कल्पान्तरे विश्वासटिप्पन्यः

Bhavadevabhatta

The Vyavahāratattva of Raghunandana and the Vira mitroda ya tell us that Bhavadevabhatta composed a work call ed Vyavahāratilaka on judicial procedure. The Vyavahāra tattva 868 tells us that Bhavadeva read ‘astavyasta padavyāpi’ instead of ‘yadvyastapadamavyāpi’ in Kātyāyana’s verses

867 कर्को व्याख्यदिदं गभीरवचनैः सूत्रं यतोस्मादभूद् दुर्बोधं च ततो हलायुध इति

व्याख्यत्तथा यस्फुटम् ॥ 868 ‘अस्तव्यस्तपदव्यापि अनन्वितार्थपदव्याप्तमिति व्यवहारतिलके भवदेवभट्टः।

TERRITT (p. 297, vol. II, Jivananda ); vacaa Fogg146641 पीति पाठं लिखित्वानन्वितार्थपदव्याप्तमिति व्याख्यातं व्यवहारतिलके । वीरः

P. 85.

640

enumerating the blemishes of uttura (defendant’s reply). The Vyavahāratattva 869 mentions Bhavadevabhatta’s discussion and illustration of a reply ( uttara ) with a weak plea (kārana ). The same work informs us that Bhavadeva held the same views on adverse possession as Srikara, Bālaka and others did ( vide note 624 above), The Vividacandra of Misarumisra87o several times refers to the views of Bhavadeva. The Viramitrodaya371 gives in great detail the remarks of Bhavadeva on the well-known text of Sumantu about killing an ātatāyin. The Sarasvativilāsa 672 and the Vaijayanti of Nandapandita quote the very same views of Bhavadevabhatta on Sumantu’s text.

The foregoing brief discussion shows that Bhavadeva’s Vyavahāratilaka must have been a valuable work on judicial procedure. Unfortunately that work has not yet come to light..

Bhavadeva also wrote several other works.

He appears to bave composed a work called Sambandha viveka. In the Saṁskāratattva (Jivananda, Vol. I, p. 890 ) Raghunandana states that Bhavadeva was the author of a work called Sambandhaviveka. The Udvāhatattva also says

870

869 दुर्बलकारणोत्तरं यथा ममेयं भूः क्रमागतत्वादिति वायुक्ते ममेयं भूर्दशवर्षभुज्य

मानत्वादिति प्रत्युत्तरं तत्तु धनमात्रप्रयुक्तं पश्यतोब्रुवतो हानिर्धनस्य दशवार्षि कीति याज्ञवल्कीयं बीजे किं तु नेतयुक्तं परेण भुज्यमानाया भूमेविंशतिवार्षि कांति भूमिमात्रविषयकं तत्परार्धेनापादितत्वादिति भवदेवभट्टाः । व्यवहारतत्त्व p. 208. यस्य दृश्येत सप्ताहादुक्तसाक्ष्यस्य साक्षिणः । अत्र यद्यपि भवदेवेन कृतदिव्यस्येति लिखित तथाप्युक्तसाक्ष्यस्येत्यभिधानादकृतदिव्यस्यापि द्रष्टव्यं कृतदिव्यस्यति प्रायोवादः । विवादचन्द्र ( folio 51 a of ms. No. 57 of 1883-84 in the Govt. Mss. library at the B.O. R. Institute, Poona) भवदेवेन तु न रोगाग्नि

ज्ञातिमरणं शुद्धिं तस्य विनिर्दिशेदिति लिखितम् | ibid ( folio 55 b ). 871 अत्र भवदेवभट्टः । न च सुमन्तुवचनेन नाततायिवधदोषोन्यत्र गोब्राह्मणादित्यनेन

विरोधः सूत्रच्छेदापरिज्ञानात् । तथाहि सूत्रत्रयमिदम् । आततायिवधे नेत्येकम् ।

दोषोन्यत्रत्यारम् । गोब्राह्मणात्स्नातः प्रायश्चित्तं कुर्यादित्यन्यत् । वीर. p. 22. 872_Vide स. वि. p. 154 ( Mysore ed. ). and वैजयन्ती on विष्णुधर्मसूत्र

189 ( I. O. cat. No. 915 folio 50a ).74. Bhavadevabhatta

641

the same (Vol. II pp. 111 and 143 Bhavadevabhattīya sambandhaviveka ). Vide an informing paper on ‘Bhattabha vadeva of Bengal’ by Manmohan Chakravarti in J. A. S. B, for 1912 pp. 333-348 and New Indian Antiquary Vol. VI (1943– 4 ) pp. 252-260 for text of the Sambandhaviveka (based on Manu III. 5 asapindā ca yā’ & ) and English Translation, by Prof S. C. Banerji of Dacca.

In the Govt. Mss. library at the B. O. R. Institute Poona, there are two Mss. (No. 9 of 1895-98 and No. 263 of 1887-91 ) of a work of Bhavadeva variously named Karmānusthāna paddhati or Daśakarma-paddhati or Daśakarmadīpikā. M. M. Chakravarti in his informing article on Bhavadeva (J. A. S. B. 1912, pp. 333-348 ) says that the work has often been printed. I was not able to secure a copy. That work873 deals with the ten principal rites and ceremonies to be performed by Brāhmaṇas who study the Sāmaveda. The principal subjects are :- The Homa to the nine planets ( Navagraha-homa ), mātrpājā, pānigrahaṇa and other essential rites of marriage, homa on the fourth day after marriage, garbhādhāna, puṁsa vana, sīmantonnayana, sosyantihoma (homa when a woman is on the point of delivery), jātakarma, niskramana, nāmakarana, annaprāśana, cudākarana, upanayana, samāvartana (the student’s returning from the teacher’s house after finishing his studies ), Sālākarma (first entrance in a new house ).

Another work of Bhavadeva bhatta ( who is called Bāla valabhībhujanga therein ) is styled Prāyaścitta-Prakarana (or Nirūpana ). That was published by the Varendra Research Society (Rajshahi, Bengal in 1927), edited by Nani Gopal Majumdar. In this work he deals with the five grave sins mentioned by Manu (XI. 54 ) viz. killing a brāhmaṇa, drinking surā, theft (of gold ), adultery with the wife of a guru and contact with these ( for a year or more ) and also with lesser sins or misconduct such as killing a woman, killing a cow, breaking another’s bones, killing beings other than human, eating food from the vessel of a sūdra, touching a washerman or one who deals in hides, taking food without wearing Yajñopavita, penances for condemned

873 It begins a642799agatan i flTÈTICAETEÒ ELUT

नमः ॥ गृह्यसूत्रार्थमालोक्य छन्दोगानामियं क्रमात् । कृता श्रीभवदेवेन कर्मा

1919921a: 11 1. D.-81

642

marriages, purification of waters, foodgrains, cooked food &c. Another work composed by him appears to have been called

Nirnayāmṛta’( Ābnikatattva, vol. I p. 326, ‘Bhavadeviya-, Nirṇayāmṛte Sumantuḥ’). This work was held in high esteem, as the Smṛtiratnākara of Vedācārya places Bhava deva after Manu among the authorities on prāyaścitta that he follows.874 The Varsa-kriyā-kaumudi of Govindānanda (B. I. series ) quotes a text from Bhavadevabhatta on the praya scitta for eating in a solar or lunar eclipse ( p. 106 ).

There is yet another work of Bhavadevabhatta called Tautātitamatatilaka, a ms. of which exists in the India Office (Cat. Part IV p. 190, No. 2166). That work is concerned with elucidating the doctrines of the Purvamīmāṁsā system from the standpoint of Kumārilabhatta (who is also called

Tautātita ).

The Tautātitamatatilaka deals with the adhikaranas and not with every sutra in the Mimāṁsāśāstra in the first three adhyāyas of the Pūrvamīmāṁsāsūtra of Jaimini. It has been published in the Princess of Wales Sarasvatibhavana Series (Benares ) in two volumes, the first in 1939 ( pp. 482 ) ed. by Pandits A. Chinnaswami Sastri and Pattabhiram Sastri and the sccond volume ( pp. 483-870 and Index of Quotations pp. 871-907 ( 1944 ) edited by the same scholars. The Sanskrit Introduction sets out all the verses of the prasasti of Bhavadeva inscribed on the wall round the temple building

The first few verses are quoted below.875

Besides the Vedas, the Brāhmanas, and Jaimini’s sūtras, the Srautasūtra of Āpastamba ( frequently ) and those of Drābyāyana and Satyāsādha ( rarely ), the bhāsya of Sabara, Pāṇini, Manusmrti, Gautama-dharmasūtra are cited.

874 मन्वादिस्मृतिशास्त्रार्थ भवदेवादिसंमतम् । प्रायश्चित्तमहं वक्ष्ये विज्ञाय पापनि

Befocht u Hall (1. O. Cat. p. 473 ). र यन्नाभिनलिनलीनब्रह्मचतुर्तदनसदनगायेन । रमते सरखती सह तस्मै चास्यै

नमस्कुर्मः । मामध्ययनदशायामुवाच वाचं दर्शि स्वप्ने बालवलभीभुजङ्गापरनामा त्वमास भवदेव । तेनायमुद्यमो मे विद्यादान्न जातु सञ्जातः । तस्मादिहावधानं विधातुमधिकुर्वते मुधियः । अजिता नैव सुबोधा सक्षिप्तं नाऽनुपदमतो लोकाः ETICHET FIAT 7 Hā NaCT974 11 3 Fat was a commentary on

Kumārila’s work.

Bhavulevabhatta

643

Hundreds of verses are quoted from Kumārild’s Tantra vārtika and Sloka vārtika. Tautātita appears to have been given as a sobriquet to Kumārila. In the drama Prabodhacandrodaya (II. 3 ) we have a verse about the names of some of the works and authors on Pūrvamimāṁsā put in the mouth of a chara

cter ‘Abankāra’, the first pāda of which is ’naivāśrāvi guror-matam na viditam Tautātitam darśanam’ Some edi tions read ‘Kaumārilam darśanam’ for Tautātitam darśa nam’. But the com. called Prakāśa’ had the word ‘Tautā titam’; being unfamiliar to most people it was probably changed to ‘Kaumārilam ’ by some later scribes.

It mentions the bhāsyakāra (Sabara ), Vārtika (folio 12 a ), Gurumata ( 17b), Prabhākara ( 21b), Vārtikakāra pāda ( 22 b, in the plural). It frequently quotes kārikās from the Tantravārtika with the words ’taduktam’. Hemādri976 quotes Bhavadeva’s explanation of the words of Kumārila allowing an option between jūghunya and ājya and disapproves of it. Vide Tri. Cat. of Madrs Govt. Mss. for 1919-1922, p. 5527 for the same work,

Raghunandana in his vast Smrtitattva mentions Bhava devabbatta’s views dozens of times, several times for criticizing him or discarding his views (heyam’ is the word often used ) Vide, for example, Tithitattva 877 (vol. I pp. 95, 99, Samskāra tattva p. 887,889-90, Udvāhatattva, vol. II p. 130 ). But it should be noted that Raghunandana also accepts his views several times, e. g. in Vyavahāratattva, vol. II p. 213, 216, Suddhitattva pp. 240, 312. In modern times also Sāmavedins in Bengal follow Bhavadevabhatta as regards religious rites, while other Brāhmaṇas rely on Ragbunandana’s works.

— — ——— 876 तथा च जाघन्याधिकरणसिद्धान्ते जाघन्याज्ययोर्विकल्पे वार्तिकस्तोक्ते भवदेवे.

नोक्तम् । इदं विह वक्तव्यम् । कथं सामान्यविहितेनाज्येन विशेषविहितजाघन्य. विकल्पः सर्वत्र सामान्यविशेषशास्त्रयोर्बाध्यबाधकभावोच्छेदप्रसङ्गात् । नैतत् ।

TRÙ farge TIETETI I &c. agafo ( rear ) p. 120. Vide also

p. 404 for another roference to 496a. 877 भवदेवीयसम्बन्धविवेके प्रवराभिधानमाह भविष्यपुराणम् । संस्कारतत्त्व

p. 890 ( vol. I). यत्तु प्रकृतकर्मवेगुण्यपशमनाय शाट्यायनहोमाभिधानं भवदेवभट्टसंमतं तन्न प्रामा णिकं तस्मादपि महाप्रामाणिकैर्भट्टनारायण चरणोभिलभाष्ये तदप्रमा UNETCAT i fartata p. 99 (vol. 1) and Farata (vol. I, p. 878 ).

T 20

644

Unexpected light is thrown on the personal history of Bhavadevabhatta by an inscription found in the temple of Ananta Vasudeva at Bhuvanesvara in the Puri District of Orissa edited by Kielhorn in E. I. vol. VI, p. 203, which eulo. gises Bhavadevabhatta, the identity of the author Bhavadeva with the person eulogised being established by the unique epithet, Bālavalabhībhujanga applied to the latter.878 The eulogy is composed by a person called Vācaspatikavi. Bhava. deva belonged to the Sāvarṇa gotra of the Kauthumi school of the Sāmaveda. The family belonged to Siddhalagrāma in Radha ( west of the Hugli and south of the Ganges ). The pedigree given in the inscription is : Bhavadeva ( who received from the Gauda king in gift the agrahira of Hastinibhitta ) son Rathānga-son Atyanga-son Budha-son Sri Adideva ( wife Sarasvati), who was Prime Minister of Vahaya king )-son Govardhana ( wife Sāngokā, daughter of a Vandyaghaṭiya brāhmana- ) son Bhavadeva Bāla valabhibhujanga, Minister of Harivarmadeva and his son. In the Inscription he is declared to be a second Varāha (i. e. Varāhamihira ). Vide pp. 478 480 ( of H. of Dh. Vol. V ) for the three branches of Jyotiṣa. The Br̥hatsambitā of Varāhamihira states that Jyotiḥ-śāstra has three branches ( skandhas ) and a work dealing with all three branches is called ‘Samhita’ (Bṛ. S. I. 9). The three branches are called Ganita or Tantra, ( mathematical calcula tions of the motions of planets &c ), Horā ( or Jātaka ) that dealt with horoscopes and astrology and the third was called Sākhā. The inscription further claims that Bhavadeva was an expert in the Pūrvamīmāṁsā as propounded by Kumārila

878 सिद्धान्ततन्त्रगणितार्णवपारदृश्वा विश्वाद्भुतप्रसविता फलसहितामु । कार्यस्वयं

प्रथयिता च नवीनहोरा-शास्त्रस्य यः स्फुटमभूदपरो बराहः ॥ यो धर्मशासपदवीषु जरन्निबन्धानन्धीचकार रचितोचितसत्प्रबन्धः । स व्याख्यया विशदयन्मुनिधर्मगथाः स्मार्तक्रियाविषयसंशयमुन्ममार्ज" मीमां सायां स खलु विरचितो येन भट्टोक्तनीत्या यत्र न्यायाः रविकिरणसमा न क्षमन्ते तमांसि । किं भूम्ना सीम्नि साम्नां सकलकविकलास्वागमेष्वत्र शास्त्रे वायुर्वेदाखिवेदात्रवेदप्रभृतिषु कृतधीरद्वितीयोऽयमेव ॥ यस्य खलु बाल वल्लभीभुजङ्ग इति नाम नादृतं केन । मीमांसयापि सपुलकमाकर्णितवर्णितो.

All ll verses 21 to 24 from the Inscription in E. I. vol. VI. pp. 203-207.

OLSOS

AS!

Bhavadevabhatta

645

bhatta, was also an expert in Ayurveda. ( medicine) and abstravidya ( the science of arms ). With the advice of Bhava deva, king Harivarmadeva is said to have reigned long in prosperity. Bhavadeva is stated in the above-mentioned inscription to have composed works on horā ( astrology ), smrti and mimaisā. Bhavadeva is eulogised as a great builder. He constructed a reservoir of water in Rādhā, he set up a stone image of Nārāyana and founded a temple in which he placed images of Nārāyana, Ananta, and Nṛsimha. Vide M. M. Chakravarti’s remarks on the temple in JASB for 1912 (vol. 87 at pp. 338-39 for a description of the temple which is in good condition even after eight centuries ). He also gave to Harimedhas female attendants, dug a tank and laid out a garden. Neither Kielhorn nor Chakravarti has attempted any explanation of the epithet Bāla valabhībhujanga. I hazard an explanation. Bhavadeva probably made some innovation in the structure of the roofs or balconies of the temples he built and he was therefore styled a lover ( a gallant or para mour ) of little bālu-small-sized or girlish ) valabhīs. From the nature of the character Kielhorn conjectured that the inscription belonged to the 12th century A. D.

The epithet. Bāla valabhi-bhujanga ‘has mystified several writers. In ‘Modern Review’ for March 1931, at p. 288 Mr. Ray suggests that it means ‘destroyer of the kingdom of Bālavalabhi in Rādha’. In I. H. Q. vol. 27 p. 80 Dr. D. C. Sircar quotes verse 23 of the Tautātitamatatilaka879 (quoted below ) and holds that the appellation was given to Bhava deva in his student days. Another possible explanation is as

—

879

Dr. Sircar quotes from a fragmentary ms. of Tautālita-matatiluka. verso 23, as follows : मामध्ययनदशायामुवाच वाचं दर्शि स्वप्नं (1)। बालवलभीभुजङ्गापरनामा त्वमसि भवदेव । तेनायमुद्यमो मे विद्यादान्न जातु सञ्जातः । तस्मादिहावधानं विधातुमाधकुर्वते सुधियः ॥

Vide I. H. Q. Vol. 27 pp. 80-82. Dr. Dasharatha Sharma yives a reply to this in the same rolume on p. 339, which does not appear to me to be at all sitisfactory. Vido also I, H, Q. vol. 29 p. 294 where Dr Sircar repoats what he says TI1Q, Vol. 27. No reason is assigned why a student should be dubbed bhuians of valabbi’ by buy teacher. The words in boll type are more or lesg inexplicable. It is not know who spoke ’ uvāca’), unless ve

(Continued on the next page)

646

follows:- The word ‘bhujanga’ according to a kośa quoted by Ksirasvāmin on Amarasimha means ‘vesyắpati’ ( one who visits prostitutes ) and therefore in an extended sense * gallant’ or a lewd person. We have a classical and comparatively early use of that word in the Harsacarita of Bāna ( in 2nd Ucchvāsa in the paragraph just before the last ). When Bana was presented to the Einperor Harṣa, the latter turned to the Mālava prince sitting behind him ( Harsa ) and remarked this is a great bhujanga’ ( mabān-ayam bhujangah). Bāna protests “what bave I done to be dubbed a bhujanga” (Kā me bhujangatā; it may also mean there is lewdness in Kāma i. e. Cupid and not in me). He further protests that he was a brāhmana born in the family of Vātsyāyanas that performed Soma sacrifices, that he had by heart the Veda with the six subsidiary lores, that he studied the Sastras, he admits that he was guilty of some trifling follies in his youth but they were not such as to be censured in this world and as would prevent his attaining heaven; he repents of those follies; common people spread strange rumours, but great men should see things as they really are. Harsa probably did not mean more than this that he ( Bāna ) had sowa his wild oats. Therefore, Bālavalabhībhujanga would mean one who had sown wild oats in Bālavalabhi, a village or town in Rādhā (not identifiable now). Valabhi was a famous town in Kathiawad in the 5th and 6th centuries A. D. In Indian Culture’ vol. for 1939 pp. 467 ff it is pointed out that over 85 Inscriptions of the Maitrakas of Valabhi bad been published till then. The Bhattikāvya was composed in

( Continued from the previous page )

take ‘Sarasvati’ ( occurring in the first verse ) as the subject. We mar then understand that the author professes ( or brags ) that Saragrati spoke to him in a dream. But how is darśi’to be con strued? Is it a verbal form or a poun? Another difficulty is : what in the metre of the verse ? The first half has 17 letters, while the latter half has 19 letters. If it is a muitra metro, what is the metro? If we could read it fr the metre would be right ag an ‘Arya’. Unless one can secure several mss, it is not possible to argue that somebody gurprised by the peculiar appellation might have invented some story and inserted a verse or verses in the fragment. A ms, of the Tautitita-matitilaka way described in the Catalogue of the Sanskrit ings, in the India Office Library prepared by Dr. Windisch and Dr. Epuoling, part IV p. 690, No. 2166. It deals only with pūdu l of chapter II of the Pūrvamimanıgāsūtra.

Bhavadevabhatta

647

Valabbi ruled over by Dharasena. Dr. S. K. De in History of Sanskrit Literature’ Vol. I ( Calcutta University 1947) p. 717 shows that there was an ancient village called Vĩddha Valabhi and Bhavadeva’s residential village was called Bāla valabhī to distinguish it from the other village’. And as the word Bālavalabhī-bhujanga occurs in an official document (in E. I. Vol. VI pp. 203-207) and is applied to Bhavadeva who had become a minister of king Harivarma of Bengal that flourished about the last quarter of the 11th or the first quarter of the 12th century A. D., we would have to take it in a secondary sense. It may be pointed out that Viśvanā tha-kavirāja, author of the Sahityadarpana on Sanskrit Poetics (14th century A. D.) quotes ( in 2nd Pariccheda a verse ‘Durgālanghitavigrahah… rājatyumāvallabhaḥ’ composed by his father, a great poet and a minister for peace and war and describes him as ‘mama tātapādānām Mahapatra Caturdaśu-bhāṣā-vilāsinī-bhujangama-mahākavīśvara-sri Candrasekhara-sāndhivigrahikānām’.

Besides the ancient and well-known Dharmasūtras and smṛtis (such as those of Gautama, Baudhāyana, Apastamba, Vasistha, Visuu, Manu, Yājñavalkya, Devala, Nārada, Bșha spati, Kātyāyana and others, he quotes in the Prāyaścitta prakarana the following authors, and works : Caturvimśati mata p. 53; Jikana (or Jikana p. 102, Viśvarūpa, Dhāreśvara and Srīkara ( all three on p. 82 ) Bālaka (pp. 42, 44, 74, 81, 83, 109), Yogiyājña valkya (p. 38 quotes Yogiyājṅavalkya 8. 2.), Srikara ( pp. 9, 82, 105 Șat-trimālāśan 9 times ).

Recently Bhavadevabhatta’s Sava-sūtikāśauca-prakarana’ has been edited by Dr. R. C. Hazra and published in the Govt. Sanskrit College Research Series of Calcutta. Some informa tion about it was given in I. H. Q. vol. 32 pp. 1-14 by Dr. Hazra bimself, which has been embodied in the exhaustive Intro. to it. His edition is based on three mss. recently found in Assam written in old Assamese script. One of them is dated śuke 1705 (1783 A. D.). The other two have the same appearance and present the same condition (Intro. V). The concluding verse speaks of the author as Bhatta Sribha Vadeva and the editor gives up the reading of the second half of the verse in the three mss. and substitutes what he thinks to be the proper reading. This reverses the usual procedure

648

followed in scholarly editions based on mss. He should bave kept the reading supported by all his m88. as the text and added a footnote stating what he thought should be the reading. On p. XXIII of the Intro. he himself admits “we have given ( the title ) as ‘Savasūta kāśauca-prakarana’, altho ugh all the three mss, hare it as ‘savasūtika-visuddhi-pra karan’ in the concluding verse and as ‘Savasūtikāśauca-pra karana’ in the colophons. Further comment is unnecessary. He has given up here his role as editor. The reading present ed by the mss. is quite good. It would mean literally’ a trea tise on the purification in cases of an impurity of a dead body (i. € on death ) and of a sūtikī. Sūtikā means a woman that has had a recent delivery (may be prematurely or after the full period of gestation ). The Amarakośa says : Aristam Sūtikā gṛham. The word Sūtaka is used in three senses viz. (1) In Manu V. 58 and Yāj. III. 18-19 the word ‘sūtaka’ is used in the sense of impurity on birth’; (2) impurity on both birth and death as in Gobhilasmrti III. 60 and 63 ;(3) Impurity on death alone as in Dakṣasmrti VI. 1 and Gobhilasmrti III. 48. Vide H. of Dh. Vol. IV pp. 268-269 on Āśauca, Jananāsauca or sūtaka and sāvāśauca and the notes below. In Ait. B. 32.8 the word ‘Sutakānna’ is probably used in both senses of sūtaka. Prof. Hazra unnecessarily and without any authority changes the name of the work and creates unnecessary con fusion. In the note on p. XXIII of the Introduction he remarks. I have not been able to find out a single instance of the use of the word ‘Sūtikā’in the sense of Sūtakā’ (meaning birth ). Nobody asks him to take ‘sūtikā’ in the sense of birth. He has on his own authority put down the name as’ savasūta kāśauca -prakarana’ which may be split up in two parts viz. ‘Sava-āśauca-prakarana’ and ‘sūtaka-āśa ucaprakarana’. The dead body has to observe no āśauca;

Savāśaucaprakarana’ therefore has to be taken to mean ( by laksana’ impurity ( for living persons ) in relation to a dead body (in the house or family ) i. e. āśauca arising on deatb. Similarly, ‘sūtakāśauca-jirakarana’ would have to be taken to mean treatise concerning the observance of impurity in relation to a sūtaka’, which as shown above, has different meanings. Therefore, the reading ‘Sava-sutikā-visuddhi prakarana ’ must be accepted as the proper reading. It is a far

Bhavadevabhatta,

649

better reading since it prominently and expressly mentions purification on two occasions, while, if we read ‘āśauca’ only, the impurity is emphasized, the purification being left to be understood. And further there is the support for this read ing in all available mss.

Prof. Hazra, in his Intro. to the work ‘sava-prakarana’ on p. XVIII (last two lines ) first construes · Bālavalabhi bhujanga as meaning ‘a serpent (i. e. i dangerous and invin cible scholar ) of Bālavalabhi (a place). This is overdrawn. We can accept’ dangerous scholar) as the suggested meaning but ‘invincible’ is entirely different. A serpent is not at all invincible. Eagles and kites swoop down on it and kill it. In the woodel parts of the Konkan the present author has seen large serpents ‘silled with the single stroke of a thick bamboo stick. Prof. Hazra (probably not being satisfied with his first explanation ) suggests another fantastic explanation (on p. XX of the Introiluction ) of the epithet. He breaks it up into four component parts viz. bāla ( young learners ), bala i for ’ vala’) meaning ‘hosts’, ‘bhi’ (fear ) anil ‘bhujanga’ ( serpent), all taken together as meaning’ who is a serpent to the fear of hosts of young learners ‘as reparıls the works and subjects which are difficult to understanel’. Those who like this may accept it. The present author holds that this is a far-fetched, unacceptable and worthless explanation from several points of view.

The contents of the work Sara-sūtikā–viśuddhi-praka rana,880 ( as all the available mss. say I are briefly as follows. Discussion about impurity on premature delivery and special

880 The last rerse and colophon as printed are: TUTTATEN -

श्री-भवदेवाख्यः । शवसूतकाविशुद्धिप्रकरणमवलोक्य संहिताश्चके । इति श्रीबाल वलभीभुजङ्गापरनाम-श्रीवगाधिराज-भट्टाचार्य-भवदेवकृतं शवसूतकाशौचप्रकरणं FATHI p. 49 of To The reading of all the three available mss is

ratata . दन्तजातेऽनुजाते च कृतचड़े च संस्थिते । अशुद्धा बान्धवाः सर्वे सतके च arlized il caut FILASTIT Aflug facitā I HI V. 58–59. सूतके कर्मणां त्यागः सन्ध्यादीनां विधीयते । होमः श्रौतस्तु कर्तव्यः शुष्का नेनापि वा फलेः ॥ गोभिल II; 60; सूतकं तु प्रवक्ष्यामि जन्ममृत्युनिमित्तकम् ।

ā VI. 1. 1. D.-82

650

provisions about women of the Ksatriya and other varṇas in such a predicament; impurity for the husband in the case of his wife’s premature delivery ; aśauca on death, periods of āśauca on the death of a child that has struck teeth or before that or death before or after cūdākarana for brāhmayas and others. No cremation of the body of a child less than two years of age ; āśauca ( period of) when a chill dies after Upa nayana ; Āścucu for Ksatriyas, Vaiśyas and Sūlras on the death of a Supindu whose upandyanu hail been performed de pends on his gunas ; āśruck in the case of dāsas and disis ; days of āśauca on the death of a brāhmaṇa who was an Agni hotrin or not so: discussion about the time for purification of a śūdra ; the proper time of collecting the ashes of a pierson cre mated depending for its length on possessing good qualities or not so possessing ; āśauca on the death of daughters not agreed or agreed to be given in marriage or married or un married; three days cśrcucc for married women on the death of their parents or for ten days before they are married; āśauca on the death of a son born to a brāhmana from a wile of a lower varṇa; āśauce on the death of a samanodakı ; cases of aśauca for a puksiṇi (i. e. period of two days having a night between the two); āśauca (period of) on the death of one’s ācārya (as defined by Manu II. 140 ) or of his sons or wife or of the king (being a ksatriya ) in whose realm one dwells ; cases of sadyaḥśauca (purification immediately after taking a bath ) as laid down in Yājṅavalkya III. 28-29, Gautama Dh. S. 14, 41-42, Parāśara 3. 202 ); purification on carrying the dead body of one who was not a spindu or following the funeral procession of one dead, whether a relative or not (Manu V. 101, 103); dead body to be taken through the eastern, nor thern, western or southern gates of the city according to the varṇa of the deceased ( Manu V. 92); rules about Schuh gamand of a wife and anugamna ; rules about impurity on birth for sapindas follows the same principles as on death (Manu V. 61 ), the impurity on death affects all sa pindas but the impurity on birth affects the parents alone and the impurity on birth affects seriously only the mother, while the father becomes pure after a bath ( Manu V. 62 ). If, while one period of impurity (on death or birth ) is running as regards a person, another āśauca of the same kind supervenes, he becomes pure after the end of the prior āśauca (Manu V. 79). If one kind of āśauca becomes mixed up with another kind of āśauca that sets in, the rules are rather complicated.74. Bhavadevabhattu

651

Many ancient sayes are quoted. Manu, Yājñavalkyar Gautama and Parāśara are profusely quoted for such a smal! work. Another striking feature is that nine sages are quotete Hes with the word brlost prefixed to their names (viz. Angiras Bphaspati, Manu, Yama, Yājīja valkya, Viṣṇu, Vyāsa, Saṅkha and Hārita ). It may be noted that only two purāṇas are cited viz. Matsya (2 verses on p. +1 ) and Viṣnn (one verse on p. 31).

The date of Bhavadeva can be approximately settled to be about 1100 A. D. as he is quoted by Hemādri, the Vivādacan dra of Misaru and the Smrtīsāra of Harinātha. He is certain ly earlier than 1200 A, D. A period of at least half a century must have elapsed before a Bengal writer like Bhavadevil came to be looked upon as an authority on mimāmsā by Hemādri who wrote in distant Berar. It appears that he was quoted in the Karmopadesini of Aniruddha (1. O. cat. No. 1853. P. 47+). But that Ms. is bound up with another work by id later author and the reference in the cat, is not quite clear. If we rely on the Vira mitrodaya, a work called Pradīsia criticised the views of Bhavadeva on the verse of Yāj. II. 24 ( about adverse possession for 20 and 10 years ). Bhava deva helt that twenty years’ enjoyment of immovable pro perty by a stranger implied that the real owner meant to abandon it for the benefit of the stranger enjoying it, that such abandonment for the enjoyment of another leads to the inference of the extinction of previous ownership and that the property being abandoned by the owner in favour of the stranger who takes hold of it, ownership also (of the stranger) arises. The Pradija i points out that it does not invariably

– — – – —- – —– —- 881 भवदेवस्तु … नस्मादेवं वाच्यं यदयं यथोक्तो भोगः पूर्वस्वामिनो भोक्त्रुद्देशेन

त्यागात् तत्स्वत्वध्वसमर्थापयति अनुमापयति वा । … तथा च तदुद्देशेन त्यक्ते तत्परिग्रहणादेव परस्य तत्र स्वत्वमप्युपपद्यते। … अत्र प्रदीपकृतः । यत्र हि मकृत्ये-(ध्ये ? )दानी नात्र फलसम्भावना तदधुना तावत्पर एव भुक्त्वा ( भुंकां ? ) पश्चादेतत्सकाशान्सफलोपभोगां भुवं ग्रहीष्यामीत्यभिसंधाय भूम्यादि. स्वामी तत्र परोपभोगं क्षमते तत्रापि विंशत्यभ्यधिको भौगोस्ति स्वामिनस्त दुशेन त्यागश्च नास्तीति व्यभिचारान्नेदशभोगस्य पूर्वस्वामि व वयागे प्रामा

(Continued on the next page)

652

follow that, because a stranger is allowed to enjoy land, the owner intends to abandon the land for the stranger, nor is it an invariable rule that what is abandoned for another becomes the property of that other. It will be showu later on that the Pradīpa must have been composed before 1150 A. D. Hence it follows that Bhavadeva flourished about 1100 A. D. He cannot be very much earlier than that, as he is not mentioned by any writer of the 19th century and as he not only mentions Kumā rila and Prabhākara, but also Viśvarūjia and Dhāreśvara.

There were several other later persons named Bhavadeva who wrote on topics of Dharmaśāstra such as Bhavadeva author of Dānadharmaprakrivi (middle of 17th century), and Bhavadeva, the author of Smṛticaudrika, who flourished in the first half of the 18th century.

On Bhavadeva’s Karmānusthana-paddhati there is a com mentary called Samsārapaudhatirahasya.