- Bālakṣsna or Bālambhatta The Lakṣmivyākhyāna alias the Bālambhatti is a commentary on the Mītāksarā of Vijñāneśvara, ascribed to a lady named Laksmidevi. The commentary is a voluminous one and displays uneven workmanship. The commentary on the acāra section of the Mitāksarā is the most learned part of the whole book and is almost an independent work. The late Mr. J. R. Gharpure published all the three parts on acara (pp. 626), Vyavahāra (pp. 402) and Prāyaścitta (pp. 220). The portion on Prayascitta is very meagre as compared with the portion of the com. on Acāra and Vyavahāra. The commentary on the Prāyascitta portion of the Mitā kṣarā covers in Mr. Gharpure’s edition (published in 1924) 220 pages, while the Balambhatti on the ācāra and Vyavahāra sections in the same series is very exhaustive, covering respectively pp. 626 and pp. 402.
In the Balambhatti the author quotes by name a host of writers and works. As the Balambhatti is almost the latest work of Dharmaśāstra worth special mention in this work, no useful chronological purpose will be served by giving the names of all such writers and works. It may, however, be stated that he names the Nirnayasindhu, the Viramitrodaya, the Mayūkhas of Nilakantha, the Samskārakaustubha, Siddhesvarabhatta the nep hew of Nilakantha, Khandadeva the author of Bhāttadipikā on the Mimāṁsāsūtra, the Kayasthadharmapradipa of Gāgābhatta and the author’s father’s commentary thereon.
Of the Bālambbaṭṭi ascribed to Lakṣmidevī, West and Būhler say ‘she generally advocates latitudinarian views and gives the widest interpretation possible to every term of Yājñavalkya. Her opinions are held in comparatively small esteem and are hardly ever brought forward by the śāstris, if unsupported by other authorities ‘.1509 For example, in the Bālambhatti the word
• bhrātaraḥ“, occurring in Yajñavalkya’s verses laying down the order of succession to a man dying without male issue, is inter preted as including sisters and the author says that sisters succeed immediately after brothers. 510 This dictum of Balam
1509 Digest of Hindu Law, 3rd ed. p. 17. 1510
TRIEU TUTH att ge strat a HT FTAT L’
a ut p. 200 (Gharpure) on 413. II. 135; “agai fe #g: ET: 7 FTE: JET: 28:’ p. 210.
- Balakrsna or Bālambhotta
969
bhatta taken along with the words of the Vyavahāramayukha seems to have influenced their Lordships of the Privy Council in Vinayak v. Lakshmibai on the question of the rights of the sister as an heir.1511 In Sakharam v. Sitabai1512 Sir Michael Westropp C. J. went so far as to say on the construction of the term ‘brethren’ in the Mitākṣarı as including sisters, which construction was adopted in that case (in Vinayak v. Lakshmi bai) both by the Supreme Court and the Privy Council, “ we must treat the Mitākṣarā also as preferring sisters to half brothers, whom it brings in after brothers.” But this was a mere obiter dictum, since the case in which these observations were made was governed by the law of the Vyavahāramayukha which ex pressly prefers full sisters to half brothers. It has been laid down in several cases in Bombayl513 that Bālambhatta’s doctrine that the word “brothers’ includes’ sisters’ has not been accepted in that Presidency and that Sir Michael Westropp was under a misapprehension as to the exact drift of the Bālambhatti which nowhere says that the term ‘brothers’ excludes half brothers and which does not bring in the full sister before the half bro ther, but expressly says that the full brother inherits first, then the half brother and then comes the sister. The Balambhatti not only brings in the sisters after full and half brothers, but places the sons and daughters of sisters after ibe sons and daughters of brother’s, full or half. This is in direct conflict with the order of succession expressly mentioned by the Mitākșarā and the Bombay High Court has refused to give the sister’s son the place which the Bālambhatti assigns to him and treats him as a mere bandhu.1514 The Bālambhatti is regarded as of little authority in the interpretation of the Milākṣarī in the Bombay Presidency and its interpretations cannot be accepted without due caution and examination. 515 Even in the Benares1516 School where the Balam
1511 9 Moo. I. A, 516 = 1 Bom, H, C, R 117 at pp. 122–123; vide also
Schharam 2. Sitabai I. L. R. 3 Bon 353 at pp. 360 and 363, 1512 I. L. R. 3 Buin, 353 at p. 363. 1513 Vide Mulji v. Cursanılas Natha 21 Bom. 563 at p. 579 and
Bhagwan v. Harubai I, L, R. 32 Bom. 300 at p. 305. 1514 Vide Bhagwan v. Warubai I. L. R. 32 Bom. 300 at p. 312. 1515 Vide Dattatraya v. Gangabai I, L. R. 46 Bom. 557 at p. 558, 1516 Vide Tulshi Ram v. Behari Lal I. L, R. 12 All, 328 at p.
368 (F, B.). H, D. 122
970
bhatti has been accepted as one of the leading authorities, the authority of Balambhatta has been held to be inferior to that of Nandapandita in matters of adoption, it being held that a widow cannot adopt in the Benares School without express authority from her husband ( while Balambhatta holds that she can adopt without such authority). Similarly it has been held that the Balambhatti cannot prevail over the views of the Viramitrodaya and that a daughter-in-law is not in the line of heirs at all though the Balambhatti says that she is so.1517
The author of the Bālambhatti is somewhat of an enigma. Such women as Silā, Vijjā, Avanti-sundari have been worshippers at the shrine of the Muse of Poetry. A lady has been associ ated with the composition of a work on Mathematics, viz. the Lilāvati. Inspiration for several works on Dharmaśāstra was, we know, derived from queens and princesses, as in the case of the Vivādacandra compiled by Queen Laksmidevi through Misaru miśra, the Dānavākyāvali compiled by Mahādevi Dhiramati of Mithila through Vidyapati, the Dvaitanirṇaya composed by Vacaspati at the bidding of queen Jaya, wife of king Bhaira vendra. It gives one great pleasure to contemplate that at least one work on Dharmaśāstra, the Balambhattī, is claimed by a lady as her own. But this pleasure receives a rude shock if the question of the authorship of the Balambhatti is dispassionately considered. The introductory verses no doubt start by saying that Lakṣmi, the wife of Vaidyanātha Payagunda, and the daughter of Mahādeva of the Mudgala gotra and surnamed Kherada composed the work, her maiden name being Umā.1518 The colophon at the end of the acāra portion says that the work was composed by Lakṣmi, the daughter of Mahādeva and Umā, the wife of Vaidyanātha Payagunda and the mother of Bala
1517
1518
I. L. R. 9 Cal. 315 at p. 324; etde also I. L. R. 16 Cal. 367 at pp. 376-77 ( about brother’s widow). श्रीलक्ष्मीरमणं नत्वा लक्ष्मीलक्ष्मी शिशुप्रसू: । खेरडामुद्गलापत्यगणेशापत्यकृष्णकः । महादेवः सुतस्तस्य वेदमूर्तिर्जटान्तवित् । श्रौतस्मार्थिनिपुणो दीक्षितो राजपूजितः॥ पत्नी तस्य झुमारूपा साध्व्युमा तस्य कन्यका । पायगुण्डोपाख्यवैद्यनाथपत्नी पति gati HATTAT Faalā age Hall at Thet, Intro. verses of आचारकाण्ड.116.
Balakrsna or Balambhatta
971
519
52
krsna.1519 At the end of the vyavahāra section in the printed editions we have the words ‘mother of Lālākļṣṇa’ but this is obviously a misreading of the mss. or a mistake of the copyists. The pretence that the work was composed by a lady is made extremely plausible by the frantic efforts made in it for the rights of women in matters of inheritance. But this pretence is not kept up in the body of the work at all. In several places the author of the Balambhatti refers to the Mañjūṣı and other works of his guru and to works of his father.1520_We know that Vaidyanatha Payagunda was a pupil of Nāgojibnatta,152 1 who composed several Mañjūśis (on grammar) and a work on prāyaścitta. Therefore it follows either that the Balambhatti was composed by Vaidyanātha himself and ascribed to his wife or that the work was composed by Bālakrśna alias Bālambhatta, son of Vaidyanatha, and was ascribed to his mother. Nagoji. bhatta who certainly attained a very advanced age was the guru of Vajdyanātha as well as of the latter’s son Bālakṣṣna. That Balakrsna or Balambhatta Payagunda was a learned man like his father Vaidyanatha follows fruill several circumstances. He wrote a work called Up.ikstitattva.1522 Gopala alias Manudeva, in his commentary called Laghubhūsanakanti on the Vaiyakara
1519 इति श्रीमन्मिताक्षराव्याख्याने महादेवभट्टात्मजोमाङ्गजवैद्यनाथार्धाङ्गभूतबालक
जननीपायगुण्ड इत्युपाख्य श्रीलक्ष्मीदेवीविरचिते लक्ष्म्यभिधे आचारप्रकरणम् ।. Vide for an identical colophon at the end of the व्यवहार section, I. O. cat, pp. 369-370 No. 1282 and Aufrecht’s Oxford
cat. p. 262 b. 1520 e. g. आचार. p. 448 ‘अत्र मनुवाक्ये नञोल्पार्थकत्वेन यागीयहिंसायामपि
स्वल्पदोषोस्त्येवेति प्रतिपादितं गुरुचरणैर्मञ्जूपायाम् । विशदीकृतं चैतत् पाषण्ड खण्डनेपि अष्टपशुप्रकरणेस्माभिरिति दिक’; p. 314 तथा उग्रादिरूपक्षत्रियसत्त्वेपि तेषां न क्षत्रियत्वं किं तु शूद्रत्वमेवेति गुरुचरणकृतव्रात्यप्रायश्चित्तनिर्णये स्पष्टम् । तत एव बोध्यम् । स्फुटीकृतं चैतपितृचरणैः कायस्थनिर्णये ।… तत्सर्व गागाभट्टकृतकाय स्थप्रदीपे पितृचरणकृततत्प्रदीप च स्पष्टमिति नेह प्रपञ्च्यते । ‘. The first passage is not properly arranged in Mr. Gharpure’s edition;
vide p. 415 for व्रात्यप्रायश्चित्तनिर्णय. 1521 वैद्यनाथः पायगुण्डो नत्वा नागेश्वरं गुरुम् । व्याख्यां प्रभाख्यां तनुते कौस्तुभस्य
स्वबुद्धये ॥. Vide I. O. cat. p, 163 No. 610 for the प्रभा, a com.
on भट्टोजि’ शब्दकौस्तुभ. 1522 Vide Stein’s cat. p. 302 श्रीम्हालसापति नत्वा खण्डेराय कपर्दिनम् । पाय
गुण्डो बालकृष्णः प्राह तत्त्वमुपाकृतौ।।
972
nabhūṣaṇasāra, styles Bālambhatta Payagunda his guru.1523 Looking to the colophons where Lakṣmi is referred to as the mother of Balakrsna and to the fact that the work is known as Bālambhatti, we must conclude that it was composed by Balam bhatta and not by his father Vaidyanātha. What motive impelled Bālambharta to publish the work in the name of his mother it is difficult to say. Tradition says that he did so to console Lakṣmidevi in her bereavement on the death of a child. Vaidya nātha composed several commentaries on grammatical works such as on the Mahābhāṣyapradipoddyota of Nāgojibhatta, on the Paribhāșendusekbara (com. called Kāskā and Gadā), on the Vaiyakarana-siddhantamañjūṣā (com. called Kalā), on the Laghuśabdendusekhara (com. Cidasthimālā ), on the Laghu sabdaratna (com. Bhavaprakāśa). Mr. Govinda Das (p. 27 in Mr. Gharpure’s edition of acāra portion ) says that these works were really composed by Bālambhatta and ascribed to his father. In these grammatical works the names of Vaidyanatha’s parents are given as Mabadeva and Veni.
The 1. O. cat. (pp. 458-59, No. 1507) notices an incom plete work called Dharmaśāstrasamgraha compiled by Bālasarman Pāyagunda, son of Vaidyanātha and Lakṣmi and patronised 1524 by Colebrooke. The work dealt with topics of civil law, viz. definition of vyavahāra, sabhā, the judge, the sabhyas, the rela tive strength of smstis etc., return of debts etc. It breaks off at folio 79. On the ms, there is a note in Colebrooke’s own hand (which is not complimentary to the honesty of Balasar
1523 बालम्भट्टाभिधं पायगुण्डोपाख्यं परं गुरुम् । गोपालदेवनामाऽसौ पण्डितो बालबुद्धये।।
Boulang at I ATTATTFTT: 1 I. O. cat. p. 189 No. 717 and Prof. Velankar’s Cat. of Iccharam S. Desai Collection of Mss.
No. 1592, p. 294. 1524 श्रीकोंपणी विजयते रणरङ्गधीरः ॥ ४ श्रीशं नत्वा श्रीनिवासी दाक्षिणात्यो निबन्धकृत् ।
नागेशपादनिरतो वैद्यनाथात्मजः सुधीः ।। ५ सुमनःकुलुबुरुकसाहेबाल्लब्धजीविकः । लक्ष्मीसू नुर्भवान्यम्बो विप्रद्वयविलेखकः ॥ ६ धर्मशास्त्रिमहादेवमन्तू (नु ?) देव #679*: 1 9711ac: 414TVETTATA*: 116. It appears from the words ‘son of Lakṣıni and who had a mother (step-mother) called Bhavāni’ that Bālasarwan Payagunda (or Pāyagunile) bad a step-mother also. Vide Dr. Raghavan in ‘New Indian Antiquary’ Vol. I. p. 404 referring to a work called Avimu ktatattva (on the greatness of Benares ).
- Balakrsna or Balambhatta
973
man) dated 1st May 1800; “fresh sheets were received from Balaśarma Payagunda on this date. This is little else but the Viramitrodaya revised. As it is a scarce book and very little known Bālasarma and his pupil Manudeva did not suspect, I could detect the plagiarism.”
The foregoing show’s that Balakrsna Payagunda was a Deccani Brāhmaṇa, that his father and mother were Vaidya nātha and Laksmi, that his maternal grandfather was Mahadeva, also a Deccani Brāhmana surnamed Kheradā, that he was the pupil of Nāgojibhatta and that he was a pandit of Colebrooke Mr. Govinda Das is not right when he identifies (p. 27) Vaidya nātha the commentator of several grammatical works of Nago jibhatta with Vaidyanātha the author of several commentaries on Alankāra works (such as the Udāharaṇacandrikā on Kavya prakāśa and the Prabhii on the Kavyapradipa ). The reasons are two. Vaidyanatha, author of the Udāharaṇacandrikā, was the son of Rāmabhatta, son of Vitthala Tatsat, while Vaidya nātha the granımarian was a son of Mahādeva and Veṇi. Besides the Udāharanacandrika was composed1526 in samvat 1740 Kārtika śuddha 8, Wednesday (i. e. 17th October 1683 ). We saw above that Vaidyanātha Payagunda was a pupil of Nāgoji, who flouri shed towards the end of 17th and the first half of the 18th century. If Vaidyanātha, the writer on poetics, were the same as the commentator of Nāgoji, he could not have composed a a work on poetics so early as 1683 A. D. Dr. Belvalkar (Systems of Sanskrit Grammar p. 60) says . Lakṣmidevi, the wife of king Candrasimha of Mithila, was probably his patro ness in whose honour he is reported to have composed a commentary on the Vyavahārakānda of the Mitaksarā.’ This throws to the winds all chronology. We saw above (pp. 399 and 404 ) that the Mithila princess Lakṣmi or Lachimadevi flourished in the first half of the 15th century, while the Bālambhatti quoting, as it does, writers and works like Gāga
1525 Vide I. O. cat. p. 329 No. 1151 for the 371&URAT and its
date वियद्वेदमुनिक्ष्माभिभितेब्दे कार्तिके सिंत । बुधाष्टम्यामिमं ग्रन्थं वैद्यनाथोभ्य TYT 11; vide Stein’s cat, pp. 60, 61, 62, and 80 for com mentaries on the watatu, 99341aoa, Fig117 and the af by #9714, son of TFT.
974
bhatta and the Kaustubha could not have been composed before 1700 A. D.
Mr. Govinda Das says that a ms, of the acarakanda of the Bālambhatti in the Benares palace library is dated samvat 1831 (i. e. 1774-75 A. D.). The I. O. cat. (pp. 458-459 ) notices that Bālambhatta was about 80 years old when Colebrooke entrusted the Dharmaśāstrasamgraha to him about 1800 A. D. Besides both Balambhatta and his father Vaidyanātha were the pupils of Nāgojibhatta. The ms. of the Upākrtitattva (Stein’s Jammu cat. p. 302) is dated savivat 1848 i. e. 1791-92 A. D. and the ms. of the Laghubhūṣanakānti of Bālambhatta’s pupil is dated sarvat 1856 ( i. e. 1799–1800 A. D.). Hence is follows that Bālambhatta must have flourished between 1730 and 1820 A. D. Mr. Govinda Das says that Balambhatta died at the age of 90 and gives his dates as 1740 to 1830 A. D. (p. 29 of Mr. Gharpure’s ācāra section of Bālambhatti at the end ).