|
The Indian Analyst
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
LITERATURE
Moreover, a contemporary record says that there dwelt with him all the three, viz., Śrī or the goddess of fortune, Sarasvatī or the goddess of learning, and Kīrti or the goddess of fame.[1] This description resembles that in the last verse of the Aparārka-Ṭīkā. Again, we learn from the Śrīkaṇṭhacharita of Maṅkha that Tējakaṇṭha, an ambassador of Aparāditya, the lord of Kōṅkaṇa, visited the court of Jayasiṁha, king of Kāshmīr (circa A.D. 1128-1150).[2] This Aparādityā was evidently the first king of that name ruling in North Koṅkaṇ ; for he was a contemporary of Jayasiṁha of Kāshmīr. Finally, Dr. Kane has shown that the Smṛitichandrikā, composed about A.D. 1200, refers to and criticises a view of Aparārka.[3] So this commentary could not have been the work of Aparāditya II, who flourished in the last quarter of the twelfth century A.D. as this identification does not leave sufficient time for the work being so well-known as to attract the attention of dharmaśāstra writers in far-off places. Aparārka I was, therefore, the author of this famous commentary on the Yājñavalkya-Smṛiti, and its date lies in the first half of the twelfth century A.D. .. Though the work of Aparārka is called a commentary in one of the initial verses,[4] it is really speaking not a commentary in the usual sense of the word; for it does not confine itself to an explanation of the original smṛiti. It is really a nibandha or digest as stated in the last verse of the work cited above;[5] for it takes into account all that had been written before and reconciles the conflicting statements of the previous Dharmaśāstra-writers. In its discussion it cites passages form as many as 168 works, including the śrutis (Vedic texts), gṛihya- and dharmasūtras, metrical smṛitis and as many as twenty-one Purāṇas. Among the Smṛitikāras cited , some are called Laghu (e.g. Laghu Yama and Laghu Vishṇu) and some others Vṛiddha (e.g. Vṛiddha Gārgya, Vṛiddha Gautama and Vṛiddha Parāśara). As the date of Aparārka is fixed within narrow limits, these citations prove useful in fixing the lower limits for the dates of several Smṛitis and Purāṇas.
..As stated before, Aparārka not only explains the text of the Yājñavalkya-Smṛiti but also
states and discusses several controversial views of earlier writers on Dharmaśāstra, and reconciles them wherever possible. A vast material on Dharmaśāstra had accumulated by the
time of Aparāditya I. Several writers had propounded conflicting views about various matters
of living interest to orthodox people. There was, therefore, considerable confusion in their
minds about the right course of conduct to be followed. The Aparārka-Ṭikā has tried to reconcile these views by showing that some of them applied to a by-gone age and are not valid
for the prevailing Kali Age. Some other views are sought to be reconciled by showing that
they refer to different circumstances. In some other cases Aparārka states the different views
and leaves it to the people to follow whichever of them appears preferable. For instance,
Yājñavalkya (I, 168) allows the Brāhmaṇas to take food from certain classes of the Śūdras.
As in the time of Aparārka the caste system had become rigid, he, after citing several conflicting passages from Dharmaśāstras, states as his opinion that Yājñavalkya’s dictum refers
to the of distress when no other food is available.[6] Again, Yājkñavalkya allows the
widow of a person who dies sonless to inherit his property. This was in conflict with the views
of earlier Smṛitikāras like Manu, who did not recognise a woman’s right to succession. Aparārka discusses this question at some length and ultimately states that the view of the earlier
[1] No. 23, line 37.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|