- Npsimhaprasāda This is an encyclopaedic work on dharmaśāstra, no part of which had been printed when the first volume of the H. of Dh. was published in 1930. Since then, however, four parts of it have been published in the series called Princess of Wales Sarasvatibhavana Texts (the General editor being M. M. Gopinath Kaviraja ) viz. Vyavahārasāra (edited by Pandit Vinayaksastri Tillu, Sanskrit College, Benares ), Prāyaścitta-sāra (edited by Pandit Nandakishore Sharma and Nandakumar Sharma Sahitya charya ), Śrāddhasāra ( ed. by Pandit Vidyadhara Misra, College of Oriedtal Learnir.g, Benares, Hindu University), and Tirthasara (edited by Pandit Sūryanārāyaṇa Sukla, Assistant Professor, Govt. Sanskrit College, Benares ), the first three being published in 1934 and the 4th in 1936.
The Benares Sanskrit College bas a complete ms. of this vast work. I could examine the whole of it. Besides, the Deccan College collection has two mss. of portions of it, viz. of the Dāpasāra ( No. 353 of 1875-76 ) and of the Tirthasāra (No. 352 of 1875-76). The Dānasāra and Santisāra are also noticed in Mitra’s Cat. of Bikaner mss. (pp. 429-430) and six sections out of twelve are noticed in the I, O, Cat. p. 434 No. 1467. Unless otherwise stated the references here are103.
Nrsimhaprasāda
861
to the Benares Sanskrit College ms, and to the four printed parts thereof.
The NȚsimhaprasada is divided into twelve1301 sections called ’ sāra’ on samskāra, ahnika, Sraddha, kala, vyavahara, prayascitta, karmavipaka, vrata, dāna, śānti ( the averting of evil foreboded by natural portents and other strange occurrences ), tirtha and pratistha (consecration of temples, idols etc.). Each section2802 begins with an invocation of Nýsimha ( the man-lion incarnation of Viṣṇu) after whom the work is named Nșsimhaprasada (the fruit of the grace of Nrsimha). In the Samskārasara, after in voking Nrsimha, the introduction tells us that130s when king Rāma ruled in Devagiri ( modern Daulatabad), Samavit was ruler of Delhi and that after the latter Nijāmasāha wielded power over the world. Then after pronouncing an eulogy on Nijāma sāha ( verses 10-13) the author speaks of himself. We1304 are told that the author was Dalapati ( or Daladhisa), son of Vallabha, of the Bharadvāja-gotra and of the Yājõavalkiya sākba (i. e. Suklayajurveda ) and that he was the keeper of the imperial records of Nebajana (?). Should we read in note 1304 ‘श्रीमन्ने
1301 संस्कारसारः प्रथमो द्वितीयस्त्वाहिकाभिधः । श्राद्धसारस्तृतीयस्तु चतुर्थः काल.
निर्णयः ॥ पञ्चमो व्यवहाराख्यः प्रायश्चित्ताभिधो…( torn ) नाशकः (सप्तमस्त्वध नाशकः)॥ अष्टमो व्रतसाराख्यः पुराणोक्ताभिधायकः । नवमो दानसाराख्यः सर्व. वर्णाधिकारकः ॥ दशमः शान्तिसंज्ञो वै तैर्थ एकादशः स्मृतः । देवप्रतिष्ठासारश्च द्वादशः परिकीर्तितः ।। verses 17-20 of संस्कारसार. These verses are
quuted in the Intro. (p. 6) to the Vyavahārasāra. 1302 e. g. verse 8 of the संस्कारसार. The first verse of आहिकसार is
प्रणम्य श्रीनृसिंहेन (हं तु ? ) दलाधीशेन भूभुजा । श्रीनृसिंहप्रसादन दिनानुष्ठेय मुच्यते ।।; the श्राद्धसार begins ‘श्रीनृसिंहं नमस्कृत्य दलाधीशमहीपतिः ।
श्राद्धसारं प्रकुरुते सर्ववदिकतुष्टये ।।’ 1303 श्रीमद्देवगिरौ पुरन्दरपुरस्पर्धाधिबद्धादरे रामे राजनि शामवित्किल बभौ राजा स
दिल्लीश्वरः । ढिल्लीशादुपरि प्रभुः समभवन्नै जामसाहो महान् यद्दोर्दण्डनिजप्रताप
महिमा राज्यं वशे चानयत् ॥ verse 9. 1304 प्रौढ श्रीद्विजराजवंशतिलकालङ्कारहीरः प्रभुर्भारद्वाजकुलानुगः प्रथमया यः शाखया
लङ्कृतः । श्रीमन्नेबजनसमस्तकरणाधीशः सतामग्रणी: श्रीमद्वल्लभभूश्चिरं विजयते श्रीमान्दलाधीश्वरः || verse 14 of संस्कारसार. The third line is metri. cally faulty in the 6th syllable. This verse occurs in each i at the end with variations. In the D. C. ms. No. 358 of 1875-76 the last two lines are श्रीमद्वल्लभसू नुरात्मनिरतस्तत्संप्रदायागणी: सारे दानकसंज्ञकेतिचतुरे श्रीमान्दलाधीश्वरः ।।
.
.
862
बजने समस्तकरणाधीशः’? This will remove the defect in the metre, but the question would still remain ‘who was Nebajana ?’. Besides, the printed दीर्थसार, प्रायश्चित्तसार and श्राद्धसार read the latter half of the verse as श्रीमदलभम् नुरात्मनिरतः सत्सप्रदायाग्रणी:…श्रीमान्दलाधी श्वरः There are elaborate colophonsisos at the end of almost each section (called sāra ) in which we are told that Dalapati was the pupil of Sūryapardita, that he was a great exponent of the Vaiṣṇavadharm.a, that he was the chief minister and keeper of the records of Nijāmasāha, who was the overlord of all Yavanas ( Mahomedans) and ruler of Devagiri. In some colophons — Dalapati or Daladhisa ’ is styled Maharajadhiraja. H. P. Shastri in his Preface to Vol. III of the Catalogue of Govt. Mss. (pp. XXIII-XXIV) in the custody of the Bengal Asiatic Society remarks that Dalapatiraya was chief of Gadh mandla and had a commanding position in the Nizamshahi kingdom of Ahmednagar. Dalapati’s wife was the famous Durgāvati who so bravely fought against the generals of Akbar that the latter had to come hiniself to invade her capital, It is doubtful whether Dalapati or Dalidhisa was the real name of the author or was merely a title. It is not unlikely that Suryapandita, said to be the guru of the author, is the same as Sūrya, the father of the great Maratha saint Ekanātha, who wrote his Bhāgavata at Benares in śake 1495 (i. e. 1573 A. D.) and who states that he was born in a family of devout Vaiṣṇavas.
The Nșsimhaprasāda names numerous authors and works. In the beginning of the Samskārasāra, he mentions a host of writers and works that he consulted.1308 Besides these he
1305 e.g at the and of the श्राद्धसार ’ श्रीमत्प्रौढप्रतापमहाराजाधिराज-सर्वपुरी
सुन्दरीदेवगिरिपुरवराधीश्वर-समस्तयवनाधीश्वर-श्रीमन्निजामसाहसमस्तकरणाधीश्वर सकलविद्याविशारद-याज्ञवल्कीयलुप्तशाखाप्रवर्तक-द्विजराजकुलालङ्कारहीर-श्रीवैष्णव प्रवर्तक -श्रीवल्लभात्मज -श्रीवल्लभपण्डितप्रसादासादितसूर्यपण्तिाभिधगुरु-मन्वादि प्रणीतनीतिशास्त्राभिज्ञ-महाप्रभुस्वकार्यवीक्षणप्रतिनिधीकृत-श्रीमहाराजदलपतिराज
विरचिते श्रीनृसिंहप्रसादे . 1306
कालादर्शानन्तभट्ट-विज्ञानेश्वर-भट्टहेमाद्रि-दीपिकाविवरण-असहाय-प्रयोगपारिजात मदनपारिजात-कृत्यकल्पतरु-माधव-स्मृतिचन्द्रिका-स्मृतिरत्नावलि - स्मृतिदर्पण-स्मृ तिचिन्तामणि-स्मृतिभास्कर-मंधातिथि-विज्ञानतिलक-अपरार्क-विज्ञानमार्कण्ड-भोज राजीय-विश्वरूपनिबन्ध-नारायणीय-गणेश - वाक्यमीमांसा - स्मृतिमीमांसा- निबन्ध सर्वस्व-स्मृतिमहार्णव-शातातपीयकर्मविपाकसमुच्चय-माधवीय-मैलुगिकर्मविपाक-प्रव राध्याय-प्रवरमञ्जरी-जातिविवेकप्रमुखाननेकनिबन्धान् &c. folio 3b.
- Nrsimhaprasada
863
mentions Someśvara (commentator of the Tantravārtika) and Kāladipa in the Saṁskārasara; the Puranasāra in the Ahnikasāra; Pārijāta and Vādibhayankara in the Viavahārasāra; Kamika, Jõānaratnāvali, Balārkodila in the Danasīra.
1
L+
SF
TJ
J
.
(
!
The contents of some of tiie sections of the Nṭsimhaprasada may he set out here. In the Sarriskurasāra the author treats of the meaning of dhai ma, śruti, smrti, the authoritativeness of purāṇas, kalivarjya (usa es prohibited in the kali age ), punyāha Vacana, madhuparka, ymddhisraddha, garbhadhāna, pussavana, jātakarma, nāmakarana, upanayana, marriage and other sanskaras, the duties of brahmacārins, snātakas, householders, vānaprasthas and samnyāsins. In the Ahnilasāra the author, after dividing the day into eight parts, speaks of the actions appropriate to each viz. : in the first getting up from bed at the brāhma muhurta, sauca, brushing the teeth, decoration of the hair, bath etc.; in the second, study; iii the third, looking after dependents and pursuit of one’s livelihood; in the fourth, midday bath, brahmayajñ.", tarpsna, vaiśvadleva. daily Śrāddba, in the fifth dinner and foods prescribed and forbidden; in the sixth and sevenih reflecting over i:ihisa and purāns; in the 8th decision about worldly affirs, evening samdlıyā etc. In the Kalasāra (which is in onplete in the Benarcs ms.) he defines the nature of kala and gives rules and decisions about months, tithis and such festivals as Navarātra, Janmastani etc. In the Vyavahāra sāra the author deals with the neaning of vyavahāra, the eighteen titles of law, the four-fold method of deciding dharma, the pramānas (means of proof), diyavibhaga etc. In the Vratasāra he speaks of the several principal vratas in each month, some of which are for both men and women, some for men only and some !, I women only. In the Dānasāra he dilates upon the nature of Sāna, its varieties, the various results of dānas, the proper time and place for dānas, proper recipients of dāna, what things can be the subjects of gifts, units of gold, silver etc., the description of kunda, maṇḍapa and vedi, the sixteen great danas such as tuli, hiranyagarbha, brahmānda, kalpapādapa etc., and three atitlānas, viz. land, cows and learning; gifts of image, food, ornaments, bed-stead etc.; gifts on sa zkrānti and eclipses etc. The Tirthasara is interesting for this that as the author hailed from Devagiri he
864
speaks principally of tirthas of the Deccan and Southern India. In his work he speaks of Setubandha, Pundarika1307 or Paunda rika (modern Pandharpur in the Sholapur District, it seems ), Gayatirtha, eulogics of Godavari, Krsna-Venyā, Narmada, Malaprahārini etc.
As four parts of Nrsimhaprasada have been published, it would be necessary to say a few words on each of the four.
The Vyavahārasāra is rather a large work in 280 pages. It relies sparingly on the Dharmasotras of Ápastamba, Gautama, Vasiṣtha and Viṣṇu, quotes only a verse from Baudhāyana. It quotes from Nārada several hundred verses, also from Bṛha spati and Katyayana. Similarly, most of the verses in Yājña valkvasmsti on Vyavahāra are quoted and the Manusmṛti also is profusely cited. But out of other Smstis only a few like those of Usanas (p. 12), Pitamaha (only on ordeals ), Yama (p. 7), Vyasa, Saṅkha-likhita (p. 200), Samvarta, Hārita (pp. 34, 35, 213) are quoted. The Sangrahakāra is quoted twice (pp. 69 and 219 ).
ITA?
The Prayascitta-sāra has 236 printed pages and deals with the following maters. Derivation and meaning of the word Prayascitta ; P. to be prescribed by a pariṣod; five mahāpātakas (killing a brāhmaza &c.); enumeration of patakas that are equal to Mahāpatakas; those sins that are called Anupatakas and Upapatakas; those guilty of Malāpātakas fall into terrible hells and after undergoing the torments of hell are born as dogs, donkeys, and the like and then they are again born as men suffering from such disease as consumption or are born as cānd-las &c. (Yāj. III. 206-215); one should perform appropriate penances for sins; requesting the Parisad to declare the proper penance. It is unnecessary to set out the penances (in view of the fact that a good deal has been stated on them from the Prayascitta-viveka of Śūlapāṇi above.
1307
F1 až za afuot at 7777 … TÁTCT TS 49 ficaragiaat: 1 शोभिता सङ्गता भेम्यास्तस्माद्योजनमन्ततः । पौण्डरीकमिति ख्यातं तत्ती) तीर्थ afstal 19703TTEIFT &c.
- Nysimhaprasada
865
Besides the Smrtis1308 and Purāṇas, the work mentions Dharmavivști (pp. 5, 201 ), Mitaksarā (p. 189 and differs from it about the meaning of ‘Brahmakurca’), Rājanighantu (p. 138 ), Vākyamimānsā (138-139 ), Subodhini (com. on Yāj. by Viśveśvarabhatta ), Susruta, Smstisāgara ( 206 ), Smrtyarthasāra.
The Srāddhasāra is comparatively a small work (in 168 printed pages) but it quotes a far larger number of authors and works than the other two. In the Śrāddhasāra (p. 106) the author refers to the fact that the portion on Dāna had been already composed, that Ahnika had already been dealt with, that Prayascittasāra preceded Sraddhasāra1309 (vide p. 64 *uktam caitat-bahu Prāyascitte’). On p. 29 it remarks that it will expatiate at length cr the proper time for a certain śrāddha in Kālanirṇayasāra.
1308 In some cases Guru and Brhaspati are separately cited in
the Vyavabārasāra on the same page; e. g. on p. 57 three verses are quoted as B:
h tis and six verses are then quoted as from Guru that defi’e s Due termis quoted from Brhaspati; On p. 21 Manu IX. 211 is cited as a text of Brabman and Manu IX. 104 is quuic.lās frory Paramarși. Tbe Nibandha writers and works are sjarm..! quoted. On p. 221 A parārka, Viśvarūpa, Vijñaneir:raanil Mādhavācārya are mentioned. Op p. 228 are named Jehātithi, Vijñāneśvarahbatta and Madhavācārya, Bhāruri, Sporticandrikākāra (in plural ), Dhāreśvara od Sridhara (page 256 ) and p. 257 refers to Nibandhas <f Asahāya, Medhātithi, Vijñānesrara and Mādhava. The Mitākṣarā is mentioned on p. 139. Once Kapiñjalādhi karapa is cited on p. 20 and on p 23) a sūtra of Jaimini ( X. 8.5) is quoted. These are only patent Mimārisā references in this part, Vide for Viśveśvarabhatta under Madanapāla above pp. 792 ff. On p. 138 the Nșsiilihaprasāda savs :-( on the word LT) अज्ञानविधुरा परपद्वेषिण एव शास्त्रानभिज्ञा गाजरमेव गृञ्जनं मन्यन्ते । and quotes and Hiat in support’agari ar THTHIHTTIE-Mai रत्ननालविषये तालकस्य (नालकस्य ?) गृञ्जनशब्दस्य गाजरविषये गाजरत्वमन्त्र TTFTTETTA #777171717(421 Hrno fa ATT HIT pp. 138-139;
vide TGHR ( p. 63-64 b) ) for almost the same words. 1309 āria: Failea ferat TTTTTÀI Hat: / 3taifeafy selatahofifa
64941 ER I AFUTTET HRT 1 915 81T p. 167. H. D. 109
866
It quotes for its size numerous authorities, particularly smrtis and Purā ṇas,1309a but nibandhas or digests rarely. It men tions the Mitāksarā (p. 43), Mādhavācārya (p. 94 ), Smrticandri kākāra (p. 71 in the plurai ), Smṛtiratnāvalikāra (p. 94 in the plural).
The Tirthaṣāra is a small work in 103 pages. It deals with the following tirthas ( 16 in number ) all in the Deccan and South India except Gayā 310 namely, Setubandba (and Rāmeśvara ), Pundarika ( Pandharpur on the Bhimā, where there is Panduranga’s image ), Amardaka (Nāganātha pp. 21 30), Gayā, Godāvari (and subsidiary tirthas ), Krsṇa-Veni (and tirthas subsidiary to them ), Narmadā and eight more. The principal authorities are Purāṇas, viz. Kālikā, Kūrma, Garuḍa, Padma, Brahma, Brahmavaivarta, Brahmānda, Matsya, Vāmana, Vāyu, Viṣṇu, Saura, Skanda. The few other author ities that are quoted are Bṛhaspati (p. 34, several verses, probably from some purāṇa ), Mahābhārata (on pp. 30, 41, 42-43), Yāj. (on p. 39, a half verse I. 261), Vasisthasmsti (p. 33), Vyāsa (p. 89, two verses ).
The Nșsimhaprasāda being a work from the Deccan held the view that marriage with a maternal uncle’s daughter was sanctioned by the Veda and was not to be censured.1911 It says
1309" The Purāṇas quoted in Śrāddhasāra are": 37 (twenty-four
verses ), 3777, aft, (pp. 4, 48), 4 (p. 34), as (pp. 3. 4, 5, 7-8), JEE (pp. 3, 10-12), FETITS ( pp. 13, 14, 34, 48,52. 55,), #f52 (p. 39), HRT (pp. 29, 33, 107 &c.), ATENUST (pp. 18 19, 51, 53 &c.), II (pp. 9-10 ten verses, 13, 51 six verses, 102). fasus (pp. 5, 13, 9, 43, 44, 60, 61, 108-9), fasuTahfETT (pp. 5, 56,
96 ), Fira 8 ( in verses, 28 ). 1310 The Mabābhārata refers to Gayā at length. A famous verse
quoted on p. 37 of the Tirthasāra is : Tuoma: E fa tui ASCE 1458 TYTTTT tos at THT 11 This verse also occurs in fatuTy 85 (last verse ), 97148 87. 10, Ty. 22. 6, 4, 105, 10, II. 35-12, 97 I. 38.17 and V. 11. 68, TT (371) 44, 5-6. Vide H. of Dh, vol. IV pp. 643-679 for detailed treatment on Gayā.
1311 awag TTWEITFOTO Galegagt 7 19 h… falu 78917:1
FEATCHIT folio 9.
- Nýsimhaprasada
867
that where there is (irreconcileable ) conflict between the smṛtis and purāṇas there is an option.1312
As the Nșsimhaprasāda relies upon the Mādhaviya and the Madanapārijāta, it is certainly later than 1400 A. D. As it is mentioned as an authority in the Dvaitanirṇaya of Śhaṅkara bhatta and in the Mayūkhas of Nilakantha, it must be earlier than about 1575 A. D. If by the Dipikavivarana, which it enumerates among its principal authorities, is meant the com. of Nýsiṁha, son of Rāmacandrācārya, on his father’s comment ary of the Kalanirṇaya (which is most probable), then the Nșsimhaprasada must be later than about 1500 A.D. Dr. Bhandar kar1313 says that Ramacandrācārya lived about 1450 A. D. A ms. of the Dipikāvivarana was copid in sainvar 1604 ( 1548 A. D.).1314 The Benares Sanskrit College ms. appears to have been copied for Rāmapandita Dharmadhikari at Benares, who is said to have been the father of Nandapandita 315 ( see sec. 110 below). At the end of several sāras either samvat 1568 (1511-12 A. D.) or 1569 occurs as the date.1316 This may be said to be the date of the actual composition of the work or of the copying of the ms. for Ramapandita. It seems difficult to believe that Rāmapandita for whom the ms. was copied in 1511-12 A. D. was the father of the famous Nandapandita. We know that Nandapaudita composed his Vaijayanti in 1623 A. D. Rāmapandita must have been a man of middle age before he could order the copying of a huge ms. like the Nṭsimhaprasada. If he did this in 1511-12 A. D. bis son could i ardly have been alive 120 years later. Therefore it looks probable ihat the dates ( samvat 1568 and 1569) are not
1312 499 FTAYictur a faen: 1 #FFITTAT folio 14a. 1313 Report, 1883-84, pp. 58-60. 1314 Vide I. O. Cat. p. 530, No. 1662. 1315 Vide Benares ‘Pandit’ (New Series ) vol. V. pp. 377-78 for
an announcement about the ZIHETAT by a learned descend
ant of tyfusa. 1316 At the end of the colophon of the saint we have the date
‘#9a %&C HÀ fagf?3 That’ and on the back of that part of the ms. the date #ad 84&ateiteafao ’ i. e. 7th May 1512 A. D. At the end of the FifaylART we have ‘897 8488 AHU Arhigatsita UTERTE’. At the end of the aty सार we have ‘संवत् १५६८ समये वैशाखसुदि द्वितीया रवौ’.
868
the dates when the ms. was copied for Rāmapandita, but rather the dates of the composition of the original work or of the copy ing the ms. from which Ramapandita got his own ms. copied, At all events it is clear that the Nosimhaprasāda could not have been composed later than 1512 A. D. As the author was a minister of Nijāmasāha who ruled over Devagiri, it appears that he is referring to Ahmad Nizam Shah who ruled from 1490-1508 A. D. or to his son Burhan Nizam Shah ( 1508-1533 A. D.), most probably the former.1317 It may be taken as certain that the work was composed between 1190 and 1512 A. D.
The author Dalapati appears (if it is his proper name) to have been a south Indian. He mentions only a few authors and digests by name among which are South Indian Madhavācārya, Mitāksarā, Smsticandrikā, Smrtyarthasāra. There are also some other indications. In the Sraddhasāra, while dilating on going to Gayā for sraddha, the author first quotes a verse prescribing that the pilgrim intending to go to Gayā should first perform a śrāddha, should be dressed in a karpata (worn out or ragged clothes) and should circumambulate his village.1318 The author says that provision is not restricted to one going to Gayā alone, but also applies to Godavari when Jupiter is in the sign of Leo.
It may be noted that the Nșsimhaprasāda had become a well-known work of some authority before 1600 A. D. even at Benares. The Nirnayasindhu composed in 1612 A. D. (2nd Pariccheda on Navaratra ) refers to passages quoted on Navaratra in Nṭsimhaprasada.
1317 Vide Lane-Pcole’s ‘Muhammadan dynasties’ ( ed. of 1924 )
p. 320 for the dames and dates of the Nizam Shahg. Accord ing to Lane-Poole the Nizam Shahs of Ahmednagar ruled from
1493 to 1595 A. D. 1318 तदुक्तम् । उद्यतस्तु गयां गन्तुं कृत्वा श्राद्धं विधानतः । विधाय कर्पटीवेषं ग्रामस्यापि
प्रदक्षिणम् ॥ इति । गयेत्युपलक्षणं सिंहस्थगोदायात्रादेः। ततश्च गयाद्यर्थ गच्छतो aaraa TPHTETIT T7441 TGIT: ! ETICHET P. 96. Should we not read’ atat article2679971T: ’ 1 ( 67164T + Thala: )? यानि तु अमायुक्ता प्रकर्तव्येत्यादीनि नृसिंहासादे वचनानि तानि समूलत्वे सत्येत faratho fuiffe p 163 with Marathi translation (Nir. Press, 1935 A. D.).
t
- Pratāparudradeva
869