Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s94: 109. Anantadeva

History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s94

Language
English

109. Anantadeva

v1.c6.s94.1

Anantadeva compiled a vast digest called Smṛtikaustubha divided into several sections on saṁskāra, ācāra, rājadharma, dāna, utsarga, pratiṣṭhā, tithi and saṁvatsara. The section on saṁskāras and that on rājadharma are also called Saṁskāra-kaustubha and Rājā-dharma-kaustubha. Each Kaustubha is subdivided into parts called dīdhiti. The Saṁskāra-kaustubha is the most popular and most well-known work of his. It has been printed several times, the best editions being that of the Nirṇayasāgara Press (1913) and that issued at Baroda (1914) under the patronage of H. H. the Maharaja Gaikwad (with a Marathi translation by Sastri Venkatacarya Upadhyaya). I have used the latter. The Saṁskāra-kaustubha is recognised as an authoritative work by the highest court for India.¹¹¹⁷ The following is a very brief summary of the contents :-

v1.c6.s94.2

¹¹¹⁷ *Vide Collector of Madura v. Mootoo Ramalinga* 12 Moo. I. A. 397 at p. 438; *Sakharam v. Sitabai* I. L. R. 3 Bom. 353 at p. 361.

v1.c6.s94.3

The sixteen saṁskāras, the first being garbhādhāna, the astrological aspects of the first appearance of menses and the various propitiatory rites therefor; the proper times for garbhādhāna and the several rites connected therewith; puṇyāhavācana, nāndīśrāddha, matṛkāpūjana; nārāyaṇabali and nāgabali; pañcagavya, kṛcchra and other prāyaścittas; cāndrāyaṇavrata; adoption, who is entitled to adopt, who can be adopted, rites of adoption, *gotra* and *sapiṇḍya* of the adopted son, mourning to be observed by the adopted, succession of the adopted; putrakāmeṣṭi; puṁsavana; anavalobhana; sīmantonnayana; rites on the birth of a child or son; impurity on birth; propitiatory rites for evil aspects at birth; nāmakaraṇa; niṣkramaṇa; annaprāśana; piercing the ear; celebration of birth day; caula; upanayana, proper times for it, the necessary materials for it, the *gāyatrī*, the vows of a brahmacārin; samāvartana; marriage, sāpiṇḍya for it, *gotras* and *pravaras*, proper times for marriage, forms of marriage, vāg-niścaya, sīmāntapūjana, madhuparka, kanyādāna, vivāhahoma, saptapadī, homa on the entrance of the married couple etc.

v1.c6.s94.4

The portion of the Saṁskāra-kaustubha on the subject of adoption is frequently cited separately as Dattakadīdhiti and is so entered in the catalogues of mss. It is a treatise of great importance and deserves to be studied along with the Dattakamīmāṁsā, the Vyavahāramayūkha and other similar works. The more important of his views are set out below. Like the Dattakamīmāṁsā he recommends that the nephew is the most suitable for adoption, then one may select any *sagotra*, *sapiṇḍa*, then an *asagotra sapiṇḍa*, then a *sagotra* but *asapiṇḍa*, then any one of the same caste though not *sagotra*, but a daughter's or sister's son cannot be adopted nor can a brother, a paternal or maternal uncle be adopted. A Śūdra may adopt a daughter's or sister's son. The person to be adopted must not be an only son or the eldest. A wife can adopt with the consent of her husband and a widow does not require the express permission of her husband. The boy to be adopted may be below five or above five and may be taken before or after the *cūḍā* ceremony is performed in the natural family. Anantadeva refers to the¹¹¹⁸ view of some that the verses of the Kālikāpurāṇa on this subject are not found in several mss. and so are unauthoritative and tells us that others hold that the whole passage refers to the adoption of an *asagotra* boy. Anantadeva himself holds, like the Vyavahāramayūkha, that even an *asagotra* boy may be adopted after his upanayana is performed in the natural family. When the ceremony of *caula* and the rest are performed in the family of the adopter, the adopted boy belongs to the *gotra* of the adopter, but where the *upanayana* alone is performed in the adoptive family or the adoption is made after *upanayana* the boy belongs to both *gotras*. But this holds good only as regards obeisance, śrāddha etc. while for marriage every adopted boy has to avoid the *gotra* and *pravara* of both families. If a natural son be born to the adopter after he takes a boy in adoption, the adopted boy becomes an equal sharer with the *aurasa*, if all the saṁskāras up to *upanayana* are performed by the adoptive father for the adopted boy, or he takes only a fourth share if only some of the saṁskāras ending with *upanayana* are performed by the adopter and he gets no inheritance but only provision for marriage if he was adopted after upanayana is performed in the natural family. Anantadeva, disagreeing with Nīlakaṇṭha, holds that a girl may be adopted.¹¹¹⁹

v1.c6.s94.5

¹¹¹⁸ एषां वचसां बहुषु कालिकापुराणपुस्तकेष्वदर्शनान्निर्मूलत्वादिति केचित् । अन्ये तु समूलत्वेपि आद्यश्लोकत्रयस्यासगोत्रदत्तकविषयत्वात्तत्प्रायपठितत्वेनान्त्यश्लोकस्यापि तद्विषयत्वमेवोचितम् । अतः सगोत्रस्य दत्तकस्य नायं नियम इति परिणीतोपि दत्तको भवेदित्याहुः । वस्तुतस्तु नासगोत्रेप्प्युपनयनान्तसंस्कारोत्तरं दत्तकत्वसामान्यनिषेधः कर्तुं शक्यः पुराणवचोभिर्वैदिकलिङ्गविरुद्धस्मृतिवचसां प्रामाण्यासम्भवस्य बलाबलाधिकरणवार्तिकराणकसिद्धत्वात् । संस्कारकौस्तुभ pp. 169-170; compare व्यवहारमयूख p. 114 for remarks on the कालिकापुराण passage. The निर्णयसिंधु appears to regard the कालिकापुराण verses as genuine and holds on their strength that the adoption of a boy after upanayana is prohibited.

v1.c6.s94.6

¹¹¹⁹ दत्तकपुत्र्या अपि स्वीकार उक्तविधिना कार्यः । वक्ष्यामि पुत्रसंग्रहमित्यादिगतपुत्रस्य पुमान् पुत्र इत्यादि वैदिकप्रयोगमूलकेन वृत्तिरुकन्यायेन पुत्रीसाधारण्यात् । दानप्रतिग्रहविधिषु उद्देश्यविशेषपुंस्त्वविवक्षायाश्च । इतिहासपुराणेषु कुन्त्या दत्तकत्वोक्तेश्च । संस्कारकौस्तुभ p. 188; contrast व्यवहारमयूख p. 108 'दत्तकश्च पुमानेव भवति न कन्या &c.' (my edition, Poona).

v1.c6.s94.7

Like the Nirṇayasindhu and the Mayūkhas of Nīlakaṇṭha, Anantadeva in the Saṁskārakaustubha and elsewhere names several hundred authors and works. It is not necessary to set out the whole lot. His authorities are practically the same as those of the former. He principally relies among *nibandhas* upon the Mitākṣarā, Aparārka, Hemādri, Mādhava, Madanaratna, Madanapārijāta. The Smṛtikaustubha was divided into several *dīdhitis* (rays, parts). In the Smṛtikaustubha published by the Nirṇayasāgara Press it is expressly stated that the *tithidīdhiti* has been already¹¹²⁰ expounded. At the end also it is said that the work is only the complete *abdadīdhiti* (i. e. portion dealing with saṁvatsaras of five kinds). The year is said to be of five kinds, cāndra, saura, sāvana, bārhaspatya and nākṣatra. The printed work treats of the several rites, observances, festivals and *vratas* on the important *tithis* of the twelve months of the cāndra year with the intercalary month and observances thereof, the rites proper to saura year and saṁkrāntis (the sun's passage from one sign into another), the rites of the *sāvana* year, the rules about rites when Jupiter is in the sign of Leo, the rites of the nākṣatra year, the actions forbidden and allowed in Kali age according to Anantadeva and discussion of the views of Hemādri, Mādhava and the Madanapārijāta thereon.

v1.c6.s94.8

¹¹²⁰ तिथिदीधितिवक्ता प्राग्वक्ष्यामोब्दौघदीधितिम् । अब्दभेदाद्गदाम्येनां माधवोक्त्यनुसारतः ॥ Intro. verse 20 of स्मृतिकौस्तुभ.

v1.c6.s94.9

The Rājadharmakaustubha¹¹²¹ was divided into several parts (dīdhitis). The first deals with the characteristics and defects of kings, the qualities and characteristics of queens, ministers, *purohita*, astrologer, the rites to be performed at coronation, duties to be observed after coronation. Another portion of the same work deals with vyavahāra viz., the sabhā, the judge, the plaint, the reply, means of proof, ordeals etc.

v1.c6.s94.10

¹¹²¹ Vide Mitra's Bik. cat. p. 444 : No. 955 at the end 'राज (बाज ?) बहादुरचन्द्रभूपतेः कौस्तुभेन्न नृपधर्मगोचरे । दीधितिः प्रथमभाग ईदृशस्तोपहृत्सुरुतिनां व्यजायत' ; vide also Mitra's Notices vol, I p. 196 No. 346 for the same.

v1.c6.s94.11

It is unnecessary to go into details about the other treatises on prāyaścitta, pratiṣṭhā¹¹²² &c. Anantadeva also wrote several prayogas such as the Agnihotraprayoga, Cāturmāsyaprayoga. In the Bhadkamkar collection there is a ms. of a drama called Kṛṣṇabhakti-candrikā composed by Anantadeva in which the characters are a Śaiva, Vaiṣṇava, Mīmāṁsaka, Tārkika &c.

v1.c6.s94.12

¹¹²² Vide Aufrecht's Oxford cat. p. 272b where there is a reference to प्रतिष्ठादीधिति 'अथ राजधर्मा उच्यन्ते तत्र राज्याभिषेकदीधित्युक्तलक्षणलक्षितो राजा प्रासादप्रतिष्ठादीधित्युक्तप्रकारेण दुर्गगृहनिर्माणं भद्रासनं च निर्माय ... व्यवहारा निरूप्यन्ते ।'; vide also Mitra's Notices, vol. II. p. 21 No. 556 for the same.

v1.c6.s94.13

In the Smṛtikaustubha (Nirṇayasagara edition of 1909) Anantadeva gives a pedigree¹¹²³ of his patron's family. The family claimed descent from the moon. Whether the first three kings mentioned in the Smṛtikaustubha were related as father and son is doubtful. Lakṣmaṇacandra is said to have been the son of Rudracandra and it was he who conquered several chiefs wielding sway over the Himalayan territories.¹¹²⁴ Trimallacandra, the successor

v1.c6.s94.14

¹¹²³ The pedigree is as follows :— ज्ञानचन्द्र

v1.c6.s94.15

¹¹²⁴ तेनानेकहिमाचलस्थनृपतीन् दुष्टान्विजित्य स्वके राज्ये वृद्धिरकारि तुष्टिरमिता बाधायि विद्वद्द्वृदि ॥ verse 5.

v1.c6.s94.16

कल्याणचन्द्र

v1.c6.s94.17

रुद्रचन्द्र

v1.c6.s94.18

लक्ष्मणचन्द्र (son)

v1.c6.s94.19

त्रिमल्लचन्द्र

v1.c6.s94.20

नीलचन्द्र

v1.c6.s94.21

बाजबाहुद्र (and probably the son) of Lakṣmaṇacandra, is praised for his continual liberality to the learned men of Benares.¹¹²⁵ It was at the command of Baz Bahadurcandra and for pleasing him that Anantadeva compiled his Smṛtikaustubha.¹¹²⁶ At the end Anantadeva tells us that Baz Bahadurcandra conquered several mountain forts in the Himālayas.¹¹²⁷ After giving a pedigree of his patrons' family Anantadeva gives some information about himself. He was a descendant of the great Maratha saint Ekanātha whom he describes as endowed with Vedic sacrifices and as a devotee of Kṛṣṇa.¹¹²⁸ That this Ekanātha is the same as the great Maratha saint is vouchsafed by Kāśīnātha, author of Dharmasindhu, in another work of his.¹¹²⁹ Anantadeva was the great-great-grand-son of Ekanātha and he was the grandson of Ananta and son of Āpadeva, the author of the Mīmāṁsānyāyaprakāśa *alias* Āpadevī-.

v1.c6.s94.22

¹¹²⁵ काशीस्थ विद्वदादिभ्यो धनराशीनदात्सदा ॥ verse 6.

v1.c6.s94.23

¹¹²⁶ तस्यात्मजं वैदिकशास्त्रविज्ञं सन्तोषरुक्तप्राहुरनन्तदेवम् । बाजाहुराज्ञो वचसा विधेयं निबन्धसारोद्धरणं त्वयेति ॥ अनन्तदेवेन तदाज्ञयाथो मुदे हरेः पूर्वनिबन्धरूपम् । क्षीराम्बुधिं बुद्धिगुणैर्मथित्वा प्रकाश्यतेयं स्मृतिकौस्तुभः कौ ॥ verses 17-18.

v1.c6.s94.24

¹¹²⁷ येनार्जितानि युधि सर्वरिपून् विजित्य दुर्गाणि दुर्ग्रहतराणि धनैर्युतानि । श्रीबाजबाहादुरचन्द्रनृपस्य तस्य वाचा हिमाचलगतावनिपदेवतुष्ट्यै ॥ योनन्तदेवकृतमन्थनसंन्निबन्ध-क्षीराब्धिजोध सततं हरिणा धृतो यः । नित्यं निजे हृदि सतां प्रमुदेस्तु तस्य सर्वोब्द-दीधितिरियं स्मृतिभास्करस्य ॥ verses 2 and 3.

v1.c6.s94.25

¹¹²⁸ आसीद्गोदावरीतीरे वेदवेदिसमन्वितः । श्रीकृष्णभक्तिमानेक एकनाथाभिधो द्विजः ॥ verse 13 of स्मृतिकौस्तुभ.

v1.c6.s94.26

¹¹²⁹ Vide his विठ्ठलरुक्मिणीसारभाष्य folio 37 a (D. C. ms. No, 100 of 1869-70).

v1.c6.s94.27

The pedigree of अनन्तदेव is
[Figure:]

v1.c6.s94.28

Mīmāṁsā lore seems to have been a hereditary endowment in the family as in the case of the Bhaṭṭas of Benares. In all his works, particularly in the Saṁskārakaustubha, Anantadeva applies at every step the maxims and doctrines of the Pūrvamīmāṁsā for the decision of doubtful points of Dharmaśāstra. Anantadeva had a younger brother Jīvadeva whose Gotrapravaranirṇaya he draws upon in the Saṁskārakaustubha while dealing with sāpiṇḍya for marriage.¹¹³⁰ Bhandarkar notices an Āśaucanirṇaya of Jīvadeva in which the Nirṇayasindhu is cited as an authority.¹¹³¹

v1.c6.s94.29

¹¹³⁰ अथ गोत्रप्रवरनिर्णयो मदनुजजीवदेवकृत एवास्मिन्नवसरे प्रदर्श्यते। संस्कारकौस्तुभ p. 687.

v1.c6.s94.30

¹¹³¹ Vide Bhandarkar's Report, 1883-84, p. 53 (for जीवदेव).

v1.c6.s94.31

West and Bühler in their digest¹¹³² thought that Anantadeva flourished about the same time as the author of the Nirṇayasindhu. But this requires some correction. Baz Bahadur, the patron of Anantadeva, seems to have been a scion of the Candra (or Chand) family and ruled over Almora and Nainital from 1638 to 1678 A. D. It is said in the Imperial Gazetteer¹¹³³ that the first of the Chandrarājas was Somachand who hailed from Jhūsi near Allahabad and came to the Himalayan regions in the 10th century and that in 1563 the capital was transferred to Almora by Kalyancand, whose son Rudracandra was a contemporary of Akbar and made his obeisance to the latter in 1587 A. D. at Lahore. The Smṛtikaustubha does mention the ancestors Kalyanacandra and Rudracandra of Baz Bahadur. Between Baz Bahadur and Rudracandra there are three names. Supposing that they are the three direct ascendants of Baz Bahadur and allowing a period of 25 years for each after Rudracandra's known date of 1587 A. D., we get the year 1662 A. D. for Baz Bahadur. We are told in the Gazetteer that in 1672 Baz Bahadur introduced a poll tax, the proceeds of which he remitted to Delhi as tribute. Therefore Anantadeva must have been patronised by Baz Bahadur between 1645 and 1675 A. D. A greater approximation can be made in another way. The saint Ekanātha finished his Marathi Bhāgavata at Benares in śake 1495 and 1630 of the Vikrama era on Kārtika full-moon day (i. e. 9th November 1573 ) as he himself tells us.¹¹³⁴ Anantadeva was the fourth in descent from him ( exclusive of Ekanātha ). Counting 25 years for each of the four generations, Anantadeva should have been a grown up man in 1673 A. D. There are controversies about the dates of the birth and death of Ekanātha, the commonly accepted dates being śake 1450-1521 (b. 1528-d. 1600 A. D.).¹¹³⁵ The date of his death is śake 1521 Fālguna dark half 6th day (25th February 1600 ). Others give 1548-1599 A.D. as the dates. Whichever date is correct, the literary activity of Anantadeva must be assigned to the third quarter of the 17th century. This date is confirmed by the fact that in the Āśaucanirṇaya of Jīvadeva, younger brother of Anantadeva, the Nirṇayasindhu composed in 1611-12 A. D. is cited as an authority.

v1.c6.s94.32

¹¹³² Vide Digest p. 24 (3rd ed.) and p. 25 (4th ed.).

v1.c6.s94.33

¹¹³³ Vide Imperial Gazetteer of India vol. XVIII. p. 324 and vol. V. p. 245.

v1.c6.s94.34

¹¹³⁴ वाराणसो महामुक्तिक्षेत्र । विक्रमशक वृषसंवत्सर । शके सोळाशें तिसोत्तर । टीका एकाकार जनार्दनरूपा ॥ महामंगल कार्तिकामासीं । शुक्लपक्ष पूर्णिमेसी । सोमवार शिवयोगेंसी । टीका एकादशी समाप्त झाली ॥ स्वदेशींचा शक संवत्सर । दण्डकारण्य श्रीरामक्षेत्र । प्रतिष्ठान गोदावरीतीर । येथील उच्चार तो ऐका । शालिवाहनशक वैभव । संख्या चौदाशें पंचाण्णव । श्रीमुख संवत्सराचें नांव । टीका अपूर्व तें जाहली ॥ verses 552-555 of the last अध्याय ( Nirṇayasāgara edition ).

v1.c6.s94.35

¹¹³⁵ Vide Mr. Bhave's महाराष्ट्रसारस्वत ed. of śake 1846 part 1 p. 245 and Mr. L. R. Pangarkar's life of Ekanath ( Marathi ) chap. II ( ed. of 1911 ).

Linked texts (9)