Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s50: 63. Medhātithi

History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s50

Language
English

63. Medhātithi

v1.c6.s50.1

Medhātithi is the author of an extensive and erudite commentary (*bhāṣya*) on the Manusmṛti. It is the oldest extant commentary on that smṛti. The bhāṣya of Medhātithi was first published about forty years ago by Rao Saheb V. N. Mandlik in Bombay and recently Mr. J. R. Gharpure of Bombay brought out an edition of Medhātithi which closely follows Mandlik's edition. A critical edition of the bhāṣya based upon all the available Mss. 'is a great *desideratum*. An English translation of the *bhāṣya* by M. M. Dr. Ganganath Jha is in progress and several parts have been published so far. In the following Mr. Gharpure's edition has been used. The *bhāṣya* as printed is corrupt in many places, particularly in the 8th, 9th and 12th *adhyāyas* In Mr. Gharpure's edition there is no *bhāṣya* on verses 182-202 of the 9th chapter.

v1.c6.s50.2

Bühler in his learned and exhaustive Introduction to the Manu-smṛti (S. B. E. vol. 25) brings together a good deal of information about Medhātithi (pp. cxxviii-cxxvi). In J B B R A S for 1925 pp. 217-221 I have offered criticisms on some of Bühler's views and have given certain additional information.

v1.c6.s50.3

In several Mss. of the *bhāṣya* at the end of several *adhyāyas* occurs a verse⁵⁶⁷ which says that a king named Madana, son of Sahāraṇa, brought copies of Medhātithi's commentary from another country and effected a restoration (*jīrṇoddhāra*). This does not refer to the restoration of the text of Medhātithi, but to the completion of the library of the king, who was Madanapāla, son of Sādhāraṇa and flourished, as we shall see later on, in the latter half of the 14th century.

v1.c6.s50.4

⁵⁶⁷ मान्या कापि मनुस्मृतिस्तदुचिता व्याख्या हि मेधातिथेः सा लुप्तेव विधेर्वशात् क्वचिदपि प्राप्यं न यत्पुस्तकम्। क्षोणीन्द्रो मदनः सहारंणसुतो देशान्तरादाहृतैर्जीर्णोद्धारमचीकरत्तत इतस्तत्पुस्तकैर्लेखितैः॥ सहारंण is a *Prākrit form of* साधारण.

v1.c6.s50.5

Dr. Jolly (Tagore Law Lectures p. 6) holds Medhātithi to be a southerner on account of the fact that his father's name was Vīrasvāmin and on account of the attention paid to his *bhāṣya* by southern writers. It cannot be said that names ending in 'svāmin' were a monopoly of the south. The Rājatarangiṇī gives several literary celebrities whose names ended in 'svāmin' (e. g. V. 34 mentions a Śivasvāmi). Kṣīrasvāmin was a Kāshmīrian. The south has always been famed for preserving Mss. of valuable works from the north. Mss. of the Kāvyālaṁkāra of Bhāmaha, a Kāshmīrian, are very rare and have been found only in the south. Bühler (p. cxxiii) seems to be right in holding that Medhātithi was a Kāshmīrian (or at least an inhabitant of Northern India). In explaining such words as 'svarāṣṭre' and 'janapadaḥ' (Manu VII. 32 and VIII. 42) Medhātithi introduces Kashmir. He gives (on Manu VIII. 400) the monopoly of the sale of elephants as a privilege of the kings of Kashmir where saffron abounds.⁵⁶⁸ He says that the rainbow is called ‘vijñāna-chāyā’ in Kashmir (on Manu IV. 59). He very frequently refers to northerners e. g. on Manu III. 234 he says ‘kutapa’ is the word for what is well-known as ‘kambala’ among northern people and on III. 238 he says ‘northern people wrap their heads with *śaṭakas*’ (garments). He says on Manu II. 24 that in the Himālayas in Kashmir it is not possible to perform the daily *saṁdhyā* in the open nor is it possible to bathe every day in a river in ‘Hemanta’ and ‘Śiśira’. On Manu II. 18 he says ‘in other countries, some say, people marry one's maternal uncle's daughter; but that is opposed to the words of Gautama’ (4. 3) and proceeds ‘even in that country taking food in the same plate with (or in the company of) one whose thread ceremony is not performed is not at all regarded as dharma (but as improper conduct)’. This is clearly a reference to Baudhāyana Dh. S. (I. 1. 19) according to which ‘mātulasutā-pariṇayana’ and taking food in the same plate with one whose *upanayana* is not performed are two of the five usages peculiar to the south. It is fair to add that later writers like Kamalākarabhaṭṭa (Nirṇayasindhu, 3rd pariccheda on sāpiṇḍya) regard Medhātithi as a southerner.

v1.c6.s50.6

⁵⁶⁸ यानि भाण्डानि राजोपयोगितया यथा हस्तिनः काश्मीरेषु कुङ्कुमप्रायेषु पट्टोर्णादीनि प्रतीच्येष्वश्वा दाक्षिणात्येषु मणिमुक्तादीनि &c. Should we not read यथा हस्तिनः काश्मीरेषु कुङ्कुमं प्राच्येषु पट्टोर्णादीनि ? The meaning then would be elephants are the monopoly of kings everywhere, saffron in Kashmir &c.

v1.c6.s50.7

Medhātithi quotes from or names numerous smṛti writers, such as Gautama, Baudhāyana, Āpastamba, Vasiṣṭha, Viṣṇu, Śaṅkha, Manu, Yāj., Nārada, Parāśara, Bṛhaspati, Kātyāyana and others. He refers to Bṛhaspati as a writer on ‘vārtā’ (Manu VII. 43 and IX. 326) and to Bṛhaspati and Uśanas as writers on politics and government (Manu VIII 285, VII. 2 and 155). On Manu VII. 43 he refers to Cāṇakya as a writer on ‘daṇḍanīti’. In numerous places he seems to have drawn upon Kauṭilya's work. For example, on Manu VII. 155 in interpreting ‘pañcavarga’ as ‘kāpaṭika, udāsthita, gṛhapatika, vaidehika and tāpasavyañjana’ he explains them almost in the words of Kauṭilya (I. 2). On VII. 148 he quotes the five *aṅgas* of *mantra* in the very words of Kauṭilya.⁵⁶⁹ Vide also his remarks on Manu VII. 54 (testing of miṇisters by *upadhas*). He names Asahāya (on 8. 156) and certain writers as Smṛtivivaraṇakārāḥ (on II. 25). Bühler is not quite accurate (p. cxx, n. 1) when he states that ‘Medhātithi gives only once the name of an early commentator’. On VIII. 3 he refers to the interpretations of Bhartṛyajña. He refers to the interpretations of Yajvan (on VIII. 151 and 156). Yajvan is only the last part of a name (as in Devarājayajvan). He quotes the interpretation of Manu by Upādhyāya (on II. 109, IV. 162, V. 43, IX. 141 and 147). Bühler holds that Medhātithi refers to his own teacher. It is more likely that Upādhyāya, like Yajvan, is the name or part of the name of a previous commentator of Manu. On VIII. 152 the explanations of Ṛju are twice cited. On IX. 253 Medhātithi cites the view of one Viṣṇusvāmin.⁵⁷⁰ From the tenor of the quotation it appears that Viṣṇusvāmin was a writer on Mīmāṁsā and not a commentator of Manu as Büher thought (p. cxx, n. 1). Some Mss. read the word preceding Viṣṇusvāmī as ‘kovara’, others as ‘kāvara’. It is probably ‘kāvera’ (residing on the Kāverī river).

v1.c6.s50.8

⁵⁶⁹ इमान्यङ्गानि कर्मणामारम्भोपायः पुरुषद्रव्यसंपत् देशकालविभागः विनिपातप्रतीकारः कार्यसिद्धिरिति । मेधातिथि, compare कौटिल्य I. 15 ‘कर्मणामारम्भोपायः ... कार्यसिद्धिरिति पञ्चाङ्गो मन्त्रः’!

v1.c6.s50.9

⁵⁷⁰ अतो यावती काचित्फलश्रुतिः सा सर्वार्थवाद इति कोवरविष्णुस्वामी ।

v1.c6.s50.10

He quotes (on Manu I. 19) a verse from the Sāṅkhyakārikā (‘prakṛter mahān &c). He speaks of Vindhyavāsa⁵⁷¹ as a Sāṅkhya and says that he does not admit a subtle interim body (antarābhavadeha). This is probably taken from Kumārila’s words.⁵⁷² He repeatedly refers to the *purāṇas*, tells us (on III. 232) that they were composed by Vyāsa and contained accounts of creation. He quotes (on XII. 118) a verse from the Vākyapradīpa.⁵⁷³

v1.c6.s50.11

⁵⁷¹ सांख्या हि केचिन्नान्तराभवमिच्छन्ति विन्ध्यवासप्रभृतयः । मेधातिथि on मनु I. 55.

v1.c6.s50.12

⁵⁷² अन्तराभवदेहस्तु निषिद्धो विन्ध्यवासिना । श्लोकवार्तिक p. 704.

v1.c6.s50.13

⁵⁷³ उक्तं च वाक्यप्रदीपे—न तदस्ति न तन्नाम्नि इत्यादि । Dr. Kielhorn told Dr. Buhler that the verse is not found in the वाक्यप्रदीप of हरि (S. B. E. vol. 25, CXXIII. n. 1)

v1.c6.s50.14

He tells us (on II. 6) that the Pāñcarātras, Nirgranthas (Jains) and Pāśupatas were outside the pale of Vedic orthodoxy.⁵⁷⁴

v1.c6.s50.15

⁵⁷⁴ एवं सर्व एव बाह्या भोजकपाञ्चरात्रिकनिग्रन्थ्रानार्थवादपाशुपतप्रभृतयः ।

v1.c6.s50.16

Medhātithi had drunk deep at the fountain of the Pūrvamīmāṁsā. His bhāṣya is full of the terms *vidhi* and *arthavāda*. He quotes Jaimini’s sūtras frequently and applies them to the interpretation of smṛti texts at every step. Vide J B B R A S for 1925 p. 219 for examples. He cites passages from Śabara’s *bhāṣya* (e. g. on III. 1). He mentions Kumārila by name (on I. 3) and as Bhaṭṭapāda (on Manu II. 18).

v1.c6.s50.17

Bühler at first took the remark (on Manu XII. 19) about ‘Śārīraka’ as⁵⁷⁵ referring to Śaṅkara’s bhāṣya on the Vedāntasūtra, but later on changed his opinion (S B E vol. 25, p. CXXII) and held that it probably implies a reference to the Śārīraka sūtras. Bühler’s considered opinion does not seem to be right. The words ‘yatheha rājā ... apaiti’ are a summary of Śaṅkara’s bhāṣya on Vedāntasūtra II. 1. 34 and II. 3. 42. and I. 2. 11-12. On Manu II. 83 he refers to the Upaniṣad-bhāṣya⁵⁷⁶ on Chāndogya II. 23. 4 and says that that passage has been differently explained in the *bhāṣya*. Śaṅkara does explain that passage of the Chāndogya differently. But this is not all. In various other places Medhātithi seems to have in view the Śārīrakabhāṣya of Śaṅkara. For example, on I. 80 he has ⁵⁷⁷ before him Śaṅkara’s bhāṣya on the sūtra ‘lokavat tu līlākaivalyam’ (Vedāntasūtra II. 1. 33). He, however, seems to have favoured the position that the attainment of *mokṣa* is due⁵⁷⁸ not to mere correct knowledge but to the combination (*samuccaya*) of knowledge and karma (vide remarks on Manu VI. 32, 74-75, and XII. 87-90). This was probably due, as Kullūka remarks⁵⁷⁹ (on I. 3), to his being a profound student of Mīmāṁsā.

v1.c6.s50.18

⁵⁷⁵ ननु च धर्माधर्मयोरिच्छां प्रति नियन्तृत्वे ऐश्वर्यं हीयते । तथा शारीरके दर्शितं यथेह राजा सेवाऽनुरूपं ददाति न च तस्येश्वरत्वमपैति अतो महत्परमात्मानौ पश्यत इति व्यपदिश्यते ।

v1.c6.s50.19

⁵⁷⁶ उपनिषद्भाष्ये चैतदन्यथा व्याख्यातं तच्चिहानुपयोगान्न प्रदर्शितम् । मेधातिथि. The उपनिषद् passage is ‘तद्यथा शङ्कुना सर्वाणि पर्णानि संवृष्णानि एवमोङ्कारेण सर्वा वाक् संतृष्णा ’. मेधातिथि explains ‘सर्वो ह्यर्थो वाग्व्यवहारानतीतो वाचश्च सर्वस्या ओङ्कारो मूलम् । तथा च श्रुतिः । तद्यथा शङ्कुना &c. ... अन्तर्धानमनुस्मृतिराश्रय-भावापत्तिर्वा । कथं पुनः सर्वा वागोङ्कारेण संतृष्णा । वैदिक्यास्तावदोङ्कारपूर्वकत्वमुक्तम् । लौकिक्या अपि तदादीनि वाक्यानि स्युरित्यापस्तम्बवचनात् ।’. शङ्कराचार्य explains ‘यथा शङ्कुना पर्णनालेन सर्वाणि पर्णानि पर्णावयवजातानि संतृष्णानि विद्धानि व्याप्ता-नीत्यर्थः । एवमोङ्कारेण ब्रह्मणा परमात्मनः प्रतीकभूतेन सर्वा वाक् शब्दजातं संतृष्णा । अकारो वा सर्वा वागित्यादिश्रुतेः ।.

v1.c6.s50.20

⁵⁷⁷ लीलयापि कौतुकेनापि लोके राजादीनां प्रवृत्तिर्हृश्यत इति ब्रह्मविदः । मेधा०; ‘यथा लोके कस्यचिदाप्तैषणस्य राज्ञो ... लीलारूपाः प्रवृत्तयो भवन्ति’ शाङ्करभाष्य.

v1.c6.s50.21

⁵⁷⁸ On I. 50 he says ‘परब्रह्मावाप्तिस्तु मोक्षलक्षणा केवलानन्दरूपा ज्ञानात् ज्ञानकर्म-समुच्चयाद्वेति वक्ष्यामः ।;’ on मनु VI. 74-75 ‘इदं तु ज्ञानकर्मणोः समुच्चयान्मोक्ष इति श्लोकद्वयं ज्ञापकम् ।’; on XII. 87 अतश्च ब्रह्मनिष्ठापरेणापि वेदाभ्यासा-दीन्यनुष्ठेयानि ।

v1.c6.s50.22

⁵⁷⁹ मेधातिथिस्तु कर्ममीमांसावासनया वेदस्य कार्यमेव तत्त्वरूपोर्थस्तं वेत्तीति कार्यतत्त्वार्थविदिति व्याचष्टे ।

v1.c6.s50.23

From Medhātithi's bhāṣya it is perfectly clear that the text of Manu on which he commented was practically the same that we have now. He refers to ancient (*cirantana*) expositors of Manu (on V. 127) and to former (*pūrva*) expositors (IV. 176, II. 134, X. 21). He discusses various readings in several places (vide III. 119, IV. 99, 185, 229, VIII. 53). On VIII. 182-183 he notes⁵⁸⁰ that the order of the verses was traditionally different. Kullūka also notices that those two verses and the next two were read in one order by Medhātithi and Bhojadeva and in another by Govindarāja. On 9. 93 he notes that according to some that verse is not Manu's.⁵⁸¹

v1.c6.s50.24

⁵⁸⁰ The verses are यो निक्षेपं याच्यमानः &c. and साक्ष्यभावे &c. मेधातिथि says on the first व्यत्यस्तक्रमोयं श्लोकः समाम्नाये पठ्यते । प्रथमस्यार्धश्लोकं पठित्वा साक्ष्यभाव इति पठितव्यम् । ततः स याच्य इति । एवं पाठो युक्तः ।

v1.c6.s50.25

⁵⁸¹ केचिदाहुरमानवोयं श्लोकः.

v1.c6.s50.26

Medhātithi's bhāṣya is full of very interesting information. But for want of space it cannot be analysed in detail. The Mit. (on Yāj. II. 124) refers to the view of Asahāya and Medhātithi (on Manu 9. 118) about the fourth share to be given to an unmarried sister at a partition between brothers and follows it in preference to Bhāruci's. On Yāj. III. 24 the Mit. tells us that certain texts of Ṛṣyaśṛṅga about varying periods of impurity for Brāhmaṇas and others were not accepted as authoritative by Dhāreśvara, Viśvarūpa and Medhātithi. According to him⁵⁸² *saṁnyāsa* does not mean the giving up of all the obligatory duties laid down by *śāstra*, but the giving of *ahaṁkāra*. He ⁵⁸³ allowed a brāhmaṇa to adopt even a kṣatriya boy. He explains away the well-known verse 'naṣṭe mṛte... patiranyo vidhīyate' by taking the word ‘pati’ in its etymological sense and says⁵⁸⁴ that the verse suggests that in order to maintain herself in such calamities the woman may take service with another person as her protector.

v1.c6.s50.27

⁵⁸² अथाप्युच्येत कर्मसंन्यासिनो निवृत्तिमार्गावस्थायिनो नैव केचिच्छास्त्रार्थविधयः सन्ति । नायं शास्त्रार्थः । अहंकारममकारत्याग एव संन्यासो वक्ष्यते नाशेषशास्त्रार्थत्यागः । मेधा० on मनु VI. 32.

v1.c6.s50.28

⁵⁸³ सदृशं न ज्ञातितः किं तर्हि कुलानुरूपैर्गुणैः क्षत्रियादिरपि ब्राह्मणस्य दत्तको युज्यते । मेधा० on मनु 9. 168.

v1.c6.s50.29

⁵⁸⁴ तत्र पालनात्पतिमन्यमाश्रयेत सैरन्ध्रकर्मादिनात्मवृत्त्यर्थम् । मेधा० on मनु. 5. 156.

v1.c6.s50.30

Medhātithi quotes several verses from his own work called Smṛtiviveka on Manu II. 6 (in all 24 verses) and on X. 5. he says that he has dealt with the topic of mixed castes in Smṛtiviveka. That work therefore was either entirely in verse or contained numerous verses. The Parāśara-Mādhavīya (vol. I, part 2, pp. 183-186) has a long quotation in verse on the duties of *yatis* from a work called Smṛtiviveka and the same work several times quotes verses attributed to Medhātithi (vol. I. part I p. 276 and part 2 p. 172). Hence the Smṛtiviveka cited by the Parāśara-Mādhavīya most probably is Medhātithi's work. Lollaṭa⁵⁸⁵ an early writer quotes several verses of Medhātithi in his work on śrāddha. In the Tithinirṇaya-sarvasamuccaya (Bhadkamkar collection) several verses of Medhātithi on obstacles to marriage such as death are quoted.⁵⁸⁶ In the Yatidharmasaṁgraha of Viśveśvara-sarasvatī (Ānandāśrama ed. p. 27) two well-known verses about ‘*aṣṭāṅga-maithuna*’ (viz. *smaraṇaṁ kīrtanaṁ keliḥ* &c.) are ascribed to Medhātithi and another verse⁵⁸⁷ is cited (on the same page) about the six duties of *yatis*. These quotations show that Medhātithi wrote an extensive work in verse on several topics of dharma. It is to be fervently hoped that this work of Medhātithi would be brought to light some day or other. Coming as it does from such an erudite and ancient writer, it would throw a flood of light on the development of dharmaśāstra.

v1.c6.s50.31

⁵⁸⁵ पुत्राभावे सपिण्डा मातृसपिण्डाः शिष्याश्च दद्युः, तदभावे ऋत्विगाचार्याविति मेधातिथिस्मरणात् । (folio 4b of the ms. of श्राद्धप्रकरण by लोल्लटाचार्य in the आनन्दाश्रम library at Poona); जाताशौचमृताशौचविषये त्वाह मेधातिथिः । पादप्रक्षालने श्राद्धे त्वनलस्थापनं ऋतौ । मधुपर्के विवाहे वै आशौचेप्यूर्ध्वमाचरेत् । (*ibid.* folio 10a).

v1.c6.s50.32

⁵⁸⁶ वधूवरार्थं घटिते सुनिश्चिते वरस्य गेहेप्यथ कन्यकायाः । मृत्युर्यदि स्यान्मनुजस्य वित्त-(वित्त!)दानं कुर्यात्खलु जातमङ्गलम् ॥ (folio 45 b); वाग्दानानंतरं यत्र कुल्योः कस्यचिन्मृतिः । तदा संवत्सरादूर्ध्वं विवाहः शुभदो भवेत् ॥ (folio 46 a); चौले च व्रतबन्धे च विवाहे व्रतकर्माणि । भार्या रजस्वला यस्य प्रायस्तस्य च (न !) शोभनम् ॥ (folio 47 a); पृथग्मातृजयोः कार्यो विवाहस्त्वेकवासरे । एकस्मिन्मण्डपे चैव पृथग्वेदिकयोस्तथा ॥ (folio 51 a). The first two verses occur in गदाधर's commentary on the पारस्करगृह्य and the last three are cited in the कृत्यचिन्तामणि of शिवराम (D. C. ms No. 221 of 1179-80, folios 54 b, 55a, 56 b.)

v1.c6.s50.33

⁵⁸⁷ भिक्षाटनं जपो ध्यानं स्नानं शौचं सुरार्चनम् । कर्तव्यानि षडेतानि यतिना नृपदण्डवत् ॥ यतिधर्मसंग्रह.

v1.c6.s50.34

As Medhātithi names Asahāya and Kumārila and most probably quotes the views of Śaṅkarācārya, he is later than 820 A. D. As the Mit. looked upon him as an authoritative writer, he must be earlier than 1050 A. D. Most probably he flourished between 825 and 900 A. D. Kullūka⁵⁸⁸ on Manu III. 127 says that Medhātithi is much earlier than Govindarāja (1050-1100 A. D.). Lollaṭa is mentioned as a predecessor in the Smṛtyartha-sāra of Śrīdhara, which was composed between 1150-1200 A. D. So Lollaṭa is much earlier than 1150 A. D. He looked upon Medhātithi as a writer whose work was as authoritative as a smṛti. A work called Prakāśa⁵⁸⁹ which is quoted in the Kalpataru appears to have mentioned Medhātithi. Hemādri quotes at great length Medhātithi's comments in several places.⁵⁹⁰ Hence the above date is amply corroborated. This conclusion is further strengthened by the fact that, though he names Asahāya, he does not mention Viśvarūpa, Bhāruci or Śrīkara. If by Miśra⁵⁹¹ in his comment on Manu XII. 118 he refers to Vācaspati-miśra, the author of the Bhāmatī and other works, then he will have to be placed after 850 A. D.

v1.c6.s50.35

⁵⁸⁸ मेधातिथिप्रभृतिभिर्गोविन्दराजादपि वृद्धतरैरनभ्युपेतत्वात् ।

v1.c6.s50.36

⁵⁸⁹ Vide note 185.

v1.c6.s50.37

⁵⁹⁰ Vide चतुर्वर्ग० III. 1. 1062-63 where मेधातिथि's comment on मनु III. 265 is cited.

v1.c6.s50.38

⁵⁹¹ प्रमाणान्तराणामपि एकत्वप्रतिपादनपरत्वादेव ग्राहिणः प्रत्यक्षस्य मिश्रैः कृत एव क्लेशः।

Linked texts (21)