107. Raghunandana

Volume I: Part II pp. 890–902

107. Raghunandana

##107. Raghunandana

Raghunandana is the last great writer of Bengal on dharma-śāstra. He compiled an encyclopædic work on the different branches of dharmaśāstra styled Smṛtitattva, divided into 28 sections called tattvaṣ He cites the names of over 300 authors and works in his encyclopaedia, which have been collected together by M. M. Chakravarti (JASB for 1915 pp. 363-375). His wonderful mastery over smṛti material and his erudition displayed in the Smṛti-tattva earned for him the appellation smāṛtabhaṭṭācārya or simply ‘smārta’ from later writerṣ For example, the Viramitrodaya refers to him in that way and so does Nīlakaṇṭha in his Vyavahāramayūkha.¹ His Smṛtitattva was printed at Serampore in Bengali characters so far back as 1834-35 A. D. The Smṛtitattva was published by Jīvānanda in 1895 (in two volumes) in 1631 pageṣ Out of 28 tattvas the Ṛgvedi-vṛṣotsargatattva is not included in Jīvānanda’s edition; but for a brief note on Ṛgvedīvṛṣotsargatattva, vide Mitra’s Notices, vol. VII p. 119 No. 2349 (which follows the procedure laid down by Śaunaka). The Śrāddhatattva (in Jīvānanda’s eḍ vol. I pp. 189-325) is really Sāmāśrāddhatattva, since Raghunandana being a Bengalī Rāḍhīya brāhmaṇa was a Sāmavediṇ He begins by quoting in the very first lines of this part Gobhila: ‘Atha Pārvaṇaśrāddham tatra Gobhilāḥ । Atha śrāddham amāvāsyā-yām pitṛbhyo dadyāt’. On many pages he quotes Gobhila gṛhyasūtra, as on pp. 195 (twice), 196, 203, 207, 209, 210, 213, (twice), 218, 228, 233 (twice), 235 (several times), 238, 240, 242, 245, 259, 273 (five lines quoted), 282, 288, (6 lines), 307 (6 lines). The Tithitattva (in Jīvānanda’s edition) men-tions on p. 93 (vol. I) a Durgāpūjātattva (pūjāyām viśeṣastu Durgāpūjātattvevasandheyaḥ) and at the end of the 2nd vol. of Jīvānanda’s edition there is Śrī-Durgārcanapaddhati, which is the same as the Durgāpūjā-prayogatattva published by the Saṁskṛt Sāhitya Pariṣad, Calcutta. He wrote also a Tīrtha- yātrātattva, dealing only with pilgrimages to Gayā,² Prayāga and Vārāṇasī. He also wrote a commentary on the Dāyabhāga. It has also been published by Jivananda (in two volumes). Some tattvas have been separately published as e. g. the Vyavahā-ratattva and the Dayatattva (published at Calcutta in 1828 by the Department of Public Instruction). His Dayatattva was translated into English by Golapcandra Sarkar. In his Mala-māsatattva the names of his tattvas are giveṇ³ Vide Mitra's Notices, vol. III. p. 50 No. 1081 and I. O. Cat. p. 420 No. 1405 for an enumeration of the tattvas and for reference to the volumes and pages in the Serampore editioṇ The tattvas are not arranged in the verses quoted below according to their chronological order, but according to the exigencies of the metre. In this work I have used Jivananda's editioṇ It is not feasible to give even brief summaries of Raghu- nandana’s tattvas. Their very names indicate the subject matter. But one of them, the Dāyatattva, deserves special mentioṇ It treats of partition made by father, partition among brothers after their father’s death, persons not entitled to a share, property not liable to partition, evidence of separation, strīdhana and its devolution, inheritance to one dying sonless etc. His Tithitattva contains a description in Sanskrit of the game called Caturanga played on the full moon of Āśvina by four playerṣ Vide (in vol. I) Tithi-tattva pp. 137–139 ( for a description of ‘catu- raṅgakrīḍana’).

Besides the 28 tattvas Raghunandana is said to have com- posed several other workṣ There is a commentary on the Dāya- bhāga attributed to hiṃ Colebrooke suspected its genuineness, but the colophon of the commentary⁴ gives the same details about Raghunandana as are found in his admitted workṣ It is to be noticed that the Dāyatattva of Raghunandana sets forth the same principles of Hindu law that are peculiar to Jīmūtavāhana, though in matters of detail they disagree in a few caseṣ The Vīramitrodaya styles the author of the Dāyatattva a follower of Jīmūtavāhana.⁵ It has been held by the Calcutta High Court that Raghunandana’s is the best commentary on the Dāyabhāga and that the authority of Raghunandana is acknow- ledged and respected universally in the Bengal School.⁶

Besides the above, Raghunandana wrote also Tīrthatattva or Tīrthayātrāvidhitattva, the Dvādaśayātrātattva ( on the princi- pal festivals at Jagannāthapurī, one in each month ), Tripuṣkara- śānti-tattva, Gayāśrāddhapaddhati and Rasayātrāpaddhati. His works however are not very much in vogue elsewhere than in Bengal.

Raghunandana was the son of Hariharabhaṭṭācārya and was a Bengal Vandyaghaṭīya Brāhmaṇa. He was a pupil of Śrīnātha_ ācārya-cūḍāmaṇi, whose works are frequently quoted in the 107. Raghunandana

several tattvas (vide Chakravarti in JASB for 1915 p. 351 ṇ 2). According to tradition Raghunandana and the great Vaiṣṇavite saint Caitanya were pupils of the same teacher, Vasudeva Sarva- bhouma, who was the shining light of the new logic (navyanyāya) at Navadvīpa and were residents of that place (Sarvadhikari's Tagore Law Lectures, first edition p. 403 ff.).

Among the authors and works quoted in his encyclopaedia by Raghunandana those noted below deserve mentioṇ⁷

In the Malamāsatattva, after citing the names of the tattvas and mentioning the topics to be dealt with in Malamāsatattva, he states (vol. I. p. 738 lines 1–2) that he is writing the work after looking into many nibandhas (nibandhān bahudhālocya nibadhyante satām mude). It may be noted further that he enumerates the names of the 18 Purāṇas from the Viṣṇupurāṇa (III. 6. 21–23) and quotes from the Kūrma the names of 18 upapurāṇas (in Smṛtitattva, vol. I. pp. 792–93). Raghunandana profusely quotes all the 18 Purāṇas, but the Upapurāṇas are sparingly cited except the Ādi, Āditya, Kālikā, Devi, Nandikes- vara, Narasiṁha, Nāradīya.

In may be noted that Raghunandana in Malamāsatattvva (vol. I. p. 792) quotes a passage accepted by great people (or by many people) viz. ‘Śūdras are Vājasaneyins in all matters and should follow the procedure laid down by the sages of that Veda.⁸ In another place i. e. in the Śūdrakṛtyavicarana-tattva (vol. II. p. 634) he quotes the passage ‘Ārṣakrameṇa sarvatra &c.’ and remarks that the mantra to be recited is to be taken from the Gṛhya relating to Yajurveda. The Smṛti of Yājñavalkya (I. 121)⁹ provides that he (the śūdra) should perform the five daily yajñas to the accompaniment of the word ‘namah’ as the mantra. The Mitākṣarā on Yāj. I. 121 says the same thing and adds that the śūdra should perform five daily yajñas to the accompaniment of the word ‘Namaskāra’ as the Mantra and then states that some prescribed a mantra for Śūdras as noted in the footnote¹⁰. This establishes that at least in some parts of India śūdras could even in the 11th century A. D. repeat a mantra cited in the note below. It appears that the opposite view viz. that a śūdra could repeat only the word ‘namaskāra’ as a mantra had begun to be emphasized in the 11th century A. D. and had been prescribed some centuries before Christ in some works such as the Gautama-Dharmasūtra (X. 66 ‘anujñātosya namaskāro mantraḥ’).

How the attitude of our learned writers towards women and śūdras went on becoming stiffer and stiffer may be very briefly indicated here. In the daily tarpana (satiating by offering water) three women are included in the tarpana of sages viz. ‘Gārgī- 107. Raghunandana

Vācaknavi, Vādavā Prātitheyī and Sulabhā Maitreyī' ( vide H. of Dh. Vol. II. p. 691 ). Further, in the Bṛhadāraṇayokopaniṣad, the great sage Yājñavalkya imparts to his wife Maitreyī the know- ledge of brahman (Bṛ. Up. II. 4-5). Śaṅkarācārya¹¹ on Brahmasūtra I. 3. 38 quotes a portion of Śāntiparva 328. 49 for establishing that Smṛti declares that men of all four varṇas have the right (or privilege) to acquire knowledge of Itihāsa and Purāṇaṣ The Dharmasindhu¹² says (p. 77) 'Kṣatriyas and Vaiśyas have the privilege (or capacity) to perform rājasapūjā containing offerings of flesh and to perform japa and homa; similarly, in the case of śūdras, tāmasapūjā without mantras and japa with offerings of even flesh is allowed, but the Sāttvikapūjā consisting of japa of saptaśatī and homa should be got performed through brāhmaṇas, (since) śūdras and women have no privilege of reciting even the mantras from Purāṇas and that in the bhāṣya (commentary) on the words 'the śūdra may secure happiness', it has been said that the śūdra reaps the fruit of religious rites viz. merely by listening to the mantras and not by repeating the mantras himself; therefore it should be unders- stood that the śūdra secures the desired fruits (results) of religious rites by merely listening to the Purāṇa mantras and not by himself reciting them; from this it should be understood that personal recitation by women and śūdras of the Gītā and the thousand names of Viṣṇu would lead to sin in their case. This dictum of the Darmasindhu is opposed to that of Gītā¹³ itself (IX. 32) and the words of Śaṅkarācārya who places the Śūdras on the same footing as the three Varnaṣ

The Bhāgavatapurāṇa¹⁴ (I. 4. 25) expressly states ‘As the three vedas cannot reach the ears of (i. e. are not or cannot be studied by) women, śūdras and those who are merely somhow related to the twice-born, the sage (Vyāsa) composed the Bhārata story (i. e. the epic Mahābhārata) out of compassion for them’. Some writers from Mithila, says Raghunandana in Śūdrakṛtyavicāraṇatattva (vol. II, p. 635), held that in śrāddhas a śūdra could repeat a Purāṇa mantra; to this Raghunandana replies that the Varāha and Matsya Purāṇas are opposed to thiṣ¹⁵ The result would be that there is an option, the Mahābhārata can be studied by women and śūdras just as men of the first three varṇas study the Veda. Even granting that some Purāṇas like the Matsya and Varāha are opposed to this, that does not matter. There would be an option as the Bhāgavata purāṇa states that the Mahābhārata takes the place of Veda in the case of women and śūdras, while some Purāṇas deny this in certain matterṣ

Aufrecht placed Raghunandana between 1430-1612 A. D. Dr. Jolly (Tagore Law Lectures p. 10) places him early in the 16th century. In I. L. R. 48 Cal. 643 (F. B.) at p. 695 it is said that Raghunandana belongs to the latter half of the 15th century. As Raghunandana’s works are quoted and criticised by the Vīramitrodaya (pp. 79, 531, 683, 697, 703 etc.,) and by Nīlakaṇṭha, Raghunandana is certainly earlier than 1600 A. D. As he names Mādhavācārya, Śūlapāṇi, Rāyamukuṭa, Rudradhara and Vācaspati, he is later than about 1500 A. D. If tradition that he was a fellow-student of Caitanya he must have been born about 1490 A. D. Caitanya is said to have been born in 1485 107. Raghunandana

or 1486 A. D.¹⁶ In his Jyotistattva he mentions śake 1421¹⁷ in connection with the position of Viṣuva. That shows that the work was not composed probably very much long after that date (i. e. 1499–1500 A. D.). In the same Tattva (vol. I. p. 568) for calculating ravi-saṁkrānti he takes śake 1489 as the basis (i. e. 1567 A. D.). So that Tattva was composed just about that year. A mṣ of the Chandoga-śrāddha-tattva was copied in śake 1497 (1575–76 A. D.)¹⁸ and a mṣ of the Mātha- pratiṣṭhā-tattva was copied in śake 1498 (i. e. 1576–77 A. D.).¹⁹ Therefore he must have flourished before 1575. Raghuānandana, as shown above at some length (on pp. 853–54) very often criti- cizes Vācaspati, whose literary activities have been placed above between 1450–1480 A. D. Besides, Nārāyaṇabhaṭṭa, who was born in 1513 A. D. (as will be shown under Nārāyaṇabhaṭṭa) and was the paternal grandfather of the famous cousins Kamalākara (who composed the Nirṇayasindhu in 1612 A. D.) and Nīlakaṇṭha, is mentioned with great respect as ‘Bhaṭṭa- nārāyaṇacaraṇaḥ’²⁰ by Raghuānandana in (vol. I) Tithitattva (pp. 99–100), Śrāddhatattva (pp. 201, 245), Saṁskāratattva pp. 868, 878 (in vol. II). Śuddhitatattva (p. 251). Therefore Nārāyaṇabhaṭṭa must have been an honoured contemporary of Raghuānandana. The latter very rarely differs (if at all) from Nārāyaṇabhaṭṭa and never employs words like ‘heyam’ or ‘nirastam’ about Nārāyaṇabhaṭṭa’s views (as Raghu. does in the case of Vācaspati). So Raghuānandana may be said to have flourished between 1510–1580 A. D. It may be noted that the Nirṇayasindhu (2nḍ Pari. p. 83) mentions the Tithitattva as quoting Kālikāpurāṇa about bath in the waters of the Brahma- putrā in Caitra on the 8th of the śukla fortnight, which passage occurs in Tithitattva p. 59 (vol. I).

Raghunandana was a great writer with wide reading, a wonderful memory, patient industry and a logical minḍ

Several papers have been written about hiṃ I have read some of theṃ The following may be mentioneḍ

1. J. A. S. B. New Series, Vol. XI, pp. 351–357 by M. M. Chakravarti, with an Index of Writers and Works in English characters (pp. 363–375) based on the text in the Serampore edition of 27 tattvas ( omitting ‘Rgvṛṣotsaraga-tattva’) published in 1834–35). This index loses much of its usefulness because very few libraries in modern India have got the very old Serampore edition and the only procurable edition now for many is that of Jivananda’ṣ The present author had to spend weeks over preparing an index of authors and works by reference to the pages of the edition of Jivananda.

2. Dr. R. C. Hazra’s note on the ‘works and time of Raghu’. in (journal) Bhāratīya Vidyā, Vol. XI part 2 (1950) pp. 178–182 (where he places Raghu. between 1520–75 A. D.)

3. ‘Raghunandana’s indebtedness to his predecessors’ by Dr. Bhabatosh Bhattacharya (published by the Asiatic Society, Calcutta, 1953–54) in its Journal, part 1 pp. 153–201 of vol. XIX (Letters), part 2 pp. 68–173 in vol. XX; part 3 in vol. XX pp. 229–312 and the same writer’s paper on ‘Raghunandana’s indebtedness to Cāṇḍeśvara’ in N. I. A. vol. I pp 534–35.

4. ‘Rāmāyaṇa and its influence on Ballalasena and Raghu-nandana’ by Dr. Bhabatosh Bhattacharya in J. O. I. (Baroda), Vol. II pp. 18–22.

5. “Devotional element in Raghunandana’s works ”²¹ in Siddhābhārati in honour of Dr. Siddheshwar Varma, pub. by V. V. R. Institute, Hoshiarpur, part I pp. 225–229 (1950). 107. Raghunandana

The Tattvas in the Smṛtitattva enable us to see clearly, what subjects falling under Dharmaśāstra had assumed importance and gripped people's minds in the 16th century A. D. and a few centuries before. The Tattvas²² are arranged here in the order of the number of pages devoted to each tattva in Raghunan- dāna's Smṛtitattva. 1. Tithi 188 pages (vol. I pp. 1–188); 2. Śuddhi, 180 pages, (vol. II. pp. 233–412); 3. Jyotistattva pp. 177 (vol. I pp. 559–735); 4. Āhnika, 140 pp. (vol. I pp. 326–465); 5. Śrāddha 137 pp. (vol. I. pp. 189–325); 6. Malamāsa pp. 121 (vol. I pp. 736–856); 7. Ekādaśī pp. 105 (vol. II pp. 1–105); 8. Prāyaścitta pp. 93 (vol. I pp. 466–558 ); 9. Saṁskāra pp. 92 (vol. I pp. 587–948 ); 10. Kṛtya pp. 60 (vol. II. pp. 423–483); 11. Udvāha pp. 45 (vol. II pp. 106–150); 12. Divya pp. 40 (vol. II. pp. 161–197); 13. Dāya, pp. 36 (vol. II pp. 197–233); 14. Vyavahāra pp. 36 (vol. II pp. 197–233); 15. Chandogavṛtsotsarga pp. 34 (vol. II pp. 528–562; 16. Yajurvediśrāddha pp. 20 pp. (vol. II pp. 528–562; 17. Mathāpratisthā pp. 20 (vol. II pp. 613–633); 18. Jalāśayotsarga pp. 15 (vol. II pp. 513–528); 19. Dīkṣā, pp. 14 (vol. II pp. 645-658); 20. Devapratiṣṭhā, pp. 12 (vol. II pp. 502–513); 21. Vastuyāga, pp. 12 (vol. II pp. 412–423); 22. Śrī-puruṣottama, pp. 11 (vol. II pp. 563–573); 23. Vrata, pp. 10 (vol. II pp. 151–160); 24. Yajurvedī-Vṛṣotsarga, pp. 9 (vol. II pp. 636–644); 25. Śūdra-kṛtya-vicāraṇa pp. 4 (vol. II pp. 633–636); 26. Durgārcanapaddhati pp. 659–683. It would be noticed that the different tithis of the year occupy, as regards extent, the first place; then comes Śuddhi (āśauca on death and impurity on birth), then astronomical and astrological matters, then āhnika (the daily religious duties), then Śrād-dhas, then religious duties in intercalary month. It may be noticed that inheritance and partition cover only 36 pages and so do administration of justice, substantive and procedural law; and ordeals are assigned more pages than even Dāya and Vyavahāra.

The first volume of the tattvas (Jīvānanda's edition) con-tains only nine tattvas in 948 pages, while the second volume of 683 pages contains 18 tattvas. There is hardly anything to prove or to show that this was Raghunandan's own arrange-ment. Probably it is due to modern editorṣ There is some internal evidence to establish the order in which at least some of the tattvas were composeḍ For example, pursuing the San-skrit alphabetical order of the names, the following brief state-ment is made.

Of the tattvas ²³(1) the Āhnika was composed before Śrā-ddha (vide p. 233 of Śr.), while Āhnika (p. 375) mentions Śuddhi as already composed; (2) The Udvāha was composed before Saṁskāra (vol. I p. 884) and after Śuddhi (vol. II p. 107) and after Dāyatattva (vol. II. p. 127); (3) The Ekādaśī was composed before Tithi (vol. I pp. 6 and 150), before Malamāsa, (as Ekādaśī vol. II p. 19 says ‘Vakṣyate’). 4. Chandoga-Vṛṣot-sarga was written after Śuddhi (vol. II p. 532); (5) Jyotiṣ was composed after Malamāsa (vol. I p. 775); (6) Tithi was written after Ekādaśī (vide vol. I pp. 6, 150), after Śuddhi and Śrāddha (p. 15 vol. I), after Malamāsa (vol. I, Tithi pp. 152, 167); 107. Raghunandana (7) Dāyātattva was composed before Udvāha (vol. II p. 127) and after Śuddhi (vol. II pp. 190–197); (8) Divya. was composed before Vyavahāra (vol. II p. 211); (9) Durgāpūjā mentioned by Tithitattva (vol. I p. 93 as ‘as anusandheyah’) does not show priority or posteriority; (10) Malāmāsa was composed after Jyotistattva (vol. I p. 775) and after Śrāddha and Udvāha (vol. I p. 884); (11) Vyavahāra was written after Divyātattva (vol. II p. 228); ((12) Śuddhi was composed before Tithi (vol. I p. 15) and after Ekādaśī. (vol. II. p. 307) and also before Udvāha (vol. II p. 107); (13) Śrāddha was composed before Tithi (vol. I p. 15) and Saṁskāra (vol. I p. 884) and after Āhnika (Śrāddha vol. I p. 233); (14) Saṁskāra was com- posed before Chandogavṛsotsargatattva (vol. II pp. 543–547) and after Śrāddha and Udvāha (vol. I p. 884).

Another method which may be briefly indicated for finding the order in which the tattvas were composed is as follows: One may say that when Raghu says about a topic that it has been ‘vivṛta’ (expounded) or ‘prapañcita’ (dealt with in detail) or uses past passive participles of the same meaning, one may reasonably hold that that subject had been already dealt with in a tattva. But when he uses words like ‘anusandheyam’ (may be consulted) or jñeyam (may be known or understood from) a conclusion about priority or posteriority cannot be reasonably drawṇ A very learned man (particularly before the advent of printing) may have been engaged in or contemplating the composition of two or three works at the same time and one day he might write a chapter of one book and the next day or a few days later he might compose a chapter for another work of his by way of change or variety. Therefore, the words ‘anusandheyam’ and ‘jñeyam’ may be employed with reference to a work already composed or yet to be composeḍ

The present author holds that the mention of 28 tattvas contained at the beginning of the Malāmāsatattva²⁴ was only a draft (of the tattvas to be described) prepared at some time before Raghunandana began to describe the several tattvaṣ It appears that some tattvas at least had been composed before the Malāmāsatattva was actually writteṇ For example the Malāmāsa. (vol. I p. 834) quotes Manu IV. 103 (vidyut-stanita &c. ) and adds that it was explained in Tithitattva. On p. 775 ( vol. I ) the Malāmāsa° expressly says ‘ Tajjyotiḥśāstroktakala…iti Jyotistattve-bahudhā vivṛtam’. From the Ekādaśītattva (vol. II p. 19) it appears that the Malāmāsatattva was yet to be composed when the former was composed (evaṁ ca Gobhila-nukteṣvannapraśanādiṣu yad-Vṛddhiśrāddham tan-malāmāsatattve mātsyapurāṇādivacanād vakyate’. The most extensive tattvas are (as shown in detail above) those on Tithi, Śuddhi, Jyotis, Āhnika and Śrāddha, whereas Malāmāsa comes only next to these five in extent.

Raghunandana was a master in the application of the Mīmām-sāsūtras and Nyāyaṣ I shall only mention a few of the most important pages where Jaimini’s sūtras are actually cited; (in vol. I. Tithi 95 and Śrāddha 221 definitions of ṛk, yajus, sāma ); Āhnika (p. 338 ); Prāyaśc. p. 479 ( Jai. III. 4. 17 ), 480 ( Jai. I. 2.1 ) Malāmāsa (p. 806 ), Ekādaśī p. 88 and p. 97 ( Jaimini VI. 3. 18 ). Raghunandana employs two kinds of Nyāyas viz. those based on the discussions in Jaimini and the explanations given by his commentators and nyāyas (maxims) that are more or less of a popular nature. A few examples of the two kinds may be mentioned by way of illustratioṇ Two nyāyas of the first type cited by Raghu. may be mentioned as exampleṣ There is ‘ Sam-yogapṛthaktvanyāya (based on Jaiminisūtra IV. 3. 5–7 which is mentioned and explained by Raghu. in Tithi (vol. I p. 44), Pr. T. (vol. I pp. 474–475 ) and ( also in vol. II ) Ekādaśī pp. 29–30. Another well-know Nyāya is Sarvaśākhāpratyaya-nyāya ( Jaimini II. 4. 8–33 ). Raghu. relies on it in (vol. II ) Śuddhi p. 378. Examples of a popular sort of nyāyas are Gobalīvardanyāya that occurs (in vol. I Tithi p. 142) and Daṇḍāpuṇyāya (that occurs in Dāyatattva, vol. II. p. 170 ); vide H. of Dh. vol. V pp. 1343, 1344 for the elucidation of these two and pp. 1339–1351 for over 171 nyāyas explained briefly.