- Nilakanthabhaṭṭa In my introduction to the Vyavabāramayukha (Poona, 1926) pp. V-XLIV, I have dealt exhaustively with the personal
H. D. 118
938
history of Nilakantha, his works, their contents, their position in dharmaśāstra literature, the period of Nilakantha’s literary activity and his position in modern Hindu Law. In the following a brief résumé of the conclusions there arrived at is given.
Nilakantha was a grandson of Nārāyanabhatta and a son of Śhaṅkarabhatta. Śhaṅkarabhatta was a profound mimāṁsaka and composed several works on mimāṁsā, viz. a com. on the Śāstradipikā, the Vidhirasāyaṇadusana, the Mimamsābalaprakasa. He also wrote Dvaitanirṇaya (vide Annals of the Bhandarkar Institute, vol. III part 2. pp. 67-72 for an account of it) and the Dharmaprakāśa or Sarvadharmaprakāśa. Nilakantha composed an encyclopaedia of religious and civil law, styled Bhagavanta bhaskara, in honour of his patron Bhagavantadeva, a Bundella chieftain of the Sengara clan, that ruled at Bhareha near the confluence of the Jumna and the Chambal. This work is divided into 12 sections ( called mayukhas ‘rays ‘) on samskāra, ācāra, kāla (or samaya ), srāddha, niti, vyavahāra, dāna, utsarga, pratișthā, prāyaścitta, suddhi, śānti. These have been printed at Benares and some of them have been printed in Bombay at the Gujarati Press and all twelve between 1921–28 A. D. by Mr. Ghar pure. Besides this encyclopaedia he composed also a work called
Vyavahāratattva, which is a summary of the Vyavahāramayukha, and probably a work styled Dattakanirṇaya. The Vyavahāra tattva has been for the first time published by me as appendix I to my edition of the Vyavahāramayukha.
In Mss. of the several Mayūkhas there are introductory verses which set out a royal family called Sengara, the first named king being Karna, followed by more than a dozen kings, King Bhagavantadeva of that family directed Bhatta Nilakantha to write a work (nibandha). The work was called Bhagavanta bhāskara and as the sun (Bhāskara ) is also called ‘Dvadasātma’ (as in Amarakośa ) the work is divided into twelve parts (called Mayūkhas ). It appears from some Mss. that Sarkara, son of Nilakaptha, had something to do with the Saṁskāramayūkba (vide footnote ).1448
1448 Several Magūkhas have the following verses ‘315 TTTT
विबुधकुलमणिर्दाक्षिणात्यावतंसो भट्टः श्रीनीलकण्ठः स्मृतिषु दृढमतिजैमिनीयेs द्वितीयः। आज्ञामादाय मूर्ना सविनयममुना तस्य सर्वान् निबन्धान् दृष्ट्वा सम्यग्वि
(Continued on the next page )
- Nilakanthabhatta
939
Nilakantha is one of the foremost nibandhakaras. Being brought up in a family that had made the study of mimāṁsā its own for several generations, he is very acute in applying the maxims and rules of mimamsā to dharmaśāstra. He stands unsurpassed by any mediaeval Sanskrit writer on dharmaśāstra in mastery over the vast smsti lore, in lucidity of exposition, in conciseness and ease of style, in clarity of vision and sobriety of judgement. Though he admired the learning and labours of such predecessors as Vijñānesvara, Hemadri and others, he does not slavishly follow their dicta and expresses his dissent from them most frankly.
His Vyavahāramayukha was held to be a work of paramount authority by the Bombay High Court before 1956 ( when Hindu law was codified) in certain parts of India–Gujerat, the island of Bombay and northern Konkan.1449 Even in the other parts of the Bombay Presidency such as the Maratha country and the Ratnagiri District the Vyavahāramayukha occupies a very
(Continued from the previous page) चार्य त्रिजगति भगवद्भास्करस्तन्यतेयम् ॥ संस्काराचारकालाः समुचितरचनाः श्राद्धनीतिर्विवादो दानोत्सर्गप्रतिष्ठा जगति जयकराः सङ्गतार्थानुबद्धा: । प्राय श्चित्तं विशुद्धिस्तदनु निगदिता शान्तिरेवं क्रमेण ख्याता ग्रन्थेऽत्र शुद्ध बुधजन HEET TEET H ET: 11 Both occur in 34727TH. (verses 11-12 ),
CH. (verses 10-11), fyrr. (verses 12, 14), saft. ( verses 11, 13 ), Tiia. ( 13, 15) In Gharpure’s edition of the Mayūk has we have, in #FATT #ie the 2nd verse as : s1976 1917 fi ferCAT 2014 augusta जननी च गङ्गाम् । तत्यादचिन्तनबलो बुधशङ्कराख्यः संस्कारभास्करममुं वितनोति 27991T | 2nd verse of #FICATE (Gharpure’s ed, of 1927 ), Nīti means ‘Rājuniti’, Utsarga means dedication to the public of wells, lanks, gardens, temples and the like; Vivāda means here ‘substantive and adjective law’; Pratiṣtbā means the establisbment of images of gods and lingas in temples. Suddhj ineaps purifyiny articles of gold, silver, copper, stones, conches, purification after a birth or death; Sānti means rites for averting evil effects of portentous phenomena, evil conjun.
ctions of stars and planets &c.
1449 Vide Lallubhai 1, Munkuvarbai I. L. R. 2 Bom. 388 at p. 418,
I. L. R. 6 Bom. 541 at p. 546; J. L. R. 14 Bom. 612 at. pp. 623-624, I. L. R. 24 Bom. 367 (F. B.) at p. 373.
940
important place though it was subordinate to the Mitāksarā2450 The general principle, on which the Bombay High Court acted in construing the rules laid down in the Mitāksarā and the Vyava hāramayukha, is that the two works are to be harmonized with one another wherever and so far as that is reasonably possible.1451 Though the Mitakṣarā is a paramount authority in the Maratha country and the Ratnagiri District and though it is silent about the sister’s right as a gotraja heir, the courts, in deference to the authority of the Vyavaharamayukha, have assigned to the sister a high place as an heir even in the Maratha country and in Ratnagiri. Among the other Mayūkhas, the Samskāramayukha has been frequently relied upon by the courts,1452 The Praya Ścittamayukha and the Pratiṣthāmayūkha 1453 have also been relied upon in the High Court.
The period of Nilakantha’s literary activity can be settled within very narrow limits. He was the youngest son of Śhaṅkara bhatta. In the Dvaitanirṇaya, Śhaṅkarabhatta quotes the views of the Todarānanda which, as we saw above, must have been composed between 1570 and 1589 A. D. So the Dvaitanirṇaya could not have been composed before i590 A. D. Nilakantha, the youngest son of Śhaṅkarabhatta, could hardly have commenced his literary career earlier than Kamalakarabhatta who was the second son of Śhaṅkarabhasta’s elder brother. Kamalākara com posed his Nirṇayasindbu in 1612 A. D. The Nirnayasindhu is mentioned in the Samayamayakha (p. 67) and in Suddhimayu kha p. 23 (both in Gharpure’s ed.) and Bhattoji-Dikṣita is mentioned in Acāramayukha (p. 54). Nilakantha refers to his father’s Dvaitanirṇaya in Sraddhamay kha p. 59.
It may be noted that a work called Sāntikaustubha by Nilakantha is described in Prof. Devasthali’s Cat. of the Sanskrit
1450 Vide Krishnaji v Pandurany 12 Bom. H. C. R. 65 at pp.
67-68: 5 Bom. H. C. R.( A.C. J.) 181 at p. 185; 7 Boin. H.C.
R. (A. C. J.) at p. 169; I. L. R. 14 Bom. 612 at p. 616. 1151 Gojabai v, Shrimant Shahajirao I. L. R. 17 Bom. 114 at p. 118
and Kesserbai x. Ilunsraj I. L. R. 30 Bom. 431 at p. 442 (P. C.). 1452 I. L. R. 2 Bom. 388 at p. 423; I. L. R. 3 Bom. 353 at p. 361;
I. L. R. 32 Bom. 81 at pp. 88 and 96; 46 Bom, at p. 881. 1453 Vide Parami v. Muhalevi I. L. R. 34 Bom. 278 at p. 283 ( for
qfice) and 22 Bom. L. R. p. 331 ( for faste ).113.
The Viramitrodaya of Mitramiśra
941
1
mss. in the Bombay University Library (No. 1162 on p. 415 ). It seems to be different from the Sāntimayukha of Nilakantha, The ms. is dated sake 1698 ( 1776 A. D.) So Nilakantha’s literary activity must have commenced a good deal after 1610. One ms. of the Vyavahāratattva bears the date sarnyat 1700 (1644 A. D.) This shows that the Vyavahāratativa was composed not later than 1644 A. D. The Vyavahāratattva refers to the Vyavahārama yūkha as already composed. Hence we may say, without being far from the truth, that Nilakantha’s literary career falls between 1610 and 1645 A. D. This date is confirmed by the fact that Nilakantha’s son Śhaṅkara wrote the Kundabhāskara in 1671 A. D. and Divākarabhatta, the son of Nilakantha’s daughter, composed his Ācārārka in 1686 A. D. It appears that there was probably a rivalry between the two great cousins Kamalākarabhatta and Nilakantha. On many matters their views diverged. Though the Nirnayasindhu is said to have been composed in 1668 of the Vikrama era, yet from the references to several works of his own in the Nirnayasindhu it looks as if Kamalakara revised it from time to time by adding on references to his own other works and to those of others. The Nirnayasindhu (III pariccheda, section on Dattakagrahana ) emphatically says that he who asserts the absence of ownership in one’s son in spite of Vedic indica tions is a fool.145+ la is not unreasonable to suppose that this is a hit at Nilakantha who must have been younger than Kamalā kara and who tries hard in his Vyavahāramayūkha to establish that there is no ownership in one’s wife and children.