In his commentary on the Yājñavalkya-Smṛiti III, 205, Aparārka discusses the vexed question of the relation of knowledge (jñāna) to action (karman) for liberation (mōksha). Can a householder who leads a pious life, performing all the obligatory religious rites, acquiring the
necessary wealth therefor by rightful means and doing all the duties of his āśrama, gain liberation from the cycle of birth and death ? Aparārka states the divergent views on this moot
point, supporting them with cogent arguments. He seems to be inclined to the view of the
combination of knowledge and action (jnāna-karma-samuchchaya) as he cites passages from
Manu, Vasishṭha and Yājñavalkya in support of it, while concluding the discussion. Still,
he does not adopt a dogmatic attitude, and leaves it to the people to choose whatever view they
may consider just and proper. 
..It would be interesting to compare the Aparārka-Ṭīkā with the Mitāksharā, another
well-known commentary on the Yājñavalkya-Smṛiti composed almost in the same period. 
The former is much more detailed than the latter. Its author himself describes it as vipulā
(extensive). But it is inferior in merit. Though it quotes extensively from the Smṛitis and the
Purāṇas, it does not engage itself in learned discussions with the aid of the of the rules of interpretation laid down in the Pūrva-Mīmāṁsā as the Mitāksharā does. As Dr. Kane says, the AparārkaṬīkā is much inferior to the Mitāksharā in lucid exposition, in dilectic skill, in subtlety of
arguments and in the orderly presentation of heterogeneous material. 
The Aparārka-Ṭīkā is held authoritative in Kāshmīr. It was evidently introduced there
by Tejakaṇṭha, who was deputed to the Kāshmīr Court by Aparāditya. It is noteworthy
that the commentary contains a lengthy passage from the work of Rājānaka Śitikaṇṭha
about the images of the different deities.  He was evidently a Kāshmīrian author.
Thought the work is ascribed to the Śilāhāra king Aparāditya I and he is described as
a learned prince, it was evidently composed by the Paṇḍits of his court and ascribed to him.
It gives us a good idea of the vast dharmaśāstra literature extant in the time of that Śilāhāra
Another Sanskrit work composed in the age of the Śilāhāras is the Śabdārṇavachandrikā, a commentary o n the Śabdārṇava of Guṇanandin, a work of the Jainēndra Vyākaraṇa. The
author Sōmadēva Muni tells us at the end of the end of the commentary that he completed it in the
Jinālaya (temple of Jina) called Tribhuvanatilaka, which had been constructed by the Mahā-
maṇḍalēśvara Gaṇḍarādityadēva at the Mahāsthāna of Ājurikā situated in the famous Kōllāpura-dēśa. Ājurikā is undoubtedly Ājarē, the chief place of the mahāl of that name in the
Kolhāpur District. Sōmadēva further tells us that he wrote the work in the Śaka year 1127
(A.D. 1205), the cyclic year being Krōdhana, during the reign of the Śilāhāra king, Rājādhirāja, Parmēśvara, Paramabhaṭṭāraka, Paśchimachakravartī Vīra-Bhōjadēva.  He is evidently
Bhōja II of the Śilāhāra family of Kolhāpur. The mention of the cyclic year Krōdhana as
corresponding to the Śaka year 1127 is correct according to the southern system. Sōmadeva
See तदनयोर्मययोर्यन्न्याय्यं तद् ग्राह्मम् । Apararka, Vol. II, p.. 1034.
Dr. Kane has shown that Aparārka probably knew the Mitāksharā. See H.D., Vol I (second ed.).,
pp. 719 f.
Ibid., p. 719.
Aparārka, Vol. 1, p. 571.
तमक्रोधनसवत्सरे स्वस्ति समस्तानचिद्यविद्याचक्रवर्त्तिश्रीपूज्यपादानुरक्तचेतसा श्रीसोमदेवमुनीश्वरेण विरचितेयं शब्दा-
णैवचन्द्रिकानाम वृत्तिरिति ॥