- Balarupa In the Smrtisāra of Harinātha (I. O. cat. No. 301, folio 128a ff) there is a long passage setting out the views of Bālarūpa on the question of the succession to a childless man. In the Vivadacandrasil of fisaru-misra the opinions of Bala
808 बालकेनाप्युक्तं न टेकेन भ्रात्रा विद्यादिना लब्धेऽपरेषामधिकारसंभवः प्रमाणा
भावादित्यन्तेन । दायभाग p. 190 ( P. 120 of Jivananda ). 809 अतो यबालकवचनं यथा मुद्दापचारे मापप्रतिनिधों मुद्गानां माषाणां च
यज्ञसंबन्धे-अयज्ञिया वे मावा-इति माषा निषिद्धाः , तथात्मीयानात्मीयहरणेपि अनात्मीयापहारो निषिद्धः, तद्वालवचनमेव पूर्वव्याहृतस्य स्तेयपदार्थस्यैवाभावात् ।
दायभाग p. 356 and pp. 227-228 of Jivananda. 810 इति आश्विनाधिकारीयविष्णुधर्मोत्तरवचनमात्रदर्शिना बालकेनात्र विषये पूर्वदिने
नवमीकृत्यं युग्मादिति यदुक्तं ‘भगवत्याः प्रवेशादिविसगान्ताश्च याः क्रियाः’ इत्यादिवचनेन विरोधात्तद्धेयम् । दुर्गोत्सवविवेक p. 16 ( Sanskrit Sahitya parisad ed. ). Vide p. 9 also for reference to बालक’s view on
देवीपूजा.
81 दुहितणामभावे तदन्वयस्तत्पुत्रादिभिजेदित्यर्थः । मातुरन्वय इति बालरूपकता।
जिवादचन्द ( Ms. No. 57 of 1883-84 in the Govt. Mss, Lib. at the B. O. R. Institute, Poona ) folio 33a ; वालरूपमते तु संसृष्टसहोदरत्वमपि संसृष्टविभागग्रहणे हेतुः । ivid. folio 33a.
- Būlarūpa
597
rūpa ( Bālarūpamata ) that the words of Yāj. (II. 117 tābhya ste’nvayaḥ ) mean the offspring of tbe mother and on the succession to re-united coparceners are cited. In the Vivāda cintāmani of Vacaspati$12 the views of Bālarūpa are frequently cited. Relying on the words of Parāśara Bālarūpa held that an unmarried daughter was entitled to preference over a married one as an heir to a sonless man. As regards the verse of Hārīta that if a young widow was karkasā ( quarrel some, suspected of unchastity’ according to others ), then she was to be given maintenance alone (out of her husband’s estate ), Bālarūpa’s view was that it refers to the widow of a re-united coparcener. 813 Balarūpa was of opinion that ātma bandhus, pitsbandhus and matsbandhus succeeded in the order stated.:14 The Kālādarśa of Adityabhatta names Bāla rūpa among the authorities on which it relies. This shows that Bālarūpa wrote not only on vyuvahāra but also on kāla.
As Harinātha and the Vivādacandra mention Bālarūpa he is certainly earlier than about 1250 A. D. The important question is whether Bālaka and Bāla rūpa are identical. I think, though with some hesitation, that they are identical. The difficulty is caused by the fact that Harinātha speaks of
• the author of Balarūpa,’ which implies that Bālarūpa is a work and not an author, while the others speak of Bālarūpa as an author. The Dāyabhāga always speaks of Bālaka and never of Bālarūpa, while the Mithilā writers, Misaru-miśra, Vācaspati and Harinātha, speak of Bālarūpa and not of Bālaka. Bālaka is not mentioned by any writer belonging to a pro vince other than Bengal. It is not likely that there were two early authors belonging to the same locality on vyuvahāra bearing two names so nearly the same as Bālaka (or Bāla ) and Bālarūpa. Moreover, if we read one quotation from the Dāyabhāga between the lines ( vide note 621 ) where Jimūta - vāhana makes fun of Bālaka by charging him with having exposed his Bālarūpatva (being Bālarūpa, being childish ) it appears that the Dāyabhāga looked upon Bālaka and Bāla rūpa as identical. If 80 Bālaka or Bāla rūpa becomes an 812 अपुत्रस्य कुमारी रिक्थं गृह्णीयात्तदभावे चोढा चेति पराशरवचनात्तथैवात्र कम
gta ATSET: I aql farthio P. 153. 813 HELICHTIRTAQ 17€7: 1 foarte THIÊT p. 152. 814 JAHT FRUITTÀ FER:, AFET I fararnamafê p. 155.
598
ancient writer, who flourished certainly before 1100 A. D. As he held the same views as Śrīkara’s and an antiquated view about the rights of the daughter’s son he must not be later than 1050 A. D.