- Kamadhenu This was an early and large digest on various branches of Dharmaśāstra. Unfortunately no ms, of it has been recovered so far, but it has been profusely quoted by a large number of writers on the several topics of Dharmaśāstra. Unexpected light has been thrown on it hy the publication of the Bralima cārikāṇla of the Kalpataru, composed by Laksmidhara, the chief muntriin of the Gāhadvāla king Govindachandra of Kanyakuhja ( Kanoj ) and Banaras. In verse 10 of the Intro duction to Brahmacārikānda he says ‘by him this Kalpa rekja is spread ( trnynte kalpavrkṣah )’. In verse 11 he says that a friend of his called Gopāla comprosed a digest based on Smrtis anil adeled his own remarks in prose (Gopālastad Vayasyali avakṛti-viracanam vākyarūpena cakre ) and that
this digest will be composed and it will delight learned men’
836 अनया चातुर्विध्यमस्मद्दचरणैर्मिताक्षरायां प्रतिपादितं पितुरिच्छायां पुत्रेच्छायां
च विभागः संभवति नान्यथेति कालद्वयमेव विभागस्येति तु युक्तम् । न च पित्रनन्तरकाल एक इनि त्रैविध्यामिति वाच्यं पित्रनन्तरकालेपि पुत्राणामिच्छाभावे
विभागस्यैवानविन उक्तकालद्वय एवानन्तरकालस्याप्यन्तर्भावात् । 837 37 THE FIFT: 3PATHTHU ataria 311981: 424
मंशं लभेत मोमविक्रयादूर्व चतुर्थ प्रक्य द्वासनादूर्व तृतीयमग्निष्टोमीयादूर्ध्व पादोनं माध्यंदिनादूर्व समग्रनीतामु दक्षिणासु भवति ।
- Kamuhenu
617
(Vibudhajanamanohāri hūrisyatesyum…prabandhaḥ’ verse 11 ). In verses 12 and 13 he names three works viz. Mabār nava, Kamadhenu and Ratnamālii.
Some later writers appear to ascribe the Kāmadhenu to Gopāla e. g. the Vyavahāraratnākara 38 quoted below does so. It may be stated that Laksmīdhara makes disparaging remarks about his friend’s work (in Introductory verse II ) and that in the Kalpataru which extends over hundreds of printed pages neither Kāmadhenu nor Gopāla is mentioned by name even once, though on his own showing the Kāmadhenu had been completed by the time Lakṣmidbara became chief mantrin of Govindacandra, after sanguinary battles in which he boasts that he had killed one hundred thousand (or several hundred thousands ) of his king’s enemies and undertook the composition of his huge digest, which must surely have taken about twenty years for being completed. Laksmidhara’s patron, the Gāhadvāla kiny Govinilacandra, ruled from 1114 A. D. up to about 1155 A. D. (as will be shown later under Kalpataru ). Therefore, it is proper to hold that the Kāma dhenu must have been composed about 1100 A. D. some years before the Kalpataru was begun ( probably some years after 1114 A. D. when Gorindacandra became king ).
Sridharācārya, author of Smrtyarthasara ( verses 4 and 5), mentions Kamadhenu among the authors and works on which he relies. $39 The Hāralatā of Aniruddhabhatta, the Guru of king Ballālasena of Bengal, who composed his Dānasāgara in saka 1091 ( 1169 A. D. ), mentions Kāmadhenu among the works he consulted and refers to its views several times.
838 यन्यायामृतसेचनात्सफलतां पुष्णाति कल्पद्रुमः सद्यः पल्लवमातनोति नितरां
श्रीपारिजातोपि सः । गोपालस्य च कामधेनुरमणं काम्यार्थदुग्धं स्वयं सन्दुग्धे स्वयमेष कस्य भवने सेव्यो न रत्नाकरः ॥ व्यवहाररत्नाकर (Mitra’s Notices rol. VI, p. 66 ). The words underlined are parono. mastic, one meaning referring to names of works; Gopāla is hero indicated as author of Kāmadhenu. The other sense of Gopāla is : Krṣna who takes delight in cows ( ug said in the Puranas and
logends ). 839 कामधेनो प्रदी( प्रदीपे)ब्धौ कल्पवृक्षलतासु च । शम्भुद्रविडकेदार
लोल्टाद्यैश्च भाषितम् । मन्वाद्यनेकस्मृतिषु व्याख्यातृप्रतिपादितम् । स्मृत्यर्थसारं 77h yaitrì: (T) ( Intro. Varses 1-5 of pc Tare, Anandā. śrama ed.). I. D–78
618
The Virādaratnākara of Canleśrara relies upon the Kāmadhenu several times.840 In the Rājanitiratnākara of Candeśvara ( ed. by Jayaswal, 1924 ) Rājaniti-Kamadhenu is quoted (on p. 2 ) for the definition of rājā ) and on p. 5 the same work is quoted for describing the two kinds of
adbiśvara’ (overlord ). Besides, the same work on p. 81 mentions the idea of Gopāla, Lakṣmidhara and Srikara that in the king’s wealth all beings, poor, helpless and others have a share and on p. 84 of the same work the view of early Gopāla is again mentioned as to the rites of coronation mentioned in works on Rājanīti being merely illustrative and that a king may be proclaimed to be so according to the special usages of countries and families by being merely seated on a throne.341
Many Dharmaśāstra works do not expressly state that Kamadhenu was composed by Gopāla. Therefore, the ques tion about the authorship of the Kamadhenu has to be dealt with,
The reply is that, bearing in mind the paronomastic verse of the Vyavahāraratnākara cited above, and the facts that the Brahmacārikānda of the Kalpataru expressly meations Gopāla as a friend of Laksmidhara and also mentions the Kamadhenu in rerses 10 and 11 and does not expressly name anyone else as the author of the Kāmadhenu and as no early work ascribes it to any other person the authorship of Kamadhenu, it should be held that Gopāla is the author of the Kamadhenu.
Aufrecht in his great Catalogue (I. 93 ) ascribed the authorship of the Kāmadhenu to Sambhu. Whence he derived this information is not clear. Sambhu is credited by the Smṛticandrikā with the authorship of a Smrti digest ( vide above under Srikara ) and the Smṛtyarthasāra dames him as one of its authorities. Therefore, Sambhu is certainly earlier
840 – 8TR444a 4bṛng ( Hi TH #14 ( TIẾTra:
तं वैरिगोत्रभिदमुच्चसहस्रदृष्टिं चण्डेश्वरं तुलयितुं कतमे भवन्तु ॥ विवादरत्नाकर ( versa at end ). There is a play on the words FTATE, PT99 ( कल्पतरु ) and पारिजात which are names of works on Dharmasastra also ; vide FETTETEAFT pp. 78, 80, 135, 651 for other references to
Kamadhenu. 841 गोपालमते त्वभिषेकादिपर्यन्तमुपलक्षणं यथादेशकालाचारं सिंहासनदानादि
150 Erilla i TFHIFATTER pp. 81-85.
- Kāmadhenu
619
than 1150 A. D. The Smrtyarthasara mentions both Sambhu and Kāmadhenu as its authorities. If Sambhu were the author of the Kāmadhenu according to the Smrtyarthasāra, he would not have been separately mentioned among its authorities by the Smrtyarthasāra ; so I am inclined to hold that Sambhu was not the author of Kamadhenu, but it was Gopāla who was the author of that work.
It may be noted that the Kr̥tyaratnākara842 of Candeśvara regards the Kamadhenu as holding the same position (or authority ) as the King (i. e. Bhoja )
As the Kāmadhenu had been completed some years at least before the project of the Kalpataru was started and as it is several times quoted in the Hāralatā of Aniruddha it cannot be placed later than about 1100 A. D. It cannot be earlier than that date since it is not mentioned by Medhātithi, the Mitāksarā or hy Apararka. It may, therefore, be assigned to the period 1100-1110 A. D.
In the edition of the 1st volume of this history, the present author had quoted from a ms. of the Kalpataru ( Benares College transcript ) that the Kalpataru referred to the views of Prakaśa, Halāyudha, Kamadhenu and Pārijāta. In his edition of the Kalpataru on Vyavahāra, Prof. Aiyangar (pp. 394-398 ) tries to show that the mss of the Kalpataru ( which were only a few ) were in bad shape and he held the ms, of Kalpataru had been tampered with when it mentioned ‘Prakāśa, Halayudha-Kāmadhenu-Pārijātaprabhṛtayaḥ’ ( vide p. 395 of the edition of Kalpataru on Vyava hāra ). About the Kamadhenu and Prakāśa at least, merely saying that the passage about them was later interpolated would not help the editor at all, as both are expressly named in the Introductory verses of the Bralımacārikauda. The Prakāśa is referred to in several ways as Sinti-Mahārnava or simply Mahārnava or as Smrti-Mahārnava-prakāsas+} or as simply Prakāśa. The Mahā
- – — 842 TTACRITTÀUT FTARI 3TBO
191HTETTI I 579 - TORE p. 30. 843 Though the Vivādaratnākara and other Ratnākaras of Canleśvara
generally refer to Prakāśa only, yet Canleśvara in bis Kr̥tyaratnā. kara ( p. 329 ) speaks of Smrtimahārnavaprakisa in the words ’ जाबाल-मत्स्यपुराणवाक्यपरामर्शान्निरग्निसकलपुत्रः साग्निभिश्चेतरपुत्रैरेकोद्दिष्ट कार्यमिति स्मृतिमहार्णवप्रकाशकार इति कल्पतरो लिखितमन्यैश्वानुमोदित
‘.
620
rṇava is expressly mentioned in Introductory verses 12-13 to the Brahmacārikānda. The Mahārnava is also mentioned at p. 134 of the Brahmacārikamla. The Mahārnava-prakāśakāra is expressly referred to in the Sraddhakanda ( on p. 262 ) of the Kalpataru. The editor cites no grounds for holding that Pārijāta is a late work.
It is not necessary for me to establish that the passage is genuine and so I leave it out of account altogether. From the Brahmacārikānda it is clear that the Kamadhenu itself had been composedd some decades before the vast digest called Kalpataru was completed. It follows from what is stated above that at least three out of the four works ind authors mentioned in the passage are certainly uliler than the Kalpa taru and that the 4th riz Halāyudha might have been a junior contemporary of Laksmidhara. Evidence of comparati vely early works is set out below that works composed about 1150-1170 A. D. frequently cite the Kamadhenu but they do not cite the Kalpataru even once.
The bad state of the mss. of the Kalpataru will be briefly indicated under the section ‘Kalpataru’. The Brahmacāri kānda of the Kalpataru is based on a single defective ms. as mentioned in a footnote on p. 279 of the edition. The Kāma dhenu has been quoted or referred to very early after 1100
A. D. A few instances may be cited.
Aniruddhabhatta was a qurul of king Ballālasena of Bengal (as stated in verses 6 and 7 of the Dānasagara, 844 which he composed in Sake 1091 ( i. e. 1169 A. D. ) with the assistance of his guru. Aniruddha is the author of two works viz. Hāralatā and Pitrdayiti. Therefore, these works$45 must be
—- - ——- 844 वेदार्थस्मृतिसंकथादिपुरुषः लान्यो वरेन्द्रीमले निम्तन्द्रोउज्वलधीविलासनयनः
सारम्बतब्रह्मणि । पटकमाभवदायालनिलयः प्रख्यातृसत्यवती वृत्रारेरिव गोष्यतिर्नरपतेरस्यानिरुद्धो गुरुः ॥ अधिगतसकलपुराणस्मृतिसारः श्रद्धया गुरोरस्मात् । कलिकल्मषावदानं दाननिबन्धं विधातुकामोपि ॥ … श्रीबल्लाळनरेश्वरो विरचयत्येतं गुरोः शिक्षया । स्वप्रज्ञावधिदानसागरमयं श्रद्धावतां श्रेयसे ॥
Grazil verses 6-7, 9. 845 (1) अन एव जातमृते मतजाते वा कुलस्य त्रिरात्रमिति हारीतवचनं
कामधेन कृता गर्भनातावाशौचप्रकरणे लिखितम् । हारलना D. 41 ; यानि च जातुकर्णादिनाना वचनानि लिखितानि तानि भोजदेव-विश्वरूप-गोविन्दराज
( Continued on the next page)
- Kamadhenee
621
assigned to about 1150-1170 A. D. The Haralata on pp. 41, 117, 174 mentions Kamadhenu expressly, as the quotations cited below will show and does not mention the Kalpataru at all.
___ The Chanddogahmikasis of Sridatta (about 1270-1300 A. D.) mentions the Kamadhenu several times (e. g. on pp. 12, 16, 17, 22, 24, 46, 58 &c ) and the first verses of that work and of Pitrbhakti are interesting because they mention the doctrines of Gopāla and Bhūpala; Bhūpāla is Bhoja and Gopāla is the author of the Kamadhenu. One or two striking references to the Kamadhenu are cited below in the footnote.
The Ratnākaras of Canleśvara frequently quote the Kamadhenu. The Kr̥tyaratuākara mentions it on pp. 30 and 299. The Vividaratnakara mentions Kamadhenu very often as on pp. 80, 114, 133, 150, 409, 651. The Dandaviveka of Vardhamāna quotes Kāma henu 25 times and whenever the Kāmadhenu and Kalpataru are inentioned together it puts Kamadhenu first; vide pp. 28, 34, 71, 138, 176, 217.
But it seems to me that they are identical. Aufrecht in his great catalogue (1. 93 ) ascribes the authorship of the Kāmadhenu to Sambhu. Whence he derived this information is not clear. The authors and works cited by him do not, so far as I know, ascribe the Kanadhenu to Sambhu. It is true that Sambhu is credited by the Smrticaudrikā with a digest on dharmuścīstra ( vide note 563 above) and the Smrtyartha sāra also names him as one of the authorities on which it
. - .. – — —– —— (Continued from the previous page) कामधेनुकृद्भिरलिखितत्वान्मत्स्यपुराणविरोधाच निर्मूलान्येव समूलत्वेपि म्लेच्छ प्रायदेशे व्यवस्थितानि । हारलता 117; ride also हारलता pp. 173-74. कातीयकल्पं सहकर्कभाष्यं गोपाल भूपालमतादि दृष्ट्वा । सतां च वाच्यानि निशम्य सम्यग्यजुविदा श्राद्धविधि विधास्ये | first verse of पितभक्ति : स्मृतीः पुराणानि विलोक्य गृह्यं भूपाल-गोपाल-निवन्धनं च । छन्दोगकृत्यानि
दिनेन यानि नत्वा हरिं तत्र वदागि सारम् ॥ irst rerse of छन्दोगाहिक. 846 अत एव कात्यायनीयः स्नानविधी राजालिखितोपि शिष्टेरनुष्टीयते कामधेनौ
च लिखित इति राजालिखितोपि गोमिलायतपणीवधि-कामधेनुसन्ध्योद्योते लिखित इति सोप्यादेय इति । छन्दोगाह्निक p. 16 ( Nir. vd. ).
622
relies. Hemādri$47 also tells us that Vambhu was a nibandha kāra and refuted the views of Medhātithi on Manu III. 125. The Smrticandrikā frequently cites the views of Sambhu on vyavahāra and generally refutes them. For example, on the word ‘pitarau’ occurring in Yāj. II. 135, Sambhu remarked that no difference should be made between the parent’s ( father and mother) as heirs, since whoever out of them took the wealth of their son it would come to both.848 Vide also Smrticandrikā II, pp. 205, 216. Therefore Sambhu also, being mentioned by the Smrticandrikā and the Smṛtyarthasāra, is certainly earlier than 1150 A. D. In this state of the autho rities I am doubtful whether Sambhu was the author of the Kāmadhenu. I am inclined to hold that he was not the author of that work and that Gopāla was the author. This conclusion is somewhat strengthened by the fact that the Smrtyrtha sāra mentions both Kāmadhenu and Sambhn as authorities on which it relies. If Sambhu had been, in the opinion of the Smrtyarthasāra the author of the Kamadhenu, the mention of both would have been superfluous. Mr. Jayasval (in JBORS for 1927, vol. XIII, parts 3-4, p. VII ) ascribes the Kāma dhenu to Bboja, but this is wrong ( vide p. 277, note 576 ).
As the Kamadhenu is named as an authority by the Kalpa taru and the Hāralatā it is certainly not later than 1100 A.D. It cannot be very much earlier since it is not mentioned by Medhātithi and the Mitāksarā. It may therefore be assigned to the period between 1000 and 1100 A, D.