73. Halāyudha

Volume I: Part II pp. 622–639

73. Halāyudha

73. Halāyudha Several Halāyudhas flourished at different timeṣ Chro- nology being rather uncertain those of them that have some bearing on Dharmaśāstra would be dealt with in one place, though an attempt will be made to assign to them approxi- mately definite times as far as possible. The Vivādaratnākara of Cāṇḍeśvara mentions Halāyudha dozens of timeṣ In the Smṛtisāra of Harinātha¹ Halāyudhanibandha on possession is quoteḍ The Smṛtisāra also says (folio 140 a ) that Halāyudha favoured niyoga by the widow of a son-less deceased person and deprived the widow of succession to her deceased husband if she did not submit to niyoga. This was the view of Dhāreśvara also. According to Halāyudha² parents succeeded before brothers to a deceased person if the property in the hands of the deceased was ancestral, but that if it was acquired without detriment to ancestral property then brothers succeeded even before parentṣ Halāyudha is cited in the Vivādacintāmaṇi also. e. g. Halāyudha³ held the view that the verse of Yāj. (II. 126 ) was intended to convey that where joint property was concealed by a member and was discovered after partition, he did not incur the guilt of theft. This same view was held by Jitendriya and otherṣ Raghunandana quotes Halāyudha in Divyatattva, Dāyatattva and Vyavahāratattva. The Viramitrodāya⁴ also quotes Halāyudha.

The name Halāyudha ( an epithet of Balarāma, the brother of Kṛṣṇa ) was a common one in India and therefore there are several eminent authors named Halāyudha. Great confusion is due to this and is increased by unscrupulous writers fawning upon patronṣ This will be briefly illustrated here. The first Halāyudha is the author of Kavirahasya, edited by Sourindramohan Tagore in 1879 (with an Introduction in English) and by Heller in 1900. This contains only 271 verseṣ It illustrates the several forms of Sanskrit roots in several conjugations and connects all verses with Kṛṣṇa, a Rāṣṭrakūṭa king of the Deccan (Dakṣiṇāpatha). This was most probably Rāṣṭrakūṭa emperor Kṛṣṇa whose dates range from 940 A. D. to 959 A. D. (vide JBBRAS, Vol. 18 p. 239, I. A. Vol. XI p. 109 and Dr. R. G. Bhandarkar's Report, 1883-4 pp. 8-9). In another work called Mṛtasañjīvanī attributed to him (which is a commentary on Piṅgala's Chandaḥsūtra) there is an illustrative verse praising Muñja alias Vākpatirāja. Muñja was killed between 994-997 A D. by Tailapa. Therefore, this author flourished in the latter half of the 10th century A. D. Vide Cat. of msṣ in the Bombay Asiatic Society's library by Prof. H. D. Velankar (1926) Vol. 1 part 2. It begins with the famous verse ‘नमस्तुङ्गशिरश्चुम्बि’. ⁵ He has little to do with Dharmaśāstra.

But the Introduction (pp. I-VI) to the Kavirahasya has some interesting featureṣ It repeats the story of king Ādiśūra of Gauḍa bringing five learned Brāhmaṇas of Kānoj for a Vedic sacrifice and of his grant of five villages to the five brāhmaṇas that enabled them to stay in Gauḍa. It is further narrated (in the Intro.) that the foremost among those five brāhmaṇas was Bhaṭṭa Nārāyaṇa of the Śāṇḍilya-gotra and the rich and famous Tagore's claim descent from that Nārāyaṇa. The Intro. states that his works were Prayogaratna, Gobhila-sūtrabhāṣya, Kāśīmaraṇamuktivicāra and the drama Veṇī-saṁhāra and that Halāyudha was 16th in descent from that Nārāyaṇa. In a note it is stated that Halāyudha was 12th in descent from Nārāyaṇa, according to another account. In this all chronology is thrown to the winds and entirely false claims to the authorship of famous works like the Prayogaratna, the drama Veṇīsaṁhāra and several other well-known works like the Bhāminīvilāsa and Rasagaṅgādhara are advanceḍ Nārāyaṇabhaṭṭa, born in 1513 A.D. was the author of Prayogara-tna, his father was a Mahārāṣṭra brāhmaṇa from Pratiṣṭhāna (modern Paithan on the Godāvarī) and migrated to Benareṣ That establishes that the work was composed in the 16th century. The author of the Veṇīsaṁhāra was a Nārāyaṇa, no doubt. He flourished about a thousand years before the author of the Prayogaratna, as passages from the Veṇīsaṁhāra 73. Halāyudha

are quoted in the Dhvanyāloka (latter half of 9th century) and in the Kāvyālaṅkārasūtravṛtti of Vāmana (about 8th century). Further, on p. 2 of the Introduction (to the Kavirahasya) the Halāyudha of that work is regarded as identical with the author of the Brāhmaṇasarvasva. But the gotra of that Halāyudha was Vātsya, while the gotra of the Tagores is Śāṇḍilya. These writings of the matchmakers of Bengal and of the unscrupulous sycophants and panegyrists of rich families are often worthless for chronological purposeṣ Vide the paper of Jogendracandra Ghosh (in I. C. Vol. I pp. 502-6) which tries to show that there were three or four Halāyudhas in the latter part of the 12th century A. D. and the first half the 13th century A. D.

Another Halāyudha, the author of the famous work called Brāhmaṇasarvasva, is an important one among the authors named Halāyudha. An excellent edition of that work edited by Dr. Durgamohan Bhattacarya was recently published (1960) in the Sanskrit Sahitya Parishad Series (Calcutta) with an exhaustive Introduction (pp. III-XLV), brief table of contents, the text (330 pages), an Index of the Vedic Mantras and other verses occurring in the work. The Brāhmaṇasarvasva is referred to several times by Raghunandana e. g. (vol. I.) in Āhnikatattva pp. 378, 389, 423, in Śrāddhatattva p. 242. Rarely Raghunandana finds fault with it as on Śrāddha (vol. I. p. 313). Raghunandana mentions the Brāhmaṇasarvasva also in (Vol. II) Śuddhi p. 315, Yajurvedīśrāddha p. 492 and the Paṇḍitasarvasva in Vol. I. p. 531 (Prāyaścittatattva). A Śevasarvasva is mentioned in Mathāpratiṣṭhā (vol. II. p. 618), but whether it is the same as the Śaiva-sarvasva mentioned by the Brāhmaṇasarvasva cannot be proved (though probably it is the same). He belonged to the Vātsya gotra and his father Dhanañjaya was Dharmādhyakṣa (verse 5 of Intro. to Brāhmaṇasarvasva).

On him the king bestowed, while he was young, the post of ‘Mahāmahattaka’ and later conferred on him ‘Dharmādhi-kāra’ (the office of deciding difficult matters of Dharma or the office of a judge). Vide for the office of ‘Mahāmahattaka’ the Bodh Gayā Inscription dated in Lakṣmaṇasena year 74 in E. I. vol. III. p. 27 at p. 30. It may be noted that Bṛhaspati prescribes that the king should build his palace in the middle of the fort and should have the sabhā (hall of justice) to the H. D.—79 east of the palace and the hall should face the east; and, Kātyāyana states that the sabhā is called 'Dharmādhikaraṇa' where the decision of the truth of the root (of disputes) is carried on by considering the rules of sacred law. Halāyudha had two elder brothers, ⁶ Paśupati and Īśana, of whom the former composed Śrāddha-kṛtya-paddhati and Pākayajña-paddhati and the latter the Dvijaḥnika-paddhati. He tells us in the Brāhmaṇasarvasva that he composed Mīmāṁsāsarvasva, Vaiṣṇavasarvasva, Śaivasarvasva, Paṇḍitasarvasva.⁷ None of these four works has been printed so far and even Msṣ of them are rare ( vide Dr. Bhattacharya's Preface to Br. Sarvasva ).

For the genealogy of Halāyudha, vide J.A.S.B. ( New Series ) Vol. XI. p. 332 where a long pedigree is given by M. M. Chakravarti, which is based on the chart drawn up by Bharatacandraśiromaṇi for his patron, Prasannakumara Tagore and printed at the beginning of his edition of the Daya bhāga (in 1863). It has been shown above how such genea logies are often unreliable. Halāyudha's father was Dhanān jaya who had three sonṣ... Paśupati, Īśana and Halāyudha. Halāyudha mentions Paśupati as 'agraja' (eldest or elder) in verse 24 of Br. SAR. and refers to his work called 'paddhati' on śrāddha. Paśupati's paddhati is mentioned in (vol. I) Śrāddhatattva p. 213 and Paśupati is named in vol. II) in Udvāhatattva p. 147 and Yajurvedīśrāddhatattva pp. 490– 494. Paśupati also composed 'Pāka-yajña' paddhati (vide) Intro. verse 43 to Br. Sarvasva). Īśana-nyāyācārya is men tioned in ( Vol. I ) Śrāddhas p. 313 and ( vol. II ) in Udvāha p. 135. He is probably the same as the brother of Halāyudha, In verse 24 of the Br. Sarvasva Halāyudha states that his brother Īśāna wrote Dvījāhnikapaddhati. The chief object⁸ of the Brāhmaṇasarvasva is to explain the meaning of the mantras used by Brāhmaṇas in daily ob- servances from the brushing of the teeth to going to sleep and in the saṁskāras on birth, marriage, death etc. He wrote for the Vājasaneya Kāṇva Śākhā and acknowledges⁹ his debt to Uvaṭa who wrote a bhāṣya on the Vājasaneya saṃhitā in Avanti while Bhoja ruled the earth ( mahim Bhoje praśāsati ). In some introductory verses and the several colophons of the Brāhmaṇa-sarvasva Halāyudha styles himself āvasathika, mahādharmādhyakṣa or simply dharmādhyā- kṣa, dharmādhikārin and his brother Paśupati also is styled āvasuthika. It is very difficult to say what the exact meaning of this last word iṣ It probably means one who regularly performs all the gṛhya riteṣ¹⁰ ‘Āva- satha’ means ‘a shed or hall’ and a married man has to establish a fire called gṛhya, aupāsana, āvasathya, or vaivāhika ( Manu III. 67 ), aupasađa or vaivāhana. Vide H. of Dh. Vol. II p. 678 note 1615. Vide Tri. cat. of Madras Govt. Msṣ for 1919-1922, pp. 5165 for a mṣ of Paṇḍita- sarvasva which deals with the usages of varṇas and āśramas, tithi, śuddhi, the time for śrāddha, jyotiḥśāstra, marriage, gifts, prāyaścitta, pratiṣṭhā &c. But whether it is Halāyu- dha's work it is difficult to say from the extracts giveṇ The text of the Mīmāṁsāsarvasva ( dealing with Mīmāṁ- sā matters upto the end of the third adhyāya of the Mīmāṁsā- sūtra of Jaimini ) was published by M. M. Dr. Umeshā Mishra in JBORS Vol. XVII pp, 227-308, 413-460 and Vol. XVIII pp. 129-200. Dr. Durgamohan Bhattacharya ( in Introduction to Br. Sarvasva (p. XXXIX ) questions Halāyudha's author- ship of that work, but he sets out hardly any grounds for his view. The present author thinks that it is a work of Halā- yudha. The work relies principally on the Tantravārttika and Ślokavārttika of Kumārila and on the Śāstradīpikā and deals with the first three adhyāyas of Pūrvamīmāṁsāsūtra and is a good handbook for beginnerṣ It mentions Upavarṣa (vol. 17 p. 233); Bhārata (vol. 17 p. 301); Mandana (vol. 17 p. 289); and Nyāyaratnākara (in vol. 17 p. 231). For Paṇḍita-sar- vasva, vide Triennial Cat. of Govt. Or. Msṣ Library, Madras No. 3458 pp. 5165–66, which deals with several matters such as varṇas, āśramas, tithis, marriages, gifts, prāyaścitta, pra- tiṣṭhā &c.

The time when Halāyudha flourished depends to some ex- tent on the time of Lakṣmaṇasena, king of Bengal. About king Lakṣmaṇasena and the era in his name great controver- sins have raged for many years and it cannot be said that the question has been settled beyond cavil. Some facts gathered from the Br. Sarvasva are clear viz. that Halāyudha was the son of Dhanāñjaya of the Vātsyagotra who was Dharmā- dhyakṣa, was opulent and yet fond of performing solemn sacrifices (Intro. verses 5 and 6), that Lakṣmaṇasena best- owed on him patronage beyond his desire. Then the Br. Sar- vasva states that Halāyudha was by Lakṣmaṇasena made ‘rājapaṇḍita’ when still in his teens, that king Lakṣmaṇa- sena conferred the distinction of ‘Mahāmahattaka’ on Halā- yudha when he was a young man and that in his mature years he (Halāyudha) was given the post of ‘Dharmādhikā- rin’⁶⁵⁸ (i. e. of the Pariṣat or Dharmādhyakṣa, a high func- tionary, possibly a Judge (Intro. verse 12).

Verse 14 of the Intro. to Br. Sarvasva contains the clear words ‘Dharmādhyakṣa-Halāyudhasya sadṛśo nāsyāḥ priyaḥ kopyabhūt’. On p. 132 of the Br. Sarvasva he describes himself as the officer entrusted with the moneys set apart by 73. Halāyudha

the Gauda king for religious and charitable purposeṣ The Matsyapurāṇa¹² states the qualifications of a Dharmādhikāriṇ Halāyudha's career runs to some extent along that of Lakṣmaṇasena, though it is likely that Halāyudha might have been some years younger than king Lakṣmaṇasena.

From the data furnished in the Brāhmaṇasarvasva¹³ and from certain facts stated in the Adbhutasāgara and the Dānasāgara the time when Halāyudha flourished can be ascertained as falling within limits acceptable to most scholarṣ From the Br. Sarvasva we learn that Halāyudha was patro- nized by king Lakṣmaṇasena when H. was quite a young maṇ We have some evidence not depending on La. Saṃ to establish the time when this should have happeneḍ

King Ballālasena of Bengal began the composition of the Adbhutasāgara in the year 1090 of the Śaka era (i. e. 1168–9 A. D. ), but before the work was finished Ballālasena died after requesting his son to complete it and king Lakṣmaṇasena made efforts to complete it. We do not know how much time had been spent on the proposed work, Adbhutasāgara, when Ballālasena passed away, nor how much time was taken by Lakṣmaṇasena to complete it. We may guess that it was completed before or about 1170–1 A. D. at the earliest. That these verses about the dates in the Adbhutasāgara are not later additions is testified by a reference in the Toḍarānanda- saṃhitā–saukhya about the position of the constellation of the Great Bear according to the Adbhutasāgara in the śaka year 1082 (1160–1 A. D. ) when Ballālasena was ruling.

The passages quoted in the note establish that the Ad- bhutasāgara was begun in 1168 A. D. by Ballālasena, who passed away before it was completed and that it was completed by Lakṣmaṇasena, son of Ballālasena (i. e. some time later than 1168–9 A.D.).¹⁴ This shows that Lakṣmaṇasena began to rule about 1169 A. D. The Saduktikarnāmṛta⁶² of Śrīdhara- dāsa tells us that he completed the work in the Śaka year 1127 (1205-6 A. D.) in the 27th year of Lakṣmaṇasena's reign i. e. Lakṣmaṇasena began to reign about 1178-79 A. D. and ruled till 1205-6 (probably only in Bihar as he lost Bengal in 1200 A. D.). Thus there are two authenticated dates for the accession of Lakṣmaṇasena viz. 1168-69 A. D. and 1178-9 A. D. At the end of the Dānasāgara (edited by Dr. Bhabatosh Bhattacharya and published B. I. Series in 1953) a verse says the Dānasāgara was composed at the end of Śaka year 1091 (1169-70 A. D.).⁶³ Therefore, the literary activity of Halā- yudha would have to be assigned to the period 1160-1200 A. D. The Br. Sarvasva and the Paṇḍita-sarvasva are quoted by Raghunandana in the Smṛtitattva as stated above. 73. Halāyudha From Moslem historians it is learnt that Lakṣmaṇasena was defeated by Bakhtiyar Khilji in 1200 A. D. and lost Bengal.

A few words may be said here about the La. Saṃ A large volume of literature has gathered on this subject. I do not propose to enter into great details or to examine the several theories that have been advanceḍ

A few salient points alone would be mentioneḍ Some undisputed facts may be first stateḍ

The La. Saṃ is still popular in north Bihar and its first year is now regarded as 1119–20 A. D. How and when the La. Saṃ came to be used in Mithilā is still a matter of conjectur- eṣ It is also clear that Lakṣmaṇasena and his sons do not employ the La. Saṃ in their Inscriptionṣ

Kielhorn concluded that the Sena era began in Śake 1041 i. e. 1119 A. D. ( vide I. A. 19 p. 1–7 ). The era as employed to-day in Mithila is usually associated with the birth of Lakṣmaṇasena. Kielhorn relied upon Abul Fazl’s account that the era started in 1041 śake and on his own examination of six dateṣ Dr. Rajendralal Mitra ( in J. A. S. B. vol. 47 pp. 398 ff ) held that the era was started about 1106 A. D. Subhadra Jha ( JBORS. Vol. XX pp. 20 ff ) places the starting point of La. Saṃ between 1108–1120 A. D. on the basis of different calculationṣ The spurious Bisapi grant of Śivasim- hadeva to Vidyāpati mentions years in four eras prevalent in Mithila ( vide I. A. vol. 14 pp. 190–91 ), but hardly any reli- ance can be placed on it. Great differences of opinion exist as to the origin of the La. Saṃ, particularly whether it starts from the year of Lakṣmaṇasena’s birth or from his accession to the throne or whether, after the destruction of the last Hindu dynasty in Bengal, people started the era to preserve the memory of the Hindu rule. K. P. Jayaswal ( in JBORS vol. XX pp. 20 ff ) discussed this topic with some elaboratioṇ He set out eighteen dates in La. Saṃ occurring along with Śaka or Samvat dates or both and held that Kielhorn’s date was correct. Dr. R. C. Majumdar ( in ‘History of Bengal’ vol. I. pp. 233 ff ) tried to refute Jayaswal’s views and arrived at the conclusion that the initial year of the La. Saṃ varied between 1108 and 1120 A. D. Some scholars have been influe- need by the biography of Dharmasvāmin ( a Tibetan pilgrim who visited Bodh Gayā in 1235 A. D. ). Dr. Roerich published an English translation of the Tibetan monk's life with the Tibetan text and an Introduction (in 1959). Dr. Roerich states (p. XIV of Intro.) that among the kings the pilgrim visited is Buddhasena, described as king of Magadha residing at Vajrāsana or Bodh Gayā. He met the king in 1234 A. D. There are some inscriptions of the ruler of Bodh Gayā that use the La. Saṃ There is an inscription of Jayasena, son of Buddhasena. The Janibigha inscription of Jayasena is dated in Lakṣmaṇasena's 'Atitarajye La. Saṁ. 83'. Vide JBORS vol. IV pp. 266–272 and JBORS vol. V pp. 273–280 ( Panday). If we take 1118–9 A. D. as the initial year of La. Saṃ then the meeting with Jayasena should have taken place about 1201–2 A. D. That is impossible on the evidence of the Tibetan hermit who met the father Buddhasena in 1234 A. D. So this makes 1118–9 A. D. as the initial date of La. Saṃ untenable. Vide Dr. Roerich's Introduction pp. 13–18 for further detailṣ Dr. D. C. Sircar (in I. H. Q. vol. 34 pp. 21–28 ) also refers to the Tibetan pilgrim's life and holds (on the whole evidence) that the La. Saṁ was originally counted from the date of the accession of king Lakṣmaṇasena of Bengal and Bihar about 1179 A. D., although its starting point was later supposed to be some date between 1106–1119 A. D. through confusioṇ Dr. B. P. Sinha (in JBRS Vol. 42 pp. 76–81 ) points out that La. Saṁ. is found in Mithilā Msṣ only one hundred years after Lakṣmaṇasena's death. Reference may be made to two recent papers submitted to the Indian History Congress at Poona in 1963 (vide Proceedings, pub. in Calcutta 1964 ) viz by Prof. Radhakrishna Choudhary pp. 93–99 and by Prof. Sukhamaya Upadhyaya pp. 196–202, which latter holds that the initial year of the La. Sam varied between 1080 and 1129 A. D.

Sourindra Mohan Tagore (introduction to Kavirahasya p. I–II) says that Ādiśūra brought to Bengal five Brāhmaṇas from Kanoj of whom Bhāṭṭa Nārāyaṇa was the most famous and was the author of the Prayogaratna and also of the Veṇi-saṁhāra and that Halāyudha was 16th in descent from that Nārāyaṇa. These traditions of the matchmakers of Bengal and panegyrists of big families are entirely worthless for literary and chronological purposes, particularly for events of comparatively early timeṣ In their zeal to extol their Halāyudha patron's families to the skies they were most unscrupulous and threw to the winds all chronology. The Prayogaratna was composed at Benares by Bhaṭṭa Nārāyaṇa whose family migrated from Paithan in the 16th century, while the Veṇi-saṁhāra was composed about a thousand years earlier. Yet both works are fathered upon Nārāyaṇa, the ancestor of the rich and influential Tagore family.

Halāyudha, the author of the Brāhmaṇasarvasva, is, it appears, different from another Halāyudha who was a jurist. In the first place, Halāyudha, author of the Br. sarvasva, states that he composed four other works, all ending in the word ‘ sarvasva ’ but makes no mention of any work compos- ed by him on substantive or adjective law or on both.

The Vivādaratnākara mentions Halāyudha 53 times and Halāyudha-nibandha three timeṣ The Gṛhastharatnākara quotes it eight times and the Kṛtyaratnākara quotes it on pp. 319, 327, 332.

From Raghunandana’s Dāyatattva it appears that Halā- yudha had composed a work on law. For example, Halā- yudha appears to have held that, if some joint family property was not divided among the coparceners at a partition through ignorance and remained in the possession of one member of the family, it may be partitioned again, but the ignorant possessor should not be charged with theft ( vide Vol. II Dāyatattva p. 182 ).¹⁷ Again, the Dāyatattva ( vol. II p. 195 ) mentions the wrong reading of Yāj. II. 139 in the Mitākṣarā, Pārijāta and Halāyudha due to the errors of scribes quoted above.

In this connection it is necessary to say a few words on the two words ‘ Vyavahāra ’ and ‘ Vivāda ’.

In the Br. Up. V. 14. 4 we have the famous remark ‘ cakṣur-vai satyam ’ and it is added ‘ therefore when two persons come disputing about a matter, one saying ‘ I saw ’ it ’ and another saying ‘ I heard it ’, we believe him alone who says ‘ I saw it ’.” Here the word ‘ vivāda ’ is used in the meaning ‘dispute’ and it is also emphasised that seeing a matter is superior to hearing evidence about it. In the same Upaniṣad (VI. 1. 7) it is said that these prāṇas (speech and others) having a dispute as to who among them was superior approached-Brahman &c. Therefore the word ‘vivāda is ancient enough. The word ‘vyavahāra ’ was certainly known before Pāṇini (II. 3. 57 ) in the sense of ‘transactions of sale and purchase and the like’. Ap. Dh. S. II. 11. 28, Manu VIII. 8, Yāj. II. 12 and 81 employ the word Vivāda. Gaut. Dh. S. XI. 19. employs the word Vyavahāra in the sense of ‘means of settling or deciding disputes’. Vaṣ Dh. S. 16. 1–3 ( Atha vyavahārān i Rājā Mantri vā sadaḥ–kāryāṇi kuryāt dvayor-vivadamānayoḥ pakṣāntaram na gacchet l ). Manu VIII. I, Yāj. I. 327, 360 and II. I employ the word ( in the plural ) and the sense appears to be the complaints or suits brought by the subjects before the king or the court of justice and Manu VIII. 2, 8–9 indicate that the word ‘kāryāṇi’ is used by it in the same sense as Vyavahārāṇ There are 18 titles ( called vyavahārapadas or vivādapadas ) under which all legal proceedings before the king or the court of justice are classified in Manu VIII. 4. 7 and Yāj. It appears to the present writer that the words ‘vivāda’ and ‘vyavahāra’ were often regarded even by early writers as synonymouṣ For example, in Yāj. II. 18 ( sapanaś–ced–vivādaḥ syāt ) it is provided that, if a dispute is brought ( before the king or court ) with a bet, then the losing party should be made to pay a fine and also the amount of the bet to the king and the successful party should be awarded the property ( or amount in dispute ). The Mit. on Yāj. II. 18 ( Sapanaś–ced vivādaḥ syāt ) paraphrases the word ‘vivādaḥ’ as ‘vyavahāraḥ’. It should be noted that Yāj. II. 4 and 305, contain the same clause viz. ‘vivādād–dviguṇam damam’. Yāj. II. 4 prescribes that where the members of the court ( sabhyāḥ ) render a deci-sion opposed to the dicta of Smṛtis, each of them should be made to pay a fine double of what would have been payable by the party defeated in the litigatioṇ Yāj. II. 305 refers to cases, where, after a matter is decided by a court, a review of judgment is sought and the decision is set aside on the ground of miscarriage of justice due to the sabhyas having given a decision opposed to the rules of the smṛtis or owing to their being influenced partiality or by bribery and the like. It should be noted that as early as the Amarakośa ( not later 73. Halāyudha than the 5th century A. D. as shown in H. of Dh. Vol. V. p. 840 ṇ 1367 ) Vivāda and Vyavahāra are said to be synonyms ( vivādo vyavahāraḥ syāt ). It is further provided by Manu ( 8. 43 ) that the King or the man appointed by him as Judge should not himself start a court proceeding against a persoṇ Medhātithi on Manu VIII. 3 expressly states that the latter half (aṣṭādaśasu mārgeṣu) has in view the vivādapadaṣ They are also spoken of as vyavahārapadas, because, in bringing a suit one has to specify the cause of action from among the eighteeṇ Manu also ( in VIII. 8 ) employs the words ‘ sthāna ’ instead of ‘ pada ’ and ‘ kārya ’ in the sense of vya- vahāra ( suit or proceeding ). Br. quoted by the Vivāda- ratnākara ( p. 4 ) says ‘ vivādakāraṇānyatra padāni śṛṇutā- dhunā ’ on which the Vivādaratnākara remarks ‘ padāni adhi- karaṇāni rṇādini ’. Aparārka (on Yāj. II.5) after quoting Manu 8. 43 ) remarks ‘ kāryam vyavahāro vivāda iti yāvat’. Early smṛti works deal with both adjective law and substantive law. For example, the Manusmṛti ( in chap. VIII. 57–130 ) deals at great length with the law relating to witnesses, oaths, oral evidence, punishments for false depositions and claimṣ In the same chapter it deals with ādhi, upanidhi, nikṣepa, possession and ownership, money-lending, and rates of interest, topics of Dattāpradānika and Vetanāsyānaprakriyā, kṛitānūśaya, svāmīpālāvivāda, boundary disputes, abuse and defamation, partition, succession and inheritance, marriage and mixed unions, their children and their rights, the four varṇas and their duties and avocations, offences and puni- shments and so oṇ Yāj. also in the second section first deals with the four stages of a law- suit, viz. plaint, reply, proof of one’s claim ( by documents, witnesses &c. ) and success or failure of the suit and then proceeds to lay down rules about recovery of debts, pledges and other matters in which disputes ( vivādas ) arise. Even in comparatively early times the Nārada-smṛti dealt only with the procedural law and the substantive law. The Vyavahāra-mayūkha of Nīlakaṇṭha not only deals with the procedural law, but also with substantive law. On the other hand, the Vivādatāṇḍava of Kamalākara- bhaṭṭa ( first cousin of Nīlakaṇṭha ) not only deals with substantive law ( of partition and the rest ) but also with the four stages of a suit. There are authors, who wrote separate treatises on vyavahāra and vivādu; for example, Cāṇḍeśvara composed Vivādaratnākara and also Vyavahāraratnākara and there are two works by Vācaspati called Vivādacintāmaṇi and Vyavahāracintāmaṇi. Vide Dr. Rocher's paper in J. O. I. ( Baroda ) vol. V, pages 249-265 for Vivādaratnākara and Vyavahāra-ratnākara of Cāṇḍeśvara. In this connection it would be proper to refer briefly to the careful and scholarly work done by Dr. Iudo Rocher, a Belgian scholar, on Halāyudha. In J. O. I. ( Baroda, Vol. III, 1953-54 pp. 328-344 ) he brought together a collection of fragments of vivādapadas quoted as Halāyudha's or from Halāyudhanibandha ( he dealt with 34 extracts only in Vol. III ). Then in J. O. I. ( Baroda ) Vol. IV pp. 13-32 he added extracts Noṣ 35-102. In J. O. I. ( Baroda ) Vol. V, pp. 325-329 he contributed a paper ‘Halāyudhanibandha on Legal procedure i. e. on Vyavahāra' ( only seven fragments ). From the fragments it is possible to infer that Halāyudha wrote a nibandha comprising not only substantive law ( debts and other topics ) but also procedural law. Halāyudha is quoted dozens of times in the Daṇḍaviveka of Vardhamāna but his work is once mentioned as Halāyudha-nibandha on p. 150 of that work and twice as ‘ Halāyudha on pp. 119 and 152 '. This work deals with six kinds of offences and punish- ments for theṃ Thus ‘ it is a work on vyavahāra '. Then Dr. Rocher published in 1956 at Ghent the text of the Vyavahāracintāmaṇi ( of Vācaspati-miśra ) with English translation and notes and several Appendices including an alphabetical index of quotations in V. C. from Dharmaśāstra workṣ There is yet another Halāyudha. On the Śrāddhakalpa- sūtra of Kātyāyana a commentary called Prakāśa was compos- ed by Halāyudha, son of Saṅkarṣaṇa ( vide BBRAS cat. No. 518, p. 170 ). In this commentary he refers to Karka, Kāma- dhenu, Kalpataru, Govindrāja, Lakṣmaṇopādhyāya, Mitā- kṣarā, Śaṅkhadhara and Paśupati. He is therefore later than 1150 A. D. He cannot be identified with the author of the Kavirahasya, as the latter flourished much earlier under the Rāṣṭrakūṭaṣ The special merit of Halāyudha concerning the Br. Sarvasva is that he is much earlier than the great brothers Sāyaṇa-Mādhava who composed Bhāṣyas on the Vedaṣ He explains several hundred mantras which occur in the Ṛgveda as well as in the Yajurveda. He mentions among his predecessors on the same task Uvaṭa ( Br. Sarvasva 73. Halāyudha

pp. 233, 256 ) and Guņaviṣņu ( p. 256 Br. Sarvasva ). Halā- yudha's task was, as compared with Sāyaṇa's, very limited, but he brings great learning to the task. There is ample material for comparison between the two. Numerous mantras have been explained by both e. g. the mantra at bathing one- self ‘Imam me Gange’ ( Br. S. pp. 22-23 and Ṛg. X. 75. 5 ); Mārjana-mantra ‘Āpo hi ṣṭhā’ ( Ṛg. X. 9. 1, Vāj. S. XI. 50 ); the Gāyatrī-mantra ( Ṛg. III. 62. 10, Vāj. S. III. 35, Br. Sar. pp. 37-38 ),¹⁸ Śan-no devir Ṛg. X. 9. 4, Vāj. S. 36. 12, Br. Sar. pp. 92-93 ); the Aghamarṣaṇa mantras ( Ṛg. X. 190. 1-3, Br. Sar. pp. 99 ).

There is another work called Saṁvatsarapradīpa profusely quoted by Raghunandana ( as in Vol. I Tithitattva pp. 3, 34, 43, 46, 49, 106, Śrāddhatattva p. 254 ). In Ekādaśī-tattva ( vol. II. p. 51 ) Raghunandana ascribes it to Halāyudha and in Śuddhitattva Vol. II. p. 327 also. Some scholars hold that this is Halāyudha's work ( vide Dr. R. C. Hazra in I. H. Q. Vol. 21, p. 54 ), while Dr. Dinesh Chandra Bhattacharya ( I. H. Q. Vol. 21 p. 147 ) holds that the author of this work is different from the author of the Brāhmaṇasarvasva. The editor of the Br. Sarvasva ( Intro. pp. XL-XLI ) holds that they are the same and I agree with hiṃ

For reasons of space it is impossible to illustrate Halā- yudha's principles and methods of the exposition of vedic Mantras in the Brāhmaṇasarvasva and the results arrived at by hiṃ One principle he advocates viz. the meaning of single words in the mantras may have to be controlled by the sense of the sentence or sentences gathered as a whole. For example, the one Mantra ‘Śan-no devir-abhiṣṭaye’ ( Ṛg. X. 9. 4 ) is employed as ‘snānamantra’, as also in the worship of planets Saturn ( e. g. vide Vāj. I. 301 ) and in the Brahma- yajña ( Br. S. p. 110 ). In pp. 37 ff, he well explains the Gāyatrī-mantra and he gives a striking explanation of the Aghamarṣaṇa mantra¹⁹ of which there is no padapāṭha eveṇ Ancient Vedic texts insist that one engaged in the performance of a sacrifice or the like must know in the case of a wary mantra the sage, metre, the deity and the purpose (viniyoga) for which it is employed and state what undesirable consequences employing mantras without knowing these details will follow. The dharmādhyakṣa of Lakṣmaṇasena was a son of Dhanañjaya, while the author of the Prakāśa was a son of Saṅkarṣaṇa. The Śrāddhakāśikā of Kṛṣṇa (Gujarati Press eḍ p. 430) on the Navakaṇḍikā or Śrāddhakalpasūtra of Kātyāyana says that first Karka²⁰ explained the sūtra in pregnant words and then Halāyudha explained it and yet it remained as difficult as before. Kṛṣṇa is mentioned in the Nīrṇayasindhu and the Śrāddhamayūkha of Nīlakaṇṭha. Therefore Halāyudha, the author of the Prakāśa on Kātyāyana, must have flourished before 1509 A. D. and later than 1150 A. D.

There is a work called Karmopadeśinī ( a manual on the daily religious rites ) ascribed to Halāyudha ; vide JASB vol. XI ( new series ) p. 335. This work has been mentioned several times by Raghunandana in his Tattvas e. g. ( Vol. I ) on tithi p. 149, Śrāddha p. 195, Prāyaścitta 492, Saṁskāra 863 ; (vol. II) Śuddhi pp. 323, 334, 358. But in all these places the name of the author is not mentioned by Raghunandana M. M. Chakravarti points out that it quotes the Kalpataru and Śūlapāṇi on Śrāddha. In that case it cannot be placed earlier than the 15th century A. D. and its author would be entirely different from the author of the Brāhmaṇasarvasva.

Vide J. A. S. B. 1915 pp. 327-336 where M. M. Chakravarti brought together interesting information about Halāyudha.