कल्पान्तरे विश्वासटिप्पन्यः

The Yājnavalkyasmrti This smrti has been published dozens of times. In the following the Nirnayasāgara edition edited by Sāstri Moghe ( 1892 A. D. ) has been used and the Trivandrum edition when speaking of Viśvarūpa.

The name of Yājña valkya is one of the most illustrious among Vedic sayes. He is credited with having promulgated the White Yajurveda. In the Suntiparva (chap. 312 ) we are told that there was a rupture between Vaiśampāyana and his pupil Yājṅavalkya and that by worshipping the Sun the latter received the revelation of the White Yajurveda, the Satapatha etc. The accounts in the Visuu (3. 5 ), the Bhagen vata ( XII. 6. 61-74 ) and other purāṇas differ somewhat from the one in the Mahabharata, but all agree on the fact of them strained relations between Yājña valkya and bis teacher. There

Bhandi

sec422

Satapatha Brāhmana in several places alludes to the dialogues of Yājñavalkya and king Janaka of Videha on agnihotra (S. B. E. vol. 44 p. 46 ). Vide Sata patha ( ed. by Weber ) XI. 6.2. At the end of the Satapatha we are told that Vājasaneya Yājñavalkya promulgated the bright Yajus formula received from the Sun.480 In the Brhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad Yājña valkya appears as a great philosopher teaching the recondite doctrines of Brahma and immortality to one of his two wives, the philosophically minded Maitreyi ( II. 4 and IV. 5). In the same Upaniṣad Yājñavalkya is represented as carrying away the one thousand cows set apart by Janaka for the most learned Brāhmana (III. 1. 1-2) and Yājña valkya is said to have imparted to Janaka the knowledge of the destiny of the soul after it is released from the bonds of flesh and worldly affec tions. Kātyāyana in his Vārtika on Pāṇini (IV. 3. 105 )461 speaks of the Brāhmania8 of Yājñavalkya and very heated controversies have raged round the correct interpretation of the Vārtika apd the Mahābhāṣya thereon ( vide Max Mūller’s Ancient Sanskrit Literature p. 360, Goldsticker’s Panini, p. 132 ff and S. B. E. vol. 12 pp. XXXV-XXXVIII). The contro versies centre round the word ’tulyakālāni’ in the Mahā bhāsya. It may mean either ( 1 ) that the Brāhmaṇa works by Yājñavalkya (mentioned as ‘Yajñavalkāni Brāhmanāni’) are also ‘purāṇa-prokta’ but in their case the affix ‘uini’ (in ) is not applied ; yet they are as old as those referred to in the Sūtra, or (2) that the Brāhmanas like those promul gated by Yājśāvalkya are co-eval with Pāṇini and hence not

purāṇa-prokta ’ and the termination ‘ṇini’ does not apply to them. Western scholars held that Panini made a distinc tion between old and later Brāhmana works and regarded Yāj. Brāhmanas as co-eval with himself.

It is to be noted that in the Yājūa valkyasmrti itself488 (III. 110 ) the author, whoever he may be, claims the author ship of the Araṇyaka that he received from the Sun and the Yogaśāstra composed by him. This is simply put in to glori fy the Yājṅavalkya-smrti as the work of a great and ancient 480 आदित्यानीमानि शुक्लानि यजूंषि वाजसनेयेन याज्ञवल्क्येन ख्यायन्ते । शतपथ

XIV, 9. 4. 33. 461 giorgiig awna 191, 1V.3. 106. 482 ज्ञेयं चारण्यकमहं यदादित्यादयाप्तवान् । योगशास्त्रं च मत्प्रोक्तं ज्ञेयं योगम्भी सता।

III. 111.

1917

The Yājñavalkyasmrti

423

sage, philosopher and yogin. From the style and the doct rines of the smrti it is impossible to believe that it was the work of the same band that gave to the world the Upanisad containing the boldest philosophical speculation couched in the simplest yet the most effective language. Even orthodox Indian opinion was not prepared to admit the unity of author ship in the case of the smrti and the Aranyaka. The Mitāk sarā says at the beginning that some pupil of Yāj. abridg. ed the dharmaśāstra in the form of a dialogue.463 It will be shown later on that, though the sage who promulgated the Aranyaka and the author of the smrti cannot be identical, yet the Yājsavalkya-smrti is much more closely connected with the White Yajurveda and the literature particularly be longing to it than with any other Veda.

The Yājñavalkyasmrti contains in the Nirnayasāgara ed. of 1892 ) 1010 verses, while the Trivandrum edition with the commentary of Viśvarūpa contains 1003 verses and Apa rārka gives 1006 ( Auandāśrama edition ). The difference in the number is mostly due to the fact that Viśvarūpa in the first section on acāra omits five verses that occur in the Mitak ßarā. *84 As regards one of them (the verse ‘rathyā kardama toyāni’ I. 197 according to the Mit. ) Viśvarūpa notices it and says that some read it after the verse “mukhajā vipruṣā" and that it adds nothing to what precedes. Aparārka ex plains that verse. In the second section on vyavahāra Viśvarūpa reads verses 465 which do not exist in the Mitāk ṣarā nor in A parārka. On the other hand Viśvarūpa seems to doubt the authenticity of the well-known verse on re

ACETATEI 7750

gota yÅTTE

Hier

463 aṣamage:

कथयामास ।

486

Viz. the verses a Farfaff (1.76), T2119 alana (1.197), 11am

TCT ( 1. 207 ), two balf vorsos, 791251CASTO 8 (I. 232) and 379EMI ṣla factal (1.234), FETE (1.289). For example, the verse 311ta Faurea in una statutari sa gammh 11: TATUD RETETA I ( Tri. od. II. 29 ) and goat जातयः श्रेण्यो गणान् जनपदानपि । स्वधर्माच्चलितान् राजा विनीय स्थापना niet al ( Tri. ed. 11. 24 ) do not occur in the Mit. The first is all set

d also ooours in th

66-57,

FOUNG

Bhandarkar

424

union and reads it also differently 488 (anyodaryasya samsșsti). Two verses that are Yāj. III. 255–56 (Rajakavyādhao’ and

Svapākam pulkasam°.’) in Viśvarūpa’s text are not fuund in the Mitākṣarī nor in Aparırka.

Not only this but in some cases the arrangement of ver ses is not the same in both Viśvarūpa and the Mit. For example, verses 14-29 of the prāyaścitta section present very different sequences in both. What is verse 29 in the Trivan drum edition is verse 19 in the Mit. Besides, the Mit. reads one verse (III. 23 ā dantajanmanah &c. ) which is wanting in Viśvarūpa and is also not commented upon by Aparārka. Viśvarūpa adds two half verses,467 which do not occur in the Mit. and Aparārka. There is further a good deal of variance in the readings adopted by Viśvarūpa and the Mit., though the meaning is not often affected. For example, the two verses enumerating the names of writers on dharma are differently worded in both.488 But Medhātithi favours the reading of Viśvarūpa. 480 Viśvarūpa reails “asvattam loka vidvistam” ( I. 155 ) and notices a reading “asvantam,” while the Mit. reads “asvargyam loka &c. ” Both the Mit. and Aparārka read “pitā pitāmaho bhrātī &c.” (I. 63 ), while Viśvarūpa reads “pitā mātāmaho bhrāti,” remarks that “mātāmaha” is put in earlier as a guardian for marriage for metrical reasons and then notices “piti pitāmaho bhrātā” as ā various reading. Even in the days of Viśvarūpa there were various readings in Yij. ( Vide com. on I. 1, 2, 51, II. 119,

179 etc.).

The Agnipurāla affords an excellent check for the consi deration of the text of the Yājñavalkyasmrti. A good-sized monograph will be required to deal exhaustively with the questions raised by the comparison of the vyavahāra portion of the Agnipurāṇu with Yijñavalkya’s vyavahāra-kānda.

SAS

466 अत्रापरे पूर्वलोकविवरणस्थानीयमिमं श्लोकं पठन्ति अन्योदयस्य संसृष्टी

&c. (11. 143 ). 467 The two half verses are free É O Hapa na I (19 a)

and प्रायानाशकशस्त्रामिविषाद्यैरिच्छतो स्वयं ( 24 b) in Tri. ed, 468 Vide note 310 above.

अतः स्मर्तृपरिगणना मनुर्विष्णुर्यमोङ्गिरा इति निर्मूला तथा हि पैठीनसि-बोधायनर प्रचेतःप्रभृतयः शिष्टैरेवरूपाः मर्यन्त । न च परिगणनायामन्त विताः। मधा। on मनु II. 6.

FOUNDED

1917

The Yajnavıılkyasmrti

425

I shall only briefly examine the inaterials and state the con clusions at which I have arrived. We know that Viśvarūpa, the first extant commentator of Yaj., flourished about 800-825 A. D. The author of the Mitūksarī flourished about 250 years later. Interesting results follow by a comparison of the text that these two commentators had before them with the Agni purāṇa. I shall select chap, 256 of the Agnipurāṇa for a detailed examination. It contains 36 verses which all occur in Yaj. II. (verses 118-153 of Tri. ed. and verses 114-149 of the Mit.). It is found that the Agnipurīna agrees with the text of 12 verges word for word as contained in Viśvarūpa and 19 verses as contained in the Mit. Viśvarūpa puts three verses between the two verses pitưdravyāvināśena &c.’ and ‘kramidablyāgatam dravyam’, while the Mit. brings the two verses together. In several cases the readings of the Agripu rāna agree with Viśvarūpa’s text and not with that of the Mit. For example, Agni. reads ‘kāryāh patnyaḥ samāṁsikāḥ’ with Vis. (119), reads bhūryā… dravyam. eva vā… putrasya cobhayoh’ with Viś. (124), reads ‘pitrdravyāvināśena’ (and not ovyavirodhena’ as Mit. does ) with Viś. ( 122 ), reads * dadyāt-cāpaharec-cāmsan’ with Viś. ( 142 b ), reads ‘Patitas -tatsutaḥ klibah’ with Viś. ( 144 a ), reads ‘aprajāyāmatītā yām’ with Viś. ( 148 ). The Agnipurāṇa, however, in a far larger number of cases agrees with the readings of the Mit. Ayni (256.8) reads with the Mit. (122) ‘vibhaktesu suto jātah gavarnāyām vibhāgabhāk,’ Agni. reads mātāpyamsam samun haret’ with the Mit. ( 123 ), wbile Viś. ( 127 ) reads ‘mātāpyamsam samārnuyāt.’ Viśvarūpa’s reading leaves it undecided as to what the share of the mother is to be, while the Mit. makes it definite by stating that it is equal ( to that of a son. ). Agni ( 256.12) reads ‘catustri-dvyeka-bhāgāh syuh’ and ‘vidjāstu dvyekabhāgi nah’ with the Mit. ( 125 ) ; Ayni ( 256.21 ) reads-‘rdhebhāgi kaṁ’ with the Mit. (134). Agni. ( 256.27) reads ‘andhos cikitsyarogādyā’ with the Mit. ( 140 ), while Viś. ( 144 ) reads

rogi ca.’ The reading of the Mit. makes provision by the word ‘Ādya’ for other persons like deaf-mutes mentioned in other smrtis as not entitled to inherit, while Viś. has to put forced interpretation on ‘cu’as including such persons. The Agni ( 256.33 ) reads ‘vyayam dadyac-ca sgdayam’ with the Mit. ( 146 ), while Vis. ( 150 ) reads ‘dūpyas-ca sodayam Agni ( 256.36 ) reads ‘vibhāgabhāvanā jñeyā gpha-ksetraat 09

Research ir

426

yautakaih’ with the Mit. (149), while Vis (153) reads

obhāvanā deyā grha-ksetrakayautakaih.’ Here the former reading is easy and gives a complete sentence. With Vis. we have to separate bhāvanā’ and ‘ādeya &c.’ Besides, no pre dicate (like jñeyā or kāryā) is expressly mentioned in the verse if we take the reading of Viś, and the ‘ka’in ‘ksetraka’ is a redundancy. We find that the tendency of the readings of the Mit. is to smooth down harsh or involved constructions and that the Aynipurāṇa presents most of the changes in the text found in the Mit. but not found in Vis. In the same direction points the fact that Agni ( 256.35 ) reads ’na dattam stridhanam yasyai’ with the Mit. ( 148 ) and not ‘yasyā’ as Vis. (152) does, as `yasyai ’is grammatically more regular than ‘yasyāh’ with the form ‘dattam.’ But as against this we may note that both Viś. and Agni read ‘aprajāyāmati tāyāın’, while the Mit. reads ‘atītāyāmaprajasi .’ The reading ‘aprajasi’ is correct according to Pānini (V. 4. 122 ) and not ‘aprajāyām’. Therefore, the conclusion that follows is that the text of Yāj. preserved in the Agnipurāṇa is intermediate between the text of Viśvarūpa and that of the Mitūksarā. As Viśva rūpa flourished about 800-825 A. D., the Agnipurāṇa repre sents a text of Yājsavalkya current somewhat later i. e. about 900 A. D. In my ‘History of Sanskrit Poetics’ (pp. III-V) I established, from the fact that the extant Agnipurāṇa quotes Dandin and Bhāmaha and knew the theory of dhvani, that it was composed about 900 A. D. That date is strikingly corro borated by the evidence derived from the chapters on vyava hāra discussed above. It is no doubt true that the Agni pre. sents some readings that are found neither in Viś. nor in the Mit. For example, it reads ( 256.4 ) ’tābhya șterpayet’, while both Viś. and Mit. read tābhya rtesnvyah.’ It is probable that this is an error of the copyists or the reading may be due to the difficulty of understanding the meaning of ‘anvayaḥ’ there. Agni reads ( 256.5) ‘svayam-arjayet’ for ‘svayam arjitam’ (of Viś. and Mit. ) and jātopi dāsyām sūdrasya’ (256.20 ) for ogūdrena’ (of Viś, and Mit.). A detailed exa mination of the other chapters on vyavahāra will yield the same results. But it cannot be undertaken here. A few examples may however be cited. Viś. ( II. 167 ) reads pelo yeṣām ca te mocyā daiva-rajapariplutāḥ’, Agni 51

pālo yeṣām tu te mocyā daivarāja pariplutāh,’ while out. (163) reads “pālo yesām na te…… tāḥ’. Similarly, it (11.179 ) and Agni (257.26 ) read ‘svakuṭumbā vindben

191

771”

LUOTI txandakat tenta

The Yājñavalkyasmrti

427

deyam’while the Mit. ( 175 ) reads (svam kutumbāvirodhena.’ Vis. (II. 203 ) reads “galat-sabhikavṣddhistu,’ while both Agni ( 257.49 ) and Mit. (II. 199 ) read ‘glahe satikavṛddhe stu,’ which certainly is an easier reading. Agui 258.45 occurs in Mit. ( 255 ), but is wanting in Viśvarūpa. Yūj. II. 228 in Viś. becomes in the Mit. verse 263, Agni following the order of Viśvarūpa.

The total number of verses on vyavahāra in Agnipurāṇa, chap. 253-258, is 315. Out of this the first 31 are not taken from Yāj. All of them except the first half verse and verse 31 (chap. 253 ) occur in Nārada. Of the remaining 284 verses, only 4 (Agni 253. 35, 255. 438, 255. 49b and 50, 258. 83 ) do not occur in Yaj. (in both Viś. and Mit). There are also a few verses that occur in the Agnipurāṇa and in Viśvarūpa. but not in the Mit. and also a few verses that are common to the Mit. and Ayni but are not found in Vis. The first three verses of Yāj. II are compressed by the Agnipurāṇa into 1) verses.

The Garuḍapurāṇa affords, like the Agnipurāṇa, material help towards examining the authoritativeness of the text of the first and third sections of Yiij. The Aguipurīna does not expressly say that it drew upon Yūj., but the Gurudapurāṇa is explicit on the point. In chup. 93.1. it is expressly said that the dhuria formerly promulgated by Yijñavalkya is being narrated ‘Yājñjavalkyena yat (yalı ? ) purvam dharmam (dharmah ? ) proktam (’tah?) katham Hare i tan me katlaya kesighna yathā tattvena Madhavall.’ Chapters 93-106 con tain dharmaśāstra material more or less taken from the Yājñavalkyasınṣti. There are 376 verses in these chapters. Considerations of space forbid any detailed examination of this material. A few salient facts only are brought out here. Chapters 93-102 deal with the several topics (prakaranas) of the first kānda in the same order, the only exception being the topics of rajadharmu (1. 309-308 ), which is omitted in the Garuḍapurāṇa. Chapters 102-10.j treat of topics that occur in the third kānda of Yāj. and contain 121 verses only. In these chapters the order of the prakaranas in Yāj. is Dones observed at all, but Garuva speaks of them in the following order: vāna prastha-prakarana, yati, karinavipāka, prāyascita āśauca and a paddharma ( the last two being the first twirusa prakarauas in Yāj.). A feature which strikes one as regarda the Garuḍapurana (particularly chap. 102-106 ) is that a fer perche

FOUNE

Bhandarkar

428

verses only of Yāj. are repeated word for word, that very often the Garuḍapurāṇa gives only a summary by omitting and transposing the words and phrases of the original and that sometimes it adds verses of its own. This may be illug trated by what the Garuḍa says on vānaprastha and yati (chap. 102-103, 12 verses in all). Chap. 102 begins ‘vāna prasthāśramaṁ vaksye tac-chravantu maharsayaḥ putresu bhāryām niksipya vanaṁ gacchet sahaiva vāll.’ The latter half is a paraphrase of Yaj. III. 45a. Then III. 45b–46 (Mit.)= Garuḍa 102.2-3a ( with slight variations ), III.47 = Garuḍa 102-4 6-52 ; III. 18 = 3b-4a ; III. 49-50 = Garuḍa 5b (pakṣe māsetha vāśniyād-dantolūkhaliko bhavet’, which summarises and retains some words of the original), III. 71 - Garuḍa 102.6a (cāndrāyani svapedblumau karma kuryāt phalādina, which includes a few words of 11 I. 49b also ), 111.52 = Garuḍa 6b-7a ( the last pāda in Garuḍa is ‘yogabhyāsāt dinam nayet,’ while in Yāj. it is ‘śaktyñ vāpi tapas-caret’), 111.53 = Garuḍa 102.7. Chap. 203 contains only five verses. 111.56, 58-59 = Garuḍa 103. 1b-4a ( with variants ) and then Garuḍa adds 11 verses which are not found in Yāj. (viz. blavet-parama hamso vā ekadandi yamaditah Il siddhayogas-tyajan deham amptatvam-ihāpnuyāti dātātithipriyo jñāni grhī sraddhepi mucyate li’). The mere fact that a prakarana is omitted in the Garuḍa purana should cast no doubt on the existence of that prakaraṇa in the original Yāj. We do not know on what principles the borrowing took place. Besides, we find that such prakaranas as Vināyakaśānti and grahaśānti are includ ed in the Garuḍa (chap. 100-101 ), while rājadharma prakarana is omitted. We know that rājadharma ‘figures in the sūtras aud Manu, but none of the ancient dharmasūtras, nor the Manusmṛti speaks of Vivāyaka. Hence conclusions must be drawn only froin what positively occurs in the Garuḍa purana and not from the absence of any topic in it. The Garuḍapurāṇa sometimes follows the arrangement and form of the verses presented in Vis., sometimes it agrees with the Mit. and sometimes it is independent. For example, the two verses enumerating the authors of dharmaśāstras ( Yāj. 1. 4-5 = Garuḍa 93. 4-5 ) follow the readings of Vis., but not those of the Mit. In the 3rd kūnda, verses 14-19 of the lit. are differently arranged by Vis., and Vis. omits the dates Aparārka also ) one verse found in the Mit. (I11.23 Dus sit above, while the Mit. omits two half verses that are fouin Vis. ( vide note 313). The verse ‘ī danta &c.’ occurs in the

FOUNDER 16

The Yājñavalkyasmṛti

429

Garuḍapurāṇa and the two half verses in Vis. omitted by the Mit. are also omitted in Garuḍa. So far the Garuḍapurāṇa agrees with the arrangement preserved in the Mit. But it does not agree entirely with the Mit. The verse ‘ādanta &c’ is III. 23 in the Mit, and occurs before ‘ahastvadatta’ but in the Garuḍa it occurs before ’triratram dasarātram vī (which is III. 18 in the Mit. ). Besides, verse 22 of the Mit. is read differently in the Garuḍa (daśa dvādaśa varnānām tathā pancadasaiva ca 1 trimsad dināui ca tathā bhavati pretasuta. kam). It must, therefore, be said that the Garuḍapurāṇa represents an intermediate stage of readings between Viś. and the Mit. As the Garuḍapurīna was a popular work read by and recited for the benefit of slightly educated or illiterate people, it often introduces changes to suit their understanding. For example, the Mit. (1.296 ) reads ( us also Vis.) sūryaḥ somo mahīputraḥ somaputro brhaspatih,’ while Garuḍa reads (chap. 101.2 ) ‘sūryaḥ somo mangalus’ ca budhas caiva bṣhaspatih,’ thus substituting the well-knowu words Mangala and Budha for Mahiputra and Somaputra. The verse

krtāgnikāryo bhunjite’ (1.31 in the Mit. ) is placed by Vis. after ’ekadeśam - upadhyāya,’ while the Mit. places it three verses earlier. The Gurudapurāṇa here agrees with the Mit. In some cases Garula strikes an independent path. For exa mple, in Yāj. I. 11 Viś. reads ‘mūse’to jātakarma ca,’ the Mit. reads ‘māsyete jātakarma ca’, while Garuḍa ( chap. 93. 11 ) gives the easy reading presave jātakarma ca’. Mit. reads (Yāj. I. 76 b) ’tyajan dāpyastrtiyāṁsam-adravyo bharanam striyah’; Vis. omits the whole verse, while Garuḍa omits 1.764 (of Mit.) and reads the other half as ‘sundhām tyajanstrtī. yāmśam dadyadābharanam striyah’ ( 95. 23b ). Verses 1.91-92 of the Mit. on the offspring of inixed marriages are differently read by Vis. (1.90-91 ), while the Garuḍa ( 96. 1 b) has the same half verse as the Mit. I. 91 a and the same half verse (96. 3 2 ) as Vis. (91 b) and reads the two half verses between them as jāto ’ın basthastu sūdrāyām visādah pāraśavopi vā ll māhiṣyal ksatriyajjāto vaiśyāyām mlecchusu mjiitaḥ.

The foregoing makes it clear that the text that the Garuḍapurana had before it could not have been older than that commented upon by Viśvarūpa and that it represents a stage intermediate between Vis, and the Mit.

The above gives rise to an important question whether one can detect several strata in the Yūjžavulkyasmrti. from

FOUNDED

430

the fact that the sūtra of Saṅkha-Likhita cites Yājñavalkya among the promulgators of Jharmaśāstras ( vide note 137 ), while Yāj. himself includes Saṅkha-Likhita among the pro pounders of dharma (note 258 ), it may be plausibly said that Saṅkha-Likhita refer to an earlier Yājñavalkyasmrti than the extant one. Beyond this there is no evidence to establish that there was an earlier version of the present smrti. A comparison of the readings of Viśvarūpa and the Mit. with those in the Agni and Garuḍa purāṇas has established that the text of the sinști no doubt underwent slight verbal changes between 800 and 1100 A. D. and that a few verses were added and also omitted during these centuries. But the text remained in the main the game from 700 A. D. What the original smrti contained, whether it was in prose or verse or both and whether it dealt with only ācāra and prāyascitta sections are questions on which conjectures may be advanced, but there are no substantial materials for arriving at even tolerably certain conclusions.

Yājñavalkya’s work is more systematic than that of Manu. He divides the work into three sections and relegates all topics to their proper positions and avoids repetition. He treats of almost all subjects that we find in Manu, but his treatment is always concise and he makes very great and successful efforts at brevity. The result is that for the 2700 verses of Manu, he requires only a little over a thousand. He often compresses two verses of Manu into one, e. g. Manu II. 243, 247, 248 are equal to Yāj. I, 49, Manu III. 46-48 and 50 are concisely put in one verse by Yāj. (1. 79); vide also Manu IV. 7-8 and Yāj. I. 128 (contains alınost same words also ), Manu IV. 84-85 and YĂj. I. 141. Iu a few cases Manu and Yāj. convey the same meaning in one verse without compression, e. g. Manu III. 70 and Yāj. I. 102, Manu III. 119 and Yāj. I. 110. Mapu VII. 17 and Yāj. I. 348, Manu VII. 205 and Yāj. I. 349. The correspondence of Yājśavalkya’s words with the text of Manu is in most cases very close, so much so that one cannot help feeling that Yāj. had the Manusinsti before him and purposely made an attempt to abridge the somewhat loose expressions of Manu. The passages set forth above as examples of compressions will the serve as illustrations of this fact. The word Kaya ( from KA) is used by both in the sense of prājāpatya form of marfage (Manu III. 38 and Yāj. I. 60 ); vide also Manu II. 109 Yāj. 1. 28, Manu I11. 42-44 and Yāj. I. 62, Manu V. 28-07

STU

YAONA

BUNDEP

Qhondartarori

The Yājñavalkyasmrti

431

and Yāj. I. 178–179, Manu VII. 56 and Yāj. I. 312 for further close agreement in phraseology. Yāj. adds some subjects which have either no counterpart in our Manu or which are only noticed in passing by Manu. The Manusmrti contains nothing corresponding to the Vinayakaśānti and Grabaśānti of Yāj. (I. 271-308). Yāj. gives a detailed treatment of five kinds of ordeals (in II. 95-113 ), while Manu makes only a cursory reference to the ordeals of fire and water ( VIII. 114 ). Yāj. contains considerable anatomical and medical matter (III. 75– 108 ), which is wanting in Manu. On the other hand, there are some subjects on which Yāj. is silent though they are dealt with in detail by Manu. This is the case with the account of the origin of the world.

The whole of the Yājña valkya-smrti is written in the classical Anustubh metre. Though the author’s great aim has been to be concise, his verses are hardly ever obscure. The style is flowing and direct. There are not many un-Pāṇinian expressions, though he employs ‘pūjya’ in . 293 and ‘dūsya’ in II. 296. In the latter case both Viśvarūpa and Aparārka avoid the fault by reading differently. The verse “kulani jātayaḥ srenyo’ is ungramınatical ( Tri. ed. II. 34 ), as jāti’ and’ sreṇi’ must be in the accusative case. According to the Mit. Yājñavalkya addressed his words to Sāmaśravas and other sages (vide com. on I. 178 and III. 330-333). In this the Mit. is probably drawing upon the Bṛ. Up. (III. 1. 2), where Yāj. asks Sāmaśravas to take away the 1000 cows. The sages interpose (vide III. 118, 129 ) as in Manu, while the great teacher is passing in review one topic after another. The teacher himself addresses his auditors (as in I. 178 srunudhvam’ and nibodhata’in I. 272). Yāj. employs the first person about himself as in I. 56 ’naitan-mama matam’ and in III. 126 sahasrātinā mayā yo va ādidera udāhstah).

It is said that the sages approached Yājñavalkya in Mithilā and requested him to impart to them the dharmas of the varṇas, āśramas and others. The contents of the work may be briefly summarised as follows:–Kānda I: fourteen vidyae; twenty expounders of dharma, sources of dharma; constitution of a parisad, the samkāras from Garbhāithiina to marrage upanayana, its time and other details; every-day duties brahmacārin, persous fit to be taught, what things and actions & brahmacarin was to avoid, period of studenthood; marrinteresen

(

Hestaristu432

qualifications of girl to be married, limits of sapinda relation ship, intercaste marriages; the eight forms of marriage and the spiritual benefits therefrom, guardians for marriage, Kșetraja son; grounds of supercession of wife, duties of wife; principal and intermediate castes; duties of householder and keeping sacred domestic fire, the five great daily yajñas; honouring a guest, machuparku, grounds of precedence, rule of the road, .privileges and duties of the four varṇas; ten principles of con duct common to all; means of subsistence of a householder, and solemn vedic sacrifices; duties of onātaka, days of cessation from study; rules about prohibited and allowed food and drink; rules about flesh-eating; purifications of various materials, such as metal or wooden vessels, gifts, whois fittest to accept them, who should accept gifts, rewards of gifts, gift of cow, rewards of other gifts, highest gift is knowledge ; srāddha, proper time for it, proper persons to be invited at it, unfit persons, the number of Brāhmaṇas to be invited; procedure of sraddhas; various srāldhas such as pārvana, vṛddhi, ekoddista ; sa pindi karana ; what flesh to be offered at śrāddha, reward of offering śrāddhas; propitiatory ceremonies as regards Vināyaka and the nine grahas; rajadharma, king’s qualifications; ministers, purohita, royal edicts, king’s duties of protection; adminis tration of justice ; taxation and expenditure; allotment of the day to various duties; constitution of mandala, the four ex pedients, the six gunas ; fate and human effort; impartiality in punishment; units of measure and weights ; grades of fine ; Kānda II. members of the hall of justice, judge, definition of vyavuhūrapadu, rules of procedure, plaint, reply, taking secu rity, indicia of a false party or witness ; conflict of dharma sāstra and arthaśāstra ; means of proof, documents, witnesses, possession; title and possession ; gradation of courts; force, fraud, minority and other grounds of invalidity ; finding of goods; treasure-trove; debts, rates of interest, debts of joint family; what debts of father son need not pay: devolution of debts; suretyship of three kinds ; pledge ; deposit; witnesses, their qualifications and disqualifications; administering oaths, punishment for perjury; documents; ordeals of balance, water, fire, poison and holy water; partition, time of it, wife’s share on partition, partition after father’s death, property not limite to partition, joint ownership of father and son ; twelvekindo of sons ; illegitimate son of sūdra; succession to a sonlegaman) re-union ; exclusion; husband’s power over wife’s strīd lagu boundary disputes; dispute between master and herdsmas, sule

POONA.

FOUNDED

ahananlar brian

The Yājñavalkyasmrti

483

without ownership; invalidity of gift; rescission of gale; breach of contract of service; slavery by force ; violation of conven tions; non-payment of wages; gambling and prize-fighting ; abuse, defamation and slander; assault, hurt etc. ; sāhasa ; theft; adultery ; miscellaneous wrongs ; review of judgment; Kāṇda III-cremation and burial ; offering of water to various deceased persons; for whom no mourning was to be observed and no water to be offered; periods of mourning for various persons ; rules for mourners ; impurity on birth ; instances of immediate purification on death or birth; means of purifica. tion, such as time, fire, ritual, mud etc.; rules of conduct and livelihood in distress ; rules for forest hermit; rules for a yati ; how the individual soul is clothed in a body; various stages of the fatus, number of bones in the body, the various organs such as liver, spleen etc. ; the number of arteries and veins; reflection over ātman; use of music in the path of mokra; how the originally pure atinan 18 born among impure surroundings ; how some sinners are born as various kinds of animals or inanimate things; how yogin attains immortality ; three kinds of actions due to sattva, rajas and tamas; means of ātmajñāna; the two paths, one to immortality and the other to heaven; the various diseases from which sinners Buffer ; purpose of prāyascittas; names of 21 hells ; the five mortal sins and other acts similar to them ; upapātakas ; prāyascittas for brāhmana murder or for killing other per sons ; prāyaścittas for drinking wine, for other mortal and venial sins and for killing animals of various sorts ; greater or lesser expiation according to time, place, age, ability; ostra. cizing the non-conformist sinner ; secret expiations ; ten yamas and niyamas ; Sānta pana, Mahāsānta pana, Tapta. krochra, Parāka, Cāndrāyaṇa and other expiations ; rewards of reading this smṛti.

Besides the four Vedas, Yāj. refers to the Vedāngas as six and enumerates fourteen vidyās ( four Vedas, six angas, purāṇa, nyāya, mimāṁsā, dharmaśāstra ). He refers to the Araṇyaka and Yogaśāstra composed by himself. Araṇyakag in general are spoken of in I. 145 and Sukriya Araṇyaka in III. 309. The Upanisads are mentioned in III. 189, where Purāṇas are mentioned in the plural. Itihāsas, Purāṇa, Valio vākya, and Nārāsamsi gāthās are mentioned in 1.45 ( also I 101 for Purāṇa and Itibāsa ). He enumerates at the comment cement nineteen authors on dharma, besides himself. But it

434

is remarkable that in the body of the work not one individual author of a dharma-śāstra is mentioned by name. He speaks of Anviksiki (Metaphysics ) and Dandanīti (I. 311). He lays down the dictum that where dharmagāstra and artha sāstra conflict, the former shall prevail (II. 21 ). He speaks of smṛtis in general (II. 5 and 1.154 ). In III. 189 (III. 180 in Viśvarūpa who reads. Purāṇam ca ), he names several sections of Sanskrit literature viz. Vedas, Purāṇas, Vidyās ( Dharma sāstra and others ), Upanisads, slokas, sūtras and bhāsyas. This is an echo of Bșhadāranyakopanisad 11.4.10 and IV.5.11 quoted below.470 He speaks of sūtras and bhāsyas. What works are intended it is most difficult to say ; the only extant bhāsya which can be said with certainty to be older than the extant Yāj. smrti is that of Patañjali. He refers to other writers on dharma in the word ’eke’ (I. 36). The view re ferred to there occurs in Baud. Dh. S. 1. 2. 4.

Yāj. III. 185 refers to eight guṇas, which appears to be a reference to Gautama Dharmasūtra 8. 23-24. Similarly, Yāj. III. 186 ( referring to 88 thousand sages who were house holders ) has in view Ap. Dh. S. II. 9. 21.3 (Astāsītisahasrāṇi ye prajām-iṣire rsayaḥ &c ). It appears that the Matsya purāṇa ( 53. 5-6 )471 quoted below copies the words of Yāj. I. 3 (Purāṇa-nyāya……… dharmasya ca caturdaśa ) and thereby helps to some extent in arriving at the probable date of Yāj.

It is necessary to say a few words about the verses of the Yoga-Yājña valkya which has 12 chapters and about 496 ver ses plus ten additional verses, in all 506 only.

Briefly the contents of the twelve chapters are as follows: Chap. I (70 verses ) - In an assembly of sages, in which Mai treyi ( the best of married women ) and Gargi ( the best among experts in knowledge of Brahma), were present, when Gārgi prostrated herself on the ground and requested Yājñavalkya to impart to her the essence of Yoga. Yāj. agreed to impart to her the essence of Yoga together with its angas. He said

470 एवं वा अरेऽस्य महतो भूतस्य निश्वसितमेतद्यदृग्वेदो यजुर्वेदः सामवेदोऽथर्वाङ्गिरसं

इतिहासः पुराणं विद्या उपनिषदः श्लोकाः सूत्राण्यनुव्याख्यानानि व्याख्यानानि ।

À. 39. IV. 32, T. II. 4. 10. 471 अङ्गानि चतुरो वेदाः पुराणं न्यायविस्तरम् । मीमांसा धर्मशास्त्रं च परिगृह्य ममा

679 I HERCEDUT a gt: Fitcrga arorat II Hrey. 63. 6-

d a

FOUNDED

The Yājṅavalkyasmrti

435

that he would impart to her the knowledge of Yoga which Brahmā communicated to him and requested the assembly of sages to listen to the Yoga that would be described by him. He dealt with knowledge and appropriate actions, as follows: actions are the way of knowledge which is twofold viz. pravar taka (i. e. inducing men to act) and nivartaka (i. e. making men to cease from ordinary acts). He said there are four asramas laid down by the Veda. Man owes debts to gods, ancestors and sages ( ?sis ) and pays off the debts (respectively) by sacrifices, by having sons and by brahmacarya as regards sages); there are four āśramas, all four for a brāhmana, three for a ksatriya, two for vaisyas and one for $ūdras; men in the four āśramas should perform the duties of those āśramas out of the four that may be applicable to their cases respectively; there are different angas of Yoga applicable to the persons in the community. Yoga has eight angus viz. Yama, Niyama, Asana, Prāļāyāma, Pratyāhāra, Dhāraṇā, Dhyana and Samādhi. Yamas are ten viz. Ahimsā, truthfulness, asteya &c. and there are also ten niyamas viz. tapas, santoșa, āstikya, dāna, worship of god, listening to the fundamental principles of conduct, Hri, Mati, Japa ( vācika and manasa ) and vratas; (chap. 3 ) Asana ( bodily postures of eight sorts ); Nādis ( 14 chief ones such as Ida, Pingalī, Susumụā, &c.); ten vāyus ( such as Prāna, Apāna &c.) and their special functions ); Nadīsuddhi ( described in chap. V); Prāṇāyāma (description of ), Recaka, Pūralu, Kumbha, the mantra to be recited is to be Vedic, except for the sūdras and women ; (ten slokas at the end of chap. VI); seventh chap. deals with Pratya hāra ; this last and three more are called abhyantara angas of Yoga. Dhāranas are of five sorts (chap. VIII ): control of Prāṇa-vāyu ; IX-deals with dhyāna; chap. X-deals with Samādhi ( Samadhiḥ samatā vasthā ); chap. XI (Gārgi says that she had forgotten the Yoga with eight angas ); chap. XII-Yāj. teaches her briefly Yoga again when she said that she had forgotten the elaborate treatment that Yāj. indulged in and then Yāj. teaches her briefly the essence of Yoga ( chap. XII ).

Some of the recommendations of the Yoga-yājñavalkos may be stated here; such as actions enjoined by Vedia injunctions should be performed by Yogins till death ( XD

Bhanda

436

7-10); 473 Gargi stated at the end that she had forgotten Yājāavalkya’s exposition of Yoga with its eight angas as the means leading to moksa and that he should explain briefly the Yoga with eight aiga8 ; Yajna° agrees ; XII brief description of a posture for control of Vāyu in which the right ankle is pressed against the anus (one among several items) and of practising this for two ghaṭikās for ten days one has certain experiences such as lightness of the body, hearing sounds and passing only a small quantity of urine and faeces &c. ; then contemplation on calermin (serpent that is lodged in the Kundalini); rousing of the Kundalini ; all ( Upanisad passages ) declare that one is to realize that brahman from which proceed all these beings &c.

The Yoga-Yājñavalkya is only a small work on Yoga, has little to do with Dharmaśāstra and it winds up its teachings by relying on Hathayoga in chap. XII, which is put forward by the work itself as a summary of the teachings of the first eleven chapters.473

472 तस्मात्त्वमपि योगीन्द्र स्वाश्रमं धर्ममाचरन् । श्रद्वया विधिवत्सम्यग्ज्ञानकर्म

समाचर ॥ इति मे कर्मसर्वस्वं योगरूपं च तत्त्वतः । उपदिश्य ततो ब्रह्मा योगनिष्ठोऽभवत्स्वयम् ।। योगया. I. 39-40 ( Divanji’s edition ). Some

mss. read ज्ञानं कर्म समाचर or ज्ञात्वा कर्म समाचर.

473 In the Yogayājñavalkya we find here and there schoos of tho Gita ;

for example, compare Gita 8.6 (‘yam yam vapi smaran’ otc. with Yoga–yij. x. 19-20 (yam yam samyak smarati etc.); Gita 8. 10 (bhruvor-madhye ) with Yoga-yājña. X. 16-17. ज्ञानकर्मसमायोगात्परमानोति पूरुषः । पृथग्भावे न सिध्येत उभे तस्मात्समाश्र. येत् ॥ ज्ञानं प्रधानं न तु कर्महीनं कम प्रधानं न तु बुद्धिहीनम् । तस्माद् दुयोरेग भवेत सिद्धिर्न ह्येकपक्षो विहगः प्रयाति ॥ परिज्ञानाद्भवेन्मुक्तिरेतदालस्यलक्षणम् । कायक्लेशभयाच्चैव कमे नेच्छन्ति पण्डिताः॥ बृहद्योगि, IX. 28, 29, 34.

All these are quoted in the Moksakanda of Kalpataru (p. 148) AB from (योगियाज्ञवल्क्य ); IX. 29 and 34 are quoted by Aparārka on Yaj, III. 205 with the Introductory remark मुक्तो ज्ञानकर्मसमुचर्य स्मृतिकाराश्चाहुः- यमैश्च नियमैश्चैव आसनैः प्राणसंयमैः । प्रत्याहारेण ध्यानेन धारणाभिः समाधिना ॥ बृहद्योगि• IX. 35 ; compare योगसूत्र II, 28 ‘यमनियमासनप्राणायामप्रत्याहारधारणाध्यान-समाधयोऽष्टावनानिmo the मैत्रायण्युपनिषद् (VI. 18) puts ध्यान before धारणा योगयोचवल्क्यु।

( Continued on the next page)

POOHA

CMMAR

FOUNDED

1917

The Yājħavalkyasmrti

437

Mr. Divanji himself regards it as the earliest available work on Hathayoga for the common man (JBBRAS Vol. 29 for 1954 pp. 96-128 at p. 106 and in ABORI Vol. 34 for 1953 p. 23). The present author questions his assertions about its being the earliest.

Aparārka ( about 1125-50 A. D. ) mentions Yogayājsa. valkya about 25 times and quotes at least 63 verses therefrom (though the order of verses and some readings differ in a few cases). Reasons of space prevent a detailed statement of all verses quoted from Yogayājñavalkya. By way of sample, only some groups of verses from Yoga-Yāj. are cited here ; (.) about 18 verses ( though not in consecutive order ) on pp. 134-35 are quoted by Aparārka from Br. Yoga. Yaj. , all except two from the 7th chapter (verses 39, 162-171 and from IV, 28 and 30 ); five verses are quoted from Br Y, Y. VII. ( dropping 136 ) by Aparārka. on p. 47; about five verses are quoted which are Br. Y. Y. IV. 4-6 (in part ) and IV. 8-10; on p. 128 A parārka quotes from Yoga–Yāj. four

… ~~~~-

. . ~

( Continued from the previous page ) स्वकर्मणामनुष्ठानात् सम्यगात्मनि दर्शनात् । वेदान्तानां परिज्ञानाद् गृहस्थोपि विमुच्यते ॥ quoted by अपराके on p. 980 from Yoga-yajjaralkya on या. III. 37. This is बृहद्योगिया. XI. 45. This is not cited in the योगयाज्ञ. edited by Mr. Divanji. योगियाज्ञवल्कीयं ‘शं न आपः’ इत्यादि ‘अघमर्षणसूक्तेन ’ इत्यन्तं मन्त्रैर्मार्जन तु अप्रयतस्यैव कर्माशमुख्यस्नानाशक्तौ द्रष्टव्यम् । असामर्थ्याच्छरीरस्य कालशक्त्याद्यपेक्षया । मन्त्रस्नानादितः सर्वे केचिदिच्छन्ति सूरयः ॥ इति, ‘कालदोषादसामर्थ्यात्’ इति च योगियाज्ञवल्क्यवचनात् । ब्रह्मचारिकल्पतरु p. 188. ‘असामर्थ्यात्.’ is बृहद्योगिया० VII. 162 and ‘कालदोषादसामर्थ्यात्’ is VII. 166 ( of the same ). None of these two is cited in योगया.. ब्रह्मचर्य दया क्षान्तिनं सत्यमकल्कता । अहिंसाऽस्तेयमाधुर्ये दमश्चेति यमाः स्मृताः ॥ स्नानं मौनोपवासेज्या स्वाध्यायोपस्थनिग्रहाः। नियमा गुरुशुश्रषा शौचाक्रोधाप्रमादता ॥ याज्ञ. II. 312-313; अहिंसा सत्यमस्तेयं ब्रह्मचर्य दयार्जवम् । क्षमा तिर्मिताहारः शौचं त्वेते यमा दश ॥ तपः सन्तोष आस्तिक्यं दानमीश्वरपूजनम् । सिद्धान्तश्रवणं चैव हीमतिश्च जपो व्रतम् ॥ एते तु नियमाः प्रोक्तास्तांश्च सर्वान् पृथक्शृणु ।। योगयाज्ञ. I. 50-51 and ans 1-2; compare अहिंसा-सत्य-अस्तेय-ब्रह्मचर्यापरिग्रहा यमाः । गौच सन्तोष-तपः-स्वाध्यायेश्वरप्रणिधानानि नियमाः ॥ योगसूत्र II, 30 and In

STITM

FOUNDEC

438

verses and a half which are Bș Y. Y. VII. 2 (latter half)-5. Mr. Divanji does not show that these verses occur in the

Yoga-Yājñavalkya that he edited.

The Dānasāgara of Ballālasena (B. edition) mentions Yajñavalkya and Yogiyājñavalkya on p. 3 and it quotes about a dozen verses some of which are found in Yogi-Yājña valky8,474 chap. VII. ( of Br. Y. Y.) via abhāve ( D. S. p. 63=Br. VII. 139 ); na kuryāt (D. S. p. 52-Br. VII. 37); na cankraman (D. S. p. 52-Br. VII. 131 ); na padā (D. S. p. 63-Bṛ VII. 132 ). . Yājñavalkya agrees very closely with the Viṣṇudharma sūtra. What conclusions are to be drawn therefrom has been discussed above (see sec. 10). Similarly, there is close correspondence between the Kauṭiliya aud Yāj. If there is any borrowing at all, it must follow from the date above assigned to the Kauṭiliya that it is Yāj. who borrows. There are numerous passages in Yāj. that show remarkable agreement with the text of Manu. But there are several points on which Yāj. differs from Manu and shows in general a more advanced state of thought and feeling than the Manusmrti. The follow ing are the principal points wherein Yāj. differs from Manu. Manu seems to allow a brāhmaṇa to marry a sūdra girl ((III. 13 ), while Yāj. emphatically states it as his opinion that this is wrong (I. 56 ); Manu first describes the practice of niyoga and then severely condemns it (IX. 59-68 ), while Yāj. does not condemn it (I. 68-69). Manu enumerates eighteen vyavahārapadas; Yāj. does not expressly enumerate them in one place, though he defines vyavahāra pada and adds verses of a miscellaneous character (prakırnaka ) in his section on vyavahāra. Manu is silent about the rights of inheritance of

414 क्षत्रियस्य त्रयः प्रोक्का द्वावेका वैश्यशूद्रयोः । क्षत्रियश्च चरेदेवमा संन्यासाश्रमा

HCT ll 0179Futeaa taat: AAA: 11 gria. (od, by Mr. Diwanji I. 30 and 35 ); vide J. G. J. R. I. vol. XV pp. 135-140 for a paper of Prof. Bhabatosh Bhattacharya on “Yogiyajñavalkya sisti and its utilisation in medioval digests of Bengal and Mithila’; ‘79: refors to the first three āśramas. तथा च वृद्धयाज्ञवल्क्यो धर्मप्रवक्तृनुक्त्वाह । भूयांसो धर्मवक्तार उत्पन्ना भाखि नस्तथा । निधानं सर्वधर्माणां वेद एव हि शाश्वतः ॥ इति। पुनश्चाह नारद पुलहो गार्ग्यः पुलस्त्यः शौनकः क्रतुः । बौधायनो जातुकर्णो विश्वामित्र Raahe: Il fa 1

STITUW

POON

1917

The Yājñavalkyasmrti

489

the widow of a sonless man and gives only a vaguely expre seed order of succession, while Yāj. places the widow at the head of all heirs and enumerates several classes of heirs in e regular order. Manu condemns gambling outright (9. 224 228), while Yaj. brought it under State control and made its source of revenue to the king (II. 200-203). There are several other matters which Yāj. treats at much greater length and more systematically than Manu, e. g. ordeals (as indicated above), means of proof in courts ( Manu altogether ignoring documentary evidence, though he knew documents as in 8. 51-52), rules of procedure in courts ( compare Manu 8. 53-56 with Yaj. II. 5-11 and 16-21 ), the doctrine of possession and prescription (Yaj. II. 24-29 and Manu 9. 44 and 54 ). All these points tend to show that the Yājnavalkya-smrti is much later than the extant Manusmṣti.

The Yājṅavalkya-smṛti seems to have taken the section on Vinayakaśānti from the Mānavagļhya-sūtra (II. 14 ); verses 281-283 of Yāj. (I) occur in the Mānavagshya II. 14, but in a different order. 476 The Mānavagļhya takes the Vinā yakas to be four, while Yāj. says that there is a single Vinayaka, whose appellations are Mita. &c.

The details of information about Vināyaka in Yāj. (I. 272-276) appear to have been versified from the prose478 of the M. Gr. S. The details of worship also and the mantra (Yaj. I. 291) are taken from the same work (vide M. Gr. S. II. 14. 30 for the mantra ). At one time the section on

475 अथातो विनायकान् व्याख्यास्यामः । शालकटटश्च कूष्माण्डराजपुत्रश्चोस्मितश्च

(पत्रश्च मितश्च ? ) देवयजनश्चेति । मानवगृह्य II. 14. 1-2; विनायकः कर्मविघ्न सिद्धयर्थ विनियोजितः। …मितश्च समितश्चैव तथा सालकटङ्कटौ। कूष्माण्डो राजपुत्रश्च जपेत् स्वाहासमन्वितान् । नामभिर्बलिमन्त्रैश्च नमस्कारसमन्वितैः ॥ याज्ञ. I. 271, 285-6, 281-82 ( Nir. ed.). The Mit. seems to have read

‘कटकटौ । कूष्माण्डो राजपुत्रश्च’. 478 एतैरधिगतानामिमानि रूपाणि भवन्ति । लोष्टं मृद्नाति । तृणानि छिनत्ति ।

अग्रेषु लेखान् लिखति। अपः स्वप्ने पश्यति । मुण्डान् पश्यति। जटिलान् पश्यति। काषायवाससः पश्यति । उष्ट्रान् सूकरान् गर्दभान् दिवाकीर्त्यादीनन्यांश्चाप्रयतान् स्वप्नान् पश्यति । अन्तरिक्षं कामति । अध्वानं व्रजन्मन्यते पृष्ठतो मे कश्चिद्धन ब्रजति । एतैः खलु विनायकैराविष्टा राजपुत्रा लक्षणवन्तो राज्यं न लभते । कन्याः पातकामा लक्षणवत्यो भर्तृन्न लभन्ते । … कृषिकराणां कृषिरत्पफूला भवति । मानवगृह्य II. 14. 3-21 (ed. by Knauer ),

440

Vināyakaśānti was thought to be a gure indication of the late date of Yāj. Smrti. But since the discovery of the Mānava gshya that position had to be given up. In the Baudhāyana dharmasūtra (II. 5. 21 ) we have Vinayaka and his several appellations (in the tarpaṇa ). A parārka on Yāj. I. 275 quotes a long passage from the Baija vāpa-gļhya which bears a very close correspondence in phraseology to the passage from the M. Gș. S. quoted above and which gives the names of the four Vināyakas as Mita, Sammita, Salakatan kata and Kūsmāṇdarāja putra.

The Yājñavalkya-smrti stands in a very intimate relation to the White Yajurveda and the literature that clusters round it. Most of the mantras quoted (in part) or referred to by Yāj. occur in the Rgveda as well as in the Vājasaneya-sam hitā (e. g. in Yāj. I. 22, 24, 229, 230, 238, 239, 247 ). Yet there are a few mantras that do not occur in the Rgveda, but only in the Vājasaneya-saṁhitā or other saṁhitās (e. g. ‘yavosi’ in Yāj. I.230, which is Vāj. S. 5. 26, ‘ye samāna’ in Yāj. 1. 254 which is Vāj. S. 19.45, ‘imam deva’ and ‘udbudhyanva’ in Yāj. I. 300, which are Vāj. S. 9. 40 and 15. 54, ‘annāt pari śrutah’ and ‘kandāt’in Yāj. I. 301 which are Vāj. S. 19.75 and 13.20 ). Several verses ( Yaj. III. 191-197) are a para phrase of certain passages of the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad, 80 much so that the very words of the latter are used through out in the former, as the quotations given below will show.477 Then again Yāj. very closely agrees with the Pāras karagļhya sūtra as was pointed out by Dr. Stenzler in his introduction to the edition of Yāj. (1849, Berlin ) and in the Journal of the German Oriental Society (VII. 527). Viśvarūpa points out 477 स ह्याश्रमैर्विजिज्ञास्यः समस्तैरेवमेव तु । द्रष्टव्यस्त्वथ मन्तव्यः श्रोतव्यश्च

fastiant: ll 23. III. 191; compare EERVE II. 4. 5. and IV 5. 6

BEAT AT OP TET: njaati &c.’; I TAS Parceria #arma माश्रिताः। उपासते द्विजाः सत्यं श्रद्धया परया युताः ॥ क्रमात्ते संम्भवन्त्यर्चिरहः शुक्लं तथोत्तरम् । अयनं देवलोकं च सवितारं सवैद्युतम् ॥ ततस्तान् पुरुषोभ्येत्य ATT eller 1 &c. 5. III. 192–194 ; compare Legruela VI. 2. 16 À 5 gadacet ari apoi presente trag u arrito #Hafn. ., ata agarga HTC ATT Thula.’ The next three verses of Yāj. summarise aatr047 VI. 2. 15 using the taste words of the latter IT: 97% af FreeH’. The AR Upaniṣad reads (V. 10. 2) as gents #172:. Vide also Rg. 6:38 1-12 and Yāj. Smrti III. 193-197.

The Yājñavalkyasmrti

441

that478 Yāj. I. 142–143 are based upon Pāraskara. The mantra ayam me vajrah’ in Yāj. I. 135 ( Trivandrum ed.) is given in Pāraskara-grhya 11.7.7. In the following also there is close verbal correspondence478 between Yāj. and the P. Gr. S; Yāj. III. 1-2 and P. Gr. S. III. 10. I, 5, 8-9 and 12: Yāj. III. 3 and P. Gr. S. III. IO. 16 and 19-20; Yāj. III. 4 and P. Gr. S. III. 10. 46-47 ; Yāj. III. 16 and P. Gr. S. III. 10. 26-27. Similarly, the verses of Yāj. on Srāddha ( I. 217-270) offer many points of contact with the Sraddha-kalpa of Kātyāyana edited by Dr. Caland (pp. 127-130 of his work ‘Ahnencult &c.’ From these facts Dr. Jolly concludes that Yājñavalkya’s work goes back to a dharmasūtra of the White Yajurveda ( R. u. 8. p. 21 ). In another place Dr. Jolly hazards another conjecture based on the close correspondence between Yāj. and the Viṣṇudbarmasūtra that he probably belonged to the Kāthaka school of the Black Yajurveda (Journal of Indian History, 1924, p. 7). Yāj. also shows great similarity to the Kauṭiliya and borrows the Vināyaka-śānti from the Mānava grhyasūtra. From these facts one may argue at least with an much logic and force as underlies Dr. Jolly’s guess-work that Yāj. probably belonged to the Mānava school of the Black Yajurveda or to the school of Kautilya. If Yāj. knew his business as a writer on Dharmaśāstra, he must have consul ted the works of his predecessors and his work is bound to show traces of that fact. One may conclude at the most tbat the author of the Yājñavalkyasmrti may have possibly been a student of the White Yajurveda and so the mantras of the White Yajurveda and the Gșhyasūtra of Pāraskara were far more familiar to him than the other Vedas, sūtras, smrtis, and other works. No such conclusions that there was a dharma sūtra of the White Yajurveda and that the Yājñavalkyasmrti was based thereon are warranted by the facts so far discovered. 478 पौषमासस्य रोहिण्यामष्टकायामथापि वा। जलान्ते छन्दसा कुर्यादुत्सर्ग विधिवद

fa : 11 719. I. 142 ; compare 977497 II. 12. 1-2 (Venkatesvara press ed.) 1957 Teen Atarai 918 Ary a l

36Hoci Trat &c.’ 479 सप्तमाद् दशमाद्वापि ज्ञातयोभ्युपयन्त्यपः । अप नः शोशुचदघमनेन पिता

faqat: 11 7737. III. 3 ; HOP STARTOTTEITA HITHATE THAT … सव्यस्यानामिकयापनोद्याप नः शोशुचदधामिति दक्षिणामुखा निमजन्ति । PTT FAT III. 10. 16 and 19-20.

FOUNDI

1911

1919442

For settling the date of Yāj. we need not consider the evidence after the 9th century A.D. For, in the first quarter of that century (as we shall see later on ) Viśvarūpa wrote his extensive commentary on Yāj. - That he was separated from Yāj. by many centuries follows from several considerations. Not only had numerous various readings arisen in the text of Yāj. when he wrote, but various interpretations of the same words and verses of Yāj. had arisen. For example, he gives several meanings of the words ‘putronanyāśritadravyah’ (in Yāj. II. 47 ), of ‘sāmudrāh’ (II. 41 ); he gives different inter pretations of I. 265, II. 160, II. 173 &c. He refers to the interpretations of his predecessors in several places by the word ‘anye’ (I. 3, 25, 155, 169; II. 21, 119, 121 ; III, 201,209, 246 &c. ). In several places he appears to be referring to two other interpretations than his own ( vide on III.250, the words ‘kecittu’ and ‘anye tu’ and the same words on III.261 and 264). That Viśvarūpa had before bim actual commentaries on Yāj. and was not merely giving scholastic interpretations started by himself is made very clear in several cases by his actually citing certain portions from those works. On 1.252 Viśvarūpa says. others take from somewhere the following floke (then the sloka is quoted ), but this sloka is of no help, as its origin is not known !.480 Similar words occur in the comment on Yāj. III. 222. On II. 193 he styles some pre decessor as panditammanya’ and on III. 257 he ridicules a predecessor who regards the verse of Manu IV. 222 as an arthavāda by saying that that commentator wanted to show off that he knew the technical term arthavāda.481 It is not unlikely that Viśvarūpa in this last passage refers to some ancient commentator of Manu such as Asahāya. In the Prāyascittamayūkha, 48’ Nilakantha ( Benares edition of 1879 )

181

480 अन्ये तु कुतश्चिदागमय्यमं श्लोकं पठन्ति-‘यः सपिण्डीकृतं प्रेतं पृथपिण्डेन

योजयेत् । विधिनस्तेन भवति पितृहा चोपजायते ।। इति । अयं त्वस्पष्टमूलत्वाद. parfecarifapty on 17. I. 252. अन्ये तु कुतश्चिदागमय्येमं श्लोकं पठन्ति-रागाद् द्वेषात् प्रमादादा स्वतः परत एव वा । यो हन्याद् ब्राह्मणं कश्चित् स सर्वो ब्रह्महा भवेत् ॥ इति । तत्त्वविज्ञात

care fararthofa *9 on 14. III. 222. 482 अन्ये तु भुक्वातोन्यतमस्यानमित्येवमादीन्यर्थवादत्वेन ब्याचक्षते । न चाल किंचिदर्थवादसारूप्यमस्य स्यात् । अतोर्थवादो नाम वाक्यप्रकारोस्ति तमष्यह

(Continued on the next page)

1917

The Yājñavalkyasmrti

443

says that Śhaṅkara in his Bhāsya on Brahmasūtra (III. 4.43) explained the application of Yāj. III. 226. Unfortunately in the printed editions of Śhaṅkara I could not find this. But from the Bhāmati where Yāj. III. 226 is explained, it is clear that the passage must have occurred in the text of Śhaṅkara used by the Bhāmati. Dr. Jolly lays great emphasis in assigning a late date to Yāj. on the fact that Kumārila, who cites Manu, Gautama, Āpastamba, Baudhāyana frequently, ignores the Yājsavalkya-smrti altogether. But this silence of the great mimāṁsaka can only mean that he did not assign the same pre-eminent and venerable position to Yāj. that he assigned to Manu, Gautama and others. Dr. Jolly himself is prepared to place Yāj. three or four centuries earlier than Kuinārila. It will be shown hereafter that Nārada and Bșhaspati cannot be placed later than 500 A. D. and may have flourished two or three centuries earlier still. On a compa rison of their doctrines with those of Yāj. it will have to be conceded that they represent a far greater advance in juristic principles and exactitude than Yāj. So the latter cannot be placed later than the 3rd century A. D. As Yāj. is shown above to have followed the Manusmrti and the Kauṭiliya his smrti cannot be placed earlier than the first century B.C. We shall not be therefore far from the truth if we place his smrti somewhere between the first century B. C and the third century of the Christian era. In the Lankāvatārasūtra ( ed. by B. Nanjio, 1923, Kyoto ) gathas 814–816 are ‘Kātyāyanaḥ sūtrakartā Yājsavalkastathaiva ca… Valmiko Masurākṣasca Kautilya Āsvalāyanaḥ … From the context it appears that the author of the smrti is referred to as Yājñavalka.

Dr. Jolly (R. u. S. p. 21 ) following Dr. Jacobi (ZDMG 30, p. 306 ) thinks that Yāj. shows an acquaintance with Greek astrology. Dr. Jacobi’s position amounts to this that the naming of the week days after the planets was established among the Greeks towards the end of the 2nd century A. D. and as the names of the week days and the arrangement of the planets in correspondence with them was borrowed by the

( Continued from the previous page) FTTHIETTOarf#1919: 1 deportat i fant op 71. IIL 2008 श्रीशङ्कराचार्यास्तु कामतोव्यवहार्यस्तु इत्यकारप्रश्लेषणेदं याज्ञवल्क्यवचो बस्तिम यथापि स्मृतराचाराचेति सूत्रे कृतप्रायश्चित्तनैष्ठिकब्रह्मचर्यादिपरम् ॥ afere… RE – is a 97 III. 4. 43.

FOUNDED

1917

Bhandarkar o

444

Indians from the Greeks, no Indian work which enumerates the week days or arranges the planets in the well-known sequence of Sun, Moon, Mars &c. ) could have been composed before the third century after Christ. As is very often the case with Western Sanskrit scholars in matters of Indian chronology, this grand generalization is based upon very slender data. The premises are mere assumptions without hardly any evidence worth the name to support them. No one knows exactly when the week-days were named and who were the people that first employed the current names of the week-days. It is well-known that as far back as the days of Herodotus the Egyptians had a presiding deity for each day and that in the times of Julius Cæser there were days of Saturn (vide I. A. vol. 14, p. I, General Cunningham’s article for the Indian origin of week-days ). At least from the third century B. C., as vouched for by the 13th edict of Asoka, India was in close touch with Syria and Egypt, where Bud dhist missionaries had been sent by Asoka while Antiochus and Ptolemy ruled in the two countries respectively. There fore, if Indians at all borrowed the week-days and the arrangement of planets from foreigners, there is nothing to prevent us from holding that they might have borrowed them from the Egyptians.

The present author has dealt at some length with the question of the origin of week days and their names in pp. 676-685 of Vol. V part I of the History of Dharmaśāstra. It is impossible to hold that such a brilliant planet as Venus whose rising precedes the dawn and setting follows the evening was not noticed by the ancient Indians. It is very likely that Vena praised in Rg. X.123.1,2 and 5 is the morning star and in X. 123.5 Uṣas the youthful (yosā ) Apsaras that greets with a smile in the highest heaven her lover i.e. the morning star that is a little high up in the sky when Usas smiles on the horizon. In a difficult verse ( Rg. 1.139.10) both Bșhas pati and Vena are mentioned. Several Western scholars hold that Vena is Soma or Sūrya according to the context. But this explanation would not suit Ry. X. 123. 1 and 5 at all. In Rg. X. 123.1 we have the words ’ Ayam venas codayat…imam apām sangame sūryasya’ and it is clear that ‘imam ‘restore to Vena (in the first half) and “sūryasya’ is separatet mend tioned from imam’ (i. e. Venam ). The earliest datending record ( so far known ) wherein a week-day is mentioned 18

The Yājñavallyasmrti

445

the Era» Inscription of 484 A. D. (Gupta Inscriptions p. 89) where we have” Suraguror divase.” It is to be noticed that Yāj. does not mention the week-days. Ip I. 296 he mentions the nine grahas in order as the Sun, the Moon, Mars (the son of the earth ), Mercury (the son of Soma ), Jupiter, Venus, Saturn, Rāhu, Ketu. No one can gainsay that at least the Sun, the Moon, Bphaspati and Venus were known to the Rgvedic India. Bṛhaspati in the highest beaven is spoken of in the Rgveda483 and the conjunction of Jupiter and Tisya (constellation of Pusya ) is spoken of in the Tai. Brābmana. We know so very little of the ancient astronomical science in ancient India that one must think twice before dogmatising. Yāj. nowhere mentions the zodiacal signs (rāśis) and probably did not know them. Not only so, in his day the naksutras were still arranged from Kr̥ttikā to Bharaṇī as was the case in the Tai. S. IV. 4.10. Vide Yāj. I. 268 (Kșttikādi Bharanyantam ). We know from Varāhamihira that in the 5th century A. D. the signs of the zodiac and the arrangement of Naksatras from Asvini to Revati were established facts in all parts of India. Therefore, Yāj. who uses the ancient arrangement of Nakṣat ras cannot be placed so late as the 4th century A. D. When Yāj. (1. 80 ) speaks of “susthe Indau " we should not, follow ing such commentaries as the Mit., connect the words with the signs of the zodiac or the houses of the horoscope. Viśvarūpa does not speak of rāśis in this connection, but of Naksatras only. From very ancient times certain Nakṣatras had come to be regarded as auspicious or suitable for particular acts. The Tai. Br. 484 directs that one should not finish a thing or begin to sacrifice ou a nakṣatra with an evil name. The same Brāhmaṇa says that ploughing was to be begun on the Maitra asterism (Anuradha ) and consecration of fire on the Aditya nakṣatra. Even the Rgveda speaks of auspicious day8486 and the Tai. Br. speaks of Deva-nakṣatras and Punyāhas, and says

483 Efafa’: 998 arhat Het Fatiaa: 9ch a 17 I IV, 60. 4;

pakta: quÅ HT99Tafea ei annaftalana i āt. Al. 3. 1. 1. 6. 484 तस्मादश्लीलनाम चित्रे नावस्येन्न यजेत यथा पापाहे कुरुते तादृगेव तत् । तै.

A1. 1. 5. 2. 6.

HOT Fr….echa 3 I &. an. 1. 8. 4. 2. 486 pirane radi grzac wrę VII. 88. 4.

NSTITU

POONA

FOUNDE

1917

446

that a daughter should be given away in marriage on the Svāti nakṣatra if she was desired to be her husband’s favourite *86 Vide Baudhāyana Gșhya (I. 1 ) for the marriage nakṣatras ; also Āp. Gr. S. II. 15. 12-14, Gobhila Gphya 4.4. 28 and 2. 1.1.

There is nothing to show that Yāj. knew rāfis ( zodiacal signs). He refers ( I. 80 ) to the Maghā and Mūla nakṣatras as forbidden for sexual intercourse between husband and wife. The presiding deity of both Maghā and Mula was pitaraḥ (deceased ancestors ); vide H. of Dh. Vol. V part 1 pp. 502-3 for both. Therefore, they are both inauspicious. Similarly, some of the tithia viz. Amāvāsyā, 8th and 14th tithis and Full Moon day were prohibited by Manu (IV. 128 ) for sexual intercourse between husband and wife. Hence times for many actions in early works were of three sorts viz. forbidden, recommended, or neutral (i. e. neither forbidden nor recom mended). When Yāj. speaks (in 1.80) of the moon being auspiciously placed, or when he speaks of a planet being badly placed ( duḥotha ) in 1.307, it is improper to jump to the conclusion that he refers to rāsis, but he might have in mind nakṣatras (like Mūla and Mugha ) or tithis ( like Amā vāsyā or 8th ). The same remark applies to the words. Vyati pāta andGajacchāyā’ that occur in Yāj. I.217. Both are times for srāddha and variously defined (not necessarily depending on rādis ). Vide H. of Dh, vol. V. pp. 419 and 705 for Vyatipāta’ and Vol. IV p. 371 n for Gajacchāyā and Vyatīpāta both.

In III. 171 and 172 Yāj. speaks of only the conjunction of planets and of the passage of them ) through tārās and maksatras. The Baud. Dh. S. II. 5.23 gpeaks of the nine grahas in the same order as that of Yāj. Therefore, there is hardly any evidence to show that Yāj. knew more astrology than was current in the days of the Brāhmanas and the Grbyasūtras. Yāj. (in II. 240-241 ) speaks of the fine to be imposed on those who counterfeited “nāṇakas” (coins ) and on those examiners of “nānakas” who falsely declared a good coin to be counterfeited and vice versa. Mr. Jayaswal( Cal cutta Weekly Notes, vol. 17, P. CLIX ) says that nāṇaka is the

488 यान्येव देवनक्षत्राणि तेषु कुर्वांत यत्कारी स्यात् पुण्याह एव कुरुते । ती का

1. 1. 9 ; & artha great for fullara ai FETTAI arala s. 1. 5. 2. 3.
The Yājñavalkyasmrti

447

gold coin of the Kushans bearing the picture of the Goddess Nanaia and that the Kushans did not rise to importance be fore 78 A. D. This would place Yāj. after 100 A. D. But it must be remembered that this connection between the Goddess Nanaia and the word “nānaka” is quite conjectural and that the chronology of the Kushans is far from being settled.

Yaj. speaks of the sight of yellow-robed people as an evil omen (1.273), which is probably a reference to the Buddhists; though it has to be remembered that he prescribes old yellow (kāsāya ) robes for his seeker after moksa ( III. 157). He speaks of the founding of monasteries of Brāhmanas learned in the Vedas (11.185). The philosophical doctrines contain ed in the third section ( verses 64-205 ) approach that phase of the Vedānta that was taught by Saṅkarācārya. Vide parti cularly III. 67, 69, 109, 119, 125, 140. He employs in elucidat ing the philosophy of Atman the well-known examples of gbaṭākāśa and of the reflection of the Sun in water (III. 144 ), of the various ornaments made from gold, of the spider spinn ing webs out of his own body ( both in III.147 ), of the actor representing various parts (III. 162 ). All these illustrations frequently occur in Sarkara’s Sārirakabhāsya (e. g. ghatā kāśa on Vedānta-sūtra II. I. 14, spider on II. 1.25). All these points, however, are of very little use in arriving at a definite age for the smrti of Yāj. The foregoing discussion has established that Dr. Jolly’s date (viz. 4th century A. D. in R. u. S., p. 21 ) is much later than the data warrant. There is nothing to prevent us from holding that the extant smrti was composed during the first two centuries of the Christian era or even a little earlier.

Prof. K. P. Jayaswel in his Tagore Law Lectures on ‘Manu and Yājñavalkya’ has given forceful expression to some novel views. A separate treatise would have to be written for ex posing the hollowness of some of his assertions. But one question concerns the text itself and cannot be altogether ignored here. On pp. 56 ff he asserts that verses 67-203 of the third adhyāya of YĀj. are interpolations. The main reasons for this opinion are that these verses contain matters of anatomy and Yoga. This is a very bad example of foisthaga one’s own modern ideas about relevancy on writers who flourished about two thousand years ago. The Nārada-small has a long disquisition on impotency ( vide SBE, vol. 33

PODHA

FOUNDE

Rhandarkara

448

pp. 166-168, XII. 9-14 ). Manusmrti contains a good deal of matter on Yoga e. g. vide Manu VI. 70-73; Yāj. 111.67 imitates Mundakopaniṣad II. 1.1 (in thought and words ), Yāj. 111.71 contains ideas common to Manu III. 76 and Santi parva 264.11 ; Yāj. III. 185 follows Gaut. Dh. S. VIII.23 ; Yāj. II1.186 follows Āp. Dh. 11.9. 23.3; Yāj. III. 193-94 have in view Chāudogyopao V. 10.1; Yāj. III. 195-197 follow Chān. Up. V. 10.3-5 and Bṛ. Up. VI. 2.16; Yāj. III. 200 re peats the very words of Gītā VI. 11 and XII. 4 in part.

Besides the Yājñavalkyasmști we have to reckon with three other works connected with the name of Yājñavalkya, viz. Vrddha Yāj., Yoga-Yāj., and Bșhad-Yāj. All these three works are comparatively ancient. Viśvarūpa quotes ( vide note 219 above ) two verses of Vrddha-Yājñavalkya saying that many writers on dharma have been born and will be born and enumerating ten such writers.

The Mit. on YĀj. III. 1-2, 6, 19 quotes six verses of Vṛddha-Yāj and Aparārka quotes about eleven. The verse of Vṛddha-Yāj. quoted as ‘cāṇḍāla…Pārasīkādikam’in the note is quoted again by Aparārka differently on p. 1196.

One quotation cited from Vrddha-Yāj. by Madhava refers to the means of proof in case of doubt whether there was . partition.487 So Vṛddha–Yāj. wrote also on Vyavabāra. Most of the quotations occur in the prāyascitta section. It is interesting to note that one of these quotations in Aparārka488 regards the touch of Parasīkas as on the game level with that of Candālas, Mlecchus and Bhillas. The Dāyabbāga489 says that Jitendriya cited the words of Brhad-Yajñavalkya (viz. “sodaro nānyamātrjaḥ ”). The Mit. cites Brhad Yājñavalkya on prāyaścitta. So this also is a work that must be held to be earlier than 1000 A. D. Yāj. himself is styled

487 विभागधर्मसन्देहे बन्धुसाक्ष्यभिलेखितैः । विभागभावना कार्या न भवेद् दैविकी

Full II CERCHTETETA III, part 2, p. 571 ; compare 9157. 11. 149. 488 चण्डालपुक्कसम्लेच्छभिल्लपारसिकादिकम् । महापातकिनश्चैव स्पृष्टा स्नायात्सचैलकम्॥

on 436. III. 29-30. संसृष्टपदमेव वा सोदरमभिधत्ते । अत एव बृहद्याज्ञवल्क्यवचनं सोदरो नान माता sta mainitut foarte I TYHIT p. 298 ( ed. of 1829).

489

Helen

FOUNDED

1917

The Yājñavalkyasmrti

449

Yogisvara by the Mit. and other works, but Yoga-Yājie valkya is a different work from the Yāj. Smrti. Yāj. (in III. 110) claims the Yogaśāstra to be his own work.

The Garuḍapurāṇa in chapters 93-106 contains about 376 verses, most of them borrowed from the Yāj. Smrti and adds a few verses of its own. It does not follow the order of verses in the Smrti. The Mit. on Yāj. III. 253 quotes a verse of Bṛhad-Yajñavalkya stating that a Ksatriya or Vaisya even knowingly drinking madya does not become blamable, (but he incurs sin if he drinks liquor prepared from flour). The Mit, on Yāj. III. 253 quotes ā verse of Brhad-Visuu setting out ten kinds of madya, all forbidden to Brāhmanas only but not to others.

Long after the first volume of the H. of Dh, was publi shed two works have been brought out, one called Brhadyogi Yājñavalkya edited and published in 1951 by Swami Kuva layananda of the Kaivalyadhama at Lonavla and Pandit Raghunath Shastri Kokje and the other by Mr. P. C. Divanji published at first in J. B. B. R. A. S. Vol. 28 (pp. 98-158 and pp. 215-268 ) and vol. 29 pp. 96-128 and later available in book form (in 1954 ). Mr. Divanji in J. B. B. R. A. S. vol. 29 pp. 96-128 deals with his mss., his method of collation, the work and its date, index of verses and glossary of words. In A. B. O. R. I. Vol. 34 pp. 1-29 Mr. Divanji tries to establish that the work he published is the Yogaśāstra said to have been composed by the author of Yaj. Smrti (III. 110 ) before the smrti. The Lonavla editors replied in ABORI. Vol. 37 pp. 279-289 and in their Journal called Yogamīmāṁsā Vol. VII. No. 2 ( also issued as a pamphlet in 1958 ). The present author cannot enter into lengthy criticism of what Mr. Divanji says, who does not keep an open mind as befits a scholar who is in search of truth. The Trivandrum Sanskrit Series also published (in 1938 ) the Yoga-Yājñavalkya ( based on a single Ms. ) which generally agrees with the work edited by Mr. Divanji. The present author has to bring to the notice of scholars and readers the fact that the Yogayājñavalkya was published in the Trivandrum Series ( No. CXXXIV ) 80 fan back as 1938. The present author examined the question whether any one of these two works can be the Yogasā to which the Yāj. Smrti (III. 110) says was composed by the sage Yājsavalkya, a. of the Yīj. Smrti, in H. of Dh. VoD

450

on each.

part 2, pp. 1404-1408. Those interested may read that dis cussion. The findings there are that none of the two works could have been the composition of the author of the Yāj. Smrti.

As both works are interesting ( particularly the one published at Lonavla ) the present author will say a few words on each.

The Brhad-Yogiyājñavalkya is a large work in twelve chapters and has about 930 verses. It begins just as the Yāj. Smrti does ( sages ask Yogiśvara who was in Mithila, ques tions). The twelve chapters deal with the following topics. I (verses 44 ); the essence of all Vedas, Smrtis and 14 vidyās; knowledge of Ātman; five matters to be remembered at the time of performing japa of Mantras viz. the sage, the metre, the deity addressed, the application of mantras and (fifthly ) the explanation, origin, purpose and praise (i. e. the Brāh mana of it); II ( verses 158 ) about Omkāra (pranava ), it being a mantra by itself, eight different views about the mātrās of it ( Yājñavalkya’s view being that it is ‘amātra’); III (verses 32 ) On the Vyābṛtis (either 3, 4, 5 or 7); IV (verses 82 ) on Gayatrī, its sage, metre, deity and its employ ment; V. (12verses ) on Nyāsa of Om, Vyāhṛtis, Gayatri on the different parts of one’s body ; VI ( verses 31 ) on Sandhyo pāsana (morning and evening worship ); VII (196 verses ) on bath, tarpana, sandhyā worship and japa (mutter ing of mantras); VIII (56 verses ) on Prānāyāma and Pratyāhāra ; IX ( verses 198, the longest chap. in the work ) on Dhyana; definition of Dhyāna; ( dhyāna being placed before dhāraṇā ); X ( verses 201 ) on Sūryopastbāna ( worship of the Sun with mantras and Gāyatrijapa ); XI (56 verses ) practice of Yogadharma; XII (verses 49 )-All Sāstras originated from Veda, 14 vidyās means of knowing the proper dharma, greatness of Manu &c.

This work in its extensive remarks on Mantras, Gāyatri, Sandhyopāsana, bath, tarpaṇa, prānāyāma deals with Dharma dāstra matters and combines with them the higher Yoga viz. pratyāhāra, dhyāna and dhāranā (as in VIII. 29, 30, 32 which are the same as Manu VI. 70-72). It quotes dozens of verses from the Manusmrti. It also contains many verses on the Bhagavadgitā and several passages of the Upanisads (All this will be shown in the table below. Therefore, the Dihan

Yogi-Yājāavalkya-Smrti is Dharmaśāstra and Yoga in bred

FOUNDED

The Yājñavalkyasmrti

451

Table about Manusmști verses taken into the Br. Y. Y. without acknowledgement ( slight variations are not set out), B-Brhadyogi-yājñavalkya and M- Manusmrti; B often joins together in one verse different halves of Manu’s verses :

B. 2.63 _M. 2.83;

B. 4.12-13=M.2.76-77; B. 4.46 = 48=M.2.81-82; B. 4.48-50=M. 2.78–79; B. 4.72 (latter half and 73= M. XI. 191; B. IV. 76 (latter half) and 77

(first half)

M. 2.118; B. VI. 3= M. II. 103;

B. VII, 91-92 (one half from

each )=M. III. 283; B. VII. 129-130=M. II. 86-87; B. VII. 136 = M. II. 85; B. VII. 177=M. XI. 260; B. VIII. 28=M. XI. 248 (also

in Vas. Dh. 26.4 and Baud.

Dh. S. IV. 1.31 ); B. VIII. 29-31=M. VI. 69-71; B. IX. 86 =M. III. 76 ; B. X. 8-9 (two halves )=M. II.102 ; B. X. 12=M. II. 101; B. X. 13-14=M. II. 86-95 ( Vag. 26. 10.9); B. X. 15 =M. II. 87 (= Vas. 26.11 and Saṅkhasmrti XII.28): B. X. 16 =M. XI. 34 ( also Vas. 26.16 ); B. XI. 36-37=M. I.

96-97: B. XI. 38=M. XII. 85; B. XI. 49=M. V. 108; B. XI, 57 =M. VI. 79; B. XI. 53-56 =M. XII. 120-123; B. XII. 19,20,22 =M. XII. 105, II.7, XII. 95; B. XII. 24=M. II. 168 ; B. XII. 28-9=M. II. 10-11;

In all over 40 verses from Manu have been taken without acknowledgement. Manu is expressly named in some places a8 in B. VIII. 8 and in IX, 159.

A few verses and half verses are taken from the Yai. Smști ( slight variations are not noted ) e. g. B. IV.56 (latter half) and 57-58 (first half)=Yāj. III.309, 311; B. VI.29 ( first half) and X.2=Yāj. I.22 (first half); B. VIII.3=Yāj. 1.23; | B. XI. 34=Yaj. I.8; B. XI. 35=Yaj. I.9.

The verses of the Bhagavad-gitā (G in this list ) are a lot included without express acknowledgement e. g. B. II. 9-18 G. 17. 23-24; B. II. 39-40=G. 18.12–13; B. II. 104-105 = G. 01 and 13; B. IX. 18=G. 15.12 ; B. IX. 20=G. 15.6 ; B. IX. 60- (latter half and first half )=G. 8.9; B. IX. 118=G. IV. 24 B

FOUN

humanis452

IX, 187 (first half) =G. 6. 11 (latter half); B. IX. 197-98 (latter half and first half)=G. 12.12; B. XI. 2-3=G. 2. 40 and 46; B. XI. 46=G. 18.46 ; B. XII. 14 ( first half )=G. 16. 8.

The Bșhad-yogiyājñavalkya absorbs without acknowled gement Vedic, particularly Upaniṣad passages. For example, it cites (XI. 7) Rg. I. 164. 39 (Rco akṣare….samāsate ). In IX. 158 it names the Chandogya, Bșhadāraṇyaka and Taittirīya Upanisads by name. A few examples may be cited. B. II. 37-38 are Katha Up. (2. 15-16), B. II. 42 is Chān. Up. II. 23. 3; B. II. 47 (dve brahmanī &c. ) is Maitri Up. VI. 22; B. II. 53-55 are respectively Tai. Up. II. 4 (Yato vāco &c); Mundaka II.2.4 ( Pranavo dhanuḥ) and Svetā sva° 7.14 (Svadehamaranim ); B.II.60 is Katha Up. II.17; B. IX. 59 ir īsopanisad 15 ( Hiranda yena &c); B. IX. 101 is Mundaka I.2.11 ( slightly modified ); B. IX.148 is Cbān. Tp. V. 24. 5 ( slightly modified ); B. IX. 184-186 (latter half of 184 and first half of 186 ) are Katha Up. 3.10-11; B. IX. 193-94 are a part adaptation in verse of Br. Up. II.2.19.

The Bṛhadyogiyājñavalkya contains about 930 verses, the Yogayājsavalkya published by Mr. Divanji contains 496 verses and the Trivandrum edition of Yogayājñavalkya con tains about 465 verses. Therefore, the Yogayājñavalkya is in extent about half of the text of the Brhadyogi-yājñavalkya. The references here are made to Mr. Divanji’s edition of Yoga yājñavalkya (and not to the T. S. S. edition). The Yogayājña valkya professes that in an assembly of sages (15 are named in XI.13-14 including Vasistha and Viśvāmitra ) both Maitreyi and Gārgi were present and the latter (Gārgi) fell at the feet of the sage and implored him to expound to her the principles of Yoga (1.8). The great sage promises to tell her the essence of Yoga with its angas, which was declared to him by Brahmā himself (1.10-15). He dilates on two paths, one stimulating (pravartaka ) a person to do acts laid down for varṇas and asramus and the other called nivartaka ( which prevents rebirth ); he dilates on the four āśramas for Brāhmaṇa, three for Ksatriya, two for Vaisyas and one for Sūdras and Brahmā directed Yājñavalkya to follow the paths of Jñāna and Karma (I. 39-40). The text (I. 43 ) tells us that Gārgi was his wife (bhāryayā tvevamuktastu Yuna valkyas-taponidhiḥ ). In IV. 5 also Gārgi is calleduynjak valkya’s wife, in IV. 40 she is addressed by Yājnayake ya as priye’ and Varārohe (VI. 79, VII. 22 and 34 The

I917

17:

The Yājṅavalkyasmrti

453

instruction imparted by Brahmā ends with the words in I. 39-40 as quoted below. Jñana consists of Yoga, which has eight angas and Yoga means the union of the Individual soul with the Supreme Soul ( I. 44). The principal topics are: the eight angas, Yama &c.; ten Yamas (I. 50-51 ) and verses 1-19 their definitions ; II (chapter ) - ten niyamas and their definitions ; III the eight recommended āsanas (physical postures ); IV. on Nādi-āuddhi; on Susumṇā, the best nadi (IV. 28 ); names of the 14 chief nādī8 (IV. 26-28); ten vāyus that circulate in the nādīs, the five chief being Prāna, Apāna, Samāna, vdāna and Vyāna (IV. 47-48) and their spheres ; V. on means of Nādi-āuddhi and appropriate place and actions for securing it; Tantras are specially men tioned in V. 10; signs of having secured Nādi-buddhi ; VI. ( longest chapter of the work ) on Prāṇāyāma ; three aspects of prāṇāyāma viz. recuku, pūraku and kumbhala ( VI. 2); explanations of these, results of practising these, such as removing diseases; VII. definition of pratyāhāra (1-2); VIII. on Dhāranā; definition of Dhāranī, verbal close resem blances between the contents of the Yogayājsavalkya and the Hathayoga-pradipika. The proper name of this last work is Hathapradipikā ( vide H. of Dh Vol. V. p. 1427, n. 2344 ). This is a late work and mentions 35 siddhus such as Matsyendranātha, Gorakṣanātha, Galininātha, Nivṛttinātha, and Jñanadeva, who wrote his famous commentary on the Gītā in 1290 A. D, and mentioned these as in the line of gurus before him. Vide H. of Dh. Vol. V. p. 1429.

There are great defects in the arguments of Mr. Divanji in favour of the work sponsored by him being the Yogaśāstra referred to by Yājñavalkya (in Yāj. Smrti III. 110 ) as com posed by him before the Smṛti itself. Both works (the Bșhadyogiyājñavalkya Smrti and the Yogayājñavalkya) claim that they contain what Yāj., a famous and very ancient sage, contemporary of ancient king Janaka (in the case of the Bṛ. Yogi-Yājžiavalkya and also the recipient of Yajus from the Sun) and an ancient sage Yājña valkya whose wife was Gārgi and who received the Yogic knowledge from God Brahmā himself (in the case of the Yoga-Yājsavalkya ). Pent these days hardly any critical reader would admit these claims of both works. But the case of the author the Yoga-Yāiñavalkya is much worse. This latter would be further charged either with being ignorant of aucient History

STUD

FOUNDED

454

and legends or with ignoring the Upanisad story and foisting a totally new one on Yājñavalkya. In the Br. Upanigad (II.4-5) it is said that Yāj. had two wives Maitreyi and Kātyāyanī, the former wanted no wealth but was eager only to learn the means for securing immortality and then Yāj. expounded to her Brahma-vidyā. In Bṛ. Up. III-1 it is said that Janaka offered to donate a thousand cows to that one among the persons assembled who was the best knower of brahman. Yāj. asked his pupil Sāmasravas to take away the cows. Then Asvala, Janaka’s hotr priest, and others viz. Artabhāga, Bhujyu, Usasta, Kahol& asked him questions, which Yāj. answered and silenced them. Then Gārgi Vācak navi asked him (in Br. Up. III.6) several questions one after another and lastly asked ‘kasmin nu Brahmaloka otāśca protāsca’. Yāj. said to her’ do not carry your question ing to the utmost limit, otherwise your head would fall down’ (i. e. you will meet death). She remained silent. In the Yoga yājñavalkya ( ed. by Divanji ) she is put forward as Yājña valkya’s wife, a pure invention by the author of that work for the sake of palming it off as a very authoritative work.

Mr. Divanji on p. 25 of his paper in ABORI Vol. 34 on the two works ( having Yājña valkya as part of their names) tries to make light of this circumstance by saying that a rose would smell as sweet even if called by some other name. This is trying to dodge the real issue, which is whether the work edited by him is that of the Yājñavalkya of the Bṛ. Up. or is the work of the author of the Yāj. Smrti. The present author would have no quarrel with him if he admits that it is not a work of the ancient sage Yājñavalkya but of some one who suppresses his real name and the present author would admit that the work he edited is on Hathayoga (but not by the author of Yāj. Smști). On p. 29 he writes’ the author had not forgotten the fact…but had meant to speak about another Yājṅavalkya’in I.6). One fails to understand what he means. The word Vadhūḥ being in the singular would go with the nearest word Maitreyi and not with both Maitreyi and Gārgi. The work, being a small one, deals only with Hathayoga, it does not dilate upon the daily religious rites to be performed, but harps constantly on the point that actions prescribed by Sāstric texts must be performed even by an adept for Hathayoga ( vide VI.79 nityam karına mā caret,’ XI. 7 ‘Vidhyuktam karma karta vyam brahmavidblica

1917

The Yājñavalkyasmrti

455

nityasaḥ) and the author says that Gārgi was advised by Yājñavalkya (in X1.9 ) ’tasmād-ā maraṇād-vaidham kartav yam yogibhiḥ sadā tvam caiva mātyāya Gārgi vaidham karma samācara il’.

As regards the Brhadyogi-Yājñavalkya matters stand as follows. Vācaspatimisra in his commentary on the Yoga bhāsya quotes a half verse from the Yogiyājsavalkya-Smrti viz. ·Hiraṇyagarbho yogasya vaktā nānyaḥ purātanah’, which occurs in the Brhad-Yogio (in Lonavala edition ) as X11.5, and not in Yogayājñavalkya ( ed. by Mr. Diwanji ). Vācas pati wrote learned works on several sāstras. His Nyāya sūcinibandha was composed in Vatsara 898 i. e. 841-41 A. D. (or even if the figures be taken as referring to Saka era before 976 A.D.). Therefore, the Bșhad-Yogi-Yāj. would have to be placed at any rate before 800 A. D. or at least before 950 A. D. Prof. Keith in ‘Indian Logic and Atomism’ Oxford, 1921 ) pre fers 841 A. D. as the proper date (pp. 29-30 ) for Vācaspati. Aparārka in his voluminous commentary (on Yaj. ) mentions Yogayājñavalkya (Lonavala edition ) at least 25 times and quotes about 65 verses from it.

There are some special features in the Br. Yogi-Yāj. Most early and mediaeval works on Yoga do not dilate upon the prescribed daily duties ( such as bath, sandhyā, sūryo pasthāna ), while this work attaches importance to them and dilates upon them. Another outstanding feature is that it upholds the view called ‘Iñānakarmasamuccaya.’ One reaches the Highest Self by the union of knowledge and actions ; one would not secure perfection by treating the two as distinct from one another, therefore one should have recourse to both. Jñāna is predominant but not so when bereft of actions ; activity (actions ) is predominant, but not when devoid of knowledge. Therefore, perfection results from both only, just as a bird cannot fly on one wing. ( To hold ) that moksa ( re leage from bondage ) follows from knowledge is a sign of indolence. Unwise people desire no activities for fear of trouble to the body” ( B. Y. Y. IX. 28, 29, 34). Another noteworthy matter is that the Br. Y. Y. arranges the list of the eight angas of yoga as pratyāhāra, dbyāna and dhāraud and departs from the order stated in Yogasūtra II.28. The Br. Y. Y. holds that even a householder by performing the prescribed duties, by thoroughly understanding the nature of Ātman and by the thorough knowledge of Vedānta pa sta ges secures molsa.

456

The Brahmacāri-kāṇda and Mokṣa-kānda of the Kalpa taru (about 1125–1150 A. D.) quote respectively about sixteen and ten verses from Yogiyājñavalkya. A well-known verse about the meaning of rnātrā in prānāyāma has been quoted in vol. V. (of the H. of Dh.) p. 1438 n. 2361 from the Yogi-Yāj. which is Br. Y. Y. VIII.12. An interesting passage from the Brahmacārikānda of the Kalpataru is quoted in the foot-note which shows that the work was known as Yogi Yājñavalkya to the Kalpataru. 490

The Yoga-Yājñavalkya edited by Mr. Divanji is like an elementary treatise or handbook chiefly on Hathayoga of less than 500 verses. It is not possible to agree with Mr. Divanji that it was the Yogaśāstra referred to by Yājñavalkya-Sinști (II1.110 ) as already composed by him before the Yāj.Smṛti. One circumstance against it (in putting forward Gārgi as the wife of the sage Yājñāvalkya ) has already been stated above. Moreover, it differs from the Yājñavalk yasmṛti on some im portant matters. Some differences may be mentioned here. Yāj. enumerates ten Yamas and ten Niyamas (in II1.312-13). In Yoga-Yaj. also the number of both is the same (1.50-51 for yamas and 11.1-2 for niyamas ). But the details differ in both. Seven Yamas are the same in both viz. Brahmacarya, dayā, ksanti, satya, akalkatā (i. e. ārjava ), ahimsā and asteya. Dāna is a yama in Yāj ; but a niyama in Yogi-Yāj. Most niyamas are different. Both these works differ a good deal from the Yogasūtra 11.30 and 32 in the number of Yamas and Niyamas and their names.

Yāj. 1.10 states that Brāhmaṇas, Ksatriyas and Vaisyas are dvijas and all rites for them from Garbhādhāna to Ant yesti are to be performed with Vedic mantras. So a Vaisya could take to the order of forest hermits if he chose to do so. But the Yoga-Yāj. (11.30 and 35 ) expressly states that Ksatriya can resort to three āgramas ( i. e. he cannot become a Sanyasin).

It may be noted that Sridatta ( about 1275–1310 A. D.) quotes from Yogi-Yājsavalkya about 15 verses in his small work called Chandogāhnika (only 63 pages in Nir. edition,

490

The verse is : 35 ATAI oregant: Risate i FTATO JEET ARTESI seiena II TECNTATIF. VIII. 12 g antai Tangan in groep 69275 (H1977105 page 171. )

FOUNDED

1917

The Yājñavalkyasmrti

457

1930), all of which occur in Bș. Y Y; as on p. 9 ( 4 verses = Br. Y. Y. VII. 162-165 ); Br. Y. Y. VII. p. 10-12; Br. Y. Y. 167 and VII. 119, p. 13 ( 2 verses Br. Y. Y. VII. 36, 158 ), p. 17 ( Br. Y. Y. VIII 47, Sridatta setting aside several views on Prānāyāma of others on account of this verse ), p. 19 (one verse=Br. Y. Y. VI. 25 ) p. 25 (2 verses =Br. Y. Y. IV 27-28 ), p. 27 (one verse Br. Y. Y. I. 28 ), p. 27 (2 verses Br. Y. Y. X. 13, 15), p. 44 (one verse Br. Y. Y. VII. 98 ).

Mr. Divanji has not been able to show that these nume rous quotations from medieval exhaustive works such as Aparārka’s commentary, the Kalpataru on Brahmacārī and Moksa Kāndas and the Dānasāgara occur in the work edited by him.

Even some learned and comparatively early commenta tors quote portions from the Yāj. Smrti as from Yogi-Yaj. For example, Kullūka on Manu III.1 ( laying down various periods of time for Vedic studies ) quotes Yāj. I.36 as Yogi Yājñavalkya “ Yadāha Yogi-Yājṅavalkyaḥ-Prativedam brah macaryam dvādas@bdāni pañca vũ.” .

From the above it is clear that Yoga-Yājñavalkya and Bșhad-Yogi-Yājñavalkya are entirely different works and that the latter is comparatively an early work, as quotations from it are cited by Vācaspatimisra ( 9th century ) and Apa rārka.

The Brhad-Yogi-Yājñavalkya contains numerous quote tions from the Manusmrti and the Bhagavadgitā and a few from the Yāj. Smrti itself: Yāj. Smrti I. 3 is the same as Bṛbad-Yogi Yāj. XII. 3 ( which latter substitutes the word ’tarka’ for nyāya )’. Therefore the Bșhad-Yogi-Yājña valkya may be placed between 300 to 700 A. D.

There were probably many commentaries on the Yāj. Smrti. Out of these those of Viśvarūpa, Vijñānesvara, Apa rārka, Sūlapāni and Mitramisra are the most famous. For these, vide sections 60, 70, 79, 95, 108 below. It has been shown above that Viśvarūpa bad before him some commen tary or commentaries on Yāj. not now extant. For these see sections 60, 70, 79 and 95 below. On account of the para mount importance of the Mit. in modern Hindu Law administered by British Courts in the whole of India, the smṛti of Yāj. has indirectly become the guiding work for De whole of India and this position it richly deserves by it is concise but clear statement of principles, its breadth of vision

POO

458

and its comparative impartiality towards the claims of both sexes and the different varṇas.

Viśvarūpa on Yāj. I. 4-5 quotes two verses of Vrddha Yājñavalkya (vide note below). The Mit. on Yāj. 111. 1-2 quotes one verse of Vrddha-Yāj. and two verses of Vụddha Yāj. on III.19. Further, it quotes a verse and a half as from both Vṛddha-Yaj. and Chāgaleya on the after-death rites for those who kill themselves in circumstances in which the śāstras do not permit suicide, wherein the view of Yama is mentioned. The view of Brhad-Yāj. on there being uo prohi bition against Ksatriyas and Vaisyas drinking mudya ( but only against surā) has been cited above. Aparārka quotes Vrddha-Yāj. ten times.

Mr. Divanji relies on quotations in the Bhāsya attributed to Saṅkarācārya on the Svetāśvatara-upaniṣad. In A BORI Vol. 34 p. 23, Mr. Divanji admits that scholars question the claims of that Bhāsyakāra to be the famous Sarkarācārya, but argues that, even if a successor of the original Saṅkarā cārya quotes them as Yogayājñavalkya, then that is positive proof that some verses of Yogayājñavalkya are quoted by some writer. But there is a snag in this argument. The Bhāṣyakāra ( whoever he may be ) of the Sv. Up. quotes the Yāj. Smrti as Yājñavalkya (as on p. 5 Yāj. III. 62, 141 and 156-59 ) and as Bhagavan Yāj. ( verse III, 144 ) on Sv. Up. 1.7 p. 29. The same Bhāsyakāra quotes on Sv. Up. 1.7 ( p. 28 ) four verses as those of Yogiyājñavalkya. This shows that the Bhāsyakāra of Sv. Up. regards the two as different. Mr. Divanji fails to show that these verses occur in the Yoga Yājñavalkya (that he edits). Mr. Divanji failed to recognize that Yāj. Smrti (III. 144) was quoted as that of Bhagavān Yāj. Again on the same page 23 ( of ABORI vol. 34 ) he remarks that out of 9 verses quoted on Sv. Up. I. 29 of the Bhāsya, 18 could be found with slight variations in the Yoga-Yājo. There is a serious mistake here. The verses are not cited expressly as from Yogayāj. as the Bhāsya expressly cites four verses on Sv. Up. 17 as from Yogi-Yāj. The Rhāsya does not introduce them as from Yoga-Yāj. and therefore it is quite likely that those 29 verses occurred in some other work on Yogn from which the Bhāsyakāra (on Sv. Up. II. 9 ) quoted and from which the Yoga-Yāj. copied some for its own purpose. Mr. Divanji’s conclusion is vitiated by this serious mistake that

The Yājnavalkyusmrti

IL IT

459

he commits. Eighteen whole verses out of 29 quoted on p. 9 are not found but mostly half verses are quoted which occur in Yoyayājṅavalkya edited by Mr. Divanji. Granting for argument that 18 out of 29 are found in Yogayājñavalkya whence do the other eleven come? The only possible conclu. sion is that all 29 are from one work, from which the present Yoga-Yāj. borrows its verses. There is another slip on Mr. Divanji’s part. These 29 verses are quoted in Bhāsya on Sv. Up. II. 9 and not on I. I. Besides, one of the 29 verses is ‘Prānāyāmair duhed-dosan &c.’ which is Manu VI. 7 and occurs also in Br. Y. Y. VIII. 32.

Mr. Divanji’s mentality is rather peculiar. On p. 113 of JBBRAS vol. 29, Mr. Divunji gives a list of eight items on quotations from and references to this work (i. e. to Yogayājñavalkya that be edits ) in other works. The first item (Sāṅkara-bhūṣya on Sv. Up.) has been dealt with already. The third reference is to Sarvadarśanasangraha of Madhavā. cārya ( a work of the 14th century A. D.). That work, he says, contains four quotations of the work he edits. That work also quotes Brhad- Yoga - Yājñavalkya on p. 143 *Hirunyagarbho Yogasya &c. ( which is Br. Y. Y. XII.5). The 8th item ( and the last) on that page is above all, the author of the Yajnavalkya-Sinrti has in III. 110 referred to a ‘Yoga sāstra promulgated by me,’ which can be none other than this (and refers to his own Introduction on p. 8). This is an extraordinary argument. He was a high judicial officer in the days of the British rule. He has written profusely on this one work but with great regret the present author has to say he has not kept an open and judicial mind. He assum es as indisputable what has to be proved to the satisfaction of the scholarly world. The uther items that he puts forward on p. 113 above cited are worth little.