114. Anantadeva
Volume I: Part II pp. 953–963
Anantadeva is primarily known for composing a vast digest titled Smṛtikaustubha, which encompasses various facets of dharma including saṁskāra, ācāra, rājadharma, dāna, utsarga, pratiṣṭhā, tithi, and samvatsara. Among these extensive sections, the Saṁskārakaustubha emerged as his most popular work, meticulously detailing its contents. A notable portion of this work, dedicated to adoption, is known as Dattakadidhiti, which comprehensively summarises important views on the subject. Other significant parts include the Abdadidhiti and the Rājadharmakaustubha. It is pertinent to clarify that the name Smṛtikaustubha, as a general title, can be somewhat misleading, as it more precisely refers to the ‘Abdadidhiti’ or ‘Samvatsaradidhiti’. Beyond these major digests, Anantadeva also authored several prayogas. His literary range further extended to dramatic composition, evident in his play, ‘Kṛṣṇabhakticandrikā’. Anantadeva's prolific work was undertaken at the command of his patron, Baz Bahadurcandra, whose family pedigree is also recorded. Anantadeva himself was the great-grandson of Ekanātha, a revered Marathi poet and saint, and his younger brother was Jīvadeva. His significant period of literary activity is generally established to be between the years 1645 and 1695.
— Synopsis by P.V. Kane, from History of Dharmaśāstra
114. Anantadeva
114. Anantadeva
Anantadeva compiled a vast digest called Smṛtikaustubha divided into several sections on saṁskāras, ācāra, rājadharma, dāna, utsarga, pratiṣṭhā, tithi and saṁvatsara. The section on saṁs- kāras and that on rājadharma are also called Saṁskāra-kaustu- bha and Rājadharma-kaustubha. Each Kaustubha is subdivided into parts called didhiti. The Saṁskāra-kaustubha is the most popular and most well-known of hiṣ It has been printed several times, the best editions being that of the Nirṇayasāgara Press (1913) and that issued at Baroda (1914) under the patron- age of H. H. the Maharaja Gaikwad ( with a Marathi trans- lation by Sastri Venkatacarya Upadhyaya). The saṁskāra-kau- stubha was recognised as an authoritative work for India by the Privy Council and the Bombay High Court1. It is a large work dealing with the Saṁskāras from Garbhādhana to vivāha (marriage) and is full of quotations and discussionṣ The following is a very brief summary of the contents :-
The sixteen Saṁskāras, the first being garbhādhana, the astrological aspects of the first appearance of menses and the various propitiatory rites therefor; the proper times for garbhā- dhāna and the several rites connected therewith; puṇyāhavacana, nāndīśrāddha, mātṛkāpūjana; nārāyaṇabali and nāgabali; pañca- gavya, kṛcchra and other prāyaścittas; cāndrāyaṇavrata; adop- tion, who is entitled to adopt, who can be adopted, rites of adoption, gotra and sāpiṇḍya of the adopted son, mourning to be observed by the adopted, succession of the adopted; putra- kameṣṭi; puṁsavana; anavalobhana; sīmantonnayana; rites on the birth of a child or son; impurity on birth; propitiatory rites for evil aspects at birth; nāmākaraṇa; niṣkramaṇa; anna- prāśana; piercing the ear; celebration of birth day; caula; upanayana proper times for it, the necessary materials for it, the gāyatrī, the vows of a brahmacārin; samāvartana; marriage, sāpiṇḍya for it, gotras and pravaras, proper times for marriage, forms of marriage, vāg-niścaya, sīmantāpūjana, madhuparka, kanyādāna, vivāhahoma, saptapadī, homa on the entrance of the married couple etc.
The portion of the saṁskāra-kaustubha on the subject of adoption is frequently cited separately as Dattakadīdhitī and is so entered in the catalogues of msṣ It is a treatise of great import- ance and deserves to be studied along with the Dattaka- mīmāṁsā, the Vyavahāramayūkha and other similar workṣ The more important of his views are set out below. Like the Dattaka- mīmāṁsā he recommends that the nephew is the most suitable for adoption, then one may select any sagotra sapiṇḍa, then an asagotra sapiṇḍa, then a sagotra but asapiṇḍa, then any one of the same caste though not sagotra, but a daughter's or sister's son cannot be adopted nor can a brother, a paternal or maternal uncle be adopteḍ A Śūdra may adopt a daughter's or sister's soṇ The person to be adopted must not be an only son or the eldest. A wife can adopt with the consent of her husband and a widow does not require the express permission of her husbanḍ The boy to be adopted may be below five or above five and may be taken before or after the cūḍā ceremony is performed in the natural family. Anantadeva refers to the1482 view of some that the verses of the Kālikāpurāṇa on this subject are not found in several msṣ and so are unauthoritative and tells us that others hold that the whole passage refers to the adoption of an asagotra boy. Anantadeva himself holds, like the Vyavahāramayūkha, that even an asagotra boy may be adopted after his upanayana is performed in the natural family. When the ceremony of caula and the rest are performed in the family of the adopter, the adopted boy belongs to the gotra of the adopter, but where the upanayana alone is performed in the adoptive family or the adoption is made after upanayana the boy belongs to both gotraṣ But this holds good only as regards obeisance, śrāddha etc, while for marriage every adopted boy has to avoid the gotra and pravara of both familieṣ If a natural son be born to the adopter after he takes a boy in adoption, the adopted boy becomes an equal sharer with the aurasa, if all the Saṁskāras up to upanayana are performed by the adoptive father for the adopted boy, or he takes only a fourth share if only some of the Saṁskāras ending with upanayana are performed by the adopter and he gets no inheritance but only provision for marriage if he was adopted after upanayana is performed in the natural family. Anantadeva, disagreeing with Nīlakaṇṭha, holds that a girl may be adopteḍ1483
Like the Nirṇayasindhu and the mayūkhas of Nīlakaṇṭha, Anantadeva in the Saṁskārakāustubha and elsewhere names several hundred authors and workṣ It is not necessary to set out the whole lot. His authorities are practically the same as those of the former. He principally relies among nibandhas upon the Mitākṣarā, Aparārka, Hemādri, Mādhava, Madanaratna, Madanapārijāta. The Smṛtikāustubha was divided into several dīdhitīs ( rays, parts ). In the Smṛtikāustubha published by the Nirṇayasagara Press it is expressly stated that the tithidīdhitī has been already1484 expound- eḍ At the end also it is said that the work is only the complete abdādīdhitī ( i. e. portion dealing with saṁvatsaras of five kinds ). The year is said to be of five kinds, cāndra, saura, sāvana, bārhas- patya and nākṣatra. The printed work treats of the several rites, observances, festivals and vratas on the important tithis of the twelve months of the cāndra year with the intercalary month and observances thereof, the rites proper to saura year and saṁkrāntis 114. Anantadeva
(the sun's passage from one sign into another), the rites of the sāvāna year, the rules about rites when Jupiter is in the sign of Leo, the rites of the nakṣatra year, the actions forbidden and allowed in Kali age according to Anantadeva and discussion of the views of Hemādri, Mādhava and the Madanapārijāta thereoṇ
In Introductory verses 10–14 of the Rājadharma Kaustubha1485 edited by M. M. Kamalakṛṣṇa Smṛtitīrtha and his son Mr. (now Dr.) Bhabatosh Bhattacharya in 1935 in Gaekwad's Oriental Series, it is stated that the work was composed for the greater glory of king Bāj-Bahadur and is divided into several didhitis (rays, parts) viz. four; the first didhiti (pp. 3–128) dealing with the founding of the capital, the palace, temples with idols and lingas, villages, forts, construction of wells and lakes, laying out parks; the 2nd part (in pp. 129–232) treats Vāstupūjā, vāstu of various parts, the deities to be established thereon, vāstu- yāga-prayoga, Śānti laid down by Āśvalāyana &c., rules about constructing and dedicating wells, reservoirs of water, gardens, establishment of images of godṣ The third didhiti called Rājyābhiṣeka (pp. 233–380) is concerned with the crowning of the king, characteristic qualities which a king should possess, the characteristics and qualities desirable in the chief queen (agramahiṣī), of the mantrin (such as being an expert in the four means of royal policy viz. sāma, dāna, bheda and Daṇḍa, Yāj. I. 346), the Purohita (Yāj. I. 313), Jyotirvit (well-versed in astro- logy and astronomy having 64 aṅgas and upāṅgas as described by Garga); procedure of homas and śāntis (like Aindrī); procedure of the abhiṣeka (ceremonies of crowning the king) as described in the Purāṇas (particularly in the Viṣṇu-dharmottara) pp. 346–63; actions and rites to be performed after the crowning of the king; Puṣyābhiṣeka (in Atharva vapariśiṣṭa ); the 4th part (didhiti) is concerned with prajāpālana (protecting and govern- ing the subjects), covers pp. 381–496 and deals with legal pro- cedure (including ordeals) and decisions of the various matters of dispute among the subjectṣ There is hardly anything new or striking in it and often it is very meagre as compared with even Yāj. smṛti e. g. on ‘ Sambhūyasamutthāna ’ it quotes only four verses (without a word of comment) that are Yāj. II. 259–60, 263–265, while Yāj. devotes seven verses to the same topic viz. II. 259–265.186
The Rājadarmakaustubha quotes profusely from the Matsyapurāṇa, the Viṣṇudharmottara-purāṇa and the Bṛhatsaṃhitā (whole chapters being quoted sometimes from these). Dr. Misṣ Priyabala Shah published Khaṇḍa III of the Viṣṇudharmottara (chapters 1–118) in two parts in the Gaekwad Oriental Serieṣ Vide also ‘Studies in Dharmaśāstra’ by Dr. Bhabatosh Bhattacharya (1964), pp. 22–23 for Anantadeva.
The name Smṛtikaustubha (cf. the Nir. eḍ of 1908) is misleading. It does not deal with all or many topics treated of in Smṛtiṣ It deals only with the religious rites to be performed in the Cāndra year in its several months and on several tithis and the religious rites to be performed in the other four kinds of years and their monthṣ The Smṛtikaustubha is really ‘Abdadidhiti’. 114. Anantadeva or ‘Saṃvatsarādidhīti’3 as Anantadeva expressly says in Introductory verse 20 of the Smṛtikaustubha that he is going to expatiate on ‘Abdadidhīti’.
In this work, while describing the religious rites to be performed on certain tithis he frequently cites at some length the kathās (stories) connected with those tithis; vide, for examples, the Vāṭa-Sāvitrīvratakathā on Jyeṣṭha Paurṇamāsī pp. 44–50, Mahā-laksṃīkathā on pp. 148–150, Anantacaturdaśīvratakathā (pp. 170–175), Śivarātrivratakathā (pp. 398–410).
Hemādri4 deals only with three kinds of abdas or saṃvatsa-ras viz. Lunar (cāndra), Saura (solar) and Sāvana, while Mādhava added two more viz. Bārhaspatya and Nakṣatra. The Smṛtikaustubha (pp. 462–63) quotes Yājñavalkya (I. 265–268) which set out the results of performing Śrāddhas on the nakṣatras from Kṛttikā to Bharaṇī. The Manusmṛti III. 277 provides what one secures by performing śrāddhas on the even tithis (2nd, 4th &c.) and even Nakṣatras ( Bharaṇī, Rohiṇī &c.) and on 1st, 3rd and other uneven tithis and nakṣatras ( Aśvinī, Kṛttikās etc.).
It is unnecessary to go into details about the other treatises on prāyaścitta, &c. It is said by Eggeling (I. O Cat. No. 1475) that Anantadeva’s Smṛtikaustubha comprised twelve partṣ For Bhagavadbhaktinirṇaya vide Velankar’s Cat. of Iccharam Desai collection p. 49. Anantadeva also wrote several prayogas such as the Agnihotraprāyoga, Cāturmāsyaprāyoga. In the Bhadkamkar collection there is a mṣ of a drama called Kṛṣṇa- bhakti-candrikā composed by Anantadeva in which the characters are a Śaiva, Vaiṣṇava, Mīmāṁsaka, Tārkika &c.
In the Smṛtikaustubha (Nirṇayasāgara edition of 1909) Anantadeva gives a pedigree5 of his patron's family. The family claimed descent from the mooṇ Whether the first three kings, mentioned in the Smṛtikaustubha, were related as father and son is doubtful. Lakṣmaṇacandra is said to have been the son of Rudracandra and it was he who conquered several chiefs wielding sway over the Himalayan territorieṣ6 Trimallacandra, the successor (and probably the son) of Lakṣmaṇacandra, is praised for his continual liberality to the learned men of Benareṣ7 It was at the command of Baz Bahadurcandra and for pleasing him that Anantadeva compiled his Smṛtikaustubha.8 At the end Anantadeva tells us that Baz Bahadurcandra conquered several mountain forts in the Himālayaṣ9 After giving a pedigree of his patron's family Anantadeva gives some information about himself. He was a descendant of the great Marāṭha saint Ekanātha whom he describes as endowed with Vedic sacrifices and as a devotee of Krṣṇa.10 That this Ekanātha is the same as the great Maratha saint is vouchsafed by Kāśinātha, author of Dharma-sindhu, in another work of hiṣ11 Anantadeva was the great-grand-son of Ekanātha and he was the grandson of Ananta and son of Āpadeva, the author of the Mīmāṁsā-nyāyaprakāśa alias Āpadevī. Mīmāṁsā lore seems to have been a hereditary endowment in the family as in the case of the Bhaṭṭas of Benareṣ In all his works, particularly in the Saṁskārakaustubha, Anantadeva applies at every step the maxims and doctrines of the Pūrvamīmāṁsā for the decision of doubtful points of Dharmaśāstra. Anantadeva had a younger brother Jīvadeva whose Gotraprāvaranirṇaya he draws upon in the Saṁskārakaustubha after dealing with sāpiṇḍya for marriage in his own way. The quotation is a long one beginning with the words ‘अथ गोत्रप्रवरनिर्णयो मदुत्सुजीवदेवकृत एषा-सिन्नवसरे प्रदर्श्यते’ on p. 179 (b) of संस्कारकौस्तुभ (oblong Nir. edition of 1913) and ending on p. 196 (a) with the verse: ‘कृष्णस्मृतलवंति-पण्डितजनार्छूणामिर्गणालिीरजीनुगुणांण्येवखनिर्स्मापदेषोणिः। तत्सूनोरिह कुतो गोत्राणां प्रवरे: सहेयप्रभवणीरितिशापेणम् II. For account of the गोत्रप्रवरनिर्णय of जीवदेव vide Prof. Devasthali’s Cat. No. 1029 p. 369 and Noṣ 1210-12 pp. 436-38. Dr. Bhandar-kar notices an Āśaucanirṇaya of Jīvadeva in which the Nirṇayasindhu is cited as an authority.12
West and Bühler in their digest13 thought that Ananta-deva flourished about the same time as the author of the Nirṇayasindhu. But this requires some correctioṇ Baz Baha-dur, the patron of Anantadeva, seems to have been a scion of the Candra (or Chand) family and ruled over Almora and Nainital from 1638 to 1678 A. D. It is said in the Imperial Gazetteer14 that the first of the Chandrarājas was Somachand who hailed from Jhūsi near Allahabad and came to the Hima- layan regions in the 10th century and that in 1563 the capital Almora by Kalyancanda, whose son Rudra- candra was a contemporary of Akbar and made his obeisance to the latter in 1587 A. D. at Lahore. The Smṛtikaustubha does mention the ancestors Kalyanacandra and Rudracandra of Baz Bahadur. Between Baz Bahadur and Rudracandra there are three nameṣ Supposing that they are the three direct ascendants of Baz Bahadur and following a period of 25 years for each after Rudracandra's known date of 1587 A. D., we get the year 1662 A. D. for Baz Bahadur. We are told in the Gazetteer that in 1672 Baz Bahadur introduced a poll tax, the proceeds of which he remitted to Delhi as tribute. Therefore Anantadeva must have been patronised by Baz Bahadur between 1645 and 1675 A. D. A greater approximation can be made in another way. The saint Ekanātha finished his Marathi Bhāgavata at Benares in śake 1495 and 1630 of the Vikrama era on Kārtika full-moon day (i. e. 9th November 1573) as he himself tells uṣ15 Anantadeva was the fourth in descent from him (exclusive of Ekanātha). Counting 25 years for each of the four generations, Anantadeva should have been a grown up man in 1673 A. D. There are controversies about the dates of the birth and death of Ekanātha, the commonly accepted dates being śake 1450-1521 (b. 1528–ḍ 1600 A. D.). The date of his death is śake 1521 Phālguna dark half 6th day (25 February 1600). Others give 1548–1599 A. D. as the dateṣ Whichever date is correct, the literary activity of Anantadeva must be assigned to the third quarter of the 17th century. This date is confirmed by the fact that in the Āśaucanirṇaya of Jīvadeva, younger brother of Anantadeva, the Nirṇayasindhu composed in 1611–12 A. D. is cited as an authority.
Doubts were expressed by some Marathi writers as to whether Ekanātha, mentioned as the ancestor of Anantadeva, is identical with the well-known Marathi poet and saint Ekanātha. It is unnecessary in this work to discuss that matter. The present author holds that they are identical. Those interested may read the contribution of Dr. P. K. Gode in ‘Studies in literary History’ vol. II (for 1954) pp. 39–41.
Anantadeva was a very learned maṇ He was at home in both Pūrvamīmāṁsā and Dharmaśāstra. He wrote a learned commentary called Bhaṭṭālaṅkāra on Apadeva’s Mīmāṁsānyāya-prakāśa.
On p. 469 of the Smṛtikaustubha (Nir. eḍ) Anantadeva refers to a work called Bhaktiviveka composed by his grand-father ( Anantadeva I, grandson of Ekanātha ).
Anantadeva wrote many works on Dharmaśāstra. A few may be mentioned here. He composed Antyeṣṭipaddhati (vide Prof. Velankara’s Cat. No. 665 p. 209), Cāturmāsyaprayoga (the same cat. p. 184 No. 575), Bhāgavadbhaktinirṇaya (vide Velanakar’s Cat. of Iccharam Desai collection (No. 231). On भगवद्ग्रामकौमुदी of लक्ष्मीधर he wrote a commentary called Prakāśa (vide Velankar’s Cat. No. 115).