कल्पान्तरे विश्वासटिप्पन्यः

Nandapandita Nandapandita was a voluminous writer on dharmaśāstra. An account of his principal works on dharmaśāstra is given below, particularly because most of them are yet unpublished. He was also called Vināyaka as stated in his commentary ( named Suddhi-candrika) on the Sadasiti (also called Aśaucanirṇaya ) of Aditya of the Kausika-gotra. Nandapandita came of the Dharmādhikari family of Benares and is described as the son of Dharmadhikāri Ramapandita. There were several families in Benares famous for their learned works on Dharmaśāstra and other branches such as the Bhātta family (to which belonged Bhattanārāyaṇa, Kamalākara and Nilakantha ), the Dharmādhi kāri family and the Sesa family. This last had Sesakssa, his son Viśveśvara, whose three pupils viz. Jagannathapandita, Bhattoji Dikșita and Anṇambhatta, author of Tarkasangraha, distinguished themselves as great scholars in their own special studies,

He composed a commentary called Vidvanmanoharā on the Parāśarasmsti. He expressly mentions therein that he follows the commentary of Madhavācārya.1331 This commentary is referred to in his Vaijayanti. 1382

He also appears to have written a commentary called Pramitākṣarā or Pratītākṣarā on the Mitākṣarā of Vijñāneśvara 1383 This commentary was probably not completed, as only fragments are found with his descendants.

Nandapandita also composed a work called Sraddhakalpalata, which is referred to in his Suddhicandrika 384 and in the Vaija

1381 धर्माधिकारिकुलकैरवकाननेन्दु श्रीरामपण्डितसुतेन विनायकेन । व्याख्यायते कलि

युगोचितवर्णधर्मशास्त्रं पराशरमुखोद्गतमल्पशब्दैः । माधवाचार्यनिर्दिष्टव्याख्यामार्गा Thrfur: 1 female (Femalt?) À TIT: TTTATHA: || verses 3

and 5, 1. O. Cat. p. 377 No. 1301. 1382 विवृतं चैतत्पराशरस्मृतिविवृतौ विद्वन्मनोहरायां दत्तकमीमांसायां चास्माभिरिति नेह

fraaie het on facu na 15. 43. 1383 On fasoy 15.9 he says ‘afuat: ga:#FAITHTa 1991

if: Afari FHOTETT ETTI STATEIPATA nalazi i folio 86 b of the I. O, ms. (uf derat); op facopo 16. 1 ‘fyeg FANIET

ATT TRĀFTETTATH AT THE707:’(folio 93 b). 1384 ’e gig gry9114 1724691H ‘folio 31 b of youf4T;

on facu 21. 19 3477774 fasit: & ey81474* fequifa fa had i’folio 123 b (ā grot).

916

yanti. In this work1885 he refers to a city called Sadharana (probably modern Saharanpur ) where the Sahagila family ruled. He speaks of Simhamalla, Vasāvana, Rupacandra, Bhūpacandra and Paramānanda as successive members of the dynasty and says that he was urged to write the work by the last of them and that he relies upon the Sraddhadipikā of Govindapandita.1388 At the end of the ms. of the Vaijayanti in the Deccan College Collection it is said that the Vidvanmanoharā, the Smrtisindhu and the Śrāddbakalpalatā were the commentaries composed by Nanda pandita.1387 But from the contents given in the India Office Catalogue it does not appear that the work was a commentary. It is divided into five stabakas and deals with the usual topics, viz. what is śrāddha, the proper time and place for it, the proper brāhmaṇas, various kinds of sraddhas &c. The principal authors and works named therein are given below.1388 The Śrāddha kalpalatā was published in the Chowkhamba S. Series (1935) in 262 pages. In Poona Orientalist (vol. 15 pp. 60-64) Dr. S. L. Katre shows that a ms, of the Sraddhakalpalatā is dated in Samvat 1641 (i. e. 1584-85 A. D.). The same scholar shows (in I. H. Q. vol. 28 for 1952, pp. 91 ff.) that a ms. of Suddhi candrikā (which mentions the Sraddhakalpalatā at least five times ) was copied in Śaivat 196), Srāvana-vadi (i. e. in July 1603 A. D.). Therefore Śrāddhakalpalatā must have been composed several years earlier than 1603 A. D.

The Suddhicandrikā of Nandapandita on the Șadasiṭi of Ad ityācārya has been published in the Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series of Benares ( 1928 ).1389 The Suddhicandrikā, a commentary on the

1385 Vide I. O. Cat. p. 556 No. 1731 for 154591. 1386 offreyfusa3719720eutfa46417: 1 SC Freyahat gaat of outfi

11 11 I. O. Cat. p. 557. 1387 ‘TERFEZetfit FGHAITEIT Furfragt: 1 516734 al gat prayfusar

eht dant: !1 D. C. ws. No. 39 of 1866-68. 1388 Farofa, 101771, 72711, 74714, Fugga funt, MATY,

16745, 917 FIFTAT, tafarli HIUT, SITE hava, nayetu, tulacio,

स्मृतिरत्नालि, स्मृतिसार. 1389 Vide Prof. Devasthali’s Cat, of Sanskrit Mss. No. 974 pp. 351

52, ‘नन्दपण्डितापरनामविनायकपण्डितकृतायां घडगीतिविवृतौ शुद्धिचन्द्रिकायां ।’ &c. No. 975 in Prof. Devasthali’s Cat. is a work in 142 stanzas,

(Continued on the next page)

Nandapandita

917

Ṣadasiti or āśaucanirṇaya of Kausikāditya, is also one of the works of Nandapandita. It is referred to in his Vaijayanti.1390 The Bhadkamkar collection made by Prof. Velankar contains a ms. of this work and it has recently been published in the Chow khamba Sanskrit Series. The principal authors and works quoted therein are noted below.13

Another work of Nandapandita is the Smṛtisindhu, which seems to have been an extensive digest of smrti material. Portions of it have been recovered. In the Deccan College Colle ction there is a ms. of the Sa.iskāra-nirṇayataranga of the Smrtisindhu, which, according to a verse at the end, was composed by Nandapandita at the command of king Harivamsa-varman of the Mahendra family and son of king Maigo.1393

It appears that he compiled a summary of the doctrines of his work Smrtisindhu. That summary was called Tattvamuktā. vali.1393 It is almost certain that the fragment of the Tattva

muktavali noticed in the BBRAS Cat. at p. 217 is a part of this work. That fragment contains 8 verses on upakarma and three on holikā with commentary and the verses are numbered from

(Continued from the previous page) 86 ascribed to कौशिकादित्य and 56 to गोभिल. This Ms. has at end the verse : धर्माधिकारिकुलकैरवकाननेन्दु–श्रीरामपण्डितसुतेन विनायकेन । याकारि शुद्धिपदपूर्वकचन्द्रिका तां विद्वच्चकोरनिवहाः परिशीलयन्तु ॥ The शुद्धि चन्द्रिका mentions, among other work and authors, धर्मप्रदीप, धर्म

प्रवृत्ति, भट्टभालूक, सर्वज्ञनारायण (commentatr of मनुस्मृति), हारलता. 1390 on विष्णु 22. 8 ‘विस्तरस्तु शुद्धि चन्द्रिकायामवगन्तव्यः’ folio 125 b of

वैजयन्ती. 1391 अमृतव्याख्या (on पारस्करगृह्य ), धर्मप्रदीप, धर्मप्रवृत्ति, नारायणसर्वज्ञ, भट्ट

भालूक (?), मदन, माधव, ललित, लोल्लट, वर्धमान, विज्ञानेश्वर, विश्वादर्श, विश्वेश्वर, शङ्खधर, स्मृतिचन्द्रिका, स्मृत्यर्थसार, हरदत्त (on गौतमधर्मसूत्र),

हारलता, हारलताविवरण. 1392 ‘अस्ति श्रीहरिवंशवर्मनृपतिर्मङ्गोनृपस्यात्मजो माहेन्द्रान्वयमौलिभूषणमणिः सङ्कल्प

चिन्तामणिः । निर्बन्धेन निबन्धराजमसृजत्तत्कीर्तिबन्धोज्ज्वलं तस्याज्ञामनु नन्द पण्डित इमं धर्माधिकारी मुवः ।। D. C. ms. No. 612 of 1883-84; vide

Bhandarkar’s Report for 1883-84 p. 353 for extract. 1393 Vide Mitra’s Bikaner Cat. p. 476 No. 1204 for a ms. of the

तत्त्वमुक्तावली with the conmentary बालभूषा. The last verses are: तत्त्वमुक्ताः समुद्धृत्य स्मृतिसिन्धोः स्वयंकृतात् । तत्त्वमुक्तावलीमेतां निर्ममे नन्द पण्डितः ॥ तत्त्वमुक्तावलीव्याख्या बालभूषा कृता मया । बाललीलाधरः कृष्णः प्रीयतामनया सदा ।।

918

557 to 564 and then 607-609. If the above surmise be correct, the work was a large one and contained over 610 verses. Two of the verses name Hemādri and Pārijāta. 1394

A few words may be said there about the edition of Nanda pandita’s commentary Vaijayanti on the Viṣṇusmṛti published (in 1960 ) at Adyar ( in its library series ). It is in two volumes containing 1070 pages in all. The text and com. are printed in beautiful type at the Vasant Press, the Theosophical Society of Adyar. There is a preface ( 4 pages ), Introduction (pp. IX-XXVII) by Pandit V. Krishnamacharya, also a Bibliography, 100 chapters of the Viṣṇudharmaśāstra, the text of the Smsti in large and beautiful type, the commentary Vaijayanti in a smaller but clear type, several Indexes, viz. alphabetical index of the sūtras of Viṣṇusmṛti, an Index of the words occurring in the sūtras, an Index of the mantras cited in the Viṣṇusmrti, an Index of the authors and works cited in the commentary; an Index of the texts cited as authorities in the Vaijayanti (pp. 952-1667); Addenda and Corrigenda (two pages ). In this work he refers to a Brāhmaṇa dynasty of the Vasistha gotra at Vijayapura (Vijayanagara ?) in Karpaṭa country, in which was born Konda panāyaka, whose son was Kesavanayaka, whose son was Ananta alias Vāvarasa, whose sons were Kesava and Rudra. Keśava, son of Kondapa, seems to have gone to Benares with his sons and grand sons and made extensive gifts of all kinds.1395 There is a hyper bolical description of his great gifts ( mahādānas including tula, i. e. weighing against gold or silver). In verses 76-77 of the printed edition of Vaijayanti, Keśavanāyaka enjoined upon Nandapandita the task of composing a commentary on the Viṣṇusmṛti. 1396 In the colophons at the end of the chapters of Viṣṇu, Kondapanāyaka is styled Mahārājādhiraja and it is said that Nandapandita was encouraged in the task by Kesavanayaka alias Tammananayaka.

1394 · It begins atau stau Efst4atT: 1557, verse 561 is afecta

544 th Thahana: 1 and 564 is CATETET E

केवलामपि। 1395 sfifa STTHU H gā u TIF ya: q : 1 trafratata a:

Fra: Fiferoorgad faāat ill (verse 65). 1396 धर्माद्यद्यपि कोटिशोत्र विहिताः संतोषमन्तस्ततो नैव प्राप यदा तदा रचयितुं

विष्णुस्मृतेाकृतिम् । ऐच्छत्तत्र च रामपण्डितसुतं श्रीकेशवः क्षमापतिर्विद्वत्संसदि Foyfucaufach 93% 1947 11 verse 94.

Nandapandita

919

At the end of chapter 101, we are told that Keśavanāyaka, Nandapandita’s patron, secured mokṣa by breathing his last on the Manikarnikā in Benares. 1397 There are six verses at the end one of which says that in the Kali age there is no one more liberal than Vāvarasa (a son of Kesavanāyaka ) and no one more learned than Nandapandita. 1398 As he wrote on the encouragement of Kesava, the commentary is also styled Keśava Vaijayanti. Among the authors and works mentioned in this commentary are Devasvāmi, Budhasmsti, Bhavadeva, Mādhava carya, Vācaspati, Sarvajña, Subodhini (com. on the Mit. ), Hara datta, Hemādri. In the Vaijayanti he refers to no less than six of his works viz: the Vidvan-manoharā, the Pramitākṣarā, the Śrāddhakalpalatā, the Suddhicandrikā, the Dattaka-mimamsā (vide note 1382 above). But in the Dattaka-mimāṁsā itself he refers to his Kesava-Vaijayanti as already composed.1399 There fore it follows that both works were probably being composed at the same time. The Vaijayanti was held by the British Indian Courts as one of the leading authorities of the Benares School of modern Hindu Law.1400

Nandapandita, though he generally follows the Mitāksarā, was not a slavish admirer of Vijñāneśvara. He does not accept the explanation the Mitāksarā gives of Yāj. II. 17 (sākṣiṣūbha yataḥ etc. ). Similarly on Viṣṇu 8. 12, 22. 41, 23. 11, 27. 2 he emphatically says that the Mitākṣarā is wrong. 1401 He prefers the father to the mother as an heir (on Viṣṇu 17. 6-7) and seems to have placed the paternal grandmother as an heir after the mother

1397 कामो वावरसाकणप्रभृतिभिः पुत्रैः शुभैः ख्यापितो मोक्षः श्रीमणिकर्णिकामुवि

ATATTE #fa: 11 p. 89 of the printed edition. 1398 कलौ वावरसादन्यो वदान्यो न महीतले । श्रीनन्दपण्डितादन्यो विद्वान्गण्यो न

Giga II p. 900 of the printed edition. 1399 3Hrapat fasurarea Fri 21 47471147447’! (on priority

among the twelve kinds of sons ) p. 112 of 7 THTHT. 1400 Vide I. L. R. 16 Cal. 367 at p. 372. 1401 एतेन पुंसवनस्य क्षेत्रसंस्कारतयासकृत्करणं मन्यमानो विज्ञानेश्वरोपि परास्तः ।

e art on facug 27.2. fiat. on 41. I. 11 says ‘a s jHHH न्तोन्नयने क्षेत्रसंस्कारकर्मत्वात्सकृदेव कार्ये न प्रतिगर्भम् । यथाह देवलः। सकृय संस्कृता नारी सर्वगर्भेषु संस्कृता । यं यं गर्भ प्रसूयेत स सर्वः संस्कृतो भवेत् ॥ इति : सकृच्चकृतसंस्काराः सीमन्तेन द्विजस्त्रियः। यं यं गर्भ प्रसूयन्ते स सर्वः संस्कृतो Waiata ertali: I facujefe p. 240.

920

but before the brother (folio 101 b). He explains sapinda relationship in the same way as the Mit.1402 does. He says that the word ‘bhrātaraḥ’ in Yaj. should be explained as standing for ’ brothers and sisters’ and that in the father’s line, after the brother and brother’s son, the brother’s grandson succeeds and, on failure of the brother’s grandson, the paternal grandfather, his son and grandson are heirs one after another, i. e. in each line three generations succeed and then there is a devolution in favour of the next higher line. This view is opposed to that of the Subodhinj and the Smsticandrikā, which take only the son and grandson of each paternal ancestor. Vide my notes to the Vyavahāramayukha for fuller details (pp. 253-254). Nanda pandita stands alone among modern nibandhukāras in having recognised a uterine brother1403 (i. e. the son of the same mother but of a different father) as an heir. It is remarkable that Nandapandita preferred a person’s predeceased son’s widow (i. e. widowed daughter-in-law) as an heir to that man’s own daughter.1404

The Dattaka-mimāṁsā is the most famous work of Nanda pandita. It was translated very early by Sutherland in 1821 A. D. (comprised in Stoke’s Hindu Law Books). In the following the edition of Bharatacandra Siromani (published in 1885 with

1402 पिण्डो देहो जनकः स समानो येषां ते सपिण्डास्तेषां भावः सपिण्डता। वैजयन्ती

on विष्णु 22.5 (folio 124 a). The Mit. on Yaj. I. 52 says: सपिण्डता च एकशरीरावयवान्वयेन भवति ।… एवं यत्र यत्र सपिण्डशब्दस्तत्र

साक्षात्परम्परया वा एकशरीरान्वयो वेदितव्यः । 1403 Vide वैजयन्ती on विष्णु 17. 8 (folio 103a). The important portion

is ‘तत्र प्रथमं समानमातापितृका नातरो गृह्णीयुः। पित्रवयवाधिक्येन प्रत्यासन्न तरत्वात् । तदभावे समानमातापिका भगिन्यो गृह्णीयुः। तासां भिन्नमातृक भ्रात्रपेक्षया संनिहितत्वात् । भिन्नोदराणां मात्रा भिन्नबीजानां पित्रा विप्रकर्षात् । तदभावे तु तेपि गृह्णीयुः ।… तत्रापि प्रथम समानपितृकाः पश्चात्समानमातृका बीजस्य प्राधान्याप्रत्यासत्तेश्च क्रमनियामकत्वात् । तद्यथा । एकस्य द्वे पत्ल्यौ । तत्रैकस्यां द्वौ पुत्रावन्यस्यामेकः पुत्रस्तेन जनितोनन्तरं च द्विपुत्रान्यपतिमाश्रित्य पुत्रान्तरं जनयामासेति तस्मात्त्रयः पुत्रा बभूवुः । तत्र पूर्वयोरन्यतरस्मिन्प्रमीते तद्धनं समानमातापितृक एव प्रथमं गृह्णीयात् । तदभावे समानपितृको भिन्नोदरोपि

गृह्णीयात् । बीजप्राधान्यात् । तदभाव समानमातृको भिन्नपितृकोपीति’. 1404 वैजयन्ती on विष्णु 17. 4 ( folio 100a) श्वशुरमरणे श्वश्रूस्नुषयोः स्वत्वसाम्येन

श्वश्रूमरणे स्नुषाया एव साधारणसाम्यात् (?)। तदभावे क इत्याह । तदभावे दुहितगामि । तेषां पुत्रादिस्नुषान्तानामभावे दुहितरो धनं गृह्णीयुः। Vide I. L R. 16 Cal. 367 at p. 376 where this view is referred to.110. Nandapandita

921

his own commentary) has been used. In this work he lays down rules as to the person who may adopt, when he may adopt, who can give in adoption, who may be adopted, the motives of adoption, the necessary ceremonies of adoptions, the results of adoption. Among the authors and works qouted or referred to, those mentioned below may be noted. 1405

The Anandashram Press of Poona brought out (in 1941 A. D.) an edition of the Dattakamīmāṁsā with a modern Sanskrit commentary called Mañjari by Śhaṅkara, son of Ranganātha.

From very early days of the British rule in India the Dattaka mimāṁsā came to be regarded as the standard work on adoption. In Collector of Madura v. Mootoo Ramalinga 408 the Privy Council says “Again of the Dattakamimamsā of Nandapandita and the Dattakacandrikā of Devap abhatta, two treatises on the particular subject of adoption, Sir William Macnaghten says that they are respected all over India; but that, when they differ, the doctrine of the latter is adhered to in Bengal and by the southern jurists, while the former is held to be the infallible guide in the provinces of Mithila and Benares." That this estimate is some what too strongly put has been said by the Privy Council itself in Bhagwansingh v. Bhagwansingh1:07 to call it infallible is too strong an expression and the estimates of Sutherland and of West and Būhler seem nearer the true mark; but it is clear that both works must be accepted as bearing high authority for so long a time that they have become embedded in the general law.’ The Privy Council furhter lays down ’their Lordships cannot concur with Knox J. in saying that their (of the Dattaka mīmāṁsā and Dattaka-candrika ) authority is open to examina tion, explanation, criticism, adoption or rejection like any scientific treatises on European jurisprudence.’ 1408 Even in those parts of the Bombay Presidency where the Vyavahāramayūkba is a work of paramount authority, the Dattakamimaṁsā has on the subject of adoption been preferred in certain matters to the

1405 37477, Beta, TTEIH, TATTOGTA, , FACITETT, #fare,

arayla, è stret, Han, halfaat, (com, on harrasta),

wa aft, TT, TATIE 1406 12 Moo. I, A, 397 at p. 437. 1407 L. R. 26 I. A. 153 at p. 161. 1408 L. R. 26 I. A, 113 at p. 132,

H, D. 116

922

Vyavahāramayukha. For example, the Bombay High Court, following the Dattakamimamsā, has laid down that among the three higher castes a man cannot adopt his own daughter’s, sister’s, or mother’s sister’s son. The view of the Vyavahāra mayūkha, on the contrary, is that he can take these in adop tion. The limits to which Nandapandita will be followed by the courts are laid down in Ramachandra v. Gopal : The authority of Nandapaṇdita must be accepted except where it can be shown that he deviates from or adds to the smṛtis or where his version of the law is opposed to such established custom as the Courts recognise :.1409

Several views expressed in the Dattakamimāṁsā have been set at naught in the various provinces by the British Indian Courts. Nandapandita held that a widow could not adopt at all.1410 Except in Mithila this view has nowhere been entertained in India and the Courts have held that the Law of Benares, Bengal, Madras and Bombay is different. Nandapandita put forward the position that the brother’s son must be preferred for adoption over any other sagotra or sapinda.1411 This has, however, been treated in all provinces as no more than a mere recommendation and that failure to observe it entails no legal or religious consequences whatever. The expression putra cchāyā’ in ’ putracchāyāvaham’occurring in the text of Saunaka was explained by Nandapandita to mean “similarity to a son born’ and he said that the similarity consisted in the possibility of being begotten by means of niyoga and the like.1412 Suther land wrongly introduced the word ‘marriage’ after niyoga in his translation and some of the High Courts in India, following this wrong translation, evolved the rule that no one could be adopted whose mother the adopting father could not have legally married in her maiden state,1113 But the Bombay High Court bas laid down that the rule is restricted to the three

1409 I, L, R. 32. Bom, 619 at p. 627. 1410 3āta faurareT HEEFT HET PRT 1411 HFalegra Hoèy a TT ga gaiate for 1412 पुत्रच्छाया पुत्रसादृश्यं तच्च नियोगादिना स्वयमुत्पादनयोग्यत्वं यथा भ्रातृसपिण्ड

सगोत्रादिपुत्रस्य । ततश्च भ्रातृपितृव्यमातुलदोहित्रभागिनेयादीनां निरासः । 1413 Vide I, L, R. 11 Mad, 49 (F. B.), I. L. R, 27 All. 417, I, L.

R. 43 Mad. 830.

Nandapandita

923

specified cases of the daughter’s son, the sister’s son, and the mother’s sister’s son.+14 From the text (brāhmaṇāditraye nāsti bhāgineyaḥ sutaḥ kvacit), Nandapandita evolved the curious rule that a widow cannot adopt to her deceased husband her own brother’s son. But the Privy Council has refused to follow this dictum on the ground that the gloss of Nandapandita is an extension not based on the authority of any smṛti and has upheld such an adoption.1418

It should be noted that the Hindu Adoption and Main tenance Act’ (No. 78 of 1956 ) passed by the Indian Parliament has made far-reaching and radical changes in the Law of Hindu Adoption and section 4 of that Act overrules all texts, rules or interpretations of Hindu Law or customs and usages as part of that law, except in so far as they may have been expressly saved by that Act.

About the personal history of Nandapandita we do not know much. Mandlik in his Hindu Law (LXXII, n. 3) gives what information he could gather from descendants of Nandapandita living in Benares. According to him the founder of the family was Lakṣmidhara who was a resident of Bidar (now in the Nizam’s dominions ) and who went to Benares. Nandapandita was the sixth in descent from him. Dr. Jolly visited at Benares Pandit Dhundirāja Dharmādhikari who was 9th in descent from Nandapandita (Tagore Law Lectures, p. 15) and Mandlik’s information also was gathered from persons who were 9th in descent from Nandapandita. Mandlik also gives a detailed genea logical tree. We learn from several works of Nandapandita and their colophons that he was also nanied Vinayakapandita and was the son of Ramapandita of Benares who is styled Dharma dhikari. Nandapandita also is described as Dharmadhikari in the Saniskāranirṇaya-taranga of the Smṛtisindhu (vide note 1392 above). It appears that Nandapandıta was at different times patronised by rich patrons from different parts of India. He composed the Srāddhakalpalatā for Paramānanda of the Sahagila

1414

Vide I. L, R. 32 Bom. 619, I. L. R. 36 Bum, 533, 15 Bom. L. R. 824 ( paternal aunt’s sou could be validly adopted ), 1. L. R. 39 Bum. 410 ( adoption of half-brother held valid ). Puttulal y, Parbati I. L, R. 37 All 359

1415

924

family of Sādhāraṇa, the Smstisindhu for Harivainsavarman of the Māhendra family and the Vaijayanti for Keśavanāyaka of Madhura.

Mandlik notes that Nandapandita is credited with the author ship of 13 works. Eight works of Nandapandita have been named and described above. Mandlik nanes six of these. Besides these he is said to have written Navarātra-pradipa which has been published in the Princess of Wales Sarasvati Bhavana Series, three sections of a work named Harivamśavilasa (viz. dūnakautuka, āhnika kautuka and saṛskārakautuka ), Balubhusi, Tirthakalpalatā, Kalanirṇayakautuka, Kāsiprakasa, Madhavānanda, But we saw above (note 1393) that the Balabhūși is only a commentary on the Tattvamuktāvali (probably composed by another writer ). The Kāsiprakāśa was certainly composed by Nandapandita as he is described in the India Office ms. to have been the son of Rāmapandita.1416 That work was composed at the order of one Sarvabhatta, who was the guru of Krsnanayaka of Madhurā. In Mitra’s Notices two works, Jyotiḥsastrasamuccaya and Smārta samuccaya, are described as composed by Nandapandita, son of Devaśarman and Vṛndā.1417 The latter seems to have been an extensive work and dealt with tithinirṇaya, intercalary month, marriage, sapinda relationship, the samskāras, daily observances, antyești (funeral rites ), āśauca, sudd’ri, śrāddha, prāyaścitta, dayabhāga and vyavahāra. Though the name of the father, Deva śarman, creates suspicion in one’s mind, both these works must be regarded as the works of Nandapandita, son of Ramapandita, as in the Smārtasamuccaya the author refers his readers to his Dattaka-mimamsā for the subject of adoption. It is not unlikely that just as Nandapandita had the alias Vinayaka, his father Rāmapandita was also called Devaśarman.

Mandlik ( Hindu Law LXXII, n. 3) notes that on a copy of the Madhavananda-kavya composed by Nanda the year samvat 1655 ( 1599 A. D.) is given, probably in Nandapandita’s own handwriting. The Vaijayanti was one of Nandapandita’s latest works. That work, we are told, was composed at Kāśi in Vikrama samyat 1679 (Nov. 1623 ) on the Full moon of Kartika

1416 Vide I. O. cat. p. 391 No. 3701. 1417 Vide vol. V. p. 80 No. 1762 and vol. VI, p. 165 No. 2105.

Kamalakarabhatta

925

when the sun was in Scorpion and the moon in Taurus.1418 There fore the literary activity of Nandapandita must be placed between 1580 and 1630 A. D. Mardilk in his Hindu Law (p. 281) says that the Vaijayanti of Nandapandita is referred to in the Vyavahāramayukha of Nilakantha. I have not been able to find the reference in the latter work,