- Jimutavahana
Jimutavāhana is the first of the triumvirate of Bengal writers on dharmuśwstra, the other two being Sūlapāṇi and Raghunandana. Only three works of his are known and they have all been printed viz: the Kālaviveka (B. I. series, 1905), the Vyavahāramātrkā (published in the memoirs of the Bengal Asiatic Society, vol. III., No. 5, pp. 277-353, edited by the late Ṣir Asutosh Mukerji), the Dāyabhāga (published several times ). It appears that these works were intended to form part of a vast treatise on dharmaśāstra called Dharma ratna, as stated in the Kālaviveka.989 In this work I have used the edition of the Dāyabhāga printed in 1829.
—
_
rr
989 algajaraffACIFI HEVI : TTIET I 7 METUS FICHAS
विलोकयत ॥ इति पारिभाद्रीयमहामहोपाध्याय-जीमूतवाहनकृती धर्मरत्ने काल विवेकः समाप्तः । last verse and colophon of कालविवेक; similarly the colophon of the 19777 is ‘sta TIRATETI…TATTÀ PHRT: HATH:’.
700
The Kālaviveka as its name implies contains discussions as to the appropriate seasons, months and times for the perfor. mance of religious rites and duties, the determination of inter calary months, the question whether the month for certain festivals and rites, was to be solar or luuar, the proper time for the cessasion and starting of Vedic studies ( Utsarjana and Upākarma ), the rise of Agastya, the four months during which Viṣṇu was supposed to sleep on the ocean, the times for various festivals including the kojāguru and the Durgot sava, the eclipses. The work is named Kalaviveka not only in the colophon, but also in the body itself.990 Some of the sections of the work also are styled riveku (e. . Amāvāsyā viveka pp. 351-365, dvirāsādhaviveka pp. 169-174). The object with which the work was composed is stated in the 2nd verse991 as follows :—‘kāla’ (the topic of proper times for religious duties ) has not been understood by some writers; it has been based upon ancient texts and compressed into narrow compass by others; therefore it is dealt with by me in such a way as to be easily unilerstood even by dull-witted persons. M. M. Chakravarti (JASB 1915 p. 314 ) draws from this the conclusion that ’no previous treatise specially dealing with Kāla alone was known to the author’. This is not a sound conclusion. All that Jimutavāhana claims is that he has made the subject of Kāla extremely easy. As a matter of fact in one verse he brings together seven predecessorg982 who expatiated on Kūla and whose works have become worth little on account of the appearance of the Kāla viveka. As long as the works of all these writers are not recovered it is impo ssible to assert that Jimūta vāhana had before him no previous work dealing specially with Kālıb. Besides the astronomical and astrological works of ancient writers such as those of Varābamibira and Brahmagupta, the ancient smṛtis and purāuas, the important works and authors mentioned are —- - - - - - –
—— 890 करतलगतामलकमिव कालं बालोपि वक्षिते येन । जीमूतवाहनकृत: काल.
raa #: qi la ll’ p. 380. 991 #13: Saga ( ?) antifeet agaia : sta facut
नामपि सुबोधकरणो मया क्रियते ॥ 21tl verse of कालविवेक. The 2nd
pade has 19 mātrāg, Shuulil we read 97775:? 992 Hait-ta -4 - 23-1775
Bahia 1918 fā EQUATT FARTI GET II Fafaa p. 380.
er79. Jimūtuvūhana
701
enumerated in the note below.993_Most of these nibandhcs kāras are quoted by him in his two other works also. Yogi svara994 seems to be an author different from Yājñavalkya who also is styled Yogiśvara, since the view ascribed to him is not found in Yāj. In some copies of the Mit. also an author995 Yogiśvara is named who explained the conflicting texts about a widow’s right to succeed to her husband. But Yogiśvara in the Jit. is probably a misprint or copyist’s error for Dhāreśvara as some Mss. read Dhāreśvara. In the Kālaviveka Jimūtavāhana makes frequent and effective use of Purvamīmāṁsā maxims996 and shows that he had made a profound study of that system. In the Durgotsava viveka997 of Sūlapāṇi the Kālaviveka is quoted. It is also
993 अन्धुक, अमरकोश, उत्पल (p. 294 ), गोविन्दराज, जितेन्द्रिय, दीक्षित,
( p. 92 ), धवल, पञ्जिकाकार मिश्र (p. 63 ), भोजदेव (p. 299 ), भवधन (p. 423 ), भागुरि (p. 14 ), योगीश्वर (p. 200 ), योग्लोक, वार्तिककारपाद (p. 79 ), विश्वरूप ( P. 304 ), शङ्करगीता (p. 477 ), शङ्खधर, षट्त्रिंशन्मत, संभ्रमभट्ट, स्मृतिमीमांसा, स्मृतिसमुच्चय ( p. 102 ), हरिवंश. It may be noted that both Svalpa-Yogloka and Brhad-Yogloka are mentioned in the Kilariveka (pp. 490,505) and Yogloka is criticized very often and is dubbed Tārkikam-manya’ ( who regards himself as a logician but was really not so ) ; vide Vyavahāramātrka, p. 291
for this. 994 ‘कन्यायां श्रावणद्वये प्रथमे शकोत्थानं द्वितीये तु दुर्गाया इति योगीश्वरेण
व्याख्यातो द्विराषाढकल्पः स पुनरनुपपन्न इति मन्यामहे ।’ कालविवेक p. 200; vide p. 237 also ‘तत्र योगीश्वरमते वृश्चिके चोत्थानप्रसक्ते’ from which
जीमूतवाहन differs. 995 एवमादीनां विरुद्धार्थानां वाक्यानां योगीश्वरेण (v. I. धारेश्वरेण) व्यवस्था
दर्शिता । पत्नी गृह्णीयादित्येतद्वचनजातं विभक्तभ्रातृस्त्रीविषयम् । सा च यदि
नियोगार्थिनी भवति । मिता. on याज्ञ. II. 135. 998 8. g. on p. 13 देशभेदेन चान्द्रे सौरे च प्रयोगदर्शनात् विशेषानवधारणात् । न
च यववराहवत् प्रयोगानिर्णयः। उभयोरपि तदविशेषात् ।. This refers to जैमिनि I. 3. 8-9. कन्यासंस्थे रवौ वत्स शुक्लामारभ्य नन्दिकाम् । नन्दिका प्रतिपदिति जीमूतवाहनः ॥ दुर्गोत्सवविवेक (p. 6 Sanskrit Sahityaparisad ed.); vide कालविवेक p. 513 for this. The वर्षक्रियाकौमुदी (p. 51 ) quotos a text from काल विवेक which occurs on pp. 443 and 447 of the latter.
997
702
quoted in the Srāddhacintāmani of Vācaspati, in the Srāddha kaumudi (p. 328 ) and Varsakriya-kaumudi of Govindānanda and in several Tattvas of Raghunandana, e. g. (Vol. I) Tithi 141, 144, Ābnika 341, Malao 834, (Vol. II ) Ekādaśī 41, 46, 87 ( ed. of 1895 ).
The Vyavahāramātrkā as its very name implies deals with the elements of vyavahara (i. e. judicial procedure ). It speaks of the eighteen titles of law, the derivation of the word prādvivāka (judge ), the persons fit to be appointed judges, different grades of courts, duties of sabhyas, four stages of vya rahāra, pūrvapakṣa (plaint ), pratibhū ( surety ), blemishes in a plaint, uttara (reply of the defendent), four kinds of uttara, blemishes in uttarai, kriyā (proof or burden of proof), divine (duivi) and human : mānusi ) proof ( viz. : ordeals, inference, witnesses, documents, possession), persons incompetent to be witnesses. Ordeals have not been dealt with by the author. The first verse of the work 998 styles it Vyavahāra mātrkā. The last verse 099 but one suggests the name Nyayamātṇkā which practically is a synonym of Vyavahāra-mātrkā and the colophon at the end of a ms. in the Govt. Mss. library at the B.O.R. Institute calls it Nyāya ratnamālikā.
About twenty smrtikāras 1000 are mentioned in the Vyavahāramātrkā. Kātyāyana, Brhaspati and Nārada are the three smrtikāras most frequently quoted, nearly two-thirds of the quotations in the entire work being derived from them. Among the nibanrlhukūrus the following are named : Jitendriya, Diksita, (p. 302), Bala (p. 346, the same ag
088 व्यवहारमातृकैपा सकलविवादेषु धर्मवादार्थम् । लोकद्वयेपि रक्षति सुतमिव
14941 hari 909 पारिभद्रकुलोद्भूतः श्रीमान् जीमूतवाहनः । विदुषां परितोषाय निर्ममे न्यायमातृ
1000
They are 57421, FTARIA, C41149, 157, TUTA, TRE, C He, gaita, FFIA, 47, 48, 41319774, Rafen, haine, fam,
414, T5, Tauralau, sad, tia. Iu Vya. Matrkā Nārada is quoted 107 times, Brhaspati 127 times, Katyayilda 137 times, Manu 10 times, Vyasa 36 times and Yāj. 34 times, Vilo J. O. I. ( Baroda ) Vol. II pp. 134-146 for quotations in Vya, Mātrka, collected by Dr. Ludo Rocher,
- Jimūtavahana
703
Balaka), Bhojadeva (pp. 284, 305), Mañjarīkāra (i, e. Govindarāja ), Yogloka, Viśvarūpa, Srikara (pp. 292, 334 or Srikaramisra p. 342). About Viśvarūpa he says 1001 “I have put forward this conclusion of the ancient writers, I have refuted the objections of Viśvarūpa and others and dealt with them at length’ Yogloka and Srikara are generally quoted for being refuted and the former is frequently jeered at as ’tārki kaṁmanya’ or ’nava-tārkikam-manya’. In this work Jimūta vāhana displays great familiarity with the ancient dialectics. In some cases what the printed text exhibits 1002 as prose really constitutes verses. Sir Asutosb Mukerji is not accurate when he says in the preface that Jimūtavāhana refers to a number of jurists not mentioned by any other author, e.g. Jitendriya, Yogloka, Bālaka, Viśvarūpa, Srikara and Mañjarīkāra’. It has been shown above that both Viśvarūpa and Srīkara have been mentioned by the Mit. which is certainly earlier than Jimūtavāhana and by a host of other writers who were either earlier than or contemporaries of Jimītavāhana. The Vyava hāramātrkā is quoted in the Vyavabāratattva 1003 (pp. 199, 214, 225 vol. II.) and the Dāyatattva p. 179 and Divyatattva pp. 586, 583.
The Dāyabhāga is the most famous of Jimutavābana’s works. In matters of Hindu law such as inheritance, partition strīdhana, re-union, it is of jaramount authority in modern British Indian courts in Bengal, except in those cases where
1001 HRT YTT Haramur Area (atut?) g ali Tui Targeura
FTBT ag 11 p. 352. M. M. Chakravarti is not right io taking (JASB, 1915 p. 317 ) prācām’to mean’ eastern’in this verse, as in the previous verso also sia Cara refers to all munis’ and
former works? gia tronchiai uitati a RHF E HTI गम्यते न्यायतश्च । स पुनरुपनिबन्धो ( द्वो? ) गृह्यतां बुद्धिमाद्भिर्भवति यदि न
जाड्यं श्रद्धया प्राकृतेषु ॥ 1002 6. g. on p. 348 the words ‘TH1217731FWHAT A FAITHTAISETT: 1
T rachi forganer att4 11’ constitute an Āryā. Simi larly on p. 349 the words Tacaia Ť: TAUTAI :6 …
स्ववचनमात्राधीनस्वत्वफलत्वात्प्रमाणं सा ॥’ make two Aryas. 1003 yithart: 7 TESETT: ṣê HET THAT’TERATI p. 199
vol, II.
704
the Mitāksarā is applicable. The names of more than a dozen commentators of it are known and Pandit Bharatacandra Siromani published it with seven commentaries (1863-1866). It was translated into English by Colebrooke. In many editions (such as that of Jivananda) it is divided into sections though there were no divisions in the original work. The contents of the Dāyabhāga are:- Definition of daya ; father’s power over ancestral property; partition of father’s and grand father’s property; division among brothers after their father’s death, definition, classification and devolution of stridhann; persons excluded from inheritance and partition on the ground of disabilities; property which is impartible (in its very nature or because it is self-acquired ); order of succession to one dying sonless; re-union, partition of coparcenery property concealed but discovered afterwards, indicia of partition.
Some of the peculiar doctrines of the Dāyabhāya which are of fundamental importance and which sharply distinguish it from the Mit. are: sons have no interest in ancestral pro perty by birth, sons can claim partition only after extinction of their father’s ownership (i, e. after his death or on his becoming patitu or a sinyasin) or partition can take place between father and sons if the father so desires, a widow succeeds to her husband’s interest on his death even if he be joint with his brother, the right to take a deceasel person’s estate is regulated by the spiritual benefit conferred by the person claiming as heir ( by means of the offering of pindas ) and not by the principal of consanguinity (as in the Mit. ). 100+
It should be noted by all Hindus that the Hindu Succession Act (Act No. 30 of 1956 ) passed by the parliament of India has made substantial changes in the law laid down both by Jimūtavāhana and the Mitāksarā as regards parti tion, succession and kindred matters. But this is not the place to dilate on this topic.
1004 Noto the following aca feTETETYTH : FRITSTT*17917
ga rag: El fagnauta First I TEHNT P. 38 ; ÀSANTI गैव विभक्तवाद्यनपेक्षयैवापुत्रस्य भर्तुः कृत्स्नधने पत्न्यघिकारो जितेन्द्रियोक्त आदरणीयः । .. 256 ; उपकारकत्वेनैव धनसंबन्धो मन्वादीनामभिमत इति rad gra falaman anda alamet iacie TETUT: p. 336,
- Jimūtavāhana
705
The foot-note on this paragraph avers that one called * piravadyavidyoddyota’ (lit. one who possesses the brilliance of spotless vidyās) put forward that the guiding principle in preference among heirs is the spiritual benefit that the heir will confer on the deceased. It is remarkable that in the Harsacarita (first Ucchavāsa, last paragraph ) we have a statement that Bāṇa resorted to gurukulas that were radiant with spotless learning (niravadya-vidyāvidyotapāni ca kulāni sevamanah). The word also occurs in the Dayabhāga before the passage quoted from Yājñavalkya II. 122 ( bhūryā pitanahopāttā……..cobhayoh ) in chap. II section 9 of the Dāyabhāga, where the explanation of this verse by Niravadyavidyota ‘is cited (which is in direct conflict with that of the Mitakṣarā). That expression in the Dayabhāga may be explained in several ways: (1) Udyota is the name of a person whose learning was blameless. Pan. III, 1. 101 tells us that’avadya ‘means “garhya’(deserving to be censured ). Śrinātha ( 1470-1540 ) and Mabesvara take it in that sense. Other commentators take it as a title or distinction conferred on the man and hold that Udyota means refulgence.
Besides the smrtikāras,105 the Mahābhārata and the Markandeyapurāṇa the following authors are referred to by Dame in Dāyabhāga :- Udgrahamalla, Govindaraja (an author of Manutikā ), Jitendriya, Dikșita, Balaka, Bhojadeva or Dhāreśvara, Viśvarūpa and Srikara.
The word “Udgrāhamalla’ is taken by the commentators as not being a proper name, but as a common noun meaning ’ a disputant that takes up the position opposed to the one advanced by the author’; e. g. most commentators say that * Udgrāha’ means simply “vāda’ and explain · udgrāho vādaḥ sa eva mallah’ and some like Srikrsna Tarkalankara say ’ udgrāho vādaḥ tatra mallasya samarthasya galahastavan nivārakaḥ ityarthaḥ.’ They do not quote any kośa to support their meaning of. udgrāha’ as ‘vāda’. Udgrāhamalla may be a proper noun just as we have Todaramalla among authors on Dharmaśāstra and as the word ends in malla’ (a gymnast ) the
1005 The Flatts named are: 3977, 19147, 26511A, 19A, 48,
192, ara, astafe, Taty, HT, TEHT, TH, 71319879, fasu, 48,
शङ्खलिखित, वृद्धशातातप, हारीत. H. D.-89
706
author naturally gives a reply in gymnastic terms that a verse of Devala would completely vanquish (lit. throttle ) him. It may be noted that Maheśvara ( a commentator ) holds that Udgra hamalla is the name of a Smṛti writer. The present author does not say that the meaning proposed by commentators is quite wrong or impossible, but holds that the meaning proposed by him appears to be the proper one. Panini has a special sātra udi grahaḥ’ III, 3. 35 for the word care.
In the Dayabhāga Jimūtavahana quotes among Smrti sages Manu ( most frequently ), Nārada, Yajñavalkya, Bșhaspati, Kātyāyana, Viṣṇu, Gautama, Vasistha, Harita, Baudhāyana, Brhanmanu, Vyāsa, Saṅkhalikhita, Devala, Yama, Uśanas, Vṛddha-kātyāyana, Ápastamba, Viddha-śātatapa, Paithinasi. Among the Purāṇas, the Mārkandeyapurāṇa (XI. 40 ) alone is quoted by name in the Dayabhāga.
The Nibandhakāras mentioned by name in the Dayabhāga are, besides Niravadyavidyoddyota, Jitendriya ( thrice mentioned ), Govindarāja, Dbāreśvara Bhojadeva, Diksita (only a title ), Bāla or Bālaka ( m. five times ), Viśvarūpa (m. thrice ) and Srikara (m. five times, once as Srikaramiśra). Udgrābamalla1006 is referred to on the distribution of stridhana and it is said that Udgrāhamalla (i.e. his view ) is throttled by the text of Devala. It appears, therefore, that Udgrahamalla was not a smsti writer, but a nibandhakāra. Diksita10c7 is credited with the view that, among daughters, those who have sons or are likely to have sons are preferred to those who are either barren, widowed or who give birth to daughters alone and the Dāyabhāga approves of this view, There is one more writer who is referred to twice with great respect as Niravadyavidyoddyota. Whether this is a mere descrip tion or title (’the refulgence of whose learning is spotless’) or
1006 तथा च शङ्खलिखितौ। सर्व सर्वे सोदर्या द्रव्यमर्हन्ति कुमार्यश्च । सर्वत्रैव प्रथम
पुत्रोपादानात्सर्वावस्थस्य पुत्रस्य मातृधनेऽधिकारः, चकारश्रुतिश्च सर्वत्रानुगता समु च्चयवाचिका । एतावतापि उद्ग्राहमल्लम्ब देवलवचनं गलहस्तः । यथा-सामान्य पुत्रकन्यायां मृतायां स्त्रीधनं स्त्रियाम् । अग्रजायां हरेद्भर्ता माता भ्राता पितापि at 11 7777 IV.2 4-6. The verse ‘HTI TETETTI’ &c. occurs
in #976 ( 6470 p. 691), gigata ( Vol. II. p. 185 ). 1007 अतः पुत्रवती संभावितपुत्रा चाधिकारिणी। वन्ध्यात्वविधवात्वदुहितृप्रसूत्वादिना
विपर्यस्तपुत्रा पुनरनधिकारिण्यवेति दीक्षितमतमादरणीयम् । दायभाग, P. 271.
- Jimūtavāhana
707
whether the author’s name was Uddyota and niravadyavidya (whose learning in spotless’) is an epithet, it is difficult to say. For a correct knowledge of the origin and development of the theory of spiritual benefit propounded in the Dayabhāga, it would be extremely desirable to know who this writer was, as Jìmūtavahana tells us that that view was brilliantly set forth by Niravadyavidyoddyota. The same writer is also quoted on the well-known verse of Yājñavalkya ‘bhāryā pitāmahopātta &c.,’ which is the sheet-anchor of Vijñāne śvara’s theory about the son’s rights by birth in ancestral family property. 100
Jimūtavāhana gives very little information about himself. In the colophons of his works he is described as Pāribhadriya Mahamahopadhyāya and at the end of the Vyavahāramātṛkā ( vide note 999 above ) he tells us that he was born of the Paribhadra family (kula).1009 It is said that this name of the family still survives in the Parihal or Pāri Gai, a section of Radhiya Brāhmaṇas (Ghose’s Hindu Law, 3rd edition, pp. XVI-XVIII and JASB 1915 p. 320). It is also said that Edu miśra in his Kulakārikā tells us that Jimātavāhana was chief judge in the reign of Viṣvak-sena of Bengal and that he was 9th in descent from Nārāyarabhatta, one of the five Brāhmaṇas brought by Adis. ra. The information supplied by the match-makers of Bengal is, as shown above ( vide pp. 632–33 above under Halāyudha), not worth reliance, unless corroborated by independent evidence. It is also said that for fourteen genera tions the Brābmaṇas of Parigrāma have been degraded and so Jimatavahana would not have paraded the fact that he was Paribhadriya if at the time when he wrote his subcaste bad been degraded (Intro. to Kālaviveka p. VIII). The fact that Jimātavahana was a native of Rādha is testified by his statement in the Kālaviveka that Agastya ( Canopus ) rose in Vijayini when
1008 47721579644978-**…:-987 facaafaelcelda alfatahiraatit: 1
यत्र द्वयोर्धात्रोजीवपितृकयोरप्राप्तभागयोरेकः पुत्रानुत्पाद्य विनष्टोन्यो जीवति अनन्तरं पिता मृतस्तत्र पुत्र एव तद्धनं प्राप्नोत्यतिसंनिकर्षात् । तदर्थ सदृशं स्वाम्यमिति
49777 p. 50. 1009 In some editions of the दायभाग, the last verse is पारिभद्रकुलोद्भूतः
श्रीमाञ् जीमूतवाहनः । दायभागं चकारेमं विदुषां संशयच्छिदे ॥
441 X
708
four days of the month of Bhadrapada remained, but that in Rādhā Agastya rose when seven days of the month were yet to run.1010
Extremely divergent views have been held as to the date of Jimutavahana. He has been assigned to various dates from the 11th to the 16th century. In L. R. 41 I. A. at p. 298 it is said by their Lordships of the Privy Council that the Mit. was carlier by five centuries than Jimūtavāhana. Dr. Jolly (R. u, S. p. 37) assigns him to the 15th century. For a statement of the various dates and their examination the article of M. M. Chakravarti in JASB for 1915, pp. 321-327 and Mr. Panchanan Ghosh’s learned article in 26 Calcutta Law Journal (journal portion p. 17. ff.) may be consulted. Since Jimatavahana mentions Dhāreśvara Bhojadeva and Govindaraja, he cannot be placed earlier than the last quarter of the 11th century. Since he is quoted by Sulapāṇi, Vacaspati-miśra and Raghunandana, hc cannot be later than the middle of the 15th century. The Kala viveka furnishes important data. On a ms. of the Kalaviveka there is a note made about the birth-date of the son of a certain Ghatakasimha with the horoscope of the child. The year speci fied therein is śake 1417, i. e. 1495 A. D. It follows from this that the Ms. itself must have been copied sometime before this and the original work must be much earlier still. So the Kala viveka cannot be placed at any rate later than about 1400 A. D.
In the Kālaviveka Jimūtavāhana tells us that his predecessor Andhuka1011 exhibited a certain astronomical matter in sake 952 (i. e. 1030 A. D.) and that he declared an intercalary month in sake 955.
Similarly Jimūtavahana expatiates upon several1012 minute astronomical and astrological details which were observed in
1010 TYPE Tag Hafata FTÈ HIS AFET4: 1 5510972ti a figura
FSTE Flestaan p. 290; vide p. 291 also. 1011 cafeu ca 930 TAHTATO TA F a ttaatai
Profa. p. 51; qym 19451777 TTHCĀ TAJSTĀFTER
TATAIRTLI 171.37 faiaa: 1 FTC p. 119. 1012 ननु सूर्याचन्द्रमसोभिन्नराशिस्थत्वपि अमावास्या दृश्यते। तथा च चतुर्दशोत्तर सहस्रशकवत्सरे सिहस्थे रवौ द्वित्रिदण्डान् चतुर्दशी परतोऽशेषानक्षत्रं सप्तदण्डान्
(Continued on the next page)
- Jimutavāhana
709
the sake years 1013 and 1014 (i. e. 1091 and 1092 A. D.). It is impossible to suppose that an author would enter into such minute details about a time which was anterior to his own by centuries. Generally astronomical works take for their calcula - tions starting points or years which were within their own experience or very nearly so. Therefore it appears to be a sound conclusion to hold that the Kalaviveka was composed soon aftes sake 1013 or 1014 (i, e. 1091 and 1092 A. D.). Hence it follows that the literary activity of Jjm itavahana lay between 1090 and 1130 A. D. The Kalaviveka seems to be his first work. The Vyavahāramātļkā would naturally come before the Dayabhāga. He seems to have contemplated writing 1013 on rnadına also, as he says in the Dayabhāga that a certain matter would be expound ed by him in ļṇādāna.
The most cogent argument that can be advanced against the above early date assigned to Jimatavāhana is that neither Jimatavāhana nor any of his compositions is mentioned by Bengal writers and works on Dharmaśāstra belonging to the 12th, 13th and 14th centuries such as the Hāralatā, the commentary of Kullūka etc. No satisfactory explanation can be offered of this silence. But it is a very precarious thing to conclude from this silence that Jimūtavahana’s works did not exist during those centuries. It is safer to base conclusions about his date on the positive evidence contained in his works rather than rely upon the negative argument from silence in later works. When some of his commentators say that he criticises the views of Capdeśvara, Miśra and others we should not take them seriously. The commentators had no idea of the exact chronological position of writers long anterior to them. All they mean is that Jimutavā. hana criticises views that were shared also by Candeśvara and others. Another important question is whether Jimātavāhana who is certainly a little later than the Mit. criticizes it. The
(Continued from the previous page) परतो मघा तेनाश्लेषासमयेऽमावास्यायां कर्कटे चन्द्रः सिंहे चादित्यः। कालविवेक p. 21; 79T HIGIT TË h at gatal e File TAI AT तदनन्तरं मेषसूर्ये हस्तचित्राभ्यां युक्ता पूर्णिमा हस्तयोगात्फाल्गुनोप्यसौ त्रयोदशो त्तरसहस्राब्दीयकुम्भादित्याप्रमृति चतुर्दशोत्तरसहस्राब्दान्तमानभोगपर्यन्तन मास. 59019:11 p. 45. Vide also pp. 41, 46-49. casa famille ( 41 ) 79 7& I THIT p. 45.
1013
710
Vivada-tandava of1014 Kamalakara says that Jimutavahana held that the view about the equal ownership of father and son in ancestral property was put forward for precluding the possibility of the uncle taking the whole estate of a man dying (in union) leaving a son or a predeceased son’s son or for precluding the possibility of an unequal distribution of ancestral property by a father among his sons and that Jimūtavahana took up this position, being blinded by his hatred of the Mit. The Vira mitrodayal015 also says that Jimātavāhana criticizes the Mitāksarā definition of vibhāga and the view of the Mit. about the times for partition. The Vyavahāramātṛka 1016 also appears to criticize several times views which were held by the Mit. and the correspondence is very striking. On this point this much may be said that the points selected for attack by Jimūtavahana do occur almost in the same words in the Mit. but, since the Mit. is not expressly mentioned and since it is likely that other writers like Asahāya and Bharuci whose works have not yet been discovered might have contained the very same words that are found in the Mit., it is somewhat hazardous to assert that Jimūtavābana criticizes the Mit. alone and no other work. All that one can advance is that it is quite within the bounds of possibility that Jimūtavāhana criticizes the Mit.
Raghunandana in his Smṛtitattva differs rather rarely from Jimātavahana; vide (Vol. I.) Tithitattva pp. 52-53, Malamasa
1014 यत्तु जीमूतवाहन:-मृतपितृके पौत्र पुत्रे च सति संनिकर्षात् पितृव्यस्यैव सर्वधन
प्राप्तिनिरासार्थ समस्वाम्योक्तिः पुत्राणां विषमविभागनिवृत्त्यर्था वा न तु पितुः समभागार्था पुत्रस्वातन्त्र्यार्था वा तेन पैतामहेपि पितुर्भागद्यमिति । तन्मिताक्षरा प्रद्वेषजान्ध्य कृतम् । folio 109 of the Mandiik collection ms. in the
Fergusson College, Poona. 1015 ‘यच्च जीमूतवाहनेनैव मिताक्षरोक्तं विभागो नाम द्रव्यसमुदायविषयाणामनेक
स्वाभ्यानां तदेकदेशेषु व्यवस्थापनमिति विभागशब्दार्थः इति दृषयित्वोच्यते’ वीर० p. 547; ‘अत्र पित्र्युपरम एकः कालो निवृत्ते चापि रजसीति द्वितीयो जीवति
चेच्छतीति तृतीय इति मिताक्षरायां जीमूतवाहनेनोक्तं दृषणम् ।’ वीर. p. 552. 1016 व्यवहारमातृका p. 296 ’ तदेव (वं ?) स्वयमेव अप्रसिद्धादाहृतत्वात् यदन्यैः
कल्पितं अप्रसिद्धमिति मदीयं शशविषाणमनेन गृहीतं निराबाधमस्मदीयगृहस्थितो दीपः प्रकाशमेतद्गृहे करोति…तत्रास्तां दूषणान्तरं किं तु शास्त्राचन्यथाकल्पनम शास्त्रदर्शित्वमेव तेषां कल्पयति ।’; compire मिताक्षरा on याज्ञ. II.6. ‘अप्रसिद्धं मदीयं शशविषाणं गृहीत्वा न प्रयच्छतीत्यादि निराबाधमस्मद्ग्रहे दीप प्रकाशेनाय स्वगृहे व्यवहरतीत्यादि.’ It is to be noted that these examples occur in 374TTER also,79. Jimūtavāhana
711
p. 849; (Vol. II.) Ekādaśī p. 88. He quotes Kāldviveka frequently e. g. in Tithi pp. 106, 107, 141, 144, Malap.834, Ekādaśī pp.41,87; he mentions the Vyavahāramātsaka in Vya, tattva pp. 199, 214, 225, the Dāyabhāga in Dayatattva pp. 164, 174, 194. He names Jimatavāhana frequently as in Vol. I Tithi pp. 24, 144, Prāyaścitta p. 482, Malao pp. 767, 781; ( Vol. II.) Dāyatattva p. 194, Eka dasi pp. 5, 36, 38, 40, 51, 53, 103.
Several commentaries on the Dāyabhāga have been published. The more important commentators are (1) Srinatha Ácāryacudā maṇi, Guru of Raghunandana2017 ( flourished about 1470-1540 A. D.); vide JASB ( New Series ) vol. XI. pp. 344–351 for his parentage, works and time of Srinātha; (2) Ramabhadra Nyāyā lankāra Bhattācārya, son of Srinatha-Acāryacūdāmaṇi ( flourished about 1510-1570. Vide for his commentary ‘Our Heritage’ vol. VI. pt. I pp 43-53; 1. H. Q. vol. 33; (3) Acyutānanda Cakraviartin (flourished about 1510-i570); (4) Mahesvarabhattācārya (about 1530–1600); (5) Srikrsna Tarkālankāra (flourished about the middle of the 18th century ).
There is a commentary on the Dāyabhāga professed by Raghunandana. Colebrooke suspected that it was not a work of Raghunandana. Rai Bahadur Manmohan Chakravarti holds that it is Raghunandana’s (J. A. S. B. vol. XI, N. S. for 1915, pp. 302, 352), on the ground that the final colophon gives the kula as Vandyaghaṭiya and the father’s name as Hariharabhattācārya. This is not a very strong ground. Any scholar desirous of passing off his own work as Raghunandana’s could very easily have put in these items. It was included among the commentaries on the
1017
Following the dictum in a well-known verse BTTHATH Itafa ATATTET I Flat a Taytaut: 11 Raghuna dana does not mention his guru’s name in the discussions. In the Smrtitattva Raghunandana frequently mentions his teacher’s views with the words “iti Gurucaraụāl’. Vide for example, (vol. I) Tithi pp. 31, 85, Malao p. 769, Sainskāra p. 873, ( vol. II ) Ekadasī pp. 5, 103. In two places of the Yajurvediśrāddbatattva (vol. II, pp. 493 and 500) he mentions the Śrāddha-Candrikā of his guru and in the Yajurvedi-vpsotsargatattva (vol. II, p. 640 ) he mentions
• Ācārya-cūdāmaṇi’ along with Hariśvara, Pasupati and Rāmadatta.
712
Dāyabhāga publiched by Pandit Bharatacandrasiromani in his edition of the Dayabhiga with commentaries. It is very likely that Raghunandana worte a commentary on the Dayabhāga. Unless strong grounds are shown to doubt the authorship of Raghunandana, we may concede that he wrote it.
On Jimūtavāhana, his work and tiines one may read with profit Rai Bahadur Manmohan Chakravarti’s learned contri butions to the History of Smṛti in Bengal and Mithila’ in J. A. S. B. ( New Series) Vol. XI (pub. in 1916 ) pp. 311-327.
As to Jim tavāhana’s time there is a sharp divergence of views among scholars. Simutavahana mentions Dhāreśvara Bhojadeva in his three works and Govindarāja in the Dayabhāga (XI. 2.22–23. Jiv. ed. 1893). Vide above under Govindarāja ( p.657 n. 897a.). Therefore he cannot be placed earlier than about 1125 A. D. The divergence of views among scholars concerns the latest date to which he is to be assigned. M. M. Chakravarti (J.A.S.B. vol. XI. pp. 322-324 ) points out that the Kalaviveka of Jsmūtavahana is quoted in the Durgotsavaviveka of Salapāṇi and therefore Jimūtavahana cannot be placed later than the end of the 14th century A. D. Another argument for an early date is supplied by the astronomical references in the Kalaviveka. It may be noted that in the Kālaviveka (the earliest of his three works ) he refers to the rising of the star Agastya (Canopus) in his own day in his homeland in Rādhā and in Ujjayini. He says1018 “the rising of Canopus takes place on different days according to the country (in which an observer resides ); to illustrate, that star is first seen in Rādhā when seven days are yet to run of the month of Bhadrapada, while in Ujjayini it rises when only four days of Bhadrapada are yet to run; again he notes that Agastya is seen rising in Ujjayini when twenty-six days of Leo have passed away and in Radhā, Canopus is first seen rising when twenty-three days of the sign of Leo are past. Here it is clear that he is referring to the appearance of heavenly bodies in his own day. In other
1018 fā 71 PETZTETIT 2 ufatta RETT I FUTBEI TIETET HA
दिनावशिष्ट भाद्रे तस्योदयः । उज्जयिन्यां च दिनचतुष्टयावशिष्ट इत्यनन्तरमेव a l Fysfaat p. 290; again F # E HEFT Efra दिनेषु गतेष्वगस्त्योदयः। तदनन्तरम? देयः। राढादिषु तु सिंहस्य त्रयोविंशति Parang TETET I Areat p. 291. a means att bere.
- Aparārka
713
passages of the Kālaviveka, where there are astronomical referen ces to heavenly bodies we should presume that he refers to what he himself saw or knew personally (unless there are clear indica. tions to the contrary in the passage itself or near it). For example, he refers to the eighth day after the Sun’s entering in Tula ( Libra ) in the Saka year 1014 (i. e. 1092 A. D.) and the seventeenth day after the Sun entered the sign of Tulā in the year 1013 (i. e. 1091 A. D.). Probably these dates may refer to his boyhood or youth.101sa