- Devasyamin The Smṛticandrikā tells us that Devasvā min composed like Srīkara and Sambhu a work in the nature of a digest of smrtis (smrtisamuccaya ). Vide note 748 above. The com mentary of Nārāyana of the Naidhruva gotra, son of Divākara, on the Asvalāyanagrhyasūtra788 says that it relies upon the bhāsya of Devasvāmin on the same work Gārgya Nārāyana, son of Narasimha, in bis commentary on the Asvalāyana srautasūtra, tells us that he follows the bhāsya of Devasvāmin thereon. It is hardly likely that two writers of the same name flourished about the same time. Hence it may be assumed that Devasvāmin wrote bhāsyas on the Āśvalāyana Srauta and Gșhya sūtras and a digest of smṛtis, where he discussed all topics of dharma, such as ācāra, vyavahāra, āśauca &c. The commentary of Bhattoji789 on the Caturviṇsati mata refers to the view of Devasvāmin on sraddha and āśauca. Hemādri780 ( vol. III, part 2, p. 324 ) and Madhava (on Parāśara, vol. I, part 2, p. 328 ) also quote Devasyāmin. The Smṛticandrikā quotes the views of Devasvāmin on vyavahāra
788 आश्वलायनगृह्यस्य भाष्यं भगवता कृतम् । देवखामिसमाख्येन विस्तीर्ण
तत्प्रसादतः ॥ 789 देवखामिमाधवपारिजातकारप्रभृतयस्तु मासिके आशौचेनोपहते सूतकानन्तर
शुद्धिदिन एव कर्तव्यं पुरस्तदहरेव वेति । चतुर्विंशतिमतव्याख्यान p. 135
( Bedares ed). 790 यदि पूर्वाह्ने पर्वसन्धिः समाप्येत तदा नितरामेव च शोभनं यदि पुनरपराने रात्रौ
ar Jeena ja am stat i HTC ( Formatura ) III, 2, p. 324 ; vide pp. 496 and 565 of the same volume for mention of ETH.
592
and aśauca several times. For example, Devasvāmin791 ex plained the woru Yautaka differently from the Nigbantu ( which explained it as the wealth that was given to a woman when she was seated on the same seat with her husband at the time of marriage ). Devasvāmin explained that the word of the Samgraha792 that, when a son was born to one of several full brothers, he stood as a son to all and that the same rule applied to several co-wives when one of them had a son, meant that in both cases another son should not be adopted. Devasvāmin held the view ( like Bhojadeva ) that the word ‘duhitr’in Yājñavalkya’s verses on succession meant putrika.793 Devasvāmin explained Manu794 9. 141 ag saying that the adopted son ( in the particular case mentioned by Manu ) took all the wealth and the gotra of his adoptive father. Vide Smrticandrika ( Mysore ed.) on asauca p. 22. The Vaijayantī of Nandapandita (on Viṣṇu 22. 32 ) quotes the view of Devasvāmin that on the death of unmarried daughters mourning was to be observed for ten days.195 The
791 देवस्वा(मी) तु पितृगृहालब्धं भर्तृगृहालब्धापेक्षया पृथग्धनतया मातुर्योतकं
मातृधनं मातुरेवेत्याह तच्चिन्त्यम् । स्मृतिच. II. p. 285 ; wide वीर p. 698 ‘भर्तृगृहलब्धात्पृथग्धनतया पितृगृहलब्धं मातृधनं यौतुकम् । यौतशब्दस्या मिश्रणमप्यर्थः । यु मिश्रणामिश्रणयोरिति धातुपाठात् । युतसिद्धाविति प्रयोगा
च्चेति देवस्वाम्याह तदसत् ।’. 792 The verses of the संग्रह are : यचेकजाता बहवो भ्रातरस्तु सहोदरा: । एक
स्यापि सुते जाते सर्वे ते पुत्रिणः स्मृताः ।। बहीनामेकपत्नीनामेष एव विधिः स्मृतः । एका चैत्पुत्रिणी तासां पिण्डदस्तु स इष्यते ॥. The स्मृतिच. ( II, p. 289 ) says ‘तस्य पूर्वोक्तेन सहाविरोधाय देवखामिना तात्पर्यार्थ उक्तः उभयत्र नान्यः प्रतिनिधिः कार्य इति ग्रन्थेन’. The same words occur in the स. वि. ( para 392 and p. 305 ) and in the दत्तकमीमांसा ( P. 42 ). एवं सोपपत्तिकी पल्ल्यभावे दुहितृगामितां ब्रुवता बृहस्पतिनैव यद् दुहितगामि धनमिति विधायकं वचनजातं तत्पुत्रिकाविषयमेव न पुनरपुत्रिक’दुहितृविषयमिति धारेश्वरदेवखामिदेवरातमतं स्मृतितन्त्रत्वाभिज्ञत्वाभिमानोन्मादकल्पितं निरस्तं
वेदितव्यम् । स्मृतिच. II. 295. 794 अत्र तृतीयपादार्थो देवस्वामिना विवृतः तदीयं सर्व रिक्थं गोत्रं च हरेतैवेति । 795 देवस्वामी अप्रत्तास्वपि दशाहमाह,
793
- Devastamin
593
Smrticandrikā quotes a verse from Devasvāmin796 on śrāddha also.
In the Prapancahrdaya ( Tri. S. series, p. 39 ) we are told that Devasvāmin composed a brief gloss on the 12 adhyāyas of the Pūrvamīmāṁsāsūtra and the four adhyāyas of the Samkarsakānda, seeing that the bhāsyas of Bodhāyana and Upavarsa were vast. The Govt. collection of Mss. at Madras has Devasvāmin’s bhāsya on the Samkarsakānda ( vide Tri. Cat. vol. III, part I, Sanskrit C, p. 3841). There are not sufficient data available to establish the identity of this writer with Devasvāmin, the writer on dharmaśāstra.
As the Smsticandrikā quotes Devas vāmin so profusely, he cannot be later than 1150 A. D. His earlier limit can be determined in several ways. Gārgya Nārāyana’s comment on Āśvalāyanaśrauta (II. 1. 14 ) is quoted by Trikāndamaṇḍapa, who is himself (quoted by Hemādri. Therefore Gārgya Nārāyana could not have flourished later than 1100 A.D. ( vide Bhandarkar’s Report on search for mss., 1883-84, pp. 30-31 ). Therefore Devasvāmin probably flourished about 1000-1050 A. D., if not earlier. The fact that Devasvamin held certain views similar to Bhojadeva’s also corroborates the chronological position thus assigned to him.