कल्पान्तरे विश्वासटिप्पन्यः

Asahāya

Dr. Jolly in his edition of the Nāradasmrti (B. I. series ) bas incorporated a portion of the bhāsya of Asahāya as re vised by Kalyānabhatta. Even this revised version comes up to only verse 21 of the fifth title abhyupetya-asuśrūṣā. The exact relation of Kalyānabhatta’s labours to the original bhāsya cannot be accurately gauged from the opening888 words ’ finding that the Nāradathāsya composed by Asahāya was spoilt (bhrasta ) by bad scribes, Kalyāṇa composes this after revising the ancient one’. The colophon at the end of the first chapter of the Vyavahāramātýkā says that Kalyānabhatta

689 दृष्टासहायरचितं नारदभाष्यं कुलेखकैर्धष्टम् । कल्याणेन क्रियते प्राक्तनमतद

farartez ga: 1 (first verse ).

FOUNDED

1917

Asahāya

547

revised the bhāsya of Asahāya at the encouragement of Keśava bhatta.890 Kalyāna bhatta seems to have takeu great liberties with the text of the original bhāsya. On p. 9 verse 15.( rājā satpurusaḥ sabhyah sāstram gana kalekhakau ), the comment on sastra is · Manu-Narada - Viśvarūpātmakam’. If Viśvarūpa named here be identical with the Viśvarūpa who commented on Yāj. (as is alunost certain ), this passage could not have occurred in Asahāya’s bhāsya. Viśvarūpa, in commenting on Yāj. III. 263-64, mevtions Asahāya by name and cites his explanation of a sūtra of Gautama (22. 13). The name Kalyanabhatta frequently occurs in the printed commentary itself (p. 81, 86, 89 ).801

In the I. 0. ms, there is a salutation to śiva and Ganesa at the beginning. There is a ns. of the Nāradiyabhāsya as printed by Dr. Jolly in the Govt. Mss. Library at the B. O. R. Institute, Poona, ( No. 72 of 1874-75). It does not contain the first folio and curiously enough it ends just where the printed text stops. Dr. Jolly omits a few lengthy passages occurring in the ms. and generally indicates such omissions by dots. In a few cases Dr. Jolly omits only a word or two for no apparent reason, e. g. on p. 8 ( folio 7b of No. 27 of 1874-75 ) he omits the word ‘paramasamrudhyā’ after

vyavahārah’ and before ‘caturṇām-api varṇānām’.

The Kalpataru (on Moksa pp. 48-49 ) quotes Gautama Dh. S. III. 10-24 from ‘Anicayo bhiksuh’ to · Anārambhi’ and cites the explanations of Bhartryajña, Asahāya and Maskarin on some words occurring in them. Maskarin is a well-known commentator on Gautama ( the com. is printed ). It seems that Bhatryajña and Asahāya also composed com mentaries ; vide ABORI Vol. 18 p. 205 where Prof. Raghavan draws attention to Asahaya’s commentary on Saṅkba-Likhita mentioned by Anandagiri. On p. 544 the Vivādaratnākara quotes Manu IX. 165 ( Aurasuksetrajau ) and Asahācārya’s explanation thereon.

AUTE

690 इति असहायनारदभाष्ये केशवभट्टप्रोत्साहित-कल्याणभट्टपरिशोधित-व्यवहारमातृ

कायां प्रथमोध्यायः। 691 तथा चोक्तमेव सामान्यग्राहपत्रलक्षणविचारप्रकरणे कल्याणभटेन | psयथा

त्रिषष्टिलेरम्यप्रकरणकारकल्याणभटेन । p. 88 ; कल्याणकृतं श्लोकत्रयमस्तित

VSTITUT

INS

uion

548

The Hāralatā of Aniruddha who was the guru of king Ballālasena of Bengal, the author of Adbhutasāgara ( about 1168 A. D.), tells us that Asahāya composed a bhāsya on the Gautamadharmasutra.se Viśvarupa also cites, as said above, Asahāya’s explanation of a sūtra of Gautama.

It appears that Asahāya probably wrote a commentary on the Manusmrti also. A passage of the Sarasvativilāsadis says that partition of dharma was approved of by smrtikāras like Manu, Yājśavalkya, by their commentators, viz. Asahāya, Medhātithi, Vijñānesvara and Aparārka and by writers of nibandh«18, viz. the author of the Candrikū and others. Here the order in which the commentators are named requires that Asahāya like Medhitithi was known to be a commentator of Manu. This conclusion is to some extent corroborated by the fact that the Vivādaratnākaragot quotes with reference to

692 हारलता ( B. I. series ) [p. 35. ‘गौतमः । बालदेशान्तरितप्रवजितानो सद्यः

शौचम् । ( गौ. ध. सू. 14. 44 ) यत्र मृतोऽशौचाभ्यन्तरे न श्रूयते तद्देशान्तरं तत्र मृतो देशान्तरित इति गौतमभाष्यकृतासहायेन व्याख्यातम् ।’; हारलता p. 97 ‘गौतमः । पिण्डनिवृत्तिः सप्तमे पञ्चमे वा।’ ( गौ. ध. सू. 14. 12 )। अत्रासहायव्याख्या । यदा पितृपितामहप्रपितामहास्त्रयो जीवन्ति तदा प्रपिता

महादूर्ध्व त्रिभ्यः पिण्डदानम् । … इदं तु व्याख्यानं न शोभनं प्रतिभाति ।’ 693 धर्मविभागो मनुयाज्ञवल्क्यादिस्मृतिकाराणां तत्स्मृतिव्याख्यातॄणामसहायमेधा

तिथिविज्ञानेश्वरापरार्काणां निवन्द्धां चन्द्रिकाकारादीनां च संमत एव । सरस्वतीविलास paru. 83 and p. 348 ( Mysore ed.). ___ The सरस्वतीविलास ofton refers to a writer called निबन्धनकार. He is likely to be असहाय. Vide सरस्वतीविलास p. 457 ’ अत्र ( मनुस्मृतौ) वाक्पारुण्यदण्डपारुष्यतीसंग्रहणानन्तरं दायावभागः कामिकः । निबन्धनकारेण तु त्रयोदशविवादपदं दाय इत्युक्तम् । उभयोर्महान् विरोधः। स परिहियते । तथोक्तं नारदेन ।… नारदवचनानुसारि निबन्धनकारवचनम् । अतश्च तद् व्याख्येयस्यापि गौतमसूत्रस्य नारदवचनानुसारित्वमेव ।’; तथा च गौतमः । प्रतिषेधे पुमान्दण्ड्यस्तदर्ध स्त्री इति । अस्यार्थो विवृतो निबन्ध

नकारेण’ p. 468. 694_The verse of मनु is भ्रातृणामेकजातानामेकश्चेत्पुत्रवान् भवेत् ।. The words

of असहाय are ‘अत्रासहायेनोक्तं पुंसां सति भ्रातृजे स्त्रीणां सपत्नीपुत्र चित्र जादयः प्रतिनिधयो न कर्तव्या इति ।’ वि. र. p. 583.

HTT

VASHUT

NSTY

POOMA

FOUNDE M 1917

Asahāya

549

Manu 9. 182 the words of Asahāya thereon. On Manu 8. 156 Medhātithi quotes the opinion of Asahāya.695 Manu VIII. 155 in in Mandlik’s edition.

The foregoing establishes that Asahāya composed bhāsyas on the Gautamadharmasūtra, on the Manusmrti and on Nārada. When the Smrticandrikā898 refers to a bhāsya of Nārada it is most probably referring to Asahaya. In the Mit. (on Yāj. II. 124 ) the opinion of Asahāya and Medhātithi on the right of an unmarried sister to receive one-fourth as pro vision for her marriuge from her brothers is preferred to that of Bhāruci.097 This seems to be rather a reference to Asahāya’s commentary on Manu (9. 118 ) which contains a rule similar to Yāj. (II. 12+ ), while Nārada contains no such rule about a fourth share. It is a strange irony of fate that the very name of Asahiya who is profusely quoted by the Sarasvatīvilāsa in the first half of the sixteenth century was forgotten by later writers, so much so that the Bālambhatti understands the word Asahaya ( in note 515 above ) as an attribute of Medhā tithi in the sense of peerless’.

As Viśvarūpa and Medhātithi both name Asahāya, his lowest limit is about 750 A. D. How much earlier he flourish ed it is difficult to say. He can hardly be earlier than the 6th century. In the com. on Nārada (p. 48 ) there is a story from Pataliputra about the repayment of a debt by sons, grandsons and great-grandsons. It has been argued ( Calcutta Law Journal, vol. 17 p. 59 ) that, as Pataliputra was a desert ed city in the middle of the 7th century and as the reference shows that Pūtaliputra was a living and flourishing city, Asabāya must have lived long before the 7th century. But as the very authenticity of the text of the bhāsya is doubtful owing to the drastic ‘revision’ of Kalyānabhatta, such a con clusion is extremely hazardous. In the ms. of the bbāsya

895 यज्वासहायनारदाना तु मते काकिणीमात्रमपि शक्तः करणपरिवृत्तिकाले दापयि

ET: I on the verse 3atiforcat ea. 896 Fazo ( 34. p. 36 ) on matalafo says ‘ga naima TEOTTI’

तथा च नारदः । स्त्रीकृतान्यप्रमाणानि कार्याण्याहुरनापदि ।…अत्रापवादप्रदर्श. नार्थमाह स एव । विशेषतो गृहक्षेत्रदानाधमनविक्रयाः । इति गृहक्षेत्रयोनाध

मनविक्रयास्त्वापद्यप्यस्वतन्त्रता न सिध्यन्तीत्यर्थः । एवं तद्भाष्ये व्याख्यातम् । 897 3HATAETÀfafenatat eqreqraha 7 Hirth: i foran

550

other places such as Vatapadraka ( probably modern Baroda ), Avāvadu and Samvāduka are mentioned. There is nothing to show that the author was either a native of or had a first hand knowledge of Pataliputra. He might have been relying on traditions when he gave the story. Dr. Jolly not being aware of the express mention of Asahāya by Medhātithi argued that he flourished earlier than Medhātithi ( Tagore Law Lectures p. 5; S. B. E. vol. 25 p. VII) on the ground that the Mit. and the Sarasvativilāsa always place Asahāya before Medhātithi whenever authorities on vyavahāra are enumerat ed. Dr. Jolly’s conclusion is right as shown above, but his reasoning is faulty. There is hardly anything of chronology in the order in which authors are named, since we find that the Sarasvativilāsa 688 names Vijñāneśvara even before Asahāya though the former flourished centuries after the latter.

Some of the views attributed to Asahāya may be quoted here. The definition of dūya ( heritage ) given by the Mit. was identical with Asahāya’s.689 Asahāya explained the dic tum of Uśanas that fields were impartible by taking it to refer to the son of a brāhmana from a ksatriya wife, who does not participate in land gifted to a Brāhmana.700 The Mit. on Yaj. II. 119 takes the same view. Asahāya held that as regards succession to the sullca of a woman even step-brothers should be given something, though the major portion would go to the full brothers.701 According to Asahāya, the wealth of a child less brāhmana went to the teacher, then to the teacher’s son, then to the teacher’s widow, the pupil, pupil’s son, pupil’s widow (oue after another) and then to the fellow-student.“02

. —

.-.-..

698 8. f. (pura 195) Pasta THETAHETTfaitaraj STEAT’ (p. 371 of

Mysore ed. ). 690 असहायविज्ञानयोगिप्रभृतीनां तु यत्स्वामिसंबन्धादेव निमित्तादन्यस्य स्वं भवति

a grazrizaa sfat i 8. fā. (para 19 ). 700 Fr. fa. para 195 (or p. 371 ). 701 अतश्च कन्याशुल्कविषये सोदरासोदरविभागेऽसोदराणामपि किंचिद् देयमित्य.

FETTOTTEITAHENTAI 3. fè. para 314 ( or p. 384 ). Here there to

a play on the word 31987 which meang unsupported, basele 702 , fa. para 608.

FOUNDED

1917

Betraya ma

561

The Vivādaratnākara 03 (p. 578 ) quotes the Prakāśa as refer ring to the views of Asahāya and Medhātithi on Manu IX. 198 that the special rule of Manu applies to all the stridhana belonging to a Ksatriya woman who has a brāhmani co-wife. The Vivādaratnākara704 quotes a verse of Nārada about māsa and a verse of the blāsyakāra thereon. It probably refers to Asahāya’s bhāsya.