History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s96.13

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.