- Vyavahāranirṇaya of Varadarāja Twelve years after the first volume of the History of Dharmaśāstra was published in 1930), Prof. K. V. Rangaswami Aiyangar and his pupil Mr. A. N. Krishna Aiyangar published in the Adyar Library Series ( Madras ) an edition of the Vyava hāranirṇaya of Varadarāja based on nine mss.
One remarkable feature of the work is that it has no Mangala śloka at the beginning. Prof. Aiyangar suggests that this is so because it is only a part of a large work. I am not satisfied with the suggestion. The work could have been begun by saying ’ after completing the part on the subject already finished I (or Varadaraja ) begin ‘&c.
There are four well-known South Indian works on several branches of Dharmaśāstra including Vyavahāra viz. the Smṛticanr drikā,the Parāśaramadhaviya, the Vyavahāra-nirṇaya of Varada raja and the Smṛtimuktāphala of Vaidyanātha Diksita ( composed sometime about or after 1700 A. D.), the Vya. N. dealing only with Vyavahāra. The Mirāksarā also may be regarded as South Indian, since Vijñāneśvara composed it in the domains of the Cālukya emperor Vikramārka. All except the last two were published early.
In this edition there is a preface (pp. IX-XX), an Introduc tion (pp. XXIII-LXII), synopsis of its contents, comparative statement of the authorities on Vyavahāra cited in the Mitākṣarā, Smṛti-candrika, Vyavahāranimaya, Parāśara-madhaviya, table of contents in Sanskrit (pp. 1-28 ) the text (pp. 1-534), names of
(Continued from the previous page) TUTTI QUEFTA egt:
T hott 11 It is stated that the work was composed by Mahāderi ( great Queen) Dhira matī in snnrat 1539, saka year 1104 (i, e. 1482 A. D.). This last verse makes it clear that Vidyāpati’s pars was to supply relevant authorities on the subject in Sanskrit. Vide the paper on ‘विद्यापति और चण्डीदास’ by Rāmāvatāra Pandeya, Daltonganj, Bibar.
816
authors and works quoted with references to pages where they occur (pp. 538–547). Inspite of the large bulk of this publi cation the main work will not cover more than half of the Mitakṣarā on the Vyavahāra section of Yajñavalkya. Each page of it bas various readings placed one below another and the result is that 1/3 or 1/4 portion of most of the pages contain only the various readings ( rarely one half of the page e. g. pp. 114, 183, 234, 236-37, 476). The Editor quotes frequently in the foot notes Narada-Manusamhita and Bhavasvāmin’s bhāsya (e. g. on pp. 304-5, 323-24, 336–37, 379, 382-83). Varadaraja’s explanations are often the same as in the Mit. (e. g. on pp. 67, 239, 241, 251, 321, 413–14, 420-21, 480 ) and therefore one may hold that he borrows from that work (particularly as he mentions Vijñāneśvara on p. 78 and appears to refer to hin as the most eminent among those who have realized brahman on pp. 253, 270). He does not enter into discussion on knotty points like those in Yaj. II. 21, II. 24 or whether ownership arises on partition (vibhāgāt-sva-tvam uta svasya sato vibhāgah). On p. 521 he quotes the two verses of Yaj. II. 305, 306 on review of judgment but has not a word in explanation while the Mit. comments on them at length. On Yāj. II. 100–102 the Mit. has three closely printed pages of explanation, while the Vya. N. quotes the verses on p. 154 but has not a word of explanation. Similarly on Yāj. II. 118-119 the Mit. explains in two closely printed pages, while the Vya. N, which quotes both on pp. 442-443, has hardly any explanation.
On the whole the Vyavahāranirṇaya is a pedestrian perform ance. In spite of the labour bestowed by the editors on this work, one is surprised at the mistakes committed by them in some places. A few are cited here. On pp. 120-121 the Vy. N. quotes as Yajñavalkya’s the verses ‘uktepi sākṣibhiḥ’ &c. (Yāj. II. 80 and 83 ) but in the alphabetical Sanskrit index of verses it is noted (on pp. 580 and 712 ) that the two verses are anāmaka ( without name ). Similarly, on p. 386 the Vy. N. quotes Yaj. I. 65 (dattām api haret &c.) and Yāj. 11, 146 (daitvā kanyām &c.) but there is a footnote ( 4 ) on the sanie page that those passages of Yaj. are not found in the printed Yajñavalkya.
The Vy. N. quotes many Smrtis and some works and authors of which the following deserve to be noted. Akhardadarśa (p. 434), Agnimitra (p. 130 ), Asahāya (pp. 135, 230, 455), Udyo
- Vyavaharanirṇaya of Varadaraja
817
tana (pp. 78, 455 ), Kavaṣa (p. 471), Krsna (pp. 78, 278 ), Kautilya (pp. 284-85), Charmadrona (p. 353 either a work or author ), Dhāreśvara ( pp. 78, 135 ), Bhattakumāra ( pp. 78, 135 ), Pañcādhyāyi (pp. 132, 357), Vijñāneśvara (p. 78), Śrikara (p. 135 ), Svāyambhuvāgama (p. 14), Acārya Viśvarūpa (pp. 78, 135, 474).
The Vy. N. nowhere refers to Bhāruci who was comparatively an early author on Dharmaśāstra.
It is interesting to note that the Vy. N. (on pp. 284–85) quotes a passage from Kautilya’s Arthasāstra about the payment of Dakṣinā when one of the several priests required in Agnistoma and other Vedic sacrifices falls ill before the whole sacrifice is finished.
The date of Varadaraja lias now to be discussed. As he mentions Vijñāneśvara, designates him ‘brahmavitpravara’ and appears to have copicd the very words of the Mitākṣarā (as indi cated above and as admitted by Prof. Aiyangar on p. XXVIII of the Introduction ), he must be held to be at least one generation later than the Mitākṣarā. It has been shown above that the Mit. cannot be placed later than 1100-1120 A. D. I regret to say that I cannot accept the encomiums that the late Professor showers on Varadaraja on p. xxix ( as being independent, original as to interpretation and endowed with conimand over Mimāṁsā and Nyaya). To me he appears to be a puny figure in the matter of Mimāṁsā applied to Dharmasastra as compared with the vast erudition shown by the Mitākṣarā. Here I cannot deal with the arguments of Prof. Aiyangar. Varadaraja is earlier than 1515 A. D. That is certain. So one has to find out how much earlier he can be placed.
Prof. Aiyangar (on p. LXVI of the Introduction) refers to p. 459 of the Vy. N. where the Vedic text ’tasmāt striyo nirindriya adāyādir ‘is cited and explaired. On p. LXVI of the Introduction he remarks that the interpretation of ’nirindriyāḥ’ as applied to women in Manusr rti (in IX. 18) by Varadarāja is original and was not anticipated by any previous writer. This is a bold and sweeping statement. Much of the medieval literature is still unpublished and buried in Mss. and chronology is uncertain and a large part has perished beyond recovery. The most important
H. D.-103
818
point of construction of the Vedic text is that it is not to be taken literally and as prohibiting women as inheritors of family property. It may be shown to be restricted in import in various ways. To be brief, Aparārka whose commentary on Yaj. cannot be placed later than 1140 A. D. has a similar explanation. The Manusmṛti (IX. 18) refers to the Vedic passage and says ’nirindriyā hyamantrāśca striyoṣnstam-iti sthitiḥ’. Aparārka held it was a mere artharāda, not to be taken literally, and that that passage refers to cases where a son exists. The Smsticandrikā also holds that the śruti is an arthavāda and refers to women other than those that are expressly named as heirs. The Parāśara Madhaviya also explains it as indicating that the wife of the sacri ficer has no right to partake of the Soma drink. Madhavācārya is the most learned writer among Daksiṇātyas. His greatness and fame stand only second to the great Saṅkarācārya.
The Parāśaramadhaviya is one of his earliest works. The Kālanirṇaya expressly says that it was composed after the com mentary on the Parāsarasmṛti. Therefore the Parāśara-Mādhaviya cannot be dated later than about 1340 A. D. Great controversies bave raged round Madhava and Vidyaranya. There are some scholars who deny their identity (vide J. of Indian History Vol. XII pp. 241-250 by Doraiswami Iyengar ). Unfortunately secta rian zeal of Vaiṣṇavas and non-Vaiṣṇavas in South India also appears to play a part in these discussions. Prof. Aiyangar’s discussion about Varadarāja and Madhava smacks of these ten dencies. Some undisputed facts must be first stated. Varadaraja is a very common name in the Tamil country as the presiding deity at Kāncīpura is named Varadaraja (admitted on p. XLVII ), Varadarāja is not referred to anywhere by Madhava (admitted by Prof. Aiyangar on p. XLVIII of Intro. to Vy. N. ). But he musters courage to say ‘In spite of the absence of some reference to Varadarāja’s work, it is incredible that it should not have been known to Madhava’. The belief of a person however learned he may be is worth little. It is the reasons for that belief that matter. Prof. Aiyangar may believe anything but it is his reasons that have to be examined. If one scholar says that Varadarāja borrows from Madhava, he cannot be silenced by another simply saying he does not believe that at all. What are the grounds of this sweeping assertion ? On p. 414 the Vyavabaranirṇaya quotes
- Vyavaharanirṇaya of Varadarāja/
819
a verse (quoted in note below )1242 as from Prajāpati about some matters forbidden in Kaliyuga. The same passage occurs in the Mit.on Yaj. II. 117. The Mit. composed in about 1100 A. D. could not have borrowed it from Vy. N. The same passage is quoted in the Smsticandrikā as from Sangrahakāra (Vyavahāra p. 266 Gharpure). In the Sac-carita-raksā (p. 47 Venk. Press ed.) of Vedāntadesika there is a verse of Yama quoted from Skandapurāṇa, the reading of which was changed in a work called Varadarājiya-Smsti-Sangraha. On p. XLVI ( Intro.) Prof. Aiyangar refers to certain remarks of Vedāntadesika in his Saccaritaraksā viz. that the topic of sanctified food for Vaiṣṇavas had been treated by Yamunācārya ard elucidated by the learned Varadarāja-pandita in his Sanmārgadipikā and that he (Vedānta desika ) follows in their footsteps. Prof. Aivangar at once jumps to the conclusion that the Smṛtisangraha of Varadarāja referred to by Vedāntadesika must be the work of Varadarāja, who is the author of Vy. Nirnaya. Prof. Aiyangar complacently observes (P. XLVI of Intro.) As the topic comes within the scope of Dharmasastra, there is no reascnable ground for ascribing the Sanmārgadipika to a Varadarīja different from the author of the Smṛtisangraba’. There are very reasonable and strong grounds for scouting all the remarks of Prof. Aiyangar. In the first place, the Varadaraja of Vy. N. gives no information about himself. He nowhere states that it is a part of a larger work nor does he mention any work called Smṛtisangraha. Besides, Varadarāja is a very common name in the Tamil country as he admits (p. XLVII of Introduction ). The Smsticandrikā on Vyavahāra (p. 36 ) quotes five verses from Sangrahakāra about the chara cteristics of a proper plaint in a suit. The same five verses, are quoted by the Mit on Yaj. II. 9 with the words • Yathoktam’, Ttiese five verses are not found in Vy. N. Therefore, the Sangra ha or Smsti-Sangraha known to the Mit. and Smsticandrika is entirely different from the Smṛtisangraha of Varadaraja. Prof. Aiyangar unnecessarily parades (on p. XXXVII of Intro.) the colophons of the Mss. used by him for editing the Vy. N. The words ‘Śrinad-Varadarājiye vyavuhāra-nirṇaye’ or ‘Srimad Varadarajiye Dharmaśāstre vyavahāranirṇaye’ mean nothing more
1241 ay a 9719fa: 1 781 faahlsfq 71072 Taietii l TR
विभागोऽपि नैव संप्रति वर्तते ।। यथा मृते भर्तरि नियोगधर्मो….कलियुगे नानु यः।
820
than · Varadarājena prokta ’ (expounded by Varadarāja ) accord ing to Panini IV. 3. 101 tena proktam’. If one looks into the various catalogues of Sanskrit mss. (such as Aufrecht’s ) one would find that there are more than two dozen authors called Varadarāja. There is at present absolutely no evidence (except the sameness of name ) that the Smṛtisangraha of Varadarāja mentioned in note 3 on p. XLVII is the work of the same Varada rāja who is the author of the Vy. N. Granting for a moment that Vedāntadesika’s Saccaritaraksā was composed about 1297 A. D. (as asserted on p. XLV of introduction to Vy. N.) there is no substantial evidence to connect that Smṛtisangraha with the author of the Vy. N. beyond the mere name. It has been shown above (under Kalpataru of Laksmidhara) that scholars have had grave doubts about the dates of the successors of Sri Ramanujācārya and the dates assigned to them by their own Vaiṣṇava writers and the traditions of the Vadagalai and the Tengalai scholars. That being the case, I take exception to the statement on p. XLVI (of Intro.) that Varadarajapandita ( author of Sanmārgadipikā) is identical with the Varadaraja. author of Vy. N. Again I take strong objection to the remark on p. XLVIII that a comparison of the two works (Parāśaramadhaviya and Vy. N.) establishes the superior learning and acuteness of the Varadarājiya and its greater originality. I have shown above how mediocre is the work called Vy. N. as compared with the Mitākṣarā and I hold on the evidence available so far that the author of Vy. N. is later than the Mādhaviya and borrows from the Madhaviya.
For reasons of space it is impossible to criticize at length the many debatable points in Prof. Aiyangar’s Introduction, parti cularly about the chronological relation between the Smsticandrika and Parāsara-madhaviya on the one hand and the Vy. N. on the other. On pp. LIV-IV i Intro.) he refers to Prajāpati quoting the verse about Niyoga, unequal partition and the immolation of a cow. That verse is quoted from Sangraha by the Smṛticandrikā (vide pote 1241 above ). Prajapati is not cited even once by Viśvarūpa on Yāj. The Mit. quotes Prajā pati as Smrti only in three places viz. on Yaj. III. 20 ( on asauca and the birth of a son), III. 25 (again on āśauca ) and II. 260 (penance for a person guilty of adultery with even the low caste wife of his brāhmaṇa guru). The Mit. does not quote Prajāpati on acāra and Vyavabāra. Aparārka97. Vyavahāranirṇaya of Varadaraj
821
quotes only four verses of Prajāpati on ācāra, two on Vyavahāra, and one on āśauca and one prose passage on the four kinds of Sannyāsins. The Kștyakalpataru (on Vyavahāra ) quotes only three verses of Prajāpati. That establishes that Prajāpati’s work was either non-existent or negligible in the 9th century A. D., was very sparingly relied upon even upto the 12th century A. D. and was a very minor authority as compared with Bṛhaspati, Katyāyana and many others. The Smsticandrika quotes from Prajāpati about eleven verses on Ahnika, about 21 on Vyavahāra and about three on Srāddha. The Smṛticandrikā would have to be placed at the latest about 1220-1250 A. D. (as Hemādri quotes it very frequently). Turning to the Vyavahāra-nirṇaya which is a much smaller work (being confined only to Vyavahāra) it quotes about 86 verses of Prajāpati, of which about 46 relate to ordeals alone. Another remarkable circumstance is that Vy. N. was composed at a time when weekdays and Saṅkranti had come very much to the fore even in judicial matters such as trial by ordeals.
Besides, the Smrticandrikā even on the section on Vyavahara covers (in Gharpure’s ed.) 322 closely printed pages of a very large size (with hardly a line for various readings ), with about 32 lines on each page each line containing from 24 to 38 letters. The Vy. N. has only 534 pages of a smaller size with about 12 to 23 lines (of texts ) on each page and a much smaller number of letters from 16 to 28 in each line. The Smsticandrikā text on Vyavahāra contains far more matter than the text in the whole of the Vyavahāranirṇaya. From these facts it may be concluded that the Smsticandrikā, though inore extensive on Vyavahāra than the Vy. N., quotes Prajapati less than half as many times as the Vy. N. does. That is Vy. N. had a much more inflated text of Prajapati than what even the Smsticandrikā had before it and so it probably is a great deal later than the Smṛticandrikā. Simi larly, the Madhaviya on Vyavahāra quotes from Prajapati only 35 verses on Vyavahāra of which eleven refer to ordeals.
Prof. Aiyangar attaches undue importance to the quotations from Prajapati in Vy. N. Prajapati is not one among the many authors on Dharmaśāstra named in Yāj. I. 4-5 nor among the thirtysix expounders of Dharma named by Paithinasi quoted by the Smrticandrikā on its first page. The Parāśaramadhaviya on
822
Vyavahāra quotes only 31 verses from Prajapati of which only eleven are concerned with ordeals, while Vy. N. quotes 86 verses from Prajapati on Vyavahāra, of which 46 are concerned with ordeals. The above facts should be held to lead to the conclusion that Vy. N. had before it a far more inflated text of Prajāpati than what the Madhaviya had before it. Critical scholars should not be impressed or influenced by the mention of an ancient name tacked to verses by Medieval writers. The Manusmṛti (in I. 34-35 ) says that the first human being created by Virāj was Manu who created ten Prajāpatis viz. Marici, Atri, Angiras, Pulastya, Pulaha, Kratu, Pracetas, Vasistha, Bhṛgu and Nārada, from all of whom verses on Dharma topics are quoted by the Mit., Aparārka and Smsticandrikā. That shows that works were palmed off on people as composed by primeval sages, though composed by scholars in medieval historic times in order to make them appear very authoritative.
The sources of Dharma were chiefly three, viz. Śruti (or Veda ), Smṛtis and customs (vide Gaut. Dh. S. I. 1-2, Ap. Dh. S. 1. 1. 1. 2, Vas. Dh. S. I. 4-6, Manu II. 6 ) and the theory was that each succeeding one was inferior in authority to each preced ing one. In the march of ages certain practices that prevailed in the Vedic times (such as Niyoga) and even in the times of the Smstis (such as marriage of a brāhmana with a woman of the the Ksatriya or Vaisya varṇa ) went out of vogue and new ones came to be observed. In some cases, therefore, changes were introduced or recommended by learned men interpreting vedic texts as merely arthavādas ( not to be taken literally) and by even changing the words of the texts. For example, the Kalpataru (on Vyavahāra p. 691 ) and Dayatattva12+2 (Jivananda ed. p. 185) provide by quoting Devala that the Stridhana of a woman dying childless is taken (on her death ) by her husband or by her mother or by her brother or by her father. But writers from Kamarūpa (Assam ) read the same verse as ( aprajāyām hared bhartā bhrātā mātā pitāpi vā). Vide Pandit Manoranjan Sastri’s paper in
• Prāgjyotiṣa Souvenir’ (published at the time of the 22nd Session of the All India Oriental Conference in Jan. 1965). Bṛhaspati
1242 सामान्यं पुत्रकन्यानां मृतायां स्त्रीधनं विदुः । अप्रजायां हरेद्भर्ता माता भ्राता
FUSTO ET 1174679 (vol. II. p. 185 quoting Devala. ).
- Silapāṇi
823
prescribes that the stridhana of a woman on her death passes to her sons and to daughters that are unmarried, but the married daughter (in such a case ) receives a small part as a token of honour to her. The Dāyabhāga by a slight change (samudha to na labhen-mātṇkam dhanam’) denies to the married daughter the right to receive even a token part of her mother’s stridhana.
In the above cases the original text must have been only of one tenor, but by a slight change the same verse is made to yield a different sense.
As this Varadarāja is quoted in several places in the Vyava hārakānda of the Sarasvativilāsa of Prataparudra (on pp. 135, 179, 268,269, 276, 319), his work must be earlier than about 1500 A. D. as Pratāparudra ruled from 1497 to 1538 A. D. and refers to him as one among ādhunika writers (p. 325). It should be noted that the Sarasvativilāsa, which quotes Aparārka many times (as on pp. 230, 262, 264, 308, 344_45, 354, 367 &c.) and the Can drikākāra (i. e. author of Smṛticandrikā ) dozens of times (as on pp. 212, 230, 235, 242, 264, 267, 275, 308, 350 ) never speaks of Aparārka or the Candrikā or Smrticandrika as adhunika. The Smsticandrika would have to be placed between 1200-1240 A. D. as it quotes Aparārka and is quoted very largely by Hemādri. Therefore Varadarāja must be later than 1300 A. D. and would have to be assigned to a period between 1450–1495 A. D. (in order that he may be styled Ådhunika in a work composed in the first quarter of the 16th century).
.