________________
A ground-plan of the Vyavaharakanda
(1) The Vyavahāra-kaņda is divided given in their chronological order; in the into two parts: one concerns itself with case of those whose dates have not been the elements of the legal procedure determined, we have followed the order (TEICHTH) and the other with the in which they have been mentioned by eighteen titles of law (faqiqatla). The Prof. Kano in his History of Dharmas'asection on Vivādapadani comprises stra, vol. I. twenty topics.
(6) Texts even with a similar purport (2) Every possible endeavour has been from the S'rutis and the Smrtis have made to arrange, chronologically, the been quoted in full. Some texts have texts from the S'rutis, Satras, Smstis been attributed to different Smstis by the and treatises, and the commentaries on writers of legal treatises; these texts them.
have been quoted separately under the (3) The commentaries on the S'rutis, name of each Smsti-writer according to Satras and Smstis are placed immediately their topical order. Likewise, when a text after them, and according to their chro- occurs only incidentally in a certain nological order; for example, under the topic and has an essential connection passage of Tea, Rv. VII.4.7 (p.1253), with another, it has been mentioned the explanation from the Nirukta has under both topics. been first given and then follows the (7) For every text the oldest commentrelevant Bhāşya of Sayaņa ; so also under aries have been as far as possible cited. afhgfafeai Manu VIII. 140 (p.611), extracts (8) The commentaries of the earliest from Medhātithi, Govindarājīyā, Smști. I authors have been first given in full and candrika Vivadaratnākara and other the commentaries of the later authors works have been given in their chrono- which coincide in all respects, or in some logical order.
respects with that of the earlier ones (4) For the S'ruti works the order have not been repeated; but, & note has adopted is as follows: the Samhitas of been made on the earlier comment showRgveda, the Yajurveda, the Sāmaveda ing the degree of coincidence and the and the Atharvaveda; then the Brāmaņas respects, in which e. g. explanations of in the same order as their Samhitās. words or sentences, citations of other Since all the Sāma-verses are derived views, refutation, the conclusion arrivfrom the Rgveda, they must be both ed at or the summary of results, it regarded as of the same epoch. European agrees with the later one ; e. g. when scholars place the Atharvaveda immedia- the commentary of Apararka coincides tely after the Rgveda ; but, we have not with the Mitākşarī there is a note on attached any importance to this sequence the passage from the latter, अप. मितागतम् or followed by them.
379. Hata; i, e. Aparārka coincides with (5) In the case of many Smstis, it is Mitakşarā; 379, 1997 farat or farma: not possible to determine their dates of would show that their senses coincide ; composition even in a very tentative 34. 4797 fara or faria: would show manner. Extracts from Smrtis, with a that their explanation of the words of well-ascertained chronology, have been the text coincides ; 274, AT979: would
