You have probably already considered this, but in the background of the Dharmaśāstra are the ritual sūtras, and there are individual paribhāṣās and chapters of paribhāṣā rules: e.g., the first chapter of
Kātyāyana-Śrauta-Sūtra, the
Āpastamba-Yajña-Paribhāṣā-Sūtra (translated by Oldenberg in SBE vol. 31 to fill out the second volume of
gṛhya-sūtras), the
Baudhāyana-Karmānta-Sūtra (= BŚS 24). There is also a
Baudhāyana-Gṛhya-Paribhāṣā-Sūtra (= BGS 5 in the Mysore edition) that is worth considering. Jan Gonda gives a detailed listing of its contents (Beiträge zur Indienforschung: Ernst Waldschmidt zum 80. Geburstag gewidmet, ed. Herbert Härtel [Berlin: Museum
für Indische Kunst, 1977], 169–190.) I discuss BŚS 24.1 and 4 and BGPS in a
JAOS article to come out in 2016, and (esp. the BGPS) in an another article that should be appearing imminently (proofs here:
http://tinyurl.com/oa9vvlr) Much of what is in these Baudhāyana sections are not paribhāṣās
in the strict sense of the word: there are general discussions of the rites as a system, definitions and classifications, and other supplementary considerations.
Dear Jo,
There is an interesting Dharmaśāstra use of paribhāṣā in connection with the vivādapada called saṃvidvyatikrama. Several commentaries call the conventions of various local groups pāribhāṣikadharma and speak of settling complicated legal matters by resorting
to this kind of dharma. I understand these to be local rules that fix the manner in which rules of śāstra will be applied or received in particular groups, and thence paribhāṣās. I wrote about this some time ago in JESHO 2005 (I’ll send you the article separately).
Other, more familiar uses of paribhāṣā also occur when an author defines terms. For example, at Mitākṣarā (Ydh) 1.366, Vijñāneśvara says the verse is a paribhāṣā of the author’s own treatise, defining the meaning of highest, middle, and lowest fines.
The term occurs several other times in the Mitākṣarā.
Hope that gives you some more to go on.
Best, Don
Don Davis
Dept of Asian Studies
University of Texas at Austin
Greetings to all, namaskaromi --
Perhaps you know of secondary literature concerning the use of so-called paribhāṣās, or interpretive rules by any name, in dharmaśāstra particularly. Of course P. V. Kane has laid the ground in Chapter XXX of History of Dharmaśāstra, volume 5.
I am also interested in explicit mentions of the word 'paribhāṣā' in works of dharmaśāstra. I've already unearthed a few by searching the texts on GRETIL.
I would be honored and delighted to receive your advice and suggestions.
All the best,
Jo