71. Vijnāneshvara

Volume I: Part II pp. 599–616

71. Vijnāneshvara

71. Vijñāneśvara

The Mitākṣarā of Vijñāneśvara occupies a unique place in the Dharmaśāstra literature. Its position is analogous to that of the Mahābhāṣya of Patañjali in grammar or to that of the Kāvyaprakāśa of Mammaṭa in Poeticṣ It represents the essence of dharmaśāstra speculation that preceded it for about two thousand years and it became the fountain head from which flowed fresh streams of exegesis and developmentṣ Under the decisions of the Courts in British India, the Mitā- kṣarā is of paramount authority in several matters of Hindu Law ( such as adoption, inheritance, partition etc. ) through- out India except where, as in Bengal, the Dāyabhāga prevailṣ

The Mit. professes to be a commentary on the Yājñava- lkyasmṛti. In the colophons of several msṣ, it is described as Rjumitākṣarā, Pramitākṣarā or simply Mitākṣarā. These names are probably due to some of the verses appended at the end of the commentary.¹ The Mit. is not only a commen- tary explaining the verses of Yājñavalkya, but it is in the nature of a digest of smṛti material. It brings together numerous smṛti passages, explains away contradictions following the rules of interpretation laid down in the Purvamīmāmsā system, brings about order by assigning to various dicta their proper scope and province ( viṣayavyavasthā ) and effects a synthesis of apparently unconnected smṛti injunctionṣ

The Mit. quotes a host of smṛti writers and six pre- decessors, who were commentators and authors of digests on dharmaśāstra.² Besides, it quotes Vedic works ( like the Kāṭhaka ), the Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad, the Garbhopaniṣad the Jābālopaniṣad and other works like the Nirukta, Bharata ( author of Nāṭyaśāstra ), Yogasūtra, Pāṇini, Suśruta, the Skandapurāṇa, the Viṣṇupurāṇa, Amara, Guru ( i. e. Prabhākara ).

A noticeable feature of the Mit. may be mentioned here. Though it quotes from more than 80 Smṛtis and Smṛtikāras it is very chary of quoting from the Purāṇaṣ Only five Purāṇas are mentioned by name in the Mitākṣarā viz. the Brahmāṇḍa³ ( one verse on Yaj. III. 30 ), the Bhaviṣyat ( on 71. Vijñāneśvara

Yāj. III. 6), Matsya (Mit. on Yāj. I. 297–298 quotes eleven verses from the Matsya, chap. 94. 1–9 verses and verses 11–12 of Chap. 93 of the same), Viṣṇupurāṇa (15 verses are quoted on Yāj. III from the Viṣṇupurāṇa about Nārāyaṇabali for one who committed suicide). Skandapurāṇa on Yāj. II. 290 (Smaryate hi Skandapurāṇe Pañcacūḍā nāma kāścanāpsara-saḥ tatsantatir-veśyākhyā pañcami jātiḥ).

This sparing use of Purāṇas in the Mit. is in consonance with Yāj. I. 3 which states that fourteen are the sources of Vidyā and of Dharma, viz. Purāṇa, Nyāya (Tarka or logic), Mī-māṁsā, Dharmaśāstra, the Aṅgas (six auxiliary lores of the Veda) and the (four) Vedaṣ It should be noticed that the fourteen classes of works are enumerated in a rising scale of importance and authoritativeness i. e. the Vedas are the highest authority on matters of Dharma and the Purāṇas are the lowest. Dharmaśāstra is given a high place after the Vedas and Aṅgaṣ All early writers hold that the Veda is the basis of Dharma and so are the Smṛtis (vide Gaut. Dh. 1-2, Vaṣ 1.4, Manu II.6) and Manu states (II.10) that Smṛti means Dharmaśāstra.

The Mitākṣarā is, in the matter of citing Purāṇas as authorities, in great contrast to the Kalpataru and the com-mentary of Aparārka. In the very first Kāṇḍa (Brahmacārī) of the Kalpataru eleven Purāṇas are quoted as authorities viz. Āditya, Kālikā, Devī, Narasiṁha, Brahma, Brahmāṇḍa, Matsya, Mārkaṇḍeya, Vāyu and Viṣṇu and of these the Brahma is quoted 11 times, Bhaviṣya 28 times and Viṣṇu 11 timeṣ Taking the last Kāṇḍa (on Mokṣa), among the works cited as authorities seven Purāṇas figure viz. Narasiṁha, Brahma, Brahmāṇḍa, Matsya, Mārkaṇḍeya, Vāyu and Viṣṇu, of which, the Viṣṇupurāṇa is quoted oftener than any other work (except the Mahābhārata, the Bhagavadgītā and the Manusmṛti).

Vide below under ‘Aparārka’ for the large number of Purāṇas and Upapurāṇas ( 22 in all ) mentioned by Aparārka.

Another noticeable feature of the Mit. is that it mentions the views of many Smṛti writers with the prefix ‘bṛhat’ or ‘vṛddha’. For example, it quotes verses of Vṛddha-Manu on Yāj. II. 135-36, 270, 272, III. 5, 20, 260 and Bṛhan-Manu on Yāj. II. 135–136 ( on Sapiṇḍa and Samānodaka ); it quotes Vrddha-Yāj. on Yāj. III. 1-2 (one verse), III. 6, III. 19 (two verses), III. 289; it quotes Brhad-Yājñavalkya on Yāj. III. 253; it quotes Vrddha-Vasiṣṭha on Yāj. III. 20 (prose), Yāj. III. 21 (verse), III. 24 (four verses on ‘āsauca’ in one of which the view of Yama is mentioned ), on Yāj. III. 311 (prose); it quotes Brhad-Vasiṣṭha on Yāj. III. 287 (2½ verses ); Mit. quotes Vrddha-Viṣṇu on Yāj. II. 135-36 (prose), on Yāj. III. 266-67 (verse); Mit. quotes Brhad-Viṣṇu on Yāj. III. 20 (prose ), on Yāj. III. 234-242 (long prose passage on various kinds of pātakaṣ ) and on III. 253 (1½ verses ), III. 263-4 (one verse ); the Mit. mentions Vrddha-Śātātapa on Yāj. I. 231 (verse); Mit. mentions Vrddha-Hārita (2½ verses of Vrddha Hārita on Yāj. III. 266-67 and prose on Yāj. III. 325, on Yāj. III. 254 (prose ), 259 (prose ), 261 (prose ); Mit. on Yāj. III. 261 quotes Vrddha-Bṛhaspati (1½ verses on nine kinds of sankara; Mit. quotes Vrddha-Pracetas (verses ) on Yāj. III. 265 and Brhat-Pracetas (verses ) on Yāj. III. 20 (one), III. 263-64 (1½ verses ); III. 265 (2½ verses ); Mit. quotes Brhad-Yama (4 verses ) on Yāj. III. 254, 255 and 260; Mit. quotes Brhad-Samvarta on Yāj. III. 265.

Viśvarūpa on Yāj. I. p. 10 quotes verses of Vrddha-Yāj. enumerating the names of ten expounders of Dharma (other than those mentioned by Yāj. ). Viśvarūpa on p. 136 (on Yāj. I. 195, MM. Ganapati Shastri's eḍ of 1922) quotes a prose passage of Vrddha-Gārgya.

It would be noticed from the above statements of the Mit. about authors mentioned with the prefixes vrddha and ‘brhat’, that many of the passages quoted from them are concerned with matters relating to āsauca and prāyaścitta. It is probable that during the centuries of foreign invasions such as those of Hūṇas and the ascendancy of Buddhism and other schisms, more attention was paid to ideological matters of purity, penances and the like and additions were made to the already existing Smṛtis by means of works to which Mit. words like brhat, vrddha or ‘laghu’ were prefixeḍ

It may be stated here that Aparārka who is not far re- moved in time from the Mit. cites quotations from authors with the prefix Vrddha, viz. Gārgya, Gautama, Parāśara, Pracetas, Bṛhaspati, Manu, Yājñavalkya, Vasiṣṭha, Vyāsa, Śātātapa, Hārita and the word ‘brhat’ to Pracetas, Yama, 71. Vijñāneśvara

Manu, Viṣṇu and Hārīta. It is noteworthy that Aparārka (on Yāj. III. 23-24) first quotes Manu II. 67 (for the proposi- tion that in the case of women marriage has the place of Upa- nayana) and immediately afterwards quotes Vṛddha-Manu's verse about the impurity (āśauca) to be observed by maidens not grown up, by grown-up but unmarried girls and by those that are marrieḍ It is beyond doubt that Aparārka regarded the Manusmṛti and Vṛddha-Manu's work as distinct. The Kalpataru on Vyavahāra quotes Vṛddha-Manu eight times, but the first half of one verse quoted as Vṛddha-Manu's on p. 402 of (Vyavahāra-Kāṇḍa) occurs in the Manusmṛti VIII. 157.

The author styles himself Vijñānayogin in the concluding verses of his commentary and later writers frequently refer to him in that way. He belonged to the Bhāradvāja gotra and was son of Padmanābhabhaṭṭa. He was a paramahaṃsa (i. e. an ascetic) and was the pupil of Uttama. He tells us that when he wrote the Mitākṣarā, king Vikramārka or Vikramā- dityadeva was ruling in the city called Kalyāṇa⁴ (now in the Nizam's dominion). The verses at the end containing the personal history appear to be genuine. They occur in the oldest Msṣ of the Mit. such as the Government of Bombay Mṣ dated Śakasamvat 1389.

The author of the Mit was a profound student of the Pūrvamīmāṃsā systeṃ Throughout the Mit. discussion of Pūrvamīmāṃsā nyāyās and their application to dharmaśāstra are sown broadcast. For example, the Mit. on Yāj. I. 81 (whether it is a niyama or parisamkhyā), I. 86, II. 114, II. 126, II. 265 &c., may be consulteḍ The Mit., as the very name implies, is generally concise and to the point. But in his desire to make his work a repository and synthesis of varied smṛti dicta the author does not mind if he has occasi- onally to expand his commentary to enormous lengthṣ For example, the Mit. on Yāj. III. 265 and 290 occupies several pages of closely printed text.

A remarkable merit of the Mitākṣarā is that it relies on the Mīmāṃsā sūtras and maxims for solving difficult and doubtful points in the Dharmaśāstraṣ A few examples may be briefly noticed here. On Yāj. I. 4–5 (where 20 Dharmaśāstrakāras are named), Mit. remarks that these verses are not to be held as parisaṅkhyā (these verses do not exclude others being recognised as Dharmaśāstrakāras) but are only illustrative. Parisaṅkhyā, Niyama and Vidhi are explained at great length on Yāj. I. 79 and 81. On Yāj. I. 249, the Mit. remarks that the verse is a niyama and not parisaṅkhyā. On Yāj. I. 253–54 the Mit. quotes on the question of the Sapiṇḍīkaraṇa of one’s deceased mother texts of Paithīnasi, Yama and Uśanas and brings out order (i.e. makes a vyavasthā). The Kalpataru on Śrāddha quotes Yāj. I. 253–54 (on p. 257), does not quote the varying views of several writers but only one view and makes no vyavasthā on the point. Another example of Vyavasthā on varying dicta of over a dozen writers occurs on Yāj. I. 256, where difference of views of the Dākṣiṇātyas and Udīcyas are set out and PMS III. 6.9 is also discusseḍ Kalpa° on Śrāddha has no such discussioṇ On Yāj. II. 114, the Mit. refers to the Lipsāsūtra (Jaimini IV. 1. 2, in which the word lipsā occurs) and quotes a passage of Prabhākara (called Guru). Vide H. of Dh. Vol. III. p. 550 and ṇ 1027 for thiṣ Vidhis are of two kinds, ‘Kratvartha’ and ‘Puruṣārtha’ and the Mit. on Yāj. I. 103 holds a discussion on thiṣ Vide H. of Dh. Vol. V. pp. 1232–35 for explanations of these two. The particle nan (‘na’ meaning ‘not’) may indicate a prohibition (pratiṣedha) or a provision or exception (paryudāsa). The Mit. on Yāj. I. 129 remarks that not only in that verse but everywhere in that prakaraṇa (Yāj. I. 129–166) the particle ‘nañ’ conveys ‘paryudāsa’. Vide H. of Dh. Vol. V pp. 1248–49 for explanatioṇ On Yāj. I. 86 where an objector raises the question that a woman is prohibited from becoming a satī after her husband’s death, the Mit. refers to the Śyenayāga and points out that the Śyenayāga passage is entirely different in purport from passages about the practice of Satī. Vide on this H. of Dh. Vol. V pp. 1183 and 1245.

The Mit. refers to the division of Vikalpas (options) into Vyavasthita and Avyavasthita on Yāj. I. 96; vide (for exposition) about Vikalpa H. of Dh. Vol. V pp. 1250–1252. The Mit. is fond of citing Nyāyaṣ For example, on Yāj. I. 81 it cites the nyāya ‘nimittāvṛttau naimittakam-apyāvartate’, which is based on Jaimini VI. 2. 27–29. The same nyāya is mentioned by the Mit. on Yāj. III. 263–264 and on III. 288. On Yāj. II. 126 the Mit. refers to the Daṇḍāpūpikanyāya, which is very 71. Vijñāneśvara frequently employed in dharmaśāstra workṣ Vide H. of Dh. Vol. V. p. 1344 for other places where it is employeḍ On Yāj. II. 265, the Mit. refers to the rule of equal division ( samam syāt–aśrutivāt) PMS XV. 3. 53, which is referred to by several works ( vide H. of Dh. Vol. p. 1350 for other referenceṣ Some Jaiminisūtras are mentioned as Nyāyas e. g. ‘ekārthās-tu vikalperan ’ iti nyāyenaikārthānāmeva vikalpo na daṇḍatapa-sor–ekārthatvam’ on Yāj. III. 257, the sūtra being P. M. S. XIII. 3. 10. Vide also śāstroktam phalam prayoktari iti nyāyenādhikārikartṛgataphalajanakā devakūpa–taḍāga nir-māṇayaḥ ’ ( Mit. on Yāj. III. 227 ). This refers to Jaimini III. 7. 18-20, the first sūtra which begins with Śāstra-phalam prayoktari’. On Yāj. III. 220 Mit. refers to the Jāteṣṭinyāya ( explained in H. of Dh. Vol. V. p. 1343 ). On Yāj. III. 226 the Mit. applies the Rātrisattranyāya for which vide H. of Dh. Vol. V. p. 1227. On Yāj. III. 298 the Mit. follows Śabara’s bhāṣya saying ‘kim–iva vacanam na kuryāt’. This is frequently mentioned by Śabara and dharmaśāstra works ( in slightly different forms ). Vide H. of Dh. Vol. V. p. 1345 for referenceṣ The Māṣa–mudganyāya based on Jai. VI. 3. 20 is relied upon by the Mit. on Yāj. II, 126 for an explanation of which vide H. of Dh. Vol. V. p. 1347.

One of the well–known maxims of the Pūrvamīmāmsā is called ‘ Sarvaśākhā–pratyayanyāya ’ or śākhāntarādhika-raṇa–nyāya ( Pūrvamīmāmsā–sūtra II. 4. 8–33 ). This means that all the śākhās ( branches ) of the Veda and the Brāhmaṇa works attached to the Vedic recensions form one corpus, that such rites as Agnihotra or Jyotiṣṭoma are one and the same, though the details may vary here and there in the Vedic workṣ The Vedāntasūtra ( III. 3. 1–4 ) accepts the same position about the Upaniṣads as regards Upasanāṣ This maxim was extended to Smṛtis also by such writers as Viśva-rūpa, Medhātithi, Vijñāneśvara and Aparārka. The result was that an option was given where Smṛti passages were in conflict, otherwise all details in the several works were to be added up. The Mit. on Yāj. III. 325⁵ states this, as also on other occasions ( e. g. on Yāj. I. 4-5 ). Vide pp. 1272-74 of Vol. V. of Dh. for explanation and referenceṣ The Mit. quotes hundreds of verses simply as ‘vacanam’ or ‘vacanāt’ or as ‘smaraṇa’ or smṛtyantaram’ and some- times verses so referred to are well-known and are found in Smṛtis like those of Manu and Nārada. For example, on Yāj. I. 80, it quotes the verse ‘Pumān pum’sosdhike’ as a vacana ; On Yāj. I. 87 the Mit. quotes ‘Prāgupa- nayanāt... bhakṣāḥ’ as smaraṇa though it is a well-known sūtra of Gaut. ( II. 1. ). On Yāj. II 305 the Mit. quotes ‘Pādo gacchati... rājānam-ṛcchati’ as a vacana, which is a well- known verse of Manu 8. 18 and Nārada ( 3. 12 ). On Yāj. II. 49 Mit. quotes as a vacana ‘Bhāryā putraśca dāsaśca &c’ which is Manu IX. 416. On Yāj. I. 90 Mit. quotes as smaraṇa a half verse which is Manu X. 41. Some verses quoted as Manu’s are not found in the Manusmṛti. For example, on Yāj. I. 179, a verse ‘Yathāvidhi niyuktastu... vimśatim’ is cited as Manu’s but it is not found in the present Manusmṛti. In introducing Yāj. I. 217-218, Mit. quotes as Manu’s the verse ‘Dadyād-aharahah śrāddham’ &c. which is not found in the Manusmṛti. On Yāj. III. 18 the printed Mit. ascribes the verse ‘asvargyaṃ..caren-na tu’ to Manu, but it is really Yāj. I. 156. On Yāj. I. 8 Mit. quotes ‘Yatrat- kāgratā tatrāviśeṣāt’ as from Patañjali’s sūtra work. It is really a sūtra of the Vedāntasūtra ( IV. 1. 11 ).

On Yāj. I. 224 the Mit. quotes ‘Vṛddhau ca mātāpitarau... Manurabravīt’ as ‘Samānadarśana’ ( meaning probably Manusmṛti ). That verse is printed ( within brackets ) in several editions of the Manusmṛti after XI. 10 ( as in Maṇḍlik’s and Nir. eḍ with Kullūka’s coṃ ). It is possible that some of the mistakes pointed out above are due to scribeṣ Yāj. II. 165 provides a fine of ‘ardhatrayodaśāpaṇa’ for a cowherd throngh whose fault a cow or other domestic animal dieṣ The Mit. explains this as 13½ paṇas, but the explanation of the Mit. is against the rules of grammarians ( as laid down by the Vārtika on Pāṇ. II. 2. 24 and the Mahābhāṣya thereon ( Kielhorn vol. I p. 426 ), and vide H. of Dh. Vol. III. pp. 140, 499 and notes thereoṇ

A striking feature of the Mit. may be noted here. The whole of the Mit. printed at the Nir. Press ( of 1926 ) with the text of Yāj. comes to 492 closely printed pages; the ācārādhyāya with 368 verses covers only 112 pages, the 2nd on Vyavahāra with 307 verses occupies 181 pages, while the third adhyāya of 334 verses covers 199 pageṣ That shows ##71. Vijñāneśvara that the Mit. spends nearly twice as many pages on the third adhyāya ( that has a lesser number of verses ) as on the 1st adhyāya. That also conveys that Prāyaścittas and cognate matters had come to hold a far greater grip on Hindus at the end of the 11th century than in the days of Viśvarūpa, who devotes 201 pages to first adhyāya of 363 verses, 98 pages only to Vyavahāra ( 310 verses ), and 180 pages to 3rd adhyāya of 330 verseṣ

As the Mitākṣarā names Viśvarūpa, Medhātithi and Dhārēśvara, it must have been composed after 1050 A. D. The Smṛticandrikā⁶ of Devannabhaṭṭa (which as will be seen later on was composed about 1200 A. D ) several times criti- cizes the views of the Mit., viz. the latter's remarks that the giving of an additional share to the eldest son is disapproved of by the people, the reasons given for preferring the mother to the father and the definition of dāya.

King Vikramāditya VI of the Cālukya dynasty with his capital at Kalyāṇa ( or – ṇī ) ruled for about fifty years, from about 1076 A. D. to 1126 A. D.⁷ Fleet pointed out oṇ p. 446 of Bombay Gazetteer ( vol. I, part 2 ) that the Vadageri Inscription proves that the coronation of Vikramāditya VI took place sometime before the 5th of the bright half of Phālguna in the year Nala, śuka, 998 i. e. before the end of Śaka 999 ( current 1076-77 A. D. ), and that the Cālukya Vikrama era started very probably from Caitra-śuddha 1 of the year Nala, śaka 998 ( expired ), corresponding to 8th March 1076 A. D. As regards the date of his death it may be observed that the Chikkavadavatti Inscription ( South Indian Inscriptions, Vol. XI part 2 No. 178 pp. 236-239 ) belongs to his reign and cites Cālukya Vikrama year 51, Parābhava, Māgha, Śukla 5, Wednesday, corresponding to 19th January 1127 A. D. Since his son and successor Someśvara III is known to have counted Parābhava as his first regnal year ( Boṃ Gaz. Vol. I part II p. 455 ) the death of the father and the accession of the son seem to have taken place between 19th January and March 14 (end of Phālguna ) in 1127 A. D. This indicates that Vikramāditya passed away sometime between 20th January and 1st March of 1127. Therefore, it would be accurate enough to hold that Vikramāditya VI ruled from 1076 A. D. to 1126 A. D. The 4th verse⁸ at the end of the Mitākṣarā may be translated thus: ‘On the earth, there never was, nor is, nor will hereafter exist a capital similar to Kalyāṇa; a king like Vikramārka was not seen or even heard; and moreover another matter is that the Pandit ( called ) Vijñāneśvara has no one else for comparison with him; may this triad that is like Kalpalatikā ( the fabu- loss desire-yielding plant ) firmly endure till the end of the world’. In verse 6 at the end Vijñāneśvara prays ‘May king Vikramāditya, whose feet are refulgent with the brilliance of the diadems on the heads of kings bowing down from the eastern ocean, protect as long as the moon and stars last the whole world from the Setu of Rāma ( in the South ), from the 71. Vijñāneśvara

Himalaya ( in the North ), from the Western ocean with its waves rising high on account of the movements of shoals of fisheṣ The prayer in verse 4 is expressly limiteḍ Verse 6 ( at end ) expresses only a pious hope. No single Indian king can be said to have ruled during historical times over the country from the Himalayas down to Rāmeśvara.

The lowest limit for Vijñāneśvara is provided by the fact that at the end of his work he refers to Vikramāditya Cālukya who had become a great king and prays that the monarch may live long. As seen above the Cālukya king passed away sometime in the first two months of 1127 A. D. Therefore, the completion of the work cannot be placed in any case beyond 1125–26 A. D. But such an erudite and exhaus- tive work cannot be completed in a short time. Therefore it would have to be held that the work was spread over some years and the period that can be properly assigned to its being undertaken and finished by a Paṇḍita single-handed must be placed between 1100 to 1120 A. D. The present author holds that Dr. Derrett is wrong in following the late Professor R. Aiyangar in placing the Mitākṣarā between 1121–25 ( as he does in J. I. H. vol. 30. pp. 35–55 at p. 36 ).

No one has put forward any positive and reliable evidence for being so cocksure about the exact date of the Mitākṣarā. It is impossible to assign the completion of the Mitākṣarā to a date later than 1126 A. D. How much earlier it was com- pleted it is difficult to say. It mentions Dhāreśvara ( Bhojadeva ) who ruled between about 1005–1054–55 A. D. Therefore the Mit. was composed some decades after 1055. That is all. There is no positive evidence to put it between 1121–25 A. D. That is purely conjectural and arbitrary. There is no evidence to establish the exact time when the work was undertakeṇ

The period of the writing of the 14 kāṇḍas of Kalpataru has to be placed at the earliest between 1125–1145 A. D. ( as argued below under the heading ‘ Kalpataru ’ ) i. e. some years later than the completion of the Mitākṣarā. In the colophons Vijñāneśvara is described as Paramahamsa and Parivrājaka ( a sannyāsin ). Acc. to the Anuśāsanaparva ( 141. 89 ), the Vaikhānasaśūtra VIII. 9 and several other authorities asce- tics were of four grades, the last being called Paramahamsa; vide H. of Dh. Vol. II pp. 938–940. But, in medieval times and later all parivrājakas ( ascetics ) were spoken of or addressed as ‘paramahamsa’. In verse 4 at the end he des-cribes himself as Pandita. That tends to suggest that the work was undertaken when he was not an ascetic and became an ascetic about the time of the completion or after the completion of the work.

Dr. Derrett, in his paper (on ‘New light on the Mitākṣarā as legal authority’ (in J. I. H. Vol, 30 pp. 35-55 ) holds that the comment in the Mit. on Yāj. II. 4 proves that Vijñāneśvara was a judge (note 6 p. 37 ). I regret that I cannot accept such a facile assumptioṇ Yāj. II. 4. states that the sabhyas (members of the court of justice ) that give a decision opposed to the dicta of smṛtis owing to partiality, greed or intimidation should each be ordered by the king to pay double the amount of fine that would be imposed on a defeated party and Yāj. II. 305 prescribes that the king should review a decision given through partiality &c. The Mit. adds the comment that this provision in II. 4 does not apply if the sabhas delivered a wrong decision through ignorance or folly.

The Mit. expressly refers to the Mīmāṁsā rules (about vidhi and niyama ). It says that as only three grounds are mentioned (in Yāj. II. 4 ) the provision is to be restricted to these three and is not to he extended to cases of ajñāna, moha and otherṣ Manu IX. 231 deals with cases decided by sabhyas taking bribes and prescribes confiscation of all wealth and Manu IX. 234 provides that if a king’s minister or judge renders an improper decision the king should himself decide the matter correctly and impose on him a fine of one thousand paṇas (this contemplates cases other than those where bribes were accepted ). Nārada (SBE Vol. 33 p. 22 ) has similar provisionṣ For laying down such a provision and such distinctions (on Yāj. II. 4 and 305 ) a very learned commenta-tor of the first quarter of the 12th century need not have been a judge at all.

As to the question about Vijñāneśvara’s original home and later habitation, if any, nothing definite can be asserted beyond this that he lived somewhere in Vikramāditya’s realm, probably not far from the capital Kalyāṇa (in the Bidar District ) in what was a few years ago the Nizam’s dominioṇ 71. Vijñāneśvara

In the Preface to his edition of Vyavahārakāṇḍa (publish- ed in 1953) Prof. Rangaswami Aiyangar makes the astound- ing assertion (on p. VII) ‘ In its (Mitākṣarā’s) concluding verses there is a reference to the Kalpavṛkṣa (the wish-yield- ing tree of Heaven), which has given the title to Lakṣmī- dhara’s work’, Having undertaken to edit the big work of Lakṣmīdhara, he was blind to the shortcomings of the work and looked on every other work with a jaundiced eye. Verse four refers only to three, the capital, the king and the work of Vijñāneśvara (the words are ‘etattrayam’) and the prayer is that all the three should (like the desire-yielding heavenly plant) last for ever, yielding the desires of those who might resort to theṃ Simply because the word ‘Kalpalatikā- kalpam’ occurs, he jumps to the conclusion that the Kalpa- taru is referred to. It is childish like Śakuntalā’s young son in Kālīdāsa’s play (Act VII) who on being asked to mark the beauty of the figure of a bird (śakuntalāvaṇṇam) asks ‘ where is my mother’ (Śakuntalā). Whether the Mitākṣarā is earlier or later than the Kalpataru cannot be determined by such ridiculous somersaultṣ It passes one’s understanding how a matter (a work from the North) completely alien to all three (Kalyāṇa, king Vikramārka and the Mitākṣarā of Vijñāneśvara) was all of a sudden thrust in a pious prayer in verse 4 by Vijñāneśvara himself, losing all sense of context, relevance and propriety and admitting (if Prof. Aiyangar’s suggestion be accepted) that his own work was inferior to it (as ‘Kalpalatikā-kalpam’ would mean, if Kalpalatikā is taken as standing for the work Kalpataru).

The editor (Prof. R. Aiyangar) was hasty in his remarks in several placeṣ One striking example may be briefly mentioned here. In the Introduction to Rājadharmakāṇḍa p. 19 he quotes Raghuvaṁśa IV. 12 ‘rājā prakṛtirañjanāt’. In this Kālīdāsa follows what is stated in the Mahābhārata. Śāntiparva (in 59. 125) states ‘rañjitāśca prajāḥ sarvās tena rājeti śabdyate’ and in 57. 11, ‘lokarañjanam-evātra rājñām dharmaḥ sanātanaḥ’. In the footnote 2 on that page Prof. Aiyangar says that this etymology is found in Yāska. One does not know whence he got thiṣ The Nirukta II. 3 (of Yāska) derives ‘Rājān’ from the root ‘rāj’.

Further, Prof. Aiyangar himself shows (in Intro. to Dāna- kāṇḍa p. 37) ‘that by 1118 A. D. Vikramāditya had recon- quered almost the whole of Vengi and his territory had then really extended from the Western to the Eastern Deccan as prayed for in the panegyric of Vijñāneśvara. This statement of the editor strongly supports the present author's view that the Mit. was completed before 1120 A. D. and the period during which it was begun and completed must be

Two inscriptions have been relied upon by some writers in connection with Vijñāneśvara. The Mutgi Inscription cited in E. I. volume 15 pp. 26–32 is in two parts and contains two dateṣ The first date is Cālukya Vikrama year 4 (i. e. 1079 A. D.) in which a gift was made to the temple of Rāmeśvara, the trustee being Yogeśvara-paṇḍita, the Śisyaparamparā being as follows: Bhujangadattāśisya Tri- locanadeva, Śisya Bālasūryārya, his pupil Kāśmira paṇḍita- deva, his śisya Bhairavapaṇḍitadeva, sisya Yogeśvara Paṇḍita- deva (to whom the gift was entrusted). The second date is Cālukya Vikrama year 35 (i. e. 1110 A. D.), where another gift to the same temple was made and the trustee was Acale- śvara-Paṇḍitadeva, who was the disciple of Yogeśvara Paṇḍita- deva. In this there is hardly anything positive to show that Yogeśvara-paṇḍita is the same as Vijñāneśvara, author of the Mitākṣarā. The Martur¹¹ inscription of Cālukya Vikrama year 48 (i. e. 1124 A. D.) mentioned by Mr. P. B. Desai in the Karnāṭaka Historical Review (Vol. II No. 1 p. 48) has not yet been publisheḍ I learn on inquiry that in this record it is stated that Rāma, Soma, Morsing and Birāja were the sons of Kambha and Ketikabbe, that Kamcha himself was the son of Somarāja of Maseyamaḍu in Aṭṭali-nāḍu and his wife Bhagyavanite and that he belonged to the Kauśikagotra. In the later part the record states that Bibirāja (who was said a few lines before to have been one of the sons of Kamcha) was the son (Maga) of Vijñāneśvara Bhaṭṭārakadeva; so it follows that Kamcha and Vijñāneśvara-bhaṭṭāraka were one and the same persoṇ It may be mentioned that the Inscription states that Vijñāneśvara was the paramārādhya (i. e. most revered one) of the ruling king Vikramāditya. It is quite likely that this Vijñāneśvara = Bhaṭṭāraka was the same as the Vijñāneśvara of the Mitākṣarā. But there is no convincing 71. Vijñāneśvara ground for the identity of the two. There is also one difficulty. The colophons of the Mit. describe the author to have been Vijñāneśvara Bhaṭṭāraka (an ascetic), son of Padmanābha-bhaṭṭa of the Bhāradvājagotra, while in the Martur Inscript-tion Kamcha is said to be the son of Somarāja of the Kauśika-gotra. So one cannot convince a doubter that the two are identical. It is possible that Somarāja might have borne another name (such as Padmanābha) and that there might have been an adoption (so that the gotra was changed). But these are guesses and there is no strong evidence.

Out of the numerous commentaries on the Mit. those of Viśveśvara, Nandapaṇḍita and Bālambhaṭṭa are the most famouṣ Vide sections 93, 105, 111. Considerations of space preclude any detailed statement of the doctrines peculiarly associated with the name of Vijñāneśvara. There are, however, some which must be mentioneḍ He laid down (on Yāj. I. 52) that wherever the word sapiṇḍa occurred, it denoted either directly or mediately connection with particles of one body (i. e. blood-relationship with an ancestor). He also strictly adheres to the principle that propinquity is the guiding principle in matters of inheritance and successioṇ He divides dāya into apratibandha and supratibandha and affirmed that sons, grandsons and great-grandsons acquired by birth owner-ship in ancestral property. On all these matters he is diametrically opposed to Jīmūtavāhana.

Aufrecht in his great catalogue makes conflicting state-ments about a work called Āśaucadaśaka. On I. p. 55 he notes that Āśaucadaśaka is a work of Harihara with a com-mentary by Vijñāneśvara and again on I. p. 571 he ascribes Āśaucadaśaka-ṭīkā to Vijñāneśvara. On I. p. 762 he ascribes the Āśaucadaśaka and Daśaślokivivaraṇa to Harihara and appears to distinguish him from that Harihara who composed a bhāṣya on Pāraskaragṛhyasūtra. On I. p. 795 he corrects himself by saying that Harihara wrote only the commentary on the Āśaucadaśaka and that the latter is identical with the Daśaślokivivaraṇa. On III. p. 121 he is doubtful whether the Āśaucadaśaka is a work of Vijñāneśvara. In the Govt. Msṣ library at the B. O. R. I., Poona, there is an ancient Mṣ (No. 196 of 1884–1887) of the Āśaucadaśaka.¹² It was copied in samvat 1578 Mārgaśīrṣa ( i. e. December 1522 A. D. ). It distinctly says that Vijñāneśvarayogin composed in ten Śārdūlavikrīḍita stanzas a work on Āśauca and that Harihara composed a commentary on it. In the Bhadkamkar collection there is an old Mṣ of the Āśaucadaśaka, the colophon of which ascribes the work to Vijñāneśvara. Vide I. O. cat. p. 565, No. 1749 for a mṣ of Āśaucadaśaka with Harihara's commentary dated samvat 1589 ( 1532–33 A. D. ). That the Āśaucadaśaka was a very popular work follows from the several commentaries thereon that are available even now. Raghunātha,¹³ son of Madhava and nephew of the famous Nārāyaṇabhaṭṭa, compos-ed a commentary on the Daśaślokī in Śake 1500 ( No. 82 of A. 1882–83 in the Govt. Msṣ lib. at the B. O. R. I. Poona ). There is another commentary on the same work by Bhaṭṭoji ( No. 99 of 1882–83 at the B. O. R. I. Poona ). Harihara quotes in his bhāṣya besides several well-known smṛtikāras, a work called Viśvadarśa ( folio 4b ).¹⁴ Harihara, the commentator of the Pāraskarasgṛhyasūtra, is described as the pupil of Vijñāneśvara in several msṣ Harihara in his bhāṣya on Pāraskaragṛhya quotes Vijñāneśvara and Kalpataru. The Viśvadarśa praises Vijñāneśvara very highly.¹⁵ Therefore, it appears that Vijñāneśvara composed the Āśaucadaśaka alias Daśaślokī and that Harihara, who was either Vijñāneśvara's ##71. Vijñāneśvara pupil or not very far removed from him (as he is quoted by Hemādri) composed a commentary thereoṇ The first verse of the Daśaślokī is cited below as a specimen of the concise style attempted by the author.¹⁶ The text of the Daśaślokī is given on pp 832–833 of volume 4 of the H. of Dh.

Aufrecht (II. p. 50 and I. p. 236 ) credits Vijñāneśvara with a bhāṣya on Triṁśat-ślokī, a work in thirty Sragdharā stanzas on āśauca. This work together with the commentary was printed in pothī size at Benares in saṁvat 1918 (1861–62 A. D.). The printed text contains¹⁷ the same colophon at the end and date as the D. C. mṣ No. 217 of 1879–80, which was copied in saṁvat 1711 Caitra (i. e. April 1655 A. D.). It is extremely doubtful, however, whether Vijñāneśvara wrote a bhāṣya on the Triṁśat-ślokī. In the bhāṣya Vijñāneśvara and the Mitākṣarā are cited by name.¹⁸ The manner of referring to them rather suggests that the commentary on the Triṁśat-ślokī was composed by some person other than Vijñāneśvara, who, however, drew largely on the Mit. There is a mṣ of the Triṁśat-ślokī with a commentary in the Bhau Daji collection which is ascribed to Hemādri on the cover (vide BBRAS. cat. vol. II. p. 209, No. 667 ).

In the Madras Govt. msṣ library there is a mṣ of the Vyavahāraśiromaṇi of Nārāyaṇa, who says that he learnt dharmaśāstras under Vijñāneśvara (adhitya dharmaśāstrāṇi Vijñāneśvara-sadguroḥ ). The work deals with the vyavahāra portion and was composed for the benefit of the un-initiated ( bālabodharttham ). The mṣ contains the portion dealing with the king’s duty to look into the disputes of people, the time for doing that, sabhā, definition of prāḍ-vivāka ( judge ), the plaint and its defects, āsedha ( restraint of the defendant ), means of proof, the eighteen titles of law, ṛṇādāna, niksepa sambhūya-samutthāna, dattāpradānika, abhyupetya-aśuśrūṣā, vetanasya-anapakarma, asvāmivikraya, vikriyāsampradāna, krītvānuśaya, samayasyaṇāpakarma, sīmāvivāda, strī-pum- sayoga, dāyavibhāga. The work breaks off in the middle of the explanation of the verse ‘patnī duhitarāscaiva.’ He closely follows the Mitākṣarā in all that he says; but in one place he expressly differs from his teacher, viz. whereas the Mitāk- sarā mentions four different times for partition, Nārāyaṇa says that there are really two times of partition, when the father desires partition and when the son or sons desire it.¹⁹ On sambhūyasamutthāna he quotes a passage from Kauṭalya ( the mṣ uses this form ), which agrees closely with the print- ed text ( vide Arthaśāstra III. 14, p. 186, eḍ by Shama Sastri ).²⁰