Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s90: 105. Nandapaṇḍita

History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s90

Language
English

105. Nandapaṇḍita

v1.c6.s90.1

Nandapaṇḍita was a voluminous writer on dharmaśāstra. An account of his principal works on dharmaśāstra is given below, particularly because most of them are yet unpublished.

v1.c6.s90.2

He composed a commentary called Vidvanmanoharā on the Parāśarasmṛti. He expressly mentions therein that he follows the commentary of Mādhavācārya.¹⁰³⁹ This commentary is referred to in his Vaijayantī.¹⁰⁴⁰

v1.c6.s90.3

¹⁰³⁹ धर्माधिकारिकुलकैरवकाननेन्दुश्रीरामपण्डितसुतेन विनायकेन। व्याख्यायते कलियुगोचितवर्णधर्मशास्त्रं पराशरमुखोद्गतमल्पशब्दैः॥ माधवाचार्यनिर्दिष्टव्याख्यामार्गानुसारिणः। स्खलन्नपि (स्खलतोपि ?) न मे दोषः परप्रत्ययगामिनः॥ verses 3 and 5, I. O. cat. p. 377 No. 1301.

v1.c6.s90.4

¹⁰⁴⁰ विवृतं चैतत्पराशरस्मृतिविवृतौ विद्वन्मनोहरायां दत्तकमीमांसायां चास्माभिरिति नेह प्रतन्यते। वैजयन्ती on विष्णुधर्मसूत्र 15. 42.

v1.c6.s90.5

He also appears to have written a commentary called Pramitākṣarā or Pratītākṣarā on the Mitākṣarā of Vijñāneśvara.¹⁰⁴¹ This commentary was probably not completed, as only fragments are found with his descendants.

v1.c6.s90.6

¹⁰⁴¹ On विष्णुधर्मसूत्र 15.9 he says ‘स्वैरिण्याः पुनःसंस्काराभावश्चोपपादितोस्माभिः सविस्तरं मिताक्षराटीकायां प्रतीताक्षरायामिति नेहोच्यते।’ folio 86 b of the I. O. ms. (of वैजयन्ती); on विष्णु० 16. 1 ‘विशेषस्तु मिताक्षराटीकायां प्रमिताक्षरायामस्मत्कृतायामवगन्तव्यः’ (folio 93 b).

v1.c6.s90.7

Nandapaṇḍita also composed a work called Śrāddhakalpalatā, which is referred to in his Śuddhicandrikā¹⁰⁴² and in the Vaijayantī. In this work¹⁰⁴³ he refers to a city called Sādhāraṇa (probably modern Saharanpur) where the Sahagila family ruled. He speaks of Siṁhamalla, Vasāvana, Rūpacandra, Bhūpacandra and Paramānanda as successive members of the dynasty and says that he was urged to write the work by the last of them and that he relies upon the Śrāddhadīpikā of Govindapaṇḍita.¹⁰⁴⁴ At the end of the ms. of the Vaijayantī in the Deccan College Collection it is said that the Vidvanmanoharā, the Smṛtisindhu and the Śrāddhakalpalatā were the commentaries composed by Nandapaṇḍita.¹⁰⁴⁵ But from the contents given in the India Office Catalogue it does not appear that the work was a commentary. It is divided into five *stabakas* and deals with the usual topics, viz. what is śrāddha, the proper time and place for it, the proper brāhmaṇas, various kinds of śrāddhas &c. The principal authors and works named therein are given below.¹⁰⁴⁶ The Śuddhicandrikā, a commentary on the Ṣaḍaśīti or Āśaucanirṇaya of Kauśikāditya, is also one of the works of Nandapaṇḍita. It is referred to in his Vaijayantī¹⁰⁴⁷. The Bhadkamkar collection made by Prof. Velankar contains a ms. of this work and it has recently been published in the Chowkhamba S. series. The principal authors and works quoted therein are noted below.¹⁰⁴⁸

v1.c6.s90.8

¹⁰⁴² 'स च ज्येष्ठ एवेत्युपपादितं श्राद्धकल्पलतायाम् ' folio 31 b of शुद्धिश्चन्द्रिका; on विष्णु 21. 19 'अत्रान्यो विशेषः श्राद्धकल्पलतायामस्माभिरुपपादित इति नेहोच्यते'। folio 123 b (वैजयन्ती).

v1.c6.s90.9

¹⁰⁴³ Vide I. O. cat. p. 556 No. 1731 for श्राद्धकल्पलता.

v1.c6.s90.10

¹⁰⁴⁴ गोविन्दपण्डितकृतमवलम्ब्यात्तियत्नतः। श्राद्धकल्पलतामेनां कुर्वे तां श्राद्धदीपिकाम् ॥ I. O. cat. p. 557.

v1.c6.s90.11

¹⁰⁴⁵ 'पराशरस्मृतेष्टीका विद्वन्मनोहरा स्मृतिसिन्धुः । श्राद्धकल्पलता चैता नन्दपण्डितकृता टीकाः॥' D. C. ms. No. 39. of 1866-68.

v1.c6.s90.12

¹⁰⁴⁶ कालविधान, कालादर्श, चन्द्रप्रकाश, धर्मप्रदीप, निर्णयप्रदीपिका, पुराणसमुच्चय, श्राद्धकमल, श्राद्धकाशिका, श्राद्धचिन्तामणि, श्राद्धनिर्णय, श्राद्धप्रदीप, स्मृतिदर्पण, स्मृतिरत्नावालि, स्मृतिसार.

v1.c6.s90.13

¹⁰⁴⁷ on विष्णु 22.8 'विस्तरस्तु शुद्धिश्चन्द्रिकायामवगन्तव्यः' folio 125 b of वैजयन्ती.

v1.c6.s90.14

¹⁰⁴⁸ अमृतव्याख्या (on पारस्करगृह्य), धर्मप्रदीप, धर्मप्रवृत्ति, नारायणसर्वज्ञ, भट्टभालूक (!), मदन, माधव, ललित, लोल्लट, वर्धमान, विज्ञानेश्वर, विश्वादर्श, विश्वेश्वर, शङ्खधर, स्मृतिचन्द्रिका, स्मृत्यर्थसार, हरदत्त (on गौतमधर्मसूत्र), हारलता, हारलताविवरण.

v1.c6.s90.15

Another work of Nandapaṇḍita is the Smṛtisindhu, which seems to have been an extensive digest of smṛti material. Portions of it have been recovered. In the Deccan College Collection there is a ms. of the Saṁskāra-nirṇayataraṅga of the Smṛtisindhu, which, according to a verse at the end, was composed by Nandapaṇḍita at the command of king Harivaṁśa-varman of the Māhendra family and son of king Maṅgo.¹⁰⁴⁹

v1.c6.s90.16

¹⁰⁴⁹ 'अस्ति श्रीहरिवंशवर्मनृपतिर्मङ्गोन्नृपस्यात्मजो माहेन्द्रान्वयमौलिभूषणमणिः सङ्कल्पचिन्तामणिः। निर्बन्धेन निबन्धराजमसृजत्तत्कीर्तिबन्धोज्ज्वलं तस्याज्ञामनु नन्दपण्डित इमं धर्माधिकारी भुवः॥ D. C. ms. No. 612 of 1883-84; vide Bhandarkar's Report for 1883-84 p. 353 for extract.

v1.c6.s90.17

It appears that he compiled a summary of the doctrines of his work Smṛtisindhu. That summary was called Tattvamuktāvali.¹⁰⁵⁰ It is almost certain that the fragment of the Tattvamuktāvali noticed in the BBRAS cat. at p. 217 is part of this work. That fragment contains 8 verses on upākarma and three on holikā with commentary and the verses are numbered from 557 to 564 and then 607-609. If the above surmise be correct, the work was a large one and contained over 610 verses. Two of the verses name Hemādri and Pārijāta.¹⁰⁵¹

v1.c6.s90.18

¹⁰⁵⁰ Vide Mitra's Bikaner cat. p. 476 No. 1204 for a ms. of the तत्त्वमुक्तावली with the commentary बालभूषा. The last verses are : तत्त्वमुक्ताः समुद्धृत्य स्मृतिसिन्धोः स्वयंस्कृतात्। तत्त्वमुक्तावलीमेतां निर्ममे नन्दपण्डितः॥ तत्त्वमुक्तावलीव्याख्या बालभूषा कृता मया। बाललीलाधरः कृष्णः प्रीयतामनया सदा ॥

v1.c6.s90.19

¹⁰⁵¹ It begins श्रावणे श्रवणे कुर्युस्पाकमांश्वलायनाः । 557; verse 561 is घटिकाद्वयमध्युक्तं पारिजातमृतश्रुतेः । and 564 is हेमाद्रिरप्युवाचात्र पञ्चमीं केवलाभपि ।

v1.c6.s90.20

The Vaijayantī or Keśava-Vaijayantī is a famous work of his. It is a commentary on the Viṣṇudharma-sūtra. Extracts from it have been published by Dr. Jolly in his edition of Viṣṇu. This is an extensive work. The following account is taken from the ms. in the India Office Library (vide cat. p. 393 No. 1342 for a brief description). In this work he refers to a Brāhmaṇa dynasty of the Vasiṣṭha gotra at Vijayapura (Vijayanagara?) in Karṇāṭa country, in which was born Koṇḍapanāyaka, whose son was Keśavanāyaka, whose son was Ananta *alias* Vāvarasa, whose sons were Keśava and Rudra. Keśava, son of Koṇḍapa, seems to have gone to Benares with his sons and grand-sons and made extensive gifts of all kinds.¹⁰⁵² There is a hyperbolical description of his great gifts (*mahādānas* including *tulā*, i. e. weighing against gold or silver). Keśavanāyaka enjoined upon Nandapaṇḍita the task of composing a commentary on the Viṣṇusmṛti.¹⁰⁵³ In the colophons at the end of the chapters of Viṣṇu, Koṇḍapanāyaka is styled Mahārājādhirāja and it is said that Nandapaṇḍita was encouraged in the task by Keśavanāyaka *alias* Tammasānāyaka. At the end of chapter 101, we are told that Keśavanāyaka, Nandapaṇḍita's patron, secured *mokṣa* by breathing his last on the Maṇikarṇikā in Benares.¹⁰⁵⁴ There are six verses at the end one of which says that in the Kali age there is no one more liberal than Vāvarasa (a son of Keśavanāyaka) and no one more learned than Nandapaṇḍita.¹⁰⁵⁵ As he wrote on the encouragement of Keśava, the commentary is also styled Keśava-Vaijayantī. Among the authors and works mentioned in this commentary are Devasvāmī, Budhasmṛti, Bhavadeva, Mādhavācārya, Vācaspati, Sarvajña, Subodhinī (com. on the Mit.), Haradatta, Hemādri. In the Vaijayantī he refers to no less than six of his works viz: the Vidvan-manoharā, the Pramitākṣarā, the Śrāddhakalpalatā, the Śuddhicandrikā, the Dattaka-mīmāṁsā (vide note 1040 above). But in the Dattaka-mīmāṁsā itself he refers to his Keśava-Vaijayantī as already composed.¹⁰⁵⁶ Therefore it follows that both works were probably being composed at the same time. The Vaijayantī is one of the leading authorities of the Benares School of modern Hindu Law.¹⁰⁵⁷

v1.c6.s90.21

¹⁰⁵² श्रीविश्वनाथेक्षणकाम्ययासौ पुत्रैश्च पौत्रैश्च युतः प्रपौत्रैः । गम्भीरवेदीव गजः स्वयूथ्यैः कदाचिदानन्दवनं विवेश ॥ (verse 63).

v1.c6.s90.22

¹⁰⁵³ धर्माद्यद्यपि कोटिशोत्र विहिताः संतोषमन्तस्ततो नैव प्राप यदा तदा रचयितुं विष्णुस्मृतेर्व्याकृतिम् । ऐच्छत्तत्र च रामपण्डितसुतं श्रीकेशवः क्ष्मापतिर्विद्वत्संसदि नन्दपण्डितमतिप्रीत्या न्ययुङ्क्त स्वयम् ॥ verse 91.

v1.c6.s90.23

¹⁰⁵⁴ कामो वावरसाक्कणप्रभृतिभिः पुत्रैः शुभैः ख्यापितो मोक्षः श्रीममणिकर्णिकाभुवि तनुत्यागेन संपादितः ॥

v1.c6.s90.24

¹⁰⁵⁵ कलौ वावरसादन्यो वदान्यो न महीतले । श्रीनन्दपण्डितादन्यो विद्वानान्यो न जातुचित् ॥

v1.c6.s90.25

¹⁰⁵⁶ 'अस्मत्कृतायां विष्णुस्मृतिटीकायां केशववैजयन्त्यामवधेयम्'। (on priority among the twelve kinds of sons) p. 112 of दत्तकमीमांसा.

v1.c6.s90.26

¹⁰⁵⁷ Vide I. L. R. 16 Cal. 367 at p. 372.

v1.c6.s90.27

Nandapaṇḍita, though he generally follows the Mitākṣarā, was not a slavish admirer of Vijñāneśvara. He does not accept the explanation the Mitākṣarā gives of Yāj II. 17 (sākṣiṣūbhayataḥ etc.). Similarly on Viṣṇu 8. 12, 22. 41, 23. 11, 27. 2 he emphatically says that the Mitākṣarā is wrong.¹⁰⁵⁸ He prefers the father to the mother as an heir (on Viṣṇu 17. 6-7) and seems to have placed the paternal grandmother as an heir after the mother but before the brother (folio 101 b). He explains *sapiṇḍa* relationship in the same way as the Mit.¹⁰⁵⁹ does. He says that the word ‘bhrātaraḥ’ in Yāj. should be explained as standing for ‘brothers and sisters’ and that in the father's line, after the brother and brother's son, the brother's grandson succeeds and, on failure of the brother's grandson, the paternal grandfather, his son and grandson are heirs one after another, i. e. in each line three generations succeed and then there is a devolution in favour of the next higher line. This view is opposed to that of the Subodhinī and the Smṛticandrikā, which take only the son and grandson of each paternal ancestor. Vide my notes to the Vyavahāramayūkha for fuller details (pp. 253-254). Nandapaṇḍita stands alone among modern *nibandhakāras* in having recognised a uterine brother¹⁰⁶⁰ (i. e. the son of the same mother but of a different father) as an heir. It is remarkable that Nandapaṇḍita preferred a person's predeceased son's widow (i. e. widowed daughter-in-law) as an heir to that man's own daughter.¹⁰⁶¹

v1.c6.s90.28

¹⁰⁵⁸ एतेन पुंसवनस्य क्षेत्रसंस्कारतयाऽसकृत्करणं मन्यमानो विज्ञानेश्वरोपि परास्तः। वैजयन्ती on विष्णु 27. 2.

v1.c6.s90.29

¹⁰⁵⁹ पिण्डो देहो जनकः स समानो येषां ते सपिण्डास्तेषां भावः सपिण्डता। वैजयन्ती on विष्णु. 22. 5 (folio 124 a).

v1.c6.s90.30

¹⁰⁶⁰ Vide वैजयन्ती on विष्णु 17. 8 (folio 102 a). The important portion is ‘तत्र प्रथमं समानमातापितृका भ्रातरो गृह्णीयुः। पित्रवयवाधिक्येन प्रत्यासन्नतरत्वात्। तदभावे समानमातापितृका भगिन्यो गृह्णीयुः। तासां भिन्नमातृकभ्रात्रपेक्षया संनिहितत्वात्। भिन्नोदराणां मात्रा भिन्नबीजानां पित्रा विप्रकर्षात्। तदभावे तु तेपि गृह्णीयुः। ... तत्रापि प्रथमं समानपितृकाः पश्चात्समानमातृका बीजस्य प्राधान्यात्प्रत्यासत्तेश्च क्रमनियामकत्वात्। तथथा। एकस्य द्वे पत्न्यौ। तत्रैकस्यां द्वौ पुत्रावन्यस्यामेकः पुत्रस्तेन जनितोनन्तरं च द्विपुत्रान्यपतिमाश्रित्य पुत्रान्तरं जनयामासेति तस्मात्त्रयः पुत्रा बभूवुः। तत्र पूर्वयोरन्यतरस्मिन्मृते तद्धनं समानमातापितृक एव प्रथमं गृह्णीयात्। तदभावे समानपितृको भिन्नोदरोपि गृह्णीयात्। बीजप्राधान्यात्। तदभावे समानमातृको भिन्नपितृकोपीति’।

v1.c6.s90.31

¹⁰⁶¹ वैजयन्ती on विष्णु 17. 4 (folio 100a) श्वशुरमरणे श्वश्रूस्नुषयोः स्वत्वसाम्येन श्वश्रूमरणे स्नुषाया एव साधारणसाम्यात् (!) । तदभावे क इत्याह । तदभावे दुहितृगामि । तेषां पुत्रादिस्नुषान्तानामभावे दुहितरो धनं गृह्णीयुः । Vide I. L. R. 16 Cal. 367 at p. 376 where this view is referred to.

v1.c6.s90.32

The Dattaka-mīmāṁsā is the most famous work of Nandapaṇḍita. It was translated very early by Sutherland (comprised in Stoke's Hindu Law Books). In the following the edition of Bharatacandra Śiromaṇi (published in 1885 with his own commentary) has been used. In this work he lays down rules as to the person who may adopt, when he may adopt, who can give in adoption, who may be adopted, the motives of adoption, the necessary ceremonies of adoption, the results of adoption. Among the authors and works quoted or referred to those mentioned below may be noted.¹⁰⁶²

v1.c6.s90.33

¹⁰⁶² अपरार्क, कल्पतरु, देवस्वामी, प्रयोगपारिजात, प्रवरमञ्जरी, मिताक्षरा, मेधातिथि, वाचस्पति, वैजयन्ती, सर्वज्ञ, सुबोधिनी, शबरस्वामी (com. on सत्याषाढश्रौत), स्मृतिचन्द्रिका, हरदत्त, हेमाद्रि.

v1.c6.s90.34

From very early days of the British rule in India the Dattaka-mīmāṁsā came to be regarded as the standard work on adoption. In *Collector of Madura v. Mootoo Ramalinga*¹⁰⁶³ the Privy Council says "Again of the Dattaka-mīmāṁsā of Nandapaṇḍita and the Dattakacandrikā of Devaṇṇabhaṭṭa, two treatises on the particular subject of adoption, Sir William Macnaghten says that they are respected all over India; but that, when they differ, the doctrine of the latter is adhered to in Bengal and by the southern jurists, while the former is held to be the infallible guide in the provinces of Mithilā and Benares." That this estimate is somewhat too strongly put has been said by the Privy Council itself in *Bhagwansingh v. Bhagwansingh*¹⁰⁶⁴ 'to call it infallible is too strong an expression and the estimates of Sutherland and of West and Bühler seem nearer the true mark; but it is clear that both works must be accepted as bearing high authority for so long a time that they have become embedded in the general law.' The Privy Council further lays down 'their Lordships cannot concur with Knox J. in saying that their (of the Dattaka-mīmāṁsā and Dattaka-candrikā) authority is open to examination, explanation, criticism, adoption or rejection like any scientific treatises on European jurisprudence'.¹⁰⁶⁵ Even in those parts of the Bombay Presidency where the Vyavahāramayūkha is a work of paramount authority, the Dattakamīmāṁsā has on the subject of adoption been preferred in certain matters to the Vyavahāramayūkha. For example, the Bombay High Court, following the Dattaka-mīmāṁsā, has laid down that among the three higher castes a man cannot adopt his own daughter's, sister's, or mother's sister's son. The view of the Vyavahāramayūkha, on the contrary, is that he can take these in adoption. The limits to which Nandapaṇḍita will be followed by the courts are laid down in *Ramachandra v. Gopal*: 'The authority of Nandapaṇḍita must be accepted except where it can be shown that he deviates from or adds to the *smṛtis* or where his version of the law is opposed to such established custom as the Courts recognise'.¹⁰⁶⁶

v1.c6.s90.35

¹⁰⁶³ 12 Moo. I. A. 397 at p. 437.

v1.c6.s90.36

¹⁰⁶⁴ L. R. 26 I. A. 153 at p. 161.

v1.c6.s90.37

¹⁰⁶⁵ L. R. 26 I. A. 113 at p. 132.

v1.c6.s90.38

¹⁰⁶⁶ I. L. R. 32 Bom, 619 at p. 624.

v1.c6.s90.39

Several views expressed in the Dattakamīmāṁsā have been set at naught in the various provinces by the British Indian Courts. Nandapaṇḍita held that a widow could not adopt at all.¹⁰⁶⁷ Except in Mithilā this view has nowhere been entertained in India and the Courts have held that the Law of Benares, Bengal, Madras and Bombay is different. Nandapaṇḍita put forward the position that the brother's son must be preferred for adoption over any other *sagotra* or *sapiṇḍa*.¹⁰⁶⁸ This has, however, been treated in all provinces as no more than a mere recommendation and that failure to observe it entails no legal or religious consequences whatever. The expression 'putracchāyā' in 'putracchāyāvaham' occurring in the text of Śaunaka was explained by Nandapaṇḍita to mean 'similarity to a son born' and he said that the similarity consisted in the possibility of being begotten by means of *niyoga* and the like.¹⁰⁶⁹ Sutherland wrongly introduced the word 'marriage' after *niyoga* in his translation and some of the High Courts in India, following this wrong translation, evolved the rule that no one could be adopted whose mother the adopting father could not have legally married in her maiden state.¹⁰⁷⁰ But the Bombay High Court has laid down that the rule is restricted to the three specified cases of the daughter's son, the sister's son, and the mother's sister's son.¹⁰⁷¹ From the text (brāhmaṇāditraye nāsti bhāgineyaḥ sutaḥ kvacit), Nandapaṇḍita evolved the curious rule that a widow cannot adopt to her deceased husband her own brother's son. But the Privy Council has refused to follow this *dictum* on the ground that the gloss of Nandapaṇḍita is an extension not based on the authority of any smṛti and has upheld such an adoption.¹⁰⁷²

v1.c6.s90.40

¹⁰⁶⁷ अनेन विधवाया भर्तृनुज्ञानासम्भवात् अनधिकारा गम्यते ।

v1.c6.s90.41

¹⁰⁶⁸ संनिहितसगोत्रसपिण्डेषु च भ्रातृपुत्र एव पुत्रीकार्य इति ।

v1.c6.s90.42

¹⁰⁶⁹ पुत्रच्छाया पुत्रसादृश्यं तच्च नियोगादिना स्वयमुत्पादनयोग्यत्वं यथा भ्रातृसपिण्डसगोत्रादिपुत्रस्य । ततश्च भ्रातृपितृव्यमातुलदौहित्रभागिनेयादीनां निरासः ।

v1.c6.s90.43

¹⁰⁷⁰ Vide I. L. R. 11 Mad. 49 (F. B.), I. L. R. 27 All. 417, I. L. R. 43 Mad. 830.

v1.c6.s90.44

¹⁰⁷¹ Vide I. L. R. 32 Bom. 619, I. L. R. 36 Bom. 533, 15 Bom. L. R. 824 (paternal aunt's son could be validly adopted), I. L. R. 39 Bom. 410 (adoption of half-brother held valid).

v1.c6.s90.45

¹⁰⁷² *Puttulal v. Parbati* I. L. R. 37 All. 359 (P. C.).

v1.c6.s90.46

About the personal history of Nandapaṇḍita we do not know much. Mandlik in his Hindu Law (LXXII, *n.* 3) gives what information he could gather from descendants of Nandapaṇḍita living in Benares. According to him the founder of the family was Lakṣmīdhara who was a resident of Bidar (now in the Nizam's dominions) and who went to Benares. Nandapaṇḍita was the sixth in descent from him. Dr. Jolly visited at Benares Pandit Dhuṇḍirāja Dharmādhikārī who was 9th in descent from Nandapaṇḍita (Tagore Law Lectures, p. 15) and Mandlik's information also was gathered from persons who were 9th in descent from Nandapaṇḍita. Mandlik also gives a detailed genealogical tree. We learn from several works of Nandapaṇḍita and their colophons that he was also named Vināyakapaṇḍita and was the son of Rāmapaṇḍita of Benares who is styled Dharmādhikārī. Nandapaṇḍita also is described as Dharmādhikārī in the Saṁskāranirṇaya-taraṅga of the Smṛtisindhu (vide note 1049 above). It appears that Nandapaṇḍita was at different times patronised by rich patrons from different parts of India. He composed the Śrāddhakalpalatā for Paramānanda of the Sahagila family of Sādhāraṇa, the Smṛtisindhu for Harivaṁśavarman of the Māhendra family and the Vaijayantī for Keśavanāyaka of Madhurā.

v1.c6.s90.47

Mandlik notes that Nandapaṇḍita is credited with the authorship of 13 works. Eight works of Nandapaṇḍita have been named and described above. Mandlik names six of these. Besides these he is said to have written Navarātra-pradīpa, three sections of a work named Harivaṁśavilāsa (viz. dānakautuka, āhnikakautuka and saṁskārakautuka), Bālabhūṣā, Tīrthakalpalatā, Kālanirṇayakautuka, Kāśīprakāśa, Mādhavānanda. But we saw above (note 1050) that the Bālabhūṣā is only a commentary on the Tattvamuktāvalī (probably composed by another writer). The Kāśīprakāśa was certainly composed by Nandapaṇḍita as he is described in the India Office ms. to have been the son of Rāmapaṇḍita.¹⁰⁷³ That work was composed at the order of one Sarvabhaṭṭa, who was the *guru* of Kṛṣṇanāyaka of Madhurā. In Mitra's Notices two works, Jyotiḥśāstrasamuccaya and Smārtasamuccaya, are described as composed by Nandapaṇḍita, son of Devaśarman and Vṛndā.¹⁰⁷⁴ The latter seems to have been an extensive work and dealt with *tithinirṇaya*, intercalary month, marriage, sapiṇḍa relationship, the saṁskāras, daily observances, *antyeṣṭi* (funeral rites), *āśauca*, *śuddhi*, *śrāddha*, *prāyaścitta*, *dāyabhāga* and *vyavahāra*. Though the name of the father, Devaśarman, creates suspicion in one's mind, both these works must be regarded as the works of Nandapaṇḍita, son of Rāmapaṇḍita, as in the Smārtasamuccaya the author refers his readers to his Dattakamīmāṁsā for the subject of adoption. It is not unlikely that just as Nandapaṇḍita had the *alias* Vināyaka, his father Rāmapaṇḍita was also called Devaśarman.

v1.c6.s90.48

¹⁰⁷³ Vide I. O. cat. p. 391 No. 3701.

v1.c6.s90.49

¹⁰⁷⁴ Vide vol. V. p. 80 No. 1762 and vol. VI, p. 165 No. 2105.

v1.c6.s90.50

Mandlik (Hindu Law LXXII, n. 3) notes that on a copy of the Mādhavānanda-kāvya composed by Nanda the year *saṁvat* 1655 (1599 A. D.) is given, probably in Nandapaṇḍita's own handwriting. The Vaijayantī was one of Nandapaṇḍita's latest works. That work, we are told, was composed at Kāśī in Vikrama *saṁvat* 1679 (Nov. 1623) on the Full moon of Kārtika when the sun was in Scorpion and the moon in Taurus.¹⁰⁷⁵ Therefore the literary

v1.c6.s90.51

¹⁰⁷⁵ > वर्षे विक्रमभास्करस्य गणिते नन्दाद्रिषड्भूमिभिः

v1.c6.s90.52

पूर्णे कार्तिकमासि वृश्चिकगते भानौ वृषस्थे विधौ ।
काश्यां केशवनायकस्य नृपतेराज्ञामवाप्य स्मृते-
र्विष्णोर्व्याकृतिमाचकार विमलां श्रीनन्दशर्मा सुधीः ॥ 7th verse at the end.

v1.c6.s90.53

activity of Nandapaṇḍita must be placed between 1595 and 1630 A. D. Mandlik in his Hindu Law (p. 281) says that the Vaijayantī of Nandapaṇḍita is referred to in the Vyavahāramayūkha of Nīlakaṇṭha. I have not been able to find the reference in the latter work.

Linked texts (10)