कल्पान्तरे विश्वासटिप्पन्यः

Viśvarupa The commentary of Viśvarūpia called Bālakrīdā on the Yājsavalkya-smrti has been recently published in two parts by M. M. T. Ganapati Sāstri in the Trivandrum Sanskrit Series. The Mit. states in the introductory verses that the dicta of Yij. were expanded by the voluminous or ample (vikata ) explanations of Viśvarūsra. In commenting on Yāj. 1. 81 the Mit. tells us that Viśvarūjia looked upon the words of Yāj. I. 79 ( tasmin yugmāsu saṁviset ) as a niyama. In Viśvarūpa’s commentary on Yāj. I. 80 (evam gacchan &c. ) we do find that the verse of Yāj. and similar passages of Manu (3. 45 ), Vasistha and Gautama ( 5. 1 ) are understood to contain a niyam and not a prescinkhyu.?!! On Yāj. III. 24 the Mit, inforins us that Viśvarūpa, Medhātithi and Dhāre svara looked upon certain texts of Rsyasriiga on āściucu as in conflict with well-known sinitis and discarded them. Mr. S. Sitaram Sūstri published (in 1900 at Madras ) the text and translation of Viśvarūpia’s comment ou inheritance and Mr. Setlur also published the wavahūrco section. In the following pages the Trivandrum edition is relied on.

The printed com. of Viśvarūpa on the vyavaharu section is extreinely meagre and scarcely merits the epithet vikata applied to it by the Mit. But the commentary of Viśvarūpa on the ācāra and grīyascitta sections is truly voluminous and coinpares favourably with the Mit. The style of Viśvarūpa is simple and forcible and resembles that of the great Saṅkarā. cārya. He quotes profusely from Vedic works, mentions the Carakas and Vājasaneyins (on Yaj 1. 32 ), the Kathaka (on Yaj. III. 237 and 243 ) and very often supports his position by quotatious from the Rgveda (e.g. on Yāj. 11. 121 and 206 ), the Brāhmanas (e. g. the Sata patha on Yāj. 1. 53 and III. 257 ) and from the Upanisads (e. g. on Yāj. 11. 117, the well-known

OONA

711 मानवं तु ‘ऋतुकालाभिगामी स्यात् ’ इति … नियमपरतयैव व्यायाम ।

एतेनैव … वासिष्ठं व्याख्यातम् । .. गौतमीयं त्वनृतुपरिसंख्यार्थ प्रताव qala’ sia arata … Jaafa FATATÜRa apetih.

Foundo 1917

554

Chandogya passage about the ordeal for theft and on Yāj. I. 50 Chandogya II. 23. 10 about the three branches of dharma). He speaks of the pada-rātha and the kramapātha as due to human agency (on Yāj. III. 242). He frequently quotes the Grhya sūtrus of Pāraskara and less frequently those of Bhāradvāja and Asvalāyana. lle cites a host of smrtikāras.712 Most of the quotations attributed to Svayambhū are found in the extant Manusmrti, but this is not the case with the quotations ascribed to Bhrgu (vide pp. 309, 310 above). Most of the quota tions from Brhaspati (even on such topics as repayment of debts, sureties, the rights of sūdrāputra ) are in prose, only a few being in verse ( e. g. & verse about ordeals on Yāj. II. 117, a verse about the method of partition on Yāj. II. 153 ). Ou Yāj. I. 307 Viśvarūpa quotes a long prose passage from Brbaspati in which the qualities required in a Senāpati, Pratihāra, Hastyadhyaksti, Asvādhyalist, Dūta, Mantrin and Uparika are set out at length. It appears, therefore, that Viśvarūpa either knew a work of Brhaspati in prose on arthaśāstra in which occurred a few verses or he had before him a prose work of Bṛhaspati and a versified smrti of Bṛhaspati, both of which he regarded as the compositions of the same author. He quotes a verse (on Yāj. I. 328 ) from Visā lāksa, a well-known writer on politics quoted even by Kautilya. He refers to the arthaśāstra of Uśanas along with that of Bșhaspati. Kautilya is nowhere quoted by name. The learned editor of Viśvarūpa thinks (Intro. p. V) that Vißve rūpa took Bṛhaspati and Viśālākṣa as ārsa writers long anterior to Yāj. and therefore used their dictu to elucidate and support Yāj., while he omits Kautilya because he thought Kautilya to be posterior to Yāj. This argument contains several fallacies. In the first place it is wrong because Viśva rūpa quotes verses from Nārada and Kātyāyana to supple ment Yāj. There is nothing to show that Viśvarūpa regarded Nārada and Kātyāyana also as anterior to Yāj. and we have

712

name ore

The Fær77$ mentionod by name are : alga, 311, 3119677a, JAH, CITYA, 47399, FireT, GIT, Taa, 5170 (or-ff ),

2, ARE, 97:17, 917F, Paatwe, gata, agiaft, gerafa, बौधायन, भारद्वाज, भृगु, मनु, वृद्धमनु, यम, याज्ञवल्क्य, वृद्धयाज्ञवल्क्य afere, fasong, aura, Te, saran, aitax, tiad, 94-9, art, the HI ), ERIA.

Hotit,

FOUND

Viśvarūpa

655

seen above that they are several centuries later than the smrti of Yāj. Moreover Kautilya himself looked upon both Bphaspati and Viśālāksa as high authorities and so Viśvarūpa might have quoted them rather than Kautilya. Even taking the latest date assigned to Kautilya (about 3rd century A.D.) he flourished several centuries before Viśvarūpa. It is im possible to believe that Viśvarūpa was in possession of the exact chronological relation of Yāj. and Kautilya. Many scholars, besides, place Kautilya’s work centuries before Yāj. It appears, however, that Viśvarūpa had the work of Kautilya before him. On Yāj. I. 307 he speaks of ministers tested by the four allurements (upachii) of dharma, artha, kūma and bhaya. This is an echo of Kautilya ( I. 10). On Yāj I. 343 Viś. refers to the view of some that a march should be made when neighbouring chiefs are overwhelmed in calamities.713 This is the view of Kautilya almost in the same words. On Yāj. I. 341 Vis. speaks of the inanifold aspects of the work of a minister, some words of his comment being almost identical with Kautilya’s.

Some of the verses on pp. 25-27, for example, the first verse ( govadham &c.) relers to Yaj. III. 234 ( where (govadha’ is mentioned as the first among Upapātikas (51 in number ). On p. 26 he has a larika ‘Smārtopi govadhostyarghyamarhayet prathamam gavi’, which includes Mauusmrti III. 3 (last quarter ); on same page the words

vedam-eva tvad:starthe…pramānam paramam dharme Srutir’ embodies a part of Manu III. 13. The Karikū at the top of p. 27 quotes some words of Manu II. 10.

Viśvarūpa’s work is thoroughly saturated with the lore of the Pūrvamimiṁsā. He quotes Jaimini by name (on Yāj. I. 225 where Jaimini VI. 8. 15 is quoted ). Curiously enough

713

77901 TE :- AFATGJATA Arazi ahfaaha apra-stai विश्वरूप ; compurn ‘तुल्यसामन्तव्यसने यातव्यममित्रं वा इत्यमित्रमभियायात् । कौटिल्य VII. 53; किं पुनस्तन्मन्त्रणीयम् । उक्तं च दिक्प्रचारदूतसंप्रेषण-कापटि कोदास्थितगृहपतिकवैदेहकतापसव्यञ्जनावस्थितचारप्रपञ्चनिरूपणपरप्रयुक्तकापटि कायुच्छेददुर्गादिकरणकन्यासंप्रदानकुमारचिन्ता-अन्तःपुरप्रचाराद्यनेकविधं च । a €9. The words 4191 … 2487 occur in trecut ) and alfert has chapters on 779779 (i. e. anfanar ca 3758:97991T), gulfan and TAROTET.

SS.

FOUNDED

1917

556

he applies the term nyāya to Mimāṁsā. He takes ’nyāya mimāṁsā’ in Yīj. I. 3 as one vidyā, while he notes that others explain nyayu as the system of logic propounded by Aksa pāda. He quotes the sūtras of Jaimini as those of Yājñikas who know nynya (e. g. on Yāj. I. 53 be quotes Jaimini I. 3. 16 and on Yāj. I. 87 he quotes Jaimini VI. 8. 17). He applies the epithet Naiyāyikı, to a mīmāṁsaka like Sabara and speaks of the mimārsakas as nyāyavidaḥ.714 He mentions the Sūbarabhāsya by name (on Yīj. III. 243) and in in several places quotes the very words of Sabara (e. g. on Yāj. III. 181 ).716 He quotes the Slokavārtika of Kumārila (1. 12 the verse ‘survasyaiva hi &c) in his introductory remarks. in his comment on Yaj. 1. 7 he cites over fifty verses in the nature of kārikis dealing with the relation of śruti and smrti and kindred topics. These verses are his own composition, as in one of them he assures us that a certain poiut will be dealt with by him in detail in the section on srāddha.710 Iu interspersing his coin mentary with kārikūs of his own and in their style and pithiness he greatly resembles Kumārila. Throughout his work he relies upon mimūinsā maxims and methods of discussion. For example, on Yāj. I. 4-5 he discusses the rule of Jaimini II. 4. 8 ft ( about

sarvasākhūpratyayam ekam karmu’) in its application to smrtis ; on Yāj. 1. 225 be relies upon the position that words like yuva and varalice are to be taken as employed in the Vedas in the same sense in which sistus use them (vide Jaimini I. 3.9); on Yīj. II. 144 be speaks of wealth ( dravya ) being puruṣūrthre, where he alludes to the well-known distinction between krutvartha and puruṣūrthu, the subject of Jaimini’s 4th chap. His cominentary on Yāj. III. 212, 237, 262 are fine examples of his superb skill in the interpreta tion and reconciliation of apparently conflicting texts. 714 rapalaza T:31 at : Rq’; TTT TETT:

watercargarū 7 ROTE: (this is afha VI. 8. 17);

24 ATTRI fait qui faqn97 sta zarafa: ( on 1917. III. 250 ). The last is a well-known Allta17919. “A a TY T: ‘ai 997 RICHIRIBAT’ RIES." These words occur in 397169 00

if III. 2. 3. 115 तथा चोक्तं ‘चोदना भूतं भवन्तं भविष्यन्तमित्याद्येवंजातीयकमर्थ शक्नोला

aotatuaggia i This is $10TH . 4 ( B. I. edition ). 718 pe 9 597 99914: »ICTE I faze 4 part I. p. 16.

FOU

Viśvarūpa

557

‘Though Viśvarūpa was a past master in Pūrvamīmāṁsā lore, his philosophical views seem to have been identical with those of the great Sajikara. According to him moksu results from correct knowledge alone and the whole samsāra is due to avidyu il? He quotes anonymously one of Gaudlapāda’s kārikāsiis (III. 5 ) on Yāj. III, 134.

He speaks on Yāj. III. 103 of Narada who knew the Veda of music ( gitivedavid ), of purāṇa ( on III. 175 ), and quotes verses (on Yñj. III. 85 ) from an abhidhūnukośu ( lexicon ) and from a Nāmaratnamila (on III. 266). He speaks of the sloka of Bhiksātana (on III. 60.). He is in this probably referring to the Bhikrītanakivya,719 which is mentioned by the Sahityavarpani. Amony commentators he mentions Asahaya’s bhāsya on Gautama by name ( on Yāj. III. 263 ). On Yāj. III. 256 he explains Mleccha as pulindas and

Tājikus ( i. e. Arabs ).

It has been shown above ( $34 pp. 423-425 ) how Viśva rūpa’s text of Yāj. varied in some respects from that of the Mit.; how he frequently refers to the views of commentators of Yāj. earlier than himself (in the words ‘apare,‘‘anye’), how he proposes several explanations of the same words in several cases.

Dr. Jolly (Journal of Iulian History, 1924, pp. 7-8) says that the citations of Vis in the Smṛticandrikā about his having refuted the views of Dhireśvara cannot be traced in the printed Balakrida, as also the reference to Vis, in the Mit.

717 In his com. on 9151772 III. 66 bo say’s 379 te pare quitajszi

ज्ञानैकसाधनं न तत्र कर्मणां प्रयोजनमित्युक्तमेव’; ‘तत्त्वाग्रहणात्मकेना विद्योत्थत्वात्प्रपञ्चस्यैवमादिचोद्यानवकाश एव। … तत्त्वेन ब्रह्मणो नान्यद्वस्त्व

न्तरमस्तीति ब्रह्मविदां स्थितिः।’. 718 तथा चाह- यथैकस्मिन्घटाकाशे रजोधूमादिभिर्युते । न सर्वे संप्रयुज्यन्ते सुखं

दुःखं तथात्मनः ॥ इति । तथान्यैरपि-धूमपूर्णघटानां च यस्यैकस्यैव रेचनम् । 3CTIT a at apta la acell fa. In tho Ānandāśruma edition of गौडपाद the fourth prioda is तद्वजीवा सुखादिभिः . I could

not traco the hiiriku poto , 719 Vide 1. O. cat. p. 1448 for the far77104 of falquifel

314192who names aterriferi Fiferent and the FRESSI apur.

STITU

InDOS

FOUNDED

1917

558

on Yaj. I. 81 and II. 135. It has been shown above ( note 529) that the printed Vis on Yaj. I. 80 does contain the view attributed to it by the Mit. As regards the Mit. un Yāj. II. 135 it has to be noted that the Mit. - does not mention Vis. by name there, but only speaks of bhagavān ācārya, ‘720 which words are interpreted by the Subodhinī and the Būlambhatti as referring to Viśvarūpa. It is true that the printed Viś. does not contain in so many words the explana tion attributed by the Mit. to ‘bhagavān ācārya.’ But it is worth considering that in the printed Vis. the two quotations from Manu and Saṅkha do occur and are put in the mouth of an objector and are explained away in a way somewhat similar to that put forth in the Mit.721 As regards the passages of the Smrticandrikā, the matter requires careful examination. The Smrticandrika, (II. p. 294 Gharpure’s ed.) says that according to the Samgrahakāra a widow was allowed to succeed to her souless husband’s wealth if she submitted to niyoga, that the same was the view of Dhāreśvara and that Viśvarūpa refuted the view of Dhāreśvara. In no place does the printed Vis. name Dharesvara. The words of the Smrti candrika are uot to be taken literally. It will be shown below that the author, Devanmabhatta, flourished about 1200 A. D. while Dhāreśvara flourished between 1000-1050 A. D. Devanna had no correct idea of their relative chronological position. It has been shown above (p. 249 ) how though

…

720 The words of the Mit. are : यदपि मतं पिता हरेदपुत्रस्य रिक्थं भ्रातर

एव वा ( मनु 9. 185 ) इति मनुस्मरणात् , तथा-स्वर्यातस्य ह्यपुत्रस्य भ्रातृगामि द्रव्यं तदभावे पितरौ हरेथाता ज्येष्ठा वा पत्नीति शङ्खस्मरणाच्च अपुत्रस्य धनं भ्रातृगामीति प्राप्तं भरणं चास्य कुरिन् स्त्रीणामाजीवनक्षयादित्यादिवचनाच्च भरणोपयुक्तं धनं पत्नी लभत इत्यपि स्थितम् । एवं स्थिते बहुधने अपुत्रे वर्यात भरणोपयुक्तं पत्नी गृह्णाति शेषं च भ्रातरो यदा तु पत्नीभरणमात्रोप युक्तमेव द्रव्यमास्त ततो न्यूनं वा तदा किं पन्येव गृह्णाति उत भ्रातरोपीति विरोधे पूर्वबलीयस्त्वज्ञापनार्थ पत्नी दुहितर इत्यारब्धमिति । तदप्यत्र भगवाना• चार्यो न मृध्यति । यतः। पिता हरेदपुत्रस्य…इति विकल्पस्मरणान्नेदं क्रमपरमपि तु धनग्रहणेधिकारप्रदर्शनमात्रपरम् । तच्चासत्यपि पल्यादिगणे घटते इति

व्याचचक्षे । 721 ननु एतदप्यस्ति । ‘पिता हरे … वा’ इति । मातन्यसत्यामेतद् द्रष्टव्यमत

कथं शङ्कवचनं ‘स्वर्यातस्य … पत्नी इति’ । उक्तलक्षणपत्नीदुहित्रभावे सोही भ्रात्रभिप्रायं तत् । विश्वरूप.

FOUI

Viśvarūpa

569

Asahāya is named by the Mit., the Sarasvativilāsa very often says that Asahāya does not like ( or tolerate ) the views of Vijnanesvara. Similarly, the same work ( para 392 ) says that Dhāreśvara and Devasvāmiu do not tolerate the view of Vijñānesvara, but Dhireśvara is one of the predecessors of Vij. actually named by him. So all that the Smṛticandrikā means is that Dhāreśvara and Viśvarūpa differed in their views on the particular points mentioned by it. The word patni is taken by Viś. to mean a widow who is pregnant at the time of her husband’s death and quotes the sutras of Vasistha and Gautama in support of his view as jñāpokas. So this view entirely differs from the view of Dhāreśvara that the widow of a sonless person succeeds if she submits to niyoga. The Smṛticandrikā (II. p. 300 ) says that the Samgrahakāra placed the father’s mother immediately after the mother and before the father, that the Samgrahakāra relied on the same arguments that were employed by Dhāreśvara and that Viśvarūpa and others refuted those arguments. The passage in the printed Viś. is somewhat corrupt in this place. Vis. does place the mother before the father on the ground of the word nātā occurring first when the word ‘pitarau’ or the compound mātāpitruritu’ is expanded. The comment does mention the verse of Man (9. 217 ) about the grandmother, but it makes no clear sense, as it stands.722 For the reason given above Rai Bahadur M. M. Chakravarti ( JASB for 1922, p. 345 and for 1915, p. 322 ) is not right when he places Vißvarūpa later than Bhojadeva because of the remarks of the Smṛticandrikā.

In the works of Jimūtavāhana ( viz. the Dāyabhāga and the Y yavahāramñtrkā ), in the Smrticandrikā, the Hāralatā, and other later works like the Sarasvativilāsa, the views of Viśvarīpa are frequently cited and discussed. Several such citations have been already examined by me (JBBRAS for 1926, pp. 200-204 ). From considerations of space I do not repeat here the discussion of those passages. In the Grhastha. ratnākara728 of Candesvara (No. 44 of 1883-4, in the Govt.

MOON

722 क्षत्रियादिषु पुत्राणां तु पितरि मातुरभावे ‘पितुर्माता हरेद् धनम् ’ इत्यस्य

faat: 1 723 FET on 27151. I. 135 is 791 7777T: I JAG T de

इति । अयं मे वज्रः पाप्मानमहतात-इत्येतदेव मन्त्रस्य कार्यम् । यदा पूल

( Continued on the next page)

560

Mss. Lib at the B. 0. R. Institute Poona, folio 133a ) the explanation of Viśvarūpācārya on Yāj. 1. 135 is cited, which does not exactly tally with the printed Vis. Hemādri724 refers to Viśvarūpa’s: explanation given in his section on partition which does not occur in the printed text. The result of the examination of these citations is that the printed text of Vis. is in the main genuine, but that in a few cases (parti cularly in the vyavahāra section ) it is corrupt or deficient.

Though Vis. holds the same view as the Mit. that owner ship does not for the first time arise on partition but that partition takes place of what is already (jointly ) owned, yet on numerous points the two disagree. A few of them may be set out here.

(1) Vis allows ( on Yāj. II. 118 ) the father unrest rictd freedom of distribution of property among his sons during his lifetime, while the Mit. expressly says that this power of unequal distribution is restricted to self acquired property.

( 2 ) Vis. ( on Yāj. II. 119 ) allows a share of property to the widows of predeceased sons and grandsons of a man when a partition takes place during his lifetime. The Mit. restricts the word ‘patnyab’ to the father’s own wives when he effects a partition during his lifetime.

(3) Viś. connects the words without detriment to the paternal estate’( in Yāj. II. 122 ) with the words ‘whatever else is acquired by himself’ and not with ‘maitra’ (gifts from a friend ) und udvihika’ (gifts on inarriage ), while the Mit. connects the half verse whatever else is acquired by the man himself without detriment to the paternal estate as a

( Continued from the previous page ) taida de afafa CTETT 1; while the TEATEATEAT gays 3751 # वज्रः सर्व पाप्मानमपहन्ति-इति सर्व मन्त्रं पठन् वर्षत्यपावृतो (? प्रावृतो) गच्छेद् यावन्मन्त्रसमाप्तिः, ऊर्ध्वमनियमः । तावतैवातिपाप्मनोपहतत्वादिति

विश्वरूपाचार्यः । 724 भ्राता वा भ्रातृपुत्रो वा सपिण्डः शिष्य एव च । सपिण्डकक्रियां कृष्ण

कुर्याशभ्युदयिकं ततः ॥ इत्यत्र वचने अभ्युदयशब्देन आभ्युदयिक बखें विभागप्रकरणे विश्वरूपाचार्येण व्याख्यातम् । चतुर्वर्ग० ( कालनिर्णय p. 43 ) :

Viśvarūpa

561

qualifying clause to the next half verse and to another verse kramād abhyāgatam &c.’ In the Mit. the two verses pitfdravyĀvirodhena &c. ’ and ‘kramās &c. ‘occur consecuti vely, while in Viś. they are separated by three verses and Vis. takes the verse ‘kramād’ &c. as referring to the re-opening of ā partition for a son horn after partition.

( 4 ) Vis allows niyog only to sūrus in general and to knatriya kings in case of danger of extinction of line ( vide com. on Yāj. I. 69 and II. 131 ), while Mit. forbids niyoga in general and holils the texts speaking of it is applicable to a girl who is only betrothed and not married.

(5) Viś, appears to allow one share out of ten to the son of a sūlra wife from a brālmana without restriction of any kind, while Mit. restricts the share to estates other than land acquired by vist.

(6) Viś. interprets the expression ‘half share’ (in Yāj. II. 138 ) with reference to the illegitimate son of a sūdra as meaning some portion, not necessarily exactly half.’ while Mit. interprets it literally.

( 7 ) Viś. allows a widow to succeed to her husband if she is pregnant at his death, while Mit. allows a widow to succeed without any restriction except that of chastity.

(8) Vis restricts the word ‘duhitarah’in ‘patni duhitarascaiva’ ( Yaj. II, 138 ) to putrilā only and so does not allow all daughters whatever to succeed, while Mit. does not introduce any such qualification

(9) Vis. reads “anyodaryasya saṁsisti’ for anyo daryastu &c. ’ and ‘sodaro’ for samsrsto’in Yāj. 11. 143 and his interpretation of the verse is entirely different from that of the Mit.

(10) Vis. reads “Ādhivedanikam caiva ‘for “ādhiveda nikadyam ca’ of Mit, and holds that bandhudatta, sulku and anvāllheyaku strīlhana of a childless woman goes on her death to her full brother; while Mit. connects these three with the preceding verse and takes the half verse ‘atītāyam &c.’ 88 laying down a general rule of succession to strīdhand of all kinds and interprets biudhavāh’ us meaning ‘husband and the rest’.

( 11 ) Viś. takes the verse adhiviuna-striyai’ &c. con Yaj. II. 152 ) as applicable to a wife superseded without arm ground of supercession allowed by the texts; while Middies! not introduce any such qualification.

FOUNDED

1917

562

As Viśvarūpa quotes Kumārila’s Slokavārtika and is mentioned by the Mit. as an authoritative commentator it follows that he flourished between 750 A. D. and 1000 A. D. A greater approximation as to the date of Viśvarūpa can be made, if the identity of Viśvarūpa with Sureśvara be held established. Sureśvara, as he himself tells us in the Naiskarmyasiddhi, the Taittiriyopaniṣad bhāsya vārtika and other works, was ā pupil of the great Saṅkarācārya whose generally accepted period is 788-820 A. D. Mādhavācārya in several works of his quotes as Viśvarūpa’s passages from the the well-known works of Sureśvara. For example, the Parāśara-Mādhaviya ( vol. I, part I, p. 57 ) quotes a karikā of Sureśvara as that of Viśvarūpācārya.726 In the Vivarana prameyasaṁgraba ( Vizianagaram series p. 92 ) also Madhava quotes & verse from the Bșhadāranyakopanisad bhāsya vārtika as Viśvarūpa’s.726 In the Purusārthaprabodha7a7 of Brahmānanda-bhārati (ms. in Bhau Daji collection, Bombay) composed in 1476 (probably of the Saka era ) the author speaks of the Naiskarmyasiddhi as a work of Viśvarūpa. In the Saṁksepa-Sarkara-jaya, Viśvarūpa is said to be the author of the two vārtikas on Sarkara’s bhāsya.738 According to tradition embodied in the various lives of Sarkara, the latter had four pupils, Sureśvara, Padmapāda, Totaka and Hastāmalaka. Several works mention Viśvarūpa as one of the four pupils and omit the name Sureśvara. For example, in the Dvādaśa-vākya-vivarana of Gopāla (Aufrecht’s Oxf. Cat. No. 557, p. 227 b) the four pupils of Śhaṅkara are named as Viśvarūpa, Padmanābha, Totaka and Hastāmalaka. In the Mānasollāsa-vșttānta-vilāsa of Rāmatīrtba we are expressly

725 इदं च वाक्यं नित्यकर्मविषयत्वेन वार्तिके विश्वरूपाचार्य उदाजहार-आने

फलार्थे इत्यादि ह्यापस्तम्बस्मृतेर्वचः । फलवत्त्वं समाचष्टे नित्यानामपि कर्मणाम् ॥.

The sūtra of 3779777 is 3177. 7. . I. 7. 20. 3 and the First

occurs in the बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद्भाष्यवार्तिक ( I. 1. 97 ). 726 The verse is on p. 640 of the earcuperato4q11c1. 727 इत्येवं नैष्कर्म्यसिद्धौ ब्रह्मांशैब्रह्मवित्तमैः। श्रीमद्भिर्विश्वरूपात्यैराचार्यैः करुणार्णवैः॥

(folio 6 ). 728 इत्थं स उक्तो भगवत्पदेन श्रीविश्वरूपो विदुषां वरिष्ठः । चकार भाष्यद्वयवार्तिक

(ā ? )313T TEOTI ara arcuftar II HÆTTET87519 13.68 ( Aufrechten Oxford Cat. p. 267 ).

fou61. Viśvarūpa

568

told that Sureśvara is another name of Viśvarūpa, a pupil of Śhaṅkara (vide Mitra’s Notices vol. V, No. 1763,p. 82). In the Saptasūtra-sanıyāsa paddhati (Mitra’s Notices, vol. VI, p. 296 ) the four pupils are said to be Svarūpācārya, Padmā cārya, Totaka and Prthvidhara. The Guruvaṁsakāvya (Vanivilas ed. ) identifies Suresvara and Viśvarāpa ( II.59) and makes him a pupil of Kumārila and Śhaṅkara. It may therefore be held as fairly established that Viśvarūpa and Sureśvara are identical. Some corroboration is afforded by the fact that Viśvarūpa quotes Gauda pāda the ‘paramaguru’ of Śhaṅkara and holds the same philosophical views as those of Sarkara. Just as Viśvarūpa quotes Kumārila’s Sloka vārtika, Suresvara also in his Taittiriyopanisadbhāsya-vārtika quotes a kārikā of Kumirila and styles the latter Mimāṁ sakam-manya.729 This shows that Suresvara treated Kumarila with scant respect, which seems unlikely if he was at any time Kumarila’s pupil. Viśvarūpa, in his introduction,730 performs an obeisance to the Sun, the great serpent (Sesa ), Tilakasvamin and Vinayaka. The Bhamati of Vācaspati–misra has a similar salutation. Vācaspati–misra wrote his Nyāyasūci-nibandha in 841-42 A. D. i. e. he was almost a contemporary of Śhaṅkara and his pupils. The learn ed editor of Viś. tells us that in a commentary on Viß. called Vacanamālā Sureśvara is bracketed with Maru and Yogisvara (Yajnavalkya ) as an expounder of Sastra (i. e. dharma sastra ).8l Therefore that commentator looked upon Vis. aud 729 मोक्षार्थी न प्रवर्तेत तत्र काम्यनिषिद्धयोः । नित्यनैमित्तिके कुर्यात्प्रत्यवाय.

जिहासया ।। इति मीमांसकंमन्यः कर्मोक्तं मोक्षसाधनम् । तै. उ. भाष्यवार्तिक I. 9-10. The verse मोक्षार्थी &c. is श्लोकवार्तिक (सम्बन्धाक्षेपपरिहार

verse 110). 730 प्रणम्या महानागं तिलकप्वामिनं तथा । विनायकं च सद्गोभिः स्मृतिरुयोत्यते

मया । विश्वरूप ; vide याज्ञ. I. 289 आदित्यस्य सदा पूजा तिलकस्वामिन स्तथा । महागणपतेश्चैव कुर्वन् सिद्धिमवाप्नुयात् ॥. The भामती has - मार्तण्ड तिलकखामिमहागणपतीन् वयम् । विश्ववन्द्यान्नमस्यामः सर्वसिद्धिविधायिनः ॥. तिलकस्वामी would mean तिलकप्रियः स्वामी. The मिताक्षरा reads तिलक

स्वामिनस्तथा. अवनम्य मनुसुरेश्वरयोगीश्वरतीवकिरणगुरुचरणान् । शास्त्राणां व्याकर्तन् कर्तृनपि देवता निखिलाः ॥ One of the verses at the end of the वचनमाला भवभूतिनिबन्धनोदधौ तिमिभीमप्रतिवादिके गुरोः । सकटाक्षनिरीक्षणप्लव) पतितं मामयमुद्धरिष्यति ॥. vide Tri. Cat. of Madras Govt. trane) = for 1919-22, pp. 4458-4460 for वचनमाला.

731

FOUNDED

1917

564

Sureśvara as identical. From all these several considerations it follows that Viśvarūpa flourished about 800-825 A. D. But this problem presents further difficulties. The mutual rela tions of Sureśvara, Bhavabhūti, Umbeka and Mandana are a great puzzle. I have dealt with this question in JBBRAS for 1928, pp. 289-293. The conclusions arrived at there are that Mandana’s literary activity lies between 690-710, that of Umbeka between 700-730 and Sureśvara’s between 810-840

A. D. and that Umbeka and Bhavabhuti are identical, but that Mandana and Sureśvara are separated by about 100 years,

In the H. of Dh. Vol. V pp. 1188-1198 the present author has discussed at some length the relative chronological posi tion of Kumārila, Prabhākara, Sālikanātha, Mandanamiśra, Umbeka, Bhavabhūti, Viśvarūpa and Sureśvara and the conclusions relevant to Viśvarūpa are that Mandanamisra is not identical with Viśvarūpa, that Viśvarapa and Sureśvara are identical and that Sureśvara is the name of Viśvarūpa after the latter became a sunnyāsin. The grounds in favour of the identity of Viśvarūpa and Sureśvara are overwhelming as evidenced by the writings of great scholars like Mādhavācārya.

An interesting matter about Viśvarūpa may be mentioned here. On Yāj. I. 162 / which is one of tbe verses that state the persons whose food should not be partaken of ), ‘grāmayājin’ is one ( who is abhojyūnnu ) and Viś. remarks that among the Mālavas a grāmayājaki is known as Vaiśva devika’. It is possible that Viśvarūpa was an inhabitant of Mālava ( roughly present Malwa ) or that he had stayed there for some years.

Dr. Jolly has brought together in the Journal of Indian History ( vol. III. pp. 1-27 ) some valuable information about Viśvarūpa.

In several later works a digest called Viśvarūpa-uibandha is frequently cited. That appears to be the composition of another Viśvarūpa altogether. For example, the ṣan-ụavant srāddhanirṇaya of Śivablatta (which is later than 160 A, D.) tells us that Viśvarūpācirya composed a vivurder

Viśvarūpa

585

(commentary) on the Sraddhakalikā.732 The Kr̥tyacintāinani of Śivarima ( No. 221 of 1879-80 in the Govt. Mss. Lib. at the B. O. R. Institute, Poona 4 ) quotes several 33 verses from Viśvara panibandha on supinda relationship in marriage, which are not found in the Balakridā. but which agree

remarkably with the words of the Mit. on Yāj. I. 53. The Varsakriyakaumudi (pp. 378, 380) mentions Viśvarupa nibandha and quotes two verses cited therein. The Tithi nirṇaya-sarvasamuccaya ( later than 1450 A. D.) quotes certain lcarileti.s of Viśvarupa on the 18 varieties of Ekadasi.734 The Kalanirṇayasiddhantavyakhya ( composed in 1653 A. D.) quotes certain verses of Viśvarūpa on the question of the disposal of food prepared for a marriage when a period of impurity on death supervenes.135 The Nirnayasindhu also quotes verses of Viśvarūjia. From these data it follows that a Viśvarūpa composed a commentary on Srāddhakalikā and also wrote a digest on matters of acara and other topics of dharma in prose and verse. Raghunandana in his Udvāha-. tattva (ed. by Jivananda, p. 116) names a Viśvarupa samuccaya. It is likely that it is the same as Viśvarapa nibundlhn.