कल्पान्तरे विश्वासटिप्पन्यः

Bhāruci The Mit. on Yij. (I. 81) says that Bhiruci like Viśvaripa held the view that the rulertau bhūryam gacchet’ was a niyanma and not a paristkrinkhayti. On Yij. II 124 the Mit. says that the explanation of’ the fourth share’ to be given to un married sisters oflered by Asahiya and Medhitithi was the

732 अत एवोक्तं श्राद्धकलिकायां-मासिकानि सपिण्डं च अमावास्या तथाब्दिकम् ।

अन्नेनैव तु कर्तव्यं यस्य भाया रजस्वला ॥ इति । अनेनैव कर्तव्यं न त्वामान्नादिनेति च कलिकाविवरणेपि श्रीमद्विश्वरूपाचार्यव्याख्यानम् । Ms. in

the Bhadkamkar Culloction, folio 7b. 733 विश्वरूपनिबन्धे । एवमुक्तप्रकारेण पितृबन्धुषु सप्तमात् । ऊर्ध्वमेव विवाह्यत्वं

पञ्चमान्मातृवन्धुतः ॥ सन्तानो भिद्यते यस्मात्पूर्वजादुभयत्र च । तमादाय गणे (गणेद ) धीमान्वरं यावच्च कन्यकाम् ॥ इति कृत्यचिन्तामणि folio 150. The Mit. says ‘सन्तानभेदेपि यतः सन्तानभेदस्तमादाय गणयेद्यावत्सप्तम

इति सर्वत्र योजनीयम् ।’. 734 एवं स्मार्ताभिप्रायेण विश्वरूपेणापि अष्टादश भेदा उक्ताः ।

Bhadkankar collection, folio 19u. 735 Ms. in Bhalkamkar collection, folio 1370 on verse 82.

ANS.IN

ASTITUN “POONAM

FOUNDED 1917

566

proper one and not that of Bhāruci. The Parāśaramadhaviya736 and the Sarasvativilāsa ( para 133 ) inform us that Bharuci was of opinion that unmarried sisters were only entitled to a provision for their marriage and were not entitled to a fourth share.

The Smrticandrikā ( on Vyavahāra p. 268 ) holds that the Visuudharmasūtra (chap. 18 ) and Yāj. II. 124 ( bhagi nyusca…dattvamsam tu turīyakam ) not to be taken literally but all that is meant is that provision has to be made for the marriage expenses of the unmarried sisters of the sons taking the paternal wealth. The Par. M. (III. p. 510 ) notes that this was the view of Bhāruci (as against Medhātithi and Vijñānesvara and also of the Smrticandrikā ).

Vide Dr. T. R. Chintamani’s paper on ‘Bhāruci’ (in the Pro. of All India Or. Conf. ut Benares in 1943-44, vol. II, pp. 352-360, where he first collects 50 passages of Bhāruci found in the Sarasvativilāsa, then puts together passages where Medhātithi refers to the views of Upadhyāya and then refers to a fragment of Manusmrti commentary (on chapters VI to XII) where some colophons read Rjuvimalā and others Bhāruci.

Bhāruci, being mentioned by the Mit., is certainly older than 1050 A. D. Rāmānujācārya, in his Vedārthasamgraba ( reprint from the Pandit, ed. of 1924, p. 154 ), mentions six ācāryas that preceded him as expounders of the Visistādvaita system, viz. Bodhāyana, Tanka, Dramida, Guhadeva, Ka pardin and Bhāruci. Similarly, the Yatindramatadipikā787 of Srinivāsadāsa (Anandāśrama ed.) enumerates (p. 2) a host of teachers as the predecessors of Rāmānujācārya in propound ing the Visistādvaita system. Vyāsa is the reputed author of the Vedāntasūtras, Bodhāyana is said to have composed a vrtti on the Vedānta-sūtras called Kștakoṭi according to the

736 भारुचिस्तु चतुर्थभागपदेन विवाहसंस्कारमात्रोपयोगि द्रव्यं विवक्षितं, अतो

GrTHIFTZAŚTE772/1TTI TENTO Arya 1 971. Al. vol. III, 2. p. 510. 737 In the edition of the Vedārthasangraba with English translation by

S. S. Raghavachar published by Rāmakrśṇāśrama (Mysore, 1958 p. 102 paragraph 130 we road : भगवद्बोधायन-टङ्क-द्रामिड-गुहदेव-कपर्दि-भारुचि-प्रभृत्यविगीतशिष्टपरिगृहीत …

Bhāruci

567

rit

Prapanca-hrdaya ( p. 39, Trivandrum ed.). Tanka and Bra hmānandin are identical. Dramida is credited with the author ship of a bhāsya on the Vedānta-sūtras ( which is quoted by Rāmānuja in his bhāṣya on II. 2. 3). Nāthamuni is said to have been the grand-father of Yāmunamuni, who was born about 916 A. D. Rāmānuja refers to him with great reverence as his teacher’s teacher (parama-quru), vide Vedārtha samgraha, (p. 149 ) and is said to have been young when Yamuna died ( vide J. R. A S. for 1915, p. 147 and I. A. for 1909, p. 129). It is therefore obvious that the teachers are arranged by the Yatindramatadipikā in chronological order. Hence Bhāruci, being placed earlier than even Dramida and Nāthamuni, was comparatively an ancient author and could not have flourished later than the first half of the 9th century. Bhāruci, the jurist, also flourished before 1050. It is difficult to believe that there were two famous writers of the same name nearly about the same time. Hence it may provisionally be held that Bhāruci the writer on dharmaśāstra and Bhāruci the Viśistādvaita philosopher are identical. If this identity be accepted, then Bhāruci the writer on dharmaśāstra becomes comparatively an early writer, being at least as old as Viśva rũpa. His views agree on several points with those of Viśva rūpa, which is a circumstance that lends some corroboration to the date proposed for him.

One interesting point about Bhāruci deserves mention here. From pumerous notices contained in the Sarasvativilāga it appears that Bhāruci either commented upon the Viṣṇu dharmasūtra or wrote some work in which he took great pains to incorporate explanations of several sūtras of Viṣṇu. For example, para 637 tells us that Bharuci explained the word’ bija’ occurring in a sutra of Viṣṇu as `pinda ‘.738 In para 674 we are told that Bhāruci explained the word

niskārana’ in a sutra of Viṣṇu and that he held that a daughter’s son has not to perform the sraddha of his maternal grandfather if the latter has a son. Sudarsanācārya in his comment upon Apastam bagshya ( 8. 21. 2 ) ascribes the same

738 यथाह भारुचिरेतद्विष्णुवचनव्याख्यानावसरे बीजशब्दः पिण्डवाचीति । स कि

para 637 ( pp. 422–23 of Mysore ed.). The sūtra of fasor is TEMITTAUTIH Tatar’ a. la. para 636.

FOUNO

1911

568

view to Bharuci and quotes the very words of Bhāruci.739 Vide J BBRAS for 1925 pp. 210-211 for further examples. There is nothing unnatural in Bharuci, the Visistādvaita philosopher, having composed a commentary on the Viṣṇu dharmasūtra. The extant Viṣṇulharmasītra contains doctri nes peculiar to the Viśistādvaita system such as the worship of Nārāyana or Vāsudeva, the four Vyuhas of Vasudeva &c. If Bhāruci was a Viśistñilvaitin he would naturally turn to the sūtra of Viṣṇu as having the greatest claim on his atten tion. Many of the sutras of Vislu quoted in the Sarasvati vilāsa with the explanations of Bharuci are not found in the printed text of Viṣṇu, on which Nandapandita commented in the first half of the 17th century. It appears that the Sarasvativilāsa haid before it a larger version of Viṣṇu current in the South ( vide note 118 p. 127 above ).

On several points there is divergence between the views of Bhāruci and those of the Mit. Bhāruci differed from the Mit. as to the definition of dūyco and vibhāgu, he allowed niyoga to childless widows, while the Mit. condemned it in the case of all widows; Bharuci, like Viśvarūpa, did not men tion supratibundlove and apratibuındar dayco; Bhāruci, like Viśvarūpa, held that a coparcener who concealed some joint property was not guilty of theft, while the Mit. held that he was. Vide J BBRA S for 1925 pp. 211-13 for more examples and details.

Prof. T. R. Chintamani submitted an important paper at the Benares Session of the All India 0. Conf. (in 1943-4) which is published in the proceedings, Vol. II pp. 352-360, wherein he informed scholars that at Trivandrum exists a ms. containiny a fragment of Bhāruci’s commentary on Manu called ( Manuśāstra-vivarana ) on Adhyāya VI ( almost from the beginning ), on adhyāyas VII-XI and on a portion of

739 अत्र भारुचिः । निष्कारणमिति वदता विष्णुना समनन्तरकर्तृणां पुत्रादीनां

farlanac IESIR o cacialfraria i 7. f. para 874 (p. 42%), The sūtra of Farby is laasi HIIHENTET FTCOTTUTH. The words of सुदर्शनाचार्य are इममेवार्थ भारुचिरप्याह यस्मिन्पक्ष अपुत्रो मातामह पुत्रिकासुतश्चाखिलद्रव्यहारी तस्मिन्पक्षे तस्य पिण्डदनिनियमः इत्याना grita i

FOUN

Blöruci

569

adhyāya XII. Dr. J. D. M. Derrett740 ( recently contributed a paper to the Journal of the American Oriental Society (Vol. 84 for 1964 pp. 392-395) on · Blauci on royal regulative power in India’, based on Bharuci’s explanation of Manu VII. 13; and another paper in 2. 1), M. G. Vol 115 pp. 134–152 ( where on pp. 141-151 he arranges in three parallel columns parts of Bharuci’s commentary and Melhātithi’s Bhāsya on Manu VII. 50, 54, 147, 153, 154, with parallel passages from Kautilya’s Arthaśāstra and on p. 144 of his paper compares only Bharuci aud Medhātithi on Manu VII. 52. Dr, Derrett holds (pp. 139-40 of his paper ) that Bharuci is nearer A. D. 700 than the period 800-850 which was assigned to Bhāruci in the H. of Dh. Vol. I. 1930 ) p. 265. Dr. Derrett holds (p. 138 of the paper ) that the passages which Medhātithi takes without acknowledgement froin Kautilya are not obtained from the Arthaśāstra direct, but from Bharucin, who is quoting from Kautilya with occasional udjustments, that Medhātithi did not know that he was reproducing the Arthaśāstra, that the Ms. used by Medhātithi was lefective, that in some places he could not read it.

What Manu VII. 13741 means is: there are several desirable matters ( istenu ), but the king might decide (or resolve ) to strictly enforce one of them. In that case that matter becomes a rule of Dharma. The same applies to cther matters that are undesirable (anistenu) but the king may resolve to put down with a strong hand one undesirable matter out of many. That would then become the rule of the realm and it has to be obeyed by all. Bhūruci’s exegesis comes to this that the king is not the source of the rules of Dlarına, but it is Sāstra that defines the rules binding on the different varṇas (classes) and

740

741

Dr. Dorrett employs the word Bbāruci in his papor in the J. A. 0.8. cited above, while he employs the word “Bharucin’ in bis paper appearing in Z. D. M, (i. Probably the Trivandrum My, omploys that form of the name. A VII. 13 is : JHIGH JAZT ARTATIETY: 1 af afrait faag * 7 faretraset 11 HIETA’s comment is : 7 PE TAT वर्णाश्रमधर्मप्रवृत्ती हेतुः, शास्त्रलक्षणत्वात् । धर्माधर्मयोरव्यवस्था चैवं स्यात् । व्यवस्थाकारिणा च शास्त्रेण भवितव्यम् । तथा च बहुकृत्वस्तदुक्तिः। द्विर रोधश्चान्याय्यः । यतः प्रकरणाद् राजस्तुतिपरमेतदवगन्तव्यम् , लालवधमा। वेक्षया वेदं विज्ञेयं शास्त्रम् ।

FOUNDED

1917

570

āśramas ( stages of man’s life ). If the king were held to be the source of Dharma and adharma there would be great con fusion; one king may make certain rules, while his successor might abrogate them and promulgate other and different rules. He further says that the kivg often times repeats what the Sastra states ( bizhukṛtvas-taduktih ) and that opposing the dicta of Sāstra would be wrong and moreover one should hold that this text only extols the king’s office as the context shows.

In the edition of Mandlik on Manu VIII. 150, Medhātithi explains that that verse, according to some great ones was explained (iti mahattarair-vyākhyātam ) and immediately afterwards sets out the differing view of Yajvan and on Manu VIII. 151, Medhātithi mentions the explanation of Rju. Dr. Derrett (in footnote 20 on p. 141 of his paper in 2. D. M. G. ) puts forward the suggestion that Yajvan ought to be taken as standing for Rju and that Bhāruci is Rju. In the present state of our knowledge I cannot agree to this sugges tion. From Medhātithi’s bhāsya on Manu II. 6743 ( which is a very long one, occupying more than seven printed pages ) it appears that there were many persons designated by Medhā tithi as ‘Smṛtivivarana karah’ as the quotation cited below will show. On Manu II. 25 he refers to the exegesis of Vivaranakāras that Dharma has five aspects (pañcaprakāro dharma iti Vivaranakarāh prapancayanti). It is clear from the parallel passages cited by Dr. Derrett on pp. 141-151 that there is remarkable agreement between the explanation of Bhāruci and of Medhātithi and that probably it is Medhātithi that borrows. But one’s judgment may be suspended till the

742

Grafy CET AT TIET JETA waf hf 31180 11 … 3747 Branca पठ्यन्त एव ताः शाखाः किं तु विप्रकीर्णास्ते धर्माः कस्यांचिच्छाखायामष्टकादि कर्मणामुत्पत्तिः कस्यांचिद् द्रव्यं कचिद्देवता कचिन्मन्त्र इत्येवं विप्रकीर्णानां मन्वादयोऽङ्गोपसंहारं सुखावबोधाय चक्रुः । अथ मन्त्रार्थवादलिङ्गमात्रप्रभवा एते धर्माः । अथायमनादिरनुष्ठेयोर्थोऽविच्छिन्नपारंपर्यसंप्रदायायातो वेदवन्नित्य उतास्मदादीनामिव मन्वादीनामपि परप्रत्ययानुष्ठानो नित्यानुमेय श्रुतिक staan aglaroi fazi zifa faatu TTT: 1 … fagura targuita FEAT: rarara es I À 91. on H7 II. 6 p. 97 ( Mandlik’s ed. A little above on the same page, he says ‘विवरणकारास्तु युति 23197

Srikura

571

whole of Bharuci’s available text is printed and carefully studied. Vide remarks under Sarasvativilāsa of Prataparudra deva for various passages of Bharuci referred to and Manu, particularly VII. 13.