https://indianpedia.org/index.php?action=history&feed=atom&title=Bh%C4%81ruciBhāruci - Revision history2026-07-31T22:10:21ZRevision history for this page on the wikiMediaWiki 1.45.4https://indianpedia.org/index.php?title=Bh%C4%81ruci&diff=331927&oldid=prevUpdateBot at 05:02, 21 January 20222022-01-21T05:02:29Z<p></p>
<p><b>New page</b></p><div>{{EngvarB|date=March 2020}}<br />
{{Use dmy dates|date=March 2020}}<br />
'''Bhāruci's''' commentary ([[bhashya]]) on the [[Manu Smrti]], or [[Laws of Manu]], is part of the corpus of [[Dharmaśāstra]] texts available to us today. It is the oldest commentary on Manu that we know of,<ref>{{cite book<br />
|last= Lingat<br />
|first= Robert<br />
|authorlink= Robert Lingat<br />
|others= Translated from French with Additions by [[J Duncan M Derrett|J.D.M.Derrett]]<br />
|title= The Classical Law of India<br />
|url= https://www.worldcat.org/title/classical-law-of-india/oclc/660299<br />
|origyear= 1967<br />
|year= 1973<br />
|publisher= University of California Press<br />
|location= Berkeley<br />
|isbn= 9781882239085<br />
|oclc= 660299<br />
}}<br />
</ref> and is one of the sources used by [[Medhātithi]], another major commentator on the Manu Smṛti.<br />
<br />
==Dating and historical context==<br />
Very little is known about the date or historical context in which Bhāruci was writing, but [[P. V. Kane]] argues that it cannot have been written after 1050 CE because Vijñāneśvara, the author of the {{IAST|[[Mitākṣarā]]}}, a famous commentary on the {{IAST|[[Yājñavalkya Smṛti]]}}, mentions Bhāruci's commentary in his writing.<ref>Kane, P. V., ''History of Dharmaśāstra'', (Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1975), Volume I, Part I, 566.</ref> Viśvarūpa, another commentator on the [[Yājñavalkya Smṛti| ''{{IAST|Yājñavalka Smṛti}}'']], also uses Bhāruci as a source. [[Patrick Olivelle]] places Bhāruci in the 8th century CE,<ref name="ReferenceA">Olivelle, Patrick, "Dharmaśāstra: A Literary History", 29.</ref> while [[J. Duncan M. Derrett]] places him between 600–650 CE.<ref name="ReferenceA" /> There are two known authors named Bhāruci placed in about the same period of time, one who wrote on ''Dharmaśāstra'' and one who was a jurist, and Kane posits that they were in fact the same person because it is unlikely that there were two famous writers with the same name writing at the same time.<ref>Kane, P. V., ''History of Dharmaśāstra'', (Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1975), Volume I, Part I, 567.</ref><br />
<br />
==Topics==<br />
The main content of Bhāruci's commentary deals with the duties of a king, particularly regarding whether or not the king can be a source of [[dharma]]. Bhāruci's view as discussed by Derrett was that the king did not have any legislative power, but he did have "the power to issue regulations and edicts of a temporary character or for the purpose of facilitating objects already inculcated by the ''dharmaśāstra''."<ref>[[J Duncan M Derrett|Derrett, J. Duncan M.]], "Bhāruci on the Royal Regulative Power in India", ''Journal of the American Oriental Society'', Vol. 84, No. 4, (1964), 392.</ref> Kane agrees, stating that "the king is not the source of the rules of ''Dharma'', but it is śāstra that defines the rules binding on the different [[Varnas (Hinduism)|varnas]] (classes) and [[ashramas]] (stages of man's life)."<ref>Kane, P. V., ''History of Dharmaśāstra'', (Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1975), Volume I, Part I, 569–570.</ref><br />
<br />
==Notes==<br />
{{reflist}}<br />
<br />
{{DEFAULTSORT:Bharuci}}<br />
[[Category:Hindu texts]]<br />
[[Category:Hindu law]]<br />
[[Category:Religious law]]<br />
[[Category:Indian literature]]</div>UpdateBot