38. Kātyāyana

Volume I: Part I pp. 496–507

38. Kātyāyana

38. Kātyāyana

Nārada, Bṛhaspati and Kātyāyana form a triumvirate in the realm of the ancient Hindu Law and procedure. The work of Kātyāyana on Vyavahāra, like that of Bṛhaspati, has yet to be recovereḍ After the first volume of H. of Dh. was published in 1930, I contributed to a Law Journal in Bombay a collec- tion of Kātyāyana's verses gathered from quotations in 21 works and later (in 1933) published in a book form 973 verses of Kātyāyana with English translation, two Appendices and a General Index (in all 372 pages). Later on Prof. K. V. Rangaswami Aiyangar contributed a paper to the Kane Fest- schrift (pp 7–17) embodying 121 additional verses of Kātyāyana from the work called Vyavahāranirṇaya of Vara- darāja (which he published in 1942 as No. 29 of the Adyar Library series ).

Kātyāyana is enumerated as one of the expounders of dharma by Śaṅkha-Likhita, Yājñavalkya (I. 4–5) and Parā- śara. A Kātya is quoted as an authority in the Baudhāyana- dharmasūtra (I. 2. 47). A Śrautasūtra and Śrāddhakalpa of the white Yajurveda are ascribed to Kātyāyana.

Kātyāyana appears to have taken Nārada and Bṛhaspati as his models in the order and treatment of the subjects to be dealt with on vyavahāra. He closely follows both the writers in terminology and technique. On several points he presupposes Nārada and expounds and elucidates the latter's dicta. For example, Nārada (Intro. chap. I. 10–11 ) lays down that Vyavahāra has four pādas, each later one prevailing, viz. dharma, vyavahāra, caritra, rājāśāsana (note 361 ) and then Nārada very briefly in one verse explains these four terms; Kātyāyana, on the other hand, devotes at least nine verses to the elucidation of the rule as to each succeeding one prevailing over its predecessor.¹ Nārada contains very little on the topic of strīdhana (dāyabhāga chap. verses 8–9 ). He merely enumerates the six kinds of strīdhana and then lays down the rule of successioṇ Kātyāyana's treatment of strīdhana has attained classical rank. It appears that he was probably the first to carefully define the several kinds of strīdhana (such as adhyagni, adhyāvahanika, pritidatta, śulka, anvā- dheya, saudāyika), to lay down woman's power of disposal over the several varieties of strīdhana and to prescribe lines of devolution as to strīdhana. The verses on this topic occurring in the nibandhas number about thirty. The leading nibandhas contain only a few quotations from Bṛhaspati on strīdhana. Hence it may be surmised that Kātyāyana probably was the first smṛti writer to give elaborate rules on this topic.

It has been already shown how Kātyāyana often quotes the views of Bṛhaspati. A few more examples may be added here. According to Bṛhaspati, says Kātyāyana, when a man who stands surety with others on a joint liability goes abroad, his son would have to pay the whole debt, but if the man dies then the son would be liable for his father's share only.² When cattle stray into fields, gardens, houses or cowpens, they may be, according to Bṛhaspati, caught hold of (by the ear &c.) or beateṇ³ According to Bṛhaspati, a man of the kṣatriya, vaiśya or śūdra caste may employ one of his own caste to do the work of a dāsa (slave or serf), but even a Brāhmaṇa could never employ another Brāhmaṇa in the same way.⁴

More than 21 nibandhas on Vyavahāra quote about 1100 verses of Kātyāyana on vyavahāra, the Smṛticandrikā alone citing about 600 of theṃ In these verses Kātyāyana refers at least a score of times to the views of Bhṛgu. It is remarkable that only a few of the views ascribed to Bhṛgu are found in the extant Manusmṛti. Kātyāyana says, according to Bhṛgu, whatever (ancestral) wealth was concealed by one coparcener from others, whatever was badly divided should be divided in equal shares when afterwards discovered (Parāśara-Mādhavīya III, p. 566). This may well be compared with Manu 9. 215. Kātyāyana says, according to Bhṛgu, it is not Brāhmaṇa-murder to kill an ātātāyin who is foremost by his austerities, learning and caste. This has in view Manu 8. 360. Kullūka distinctly says that Kātyāyana simply explains the verse of Manu by referring to it as Bhṛgu'ṣ On the other hand, there are several places where the views ascribed to Bhṛgu find no counterpart in the extant Manu. Bhṛgu seems to have been a predecessor of the author of the extant Manusmṛti since it mentions ( III. 16 ) the view of Bhṛgu. The Mit. on Yaj. III. 292 quotes a verse of Bhṛgu. Viśvarūpa also quotes a verse of Bhṛgu on Yaj. I.79 and another on Yaj. I.187, both of which are not found in the Manu-smṛti. Aparārka quotes in all four verses of Bhṛgu (on pp. 58, 461, 547, 696). The Smṛticandrikā, ⁵ after dilating upon the two superior places cited by Manu ( viz. the king or a judge appointed by the king where disputes are decided ) quotes three verses of Bhṛgu which refer to 15 inferior tribunals for decision in some special matterṣ The Smṛticandrikā also quotes several verses of Bhṛgu on Śrāddha, two of which are interesting and indicate that the Bhṛgu it quotes is a much later writer than Manu, as they refer to the position of the Sun in rāśis ( signs of the zodiac ).

According to Bhṛgu in all sāhasas of the worst type the truth should be found out by means of divine proof (ordeals &c. ) even though there may be witnesseṣ ⁶ There is nothing in the Manusmṛti corresponding with thiṣ According to Bhṛgu the ordeals of balance &c. are prescribed for those who are suspected to be in league with marauders and who have incurred popular censure, but in such cases there is no under-taking (by the complainant to pay fine).⁷ The Manusmṛti has not a word on this point. Household paraphernalia, beasts of burden, cattle, ornaments, slaves should be divided when discovered; if they are (alleged to be) concealed, the ordeal of kośa should be resorted to; so says Bhrgu.⁸ Another important circumstance that deserves to be noted is that Kātyāyana several times refers to the view of Manu. Kātyā-yana says that the view of Manu was ‘In those disputes (or crimes) for which ordeals are forbidden (to be administered to perpetrators) the king should make efforts to have them performed by good men on their behalf (if available); he should not abandon the person charged (without testing his guilt by proxy)’: this is the view of Manu.⁹ According to Manu, if a woman deserted her son, though he may be able (to pay), her strīdhana should be seized and the paternal debt should be paid thereout.¹⁰ Manu declared, says Kātyāyana, that if animals be killed, the offender should offer (to the owner) another similar animal or its proper price. All these views attributed to Manu by Kātyāyana are not found in the extant Manusmṛti. In certain places Kātyāyana refers to the views of the Mānavas; e. g. according to the Gārgiyas and Mānavas if a bribe had already been paid, the person receiving it should be made to repay it and should be finèd eleven times as much;¹¹ according to the Mānavas thieves caught red- handed with their booty should be at once banisheḍ¹² As regards both these references, the teaching of the Manusmṛti seems to be different; vide Manu 9. 231 and 270 respectively. These facts about Kātyāyana's references to Bhrgu and Manu raise several difficult questions, whether Bhrgu and Manu stand for two entirely different works or for the same work and whether he refers to some other version of the Manusmṛti ascribed to Bhrgu. In my opinion he is not referring to two separate works, and that he had before him a version of the Manusmṛti promulgated by Bhrgu but somewhat different from and probably larger than the present Manusmṛti.

In the nibandhas several verses are ascribed to Kātyāyana along with Manu, Yājñavalkya and Bṛhaspati. For example, the well-known verse about the sixfold division of strīdhana (adhyagnyādhyāvahanikam &c. ) is ascribed by the Dāyabhāga to Manu and Kātyāyana. The half-verse “varṇa-nāmānulomyena dāsyam na pratilomatah” is the same in both Yājñavalkya (II. 183) and Kātyāyana. The Viramitrodaya (p. 140 ) ascribes a verse to Bṛhaspati and Kātyāyana, in which the opinion of Bṛhaspati is citeḍ There is very close agreement between the definitions proposed by the two last writers of dharma, vyavahāra, caritra, and rājāsāsana. Besides Manu ( or Mānavas ), Bṛhaspati and Bhrgu, Kātyāyana cites the views of several other writers on dharma. For Gārgyas and Gautama vide notes 567 and 568. He says, accord-ing to Kauśika, powerful robbers were to be guarded by chains of iron, were to be low-fed and were to undergo hard labour for the state till death ( Aparārka p. 849 ). He quotes the view of Likhita that where a woman is deprived of food, raiment and dwelling ( by her husband's coparceners ) she would be entitled to demand her own ( strīdhana ) and a share from the coparcenerṣ In one case ( Aparārka p. 755 ), a verse is cited as Kātyāyana's in which Kātyāyana himself is named ( Parāśaramādhavīya III. p. 235 ).

Kātyāyana contains the same advanced views about law and rules of procedure as are found in Nārada and Bṛhaspati. He is even in advance of these two writers in certain matters, such as definitions in general and the elaboration of rules about strīdhana. He gives numerous definitions, such as those of vyavahāra, prāḍvivāka, stobhaka, dharmādhikaraṇa, tirita and anusiṣṭa, sāmanta &c. He seems to have been the first to invent some new termṣ For example, he defines paścātkāra as a judgment given in favour of the plaintiff' after a hot contest between the plaintiff' and the defendant, while the term jayapatra is restricted by him to the judgment given on admission by the defendant or a judgment dismissing the suit on various groundṣ¹³ He lays down a stringent rule that if a man abandons a ground of defence or attack and puts forward a less cogent one, he would not be allowed to put forward again the stronger ground after a decisive judgment of the court.¹⁴ This resembles the 4th explanation to section 11 of the Indian Civil Procedure Code ( 1908 ) about the verses about kārṣāpaṇa and dināra quoted above ( note 368 ) from Nārada ( pariśiṣṭa verses 58-60 ) are ascribed to Kātyāyana by the Smṛticandrikā.

The date of Kātyāyana can be settled only approxi mately. He is certainly much later than Manu and yajña valkya. As shown above he presupposes Nārada and regarded Bṛhaspati as a very leading authority on vyavahāra. Hence his upper limit is the 3rd or 4th century A. D. Viśvarūpa quotes eight verses as Kātyāyana's by name ( vide on Yaj. II. 5, 6, 47, 63, 281 ) on such topics of Vyavahāra as the defects of the plaint, the contents of the plaint, the liability for the debts of a deceased person, payments of debts of honour ( satyaṁkāra ), punishment for abortion, grievous hurt and homicide of a brāhmaṇa womaṇ Medhātithi ( on Manu 7. 1 ) ascribes to Kātyāyana the rule that in case of conflict between the dictates of dharmaśāstra and arthaśāstra the king should prefer the former. Medhātithi on Manu ( VIII. 216 ) speaks of Kātyāyana-sūtra, appears to quote a portion of it in prose and explains it.¹⁵ Medhātithi says that Kātyāyana extended the maxim of the trader carrying merchandise (bhāṇḍavāha-vaṇik maxim) to all similar transactionṣ All known quotations of Kātyāyana are in verse. When Medhātithi speaks of a sūtra and quotes a portion of it (as “vā” and “iti” after “nivarteta” indicate) in prose, we must either suppose that he is referring to some other work of Kātyāyana than the one in verse from which hundreds of verses are cited by other writers or that Kātyāyana’s work on vyavahāra also contained some prose passageṣ As hardly any other writer quotes a prose passage of Kātyāyana on vyavahāra, the second alternative appears somewhat unlikely. Viśvarūpa and Medhātithi regarded Kātyāyana as an authoritative smṛtikāra along with Nārada and Bṛhaspati. This position he could not have attained in less than a few hundred yearṣ Therefore, the lowest limit to which Kātyāyana can be assigned is the 6th century. Hence it may be said that Kātyāyana flourished between the 4th and 6th century A. D.

The Vyavahāramātṛkā (p. 307) quotes a Bṛhat-Kātyāyana on the question of proof. The Dāyabhāga mentions a Vṛddha-Kātyāyana. The Sarasvatīvilāsa also quotes verses of Vṛddha-Kātyāyana on rescission of purchase and other topics (p. 320). In the present state of our knowledge it is very difficult to say whether these two are different workṣ The Caturvarga-cintāmaṇi (vol. III, part 2, p. 657) speaks of Upakātyāyana. Aparārka on p. 485 quotes a verse from śloka-Kātyāyana which is not found in the Karmapradīpa (Jīvānanda’s eḍ), but appears to be a summary of a prose passage quoted as Kātyāyana’s immediately before by Aparārka.

In Jīvānanda’s collection of smṛtis (part I, pp. 603-644) there is one of Kātyāyana in three prapāṭhakas and 29 khaṇḍas and about five hundred verseṣ The same work is printed as Gobhilasmṛti in the Ānandāśrama collection (pp. 49-71). It contains also a few prose passages in the 12th, 13th and 14th khaṇḍaṣ The prevailing metre is Anuṣṭubh, a few verses being in the Indravajrā and other metreṣ 38. Kātyāyana work is styled the Karmapradipa of Kātyāyana. The opening verse justifies this name when it states that like a lamp the work will clearly show the mode of performing certain rites treated by Gobhila and other rites which are not clearly elucidateḍ¹⁶ The contents of this work are briefly as follows:—how to wear the sacred thread; sipping water and touching various limbs with water; the worship of Gaṇeśa and fourteen mātṛs in every rite; kuśas; śrāddha details; consecration of sacred fires; details about araṇis, sruc, sruva; rules about cleansing the teeth and bathing; sandhyā; prāṇa- yāma, muttering of Vedic mantras; tarpaṇa of gods and manes; the great daily yajñas; who is to offer śrāddha; rules about periods of impurity due to death; duties of wife; śrāddhas of various kindṣ

The Karmapradipa mentions by name several authorṣ It very frequently cites the views of Gobhila (pp. 603, 626, 638) and Gautama (pp. 619, 620, 626, 630, 636, 639). The Karmapradīpa as the opening verse says is intimately related to the Gobhila Gṛhyasūtra. It distinctly says that as Gobhila did not dilate upon the details as to time and procedure of goyajña and vājīyajña, Kātyāyana dilates upon theṃ This is borne out by the Gobhila gṛhya-sūtra¹⁷ Another passage of Kātyāyana¹⁸ about the Aṣṭakās is based upon the very words of the Gobhila-gṛhya. Frequent reference is made to the views of Vasiṣṭha on the worship of Mātṛs (p. 605), on śrāddha (pp. 608, 625). Vide also p. 642 (28. 16). Among the other authors named are Nārada on the sticks for danta- dhāvana (p. 615), Bhārgava (probably Uśanas) on p. 640, Śāṇḍilya and Śāṇḍilyāyana on p. 626. Kātyāyana is named in several places ( pp. 624, 627, 638 ) and once the first person ‘mamāpyetad hṛdi sthitam’ ( p. 643 ). The Kātyāyanasmṛti quotes the verse of Manu (III.70) on the five great yajñaṣ On p. 633 four verses forming the consolation to be offered to the relatives of a person departed are the same as Yāj. ( III. 8–11 ) and one verse in the same con- text occurs in the Mahābhārata ( Śāntiparva 27.31 and other places ).¹⁹ On p. 631 Kātyāyana speaks of Rāma having performed yajñas taking as his spouse the golden image of Sītā.

The question is:—what is the date of this Kātyāyana-smṛti ( Karmapradīpa ) and whether it is the work of Kātyā- yana the great jurist. The Mit. ( on Yāj. I. 254 ) quotes a verse as Kātyāyana’s which occurs in Jīvānanda’s text ( p. 624 verse 20 ); similarly the Mit. quotes two verses as Kātyā- yana’s (on Yāj. III. 247) which have a place in the Karmapradīpa ( Jīvānanda p. 634 verses 4–5 ). Scores of verses cited as Kātyāyana’s by Aparārka ( on ācāra and prāyaścitta ) are found in the Karmapradīpa. For example, vide Aparārka p. 43 ( three verses ) and Karmapradīpa (p.605, 1110–12 ), Aparārka p. 51 ( three verses about samūh ) and Karmapr. ( p. 613, 8. 17–19 ), Aparārka p. 135 ( four verses about bathing in rivers ) and Karma. ( p. 615, 10. 5–7 and 14 ), Aparārka p. 532 ( four verses on śrāddha in which Kātyāyana himself is cited as an authority ) and Karma. ( p. 621, 16. 16–19 ), Aparārka p. 872 ( six verses ) and Karma. ( 21. 2–7 p. 632 ), Aparārka p. 1066 ( three verses about an agnihotrin being guilty of mahāpātaka ) and Karma. ( 23. 4–6 p. 634 ). The Smṛticandrikā also quotes profusely from Kātyāyana on ācāra, śrāddha etc. and cites from the Karmapradīpa by name passages which occur in Jīvānanda’s editioṇ The above references show that in the eyes of the Mitākṣarā and Aparārka the Karmapradīpa was an authoritative work. Therefore, it follows that it must have been composed long before the 11th century A. D. It is, however, remarkable that several quotations ascribed to Kātyāyana in the Mitākṣarā, Aparārka and other works are not found in the Karmapradīpa. For example, the Mitākṣarā (on Yāj. III. 242) cites Kātyāyana’s verse about five varieties of lapses in conduct viz. mahāpā- taka, atipātaka, pātaka, prāsaṁgika, upapātaka and on Yāj. III. 260 quotes a verse of Kātyāyana about what are ati- pātakaṣ These are not to be traced in the Karmapradīpa printed by Jīvananda. Similarly, Aparārka (pp. 94–95) quotes three verses of Kātyāyana that are very interesting but are not found in Jīvananda’s editioṇ²⁰ Later works like the Nirṇayasindhu, the Saṁskāramayūkha, the Madanapāri- jāta quote numerous verses of Kātyāyana on upanayana, marriage and other saṁskāras which we vainly seek to find in the Karmapradīpa. It is better to hold with Dr. R. C. Hazra that several works were ascribed to Kātyāyana, though they were composed by different personṣ Vide New I. A. vol. VII at pp. 64–65.

The next question is whether Kātyāyana the jurist and the author of the Karmapradīpa are identical. There are not sufficient data to identify the two. The only fact that points to the identity is that such eminent and early writers as Vijñāneśvara and Aparārka appear to make no distinction between the two. Besides, the Karmapradīpa is also an early work. Against this it has to be remembered that Viśvarūpa, probably the most ancient of all extant commentators, no- where quotes Kātyāyana on ācāra and prāyaścitta. This absence of quotations is not a not very cogent argument; still it raises a doubt in one’s mind whether a work of Kātyāyana on ācāra and other non-jural topics was known to Viśvarūpa.

A few words must be said about the additional 121 verses collected and published in Kane Festschrift by Prof. Aiyangar as ascribed to Kātyāyana. Many verses are ascribed to Bṛhaspati in some Dharmaśāstra works which are attributed to Kātyāyana by otherṣ For reasons of space only a few striking examples are cited below: ( Kāt. = collection of Kātyāyana’s verses by P. V. Kane and Br. Col. stands for Bṛhaspati Collection). Prof. Aiyangar's own collection of Bṛhaspati verses; P. M. = Parāśara-mādhavīya, Vy. N.=Vyavahāranirṇaya eḍ by Prof. Aiyangar):

1. The verse ‘Unmatta-matta’ in Vy. N. p. 59 is ascribed to Bṛ. by Aparārka p. 615 in Bṛ. Col. (I. 173). 2. The verse ‘Pramāṇasamatā yatra’ Kāt. in Vy. N. p. 63 is Bṛ. 3.45 (p. 43) found in Aparārka p. 625, Smṛticandrikā and several other workṣ 3. ‘Stribālārtalipijñānām’ is Kāt. in Vy. N. p. 91, but Bṛ. Col. p. 66 (Bṛ. in Smṛ. c. p. 65 on Vy.). 4. ‘Paśyan-nanyasya dadatāḥ’ is Kāt. in Vy. N. p. 138, while it is Bṛ. in Aparārka p. 632, Smṛ. c. (Vy. p. 68). 5. ‘Parīkṣeta svayam paṇyam’ is Kāt. in Vy. N. p. 344, but Bṛ. (in Bṛ. Col. p. 156 and is Smṛ c. (Vy. p. 220), Vyavahāramātṛkā p. 215 and otherṣ 6. ‘Vāgdaṇḍam prathamam kuryāt’ is Kāt. acc. to Vy. N. p. 528, but Bṛ. in Daṇḍaviveka p. 263 (Bṛ. Col. p. 227).

Three verses of Manu are quoted as occurring in Kāt. by Vy. N. p. 529, which are respectively Manu IX. 288 and Manu VIII. 124–125.

The verse ‘strīṇām sākṣyam striyaḥ kuryuḥ’ is ascribed to Kāt. (my collection No. 351) and to Manu by Vyavahāramātṛkā p. 323 (and it is Manu VIII. 68). The same is the case with the verse ‘Svabhāvenaiva yad-brūyus’ &c. (Kāt. No. 393, which is Manu 8. 78). The verse ‘anupasthāpayan-mūlam’ (Kāt. No. 619) is ascribed to Manu by the Mit. on Yāj. II. 170 and to Kāt. by Smṛ. caṇ (Vy. p. 215), Par. M., Vivāda-ratnākara 108 and Viramitrodaya and Vy. Mayūkha.

It is difficult to say why these differences arise. All that can be proposed as the rule to be followed is that the ascrip tion to Bṛ. or Kāt. of a verse should be accepted on this basis that one should follow what the older and distinguished authors and works (such as Viśvarūpa, Mitākṣarā, Aparārka, Kalpataru, Vyavahāramātṛkā, Smṛticandrikā and Parāśaramādhavīya) say or a majority of them say.

Similarly, many verses on Vyavahāra are ascribed to both Bṛhaspati and Kātyāyana. A few examples may be citeḍ Kāt. verses 382–384 are ascribed to different authors by different authoritieṣ Verses 693–95 in my Kāt. collection are . 38. Kātyāyana assigned to different authors viz. to Nārada (first two occur in printed Nārada 12. 5–6 ), Br̥haspati, Kāt. and Vyāsa (No. 83 Kāt. ) is ascribed to both Br. and Kāt. in Vyavahāramātr̥kā p. 281 (it is Kauṭilya I. 19. 32); No. 141 is ascribed to both Br. and Kāt. by Kalpataru (Vy. p. 61, Vya. Mātr̥kā p. 291, but Aparārka (p. 610) and Smr. c. (Vya. p. 40) ascribe to Br. alone and it occurs in Viśvarūpa on Yāj. II. 6 (without name). The Pr̥thvīcandra ascribes it to both Br. and Kāt. (on Vya. p. 47, a digest of about last quarter of the 15th century A. D.); Kāt. No. 152 (‘ sāhasasteya ’ &c.) is ascribed to both Br. and Kāt. by Pr̥thvīcandra (Vy. p. 55) and Kalpataru (Vy. p. 67) and is almost the same as Yāj. II. 12 ).

Kātyāyana himself is named in a verse that is cited from Kātyāyana by Par. M.²¹

The number of Smr̥tis or Smr̥tikāras quoted or referred to by themselves or mentioned in commentaries and digests is very large, particularly if one takes into account Smr̥tikāras ‘brhat’ ‘madhyama,’ ‘laghu’ and ‘vr̥ddha’ prefixed to many of theṃ The important versified Smr̥tis in the Sanskrit alphabetical order will now be briefly dealt with one after another.