Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s71: 86. Haradatta

History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s71

Language
English

86. Haradatta

v1.c6.s71.1

Haradatta's fame stands very high as a commentator. He wrote a commentary called Anākulā on the Āpastamba-gṛhya-sūtra (D. C. Ms. No. 2 of 1866–68), a commentary on the Āpastambīya-mantra-pāṭha (vide Dr. Winternitz's ed. of 1897, p. XIII), a commentary called Anāvilā on the Āśvalāyana-gṛhya-sūtra (published in the Trivandrum series), a commentary called Mitākṣarā on the Gautamadharmasūtra and a commentary named Ujjvalā on the dharmasūtra of Āpastamba. His commentaries are very good models of ideal commentaries. His commentary on the dharmasūtra of Gautama (printed by the Ānandāśrama Press, Pooona) is more concise than that on the Dharmasūtra of Āpastamba (large extracts of which were published by Bühler in his edition in the B. S. series, the whole being printed by Halasyanath Sastri at Kumbhakonam and in the Mysore Government Oriental Library series). In his commentary on the Dharmasūtras he quotes verses from numerous smṛtis and from the purāṇas but hardly ever mentions by name any commentator or *nibandhakāra*. In his Anāvilā (page 9) he quotes the views of a Bhāṣyakāra who is probably Devasvāmin and mentions also a Chāndogagṛhyabhāṣyakāra (on I. 2. 3). In his commentaries on both the Dharmasūtras he frequently quotes the opinions of previous commentators with the words 'anye,' 'aparaḥ,' 'kecit;' *vide* G. Dh. S. II. 28, VII. 4 and 14, IX. 52, XI. 17, XII. 32 and 33, XXIV. 5, XXVI. 9, XXVIII. 7 and 44; Āp. Dh. S. I. 1. 4. 24, I. 2. 5. 2 and 18, I. 3. 10. 4, I. 3. 11. 20, I. 5. 15. 20. etc. From the fact that he mentions two interpretations on Āp. Dh. S. I. 2. 5. 2. with the words 'apara āha' and 'ityanye' and several interpretations on II. 7. 17. 22 it follows that he had before him two or three commentaries on Āp. Dh. S. In Bühler's edition Haradatta on Āp. Dh. S. I. 1. 2. 38 appears to refer to a gṛhya-vṛtti, but in the Kumbhakonam edition the reading is different (viz. *gṛhye gatam*). He is very careful to point out the un-Pāṇinean forms in the sūtras of Gautama⁸¹⁵ and Āpastamba, explains at great length all grammatical matters and generally prefers readings that are in consonance with the rules of Pāṇini. He very often says that the text of the sūtras, particularly of Āpastamba, as handed down by oral tradition was either wrong or followed Vedic usage as regards grammar.⁸¹⁶

v1.c6.s71.2

From various references Haradatta kāṇḍa, 25th and 26th *praśnas* of Āpastamba-kalpa) with an obeisance to Mahādeva. Burnell (Tanjore mss. cat. p. 170) tells us that according to tradition in Southern India, Rudradatta, the commentator of the Āp. Śrauta-sūtra, is the same as Haradatta. In his commentary on Āp. Gṛ. S. I. 13. 5 (ghoṣavad caturakṣaraṁ vā) he gives as instances of the names of males Hara, Rudra, Deva, Haradatta and Bhavanāga. In the colophons the Anāvilā is described as the work of Haradattācārya-miśra.

v1.c6.s71.3

Ghose in his Hindu Law (3rd ed. Intro. p. XV) says that, like Medhātithi, Haradatta denies the heritable rights of widows and must have come before Vijñāneśvara and not after. But Ghose appears to be wrong. Haradatta first says that according to the *ācārya* (i. e. Āpastamba) the *sapiṇḍas* of the deceased who took the property were obliged to maintain the widow of the deceased, while the view of Gautama was that the widow took, on failure of male issue, an equal share along with the *sapiṇḍas*, and then Haradatta says that he himself liked the latter view.⁸²⁰ He often gives interesting information. On Gautama XVII. 33 he tells us that *asafoetida* is eaten by all, even though it is a matter for consideration whether being the exudation of a tree, it is to be regarded as due to cutting (and so forbidden).⁸²¹ On Āp. Dh. S. II. 2. 5. 14 he cites as an example of reviling (*ā-krośa*) the following : 'the Taittirīya is a Śakhā that is *ucchiṣṭa* (the leavings of food eaten), the Yājñavalkya and other Brāhmaṇa works are modern'.⁸²² On Gautama IV. 5. he says that what distinguishes the Prājāpatya form of marriage from the Brāhma and others is that there is in the former a stipulation that the husband is not to enter into another order of life (*āśrama*) nor is he to marry another woman.⁸²³ On Āp. Dh. S. I. 4. 12. 15 he says that whereas in the case of marriage with a paternal aunt's or maternal uncle's daughter, the act springs from the fact that one is pleased thereby, there is no necessity to infer a *śāstra* (a Vedic passage) once existing but now lost (in support of such usage).⁸²⁴

v1.c6.s71.4

⁸²⁰ On आप. ध. सू. II. 6. 14. 2 'पुत्राभावे यः प्रत्यासन्नः सपिण्डः' he says 'भार्या तु रिक्थग्राहिणः सपिण्डाद्या रक्षेयुर्न तु दायग्रहणमित्याचार्यस्य पक्षः। ... गौतमस्तु पुत्राभावे पत्न्याः सपिण्डादिभिः समांशमाह। ... वयमप्येतमेव पक्षं रोचयामहे।'

v1.c6.s71.5

⁸²¹ हिङ्गुस्तु निर्यासो व्रश्चनप्रभवो न वेति चिन्त्यम् । सर्वथा शिष्टा अपि भक्षयन्ति ।

v1.c6.s71.6

⁸²² तैत्तिरीयमुच्छिष्टशाखा याज्ञवल्कादीनि ब्राह्मणानीदानीन्तनानीत्यादय आक्रोशाः।

v1.c6.s71.7

⁸²³ नाश्रामान्तरं प्रवेष्टव्यं नापि स्त्र्यन्तरमुपयन्तव्यमिति मन्त्रेण समयः क्रियते । एष ब्राह्मादेः प्राजापत्यस्य विशेषः ।

v1.c6.s71.8

⁸²⁴ यत्र पितृष्वसृमातुलसुतापरिणयनादौ प्रीत्युपलब्धितः प्रवृत्तिर्न तत्रोत्सन्नपाठं शास्त्रमनुमीयते प्रीतेरेव प्रवृत्तिहेतोः संभवात् ।

v1.c6.s71.9

The date of Haradatta is a rather difficult problem. Bühler (S. B. E. vol. II. p. XLIII) at first thought that Haradatta probably wrote in the 16th century, but in his 2nd edition of the Āp. Dh. S. he says (p. VIII) that the Munich ms of the Ujjvalā written in Poona about 1600 A. D. shows the interpolated text found in all Devanāgari copies and that therefore Haradatta is older than at least 1450-1500 A. D. The Vīramitrodaya⁸²⁵ frequently cites the Mitākṣarā of Haradatta on Gautama. Nārāyaṇabhaṭṭa (born in 1513 A. D.) in his Prayoga-ratna quotes Haradatta's comment on Gautama VIII. 14-22 about saṁskāras and his son Śaṅkarabhaṭṭa names both the Mitākṣarā and the Ujjvalā of Haradatta in his Dvaitanirṇaya. The Prayogapārijāta of Nṛsiṁha, which is quoted in the Prayogaratna of Nārāyaṇabhaṭṭa and is therefore not later than the first quarter of the 16th century, cites Haradatta's explanation of Āp. Gṛ. S. (on 'pravāsād-etya putrasya śiraḥ parigṛhya japati' etc.) and contrasts it with Nārāyaṇa's view. The Subodhinī of Viśveśvarabhaṭṭa (about 1375 A. D.) on Mit. (Yāj II. 132) quotes certain smṛti passages as found in the vṛtti of Āpastamba which are found in Haradatta's gloss.⁸²⁶ Hence it follows that Haradatta cannot be later than about 1300 A. D. The fact that Haradatta hardly ever names any commentator except perhaps Devasvāmin, the Bhāṣyakāra of Āpastambe-gṛhya, and that he holds antiquated views about the widow's right to succeed to her deceased husband's estate are strong arguments in favour of the view that Haradatta is comparatively an early writer. Hardly any writer after Vijñāneśvara assigns the same position to the widow as Haradatta does. Hence it appears that Haradatta could not have flourished much later than 1100 A. D. So he must be placed between 1100-1300 A. D., very probably near the earlier limit than the later one.

v1.c6.s71.10

⁸²⁵ Vide वीर० pp. 169, 655.

v1.c6.s71.11

⁸²⁶ पूर्वाभावे परः पर इति रिक्थग्रहणक्रमोपि दर्शितो वाक्यशेषे स्मृत्यन्तरेष्वन्यथा दर्शितः। तथाहि आपस्तम्बवृत्तौ स्मृत्यन्तरसंग्रहः। औरसः पुत्रिकाथीजक्षेत्रज्ञौ पुत्रिकासुतः । पानर्भवश्च कानीनः सहोढो गूढसंभवः। दत्तः क्रीतः स्वयंदत्तः कृत्रिमश्चापविद्धकः। यत्र क चोत्पादितश्च स्वपुत्रा दश पञ्च चेति । सुबोधिनी. This occurs in हरदत्त's comment on आप. ध. सू. II. 6. 14. 1 (Buhler's ed. of 1894, p. 81).

v1.c6.s71.12

One important question is as to the identity of Haradatta, the commentator of the Dharma and Gṛhya sūtras and Haradatta, the author of the Padamañjarī, a commentary on the Kāśikā of Vāmana and Jayāditya. Bühler felt uncertain about the identity. Śaṅkarabhaṭṭa in his Dvaita-nirṇaya speaks of Haradatta as expounding⁸²⁷ a *kārikā* of Hari (Vākyapadīya III. p. 260, Benares ed.) and also speaks of Haradatta as the author of the Ujjvalā and the Mitākṣarā without making any distinction between the two. This shows that he regarded the two as identical. Haradatta in his commentaries on the Dharmasūtras gives far more attention to grammar than almost any other commentator of Dharmaśāstra.⁸²⁸ His grammatical disquisition on Āp. Dh. S. I. 2. 5. 18 (‘plāvanam ca nāmno’ etc.) is almost identical with the Padamañjarī on Pāṇini VIII. 2. 83 (‘pratyabhivādeśūdre’). On Āp. Dh. S. II. 7. 17. 17 he quotes a verse as from the grammarians for defining the location of the *udīcyas*.⁸²⁹ The Mādhavīya Dhātu-vṛtti mentions the Padamañjarī. From this it follows that the Padamañjarī was composed before 1300 A. D. Dr. Belvalkar places Haradatta, the author of the Padamañjarī, about 1100 A. D.⁸³⁰ The learned editor of the Anāvilā in the Trivandrum series points out that, as Haradatta is quoted in the Puruṣakāra which in its turn is mentioned in the Dhātu-vṛtti of Mādhava and as Śaraṇadeva, the author of the Durghaṭa-vṛtti, who wrote in *śake* 1095, cites the Jainendra and Kaiyaṭa but not Haradatta nor the Padamañjarī, Haradatta wrote about the close of the 12th century A. D. These circumstances render it highly probable (if not certain) that Haradatta the commentator of the Dharmasūtras is the same as the author of the Padamañjarī and that he flourished between 1100 and 1300 A. D. and probably about 1200 A. D. The Smṛticandrikā twice refers to the bhāṣya of the Āpastamba-dharma-sūtra.⁸³¹ Haradatta's commentary is styled *vṛtti* and not *bhāṣya* and the citations do not occur in his work. Hence it appears that the Smṛticandrikā did not know Haradatta's works and the latter could not have flourished much earlier than the Smṛti-candrikā.

v1.c6.s71.13

⁸²⁷ तदुक्तं हरिणा—गुणक्रियायां स्वातन्त्र्यात् प्रेषणे कर्मतां गतः । नियम्यात्कर्मसंज्ञायाः स्वधर्मेणाभिधीयते ॥ अस्यार्थो हरदत्तेन विवृतः । द्वैतनिर्णय.

v1.c6.s71.14

⁸²⁸ Vide comment on आप. ध. सू. I. 2. 5. 1 (तदतिक्रमे विद्याकर्म निःस्रवति) where हरदत्त says 'स्रवतेः सकर्मप्रयोगो भाष्ये दृष्टः स्रवत्युदकं कुण्डिकेति' where he refers to the महाभाष्य of पतञ्जलि (vide Keilhorn, vol. II. p. 69).

v1.c6.s71.15

⁸²⁹ 'प्रागुदश्वौ विभजते हंसः क्षीरोदकं यथा । विदुषां शब्दसिद्ध्यर्थं सा नः पातु शरावती । इति वैयाकरणाः । अस्याः शरावत्या उदक्तीरनिवर्तिन उदीच्याः ।'. हेमाद्रि quotes on the same sūtra of आप. the same verse with the reading सरस्वती for शरावती and styles it the saying of the ancients (चतुर्वर्ग. III. 1. p. 1350). The अमरकोश makes शरावती the boundary of भारतवर्ष. Is Śarāvatī the modern Rapti, a tributary of the Śarayū, or is it the modern Shirāvati near Honavar in North Canara?

v1.c6.s71.16

⁸³⁰ 'Systems of Sanskrit Grammar' pp. 39-40.

v1.c6.s71.17

⁸³¹ अत्र हि अधिकारत इति हेतुबलात् अन्वेत्यादिपक्षत्रयं पूर्वपक्षत्वेनोपन्यस्तमित्युक्तं तद्भाष्ये । स्मृतिच० I. p. 25 (on आप. ध. सू. II. 6. 15. 19-23) ; अत एव जीवन्पुत्रेभ्यो दायं विभजेदित्यापस्तम्बसूत्रं व्याचक्षाणेन तद्भाष्यकारेण पुत्रेभ्य एव दायं विभजेन्न स्त्रीभ्यो दुहितृभ्य इत्युक्तम् । स्मृतिच० II. p. 300.

v1.c6.s71.18

In the Padamañjarī Haradatta is said to have been the son of Padma (Rudra)-kumāra, younger brother of Agnikumāra and a pupil of Aparājita.⁸³² In his Padamañjarī Haradatta employs the word 'kūcimañcī' which is a Telugu word.⁸³³ The Bhaviṣyottarapurāṇa printed in Grantha characters contains 12 chapters (54 to 65th) and the Śivarahasya printed in the said characters has one chapter (17th) which set out the life (*carita*) of a Haradattācārya. It is there stated that Haradattācārya's original name was Sudarśana, that he was the son of Vāsudeva and that he died 3979 years after Kaliyuga began⁸³⁴ (i. e. 878 A. D.). This Haradattācārya, being the son of Vāsudeva, was not the same as the author of the Padamañjarī, who was the son of Padmakumāra. This earlier Haradatta may probably be the same as the Haradattācārya cited as an authority in the Sarvadarśana-saṁgraha on the Nakulīśa-pāśupatadarśana.⁸³⁵ Dr. Jolly (R. u. S. p. 33) identifies without sufficient foundation the Haradattācārya of the Sarvadarśana-saṁgraha with Haradatta, the commentator of Āpastamba and Gautama.

v1.c6.s71.19

⁸³² Vide Report on the search of Sanskrit and Tamil mss. for 1893-94 by S. Seshagiri Sastri pp. pp 13-20 and pp. 171-178 (extract).

v1.c6.s71.20

⁸³³ या पुनर्देशभाषाभिः संज्ञाः कूचिमञ्चीत्यादयो न तासां साधुत्वम् । p. 16 of the Report on Sanskrit and Tamil mss. for 1893-94 by S. Seshagiri Sastri.

v1.c6.s71.21

⁸³⁴ कल्यादौ च चतुःसहस्रसहिते यन्नैकविंशोनके पुष्ये मासि विलम्बिनाम्नि शमगादप्रजो मौद्गलः । पञ्चम्यां सितपक्षके भृगुदिने सप्तात्मजोऽर्ककटे कंसग्रामनिवासाभिः सुदर्शनः सार्थं विमानोज्ज्वलः ॥. कंसग्राम is in the Tanjore District.

v1.c6.s71.22

⁸³⁵ तत्र विधीयमानमुपायफलं लाभः। ज्ञानतपोनित्यत्वस्थितिशुद्धिभेदात् पञ्चविधः। तदाह हरदत्ताचार्यः। ज्ञानं तपोथ नित्यत्वं स्थितिः शुद्धिश्च पञ्चमम्। &c. सर्वदर्शनसंग्रह pp. 162–63 (Govt. Oriental series, Poona).

v1.c6.s71.23

A work called Hari-hara-tāratamya and another called Caturveda-tātparya-saṁgraha are ascribed to a Haradatta. Of the latter there is a ms. in the Deccan College collection (No. 109 of 1871–72), which contains 154 verses of fine penmanship. The first and last are given below.⁸³⁶ Whether these two works were composed by Haradatta, the commentator of the Dharmasūtras, it is difficult to say. In the latter work the author sings a hymn of praise to Śiva as the supreme deity, points out how the Vedic *mantras* refer to him, how the various rites are meant for him, refers to the mythological representations of Śiva as *Kirāta*, or as wearing skin etc. All the verses upto 143 are in the Vasantatilakā metre, while towards the end there are a few verses in other metres such as Śikhariṇī and Rathoddhatā. He was a staunch Śaivite,⁸³⁷ though the hymn breathes a spirit of tolerance and sympathy for different religious and philosophical systems. He refers to the Maitrāyaṇa Śruti, Talavakāra Brāhmaṇa, Kātyāyana-gṛhya, Bhagvadgītā, the Purāṇas as supplementing the Vedas (vedopabṛṁhaka), the Sāṁkhya and Yoga.

v1.c6.s71.24

⁸³⁶ यस्मै नमो भवति यस्य गुणाः समग्रा नारायणोपनिषदा यदुपासनोक्ता। यो नः प्रचोदयति बुद्धिमभिश्रुतौ यस्तं त्वामनन्यगतिरीश्वर संश्रयामि॥ first verse; अघटितघटनापटवे प्रकटितकरुणाय सिन्धुभृते। वटतरुमूलस्थितये विघटिततमसे महेश्वराय नमः॥ last verse.

v1.c6.s71.25

⁸³⁷ Verses 144–145 are विधातारं कश्चिद्भजति भजते कश्चन हरिं सुरानन्यानन्ये जगति सफलाः सर्वविधयः। तथापि त्वद्भक्ते शिव ननु यदा चर्मवदिति श्रुतो मन्त्रो देवान्तरभजनदैन्यं न सहते॥ शशे शृङ्गं पुष्पं नभसि मृगतृष्णासु सलिलं प्रसूतिर्वन्ध्यायामनवधिकमायुस्तनुभृताम्। विमुक्तिर्वा देवान्तरभजनलभ्या पशुपते न शक्यं नः संभावयितुमपि सर्वं विमृशताम्॥

Linked texts (19)