कल्पान्तरे विश्वासटिप्पन्यः

The Nāradasmrti

467

The Naradasmrti

There are two versions of Nārada on Vyavahāra, a smaller and a larger one. The smaller version was translated by Dr. Jolly in 1876 (Trūbner & Co., London ). The text of the longer version was published by the same scholar in the Bib liotheca Indica series (1885 ) and was translated by him in the Sacred Books of the East Series ( vol. 33). The edition of the text is accompanied up to verse 21 of the 5th title abhyu petyāśusrūsā’ by extracts from the commentary of Asabāya as revised by Kalyāṇabhattu, who was encouraged in the task of revision by Kesavabhatta.

From verse 22 of the same title the printed text is the same as the smaller version. A verse quoted as Nārada’s by Ksirasvāmin is not found in the larger version but is found in the smaller version.604 An ancient Ms. of Nārada from Nepal dated 1407 A. D. contains two additional chapters on theft and ordeals. Dr. Jolly includes the first as an appendix and omits that on ordeals on the ground that it is not authentic. One of the colophons of the Nepalese Ms. describes it as ‘iti Mānave-dharmasastre Nāradaproktāyāṁ samhitāyām &c.’ This corroborates what was said above (pp. 149, 156 ) as to the close connection between Manu and Nārada.

Nārada is not mentioned by Yājñavalkya in the list of ancient writers on dharma, nor does Parāśara mention him. Viśvarūpa, however, quotes a verse of Vrddha-Yājñavalkya (on Yāj. I. 4-5), where Nārada is the first among ten ex pounders of dharma enumerated therein. ‘Nārada is a very ancient name. The Manusmrti ( I. 35 ) mentions Nārada as one of the ten primeval Prajāpatis. In the Mahābhārata sage Nārada figures frequently. In Udyoga parva ( 49. 22 ) he is said to have told the Vronis to do their duties ( tasmāt-kar maiva karta vyam-iti hovāca Nāradaḥ I etad-hi sarvamācasta Vṇśṇicakrasya vedavit). Sānti ( 30.6 ) says that Nārada was the maternal uncle of Parvata. In Sāntiparva 29. 13 ff it is stated that Nārada comforted Yudhisthira on the death of his many relatives and warriors by dilating upon the stories of sixteen ancient kings and heroes who had also similar

POOR

804

Fra on Amarakośa para que 1933728 378-375T:’ qud bent ‘नारदस्तु-वृषो हि भगवान्धर्मस्तस्य यः कुरुते लवम् । ‘वृषलं तं विजानीयाना…

This first half is Manu 8. 16 (TI…NHL) and faqe 90. 16

FOUNDI

1917

468

sorrows. In Salyaparva, Nārada is said to have informed Balarama that his two disciples Bhima and Duryodhana were going to fight with maces. There Nārada is described as holding a fine Vīnā as an expert in dance and song and as stirring up feuds and always fond of quarrels (prakarta kalahānām ca nityam ca kalaha priyah) in chap. 54. 18-20. According to the Mahābhāṣya on Vārtika 15 on Pāṇ. (VIII. 1. 15, Kielhorn ed. III. p. 371), Nārada and Parvata may be spoken of as ‘dvandvam Nārada parvatau as they are a famous pair that is ‘atyantasahacarita’ (not even Yudhisthira and Arjuna are so ).

The printed Nārada contains three introductory chapters on the principles of judical procedure ( Vyavahāra-mātṇkā ) and on the judicial assembly ( sabhā ). Then the following titles of law are dealt with one after another :- rṇādāna ( recovery of debts ), u panidhi (deposit, lending, bailment ), sambhūya-samutthāna (partnership ), dattāpradānika (gifts and resumption thereof), abhyupetya-asuśrūķā (breach of contract of service ), vetanasya-anapākarma (non-payment of wages), asvāmivikraya ( sale without ownership ), vikrīyā sampradāna (non-delivery after sale ), krītānusaya ( rescis sion of purchase ), samayasyāna pākarma ( violation of conven tions of corporations, guilds &c.); simābandha ( settlement of boundaries ); strīpumsayoga ( marital relation); dāyabhāga ( partition and inheritance ); sāhasāḥ (offences in which force is the principal element), such as homicide, robbery, rape &c.; vākpārusya ( defamation and abuse ) and dundapārusya (hurt of various kinds ); prakirnaka ( miscellaneous wrongs ). The appendix deals with theft ; a few remarks are made on that topic under the title of ‘sāhasa ‘.

It will be noticed that Nārada follows the Manusmrti to a considerable extent in the nomenclature and the arrange ment of the eighteen titles. Some of the titles are differently named by Nārada, e. g. he speaks of upanidhi, while Manu employs the word niksepa. Nārada seems to have included the ‘gvāmipālavivāda’ of Manu in vetanasya-ana pākarma’. He makes one title of dyūta and sumūhvaya. Nārada includes strisamgrahana under sābasa and adds three titles, viz. abhyupetya-asusrūsā, vikrīyāsampradāna and prakiraka. The Smṛticandrikā expressly 60s says that it follows the word

FOUNDED

1917

505 नारदीयोद्देशक्रमानुसारिणश्च वयमित्यनवद्यमिहाभिधानम् ।

The Nāradasmrti

469

of Nārada in preference to that of Manu as regards the nomenclature and the sequence of the titles of law. Nārada follows Manu in speaking of witnesses in the section on rụādāna and in treating of theft after the eighteen titles have been dealt with ( vide Manu IX, 256 ff. ).

The printed Nārada contains 1028 verses (including 61 on theft in the appendix ). About seven hundred of these verses occur in various nibandhas as quotations. Up to the 21st verse of the section ‘abhyuretyāśuśrūṣā’ the commen tary of Asahāya furnishes a valuable check for the authenti city of the text. For the remaining portion, there are important data as to its authenticity, sequence and readings. Viśvarūpa, who belongs to the first half of the 9th century, quotes about fifty verses of Narada (generally by name ). The text that he had before him was essentially the same as vuat of the printed edition except in a very few cases. Out of the seven verses of Nirada on samayasya-ana pākarma’ Viśvarūpa quotes five ( on Yāj. II. 190 and 196 ) and expressly states that Nārada wound up his chapter on that topic with the verse dosavat karanam &c.’ as the printed text does. On Yāj. II. 226 Viśvarūpa distinctly says that the verse ‘yameva hyativarteran’ &c. is followed immediately by ‘malā hyete manusyesu’. This is the case with the printed text also (dyūtasa māhvaya, verses 13-14). On Yāj. III.252 Viśvarūpa quotes a verse of Nārada about the three kinds of wealth, viz. sukla, sabala and krsna, which does not occur in that form in Nārada, though the latter contains similar dicta.608 Viśvarūpa contains no quotation from Nārada on the topics of ācāra or prāyaścitta. The same is the case with Medhā tithi and the Mitāksarā. Medhātithi somewhat inaccurately summarises the introductory words (in prose) of Nārada ( vide note 269 above). Medhātithi frequently quotes Nārada particularly from the sections on rṇādāna (vide on Manu 8. 47, 155, 149 ) and dāyabhāga (on Manu 8, 28, 29, and 207, 209 and 143). On Manu 8, 349 he quotes Nārada on partnership (verse 10 ), ou 8. 216 he quotes Nārada ( vetanasya-anapā. karma, verse 5). In some cases Medhātithi cites Nārada’s verses without naming him e. g. on Manu 9. 76 he quotes the

YOONA

508 शुक्लं च शबलं चैव कृष्णं च त्रिविधं धनम् । शुक्लं न्यायार्जितं धम्यामितीय व्यावहारिकम् ॥ तत्त्नस्त्रिविधं ज्ञेयं शुक्लं शबलमेव च । कृष्णं च तस्य किया: A g4 # ( 7777, FMC17 44 ).

470

well-known verse ’naste mite pravrajite &c.’ ( Nārada on marital relation, verse 97 ) as ‘smrtyantara’. It was shown above (p. 172 ) that the vyavahāra section of the Agnipurāṇa dates from about 900 A. D. Chap. 253 of the Agnipurāṇa con tains thirty verses of the extant Nāradusmrti, viz. Agni 253. 1b-9a = Nārada ( vyavahāra-mātṇkā chap. I. 8-15); Agni 253. 9b-12 = Nārada (vyavabāra-mātṇkā chap. I. 26-29a ); Agui 253. 13-30 are the verses defining the eighteen titles from ruādāna to prakīrṇaka contained in Nārada and occur in the game order in both. The readings preserved in the Agni purāṇa deserve some discussion. Agni (253. 3-4 ) reads

dharmaśca vyavabārasca…uttarah pūrvasādhakah,’ while Nārada has pūrvabādhakah.’ Agni reads “caritram sam grahe pumsām rājājñāyām tu sādhanam’ (253.5), while Nārada has ‘caritram pustakarane rājājñāyām tu sāsanam.’ Agni ( 253.15 ) reads ‘dattvādra vyam ca samyag-yah,’ while Nārada (dattāpradānika I) reads ‘dattvā dravyamasamyag yah.’ The Agni ( 253. 11 ) reads Sarkā sadbhistu saṁsaryāt tattvam soďhābhidarśanāt’ and avoids the rare word ‘hod hābhi-’ in Nārada · Saṅkāsatām tu saṁsargāt tattvam hodhā bhidarsapāt’ (Vyavahāramātskā I. 27). For Nārada’s ‘ak sabradhnasalākādyair &c.’ (dyuta samāhvaya I) Agni reads

Aksavajra &c. ’ ( 253. 29). The Mit. ( on Yāj. II. 199 ) and Vir. (p. 718 ) follow printed Nārada in the last case and also in the other cases. The Mit. quotes more than 240 verses of Nārada, sometimes in large groups. For example, it quotes over eleven verses in its Introduction to Yāj. II. 182, nine verses more on Yāj. II. 182 itself and seven verses in introdu cing the topic of Sāhasa in Yāj. II. 230. In the Smrti-can drikā, Hemādri, Parāśaramādhaviya and other later niban dhas numerous verses of Nārada are quoted on topics of ācāra Srāddha, prāyascitta. For example, Hemādri (caturvargao, vol. III. part 2, pp. 159, 183, 185, 223, 235 ) quotes several verses of Nārada on Ekādaśī and a verse of Nārada about the astrological yoga called padmaka. The Smṛticandrikā (I. pp. 198-199 ) quotes 26 verses on the worship of Nārāyana, the last of which is the well-known verse dhyeyah sadā savitṣmandala-madhyavarti &c.’ and the same work (on srāddha p. 354 ) quotes a verse of Nārada in wbich Sunday and Samkrānti are mentioned. The question arises whether these quotations of Nārada on ācāra and prāyaścitta amoralli ed topics are the work of the same Nārada that wrote on

SOONA

1917

‘The Nāradasmarthi

471

Vyavahāra. From the fact that early writers like Viśvarūpa, Medhātithi and Vijñāneśvara do not contain a single quota tion of Nārada on topics other than that of vyavahāra, it appears probable that the quotations on ācāra and prāyas citta belong to a later date than the Nāradasmrti on vyava hāra and either did not exist in the days of Viūvarūpa and Medhātithi or had not attained canonical authority in those days. There is in the India Office Library a ms. of Nārada smṛti in three chapters and 322 verses dealing exclusively with ācāra and prāyaścitta (vide Jolly’s Introduction p. 5 to edition of text).

The Nāradasmrti, excluding the introductory passage in prose about the successive abridgments of the original work of Manu by Nārada, Mārkandeya and Sumati Bhārgava, is written in the sloka metre except in the case of two verses (verse 38 of the 2nd chap. of vyavahāra-mātṇkā and the last verse of the chapter on sabha). Nārada himself is mentioned by name in connection with the ordeals (rṇādāna verse 253 ).507 The first person also occurs in ‘ataḥ param prava ksyāmi’ (ruādāna 343 ). Acāryas are cited in dattāprada nika’ (verse 5). Dharmaśāstra and Arthaśāstra are mentioned ( vyavahāramātrka, chap. I, 37 and 39) and Narada lays down the rule as in Yāj. (II. 21 ) that in a conflict between the two the former should furnish the rule of conduct.608 Nārada refers to Vasistha’s rule about interest (ruādāna 99 ). Two verses are quoted from a Purāṇa.508 Manu is named in several places (rṇādāna verses 250, 251, 326 ).610 The first

507 सन्दिग्धेर्थेभियुक्तानां विशुद्धयर्थ दुरात्मनाम् । प्रोक्तानि नारदेनेह सत्यानृत

विशद्धये ॥ 508 यत्र विप्रतिपत्तिः स्याद्धर्मशास्त्रार्थशास्त्रयोः । अर्थशास्त्रोक्तमुत्सृज्य धर्मशास्त्रोक्त

माचरेत् ॥ 509 पुराणोक्तौ द्वौ श्लोकी भवतः । यः परार्थे प्रहिणुयात्स्वा वाचं पुरुषाधमः ।

आत्मार्थे किं न कुर्यात्स पापो नरकनिर्भयः ॥ वाच्या नियताः सर्वे वाहाला वाग्विनिश्चिताः । यो हि तो स्तेनयेद्वाचं स सर्वस्तेयकृन्नरः ॥ नारद

(ऋणादान 227-228 ). 510 सत्यं वाहनशस्त्राणि गोबीजकनकादि च । …इत्येते शपथाः प्रोक्ता मनुना स्वस्त

कारणे । ऋणादान 248, 250 ; देवं पञ्चविधं शेयमित्याह भगवान्मनः ।। ऋणादान 251; छायानिवेशितो रक्ष्यो दिनशेषमभोजनः । विषवेगल मालील शुद्धोऽसौ मनुरब्रवीत् ॥ ऋणादान 326.

मू472

passage about Manu is quoted by Viśvarūpa on Yāj. (II. 98 ) and corresponds closely with the teaching of Manu (8. 113). But the other passages crediting Manu with dividing ordeals into five kinds and giving his view about poison ordeal have no corresponding passage in the extant Manu. Therefore, Nārada had a version of Manu before him that was somewhat different in certain respects from our Manu or Nārada may be referring to Vrddha or Bșhat Manu. Besides this, there is one remarkable fact to be noted about the relation of Manu and Nārada. There are about 50 verses that are common to Manu and Nārada. Manu 8. 12-14 and 18-19 are Nārada (sabhā, verses 8-10 and 12-13 in a different order), Manu 8. 140-141 =N. (rṇādāna 99-100), Manu 8. 148-149=N. (rṇādāna 80-81), M. 8. 143=N. (mn. 129, M. 8. 64=N. (r. 177 ), M. 8. 72=N. ( ¥. 189 ), M. 8. 93 and 113=N. (r. 199, 201 ), M.98-99 = N(r. 208, 209 and Udyoga parva 35. 33-34 ), M. 8. 89=N. (r. 225 ), M. 8. 186-187, 189 191=N. ( upanidhi 10-13), M. 8. 232-233, 235=N. ( vetanasya-anapākarma 14-16 in a diffe rent order ), M. 9. 47=N. ( marital relation, verse 28 ), M. 8. 224-225=N. (marital-relation, 33-34), M, 9. 357-353=N. ( marital relation, 65-66 in reverse order ), M. 1.3=N. ( daya bhāga 31 ), M. 9. 216 =N. (dāyabhāga 44), M. 8. 267-269=N. (vākpārusya 15-17 ), M. 9. 270-272=N. ( vāk pārusya 22-24 ), M. 8. 281-284 =N. ( danda-pārusya ( 26-29), M. 4. 87=N (prakirṇaka 44 ).

Nārada, mnādāna 158, ‘srotriyās-tāpasā vṛddhā ye ca pravrajitā narāh I asāksinas-te vacanūn nātra heturudāhstah’ has probably Manu 8.65 in view where we read ’na sākṣi…na śrotriyo na lingastho na sajigebhyo vinirgataḥ’.

Besides these, there are several cases where Nārada closely agrees with Manu though the verses are not identical, e. g. Nārada ( sāhasa 19 ) may be compared with Manu 9. 271 and Nārada ( appendix on theft, verses 1-4 ) may be compared with Manu ( 9. 256-260 ). These facts establish that Nārada is based on a version of Manu that was essentially the same as the extant text of Manu, though there was some difference here and there. Nārada contains several verses that occur in the Mahābhārata. For example, Sānti III. 66=N. (vyavahāra mātṇkā 72 ),611 Udyoga 35.58=N. ( sabhā, verse 18 ), Ustega

खाले

51 तलवद् दृश्यते व्योम खद्योतो हव्यवाडिव । न तलं विद्यते व्योम्नि

हुताशनः ॥

1917

The Nāradasmrti

473

35.31-32=N. (r. 202–203). The well-known verse of the Mahā bhārata on the greatness of speaking the truth (Santi, 162.26) occurs in Nārada, verse 211 on p. 104 (SBE Vol. 33 p. 93 ). There are several cases where the text of Kautilya agrees with Nārada.513 In some of these cases the agreement is almost word for word. 613 A half verse on poison-ordeal ( viz. Tvam visa…vyavasthitah ) is the same in both Yāj. II. 110 and Nārada IV. 325 p. 124 ( SBE. vol. 33 pp. 115-116 ).

Though Nārada is based on Manu, he differs in several essential matters from Manu. We have seen the difference between them in the nomenclature of the titles of law. Manu only casually mentions the ordeals of fire and water ( 8.114 ), while Nārada enumerates five kinds of ordeals, describes them at length and adds two more viz. tandula-bhaksana and taptumāṇu (inādina, verses 259-348 ). He allows Niyoga (marital relation, verses 80-88 ), while Manu strongly con demns it. He allows remarriage of women (Nārada, marital relation, 97), while Manu is against it. Manu men tions seven kinds of slaves (8. 415 ), while Nārada raises their number to fifteen ( abhyupetyāśusrūśā, verses 26-28 ); Manu condemns gambling outright (9, 221-228 ), while Nārada allows it under state control and as a source of re. venue ; Nārada is further far more systematic than Manu and is full of divisions and sub-divisions; for example, he divides property into three kinds, each of which is again subdivided into seven varieties (mnādāna 44-47 ); Nārada divides the law of gifts into four sections, which are further subdivided into 32; he subdivides the eighteen titles into 132 (vyavahāra mātrkā I. 25 ).

There are a few points which are almost peculiar to Nārada such as the fourteen kinds of impotent persons (stri pumsayoga 11-13), the three kinds of punarbhūs and four kinds of svairiṇis (ibid. verses 45-52).

512’ Compare and femal, TheTU, chap. I, verses at the end with tra,

761<4T/4T 1st chap., verses 2, 10-11, 39-40. 513 धर्मश्च व्यवहारश्च चरित्रं राजशासनम् । चतुष्पाद् व्यवहारोयमुत्तरः पूर्वबाधकः॥

तत्र सत्ये स्थितो धर्मो व्यवहारस्तु साक्षिषु । चरित्रं पुस्तकरणे राजाज्ञान

1974 11 FTTT, 549ER TELT I. 10-11; the first half in each porno is the same in कौटिल्य.

FOUNDED

1917

474

Nārada is probably later than Yājñavalkya. Yāj. mentions only five kinds of ordeals, while Nārada knows seven and the former’s treatment of them is not so exhaustive as Nārada’s. The rules of judicial procedure in Nārada are more systematic and exhaustive than those of Yāj. Nārada is more conservative than Yāj. For example, Nārada nowhere recognises the right of the widow to succeed to her deceased husband. Nārada cites more definitions than Yāj. In some respects, however, Nārada is more reticent than Yāj.; Nārada gives no rules about the succession of gotrajas and bandhus as Yāj. does. In a few res pects Nārada agrees with the views of Manu instead of with

Yāj., such as allowing a brāhmaṇa to marry a sūdra woman. Nārada regards sexual intercourse with a pravrajitā (female ascetic ) as a mortal sin ( strīpuṁsayoga 74-75 ), while both Manu ( 8. 363 ) and Yāj. (II. 293 ) treat it lightly. Taking all these things into consideration it may be said that Nārada flourished nearly at the same time as or somewhat later than Yāj.

It may be noted that in an Inscription from Campā dated about sake 1092 (i. e. 1170 A. D.) a king is described as

versed in all the Dharmaśāstras, notably the Nāradiya and Bhargaviya’; vide Dr. R. C. Majumdar’s ‘Ancient Indian Colonies’, vol. I at end p. 199 No. 81.

Nārada contains several rare words such as “hodha” (in vyavahāramātṛkā 1.27, meaning ‘one’s property when lost or stolen’). He gives expression to certain principles of law and politics, such as that a man is master of his own house, in other words, a man’s house is his castle ; 614 he highly eulo gises the office of the king, almost assigning it a divine origin and exhorts the people to obey and honour even a weak and undeserving king. 616 Mr. Jayasval sees in this and in the fact that Nārada speaks of dināra while the Mrcchakatika speaks of nāṇaka indications that Nārada belongs to the fourth cen tury, is later than the drama, is propping up the authority

614 त्रयः स्वतन्त्रा लोकेस्मिन्राजाचार्यस्तथैव च । प्रतिवर्ण च सर्वेषां वर्णानां स्वे गृहे

TET IN SEUTSTA 32. This idea occurs in tifaqa 321, 147 aast

en zet To’. 515 vide प्रकीर्णक verses 20-22 राजेति संचरत्येष भूमौ साक्षात् सहनेछ । न

तस्याज्ञामतिक्रम्य संतिष्ठेरन् प्रजाः क्वचित् ॥…निर्बलोपि यथा स्त्रीणः पूज्य एक पतिः सदा । प्रजानां विगुणोप्येवं पूज्य एव प्रजापतिः ॥

stilu

19.17

The Nāradasmrti

475

of a new dynasty and flourished under the Imperial Guptas (C. W. N. vol. 17, p. CCLXXXV). He regards a person as minor till the sixteenth year. 516 This limit was probably first fixed by Nārada. Nārada further boldly says that in case of conflict between dharmaśāstra and usages, the latter have to be followed, as they are directly observed. 517

As Nārada’s is regarded as an authoritative smṛti by Vis varūpa, Medhātithi and other later writers and as Asahāya, who is mentioned by name in the commentary of Viśvarūpa, wrote a comment on Nārada, the Nāradasmrti must be older by some centurie : than the 8th century, the latest date to which Asahāya can be assigned. Bana in his Kādambari com pares the royal palace to Nāradiya.518 Ordinarily Nāradīya standing by itself would denote the Nāradapurana ( compare Vismu-purāṇa 3.6. 21 where we have the form Nāradiya for the purāļa ). The Nārada-purana ( Venkatesvara Press edition, Bombay ) contains, however, no treatment of rājadharma. Bāna may have intended a violent pun, meaning the palace where the duties of kings were being expounded (Kvarnya māna ), like the Nāradiya in which rājadharma has not been set forth ( avarnyamāna ).’ European scholars like Dr. Jolly and Būhler hold that Bāna refers to the extant Nāradasmrti. But on this explanation also the difficulty is not entirely got over. The extant Nārada can hardly be described as a treatise on rājadharma. It deals only in an indirect way with one aspect of the king’s duties and is rather concerned with vye vahāra and the duties of the subjects towards each other from the strictly legal point of view. If we turn to the Mahabhā rata and other works, we shall find that rājadharma meant something different from what is treated of in the Nārada smrti. Therefore Bana’s reference to the Nāradiya is of a doubtful character. The Rājanīti-ratnākara of Candesvara frequently quotes Nārada on politics ( pp. 3, 13, 79 ). These quotations are not traced in the printed Nārada. Therefore it is highly probable that Bana refers to a distinct work of Nārada on politics which has not yet been recovered.

STIE

STA

618 वाल आ षोडशाद वर्षात् पोगण्ड इति शस्यते । परतो व्यवहारज्ञः स्वतन्त्रः

foati fant 11 # 3536. 617 धर्मशास्त्रविरोधे तु युक्तियुक्तो विधिः स्मृतः । व्यवहारो हि बलवान्धर्मस्तेमालवीर

tuā ll AERATE40. 518 CaraturharaufaraT484’ (taga) p. 91 of Peterson’s oder mit

FOUNO

191

476

:: From the Rājanitiratnākara of Candeśvara published for the BORS of Patna ( 1924 ) by Mr. K. P. Jayaswal it appears that Candeśvara knew a work of Nārada on Rājadharma. On p. 3618 of that work Nārada on Rājaniti is cited for dilating upon three grades of rulers viz. Samrāt (an emperor to whom other kings pay tribute ) also called ‘cakravartin’ and ‘Sakura’ and akara’ rulers. On p. 75 Candeśvara quotes the words of Hārita and Nārada to the effect that a king should trans mit his kingdom to the eldest son after providing for the maintenance of other sons if he has several sons. The Vrddha

Harita-smrtisan in the Anandasrama collection of Smrtis (1905 A. D.) says that Kātyāyana, Manu, Yājñavalkya and Nārada described at length the rājadharmas which he himself dealt with.

The Vyavahāramātrkā of Jimūtavāhana and the Parā sara-Madhaviya (vol. III, part I, p. 203 ) quote a verse from Nārada, the latter half of which is the same as the latter half of a verse in the Vikramorvaśīya.521 The doctrine attributed to Nārada is found in Yāj. (II. 20 ) and the Viṣṇudharina sutra (6. 22 ) but not in the same words. Unfortunately the date of Kālidāsa is far from being universally accepted, but the fourth or first half of the 5th century is often accepted 48 the probable date. There is further difficulty in the fact that the text of the Vikramorvasiya has been largely tampered with. If the verse is a genuine part of the drama, it seems natural to suppose that Kālidāsa turns a well-known legal maxim to a somewhat bumorous use. It is hard to suppose

……………

…..

… … … … … … ..

519 राजा त्रिविधः सम्राट् सकरोऽकरश्य । तदाह नीती नारदः । p. 3 of राजनीति

रत्नाकर ; p. 75 यदा राजा जरायुक्तो…. सप्ताङ्गानि च राज्यानि ज्येष्ठ पुत्राय दापयेत् ।। दापयेत् दद्यात् । विधाय वृत्तिं व्यहूनां राज्यं ज्येष्ठाय दापयेत्-इति राजनीती हारीतनारदवचनेभ्य ; | p. 79 : राजनीती नारदः । ज्येष्ठो नरक निस्तारो लोकपूज्यतमः स्मृतः । ज्येष्ठो रत्नाकरः प्रोक्तो राज्या) ज्येष्ठ

एव हि ॥ 520 राजधर्मोऽयमित्येवं प्रसङ्गात्कथितो मया । कात्यायनेन मनुना याज्ञवल्क्येन

धीमता । नारदेन च संप्रोक्तं विस्तरादिदमेव हि ॥ वृद्धहारीत VII. 270-71. 521 अनेकार्थाभियुक्तेन सर्वद्रव्यापलापिना । विभावितैकदेशेन देयं यदभियुज्यते ॥

अपरार्क (on याज्ञ. II. 20); व्यवहारमातृका of जी. pp. 314-17 हंस प्रयच्छ मे कान्तां गतिरस्यास्त्वया हृता । विभावितै…युज्यते ॥ विक्रमोवाय . IV. 17 ( Pandit’s ed ).

ITUTE

NSTON

FOUNDED U

1917

The Nāradasmrti

477

522

that Nārada would borrow the words of a dramatist for sett ing forth a legal maxim. This would push back the date of Nārada far beyond the 5th century. Nārada in two places uses the word “dināra,” 522 once in the sense of a golden orna. ment and again as a coin or unit of value also called “suvarṇa.” In this last case he says that “dināra is equal to 48 kārsā panas or twelve dhānakas.” Jolly (R. u. S. p. 23 ) thinks that Indian dināras can scarcely be older than the 2nd century A. D., although in the times of the Indo-Scythian kings coins of the weight of dināra occur. Therefore Jolly is of opinion that Nārada is later than 300 A. D. Winternitz ( History of Indian Literature, vol. II. p. 216 n. 4 ) follows him in this assumption that all Sanskrit works in which the word dināra occurs nust be later than the 2nd or 3rd century A. D. It may be that the golden dināras most numerously found in India belong to the 2nd and 3rd centuries A. D. But as Keith points out (J. R. A. S. 1915 p. 504 ) Jolly’s assumption is wrong and the introduction of vinurus into India need not be later than the beginning of the Christian era. Golden dināras were first coined in Rome in 207 B. C. and the oldest Indian pieces corresponding in weight to the Roman Denarius were struck by Indo-Scythian kings who reigned from the first century B. C. (W. B. p. 44). Therefore there is nothing to prevent us from holding that Narada flourished in the first centuries of the Christian era, i, e. between 100 and 300 A. D. Mr. Jayasval assigns him to the 4th century A. D. and after the Mṣccha katika. Most scholars would not be prepared to assign to the Mrcchakatika so early a date as the 3rd century A. D. Besides Mr. Jayasval builds his theory on very slend. er foundations. Because the drama employs the word nāṇaka and Nārada speaks of dināra only, no chronological conclusion as to the priority of the one to the other can be drawn. After both words became current in the language, one author, though later, may employ one word, while another, though earlier, may employ the other.

While the first volume was in the Press, an edition of the Nāradiya Manu-sambitā with the bhāsya of Bhavasvāmin

522 मणयः पद्मरागाद्या दीनारादि हिरण्मयम् । मुक्ताविद्रुमशङ्खाद्याः प्रदुष्टाः स्वामि

#a: 11 Ara, garaTTF! 11. 34; Fletroni fusta iteln art 7777: 1 Etah yquica starcrem: a ta a II TITTSTE versen

FOUNDED

1917

VON

478

was published in 1929 in the Trivandrum Sanskrit Series, edited by K. Sambasiva Sastri (based on four Mes). The work claims to be a version of the Manusmrti by Nārada. Prof. T. R. Chintamani contributed a lengthy paper on this version of the Nāradasmști to the Kunhan Raja Presentation volume, published by the Adyar Library, Madras ( in 1946 ) pp. 153-196. He points out that the main differences between the longer and shorter versions of Nārada published by Prof, Jolly are these : the shorter text omits the section on thefts, does not cite the verses on ordeals in a separate chapter and omits the chapter on legal procedure. The longer version has 1028 verses including an appendix on thefts (of 61 verses ). The shorter version has 870 verses and the text on which Bhavasvāmin comments has 877 } verses. The edition with Bhavasvāmibhāṣya has at the end a chapter on five ordeals dealt with in 46. verses ( the five being Dhata, Agni, Udaka, Visa and Kosa ). There are many variations between the Smrti as published by Dr. Jolly and that published with Bhavasvamin’s bhāsya. On pp. 159-193 Prof. Chintamani sets out the numerous ( nearly a thousand ) differences ( small and also large ) in the Smrti as published by Dr. Jolly and as found in the Nāradiya Manusamhitā. And on pp. 193-196 Prof. Chintamani prints the text of the 2nd Appendix (on five ordeals with 46 verses ) in the Nepalese Ms held to be spurious by Jolly and contained in the version of Bhavasvā min after the section called Prakīrṇaka.

The editor of Bhavasvamin’s bhāsya surmises (on p. 4 of his English Introduction ) from the fact that all the Mss. of the bhāsya were found only in the Kerala country and the fact that many of the brāhmaṇas that officiate as sacrificial priests in central Kerala bear the name Bhavas vāmin, that the bhāsyakāra of Nārada was a brāhmaṇa from Kerala. North India suffered greatly from the ravages of foreign inva sions from the early centuries of the Christian era onwards by Hūnas and others for several centuries, while South India was much better off during those centuries. Therefore the Mos. of the works of comparatively early writers of the North are often not found in North India but only in South Indie (Bhānaha’s work on Poetics being a well-known instance

PEON.

1917

480

and copper. In the Indische studien’, vol. XVIII pp. 289-412 a ms. of Lokaprakāśa of Ksemendra ( latter half of 11th century A.D.) is discussed in which the word dināra is frequently used (e. g. on pp. 339, 391 ) and we have a formula forward ing a dināra-hundikā’ (on p. 342 ). Hundikā stands for ‘Hundi used by travellers.

The time when Bhavasvāmin flourished is not free from doubt. Prof. Chintamani concludes (on p. 157 of Kunhan Raja volume) that Bhavasvāmin flourished in the early centu ries of the Christian era. I demur to this conclusion which is based mainly on Dr. Altekar’s view quoted in a note on p. 157 that it is very unlikely that gold dīdāras were in cir culation after 600 A. D. in the Mathurā and Kanoj area.’ But it is clear that in the 11th century gold coins called Dināras were current in Kashmir and if Bhavasvāmin was a Kashmir ian or had travelled and stayed there for some time he would easily have known them and referred to them. Therefore, Dr. Altekar’s opinion about Bhavasvāmin’s date is worth little.

Bhavasvāmin refers several times to other explanations of Nārada’s verses with the words ‘anya aha’as on ‘inādana’ v. 195, “Strīpuṁsayoga’ v. 30, Dāya vibhāga verses 13, 14, prakirnaka v. 80. He refers here and there to different read ings in Nārada as on Ruādāna verses 67, 153, Vikrīyāsampra dāna, verse 12, Strīpumsayoga, verses 2, 3, 15, 16, 29, 83. He quotes about two dozen verses of Manu. His commentary ex plains the words of Nārada’s verges, is generally concise, and makes no show of learning. He cites a few sūtras of Pāṇini a few passages as Śruti (as on mìādāna 53, 97). It is re markable that he cites (on mnādāna 190) ’nāputranya lokostīti’ as Smști, which is really Ait. Br. (VII.3). He quotes Vas. Dharmasūtra on mnādāna verse 94 and on Vāg Dandapārusya verse 20. It is noteworthy that he speaks of the present Manusmrti as Bhrgu-Samhitā$5 or Bhārgavi

525

3916 ATA: Thirat…da Jata u sfa afati Hīgangi fakte 50

a ga TEH: I on safjHT: III. 7. This is Maou X. 19 ; quifent यामपि-काणं वाप्यथवा खञ्जमन्यं यापीत्यनन्तरं वाक्पारुण्यप्रकरणे पठितं qattaateta 1; Fluo is HB VIII. 274. If may be noted that the extant Manusmrti declares that Bhrgu learnt the sāstra fon Mapy and taught it to the sages,

FOUNDED

1917

The Nārada–smrti

481

sambitā; for example, on Stripuīsayoga verse 111 he quotes Manu X. 19 as Bhāryavi-samhitā and on Manu VIII. 274 as Bhrgusamhitā on Vāguandapārusya’ v. 20. He quotes Vālmiki and Vyāsa on Rnādāna’ 628 verse 32. He quotes a Sārdūlavikridita verse on krodha’ (anger) and a verse on unmāda’(delirium, or madness ) due to five causes on Dattāpradānika 8-10. Ou Rnūlāna verse 31 he quotes an āryā on the importance of Ganita. On ‘Rṇādāna verge 72 Bhavasvāmin quotes a verse of Vararuci explaining the meaning of the words ‘poganda, kuṇi’ and ’ pangu ‘.527

As in Bhavasvīmin’s day various readings had already arisen in the Nāradasmrti and as he refers several times to the explanations of previous commentators, Bhavasvāmin would have to be placed (conjecturally ) some centuries after Nārada i. e. between 700 and 1000 A. D.

The late Prof. Rangaswami Aiyangar in his Introduction to Brhaspati assigns Bhavasvāmin to the 8th century A. D. and in the footnote 4 on that page le asserts ‘Bhavasvamin, like Mādhavasvāmin and Skandasvāmin, belongs to a period long anterior to Viśvarūpa (circa A. D. 800 ) and refers in support to Journal of Oriental Research V. 325’. The reference to the journal appears to be wrong.

It may be noted that Viśvarūpa quotes hardly any verses of Nārada on two epics not pertaining to Vyavahāra except one verse on Yāj. I. 34 where he speaks of three kinds of ștviks’. But the same cannot be said about the Mitākṣarā. A few verses not strictly related to Vyavahāra topics are mentioned by it as occurring in Nārada’s work. For example, on Yaj. III. 39 the Mit. quotes a verse of Nārada that allows a brāhuana to sell sesame in exchange of food-grains for securing medicine when he is ill or for the purpose of a Yajña. This occurs in the section on Rnādāna ( 66 ). Aparārka also quotes this verse (p. 933 ). Probably it was part of the king’s duty to remind a brāhmana of the restrictions laid down on him by śāstra. Aparārka ( p. 29 )

TRS

POONA

528 कल्पच्छन्दोविचितिग्रहचारपुराणवास्तुविद्यासु । सम्यङ् नयन्ति सिद्धि गणिता

a 37TAT: ll on FETT V. 32. 527 afar11 TERETFOTarpuffastur greiRUT: 1 Pact:

atrogafor-aga: il fat i on FSUTATA 72. aue høre seems to be som a lexicographer,

482

cites 24 verses on the actions that are comprehended under ista and pārtu. But the Smṛticandrikū quotes from Nārada at least 50 verses on āhnika and at least 16 on śrāddha-kānda, one of which refers to Sunday and Saṅkranti and on the selection of Ekādaśī for & fast when joined to the 10th or 12th tithi.

It is likely that non-Vyavahāra topics came to be added as Nārada’s a century or two before 1000 A. D., since the Smṛticandrikā (1150-1225 ) A. D. contains numerous verses of Nārada on nop-Vyavahāra matters. 528

It is difficult to say anything as to the home of Nārada. In the appendix on theft Nārada in one place says that in the south a silver kārśāpana is current, that in the east it is equal to twenty panas and that he does not follow the standard of kārsāpana current in the land of the five rivers.628 From these data and from the fact that the oldest mss. of Nārada come from Nepal and that an old commentary on Nārada in Newāri was composed in Nepal, Dr. Jolly conjectures that Nārada’s home was to be sought in Nepal. This is all pure guess-work. There is no reason why Nārada could not have hailed from Central India. The places where the oldest and best mss. of a work are found car bardly ever be indications of the original home of an ancient author. Bhāmaba is by common consent a Kashmirian writer on Poetics, but most of the mss. of his work so far found come from Southern India.

Prof. D. R. Bhandarkar (Carmichael Lectures 1918, p. 90), probably following the Nayacandrikā, hazards the conjecture that the writer called Piguna cited in the Kauṭiliya is another name of Nārada. Beyond the bare fact that Nārada is often credited in the Purāṇas with the role of instigating feuds and quarrels and that the word piśuna means “wicked, back biter”, there is nothing to support this identification.

A Jyotir-Nārada is quoted by Bhattoji in his commentary on the Caturvimsatimata ( p. 11 ). A Bșhan-Nārada is quoted

528 भानुवारसमेतेन तथा संक्रान्तिसंयुता । एकादशी सदोपोण्या पुत्रपौत्रप्रवर्धनी ॥

maart ( 764TVS p. 364 ). 529 कार्षापणो दक्षिणस्यां दिशि रौप्यः प्रवर्तते । पणैर्निबद्धः पूर्वस्या विंशतिस्तु पगार

स तु ॥… पाश्चनद्याः प्रदेशे तु संज्ञा या व्यावहारिकी । कार्षापणप्रमाणं , PHCTAE ATA 11 luna 9460 57 and 59.

FOUNDED

1917

The Nārada-smrti

488 by Raghunandana and a Laghu-Narada by the Nirnaya sindbu and the Samskāra-Kaustubha.

In the Mahābhārata several opinions are attributed to Narada. One of them condemns the eating of flesh.530 The first half of the last verse is the same as Manu 5.52. Narada is credited with having divided utpātas (portents ) into three varieties.581 Nārada is said to have held the view that one must always be active.533 It appears that all these views are taken from some work or works from Nārada. The first is probably taken from Nārada’s version of the Manusmrti of which the Puranas speak as stated above ( note 270).

The Introductory prose passages of the Nāradasmrti (I. 1-5) are interesting and are therefore set out in the note below.533 ___For Asahāya, the commentator of Narada, vide section 59 below. 530 स्वमांसं परमांसेन यो वर्धयितुमिच्छति । नारदः प्राह धर्मात्मा नियतं सोवसी

दति ॥ अनुशासन 115. 14. 531 उत्पास्त्रिविधान् प्राह नारदो भगवानृषिः । दिव्यांश्चैवान्तरिक्षांश्च पार्थिवांश्च

पितामहः ॥ सभा 46. 8-9. 532 तस्मात्कमैव कर्तव्यमिति होवाच नारदः । उद्योगपर्व 49.

इह हि भगवान्मनुः प्रथमं सर्वभूतानुग्रहार्थमाचारस्थितिहेतुभूतं शास्त्रं चकार । यत्र लोकसृष्टिः भूतप्रतिविभागः ‘सद्देशप्रमाणं पर्वलक्षणं’ वेदवेदाङ्ग यशविधा नमाचारो व्यवहारः कण्टकशोधनं राजवृत्तं वर्णाश्रमविभागौ विवाहन्यायः स्त्री पुंसविकल्पो दायानुक्रमः श्राद्धविघानं शौचाचारविकल्पो भक्ष्याभक्ष्यलक्षणं विक्रेयाविक्रयमीमांसा पातकभेदाः । स्वर्गनरकानुदर्शनं प्रायश्चित्तान्युपनिषदो रहस्यस्थानानि ! एवं चतुर्विंशतिप्रकरणानि ॥ १॥ तदेतदत्र श्लोकरातसहस्रेण साशीतिनाध्यायसहस्रेण च भगवान् मनुरुपनिबध्य देवर्षये नारदाय प्रायच्छत् । स च तस्मादधीत्य महत्वान्नायं ग्रन्थः सुकरो मन ध्यैरेव धारयितुमिति द्वादशभिः सहस्रैः संक्षिप्यतं च महर्षये मार्कण्डेयाय प्रायच्छत् ॥ २ ॥ स च तस्मादधीत्य तथैवायुः शक्तिमपेक्ष्य मनुष्याणामष्टभिः सहस्रैः संचिक्षेप । तं सुमतये भार्गवाय प्रायच्छत् ॥ ३ ॥ सुमतिरपि भार्गवस्तस्मादधीत्य तथैवायुासादल्पायसी शक्तिर्मनुष्याणामिति चतुर्भिः सहस्रैः । संचिक्षेप ॥ ४ ॥ तदेतत्पितृमनुष्या ह्यधीयन्ते विस्तरेण शतसहस्रं देवगन्धर्वादयः । तत्रयमा श्लोकः । आसीदिदं तमोभूतं न प्राज्ञायत किंचन । ततः स्वयम्भूभगवान्यादरासी

चतुर्मुखः ॥

633

Titute

ROML-1

PROHIT

SOUNDED

1927