History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s9.13

v1.c6.s9.13

The earliest work to refer to Vasiṣṭha as an authority on *dharma* is our Manu (8. 140), saying that Vas. allowed 1/80th of the principal as interest per month. This appears to refer to the rule in Vas. 2. 50. We saw above that Vas. borrows from the Manusmṛti, which in its turn quotes a rule of Vasiṣṭha. The explanation of this is twofold. Both the Manusmṛti and Vas. have received later additions and further it is possible that the present Vas. Dh. S. is the work of some one who had received the teachings of Vas. through a succession of teachers and disciples. Yāj. mentions (1. 4) Vasiṣṭha as a writer on *dharma*. The Tantravārtika as seen above (note 55) remarks that the Vas. Dh. S. was studied by Ṛgvedins. The same work when speaking of works on dharma puts Manu, Gautama and Vasiṣṭha in the forefront.108a Viśvarūpa, Medhātithi and other early commentators largely quote from Vas. The verse ‘agnerapatyaṁ’ (Vas. 28. 16) occurs in the Ragīm copperplate of Tīvaradeva of the last quarter of the 8th century (Fleet’s Gupta Inscriptions No. 81). Therefore the existence of a work of Vasiṣṭha on dharma at least in the first centuries of the Christian era is vouched for with certainty and the authenticity of its text is supported by eminent writers from the 7th century downwards. Aparārka quotes passages from the Bhaviṣyapurāṇa which have in view the present text of Vas.¹⁰⁹ Some of the views held by Vasiṣṭha are very ancient. For example, he speaks of the twelve secondary sons, assigns a very inferior position to the Dattaka son (17th chapter), allows *niyoga* (17. 56 ff) and the remarriage of child widows (17. 74); like Āpastamba he mentions only six forms of marriage (1. 28-29), *brāhma*, *daiva*, *ārṣa*, *gāndharva*, *kṣātra* and *mānuṣa*. In some respects his views are different from those of early writers like Gautama and Baudhāyana. He prohibits the marriage of a Brāhmaṇa with a śūdra woman (I. 25-26). Vide Baud. Dh. S. I. 8. 2 for the contrary view. He elaborates rules of adoption (15th chapter) which are not found in Gaut. or Baud. or Āpastamba. He speaks of documents as one of the three means of proof (Vas. 16. 10-15), while Gautama, Āpastamba and Baudhāyana are silent on the point, though in Gautama (13. 4) there appears to be a reference to documents. Taking all these things into consideration it may be said that Vasiṣṭha is later than Gautama, Āpastamba and Baudhāyana, but much earlier than the beginnings of the Christian era and may tentatively be assigned to the period between 300-100 B. C. It has been asserted by an eminent authority (Cambridge History of India vol. I, p. 249) that Vasiṣṭha 18. 4 (vaiśyena brāhmaṇyām-utpanno Rāmako bhavatītyāhuḥ) probably contains a reference to the Romans. This assumptiou is gratuitous and does not deserve serious consideration. The reading Romaka (on which the learned writer relies) is not supported by the best mss. and it is most hazardous to seize with avidity on a variant reading and to build an imposing structure of chronology thereon. The offspring of a Vaiśya male from a Brāhmaṇa woman is designated Rāmaka by Vasiṣṭha, while Gautama calls him Kṛta (4. 15) and Baud. Dh. S. (I. 9. 7) calls such an offspring Vaidehaka; so Rāmaka has as much to do with the Romans as with Rameses. In the *nibandhas* there are several quotations ascribed to Vasiṣṭha which are not found in the printed Dharmasūtra. For example, Haradatta on Gaut. (22. 18) quotes a verse in the Upajāti metre which is not found in the present text¹¹⁰.