कल्पान्तरे विश्वासटिप्पन्यः

Vijñanesvara The Mitāksarā of Vijñāneśvara occupies a unique place in the Dharmaśāstra literature. Its position is analogous to that of the Mahabhāsya of Patanjali in grammar or to that of the Kāvyaprakāśa of Mammaṭa in Poetics. It represents the essence of dharmaśāstra speculation that preceded it for about two thousand years and it became the fountain head from which flowed fresh streams of exegesis and developments. Under the decisions of the Courts in British India, the Mitā ksarā is of paramount authority in several matters of Hindu Law (such as adoption, inheritance, partition etc.) through out India except where, as in Bengal, the Dāyabhāya prevails.

The Mit. professes to be a commentary on the Yājñava Ikyasmrti. In the colophops of several mss., it is described as Rjumitāksarā, Pramitāksarā or simply Mitākṣarā. These names are probably due to some of the verses appended at the end of the commentary $20 The Mit. is not only a commen tary explaining the verses of Yājṅavalkya, but it is in the

818 ETCTT p. 217 (Jivananda vol, II ) ‘77 yeni e 1 9

मया गृहीतं विभावयास तदा सर्वमेव दातव्यमिति प्रतिज्ञाविषयत्वमेकदेश विभावितत्वं वचनस्येति जोग्लोकमतानुमारिमैथिलमतं युक्तमिति वाच्यम् ।’. __ श्रावण इति तु पटितं योग्लोकेन तद्बहुष्वदर्शनान्न भवतीति दीक्षितेनोक्तम् । काल

fait p. 280. 820 इति याज्ञवल्क्यमुनिशाखगता विवृतिर्न कस्य विहिता विदुषः । प्रमिताक्षरापि

विपुलार्थवती परिषिञ्चति श्रवणयोरमृतम् ॥ गम्भाराभिः प्रसन्नाभिर्वाग्भिर्त्यस्ता मिताक्षरा । अनल्याभिरल्याभिर्विवृतिर्विहिता मया ॥

600

nature of a digest of smrti material. It brings together numerous smrti passages, explains away contradictions among them by following the rules of interpretation laid down in the Pūrvamīmāṁsā system, brings about order by assigning to various dicta their proper scope and province (viṣayavyavasthū ) and effects a synthesis of apparently unconnected smrti injunctions.

The Mit. quotes a host of smrti writers and six pre decessors, who were commentators and authors of digests on dharmaśāstra.821 Besides, it quotes Vedic works (like the Kāthaka ), the Brhadāranyakopanisad, the Garbhopanisad the Jābālopanisad and other works like the Nirukta, Bharata ( author of Nātyaśāstra ), Yogasūtra, Pāṇini, Susruta, the Skandapurana, the Viṣṇupurana, Amara, Guru (i. e. Prabhākara ).

A noticeable feature of the Mit, may be mentioned here. Though it quotes from more than 80 Smirtis and Smrtikāras it is very chary of quoting from the Purāṇas. Only five Purāṭas are mentioned by name in the Mitāksarā viz. the Brahmāndas22 ( one verse on Yaj. III. 30), the Bhaviṣyat (on

ame are:

821 The स्मृति’s quoted by name are : अङ्गिरस् , बृहदगिरस् , मध्यमागिरस् ,

अत्रि, आपस्तम्ब, आश्वलायन, उपमन्यु, उशनस् , ऋष्यशृङ्ग, कश्यप, काण्व, कात्यायन, कार्णाजिनि, कुमार, कृष्णद्वैपायन, क्रतु, गार्य, गृह्यपरिशिष्ट, गोभिल, गौतम, चतुर्विंशतिमत, च्यवन, छागल, (or छागलेय ), जमदग्नि, जातूकर्ण्य, जाबाल, ( or-लि), जैमिनि, दक्ष, दीर्घतमस् , देवल, धौम्य, नारद, पराशर, पारस्कर, पितामह, पुलस्त्य, पैङ्गय, पैठीनसि, प्रचेतस् , बृह अचेतम् , वृद्धप्रचेतस् , प्रजापति, बाष्कल, बृहस्पति, वृद्धबृहस्पति, बौधायन, ब्रह्मगभे, ब्राह्मवध, भारद्वाज, भृगु, मनु, बृहन्मनु, वृद्धमनु, मरीचि, मार्कण्डेय, यम, बृहद्यम, याज्ञवल्क्य, बृहद्याज्ञवल्क्य, वृद्धयाज्ञवल्क्य, लिखित, लौगाक्षि, वसिष्ट, बृहद्वसिष्ठ, वृद्धवसिष्ठ, विष्णु, बृहविष्णु, वृद्धविष्णु, वैयाघ्रपाद, व्याघ्र, ( or व्याघ्रपाद ), व्यास, बृहव्यास, शङ्ख, शङ्खलिखित, शाण्डिल्य, शातातप, बृहच्छातातप, वृद्धशातातप, शुनःपुच्छ, शौनक, षट्त्रिंशन्मत, संवर्त. बृहत्संवत, सुमन्तु, हारीत, बृहद्धारीत, वृद्धहारीत. The six predecessors are : असहाय, विश्वरूप, मेधातिथि, श्रीकर, भारुचि,

भोजदेव. 822 तथा ब्रह्माण्डपुराणे । ‘शैवान्याशुपतान् स्पृष्टा लोकायतिकनास्तिकान् । विकर्मः

स्थान् द्विजान् शूद्रान् सवासा जलमाविशेत् ॥ मिता. on या. III. 30.71. Vijñānesvara

601

Yāj. III. 6), Matsya ( Mit. on Yāj. I. 297-298 quotes eleven verses from the Matsya, chap. 94. 1-9 verses and verses 11-12 of Chap. 93 of the same ), Viṣṇupurāṇa ( 15 verses are quoted on Yāj. III from the Visqupurāṇa about Nārāyaṇabali for one who committed suicide ). Skandapurāṇa on Yāj. II. 290 (Smaryate hi Skandapurāne Pañcacūdā nāma kāścanāpsara saḥ tatsantatir–veśyākhyā pañcainījātih).

This sparing use of Purāṇas in the Mit. is in consonance with Yāj. I. 3 which states that fourteen are the sources of Vidya and of Dharma, viz. Purāṇa, Nyāya ( Tarka or logic), Mī. māṁsā, Dharmaśāstra, the Angas ( six auxiliary lores of the Veda ) and the (four) Vedas. It should be noticed that the fourteen classes of works are enumerated in a rising scale of importance and authoritativeness i, e. the Verlas are the highest authority on matters of Dharma and the Purāṇas are the lowest. Dharmaśāstra is given a high place after the Vedas and Angas. All early writers hold that the Veda is the baṣis of Dharma and so are the Smiṣtis (vide Gaut. Dh. 1-2, Vas. 1.4, Manu II.6 ) and Manu states (11.10 ) that Smṛti means Dharmaśāstra.

The Mitākṣarā is, in the matter of citing Purāṇas as authorities, in great contrast to the Kalpataru and the com mentary of Aparārka. In the very first Kānda ( Brahmacāri ) of the Kalpataru eleven Purāṇas are quoted as authorities viz. Aditya, Kālikā, Devī, Narasimha, Brahma, Brahmānda, Matsya, Mārkandeya, Vāyu and Viṣṇu and of these the Brahma is quoted 11 times, Bhaviṣya 28 times and Viṣṇu 11 times. Taking the last Kānda (on Moksa), among the works cited as authorities seven Purāṇas figure viz. Narasimha, Brahma, Brahmānda, Matsya, Mārkandeya, Vāyu and Viṣṇu, of which, the Viṣṇupurāṇa is quoted oftener than any other work ( except the Mahābhārata, the Bhagavadgitā and the Manusmrti ).

Vide below under ‘Aparārka’ for the large number of Purāṇas and Upapurāṇas ( 22 in all ) mentioned by A parārka.

Another noticeable feature of the Mit, is that it mentions the views of many Smṛti writers with the prefix’ bṛhat’ or

vrddha’. For example, it quotes verses of Vṛddha-Manu on Yāj. II. 135-36, 270, 272, 111.5, 20, 260 and Bșhan-Manu on Yāj. II. 135-136 (on Sapiṇda and Samānodaka ); it quotes

D.-76

602

Vrddha-Yāj. on Yāj. III. 1-2 ( one verse ), III. 6, III. 19 (two verses ), III. 289; it quotes Brhad-Yājñvalkya on Yāj. III, 253; it quotes Vrddha-Vasistha on Yāj. III. 20 ( prose ), Yāj. III. 21 ( verse ), III. 24 (four verses on ‘āśauca’ in one of which the view of Yama is mentioned ), on Yāj. III. 311 (prose); it quotes Brhad-Vasistha on Yāj. III. 287 ( 244 verses ). Mit quotes Vụddha-Viṣṇu on Yāj. II. 135-36 (prose), on Yāj. III. 266-67 ( verse ); Mit. quotes Brhad-Viṣṇu on Yāj. III. 20 ( prose ), on Yāj. III. 234-242 (long prose passage on various kinds of pātakas ) and on III. 253 (1} verses ), III. 263-4 ( one verse ); the Mit mentions Vrddha-Śatātapa on Yāj. I. 231 (verse ); Mit. mentions Vrddha-Hārīta ( 24 verses of Vrddha Hārīta on Yāj. III. 266-67 and prose on Yāj. III. 325, on Yāj. III. 254 ( prose ), 259 ( prose), 261 (prose); Mit. on Yāj. III. 261 quotes Vrddha-Brhaspati (1} verses on nine kinds of sankara; Mit. quotes Vrddba Pracetas ( verses ) on Yāj. III. 265 and Br̥hat–Pracetas ( verses ) on Yāj. III. 20 (one), III. 263-64 ( 14 verses ); III. 265 (2} verses ); Mit, quotes Bṛhad-Yama ( 4 verses) on Yāj. III. 254, 255 and 260; Mit. quotes Brhad-Saṁvarta on Yāj. III. 265.

Viśvarūpa on Yāj. I. p. 10 quotes verses of Vrddha-Yāj. enumerating the names of ten expounders of Dharma ( other than those mentioned by Yāj. ). Viśvarūpa on p. 136 (on Yāj. I. 195, MM. Ganapati Shastri’s ed. of 1922) quotes a prose passage of Vṭddha-Gārgya.

It would be noticed from the above statements of the Mit. about authors mentioned with the prefixes vrddha and ‘brhat’, that many of the passages quoted from them are concerned with matters relating to āśauca and prāyaścitta. It is probable that during the centuries of foreign invasions such as those of Hūras and the ascendancy of Buddhism and other schisms, more attention was paid to idealogical matters of purity, penances and the like and additions were made to the already existing Smrtis by means of works to which Mit. words like bṛhat, vrddha or ’laghu’ were prefixed.

It may be stated here that Aparārka who is not far re moved in time from the Mit. cites quotations from authors with the prefix Vṛddha, viz. Gārgya, Gautama, Parāśara, Pracetas, Bșhaspati, Manu, Yājñavalkya, Vasistha, Vyāsa, Sātāta pa, Hārīta and the word bhat’ to Pracetas, Yama,

Vijñāneśvara

603

Manu, Viṣṇu and Hārīta. It is noteworthy that Aparārka (on Yāj. III. 23-24 ) first quotes Manu II. 67 (for the proposi tion that in the case of women marriage has the place of Upa nayana ) and immediately afterwards quotes Vrddha-Manu’s verse about the impurity ( āśauca ) to be observed by maidens not grown up, by grown-up but unmarried girls and by those that are married. It is beyond doubt that Apararka regarded the Manusmrti and Vṛduha- Janu’s work as distinct. The Kalpataru on Vyavahāra quotes Vrddha-Manu eight times, but the first half of one verse quoted as Vrddha-Manu’s on p. 402 of ( Vyavahāra-Kānda ) occurs in the Manusmrti VIII. 157.

The author styles himself Vijñānayogin in the concluding verses of his commentary and later writers frequently refer to him in that way. He belonged to the Bhāradvāja yotra and was son of Padmanābhabhatta. He was a paramahamsu (i, e. an ascetic ) and was the pupil of Uttama. He tells us that when he wrote the Mitāksarā, king Vikramārka or Vikramā dityadeva was ruling in the city called Kalyana 823 ( now in the Nizam’s dominion ). The verses at the end containing the personal history appear to be genuine. They occur in the oldest Mss. of the Mit. such as the Government of Bombay Ms. dated śckusamvat 1389.

The author of the Mit was a profound student of the Pūrvamīmāṁsā system. Throughout the Mit. discussion of Pūrvamīmāṁsā nyāyrts and their application to dlarmaśāstra are sown broadcast. For example, the Mit. on Yāj. I. 81 ( whether it is a niyam’ı or pariseinkh ya ), I. 86, II. 114, II. 126, II. 265 &c., may he cousulted. The Mit., as the very name implies, is generally concise and to the point. But in his desire to make his work a repository and synthesis of varied smṛti dicta the author does not mind if he has occagi onally to expand his commentary to enormous lengths. For example, the Mit. on Yāj. III. 265 and 290 occupies several pages of closely printed text.

A remarkable merit of the Mitāksarā is that it relies on the Mimāṁsā sūtras and maxims for solving difficult and doubtful points in the Dharmaśīstras. A few examples may

823 नासीदस्ति भविष्यति क्षितितले कल्याणकल्प पुरं नो दृष्टः श्रतः एव वा क्षितिपतिः

श्रीविक्रमार्कोपमः । विज्ञानेश्वरपण्डितो न भजते किं चान्यदन्योपमश्चाकल्प FETTATO TEC175 52 11 4th verse at the end.

604

be briefly noticed here. On Yāj, I. 4-5 ( where 20 Dharma śāstrakāras are named ), Mit. remarks that these verses are not to be held as parisankhyā ( these verses do not exclude others being recognised as Dharmaśāstrakāras ) but are only illustrative. Parisarikhyā, Niyama and Vidhi are explained at great length on Yāj. I. 79 and 81. On Yāj. I. 249, the Mit. remarks that the verse is a niyama and not parisarkhyā. On Yāj. I. 253-54 the lit. quotes on the question of the Sapindi. karana of one’s deceased mother texts of Paithinasi, Yama and Uśanas and brings out order (i. e. makes a vyavasthā ). The Kalpataru on Srāddha quotes Yāj. I. 253-54 ( on p. 257 ), does not quote the varying views of several writers but only one view and makes no vyavasthu on the point. Another example of Vyavasthā on varying dicta of over a dozen writers occurs on Yāj. I. 256, where difference of views of the Dāksinātyas and Udicyas are set out and PMS III. 6.9 is also discussed. Kalpao on Srāddha has no such discussion. On Yāj. II. 114, the Mit. refers to the Lipsāsūtra ( Jaimini IV. 1. 2, in which the word lipsī occurs ) and quotes a passage of Prabhākara (called Guru ). Vide H. of Dh. Vol. III. p. 550 and n. 1027 for this. Vidhis are of two kinds, ‘Kratvartha’ and Purusārtha’ and the Mit. on Yāj. I, 103 holds a discussion on this. Vide H. of Dh. Vol. V. pp. 1232-35 for explanations of these two. The particle nañ (’na’ meaning ’not’) may indicate a prohi bition (pratised ha ) or a provision or exception ( paryudāsa ). The Mit. on Yaj. I. 129 remarks that not only in that verse but everywhere in that prekariṇu ( Yāj. I. 129-166 ) the particle. naṅ’ conveys ‘paryudāsa’. Vide H. of Dh. Vol. V 20. 1248-49 for explanation, On Yāj. I. 86 where an objector raises the question that a woman is prohibited from becoming a suti after her husband’s death, the Mit. refers to the Syena pāga and points out that the Syenayāga passage is entirely different in purport from passages about the practice of Sati. Vide on this H. of Dh. Vol. V pp. 1183 and 1245

The Mit, refers to the division of Vikulpus ( options ) into Vyavasthita and Avyavasthita on Yāj. 1. 96; vide ( for exposi tion about Vikalpa H, of Dh. Vol. V pp. 1250-1252. The Mit. is fond of citiny Nyāyas. For example, on Yāj. I. 81 it cites the nvāra nimittāvrttau naimittakam-apyāvartate’, which is based on Jaimini VI. 2. 27-29. The same nyaya is mention ed by the Mit. on Yāj. III. 263-264 and on III. 288. On Yāj. II. 126 the Mit. refers to the Daṇdāpūpikanyāya, which is very

Vijñāneśvara

605

frequently employed in Dharmaśāstra works. Vide H. of Dh. Vol. V. p. 1344 for other places where it is employed. On Yāj. II. 265, the Mit. refers to the rule of equal division ( samam syāt-asrutivāt) PMS XV. 3. 53, which is referred to by several works ( vide H. of Dh. Vol. p. 1350 for other references. Some Jaiminisūtras are mentioned as Nyāyas e. g. ’ekārthās–tu vikalperan’iti nyāyenaikārthānāmeva vikalpo na dandata pa sor-ekārthatvam’ on Yāj. III. 257, the sutra being P. M. S. XIII, 3. 10. Vide also śāstroktam phalam prayoktari iti nyāyenādhikārikartrgata phalajanakā devakūpa-tadāga nir māndayah’ ( Mit. on Yāj. III. 227 ). This refers to Jaimini III. 7. 18-20, the first sūtra which begins with Sāstra phalam prayoktari’. On Yāj. III. 220 Mit. refers to the Jātestinyāya (explained in H. of Dh. Vol. V. p. 1343). On Yāj. III. 226 the lit. applies the Rātrisattranyāya for which vide H. of Dh. Vol. V. p. 1227. On Yāj. III, 298 the Mit. follows Sabara’s bhusyu saying ‘kim-ivāt vacanam na kuryāt? This is frequently mentioned by Sabara and Dharmaśāstra works ( in slightly different forms ). Vide H. of Dh. Vol. V p. 1345 for references. The Masa-mudyanyāya based on Jai. VI. 3. 20 is relied upon by the Mit. on Yāj. II, 126 for an explanation of which vide H. of Dh. Vol. V. p. 1347.

One of the well-known maxims of the Pūrvamīmāṁsā is called Sarvaśākhā-pratyayanyāya’ or śākhāntarādhika. raṇa-nyāya (Pūrvamīmāṁsā-sūtra II. 4. 8-33). This means that all the śākhās ( branches ) of the Veda and the Brāhmana works attached to the Vedic recensions form one corpus, that such rites as Agnihotra or Jyotistoma are one and the same, though the details may vary here and there in the Vedic works. The Vedāntasutra (III. 3. 1-4 ) accepts the same position about the Upanisads as regards Upā sanās. This maxim was extended to Smrtis also by such writers as Viśva rūpa, Medhātithi, Vijñāneśvara and Aparārka. The result was that an option was given where Smrti passages were in conflict, otherwise all details in the several works were to be added up. The Mit, on Yāj. III. 32582+ states this, as also on other occasions (e. g. on Yaj. I. 4-5). Vide pp. 1272-74 of Vol. V of H. of Dh. for explanation and references.

824 एवमन्येष्वपि विरोधिपदार्थेषु विकल्प आश्रयणीयः, अविरोधिषु

समुच्चयः । शाखान्तराधिकरणन्यायेन सर्वस्मृतिप्रत्ययत्वात्कर्मणः। मिता, on 11. IIL 325.

606

The Mit. quotes hundreds of verses simply as ‘vacanam’ or ‘vacanāt’ or as ‘smarana’ or smrtyantaram’ and some times verses so referred to are well-known and are found in Smṛtis like those of Manu aud Nārada. For example, on Yāj. 1. 80, it quotes the verse · Pumān pum’sosdhike’as a vacana; it is Manu III. 49. On Yāj. I. 87 the Mit. quotes Prāgupa nayanāt… bhaksāh’ as smarara though it is a well-known sūtra of Gaut. II. 1. ). On Yāj. II 305 the Mit. quotes Pado gacchati … rājānam-rcchati’ as a vaçana, which is a well known verse of Manu 8. 18 and Nārada (3. 12). On Yāj. II. 49 Mit. quotes as a vacana Bhāryā putraśca dāsaśca &c’ which is Manu IX. 416. On Yaj. I, 90 Mit. quotes as ‘smarana’ a half verse which is Manu X. 41. Some verses quoted as Manu’s are not found in the Manusmrti. For example, on Yāj. I. 179, a verse ‘Yathāvidhi niyuktastu… vimśatim’is cited as Janu’s but it is not found in the present Manusmrti. In introducing Yāj. I. 217-218, Mit. quotes as Manu’s the verse ‘Dadyād–a harahah śrāddham’ &c. which is not found in the Manusmrti. On Yāj. III. 18 the printed Mit. ascribes the verse “asvargyam…caren-na tu’ to Manu. but it is really Yāj. I. 156. On Yāj. I. 8 Mit. quotes · Yatrai kāgratā tatrāvisesāt’ as from Patañjali’s sūtra work. It is really a sītra of the Vedāntasūtra ( IV. 1.11 ).

Ou Yāj. 1. 224 the Mit. quotes ‘Vrddhau ca mātā pitarau… Manura bravīt’ as ‘Samānadarśana’ (meaning probably Manusmrti ). That verse is printed ( within brackets) in several editions of the Manusmrti after XI. 10 ( as in Mandlik’s and Nir. ed. with Kullūka’s com.). It is possible that some of the mistakes pointed out above are due to scribes. Yāj. II. 165 provides a fine of ‘ardhatrayodaśapaṇa’ for a cowherd through whose fault a cow or other domestic animal dies. The Mit. explains this as 134 panas, but the explanation of the Mit. is against the rules of grammarians (as laid down by tbe Vārtika un Pān. II. 2. 24 and the Mahābhāṣya thereon (Kielhorn vol. I p. 426 ), and vide H. of Dh. Vol. III. pp. 140, 499 and notes thereon.

A striking feature of the Mit. may be noted here.

The whole of the Mit. printed at the Nir. Press (of 1926 ) with the text of Yāj. comes to 492 closely printed pages; the ācāradhyay with 368 verses covers only 112 pages, the 2nd on V yavahāra with 307 verses occupies 181 pages, while the third adhyāya of 334 verses covers 199 pages. That shows

Vijñānesvara

607

that the Mit. spends nearly twice as many pages on the third adhyāya ( that has a lesser number of verses ) as on the 1st adhyāya. That also conveys that Prāyaścittas and cognate matters had come to hold a far greater grip on Hindus at the end of the 11th century than in the days of Viśvarūpa, who devotes 201 pages to first adhyāya of 363 verses, 98 pages only to Vyavahāra (310 verses ), and 180 pages to 3rd adhyāya of 330 verses.

As the Mitāksarā names Viśvarapa, Medhātithi and Dhāreśvara, it must have been composed after 1050 A. D. The Smṛticandrikā 825 of Devanna bhatta (which as will be seen later on was composed about 1200 A, D ) several times criti cizes the views of the Mit., viz. the latter’s remarks that the giving of an additional share to the eldest son is disapproved of by the people, the reasons given for preferring the mother to the father and the definition of dāya.

King Vikramaditya VI of the Cālukya dynasty with his capital at Kalyāna ( or - ṇi) ruled for about fifty years, from about 1076 A. D. to 1126 A. D.826 Fleet pointed out on. p. 446 of Bombay Gazetteer ( vol. I, part 2 ) that the Vadageri In scription proves that the coronation of Vikramaditya VI took place sometime before the 5th of the bright half of Phālguna in the year Yala, suka, 998 i. e. before the end of Saka 999 (current 1076-77 A. D. ), and that the Cālukya Vikrama era started very probably from Caitra-śuddha 1 of

825 Tega leta su FH Fah fahrt: … 84: I pasta ah

गैतदुद्धारविषमविभागादौ लोकविद्वेषोस्ति प्रत्युत विद्यागुणपुण्यकर्मसंपन्नज्येष्ठादौ HTETTU THIETTI Eta gant affracat i wiato II. p. 266 ; ‘न च दायशब्देन यद्धनं स्वामिसंबन्धादेव … तदुच्यत इति दायादिशब्द RETOU’ Hatatului TTH’ Furaa. II. p. 267 ; ‘faat 746 पुत्रेष्वपि साधारणो माता तु । साधारणीति प्रत्यासत्यतिशयोस्तीति विप्रलम्भ सदृशमिदं न हि जननीजनकयोन्यं प्रति संनिकर्षतारतम्यमस्ति ।’ स्मृतिच० II. p. 297. Vide Bombay Gazetteer rol. I part 2 pp. 446-47 & 455. Chikkavadavatti is in the Mundargi Petha of the Dharwar District. It is inscribed on a slab built into the wall of Kalame para temple. Vide - Indian Culture’, Vol. IV, for 1937 pp. 43-52 on Cālukyas and their political relations with the contemporary Northern States.

608

the year Nala, saka 998 ( expired ), corresponding to 8th March 1076 A. D. As regards the date of his death it may be observed tbat the Chikkavadavatti Inscription (South Indian Inscriptions, Vol. XI part 2 No. 178 pp. 236-239 ) belongs to his reign and cites Cālukya Vikrama year 51, Parā bhava, Māgha, “ukla 5, Wednesday, corresponding to 19th January 1127 A. D. Since his son and successor Someśvara III is known to have counted Parābhava as his first regnal year (Bom. Gaz, Vol. I part II p. 455 ) the death of the father Vikramālitya VI and the accession of the son seem to have taken place between 19th January and March 14 (end of Phālguna ) in 1127 A. D. This indicates that Vikramaditya passed away sometime between 20th January and Ist March of 1127. Therefore, it would be accurate enough to hold that Vikramāditya VI ruled from 1076 A. D. to 1126 A. D. The 4th verse827 at the end of the Mitāksarā may be translated thus:

On the earth, there never was, nor is, nor will hereafter exist a capital similar to Kalyāṇa ; a king like Vikramārka was not seen or even heard, and moreover another matter is that the Pandit ( called ) Vijñāneśvara has no one else for comparison with him ; may this triail that is like Kalpalatikā (the fabu lous desire-yielding plant ) firmly endure till the end of the worlu ‘. In verse 6 at the end Vijñāneśvara prays. May king Vikramāditya, whose feet are refulgent with the brilliance of the dialems on the heads of kings bowing down from the eastern ocean, protect as long as the moon and stars last the whole world from the Setu of Rāma (in the South ), from the

to1

827 नादिस्ति भविष्यति क्षितितले कल्याणकल्पं पुरं नो दृष्टः श्रुत एव वा क्षितिपतिः

श्रीविक्रमार्कोपमः । विज्ञानेश्वरपण्डितो न भजते किं चान्यदन्योपमश्चाकल्पं स्थिर Ha f ari TCXTH II. The third quarter is defective as printed. There are various readings ; one is FF THT HIEF &c. The translation follows this. Another reading is

fatta TITEÀ 7 HITO at Hrith Joh ( cited in the com, of Mitramiśra pub, in Chowkhamba Series ). In the above verse the word for means pralaya in’ākalpam, in line 4 and it also means in ’ Kalpalatikākalpan’s a little less than’ or almost like acc. to Pārini V. 3. 67 SCHATZI ETTECERIS 77:’ and Bhatnji instances fagia factory. The prayer ja: may all these three yield all that people desire to secure from them for all time,

Vijñāneśvara

609

Himalaya (in the North ), from the Western ocean with its waves rising high on account of the movements of shoals of fishes. The prayer in verse 4 is expressly limited. Verse 6 ( at end ) expresses only a pious hope. No single Indian king can be said to have ruled during historical times over the country from the Himālayas down to Rāmeśvara.

The lowest limit for Vijñāneśvara is provided by the fact that at the end of his work he refers to Vikramaditya Cālukya who had become a great king and prays that the monarch may live long. As seen above the Cālukya king passed away sometime in the first two months of 1127 A. D. Therefore, the completion of the work cannot be placed in any case beyond 1125–26 A. D. But such an erudite and exhaus tive work cannot be completed in a short time. Therefore it would have to be held that the work was spread over some ġears and the period that can be properly assigned to its being undertaken and finished by a Pandita single-handed must be placed between 1100 to 1120 A. D. The present author holds that Dr. Derrett is wrong in following the late Professor R. Aiyangar in placing the Mitākṣarā between 1121-25 ( as he does in J. I. H. vol. 30. pp. 35-55 at p. 36 ).

No one has put forward any positive and reliable evidence for being so cocksure about the exact date of the Mitaksarā. It is impossible to assign the completion of the Mitāksarā to a date later than 1126 A. D. How much earlier it was com pleted it is difficult to say. It mentions Dhāreśvara (Bhojadeva ) who ruled between about 1005-1054-55 A. D. Therefore the Mit. was composed some decades after 1055. That is all. There is no positive evidence to put it between 1121-25 A. D. That is purely conjectural and arbitrary. There is no evidence to establish the exact time when the work was undertaken.

The period of the writing of the 14 kāṇdas of Kalpataru has to be placed at the earliest between 1125-1145 A. D. ( as argued below under the heading ‘Kalpataru’) i. e. some years later than the completion of the Mitāksarā. In the colophons Vijñāneśvara is described as Paramahamsa and Parivrājaka ( a sannyāsin ). Acc. to the Anuśā sana parva ( 141. 89 ), the Vaikhānasasūtra VIII. 9 and several other authorities asce tics were of four grades, the last being called Paramahamsa ; vide H. of Dh. Vol. II pp. 938–940. But, in medieval times and later all parivrājakas ( ascetics ) were spoken of or

D.—77

610

addressed as ‘paraihahamsa’. In verse 4 at the end he des cribes himself as Pandita. That tends to suggest that the work was undertaken when he was not an ascetic and became an ascetic about the time of the completion or after the comple tion of the work,

Dr. Derrett, in his paper on ‘New light on the Mitāksarā as legal authority’( in J. I. H. Vol. 30 pp. 35-55 ) holds that the comment in the Mit. on Yāj. II. 4 proves that Vijnāneśvara was a judge (note 6 p. 37). I regret that I cannot accept such a facile assumption. Yāj. II. 4. states that the sabhyas (members of the court of justice ) that give a decision opposed to the dicta of smṛtis owing to partiality, greed or intimida tion should each be ordered by the king to pay double the amount of fine that would be imposed on a defeated party and Yāj. II. 305 prescribes that the king should review ā decision given through partiality &c. The Mit, adds the comment that this provision in II. 4 does not apply if the sabhas delivered a wrong decision through ignorance or folly.

The Mit. expressly refers to the Mimāṁsā rules ( about vidhi and niyama). It says that as only three grounds are mentioned ( in Yāj. II. 4 ) the provision is to be restricted to these three and is not to he extended to cases of ajñāna, moha and others. Manu IX. 231 deals with cases decided by sabhyas taking bribes and prescribes confiscation of all wealth and Manu IX. 234 provides that if a king’s minister or judge renders an improper decision the kiny should himself decide the matter correctly and impose on him a fine of one thousand panas ( this contemplates cases other than those where bribes were accepted ). Nārada ( SBE Vol. 33 p. 22 ) has similar provisions. For laying dowu such a provision and such distinctions ( on Yāj. II. 4 and 305 ) a very learned commenta tor of the first quarter of the 12th century need not have been ā judge at all.

As to the question about Vijñānesvara’s original home and later habitation, if any, notbing definite can be asserted beyond this that he lived somewhere in Vikramaditya’s realm, probably not far from the capital Kalyāna (in the Bidar District) in what was a few years ago the Nizam’s dominion.71. Vijñāneśvara

611

In the Preface to his edition of Vyavahārakānda (publish ed in 1933 ) Prof. Rangaswami Aiyangar makes the astound ing assertion ( on p. VII ) ‘In its ( Mitāksara’s ) concluding verses there is a reference to the Kalpavrksa ( the wish-yield ing tree of Heaven ). which has given the title to Laksmi dhara’s work’, Having undertaken to edit the big work of Laksmidhara, he was blind to the shortcomings of the work and looked on every other work with a jaundiced eye. Verse four refers only to three, the capital, the king and the work of Vijñāneśvara (the words are’etattrayam’) and the prayer is that all the three should ( like the desire-yielding heavenly plant ) last for ever, yielding the desires of those who might resort to them. Simply because the word ‘Kalpalatikā kalpam’occurs, he jumps to the conclusion that the Kalpa taru is referred to. It is childish like Sakuntala’s young son in Kalidasa’s play (Act VII ) who on being asked to mark the beauty of the figure of a bird ī sakuntalāvanuam ) asks where is my mother’ (Sakuntalā ). Whether the Mitāksarā is earlier or later than the Kalpataru cannot be determined by such ridiculous somersaults. It passes one’s understanding how a matter ( a work from the North ) completely alien to all three ( Kalyāna, king Vikramārka and the Mitāksarā of Vijñāneśvara ) was all of a sudden thrust in a pious prayer in verse 4 by Vijñāneśvara himself, losing all sense of context, relevance and propriety and admitting (if Prof. Aiyangar’s suggestion be accepted ) that his own work was inferior to it (as ‘Kalpalatikā-kalpam’ would mean, if Kalpalatikā is taken as standing for the work Kolputuru ).

The editor ( Prof. R. Aiyangar ) was hasty in his remarks in several places. One striking example may be briefly mentioned here. In the Introduction to Rājadharma-kānda p. 19 he quotes Raghuramsa IV. 12 ‘rājā prakrtiranjanāt’. In this Kālidasa follows what is stated in the Mahābhārata. Sāntiparva ( in 59. 125 ) states ranjitāscu prajāḥ sarvās tena rājeti śabilyate’ and in 57. 11, ’lokarajana m-evātra rājuam dharmaḥ sanātanah’). In the footnote 2 on that page Prof. Aiyangar says that this etymology is found in Yāska. One does not know whence he got this. The Nirukta II. 3 ( of Yiiska) derives’ Rajan’ from the root īrāj?.

Further, Prof. Aiyangar himself shows (in Intro. to Dāna kāuda p. 37 )’ that by 1118 A. D. Vikramāditya had recon quered almost the whole of lengi and his territory had then

612

really extended from the Western to the Eastern Deccan as prayed for in the panegyric of Vijṅāneśvara. This statement of the editor strongly supports the present author’s view that the Mit. was completed before 1120 A. D. and the period during which it was begun and completed must be 1100-1120 A. D.

Two inscriptions have been relied upon by some writers in connection with Vijñāneśvara. The Jutgi Inscription cited in E. I. volume 15 pp. 26-32 is in two parts and contains two dates. The first date is Calukya Vikrama year 4 ( i. e. 1079 A. D.) in which a gift was made to the temple of Rāmeśvara, the trustee being Yogeśvara-pandita, the Sisyaparamparā being as follows: Bhujangadattaśisya Tri locanadeva, Sisya Balasuryārya, his pupil Kāśmīra pandita deva, his śisya Bhairarapanditadeva, sisya Yogeśvara-Pandita deva ( to whom the gift was entrusted ). The second date is Cālukya Vikrama year 35 (i. e. 1110 A. D. ), where another gift to the same temple was made and the trustee was Acale śvara-Panditadeva, who was the disciple of Yogeśvara Pandita deva. In this there is hardly anything positive to show that Yogesvara-pandita is the same as Vijñāneśvara, author of the Mitāksarā. The Martur828 inscription of Calukya Vikrama year 48 (i. e. 1124 A. D. ) mentioned by Mr. P. B, Desai in the Karnataka Historical Review (Vol. II No. I p. 48 ) has not yet been published. I learn on inquiry that in this record it is stated that Rama, Soma, Morsing and Biraja were the sons of Kambha and Ketikabbe, that Kamcha himself was the son of Somarāja of Maseyainadu in Attali-nādu and his wife Bhāgyavanite and that he belonged to the Kausikagotra. In the later part the record states that Bibiraja ( who was said a few lines before to have been one of the sons of Kamcha ) was the son (Maya) of Vijñāneśvara Bhattārakadeva ; so it follows that Kamcha and Vijnanesvara-bhattāraka were one and the same person. It may be mentioned that the Inscription states that Vijñāneśvara was the paramarādhya (i. e. most revered one ) of the ruling king Vikramāditya. It is quite likely that this Vijnaneśvara =Bhattāraka was the same as the Vijñāneśvara of the Mitākvarā. But there is no convincing

828

I am highly obliged to Dr. G. S. Gai, Govt. Epigraphist at Outacamuod, for communicating to me the details of the yet uo. published Martur Inscriptions

Vijñānesvara

613

ground for the identity of the two. There is also one difficulty. The colophons of the Mit. describe the author to have been Vijñāneśvara Bhattāraka ( an ascetic ), son of Pucmancibla bhattis of the Bbāradvājagotra, while in the Martur Inscript tion Kamcha is said to be the son of Somarāja of the Kausika gotra. So one cannot convince a doubter that the two are identical. It is possible that Somarāja might have borne another name ( such as Padmanābha ) and that there might have been an adoption ( so that the gotra was changed ). But these are guesses and there is no strong evidence.

Out of the numerous commentaries on the lit. those of Viśveśvara, Nandapanlita and Balambhatta are the inost famous. Viele sections 93, 105, 111. Considerations of space preclude any detailed statement of the doctrines peculiarly associated with the name of Vijñāneśvara. There are, however, some which must be mentioned. He laid down ( on Vāj. 1. 52 ) that wherever the word sapinda occurred, it denoted either directly or inediately connection with particles of one body (i. e. blood-relationship with an ancestor ). He also strictly adheres to the principle that propinquity is the guidiny principle in matters of inheritance and succession. He divides daya into prctibrnuha and suprutibandhu ani affirmed that sons, grandsons and great-grandsons acquired by birth owner ship in ancestral property. On all these matters hie is diaine trically opposed to Jimūtavāhana.

Aufrecht in his great catalogue makes conflicting state ments about a work called Aśaucadaśaka. On I. ]». 55 he notes that Āśaucadaśaka is a work of Harihara with a com mentary by Vijñāneśvara and again on I. 1. 571 he ascribes Āśaucadaśaka-ṭikā to Vijṅāneśvara. On I. p. 762 he ascribes the Āśaucadaśaka and Daśaślokivivarana to Harihara and appears to distinguish him from that Harihara who composed a bhāsya on Pāraskaragrhyasītra. On I. P. 795 he corrects himself by saying that Harihara wrote only the commentary on the Āśaucadaśaka and that the latter is identical with the Daśaślokivivarana. On Ill. p. 121 he is doubtful whether the Aśaucadaśaka is a work of Vijñānesvara. In the Govt. Mss. library at the B.V. R. I., Poona, there is an ancient Ms. (No. 196 of 1884–1887 ) of the Āśaucadaśaka. S 29 It was copieil in seinet 829 The Ms, begins : 342 lāra atatian91 gargftaraTA-4111 आशौचदशकवृति वदति हरिहरो हरिं नत्वा ॥ अत्र तावहिज्ञानेश्वरयोगीन्द्रश्च.

( Continued on the next page)

614

History of Dharmaśāstra 1578 Margasirsa (i. e. December 1522 A. D.). It distinctly says that Vijñāneśvarayogin composed in ten Sārdūlavikridita stanzas a work ou īśccucro and that Harihara composed a commentary on it. In the Bhadkamkar collection there is an old Ms. of the Asaucadaśaka, the colophon of which ascribes the work to Vijnanesvara. Vide I. O. cat. p. 565, No. 1749 for a ms. of Āśaucadaśaka with Harihara’s commentary dated Secitatit. 158:) ( 1532-33 A. D. ). That the Asaucadasaka was a very popular work follows from the several commentaries thereon that are available even now. Raghunātha, 30 son of Madhava and nephew of the famous Nārāyaṇabhatta, compos ed a commentary on the Dasasloki in Sulee 1500 (No. 82 of A. 1882-83 in the Govt. Iss. lib. at the B. O. R. I. Poona ). There is another commentary on the same work by Bhattoji ( No. 99 of 1882-83 at the B.O. R. I. Poona ). Harihara quotes in his bhāsya besides several well-known smrtikāras, a work called Viśvādarśa ( folio 4b ).831 Harihara, the commentator of the Pāraskarasgrhyaūtra, is described as the pupil of Vijñāneśvara in several mss. Harihara in his bhāsya on Pāraskaragrhya quotes Vijñāneśvara and Kalpataru. The Viśvadarsa praises Vijiluuesvara very highly.s32 Therefore, it appears that Vijñāneśvara composed the Aśaucadaśaka ulias Daśaśloki and that Harihara, who was either Vijñāueśvara’s

( Continued from the previous page) नुवर्णात्मकस्य जन्मनि सूतो भवं सूतकं मरणे शवे भवं शावं सूतकशावसिद्धयर्थ वृत्तदशकं शार्दूलविक्रीडितेन चकार तत्राचं वृत्तमाह मातुर्गर्भविपत्स्वघं &c. The colophon at the end is : इत्याशौचदशकभाष्यं श्रीहरिह(र )विरचितं

समाप्त। १०० रघुनाथ criticizes विज्ञानेश्वर — यत्तु विज्ञानेश्वरेण प्रतिलोमानां त्वाशोचाभाव __ एवेत्युक्तं तद्वचनविरोधादुपेक्षयम् । प्रतिलोमा धर्महीना इत्येतत्त पाक्यज्ञाद्य

भिप्रायम् ’ folio 19b. 831 संप्रति विशेषो विश्वादशत् ‘प्रत्तस्त्रीणां त्रिरात्रं पितृविषदि भवेत् ‘.

र यथा वे विज्ञानेश्वरविरचितेद्यापि महतो महीभर्तुः कीर्तिस्त्रिजगति यथा

पुण्यकदिति । यथा (तथा?) श्रीमन्नागार्जुनं तनुज-धन्यप्रतिगृहे स्फुरद्विश्वादशैं स्फुरतु तव कीर्तिः सुकृतिनः ॥ IV. 52 ; श्रीरामस्य युधिष्ठिरस्य च यथा रामायणे भारले कीर्तिभाति यथा च मुञ्जनृपतेः सा कारिका भूषणम् । श्रीमद्धन्य मिताक्षरादिषु यथा श्रीवृद्धभतुम्तथा विश्वादर्शनिबन्धने तव शुभश्लोका

जयन्यूर्जिताः || ms. of विश्वादर्श ( in Bhadkamkar collection ).

Vijñāneśvara

615

pupil or not very far removed from him (as he is quoted by Hemādri ) composed a commentary thereon. The first verse of the Daśaslokī is cited below as a specimen of the concise style attempted by the author.833 The text of the Daśaślokī is given on pp 832-833 of volume 4 of the H. of Dh.

Aufrecht (II. p. 50 and I. p. 236 ) credits Vijñāneśvara with a bhāsya on Trimsat-ślokī, a work in thirty Sragdharā stanzas on ağırara. This work together with the commentary was printed in pothz size at Benares in saivat 1918 (1861-62 A. D.). The printed text contains834 the same colophon at the end and date as the D. C. ms. No. 217 of 1879-80, which was copied in sumvut 1711 Citru (i. e. April 1655 A, D.). It is extremely doubtful, however, whether Vijñāneśvara wrote a bhāsya on the Trimsat-śloki. In the bhāsya Vijñāneśvara and the Mitākṣarā are cited by name. 835 The manner of referring to them rather suggests that the commentary on the Trimsat-śloki was composed by some person other than Vijaaneśvara, who, however, drew largely on the Mit. There is a ms. of the Trimsat-slokī with a com mentary in the Bhau Daji collection which is ascribed to Hemādri on the cover ( vide BBRAṢ. cat. vol. II. p. 209, No. 667).

In the Madras Govt. mss. library there is a ms. of the Vyavahārasiromani of Nārāyana, who says that he learnt dharmaśāstras under Vijñāneśvara ( adhitya dharmaśāstrāṇi Vijñāneśvara-sadguroh ). The work deals with the vyavahūra portion and was composed for the benefit of the un-initiated (bālabodhārtham ). The ms. contains the portion dealing with the king’s duty to look into the disputes of people, the

835

833 मातुर्गर्भविपत्स्वधं त्रिदिवसं मासत्रयेतो यथा मासाहं त्रिषु सूतकावधिरतः स्नानं

पितुः सर्वदा । ज्ञातीनां पतनादि जातमरणे पित्रोदशाहं सदा नाम्नः प्राक् तदपैति

सूतकवशाद्भातुर्दशाहं परम् ॥ 834 The colophon is a fastia UTHM FALTET I siquia i

त्रिरात्रं दशरात्रं वा … सूतकं मातुरेव हि ॥ इत्येतद्व्याख्यानसमये विज्ञानेश्वरा.: FTETTA !1 p. 3b) of the printed text and 2 b of the ms. The verse referred to is 413. III. 18. On verse 14 of the frame we have ‘gra starfagyar … o ad altre piata 11 इत्येतद्व्याख्यानं मिताक्षरायां स्पष्टीकृतम् ’ p. 9 b of the printed text and 58 of the me

VOTSO

velge

616

time for doing that, sabhāu, definition of prād-virāka (judge), the plaint, and its lefects, fiseille ( restraint of the defendant), means of proof, the eighteen titles of law, rṇādāna, niksepa sambhūra-samutthina attāpradānika, abhyupetya-asusrūsā, vetanassa-analākarma, aṣvāmivikraya, vikriyāsampradāna, krītvānusava, samayasyānapakarma, sīmāvivāda, strī-pum sa yoga, lāparibhiga. The work breaks off in the middle of the explanation of the verse patnj dubitarascaiva.’ He clo sely follows the litičksarā in all that he says; but in one place he erpressly differs from his teacher, viz, whereas the Mitāk sarā mentious four different times for partition, Nārāyana says that there are really two times of partition, when the father desires l’artition and when the son or sons desire it,838 On $11.hh ayustinutthrīnu he quotes a passage from Kautalya (the ms. uses this form ), which agrees closely with the print ed text (vide Arthaśāstra III. 14, p. 186, ed. by Shama Sastri) 937