12 The Dharmasūtra of Saṅkha-Likhita

12 The Dharmasūtra of Saṅkha-Likhita

From the Tantravārtika we learn (note 55 above) that the Dharmasūtra of Śaṅkha-Likhita was specially studied by the Vājasaneyins (the followers of the white Yajurveda ). The Tantravārtika also quotes a few words from that Dharmaśūtra which constitute an Anuṣṭubh pāda¹. The Mahābhārata (in Śāntiparvan, chap. 23. 18-43 ) narrates the story of the two brothers, Śaṅkha and Likhita, who resided in separate dwellings surrounded by trees. Once Likhita came to the āśrama (hermitage ) of Śaṅkha in his absence. He took some ripe fruits from some of the trees of Śaṅkha’s āśrama and ate them. While he was eating, Śaṅkha came and asked him where he got the fruits. Likhita smiled and told his brother that he took them from his trees. Then Śaṅkha got angry and told his brother that he was guilty of theft and asked him to go to the king Sudyumna for punishment. Likhita went to the king who would not punish him as he was a man of pure character and learned ; when he persisted the king ordered his hands to be cut off. His arms were restored when he plunged into the river Bāhudā. In Santi ( 130.29 ) ² it is said ‘It is not possible to live if one adopts Saṅkhalikhita mode of life, particularly when one intends to secure the protection of the subjects.’ In another place (Santiparvan 132. 15-16 ) it is said ‘Some hold that conduct or practice is the best characteristic of dharma, others to whom Saṅkha-Likhita are dear do not like them.’ Vide Sabhāparva 7. 11 where among the holy sages who graced Iudra’s sabhii are included Saijkha and Likhita.

In the Pāli Dighanikāya II. 40-41 we have the words “Sakhalikhita-brahmacariyam caritum’. Prof. Bapat in the Silver Jubilee Vol. of BORI.( 1942 pp. 61-66 ) tries hard to prove that the words ‘Nayidam sukaram agāramajjhavasatā ekāntaparipunnam ekāntaparisuddham Saṅkhalikhitam-brahmacariyam caritum’ occurring in the Dighanikāya (2nd sutta, 40-41 ) have nothing to do with the Dharmasūtrakāras. The word ‘brahmacariyam’ does not mean in Pali books the life of a Vedic student, but only a pure moral life here (that was to be led by a student in brahmanical society ). But the words quoted from the Digha are just like the words quoted by me above from the Mahābharata (Santi 130. 29 ). My own idea is ( whatever the date of Sakha-likhita as writers may be ) that the Pali story is based on the story in the Mahābhārata. It is not unlikely that the two had led or emphasized an excellent moral life. Thereafter, the redactors of the Mahābhārata included them in a story in the Santiparva and the Pali

writers included the gist of that story in their works. Just as it is difficult to assign a definite date to the Mahābhārata, so also it is impossible or at least as difficult to say (there being no reliable evidence) that all the Nikāyas existed in writing before Asoka. Yājṅavalkya ( I. 5) mentions Saṅkha Likhita among the writers on dharmaśāstra. The Parāsarasmrti says (I. 24 ) that in the four ages of Kṛta, Tretā, Dvāpara and Kali, the ordinances of Manu, Gautama, Sankha-Likhita and Parāśara are respectively of paramount authority in matters of dharma. Viśvarūpa (on Yāj. III. 248 ) quotes a verse from an ancient author which says that Saṅkha and Likhita pondered deeply over the dharma promulgated to the sages by Manu and drew upon the Veda³ also. From the gist of the passages of SankhaLikhita quoted by Viśvarūpa and the words ‘Pratijñātārtha virodhah syāt’ it appears to have been the view of Viśvarūpa that the verse quoted was the first verse (or one of several verses at the beginning) of the sūtra of Sankha-Likhita. The word Manu-bhāsitam’in note 133 was either introduced by some redactor at a later date or the word does not refer to the extant Manu, but to some earlier version of it. Commentators and nibandhakaras from Viśvarūpa downwards profusely quote Sankha-Likhita. A considerable portion of these quota tions is in prose. Hence it is quite clear that the dharma sūtra of Saṅkha-Likhita is an ancient one, that it was largely if not entirely in prose and that it was once easily accessible though it has not yet been discovered. In the Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute (vol. VII-VIII) I made an attempt at a reconstruction of Saṅka-Likhita.

Jivananda (collection of smrtis, part II, pp. 343-374 ) prints in 18 chapters and about 330 verses a smrti of Saṅkha and a smrti of Likhita in about 93 verses ( part II., pp. 375– 382 ). The Anandāśrama collection also prints the same text of the two smrtis. The later also contains a Laghu-Sankha smrti in 71 verses and a Sankha-Likhita-smrti in 32 verses. All these, except perhaps the Saṅkha-smrti in 18 chapters, are late compilations. The smrti in 18 chapters seems to have been compiled very early. About fifty verses from it are quoted by the Mītakṣarā. In the 11th and 12th chapters occur a few prose passages, one of which is quoted even by Medhātithi. The numerous prose quotations ascribed to Sāṅkha-Likhita do not however occur in these smṛtis. One point deserves special notice. Comparatively early writers sometimes ascribe the same text to Sāṅkha-Likhita or to Sāṅkha simply. The well-known sūtra about succession to a son-less man (athāputrasya svaryātāsya bhrātṛgāmī dravyam &c. ) is ascribed to Sāṅkha by Viśvarūpa and the Mītākṣarā, but to Sāṅkha-Likhita by Aparārka (on Yāj. II. 135-136 ). Similarly, the sūtra ’ pitaryāsakte kuṭumbavyavahārān jyesthaḥ ’ &c. is ascribed to Sāṅkha by Aparārka and to Sāṅkha-Likhita by the Vivāda-ratnākara, Dāyatattva and Madanapārijāta. Quotations ascribed to Likhita are few and far between. Some passages are ascribed to some writers to Sāṅkha and by others to Likhita. For example, a prose passage ‘Uddhṛtya parikṣitābhiḥ’ &c. is ascribed to Likhita by Aparārka (on Yāj. I. 18 ) and to Sāṅkha by Viśvarūpa (on Yāj. I. 20 and by the Vīramitrodaya (Āhnikaprakāśa p. 68 ). Similarly, the sūtra ‘ubbhābyāmapi hastābhyām prāṇamukho devatīrthena kuryāt’ is ascribed to Sāṅkha-Likhita by the Pārāśaramādhavīya;( I. 1. p. 352 ) and to Likhita by Aparārka (on Yāj. I. 101). The relation of the Sāṅkha-smṛti in verse to the dharmasūtra of Sāṅkha seems to be this. The former is based upon the later and is a versified paraphrase or adaptation of portions of the dharmasūtra.⁴

The versified Sāṅkha shows a tendency towards greater strictness. The dharmasūtra allows a Brāhmaṇa to marry a woman of any of the four castes, while the verse Sāṅkha restricts him to the first three castes.⁵ It is not unlikely that the dharmasūtra contained a few verses as is the case with Baudhāyana, Apastamba and Vasistha. Even so early a writer as Viśvarūpa looked upon the prose and verse portions as the composition of the same author (vide his comment on Yāj. III 237, and Aparārka pp. 1149, 1154, 1161 ).

The dharmasūtra of Śāṅkha-Likhita was commented upon early. Lakṣmīdhara in his Kalpataru (Ghoṣa’s Hindu Law Vol. II. p. 554) draws attention to the fact that the bhāṣyakāra of Śāṅkha read a well-known sūtra as ‘sa yadyekaḥ syāt’ instead of ‘sa yadyekaputraḥ syāt’. Vide Kalpataru (vyavahārakāṇḍa) p. 654 (sa yadyekaputraḥ syāt) and f. n. 6. Lakṣmīdhara flourished between 1100-1160 A. D. as he was a minister of Govindacandra of Kanauj. The Vivādaratnākara (1314 A. D.) also cites the bhāṣyakāra of Śāṅkha-Likhita. The Vivādacintāmaṇi (p. 67) quotes from the bhāṣyakāra of Śāṅkha-Likhita.

The dharmasūtra of Śāṅkha-Likhita would appear, from the quotations in the nibandhas, to have closely resembled the other extant sūtras on dharma in style and contents. It embraced almost all the topics treated of in Gautama or Āpastamba. It agrees very closely with thewords of Gautama and Baudhāyana in several places.⁶ It is curious to note that a quotation from Śāṅkha containing the names of writers of smṛtis cites Śāṅkha-Likhita as authority.⁷

The dharmasūtra seems to have permitted niyoga, speaks of twelve secondary sons, and did not favour (like Āpastamba) the claims of females to succeed to males. On certain points the dharmasūtra of Śāṅkha marks a more advanced state of opinion than is the case with Gautama or Āpastamba. Śāṅkha speaks of several kinds of ordeals and appears to have contained elaborate prose rules about them (vide Aparārka on Yāj. II, 95; Smṛticandrikā II, p. 112, Viramitrodaya, p. 270).

As regards partition and inheritance, Śāṅkha–Likhita gives more detailed information than Āpastamba or Baudhāyana. The limits of Āryāvarta⁸ stretched over wide areas according to Śāṅkha (i.e. to the east of Sindhu–Sauvira and to the west of Kāmpilya) than is the case with Baudhāyana (I. 1. 25) or Vasiṣṭha (I. 8–9). The style of Śāṅkha reminds one of Kauṭilya rather than Gautama. The quotations hardly exhibit any ungrammatical forms. It is noteworthy that Yājñavalkya is included among the authors of smṛtis by Śāṅkha (vide note 137). If it is the extant Yājñavalkya–smṛti that is meant to be referred to, then the dharmasūtra of Śāṅkha will have to be assigned to a late date. But this does not seem to be likely. From the fact that the Yājñavalkya–smṛti itself enumerates Śāṅkha–Likhita among ancient authors on dharma, from the general style of the work, from the development of the legal conceptions it presents and from its doctrines about the rights of women, it appears almost certain that the extant Yājñavalkya–smṛti is much later than the dharmasūtra of Śāṅkha. There are close correspondences between Śāṅkha and Yājñavalkya.⁹ Śāṅkha is quoted 99 times and Śāṅkha–Likhita 63 times by Aparārka. On Yāj. III. 289–90 (p. 1154) Aparārka first quotes Śāṅkha as ‘Agnyutsādit samāvastram Cāndrāyaṇam carel–gīt ca dadyāt’ and five lines afterwards quotes Śāṅkha–Likhita with the words ‘Agnyutsāditamithyādikād ca samāvastram brahmacārīgṛhe bhikṣayāṃ caretām’. Kalpataru (Brahmacārī) quotes Śāṅkha–Likhita 36 times, and Śāṅkha 19 times. From the fact that Śāṅkha–Likhita is quoted as including Śāṅkha–Likhita among writers on Dharmasāstras it may be inferred that the original text was tampered with by some redactor. Kalpataru on Vyavahāra (p. 830–31) cites a long prose passage of Śāṅkha–Likhita on the proper avocations of the men of eleven mixed castes viz.

Sūta, Kṣats, Māgadha, Ambastha, Vaidehaka, Ugra, Vena, Kukkuta, Ayogava, Pulkaya and Niṣāda (compare Viṣṇu dharmasūtra 16. 7-13 and Manu X. 47-50 ) and on p. 833 cites the avocations of Candāla, Śvapaca, dasyu and mleccha ganas.

The prose quotations from Śāṅkha-Likhita refer to the Vedāṅgas, Śāṅkha, Yoga, Dharmaśāstra. Śāṅkha recognized eight forms of marriage. The views of Śāṅkha about the status of the offspring of mixed marriages differed from those of Baudhayāna (I. 8. 6) and Manu (X. 6) and were intermediate between the latter two.¹⁰ The tarpana¹¹ (which resembles the one in Baudhayāna, though it is more elaborate) refers to the six Vedāṅgas, Bhārata (but not Mahā-bhārata ), to twenty writers on dharma and contains numerous details about geography, mythology, and cosmogony which are generally found in the Purāṇas. The Dharmaśutra frequently cites the opinions of others. It mentions by name the views of Prajāpati, Aṅgirasa and Uśanas (Vivādaratnākara p. 537 ), Pracetasa (Vivādarat. p. 557-560 ), Vṛddha-Gautama ( Mada- na-pārijāta p. 701-2 ). The verse quotations ascribed to Śāṅkha further mention Yama, Kātyāyana and Śāṅkha himself. But in drawing chronological conclusions it is better to leave the verse quotations out of account. The same verses are ascribed to Manu and Śāṅkha¹² and a few sūtras closely resemble the Manusmṛti.¹³ Six identical verses occur in the Vasiṣṭha-dharmaśāstra (21. 10-15) and in the Śāṅkha-smṛti (10th chap. ).

All these circumstances lead to the conclusion that the dharmaśutra of Śāṅkha is probably later than Gautama and Āpastamba but earlier than the Yājñavalkya-smṛti and so must be assigned to some date between 300 B.C to 100 A.D