Part 1 of 2
INTRODUCTION
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
Nagapas'a
Cangadeva
Govinda
Rames'vara'
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.