Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s25: 38. Kātyāyana

History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s25

Language
English

38. Kātyāyana

v1.c6.s25.1

Nārada, Bṛhaspati and Kātyāyana form a triumvirate in the realm of the ancient Hindu Law and procedure. The work of Kātyāyana on vyavahāra, like that of Bṛhaspati, has yet to be recovered. The following account is based on the quotations from Kātyāyana contained in about a dozen works from Viśvarūpa to the Vīramitrodaya.

v1.c6.s25.2

Kātyāyana is enumerated as one of the expounders of dharma by Śaṅkha-Likhita, Yājñavalkya (I. 4-5) and Parāśara. A Kātya. is quoted as an authority in the Baudhāyanadharmasūtra (I. 2. 47). A Śrautasūtra and Śrāddhakalpa of the white Yajurveda are ascribed to Kātyāyana.

v1.c6.s25.3

Kātyāyana appears to have taken Nārada and Bṛhaspati as his models in the order and treatment of the subjects to be dealt with in vyavahāra. He closely follows both the writers in terminology and technique. On several points he presupposes Nārada and expounds and elucidates the latter's dicta. For example, Nārada (Intro. chap. I. 10-11) lays down that vyavahāra has four pādas, each later one prevailing over the preceding, viz. dharma, vyavahāra, caritra, rājaśāsana (note 361) and then Nārada very briefly in one verse explains these four terms. Kātyāyana on the other hand devotes at least nine verses to the elucidation of the rule as to each succeeding one prevailing over its predecessor.³⁹⁴ Nārada contains very little on the topic of strīdhana (dāyabhāga chap. verses 8-9). He merely enumerates the six kinds of strīdhana and then lays down the rule of succession. Kātyāyana's treatment of strīdhana has attained classical rank. It appears that he was probably the first to carefully define the several kinds of strīdhana (such as adhyagni, adhyāvāhanika, prītidatta, śulka, anvādheya, saudāyika), to lay down woman's power of disposal over the several varieties of strīdhana and to prescribe lines of devolution as to strīdhana. The verses on this topic occurring in the nibandhas number about thirty.

v1.c6.s25.4

³⁹⁴ Vide परा. मा. vol. III, part I, pp. 16-17, and वीर. p. 9-10. 120-121.

v1.c6.s25.5

The leading nibandhas contain only a few quotations from Bṛhaspati on strīdhana. Hence it may be surmised that Kātyāyana probably was the first smṛti writer to give elaborate rules on this topic.

v1.c6.s25.6

It has been already shown (notes 381-384) how Kātyāyana often quotes the views of Bṛhaspati. A few more examples may be added here. According to Bṛhaspati, says Kātyāyana, when a man who stands surety with others on a joint liability goes abroad, his son would have to pay the whole debt, but if the man dies then the son would be liable for his father's share only.³⁹⁵ When cattle stray into fields, gardens, houses or cowpens, they may be, according to Bṛhaspati, caught hold of (by the ear &c.) or beaten.³⁹⁶ According to Bṛhaspati, a man of the kṣatriya, vaiśya or śūdra caste may employ one of his own caste to do the work of a dāsa (slave or serf), but even a Brāhmaṇa could never employ another Brāhmaṇa in the same way.³⁹⁷

v1.c6.s25.7

³⁹⁵ एकच्छायाश्रिते सर्वं दद्यात्तु प्रोषिते सुतः । मृते पितरि पित्रंशं परर्णं न बृहस्पतिः ॥ परा. मा. III, p. 251.

v1.c6.s25.8

³⁹⁶ क्षेत्रारामविवीतेषु गृहेषु पशुपादिषु । ग्रहणं तत्प्रविष्टानां ताडनं वा बृहस्पतिः ॥ वि. र. p. 241.

v1.c6.s25.9

³⁹⁷ क्षत्रविट्शूद्रधर्मस्तु समवर्णे कदाचन । कारयेद् दासकर्माणि ब्राह्मणं न बृहस्पतिः ॥ वि. र. p. 152.

v1.c6.s25.10

About a dozen nibandhas on vyavahāra quote about 900 verses of Kātyāyana on vyavahāra, the Smṛticandrikā alone citing about 600 of them. In these verses Kātyāyana refers at least a score of times to the views of Bhṛgu. It is remarkable that only a few of the views ascribed to Bhṛgu are found in the extant Manusmṛti. Kātyāyana says, according to Bhṛgu, whatever (ancestral) wealth was concealed by one coparcener from others, whatever was badly divided should be divided in equal shares when afterwards discovered (Parāśara-Mādhavīya III, p. 566). This may well be compared with Manu 9. 215. Kātyāyana says according to Bhṛgu, it is not Brāhmaṇa-murder to kill an ātatāyin who is foremost by his austerities, learning and caste. This has in view Manu 8. 360. Kullūka distinctly says that Kātyāyana simply explains the verse of Manu by referring to it as Bhṛgu's. On the other hand there are several places where the views ascribed to Bhṛgu find no counterpart in the extant Manu. According to Bhrgu in all *sāhasas* of the worst type the truth should be found out by means of divine proof (ordeals &c.) even though there may be witnesses.³⁹⁸ There is nothing in the Manusmṛti corresponding with this. According to Bhṛgu the ordeals of balance &c. are prescribed for those who are suspected to be in league with marauders and who have incurred popular censure, but in such cases there is no undertaking (by the complainant to pay fine).³⁹⁹ The Manusmṛti has not a word on this point. Household paraphernalia, beasts of burden, cattle, ornaments, slaves should be divided when discovered; if they are (alleged to be) concealed, the ordeal of kośa should be resorted to; so says Bhṛgu.⁴⁰⁰ Another important circumstance deserves to be noted. Kātyāyana several times refers to the views of Manu. Kātyāyana says that the view of Manu was that in certain charges (such as the commission of mahāpātakas) the ordeals for the accused were to be performed by good men.⁴⁰¹ According to Manu if a woman deserted her son, though he may be able (to pay), her strīdhana should be seized and the paternal debt should be paid thereout.⁴⁰² Manu declared, says Kātyāyana, that if animals be killed, the offender should offer (to the owner) another similar animal or its proper price (note 345 above where Parāśara also quotes it as Manu's view). All these views attributed to Manu by Kātyāyana are not found in the extant Manusmṛti. In certain places Kātyāyana refers to the views of the Mānavas; e. g. according to the Gārgīyas and Mānavas if a bribe had already been paid, the person receiving it should be made to repay it and should be fined eleven times as much;⁴⁰³ according to the Mānavas thieves caught red-handed with their booty should be at once banished.⁴⁰⁴ As regards both these references, the teaching of the Manusmṛti seems to be different; vide Manu 9. 231 and 270 respectively. These facts about Kātyāyana's references to Bhṛgu and Manu raise several difficult questions, whether Bhṛgu and Manu stand for two entirely different works or for the same work and whether he refers to some other version of the Manusmṛti ascribed to Bhṛgu. In my opinion he is not referring to two separate works, and that he had before him a version of the Manusmṛti promulgated by Bhṛgu but somewhat different from and probably larger than the present Manusmṛti.

v1.c6.s25.11

³⁹⁸ उत्तमेषु च सर्वेषु साहसेषु विचारयेत् । सद्भावं दिव्यदृष्टेन सत्सु साक्षिषु वै भृगुः ॥ परा. मा. III. p. 90.

v1.c6.s25.12

³⁹⁹ लोकापवाददुष्टानां शङ्कितानां च दस्युभिः । तुलादीनि नियोज्यानि न शिरस्तत्र वै भृगुः॥ अपरार्क, स्मृतिच०.

v1.c6.s25.13

⁴⁰⁰ गृहोपस्करवाह्याश्व दोह्याभरणकर्मिणः । दृश्यमाना विभज्यन्ते कोशं गूढेऽब्रवीन्मनुः ॥ अपरार्क p. 723 and परा. मा. III, p. 557.

v1.c6.s25.14

⁴⁰¹ एषु वादेषु दिव्यानि प्रतिषिद्धानि यत्नतः। कारयेत्सज्जनैस्तानि नाभिशस्तं त्यजेन्मनुः ॥ अपरार्क p. 696 who ascribes it to भृगु. The टोडरानन्द reads त्यजेन्नरः.

v1.c6.s25.15

⁴⁰² या स्वपुत्रं तु जह्यात्स्त्री समर्थमपि पुत्रिणी । आहृत्य स्त्रीधनं तत्र पित्र्यर्णं शोधयेन्मनुः ॥ वि. र. p. 65.

v1.c6.s25.16

⁴⁰³ अथ प्रागेव दत्ता स्यात्प्रतिदाप्यस्तथा बलात् । दण्डं चैकादशगुणंमाहुर्गार्गीयामानवाः ॥ अपरार्क p. 782; वि.र. 652 (which reads आम्भीयमानवाः).

v1.c6.s25.17

⁴⁰⁴ मानवाः सद्य एवाहुः सहोढानां प्रवासकम् । गौतमानाामिष्टं यत्प्राण्युच्छेदाद्विगर्हितम् ॥ वि. र. 338. It is not unlikely that the correct reading is प्रमापणं for प्रवासनं, as the immediately following view of गौतम suggests. The words of मनु are सहोढं सोपकरणं घातयेदविचारयन्.

v1.c6.s25.18

In the *nibandhas* several verses are ascribed to Kātyāyana along with Manu, Yājñavalkya and Bṛhaspati. For example, the well-known verse about the sixfold division of strīdhana (adhyagnyadhyāvāhanikam &c.) is ascribed by the Dāyabhāga to Manu and Kātyāyana. The half-verse “varṇānāmānulomyena dāsyam na pratilomataḥ” is the same in both Yājñavalkya (II. 183) and Kātyāyana. The Vīramitrodaya (p. 140) ascribes a verse to Bṛhaspati and Kātyāyana, in which the opinion of Bṛhaspati is cited. There is very close agreement between the definitions proposed by the two last writers of dharma, vyavahāra, caritra, and rājaśāsana. Besides Manu (or Mānavas), Bṛhaspati and Bhṛgu, Kātyāyana cites the views of several other writers on dharma. For Gārgyas and Gautama vide notes 403 and 404 above. He says, according to Kauśika, powerful robbers were to be guarded by chains of iron, were to be low-fed and were to undergo hard labour for the state till death (Aparārka p. 849). He quotes the view of Likhita that where a woman is deprived of food, raiment and dwelling (by her husband's coparceners) she would be entitled to demand her own (strīdhana) and a share from the coparceners. In one case (Aparārka p. 755). a verse is cited as Kātyāyana's in which Kātyāyana himself is named (Parāśaramādhavīya III. p. 235).

v1.c6.s25.19

Kātyāyana contains the same advanced views about law and rules of procedure as are found in Nārada and Bṛhaspati. He is even in advance of these two writers in certain matters, such as definitions in general and the elaboration of rules about strīdhana. He gives numerous definitions, such as those of vyavahāra, prāḍvivāka, stobhaka, dharmādhikaraṇa, tīrita and anuśiṣṭa, sāmanta &c. He seems to have been the first to invent some new terms. For example, he defines paścātkāra as a judgment given in favour of the plaintiff after a hot contest between the plaintiff and the defendant, while the term *jayapatra* is restricted by him to the judgment given on admission by the defendant or a judgment dismissing the suit on various grounds.⁴⁰⁵ He lays down a stringent rule that if a man abandons a ground of defence or attack and puts forward a less cogent one, he would not be allowed to put forward again the stronger ground after a decisive judgment of the court.⁴⁰⁶ This resembles the 4th explanation to section 11 of the Indian Civil Procedure Code (1908) about *res judicata*. The verses about kārṣāpaṇa and dīnāra quoted above (note 368) from Nārada (pariśiṣṭa verses 58-60) are ascribed to Kātyāyana by the Smṛticandrikā.

v1.c6.s25.20

⁴⁰⁵ निरस्तास्तु क्रिया यत्र प्रमाणेनैव वादिना । पश्चात्कारो भवेत्तत्र न सर्वासु विधीयते ॥ अन्यथावादिहीनेभ्य इतरेषां प्रदीयते । वृत्तानुवादसंसिद्धं तच्च स्याज्जयपत्रकम् ॥ स्मृतिच०, तोडरानन्द, वीर०

v1.c6.s25.21

⁴⁰⁶ क्रियां बलवतीं मुक्त्वा दुर्बलां योवलम्बते । स जयेवधृते सभ्यैः पुनस्तां नाप्नुयात् क्रियाम् ॥ मिता० on याज्ञ. II. 80, व्य. मा. p. 281, वीर० p. 108.

v1.c6.s25.22

The date of Kātyāyana can be settled only approximately. He is certainly much later than Manu and Yājñavalkya. As shown above he presupposes Nārada and regarded Bṛhaspati as a very leading authority on vyavahāra. Hence his upper limit is the 3rd or 4th century A. D. Viśvarūpa quotes eight verses as Kātyāyana's by name (vide on Yāj. II. 5, 6, 47, 63, 281) on such topics of Vyavahāra as the defects of the plaint, the contents of the plaint, the liability for the debts of a deceased person, payments of debts or honour (satyaṃkāra), punishment for abortion, grievous hurt and homicide of a Brāhmaṇa woman. Medhātithi (on Manu 7. 1) ascribes to Kātyāyana the rule that in case of conflict between the dictates of dharmaśāstra and arthaśāstra the king should prefer the former. Medhātithi on Manu (VIII. 216) speaks of Kātyāyana-sūtra, appears to quote a portion of it in prose and explains it.⁴⁰⁷ Medhātithi says that Kātyāyana extended the maxim of the trader carrying merchandise (bhāṇḍavāha-vaṇik maxim) to all similar transactions. All known quotations of Kātyāyana are in verse. When Medhātithi speaks of a sūtra and quotes a portion of it (as "vā" and "iti" after "nivarteta" indicate) in prose, we must either suppose that he is referring to some other work of Kātyāyana than the one in verse from which hundreds of verses are cited by other writers or that Kātyāyana's work on vyavahāra also contains some prose passages. As hardly any other writer quotes a prose passage of Kātyāyana on vyavahāra, the second alternative appears somewhat unlikely. Viśvarūpa and Medhātithi regarded Kātyāyana as an authoritative *smṛtikāra* along with Nārada and Bṛhaspati. This position he could not have attained in less than a few hundred years. Therefore the lowest limit to which Kātyāyana can be assigned is the 6th century. Hence it may be said that Kātyāyana flourished between the 4th and 6th century A. D.

v1.c6.s25.23

⁴⁰⁷ ‘यो वान्यः कस्यचित्कर्मणि धनमाबध्य अर्धतो निवर्तेतेति कात्यायनीये सूत्रे धनमाबध्य आसज्य धनव्ययं कारयित्वा यदि अर्धकृते निवर्तेत सोपि तद्गृहेदित्यनुषङ्गः ॥’

v1.c6.s25.24

The Vyavahāramātṛkā (p. 307) quotes a Bṛhat-Kātyāyana on the question of proof. The Dāyabhāga mentions a Vṛddha-Kātyāyana. The Sarasvatīvilāsa also quotes verses of Vṛddha-Kātyāyana on rescission of purchase and other topics (p. 320). In the present state of our knowledge it is very difficult to say whether these two are different works. The Caturvarga-cintāmaṇi (vol. III, part 2, p. 657) speaks of Upakātyāyana. Aparārka quotes a verse from śloka-Kātyāyana which is not found in the Karmapradīpa (Jīvānanda's ed.), but appears to be a summary of a prose passage quoted as Kātyāyana's immediately before by Aparārka.

v1.c6.s25.25

In Jīvānanda's collection of smṛtis (part I, pp. 603-644) there is one of Kātyāyana in three prapāṭhakas and 29 khaṇḍas and about five hundred verses. The same work is printed as Gobhilasmṛti in the Ānandāśrama collection (pp. 49-71). It contains also a few prose passages in the 12th, 13th and 14th khaṇḍas. The prevailing metre is Anuṣṭubh, a few verses being in the Indravajrā and other metres. The work is styled the Karmapradīpa of Kātyāyana. The opening verse justifies this name when it states that like a lamp the work will clearly show the mode of performing certain rites treated by Gobhila and other rites which are not clearly elucidated.⁴⁰⁸ The contents of this work are briefly as follows:— how to wear the sacred thread; sipping water and touching various limbs with water; the worship of Gaṇeśa and fourteen mātṛs in every rite; kuśas; śrāddha details; consecration of sacred fires, details about araṇis, sruc, sruva; rules about cleansing the teeth and bathing; saṁdhyā; prāṇāyāma, muttering of Vedic *mantras*; tarpaṇa of gods and manes; the great daily *yajñas*; who is to offer śrāddha; rules about periods of impurity due to death; duties of wife; śrāddhas of various kinds.

v1.c6.s25.26

⁴⁰⁸ अथातो गोभिGradually, let's transcribe carefully: अथातो गोभिलोक्तानामन्येषां चैव कर्मणाम्। अस्पष्टानां विधिं सम्यग्दर्शयिष्ये प्रदीपवत् ॥

v1.c6.s25.27

The Karmapradīpa mentions by name several authors. It very frequently cites the views of Gobhila (pp. 603, 626, 638) and Gautama (pp. 619, 620, 626, 630, 636, 639). The Karmapradīpa as the opening verse says is intimately related to the Gobhila Gṛhyasūtra. It distinctly says that as Gobhila did not dilate upon the details as to time and procedure of goyajña and vājiyajña, Kātyāyana dilates upon them. This is borne out by the Gobhila gṛhya-sūtra.⁴⁰⁹ Another⁴¹⁰ passage of Kātyāyana about the Aṣṭakas is based upon the very words of the Gobhila gṛhya. Frequent reference is made to the views of Vasiṣṭha on the worship of Mātṛs (p. 605), on śrāddha (pp. 608, 625). Vide also p. 642 (28. 16). Among the other authors named are Nārada on the sticks for dantadhāvana (p. 615), Bhārgava (probably Uśanas) on p. 640, Śāṇḍilya and Śāṇḍilyāyana on p. 626. Kātyāyana is named in several places (pp. 624, 627, 638) and once the first person is used (as in "mamāpyetad hṛdi sthitam" p. 643). The Kātyāyanasmṛti quotes the verse of Manu (III. 70) on the five great *yajñas*. On p. 633 four verses forming the consolation to be offered to the relatives of a person departed are the same as Yāj. (III. 8-11) and one verse in the same context occurs in the Mahābhārata (Śāntiparva 27. 31 and other places ).⁴¹¹ On p. 631 Kātyāyana speaks of Rāma having performed yajñas taking as his spouse the golden image of Sītā.

v1.c6.s25.28

⁴⁰⁹ Vide p. 638 verses 1-11 of 26th khaṇḍa and compare with Gobhilagṛhyasūtra III. 6. 10-15 (गोयज्ञे पायसश्चरुः। अग्निं यजेत पूषणमिन्द्रमीश्वरम्। ऋषभपूजा। गोयज्ञेनैवाश्वयज्ञो व्याख्यातः। यमवरुणौ देवतानामत्राधिकौ। गन्धैरभ्युक्षणं गवाम् ।).

v1.c6.s25.29

⁴¹⁰ यस्तु शाकादिको होमः कार्योपूपाष्टकावृतः। अन्वष्टक्यं मध्यमयायामिति गोभिलगौतमौ। वार्कखण्डिश्च सर्वासु कौत्सो मेनेष्टकासुच ॥ कात्यायन० 17. 24 (p. 626); compare गोभिलगृह्य III. 10. 4-7 'चतुरष्टको हेमन्तः ताः सर्वाः समांसाभिष्कीर्षेदिति कौत्सः। त्र्यष्टक इत्यौद्राहमानिः। तथा गौतमवार्कखण्डी। योर्धमापहायण्यास्तामिक्ष्वाष्टमी तामपूपाष्टकेत्याचक्षते।'

v1.c6.s25.30

⁴¹¹ सर्वे क्षयान्ता निचयाः पतनान्ताः समुच्छ्रयाः। संयोगा विप्रयोगान्ता मरणान्तं हि जीवितम् ॥

v1.c6.s25.31

The question is:—what is the date of this Kātyāyanasmṛti (Karmapradīpa) and whether it is the work of Kātyāyana the great jurist. The Mit. (on Yāj. I. 254) quotes a verse as Kātyāyana's which occurs in Jivananda's text (p. 624 verse 20); similarly the Mit. quotes two verses as Kātyāyana's (on Yāj. III. 247) which have a place in the Karmapradīpa (Jivananda p. 634 verses 4-5). Scores of verses cited as Kātyāyana's by Aparārka (on ācāra and prāyaścitta) are found in the Karmapradīpa. For example, *vide* Aparārka p. 43 (three verses) and Karmapradīpa (p. 605, 1110-12), Aparārka p. 51 (three verses about samidh) and Karmapr. (p. 613, 8. 17-19), Aparārka p. 135 (four verses about bathing in rivers) and Karma. (p. 615, 10. 5-7 and 14), Aparārka p. 532 (four verses on śrāddha in which Kātyāyana himself is cited as an authority) and Karma. (p. 624, 16. 16-19), Aparārka p. 872 (six verses) and Karma. (21. 2-7 p. 632), Aparārka p. 1066 (three verses about an *agnihotrin* being guilty of mahāpātaka) and Karma. (23. 4-6 p. 634). The Smṛticandrikā also quotes profusely from Kātyāyana on *ācāra*, śrāddha etc. and cites from the Karmapradīpa by name passages which occur in Jivananda's edition. The above references show that in the eyes of the Mitākṣarā and Aparārka the Karmapradīpa was an authoritative work. Therefore it follows that it must have been composed centuries before the 11th century A. D. It is however remarkable that several quotations ascribed to Kātyāyana in the Mitākṣarā, Aparārka and other works are not found in the Karmapradīpa. For example, the Mitākṣarā (on Yāj. III. 242) cites Kātyāyana's verse about five varieties of lapses in conduct viz. mahāpātaka, atipātaka, pātaka, prāsaṅgika, upapātaka and on Yāj. III. 260 quotes a verse of Kātyāyana about what are atipātakas. These are not to be traced in the Karmapradīpa printed by Jivananda. Similarly Aparārka (pp. 94-95) quotes three verses of Kātyāyana that are very interesting but are not found in Jivananda's edition.⁴¹² Later works like the Nirṇayasindhu, the Saṁskāramayūkha, the Madanapārijāta quote numerous verses of Kātyāyana on upanayana, marriage and other saṁskāras which we vainly seek to find in the Karmapradīpa. Hence it follows that there was some large work of Kātyāyana of which the Karmapradīpa is either an abridgment or only a portion.

v1.c6.s25.32

⁴¹² वरयित्वा तु यः कश्चित्प्रणश्येत्पुरुषो यदा। रक्तागमांस्त्रीनतीत्य कन्यान्धं वरयेद्वरम् ॥ प्रदाय गच्छेच्छुल्कं यः कन्यायाः स्त्रीधनं तथा। धार्या सा वर्षमेकं तु देयान्यस्मै विधानतः॥ पूर्वदत्ता तु या कन्या अन्येनोढा यदा भवेत्। संस्कृतापि प्रदेया स्याद्यस्मै पूर्वं प्रतिश्रुता ॥.

v1.c6.s25.33

The next question is whether Kātyāyana the jurist and the author of the Karmapradīpa are identical. There are not sufficient data to identify the two. The only fact that points to the identity is that such eminent and early writers as Vijñāneśvara and Aparārka appear to make no distinction between the two. Besides the Karmapradīpa is also an early work. Against this it has to be remembered that Viśvarūpa, probably the most ancient of all extant commentators, nowhere quotes Kātyāyana on ācāra and prāyaścitta. This absence of quotations is not a very cogent argument; still it raises a doubt in one's mind whether a work of Kātyāyana on ācāra and other non-jural topics was known to Viśvarūpa.

v1.c6.s25.34

The other principal versified smṛtis will now be described in (Sanskrit) alphabetical order.

Linked texts (16)