Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s58: 71. Kāmadhenu

History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s58

Language
English

71. Kāmadhenu

v1.c6.s58.1

This was an ancient digest on the various branches of Dharmaśāstra. Unfortunately no ms. of this work has yet come to light. The Kalpataru of Lakṣmīdhara refers to the view of Kāmadhenu and others that what was bestowed upon a slave (*dasa*) by his master through favour was also under the control of the master.⁶⁴⁹ The Hāralatā which was composed in the third quarter of the 12th century several times mentions the views of Kāmadhenu.⁶⁵⁰

v1.c6.s58.2

⁶⁴⁹ On the verse of कात्यायन 'दासस्य हि धनं यत् स्यात् स्वामी तस्य प्रभुर्मतः' the कल्पतरु says 'यदा प्रसादे स्वामिना दासस्य कृते दत्तं तत्र दासधनेपि स्वामी प्रभुरिति प्रकाशहलायुधकामधेनुपारिजातप्रभृतयः ।' folio 876 of the कल्पतरु (Benares College transcript).

v1.c6.s58.3

⁶⁵⁰ *e. g.* on p. 41 'अत एव जातम्मृते मृतजाते वा कुलस्य त्रिरात्रमिति हारीतवचनं कामधेनुकृता गर्भस्रावाशौचप्रकरणे लिखितम् ।'. Vide pp. 117, 174, 200 also for other references to the कामधेनु and note 596 above.

v1.c6.s58.4

Śrīdharācārya, in his Smṛtyarthasāra,⁶⁵¹ enumerates the Kāmadhenu among the works and writers who dwelt upon the teachings of the Smṛtis. The Vivādaratnākara⁶⁵² of Caṇḍeśvara speaks of the Kāmadhenu several times. In the Śrāddhakriyā-kaumudī certain verses from the Kāmadhenu are cited in connection with the rites on certain *tithis* of the month of Āśvina (p. 261). Śūlapāṇi in his Śrāddhaviveka names as his authorities the Kāmadhenu and other digests after the smṛtis.⁶⁵³ The Samayapradīpa⁶⁵⁴ of Śrīdatta notices that the Kāmadhenu read 'dvitīyā caitramāsasya,' while the Kalpataru read 'tṛtīyā.' The same reading of the Kāmadhenu is noticed in the Smṛtisāra of Harinātha (I. O. cat., No. 634, folio 79b). In the Rājanītiratnākara the Kāmadhenu is quoted on the definition of 'rājan' and on the two varieties of rulers (pp. 2 and 5). In Hemādri there is a quotation from Smṛtikāmadhenu (vol. IV, p. 992) about the freedom in *kali* from incurring sin on account of contact with great sinners.

v1.c6.s58.5

⁶⁵¹ कामधेनौ प्रदीपेब्धौ कल्पवृक्षलतासु च । शम्भुद्रविडकेदारलोल्लटाद्यैश्च भाषितम् ॥ मन्वाद्यने कस्मृतिषु व्याख्यातृप्रतिपादितम् । स्मृत्यथंसारं वक्ष्यामि सुखानुष्ठानसिद्धये ॥ Intro. verses 4-5 (Ānandāśrama ed.). प्रदीप्ते is a wrong reading for प्रदीपे.

v1.c6.s58.6

⁶⁵² यं कामधेनुरनुयाति सकल्पवृक्षो(क्षा ?)यं सेवते निजफलाय स पारिजातः । तं वैरिगोत्रभिदमुच्चसहस्रदंष्टिं चण्डेश्वरं तुलयितुं कतमे भवन्तु ॥ विवादरत्नाकर (verse at the end); there is a play on the words कामधेनु, कल्पवृक्ष (कल्पतरु) and पारिजात which are names of works on धर्मशास्त्र also; vide विवादरत्नाकर pp. 78, 80, 135, 498, 651 for other references to the कामधेनु.

v1.c6.s58.7

⁶⁵³ The श्राद्धविवेक begins विलोक्य धर्मशास्त्राणि कामधेन्वादिसंग्रहान् । विवेकः पार्वणादीनां क्रियते शूलपाणिना ॥

v1.c6.s58.8

⁶⁵⁴ अत्र च कामधेनौ द्वितीया चैत्रमासस्येति लिखितं कल्पतरौ तृतीयेति लिखितं तदत्र पाठद्वैधे ज्योतिःशास्त्रे मधौ तृतीयेति पाठाच्चैत्रतृतीयेव ग्राह्या । समयप्रदीप D. C. ms. No. 471 of 1875-76, folio 53b.

v1.c6.s58.9

The question arises who is the author of the Kāmadhenu. If we rely upon a highly paronomastic passage of the Vyavahāraratnākara⁶⁵⁵ of Caṇḍeśvara, Gopāla was the author of the Kāmadhenu. In the Rājanītiratnākara (p. 81) Gopāla is said to have held, with Lakṣmīdhara and Śrīkara,⁶⁵⁶ the view that on the state wealth poor and helpless people have a claim and that the state perishes if the supreme authority is wielded by many (and not by one). The same work (p. 84) cites the opinion of Gopāla that the coronation rites mentioned in works on *rājanīti* are merely illustrative and that according to the particular usages of countries and families a king may be proclaimed without those rites by merely being seated on a throne.⁶⁵⁷ The Pitṛbhakti of Śrīdatta expressly mentions that it is based on the works of Gopāla and others. The Vīramitrodaya cites the view of Gopāla that vyavahāra comes under what is called *jalpa* in the technique of the Nyāya system and that the view of Miśra that Vyavahāra is comprised under the term *vāda* of the same system is wrong. Whether the Gopāla mentioned by Mitramiśra is the same as the author named by Caṇḍeśvara it is difficult to say. But it seems to me that they are identical. Aufrecht in his great catalogue (I. 93) ascribes the authorship of the Kāmadhenu to Śambhu. Whence he derived this information is not clear. The authors and works cited by him do not, so far as I know, ascribe the Kāmadhenu to Śambhu. It is true that Śambhu is credited by the Smṛticandrikā with a digest on *dharmaśāstra* (vide note 563 above) and the Smṛtyarthasāra also names him as one of the authorities on which it relies. Hemādri⁶⁵⁹ also tells us that Śambhu was a *nibandha-kāra* and refuted the views of Medhātithi on Manu III. 125. The Smṛticandrikā frequently cites the views of Śambhu on vyavahāra and generally refutes them. For example, on the word 'pitarau' occurring in Yāj. II. 135 Śambhu remarked that no difference should be made between the parents (father and mother) as heirs, since whoever out of the two took the wealth of their son it would come to both.⁶⁶⁰ Vide also Smṛticandrikā II, pp. 205, 216. Therefore Śambhu also, being mentioned by the Smṛticandrikā and the Smṛtyarthasāra, is certainly earlier than 1150 A. D. In this state of the authorities I am doubtful whether Śambhu was the author of the Kāmadhenu. I am inclined to hold that he was not the author of that work and that Gopāla was the author. This conclusion is somewhat strengthened by the fact that the Smṛtyarthasāra mentions both Kāmadhenu and Śambhu as authorities on which it relies. If Śambhu had been, in the opinion of the Smṛtyarthasāra the author of the Kāmadhenu, the mention of both would have been superfluous. Mr. Jayasval (in JBORS for 1927, vol. XIII, parts 3-4, p. VII) ascribes the Kāmadhenu to Bhoja, but this is wrong (vide p. 277, note 576).

v1.c6.s58.10

⁶⁵⁵ यन्न्यायामृतसेचनात्सफलतां पुष्णाति कल्पद्रुमः सद्यः पल्लवमातनोति नितरां श्रीपारिजातोपि सः । गोपालस्य च कामधेनुरमणं काम्यार्थदुग्धं स्वयं संदुग्धे स्वयमेव कस्य भवने सेव्यो न रत्नाकरः ॥ व्यवहाररत्नाकर (Mitra's Notices, vol. VI. p. 66). कल्पद्रुम (कल्पतरु), पारिजात, कामधेनु and रत्नाकर have two senses.

v1.c6.s58.11

⁶⁵⁶ Vide note 565 above.

v1.c6.s58.12

⁶⁵⁷ गोपालमते त्वभिषेकादिपर्यन्तमुपलक्षणं यथादेशकुलाचारं सिंहासनदानादि तद्व्यवहारः- दिति ।

v1.c6.s58.13

⁶⁵⁸ यत्तु गोपालेन तत्त्वनिर्णयेषु कथात्वाद्वादत्वमेवास्येति मिश्रमतत्वेनोपन्यस्य जयभङ्ग-फलकत्वात् स्थापनावसानत्वाच्च जल्प एवायमिति तन्निरस्तं तद् द्वयमप्ययुक्तम् । वीर० p. 3.

v1.c6.s58.14

⁶⁵⁹ द्वौ दैवे ... कमुभयत्र वा ।। यद्यप्यैकैकमुभयत्र वेत्ययं विधिरेव न भवतीति तेनैवोक्तं तन्तु शम्भुप्रभृतिभिर्निबन्धकारैः पराकृतमिति अस्माभिर्नाद्रियते । चतुर्वर्ग० III. I p. 1148; तदेवं तावद् दक्षिणामौ होमस्तदभावे त्वासनाम्राविति शम्भुशङ्खधरप्रभृतयः चतुर्वर्ग III. I. p. 1331.

v1.c6.s58.15

⁶⁶⁰ यत्तूक्तं शम्भुना अव्यक्तधनत्वाद् दम्पत्योर्येन केनचिदुत्समाणमुभयार्थमिति न विशेषो वक्तव्य इति तदयुक्तम् । स्मृतिच० II. p. 298.

v1.c6.s58.16

As the Kāmadhenu is named as an authority by the Kalpataru and the Hāralatā it is certainly not later than 1100 A. D. It cannot be very much earlier since it is not mentioned by Medhātithi and the Mitākṣarā. It may therefore be assigned to the period between 1000 and 1100 A. D.

Linked texts (3)