History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c93.259

v7.c93.259

Dharmaśāstra writers make frequent use of the doctrine of *niyama* and *parisaṅkhyā*. Medhātithi on Manu III. 45 (ṛtukālābhigāmī syāt) has a long note on niyama and parisaṅkhyā, quotes the verse of Tantravārtika and explains the passage about five five-nailed animals. The Mit. also on Yāj on I. 79 (tasmin yugmāsu saṁviśet 'the husband should approach the wife on every even night next to the 4th night up to the 16th after her monthly illness starts) and on I. 81 holds a lengthy discussion whether there is a vidhi or niyama or parisaṅkhyā. The Mit. defines the three in prose, cites examples and tells us that some thought that there was only a parisaṅkhyā, while Bhāruci, Viśvarūpa, and others (including the Mit) hold that there is a niyamavidhi only in I. 79 and 81. Āp. Dh. S. II. 1. 17 deals with the same subject as Yāj. I. 79 and 81 and Haradatta says it is a niyama, while others thought it was a parisaṅkhyā and that in any case it is not a pure vidhi. On Gautama V. 2 Haradatta comments that the ācārya (*i.e.* Gautama) holds that there is a'parisaṅkhyā only (the sūtra is 'sarvatra vā pratiṣiddhavarjam'). Compare Yāj. I. 81 (yathākāmī bhaved-vāpi &c.), on which the Mit. emphatically says that in both Gautama and Yāj. there is a restrictive rule (niyama). Gautama prescribes that a brāhmaṇa should eat at the houses of persons of the three higher classes that are commended for the performance of their duties and should receive gifts also from such persons. Haradatta treats these two rules as¹⁹⁹⁹ parisaṅkhyāvidhis. Āp. Dh. S. II. provides the rules of conduct for husband and wife after their marriage, the first being 'taking food two times (morning and evening)'. Haradatta takes it as a parisaṅkhyā, meaning that eating a third time is prohibited (but they may or may not eat twice in the day), while others take it as a *niyama* meaning 'they must eat twice in the day'.