History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.673

v4.c63.t2.673

A few words may now be said about customs of countries. That usages about details of ritual varied a great deal even in the Vedic times is quite clear. The Śat. Br. (I. 1. 4. 13) notes that in former times it was the wife of the sacrificer that rose at the Haviṣkṛt call, but that in its own day the wife or a priest (the Āgnīdhra) rises in answer to the call. Vide H. of Dh. vol. II. p. 1027 and n. 2311 on the Haviṣkṛt call. For similar differences in practices vide the same Brāhmaṇa XII. 3. 5. 1 and XII. 6. 1. 41. The Ait. Br. frequently refers to one view and refutes it by saying that one should not do so (*tat tathā na kuryāt*) or one should discard it (*tat tat nādṛtyam*) e. g. vide chap. 12. 7, 17. 1, 18. 8, 28. 1, 29. 5. Vide also Tai. Br. I. 1. 8, I. 3. 1, III. 8. 8 for similar words. That different districts had different customs about marriages and other matters even before the times of the gṛhyasūtras and dharmasūtras has been noted above (pp. 856–857). Baudhāyana made a distinction about the customs of the northern and southern people (countries). That customs of the northern and southern countries differed is emphasized by many commentators and writers of digests. For example, the Mit. on Yāj. I. 256 refers to the differing views of dākṣiṇātyas and udīcyas on Ekoddiṣṭa-śrāddha. Śaṅkarabhaṭṭa in the introductory verses of the Dvaitanirṇaya (or Dharma-dvaita-) expressly states that he will furnish solutions of knotty points in Dharmaśāstra after abiding by the views of southern writers.¹⁷¹⁶ The Nirṇayasindhu in its section on sāpiṇḍya speaks of Śūlapāṇi, Vācaspati and Śuddhiviveka as Gauḍas and Maithilas, and points out that Śūlapāṇi in the Sambandhaviveka and the Sambandhatattva (a Gauḍa work) allow marriage with a girl separated by three gotras from the bridegroom, while the southern writers (dākṣiṇātyas) do not accept the view. But in those days there were no rigid territorial boundaries for certain practices or doctrines. For example, Vijñāneśvara, Madana-ratna, Pārijāta, Vācaspati and Śūlapāṇi accepted the view that sāpiṇḍya arises from community of the particles of the body, while Aparārka, Smṛticandrikā and Mādhava (though they were southern writers like Vijñāneśvara) held that sāpiṇḍya was based on the offering of piṇḍa in śrāddhas. The fashion of dividing Hindu works into schools and assigning them definite territorial limits started with Colebrooke and has been perpetuated by decisions of the Privy Council and of the Indian High courts. Vide *Collector of Madura v. Mootoo* 12 Mad. I. A. 397 at p. 432 (for reference to Colebrooke), p. 435 (as to how schools arose), pp. 436–437 (as to different schools). Strange results have flowed from this. The Vyavahāramayūkha, written by Nīlakaṇṭha, whose family belonged to Paiṭhan in Mahārāṣṭra and migrated to Benares and who himself wrote under the patronage of a Bundella chief, came to be regarded as a work of the highest authority in Gujerat and North Konkan (even superseding the Mitākṣarā), while in Mahārāṣṭra proper its authority is subordinate to that of the Mitākṣarā. The Mit. (on Yāj. II. 119) avers that in the section on the partition of heritage the texts generally repeat what is already current among the people¹⁷¹⁷ and that if Yāj. II. 118-119 were interpreted to mean that the words 'what is acquired at the cost of paternal estate by a person himself' stand by themselves and do not qualify the other clauses, then what is acquired through friendship even at the cost of the paternal estate would not be liable to partition, which would be opposed to the practice among people. The Vyavahāra-mayūkha also¹⁷¹⁸ says on Manu IX. 210 (about reunion) that the law and administration of justice are generally based as is the case with grammar on people's usages. The Vīramitrodaya also states that all writers of digests are agreed that smṛtis on Vyavāhara generally re-iterate recognized popular usages.