77. Govindarāja

Volume I: Part II pp. 656–663

The chapter dedicated to Govindārāja in P.V. Kane's monumental "History of Dharmaśāstra" commences by establishing his significant literary contributions. Govindārāja is recognized as the author of a comprehensive commentary on the Manusmṛti, a cornerstone text of Hindu legal tradition, and also penned an independent work titled Smṛtimañjarī, further demonstrating his scholarly breadth. The text then delves into the personal history of Govindārāja, offering biographical insights while clarifying a crucial point of identification: he is distinctly not to be conflated with King Govindacandra of Benares. The narrative also illuminates the intellectual climate of the period by noting that Kullūka, another prominent commentator, frequently engaged in critical discourse regarding Govindārāja's interpretations. A substantial portion of the chapter is allocated to detailing the contents of the Smṛtimañjarī, exploring its structure, themes, and contributions to Dharmaśāstra. Through careful analysis of available evidence, Kane precisely dates Govindārāja's period of activity, placing it securely between 1000 and 1110 A. D.

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

77. Govindarāja

The commentary of Govindarāja on the Manusmṛti was published by Rao Saheb V. N. Mandlik and a portion of it was published by Dr. Jolly in the Manutīkāsaṅgraha. In his commentary⁸⁹⁶ on Manu III. 247 and 248 he tells us that he has treated at greater length the subject of those verses in his own work called Smṛtimañjarī. Kullūka⁸⁹⁷ in his comment on Manu IV. 212 twits Govindarāja with having explained ‘ugra’ in one way in his commentary on Manu and in a different way in his Mañjarī. A Mṣ of a portion of the Smṛti- mañjarī exists in the India Office (cat. p. 471). Haraprasada Sastri in the Cat. of Msṣ of the Govt. in the custody of the Asiatic Society of Bengal (vol. III, pp. 51–54 No. 1924) gives a description of the Mṣ of the Smṛtimanjari on Ācāra and Prāyaścitta.

Manu IV. 212 requires a brāhmaṇa to desist from partaking of food of various categories, one of which is food offered by an ugra. Both Manu (X. 9) and Yāj. (I. 92) provide that the son of a Kṣatriya from a wife of the Śūdra class is called Ugra. The Kalpataru (on Niyata-kāla-kāṇḍa p. 261) quotes the author of the Mañjari, paraphrasing ‘ugra’ as meaning ‘rājan’. The Śrāddhakalpataru on p. 46 mentions ‘Mañjari- kārā’ and on p. 259 ‘Smṛtimañjarīkāra’. The same work is meant in both placeṣ The Śrāddhakāṇḍa (Kalpataru) pp. 46–47) quotes a long passage from the Vāyupurāṇa stating that some kind of edible grains, vegetables, and other articles should be offered in Śrāddha. One of these is Kāleya, which is explained by Govindarāja. On Manu III. 285, Govinda- rāja’s gloss is not accepted by Kullūka, while on Manu III. 178 Kullūka agrees with both Medhātithi and Govindarāja.

Raghunandana in Dāyatattva (vol. II, p. 191) quotes a verse of Viṣṇu cited by Govindarāja.

The Dāyabhāga of Jīmūtavāhana (XI) quotes Govinda- rāja as holding on the strength of a verse of Viṣṇu¹ that a daughter’s son succeeded to the estate of a deceased person even before the married daughter of the deceaseḍ In the printed coṃ of Govindarāja, there is no comment of his after Manu IX. 72. But it appears that Jīmūtavāhana had before him the coṃ of Govindarāja on the verses after IX. 72 (at Manu IX. 131–136). Govindarāja is men- tioned in the Kālāviveka (p. 304) and Vyavahāramāṭrkā (p. 342) also. Kullūka differs expressly from Govindarāja on Manu I, 5, I. 82 (Itaresvagamāt); II. 122, 125, 127; III. 50, 53, 127, 129, 191, 221, 284, 285; V. 16, 51, 72, 84, 104 (imām Govinda- rājasya rājājñām nādriyāmahe ); VI. 14, 79, 84 &c. In dozens of cases (besides these) Govindarāja's views are mentioned but not criticized by Kullūka.

From these two works a brief account of the personal his- tory of Govindarāja can be extracteḍ The colophons at the end of the Manutīkā describe Govindarāja as the son of bhaṭṭa Mādhava. The first verse⁸⁹⁸ of the Smṛtimañjarī and one at the end (though somewhat corrupt) give the information that he was the son of Mādhava and grand-son of Nārāyaṇa and appears to have lived on the holy banks of the Gangeṣ⁸⁹⁹ Those who like Sarvādhikārī identify Govindarāja with Govindacandra, prince of Benares, are therefore entirely wrong since he was a Brāhmaṇa and not a Kṣatriya. The first verse⁹⁰⁰ of his Manutīkā contains an obeisance to god (or Śiva) and states that he had received the śāstra of Manu in an unbroken tradition of teacher and pupil and that he had examined previous commentaries of Manu.

The Smṛtis mentioned by him in the two works of his are given below.⁹⁰¹ Besides, he mentions the Vāyupurāṇa (on Manu III. 232) and Purāṇa in general (on Manu I. 74 and 80). He frequently quotes the Gṛhyasūtras, also the Bāhvṛ- cagṛhyaparisiṣṭa, the Yogasūtra. He says (on Manu 2. 23) that Mleccha countries like Āndhra and others were not fit for performing sacrificeṣ He appears to have held like Medhā- tithi the view that mokṣa is to be attained by a combina- tion of jñāna and karma². As compared with the bhāṣya of Medhātithi his commentary is very concise. Kullūka largely drew upon Medhātithi and Govindarāja, mentions them hundreds of times, criticizes³ both of them and particularly holds up Govindarāja to ridicule often enough.^903A Kullūka notes that Govindarāja in opposition to Medhātithi and Bhoja- deva arranged Manu 8. 181–184 differently (putting 8. 182 as the last of those four verses ). In the printed edition there is no comment of Govindarāja on the verses of the 9th chapter from verse 72. But it appears that the Dāyabhāga had that part of the commentary, as it quotes the views of Govinda- rāja on the rights of the daughter's son which could have appeared only on Manu IX. 130–136.

A few words may now be said about the Smṛtimañjari msṣ which are rare. At the end of the India Office Mṣ a summary of the contents of the whole work is given (for which see footnote below ).⁴ It appears that the Smṛtiman- ari dealt with all principal topics of dharmaśāstra such as the saṃskāras, the daily duties viz: bath, saṃdhyā, brahma- yajña, the duties of the student, householder, the forest hermit, and the saṃnyāsin, the duties of the four varṇas; gifts, the purifications of various materials, foods forbidden and allow- ed, impurity on birth and death, sapinḍas and samānodakas, funeral rites, śrāddha and its various details, and Prāyaścitta. The mṣ in the India office deals with the adhikārī for prāyaś- citta, the parṣat (i. e. the assembly of learned men who are to determine what prāyaścitta is to be prescribed ), the means of atoning for sins and violations of religious duties, the prāyaś- cittas for the mahāpātakas (viz. the murder of a Brāhmaṇa, drinking wine, theft of gold, incest) and for other lesser and similar sins, meaning of the word prāyaścitta, prāyaścittas for killing men of Kṣatriya, Vaiśya and Śūdra classes and for killing women, prāyaścittas for the killing of a cow and of various beasts and birds, prāyaścittas for eating forbidden or polluted food and for selling articles forbidden to be sold, secret prāyaścittaṣ The India Office Mṣ which deals only with prāyaścittas contains 152 folioṣ This gives us an idea as to how extensive the whole work must have been embracing as it did the entire field of dharmaśāstra. In the body of the work contained in the Mṣ frequent references occur to other parts of⁶ the Smṛtimañjarī such as saṁskārakāṇḍa, the abhaksyakāṇḍa, the śrāddhakāṇḍa. One interesting fact about Govindarāja is that, though a northerner he permit-ed⁷ marriage with one's maternal uncle's daughter and said that the prohibition against marrying a girl of the maternal uncle's gotra applies only to the son of a putrikā. The Mṣ in the India Office is an ancient one, being copied in saṁvat 1467 Āśvina dark half, Saturday (i. e. October 1411 A. D. ) during the reign of Mahārāṇā Udayasimha at Vasurāvī (modern Vasravi in the territory of the Maharaja Gaikwad of Baroda).

Dr. Jolly ( Manutīkāsaṁgraha, preface page 1 and R. u. S. p. 31 ) and Dr. Buhler (S. B. E. vol. 25, p. cxxVII ) assign-ed Govindarāja to the 12th or 13th century. But this date is not correct, as the following discussion will show. Kullūka ( vide note 773 above ) expressly says that Medhātithi is much earlier than Govindarāja. Though Medhātithi is nowhere ex-pressly named in his commentary by Govindarāja⁸ the latter appears to have several times criticised Medhātithi. Another important circumstance is that, though the Mit. mentions Medhātithi and Bhojadeva as great authorities it is silent about Govindarāja. Hence it follows that Govindarāja could not have flourished earlier than Bhojadeva, i. e. earlier than about 1050 A. D. In the Hāralatā of Aniruddha (which as we shall see later on (must have been composed about 1160 A. D. ), Govindarāja is quoted several times and is looked upon as a great authority like Viśvarūpa, Bhojadeva and Kāmadhenu.⁹⁰⁸ This shows that Govindarāja could not have flourished later than 1125 A. D. The Dāyabhāga⁹⁰⁹ (in Duhitrādhikāra) disapproves of the view of Govindarāja who placed the daughter's son before married daughter as an heir. In his Kālaviveka⁹¹⁰ also Jīmūtavāhana refers to Govindarāja in the same breath with Bhojarāja and Viśvarūpa. In his Vyavahāramātrkā⁹¹¹ he refers to Mañjarīkāra as having held the same view as Viśvarūpa. Mañjarī here must be taken to be the Smṛtimañjarī of Govindarāja, since Jīmūtavāhana in his other works refers to Govindarāja (vide note 706 above) and since there is no other known ancient work of that name on dharmaśāstra. This shows that the Mañjarī comprised a discussion on vyavahāra also. Hemādri⁹¹² tells that the author of the work called Paṇḍitaparitoṣa refuted the views of Govindarāja on the performance of śrāddha on the 13th tithi by a man having a soṇ This shows that Govindarāja must have preceded Hemādri (who wrote in the latter half of the 13th century or by at least a century more. The 77. Govindarāja Smṛtyarthasāra⁹ of Śrīdhara relies on the views of Govindarāja in its section on saṃnyāsa. When the first edition of H. of Dh. (Vol. I) was published in 1930, no portion of the Kṛtyakalpataru of Lakṣmīdhara was available in print. Later, eleven kāṇḍas of the Kalpataru have been edited by Prof. K. V. Rangaswami Aiyangar and published and some part of the Prāyaścittakāṇḍa has been discovered by Dr. S. L. Katre and he has published a paper in ‘Bhāratīya Vidyā’ Vol. 17 (1957) pp. 72–75, in which he points out in all six passages referring to Govindarāja and in the Prāyaścittakāṇḍa, twice as Smṛtimañjarī, once in the Prāyaścittakāṇḍa, twice as Mañjarikāra and Smṛtimañjarikāra in the Niyatakālakāṇḍa p. 261 (‘Ugro rājeti Mañjarikāraḥ’) on Manu IV. 212 (ugrāṇṇam) and on p. 280 of the same kāṇḍa he quotes from the Smṛti-Mañjarī three hemistichs cited on the word ‘parārikā’ (as a variety of palāṇḍu) from Āyurveda. Dr. Katre mentions three more passages from the Śrāddha-kāṇḍa (pp. 45-46, 46-47 about ‘Bhāruṇḍa’ ‘Kāleya’ from Mañjarikāra and Govindarāja and from pp. 258–59, where Smṛtimañjarikāra is quoteḍ There is no doubt now that the Kalpataru quotes from the Smṛtimañjarī of Govindarāja and that the latter’s literary activity cannot be placed later than about 1110 A. D. and that he should be assigned to the period 1000–1110 A. D. (since he mentions Dhāreśvara Bhojarāja and is mentioned in the Kalpataru and the Dāyabhāga ).

‘तथा गोविन्दराजेनापि मनुरटीकायां-अनुधापौत्रे संसारे दौहित्रनाप्युपयः । पूर्वेषां तु स्वप्राकारे पौत्रदौहित्रकाः समाः ॥ एतद्द्विष्ण्ववचनेन ऊद्धातः प्रागेव दौहित्रस्याधिकारो दर्शितः । स चास्मभ्यं न रोचते सदृशौ सद्रोतेरोडे- त्यादिविरोधात् । दायभाग XI. 2. 22-23 (Jiv.) ‘सदृशी’ । सदृशीनोडा’ is a verse of बृहस्पति quoted by दायभाग as बृहस्पति’s (in दायभाग XI. 2. 8 p. 179 (eḍ of Jivananda 1893) and by smṛti-Candrikā (Vyavahāra p. 296, Gharpure’s ed ). The smṛti-Candrikā reads ‘अपुत्रपौत्रसन्ताने’. H. D.—83 ↩
On मनु 2. 28 गोविन्दराज says ‘ ज्ञानकर्मसमुच्चयन्मोक्षावाप्तेः ’. ↩
Note the following where गोविन्दराज is criticized by कुल्लूक, मनु. II. 1, 22, 127 ; III. 11, 53, 127, 129, 285 ; IV. 7, 162 ; VI. 14, 79, 86 ; VII. 94, 211 ; VIII. 37, 142–143, 184, 333 ; IX. 68, 136, 141, 162, 206 ; X. 3 ; XI. 82, 180 ; XII. 86. 903A. On मनु II. 125, III. 50; and VIII. 37 गोविन्दराज is held up to special ridicule: हन्त गोविन्दराजेन विशेषमविवृण्वता । व्यक्तमङ्गीकृतमृते स्वेदारा- सुरतं यतैः ॥ on मनु III. 50; स्वेषु तिष्ठस्विति पद्विर्तयं न विवक्षितम् । इमा गोविन्दराजस्य राज्ञां नाद्रियामहे ॥ on मनु V. 104. It should be noted that the printed text of गोविन्दराज on मनु V. 104 is corrupt as it reads ‘ स्वेषु तिष्ठस्तु विवक्षितम् ’. ↩
अस्य सुमतिपत्तये काण्डानि लिख्यन्ते । तत्रादौ परिभाषाकाण्डं गर्भीधांनादि उप- नयनादि । संध्योपासनविधिः । अन्ये ब्रह्मचारिधर्माः । अध्ययनदि । पुनरध्ये ब्रह्मचारिधर्माः । ब्रह्मयज्ञविधिः । विवादिगृहस्थधर्माः । शूद्रधर्माः । वृयुप- देशाः । स्नानाविधिः । यमनियमकाण्डम् । प्रस्थानिकम् । दानविधिः । स्वापविधिः ( Continued on the next page ) ↩
( Continued from the previous page ) प्रोषितभर्तृकाय्र्माः । द्रव्यशुद्धिः। मूत्रादिशौचं। आचमननिमित्तानि । द्विरावमन- निमित्तानि । आचमनपवादः । आचमनविधिः । अत्रैव प्रतिषिध्याः । कमण्डलु- चर्चा । अन्यद्राचमनगतः । स्नानशुद्धिः । सचेलानि । प्रक्षालनादिशौचम् । इति कायिकम् । सोवर्णादिशौचं बेलादिशौचं तथा सिद्धादि भूम्यादि उदकादि अशुद्धयपवादाः। भोजनविधिः । मद्यामक्ष्यप्रकरणम् । प्रेतशुद्धिः । ब्राह्मणाशौचं। क्षत्रियाशौचं, जननाशौचं, अनुजाताद्याशौचं, स्त्रियाशौचं, सपिण्डसमानो- दकत्वं बीजसंबन्धाद्याशौचं, देशान्तरमृताशौचमाचार्याशौचमेकाहाशौचंरात्रानाशौचम् । निर्हरणादि । अनुगमनाद्याशौचम् । उदकक्रियादि पिण्डदानादि । अस्थिसंचयः । उदकादिनिषेधः । स्पर्शशौचम् । यमनियमाः । श्राद्धप्रकरणम् । कालादि । ब्राह्मणपरीक्षा । भोजनीयः । वर्षामिन्त्रणादि । देशः कालः । अवेक्षितकर्तव्यता । ब्राह्मणसंख्या । पुनरन्येतिकर्तव्यता । अमावास्यादिश्राद्धम् । एकोदिष्टं सपिण्डीकरणम् । आदिष्टकं मातृश्राद्धम् । अन्ये श्राद्धधर्माः । वृद्धि- श्राद्धम् । वामनस्यकाण्डं, प्रवनितकाण्डम् । शूद्रधर्मकाण्डम् । अनुलोमप्रतिलोम । तदस्मृत्युपदेशककाण्डम् । प्रायश्चित्तकाण्डम् । ↩
परिविषादयः संस्कारकाण्डे व्याख्याताः । folio 41 a; भाख्या: संस्कारकाण्ड उक्ताः । folio 106 a; सारसामयो भक्ष्यकाण्डौ व्याख्याताः; folio 58. ↩
मातुलस्य सुतामूढा मातुलगोत्रं तथैव च। समानप्रवरौ चैव द्विजश्चान्द्रायणं चरेत् ॥ नियोगात्पादितमातुलसुताग्रहणार्थं मातुलस्य सुतामिष्येत् । अन्यर्थमन्यमातुलगोत्रं तथैव चयनेनैव गताथं स्यात् । अत्र मातुलगोत्रपरिजयननिषेधः पुत्रिकापुत्रविषयः । यतः पाणिग्रहणिका मन्दाः पितृगोत्रापहारका इति । तथा पञ्चमी मातुलबन्धुभ्य इत्येवमादिव्याख्याना; परस्परविरुद्धानि च वाक्यानि श्राद्धकरणे उक्तानि । शिष्टेभ्यानुचितत्वात् । folio 95 a. ↩
On मनु III. 126 गोविन्दराज says ‘यतु न त्वेवैके सर्वेषां पिण्डे व्याख्यात- मिति सूत्रदर्शनोत्, निम्नयेत्येतं व्यचवरान् ( मनु III. 187 ) इति चेद्दामिधानात्, एकैकमुभयत्र वा इत्यस्य विस्तरप्रतिषेधार्थवादत्वमाह तदसन्,' मेधातिथि does quote the passage of the आश्रयलयनगृह्य and the verse of मनु ( III. 187 ); on मनु I. 103 गोविन्दराज says ‘यथार्थवादार्थत्वमस्य श्लोकस्य किंचिदुक्तं तदसिद्धप्रवर्त्ततेः (?) । युतु अर्थादीरंवयो वर्णाः ( मनु X. 1 ) इत्यादि स वेदविषयोनुवाद इति व्याख्यायाम्ः'; मेधातिथि does take the verse as an अर्थवाद and says ‘नात्र कचिन्निवृत्तिरत्र' on मनु XI. 178 मेधातिथि says 'वृषलचण चण्डायभेिप्रेता' and गोविन्दराज says ‘यतु चण्डात्र यत्र वृषलीति व्याचक्षते तदसनू'. Vide also गोविन्दराज on मनु 2. 201, 3. 160, 4. 119, 4. 222, 5. 134, 8. 293, 10. 28. ↩
संन्यासस्य विधिं कृत्स्नं प्रवक्ष्याम्यनुपूर्वशः । गोविन्दराजस्य मतं बौधायनमतं- यथा ॥ स्मृत्यथॅसार । p. 96. ↩

76. Pārijāta 78. The Kalpataru of Lakshmīdhara