[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [Science, technology and education](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science) › [Vada in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021) › c9 # Vada in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c9: 5. Vāda in Dharma: Socio-Political and Legal Debates Vāda in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c9 - **Language:** English ## Contents - [c9.s1 Debates on Polity and Governance](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s1) — 3 parts - [c9.s2 Vajrasūcī and the Debate on the Caste System](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s2) — 4 parts - [c9.s3 Debates in Dharmaśāstras](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s3) — 12 parts - [c9.s4 Debates on Rights of Women](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s4) — 15 parts - [c9.s5 Openness for Debate](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5) — 61 parts ### 5. Vāda in Dharma: Socio-Political and Legal Debates ### [c9.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.1) Vāda in Dharma ### [c9.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.3) Parallel to the Vedic traditions which became precursors of Sanātana Dharma, the Āgamic and Śramaṇic traditions existed right from the hoary past with their own world-view and alternate lifestyles. \*Ṛgveda\* X.136.2 refers to \*vātaraśanā munis\* (sages wearing wind as girdle, i.e. the naked ascetics). \*Taittirīya Āraṇyaka\* also uses the appellation of \*ṛṣis\* (seers) as \*vātaraśanās\*.¹ ### [c9.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.4) In Upaniṣads we find seers from all castes and classes. Bādarāyaṇa however seeks to restrict the knowledge of \*Brahman\* from śudras. There is a whole section in his \*Brahmasūtra\* — called the Apaśūdrādhikaraṇa — in defence of this restriction. Pūrva-Mīmāṁsā also upholds the ban on the śūdras for performing a Vedic ritual. On the other hand, there were some enlightened sages like Bādari, who upheld the right of the śūdras to perform rituals. ### [c9.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.5) Govind Chandra Pande connects the restrictions as specified in the Apaśūdrādhikaraṇa to the desire of the priests for preserving their leadership. A reactionary outlook also emerged due to the challenge from Buddhism. “There is no doubt that liberal view of caste and religious rights was current even within the orthodoxy in this age is proved by \*Mahābhārata\*.”² \*Gītā\* opened the doors of worship for śūdras and women. The puritans sought to counter this liberalism. ### [c9.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.6) The question of nexus between \*darśana\* and \*dharmaśāstra\* arises here. Were the intellectuals soaring in the heights of philosophical spaces unmindful of the social and moral considerations? How far they considered the cultural values of the community and the social order? Navjivan Rastogi initiates a thought-provoking discussion on this question. He rightly points out that “growth of Indian philosophy had essentially been conditioned by the idea of liberation, i.e. \*mokṣa\*” whereas the \*lokavyavahāras\* — social practices and norms — were defined and regulated by the authors of Dharmaśāstras. This leads to a dichotomy between \*pravṛtti\* (empiricism) and \*nivṛtti\* (renunciation). The psycho-spiritual pursuit (\*sādhanā\*) looses the social context. Rastogi convincingly tries to argue for the restoration of social context by the non-orthodox systems leading to an alignment between liberation and life. He concludes that the Tantra succeeded in establishing a real nexus between the two truths — \*paramārtha\* and \*vyavahāra\*.³ ### [c9.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.7) However it is not quite correct to see an inner contradiction because of two polarities of affirmation and negation — the society-centric view and the spiritual pursuit. Within the system these contradictions were resolved by proposing alternate world-views. Realignment between \*pravṛtti mārga\* (empiricist way) and \*nivṛtti mārga\* (path of renunciation) between the society-centric view and the psycho-spiritual view was sought. ### [c9.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.8) Bādarāyaṇa’s postulations stand in conformity to Manu’s dictates. But as Bādarāyaṇa’s philosophical postulations are countered by the other philosophers like Bhāguri, \*Mahābhārata\* or \*Gītā\* within the orthodoxy; and more potentially by the onslaught of Buddhism and Jainism, counter-positions to the postulations of Manu continued to be envisaged. Unfortunately, during the regime of Warren Hastings in eighteenth century, Manu came to be regarded almost as the sole authority in respect of legal and social practices of the Hindu community. While Manu was followed in the larger part of the northern belt in India, there were other lawgivers for rest of the regions. Manu specifically suggests that he is standardizing the Dharmaśāstra for Āryāvarta — the land in the north of Vindhya mountain. There were other authorities in the area of Dharmaśāstra for Dakṣiṇāpatha (south), Magadha (in north-east), Gauḍa or Pāñcāla Deśas. Hundreds of \*smṛtikāras\* like Yājñavalkya, Parāśara, Kātyāyana, Śaṅkha and Likhita, Atri as well as the authors of \*Nārada\* and \*Viṣṇusmṛti\* provided constitutional framework for running the socio-religious and socio-political framework in diverse regions of the vast peninsula. Even though Manu ardently desired that the practices envisaged by the \*agrajanmas\* (brāhmaṇas) as codified by him in his law book, must be followed in the countries outside the Āryāvarta also — in the whole of the \*pṛthivī\* (Bhāratavarṣa), it was quite impossible that his wish would be realized. The \*pṛthivī\* or the vast country like India could not be governed by a single, rigid and unchanging constitution. Just as in the area of \*darśana\* (philosophy) so many systems and schools have been interacting and encountering with each other, and these interactions and encounters led to revisions and corrections in the systems, Dharmaśāstra offered wider and more potential field for oppositions and providing alternate systems. In all likelihood, even in the Āryāvarta, for which the codes of Manu were basically evolved, the other law books also prevailed. ### [c9.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.9) The Dharmaśāstra either had to become more rigid and unitary or had to revise itself again and again in the wake of new philosophies and religious orders — Buddhists, Jainas, Tāntrikas, as well as the rise of the Bhakti movement. The revisions in the Dharmaśāstras (law books) were made in the last millennia of the BCE era, and they continued to be re-enforced or reinvigorated by fresh movements. If there was a Nigama tradition with the prevalence of \*varṇāśrama\*-centric and male-dominated world-view, there was the Āgama tradition. It continued in the practices of the Tantric cults, and the Bhāgavata and Vaiṣṇava schools of religious order. These cults and faiths simply overruled the hierarchies and inequalities — the differences of gender and caste, and proposed trans-\*varṇāśramic\* orders. ### [c9.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.10) The lines of demarcation as well as the debates between the Vedic and non-Vedic philosophical systems — Cārvākas, Ājīvakas, Buddhists, Jainas — as well as the onslaught of philosophers like Madhva, Rāmānuja, Nimbārka and Rāmānanda within the orthodox philosophies as well as the Tantric cults need to be understood in a broad socio-cultural framework. When Dharmakīrti and other Buddhist philosophers were rejecting the whole concept of \*jāti\* as (generality) as a philosophical category, they were also challenging the concept of \*jāti\* in the sense of social hierarchy. The Tantric systems were also debating with the whole \*varṇāśrama\*-centric culture when they emphatically declared that after initiation in the cult, a śūdra no more remains a śūdra and a brāhmaṇa no more a brāhmaṇa. All distinctions based on caste are eliminated.⁴ Abhinavagupta in this context raises a voice of protest against those who believe in the caste hierarchy. He says: ### [c9.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.11) Those, who deny liberation to women and śūdras, are possessed by the \*mahāgraha\* (great prejudice, great evil star), in their very limited horizon, they de-recognize the all-compassionate grace of God; their vision is marred by jealousy, concealment, and shame and they make themselves laughing stocks.⁵ ### [c9.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.12) These philosophies adopted a sustained strategy of debate for countering the social discordances arising out of the \*varṇāśrama\*-centric culture. They made strong refutations of the norms of hierarchy. The systems they tried to evolve transgressed such norms, but ultimately achieved a reconciliation. The very term \*vāma mārga\* (left path) which came into prevalence for the Tantric cults denotes the adaptation of the ways and means to transgress all orthodoxy. ### [c9.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.13) There are Smṛtis (law books) like the \*Viṣṇusmṛti\*, which reflect the alternate visions, provided by the Āgamic traditions. These Smṛti texts present as much divergence and a wide range of concrete ideas in respect of governance, polity and the social as well as the ethical norms as the philosophical systems in respect of abstract thinking. ### Debates on Polity and Governance ### [c9.s1.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s1.1) One of the major disciplines taken up for discussions and debates was Arthaśāstra (management, polity and diplomacy). In \*Rāmāyaṇa\* there is a long discussion on king’s duties and policies for governance initiated by Rāma during the course of his queries about the wellness when Bharata visits him in Citrakūṭa. Rāma asks Bharata: ### [c9.s1.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s1.2) Is it so that you pay due regard to the preceptor Sudhanvan, who is equipped with excellent arms and is expert in Arthaśāstra?⁶ ### [c9.s1.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s1.3) In fact, the prolonged queries here present a discussion on the subject of \*prajāpālana\* (nourishment of subjects by a king). The \*mantraṇā\* (counselling) is the base on which this polity proceeds and counselling is not be done singularly, it is always with a selected group.⁷ This \*mantraṇā\* should properly employ \*yuktis\* (logic) and \*tarkas\* (arguments) to arrive at the \*mantra\*.⁸ Rāma also suggests that instead of approaching thousands of fools, a king must engage in discussions with one wise man only.⁹ Further, Rāma suggests that the king should do counselling with three or four counsellors only, either together or one by one.¹⁰ ### Vajrasūcī and the Debate on the Caste System ### [c9.s2.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s2.1) \*Vajrasūcī\* of Aśvaghoṣa (see Chap. 2) is an essay in refutation of caste system. Aśvaghoṣa takes the following stands and refutes them one by one: 1. The \*jīva\* (individual soul) is brāhmaṇa, 2. a person becomes a brāhmaṇa by birth, 3. a particular human body is brāhmaṇa, 4. because of knowledge one can become a brāhmaṇa, 5. the conduct of a person makes him a brāhmaṇa, 6. the good deeds of a person make him a brāhmaṇa, and 7. the knowledge of Veda makes a person brāhmaṇa. ### [c9.s2.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s2.2) After giving reasons for the rejection of these views, Aśvaghoṣa presents his own thesis about what-makes one a brāhmaṇa. Accordingly, it is the spiritual attainment of a person that endows him with brāhmaṇahood. He also describes the process of observing rigorous vows and austerities, etc. that leads to this attainment. He then rejects \*cāturvarṇya\* — the fourfold division of society into castes — acknowledging that a man is born with only one \*varṇa\*. ### [c9.s2.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s2.3) Aśvaghoṣa cites verses from \*Śukra\* and \*Mānava Dharmaśāstra\* to support his argument. \*Vajrasūcyopaniṣad\* is a later text composed in Upaniṣadic style, it only repeats Aśvaghoṣa’s arguments. ### [c9.s2.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s2.4) \*Laghuṭaṅka\*, a text written by Paṇḍit Subaji Bapu, is a rejoinder to \*Vajrasūcī\*. The author perhaps lived at Sehore near Bhopal and he prepared this rejoinder out of the discussions held in an assembly chaired by Wilkinson.¹¹ ### Debates in Dharmaśāstras ### [c9.s3.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s3.1) The Smṛtis (law books) are of two types — Arthaśāstra and Dharmaśāstra. Books under the former deal with diplomacy, governance and management. Books under the second category also deal with the issues of politics and governance, etc. but they are more concerned with ethical norms, codes of conducts and rites for purification. The Smṛti texts are prescriptive in nature, but they also take up vital issues related to human destiny. ### [c9.s3.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s3.2) One of the questions taken up by some authors of Smṛti texts is about a person’s dependence on \*daiva\* (fate) and \*puruṣakāra\* (industriousness). Yājñavalkya refers to a few divergent views here — Daivavāda (fatalism), Svabhāvavāda (naturalism), Kālavāda (pessimism) and Puruṣakāravāda (activism). In his opinion, success in life depends on \*daiva\* and \*puruṣakāra\* both. Even \*daiva\* is created by a man by his industriousness of the past life. Just as a chariot will not move with one wheel only, the same way without industriousness, even the fate will not materialize.¹² Which is more powerful — a man’s industriousness or his fate — this question is discussed as a debatable issue by several authors and poets in Sanskrit literature. ### [c9.s3.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s3.3) The contradictory views in these texts on legal matters, laws of inheritance, women’s rights and marriage, etc. reflect the differences of opinion and receptiveness of debates. Yājñavalkya says that in case of divergence of opinions or difference in prescriptions, decision should be taken by \*nyāya\*. \*Nyāya\* here comprises of three facets — the practices of the elders who are reliable, the prevalence and the precedence. But Yājñavalkya also upholds the prominence of \*dharmaśāstra\* over \*arthaśāstra\*.¹³ ### [c9.s3.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s3.4) Like the parliaments, judicial courts have also functioned as platforms for very lively debates on social, moral and ethical issues. Also, techniques for debates in these courts were also evolved. The Smṛti texts furnish in-depth analysis of the techniques and methodology of debates in judicial courts. The terms \*vādī\* and \*prativādī\* are used for the petitioner and the respondent. Alternately they are also called \*arthī\* and \*pratyarthī\*.¹⁴ The model of \*vāda\* is taken up, \*pratijñā\* (statement), \*sādhana\* (proof, reason, probans), \*pramāṇa\* (evidence), \*sādhya\* (probandum), \*vivāda\* (dispute) and \*siddhi\* (success) — these are the terms the authors of law books have used to describe the judicial proceedings.¹⁵ ### [c9.s3.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s3.5) Nārada says that for all kinds of \*vyavahāras\* (cases in the courts) the essence lies in \*pratijñā\* (statement of the disputant, the affidavit of the petitioner). If \*pratijñā\* is lacking, then \*vādī\* (disputant, petitioner) will suffer, and if it is solid, he can win the case.¹⁶ ### [c9.s3.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s3.6) The gamut of these terms as well as the methodology for the conduct of judicial proceedings are based on the techniques of \*vāda\*. \*Bṛhaspatismṛti\* 1.17 lays down four steps of judicial process involving debate — (i) \*pūrva-pakṣa\* (the petitioner’s view), (ii) \*uttara-pakṣa\* (reply by the respondent), (iii) \*kriyāpāda\* (specifying the action to be taken), and (iv) \*nirṇaya\* (judgement). The reply under (ii) has been divided by \*Śukrasmṛti\* into four categories: ### [c9.s3.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s3.7) • \*Satya\* (factual) — it is also called \*pratipatti\*. It involves an acceptance of the points submitted by the petitioner. • \*Mithyā\* (false) — is the negation of the points raised by the petitioner. • \*Pratyavaskandana\* — partial acceptance with a view to denounce the case as presented by the petitioner. This is done by adding rejoinders. ### [c9.s3.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s3.8) • \*Pūrvabhyāsavidhi\* — a method involving citations of previous arguments and victory acquired by the respondent in the same or similar cases. ### [c9.s3.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s3.9) This structure is followed even today in submitting the counter-affidavits in the courts of law by the advocates representing the respondent. ### [c9.s3.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s3.10) The tactics of \*chala\* (cheating), \*jāti\* (avoiding reply) and \*nigraha-sthānas\* (clinchers), as defined by the authors of the philosophical texts, were also practised in \*dharmasabhās\* (law courts). Nārada condemns the conduct of \*vāk-chala\* (cheating by speech).¹⁷ ### [c9.s3.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s3.11) Kātyāyana (16-40), Bṛhaspati (2.8-9) and Śukra also discuss certain defects in the language or the reports prepared. Śukra defines these defects as under: ### [c9.s3.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s3.12) • \*Anyārthaṁ\* (giving a sense other than what is intended), • \*arthahīnaṁ\* (nonsense), • \*pramāṇāgamavarjitaṁ\* (lack of proofs), • \*hīnādhikaṁ\* (having omissions and commissions), and • \*bhraṣṭaṁ\* (corrupted statement). ### Debates on Rights of Women ### [c9.s4.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s4.1) Kātyāyana prescribes death sentence for committing rape of a woman,¹⁸ while Āpastamba differs with him and suggests that a śūdra molesting an Āryan lady be hanged.¹⁹ There are differences and debatable issues on punishments for adultery. Manu recommends that an adulteress should be thrown to dogs for being eaten,²⁰ whereas Kātyāyana is again much more human and generous here also. He directs the king to see that such a woman is freed after the declaration of her act of adultery. ### [c9.s4.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s4.2) It is commonly believed that the authors of Dharmaśāstras have not made any provision of divorce in marriage.²¹ Dharmavir goes to the extent of alleging that the Sanskrit language does not have any word for divorce.²² The authors of Dharmaśāstras, \*Arthaśāstra\* and \*Kāmasūtra\* do discuss the issue of separation in marriage and the term \*mokṣa\* has been used by them for divorce between married persons. Both man and woman are allowed to seek \*mokṣa\* in marriage. R.C. Majumdar rightly understands Kauṭilya when he says that “Kauṭilya permitted divorce to both husband and wife on the ground of mutual enmity”.²³ Manu even recommends that a man may seek \*mokṣa\* from a woman who speaks harshly.²⁴ Kauṭilya would recommend \*mokṣa\* in marriage in exceptional circumstances only. Yājñavalkya, Kauṭilya and Vātsyāyana recommend re-marriage for the lady who has obtained \*mokṣa\* from her husband. Such a lady is called \*punarbhūḥ\* (remarried). Such a marriage was not solemnized by Vedic rights in all cases. But then Yājñavalkya specifically prescribed that the son of a \*punarbhūḥ\* lady will be entitled for the property of his father. Nārada enumerates seven kinds of women who are allowed to remarry — three types of \*punarbhūs\* and four types of \*svairiṇīs\* (wanton women). The first type of \*punarbhū\* is a virgin, who was married but is \*akṣatayoni\*, i.e. never had a “penetration” with the first husband. She should be married with \*saṁskāra\* (Vedic rites). Second one leaves her husband for another man, but returns back to the first husband. The third one is remarried with a \*savarṇa\* and \*sapiṇḍa\* in the absence of a \*devara\* (husband’s brother). The four \*svairiṇīs\* are: ### [c9.s4.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s4.3) 1. When her husband is alive, she goes to some other man out of desire, 2. husband having died, she rejects his brother (\*devara\*) and chooses to live with an outsider, 3. a woman in dire circumstances sells herself for food and cloths and then accepts her buyer, and 4. a courageous lady who is given to someone in accordance with the local customs and times.²⁵ ### [c9.s4.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s4.4) Kauṭilya makes provisions for the lady choosing a second husband, when her first husband being alive or dead.²⁶ ### [c9.s4.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s4.5) These law givers prescribe divorce and remarriage in case of a lady married to an impotent person. A woman is like a field — says Nārada — “and the agricultural field cannot be handed over to a man who has no seed”. Both Parāśara and Nārada make a provision for remarriage of women in five situations: ### [c9.s4.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s4.6) 1. The husband has disappeared and his whereabouts are not known for a long time, 2. he has died, 3. he has become an ascetic, 4. he is impotent, and 5. he has committed adultery.²⁷ ### [c9.s4.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s4.7) If the husband has gone away and there is no news of him, a brāhmaṇa lady should wait for him for eight years in case she has born children from him; if she has no children then she should wait only for four years and then remarry. The time limit for the women of other castes is still lower.²⁸ Kauṭilya’s follows Nārada in general; but he specifically instructs a lady to leave a man who has committed a sin, is convicted, is impotent, suffers from an incurable desease or is cruel.²⁹ He also prescribes divorce if both the husband and the wife do not like each other; but divorce is to be provided neither to the wife if she hates him for not liking her. In case both of them do not like each other, then they should be divorced. A man seeking divorce from a woman going against him may be obliged but not the woman. There is, however, no provision for a formal divorce in the marriages performed through Vedic rites.³⁰ But then, all law givers, cited above, make provision of going to another man in exceptional circumstances like the husband being impotent, etc. This only means that a lady having entered into a sacred bond of marriage, sanctified by Vedic rites, can leave her husband in these circumstances and start another life in a partnership. This living in partnership is in fact nothing less than marriage, as the lady gets all the benefits under the law. ### [c9.s4.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s4.8) There are sharp differences of opinion amongst the authors of Dharmaśāstras with regard to the rights of women, especially widows.³¹ The views of Bṛhaspati, Kātyāyana and Parāśara are quite different from the others. Bṛhaspati would like to see that a widow lives with all the dignity of a lady. He says: ### [c9.s4.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s4.9) A wife forms the half of her husband. No man can be said to have died if his wife is living.³² ### [c9.s4.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s4.10) Yājñavalkya, Kātyāyana, Bṛhaspati and the author of \*Viṣṇusmṛti\* authorize the widow to inherit the property of her husband if he has no son.³³ If a man is not survived by his wife or sons, then the daughters would inherit his property.³⁴ On the other hand, there are law givers who will see that the \*sapiṇḍa\* relatives of the diseased person get his property. Bṛhaspati vehemently protests this practice. He goes to the extent of prescribing that the king should punish the relatives treating them as thieves, if at all they make any attempt of grabbing the property legally inherited by a widow.³⁵ ### [c9.s4.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s4.11) The laws of Viṣṇu, Bṛhaspati and Yājñavalkya must have made revolutionary effect on the social fabric, leading to sharp reactions from the supporters of patriarchy. \*Nāradasmṛti\* stoutly opposed the reformist and liberal views of the Smṛtis of Viṣṇu, Bṛhaspati and Yājñavalkya providing that the property of an issueless person will be confiscated by the state and the widow will be provided a bare maintenance. ### [c9.s4.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s4.12) Vijñāneśvara in ᴄᴇ 1100 further enlarged the scope of \*strīdhana\*, providing for inclusion of all property inherited by a woman in it. It is unfortunate that the Smṛtis of Prajāpati and Kātyāyana were lost, the male-dominated society did not care to preserve them, as they were fairly liberal to the other sex. Barring a few, the kings generally did not care to promulgate the laws of Viṣṇu, Yājñavalkya or Kātyāyana making the womenfolk more powerful. Kings like Kumārapāla of Gujarat were exceptions. Kumārapāla declared the right of a widow over the property of her husband in ᴄᴇ 1150. His court-poet praised him as more magnanimous than the illustrious kings like Raghu, Nahuṣa or Nābhāga.³⁶ ### [c9.s4.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s4.13) Manu appears to be rather insensitive in allowing liberty to women. If a woman leaves the house of her husband in a rage, she should be tied with ropes and put in the house, otherwise the husband should leave her to her father’s house.³⁷ He levies a fine of six golden coins upon a lady going to night shows in \*prekṣās\* or \*samājas\*.³⁸ On the other hand, he is strictly against marrying a virgin to a man not fit for her. “It is better that a girl lives unwedded till her death, than be married to a man not suitable for her”, he says. He also allows a young girl to seek a suitable match herself if the parents are unable to marry her.³⁹ On one hand, he deprives a married lady and a daughter from inheriting the property of her husband or father, on the other he directs the brothers of a lady to provide a share of the property inherited by them to their sister; if they do not do so they are condemned.⁴⁰ But \*Viṣṇusmṛti\* declares in most unequivocal terms that the property of a man having died without any son will be inherited by his wife, and if he is not survived by his wife, then the property will go to his daughters.⁴¹ Nandapaṇḍita in his commentary on \*Viṣṇusmṛti\* on this passage quotes Bṛhaspati’s instructions to the king to punish the kin who makes an attempt to grab the property thus inherited by a widow.⁴² Yājñavalkya directs that the father-in-law should provide equal part of his property for the wives of his sons if they have not inherited \*strīdhana\* (the money given to the bride by the parents). Even if they have been given \*strīdhana\*, they are to be provided with one half of the part given to the sons.⁴³ A widow will inherit the property equal to the share for her sons.⁴⁴ ### [c9.s4.14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s4.14) The concept of \*putrikā\* — the only daughter of a man having no son is unique in this tradition. The \*putrikā\* is allowed to perform the last rites of her father and also to inherit his property. “Just as a son is the very soul of a man, so is the daughter” says Manu in the context of a \*putrikā\* — “how can any other person be allowed to take away a man’s property if she is there?”⁴⁵ Most of the authors of Dharmaśāstras agree that the woman’s property (\*strīdhana\*) will be inherited by the daughter/daughters only and not by her sons.⁴⁶ ### [c9.s4.15](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s4.15) The diversity of the opinions and concern for values of these law givers have gone a long way to sustain the Hindu society for centuries. Raja Rammohun Roy produced before Lord William Bentinck the relevant portions from the text of \*Manusmṛti\* describing the conduct of a widow when he was campaigning for the eradication of the practice of \*satī\*.⁴⁷ Swami Vivekananda and Lala Lajpat Rai also referred to these authors of Dharmaśāstras, to substantiate of their views on the rights of women.⁴⁸ ### Openness for Debate ### [c9.s5.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.1) The questions whether the people belonging to lower castes (śūdras) have a right to perform Vedic rituals came to be discussed again and again. Kamalākara Bhaṭṭa, the author of \*Nirṇayasindhu\* (CE 1612) in his \*Vivādatāṇḍava\*, describes several such controversies. In his \*Śūdrakamalākara\*, he has discussed the rights of śūdras for performing rituals. Texts discussing the rights of śūdras for performing of rituals have been written till recent times by Sanskrit \*paṇḍits\* of Dharmśāstras.⁴⁹ Nāgeśa Bhaṭṭa had authored a text \*Vrātyaprāyaścittavinirṇaya\*. He debarred the community of kṣatriyas of his times from having the \*upanayana\*, because he believed that the real kṣatriyas vanished due to the massacres by Paraśurāma. The text was discussed at a \*śāstra-sabhā\* in Jaipur.⁵⁰ ### [c9.s5.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.2) As long the prescriptions and codes of conduct remain open for debates and revision, the society remains free from the clutches of fundamentalism. This is brought out by the episode of Gāgā Bhaṭṭa making an allowance for the \*abhiṣeka\* (coronation) of Shivaji; it is an example of flexibility. ### [c9.s5.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.3) The Bhonsales were not regarded as kṣatriyas. Paṇḍit Kṛṣṇa Narahariśeṣa, a contemporary of Akbar, had written \*Śūdrācāraśiromaṇi\* in support of this contention. This produced a hurdle in the coronation ceremony of Shivaji and also his enjoying the status of \*Chatrapati\* (lord with the royal umbrella). Local brāhmaṇas were not at all in favour of allowing a coronation ceremony with Vedic rituals. There was a bitter dispute. Paṇḍits at Kāśī were approached. Viśveśvara Paṇḍita, better known as Gāgā Bhaṭṭa (CE 1640–1700), was supposed to be the greatest authority on Dharmaśāstras amongst them. According to Paṇḍit Baldeva Upadhyaya’s version, he was persuaded by Balaji who went to Kāśī for the purpose of getting the support of the \*paṇḍitas\*. Gāgā Bhaṭṭa not only accepted a fictitious genealogy of Shivaji establishing him a descendant of solar race, he also wrote a text \*Kāyasthadharmapradīpa\* in refutation of \*Śūdrācāraśiromaṇi\* of Paṇḍit Kṛṣṇa Narahariśeṣa.⁵¹ ### [c9.s5.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.4) Baldeva Upadhyaya (1994: 38) refers to his having performed the ritual ceremony for the enthronement of Shivaji at Raigarh in 1674. He also describes Gāgā’s participation in a \*dharmasabhā\* held at the Rājāpur village in Koṅkaṇ during 1664. The incidence is reported in \*Śivadigvijaya\*, a Marāṭhī chronicle. ### [c9.s5.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.5) In another version of the visit of Gāgā Bhaṭṭa to Maharashtra, he is reported to have met Saint Rāmdās at Paṇḍharapur with a view to hold discussions with him on philosophy. The saint called his disciple, Veṇābāī to have a sitting with the scholar par excellence with a copy of the text of his \*Dāsabodha\* and explain the monistic doctrine accordingly. Gāgā Bhaṭṭa is said to have satisfied by her discourse on the teachings of her master.⁵² ### [c9.s5.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.6) Gāgā Bhaṭṭa composed a regulatory text, titled \*Śrīśivarājyābhiṣeka-prayoga\*, for the occasion of coronation. He incorporated \*mantras\* from \*Atharvaveda\*, \*Aitareya Brāhmaṇa\*, \*Viṣṇudharmottara Purāṇa\* and other tetxs in it. Yet another manual for the coronation ceremony, entitled \*Śrīśivarājyābhiṣekakalpataru\*, was prepared under the direction of Niścalapurī having affiliation to Tantric traditions. Madhavi Narsalaya has shown that the coronation ceremony had to be carried twice under strange circumstances.⁵³ ### [c9.s5.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.7) The dispute on the validity of Shivaji’s coronation continued even after his death and the question of the status of Candrasenīya Kāyasthas as kṣatriyas was reopened in a massive \*śāstra-sabhā\* during the reign of Shahuji Bhonsale. The \*sabhā\* disallowed kṣatriyahood to the Candrasenīya Kāyasthas. This debate continued up to the nineteenth-twentieth centuries.⁵⁴ ### [c9.s5.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.8) ¹ Macdonell and Keith, 1912, \*Vedic Index of Names and Subjects\*, vol. II, p. 284. ### [c9.s5.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.9) ² Pande, 1998, \*Life and Thought of Śaṅkarācārya\*, p. 144. ### [c9.s5.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.10) ³ Navjivan Rastogi, 2012, “Tantric Thought of Kashmir: A Framework of Humanistic Culture”, \*Sanskrit Vimarśaḥ\*, new series 5. ### [c9.s5.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.11) ⁴ गतं शूद्रस्य शूद्रत्वं विप्रस्यापि च विप्रता । दीक्षासंस्कारसम्पन्ने जातिभेदो न विद्यते ।। — \*Kulārṇava Tantra\*, quoted by Navjivan Rastogi 2012 ### [c9.s5.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.12) ⁵ केचिदाचक्षते - द्विजराजन्यप्रशंसापरमेतद्वाक्यम्, न तु, स्त्र्यादिष्वपवर्गप्राप्तितात्पर्येण इति । ते हि भगवतः सर्वानुग्राहिकां शक्तिं मितविषयतया खण्डयन्तः तथा परमेश्वरस्य परमकृपालुत्वमसहमानाः . . . निरतिशययुक्तिप्रपञ्चसाधिताद्वैतभगवत्तत्त्वे भेदं बलादेवानयन्तो अन्यांश्चागमविरोधेन चेतयमानाः . . . परमन्तर्गभीकृतजात्यादिमहाग्रहाविष्टान्तःकरणाः मात्सर्यावहित्यलज्जाजिह्मीकृतावङ्मुखदृष्टय इति हास्यरसभावमात्मनि आरोपयन्ति इति । — quoted by Navjivan Rastogi, ibid. ### [c9.s5.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.13) ⁶ इष्वस्त्रवरसम्पन्नमर्थशास्त्रविशारदम् । सुधन्वानमुपाध्यायं कच्चित् त्वं तात मन्यसे ।। — \*Rāmāyaṇa\* II.94.14 ### [c9.s5.14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.14) ⁷ कच्चिन्मन्त्रयसे नैकः कच्चिन्न बहुभिः सह । कच्चित्ते मन्त्रितो मन्त्रः राष्ट्रं न परिधावति ।। — Ibid. II.94.13 ### [c9.s5.15](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.15) ⁸ कच्चित् तर्कैर्युक्त्या वै ये चाप्यपरिकीर्त्तिताः । त्वया वा तव वाऽमात्यैर्बुध्यते तात मन्त्रितम् ।। — Ibid. II.94.16 ### [c9.s5.16](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.16) ⁹ \*Rāmāyaṇa\* II.94.17-18. ### [c9.s5.17](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.17) ¹⁰ Ibid. II.94.19. ### [c9.s5.18](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.18) ¹¹ देशे मालव नामकेऽत्र नगरे भूपालनाम्नी शुभा तस्या अंति शिहुर नामक पुरी यस्यामजंठा-ग्रणीः विल्किन्सन्निति साहिब ॊ विजयते तस्याश्रितानां सभामध्येऽभूल्लघुट्टङ्क एष विदुषां तोषाय दोषापहः | This is printed as prose in the text of \*Vajrasūcyopaniṣad\* produced by Ramesh Bharadwaj in his \*Vajrasūcī of Aśvaghoṣa and the Concept of Varṇa-Jāti Through the Ages\*. It is actually a verse in Śārdūlavikrīḍita meter and the second foot of which is to be corrected as तस्यां भाति शिहूर (सिहोर)-नामकपुरी यस्यामजण्ठाग्रणीः The text was composed in 1759 Śālīvāhana year, which should CE 1837. Wilkinson’s experiments in education are being discussed in the last chapter of this work. ### [c9.s5.19](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.19) ¹² \*Yājñavalkyasmṛti\*, Ācārādhyāya, 349-50, p. 118. ### [c9.s5.20](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.20) ¹³ अर्थशास्त्र्ात्तु बलवद् धर्मशास्त्र्मिति स्थितिः । — \*Yājñavalkyasmṛti\*, Vyavahārādhyāya, 21, p. 145 ### [c9.s5.21](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.21) ¹⁴ Ibid. 6, p. 130. ### [c9.s5.22](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.22) ¹⁵ Ibid. 7-8. ### [c9.s5.23](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.23) ¹⁶ सारस्तु व्यवहाराणां प्रतिज्ञा समुदाहता । तद्धाने हीयते वादी तरंस्तामुत्तरो भवेत् । — \*Nāradasmṛti\* 1.6 ### [c9.s5.24](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.24) ¹⁷ सर्वेष्वपि विवादेषु वाक्छलेनापहीयते । — \*Nāradasmṛti\* 2.25 ### [c9.s5.25](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.25) ¹⁸ स्त्रीषु कृतोपभोगः स्यात् प्रसह्य पुरुषो यदा वधे तत्र प्रवर्तेत — \*Kātyāyanasmṛti\* 830 ### [c9.s5.26](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.26) ¹⁹ वध्यः शूद्र आर्यायाम् । — \*Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra\* 2.10.9 ### [c9.s5.27](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.27) ²⁰ \*Manusmṛti\* 3.37. ### [c9.s5.28](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.28) ²¹ It has been seen that the Hindu marriage, being a sacrament, once performed before the nuptial fire with the sacred texts, becomes irrevocable on the completion of the ceremony of taking seven steps by the couple. There is no evidence as to the practice of divorce as such during the Vedic and post-Vedic period, . . . dissolution of marriage was not thus contemplated by the \*śāstra\*, for it was non-dharmic, unrighteous and sinful.” — P.K. Virdi, \*The Marriage\*, quoted in \*Dharmashastra: An Introductory Analysis\*, ed. Brijkishor Swain, p. 160 ### [c9.s5.29](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.29) ²² "सच बात यह है कि संस्कृत भाषा में तलाक के अर्थ का कोई शब्द नहीं है। यदि संस्कृत भाषा में तलाक के लिए शब्द होता, तो बुद्ध को घर छोड़कर भागना न पड़ता। . . . संस्कृत भाषा में तलाक और डाइवोर्स के अर्थ का शब्द नदारद है।" — \*Kāmasūtra kī Santāneṁ\*, p. 15 ### [c9.s5.30](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.30) ²³ Swami Madhvanand, 2001, \*Great Women of India\*, p. 20. ### [c9.s5.31](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.31) ²⁴ \*Manusmṛti\* IX.81. ### [c9.s5.32](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.32) ²⁵ \*Nāradasmṛti\* XII.45-52. ### [c9.s5.33](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.33) ²⁶ \*Arthaśāstra\* III.2, vol. II, pp. 14-15. ### [c9.s5.34](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.34) ²⁷ नष्टे मृते प्रव्रजिते क्लीबे च पतिते पतौ । पञ्चस्वापत्सु नारीणां पतिरन्यो विधीयते । । — \*Nāradasmṛti\* XII.97 ### [c9.s5.35](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.35) ²⁸ \*Nāradasmṛti\* XII.98-100. ### [c9.s5.36](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.36) ²⁹ नीचत्वं परदेशं वा प्रस्थितो राजाकिल्बषी । प्राणाभिहन्ता पतितस्त्याज्यः क्लीबोऽपि वा पतिः । । — \*Arthaśāstra\* III.2, vol. II, p. 18 ### [c9.s5.37](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.37) ³⁰ Ibid., p. 21. ### [c9.s5.38](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.38) ³¹ In twentieth century, Jai Shankar Prasad, a prominent author in Hindi, wrote \*Dhruvasvāminī\* — a play in which the widow of the King Rāmagupta, after her husband is killed by his own younger brother Candragupta, marries the latter. In a very elucidative preface to this play, Prasad raised a debate on the legality of widow remarriage and cited the law books of Nārada and Parāśara. For details see “Dhruvasvāminī : Eka Ṭīkā” by me in \*Naṭaraṅga\* 92, April-June 2012. ### [c9.s5.39](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.39) ³² यस्य नोपरता भार्या देहार्धं तस्य जीवति । जीवत्यर्धशरीरेऽर्धं कथमन्तं समाप्नुयात् । । — \*Bṛhaspatismṛti\* XXVI ### [c9.s5.40](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.40) ³³ अपुत्रधनं पत्न्यभिगामी — \*Viṣṇusmṛti\* XVII.4, \*Bṛhaspatismṛti\* XXVI.93-94, \*Kātyāyanasmṛti\* 921 ### [c9.s5.41](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.41) ³⁴ पत्नी दुहितरश्चैव पितरौ भ्रातरौ तथा । तत्सुता गोत्रजा बन्धुशिष्यसब्रह्मचारिणः । एषामभावे पूर्वस्य धनभागुत्तरोत्तरः । स्वर्यातस्य ह्यपुत्रस्य सर्ववर्णेष्वयं विधिः । । — \*Yājñavalkyasmṛti\*, Vyavahārādhyāya, 135-36, p. 238 ### [c9.s5.42](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.42) ³⁵ सपिण्डा बान्धवा ये तु तस्याः स्युः परिपन्थिनः । हिंस्युर्धनानि तान् राजा चौरदण्डेन घातयेत् । । — \*Bṛhaspatismṛti\* XXVI.1-5 ### [c9.s5.43](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.43) ³⁶ A.S. Altekar, 1953, “Idea and Position of Indian Women in Social Life”, p. 46. ### [c9.s5.44](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.44) ³⁷ \*Manusmṛti\* IX.84. ### [c9.s5.45](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.45) ³⁸ \*Ibid.\* ### [c9.s5.46](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.46) ³⁹ \*Ibid.\* IX.89-90. ### [c9.s5.47](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.47) ⁴⁰ \*Manusmṛti\* IX.118. ### [c9.s5.48](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.48) ⁴¹ अपुत्रधनं पत्न्यभिगामि । तदभावे दुहित्र्यभिगामि । — \*Viṣṇusmṛti\* XVII.4-5 ### [c9.s5.49](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.49) ⁴² \*Viṣṇusmṛti\*, Commentary of Nandapaṇḍita, p. 288. ### [c9.s5.50](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.50) ⁴³ \*Yājñavalkyasmṛti\*, Vyavahārādhyāya, 115 (p. 221), 148 (p. 254). ### [c9.s5.51](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.51) ⁴⁴ \*Ibid.\* 123, p. 229. ### [c9.s5.52](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.52) ⁴⁵ यथैवात्मा तथा पुत्रः पुत्रेण दुहिता समा । तस्यामात्मनि तिष्ठन्त्यां कथमन्यो धनं हरेत् । । — \*Manusmṛti\* IX.130 ### [c9.s5.53](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.53) ⁴⁶ \*Manusmṛti\* IX.131. ### [c9.s5.54](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.54) ⁴⁷ कामं तु क्षपयेद्देहं पुष्पमूलफलैः शुभैः । न तु नामाऽपि गृह्णीयात् पत्यौ प्रेते परस्य तु । । आसीतामरणात् क्षान्ता नियता ब्रह्मचारिणी । यो धर्म एकपत्नीनां काङ्क्षन्ती तममनुत्तमम् । अनेकानि सहस्राणि कुमारब्रह्मचारिणाम् । दिवं गतानि विप्राणामकृत्वा कुलसन्ततिम् । । मृते भर्तरि साध्वी स्तरी ब्रह्मचर्ये व्यवस्थिता । स्वर्गं गच्छत्यपुत्राऽपि यथा ते ब्रह्मचारिणः । । — \*Manusmṛti\* V.157-60 ### [c9.s5.55](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.55) ⁴⁸ Lala Lajpat Rai, 1928, \*Unhappy India\*, Calcutta: Banna Publishing Co., pp. 167-68, referred in \*Dharmaśāstra: A Link Between Tradition and Modernity\*, ed. B.K. Swain (2003), p. 109. ### [c9.s5.56](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.56) ⁴⁹ \*Śūdrāhnikapaddhatiḥ\*, ed. Jayakrishna Mishra, Puri, 2008. ### [c9.s5.57](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.57) ⁵⁰ This statement is based on the article by Madhav M. Deshpande, 2010, “Kṣatriyas in Kali Age?: Gāgābhaṭṭa and His Opponents”, \*Indo-Iranian Journal\*, 53: 95-120. ### [c9.s5.58](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.58) ⁵¹ From the accounts given by Baldeva Upadhyaya it appears as if the huge sum of money paid by Bālājī was instrumental in changing the mindset of Gāgā Bhaṭṭa and to make give a verdict in favour of Shivaji. But as Madhav M. Deshpande informs, Gāgā Bhaṭṭa had already made his mind in favour of Shivaji ten years before the event of the coronation. He even encouraged the initiative for a proper \*abhiṣekavidhi\* (royal consecration ceremony) of Shivaji. — Madhav M. Deshpande, 2010, “Kṣatriyas in Kali Age?: Gāgābhaṭṭa and His Opponents”, \*Indo-Iranian Journal\*, 53: 95-120. ### [c9.s5.59](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.59) ⁵² Swami Madhvanand, 2001, op. cit., p. 354. ### [c9.s5.60](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.60) ⁵³ Madhavi Narsalaya, \*The King with One Kingdom but Two Coronations: Analysing Śrīśivarājyābhiṣekaprayoga\* and \*Śrīśivarājyābhiṣekakalpataru the Two Coronation Texts for Chatrapati Śivājī Mahārāja\*, abstract published in the \*Book of Abstracts\*, 16^th World Sanskrit Conference, Bangkok, pp. 260-61. ### [c9.s5.61](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9.s5.61) ⁵⁴ Madhav M. Deshpande, 2010, op. cit., pp. 95-120. ## Linked texts (23) - [Vālmīkirāmāyaṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.ramayana.valmiki.2.94.14) — Vālmīki, Sanskrit - [Mānava Dharmaśāstra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.manu.3.37) — Manu & Bhṛgu, Sanskrit - [Āpastambadharmasūtra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.kalpa.dharma.apastamba.2.10) — Āpastamba, Sanskrit - [Bṛhaspatismṛti](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.uddhrta.brhaspati.1.17) — Bṛhaspati, Sanskrit - [Ṛgvedasaṃhitā](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.samhita.rg.10.136.2) — Sanskrit - [Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.artha.kautilya) — Kauṭilya, Sanskrit - [Vaiṣṇava Dharmaśāstra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.visnu) — Viṣṇu, Sanskrit - [Kulārṇavatantra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.sampradaya.saiva.trika.kaula.kularnava) — Sanskrit - [Yājñavalkyasmṛti](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.yajnavalkya) — Yājñavalkya, Sanskrit - [Kātyāyanasmṛti](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.uddhrta.katyayana) — Kātyāyana (smṛtikāra), Sanskrit - [Nāradasmṛti](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.narada) — Nārada, Sanskrit - [Parāśarasmṛti](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.parasara) — Parāśara, Sanskrit - [Śaṅkhasmṛti](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.upasmrti.sankhalikhita.sankha) — Sanskrit - [Taittirīyāraṇyaka](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.aranyaka.taittiriya) — Sanskrit - [Atrismṛti (Atrisaṃhitā)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.upasmrti.atri) — Atri, Sanskrit - [Likhitasmṛti](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.upasmrti.sankhalikhita.likhita) — Sanskrit - [Vajrasūcī](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.darsana.vada.vajrasuci) — Aśvaghoṣa, Sanskrit - [Vajrasūcyupaniṣad](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.upanisad.samanya.vajrasuchi) — Sanskrit - [Brahmasūtra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.vedanta.brahmasutra) — Bādarāyaṇa, Sanskrit - [Mahābhārata](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.mahabharata.vyasa) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Kāmasūtra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.kama.vatsyayana) — Vātsyāyana Mallanāga, Sanskrit - [Dharmaśāstra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma) - [Bhagavadgītā](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.all.gita) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c9) · Pramāṇa