Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s57: 70. Vijñāneśvara

History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s57

Language
English

70. Vijñāneśvara

v1.c6.s57.1

The Mitākṣarā of Vijñāneśvara occupies a unique place in the Dharmaśāstra literature. Its position is analogous to that of the Mahābhāṣya of Patañjali in grammar or to that of the Kāvyaprakāśa of Mammaṭa in Poetics. It represents the essence of dharmaśāstra speculation that preceded it for about two thousand years and it became the fountain head from which flowed fresh streams of exegesis and developments. Under the decisions of the Courts in British India, the Mitākṣarā is of paramount authority in several matters of Hindu Law (such as adoption, inheritance, partition etc.) throughout India except where, as in Bengal, the Dāyabhāga prevails.

v1.c6.s57.2

The Mit. professes to be a commentary on the Yājñavalkyasmṛti. In the colophons of several mss. it is described as Ṛjumitākṣara, Pramitākṣarā or simply Mitākṣarā. These names are probably due to some of the verses appended at the end of the commentary.⁶³⁵ The Mit. is not only a commentary explanatory of the verses of Yājñavalkya, but it is in the nature of a digest of smṛti material. It brings together numerous smṛti passages, explains away contradictions among them by following the rules of interpretation laid down in the Pūrvamīmāṁsā system, brings about order by assigning to various dicta their proper scope and province (*viṣayavyavasthā*) and effects a synthesis of apparently disconnected smṛti injunctions.

v1.c6.s57.3

⁶³⁵ इति याज्ञवल्क्यमुनिशास्त्रगता विवृतिर्न कस्य विहिता विदुषः। प्रमिताक्षरापि विपु-लार्थवती परिवेशिता श्रवणयोरमृतम्॥ गम्भीराभिः प्रसन्नार्थाभिर्गर्भस्था मिताक्षरा। अनल्पार्थाभिरल्पाभिर्वृत्तिर्विहिता मया ॥

v1.c6.s57.4

The Mit. quotes a host of smṛti writers⁶³⁶ and six predecessors, who were commentators and authors of digests on dharmaśāstra, viz. Asahāya, Viśvarūpa, Medhātithi, Śrīkara, Bhāruci and Bhojadeva. Besides it quotes Vedic works (like the Kāṭhaka), the Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad, the Garbhopaniṣad, the Jābālopaniṣad, the Nirukta, Bharata (author of Nāṭyaśāstra), Yogasūtra, Pāṇini, Suśruta, the Skandapurāṇa, the Viṣṇupurāṇa, Amara, Guru (i.e. Prabhākara).

v1.c6.s57.5

⁶³⁶ The स्मृतिs and स्मृतिकारs quoted by name are: अङ्गिरस्, बृहदङ्गिरस्, मध्यमाङ्गिरस्, अत्रि, आपस्तम्ब, आश्वलायन, उपमन्यु, उशनस्, ऋष्यशृङ्ग, कश्यप, काण्व, कात्यायन, कार्ष्णाजिनि, कुमार, कृष्णद्वैपायन, क्रतु, गार्ग्य, गृह्यपरिशिष्ट, गोभिल, गौतम, चतुर्विंशतिमत, च्यवन, छागल (or छागलेय), जमदग्नि, जातूकर्ण्य, जाबाल, (or-लि), जैमिनि, दक्ष, दीर्घतमस्, देवल, धौम्य, नारद, पराशर, पारस्कर, पितामह, पुलस्त्य, पैङ्ग्य, पैठीनसि, प्रचेतस्, बृहत्प्रचेतस्, वृद्धप्रचेतस्, प्रजापति, बाष्कल, बृहस्पति, वृद्धबृहस्पति, बोधायन, ब्रह्मगर्भ, भालवध, भारद्वाज, भृगु, मनु, बृहन्मनु, वृद्धमनु, मरीचि, मार्कण्डेय, यम, वृद्धयम, याज्ञवल्क्य, बृहद्याज्ञवल्क्य, वृद्धयाज्ञवल्क्य, लिखित, लौगाक्षि, वसिष्ठ, बृहद्वसिष्ठ, वृद्धवसिष्ठ, विष्णु, बृहद्विष्णु, वृद्धविष्णु, वैयाघ्रपाद, वैशम्पायन, व्याघ्र (or व्याघ्रपाद), व्यास, बृहद्व्यास, शङ्ख, शङ्खलिखित, शाण्डिल्य, शातातप, बृहच्छातातप, वृद्धशातातप, शुनःपुच्छ, शौनक, षट्त्रिंशन्मत, संवर्त, बृहत्संवर्त, सुमन्तु, हारीत, बृहद्धारीत, वृद्धहारीत.

v1.c6.s57.6

The author styles himself Vijñānayogin in the concluding verses of his commentary and later writers frequently refer to him in that way. He belonged to the Bhāradvāja *gotra* and was son of Padmanābhabhaṭṭa. He was a *paramahaṁsa* (i. e. an ascetic) and was the pupil of Uttama. He tells us that when he wrote the Mitākṣarā, king Vikramārka or Vikramādityadeva was ruling in the city called Kalyāṇa⁶³⁷ (now in the Nizam's dominion). The verses at the end containing the personal history appear to be genuine. They occur in the oldest Mss. of the Mit. such as the Government of Bombay Ms. dated *śakasaṁvat* 1389.

v1.c6.s57.7

⁶³⁷ नासीदस्ति भविष्यति क्षितितले कल्याणकल्पं पुरं नो दृष्टः श्रुत एव वा क्षितिपतिः श्रीविक्रमार्कोपमः। विज्ञानेश्वरपण्डितो न भजते किं चान्यदन्योपमंश्लाघ्यं स्फीतं स्थिरमस्तु कल्पलतिकाकल्पं तदेतत्रयम्॥ 4th verse at the end.

v1.c6.s57.8

The author of the Mit. was a profound student of the Pūrvamīmāṁsā system. Throughout the Mit. discussion of Pūrvamīmāṁsā *nyāyas* and their application to dharmaśāstra are sown broadcast. For example, the Mit. on Yāj. I. 81 (whether it is a *niyama* or *parisaṁkhyā*), I. 86, II. 114, II. 126, II. 265 &c., may be consulted. The Mit., as the very name implies, is generally concise and to the point. But in his desire to make his work a repository and synthesis of varied smṛti dicta the author does not mind if he has occasionally to expand his commentary to enormous lengths. For example, the Mit. on Yāj. III. 265 and 290 occupies several pages of closely printed text.

v1.c6.s57.9

As the Mitākṣarā names Viśvarūpa, Medhātithi and Dhāreśvara, it must have been composed after 1050 A. D. The Smṛticandrikā⁶³⁸ of Devaṇṇabhaṭṭa (which as will be seen later on was composed about 1200 A. D.) several times criticizes the views of the Mit., viz. the latter's remarks that the giving of an additional share to the eldest son is disapproved of by the people, the reasons given for preferring the mother to the father and the definition of *daya*. Vijñāneśvara is named in the Kalpataru of Lakṣmīdhara⁶³⁹ (composed in the 2nd quarter of the 12th century). This shows that the Mit. was composed before 1120 A. D. A greater approximation can be arrived at in several ways. The Kalpataru mentions Vadibhayaṁkara⁶⁴⁰ who, the Vīramitrodaya⁶⁴¹ tells us, was an admirer and follower of Vijñāneśvara and yet found fault with his explanation of Yāj. II. 51 ( rikthagrāha ṛṇam &c. ). Therefore the Mit. must have been composed at the latest before 1100 A. D. Among the Cālukyas of Kalyāṇa, the only king named Vikramārka or Vikramāditya during whose reign Vijñāneśvara could have flourished is Vikramāditya VI who reigned for over fifty years from about 1076 to 1127 A. D. *Vide* Bombay Gazetteer vol. I, part 2, pp. 446-453, I. A. vol. 48 p. 6 (for pedigree of the Cālukyas of Kalyāṇa with dates ), I. A. vol. 12 p. 212 (for an inscription of Vikramāditya Tribhuvanamalla dated *śake* 1047 ) and I. A. vol. 22, pp. 296-298. From all these considerations it follows that the Mit. was composed between 1070-1100 A. D.

v1.c6.s57.10

⁶³⁸ यत्पुनर्विज्ञानेश्वरेणोक्तं सत्यमयं विषमो विभागः ... हेयः । एतदपि वाग्मात्रैगोतबुद्ध्यारविषमविभागादौ लोकविद्वेषोस्ति प्रत्युत विद्यागुणपुण्यकर्मसंपन्नज्येष्ठादौ भागाधिक्ये लोकानुरागो दृश्यत इति यत्किंचिदेतत् । स्मृतिच० II. p. 266; 'न च दायशब्देन यद्धनं स्वामिसंबन्धादेव ... तदुच्यत इति दायादिशब्दनिरूपणार्थं मिताक्षरायामुक्तं युक्तम्' स्मृतिच. II. p. 267; 'पिता सपत्नीपुत्रेष्वपि साधारणो माता तु न साधारणीति प्रत्यासत्त्यतिशयोस्तीति विप्रलम्भसदृशमिदं न हि जननीजनकयोर्जन्यं प्रति संनिकर्षतारतम्यमस्ति।' स्मृतिच० II. p. 297.

v1.c6.s57.11

⁶³⁹ 'क्षत्रधर्मस्तु ब्राह्मणो ब्राह्मणं दासकर्माणि न कारयेदिति विज्ञानश्वरस्वरसः' folio 380 of the Benares Sanskrit College transcript of कल्पतरु (on व्यवहार).

v1.c6.s57.12

⁶⁴⁰ शोध्यस्य जननी तातः पुत्रो वा तत्सहोदरः । भार्या पुत्रवती धर्म्या ज्ञातयः परिकीर्तिताः ॥ इति वादिभयंकरे बृहस्पतिवचनात् । *ibid.* folio 230.

v1.c6.s57.13

⁶⁴¹ विज्ञानेश्वरा carryअनुयायी यथात्र वादिभयंकररुदाह । अहो बत जगत्ख्यातविज्ञानेश्वरयोगिनः। पूर्वापरविरोधोपि नानुसन्धानमद्भुतम् ॥ वीरमित्रोदय p. 350 (Jivananda).

v1.c6.s57.14

Out of the numerous commentaries on the Mit. those of Viśveśvara, Nandapaṇḍita and Bālambhaṭṭa are the most famous. *Vide* sections 93, 105, 111. Considerations of space preclude any detailed statement of the doctrines peculiarly associated with the name of Vijñāneśvara. There are however some which must be mentioned. He laid down ( on Yāj. I. 52 ) that wherever the word *sapiṇḍa* occurred, it denoted either directly or mediately connection with particles of one body (i. e. blood-relationship with an ancestor ). He also strictly adheres to the principle that propinquity is the guiding principle in matters of inheritance and succession. He divides *dāya* into *apratibandha* and *sapratibandha* and affirmed that sons, grandsons and great-grandsons acquired by birth ownership in ancestral property. On all these matters he is diametrically opposed to Jīmūtavāhana.

v1.c6.s57.15

Aufrecht in his great catalogue makes conflicting statements about a work called Āśaucadaśaka. On I. p. 55 he notes that Āśaucadaśaka is a work of Harihara with a commentary by Vijñāneśvara and again on I. p. 571 he ascribes Āśaucadaśaka-ṭīkā to Vijñāneśvara. On I. p. 762 he ascribes the Āśaucadaśaka and Daśaślokīvivaraṇa to Harihara and appears to distinguish him from that Harihara who composed a bhāṣya on Pāraskaragṛhyasūtra. On I. p. 795 he corrects himself by saying that Harihara wrote only the commentary on the Āśaucadaśaka and that the latter is identical with the Daśaśloki-vivaraṇa. On III. p. 121 he is doubtful whether the Āśaucadaśaka is a work of Vijñāneśvara. In the Deccan College collection there is an ancient Ms. (No. 196 of 1884–1887) of the Āśaucadaśaka.⁶⁴² It was copied in *saṁvat* 1578 Mārgaśīrṣa (i. e. December 1522 A. D.). It distinctly says that Vijñāneśvarayogin composed in ten Śārdūlavikrīḍitā stanzas a work on *āśauca* and that Harihara composed a commentary on it. In the Bhadkamkar collection there is an old Ms. of the Āśaucadaśaka, the colophon of which ascribes the work to Vijñāneśvara. Vide I. O. cat. p. 565, No. 1749 for a ms. of Āśaucadaśaka with Harihara's commentary dated *saṁvat* 1589 (1532-33 A. D.) That the Āśaucadaśaka was a very popular work follows from the several commentaries thereon that are available even now. Raghunātha⁶⁴³, son of Mādhava and nephew of the famous Nārāyaṇabhaṭṭa, composed a commentary on the Daśaślokī in śake 1500 (D. C. No. 82 of A. 1882-83). There is another commentary on the same work by Bhaṭṭoji (D. C. No. 99 of 1582-83). Harihara quotes in his bhāṣya, besides several well-known smṛtikāras, a work called Viśvādarśa (folio 4b).⁶⁴⁴ Harihara, the commentator of the Pāraskaragṛhyasūtra, is described as the pupil of Vijñāneśvara in several mss. Harihara in his bhāṣya on Pāraskaragṛhya quotes Vijñāneśvara and Kalpataru. The Viśvādarśa praises Vijñāneśvara very highly.⁶⁴⁵ Therefore it appears that Vijñāneśvara composed the Āśaucadaśaka *alias* Daśaślokī and that Harihara, who was either Vijñāneśvara's pupil or not very far removed from him (as he is quoted by Hemādri) composed a commentary thereon. The first verse of the Daśaślokī is cited below as a specimen of the concise style attempted by the author.⁶⁴⁶

v1.c6.s57.16

⁶⁴² The ms. begins: अथ विज्ञानेश्वरविरचितमुनिज( न )वाक्यैर्मिताक्षराम्रध्यात् । आशौचदशकवृत्तिं वदति हरिहरो हरिं नत्वा ॥ अत्र तावद्विज्ञानेश्वरयोगीन्द्रश्चातुर्वर्ण्यात्मकस्य जन्मनि सूतौ भवं सूतकं मरणे शवे भवं शावं सूतकशावसिद्धयर्थं वृत्तदशकं शार्दूलविक्रीडितेन चकार तत्राद्यं वृत्तमाह मातुर्र्गभविव्रस्त्वधं &c. The colophon at the end is इत्याशौचदशकभाष्यं श्रीहरिह( र )विरचितं समाप्तम् ।

v1.c6.s57.17

⁶⁴³ रघुनाथ criticizes विज्ञानेश्वर ' यत्तु विज्ञानेश्वरेण प्रतिलोमानां त्वाशौचाभाव एवेत्युक्तं तद्वचनविरोधादुपेक्षणीयम् । प्रतिलोमा धर्महीना इत्येतत्तु पाकयज्ञाद्यभिप्रायम्' folio 19b.

v1.c6.s57.18

⁶⁴⁴ संमति विशेषो विश्वादर्शात् ' प्रसक्ताणां त्रिरात्रं पितृविपदि भवेत् ' .

v1.c6.s57.19

⁶⁴⁵ यथा वै विज्ञानेश्वरविरचितेयापि महतो महींभर्तुः कीर्तिस्त्रिजगति यथा पुण्यरुचिति । यथा ( तथा ! ) श्रीमन्नागार्जुनतनुज धन्य प्रतिगृहं स्फुरद्विश्वादर्शो स्फुरतु तव कीर्तिः सुकृतिनः ॥ IV. 58; श्रीरामस्य युधिष्ठिरस्य च यथा रामायणे भारते कीर्तिर्भाति यथा च मुख्यनृपतेः सा कारिका भूषणम् । श्रीमद्वन्द्य मिताक्षरादिषु यथा श्रीवृद्धभर्तुस्तथा विश्वादर्श निबन्धने तव शुभश्लोका जयन्त्यूर्जिताः ॥ ms. of विश्वादर्श (in Bhadkamkar collection),

v1.c6.s57.20

⁶⁴⁶ मातुर्गर्भविपत्तस्वधं त्रिदिवसं मासत्रयेतो यथा सासाहं त्रिषु सूतकावधिरतः स्नानं पितुः सर्वदा। ज्ञातीनां पतनादि जातमरणे पित्रोर्दशाहं सदा नाम्नः प्राक् तदपैति सूतकवशाद्वातुर्दशाहं परम् ॥

v1.c6.s57.21

Aufrecht (II. p. 50 and I. p. 236) credits Vijñāneśvara with a bhāṣya on Triṁśat-ślokī, a work in thirty Sragdharā stanzas on *aśauca*. This work together with the commentary was printed in *pothi* size at Benares in *saṁvat* 1918 (1861-62 A. D.). The printed text contains⁶⁴⁷ the same colophon at the end and date as the D. C. ms. No. 217 of 1879-80, which was copied in *saṁvat* 1711 *Caitra* (i. e. April 1655 A. D.). It is extremely doubtful, however, whether Vijñāneśvara wrote a bhāṣya on the Triṁśat-ślokī. In the bhāṣya Vijñāneśvara and the Mitākṣarā are cited by name.⁶⁴⁸ The manner of referring to them rather suggests that the commentary on the Triṁśat-ślokī was composed by some person other than Vijñāneśvara, who, however, drew largely on the Mit. There is a ms. of the Triṁśat-ślokī with a commentary in the Bhau Daji collection which is ascribed to Hemādri on the cover (vide BBRAS. cat. vol. II. p. 209, No. 667).

v1.c6.s57.22

⁶⁴⁷ The colophon is इति विज्ञानेश्वरकृते त्रिंशच्छ्लोकीयभाष्यं संपूर्णम् ।

v1.c6.s57.23

⁶⁴⁸ त्रिरात्रं दशरात्रं वा ... सूतकं मातुरेव हि ॥ इत्येतद्व्याख्यानसमये विज्ञानेश्वराचार्यैः स्पष्टीकृतम् ॥ p. 3b of the printed text and 2b of the ms. The verse referred to is याज्ञ. III. 18. On verse 14 of the त्रिंशच्छ्लोकी we have 'एतच्च आचार्यपितृव्योपाध्यायान् ... न च तैः सह संविशेत् ॥ इत्येतद्व्याख्यानमिताक्षरायां स्पष्टीकृतम्' p. 9b of the printed text and 5a of the ms.

v1.c6.s57.24

In the Madras Govt. mss. library there is a ms. of the Vyavahāra-śiromaṇi of Nārāyaṇa, who says that he learnt dharmaśāstras under Vijñāneśvara (adhītya dharmaśāstrāṇi Vijñāneśvara-sadguroḥ). The work deals with the *vyavahāra* portion and was composed for the benefit of the un-initiated (bālabodhārtham). The ms. contains the portion dealing with the king's duty to look into the disputes of people, the time for doing that, sabhā, definition of prāḍ-vivāka (judge), the plaint and its defects, āsedha (restraint of the defendent ), means of proof the eighteen titles of law, ṛṇādāna, nikṣepa, saṁbhūya-samutthāna, dattapradānika, abhyupetya-aśuśrūṣā, vetanasya-anapākarma, asvāmivikraya, vikrīyāsaṁpradāna, krītvānuśaya, samayasyānapākarma, sīmāvivāda, strī-puṁsayoga, dāyavibhāga. The work breaks off in the middle of the explanation of the verse 'patnī duhitaraścaiva'. He closely follows the Mitākṣarā in all that he says; but in one place he expressly differs from his teacher, viz. whereas the Mitākṣarā mentions four different times for partition, Nārāyaṇa says that there are really two times of partition, when the father desires partition and when the son or sons desire it.648a On *saṁbhūyasamutthāna* he quotes a passage from Kauṭalya (the ms. uses this form), which agrees closely with the printed text (vide Arthaśāstra III. 14, p. 186, ed. by Shama Sastrī ).648b

v1.c6.s57.25

648a अनया चातुर्विध्यमस्मद्गुरुचरणैर्मिताक्षरायां प्रतिपादितं पितुरिच्छायां पुत्रेच्छायां च विभागः संभवति नान्यथेति कालद्वयमेव विभागस्येति तु युक्तम् । न च पित्रनन्तरकाल एक इति त्रैविध्यमिति वाच्यं पित्रनन्तरकालेपि पुत्राणामिच्छाभावे विभागस्यैवाभावेन उक्तकालद्वय एवानन्तरकालस्याप्यन्तर्भावात् ।

v1.c6.s57.26

648b अत्र विशेषमाह कौटल्यः । अग्निष्टोमादिषु दीक्षणीयाया ऊर्ध्वं य आपन्नः पञ्चममंशं लभेत सोमविक्रयादूर्ध्वं चतुर्थं प्रवर्योग्द्वासनादूर्ध्वं तृतीयमग्निष्टोमीयादूर्ध्वं पादोनं माध्यन्दिनादूर्ध्वं समप्रनीतासु दक्षिणासु भवतीति ।

Linked texts (17)