Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s96: 111. Bālakṛṣṇa or Bālambhaṭṭa

History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s96

Language
English

111. Bālakṛṣṇa or Bālambhaṭṭa

v1.c6.s96.1

The Lakṣmīvyākhyāna *alias* the Bālambhaṭṭī is a commentary on the Mitākṣarā of Vijñāneśvara, ascribed to a lady named Lakṣmīdevī. The commentary is a voluminous one and displays uneven workmanship. The commentary on the ācāra section of the Mitākṣarā is the most learned part of the whole book and is almost an independent work. The ācāra portion has been published by Mr. J. R. Gharpure. The vyavahāra portion of the Bālambhaṭṭī was published by Mr. S. S. Setlur, Advocate, Bombay in 1911 and by Mr. J. R. Gharpure (1914). This portion of the commentary explains the Mitākṣarā word by word and also engages in lengthy discussions on important topics. The portion of the commentary on the prāyaścitta section has not yet been published; but Mr. Govinda Das who examined it (vide Mr. Gharpure's edition of the ācāra portion, p. 27 at end) reports that it is meagre as compared with the preceding sections. In the following Mr. Gharpure's edition has been used.

v1.c6.s96.2

In the Bālambhaṭṭī the author quotes by name a host of writers and works. As the Bālambhaṭṭī is almost the latest work on Dharmaśāstra worth special mention in this work, no useful chronological purpose will be served by giving the names of all such writers and works. It may however be stated that he names the Nirṇayasindhu, the Vīramitrodaya, the Mayūkhas of Nīlakaṇṭha, the Saṁskārakaustubha, Siddheśvarabhaṭṭa the nephew of Nīlakaṇṭha, Khaṇḍadeva the author of Bhāṭṭadīpikā on the Mīmāṁsāsūtra, the Kāyasthadharmapradīpa of Gāgābhaṭṭa and the author's father's commentary thereon.

v1.c6.s96.3

Of the Bālambhaṭṭī ascribed to Lakṣmīdevī, West and Bühler say 'she generally advocates latitudinarian views and gives the widest interpretation possible to every term of Yājñavalkya. Her opinions are held in comparatively small esteem and are hardly ever brought forward by the *śāstris*, if unsupported by other authorities'.¹¹⁴² For example, in the Bālambhaṭṭī the word 'bhrātaraḥ', occurring in Yājñavalkya's verses laying down the order of succession to a man dying without male issue, is interpreted as including sisters and the author says that sisters succeed immediately after brothers.¹¹⁴³ This dictum of Bālambhaṭṭa taken along with the words of the Vyavahāramayūkha seems to have influenced their Lordships of the Privy Council in *Vinayak v. Lakshmibai* on the question of the rights of the sister as an heir.¹¹⁴⁴ In *Sakharam v. Sitabai*¹¹⁴⁵ Sir Michael Westropp C. J. went so far as to say on the construction of the term ‘brethren’ in the Mitākṣarā as including sisters, which construction was adopted in that case (*in Vinayak v. Lakshmibai*) both by the Supreme Court and the Privy Council, “we must treat the Mitākṣarā also as preferring sisters to half brothers, whom it brings in after brothers.” But this was a mere *obiter dictum*, since the case in which these observations were made was governed by the law of the Vyavahāramayūkha which expressly prefers full sisters to half brothers. It has been laid down in several cases in Bombay¹¹⁴⁶ that Bālambhaṭṭa’s doctrine that the word ‘brothers’ includes ‘sisters’ has not been accepted in that Presidency and that Sir Michael Westropp was under a misapprehension as to the exact drift of the Bālambhaṭṭī which nowhere says that the term ‘brothers’ excludes half brothers and which does not bring in the full sister before the half brother, but expressly says that the full brother inherits first, then the half brother and then comes the sister. The Bālambhaṭṭī not only brings in the sisters after full and half brothers, but places the sons and daughters of sisters after the sons and daughters of brother’s, full or half. This is in direct conflict with the order of succession expressly mentioned by the Mitākṣarā and the Bombay High Court has refused to give the sister’s son the place which the Bālambhaṭṭī assigns to him and treats him as a mere *bandhu*.¹¹⁴⁷ The Bālambhaṭṭī is regarded as of little authority in the interpretation of the Mitākṣarā in the Bombay Presidency and its interpretations cannot be accepted without due caution and examination.¹¹⁴⁸ Even in the Benares¹¹⁴⁹ School where the Bālambhaṭṭī has been accepted as one of the leading authorities, the authority of Bālambhaṭṭa has been held to be inferior to that of Nandapaṇḍita in matters of adoption, it being held that a widow cannot adopt in the Benares School without express authority from her husband (while Bālambhaṭṭa holds that she can adopt without such authority). Similarly it has been held that the Bālambhaṭṭī cannot prevail over the views of the Vīramitrodaya and that a daughter-in-law is not in the line of heirs at all though the Bālambhaṭṭī says that she is so.¹¹⁵⁰

v1.c6.s96.4

¹¹⁴² Digest of Hindu Law, 3rd ed. p. 17.

v1.c6.s96.5

¹¹⁴³ 'भ्रातृपुत्रौ इत्येकशेषेण प्रागुक्तसिद्धान्तरीत्या पूर्वं भ्राता तदभावे स्वसा।' बालम्भट्टी p. 209 (Gharpure) on याज्ञ. II. 135; 'तत्पुत्रा इति भ्रातुः पुत्राः कन्याश्च स्वसुः पुत्राः कन्याश्चेत्यर्थः' p. 210.

v1.c6.s96.6

¹¹⁴⁴ 9 Moo. I. A. 516 = 1 Bom. H. C. R. 117 at pp. 122–123; *vide also Sakharam v. Sitabai* I. L. R. 3 Bom. 353 at pp. 360 and 363.

v1.c6.s96.7

¹¹⁴⁵ *I. L. R.* 3 *Bom.* 353 *at p.* 363.

v1.c6.s96.8

¹¹⁴⁶ *Vide Mulji v. Cursandas Natha* 24 Bom. 563 at p. 579 and *Bhagwan v. Warubai* I. L. R. 32 Bom. 300 at p. 305.

v1.c6.s96.9

¹¹⁴⁷ *Vide Bhagwan v. Warubai* I. L. R. 32 Bom. 300 at p. 312.

v1.c6.s96.10

¹¹⁴⁸ *Vide Dattatraya v. Gangabai* I. L. R. 46 Bom. 557 at p. 558.

v1.c6.s96.11

¹¹⁴⁹ *Vide Tulshi Ram v. Behari Lal* I. L. R. 12 All. 328 at p. 368 (F. B.).

v1.c6.s96.12

¹¹⁵⁰ I. L. R. 9 Cal. 315 at p. 324 ; *vide* also I. L. R. 16 Cal. 367 at pp. 376-77 (about brother's widow).

v1.c6.s96.13

The author of the Bālambhaṭṭī is somewhat of an enigma. Such women as Śīlā, Vijjā, Avanti-sundarī have been worshippers at the shrine of the Muse of Poetry. A lady has been associated with the composition of a work on Mathematics, viz. the Līlāvatī. Inspiration for several works on Dharmaśāstra was, we know, derived from queens and princesses, as in the case of the Vivādacandra compiled by Queen Lakṣmīdevī through Misarumiśra, the Dānavākyāvalī compiled by Mahādevī Dhīramatī of Mithilā through Vidyāpati, the Dvaitanirṇaya composed by Vācaspati at the bidding of queen Jayā, wife of king Bhairavendra. It gives one great pleasure to contemplate that at least one work on Dharmaśāstra, the Bālambhaṭṭī, is claimed by a lady as her own. But this pleasure receives a rude shock if the question of the authorship of the Bālambhaṭṭī is dispassionately considered. The introductory verses no doubt start by saying that Lakṣmī, the wife of Vaidyanātha Pāyaguṇḍa, and the daughter of Mahādeva of the Mudgala *gotra* and surnamed Kheraḍā, composed the work, her maiden name being Umā.¹¹⁵¹ The colophon at the end of the ācāra portion says that the work was composed by Lakṣmī, the daughter of Mahādeva and Umā, the wife of Vaidyanātha Pāyaguṇḍa and the mother of Bālakṛṣṇa.¹¹⁵² At the end of the vyavahāra section in the printed editions we have the words 'mother of Lālākṛṣṇa' but this is obviously a misreading of the mss. or a mistake of the copyists. The pretence that the work was composed by a lady is made extremely plausible by the frantic efforts made in it for the rights of women in matters of inheritance. But this pretence is not kept up in the body of the work at all. In several places the author of the Bālambhaṭṭī refers to the Mañjūṣā and other works of his *guru* and to works of his father.¹¹⁵³ We know that Vaidyanātha Pāyaguṇḍa was a pupil of Nāgojibhaṭṭa,¹¹⁵⁴ who composed several Mañjūṣās (on grammar) and a work on prāyaścitta. Therefore it follows either that the Bālambhaṭṭī was composed by Vaidyanātha himself and ascribed to his wife or that the work was composed by Bālakṛṣṇa *alias* Bālambhaṭṭa, son of Vaidyanātha, and was ascribed to his mother. Nāgojibhaṭṭa who certainly attained a very advanced age was the *guru* of Vaidyanātha as well as of the latter's son Bālakṛṣṇa. That Bālakṛṣṇa or Bālambhaṭṭa Pāyaguṇḍa was a learned man like his father Vaidyanātha follows from several circumstances. He wrote a work called Upākṛtitattva.¹¹⁵⁵ Gopāla *alias* Manudeva, in his commentary called Laghubhūṣaṇakānti on the Vaiyākaraṇabhūṣaṇasāra, styles Bālambhaṭṭa Pāyaguṇḍa his *guru*.¹¹⁵⁶ Looking to the colophons where Lakṣmī is referred to as the mother of Bālakṛṣṇa and to the fact that the work is known as Bālambhaṭṭī, we must conclude that it was composed by Bālambhaṭṭa and not by his father Vaidyanātha. What motive impelled Bālambhaṭṭa to publish the work in the name of his mother it is difficult to say. Tradition says that he did so to console Lakṣmīdevī in her bereavement on the death of a child. Vaidyanātha composed several commentaries on grammatical works such as on the Mahābhāṣyapradīpoddyota of Nāgojībhaṭṭa, on the Paribhāṣenduśekhara (com. called Kāśikā and Gadā), on the Vaiyākaraṇa-siddhāntamañjūṣā (com. called Kalā), on the Laghuśabdenduśekhara (com. Cidasthimālā), on the Laghuśabdaratna (com. Bhāvaprakāśa). Mr. Govinda Das (p. 27 in Mr. Gharpure's edition of ācāra portion) says that these works were really composed by Bālambhaṭṭa and ascribed to his father. In these grammatical works the names of Vaidyanātha's parents are given as Mahādeva and Veṇī.

v1.c6.s96.14

¹¹⁵¹ श्रीलक्ष्मीरमणं नत्वा लक्ष्मीर्लक्ष्मीं शिशुप्रसूः । खेरडामुद्गलापत्यगणेशोपत्यकृष्णकः । महादेवः सुतस्तस्य वेदमूर्तिर्जटान्तवित् । श्रौतस्मार्तार्थनिपुणो दीक्षितो राजपोजितः ॥ पत्नी तस्य ह्युमारूपा साध्व्युमा तस्य कन्यका । पायगुण्डोपाख्यवैद्यनाथपत्नी पतिव्रता । मिताक्षराया विवृतिं तनुते सर्वसंविदे ॥ बालम्भट्टी, Intro. verses of आचारकाण्ड.

v1.c6.s96.15

¹¹⁵² इति श्रीमन्मिताक्षराव्याख्याने महादेवभट्टात्मजोमाङ्गजबैद्यनाधार्धाङ्गभूतबालकजननीपायगुण्ड इत्युपाख्यश्रीलक्ष्मीदेवीविरचिते लक्ष्म्याभिधे आचारप्रकरणम् ।. Vide for an identical colophon at the end of the व्यवहार section, I. O. cat. p. 369-370 No. 1282 and Aufrecht's Oxford cat. p. 262 b.

v1.c6.s96.16

¹¹⁵³ e. g. आचार० p. 448 'अत्र मनुवाक्ये नञोल्पार्थकत्वेन यागीयहिंसायामपि स्वल्पदोषोस्त्येवेति प्रतिपादितं गुरुचरणैर्मञ्जूषायाम् । विशदीकृतं चैतत् पाषण्डखण्डनेपि अष्टपशुपकरणेस्माभिरिति दिक्'; p. 314 'तथा उग्रादिरूपक्षत्रियसत्त्वेपि तेषां न क्षत्रियत्वं किं तु शूद्रत्वमेवेति गुरुचरणकृतव्रात्यप्रायश्चित्तनिर्णये स्पष्टम् । तत एव बोध्यम् । स्फुटीकृतं चैतत्पितृचरणैः कायस्थनिर्णये । ... तत्सर्वं गागाभट्टकृतकायस्थप्रदीपे पितृचरणकृततत्वप्रदीपे च स्पष्टमिति नेह प्रपञ्च्यते ।'. The first passage is not properly arranged in Mr. Gharpure's edition; vide p. 415 for व्रात्यप्रायश्चित्तनिर्णय.

v1.c6.s96.17

¹¹⁵⁴ वैद्यनाथः पायगुण्डो नत्वा नागेश्वरं गुरुम् । व्याख्यां प्रभाख्यां तनुते कौस्तुभस्य स्वबुद्धये ॥. Vide I. O. cat. p. 163 No. 610 for the प्रभा, a com. on भट्टोजि's शब्दकौस्तुभ.

v1.c6.s96.18

¹¹⁵⁵ Vide Stein's cat. p. 302 श्रीमम्हालसापतिं नत्वा खण्डेरायं कपर्दिनम् । पायगुण्डो बालकृष्णः प्राह तत्त्वमुपाकृतौ ॥

v1.c6.s96.19

¹¹⁵⁶ बालम्भाभिधं पायगुण्डे पाख्यं परं गुरुम् । गोरालदेवनामासौ पण्डितो बालबुद्धये ॥ कृष्णदेवानुजो लोके मनुदेवापराभिधः । I. O. cat p. 189 No. 717.

v1.c6.s96.20

The I. O. cat. (pp. 458-59, No. 1507) notices an incomplete work called Dharmaśāstrasaṁgraha compiled by Bālaśarman Pāyaguṇḍa, son of Vaidyanātha and Lakṣmī and patronised¹¹⁵⁷ by Colebrooke. The work dealt with topics of civil law, viz. definition of vyavahāra, *sabhā*, the judge, the sabhyas, the relative strength of smṛtis etc., return of debts etc. It breaks off at folio 79. On the ms. there is a note in Colebrooke's own hand (which is not complimentary to the honesty of Bālaśarman) dated 1st may 1800 "fresh sheets were received from Bālaśarma Pāyaguṇḍa on this date. This is little else but the Vīramitrodaya revised. As it is a scarce book and very little known Bālaśarma and his pupil Manudeva did not suspect I could detect the plagiarism."

v1.c6.s96.21

¹¹⁵⁷ श्रीकौंपणी विजयते रणरङ्गधीरः ॥ ४ श्रीशं नत्वा श्रीनिवासी दाक्षिणात्यो निबन्धकृत् । नागेशपादनिरतो वैद्यनाथात्मजः सुधीः ॥ ५ सुमनःकुलुबुरुकसाहेबालब्धजीविकः। लक्ष्मीसूनुर्भवेन्न्यन्थो विप्रद्वयविलेखकः ॥ ६ धर्मशास्त्रिमहादेवमन्तू (नु ?) देवसहायकः । बालशर्माबालबुद्धिः पायगुण्डोपनामकः ॥ ७.

v1.c6.s96.22

The foregoing shows that Bālakṛṣṇa Pāyaguṇḍa was a Deccani Brāhmaṇa, that his father and mother were Vaidyanātha and Lakṣmī, that his maternal grandfather was Mahādeva, also a Deccani Brāhmaṇa surnamed Kheraḍā, that he was the pupil of Nāgojībhaṭṭa and that he was a *paṇḍit* of Colebrooke. Mr. Govinda Das is not right when he identifies (p. 27) Vaidyanātha the commentator of several grammatical works of Nāgojībhaṭṭa with Vaidyanātha the author of several commentaries on Alaṅkāra works (such as the Udāharaṇacandrikā on the Kāvya-prakāśa and the Prabhā on the Kāvyapradīpa). The reasons are two. Vaidyanātha, author of the Udāharaṇacandrikā, was the son of Rāmabhaṭṭa, son of Viṭṭhala Tatsat, while Vaidyanātha the grammarian was a son of Mahādeva and Veṇī. Besides the Udāharaṇacandrikā was composed¹¹⁵⁸ in *saṁvat* 1740 Kārtika śuddha 8, Wednesday (i. e. 17th October 1683). We saw above that Vaidyanātha Pāyaguṇḍa was a pupil of Nāgoji, who flourished towards the end of 17th and the first half of the 18th century. If Vaidyanātha, the writer on poetics, were the same as the commentator of Nāgoji, he could not have composed a work on poetics so early as 1683 A. D. Dr. Belvalkar (Systems of Sanskrit Grammar p. 60) says ‘Lakṣmīdevī, the wife of king Candrasiṁha of Mithilā, was probably his patroness in whose honour he is reported to have composed a commentary on the Vyavahārakāṇḍa of the Mitākṣarā.’ This throws to the winds all chronology. We saw above (pp. 399 and 404) that the Mithilā princess Lakṣmī or Lachimādevī flourished in the first half of the 15th century, while the Bālambhaṭṭī quoting as it does writers and works like Gāgābhaṭṭa and the Kaustubha could not have been composed before 1700 A.D.

v1.c6.s96.23

¹¹⁵⁸ Vide I. O. cat. p. 329 No. 1151 for the उदाहरणचन्द्रिका and its date वियद्वेदमूनिक्ष्माभिर्मितेऽब्दे कार्तिके सिते । बुधाष्टम्याममं ग्रन्थं वैद्यनाथोभ्यपूरयत् ॥; vide Stein's cat. pp. 60, 61, 62, and 80 for commentaries on the काव्यप्रदीप, कुवलयानन्द, चन्द्रालोक and the कादम्बरी by वैद्यनाथ, son of रामचन्द्र.

v1.c6.s96.24

Mr. Govinda Das says that a ms. of the ācārakāṇḍa of the Bālambhaṭṭī in the Benares palace library is dated *saṁvat* 1831 (i. e. 1774-75 A. D.). The I. O. cat. (pp. 458-459) notices that Bālambhaṭṭa was about 80 years old when Colebrooke entrusted the Dharmaśāstrasaṁgraha to him about 1800 A. D. Besides both Bālambhaṭṭa and his father Vaidyanātha were the pupils of Nāgojibhaṭṭa. The ms. of the Upākṛtitattva (Stein’s Jammu cat. p. 302) is dated *saṁvat* 1848 i. e. 1791-92 A. D. and the ms. of the Laghubhūṣaṇakānti of Bālambhaṭṭa’s pupil is dated *saṁvat* 1856 (i. e. 1799-1800 A. D.). Hence it follows that Bālambhaṭṭa must have flourished between 1730 and 1820 A. D. Mr. Govinda Das says that Bālambhaṭṭa died at the age of 90 and gives his dates as 1740 to 1830 A. D. (p. 29 of Mr. Gharpure’s ācāra section of Bālambhaṭṭī at the end).

Linked texts (19)