कल्पान्तरे विश्वासटिप्पन्यः

496

Katyayana Nārada, Bșhaspati and Kātyāyana form a triumvirate in the realm of the ancient Hindu Law and procedure. The work of Kātyāyana on Vyavahāra, like that of Bphaspati, has yet to be recovered. After the first volume of H. of Dh. was published in 1930, I contributed to a Law Journal in Bombay & collec tion of Kātyāyana’s verses gathered from quotations in 21 works and later (in 1933 ) published in a book form 973 verses of Kātyāyana with English translation, two Appendices and a General Index (in all 372 pages). Later on Prof. K. V. Rangaswami Aiyangar contributed a paper to the Kane Fest schrift (pp 7-17) embodying 121 additional verses of Kātyāyana from the work called Vyavahāranirṇaya of Vara darāja ( which he published in 1942 48 No. 29 of the Adyar Library series ).

Kātyāyana is enumerated as one of the expounders of dhurma by Sarkha-Likhita, Yājṅavalkya ( I. 4-5 ) and Parā Sara. A Kātya is quoted as an authority in the Baudhāyana dharmasūtra (I. 2. 37). A Srautasūtra and Sraddhakalpa of the white Yajurveda are ascribed to Kātyāyana.

Kātyāyana appears to have taken Nārada and Bphaspati as his models in the order and treatment of the subjects to be dealt with on vyavahāra. He closely follows both the writers in terminology and technique. On several points he presu pposes Nārada and expounds and elucidates the latter’s dicta. For example, Nārada ( Intro, chap. I. 10-11 ) lays down that Vyavahāra has four pādas, each later one prevailing, viz. dharma, vyavahāra, caritra, rājasāsana (note 361 ) and then Nārada very briefly in one verse explains these four terms; Kātyāyana, on the other hand, devotes at least nine verses to the elucidation of the rule as to each succeeding one prevailing over its predecessor. 568 Nārada contains very little on the topic of strīdhana (dāyabhāga chap. verses 8-9). He merely enumerates the six kinds of strīdhana and then lays down the rule of succession. Kātyāyana’s treatment of stridhana has attained classical rank. It appears that he was probably the first to carefully define the several kinds of stridhana (such as adhyagni, adhyāvahanika, prītidatta, sulka, anya dheya, saudāyika), to lay down woman’s power of different

siru

658

Vide RI. AT. vol. III, part I, pp. 16-17, and airo p. 9-10, 120, 1910

Kātyāyana

497

over the several varieties of stridhana and to prescribe lines of devolution as to stridhana. The verses on this topic occu rring in the nibandhas number ubout thirty. The leading nibandhas contain only a few quotations from Brhasrati on strīdhana. Hence it may be surmised that Kītyāyana proba bly was the first smṛti writer to give elaborate rules on this topic.

It has been already shown how Kātyāyana often quotes the views of Bṛhaspati. A few more examples may be added here. According to Brhaspati, says Kātyā yana, when a man who stands surety with others on a joint liability goes abroad, his son would have to pay the whole debt, but if the man dies then the son would be liable for his father’s share only." Wheu cattle stray into fields, gardens, houses or cowpens, they may be, according to Brhas pati, caught hold of ( by the ear &c. ) or beaten.580 According to Bșhaspati, a man of the ksatriya, vaisya or sūdra caste may employ one of his own caste to do the work of a dāsa (slave or serf ), but even a Brālana could never employ another Brāhmana in the same way.561

More than 21 nibandhas on Vyavahāra quote about 1100 verses of Katyayana on vyavahara, the Smṛticandrikā alone citing about 600 of them. In these verses Katyāyana refers at least a score of times to the views of Burgu. It is remarka ble that only a few of the views ascribed to Bhrgu are found in the extant Manusmrti. Katyayana says, according to Bhrgu, whatever ( ancestral) wealth was concealed by one coparcener from others, whatever was badly divided should be divided in equal shares when afterwards discovered ( Parā. Sara-Mūlhaviya III, p. 566). This may well be compared with Manu 9. 215. Kātyāyanu says, according to Bhrgu, it is not Brāhmana-murder to kill an ātatayin who is foremost by his austerities, learning and caste. This has in view Manu

559 एकच्छायाश्रिते सर्व दद्यात्तु प्रोषिते सुतः । मृते पितरि पित्रंशं परणं न

qarafa: 11 927. #1. III, p. 251. 580 क्षेत्रारामविवीतेषु गृहेषु पशुपादिषु । ग्रहणं तत्प्रविष्टानां ताडनं वा बृहस्पतिः ।

fa. T. p. 241. 581 क्षत्रविट्शूद्रधर्मस्तु समवणे कदाचन । कारयेद् दासकर्माणि ब्राह्मणं न बृहस्पतिः

fa. 5. p. 152.

498

1. Kullāka distinctly says that Katyayana simply ex. plains the verse of Manu by referring to it as Bhrgu’s. On the other hand, there are several places where the views ascribed to Bhrgu find no counterpart in the extant Manu. Bhrgu seems to have been a predecessor of the author of the extant Manusmrti since it mentions ( III. 16) the view of Bhrgu. The Mit. on Yaj. III. 292 quotes a verse of Bhrgu. Viśvarupa also quotes a verse of Bhrgu on Yaj. I.79 and ano ther on Yaj. I.187, both of which are not found in the Manu smrti. Aparārka quotes in all four verses of Bhrgu (on pp. 58, 461, 547, 696 ). The Sinșticandrikā,561a after dilating upon the two superior places cited by Manu ( viz, the king or a judge appointed by the king where disputes are decided ) quotes three verses of Bhrgu which refer to 15 inferior tribu nals for decision in some special matters. The Smṛticandrikā also quotes several verses of Blırgu on Srāddha, two of which are interesting and indicate that the Bhrgu it quotes is : much later writer than Manu, as they refer to the position of the Sun in rāfis ( signs of the zodiac ).

According to Bhrgu in all sāhasas of the worst type the truth should be found out by means of divine proof (ordeals &c. ) even though there may be witnesses.Sea There is nothing in the Manusmrti corresponding with this. According to Bhrgu the ordeals of balance &c. are prescribed for those who are suspected to be in league with marauders and who have

561a दशस्थानानि वादानां पञ्च चैवाअवीन्मनुः । निर्णय येन गच्छन्ति विवादं प्राप्य

वादिनः ॥ आरण्यास्तु स्वकैः कुर्युः सार्थिकाः साथिकैस्तथा । सैनिकाः सैनिकेरेव प्रामेप्युभयवासिभिः || ( and two more verses ) quoted by स्मृतिच० (व्यव० ) p. 18. एकराशिस्थिते सूर्ये यदा दर्शद्वयं भवेत् । हव्यकव्यक्रियाहन्ता तदाज्ञेयोऽ धिमासकः ॥ वृद्धिश्राद्धं तथा सोममग्न्याधेयं महालयम् । राजाभिषेकं काम्यं च न कुर्यादानुलहिते ॥ स्मृतिच० ०n श्राद्ध p. 370. भृगुः । येषु पापेषु दिव्यानि प्रतिषिद्धानि यत्नतः । कारयेत्सजनस्तानि

नाभिशस्तं त्यजेन्मनुः ।। भृगु q. by अपरार्क p. 666 reads प्रतिशुद्धारित 562 उत्तमेषु च सर्वेषु साहसेषु विचारयेत् । सद्भावं दिव्यदृष्टेन सत्स गाक्षिण के

भृगुः ॥ परा. मा. III. p. 90.

POONA

FOUNDED

1917

Katyāyana

499

incurred popular censure, but in such cases there is no under taking (by the complainant to pay fine ).583 The Manusmrti has not a word on this point. Household para phernalia, beasts of burden, cattle, ornaments, slaves should be divided when discovered ; if they are ( alleged to be ) concealed, the ordeal of kośa should be resorted to; 80 says Bhrgu.864 Another important circumstance that deserves to be noted is that Kātyāyana several times refers to the views of Manu. Kātya yana says that the view of Manu was ‘In those disputes (or crimes ) for which ordeals are forbidden (to be administered to perpetrators ) the king should make efforts to have them performed by good men on their behalf (if available); he should not abandon the person charged (without testing his guilt by proxy )’: this is the view of Manu.686 According to Manu, if a woman deserted her son, though he may be able (to pay ), her stridhana should be seized and the paternal debt should be paid thereout. 686 Manu declared, says Kātyāyana, that if animals be killed, the offender should offer (to the owner) another similar animal or its proper price. All these views attributed to Manu by Kātyāyana are not found in the extant Manusmrti. In certain places Kātyāyana refers to the views of the Mānavas; e. g. according to the Gārgiyas and Mānavas if a bribe had already been paid, the person receiving it should be made to repay it and should be fined eleven times as much ; 567 according to the Mānavas thieves caught red

563 लोकापवाददुष्टानां शङ्कितानां च दस्युभिः । तुलादीनि नियोज्यानि न शिरस्तत्र

वै भृगुः ॥ अपरार्क, स्तृति २०. 564 गृहोपस्करवाह्याश्च दोह्याभरणकर्मिणः । दृश्यमाना विभज्यन्ते कोशं गूढेब्रवीन्मनुः ॥

अपरा: p. 723 and परा. मा. III, p. 557. 565 एषु वादेषु दिव्यानि प्रतिषिद्धानि यत्नतः । कारयेत्सजनस्तानि नाभिशस्त

त्यनेन्मनुः ।। अपराक p. 696 who ascribes it to भृगु. The टोडरानन्द

reads त्यजेन्नरः, 566 या स्वपुत्रं तु जह्यात्स्त्री समर्थमपि पुत्रिणी । आहृत्य स्त्रीधनं तत्र पित्र्यणे ।

शोधयेन्मनुः ॥ वि. र. p. 65. 567 अथ प्रागेव दत्ता स्यात्प्रतिदाप्यस्तथा बलात् । दण्डं चैकादशगुणमाहुर्गागी.

मानवाः ।। अपरार्क p. 782 ; वि.र. 628 (which reads आम्भीयमानवाः

500

amanti 1

handed with their booty should be at once banished.568 As regards both these references, the teaching of the Manusmrti seems to be different; vide Manu I. 231 and 270 respectively. These facts about Katyayana’s references to Bhrgu and Manu raise several difficult questions, whether Bhrgu and Manu stand for two entirely different works or for the same work and whether he refers to some other version of the Manusmrti ascribed to Bhrgu. In my opinion he is not referring to two separate works, and that he had before him a version of the Manu

but somewhat different from and probably larger than the present Manusmrti.

In the nibandhas several.verses are ascribed to Kātya yana along with Manu, Yājīavalkya and Brhaspati. For example, the well-known verse about the sixtold division of stridhana (adhyaynyadhyāvahanikam &c. ) is ascribed by the Dāyabhāga to Manu and Kātyāyana. The half-verse “varṇā nāmānulomyena dāsyam na pratilomatah” is the same in both Yājñavalkya (11. 183 ) and Katyāyana. The Viramitrodaya (p. 140 ) ascribes a verse to Brhaspati and Kātyāyana, in which the opinion of Brhaspati is cited. There is very close agreement between the definitions proposed by the two last writers of dharma, vyavahāra, caritra, and rājaśāsana. Besides Manu (or Mānavas ), Byhaspati and Bhrgu, Kātyāyana cites the views of several other writers on dharma. For Gārgyas and Gautama vide uotes 567 and 568. He says, accord ing to Kausika, powerful robbers were to be guarded by chains of iron, were to be low-fed and were to undergo hard labour for the state till death ( Aparārka p. 849). He quotes the view of Likhita that where a woman is deprived of food, raiment and dwelling (by her husband’s coparceners ) she would be entitled to demand her own ( stridhana ) and a share from the coparceners. In one case ( Aparārka p. 755 ), a verse is cited as Kātyāyana’s in which Katyāyana himself is named (Parāśaramadhaviya III. p. 235).

Kātyāyana contains the same advanced views about law and rules of procedure as are found in Nārada and Bșhaspati.

568 मानवाः सद्य एवाहुः सहोढानां प्रवासनम् । गौतमानामनिष्टं यत्प्राण्युच्छेदाद्वि

steagul fat. T. 332. It is not unlikely that the correot reathing is प्रमापणं for प्रवासनं, as the immediately following view taगाला suggests. The words of मनु are सहोढं सोपकरणं घातयेदविचारमन

FOUNDED

Kātyāyuna

501

He is even in advance of these two writers in certain matters, such as detinitions in general and the elaboration of rules about stridhana. He gives numerous definitions, such as those of vyavahara, pridvivāka, stobhaka, dharmādhikarana, tirita anii anusista, samanta &c. He seems to have been the first to invent some new terins. For example, he defines pascātkāra as a judgment given in favour of the plaintiff after a hot coutest between the plaintiff and the defendant, while the term jyapatra is restricted by him to the judgment given on admission by the defendant or a judgment dismissing the suit on various grounds.509 He lays down a stringent rule that if a man abandons a ground of defence or attack and puts forward a less cogent one, he would not be allowed to put forward again the stronger ground after a decisive judg ment of the court.970 This resembles the 4th explanation to section 11 of the Indian Civil Procedure Code (1908 ) about res judicuta. The verses about kārpapana and dināra quoted above (note 368 ) from Nārada (parisista verses 58-60) are ascribed to Kātyāyana by the Smṛticaudrikā.

The date of Kātyāyana can be settled only approxi mately. He is certainly much later than Manu and Yājña valkya. As shown above he presupposes Nārada and regarded Bșhaspati as a very leading authority on vyavabāra. Hence his upper limit is the 3rd or 4th century A. D. Viśvarūpa quotes eight verses as Kātyāyana’s by naine ( vide on Yāj. II. 5, 6, 47, 63, 281 ) on such topics of Vyavahāra as the defects of the plaint, the contents of the plaint, the liability for the debts of a deceased person, payments of debts of honour (satyamkāra ), punishment for abortion, grievous hurt and homicide of a brāhmana woman. Medhātithi (on Manu 7. 1 ) ascribes to Katyāyana the rule that in case of conflict between the dictates of dharmaśāstra and arthaśāstra the king should prefer the forener. Medlātithi on Manu ( VIII 216 ) speaks of Kityāyana-sutra, appears to quote a portion

.-.-

…——

– -…

569 निरस्तास्तु क्रिया यत्र प्रमाणेनैव वादिना । पश्चात्कारो भवेत्तत्र न सर्वासु

विधीयते ॥ अन्यवाद्यादिहीनेभ्य इतरेषा प्रदीयते । वृत्तानुवादसंसिद्धं तच्च

FUIFFT9944 Farao, 213172a, ako. 370 क्रियां बलवती मुक्त्वा दुर्बला योवलम्बते । स जयेवधृते सभ्यः पुनस्तां ना यात

PUTA ll fiato on 13. 11. 80 ; 27. Al. p. 281 ; Ifto p, 108,

नागदा म

Bhandark Research

502

of it in prose and explains it. 571 Medhātithi says that Kātya yana extended the maxim of the trader carrying merchandise (bhāndavāha-vanik maxim ) to all similar transactions. All known quotations of Kātyāyana are in verse. When Medhā tithi speaks of a sutra and quotes a portion of it (as “vā” and “iti” after “nivarteta " indicate ) in prose, we must either suppose that he is referring to some other work of Kātyāyana than the one in verge from which hundreds of verses are cited by other writers or that Kātyāyana’s work on vyavahāra also contained some proge passages. As hardly any other writer quotes a prose passage of Kātyāyana on vyavahāra, the second alternative appears somewhat unlikely. Viśvarūpa and Medbātithi regarded Katyāyana as an authoritative smrtikāra along with Nārada and Bșhaspati. This position he could not have attained in less than a few hundred years. Therefore, the lowest limit to which Kātyāyana can be assign ed is the 6th century. Hence it may be said that Kātyāyana flourished between the 4th and 6th century A. D.

The Vyavahāramātṣkā (p. 307 ) quotes a Br̥hat-Kātya yana on the question of proof. The Dāyabhāga mentions & Vṭddha-Kātyāyana. The Sarasvatīvilāsa also quotes verses of Vrddha-Kātyāyana on rescission of purchase and other topics (p. 320). In the present state of our knowledge it is very difficult to say whether these two are different works, The Caturvarga-cintāmaṇi (vol. III, part 2, p. 657) speaks of Upakātyāyana. Aparārka on p. 485 quotes a verse from sloka-Kātyāyana which is not found in the Karmapradipa (Jivananda’s ed. ), but appears to be a summary of a prose passage quoted as Kātyāyana’s immediately before by Aparārka.

In Jivananda’s collection of smrtis ( part I, pp. 603-644 ) there is one of Kātyāyana in three prapāthakas and 29 khandas and about five hundred verses. The same work is printed as Gobhilasmṛti in the Anandāśrama collection (pp. 49–71). It contains also a few prose passages in the 12th, 13th and 14th khandas. The prevailing metre is Anustubh, a few verses being in the Indra vajrā and other metres. The

671 ‘यो वान्यः कस्यचित्कर्मणि धनमाबध्य अर्धतो निवर्तेतेति कात्यायनीये"

धनमाबध्य आसन्य धनव्ययं कारयित्वा यदि अर्धकृते निवर्तेत सोकि तहहानि 24975: II

FOUNDED

Kūtyāyana

503

work is styled the Karmapradipa of Kātyāyana. The opening verse justifies this name when it states that like a lamp the work will clearly show the mode of performing certain rites treated by Gobhila and other rites which are not clearly elucidated.572 The contents of this work are briefly as follows:- how to wear the sacred thread; sipping water and touching various limbs with water; the worship of Ganesa and fourteen mātrs in every rite; kusas; śrāddha details; consecration of sacred fires; details about aranīs, sruc, sruva; rules about cleansing the teeth and bathing; sandhyā; prāṇā. yāma, muttering of Vedic mantras ; tarpana of gods and manes; the great daily yajñas; who is to offer srāddha; rules about periods of impurity due to death; duties of wife; Grāddhas of various kinds.

The Karma prudīpa mentions by name several authorg. It very frequently cites the views of Gobhila (pp. 603, 626, 638 ) and Gautama (pp. 619, 620, 626, 630, 636, 639 ). The Karmapradipa as the opening verse says is intimately related to the Gobhila Gșhyasūtra. It distinctly says that as Gobhila did not dilate upon the details as to time and procedure of goyajña and vajiyajña, Kātyāyana dilates upon them. This is borne out by the Gobhila grhya-sūtru673 Another passage of Kātyāyana574 about the Astakās is based upon the very words of the Gobhila-grhya. Frequent reference is made to the views of Vasistha on the worship of Mātrs (p. 605), on Grāddha (pp. 608, 625). Vide also p. 642 ( 28. 16). Among the other authors named are Nārada on the sticks for danta dhāvana ( p. 615), Bhārgava (probably Uśanas ) on p. 640,

…..

672 अथातो गोभिलोक्तानामन्येषां चैव कर्मणाम् । अस्पष्टानां विधि सम्यग्दर्शयिष्ये

getuar 11 673 Vide p. 638 verses 1-11 of 26th khanda and compare with Gobbi

lag!hyasūtra III. 6. 10-16 ( 11 474825: 1 af Jha qarTAL मीश्वरम् । ऋषभपूजा । गोयज्ञेनेवाश्वयज्ञो व्याख्यातः । यमवरुणो देवतानाम

1977 I Ferrageoi TaTH 1). 574 यस्तु शाकादिको होमः कार्योपूपाष्टकावृतः । अन्वष्टक्यं मध्यमायामिति गोभि

• लगौतमौ । वार्कखण्डिश्च सर्वासु कौत्सो मेनेष्टकासु च ॥ कात्यायन० 11

( p. 626 ); compare thosu. III. 10. 4-7 ’ are : सर्वाः समासाश्चिकीदिति कौत्सः । त्र्यष्टक इत्यौद्गाहमानिः । तथा गौतमका. खण्डी । यार्धमाग्रहायण्यास्तामिस्राष्टमी तामपूपाष्टकेत्याचक्षते।’

504

Sāndilya and Sandilyāyana on p. 626. Kātyāyana is named in several places (pp. 624, 627, 638 ) and once the first person is used ( as in “mamāpyetad hrdi sthitam” p. 643). The Kātyāyanasmrti quotes the verse of Manu (111.70 ) on the five great yajñas. On p. 633 four verses forming the conso lation to be offered to the relatives of a person departed are the same as Yāj. (III. 8-11) and one verse in the same con text occurs in the Mahābliālata (Sāntiparva 27.31 and other places ).578 On p. 631 Kātyāyana speaks of Rāma having performed yajñas taking as his spouse the golden image of Sītā.

The question is:-what is the date of this Katyāyana omști ( Karmapradipa ) and whether it is the work of Katya yana the great jurist. The Mit. (on Yāj. I. 254 ) quotes a verse as Kātyāyana’s which occurs in Jivananda’s text (P. 624 verse 20 ); similarly the Mit. quotes two verses as Katya yana’s (on Yāj. III. 247) which have a place in the Karmapradipa (Jivananda p. 634 verses 4-5). Scores of verses cited as Katyāyana’s by Aparārka (on ācāra and prāyaścitta ) are found in the Karmapradipa. For example, vide A parārka p. 43 (three verses ) and Karmapradipa (1.605, 1110-12), Aparārka p. 51 ( three verses abont samull) and Karmapr. (p. 613, 8. 17-19), Aparārka p. 135 ( four verses about bathing in rivers ) and Karma. (p. 615, 10.5-7 and 14), Aparārka p. 532 ( fuur verses on sraddha in which Kātyāyana himself is cited as an authority ) and Karma. (p. 624, 16. 16-19), Aparārka p. 872 ( six verses ) and Karma. (21. 2-7 p. 632 ), Aparārka p. 1066 (three verses about an nihutrin being guilty of mahāpātaka ) and Karma. (23. 4-6 p. 634 ). The Smṛticandrikā also quotes profusely from Kātyāyana on ācāra, srāddha etc. and cites from the Karmapradipa by name passages which occur in Jivananda’s edition. The above re ferences show that in the eyes of the Mitāksarā and Aparārka the Karmapradipa was an authoritative work. Therefore, it follows that it must have been composed long before the 11th century A. D. It is, however, remarkable that several quotations ascribed to Katyāyana in the Mitūksarī, Aparārka and other works are not found in the Karmajiradipa. For example, the Mitāksarā (on Yñj. III. 242 ) cites Kātyāyana’s

POONA

IRTEN

576 wa TFFAT fant: qarar: 943: 1 TAU Pagi

हि जीवितम् ॥

FOUNDED

292760

Kātyāyana

505

verge about five varieties of lapses in conduct viz. mahāpā taka, atipātaka, pataka, prāsaigika, upapātaka and on Yāj. III. 260 quotes a verse of Kātyāyana about what are ati pātakas. These are not to be traced in the Karmapradīpa printed by Jivananda. Similarly, Aparārka (pp. 94-95) quotes three verses of Kātyāyana that are very interesting but are not found in Jivananda’s edition.676 Later works like the Nirnayaṣindhu, the Saṁskāramayukha, the Madanapāri jāta quote numerous verses of Kityāyana on upanayana, marriage and other saṁskāras which we vainly seek to find in the Karmapradipa. It is better to hold with Dr. R. C. Hazra that several works were ascribed to Kātyāyana, though they were composed by different persons. Vide New I. A, vol. VII at pp. 64-65.

The next question is whether KĀtyāyana the jurist and the author of the Karmapradipa are identical. There are not sufficient data to identify the two. The only fact that points to the identity is that such eminent and early writers as Vijñānesvara and Aparārka appear to make no distinction between the two. Besides, the Karmapradipa is also an early work. Against this it has to be remembered that Viśvarūpa, probably the most ancient of all extant commentators, no where quotes Kātyāyana ou acāra and prayascitta. This absence of quotations is not a very cogent argument; still it raises a doubt in one’s mind whether a work of Katyāyana on ācāra and other non-jural topics was known to Viśvarūpa.

A few words must be said about the additional 121 verses collected and published in Kane Festschrift by Prof. Aiyangar as ascribed to Kātyāyana. Many verses are ascribed to Bṛhaspati in some Dharmaśāstra works which are attributed to Katyāyana by others. For reasons of space only a few striking examples are cited helow: (Kāt. = collection of Kātyāyana’s verses by P. V. Kane and Bș. Col. stands for

576 वरयित्वा तु यः कश्चित्प्रणश्येत्पुरुषो यदा।रक्तागर्मास्त्रीनतीत्य कन्यान्य वरयेद्वरम् ॥

प्रदाय गच्छच्छुल्कं यः कन्यायाः स्त्रीधनं तथा । धार्या सा वर्षमेकं तु देयान्यस्मै विधानतः ॥ पूर्वदत्ता तु या कन्या अन्यनोढा यदा भवेत् । संस्कृतापि प्रदेया

granat i The first vorso “Varayitrā tu &o.’ and third " Pūrvadatta’ are cited by Aparārka on Āhnika (pp. 82. as Kātyāyana’s view and the first as of Kāt, in Smrticando (ābpika ).

INSTI

POO

AlSG

FOUNE

506

Prof. Aiyangar’s own collection of Brbaspati verses ; P. M. = Parāśara-mādhaviya, Vy. N. =Vyavahāranirṇaya ed. by Prof. Aiyangar):

The verse · Unmatta-matta’ in Vy. N. p. 59 is ascribed

to Bṛ. by A parārka p. 615 in Br. Col. ( I. 173). 2. The verse · Pramāṇagamatā yatra’ Kat. in Vy. N. p. 63

is Br. 3.45 ( p. 43 ) found in Aparārka p. 625, Smṛti

candrikā and several other works. 3. ‘Strībālārtālipijñānām’ is Kāt. in Vy. N. p. 91, but Br.

Col. p. 66 (Bṛ. in Smr. c. p. 65 on Vy. ). 4. ‘Paśyan-nanyasya dadatah’ is Kāt. in Vy. N. p. 138,

while it is Br. in Aparārka p. 632, Smṭ. c. ( Vy. p. 68 ). 5. ‘Parikseta svayam panyam’is Kāt. in Vy. N. p. 344, but

Br. (in Br. Col. p. 156 and is Smp c. (Vy. p. 220 ),

Vyavahāramātṣkā p. 215 and others. 6. Vāgdandam prathamam kuryāt’is Kāt. acc. to Vy. N.

p. 528, but Bṛ. in Dandaviveka p. 263 ( Br. Col. p. 227).

Three verses of Manu are quoted as occurring in Kāt. by Vy. N. p. 529, which are respectively Manu IX. 288 and Manu VIII. 124-125.

The verse ‘strīṇām sākøyam striyaḥ kuryuh’ is ascribed to Kāt. (my collection No. 351 ) and to Manu by Vyavahāra. mātṇkā p. 323 (and it is Manu VIII. 68). The same is the case with the verse ‘Svabhāvenaiva yad-brūyus’ &c. (Kāt. No. 393, which is Manu 8. 78 ). The verse anupasthāpayan mūlam’ (Kat. No. 619) is ascribed to Manu by the Mit. on Yāj. II. 170 and to Kāt. by Sms. can. (Vy. p. 215 ), Par. M., Vivāda-ratnākara 108 and Viramitrodaya and Vy. Mayūkba.

It is difficult to say why these differences arise. All that can be proposed as the rule to be followed is that the ascrip tion to Br, or Kāt. of a verse should be accepted on this basis that one should follow what the older and distinguished authors and works ( such as Viśvarūpa, Mitākṣarā, Aparārka, Kalpataru, Vyavahāramātṇkā, Smṛticandrikā and Parāśara Madhaviya ) say or a majority of them say.

Similarly, many verses on Vyavahāra are ascribed to both Bșhaspati and Kātyāyana. A few examples may beated Kāt. verses 382-384 are ascribed to different authors by different authorities. Verses 693-95 in my Kāt. collect

CALON are

STITU)

FOUNDED

Katyāyunu

507

assigned to different authors viz. to Nārada (first two occur in printed Nārada 12. 5-6 ), Byhaspati, Kāt. and Vyāsa ( No. 83 my collection of Kāt. ) is ascribed to both Bṛ, and Kāt. in Vyavahāra mītrkā p. 281 (it is Kautilya I. 19. 32 ); No. 141 (Pratijñādosa ) is ascribed to both Bṛ. and Kāt. by Kalpa taru ( Vy.) p. 61, Vya. Mātrkā p. 291, but Aparārka (p. 610 ) and Smṛ. c. (Vya. p. 40 ) ascribe to Bṛ. alone and it occurs in Viśvarūpa on Yāj. II. 6 (without name). The Prthvi candra ascribes it to both Bṛ, and Kāt. (on Vya. p. 47, a digest of about last quarter of the 15th century A. D.); Kāt. No. 152 (sūhagasteya ’ &c. ) is ascribed to both Br. and Kāt. by Pṛthvicandra ( Vy. p. 55 ) and Kalpataru ( Vy. p. 67 ) and is almost the same as Yāj. II. 12 ).

Kātyāyana himself is named in & verse that is cited from Kātyāyana by Par. M.57?

The number of Smṛtis or Smrtikāras quoted or referred to by themselves or mentioned in commentaries and digeste is very large, particularly if one takes into account Sinștikāras or Smṛtis with the words ‘bphat’‘madhyama,’ ’laghu’ and ‘vrddha’ prefixed to many of them. The important versi fied Smrtis in the Sanskrit alphabetical order will now be briefly dealt with one after another.