64. Medhātithi

Volume I: Part I pp. 573–583

64. Medhātithi

64. Medhātithi

Medhātithi is the author of an extensive and erudite commentary ( bhāṣya ) on the Manusmṛti. It is the oldest extant commentary on that smṛti. The bhāṣya of Medhātithi was first published about forty years ago by Rao Saheb V. N. Mandlik in Bombay and recently Mr. J. R. Gharpure of Bombay brought out an edition of Medhātithi which closely follows Mandlik's editioṇ A critical edition of the bhāṣya based upon all the available Msṣ is a great desideratum. A new edition in two volumes based on several msṣ edited by M. M. Dr. Ganganath Jha was published in the G. O. I. Series in 1932 and 1939. In this edition also ten verses in the 3rd adhyāya are wanting and in adhyāya nine there are substantial lacunas in the commentary on verses 1, 4-6 as in Mandlik's editioṇ An English translation by M. M. Dr. Ganganath Jha is in progress and several parts have been published so far. In the following, Mr. Gharpure's edition has been useḍ The bhāṣya as printed is corrupt in many places, particularly in the 8th, 9th and 12th adhyāyas. In Mr. Gharpure's edition there is no bhāṣya on verses 182-202 of the 9th chapter.

Bühler in his learned and exhaustive Introduction to the Manusmṛti ( S. B. E. vol. 25 ) brings together a good deal of information about Medhātithi ( pp. cxviii–cxxvi ). In J B B R A S for 1925, pp. 217–221, I have offered criticisms on some of Bühler's views and have given some additional informatioṇ

In several Msṣ of the bhāṣya at the end of several adhyāyas occurs a verse¹ which says that a king named Madana, son of Sahāraṇa, brought copies of Medhātithi's commentary from another country and effected a restoration ( jīrṇoddhāra ). This does not refer to the restoration of the text of Medhātithi, but to the completion of the library of the king, who was Madanapāla, son of Sādhāraṇa and flourished, as we shall see later on, in the latter half of the 14th century.

Dr. Jolly ( Tagore Law Lectures p. 6 ) holds Medhātithi to be a southerner on account of the fact that his father's name was Vīrasvāmin and on account of the attention paid to his bhāṣya by southern writerṣ It cannot be said that names ending in ‘svāmin’ were a monopoly of the south. The Rājatarangiṇī gives literary celebrities whose names ended in ‘svāmin’ ( e. g. V. 34 mentions a Śivasvāmi ). Kṣīrasvāmin was a Kāshmiriaṇ The south has always been famed for preserving Msṣ of valuable works from the north. Msṣ of the Kāvyālamkāra of Bhāmaha, a Kāshmirian, are very rare and have been found only in the south. Bühler ( p. cxx III ) seems to be right in holding that Medhātithi was a Kāshmi- rian (or at least an inhabitant of Northern India). In explain- ing such words as ‘svarāṣṭre’ and ‘janapadaḥ’ (Manu VII. 32 and VIII. 42) Medhātithi introduces Kashmir. He gives (on Manu VIII. 400) the monopoly of the sale of elephants as a privilege of the kings of Kashmir where saffron aboundṣ² He says that the rainbow is called ‘vijñāna-chāyā’ in Kashmir (on Manu IV. 59). He very frequently refers to northerners i. e. on Manu III. 234 he says ‘kutapa’ is the word for what is well-known as ‘kambala’ among northern people and on III. 238 he says ‘northern people’ wrap their heads with *śātaka*s (garments). He says on Manu II. 24 that in the Himālayas in Kashmir it is not possible to perform the daily sandhyā in the open nor is it possible to bathe every day in a river in ‘Hemanta’ and ‘Śiśira’. On Manu II. 18 he says ‘in other countries, some say, people marry one’s maternal uncle’s daughter; but that is opposed to the words of Gautama’ (4. 3) and proceeds ‘even in that country taking food in the same plate with (or in the company of) one whose thread ceremony is not performed is not at all re- garded as dharma (but as improper conduct)’. This is clearly a reference to Baudhāyana Dh. S. (I. 1. 19) according to which ‘mātulasutā-pariṇayana’ and taking food in the same plate with one whose upanayana is not performed are two of the five usages peculiar to the south. It is fair to add that later writers like Kamalākarabhatta (Nirṇayasindhu, 3rd pariccheda on sāpiṇḍya) regard Medhātithi as a southerner.

Medhātithi quotes from or names numerous smṛti writers, such as Gautama, Baudhāyana, Āpastamba, Vasiṣṭha Viṣṇu, Śaṅkha, Manu, Yāj., Nārada, Parāśara, Bṛhaspati, Kātyāyana and otherṣ He refers to Bṛhaspati as a writer on ‘vārtā’ (Manu VII. 43 and IX, 326) and to Bṛhaspati and Uśanas as writers on politics and government (Manu VIII. 285, VII. 2 and 155). On Manu VII. 43 he refers to Cāṇakya as a writer on ‘daṇḍanīti’. In numerous places he seems to have drawn upon Kauṭilya's work. For example, on Manu VII. 155 in interpreting 'pañcavarga' as 'kāpatika, udāsthita, grha-patika, vaidehika and tāpasavyañjana' he explains them almost in the words of Kauṭilya ( I. 2 ). On VII. 148 he quotes the five angas of mantra in the very words of Kauṭilya.³ Vide also his remarks on Manu VII. 54 (testing of ministers by upadhās ). He names Asahāya ( on 8. 156 ) and certain writers as Smrtivivaraṇakārāḥ ( on II. 25 ). Buhler is not quite accurate ( p. cxx, ṇ 1 ) when he states that 'Medhātithi gives only once the name of an early commentator'. On VIII. 3 he refers to the interpretations of Bhartryajña He refers to the interpretations ( on VIII. 151 and 156 ). Yajvan is only the last part of a name ( as in Devarājayajvan ). He quotes the interpretation of Manu by Upādhyāya ( on II. 109, IV. 162, V. 43, IX. 141 and 147 ). Bühler holds that Medhātithi refers to his own teacher. It is more likely that Upadhyāya, like Yajvan, is the name or part of the name of a previous commentator of Manu. On VIII. 152 the explanations of Rju are twice citeḍ On IX. 253 Medhātithi cites the view of one Viṣṇusvāmiṇ⁴ From the tenor of the quotation it appears that Viṣṇusvāmin was a writer on Mīmāṁsā and not a commentator of Manu as Buhler thought ( p. cxx, ṇ 1 ). Some Msṣ read the word preceding Viṣṇusvāmi as ‘kovara’, others as ‘kāvara’. It is probably ‘kāvera’ (residing on the Kāveri river).

He quotes ( on Manu I. 19 ) a verse from the Sāṅkhyakā-rikā ( prakṛter mahān &c ). On Manu I. 5 Medhātithi remarks that the evolution set out (in Manu I. 5 ff) is in some parts based on the Purāṇas and in some other parts based on the Sāṅkhya system and that it does not matter much as regards ‘dharma’ and ‘adharma’ whether it (i. e. evolution ) is well understood or not. He further states that ‘Mahān’ occurring in Manu I. 15 is the Sāṅkhya ‘Mahat-tattva’ and that in Manu I. 16 ‘ahaṅkāra’ and the five ‘tanmātrās’ of the Sāṅkhya system are mentioneḍ On Manu I. 17 he quotes a part of Sāṅkhyakārikā 22 (pañcabhyaḥ pañca bhūtāni) and on I. 19 quotes the first half of the same kārikā. He further remarks that the Paurāṇic procedure of evolution is mentioned by Manu in I. 21 ff. He speaks of Vindhyavāsa⁵ as a Sāṅkhya and says that he does not admit a subtle interim body (antarābhavadeha). This is probably taken from Kumārila’s wordṣ⁶ He repeatedly refers to the purāṇas, tells us (on III. 232) that they were composed by Vyāsa and contained accounts of creatioṇ He quotes (on XII. 118) a verse from the Vākyapradīpa.⁷

He tells us (on II. 6) that the Pāñcarātras, Nirgranthas (Jains) and Pāśupatas were outside the pale of Vedic orthodoxy.⁸

Medhātithi had drunk deep at the fountain of the Pūrva-mīmāṁsā. His bhāṣya is full of the terms vidhi and artha-vāda. On Manu III. 45 (ṛtu-kālābhigāmī syāt) Medhātithi discusses whether this is a niyama or parisankhyā just as the Mit. on Yāj. I. 79 and 81 discusses the same question and Medhātithi quotes the well-known verse ‘vidhir-atyantama-prāptau niyamaḥ pākṣike sati’ &c. Medhātithi (at the end of his commentary on Manu I. 11) remarks that these are arthavādas and are to be explained some-how in a metaphorical sense, and not literally (Arthavāda... yathā kathāñcidguṇavādena nīyante). For Arthavāda and its three varieties, vide H. of Dh. Vol. V. part 2 pp. 1240-1. On Manu II. 1 he remarks ‘in the first adhyāya five or six verses are meant to set out the purpose of this śāstra, the rest are artha-vādas and it does not matter much if they are not well understood; instruction is directly given here (in II. 1 and the following verses on ‘What Dharma is’. Even in Chap. II he remarks that II. 83, 87, 233 are mere arthavādas, Vide, for example, remarks on Manu III. 17, 19, 37, 50, 56, V. 53-54, VIII. 21, 22, 98 &c. He quotes Jaimini’s Sūtras frequently and applies them to the interpretation of smṛti texts at every step. Vide J B B R A S for 1925 p. 219 for exampleṣ He cites passages from Śābara’s bhāṣya (e. g. on III. 1). He mentions Kumārila by name (on I. 3) and as Bhaṭṭapāda (on Manu II. 18).

Medhātithi mentions several nyāyas for explaining the Manusmṛti. On II. 29 he extends the Mīmāṁsānyāya (sarva- sākhāpratyayam-ekam karma' P. M. S. II. 4. 8–33 which applies to Vedic passages) to Smṛtis also and states that where the smṛtis differ, there is either an option or all pro- visions of the Smṛtis on a certain point are to be added up; vide H. of Dh. Vol. V. p. 1350 for this nyāya. On Manu II, 101 he mentions the nyāya 'Guṇalope ca mukhyasya' for an explanation of which, vide H. of Dh. Vol. V. p. 1343 (where it is shown that it is based on P. M. S. X. 2. 63 ). On Manu II. 102 he quotes the verse 'arke cet madhu vindeta kimartham parvatam vrajet' (quoted by Śabara on I. 2. 4). Vide H. Dh. Vol. V. p. 1340 for referenceṣ On Manu X. 127 Medhātithi relies on 'Yāvad-vacanam 'vācanikam', for which vide H. Dh. V. p. 1348. Another nyāya that M. mentions is 'nimittāvr- ttau naimittikāvṛttiḥ' on Manu XI. 220, which is explained in H. of Dh. Vol. V. p. 1345.

Some common nyāyas mentioned by M. are 'Brāhmaṇa- parivrājakanyāya (on Manu I. 22), Kākatalīya-nyāya (on Manu I. 12), Viśvajit-nyāya (on Manu II. 2).

Bühler at first took the remark on Manu XII. 19 ) about 'Śārīraka' ⁹ referring to Śaṅkara’s bhāṣya on the Vedānta- sūtra, but later on changed his opinion ( S B E vol. 25, p. CXXII ) and held that it probably implies a reference to the Śārīraka sūtraṣ Bühler’s considered opinion does not seem to be right. The words 'yatheha rājā ... apaiti' are a summary of Śaṅkara’s bhāṣya on Vedāntasūtra II. 1. 34 and II. 3. 42 and I. 2. 11–12. On Manu II. 83 he refers to the Upaniṣad- bhāṣya¹⁰ on Chāndogya II. 23. 4 and says that that passage has been differently explained in the bhāṣya. Śaṅkara does explain that passage of the Chāndogya differently. But this is not all. In various other places Medhātithi seems to have in view the Śārīrakabhāṣya of Śaṅkara. For example, he makes an obeisance to Parabrahma like an advaitin 'vedānta-tattvāya...parasmai Brahmaṇe namaḥ'. On I. 80 he has¹¹ before him Śaṅkara's bhāṣya on the sūtra 'lokavat tu līlākaivalyam' ( Vedāntasūtra II. 1. 33 ). He, however, seems to have favoured the position that the attainment of mokṣa is due¹² not to mere correct knowledge but to the combina- tion ( samuccaya ) of knowledge and karma ( vide remarks on Manu VI. 32, 74–75 and XII. 87–90 ). This was probably due, as Kullūka remarks¹³ ( on I, 3), to his being a profound student of Mīmāṁsā.

From Medhātithi's bhāṣya it is perfectly clear that the text of Manu on which he commented was practically the same that we have now. He refers to ancient ( cirantana ) expositors of Manu ( on V. 127 ) and to former ( pūrva ) expositors ( IV. 176, II. 134, X. 21 ). He discusses various read- ings in several places ( vide III. 119, IV, 99, 185, 229, VIII. 53). On VIII, 182-183 he notes¹⁴ that the order of the verses was traditionally different. Kullūka also notices that those two verses and the next two were read in one order by Medhātithi and Bhojadeva and in another by Govindarāja. On 9. 93 he notes that according to some that verse is not Manu'ṣ¹⁵ On Manu II. 160 he gives three interpretations of the word ‘Vedāntopagatam’. In numerous places he refers ( in the words ‘anye’, ‘kecit’ ‘pūrva’) to the explanations of the Manusmṛti that differ from his own; vide for example, on I. 28, 84, II. 5 (bahavaścaītra vyākhyāvikalpāḥ, asāratvat tu II. 28, 84; III. 109; VIII. 1, 2, 30, 43, 359, 375, 410; IX. 18, 64, 76; X. 21, 188. He quotes numerous verses with the words ‘uktam ca’ or ‘taduktam’ without naming the sources, some of which are taken from the Upaniṣads (as ‘na ha vai saśarīrasya sataḥ’ on II. I which is Chāṇ Up. VIII. 12. 1 or ‘dve brāhmaṇī veditavye’ on VI. 84, which occurs in Maitrāyaṇī Up. VI. 22 ) or on II. 83 he quotes Chāṇ Up. II. 23. 3 ‘tad-yathā śaṅkunā sarvāṇi patrāṇi santṛṇṇāni evam-oṁkāṇa sarvā vāk santṛṇṇā’ and on the same verse he quotes Yogasūtra I. 27-28. He quotes many verses from the Mahābhārata, mentions the Nirukta ( on I. 22, II. 10, V. 5), quotes Pāṇini's Sūtras on many verses and the Mahābhāṣyakāra (on Manu II. 12 and 123). On several verses his bhāṣya extends to three, four or even five printed pages as on II. 165, 189, III. I (five pages), 238, V. 2, VIII. 104, 148, X. 5.

One remarkable fact about Medhātithi may be mentioned here. Vijñāneśvara flourished about two hundred years after Medhātithi and names 80 Smṛtis and Smṛtikāraṣ Yājñavalkya (I. 4-5) names twenty authors that propounded Dharma. Viśvarūpa (commentator of Yāj. ), who flourished a little earlier than ( or might he be at the most a contemporary of Medhātithi ) names 30 Dharmaśāstra authorṣ But Medhātithi, who wrote an extensive bhāṣya on Manu, speaks in general of Kalpasūtrakāras (on III. 5), of Gṛhyasmṛtis (on II. 29) and Gṛhyakāras (on III. 45), names (besides Manu ) only a few writers of Dharmasūtras and Smṛtis e. g Angiras ( on V. 55 ), Āp. Dh. S. ( a few times ), Uśanas ( two verses on VII. 154 ), Kātyāyana ( only once on VII. 1 ), Gautama ( a. of Dharmasūtra, most frequently quoted ), Nārada ( quoted several times ) Baudhāyana ( two verses on Manu IV. 36 ), Bṛhaspati ( as writer on Vārtā on Manu VII. 43 and IX. 326 ), Yājñavalkya ( quoted more than a dozen times ), Vasiṣṭha ( quoted frequently ), Viṣṇu ( a. of Dh. S. only once on Manu III. 238 ), Vyāsa ( on Manu I. 55, X. 127 ), Śaṅkha ( 3 times in prose on Manu III. 234, V. 62 and 111 ) and once on V. 60 a verse ‘yadyekajātā bahavaḥ’ &c. which is ascribed to Śaṅkha-Likhita in Śrāddhakalpataru p. 263 ), Saṁvarta ( two verses on Manu XI. 114-5 ), Hārīta ( three times in prose on Manu V. 60, 111 and 119 ). Medhātithi does not quote any ( Smṛtikāra with the prefix ‘bṛhat’ or ‘vṛddha,’ while the Mit. mentions over a dozen smṛtikāras with those prefixes ( vide below on Mit. ). This leads one to presume that most of the works with those prefixes were either not composed before Medhātithi or ( more probably ) were recent works in Medhātithi’s day or that, even though some of them were composed sometime before Medhātithi, they had not penetrated to distant Kashmir in Medhā- tithi’s day.

Medhātithi’s bhāṣya is full of very interesting informatioṇ But for want of space it cannot be analysed in detail. The Mit. ( on Yāj. II. 124 ) refers to the view of Asahāya and Medhātithi ( on Manu 9. 118 ) about the fourth share to be given to an unmarried sister at a partition between brothers and follows it in preference to Bhāruci’ṣ On Yāj. III. 24 the Mit. tells us that certain texts of Ṛṣyaśṛṅga about varying periods of impurity for brāhmaṇas and others were not accepted as authoritative by Dhareśvara, Viśvarūpa and Medhātithi. According to him¹⁶ saṁnyāsa does not mean the giving up of all the obligatory duties laid down by śāstra, but the giving up of ahaṁkāra. He¹⁷ allowed a brāhmaṇa to adopt even a kṣatriya boy. He explains away the well-known verse ‘naṣṭe mṛte...patiraṇyo vidhiyate’ by taking the word ‘pati’ in its etymological sense and says¹⁸ that the verse suggests that in order to maintain herself in such calamities the woman may take service with another person as her protector.

Medhātithi quotes several verses from his own work called Smṛtiviveka on Manu II. 6 (in all 24 verses) and on X. 5 he says that he has dealt with the topic of mixed castes in Smṛtiviveka. That work, therefore, was either entirely in verse or contained numerous verseṣ The Parāśara-Mādhavīya (vol. I, part 2, pp. 183–186) has a long quotation in verse on the duties of yatis from a work called Smṛtiviveka and the same work several times quotes verses attributed to Medhātithi (vol. I, part I, p. 276 and part 2, p. 172). Hence the Smṛtiviveka cited by the Parāśara-Mādhavīya most probably is Medhātithi’s work. Lollaṭa,¹⁹ an early writer quotes several verses of Medhātithi in his work on śrāddha. In the Tithinirṇaya-sarvasamuccaya (Bhadkamkar collection) several verses of Medhātithi on obstacles to marriage such as death are quoteḍ²⁰ In the Yatidharmasaṅgraha of Viśveśvara-sarasvatī (Ānandāśrama eḍ p. 27) two well-known verses about ‘aṣṭāṅgamāithuna’ (viz. smaraṇam kīrtanam kelih etc.) are ascribed to Medhātithi and another verse²¹ is cited ( on the same page ) about the six duties of yatis. These quotations show that Medhātithi wrote an extensive work in verse on several topics of dharma. It is to be fervently hoped that this work of Medhātithi would be brought to light some day or other. Coming as it does from such an erudite and ancient writer, it would throw a flood of light on the development of dharmaśāstra.

As Medhātithi names Asahāya and Kumārila and most probably quotes the views of Śaṅkarācārya, he is later than 820 A. D. As the Mit. looked upon him as an authoritative writer, he must be earlier than 1050 A. D. Most probably he flourished between 825 and 900 A. D. Kullūka²² on Manu III. 127 says that Medhātithi is much earlier than Govindarāja (1050-1100 A. D. ). Lollaṭa is mentioned as a predecessor in the Smṛtyartha-sāra of Śrīdhara, which was composed between 1150-1200 A. D. So Lollaṭa is much earlier than 1150 A. D. He looked upon Medhātithi as a writer whose work was as authoritative as a smṛti. A work called Prakāśa²³ which is quoted in the Kalpataru appears to have mentioned Medhā-tithi. Hemādri quotes at great length Medhātithi’s comments in several placeṣ²⁴ Hence the above date is amply corroborateḍ This conclusion is further strengthened by the fact that, though he names Asahāya, he does not mention Viśva-rūpa, Bhāruci or Śrīkara. If by Miśra,²⁵ in his comment on Manu XII. 118 he refers to Vācaspati-miśra, the author of the Bhāmati and other works, then he will have to be placed after 850 A. D.