कल्पान्तरे विश्वासटिप्पन्यः

Raghunandana

Raghunandana is the last great writer of Bengal on dharma śāstra. He compiled an encyclopædic work on the different branches of dharmaśāstra styled Smṛtitattva, divided into 28 sections called tattvas. He cites the names of over 300 authors and works in his encyclopaedia, which have been collected together by M. M, Chakravarti (JASB for 1915 pp. 363-375). His wonderful mastery over smrti material and his erudition displayed in the Smsti-tattva earned for him the appellation smārtabhattācārya or simply smārta’ from later writers. For example, the Vīramitrodaya refers to him in that way and so does Nilakantha in his Vyavahāramayukha,1341 His Smṛtitattva was printed at Serampore in Bengali characters so far back as 1834 35 A, D. The Smrtitattva was published by Jivananda in 1895 (in two volumes ) in 1631 pages. Out of 28 tattvas the Rgvedi vssotsargatattva is not included in Jivananda’s edition; but for a brief note on Ṛgvedivisotsargata ttva, vide Mitra’s Notices, vol. VII p. 119 No. 2349 ( which follows the procedure laid down by Saunaka). The Srāddhatattva (in Jivananda’s ed. vol. I. pp. 189– 325) is really Sāmasrāddhatattva, since Raghunandana being a Bengali Rādhiya brāhmaṇa was a Sāmavedin. He begins by quoting in the very first lines of this part Gobhila : ‘Atha Pārvapaśrāddham tatra Gobhilāḥ \ Atha śrāddham amāvāsyā yām pitrbhyo dadyat’. On many pages he quotes Gobhila grhysūtra, as on pp. 195 (twice ), 196, 203, 207, 209, 210, 213, (twice ), 218, 228, 233 (twice ), 235 ( several times ), 238, 240, 242, 245, 259, 273 ( five lines quoted ), 282, 288, (6 lines ), 307 ( 6 lines ). The Tithitattva ( in Jivananda’s edition) men tions on p. 93 (vol. I) a Durgāpūjātattva (pūjāyām visesastu Durgāpājātattveṣvasandheyah) and at the end of the 2nd vol. of Jivananda’s edition there is Sri-Durgārcanapaddhati, which is the same as the Durgā pūjā-prayogatattva published by the Sanskrit Sahitya Pariṣad, Calcutta. He wrote also a Tirtha

1341 Vide वीर० p. 697 on गौतम’s sutra ‘स्त्रीधनं दुहितॄणामप्रत्तानामप्रतिष्ठिताना

‘; 29Emale ( text p. 112 of my edition) widefretarian #a!107. Raghunandana

891

yātratattva, dealing only with pilgrimages to Gayā, 1342 Prayaga and Vārāṇasī. He also wrote a commentary on the Dayabhāga. It has also been published by Jivananda (in two volumes ). Some tattvas have been separately published as e. g. the Vyavahā ratattva and the Dayatattva (published at Calcutta in 1828 by the Department of Public Instruction). His Dāyatattya was translated into English by Golapcandra Sarkar in his Mala māsatattva the names of his tattvas are given.1343 Vide Mitra’s Notices, vol. III. p. 50 No. 1081 and 1. O. Cat. p. 420 No. 1405 for an enumeration of the tattvas and for reference to the volumes and pages in the Serampore edition. The tattyas are not arranged in the verses quoted below according to their chronological order, but according to the exigencies of the metre. In this work I have used Jivananda’s edition.

333

1342 Dr. Bha batosh Bhattacharya sent me a brief account of Gaya

contained in the Tirthayātrātattva (published in Bengali script by the Sanskrit Sabitya Pariṣad of Calcutta), which I utilized

in my description of Gayā pilgrimage in vol. IV pp. 670-674, 1343 #festyle TTUTT ER Ufafael … faest

i et व्यवहृतावेकादश्यादिनिर्णये। तडागभवनोत्सर्गे वृषोत्सर्गत्रये व्रते ॥ प्रतिष्ठायां परी क्षायां ज्योतिषे वास्तुयज्ञके । दीक्षायामाह्निके कृत्ये क्षेत्रे श्रीपुरुषोत्तमे | सामश्राद्धे यजुःश्राद्धे शूद्रकृत्यविचारणे । इत्यष्टाविंशतिस्थाने तत्त्वं वक्ष्यामि यत्नतः॥ The 28 तत्त्वs are on मलिम्लुच (intercalary months), दाय, शुद्धि, #FATE, far, faare, faft, FHEAT, Guicha, 49€T, clarit, aanualeff, quichi (3 795 on goalerauto, 45144o. and #rquato), 97, afāgt (two on agfast and hangt), 1204 (i. e. pitat), Falay, 9T+0451, ataT, 3 , orel, G EITTHET, HIHAT, 44:31, ICHI. In the Serampore edition Freechip is not printed (vide Chakravarti in JASB 1915 p. 363). In Jivanada’s edition also the ऋग्वृषोत्सर्ग is not included and the जन्माष्टमीतत्त्व seems to be included under fafera. (Vide Smrtitattva, vol. I pp. 41 54). Ragbunandana treats of Durgotsava at some length in Tithitattva ( vol. I pp. 61-10+ ) and winds up with the words iti Vandyaghaṭiya… Sri Raghunandana-bhattācārya-Viracita Durgāpūjātattvain samāptam’. I think that it is very likely that these words were added by scribes. We have to under. stand the word Pratiṣthā as meant for Devapratiṣthā only ( vol. II pp. 502-513 ) and that the word “Talagabhavanot sarga’ in the note is meant both for “Jalāśayotsargattva’ (vol. II. pp. 513-528 ) and Mathapratisthādi’ (vol. II pp. 613-633).

892

It is not feasible to give even brief sammaries of Raghu nandana’s tattvas. Their very names indicate the subject matter. But one of them, the Dayatattva, deserves special mention. It treats of partition made by father, partition among brothers after their father’s death, persons not entitled to a share, property not liable to partition, evidence of separation, stridhana and its devolution, inheritance to one dying sonless etc. His Tithitattva contains a description in Sanskrit of the game called Caturanga played on the full moon of Aśvina by four players. Vide (in vol. I) Tithi-tattva pp. 137–139 ( for a description of ‘catu rangakridana).

Besides the 28 tattvas Raghunandana is said to have com posed several other works. There is a commentary on the Daya bhāga attributed to him. Colebrooke suspected its genuineness, but the colophon of the commentary1314 gives the same details about Raghunandana as are found in his admitted works. It is to be noticed that the Dayatattva of Raghunandana sets forth the same principles of Hindu law that are peculiar to Jimūtavahana, though in matters of detail they disagree in a few cases. The Viramitrodaya styles the author of the Dāyatattva a follower of Jimūtavāhana.1345 It has been held by the Calcutta High Court that Raghunandana’s is the best commentary on the Dāyabhāga and that the authority of Raghunandana is acknow ledged and respected universally in the Bengal School.1346

Besides the above, Raghunandana wrote also Tirthatattva or Tirthayatrāvidhitattva, the Dvadaśayātrātattva (on the princi pal festivals at Jagannāthapuri, one in each month ), Tripuskara sānti-tattva, Gayāśrāddhapaddhati and Rāsayātrāpaddhati. His works however are not very much in vogue elsewhere than in Bengal.

Raghunandana was the son of Hariharabhatticārya and was a Bengal Vandyaghaṭiya Brāhmaṇa. He was a pupil of Srinātha. ācārya-cūdāmaṇi, whose works are frequently quoted in the

1344 इति श्रीवन्धघटीयहरिहरभट्टाचार्यात्मजरघुनन्दनभट्टाचार्यकृता दायभागटीका

ATTATI 1345 जीमूतवाहनस्तु ब्राह्मादिविवाहेषु यद्धनं तदेवानेन व्यवस्थाप्यते न तु तत्तद्विवा

att: H 4971 …RIE

I TT 19H 1 ako p703, 1346 I. L. R. 4 Cal. 550 at p. 554; I. L, R. 22. Cal. 347 at p. 351.

Raghunandana

893

several tattvas ( vide Chakravarti in JASB for 1915 p. 351 n. 2). According to tradition Raghunandana and the great Vaiṣṇavite saint Caitanya were pupils of the same teacher, Vasudeva Sārva. bhauma, who was the shining light of the new logic (navyanyāya) at Navadvipa and were residents of that place (Sarvadhikari’s Tagore Law Lectures, first edition p. 403 ff.).

Among the authors and works quoted in his encyclopaedia by Raghunandana those noted below deserve mention 1347

In the Malamāsatattva, after citing the names of the tattvas and mentioning the topics to be dealt with in Malamāsatattva, he states (vol. I. p. 738 lines 1-2) that he is writing the work after looking into many nibandhas (nibandhan bahudbālocya nibadhyante satām mude). It may be noted further that he enumerates the names of the 18 Purāras from the Viṣṇupurāpa (III. 6. 21-23) and quotes from the Kurma the names of 18 upapuranas (in Smrtitattva, vol. I. pp. 792-93). Raghunandana profusely quotes all the 18 Puranas, but the Upapuranas are sparingly cited except the Adi, Aditya, Kalika, Devi, Nandikes vara, Narasimha, Naradiya.

In may be noted that Raghunandana in Malamāsatattva (vol. I. p. 792) quotes a passage accepted by great people (or by many people ) viz. “Śūdras are Vājasaneyins in all matters and should follow the procedure laid down by the sages of that

1347

अद्भतसागर, अनन्तभट्ट, अनिरुद्ध, अपिपाल, आचारचन्द्रिका, आचारचिन्तामणि आचारादर्श, आचार्यचूडामणि (i. e. श्रीनाथ, रघुनन्दन’s गुरु) कर्मोपदेशिनी कल्पतरु, कविकान्तसरस्वती, कामधेनु, कामरूपीयनिबन्ध, स्मृतिसागर, कालको मुदी, कालनिर्णय (of माधव ), कालविवेक, कालादर्श, कुल्लूकभट्ट, कृत्यकौमुदी कृत्यचिंतामणि, कृत्यतत्त्वार्णव, गङ्गावाक्यावलि, गृहस्थरत्नाकर, गोविन्दभट्ट’ गोविन्दमानसोल्लास, चण्डेश्वर, जिकन, जीमूतवाहन, ढुण्दुपद्धति, तीर्थचिन्तामणि, दानवाक्यावलि, दीपकलिका, दुर्गाभक्तितरङ्गिणी, द्वैतनिर्णय, नत्र्यवर्धमानोपाध्याय, नारायणभट्ट, निर्णयामृत, नीलाम्बर ( कात्यायनभाष्यकृत् ), पण्डितसर्वस्व, पशुपति, पारिजात, पितृदयिता, पितृभक्ति, पितृभक्तितरङ्गिणी, पृथ्वीधर मिश्राचार्य, प्रयोग सार, प्रायश्चित्तविवेक, बल्लालसनदेव, बालक, ब्राह्मणसर्वस्व, भवदेव भट्ट, भीमपरा क्रम, भुजबलभीम, भोज, मदनपारिजात, महादाननिर्णय, माधवाचार्य, युद्ध

जयाणव, योग्लोक, रामाचनचन्द्रिका, रायमुकुट, रुद्रधर, वाचस्पतिमिश्र, विद्यापति, विबादचिन्तामणि, व्यवहारचिन्तामणि, लपाणि, श्राद्धचन्द्रिका (of his teacher ), श्रीदत्त, सुगतिसोपान, हरिनाथ, हरिभक्त, हरिहर, हेमाद्रि.

894

Veda’.1348_In another place i.e. in the Sudrakrtyavicaranatattva (vol. II. p. 634) he quotes the passage Arsakramena sarvatra &c.’ and remarks that the muntra to be recited is to be taken from the Grhya relating to Yajurveda. The Smrti of Yājñavalkya (I. 121 )1349 provides that he ( the sudra) should perform the five daily yajñas to the accompaniment of the word ’namaḥ’ as the mantra. The Mitaksara on Yaj. I. 121 says the same thing and adds that the sūdra should perform five daily yājñas to the accompaniment of the word ‘Namaskāra’ as the Mantra and then states that some prescribed a mantra for Śūdras as noted in the footnote1350. This establishes that at least in some parts of India Sudras could even in the 11th century A. D. repeat a mantra cited in the note below. It appears that the opposite view viz. that a sudra could repeat only the word ’namaskara’ as a mantra had begun to be emphasized in the IIth century A. D. and had been prescribed some centuries before Christ in some works such as the Gautama-Dharinasūtra (X. 66 ‘anujña tosya namaskāro mantrah’).

How the attitude of our learned writers towards women and śūdras went on becoming stiffer and stiffer may be very briefly indicated here. In the daily tarpana ( satiating by offering water ) three women are included in the tarpana of sages viz. Gārgi

1348 आर्षक्रमेण सर्वत्र शुद्रा वाजसनेयिनः। इति महाजनपरिगृहीतवचनाद् यजुर्वेद

विधिनैव ते कर्म कुयुः। मलमासतत्त्व p. 792 ( vol. I ). 1349 भारति : शुचि त्यभर्ता श्राद्ध क्रियारतः। नमस्कारेण मन्त्रेण पञ्चयज्ञान्न

हापयेत् । याज्ञ. I, 121. The com. of विश्वरूप says : श्राद्धकर्म चामन्त्रक यथाकालं कुर्यात् , अन्वहं पञ्चमहायज्ञान् । इयांस्तु विशेषः । नमस्कारमात्रमेव प्रयु जीत न देवताभिधानानि । मन्त्रतया च प्रतिषेधात् देवतोदेशेन त्यागः कर्तव्य एव । श्राद्धे तु देवतापदान्यपि मन्त्रमात्रानिषेधात् प्रवर्तन्ते ।; the मिताक्षरा commentary says श्राद्धानि नित्यनैमित्तिककाम्यानि, क्रियाः स्नातक व्रतान्यविरुद्धानि तेषु रतः । नम इत्यनेन मन्त्रेण पूर्वोक्तान् पञ्चमहायज्ञान् अहरहर्न हापयेत् अनुतिष्ठन् नमस्कारमन्त्रं च केचित् - देवताभ्यः पितुभ्यश्च महायोगिभ्य एव च । नमः स्वाहायै स्वधाय नित्यमेव नमो नमः । इति वर्णयन्ति नम इत्यन्ये । मंघातिथि on मनु III. 121 remarks (probably following Gautama)

‘नमन्कारोऽनुज्ञातोऽस्य न देवता पदम् ‘. 1350 नम इत्यनेन मन्त्रेण पूर्वोक्तान् पञ्चमहायज्ञानहरहर्न हापयेत् अनुतिष्ठेत् । नम

स्कारमन्त्रं च । नमः स्वाहाय स्वधायें नित्यमेव नमो नमः । इति वर्णयन्ति। नम इत्यन्ये । तत्र वैश्वदेवं लौकिकेऽग्नौ कर्तव्यं न वैवाहिकेऽग्नावित्याचार्याः । मिता. on या I. 121.

Raghunandana

895

Vacaknavi, Vadavi Pritithevi and Sulabha Maitreyi’ (vide H. of Dh. Vol. II. p. 691). Further, in the Bṛliadārāṇayakopaniṣad, the great sage Yājñavalkya imparts to his wife Maitreyi the know ledge of brahman ( Br. Up. II. 4-5). Saṅkarācārya1351 on Brahmasutra I. 3. 38 quotes a portion of Santiparva 328. 49 for establishing that Smrti declares that men of all four varṇas have the right (or privilege ) to acquire knowledge of Itihasa and Puranas. The Dharmasindhul352 says (p. 77) ‘Ksatriyas and Vaisyas have the privilege (or capacity) to perform rajasapijā containing offerings of flesh and to perform japa and homa; simil arly, in the case of sidras, tāmasapījā without mantras and japa with offerings of even flesh is allowed, but the Sāttvikapājā consisting of japa of saptaśati and homa should be got performed through brāhmaṇas, ( since ) sudras and women have no privilege of reciting even the mantras from Purāṇas and that in the bhāsya (conimentary) on the words the sūdra may secure happiness’, it has been said that the sadra reaps the fruit of religious rites viz. merely by listening to the mantras and not by repeating the mantras himself; therefore it should be unders stood that the sūdra secures the desired fruits (results) of religious rites by merely listening to the Purāṇi mantras and not by himself reciting them; from this it should be understood that personal recitation by women and sūdras of the Gitā and the thousand names of Viṣṇu would lead to sin in their case. This

1351

1352

With regard to Itihāsa and Puranas शङ्कराचार्य says at the end of the bhāsya on Vedantasātra I. 3. 38 ‘श्रावयञ्चतुरो वर्णान् ’ इति च इतिहासपुराणाधिगमे चातुर्वर्ण्यस्याधिकारस्मरणात् । वेदपूर्वकस्तु नाधिकारः शूद्राणामिति स्थितम्। अधिगम conveys the same sense ( derived from the root गम् with अधि) as अध्ययन ( derived from root इ with अधि). क्षत्रियवैश्ययोमासादियुत-जपहोमसहितराजसपूजायामप्यधिकारः । स च केवलं काम्य एव न तु नित्यः । निष्कामक्षत्रियादेः सात्त्विकपूजाकरणे मोक्षादिफलातिशयः। एवं शूद्रादेरपि। शूद्रादेमन्त्रहीना जपादिरहिता मांसादिद्रव्यका तामसपूजापि विहिता | शूद्रेण सप्तशन्यादिजपहोमसहिता सात्त्विकी पूजा ब्राह्मणद्वारा कार्या स्त्रीशूद्रादे: स्वतः पौराणमन्त्रपाठपि नाधिकारः। अत एव ‘शूद्रः सुखमवाप्न यात् ’ इत्यत्र भाष्ये स्त्रीशद्रयोः श्रवणादेव फलं न तु पाठादित्युक्तम् । एतेन स्त्रीशूद्रयोर्गीताविष्णुसहस्रनामपाठो दोषायैवेति ज्ञेयम् । धर्मसिन्धु (द्वितीय परिच्छेद ) p. 77.

896

dictum of the Darmasindhu is opposed to that of Gita1363 itself (IX. 32) and the words of Saṅkarācārya who places the Sūdras on the same footing as the three Varnas.

The Bhagavatapurāṇa 354 (I. 4. 25) expressly states. As the three vedas cannot reach the ears of (i. e. are not or cannot be studied by) women, sūdras and those who are merely somhow related to the twice-born, the sage (Vyāsa ) composed the Bharata story (i. e. the epic Mahabharata) out of compassion for them’. Some writers from Mithilā, says Raghunandana in Rūdrakrtyavicāranatattva (vol. II, p. 635), held that in srāddhas a sudra could repeat a Purāṇa mantra; to this Raghunandana replies that the Varāha and Matsya Purāṇas are opposed to this.1355 The result would be that there is an option, the Mahābhārata can be studied by women and sūdras just as men of the first three varṇas study the Veda. Even granting that some Purāṇas like the Matsya and Varāha are opposed to this, that does not matter. There would be an option as the Bhagavata purāṇa states that the Mahābhārata takes the place of Veda in the case of women and sūdras, while some Puranas deny this in certain matters.

Aufrecht placed Raghunandana between 1430-1612 A. D. Dr. Jolly (Tagore Law Lectures p. 10) places him early in the 16th century. In I. L. R. 48 Cal. 643 (F. B.) at p. 695 it is said that Raghunandana belongs to the latter half of the 15th century. As Raghunandana’s works are quoted and criticised by the Virami trodaya (pp. 79, 531, 683, 697, 703 etc.,) and by Nilakantha, Raghunandana is certainly earlier than 1600 A. D. As he names Madhavācārya, Sūlapāṇi, Rāyamukuta, Rudradhara and Vacaspati, he is later than about 1500 A. D. If tradition is to be believed that he was a fellow-student of Caitanya he must have been born about 1490 A. D. Caitanya is said to have been born in 1485

1353 fat IX, 32 is HI PE TEA 5441fera ir fa r: itapa: 1 ferit

वैश्याम्तथा शुद्रास्तेपि यान्ति परां गतिम् ।। 1354 स्त्रीशद्रद्विजबन्धूनां त्रयी न श्रुतिगोचरा। तस्माद्भारतमाख्यानं मुनिना कृपया

1977 11 779Ativ I. 4. 35. 1355 अत्र च श्राद्धवेदमन्त्रवज शूद्रस्येति वचने वेदेत्युपादानात् श्राद्ध पुराणमन्त्र:

शूद्रेण पठनीय इति मधिलोक्तं तन्न वराहपुराणे शूद्राणां मन्त्रवजित इत्यनेन मन्त्र मात्रनिषेधात् , मत्स्यपुराणेन ‘नमस्कारेण मन्त्रेण’ इत्युपादानाच्च पौराणिकस्यापि Se fa94:9a14ct | ErfarTata (vol. II. p. 635 ).

Raghunandana

897

or 1486 A. D.1368 In his Jyotistattva he mentions śake 14211887 in connection with the position of Vișuva. That shows that the work was not composed probably very much long after that date (i. e. 1499-1500 A. D.). In the same Tattva (vol. I. p. 568) for calculating ravi-saṇkrānti he takes sake 1489 as the basis (i. e. 1567 A. D.). So that Tattva was composed just about that year. A ms. of the Chandoga-śrāddha-tattva was copied in sake 1497 (1575–76 A. D.)1358 and a ms. of the Matha pratisthā-tattva was copied in sake 1498 (i. e. 1576–77 A. D.).1358 Therefore he must have flourished before 1575. Raghuandana, as shown above at some length (on pp. 853–54) very often criti cizes Vācaspati, whose literary activities have been placed above between 1450-1480 A. D. Besides, Nārāyaṇabhatta, who was born in 1513 A. D. (as will be shown under Nārāyaṇabhatta ) and was the paternal grandfather of the famous cousins Kamalakara ( who composed the Nirnayasindhu in 1612 A. D.) and Nilakantha, is mentioned with great respect as Bhatta nārāyaṇacaranāḥ “1360 by Raghuanandana in (vol. I) Tithitattva (pp. 99-100), Srāddhatattva (pp. 201, 245), Saṁskāratattva pp. 868, 878 ( in vol. II ). Suddhitattva (p. 251 ). Therefore Nārāyanabhatta must have been an honoured contemporary of Raghunandana. The latter very rarely differs (if at all) from Nārāyanabhatta and never employs words like heyam’ or ’ nirastam’ about Nārāyaṇabhatta’s views ( as Raghu. does in the case of Vācaspati). So Raghunandana may be said to have flourished between 1510–1580 A. D. It may be noted that the Nirṇayasindhu ( 2nd. Pari. p. 83) mentions the Tithitattva as quoting Kālikāpurāṇa about bath in the waters of the Brahma

1356 Vide Prof. Jadunath Sarkar’s Chaitanya’s pilgrimage and

teachings’ for 1485 ( as birth date) and M. T. Kennedy’s

Religious life of India’( 1925 ) p. 13 for 1486 A. D. 1357 fagë Haras cateta 7717 I (Jirananda, vol. I, p. 562 ). 1358 Mitra’s Notices, vol. III, p. 20 No. 1081. 1359 Mitra’s Notices, vol. III, p. 53 No. 1083. 1360 यत्तु प्रकृतकर्म वैगुण्यप्रशमनाय शाट्यायनहोमाभिधानं भवदेवभट्टसंमतं तन्न

प्रामाणिकं, तस्मादपि महाप्रामाणिकैर्भट्टनारायणचरणे!भिलभाष्ये तदप्रमाणी garat i afr779 pp. 99-100. Vide #trata p. 878 for simi.

lar words. Raferara FTTTTTÜ. À HIFH fHargzdi. H, D, 113

898

putrā in Caitra on the 8th of the sukla fortnight, which passage occurs in Tithitattva p. 59 (vol. I).

Raghunandana was a great writer with wide reading, a wonderful memory, patient industry and a logical mind.

Several papers have been written about him. I have read some of them. The following may be mentioned.

J. A. S. B. New Series, Vol. XI, pp. 351-357 by M. M. Chakravarti, with an Index of Writers and Works in English characters (pp. 363-375) based on the text in the Serampore edition of 27 tattvas (omitting ‘Rgvssotsaraga-tattva’) published in 1834–35). This index loses much of its usefulness because very few libraries in modern India have got the very old Seram pore edition and the only procurable edition now for many is that of Jivananda’s. The present author had to spend weeks over preparing an index of authors and works by reference to the pages of the edition of Jivananda.
Dr. R. C. Hazra’s note on the works and time of Raghu’. in (journal) Bhāratiya Vidyā, Vol. XI part 2 (1950) pp. 178-182 ( where he places Raghu. between 1520-75 A. D.)
*Raghunandana’s indebtedness to his predecessors’ by Dr. Bhabatosh Bhattacharya (published by the Asiatic Society, Calcutta, 1953-54) in its Journal, part 1 pp. 153-201 of vol. XIX (Letters ), part 2 pp. 68-173 in vol. XX; part 3 in vol. XX pp. 229-312 and the same writer’s paper on ‘Raghunandana’s indebtedness to Candeśvara’ in N. I. A. vol. I pp 534–35.
Rāmāyana and its influence on Ballalasena and Raghu nandana’ by Dr. Bhabatosh Bhattacharya in J. O. I. ( Baroda), Vol. II pp. 18-22.
“Devotional element in Raghunandana’s works “1361 in Siddhabharati in honour of Dr. Siddheshwar Varma, pub. by V. V. R. Institute, Hoshiarpur, part I pp. 225-229 ( 1950),

1361 In tbis paper Dr. Bhattacharya deals only with quotations

from the Bhagavadyitā and the Bhāgavatapurāṇa. I have not checked quotations from the Bhagavatapurāṇa mentioned by him. As regards the Bhagavadgitā he omits in this paper some verses quoted by Rayhuo from it. But in his monograph on ‘Raghunandana’s indebtedness to his predecessors’ ( publi

(Continued on the next page)

Raghunandana

899

The Tattvas in the Smṛtitattva enable us to see clearly, what subjects falling under Dharmaśāstra had assumed importance and gripped people’s minds in the 16th century A. D. and a few centuries before. The Tattvas1362 are arranged here in the order of the number of pages devoted to each tattva in Raghunan dana’s Smṛtitativa. (1 ) Tithi 188 pages (vol. I pp. 1-188); 2 Suddhi, 180 pages, (vol. II. pp. 233–412); 3 Jyotistattva pp. 177 (vol. I pp. 559–735); 4. Áhnika, 140 pp. (vot. I pp. 326-465); 5. Sraddha 137 pp. ( vol. I. pp. 189-325); 6. Malamāsa pp. 121 (vol. I pp. 736-856); 7. Ekadasi pp. 105 (vol. II pp. 1-105); 8. Prayaścitta pp. 93 (vol. I pp. 466-558 ); 9. Saṁskāra pp. 92 (vol. I pp. 587-948); 10. Kṛtya p. 60 (vol. II. Pp. 423-483 ); 11. Udvaha pp. 45 ( vol. II pp. 106-150 ); 12. Divya pp. 40 (vol. II. pp. 574-613); 13. Dāya, pp. 36 (vol. II pp. 161-197); 14. Vyavahāra pp. 36 ( vol. II pp. 197-233 ); 15. Chandogavssotsarga pp. 34 (vol. II pp. 528–562; 16. Yajurvediśrāddha pp. 20 pp. 613-633); 17. Mathapratisthā pp. 20 (vol. II pp. 613-633); 18. Jalāśayotsarga pp. 15 (vol. JI pp. 513-528 ); 19. Diksā, pp. 14

(Continued from the previous page) shed by the Calcutta Asiatic Society in 1955 ) he has exhau stively dealt with the Bhagavadgita quotations on pp. 50-51. He is sometimes uncharitable when dealing with others as (e. g) when he says on p. 225 of Siddhabhārati,’ part I “Though Prof. P. V, Kane and Dr. S. K. Dey have occasionally repeated the fact of particular digest-writers having been quoted by Raghunandana from the above-mentioned list of Chakravarti, yet, far from identifying the quotations, they have nowhere even mentioned the fact of the Bhagavadgitā or the Srimad Bhagavata baving’been quoted by Raghunandana”. The History of Dharınaśāstra vol. I (published in 1930), contains only 466 pages on details of about 113 authors and their works and it was irrelevant and absolutely unnecessary to say anywhere in the History of Dh. (vol. I) that the verses from the Gitā had been mentioned by a writer of the 16th century. It may be noted that the Kșspajan māṣtami-tattva is included in Tithitattva ( pp. 41-54 ). So also the Durgāpūjā-tattva has been dealt with in Tithitattva (pp. 64-104 ) which has at the end the words ‘Durgāpujātattvam samāptam’. The Durgār canapaddhati at the end of the 2nd volume (pp. 659-683 ) is pot Durgāpūjā tattva; it is the additional matter.

1362

900

(vol. II pp. 645-658); 20. Devapratișthā, pp. 12 (vol. II pp. 502-513); 21. Vastuyāga, pp. 12 ( vol. II pp. 412-423 ); 22. Sri puruṣottama, pp. 11 (vol. II pp. 563–573); 23. Vrata, pp. 10 (vol. II pp. 151-160); 24. Yajurvedi-Vṭsotsarga, pp. 9 (vol. II pp. 636-644); 25. Sudrakstya-vicāraṇa pp.4 (vol. II pp. 633-636); 26. Durgārcanapaddhati pp. 659-683. It would be noticed that religious duties on the different tithis of the year occupy, as regards extent, the first place; then comes Suddhi (āsauca on death and impurity on birth ), then astronomical and astrologi cal matters, then āhnika (the daily religious duties ), then Śrā ddhas, then religious duties in intercalary month. It may be noticed that inheritance and partition cover only 36 pages and so do administration of justice, substantive and procedural law; and ordeals are assigned more pages than even Dāya and Vyavahāra.

The first volume of the tattvas (Jivananda’s edition) con tains only nine tattvas in 948 pages, while the second volume of 683 pages contains 18 tattvas. There is hardly anything to prove or to show that this was Raghunandan’s own arrange ment. Probably it is due to modern editors. There is some internal evidence to establish the order in which at least some of the tattvas were composed. For example, pursuing the San skrit alphabetical order of the names, the following brief state ment is made.

Of the tattvas (1) the Āhnika was composed before Srā ddha ( vide p. 233 of Śr. ), while Āhnika (p. 375) mentions Suddhi as already composed; (2) The Udvāha was composed before Samskāra (vol. I p. 884) and after Suddhi (vol. II p. 107) and after Dayatattva ( vol. II, p. 127); (3) The Ekādaśī was composed before Tithi ( vol. I pp. 6 and 150 ), before Malamāsa, ( as Ekādaśī vol. II p. 19 says • Vaksyate’). 4. Chandoga-Vrsot sarga was written after Suddhi (vol. II p. 532); (5) Jyotis. was composed after Ma’amāsa (vol. I p. 775); ( 6 ) Tithi was written after Ekadasi (vide vol. I pp. 6, 150), after Suddhi and Sriddha (p. 15 vol. I), after Malamāsa (vol. I, Tithi pp. 152, 167);

These figures do not refer to the number of the tattvas but only count the tattvas that refer to priority or posteriority among themselves.107. Raghunandana

901

(7) Dāyatattva was composed before Udvāha (vol. II p. 127) and after Suddhi (vol. II pp. 190-197); (8) Divya. was composed before Vyavahāra (vol. II p. 211); (9) Durgāpūjā mentioned by Tithitattva (vol. I p. 93 as ‘as anusandheyah’) does not show priority or posteriority; (10) Malamāsa was composed after Jyotistattva (vol. I p. 775 ) and after Srāddha and Udvāha (vol. I p. 884); (11) Vyavahāra was written after Divyattattva (vol. II p. 228); ((12) Suddhi was composed before Tithi (vol. I p. 15) and after Ekādasi. (vol. II, p. 307) and also before Udvāha (vol. II p. 107); (13) Sraddha was composed before Tithi (vol. I p. 15 ) and Sanskāra (vol. I p. 884) and after Ábnika (Sraddha vol. I p. 233 ); (14) Samskāra was com posed before Chandogavssotsargatattva (vol. II pp. 543–547) and after Sraddha and Udvāha (vol. I p. 884).

Another method which may be briefly indicated for finding the order in which the tattvas were composed is as follows: One may say that when Raghu says about a topic that it has been vivrta’ (expounded) or ‘prapañcita’ (dealt with in detail) or uses past passive participles of the same meaning, one may reasonably hold that that subject had been already dealt with in a tattya. But when he uses words like ‘anusandheyam (may be consulted) or jeyam ( may be known or understood from ) a conclusion about priority or posteriority cannot be reasonably drawn. A very learned man (particularly before the advent of printing) may have been engaged in or contemplating the composition of two or three works at the same time and one day he might write a chapter of one book and the next day or a few days later he might compose a chapter for another work of his by way of change or variety. Therefore, the words ‘anusandheyam’ and ‘jõeyam’ may be employed with reference to a work already composed or yet to be composed.

The present author holds that the mention of 28 tattvas contained at the beginning of the Malamāsatattva1303 was only a draft (of the tattvas to be described ) prepared at some time before Raghunandana began to describe the several tattvas. It

1363 Why the intercalary Month is called Malimluca is stated by

Raghu in Malamāsatattva, Vol. I p. 768 as ’ mali gan mlocati gacchatīti unalimlucah ‘.

902

appears that some tattvas at least had been composed before the Malamāsatattva was actually written. For example the Malamāsa. (vol. I p. 834) quotes Manu IV. 103 (vidyut-stanita &c.) and adds that it was explained in Tithitvttva. On p. 775 (vol. I) the Malamāsa expressly says. Tajjyotiḥśāstroktakala…iti Jyotistattve-bahudhā vivītam’. From the Ekādasitattva (vol. II p. 19) it appears that the Malamāsatattva was yet to be composed when the former was composed (evam ca Gobbilā nukteṣvannaprāśanādiṣu yad-Vṭddhiśrāddham tan-malamāsatattve mātsyapurāṇādivacanād vaksyate’. The most extensive tattvas are (as shown in detail above) those on Tithi, śuddhi, Jyotis, Āhnika and Sraddha, whereas Malamāsa comes only next to these five in extent.

Raghunandana was a master in the application of the Mimām sāsūtras and Nyāyas. I shall only mention a few of the most important pages where Jaimini’s sūtras are actually cited; (in vol. I. Tithi 95 and Sraddha 221 definitions of ?k, yajus, sāma); Ābnika (p. 338 ); Prayas, p. 479 ( Jai. III. 4. 17), 480 ( Jai. I. 2.1) Malamāsa (p. 806 ), Ekādaśī p. 88 and p. 97 ( Jaimini VI. 3. 18 ). Raghunandana employs two kinds of Nyāyas viz. those based on the discussions in Jaimini and the explanations given by his commentators and nyāyas (maxims) that are more or less of a popular nature. A few examples of the two kinds may be mentioned by way of illustration. Two nyayas of the first type cited by Raghu. may be mentioned as examples. There is ‘Sam yogapṛthaktvanyāya (based on Jaiminisātra IV. 3. 5-7 which is mentioned and explained by Raghu, in Tithi (vol. I p. 44), Pr. T. (vol. I pp. 474–475) and (also in vol. II ) Ekadasi pp. 29–30. Another well-know Nyāya is Sarvaśakhāpratyaya-nyāya (Jaimini II. 4.8-33). Raghu, relies on it in (vol. II ) Suddhi p. 378. Ex amples of a popular sort of nyāyas are Gobalivardanyāya that occurs (in vol. I Tithi p. 142) and Dandapūpanyaya (that occurs in Dāyatattva, vol. II. p. 170); vide H. of Dh. vol. V pp. 1343, 1344 for the elucidation of these two and pp. 1339-1351 for over 171 ayāyas explained briefly.

Nārāyaṇabhatta

903