Hindu Law and Society

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Narrative literatures are underexplored in the other chapters of Hindu Law.

“it is one underexplored in the other chapters of Hindu Law.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The volume favors the early formation of Dharmasūtras and canonical Dharmaśāstric works, with somewhat less emphasis on late-Vedic texts.

“Preference instead is given to the early periods of the formation of the Dharmasūtras and the canonical Dharmaśāstric works, with substantial but somewhat lesser emphasis also placed on late-Vedic textual sources.”

May combine two claims.

The term gṛhastha begins to appear in dharma texts and becomes the standard term, while gṛhapati never appears in dharma texts.

“The term gṛhastha only begins to appear in the dharma texts and from then on is the standard term of art, while gṛhapati never appears in dharma texts.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Brick and Davis conclude, following Ludo Rocher, that commentaries do not update tradition but engage in a specialized discourse concerning only the texts themselves.

“Their conclusion, following Ludo Rocher, 6 is decidedly not that commentaries update tradition, but rather that they engage in a specialized discourse concerning only the texts themselves.”

• cites Rocher 2012: 427Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Donald Davis's chapter thoroughly treats the reception of Dharmaśāstras in Sanskrit technical learning, the Mahābhārata, epigraphic and documentary sources, colonial law, and post-Independence India.

“offers a synoptic and-indeed-rather thorough treatment of the reception of the Dharmaśāstras in other traditions, including those of Sanskrit works of technical learning and the Mahābhārata; influences of the Dharmaśāstras as evidenced in epigraphic and other documentary sources; influences on colonial law; and the reception of the dharma tradition in post-Independence India.”

• cites chap.28Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The strictures of prāyaścitta and daṇḍa are parallel in intent.

“illustrates the parallels between the respective strictures intended by prāyaścitta and daṇḍa”

• cites chap.24Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). The quote only partly states this claim.

Olivelle examines food prohibitions in the texts, distinguishing foods always permitted or prohibited (bhakṣya/abhakṣya) from those that become unfit to eat (bhojya/abhojya) due to supervening circumstances.

“Olivelle (in chap.14) examines with philological discrimination various food prohibitions articulated in the texts, noting in particular the distinction of food items that are permitted or prohibited (bhakṣya/abhakṣya), on the one hand, from those that are deemed fit or unfit (bhojya/abhojya) to eat, on the other.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Chapter 21 of the volume provides a detailed study of daṇḍa in the Dharmasūtras and Dharmaśāstras.

“Chapter 21 offers a textured study of penology (daṇḍa) in the relevant sources.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

McClish surveys two textual traditions of rājadharma: works on governance (nīti) and the Arthaśāstra, and the tradition of royal duty in Dharmaśāstric works.

“Mark McClish surveys the two textual traditions of rājadharma (chap.20), viz., that of works on governance (nīti) and the Arthaśāstra in particular, on the one hand, and the tradition of royal duty as articulated in Dharmaśāstric works, on the other.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The volume offers a thorough survey of the Dharmaśāstric textual canon.

“the present volume closes its thorough survey of the contents of the canon of Dharmaśāstric texts.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Aktor surveys views of impurity and purification in the dharma texts.

“Aktor (chap.17) surveys in notable detail the views of impurity and purification found in the dharma texts”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Jamison maps with philological sensitivity the limited social roles permitted of women in the classical sources.

“so too for mapping with philological sensitivity the limited social roles permitted of women in the classical sources.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Theistic traditions emerged in Dharmaśāstric and other texts, especially Śaiva tantric sources.

“emphasizes the emergence of theistic traditions in Dharmaśāstric and other textual sources (most notably Śaiva tantric ones).”

• cites chap.27Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Pilgrimage is attested in the Māhātmyas and the Mahābhārata, and the Mahābhārata provides the earliest surviving textual evidence for it.

“a practice also attested in the Māhātmyas and the Mahābhārata, the evidence of the latter being the earliest extant textual testimony of the same.”

• cites chap.26Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The volume contains no substantial treatment of Buddhist or Hindu tantrism.

“the absence of any substantial treatment of Buddhist or Hindu tantrism”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). The quote only partly states this claim.

Inscriptional sources receive no extended treatment anywhere in Hindu Law.

“they are not dealt with at any great length anywhere in Hindu Law.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Sayers reviews funerary and ancestral practices, with emphasis on the latter.

“In chapter 16 Matthew R. Sayers next reviews funerary and ancestral practices (with an emphasis on the latter)”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Brick summarizes gifting (dāna) by differentiating conceptions in the four Dharmasūtras and the Dharmaśāstras of Manu, Yājñavalkya, and Viṣṇu from later innovations.

“Brick, in turn, handily summarizes (in chap.15) the practice of gifting (dāna) by differentiating conceptions of the same in the four Dharmasūtras and the Dharmaśāstras of Manu, Yājñavalkya, and Viṣṇu from what is subsequently innovated.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Lubin maps the institution of the snātaka as it appeared before and after the Dharmasūtras canonized a system of four āśramas, into which the institution was only inorganically incorporated.

“the latter for mapping the institution of the snātaka as it appeared both before and after the Dharmasūtras canonized a system of four āśramas into which the institution was only inorganically incorporated.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Apart from Davis noting that such works exist, the volume says little about the Śivadharma corpus.

“apart from Davis having noted the existence of such works, little is said of them in the present volume.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Based on Stephanie Jamison's discovery, Olivelle recasts his answer to how and why Dharmaśāstra came into being.

“Based on the stunning discovery of Stephanie Jamison, which also precipitated the recent publication of another edited volume, 1 Olivelle here recasts his answer to the foundational questions”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The volume's contributions generally concentrate on periods up to about the fifth century CE and not much later.

“the contributions to this volume generally tend to emphasize historical periods leading up to, but not extending much beyond, the fifth century ce.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Many essays in Hindu Law focus primarily, and often exclusively, on dharma texts.

“a number of the essays found in Hindu Law are defined by a tapering scope: the various texts on dharma are taken as their primary, and too often exclusive, area of focus”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

McClish's chapter details that the king's power to decide disputes was routinely delegated to appointed judges.

“the king's power to adjudicate disputes was routinely delegated to appointed judges”

• cites p.276Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The volume's essays often do not closely cover the nibandhas, which began to be composed perhaps in the tenth century.

“The essays in the present volume sometimes stop short of covering closely the contributions of the nibandhas, for example, which were composed beginning perhaps in the tenth century.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The first chapter of part I of Hindu Law introduces a fundamental revision to the history of Dharmaśāstra.

“It is in the first chapter of part I that this volume introduces a fundamental revision to our understanding of the history of Dharmaśāstra.”

May combine two claims.

Two Brahmanical systems of thought emerged in this context: one based on the āśrama system, and another based on the acceptance of a single āśrama, household life, whose primary religious agent was the gṛhastha.

“there were two Brahmanical systems of thought that emerged in this context, one based on the āśrama system, the other on the notion that a sole āśrama could be accepted, that of the household life, of which the primary religious agent was the gṛhastha (p.17).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The contents of the Śivadharma corpus clearly invite comparison with Dharmaśāstric sources.

“the Śivadharma corpus elicits in its contents obvious comparison with Dharmaśāstric sources”

• cites p.375Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

In Vedic texts, the gṛhapati was the family head who performed ritual, whereas the gṛhastha occupied a social role defined largely by contrast with the pravrajita.

“while the gṛhapati in Vedic texts was the family head who performed the ritual, the gṛhastha occupied a social role largely defined by the contrastive pairing of the term with pravrajita”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

The volume provides, in compact and usable form, the essential data needed for a more intersectional study of Dharmaśāstric traditions alongside other South Asian religious and cultural movements.

“this volume furnishes in a compact and usable form all the vital data necessary to pursue an increasingly intersectional study of Dharmaśāstric traditions as they stand in relation to other South Asian religious and cultural movements of the relevant historical periods.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The volume's chapters together present a long-term history of the gṛhastha as a social institution embedded in social and political institutions, persisting in several features for over a millennium.

“a history in the longue durée of a social institution-that of the gṛhastha-embedded as it is in a web of social (and political) institutions, an institution that while always changing here and there perdured in several of its particulars for well more than a millennium.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

McClish directly and convincingly challenges Kane's understanding of the textual history that defines the influences of the nīti/Arthaśāstra tradition and the Dharmaśāstric tradition of royal duty on each other.

“In doing so, he directly and convincingly challenges Kane's understanding of the textual history that defines the influences of the one tradition on the other.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The legal adjudication systems described in the Dharmasūtras and Dharmaśāstras were highly complex.

“just how impressively complex were the systems of legal adjudication in the Dharmasūtras and Dharmaśāstras.”

May combine two claims.

The terminological demarcation between gṛhastha and gṛhapati suggests a conceptual discontinuity and illuminates a conceptual renewal.

“This terminological demarcation hints at a conceptual discontinuity as well, and the linguistic history of the term gṛhastha illuminates the conceptual renewal.”