Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s73: 88. Kullūkabhaṭṭa

History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s73

Language
English

88. Kullūkabhaṭṭa

v1.c6.s73.1

Kullūka's commentary on the Manusmṛti styled the Manvarthamuktāvalī is the most famous of all commentaries on Manu. It has been printed several times. In the following the Nirṇayasāgara edition of 1909 has been relied upon. Kullūka's commentary is concise and lucid and his remarks are always to the point. He avoids all unnecessary discussions and is never prolix. He was not however original. He drew upon the commentaries of Medhātithi and Govindarāja and incorporated a great deal from them into his own work without acknowledgment. For example, on Manu XI. 95 he simply summarises the remarks⁸⁶⁰ of Govindarāja and cites only one out of the several quotations that are found in Govindarāja's Manu-ṭīkā. He severely criticizes both Medhātithi and Govindarāja, particularly the latter. He frequently pours ridicule on the latter (vide note 713 above). At the end of his commentary he says⁸⁶¹ that Medhātithi's skill lay in expounding what texts were authoritative and of substance and what were not so, Govindarāja in concise words explained the hidden meaning of the brief text (of Manu), while Dharaṇīdhara had his own method of explanation which was independent of previous tradition; and therefore he undertook to write a commentary that would clearly set forth the real meaning of Manu. He was very proud of his achievement and says that neither Medhātithi nor Govindarāja nor other commentators explained in the way he did and that explanatory material like his would be difficult to find elsewhere.⁸⁶² He notices the explanations of Medhātithi and Govindarāja hundreds of times, discusses various readings and his commentary deserves to a considerable extent the eulogy pronounced by Sir William Jones⁸⁶³ "At length appeared Cullūca Bhaṭṭa, who, after a painful course of study and the collation of numerous manuscripts, produced a work of which it may perhaps be said very truly that it is the shortest yet the most luminous, the least ostentatious yet the most learned, the deepest yet the most agreeable, commentary ever composed on any author, ancient or modern."

v1.c6.s73.2

⁸⁶⁰ 'पुंस एव ब्राह्मणस्य मद्यप्रतिषेधो न स्त्रिया इत्याहुस्तदसत् । सुरालशुन ... अभक्ष्याणि स्युः ब्राह्मणी सुरापी भवति नैनां देवाः पतिलोकं नयन्ति इहैव सा दुर्मतिः क्षीणपुण्या अप्सु जलोद्भवैति शुक्तिका वा पतिलोकं न सा याति ... इति शङ्खवसिष्ठयाज्ञवल्क्यैर्ब्राह्मण्या अपि निषेधस्मरणात्' । गोविन्दराज on मनु XI. 95; 'अत्र केचित् ... ब्राह्मणस्य पुंस एव मद्यप्रतिषेधो न स्त्रिया इत्याहुस्तदसत् पतिलोकं न सा याति ... सूकरी चोपजायते इति याज्ञवल्क्यादिस्मृतिविरोधात् ।' कुल्लूक.

v1.c6.s73.3

⁸⁶¹ सारासारवचःप्रपञ्चनविधौ मेधातिथेश्चातुरी स्तोकं वस्तु निगूढमल्पवचनाद्गोविन्दराजो जगौ । ग्रन्थेऽस्मिन्धरणीधरस्य बहुशः स्वातन्त्र्यमेतावता स्पष्टं मानवमर्थतत्त्वमखिलं वक्तुं कृतोयं श्रमः ॥. Vide his remarks about धरणीधर on मनु II. 83 and IV. 50 'धरणीधरेण तु एकाक्षरपरं ब्रह्म प्राणायामपरं तपः इति पठितं ... मेधातिथिप्रभृतिभिर्वृद्धैरालेखितं यतः लिखनात्पाठान्तरं तत्र स्वतन्त्रो धरणीधरः' and परंपरीयमाम्नायं हित्वा विद्वद्भिरादृतम् । पाठान्तरं व्यरचयन्मुघेह धरणीधरः ॥.'

v1.c6.s73.4

⁸⁶² प्रायश्चित्ते बहुमुनिमतालोंचनाद्यन्मयोक्तं सद्द्व्याख्यानं खलु मुनिगिरां तद्द्बजध्वं गुणज्ञाः । नैतन्मेधातिथिरभिदधे नापि गोविन्दराजो व्याख्यातारो न जगुरपरेत्यन्यतो दुर्लभं वः ॥ last verse of chap. XI.

v1.c6.s73.5

⁸⁶³ *Vide Pedda Ramappa v Bangari Seshamma I. L. R. 2 Mad, 286 at p. 291.*

v1.c6.s73.6

Among the authors and works quoted by him (besides the usual smṛtis) are the following:—Garga (on II. 6), Govindarāja, Dharaṇīdhara, Bhāskara (bhāṣyakāra of the Vedāntasūtras, on I. 8 and 15), Bhojadeva (on VIII. 184), Medhātithi, Vāmana (author of the Kāśikā), Bhaṭṭavārtika-kṛt (on XII. 106), Viśvarūpa (the commentator of Yājñavalkya, on II. 189 and V. 68). The Viśvarūpa that he quotes on Manu V. 215 is the lexicographer and not the jurist as Aufrecht (in his great catalogue) appears to hold.

v1.c6.s73.7

He gives us a little information about himself in the introductory verse.⁸⁶⁴ He came of a Vārendra Brāhmaṇa family of Bengal (Gauḍa) residing in Nandana and was the son of Bhaṭṭa Divākara. He wrote his commentary in Kāśī in the company of *Paṇḍits*. On Manu VI. 14 he mentions the names of certain vegetables that were current in Malwa and among the Vāhīkas.⁸⁶⁵

v1.c6.s73.8

⁸⁶⁴ गौडे नन्दनवासिनाम्नि सुजनैर्वन्द्ये वरेन्द्यां कुले श्रीमद्भट्टदिवाकरस्य तनयः कुल्लूकभट्टोभवत्। काश्यामुत्तरवाहिजह्नुतनयातीरे समं पण्डितैस्तेनेयं क्रियते हिताय विदुषां मन्वर्थमुक्तावली॥

v1.c6.s73.9

⁸⁶⁵ भूस्तृणं मालवदेशे प्रसिद्धं शाकं शिम्प्रुकं वाहीकेषु प्रसिद्धं शाकम्।

v1.c6.s73.10

It appears that Kullūka also composed a digest called Smṛtisāgara. A Ms. of a portion of it called Śrāddhasāgara exists in the Calcutta Sanskrit College (cat. vol. II. p. 405, No. 446). In this his Āśaucasāgara and Vivādasāgara are referred to.

v1.c6.s73.11

I secured a transcript of the ms. of the Śrāddhasāgara in the Calcutta Sanskrit College through the kindness of the Principal. The Śrāddhasāgara deals with the following subjects:—definition of of śrādha; whether it is of the nature of *yāga*, dāna and homa; various kinds of śrāddhas such as nitya, naimittika &c.; the proper and improper places for śrāddha; the proper times for śrāddha; Aṣṭakā-śrāddha; śūdras can perform aṣṭakā aud other śrāddhas; intercalary month; who are paṅkti-pāvana brāhmaṇas; meaning of nimantraṇa and āmantraṇa; the number of brāhmaṇas to be invited; the *darbhas*; śrāddhadevatās; the sacred thread etc.

v1.c6.s73.12

The Śrāddhasāgara is full of Pūrvamīmāṁsā discussions. The author says that he wrote it and the other two works (Vivādasāgara and Āśaucasāgara) at the order of his father. He quotes profusely from the Mahābhārata, the Mahāpurāṇas and Upapurāṇas and from the dharmasūtras and metrical smṛtis. He names the Kalpataru oftener than any other *nibandhakāra*. The other authors and works named are: Bhojadeva, Halāyudha (probably the author of Prakāśa on the Śrāddhakalpasūtra of Kātyāyana), Jīkana, Kāmadhenu, Medhātithi, Śaṅkhadhara. In one place we have a reference to Prabhākara and Kamalākarabhaṭṭa (on Kāla and Kāma being devatās) and in another place to Gauḍa-Maithila-Mayūkhabhaṭṭāḥ (which are probably marginal notes creeping into the ms. or refer to authors other than the well-known ones). He refers to the opinion of his own *guru* in opposition to that of the Kalpataru.

v1.c6.s73.13

The date of Kullūka cannot be settled with certainty. Bühler held that he lived probably in the 15th century (S. B. E. vol. xxv. p. cxxxi). Ghose (Hindu Law, 3rd edition p. XVI) and M. M. Chakravarti (JASB 1915, p. 345) are of the same opinion. In I. L. R. 48 Cal. 643 Sir Asutosh Mukerji places Kullūka in the 15th century (at p. 688). As Kullūka mentions Bhojadeva, Govindarāja, Kalpataru and Halāyudha he is certainly later than 1150 A. D. Raghunandana⁸⁶⁶ in his Dāyatattva and Vyavahāratattva, and Vardhamāna in his Daṇḍaviveka frequently mention his views. Śrīnātha's com. on the Dāyabhāga refutes the view of Kullūka. The Śrāddhakriyā-kaumudī of Govindānanda refers to Kullūka's explanation of the word 'ākāṅkṣan' as 'Vīkṣamāṇaḥ' in Manu III. 258. The Rājanīti-ratnākara of Caṇḍeśvara quotes the explanation of Kullūka.⁸⁶⁷ Therefore Kullūka must have flourished before 1300

v1.c6.s73.14

⁸⁶⁶ एको लुब्धस्तु साक्षी स्यादिति कुल्लूकभट्टधृतपाठः, एको लुब्धस्त्वसाक्षी स्यादिति जीमूतवाहनधृतपाठस्तु न युक्तः। व्यवहारतत्त्व (vol. II, p. 213); समांशाः समभागा एव भवेयुर्नोद्धारः कस्यचिद् देय इति कुल्लूकभट्टः । दायतत्त्व (vol. II, p. 193).

v1.c6.s73.15

⁸⁶⁷ अत एव कुल्लूकभट्टः-राजशब्दोपि नात्र क्षत्रियजातिपरः किं त्वभिषिक्तजनपदपालयितृपुरुषपरः । राजनीतिरत्नाकर (ed. by Mr. Jayasval, 1924) p. 2. These are the words of कुल्लूक on मनु 7. 1.

v1.c6.s73.16

A. D. Kullūka in his by no means small work nowhere refers to the Dāyabhāga, though he himself came of a Bengal family. This silence is explicable in two ways. As we have seen, Kullūka wrote in Kāśī and not in Bengal. Therefore if he flourished not long after Jīmūtavāhana, it is quite natural that writing in Benares he had not heard of the Dāyabhāga or read it. It has been shown above that Jīmūtavāhana probably wrote about 1100-1150 A. D. Therefore Kullūka flourished between 1150 and 1300 A. D. and probably wrote about 1250 A. D. M. M. Chakravarti is not sure as to how early Kullūka flourished but opines that he could not have flourished later than the first quarter of the 15th century (*JASB* 1915, p. 345 n. 1).

Linked texts (9)