History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s8.5

v1.c6.s8.5

The com. of Mahādeva Dīkṣita called Ujjvalā, is almost word for word the same as that of Haradatta’s Ujjvalā. That one has borrowed from the other admits of no doubt and Bühler thinks that Mahādeva is the borrower. But there is hardly anything to turn the scale in favour of Haradatta. Sometimes Mahādeva’s commentary contains more matter than Haradatta’s (e. g. on the sūtras ‘Saptame brahmārcasakamam &c. ‘Upanayanam vidyārthasya śrutitaḥ’, ‘dvādaśāvarardhyam’) and sometimes Haradatta contains more explanation (e. g. on ‘tasmiṁśca vidyākarmāntam &c.; on ‘nāpsu ślāghamānaḥ snāyāt’, on ‘pāṇisaṁkṣubdhenodakenaika &c.’). Mahādeva differs from Haradatta’s explanation of the word ‘atha’, which the former takes in the sense of ‘ānantarya or adhikāra’, while the latter takes it only in the sense of ‘ānantarya’. That Mahādeva also is an early writer follows from the fact (noted by Bühler p. 117n) that portions of his commentary are contained in the Munich Ms. of Haradatta dated Vikrama-Saṁvat 1668 (1611-12 A. D.). It is to be noted that Haradatta after saluting Gaṇeśa at the beginning of his Ujjvalā does obeisance to Mahādeva (which may mean God Śiva or the author Mahādeva if he was the *guru* or father of Haradatta). Mahādeva often comments on the sūtras as found in Āpastamba and not on the readings of them as existing in the Hiraṇyakeśi school; e. g. he comments on ‘padūnaṁ’, on ‘adhāsanaśāyī’ for ardhāsanaśāyī (the reading of the sūtra), on ‘ātmasvastyayanārthena’ (Āp. II. 5. 11. 9) for ‘svastyayanārthena’ of the ms. of Hir. The explanations of the two writers sometimes differ, as for example on ‘ācaryādhīnas syād-anyatra patanīyebhyaḥ’ (Āp. I. 1. 2. 19¹⁰⁴). One more circumstance that is worthy of note is that the Ujjvalā of Haradatta does not contain many quotations from Smṛtis as compared with his commentary on the Gautamadharmasūtra. Although one may be inclined to hold that it is Mahādeva who borrows, it must be clearly recognized that there is hardly any positive evidence in support of such a view. There is a commentary called Vaijayantī on the Hiraṇyakeśi-śrauta-sūtra. This Mahādeva is very likely identical with the Mahādeva who commented upon the dharmasūtra.