34. The Yājnavalkya-smriti

Volume I: Part I pp. 421–459

34. The Yājnavalkya-smriti

34. The Yājñavalkyasmṛti

This smṛti has been published dozens of timeṣ In the following the Nirṇayasāgara edition edited by Śāstri Moghe (1892 A. D.) has been used and the Trivandrum edition when speaking of Viśvarūpa.

The name of Yājñavalkya is one of the most illustrious among Vedic sageṣ He is credited with having promulgated the White Yajurveda. In the Śāntiparva (chap. 312) we are told that there was a rupture between Vaiśampāyana and his pupil Yājñavalkya and that by worshipping the Sun the latter received the revelation of the White Yajurveda, the Śatapatha etc. The accounts in the Viṣṇu (3. 5 ), the Bhāgavata (XII. 6. 61–74 ) and other purāṇas differ somewhat from the one in the Mahābhārata, but all agree on the fact of the strained relations between Yājñavalkya and his teacher. The Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa in several places alludes to the dialogues of Yājñavalkya and king Janaka of Videha on agnihotra (S. B. E. vol. 44 p. 46). Vide Śatapatha (eḍ by Weber) XI. 6.2. At the end of the Śatapatha we are told that Vājaseneya Yājñavalkya promulgated the bright Yajus formula received from the Suṇ¹ In the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad Yājñavalkya appears as a great philosopher teaching the recondite doctrines of Brahma and immortality to one of his two wives, the philosophically minded Maitreyī (II. 4 and IV. 5). In the same Upaniṣad Yājñavalkya is represented as carrying away the one thousand cows set apart by Janaka for the most learned Brāhmaṇa (III. 1. 1-2) and Yājñavalkya is said to have imparted to Janaka the knowledge of the destiny of the soul after it is released from the bonds of flesh and worldly affectionṣ Kātyāyana in his Vārtika on Pāṇini (IV. 3. 105)² speaks of the Brāhmaṇas of Yājñavalkya and very heated controversies have raged round the correct interpretation of the Vārtika and the Mahābhāṣya thereon (vide Max Müller’s Ancient Sanskrit Literature p. 360, Goldstücker’s Pāṇini, p. 132 ff and S. B. E. vol. 12 pp. xxxv-xxxvIII). The controversies centre round the word ‘tulyakālanī’ in the Mahābhāṣya. It may mean either (1) that the Brāhmaṇa works by Yājñavalkya (mentioned as ‘Yājñavalkāni Brāhmaṇāni’) are also ‘purāṇa-prokta’ but in their case the affix ‘ṇini’ (in) is not applied; yet they are as old as those referred to in the Sūtra, or (2) that the Brāhmaṇas like those promulgated by Yājñavalkya are co-eval with Pāṇini and hence not ‘purāṇa-prokta’ and the termination ‘ṇini’ does not apply to theṃ Western scholars held that Pāṇini made a distinction between old and later Brāhmaṇa works and regarded Yāj. Brāhmaṇas as co-eval with himself. It is to be noted that in the Yājñavalkyasmṛti itself³ (III. 110) the author, whoever he may be, claims the author-ship of the Āraṇyaka that he received from the Sun and the Yogāśāstra composed by hiṃ This is simply put in to glori-fy the Yājñavalkya-smṛti as the work of a great and ancient sage, philosopher and yogiṇ From the style and the doctrines of the smṛti it is impossible to believe that it was the work of the same hand that gave to the world the Upaniṣad containing the boldest philosophical speculation couched in the simplest yet the most effective language. Even orthodox Indian opinion was not prepared to admit the unity of authorship in the case of the smṛti and the Āraṇyaka. The Mitākṣarā says at the beginning that some pupil of Yāj. abridged the dharmaśāstra in the form of a dialogue.⁴ It will be shown later on that, though the sage who promulgated the Āraṇyaka and the author of the smṛti cannot be identical, yet the Yājñavalkya-smṛti is much more closely connected with the White Yajurveda and the literature particularly belonging to it than with any other Veda.

The Yājñavalkyasmṛti contains (in the Nirṇayasāgara eḍ of 1892) 1010 verses, while the Trivandrum edition with the commentary of Viśvarūpa contains 1003 verses and Aparārka gives 1006 (Ānandāśrama edition). The difference in the number is mostly due to the fact that Viśvarūpa in the first section on ācāra omits five verses that occur in the Mitākṣarā.⁵ As regards one of them (the verse ‘rathyākardamato¹yāni’ I. 197 according to the Mit.) Viśvarūpa notices it and says that some read it after the verse “mukha ja viprusā” and that it adds nothing to what precedeṣ Aparārka explains that verse. In the second section on vyavahāra Viśvarūpa reads verses⁶ which do not exist in the Mitākṣarā nor in Aparārka. On the other hand Viśvarūpa seems to doubt the authenticity of the well-known verse on re- union and reads it also differently⁷ (anyodaryasya samsr̥ṣṭi). Two verses that are Yāj. III. 255-56 (‘Rajakavyyādhao’ and ‘Śvapākam pulkasam°.’) in Viśvarūpa’s text are not found in the Mitākṣarā nor in Aparārka.

Not only this but in some cases the arrangement of verses is not the same in both Viśvarūpa and the Mit. For example, verses 14-29 of the prāyaścitta section present very different sequences in both. What is verse 29 in the Trivandrum edition is verse 19 in the Mit. Besides, the Mit. reads one verse (III. 23 ‘a dantajanmanaḥ &c. ) which is wanting in Viśvarūpa and is also not commented upon by Aparārka. Viśvarūpa adds two half verses,⁸ which do not occur in the Mit. and Aparārka. There is further a good deal of variance in the readings adopted by Viśvarūpa and the Mit., though the meaning is not often affecteḍ For example, the two verses enumerating the names of writers on dharma are differently worded in both.⁹ But Medhātithi favours the reading of Viśvarūpa.¹⁰ Viśvarūpa reads “asvattam lokavidviṣṭam ” (I. 155 ) and notices a reading “asvantam,” while the Mit. reads “asvargyam loka &c. ” Both the Mit. and Aparārka read “pitā pitāmaho bhrātā &c.” (I. 63), while Viśvarūpa reads “pitā mātāmaho bhrātā,” remarks that “mātāmaha ” is put in earlier as a guardian for marriage for metrical reasons and then notices “pitā pitāmaho bhrātā ” as a various reading. Even in the days of Viśvarūpa there were various readings in Yāj. ( Vide coṃ on I. 1, 2, 51, II. 119, 179 etc. ).

The Agnipurāṇa affords an excellent check for the consideration of the text of the Yājñavalkyasmr̥ti. A good-sized monograph will be required to deal exhaustively with the questions raised by the comparison of the vyavahāra portion of the Agnipurāṇa with Yājñavalkya’s vyavahāra-kāṇḍa. I shall only briefly examine the materials and state the conclusions at which I have arriveḍ We know that Viśvarūpa, the first extant commentator of Yāj., flourished about 800-825 A. D. The author of the Mitākṣarā flourished about 250 years later. Interesting results follow by a comparison of the text that these two commentators had before them with the Agnipurāṇa. I shall select chap. 256 of the Agnipurāṇa for a detailed examinatioṇ It contains 36 verses which all occur in Yāj. II. (verses 118–153 of Tri. eḍ and verses 114–149 of the Mit.). It is found that the Agnipurāṇa agrees with the text of 12 verses word for word as contained in Viśvarūpa and 19 verses as contained in the Mit. Viśvarūpa puts three verses between the two verses ‘pitrdravyāvināśena &c.’ and ‘kramādabhyāgataṁ dravyam’, while the Mit. brings the two verses together. In several cases the readings of the Agnipurāṇa agree with Viśvarūpa’s text and not with that of the Mit. For example, Agni. reads ‘kāryāḥ patnyaḥ samāṁśikāḥ’ with Viś. (119), reads ‘bhūryā... dravyam eva vā ... putrasya cobhayoh’ with Viś. (124), reads ‘pitrdravyāvināśena’ (and not ‘vyāvirodhena’ as Mit. does) with Viś. (122), reads ‘dadyāt-cāpaharec-caṁśam’ with Viś. (142 b), reads ‘Patitas-tatsutaḥ klibaḥ’ with Viś. (144 a), reads ‘aprajāyāmatitā- yām’ with Viś. (148). The Agnipurāṇa, however, in a far larger number of cases agrees with the readings of the Mit. Agni (256.8) reads with the Mit. (122) ‘vibhākteṣu suto jātaḥ savarṇāyām vibhāgabhāk,’ Agni. reads ‘mātāpyamśaṁ samam haret’ with the Mit. (123), while Viś. (127) reads ‘mātāpyamśaṁ samapuuyāt’. Viśvarūpa’s reading leaves it undecided as to what the share of the mother is to be, while the Mit. makes it definite by stating that it is equal (to that of a soṇ). Agni (256.12) reads ‘catustri-dvyeka-bhāgāḥ syuḥ’ and ‘vidjāstu dvyekabhāgi- naḥ’ with the Mit. (125); Agni (256.21) reads ‘rdhabhagi- kaṁ’ with the Mit. (134). Agni. (256.27) reads ‘andhoṣ cikitsyarogadyā’ with the Mit. (140), while Viś. (144) reads ‘rogi ca.’ The reading of the Mit. makes provision by the word ‘ādya’ for other persons like deaf-mutes mentioned in other smṛtis as not entitled to inherit, while Viś. has to put a forced interpretation on ‘ca’ as iaeluding such personṣ The Agni (256.33) reads ‘vyayam dadyāc-ca sodayam’ with the Mit. (146), while Viś. (150) reads ‘dāpyaś-ca sodayaṃ’ Agni (256.36) reads ‘vibhāgabhāvanaṁ jñeyā gṛha-kṣetraiś-ca yautakaih’ with the Mit. (149), while Viś. (153) reads ‘bhavanā deyā gṛha-kṣetrakāyautakaiḥ.’ Here the former reading is easy and gives a complete sentence. With Viś. we have to separate ‘bhavanā’ and ‘ādeya &c.’ Besides, no pre dicate (like jñeya or kārya) is expressly mentioned in the verse if we take the reading of Viś. and the ‘ka’ in ‘kṣetraka’ is a redundancy. We find that the tendency of the readings to smooth down harsh or involved constructions and that the Agnipurāṇa presents most of the changes in the text found in the Mit. but not found in Viś. In the same direction points the fact that Agni (256.35) reads ‘na dattam strīdhanam yasyai’ with the Mit. (148) and not ‘yasyā’ as Viś. (152) does, as ‘yasyai’ is grammatically more regular than ‘yasyāḥ’ with the form ‘dattaṃ’ But as against this we may note that both Viś. and Agni read ‘aprajayāmatī tāyām’, while the Mit. reads ‘atītāyāmaprajasi.’ The reading ‘aprajasi’ is correct according to Pāṇini (V. 4. 122) and not ‘aprajayām’. Therefore, the conclusion that follows is that the text of Yāj. preserved in the Agnipurāṇa is intermediate between the text of Viśvarūpa and that of the Mitākṣarā. As Viśva rūpa flourished about 800-825 A. D., the Agnipurāṇa repre sents a text of Yājñavalkya current somewhat later i. e. about 900 A. D. In my ‘History of Sanskrit Poetics’ (pp. III-V) I established, from the fact that the extant Agnipurāṇa quotes Daṇḍin and Bhāmaha and knew the theory of dhvani, that it was composed about 900 A. D. That date is strikingly corro borated by the evidence derived from the chapters on vyava hāra discussed above. It is no doubt true that the Agni pre sents some readings that are found neither in Viś. nor in the Mit. For example, it reads (256.4) ‘tābhya rterpayet’, while both Viś. and Mit. read ‘tābhya rtesuvyaḥ.’ It is probable that this is an error of the copyists or the reading may be due to the difficulty of understanding the meaning of ‘anvayaḥ’ there. Agni reads (256.5) ‘svayam-arjāyet’ for ‘svayam arjitam’ (of Viś. and Mit.) and ‘jātopi dāsyam śūdrasya’ (256.20) for ‘śūdreṇa’ (of Viś. and Mit.). A detailed exa mination of the other chapters on vyavahāra will yield the same resultṣ But it cannot be undertaken here. A few examples may however be citeḍ Viś. (II. 107) reads ‘palo yeṣām ca te mocya daivarājapariplutāḥ’, Agni (257.14) ‘pālo yeṣām tu te mocya daivarājapariplutāḥ,’ while Mit. (II.179) and Agni (257.26) read ‘svakuṭumbāvirodhena deyam’ while the Mit. ( 175 ) reads ‘svam kuṭumbāvirodhena.’ Viś. ( II. 203 ) reads ‘galat-sabhikavṛddhistu,’ while both Agni ( 257.49 ) and Mit. ( II. 199 ) read ‘glahe śatikavṛddhi- stu,’ which certainly is an easier reading. Agni 258.45 occurs in Mit. ( 255 ), but is wanting in Viśvarūpa. Yāj. II. 228 in Viś. becomes in the Mit. verse 263, Agni following the order of Viśvarūpa.

The total number of verses on vyavahāra in Agnipurāṇa, chap. 253–258, is 315. Out of this the first 31 are not taken from Yāj. All of them except the first half verse and verse 31 ( chap. 253 ) occur in Nārada. Of the remaining 284 verses, only 4½ ( Agni 253. 35, 255. 43a, 255. 49b and 50, 258. 83 ) do not occur in Yāj. ( in both Viś. and Mit. ). There are also a few verses that occur in the Agnipurāṇa and in Viśvarūpa, but not in the Mit. and also a few verses that are common to the Mit. and Agni but are not found in Viś. The first three verses of Yāj. II are compressed by the Agnipurāṇa into 1½ verseṣ

The Garuḍapurāṇa affords, like the Agnipurāṇa, material help towards examining the authoritativeness of the text of the first and third sections of Yāj. The Agnipurāṇa does not expressly say that it drew upon Yāj., but the Garuḍapurāṇa is explicit on the point. In chap. 93.1. it is expressly said that the dharma formerly promulgated by Yājñavalkya is being narrated ‘Yājñavalkyena yat ( yaḥ ? ) pūrvam dharmam ( dharmāḥ ? ) proktam (‘taḥ ? ) katham Hare । tan me kathaya keśighna yathā tattvena Mādhava ॥.’ Chapters 93–106 con- tain dharmaśāstra material more or less taken from the Yājñavalkyasmṛti. There are 376 verses in these chapterṣ Considerations of space forbid any detailed examination of this material. A few salient facts only are brought out here. Chapters 93–102 deal with the several topics ( prakaraṇas ) of the first kāṇḍa in the same order, the only exception being the topics of rājadharma ( I. 309–368 ), which is omitted in the Garuḍapurāṇa. Chapters 102–106 treat of topics that occur in the third kāṇḍa of Yāj. and contain 121 verses only. In these chapters the order of the prakaraṇas in Yāj. is not observed at all, but Garuḍa speaks of them in the following order: vānaprastha-prakaraṇa, yati, karmavipāka, prāyaścitta, āśauca and āpaddharma ( the last two being the first two prakaraṇas in Yāj. ). A feature which strikes one as regards the Garuḍapurāṇa ( particularly chap. 102–106 ) is that a few . verses only of Yāj. are repeated word for word, that very often the Garuḍapurāṇa gives only a summary by omitting and transposing the words and phrases of the original and that sometimes it adds verses of its owṇ This may be illus- trated by what the Garuḍa says on vānaprastha and yati (chap. 102–103, 12 verses in all). Chap. 102 begins ‘ vāna- prasthāśramam vaksye tac-chṛṇvantu maharṣayaḥ | putreṣu bhāryām nikṣipya vanaṁ gacchet sahaiva vā ||’. The latter half is a paraphrase of Yāj. III. 45a. Then III. 45b–46 (Mit.) = Garuḍa 102.2–3a (with slight variations), III.47 = Garuḍa 102–4 b–5a ; III. 48 = 3b–4a ; III. 49–50 = Garuḍa 5b (‘pakṣe māsetha vāśnīyād-dantolūkhaliko bhavet’, which summarises and retains some words of the original), III. 71 = Garuḍa 102.6a (cāndrāyaṇī svapedbhumau karma kuryāt phalādinā, which includes a few words of III. 49b also), III.52 = Garuḍa 6b–7a ( the last pāda in Garuḍa is ‘ yogābhyāsāt dinam nayet,’ while in Yāj. it is ‘ śaktyā vāpi tapas-caret’ ), III.53 = Garuḍa 102.7. Chap. 203 contains only five verseṣ III.56, 58–59 = Garuḍa 103. 1b–4a (with variants) and then Garuḍa adds verses which are not found in Yāj. (viz. ‘ bhavet-parama- haṁso vā ekadaṇḍī yamāditāḥ || siddhayogas-tyajan deham- amṛtatvam-ihāpnuyāt | dātātitthipriyo jñānī gṛhī śrāddhepi mucyate ||’ ). The mere fact that a prakaraṇa is omitted in the Garuḍapurāṇa should cast no doubt on the existence of that prakaraṇa in the original Yāj. We do not know on what principles the borrowing took place. Besides, we find that such prakaraṇas as Vināyakaśānti and grahaśānti are includ- ed in the Garuḍa (chap. 100–101), while rājadharma prakaraṇa is omitteḍ We know that ‘rājadharma’ figures in the sūtras and Manu, but none of the ancient dharmasūtras nor the Manusmṛti speaks of Vināyaka. Hence conclusions must be drawn only from what positively occurs in the Garuḍapurāṇa and not from the absence of any topic in it. The Garuḍapurāṇa sometimes follows the arrangement and form of the verses presented in Viś., sometimes it agrees with the Mit. and sometimes it is independent. For example, the two verses enumerating the authors of dharmaśāstras (Yāj. 1. 4–5 = Garuḍa 93. 4–5 ) follow the readings of Viś., but not those of the Mit. In the 3rd kāṇḍa, verses 14–19 of the Mit. are differently arranged by Viś., and Viś. omits (as does Aparārka also) one verse found in the Mit. (III.23) as said above, while the Mit. omits two half verses that are found in Viś. ( vide note 313 ). The verse ‘a danta &c.’ occurs in the Garuḍapurāṇa and the two half verses in Viś. omitted by the Mit. are also omitted in Garuḍa. So far the Garuḍapurāṇa agrees with the arrangement preserved in the Mit. But it does not agree entirely with the Mit. The verse ‘ādanta &c’ is III. 23 in the Mit. and occurs before ‘ahastvadatta° but in the Garuḍa it occurs before ‘trirātram daśarātram vā (which is III. 18 in the Mit.). Besides, verse 22 of the Mit. is read differently in the Garuḍa (daśa dvādaśa varṇānām tathā pañcadaśaiva ca। trimsad dināni ca tathā bhavati pretasūtakam ). It must, therefore, be said that the Garuḍapurāṇa represents an intermediate stage of readings between Viś. and the Mit. As the Garuḍapurāṇa was a popular work read by and recited for the benefit of slightly educated or illiterate people, it often introduces changes to suit their understanding. For example, the Mit. (I.296) reads (as also Viś.) ‘sūryaḥ somo mahiputraḥ somaputro bṛhaspatīḥ,’ while Garuḍa reads (chap. 101.2) ‘sūryaḥ somo maṅgalas’ ca budhaś caiva bṛhaspatiḥ,’ thus substituting the well-known words Maṅgala and Budha for Mahiputra and Somaputra. The verse ‘kṛtāgṇikāryo bhuñjīta’ ( I. 31 in the Mit.) is placed by Viś. after ‘ekādaśam – upādhyāya,’ while the Mit. places it three verses earlier. The Garuḍapurāṇa here agrees with the Mit. In some cases Garuḍa strikes an independent path. For example, in Yāj. I. 11 Viś. reads ‘māse ‘to jātakarma ca’, the Mit. reads ‘māsyete jātakarma ca’, while Garuḍa (chap. 93. 11) gives the easy reading ‘prasave jātakarma ca’. Mit. reads (Yāj. I. 76 b) ‘tyajan dāpyastrītīyamśam-adravyo bharaṇam striyāḥ’; Viś. omits the whole verse, while Garuḍa omits I.76a of Mit.) and reads the other half as ‘śuddham tyajamstrītiyamśam dadyādbharaṇam striyāḥ’ (95. 23b). Verses I.91-92 of the Mit. on the offspring of mixed marriages are differently read by Viś. (I.90-91), while the Garuḍa (96. 1 b) has the same half verse as the Mit. I. 91 a and the same half verse (96. 3 a ) as Viś. (91 b ) and reads the two half verses between them as ‘jāto ’mbhasthastu śūdrāyām niśādaḥ pāraśavopi vā ॥ māhiṣyaḥ kṣatriyajjāto vaiśyāyām mlecchasaṁjñitaḥ’.

The foregoing makes it clear that the text that the Garuḍapurāṇa had before it could not have been older than that commented upon by Viśvarūpa and that it represents a stage intermediate between Viś. and the Mit.

The above gives rise to an important question whether one can detect several strata in the Yājñavalkyasmṛti. From the fact that the sūtra of Śaṅkha-Likhita cites Yājñavalkya among the promulgators of dharmaśāstras (vide note 137), while Yāj. himself includes Śaṅkha-Likhita among the pro- pounders of dharma (note 258), it may be plausibly said that Śaṅkha-Likhita refer to an earlier Yājñavalkyasmṛti than the extant one. Beyond this there is no evidence to establish that there was an earlier version of the present smṛti. A comparison of the readings of Viśvarūpa and the Mit. with those in the Agni and Garuḍa purāṇas has established that the text of the smṛti no doubt underwent slight verbal changes between 800 and 1100 A. D. and that a few verses were added and also omitted during these centurieṣ But the text remained in the main the same from 700 A. D. What the original smṛti contained, whether it was in prose or verse or both and whether it dealt with only ācāra and prāyaścitta sections are questions on which conjectures may be advanced, but there are no substantial materials for arriving at even tolerably certain conclusionṣ

Yājñavalkya's work is more systematic than that of Manu. He divides the work into three sections and relegates all topics to their proper positions and avoids repetitioṇ He treats of almost all subjects that we find in Manu, but his treatment is always concise and he makes very great and successful efforts at brevity. The result is that for the 2700 verses of Manu, he requires only a little over a thousanḍ He often compresses two verses of Manu into one, e. g. Manu II. 243, 247, 248 are equal to Yāj. I, 49, Manu III. 46–48 and 50 are concisely put in one verse by Yāj. (I. 79); vide also Manu IV. 7–8 and Yāj. I. 128 (contains almost same words also), Manu IV. 84–85 and Yāj. I. 141. In a few cases Manu and Yāj. convey the same meaning in one verse without compression, e. g. Manu III. 70 and Yāj. I. 102, Manu III. 119 and Yāj. I. 110. Manu VII. 17 and Yāj. I. 348, Manu VII. 205 and Yāj. I. 349. The correspondence of Yājñavalkya's words with the text of Manu is in most cases very close, so much so that one cannot help feeling that Yāj. had the Manusmṛti before him and purposely made an attempt to abridge the somewhat loose expressions of Manu. The passages set forth above as examples of compressions will also serve as illustrations of this fact. The word Kāyā (from Ka) is used by both in the sense of ‘prajāpatya form of marriage’ (Manu III. 38 and Yāj. I. 60); vide also Manu II. 109 and Yāj. I. 28, Manu III. 42–44 and Yāj. I. 62, Manu V. 26–27 and Yāj. I. 178–179, Manu VII. 56 and Yāj. I. 312 for further close agreement in phraseology. Yāj. adds some subjects which have either no counterpart in our Manu or which are only noticed in passing by Manu. The Manusmṛti contains nothing corresponding to the Vināyakaśānti and Grahaśānti of Yāj. (I. 271–308). Yāj. gives a detailed treatment of five kinds of ordeals (in II. 95–113), while Manu makes only a cursory reference to the ordeals of fire and water (VIII. 114). Yāj. contains considerable anatomical and medical matter (III. 75–108), which is wanting in Manu. On the other hand, there are some subjects on which Yāj. is silent though they are dealt with in detail by Manu. This is the case with the account of the origin of the worlḍ

The whole of the Yājñavalkya-smṛti is written in the classical Anuṣṭubh metre. Though the author's great aim has been to be concise, his verses are hardly ever obscure. The style is flowing and direct. There are not many un-Pāṇinian expressions, though he employs ‘pūjya’ in I. 293 and ‘dūṣya’ in II. 296. In the latter case both Viśvarūpa and Aparārka avoid the fault by reading differently. The verse ‘kulāni jātayaḥ śreṇyo’ is ungrammatical (Tri. eḍ II. 34), as ‘jāti’ and ‘śreṇi’ must be in the accusative case. According to the Mit. Yājñavalkya addressed his words to Sāmaśravas and other sages (vide coṃ on I. 178 and III. 330–333). In this the Mit. is probably drawing upon the Bṛ. Up. (III. 1. 2), where Yāj. asks Sāmaśravas to take away the 1000 cowṣ The sages interpose (vide III. 118, 129) as in Manu, while the great teacher is passing in review one topic after another. The teacher himself addresses his auditors (as in I. 178 ‘śṛṇudhudhvam’ and ‘nibodhata’ in I. 272). Yāj. employs the first person about himself as in I. 56 ‘naitan-mama matam’ and in III. 126 ‘sahasrāt mā mayā yo va ādideva udāhṛtaḥ’).

It is said that the sages approached Yājñavalkya in Mithilā and requested him to impart to them the dharmas of the varṇas, āśramas and otherṣ The contents of the work may be briefly summarised as follows:---Kāṇḍa I: fourteen vidyās; acts of dharma, sources of dharma; constitution of a pariṣad, the saṁskāras from Garbhādhāna to marriage; upanayana, its time and other details; every-day duties of a brahmacārin, persons fit to be taught, what things and actions a brahmacārin was to avoid, period of studenthood; marriage; qualifications of girl to be married, limits of sapinda relation- ship, intercaste marriages; the eight forms of marriage and the spiritual benefits therefrom, guardians for marriage, Kṣetraja son ; grounds of supercession of wife, duties of wife ; principal and intermediate castes; duties of householder and keeping sacred domestic fire, the five great daily yajñas; honouring a guest, madhuparka, grounds of precedence, rule of the road, privileges and duties of the four varṇas; ten principles of con- duct common to all; means of subsistence of a householder, and solemn vedic sacrifices; duties of snātaka, days of cessation from study; rules about prohibited and allowed food and drink; rules about flesh-eating; purifications of various materials, such as metal or wooden vessels; gifts, who is fittest to accept them, who should accept gifts, rewards of gifts, gift of cow, rewards of other gifts, highest gift is knowledge; śrāddha, proper time for it, proper persons to be invited at it, unfit persons, the number of Brāhmaṇas to be invited; procedure of śrāddhas; various śrāddhas such as pūrvaṇa, vṛddhi, ekoddiṣṭa; sapiṇḍī karaṇa; what flesh to be offered at śrāddha, reward of offering śrāddhas; propitiatory ceremonies as regards Vināyaka and rājadharma, king’s qualifications; ministers, purohita, royal edicts, king’s duties of protection; adminis- tration of justice; taxation and expenditure; allotment of the day to various duties; constitution of maṇḍala, the four ex- pedients, the six guṇas; fate and human effort; impartiality in punishment; units of measure and weights; grades of fine; Kāṇḍa II. members of the hall of justice, judge, definition of vyavahārapada, rules of procedure, plaint, reply, taking secu- rity, indicia of a false party or witness; conflict of dharma- śāstra and arthaśāstra; means of proof, documents, witnesses, possession; title and possession; gradation of courts; force, fraud, minority and other grounds of invalidity; finding of goods; treasure–trove; debts, rates of interest, debts of joint family; what debts of father son need not pay : devolution of debts; suretyship of three kinds; pledge; deposit; witnesses, their qualifications and disqualifications; administering oaths, punishment for perjury; documents; ordeals of balance, water, fire, poison and holy water; partition, time of it, wife’s share on partition, partition after father’s death, property not liable to partition, joint ownership of father and son; twelve kinds of sons; illegitimate son of śūdra; succession to a sonless man; re-union; exclusion; husband’s power over wife’s strīdhana; boundary disputes; dispute between master and herdsman; sale without ownership; invalidity of gift; rescission of sale; breach of contract of service; slavery by force; violation of conven- tions; non-payment of wages; gambling and prize-fighting; abuse, defamation and slander; assault, hurt etc.; sāhasa; theft; adultery; miscellaneous wrongs; review of judgment; Kāṇḍa III—cremation and burial; offering of water to various deceased persons; for whom no mourning was to be observed and no water to be offered; periods of mourning for various persons; rules for mourners; impurity on birth; instances of immediate purification on death or birth; means of purifica- tion, such as time, fire, ritual, mud etc.; rules of conduct and livelihood in distress; rules for forest hermit; rules for a yati; how the individual soul is clothed in a body; various stages of the fœtus, number of bones in the body, the various organs such as liver, spleen etc. ; the number of arteries and veins; reflection over ātman; use of music in the path of mokṣa; how the originally pure ātman is born among impure surroundings; how some sinners are born as various kinds of animals or inanimate things; how yogin attains immortality; three kinds of actions due to sattva, rajas and tamas; means of ātmajñāna; the two paths, one to immortality and the other to heaven; the various diseases from which sinners suffer; purpose of prāyaścittas; names of 21 hells; the five mortal sins and other acts similar to them; upapātakas; prāyaścittas for brāhmaṇa murder or for killing other per- sons; prāyaścittas for drinking wine, for other mortal and venial sins and for killing animals of various sorts; greater or lesser expiation according to time, place, age, ability; ostra- cizing the non-conformist sinner; secret expiations; ten yamas and niyamas; Sāntapana, Mahāsāntapana, Tapta- kṛcchra, Parāka, Cāndrāyaṇa and other expiations; rewards of reading this smṛti.

Besides the four Vedas, Yāj. refers to the Vedāngas as six and enumerates fourteen vidyās (four Vedas, six āngas, purāṇa, nyāya, mīmāmsā, dharmaśāstra ). He refers to the Āraṇyaka and Yogaśāstra composed by himself. Āraṇyakas in general are spoken of in I. 145 and Śukriya Āraṇyaka in III. 309. The Upaniṣads are mentioned in III. 189, where Purāṇas are mentioned in the plural. Itihāsas, Purāṇa, Vāko- vākya, and Narāśamsī gāthās are mentioned in I.45 ( also I. 101 for Purāṇa and Itihāsa ). He enumerates at the commen- cement nineteen authors on dharma, besides himself. But it is remarkable that in the body of the work not one individual author of a dharma-śāstra is mentioned by name. He speaks of Anvikṣikī ( Metaphysics ) and Daṇḍanīti ( I. 311 ). He lays down the dictum that where dharmaśāstra and artha- śāstra conflict, the former shall prevail ( II. 21 ). He speaks of smṛtis in general ( II. 5 and I.154 ). In III. 189 ( III. 180 in Viśvarūpa who reads ‘ Purāṇam ca ’ ), he names several sections of Sanskrit literature viz. Vedas, Purāṇas, Vidyās ( Dharma- śāstra and others ), Upaniṣads, ślokas, sūtras and bhāṣyaṣ This is an echo of Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad II.4.10 and IV.5.11 quoted below.¹² He speaks of sūtras and bhāṣyaṣ What works are intended it is most difficult to say ; the only extant bhāṣya which can be said with certainty to be older than the extant Yāj. smṛti is that of Patañjali. He refers to other writers on dharma in the word ‘eke’ ( I. 36 ). The view re- ferred to there occurs in Bauḍ Dh. S. 1. 2. 4.

Yāj. III. 185 refers to eight guṇas, which appears to be a reference to Gautama Dharmasūtra 8. 23–24. Similarly, Yāj. III. 186 ( referring to 88 thousand sages who were house- holders ) has in view Āp. Dh. S. II. 9. 21. 3 ( Aṣṭāśītisahasrāṇi ye prajām-iṣire ṛṣayaḥ &c ). It appears that the Matsya- purāṇa ( 53. 5-6 )¹³ quoted below copies the words of Yāj. I. 3 ( Purāṇa-nyāya.........dharmasya ca caturdaśa ) and thereby helps to some extent in arriving at the probable date of Yāj.

It is necessary to say a few words about the verses of the Yoga-Yājñavalkya which has 12 chapters and about 496 ver- ses plus ten additional verses, in all 506 only.

Briefly the contents of the twelve chapters are as follows : Chap. I ( 70 verses ) – In an assembly of sages, in which Mai- treyī ( the best of married women ) and Gārgī ( the best among experts in knowledge of Brahma ), were present, when Gārgī prostrated herself on the ground and requested Yājñavalkya to impart to her the essence of Yoga. Yāj. agreed to impart to her the essence of Yoga together with its aṅgaṣ He said that he would impart to her the knowledge of Yoga which Brahmā communicated to him and requested the assembly of sages to listen to the Yoga that would be described by hiṃ He dealt with knowledge and appropriate actions, as follows: actions are the way of knowledge which is twofold viz. pravara- taka (i. e. inducing men to act ) and nivartaka (i. e. making men to cease from ordinary acts ). He said there are four āśramas laid down by the Veda. Man owes debts to gods, ancestors and sages ( ṛṣis ) and pays off the debts (respectively) by sacrifices, by having sons and by brahmacarya as regards sages); there are four āśramas, all four for a brāhmaṇa, three for a kṣatriya, two for vaiśyas and one for śūdras; men in the four āśramas should perform the duties of those āśramas out of the four that may be applicable to their cases respectively ; there are different aṅgas of Yoga applicable to the persons in the community. Yoga has eight aṅgas viz. Yama, Niyama, Āsana, Prāṇāyāma, Pratyāhāra, Dhāraṇā, Dhyāna and Samādhi. Yamas are ten viz. Ahimsā, truthfulness, asteya &c. and there are also ten niyamas viz. tapas, santoṣa, āstikya, dāna, worship of god, listening to the fundamental principles of conduct, Hrī, Mati, Japa ( vācika and mānasa ) and vratas ; ( chap. 3 ) Āsana ( bodily postures of eight sorts ); Nāḍis ( 14 chief ones such as Iḍā, Piṅgalā, Suṣumnā, &c. ); ten vāyus ( such as Prāṇa, Apāna &c. ) and their special functions ); Naḍīśuddhi ( described in chap. V ); Prāṇāyāma ( description of ), Recaka, Pūraka, Kumbha, the mantra to be recited is to be Vedic, except for the śūdras and women; ( ten ślokas at the end of chap. VI ); seventh chap. deals with Pratyā- hāra ; this last and three more are called ābhyantara aṅgas of Yoga. Dhāraṇas are of five sorts ( chap. VIII ) : control of Prāṇa-vāyu; IX-deals with dhyāna; chap. X-deals with Samādhi ( Samādhiḥ samatāvasthā ); chap. XI ( Gārgī says that she had forgotten the Yoga with eight aṅgas ) ; chap. XII-Yāj. teaches her briefly Yoga again when she said that she had forgotten the elaborate treatment that Yāj. indulged in and then Yāj. teaches her briefly the essence of Yoga ( chap. XII ).

Some of the recommendations of the Yoga-yājñavalkya may be stated here; such as actions enjoined by Vedic injunctions should be performed by Yogins till death ( XI. 7–10); ¹⁴ Gārgī stated at the end that she had forgotten Yājñavalkya's exposition of Yoga with its eight aṅgas as the means leading to mokṣa and that he should explain briefly the Yoga with eight aṅgas; yajña° agrees; XII brief description of a posture for control of Vāyu in which the right ankle is pressed against the anus (one among several items) and of practising this for two ghaṭikās for ten days one has certain experiences such as lightness of the body, hearing sounds and passing only a small quantity of urine and faeces &c.; then contemplation on cakrin (serpent that is lodged in the Kuṇḍalinī); rousing of the Kuṇḍalini; all (Upaniṣad passages) declare that one is to realize that brahman from which proceed all these beings &c.

The Yoga-Yājñavalkya is only a small work on Yoga, has little to do with Dharmaśāstra and it winds up its teachings by relying on Hathayoga in chap. XII, which is put forward by the work itself as a summary of the teachings of the first eleven chapterṣ¹⁵ Mr. Divanji himself regards it as the earliest available work on Haṭhayoga for the common man ( JBBRAS Vol. 29 for 1954 pp. 96-128 at p. 106 and in ABORI Vol. 34 for 1953 p. 23). The present author questions his assertions about its being the earliest.

Aparārka ( about 1125-50 A. D. ) mentions Yogayajña- valkya about 25 times and quotes at least 63 verses therefrom (though the order of verses and some readings differ in a few cases). Reasons of space prevent a detailed statement of all verses quoted from Yogayājñavalkya. By way of sample, only some groups of verses from Yoga-Yāj. are cited here ; ( a ) about 18 verses ( though not in consecutive order ) on pp. 134-35 are quoted by Aparārka from Bṛ. Yoga. Yāj., all except two from the 7th chapter ( verses 39, 162-171 and from IV, 28 and 30 ) ; five verses are quoted from Bṛ Y. Y. VII. ( dropping 136 ) by Aparārka on p. 47; about five verses are quoted which are Bṛ. Y. Y. IV. 4-6 (in part) and IV. 8-10; on p. 128 Aparārka quotes from Yoga-Yāj. four verses and a half which are Br. Y. Y. VII. 2 (latter half)–5. Mr. Divanji does not show that these verses occur in the Yoga-Yājñavalkya that he editeḍ

The Dānaśāgara of Ballālasena (B. edition) mentions Yājñavalkya and Yogiyājñavalkya on p. 3 and it quotes about a dozen verses some of which are found in Yogi-Yājñavalkya,¹⁷ chap. VII. (of Br. Y. Y.) viz abhāve (D. S. p. 63=Br. VII. 139 ); na kuryāt (D. S. p. 52-Br. VII. 37 ); na caṅkraman (D. S. p. 52-Br. VII. 131 ); na pada (D. S. p. 63-Br VII. 132 ).

Yājñavalkya agrees very closely with the Viṣṇudharma-sūtra. What conclusions are to be drawn therefrom has been discussed above (see sec. 10). Similarly, there is close correspondence between the Kauṭiliya and Yāj. If there is any borrowing at all, it must follow from the date above assigned to the Kauṭiliya that it is Yāj. who borrowṣ There are numerous passages in Yāj. that show remarkable agreement with the text of Manu. But there are several points on which Yāj. differs from Manu and shows in general a more advanced state of thought and feeling than the Manusmṛti. The follow-ing are the principal points wherein Yāj. differs from Manu. Manu seems to allow a brāhmaṇa to marry a śūdra girl (III. 13), while Yāj. emphatically states it as his opinion that this is wrong (I, 56); Manu first describes the practice of niyoga and then severely condemns it (IX. 59-68), while Yāj. does not condemn it (I. 68-69). Manu enumerates eighteen vyavahārapadas; Yāj. does not expressly enumerate them in one place, though he defines vyavahārapada and adds verses of a miscellaneous character (prakirṇaka) in his section on vyavahāra. Manu is silent about the rights of inheritance of the widow of a sonless man and gives only a vaguely expressed order of succession, while Yāj. places the widow at the head of all heirs and enumerates several classes of heirs in a regular order. Manu condemns gambling outright (9. 224-226 ), while Yāj. brought it under State control and made it a source of revenue to the king (II. 200-203 ). There are several other matters which Yāj. treats at much greater length and more systematically than Manu, e. g. ordeals (as indicated above ), means of proof in courts (Manu altogether ignoring documentary evidence, though he knew documents as in 8. 51-52 ), rules of procedure in courts (compare Manu 8. 53-56 with Yāj. II. 5-11 and 16-21 ), the doctrine of possession and prescription (Yāj. II. 24-29 and Manu 9. 44 and 54 ). All these points tend to show that the Yājñavalkya-smṛti is much later than the extant Manusmṛti.

The Yājñavalkya-smṛti seems to have taken the section on Vināyakasanti from the Mānavagrhyasūtra (II. 14); verses 281-283 of Yāj. (I) occur in the Mānavagṛhya II. 14, but in a different order.¹⁸ The Mānavagṛhya takes the Vināyakas to be four, while Yāj. says that there is a single Vināyaka, whose appellations are Mita. &c.

The details of information about Vināyaka in Yāj. (I. 272-276) appear to have been versified from the prose¹⁹ of the M. Gr. S. The details of worship also and the mantra (Yāj. I. 291) are taken from the same work (vide M. Gr. S. II. 14. 30 for the mantra ). At one time the section on Vināyakāśānti was thought to be a sure indication of the late date of Yāj. Smṛti. But since the discovery of the Mānavagṛhya that position had to be given up. In the Baudhāyanadharmasūtra ( II. 5. 21 ) we have Vināyaka and his several appellations ( in the tarpaṇa ). Aparārka on Yāj. I. 275 quotes a long passage from the Baijavāpa-gṛhya which bears a very close correspondence in phraseology to the passage from the M. Gṛ. S. quoted above and which gives the names of the four Vināyakas as Mita, Sammita, Śalakaṭaṅkaṭa and Kūṣmāṇḍarājaputra.

The Yājñavalkya-smṛti stands in a very intimate relation to the White Yajurveda and the literature that clusters round it. Most of the mantras quoted ( in part ) or referred to by Yāj. occur in the Ṛgveda as well as in the Vājasaneya-saṃhitā ( e. g. in Yāj. I. 22, 24, 229, 230, 238, 239, 247 ). Yet there are a few mantras that do not occur in the Ṛgveda, but only in the Vājasaneya-saṃhitā or other saṁhitās ( e. g. ‘yavosi’ in Yāj. I. 230, which is Vāj. S. 5. 26, ‘ye samānā’ in Yāj. I. 254 which is Vāj. S. 19.45, ‘imam deva’ and ‘udbudhyasva’ in Yāj. I. 230, which are Vāj. S. 9. 40 and 15. 54, ‘annāt paridāt’ in Yāj. I. 301 and ‘kāndāt’ in Yāj. I. 301 which are Vāj. S. 19.75 and 13.20 ). Several verses ( Yāj. III. 191–197 ) are a paraphrase of certain passages of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, so much so that the very words of the latter are used throughout in the former, as the quotations given below will show.²⁰ Then again Yāj. very closely agrees with the Pāraskaragṛhyasūtra as was pointed out by Dr. Stenzler in his introduction to the edition of Yāj. ( 1849, Berlin ) and in the Journal of the German Oriental Society ( VII. 527 ). Viśvarūpa points out that²¹ Yāj. I. 142–143 are based upon Pāraskara. The mantra 'ayam me vajraḥ' in Yāj. I. 135 (Trivandrum eḍ) is given in Pāraskara-gṛhya II.7.7. In the following also there is close verbal correspondence²² between Yāj. and the P. Gr. S; Yāj. III. 1–2 and P. Gr. S. III. 10. I, 5, 8–9 and 12; Yāj. III. 3 and P. Gr. S. III. 10. 16 and 19–20; Yāj. III. 4 and P. Gr. S. III. 10. 46–47; Yāj. III. 16 and P. Gr. S. III. 26–27. Similarly, the verses of Yāj. on Śrāddha (I. 217–270) offer many points of contact with the Śrāddha-kalpa of Kātyāyana edited by Dr. Caland (pp. 127–130 of his work 'Ahnencult &c.' From these facts Dr. Jolly concludes that Yājñavalkya's work goes back to a dharmasūtra of the White Yajurveda (R. u. S. p. 21). In another place Dr. Jolly hazards another conjecture based on the close correspondence between Yāj. and the Viṣṇudharmasūtra that he probably belonged to the Kāṭhaka school of the Black Yajurveda (Journal of Indian History, 1924, p. 7). Yāj. also shows great similarity to the Kautilīya and borrows the Vināyaka-śānti from the Mānava-gṛhyasūtra. From these facts one may argue at least with as much logic and force as underlies Dr. Jolly's guess-work that Yāj. probably belonged to the Mānava school of the Black Yajurveda or to the school of Kauṭilya. If Yāj. knew his business as a writer on Dharmaśāstra, he must have consulted the works of his predecessors and his work is bound to show traces of that fact. One may conclude at the most that the author of the Yājñavalkyasmṛti may have possibly been a student of the White Yajurveda and so the mantras of the White Yajurveda and the Gṛhyasūtra of Pāraskara were far more familiar to him than the other Vedas, sūtras, smṛtis, and other workṣ No such conclusions that there was a dharma-sūtra of the White Yajurveda and that the Yājñavalkyasmṛti was based thereon are warranted by the facts so far discovereḍ For settling the date of Yāj. we need not consider the evidence after the 9th century A.D. For, in the first quarter of that century (as we shall see later on) Viśvarūpa wrote his extensive commentary on Yāj. That he was separated from Yāj. by many centuries follows from several considerationṣ Not only had numerous various readings arisen in the text of Yāj. when he wrote, but various interpretations of the same words and verses of Yāj. had ariseṇ For example, he gives several meanings of the words ‘putronanyāśritadravyaḥ’ (in Yāj. II. 47), of ‘sāmudrāḥ’ (II. 41); he gives different inter- pretations of I. 265, II. 160, II. 173 &c. He refers to the interpretations of his predecessors in several places by the word ‘anye’ (I. 3, 25, 155, 169; II. 21, 119, 121; III. 201, 209, 246 &c. ). In several places he appears to be referring to two other interpretations than his own (vide on III.250, the words ‘kecittu’ and ‘anye tu’ and the same words on III.261 and 264). That Viśvarūpa had before him actual commentaries on Yāj. and was not merely giving scholastic interpretations started by himself is made very clear in several cases by his actually citing certain portions from those workṣ On I.252 Viśvarūpa says ‘others take from somewhere the following śloka (then the śloka is quoted), but this śloka is of no help, as its origin is not known’.²³ Similar words occur in the comment on Yāj. III. 222. On II. 193 he styles some pre- decessor as ‘paṇḍitammanya’ and on III. 257 he ridicules a predecessor who regards the verse of Manu IV. 222 as an arthavāda by saying that that commentator wanted to show off that he knew the technical term arthavāda.²⁴ It is not unlikely that Viśvarūpa in this last passage refers to some ancient commentator of Manu such as Asahāya. In the Prāyaścittamayūkha,²⁵ Nīlakaṇṭha (Benares edition of 1879) says that Śaṅkara in his Bhāṣya on Brahmasūtra (III. 4.43) explained the application of Yāj. III. 226. Unfortunately in the printed editions of Śaṅkara I could not find thiṣ But from the Bhāmatī where Yāj. III. 226 is explained, it is clear that the passage must have occurred in the text of Śaṅkara used by the Bhāmatī. Dr. Jolly lays great emphasis in assigning a late date to Yāj. on the fact that Kumārila, who cites Manu, Gautama, Āpastamba, Baudhāyana frequently, ignores the Yājñavalkya-smṛti altogether. But this silence of the great mīmāṁsaka can only mean that he did not assign the same pre-eminent and venerable position to Yāj. that he prepared to place Yāj. three or four centuries earlier than Kumārila. It will be shown hereafter that Nārada and Bṛhaspati cannot be placed later than 500 A. D. and may have flourished two or three centuries earlier still. On a comparison of their doctrines with those of Yāj. it will have to be conceded that they represent a far greater advance in juristic principles and exactitude than Yāj. So the latter cannot be placed later than the 3rd century A. D. As Yāj. is shown above to have followed the Manusmṛti and the Kauṭilīya his smṛti cannot be placed earlier than the first century B. C. We shall not be therefore far from the truth if we place his smṛti somewhere between the first century B. C. and the third century of the Christian era. In the Laṅkāvatārasūtra (eḍ by B. Nanjo, 1923, Kyoto ) gāthas 814-816 are ‘Kātyāyanaḥ sūtrakartā Yājñavalkastathaiva ca...Valmiko Masurākṣaśca Kauṭilya Āśvalāyanaḥ....’ From the context it appears that the author of the smṛti is referred to as Yājñavalka.

Dr. Jolly (R. u. S. p. 21 ) following Dr. Jacobi ( Z D M G 30, p. 306 ) thinks that Yāj. shows an acquaintance with Greek astrology. Dr. Jacobi’s position amounts to this that the naming of the week days after the planets was established among the Greeks towards the end of the 2nd century A. D. and as the names of the week days and the arrangement of the planets in correspondence with them was borrowed by the Indians from the Greeks, no Indian work which enumerates the week days or arranges the planets in the well-known sequence ( of Sun, Moon, Mars &c. ) could have been composed before the third century after Christ. As is very often the case with Western Sanskrit scholars in matters of Indian chronology, this grand generalization is based upon very slender data. The premises are mere assumptions without hardly any evidence worth the name to support theṃ No one knows exactly when the week-days were named and who were the people that first employed the current names of the week-dayṣ It is well-known that as far back as the days of Herodotus the Egyptians had a presiding deity for each day and that in the times of Julius Cæser there were days of Saturn ( vide I. A. vol. 14, p. 1, General Cunningham's article for the Indian origin of week-days ). At least from the third century B. C., as vouched for by the 13th edict of Aśoka, India was in close touch with Syria and Egypt, where Buddhist missionaries had been sent by Aśoka while Antiochus and Ptolemy ruled in the two countries respectively. Therefore, if Indians at all borrowed the week-days and the arrangement of planets from foreigners, there is nothing to prevent us from holding that they might have borrowed them from the Egyptianṣ

The present author has dealt at some length with the question of the origin of week days and their names in pp. 676–685 of Vol. V part I of the History of Dharmaśāstra. It is impossible to hold that such a brilliant planet as Venus whose rising precedes the dawn and setting follows the evening was not noticed by the ancient Indianṣ It is very likely that Vena praised in Rg. X.123.1,2 and 5 is the morning star and in X. 123.5 Uṣas the youthful ( yoṣā ) Apsaras that greets with a smile in the highest heaven her lover i.e. the morning star that is a little high up in the sky when Uṣas smiles on the horizoṇ In a difficult verse ( Rg. I.139.10 ) both Bṛhaspati and Vena are mentioneḍ Several Western scholars hold that Vena is Soma or Sūrya according to the context. But this explanation would not suit Rg. X. 123. 1 and 5 at all. In Rg. X. 123.1 we have the words ‘ Ayam venaś codayat...imam apām saṅgame sūryasya ’ and it is clear that ‘ imam ’ refers to Vena ( in the first half ) and ‘ sūryasya ’ is separately mentioned from ‘ imam ’ ( i. e. Venam ). The earliest dated Indian record ( so far known ) wherein a week-day is mentioned is . the Eran Inscription of 484 A. D. ( Gupta Inscriptions p. 89 ) where we have “ Suraguror divase.” It is to be noticed that Yāj. does not mention the week-dayṣ In I. 296 he mentions the nine grahas in order as the Sun, the Moon, Mars ( the son of the earth ), Mercury ( the son of Soma ), Jupiter, Venus, Saturn, Rāhu, Ketu. No one can gainsay that at least the Sun, the Moon, Bṛhaspati and Venus were known to the Ṛgvedic India. Bṛhaspati in the highest heaven is spoken of in the Ṛgveda²⁷ and the conjunction of Jupiter and Tiṣya ( constellation of Pusya ) is spoken of in the Tai. Brāhmaṇa. We know so very little of the ancient astronomical science in ancient India that one must think twice before dogmatising. Yāj. nowhere mentions the zodiacal signs ( rāśis ) and probably did not know theṃ Not only so, in his day the nakṣatras were still arranged from Kṛttikā to Bharaṇī as was the case in the Tai. S. IV. 4.10. Vide Yāj. I. 268 ( Kṛttikādi Bharaṇyantam ). We know from Varāhamihira that in the 5th century A. D. the signs of the zodiac and the arrangement of nakṣatras from Aśvini to Revati were established facts in all parts of India. Therefore, Yāj. who uses the ancient arrangement of Nakṣatras cannot be placed so late as the 4th century A. D. When Yāj. ( I. 80 ) speaks of “ susthe Indau ” we should not, follow-ing such commentaries as the Mit., connect the words with the signs of the zodiac or the houses of the horoscope. Viśvarūpa does not speak of rāśis in this connection, but of Nakṣatras only. From very ancient times certain Nakṣatras had come to be regarded as auspicious or suitable for particular actṣ The Tai. Bṛ.²⁸ directs that one should not finish a thing or begin to sacrifice on a nakṣatra with an evil name. The same Brāhmaṇa says that ploughing was to be begun on the Maitra asterism ( Anurādhā ) and consecration of fire on the Āditya nakṣatra. Even the Ṛgveda speaks of auspicious days²⁹ and the Tai. Bṛ. speaks of Deva-nakṣatras and Puṇyāhas, and says that a daughter should be given away in marriage on the Svāti nakṣatra if she was desired to be her husband's favourite ³⁰ Vide Baudhāyana Gṛhya (I. 1) for the marriage nakṣatras; also Āp. Gr. S. II. 15. 12-14, Gobhila Gṛhya 4.4. 28 and 2. 1.1.

There is nothing to show that Yāj. knew rāśis (zodiacal signs). He refers (I. 80) to the Maghā and Mūla nakṣatras as forbidden for sexual intercourse between husband and wife. The presiding deity of both Maghā and Mūla was pitarah (deceased ancestors); vide H. of Dh. Vol. V part 1 pp. 502-3 for both. Therefore, they are both inauspiciouṣ Similarly, some of the tithis viz. Amāvāsyā, 8th and 14th tithis and Full Moon day were prohibited by Manu (IV. 128) for sexual intercourse between husband and wife. Hence times for many actions in early works were of three sorts viz. forbidden, recommended, or neutral (i. e. neither forbidden nor recommended). When Yāj. speaks (in I.80) of the moon being auspiciously placed, or when he speaks of a planet being badly placed (duḥstha) in I.307, it is improper to jump to the conclusion that he refers to rāśis, but he might have in mind nakṣatras (like Mūla and Maghā) or tithis (like Amāvāsyā or 8th). The same remark applies to the words ‘Vyatipāta’ and ‘Gajacchāyā’ that occur in Yāj. I.217. Both are times for śrāddha and variously defined (not necessarily depending on rāśis). Vide H. of Dh. vol. V. pp. 419 and 705 for ‘Vyatipāta’ and Vol. IV p. 371 n for Gajacchāyā and Vyatipāta both.

In III. 171 and 172 Yāj. speaks of only the conjunction of planets and of the passage (of them) through tārās and nakṣatraṣ The Bauḍ Dh. S. II. 5.23 speaks of the nine grahas in the same order as that of Yāj. Therefore, there is hardly any evidence to show that Yāj. knew more astrology than was current in the days of the Brāhmaṇas and the Gṛhyasūtraṣ Yāj. (in II. 240-241) speaks of the fine to be imposed on those who counterfeited “nāņakas” (coins) and on those examiners of “nāņakas” who falsely declared a good coin to be counterfeited and vice versa. Mr. Jayaswal (Calcutta Weekly Notes, vol. 17, p. CLIX ) says that nāņaka is the gold coin of the Kushans bearing the picture of the Goddess Nanaia and that the Kushans did not rise to importance be- fore 78 A. D. This would place Yāj. after 100 A. D. But it must be remembered that this connection between the Goddess Nanaia and the word “nānaka” is quite conjectural and that the chronology of the Kushans is far from being settleḍ

Yāj. speaks of the sight of yellow-robed people as an evil omen (I.273), which is probably a reference to the Buddhists ; though it has to be remembered that he prescribes old yellow ( kāṣāya ) robes for his seeker after mokṣa ( III. 157 ). He speaks of the founding of monasteries of Brāhmaṇas learned in the Vedas (II.185). The philosophical doctrines contain- ed in the third section ( verses 64–205 ) approach that phase of the Vedānta that was taught by Śaṅkarācārya. Vide parti- cularly III. 67, 69, 109, 119, 125, 140. He employs in elucidat- ing the philosophy of Ātman the well-known examples of ghatākāśa and of the reflection of the Sun in water (III. 144 ), of the various ornaments made from gold, of the spider spinn- ing webs out of his own body (both in III.147 ), of the actor representing various parts ( III. 162 ). All these illustrations frequently occur in Śaṅkara’s Śarīrakabhāṣya (e. g. ghatā- kāśa on Vedānta-sūtra II. I. 14, spider on II. I.25 ). All these points, however, are of very little use in arriving at a definite age for the smṛti of Yāj. The foregoing discussion has established that Dr. Jolly’s date ( viz. 4th century A. D. in R. u. S., p. 21 ) is much later than the data warrant. There is nothing to prevent us from holding that the extant smṛti was composed during the first two centuries of the Christian era or even a little earlier.

Prof K. P. Jayaswal in his Tagore Law Lectures on ‘Manu and Yājñavalkya ’ has given forceful expression to some novel viewṣ A separate treatise would have to be written for ex- posing the hollowness of some of his assertionṣ But one question concerns the text itself and cannot be altogether ignored here. On pp. 56 ff he asserts that verses 67–203 of the third adhyāya of Yāj. are interpolationṣ The main reasons for this opinion are that these verses contain matters of anatomy and Yoga. This is a very bad example of foisting one’s own modern ideas about relevancy on writers who flourished about two thousand years ago. The Nārada-smṛti has a long disquisition on impotency ( vide SBE, vol. 33 pp. 166-168, XII. 9–14). Manusmṛti contains a good deal of matter on Yoga e. g. vide Manu VI. 70–73; Yāj. III.67 imitates Mundakopanişad II. 1.1 (in thought and words), Yāj. III.71 contains ideas common to Manu III. 76 and Sānti- parva 264.11; Yāj. III. 185 follows Gaut. Dh. S. VIII.23; Yāj. III.186 follows Āp. Dh. II.9. 23.3; Yāj. III. 193–94 have in view Chāndogyopa° V. 10.1; Yāj. III. 195–197 follow Chāṇ Up. V. 10.3–5 and Br. Up. VI. 2.16; Yāj. III. 200 repeats the very words of Gītā VI. 11 and XII. 4 in part.

Besides the Yājñavalkyasmṛti we have to reckon with three other works connected with the name of Yājñavalkya, viz. Vṛddha Yāj., Yoga-Yāj., and Bṛhad-Yāj. All these three works are comparatively ancient. Viśvarūpa quotes (vide note 219 above) two verses of Vṛddha-Yājñavalkya saying that many writers on dharma have been born and will be born and enumerating ten such writerṣ

The Mit. on Yāj. III. 1–2, 6, 19 quotes six verses of Vṛddha-Yāj and Aparārka quotes about eleveṇ The verse quoted as ‘cāndāla...Pāraśikādikam’ in the note is quoted again by Aparārka differently on p. 1196.

One quotation cited from Vṛddha-Yāj. by Mādhava refers to the means of proof in case of doubt whether there was a partitioṇ³¹ So Vṛddha-Yāj. wrote also on Vyavahāra. Most of the quotations occur in the prāyaścitta sectioṇ It is interesting to note that one of these quotations in Aparārka³² regards the touch of Pāraśikas as on the same level with that of Cāņḍālas, Mlecchas and Bhillaṣ The Dāyabhāga³³ says that Jitendriya cited the words of Bṛhad-Yājñavalkya (viz. “sodaro nānyamātṛjaḥ”). The Mit. cites Bṛhad- Yājñavalkya on prāyaścitta. So this also is a work that must be held to be earlier than 1000 A. D. Yāj. himself is styled Yogīśvara by the Mit. and other works, but Yoga-yajña- valkya is a different work from the Yāj. smṛti. Yāj. (in III, 110) claims the Yogaśāstra to be his own work.

The Garuḍapurāṇa in chapters 93–106 contains about 376 verses, most of them borrowed from the Yāj. smṛti and adds a few verses of its owṇ It does not follow the order of verses in the smṛti. The Mit. on Yāj. III. 253 quotes a verse of Bṛhad-Yājñavalkya stating that a Kṣatriya or Vaiśya even knowingly drinking madya does not become blamable, (but he incurs sin if he drinks liquor prepared from flour). The Mit. on Yāj. III. 253 quotes a verse of Bṛhad-Viṣṇu setting out ten kinds of madya, all forbidden to Brāhmaṇas only but not to otherṣ

Long after the first volume of the H. of Dh. was publi- shed two works have been brought out, one called Bṛhadyogi- Yājñavalkya edited and published in 1951 by Swami Kuva- layananda of the Kaivalyadhāma at Lonavla and Pandit Raghunath Shastri Kokje and the other by Mr. P. C. Divanji published at first in J. B. B. R. A. S. Vol. 28 (pp. 98–158 and pp. 215–268 ) and vol. 29 pp. 96–128 and later available in book form (in 1954). Mr. Divanji in J. B. B. R. A. S. vol. 29 pp. 96–128 deals with his msṣ, his method of collation, the work and its date, index of verses and glossary of wordṣ In A. B. O. R. I. Vol. 34 pp. 1–29 Mr. Divanji tries to establish that the work he published is the Yogaśāstra said to have been composed by the author of Yāj. smṛti (III. 110) before the smṛti. The Lonavla editors replied in ABORI. Vol. 37 pp. 279–289 and in their Journal called Yogamīmāṁsā Vol. VII. No. 2 (also issued as a pamphlet in 1958). The present author cannot enter into lengthy criticism of what Mr. Divanji says, who does not keep an open mind as befits a scholar who is in search of truth. The Trivandrum Sanskrit Series also published (in 1938 ) the Yoga-Yājñavalkya (based on a single Mṣ) which generally agrees with the work edited by Mr. Divanji. The present author has to bring to the notice of scholars and readers the fact that the Yogayājñavalkya was published in the Trivandrum Series (No. CXXXIV) so far back as 1938. The present author examined the question whether any one of these two works can be the Yogaśāstra which the Yāj. smṛti (III. 110) says, was composed by the sage Yājñavalkya, a. of the Yāj. smṛti, in H. of Dh. Vol. V. part 2, pp. 1404-1408. Those interested may read that discussioṇ The findings there are that none of the two works could have been the composition of the author of the Yāj. Smṛti.

As both works are interesting ( particularly the one published at Lonavla ) the present author will say a few words on each.

The Bṛhad-Yogiyājñavalkya is a large work in twelve chapters and has about 930 verseṣ It begins just as the Yāj. Smṛti does ( sages ask Yogīśvara who was in Mithilā, ques tions ). The twelve chapters deal with the following topicṣ I ( verses 44 ); the essence of all Vedas, Smṛtis and 14 vidyās; knowledge of Ātman ; five matters to be remembered at the time of performing japa of Mantras viz. the sage, the metre, the deity addressed, the application of mantras and ( fifthly ) the explanation, origin, purpose and praise ( i. e. the Brāh maṇa of it ); II ( verses 158 ) about Oṃkāra ( praṇava ), it being a mantra by itself, eight different views about the mātrās of it ( Yājñavalkya's view being that it is 'amātrā' ); III ( verses 32 ) On the Vyāhṛtis ( either 3, 4, 5 or 7 ); IV ( verses 82 ) on Gāyatrī, its sage, metre, deity and its employ ment; V. ( 12½ verses ) on Nyāsa of Om, Vyāhṛtis, Gāyatrī on the different parts of one's body; VI ( verses 31 ) on Sandhyo pāsana ( morning and evening worship ); VII ( 196 verses ) on bath, tarpaṇa, sandhyā worship and japa ( mutter ing of mantras ); VIII ( 56 verses ) on Prāṇāyāma and Pratyāhāra ; IX ( verses 198, the longest chap. in the work ) on Dhyāna; definition of Dhyāna; ( dhyāna being placed before dhāraṇā ); X ( verses 20½ ) on Sūryopasthāna ( worship of the Sun with mantras and Gāyatrījapa ); XI ( 56 verses ) practice of Yogadharma; XII ( verses 49 )—All Śāstras originated from Veda, 14 vidyās means of knowing the proper dharma, greatness of Manu &c.

This work in its extensive remarks on Mantras, Gāyatrī, Sandhyopāsana, bath, tarpaṇa, prāṇāyāma deals with Dharma śāstra matters and combines with them the higher Yoga viz. pratyāhāra, dhyāna and dhāraṇā ( as in VIII. 29, 30, 32 which are the same as Manu VI. 70-72 ). It quotes dozens of verses from the Manusmṛti. It also contains many verses of the Bhagavadgītā and several passages of the Upaniṣads ( all this will be shown in the table below. Therefore, the Bṛhad-Yogi-Yājñavalkya-Smṛti is Dharmaśāstra and Yoga in one. Table about Manusmṛti verses taken into the Br. Y. Y. without acknowledgement (slight variations are not set out), B–Bṛhadyogi-yājñavalkya and M– Manusmṛti; B often joins together in one verse different halves of Manu's verses:

B. 2.63 = M. 2.83; B. 4.12–13 = M.2.76–77; B. 4.46 = 48 = M.2.81–82; B. 4.48–50 = M. 2.78–79; B. 4.72 (latter half and 73 = M. XI. 191; B. IV. 76 (latter half) and 77 (first half) M. 2.118; B. VI. 3 = M. II. 103; B. VII. 91–92 (one half from each) = M. III. 283; B. VII. 129–130 = M. II. 86–87; B. VII. 136 = M. II. 85; B. VII. 177 = M. XI. 260; B. VIII. 28 = M. XI. 248 (also in Vaṣ Dh. 26.4 and Bauḍ Dh. S. IV. 1.31); B. VIII. 29–31 = M. VI. 69–71; B. IX. 86 = M. III. 76; B. X. 8–9 (two halves) = M. II.102; B. X. 12 = M. II. 101 ; B. X. 13–14 = M. II. 86–95 ( Vaṣ 26. 10. 9 ); B. X. 15 = M. II. 87 ( = Vaṣ 26.11 and Śaṅkhasmṛti XII.28); B. X. 16 = M. XI. 34 (also Vaṣ 26.16) ; B. XI. 36–37 = M. I. 96–97; B. XI. 38 = M. XII. 85; B. XI. 49 = M. V. 108; B. XI. 57 = M. VI. 79; B. XI. 53–56 = M. XII. 120–123; B. XII. 19,20,22 = M. XII. 105, II.7, XII. 95; B. XII. 24 = M. II. 168; B. XII. 28–9 = M. II. 10–11;

In all over 40 verses from Manu have been taken without acknowledgement. Manu is expressly named in some places as in B. VIII. 8 and in IX. 159.

A few verses and half verses are taken from the Yāj. Smṛti (slight variations are not noted) e. g. B. IV.56 (latter half) and 57–58 (first half) = Yāj. III.309, 311; B. VI.29 (first half) and X.2 = Yāj. I.22 (first half); B. VIII.3 = Yāj. I.23; B. XI. 34=Yāj. I.8; B. XI. 35=Yāj. I.9.

The verses of the Bhagavad-gītā (G in this list) are also included without express acknowledgement e. g. B. II. 9–10 = G. 17. 23–24; B. II. 39–40 = G. 18.12–13; B. II. 104–105 - G. 8.11 and 13; B. IX. 18 = G. 15.12; B. IX. 20 = G. 15.6; B. IX. 60–61 (latter half and first half)=G. 8.9; B. IX. 118 = G. IV. 24; B, IX. 187 (first half) =G. 6. 11 (latter half); B. IX. 197–98 (latter half and first half)=G. 12.12; B. XI. 2–3=G. 2. 40 and 46; B, XI, 46=G. 18.46; B. XII. 14 (first half)=G. 16. 8.

The Bṛhad-yogiyājñavalkya absorbs without acknowledg- ment Vedic, particularly Upaniṣad passageṣ For example, it cites (XI. 7) Ṛg. I. 164. 39 (Ṛco akṣare....samāsaṭe ). In IX. 158 it names the Chāndogya, Bṛhadāraṇyaka and Taittirīya Upaniṣads by name. A few examples may be citeḍ B. II. 37–38 are Katha Up. (2. 15–16 ), B. II. 42 is Chāṇ Up. II. 23. 3; B. II. 47 (dve brahmaṇi &c. ) is Maitrī Up. VI, 22; B. II. 53–55 are respectively Tai. Up. II. 4 (Yato vāco &c); Muṇḍaka II.2.4 (Praṇavo dhanuḥ) and Śvetā- śva° 7.14 (Svadehamaraṇim ); B.II.60 is Katha Up. II.17; B. IX. 59 is Īṣopaniṣad 15 (Hiraṇmayena &c); B. IX. 101 is Muṇḍaka I.2.11 (slightly modified); B. IX.148 is Chāṇ Up. V. 24. 4 (slightly modified ); B. IX. 184–186 (latter half of 184 and first half of 186 are Katha Up. 3.10–11; B. IX. 193–94 are a part adaptation in verse of Bṛ. Up. II.2.19.

The Bṛhadyogiyājñavalkya contains about 930 verses, the Yogayājñavalkya published by Mr. Divanji contains 496 verses and the Trivandrum edition of Yogayājñavalkya con- tains about 465 verseṣ Therefore, the Yogayājñavalkya is in extent about half of the text of the Bṛhadyogi-yājñavalkya. The references here are made to Mr. Divanji's edition of Yoga- yājñavalkya ( and not to the T. S. S. edition ). The Yogayājña- valkya professes that in an assembly of sages (15 are named in XI.13–14 including Vasiṣṭha and Viśvāmitra ) both Maitreyī and Gārgī were present and the latter (Gārgī ) fell at the feet of the sage and implored him to expound to her the principles of Yoga (I,8). The great sage promises to tell her the essence of Yoga with its aṅgas, which was declared to him by Brahmā himself (I.10–15). He dilates on two pāths, one stimulating (pravartaka ) a person to do acts laid down for varṇas and āśramas and the other called nivartaka ( which prevents rebirth ); he dilates on the four āśramas for Brāhmaṇa, three for Kṣatriya, two for Vaiśyas and one for Śūdras and Brahmā directed Yājñavalkya to follow the paths of Jñāna and Karma (I. 39–40). The text (I. 43 ) tells us that Gārgī was his wife (bhāryayā tvevamuktastu yajña- valkyas-tapoṇidhiḥ ). In IV. 5 also Gārgī is called yajña- valkya's wife, in IV. 40 she is addressed by Yājñavalkya as ‘priye’ and Varārohe (VI. 79, VII. 22 and 34 ). The instruction imparted by Brahmā ends with the words in I. 39-40 as quoted below. Jñāna consists of Yoga, which has eight aṅgas and Yoga means the union of the Individual soul with the Supreme Soul (I. 44). The principal topics are: the eight aṅgas, Yama &c.; ten Yamas (I. 50-51) and verses 1-19 their definitions; II (chapter)—ten niyamas and their definitions; III the eight recommended āsanas (physical postures); IV. on Nāḍī-śuddhi; on Susumnā, the best nāḍī (IV. 28); names of the 14 chief nāḍīs (IV. 26-28); ten vāyus that circulate in the nāḍīs, the five chief being Prāṇa, Apāna, Samāna, Udāna and Vyāna (IV. 47-48) and their spheres; V. on means of Nāḍī-śuddhi and appropriate place and actions for securing it; Tantras are specially mentioned in V. 10; signs of having secured Nāḍī-śuddhi; VI. (longest chapter of the work) on Prāṇāyāma; three aspects of prāṇāyāma viz. recaka, pūraka and kumbhaka (VI. 2); explanations of these, results of practising these, such as removing diseases; VII. definition of pratyāhāra (1-2); VIII. on Dhāraṇā; definition of Dhāraṇā, verbal close resemblances between the contents of the Yogayājñavalkya and the Hathayogapradīpikā. The proper name of this last work is Haṭhapradīpikā (vide H. of Dh Vol. V. p. 1427, ṇ 2344). This is a late work and mentions 35 siddhas such as Matsyendranātha, Gorakṣanātha, Gahiṇīnātha, Nivṛttinātha, and Jñānadeva, who wrote his famous commentary on the Gītā in 1290 A. D. and mentioned these as in the line of gurus before hiṃ Vide H. of Dh. Vol. V. p. 1429.

There are great defects in the arguments of Mr. Divanji in favour of the work sponsored by him being the Yogāśāstra referred to by Yājñavalkya (in Yāj. Smṛti III. 110) as composed by him before the Smṛti itself. Both works (the Bṛhadyogiyājñavalkya Smṛti and the Yogayājñavalkya) claim that they contain what Yāj., a famous and very ancient sage, contemporary of ancient king Janaka (in the case of the Bṛ. Yogi-Yājñavalkya and also the recipient of Yajus from the Sun) and an ancient sage Yājñavalkya whose wife was Gārgī and who received the Yogic knowledge from God Brahmā himself (in the case of the Yoga-Yājñavalkya). In these days hardly any critical reader would admit these claims of both workṣ But the case of the author of the Yoga-Yājñavalkya is much worse. This latter would be further charged either with being ignorant of ancient History and legends or with ignoring the Upaniṣad story and foisting a totally new one on Yājñavalkya. In the Br. Upaniṣad (II.4-5) it is said that Yāj. had two wives Maitreyi and Kātyāyani, the former wanted no wealth but was eager only to learn the means for securing immortality and then Yāj. expounded to her Brahma-vidyā In Br. Up. III-1 it is said that Janaka offered to donate a thousand cows to that one among the persons assembled who was the best knower of brahmaṇ Yāj. asked his pupil Sāmaśravas to take away the cowṣ Then Āśvala, Janaka's hotṛ priest, and others viz. Ārtabhāga, Bhujyu, Uśasta, Kahola asked him questions, which Yāj. answered and silenced theṃ Then Gārgī Vācak- navī asked him (in Br. Up. III.6) several questions one after another and lastly asked ‘kasmin nu Brahmaloka otāśca protāśca’. Yāj. said to her ‘do not carry your question- ing to the utmost limit, otherwise your head would fall down’ (i. e. you will meet death). She remained silent. In the Yoga- yājñavalkya (eḍ by Divanji) she is put forward as yajña- valkya’s wife, a pure invention by the author of that work for the sake of palming it off as a very authoritative work.

Mr. Divanji on p. 25 of his paper in ABORI Vol. 34 on the two works ( having Yājñavalkya as part of their names ) tries to make light of this circumstance by saying that a rose would smell as sweet even if called by some other name. This is trying to dodge the real issue, which is whether the work edited by him is that of the Yājñavalkya of the Br. Up. or is the work of the author of the Yāj. Smṛti. The present author would have no quarrel with him if he admits that it is not a work of the ancient sage Yājñavalkya but of some one who suppresses his real name and the present author would admit that the work he edited is on Hathayoga ( but not by the author of Yāj. Smṛti ). On p. 29 he writes ‘the author had not forgotten the fact...but had meant to speak about another Yājñavalkya’ in I.6 ). One fails to understand what he meanṣ The word Vadhūh being in the singular would go with the nearest word Maitreyi and not with both Maitreyi and Gārgī. The work, being a small one, deals only with Hathayoga, it does not dilate upon the daily religious rites to be performed, but harps constantly on the point that actions prescribed by Śāstric texts must be performed even by an adept for Hathayoga ( vide VI.79 ‘nityam karma samā- caret,’ XI. 7 ‘vidhyuktam karma kartavyam brahmavidbhiśca nityaśaḥ) and the author says that Gārgi was advised by Yājñavalkya (in XI.9) ‘tasmād-ā maraṇād-vaidham kartavyam yogibhiḥ sadā tvain caiva mātyāyā Gārgi vaidham karma samācāra ॥’.

As regards the Bṛhadyogi-Yājñavalkya matters stand as followṣ Vācaspatimiśra in his commentary on the Yogiyājñavalkya-Smṛti bhāṣya quotes a half verse from the Yogiyājñavalkya viz. ‘Hiraṇyagarbho yogasya vaktā nānyaḥ purātanaḥ’, which occurs in the Bṛhad-Yogi° (in Lonavala edition) as XII.5, and not in Yogayājñavalkya (eḍ by Mr. Diwanji). Vācaspati wrote learned works on several śāstraṣ His Nyāya-sūcinibandha was composed in Vatsara 898 i. e. 841-41 A. D. (or even if the figures be taken as referring to Śaka era before 976 A.D.). Therefore, the Bṛhad-Yogi-Yāj. would have to be placed at any rate before 800 A. D. or at least before 950 A. D. Prof. Keith in ‘Indian Logic and Atomism’ Oxford, 1921) prefers 841 A. D. as the proper date (pp. 29–30) for Vācaspati. Aparārka in his voluminous commentary (on Yāj.) mentions Yogayājñavalkya (Lonavala edition) at least 25 times and quotes about 65 verses from it.

There are some special features in the Bṛ. Yogi-Yāj. Most early and mediaeval works on Yoga do not dilate upon the prescribed daily duties (such as bath, sandhyā, sūryo-pasthāna), while this work attaches importance to them and dilates upon theṃ Another outstanding feature is that it upholds the view called ‘Jñānakarmasamuccaya.’ One reaches the Highest Self by the union of knowledge and actions; one would not secure perfection by treating the two as distinct from one another, therefore one should have recourse to both. Jñāna is predominant but not so when bereft of actions; activity (actions) is predominant, but not when devoid of knowledge. Therefore, perfection results from both only, just as a bird cannot fly on one wing. (To hold) that mokṣa (re-lease from bondage) follows from knowledge is a sign of indolence. Unwise people desire no activities for fear of trouble to the body ( B. Y. Y. IX. 28, 29, 34 ). Another noteworthy matter is that the Bṛ. Y. Y. arranges the list of the eight aṅgas of yoga as pratyāhāra, dhyāna and dharaṇā and departs from the order stated in Yogasūtra II.28. The Bṛ. Y. Y. holds that even a householder by performing the prescribed duties, by thoroughly understanding the nature of Ātman and by the thorough knowledge of Vedānta passages secures mokṣa. The Brahmacārī-kāṇḍa and Mokṣa-kāṇḍa of the Kalpa-taru (about 1125-1150 A. D.) quote respectively about sixteen and ten verses from Yogiyājñavalkya. A well-known verse about the meaning of mātrā in prāṇāyāma has been quoted in vol. V. (of the H. of Dh.) p. 1438 ṇ 2361 from the Yogi-Yāj. which is Br. Y. Y. VIII.12. An interesting passage from the Brahmacārīkāṇḍa of the Kalpataru is quoted in the foot-note which shows that the work was known as Yogi-Yājñavalkya to the Kalpataru.³⁵

The Yoga-Yājñavalkya edited by Mr. Divanji is like an elementary treatise or handbook chiefly on Hathayoga of less than 500 verseṣ It is not possible to agree with Mr. Divanji that it was the Yogaśāstra referred to by Yājñavalkya-Smṛti (III.110) as already composed by him before the Yāj.Smṛti. One circumstance against it (in putting forward Gārgī as the wife of the sage Yājñavalkya) has already been stated above. Moreover, it differs from the Yājñavalkyasmṛti on some important matterṣ Some differences may be mentioned here. Yāj. enumerates ten Yamas and ten Niyamas (in III.312-13). In Yoga-Yāj. also the number of both is the same (I.50-51 for yamas and II.1-2 for niyamas). But the details differ in both. Seven Yamas are the same in both viz. Brahmacarya, dayā, kṣānti, satya, akalkatā (i. e. ārjava), ahiṁsā and asteya. Dāna is a yama in Yāj; but a niyama in Yogi-Yāj. Most niyamas are different. Both these works differ a good deal from the Yogaśūtra II.30 and 32 in the number of Yamas and Niyamas and their nameṣ

Yāj. I.10 states that Brāhmaṇas, Kṣatriyas and Vaiśyas are dvijas and all rites for them from Garbhādhāna to Ant-yeṣṭi are to be performed with Vedic mantras. So a Vaiśya could take to the order of forest hermits if he chose to do so. But the Yoga-Yāj. (II.30 and 35) expressly states that Kṣatriya can resort to three āśramas (i. e. he cannot become a Sanyāsin).

It may be noted that Śrīdatta (about 1275-1310 A. D.) quotes from Yogi-Yājñavalkya about 15 verses in his small work called Chandogāhnika (only 63 pages in Nir. edition, 1930 ), all of which occur in Br. Y. Y; as on p. 9 (4 verses= Br. Y. Y. VII. 162–165 ); Br. Y. Y. VII. p. 10–12; Br. Y. Y. 167 and VII. 119, p. 13 (2 verses Br. Y. Y. VII. 36, 158), p. 17 ( Br. Y. Y. VIII 47, Śrīdatta setting aside several views on Prāṇāyāma of others on account of this verse ), p. 19 (one verse=Br. Y. Y. VI. 25 ) p. 25 (2 verses=Br. Y. Y. IV 27–28 ), p. 27 ( one verse Br. Y. Y. I. 28 ), p. 27 (2 verses Br. Y. Y. X. 13, 15 ), p. 44 (one verse Br. Y. Y. VII. 98 ).

Mr. Divanji has not been able to show that these nume- rous quotations from medieval exhaustive works such as Aparārka's commentary, the Kalpataru on Brahmacārī and Mokṣa Kāṇḍas and the Dānasāgara occur in the work edited by hiṃ

Even some learned and comparatively early commenta- tors quote portions from the Yāj. Smṛti as from Yogi-Yāj. For example, Kullūka on Manu III.1 ( laying down various periods of time for Vedic studies ) quotes Yāj. I.36 as Yogi- Yājñavalkya “ Yadāha Yogi-Yājñavalkyaḥ-Prativedam brah- macaryam dvādaśābdāni pañca vā.”

From the above it is clear that Yoga-Yājñavalkya and Bṛhad-Yogi-Yājñavalkya are entirely different works and that the latter is comparatively an early work, as quotations from it are cited by Vācaspatimiśra ( 9th century ) and Apa- rārka.

The Bṛhad-Yogi-Yājñavalkya contains numerous quota- tions from the Manusmṛti and the Bhagavadgītā and a few from the Yāj. Smṛti itself: Yāj. Smṛti I. 3 is the same as Bṛhad-Yogi Yāj. XII. 3 ( which latter substitutes the word ‘tarka’ for ‘nyāya)’ . Therefore the Bṛhad-Yogi-yajña- valkya may be placed between 300 to 700 A. D.

There were probably many commentaries on the Yāj. Smṛti. Out of these those of Viśvarūpa, Vijñāneśvara, Apa- rārka, Śūlapāṇi and Mitramiśra are the most famouṣ For these, vide sections 60, 70, 79, 95, 108 below. It has been shown above that Viśvarūpa had before him some commen- tary or commentaries on Yāj. not now extant. For these see sections 60, 70, 79 and 95 below. On account of the para- mount importance of the Mit. in modern Hindu Law as administered by British Courts in the whole of India, the smṛti of Yāj. has indirectly become the guiding work for the whole of India and this position it richly deserves by its concise but clear statement of principles, its breadth of vision and its comparative impartiality towards the claims of both sexes and the different varṇaṣ

Viśvarūpa on Yāj. I. 4–5 quotes two verses of Vṛddha– Yājñavalkya ( vide note below ). The Mit. on Yāj. III. 1–2 quotes one verse of Vṛddha–Yāj. and two verses of Vṛddha– Yāj. on III.19. Further, it quotes a verse and a half as from both Vṛddha–Yāj. and Chāgaleya on the after–death rites for those who kill themselves in circumstances in which the śāstras do not permit suicide, wherein the view of Yama is mentioneḍ The view of Bṛhad–Yāj. on there being no prohi- bition against Kṣatriyas and Vaiśyas drinking madya ( but only against surā ) has been cited above. Aparārka quotes Vṛddha–Yāj. ten timeṣ

Mr. Divanji relies on quotations in the Bhāṣya attributed to Śaṅkarācārya on the Śvetāśvatara–upaniṣaḍ In ABORI Vol. 34 p. 23, Mr. Divanji admits that scholars question the claims of that Bhāṣyakāra to be the famous Śaṅkarācārya, but argues that, even if a successor of the original Śaṅkarā- cārya quotes them as Yogayājñavalkya, then that is positive proof that some verses of Yogayājñavalkya are quoted by some writer. But there is a snag in this argument. The Bhāṣyakāra ( whoever he may be ) of the Śv. Up. quotes the Yāj. Smṛti as Yājñavalkya ( as on p. 5 Yāj. III. 62, 141 and 156–59 ) and as Bhāgavān Yāj. ( verse III, 144 ) on Śv. Up. I.7 p. 29. The same Bhāṣyakāra quotes on Śv. Up. I.7 ( p. 28 ) four verses as those of Yogiyājñavalkya. This shows that the Bhāṣyakāra of Śv. Up. regards the two as different. Mr. Divanji fails to show that these verses occur in the Yoga- Yājñavalkya ( that he edits ). Mr. Divanji failed to recognize that Yāj. Smṛti ( III. 144 ) was quoted as that of Bhāgavān Yāj. Again on the same page 23 ( of ABORI vol. 34 ) he remarks that out of 9 verses quoted on Śv. Up. I. 29 of the Bhāṣya, 18 could be found with slight variations in the Yoga–Yāj°. There is a serious mistake here. The verses are not cited expressly as from Yogayāj. as the Bhāṣya expressly cites four verses on Śv. Up. 17 as from Yogi–Yāj. The Bhāṣya does not introduce them as from Yoga–Yāj. and therefore it is quite likely that those 29 verses occurred in some other work on Yoga from which the Bhāṣyakāra ( on Śv. Up. II, 9 ) quoted and from which the Yoga–Yāj. copied some for its own purpose. Mr. Divanji's conclusion is vitiated by this serious mistake that he commitṣ Eighteen whole verses out of 29 quoted on p. 9 are not found but mostly half verses are quoted which occur in Yogayājñavalkya edited by Mr. Divanji. Granting for argument that 18 out of 29 are found in Yogayājñavalkya whence do the other eleven come? The only possible conclu- sion is that all 29 are from one work, from which the present Yoga-Yāj. borrows its verseṣ There is another slip on Mr. Divanji's part. These 29 verses are quoted in Bhāṣya on Śv. Up. II. 9 and not on I. 9. Besides, one of the 29 verses is ‘Prāṇāyāmair-dahed-doṣān &c.' which is Manu VI. 7 and occurs also in Bṛ. Y. Y. VIII. 32.

Mr. Divanji's mentality is rather peculiar. On p. 113 of JBBRAS vol. 29, Mr. Divanji gives a list of eight items on quotations from and references to this work (i. e. to Yogayājñavalkya that he edits ) in other workṣ The first item (Śaṅkara-bhāṣya on Śv. Up. ) has been dealt with already. The third reference is to Sarvadarśanasaṅgraha of Mādhava- cārya (a work of the 14th century A. D.). That work, he says, contains four quotations of the work he editṣ That work also quotes Bṛhad-Yoga-Yājñavalkya on p. 143 ‘Hiraṇyagarbho Yogasya &c. (which is Bṛ. Y. Y. XII.5). The 8th item (and the last ) on that page is above all, the author of the Yājñavalkya-Smṛti has in III. 110 referred to a ‘Yoga- śāstra promulgated by me,' which can be none other than this (and refers to his own Introduction on p. 8 ). This is an extraordinary argument. He was a high judicial officer in the days of the British rule. He has written profusely on this one work but with great regret the present author has to say he has not kept an open and judicial minḍ He assum- es as indisputable what has to be proved to the satisfaction of the scholarly worlḍ The other items that he puts forward on p. 113 above cited are worth little.