Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s63: 76. Govindarāja

History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s63

Language
English

76. Govindarāja

v1.c6.s63.1

The commentary of Govindarāja on the Manusmṛti was published by Rao Saheb V. N. Mandlik and a portion of it was published by Dr. Jolly in the Manuṭīkāsaṁgraha. In his commentary⁷⁰⁵ on Manu III. 247 and 248 he tells us that he has treated at greater length the subject of those verses in his own work called Smṛtimañjarī. Kullūka⁷⁰⁶ in his comment on Manu IV. 212 twits Govindarāja with having explained '*ugra*' in one way in his commentary on Manu and in a different way in his Mañjarī. A Ms. of a portion of the Smṛtimañjarī exists in the India Office (cat. p. 471).

v1.c6.s63.2

⁷⁰⁵ 'साधितं चैतत्सविस्तरं स्मृतिमञ्जर्यामृजुपञ्चिकायां च। इह तु ग्रन्थकारभयान्न प्रतार्थते (प्रस्तीर्यते?)' on मनु III. 247; 'इति सपिण्डीकरणसांवत्सरिकेपि स्मृतिमञ्जर्यामृजुपञ्चिकायां विस्तरतो निरूप्यते' on मनु III. 248.

v1.c6.s63.3

⁷⁰⁶ गोविन्दराजो मञ्जर्यामुग्रं राजानमुक्तवान्। मनुवृत्तौ च शूद्रायां क्षत्रियोत्पन्नमभ्यधात्॥

v1.c6.s63.4

From these two works a brief account of the personal history of Govindarāja can be extracted. The colophons at the end of the Manuṭīkā describe Govindarāja as the son of bhaṭṭa Mādhava. The first verse⁷⁰⁷ of the Smṛtimañjarī and one at the end (though somewhat corrupt) give the information that he was the son of Mādhava and grand-son of Nārāyaṇa and appears to have lived on the holy banks of the Ganges.⁷⁰⁸ Those who like Sarvadhikari identify Govindarāja with Govindacandra, prince of Benares, are therefore entirely wrong since he was a Brāhmaṇa and not a Kṣatriya. The first verse⁷⁰⁹ of his Manuṭīkā contains an obeisance to god (or Śiva) and states that he had received the śāstra of Manu in an unbroken tradition of teacher and pupil and that he had examined previous commentaries of Manu.

v1.c6.s63.5

⁷⁰⁷ स्मृतिविरचितैस्तैस्तैर्वाक्यैर्द्विरुक्तिपराङ्मुखैर्मिलितकललव्यालुप्तार्थामतो व्रतसंहतिम्। अलिषदसिला गोविन्दाख्यश्चिरं गुरुसंश्रयादुपचिततनुर्ज्ञानामोदः स माधवनन्दनः॥ स्मृतिमञ्जरी 1st verse.

v1.c6.s63.6

⁷⁰⁸ स्मृतिमञ्जरी folio 150 b 'स्वर्वाहिनीपुलिनलाञ्छनलब्धकीर्तेर्नारायणस्य तनयात्मज उच्चिकाय। वाक्यावलीमखिलसच्चरणावतंसाद् (तं सां?) गोविन्दराज इह माधव इह भूमिः (! इह माधवभूमिरार्थः)॥'.

v1.c6.s63.7

⁷⁰⁹ संसाराध्वगतागतक्लमतृषापीयूषमीशं शनैर्व्यात्त्वानर्गलसंप्रदायगुरुतः प्राप्ते मनोः शासने। दृष्ट्वा ग्रन्थरूदाशयाननुसृतिं व्याख्यान्तराणामिमां टीकां शास्त्ररूदाक्षयानुसारिणीं गोविन्दराजो व्यधात्॥

v1.c6.s63.8

The Smṛtis mentioned by him in the two works of his are given below.⁷¹⁰ Besides he mentions the Vāyupurāṇa (on Manu III. 232) and Purāṇa in general (on Manu I. 74 and 80). He frequently quotes the Gṛhyasūtras, also the Bahvṛcagṛhyapariśiṣṭa, the Yogasūtra. He says (on Manu 2. 23) that Mleccha countries like Andhra and others were not fit for performing sacrifices. He appears to have held like Medhātithi the view that *mokṣa* was to be attained by a combination of *jñāna* and *karma*.⁷¹¹ As compared with the bhāṣya of Medhātithi his commentary is very concise. Kullūka largely drew upon Medhātithi and Govindarāja, mentions them hundreds of times, criticizes⁷¹² both of them and particularly holds up Govindarāja to ridicule often enough.⁷¹³ Kullūka notes that Govindarāja in opposition to Medhātithi and Bhojadeva arranged Manu 8. 181-184 differently (putting 8. 182 as the last of those four verses). In the printed edition there is no comment of Govindarāja on the verses of the 9th chapter from verse 72. But it appears that the Dāyabhāga had that part of the commentary, as it quotes the views of Govindarāja on the rights of the daughter's son which could have appeared only on Manu IX. 130-136.

v1.c6.s63.9

⁷¹⁰ अङ्गिरस्, आपस्तम्ब, उशनस्, ऋष्यशृङ्ग, काश्यप, गौतम, चतुर्विंशतिमत, देवल, नारद, पराशर, पैठीनसि, प्रचेतस्, बृहत्प्रचेतस्, बृहस्पति, बौधायन, यम, याज्ञवल्क्य, वसिष्ठ, विष्णु, व्यास, शङ्ख, शातातप, वृद्धशातातप, षट्त्रिंशन्मत, संवर्त, सुमन्तु, हारीत.

v1.c6.s63.10

⁷¹¹ On मनु २. २८ गोविन्दराज says ‘ज्ञानकर्मसमुच्चयान्मोक्षावाप्तेः’.

v1.c6.s63.11

⁷¹² Note the following where गोविन्दराज is criticized by कुल्लूक. मनु. II. 1, 22, 127 ; III. 11, 53, 127, 129, 285 ; IV. 7, 162 ; VI. 14, 79, 86 ; VII. 94, 211 ; VIII. 37, 142-143, 184, 333 ; IX. 68, 136, 141, 162, 206 ; X. 3 ; XI. 82, 180 ; XII. 86.

v1.c6.s63.12

⁷¹³ On मनु II. 125, III. 50 and VIII. 37 गोविन्दराज is held up to special ridicule. हन्त गोविन्दराजेन विशेषमविवृण्वता । व्यक्तमङ्गीकृतमृतौ स्वदारसुरतं यतः ॥ on मनु III. 50 ; स्वेषु तिष्ठत्स्विति पदद्वितयं न विवक्षितम् । इमां गोविन्दराजस्य राजाज्ञां नाद्रियामहे ॥ on मनु V. 104. It should be noted that the printed text of गोविन्दराज on मनु V. 104 is corrupt as it reads ‘स्वेषु तिष्ठत्सु विवक्षितम् ’.

v1.c6.s63.13

A few words may now be said about the Smṛtimañjarī, Mss. of which are rare. At the end of the India office Ms. a summary of the contents of the whole work is given (for which see footnote below ).⁷¹⁴ It appears that the Smṛtimañjarī dealt with all principal topics of dharmaśāstra such as the saṁskāras, the daily duties viz: bath, saṁdhyā, brahmayajña, the duties of the student, householder, the forest hermit, and the *saṁnyāsin*, the duties of the four *varṇas*, gifts, the purifications of various materials, foods forbidden and allowed, impurity on birth and death, *sapiṇḍas* and *samānodakas*, funeral rites, *śrāddha* and its various details, prāyaścitta. The ms. in the India office deals with the *adhikārī* for prāyaścitta, the *parṣat* (i. e. the assembly of learned men who are to determine what prāyaścitta is to be prescribed ), the means of atoning for sins and violations of religious duties, the prāyaścittas for the *mahāpātakas* (viz. the murder of a Brāhmaṇa, drinking wine, theft of gold, incest) and for other lesser and similar sins, meaning of the word prāyaścitta, prāyaścittas for killing men of Kṣatriya, Vaiśya and Śūdra classes and for killing women, prāyaścittas for the killing of a cow and of various beasts and birds, prāyaścittas for eating forbidden or polluted food and for selling articles forbidden to be sold, secret *prāyaścittas*. The India Office Ms. which deals only with *prāyaścittas* contains 152 folios. This gives us an idea as to how extensive the whole work must have been The Vyavahāramātṛkā as its very name implies deals with the elements of vyavahāra (i. e. judicial procedure). It speaks of the eighteen titles of law, the derivation of the word prāḍvivāka (judge), the persons fit to be appointed judges, different grades of courts, duties of *sabhyas*, four stages of vyavahāra, pūrvapakṣa (plaint), pratibhū (surety), blemishes in a plaint, *uttara* (reply of the defendent), four kinds of *uttara*, blemishes in *uttara*, *kriyā* (proof or burden of proof), divine (*daivī*) and human (*mānuṣī*) proof (viz: Ordeals, inference, witnesses, documents, possession), persons incompetent to be witnesses. Ordeals have not been dealt with by the author. The first verse of the work⁷⁴¹ styles it Vyavahāramātṛkā. The last verse⁷⁴² but one suggests the name Nyāyamātṛkā which practically is a synonym of Vyavahāra-mātṛkā and the colophon at the end of a ms. in the Deccan College collection calls it Nyāyaratnamālikā.

v1.c6.s63.14

⁷¹⁴ अस्य सुप्रतिपत्तये काण्डानि लिख्यन्ते । तत्रादौ परिभाषाकाण्डं गर्भाधानादि उपनयनादि । संध्योपासनविधिः। अन्ये ब्रह्मचारिधर्माः । अध्ययनादि । पुनरन्ये ब्रह्मचारिधर्माः । महायज्ञविधिः । विवाहादिगृहस्थधर्माः । शूद्रधर्माः । वृत्त्युपदेशाः । स्नानविधिः । यमनियमकाण्डम् । प्रास्थानिकम् । दानविधिः स्वापविधिः प्रोषितभर्तृकाधर्माः । द्रव्यशुद्धिः मूत्रादिशौचं आचमननिमित्तानि द्विराचमननिमित्तानि आचमनापवादाः । आचमनविधिः । अत्रैव प्रतिषेध्याः । कमण्डलुचर्या । अन्यदाचमनगतम् । स्नानशुद्धिः । सचेनानि । प्रक्षालनादिशौचम् । इति कायिकम् । सौवर्णादिशौचं वेलादिशौचं तथा सिद्धान्नादि भूम्यादि उदकादि अशुद्ध्यपवादाः । भोजनविधिः । भक्ष्याभक्ष्यप्रकरणम् । प्रेतशुद्धिः । ब्राह्मणशौचं क्षत्रियाद्याशौचं जननाशौचं, अनुजातायाशौचं स्त्रियाशौचं सपिण्डसमानोदकत्वं बीजसंबन्ध्यायाशौचं देशान्तरमृताशौचमाचार्याशौचमनेकाशौचसंनिपाताद्याशौचम् । निर्हरणादि । अनुगमनाद्याशौचम् । उदकक्रियादि पिण्डदानादि । अस्थिसंचयः । उदकादिनिषेधः । स्पर्शाशौचम् । यमनियमाः । श्राद्धप्रकरणम् । कालादि । ब्राह्मणपरीक्षा । भोजनायैाः । वर्षाभिमन्त्रणादि । देशः कालः । अत्रैवेतिकर्त्तव्यता । ब्राह्मणसंख्या । पुनरन्येतिकर्त्तव्यता । अमावास्यादिश्राद्धम् । एकोद्दिष्टं सपिण्डीकरणम् । आब्दिकं मातृश्राद्धम् । अन्ये श्राद्धधर्माः । वृद्धिश्राद्धम् । वानप्रस्थकाण्डं प्रव्रजितकाण्डम् । शूद्रधर्मकाण्डम् । अनुलोमप्रतिलोम । तद्वृत्त्युपदेशकाण्डम् । प्रायश्चित्तकाण्डम् ।

v1.c6.s63.15

⁷⁴¹ व्यवहारमातृकैषा सकलविवादेषु धर्मवादार्थम् । लोकद्वयेपि रक्षति सुतमिव शुश्रूषया माता ॥

v1.c6.s63.16

⁷⁴² पारिभद्रकुलोद्भूतः श्रीमान् जीमूतवाहनः । विदुषां परितोषाय निर्ममे न्यायमातृकाम् ॥

v1.c6.s63.17

About twenty smṛtikāras⁷⁴³ are mentioned in the Vyavahāramātṛkā. Kātyāyana, Bṛhaspati and Nārada are the three smṛtikāras most frequently quoted, nearly two-thirds of the quotations in the entire work being derived from them. Among the *nibandhakāras* the following are named:—Jitendriya, Dīkṣita, (p. 302), Bāla (p. 346, the same as Bālaka), Bhojadeva (pp. 284, 305), Mañjarīkāra (i. e. Govindarāja), Yogloka, Viśvarūpa, Śrīkara (pp. 292, 334 or Śrīkaramiśra p. 342). About Viśvarūpa he says⁷⁴⁴ 'I have put forward this conclusion of the ancient writers, I have refuted the objections of Viśvarūpa and others and dealt with them at length.' Yogloka and Śrīkara are generally quoted for being refuted and the former is frequently jeered at as 'tārkikaṁ-manya' or 'nava-tārkikaṁ-manya'. In this work Jīmūtavāhana displays great familiarity with the ancient dialectics. In some cases what the printed text exhibits⁷⁴⁵ as prose really constitutes verses. Sir Asutosh Mukerji is not accurate when he says in the preface that 'Jīmūtavāhana refers to a number of jurists not mentioned by any other author, e. g. Jitendriya, Yogloka, Bālaka, Viśvarūpa, Śrīkara and Mañjarīkāra.' It has been shown above that both Viśvarūpa and Śrīkara have been mentioned by the Mit. which is certainly earlier than Jīmūtavāhana and by a host of other writers who were either earlier than or contemporaries of Jīmūtavāhana. The Vyavahāramātṛkā is quoted in the Vyavahārtattva⁷⁴⁶ (pp. 199, 214, vol. II) and the Dāyatattva of Raghunandana.

v1.c6.s63.18

⁷⁴³ They are उशनस्, कात्यायन, बृहत्कात्यायन, कौण्डिन्य, गौतम, नारद, पितामह, प्रजापति, बृहस्पति, मनु, यम, याज्ञवल्क्य, लिखित, बृहद्वसिष्ठ, विष्णु, व्यास, शङ्ख, वृद्धशातातप, संवर्त, हारीत.

v1.c6.s63.19

⁷⁴⁴ मया प्राचां निबन्धूणामियं वापि (वाणी ?) पुरस्कृता । दूषणं विश्वरूपादेर्निराकृत्य प्रपञ्चितम् ॥ p. 352. M. M. Chakravarti is not right in taking (JASB 1915 p. 317) 'prācām' to mean 'eastern' in this verse, as in the previous verse also जीमूतवाहन refers 'to all *munis*' and 'former works' 'इति सकलमुनीनां भुक्तिवाक्यं विमृश्य स्वरसन इह सोर्थो गम्यते न्यायतश्च । स पुनरुपनिबन्धी (द्धो ?) गृह्यतां शुद्धिर्माद्भर्भवति यदि न जाड्यं श्रद्धया नाकृतैषु' ॥

v1.c6.s63.20

⁷⁴⁵ e. g. on p. 348 *the words* 'तस्मादाकाशकुसुम समान एव प्रमाणभावोऽस्याः। भुक्तेर्द्दूरनिरस्तं लिखितादिभ्यो बलीयस्त्वम् ॥' *constitute an Āryā. Similarly on p. 349 the words* 'तस्मादस्मौँतैरियमुक्ता भुक्तेः प्रमाणता भ्रान्तैः। ... स्ववचनमात्राधीनस्वत्वफलत्वात्प्रमाणं सा ॥' *make two Āryās.*

v1.c6.s63.21

⁷⁴⁶ 'युक्तिर्य्याथः स च लोकव्यवहारः इति व्यवहारमातृका' व्यवहारतत्त्व p. 199, vol. II.

v1.c6.s63.22

The Dāyabhāga is the most famous of Jīmūtavāhana's works. In matters of Hindu law such as inheritance, partition, *strīdhana*, re-union, it is of paramount authority in modern British Indian courts in Bengal, except in those cases where the Mitākṣarā is applicable. The names of more than a dozen commentators of it are known and Pandit Bharatacandra Siromani published it with seven commentaries (1863-1866). It was translated into English by Colebrooke. In many editions (such as that of Jivananda) it is divided into sections though there were no divisions in the original work. The contents of the Dāyabhāga are:— Definition of dāya; father's power over ancestral property; partition of father's and grand-father's property; division among brothers after their father's death; definition, classification and devolution of *strīdhana*; persons excluded from inheritance and partition on the ground of disabilities; property which is impartible (in its very nature or because it is self-acquired); order of succession to one dying sonless; re-union, partition of coparcenery property concealed but discovered afterwards, *indicia* of partition.

v1.c6.s63.23

Some of the peculiar doctrines of the Dāyabhāga which are of fundamental importance and which sharply distinguish it from the Mit. are : sons have no interest in ancestral property by birth, sons can claim partition only after extinction of theit father's ownership (i. e. after his death or on his becoming *patita* or a *saṁnyāsin*) or partition can take place between father and sons if the father so desires, a widow succeeds to her husband's interest on his death even if he be joint with his brother, the right to take a deceased person's estate is regulated by the spiritual benefit conferred by the person claiming as heir (by means of the offering of *piṇḍas*) and not by the principle of consanguinity (as in the Mit.).⁷⁴⁷

v1.c6.s63.24

⁷⁴⁷ Note the following 'तदेवं पितृस्वत्वापगम एकः कालोऽपरश्चानपगत एव पितुः स्वाम्ये पितुरिच्छयेति कालद्वयम्।' दायभाग p. 38; अतोऽविशेषेण विभक्ताद्यनपेक्ष्यैवापुत्रस्य भर्तुः कृत्स्नधने पत्न्यधिकारो जितेन्द्रियोक्त आदरणीयः। p. 256; उपकारकत्वेनैव धनसंबन्धो मन्वादीनामभिमत इति मन्यते इति निरवद्यविद्योद्योतेन द्योतितोयमर्थो विद्वद्भिरादरणीयः। p. 336.

v1.c6.s63.25

Besides the smṛtikāras,⁷⁴⁸ the Mahābhārata and the Mārkaṇḍeya-purāṇa the following authors are referred to by name in the Dāyabhāga :—Udgāhamalla, Govindarāja (as author of Manuṭīkā), Jitendriya, Dīkṣita, Bālaka, Bhojadeva or Dhāreśvara, Viśvarūpa and Śrīkara. Udgrāhamalla is referred to on the distribution of strīdhana and it is said that Udgrāhamalla (i. e. his view) is throttled⁷⁴⁹ by the text of Devala. It appears therefore that Udgrāhamalla was not a smṛti writer, but a *nibandhakāra*. Dīkṣita⁷⁵⁰ is credited with the view that, among daughters, those who have sons or are likely to have sons are preferred to those who are either barren, widowed or who give birth to daughters alone and the Dāyabhāga approves of this yiew. There is one more writer who is referred to twice with great respect as *Niravadyavidyoddyota*.

v1.c6.s63.26

⁷⁴⁸ The स्मृतिकारs named are: उशनस्, कात्यायन, वृद्धकात्यायन, गौतम, दक्ष, देवल, नारद, पैठीनसि, बृहस्पति, मनु, बृहन्मनु, यम, याज्ञवल्क्य, विष्णु, व्यास, शङ्खलिखित, वृद्धशातातप, हारीत.

v1.c6.s63.27

⁷⁴⁹ एतावताप्युद्ग्राहमल्लस्य देवलवचनं गलहस्तः यथा सामान्यं पुत्रकन्यानां मृतायां स्त्रीधनं स्त्रियाम्। दायभाग p. 127.

v1.c6.s63.28

⁷⁵⁰ अतः पुत्रवती संभावितपुत्रा चाधिकारिणी। वन्ध्यात्वविधवात्वदुहितृप्रसूतत्वादिना विपर्यस्तपुत्रा पुनरनधिकारिण्येवेति दीक्षितमतमादरणीयम्। दायभाग p. 271.

v1.c6.s63.29

Whether this is a mere description or title ('the refulgence of whose learning is spotless') or whether the author's name was Uddyota and *niravadyavidya* ('whose learning is spotless') is an epithet, it is difficult to say. For a correct knowledge of the origin and development of the theory of spiritual benefit propounded in the Dāyabhāga, it would be extremely desirable to know who this writer was, as Jīmūtavāhana tells us that that view was brilliantly set forth by Niravadyavidyoddyota. The same writer is also quoted on the well known verse of Yājñavalkya 'bhūryā pitāmahopāttā &c.,' which is the sheet-anchor of Vijñāneśvara's theory about the son's rights by birth in ancestral family property.⁷⁵¹

v1.c6.s63.30

⁷⁵¹ यत्तु याज्ञवल्कीयवचनं-भूयां ... भयोः-तस्य निरवद्यविद्योद्योतेन द्योतितस्तत्त्वतोऽमर्थः । यत्र द्वयोर्भ्रात्रोर्जीवत्पितृकयोराप्तभागयोरेकः पुत्रानुत्पाद्य विनष्टोऽन्यो जीवति अनन्तरं पिता मृतस्तत्र पुत्र एव तद्धनं प्राप्नोत्यतिसंनिकर्षात् । तदर्थं सदृशं स्वाम्यमिति वचनम् । p. 50.

v1.c6.s63.31

Jīmūtavāhana gives very little information about himself. In the colophons of his works he is described as Pāribhadrīya Mahāmahopādhyāya and at the end of the Vyavahāramātṛkā (vide note 742 above) he tells us that he was born of the Pāribhadra family (*kula*).⁷⁵² It is said that this name of the family still survives in the Parihal or Pāri Gai, a section of Rāḍhīya Brāhmaṇas (Ghose's Hindu Law, 3rd edition, pp. xvi-xviii and JASB 1915 p. 320). It is also said that Edumiśra in his Kulakārikā tells us that Jīmūtavāhana was chief judge in the reign of Viṣvak-sena of Bengal and that he was 9th in descent from Nārāyaṇabhaṭṭa, one of the five Brāhmaṇas brought by Ādiśūra. The information supplied by the match-makers of Bengal is, as shown above, not worth reliance, unless corroborated by independent evidence. It is also said that for fourteen generations the Brāhmaṇas of Pārigrāma have been degraded and so Jīmūtavāhana would not have paraded the fact that he was Pāribhadrīya if at the time when he wrote his subcaste had been degraded (Intro. to Kālaviveka p. viii). The fact that Jīmūtavāhana was a native of Rāḍhā is testified by his statement in the Kālaviveka that Agastya (Canopus) rose in Ujjayinī when four days of the month of Bhādrapada remained, but that in Rāḍhā Agastya rose when seven days of the month were yet to run.⁷⁵³

v1.c6.s63.32

⁷⁵² In some editions of the दायभाग, the last verse is पारिभद्रकुलोद्भूतः श्रीमान् जीमूतवाहनः । दायभागं चकारेमं विदुषां संशयच्छिदे ॥

v1.c6.s63.33

⁷⁵³ तथाहि राढादिषु सप्तदिनावशिष्टे भाद्रे तस्योदयः। उज्जयिन्यां च दिनचतुष्टयावशिष्टे। कालविवेक p. 290; vide p. 291 also.

v1.c6.s63.34

Extremely divergent views have been held as to the date of Jīmūtavāhana. He has been assigned to various dates from the 11th to the 16th century. In L. R. 41 I. A. at p. 298 it is said by their Lordships of the Privy Council that the Mit. was earlier by five centuries than Jīmūtavāhana. Dr. Jolly (R. u. S. p. 37) assigns him to the 15th century. For a statement of the various dates and their examination the article of M. M. Chakravarti in JASB. for 1915, pp. 321-327 and Mr. Panchanan Ghosh's learned article in 26 Calcutta Law Journal (journal portion p. 17 ff.) may be consulted. Since Jīmūtavāhana mentions Dhāreśvara Bhojadeva and Govindarāja, he cannot be placed earlier than the last quarter of the 11th century. Since he is quoted by Śūlapāṇi, Vācaspati-miśra and Raghunandana, he cannot be later than the middle of the 15th century. The Kālaviveka furnishes important data. On a ms. of the Kālviveka there is a note made about the birth-date of the son of a certain Ghaṭakasiṁha with the horoscope of the child. The year specified therein is *śake* 1417, i. e. 1495 A. D. It follows from this that the Ms. itself must have been copied sometime before this and the original work must be much earlier still. So the Kālaviveka cannot be placed at any rate later than about 1400 A. D.

v1.c6.s63.35

In the Kālaviveka Jīmūtavāhana tells us that his predecessor Andhuka⁷⁵⁴ exhibited a certain astronomical matter in *śake* 952 (i. e. 1030 A. D.) and that he declared an intercalary month in *śake* 955.

v1.c6.s63.36

⁷⁵⁴ एवंविध एव कार्त्तिको द्विपञ्चाशदधिकनवशतसंख्याते शकाब्दे अन्धुकादिर्दर्शितवान्। कालविवेक p. 51: तथाहि पञ्चपञ्चाशदधिकनवशतसंख्यके शकाब्दे तुलासंक्रान्तिरमावास्यायां भूता... अन्धुकेन लिखितः। कालविवेक p. 119.

v1.c6.s63.37

Similarly Jīmūtavāhana expatiates upon several⁷⁵⁵ minute astronomical and astrological details which were observed in the *śake* years 1013 and 1014 (i. e. 1091 and 1092 A. D.). It is impossible to suppossc that an author would enter into such minute details about a time which was anterior to his own by centuries. Generally astronomical works take for their calculations starting points or years which were within their own experience or very nearly so. Therefore it appears to be a sound conclusion to hold that the Kālaviveka was composed soon after *śake* 1013 or 1014 (i. e. 1091 and 1092 A. D.). Hence it follows that the literary activity of Jīmūtavāhana lay between 1090 and 1130 A. D. The Kālaviveka seems to be his first work. The Vyavahāramātṛkā would. naturally come before the Dāyabhāga. He seems to have contemplated writing⁷⁵⁶ on ṛṇādāna also, as he says in the Dāyabhāga that a certain matter would be expounded by him in ṛṇādāna.

v1.c6.s63.38

⁷⁵⁵ ननु सूर्य्याचन्द्रमसोर्मिन्नराशिरुथत्वेपि अमावास्या दृश्यते। तथा च चतुर्दशोत्तरसहस्रशकवत्सरे सिंहस्थे रवौ द्वित्रिदण्डान् चतुर्दशीं परतोऽश्लेषानक्षत्रं सप्तदण्डान् परतो मघा तेनाश्लेषासमयेऽमावास्यायां कर्कटे चन्द्रः सिंहे चादित्यः। कालविवेक p. 21; तथा त्रयोदशोत्तरशकाब्दशेषे मीनस्थे सूर्ये पूर्वोत्तरफाल्गुनीव्याप्ता पूर्णिमा तदनन्तरं मेषस्थे हस्तचित्राभ्यां युक्ता पूर्णिमा हस्तयोगात्फाल्गुनोप्यसौ त्रयोदशोत्तरसहस्राब्दीयकुम्भादित्यात्प्रभृति चतुर्दशोत्तरसहस्राब्दान्तमानभोगपर्यन्तेन मासद्वयलोपः। कालविवेक p. 45. Vide also pp. 41, 46-49.

v1.c6.s63.39

⁷⁵⁶ एतच्च विस्तरेण (ऋणा-) दाने वक्ष्यते। दायभाग p. 45.

v1.c6.s63.40

The most cogent argument that can be advanced against the above early date assigned to Jīmūtavāhana is that neither Jīmūtavāhana nor any of his compositions is mentioned by Bengal writers and works on Dharmaśāstra belonging to the 12th, 13th and 14th centuries such as the Hāralatā, the commentary of Kullūka etc. No satisfactory explanation can be offered of this silence. But is is a very precarious thing to conclude from this silence that Jīmūtavāhana's works did not exist during those centuries. It is safer to base conclusions about his date on the positive evidence contained in his works rather than rely upon the negative argument from silence in later works. When some of his commentators say that he criticises the views of Caṇḍeśvara, Miśra and others we should not take them seriously. The commentators had no idea of the exact chronological position of writers long anterior to them. All they mean is that Jīmūtavāhana criticises views that were shared also by Caṇḍeśvara and others. Another important question is whether Jīmūtavāhana who is certainly a little later than the Mit.

v1.c6.s63.41

criticizes it. The Vivāda-tāṇḍava of⁷⁵⁷ Kamalākara says that Jīmūtavāhana held that the view about the equal ownership of father and son in ancestral property was put forward for precluding the possibility of the uncle taking the whole estate of a man dying (in union) leaving a son or a predeceased son's son or for precluding the possibility of an unequal distribution of ancestral property by a father among his sons and that Jīmūtavāhana took up this position, being blinded by his hatred of the Mit. The Vīramitrodaya⁷⁵⁸ also says that Jīmūtavāhana criticizes the Mitākṣarā definition of *vibhāga* and the view of the Mit. about the times for partition. The Vyavahāramātṛkā⁷⁵⁹ also appears to criticizes several times views which were held by the Mit. and the correspondence is very striking. On this point this much may be said that the points selected for attack by Jīmūtavāhana do occur almost in the same words in the Mit. but, since the Mit. is not expressly mentioned and since it is likely that other writers like Asahāya and Bhāruci whose works have not yet been discovered might have contained the very same words that are found in the Mit., it is somewhat hazardous to assert that Jīmūtavāhana criticizes the Mit. alone and no other work. All that one can advance is that it is quite within the bounds of possibility that Jīmūtavāhana criticizes the Mit.

v1.c6.s63.42

⁷⁵⁷ यत्तु जीमूतवाहनः-मृतपितृके पौत्रे पुत्रे च सति संनिकर्षात् पितृव्यस्यैव सर्वधनप्राप्ति-निरासार्थं समस्वाम्योक्तिः पुत्राणां विषमविभागनिवृत्त्यर्था वा न तु पितुः समभागार्था पुत्रस्वातन्त्र्यार्था वा तेन पैतामहेपि पितुर्भागद्वयमिति। तन्मिताक्षराप्रद्वेषजान्ध्यकृतम्। folio 109 of the Mandlik collection ms. in the Fergusson College, Poona.

v1.c6.s63.43

⁷⁵⁸ 'यच्च जीमूतवाहनेनैव मिताक्षरोक्तं विभागो नाम द्रव्यसमुदायविषय णामनेकस्वत्वा नां तदेकदेशेषु व्यवस्थापनमिति विभागशब्दार्थः इति दूषयित्वोच्यते' वीर० p. 547 ; 'अत्र पित्र्युपरम एकः कालो निवृत्ते चापि रजसीति द्वितीयो जीवति चेच्छतीति तृतीय इति मिताक्षरायां जीमूतवाहनेनोक्तं दूषणम् ।' वीर० p. 552.

v1.c6.s63.44

⁷⁵⁹ व्यवहारमातृका p. 296 'तदेव (वं ?) स्वयमेव अप्रसिद्धाद्व्यहृतत्वात् यदन्यैः कल्पितं अप्रसिद्धमिति मदीयं शशविषाणमनेन गृहीतं निराबाधमस्मदीयगृहस्थितो दीपः प्रकाश-मेतद्गृहे करोति ... तत्रास्तां दूषणान्तरं किं तु शास्त्रान्यथाकल्पनमशास्त्रदर्शित्वमेव तेषां कल्पयति ।;' compare मिताक्षरा on याज्ञ. II. 6 'अप्रसिद्धं मदीयं शश-विषाणं गृहीत्वा न प्रयच्छतीत्यादि निग्बाधमस्मद्गृहे दीपप्रकाशेनायं स्वगृहे व्यवहरती-त्यादि.' It is to be noted that these examples occur in अपरार्क also.

v1.c6.s63.45

For Raghunandana one of the famous commentators of the Dāyabhāga, vide sec. 102 below.

Linked texts (40)