61. Vishvarūpa

Volume I: Part I pp. 553–565

61. Vishvarūpa

61. Viśvarūpa

The commentary of Viśvarūpa called Bālakrīḍā on the Yājñavalkya-smṛti has been recently published in two parts by M. M. T. Gaṇapati Śāstri in the Trivandrum Sanskrit Serieṣ The Mit. states in the introductory verses that the dicta of Yāj. were expanded by the voluminous or ample (vikata) explanations of Viśvarūpa. In commenting on Yāj. I. 81 the Mit. tells us that Viśvarūpa looked upon the words of Yāj. I. 79 (tasmin yugmāsu samviśet) as a niyama. In Viśvarūpa’s commentary on Yāj. I. 80 (evaṁ gacchan &c. ) we do find that the verse of Yāj. and similar passages of Manu (3. 45), Vasiṣṭha and Gautama (5. 1) are understood to contain a niyama and not a parisamkhyā.¹ On Yāj. III. 24 the Mit. informs us that Viśvarūpa, Medhātithi and Dhāreśvara looked upon certain texts of Ṛṣyaśṛṅga on āśauca as in conflict with well-known smṛtis and discarded theṃ Mr. S. Sitaram Śāstri published ( in 1900 at Madras ) the text and translation of Viśvarūpa’s comment on inheritance and Mr. Setlur also published the vyavahāra sectioṇ In the following pages the Trivandrum edition is relied oṇ

The printed coṃ of Viśvarūpa on the vyavahāra section is extremely meagre and scarcely merits the epithet vikata applied to it by the Mit. But the commentary of Viśvarūpa on the ācāra and prāyaścitta sections is truly voluminous and compares favourably with the Mit. The style of Viśvarūpa is simple and forcible and resembles that of the great Śaṅkarācārya. He quotes profusely from Vedic works, mentions the Carakas and Vājasaneyins (on Yāj 1. 32), the Kāṭhaka (on Yāj. III. 237 and 243) and very often supports his position by quotations from the Ṛgveda (e.g. on Yāj. II. 121 and 206), the Brāhmaṇas (e. g. the Śatapatha on Yāj. I. 53 and III. 257) and from the Upaniṣads (e. g. on Yāj. II. 117, the well-known Chāndogya passage about the ordeal for theft and on Yaj. I. 50 Chāndogya II. 23. 10 about the three branches of dharma. He speaks of the pada-pātha and the kramapātha as due to human agency (on Yaj. III. 242). He frequently quotes the Gṛhyasūtras of Parāśara and less frequently those of Bhāradvāja and Āśvalāyana. He cites a host of smṛtikāraṣ² Most of the quotations attributed to Svayambhū are found in the extant Manusmṛti, but this is not the case with the quotations ascribed to Bhṛgu (vide pp. 309, 310 above). Most of the quotations from Bṛhaspati (even on such topics as repayment of debts, sureties, the rights of śūdṛaputra) are in prose, only a few being in verse (e. g. a verse about ordeals on Yaj. II. 117, a verse about the method of partition on Yaj. II. 153). On Yaj. I. 307 Viśvarūpa quotes a long prose passage from Bṛhaspati in which the qualities required in a Senāpati, Pratīhāra, Hastyadhyakṣa, Aśvādhyakṣa, Dūta, Mantrin and Uparika are set out at length. It appears, therefore, that Viśvarūpa either knew a work of Bṛhaspati in prose on arthaśāstra in which occurred a few verses or he had before him a prose work of Bṛhaspati and a versified smṛti of Bṛhaspati, both of which he regarded as the compositions of the same author. He quotes a verse (on Yaj. I. 328) from Viśālakṣa, a well-known writer on politics quoted even by Kauṭilya. He refers to the arthaśāstra of Uśanas along with that of Bṛhaspati. Kauṭilya is nowhere quoted by name. The learned editor of Viśvarūpa thinks (Intro. p. V) that Viśvarūpa took Bṛhaspati and Viśālakṣa as ārṣa writers long anterior to Yaj. and therefore used their dicta to elucidate and support Yaj., while he omits Kauṭilya because he thought Kauṭilya to be posterior to Yaj. This argument contains several fallacieṣ In the first place it is wrong because Viśvarūpa quotes verses from Nārada and Kātyāyana to supplement Yaj. There is nothing to show that Viśvarūpa regarded Nārada and Kātyāyana also as anterior to Yaj. and we have seen above that they are several centuries later than the smṛti of Yāj. Moreover Kauṭilya himself looked upon both Bṛhaspati and Viśālākṣa as high authorities and so Viśvarūpa might have quoted them rather than Kauṭilya. Even taking the latest date assigned to Kauṭilya (about 3rd century A.D.) he flourished several centuries before Viśvarūpa. It is im- possible to believe that Viśvarūpa was in possession of the exact chronological relation of Yāj. and Kauṭilya. Many scholars, besides, place Kauṭilya's work centuries before Yāj. It appears, however, that Viśvarūpa had the work of Kauṭilya before hiṃ On Yāj. I. 307 he speaks of ministers tested by the four allurements (_upadhā_) of _dharma_, _artha_, _kāma_ and _bhaya_. This is an echo of Kauṭilya ( I. 10 ). On Yāj. I. 343 Viś. refers to the view of some that a march should be made when neighbouring chiefs are overwhelmed in calamitieṣ³ This is the view of Kauṭilya almost in the same wordṣ On Yāj. I. 341 Viś. speaks of the manifold aspects of the work of a minister, some words of his comment being almost identical with Kauṭilya'ṣ

Some of the verses ou pp. 25-27, for example, the first verse ( _govadham_ &c. ) refers to Yāj. III. 234 ( where ‘_govadha_’ is mentioned as the first among Upapātakas (51 in number ). On p. 26 he has a _kārikā_ ‘Smārtopi govadhostyargyamarhayet prathamam gavā’, which includes Mauusmṛti III, 3 ( last quarter ); on same page the words ‘_vedam-eva_ tvadṛṣṭarthe...pramāṇam paramam dharma Śrutir’ embodies a part of Manu III. 13. The Kārikā at the top of p. 27 quotes some words of Manu II. 10.

Viśvarūpa’s work is thoroughly saturated with the lore of the Pūrvamīmāṁsā. He quotes Jaimini by name ( on Yāj. I. 225 where Jaimini VI. 8. 15 is quoted ). Curiously enough he applies the term nyāya to Mīmāṁsā. He takes 'nyāya- mīmāṁsā' in Yāj. I. 3 as one vidyā, while he notes that others explain nyāya as the system of logic propounded by Akṣapāda. He quotes the sūtras of Jaimini as those of Yājñikas who know nyāya (e. g. on Yāj. I. 53 he quotes Jaimini I, 3. 16 and on Yāj. I. 87 he quotes Jaimini VI. 8. 17 ). He applies the epithet Naiyāyika to a mīmāṁsaka like Śabara and speaks of the mīmāṁsakas as nyāyavidaḥ.⁴ He mentions the Śābarabhāṣya by name (on Yāj. III. 243) and in in several places quotes the very words of Śabara (e. g. on Yāj. III. 181 ).⁵ He quotes the Ślokavārtika of Kumārila ( I. 12 the verse 'sarvasyaiva hi &c ) in his introductory remarkṣ In his comment on Yāj. I. 7 he cites over fifty verses in the nature of kārikās dealing with the relation of śruti and smṛti and kindred topicṣ These verses are his own composition, as in one of them he assures us that a certain point will be dealt with by him in detail in the section on śrāddha.⁶ In interspersing his commentary with kārikās of his own and in their style and pithiness he greatly resembles Kumārila. Throughout his work he relies upon mīmāṁsā maxims and methods of discussioṇ For example, on Yāj. I. 4-5 he discusses the rule of Jaimini II. 4. 8 ff ( about 'sarvaśākhāpratyayaṁ ekaṁ karma ' ) in its application to smṛtis; on Yāj. I. 225 he relies upon the position that words like yava and varāha are to be taken as employed in the Vedas in the same sense in which siṣṭas use them ( vide Jaimini I. 3. 9 ); on Yāj. II. 144 he speaks of wealth ( dravya ) being puruṣārtha, where he alludes to the well-known distinction between kratvartha and puruṣārtha, the subject of Jaimini's 4th chap. His commentary on Yāj. III. 212, 237, 262 are fine examples of his superb skill in the interpreta- tion and reconciliation of apparently conflicting textṣ Though Viśvarūpa was a past master in Pūrvamīmāṁsā lore, his philosophical views seem to have been identical with those of the great Śaṅkara. According to him mokṣa results from correct knowledge alone and the whole saṁsāra is due to avidyā.⁷ He quotes anonymously one of Gauḍapāda's kārikās⁸ ( III. 5 ) on Yāj. III. 134.

He speaks on Yāj. III. 103 of Nārada who knew the Veda of music ( gitivedavid ), of purāṇa ( on III. 175 ), and quotes verses ( on Yāj. III. 85 ) from an abhidhānakoṣa ( lexicon ) and from a Nāmaratnamālā ( on III. 266 ). He speaks of the śloka of Bhikṣātana ( on III. 66. ). He is in this probably referring to the Bhikṣāṭanakāvya,⁹ which is mentioned by the Sāhityadarpaṇa. Among commentators he mentions Asahāya's bhāṣya on Gautama by name ( on Yāj. III. 263 ). On Yāj. III. 256 he explains Mleccha as pulindas and Tājikas ( i. e. Arabs ).

It has been shown above (§34 pp. 423-425) how Viśvarūpa's text of Yāj. varied in some respects from that of the Mit. ; how he frequently refers to the views of commentators other than himself ( in the words ‘apare, ‘anye’ ), how he proposes several explanations of the same words in several caseṣ

Dr. Jolly ( Journal of Indian History, 1924, pp. 7-8 ) says that the citations of Viś. in the Smṛticandrikā about his having refuted the views of Dhāreśvara cannot be traced in the printed Bālakrīḍā, as also the reference to Viś. in the Mit. on Yāj. I. 81 and II. 135. It has been shown above (note 529) that the printed Viś. on Yāj. I. 80 does contain the view attributed to it by the Mit. As regards the Mit. on Yāj. II. 135 it has to be noted that the Mit. does not mention Viś. by name there, but only speaks of ‘bhagavān ācārya,’¹⁰ which words are interpreted by the Subodhini and the Bālambhaṭṭi as referring to Viśvarūpa. It is true that the printed Viś. does not contain in so many words the explanation attributed by the Mit. to ‘bhagavān ācārya.’ But it is worth considering that in the printed Viś. the two quotations from Manu and Śaṅkha do occur and are put in the mouth of an objector and are explained away in a way somewhat similar to that put forth in the Mit.¹¹ As regards the passages of the Smṛticandrikā, the matter requires careful examinatioṇ The Smṛticandrikā, (II. p. 294 Gharpūre’s eḍ) says that according to the Samgrahakāra a widow was allowed to succeed to her sonless husband’s wealth if she submitted to niyoga, that the same was the view of Dhāreśvara and that Viśvarūpa refuted the view of Dhāreśvara. In no place does the printed Viś. name Dhāreśvara. The words of the Smṛticandrikā are not to be taken literally. It will be shown below that the author, Devannabhaṭṭa, flourished about 1200 A. D. while Dhāreśvara flourished between 1000-1050 A. D. Devaṇṇa had no correct idea of their relative chronological positioṇ It has been shown above (p. 249) how though Asahāya is named by the Mit., the Sarasvativilāsa very often says that Asahāya does not like ( or tolerate ) the views of Vijñāneśvara. Similarly, the same work ( para 392 ) says that Dhāreśvara and Devasvāmin do not tolerate the view of Vijñāneśvara, but Dhāreśvara is one of the predecessors of Vij. actually named by hiṃ So all that the Smṛticandrikā means is that Dhāreśvara and Viśvarūpa differed in their views on the particular points mentioned by it. The word patnī is taken by Viś. to mean a widow who is pregnant at the time of her husband's death and quotes the sūtras of Vasiṣṭha and Gautama in support of his view as jñāpakas. So this view entirely differs from the view of Dhāreśvara that the widow of a sonless person succeeds if she submits to niyoga. The Smṛticandrikā ( II. p. 300 ) says that the Saṁgrahakāra placed the father's mother immediately after the mother and before the father, that the Saṁgrahakāra relied on the same arguments that were employed by Dhāreśvara and that Viśvarūpa and others refuted those argumentṣ The passage in the printed Viś. is somewhat corrupt in this place. Viś. does place the mother before the father on the ground of the word mātā occurring first when the word ‘pitarau’ or the compound ‘mātāpitarau’ is expandeḍ The comment does mention the verse of Manu ( 9. 217 ) about the grandmother, but it makes no clear sense, as it standṣ¹² For the reason given above Rai Bahadur M. M. Chakravarti ( JASB for 1922, p. 345 and for 1915, p. 322 ) is not right when he places Viśvarūpa later than Bhojadeva because of the remarks of the Smṛticandrikā.

In the works of Jīmūtavāhana ( viz. the Dāyabhāga and the Vyavahāramātṛkā ), in the Smṛticandrikā, the Haralatā, and other later works like the Sarasvativilāsa, the views of Viśvarūpa are frequently cited and discusseḍ Several such citations have been already examined by me ( JBBRAS for 1926, pp. 200-204 ). From considerations of space I do not repeat here the discussion of those passageṣ In the Gṛhastha-ratnākara¹³ of Cāṇḍeśvara ( No. 44 of 1883-4, in the Govt. Msṣ Lib at the B. O. R. Institute Poona, folio 133a) the explanation of Viśvarūpācārya on Yāj. I. 135 is cited, which does not exactly tally with the printed Viś. Hemādri²⁴ refers to Viśvarūpa's explanation given in his section on partition which does not occur in the printed text. The result of the examination of these citations is that the printed text of Viś. is in the main genuine, but that in a few cases (parti-cularly in the vyavahāra section ) it is corrupt or deficient.

Though Viś. holds the same view as the Mit. that owner-ship does not for the first time arise on partition but that partition takes place of what is already ( jointly ) owned, yet on numerous points the two disagree. A few of them may be set out here.

( 1 ) Viś. allows ( on Yāj. II. 118 ) the father unrestricted freedom of distribution of property among his sons during his lifetime, while the Mit. expressly says that this power of unequal distribution is restricted to self-acquired property.

( 2 ) Viś. ( on Yāj. II. 119 ) allows a share of property to the widows of predeceased sons and grandsons of a man when a partition takes place during his lifetime. The Mit. restricts the word 'patnyaḥ' to the father's own wives when he effects a partition during his lifetime.

( 3 ) Viś. connects the words 'without detriment to the paternal estate' ( in Yāj. II. 122 ) with the words 'whatever else is acquired by himself' and not with 'maitra' ( gifts from a friend ) and 'audvāhika' ( gifts on marriage ), while the Mit. connects the half verse 'whatever else is acquired by the man himself without detriment to the paternal estate' as a qualifying clause to the next half verse and to another verse ‘kramād abhyāgatam &c.’ In the Mit. the two verses ‘pitṛdravyāvirodhena &c.’ and ‘kramād &c.’ occur consecu-tively, while in Viś. they are separated by three verses and Viś. takes the verse ‘kramād’ &c. as referring to the re-opening of a partition for a son born after partitioṇ

( 4 ) Viś. allows niyoga only to śūdras in general and to kṣatriya kings in case of danger of extinction of line ( vide coṃ on Yāj. I. 69 and II. 131 ), while Mit. forbids niyoga in general and holds the texts speaking of it as applicable to a girl who is only betrothed and not marrieḍ

( 5 ) Viś. appears to allow one share out of ten to the son of a śūdra wife from a brāhmaṇa without restriction of any kind, while Mit. restricts the share to estates other than land acquired by gift.

( 6 ) Viś. interprets the expression ‘half share’ ( in Yāj. II. 138 ) with reference to the illegitimate son of a śūdra as meaning ‘some portion, not necessarily exactly half.’ while Mit. interprets it literally.

( 7 ) Viś. allows a widow to succeed to her husband if she is pregnant at his death, while Mit. allows a widow to succeed without any restriction except that of chastity.

( 8 ) Viś. restricts the word ‘duhitaraḥ’ in ‘patni duhitaráscaiva’ ( Yāj. II. 138 ) to putrikā only and so does not allow all daughters whatever to succeed, while Mit. does not introduce any such qualification

( 9 ) Viś. reads ‘anyodaryasya samsṛṣṭi’ for anyo-daryastu &c.' and ‘sodaro’ for ‘saṁsṛṣṭo’ in Yāj. II. 143 and his interpretation of the verse is entirely different from that of the Mit.

( 10 ) Viś. reads ‘adhivedanikam caiva’ for ‘ādhiveda-nikādyaṁ ca’ of Mit. and holds that bandhudatta, śulka and anvādheyaka strīdhana of a childless woman goes on her death to her full brother; while Mit. connects these three with the preceding verse and takes the half verse ‘atitāyām &c.’ as laying down a general rule of succession to strīdhana of all kinds and interprets ‘bāndhavaḥ’ as meaning ‘husband and the rest’.

( 11 ) Viś. takes the verse ‘adhivinna-striyai’ &c. ( on Yāj. II. 152 ) as applicable to a wife superseded without any ground of supercession allowed by the texts; while Mit. does not introduce any such qualificatioṇ As Viśvarūpa quotes Kumārila’s Ślokavārtika and is mentioned by the Mit. as an authoritative commentator it follows that he flourished between 750 A. D. and 1000 A. D. A greater approximation as to the date of Viśvarūpa can be made, if the identity of Viśvarūpa with Sureśvara be held establisheḍ Sureśvara, as he himself tells us in the Naiṣkarmyasiddhi, the Taittiriyopaniṣadbhasyavārtika and other works, was a pupil of the great Śaṅkarācārya whose generally accepted period is 788-820 A. D. Mādhavācārya in several works of his quotes as Viśvarūpa’s passages from the the well-known works of Sureśvara. For example, the Parāśara-Mādhavīya (vol. I, part I, p. 57 ) quotes a kārikā of Sureśvara as that of Viśvarūpācārya.¹⁷ In the Vivaraṇa-prameyasangraha (Vizianagaram series p. 92 ) also Mādhava quotes a verse from the Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣadbhasya-vārtika as Viśvarūpa’ṣ¹⁸ In the Puruṣārthaprabodha¹⁹ of Brahmānanda-bhāratī (mṣ in Bhau Daji collection, Bombay) composed in 1476 (probably of the Śaka era ) the author speaks of the Naiṣkarmyasiddhi as a work of Viśvarūpa. In the Saṁkṣepa-Śaṅkara-jaya, Viśvarūpa is said to be the author of the two vārtikas on Śaṅkara’s bhāṣya.²⁰ According to tradition embodied in the various lives of Śaṅkara, the latter had four pupils, Sureśvara, Padmapāda, Toṭaka and Hastāmalaka. Several works mention Viśvarūpa as one of the four pupils and omit the name Sureśvara. For example, in the Dvādaśa-vākya-vivaraṇa of Gopāla (Auffrecht’s Oxf. Cat. No. 557, p. 227 b ) the four pupils of Śaṅkara are named as Viśvarūpa, Padmanābha, Toṭaka and Hastāmalaka. In the Mānasollāsa-vṛttānta-vilāsa of Rāmatīrtha we are expressly told that Sureśvara is another name of Viśvarūpa, a pupil of Śankara (vide Mitra's Notices vol. V, No. 1763, p. 82). In the Saptasūtra-samnyāsapaddhati (Mitra's Notices, vol. VI, p. 296 ) the four pupils are said to be Svarūpācārya, Padmācārya, Toṭaka and Pṛthvidhara. The Guruvamśakāvya (Vanivilas eḍ ) identifies Sureśvara and Viśvarūpa (II. 59 ) and makes him a pupil of Kumārila and Śankara. It may therefore be held as fairly established that Viśvarūpa and Sureśvara are identical. Some corroboration is afforded by the fact that Viśvarūpa quotes Gauḍapāda the ‘ paramaguru ’ of Śankara and holds the same philosophical views as those of Śankara. Just as Viśvarūpa quotes Kumārila’s Ślokavārtika, Sureśvara also in his Taittirīyopaniṣadbhāṣya-vārtika quotes a kārikā of Kumārila and styles the latter Mīmām sakam-manya.²¹ This shows that Sureśvara treated Kumārila with scant respect, which seems unlikely if he was at any time Kumārila’s pupil. Viśvarūpa, in his introduction,²² performs an obeisance to the Sun, the great serpent ( Śeṣa ), Tilakasvāmin and Vināyaka. The Bhāmatī of Vācaspati-miśra has a similar salutatioṇ Vācaspati-miśra wrote his Nyāyasūci-nibandha in 841-42 A. D. i. e. he was almost a contemporary of Śankara and his pupilṣ The learned editor of Viś. tells us that in a commentary on Viś. called Vacanamālā Sureśvara is bracketed with Manu and Yogīśvara ( Yājñavalkya ) as an expounder of Śāstra ( i. e. dharmaśāstra ).²³ Therefore that commentator looked upon Viś. and Sureśvara as identical. From all these several considerations it follows that Viśvarūpa flourished about 800-825 A. D. But this problem presents further difficultieṣ The mutual relations of Sureśvara, Bhavabhūti, Umbeka and Maṇḍana are a great puzzle. I have dealt with this question in JBBRAS for 1928, pp. 289-293. The conclusions arrived at there are that Maṇḍana's literary activity lies between 690-710, that of Umbeka between 700-730 and Sureśvara's between 810-840 A. D. and that Umbeka and Bhavabhūti are identical, but that Maṇḍana and Sureśvara are separated by about 100 yearṣ

In the H. of Dh. Vol. V pp. 1188-1198 the present author has discussed at some length the relative chronological position of Kumārila, Prabhākara, Śālikanātha, Maṇḍanamiśra, Umbeka, Bhavabhūti, Viśvarūpa and Sureśvara and the conclusions relevant to Viśvarūpa are that Maṇḍanamiśra is not identical with Viśvarūpa, that Viśvarūpa and Sureśvara are identical and that Sureśvara is the name of Viśvarūpa after the latter became a saṃnyāsiṇ The grounds in favour of the identity of Viśvarūpa and Sureśvara are overwhelming as evidenced by the writings of great scholars like Mādhavācārya.

An interesting matter about Viśvarūpa may be mentioned here. On Yāj. I. 162 ( which is one of the verses that state the persons whose food should not be partaken of ), ‘ grāmayājin ’ is one ( who is ubhojyyānna ) and Viś. remarks that among the Malavas a grāmayājaka is known as ‘ Vaiśva-devikā ’. It is possible that Viśvarūpa was an inhabitant of Malava ( roughly present Malwa ) or that he had stayed there for some yearṣ

Dr. Jolly has brought together in the Journal of Indian History ( vol. III. pp. 1-27 ) some valuable information about Viśvarūpa.

In several later works a digest called Viśvarūpa-nibandha is frequently citeḍ That appears to be the composition of another Viśvarūpa altogether. For example, the saṃ-navati-śrāddhanirṇaya of Śivabhaṭṭa (which is later than 1650 A. D.) tells us that Viśvarūpācārya composed a vivaraṇa 61. Viśvarūpa ( commentary ) on the Śrāddhakalikā.²⁴ The Kṛtyacintāmaṇi of Śivarāma ( No. 221 of 1879–80 in the Govt. Msṣ Lib. at the B. O. R. Institute, Poona 4 ) quotes several²⁵ verses from Viśvarūpanibandha on supinda relationship in marriage, which are not found in the Bālakrīḍā, but which agree remarkably with the words of the Mit. on Yāj. I. 53. The Varśakriyākaumudī ( pp. 378, 380 ) mentions Viśvarūpa- nibandha and quotes two verses cited thereiṇ The Tithi- nirṇaya-sarvasamuccaya ( later than 1450 A. D. ) quotes certain kārikās of Viśvarūpa on the 18 varieties of Ekādaśī.²⁶ The Kālanirṇayasiddhāntavyākhyā ( composed in 1653 A. D. ) quotes certain verses of Viśvarūpa on the question of the disposal of food prepared for a marriage when a period of impurity on death superveneṣ²⁷ The Nirṇayasindhu also quotes verses of Viśvarūpa. From these data it follows that a Viśvarūpa composed a commentary on Śrāddhakalikā and also wrote a digest on matters of ācāra and other topics of dharma in prose and verse. Raghunandana in his Ūdvāha- tattva ( eḍ by Jivananda, p. 116 ) names a Viśvarūpa- samuccaya. It is likely that it is the same as Viśvarūpa- nibandha.