080 Aparārka

80. Aparārka

On the smṛti of Yajñavalkya Aparāditya wrote a voluminous commentary styled Aparārka-Yajñavalkiya-dharmaśastra-nibandha (published in two volumes by the Ānandāśrama Press, Poona, 1903 and 1904). In a verse¹ at the end and in the colophons the author is called Aparāditya, a Śilāhāra king, born in the family of Jimutavāhana of the Vidyadhara race. In the introductory[^l020] fifth verse also the author is styled ‘an ornament of the family of Jimūta’ and is highly eulogised for his devotion to Śiva and his brilliant intellect.

The Śilāhāras had a long history for several centuries in India, roughly between the Tāpi river and parts of Goa and present Mysore. There were three main branches, but as they were feudatories and did not aspire to imperial title, they were generally referred to as “Mahāmaṇḍaleśvara’ and did not rule over extensive territories. The late Professor A. S. Altekar contributed an exhaustive paper on the śilāhāras to the Indian Culture (Vol. II for 1935-36, pp. 393-428 ) with a list of Śilāhāra Inscriptions (on pp. 43-4330). Here only a brief account will be set out. One branch of Śilāhāras ruled over North Konkan from about 800 A. D. to about 1265 A. D. A number of copper plates and Inscriptions on stone of this branch had been published when Dr. Altekar wrote. The pedigree begins with Kapardin ( 800-825 A. D.) and ends with Someśvara (1240–1265 A. D.). This branch ruled over parts of what is now Surat district and over the present districts of Thana, Alibag and parts of the Ratnagiri District, their capitais being Thana and Purī. Vide 1. C. vol. II. p. 402 for a complete genealogy of this line and their chronology. There were two kings in this branch called Aparārka (I in about 1110-1140 A. D.) and Aparārka or Aparāditya (II in 1170–1195 A. D.). The most important records of this branch ( with which alone we are concerned when dealing with Aparārka as a commentator on Yaj.) are those in J. B. B. R. A. S. vol. XXI pp. 505-16, ed. by Prof. K. B. Pathak of the year Śake 1049 ( 1127 A. D.) and in A. B. O. R. I. vol. V. pp. 169–70 edited by Mr. Diskalkar². About 29 plates and inscriptions of this branch are set out by Prof. Altekar(1. C vol. II on pp. 430-32 ) and on p. 402 of the same the names of all the kings of this branch with dates are mentioned. The two other branches were (I) of the Śilahāras of South Konkan as in E. I. Vol. III. pp. 292-302 ( the Kharepatan plates of Raṭṭaraja of Śake 930, 1008 A. D.); (2) and the other ruling over territories of what are now parts of Satara and Belgaum Districts and the State of Kolhapur (vide E. I. vol. III pp. 207-216 of śake 1065 i.e. 1143 A. D.). There is no Aparāditya in both these branches. The Śilāhāras describe themselves as Tagarapuravarādhiśvara. Greek writers like Ptolemy located Tagara to the northeast of Paithan. Dr. Fleet (JRAS vol. IV p. 281 ) conjectures that it is Ter, a place about 95 miles South-East of Paithan.

The most relevant documents for our purpose are those of Aparārka or Aparāditya (literally the Sun of the Western direction). The name of the family is variously spelt in the Inscriptions viz. as Śilāhāra, śālār, Siyalār, Selar. There is a place called Śelārvāḍi near Poona. The first name is rather ancient. It occurs in the Sanskrit drama called Nāgānanda composed by the famous Emperor Harṣadeva (first half of 7th century A. D.). The name was taken to mean ‘who offered himself as food on a stone-slab’. The drama is based on the legend that Jimūtavāhana, son of Jimūtaketu, offered himself as prey to Garuḍa who used to devour every day a nāga on a stone-slab. The drama describes Goddess Gauri (consort of Śiva ) to be the patroness of Vidyādharas, from whom was descended Jimūtavāhana. The colophons at the end of the three sections of the Yājñavalkyasmṛti mention this legendary matter. It is noteworthy that in the Akalkot Inscription of Śilāhāra Indrarasa (E. I. vol. 27, p. 63 ) it is pointed out by the editor of the record that there are no doubt three well known branches of Śilāhāras but there are seven other branches also.

As regards Aparārka there are the grants in ABORI vol. V p. 169, the Vadavali grant of Śake 1049 ( 1127-28 A. D.), and JBBRAS vol. XXI, pp. 506-517.

Aparārka’s work, like the Mitākṣarā, though professedly a commentary on Yāj., is really in the nature of a digest. It is far more voluminous than the Mit. It quotes profusely from the Gṛhya and Dharmasūtras and the metrical smṛtis. Several features distinguish it from the Mit. The Mit. is generally very chary of quoting from the Purāṇas, while Aparārka contains long extracts sometimes extending over pages from several Purāṇas, viz. the Adipurāṇa, the Adityapurāṇa, the Kūrma, the Kālikāpurāṇa, Devi, Nandi, Nṛsimha, Padma, Brahma, Brahmāṇḍa, Bhaviṣyat, Bhaviṣyottara, Matsya, Mārkaṇḍeya, Linga, Varāha, Vāmana, Vāyu, Viṣṇu, Viṣṇudharmottara, Śivadharmottara, Skanda. From the Puraṇas hundreds of verses are cited. The Vamana on pp. 364-365 on special gifts in the twelve months from Māgha and Śivadharmottra (p. 274) are quoted only once and the Kurma and Linga are quoted only thrice each, but about four hundred verses are quoted from the Matsyapuraṇa alone, about 160 from the Brahmapurāṇa, about 100 from the Bhaviṣyat and so on. The index at the end of the printed Aparārka gives the names of the various smṛtikāras quoted in the work. Another feature not found in the Mit, is that Aparārka quotes long passages of the Dharmasūtras and explains them at length, e. g. on Yāj. III. 294 (p. 1205 ) he quotes Gautama ( Dh. S. 20. 2-9) and then offers a lengthy explanation ; on Yāj. III. 294–295, he quotes long passages of Vasiṣṭha (Dh. S. 15. 11-14 and 17-21) and gives detailed explanations of them. It is probable he had not before him commentaries on these dharmasūtras. Several hundred verses are quoted from the Manusmṛti. The Dharma sutras of Āpastamba, Gautama, Vasiṣtha, Viṣṇu, Bodhāyana, Devala, Paiṭhinasi, Śaṅkha, Śaṅkhalikhita and Hārita are profusely quoted. Similarly, Nārada, Bṛhaspati and Katyāyana, Parāśara, Yama (quoted over 100 times mostly on ācāra and prāyaścitta sections) are quoted profusely. It appears from the way that Śaṅkha and Śaṅkhalikhita are quoted that Aparārka had before him two separate works, one of Śaṅkha (in which sūtras and verses occur almost in equal numbers ) and of Śaṅkhalikhita in which prose passages vastly predominate and verses occur rarely. In the 99 references to pages where Śaṅkha is mentioned he is quoted in prose on pp. 118, 119, 123, 150, 156, 249, 260, 262-63, 274, 694, 717, 718, 741, 842, 875, 882, 944, 1025, 1057, 1066, 1077, 1089, 1094, 1117, 1121, 1148, 1153, 1154, 1158, 1175, 1210, 1241. Śaṅkha-Likhitau are mentioned about 63 times, but verses are rare. On p. 224 there is a quotation from śaṅkhalikhitau in which there is a verse first, followed by a prose passage. On p. 896 at first there is a verse passage ( 1 1/2 verses ) followed by a prose extract on the same topic. On p. 1149 there is a prose passage of Śaṅkhalikhita followed by a half verse attributed to Śaṅkha. On p. 1154.1022 there is a passage of Śaṅkha followed by another prose from Śaṅkhalikhita ( the first word being the same in both). There are similar cases where Śaṅkhalikhitau are quoted and then Śaṅkha is quoted or vice versa on the same matter ( vide note below )³.

I collected about 40 years ago passages quoted in digests as those of Śaṅkha-Likhita and published them in ABORI, vol. VII (1926) pp. 100-128 and in ABORI vol. VIII ( 1927) pp. 93-132.

It is remarkable that Aparārka names twelve Smṛtikāras with the prefix ‘vṛddha’ viz. Gārgya, Gautama, Parāśara, Pārāśara, Pracetas, Bṛhaspati, Manu ( 24 times), Yajñavalkya (ten times ), Vasiṣṭha ( 16 times), Vyāsa, Śatātapa ( 19 times,) and Harita ( twice). He also quotes Laghu-Yama, Laghu-Viṣṇu and Laghu-Harita (9 times); and also Bṛhat-Pracetas (thrice), Bṛhad-yama (once), Bṛhan-Manu (once) and Bṛhad-Viṣṇu(thrice ). About eighty verses are expressly quoted from the Mahābhārata and only seven from the Rāmāyaṇa (one on p. 385, two on p.875 and four on p. 881 ). On p. 11 he gives brief summaries in the style of the Śhaṅkarabhāṣya of the tenets of the Śaiva, Paśupata, Pañcarātra, Saṅkhya and Yoga systems. In one place he sets out the arguments of those who hold that correct knowledge alone leads to mokṣa and of those who hold that a combination of correct knowledge and works is essential for mokṣa and leaves his readers to choose for themselves whatever view they take⁴.

It is remarkable that, while even the Mit. names at least six nibandhakāras on dharmaśāstra viz. Asahāya, Viśvarūpa, Bhāruci, Śrikara, Medhātithi and Dhāreśvara. Aparārka observes a studied silence in the matter of citing the names of his predecessors. He employs such vague expressions as kecit, anye, apare, though he cites views that were ascribed by the Mit. and others to Dhāreśvara and others, e.g. on pp. 741-42 he says⁵ that the text of Yāj. “patni duhitaraḥ’ according to some refers to the widow who submits to niyoga (this is the view of Dhāreśvara); on p. 744 he refers to the view of some that the word duhitṛ in Yaj. means only the appointed daughter (putrikā). This last was the view of Viśvarūpa and Śrikara. On p. 761 he refers to the reading of some in Yāj. II. 150 as ‘sāmantā sthavirā gaṇāḥ’ which is found in Viśvarūpa (II. 154) and not in the Mit. Aparārka pames (p. 926 ) a Vāgbhaṭa-smṛtisamgraha and a Smrtimīmāṁsā of Jaimini ( p. 206 ) from which two verses are quoted, variant readings therein are noticed and detailed explanations thereof are offered. He refers to several works and authors on astronomy and astrology such as Garga, Kriyāśraya (p. 872), Sārāvali. On pp. 570 and 572 of the printed text occur two references to a pustaka of Rājānaka Śitikaṇṭha⁶. That was probably a marginal note in a ms., the copyist or owner of which found on comparison with another ms. belonging to Rājānaka Śitikaṇṭha additional matter. Aparārka quotes from Bhaṭṭa (i. e. Kumārilabhatta )⁷. Aparārka does not appeal as frequently to the doctrines of the Pūrvamimāmsā, as the Mit. does and he does not generally enter into acute discussions of Pūrvamimāṁsā in its application to Dharmasastra as the Mit. does. Here and there he mentions a few terms that are often employed in Pūrvamimāṁsā discussions, e. g. on p. 470 on Yāj. I. 226–228 he employs the words ‘aupadeśika’ and ‘ātideśika.’ Similarly, on Yaj. I. 260 (on Trayodaśiśraddha in the rainy season ) he enters upon a discussion of the terms ‘prasajyapratiședha’ and ‘paryudasa’.

On Yāj. III. 243 he quotes the Nyāya ‘sarvaśākhāpratyam-ekam karmeti-nyāyena smṛtyantaroktā aviruddhā dharmāḥ samuccayena kartavyāḥ’. Vide H. of Dh. Vol. V. pp. 1273 and 1350 for this nyāya based on Jaimini II. 4. 8-33. But such references to Mimāṁsā and nyāyas are rare in Aparārka’s work. For explanation of ‘prasajyapratiṣedha’ and ‘paryudāsa ‘, vide H. of Dh. vol. V. pp. 1247–49 and foot-notes 2027-2030 and for Ātideśika and Aupadeśika’ vide H. of Dh. vol. V. pp. 1321-23 and note 2173. It must be said that Aparārka is much inferior to the Mit. in lucid exposition, in dialectic skill, in subtlety of argument and in the ordered presentation of heterogenous material.

Some of the views that are usually associated with Jimutavāhana were propounded by Aparārka also. Aparārka bases the right to take a deceased person’s property on the superior spiritual benefit conferred by the claimant on the person deceased⁸. In several other respects also Aparārka differs from the Mit., though in general the two closely agree. For example, Aparārka prefers the father over the mother as an heir (p. 745); Apararka explains the word apratiṣṭhitā’ in Gautama’s text ( 18. 22 ) as one who is issueless or is indigent or a widow,’ while the Mit. explains it to mean only indigent.’

Whether Aparārka knew the Mit. is a vexed question. Some scholars, while holding that Aparārka does criticize the Mit., ex plain away the non-mention of the Mit. by saying that the Indian etiquette required a royal author not to mention the name of the servant of another king, while the existence of the master himself was ignored (Dr. Jolly in Journal of Indian History, vol. III. p.17). It is doubtful whether any such etiquette ever existed and further Aparārka studiously avoids the express mention of every ancient commentator. Works of royal authors, such as the Madanapārijāta or the Sarasvativilāsa, do not appear to have followed the etiquette if it ever existed.

Besides, Vijñānesvara was a Parivrājaka(sannyasin) and not the servant of any king. In my opinion the Mit. was known to Aparārka. Aparārka reads Yāj. III. 17 as ‘Vaitānopāsanāḥ kāryāḥ kriyāśca śruticoditāḥ,’ explains the first word as a karmadhāraya compound, gives the explanation of this verse offered by others, disapproves of it and then says that others read - ‘śruticodanāt’ for ‘śruticoditaḥ’⁹. Viśvarupa reads ‘vaitānikāśrayaḥ… śrutidarśanāt’ and offers no comment on this verse beyond the word ‘spaṣṭirthametat’ (it is III. 15 in the Trivandrum ed.). The Mit. does contain the reading referred to by Aparārka and the śruti passage ‘yāvaj-jīvam’ etc. Aparārka refers on Yāj. III. 254 to the reading ‘samām’ ¹⁰ adopted by some, says that the latter explain the verse as prescribing the penance for three years and observes that the verse of Manu (IX. 92 ) does not apply, as the latter say, to him alone whose palate has merely come in contact with liquor ( without his having actually swallowed it). Viśvarupa (III. 248) does not explain the verse as prescribing a three years’ penance nor does he refer to the contact of wine with the palate.

The Mit., however, contains both these particulars. On p. 1084 also¹¹ Aparārka seems to be referring to the view of the Mit.

If one compares the portion of the Mit. on the section on rājadharma (Yaj. I. 309-368 ) with the commentary of Aparārka on the same section (verses 307–366 ) and bears in mind the fact that a reigning king is credited with composing the latter, one would be struck by the poverty of explanations in Aparārka’s work as compared with the Mitākṣarā.

The date of Aparārka can be settled within very narrow limits. The Smṛticandrikā[^l031] in several places quotes the views of Aparārka and sometimes contrasts them with those of the Mit. The Smṛticandrikā refutes the view of Aparārka that the words of Yāj. ‘jyeșṭham vā śreṣṭhabhāgena’ are meant to comprehend all various modes of giving an additional share (uddhāravibhāga) to the eldest son on partition mentioned by Manu and others and it follows Aparārka’s explanation of ‘apratiṣṭhitā’ in Gautama’s text. It will be shown later on that the Smṛticandrikā must have been composed about 1200 A. D. If the above conclusion that Aparārka knew the Mit, and criticizes it be correct, Aparārka must have flourished after 1100 A. D. and before 1200 A. D. Here epigraphical research comes to our help. We know from the commentary that the author Aparāditya was a śilāhāra prince of Jimūtavāhana’s family. Inscriptions of the Śilāhāras show that there were three branches of that family, one ruling in the northern Konkan at Thana, the second in the southern Konkan and the third at Kolhapur.

Inscriptions of the northern Śilāhāras speak of two kings who are named Aparādityadeva. In JBBRAS vol. XXI, pp. 505-516 there is a grant dated śake 1049 (expired) of Aparādityadeva who donated a village named Vaḍavali in the Thana District to a brāhmaṇa studying the Mādhyandina recension of the Vājasaneyasamhitā. The king is there styled once as Aparājita and several times as Aparādityadeva. He was son of Anantadeva and grand-son of Nāgarjuna and traced his descent to Jimūtavahana, son of Jimūtaketu, far famed in legend and literature as an exemplar of self-sacrifice¹², e.g. in the drama Nāgānanda. In this inscription Aparādityadeva is styled Śilāhāranarendra and Jimūtavāhananvayaprasūta as in the colophon of the commentary on Yāj. (vide note 1020 above) and also Mahāmaṇḍaleśvara and Tagarapuraparameśvara. In the Annals of the Bhandarkar Institute, vol. V, part 2, p. 169 there is a grant made at Somnath-Paṭan in Kathiawar of Vikramsamvat 1176 (1119-20 A. D.) while Aparādityadeva of the Śilāhāra family was reigning, almost in the same words as in the grant in JBBRAS vol. XXI p. 505. Therefore it appears that the dates of Aparādityadeva I referred to in these grants fall between 1115 and 1130 A. D. It was most probably this king who composed the commentary on Yaj. We known from the Śrikaṇṭhacarita of Maṅkha that king Aparāditya¹³ of Konkan sent Tejakaṇṭha on an embassy to an assembly of learned men in Kashmir during the reign of Jayasimha of Kashmir (1129 to 1150 A.D.). Aparārka’s commentary continues to be the standard law-book used by the pandits of Kashmir (Jolly’s Tagore Law Lectures p. 24). Aparārka’s work betrays familiarity with Kashmir. I have already noticed the reference to Rājānaka Śitikaṇṭha above. On a passage from Brahmapurāṇa speaking of a śrāddha at Mārtandapādamūla, Aparārka notes (p. 903) that¹⁴ the latter is well known in Kashmir.

It is, therefore, most probable that the work was composed about 1125 and was introduced into Kashmir when an embassy was sent from the Konkan king to Kashmir in the reign of Jayasiṁha. The dates of the second Aparāditya range from 1184 to 1187 A. D. (Vide Bombay Gazetteer vol. XIII, part 2, p. 427; JBBRAS vol. XII. pp. 333-335 for an inscription of Aparāditya dated 1109 śake i. e. 1187 A. D. ( wherein he is styled Koṅkaṇa-cakravarti). It is difficult to hold that this was the author of the commentary on Yāj. The Smr̥ticandrika is mentioned by Hemadri and hence could not be later than the first quarter of the thirteenth century. Therefore if Aparārka who is frequently cited by the Smṛticandrika were to be regarded as having flourished about 1187 A. D., very little distance is left between Aparārka’s commentary and the Smr̥ticandrikā in order that the former should come to be looked upon as an authority by the latter. Therefore it appears probable that Aparārka wrote the commentary on Yaj in the first half of the 12th century (about 1125 A. D.).

The commentary of Aparārka is in mere extent nearly double of the Mitākṣarā. It quotes very long extracts, particularly from Purāṇas, on several verses of Yāj. such as on I. 208 (on Godāna, gift of a cow) where he quotes lengthy extracts from Viṣṇudharmottara-purāṇa, Bhaviṣyottara-purāṇa on different dānas (called Dhenus ), then he quotes on 16 kinds of Dānas (called Mahādānas ) from whole chapters of Matsya, of Bhaviṣyottara, from Viṣṇudharmasūtra (almost the whole of chap. 90) and from some other Purāṇas. On Yāj. I. 226–228 he has an exposition on pp. 463-477; On Yāj. I. 252-253 ( on Sapiṇdikaraṇa-srāddha ) he expends 14 pages (pp. 528–542 ). On the Prāyaścitta section also his expositions in certain cases are very long e.g. on III. 267-268 he devotes pp. 1106-1127, on III. 289-290 he devotes pp. 1152-1184. His quotations from Devala and Hārita ( both in verse and prose) are very extensive. If some scholar undertook the work of collecting together even all the prose passages of Devala, Saṅkhalikhita and Hārita drawn from the several commentaries and nibandhas it would be a large and valuable work. For example, if one collects only the prose passages of Devala cited in Aparārka they will cover about five closely printed pages of the same work. Similarly, Hārita is profusely quoted in prose and verse by Aparārka e.g. pages 937, 1113, 1116, 1152 have long prose passages.