कल्पान्तरे विश्वासटिप्पन्यः

Govindaraja The commentary of Govindarāja on the Manusmrti was published by Rao Saheh V. N. Mandlik and a portion of it was published by Dr. Jolly in the Manutīkāsangraha. In his commentaryse on Manu III. 247 and 248 he tells us that he has treate’l at greater length the subject of those verses in his own work called Smrtimanjari. Kullūka897 in his comment on Manu IV. 212 twits Govindarāja with haviny explained “ugra’ in one way in his commentary on Manu and in a different way in his Manjarī. A Ms. of a portion of the Smrti manjarī exists in the India Office (cat. p. 471). Haraprasada

895 रत्नाकरप्रभृतयस्तु-यस्तु कल्पतरौ नान्योदर्यधनं हरेदिति पाटो दृश्यते स मूल.

भूतयाज्ञवल्क्यमिताक्षरापारिजातहलायुधग्रन्थेषु नान्योदों धनं हरेन्’-इति पाठदर्शनात्तदनुसारव्याख्यादर्शनाच्च लिपिकरप्रमाद इत्याहुः । दायतत्व

( II p. 155 ). 896 साधितं चैतत्सविस्तरं स्मृतिमञ्जर्यामृजुपञिकायां । इह तु ग्रन्थभारभयान प्रतार्यते

( ga?)’ on H7 11I. 247 : ’ giā afTTETTUITGARDafo Faia HEITSFri faracat farmia on #7 III, 248. ( HEYATI is probably a scribe’s error, as the word Fit1 is only a descrip.

tiou of the work AARTI ) 897 गोविन्दर।जो मजर्यामुग्रं राजानमुक्तवान् । मनुवृत्तौ च शूद्रायां क्षत्रियोत्पन्नम

भ्यधात् ॥

error,

Govindaraja

657

Sastri in the Cat. of Mss. of the Govt. in the custody of the Asiatic Society of Bengal (vol. III, p’p. 51-54 No. 1924 ) gives a description of the Ms. of the Smrtimanjarī on Acāra and Prāyaścitta.

Manu IV. 212 requires a brāhmana to desist from parta king of food of various categories, one of which is food offered by an ugra. Both Janu ( X. 9 ) and Yāj. (I. 92) provide that the son of a Ksatriya from a wife of the Sūdra class is called Ugra. The Kalpataru (on Niyata-kāla-kõnda p. 261 ) quotes the author of the Manjarī, paraphrasing ‘uyra’ as meaning

rājan’. The Srāddhakalpataru on p. 46 mentions Manjari kāra’ and on p. 259 Smrtimanjarīkāra’. The same work is meant in both places. The Srāddhakānda (Kalpataru ) pp. 46-47 ) quotes a long passage from the Vāyupurāṇa stating that some kind of edible grains, vegetables, and other articles should be offered in Srāddha. One of these is Kāleya, which is explained by Govindarāja. On Manu III. 285, Govinda rāja’s gloss is not accepted by Kullūka, while on Manu II]. 178 Kullūka agrees with both Medhātithi and Govindarāja.

Raghunandana in Dāyatattva (vol. II, p. 191 ) quotes a verse of Viṣṇu cited by Govindarāja.

The Dāyabhāga of Jimūtavāhana (XI ) quotes Govinda rāja as holding on the strength of a verse of Visuus97a that a daughter’s son succeeded to the estate of a deceased person even before the married daughter of the deceased. Iu the printed com. of Govindarāja, there is no comment of his after Manu IX. 72. But it appears that Jimātavāhana had before him the com. of Govindarāja on the verses after IX. 72 (at least on what are Manu IX. 131-136 ). Govindarāja is men tioned in the Kalaviveka (p. 304 ) and Vyavahāramātrkā (p. 342 ) also.

8972 ’ तथा गोविन्दराजेनापि मनुटीकायां-अपुत्रापौत्रे संसारे दौहित्रा धनमानुयः ।

पूर्वेषां तु स्वधाकारे पौत्रदौहित्रकाः समाः ॥ एतद्विष्णुवचनबलेन ऊढातः प्रागेव दोहित्रस्थाधिकारो दर्शितः । स चास्मभ्यं न रोचते सदृशी सदृशेनोढे CAUCTARIETI I 14HTT XI. 2. 32-33 (Jir.) HERTE I HERCIGT ’ is a verse of EFT quoted by THT as Erfa’s ( in TTTTT XI. 2. & P. 179 ( od. of Jirananda 1893 ) and by Smrti-Caodrika (Vyavahara p. 296, (harpuro’s od ), The Smrti-(‘andriki ready 631971irala.

Ters

D.-83

658

Kullūka differs expressly from Govindarāja on Manu I. 5, I. 82 ( Itaresvāgamat); II. 122, 125, 127; III. 50, 53, 127, 129, 191, 221, 284, 285%; V. 16, 51, 72, 84, 104 ( imam Govinda rājasya rājājñām nādriyāmahe ); VI. 14, 79, 84 &c. In dozens of cases ( besides these ) Govindaraja’s views are mentioned but not criticized by Kullūka.

From these two works a brief account of the personal his tory of Govindarāja can be extracted. The colophons at the end of the Manutikā describe Govindarāja as the son of bhatta Madhava. The first verse:98 of the Smrtimanjari and one at the end ( though somewhat corrupt ) give the information that he was the son of Madhava and grand-son of Nārāyana and appears to have lived on the holy banks of the Ganges.898 Those who like Sarvadhikari identify Govindarāja with Govindacandra, prince of Benares, are therefore entirely wrong since he was a Brāhmaṇa and not a Ksatriya. The first verse900 of his Manuṭīkā contains an obeisance to god (or Śiva ) and states that he had received the śāstra of Manu in an unbroken tradition of teacher and pupil and that he had examined previous commentaries of Manu.

The Smrtis mentioned by him in the two works of his are given below.901 Besides, he mentions the Vayupurana (on Manu III. 232 ) and Purāṇa in general (on Manu I. 74 and 80). He frequently quotes the Grhyasutras, also the Bahvr. cagrhyaparisista, the Yogasātra. He says ( on Manu 2. 23)

898 स्मृतिविरचितैस्तैस्तवाक्यैर्द्विरुक्तिपराङ्मुखीमखिलकललव्यालुप्तार्थांमतो व्रतसंह

तिम् । अलिखदखिलां गोविन्दाख्यश्चिरं गुरूसंश्रयादुपचिततनुर्ज्ञानामोदः स

माधवनन्दनः ॥ स्मृतिमञ्जरी, Ist verse. 899 स्मृतिमञ्जरी, folio 150 b ‘स्वर्वाहिनीपुलिनलाञ्छनलब्धकीर्तिर्नारायणस्य तन

यात्मज उच्चिकाय । वाक्यावलीमखिलसच्चरणावतंसाद् ( तंसां ? ) गोविन्दराज

इह माधव इह भूमिः ( ? इह माधवभूमिरायः ॥’. 900 संसाराध्वगतागतलमतृषापीयूषमाशं शनैर्ध्यात्वानर्गलसंप्रदायगुरुतः प्राप्ते मनोः

शासने । दृष्ट्वा ग्रन्थकृदाशयाननुमृतिं व्याख्यान्तराणामिमां टीका शास्त्रकृदाशया.

नुसरिणी गोविन्दराजो व्यधात् ॥ 901 आङ्गिरस् , आस्पतम्ब, उशनस् , ऋष्यशृङ्ग, काश्यप, गौतम, चतुर्विंशतिमत,

देवल, नारद, पराशर, पैठीनसि, प्रचेतस् , बृहत्प्रचेतस् , बृहस्पति, बौधायन, यम, याज्ञवल्क्य, वसिष्ठ, विष्णु, व्यास, शङ्ख, शातातप, वृद्धशातातप, षट्त्रिंशन्मत, संवर्त, मुमन्तु, हारीत.

Govindaraja

659

that Mleccha countries like Andhra and others were not fit for performing sacrifices. He appears to have held like Medbā. tithi the view that moksa was to be attained by a combina tion of jñāna and karmaso? As compared with the bhāsya of Medhātithi his commentary is very concise. Kullūka largely drew upon Medbātithi and Govindarāja, mentions them hundreds of times, criticizes'03 both of them and particularly holds up Govindarāja to ridicule often enough.903a Kullūka notes that Govindarāja in opposition to Medhātithi and Bhoja deva arranged Manu 8. 181-184 differently (putting 8. 182 as the last of those four verses ). In the printed edition there is no comment of Govindarāja on the verses of the 9th chapter from verse 72. But it appears that the Dāyabhāga had that part of the commentary, as it quotes the views of Govinda rāja on the rights of the daughter’s son which could have appeared only on Manu IX. 130-136.

A few words may now be said about the Smrtimañjari mss. which are rare. At the end of the India Office Ms. a summary of the contents of the whole work is given ( for which see footnote below ).904. It appears that the Smrtimafi

902_On मनु 2. :8 गोविन्दराज says ‘ज्ञानकर्मसमुच्चयान्मोक्षावाप्तेः ‘. 903 Noto the following where गोविन्दराज is criticized by कुल्लूक, मनु. II. 1.

22, 1273; III. 11, 53, 127, 129, 285 ; IV. 7, 162 ; VI. 14, 79, 86 ; VII. 94, 211; VIII. 37, 142-143, 184, 333; IX. 68, 136, 141, 162, 206; x.33;

XI. 82, 180; III. 86. 903A On मनु II. 125, III. 50; and VIII. 37 गोविन्दराज is held up to special

ridicule: हन्त गोविन्दराजेन विशेषमविवृण्वता । व्यक्तमङ्गीकृतमृतौ स्वदार. सरतं यतेः ॥ on मनु III. 50; स्वेषु तिष्ठस्विति पदद्वितयं न विवक्षितम् । इमा गोविन्दराजस्य राजाज्ञां नाद्रियामहे ॥ on मनु V. 104. It should be noted that the printed text of गोविन्दराज on मनु v. 104 is corrupt as it

reads ’ स्वेषु तिष्ठत्सु विवक्षितम् ‘. 904 अस्य सुप्रतिपत्तये काण्डानि लिख्यन्ते । तत्रादौ परिभाषाकाण्डं गर्भाधानादि उप.

नयनादि । संध्योपासनविधिः । अन्ये ब्रह्मचारिधर्माः । अध्ययनादि । पुनरन्ये ब्रह्मचारिधर्माः । ब्रह्मयज्ञविधिः । विवाहादिगृहस्थधर्माः । शुद्रधर्माः । वृत्त्युप देशाः । स्नानविधिः । यमनियमकाण्डम् । प्रस्थानिकम् । दानविधिः। स्वापविधिः

(Continued on the neart page)

COM

660

History of Dhırmaśāstra

ari dealt with all principal topics of dharmaśāstra such as the saṇskāras, the daily duties viz: bath, samdhyā, brahma yajsia, the duties of the student, householder, the forest hermit, and the swimyosin, the duties of the four varṇas; gifts, the purifications of various materials, foods forbidden and allow ed, impurity on birth and death, sapindles and samānodakas, funeral rites, srāddha and its various details, and Prāyaścitta. The ms. in the India office deals with the adhikari for priyas citta, the parṣat (i. e. the assembly of learned men who are to determine what prāyaścitta is to be prescribed ), the means of atoping for sins and violations of religious duties, the prāyas cittas for the muuhapātukes i viz. the inurder of a Brāhmana, drinking wine, theft of gold, incest. Paul for other lesser and similar sins, meaning of the word prāyaścitta, prāyaścittas for killing men of Ksatriya, Vaisya anl Sudra classes and for killing women, prāyaścittas for the killing of a cow and of various beasts and birds, prāyaścittas for eating forbidden or polluted food and for selling articles forbidden to be sold, secret prayascittas. The India Office Ms. which deals only with priyascittas contains 152 folios. This gives us an idea as to how extensive the whole work must have been embrac ing as it did the entire field of dharmaśāstra. In the body of the work contained in the Ms, frequent references occur to

.. – –

( Continued from the previous page ) प्रोषितभर्तृकाधर्माः । द्रव्यशुद्धिः । मूत्रादिशौचं। आचमननिमित्तानि द्विराचमन निमित्तानि । आचमनापवादः । आचमनविधिः । अत्रैव प्रतिषेध्याः । कमण्डलु चर्या । अन्यदाचमनगतः । स्नानशुद्धिः । सर्चलानि । प्रक्षालनादिशौचम् । इति कायिकम् । सौवर्णादिशौचं वेलादिशौचं तथा सिद्धान्नादि भूम्यादि उदकादि अशद्धयपवादाः । भोजनविधिः। भक्ष्याभक्ष्यप्रकरणम् प्रितशुद्धिः । ब्राह्मणाशाचं। क्षत्रियाद्याशौचं, जननाशोचं, अनुजाताद्याशोचं, स्त्रियाशौचं, सपिण्डसमानो दकत्वं बीजसंबन्ध्याद्याशाचं,देशान्तरमृताशीचमाचार्याशाचमेनकाशौचसंनिपाताया शौचम् । निर्हरणादि । अनुगमनाद्याशौचम् । उदकक्रियादि पिण्डदानादि। अस्थिसंचयः । उदकादिनिषेधः । रपशिौचम् । यमनियमाः । श्राद्धप्रकरणम् । कालादि । ब्राह्मणपरीक्षा । भोजनीयाः । वर्षाभिमन्त्रणादि । देशः कालः । अत्रैवेतिकर्तव्यता । ब्राह्मणसंख्या । पुनरन्येतिकर्तव्यता । अमावास्यादिशास्त्रम् । एकोद्दिष्टं सपिण्डीकरणम् । आब्दिकं मातृश्राद्रम् । अन्ये श्राद्धधर्माः । वृद्धि. श्राद्धम् । वानप्रस्थकाण्ड, प्रजितकाण्डम् । शूद्रधर्मकाण्डम् । अनुलोमप्रतिलोम । तव्यृत्युपदेशकाण्डम् । प्रायश्चित्तकाण्डम् ।77. Govindarāja

661

other parts ofsos the Smrtimanjarī such as saraskārakānda, the abhaksyakanda, the śrāddbakānda. One interesting fact about Govindarāja is that, though ā northerner be permit ed 906 marriage with one’s maternal uncle’s daughter and said that the prohibition against marrying a girl of the maternal uncle’s gotre applies only to the son of a putrikī. The Ms. in the Iudia Office is an ancient one, being copieri in suii,vat 1467 Asvina dark half, Saturılay (i. e. October 1411 A, D. ) during the reign of Mahārānā Udayasimha at Vasurāvi (modern Vasravi in the territory of the Malaraja Gaikwad of Baroda). ____Dr. Jolly ( Manutikāsamgraha, preface page 1 and R. u. S. p. 31 ) ant Dr. Buhler ( S. B. E. vol. 25, P. exxVII ) assign ed Govindaraja to the 12th or 13th century. But this date is not correct, as the following discussion will show. Kullūka ( vide note 773 above ) expressly says that Medhātithi is much earlier than Govindaraja. Though Medhātithi is nowhere ex pressly named in his commentary by Govindaraja 07 the latter appears to have several times criticised Medhātithi. Another

______-

द्व

907

905 परिवित्यादयः संस्कारकाण्डे व्याख्याताः । folio 41 a ; नात्याः संस्कारकाण्ड

उक्ता: । folio 106 a; सारसादयो भक्ष्यकाण्डादो व्याख्याताः, folio 58. 906 मातुलस्य सुतामूढा मातृगोत्रां तथैव च। समानप्रवरां चैव विजश्चान्द्रावणं चरेत् ॥

नियोगोत्पादितमातुलसताग्रहणार्थं मातुलस्य मुतामित्येतन् । अन्यथैतन्मातृगोत्रा तथैव चेत्यनेनैव गतार्थ म्यात् । अत्र मातृगोत्रपरिणयननिषेधः पुत्रिकापुत्रविषयः । यतः पाणिग्रहणिका मन्त्राः पितृगोत्रापहारका इति । तथा पश्चमी मातृबन्धुभ्य इत्येवमादिवाक्यानां ; परस्परविरुद्धानि च वाक्यानि श्रादपकरणे उक्तानि । शिश्चानुष्टितत्वान् । folio 95 a.

On मनु [II. 126 गोविन्दराज 9ays — यत्तु न त्ववेकं सर्वेषां पिण्डे व्याख्यात. मिति गृयदर्शनात् , निमन्त्रयेत त्र्यवरान् ( मनु III. 187) इति चेहाभिधानात् , एकेकमुभयत्र वा इत्यस्य विस्तरप्रतिषेधार्थवादत्वमाह तदसत् ;’ मेधातिथि does quote the passage of the आश्वलायनगृह्य and the verse of मनु ( III. 187 ) ; on मनु I. 103 गोविन्दराज says ‘यथार्थवादार्थत्वमस्य श्लोकस्य कश्चिदुक्तं तदसिद्धयर्थप्रतीतः (?)। यतु अधीयोरंस्त्रयो वर्णाः ( मन x. 1 ) इत्यादि स वेदविषयोनुवाद इति व्याख्यास्यामः’; मेधातिथि does take the rorst as an अर्थवाद and says ‘नात्र कश्चिद्विधिरस्ति’; on मन XI. 178 मेधातिथि says ‘पत्यत्र चण्डात्यभिप्रेता’ aud गोविन्दराज says ‘यत्तु चण्डात्यत्र वृषलीति व्याचक्षते तदसत्’. Vide also गोविन्दराज on मनु 2. 201, 3. 160, 4. 119, 4. 222, 5. 134, 8. 293, 10. 28.

18156ANA

662

important circumstance is that, though the Mit. mentions Medbātithi and Bhojadera as great authorities it is silent about Govindarāja. Hence it follows that Govindarāja could not have flourished earlier than Bhojadeva, i. e. earlier than about 1050 A. D. In the Hāralatā of Aniruddha ( which as we shall see later on (must have been composed about 1160 A. D. ), Govindarāja is quoted several times and is looked upon as a great authority like Viśvarūpa, Bhojadeva and Kamadhenu.908 This shows that Govindaraja could not have flourished later than 1125 A. D. The Dayabhāga909 (in Duhitrāelhikūra ) disapproves of the view of Govindarāja who placed the daughter’s son before married daughter as an heir. In his Kāla virekao10 also Jimūtavāhana refers to Govindarāja in the same breath with Bhojarāja and Viśvarūpa. In his Vyavahāramātrkā$11 he refers to Maījarīkāra as having held the same view as Viśvarīpa. Manjarī here must be taken to be the Smrtimanjarī of Govindarāja, since Jimūtavāhana in his other works refers to Govindaraja, since Kullūka also speaks of the Manjarī of Govindarāja ( vide note 706 above ) and since there is no other known ancient work of that name on dharmaśāstra. This shows that the Maŭjari comprised a discussion on vyuvuhūra, also. Hemādri912 tells that the author of the work called Panditaparitosa refuted the views of Govindarāja on the performance of śrāddba on the 13th tithi by a man having a son. This shows that Govindarāja must have preceded Hemādri ( who wrote in the latter half of the 13th century or by at least a century more. The

–

908 Vide note 777 above ‘gia TITA ang alagara’ risar

p. 166 ; तद्गोविन्दराजविश्वरूपकामधेनुकारेन लिखितमिति अमूलमेव प्रतिभाति ।

TRI p. 174. 909 तथा गोविन्दराजेन मनुटीकायां-अपुत्रपौत्रसंताने पौत्रा दौहित्रिका मताः एतद्वि

ष्णुवचनबलेन ऊढातः प्रागेव दौहित्रस्याधिकारो दर्शितः। स चास्मभ्यं न रोचते।

दायभाग. 910 यद्यपि भोजराजविश्वरूपगोविन्दराजेयतया न लिखितानि तथाप्यपन्यस्य

167140 i

f p. 304. 911 मजरीकारस्यापि विश्वरूपसमानलक्षतया समानमेव दपणम् । व्यवहारमातृका

p. 317. 912 qosattamenti sulla strad T eet 1… AFATEITIR analet

1119-71621ETA arataret: #14: 1 tagasio III. 2. p. 481.

Govindarāja

663

Smrtyarthasārao13 of Sridhara relies on the views of Govindarāja in its section on samnyāsa.

When the first edition of H. of Dh. ( Vol. I ) was publish ed in 1930, no portion of the Kr̥tyakalpataru of Laksmīdhara was available in print. Later, eleven kāndas of the Kalpataru have been edited by Prof. K. V. Rangaswami Aiyangar and published and some part of the Prayascittakānda has been discovered by Dr. S. L. Katre and he has published a paper in ‘Bharatiya Vidyā’ Vol. 17 (1957) pp. 72-75, in which he points out in all six passages referring to Govindarāja and Smṛtimanjarī, once in the Prāyaścittakānda, twice as Mañjarīkāra and Smrtimañjarīkāra in the Niyata kālakānda p. 261 (‘Ugro rājeti Maījarikāral’) ou Manu IV. 212 (ugrannam ) and on p. 280 of the same kanda he quotes from the Smrti-Manjari three hemistichs cited on the word

parārīka’ (as a variety of palandu ) from Ayurveda. Dr. Katre mentions three more passages from the Srāddha–kāụda (pp. 45.46, 46-47 about Bhārunda’‘Kāleya’ from Mañjarī kāra and Govindarāja and from pp. 258–59, where Smrtiman jarikāra is quoted.

There is no doubt now that the Kalpataru quotes from the Smṛtimañjari of Govindarīja and that the latter’s literary activity cannot be placed later than about 1110 A. D. and that he should be assigned to the period 1000-1110 A. D. ( since he mentions Dhāreśvara Bhojarāja and is mentioned in the Kalpataru and the Dayabhāga ).