101. Vācaspatimiśra

Volume I: Part II pp. 844–854

101. Vācaspatimiśra

101. Vācaspatimiśra Vācaspatimiśra is the foremost nibandha writer on Smṛti in Mithilā. His Vivādacintāmaṇi had been recognised by the High Courts in India and by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as a work of paramount authority on matters of Hindu Law in Mithilā.¹ His literary activity was closely connected with the reigns of two kings of Mithilā, viz. Bhairavendra or Bhairavasimha (also styled Harinārāyaṇa) and his son Rāmabhadra (called also Rūpanārāyaṇa), both of the Kāmeśvara dynasty. Vācaspati was an extremely voluminous writer and appears to have composed dozens of workṣ In the Śrāddhakapla alias Pitṛbhakti-taraṅgiṇī, almost his latest work, he says that he wrote in his youth ten works on śāstra and thirty nibandhas on smṛti and composed the work in question in his declining yearṣ² At least eleven works of his bearing the title 'cintāmaṇi' are knowṇ They are briefly noticed below.

The Acāracintāmaṇi deals with the daily rites of Vājasaneyinṣ³ The Acāracintāmaṇi is mentioned by Raghu. (in vol. I) 101. Vācaspatimiśra Tithi p. 24, Āhnika p. 407 (for the 16 upacāras); (in vol. II), Maṭhapratiṣṭhā 616; and Āhnikacintāmaṇi is mentioned in vol. I p. 357 and vol. II p. 58 Ekādaśī (for 36 upacāras in Devapūjā). The Āhnikacintāmaṇi is quoted in his Suddhicintāmaṇi. The Kṛtyacintāmaṇi was published in Bengali characters at Benares in śake 1814 ( vide JASB. for 1915, p. 395 ) and deals with the festivals that are celebrated on different days in the year. The Tīrthacintāmaṇi has been published in the B. I. Serieṣ It is divided into five prakāśas, viz. Prayāga, Puruṣottama (Purī), Gaṅgā, Gayā and Vārāṇasī and deals with such topics as the purpose of pilgrimages, the preliminaries of pilgrimage, the various rites to be performed at the several tīrthas, the subsidiary sacred places at the principal tīrthas etc. He mentions the Kalpataru, Gaṇeśvaramiśra, Jayāśarmā, the Mitākṣarā, Smṛti-samuccaya and Hemādri. In the introduction he explicitly states that he composed the work after carefully examining the Kṛtyakalpadruma and Pārijāta, the Ratnākara and other workṣ¹²⁷⁹ The Dvaītacintāmaṇi is mentioned in his Kṛtyacintāmaṇi. The Niticintāmaṇi is mentioned in the Vivādacintāmaṇi (p. 72). The Vivādacintāmaṇi (text) was published at Calcutta in 1837 (which edition is used in this work) and was translated into English by Prasannakumar Tagore (in 1863) with a learned preface. A translation into English of the Vivādacintāmaṇi made by Dr. Ganganath Jha, with an Introduction by Dr. Umesha Mishra, was published in the Gaikwad’s Oriental Series (Baroda) in 1942. The Vivādacintāmaṇi was elaborately examined by the Patna High Court in I. L. R. 12 Patna 359-616 at pp. 420-538 which examined passages of the Vivādacintāmaṇi (from two editions of that work viz. one published in 1837 and another published by the Venkateshwar Press, Bombay in 1898). It explicitly states that the author carefully studied the Kṛtyakalpa-druma. Pārijāta and Ratnākara.¹²⁸⁰ The work deals exhaustively with the eighteen titles of law (vyavahārapadas). The principal authors and works, besides the usual smṛtis and Purāṇas, mentioned in the work are noted below.⁴ In this work he mentions several vernacular equivalents for Sanskrit termṣ The Vyavahāracintāmaṇi⁵ deals with judicial procedure, viz. the four principal topics thereof, viz. bhāṣā (the plaint), uttara (reply of defendant ), kriyā (evidence), nirṇaya (decision). An excellent edition of the Vyavahāracintāmaṇi was published at Ghent in 1956 by Dr. Ludo Rocher, based on seven msṣ, with an English translation and several appendices giving the first words of the verses ( quoted ), the authors quoted or referred to, the passages where the Vyavahāra-cintāmaṇi has been expressly referred to and a glossary of technical termṣ The Śuddhicintā- maṇi was printed at Benares in Bengali characters in śake 1814 (JASB for 1915. p. 396 n 2). The Śūdrācāracintāmaṇi deals with the duties of śūdras (Mitra’s Notices, vol. VI, p. 22, No. 2001 ). The Śrāddhacintāmaṇi is a standard work and was printed at Benāres in Bengali characters in śake 1814. The Vivāda-cintāmaṇi (p. 151, eḍ of 1837) states that all persons that are sonless have been dealt with at length in Śrāddha-c. and are therefore not dealt with by him in Vivāda-c. 101. Vācaspatimiśra Besides the works and authors enumerated in the foot-note above, the others mentioned by him in his several Cintāmaṇis are noted below.⁶

Besides these there is a group of Vācaspati's works with the title 'Nirṇaya' on Tithi, Dvaita, Mahādāna, Vivāda, Śuddhi and some miscellaneous works under the headings 'Mahārṇava'; only one of which viz. Kṛtyamahārṇava was a large one, the rest being small; vide M. M. Chakravarti in JASB vol. XI (1915) pp. 398– 99. The Tithinirṇaya⁷ starts with an invocation of the highest Being (paramātman) while most of his works are begun with an obeisance to Hari or Kṛṣṇa. It first divides tithis into śuddhā and viddhā (commingled with another tithi) and then discusses all the tithis from the first to the fifteenth and also amāvāsyā; it deals with the questions as to the rites of that tithi which is kṣaya, with śivarātrivrata, naktavrata, holidays, fasts, jayantīvrata, holikā festival etc.

The Dvaitanirṇaya of Vācaspatimiśra is one of his famous workṣ It has been published in the Śāstramālā Series of Benares in the year 1994 of Vikrama era (i. e. 1937–38 A. D.) and contains 105 closely printed pageṣ Its very name suggests that it states definite conclusions on some matters of Dharmaśāstra on which there are differences of opinioṇ There are twelve introductory verseṣ The first verse praises Kṛṣṇa and identifies him with brahmaṇ Verses 2–6 praise King Bhairavendra of Mithilā and his queen Jayā who was the mother of king Puruṣottama, state that she assigned this task to him (v. 7) and verses 8–10 praise her as having dedicated many parks, got many reservoirs of water to be dug and made munificent giftṣ For a work of 105 pages, it quotes numerous authors and workṣ It is impossible to convey in a few words its method of dealing with points of difference discussed by it. Two easy examples may be citeḍ A text says about naming a child ( nāmakaraṇa ) ‘the father should on the 11th or 12th day give a name to the child’. This does not mean that there is an option, viz. that the father may choose at his sweet will any of the two dayṣ An option like this is liable to have eight faults, according to mīmāṁsā rules (for which see H. of Dh. vol. V. pp. 1250–52). The real meaning is that nāmakaraṇa should be done as a rule on the 11th day after birth, but if that is impossible for some reason, then it should be done on the 12th day after birth. Most of the differences relate to religious riteṣ An instance of an ordinary transaction may be cited here. Manu (VIII. 151) states that when money is lent at interest the lender cannot recover more than double of what is lent when he demands the sum lent and the interest thereon at one time, but in VIII. 142 Manu says that the lender may take as interest on money lent at 2, 3, 4 or 5 per cent per month according to the varṇa of the borrower. The conclusion is that if interest is demanded only once it cannot exceed the dāmdupat rule but if interest is taken month by month, the total interest received may be so much that the lender may have received in all much more than double the amount.

It refers on p. 6 to this work Śabdanirṇaya on p. 17 and p. 98 to his Mhādānanirṇaya and on p. 49 to his Śrāddha-cintāmaṇi.

Among the authors and works named in the Dvaitanirṇaya the following may be noted⁸. 101. Vācaspatimiśra For a detailed treatment of the Mahādānas based on the Purāṇas vide the author's H. of Dh. vol. II pp. 869–877, where it is shown that Tulāpuruṣa (weighing a person against gold or silver and donating the metals to worthy brāhmaṇas) is the first. The Mahādānanirṇaya⁹ expatiates on the sixteen munificent gifts such as weighing against gold and silver. In the introductory verses Vācaspati gives the genealogy of his patron's family from Bhaveśa, whose son was Harasiṁhadeva, whose son was Narasiṁha, whose son Bhairavendra bore the biruda (appel-lation) Harinārāyaṇa. A verse¹⁰ at the beginning and one at the end attribute the work to Bhairavendra and to Rūpanārāyaṇa respectively. Rūpa-nārāyaṇa was the biruda of Rāmabhadra, a son of Bhairavendra. Therefore it looks probable that the work was commenced in the reign of Bhairava and was completed in the reign of his son Rāmabhadra. The Mahā-dānanirṇaya of Vācaspati is expressly named in (vol. I), Tithi-tattva p. 99, in Āhnika p. 420 and in (vol. II) Śuddhi, p. 241. M. M. Chakravarti says that Bhairava himself bore at one time the biruda Rūpanārāyaṇa. M. M. Haraprasad Sastri (Nepal Cat. p. 90) mentions a Vivādanirṇaya of Vācaspati. It appears probable that the Śuddhinirṇaya is the same as Śuddhi-cintā-maṇi and people were misleḍ The opening verse of the

(Continued from the previous page) भीमपराक्रम, मनुस्मृति, मन्त्रप्रकाश, महादाननिर्णय, महार्णव, मिताक्षरा, यम, याज्ञवल्क्य, योगियाज्ञवल्क्य, रत्नाकर, रत्नावली, रूपनारायण (19), वर्धमानद्विक, वर्धमानोपाध्याः वसिष्ठसंहिता, विश्वरूपनिबन्ध, विष्णुधर्म, विष्णुरहस्य, शङ्कराचार्य, शतपथ (ब्राह्मः), श्राद्धकल्प, श्राद्धपारिजात, श्राद्धप्रदीप, श्राद्धविवेक, श्रीदत्ता-हिक, श्रीदत्तोपाध्याय, श्रीपतिसंहिता, समयप्रदीप, सुधाकरमहामहोपाध्याय, सुमन्तु, स्मृतिमञ्जूषा, स्मृतिसार, हरिहर, हरिहरपद्धति, हरिनाथमहामहोपाध्याय, हलायुध, हारीत, हेमाद्रि. For its size the Dvaitanimaya has been often quoted by Raghu˚ and sometimes criticized : (vol. I) Tithi 42 (cr.), 166; Śrāddha 256; Jyotis˚ 607; Māla˚ 753, 790 (cr.), 794 (cr.), 799 (cr.), 802, 826, 851 (cr.); (vol. II) Ekā˚ 5, 42-43, 91 (cr.); Jalāśayotsarga 513; Chāndoga-Vṛṣotsarga 529. Śuddhicintāmaṇi published at Penares in Bengali characters over seventy years ago ends with the words ‘Śuddhinirṇaya ucyate’. The Śuddhinirṇaya of Vācaspati deals with impurity, on birth and death, the religious acts that must be performed even in times of impurity, sapiṇḍa relationship, periods of impurity for the prin-cipal varṇas and mixed castes ; periods of impurity on abortion, the deaths of infants and women, accidental deaths etc., overlapping of several periods of āśauca; impurity arising from carrying a corpse; rites after the death of a saṁnyāsin ; impurity from contact of lower castes, such as washermen and cāṇḍālas, freedom from impurity at tīrthas and marriages etc.

It may be noticed that many of his works run in pairs e. g. Dvaita-ci°. and Dvaitanirṇaya, Śuddhi-ci° and Śuddhi-ni°. Vivāda-ci° and Vivāda-ni°. Why it was necessary to do so is not clear.

Besides these, Vācaspati appears to have either composed or contemplated writing seven works called Mahārṇava on kṛtya, ācāra, vivāda, vyavahāra, dāna, śuddhi and pitryajña. Of these the Kṛtyamahārṇava is found and deals with festivals and fasts and the proper times therefor (vide JASB for 1915, p. 398). The Kṛtyamahārṇava is mentioned by Raghu° in (vol. I) Tithi pp. 82, 103 and in (vol. II) Ekādaśī pp. 17, 46. He also wrote the Gayāśrāddhapaddhati, and the Dattakavidhi. Probably his last work, as stated above, was the Śrāddhakalpa alias Pitṛbhakti-taraṅgiṇī.

Apart from the works on dharmaśāstra, Vācaspati wrote also on the systems of philosophy. But those interested may refer to Prof. Dineshchandra Bhattacharya’s paper on ‘Vācas-patimiśra’s Nyāya Works’ in vol. 4 of J. G. J. R. I. pp. 294–312. But it is not necessary for our purpose to go into that questioṇ

Many of the works of Vācaspati are mentioned by Raghunan-dāna in his Tattvaṣ The Ācāra-C. is mentioned in (Vol. I) Tithi p. 24, Āhnika 407 and in (vol. II ) Maṭha (616); Āhnika-C. is mentioned in vol. I, Āhnika 357, (vol. II) Ekādaśī 58 (on 36 upacāras in devapūjā); Kṛtya-C. (in vol. I) Tithi 36, 44, 140, 142, 149, Śrāddha 282; Jyotis 583, 594, 605, 606; Saṁskāra 920; (in vol. I) Kṛtya-C. in 426, 473; Tīrtha-C. (in Vol. I) Prāyaṣ 500, 503; Māla 810; in (Vol. II) Śuddhi 300; Vivāda-C. ##101. Vācaspatimiśra in vol. I, Prāyaś. 514; in (Vol. II) Udväha 136, Dāya 176, Śuddhi 350, 357; Vyavahāra-C. in (Vol. II) Prāyaścitta p. 474, 512 (same verse in both which occurs on p. 139 of Dr. Rocher's eḍ); Dvaitanirṇaya (very often cited sometimes criticizad or rejected) p. 42, Tithi (cr.) 166, Śrāddha 256, Jyotistattva 607, Mala. 753, 794 (cr.), 802, 826; in (vol. II) Ekā. 42, 43, 91; Śuddhi 236, 282, 372; Chandogavṛtsotsarga. 529; Śrāddha-C. (at least 20 times), in Tithi 20, 39, 118, 179; Śrāddha 192, 240, 258, 263, 278, 288, 290, 305, Prāyaś. 475, Malamāsa 753, 814, 844; (vol. II) Udväha 132, Śuddhi 306, 327; Śūdrakytyavicāraṇa 634. The Śrāddhakalpa or Pitṛbhakti-tarangiṇī is frequently quoted as in (vol. I) Tithi 181, Śrāddha 209 (Śrāddhakalpa), 229 (Pitṛ.), Śuddhi 237. (The letter p. for page is omitted in this paragraph).

Vācaspati vouchsafes very little information about himself or his family. In the colophons of his works he is generally styled mahāmahopādhyāya and miśra or sanīmiśra. In the colophon of the Śūdrācāra-cintāmaṇi¹²⁸⁸ he is described as the pariṣad (the adviser of the king in finally deciding difficult points of Dharma- śāstra) of Mahārājādhirāja Harinārāyaṇa. We saw above that his Mahādānanirṇaya connects itself with two kings Bhairava and his Rūpanārāyaṇa. At the end of the Śrāddhakalpa we are told that Vācaspati who was the pariṣad of Rāmabhadadeva alias Rūpanārāyaṇa, son of Harinārāyaṇa, composed the work at The bidding of his patroṇ¹¹ Varadhamāna in his Daṇḍaviveka says that one of his gurus was Vācaspati.¹² It is probable that it is this Vācaspati that is meant. But as against this we must remember that Vācaspati in his Śrāddhakalpa quotes Vardhamāna Upādhyāya on śrāddha. Vardhamāna wrote his Daṇḍaviveka while king Bhairava was reigning and his Gaṅgā- kṛtyaviveka for Ramabhadradeva. So Vācaspati was an elder contemporary of Vardhamāna.

Prasannakumar Tagore assigned 1423 A. D. as the time of the Vivādacintāmaṇi (vide preface p. xxvIII). Ghose in his Hindu Law (vol. II. p. xIv) says that Vācaspati wrote the Śrāddhacintāmaṇi by order of queen Jayā, widow of king Bhaira- deva and mother of Puruṣottamadeva,¹³ that Hariṇārāyaṇa

The pedigree of the कामेश्वर kings of Mithila from भवेश is : भवासिंह or भवेश | ------------------------------------ | | | देवसिंह (गरुडनारायण) त्रिपुरसिंह हरसिंह | | | शिवसिंह (रूपनारायण) पश्चात्सिंह = विश्वामदेवी अर्जुन अमर | | धीरमर्ती = नरसिंह (दर्पनारायण) = बीरा or धीरा | ------------------------------------ | | धीरासिंह भैरवेन्द्र or भैरासिंह = जया चन्द्रसिंह = लक्ष्मिा | | (हरिनारायण) | ------------------------------------ | | रामभद्र (रूपनारायण) पुरुषोत्तम

Vide Inḍ Ant. vol. XIV. p. 196 for a detailed pedigree gathered from Pāñjas of Mithila (though somewhat confused) and Inḍ Ant. vol. 28, pp. 57–58. (i. e. Bhairava) ruled from 1513 to 1527 and that the latter was killed by Nasratshah, the Pathan king of Bengal. M. M. Chakravarti holds that the literary activity of Vācaspati lay between 1450 to 1480 A. D. (Vide JASB Vol. XI (N. S.) for 1915 on p. 400). Since Vācaspati mentions the Ratnākara (of Cāṇḍeśvara) and Rudradhara as his authorities he must be later than about 1425 A. D. Vācaspati's works are quoted by Govindānanda and Raghunandana. Therefore Vācaspati is certainly earlier than 1540 A. D. The mṣ of the Mahādānanirnaya found in Nepal is dated in 392 of the Lakṣmanasena era (Monday of Vaiśākha, dark half, 12th tithi i. e. 22nd April 1511 A. D.). The mṣ of the Śuddhinirnaya (Mitra's Notices vol. X. p. 58, No. 3308) was copied in saṁvat 1416, which must in this particular case, be taken as equivalent to śake 1416 i. e. 1494–95 A. D., since Vācaspati could not have flourished about 1360 A. D. (which corresponds to Vikrama suṁvat 1416). Hence the period assigned by Chakravarti for the literary activity of Vācaspati appears to be correct. That date is further corroborated by the fact that Vācaspati wrote under Bhairavendra and his son Rāmabhadradēva, that were 4th and 5th in descent from king Bhaveśa of Mithilā, who, as we saw above, began to rule over Mithilā in the third quarter of the 14th century. Vide M. M. Chakravarti in JASB Vol. XI (New Series) pp. 394–400 for information on Vācaspati.

This Vācaspati, who flourished in Mithilā in the latter half of the fifteenth century, is very often confounded with other authors bearing the same name. The great philosopher Vācaspati, who was author of the Bhāmatī on the Śarīrakabhāṣya of Śaṅkara and of several other commentaries on other systems of philosophy, flourished in the first half of the 9th century as he wrote his Nyāyasūcinibandha in 898 (most probably of the Vikrama era).¹⁴ There was another (Candraśekhara) Vācaspati who wrote the Smṛtisarasamgraha (Cat. of Calcutta Saṇ College msṣ vol. II, p. 181, No. 203) and flourished in the first half of the 18th century.

Raghunandana, the foremost medieval Nibandhakāra of Bengal on Dharmaśāstra is conspicuous for his strong and frequent criticism of Vācaspati and Maithila writerṣ He often discusses the views of Vācaspati and in a large number of cases states that what Vācaspati says should be given up or not followed (heyam) or that what Vācaspati says has been rejected or shown to be wrong (nirastam). The present author will first mention a large number of cases by references to the pages of the Smṛtitattva of Raghu. where those words (heyam) or ‘nirastam’ or ‘apāstam’ are used about Vācaspati. ( A ) Important cases where the words ‘heyam or nirastam’ have been used are : ( vol. I ). Tithi p. 20; Śrāddha 224, 258, 275, 289, 294; Malamāsa 790, 794, 799, 816, 829, 854; ( vol. II ) Śuddhi 292, 306; Yajurvedī-Śrāddha 502. Once the word ‘Pramāṇa-śūnyam’ is used in vol. II Yajur-vedīśrāddha p. 488. Sometimes the criticism is a little milder viz. when phrases like ‘mā evam’ (in Tithi 20 or Śrāddha 288 ) or ‘tad-ayuktam’ ( Śrāddha 290 ) are employeḍ The present author has not collected such caseṣ Then in many cases Raghu° lumps together Maithila writers on certain topics and remarks that their views are ‘heya’ or ‘nirasta’ or ‘apāsta’. The words ‘Maithiloktam’ heyam or ‘nirastam’ are also fre-quently employed by Raghunandana. What authors are included in those words it is difficult to say. Cāṇḍeśvara, Śrīdatta, Rudradhara, Misarumīśra and Vardhamāna are all Maithila writers and there are several others less famous Mithila writerṣ A few cases of the words ‘Maithiloktam heyam’ or ‘nirastam’ or ‘apāstam’ are mentioned here; (in vol. I) Tithi 9, 168 (apāstam); Śrāddha 207, 246, 274, 292 308 and 315 (nirastam), 341; Malamāsa 804, ( vol. II ) Śuddhi pp. 316, 332 (Maithilānām Vākyaracanā heyā). The difficulty of modern readers is that most of the works of Vācaspatimiśra and Vardhamāna are not yet available in print and they are not in a position to consider the fairness or otherwise of Raghu-nandana’s criticismṣ The words generally used are either वाचस्पति-मिश्रोक्तं or simply मिश्ररोक्तम् or rarely refer to the name of the work ( e. g. ‘दैतनिर्णयोर्क हेय’ as in Malamāsa. p. 794 ).