12. The Dharmasutra of Sankha-Likhita
Volume I: Part I pp. 136–142
... pp. From Tantravārtika it appears that dharmasūtra of Śaṅkha- Likhita was studied by Vājasaneyins - Mahābhārata (Śānti 23 ) contains story of brothers Śaṅkha and Likhita - Pāli story in Dīghanikāya seems to be based on the story in the Mahābhārata - various compilations ascribed to Śaṅkha alone or Likhita alone or to both - restoration of Dharmasūtra in the Annals of Bhandarkar History of Dharmasãstra Institute ( vols. VII, VIH ) - Verse Sānkhasmrti stricter than prose Sānkha-Likhita - com. on dharmasūtra mentioned in Kalpataru and Vivādaratnākara - doctrines of dharmasūtra similar to those of other dharmasūtras - speaks of twelve secondary sons - allows niyoga - speaks of several ordcals - defines Āryāvarta as between Sindhu-Sauvīra and Kāmpilya - literature known to Sānkha - Likhita - probable age between 300 B. C. - 100 A. D.
— Synopsis by P.V. Kane, from History of Dharmaśāstra
12. The Dharmasutra of Sankha-Likhita
##12. The dharmasūtra of Saṅkha-Likhita
From the Tantravārtika we learn ( note 55 above ) that the Dharmasūtra of Śaṅkha-Likhita was specially studied by the Vājasaneyins ( the followers of the white Yajurveda ). The Tantravārtika also quotes a few words from that Dhar-masūtra which constitute an Anuṣṭubh pāda.1 The Mahā-bhārata ( in Śāntiparvan, chap. 23. 18–43 ) narrates the story of the two brothers, Śaṅkha and Likhita, who resided in separate dwellings surrounded by treeṣ Once Likhita came to the āśrama ( hermitage ) of Śaṅkha in his absence. He took some ripe fruits from some of the trees of Śaṅkha's āśrama and ate theṃ While he was eating, Śaṅkha came and asked him where he got the fruitṣ Likhita smiled and told his brother that he was guilty of theft and asked him to go to the king Sudyumma for punishment. Likhita went to the king who would not punish him as he was a man of pure character and learned; when he persisted the king ordered his hands to be cut off. His arms were restored when he plunged into the river Bāhudā. In Śānti ( 130. 29 ) 2 it is said 'It is not possible to live if one adopts Śaṅkhālikhita mode of life, particularly when one intends to secure the protection of the subjectṣ' In another place ( Śāntiparvan 132. 15–16 ) it is said 'Some hold that conduct or practice is the best characteristic of dharma, others to whom Śaṅkha-Likhita are dear do not like theṃ' Vide Sabhāparva 7. 11 where among the holy sages who graced Indra's sabhā are included Śaṅkha and Likhita.
In the Pāli Dīghanikāya II. 40-41 we have the words ‘Śaṅkhalikhita – brahmacariyam caritum'. Prof. Bapat in the Silver Jubilee Vol. of BORI. ( 1942 pp. 61–66 ) tries hard to prove that the words 'Nayidam sukaraṁ agāramajjhā- vasatā ekāntaparipuṇṇam ekāntaparisuddham Śaṅkha- likhitam–brahmacariyam caritum' occurring in the Dīghani- kāya ( 2nd sutta, 40-41 ) have nothing to do with the Dharmasūtrakāraṣ The word ‘brahmacariyam' does not mean in Pali books the life of a Vedic student, but only a pure moral life here ( that was to be led by a student in brahmanical society ). But the words quoted from the Dīgha are just like the words quoted by me above from the Mahābhārata ( Śānti 130. 29 ). My own idea is ( whatever Śaṅkha-likhita as writers may be ) that the Pali story is based on the story in the Mahābhārata. It is not unlikely that the two had led or emphasized an excellent moral life. Thereafter, the redactors of the Mahābhārata included them in a story in the Śāntiparva and the Pali writers included the gist of that story in their workṣ Just as it is difficult to assign a definite date to the Mahābhārata, so also it is impossible or at least as difficult to say (there being no reliable evidence) that all the Nikāyas existed in writing before Aśoka. Yājñavalkya (I. 5) mentions Śaṅkha-Likhita among the writers on dharmaśāstra. The Parāśara- smṛti says (I. 24) that in the four ages of Kṛta, Tretā, Dvāpara and Kali, the ordinances of Manu, Gautama, Śaṅkha-Likhita and Parāśara are respectively of paramount authority in matters of dharma. Viśvarūpa (on Yāj. III. 248) quotes a verse from an ancient author which says that Śaṅkha and Likhita pondered deeply over the dharma promulgated to the sages by Manu and drew upon the Veda133 also. From the gist of the passages of Śaṅkha- Likhita quoted by Viśvarūpa and the word ‘Pratijñātārtha- virodhaḥ syāt’ it appears to have been the view of Viśvarūpa that the verse quoted was the first verse (or one of several verses at the beginning) of the sūtra of Śaṅkha-Likhita. The word ‘Manu-bhāṣitam’ in note 133 was either introduced by some redactor at a later date or the word does not refer to the extant Manu, but to some earlier version of it. Commenta- tors and nibandhakāras from Viśvarūpa downwards profusely quote Śaṅkha-Likhita. A considerable portion of these quota- tions is in prose. Hence it is quite clear that the dharma- sūtra of Śaṅkha-Likhita is an ancient one, that it was largely if not entirely in prose and that it was once easily accessible though it has not yet been discovereḍ In the Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute (vol. VII–VIII) I made an attempt at a reconstruction of Śaṅka-Likhita.
Jīvananda (collection of smṛtis, part II, pp. 343–374) prints in 18 chapters and about 330 verses a smṛti of Śaṅkha and a smṛti of Likhita in about 93 verses (part II., pp. 375– 382). The Ānandāśrama collection also prints the same text of the two smṛtis The latter also contains a Laghu-Śaṅkha- smṛti in 71 verses and a Śaṅkha-Likhita-smṛti in 32 verseṣ All these, except perhaps the Śaṅkha-smṛti in 18 chapters, are late compilationṣ The smṛti in 18 chapters seems to have been compiled very early. About fifty verses from it are quo- ted by the Mitākṣarā. In the 11th and 12th chapters occur a few prose passages, one of which is quoted even by Medhā- tithi. The numerous prose quotations ascribed to Sāṅkha- Likhita do not however occur in these smṛtis One point deserves special notice. Comparatively early writers some- times ascribe the same text to Sāṅkha-Likhita or to Sāṅkha simply. The well-known sūtra about succession to a son- less man (athāputrasya svaryātasya bhrātṛgāmi dravyam &c. ) is ascribed to Sāṅkha by Viśvarūpa and the Mitākṣarā, but to Sāṅkha-Likhita by Aparārka (on Yāj. II. 135-136 ). Similarly, the sūtra ‘pitaryasakte kuṭumbavyavahārān jyeṣ- ṭhaḥ’ &c. is ascribed to Sāṅkha by Aparārka and to Sāṅkha- Likhita by the Vivāda-ratnākara, Dāyatattva and Madana- pārijāta. Quotations ascribed to Likhita are few and far bet- weeṇ Some passages are ascribed by some writers to Sāṅkha and by others to Likhita. For example, a prose passage ‘Uddhṛtya parikṣitābhiḥ’ &c. is ascribed to Likhita by Apa- rārka (on Yāj. I. 18 ) and to Sāṅkha by Viśvarūpa (on Yāj. I. 20 and by the Viramitrodaya (Āhnikaprakāśa p. 68 ). Similarly, the sūtra ‘ubhabhyāmapi hastābhyām prāṅmukho devatīrthena kuryāt’ is ascribed to Sāṅkha-Likhita by the Parāśaramādhavīya ( I. I. p. 352 ) and to Likhita by Aparārka (on Yāj. I. 101 ). The relation of the Sāṅkha-smṛti in verse to the dharmasūtra of Sāṅkha seems to be thiṣ The former is based upon the latter and is a versified paraphrase or adaptation of portions of the dharmasūtra.3
The versified Sāṅkha shows a tendency towards greater strictnesṣ The dharmasūtra allows a Brāhmaṇa to marry a woman of any of the four castes, while the verse Sāṅkha restricts him to the first three casteṣ4 It is not unlikely that the dharmasūtra contained a few verses as is the case with Baudhāyana, Āpastamba and Vasiṣṭha. Even so early a writer as Viśvarūpa looked upon the prose and verse portions as the composition of the same author (vide his comment on Yāj. III 237, and Aparārka pp. 1149, 1154, 1161 ).
The dharmasūtra of Śaṅkha-Likhita was commented upon early. Lakṣmīdhara in his Kalpataru (Ghose's Hindu Law vol. II. p. 504 ) draws attention to the fact that the bhāṣyakāra of Śaṅkha read a well-known sūtra as 'sa yadyekaputraḥ syāt' instead of 'sa yadyekaputraḥ syāt.' Vide Kalpataru (vyavahārakāṇḍa ) p. 654 (sa yadyekaputraḥ syāt ) and f. ṇ 6. Lakṣmīdhara flourished between 1100-1160 A. D. as he was a minister of Govindacandra of Kanauj. The Vivāda-ratnākara (1314 A. D.) also cites the bhāṣyakāra of Śaṅkha-Likhita. The Vivādacintāmaṇi (p. 67 ) quotes from the bhāṣyakāra of Śaṅkha-Likhita.
The dharmasūtra of Śaṅkha-Likhita would appear, from the quotations in the nibandhas, to have closely resembled the other extant sūtras on dharma in style and contentṣ It embraced almost all the topics treated of in Gautama or Āpastamba. It agrees very closely with the words of Gau-tama and Baudhāyana in several placeṣ5 It is curious to note that a quotation from Śaṅkha containing the names of writers of smṛtis cites Śaṅkha-Likhita as authority.6
The dharmasūtra seems to have permitted niyoga, speaks of twelve secondary sons, and did not favour (like Āpastamba ) the claims of females to succeed to maleṣ On certain points the dharmasūtra of Śaṅkha marks a more advanced state of opinion than is the case with Gautama or Āpastamba. Śaṅkha speaks of several kinds of ordeals and appears to have contained elaborate prose rules about them (vide Aparārka on Yāj. II, 95; Smṛticandrikā II, p. 112, Viramitrodaya, p. 270). As regards partition and inheritance, Śaṅkha-Likhita gives more detailed information than Āpastamba or Baudhāyana. The limits of Āryāvartta7 stretched over wide areas according to Śaṅkha (i. e. to the east of Sindhu-Sauvīra and to the west of Kāmpilya ) than Baudhāyana (I. 1. 25) or Vasiṣṭha (I. 8-9 ). The style of Śaṅkha reminds one of Kauṭilya rather than of Gautama. The quotations hardly exhibit any ungrammatical formṣ It is noteworthy that Yājñavalkya is included among the authors of smṛtis by Śaṅkha ( vide note 137 ). If it is the extant Yājñavalkya-smṛti that is meant to be referred to, then the dharmasūtra of Śaṅkha will have to be assigned to a late date. But this does not seem to be likely. From the fact that the Yājñavalkya-smṛti itself enumerates Śaṅkha-Likhita among ancient authors on dharma, from the general style of the work, from the development of the legal concep- tions it presents and from its doctrines about the rights of women, it appears almost certain that the extant yajña- valkya-smṛti is much later than the dharmasūtra of Śaṅkha. There are close correspondences between Śaṅkha and yajña- valkya.8 Śaṅkha is quoted 99 times and Śaṅkha-Likhita 63 times by Aparārka. On Yaj. III. 289-90 (p. 1154) Apa- rārka first quotes Śaṅkha as ‘Agnyutsādi samvatsaram Cāndrāyaṇam cared-gām ca dadyāt’ and five lines after- wards quotes Śaṅkha-Likhita with the words ‘Agnyutsādi mithyādhīti ca samvatsaram brāhmaṇagṛheṣu bhaikṣyam caretām’. Kalpataru (Brahinacārī) quotes Śaṅkha-Likhita 36 times, and Śaṅkha 19 timeṣ From the fact that Śaṅkha- Likhita is quoted as including Śaṅkha-Likhita among writers on Dharmaśāstras it may be inferred that the original text was tampered with by some redactor. Kalpataru on Vyavahāra (pp. 830–31) cites a long prose passage of Śaṅkha-Likhita on the proper avocations of the men of eleven mixed castes viz. Sūta, Kṣatri, Māgadha, Ambaṣṭha, Vaidehaka, Ugra, Veṇa, Kukkuta, Ayogava, Pulkasa and Niṣāda (compare Viṣṇu- dharmasūtra 16. 7–13 and Manu X. 47–50 ) and on p. 833 cites the avocations of Caṇḍāla, Svapāca, dasyu and mleccha gaṇaṣ
The prose quotations from Śaṅkha-Likhita refer to the Vedāṅgas, Sāṅkhya, Yoga, Dharmaśāstra. Śaṅkha recogni- sed eight forms of marriage. The views of Śaṅkha about the status of the offspring of mixed marriages differed from those of Baudhāyana (I. 8. 6 ) and Manu (X. 6 ) and were inter- mediate between the latter two.9 The tarpaṇ.10 (which resembles the one in Baudhāyana, though it is more elaborate ) refers to the six Vedāṅgas, Bhārata (but not Mahā-bhārata ), to twenty writers on dharma and contains numerous details about geography, mythology, and cosmogony which are gene- rally found in the Purāṇaṣ The dharmasūtra frequently cites the opinions of otherṣ It mentions by name the views of Prajāpati, Aṅgirasa and Uśanas (Vivādaratnākara p. 537), Pracetasa (Vivādarat. p. 557-560 ), Vṛddha-Gautama (Mada- na-pārijāta pp. 701-2 ). The verse quotations ascribed to Śaṅkha further mention Yama, Kātyāyana and Śaṅkha him- self. But in drawing chronological conclusions it is better to leave the verse quotations out of account. The same verses are ascribed to Manu and Śaṅkha11 and a few sūtras closely resemble the Manusmṛti.12 Six identical verses occur in the Vasiṣṭha-dharmasūtra (21. 10–15) and in the Śaṅkha- smṛti (10th chap. ).
All these circumstances lead to the conclusion that the dharmasūtra of Śaṅkha is probably later than Gautama and Āpastamba but earlier than the Yājñavalkya-smṛti and so must be assigned to some date between 300 B. C to 100 A. D.