कल्पान्तरे विश्वासटिप्पन्यः

Halāyudha Several Halāyudhas flourished at different times. Chro nology being rather uncertain those of them that have some bearing on Dharinaśāstra would be dealt with in one place. though an attempt will be made to assign to them approxi mately definite times as far as possible.

दौ देवे…कमुभयत्र वा ॥ यदप्येकैकमुभयत्र वेत्ययं विधिरेव न भवतीति तेनैवोक्तं तत्तु शम्भुप्रभृतिभिर्निबन्धकारः पराकृतमिति अम्माभिर्नाद्रियते । चतुर्वर्ग० III. I. p. 1148 ; TC M7 Eigula THEIGHTÀ TUTTAR

RFFYNETTET: I agatto III. 1, p. 1331. 848 यत्तूक्तं शम्भुना अव्यक्तधनत्वाद् दम्पत्यार्येन केनचिगृह्यमाणमुभयार्थमिति न

farligt att han i FITTO II. p. 298,

Halāyudha

623

The Vivādaratnākara of Candeśvara mentions Halāyudha dozens of times. In the Smṛtisāra of Harinātha 849 Halāyudha nibandha on possession is quoted. The Smrtisāra also says (folio 140 a ) that Halāyudha favoured niyoga by the widow of a son-less deceased person and deprived the widow of su ccession to her deceased husband if she did not submit to niyoga. This was the view of Dhāreśvara also. According to HalāyudhaS50 parents succeeded before brothers to a deceas ed person if the property in the hands of the deceased was ancestral, but that if it was acquired without detriment to ancestral property then brothers succeeded even before parents. Halāyudba is cited in the Vivādacintāmani also e. g. Halāyudhasst held the view that the verse of Yaj. ( II. 126 ) was intended to convey that where joint property was concealed by a member and was discovered after partition, he did not incur the guilt of theft. This same view was held by Jitendriya and others. Raghunandana quotes Halāyudha in his Divyatattra, Dayatattva and Vyavaharatattva. The Vira

mitrodayas52 also quotes Halāyudha.

The name Halāyudha (an epithet of Balarāma, the brother of Krsna ) was a common one in India and therefore there are several eminent authors named Halāyudha. Great copfusion is due to this and is increased by unscrupulous writers fawn ing upon patrons. This will be briefly illustrated here.

849 अत्र हलायुधनिबन्धे स्वरसः । आगमस्मरणार्हकाले सागमैव भुक्तिः प्रमाणं

त्रैपुरुषिकभोगे तु आगमास्मरणे भुक्तिः प्रमाणं स्मार्तकाले क्रियाः भूमेः…. पुरूषागता इति कात्यायनवचनात् । हानिप्रतिपादकानां च वाक्यानां प्रमाण

परिपालनकर्तव्यताशेष चात् । स्मृतिसार ( I. O. eat. No. 301, folio 107 b ). 350 याज्ञवल्क्येन पितरौ भ्रातर इति भ्रातृसद्भावेपि पित्रोरधिकार उक्तः स

पितृपितामहार्जितधनविषयः । यत्पितृद्रव्याविरोधार्जितं तत्पित्रोः सद्भावेपि

भ्रातृणामेव । स्मृतिसार folio 140 b. 81 अन्योन्यापहृतं…स्थितिः ॥ अत्राविभक्तत्वादेव विभागे प्राप्ते वचनारम्भोत्र

चौर्यदोषाभावं ज्ञापयतीति हलायुधः । विवादचिन्तामणि p. 143. Tide दायतत्त्व

(p. 182 Jivananda, vol. II ) for the same rier of हलायुध.

852

‘अक्षः पादस्तम्भयोरुपरि निहितस्तुलाधारपट्ट इति मिताक्षरा । दायप्रयोजकः कीलक इति हलायुधः ।’ वीर० p. 254 ; वीर • p. 572 says हलायुध read in मनु 2. 207 स निर्वात्यः for स निर्वास्यः (निर्भाज्यः ).

624

The first Halayudha is the author of Kavirahasya, edited by Souriudramohan Tagore in 1879 ( with an Introduction in English ) and by Heller in 1900. This contains only 271 verses. It illustrates the several forms of Sanskrit roots in several conjugations and connects all verses with Krsna, a Rāstrakūta king of the Deccan (Daksimāpatha ). This was most probably Rāstra kūṭa emperor Krsna whose dates range from 940 A. D. to 959 A. D. (vide JBBRAS, Vol. 18 p. 239, I. A. Vol. XI 1. 109 and Dr. R. G. Bhandarkar’s Report, 1883-4 pp. 89). In another work called Mitasanjivanī attributed to him (which is a commentary on Pirgala’s Chandalısıtra ) there is an illustrative verse praising Muñja alias Vākpatirāja. Muñja was killed between 994-997 A D. by Tailapa. Therefore, this author flourished in the latter half of the 10th century A. D. Vide Cat, of mss. in the Bombay Asi atic Society’s library by Prof. H. D. Velankar (1926) Vol. 1 part 2. It begins with the famous verse’ *HTKRAFT®’. He has little to do with Dharmaśāstra.

But the Introduction (pp. I-VI) to the Kavirahasya has some interesting features. It repeats the story of king Ādiśūra of Gauda bringing five learned Brāhmanas of Kanoj for a Vedic sacrifice and of his yrant of five villages to the five brāhmaṇas that enabled them to stay in Gauda. It is further narrated ( in the Intro.) that the foremost among those five brāhmaṇas was Bhatta Nārāyana of the Sandilya-gotra and the rich and famous Tagore’s claim descent from that Nārāyana. The Intro. states that his works were Prayogaratna, Gobhila sūtrabhāsya, Kāśimaranamuktivicāra and the drama Veni saṁhāra and that Ilalāyula was 16th in descent from that Nārāyaṇa. In a note it is stated that Halāyudha was 12th in descent from Nārāyana, according to another account. In this all chronology is thrown to the winds and entirely false claims to the authorship of famous works like the Prayogaratna, the drama Venīsamhāra and several other well-known works like the Bhāminivilāsa and Rasagangādhara are advanced. Nārāyaṇabhatta, born in 1513 A.D. was the author of Prayogara tna, his father was a Mahārāsýra brāhmana from Pratisthāna (modern Paithan on the Godavari ) and migrated to Benares. That establishes that the work was composed in the 16th century. The author of the Venisamhāra was a Nārāyana, no doubt. He flourished about a thousand years before the author of the Prayogaratna, as passages from the Venīsamhāra

JY :

I’

Halāyudha

625

are quoted in the Dhvanyāloka (latter half of 9th century ) and in the Kāvyālar kārasūtravștti of Vāmana (about 8th century). Further, on p. 2 of the Introduction ( to the Kavirahasya ) the Halāyudha of that work is regarded as identical with the author of the Brāhmaṇasarvasva. But the gotra of that Halāyudha was Vātsya, while the gotra of the Tagores is Sāndilya. These writings of the matchmakers of Bengal and of the unscrupulous sycophants and panegyrists of rich families are often worthless for chronological purposes. Vide the paper of Jogendracandra Ghosh (in I. C. Vol. I pp. 502-6 ) which tries to show that there were three or four Halāyudhas in the latter part of the 12th century A. D. and the first half the 13th century A. D.

Another Halāyudha, the author of the famous work called Brāhmanasarvasva, is an important one among the authors named Halāyudha. An excellent edition of that work edited by Dr. Durgāmohan Bhattacarya was recently published( 1960) in the Sanskrit Sahitya Parishad Series (Calcutta ) with an exhaustive Introduction (pp. 111-XLV), brief table of con tents, the text (330 pages), an Index of the Vedic Mantras and other verses occurring in the work. The Brāhmaṇasarvasva is referred to several times by Raghunandana e. g. (vol. 1.) in Ahnikatattva pp. 378, 389,423, in Srāddhatattva p. 242. Rarely Ragbunandana finds fault with it as on Srāddha (vol. I. p. 313). Raghunandana mentions the Brāhmanasarvasva also in (Vol. II) Suddhi p. 315, Yajurvedisrāddha p. 492 and the Panditasa rvasva in Vol. I. p. 531 (Prayascittatattva). A Sevasarvasva is mentioned in Mathapratistha (vol. II. p. 618 ), but wbether it is the same as the Śaiva-sarvasva mentioned by the Brāhmaṇasarvasva cannot be proved (though probably it is the same). He belonged to the Vatsya gotra and his father Dhananjaya was Dharmādhyaksa (verse 5 of Intro. to Brāhmaṇasarvasva ).

On him the king bestowed, while he was young, the post of Mahāmahattaka’ and later conferred on him ‘Dharmādhi. kāra’ (the office of deciding difficult matters of Dharma or the office of a judge ). Vide for the office of Mahāmabattaka’ the Bodh Gaya Inscription dated in Laksmanasena year 74 in E. I. vol. III. p. 27 at p. 30. It may be noted that Brbaspati prescribes that the king should build his palace in the middle of the fort and should have the sabha ( hall of justice ) to the

H. D.-79

626

east of the palace and the hall shoule! face the east; and, Kātyāyana states that the sabhā is called ‘Dharmādhikarana’ where the decision of the truth of the root (of disputes) is carri ed on by considering the rules of sacred law. Halāyudha had two elder brothers.853 Pasupati and īśana, of whom the former composed Srāduha-krtya–parldhati and Pākayajna-paddhati and the latter the Dvijāhnika-paddhati. He tells us in the Brāhmaṇasarvasva that he composed Jimāṁsāsarvasva, Vaiṣṇavasarvasva, Śaivasarvasva, Panditasarvasva.Si+ None of these four works has been printed so far and even Mss. of them are rare ( vide Dr. Bhattacharya’s Preface to Br. Sarvasva ).

For the genealogy of Halāyndha, vide J.A.S.B. (New Series ) Vol. XI. p. 332 where a long terligree is given by M. M. Chakravarti, which is based on the chart drawn up, by Bharatacandraśiromani for his patron, Prasannakumara Tagore and printed at the beginning of his edition of the Daya bhắga (in 1863 ). It has been shown above how such genea logies are often unreliable. Halāyudha’s father was Dhanāñ jaya who had three sons…. Pasupati, Iśāna and Halayudha. Halāyudha mentions Pasupati as ‘agraja’ (eldest or elder) in verse 24 of Bṛ. SAR. and refers to his work called ‘puddhati on srāddha. Pasupati’s puddhati is mentioned in ( vol. I) Srāddhatattva p. 213 and Pasupati is named in vol. II ) in Udvāhatattva p. 147 and Yajurvediśrāddhatattva pp. 490 494. Pasupati also composeil · Pāka-yajña’ paddhati ( vide) Intro, verse 13 to Br. Sarvasva ). īśāna-nyāyācārya is men tioned in (Vol. I) Srāddhas p. 313 and (vol. II) in Udvāha

853 61 TETHET5: yra: yigi t :119: Fata i FlTE

fari UT: ah i verse 24. 854 मीमांसासर्वस्वं वैष्णवसर्वस्वमकृतशैवसर्वस्वम् । पण्डितसर्वस्वमसौ सर्वस्वं सर्व

EPITTOTIA II verse 19.

Op D. and p. 10 of the Brāhmanagarvagra Halāyudha clearly sets forth his object ( which is of a limited scope ) in composing the work as follows :- 799aar

hittar i ST Jadi HT FETAĦizia ! ( p. 7 verse 14); FIT zajia Ta कृस्नवेदाध्ययनासमर्थानां राढीय-वारेन्द्रकद्विजातीनां काण्वशालिवाजसनेयिनां कर्मानुष्ठानार्थं प्रातदन्तधावनादि शयनान्नाह्निक-गर्भावानादि-विवाहान्त-संस्कार’ आन्याधानाद्यन्त्येष्टिपर्यन्तगायकर्मोपयुक्त-मन्त्रव्याख्या प्रस्तोतव्या । p. 10.

Halāyudha

627

p. 135. He is probably the same as the brother of Halāyudha. In verse 24 of the Br. Sarvasva Halāyudha states that his brother Īsāna wrote Dvijābnika paddhati.

The chief object 855 of the Brāhmaṇasarvasva is to explain the meaning of the mantras used by Brāhmaṇas in daily ob servances from the brushing of the teeth to going to sleep and in the saintkūrus on birth, marriage, death etc. He wrote for the Vājasaneya Kanva Sākhā and acknowledges856 his debt to Uvata who wrote a bhasia, on the Vajasaneya Samhitā in Avanti while Bhoja ruled the earth ( mahīm Bhoje praśāsati ). In some introductory verses and the several colophons of the sections of the Brālmana-sarvasva Halāyudha styles himself āvusathiku, mahadharmadhyaksti or simply durmadhya ksa, dharmadhikarin and his brother Pasupati also is styled āvilsithiku. It is rery difficult to say what the exact meaning of this last word is. It probably means one who regularly performs all the grhyc rites.$57 Āva satha’ means’a shed or hall’ and a married man has to establish a fire called grhya, aupāsana, kvasathya, or vaivāhika (Manu III. 67 ), aupasada or vairāhana. Vide H, of Dh. Vol. II p. 678 note 1615. Vide Tri. cat. of Madras Govt. Mss. for 1919-1922, pp. 5165 for a me. of Pandita sarvasva which deals with the usages of varṇas and āśramas, tithi, śuddhi, the time for śrāddha, jyotihśāstra, marriage, gifts, prāyaścitta, pratistha &c. But whether it is Halāyu dha’s work it is difficult to say from the extracts given.

The text of the Mināṁsāsarvasva ( dealing with Mimām. sā matters upto the end of the third adhyāya of the Mimāṁsā sūtra of Jaimini ) was published by M. M. Dr. Umesha Mishra in JBORS Vol. XVII pp. 227-308, 413-460 and Vol. XVIII pp. 129-200. Dr. Durgāmohan Bhattacharya ( in Introduction to Br. Sarvasva (1. XXXIX) questions Halāyudha’s author ship of that work, but he sets out hardly any grounds for his

–

hı

855 दन्तधावनमारभ्य यावदन्येष्टिमीरिता । मन्त्राणां तावता तस्मिन् व्याख्यानमुप

CITAH 11 856 व्याल्यातो मतिशालिनायमवट चार्येण वेदः परम् । अस्पष्टं तदपीत्यनेन विदुषा

विश्वप्रसिद्वैः पदैः । सन्ध्यादिद्विजकर्ममन्त्रवचसां व्याख्यानमेतत् स्तम् &c.

This is verse 30 of the Intruluction to the Brālamanasarvasra. 857 Compare TREPRIJ I. 2, 1-2 631127217TH RF 111941

g711!.

628

view. The present author thinks that it is a work of Halā yudha. The work relies principally on the Tantravārtika and Slokavārtika of Kumārila and on the Sāstradīpikā and deals with the first three udhyāyas of Pūrvamīmāṁsāsūtra and is a good handbook for beginners. It mentions Upavarsa (vol. 17 p. 233 ); Bhārata (vol. 17 p. 301 ); Mandana (vol. 17 p. 289); and Nyayaratnākara (in vol. 17 p. 231 ). For Pandita-sar vasva, vide Triennial Cat, of Govt. Or. Mss. Library, Madras No. 3458 pp. 5165-66, which deals with several matters such as varðas, āśramas, tithis, marriages, gifts, priyaścitta, pra tisthā &c.

VIU

The time when Halāyudha flourished depends to some ex tent on the time of Laksmanasena, king of Bengal. About king Laksmanasena and the era in his name great controver sies have raged for many years and it cannot be said that the question has been settled heyond cavil. Some facts gathered from the Br. Sarvasva are clear viz. that Halāyudha was the son of Dhananjaya of the Vātsyagotra who was Dharmā. dbyaksa, was opulent and yet fond of performing solemn sacrifices (Intro, verses 5 and 6 ), that Laksmanasena best owed on him patronage beyond his desire. Then the Br. Sar vasva states that Halāyudha was by Laksmanasena made

rāja pandita’ when still in his teens, that king Laksmana sena conferred the distinction of Mahāmahattaka’ on Halā yudha when he was a young man and that in his mature years he (Halāyudha ) was given the post of Dharmādhikā. rin ‘658 (i. e, of the Pariṣut or Dharmadhyaksa, a high func tionary, possibly a Judge (Intro. verse 12 ).

Verse 14 of the Intro. to Br. Sarvasva contains the clear words - Dharmadhyaksa-Halāyudhasya sadrśo nāsyāḥ priyaḥ kopyabhūt’. On p. 132 of the Br. Sarvasva he describes himself as the officer entrusted with the moneys set apart by

- — - - —- - — र बाल्ये ख्यापितराजपडितपदः श्वेतांशुबिम्बोज्वलच्छत्रोसिक्तमहामहत्तकपदं

दत्त्वा नवे यौवने । यस्मै योवनशेषयोग्यमखिलक्ष्मापालनारायणः श्रीमाल्ँल. श्मणसेनदेवनृपतिर्धर्माधिकारं ददौ ॥ Intro. verse 12 of ब्राह्मणसर्वस्व. vids E. I. vol. XIV p 150 at p. 160 of the Vaihati yrapt of king Ballāla gena, fatber of Lakṣınanasena, where a mahādharmādbyaksa is mentioned among great functionaries of State.

Halayudha

629

the Gauda king for religious and charitable purposes. The Matsyapurāṇa 859 states the qualifications of a Dbarmādhikārin. Halāyudha’s career runs to some extent along that of Laks manasena, though it is likely that Halāyudha might have been some years younger than king Laksmanasena.

From the data furnished in the Brāhmaṇasarvasva 360 and from certain facts stated in the Adbhutasāgara and the Dānasāgara the time when Halāyudha flourished can be ascertained as falling within limits acceptable to most scholars. From the Br. Sarvasva we learn that Halāyudha was patro nized by king Laksmanasena when H. was quite a young man. We have some evidence not depending on La. Sam. to

establish the time when this should have happened.

King Ballālasena of Bengal began the composition of the Adbhutasāgara in the year 1090 of the Saka era (i. e. 1168-9 A. D. ), but before the work was finished Ballālasena died after requesting his son to complete it and king Laksmanagena made efforts to complete it. We do not know how much time had been spent on the proposed work, Adbhutasāgara, when Ballālasena passed away, nor how much time was taken by Laksmanasena to complete it. We may guess that it was completed before or about 1170-1 A. D. at the earliest. That these verses about the dates in the Adbhutasāgara are not later additions is testified by a reference in the Todarānanda samhitā-saukhya about the position of the constellation of the Great Bear according to the Adbhutasāgara in the saka year

1082 (1160-1 A. D.) when Ballālasena was ruling.

The passages quoted in the note establish that the Ad bhuta sāgara was begun in 1168 A. D. by Ballālasena, who passed away before it was completed and that it was complet ed by Laksmanasena, son of Ballālasena (i. e. some time later than 1168-9 A.D.).861 This shows that Laksmanasena began to

859 समः शत्रौ च मित्रे च धर्मशास्त्रविशारदः । विप्रमुख्यः कुलीनश्च धर्माधिकरणी

Haa Il 44. 215. 24. 860 Erha Tiga T OTE FITOT I gacyana then reyni afarian

1. p. 132. 861 Te Faith CTET ( 9068 ) BISGAHINT# T15-ayati477

स्तम्भबाहुर्महीपतिः ॥ ग्रन्थेऽस्मिन्नसमाप्त एव तनये साम्राज्यरक्षामहा दीक्षापर्वणि

(Continued on the next page)

630

History of Dhurmuśīstra

rule about 1169 A. D. The Saduktikarṇāmetas42 of Sridhara dāsa tells us that he completed the work in the Saka year 1127 (1205-6 A. D.) in the 27th year of Laksmanasena’s reign i. e. Laksmanasena began to reign about 1178-79 A. D. and ruled till 1205-6 (probably only in Bihar as he lost Bengal in 1200 A. D.). Thus there are two authenticated dates for the acce ssion of Laksmanasena viz. 1168-69 A. D. and 1178-9 A. D. At the end of the Dānasāgara ( edited by Dr. Bhabatosh Bhattacharya and published B. I. Series in 1953)a verse says the Dānasāgara was composed at the end of Saka year 1091 (1169-70 A. D. ).863 Therefore, the literary activity of Halā yudha would have to be assigned to the period 1160-1200 A, D. The Br. Sarvasva and the Pandita-sarvasva are quoted by Raghunandana in the Smrtitattva as stated above.

( Continued from the previous puge ) दक्षिणे निजकृतेर्निष्पत्तिमस्थापयत् । नानादानतिलाम्बुसंवलनभं सूर्यात्मजासङ्गमं । गङ्गायां विरचय्य निर्जरपुरं भार्यानुयातो गतः ॥ श्रीमल्लक्षमण भूपतिरतिश्लाघ्यो यदुद्योगतो निष्पन्नोऽद्भुतसागरः कृतिरसौ बल्लाल भूमिभुजः । ख्यातः etc. p. 4. ( Prabhakari Press 1905). In the Govt, Iss. Lib. at the B. O. R. Institute Poona, Is. No. 231 of 1887-91 of this work gives the reading as ‘शाके खनवखेन्द्वब्दे ‘‘आरेभे’ (i e. in Saka 1090). Vide अद्भुतसागर P. 125 अथाद्भुतारम्भशकाब्दा पष्टयब्दयुगगणनम् । खनव दशोनशकाब्दात् ( १०९० ) षड्गुणिता-पुनः कृताब्धिगुणात् ।. Vide I. H, Q. Vol. V pp. 133-13) where Prof. Chintaharan Cakravarti quotes this and other passages for the date of Ballālasena.

अश्विनाद्यभिप्रायेण चादभुतसागरे भुजवसुदशमित ( 11082 ) शाके श्रीमद्वल्लाल सेनराज्यादौ । वकषष्टिंभोगा मुनयस्वासन् विशाखामु ॥ तस्य चाभिप्रायोयम् । folio 39b of टोडरानन्दसंहितासौख्य ( Is. No. 519 of 1896-92 in the (iovt.

Mss. Lib. at the B. 0. R. I. Poona }. 862 शांकऽत्र सप्तविंशत्यधिकशतोपेतदशशते शरदाम् । श्रीमल्लक्ष्मणसेनक्षितिपस्य

रसैकविशऽब्दे । सवितुगत्या फाल्गुनविशेषु परार्थहेतवे कुतुकात् । श्रीधरदासे नेदं सदुक्तिकणोमृतं चके || verses 3 and 4 at the end of the work. The clause rasaikavimsebde’ in Saduktikarṇāmrta is awkward. Scholais bare beld that it means in the 27th yoar’. The usual rule ‘ain kanim imato gatih would yield the figure 216. In this case

scholars take the words as equal to 6 plus 21, which is unusual. 863 निखिलभूपचतिलक-श्रीमद्बहालसेनदेवेन । पूर्णे शशिनवदशमित ( १०९१)

शकवर्षे दानसागरो रचितः ।। दानसागर p. 7222

ters73. Halāyudha

631

From Moslem historians it is learnt that Laksmana sena was defeated by Bakhtiyar Khilji in 1200 A. D. and lost Bengal.

A few words may be said here about the La. Sam. A large volume of literature has gathered on this subject. I do not propose to enter into great details or to examine the several theories that have been advanced.

A few salient points alone would be mentioned. Some undisputed facts may be first stated.

The La. Sam. is still popular in north Bihar and its first year is now regarded as 1119-20 A. D. How and when the La. Saṁ. came to be used in Mithilā is still a matter of conjectur es. It is also clear that Laksmanasena and his sons do not employ the La. Sam. in their Inscriptions.

Kielhorn concluded that the Sena era began in Sake 1041 i. e. 1119 A. D. ( vide I. A. 19 p. 1-7). The era as employed to-day in Mithilā is usually associated with the birth of Laksmanasena. Kielhorn relied upon Abul Fazl’s account that the era started in 1041 śke and on his own examination of six dates. Dr. Rajendralal Mitra (in J. A. S. B. vol. 47 pp. 398 ff) held that the era was started about 1106 A. D. Subhadra Jha (JBORS. Vol. XX pp. 20 ff) places the starting point of La. Sam. between 1108-1120 A. D. on the basis of different calculations. The spurious Bisa pi grant of Śivasim hadeva to Vidyāpati mentious years in four eras prevalent in Mithila (vide I. A. vol. 14 pp. 190–91 ), but hardly any reli ance can be placed on it. Great differences of opinion exist as to the origin of the La. Sam., l’articularly whether it starts from the year of Laksmanasena’s birth or from his accession to the throne or whether, after the destruction of the last Hindu dynasty in Bengal, people started the era to preserve the memory of the Hindu rule. K. P. Jayaswal (in JBORS vol. XX pp. 20 ff) discussed this topic with some elaboration. He set out eighteen dates in La. Sam. occurring along with Saka or Samvat dates or both and held that Kielhorn’s date was correct. Dr. R. C. Majuindar (in “History of Bengal’ vol. I. pp. 233 ff’) tried to refute Jayaswal’s views and arrived at the conclusion that the initial year of the La. Sam. varied between 1108 and 1120 A. D. Some scholars have been influe. nced by the hingraphy of Dharmasvāmin ( a Tibetan pilgrim

632

who visited Bodh Gaya in 1235 A. D. ), Dr. Roerich published an English translation of the Tibetan mouk’s life with the Tibetan text and an Introduction (in 1959). Dr. Roerich states (p. XIV of Intro.) that among the kings the pilgrim visited is Buddhasena, described as king of Magadha residing at Vajrāsana or Bodh Gaya. He met the king in 1234 A. D. There are some inscriptions of the ruler of Bodh Gaya that use the La. Sam. There is an inscription of Jayasena, son of Buddhasena. The Janibigha inscription of Jayasena is dated in Laksmanasena’s ‘Atītarājye La. Saṁ. 83’. Vide JBORS vol. IV pp. 266-272 and JBORS vol. V pp. 273-280 ( Panday). If we take 1118-9 A. D. as the initial year of La. Sam. then the meeting with Jayasena should have taken place about 1201-2 A. D. That is impossible on the evidence of the Tibe tan hermit who met the father Buddha sena in 1234 A. D. So this makes 1118-9 A. D. as the initial date of La. Sam. un tenable. Vide Dr. Roerich’s Introduction pp. 13-18 for further details. Dr. D. C. Sircar (in I. H. Q. vol. 34 pp. 21 28 ) also refers to the Tibetan pilgrim’s life and holds (on the whole evidence) that the La. Sam was originally counted from the date of the accession of king Laksmanasena of Bengal and Bihar about 1179 A, D., although its starting point was later supposed to be some date between 1106-1119 A., D. through confusion. Dr. B. P. Sinha (in JBRS Vol. 42 pp. 76 81 ) points out that La. Sam. is found in Mithilā Mss. only one hundred years after Laksmanasena’s death. Reference may be made to two recent papers submitted to the Indian History Congress at Poona in 1963 ( vide Proceedings, pub. in Calcutta 1964 ) viz by Prof. Radhakrishna Choudhary pp. 93-99 and by Prof. Sukhamaya Upadhyaya pp. 196-202, which latter holds that the initial year of the La. Sam varied between 1080 and 1129 A. D.

Sourindra Mohan Tagore (introduction to Kavirahasya p. I-II) says that Ādiśūra brought to Bengal five Brāhmaṇas from Kanoj of whom Bhatta Nārāyaṇa was the most famous and was the author of the Prayogaratna and also of the Veni samhāra and that Halāyudha was 16th in descent from that Nārāyana. These traditions of the matchmakers of Bengal and panegyrists of big families are entirely worthless for lite rary and chronological purposes, particularly for events of comparatively early times. In their zeal to extol their

Halāyudha

633

patron’s families to the skies they were most unscrupulous and threw to the winds all chronology. The Prayogaratna was composed at Benares by Bhatta Nārāyana whose family migrated from Paithan in the 16th century, while the Veni samhāra was composed about a thousand years earlier. Yet both works are fathered upon Nārāyana, the ancestor of the rich and influential Tagore family.

Halāyudha, the author of the Brāhmaṇasarvasva, is, it appears, different from another Halāyudha who was a jurist. In the first place, Halāyudha, author of the Br. sarvasva, states that he composed four other works, all ending in the word. sarvasva’ but makes no mention of any work compos ed by him on substantive or adjective law or on both.

The Vivādaratnākara mentions Halāyudha 53 times and Halāyudba-nibandha three times. The Grhastharatnākara quotes it eight times and the Kr̥tyaratnākara quotes it on pp. 319, 327, 332.

From Raghunandana’s Dāyatattva it appears that Halā yudha had composed a work on law. For example, Halā yudha appears to have held that, if some joint family property was not divided among the coparceners at a partition through ignorance and remained in the possession of one member of the family, it may be partitioned again, but the ignorant possessor should not be charged with theft ( vide Vol. II Dāyatattva p. 182 ).864 Agaio, the Dāyatattva (vol. II p. 195 ) mentions the wrong reading of Yāj II. 139 in the Mitāksarā, Pārijāta and Halāyudha due to the errors of scribes quoted above.

In this connection it is necessary to say a few words on the two words ‘Vyavahāra’ and ‘Vivāda’.

In the Br. Up. V. 14. 4 we have the famous remark *caksur-vai satyam’ and it is added ’therefore when two persons come disputing about a matter, one saying ‘I saw’ it’ and another saying ‘I heard it’, we believe him alone who says “I saw it’.” Here the word ‘vivāda’ is used in the

864 Vide arata (vol. II p. 182 ) fhearca Feath TÀ qat-*

श्वौर्यदोषाभावं ज्ञापयतीति विश्वरूपहलायुधप्रभृतयः स्तेयधात्वनिष्पत्तिरिति

अभिप्रायः ।

H. D.–80

634

meaning dispute’ and it is also emphasised that seeing a matter is superior to hearing evidence about it. In the same Upanisad (VI. 1. 7) it is said that these prānas ( speech and others having a dispute as to who among them was superior approached-Brahman &c. Therefore the word ‘vivāda is ancient enough. The word ‘vyavahāra’ was certainly known before Pāṇini ( 11. 3. 57 ) in the sense of ’transactions of sale and purchase and the like’. Ap. Dh, S. II. 11. 28, Manu VIII. 8, Yāj. II. 12 and 81 employ the word Vivāda. Gaut. Dh. S. XI. 19. employs the word Vyvavahāra in the sense of ineans of settling or deciding disputes’. Vas. Dh, S. 16. 1-3 (Atha vyavahārāh i Rājā Mantrī vā sadaḥ-kāryāni kuryāt dvayor vivadamānayoḥ pakṣāntaram na gacchet 1 ). Manu VIII. I, Yāj. I. 327, 360 and II. I employ the word (in the plural ) and the sense appears to be the complaints or suits brought by the subjects before the king or the court of justice and Manu VIII. 2, 8-9 indicate that the word ‘kāryāni’ is used by it in the same sense as Vyavabārān. There are 18 titles (called vyavahārajiadas or vivāda padas ) under which all legal proceedings before the king or the court of justice are classified in Manu VIII. 4. 7 and Yāj. It appears to the present writer that the words .vivāda’ and ‘vyavahāra’ were often regarded even by early writers as synonymous. For example, in Yāj. II. 18 ( sapanaś-ced-vivādah syāt ) it is provided that, if a dispute is brought ( before the king or court ) with a bet, then the losing party should be made to pay a fine and also the amount of the bet to the king and the successful party should be awarded the property (or amount in dispute ). The Mit. on Yāj. II, 18 ( Sapayas-ced vivādaḥ gyāt ) paraphrases the word ‘vivādah’ as ‘vyavahārah’. It should be noted that Yāj. II. 4 and 305, contain the same clause viz. ‘vivādād-dvigunam damam’. Yāj. II. 4 prescribes that where the members of the court ( sabbyah) render a deci Bion opposed to the dicta of Smṛtis, each of them should be made to pay a fine double of what would have been payable by the party defeated in the litigation. Yāj. II. 305 refers to cases, where, after a matter is decided by a court, a review of judgment is sought and the decision is set aside on the ground of miscarriage of justice due to the sabhyas having given a decision opposed to the rules of the smrtis or owing to their being influenced partiality or by bribery and the like. It should be noted that as early as the Amarakośa ( not later

Halāyudha

635

than the 5th century A. D. as shown in H. of Dh. Vol. V. p. 840 n. 1367 ) Vivāda and Vyavahāra are said to be synonyms ( vivādo vyavahāraḥ syāt). It is further provided by Manu (8. 43 ) that the King or the man appointed by him as Judge should not himself start a court proceeding against a person. Medhātithi on Manu VIII. 3 expressly states that the latter half (astādaśasu mārgesu) has in view the vivādapadas. They are also spoken of as vyavahārapadas, because, in bringing a suit one has to specify the cause of action from among the eighteen. Manu also ( in VIII. 8 ) employs the words ‘sthāna’ instead of ‘pada’ and ‘kārya ‘in the sense of vya vahāra (suit or proceeding). Br. quoted by the Vivāda ratnākara ( P. 4 ) says ‘vivādakāraṇānyatra padāni śrṇutā dhunā’ on which the Vivādaratnākara remarks ‘padāni adhi karaṇādi rṇādīni’. Aparārka (on Yāj. 11.5) after quoting Manu 8. 43 ) remarks’ kāryam vyavahāro vivāda iti yāvat’. Early Smrti works deal with both adjective law and substantive law. For example, the Manusmrti (in chap. VIII. 57-130 ) deals at great length with the law relating to witnesses, oaths, oral evidence, punishments for false depositions and claims. In the same chapter it deals with ādhi, upanidhi, niksepa, possession and ownership, money-lending, and rates ofinterest, topics of Dattāpradāpika and Vetanasyānaprakriya, krītānuśaya, svāmipālavivāda, boundary disputes, abuse and defamation, partition, succession and inheritance, marriage and mixed unions, their children and their rights, the four varṇas and their duties and a vocations, offences and puni shments and so on. Yāj. also in the second section first deals with the four stages of a law- suit, viz. plaint, reply, proof of one’s claim ( by documents, witnesses &c.) and success or failure of the suit and then proceeds to lay down rules about recovery of debts, pledges and other matters in which dis putes ( vivādas ) arise. Even in comparatively early times the Nārada-smrti dealt only with the procedural law and the substantive law. The Vyavahāra-mayūkha of Nilakantha not only deals with the procedural law, but also with substantive law. On the other hand, the Vivādatāndara of Kamalakara bhatta (first cousin of Nilakantha ) not only deals with sub stantive law (of partition and the rest) but also with the four stages of a suit. There are authors, who wrote separate treatises on vyavahāra and vivādu; for example, Candeśvara composed Vivādaratnākara and also Vyavahāraratnākara and

636

History of Dhurmaśāstra

there are two works by Vācaspati called Vivādacintamani and Vyavahāracintamani. Vide Dr. Rocher’s paper in J. 0. I. (Baroda ) vol. V, pages 249–265 for Vivādaratnākara and Vyavahāra-ratnākara of Candeśvara

In this connection it would be proper to refer briefly to the careful and scholarly work done by Dr. Ludo Rocher, a Belgian scholar, on Halāyudha. In J. O. I. ( Baroda, Vol. III, 1953–54 pp. 328–344 ) he brought together a collection of fragments of vivācupadas quoted as Halāyudha’s or from Halāyudhanibandha ( he lealt with 34 extracts only in Vol. III ). Then in J. O. I. ( Baroda ) Vol. IV pp. 13-32 he added extracts Nos. 35-102. In J. (). I. ( Baroda ) Vol. V, pp. 325-329 he contributed a paper Halāyudhanibandha on Legal procedure i. e. on Vyavahāra’ (only seven fragments ).

From the fragments it is possible to infer that Halāyudha wrote a pibandha comprising not only substantive law (debts and other topics ) but also procedural law. Halāyudha is quoted dozens of times in the Dandaviveka of Vardhamāna but his work is once mentioned as Halāyudha-nibandha on p. 150 of that work and twice as ‘Halāyudha on pp. 119 and 152’. This work deals with six kinds of offences and punish ments for them. Thus it is a work on vyavahāra’.

Then Dr. Rocher published in 1956 at Ghent the text of the Vyayahāracintāmaṇi ( of Vāca spati-miśra ) with English translation and notes and several Appendices including an alphabetical index of quotations in V. C. from Dharmaśāstra works.

There is yet another Halāyudha. On the Srāddhakalpa sūtra of Kātyāyana a commentary called Prakāśa was compos ed by Halāyudha, son of Saṅkarsana ( vide BBRAS cat. No. 518, p. 170 ). In this cominentary he refers to Karka, Kāma. dhenu, Kalpataru, Govindarāja, Laksmanopādhyāya, Mitā ksarā, Saṅkhardhara and Pasupati. He is therefore later than 1150 A. D. He cannot be identified with the author of the Kavirahasya, as the latter flourished much earlier under the Rāstrakūtas. The special merit of Halāyadha concerning the Br. Sarvasva is that he is much earlier than the great brothers Sāyana-Mādhava who composed Bhūsyus on the Vedas. He explains several hundred mantras which occur in the Rgveda as well as in the Yajurveda. He mentions among his predecessors on the same task Uvaṭa (Br. Sarvasva

Halāyudha

637

pp. 233, 256 ) and Gunavisnu (p. 256 Br. Sarvasva ). Halā. yudha’s task was, as compared with Sāyana’s, very limited, but he brings yreat learning to the task. There is ample material for comparison between the two. Numerous mantras have been explained by both e. g. the mantra at bathing one self ‘Imam me Gange’ (Br. S. pp. 22-23 and Rg. X. 75. 5). Marjana-mantra ‘Apo hi sthā’ (Rg. X. 9. 1, Vāj. S. XI. 50 ); the Gāyatri-mantra ( Rg. 111. 62. 10, Vāj. S. III. 35, Br. Sar. pp. 37-38 ),865 San-no devir Rg. X. 9.4, Vāj. S. 36. 12, Br. Sar. pp. 92-93 ); the Aghamarsana mantras (Rg. X. 190. 1-3, Br. Sar, pp. 99 ).

There is another work called Samvatsarapradipa profu sely quoted by Raghunandana (as in Vol. I Tithitattva pp. 3, 34, 43, 46, 49, 106, Srāddhatattva p. 254). In Ekādasi-tattva (vol. II. p. 51 ) Raghunandana ascribes it to Halāyudha and in Suddhitattra Vol. II. p. 327 also. Some scholars hold that this is Halāyudha’s work ( vide Dr. R. C. Hazra in I. H. Q. Vol. 21, p. 54 ), while Dr. Dinesh Chandra Bhattacharya (1. H. Q. Vol. 21 p. 147 ) holds that the author of this work is different from the author of the Brāhmaṇasarvasva. The editor of the Br. Sarvasva ( Intro. pp. XL-XLI ) bolds that they are the same and I agree with him.

For reasons of space it is impossible to illustrate Halā yudha’s principles and methods of the exposition of vedic Mantras in the Brāhmaṇa sarvasva and the results arrived at by him. One principle he advocates viz. the meaning of single words in the mantras may have to be controlled by the sense of the sentence or sentences gathered as a whole. For example, the one Mantra San-nu devīr-abhistaye’ (Rg. X. 9. 4) is employed as ‘snāna mantra ‘, as also in the worship of planets Saturn ( e. g. vide Yāj. I. 301 ) and in the Brahma yajña (Br. S. p. 110 ). In pp. 37 ff, he well explains the Gāyatri-mantra and he gives it striking explanation of the Aghamarsana mantrase6 of which there is no pudapātha even.

865

He explains the Gayatrimantra on pp. 37-40 of tbe Br. sarvasva and it is a remarkablo testimony to the Yogiyajanvalkyasmrti published by the Kaivalyadhūma, Lonavala (in 19.31 ), that 21 verses from it are cited by Hallyuciba in explaining Gayatrimantrit.

638

History of Dhurmaśāstra

ULD

Ancient Vedic texts insist that one engaged in the perfor mance of a sacrifice or the like must know in the case of a wary mantra the sage, metre, the deity and the purpose ( viniyoga ) for which it is employed and state what undesirable conse quences employing mantras without knowing these details will follow.

866

Halayudha’s remarks on the Aghamarsana mantra are interesting : अस्याघमर्षणस्य व्याख्यानमाचरितुं ‘हृदि प्रकम्पो जायते यतः सर्ववेदसारभूतोऽ त्यन्तगुप्तश्चायं मन्त्रः । अस्य पदपाठमात्रं च नास्ति ब्राह्मणनिरुक्तादिकमप्यस्य नास्ति । इत्थमेतदीयव्याख्यानानुगुणं कमप्युपायमप्राप्य यदेतदस्य स्वकपोलमात्रेण व्याख्यानमाचरणीयं तदतिसाहसम् । ब्राह्मणसर्वख pp. 99-100. Still he makes an effort to give a meaning of the Aghamarṣanamantra viz, Rg. X. 190. 1-3 as follows : ( on pp. 99-101 ).

मतं च सत्यं च परं ब्रह्म उच्यते । … आसीदित्यध्याहार्य । तेनायमर्थः । ऋतं च सत्यं च परं ब्रह्मासीत् । एतन महाप्रलयावस्था प्रतिपादिता । ततः तदनन्तरं …रात्रिरजायत रात्रिः समुत्पन्ना । सकलमन्धकारमयमासीदित्यर्थः । ततः तदनन्तरं महाप्रलयावसाने सृष्टयारम्भसमये तपसः अदृष्टान् …… अभीद्धान् सर्वतोगतवृत्त्येद्धादित्यर्थः । एवंभूताददृष्टात् पुनः समुद्रोऽजायत । किंभूतः समुद्रः । अर्णः पानीयं तदस्यान्ताति अर्णवः पानीययुक्तः समुद्रः सञ्जात इत्यर्थः । ततः समुद्रादर्णवात् धाता स्रष्टा अजायत । किं भूतो धाता, मिषतः अप्रकटीभवतो विश्वस्य वशी । स धातो यथापूर्व यथाक्रमं मूर्या नन्दमसौ अकल्पयत् निर्मितवान् । किंभूतो सूर्याचन्द्रमसौ-अहोरात्राणि विदधत् दिवा रात्रिं च कुर्वाणी । ततः सूर्यचन्द्रयोरुत्पत्त्यनन्तरं संवत्सरः अध्यजायत समुत्पन्नः । अथो अनन्तरं दिवं च पृथिवीं चान्तरीक्षं स्वश्च एतान् लोकान् स एव धाता अकल्पयत् । … अत्र स्वःशब्देन नक्षत्रलोकोपरिस्थः वर्गलोक उच्यते । दिवःशब्देन तु तदूर्वस्थं महर्लोकादिलोकचतुष्टयम् । तदनेन मन्त्रेण सृष्टिस्थितिप्रलयाः प्रतिपादिताः ।

Compare निरुक्त I. 16 अर्थवन्तः शब्दसामान्यात् । एतद्वै यज्ञस्य समृद्ध यद्रपसमृद्धं यत्कर्म क्रियमाणमृगयजुवाभिवदति च ब्राह्मणम् । This is ऐतरेय ब्राह्मण, which omits the two words यजुर्वा, शङ्कराचार्य in his bhāsya on Brahmasutra I. 3. 30 quotes a ruti ‘श्रुतिरपि…दर्शयति “यो ह वा अविदितार्षयच्छन्दोदैवतव्राह्मणेन मन्त्रेण याजयति वाध्यापयति वा स्थाणु वर्च्छति गर्त वा ‘प्रतिपद्यते’ इत्युपक्रम्य ‘तस्मादेतानि मन्त्र मन्त्र विद्यान्’

इति ।"

Halāyudka

639

The dharmādhyaksa of Laksmanasena was a son of Dhanañjaya, while the author of the Prakāśa was ā son of Saṅkarṣana. The Srāddhakāśikā of Krsna (Gujarati Press ed. p. 430) on the Navakandikā or Srāddhakalpasūtra of Kātyāyana says that first Karka 867 explained the sūtra in pregnant words and then Halāyudha explained it and yet it remained as difficult as before. Krsha is mentioned in the Nirnayasindhu and the Srāddhamayukha of Nilakaytha. Therefore Halāyudba, the author of the Prakāśa on Kātyā. yana, must have flourished before 1509 A. D. and later than 1150 A. D.

There is a work called Karmopadesini ( a manual on the daily religious rites ) ascribed to Halāyudha; vide JASB vol. XI ( new series ) p. 335. This work has been mentioned several times by Raghunandana in his Tattvas e. g. ( Vol. I ) on tithi p. 149, Srāddha p. 195, Prāyaścitta 492, Samskāra 863; (vol. II) Suddhi pp. 323, 334, 358. But in all these places the name of the author is not mentioned by Raghunandana M. M. Chakravarti points out that it quotes the Kalpataru and Sūlapāni on Srāddba. In that case it cannot be placed earlier than the 15th century A. D. and its author would be entirely different from the author of the Brāhmaṇasarvasva.

Vide J. A. S. B. 1915 pp. 327-336 where M. M, Chakra varti brought together interesting information about Halāyudha.