Vijñāneśvara lived at Marthur near Gulbarga, near the end of the eleventh century during the reign of Vikramaditya VI of the Cālukya dynasty of Kalyāni, one of the great rulers of the Deccan. He was a "profound student of the Purva-Mimamsa system," a system of exegetical thought focused on the interpretation of the Vedas. Contrary to Derrett's opinion based on Yajnavalkya 2.4 and 2.305 that Vijñāneśvara was a judge, Kane holds that these passages about characteristics of judges do not reflect a social or historical reality, but rather an interpretation based upon Mimamsa.
Kane places the between 1055 CE and 1126 CE, but he says, "there is no evidence to establish the exact time when the work was undertaken." He places it after 1050 CE because it names Viśvarūpa, Medhātithi, and Dhāreśvara, other commentators, as authoritative sources. Derrett places the text between 1121 CE and 1125 CE, a much shorter time frame than Kane, but Kane claims that this time frame is purely arbitrary, and Derrett does not provide the evidence to support his claim. Lingat, however, is content to place the simply at the end of the eleventh century. Historically, Vijñāneśvara was attempting to clarify and explain parts of the, and he was criticizing and discussing earlier commentaries on the same text in an attempt to reconcile differences and further explain the meaning and the significance of the text.
The, along with the Dāyabhāga, became an influential source for British Courts in India. The was influential throughout the majority of India, except in Bengal,Assam and some of the parts in Orrisa and Bihar,where the Dāyabhāga prevailed as an authority for law. The British were interested in administering law in India, but they wanted to administer the law that already existed to the people. Thus, they searched for a text that could be used to help solve disputes among the people of India in manners which were already customary in the sub continent. These disputes often involved property rights or inheritance issues. Thus, the first translation of the was by Colebrooke in 1810, and it was only this section of the text that gave the British insight on how to deal with inheritance issues. At that point, the held the status of a legislative text because it was used as a direct resource regarding inheritance in the courts of law in most of India.
Translations
did the first translation of the in 1810 because there was an immediate need in the British courts for the "law" regarding inheritance that already existed among the people of India. W. Macnaghten did the second translation, dealing with procedure, in 1829. Finally, J. R. Gharpure provided us with a complete translation of the.
Sub-commentaries
Several sub-commentaries have been written on the, including the Subodhinī of Viśveśvara, the ' of . and the ' of.
