- Dharmatattvakalānidhi or Prthvicandrodaya
Vyavahāraprakāśa.
This work was not dealt with in the first edition published in 1930 but brief references were made to it in Appendix A pp. 566 and 584 and Appendix B p. 712. Since then a small portion of the very large digest on Dharmaśāstra named above has been published in 1962 ) as Vol. No. 21 of the Bharatiya vidyā series edited by Mr. J. H. Dave, M. A. LL, B., Advocate ( Supreme Court of India ). Now that some portion is avail able in print it is briefly noticed here. The work means ‘The Moon (Kalānidhi) of the essence of Dharma, or also Pșthvi candrodaya ’the rise of Pṛthvicandra’. This last was a king. The volume now published contains a portion of Vyavahāra prakāśa, one of the several parts of a huge digest on dharma. The Introduction (on pp. v-vi) states that only seven parts of the work are available (each in a single ms.) at different places viz. three parts called praksas on Vyavahāra, Vrata and Samaya are available in the Anup Sanskrit Library; there is a ms. of Srāddha-prakāśa in the Bombay University’s library. A ms. of the Āsauca-prakāsa is available in the Library of the Baroda Oriental Institute, a ms. of Gshasthaprakāsa exists in Sarasvati Bhavan Library of Benares and a ms. of Acāra-prakāśa is available in the Adyar Library, Madras. It is not possible to say how many parts were included or intended to be included in the whole work. But Kalanidhi means ’the Moon’ and as the Moon is supposed to have sixteen kalās (kalā tu sodaso
880
bhāgaḥ- Amarakośa), it was probably intended to spread the digest over sixteen parts. The section on Vyavahāra is called Vyavaliūraprakasa and is divided into 14 ullāsas (lit. ‘flashes’ or coruscations). Mr. Dave publishes ten out of the 14 ullāsas and is going to publish the remaining four in the near future.
The Vyavahāraprakāśa (which is the 7th part of the pro posed work) deals with judicial procedure as well as with sub stantive law. The present volume contains the whole of judicial procedure (technically called Vyavahāra) in 202 pages and some titles out of the 18 titles of law (in pp. 203-331 ), viz. from Tādāna to boundary disputes.
The present work is beautifully printed by the Nirnayasa gar Press (Bombay) and contains (besides the introduction, (pp. V-XI ), the Index of subjects (XIII-XVI ), Sanskrit text (pp. 1-331 ), Index of the verses (p. 333–357, in all over 2000 verses ) and an Index of the names of authors and works (pp. 358-359) which inadvertently omits the names of Garuḍapurana (p. 271 ), Govindarāja (p. 132 ), Candesvara (p. 161 ), Bhavadeva (p. 116 ) and all passages that are ascribed to the joint author ship of Saṅkhalikhita in the text as those of Likhita.
The very first verse claims that king Pșthvicandra personally looked into the causes of the citizens day after day along with learned brāhmaṇas and the judge and states that he begins the composition of a work on vyavahști ( vyavahāra, including both substantive and procedural law).
More than 50 authorities are cited in the portion published. Among the sutrakāras on Dharma, Vișnu is most frequently quoted, next come Gautama and Saṅkhalikhita. Among metrical Smrtis Manu is quoted about a hundred times and Yājñavalkya about 120 times. Among the other metrical Smṛtis Katyayana, Narada and Bṛhaspati are all quoted more than 160 times each. Vyāsa is quoted 40 times and Pitārnaba is quoted not only on ordeals but also on several other matters. The Rāmāyaṇa is quoted twice and the Mahabharata thrice. Many Puranas such as Agni, Kālika, Brahma, Bhaviṣya, Matsya, Mārkandeya are quoted but not at great length. Among digests and writers on Dharmaśāstra are mentioned Kalpataru ( several times ), Cande śvara (on p. 161 ), Candrikākāra (i. e. author of Smṛticandrika )105. Pythvicandrodaya-Vyavahāraprakāśa
881
once on p. 55, Pārijāta ( several times ), Vijñānayogiśvara (on pp. 7, 249), Sarvajña-narayana, commentator of Manu VIII. 53–54, (on p. 63 ) and on Manu VIII. 41, 42, 46, (on p. 33), Halāyudha on p. 161 and 284 ( on Nārada’s verses.).
From the colophons at the end of certain sections (Ullāsas) of the portion printed, it appears that the author was the son of Nāgamalla, was a great devotee of Viṣṇu and had such birudas as Kalikāla-karṇa, Pratāpa-lankeśvara, Ripujayasimha. On p. 279 he refers to Brahmacāriprakāśa as already composed.
This Vyavahāraprakāśa, when completely printed, would be recognised as a treatise on law and procedure applicable to Hindus in Northern India. The quotations from authorities are ample, to the point, fucid and not burdened with lengthy dis cussions on Mimāṁsā. It keeps throughout a practical end in view viz. to explain the law in easy and clear language. Not only the Vyavahāraprakāśa, but other sections on non-legal topics have been quoted extensively by writers on Dharmaśāstra from the 16th century onwards such as the Nirnayasindhu (which quotes it hundreds of times), the Mayūkhas of Nilakantha who quotes it in Acara-m., Samaya m. and Srāddha-m. and others.
His date can be settled without much difficulty. Mr. Dave points out (in Intro. p. VIII) that on the last leaf of a ms. of the Vyavabāraprakāśa the scribe (named Srivastavya Kayastha ) states that he finished the copying of the work on the 15th of the bright half of Phālguna on Wednesday in Samvat 1530 i. e. ( 1474 A. D.) in the city called Sehunda when king Pșthvicandra was reigning.
Therefore it follows that the work was composed sometime before 1474 A. D. This date is corroborated by the fact that it cites the Smṛticandrikā and Candeśvara and so it must be placed later than about 1375 A, D. Mr. Dave states that Sehunda is now a town in Bundelkhand. It is a remarkable coincidence that three great digests on Dharmaśāstra were composed in Bundelkhanda, viz, the Pṛthivicandrodaya, the Bhagavantabhas kara of Nilakantha in twelve parts called Mayūkhas (rays ) and the Viramitrodaya of Mitrami:ra (the last two in the first half of the 17th century).
H. D.-111
882
Prof. Velankar’s Catalogue of the Sanskrit mss. in the Bombay University No. 251 (p. 52 ) is a ms. of the Sraddha prakāśa, in 24 ullāsas, but it breaks off in the midst of Sampātasrāddha.
In A. vs. B. ( 54 Bom. L. R. pp. 725-754) Mr. Justice Tendulkar had to deal with a case in which a suit had been brought by the husband against the wife for nullity of marriage on the ground that the woman was impotent at the time of marriage and continued to be so thereafter and a decree for nullity of marriage was passed. Many authorities from original Sanskrit texts were cited in the arguments and in the learned judgment (pp. 743-754). In the same volume on pp. 115-119, Dr, Derrett deals with the question in dispute and relevant Sanskrit texts and Mr. Dave, Advocate in the case of A. vs. B. cited above, contributed a paper in the Journal portion (pp. 25-32) of 55 Bom. L. R. The above mentioned case is a con verse of the case Ratan Moni vs. Nagendra Narayan (1945) 1 Cal. 407.