72. Kāmadhenu
Volume I: Part II pp. 616–622
... pp. An ancient digest not yet discovered – quoted by Kalpataru, Hāralatā, and other works – Gopāla, the author of Kāmadhenu – Aufrecht's view that Sambhu is the author of Kāmadhenu wrong – Sambhu is a nibandhakāra on dharma cited by Smṛticandrikā and Hemādri – Mr. Jayasval wrongly ascribes Kāmadhenu to Bhoja – probable date of Kāmadhenu between 1000-1100 A. D.
— Synopsis by P.V. Kane, from History of Dharmaśāstra
72. Kāmadhenu
72. Kamadhenu This was an early and large digest on various branches of Dharmaśāstra. Unfortunately no mṣ of it has been recovered so far, but it has been profusely quoted by a large number of writers on the several topics of Dharmaśāstra. Unexpected light has been thrown on it by the publication of the Brahma- cārikāṇḍa of the Kalpataru, composed by Lakṣmīdhara, the chief mantrin of the Gāhaḍvāla king Govindachandra of Kānyakubja ( Kanoj ) and Banaraṣ In verse 10 of the Intro- duction to Brahmacārikāṇḍa he says ‘by him this Kalpa- vṛkṣa is spread ( tanyate kalpavṛkṣaḥ )’. In verse 11 he says that a friend of his called Gopāla composed a digest based on Smṛtis and added his own remarks in prose ( Gopālastad- vīracanam vākyarūpena cakre ) and that ‘this digest will be composed and it will delight learned men’ 72. Kāmadhenu ( ‘ Vibudhajanamanohārī kāriṣyatesyam…prabandhaḥ’ verse 11 ). In verses 12 and 13 he names three works viz. Mahārṇava, Kāmadhenu and Ratnamālā.
Some later writers appear to ascribe the Kāmadhenu to Gopāla e. g. the Vyavahāraratnākara1 quoted below does so. It may be stated that Lakṣmīdhara makes disparaging remarks about his friend’s work ( in Introductory verse II ) and that in the Kalpataru which extends over hundreds of printed pages neither Kāmadhenu nor Gopāla is mentioned by name even once, though on his own showing the Kāmadhenu had been completed by the time Lakṣmīdhara became chief mantrin of Govindacandra, after sanguinary battles in which he boasts that he had killed one hundred thousand ( or several hundred thousands ) of his king’s enemies and undertook the composition of his huge digest, which must surely have taken about twenty years for being completeḍ Lakṣmīdhara’s patron, the Gāhaḍvāla king Govindacandra, ruled from 1114 A. D. up to about 1155 A. D. ( as will be shown later under Kalpataru ). Therefore, it is proper to hold that the Kāmadhenu must have been composed about 1100 A. D. some years before the Kalpataru was begun ( probably some years after 1114 A. D. when Govindacandra became king ).
Śrīdharācārya, author of Smṛtyarthasāra ( verses 4 and 5 ), mentions Kāmadhenu among the authors and works on which he relieṣ2 The Haralatā of Aniruddhabhaṭṭa, the Guru of king Ballālasena of Bengal, who composed his Dānasāgara in Śaka 1091 ( 1169 A. D. ), mentions Kāmadhenu among the works he consulted and refers to its views several timeṣ The Vivādaratnākara of Cāṇḍeśvara relies upon the Kāmadhenu several timeṣ3 In the Rājanītiratnākara of Cāṇḍeśvara (eḍ by Jayaswal, 1924) Rājanīti-Kāmadhenu is quoted (on p. 2) for the definition of rājā) and on p. 5 the same work is quoted for describing the two kinds of ‘adhiśvara’ (overlord). Besides, the same work on p. 81 mentions the idea of Gopāla, Lakṣmīdhara and Śrīkara that in the king’s wealth all beings, poor, helpless and others have a share and on p. 84 of the same work the view of early Gopāla is again mentioned as to the rites of coronation mentioned in works on Rājanīti being merely illustrative and that a king may be proclaimed to be so according to the special usages of countries and families by being merely seated on a throne.4
Many Dharmaśāstra works do not expressly state that Kāmadhenu was composed by Gopāla. Therefore, the ques-tion about the authorship of the Kāmadhenu has to be dealt with.
The reply is that, bearing in mind the paronomastic verse of the Vyavahāraratnākara cited above, and the facts that the Brahmacārikāṇḍa of the Kalpataru expressly mentions Gopāla as a friend of Lakṣmīdhara and also mentions the Kāmadhenu in verses 10 and 11 and does not expressly name anyone else as the author of the Kāmadhenu and as no early work ascribes it to any other person the authorship of Kāmadhenu, it should be held that Gopāla is the author of the Kāmadhenu.
Aufrecht in his great Catalogue (I. 93) ascribed the authorship of the Kāmadhenu to Śambhu. Whence he derived this information is not clear. Śambhu is credited by the Smṛticandrikā with the authorship of a Smṛti digest (vide above under Śrīkara) and the Smṛtyarthasāra names him as one of its authoritieṣ Therefore, Śambhu is certainly earlier ##72. Kāmadhenu than 1150 A. D. The Smṛtyarthasāra mentions both Śambhu and Kāmadhenu as its authoritieṣ If Śambhu were the author of the Kāmadhenu according to the Smṛtyarthasāra, he would not have been separately mentioned among its authorities by the Smṛtyarthasāra; so I am inclined to hold that Śambhu was not the author of Kāmadhenu, but it was Gopāla who was the author of that work. It may be noted that the Kṛtyaratnākara842 of Cāṇḍeśvara regards the Kāmadhenu as holding the same position (or authority) as the King (i. e. Bhoja) As the Kāmadhenu had been completed some years at least before the project of the Kalpataru was started and as it is several times quoted in the Hāralatā of Aniruddha it cannot be placed later than about 1100 A. D. It cannot be earlier than that date since it is not mentioned by Medhātithi, the Mitākṣarā or by Aparārka. It may, therefore, be assigned to the period 1100-1110 A. D.
In the edition of the 1st volume of this history, the present author had quoted from a mṣ of the Kalpataru (Benares College transcript) that the Kalpataru referred to the views of Prakāśa, Halāyudha, Kāmadhenu and Pārijāta. In his edition of the Kalpataru on Vyavahāra, Prof. Aiyangar (pp. 394–398 ) tries to show that the mss of the Kalpataru (which were only a few) were in bad shape and he held the mṣ of Kalpataru had been tampered with when it mentioned 'Prakāśa, Halāyudha–Kāmadhenu–Pārijātaprabhṛtayaḥ' (vide p. 395 of the edition of Kalpataru on Vyavahāra). About the Kāmadhenu and Prakāśa at least, merely saying that the passage about them was later interpolated would not help the editor at all, as both are expressly named in the Introductory verses of the Brahmacārikāṇḍa. The Prakāśa is referred to in several ways as Smṛti–Mahārṇava or simply Mahārṇava or as Smṛti-Mahārṇava-prakāśa843 or as simply Prakāśa. The Mahā- rpava is expressly mentioned in Introductory verses 12-13 to the Brahmacarikanda. The Maharnava is also mentioned at p. 134 of the Brahmacarikapla. The Maharnava-prakasakaāra is expressly referred to to in the Śraddhakanda ( on p. 262 ) of the Kalpataru. The editor cites no grounds for holding that Pārijāta is a late work.
It is not necessary for me to establish that the passage is genuine and so I leave it out of account altogether. From the Brahmacārikanda it is clear that the Kāmādhenu itself had been composed some decades before the vast digest called Kalpataru was completeḍ It follows from what is stated above that at least three out of the four works and authors mentioned in the passage are certainly older than the Kalpa- taru and that the 4th viz Halāyudha might have been a junior contemporary of Lakṣmīdhara. Evidence of comparati- very early works is set out below that works composed about 1150-1170 A. D. frequently cite the Kamadhenu but they do not cite the Kalpataru even once.
The bad state of the msṣ of the Kalpataru will be briefly indicated under the section 'Kalpataru'. The Brahmacāri- kanda of the Kalpataru is based on a single defective mṣ as mentioned in a footnote on p. 279 of the editioṇ The Kāma- dhenu has been quoted or referred to very early after 1100 A. D. A few instances may be citeḍ
Aniruddhabhatta was a guru of king Ballālasena of Bengal (as stated in verses 6 and 7 of the Dānasagara, 5 which he composed in Sake 1091 ( i. e. 1169 A. D. ) with the assistance of his guru. Aniruddha is the author of two works viz. Hāralatā and Pitrdayita. Therefore, these works 6 must be ##72. Kāmādhenu
assigned to about 1150-1170 A. D. The Haralatā on pp. 41, 117, 174 mentions Kāmādhenu expressly, as the quotations cited below will show and does not mention the Kalpataru at all.
The Chandogāhnika846 of Śrīdatta (about 1270-1300 A. D.) mentions the Kāmādhenu several times ( e. g. on pp. 12, 16, 17, 22, 24, 46, 58 &c ) and the first verses of that work and of Pitṛbhakti are interesting because they mention the doctrines of Gopāla and Bhūpāla; Bhūpāla is Bhoja and Gopāla is the author of the Kāmādhenu. One or two striking references to the Kāmādhenu are cited below in the footnote.
The Ratnākaras of Cāṇḍeśvara frequently quote the Kāmādhenu. The Kṛtyaratnākara mentions it on pp. 30 and 299. The Vivādaratnākara mentions Kāmādhenu very often as on pp. 80, 114, 135, 150, 409, 651. The Daṇḍaviveka of Vardhamāna quotes Kāmādhenu 25 times and whenever the Kāmādhenu and Kalpataru are mentioned together it puts Kāmādhenu first; vide pp. 28, 34, 71, 138, 176, 217.
But it seems to me that they are identical. Aufrecht in his great catalogue ( I. 93 ) ascribes the authorship of the Kāmādhenu to Sambhu. Whence he derived this information is not clear. The authors and works cited by him do not, so far as I know, ascribe the Kāmādhenu to Sambhu. It is true that Sambhu is credited by the Smṛticandrikā with a digest on dharmaśāstra ( vide note 563 above ) and the Smṛtyartha- sāra also names him as one of the authorities on which it relieṣ Hemādri9 also tells us that Sambhu was a nibandha- kāra and refuted the views of Medhātithi on Manu III. 125. The Smṛticandrikā frequently cites the views of Sambhu on vyavahāra and generally refutes theṃ For example, on the word ‘pitarau’ occurring in Yāj. II. 135, Sambhu remarked that no difference should be made between the parent’s ( father and mother ) as heirs, since whoever out of them took the wealth of their son it would come to both.10 Vide also Smṛticandrikā II, pp. 205, 216. Therefore Sambhu also, being mentioned by the Smṛticandrikā and the Smṛtyarthasāra, is certainly earlier than 1150 A. D. In this state of the autho- rities I am doubtful whether Sambhu was the author of the Kāmadhenu. I am inclined to hold that he was not the author of that work and that Gopāla was the author. This conclusion is somewhat strengthened by the fact that the Smṛtyartha- sāra mentions both Kāmadhenu and Sambhn as authorities on which it relieṣ If Sambhu had been, in the opinion of the Smṛtyarthasāra the author of the Kāmadhenu, the mention of both would have been superfluouṣ Mr. Jayasval ( in JBORS for 1927, vol. XIII, parts 3-4, p. VII ) ascribes the Kāma- dhenu to Bhoja, but this is wrong ( vide p. 277, note 576 ).
As the Kāmadhenu is named as an authority by the Kalpa- taru and the Hāralatā it is certainly not later than 1100 A.D. It cannot be very much earlier since it is not mentioned by Medhātithi and the Mitākṣarā. It may therefore be assigned to the period between 1000 and 1100 A. D.