Part 3 - Disagreement of other commentators of Manusmriti with Medhatithi

In the course of my study of the Bhasya of Medhatithi in comparison with other commentators of the Manusmrti, I have come across a few places where in interpreting the text of Manusmrti, other commentators have not employed the same principles that are employed by Medhatithi ; but they have used other principles which clearly indicates an altogether different of all commentators of Manu. I (1) Commenting on Manu Smriti II-166 Medha ti thi treats this as a case of 43 Anuvada, Sarva jaanarayana, however, points out that this is a case of Upalaksana. Here he has used Upalaksana for the purpose of removing doubts. 41. vaksyamana pratyavaya kathanartho'yamanuvadah | Manu Smriti Trt-117 ms vol 12 42. punarvacanamele samadarartham | MSTY-21 ms vol 1 305 43. punarviprasyeti padam dvijottamapadasthopalaksanarthatvasanka nivrtyartham | Manu Smriti II-166 Ms vol P-391

16 (ii) While commenting on Manu Smriti XII-110 Medhatithi holds the view that this is a case of Anuvada, whereas Sarvajnanarayana treats this as a case of optional alternative. (iii) Medhatithi commenting on V-56 regards this as a case of Arthavada, Sarvajnanarayana quotes the text of Brahaspati and incidentally refers to the technical term parisankhya for understanding the text. (iv) Medhatithi applies Punarvacana and Vikalpa while commenting on Manu Smriti III-2. Sarvajnanarayana, however, interprets this as a case of aicchika Vikalpa. II- (i) Commenting on Manu Smriti II-101, Medhatithi employs Mimamsa - Nyaya 44 called 'Gunalopa Nyaya'. Kulluka, however, differs from Medhatithi and states in his comments that this is a case of 'Phalvat Samnidauaphalam tadangam'. (ii) While commenting on Manu Smriti VIII-35 Medhatithi employes the popular maxim "Brahmana Vasistavat" whereas Kulluka treats this as a case of "Pratyavaya". (iii) The Anuvada is used by Medhatithi while commenting on Manu Smriti III-125. Kulluka does not agree with Medhati thi. He says that Medhatithi’s view comes in conflict with Grhyasutra and also with Vasistha Dharmasutra. Hence he re-sorts to an option. (iv) Commenting on Manu Smriti II-189 Medhatithi treats this as a case of Apavada, whereas Kulluka treats this as a case of Pratiprasava. 44. atra ca phalavattvajjayah pradhanam, sthanasanam tvamge "phalavatsannidhavaphalam tadamiti nyayat | IT-301 ms Manu Smriti Vol I P-310 A curious reader Should Consult the following places of Manusmrti for further disagreement: -45, -33, -61, II-190, 46, -2, -86,-280,1-70, IV-80 18-124,19-189 V-7, V-27-56, v-132 - 139, -94,vili-106 v 11-180, VIII-195,1 x-114

17 17 III (i) Medhatithi commenting on II-209 treats this as a case of Atidesa, 120 But Mandana treats this as a case of Apavada. (ii) Commenting on Manu Smriti II-48 Medhatithi uses the term Anuvada, Nandana, however, refers to the view point of others and treats this as a case of Angakarma. (iii) Medhatithi commenting on Manu Smriti III-170 uses the term Anusanga, Nandana however understands Upalaksana on the word Tarpana. (iv) While commenting on Manu Smriti V-140 Medhatithi treats this as a case 45 of Anusanga. Nandana, however, treats this as a case of Apavada. IV (i) Medhatithi commenting on Manu Smriti IV-128 treats this as a case of 130 46 Atidesa. But Manirama follows the views of Govindaraja and Raghavananda and treats this as a case of Punarvacana. (ii) Medhatithi commenting on III-170 uses the term Anusanga, Manirama, however, understands Upalaksana on the word Adhyayana. He, however, does not use the term Upalaksana directly, but understands the term virtually. possibly Manirama has followed Govindaraja on this point. (iii) Commenting on IV-70 Medhatithi applies Paryudasa. Manirama, however, follows Kulluka and treats this as a case of Punarvacana. (iv) Medhatithi applies Punarvacana while commenting Manu Smriti III-2. Manirama interprets this as a case of Vikalpa. 45. atha kvacidanusthita dacamana dapavadamaha nocchistamiti | Also see the following places of the manu smrti Jar -Further disagreement: MSV-140 Ms vol - P-152 -35, -167, I-108, II-176, -168, IV-103, -14, V-120,3 46. purvamuktamapi snataka vratalopa prayascittartham punaridamuktam | Also see Manu Smriti-II-45 for further disagreement. Manu Smriti TV -128 msvol - 395

V- 18 (v) While commenting on Manu Smriti IIMedhatithi applies the term Vikalpa, Manirama, however, followed the lead taken by Kulluka in understanding the text as a case of Punarvamana. (vi) Commenting on Manu Smriti III-45 Medhatithi treats this as a case of Vikalpa. Manirama, however, treats this as a case of Anuvada. (1) Medhatithi commenting on Manu Smriti IV-111 states this as a case of 47 Anuvada, whereas Govindaraja considers this as a case of Vikalpa. (ii) Medhatithi on Manu Smriti II-188 uses the term Arthavada in a peculiar re sense i.e. to complete the meter. Govindaraja differs from Medhatithi and says this text is written by Manu to stress the fruit for the Niyama Vidhi. (iii) Commenting on Manu Smriti IV-128 Medhatithi treats this as a case of Atidesa. Govindaraja, however, considers this as a case of Punarvacana. (iv) Commenting on Manu Smriti II-64 Medhatithi uses the term Anuvada. Govindaraja however, in his comments says that this is a case of Pratipattikarma. (i) MedhatithiMedhatithi in his comments on Manu Smriti IV-128 looks upon this as a 48 case of Adidesa; but Raghavananda points out that this as a case of Punarvacana, following Govindaraja. 47. nyahadhikavaikalpika midam | MMS TV-10 ms vol I P-382 Also see the following places of ms for further disagreement: 48. - 1-64, I-87, 166, II-237, -166, 191, -33, -83 'parvavarja brajecaina ' mityadina nisedhasya praptatve'pi snataka vrata lopartha punargrahanam | Manu Smriti IV-128 Mns vol II-395 Also see the following places of is for further disagreement : - 173, -2, -86, v-122

15. (ii) Commenting on Manu Smriti III-116 Medhatithi uses the technical term Anuvada, Raghavananda, however, treats this as a case of Pratipatti karma, (iii) Medhatithi understands the Manu Smriti XII-110 as a case of Anuvada, Raghavananda, however, takes this as a case of optional alternative. (iv) Medhatithi commenting on VIII-317 treats this as a case of Arthavada, Raghavananda, however, treats this as a case of Upalaksana. 19