66. Devasvāmin

Volume I: Part II pp. 591–593

Said by Smṛticandrikā to have composed a digest of smṛtis – Nārāyaṇa, commentator of Āśvalāyanagṛhya, relies on bhāṣya of Devasvāmin – he composed a digest on ācāra, vyavahāra and āśauca – Smṛticandrikā quotes his views on the meaning of Yautaka, on the meaning of duhitarah in Yāj., on Manu 9. 141 – A Devasvāmin commented on Pūrvamīmāṁsāsūtras and on the ## Samkarṣakāṇḍa : difficult to say whether he is identical with the writer on dharmaśāstra – Devasvāmin flourished about 1000–1050 A. D. ... pp.

— Synopsis by P.V. Kane, from History of Dharmaśāstra

66. Devasvāmin

66. Devasvāmin The Smṛticandrikā tells us that Devasvāmin composed like Śrīkara and Sambhu a work in the nature of a digest of smṛtis ( smṛtisamuccaya ). Vide note 748 above. The commentary of Nārāyaṇa of the Naidharuva gotra, son of Divākara, on the Āśvalāyanagṛhyasūtra¹ says that it relies upon the bhāṣya of Devasvāmin on the same work Gārgya Nārāyaṇa, son of Narasimha, in his commentary on the Āśvalāyana- śrautasūtra, tells us that he follows the bhāṣya of Devasvāmin thereoṇ It is hardly likely that two writers of the same name flourished about the same time. Hence it may be assumed that Devasvāmin wrote bhāṣyas on the Āśvalāyana Śrauta and Gṛhya sūtras and a digest of smṛtis, where he discussed all topics of dharma, such as ācāra, vyavahāra, āśauca &c. The commentary of Bhaṭṭoji² on the Caturviṁśati- mata refers to the view of Devasvāmin on śrāddha and āśauca. Hemādri³ ( vol. III, part 2, p. 324 ) and Mādhava ( on Parāśara, vol. I, part 2, p. 328 ) also quote Devasvāmiṇ The Smṛticandrikā quotes the views of Devasvāmin on vyavahāra and āśauca several timeṣ For example, Devasvāmin⁴ explained the word Yautaka differently from the Nighanṭu (which explained it as the wealth that was given to a woman when she was seated on the same seat with her husband at the time of marriage ). Devasvāmin explained that the word of the Saṁgraha⁵ that, when a son was born to one of several full brothers, he stood as a son to all and that the same rule applied to several co-wives when one of them had a son, meant that in both cases another son should not be adopteḍ Devasvāmin held the view ( like Bhojadeva ) that the word ‘duhitṛ’ in Yājñavalkya’s verses on succession meant putrikā.⁶ Devasvāmin explained Manu⁷ 9. 141 as saying that the adopted son (in the particular case mentioned by Manu ) took all the wealth and the gotra of his adoptive father. Vide Smṛticandrikā ( Mysore eḍ ) on āśauca p. 22. The Vaijayantī of Nandapaṇḍita ( on Viṣṇu 22. 32 ) quotes the view of Devasvāmin that on the death of unmarried daughters mourning was to be observed for ten dayṣ⁸ The 66. Devasvāmin Smrticandrikā quotes a verse from Devasvāmin⁹ on śrāddha also.

In the Prapañcahṛdaya (Tri. S. series, p. 39) we are told that Devasvāmin composed a brief gloss on the 12 adhyāyas of the Pūrvamīmāṁsāsūtra and the four adhyāyas of the Saṁkarṣakāṇḍa, seeing that the bhāṣyas of Bodhāyana and Upavarṣa were vast. The Govt. collection of Msṣ at Madras has Devasvāmin's bhāṣya on the Saṁkarṣakāṇḍa (vide Tri. Cat. vol. III, part I, Sanskrit C, p. 3841 ). There are not sufficient data available to establish the identity of this writer with Devasvāmin, the writer on dharmaśāstra.

As the Smṛticandrikā quotes Devasvāmin so profusely, he cannot be later than 1150 A. D. His earlier limit can be determined in several wayṣ Gārgya Nārāyaṇa's comment on Aśvalāyanasrauta (II, 1. 14) is quoted by Trikāṇḍamaṇḍana, who is himself (quoted by Hemādri. Therefore Gārgya Nārāyaṇa could not have flourished later than 1100 A.D. (vide Bhandarkar's Report on search for msṣ, 1883–84, pp. 30–31). Therefore Devasvāmin probably flourished about 1000–1050 A. D., if not earlier. The fact that Devasvāmin held certain views similar to Bhojadeva's also corroborates the chronological position thus assigned to hiṃ

आश्रमलयनगृहस भाष्ये भगवता कृतम् । देवस्वामिनाख्येन विस्तीर्णं तत्प्रसादनः ॥ ↩
देवस्वामिमाधवपारिजातकप्रभृतयस्तु मासिके आशौचोपहते सूतकनन्तर- शुद्धिदिन एव कर्त्तव्यं पुरंदरदेवेव वेति । चतुर्विंमतभ्वव्याख्यान p. 135 ( Benares ed ). ↩
यदि पूर्वाह्ने पर्वसन्निः समायतेत तदा नितरामेव च शोभनं यदि पुनरपराह्ने रात्रौ वा तदहरुोपोष श्रीभूते याग इति । हेमाद्रि ( कालनिर्णय ) III, 2, p. 324 ; vide pp. 496 and 565 of the same volume for mention of देवस्वामी. ↩
देवस्वा (मी) तु पितृगृहाल्लभ्यं भर्तृगृहाल्लभ्यापेक्षया पृथग्धनान्तया मातुल्यौकं मातुर्घनं मातुरेवैयाह तत्चिन्त्यम् । स्मृतिच॰ II. p. 285; vide वीर° p. 696 ‘भर्तृगृहाल्लब्धयानतया पितृगृहाल्लभ्यं मातुर्घनं यौतुकम् । यौतकशब्दस्य मिश्रणमप्यर्थः । यु मिश्रणामिश्रणयोरिति धातुपाठात् । युतासिद्धाविति प्रयोगा- च्चेति देवस्वाम्याह तदसन् ।’. ↩
The verses of the संग्रह are: यचैकजाता बहवो आतरस्तु सहोदराः । एक- स्वापि सुते जाते सर्वे ते पुत्रिणः स्मृताः ॥ बहीनामसेकपत्नीनामेष एव विधिः- स्यात्पुत्रिणी तासां पिण्डदस्तु स इष्यते ॥. The स्मृतिच॰ ( II, p. 289 ) says ‘तस्य पूर्वोक्तेन सहाविरोथाय देवस्वामिना तात्पर्यर्थ उक्तः उभयत्र नान्यः प्रतिनिधिः कार्य इति ग्रन्थ्रेन’. The same words occur in the स. वि. ( para 392 and p. 305 ) and in the दत्तकमीमांसा ( p. 42 ). ↩
एवं सोपपत्तिकी पत्यभावे दुहितृगामितां ब्रुवता बृहस्पतिनैव यद् दुहितृगामि- धनमिति विधायकं वचनजातं तत्पुत्रिकाविषयमेव न पुनरपुत्रिकां दुहितृविषयमिति धारेश्वरेदेवस्वामिदेवरमतमेव स्मृतिचन्द्रत्वाभिमानीमानोन्मादकल्पितं निरस्तं वेदितव्यम् । स्मृतिच॰ II, 295. ↩
अत्र तृतीयांशार्थो देवस्वामिना विवृतः तदीयं सर्वं रिक्थं गोत्रं च हरेतेवेति । ↩
देवस्वामी अप्रतास्वपि दशाहाह. ↩
श्राद्धविघ्ने समुत्पन्ने अनन्तरा मृतसूतके । अमावस्यां प्रकुर्वीत शुद्धावेके मनीषिणः । स्मृतिव० II. p. 385. ↩

65. Dhāreshvara Bhojadeva 67. Jitendriya