59. Asahāya
Volume I: Part I pp. 546–551
Portion of his bhāṣya on Nārada (up to verse 21 of abhyu- petyāśuśrūṣā) published by Dr. Jolly – Kalyāṇabhaṭṭa revised it – exact relationship of Kalyāṇabhaṭṭa’s revision to original not clear, but he took great liberties – Kalyāṇabhaṭṭa was encouraged by Keśavabhaṭṭa – Viśvarūpa on Yāj. (III. 263–264) mentions Asa- hāya by name and quotes latter’s explanation of Gautama 22. 13– Asahāya’s com. on Śaṅkha-Likhita mentioned by Ānandagiri – Haralatā of Aniruddha speaks of bhāṣya of Asahāya on Gautama – from a passage of Sarasvatīvilāsa it appears that Asahāya com- mented on Manu also – Medhātithi on Manu 8. 156 quotes Asahāya – Mitākṣarā mentions the views of Asahāya – date of Asahāya between 600–750 A. D.–a few views of Asahāya set out, viz. definition of dāya, succession to śulka of a woman, succession to a childless brāhmaṇa.
— Synopsis by P.V. Kane, from History of Dharmaśāstra
59. Asahāya
59. Asahāya
Dr. Jolly in his edition of the Nāradasmṛti ( B. I. series ) has incorporated a portion of the bhāṣya of Asahāya as re- vised by Kalyāṇabhaṭṭa. Even this revised version comes up to only verse 21 of the fifth title abhyupetya-aśuśrūṣā. The exact relation of Kalyāṇabhaṭṭa's labours to the original bhāṣya cannot be accurately gauged from the opening1 words 'finding that the Nāradabhāṣya composed by Asahāya was spoilt (bhraṣṭa ) by bad scribes, Kalyāṇa composes this after revising the ancient one'. The colophon at the end of the first chapter of the Vyavahāramātṛkā says that Kalyāṇabhaṭṭa revised the bhāṣya of Asahāya at the encouragement of Keśava-bhaṭṭa.2 Kalyāṇabhaṭṭa seems to have taken great liberties with the text of the original bhāṣya. On p. 9 verse 15 ( rājā satpuruṣaḥ sabhyaḥ śāstraṁ gaṇakalekhakaḥ ) the comment on śāstra is ‘ Manu-Nārada-Viśvarūpātmakam’. If Viśvarūpa named here be identical with the Viśvarūpa who commented on Yāj. (as is almost certain), this passage could not have occurred in Asahāya’s bhāṣya. Viśvarūpa, in commenting on Yāj. III. 263-64, mentions Asahāya by name and cites his explanation of a sūtra of Gautama (22. 13). The name Kalyāṇabhaṭṭa frequently occurs in the printed commentary itself (p. 81, 86, 89 ).3
In the I. O. mṣ there is a salutation to Śiva and Gaṇeśa at the beginning. There is a mṣ of the Nāradiyabhāṣya as printed by Dr. Jolly in the Govt. Msṣ Library at the B. O. R. Institute, Poona, (No. 72 of 1874-75 ). It does not contain the first folio and curiously enough it ends just where the printed text stopṣ Dr. Jolly omits a few lengthy passages occurring in the mṣ and generally indicates such omissions by dotṣ In a few cases Dr. Jolly omits only a word or two for no apparent reason, e. g. on p. 8 (folio 7b of No. 27 of 1874-75 ) he omits the word ‘paramasamṛddhyā’ after ‘vyavahāraḥ’ and before ‘caturṇām-api varṇānām’.
The Kalpataru ( on Mokṣa pp. 48-49 ) quotes Gautama Dh. S. III. 10-24 from ‘ Anicayo bhikṣuḥ’ to ‘ Anārambhī’ and cites the explanations of Bhartṛyajña, Asahāya and Maskarin on some words occurring in theṃ Maskarin is a well-known commentator on Gautama ( the coṃ is printed ). It seems that Bhartṛyajña and Asahāya also composed commentaries; vide ABORI Vol. 18 p. 205 where Prof. Rāghavan draws attention to Asahāya’s commentary on Śaṅkha-Likhita mentioned by Ānandagiri. On p. 544 the Vivādaratnākara quotes Manu IX. 165 ( Aurasakṣetrajau ) and Asahācārya’s explanation thereoṇ The Hāralatā of Aniruddha who was the guru of king Ballālasena of Bengal, the author of Adbhutasāgara (about 1168 A. D.), tells us that Asahāya composed a bhāṣya on the Gautamadharmaśūtra.4 Viśvarūpa also cites, as said above, Asahāya's explanation of a sūtra of Gautama.
It appears that Asahāya probably wrote a commentary on the Manusmṛti also. A passage of the Sarasvatīvilāsa5 says that partition of dharma was approved of by smṛtikāras like Manu, Yājñavalkya, by their commentators, viz. Asahāya, Medhātithi, Vijñāneśvara and Aparārka and by writers of nibandhas, viz. the author of the Candrikā and otherṣ Here the order in which the commentators are named requires that Asahāya like Medhātithi was known to be a commentator of Manu. This conclusion is to some extent corroborated by the fact that the Vivādaratnākara6 quotes with reference to Manu 9. 182 the words of Asahāya thereoṇ On Manu 8. 156 Medhātithi quotes the opinion of Asahāya.7 Manu VIII. 155 in in Mandlik’s editioṇ
The foregoing establishes that Asahāya composed bhāṣyas on the Gautamadharmaśūtra, on the Manusmṛti and on Nārada. When the Smṛticandrikā8 refers to a bhāṣya of Nārada it is most probably referring to Asahāya. In the Mit. (on Yāj. II. 124 ) the opinion of Asahāya and Medhātithi on the right of an unmarried sister to receive one-fourth as pro- priage from her brothers is preferred to that of Bhāruci.9 This seems to be rather a reference to Asahāya’s commentary on Manu ( 9. 118 ) which contains a rule similar to Yāj. ( II. 124 ), while Nārada contains no such rule about a fourth share. It is a strange irony of fate that the very name of Asahāya who is profusely quoted by the Sarasvativilāsa in the first half of the sixteenth century was forgotten by later writers, so much so that the Bālambhaṭṭi understands the word Asahāya (in note 515 above) as an attribute of Medhā- tithi in the sense of ‘peerless’.
As Viśvarūpa and Medhātithi both name Asahāya, his lowest limit is about 750 A. D. How much earlier he flourish- ed it is difficult to say. He can hardly be earlier than the 6th century. In the coṃ on Nārada (p. 48 ) there is a story about the repayment of a debt by sons, grandsons and great-grandsonṣ It has been argued ( Calcutta Law Journal, vol. 17 p. 59 ) that, as Pāṭaliputra was a desert- ed city in the middle of the 7th century and as the reference shows that Pāṭaliputra was a living and flourishing city, Asahāya must have lived long before the 7th century. But as the very authenticity of the text of the bhāṣya is doubtful owing to the drastic ‘revision’ of Kalyāṇabhaṭṭa, such a conclusion is extremely hazardouṣ In the mṣ of the bhāṣya other places such as Vaṭapadraka (probably modern Baroda ), Avāvaḍu and Saṃvāduka are mentioneḍ There is nothing to show that the author was either a native of or had a first-hand knowledge of Pāṭaliputra. He might have been relying on traditions when he gave the story. Dr. Jolly not being aware of the express mention of Asahāya by Medhātithi argued that he flourished earlier than Medhātithi (Tagore Law Lectures p. 5; S. B. E. vol. 25 p. VII) on the ground that the Mit. and the Sarasvatīvilāsa always place Asahāya before Medhātithi whenever authorities on vyavahāra are enumerat- eḍ Dr. Jolly's conclusion is right as shown above, but his reasoning is faulty. There is hardly anything of chronology in the order in which authors are named, since we find that the Sarasvatīvilāsa10 names Vijñāneśvara even before Asahāya though the former flourished centuries after the latter.
Some of the views attributed to Asahāya may be quoted here. The definition of dāya (heritage) given by the Mit. was identical with Asahāya'ṣ11 Asahāya explained the dic- tum of Uśanas that fields were impartible by taking it to refer to the son of a brāhmaṇa from a kṣatriya wife, who does not participate in land gifted to a Brāhmaṇa.12 The Mit. on Yaj. II. 119 takes the same view. Asahāya held that as regards succession to the Śulka of a woman even step-brothers should be given something, though the major portion would go to the full brotherṣ13 According to Asahāya, the wealth of a child- less brāhmaṇa went to the teacher, then to the teacher's son, then to the teacher's widow, the pupil, pupil's son, pupil's widow (one after another ) and then to the fellow-student.14 The Vivādaratnākara15 (p. 578) quotes the Prakāśa as referring to the views of Asahāya and Medhātithi on Manu IX. 198 that the special rule of Manu applies to all the strīdhana belonging to a Kșatriya woman who has a brāhmaņi co-wife. The Vivādaratnākara16 quotes a verse of Nārada about māsa and a verse of the bhāsyakāra thereoṇ It probably refers to Asahāya’s bhāsya.