कल्पान्तरे विश्वासटिप्पन्यः

Govindānanda

Govindananda wrote several works out of which four have been printed in the Bibliotheca Indica series, viz. : the Dāna kaumudi, śuddhikaumudi, Sraddhakaumudi, Varṣakriyā-kaumudi. The last work deals with tithinirṇaya, vratas on several tiihis all the year round, festivals like Durgotsava, Kojāgara etc. Besides these be wrote a commentary called Arthakaumudi on the Suddhidipikā of Srinivasa which was printed in Bengali characters, and also a commentary called Tattvārtha-kaumudi on Sulapāṇi’s Prāya ścittaviveka (published by Jivananda at Calcutta ). This com mentary is extensive and learned. A verse eulogising his father’s great learning in Astronomy, Vedānta and Smsti occurs in the commentary as well as in Srāddhakriyakaumudi (it is quoted below).1334 His works are of great utility on acccount of the

1334 येन ज्योतिषपङ्कजेषु नितरां मार्तण्डबिम्बायितं श्रीगोविन्दपदारविन्दयुगले लीला

मरालायितम् । वेदान्तस्मृतिसन्ततित्रिपथगोन्मेघे हिमाद्रीयितं केषां नो परिशी ferit Tarafa HE HATA: 11 2ud verse to the awatengat and in TRTTI ( which) latter reads the last words as i

(Continued on the next page)

Govindananda

883

numerous authors and works quoted therein. The following deserve special mention.1335 He was the son of Ganapatibhatta and was styled Kavikankaṇācārya. From the introductory and final verses of his works it appears that he was a Vaiṣṇava. His father was a resident of Bagri in the Midnapur District of Bengal.

Since he quotes Rudradhara-upādhyāya (pp. 115, 116) and his Srāddhaviveka in Srāddha-kriyakaumudi and Vācaspatimiśra on p. 452 of the same and Srāddhacintamani sixteen times in the same work, he is not earlier than about 1500 A. D. His father coniposed his astronomical work Jyotiṣmati in Kali year 4613 (i. e. 1512 A. D.), when his name had become famous. Dr. Bhabatosh Bhattacharya in his paper Govindānanda the least appreciated Bengal Nibandhakāra’ (in JOR, Madras, Vol. XXIX for 1963 pp. 101-107 ) blames me for not mentioning ( in the first edition of the H. of Dh. vol. I) all the years in which intercalary months occurred near about Govindananda’s time and for not making use of a verse ( quoted below) about the compo sition of the work of Govindananda’s father contained in the editor’s Preface to the Varsakriyakaumudi. I must enter a protest against these references to my not dilating on matters occurring even in prefaces to editions. I had to deal in H. of Dh. with more than one hundred authors in less than 500 pages. I could not indulge in long discussions as one can do in papers in journals. Even without referring to the date in the preface to Varṣakriya kaumudi I placed Govindānanda between 1500-1540 A. D. Dr. Bhattacharya himself (in J. O. R. Madras, Vol. XXIX pp. 101-107 at p. 103) holds that my conclusion (in H. of Dh. vol. I 1930 on p. 415 ) we shall be very near the truth if Govindā

(Continued from the previous page ) fray: which are not clear, but may mean ‘who is like an eye (sight ) to the good.’ विश्वाङ्गश्रुतिसंमिते कलियुगस्याब्दे प्रसिद्धाहृयो भट्टः ख्यातगुणोत्तरो गणपति

योतिर्विदामग्रणी: । लक्ष्मी नन्दिपुरन्दरानुजपदद्वन्द्वारविन्दार्पितस्वान्तः सन्तत fifacoiuria G h iaata li quoted from paper in J.O. R.

( Madras ) vol. XXIX p. 101. 1335 chcech, qugTA (com. of #1244977), TTT1Ptaat, Half

जात, राजमार्तण्ड, रुद्रधर, वर्धमानोपाध्याय, वाचस्पति, विशारद, शुद्धि विवेक, सायणभाष्य.

884

TTT

nanda’s literary activity be placed between 1500 and 1540 A. D.’ was justified. My reason for stating only a few intarcalary months was to find out the latest dates ( which Govindananda cited) for arriving at the date of composition of that work (Suddhi kaumudi). Dr. Bhattacharya is not quite accurate when he says on p. 500 of his paper on the Varsakriyakaumudi of Govinda nanda in Adyar Library Bulletin (Vol. XXV pp. 505-510 ) that Dr. Hazra’s paper on ‘works and period of literary activity of Govindananda’ (J. O. R. Madras, Vol. XVIII pp. 97-108 ) has settled with certainty Govindananda’s date as 1510-40 A. D. The only settled date ( if at all) is that of the composition of Jyotiṣmati ( an astronomical work of which only a single ms. is said to have been found) of Ganapatibhatta (written in 4613 Kaliyuga i. e. about 1512-13 A. D.). Dr. Hazra towards the end of his paper (pp. 107–108 ) relies on the three epithets (of self praise ) applied to Ganapatibhatta by himself viz, whose name was famous (prasiddhāhvayah), who was superior on account of his well known qualities (khyataguṇottara) and the leader among astronomers. There is nothing to show that all these epithets were really deserved. There is nothing to show that the epithet ‘bhatta ’ had been conferred upon him. Further, we do not know whether a son had already been born to him about or before 1512 or whether the son was 10 or 20 or 40 years old at the time.

It may be noted that Govindānanda himself was loose in giving the names of some of his own works; for example, the 5th Introductory verse in his work on Dāna employs the word “Dana kriyākaumudi’, while the verse preceding the last one in the same work employs the word Dānakaumudi’. Similarly, the fifth Introductory verse of the Sraddhakaumudi has . Sri-Govindakavih karoti gahanām Śrāddhakriyakaumdim’, while at the end of the same work he says ‘Govindānandakstinā kȚteyam Śrāddha kaumudi’. But as regards the Suddhikaumudi the Introductory verse is Śri Govindakaviḥ karoti gahanām śuddher-imām kaumudim’ and at the end we have the verse ‘Ganapatibhatta tavyo Govindānanda panditah sriman / samakstā santosārtham sudhiyam Sri Suddhi-kaumudim-etām’ll.

The Dānakriyakaumudi mentions ro other Kaumudi but is itself mentioned by Śrāddhakriyakaumudi on pp. 340 and 529 and

Govindananda

885

by Suddhikaumudi on p. 160 and by the Varsakriya-Kaumudi on pp. 352, 487. The Sraddhakaumudi mentions the Dānakaumudi on pp. 340 and 529 and the Suddhikaumudi on pp. 323, 342, 348, 440 and 483 and is mentioned by the Varșakriyakaumudi1338 on pp. 352, 487. The suddhikaumudi mentions the Dānakaumudi on p. 160 and is mentioned by the Varsakriyakaumudi on p. 359. The Varṣakriyakaumudi mentions all the other three works as stated above but is not quoted by any of the other three Kaumudis and therefore it is the latest among his four works.

On pp. 266-267 of the Suddhikaumudi it is stated by Govindananda that in 1414 sake ( i. e. 1492 A. D.) Vaiśākha was intercalary, in sake 1416 (1494 A, D.) Bhadrapada was so, in śake 1419 ( 1497 A. D.) Śravaṇa was intercalary in the 36th month from the time when an intercalary month occurred before that year and it remarks that there is not certain rule about these intercalary months, except this that an intercalary month does occur in the 3rd solar year after the occurrence of an intercalary month in some year. Then on p. 270 he quotes a Jyotiṣa verse and states that in sake 1449 (1527 A. D.) there was an intercalary month, Aṣāḍha, that in 1452 śake Vaiśākha was an intercalary month, then in 1454 sake ( 1532 A. D.), Bhadrapada was an inter calary month and in 1457 sake ( 1535 A. D.) there was Śrāvana as intercalary month and remarks that all this about intercalary months is not certain, but it is only prāyika ( probable).

The learned editor of the Varsakriyakaumudi appends in the Preface (PP. III-V) a list of fourteen matters on which Govinda nanda differs from Raghunandana. Dr. Bhabatosh Bhattacharya in his paper on the Varsakriyākauniudi (Adyar Library Bulletin, Vol. XXV on pp. 506-507) gives (on the fourteen points of difference between the two great scholars ) references to the pages of Varṣakriy, and of the Tattvas on Ekādasī, Kṛtya and Tithi.

The Śrāddhakriyakaumudi mentions Sūlapāṇi several times (on pp. 31, 71, 138, 374, 380, 549) and once on p. 71 includes him along with Aniruddha among the ancient ones ( vid note 1263

1336 a yat (on p. 579 ) ends in a somewbat mutilated form as

follows : nataratani ni ahat I THI XXX 1567 H ATTI सर्वान्तर्यामिने तस्मै गोविन्दाय नमोनमः । यत्कृपा विदुपामस्यामनुरागप्रवर्तिनी॥ इति श्रीगोविन्दाचार्यकृता वर्षकौमुदी समाप्ता ।

886

above prācāmasammatam ). “Prācām’ may also mean eastern but that meaning would not be proper here, since Aniruddha, Śūlapāṇi and Govindananda are all men from Bengal. It men tions the Śrāddhacintāmapi of Vacaspati sixteen times and often says that its opinion deserves to be rejected (heyam or apāstam ) as on p. 354 or is stupid (mandam) as on pp. 185, 280, 296, 319.

Govindānanda wrote a learned and extensive commentary called Tattvarthakaumudi on the Prayascittaviveka of Sūlapāṇi. The verse describing his father’s attainments in Astronomy, Vedānta and Smstis also occurs there. On p. 142 of that com mentary he holds an elaborate discussion on the Holākadhikarana (Jaimini’s Sūtras I. 3. 15-23) and he finds fault with Jimūta vahana’s interpretation of it in the Dayabhaga. Vide H. of Dh. vol. V. Pp. 237–241 and 1281-82. It is not possible (for reasons of space ) to say more about the Tattvarthakaumudi here.

Apart from his com. on Sūlapāni’s work the four Kaumudis cover over 1800 printed pages. His is a great effort and is next to Raghunandana’s Smstitattva in extent.

Raghunandana does not mention him by name or his works nor does Govindānanda refer to Raghupandana or his works or views. Govindānanda appears to be the earlier of the two, though they were contemporaries.

Govindānanda mentions Śrīdharasvāmin, the famous com mentator of the Bhagavatapurāṇa, in Varsakriyakaumudi (p. 56) and declares that a certain verse (kalārdhām dvadasīm dṛstvā &c.) quoted by him appears to be amūla (baseless ), while Raghu nandana also quotes him (i. e. Sridharasvāmin ) in (vol. I) Tithi 107, Prayascitta 517 (refers to his commentary on the 12th adhyāya of the 10th Skandha ), ( vol. II ) Ekadasi 25, Kṛtya 430 (Sridharasvāmi-vyākhyānam-atra grāhyam ).

On p. 559 of the Sraddba-kriyakaumudi, while dealing with Śrāddha in honour of ancient sages like Sanaka and the use of the word ‘hanta’ therein, Govindānanda remarks the rite (offering srāddha to Sanaka and others) may be seen in Kriya kaumudi’. Several explanations of these words are possible viz. that it is a marginal note introduced by scribes in the text or that Kriyakaumudi is a work of Govindananda himself or that Kriyakaumudi is a work by some other author. Raghunandana

Govindananda

887

(in Ābnikatattva, 343) quotes two verses from Kriyākaumudi (attributed to Vasistha ) that enumerate seven trees or plants called • tṛnaraja’ and condemns the use of the skins or leaves of those trees for ’ dantadhāvana’ and on p. 344 cites a verse from Kriyākaumudi that requires that if a man knowingly touches a jalaukā ( leech) or si.nilar worm he should forbear from perform ing daily religious duties ( unless he bathes or washes the hands ). On p. 376 of Ăhnikatattva Raghu, quotes a half verse from Kaumudi1337 forbidding for tarpana the use of water taken from a sūdra or water falling from clouds.

It appears that the Bengal Asiatic Society has a ms. of a work called Kriyakaumudi.1338 I learn from Dr. Bhabatosh Bhattacharya that Dr. Shrimati Vani Chakravarti in her recently published Bengali work (in July 1964) named ‘samaja-saṁskāraka Raghunandana’ has shown that all the quotations from Kriya kaumudi found in Raghunandana’s Smṛtitattva ( which are only four or rather 3 verses) can be identified in the ms, of Kriya kaumudi belonging to the Bengal Asiatic Society. Those quotations by Raghunandana appear, according to Dr. Miss. Vani, on folios 7, 8 and 34 of the A. S. Ms. of Kriyakaumudi. Dr. Bhabatosh Bhattacharya assures me (from personal examina tion of the ms.) that the prayoga alluded to in p. 559 of the Sraddhakriyakaumudi occurs on folio 36 of the ms. (in the Asiatic Society). This makes the conclusion certain that the Kriyākaumudi was a work of Govindānanda. There is evidence in the Suddhikaumudi that he describes the details of a subject in one Kaumudi (viz. on Dina) and sets out the mere prayoga in another work (viz. in Suddhikaumudi).

Dr. Hazra in J. O. R. (Madras) Vol. XXIII pp. 97-108 sets out all the works of Govindānanda (eleven in all) with some

1337

1338

It is difficult to say why the quotation on p. 376 is cited from

Kaumudi’ and not from ‘Kriyākaumudi’, while the other two are cited from Kriyākaumudi.

The beginning of the Kriyakaumudi (in the ms, of the A. S. of Bengal) is : sthaariralamees Tetera: sitifaceta: करोति विदुषां कृत्यां क्रियाकौमुदीम् । कविकङ्कणपण्डितः पितुश्चरणाम्भोजयुगोप

va: 1The ms. ends ; filsafat ISTIT fa fāfa or PCT क्रियाकौमुदी समाप्ता।

888

details in each case and holds (pp. 99-101) that the Kriya kaumudi (m. in Sraddbakriyakaumudi p. 559) is his (Govindā nanda’s ) work.

The learned editor of the Varsakriyakaumudi (M. M. Kamalakrisna Smṛtitirtha ) stated clearly in his Introduction to Varsakriyakaumudi (page 1) that the author Govindānanda lived in the village of Bāgri in the Midnapure District, that he was a devout Vaiṣṇava ( as appears from the Introductory verses of the Varșakriyakaumudi and his other works ), that some of the paścātya vaidikas of the Gautama family assert that they are descendants of Gapapati-bhatta and Pandit Haranchandra Tarka vagisa of Bagri (who supplied to the editor the date of the Jyotismatī) traced his descent from Ganapatibhatta (p. lll of Introduction ). The eminent scholar M. M. Dr. Haraprasad Sastri in the Preface to his Descriptive Cat. of Sanskrit Mss. vol. III (published by the Asiatic Society of Calcutta in 1925) made two statements which are inaccurate. One statement was that at the end of the 15th century a leader of the foreign brāhmaṇas settled in the outskirts of Bengal in the district of Bankura, wrote a code for the brāhmaṇas of his own persuasion entitled Varṣa kriyākaumudi, complete in six books; (p. XXI). The second inaccurate statement was that Govindananda Kavikavkaṇācārya was a Dravida Brāhmana settled in the District of Bankura in Bengal and that he wrote a comprehensive work entitled Kriya kaumudi of which Dānakriya and Varsakriyā are represented in Nos. 2691 and 2692 (of the Society’s mss. ). One mistake is that the so-called code is called Varsakriyākaumudi and another is that it is in six books. It is one of his books (and not the whole code) that is called Varșakriyakaumudi and the code is not in six books but only in four (or at the most in five). There is nothing to show that Drāvida brāhmaṇas settled in West Bengal in the 14th century. The only probable migration might have been from Kanoj (which can be described as being to the west of Bengal).

I am inclined to hold that the Kriyakaumudi is Govinda nanda’s work. He had already given some directions about the śrāddha in honour of Sanaka ( and other sages on pp. 557-58 ) and therefore added that the detailed procedure of Sanaka’s Srāddha would be found in Kriyakaumudi. The note below

Govindananda

889

collects in one place some references to the pages of detailed procedures mentioned in his works. In this case he did not like to dwell long on Sanakādiśraddha (which was a daily one) and referred to another work for details. It would be noticed that (in some cases mentioned in the note )1339 he expressly says that he has already explained some matters in another work and uses the words ’ asmābhiḥ’ and ‘vivecanam..krtam &c.

For information about Govindananda vide JASB (New Series) Vol. XI for 1915 pp. 351–57. His Suddhi-kaumudi exam ines intercalary months 1340 from sake 1414 to śake 1457 (i. e. from 1492 A. D. to 1535 A. D.). Therefore it appears that he wrote his Suddhikaumudi immediately after sake 1457 (i. e. 1535 A. D.). He wrote the Sraddha-kaumudi and Varṣa-kriyākaumudi after the Suddhikaumudi. Therefore we shall be very near the truth if his literary activity be placed between 1500 and 1540 A. D.

Vide M. M. Chakravarti in JASB for 1915 p. 355 for infor. mation about Govindānanda.

1339 सनकादीनां च हन्तप्रयोगे ॥ प्रयोगस्तु क्रियाकौमुद्यां द्रष्टव्यः। श्राद्धक्रियाको.

p. 559; compare विस्तारस्तु दानकौमुद्यां द्रष्टव्यः। श्राद्धक्रियाकौ. p 340; and विस्तारस्तु दानकौमुद्यां द्रष्टव्यः । श्राद्ध क्रियाकौ. p. 529 ; मलमासविवेचनं तु विषेशतः शुद्धिकौमुद्यां कृतमस्ति विस्तरभयानेह प्रस्तूयते तत्रैव द्रष्टव्य मिति । श्राद्धक्रियाकौ. p. 323; एतच्च शुद्धिकौमुद्यां विस्तृतमस्माभिः । श्राद्धक्रियाको. p. 342; विस्तरस्तु शुद्धिकौमुद्यां द्रष्टव्यः । श्राद्ध क्रियाकौ. p. 348; माद्यादिपद वाच्यता तु चान्द्रवासस्यैवेति शुद्धिकौमुद्यां विवेचितमस्ति । श्राद्ध. p. 440. विस्तारस्तु शुद्धिकौमुद्यां द्रष्टव्यः । श्राद्ध क्रियाको. p. 483; अमावास्याविधिस्तु श्राद्धकौमुद्यां निरूपित एव । वर्षक्रियाकौ. p. 352; कालकामावत्र विश्वेदेवा इति श्राद्धकौमुद्यां विवृतमस्ति । वर्षक्रियाकौ. p. 487; ऋतुव्यवस्था तु सौरमानेनैव इति शुद्धिकौमुद्यां प्रागपि प्रपञ्चितमम्ति । वर्षक्रियाको. p. 359 ; दानविवेचनं तु दानकौमुद्यां कृतमस्माभिः । इह तु प्रयोगमानं किंचिल्लिख्यते । शुद्धिकौ. p. 160. This last is an important indication. He writes in detail on ‘Dāna’ in one work and the procedure of the same

topic he sets out in another work of his. 1340 अत एव विष्णुधर्मोत्तरे-समाद्वये साष्टमासे तस्मान्मासोतिरिच्यते । स चाधिमासकः

प्रोक्तः काम्यकर्मसु गर्हितः ॥ इति । तथा चतुर्दशवर्षाधिकचतुर्दशशतशकाब्दे वैशाखो मलमासः । ततः परं षोडशाधिकचतुर्दशशतशकाब्दे भाद्रे ऊनत्रिंशद्मासे मलमासः । … ततः परं द्वाविंशत्यविकचतुर्दशशतशकाब्दे ज्येष्ठे पञ्चत्रिंशन्मासे मलमास इत्याद्यनेकशो ब्यभिचारो दृश्यते । शुद्धिको मुदी p. 266; vide p. 270 for intercalary month in sake 1419 and 1457. H. D. 112

890