DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.49827#0040
COMMENTARIES AND DIGESTS.
25
kshara was held in such high esteem in Benares that the Lecture
Native Judges, previous to the establishment of English
tribunals in that place, asked the Pandits in each arising
case to consult the Mitakshara. Much the same custom
appears to prevail in the present day, in Adoption cases at
least, in the Native States of Rajputana.1
The authority attributed to the teaching of the southern Lise of the
writers accounts for the thorough agreement of the majority
of the northern Digests with the Mitakshara. But why do
the Bengal writers differ from the rest ? Most probably, the
isolationof the Bengal School is more apparent than real. The
loss of so many old law-books and of many works quoted in
the Dayabhaga in particular, renders it impossible to estab-
lish all the intermediate links which must have existed
between the Bengal doctrines and the teaching of the other
Schools. Even as it is, some of Jimutavahana’s doctrines
may be traced to their source in those texts which are so
strenuously controverted in the Mitakshara, and it is a
significant fact that he quotes Vijnaneg vara’s predecessor
Vigvarupa, though he never quotes Vijnanegvara himself.
In the constructions which they put on the texts of Yajna-
valkya, the Bengal writers do not seldom concur with
Apararka. They might have borrowed from him, but it
seems more likely that both Apararka and the Bengal
writers drew from a common source, viz., from the earliest
Commentaries of the Yajnavalkya-smriti. The Bengal
doctrines are also in a number of cases identical with those
held by the Mithila writers, and as Mithila has evidently
been one of the oldest seats of legal learning in Northern
India, the Bengal writers may be supposed to have borrowed
those doctrines from their Mithila neighbours. Whether
these various doctrines were shaped into a system by
Jimutavahana himself, or by earlier writers, whom he may
have followed, it is impossible to decide. His system, as a
f whole, was certainly very much opposed to the Mithila
system, and even more different from the’Mitakshara system.
Jimutavahana’s Commentators suppose him to be engaged in
many places in refuting the Mitakshaja and the Mithila
doctrines, though he does not say so expressly. Supposing
1 My information in regard to this subject is mainly derived from
communications made to me by a Jeypore Thakur, Kaunar Prithi *
Snighji of Bay?oo, who also gave me an opportunity of assisting at the
trial of an interesting Adoption case according to Hindu Law, in the
Supreme Court of Jeypore.
25
kshara was held in such high esteem in Benares that the Lecture
Native Judges, previous to the establishment of English
tribunals in that place, asked the Pandits in each arising
case to consult the Mitakshara. Much the same custom
appears to prevail in the present day, in Adoption cases at
least, in the Native States of Rajputana.1
The authority attributed to the teaching of the southern Lise of the
writers accounts for the thorough agreement of the majority
of the northern Digests with the Mitakshara. But why do
the Bengal writers differ from the rest ? Most probably, the
isolationof the Bengal School is more apparent than real. The
loss of so many old law-books and of many works quoted in
the Dayabhaga in particular, renders it impossible to estab-
lish all the intermediate links which must have existed
between the Bengal doctrines and the teaching of the other
Schools. Even as it is, some of Jimutavahana’s doctrines
may be traced to their source in those texts which are so
strenuously controverted in the Mitakshara, and it is a
significant fact that he quotes Vijnaneg vara’s predecessor
Vigvarupa, though he never quotes Vijnanegvara himself.
In the constructions which they put on the texts of Yajna-
valkya, the Bengal writers do not seldom concur with
Apararka. They might have borrowed from him, but it
seems more likely that both Apararka and the Bengal
writers drew from a common source, viz., from the earliest
Commentaries of the Yajnavalkya-smriti. The Bengal
doctrines are also in a number of cases identical with those
held by the Mithila writers, and as Mithila has evidently
been one of the oldest seats of legal learning in Northern
India, the Bengal writers may be supposed to have borrowed
those doctrines from their Mithila neighbours. Whether
these various doctrines were shaped into a system by
Jimutavahana himself, or by earlier writers, whom he may
have followed, it is impossible to decide. His system, as a
f whole, was certainly very much opposed to the Mithila
system, and even more different from the’Mitakshara system.
Jimutavahana’s Commentators suppose him to be engaged in
many places in refuting the Mitakshaja and the Mithila
doctrines, though he does not say so expressly. Supposing
1 My information in regard to this subject is mainly derived from
communications made to me by a Jeypore Thakur, Kaunar Prithi *
Snighji of Bay?oo, who also gave me an opportunity of assisting at the
trial of an interesting Adoption case according to Hindu Law, in the
Supreme Court of Jeypore.