Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s92: 107. Nīlakaṇṭhabhaṭṭa

History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s92

Language
English

107. Nīlakaṇṭhabhaṭṭa

v1.c6.s92.1

In my introduction to the Vyavahāramayūkha (Poona, 1926) I have dealt exhaustively with the personal history of Nīlakaṇṭha, his works, their contents, their position in dharmaśāstra literature, the period of Nīlakaṇṭha's literary activity and his position in modern Hindu Law. In the following a brief résumé of the conclusions there arrived at is given.

v1.c6.s92.2

Nīlakaṇṭha was a grandson of Nārāyaṇabhaṭṭa and a son of Śaṅkarabhaṭṭa. Śaṅkarabhaṭṭa was a profound *mīmāṁsaka* and composed several works on mīmāṁsā, viz. a com. on the Śāstradīpikā, the Vidhirasāyaṇadūṣaṇa, the Mīmāṁsābālaprakāśa. He also wrote Dvaitanirṇaya (vide Annals of the Bhandarkar Institute, vol, III part 2. pp. 67-72 for an account of it) and the Dharmaprakāśa or Sarvadharmaprakāśa. Nīlakaṇṭha composed an encyclopaedia of religious and civil law, styled Bhagavantabhāskara, in honour of his patron Bhagavantadeva, a Bundella chieftain of the Seṅgara clan, that ruled at Bhareha near the confluence of the Jumna and the Chambal. This work is divided into 12 sections (called *mayūkhas* 'rays') on saṁskāra, ācāra, kāla (or samaya), śrāddha, nīti, vyavahāra, dāna, utsarga, pratiṣṭhā, prāyaścitta, śuddhi, śānti. These have been printed at Benares and some of them have been printed in Bombay at the Gujarati Press and by Mr. Gharpure. Besides this encyclopaedia he composed also a work called Vyavahāratattva, which is a summary of the Vyavahāramayūkha, and probably a work styled Dattakanirṇaya. The Vyavahāratattva has been for the first time published by me as appendix I to my edition of the Vyavahāramayūkha.

v1.c6.s92.3

Nīlakaṇṭha is one of the foremost *nibandhakāras*. Being brought up in a family that had made the study of mīmāṁsā its own for several generations, he is very acute in applying the maxims and rules of *mīmāṁsā* to dharmaśāstra. He stands unsurpassed by any mediaeval Sanskrit writer on dharmaśāstra in mastery over the vast smṛti lore, in lucidity of exposition, in conciseness and ease of style, in clarity of vision and sobriety of judgment. Though he admired the learning and labours of such predecessors as Vijñāneśvara, Hemādri and others, he does not slavishly follow their dicta and expresses his dissent from them most frankly.

v1.c6.s92.4

His Vyavahāramayūkha is a work of paramount authority on matters of Hindu law according to the decisions of the Bombay High Court in Gujerat, the island of Bombay and northern Konkan.¹⁰⁹⁵ Even in the other parts of the Bombay Presidency such as the Maratha country and the Ratnagiri District the Vyavahāramayūkha occupies a very important place though it is subordinate to the Mitākṣarā.¹⁰⁹⁶ The general principle on which the Bombay High Court acts in construing the rules laid down in the Mitākṣarā and the Vyavahāramayūkha is that the two works are to be harmonized with one another wherever and so far as that is reasonably possible.¹⁰⁹⁷ Though the Mitākṣarā is a paramount authority in the Maratha country and the Ratnagiri District and though it is silent about the sister's right as a *gotraja* heir, the courts, in deference to the authority of the Vyavahāramayūkha, have assigned to the sister a high place as an heir even in the Maratha country and in Ratnagiri. Among the other Mayūkhas, the Saṁskāramayūkha has been frequently relied upon by the courts.¹⁰⁹⁸ The Prāyaścittamayūkha and the Pratiṣṭhāmayūkha¹⁰⁹⁹ have also been relied upon in the High Court.

v1.c6.s92.5

¹⁰⁹⁵ Vide *Lallubhai v. Mankuvarbai* I. L. R. 2 Bom. 388 at p. 418 ; I. L. R. 6 Bom. 541 at p. 546 ; I. L. R. 14 Bom. 612 at pp. 623-624 ; I. L. R. 24 Bom. 367 ( F. B. ) at p. 373.

v1.c6.s92.6

¹⁰⁹⁶ Vide *Krishnaji v. Pandurang* 12 Bom. H. C. R. 65 at pp. 67-68 ; 5 Bom. H. C. R. ( A. C. J ) 181 at p. 185 ; 7 Bom. H. C. R. ( A. C. J ) at p. 169 ; I. L. R. 14 Bom. 612 at p. 616.

v1.c6.s92.7

¹⁰⁹⁷ *Gojabai v. Shrimant Shahajirao* I. L. R. 17 Bom. 114 at p. 118 and *Kesserbai v. Hunsraj* I. L. R. 30 Bom. 431 at p. 442 ( P. C. ).

v1.c6.s92.8

¹⁰⁹⁸ I. L. R. 2 Bom. 388 at p. 425 ; I. L. R. 3 Bom. 353 at p. 361 ; I. L. R. 32 Bom. 81 at pp 88 and 96 ; 46 Bom. at p. 884.

v1.c6.s92.9

¹⁰⁹⁹ Vide *Parami v. Mahadevi* I. L. R. 34 Bom. 278 at p. 283 ( for प्रायश्चित्तमयूख ) and 22 Bom. L. R. p. 334 ( for प्रतिष्ठामयूख ).

v1.c6.s92.10

The period of Nīlakaṇṭha's literary activity can be settled within very narrow limits. He was the youngest son of Śaṅkarabhaṭṭa. In the Dvaitanirṇaya, Śaṅkarabhaṭṭa quotes the views of the Ṭoḍarānanda which, as we saw above, must have been composed between 1570 and 1589 A. D. So the Dvaitanirṇaya could not have been composed before 1590 A. D. Nīlakaṇṭha, the youngest son of Śaṅkarabhaṭṭa, could hardly have commenced his literary career earlier than Kamalākarabhaṭṭa who was the second son of Śaṅkarabhaṭṭa's elder brother. Kamalākara composed his Nirṇayasindhu in 1612

v1.c6.s92.11

A. D. So Nīlakaṇṭha's literary activity must have commenced a good deal after 1610. One ms. of the Vyavahāratattva bears the date *saṁvat* 1700 ( 1644 A. D. ). This shows that the Vyavahāratattva was composed not later than 1644 A. D. The Vyavahāratattva refers to the Vyavahāramayūkha as already composed. Hence we may say, without being far from the truth, that Nīlakaṇṭha's literary career falls between 1610 and 1645 A. D. This date is confirmed by the fact that Nīlakaṇṭha's son Śaṅkara wrote the Kuṇḍabhāskara in 1671 A. D. and Divākarabhaṭṭa, the son of Nīlakaṇṭha's daughter, composed his Ācārārka in 1686 A. D. It appears that there was probably a rivalry between the two great cousins Kamalākarabhaṭṭa and Nīlakaṇṭha. On many matters their views diverged. Though the Nirṇayasindhu is said to have been composed in 1668 of the Vikrama era, yet from the references to several works of his own in the Nirṇayasindhu it looks as if Kamalākara revised it from time to time by adding on references to his own other works and to those of others. The Nirṇayasindhu (III *pariccheda*, section on Dattakagrahaṇa ) emphatically says that he who asserts the absence of ownership in one's son in spite of Vedic indications is a fool.¹¹⁰⁰ It is not unreasonable to suppose that this is a hit at Nīlakaṇṭha who must have been younger than Kamalākara and who tries hard in his Vyavahāramayūkha to establish that there is no ownership in one's wife and children.

v1.c6.s92.12

¹¹⁰⁰ 'पुत्रे स्वत्वाभावं वदन् मूर्ख एव' निर्णयसिंधु; contrast व्यवहारमयूख p. 98 'गवाश्वादिव भार्यायां स्वत्वाभावेन तत्स्वाम्यनुषङ्गित्वे तदभावात्।'

Linked texts (11)