69. Bālarūpa
Volume I: Part II pp. 596–598
Bālarūpa's opinions find prominent citation across several significant Dharmaśāstra digests, notably the Smṛtisāra, the Vivādacandra, and also the Vivādacintāmaṇi. This widespread citation underscores his importance within the tradition. His scholarly contributions are recorded as extending to at least the significant domains of vyavahāra and Kāla. Scholarly inquiry suggests that Bālaka and Bālarūpa are likely identical, indicating a single author behind these names. His chronological position is firmly established as being earlier than 1250 A.D., providing a crucial temporal marker for his work. A particularly illuminating reference in the Vivādacandra speaks of 'the author of Bālarūpa', thereby strongly suggesting that Bālarūpa was not just an individual scholar, but rather a distinct textual work attributed to an author.
— Synopsis by P.V. Kane, from History of Dharmaśāstra
69. Bālarūpa
69. Balarūpa In the Smṛtisāra of Harinātha ( I. O. cat. No. 301, folio 128a ff ) there is a long passage setting out the views of Balarūpa on the question of the succession to a childless maṇ In the Vivādacandra1 of Misaru-miśra the opinions of Bāla- rūpa ( Bālarūpamata ) that the words of Yāj. ( II. 117 tābhya rte’nvayaḥ ) mean the offspring of the mother and on the united coparceners are citeḍ In the Vivāda-cintāmaṇi of Vācaspati2 the views of Bālarūpa are frequently citeḍ Relying on the words of Parāśara Bālarūpa held that an unmarried daughter was entitled to preference over a married one as an heir to a sonless maṇ As regards the verse of Hārīta that if a young widow was karkaśā ( quarrel-some, ‘suspected of unchastity’ according to others ), then she was to be given maintenance alone ( out of her husband’s estate ), Bālarūpa’s view was that it refers to the widow of a re-united coparcener.3 Bālarūpa was of opinion that ātma-bandhus, pitṛbandhus and mātṛbandhus succeeded in the order stateḍ4 The Kālādarśa of Ādityabhaṭṭa names Bāla-rūpa among the authorities on which it relieṣ This shows that Bālarūpa wrote not only on vyavahāra but also on kāla.
As Harinātha and the Vivādacandra mention Bālarūpa he is certainly earlier than about 1250 A. D. The important question is whether Bālaka and Bālarūpa are identical. I think, though with some hesitation, that they are identical. The difficulty is caused by the fact that Harinātha speaks of ‘the author of Bālarūpa,’ which implies that Bālarūpa is a work and not an author, while the others speak of Bālarūpa as an author. The Dāyabhāga always speaks of Bālaka and never of Bālarūpa, while the Mithilā writers, Mīṣaru-miśra, Vācaspati and Harinātha, speak of Bālarūpa and not of Bālaka. Bālaka is not mentioned by any writer belonging to a pro-vince other than Bengal. It is not likely that there were two early authors belonging to the same locality on vyavahāra bearing two names so nearly the same as Bālaka ( or Bāla ) and Bālarūpa. Moreover, if we read one quotation from the Dāyabhāga between the lines ( vide note 621 ) where Jīmūta-vāhana makes fun of Bālaka by charging him with having exposed his Bālarūpatva ( being Bālarūpa, being childish ) it appears that the Dāyabhāga looked upon Bālaka and Bāla-rūpa as identical. If so Bālaka or Bālarūpa becomes an ancient writer, who flourished certainly before 1100 A. D. As he held the same views as Śrīkara's and an antiquated view about the rights of the daughter's son he must not be later than 1050 A. D.