Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s45: 58. Asahāya

History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s45

Language
English

58. Asahāya

v1.c6.s45.1

Dr. Jolly in his edition of the Nāradasmṛti (B. I. series) has incorporated a portion of the bhāṣya of Asahāya as revised by Kalyāṇabhaṭṭa. Even this revised version comes up to only verse 21 of the fifth title *abhyupetya-aśuśrūṣā*. The exact relation of Kalyāṇabhaṭṭa's labours to the original *bhāṣya* cannot be accurately gauged from the opening⁵⁰⁷ words 'finding that the *Nāradabhāṣya* composed by Asahāya was spoilt (*bhraṣṭa*) by bad scribes, Kalyāṇa composes this after revising the ancient one'. The colophon at the end of the first chapter of the Vyavahāramātṛkā says that Kalyāṇabhaṭṭa revised the bhāṣya of Asahāya at the encouragement of Keśavabhaṭṭa.⁵⁰⁸ Kalyāṇabhaṭṭa seems to have taken great liberties with the text of the original bhāṣya. On p. 9 verse 15 (rājā satpuruṣaḥ sabhyaḥ śāstraṁ gaṇakalekhakau), the comment on śāstra is 'Manu-Nārada- Viśvarūpātmakam’. If Viśvarūpa named here be identical with the the Viśvarūpa who commented on Yāj. (as is almost certain), this passage could not have occurred in Asahāya’s bhāṣya. Viśvarūpa, in commenting on Yāj. III. 263-64, mentions Asahāya by name and cites his explanation of a sūtra of Gautama (22. 13). The name Kalyāṇabhaṭṭa frequently occurs in the printed commentary itself (p. 81, 86, 89).⁵⁰⁹

v1.c6.s45.2

⁵⁰⁷ दृष्ट्वासहायरचितं नारदभाष्यं कुलेखकैर्भ्रष्टम् । कल्याणेन क्रियते प्राक्तनमेतद् विशोध्य पुनः। (first-verse).

v1.c6.s45.3

⁵⁰⁸ इति असहायनारदभाष्ये केशवभट्टप्रोत्साहित-कल्याणभट्टपरिशोधित-व्यवहारमातृकायां प्रथमोऽध्यायः ।

v1.c6.s45.4

⁵⁰⁹ तथा चोक्तमेव सामान्यग्राह्यपत्रलक्षणविचारप्रकरणे कल्याणभटेन । p. 81; यथोक्तं त्रिषष्टिलेख्यप्रकरणकार कल्याणभटेन । p. 86; कल्याणकृतं श्लोकत्रयमस्ति । p. 89.

v1.c6.s45.5

In the I. O. ms. there is a salutation to Śivā and Gaṇeśa at the beginning. There is a ms. of the Nārādiyabhāṣya as printed by Dr. Jolly in the Deccan College collection (No. 27 of 1874-75). It does not contain the first folio and curiously enough it ends just where the printed text stops. Dr. Jolly omits a few lengthy passages occurring in the ms. and generally indicates such omissions by dots. In a few cases Dr. Jolly omits only a word or two for no apparent reason, e. g. on p. 8 (folio 7b of No. 27 of 1874-75) he omits the wotd ‘paramasamṛddhyā’ after ‘vyavahāraḥ’ and before ‘caturṇām-api varṇānām’.

v1.c6.s45.6

The Hāralatā of Aniruddha who was the *guru* of king Ballālasena of Bengal the author of Adbhutasāgara (about 1168 A. D.) tells us that Asahāya composed a bhāṣya on the Gautamadharmasūtra.⁵¹⁰ Viśvarūpa also cites, as said above, Asahāya’s explanation of a sūtra of Gautama.

v1.c6.s45.7

⁵¹⁰ हारलता (B. I. series) p. 35. ‘गौतमः । बालदेशान्तरितप्रव्रजितानां सद्यःशौचम् । (गौ. ध. सू. 14. 44) यत्र मृतोऽशौचाभ्यन्तरे न श्रूयते तद्देशान्तरं तत्र मृतो देशान्तरित इति गौतमभाष्यकृतासहायेन व्याख्यातम् ।’; हारलता p. 97 ‘गौतमः । पिण्डनिवृत्तिः सप्तमे पञ्चमे वा । (गौ. ध. सू. 14. 12) । अत्रासहायव्याख्या । यदा पितृपितामहप्रपितामहास्त्रयो जीवन्ति तदा प्रपितामहादूर्ध्वं त्रिभ्यः पिण्डदानम् । ... इदं तु व्याख्यानं न शोभनं प्रतिभाति ।’

v1.c6.s45.8

It appears that Asahāya probably wrote a commentary on the Manusmṛti also. A passage of the Sarasvatīvilāsa⁵¹¹ says that partition of dharma was approved of by smṛtikāras like Manu, Yājñavalkya, by their commentators, viz. Asahāya, Medhātithi, Vijñāneśvara and Aparārka and by writers of *nibandhas*, viz. the author of the Candrikā and others. Here the order in which the commentators are named requires that Asahāya like Medhātithi was known to be a commentator of Manu. This conclusion is to some extent corroborated by the fact that the Vivādaratnākara⁵¹² quotes with reference to Manu 9. 182 the words of Asahāya thereon. On Manu 8. 156 Medhātithi quotes the opinion of Asahāya.⁵¹³

v1.c6.s45.9

⁵¹¹ धर्मविभागो मनुयाज्ञवल्क्यादिस्मृतिकाराणां तत्स्मृतिव्याख्यातृणामसहायमेधातिथिविज्ञानेश्वरपरार्काणां निबन्धॄणां चन्द्रिकाकारादीनां च संमत एव । सरस्वतीविलास para. 83 and p. 348 (Mysore ed.). The सरस्वतीविलास often refers to a writer called निबन्धनकार. He is likely to be असहाय. Vide सरस्वतीविलास p. 457 'अत्र (मनुस्मृतौ) वाक्पारुष्य-दण्डपारुष्यसङ्ग्रहणानन्तरं दायविभागः क्रमिकः । निबन्धनकारेण तु त्रयोदशविवादपदं दाय इत्युक्तम् । उभयोर्महान् विरोधः । स परिह्रियते । तथोक्तं नारदेन । ... नारदवचनानुसारि निबन्धनकारवचनम् । अतश्च तद्व्याख्येयस्यापि गौतमसूत्रस्य नारदवचनानुसारित्वमेव ।'; तथा च गौतमः । प्रतिषेधे पुमान्दण्ड्यस्तदर्धं स्त्री इति । अस्यार्थो विवृतो निबन्धनकारेण' p. 468.

v1.c6.s45.10

⁵¹² The verse of मनु is भ्रातॄणामेकजातानामेकश्चेत्पुत्रवान् भवेत् । The words of असहाय are 'अत्रासहायेनोक्तं पुंसां सति भ्रातृजे स्त्रीणां सपत्नीपुत्रे क्षेत्राजादयः प्रतिनिधयो न कर्तव्या इति।' वि. र. p. 583.

v1.c6.s45.11

⁵¹³ यज्त्वासहायनारदानां तु मते काकिणीमात्रमपि शक्तः कारणपरिवृत्तिकाले दापयितव्यः । on the verse अदर्शयित्वा तत्रैव.

v1.c6.s45.12

The foregoing establishes that Asahāya composed bhāṣyas on the Gautamadharmasūtra, on the Manusmṛti and on Nārada. When the Smṛticandrikā⁵¹⁴ refers to a bhāṣya of Nārada it is most probably referring to Asahāya. In the Mit. (on Yāj. II. 124) the opinion of Asahāya and Medhātithi on the right of an unmarried sister to receive one-fourth as provision for her marriage from her brothers is preferred to that of Bhāruci.⁵¹⁵ This seems to be rather a reference to Asahāya's commentary on Manu (9. 118) which contains a rule similar to Yāj. (II. 124), while Nārada contains no such rule about a fourth share. It is a strange irony of fate that the very name of Asahāya who is profusely quoted by the Sarasvatīvilāsa in the first half of the sixteenth century was forgotten by later writers, so much so that the Bālambhaṭṭī understands the word Asahāya (in note 515 above) as an attribute of Medhātithi in the sense of 'peerless'.

v1.c6.s45.13

⁵¹⁴ स्मृतिच० (व्य. p. 36) on दर्शनविधि says 'एवं तदीयभाष्ये व्याख्यातम् ।'; तथा च नारदः। स्त्रीकृतान्यप्रमाणानि कार्याण्याहुरनापदि ।...अत्रापवादप्रदर्शनार्थमाह स एव । विशेषतो गृहक्षेत्रदानाधमनविक्रयाः । इति । गृहक्षेत्रयोर्दानाधमनविक्रयास्त्वापद्यप्यस्वतन्त्रकृता न सिध्यन्तीत्यर्थः । एवं तद्भाष्ये व्याख्यातम् ।

v1.c6.s45.14

⁵¹⁵ अतोसहायमेधातिथिप्रभृतीनां व्याख्यानमेव चतुरस्रं न भारुचेः । मिताक्षरा.

v1.c6.s45.15

As Viśvarūpa and Medhātithi both name Asahāya, his lowest limit is about 750 A. D. How much earlier he flourished it is difficult to say. He can hardly be earlier than the 6th century. In the com. on Nārada (p. 48) there is a story from Pāṭaliputra about the repayment of a debt by sons, grandsons and great-grandsons. It has been argued (Calcutta Law Journal, vol. 17 p. 59) that, as Pāṭaliputra was a deserted city in the middle of the 7th century and as the reference shows that Pāṭaliputra was a living and flourishing city, Asahāya must have lived long before the 7th century. But as the very authenticity of the text of the bhāṣya is doubtful owing to the drastic 'revision' of Kalyāṇabhaṭṭa, such a conclusion is extremely hazardous. In the ms. of the bhāṣya other places such as Vaṭapadraka (probably modern Baroda), Avāvadu and Saṁvāduka are mentioned. There is nothing to show that the author was either a native of or had a first-hand knowledge of Pāṭaliputra. He might have been relying on traditions when he gave the story. Dr. Jolly not being aware of the express mention of Asahāya by Medhātithi argued that he flourished earlier than Medhātithi (Tagore Law Lectures p. 5; S. B. E. vol. 25 p. VII) on the ground that the Mit. and the Sarasvatīvilāsa always place Asahāya before Medhātithi whenever authorities on vyavahāra are enumerated. Dr. Jolly's conclusion is right as shown above, but his reasoning is faulty. There is hardly anything of chronology in the order in which authors are named, since we find that the Sarasvatīvilāsa⁵¹⁶ names Vijñāneśvara even before Asahāya, though the former flourished centuries after the latter.

v1.c6.s45.16

⁵¹⁶ स. वि. (para 195) 'विज्ञानेश्वरासहायमेधातिथीनामिदं व्याख्या' (p. 371 of Mysore ed.).

v1.c6.s45.17

Some of the views attributed to Asahāya may be quoted here. The definition of *dāya* (heritage) given by the Mit. was identical with Asahāya's.⁵¹⁷ Asahāya explained the dictum of Uśanas that fields were impartible by taking it to refer to the son of a Brāhmaṇa from a Kṣatriya wife, who does not participate in land gifted to a Brāhmaṇa.⁵¹⁸ The Mit. on Yāj. II. 119 takes the same view. Asahāya held that as regards succession to the *Śulka* of a woman even step-brothers should be given something, though the major portion would go to the full brothers.⁵¹⁹ According to Asahāya, the wealth of a childless Brāhmaṇa went to the teacher, then to the teacher's son, then to the teacher's widow, the pupil, pupil's son, pupil's widow (one after another) and then to the fellow-student.⁵²⁰ The Vivādaratnākara⁵²¹ (p. 578) quotes the Prakāśa as referring to the views or Asahāya and Medhātithi on Manu IX. 198 that the special rule of Manu applies to all the *strīdhana* belonging to a Kṣatriya woman who has a brāhmaṇī co-wife. The Vivādaratnākara⁵²² quotes a verse of Nārada about *māṣa* and a verse of the bhāṣyakāra thereon. It probably refers to Asahāya's bhāṣya.

v1.c6.s45.18

⁵¹⁷ असहायविज्ञानयोगिप्रभृतीनां तु यत्स्वामिसंबन्धादेव निमित्तादन्यस्य स्वं भवति तद् दायशब्देनोच्यते इति। स. वि. (para 19).

v1.c6.s45.19

⁵¹⁸ स. वि. para 195 (or p. 371).

v1.c6.s45.20

⁵¹⁹ अतश्च कन्याशुल्कविषये सोदरासोदरविभागेऽसोदराणामपि किंचित् देयमित्यसहायव्याख्यानमसहायम् । स. वि. para 314 (or p. 384). Here there is a play on the word असहाय which means 'unsupported, baseless.'

v1.c6.s45.21

⁵²⁰ स. वि. para 608.

v1.c6.s45.22

⁵²¹ पिश्रा दत्तमिति स्त्रीधनमात्रोपलक्षणमित्यसहायमेधातिथिरिति (थी इति !) प्रकाशकारः।

v1.c6.s45.23

⁵²² तथा चोक्तं नारदेन-माषो विंशतिभागस्तु ज्ञेयः कार्षापणस्य च । स च राजतो विवक्षितः । तथा च भाष्यकारः। सौवर्णैर्माषकैः संख्या दण्डकर्मसु शस्यते । पशूनां शस्यचरणे माषैरन्यैश्च राजतैः ॥ वि. र. p. 234.

Linked texts (8)