कल्पान्तरे विश्वासटिप्पन्यः

Haradatta

Haradatta’s fame stands very high as a commentator. He wrote a commentary called Anakulā on the Apastamba-gļhya-sūtra (D.C. Ms. No. 2 of 1866-68), a commentary on the Apastambiya mantra-pātha ( vide Dr. Winternitz’s ed. of 1897, p. XIII.), a com mentary called Anāvila on the Asvalāyana-gļhya-sūtra ( published in the Trivandrum Series ), a commentary called Mitāksarā on the Gautamadharmasūtra and a commentary named Ujjvalā on the dharmasūtra of Āpastamba. His commentaries are very good models of ideal commentaries. His commentary on the dharma sutra of Gautama (printed by the Anandasrama Press, Poona ) is more concise than that on the Dharmasūtra of Apastamba ( large extracts of which were published by Būhler in his edition in the B. S. Series, the whole being printed by Halasyanath Sastri at Kumbhakonam and in the Mysore Government Oriental Library Series ). In bis commentary on the Dharmasūtras he quotes verses from numerous smstis and from the purāṇas but hardly ever mentions by name any commentator or nibandhakāra. In his Anavilā (page 9 ) he quotes the views of a Bhāsyakāra who is probably Devasvamin and mentions also a Candogagļhyabhāsya kāra (on 1. 2. 3). In his commentaries on both the Dharmasūtras he frequently quotes the opinions of previous commentators with the words ‘anye,’ aparah,’ kecit;’ vide G. Dh. S. II. 28, VII. 4 and 14, IX. 52, XI. 17, XII, 32 and 33, XXIV. 5, XXVI. 9, XXVIII, 7 and 44; Ap. Dh. S. I. 1. 4. 24, I. 2.5.2 and 18, I. 3. 10.4, 1. 3. 11. 20, 1. 5. 15. 20 etc. From the fact that he mentions two interpretations on Ap. Dh. S. I. 2. 5. 2. with the words

apara āha’ and ‘ityanye’ and several interpretations on II. 7. 17. 22 it follows that he had before him two or three commenta ries on Āp. Dh. S. In Būhler’s edition Haradatta on Ap. Dh. S. I. 1. 2. 38 appears to refer to a gļhya-vștti, but in the Kumbha konam edition the reading is different (viz. grhye gatam ). He is very careful to point out the un-Paninean forms in the sūtras of Gautamał079 and Åpastamba, explains at great length all grammatical matters and generally prefers readings that are in consonance with the rules of Pāṇini. He very often says that the

1079 e. g. on H. 9. . XXV. 8 he says “qiqatla qari a tadi

अचतुरेति समासान्तविधिप्रसङ्गात् ।

Haradatta

743

text of the sitras, particularly of Āpastamba, as handed down by oral tradition was either wrong or followed Vedic usage as regards grammar.1030

From various references Haradatta seems to have been an inhabitant of Southern India or was at least very familiar with its usages. On Gautama XI. 20 he instances several usages of the Colas. On Gautama XV. 18 he gives a synonym in the Dravida language for1081 a skin disease called - Kilāsa.’ On Āp. Gr. S. VI. 6 ( the sūtra ’nadinirdesasca’ etc.) he gives Kaveri and Vegavati as instances. On Āp. Dh. S. II. 11. 29. 15 ( last sutra) he refers to certain practices of the Dravidas observed when the Sun is in Aries or Virgo.1092 The Viramitrodaya classes Haradatta and the Smrticandrikākāra among southern nibandhakaras. 1088 From his remark on Āp. Dh. S. II. 7. 17. 25 ( the sūtra ’ anyatra rāhudarsanāt’) that the northerners do not recite that sūtra it appears that he affirms that he was a southerner.

Haradatta seems to have been a great devotee of Śiva. He begins his commentary on Gautama, on Aśvalāyana-gļhya and Áp. Gṛ. with an obeisance to Rudra and his commentaries on Áp. Dh. S. and on the Apastambiya-mantra-pātha (otherwise called Ekāgnikānda, 25th and 26th praśnas of Āpastamba-kalpa) with an obeisance to Mahadeva. Burnell ( Tanjore mss. cat. p. 170 ) tells us that according to tradition in Southern India, Rudradatta, the commentator of the Ap. Srauta-sūtra, is the same as Haradatta. In his commentary on Ăp. Gṭ. S. 1. 13. 5 ( ghosavad caturaksaram vā) he gives as instances of the names of males Hara, Rudra, Deva, Haradatta and Bhayanaga. In the colophons the Anāvila is described as the work of Haradattācārya-misra.

1080 e. g. on 3119. 4. . I. 11. 31. 21’ ARIFFENTUT F’ he says

‘प्रायत्यब्रह्मचर्याभ्यां काले चर्यया च । अयं तावदर्थानुरूपः पाठः 1 अधीयमानस्तु YAESTHETI?. Vide reinarks on 314. 4. L. II. 2.5.2 and

II. 3. 7. 7 also. 1081 PROTA: 9 aseta afastai : 1 1082 7a afast: FA Hanifesta Fracara HI FUETAS

न्युदाहरणानि । 1083 Vide atro p. 705 T ERA 17 Fugls: Trait for GART ATAT

स्त्रीणां धनाधिकारस्तासामेव । अन्यासां तु श्रुतिमनुवचनाभ्यां दायग्रहणनिषेध एवेति स्मृतिचन्द्रिकाकारहरदत्तादीनां दाक्षिणात्यनिबन्द्धृणां जीमूतवाहनादिपौरस्त्यसर्व निबन्नृणां सिद्धान्ताच्च ।

744

Haradatta (on Ap. Dh. S. I. 8. 22. 1-2 ) has a disquisition on the correct knowledge and realization of the self (Atman). He quotes Mundakopanisad II. 9 (bhidyate &c.), Chan. Up. VI. 24. 3 and Yaj. Smrti I. 8 (ayam tu paramo dharmo yad yogenatma darśanam), puts the Advaitavedānta view in a nutshell, narrates the story of a prince brought up since boyhood among Sabara (bhil ) children regarding himself as a sabara, but the truth dawns upon him when his mother tells him who he really was; and quotes four Sardūlavikridita verses on the same story and the

moral.1084

Ghose in his Hindu Law ( 3rd ed. Intro. p. xv) says that, like Medhātithi, Haradatta denies the heritable rights of widows and must have come before Vijñāześvara and not after. But Ghose appears to be wrong. Haradatta first says that according to the acarya (i. e. Apastamba) the sapindas of the deceased who took the property were obliged to maintain the widow of the deceased, while the view of Gautama was that the widow took, on failure of male issue, an equal share along with the sapindas, and then Haradatta says that he himself liked the latter view,1085 He often gives interesting information. On Gautama XVII. 33 he tells us that asafoetida is eaten by all, even though it is a matter for consideration whether being the exudation of a tree, it is to be regarded as due to cutting ( and so forbidden ).1086 On Ap. Dh. S. II. 2.5. 14 he cites as an example of reviling (a-krosa) the

1084 ‘तदेवं स्वभावत: स्वच्छोप्यात्मा प्रकृन्यादावभेदमापन; तद्धर्मो भवति । एवं

तद्विकारेण महता तद्विकारेणाहङ्कारेण । इत्यशरीराद् द्रष्टव्यम् । …यथा शबरादि भिर्खाल्यात्प्रभृति स्वसुतैः सह संवर्धितो राजपुत्रस्तज्जातीयमात्मानमवलोकयन् मात्रा स्वरूपे कथिते लब्धस्वरूप इव भवति तथा प्रकृत्या वंश्ययेव स्वरूपान्तरं नीत आत्मा मातृस्थानीयया तत्त्वमसीति श्रुत्या स्वभावं नीयते । यदेवविधं परिशुद्धं वस्तु तदेव त्वमसि, यथा मन्यसे ‘मनुष्योह दु:ख्यहम्’ इत्यादि न तथेति । …ननु ‘तत्त्वमसि’ इति ब्रह्मणा तादात्म्याच्यते । को ब्रूते नेति । ब्रह्मापि नान्यदात्मनः । किं पुनरयमात्मा एक आहोस्विन्नाना। किमनेन ज्ञानेन । त्वं तावदेवंविधश्चिदेक रसो नित्यनिर्मल: कलुपवस्तुसंसर्गात्कलुपतामिव गतः। तद्वियोगश्च ते मोक्षः । त्वयि मुक्ते यद्यन्ये सन्ति ते संसरिष्यन्ति । का ते क्षतिः । अथ न सन्ति तथापि कस्ते

लाभ इत्यलमियता।’ Then follow four verses on the same. 1085 On आप.ध. सू. II. 6.11.2 ‘पुत्राभावे यः प्रत्यासन्न: सपिण्ड:’ he says ‘भार्या

तु रिक्थग्राहिणः सपिण्डाद्या रक्षेयुन तु दायग्रहणमित्याचार्यस्य पक्षः। … गौतम

पुत्राभावे पल्याः सपिण्डादिभिः समांशमाह । …वयमप्येतमेव पक्षं रोचयामहे ।’. 1086 हिङ्गस्तु निर्यासो व्रश्चनप्रभवो न वेति चिन्त्यम् । सर्वथा शिष्टा अपि भक्षयन्ति ।

Haradatta

745

following: the Taittiriya is a Sākhā that is ucchizta (the leavings of food eaten ), the Yājñavalkya and other Brāhmaṇa works are modern ‘.1087 On Gautama IV. 5 he says that what distinguishes the Prājāpatya form of marriage from the Brāhma and others is that there is in the former a stipulation that the husband is not to enter into another order of life (aśrama ) nor is he to marry another woman.1088 On Ap. Dh. S. 1.4. 12.15 he says that whereas in the case of marriage with a paternal aunt’s or maternal uncle’s daughter, the act springs from the fact that one is pleased thereby, there is no necessity to infer a śāstra (a Vedic passage ) once existing but now lost (in support of such usage ).1089

The date of Haradatta is a rather difficult problem. Būhler (S. B. E. vol. II. P. XLIII) at first thought that Haradatta probably wrote in the 16th century, but in his 2nd edition of the Āp. Dh. S. he says (P. VIII) that the Munich ms. of the Ujjvalā written in Poona about 1600 A. D. shows the interpolated text found in all Devanāgari copies and that therefore Haradatta is older than at least 1450-1500 A. D. The Viramitrodaya1090 frequently cites the Mitākṣarā of Haradatta on Gautama. Nārāyanabhatta ( born in 1513 A. D.) in his Prayoga-ratna quotes Haradatta’s comment on Gautama VIII. 14-22 about samskāras and his son Śhaṅkarabhatta names both the Mitākṣarā and the Ujjvala of Haradatta in his Dvaitanirṇaya. The Prayogapārijāta of NȚsimha, which is quoted in the Prayogaratna of Nārāyaṇabhatta and is therefore not later than the first quarter of the 16th century, cites Haradatta’s explanation of Áp. Gr. S. (on pravāsād-etya putra sya sirah parigȚhya japati’ etc.) and contrasts it with Nārāyana’s view. The Subodhini of Viśveśvarabhatta (about 1375 A. D.) on Mit. ( Yāj. II. 132 ) quotes certain smṛti passages as found in the vștti of Apastamba which are found in Haradatta’s gloss.1091

1087 तैत्तिरीयमुच्छिष्टशाखा याज्ञवल्क्यादीनि ब्राह्मणानीदानीन्तनानीत्यादय आक्रोशाः । 1088 नाश्रमान्तरं प्रवेष्टव्यं नापि स्न्यन्तरमुपयन्तव्यमिति मन्त्रेण समय: क्रियते। एष

ब्राह्मादेः प्राजापत्यस्य विशेषः । 1089 95 fo@athuganifuatat rytoua: safera AFAT916 Tra

मनुमीयते प्रीतेरेव प्रवृत्तिहेतोः संभवात् । 1090 Vide atto pp. 169, 655. 1091 पूर्वाभावे परः पर इति रिक्थग्रहणक्रमोपि दर्शितो वाक्यदोषे स्मृत्यन्तरेष्वन्यथा दर्शितः। तथाहि आपस्तम्बवृत्तौ स्मृत्यन्तरसंग्रहः। औरस: पुत्रिकाबीजक्षेत्रज्ञौ

(Continued on the next page) H. D.-94

746

Hence it follows that Haradatta cannot be later than about 1300 A. D. The fact that Haradatta hardly ever names any commentator except perhaps Devasvāmin, the Bhāșyakāra of Āpastamba-gļhya, and that he holds antiquated views about the widow’s right to succeed to her deceased husband’s estate are strong arguments in favour of the view that Haradatta is com paratively an early writer. Hardly any writer after Vijñāneśvara assigns the same position to the widow as Haradatta does. Hence it appears that Haradatta could not have flourished much later than 1100 A. D. So he must be placed between 1100-1300 A.D., very probably near the earlier limit than the later one.

One important question is as to the identity of Haradatta, the commentator of the Dharma and Gșhya sūtras and Haradatta, the author of the Padamañjari, a commentary on the Kāsikā of Vamana and Jayāditya. Būhler felt uncertain about the identity. Śankarabhatta in his Dvaita-nirṇaya speaks of Haradatta as expounding 1092 a karikā of Hari ( Vakyapadiya III. p. 260, Benares ed.) and also speaks of Haradatta as the author of the Ujjvala and the Mitaksarā without making any distinction between the two. This shows that he regarded the two as identical. Haradatta in his commentaries on the Dharmasūtras gives far more attention to grammar than almost any other commentator of Dharma śāstra.1093 His grammatical disquisition on Ap. Dh. S, I. 2. 5. 18 (plāvanam ca nāmno’ etc. ) is almost identical with the Pada maũjari on Panini VIII. 2. 83 (‘pratyabhivadesudre”). On Ap. Dh. S. II. 7.17. 17 he quotes a verse as from the grammarians for defining the location of the udicyas.1094 The Madhaviya Dhātu

(Continued from the previous page) पुत्रिकासुतः। पानर्भवश्च कानीनः सहोढो गूढसंभवः। दत्तः क्रीतः स्वयंदत्तः कृत्रिम श्चापविद्धकः। यत्र व चोत्पादितश्च स्वपुत्रा दश पञ्च चेति । सुबोधिनी. This occurs in it’s comment on 3714, 4. L. II. 6. 14, 1 ( Būhler’s

ed, of 1894, p. 81 ). 1092 đā ở siêu – Th44Ỉ HILFIG TỪ 1Hai ta: { 14Haiistan:

स्वधर्मेणाभिधीयते ॥ अस्यार्थी हरदत्तेन विवृतः । द्वैतनिर्णय. 1093 Vide comment on 3114.4.. I. 2.5.1 (agfari faetani f:Hafa)

where 6G ( says 64G: Hāng lā 48: 44:

44 aftsal where he refers to the महाभाष्य of पतञ्जलि (uide Keilhorn, vol.

II. p. 69). 1094 Vide note 102 on p. 67.

Haradatta

747

vrtti mentions the Padamañjari. From this it follows that the Padamasjari was composed before 1300 A. D. Dr. Belvalkar places Haradatta, the author of the Padamañjarī, about 1100 A. D.1095 The learned editor of the Anāvila in the Trivandrum Series points out that, as Haradatta is quoted in the Puruṣakara which in its turn is mentioned in the Dhātu-vitti of Madhava and as Saranadeva, the author of the Durghaṭa-vștti, who wrote in śake 1095, cites the Jainendra and Kaiyata but not Haradatta nor the Padamañjari, Haradatta wrote about the close of the 12th century A. D. These circumstances render it highly probable (if not certain ) that Haradatta, the commentator of the Dharma sūtras, is the same as the author of the Padamañjari and that he flourished between 1100 and 1300 A. D. and probably about 1200 A. D. The Smṛticandrikā twice refers to the bhāṣya of the Apa stamba-dharma-sūtra.1096 Haradatta’s commentary is styled výtti and not bhāsya and the citations do not occur in his work. Hence it appears that the Smsticandrikā did not know Haradatta’s works and the latter could not have flourished much earlier than the Smṛti-candrika.

In the Padamañjari Haradatta is said to have been the son of Padma (Rudra )-kumāra, younger brother of Agoikumāra and a pupil of Aparajita.1097 In his Padamañjari Haradatta employs the word “kūcimañci’ which is a Telugu word.1098 The Bhavi syottarapurāṇa printed in Grantha characters contains 12 chapters ( 54th to 65th ) and the Śivarahasya printed in the said characters has one chapter (17th ) which set out the life ( carita) of a Haradattācārya. It is stated there that Haradattācārya’s original name was Sudarsana, that he was the son of Vasudeva and that

1095 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar, pp. 39–40. 1096 अत्र हि अधिकारत इति हेतुबलात् अन्येत्यादिपक्षत्रयं पूर्वपक्षत्वेनोपन्यस्तमित्युक्त

TS I Fafa o I. p. 25 ( OL 3774, 4. 4. II. 6. 15. 19-23 ); 48 एव जीवन्पुत्रेभ्यो दाय विभजेदित्यापस्तम्बसूत्र व्याचक्षाणेन तद्भाध्यकारेण पुत्रेभ्य

69 378 fauna aith GTA4 TL ila ao II. p. 300. 1097 Vide Report on the search of Sanskrit and Tamil mas, for

1893-94 by S, Seshagiri Sastri pp. 13–20 and pp. 171-178

( extract). 1098 at gaat 1918: HETT: faisal ATHI HIYAH 1 p. 16 of the

Report on Sanskrit and Tamil mes, for 1893-94 by S. Sesha giri Sastri.

748

he died 3979. years after Kaliyuga began 1099 (i. e. 878 A. D.). This Haradattācārya, being the son of Vasudeva, was not the same as the author of the Padamañjari, who was the son of Padmakumara. This earlier Haradatta may probably be the same as the Haradattācārya cited as an authority in the Sarvadarśana samgraha on the Nakulisa-pasupatadarsana.1100 Dr. Jolly ( R. u. S. p. 33 ) identifies without sufficient foundation the Haradatta cārya of the Sarvadarśana-samgraha with Haradatta, the com mentator of Ápastamiba and Gautama.

A work called Hari-hara-tāratamya and another called Caturvedatātparya-saṁgraha are ascribed to a Haradatta. Of the latter there is a ms. in the Deccan College collection (No. 109 of 1871-72 ), which contains 154 verses of fine penmanship. The first and last are given below.1101 Whether these two works were composed by Haradatta, the commentator of the Dharma sūtras, it is difficult to say. In the latter work the author sings a hymn of praise to Śiva as the supreme deity, points out how the Vedic mantras refer to him, how the various rites are meant for him, refers to the mythological representations of Śiva as Kirata, or as wearing skin etc. All the verses upto 143 are in the Vasantatilakā metre, while towards the end there are a few verses in other metres such as Sikharini and Rathoddhatā. He was a staunch Saivite, 1102 though the hymn breathes a spirit of tolerance and sympathy for different religious and philosophical

1099 कल्यादौ च चतु:सहस्रसहिते यत्रैकविंशोनके पुष्ये मासि विलम्बिनाम्नि खमगादष्ट

प्रजो मौद्गलः । पञ्चन्यां सितपक्षके भृगुदिन सह्यात्मजोदक्तटे कंसग्रामनिवासिभिः

सुदर्शनः सार्ध विमानोज्ज्वलः ॥ कंसग्राम 1s in the Tanjore District. 1100 तत्र विधीयमानमुपायफलं लाभः । ज्ञानतपोनित्यवस्थितिशुद्धिभेदात् पञ्चविधः ।

तदाह हरदत्तात्रायः । ज्ञानं तपोथ नि-यत्वं स्थितिः शुद्धिश्च पञ्चमम् 1 &c. सर्व.

दर्शनसंग्रह pp. 16::-63 ( Govt. Oriental series, Poona ). 1101 यस्मै नमो भवति यस्य गुणाः समग्रा नारायणोपनिषदा यदुपासनोक्ता । यो नः

प्रचोदयति बुद्धिमधिकता यस्तं त्वामनन्यगतिरीश्वर संश्रयामि || first verse: अघटितघटनापट प्रकटितकरुणाय सिन्धुभृते । वटतरुमूलस्थितये विघटिततमसे

महेश्वराय नमः ॥ last verse. 1102 Verses 144-145 are विधातारं कश्चिद्भ जति भजते कश्चन हरिं सुरानन्यानन्ये

जगति सफलाः सर्वविधयः । तथापि त्वद्भक्त गिव ननु यदा चर्मवदिति श्रुतो मन्त्रो देवान्तरभजनदैन्यं न सहते ।। शशः शृङ्गं पुष्पं नभसि मृगतृष्णासु सलिलं प्रसूति वन्ध्यायामनवधिकमायुम्तनुभृताम् । विमुक्तिर्वा देवान्तरभजनलभ्या पशुपते न शक्यं नः संभावयितुमाप सर्व विमृशताम् ॥

Hemādri

749

systems. He refers to the Maitrāyana Śruti, Talavakāra Brāh maṇa, Katyāyana grhya, Bhagvadgitā, the Purāṇas as supple menting the Vedas ( vedopabṛmhaka ), the Sāṁkhya and Yoga.