103. Nrisimhaprasāda

Volume I: Part II pp. 860–868

103. Nrisimhaprasāda

103. Nṛsiṃhaprasāda

This is an encyclopaedic work on dharmaśāstra, no part of which had been printed when the first volume of the H. of Dh. was published in 1930. Since then, however, four parts of it have been published in the series called Princess of Wales Sarasvatibhavana Texts (the General editor being M. M. Gopinath Kaviraja ) viz. Vyavahārasāra (edited by Pandit Vinayaksastri Tillu, Sanskrit College, Benares ), Prāyaścitta-sāra (edited by Pandit Nandakishore Sharma and Nandakumar Sharma Sahitya- charya ), Śrāddhasāra (eḍ by Pandit Vidyadhara Misra, College of Oriedtal Learninġ, Benares, Hindu University ), and Tīrthasāra (edited by Pandit Sūryanārāyaṇa Śukla, Assistant Professor, Govt. Sanskrit College, Benares ), the first three being published in 1934 and the 4th in 1936.

The Benares Sanskrit College has a complete mṣ of this vast work. I could examine the whole of it. Besides, the Deccan College collection has two msṣ of portions of it, viz. of the Dānasāra ( No. 353 of 1875–76 ) and of the Tīrthasāra ( No. 352 of 1875–76 ). The Dānasāra and Śāntisāra are also noticed in Mitra's Cat. of Bikaner msṣ (pp. 429–430 ) and six sections out of twelve are noticed in the I. O. Cat. p. 434 No. 1467. Unless otherwise stated the references here are 103. Nṛsimhaprasāda to the Benāres Sanskrit College mṣ and to the four printed parts thereof.

The Nṛsimhaprasāda is divided into twelve¹ sections called `sāra` on saṁskāra, āhnika, śrāddha, kāla, vyavahāra, prāyaścitta, karmavipāka, vrata, dāna, śānti (the averting of evil foreboded by natural portents and other strange occurrences), tīrtha and pratiṣṭhā (consecration of temples, idols etc.). Each section² begins with an invocation of Nṛsiṁha (the man-lion incarnation of Viṣṇu) after whom the work is named Nṛsiṁhaprasāda (the fruit of the grace of Nṛsiṁha). In the Saṁskārasāra, after invoking Nṛsiṁha, the introduction tells us that³ when king Rāma ruled in Devagiri (modern Daulatābād), Śamavīt was ruler of Delhi and that after the latter Nijāmasāha wielded power over the worlḍ Then after pronouncing an eulogy on Nijāmasāha (verses 10-13) the author speaks of himself. We⁴ are told that the author was Dalapati (or Daladhīśa), son of Vallabha, of the Bhāradvāja-gotra and of the Yājñavalkīya śākha (i. e. Śuklayajurveda) and that he was the keeper of the imperial records of Nebajana (?). Should we read in note 1304 ‘श्रींम्नेने- बजने समस्तकरुणापीशः’?? This will remove the defect in the metre, but the question would still remain ‘who was Nebajana?’. Besides, the printed तीर्थसार, प्रायश्चित्तसार and श्राद्धसार read the latter half of the verse as श्रीमन्मलभट्टभूपुत्रगत्मनिरतः सत्संप्रदायाग्रणीः…श्रीमान्दलापी- श्वरः There are elaborate colophons⁵ at the end of almost each section ( called sāra ) in which we are told that Dalapati was the pupil of Süryapandita, that he was a great exponent of the Vaiṣṇavadharma, that he was the chief minister and keeper of the records of Nijāmasāha, who was the overlord of all Yavanas ( Mahomedans ) and ruler of Devagiri. In some colophons ‘ Dalapati or Daladhiśa ’ is styled Mahārājādhirāja. H. P. Shastri in his Preface to Vol. III of the Catalogue of Govt. Msṣ ( pp. XXII-XXIV ) in the custody of the Bengal Asiatic Society remarks that Dalapatirāya was chief of Gadh- mandla and had a commanding position in the Nizamshahi kingdom of Ahmednagar. Dalapati’s wife was the famous Durgāvati who so bravely fought against the generals of Akbar that the latter had to come himself to invade her capital. It is doubtful whether Dalapati or Dalādhiśa was the real name of the author or was merely a title. It is not unlikely that Süryapandita, said to be the guru of the author, is the same as of the great Maratha saint Ekanātha, who wrote his Bhāgavata at Benares in śake 1495 ( i. e. 1573 A. D. ) and who states that he was born in a family of devout Vaiṣṇavaṣ

The Nṛsiṁhaprāsāda names numerous authors and workṣ In the beginning of the Saṁskārasāra, he mentions a host of writers and works that he consulteḍ⁶ Besides these he 103. Nṛsimhaprasāda mentions Someśvara (commentator of the Tantravārtika) and Kāladīpa in the Saṁskārasāra; the Purāṇasāra in the Āhnikasāra; Pārijāta and Vādibhayankara in the Vyavahārasāra; Kāmika, Jñānaratnāvalī, Balārkodaya in the Dānasāra.

The contents of some of the sections of the Nṛsimhaprasāda may be set out here. In the Saṁskārasāra the author treats of the meaning of dharma, śruti, smṛti, the authoritativeness of purāṇas, kalivarjya (usages prohibited in the kali age), puṇyāha- vācana, madhuparka, vṛddhiśrāddha, garbhādhāna, puṁsavana, jātakarma, nāmakaraṇa, upanayana, marriage and other saṁskāras, the duties of brahmacārins, snātākas, householders, vānaprasthas and saṁnyāsinṣ In the Āhnikasāra the author, after dividing the day into eight parts, speaks of the actions appropriate to each viz. : in the first getting up from bed at the brāhma- muhūrta, śauca, brushing the teeth, decoration of the hair, bath etc.; in the second, study; in the third, looking after dependents and pursuit of one's livelihood; in the fourth, midday bath, brahmayajña, tarpaṇa, vaiśvadeva, daily śrāddha, in the fifth dinner and foods prescribed and forbidden; in the sixth and seventh reflecting over itihāsa and purāṇas; in the 8th decision about worldly affairs, evening saṁdhyā etc. In the Kalasāra (which is incomplete in the Benares mṣ) he defines the nature of kāla and gives rules and decisions about months, tithis and such festivals as Navarātra, Janmāṣṭamī etc. In the Vyavahāra- sāra the author deals with the meaning of vyavahāra, the eighteen titles of law, the four-fold method of deciding dharma, the pramāṇas (means of proof), dayavibhāga etc. In the Vratasāra he speaks of the several principal vratas in each month, some of which are for both men and women, some for men only and some for women only. In the Dānasāra he dilates upon the nature of dāna, its varieties, the various results of dāna, the proper time and place for dānas, proper recipients of dāna, what things can be the subjects of gifts, units of gold, silver etc., the description of kuṇḍa, maṇḍapa and vedi, the sixteen great dānas such as tulā, hiraṇyagarbha, brahmāṇḍa, kalpapādapa etc., and three atidānas, viz. land, cows and learning; gifts of image, food, ornaments, bed-stead etc.; gifts on saṁkrānti and eclipses etc. The Tīrthasāra is interesting for this that as the author hailed from Devagiri he speaks principally of tīrthas of the Deccan and Southern India. In his work he speaks of Setubandha, Puṇḍarīka¹³⁰⁷ or Pauṇḍarīka (modern Pandharpur in the Sholapur District, it seems), Gayātīrtha, eulogies of Godāvarī, Kṛṣṇā-Veṇyā, Narmadā, Malaprahāriṇī etc.

As four parts of Nṛsiṁhaprasāda have been published, it would be necessary to say a few words on each of the four.

The Vyavahārasāra is rather a large work in 280 pageṣ It relies sparingly on the Dharmaśūtras of Āpastamba, Gautama, Vasiṣṭha and Viṣṇu, quotes only a verse from Baudhāyana. It quotes from Nārada several hundred verses, also from Bṛhaspati and Kātyāyana. Similarly, most of the verses in Yājñavalkyasmṛti on Vyavahāra are quoted and the Manusmṛti also is profusely citeḍ But out of other Smṛtis only a few like those of Uśanas (p. 12), Pitāmaha (only on ordeals), Yama (p. 7), Vyāsa, Śaṅkha-Likhita (p. 200), Saṁvarta, Hārīta (pp. 34, 35, 213) are quoteḍ The Saṅgrahakāra is quoted twice (pp. 69 and 219).

The Prāyaścitta-sāra has 236 printed pages and deals with the following matterṣ Derivation and meaning of the word Prāyaścitta; P. to be prescribed by a pariṣad; five mahāpātakas (killing a brāhmaṇa &c.); enumeration of pātakas that are equal to Mahāpātakas; those sins that are called Anupātakas and Upapātakas; those guilty of Mahāpātakas fall into terrible hells and after undergoing the torments of hell are born as dogs, donkeys, and the like and then they are again born as men suffering from such disease as consumption or are born as caṇḍālas &c. (Yāj. III. 206-215); one should perform appropriate penances for sins; requesting the Pariṣad to declare the proper penance. It is unnecessary to set out the penances (in view of the fact that a good deal has been stated on them from the Prāyaścitta-viveka of Śūlapāṇi above. ##103. Nrsimhaprasāda Besides the Smṛti⁷ and Purāṇas, the work mentions Dharmavivṛti (pp. 5, 201), Mitākṣarā (p. 189 and differs from it about the meaning of ‘Brahmakūrca’), Rājanighaṇṭu (p. 138), Vākyamīmāmsā (138–139), Subodhini (coṃ on Yāj. by Viśveśvarabhaṭṭa), Suśruta, Smṛtisāgara (206), Smṛtyarthasāra.

The Śrāddhasāra is comparatively a small work (in 168 printed pages) but it quotes a far larger number of authors and works than the other two. In the Śrāddhasāra (p. 106) the author refers to the fact that the portion on Dāna had been already composed, that Āhnika had already been dealt with, that Prāyaścittasāra preceded Śrāddhasāra⁹ (vide p. 64— ‘uktam caitat-bahu Prāyaścitte’). On p. 29 it remarks that it will expatiate at length on the proper time for a certain śrāddha in Kālanirṇayasāra. It quotes for its size numerous authorities, particularly smṛtis and Purāṇas,⁹ but nibandhas or digests rarely. It men-tions the Mitākṣarā (p. 43), Mādhavācārya (p. 94), Smṛticandri-kākāra (p. 71 in the plurāl), Smṛtiratnāvalīkāra (p. 94 in the plural).

The Tīrthasāra is a small work in 103 pageṣ It deals with the following tīrthas (16 in number) all in the Deccan and South India except Gayā¹⁰ namely, Setubandha (and Rāmeśvara), Puṇḍarika (Pandharpur on the Bhīmā, where there is Pāṇḍurañga's image), Āmardaka (Nāganātha pp. 21–30), Gayā, Godāvarī (and subsidiary tīrthas), Kṛṣṇa-Veṇī (and tīrthas subsidiary to them), Narmadā and eight more. The principal authorities are Purāṇas, viz. Kālikā, Kūrma, Garuḍa, Padma, Brahma, Brahmavaivarta, Brahmāṇḍa, Matsya, Vāmana, Vāyu, Viṣṇu, Saura, Skanda. The few other authorities that are quoted are Bṛhaspati (p. 34, several verses, probably from some purāṇa), Mahābhārata (on pp. 30, 41, 42–43), Yāj. (on p. 39, a half verse I. 261), Vasiṣṭhasmṛti (p. 33), Vyāsa (p. 89, two verses).

The Nṛsimhaprasāda being a work from the Deccan held the view that marriage with a maternal uncle's daughter was sanctioned by the Veda and was not to be censureḍ¹¹ It says 103. Nṛsimhaprasāda

that where there is ( irreconcileable ) conflict between the smṛtis and purāṇas there is an optioṇ¹²

As the Nṛsimhaprasāda relies upon the Mādhoviya and the Madanapārijāta, it is certainly later than 1400 A. D. As it is mentioned as an authority in the Dvaitanirṇaya of Śaṅkara-bhaṭṭa and in the Mayūkhās of Nīlakaṇṭha, it must be earlier than about 1575 A. D. If by the Dīpikāvivaraṇa, which it enumerates among its principal authorities, is meant the coṃ of Nṛsiṁha, son of Rāmacandrācārya, on his father's comment- ary of the Kālanirṇaya ( which is most probable ), then the Nṛsimhaprasāda must be later than about 1500 A. D. Dr. Bhandar- kar¹³ says that Rāmacandrācārya lived about 1450 A. D. A mṣ of the Dīpikāvivaraṇa was copied in saṁvat 1604 (1548 A. D.).¹⁴ The Benares Sanskrit College mṣ appears to have been copied for Rāmapaṇḍita Dharmādhikārī at Benares, who is said to have been the father of Nandapaṇḍita¹⁵ (see sec. 110 below). At the end of several sāras either saṁvat 1568 (1511-12 A. D.) or 1569 occurs as the date.¹⁶ This may be said to be the date of the actual composition of the work or of the copying of the mṣ for Rāmapaṇḍita. It seems difficult to believe that Rāmapaṇḍita for whom the mṣ was copied in 1511-12 A. D. was the father of the famous Nandapaṇḍita. We know that Nandapaṇḍita composed his Vaijayantī in 1623 A. D. Rāmapaṇḍita must have been a man of middle age before he could order the copying of a huge mṣ like the Nṛsimhaprasāda. If he did this in 1511-12 A. D. his son could hardly have been alive 120 years later. Therefore it looks probable that the dates ( saṁvat 1568 and 1569 ) are not the dates when the mṣ was copied for Rāmāpaṇḍita, but rather the dates of the composition of the original work or of the copy- ing the mṣ from which Rāmāpaṇḍita got his own mṣ copieḍ At all events it is clear that the Nṛsiṃhaprasāda could not have been composed later than 1512 A. D. As the author was a minister of Nijāmaśāha who ruled over Devagiri, it appears that he is referring to Ahmad Nizam Shah who ruled from 1490–1508 A. D. or to his son Burhan Nizam Shah (1508–1533 A. D.), most probably the former.¹³¹⁷ It may be taken as certain that the work was composed between 1490 and 1512 A. D.

The author Dalapati appears ( if it is his proper name) to have been a south Indiaṇ He mentions only a few authors and digests by name among which are South Indian Mādhavācārya, Mitākṣarā, Smṛticandrikā, Smṛtyarthasāra. There are also some other indicationṣ In the Śrāddhasāra, while dilating on going to Gayā for śrāddha, the author first quotes a verse prescribing that the pilgrim intending to go to Gayā should first perform a śrāddha, should be dressed in a karpaṭa (worn out or ragged clothes ) and should circumambulate his village.¹³¹⁸ The author says that provision is not restricted to one going to Gayā alone, but also applies to Godavari when Jupiter is in the sign of Leo.

It may be noted that the Nṛsiṃhaprasāda had become a well-known work of some authority before 1600 A. D. even at Benāreṣ The Nirṇayasindhu composed in 1612 A. D. (2nd Pariccheda on Navarātra ) refers to passages quoted on Navarātra in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda.