55 Saṁgraha or Smṛtisaṁgraha
- Samgraha or Smrtisamgraha This work is frequently cited by the Mitākṣarā, Aparārka, the Smṛticandrikā and other works on all topics of dharma, The quotations on vyavahāra are copious and are very im
659
657 तिलहोमायुतं चैव पराकद्वयमेव च । गायत्र्या लक्षमेकं च समान्याह बृहस्पतिः॥
अपरार्क p. 1249. 658 समुच्छिष्टस्तु यो भुङ्क्ते मुद्दे वा मुक्त भोजनः । एवं वैवस्वतः प्राह भुक्त्वा
सान्तपनं चरेत् ॥ अपराके p. 1174. प्रामाण्यमेव ये वेदे न वदन्ति कुदृष्टयः । तेषां बौद्धार्हतादीनां पाषण्डाख्या प्रकीर्त्यते ॥ प्रव्रज्य वसिता (प्रवज्यावसिता) ये तु पाषण्डास्ते प्रकीर्तिताः। पौरुषेयतया वेदं (वेदे?) प्रामाण्यं प्रवदन्ति ये। तेषां वैशेषिकादीनां नैगमाख्या
प्रकीर्त्यते ॥ षट्त्रिंशन्मत. 660 पण्डितस्यापि शूद्रस्य शास्त्रज्ञानबलस्य च । वचनं तस्य न ग्राह्यं शुनोच्छिष्टं
हवियेथा । पृथ्वीचन्द्र ( व्यवहार. p. 19 ). 861 सनिकृष्टमधीयानं ब्राह्मणं यो व्यतिक्रमेत् । भोजने चैव दाने च हन्यात त्रिपक्षी
कुलम् । यस्य त्वेकगृहे मूखी दूरस्थश्च गुणान्वितः । गुणान्विताय दातम्या नास्ति मूर्ख व्यतिक्रमः ॥ षड्विंशमत g. by रमृतिच० (श्राद्ध) p. 303. A
538
portant for the history of Hindu Law. A few of the important views of the Samgrabakāra are set out below. He gives the requisite characteristics of a plaint in five verses.662 Accord ing to him documents are of two kinds, rājakiya and jāna pada. The ordeals from dhata (balance) to poison (i. e, four) are prescribed in cases where the subject matter is of great value (i. e. above 500 panas ), while kośa and the other ) ordeals (in all three ) are prescribed in disputes for lesser sums.868 This is slightly opposed to Nārada (rnādāna, verse 336 ), according to whom the five ordeals from tula to kosa were prescribed in substantial disputes. The Samgrahakāra has in view the seven ordeals spoken of by Nārada (rṇādāna verses 252, 337, 343 ), while Bșhaspati and Pitāmala enumerate nine. He defines dāya as the wealth that is handed down through father and mother. 864 He held that ownership arose from the dictates of śāstra and was not an affair of the world (laukika) and puts forward two reasons in support of his theory, viz. if ownership were laukika, then it would not be possible to make such assertions as his wealth has been wrong-fully seized by another and the texts (vide Gautama X. 49 ) laying down the means of acquisition of wealth for the several varyas would be meaningless.686 Dbireśvara held the same view. These views were elaborately criticized by the Mit. According to the Samgrahakāra, 666 partition creates ownership in the son as regards paterual wealth ( in which he has no rights by birth ). Dhāreśvara entertained the game opinion, which was vehemently controverted by the Mit. holding that partition takes place of that in which one has already ownership.
862 Vide fato on AST. II. 6, plato ( 24. p. 36 ), HETTATE
(p. 12), alco (p. 62 ). 863 घटादीनि विषान्तानि गुर्वर्थेषु दापयेत् । कोशादीनि पुनस्त्रीणि लवर्थेषु यथा
4 lla o (04.98 ); TT. HT. III. p. 153 ; lana goraha
गुरुष्वर्थेषु दापयेत् । 864 पितृद्वारागतं द्रव्यं मातृद्वारागतं च यत् । कथितं दायशब्देन तद्विभागोधुनोच्यते ॥
-
- III. p. 478. 685 अस्यापहृतमेतेन न युक्तं वक्तुमन्यथा । विहितोऽर्थागमः शास्त्रे यथावर्ण पृथक्
पृथक् ।। प्रतिग्रहाजिवाणिज्यशुश्रूषाख्या यथाक्रमम् । स्मृतिच० (व्य. p. 668 क्रियते स्वं विभागेन पुत्राणां पैतृकं धनम् । स्वत्वे सति प्रवर्तन्ते तस्मादा
99% a: Il plage (04. p. 259 ),
RUT
POOHA
FOUNDED I
1917 A
A
- Sangraha or Smrtisangraha
539
1
According to the Samgraha,867 ownership does not consist in being able to dispose of a thing at one’s sweet will, since it is the sāstra that prescribes the proper disposal or application of all things. The Samgraba$68 laid down that the special share given to the eldest son, the practice of niyoga and the offering of a cow are all forbidden in the present age. Dhāre svara also held the same view about the eldest son’s rights and the Mit. also approves of it and quotes anonymously the same verse (on Yaj. II. 117 ). The Saṁgraha in two verses appa rently following Manu 9. 182-183, lays down that, if of several full brothers one has a son, all thereby have issue and that, if one out of the several wives of a person has a son, all the co-wives may be regarded as putruvati. The Smṛti candrikā says that Devasvami explained this dictum of the Samgrahakāra (Smṛticandrikā, Vy. p. 289). The Samgraha says that the widow of a separated coparcener dying childless would inberit his whole estate if she submitted to Niyoga at the behests of her elders.968 This was also the opinion of Dhare svara and was refuted according to the Smṛticandrikā by Viśva. rūpa. The Mit. also criticizes this view. He names Manu in con nection with the succession of a person dying without leaving any one out of the twelve kinds of sons.670 He has in view Manu 9. 185. According to the Sangrahakāra the order of succession to a sonless man is :– widow, the daughter who is a putrikā, mother, paternal grandmother, father, full brothers, half-brothers, the line of the father (pitssantati ), the grandfather’s line, the great-grand-father’s line, other sapindas, sakulyas, the preceptor, the pupil, a fellow-student,
687 न च स्वमुच्यते तद्यत्स्वेच्छया विनियुज्यते । विनियोगोत्र सर्वस्य शास्त्रेणैव
नियम्यते ॥ 688 यथा नियोगधर्मो नो नानुबन्ध्यावधोपि वा । तथोद्धारविभागोपि नैव संप्रति
adā il 20 ( 34. p. 268 ) ; 901. AT. III. p. 492. 889 भ्रातृषु प्रविभक्तेषु संसृष्टेयसत्सु च । गुवोदेशानियोगस्था पत्नी धनमवाप्नुयात् ॥
- AI. 111. p. 633. गुर्वादेशानियोगस्थेति धारेश्वरमतं विश्वरूपादिभिः सम्यग्दूषितत्वादुपेक्षणीयम् ।
wrazo ( 49. p. 294 ). 870 BRAICA FETAH yang uha PTAHL I Warat naraaz
f aqat vyrazo ( 04. p. 290 ).
540
a learned Brāhmaṇa. The Mit. notes that relying on Mann (9.217) Dhāreśvara placed the paternal grandmother after the mother and before the father (tbus agreeing with the Samgraha). The Sangraha says that homicide and other offences when committed with force are called sūhasa. 871
It will be seen from the above that the views of the Sam grahakāra closely agreed with those of Dhāreśvara in many respects and were not approved of by the Mit. and other later writers. In vyuvahāra the Samgraha certainly marks a far more advanced stage than Yājñavalkyal and Nārada, whose works do not contain the controversial questions about ownership, partition etc. As Dhāreśvara agrees very closely with the Smrtisamgraha it may be argued that they were not separated by a long interval of time. It has to be also noted that Viśvarūpa and Medhitithi do not refer to the Samgraba. It is not unlikely that the Sangraha was in vogue in the territory ruled over by Bhoja of Dhirū und was therefore followed by Bhoja Dhāreśvaris. Taking all things into con sideration the Sangraha was probably compiled between the 8th and 10th centuries of the Christian era. The Smrti candrikā no doubt says in one place that the Samgrahakāra follows the views of Dhūreśvara.978 But this statement should not be einphasized and interpreted too literally. All that it means is that both held the same opinion. There is no intention to state that Dhāreśvari preceded the Samyraha kāra. Chronology was never the strong point of Indian commentators, particularly when the writers whose opinions were referred to flourished several centuries earlier. We know that Bharuci and Dhūreśvara preceded the Mitāksarā which names both; but the Sarasvativilāsa in several places (e. g. pp. 347, 361, 383 ) says that Bharuci cannot tolerate the view of Vijñāneśvara and also says that Dhāreśvara and Devas vāmi follow the view of Vijñānayogin (1) 395 ).
The Smrticanlrika quotes several verses from the Sam graha on topics of śrūddha in which Gautama, Kātyāyana,
TITUTA
871 मनुष्यमारणादीनि कृतानि प्रसभं यदि । साहसानीति कथ्यन्ते यथाख्याभ्यन्यथा
ga: il tafatto ( 24. p. 7). 872 1971FT T PAGERII
FOUNDED
- Śaivarta
541
Parāśara, Manu, Yājṅavalkya, Yama and Saunaka are cited by naine.673
The Samgraha or Smṛtisamgraha inust have contained a very large number of verses, since the Smṛticandrikā alone quotes several hundred verses, from it on ‘āhnika, Vyavahāra and Srāddha’. The Vyavahāra-nirưaya of Varadaraja states ion p. 324 ) that the view of Sangrahakāra is relied upon by Dhāreśvarabhatta !