104. Pratāparudradeva

Volume I: Part II pp. 869–879

104. Pratāparudradeva

104. Pratāparudradeva

The Sarasvatīvilāsa was compiled by Pratāparudradeva, a king of the Gajapati dynasty who ruled at Cuṭṭack (Kaṭakanagarī) in Orissa. The Dāyabhāga portion of this work was published with an English translation by Rev. Thomas Foulkes in 1881. When the materials for the first volume were being collected, this work dealing with Vyavahāra was in the Presṣ It was edited by Dr. R. Sham Sastry and was published as a volume in the Oriental Library Publications of the University of Mysore. It is a large work containing 503 pages of the text with an Introduction of thirty-two pages containing an Index of the topics dealt with in it, errata and an account of the msṣ on which the edition is baseḍ

After invoking deities the work starts with the praśasti of the king and his family (pp. 2–11). Descent is traced to the Sun him-self through Daśaratha, Rāma and his sonṣ Rāma, his son Kuśa, his son Atithi and in this family of the Raghuṣ was born Kapi-lendrā, founder of Gajapati dynasty, whose son was Puruṣottama. His queen was Rupāmbikā. Pratāparudradeva or Vīra-Rudra-deva was the son of Puruṣottama. He is spoken of as having given protection to Sultan (Suratrāṇa) Husanshah who threw himself on his mercy.¹³¹⁹ In the colophons¹³²⁰ the king is styled Gajapati, Gauḍeśvara (king of Gauḍa), lord of Kalubariga (modern Gulbarga) in the Karṇāṭaka country of nine crores (probably of revenue) and as the protector of Sultan Husanshah of Jamunāpura. It is significant that the same titles are applied to Puruṣottama¹³²¹ in his Potavaram grant of śake 1412 (1490 A. D.) and in other inscriptionṣ Pratāparudradeva, while ruling his capital¹ Kaṭakanagarī, called together an assembly of Pandits and compiled an extensive digest of civil and religious law. The royal author feels qualms of conscience on the question of eulogising himself and his family but stifles them easily by saying that a poet can also be an appreciative critic of his own productionṣ² He boasts that he composed the work for saving scholars the trouble of bringing harmony among the conflicting dicta of Vijñānayogī, Aparārka, Bhāruci and others, that there was no work that could equal his own and that his literary effort would make his predecessors' works afford illu- strations of the maxim that when a certain purpose is served by one the existence of others is superfluouṣ³ Then it is said that the Vyavahārakāṇḍa was first taken in hand even before the Ācārakāṇḍa following the special desire of the king Virārudra Gajapati.⁴ But it appears from references in the Vyavahāra- kāṇḍa itself that before that part was finished the Ācārakāṇḍa had been completeḍ⁵ The Sarasvatīvilāsa, being a work composed under the express orders of a king for the benefit of his subjects, makes the nearest approach to the Austinian conception of law as a command addressed by political superiors to political inferiors and enforced by a sanctioṇ

The principal topics dealt with in the Vyavahārakāṇḍa are: the hall of justice, the method of judicial procedure, the plaint, the reply, documents, possession, rṇādana, dāyavibhāga, sāhasa 104. Pratāparudradeva and other titles of law. In the beginning of the work he sets out at great length the views of ancient writers on politics about the constitution of the maṇḍala, such as those of Parāśara, Uśanas, Viṣṇu, Bṛhaspati, Viśālākṣa, Manu etc. He generally follows the views of Vijñāneśvara on dayavibhāga, but here and there strongly criticizes him e. g. he says that Vijñāneśvara gave a very far-fetched interpretation⁶ of Yājñavalkya's verse ' rikthagraha ṛṇam dāpyah '. Another interesting example of of criticism of Vijñāneśvara is found on p. 457 of Sar. V. ‘विज्ञानयोगिना यदुक्तं विवादपदानां परस्परसङ्गतिर्नास्ति तत्पररास्तं वेदितव्यम्’. This passage has in view the Mitākṣarā passage at the beginning of Svāmipālavivāda (taken up immediately after dealing with Simāvivāda) ‘व्यवहारपदानां परस्परहेतुमद्भावाभावान् तेषामावृष्ण्याणादानमित्यादिपाठक्रमो न विवक्षित इति व्युत्क्रमेण स्वामिपालवादोऽभिप्रेयते ।’ for ‘तेषामग्र’ vide Manu VIII. 4-7. Similarly another proposition associated with the Mitākṣarā is attacked by the Sar. V. (p. 396) viz. यत्तु विज्ञानयोगिना स्वत्वं लौकिकं लौकिकक्रियासाधनत्वाद् ब्रीह्यादिविद्युक्तं तदुदुश्चनं स्थूलमेव प्रतिभाति. On the other hand, Varadarāja refers to Vijñāneśvara as ‘ Brahmavit-pravara ’ (eminent or best among those who realized brahman on pp. 253 and 270 of Vyavahāranirṇaya).

It may be noted that the Sar. V. names (on pp. 13–14)⁷ 41 Smṛtikāras, some Upasmṛtis, 18 Purāṇas and makes a distinc- tion between Ṭikākāras (like Vijñāneśvara) and Nibandhanakāras (i. e. digest-writers) like Lakṣmīdhara. On p. 12 he quotes a मन्वङ्गिरो-व्यास-गौतम-यम-वसिष्ठ-दक्ष-संवर्त - शातातप-पराशर-विष्णु-परख- हारीत-शङ्ख-कात्यायन-गुरुप्रचेतो-नारद-योगीश्वर-बौधायन-पितामह-सुमन्तु-कश्यप- भृगु-पैठीनसि-व्यासपाद-सत्यव्रत-भट्ट-गर्ग-काष्ठाजिनि-जाबालि-जमदग्नि-लौ- गाक्षि-कश्यप-पीतदत्त-देवल-पारस्कर-लिखित-छागलेय-याज्ञवल्का-प्राचेतस- नाचिकेत-स्कन्द-लौगाक्षि-कश्यप-व्यास-सनत्कुमार-शन्तनु-जनक-व्यास-कात्यायन- याज्ञवल्की-कपिञ्जल-बोधायन-कणाद-विश्वामित्र ( पैठीनसिमोभिल ) प्रणीता उप- स्मृतयः । जाबालिर्लौगाक्षिर्व्यासदयः पूर्वोक्ता न भवन्ति । पुराणानि तु -ब्राह्मपाझ- ( Continued on the next page ) verse containing names of sages like Manu, and Vasiṣṭha and Yogiśvara and Nibandhanakāras like Bhāruci, Kulārka and Yogiśvara.

The Sar. V., though a late work, is of great importance in some respectṣ In scores of places it cites the different views or explanations of Vijñāneśvara and Bhāruci on the same topic or verse. A few examples may be cited here. (1) On Yāj. I. 312 (Sar. V. p. 23 on ‘sthiraḥ’), Yāj. I. 313 (Sar. V. p. 20 on the ‘uditodita’), Yāj. I. 317 (on ‘pātreṣu’, Sar. V. p. 24), Yāj. I. 327 (‘no krama of the several acts is intended’ says Bhāruci in Sar. V. p. 30).

Differences of opinion between Bhāruci and Vijñāneśvara are pointed out by Sar. V. as to several matters, e. g. on p. 308 Sar. V. states that Vijñānayogin, Asahāya and Medhātithi allowed recourse to ordeal in the case of a dispute about sale by one who was not the owner of the property sold (asvāmivikraya), while Bhāruci, Aparārka and Smṛticandrikā did not allow such recourse to ordeals in that matter. Recently Dr. Derrett (of the London School of Oriental and African Studies) came across a mṣ of Bhāruci’s commentary on some chapters of the Manusmṛti found at Trivandrum and he is thinking of bringing out an edition of the part available. Here and there the Sar. V. cites Bhāruci’s explanations of several passages of Manu and also explanations of Vijñāneśvara. For example, on Manu VIII. 383 (Sahasram 104. Pratāparudradeva brāhmaṇo daṇḍam &c.) he quotes the views of both Vijñāneśvara and Bhāruci;–vide also Sar. V. pp. 369–373 where Manu, Yāj. and Viṣṇu are quoted and the differing views of Vijñāneśvara are pointed out. A few more cases, where Bhāruci's comments along with those of others on some verses of Manu are cited, may by pointed out. On p. 348 Manu IX. 103 is cited and the word ‘ Dāyadharmaṁ ’ occurring therein is explained by Bhāruci as indicating both Dāyavibhāga and Dharmavibhāga. On p. 360 Manu IX. 118 ( svebhyo &c.) is explained by Sar. V. which points out that Asahāya, Medhātithi, Vijñāneśvara hold views opposed to those of Bhāruci and Aparārka. Vide also Sar. V. pp. 389–90 where are cited Manu V. 197 and 161 and the different explanations of Vijñāneśvara and Bhāruci are set out.

Another interesting matter is that the Sar. V. cites in many places the explanations of certain sūtras and words of Viṣṇu and gives their interpretations by Bhāruci; vide for example pp. 160, 314–15, 318–19, 422–23, 427–28, 430–32, 447–48, 487, 488–89. The question arises whether Bhāruci wrote a commentary on Viṣṇu as well as on Manu or whether he embodied many comments on Viṣṇu in his commentary on Manusmṛti. That question cannot be answered until Bhāruci’s commentary on Manu is available in print.

It may be mentioned here that the Sarasvatīvilāsa paid high honour to Bhāruci, since on p. 428 it refers to Bhāruci as ‘ bhagavat ’ and it appears that Pratāparudra and his helpers possessed a copy of the commentary of Bhāruci on Manu.

On p. 457 Sar. V. quotes a verse of Viṣṇugupta for explaining a sūtra of Viṣṇu. Who this Viṣṇugupta is cannot be definitely stateḍ Kauṭilya, who also is called Viṣṇugupta in the Mudrā- rākṣasa, has some of these terms ( in II. 19. 2–9 ) but there is no such verse in the Kauṭiliya. It may be pointed out that the Bṛhaj-jātaka of Varāhamihira in VII. 7 and XXI. 3 mentions the views of Viṣṇugupta and that Utpala ( who comments on Bṛhaj- jātaka ) quotes two Āryā verses of Viṣṇugupta. So a Viṣṇugupta ( writer on astrology ) flourished before 500 A. D. Whether Cāṇakya and Viṣṇugupta are identical is discussed by the present author in his paper on ‘ Varāhamihira and Utpala ’ in JBBRAS New Series Vol. 24. 3 at p. 19.

H. D. 110 The Sarasvatīvilāsa quoted the views of Varadarāja in several places (e. g. on pp. 135, 179, 268–69, 276, 319)⁹ his work must be earlier than about 1500 A. D., as Pratāparudra ruled from 1497 to 1538 A. D. and the king refers to him as an ādhunika (recent writer) on p. 325 (of the Sarasvatīvilāsa under ‘Kṛtvā- nūśaya ’). It is noteworthy that the Sarasvatīvilāsa, which quotes Aparārka many times (as on pp. 230, 262, 264, 308 ) and Smṛti-candrikā dozens of times (as on pp. 212, 230, 235, 242, 264, 267, 275, 308, 350 ) does not speak of Aparārka or the Candrikā (or Smṛti-candrikā) as ‘ādhunika’. The Smṛticandrikā would have to be placed between 1200 A. D. to 1240 A. D., as it quotes Aparārka and is very largely quoted by Hemādri. Therefore Varadarāja has to be assigned to a period between 1450 to 1500 A. D. in order that in a work like the Sarasvatīvilāsa composed in the first quarter of the 16th century he may be called ‘ādhunika’ (recent, modern).

The Sarasvatīvilāsa is a work of authority in Southern India on matters of Hindu Law, though inferior to the Mitākṣarā.¹⁰ It informs us that, though the Smṛticandrikā passed over the ordeals of water and poison on the ground that they had gone out of vogue, in Utkala the ordeal of water alone was resorted to. 104. Pratāparudradeva to and in Śūrasena (Mathurā) and Magadha (Bihar) the ordeal of poison alone was administereḍ¹¹

Besides the usual dharmasūtras and other smṛtis, the principal authors and works named in the Sarasvatīvilāsa are noted below.¹² The Sarasvatīvilāsa presents in the case of the dharmasūtras, particularly of Viṣṇu and Gautama, great variations from the printed texts of these works (vide sec. 10, p. 127 above). The Sarasvatīvilāsa in scores of places gives the conflicting views of Bhāruci and the Mitākṣarā (for which see under Bhāruci, sec. 62). The Sarasvatīvilāsa also contains valuaable information about the views of such authors as Asahāya, Bhava- deva and Śrīkara whose works have not yet come to light.

Burnell (introduction to Vamśa Brāhmaṇa p. VII) took Pratāparudradeva to be the king of that name who belonged to the Kākatiya-Gaṇapati dynasty of Warangal and who was carried captive to Delhi in 1332 A. D. But in this he was wrong. It has been shown above that the king connected with the com- position of the Sarasvatīvilāsa belonged to the Gajapati dynasty that ruled at Cuttack and not at Warangal. Pratāparudradeva ruled from 1497 to 1539 A. D. Therefore the Sarasvatīvilāsa must have been composed in the first quarter of the 16th cent- ury. Foulkes thinks (Intro. p. XX) that the work was com- posed about 1515 A. D. His argument is that though the commentary of Mādhavācārya was written about two hundred years before the Sarasvatīvilāsa, the latter is entirely silent about it in his work and that the reason of this is to be sought for in the rivalry of the two dynasties of Pratāparudra and Kṛṣṇarāya of Vijayanagara which was set at rest by a marriage alliance about 1516 A. D. Vide Prof. S. Krishnaswami Aiyangar’s ‘Sour- ces of Vijayanagar History’ (p. 116), where we are told that the daughter of the Orissa king married to Kṛṣṇadevarāja was named Jaganmohini (according to some) or Tukkā (according to others) and Sewell’s ‘ A Forgotten Empire ’ p. 320. Another argument advanced by Foulkes for 1515 A. D. as the date of the work is that during the latter part of his reign Pratāparu- dradeva had come under the influence of the great Vaiṣṇavite saint Caitanya, who made Purī his residence during the last years of his life and that the Sarasvatīvilāsa has in the beginning an invocation of Śiva. Caitanya was born in śake 1407 Phālguna Full-moon (i. e. in 1486 A. D. ); vide Bhandarkar’s ‘ Vaiṣṇavism and Śaivism ’ (p. 83) and Caitanya is said to have gone to Purī about 1510 A. D. and died in 1533 A. D. ( Beames in Inḍ Ant. vol. II, p. 1 ff. ). Both these arguments are not of much weight. As a matter of fact in some msṣ there is an invocation of both Viṣṇu ( Hayagrīva ) and Śiva; vide Descriptive Cat. of Govern- ment S. msṣ at Madras vol. VI, p. 2426 No. 3221.

Among the latest works and authors of certain dates that the Sarasvatīvilāsa names are the Smṛticandrikā and Varadarāja. Some confusion has been caused by the fact that there were two kings called Pratāparudra viz. King Pratāparudra Gajapati ( ruler of Orissa ) and Pratāparudra Kākatiya ( of Warangal ). There is a work called Pratāparudra-Yaśobhūṣaṇa on Sanskrit Poetics (in- cluding dramaturgy composed by Vidyānātha and published in the Bombay Sanskrit Series (in 1909 ) edited by K. P. Trivedi. In that work while dealing with dramaturgy a Sanskrit drama is put forward in which Pratāparudra Kākatiya is the hero (p. 135 ) (vide pp. 131–218 of that work ). He ruled over Āndhradeśa called Triḷiṅga because that country has three famous liṅgas ( Śrīśaila, Kāḷeśvara and Drakṣārāma ) and he was also called Vīra-rudra or Rudra. He was the son of Mahādeva and Mummudi or Mummudamba. It would be seen that the parents of the two Pratāparudras were different and that their capitals were different ( Kaṭakanagara of the Gajapati king and Ekasila of the Kākatiya king ).

An interesting question about the authorship of the Sar. V. was raised by the late Dr. P. K. Gode in the Calcutta Oriental Journal, Vol. II (1934-35) pp. 229-231 and he suggested that the real author of the Sarasvatīvilāsa was Lolla Lakṣmīdhara, who wrote a commentary on the Saundaryalaharī of Śrī Śaṅkarācārya. In the journal of the Bihar Research Society (for 1950), Vol. 36 (parts 3–4 pp. 15–18) Mr. R. Subrahmanyam raises the same question and answers it by saying that the Sarasvatīvilāsa was really composed by Lolla Lakṣmīdhara. The arguments advanced are flimsy and worth little. He boldly asserts that the author of the Sar. V. nowhere gives his own opinion or hazards his bonafideṣ One fails to understand what he means by the first part of his dictuṃ In dozens of places the author of Sar. V. gives his own opinions on the varying interpretations of Vijñāneśvara and of Bhāruci and otherṣ Vide above and notes for striking examples of the decisive conclusions reached by Pratāparudra (such as that on the question of Svatva cited above).

I regret to say that Mr. Subrahmanyam has not made clear what he means by saying that he (Pratāparudra) nowhere gives his opinion and I am afraid that he has not read the original text carefully. In many cases he gives his opinions and prefers one explanation to another. Vide p. 208; he employs the words ‘tan-māndam’ against Vijñāneśvara and expressly says ‘asmad-uktaiva vyavasthà samyak^*’. On pp. 160-161 he refers to the differing explanations of the Smṛticandrikā and Bhāruci and expressly says Bhāruci’s explanation is the proper one. For reasons of space it is not possible to dilate at length on this first charge against Pratāparudra. Only a few references to pages where he prefers one view to another are given here. Vide pp. 109 (Vijñāneśvaramatameva samyak), 154 (where the views of both Bhāradeva and Aparārka are declared as heya i. e. to be rejected); p. 384 (asahāya-vyākhyānamasahāyam), p. 458 (Medhātithi-vyākhyānam svamatikalpitam iti mantavyam). The criticism against his reference to Ganapati, Sarasvatī, Hanumān is to say the least worth little. Even a Vaiṣṇava king has to pay regard to the views of the subjects in his realm and when he comes forward as an author he may follow the usual pattern of his predecessors viz. of making obeisance to Gaṇapati and to Sarasvatī. But even when making homage to Hanumat in introductory stanza he emphasizes that Hanumat learnt from his Upādhyāya (ādīyad-upādhyāyāt) viz. Raghuvara (i. e. Rāma who was an incarnation of Viṣṇu) and verse 6 refers to Kṛṣṇa (who was a child of the Yādavas). Therefore, there is hardly anything in the Introductory verses to detract from his being a staunch Vaiṣṇava. Further, Mr. Subrahmanyam is offended by the use of the words ‘ Kāntānām Kāmadevaḥ ’ and remarks that nobody would write like thiṣ All that is meant is that women looked upon the king as the paragon of beauty. Lastly Mr. Subrahmanyam complains that the king has overdone the permitted bounds of self-laudatioṇ No limits have been set anywhere for self-laudatioṇ But one example of another royal author several centuries earlier than Pratāparudra may be cited for comparison viz. of Aparārka who in the 5th Introductory verse of his commentary on Yāj. states that even God Śiva was astonished by the King’s bhakti and that Bṛhaspati himself was astonished by the king’s intellect and the Sun by his brilliance (svatva).¹³

Lolla Lakṣmīdhara appears to have been a braggart. In his coṃ on the Saundaryalaharī he gives at the end of his commentary a long list of his several ancestors and credits each of them with the authorship of works, hardly any one of which has been noticed so far in the numerous reports on Sanskrit Msṣ It is possible that he might have been one of the Pandits called to help king Pratāparudra. He must have been paid for his trouble and there the matter endeḍ This is like the case of Viśveśvarabhaṭṭa who helped Maṇḍanapāla in his works and whose name occurs as the author in the mṣ of some of those workṣ It is known that Godavaramiśra was a learned court poet of Pratāparudra (vide Dr. Gode commemoration volume pp. 63-67 for him).

Vide JBORS. vol. V, pp. 147-148 and Inḍ Ant. for 1929, pp. 28-33 for information about the Empire of Orissa and its emperors, Kapilendra (who died in 1470 A. D.), Puruṣottama- deva (1470-1497) and Pratāparudra-deva.

There is a mṣ of a work called Pratāpamārtaṇḍa or Pra- udhapratāpamārtaṇḍa (D. C. mṣ No. 48 of 1872-73) which is ascribed to Pratāparudra, ruler of Utkala, whose capital was Kaṭaka on the banks of the Citrotpalā. It mentions Kapileśvara Gajapati, his son Puruṣottama, father of Pratāparudra. In the colophon the king is described as ‘Gajapati-Gauḍeśvara-nava-koṭī-kalabarageśvara-rūpa-nārāyaṇa’ &c. The work is divided into five Prakāśas on Padārthanirṇaya, Vatsarādinirūpaṇa, Tithi-nirūpaṇa, Vratanirṇaya (such as Navarātra &c.), Viṣṇubhukti. He expressly mentions as his authorities Hemādri, Kalpataru, Ratnākara, Mitākṣarā, Mādhavīya, Anantabhaṭṭa, Smṛticandrikā Aparārka, Pārijāta, Kālādarśa, Devadāsa. Here there is an ex- press mention of Mādhava which refutes Foulkes’ theory set out above.