कल्पान्तरे विश्वासटिप्पन्यः

78 The Kalpataru of Laksmidhara The Kr̥tyakalpataru or Kalpataru of Laksmidliara exer cised great influence over the Dharmaśāstra writers of Mithila, Bevgal and Northern India in general. It was an extensive work divided into fourteen kāndas. For the first volume of the H. of Dh. published in 1930 the author could secure mss. of only three kāndas viz. Dāna, Rājadharma and Vyavahāra. On reading the account of the Kalpataru in H. of Dh. Vol. I. Prof. K. V. Rangaswami Aiyangar saw the present author and asked him whether he ( the present author ) would under take to edit the work. The present author stated that his

– - - - - —- 913 संन्यासस्य विधिं कृत्स्नं प्रवक्ष्याम्यनुपूर्वशः । गोविन्दराजस्य मतं बौधायनमतं.

FT II FAPTATT I p. 96.

664

History of Dharmitsāstra

hands were full owing to the work to be done on the other volumes of the H. of Dh, and that the Professor might under take the bringing out of an edition of the Kalpataru if he liked. Prof. Rangaswami Aiyangar undertook the heavy task and edited in the Gaikwall’s Oriental Series (Baroda ) eleven Kāndas ( out of the fourteen kāndas of the Kalpataru ) and left three parts unedited when he passed away; but the present author learns that one part on Pratisthā may be published soon. Laksmidhara himself refers to the work as Kalpavṛkṣa and Kalparlruma also ( in verses 10 and 13 of the Introd. of the Br. K.) and later writers anul works also sometimes employ the synonyms (e. g. the Vivādaratnākara at the end refers to Kalpavrksa in a paronomastic verse ). Prof. Aiyangar pub lished the Dānakamili as the first instalment of the whole work in 1941 with a lengthy Introduction of 129 pages. On p. 18 of the Intro. to Dānakānda, Prof. Aiyangar set out what he then (in 1941 ) supposed to be the names of the fourteen kāndas viz. I. Bralımacāri-kana (published in 1948); II. Gșhastha kanila ( fub. in 1944 ); III. Naiyatakālika or Niyata kāla or Āhnika (pub. in 1950 ); the matters dealt with the third kāla are: hrushing the teeth, morning bath, procedure on that bath, jupro, tarpne, the five daily Yajñas (Vaisva deva and others ), miilday meal (in its various aspects and attendant actions ), what should be done after midday meal, ratrikrtyu, to justili (rules about a woman in her monthly illaess ), actions to be done in parvan-titbis (amāvāsyā, full moon, 8th and 14th tithis and Sajkrānti days ), actions to be done on several tithis in months from Caitra, offering respect to Agastya, care of cows, letting loose a bull, rules about listening to Purāṇas; IV. Śrāddhakanda (pub. in 1950 ); V. Dānakāṇda ( pub.9+ in 1941 with a general Intro. of 126 pages on the Kalpataru. In this vol., the Editor inserted on pp. 337-353 extracts from five works on Dāna, viz. Dānasāgara of Ballālasena, Hemādri’s Dānakhanda, ( part of Caturvarga cintāmaṇi), Dānaratnākara of Candeśvara, Dānavivekoddyota of Madana simha, and Dānaprakāśa in Vīramitrodaya of Mitramiśra It is difficult to understand why these extracts were included.

—- ——un 914 Vide a paper by Dr. Bhabatosh]Bhattacarya in Poona Orientalist'

Vol. XIII-XIV . 7-18 on treatinont of Dana by Kane and Rangaswimmi.’ Opp. 18 of Intro. to Danakanda, Prof. Aiyangar

( Continued on the next page )

The Kilpatelieu of Lekṣmidhari

665

VI. On Vrata (pub. in 1953 ). This kunda is principally based on Purāṇas, eleven in number, among which Bhaviṣya, Matsya and Varāha are the most prominent. On p. 2 it states that in the Kr̥ta, Tretī, Drādara and Kali Yugas respectively Sujayi, Randi, Dhananjay, Vikrami ittained the position of supreme rulers (sirrablauna ) by performing vratas and that Vasundhar, the virtuous laughter of Vikrama dwelling in the Daśārna country i lalva) secureil inoksi, by performing vratas. On p 36-38 il quotes 10 verses from Sumantu, the last of which avers that the Flaihiyas, Talajanyhas, Turuskas ( Turks ), Yaranasan Seka( Scythians ) observing fasts (in Vratus ) reached the status of brīh manas in this very world.

VII. It is difficult to sar vlefinitely what subject was dealt with in the 7thi Kiintā. It may bave been either Pījā worship of imnures ) or firatisthil consecration of images and ) temples ) or even both. The present anthor understands that some forme lave been printe:las Pratisthākānda ( at Baroda ) but there is no Introductory verse ( as there is in most kındas expressly mentioning the number of the Kānda in the series of 14 kāndas). Further, the present author understands that the late Prof. Hiyanyar left a copy of the Pīja part; but here also there is no Introiuctory rerse about its place in the series. The ms, begins with ansis incomplete verse and ends also abruptly is shown helow.

VII. Tirthavivecanakāudła / pb, in 1942 )-visiting holy places, the greatriess of Varanasi. Prayāga, the Ganges, Gayā. Kuruksetra, Prthilaka Puskara, Wauhurā, Ujjayinī, Narma lā, Kubjāmraka, Sukara, Kokāmukha, Bādarī-āśrama,

Pontinued from thor previous page) pliceu Pritishiki ndio-e;rittion of living inires ind templos) its the wirtli. Pieskardit is the itha part of the hulpataru and Vrati hindre ita iheth, butlıq himolf Lactol on found that Vratakında

a tho 6th Binta ini pullislerl it in such. As there are only 14 kunl. in Litkṣının vi front, the ith probably comprehended both Prittisti di ‘Illino Tia Sitha i. Pirthit, 9th probably dealt

with Priv.-irrin iltid that tristheils with Suddhi. 91.7 The m. of Puja hagin ……. 4722 marz5:44 | TTTI FT

…atlea:1 This is an a anuṣtuliha verse : the ma, ends abruptly as follows: arataifa fot: F2ftCOTAIMA: Fernafas: TITUITEN मध्यं वै पोटशाहम् ॥ वृत्तं करद्वयोपले दशाङ्गुल-पुविस्तृतम् ।। H. D.-84

666

Mandāra, Sālagrama, Stutasvāmin, Dvārakı Lohārgala, Kedāra, Naimisa, and others. Besides, this kānda speaks of the starting on the Mahāpatha (the great journey ) referred to in Manu VI. 31, the Mahābhārata in its Mahāprasthā nikaparva ( declaring that Yudhisthira with his four brothers queen Draupadi and a faithful dog started on the Great Journey towards Himālaya and that they fell down dead one after another, Draupadi being the first and Bhima the last. Volume IV of H. of Dh. Section IV (pp. 552-727 ) contains descriptions of several famous holy places and several hundred tirthas are mentioned together with references to the Epics, Purāṇas and other works ( in pp. 730-825), where less known tirthas like Lohārgala, Stutas vāmin are mentioned. The Tirthakalpataru bases its treatment on the Mahābhārata ( quoted 15 times ), 12 Purāṇas Matsya and Varāha being quoted 11 times each ). Vide Dr. Bhabatosh Bhattacharya’s paper in N. I. A. Poona Vol. IX. (1947) pp. 100-104 on “Vāca spati-miśra’s indebtedness to Lakṣmīdharabhatta ”.

IX. (probably dealt with Prāyaścittas). That Laksmi dhara desired to devote one kānda to Prāyaścittas is clear from his own statement in the Grhasthakānda p. 314 (nara kāus-etc. Prāyascittakānde vaksyāmaḥ). Besides, the Prāyas. cittatattva of Raghunandana quotes several verses of Yama on the Gomatividyā from Prāyaścitta Kalpataru (p. 522–23 ). Vide A. of Dh. Vol. IV p. 108 where the whole passage from Yama on Gomati-vidyā has been quoted. Dr. S. L. Katre con tributed a paper on the Prāyaścittakānda, missing section of the Kalpataru’ to the J. O. I. ( Baroda ) Vol. VIII (part 3 pp. 286-290. On p. 289 he describes a moth-eaten ms. of Prayas cittakānda from Benares, furnishes a summary of the contents from 72 available folios of the ms. containing more than 104 folios and he surinises that Pratisthā is a supplement of Pūjā. Dr. Katre sets out the different ( 32 ) topics dealt with in the ms. he describes (pp. 289-290 ) and names the authors and works relied on (p. 290 ). It is possible to argue that Pūjā ( worship) follows after Pratisthā and that therefore the 7th Kānda might have been called Pratisthā and also included dis quisitions ou Pūjā.

X. Suddhi-kānda (pub. in 1950). This is the smallest of the eleven kāndas so far published.

The Kalpataru of Lakṣmidhura

667

The Mitāksarā deals with āśauca on Yāj. III. 1-34. This subject also is dealt with in the Suddhikānda of the Kalpa taru. Many of Yājñavalkya’s verses (III. 1-34 ) have been quoted in the Suddhikānda but in many cases without any comment whatever. Verses of this last type are Yāj. III. 1-2 (q. on p. 72 of $.), 3-5 (9. on .85), 7-11 (9. on p. 91 ), 12–13 q. on p. 98 and p. 58 ), 24 (2. on p. 53 ), 25 (q. on p. 54 ), 26 (q. on p. 70), 28-29 (q. on p. 64), 31-34 69. on pp. 115 – 116 ). On· Yamasūktam’ mentioned in Yāj. III. 2; the Mit. points, out that it is the hymn beginning with ‘Pareyi vāmśam’ (Rg. X. 14. 1-16 ), but the Suddhikānda does not refer to it on p. 72. On some of the verses the comment of the Mit. extends to some pages e. g. on III. 1-2 it is two closely printed pages, on III, 2+ over two pages, on III. 28-29 ( two pages ). On Yāj. III. 15 ( śuddhi-kāuda p. 90 ),916 the only explanation offered is that the word ‘kaṭānnam’ means ‘āśāucānnam’ while the Mit. has five lines of explana tion on the verse and explains the word ‘sakatānnam’ as kaṭaśabdenāśaucam laksyate tat sahacaritam-annam sakaṭā pnam (i. e. it takes ‘sakatan nain as one compound ), while it seems that L. separated as ‘sa kaṭānnam’. On III. 22 the Mit has a comment of th of a printed page, wbile L. explains only the words ‘sūdrasya tadardham nyāyavartinah’ as ’ pākayajña-dvijaśuśrūsādi-ratasya tadardham syāt’. These very words are used by the Mit. in its long comment. On Yāj. III. 30 quoted by L. (on Suddhikānda p. 126 ) the Mit. has a lengthy discussion of more than two printed pages, while L. in Suudikānda (p. 126 ) sets out only two lines and a half of explanation almost in the same words (though not clear as the quotations below will show ).917 The present

The word F2 occurs in Vanu II. 201 where it is provided tbat a pupil may sit with his grou on the same ‘srastara or kaṭa or vsesel"; haifarā explains Start: chifTTO: 311F: ( EFT:?) TFT

TITUIT: : 1 Those in mourning were to sleep fourteen days on bare ground or on a bed of vrass or on reeds. Mauu V. 735 and lāj. III. 16, a aparpa ( Anand. ed. ) I. 5. 129 (HTO …… अक्षारलवणाशिनौ दशाहं कटमासीरन् । ). The Mit. explains : 374 3771, 37271: TITETIrfactafa कायाः शावाशोचिनश्च एतैः सम्पृष्टः स्नायात् । तैः पुनरुदक्याशुचिसंस्पृष्टाभिः

(Continued on the next page )

916

26 €

S21

e in nou

vore

TUOT On re

668

History of Dlorernusikstra

author hopes that the comment in Suidhikara is copied from or suygested by the Mit.; and that in the effort to summarise clarity has been lost.

The Suddhi ( puritication ) is of two kinds, external and internal; the first arises in three Will’s viz. from fainily, food, the body. The principal topics are: imjurity on death and birth, the rules let these, rules when a period of ūścbe6016 follow’s one that liis breuily occurred and has not ended ; igauca in Osts where the person concern ed is in a different country ;errors of urity in the case of a child’s death or for a chill, chat itlerit women relatives ( unmarried or married ), perida itf in 5:neid lil ces vol persons dying in battle or in crowils or idying lightuiny. of įersons sentenced by the king or dying bir saving the life of brahmanas or where the king changes the period for state purposes as provided in Gaut. Db. S. XIV. 13-tu uul Visuu 22. 47-52 ); persons for whom there is no asanca prescribes; āśauca for sapienbus and drajimdas; rules about the persons carrying the dead body to the cemetery ; burial of infants (and not cremation ) and cremation ; descrisition of the rites on the cremation of an aguilotrin anii une nut su: bath and otsering water to the deceased; for when there is no uttering of water ( such as those who commit suicide ); comforting those bereaved Yūj. III. 7-}l); asthisanicayans i collecting the ashes ); purification of the bulyo 1 Janu V. 105-109, Yā. III. 31-34), cases of puritication by bath; prification of substances ( such as precious stones, zolden or silver articles ), puritication of things that are spoilt by contact with urine or excreta &c. ; purification of the ground, of waters and of cooked fool; exce;itions to the rules about impurity.

( Continued from the previous paje) संस्पृष्टः उपस्पृशेत् आचामेत् । आचम्य अखिलानि ‘आपोहिष्टा’ इत्येव मादीनि त्रीणि मन्त्रवाक्यानि जोत् । नथा गायत्री च म कृन्मनसि जपत् । … " 59FIRTH: #1417’ 1997 ( J3122754lifti वेदितव्यम् । चेतनव्यवधाने तु मानवम् मनु. ५. ८५ ): Ti७ शद्धिकाण्ड p. 126 hun : rgg: ’ 71513FitTH: è: illan

· Arga: ‘, 37FET: 1 Turjaa 21-1111311zzelfa’ 319fd. JEG Shtimi Thu- ;- all the explanation of this vere. This is not so clear at first sight in the oxplanation in Jhit, is puslapin Kalja taru ia by itself ubscure, while the world of thu Mit(u FET: चेतनव्यवधानस्पर्श ) are clear enough,

tily Vol

The Kulpaturu of Lakṣmīdhura

669

XI. Rāja«lharmakanda ( pub. in 1943). This is one of the smallest and the weakest sections of the Kalpataru and by its meagre and pedestrian contents offers an anti-climax to the great claims ma’le by Liksmidhara in the Introductory verse of this kinda which says. In this 11th kānda Laksmī dhara describes the collection of Rajadharmas, Laksmidhara whose inind is i beint ) on meritorious actions and to whose wonderful greatness in political wisdom are due, all such results is the placing of the world on the path of right, as the fact that elephants are found attached to the houses of those endowed with good qualities and the fact that king, Govinda candra planted his feet on the heads of kings. Even Prof. Rangacharyi, the elitor, who every now and then sings the praises of Liksmihara, Wits constrained to observe in his lengthy Introduction ( 9.5 pages) ’to a modern student of ancient Indian polity it will also appear somewhat barren and theoretical when compared with, for ex: tn {·le, the Kautilīya ( 19 ) and the great expectations raised by these features may not be inet by a stuly of this bouk ( 111 ). The text printed in very large type occupies only 176 payes (exclud ing the Demyttori-uadhi, anl festivals ) and if smaller type had been used (as in the Vir. Edition of the Mitā ksarā ) it would have probably occupied not inore than 70 pages ( of the Vir.elition type )and at least lesser space than 95 pages devoted to the Introduction. The topics discussed are: praise of the kingly office, kiny’s coronation, the qualities requisite in a king, ministers, forts ( incluiling the capital ), construction of palace (and other matters, ilag ic), a mini stration of the State, Royal treasury (and revenue ), Danda i. e. royal furces (described in three verses and two lines ), mitret ( 1. e. illy ) in it little over two pages; Rājaputraraksā i. e. yuariling and education of the prince ( in nine verses from Matsya;jurilita ane two from Malabharata with two lines of explauation), Robitro (consultation with ministers) for settling policies, Ṣarlyunya ( six lines of policy, namely making peace, decision to go to war, Yina, isuna, Dvaidhībhava and Samśra ya ; ( only verses of Manu VII 160-180 and IX. 298-300 are quotel withont a word of comment by himself or taken from predecessors; Yātril( invasion against an enemy, pp. 115–143); many works quoted without hardly any exulanation by Laksmidhara and the elition alldings mostly passages from Viramitrodaya and a few from Haradatta and others; abhi ṣiktahrtyāni ( what the crowned king should do from day to

670

day); in pp. 178-212 are described festivals to be undertaken and celebrated by the king (such as Devayātrā in all the days of Vaiśākba quoting a long passage from Brabma purāṇa on pp. 178-181 with only one line of his own comment; Kaumudimahotsava ( pp. 182-3) and the festival of raising the flag in honour of Indra ( pp. 181-190) from Devīpurāsa.918 Each page can contain only 11 or 12 verses, if there be no foot-notes ( as on p. 74 ), but as almost every page has foot notes about variant readings and also contains extracts from the Vīramitrodaya, Kullūka, Maskaribhāsya and other works; in some cases as much as half a page is occupied by notes. Taking the above facts into consideration, the high claims made for his excellent policies and eliminating the extract on festivals, what remains of Rājadharma in this kānda is meagre and does little credit to the learuing and experience of a great adıninistrator, minister and cominander.

The festivals dealt with are :

Mahānavamīpūjā on Āśvina bright ball, 9th tithi, (pp. 191-195 from Devipurāṇa without a word of comment); Ciphavidhi ( in Kārtika ) in honour of Devī from Devipurāṇa in pp. 196-198; Gavotsarga (in pp. 199–200, from Devipurāṇa); Vasor-dhārā ( pp. 201-212 from Bhaviṣyapurāṇa ).

This Kānda was published at Lahore in 1942 by Mr. Jagadish Lal also.

All the topics dealt with in this Kāuda except Rājapra śasti, Abhiseka ( pp. 9-17 ), Vāstukarmavidhi (pp. 55-78 ), Rāja putrābhiraksā ( 2 pages ) are specified by Yāj. (in I. 309–78 ) and the Mit. It may be noted that the Mit. avoids quotiny Purana passages on Rājadbarma, while L. quotes Puranas profusely, viz. Matsya ( about 285 verses ), Devi (190 verses ), Brahmapurana (81 verses ). He quotes only

—- - – —— —— – - — - - - —- 918 Lakṣmidbara quotes looy passages (pp. 143–177 ) from Mapu, Mahā.

bharata, Matsyapurāṇa and otber works with hardly ten lines of his ow), while the Editur quotes as footnotes long passages from Vīr. M. ( ils on pp. 142, 165, 169 ), from Maskaribhāṣya as op pp. 151, 164-05. LII. of Di. Vol. II pp. 82.5–6, are given references to the Kausika stra, Aduarvi in the Br̥hatuarhitā describing the details of the festival in honour of Iudra, while Lakṣmidbara quotes only Devī. Durā pa. Vide ll. of Dh, Vol. IlI p. 234 and Vol. V p), 274 for ancient and medieval references tu the festival of raising Indra’s banner,78. The Kalputuru of Luksmīdhara

671

about 84 verses from the Mahābhārata in this Kānda (when the Sāntiparva alone devotes over 100 adhyāyas to Raja dharma ), quotes about 76 verses from other Purāṇas (in all about 726 verses from the Purāṇas and Mahābhārata ).

XII. Vyavahārakānda ( pub. in 1953 ).919 The first verse states " Laksmidhara dilates in the 12th Kānda on the subject of Vyavahāra ( Law and Administration of justice ), Laksmī. dhara, on listening to whose various learned words clarifying the ways of vyavuhāra in such matters as doing justice, esta blished by the force of his intellect clever in considering the dicta of several sāstras, learned men are thrilled at each word". The editor includes no Introduction in this kānda. The book is unnecessarily infiated by adding numerous pages of extracts from earlier and later works. The pages being 834 ( of the text ), one is likely to run away with the idea that it is a very extensive work. It is nothing of that sort. Very large type is employed and only 12 verses can be printed on each page even when there are no footnotes. In the Mit. edition of 1926 (Nir. Press ) the verse quotations in the com. are printed continuously and the footnotes also are printed continuously in very small type and occupy one or two lines and extracts from other works are very rarely cited. The type is much smaller than that in the G. 0. S. Another remarkable feature of the editing of Kalpataru kāndas is that variant readings in the text are printed, even if bries, not in continuous lines, but one below the other even if each variant reading contains only a few letters, e. g. pp. 15-20 ), Tirtha kānda and Gr. Kānda pp. 230-34 may be seen; but in the Vyavahārakānda examples of unnecessary waste of space are found by the dozen, vide pp. 699 and 819 on each of which 13 references each occupying nearly half a page could have been compressed in five lines or less, if they had been printed conti nuously. But even this is a small matter in the Vyavabāra section. The learned editor quotes very large extracts from works earlier and later than the Kalpataru. Some glaring examples may be indicated. Viśvarīpa, wbose priority to Laksmīdhara by a few centuries is an established matter, is quoted frequently and even long extracts are given ( vide pp. 8, 13, 17, 45, 60, 72, 82, 158 &c. ). Similarly, Asahāya

919

A separate part containing an Introduction ( 129 pages ) and an Index of half verses ( 108 pages ) was published in 1958 in G.O.S.

672

llistory of Dhrermiśāstru

( com. of Vāraila ) is quoteri duzens of times ( extreme exam ples being on pp. 175 and 320, where more than half the page is occupied by id quotation from Asahāya ): Merlhātithi also is quoted dozens of times ( e. y. on 1'1). 7-8, 20, 24, 27, 29, 37, 58, 80, 89 dc.). Authors and works later than Lakoni Jhara’s are also quoted in footnotes e. g. the Smrticamerikā ( on pṭ: 211, 56, 66, 438 &c). The Virāılaratnākara is quoteil on almost every page as the editor himself animits on p. 845. What is the object of these extensive anil numerous quotations from anthors later than Laksmidhara! In the Introduction it could have been easily demonstrated how some works borrow extensively from the Kalpataru. The Viramitrulaya ( which belongs to the first half of the 17th century ) is cited about a hundreid times. One does not know whether the elitor had been commissioned to do all this or whether he did all this at his own sweet will. The text as printed is several times conjectural; for example, viile note 4 on p. 376 of Vy. l. 5. Certain other matters must also be pointed out here. Many verses of Yāj. are citel in the Yya vahāra-Kalpataru without a word of explanation or comment, while the Mitāksartā explains them at length. A few striking examples may be cited here. (1) On Yaj. I. 52 53 the Mit. has a long note on the meaning of sapinda’ and on limits of sapinda relationship. Kalpataru ( Gr. kārula ) has no discu ssion on this.20 2 ) On Yrj. I. 81 ( and 79 ) the Mit. holds a long discussion whether it is rörlhi, wiyunue or puerisun khyā. Kalpatarn ( on Gr. ) has no such discussion ; (3) On Yaj. II. 24 the Kalpataru ( Vy. p. 186 ) has not a word of explana tion or comment, while the Mit. levotes two printed pages to this verse ; ( 4 ) On Yij. II. 20 the Vy. p. 265 has four lives of explanation while Mit devotes one page; (5) On Yaj. II. 52 the Mit has one pare of exevesis, while kalı ataru ( Vy. }’, 303 ) has not a word of comment of its own ; ( 6 ) On Yāj. II. 152 (siimanta vī &c.) the Vy. p. 442 has not a word of comment, while Mit. levotes more than one page of cominent, (7) On Yāj. II. 265 (first half) the comment is almost the same in the lit. anii Kilpia? Vy. p. 361). There are miny passages of

— - — — 920 In tho Suidhlulinda ( pp. 66 fr ) wapiṇla relationship for ibaura is

referred to by pulatioufrom Janul 1.0), (introit Dh, S. (14,12) Vas. 1), ill), Jatsri-puritlil, Saṅklin-Likhitit, Sumantii ined Brāhmapuridad, but there is 110 liscussion.

The Kalpataru of Liuksmīdhuru

673

Yāj. on which the Mit. has elaborate note anu Kaljao. ( Vy.) has not a word, though it cites the verse e.g. vide Yāj. II. 123 (Kalpao, Vy.p. 664 ), Yāj. II. 140-142 ( Jit. devotes one page to explanation, while Kalp. Vy. p. 667 quotes these verses but offers not a word of comment. Similarly, on Yāj. II. 119 Mitāksarī has a long note, but Kaljao Vy. p. 674 simply quotes the verse.

Scores of Yāj. verses occur on which Kalpataru is silent and Mit has long notes and so referencs to the pages of the Kalpataru ( on l’ y.) and the verses of Yāj. ( not mentioned immediately above ) are yiven below in one place : p. 8 (1, 1, Mit, half a page ), 17 ( II. 19, Mit, ten lines ), 45 ( II. 2, pages in Mit. ), 60 (II. 6, Jlit. two pages), 1 68 (11. 7 half verse ), ( Mit. has two pages ); 92 ( 11. 22, one page in Mit. ), 105 ( II. 63-69, mit. one page ), 112 ( II. 81-82 ), Mit. one page and a half ), 147 (II. 83, Mit, nearly one page), 162 ( II. 91, one page in Mit. ), 180 ( II. 27 half verse, 1.1 pages in Mit. ), 185 ( II. 27 half, verse Mit, more than half a paye ), 204 ( II. 98, nearly one rage in Mit. ), 218 921 (II. 100-102 Kalpao two lines, over hree pages in Mit. ), 308 ( II, 56, Mit. more than half a page ), 318 ( II. 49, Mit. 11 lines of comment ), 350 (II, 169, Mit. has nine lines ), and criticizes Srikara / 37+ ( II. 175, Mit. more than half paye ), 376 ( 11. 176, Mit. has one page ), 436 ( II 258, Mit, has half a page), 412 ( II. 152, more than a page in Mit. ), 537 ( II. 273, Mit, has more than a page ), 586 ( II. 288, about a page in Mit. ), 587 (III. 232-3, two thirds of a page ), 598 (II. 290 more than a page in Mit ). 619 ( I. 86, Mit. 1. pages ), 654 (II. (14-5, Mit. one page 1, 671 ( II. 124 Mit. one page ), 676 (II, 118-119, Mit. two pages ), 716 ( II. 132, Mit. more than a paye ), 721 ( II. 127, Mit, more than a page ), 764

( II. 199-200, Mit. half a jaye ), 825 ( I. 96, Vit. one page ).

921

The two lines in Kalzvao. (V3. ) aro : Rai harga itaka gaitaja. समीकरणदशायां (!) यत्र पादो स्थिती शिक्यर जवश्च तत्र पाण्डुलेखेनाङ्कयित्वा. l’ompare stato on Yāj. II. 100 ( Tārgatua et Faiqnifa: . The Vit. say’s Fantai Fratta dilaazia gjaRTITATEROGORI

Fraisaltuaraika Prog rafiral eto. Either Lakṣmidhara himself borrowed or some later scribe introduced these words. The editor did not understand that प्रतीयमान should the प्रतिमान.

I, D,-85

674

Many such examples about verses of Yaj. ( commented upon at some length by the Mit. and only quoted without comment or with very brief comments by Laksmidhara ) can be cited from other Kandas, but for reasons of space the pre sent author has to be content with stating some striking exa mples from the Srādbba-kānda. Yāj. I. 256 refers to the times of Ekoddistaśrāddha. The Mit. has two closely printed pages of comment on this. Kalpataru ( on Srāddha ) merely quotes the verse and has no word of comment. Similarly, on Yāj. I. 252 the Mit. devotes one page of comment, while Kalpo. ( on Srāddha ) has no comment ). Yāj. I. 253-254 (deal. ing with Sa pindīkarana ) have three printed pages of comment. ( one page being devoted to evolving order out of varying views of the Sapiṇdikaraṇa of one’s inother ( acc. to Paithi nasi, Yama, and Uśanas, while the Kalpataru on Srāddha quotes Yāj. I. 253-54 ( on p. 257 ) and sets out only one view; (p. 258 ), but the Mit. bas a vyavasthā on three different views similarly, on Yāj. I. I. 256 ( on the proper times for Ekoddi sta-srāddha the Mit. quotes the verses of about a dozen sages and of Dāksiṇātyas, Urddhas and brings order out of the chaos, while Kalpataru od Srāddhao ( pp. 250 and 262 ) quotes Yāj. I. 256 ( badly printing it on p. 250 ) and hardly refers to several sages and views. The Kalpa’. on Srāddha p. 257 quotes the two verses but has only less than two lines of comment.

The present author finds that, compared with citations from Kātyāyana, Nārada, Bșhaspati and Manu, the Kalpataru (on Vyavabāra ) is sparing in its quotations from Yājña valkya and further has no words of comment in many places at all even when it cites Yāj.

The present writer bas a suspicion that Lakṣmīdhara wanted to avoid comparison of his performance with the lear ned explanatious of the Mit.

That scholars should not be misled by the bulky nature of the volume on Vyavahāra, some further matters must be brought to their notice. On pp. 394, 395 the text consists of only three lines and on p. 397 of only five lines, the rest being taken up by extracts from other works and arguments. In the following cases half the page or more than half is taken up by quotations from other works or arguments ( in a few cases ) or readings ( rarely ) viz. pp. 320-1, 365, 387-90,

The halpaturu of Lakṣmidhara

675

392, 398, 400-402, 404, 410, 439, 450, 461, 514, 538, 539, 605, 635, 637, 049, 658, 667, 674, 679, 732, 739, 759, 765,

769, 804-5.

The present author has not shown the waste of space in in other kānlas for reasons of space. The same thing is found in other kvindes. For example, in the Gr. Kānda half a page or more has been taken up by the footnotes, viz pp. 4, 7, 9, 10, 14 18-20, 24, 35-6, 40, 48, 50, 62 (18 footnotes), 70, 73, 96, 181-2, 230, 232, 301, 415 etc. After carefully considering the matters to which attention has been drawn above, the present author asserts without fear of contradiction that the text of kūnla XII. on Vyavahara is smaller in mere extent than the Mitāksarā on Yāj. II. ( dealing with the same subject which has been printed in sinall type and in a com pact manner awl that, as regaris quality, it is far inferior to the Mitāksari. It is unnecessary to cite instances where Mit. refers to the Piramiminsi and its commentators in the sec tion ou Vyavalira alone ( is in the Intro. to Vāj. II. 114, on II, 135-136, 11. 137 c. ), while in the Kalpataru ou Vyava hāra discussions on or references to Pūrvamimāṁsā are gene rally conspicuous by their absence.

XIII. The thirteenth Kānda dealt with Santika’(pro pitiatory rites for averting a deity’s wrath or effects of evil planetary influences or other misfortunes ) and Paustika rites such as homu, and the like performed for longevity &c. For detailed treatment of Santika rites, vide H. of Dh. Vol. V part 2 pp. 719-814 and for the meaning of Pausṭika, vide H. of Dh. Vol. V part I p. 349.

XIV. Moksakānda rub. in 1945 ( The Introductory verses2? to this kindu states ‘Lakṣinidhara, the best among brābmanas, speaks in the 14th kāṇda about Moksa after which

— — —————- - - ———– 922 वेदान्तोक्तिविवेकवैभवगलवारमायात्तमः । स्वरोन्मीलदमेयचिन्मयपरब्रह्मेकता.

नात्मने ॥ ते यस्में स्पृह्यन्ति लब्धपरमानन्दाः सनन्दादयः । काण्डे वक्ति चतुदो द्विजवरो मोक्षं स लक्ष्मीधरः ॥

The elitor appears to havo misunderstourl the syntactical connec tion of the words in this verstand so erred in the translation. The first half of the rerse enriing in slemane’ is in the dative and yoon with ‘yasin ’ in the third line, which refers to smokṣam in the

(Continuell on the next paye)

676

( Moksa ) hanker Sananda and others that secured supreme bliss, which ( moksa ) is (or consists in ) non-difference from the Highest Brahma that is pure consciousness ( cit. ), that is inconceivable ( to ordinary human minds ) and that freely manifests itself when the darkness caused by Māyā that is difficult to remove but that drops away ( vanishes ) when there is perfect discrimination of the words of the Vedānta (the Upaniṣads ). Vide the verse cinmayasyaprameyasya &c.’ quoted on p. 118 n. 305 of H. of Dh. Vol. V part 1. On reading the Introductory verse which speaks of Māyā as tamas which is removed by correct knowledge ( viveku ) and which

( Continued from the previous page ) last line and not to dvija varah’ as the editor seems to hold, Keeping in mind that the verge purports to be composed by Lakṣmi. dhara himself, it would be the heigbt of conceit on his part to suggest thit Sanandana and others ( to whom, according to the Mahābhārata and Purāṇas, God himself imparted the highest bliss were hankering to learn from Laksmīdhara ( a puny mortal of the 12th century A. D.). The learned Editor sticks to his opinion (originally occurring in the Intro. to Dābakānda p. 56 ) in his Intro. duction (p. 18 n, 1 ) to the Mokṣakanda. The Puranas state that Sanaka, Sanandana, Sanātana and Sanatkumāra are the mind-born sons of Brahm; vide Nāradiya-purāṇa ( pūrvabhāga 2. 3 ), Brahma. purāṇa I. 46-47 ( about Sapat-kumāra ), Kūrmapurāṇa (1, 7, 19-21, Vāmadapurāba 60,68 and Paramasanhitā 31. 16-19 ( the last a Pāñca. rātra work ). Kārṣrājini quotes (id Aparārka p. 138 ) verses that Sapaka, Sananda, Sanātana, Kapila, Asuri, Vodha and Pancasikha these seven are sons of Brahmā. These are ancient names. The Chāo. Up. ( VII. 6. 1-2 and VII, 26.2 ) states that Nārurla who had studied the four l’odas and all other lores then known approached Sanatkumāra for Atmavidyā, learnt it from him and reached beyond the darkness of ignorance (tasniai…… tamasas–param darśa yati bhagavān Sapatkumāraḥ)’. Saṅkarācārya flourished at least three centuries before Lakṣmidbara. Many scholars differed from him and did uot spare him. If Laksmidhara ditfered from him why does be not expressly say so? The prosent author thinks that Lakṣmidhara, an active administrator of a large kingdom for many years and also it yreat commander hall not thoroughly studied the L’paniṣds, the Vedāntasūtra and the whāṣyas thereon and on the Gita and was not gure of himself and purposely avoided making ex plicit statements on the ditfering views of the Bhāsyakiras on the Upanisads, the Vedintasūtra and Giti. He does not employ the Viśistādvaita terminology such as the words Prupatti, sit and acit. yvūhas and does not in his own words dilate upon the Bhāgarata or Pāūcarūtra system,

IIS

The Kalpatiru of Lakṣmīdhara

677

speaks of Moksa as identity ( ekatanatā ) with highest Brah man, the conclusion follows that it breathes the pure Advaita Vedānta. The present author has no desire to argue at length with the editor who did not apparently know his own mind as shown by the notes cited here. In the notes (to Moksa Kānda ) ou p. 327 he remarks `his ( Laksmidhara’s) view of Mokṣa does not agree with the Advaita or the Viśistādvaita and adds ‘Mukti is said to consist in the absorption of the jīva in Brahman (aikya, layo or tunmaya ). This is the view of Bhāskara’. On p. 340 of the Notes on Viṣṇu purāṇa quoted at great length on pp. 102-108 of Moksa kūnda the editor remarks in fact the long quotation from the Viṣṇupurāṇa which is held up as the true view (and so the author’s ) contains many indications of a trend towards Visi stādvaita and of opposition to Advaita ’ and then specifies four indications. As stated above the Editor was in two minds and probably Laksmilhara and his helpers might have been in the same predicament. On p. 343 the explanation of the word ‘Yogayuktah’ in Gītā V. 6-7 by Lakṣmīdhara as

advaitadarśane sthitaḥ ’ induces the editor to say that Laksmīdhara leans more to Bhāskara. In the notes on p. 341 referring to Viṣṇupurāṇa ( 3 verses quoted on p. 113 ) the edi tor remarks the leaning of Laksmīdhara to Viśistādvaita in this may be noted’. The present author does not want to say much here. One thing appears to be almost certain viz. that Laksmidhara composed his digest according to the present author at the earliest from 1125 to 1145 A. D. It is difficult to hold that the bhāsya of Rāmānuja who belonged to South India had penetrated to Kanoj and was studied there ten years before 1130 A. D. by Lakṣmidhara and the pandits who helped him.

Besides, Laksmidhara and his helpers do not appear to have been profound students of the Upaniṣads and the Vedā ntasūtra and the bhāsyas thereon. They appear to have been mere paurāṇikas or reciters of the Mahābhārata so far as Mokoa is concerned. Laksmidhara, after quoting Bhagavad gītā Il. 59 (on p. 98 ) explains (on p. 99 ) ’ rasa varjam-itya tra raso rāga iti Gītābhāsyam’. It should be noted that the word Gītābhāsyam’ is in the singular ( nominative ). The natural and proper inference is that he refers to a single bhāsya on the Gītā. If he meaut to refer to more than one blāsya on the Gītā, he would have said Gitabhāsye (nomi

678

Ilistory of Dhurmuśāstra

native dual) or Gītābhāsyāni (plural). The editor jumps to the conclusion that L. was conversant with the bhāsyas of both Saikara and Rāmānuja. This is an unwarranted conclusion. L. meant to refer to a single bhānya that is clear. The learned editor could have said that L. refers to Rāmāuuja’s bhāsya alone. He would have then been met by the reply that Śhaṅkara’s bhavya was about 300 years earlier than Laksmidhara and than Riminuji’s bhāsya and Śhaṅkara does explain the word ‘rasia’ as ‘riya’ (as admitt ed by the editor ) and that there is nothing to prove that Rāmānuja’s bhāsya on the Gitit was stu lied in north India as early as the first and second quarters, of the 12th century A. D).

•

Rāmānuja is said to have been persecuted by Kulottunya Cola (1070-1120 A. D.). Prof. Nilakanta Sastri in his work on the Colas’ ( 2nd, el. 1955 ) appears to hold that the mate rial is shifty, that to refrain from logmatising is as neces sary as it is difficult, but (on 1’. (44) he says the leading instance of religious intolerance in the period of Chola rule is that of the persecution of Ramānuja and his followers by a Cola monarch whose identity is not altogether free from doubt. The traditional dates of Rāmānuja’s birth and death are 1017-1137 A. D. (i. e, he is supposed to have lived for 120 years. He composed many works. His blāsya on the Gitā presupposes his bhāsya ou the Vedāntasūtra and the bhāsya on the latter (called Sribhāsya) presupposes his work Vedārthasaji yraha ( vide Sribhāṣya, ed. by V. M. Abhyankar sastri, on I. 1. 1 p. 58 ). He wrote also other works. If we believe that he was persecuted by Kullottunga ( Chola or some other Chola Kiny ) his works could not have spread to the North easily or before his death. Further, the Moksakānda is the last of the 14 Kāudas and so must have been the last to be handled in the series of Kānday. It will he shows a little later on that the kādas were taken up in order one after another and not in pellmell order. The present author thinks that Laksmihara refers in the word Gitābhiisyam on p. 99 of the Moksakārla to the blisya of Sarkaricārya ( in a colour less way ), probably because he had no definite opinions of his own on the abstruse questions of the branches of Advaita philosophy. In E. I. Vol. XIV PP. 83-96 (on the Srirangam plates of Mummaui Nayaka of Saka-samvat 1280, ed. by T. A.

The Kalpataru of Laksmīdhara

679

Gopinatharao ) at p. 86 reference is made to Rāmāpuja’s stay for not less than 20 years in Hoysala country and to his return to Srirangam after the death of the persecuting Cola king in A. D. 1118 and that the remaining third part of the Sribhāsya was finished then. This would lead to the conclusion that the Sribhāsya was completed at the earliest about 1120 A. D. or a little later. The Gitābhāsya pre-supposes the Srībhasya and therefore it might have been composed about 1125 or later. Some years must have elapsed before mss. of it reached Northern India and were studied there. If the

Gītābhāsyam’ mentioned in the Moksakında ( p. 99 ) is to be understood as Rāmāpuja’s bbāsya it would follow that the Moksa-kānda of the Kalpataru could not have been composed before at least 1140 or 1145 A. D.

The above views have been advanced on the basis more or less of the traditional dates of Rāmānujācārya’s birth and death.

No epigraphic record directly mentioning Rāmānuja has been found so far.

The results of modern research differ a great deal from the traditional accounts and among themselves. An impor tant contribution is that of Mr. T. A. Gopinatha Rao who deli vered the Sir Subrahmanya Aiyyar Lectures on the History of Sri-Vaiṣṇavas’ in 1917, which were published in 1923. He refers (pp. 14-15 ) to several Guruparamparās and monogra phs on individual acāryas. The earliest extant work ( accord ing to him ) is the Divyasūricarita of Garuḍavāhana Pandita 923 who claims to be a contemporary of Rāmānujīcārya and it mentions no yugas and years but only the month, tithi and the nakyatra at the time of the Alvārs and ācāryas. It appears to the present author that most of these traditional

923

Vide E. I Vol. 24 pp. 90-101 for Srirangam loscription of Garuḍa vāhana Bhatta of Saka 1415 ( 20th May 1493 ) for a grant by Garuḍavāhana, edited by Mr. A. S. Rampath Aiyyar B. A. who states that Garuḍavāhana was like a title ef thc Superintendent of the temple and its boupital and that the author of the Divyasūri. caritam’ was the same as the larndavāhana of this inscription and the idea of the author of the Divyasūricaritam being a contempo rary of Sri Ramānuja must be given up. For extracts from Divyasūricaritam about Rāmānuja vide I, A, vol, 41 pp. 221 ff with translation in English,

680

accounts (particularly the later ones) are altogether unreli able. For example, the dates of the birth and death of Srī Rāmānuja are given in them as 1017 and 1137 A. D. But in some accounts about Alvandār, the grandson of Nātha muni and the Guru of Rāmāmja, it is stated that he (i.e., Alvandār ) was born after 1024 A. D. i. e. the traditional accounts lead to this that the teacher was born after the disciple (vide p. 31 of Gopinatha Rao’s Lectures ). It is not necessary for the present author to go into the different rates and events. Two-thirds of the Sribhāsya had been finished, according to the traditional sources, when the Cola persecu tion began and it was completed, according to the Rānānuja rya-divyacaritam, in Saku 1077 ( 1155 A. D.) Vide p 34 of Gopinath Rao’s Lectures. The Gītābhāsya of Rāmānuja was composed ( as proved by internal evidence ) after the Sri bhāsya. If the word Gitābhāsyam (on p. 99 of the Vy. Kānda ) refers to Rāmānuja’s bhāsya as Prof. Aiyanyar argues ( vide above ) then the Vy. Kānda must have been completed long after 1155 A. D. There is no doubt that the Mit. was completed before 1125-26 A. D. at the latest (as shown above ). Therefore, it would follow that L. came several decades after it and borroweil from it. Mr. Gopinath Rao advances certain arguments and concludes (p. 34 ) ‘it is extremely likely that the date of the completion of the work (Sri-bhāsya ) was 1047 Saka ( 1135 A. D. ) and Saka 1077 is a mistake for 1047’. On pp. 37–38 Mr. Gopinath Rao holds that the persecutor of Rāmānuja was the Cola king Kūlottunga l. On the other hand, Mr. T. N. Subramaniam in the long Introduction to South Indian temple Inscriptions Vol. III part 2 ( Mariras Govt. Oriental Series No. CLI adds a note on the date of Rāmānuja (pp. 147-160 ), and holds that the Divyasuri-caritam and Yatirājavaibharam are later compositions, that Tamil verses quoted in the Rāmā nujārya-divyacaritai are perbasis the earliest of the available materials and traws the following conclusions ( p. 160 ):

(1) Kūlottunga II was the Cola monarch who was the contemporary of Rāmānuja and who persecuted him and the followers of the Vaiṣṇava faith ; ( 2 ) the flight of Rāmānuja from the Chola dominion to tha Hoysala country took place in 1138 A. D. (3) he returned to Srirangam after twelve years on hearing of the death of the Chola who persecuted him in 1150 A. D. and (4) the Srībhāsyam was completed only in78. The Kulpataru of Likṣmidhura

681

Saka 1977 or 1155-56 A. D. after his return from Mysore. If these conclusions were accepted, it would follow that the Gītābhāsya was completed by Rāmānuja about or after 1160 A. D. and that, if’Gītābhāsyam ‘) on 1. 99 of Moksakānda refers to Rāmānuja’s bhāsya then that part was composed not earlier than 1165-70 A. D. i. e. about fifty years after the latest date for the Mitāksarā.

The references to the Upanisads and the Vedāntasūtra in the Moksakānda are very few. On p. 6 there is a reference to Chandogya Up. (VIII. 3. *). On . 62 in explaining Manu VI. 83 ādhyatmikain ca satatam Vedāntābhihitam ca yať, there is a reference to the Br. lp. but the Brahmasūtra passage is not expressly stated. On p. 143 the Chāndogya Up. VIII. 2.1 is mentioned and Vedānta sūtra IV. 4. 1 relating to it is quoted. On p. 262 a short passage from Br. Up. VI. 2.15 ‘arciso ahah, ahna āpīryamūna-pakṣam’ is quoted and very briefly explained. The Upaniṣads, the Vedāntasūtra and Gītā are lield by all ācāryas to be the three primary and principal sources of Vedāntaśāstra. The first two do not appear to have been much studied or relied on by Laksmi dhara and his helpiers; they have hardly quoted even a dozen Upanisad passages nor even three sūtras out of the 555 of the Vedāntasītra, but have quoteil luun:lreds of verses from the Mahābhārata and Puranas. There is no reference to basic texts like ’tat-tramasi’( Chāndogya VI. 8.7 repeated seve ral times later ) oraham brahmāsmi’ (Br. Up. I. 4. 10 ), or

Satyam jñānam-anantam Brahma ‘Tai Up I1, 1). Here and there a verse is quoted (which occurs in an Upanisad as the verse’ esa sarvesu’ which is Kathopanisad 3 12 but cited after Gītā passages (on p. 133 of 14th Kanda ). On p. 143 one passage from Chāu. Upis quoted and a sutra is quoted.

On p. 202 the editor cites a few words984 from Br. Up. III. 8.9 and II. 1.20 and from Chūn. Up. I. 5.3, all in a mutilated state without specifying the work from which they are taken.

984 34TETICHE SE HITHEEZ (?) Flagrant and TPHET: 1

p. 62, (

H PE). The ms. was corrupt: quia is required in place of E. The Editor was not aware, it seems, that the m ra is Ṛgveda IV. 26. ; Br. l’p’. I. 1. 10 cemarks “Timary

( Continued on the nert page)

D.–86

682

History of Dhurmaśāstra

Laksmīdhara quotes about 105 verses from the Manu-smrti in Moksakānda (principally from chapters VI and XII). From the Mahābhārata hundreds of verses are quoted among the Purāṇas, the Viṣṇujurāna, the Mārkandeya, Narasimha, Brahma, Brahmānda and Vāyu are largely quoted. Among smrti writers, Yāj., Daksa, Derala, Saṅkha, Saṅkhalikhita, Hārīta are largely quoted. Many verses are quoted from the Yogiyājñavalkya, comparatively a late work. This shows that the chief primary sources of Vedānta viz. Upanisads and the Vedāntasūtra were almost totally neglected and secondary and even tertiary sources such as Puranas aud Yogiyājñavalkya are very much in evidence. The topics dis cussed in the Moksakānda are: Introduction to Moksā (from Mārkandeyapurāṇa, chap. 38 ), Moksasvariipa, Vānarasthya (becoming a forest hermit ), the dharmas of a forest hermit (Manu VI. 5-16 and 27-32 and others ), the stage of a Yati (chiefly Manu VI. 33-37 and 41 etc. ), the procedure of sannyāsa, Dharmas of a Yati, viz. Vairagya ( freedom from desires ), giving up Kāma, anger, greed &c., control of senses ; creation of the tuttuus acc. to Saṅkhya; thoughts on the bodies of gods, on human bodies (as dirty &c.) and of lower animals; Jiva and Brahma; about Jñana and Karma; the matters that lead to ātmajñāna; Yoga with its ramifications, the nature of dhyeya ( what is to be contemplated upon ); sigus when one is successfully pursuing Yoga ; the ten Upasarga (hindrancess )

( Continued from the previous page ) afaga: gang “HAJTH I. The ā pa7 on this is

SITEETTI PIEET anaal’ ( I. 1. 31 ). तथा च श्रुतिः । सङ्कल्पादेवास्य पितर उपतिष्ठन्ति इति । व्याख्यातं चेदं ‘सङ्कल्पादेव तु तच्छृतेः’ इत्यत्र वेदान्तसूत्रे. The श्रुति is छान्दोग्य VIII. 2.1 ( but the reading there is Huragfa) and the Vedānta sūtra is IV, 4, 8. Most of the original Upaniṣad passages appear mutilatoil in the Mokṣakānda and had not been identified by the editor when the text was printed but only in the notes (p. 316 ), without correction even in the corrections’. Those passages should real on p. 202 av follows:- ’ 77777 at 37TTET TITO T ’ linon 9-10. 1. 16 should read • TEACHIEFHA: AT: HT11a ETH ( 27. II. 1.20 ); 1. 18 should rear of gari qez: TETYTTA’ 31. 34. I. 5. 3.

The Kalpataru of Laksmīdhara

683

of Yoga ; the Vibhūtis ( or siddhis, that is esoteric powers ) due to practice of Yoga; who is a sthitaprajña and his characteristics, doings &c.; what happens to him who fails before reaching complete Yoga ; signs of approaching death; passing of the soul from the body.

From certain references in the kūndas themselves it clearly appears that the fourteen kāndus were composed one after another in order and were not being dealt with simul. taneously. For example, on p. 176 of Br. K. it is stated

Japetikartavyatām Naiyata kālike vaksyāmah’ (the Naiya tao being the 3rd Kānda ); on p. 314 of the Gșhastha kāṇda we have ’narakāmsca prāyaścitta-kānde vakṣyāmah’ (Prā yaścitta-kāṇla being the 9th ). On p. 332 of Grhasthakānda ‘śuśruśāsvarūpanivettau Brahmacārikāydebhihitau ‘984a (Br. K. is the first and Gș. K is second ).

TABLE SHOWIMG SOME PARTICULARS SUCH AS PAGES ABOUT ELEVEN VOLUMES SO FAR PUBLISHED

Appendices Introduction Text

including Kāpda excluding

index of half Preface.

verses and V. Rs.

L. in Mss. pp. i. Brahmao 93 280 2. Grhastha 132 435

12 3. Naiyatakala 58 480

19-50 4. Srāduba

279

15 5. Dāna 129

313

101 6. Vrata

469 7. (not Pub) 8. Tirtha

264 9. (not Pub.) 10. Suddhi

182

9.36 larma 95

212 12. Vyavahāra None 834

26.75 13. Sāntika

(not Pub.) 14. Moksa

262

12 756

4010

634

149.61

Price

PP.

48 77

9811 The passive would have to be correcteilas suśrūṣi-svarūpa-pivetti

……kide-Shlihito’; for susrūsa vide Br. K. pp. 211 ff and for its nivrtti (ity cessation ) vide pp. 275 ff. Another possible correction would be susrūsā-sparūpia-piirttih….kindebhihitii,

684

A few remarks about the text of this large mibandha would not be out of place. The manuscript meterial was rather meagre and inferior. For eximṭile, on p. VIII in the Preface to the Br. Kānia it is stated that the erlition is based on a single ms and on p. IX it is stated that the Urlaipur is ( which belongs to the 16th century A. D. probably ) was full of large elisions and omissions, that such omissions were filled up from citations of the saine passages in later digests and that the inissing parts so suplilieil are shown within rectan gular brackets. On p. 279 in a note the Editor himself says that the ms. is very defective. The editor does not give even a specimen page of that ms. nor does heilescribe who the scribe was or how many folios it containeil. In Vy. Kānda on 1. 376 the editor remarks ( in note 4 ) mss corrut, passages restored conjecturally from the mss. and the following comment and citation in the Vivādaratnakara ( then quotes three lines from V. R. } 130 ). The most remarkable thing is that he does not put his conjectural reading in square brackets as he does in some other cases. On p. 377 lie notes that there is a gap of more than two printed pages up to the top of p. 380 in Udaipur and Bikaner mss. In the case of the Vratakānda (6th in the series of kinds ) the Editor states (on p. VI Pre. face) that the edition ‘is based on the Nagpur and Ujjain Mss. Not a word more is said about the scribe, the number of folios, the date of the copying of the mss. or other details. That page also states that the Nagpur Ms. was so brittle that the cura tor woulil not allow a mechanical photographing and that somehow a transcript of such a dilapidated ms. was made on the spot and supplied to the Editor. One would naturally feel great diffidence before drawing chronological and other conclusions based on a text that is constituted from such materials. As regards the Sraddhakānda, there is no descrip tion of the mss. anywhere. As regards some Kāndas the mss. material seems to have been somewhat better. For example, as regards the Dāna-kāṇla, on pp. 124-126 of the Introduc tion he gives some information of the mss. relied upon for constituting the text. But the description of the mss. is not what is required in such cases but is vague. In this kiindu the editor expends thirty payes ( lp. 383-412 ) for set ting out the relings of a ms from the Vaypur Bhosle Raja’s Library. If only important reailinys had been given (aud not also obvious scribal errors ), a few pages only would have

The Kalpataru of Luksmīdhara

685

been enough. In the Grhasthakānda also 25 pages (pp. 430 460 ) are expended on various readings of two mss. In the Vy. Kānda the preface ( pp. VIII-IX ) refers to some mss. and copies, but no detailed descriptions of mss. or copies are given in one place and the footnotes refer merely to mss. J. A. S. B. and S. K. and Ja (i.e. mss from Jammu ) and ‘da’( Dar bhanga ms). The state of the mss and this way of dealing with them detracts greatly from the value of conclusions drawn on the basis of the text presented with the help of such mss.

The Personal History of Laksmīlhar: Our knowlede of the personal history of L. has to be derived from his own works, particularly from the Introductory rerses to the Br. Kānda and the coloļihons at the end of the different Kāndas. Most of the colophons ( as in.licated in the note below ) state L. was the son of Bhatta Hrdavadhara and was himself a Sāndhirigrabika or Mahāsāndhiviyrahika i minister or great minister for peace od war), some adding that he was minister to king Govindacarira. lf the father Hrdayadhara had also been a minister for peace and war Laksmīdhara would certain ly have mentioned that fact in the Introductory verses to the Brahmacarikānula. It is somewhat remarkable that the numerous Gahadi wala inscriptions do not disclose the name of any mantrın but mention the dignitaries called Purohita, Mahattaka, Pratīhāra &c.

There are sisteen verses in the Intro:luction to Br. Kānda. In the first three verses obeisance is offered to Viṣṇu, Hara (Śiva) anu Banu ; verses 4-i contain hightown praise of victo. rious king Govindacandra ( which will be dealt with later ); verses 8 and 9 praise Lakomidhara who is said to be the chief mantrin (minister ) of the heroic king ( Govindacandra ), whose ( Laksmithara’s ) greatness is inconceivable and who provided, for the sport of two Cakravāka-like feet of the king, a river in the forin of the brilliant lustre of the jewelled crowns of many kings; low many wicked kings have not been sent to their doom by this best of seekers ( after great powers ) who is solely devotel to the vow of fighting and who also seeks Vidyās. who, in securing the earth girt by the ocean for the king of Kāśi, offereil in the fire of valour one lakh of the lotus like heads of enemy kings, and then verse ten contains high praise of his own work called Kalpavrksit that yields the fruits of Dharma, Artha, Kana and immortality ( moksa) and

686

verses 11 to 13 mention three works that preceded bis; he speaks rather slightingly about two of them and very dispara gingly about the third. These verses may be tanslated as follows: ‘Gopāla, his (i.e. Lakṣınidhara’s ) friend composed his own work in the form of sentences ( that is, in prose?) by embodying Purana passages in some arts and often passa yes from the smrtis. But this digest (of L.) which is not extensive will be caused to be composed, that will delight the minds of learned men by its containing the essence of the Vedas and Smrtis and by the import which is set off by Mi māṁsā ( doctrines ), in which defects cannot be found at all. Will not the delightful growth of Kalpataru ( heavenly desire yielding tree, the work so called) by him (i.e. written by L.) atford pleasure to learned dvijas (or to gods and brāhmanas ). the Kalpataru on whose appearance Srī ( excellence, Laksmi) does not stay in Malvārnava ( a work so called, great oceav ), Kalpataru under which Kāmdhenu ( the work so called and the celestial cow) goes to sleep ( remains unread ) ? Now that this Kalpadruma ( desire-yielding tree, the work called Kalpataru ), owing to the power of the ambrosial sprinkling of the opulent intellect of Laksmīdhara, will, while in this world, tend to the benefit of the three worlds, why think of following after Mahārnava ( a work so called, the great ocean), why hanker after Kāmadhenu ( the celestial cow and the work so called ), to whose mind will occur the worthless Ratna mālā ( the work so called, a jewel necklace) and others?

From these three verses we learn that Gopāla, a friend of Laksmīdhara, had already composed a work embodying in his own words the gist of Puranas and Smṛtis ( that work was called Kāmadhenu, vide section on Kāmdhenu above); tbat there was another work called Mahārṇava 985 and a third called Ratnamālā and some other digests had already been composed. What fault L. finds with Kamadhenu it is difficult to under stand. From passages in the Vivāılaratnākara (p. 5-6,-135, 150 ) and works such as Hāralatā it is clear that the Kāma

985

Jahārpara is mentioned on p. 134 of the Br. Kānda surt a Mahā. I’navitprakīsi is mectioned on p. 262 of Sriddhakanda. The present author holds that the two are idential. It may be noted that no paesage from the Kimdhonu is quoted or referred to in any of the Kāndas. Thouch L. treaty with scorn both Kilinadhenu and Mahā.

nava, he quotes the Mahirnaya twice by name, but not so tho Kūmadhenu.

The Kalpataru of Laksmīdhara

687

dhenu contained verses ( of Nārada, Katyāyana and others ) and explained them ; vide also Vyavahārakānda p. 379 note 1. The word Yayasya is important. Acc. to Pāṇ. IV. 4. 91 Vuyasya means ‘Vayasā tulyaḥ. Gopāla as stated in V. il of Intro. to Br. Kānda had digested single-handed smṛtis and Purāṇas and then wrote the work called Kāmadhenu. That task must have taken several years. Therefore it would not be wrong to hold that he completed the work when he was about forty years old. After Gopāla had reached that stage Laksmīdhara started on the project of a big digest and must have been nearly of the same age at least. The word ‘Kāri syate’ in verse 11 above is in the future tense of the causal of the root kr (to do ). That shows that long after Gopāla’s work was completed, this digest was begun and was composed not by Laksmidhara single-handed but with the help of other learned men. The Introductory verse to the Br. K. is : L. first begins to write on the first āśrama, L. who reduced the ene mies of the king of Kāśi to the stage of brahmacarya, because the enemies harassed by him, had to turn away (like brahma cārins ) from sensual pleasures, had to sleep on the earth as their bed, were reduced to the stage of begging alms, were clad only in loin cloth and were familiar with their skins (i.e. they did not cover their bodies with anything).

The victorious Govindacandra mentioned in verse 4 (in Introd. to Br. Kānda ) is the Gāhadwāla king of that name who ruled at Kānyakubja ( modern Kanoj) and Kāśī. In verse 4 it is said · Kings were paralysed through fear by hear ing the trumpetings of the elephants of the Gauda king, who was easily (lit. sportively) threatened by Govindacandra ( vijayi Govindacandrosti yaḥ krīdātarjita-Gauda-garjita bhaya-stambhibhavat-pārthivaḥ). In verse 7 of the Intro. Govindacandra is said to have killed in battle the heroic Hammira,956 the acie amony valorous men (sauryabhājām availhir-avadhi yuddhe yena Hammira-vīraḥ). From verse 8-9 of the Intro, it follows that L. rose to be chief minister of

——- —– - ——— 986 Hammira is an adaptation of the word " Amir’or’aneer’ which is

the title of moslem rulers or commanders under the moslem kings of Gazni and Lahora that invaded India in the 11th and following centuries.

688

History of Dharmusastra

king Govindacandra987 and fought (as commander) many son guinary battles on behalf of his king, in which thousands of soldiers anil kings were killeil ( this statement appears cer tainly highly exaggerated ). This task of an extensive work on Dharmasastra in fourteen parts was undertaken not only after the Kāındhenu of Gopala, a friend of L., was composed but also (1) after Govindacandra fought with an (unnamed ) Gauda king; (2) after G. killel in battle Hammira ; ( 3 ) after numerous fights with other kings in which thou sands were slain; ( ) and after, as stated in Introductory verse of Rājailharma-kānda, men of character had risen to high opulence and after many kinys hail meekly submitted to Govindacanıra owing to the wonderful greatness of Laksmidhara’s policies.

There are numerous inscriptions (mostly copper-filates ) issued by the Gahadwālas. The pedigree begins with Yasovi graha ( as in E. I. IV p. 99-101 ). Candradera is described as having conquered the kingdom of Kanyakubja (in E. I. vol. VII p. 85-93 Paramabhattāraka-mahārājādhi rāja-parameśvara-nijabhujopārjitaśrī - Kanyakubjādhipatya Sri-candradeval ).

It is necessary for our purpose to refer to a few Inscrip tions only. (1) The Basahi grant of Vikrama year 1161 (1104 A. D.) issued by Goviudacandra, as with the consent of Purohita Jāgūka, Mahattaka Bāllana and Pratīhāra Gautama ( in I. A. Vol. 14 pp. 101-104); (2) the Kamauli grant of Vikrama year 1162 ( 1105 A. D. ) issued by (iovinda candra with the consent of persons mentioned in the preced ing grant and queen Rālhadevī ( E. I. Vol. II, pp. 358-61 );

– – - 987 The pedigree of Govindacandra is as follows:

Yasoviçrahi-won Mahicandra – son Candradera (1089 – 1100 A. 1). ). son Marianapila ( 1100 - 1114 ) - son Gorinda - Candia ( 1114-1154 - son Vijaya1-(itt:(Irit ( 1155-1170 A, D. - Son Jayacanlril ( 1170-1193 ) Son Hariscandra ( 1193-1200). For the Galadwila rlynasty of Kanoj videJ. R. A. S, 1932 pp 1-21, I. H.Q. Vol. V. pp. 86-102 and Vol. IX pp. 9.71if, R. S. Tripathi’s History of Kanoj’( 1937) particularly pp. 307-316, The History of Bengal rol. I P ( 1913 ) by Dr. R. C. Majumdar pp. 153 it. the History of the Ciabaduila dynasty by Dr. Rima Vivovi ( publisherl hy Cilcutta Oriental jyency, 19.59 ). The last in it very useful piece of work and furnishes at the end 100. 213-260 ) a list of so tribal wala Inscriptions with date, and

other details.

The Kalpataru of Laksmīdhara

689

(3) The grant of Madanapāladeva on Akṣayyatṣtīyā of Samvat 1164 (i. e. 1107 A. D.) made after a bath in the Ganges ( U. P. H. S. Vol. 14 pp. 69-77 ); ( 4 ) the Rahan grant of Vikrama year 1166 (1109 A. D.) issued by Govindacandra with the consent of Mahattaka Gāngeya (I. A. Vol. XVIII pp. 14–19). Here Madanapāla is described with all the high imperial titles and it is added ‘asyavātmajo Mahārājaputro Govindacandradevah’ and p. 16 (lines 8-9) states that Govindacandra was terrible in splitting the temples of the array of elephants belonging to the Gauda king and made Hammīra give up his enemity by oft-repeated unparalleled work in battle and this grant was made with the consent of Mahattaka Gārgeya. What had happened to Madanapāla between 1107 ( the date of his inscription cited above as No. 3) and 1109 A. D. is not clear. It is suggested by some scholars that he was captured in some battle and had to be ransomed later by Govindacandra. The Kalpataru says that Hammira was killed in battle by Govindacandra while the above inscrip tion says that Hammīra became friendly with Govindacandra. Among the pumerous inscriptions of the Gāhadwalas none refers to the killing of Hammira by Govindacandra. Probably these two are different Hammiras altogether or it is possible that L. is only reporting the legends he might have heard many years afterwards. In the undated Sārnāth inscription of queen Kumāradevī, in E. I. IX. (pp. 324, 327, verse 16 ) reference is made to Govindacandra as an incarnation of Hari (at the request of Hara ) for guariling Varanasi against the wicked Turuska warrior. In the copper-plate of King Jaya candra in Samvat 1243 (1187 A. D.) both Govindacandra and his son Vijayacandra are extolled ‘veritable Bșhaspati in reflecting over various lores’ (vividhavidyā-vicāra vāca spati ).

The Gauda king with whom Govindacandra came in conflict was Rāmapāla of the Pāla dynasty of Bengal, who ruled for at least 42 years from about 1077 to 1120 A. D. (Dr. R. C. Majumdar’s History of Bengal 1943, Vol. I. pp. 155 ff.). Rāmapāla kept in check the growing power of the Gāhad wālas and brought about a diplomatic marriage between Kumāradevī, whose mother was the daughter of King Mathana ( better known as Mahana ), famous Rāstrakūta king and maternal uncle of Rāmapāla. It would be noticed that the grants No. 1, 2 and 4 (referred to above ) were issued by

H. D.–87

690

Govindacandra only as Rājaputra with the consent of some high diguitaries of the king; among them there is no Hrdaya dhara nor Laksmīdhara. The Sāndhivigrahika is a high functionary and occurs in Gupta Ins. No. 1 (the praśasti of Samudragupta) on pp. 10, 16 and Mabāsandhivigrahika in the Gupta Inscription No. 22 of Hastin in Gupta year 163 pp. 100, 104, in Vinnu-charmottara-purīna II. 24. 24-25 and the mit. on Yāj. I. 320 provides that the lekhaku of a royal grant should be the minister for peace and war, being ordered by the king himself to do so.

As regards Hammīra, with whom Govindacandra fought but became friendly in 1109 A. D. he is generally identified with Hājib Tughā-tigin, who invaded India between 1099– 1155 A. D. (vide Dr. Viyogi’s work 23, 58-59). Any moslem chief or commander was, it appears, spoken of in Sanskrit Inscriptions as Hammīra e. g. another Hammira (other than the one that clashed with Govindacandra ) is mentioned as having come in conflict with Vijayacandra, son of Govinda candra ( vide I. A. Vol. 15 pp. 7-9). Hammira is mentioned as killed by Vijayacandra in another inscription of Śaivat 1237 ( 22nd Feb. 1181 A. D.) in Lucknow Museum Plates of Jayacandra ( E. I. vol. I. 24 pp. 291-95 at p. 294 verse 10 ).

One of the earliest dated Inscriptions of Govindacandra as king is the Kamauli Plate of Samvat 1171 (of 15–10-1114 ) in E. I. IV pr. 101-103, a slightiy earlier one by a few months being the one in J. B. 0. R. S. Vol. XIX pp. 233 ff. and he ruled till 1154 A. D. One of his latest inscriptions is dated 10-8-1154 (in E. I. 1V pp. 116-17). Lakṣmidhara nowhere refers to Govindacandra as Mahārāja putra (as done by the Rahan grant, I. A. Vol. XVIII pp. 14-19 set out above ). He appears to have come in contact with Govindacan dra after the latter became king in 1114 A. D. but the exact date when he came to the notice of king Govindacandra is stated nowhere. However learned and clever a man may be it is many years before he becomes chief minister (as Laks mīdhara became and says in verse 8 of the Intro. to Br. Kānda). On his own showing he fought many sanguinary battles with the foes of Govindacandra in which one hundred thousand warriors were killed. This may be an over-drawn picture, yet there may be a substratum of truth in it. Further, by his wonderful handling of political affairs, he forced many78. The Kalpataru of Laksmīdhara

691

rulers to acknowledye Govindacandra as suarain ( Intro. ver se to Rājadharmakānda ) and bow at his feet. As all these varied activities of L. and his becoming chief minister are mentioned in the Intro. to Br. K., it clearly follows that he started the plan of the great digest some time after he found peace and leisure. Supposing L. came to the notice of Govin dacandra in 1115 (i. e. immediately after he became king ), his rise to the position of a chief minister, sanguinary battles and conquests should have taken at least ten or fifteen years more i. e. it appears that he could not have started the plan of a large digest before 1125 or 1130 A. D. i. e..some years after the latest date that can be assigned to the Mit.

Laksmīdhara appears to have been self-centred and boastful. He mentions Gopāla as a friend and as one who composed a work in which he maile use of Smrtis and Purāṇa passages and names the Kāmadhenu ( which was the work of Gopāla as shown above ) and mentions both slightingly (in verses 11-13 of Intro, to Br. K.). He had not the goodness even to acknowledge some merit in his friend’s work and to advance the interest of his less fortunate friend by expressly quoting a few passages from that work. He studiously avoids quoting any passage expressly from the Kāmadhenu. He thus treated his friend most shabbily.

From what Candeśvara and others say about the Kāma dhenu the latter appears to have been a good work on several branches of Dharmaśāstra not inferior in performance to Bhoja’s work and the Kalpataru. For example, the Kr̥tyaratnākara of Candeśvara ( on p. 30 ) speaks of the Kamadhenu as equal in authority to the Rājā (i. e. Bhoja · Rājatulyayogakṣema ). In the same work on p. 156 Bhūpāla, Kāmadhenu and Kalpa taru are spoken of in the same breath. On p. 443 of the same work, we have the passage Gopāla-Bhūpāla-Kalpataru-Pāri jātesu tu Sākaṭānyajāvikam iti pāṭhal sa tu suga mah’. The present author cannot help suspecting that L. feared com parison of his work with Gopālas and so tried to ignore and disparage it and that he might have quietly made use of Gopāla’s work without-acknowlerlgement. L. studiously avoids reference to Dhāreśvara Bhoja, Srikara and Bhāruci, whom the Mit. frequently mentions, as shown in the present author’s paper on the predecessors of Vijnanesvara in J. B. B R. A. S. for 1925 pp. 193-221 ). Phoja’s greatness and death

692

are referred to in an early Gāladvāla grant, viz. the Basahi grant of 1104 A. D. where we have the verse ‘yāte śrī-Bhoja bhūpe vibudhavaravadhū-netrasīmātithitvam’ (verse 3 in I.

A. vol. 14 at p. 103 ).

Lakṣmīdhara might have been a learned man in his own way and had experience as a councillor, administrator and probably as a judge also. But the editor makes certain claims for him which cannot be allowed at all. On p. 10 of the Intro. to Dānakānda, the editor says “his digest which … shows that he was a Mīnāṁsaka profoundly learned in the Veda. On p. 11 (of Intro. to Dānakānda ) the editor asserts even without his explicit references to Kumārila (as Bhattapāda ) and Sabarasvāmin ), proficiency in Pūrvamīmāṁsā necessary for the study, understanding and exposition of Dharmaśāstra is evident throughout the work’.

In the eleven Kāndas so far printed the present author has not been able to find a single discussion on any sūtra of Jaimini or Sabara’s extensive bhāsya. The present author would like to be corrected. What he is emphasizing is that Lakṣmīdhara’s extensive work gives no evidence whatever of a deep study of the sūtras of Jaimini nor of Sabara’s very large bhāsya nor do his kāṇdas mention even a few well known nycīyas ( vide pp. 1339, 1351 of Vol. V. of H. of Dh. for the mention of about 170 nyāyas, mostly mentioned from Mimāmsā works). Sabarasvāmi is once mentioned on p. 831 of the Vy. Kānda 988 in connection with some words in Sarkha

988

About the special professions of Māgadhas Saṅkha-Likhita states; मागधानां मृदङ्गवेणुवीणावादन-नृत्यगीतपुष्पमाणवककमसिद्धिकोपस्थान-गाथा

13 -479 Tha Taifa hifor 1 4. in 549€TCH US P. 830, which Sabarasāwmi see (p. 831 ) ‘0971497: qoq tutaacaa fulla: selatan

F i t FAHRTEIHTA garant’. The Mabābhāsya mentions Pusyamānavāḥ’ in a half verse quoted on Pān. VII. 2. 23’ 597: STT TEET: T ATUT: 1. This last word appears to mean bard’ ( magadbas). The Editor has not been able to locate the part of Sabara’s bbāgya where this occurs. The present author thinks that the above words ale quoted from a commentary on Saṅkha-likuita by Sabarasvāmin, who may be an entirely different person from the bhūṣyakāra of Jaitini’s sutras.

The Kulpataru of Laksmīdhara

693

likhita. So far as I see Kumārila is only twice mentioned as Bhatta-pāda in Br. Kanda on p. 15 and p. 21 (a verse from Tantravārtika ). It is most extravagant praise to say on this slender basis that Lakṣmīdhara’s proficiency in Pūrva. mīmāmsā is evident throughout the work.

Certain passages in the Kalpataru on Vy. are more or less identical with passages of the Mit. A few examples are noted below* :

(1) On Yāj. II. 100-102 tbe Mit. has more than three printed pages

of comment and L. ( vy. pp 218-219) has only two lines, which occur in the Mit. If any one borrows, it must be L. who has no further gloss of his own. (2) On Yaj. II. 59, (on गोप्याधिभोगे नो

वृद्विः सोपकारे च दीपिते ), the Hit. explains in about half a page and begins : गोप्याधेस्ताम्रकटाहादेरुपभोगेन वृद्धिर्भवति। अल्पेप्युपभोगे महत्यपि वृद्धिातव्या समयातिकमात् । तथा सोपकारे उपकारकारिणि बलीवर्दताम्रक. टाहादौ भाग्याधौं सवृद्धिके दापिते हानि व्यवहाराक्षमित्वं गमिते नो वृद्धिरिति सम्बन्धः . on the first half कल्प० (Vs. p. 293) has only ‘सोपकारे बलीव दोदो हापिते व्यवहाराक्षमत्वमनुप्रणीते’; ( 3 ) On Yaj. II. 64. कल्प. (व्यव. p. 296, has only this much ‘एतदुत्पन्ने द्विगुणे धने प्रविष्टे त्वयाधिर्मोक्तव्या (? व्य) इत्युक्त्वायं चाधिर्दीयते तद्विषयमिदम् । एवंविध एव लोके क्षयाधि रुच्यते ।’; मिता. has closely printed lines and winds up ‘तमेनं क्षयाधिमाचक्षते लौकिकाः ‘; (4) मिता० on Yaj. II. 61 ( first half ) has 12 closely printed lines of comment and proposes two explanations of ’ caritra-bandhakakrtam, the 2nd of which is चरित्रशब्देन गङ्गा स्नानाग्निहोत्रादिजनितमपूर्वमुच्यते । यत्र तदेवाधीकृत्य यद्रव्यमात्मसात्कृतं तत्र तदेव द्विगुणीभूतं दातव्यं नाधिनाश इति । ; कल्प० (व्यव.) p. 299 gives only the 2nd explanation ‘चरित्रं अग्निहोत्र-गङ्गास्नानादि तदेव बन्धकीकृत्य यद्गृहीतं तद्वद्धिसहितं दातव्यमित्यर्थः’ it says nothing about आधि, while मिता. says नाधिनाशः. (5) On Yaj. II. p. 172 Mit. explains हृतं प्रनष्टं वा चौरादिहस्तस्थं द्रव्यं अनेन मदीयं द्रव्यमपहृतमिति नृपस्यातिवेद्यैव दर्यादिना यो गृह्णाति असौ षडन्तरान्नवतिं पणान् दण्डनीयः। तस्करप्रच्छादकत्वेन दुष्टत्वात् ।। the कल्प. ( व्यव. p. 357 ) has the same words, except the word दर्पादिना and words षड्डुत्तरान्नवतिं पणात् are dropped by it ; ( 6 ) On Yaj. II. 265 first half (जिह्म त्यजेयुः &c. ) the Mit. explains : जिह्मो वञ्चकः

( Continued on the next page)

694

Many cases of the same sort may be cited but that cannot be done for reasons of space. The above verses clearly show that the brief remarks in the Kalpataru (on Vy.) are borrow. ed from the Mitāksarā. If as argued above, the Mit. was

।

…—- ——- — -

ause

( Continued from the previous page ) तं निर्लाभं निर्गतलाभं लाभमाच्छिय त्यजेयुः बहिः कुर्युः । यश्च सम्भूय कारिणां मध्ये भाण्डप्रत्यवेक्षणादिकं कर्तुमसमर्थोऽसावन्येन स्वं कर्म भाण्डवाहन तदायव्ययपरीक्षणादिकं कारयेत् ; कल्प० (व्यव.) p. 361 explains ‘जिज्ञ वञ्चकम् निर्लोभं लाभमाच्छिद्य त्यजेयुः सम्भूयकारिणः । अशक्तः [असमर्थः] भाणुपिण्डव्ययाद्यवेक्षणे । ; here असमर्थः is in brackets ( because it is restored from the (मिता.) ‘पिण्ड’ does not make any good sense. The ms was probably bad enough. (7) On Yāj II. 180 ( kārnike romabaddhe ca &c.) the mit. explains ‘कार्मिकं कर्मणा चित्रेण निर्मितम् । यत्र निष्पन्ने पटे चक्रस्वस्तिकादिकं चित्रं सूत्रः क्रियते तत्कार्मिकमित्युच्यते । यत्र प्रावारादौ रोमाणि बव्यन्त स रोमबद्धः तत्र त्रिंशत्तमो भागाः क्षयो वेदितव्यः कल्प० ( व्यव) p. 525 explains ‘कार्मिकं यत्र निष्पन्ने पटादो रुचकस्वस्ति कादिकंचित्रं सूत्रैः सूच्य क्रियते तदुच्यते। यत्र…स रोमबद्ध नेपाल कम्बलादिः’ Tho769 has no further comment of any kind; it has nothing corres ponding to तत्र त्रिंशत्तमो…वेदितव्यः, while मिता• explains the 2nd half and the word नेपालकम्बलादिः, either L. or scribes of North India would, it may be said that, easily thiok of Nepālakam bala and added that word after romabaddhah’; (8) On Yaj. II. 276, the Mit. has भक्तमशनन् । अवकाशो निवासस्थानम् । अग्निः चोरस्य शीतस्यापनोदाद्यर्थः । उदकं तृषितस्य । मन्त्रः चौर्यप्रकारोपदेशः । उपकरणं चौर्यसाधनम् । व्ययः अपहारार्थ देशान्तरं गच्छतः पाथेयम् and then explains the rest of the verse ; कल्प० (व्यव.) p. 548 has these very words and not a word more’; (9) On Yij. II. 174 ( panan – ekasaphe &c. ), the Mit. explains the whole verse in over four lines - एकशफे अश्वादौ प्रनष्टाधिगते तत्स्वामी राज्ञे रक्षणनिमित्तं चतुरः पणान् दद्यात् &c ; कल्प. ( व्यव. p. 554 has only the words एकशके… पणान् दद्यात् and nothing more than that one line. The words — तत्र सांख्यानामेका मूलप्रकृति’……up to त्रीण्यन्तःकरणानि’ are the same in Aparārka p. 987 lines 4-7 after eight lines from Devala while in Moksakanda p. 1,006 these four lines begin a new section with the words ’ तत्र देवलः । तत्र सांख्यानामेका……’ and end

with the words त्रीण्यन्तःकरणानि दश बहिःकरणानि.

( Continued on the next page)

The Kalpataru of Laksmīdhara

695

composed between 1100-1120 A. D. and the Kalpataru bet ween 1125-1145 A. D. the latter must be presumed to be the borrower. The present author is not much interested in the question whether the Kalpataru borrowed or not. He is in terested only in negativing the astounding statement of Prof. Aiyangar that the Mit. kvew the Kalpataru (as disclosed by verse 4 at the end of the Mit. ). Unless it is proved that the Kalpataru was completed at least some years before 1100 A. D. it is impossible to hold that it was known or relied upon in the South by the Mit. in 1100-1120 A. D. The learned editor of the Kalpataru admits ( on p. 4 of the introduction to Dānakānda) that the influence of L. did not penetrate to South India and that he is not referred to by Varadarāja (a. of Vya nahāranirṇaya ) by Devamna bhatta (a. of Smṛticandrikā) and by Madhavācārya. In view of the historical sequence of events and the large number of identical explanatory passages in the Kalpataru, the present author thinks that it is unnecessary for him to reply to the arguments of the editor of the Kalpataru in greater detail.

The late Prof. Aiyangar did not carefully consider the chronological sequence of events and the close agreement of the brief explanations of L. with the lengthy explanations in the Mitākṣarā. In the first edition of the H. of Dh. the present author relied upon a passage occurring in the Saras vatibhavan ms. of the Kalpataru about a quotation from Bphaspati relied upon in the Vādibhayankara (the author of which was according to the Vīramitroda ya, a follower of Vijñāneśvara. The Editor of Kalpataru on Vy. (on p. 248 )

orge

( Continued from the previous page ) पञ्चविंशतितत्वज्ञो यत्र तत्राश्रमे रतः । प्रकृतिज्ञो विकारज्ञो याति विष्णोः TITE II 377774 p. 988. The FT05 makes a half verse of this by omitting some words and citing only tofauti na fatu: 996 11 1703 (p. 102). This might have been purposely done by Lakṣmidbara to shorten the matter. On p. 100 let us consider one example. The lines as printed in the portion of Mokṣakānda (cf. Kalpataru ) are : TFTTHEHAI THIETTO FESTA I F OTO HOT &c. This should have been prin. ted as ‘T ZIT HI &eó’ and TEHTAPATA JATO I fela

na ragamo ’ &c.

696

refers to this view of the present author and rejects it. It is unnecessary for the present purpose to go into the question where what Vādibhayankara quotes as a verse of Brhaspati is 80 or not. One ms of Kalpataru ( Vy. ) had that passage, two other mss. from Udaipur and Bikaner had not got it. Prof. Aiyangar does not hesitate to pass off as Laksmīdhara’s the whole of the Br. Kānda based only on a single very defective ms, (vide above) and to draw conclusions from it. Besides, he himself shows ( on p. 293, note 4 ) how his Udaipur ms. bas a gap of two printed pages beginning on that page. He could and should have said that it is possible that the single ms may represent the correct text while the two others having gaps in some other parts might have omitted that portion. The present author also relied ( in the first edi tion of the H. of Dh.) on a passage of the Benares College ms (on Vy. ) where the view of Prakāśa, Halāyudha, Kāmadhenu and Pārijāta on a verse of Kātyāyans was cited (H. of Dh. p. 293, n. 649 ). With this the Editor deals on pr. 394-5 and 397, (in footnotes ). The present author would have to write several pages against this view of the Editor. For the present author’s own view about L. being later than the litaksarā and the borrower, relies mostly on the historical data and inci dents and on the large number of passages in one Kānda alone (cited above ) which fair minded persons would hold to be borrowings from the Mitākṣarā by the Kalpataru.

In the Intio, to the Dānakānda (p. 17 ) Prof. Aiyangar states in two other respects also the Kalpataru is unique. Firstly, it is distinguished by having been written in accor dance with well-conceived and logical plan. A cursory read ing of even a comprehensive smrti like that of Manu or Yājīma valkya will fail to disclose the background of Hindu life.’ Compare this downright assertion with another statement in Intro. to Br. Kānda (p. 3)‘it is built on a careful plan, which largely follows the arrangement of topics in Manu’s great work.’ The present author does not like to say much against the learned Professor as regards his criticism of Manu that reading it would not disclose the background of Hindu life, because he contradicts himself by saying that L. largely follows Manu’s plan and because he really follows Yāj, and the logic, if any, behind the order of the 11 Kāndas is restrict ed to the first tive and the Kāndas eleven, twelve and fourteen.

The Kalpataru of Lakṣmidhara

697

It must be, however, pointed out that it is the Yājña valkyasmști that lays down a careful and logical plan. The Yāj. Smrti, after the first nine Introductory verses, treats in order of the following topics; Brab macārin (I. 10-50 ), Grhas thāśrama (I. 51-96 ), daily duties of Grhastha ( Āhnika I. 97 181 ), Dāna (I. 198-216 ), Srāddha ( I. 217–268 ), Rājadharma (I. 309-368 ), Vyavabāra (II. 1-307), Āśauca (III. 1-34), Vānaprastha (III. 45-55 ), Yatidharma (III. 56-205 ),Prāyas citta (III, 206-334 ). The order in Yāj. from Brahmacārin to Srāddha is almost the same as Laksmīdhara’s but is a little better than that of L. Similarly, Yāj. speaks of rāja dharma before vyavahāra (as L. does ). But the logic in placing vratn, as 6th and tirtha as 8th, pratisthā (or pūjā or both ) as 7th and placing Sāntika as 13th (and not after Pūjā) is not clear to the present author. The fact appears to be that the learned Editor having spent many years over the Kalpataru developed a faculty for over-statements about L.

The Kalpataru is extensive, but the Viramitrodaya is unique in its size, range and quality. The Kalpataru has size (though it is not as extensive as the Viramitrodaya ), has great range, but in quality it is very much inferior not only to the Mitāksarā, but also to some other digests. Lengthy discussions in the Kalpataru are few and far between. It is more in the nature of a collection from all smrtis. Hence one noteworthy feature of it is that it often states how the same verse occurs in several smrtis. A few striking examples are noted here. In Sraddha-kānda p. 187 he quotes Manu III 236-37 and remarks that they occur in Hārīta, Viṣṇu, Yama, Śatātapa in Uśanas ( the 2nd only ). In Br. kāṇda p. 40 he quotes Manu III. 114-15 and adds that these two occur also in Vasistha Yama, Parāśara and Baudbāyana and the 2nd in Paithinasi also and they do occur in the printed Vas. (III. 5-6). In Br. K. p. 181 he quotes the verse ‘savyāhṛtim… prāṇāyāmah sa ucyate’ as occurring in Saṅkha, Vasistha, Angiras, Brhaspati, Paithīnasi and Baudhāyana and it does occur in Vas. VII. 14 ( Anandāśrama collection ). On p. 742 of Vyavahārakānda and p. 432 of Grhastha K. he quotes the verse ‘putrena lokān…vistapam’as occurring in Manu, Saṅkhalikhita, Visuu, Vasistha and Hārīta and it does occur in Viṣṇu, Dh. S. 15. 45, Vas. 17. 5 and also in Manu IX. 137 and Baud. Dh. S. II, 9.6. On pp. 36-37 of Vyavabāra K. he

H, D.-88

698

quotes three verses, the first of which L. states occurs in Manu, Nārada, IIārīta and Baudhayana. All three occur in Manu VIII. 18, 19 and 14 and all three in Nārada III, 8, 12, 13 p. 43 (Dr. Jolly’s ed. in B. I. Series ) and the first in Baud Dh. S. I. 10. 30. Such illustrations lead one to con clude that L, had collected a large number of the mss of Smṛtis and had directed his pandits to make an exhaustive concordance of smrti verses.

On pp. 174-175 of his work Aparārka quotes a long extract from Devala in prose and verse on Dosas’, which exhibits striking skill in defining several words. On Yāj. III. 109 ( pp. 986-988) Aparārka quotes a very long prose passage from Devala (a small portion of which also occurs in the Moksakānda of Kalpataru pp. 100-101. Aparārka sets out at length ( in prose) the purport of about two dozen verses of the Sāṅkhyakārikā, while the Moksakānda (pp. 100-101 ) contains less than half of what Aparārka says (practically in the same words as those of Aparārka. It should be further noticed that in the Moksakānda there is another long prose passage begiuning with the words ‘Atha mūlaprakstir avyaktam’ (p. 100 last six lines and on p. 101 1. 14 ) ending with the words ‘ityutpattikramah’ which is part of the passage cited in Aparārka pp. 987-88 (which adds some words not found in the Moksa-kānda ) ‘yo yasmād-utpadyate……. sa tasmin liyata iti vāpyayakramaḥ’. Another very signi ficant circumstance is that the long passage from Devala extending to about two pages in Aparārka is followed by five verses of Yama on the Saṅkhya system, which also occur in Moksakāndla (pr. 101-102 ) with one slight change in the last verse.

From the close agreement between passages of Devala in both Aparārka and Moksakānda with some omissions in the latter, it appears to the present author that the author of the Mokṣakānda used a ms. of Aparārka’s work (in which there was probably no demarcation of clauses and which was also slightly defective ) and the editor of the Moksakında committed mistakes in separating the clauses.

One remarkable circumstance bearing on the relative chronological positions of the Mitākṣarā and the Kalpataru may be noted here.

Jimītavāhana

699

The Hāralatā of Aniruddhabhatta was composed about 1160 to 1170 A. D., as he was the 147 and Dharmādhyaksa of king Ballālasena of Bengal, who composed his Dānasāgara in Saka 1091 (1169–70 A. 1. ). Two works viz. Kāmdhenu and Kalpataru were composed in the realm of the Gāhadwāla King Govindacandra. The Hāralatā mentions the Kāmadhenu several times as an authority of the same weight as Viśvarūpa, Bhojadeva, and Govindarāja (vide pp. 41, 117, 174 of the Hāralatā ); while the vast digest of Kalpataru of Laksmi dhara is not mentioned even once anywhere by the Hāralatā. If the Kāmadhenu, disdainfully spoken of by Laksmīdhara, could penetrate to Bengal before 1160-70 A. D. and be treat ed there as a work of authority, it is very surprising that the Kalpataru backed by the glamorous career of the great Minister Laksmidhara and dealing at length with the same topics as those treated of in the Hāralatā should not have been referred to even once in the Hāralatā.

This leads to the conclusion that portions of the Kalpa taru were composed decades later than the time when the Kāmadhenu was composed and earlier than 1160 A. D. only by a decade or so.