History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c90.164
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c90.164
- Language
- English
v7.c90.164.1
The next Upapurāṇa is Viṣṇudharma dealt with by Prof. Hazra in 'Studies' vol I pp. 118-155. There is no printed edition. Prof Hazra (p 119) refers to six mss. but he has chiefly used only one ms viz. Bengal Asiatic Society's ms. No. 1670. This Purāṇa has 105 chapters and over 4000 verses. Prof. Hazra admits (p. 119) that it has very little of the principal characteristics of a Purāṇa and deals exclusively with the religious rites and duties of Vaiṣṇavas. Alberuni names Viṣṇudharma but the verses that he quotes therefrom are found in the Viṣṇudharmottara as Buhler pointed out long ago (I. A. vol. XIX. pp. 381-410 and vide table given by Prof. Hazra on p. 208 comparing the two). Prof. Hazra holds (p. 116) relying on two verses quoted below from Viṣṇudharmottara1408a that the Viṣṇudharmottara is only the latter part of Viṣṇudharma and that, as he holds that the former was composed between 400-500 A D, the date of the Viṣṇudharma falls between 200 and 300 A D (p 143). The other arguments that he advances are practically worthless In the present author's opinion those verses can be interpreted in two other but different ways, viz.
v7.c90.164.2
that the first section of the present Viṣṇudharmottara is called Viṣṇudharma or that the Viṣṇudharmottara is so called because it was composed after the Viṣṇupurāṇa, which contains the greatness of Viṣṇu and the dharmas of Vaiṣṇavas He often trots out the theory that, if a work is free from Tantric elements, it must be an early work belonging to the 3rd or 4th century A D (see p. 142). The Sarvadarśanasaṅgraha of Mādhavācārya (which was composed in the 14th century) makes no reference to the cult of Śakti or the system of Tantra, though it devotes a good deal of space to the views of even Cārvāka (a thorough-going atheist), Bauddhas and Jainas. The Sarvasiddhāntasaṅgraha also does not refer to the Śāktas or the Tantras But no one can argue that Mādhava is earlier than 4th or 5th century A D. There may be various reasons for silence. One may abhor a thing and may not refer to it or use it at all as the Dānasāgara says about the Devīpurāṇa. The argument from silence is a slippery one I challenge the whole basis of Prof. Hazra's date for Viṣṇudharma, viz the date of the Viṣṇudharmottara. This last is a vast work in three sections It would be proved later that portions of the latter Purāṇa dealing with prognostications from dreams cannot be placed earlier than about 600 to 650 A D. For the Viṣṇudharma we have to rely on what Prof. Hazra quotes. Chap. 66 quotes the famous words of the Gītā 'whenever there is decline of dharma &c.' (p. 143 n 94) and then the same chap.
v7.c90.164.3
mentions the incarnations of Viṣṇu including Buddha (p. 125). Therefore, the mention of the ten avatāras in the context of the words of the Gītā is natural and should not be regarded as spurious simply because it comes in the way of one's pet theories. On p. 144 he quotes ten verses from chapter 66 in which Buddha is described as son of Śuddhodana and his doctrines are stated. Prof. Hazra (on pp 145–146) gives four reasons which are quite unconvincing. The Purāṇas mention the avatāras of Viṣṇu in several places. The Bhāgavata in I. 3 names 22 avatāras On p. 150 Prof. Hazra himself quotes a long passage about the evils of the Kali age from the Viṣṇudharma in which occurs a significant half verse 'utkocāḥ saugatāś-caiva Mahāyānaratās-tathā'. Here not only are the followers of Buddha mentioned but also those who are of the Mahāyāna persuasion. On p. 124 Prof. Hazra states that the Viṣṇudharma (p 124 n 45) mentions by name 33 authors of Dharmaśāstras, besides the Saptarṣis and others. Yāj. (I. 4–5) mentions only 19 promulgators of Dharmaśāstra (including himself and holding Śaṅkha-likhita as one). Both the Viṣṇudharma and the Viṣṇudharmottara are not mentioned by the Matsya.
v7.c90.164.4
Therefore, it must be held that they were not recognized as Upapurāṇas at the time when the verses about Upapurāṇas were interpolated in the Matsya and were not so recognized till at least the 8th or 9th century A D The Viṣṇudharma is opposed to what is stated by all writers from the Gṛhya and Dharmasūtras, by Manu (III. 128–186), by Matsya, Kūrma and other Purāṇas about the qualifications of the brāhmaṇas to be invited at a śrāddha dinner (vide H. of Dh. vol IV pp. 384–387). It expressly says that squint-eyed, hunch-backed, impotent, poor and diseased brāhmaṇas should be mixed up at a śrāddha along with those who are deeply versed in the Veda.¹⁴⁰⁹ This does not bespeak an early date On p. 138 Prof Hazra refers to several nibandhakāras as quoting from Viṣṇudharma such as Gadādhara up to Ballālasena, Aparārka and Kṛtyakalpataru. These do not carry the date beyond 1000 A. D and besides an examination of quotations in only one work (Aparārka) will show that the Viṣṇudharma was an hotch-potch bringing together passages from several sources (vide note).¹⁴¹⁰ Prof. Hazra himself holds that the original Viṣṇudharma was appropriated and recast by Bhāgavatas and that many verses quoted from Viṣṇudharma by Raghunandana, Govindānanda and the Madanapārijāta do not occur in the present work (pp. 154-155).