Such, however, is not the traditional view. For the Hindu the dharma as
revealed by the Sages is perfect. There are neither uncertainties nor contradic-
tions in the dharmasu ̄tras and the dharmas ́a ̄stras. If texts appear unclear or con-
tradictory, it is because humans fail properly to understand their meanings.
Hence arose, probably from around 700 ce, if not earlier, a vast commentarial
literature, which continued well into the eighteenth century. For reasons which
will become clear later in this essay, a number of the more recent commentaries
were composed at the instance of the British rulers, most prominent among
them the Viva ̄da ̄rn.avasetu “Bridge across the ocean of litigation” (Bombay, 1888),
a text composed by a group of 11 pandits in Calcutta, better known, in Nathaniel
Brassey Halhed’s English rendition of a Persian translation, as A Code of Gentoo
Laws (London, 1776), and Jagannla ̄tha Tarkapañca ̄nana’s as yet unpublished
Viva ̄dabhan.ga ̄rnava “Ocean of solutions of litigation,” which, in Henry Thomas
Colebrooke’s translation, became known as A Digest of Hindu Law (Calcutta,
1797).
The commentaries on the dharmasu ̄tras anddharmas ́a ̄stras are of two kinds.
Some are commentaries stricto sensu (calledt. ̄kaı ,bha ̄s.ya,vr.tti, etc.). They
comment on one particular dharmasu ̄tra ordharmas ́a ̄stra text from beginning to
end,su ̄tra aftersu ̄tra, or verse after verse. So far we have two commentaries on
Gautama, one on A ̄pastamba, one on Baudha ̄yana, eight on Manu (the recently
discovered commentary by Bha ̄ruci may be one of the earliest texts of this
genre), five on Ya ̄jñavalkya (one of them, Vijn.a ̄nes ́vara’s Mita ̄ks.ara ̄was to play a
prominent role under British rule; it has its own two super commentaries), one
on each version of Na ̄rada, and one on Vis.n.u.
Few commentators, even on one particular dharmasu ̄tra ordharmas ́a ̄stra, limit
themselves to a mere word by word interpretation of the text. To prove their point
the more learned among them also introduce into their discussions quotations
from other dharmasu ̄tras anddharmas ́a ̄stras, and their works come close to the
second type of commentaries, the nibandhas.Nibandhas“compendia, digests” do
not comment on any particular dharmasu ̄tra ordharmas ́a ̄stra. The authors
of these texts rather bring together extracts from various dharmasu ̄tras and
dharmas ́a ̄stras on one particular aspect ofdharma, and harmonize the apparent
contradictions into one coherent system of their own, most often with very dif-
ferent results. It is from these learned commentaries and nibandhasthat schol-
ars have been able to gather fragments ofdharmasu ̄tras anddharmas ́a ̄stra that
are otherwise lost.
Some of the nibandhasare voluminous; they are veritable encyclopedias of
Hindudharma. Under one general title they comprise several book-length texts,
each of them with their own sub-titles, on every imaginable branch ofdharma.
Laks.mı ̄dhara’s Kr.tyakalpataru (twelfth century), for example, consists of 14
ka ̄n.d.as, Mitramis ́ra’s Vı ̄ramitrodaya (seventeenth century) contains 10 praka ̄s ́as,
and Raghunandana’s Smr.titattva (sixteenth century) is divided into 28 tattvas.
Most important in this essay on the dharmasu ̄tras anddharmas ́a ̄stra is the fact
that the commentators do not hesitate to impose interpretations of their own on
the ancient texts, in order to make all of them fit harmoniously within coherent
the dharmas ́a ̄stras 111