कल्पान्तरे विश्वासटिप्पन्यः

Vācaspatimiśra

Vacaspatimiśra is the foremost nibandha writer on Smṛti in Mithilā. His Vivadacintamani had been recognised by the High Courts in India and by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as a work of paramount authority on matters of Hindu Law in Mithila. 278 His literary activity was closely connected with the reigns of two kings of Mithilā, viz. Bhairavendra or Bhairavasimha ( also styled Harinārāyana ) and his son Rāma bhadra (called also Rūpanārāyana ), both of the Kameśvara dynasty. Vacaspati was an extremely voluminous writer and appears to have composed dozens of works. In the Sraddhakapla alias Pitsbhakti-taraigini, almost his latest work, he says that he wrote in his youth ten works on sastra and thirty nibandhas on smīti and composed the work in question in his declining years.1277 At least eleven works of his bearing the title ‘cintā maṇi’ are known. They are briefly noticed below.

The Acāracintānani deals with the daily rites of Vājasane. yins.1278 The Acāracintāmaṇi is mentioned by Raghu.’ (in vol. I)

1275 ’eitrai TT HITTH H HÆ’folio 33 a of the D. C. ms. 1276 Vide 11 Moo. I. A. p. 139 at p. 174 and 487 at p. 508, I. L, R, 20

All. 267 at p. 290 (P.C), I. L. R. 10 Cal. 392 at p. 399, 1. L. R. 12 Cal. 348 at p. 351. शास्त्रे दश स्मृतौ त्रिंशग्निबन्धा येन यौवने । निर्मितास्तेन चरमे वयस्येव विनिर्ममे॥ vide I. . Cat. p. 356 No. 1730. Dr. Rocher (in Preface to Vyavahāracintāmaṇi (pp. 8–11 ) brings together all works ascribed to Vācaspatimiśra and points out how doubts bave been entertained about authorship of some of them. It is not necessary por possible (for reasons of space) to go into the question of the authorship of some of the works brought toge ther by him. One instance may soifice to show the difficulties of the task, M.M. Chakravarti lield in JASB ( vol. XI N. S. for 1915 p. 398 ) that the work called Candana-dhenu-pramāṇa was a work of Vācaspati-mijra, but Prof. D. C. Bhattacharya holds in vol. IV. of J.G.J. R. I. (pp. 295–312 ) that it is a work of another Vācaspati (i, e, of Candrasekhara Smrti

Vacaspati ). 1278 अहोरात्राश्रितो धर्म इह वाजसनयिनाम् । निबध्यते हरिं नत्वा श्रीवाचस्पतिशमणा ॥

Mitra’s Notices, vol. V. p. 169, No. 1857.

Vacaspatimisra

845

Tithi p. 24, Abnika p. 407 (for the 16 upacāras ); (in vol. II ), Mathapratisthā 616; and Ahnikacintamani is mentioned in vol. I p. 357 and vol. II p. 58 Ekādaśī (for 36 upacāras in Devapūjā ). The Āhnikacintamani is quoted in his Suddhicintamani. The Kṛtyacintamani was published in Bengali characters at Benares in sake 1814 ( vide JASB. for 1915, p. 395 ) and deals with the festivals that are celebrated on different days in the year. The Tirthacintāmaṇi has been published in the B. I. Series. It is divided into five prahāśas, viz. Prayaga, Purusottama (Puri), Ganga, Gay, and Vārāṇasi and deals with such topics as the purpose of pilgrimages, the preliminaries of pilgrimage, the various rites to be performed at the several tirthas, the subsidiary sacred places at the principal tirthas etc. He mentions the Kalpataru, Ganeśvaramiśra, Jayasarmā, the Mitākṣarā, Smsti samuccaya and Hemadri. In the introduction he explicitly states that he composed the work after carefully examining the Kṛtyakalpadruma and Pārijāta, the Ratnākara and other works, 1279 The Dvaitacintānani is mentioned in his Kṛtyacintamani. The Niticintamani is mentioned in the Vivadacintamani (p. 72). The Vivādacintamani (texi ) was published at Calcutta in 1837 (which edition is used in this work) and was translated into English by Prasannakumar Tagore (in 1863 ) with a learned preface. A translation into English of the Vivādacintamani made by Dr. Ganganath Jha, with an Introduction by Dr. Umesha Mishra, was published in the Gaikwad’s Oriental Series (Baroda ) in 1942. The Vivādacintamani was elaborately examined by the Patna High Court in I. L. R. 12 Patna 359-616 at pp. 420-538 which examined passages of the Vivādacintāmani (from two editions of that work viz. one published in 1837 and another published by the Venkateshwar Press, Bombay in 1898). It explicitly states that the author carefully studied the Kstyakalpa druma. Pārijāta and Ratnakara.!2$0 The work deals exhaustively with the eighteen titles of law ( vravahārapadas ). The principal authors and works, hesides the usual smṛtis and Purāṇas,

1279 श्रीकृत्यकल्पद्रुमपारिजातरत्नाकरादीनवलोक्य यत्नात् । प्रणम्य मूर्ना मधुसूदनाय

a19cufatti fara caifa in traditi; vide p. 268 also. 1280

# .4671 I 179fat: stefangaferlazialamiafotiaalle

846

mentioned in the work are noted below.1281 In this work he mentions several vernacular equivalents for Sanskrit terms. The Vyavahāracintāmani1282 deals with judicial procedure, viz. the four principal topics thereof, viz. bhāsā (the plaint), uttara (reply of defendant ), kriyā ( evidence), nirṇaya ( decision ). An excellent edition of the Vyavahāracintāmaṇi was published at Ghent in 1956 by Dr. Ludo Rocher, based on seven mss., with an English translation and several appendices giving the first words of the verses ( quoted ), the authors quoted or referred to, the passages where the Vyavahāra-cintamani has been expressly referred to and a glossary of technical terms. The Suddhicintā. māpi was printed at Benares in Bengali characters in śake 1814 (JASB for 1915. p. 396 n 2). The Sudrācāracintamaṇi deals with the duties of sūdras (Mitra’s Notices, vol. VI, p. 22, No. 2001). The Sraddhacintāmapi is a standard work and was printed at Benares in Bengali characters in sake 1814. The Vivada-cintāmaṇi (p. 151, ed. of 1837) states that all persons that are sonless have been dealt with at length in Srāddha-c, and are therefore not dealt with by him in Vivāda-c.

1281 CUTE, TIT , TEST, 4*11, 1069, Tan ( of Jefoten,

p. 67, the same question occurring in the fa. t. p. 234 ), hatut, ÀYTTET, FFT, ET, Ffahr, T. Note the following words’han: Tagfaf’ (p. 63), ’ 1727: 727 sfat THC:’(p. 95, i.e. Kotwal in Marathi), ’ A: 41 sayfH’ (p. 101; compare Marathi Hina). Among the medieval writers of digests, Ratnākara (i. e. Vivāda-ratnākara) is most freque ntly quoted (as on pp. 8, 11, 15, 88, 134, 135, 141, 152, 155, 166) often as ‘Ratnākarādayah’ meaning the Vivādaratnākara and others; next comes the Smrtisāra quoted on pp. 11, 15, 36, 37. On p. 15 he uses the bonorific plural : Fahrmora fauttia fuit दिना यत्स्वार्थमृणं कृतं तत्तस्मिन् प्रोषिते पुत्रादिना देयं तत्रैव कालनियमः, तत्त्वविभक्त कुटुम्बार्थकृतेपि । तत्र तस्यापि ऋणिकत्वादेकच्छायातुल्यत्वमेव । vide J. G.J. R. I. vol. IV pp. 293-312 for his Kștyapradipa, a work on Nyāya. Raghu’ in (vol. II) Ekādaśitattva (p. 45) states that Vardbamāna and Vācaspati rely on Harināthopadhyāya : वर्धमानोपाध्याय-वाचस्पतिमिश्रमतं तन्न तदुपजीव्यहरिनाथोपाध्यायेन महाजन.

परिगृहीतत्वेन तद्वचनस्याभिधानात् । 1282 HETTUPATTIGT Futa: AUTTA: 1 chiralaqit szett fattica il

I. O. Cat. p. 417 No. 1400.

Vācaspatimisra

847

Besides the works and authors enumerated in the foot-note above, the others mentioned by him in his several Cintamanis are noted below.1283

Besides these there is a group of Vacaspati’s works with the title ‘Nirṇaya’ on Tithi, Dvaita, Mahādāna, Vivada, Suddhi and some miscellaneous works under the headings ‘Mahārṇava’; only one of which viz. Kļiyan:ahārnava was a large one, the rest being small; vide M. M. Chakravarti in JASB vol. XI (1915) pp. 398– 99. The Tithinirṇaya1284 starts with an invocation of the highest Being (paramātman) while most of his works are begun with an obeisance to Hari or Krṣna. It first divides tithis into śuddha and viddhā (commingled with another tithi) and then discusses all the tithis from the first to the fifteenth and also amāvāsya; it deals with the questions as to the sites of that tithi which is k saya, with sivarātrivrata, naktavrata, holidays, fasts, jayantivrata, holikā festival etc.

The Dvaitanirṇava of Vacaspatimiśra is one of his famous works. It has been published in the Sāstramālā Series of Benares in the year 1994 of Vikrama era (i. e. 1937–38 A. D.) and contains 105 closely printed pages. Its very name suggests that it states definite conclusions on some matters of Dharmaśāstra on which there are differences of opinion. There are twelve introductory verses. The first verse praises Kṛsna and identifies him with brahman. Verses 2-6 praise King Bhairavendra of Mithila and his queen Jayā who was the mother of king Purusottama, state that she assigned this task to him (v. 7) and verses 8-10 praise her as having dedicated many parks, got many

1283 faiz, HET4, 213174, 56477, , ty, prefaa, 1977,

कुलार्णव, गोविन्दराज, दुर्गाभक्तितर्राङ्गणी, पितृभक्ति, प्रदीप, भवदेव, भीमपराक्रम, H3175 ( or simply 731), TETATENUS, TATR711571, HEITEIRA, विवेक, व्यवहारमातृका, शुद्धिसार, श्राद्ध कल्पचिन्तामणि, श्राद्धपल्लव, श्राद्धपञ्जी, श्राद्धविवेक, श्रीदत्तोपाध्याय, सुगति सोपान, स्मृतिपरिभाषा, स्मृतिदर्पण, स्मृति

सागर, हरिहरमिश्र, हरिहरपद्धति, हारलता. 1284 Bilal77914 Farajufuata i

जगतामादिभूताय नमस्ते परमात्मने ।। विलोक्य मुनिवाक्यानि संप्रदायानुसारतः । तिथिद्वैतविधौ यत्नाक्रियते तिथिनिर्णयः ।। Mitra’s Notices, vol. V. p. 149 No. 1139.

848

reservoirs of water to be dug and made munificent gifts. For a work of 105 pages, it quotes numerous authors and works. It is impossible to convey in a few words its method of dealing with points of difference discussed by it. Two easy examples may be cited. A text says about naming a child (namakarana ) ’the father should on the 11th or 12th day give a name to the child’. This does not mean that there is an option, viz. that the father may choose at his sweet will any of the two days. An option like this is liable to have eight faults, accordingto mimāṁsā rules ( for which see H. of Dh. vol. V. pp. 1250–52). The real meaning is that nāmakaraṇa should be done as a rule on the 11th day after birth, but if that is impossible for some reason, then it should be done on the 12th day after birth. Most of the differences relate to religious rites. An instance of an ordinary transaction may be cited here. Manu (VIII, 151 ) states that when money is lent at interest the lender cannot recover more than double of what is lent when he demands the sum lent and the interest thereon at one time, but in VIII. 142 Manu says that the lender may take as interest on money fent at 2, 3, 4 or 5 per cent per month according to the varṇa of the borrower. The conclusion is that is interest is demanded only once it cannot exceed the damdupat rule but if interest is taken month by month, the total interest received may be so much that the lender may have received in all much more than double the amount.

It resers on p. 6 to this work Sabdanirṇaya on p. 17 and p. 98 to his Mhādānanirṇaya and on p. 49 to his Śrāddha cintāmaṇi.

Among the authors and works named in the Dvaitanirṇaya the following may be notedl285

1285 348, 37171875, 31191TTIGT, 71, 7477, 77614a zita, F1257146

fufa, F10, Friteus, tattfan, * (THT), fars, a ,

Tīfe, shfa, fafelaria, gefāratafor, ÅSA FAIT, TA दानरत्नाकर, नारदस्मृति, न्यायरत्न, पञ्चशारदीय, पराशर, परिभाषा, पल्वल, TREFT, 91317, fruit, grutitat, (HIF, 3111TH, Sat, 13,

faz, AUHE, 94, 957, Hiet, H18184, ara, faeg, **), factan (57, 69, 81, 43), 719, 78157, THT*T, ATTE IHUT, Tanauafa, बचपरिशिष्ट, बृहस्पति, ब्रह्मचारिकाण्ड, भगवद्गीता, भवदेव, भास्कराचार्य,

(Continued on the next page)

Vācaspatimiśra

849

For a detailed treatment of the Mahādanas based on the Purāṇas vide the author’s H. of Dh. vol. II pp. 869-877, where it is shown that Tulāpuruṣa ( weighing a person against gold or silver and donating the metals to worthy brāhmaṇas ) is the first. The Mahadānanirraya1286 expatiates on the sixteen munificent gifts such as weighing against gold and silver. In the introductory verses Vācaspati gives the genealogy of his patron’s family from Bhaveśa, whose son was Harasimhadeva, whose son was Narasimha, whose son Bhairavendra bore the biruda ( appel lation ) Harinārāyaṇa. A verse1287 at the beginning and one at the end attribute the work to Bhairavendra and to Rūpanārāyana respectively. Rupa-Dārāyana was the biruda of Rāmabhadra, a son of Bhairavendra. Therefore it looks probable that the work was commenced in the reign of Bhairava and was completed in the reign of his son Rāmabhadra. The Maha dānanirṇaya of Vācaspati is expressly named in (vol, I ), Tithi tattva p. 99, in Ahnika p. 420 and in (vol. II ) Suddhi, p. 241. M. M. Chakravarti says that Bhairava himself bore at one time the biruda Rūpanārāyana. M. M. Haraprasad Sastri (Nepal Cat. p. 90) mentions a Vivādanirṇaya of Vācaspati. It appears probable that the Suddhiniraya is the same as Suddhi-cinta. maṇi and people were misled. The opening verse of the

(Continued from the previous page ) भीमपराक्रम, मनुस्मृति, मन्त्रप्रकाश, महादाननिर्णय, महार्णव, मिताक्षरा, यम, 41377774, 413FT, FF1FT, riigis, F, YFITTATU (19), adataifa, वर्धमानोपाध्या’ वसिष्ठसंहिता, विश्वरूपनिवन्ध, विष्णुधर्म, विष्णुरहस्य, शङ्कराचार्य, 37994 ( HTS ), 916+4, sofista, 164279, sifafan, sittil ह्निक, श्रीदत्तोपाध्याय, श्रीपतिसंहिता, समयप्रदीप, सुधाकरमहामहोपाध्याय, सुमन्तु, Fula HLET, aar, ritar, arafa, ERETTHETHETYTETTY, इलायुध, हारीत, हेमाद्रि. For its size the Dvaitanirwaya has been often quoted by Raghu® and sometimes criticized :( vol. I) Tithi 42 (cr. ), 166; Śrāddha 256; Jyotis 607; Mala® 753, 790 (cr.), 794 (cr.), 799 (cr. ), 802, 826, 85! (cr.); (vol. II ) Ekā 5, 42-43, 91

(cr.); Jalāśayotsarga 513; Chindoga-Vrṣotsarga 529. 1286 Vide Haraprasad Sastri’s Cat, of palm-leaf and paper Nepal

mss. p. 122 for the Heiztaf919. 1287 श्रीवाचस्पतिधीरं सहकारितया समासाद्य । श्रीभैरवेन्द्रनृपतिः स्वयं महादाननिर्णय

तनुते ।।3; श्रीरूपनारायणभूमिपाल कृतो महादानविनिर्णयोयम् । यशःप्रसूनाञ्चित.

fatala17647140 17TH | at end, H, D.-107

850

Suddhicintamani published at Benares in Bengali characters over seventy years ago ends with the words “Suddhinirṇaya ucyate’. The Suddhinirṇaya of Vacaspati deals with impurity, on birth and death, the religious acts that must be performed even in times of impurity, sapinda relationship, periods of impurity for the prin cipal varṇas and mixed castes; periods of impurity on abortion, the deaths of infants and women, accidental deaths etc., overlapping of several periods of aśauca; impurity arising from carrying a corpse; rites after the death of a samyāsin; impurity from contact of lower castes, such as washermen and cāṇdālās, freedom from impurity at tirthas and marriages etc.

It may be noticed that many of his works run in pairs e. g. Dvaita-cio. and Dvaitanirṇaya, Suddhi-cio and Suddhi-ni“. Vivada-cio and Vivāda-ni’. Why it was necessary to do so is not clear.

Besides these, Vācaspati appears to have either composed or contemplated writing seven works called Mahārnava on krtya, acara, vivāda, vyavabāra, dāna, suddhi and pitsyajña. Of these the Kr̥tyamabārṇava is found and deals with festivals and fasts and the proper times therefor (vide JASB for 1915, p. 398 ). The Kītyanahārṇava is mentioned by Raghu’ in (vol. I) Tithi pp. 82, 103 and in (vol. II ) Ekadasi pp. 17, 46. He also wrote the Gayāsiāddhapaddhati, and the Dattakavidhi. Probably his last work, as stated above, was the Sraddhakalpa alias Pit;bhakti taraógini.

Apart from the works on dharmaśāstra, Vācaspati wrote also on the systems of philosophy. But those interested may refer to P.of. Dineshcandra Bhattacharya’s paper on Vācas patimisra’s Nyāya Werks’ in vol. 4 of J. G. J. R. I. pp. 294-312. But it is not necessary for our purpose to go into that question.

Many of the works of Vācaspati are mentioned by Raghunan dana in his Tattvas. The Acāra-C. is mentioned in (Vol. I) Tithi p. 24, Åhnika 207 and in ( vol. II ) Matha (616); Āhnika-C. is mentioned in vol. I, Áhnika 357, (vol. II ) Ekadasi 58 ( on 36 upacāras in devapijā); Kṛtya-C. ( in vol. I) Tithi 36, 44, 140, 142, 149, Sraddha 282; Jyotis 583, 594, 605, 606; Samskāra 920; (in vol. 1) Kr̥tya-C. in 426, 473; Tirtha-C. (in Vol. I) Prayas. 500, 503; Mala 810; in (Vol. II) Suddhi 300; Vivāda-c.

iy101. Vacaspatimisra

851

in vol. I, Prāyas. 514; in (Vol. II) Udvaha 136, Daya 176, Suddhi 350, 357; Vyavahāra-r’. in (Vol. II) Prayascitta p. 474, 512 ( same verse in both which occurs on p. 139 of Dr. Rocher’s ed.); Dvaitanirṇaya (very often cited sometimes criticizad or rejected ) p. 42, Tithi (cr.) 166, Srāddha 256, Jyotistattva 607, Mala. 753, 794 (cr.), 802, 826; ip (vol. II) Ekā. 42, 43, 91; Suddhi 236, 282, 372; Chandogavssotsarga. 529; Śrāddba-C. (at least 20 times ), in Tithi 20, 39, 118, 179; Sraddha 192, 240, 258, 263, 278, 288, 290, 305, Prayas. 475, Malamāsa 753, 814, 844; (vol. II) Udvaha 132, Suddhi 306, 327: Śūdrakstyavicārana 634. The Śrāddhakalpa or Pitrbhakti-tarangini is frequently quoted as in (vol. I) Tithi 181, Sraddha 209 (Sraddhakalpa ), 229 (Pitp.), Suddhi 237. (The letter p. for page is omitted in this paragraph).

Vācaspati vouchsafes very little information about himself or his family. In the colophons of his works he is generally styled mahamahopadhyava and misra or sanmisra. In the colophon of the Sūdrācāra-cintamaṇi1288 he is described as the pari sad ( the adviser of the king in finally deciding difficult points of Dharma śāstra) of Mahārājadhiraja Harinārāyaṇa. We saw above that his Mahadānanirṇaya connects itself with two kings Bhairava and his son Rupanārāyana. At the end of the Sraddhakalpa we are told that Vācaspati who was the pariṣad of Ramabhadradeva alias Rūpanārāyaṇa, son of Harinārāyaṇa, composed the work at

1288 महाराजाधिराजश्रीमद्धरिनारायणपरिषदा सकलपण्डितमण्डलीशिरोमणिना श्रीवाच

flafo au faifa: Tranfeathfor: &c. Mitra’s Notices, vol. VI. p. 22 No. 2001. In the Pitṛbhakti-tarangiṇi (also called Śrāddhakalpa) also he is styled Pariṣad of king Rāmabhadra, Dr. S. C. Banerji states (in I. H. Q. Vol. 32 for 1956 pp. 386-392 ) that he found a single ms, of Sambandha-cintamani with a Pandit in East Bengal ( the ms, being corrupt in some portions ). It begins with the verse of Manu (I11. 5, asapi nilā ca. ), cites Yāj. I. 52 and Manu. V. 60 and other passages useally quoted in treatises on “Sambandba”. It is incom. plete and is ascribed to Vācaspati at the end. It contains only 4} pages in print. I am not inclined to accept it as a work of the great Maithila writer and I think it is possible, that somebody copying from others or trying his band at writiog & tractate on Sambandha, wanted to pass it off as Vācaspati’s,

852

the bidding of his patron.1288 Varadhamāna in his Daṇdaviveka says that one of his gurus was Vacaspati.1290 It is probable that it is this Vācaspati that is meant. But as against this we must remember that Vacaspati in his Sraddhakalpa quotes Vardhamana Upadhyāya on śrāddha. Vardhamāna wrote his Dandaviveka while king Bhairava was reigning and his Garga krtyaviveka for Rāmabhadradeva. So Vacaspati was an elder contemporary of Vardhamana.

Prasannakumar Tagore assigned 1423 A. D. as the time of the Vivādacintamani (vide preface p. xxVIII). Ghose in his

Hindu Law (vol. II. p. XIV ) says that Vacaspati wrote the Srāddhacintamani by order of queen Jayā, widow of king Bhaira vadeva and mother of Purusottamadeva, 1281 that Harinārāyaṇa

1289 समस्तेत्यादिमहाराजाधिराजश्रीहरिनारायणात्मज-समस्तेत्यादिमहाराजाधिराजश्री

रूपनारायणपदवीसमलङ्कृतमिथिलामण्डलाखण्डल श्रीमद्रामभद्रदेवचरणादिष्टेन तत्प रिषदा श्रीवाचस्पतिशर्मणा विरचितोयं श्राद्धकल्पः परिपूर्णः । I. O. Cat. p. 556

No. 1730, The pedigree of the कामेश्वर kings of Mithila from भवेश is :

भवसिंह or भवेश

देवसिंह (गरुडनारायण)

त्रिपुरसिंह हरसिंह

शिवसिंह (रूपनारायण ) पद्मसिंह = विश्वासदेवी अर्जुन अमर

धीरमती = नरसिंह (दर्पनारायण) = हीरा or धीरा

धीरसिंह

भैरवेन्द्र or भैरवसिंह = जया

(हरिनारायण)

चन्द्रसिंह = लछिमा

रामभद्र (रूपनारायण) पुरुषोत्तम Vide Ind. Aut, vol. XIV. p, 196 for a detailed pedigree gathered from Pāñjas of Mithilā ( though somewhat confused)

and Ind. Ant. vol. 28, pp. 57-58. 1290 ज्यायानगण्डकमिश्रः शङ्करवाचस्पती च मे गुरवः । दण्डविवेक verse 6. 1291 Compare विष्णोध्यक्तः (१) पुरमिव शम्भोरिव देहवामार्धम् । देवीसनाभिरेषा

जयति जयात्मा महादेवी ॥ श्रीभैरवन्द्रधरणीपतिधर्मपत्नी राजाधिराजपुरुषोत्तम देवमाता । वाचस्पति निखिलचन्द्र विदं नियुज्य द्वैते विनिर्णयविधि विधिरुत्तनोति ॥ verses 5 and 7 of द्वैतनिर्णय, Mitra’s Notices, vol. I. p. 149.

Vācaspatimisra

853

(i. e. Bhairava) ruled from 1513 to 1527 and that the latter was killed by Nasratshah, the Pathan king of Bengal. M. M. Chakravarti holds that the literary activity of Vacaspati lay between 1450 to 1480 A. D. (Vide JASB Vol. XI (N. S.) for 1915 on p. 400 ). Since Vacaspati mentions the Ratnākara (of Candeśvara) and Rudradhara as his authorities he must be later than about 1425 A. D. Vacaspati’s works are quoted by Govinda nanda and Raghunandana. Therefore Vacaspati is certainly earlier than 1540 A. D. The ms, of the Mabādānanirṇaya found in Nepal is dated in 392 of the Lakṣmanasena era ( Monday of Vaiśākha, dark half, 12th tithi i. e. 22nd April 1511 A. D. ). The ms. of the Suddhinirṇaya (Mitra’s Notices vol. X. p. 58, No. 3308 ) was copied in saivat 1416, which must in this parti cular case, be taken as equivalent to sake 1416 i. e. 1494-95 A. D., since Vācaspati could not have flourished about 1360 A. D. (which corresponds to Vikrama suinvat 1416). Hence the period assigned by Chakravarti for the literary activity of Vaca spati appears to be correct. That date is further corroborated by the fact that Vācaspati wrote under Bhairavendra and his son Rāmabhadradeva, that were 4th and 5th in descent from king Bhavesa of Mithilā, who, as we saw above, began to rule over Mithilā in the third quarter of the 14th century. Vide M. M. Chakravarti in JASB Vol. XI (New Series ) pp. 394-400 for information on Vācaspati.

This Vacaspati, who flourished in Mithilā in the latter half of the fifteenth century, is very often confounded with other authors bearing the same name. The great philosopher Vacaspati, who was author of the Bhāmati on the Sārirakabhāsya of Śhaṅkara and of several other commentaries on other systems of philosophy, flourished in the first half of the 9th century as he wrote his Nyāyasūcinibandha in 898 (most probably of the Vikrama era ).1292 There was another (Candrasekhara) Vācaspati who wrote the Smstisārasaṁgraha (Cat. of Calcutta San. College mss. vol. II, p. 181, No. 203) and flourished in the first half of the 18th century.

Raghunandana, the foremost medieval Nibandhakara of Bengal on Dharmaśāstra is conspicuous for his strong and frequent

1292 न्यायसूचिनिबन्धोसावकारि सुधियों मुदे । श्रीवाचस्पतिमिश्रेण वस्वङ्कवसुवत्सरे ॥

854

criticism of Vācaspati and Maithila writers. He often discusses the views of Vācaspati and in a large number of cases states that what Vacaspati says should be given up or not followed (heyam) or that what Vācaspati says has been rejected or shown to be wrong ( nirastam ). The present author will first mention a large number of cases by references to the pages of the Smstitattva of Raghu. where those words (heyam) or ’nirastam’ or

apāstam’ are used about Vacaspati. (A) Important cases where the words ‘heyam or nirastam’ have been used are: (vol. I). Tithi p. 20; Sraddha 224, 258, 275, 289, 294; Malamāsa 790, 794, 799, 816, 829, 854; (vol. II ) Suddhi 292, 306; Yajurvedi-Srāddha 502. Once the word ‘Pramāṇa-śūnyam’ is used in vol. II Yajur vediśraddha p. 488. Sometimes the criticism is a little milder viz. when phrases like ‘mā evam’ (in Tithi 20 or Srāddha 288 ) or ’tad-ayuktam’ (Srāddha 290 ) are employed. The present author has not collected such cases. Then in many cases Raghu’ lumps together Maithila writers on certain topics and remarks that their views are ‘heya’ or ’ nirasta’ or “apāsta’, The words. Maithiloktam’ heyam or “nirastam’) are also fre quently employed by Raghunandana. What authors are included in those words it is difficult to say. Capdesvara, Sridatta, Rudradhara, Misarumiśra and Vardhamana are all Maithila writers and there are several others less famous Mithilā writers.

A few cases of the words. Maithiloktam heyam’ or ’nirastam or ‘apāstam’ are mentioned here; (in vol. I) Tithi 9, 168 (apāstam); Sraddha 207, 246, 274, 292 308 and 315 (nirastam ), 341; Malamāsa 804, (vol. II) Áuddhi pp. 316, 332 (Maithilānām Vākyaracanā heyā). The difficulty of modern readers is that most of the works of Vacaspatimiśra and Vardhamana are not yet available in print and they are not in a position to consider the fairness or otherwise of Raghu nandana’s criticisms. The words generally used are either T fa font or simply fait or rarely refer to the name of the work (e. g. daraugliticias in Malamāsa. p. 794).