106. Govindānanda
Volume I: Part II pp. 882–889
Govindānanda was a prolific author, known for his significant contributions to Dharmaśāstra literature. His independent works include the Dānakāumudī, Śuddhikaumudī, Śrāddhakaumudī, and Varṣakriyākaumudī. Beyond these, he also penned important commentaries, such as the Arthakaumudī on Śrīnivāsa's Śuddhīdīpikā, and the Tattvārthakaumudī on Śūlapāṇi's Prāyaścittaviveka. Son of Gaṇapatibhaṭṭa, Govindānanda's period of active literary output spanned approximately between 1500 and 1540 A. D. However, scholarly analysis of Govindānanda's corpus reveals certain nuances. Notably, he exhibited a tendency towards imprecision when referencing the names of his own compositions. His intellectual engagement was not without contestation, evidenced by his protests against Dr. Bhaṭṭacharya concerning specific doctrinal or textual points. Furthermore, the authorship of the work titled Kriyākaumudī remains a subject requiring careful scrutiny. Historians of the period must also account for the two inaccurate statements made by Dr. Haraprasad Sastri, which often touch upon intricate details such as the calculation of years incorporating intercalary months, critical for chronological accuracy in Dharmaśāstra studies.
— Synopsis by P.V. Kane, from History of Dharmaśāstra
106. Govindānanda
106. Govindānanda
Govindānanda wrote several works out of which four have been printed in the Bibliotheca Indica series, viz. : the Dāna-kaumudī, Śuddhikāumudī, Śrāddhakaumudī, Varṣakriyā-kaumudī. The last work deals with tithinirṇaya, vratas on several tithis all the year round, festivals like Durgotsava, Kojāgara etc. Besides these he wrote a commentary called Arthakaumudī on the Śuddhidīpikā of Śrīnivāsa which was printed in Bengali characters, and also a commentary called Tattvārtha-kaumudī on Śūlapāṇi's Prāya-ścittaviveka (published by Jīvānanda at Calcutta). This com- mentary is extensive and learneḍ A verse eulogising his father's great learning in Astronomy, Vedānta and Smṛti occurs in the commentary as well as in Śrāddhakriyākaumudī (it is quoted below).1334 His works are of great utility on account of the numerous authors and works quoted thereiṇ The following deserve special mentioṇ1 He was the son of Gaṇapatibhaṭṭa and was styled Kavikaṇṭakācārya. From the introductory and final verses of his works it appears that he was a Vaiṣṇava. His father was a resident of Bāgri in the Midnapur District of Bengal.
Since he quotes Rudradhara-upādhyāya ( pp. 115, 116 ) and his Śrāddhaviveka in Śrāddha-kriyākaumudī and Vācaspatimiśra on p. 452 of the same and Śrāddhacintāmaṇi sixteen times in the same work, he is not earlier than about 1500 A. D. His father composed his astronomical work Jyotiṣmati in Kali year 4613 (i. e. 1512 A. D.), when his name had become famouṣ Dr. Bhabatosh Bhattacharya in his paper ‘ Govindānanda the least appreciated Bengal Nibandhakāra ’ ( in JOR, Madras, Vol. XXIX for 1963 pp. 101–107 ) blames me for not mentioning ( in the first edition of the H. of Dh. vol. I ) all the years in which intercalary months occurred near about Govindānanda’s time and for not making use of a verse ( quoted below ) about the composition of the work of Govindānanda’s father contained in the editor’s Preface to the Varṣakriyākaumudī. I must enter a protest against these references to my not dilating on matters occurring even in prefaces to editionṣ I had to deal in H. of Dh. with more than one hundred authors in less than 500 pageṣ I could not indulge in long discussions as one can do in papers in journalṣ Even without referring to the date in the preface to Varṣakriyākaumudī I placed Govindānanda between 1500–1540 A. D. Dr. Bhattacharya himself ( in J. O. R. Madras, Vol. XXIX pp. 101–107 at p. 103 ) holds that my conclusion ( in H. of Dh. vol. I 1930 on p. 415 ) ‘ we shall be very near the truth if Govindā- nanda's literary activity be placed between 1500 and 1540 A. D.' was justifieḍ My reason for stating only a few intercalary months was to find out the latest dates (which Govindānanda cited) for arriving at the date of composition of that work (Śuddhi- kaumudī). Dr. Bhattacharya is not quite accurate when he says on p. 500 of his paper on the Varṣakriyākaumudī of Govindā- nanda in Adyar Library Bulletin (Vol. XXV pp. 505-510) that Dr. Hazra's paper on 'works and period of literary activity of Govindānanda' (J. O. R. Madras, Vol. XVIII pp. 97-108) has settled with certainty Govindānanda's date as 1510-40 A. D. The only settled date (if at all) is that of the composition of Jyotiṣmatī (an astronomical work of which only a single mṣ is said to have been found) of Gaṇapatibhaṭṭa (written in 4613 Kaliyuga i. e. about 1512-13 A. D.). Dr. Hazra towards the end of his paper (pp. 107-108) relies on the three epithets (of self- praise) applied to Gaṇapatibhaṭṭa by himself viz. whose name was famous (prasiddhāhvvayaḥ), who was superior on account of his well known qualities (khyātaguṇottara) and the leader among astronomerṣ There is nothing to show that all these epithets were really deserveḍ There is nothing to show that the epithet 'bhaṭṭa' had been conferred upon hiṃ Further, we do not know whether a son had already been born to him about or before 1512 or whether the son was 10 or 20 or 40 years old at the time.
It may be noted that Govindānanda himself was loose in giving the names of some of his own works; for example, the 5th Introductory verse in his work on Dāna employs the word 'Dāna- kriyākaumudī', while the verse preceding the last one in the same work employs the word 'Dānakāumudī'. Similarly, the fifth Introductory verse of the Śrāddhakāumudī has 'Śrī-Govindakavih karoti gahanām Śrāddhakriyākaumdīm', while at the end of the same work he says 'Govindānandakṛtinā kṛteyam Śrāddha- kaumudī'. But as regards the Śuddhikāumudī the Introductory verse is 'Śrī Govindakavih karoti gahanām śuddher-imām kaumudim' and at the end we have the verse 'Gaṇapatibhaṭṭa- tavjyo Govindānanda paṇditaḥ śrīmān samakṛtā santoṣārtham sudhiyām Śrī Śuddhi-kaumudim-etām' 11.
The Dānakriyākaumudī mentions no other Kaumudī but is itself mentioned by Śrāddhakriyākaumudī on pp. 340 and 529 and by Śuddhikaumudī on p. 160 and by the Varṣakriyā-Kaumudī on pp. 352, 487. The Śrāddhakaumudī mentions the Dānakaumudī on pp. 323, 342, 348, 440 and 483 and is mentioned by the Varṣakriyākaumudī2 on pp. 352, 487. The Śuddhikaumudī mentions the Dānakaumudī on p. 160 and is mentioned by the Varṣakriyākaumudī on p. 359. The Varṣakriyākaumudī mentions all the other three works as stated above but is not quoted by any of the other three Kaumudīs and therefore it is the latest among his four workṣ
On pp. 266-267 of the Śuddhikaumudī it is stated by Govindānanda that in 1414 śake (i. e. 1492 A. D.) Vaiśākha was intercalary, in śake 1416 ( 1494 A. D. ) Bhādrapada was so, in śake 1419 (1497 A. D.) Śrāvaṇa was intercalary in the 36th month from the time when an intercalary month occurred before that year and it remarks that there is not certain rule about these intercalary months, except this that an intercalary month does occur in the 3rd solar year after the occurrence of an intercalary month in some year. Then on p. 270 he quotes a Jyotiṣa verse and states that in śake 1449 (1527 A. D.) there was an intercalary month, Āṣāḍha, that in 1452 śake Vaiśākha was an intercalary month, then in 1454 śake ( 1532 A. D.), Bhādrapada was an inter-calary month and in 1457 śake ( 1535 A. D.) there was Śrāvaṇa as intercalary month and remarks that all this about intercalary months is not certain, but it is only prāyika ( probable ).
The learned editor of the Varṣakriyākaumudī appends in the Preface ( pp. III-V ) a list of fourteen matters on which Govindā-nanda differs from Raghunandana. Dr. Bhabatosh Bhattacharya in his paper on the Varṣakriyākaumudī (Adyar Library Bulletin, Vol. XXV on pp. 506–507 ) gives ( on the fourteen points of difference between the two great scholars ) references to the pages of Varṣakriyā and of the Tattvas on Ekādaśī, Kṛtya and Tithi.
The Śrāddhakriyākaumudī mentions Śūlapāṇi several times ( on pp. 31, 71, 138, 374, 380, 549 ) and once on p. 71 includes him along with Aniruddha among the ancient ones ( vid note 1263 above prācāmasammatam ). ‘Prācām’ may also mean ‘eastern’ but that meaning would not be proper here, since Aniruddha, Śūlapāṇi and Govindānanda are all men from Bengal. It men- tions the Śrāddhacintāmaṇi of Vācaspati sixteen times and often says that its opinion deserves to be rejected (heyam or apāstam) as on p. 354 or is stupid (mandam) as on pp. 185, 280, 296, 319.
Govindānanda wrote a learned and extensive commentary called Tattvārthakaumudī on the Prāyaścittaviveka of Śūlapāṇi. The verse describing his father’s attainments in Astronomy, Vedānta and Smṛtis also occurs there. On p. 142 of that com- mentary he holds an elaborate discussion on the Holakādhikaraṇa (Jaiminī’s Sūtras I. 3. 15–23 ) and he finds fault with Jīmūta- vāhana’s interpretation of it in the Dāyabhāga. Vide H. of Dh. vol. V. pp. 237–241 and 1281–82. It is not possible (for reasons of space) to say more about the Tattvārthakaumudī here.
Apart from his coṃ on Śūlapāṇi’s work the Kaumudis cover over 1800 printed pageṣ His is a great effort and is next to Raghunandana’s Smṛtitattva in extent.
Raghunandana does not mention him by name or his works nor does Govindānanda refer to Raghunandana or his works or viewṣ Govindānanda appears to be the earlier of the two, though they were contemporarieṣ
Govindānanda mentions Śrīdharasvāmin, the famous com- mentator of the Bhāgavatapurāṇa, in Varṣakriyākaumudī (p. 56) and declares that a certain verse (kalārdham dvādaśīm dṛṣṭvā &c.) quoted by him appears to be amūla (baseless ), while Raghu- nandana also quotes him ( i. e. Śrīdharasvāmin ) in (vol. I) Tithi 107, Prāyaścitta 517 ( refers to his commentary on the 12th adhyāya of the 10th Skandha ), (vol. II) Ekādaśī 25, Kṛtya 430 ( Śrīdharasvāmī-vyākhyānam-atra grāhyam ).
On p. 559 of the Śrāddha-kriyākaumudī, while dealing with śrāddha in honour of ancient sages like Sanaka and the use of the word ‘hanta’ therein, Govindānanda remarks ‘the rite ( offering śrāddha to Sanaka and others ) may be seen in Kriyā- kaumudī’. Several explanations of these words are possible viz. that it is a marginal note introduced by scribes in the text or that Kriyākaumudī is a work of Govindānanda himself or that Kriyākaumudī is a work by some other author. Raghunandana 106. Govindānanda
(in Āhnikatattva, 343) quotes two verses from Kriyākaumudī (attributed to Vasiṣṭha) that enumerate seven trees or plants called ‘tṛṇarāja’ and condemns the use of the skins or leaves of those trees for ‘dantadhāvana’ and on p. 344 cites a verse from Kriyākaumudī that requires that if a man knowingly touches a jalauka (leech) or similar worm he should forbear from performing daily religious duties (unless he bathes or washes the hands). On p. 376 of Āhnikatattva Raghu. quotes a half verse from Kaumudī3 forbidding for tarpaṇa the use of water taken from a śūdra or water falling from cloudṣ
It appears that the Bengal Asiatic Society has a mṣ of a work called Kriyākaumudī.4 I learn from Dr. Bhabatosh Bhattacharya that Dr. Shrimati Vani Chakravarti in her recently published Bengali work (in July 1964) named ‘samāja-saṁskāraka Raghunandana’ has shown that all the quotations from Kriyākaumudī found in Raghunandana’s Smṛtitattva (which are only four or rather 3½ verses) can be identified in the mṣ of Kriyākaumudī belonging to the Bengal Asiatic Society. Those quotations by Raghunandana appear, according to Dr. Misṣ Vani, on folios 7, 8 and 34 of the A. S. Mṣ of Kriyākaumudī. Dr. Bhabatosh Bhattacharya assures me (from personal examination of the mṣ) that the prayoga alluded to in p. 559 of the Śrāddhakriyākaumudī occurs on folio 36 of the mṣ (in the Asiatic Society). This makes the conclusion certain that the Kriyākaumudī was a work of Govindānanda. There is evidence in the Śuddhikaumudī that he describes the details of a subject in one Kaumudī (viz. on Dāna) and sets out the mere prayoga in another work (viz. in Śuddhikaumudī).
Dr. Hazra in J. O. R. (Madras) Vol. XXIII pp. 97–108 sets out all the works of Govindānanda (eleven in all) with some details in each case and holds (pp. 99-101) that the Kriyā- kaumudī (ṃ in Śrāddhakriyākaumudī p. 559) is his (Govindā- nanda's) work.
The learned editor of the Varşakriyākaumudī (M. M. Kamalākrişņa Smrtitirtha ) stated clearly in his Introduction to Varşakriyākaumudī (page II) that the author Govindānanda lived in the village of Bāgri in the Midnapore District, that he was a devout Vaişņava (as appears from the Introductory verses of the Varşakriyākaumudī and his other works), that some of the pāścātya vaidikās of the Gautama family assert that they are descendants of Gaņapati-bhaţţa and Pandit Haranchandra Tarka- vagīśa of Bāgri (who supplied to the editor the date of the Jyotişmatī ) traced his descent from Gaņapatibhaţţa (p. III of Introduction). The eminent scholar M. M. Dr. Haraprasad Sastri in the Preface to his Descriptive Cat. of Sanskrit Msṣ vol. III (published by the Asiatic Society of Calcutta in 1925 ) made two statements which are inaccurate. One statement was that at the end of the 15th century a leader of the foreign brāhmaṇas settled in the outskirts of Bengal in the district of Bankura, wrote a code for the brāhmaṇas of his own persuasion entitled Varşa- kriyākaumudī, complete in six books; (p. XXI). The second inaccurate statement was that Govindānanda Kavikańkāņācārya was a Drāviḍa brāhmaṇa settled in the District of Bankura in Bengal and that he wrote a comprehensive work entitled Kriyā- kaumudī of which Dānakriyā and Varşakriyā are represented in Noṣ 2691 and 2692 ( of the Society's msṣ ). One mistake is that the so-called code is called Varşakriyākaumudī and another is that it is in six bookṣ It is one of his books (and not the whole code ) that is called Varşakriyākaumudī and the code is not in six books but only in four (or at the most in five). There is nothing to show that Drāviḍa brāhmaṇas settled in West Bengal in the 14th century. The only probable migration might have been from Kanoj ( which can be described as being to the west of Bengal ).
I am inclined to hold that the Kriyākaumudī is Govindā- nanda's work. He had already given some directions about the śrāddha in honour of Sanaka (and other sages on pp. 557-58 ) and therefore added that the detailed procedure of Sanaka's Śrāddha would be found in Kriyākaumudī. The note below 106. Govindānanda collects in one place some references to the pages of detailed procedures mentioned in his workṣ In this case he did not like to dwell long on Sanakādiśrāddha (which was a daily one ) and referred to another work for detailṣ It would be noticed that ( in some cases mentioned in the note )1339 he expressly says that he has already explained some matters in another work and uses the words ‘asmābhiḥ’ and ‘vivecanaṃ..kṛtam’ &c.
For information about Govindānanda vide JASB ( New Series ) Vol. XI for 1915 pp. 351–57. His Śuddhi-kaumudī examines intercalary months1340 from śake 1414 to śake 1457 (i. e. from 1492 A. D. to 1535 A. D.). Therefore it appears that he wrote his Śuddhikaumudī immediately after śake 1457 (i. e. 1535 A. D.). He wrote the Śrāddha-kaumudī and Varṣa-kriyākaumudī after the Śuddhikaumudī. Therefore we shall be very near the truth if his literary activity be placed between 1500 and 1540 A. D.
Vide M. M. Chakravarti in JASB for 1915 p. 355 for information about Govindānanda.