The Vyavaharamayukha of Bhatta Nilakantha, by P.V. Kane

That's French for "the ancient system," as in the ancient system of feudal privileges and the exercise of autocratic power over the peasants. The ancien regime never goes away, like vampires and dinosaur bones they are always hidden in the earth, exercising a mysterious influence. It is not paranoia to believe that the elites scheme against the common man. Inform yourself about their schemes here.

The Vyavaharamayukha of Bhatta Nilakantha, by P.V. Kane

Postby admin » Sun Jun 06, 2021 6:13 am

The Vyavaharamayukha of Bhatta Nilakantha, With an Introduction, Notes and Appendices
by P.V. Kane
Vakil, High Court, Bombay; Zala Vedanta Prizeman; Mandlik Gold Medalist; Sometimes Professor of Sanskrit, Elphinstone College, Bombay; Fellow of the Bombay Asiatic Society; Member of the Senate of the Bombay University; Author of 'The History of Sanskrit Poetics', &c.
First Edition, 1,000 Copies
Price Rupees Ten.
Published by Dr. V.G. Paranjpe, M.A., LL.B., D. Litt., Secretary, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona
Printed by Ramchandra Yesu Shedge, at the 'Nirnaya-sagar' Press, 26-28, Kolbhat Lane, Bombay

Table of Contents: [PDF HERE]

• Preface
• Introduction
o Critical apparatus
o Family and personal history of Nilakantha
o The works of Nilakantha
o Period of Nilakantha’s literary activity
o The contents of the twelve Mayukhas
o The position of Nilakantha in Dharmas'astra Literature
o Nilakantha and other writers on Vyavahara
o The position of the Vyavaharamayukha in modern Hindu Law
o The present edition
• Analysis of the contents of the Text
• Errata
• Text
• Notes
• Appendix A (Text of Vyavaharatattva )
• Appendix B (Information about authors and works quoted in the work)
• Appendix C (List of works and authors quoted in the twelve Mayukhas )
• Appendix D (Mitaksara passages expressly criticised or quoted)
• Appendix E (Madanaratna passages quoted or criticized)
• Appendix F (Purvamimansa doctrines
• Appendix G (Index of quotations)
Site Admin
Posts: 33488
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Vyavaharamayukha of Bhatta Nilakantha, by P.V. Kane

Postby admin » Sun Jun 06, 2021 6:38 am

List of abbreviations and of some of the works relied upon in this edition.

B. G. = Bombay Gazetteer volumes.
B. I. = Bibliotheca Indica (edition of a work).
Bik. = Bikaner (catalogue of mss. at).
Bom. L. R. = Bombay Law Reporter.
Cat. = Catalogue.
E. I. = Epigraphia Indica.
I. A. = Indian Antiquary.
I. L. R. = Indian Law Reports.
I. O. Cat. = Catalogue of mss. at the India Office in London.
J. B. B. R. A. S. = Journal of the Bombay Branch Royal Asiatic Society.
L. R. I. A. = Law Reports, Indian Appeals.
Moo. I. A. = Moore’s Indian Appeals.
Nirn. = Nirnaya-sagar edition (of a work).
S. B. E. = Sacred Books of the East (series, edited by Prof. Max Muller).
[x]— ( Anandas'rama edition, Poona).
[x] — (Anandas'rama edition, Poona).
[x]= (Buhler’s edition of 1868).
[x] = (Mysore Govt. Bibliographica Sanskritica No. 1).
[x] ( B. I. edition).
[x] = (Anandas'rama edition).
[x] = (Weber’s edition).
[x] = (Anandas'rama edition).
[x] of Hemadri (Bibliotheca Indica edition)
[x] — Benares Sanskrit (Pandit) series.
[x] — Benares Sanskrit (Pandit) series.
[x] — (edition of 1829 with the commentary of [x])
[x] — A ms. from the Deccan College Collection.
[x] — [x] (edited by Dr. Jolly).
[x] = [x] of [x] ( Nirn. edition ).
[x] — commentary on the (Chaukhamba Sanskrit series).
[x] = [x] (Bombay Sanskrit series).
[x] = The [x] of [x].
[x] = [x] of [x] (B. I. edition, with the [x] of [x]).
[x] = [x]
[x] = [x] (Mysore Govt. Sanskrit Series).
[x] = [x] (B. I. edition).
[x] = [x] (Nirn. edition).
[x] = [x] (Bombay edition).
[x] = [x], commentary on the[x] (ed. by Mr. Gharpure).
[x] = [x] (Nirn. edition).
[x] = [x] on the [x] (Mandlik's edition).
[x] = The [x] (ed. by Mr. Gharpure).
[x] = [x] (Bombay Sanskrit Series).
[x] = [x]
[x] = [x] (edited by Dr. Jolly)
[x] = [x] (B. I. edition).
[x] = Trivandrum edition of the [x]
[x] = [x] (Jivananda’s edition of 1875 of the [x] portion).
[x] = [x]
[x] or [x] or [x] = [x]
[x] = [x] (edited by Foulkes).
[x] = [x] of [x] (Nirn. edition).
[x] = edited by Mr. Gharpure.
[x] = [x] of [x] (edited by Mr. Gharpure).
Site Admin
Posts: 33488
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Vyavaharamayukha of Bhatta Nilakantha, by P.V. Kane

Postby admin » Sun Jun 06, 2021 6:39 am


This edition of the Vyavaharamayukha was entrusted to me by the late Prof. S. R. Bhandarkar. I am very sorry that the edition took so many years. But, owing to various causes over many of which I had no control, I could not finish the work quickly. At one time I had almost made up my mind to give up the undertaking altogether. For one reason I do not regret the long delay that has occurred. The years that I spent in collecting materials have been of great help to me in making the annotations exhaustive and have also induced me to undertake another work, viz. the history of Dharmasastra literature.

I am under a deep debt of gratitude to several friends for help in various directions. I must make special mention of Dr. S. K. Belvalkar, Prof. H. D. Velankar of the Wilson College, Bombay, Mr. V. C. Koparkar of Nagpur and Mr. D. K. Karaudikar of Dapoli,.
Site Admin
Posts: 33488
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Vyavaharamayukha of Bhatta Nilakantha, by P.V. Kane

Postby admin » Sun Jun 06, 2021 9:34 am

Part 1 of 2


I. Critical Apparatus

The present edition of the Vyavaharamayukha of Nilakantha is based on the following editions and manuscripts: —

(A.) The oblong lithographed edition of 1826 published at Bombay by ‘Shreeorustna Jagannathjee’ under the patronage of the Government of Bombay and printed at the Courier Press. This edition is, for the time when it was published, a very accurate one. There are a few misprints and mistakes. It does not say what mss. were consulted and no various readings are given. It gives references to editions of the Manusmrti and Yajnavalkyasmrti that were published before it. At the end there is a table of contents and a list of errata is given at the beginning. This edition contains 244 pages with eight lines on each page.

(B.) This is a paper ms. belonging to the Deccan College Collection, No. 67 of 1879-80, written on 73 folios, having 16 lines on each page up to folio 32 and 12-15 thereafter. There is no date at the beginning or at the end. It looks to be about 100 years old. The handwriting is not good. Red vertical double lines are used to indicate quotations.

(C.) This ms. is No. 120 of the Vis'rambag collection (i) written on 85 folios. There are generally eleven lines on each page. It is written very carelessly, though in a good hand. There is no date at the beginning or at the end. The ms. appears to be a hundred years old. There are many omissions of words and lines through oversight.

(D.) This ms. is No. 121 of the Vis'rambag collection (i). There are 100 leaves with 10 or 11 lines on each page. It is written in a clear, bold hand, but rather carelessly. The copyist was probably altogether ignorant of Sanskrit and wrote to dictation. The colophon at the end shows that it was copied in samvat 1820 i.e. 1764 A. D.

(E.) This ms. is No 296 of the Vis'rambag collection (ii). It is incomplete and contains 98 folios, out of which 1, 5-34, 48 and 85-94 are wanting. The writer was an illiterate and careless scribe, though he wrote a good hand. This ms. omits very frequently words and sentences through oversight.

(F.) This is a ms. belonging to the Bhau Daji collection of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic society. It contains 91 folios with 9 or 10 lines on each page. It is well written and is tolerably correct, but frequently omits words and even lines. Corrections are made in a smaller and more beautiful hand, probably by another scribe. The original readings of F agree remarkably with B and D, but the corrections make it differ from them. In a few cases whole pages are omitted, though the ms. itself presents consecutively numbered pages.

(G.) A ms. from the Library of the Calcutta Sanskrit College, containing 95 folios with 12 lines (sometimes only 8 or 10) On each page. It is written in a bold and beautiful hand. Corrections are made in another ink but probably by the same hand. Two folios, 44-45, are missing, though on the first page it is described as complete. From folio 80 there is confusion. Probably the leaves of the original were carried off by the wind when the scribe was copying. He collected the leaves together but changed their order and copied down the leaves so shuffled up. The ms. looks modern and must not be more than 100 years old.

(H.) A ms. from the Library of the Calcutta Sanskrit College in Bengali characters containing 78 folios with 8 or 9 lines on each page. Though described as complete on the title page, it stops at the title called [x]. This ms. is very incorrect and full of lacuna, very often due to the fact that the scribe's eye ran from one word to the same word occurring a few lines later. The ms is modern, about 50 years old.

(K.) This is the Benares lithographed edition of 1879 printed at the Kas'i-Sanskrta Yantralaya. This edition often confounds the letters [x] and [x], [x] and [x], [x] and [x]. There are numerous mistakes arising from the inability to read correctly the original from which this edition was printed. This edition does not give various readings and was probably based upon a single ms. This edition agrees remarkably with A, C and G, particularly with C even in the matter of omissions.

(M.) This is the edition of the late Raosaheb V. N. Mandlik published in 1879 containing the text, translation and critical notes. This is a scholarly edition. It is based on six mss. and two printed editions. This edition is not now available in the market. It gives in the footnotes various readings and also references to some of the works quoted or referred to in the text.

(N.) This is a ms. belonging to the library of Srimant Raje Lakshmanrao Saheb Bhonsle of Nagpur (junior). It is well written and is tolerably correct. It has 136 folios with fourteen lines on each page. It is about a hundred years old. It is full of omissions. From the section on [x], a great confusion is visible. Probably the leaves of the original were blown away by the wind when the scribe was copying. The leaves were collected without any attempt at arranging them in consecutive order.

It will be seen from the above that mss. belonging to different parts of India have been utilised in preparing this edition. Among the mss. B, D, E, and F agree very closely, even in their mistakes and are probably copies of the same codex archetypus. C sometimes agrees with B D F and sometimes with G. C G and K show a remarkable agreement even in omissions. H is akin to G. M very often follows A. N seems to be an independent ms., though it generally presents the same readings as C and K and sometimes agrees with A and M. In the footnotes all important readings have been collected, only very palpable mistakes of copyists being generally omitted. Even such mistakes will sometimes be found in the footnotes purposely given for the sake of comparison.

The Vyavaharamayukha quotes very largely from the Manusmrti, the Yajnavalkya-smrti, the Narada-smrti and other smrti works. In the footnotes important variations from the printed editions of these works have been pointed out.

II. The family and personal history of Nilakantha

For several generations the family of which Nilakantha was a worthy scion held the first place among learned men in that ancient and far-famed seat of Sanskrit learning, the city of Benares. The Purvamimansa system and religions and ceremonial lore were the special forte of this family. Although biographies of learned men are very rare in India, as regards this family the case is somewhat different. Mahamahopadhyaya Haraprasad Sastri has brought to light a biography of this family written by a distinguished member of the family, Samkarabhtta, son of Narayanabhatta and father of Nilakantha (vide Indian Antiquary for 1912 vol. 41. pp 7-13).

Unfortunately the copy supplied to the Mahamahopadhyaya does not contain the first folio and the work, which is full of inaccuracies and omissions, comes abruptly to an end. The last chapter shows that Samkarabhatta, who was a very old man then, was weighed down with grief for the loss of a promising nephew. The work is styled Gadhivams'anucarita from the fact that the gotra of the family was Vis'vamitra.

The family migrated to Benares from the Deccan. According to tradition the home of the family was in the ancient and famous town of Paithan. The first member of the family, of whom some notices are preserved in works that were beyond doubt composed by the members of the family, was Govinda1. [[x]. Introduction to [x] of [x] But it has to be noted that in the commentary on the [x] composed by [x], two more ancestors are mentioned. [x] I.O. Cat. part II p. 303. I take [x] as the name and not [x] as some do. [x] was a famous name in Maharastra.] As the first folio of the Gadhivams'anucarita is not available, information about the founder of the family and its early fortunes is not forthcoming from that work.
In the Tristhalisetu of Narayanabhatta, the author refers to his ancestor Govinda and informs us that the gotra of the family was Vis'vamitra1. [[x] (mss. Deccan College No. 104 of 1892-95 and Vis'rambag i. No. 149).] Rames'vava was the son of Govinda. The copy of the Gadhivams'anucarita opens (on its second page) with a panegyric of Rames'varabhatta. He is said to have been very strong in Mimansa, grammar, logic and in philosophy. He wrote a poem styled Ramakutuhala in order to eclipse the fame of the Naisadhiya of S'riharsa. Numerous pupils flocked to him at Paithan on the Godavari. He is said to have cured of leprosy the son of an influential Mahomedan officer of the Ahmednagar state. He went to Kolhapur and thence to Vijayanagar, which was then ruled over by the famous Krsnaraya. He then started on a pilgrimage to Dvaraka. On his way to Dvaraka a son was born to him in s'ake 1435 caitra i.e. March 1513 A. D. This son later on became famous as Narayanabhatta. Rames'vara, after staying for four years at Dvaraka, came back to Paithan. After spending four more years at Paithan, Rames'varabhatta left for Benares2 [The Introduction to the [x] bears this out, [x].]. A second son named S'ridhara was born on the way and a third named Madhava at Kas'i3 [[x] vide I.O. Cat p. 531, Nos 1667-68 [x], son of [x]]. Rames'vara was advanced in age when his first son Narayana-bhatta was born. So he must have been quite an old man when he came to Benares. For some of his famous pupils, vide Indian Antiquary for 1912, p 9. Students from all parts of India came in crowds to Benares to learn at his feet and spread his fame throughout the length and breadth of India. Rames'vara died at a very advanced age and his wife became a sati.

Narayanabhatta learnt all the s'astras at the feet of his father1 [ ]. He is said to have engaged in constant disputations with the pandits of Eastern India, He vanquished Maithila and Gauda pandits at the house of Todarmal. It was he who raised Daksinatya pandits to that position of high eminence which they hold even now at Benares. He was the most illustrious member of his family and shod lustre on it by his giant intellect, his holiness and his ceaseless efforts in the cause of Sanskrit literature. Pandits all over India looked upon him as their patron and he spared neither money nor pains to help them. He was very fond of collecting and copying manuscripts. It is related that, when the Mussalmans razed the temple of Vis'ves'vara at Benares to the ground from religious bigotry and hatred, there was severe drought for a long time and that the Mahomedan ruler implored Narayanabhatta to propitiate Vis'ves'vara. Narayanabhatta propitiated Vis'ves'vara and copious rain fell in a day. Thereupon Nararyanabhatta induced the Mahomedan ruler to allow him to rebuild the temple of Vis'ves'vara. For his piety and learning Narayanabhatta was given the title of ‘Jagadguru’ and his family was given the first place of honour in the assembly of learned Brahmanas and at the recitations of the Vedas (mantrajagaras). The latter distinction continues in the family, it is said, even now. That Narayanabhatta was concerned with the rebuilding of the temple of Vis'ves'vara is vouched for by Divakarabhatta, a daughter’s son of Nilakantha, who was the grand-son of Narayanabhatta1 [[x] Introductory verse 4 to the [x]. Vide I.O. Cat. part III p. 547, No. 1708.]. But it is rather strange that the Gadhivams'anucarita is silent on this point (I. A. vol. 41 at p. 10). In the colophons to the several works of his descendants, Narayanabhatta is frequently styled ‘Jagadguru’.2 [e.g. [x] &c. Aufrecht's cat. of Sanskrit mss. in the Bodleian Library p. 277, No. 654.] Narayanabhatta wrote the Prayogaratna, the Tristhalisetu, the Antyestipaddhati, Rudrapaddhati, Divyanusthanapaddhati,3 [It is probably to this work that [x] in his [x] refers in the words [x] p. 457.] and numerous other works. He wrote a commentary on the Vrttaratnakara in the year 1602 of Vikramarka i.e. 1546 A. D.4 [[x] I.O. Cat. part II p. 304.] His works are even now used all over India and regulate the performance of religious ceremonial in modern times. His descendants speak of him as almost an avatara5 [[x] Introductory 3rd verse to the [x] of [x] (Nirn. ed).] of the Deity and as a profound Mimansaka.6 [[x] Intro. 4th verse to the [x] of [x] (No. 109 of the Deccan College collection of 1895-1902).] He appears to have composed a commentary on the S'astradipika of Parthasarathimis'ra, as his son S'amkarabhatta informs us.1 [My friend, Pandit Bakres'astri of Bombay, has a copy of the comment of [x] on the [x]. While commenting on the first [x], says [x]. At the end of the 6th [x] we have these words [x]. This shows that [x] commented on the first pada of the first [x] and the first two padas of the sixth [x] (of the [x]).] As he was born in 1513 and wrote a work in 1546 A. D, the literary activity of Narayanabhatta must be ascribed to the period between 1540 A. D. and 1680 A.D.

Narayanbhatta had three sons, Ramakrsnabhatta, S'amkarabhatta and Govindabhatta, the first being the eldest2 [In the [x] (Nirn. ed.) we read in one place [x].]. Ramakrsna also was a very learned man. He is spoken of as a helmsman in the deep ocean of the philosophy of the Bhatta (Kumarilabhatta) school and as unravelling the knotty points in other s'astras also and as having made his opponents look like glow-worms in the brilliance of his lore.3 [[x] Introductory verse to the [x].] He wrote a commentary on the Tantravartika, the Jivatpitrka-kartavya-nirnaya, the Jyotistomanaddhati, the Masikas'raddhanirnaya and other works. The Gadhivams'anucarita says that he died at the age of 52.

S'amkarabhatta, the second son of Narayanabhatta, was a profound Mimansaka. He wrote a commentary on the S'astradipika, to which frequent reference is made in his own work called the Dvaitanirnaya and in the Samskaramayukha, where it is styled S'astradipikaprakas'a. For an account of his Dvaitanirpaya, the Annals of the Bhandarkar Institute (vol. Ill, part 2, pp. 67-72) may be consulted. In this latter work, he distinctly states that he will conform to the views of southern writers.1 [[x] 8th intro. verse in the ms. of the [x] (No. 109 of 1895-1902 of the Deccan College Collection).] He wrote a work called Mimansabalaprakas'a (printed at Benares), in which he summarises the conclusions established in the twelve chapters of the Purvamimansasutra. Another work of his is the Dharmaprakas'a or Sarvadharmaprakas'a, in which his mother’s name is given as Parvati2 [[x] I.O. Cat part III, p. 482 No. 1564.] and in which he refers to his S'astradipikaprakas'a. Some of his other works are Vidhirasayanadusana, in which he refutes the Vidhirasayana of Appayyadiksita, the Nirnayacandrika, Vratamayukha. Bhattoji Diksita, author of the Siddhanta-kaumudi, was the most famous of his pupils.

The third son of Narayanabhatta was Govinda who died at the age of 48, leaving four sons (vide I. A. vol. 41 at p. 11).

Ramakrsna, the son of Narayana, had three sons, Dinakara alias Divakara, Kamalakara and Laksmana. The eldest of these was Dinakara3 [[x] 6th intro. verse to the [x]. 6th intro. verse to the [x] of [x].] and Laksmana was the youngest.4 [[x] 7th intro. verse, [x].] Their mother’s name was Uma and she seems to have immolated herself on the funeral pyre of her husband. The sons offer most touching reverence to their mother in their works.1 [[x] 5th intro. verse to the [x]. Intro. to the [x] and [x].] Dinakara alias Divakara wrote the Bhattadinakari or Bhattadinakaramimansa which is a commentary on the S'astradipika, the S'antisara, the Dinakaroddyota. This latter was a comprehensive digest, commenced by Dinakara and completed by his son Vis'ves'vara or Gagabhatta.2 [[x] vide Dr. Mitra's Bikaner cat. pp. 386-387; vide also I.O. Cat. part III, p. 505.] Kamalakarabhatta wrote no less than twenty-two works. Next to Narayanabhatta, Kamalakara and his cousin Nilakantha stand out as the most prominent and far-famed scions of this family of Bhattas. In some of Kamalakara’s works such as the S'antikamalakara and the commentary on the Kavyaprakas'a verses occur highly eulogising his proficience in all the s'astras.3 [[x] No. 433 of 1895-1902 of the Deccan College Collection and a ms. of the S'antiratna in the Bau Daji collection of the B.B.R.A.S.] He tells us that he composed his commentary on the Kavyaprakas'a for the diversion of his son Ananta. He composed his Nirnayasindhu in the year 1668 of the Vikrama era. i.e. in 1612 A. D.4 [[x] 6th verse at the end.] We learn from another source that this was his first work. Therefore his literary activity must have fallen between 1610 A. D. and 1640 A. D. Some of his important works are the Nirnayasindhu, the S'udrakamalakara, the Vivadatandava, the S'antikamalakara, the Vratakamalakara, the Purtakamalakara and the commentary on the Kavyaprakas'a. For a complete list vide the foot-note.1 [In the [x] he says at the end (I.O. Cat part III, p. 455 No. 1502) [x]; at the end of the [x] (also called [x] after the verse [x]: there is a list of 22 works [x].] The youngest of the three brothers, Laksmana, studied under Kamalakara and wrote the Acararatna, the Gotrapravararatna and a few other works.

S'amkarabhatta had four sons, Ranganatha, Damodara, Nrsimha and Nilakantha. Mandlik is not right in saying that S'amkarabhatta had two sons. In the Vyavaharatattva (vide appendix A) the colophon makes it clear that Nilakantha was the younger brother of the first three mentioned above. Similarly in the colophon to the Nitimayukha (Benares edition of 1880) Nilakantha is described as the younger brother of the first three mentioned above. The Dvaitanirnaya of S'amkarabhatta says that the author’s son Damodara wrote a supplement to the Dvaitanirnaya2 [[x]. Vide Annals of the Bhandarkar Institute, vol. III, part 2, p. 72.]. In the Vyavaharatattva Nilakantha refers to the work on matters forbidden in the Kali age composed by his eldest brother Damodara1 [[x]. p. 465.]. In the Acaramayukha Nilakantha refers to the Kalivarjyanirnaya of his elder brother (bhratrcaranah) and in the Prayas'cittamayukha to his eldest brother, without naming him. In the other Mayukhas also (such as those on S'raddha and Samaya) references occur to an elder brother. It is difficult to reconcile the fact that Damodara is spoken of as the eldest brother in the Vyavaharatattva with the fact that Rahganatha’s name occurs before that of Damodara in the colophon to the same work. An explanation may be hazarded that Ranganatha probably died early so that Damodara became the eldest or that Ranganatha might have been given away in adoption. It is also possible that the colophon is not exact as to the seniority among the brothers. It is significant that the Gadhivams'anucarita speaks of only Damodara, Nrsimha and Nilakantha. So it looks very probable that when S'amkarabhatta wrote the work in his old age, Ranganatha had passed away. The works of Nilakantha will be dealt with separately later on.

Dinakara alias Divakara had a son Vis'ves'vara better known as Gagabhatta. He officiated at the coronation of S'ivaji, the founder of the Maratha empire. Besides completing his father’s digest, the Uddyota, he wrote the Bhattacintamani, the Mimansakusumanjali2 [In the [x] ([x] p. 88 Chowkhamba series) he says [x].], the Kayasthadharmadipa and other works. His S'ivarkodaya is modelled on the lines of the S'lokavartika of Kumarila. In the Kayasthadharmadipa reference is made to Aurangzeb, to Rajagiri (Raigad fort) as the capital of S'iva (S'ivaji), to S'ahaji and Jija (the mother of S'ivaji) and to Balaji Kayastha, a minister of S'ivaji at whose instance the work was composed by Gagabhatta1 [I.O. Cat. vol. III, pp. 525-527, No. 1653.]. Kamalakarabhatta had three sons one of whom Ananta wrote a digest styled Ramakalpadruma on acara, samaya, s'raddha, utsarga, prayas'citta and similar matters.

Damodarabhatta had a son Siddhes'vara, who wrote a work called Samskaramayukha in samvat 1736 (i. e. 1679-80 A. D.). Nilakantha had two sons, S'amkara and Bhanu and a daughter. His wife’s name was Ganga2 [[x]. Intro. 2nd verse to the [x] of [x] (I.O. Cat. part III p. 433 No. 1464); [x] I.O. Cat. part III, p. 488 No. 1575.]. Nilakantha’s son S'amkarabhatta had a hand in editing the Samskaramayukha, as will be seen later on. He wrote the Kundoddyotadars'ana (or Kundabhaskara) in 1671 A. D.3 [I.O. Cat. part III p. 427 (foot-note). Peterson in his cat. of Ulwar mss. says that the Kundarka was printed in the [x] (p. 2), that that work was commented upon by [x], son of [x] and that [x] wrote one of his works, the [x], in 1636 (??).] Besides these he wrote the Vratarka, the Kundarka, the Karmavipaka. Bhanubhatta, another son of Nilakantha, wrote the Dvaitanirnayasiddh ntasamgraha, which is an epitome of the Dvaitanirnya, the Ekavastrasnanavidhi, and the Homanirpaya. The name of Nilakantha’s daughter was Ganga (probably in her husband’s family). She was married to Bhatta Mahadeva, of the Bharadvaja gotra, surnamed Kala (Kale in Marathi). Her son Divakarabhatta was a very learned man and compiled an extensive digest called Dharmas'astrasudhanidhi. Parts of that work are Acararka, the Danacandrika, the Ahnikacandrika, the Danahiravaliprakas'a &c. He composed his Acararka in the (Vikrama) year 1743 (i.e. 1686-87 A D.)1 [Vide I.O. Cat. part III, p. 509-510, No. 1616. The verses at the end are [x].] In that work he speaks of his maternal grandfather as the foremost among Mimansakas. In the Danahiravaliprakas'a he speaks of Nilakantha as possessed of the unclouded wisdom of Brhaspati and S'ukra2 [I.O. Cat. part III, p. 547, No. 1708, intro. verses 4-5 [x] (p. VIII, note 1) [x].]. From the introductory verses to the Danasamksepacandrika we find that his mother’s name was Ganga and father’s name Mahadeva3 [[x] I.O. Cat. part III, p. 548, No. 1709.]. In that work he distinctly says that he follows the Danoddyota, Danaratna and Danamayukha4 [Vide Cat. of the Bod. Library by Winternitz and Keith vol. II, p. 280 No. 1494 [x].]. The last is one of the twelve mayukhas of Nilakantha.

It is not necessary to pursue the pedigree of the family beyond the immediate descendants of Nilakantha.

Therefore the pedigree of the family is


Narayana / S'ridhara / Madhava
Uma = Ramakrsna / S'amkara / Govinda
Dinakara alias Divakara / Kamalakara / Laksmana / (four sons): Ranganatha / Damodara / Nrsima / Nilakantha
Vis'ves'vara alias Gagabhatta / Siddhes'vara
Ananta / Prabhakara / S'yama /S'amkara / Bhanu / Daughter Divakara surnamed Kala

For a more detailed pedigree Mandlik’s edition may be consulted. It is however to be remembered that the pedigree of the family given by Mandlik on information supplied by modern s'astris is not quite accurate. Dr. Ganganatha Jha was not able to find recently any living descendant of Nilakantha in Benares. In Mandlik’s edition Gagabhatta is shown to have had no descendants, while Dr. Gaganatha Jha says that a descendant of Gagabhatta by name Ramabhatta lives at Benares near 'Ratanphatak’.

III. The works of Nilakantha

Nllakantha composed an encyclopeedia embracing various topics connected with ancient and medieval Hindu civil and religious law, ceremonial, politics and cognate matters. That envyclopsedia is generally styled Bhagavanta-bhaskara in honour of the author’s patron, Bhagavantadeva, a Bundella chieftain of the Sengara (S'rngivara) clan that ruled at Bhareha near the confluence of the Jumna and the Chambal (carmanvati). Some variation in the name of the encyclopaedia is perceptible in the various colophons to the different parts of it. That the patron’s name was Bhagavanta (-deva or -varman) is quite clear.1 [ Vide the concluding verse of the Vyavaharamayukha and the 12th verse to the [x] (Benares ed.) [x].] It is therefore natural to expect that the work should be styled Bhagavanta-bhaskara.2 [e.g. in the [x] the 14th introductory verse (in the Benares ed. of 1879) is [x].] But in the colophons to some of the Mayukhas the work is called Bhagavantabhaskara3 [Vide Mandlik's edition of the [x].] or simply Bhaskara.4 [Vide the [x] (Benares ed. of 1879), the [x] (Benares ed. of 1880).] In some other colophons it is called Vidvadbhaskara.5 [Vide the [x] (Benares ed. of samvat 1937).] As the whole work was styled Bhaskara (the Sun) it was divided into twelve parts, just as there were twelve Adityas and each part came to be called a Mayukha (a ray) by a continuation of the metaphor. Nilakantha distinctly says in most of the Mayukhas that he composed the work at the command of Bhagavantadeva or that he was urged or inspired by his patron to do so.1 [Note the word [x] in the colophon to the [x] and the [x] (Bombay edition of 1891 printed at the [x] press), the word [x] in the introduction to the [x] (p. XVII. note 1 above), the word [x] in teh 11th intro. verse to the [x] (Benares ed. of 1879).]

The introductory verses in the mss. of all the Mayukhas present a perplexing problem. Hardly any two mss. of the same Mayukha contain the same introductory verses. For example, one of the three mss. of the Samayamayukha in the Bhau Daji collection of the Bombay Royal Asiatic Society has only one introductory verse2 [[x].]; while in the other two that verse does not occur at all. In one of these two latter there are four introductory verses and in the other there are five, the Benares edition agreeing with the last. The Benares edition of the S'antimayukha (of 1879) contains fourteen introductory verses, nine of which (from the second) give the genealogy of the family of Bhagavantadeva; while one ms. of the S'antimayukha in the Bhau Daji collection has only one introductory verse which is not found in the Benares edition; and another ms. of the same in the same collection has three verses, only one of which is found in the Benares edition. In the same way the printed editions of the Prayas'cittamayukha and the Acaramayukha (Benares, 1879) contain fourteen introductory verses each; while mss. of these two Mayukhas in the Gattulalji collection in Bombay have only two and three verses respectively. This perplexing variance in the number of introductory verses cannot be satisfactorily explained by supposing that in all cases of such differences the scribes of the mss. and others introduced unauthorised interpolations. The hypothesis which, after a careful consideration of all the introductions, seems most probable is that Nilakantha himself (or probably his son) from time to time revised his works, recast the introductory verses, added to them and also made slight alterations and additions in the body of the works.

Some of the Mayukhas such as the printed editions of the S'anti, Prayas'citta, S'raddha and Acara Mayukhas contain the genealogy of the family of Bhagavantadeva. The genealogy is more or less mythical, but there are no weighty reasons to suppose that the verses are spurious and not from the pen of Nilakantha himself1 [The verses are: -- [x]. Vide also Aufrecht's Bod. Cat., p. 280. No. 656 and I.O. Cat. part III, p. 429, No. 1444 and Mandlik's Introduction LXXVII.]. The genealogy is: from Brahma was born Kas'yapa, whose son was Vibhandaka, whose son was Rsyas'rnga. In the family of the latter was born S'rngivara, after whom the family came to be known as Sengara. King Karna was born in that family. Then follows a line of eighteen kings, the last being Bhagavantadeva.

The order in which the twelve Mayukhas were composed is an interesting question. In the introductory verses to the Benares editions of the Acaramayukha, the Prayas'cittamayukha and the S'antimayukha, the order is given as follows1 [[x].]: — (1) Samskara; (2) Acara; (3) Samaya; (4) S'raddha; (5) Niti; (6) Vyavahara; (7) Dana; (8) Utsarga; (9) Pratistha; (10) Prayas'citta; (11) S'uddhi; (12) S'anti. The same order occurs in another verse in the introduction to the Samayamayukha2 [[x] (Benares ed. of samvat 1937). Vide I.O. Cat. part III, p. 428, No. 1441.] In the colophon at the end of the Acaramayukha it is described as the second; while the S'antimayukha is described as the twelfth. But it is worthy of note that in the colophon to the edition of the Pratisthamayukha published in Bombay in 1891, it is described as the eighth while it is the ninth according to the order set forth above. The introductory verses to many of the Mayukhas and the internal evidence contained in them is sufficient to establish the order in which almost all the Mayukhas were written3 [[x]. Intro. to the [x]. This shows that the [x] was composed after the [x] that speaks of tithis. [x]. The first verse of the [x] shows that it was written after the [x].]. Nilakantha very frequently says that a particular subject has been already treated of by him in another Mayukha or that he will dilate on it in a subsequent Mayukha. From the cross references contained in the several Mayukhas it appears that the order set forth above is tolerably correct.1 [e.g. the [x] (Benares ed.) says [x] (p. 46); in the [x] (Benares ed.) we find [x] (p. 69); [x] ([x] p. 48); [x] (p. 87 of [x]); [x].] Considerations of space and utility require that the cross references should not be set out here in detail.

The next question is whether Nilakantha composed other works than the twelve Mayukhas. In appendix A there is a work called Vyavaharatattva. Four different reasons lead irresistibly to the conclusion that that work was composed by Nilakantha. In the first place the colophon at the end of that work describes it as the composition of Nilakantha, the son of the Mimansaka S'ankarabhatta. In the second place, in the section on dattapradanika, the author of the Vyavaharatattva speaks of the Dvaitanirnaya as composed by his father. Besides, at the beginning of the section on Dayavibhaga, the author of the Vyavaharatattva says that the proposition that the sources of ownership are those well known from worldly dealings has been established by him in the discussion on ownership. This is obviously a reference to the Vyavaharamayukha wherein there is an elaborate discourse on 'svatva’. Besides there is a very close correspondence in language and doctrines between the Vyavaharatattva and the Vyavaharamayukha, Therefore there can be no room for doubt that both works are by the same author.2 [For a discussion about the [x] vide 21 Bom. L. R. p. 1-4 (Journal portion).]

The criticism of it is uncharitable because it is mainly born of prejudice, and it has extended beyond finding fault with the text, to the question of its authorship itself. The critics somehow want to disprove that this work is, as traditionally accepted, a writing of the great Madhava-Vidyaranya, the author of the Panchadasi, and a great name in the field of Indian philosophical and theological literature….Besides the support of tradition, the colophon at the end of every chapter of the book mentions its author’s name as Madhava, that being the pre-monastic name of Vidyaranya….

The identity of Madhava, the author of Sankara-dig-vijaya, with this Madhava-Vidyaranya is further established by the first verse of the text, wherein he pays obeisance to his teacher Vidyatirtha…The identity is further established by the poet Madhava’s reference to his life in the royal court in the following touching introductory verses of his work: “By indulging in insincere praise of the goodness and magnanimity of kings, which are really non-existent like the son of a barren woman or the horns of a hare, my poesy has become extremely impure. Now I shall render it pure and fragrant by applying to it the cool and fragrant sandal paste fallen from the body of the danseuse [a female ballet dancer] of the Acharya’s holy fame and greatness, as she performs her dance on the great stage of the world.”

Besides, the text is a masterpiece of literature and philosophy, which none but a great mind could have produced. But there are detractors of this great text who try to minimise its obvious literary worth by imputing plagiarism and literary piracy to its author.

-- Sankara-Dig-vijaya: The Traditional Life of Sri Sankaracharya, by Madhava-Vidyaranya, Translated by Swami Tapasyananda

The Nirnayasindhu of Kamalakara several times quotes a Vyavaharatattva, which, however, is certainly a different work altogether as the quotations show that that work dwelt upon ceremonial matters and religious rites. The only important points in which the Vyavaharatattva differs from the Vyavaharamayukha are two, viz. the former work places the mother before the father in the matter of succession, while the latter reverses the order and the former makes no reference to the sister as an heir, while the latter assigns her a high place among gotraja [kinsmen] heirs. The reason probably lies in the fact that the Vyavaharatattva was a mere epitome and the author rather followed in both matters the orthodox school of Vijnanes'vara, who was a southern writer like Nilakantha himself; while in the Vyavaharamayukha he propounded the views prevalent or favoured in the territories of his patron or at his court. About the position of the father, he distinctly states that the eastern writers preferred him to the mother. It is noteworthy that neither Mandlik in his learned introduction nor the learned authors of the Digest of West and Buhler refer to the Vyavaharatattva of Nilakantha. That work is for the first time placed in print before Sanskrit scholars. It is not possible to say that the Vyavaharatattva is an abridgment of the Mitaksara. A comparison of the contents of the former with the latter shows that the topics dealt with are arranged in different ways in the two works.  

Nilakantha seems to have also composed a work on adoption styled Dattakanirnaya. In the Vyavaharatattva the author refers to a Dattakanirnaya written by himself. The Dharmsindhu also says that the Dattakanirnaya of Nilakantha prescribes that on the death of an adopted son his natural and adoptive fathers had both to observe mourning for three nights and the sapindas [cousins] for one night, while on the death of an adoptive son whose thread-ceremony had been performed (in the family of adoption) the adoptive father and his sapindas would have had to observe mourning for ten days.1 [[x] ([x] III. [x]).] The quotation from the Dharmasindhu shows that what is referred to is not the section on adoption in the Vyavaharamayukha, but an independent work, since in the Vyavaharamayukha there is nothing corresponding to the quotation. Nilakantha is said to have written (according to Aufrecht) two works styled Dharmaprakas'a and S'raddhaprakas'a. The former is referred to in the Samskaramayukha.2 [p. 37 of the edition issued by the Gujarati Press in 1913 ([x]).] It is extremely doubtful whether the Dharmaprakas'a is a work of Nilakantha. We saw above that S'amkarabhatta wrote a work called Dharmaprakas'a. It is probable that there is some confusion owing to the defective text of the Samskaramayukha, wherein editorial additions were made by the son of Nilakantha.

The edition of the Samskaramayukha published by the Gujarati Press in Bombay presents a curious problem. The introductory verses make it clear that the work was composed by S'amkara, the son of Nilakantha and not by Nilakantha himself. The colophon at the end also makes this clear. In the body of the work the other Mayukhas are in several places referred to as 'composed by my father'. For example, on pp. 7 and 10 of the printed edition we have [x]. In other places such expressions as the following are met with: — [x] (pp. 14 and 23); [x] (p. 70); [x] (p. 82); [x] (p. 129). In most of these places, there are different readings in some mss., as the foot-notes point out, to some such effect as [x]. On p. 120 we read [x] and on p. 130 [x]. In these cases there are no different readings pointed out in the foot-notes. In this state of the printed text, several mss. of the Samskaramayukha were consulted. It was found that they all contained the introductory verses and the colophon ascribing the work to Nilakantha’s son. In the present state of our knowledge all that can be said is that the Samskaramayukha of Nilakantha was edited by his son S'amkara with additions of his own, but that what we now have is substantially the work of Nilakantha. If ever a ms. of the Samskaramayukha comes to light containing the text as it left the hand of Nilakantha, it will afford an interesting comparison with the printed text.
Site Admin
Posts: 33488
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Vyavaharamayukha of Bhatta Nilakantha, by P.V. Kane

Postby admin » Mon Jun 07, 2021 2:25 am

Part 2 of 2

IV. The period of Nilakantha’s literary activity.

The period of the literary activity of Nilakaiatha can be determined with tolerable precision. Nilakantha frequently quotes his father’s Dvaitanirnaya in the Mayukhas on Vyavahara, Prayas'citta, Samaya, S'raddha, and S'anti. The Dvaitanirnaya quotes the Todarananda, an encyclopaedia of religious and civil law, astronomy and medicine, compiled by Todarmal, the famous finance minister of Akbar. The Jyotisasaukhya, a portion of the Todarananda, was composed in 1572 A.D. and a ms, of the Vyavaharasaukhya was copied in 1581 A.D. Therefore it is reasonable to suppose that the Dvaitanirnaya could not have been composed much earlier than 1600 A.D. Kamalakara, who was the first cousin (paternal uncle’s son) of Nilakantha composed the Nirnayasindhu, which was one of the earliest of his numerous works, in 1612 A.D. Nilakantha, who was the youngest of the four sons of S'amkarabhatta, could not have begun his literary career earlier than Kamalakara who was only the second son of his father Ramakrsna, the latter again being older than S'amkarabhatta. Therefore it is highly probable that Nilakantha’s literary activities began later than 1610 A.D. One ms. of the Vyavaharatattva bears the date samvat 1700 (i.e. 1644 A.D.). This may be the date when the ms. was copied or it may be the date when the work was composed. At all events the Vyavaharatattva is not later than 1644 A.D. The Vyavaharatattva presupposes the Vyavaharamayukha and refers to the author’s Dattakanirnaya. Hence Nilakantha must be deemed to have written a good deal before 1644 A.D. A ms. of the S'antimayukha in the Bhau Daji collection (in the Bombay Royal A. Society) seems to bear the date samvat 1706, i.e. 1650 A.D.1 [The colophon is [x]. It will be noticed that one letter after [x] is wanting.] Whether this is the date of the composition of the work or only the date of its being copied does not make much difference to the argument. The S'antimayukha is the last of the twelve Mayukhas that Nilakantha composed. Hence the above quotation makes it clear that the last of the Mayukhas was composed not later than 1650 A.D. Therefore the literary activity of Nilakantha must be placed between 1610 and 1650 A.D. Since the Vyavaharatattva was either composed or copied in 1644 A.D. and presupposes the Vyavaharamayukha, the latter could not have been composed later than 1640 A.D. This conclusion about the period of the literary activity of Nilakantha and the date of the Vyavaharamayukha is corroborated by several circumstances. Gagabhatta, who was the son of Dinakara, the first cousin of Nilakantha, was a famous man in 1674 when he officiated at the coronation of S'ivaji. Nilakantha, being of the same generation as Gagabhatta’s father, must have attained eminence about 1650 at the latest. S'amkara, the son of Nilakantha, wrote the Kundabhaskara in 1671 A.D. Divakarabhatta, the son of Nilakantha’s daughter, wrote his Acararka in 1686 A.D. Therefore Nilakantha must have been a man of mature years in 1650. In the same direction points the fact that Siddhes'vara, the son of Damodara and nephew of Nilakantha, wrote his Samskaramayukha in 1680 A.D. It is significant to note that Purusottamaji, perhaps the most illustrious descendant of Vallabhacarya, who was born in samvat 1724 (i.e. 1668 A.D.) and who wrote at Surat, refers to the S'uddhimayukha in his work styled Dravyas'uddhi.  

V. The contents of the twelve Mayukhas.

It will not be out of place to give a brief outline of the contents of the twelve Mayukhas.

(1) The Samskarmayukha: The worship of Gapen'a and Svastivacana (which are necessary in all samskaras); the enumeration of samskaras; the procedure and details about Garbhadhana, Pumsavana, Jatakarma, Namakarana, Cudakarana, Upanayana, Samavartana (return of the student from the teacher’s house), and marriage; the duties of Brahmacarins; holidays; gotras [lineage/descendants] and pravaras [clan]; sapinda [cousin] relationship; different forms of marriage, viz. Brahma, Asura &c; the time of marriage; the duties of married women and of widows; the duties of the four castes and of the orders of householder, of the forest hermit, and of the ascetic.

(2) The Acaramayukha: the use of the right hand in all ritual; the time of rising from bed; meditation on various deities, immortal persons &c; directions as to the time and the place of answering calls of nature and as to the manner of purification thereafter; sipping water by way of purification (acamana); rinsing the mouth; daily bath and baths on special occasions; applying tilakas [vertical markings on forehead] and ashes; the performance of the daily samdhya; offering water to the Sun; muttering of prayers (japa); offering of oblations to fire (homa); division of the day into eight parts with the actions and engagements appropriate to each; the five great daily yajnas; offering water to sages, heroes and ancestors; worship of deities such as Hara, Hari, S'alagrama; the flowers and leaves appropriate to the worship of each deity; the offering called Vais'vadeva; mid-day meal and accessory matters; engagements after dinner; sleep; dreams, good and evil.

(3) The Samayamayukha: division of tithis [Vedic timekeeping: 16-26 hrs.] into purna and khanda; the s'astrartha as to each tithi from the pratipad to the amavasya; important festivals like Krsnajanmastami, Ramanavami, Navaratra, Mahas'ivaratra, and the rites to be performed on each of these; the utsarjana and upakharma rites on the full moon of S'ravana; the time for performing an isti; offering of pinda (rice-ball) to the Manes on the amavasya; eclipses and the rites to be performed when they occur; the fortnight (bright or dark) appropriate to different rites; three kinds of months, candra, savana, and saura differring in their duration; the rites appropriate to each month from caitra; the intercalary month, the rites appropriate to it and the actions to be eschewed in it; the determination of the seasons; the sixty years’ cycle; rites to be performed on the birthday of a person; proper and improper times for shaving; things prohibited in the Kali age.

(4) The S'radddhamayukha: the definition of S'raddha; two varieties of it, parvana and ekoddista; the proper time and place for S'raddha; persons competent to perform S'raddha; cases in which women were competent to perform S'raddha; such S'raddhas as mahalaya; materials to be used in S'raddha; use of flesh prohibited in S'raddha though allowed in former ages; discourse on kus'a and sesame; brahmanas unfit to be invited at S'raddhas; the way in which the sacred thread was to be worn at the time of performing S'raddhas and other rites; the places where pindas were to be offered and the size of pindas; gifts to brahmanas; places where pindas are ultimately to be cast; the prayoga (procedure) of S'raddhas; how S'raddha is to be performed by him who is unable to go through the whole ritual of it; the letting loose of a bull; the sixteen S'raddhas that led to sapindana; S'raddhas on auspicious occasions; daily S'raddha as one of the Mahayajnas.

(5) The Nitimayukhha: definition of king (rajan); the proper time for coronation; characteristics of a throne; the king’s crown; the seven constituent elements of a state, viz. the king, the ministers, allies, people, forts, treasury and army; the principal vices of kings and their effects; evils of gambling and drinking; the qualities of a good king; the duties of kings; the five great yajnas in the case of kings, viz punishing the wicked, honouring the good, increase of wealth by lawful means, impartiality and protection of the state; messengers and envoys (dutas), their qualities and three classes; fate and human effort; eulogy of the brave that sacrifice their lives in battle; varieties of elephants; the game of chess.

(6) The Vyavaharamayukha: definition of vyavahara; eighteen titles of vyavahara; the courts of justice; judge and assessor; other tribunals than the king’s courts; conflict between dharmas'astra and arthas'astra and between different rules of dharmas'astra; force of local or family usage; the plaintiff or complainant; the defendant or opponent; the plaint, its contents and defects; the defence and its four varieties; sureties for the litigants; the pramanas, viz, documents, possession and witnesses; description of various kinds of documents; characteristics of false witnesses; ordeals in the absence of other means of proof; principal ordeals, viz. of fire, water, poison and balance; persons fit to undergo ordeals and the proper times and places for ordeals; other ordeals such as holy water, rice, heated golden masa &c.; ownership; meaning of daya; two kinds of heritage, sapratibandha and apratibandha; partition of heritage; time for partition; shares on partition; the rights of the father, mother, and eldest son on partition; partition after father’s death; twelve kinds of sons; adopted son; who should adopt, when one should adopt; persons competent to give, in adoption; who should be adopted; the ceremonial of adoption; two kinds of dattaka; dvyamusyayana defined; how far sapinda relationship of the adopted son extends in the family of adoption and in the family of birth; property not liable to partition; evidence of separation; order of succession to sapratibandha heritage; the compact series of heirs from the wife to the brother’s son; gotrajas as heirs; sister’s right to succeed; samanodakas and bandhus; strangers as heirs; re-union; definition of stridhana; its varieties; succession to stridhana; persons excluded from inheritance; debts, recovery of debts and rates of interest; mortgages and pledges; suretyship; three or four kinds of sureties; deposit; sale by one not an owner; partnership; resumption of gifts; non-payment of wages; rescission of sales; disputes as to boundaries; assault and abuse; theft; adultery; violent offences; gambling and other miscellaneous matters.  

(7) The Danarmayukha: definition of dana; eulogy of dana; persons competent to make gifts and receive them; things proper to be given as gifts; ista and purta; proper times and places for making gifts; measures of corn and distance; postures of idols of various deities such as Ganes'a, Narayana, Kama; the mandapa described; settling the four principal directions; the ceremonial of the worship of the planets; the sixteen mahadanas such as weighing against gold &c; gifts of lands, houses, elephants, horses; prohibition against the resumption of gifts; description of a prapa (where water was distributed gratis) for travellers.

(8) The Utsargamayukha: eulogy of the dedication of a reservoir of water to the public; proper time for making such a dedication; the ritual of such a gift; wells and tanks; pandal to be erected near the reservoir at the time of dedication; twenty-four priests required in the dedication and their duties; the deities invoked at such a dedication; purification of wells and tanks polluted by dogs, cats, asses, pigs or corpses; the planting of trees and rites appropriate thereto.

(9) The Pratisthamayukha: the time for consecrating temples; the preparations for consecration, such as collecting firesticks, saffron, musk &c; worship of the mandapa (pavilion or pandal); bathing the image; consecrating the image in two ways, cala and acala; the procedure of repairing old temple buildings and re-establishing idols pulled down or carried away by a river or defaced by accident &c.

(10) The Prayas'cittamayukha: — definition of prayas'citta; no necessity for prayas'citta in certain cases such as killing an atatayin; the description of various hells in order to induce sinners to repent; the different births to which sinners are condemned; the constitution of an assembly that is to prescribe a prayas'citta; the preliminaries to undergoing a prayas'citta, such as shaving, applying cowdung and mud to the body; the rites common to all prayas'cittas; the various kinds of Krcchras as prayas'cittas; description of Brahmakurca, Baraka, Santapana, Candrayana; visits to various tirthas prescribed in the case of various classes of sinners; various causes of sinfulness and pollution, such as murder, drinking, theft, adultery, eating forbidden things, giving up vedic study, contact with certain persons; prayas'cittas for killing a Brahmana and members of other castes, for killing various male and female relatives, for relatives of persons committing suicide and for those that attempt suicide, for killing a cow and other animals, for drinking liquors and eating flesh, onions, garlic and other prohibited articles; prayas'cittas for taking food in certain S'raddhas from men of other castes or from S'udras; prayas'cittas for thefts of various articles and for adultery; prayas'citta for contact of nine kinds; no sin arises from contact at tirthas, in marriage processions, fairs, battles, national calamities, burning of a village; prayas'cittas for lesser transgressions of various kinds such as selling oil, honey or salt by Brahmanas, for receiving forbidden gifts, for being an actor &c.

(11) The S'uddhimayukha: purification of vessels of gold, silver, copper, iron, lead &c,; purification of vessels scratched by birds or beasts, or plates licked by S'udras or cows, or soiled by contact with wine &c.; purification of cloth of various kinds when soiled; rules as to purification left to local usage by Marici; periods of impurity on account of mis-carriage or still-birth or ordinary birth; periods of impurity on death before the first year, before the thread ceremony or marriage in the case of women; instantaneous purification in the case of persons killed in battle or killed by a stroke of lightning &c.; how the sick are to be purified in case of impurity due to birth or death; priyas'citta for death on a cot, death due to snake bite; the death of a brahmacarin specially ominous; the merit of helping to carry the corpse of an unknown or poor person; no impurity on the death of a samnyasin; when the ashes are to be collected after cremation of a body; the merit of casting the ashes in the Ganges at Benares or at Prayaga; the nine S'raddhas to be performed on death; the letting loose of a bull on the 11th day after death; procedure about S'raddha if the day or month of death not known; practice of sati; women that were unfit to perform sahagamana; procedure, if before one impurity ceases, another occurs; periods of impurity on hearing of the death of a sapinda abroad after the lapse of three months, six months &c.; the period of impurity on the death of samanodakas and on the death of one’s teacher; purification on the death of a married sister and other relatives.

(12) The S'antimayukha: definition of S'anti; even S'udras authorised to perform the propitiatory rites for averting evil; Vinayakas'anti; characteristics of the nine grahas (the sun, the moon, Mars and the rest, Rahu and Ketu); propitiatory rites on the conjunctions of certain planets; how heroes like Saudasa, Nala, Rama, the Pandavas suffered from the evil aspects of planets; rites on the birth of an infant with teeth or for the birth of a child on the 14th day of the dark half of a month or when the moon is in the constellation of Mula, or when a child is born on certain Yogas like Vaidhrti and Vyatipata; rites on the birth of a son after three daughters or vice versa, and on the birth of twins; rites for birth on particular tithis or days of the week or particular lunar mansions; rites on certain extraordinary events (such as weeping or laughing of trees); solemn propitiatory rites at the time of coronation &c.

VI. The position of Nilakantha in Dharmas'astra Literature.

The development of religious and civil law in India falls into four well-marked but somewhat overlapping periods. The first period starts in the midst of antiquity and culminates in the ancient Grhya and Dharma sutras. Most of the Grhya and Dharma sutras even in their extant form are several centuries earlier than the Christian era. The present writer is not one of those who hold that metrical smrtis in continuous s'loka metre are in a body later than the sutra works (at least the older ones among those extant). It seems very probable that metrical smrtis were composed even before the sutra style attained its full vigour. It may be readily admitted that most of the extant metrical smrtis are much later than some of the extant Dharmasutras (such as those of Gautama, Baudhayana, Apastamba). But the same cannot be said of the smrti material contained in the Mahabharata and of the Manusmrti. Therefore it must be said that while several attempts were being made to compose sutra works on ritual and law, metrical works also were being composed for the same purpose. The second period is that of the metrical smrtis like those of Yajnavalkya, Narada, Brhaspati, Katyayana and a host of other writers. This period extends from the centuries immediately preceding the Christian era to about 600 A.D. The third period is that of eminent commentators and it extends from the 7th century to the 12th. Among its earlier representatives are Asahaya, Vis'varupa and Medhatithi. To this period belong several well-known names such as those of Bharuci, S'rikara, Govindaraja and Dhares'vara. But the best exponents of this period are Vijnanes'vara and Apararka, who respectively flourished in the latter half of the 11th and the first half of the 12th century. From the 13th century to the 18th is the period of the Nibandhakaras, the writers of digests and encyclopaedias. One finds that many writers in this period compose treatises in which they review all the work done by their predecessors from the earliest times, introduce order and system in the heterogeneous and scattered mass of material that had accumulated during the lapse of centuries, examine the views of different authors, express their adherence to some one view and discard or refute the rest. Nilakantha is one of the foremost representatives of this period. His position is analogous to that of Bhattoji Diksita in Grammar or of Jagannatha in Poetics. Nilakantha makes a difference in dealing with the conflicting views of writers believed to be inspired sages like Atri, Angiras, Devala, Manu and of later writers like Medhatithi, Hemadri, Madhava and others. As regards the former class of writers, he hardly, if ever, says that they are wrong, but tries to reconcile the differences amongst them as best as he can and, where the conflict is utterly irreconcilable, has recourse to the theory that their views had reference to a different yuga. As regards writers of the second class his method is different. He has the highest admiration and reverence for authors like Vijnanes'vara, Madhava and Hemadri. But his veneration for these authorities does not make him slavishly follow their dicta and bow to their authority in everything. He very often expresses frank dissent from their views. But his criticisms of these writers are always impartial and most courteous as befits a scholar whose passion is the search of truth as it presents it to himself. He boldly criticizes the opinions of every one, not sparing even his own father who was a profound mimansaka1 [For example, vid [x] (p. 25 Benares ed.) [x] (p. 25 Benares ed.) [x].]. He is profuse in acknowledging the debt he owes to others. Wherever he did not personally verify a quotation from an ancient work but took it over from one of his predecessors, he distinctly says so2 [For example, vide the words [x] &c.]. In the vastness of the material drawn upon, in the ease and flow of style, in the conciseness and perspicuity of his remarks, in sobriety of judgment, in acuteness of vision, in the orderly presentation of various topics for discussion, Nilakantha is hardly rivalled, much less surpassed, by any writer of this period. When this is said, it is not meant that all the twelve Mayukhas are equal in execution and workmanship. The best are the Mayukhas on Vyavahara, S'raddha, Prayas'citta, Acara and Samaya. The weakest of the whole lot are the Mayukhas on Niti and Utsarga. From appendix C it will be seen that Nilakantha quotes no less than about a hundred smrtis and several hundred other works on Dharmas'astra.

Nilakantha, being bred and brought up in an atmosphere redolent with the Purvamimansa system, very frequently discusses the doctrines of that system and makes very acute use of them in all the Mayukhas. In the Vyavaharamayukha alone he draws upon the Purvamimansa in dozens of places. In Appendix F are brought together most of the passages from the Vyavaharamayukha in which the Purvamimansa system is relied upon or appealed to by Nilakantha.

VII. Nilakantha and other writers on Vyavahara

The Vyavaharamayukha stands in a special relation to the Mitaksara of Vijnanes'vara and the Madanaratna. When Nilakantha wrote it appears that Vijnanes'vara had come to be looked upon as the most authoritative writer on Dharmas'astra. In the Dvaitanirnaya his father speaks of Vijnanes'vara as the foremost among writers of 'nibandhas’.1 [The words are [x].] Nilakantha himself looked upon Vijnanes'vara as the first among ‘sampradayikas’ (those who are repositories of traditional lore).2 [Mark the words [x] (text p. 171, II. 6-7).] Of all the Mayukhas it is in the Vyavaharamayukha that Nilakantha most frequently quotes and also criticises the Mitaksara. In appendix D are collected together all those passages from the Vyavaharamayukha wherein the Mitaksara is either quoted or criticised. It will be seen that the most important points on which the Vyavaharamayukha differs from the Mitaksara are the preference of the father over the mother, the high place assigned to the sister as an heir, the postponement of the half brother and his son to the paternal grand-mother and sister, the various kinds of stridhana and the different rules of succession as to each. It seems that Nilakantha highly esteemed the Madanaratna. He quotes that work as frequently as he does the Mitaksara and in most places follows its views in preference to those of others. In appendix E all those passages where the Madanaratna is quoted or referred to have been brought together. Unfortunately it was not possible to secure a copy of the Madanaratna (Vyavaharoddyota) even after a good deal of inquiry and search. A comparison of the original text of the Madanaratna with the Vyavaharamayukha would have cleared up many difficult points. The Viramitrodaya, however, has been of great help in pointing certain views as those of the Madanaratna.

In the division of his encyclopaedic work into twelve parts and in the general method of treatment Nilakantha had several predecessors. Hemadri, minister of the Devagiri Yadava kings Mahadeva (1260-1271 A.D.) and Ramacandra (1271-1309 A.D.), composed a vast encyclopaedia styled Caturvargacintamani on Vrata, Dana, Tirtha, Moksa, Kala &c. Candes'vara, minister of the king of Mithila, wrote a voluminous work divided into seven parts called ratnakaras (oceans, as in Hindu mythology there are seven oceans) on Dana, Vyavahara, S'uddhi, Puja, Vivada &c. He weighed himself against gold in s'ake 1276 i.e. 1314 A.D. His Vivadaratnakara is a work of paramount authority in Mithila and is quoted in the Vyavaharamayukha. King Madanasimha composed a large work called Madanaratna in seven Uddyotas on Samaya, Acara, Vyavahara, Prayas'citta, Dana, S'uddhi and S'anti. The Madanaratna and Hemadri are quoted at every step by Nilakantha. The Nrsimhaprasada is a work of enormous extent, being nearly half as much in bulk as the Mahabharata. It was composed by Dalapati (is it a proper name?), who was the chief minister of king Nizamshah,1 [Vide I. O. Cat. part III. pp. 434-435 No. 1467, Mitra’s Bik. Cat. pp. 429-430, Benares ‘Pandit’, New Series, vol. V. p. 377 for an account of the work.] probably the founder of the Nizamshahi dynasty of Ahmednagar (1489—1508). A ms. of that work was written in samvat 1568 i.e. 1512 A.D. This work is divided into twelve parts called savas on Samskara, Ahnika, S'raddha, Kalanirnaya, Vyavahara, Prayas'citta, Karmavipaka, Vrata, Dana, S'anti, Tirtha and Pratistha. It is remarkable how closely the parts of this work agree in number and nomenclature with those of the Bhagavantabhaskara. The Nrsimhaprasada is quoted in the Samayamayukha and the Dvaitanirnaya. Raghunandana, who is later than 1450 and earlier than 1600 A.D. and who wrote a commentary on the Dayabhaga, is the author of a comprehensive work called Smrtitattva, divided into twenty-eight parts styled tattvas on Daya, Divya, Samskara, S'uddhi, Prayas'citta, Tirtha, Vyavahara, Pratistha &c. His Divyatattva is quoted in the Vyavaharamayukha and the other tattvas also are frequently referred to in the other Mayukhas. He is designated Smartabhattacarya and Gaudamimansaka by Nilakantha. Todaramalla, the famous finance minister of Akbar, compiled an encyclopaedia of religious and civil law, medicine and astronomy styled Todarananda. The various sections of this work are called saukhyas and deal with Acara, Dana, Vyavahara, Prayas'citta, Samaya, S'uddhi, Vrata &c. We saw above that his Jyotistattva was composed in 1572 A.D. and a ms. of his Vyavaharasaukhya was copied in 1581 A.D. The Todarananda is quoted in the Vyavaharamayukha and other Mayukhas.

VI. The position of the Vyavaharamayukha in modern Hindu Law.

It has been repeatedly laid down by the Bombay High Court and by the Privy Council, the highest judicial tribunal for India, that the three books of chief authority in western India are Manu, the Mitaksara and the Mayukha.1 [Vide Murarji v. arvatibai I.L.R. 1 Bom. 177 at p. 187; Savitribai v. Luxmibai I.L.R. 2. Bom. 573 at p. 606; Lallubia v. Cossibai I.L.R. 5 Bom. 110 at p. 117 (P.C.); Pranjivandas v. Devkuvarabai 1 Bom. H.C.R. (O.C.J.) 130 at p. 131.] In the Maratha country and in the Ratnagiri district the Mitaksara is of paramount authority and a subordinate place, though still a very important one, is assigned to the Vyavaharamayukha.2 [Krishnaji v. Pandurang 12 Bom. H.C.R. (A.C.J.) at p. 169 and Jankibai v. Sundra I.L.R. 14 Bom. 612, 616 (Ratnagiri District).] The Vyavaharamayukha is of paramount authority in Guzerat, the town and island of Bombay and in northern Konkan.3 [Lallubhai v. Mankuvarbai I.L.R. 2 Bom. 388 at p. 418; I.L.R. 6 Bom. 541, 546; Jankibai v. Sundra I.L.R. 14 Bom. 612, at pp. 623-24; Vyas Chimaanlal v. Vyas Ramchandra I.L.R. 24 Bom. 367 (F.B.) at p. 373.] Though the pre-eminence of the Mitaksara in the Maratha country is admitted, yet its doctrines have in several instances been set aside in favour of those put forward in the Vyavaharamayukha.4 [Bhagirthibai v. Kahnujirao I.L.R. 11 Bom. 285 (F.B.), at p. 293.] For example, though the Mitaksara nowhere recognises the sister as a gotraja sapinda, the courts, following the Mayukha, have assigned her a high place as heir even in the Maratha country. It is interesting to see how the Vyavaharamayukha came to be recognised as an authoritative work in Guzerat. We saw above that the family of Nilakantha came from the Deccan. Naturally all the members of that family preferred the usages of the Deccan and S'amkarabhatta expressly says in his Dvaitanirnaya that he will conform to the views of Deccan writers. Therefore the works of these Bhattas of Benares were highly esteemed by the learned men of the Maratha country. When the Marathas extended their sway over Guzerat in the 18th century, the works of Kamalakara (particularly the Nirnayasindhu) and of Nilakantha (particularly the Vyavaharamayukha) were relied upon by the S'astris at the court of the Maratha rulers of Guzerat. Thus the Vyavaharamayukha had come to be looked upon as a work of high authority in Guzerat before the advent of the British in the beginning of the 19th century.1 [Vide Lallubhai v. Mankuvarbai I.L.R. 2 Bom. 388, 418-19 and Bhagirthibai v. Kahnujirao I.L.R. Bom 285 (F.B.), 294-95 for the reasons of the ascendancy of the Vyavaharamayukha in Guzerat.] The result was that so early as 1827 Borradaile translated the Vyavaharamayukha in English. That the Mayukhas of Nilakantha were eagerly sought for even as far to the south as the Belgaum district in the times of the Peshwas is established by a letter of Naro Vinayak, Mamlatdar of Athni in the present Belgaum District, dated 28th June 1797. In that letter reference is made to the copying of the six Mayukhas on Samskara, Acara, Samaya, S'raddha, Niti and Vyavahara and a request is made that the other six Mayukhas may be sent for a copy being made.1 [Vide [x] Vol. X. p. 5172 letter No. 4006 (edited by Mr. Vasudevs'astri Khare, 1920). As the letter is interesting the whole of it is reproduced below. [x].] It appears that even in Northern India the Vyavaharamayukha was referred to by the British courts as early as 1813 A. D.2 [Bhagwan Singh v. Bhagwan I.L.R. 17 All 294, at p. 314.]

The general principle on which the courts of Western India act in construing the rules laid down by the Mitaksara and the Vyavaharamayukha is that they are to be harmonised with one another, wherever and so far as that is reasonably possible.3 [Gojabai v. Shrimant Shahajirao I.L.R. 17 Bom. 114, 118 quoted with approval in Kesserbai v. Hunsraj I.L.R. 30 Bom. 431, 442 (P.C.).]

It was said above that the Vyavaharamayukha is of paramount authority in Northern Konkan. As there is divergence between the views of the Mitaksara and the Mayukha in matters of succession, it becomes of great practical importance to settle with precision the exact limits in Northern Konkan up to which the Mayukha must be regarded as a work of paramount authority. It has been judicially decided that Karanja, which is an island opposite the Bombay harbour, is governed by the principles of the Mayukha,1 [Sakharam Sadashiva Adhikari v. Sitabai I.L.R. 3 Bom. 353.] that Mahad, the southernmost Taluka of the Kolaba District, is not so governed and that the predominance of the Mayukha cannot either on principle or authority be taken further south than Chaul and Nagothna2 [Vide Narhar v. Bhau I.L.R. 40 Bom. 621 (where the authorities are collected).] (in the northern part of the Kolaba District).

Though the authority of the Vyavaharamayukha is supreme in Guzerat, the island of Bombay and northern Konkan and high in the Maratha country, it is not to be supposed that the whole of it has been either adopted by the people or accepted by the courts. There are several matters, such as the twelve kinds of sons and the fifteen kinds of slaves and the marriage of a person with girls belonging to lower castes than his own, on which Nilakantha expatiates with as much learning, patience and zest as any ancient writer, although those usages had become obsolete centuries before his time.3 [Vide the remarks in Rahi v. Govind I.L.R. 1 Bom. 97 at p. 112 and Lallubhai v. Mankuvarbai I.L.R. 2 Bom. 388 at pp. 420 and 447.] Nilakantha says that the paternal great-grand-father, the paternal uncle and the half-brother’s son succeed together. But the courts have never recognised this rule, nor has it ever been made the foundation of a claim in a court of law. On the other hand, the views of Nilakantha that the sister is a gotraja sapinda and that even a married man may be taken in adoption have been followed by the courts, although hardly any eminent writer before him propounded these views. Kamalakara, a first cousin of Nilakantha, criticises those who would include sisters in the term brothers (vide Sarvadhikari’s Tagore Law Lectures p. 664, ed. of 1882). Among the other Mayukhas, the Samskaramayukha is frequently cited in the law reports.1 [Vide I.L.R. 2 Bom. 388 at p. 425, 3 Bom. 353 at p. 361, 4 Bom. 219 at p. 221, 32 Bom. 81 at pp. 88, 96.] In a case reported in 22 Bom. L.R. (p. 334) both sides seem to have relied upon the Pratisthamayukha.  

IX: The present edition

In section I above the material on which the text of the present edition is based has been indicated. No efforts have been spared to arrive at a correct text of the Vyavaharamayukha. Great labour was spent in trying to trace the quotations to their sources. Some of the quotations had to be found out from mss. Only those who have ever done the work of identifying quotations can form an adequate idea of the labour involved in this task. In spite of this there are still several quotations that have defied all efforts to trace them. Often times there is great divergence between the printed texts of the authors quoted by Nilakantha and the readings of the mss. In most of such cases, the readings of the mss. have been given in the text and in the footnotes the readings of the printed editions are indicated. As regards various readings only the important ones have been pointed out. The footnotes would have been encumbered with unnecessary details if every variation and every omission contained in the mss. had been indicated.

The annotations have been purposely made copious. The Vyavaharamayukha is full of difficultis. An attempt has been made to fully explain every possible difficulty. The numerous references to the doctrines and technical terms of the Purvamimansa have been explained at length. Parallel passages from other works have been added at every step. References to modern developments of the Hindu law have been frequently given.

In order to enhance the utility of the work several appendices have been added. Appendix A contains the text of the Vyavaharatattva which is based on two mss. Appendix B contains the names of all the authors and works quoted in the Vyavaharamayukha with brief notes in the case of some. Appendix C contains a consolidated list of all the authors and works occurring in the twelve Mayukhas. Appendix D collects together all those passages in which the Mitaksara and Vijnanes'vara are quoted or criticized. In Appendix E are gathered together the passages where the Madanaratna is quoted, criticised or referred to. Appendix E contains the passages where the doctrines of the Purvamimansa have been appealed to or relied upon in the Vyavaharamayukha. Appendix G gives an index of the pratikas of the verses occurring in the work.

As regards the system of transliteration, the one adopted by the Bhandarkar Institute has been followed in the Introduction. Unfortunately in the notes this system was not consistently followed with regard to four letters, viz. [x], [x], [x] and [x].  
Site Admin
Posts: 33488
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Return to Ancien Regime

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest