97. Vyavahāranirnaya of Varadarāja

Volume I: Part II pp. 815–822

97. Vyavahāranirnaya of Varadarāja

97. Vyavahāranirṇaya of Varadarāja In the Journal of Bihar and Orissa Society vol. 28 pp. 406–430 for 1942 A. D., Bimanbehari Majumdar deals with the ‘Bhanitas’ in Vidyāpati’s Padaṣ

97. Vyavahāranirṇaya of Varadarāja Twelve years after the first volume of the History of Dharmaśāstra was published (in 1930), Prof. K. V. Rangaswami Aiyangar and his pupil Mr. A. N. Krishna Aiyangar published in the Adyar Library Series (Madras) an edition of the Vyavahāranirṇaya of Varadarāja based on nine msṣ

One remarkable feature of the work is that it has no Maṅgala śloka at the beginning. Prof. Aiyangar suggests that this is so because it is only a part of a large work. I am not satisfied with the suggestioṇ The work could have been begun by saying ‘after completing the part on the subject already finished I (or Varadaraja) begin’ &c.

There are four well-known South Indian works on several branches of Dharmaśāstra including Vyavahāra viz., the Smṛticandrikā, the Parāśaramādhavīya, the Vyavahāra-nirṇaya of Varadarāja and the Smṛtimuktāphala of Vaidyanātha Dīkṣita (composed sometime about or after 1700 A. D.), the Vya. N. dealing only with Vyavahāra. The Mitākṣarā also may be regarded as South Indian, since Vijñāneśvara composed it in the domains of the Cālukya emperor Vikramārka. All except the last two were published early.

In this edition there is a preface (pp. ix-xx), an Introduction (pp. XXIII-LXII), synopsis of its contents, comparative statement of the authorities on Vyavahāra cited in the Mitākṣarā, Smṛti-candrikā, Vyavahāranirṇaya, Parāśara-mādhavīya, table of contents in Sanskrit (pp. 1-28) the text (pp. 1-534), names of authors and works quoted with references to pages where they occur ( pp. 538–547 ). Inspite of the large bulk of this publi- cation the main work will not cover more than half of the Mitākṣarā on the Vyavahāra section of Yājñavalkya. Each page of it has various readings placed one below another and the result is that 1/3 or 1/4 portion of most of the pages contain only ( rarely one half of the page e. g. pp. 114, 183, 234, 236–37, 476 ). The Editor quotes frequently in the foot- notes Nārada-Manusahhitā and Bhavasvāmin’s bhāṣya ( e. g. on pp. 304–5, 323–24, 336–37, 379, 382–83). Varadarāja’s explanations are often the same as in the Mit. ( e. g. on pp. 67, 239, 241, 251, 321, 413–14, 420–21, 480 ) and therefore one may hold that he borrows from that work ( particularly as he mentions Vijñāneśvara on p. 78 and appears to refer to him as the most eminent among those who have realized brahman on pp. 253, 270 ). He does not enter into discussion on knotty points like those in Yāj. II. 21, II. 24 or whether ownership arises on partition ( vibhāgāt-sva-tvam- uta svasya sato vibhāgaḥ ). On p. 521 he quotes the two verses of Yāj. II. 305, 306 on review of judgment but has not a word in explanation while the Mit. comments on them at length. On Yāj. II. 100–102 the Mit. has three closely printed pages of explanation, while the Vya. N. quotes the verses on p. 154 but has not a word of explanatioṇ Similarly on Yāj. II. 118–119 the Mit. explains in two closely printed pages, while the Vya. N, which quotes both on pp. 442–443, has hardly any explanatioṇ

On the whole the Vyavahāranirṇaya is a pedestrian perform- ance. In spite of the labour bestowed by the editors on this work, one is surprised at the mistakes committed by them in some placeṣ A few are cited here. On pp. 120–121 the Vy. N. quotes as Yājñavalkya's the verses ‘uktepi sākṣibhiḥ’ &c. (Yāj. II. 80 and 83 ) but in the alphabetical Sanskrit index of verses it is noted ( on pp. 580 and 712 ) that the two verses are anāmaka ( without name ). Similarly, on p. 386 the Vy. N. quotes Yāj. I. 65 ( dattvā kanyām &c. ) and Yāj. II. 146 ( dattvā kanyām &c. ) but there is a footnote ( 4 ) on the same page that those passages of Yāj. are not found in the printed Yājñavalkya.

The Vy. N. quotes many Smṛtis and some works and authors of which the following deserve to be noteḍ Akhaṇḍadārśa ( p. 434 ), Agnimitra ( p. 130 ), Asahāya ( pp. 135, 230, 455 ), Udyo- tana (pp. 78, 455), Kavaṣa (p. 471), Kṛṣṇa (pp. 78, 278), Kauṭilya (pp. 284–85), Dharmadrona (p. 353 either a work or author), Dhāreśvara (pp. 78, 135), Bhaṭṭakumāra (pp. 78, 135), Pāñcādhyāyī (pp. 132, 357), Vijñāneśvara (p. 78), Śrīkara (p. 135), Svayambhuvāgama (p. 14), Ācārya Viśvarūpa (pp. 78, 135, 474).

The Vy. N. nowhere refers to Bhāruci who was comparatively an early author on Dharmaśāstra.

It is interesting to note that the Vy. N. (on pp. 284–85) quotes a passage from Kauṭilya’s Arthaśāstra about the payment of Dakṣiṇā when one of the several priests required in Agniṣṭoma and other Vedic sacrifices falls ill before the whole sacrifice is finisheḍ

The date of Varadarāja has now to be discusseḍ As he mentions Vijñāneśvara, designates him ‘brahmavitpravavara’ and appears to have copied the very words of the Mitākṣarā (as indicated above and as admitted by Prof. Aiyangar on p. xxviii of the Introduction), he must be held to be at least one generation later than the Mitākṣarā. It has been shown above that the Mit. cannot be placed later than 1100–1120 A. D. I regret to say that I cannot accept the encomiums that the late Professor showers on Varadarāja on p. xxix (as being independent, original as to interpretation and endowed with command over Mīmāṁsā and Nyāya). To me he appears to be a puny figure in the matter of Mīmāṁsā applied to Dharmaśāstra as compared with the vast erudition shown by the Mitākṣarā. Here I cannot deal with the arguments of Prof. Aiyangar. Varadarāja is earlier than 1515 A. D. That is certaiṇ So one has to find out how much earlier he can be placeḍ

Prof. Aiyangar (on p. LXVI of the Introduction) refers to p. 459 of the Vy. N. where the Vedic text ‘tasmāt striyo nirindriyā adāyādir’ is cited and explaineḍ On p. LXVI of the Introduction he remarks that the interpretation of ‘nirindriyāḥ’ as applied to women in Manusmṛti (in IX. 18) by Varadarāja is original and was not anticipated by any previous writer. This is a bold and sweeping statement. Much of the medieval literature is still unpublished and buried in Msṣ and chronology is uncertain and a large part has perished beyond recovery. The most important H. D.—103 point of construction of the Vedic text is that it is not to be taken literally and as prohibiting women as inheritors of family property. It may be shown to be restricted in import in various wayṣ To be brief, Aparārka whose commentary on Yaj. cannot be placed later than 1140 A. D. has a similar explanatioṇ The Manusmṛti (IX. 18) refers to the Vedic passage and says ‘nirindriyā hyamantrāśca strīyosnṛtam-iti sthitiḥ’. Aparārka held it was a mere arthavāda, not to be taken literally, and that that passage refers to cases where a son existṣ The Smṛticandrikā also holds that the Śruti is an arthavāda and refers to women other than those that are expressly named as heirṣ The Parāśara-Mādhavīya also explains it as indicating that the wife of the sacri-ficer has no right to partake of the Soma drink. Mādhavācārya is the most learned writer among Dākṣiṇātyaṣ His greatness and fame stand only second to the great Śaṅkarācārya.

The Parāśaramādhavīya is one of his earliest workṣ The Kalanirṇaya expressly says that it was composed after the com-mentary on the Parāśarasmṛti. Therefore the Parāśara-Mādhavīya cannot be dated later than about 1340 A. D. Great controversies have raged round Mādhava and Vidyāraṇya. There are some scholars who deny their identity (vide J. of Indian History Vol. XII pp. 241-250 by Doraiswami Iyengar). Unfortunately secta-rian zeal of Vaiṣṇavas and non-Vaiṣṇavas in South India also appears to play a part in these discussionṣ Prof. Aiyangar’s discussion about Varadarāja and Mādhava smacks of these tendencieṣ Some undisputed facts must be first stateḍ Varadarāja is a very common name in the Tamil country as the presiding deity at Kāñcipura is named Varadarāja (admitted on p. XLVII). Varadarāja is not referred to anywhere by Mādhava (admitted by Prof. Aiyangar on p. XLVIII of Intro. to Vy. N.). But he musters courage to say ‘In spite of the absence of some reference to Varadarāja’s work, it is incredible that it should not have been known to Mādhava⁷. The belief of a person however learned he may be is worth little. It is the reasons for that belief that matter. Prof. Aiyangar may believe anything but it is his reasons that have to be examineḍ If one scholar says that Varadarāja borrows from Madhava, he cannot be silenced by another simply saying he does not believe that at all. What are the grounds of this sweeping assertion? On p. 414 the Vyavahāranirṇaya quotes 97. Vyavahāranirṇaya of Varadarāja

a verse (quoted in note below)¹²⁴¹ as from Prajāpati about some matters forbidden in Kaliyuga. The same passage occurs in the Mit. on Yaj. II. 117. The Mit. composed in about 1100 A. D. could not have borrowed it from Vy. N. The same passage is quoted in the Smṛticandrikā as from Saṅgrahakāra ( Vyavahāra p. 266 Gharpure). In the Sac-carita-rakṣā ( p. 47 Venk. Press eḍ) of Vedāntadeśika there is a verse of Yama quoted from Skandapurāṇa, the reading of which was changed in a work called Varadarājīya-Smṛti-Saṅgraha. On p. XLVI ( Intro.) Prof. Aiyangar refers to certain remarks of Vedāntadeśika in his Saccaritarakṣā viz. that the topic of sanctified food for Vaiṣṇavas had been treated by Yāmunācārya ard elucidated by the learned Varadarāja-paṇḍita in his Sanmārgadipikā and that he ( Vedānta-deśika ) follows in their footstepṣ Prof. Aiyangar at once jumps to the conclusion that the Smṛtisaṅgraha of Varadarāja referred to by Vedāntadeśika must be the work of Varadarāja, who is the author of Vy. Nirṇaya. Prof. Aiyangar complacently observes (p. XLVI of Intro. ) ‘As the topic comes within the scope of Dharmaśāstra, there is no reasonable ground for ascribing the Sanmārgadīpikā to a Varadarāja different from the author of the Smṛtisaṅgraha ’. There are very reasonable and strong grounds for scouting all the remarks of Prof. Aiyangar. In the first place, the Varadarāja of Vy. N. gives no information about himself. He nowhere states that it is a part of a larger work nor does he mention any work called Smṛtisaṅgraha. Besides, Varadarāja is a very common name in the Tamil country as he admits (p. XLVII of Introduction ). The Smṛticandrikā on Vyavahāra (p. 36) quotes five verses from Saṅgrahakāra about the characteristics of a proper plaint in a suit. The same five verses, are quoted by the Mit. on Yaj. II. 9 with the words ‘Yathoktam’. These five verses are not found in Vy. N. Therefore, the Saṅgraha or Smṛti-Saṅgraha known to the Mit. and Smṛticandrikā is entirely different from the Smṛtisaṅgraha of Varadarāja. Prof. Aiyangar unnecessarily parades (on p. XXXVII of Intro. ) the colophons of the Msṣ used by him for editing the Vy. N. The words ‘Śrīmad-Varadarājīye vyavahāra-nirṇaye’ or ‘Śrīmad- Varadarājīye Dharmaśāstre vyavahāranirṇaye’ mean nothing more than ‘Varadarājena prokta’ (expounded by Varadarāja) accord- ing to Pāṇini IV. 3. 101 ‘tena proktam’. If one looks into the various catalogues of Sanskrit msṣ (such as Aufrecht’s) one would find that there are more than two dozen authors called Varadarāja. There is at present absolutely no evidence (except the sameness of name) that the Smṛtisaṅgraha of Varadarāja mentioned in note 3 on p. XLVII is the work of the same Varada- rāja who is the author of the Vy. N. Granting for a moment that Vedāntadeśika’s Saccaritārakṣā was composed about 1297 A. D. (as asserted on p. XLV of introduction to Vy. N.) there is no substantial evidence to connect that Smṛtisaṅgraha with the author of the Vy. N. beyond the mere name. It has been shown above (under Kalpataru of Lakṣmīdhara) that scholars have had grave doubts about the dates of the successors of Śrī Rāmānujācārya and the dates assigned to them by their own Vaiṣṇava writers and the traditions of the Vaḍagalai and the Teṅgalai scholarṣ That being the case, I take exception to the statement on p. XLVI (of Intro.) that Varadarājapaṇḍita (author of Sanmārgadīpikā) is identical with the Varadarāja. author of Vy. N. Again I take strong objection to the remark on p. XLVIII that a comparison of the two works (Parāśaramādhavīya and Vy. N.) establishes the superior learning and acuteness of the Varadarājīya and its greater originality. I have shown above how mediocre is the work called Vy. N. as compared with the Mitākṣarā and I hold on the evidence available so far that the author of Vy. N. is later than the Mādhavīya and borrows from the Mādhavīya.

For reasons of space it is impossible to criticize at length the many debatable points in Prof. Aiyaṅgar’s Introduction, parti- cularly about the chronological relation between the Smṛticandrikā and Parāśara-mādhavīya on the one hand and the Vy. N. on the other. On pp. LIV-LV (Intro.) he refers to Prajāpati quoting the verse about Niyoga, unequal partition and the immolation of a cow. That verse is quoted from Saṅgraha by the Smṛticandrikā (vide note 1241 above). Prajāpati is not cited even once by Viśvarūpa on Yāj. The Mit. quotes Prajāpati as Smṛti only in three places viz. on Yāj. III. 20 (on āśauca and the birth of a son), III. 25 (again on āśauca) and III. 260 (penance for a person guilty of adultery with even the low caste wife of his brāhmaṇa guru). The Mit. does not quote Prajāpati on ācāra and Vyavahāra. Aparārka 97. Vyavahāranirṇaya of Varadarājī quotes only four verses of Prajāpati on ācāra, two on Vyavahāra, and one on āśauca and one prose passage on the four kinds of Sannyāsinṣ The Kṛtyakalpataru (on Vyavahāra) quotes only three verses of Prajāpati. That establishes that Prajāpati’s work was either non-existent or negligible in the 9th century A. D., was very sparingly relied upon even upto the 12th century A. D. and was a very minor authority as compared with Bṛhaspati, Kātyāyana and many otherṣ The Smṛticandrikā quotes from Prajāpati about eleven verses on Āhnika, about 21 on Vyavahāra and about three on Śrāddha. The Smṛticandrikā would have to be placed at the latest about 1220-1250 A. D. (as Hemādri quotes it very frequently). Turning to the Vyavahāra-nirṇaya which is a much smaller work (being confined only to Vyavahāra) it quotes about 86 verses of Prajāpati, of which about 46 relate to ordeals alone. Another remarkable circumstance is that Vy. N. was composed at a time when weekdays and Saṅkrānti had come very much to the fore even in judicial matters such as trial by ordealṣ

Besides, the Smṛticandrikā even on the section on Vyavahāra covers (in Gharpure’s eḍ) 322 closely printed pages of a very large size (with hardly a line for various readings), with about 32 lines on each page each line containing from 24 to 38 letterṣ The Vy. N. has only 534 pages of a smaller size with about 12 to 23 lines (of texts) on each page and a much smaller number of letters from 16 to 28 in each line. The Smṛticandrikā text on Vyavahāra contains far more matter than the text in the whole of the Vyavahāranirṇaya. From these facts it may be concluded that the Smṛticandrikā, though more extensive on Vyavahāra than the Vy. N., quotes Prajāpati less than half as many times as the Vy. N. doeṣ That is Vy. N. had a much more inflated text of Prajāpati than what even the Smṛticandrikā had before it and so it probably is a great deal later than the Smṛticandrikā. Similarly, the Mādhavīya on Vyavahāra quotes from Prajāpati only 35 verses on Vyavahāra of which eleven refer to ordealṣ

Prof. Aiyangar attaches undue importance to the quotations from Prajāpati in Vy. N. Prajāpati is not one among the many authors on Dharmaśāstra named in Yāj. I. 4-5 nor among the thirty six expounders of Dharma named by Paithīnasi quoted by the Smṛticandrikā on its first page. The Parāśaramādhavīya on Vyavahāra quotes only 31 verses from Prajāpati of which only eleven are concerned with ordeals, while Vy. N. quotes 86 verses from Prajāpati on Vyavahāra, of which 46 are concerned with ordealṣ The above facts should be held to lead to the conclusion that Vy. N. had before it a far more inflated text of Prajāpati than what the Mādhaviya had before it. Critical scholars should not be impressed or influenced by the mention of an ancient name tacked to verses by Medieval writerṣ The Manusmṛti (in I. 34–35) says that the first human being created by Virāj was Manu who created ten Prajāpatis viz. Marīci, Atri, Aṅgiras, Pulastya, Pulaha, Kratu, Pracetas, Vasiṣṭha, Bhṛgu and Nārada, from all of whom verses on Dharma topics are quoted by the Mit., Aparārka and Smṛticandrikā. That shows that works were palmed off on people as composed by primeval sages, though composed by scholars in medieval historic times in order to make them appear very authoritative.

The sources of Dharma were chiefly three, viz. Śruti (or Veda), Smṛtis and customs (vide Gaut. Dh. S. I. 1-2, Āp. Dh. S. I. 1. 1. 2, Vaṣ Dh. S. I. 4-6, Manu II. 6) and the theory was that each succeeding one was inferior in authority to each preceding one. In the march of ages certain practices that prevailed in the Vedic times (such as Niyoga) and even in the times of the Smṛtis (such as marriage of a brāhmaṇa with a woman of the the Kṣatriya or Vaiśya varṇa) went out of vogue and new ones came to be observeḍ In some cases, therefore, changes were introduced or recommended by learned men interpreting vedic texts as merely arthavādas (not to be taken literally) and by even changing the words of the textṣ For example, the Kalpataru (on Vyavahāra p. 691) and Dāyatattva² (Jivananda eḍ p. 185) provide by quoting Devala that the strīdhana of a woman dying childless is taken (on her death) by her husband or by her mother or by her brother or by her father. But writers from Kāmarūpa (Assam) read the same verse as (aprajāyām hared bhartā bhrātā mātā pitāpi vā). Vide Pandit Manoranjan Shastri's paper in ‘Prāgjyotiṣa Souvenir’ (published at the time of the 22nd Session of the All India Oriental Conference in Jaṇ 1965). Bṛhaspati