Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Positive Background of Hindu Sociology c13.s2: Bhāṣyas and Nibandhas of Smriti Śāstras

The Positive Background of Hindu Sociology c13.s2

Language
English

Contents

Bhāṣyas and Nibandhas of Smriti Śāstras

c13.s2.1

The work of Nārada, Brihaspati and Kātyāyana as *Smriti* writers of the later Gupta period was continued during the seventh and eighth centuries by quite a number of jurists. Without being precise or even approximative we may mention the following :—1. Vyāsa (c 650), 2. Paulastya (c 700), 3. Pitāmaha (c 750), 4. Dakṣa (c 800), 5. Angiras (c 800), 6. Yama (c 800). They all wrote regular *Dharmaśāstras* in verse in the literary tradition established by Manu and Yājnavalkya.

c13.s2.2

The number of *Smriti* writers was great. The need of *bhāṣyas* (commentaries) was felt, and already as contemporaries of original writers like Yama, Angiras etc. commentators like Asahāya (c 800), Samvarta (c 800) and Bhartriyajna (c 800) are seen flourishing. And they are important enough to be quoted by subsequent scholars.⁴

c13.s2.3

⁴ Kane : *History of Dharmaśāstras* Vol. I. (Poona 1930) pp. 221, 225, 227, 233, 238, 242, 250, 252.

1. Medhātithi and Viśvarūpa

c13.s2.t1.1

Two of the greatest commentary writers lived in the ninth century. The first is Medhātithi⁵ (c 850 A.C.) celebrated for his commentary on Manu. The author was probably an inhabitant of Kashmir as Bühler suggested. Jolly considered him to be a Southerner. Medhātithi knows of a *Vārttā* treatise by Brihaspati and is familiar with the *Artha* treatises of Brihaspati, Uśanas and Kauṭalya. He is the author of an original *Smriti* work also, namely, the *Smritiviveka*.

c13.s2.t1.2

⁵ Kane, pp. 224, 252-254, 261-263, 265, 269-270, 275, Winternitz III, p. 449.

c13.s2.t1.3

The other great man in this line was Viśvarūpa (c 800-825) whose commentary on Yājnavalkya is called *Vālakrīḍā*. The author was perhaps a contemporary of Śankarāchārya (c 800), and may have been one of his pupils or followers. He is one of those jurists who make use of *Arthaśāstra* texts, e.g., those of Brihaspati, Viśālākṣa, and possibly Kauṭalya.

c13.s2.t1.4

Bhruchi (c 850) is perhaps a contemporary of Viśvarūpa.

c13.s2.t1.5

The *Chaturviṁśatimata* (c 850), complete in 525 verses, embodies the essence of 24 sages, namely, Manu, Yājñavalkya, Atri, Viṣṇu, Vaśiṣṭha, Vyāsa, Uśanas, Āpastamba, Vatsa, Hārīta, Guru (Brihaspati), Nārada, Parāśara, Gārgya, Gautama, Yama, Baudhāyana, Dakṣa, Śaṁkha, Angiras, Śatātapa, Sāṁkhya (Sāṁkhyāyana) and Saṁvarta. This synthetic compilation belongs to the age of Medhātithi and Viśvarūpa.

2. Śrīkara

c13.s2.t2.1

The tenth century saw several great works.⁶ The synthetic jurist Śrīkara (*c* 950) is the author perhaps of a commentary or of a Nibandha i.e. digest. He is said to have filled in the gaps of Smritis and established order out of chaos. He may have been greatly under the influence of Yājnavalkya. According to Chaṇḍeśvara in his *Rājanītiratnākara* (ch. XV) Śrīkara had views on public law i.e. politics as well. He held that the revenues of the state have the poor and the helpless as some of their *amśī* (co-sharers or owners).

c13.s2.t2.2

⁶ Kane, pp. 238-239, 242, 268; See the *Rājanītiratnākara* by Chaṇḍesvara, ed. by K. P. Jayaswal (Patna 1924) pp. 40, 81.

c13.s2.t2.3

The doctrine quoted by Chaṇḍeśvara runs thus: *rājadhane dīnānāthādisakalaprāṇinām aṁśītvam*. The poor, the orphans, and all other creatures are *amśī* or co-sharers with the king in his wealth, property or revenues. It is on this argument that a state cannot be partitioned between the sons just as ordinary property can be (*Rājyam abibhājyam*). The recognition of this distinction between personal property and the state in a categorical manner marks a great progress in political thought. We touch the concept of an abstract political organism which is independent of dynasties, individual attributes and personal equations. The unknown or rather lost treatise of Śrīkara is thus to be credited with having propounded a tenet of major importance in the world’s political speculations.

c13.s2.t2.4

Then, again, the category, *amśitva* (co-sharership), as enjoyed by the poor etc., possesses a more than ordinary significance in speculative politics. It is something essentially distinct from the commonplace thought in constitution or public law which says that the king is the servant, benefactor or protector of the people. We are forced to understand that in point of civil law these enumerated classes are his equals or at any rate colleagues so far as the use of wealth, i.e. the state, is concerned. Naturally, therefore, it is possible to read something of socialistic “idealism” into this doctrine. Śrīkara the jurist, although interested in private law (e.g. the law of property) has made a tremendous contribution to public law by enunciating this dictum. It is worth repeating that Śrīkara is here not talking of ordinary charity, philanthropy or dole but of the *right of co-sharers* to the national revenues. It is understood, of course, that we find ourselves here not in *Realpolitik* but in speculation.

c13.s2.t2.5

It is on account of this doctrine of the distinction between the state and other properties that a definitely practical object in constitutional law can be served. The theorists do not want that the state should be inherited by anybody except the eldest son. The people who are not used to primogeniture in private law are likely not to appreciate it in public law. Hence the importance of the theory which establishes the socialistic copartnership of the masses in the affairs of the body politic.

c13.s2.t2.6

The doctrine of Śrīkara, which was handed down by Gopāla in his *Smṛiti-Kāmadhenu* (c 1100) and Lakṣmīdhara in his *Smṛiti-Kalpataru* (c 1159) and was considered important enough to be utilized by Chaṇḍeśvara in his *Rājanīti-Ratnākara* (c 1370), has another part. It runs thus: *Vahunāyakatvādrājyavinaśaścha*. The state may be destroyed on account of the plurality of leaders or rulers. This is a fresh argument against the partition of the state among the king's sons on the lines of the partition of private property. Altogether Śrīkara's logic against the application of the ordinary law of inheritance to the state-affairs is the greatest single contribution of Hindu India to social science in the tenth century.

c13.s2.t2.7

The *Ṣaṭtriṁśanmata* (c 950) is a compilation from 36 sages. It appears to be older than the *Mitākṣarā*, *Smṛitichandrikā*, Aparārka and others.

c13.s2.t2.8

The *Smṛitisamgraha* (c 1000) is a collection between Viśvarūpa or Medhātithi and the *Mitākṣarā* or the *Smṛitichandrikā*. It may be taken to have flourished in king Bhoja's territory, Dhārā, and may have been compiled by or in the age of the king-jurist Bhoja Dhāreśvara.

c13.s2.t2.9

The eleventh century is very important in certain respects.⁷ Bhoja Dhāreśvara (c 1050), king of Dhārā, whose name is associated with works on the most diverse subjects like grammar, medicine, astronomy, politics (*Yuktikalpataru*) and so forth is known to have written commentaries, digests and even independent works on *Smriti*.

c13.s2.t2.10

⁷ Kane, pp. 258, 277, 279, 281, 290.

c13.s2.t2.11

Devasvāmin's (c 1050) *Smritisamuchchaya*, a digest like that by Śrīkara, was composed during the age of Vijnāneśvara.

3. Jitendriya, Bālaka and Yogloka

c13.s2.t3.1

Bengal's⁸ contribution to law during the eleventh century is mentionable. Jitendriya (c 1050), author of an original work on *Smriti*, was an inhabitant of Bengal. He is quoted by Jīmūtavāhana in *Kālaviveka* as well as *Dāyabhāga* but is eclipsed by him. The *Dāyabhāga* doctrine that the widow succeeds to her deceased husband's estate has been traced to Jitendriya.

c13.s2.t3.2

⁸ Kane, pp. 283, 284, 286.

c13.s2.t3.3

Bālaka (c 1100), also an inhabitant of Bengal, wrote an independent work on *Smriti*. He is quoted by Jīmūtavāhana, Raghunandana and Śūlapāṇi.

c13.s2.t3.4

Yogloka (c 1100), another inhabitant of Bengal, is the author of an independent *Smriti*. His views on *Kāla* and *Vyavahāra* were popular in his days. Jīmūtavāhana used to make fun of Yogloka's claims to being exponent of a new logic (*nava-tārkikam-manya*).

4. Vijnāneśvara

c13.s2.t4.1

Greater than all his predecessors in the *bhāṣya* (commentary) line and indeed the greatest for all ages is Vijnāneśvara (c 1100), whose *Mitākṣarā* commentary on Yājnavalkya is influential until today throughout India, including Bengal also for certain purposes. He is said to have flourished during the reign of the Western Chālukya King, Vikramānka Vikramāditya VI. of Kalyāni, who ruled for half a century (1076-1126). This is the same Vikramānka about whom Bilhana wrote the *Vikramānkacharita* and whose son, king Someśvara (1127-1138), wrote the *Mānasollāsa*, a treatise on *Nītiśāstra* or politics in 1131.⁹

c13.s2.t4.2

⁹ The text of *Mānasollāsa* Vol. I. has been edited by G. K. Shrigondekar (Gaekwad Baroda Series, Baroda 1925), see p. VI. cf. Smith : *Oxford History of India* (1919) p. 202. See also Kane, Vol. I p. 290.

5. Gopāla and Lakṣmīdhara

c13.s2.t5.1

Several other writers of the eleventh century deserve notice :¹⁰

c13.s2.t5.2

¹⁰ Kane, pp. 293, 295, 297, 315; See Rājanītiratnākara ed. by K. P. Jayaswal (Patna 1924) p. 81.

c13.s2.t5.3

1. Gopāla (c 1100): *Kāmadhenu*. He took interest in Artha topics also and composed *Rājanīti-Kāmadhenu*. In Chaṇḍeśvara's *Rājanīti-Ratnākara* ch. XV. (c 1325) he is described as having held the view along with Lakṣmīdhara and Śrīkara that among the "owners" of a state are to be named the poor and the helpless.

c13.s2.t5.4

2. Halāyudha I. (c 1100) : *Nibandha*. The author was perhaps a contemporary of Dhāreśvara and Jitendriya. His name is cited often by Lakṣmīdhara (c 1125) and Chaṇḍeśvara (c 1325). He was probably an inhabitant of Mithilā.

3. Govindarāja (c 1124)

c13.s2.t6.1

(i) Commentary on *Manu*,
(ii) *Smritimanjari*, an original work.

c13.s2.t6.2

The contributions of the diverse regions of India to the evolution of Hindu law in the twelfth century¹¹ were no less significant than in the previous century. Lakṣmīdhara (c 1150) wrote *Smriti Kalpataru*. The author was foreign minister of Govindachandra, the Gahadavāl or Rāṭhor Emperor of Kanauj (1104-1154). His influence on Bengal and Mithilā was very great. He is quoted by Aniruddha, Ballālasena, Śūlapāṇi and Raghunandana of Bengal. He was plagiarized by Chaṇḍeśvara (1315).

c13.s2.t6.3

¹¹ Kane, pp. 289, 300, 314, 315, 317, 318, 325-30, 332, 337, 340.

c13.s2.t6.4

Lakṣmīdhara took great interest in political philosophy also. The *Rājadharma* section of his *Smriti-Kalpataru* was substantial enough to be used by Chaṇḍeśvara of Mithilā in his *Rājanīti-Ratnākara* (c 1370).

c13.s2.t6.5

Aparāditya (c 1150) wrote a commentary (called *Aparārka*) on Yājnavalkya. He was a ruler of Northern Konkan (Bombay).

6. Jīmūtavāhana and Ballālasena

c13.s2.t7.1

It is during this epoch that the great Bengali jurist Jīmūtavāhana (c 1150) flourished. His *Dharmaratna*, *Smriti* work, has a section on inheritance called *Dāyabhāga*, the code so dominant in Bengal. Two other sections are known, namely, *Kālaviveka* and *Vyavahāramātṛikā*. According to the *Dāyabhāga*, as is well known, the widow succeeds to her husband's interests on his death even if he be joint with his brother. His date has been placed between the eleventh and the sixteenth century.

c13.s2.t7.2

Aniruddha (c 1160) wrote *Haralatā*. The author was a guru of king Ballālasena of Bengal and helped him in the preparation of *Dānasāgara* (the Sea of Gifts).

c13.s2.t7.3

Ballālasena (1170), King of Bengal, was the author of four works :

c13.s2.t7.4

1. *Āchārasāgara*.
2. *Pratiṣṭhāsāgara*, relating to the dedication of reservoirs of water and temples.
3. *Dānasāgara* dealing with the sixteen great gifts.
4. *Adbhūtasāgara*, dealing with the rites calculated to remove celestial and terrestrial potents. The work was completed by his son Lakṣmaṇasena.

c13.s2.t7.5

Parāśara (c 1200) wrote an independent *Smriti*.

c13.s2.t7.6

Śrīdhara's (1200) *Smrityarthasāra* is quoted as an authority by the *Smritichandrikā* and Hemādri.

c13.s2.t7.7

An influential jurist of the age is Halāyudha II. (1200), author of the *Brāhmaṇasarvasva*. He was the son of the judge (*dharmādhyakṣa*) of King Lakṣmaṇasena of Bengal and was himself made a judge.

c13.s2.t7.8

Two great Southerners¹² of the thirteenth century belong to the very first rank among Hindu socio-legal philosophers. The first is Devanabhatta, author of *Smriti-chandrikā* (c 1250). This digest even now exercises an influence in judicial decision second only to the *Mitākṣarā*.

c13.s2.t7.9

¹² Kane, pp. 258, 289, 346, 354-359.

7. Hemādri

c13.s2.t8.1

The other great jurist of the age is Hemādri (c 1300), author of *Chaturvarga-chintāmaṇi*. This is an encyclopædic treatise of socio-legal topics. Portions published up till now (*Bibliotheca Indica Series*) already cover 6000 pages. Much remains yet to be printed.¹³ The author was a Southerner, being a minister of King Mahādeva (1260-1271) and Rāmachandra (1271-1309). He describes himself also as being the keeper of this king's archives or state records. The *Chintāmaṇi* was the standard work of the Maraṭha and Telugu territories.

c13.s2.t8.2

¹³ *Chaturvarga-Chintāmaṇi* text (edited by Bharata Chandra Siromani) in the Bibliotheca Indica Series Vol. I. *Danakhanda* (Calcutta 1873) pp. 891-893, 951-953, 1001-1003, 1029-1048.

c13.s2.t8.3

For the purposes of sociological thought in the field of positivism no work is more valuable than Hemādri's. The division of his great treatise which is given over to *Dāna*, charities or gifts furnishes an objective picture of the morals, manners and sentiments in regard to "social service," community work, public benefactions etc. And as this division is based on the *Purāṇas* and other treatises including the *Mahābhārata* such as preceded and were formative forces in the epoch of Hemādri its importance as a document of Hindu social institutions for the entire period from Harṣa downwards is considerable.

c13.s2.t8.4

*Ārogyadāna* (gift of health) is one of the *anantaphaladānas* (gifts fraught with eternal or infinite effects) described in chapter XIII of the *Dānakhaṇḍa*. The establishment of *ārogyaśālā* (cure-houses or hospitals) is to be found among the suggestions cited from *Nandī Purāṇa* and *Skanda-Purāṇa*.

c13.s2.t8.5

The construction of bridges on roads and rivers is one of the measures quoted by Hemādri from the *Viṣṇudharmottara Purāṇa* as calculated to offer relief to the travellers (*pānthaśuśruṣā*). For gifts in the form of wells Hemādri's authorities are the *Viṣṇudharmottara*, *Nandī-Purāṇa*, *Āditya-Purāṇa*, *Viṣṇu-Purāṇa*, and *Devī-Purāṇa*.

c13.s2.t8.6

For the planting of trees for public convenience Hemādri quotes the *Skaṇḍa*, *Nandī*, *Vāyu*, *Devī*, *Matsya*, and other *Purāṇas*, as well as the *Mahābhārata*.

c13.s2.t8.7

Hemādri's master, the Yādava King Rāmdeva of Deogiri, was the contemporary of the Karṇāṭa King of Mithilā, Hari Simhadeva (1304-1324), at whose court the celebrated writer of *Smṛti* and *Nīti*, Chaṇḍeśvara, flourished. Rāmadeva had to fight against and surrender to the Mussalman forces under Malik Kafur sent by Alauddin Khilji in 1309. Hari Simhadeva failed to withstand the attack of the Mussalman army under Ghiyasuddin Tughlak and retired into Nepal in 1324. They were thus two of the last independent Hindu Kings in two different parts of India. Hemādri and Chaṇḍeśvara were thus contemporaries and represent the last strands of Hindu social thought in politics and jurisprudence on the eve of Moslem contacts.¹⁴ A chapter of Hindu culture may then be closed indifferently with either of these two great thinkers. Let us close a period with Hemādri and embark upon a new one with Chaṇḍeśvara.

c13.s2.t8.8

¹⁴ The *Rājanītiratnākara* by Chandesvara (Patna 1924) pp. i, j, l, r.

c13.s2.t8.9

It is worth while to observe that Chaṇḍeśvara’s *Rājanīti-Ratnākara* was not composed while Harisimha was still reigning. It appears to have been written under King Bhaveśa who was perhaps the first ruler set up by the Tughlaks of Delhi as their feudatory. In that event Chaṇḍeśvara’s political treatise is virtually one of the first Hindu works produced under new socio-political (Hindu-Moslem) conditions. It is therefore by all means to be treated as somewhat different from the work of Hemādri.

c13.s2.t8.10

Certain works like those of Viśvarūpa, Vijnāneśvara and Aparārka, are formally known as commentaries. But contentually they ought to be described as *nibandhas*.

c13.s2.t8.11

The style of *nibandhas* may be seen from Hemādri’s work. Hemādri has made it a point to give the meanings even of individual words whenever necessary. Besides, lengthy interpretations or explanations in prose are to be found every now and then. It is not out of place to observe that Hemādri’s name is to be found in the third person.

c13.s2.t8.12

The *Kalpataru*, the *Smriti Chandrikā*, and the *Chaturvarga-chintāmaṇi* are *nibandhas* i.e. digests of different *Smritis* or *Dharmasūtras*. They represent the synthesis attempted at by the compilers and may be placed in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.¹⁵ Such digests are more important from the standpoint of law and politics than mere commentaries on individual *Smritis*.

c13.s2.t8.13

¹⁵ Kane, p. 247.

c13.s2.t8.14

The influence of *Smriti* politics on orthodox scholarship in modern Bengal is considerable. The *Smritis* or *Dharmaśāstras* as sources of political (*nīti*) thought have been utilized by a contemporary writer, Madhusūdan Bhattāchārya of Nadia, for his *Ratnamālā*¹⁶ (Garland of Gems) or Collection of Extracts. The following texts are to be found in his references:—1. *Manu*, 2. *Atri*, 4. *Hārīta*, 5. *Yājnavalkya*, 6. *Parāśara* 7. *Gautama*, 8. *Vaśiṣṭha*. The chronological order has not been used in this enumeration.

c13.s2.t8.15

¹⁶ Vol. I. *Hindu Rājanīti* (Calcutta, first edition 1904. Second edition 1909). The treatise, covering as it does 960 pages, consists of Bengali translation as text and Sanskrit original as footnotes.

Linked texts (53)