62. Bhāruci
Volume I: Part I pp. 565–571
His views quoted by Mitākṣarā on Yāj. I. 81 and II. 124 – a Bhāruci mentioned as an ancient teacher of Viśiṣṭādvaita system by Rāmānujācārya in his Vedārthasaṁgraha – Bhāruci the philo- sopher is probably identical with Bhāruci the jurist – from notices in the Sarasvatīvilāsa Bhāruci seems to have commented on the Viṣṇudharmasūtra – Bhāruci and Mitākṣarā disagreed on numerous points – Trivandrum Ms. of Bhāruci's commentary on Manu – According to Dr. Derrett Bhāruci is nearer A. D. 700 – his sugges- tion that Bhāruci is Rju not be acceptable. ... pp.
— Synopsis by P.V. Kane, from History of Dharmaśāstra
62. Bhāruci
62. Bhāruci The Mit. on Yāj. (I. 81) says that Bhāruci like Viśvarūpa held the view that the rule ‘¹tau bhāryām gacchet’ was a niyama and not a paresamkhyā. On Yāj. II 124 the Mit. says that the explanation of ‘the fourth share’ to be given to un- married sisters offered by Asahāya and Medhātithi was the proper one and not that of Bhāruci. The Parāśaramādhavīya1 and the Sarasvatīvilāsa ( para 133 ) inform us that Bhāruci was of opinion that unmarried sisters were only entitled to a provision for their marriage and were not entitled to a fourth share.
The Smṛticandrikā ( on Vyavahāra p. 268 ) holds that the Viṣṇudharmasūtra ( chap. 18 ) and Yāj. II. 124 ( bhagi- nyaśca...dattvamśam tu turīyakam ) not to be taken literally but all that is meant is that provision has to be made for the marriage expenses of the unmarried sisters of the sons taking the paternal wealth. The Par. M. ( III. p. 510 ) notes that this was the view of Bhāruci ( as against Medhātithi and Vijñāneśvara and also of the Smṛticandrikā ).
Vide Dr. T. R. Chintamani's paper on ‘Bhāruci’ (in the Pro. of All India Or. Conf. at Benares in 1943-44, vol. II, pp. 352-360, where he first collects 50 passages of Bhāruci found in the Sarasvatīvilāsa, then puts together passages where Medhātithi refers to the views of Upādhyāya and then refers to a fragment of Manusmṛti commentary ( on chapters VI to XII ) where some colophons read Ṛjuvimalā and others Bhāruci.
Bhāruci, being mentioned by the Mit., is certainly older than 1050 A. D. Rāmānujācārya, in his Vedārthasaṁgraha ( reprint from the Pandit, eḍ of 1924, p. 154 ), mentions six ācāryas that preceded him as expounders of the Viśiṣṭādvaita system, viz. Bodhāyana, Ṭaṅka, Dramiḍa, Guhadeva, Kapardin and Bhāruci. Similarly, the Yatindramatadipikā2 of Śrīnivāsadāsa ( Ānandāśrama eḍ ) enumerates ( p. 2 ) a host of teachers as the predecessors of Rāmānujācārya in propound- ing the Viśiṣṭādvaita systeṃ Vyāsa is the reputed author of the Vedāntasūtras, Bodhāyana is said to have composed a vṛtti on the Vedānta-sūtras called Kṛtakoṭi according to the Prapañca-hṛdaya (p. 39, Trivandrum eḍ). Tanka and Brahmanandin are identical. Dramiḍa is credited with the authorship of a bhāṣya on the Vedānta-sūtras (which is quoted by Rāmānuja in his bhāṣya on II. 2. 3). Nāthamuni is said to have been the grand-father of Yāmunamuni, who was born about 916 A. D. Rāmānuja refers to him with great reverence as his teacher’s teacher (parama-guru), vide Vedārtha-saṁgraha, (p. 149) and is said to have been young when Yāmuna died (vide J. R. A. S. for 1915, p. 147 and I. A. for 1909, p. 129). It is therefore obvious that the teachers are arranged by the Yatīndramatadīpikā in chronological order. Hence Bhāruci, being placed earlier than even Dramiḍa and Nāthamuni, was comparatively an ancient author and could not have flourished later than the first half of the 9th century. Bhāruci, the jurist, also flourished before 1050. It is difficult to believe that there were two famous writers of the same name nearly about the same time. Hence it may provisionally be held that Bhāruci the writer on dharmaśāstra and Bhāruci the Viśiṣṭādvaita philosopher are identical. If this identity be accepted, then Bhāruci the writer on dharmaśāstra becomes comparatively an early writer, being at least as old as Viśvarūpa. His views agree on several points with those of Viśvarūpa, which is a circumstance that lends some corroboration to the date proposed for hiṃ
One interesting point about Bhāruci deserves mention here. From numerous notices contained in the Sarasvatīvilāsa it appears that Bhāruci either commented upon the Viṣṇudharmasūtra or wrote some work in which he took great pains to incorporate explanations of several sūtras of Viṣṇu. For example, para 637 tells us that Bhāruci explained the word ‘bīja’ occurring in a sūtra of Viṣṇu as ‘piṇḍa’.3 In para 674 we are told that Bhāruci explained the word ‘niṣkāraṇa’ in a sūtra of Viṣṇu and that he held that a daughter’s son has not to perform the śrāddha of his maternal grandfather if the latter has a soṇ Sudarśanācārya in his comment upon Āpastambagṛhya (8. 21. 2) ascribes the same view to Bhāruci and quotes the very words of Bhāruci.4 Vide J. B. B. R. A. S. for 1925 pp. 210-211 for further exampleṣ There is nothing unnatural in Bhāruci, the Visiṣṭādvaita philosopher, having composed a commentary on the Viṣṇu-dharmasūtra. The extant Visnudharmasūtra contains doctrines peculiar to the Visiṣṭādvaita system such as the worship of Nārāyaṇa or Vāsudeva, the four Vyūhas of Vāsudeva &c. If Bhāruci was a Visiṣṭādvaitin he would naturally turn to the sūtra of Viṣṇu as having the greatest claim on his attentioṇ Many of the sūtras of Viṣṇu quoted in the Sarasvativilāsa with the explanations of Bhāruci are not found in the printed text of Viṣṇu, on which Nandapaṇḍita commented in the first half of the 17th century. It appears that the Sarasvativilāsa had before it a larger version of Viṣṇu current in the South (vide note 118 p. 127 above).
On several points there is divergence between the views of Bhāruci and those of the Mit. Bhāruci differed from the Mit. as to the definition of dāya and vibhāga, he allowed niyoga to childless widows, while the Mit. condemned it in the case of all widows; Bhāruci, like Viśvarūpa, did not mention supratibandha and apratibandha dāya; Bhāruci, like Viśvarūpa, held that a coparcener who concealed some joint property was not guilty of theft, while the Mit. held that he waṣ Vide J. B. B. R. A. S for 1925 pp. 211-13 for more examples and detailṣ
Prof. T. R. Chintamani submitted an important paper at the Benares Session of the All India O. Conf. (in 1943-4) which is published in the proceedings, Vol. II pp. 352-360, wherein he informed scholars that at Trivandrum exists a mṣ containing a fragment of Bhāruci's commentary on Manu called (Manuśāstra-vivaraṇa) on Adhyāya VI (almost from the beginning), on adhyāyas VII-XI and on a portion of adhyāya XII. Dr. J. D. M. Derrett5 (recently contributed a paper to the Journal of the American Oriental Society (Vol. 84 for 1964 pp. 392–395) on ‘Bhāruci on royal regulative power in India’, based on Bhāruci’s explanation of Manu VII. 13; and another paper in Z. D. M. G. Vol 115 pp. 134–152 (where on pp. 141–151 he arranges in three parallel columns parts of Bhāruci’s commentary and Medhātithi’s Bhāṣya on Manu VII. 50, 54, 147, 153, 154, with parallel passages from Kauṭilya’s Arthaśāstra and on p. 144 of his paper compares only Bhāruci and Medhātithi on Manu VII. 52. Dr. Derrett holds (pp. 139–40 of his paper) that Bhāruci is nearer A. D. 700 than the period 800–850 which was assigned to Bhāruci in the H. of Dh. Vol. I. 1930) p. 265. Dr. Derrett holds (p. 138 of the paper) that the passages which Medhātithi takes without acknowledgement from Kauṭilya are not obtained from Arthaśāstra direct, but from Bhārucin, who is quoting from Kauṭilya with occasional adjustments, that Medhātithi did not know that he was reproducing the Arthaśāstra, that the Mṣ used by Medhātithi was defective that in some places he could not read it.
What Manu VII. 136 means is : there are several desirable matters (iṣṭeṣu), but the king might decide (or resolve) to strictly enforce one of theṃ In that case that matter becomes a rule of Dharma. The same applies to other matters that are undesirable (aniṣṭeṣu) but the king may resolve to put down with a strong hand one undesirable matter out of many. That would then become the rule of the realm and it has to be obeyed by all. Bhāruci’s exegesis comes to this that the king is not the source of the rules of Dharma, but it is Śāstra that defines the rules binding on the different varṇas (classes) and āśramas ( stages of man’s life ). If the king were held to be the source of Dharma and adharma there would be great con- fusion ; one king may make certain rules, while his successor might abrogate them and promulgate other and different ruleṣ He further says that the king often times repeats what the Śāstra states ( bahukṛtvas-taduktiḥ ) and that opposing the dicta of Śāstra would be wrong and moreover one should hold that this text only extols the king’s office as the context showṣ
In the edition of Mandlik on Manu VIII. 150, Medhātithi explains that that verse, according to some great ones was explained ( iti mahattarair-vyākhyātam ) and immediately afterwards sets out the differing view of Yājñavan and on Manu VIII. 151, Medhātithi mentions the explanation of Ṛju. Dr. Derrett ( in footnote 20 on p. 141 of his paper in Z. D. M. G ) puts forward the suggestion that Yājñavan ought to be taken as standing for Ṛju and that Bhāruci is Ṛju. In the present state of our knowledge I cannot agree to this sugges- tioṇ From Medhātithi’s bhāṣya on Manu II. 67 ( which is a very long one, occupying more than seven printed pages ) it appears that there were many persons designated by Medhā- tithi as ‘Smṛtivivaraṇakārāḥ’ as the quotation cited below will show. On Manu II. 25 he refers to the exegesis of Vivaraṇakāras that Dharma has five aspects ( pañcaprakāro dharma iti Vivaraṇakārāḥ prapañcayanti ). It is clear from the parallel passages cited by Dr. Derrett on pp. 141–151 that there is remarkable agreement between the explanation of Bhāruci and of Medhātithi and that probably it is Medhātithi that borrowṣ But one’s judgment may be suspended till the whole of Bhāruci's available text is printed and carefully studieḍ Vide remarks under Sarasvativilāsa of Pratāparudradeva for various passages of Bhāruci referred to and Manu, particularly VII. 13.