[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [Polity, law and society](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity) › [History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India)](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.kane-1930) › v7.c90.168 # History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c90.168 History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c90.168 - **Language:** English ### [v7.c90.168.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.kane-1930.v7.c90.168.1) Then we come to the Viṣṇudharmottara. The only printed edition is that of the Veṅk Press. It is a vast work divided into three sections. The first deals with geography, solar and lunar dynasties, astronomy and astrology, gotra and pravara, śrāddhas, Manvantaras, Bharata's fight with Gandharvas and Śatrughna's with Lavaṇa. The 2nd section deals with various aspects of Rāja-dharma and the third section of the Purāṇa deals with Citrasūtra-vidhāna and contains several topics such as painting, dancing, music, song, rasas, riddles, dramaturgy, metrics, figures of speech, construction of images, building of temples, symptoms of approaching death, gifts of various kinds, law and justice, hermits and sannyāsins. On p. 212 Dr. Hazra places this Purāṇa between 400-500 A.D. Reasons of limitations of space preclude any detailed criticism of Prof Hazra's treatment. In III. 351.54 Buddha is mentioned as an avatāra which Prof Hazra says is 'most probably spurious' (p. 212) and advances no reasons for this summary judgment. He puts in his usual argument of its non-Tantric¹⁴¹¹ character and frequent use of the word prādurbhāva and not 'avatāra' which latter, he says, occurs in two places only. Prof. Hazra often attaches undue importance to insignificant details Whether the word 'prādurbhāva' is used or 'avatāra' is used matters little. The same Purāṇa uses both words promiscuously e. g. Narasiṁha (36. 1, 'avatārānaham vakṣye') begins with the word 'avatāra' and in 39. ### [v7.c90.168.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.kane-1930.v7.c90.168.2) 1 employs the word 'prādurbhāva' (ataḥ param Hareḥ puṇyaṁ prādurbhāvam) and in the colophons of all chapters from 36 to 53 the word 'prādurbhāva' is used. The Matsya 247 1 starts with 'prādurbhāvān purāṇeṣu Viṣṇoramitatejasaḥ'. In 247. 19-21 the Matsya employs the word 'avatīrṇaḥ' with regard to Vāmana and Nṛsiṁha and in 246. 4 'avatīrṇo jagadyoniḥ..... Vāmaneneha rūpeṇa &c.'. Padma V. 13. 182 speaks of twelve avatāras; Viṣṇu V. 16 also uses the word 'avatāra'. On p. 199 he gives a table of passages that are common to Manu, Yāj, Nārada and Viṣṇudharmottara, on p. 200 another table of passages common to Bharata's Nāṭyaśāstra and Viṣṇudharmottara, and on page 202 a table of passages common to Matsya and Viṣṇudharmottara and holds that the Matsya borrows. This is a most astounding proposition. The Matsya does not even mention the Viṣṇudharmottara as an Upapurāṇa; the only sure and earliest date is that the latter is mentioned by Alberuni. That does not carry the matter beyond 900-1000 A. D. The Matsyapurāṇa might have been tampered with. The reasons assigned for his opinion by Prof. Hazra are, to say the least, flimsy and unconvincing. It is further to be noted that there are twelve verses that state that some phenomena are not to be held to be utpātas, that are common to Matsya 229. 14-25, Viṣṇudharmottara (II. 134. 15-26) and the Bṛhatsaṁhitā (45. 83-94), which are quoted by the Adbhutasāgara pp. 743-744 as occurring in all these three and in Bārhaspatya. ### [v7.c90.168.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.kane-1930.v7.c90.168.3) I have dealt with this matter above on p. 768 n 1240. Varāha states that these verses are the summaries (ṛṣiputrakṛtaiḥ ślokair-vidyād-etat samāsoktaiḥ) of the ślokas of Ṛṣiputra Therefore, the view that they are borrowed by Varāha from the Matsya or Viṣṇudharmottara would be out of question The two Purāṇas do not say whence they have taken them Therefore, it would not be unjustifiable to hold that in both Purāṇas the verses of the Bṛhat-saṃhitā were inserted. There is another circumstance that strengthens this last view. The Adbhutasāgara on pp. 493–494 quotes seven verses from the Bṛhad-yātrā of Varāha alone. These verses are quoted by Utpala on Bṛ. S 47. 22 (where Varāha says ‘sadasat-svapnanimittam yātrāyāṃ svapnavidhir-uktaḥ) from ‘Yātrā’ These verses (8 in all) are Varāha’s own (as he says) and not taken from any other source. Three of these verses on dreams occur in the Viṣṇudharmottara (II 176 9–11). They are quoted above on p 776 note 1254. Prof. Hazra does not appear to have carefully gone into the several works of Varāhamihira and is not right when he says (on pp. 201 and 211) that ‘the Viṣṇudharmottara does not refer to or utilize the works of Varāhamihira’. ### [v7.c90.168.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.kane-1930.v7.c90.168.4) The Viṣṇudharmottara is an encyclopaedia, while Varāhamihira was a great astronomer and astrologer He would turn to his predecessors in his own subject if he wanted to borrow and he expressly mentions numerous predecessors (vide pp 591–594 above) and not to an Upapurāṇa (which in my view did not exist or at least was not recognised as an authority when Varāha wrote in the first half of the 6th century A D.) Besides, the presumption to be drawn from the nature of the Upapurāṇa is in favour of holding that it borrows. --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.kane-1930.v7.c90.168](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.kane-1930.v7.c90.168) · Pramāṇa