yāj. (vide note 760 above) and also *Mahāmaṇḍaleśvara* and *Tagarapuraparameśvara*. In the Annals of the Bhandarkar Institute, vol. V, part 2, p. 169 there is a grant made at Somnath-Paṭan in Kathiawar of Vikramsaṁvat 1176 (1119-20 A. D.) while Aparādityadeva of the Śilāhāra family was reigning, almost in the same words as in the grant in JBBRAS vol. XXI p. 505. In I. A. vol. IX, p. 33 there is a grant of Anantadeva father of Aparādityadeva dated in *śake* 1016 (i. e. 1094-5 A. D.). Vide Bombay Gazetteer vol. I. part 2, p. 15 for a list of 20 kings of the northern Konkan branch from 810 to 1260 A. D. *Vide* also an inscription of Aparādityadeva dated śake 1051 (i. e. 1129 A. D.) in Festgabe Dr. Jacobi pp. 189-193 (1926).

v1.c6.s64.16.3

Therefore it appears that the dates of Aparādityadeva I referred to in these grants fall between 1115 and 1130 A. D. It was most probably this king who composed the commentary on Yāj. We know from the Śrīkaṇṭhacarita of Maṅkha that king Aparāditya⁷⁷³ of Konkan sent Tejakaṇṭha on an embassy to an assembly of learned men in Kashmir during the reign of Jayasiṁha of Kashmir (1129 to 1150 A. D.). Aparārka's commentary continues to be the standard law-book used by the *paṇḍits* of Kashmir (Jolly's Tagore Law lectures p. 24). Aparārka's work betrays familiarity with Kashmir. I have already noticed the reference to rājānaka Śitikaṇṭha above. On a passage from Brahma-purāṇa speaking of a śrāddha at Mārtaṇḍapādamūla, Aparārka notes (p. 903) that⁷⁷⁴ the latter is well known in Kashmir. It is there-fore most probable that the work was composed about 1125 and was introduced into Kashmir when an embassy was sent from the Konkan king to Kashmir in the reign of Jayasiṁha. The dates of the second Aparāditya range from 1184 to 1187 A. D. (*Vide* Bombay Gazetteer vol. XIII, part 2, p. 427; JBBRAS vol. XII, pp. 333-335 for an inscription of Aparāditya dated 1109 *śake* i. e. 1187 A. D. (wherein he is styled Koṅkaṇa-cakravarti). It is difficult to hold that this was the author of the commentary on Yāj. The Smṛticandrikā is mentioned by Hemādri and hence could not be later than the first quarter of the thirteenth century.

v1.c6.s64.16.4

Therefore if Aparārka who is frequently cited by the Smṛticandrikā were to be regarded as having flourished about 1187 A. D., very little distance is left between him and the Smṛticandrikā in order that the former should come to be looked upon as an authority by the latter. Therefore it appears probable that Aparārka wrote the com-mentary on Yāj. in the first half of the 12th century (about 1125 A. D.). Vide Tri. cat. Mad. Govt. Mss. for 1919-22, pp. 4853-54, for the Nyāyamuktāvalī of Aparādityadeva, which is a com. on the Nyāyasāra of Bhāsarvajña.

v1.c6.s64.17

⁷⁷¹ यत्पुनरपरार्केण ज्येष्ठं श्रेष्ठभागेनेत्येतदुद्धारप्रदर्शनार्थं तेन ज्येष्ठस्य विंश उद्धार इत्यादिभिर्मन्वादिशास्त्रैर्यावन्त उद्धारप्रकारा विहितास्ते सर्वे चोपलक्षिता भवन्तीति तदप्यपास्तम् । स्मृतिच० II. p. 261; compare अपरार्क p. 717 'ज्येष्ठस्य विंश... यवी यसः इत्यादिभिरुद्धारशास्त्रैर्यावन्त उद्धारप्रकारा विहितास्ते सर्वेत्रोपलक्षिता भवन्ति'. 'अप्रतिष्ठिता अनपत्या निर्धना दुर्भगा विधवा वा । एवमपरार्कानुसारान्गौतमवचनं व्याख्यातम् । अस्य विज्ञानेश्वरकृता व्याख्या हेया स्वबुद्धिमात्रेणाध्याहारादिकरणात् ।' स्मृतिच० II. 5. 285; vide स्मृतिच० II. 218, 367, 377, 428 for other references to अपरार्क. Vide चतुर्वर्ग० III. 2, p. 495 for mention of अपरार्क.

v1.c6.s64.18

⁷⁷² जीमूतकेतुतनयो नियतं दयालुर्जीमूतवाहन इति त्रिजगत्प्रसिद्धः । देहं निजं तृणमिवाकलयन् परार्थे यो रक्षति स्म गरुडात् खलु शङ्खचूडम् ॥ तस्यान्वये .. कपर्दी शिलारवंशतिलको नृपतिर्बभूव ॥ p. 507.

v1.c6.s64.19

⁷⁷³ वचोभिर्निनुदे दन्तद्युतिश्रीखण्डपाण्डुभिः । वादिनां वाददर्पोष्मा येन शूर्पारकाध्वसु ॥ यः श्रीमदपरादित्य इति दूत्यप्रसिद्धये । प्रजिघाय घनश्लाघः काश्मीरान् कुङ्कुणेश्वरः ॥ तेन श्रीतेजकण्ठेन सोत्कण्ठमनुबध्नता । इति सोधिकवैशद्यनिरवद्यमगम्यत ॥ श्रीकण्ठचरित 25. 109-111.

v1.c6.s64.20

⁷⁷⁴ मार्तण्डपादमूलं काश्मीरेषु प्रसिद्धम् । अपरार्क p. 903.

Linked texts (28)