History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s61: 74. Prakāśa

History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s61

Language: English

74. Prakāśa

v1.c6.s61.1

A work called Prakāśa has been quoted by very early *nibandhakāras*. The Kalpataru quotes the interpretation of Prakāśa, Halāyudha and Kāmadhenu on a verse of Kātyāyana.⁶⁹⁰ The Vivādaratnākara of Caṇḍeśvara cites the views of Prakāśa scores of times (e.g. p. 131, 145, 456, 460, 462, 474, 485, 504 etc). Frequently Prakāśa is coupled with Pārijāta (e.g. p. 497). On page 518 of the Vivādaratnākara a remark of Prakāśa wherein both Asahāya and Medhātithi are named is cited.⁶⁹¹ The Dānaratnākara of Caṇḍeśvara quotes a passage of Saṁvarta with Prakāśa's explanation of it.⁶⁹² In the Śrāddhasaukhya of Ṭoḍarānanda Prakāśa's explanation of the word ‘Yānevata’ occurring in a passage of Śaṅkha about the fruits allowed in śrāddha is quoted.⁶⁹³

v1.c6.s61.2

⁶⁹⁰ Vide note 521 above. On **पणे जितः**, one of the 15 kinds of *dāsas* enumerated by **नारद**, the **कल्पतरु** quotes the remarks of the **प्रकाश** '**यद्यस्मिन्विवादे पराजितो भवामीत्यादिपरिभाषणेन दासीभूतः द्यूतजित इति प्रकाशपारिजातौ ।**' (folio 368 of Benares Sanskrit College transcript).

v1.c6.s61.3

⁶⁹¹ **पित्रा दत्तमिति स्त्रीधनमात्रोपलक्षणमित्यसहायमेधातिथिरिति ( ० थी इति ) प्रकाशकारः । वि. र. (on मनु 9. 198).** Vide p. 509 of **वि. र.** where **प्रकाश** cites **मेधातिथि** alone '**पत्युरनुज्ञातेनाप्यदत्तोऽप्यलङ्कारो यो मण्डनार्थं धृतः सोपि दायादैर्न हर्तव्य इति मेधातिथिरिति प्रकाशः ।**'

v1.c6.s61.4

⁶⁹² '**संवर्त्तः । सर्वेषामेव दानानामेकजन्मानुगं फलम् । हाटकक्षितिगौरीणां सप्तजन्मानुगं फलम् ॥ गौर्यांच गावः प्रकरणात् । गौरी अश्श्वर्षा कन्येति प्रकाशः ।' दानरत्नाकर** (D. C. ms. No. 114 of 1884–86 folio 52 b).

v1.c6.s61.5

⁶⁹³ ‘आम्नान्यानेवतानेक्षुमृद्वीकाभव्यदाडिमान्। ... श्राद्धकालोपपादयेत्॥ यानेवतः काश्मीरे वोड इति प्रसिद्धः। प्राचीनमलकमिति प्रकाशकारः। ’ श्राद्धसौख्य folio 42 a (D. C. ms. No. 257 of 1884-87).

v1.c6.s61.6

These quotations establish that Prakāśa was a work that not only dealt with vyavahāra, but also with such topics as *dāna*, *śrāddha* etc.

v1.c6.s61.7

Whether the Prakāśa was an independent work or a commentary is somewhat doubtful. But from a passage of the Vivādaratnākara it seems to follow that it was a commentary on the Yājñavalkyasmṛti. There we are told that the Kalpataru⁶⁹⁴ read ‘abhijānatā’ for ‘avijānatā’ in Yāj. II. 258, but that since that reading is opposed to Yājñavalkya-prakāśa, Halāyudha and Pārijāta it must be, regarded as a wrong reading. As it is a reading of Yāj. himself that was being discussed, it would be somewhat strange if it were said that it was opposed to Yāj. and Prakāśa and therefore it is necessary to suppose that Yājñavalkyaprakāśa is one work.

v1.c6.s61.8

⁶⁹⁴ कल्पतरौ तु अविजानतेति स्थाने अभिजानतेति पाठो दर्शितः स तु याज्ञवल्क्यप्रकाश-हलायुध-पारिजातविरोधात् प्रमादपाठ इति लक्षितः। वि. र. p. 198.

v1.c6.s61.9

The Vivādacintāmaṇi in several places gives the explanation of Prakāśa.⁶⁹⁵ The Smṛtisāra⁶⁹⁶ gives at great length the explanation of Prakāśa on the controversial verses of Yāj. (II. 138-139). The Vīramitrodaya⁶⁹⁷ quotes at length Prakāśa's explanation of Manu (9. 207) and disapproves of it on the ground (among others) that the verse can more clearly be explained so as to convey a meaning similar to that of Yāj. II. 116. The Prakāśa is mentioned in the Dāyatattva (vol. II, p. 173) and in the Śuddhitattva (vol. II, p. 288).

v1.c6.s61.10

⁶⁹⁵ विद्यायापि साधारणधनानुपश्लेषेण यदार्जितं तदेवाविभाज्यमिति प्रकाशकारः। तन्न उभयोपादानार्थक्यात्। वि. चि. p. 135; ‘परिसंख्यानबलात्पितृभ्रातृपितृव्यैरेव विभागपूर्वकं धनमेलनं संसर्ग इति प्रकाशः।’ वि. चि. p. 157; vide pp. 130, 140 also.

v1.c6.s61.11

⁶⁹⁶ प्रकाशे तु मृतस्य संसृष्टिनो धनं संसृष्ट्यपहरेत् गृह्णीयात्। विभागकाले अज्ञातगर्भायां पितृभार्यायां पश्चादुत्पन्नस्यासंसृष्ट्येव दद्यात्। सोदरस्य तु संसृष्टिनो धनं संसृष्टी सोदरो गृह्णीयान्न भिन्नोदरः संसृष्ट्यपीति पूर्वोक्तस्यापवादः। अन्योदर्यस्तु संसृष्टी धनं गृह्णीयादिति शेषः। नान्यborderयोधनं हरेदिति संसृष्ट्यपीत्यनेन संबध्यते &c. स्मृतिसार (I. O. cat. No. 301, folio 148 b).

v1.c6.s61.12

⁶⁹⁷ Vide वीर० p. 572; the same also occurs in वि. चि, p. 130.

v1.c6.s61.13

As the Prakāśa is quoted in the Kalpataru it is certainly earlier than 1125. It mentions Medhātithi. Besides the Mit. does not refer to it. There is room for thinking that it follows the Mit. Yāj. II. 116 is, according to the Vivādaratnākara,⁶⁹⁸ explained by the Prakāśa in almost the same words as the Mit. It is possible that both borrow from the same original. At all events the Prakāśa must have been composed between 1000 and 1100 A. D.

v1.c6.s61.14

⁶⁹⁸ अत्रापि प्रकाशः किंचिदसारमपि दत्त्वा पृथक्क्रिया विभागः कर्तव्यः तत्पुत्राणां विवाद-निवृत्त्यर्थमिति । वि. र. p. 485; यत्किंचिदसारमपि दत्त्वा पृथक्क्रिया विभागः कार्यः पित्रा । तत्पुत्रादीनां दायजिघृक्षा मा भूदिति । मिताक्षरा.

v1.c6.s61.15

Hemādri frequently cites a work called Mahārṇavaprakāśa.⁶⁹⁹ According to the latter the sandal unguents, flowers, incense, lamp presented in śrāddha are to be offered to the Brāhmaṇas invited and not to the *pitṛs*. In another place Hemādri quotes the explanation of the word ‘*nimantraṇa*’⁷⁰⁰ given by the Mahārṇavaprakāśa. In some places Hemādri refers to a work called Smṛtimahārṇava or simply Mahārṇava.⁷⁰¹ It appears to me that all these three are the names of the same work. The question then arises whether the Smṛtimahārṇavaprakāśa is the same as the Prakāśa mentioned by the Kalpataru and Caṇḍeśvara. In the present state of our knowledge it appears that they are identical. The Madanapārijāta (p. 93) quotes a verse from the Smṛtimahārṇava about *upākarma*.

Linked texts (9)

Yājñavalkyasmṛti — Yājñavalkya, Sanskrit
Mānava Dharmaśāstra — Manu & Bhṛgu, Sanskrit
Kātyāyanasmṛti — Kātyāyana (smṛtikāra), Sanskrit
Nāradasmṛti — Nārada, Sanskrit
Śaṅkhasmṛti — Sanskrit
Saṃvartasmṛti — Saṃvarta, Sanskrit
Smṛticandrikā (Āpadeva) — Āpadeva 1600, Sanskrit
Mahārṇava (Māndhātā) — Māndhātā, Sanskrit
Madanapārijāta — Viśveśvarabhaṭṭa, Sanskrit