कल्पान्तरे विश्वासटिप्पन्यः

Sūlapāṇi

Jimūtavahana, Sūlapini and Raghunındana are the three leading and very eminent writers on Dharmaśāstra from Bengal, Rai Bahadur Manomohan Chakravarti in his learned and long paper • Contributions to the History of Snısti in Bengal and Mithila ’ in J. A. S. B. ( New Series) Vol. XI (1915) deals with Bengal authors on Smsti in pp. 311-406 and deals with Sūlapāni in pp. 336–343 giving a very interesting account of his works and time.

The earliest work of Śūlapāṇi appears to have been his Dipa kalikā, a commentary on the smiṛti of Yājñavalkya. It is a very brief commentary. Rai Bahadur M. M. Chakravarti had no

824

printed edition of the Dipakalikā and relied upon a ms. from the Sanskrit College. The Dipakalikālz43 was published by Mr. Gharpure in 1939 in his series of Hindu Law texts. Raghu. nandana quotes or refers to it very often in spite of its small size (vide vol. I, Sraddha, pp. 201, 208, 225, 247; Ahnika 454; Prayascitta 543, 546; vol. II Udvaha 138, Vyavahara 224, 225; Divya 577. The portion on the dayabhāga section (Yajnavalkya II, verses 114-149) is contained in five printed pages ( vide Ghose’s Hindu Law, edition of 1917, vol. II. pp. 550-554). In this commentary, besides the sages he names only a few writers and works on dharma, e. g. the Kalpataru, Govindaraja, the Mitākṣarā, Medhātithi and Viśvarūpa. He entertained somewhat archaic views on matters of inheritance. For example, he holds that the text speaking of the right of the parents to succeed before the brothers of the deceased has reference to property acquired by the deceased from his father or grand-father. He explained the word ‘apratisthita’ in the sutra of Gautama ‘stridhanam duhi tļṇāmaprattānām-apratișthitānāṁ ca’ in the same way as Apararka, Jimitavahana and the Smrticandrika.1244 He says that a full brother though not re-united succeeded before a half-brother

1243 The दीपकलिका ( ed. by Gharpure ) covers only 110 pages but

mentions a large number of smrti works, and authors : गौतम धर्मसूत्र, बोधायन, बृहस्पति, वृद्धबृहस्पति, भरद्वाज, मनु, बृहन्मनु ( verse अन्यायोपात्त.), वृद्धमनु ( verse अपुत्रा शयनं ), मरीचि, यम, वसिष्ठ, विश्वरूप (p. 81), विश्वामित्र, विष्णु, व्यास, शङ्ख ( prose once), शङ्खलिखित (prose 12 times ), शातातप, वृद्धशातातप, शौनक ( once), संवर्त, सनन्द (once), सुमन्तु, हारीत ( both prose and verse ), कल्पतरु, छन्दोगपरिशिष्ट, महा भारत ( 4 times ), रामायण ( once आकारश्छद्यमानोपि०), आयुर्वेद (once), सुश्रुत ( twice). It quotes several पुराण ( some of them often ) आदि, कूर्म, नृसिंह, पद्म, ब्रह्म ( 10 times), भविष्य ( 13 times ), मार्कण्डेय, विष्णु, स्कन्द. In प्राय. वि. pp. 390-91 he states-‘विवाह्याविवाह्यस्त्री विशेषश्च याज्ञवल्क्यटीकायामस्माभिरभिहितः । सगोत्रादिकन्यानां चाज्ञानतो विवाह इदं यथा बौधायनः सगोत्रां चेदमत्योपगच्छेत् मातृवेदनां बिभृयात् । प्रजाता चेत् कृच्छाब्दपादं चरित्वा जन्मन आत्मनो वेदाग्निभूतः पुनरग्निश्चक्षुरादित्येताभ्यां

जुहुयात् । ज्ञाने तु द्वैगुण्यम् । 1244 अनपत्या निर्धना अभर्तृका दुर्भगाश्च । ता विना अन्वयः पुत्रपौत्रादिः । vide

स्मृतिचन्द्रिका ( Gharpure’s ed. } on व्यवहार p. 385 ‘अप्रतिष्ठिता अनपत्या निर्धना दुर्भगा । विधवा वा । एवमपरार्कानुसारात् गौतमवचनं व्याख्या तम् । अस्य विज्ञानेश्वरकृता व्याख्या हेया स्वबुद्धिमात्रेणाध्याहारादिकरणात् ।’ Vide मिता. on या. II. 145. The sutra of Gautama is : स्त्रीधनं दुहिवृणामप्रत्तानामप्रतिष्ठितानां च । 28. 22.

Śūlapāṇi

825

though re-united.1346 This explanation of the much canvassed verse of Yāj. offered by Sulapāṇi is referred to by the Viramitro daya.1248 The Vyavahāratattva of Raghunandana several times refers to Sūlapāpi’s explanations of Yāj. 1247

In the Prayaścittaviveka (p. 390 of Jivananda’s ed.) Śūlapāṇi states that he has already composed a commentary on Yāj. The Suddhitattva (vol. II p. 380) mentions that solapani also com posed • Parisista-dipakalikā’:

Śūlapāṇi wrote several small treatises on topics of dharma sāstra. It is doubtful whether he contemplated or proposed to make them parts of a huge digest on Smrti. At least twelve tractales of his ending in the wotd • Viveka’ are known. Chakra varti on p. 337 of his paper opines that the several ‘small treatises formed parts of general treatise by name the Smrtiviveka.’ With great respect I demur to this conclusion. He nowhere drops even a hint that he meant these large and small treatises to be parts of a Smṛtiviveka viz. Ekadasi-viveka, Tithi-viveka, Dattaka-viveka, Durgotsavaprayoga-viveka, Durgotsava-viveka, Dolayātrā-viveka, Pratiṣthā-viveka, Prāyaścitta-viveka, Rasayātrā-viveka, Vratakāla viveka, Suddhi-viveka, Srāddha-viveka, Samkrānti-viveka, Sam bandha-viveka (on marriage ). Of these the Durgotsavaviveka seems to have been amongst his latest works, since he names therein five of his vivekas on durgotsava-prayoga, pratisthā, prāyāscitta, suddhi and śrāddha. The Śrāddha-viveka is the most famous of his works and has been printed. His Prāyaścittaviveka and Durgotsava-viveka have also been published, the former by Jivananda (1893) and the latter by the Sanskrit Sahitya Parisad at Calcutta in Bengali characters. In the Durgotsava-viveka he deals with the worship of Durgā in Asvina and also in spring (hence the deity is called Vasanti). In the Durgotsava viveka, besides such purāṇas as the Kalıkā, Bhavisyottara, Bhāgayata,

1245 Seafo hit va TMT HE:

Hapali Vide Dāyatattva ( Vol. II pp. 194-195 ) 113197461

YTWHETHE पाध्यायास्तु… असंसृष्टयपि सोदर एव गृह्णीयात् , नतु संसृष्टः सापत्नो भ्राता । ‘. 1246 2159044 Fiatami 741fOT: 13477774: Hieet FETZATI TETTET I

BATETIT HIRT & T 17 g *TE: #1467 FINT &c.’ atto pp.

682-683. 1247 e. g. 3 af archaa tai fartentyai Tgl at forfaifafa Tufu

महामहोपाध्यायाः । व्यवहारतस्व. vide p. 197 of व्यवहारतत्त्व (vol. II), H. D. 104

826

Devi, he names a host of writers and works as noted below.1248 In spite of Aufrecht’s view the Samvatsara-pradipa is not his own work. The Samvatsarapradipa mentioned by Śūlapāni in Durgo tsavaviveka appears to have been a work of Halayudha, as Raghu nandana states in Ekādasitattva (vol. II. p. 51, “Samvatsara pradipe Halāyudhopi etanmatīnusāri’) and in Suddhi (Vol. II p. 327 ata eva samvatsara-pradipe Halayudhenoktam ). The Samvatsarapradipa without the author’s name is quoted by Raghunandana many times, as in (vol. I) Tithi (pp. 34, 43, 49, 106 ); Śrāddha, p. 250, Prāyaścitta p. 508, Malamasa pp. 754, 848; in vol. II Ekadasi pp. 8, 40, 61-62, 65, 83, and Suddhi 382. A Sārasamuccaya is also mentioned in Hemādri (Dānakhanda page 135). The Smstisāgara is probably the same as the Govindārṇava of Seșa Nṭsimha, Srikaramiśra is probably the ancient author referred to even by the Mitakṣarā.

Sūlapāṇi is mentioned by name by Raghunandana in some places without any title ( as in vol. I Malamasa pp. 748, 854–55; Vol. II. p. 577 Divya ), sometimes as upadhyāya (vol. I. Daya 175 ) and very often as Mahāmahopadhyāya (as in vol. I Prāyas citta pp. 528, 553; vol. II. Vyavahāra p. 197, Suddhi p. 296 ). Brief notes may be added on a few of his works.

The Sambandhaviveka1249 was edited by Dr. J. B. Chaudhuri (Calcutta ) in 1942 with an Introduction of 23 pages dealing with the origin and development of the forms of marriage (8 forms in the Gaut. Dh. S. and in Aśv. Gș. I. 6) and contain

1248 They are: fatigat,

f at, maraq, FT IERI, altruit, जिकन, जीमूतवाहन, ज्योतिषार्णव, बालक, महाकपिलपञ्चरात्र, वर्षकृत्य, वसन्त 1757, 716ıfa , starfa, sila titqteqr4, Atatu (of sigh),

सारसमुच्चय, स्मृतिसागर. 1249 The text in the edition by Dr. Chaudhuri of the Sambandha

vivek u contains only 15 pages. But about one-third or more of each page is covered by various readings. So the text by itself would occupy only about six or seven printed pages of a small size book in modern times. As there were hardly any printing presses for Sanskrit works before the advent of the British and as the different parts of India were separated by the barriers of language and usages and were governed by different dynasties, each region produced its own compilations in Sanskrit, particularly on matters of Dharmaśāstra.

Śūlapāṇi

827

ing a few remarks on the work of Sūlapāṇi. A work of the same name by Bhavadevabhatta who flourished at least three centuries before Sūlapāṇi has also been edited by Dr. S. C. Banerjee in N. I. A. Vol. VI. pp. 97-102. A comparison of the works of the same name by Bhavadeva and Sulapiṇi would be interesting but reasons of space prevent any such attempt. It is a misnomer to speak of the small treatises of Silapāṇi as granthas or nibandhas. It is cumbersome and unnecessary to mention and describe all the writings of Sulapāṇi (in a work like the present general History of Dharmaśāstra ) said to be 23 by Dr. S. C. Banerjee in N. I. A. vol. V. pp. 169-176.

For the Dolayātrāviveka one has to turn to the volume of studies presented to the present author on his completing 60 years on the 7th May 1941, to which Dr. S. C. Banerji contributed a paper containing the text of Dolayātrāviveka of Sūlapāṇi (pp. 56-62 ) based on seven mss. belonging to the Dacca University mss, library. It is a small tract of about five printed pages (if the footnotes about different readings of the mss. be excluded ). Dolayātrā means the festival of swinging (of the image of Krsna ). Half of the work is taken from Skandapurāṇa, some verses are also quoted from the Brabmapurāṇa and Devipurāṇa and the work called Bhujabalabhima is also cited. The festival may be celebrated for three days or five days. Ordinarily it is celebrated on the full moon day of Phālguna (but questions arise when Paurnimā is mixed with Caturdaśi) or with Uttaraphālguni nakṣatra. The conclusions are stated in the note below1250 when one or two of the three required particulars are wanting.

A few words are required to be said on the two extensive and important works of Śūlapāni, viz. Prayascittaviveka and Sraddhaviveka. But the Sraddhaviveka not being available to me in Devanāgari script, I have had to give up the idea of say, ing something about it. The first was printed over seventy years ago by Jivananda with the commentary of Govindānanda called

1250 अत: चतुर्दश्यां गुणफलविधिः। सायमेव नियतं तस्याव्यभिचारात् । यदा सायाहे

तच्छेषयामे पौर्णमासी नक्षत्रयुक्ता लभ्यते तदा तत्रैव शेषयामे दोलयात्रा कार यितव्या । यदा तु सायं चतुर्दशी शेषयामे केवलपौर्णमासी परदिने शेषयामे पौर्णमास्यामुत्तराफाल्गुनीलाभस्तदापरदिने एव नक्षत्रसम्बन्धेन बलवत्त्वात् ॥

p. 60,

828

Tattvārthakaumudi and contains 544 printed pages. Hundreds of Prāyaścittas on serious and insignificant transgressions are mentioned in this work. It is difficult to believe that all these (or even large portions ) were actually practised by the people in the author’s days or even centuries before him. A brief statement of its contents is given here.— Etymology1981 of the word Prayascitta according to Angiras and Harita ; how sins are incurred ( acc. to Manu XI. 43, Yaj. III. 219-220); the effect of sins are experienced in the present life itself or in another life (Yaj. III. 32-33 ); sinners fall into hell or are born with bodily defects (Manu XI. 49, 52); narakas (hells ) are many acc. to Manu IV. 88–90; two views – one is that the results of every act must be endured and there is no escape from them; the other is that results of sins may be avoided or mitigated by appropriate acts and penances declared in the śāstras ( Manu XI. 45, 46, 53 ); distinction between sins committed through ignorance and sins committed of set purpose ( Yaj. III. 226 ); sinner should approach a pariṣad (assembly of learned men) or the king; consti tution of pariṣad for prescribing appropriate penances (pp. 27-29); various methods for reducing or removing effects of sins (Manu XI. 227, 230 ); enumeration of penances like kṛcchra, cāndrāyana, prajāpatya, santapana, paraka; secret penances like japa of mantras and homas; nine kinds of sins, such as atipātaka, mabāpātaka, anupataka, upapataka, jātibhramsakara &c.; enumeration and definitions of these; acc. to Viṣṇu (34. 1) there are three utipātakas viz. incest with mother, daughter or daughter-in-law; Manu does not mention atipātakas as a distinct class; for Atipātakas, penance for these is entering into fire; Prayaścittas for the five Mahāpātakas (in Manu XI. 57); upapātakas are 38 in Manu (XI. 59-66); Jāti bhramsakara are sins mentioned in Manu XI. 67-70; penances for Mahāpatakas; no sin incurred when a brāhmaṇa who is being treated medically dies (Yaj. III. 284); Manu (VIII. 350-52) and many ancient sages very clearly accept the right of private

1251 37 n afar I FT: IFUATH 99: 47 Fati fā 24 gold i

तपोनिश्चयसंयुक्तं प्रायश्चित्तमिति स्मृतम् ।। निश्चयसंयुक्तं पापक्षयसाधनत्वेन निश्चित मित्यर्थः । तथा हारीतः । प्रयतत्वाद्वोपचितमशुभं नाशयतीति प्रायश्चित्तम् । एतेन पापक्षयमात्रसाधनं कर्म प्रायश्चित्तमिति प्रायश्चित्तलक्षणम् । मात्रपदं तुलापुरुषाश्व ÀTIETITTAI 974, 1aaf pp. 2-4.

Śūlapāṇi

829

defence by stating that even if one’s guru or a boy or an old man or a learned brāhmana approaches with a weapon to harm a person, the latter should kill him without further thought"268 ; penances for killing a brāhmaṇa ( 13 indicated by Manu XI. 72–82 as stated in the Pr. Viveka p. 65 ); but this applies only when killing is not of set purpose; P. ( stands for Prāyascitta or Prāyaścittas in this summary’) for those who abet killing or who encourage or merely approve; P. are more severe according as the culprit in the case of killing a brāhmana is a Ksatriya or of another varṇa or even in other offences (than killing a brāhmara); Daksiṇā in penances depends upon the means of the guilty person; penances for drinking surā ;1253 meaning of surā (Manu XI. 93 ), since all intoxicants are not regarded as surā (pp. 89 ff.); P. for theft of gold (pp. 107–127);

1252

Similar provisions occur in Matsya-purāṇa, chap. 227. 115-117 Prāyaścitta V. of Sūlapāpi (pp.59-60 ) quotes Manu VIII, 351. and remarks that the words Hanyād-eva’ show that there is no alternative and the only action is to kill that brāhmaṇa offender (evahiro niya rithah ) and the Dandaviveka (p. 240) of Vardhamāna repeats these words of Sulapāpi. Vide an elaborate paper on ‘Atatāyivadha’ by Prof. Rangaswami Aiyanyar in C. K. Raja Felicitation volume pp. 197–232. The Chāndogyopaniṣad ( V. 10. 9) enumerates the fire Maha pātakıs in the verse steno kiranyasya …. pañcamas-cācaca raistar-iti’. Manu IV. 162 and VIIT, 350 ( = Matsyapurāṇa 227. 115 ) appear to be inconsistent with each other. Therefore The Sar. V. p. 155 holds that the latter deals only with the punishment for) Atatāyi brāhmaṇay. Eien in the Rgveda (VII. 86.6) Vasiṣtha appears to plead with God Varupa that man commits sin under the influence of surī, wrath, gambling, thoughtiessness and in VIII. 2. 12 refers to brawls (or fights) arising among people intoxicated by surā. The Prāyaścitta V. (p. 89) quotes & Śruti Surā vai malam annānām’ and adds ‘yadyapi annusabdah….odane prasi ddhastathāpi … piṣta-yavāgvādivikāramapi lakṣayati tenā nnavıkāraviṛeṣo madahetuh suretyu yate’ and cites Manu XI. 93 Surā vai malai annānāin dc,’ and then quotes two verses of Pulastya, in which eleven kiods of iutoxicating drinks are specified as varieties of marlyn, are distinguished from surā and it is expressly provided that all hiuds of mariya are not

(Continued on the next page)

1253

830

Technical meaning of Suvarṇa; punishments for theft of gold of different quantities and discussion of the meaning of steya; punishments for theft of gold (including fines ); P. for adultery with a wife of one’s guru (pp. 128-140 ); different meanings of guru (Yaj. I. 34, Manu II. 142 and 149); Gautama II.56, Devala who describes eleven kinds of gurvanganā; P. for contact with sinners (pp. 140-176 ); nine kinds of contact (samsarga) acc. to Bșhaspati; P. for anupātakas (those that are equal to mahāpātakas acc. to Manu XI. 55-58, pp. 176–192); P. for Upapātakas ( 192 ff.) mentioned in Manu ( XI. 59-66; 59 Upapa takas (Govadha is the first and Nāstikya is the last of them ); P. for killing a cow (Manu XI. 108-116); they varied according as the cow belonged to a brāhmana or to men of other varṇas ; P. for killing a Kșatriya (Manu XI. 126-130) or one who is born of a pratiloma and others (pp. 221–22); P. for killing women of the several varṇas (pp. 223-28); P. for killing a foetus (pp. 228– 29); P. for killing an elephant, horse, donkey and other animals, birds, fishes (pp. 229-43 ) and for cutting trees, creepers &c. double1264 fines for cutting trees growing in cemeteries, on boundaries, holy places, temples ( Yāj. II. 227-229 ); no fault if trees are cut for making ploughs or utensils to be used in sacrifices (p. 245 ); P. for eating food and things forbidden ( pp. 248-53 ); P. for taking food from washermen, Kāpālikas, cāndalas &c. (pp. 256-59 ); no P. in certain cases for partaking of flesh even by brāhmaṇas (pp. 277-78); P. for eating food or flesh that is not allowed by sāstra ( pp. 281–82 ); fast as a P. for not performing one’s daily duties as laid down by the Veda (p. 286 quoting Manu XI. 203 ); P. for eating cnions, garlic &c. (pp. 293-95); P. for drinking surā, urine &c. through ignorance for men of the three varṇas (pp. 303 ff.), P. for eat ing food, some part of which was eaten by a cat, crow, dog or having hair in it (pp. 320-21 ); P. for dining in a row with men

(Continued from the previous page ) sura ( Pr. V. p. 90 ) ani remarks : P itfa : HTÀ

ufaf arah ! 17. a. p. 101 and adds ’ 775 tai g titet Heat xfah HETÀ aÀ7 RIT LEHT: ‘; vide p. 106 of Pr. V. for a summary of Prāvascittas for drinking surā to be under

gone by persons of deiferent rarnas and ages. 1254 तदत्र दण्डवत् प्रायश्चित्तानि भगवन्तगतवचनात् । नडिगुणादिकं यथोक्तमेव कारयेत्।

g. p. 241 after quotivg Yaj. II. 227–229.98. Śūlapāṇi

831

of other varṇas or for drinking water from a well used by cāndalas

or from a vessel used by them (pp. 323-28); P. for drinking milk which is declared to be unfit (pp. 335-36 quoting Gau tama Dh. S. 17. 22-26, Manu V. 8-9, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 51. 38-41); general rule that where penances are not declared in one Smrti, one may draw upon other smstis or the opinion of śistas (as Saokha-smrti says ); as regards upapātakas the rule laid down in Viṣaul285 is that the full perance is to be gone through by a brāh mana, 3/4th by a ksatriya, one-half by a Vaisya and 1/4th by a sūdra (p. 340 ); different P. for theft of various articles, crops and animals (pp. 341-48 ); when adultery is forbidden only as upapataka (pp. 349-53); offenders comniitting adultery with women of a higher varṇu were treated with great severity (pp. 354–55 ) and women of higher varṇa committing adultery with a śūdra or antyaja were to be killed or driven away (p. 360 ); P. for having intercourse with one’s wife on what are called parvan days (pp. 367-68 quoting Manu IV. 128 and XI. 203 which prescribe fast); P. for married woman guilty of adultery ( Manu XI. 176 and Yaj. I. 70, 72 ) : P. for a brahmana woman raped by a brahmana

1255 अत्र च प्रकरणे वर्णविशेषेण प्रायश्चित्त नाभिहितं तत्र विष्णुवचनाद् व्यवस्था। यथा

विष्णुः। विप्रे तु सकलं देयं पादोनं क्षत्रिये मतम् । वैश्योऽध पादशेषस्तु शूद्र जातिषु शस्यते ॥ प्राय. वि. p. 340. Several medieval writers includ ing Sulapāṇi are in the habit of saying that certain verses or passages are anākara i. e. not supported by authoritative sources since they have not been mentioned by Rājan (Bhojadeva ) and others; e. g. in the Prāgaścitta-Viveka itself he says -~(एकत्रान् ) शय्यादिपाठोऽनाकरः राज्ञाऽलिखितत्वात् । प्राय. वि. p. 150; पततीति पाठस्य राज्ञा अलिखितत्वात्पतन्त्यते इति तेन लिखितत्वात् कथं पततीति पदावृत्तिः। bid. p. 152; यानि तु वचनानि चान्द्रायण त्रिभिः कृच्छः० तथा ‘चान्द्रायणमकुर्वाणा: ०’ तथा चान्द्रायणपराकाभ्यां० इत्यादीनि तान्यना कराण्येव भोजदेवादिभिरलिखितत्वात् | ibirt. p. 539; वाचस्पति in द्वैतनिर्णय (p. 57 ) says - ‘तदुक्तम्-अर्धेऽक्षय्योदके चैव ……एव चति । तन्न । एत द्वचनस्य राजाद्यलिखितत्वेन निमूलत्वादिति’; रघुनन्दन in Ekadasitattva (vol. II. p. 45 ) administers a sharp rebuke to those who put forward such an argument – “न द्वादश्युपवासः प्रमाणाभावात् । ‘एकादशीमुपवसेद् द्वादशीमथवा पुनः’ इत्यादि भोजराजाद्यलिखितत्वेनामूलकत्वा दिति वर्धमानोपाध्याय-वाचम्पतिमिश्रमतं तन्न । तदुपजीव्यहरिनाथोपाध्यायेन महाजनपरिगृहीतत्वेन तद्वचनस्याभिधानात् । न हि भोजराजाद्यलिखितमेवा प्रमाणं रामायणादेस्तथात्वापत्तेः । नहि दशमीविद्धति वचनं भोजराजलिखितम् तस्मानानादेशीयसंग्रहकारलिखितवचनसंवादादेव प्रामाण्यपरिग्रहः।"

832

or by a person of another varṇa (pp. 370–73) ; P. for a man having intercourse with a woman of any one of the seven antyajas knowingly or through ignorance (pp. 374-75); P. for a person marrying or setting up a sacred fire before an elder brother or for a younger sister marrying before an elder one (pp. 378-83); P. for vrātya i. e. a person belonging to one of the three varṇas whose upanayana was not performed even uptill the 16th, 22nd or 24th year from birth as required by Manu XI. 196, Yaj. I. 37-38 ( pp, 384-86); P. for an avakirnin ( one who has sexual intercourse while he is a brahmacārin or for marrying in ignorance paternal aunt’s or maternal aunt’s or maternal uncle’s daughter1258) pp. 387-391; P. for one who gives up tending sacred vedic fires set up by him (Manu XI. 41 ); P. for Brāh maṇa not studying the Veda or not performing yajña, or not

..—-

1256

A few of the original basic texts ( not many in number ), that were full of differences of opinion among the sages and had to be reconciled or explained away somehow, may be cited here in the original. Many of the medieval writers cite them and seek to bring order out of them. तस्मा समानादेव पुरुषदत्ता चाद्यश्च जायत इदं हि चतुर्थे पुरुषे तृतीये संगच्छामहे इति वि देवं दीव्यमाना जात्या आसने एतम्मादु तत् । शतपथ ब्रा. I. 8. 3.6 quoted by विश्वरूप या. I.53. The स्मृतिच. I. 72 quotes this and explains ‘दौहित्रपौत्रयोमतुलदुहितृ-पितृध्वसेयी परिणयनमुक्तं भवति । तयोः कृटस्थमारभ्य तृतीयत्वात् । संगच्छामहे विवहामहे इत्यर्थः।’; असमानप्रवरैर्वि वाहः । ऊर्ध्व सप्तमात्पितबन्धुभ्यो बीजिनश्च मातृबन्धुभ्यः पञ्चमात् । गौ. ध. सू. IV. 2-3 ; सगोत्राय दुहितरं न प्रयच्छन् । मातुश्च योनिसम्बन्धेभ्यः । आप.ध. सू. II. 5. 10. 15-16 ; असपिण्डा च या मातुरसगोत्रा च या पितुः । सा प्रशस्ता द्विजातीनां दारकर्मणि मैथुने । मनु. III.5; सपिण्डता तु पुरुषे सप्तमे विनिवर्तते । मनु. V. 60; लक्षण्यां स्त्रियमुद्हेत् । अनन्यपूर्विकां कान्तामसपिण्डां यवीयसीम् ।। अरोगिणी भ्रातृमतीमसमानाघगोत्रजाम् । पञ्चमी सप्तमी चैव मातृतः पितृतस्तथा । या. I. 52-53; ‘जीनतीत्य मातृतः पञ्चातीत्य पितृतः’ पैठीनसि quoted by मिता० on या. I. 53; अपरार्क P. 82 ( on या. I. 53 ) quotes पैठीनसि as ‘असमानायीं कन्यां वरयेत् । पञ्च मातृतः परिहरेत् सप्त पितृतः । त्रीन् मातृतः पञ्च पितृतो वा’; पंतृष्वसयी भगिनी स्वस्त्रयां मातुरेव च । मातुश्च भ्रातुस्तनयां गत्वा चान्द्रायणं चरेन ।। एतास्तिस्रस्तु भार्यार्थे नोपयच्छेत्तु बुद्धिमान् । ज्ञातित्वेना. नुपेयास्ताः पतत्युपनयन्नधः ।। मनु. KI. 171-72. In spite of these verses of Many marriaze of a male with his maternal uncle’s daughter is highly thought of hy certain subdivisions even among brāhmaṇas in Jlahārāṣtra aud South India. Vide for & discussion on this question History of Dharmaśāstra, vol. II. pp. 458-466.

i lapāni

833

having a son that he may undergo is the same as the P. for govadha or if not able to do so donate twelve cows or ten cows and a bull (pp. 394-95); P. for a Vedic student sleeping after sunrise, not doing worship and not begging for food for a householder brāhmana ( who is not ill ), not doing daily acts enjoined by the Veda or neglecting them for long periods (pp. 396–400 ) or for being a purohita for a sūdra or receiving gifts from him except in adversity or from seven antyajas, cāṇdālas or patitas (pp. 401-413 ); P. (vaiśvānara isti ) for accepting gifts made by others for becoming free from results of Mahā pātakas or lesser sins (p. 414-416 quoting Yaj. III, 250, Manu XI, 193 and 253 ); mention of gifts of high value, middling and low value (pp. 417–18 ); in difficulty a brāhmana may do the work of a ksatriya or vaisya, but when the difficulty is gone he should give up the wealth so acquired (p. 418 quoting Yaj. III. 35 ); P. for a brāhmana following the profession of actor, dancer, singer, subsisting on wife’s stridhana ( enumerated at great length from Yama, pp. 421-22) or for engaging in the sale of things that are declared to be improper for sale by brāhmaṇas such as sale of milk (as in Manu X. 92) or for visiting certain countries except on pilgrimage (pp. 425-30 ); P. for speaking untruth1267 or being a false witness (pp. 431–33 ); P. for showing disrespect to one’s guru or to a brāhmana (p. 437); Where no prāyaścitta is expressly specified for a sinful act Prājāpatya is the one to be undergone (p. 440); P. for one who after resorting to sannyāsa, wants to return to his former status after a short time or after the passage of a long time or Prājāpatya penance for a woman who runs away from the funeral pyre after having first resorted to it (pp. 444-46); P. for one bitten by a dog, jackal, donkey, village hog (pp. 448-51); P. for carrying the body of one who was killed by cow’s or by a brāhmaṇa or that of one who commits suicide ( 452-54 ); P. for one who was forcibly made

1257 The महाभारत allowed telling a lie in few cases : प्राणत्राणेऽनृतं

912ra ar net i gadeity 19 FLESTERUG = 11 TIF 34. 25; न नर्मयुक्तमनृतं हिनस्ति न स्त्रीपु राजन् न विवाहकाले। न गुरवर्थ नात्मनो sitante G IETTITA I gior 165. 30; 414. faa quotes a verse of Yama very like the preceding a7 … 67 TRI 7 g hvatti TUTTO AGLATTET TA … Mall H. D.—105

834

a slave by mleccbas1258 and compelled to do condemned acts such as killing cows or eating the flesh of donkeys, camels, swine ( six verses quoted from Devalasmrti); P. for ascetics ( Yati) who contravene the vratas prescribed for them (pp. 460–64); P. for using a car drawn by camels or donkeys (462-63 ); P. for acts for which penances are not expressly specified (p. 467); P. for touching one who should not be touched is a bath ( Manu V. 85); P. for touching onions and garlic ( p. 481); P. for touching human bone (p. 484 ); Bālā ( one below 16 years ), old man (man above 80 years) and women have to undergo only half of the P. that may be awarded to a male (p. 491 ); a person whose lapse is known should undergo the P. laid down by the pariṣad, but one whose lapse is not known to others should perform the P. in secret (such as the one prescribed by Manu XI. 257) and in the case of a mahāpātaka, one hundred prānā yāmas when not known to others ( vide Yāj. III. 305); procedure of undergoing P.( pp.503 ff.); description of some Prāyaścittas such as prājāpatya, several kṛcchras (pp. 509-512); sāntapana ( 512 ff.) Parāka (Manu XI. 215); Brahmakūrca ( pp. 515-16); Candrāyana (Manu XI. 216–20 ) as P. and its five varieties; Tulāpuruṣa (p. 521 quoting Yāj. III. 322); Māsopavāsa, vrata for twelve years for the murder of a brāhmāna (Manu XI. 72); options in the case of some vratas such as naktavrata equated with a gift of a

1258 Vide H, of Dh. Vol. II. pp. 92, 383-85, 389, 392 and Vol. IV.

pp. 117-118 about the meaning of the word Mleccha and for the return to the Hindu fold of persons carried away by Mlecchas or robbers and made to eat forbidden things and to do dirty jobs as slaves. The Prāyaścittaviveka of Sūlapāni (pp. 455-456 ) quotes verses ( 17-22 ) of Devala ( that occur in the collection of Smrtis of the Anan. Press). Devala was liberal enough to prescribe that hy proper prāyaścittas & person carried away hy inleechas and made to eat even condemned flesh and to live like one of them may be taken back in the Hindu fold within four years and that after four years he becomes assimilated to the Allecchas, has to die as a mleccha and thus death frees hin from the taint. It is very creditable to Sūlapāṇi that he quotes these verses of Devala, that he accepts them in toto and does not try to treat them as not applical;le in his days or explain them away in some other way.

Sulapāṇi

835

silver māsaka (p. 522 ); Prājāpatyavrata held equal to the gift of a cow yielding milk (pp. 525, 528-29 ) or its price; Gautama dharmasutra ( 19. 11-18 ) prescribed various optional prayascittas (for purification ) viz. Japa (of sacred texts ), tapas, homa, fast and gifts and among gifts of cows also there were certain options (Pr. Viveka pp. 530-534 quoting Manu XI. 127–130, Yāj. III. 266-67); P. for twelve years may be held equal to donating 180 cows yielding milk (p. 538); on p. 538 Parāka is held equal to gift of five milk-yielding cows1258 and these equations are mainly based on the dicta of authoritative texts (pp. 539-40 ) and Sūlapāṇi discusses here and there the reasonableness of these equations (on pp. 538-544).

The Prāyaścittaviveka is very often referred to by Raghu nandana in his Smstitattva. Vide (vol. 1.) Tithi pp. 28, 90 (Prāyāścittavi vekakstām mate tu); Ahnika pp. 341, 350; Prayas citta 467, 470, 472, 477, 481 (criticised ), 485, 513, 517 tac-cin tyam ); Vol. Il-Ekādaśī p. 8, 15, (Prāyascittavivekakrdbhih); Udvaha p. 112, Dāyatattva p. 182; Suddhi p. 283. The Sraddha viveka is also frequently mentioned, e. g. (vol. I) Tithi pp. 12, 18, 154; Śrāddha pp. 190, 194, 206, 223, 271, 290; Prāyaścitta p. 471, Malao pp. 769, 801, 850 (plural kļdbhiḥ’ used ); vol. II. Ekadasi pp. 85, 179; Suddhi p. 377. It appears, from the fact that the honorific plural is used by Raghunandana when referring to the author, that Sulapāṇi was alive or recently dead when Raghunandana began to collect material for his work.

Among the authors and works (omitting Dharmasūtras, Smrtis and their authors ) the following may be cited as men tioned by Sūlapāṇi in Prayascittaviveka : Kapardibhāṣya (p. 536); Kalpataru ( several times as on pp. 104, 144, 149, 155, 178, 180, 359, 364); Govindaraja (p 91); Jikana (about 18 times as on pp.19, 50, 86, 94, 97 &c. ), Dharmapradipa ( about a dozen times pp. 209, 257, 281, 335, 347, 366, 379, 401, 442, 446, 477, 526 ( those under lined dissented from ); Dhūreśvara (p. 61, same as Bhojadeva); Bālaka (pp. 43, 55, 93, 125, 131 on gurvanganā ), pp. 149, 146, 364

1259

It may be noted that from p. 522 to p. 514 Sūlapāṇi deals with establishing equivalences among certain vrata: (or Prāyaścittas ) inter se and also equivalence of some vratas with gifts of milk-yielding cows in certain numbers.

836

(dissented from); Bhartryajña (p. 254), Rājan (Bhojadeva) 150,152, 157; Lakṣmidhara 319, Viśvarūpa 91, 119; Śrikara 66 (dissented from ); M. M. Chakravarti (JASB. 1911, p. 339) does not mention Kapardibhāsya and Bhartsyajña. On pp. 98, 139, 536-37 Śūlapāṇi refers to Mahadevapada and on p. 118 Srimaheśvara, all referring to God Śiva as the interlocutor in the Bhaviṣya Purāṇa.

The chronological relation between Salapāṇi and Vācaspati miśra appears to be this that Sūlapāṇi was the older of the two, though they appear to refer to each other. For example, the Dvaitanirṇaya of Vacaspati (p. 102 in the Sāstramālā Series of Benares ) mentions Sraddhavivekamata. On the other hand, in the Rasayātrāviveka (which appears to be his last work) Sūlāpani mentions the Tirtha-cintāmani of Vacaspatimisra.1260

At least thirteen Vivekas are known viz. Ekidasi, Tithi, Dattaka, Durgotsava, Dolayātrā, Pratisthā, Prayascitta, Rāsa yātra, Vratakāla, Suddhi, Sraddha, Saṅkranti, Sambandha. The Vratakālaviveka is published by Prof. S. C. Banerji in I. H. Q. Vol. 17 for 1941 ( appendix pp. 1-24, based on seven mss.). It mentions the Tithiviveka as already composed (p. 11) and also Pratișthāviveka (p. 24). He makes remarks on Vratas in general and then deals with individual vratas. It differs from the Vratatattva of Raghunandana (vol. 11. pp. 151–161 ) in that Raghunandana deals with the characteristics and rites of Vratas in general. For a short work (as the Vratakālaviveka is) Śūlapāṇi mentions a large number of authorities; many Purāṇas are relied upon as much as Smṛti works and writers.

The Tithiviveka1261 of Śūlapāṇi was edited by Prof. of S. C. Banerji in P. O. Vol. VI. pp. 230-38, Vol. VII. pp. 8, 95-103. It is very brief, the text based on two mss. covering about 12 pages. It mentions that the Sraddhaviveka had been written before it. The object is to resolve the doubts caused by differ ent views in the authoritative works. Relying on two verses

1260 Vide Pāsarātrāviveka p. 115 of Dr. S. C. Banerji’s edition in

the Sanskrit Sahitya-pariṣ:d-patrikā, Calcutta, for October 1941 which has the following statement : atraTHUTT 977

tuart IIf4f67 24H: 1 . 161 of B. I, Edition of attqqIfI. 1261 The first verse of Tithiviataviveka is : HAFTA fegt:

सताम् । तनोतु मुदमत्युच्चैर्द्विखण्डतिथिनिर्णयः ।।

Sulapāṇi

837

I ?

of Devala (quoted below )1262 he appears to lay down the propo sitions that in a rite to be performed for worship of gods, find out whether the tithi required exists at sunrise (and it does not matter if it does not exist later ) and in rites in honour of pitss (manes ) find out the tithi that exists at sunset and per form the rite on it. Dr. J. B. Chaudhuri edited the Tithi viveka (Calcutta 1964) with the commentary called Tātparya dipikā by Srinātha-ācārya-cūdāmaṇi, son of mahamahopādhyāya Srikara and guru of Raghunandana Bhattācārya.

A work called Caturangadipika’ (manual of fourhanded chess ) composed by Salapīni was edited by Mr. Mano Mohan Ghosh in 1936 with an Introduction, Sanskrit text (pp. 1-24), English tr. (32 pages ), Index of important words, proper names and general index (pp. 33-36). It is mentioned by Raghu nandana in (vol. I.) Tithitattva pp. 137-139. Vide Prof. S. K. Chatterji felicitation volume pp. 267-275 for Lexicographical notes on this work by Prof. E. D. Kulkarni.

Four works of Sūlapāṇi are very famous viz. the Dipakalika, Prāyaścittaviveka, Durgotsavaviveka and the Srāddhaviveka. Unfortunately the last two works are not yet printed in Deva nāgari script. The Durgotsavaviveka has been published by the Sanskrit Sahitya Pariṣad of Calcutta in Bengali script and the Sraddhaviveka has similarly been published in the Bengali script by M. M. Candicarana Smistibhūsaṇa of Calcutta.

Śūlapāṇi is mentioned with great respect by Raghunandana not only by the addition of titles like Mahamahopadhyāya but by referring to him in the plural as in (vol. I. Tithi p. 90, Prayas cittavivekakstām mate tu ) and in Vol. II. Ekadasi p. 15 (Prayas cittavivekakļdbhir-uktam ).

Sūlapāṇi gives hardly any information about himself.1283 In the colophons of his works he is styled Mahamahopadhyaya

1262 The two verses of Devala are : fi fatū fa914 3G* HIT

भास्करः। सा तिथिः सकला ज्ञेया स्नानदानजपादिषु ॥ यां तिथिं समनुप्राप्य अस्तं ytfa : I HI fift: HRT ITT 3771874 Il in Fulda. p. 351

(cf. Gharpure’s edition. ) 1263 Vide J, A. S. B. for 1915 Vol. XI. pp. 311 and 336-43 for information about Sūlapāṇi by Rai Bahadur M. M. Chkravarti,

(Continued on the next page)

838

and also Sāhudiyān or Sāhudiyala or Sāhudiyā (in a ms. of the Dipakalikā). What this last means is not clear. It is possible that he came from some place called Sāhudi. There is hardly any reliable evidence to establish that the Sahudiya was a degraded section of the Radhiya brāhmaṇas in Bengal from the time of Ballalasena. I understand from Bengali friends that in these days also the surname Sāhudiyān is extant among the śrotriya brāhmaṇas of the Rādbiya group in Bengal. Raghunandana (a great Bengali writer ) often refers to im as Mahamahopadhyaya ( vide pp. 827-28 above ).

There are several commentaries on the Sraddhaviveka such as those of (1) Srinātha-Åcāryacūdamani, son of Śrikara and Guru of Raghunandana; (2) Acyuta Cakravartin ; (3) Govinda nanda; (4) Śrikrýṇa (printed in Bengali type); (5) Nila kantha; (6) Jagadisa; (7) Ramakrsna. Some commentaries on the Prayascittaviveka also exist. Besides, the Tattavārtha kaumudi of Govindananda ( already referred to on p. 828 ) there is a commentary called Kaumudi or tippani by Rama krsna and another com. called Nigūdhārthaprakāśikā.

As Sūlapāṇi names the Ratnakara of Candeśvara and Kala madhaviya, he must be later than about 1365 A. D., since some time must have elapsed before a work from Vijayanagara came to be regarded as an authority in Bengal. As Sulapāṇi’s works

(Continued from the previous page) Srinātha-Acāryacūdāmaṇi appears to be mentioned as Acar yacūlāmani along with other authors by Raghupandana in Vol. II. Yajurvedarṣotsargatattva p. 640. Raghunandana refers to his guru’s views under the caption guru-carapāh’ in a few places e. . vol. I. ( Tithi pp. 31, 85, Mala. p. 719. 815, Sariskāra p. 873 ); vol. II, Ekādaśī p. 103, Srivātha com posed several works and commentaries ending in the works

quia affi, 1981, Tì. For information about Srinātha, vide I. H. Q. Vol. 26 pp. 277–292 ( by Dr. S. C. Banerji), A. B. 0. R. I. Vol. 32 ( 1952) pp. 34-52, by Prof. Hazra. Rai Babadur Chakravarti furnishes a good account about his com mentaries and works in J. A. S. B. ( new series) Vol. XI. pp. 344-349. Śrinātha wrote two works on Śrāddha viz. Śrāddhacandrikā (Smṛtitattva, Vol. II. pp. 493 and 500) and Śrāddhadīpikā (Suartitattva, Vol. II. p. 488).

Sūlapāṇi

839

265

are mentioned by Rudradhara, Govindānanda and Vacaspati, the former must be earlier than about 1460. In this connection it has to be noted that Govindananda not only comments upon Śūlapāṇi’s works but probably looks upon Sulapāṇi as an old writer along with Aniruddha,1263

A ms. of the Prayascittaviveka was copied at Benares in sake 1410 (i. e. 1481 A. D. ).1264 Ms. No. 10849 of the Prayascitta viveka in the Baroda Oriental Institute’s Library was copied in Vikrama year 1501 Māgha (i. e. about February 1445 A. D.). The post-colophon entry in that ms. is set out below.1265 From all these data it follows that Sūlapāṇi flourished between 1365 and 1445 A. D.

Dr. Hazra in A. B. O. R. I. Vol. 32 (for 1951 ) in note on p. 46 says that Salapāṇi’s Tithiviveka and Sraddhaviveka are mentioned by Rāyamukuṭa in the Smṛtiratnahāra which was composed before Rāyamukuta’s commentary on the Amarakośa and that commentary was begun in 1431–32 A. D. But in I. H. Q. vol. 17 (pp. 456-471) it is pointed out by Prof. Dineshcandra Bhattacharya at p. 468 that the Țikā on the Amarakośa was composed in Sake 1396 i. e. 1447–75 A. D. and not in sake 1353 (which was mentioned incidentally in the ms. and was taken by Colebrooke and later scholars as the date of composition). Further contributions on the same subject appear in I. H. Q. vol. 18. pp. 215-224 against Prof. Bhattacharya, to which the latter replies in I. H. Q. vol. 19 pp. 182-190, to which Ahmed Hasan (the writer of the paper in I. H. Q. vol. 18 ) gives a rejoinder in I. H. Q. vol, 30 pp. 261-270. I cannot go here in these controversies. It has to be remembered that the fragment of Smstiratnākara refers to the Sraddhaviveka about three dozen of times. I agree with Prof. Bhattacharya’s view. So even the dates proposed in the first edition (1375–1460

1263 यच्च मैथिलैरासनान्नदानयोर्ये चाथ त्वेति मन्त्रो नास्तीत्युक्तं तदनिरुद्ध शूलपाणिप्रभू

तीनां प्राचामसंमतम् । p. 71 of श्राद्धक्रियाकौमुदी. The word प्राचां may

here mean ’eastern writers.’ 1264 TERTÀ THUGIEHITHI HTË Fai feraga frazy # 4:1 1265 TĀ Paz LTE har hā Tāi T Shtatetara TTATATII

In the m3. org looks like fee. But the cast figure may be tars otherwise the date would be impossible or make no sense,

840

A. D.) for Salapāṇi were not altogether wide of the real date, In this edition an attempt has been made to advance somewhat more definite dates for Śūlapāṇi, that is all.

It appears that Śūlapāṇi, Rudradhara and Vācaspati were more or less contemporaries of one another. Rudradhara men tions on p. 50 ( of his Śrāddhaviveka ) Gaudiya-Sraddhaviveka’.