History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s64.12

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.