A Dharma Reader: Classical Indian Law

The legal tradition following Manu between the second and eighth centuries C.E., represented by the texts of Yajnavalkya, Narada, Visnu, Brihaspati, Katyayana, and others, demonstrates a rapid growth in scholarly reflections on jurisprudence in general and legal procedure in particular, with an ever more sophisticated and technical vocabulary. Yet this growth occurred almost exclusively in the area of court procedures and dispute resolution, as we will see in the second part of this source-book. Quite surprisingly, this progress did not touch the more theoretical aspects of jurisprudence relating to the definition and epistemology of law.

This disparity in the development of jurisprudence is evidenced by the growing specialization of treatises on dharma. Even though much of the textual production of these six centuries is now lost, it appears that many of the major legal treatises, such as those of Narada, Brihaspati, and Katyayana, ignored most areas of dharma and focused narrowly and exclusively on legal procedure, called vyavahāra. The reason for this concentration may have been that the jurists who produced these texts were more interested in the practical application of law during a time when increasingly Brahman jurists acted as judges in post-Gupta kingdoms.¹ Interest in the epistemological issues would be reignited by a sister intellectual tradition, that of Vedic exegesis, and by commentators on early treatises on dharma, such as Bharuci, Visvarupa, and Medhatithi, writing between 700 and 900 C.E.

Only two post-Manu treatises on dharma deal with epistemological issues relating to dharma, those of Yajnavalkya and Visnu. The text of Parasara is unique in that it attempts to focus its epistemology on the current age we live in, the Kali Age, and to point out that Parasara is teaching the dharma specific to this age. Most other texts, including the treatise of the Vaikhanasas (Vaikhānasa Dharmasūtra), show no interest in this issue.

The treatise of Yajnavalkya is in many ways unique. First, although it is written in verse, the verses are so terse, with several ideas woven into each, that they resemble more the aphoristic prose of the sūtra genre. Thus, Yajnavalkya is able to condense his material into a little over 1,000 verses, almost two thirds less than Manu’s 2,781 verses. Second, much of the work appears to be a paraphrase or condensation of two previous texts, the treatises of Kautilya and Manu. Yet, especially in the area of legal procedure, Yajnavalkya represents clear advances in substance and technical vocabulary. Third, Yajnavalkya composed his text between the fourth and fifth centuries C.E. during the time of the Gupta Empire, which in many ways returned the Brahman to his preeminent position in society and reinstated the notion of Brahmanical exceptionalism.

Yajnavalkya follows Manu’s lead in embedding his treatise within a narrative framework. Here sages visit the seer and yogin Yajnavalkya and ask him to teach them dharma in its entirety (#1). The text, then, is presented as the teaching of Yajnavalkya. Unlike Manu, however, he speaks frequently in the first person throughout and returns to the frame story at the end of the treatise (YDh 3.328f). where the sages thank him and praise the text he has composed.

The treatise contains three broad divisions devoted to normative practice (ācāra), legal procedure (vyavahāra), and expiation (prāyaścitta). This division would become standard in medieval legal literature. The significant point is that these three areas are presented by Yajnavalkya as three subdomains of dharma. Thus, normative practice is now not simply a concept related to the epistemic sources of dharma but actually a specific area of activity within the broader category of dharma.

Regarding the epistemology of dharma as such, Yajnavalkya does not represent a great advance over Manu. He follows Manu in giving the five epistemic sources (#2), but in several places he gives significant weight to knowledge of the self (ātman) and to yogic insight. Thus, in the context of the legal assembly, he says that even a single person with knowledge of the highest self has the competence to declare dharma. He also stresses the importance of giving and generosity (dāna), which, at 1.6, he calls the very gist of dharma.

It is clear that by the time of Yajnavalkya, the term “recollection” (smṛti) had come to refer to written treatises on dharma. He is the first to provide a list of twenty such documents, although it is not quite clear whether these two verses are original.² It is also clear that by the time of Yajnavalkya there were two recognized genres of authoritative textual (whether written or not) sources of dharma, śruti and smṛti, and in the latter category scholars could come up with canonical lists. The problem that later authors, especially the Vedic exegetes such as Kumarila, faced was whether all texts falling into this category, even such extraneous works as Buddhist scriptures, could be authoritative and, if not, how such discriminations could be made.

The text of Yajnavalkya used here is from my forthcoming critical edition to be published in the Murty Classical Library of India by Harvard University Press. That edition broadly follows the text established by the ninth-century commentator Visvarupa (see ch. 7.2) and follows his numbering of the verses.

The king of yogins, Yajnavalkya—the sages, after paying him homage, said to him: “Tell us in their entirety the dharmas pertaining to the social classes, to the orders of life, and to others.”³ Residing in Mithilā, that foremost of yogins, after pondering it thoroughly, said to the sages: “Listen to the dharmas in the region of the black buck.” ⁴

The Vedas coupled with Puranas, logic, hermeneutics, treatises on dharma, and supplements—these are the fourteen sites of the sciences, and of the dharma.⁵ The promulgators of legal treatises are: Manu, Visnu, Yama, Angiras, Vasistha, Daksa, Samvarta, Satatapa, Parasara, Apastamba, Usanas, Vyasa, Katyayana, Brihaspati, Gautama, Sankha, Likhita, Harita, Atri, as well as myself.

When an article is given by individuals imbued with the spirit of generosity, at a proper place and time, to a worthy recipient, and following the proper procedure— that is the entire definition of the dharma. (1.1–6)

Veda, text of recollection, conduct of good people, what is pleasing to oneself, and desire resulting from right intention—that, according to texts of recollection, is the root of dharma.

Sacrifices, normative practices, self-control, refraining from injury, gift giving, and Vedic recitation—among these activities, however, this is the highest dharma: to perceive the Self by means of Yoga.

Four persons who grasp the Vedas and dharma constitute a legal assembly; alternatively, just an expert in the triple Veda. What that assembly declares—or even a single individual who knows the inner Self completely—is dharma. (1.7–9)

The text ascribed to the god Vishnu is anomalous in several aspects. First, this is the only composition within the science of dharma that contains the teaching of a god who is prominent within the devotional (bhakti) tradition. It was composed within the Vaishnava sect of Pancaratra around the seventh century C.E. and can be definitely located in Kashmir.⁶

Its frame story is the rescue of the goddess Earth after she has been taken by demons to the depth of the ocean. The rescue was done by Vishnu incarnate as a boar, varāha. This incarnation of Vishnu was prominent within the Gupta religious ideology.⁷ The Earth (pṛthivī) goes to Visnu to be instructed in dharma, and the text is presented as his teaching.

What is significant is that the author of this text makes no effort to include the epistemology of dharma that was so prominent in earlier texts of the science of dharma. No mention is made of either the Veda or the texts of recollection as the sources of dharma. The author, being a devotee of Vishnu, evidently thought it superfluous to mention such sources when Vishnu himself had set forth all the dharmas that people should live by. This stands in contrast to the texts of Manu and Yajnavalkya, which also have frame stories that ascribe the teachings to those authoritative persons, yet present in addition the traditional epistemology of dharma.

When the night of Brahma was over and the Lotus-Born One had awakened, Vishnu, desiring to create the beings, realized that Earth was submerged in water. So, as at the beginning of each former eon, taking on the splendid form of a boar that loved to play in the water, he lifted up the Earth. (1.1–2)

After creating the universe with its mobile and immobile beings in this manner, Lord Boar then retreated to a state that was invisible to the worlds. When Janardana, the god of gods, had retreated to that invisible state, Earth thought to herself: “What will be my support in the future? I will go to Kasyapa and ask him. He will explain it to me, without doubt. That great sage has me constantly in his thoughts.” (1.18–20)

Kasyapa saw her come near, paid her homage, and said to her: “Go to Janardana, O goddess. He will tell you fully how your stability will be sustained in the future.” (1.30–31)

Seeing that Lotus-Eyed One, she paid homage to Madhusudana and, kneeling down, she beseeched him: “You raised me up, O god, when I was sunk to the bottom of Rasa tala,⁸ and you settled me in my own location, O Vishnu, seeking the welfare of the worlds. What will be my support there in the future, O lord of gods?”

So addressed by that goddess, the god spoke to her these words: “Good people who take delight in the conduct of the social classes and orders of life and who are totally devoted to the authoritative treatise, O Earth, will support you. The task of caring for you is entrusted to them.” When she was told this, Earth said to the god of gods: “I wish to hear them from you, O joy of Vasava, the dharmas of the social classes and orders of life, for you are my supreme refuge.” (1.44–49)

So requested by Earth, the lord of gods said: “Listen, O Goddess Earth, to the eternal dharmas of the four social classes, along with the conduct of the four orders of life, the secret rules, and the synopses, dharmas that will be the refuge of those good people who will support you. Sit down, O you with lovely thighs, on this splendid golden seat. Seated comfortably, listen as I explain the dharmas.” Earth, then, seated comfortably, listened to the dharmas given by Vishnu. (1.61–65)

The specialization within the legal tradition noted earlier with respect to the texts of Narada, Brihaspati, and the like is evident also in the treatise ascribed to Parasara. Unlike the others, who focused on legal procedure (vyavahāra), however, Parasara deals with the other two areas of dharma in the classification of Yajnavalkya, proper practice (ācāra) and expiation (prāyaścitta). Parasara’s text is small, consisting of just 592 verses, and its survival is no doubt due to the large commentary on it written by the fourteenth-century scholar Madhava (PārM).

Parasara mentions both Manu and Yajnavalkya and presents his Treatise on Dharma as the most appropriate for the present Kali Age. This is the first text where the division of dharma according to the four world ages (yugadharma) takes center stage. It spells out the theory that dharma is essentially different in different world ages, the dharma presented by Parasara being the best suited for the current age.

Parasara of great energy, the son of Sakti, was seated at ease in the middle of that assembly hall of seers surrounded by large numbers of the foremost sages, and Vyasa with folded hands, along with the seers, paid him homage with songs of praise and salutation, and by circumambulating him.

Then the great sage Parasara, that bull among sages, seated with a joyful heart, said to them: “Welcome! Do speak.” After saying, “We are well,” Vyasa immediately asked him:

“In the Krita Age, however, the dharmas are said to be those of Manu; in Treta, those of Gautama; in Dvapara, those of Sankha-Likhita; and in Kali, those of Parasara. In the Krita Age a man should abandon the region; in Treta, the village; in Dvapara, just the family; and in the Kali Age the doer.⁹ In Krita one falls from caste by simply speaking; in Treta, by touching; in Dvapara, by accepting food; and in Kali, by action.

“In Krita a curse takes effect immediately; in Treta, after ten days; in Dvapara, after a month; and in Kali, after one year.

“In Krita a gift is given after approaching the person; in Treta it is given after inviting the person; in Dvapara it is given to a person who is begging; and in Kali it is given after the person has rendered a service. The gift is best when given after approaching; it is middling when given after an invitation; the lowest is when it is given to a person who begs; giving for service, however, produces no reward.