History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s71.1

v1.c6.s71.1

Haradatta's fame stands very high as a commentator. He wrote a commentary called Anākulā on the Āpastamba-gṛhya-sūtra (D. C. Ms. No. 2 of 1866–68), a commentary on the Āpastambīya-mantra-pāṭha (vide Dr. Winternitz's ed. of 1897, p. XIII), a commentary called Anāvilā on the Āśvalāyana-gṛhya-sūtra (published in the Trivandrum series), a commentary called Mitākṣarā on the Gautamadharmasūtra and a commentary named Ujjvalā on the dharmasūtra of Āpastamba. His commentaries are very good models of ideal commentaries. His commentary on the dharmasūtra of Gautama (printed by the Ānandāśrama Press, Pooona) is more concise than that on the Dharmasūtra of Āpastamba (large extracts of which were published by Bühler in his edition in the B. S. series, the whole being printed by Halasyanath Sastri at Kumbhakonam and in the Mysore Government Oriental Library series). In his commentary on the Dharmasūtras he quotes verses from numerous smṛtis and from the purāṇas but hardly ever mentions by name any commentator or *nibandhakāra*. In his Anāvilā (page 9) he quotes the views of a Bhāṣyakāra who is probably Devasvāmin and mentions also a Chāndogagṛhyabhāṣyakāra (on I. 2. 3). In his commentaries on both the Dharmasūtras he frequently quotes the opinions of previous commentators with the words 'anye,' 'aparaḥ,' 'kecit;' *vide* G. Dh. S. II. 28, VII. 4 and 14, IX. 52, XI. 17, XII. 32 and 33, XXIV. 5, XXVI. 9, XXVIII. 7 and 44; Āp. Dh. S. I. 1. 4. 24, I. 2. 5. 2 and 18, I. 3. 10. 4, I. 3. 11. 20, I. 5. 15. 20. etc. From the fact that he mentions two interpretations on Āp. Dh. S. I. 2. 5. 2. with the words 'apara āha' and 'ityanye' and several interpretations on II. 7. 17. 22 it follows that he had before him two or three commentaries on Āp. Dh. S. In Bühler's edition Haradatta on Āp. Dh. S. I. 1. 2. 38 appears to refer to a gṛhya-vṛtti, but in the Kumbhakonam edition the reading is different (viz. *gṛhye gatam*). He is very careful to point out the un-Pāṇinean forms in the sūtras of Gautama⁸¹⁵ and Āpastamba, explains at great length all grammatical matters and generally prefers readings that are in consonance with the rules of Pāṇini. He very often says that the text of the sūtras, particularly of Āpastamba, as handed down by oral tradition was either wrong or followed Vedic usage as regards grammar.⁸¹⁶