Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Vada in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c9.s5: Openness for Debate

Vāda in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c9.s5

Language
English

Openness for Debate

c9.s5.1

The questions whether the people belonging to lower castes (śūdras) have a right to perform Vedic rituals came to be discussed again and again. Kamalākara Bhaṭṭa, the author of *Nirṇayasindhu* (CE 1612) in his *Vivādatāṇḍava*, describes several such controversies. In his *Śūdrakamalākara*, he has discussed the rights of śūdras for performing rituals. Texts discussing the rights of śūdras for performing of rituals have been written till recent times by Sanskrit *paṇḍits* of Dharmśāstras.⁴⁹ Nāgeśa Bhaṭṭa had authored a text *Vrātyaprāyaścittavinirṇaya*. He debarred the community of kṣatriyas of his times from having the *upanayana*, because he believed that the real kṣatriyas vanished due to the massacres by Paraśurāma. The text was discussed at a *śāstra-sabhā* in Jaipur.⁵⁰

c9.s5.2

As long the prescriptions and codes of conduct remain open for debates and revision, the society remains free from the clutches of fundamentalism. This is brought out by the episode of Gāgā Bhaṭṭa making an allowance for the *abhiṣeka* (coronation) of Shivaji; it is an example of flexibility.

c9.s5.3

The Bhonsales were not regarded as kṣatriyas. Paṇḍit Kṛṣṇa Narahariśeṣa, a contemporary of Akbar, had written *Śūdrācāraśiromaṇi* in support of this contention. This produced a hurdle in the coronation ceremony of Shivaji and also his enjoying the status of *Chatrapati* (lord with the royal umbrella). Local brāhmaṇas were not at all in favour of allowing a coronation ceremony with Vedic rituals. There was a bitter dispute. Paṇḍits at Kāśī were approached. Viśveśvara Paṇḍita, better known as Gāgā Bhaṭṭa (CE 1640–1700), was supposed to be the greatest authority on Dharmaśāstras amongst them. According to Paṇḍit Baldeva Upadhyaya’s version, he was persuaded by Balaji who went to Kāśī for the purpose of getting the support of the *paṇḍitas*. Gāgā Bhaṭṭa not only accepted a fictitious genealogy of Shivaji establishing him a descendant of solar race, he also wrote a text *Kāyasthadharmapradīpa* in refutation of *Śūdrācāraśiromaṇi* of Paṇḍit Kṛṣṇa Narahariśeṣa.⁵¹

c9.s5.4

Baldeva Upadhyaya (1994: 38) refers to his having performed the ritual ceremony for the enthronement of Shivaji at Raigarh in 1674. He also describes Gāgā’s participation in a *dharmasabhā* held at the Rājāpur village in Koṅkaṇ during 1664. The incidence is reported in *Śivadigvijaya*, a Marāṭhī chronicle.

c9.s5.5

In another version of the visit of Gāgā Bhaṭṭa to Maharashtra, he is reported to have met Saint Rāmdās at Paṇḍharapur with a view to hold discussions with him on philosophy. The saint called his disciple, Veṇābāī to have a sitting with the scholar par excellence with a copy of the text of his *Dāsabodha* and explain the monistic doctrine accordingly. Gāgā Bhaṭṭa is said to have satisfied by her discourse on the teachings of her master.⁵²

c9.s5.6

Gāgā Bhaṭṭa composed a regulatory text, titled *Śrīśivarājyābhiṣeka-prayoga*, for the occasion of coronation. He incorporated *mantras* from *Atharvaveda*, *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa*, *Viṣṇudharmottara Purāṇa* and other tetxs in it. Yet another manual for the coronation ceremony, entitled *Śrīśivarājyābhiṣekakalpataru*, was prepared under the direction of Niścalapurī having affiliation to Tantric traditions. Madhavi Narsalaya has shown that the coronation ceremony had to be carried twice under strange circumstances.⁵³

c9.s5.7

The dispute on the validity of Shivaji’s coronation continued even after his death and the question of the status of Candrasenīya Kāyasthas as kṣatriyas was reopened in a massive *śāstra-sabhā* during the reign of Shahuji Bhonsale. The *sabhā* disallowed kṣatriyahood to the Candrasenīya Kāyasthas. This debate continued up to the nineteenth-twentieth centuries.⁵⁴

c9.s5.8

¹ Macdonell and Keith, 1912, *Vedic Index of Names and Subjects*, vol. II, p. 284.

c9.s5.9

² Pande, 1998, *Life and Thought of Śaṅkarācārya*, p. 144.

c9.s5.10

³ Navjivan Rastogi, 2012, “Tantric Thought of Kashmir: A Framework of Humanistic Culture”, *Sanskrit Vimarśaḥ*, new series 5.

c9.s5.11

⁴ गतं शूद्रस्य शूद्रत्वं विप्रस्यापि च विप्रता । दीक्षासंस्कारसम्पन्ने जातिभेदो न विद्यते ।। — *Kulārṇava Tantra*, quoted by Navjivan Rastogi 2012

c9.s5.12

⁵ केचिदाचक्षते - द्विजराजन्यप्रशंसापरमेतद्वाक्यम्, न तु, स्त्र्यादिष्वपवर्गप्राप्तितात्पर्येण इति । ते हि भगवतः सर्वानुग्राहिकां शक्तिं मितविषयतया खण्डयन्तः तथा परमेश्वरस्य परमकृपालुत्वमसहमानाः . . . निरतिशययुक्तिप्रपञ्चसाधिताद्वैतभगवत्तत्त्वे भेदं बलादेवानयन्तो अन्यांश्चागमविरोधेन चेतयमानाः . . . परमन्तर्गभीकृतजात्यादिमहाग्रहाविष्टान्तःकरणाः मात्सर्यावहित्यलज्जाजिह्मीकृतावङ्मुखदृष्टय इति हास्यरसभावमात्मनि आरोपयन्ति इति । — quoted by Navjivan Rastogi, ibid.

c9.s5.13

⁶ इष्वस्त्रवरसम्पन्नमर्थशास्त्रविशारदम् । सुधन्वानमुपाध्यायं कच्चित् त्वं तात मन्यसे ।। — *Rāmāyaṇa* II.94.14

c9.s5.14

⁷ कच्चिन्मन्त्रयसे नैकः कच्चिन्न बहुभिः सह । कच्चित्ते मन्त्रितो मन्त्रः राष्ट्रं न परिधावति ।। — Ibid. II.94.13

c9.s5.15

⁸ कच्चित् तर्कैर्युक्त्या वै ये चाप्यपरिकीर्त्तिताः । त्वया वा तव वाऽमात्यैर्बुध्यते तात मन्त्रितम् ।। — Ibid. II.94.16

c9.s5.16

⁹ *Rāmāyaṇa* II.94.17-18.

c9.s5.17

¹⁰ Ibid. II.94.19.

c9.s5.18

¹¹ देशे मालव नामकेऽत्र नगरे भूपालनाम्नी शुभा तस्या अंति शिहुर नामक पुरी यस्यामजंठा-ग्रणीः विल्किन्सन्निति साहिब ॊ विजयते तस्याश्रितानां सभामध्येऽभूल्लघुट्टङ्क एष विदुषां तोषाय दोषापहः | This is printed as prose in the text of *Vajrasūcyopaniṣad* produced by Ramesh Bharadwaj in his *Vajrasūcī of Aśvaghoṣa and the Concept of Varṇa-Jāti Through the Ages*. It is actually a verse in Śārdūlavikrīḍita meter and the second foot of which is to be corrected as तस्यां भाति शिहूर (सिहोर)-नामकपुरी यस्यामजण्ठाग्रणीः The text was composed in 1759 Śālīvāhana year, which should CE 1837. Wilkinson’s experiments in education are being discussed in the last chapter of this work.

c9.s5.19

¹² *Yājñavalkyasmṛti*, Ācārādhyāya, 349-50, p. 118.

c9.s5.20

¹³ अर्थशास्त्र्ात्तु बलवद् धर्मशास्त्र्मिति स्थितिः । — *Yājñavalkyasmṛti*, Vyavahārādhyāya, 21, p. 145

c9.s5.21

¹⁴ Ibid. 6, p. 130.

c9.s5.22

¹⁵ Ibid. 7-8.

c9.s5.23

¹⁶ सारस्तु व्यवहाराणां प्रतिज्ञा समुदाहता । तद्धाने हीयते वादी तरंस्तामुत्तरो भवेत् । — *Nāradasmṛti* 1.6

c9.s5.24

¹⁷ सर्वेष्वपि विवादेषु वाक्छलेनापहीयते । — *Nāradasmṛti* 2.25

c9.s5.25

¹⁸ स्त्रीषु कृतोपभोगः स्यात् प्रसह्य पुरुषो यदा वधे तत्र प्रवर्तेत — *Kātyāyanasmṛti* 830

c9.s5.26

¹⁹ वध्यः शूद्र आर्यायाम् । — *Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra* 2.10.9

c9.s5.27

²⁰ *Manusmṛti* 3.37.

c9.s5.28

²¹ It has been seen that the Hindu marriage, being a sacrament, once performed before the nuptial fire with the sacred texts, becomes irrevocable on the completion of the ceremony of taking seven steps by the couple. There is no evidence as to the practice of divorce as such during the Vedic and post-Vedic period, . . . dissolution of marriage was not thus contemplated by the *śāstra*, for it was non-dharmic, unrighteous and sinful.” — P.K. Virdi, *The Marriage*, quoted in *Dharmashastra: An Introductory Analysis*, ed. Brijkishor Swain, p. 160

c9.s5.29

²² "सच बात यह है कि संस्कृत भाषा में तलाक के अर्थ का कोई शब्द नहीं है। यदि संस्कृत भाषा में तलाक के लिए शब्द होता, तो बुद्ध को घर छोड़कर भागना न पड़ता। . . . संस्कृत भाषा में तलाक और डाइवोर्स के अर्थ का शब्द नदारद है।" — *Kāmasūtra kī Santāneṁ*, p. 15

c9.s5.30

²³ Swami Madhvanand, 2001, *Great Women of India*, p. 20.

c9.s5.31

²⁴ *Manusmṛti* IX.81.

c9.s5.32

²⁵ *Nāradasmṛti* XII.45-52.

c9.s5.33

²⁶ *Arthaśāstra* III.2, vol. II, pp. 14-15.

c9.s5.34

²⁷ नष्टे मृते प्रव्रजिते क्लीबे च पतिते पतौ । पञ्चस्वापत्सु नारीणां पतिरन्यो विधीयते । । — *Nāradasmṛti* XII.97

c9.s5.35

²⁸ *Nāradasmṛti* XII.98-100.

c9.s5.36

²⁹ नीचत्वं परदेशं वा प्रस्थितो राजाकिल्बषी । प्राणाभिहन्ता पतितस्त्याज्यः क्लीबोऽपि वा पतिः । । — *Arthaśāstra* III.2, vol. II, p. 18

c9.s5.37

³⁰ Ibid., p. 21.

c9.s5.38

³¹ In twentieth century, Jai Shankar Prasad, a prominent author in Hindi, wrote *Dhruvasvāminī* — a play in which the widow of the King Rāmagupta, after her husband is killed by his own younger brother Candragupta, marries the latter. In a very elucidative preface to this play, Prasad raised a debate on the legality of widow remarriage and cited the law books of Nārada and Parāśara. For details see “Dhruvasvāminī : Eka Ṭīkā” by me in *Naṭaraṅga* 92, April-June 2012.

c9.s5.39

³² यस्य नोपरता भार्या देहार्धं तस्य जीवति । जीवत्यर्धशरीरेऽर्धं कथमन्तं समाप्नुयात् । । — *Bṛhaspatismṛti* XXVI

c9.s5.40

³³ अपुत्रधनं पत्न्यभिगामी — *Viṣṇusmṛti* XVII.4, *Bṛhaspatismṛti* XXVI.93-94, *Kātyāyanasmṛti* 921

c9.s5.41

³⁴ पत्नी दुहितरश्चैव पितरौ भ्रातरौ तथा । तत्सुता गोत्रजा बन्धुशिष्यसब्रह्मचारिणः । एषामभावे पूर्वस्य धनभागुत्तरोत्तरः । स्वर्यातस्य ह्यपुत्रस्य सर्ववर्णेष्वयं विधिः । । — *Yājñavalkyasmṛti*, Vyavahārādhyāya, 135-36, p. 238

c9.s5.42

³⁵ सपिण्डा बान्धवा ये तु तस्याः स्युः परिपन्थिनः । हिंस्युर्धनानि तान् राजा चौरदण्डेन घातयेत् । । — *Bṛhaspatismṛti* XXVI.1-5

c9.s5.43

³⁶ A.S. Altekar, 1953, “Idea and Position of Indian Women in Social Life”, p. 46.

c9.s5.44

³⁷ *Manusmṛti* IX.84.

c9.s5.45

³⁸ *Ibid.*

c9.s5.46

³⁹ *Ibid.* IX.89-90.

c9.s5.47

⁴⁰ *Manusmṛti* IX.118.

c9.s5.48

⁴¹ अपुत्रधनं पत्न्यभिगामि । तदभावे दुहित्र्यभिगामि । — *Viṣṇusmṛti* XVII.4-5

c9.s5.49

⁴² *Viṣṇusmṛti*, Commentary of Nandapaṇḍita, p. 288.

c9.s5.50

⁴³ *Yājñavalkyasmṛti*, Vyavahārādhyāya, 115 (p. 221), 148 (p. 254).

c9.s5.51

⁴⁴ *Ibid.* 123, p. 229.

c9.s5.52

⁴⁵ यथैवात्मा तथा पुत्रः पुत्रेण दुहिता समा । तस्यामात्मनि तिष्ठन्त्यां कथमन्यो धनं हरेत् । । — *Manusmṛti* IX.130

c9.s5.53

⁴⁶ *Manusmṛti* IX.131.

c9.s5.54

⁴⁷ कामं तु क्षपयेद्देहं पुष्पमूलफलैः शुभैः । न तु नामाऽपि गृह्णीयात् पत्यौ प्रेते परस्य तु । । आसीतामरणात् क्षान्ता नियता ब्रह्मचारिणी । यो धर्म एकपत्नीनां काङ्क्षन्ती तममनुत्तमम् । अनेकानि सहस्राणि कुमारब्रह्मचारिणाम् । दिवं गतानि विप्राणामकृत्वा कुलसन्ततिम् । । मृते भर्तरि साध्वी स्तरी ब्रह्मचर्ये व्यवस्थिता । स्वर्गं गच्छत्यपुत्राऽपि यथा ते ब्रह्मचारिणः । । — *Manusmṛti* V.157-60

c9.s5.55

⁴⁸ Lala Lajpat Rai, 1928, *Unhappy India*, Calcutta: Banna Publishing Co., pp. 167-68, referred in *Dharmaśāstra: A Link Between Tradition and Modernity*, ed. B.K. Swain (2003), p. 109.

c9.s5.56

⁴⁹ *Śūdrāhnikapaddhatiḥ*, ed. Jayakrishna Mishra, Puri, 2008.

c9.s5.57

⁵⁰ This statement is based on the article by Madhav M. Deshpande, 2010, “Kṣatriyas in Kali Age?: Gāgābhaṭṭa and His Opponents”, *Indo-Iranian Journal*, 53: 95-120.

c9.s5.58

⁵¹ From the accounts given by Baldeva Upadhyaya it appears as if the huge sum of money paid by Bālājī was instrumental in changing the mindset of Gāgā Bhaṭṭa and to make give a verdict in favour of Shivaji. But as Madhav M. Deshpande informs, Gāgā Bhaṭṭa had already made his mind in favour of Shivaji ten years before the event of the coronation. He even encouraged the initiative for a proper *abhiṣekavidhi* (royal consecration ceremony) of Shivaji. — Madhav M. Deshpande, 2010, “Kṣatriyas in Kali Age?: Gāgābhaṭṭa and His Opponents”, *Indo-Iranian Journal*, 53: 95-120.

c9.s5.59

⁵² Swami Madhvanand, 2001, op. cit., p. 354.

c9.s5.60

⁵³ Madhavi Narsalaya, *The King with One Kingdom but Two Coronations: Analysing Śrīśivarājyābhiṣekaprayoga* and *Śrīśivarājyābhiṣekakalpataru the Two Coronation Texts for Chatrapati Śivājī Mahārāja*, abstract published in the *Book of Abstracts*, 16^th World Sanskrit Conference, Bangkok, pp. 260-61.

c9.s5.61

⁵⁴ Madhav M. Deshpande, 2010, op. cit., pp. 95-120.

Linked texts (12)