History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s64.4

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.