85. Harihara
Volume I: Part II pp. 735–736
The chapter opens with an exploration of a significant writer on *vyavahāra*, Harihara, who is known to have flourished prior to 1300 A.D. A different Harihara, whose period is generally placed between 1150 and 1250 A.D., is recognised for having composed a commentary on the *Pāraskaragṛhyasūtra*. An intriguing scholarly question arises as to whether this *Pāraskaragṛhyasūtra* commentator was, in fact, a pupil of the revered Vijñāneśvara. Further complicating the precise identification, historical records also make mention of a Harihara who authored a commentary on the *Āśaucadaśaka*. Despite the existence of several individuals named Harihara across different eras and specialisations, it is posited that the jurist Harihara, the aforementioned writer on *vyavahāra*, is most likely identical with the *bhāṣyakāra* of Pāraskara. This inherent challenge, arising from the numerous Hariharas known in the tradition, necessitates careful chronological and textual analysis in Dharmaśāstra studies.
— Synopsis by P.V. Kane, from History of Dharmaśāstra
85. Harihara
85. Harihara (Aniruddha ).2 In the colophon he is styled mahārājādhirāja and nihśaṅka-śaṅkara.
85. Harihara From quotations in the Vivādaratnākara it appears that Harihara wrote on vyavahāra. For example, the Vivādaratnākara first quotes (on p. 220) the definition of ‘saṁsaraṇa’ given by Bṛhaspati and then cites three verses of Kātyāyana defining a catuṣpatha and a rājamārga and prescribing punishments for causing obstruction and committing nuisance thereoṇ Then it notices that the verse ‘yas-tatra’ cited by it from Kātyāyana is cited by Harihara as from Prajāpati when the topic immediately preceding is ‘saṁsaraṇa’.3 The Vivādaratnākara quotes a sūtra of Śaṅkha-Likhita prescribing the punishment for sexual intercourse with a virgin against her will and Harihara's explanation of the word Brāhmaṇa, in all 52 workṣ At the end of the work (on p. 72), he names 46 works the opinions of which he considered and composed the Dānaśāgasa. The learned editor points this discrepancy in the Intro. (p. xxii ). The learned editor has spared no pains to make up the edition useful to scholarṣ I entirely agree with what he says about the late Professor Rangaswami Aiyangar's entirely vedi-culous remark about the Dānaśāgara containing a reference to Kalpataru ( the work of Lakṣmīdhara ) in verse 3 of the introductory verses and his remarks about what the great historian Dr. R. C. Majumdar's reading ‘sārasvata-brāhma-nāḥ’ in verse 6 of the Introductory verses of the Dāna-sāgara ( English Intro. p. xx foot-note 2 ). He has identi-fied most of the quotations, but some have eluded hiṃ For example on p. 17 the text quotes Vasiṣṭha's verse ‘ye kṣānta-dāntāḥ ...’, but the editor does not note that it is Vasiṣṭha-Dharmasūtra VI. 25. dvyaṅgulaccheda,4 From this it is clear that Harihara wrote some work on vyavahāra, which has not yet been recovereḍ He must have flourished earlier than 1300 A. D.
There is a commentary on the Pāraskaragṛhyasūtra composed by Harihara who is styled agnihotrin in the colophonṣ In one mṣ copied in śake 1707 (1785–86 A. D.) he is described as the pupil of Vijñāneśvara. In the introductory second verse he says he relies on Vasudeva. In the body of the work he refers (Gujarati Press edition ) to Karkopādhyāya (p. 200 ), Kalpatarukāra, Reṇudīkṣita, and Vijñāneśvarācārya (p. 370). Therefore he is later than 1150 A. D. Harihara's views are mentioned by Hemādri,5 the Samaya- pradīpa6 and Acārādarśa of Śrīdatta and in the Smṛtisāra of Harinātha. Therefore this Harihara must be earlier than 1250 A. D. Whether he was really the pupil of Vijñāneśvara is doubtful. In his bhāṣya Harihara refers to words current in Kanoj.7 Hemādri mentions Harihara's explanation of nepālakambala wherein the latter says that it is well known among the northernerṣ8 Hariharapaddhati is frequently mentioned in the Smṛtitattva of Raghunandana; vide (vol. I.) Śrāddha p. 261, Āhnika p. 424, Malāmāsa p. 745 (a verse is quoted); (vol. II.) Divya p. 593, Udvaha p. 132, Vrata p. 158 (name Harihara only ). We have seen above that Harihara commented upon the Āśaucadaśaka of Vijñāneśvara. This fact together with his being not far from Vijñāneśvara's time may have led to the belief that he was a pupil of Vijñāneśvara. It appears probable that the jurist Harihara who flourished before 1300 and Harihara the bhāṣyakāra of Pāraskara