78. The Kalpataru of Lakshmīdhara

Volume I: Part II pp. 663–699

78. The Kalpataru of Lakshmīdhara

78 The Kalpataru of Lakṣmīdhara The Kṛtyakalpataru or Kalpataru of Lakṣmīdhara exercised great influence over the Dharmaśāstra writers of Mithilā, Bengal and Northern India in general. It was an extensive work divided into fourteen kāṇḍaṣ For the first volume of the H. of Dh. published in 1930 the author could secure msṣ of only three kāṇḍas viz. Dāna, rājadharma and Vyavahāra. On reading the account of the Kalpataru in H. of Dh. Vol. I. Prof. K. V. Rangaswami Aiyangar saw the present author and asked him whether he (the present author) would undertake to edit the work. The present author stated that his hands were full owing to the work to be done on the other volumes of the H. of Dh. and that the Professor might under- take the bringing out of an edition of the Kalpataru if he likeḍ Prof. Rangaswami Aiyangar undertook the heavy task and edited in the Gaikwad’s Oriental Series (Baroda) eleven Kāṇḍas (out of the fourteen kāṇḍas of the Kalpataru ) and left three parts unedited when he passed away; but the present author learns that one part on Pratisthā may be published sooṇ Lakṣmīdhara himself refers to the work as Kalpavṛkṣa and Kalpadruma also (in verses 10 and 13 of the Introḍ of the Br. K.) and later writers and works also sometimes employ the synonyms (e. g. the Vivādaratnākara at the end refers to Kalpavṛkṣa in a paronomastic verse ). Prof. Aiyangar pub- lished the Dānakāṇḍa as the first instalment of the whole work in 1941 with a lengthy Introduction of 129 pageṣ On p. 18 of the Intro. to Dānakāṇḍa, Prof. Aiyangar set out what he then (in 1941) supposed to be the names of the fourteen kāṇḍas viz. I. Brahmacārī-kāṇḍa (published in 1948); II. Gṛhasthakāṇḍa (pub. in 1944 ); III. Naiyatakālika or Niyata- kāla or Āhnika (pub. in 1950); the matters dealt with the third kāṇḍa are : brushing the teeth, morning bath, procedure on that bath, japa, tarpaṇa, the five daily Yajñas (Vaiśva- deva and others), midday meal (in its various aspects and attendant actions), what should be done after midday meal, rātrikṛtya, rajasvalā (rules about a woman in her monthly illness ), actions to be done in parvan-tithis (amāvāsyā, full moon, 8th and 14th tithis and Saṅkrānti days ), actions to be done on several tithis in months from Caitra, offering respect to Agastya, care of cows, letting loose a bull, rules about listening to Purāṇas ; IV. Śrāddhakāṇḍa (pub. in 1950 ); V. Dānakāṇḍa (pub.¹ in 1941 with a general Intro. of 126 pages on the Kalpataru. In this vol., the Editor inserted on pp. 337-353 extracts from five works on Dāna viz. Dānasāgara of Ballālasena, Hemādri’s Dānakhaṇḍa (part of Caturvarga- cintāmaṇi ), Dānaratnākara of Cāṇḍeśvara, Dānavivekoddyota of Madanasimha, and Dānaprakāśa in Viramitrodaya of Mitramiśra It is difficult to understand why these extracts were includeḍ VI. On Vrata ( pub. in 1953 ). This kāṇḍa is principally based on Purāṇaṣ eleven in number, among which Bhavisya, Matsya and Varāha are the most prominent that in the Kṛta, Tretā, Dvāpara and Kali Yugas respectively Sujaya, Rāma, Dhanañjaya, Vikrama attained the position of supreme rulers ( sārvabhauma ) by performing vratas and that Vasundharā, the virtuous daughter of Vikrama dwelling in the Daśārṇa country ( Malva ) secured mokṣa by performing vrataṣ On pp. 36-38 it quotes 16 verses from Sumantu, the last of which avers that the Haihayas, Talajaṅghas, Turuṣkas ( Turks ), Yavanans and Śakas ( Scythians ) observing fasts ( in Vratas ) reached the status of brāhmaṇas in this very worlḍ

VII. It is difficult to say definitely what subject was dealt with in the 7th Kāṇḍa. It may have been either Pūjā worship of images ) or pratiṣṭhi ( consecration of images and ) temples ) or even both. The present author understands that some formes have been been printed as Pratisthākāṇḍa ( at Baroda ) but there is no Introductory verse ( as there is in most kāṇḍas expressly mentioning the number of the Kāṇḍa in the series of 14 kāṇḍas ). Further. the present author understands that the late Prof. Aiyangar left a copy of the Pūjā part ; but here also there is no Introductory verse about its place in the serieṣ The mṣ Begins with an² incomplete verse and ends also abruptly as shown below.

VIII. Tirthavivecanakāṇḍa ( pub. in 1942 )-visiting holy places, the greatness of Vārāṇasī. Prayāga, the Ganges, Gayā. Kurukṣetra, Pṛthūlaka Puskara, Madhurā, Ujjayinī, Narmalā, Kubjāmraka, Sukara, Kokāmukha, Bādari-āśrama, Mandāra, Śālagrāma, Stutasvāmin, Dvārakā, Lohārgala, Kedāra, Naimisa, and otherṣ Besides, this kāṇḍa speaks of the starting on the Mahāpatha (the great journey) referred to in Manu VI. 31, the Mahābhārata in its Mahāprasthānikaparva (declaring that Yudhiṣṭhira with his four brothers queen Draupadī and a faithful dog started on the Great Journey towards Himālaya and that they fell down dead one after another, Draupadī being the first and Bhīma the last. Volume IV of H. of Dh. Section IV (pp. 552–727) contains descriptions of several famous holy places and several hundred tīrthas are mentioned together with references to the Epics, Purāṇas and other works (in pp. 730–825), where less known tīrthas like Lohārgala, Stutasvāmin are mentioneḍ The Tirthakalpataru bases its treatment on the Mahābhārata (quoted 15 times ), 12 Purāṇas Matsya and Varāha being quoted 11 times each ). Vide Dr. Bhabatosh Bhattacharya’s paper in N. I. A. Poona Vol. IX. (1947 ) pp. 100–104 on “Vācaspati-miśra’s indebtedness to Lakṣmīdharabhaṭṭa”.

IX. (probably dealt with Prāyaścittas). That Lakṣmīdhara desired to devote one kāṇḍa to Prāyaścittas is clear from his own statement in the Gṛhasthakāṇḍa p. 314 (nara-kāṇḍa-etc. Prāyaścittakāṇḍe vakṣyāmaḥ). Besides, the Prāyaścittatattva of Raghunandana quotes several verses of Yama on the Gomatividyā from Prāyaścitta Kalpataru (p. 522–23). Vide H. of Dh. Vol. IV p. 108 where the whole passage from Yama on Gomati-vidyā has been quoteḍ Dr. S. L. Katre contributed a paper on ‘the Prāyaścittakāṇḍa, missing section of the Kalpataru’ to the J. O. I. ( Baroda ) Vol. VIII ( part 3 pp. 286–290. On p. 289 he describes a moth-eaten mṣ of Prāyaścittakāṇḍa from Benaras, furnishes a summary of the contents from 72 available folios of the mṣ containing more than 104 folios and he surmises that Pratiṣṭhā is a supplement of Pūjā. Dr. Katre sets out the different ( 32 ) topics dealt with in the mṣ he describes (pp. 289–290) and names the authors and works relied on (p. 290). It is possible to argue that Pūjā (worship ) follows after Pratiṣṭhā and that therefore the 7th Kāṇḍa might have been called Pratiṣṭhā and also included disquisitions on Pūjā.

X. Śuddhi-kāṇḍa (pub. in 1950). This is the smallest of the eleven kāṇḍas so far publisheḍ The mitākṣarā deals with āśaunca on Yāj. III. 1-34. This subject also is dealt with in the Śuddhikāṇḍa of the Kalpa- taru. Many of Yājñavalkya's verses (III. 1-34) have been quoted in the Śuddhikāṇḍa but in many cases without any comment whatever. Verses of this last type are Yāj. III. 1-2 (q. on p. 72 of Ś.), 3-5 (q. on . 85), 7-11 (q. on p. 91), 12-13 q. on p. 98 and p. 58), 24 (q. on p. 53), 25 (q. on p. 54), 26 (q. on p. 70), 28-29 (q. on p. 64), 31-34 (q. on pp. 115- 116 ). On ‘Yamasūktam’ mentioned in Yāj. III. 2; the Mit. points, out that it is the hymn beginning with ‘Pāreyī- vāmśam’ (Rg. X. 14. 1-16 ), but the Śuddhikāṇḍa does not refer to it on p. 72. On some of the verses the comment of the Mit. extends to some pages e. g. on III. 1-2 it is two closely printed pages, on III. 24 over two pages, on III. 28-29 ( two pages ). On Yāj. III. 15 (śuddhi-kāṇda p. 90 )³ the only explanation offered is that the word ‘kaṭānnam’ means ‘āśaucānnam’ while the Mit. has five lines of explana- tion on the verse and explains the word ‘sakaṭānnam’ as kaṭaśabdenāśaucam lakṣyate tat sahacaritaṁ-annaṁ sakaṭā- nnam (i. e. it takes ‘sakaṭānnam as one compound), while it seems that L. separated as ‘sa kaṭānnam’. On III. 22 the Mit. has a comment of 4th of a printed page, while L. explains only the words ‘śūdrasya tadardham nyāyāvartināḥ’ as ‘pākayajña-dvijāśuśrūṣādi-ratasya tadardham syāt’. These very words are used by the Mit. in its long comment. On Yāj. III. 30 quoted by L. (on Śuddhikāṇḍa p. 126 ) the Mit. has a lengthy discussion of more than two printed pages, while L. in Śuddhikāṇḍa (p. 126 ) sets out only two lines and a half of explanation almost in the same words (though not clear as the quotations below will show )⁴ The present author hopes that the comment in S'uddhikaumudi is copied from or suggested by the Mit.; and that in the effort to summarise clarity has been lost.

The S'uddhi (purification) is of two kinds, external and internal; the first arises in three ways viz. from family, food, the body. The principal topics are: impurity on death and birth, the rules about these, rules when a period of aśauca follows one that has already occurred and has not ended; aśauca in cases where the person concern- ed is in a different country; periods of impurity in the case of a child's death or for a child, aśauca about women relatives (unmarried or married), periods of aśauca in cases of persons dying in battle or in crowds or dying by lightning, of persons sentenced by the king or dying for saving the life of brāhmaṇas or where the king changes the period for state purposes as provided in Gaut. Dh. S. XIV. 43-46 and Viṣṇu 22. 47-52); persons for whom there is no aśauca prescribed; aśauca for supiṇḍas and asapiṇḍas; rules about the persons carrying the dead body to the cemetery; burial of infants (and not cremation) and cremation; description of the rites on the cremation of an agnihotrin and one not so; bath and offering water to the deceased; for whom there is no offering of water (such as those who commit suicide); comforting those bereaved (Yaj. III. 7-11 ); asthīsañcayāna (collecting the ashes); purification of the body ( Manu V. 105-109, Yaj. III. 31-34 ); cases of purification by bath; purification of substances (such as precious stones, golden or silver articles ), purification of things that are spoilt by contact with urine or excreta &c.; purification of the ground, of waters and of cooked food; exceptions to the rules about impurity. ##XI. Rājadharmakāṇḍa ( pub. in 1943 ). This is one of the smallest and the weakest sections of the Kalpataru and by its meagre and pedestrian contents offers an anti-climax to the great claims made by Lakṣmīdhara in the Introductory verse of this Kāṇḍa which says ²⁹ 'In this 11th kāṇḍa Lakṣmī-dhara describes the collection of Rājadharmas, Lakṣmīdhara whose mind is ( bent ) on meritorious actions and to whose wonderful greatness in political wisdom are due, all such results as the placing of the world on the path of right, as the fact that elephants are found attached to the houses of those endowed with good qualities and the fact that king, Govinda-candra planted his feet on the heads of kingṣ Even Prof. Rangacharya, the editor, who every now and then sings the praises of Lakṣmīdhara, was constrained to observe in his lengthy Introduction ( 95 pages ) 'to a modern student of ancient Indian polity it will also appear somewhat barren and theoretical when compared with, for example, the Kautiliya ( p. 9 ) and 'the great expectations raised by these features may not be met by a study of this book ( p. 11 ). The text printed in very large type occupies only 176 pages ( exclud-ing the Devayātrā-vidhi and festivals ) and if smaller type had been used ( as in the Nir. edition of the mitākṣarā ) it would have probably occupied not more than 70 pages ( of the Nir. edition type ) and at least lesser space than 95 pages devoted to the Introductioṇ The topics discussed are: praise of the kingly office, king's coronation, the qualities requisite in a king, ministers, forts ( including the capital ), construction of palace ( and other matters, flag &c ), administration of the State, Royal treasury ( and revenue ), Daṇḍa ( i. e. royal forces ( described in three verses and two lines ), mitra ( i. e. ally ) in a little over two pages; Rājaputrarakṣā i. e. guarding and education of the prince ( in nine verses from Matsyapurāṇa and two from Mahābhārata with two lines of explanation), mantras ( consultation with ministers ) for settling policies, Ṣāḍguṇya ( six lines of policy, namely making peace, decision to go to war, Yāna, āsana, Dvaidhibhāva and Saṁśraya; ( only verses of Manu VII 160-180 and IX. 298-300 are quoted without a word of comment by himself or taken from predecessors; Yātrā ( invasion against an enemy, pp. 115-143 ); many works quoted without hardly any explanation by Lakṣmīdhara and the edition addings mostly passages from Vīramitrodaya and a few from Haradatta and others; abhiṣiktakṛtyāni ( what the crowned king should do from day to day ); in pp. 178-212 are described festivals to be undertaken and celebrated by the king ( such as Devayātrā in all the days of Vaisakha quoting a long passage from Brahma-purāṇa on pp. 178-181 with only one line of his own comment; Kaumudīmahotsava ( pp. 182-3 ) and the festival of raising the flag in honour of Indra (pp. 184-190) from Devipurāṇa.⁶ Each page can contain only 11 or 12 verses, if there be no foot-notes ( as on p. 74 ), but as almost every page has foot-notes about variant readings and also contains extracts from the Virāmitrodaya, Kullūka, Maskaribhāṣya and other works; in some cases as much as half a page is occupied by noteṣ Taking the above facts into consideration, the high claims made for his excellent policies and eliminating the extract on festivals, what remains of rājadharma in this kāṇḍa is meagre and does little credit to the learning and experience of a great administrator, minister and commander.

The festivals dealt with are : Mahānavamīpūjā on Āśvina bright half, 9th tithi, ( pp. 191-195 from Devipurāṇa without a word of comment ); Cinhavidhi ( in Kārtika ) in honour of Devī from Devipurāṇa in pp. 196-198; Gavotsarga (in pp. 199-200, from Devipurāṇa); Vasor-dhārā ( pp. 201-212 from Bhaviṣyapurāṇa ).

This Kāṇḍa was published at Lahore in 1942 by Mr. Jagadish Lal also.

All the topics dealt with in this Kāṇḍa except Rājapra-śāsti, Abhiśeka ( pp. 9-17 ), Vāstukarmavidhi ( pp. 55-78 ), Rājaputrābhirakṣā ( 2 pages ) are specified by Yāj. ( in I. 309-78 ) and the Mit. It may be noted that the Mit. avoids quoting Purāṇa passages on rājadharma, while L. quotes Purāṇas profusely, viz. Matsya ( about 285 verses ), Devipurāṇa ( 190 verses ), Brahmapurāṇa ( 81 verses ). He quotes only about 84 verses from the Mahābhārata in this Kāṇḍa (when the Śāntiparva alone devotes over 100 adhyāyas to Rājadharma ), quotes about 76 verses from other Purāṇas (in all about 726 verses from the Purāṇas and Mahābhārata ).

XII. Vyavahārakāṇḍa XII. Vyavahārakāṇḍa ( pub. in 1953 ).⁷ The first verse states "Lakṣmīdhara dilates in the 12th Kāṇḍa on the subject of Vyavahāra ( Law and Administration of justice ), Lakṣmīdhara, on listening to whose various learned words clarifying the ways of vyavahāra in such matters as doing justice, established by the force of his intellect clever in considering the dicta of several śāstras, learned men are thrilled at each word". The editor includes no Introduction in this kāṇḍa. The book is unnecessarily inflated by adding numerous pages of extracts from earlier and later workṣ The pages being 834 ( of the text ), one is likely to run away with the idea that it is a very extensive work. It is nothing of that sort. Very large type is employed and only 12 verses can be printed on each page even when there are no footnoteṣ In the Mit. edition of 1926 ( Nir. Press ) the verse quotations in the coṃ are printed continuously and the footnotes also are printed continuously in very small type and occupy one or two lines and extracts from other works are very rarely citeḍ The remarkable feature of the editing of Kalpataru kāṇḍas is that variant readings in the text are printed, even if brief, not in continuous lines, but one below the other even if each variant reading contains only a few letters, e. g. pp. 15-20 ), Tīrtha-kāṇḍa and Gr. Kāṇḍa pp. 230-34 may be seen; but in the Vyavahārakāṇḍa examples of unnecessary waste of space are found by the dozen, vide pp. 699 and 819 on each of which 13 references each occupying nearly half a page could have been compressed in five lines or less, if they had been printed continuously. But even this is a small matter in the Vyavahāra sectioṇ The learned editor quotes very large extracts from works earlier and later than the Kalpataru. Some glaring examples may be indicateḍ Viśvarūpa, whose priority to Lakṣmīdhara by a few centuries is an established matter, is quoted frequently and even long extracts are given ( vide pp. 8, 13, 17, 45, 60, 72, 82, 158 &c. ). Similarly, Asahāya (coṃ of Nārada) is quoted dozens of times (extreme exam- ples being on pp. 175 and 320, where more than half the page is occupied by a quotation from Asahāya); Medhātithi also is quoted dozens of times (e. g. on pp. 7-8, 20, 24, 27, 29, 37, 58, 80, 88 &c. ). Authors and works later than Lakṣmī- dhara’s are also quoted in footnotes e. g. the Smṛticandrikā (on pp. 26, 56, 66, 438 &c). The Vivādaratnākara is quoted on almost every page as the editor himself admits on p. 845. What is the object of these extensive and numerous quotations from authors later than Lakṣmīdhara? In the Introduction it could have been easily demonstrated how some works borrow extensively from the Kalpataru. The Vīrāmitrodaya (which belongs to the first half of the 17th century) is cited about a hundred timeṣ One does not know whether the editor had been commissioned to do all this or whether he did all this at his own sweet will. The text as printed is several times conjectural: for example, vide note 4 on p. 376 of Vy. 1. 5. Certain other matters must also be pointed out here. Many verses of Yāj. are cited in the Vya- vahāra-Kalpataru without a word of explanation or comment, while the mitākṣarā explains them at length. A few striking examples may be cited here. (1) On Yāj. I. 52 -53 the Mit. has a long note on the meaning of ‘sapiṇḍa’ and on limits of sapiṇḍa relationship. Kalpataru (Gr. kāṇḍa) has no discu- ssion on thiṣ⁸ (2) On Yāj. I. 81 (and 79) the Mit. holds a long discussion whether it is ṛddhi, niyamā or parisankhyā. Kalpataru (on Gr.) has no such discussion; (3) On Yāj. II. 24 the Kalpataru (Vy. p. 186) has not a word of explana- tion or comment, while the Mit. devotes two printed pages to this verse; (4) On Yāj. II. 20 the Vy. p. 265 has four lines of explanation while Mit. devotes one page; (5) On Yāj. II. 52 the Mit. has one page of exegesis, while Kalpataru (Vy. p. 303) has not a word of comment of its own; (6) On Yāj. II. 152 (samanta vā &c.) the Vy. p. 442 has not a word of comment, while Mit. devotes more than one page of comment, (7) On Yāj. II. 265 (first half) the comment is almost the same in the Mit. and Kalpa³ Vy. p. 361). There are many passages of Yāj. on which the Mit. has elaborate note and Kalpa°. (Vy.) has not a word, though it cites the verse e.g. vide Yāj. II. 123 ( Kalpa°, Vy. p. 664 ), Yāj. II. 140-142 ( Mit. devotes one page to explanation, while Kalp. Vy. p. 667 quotes these verses but offers not a word of comment. Similarly, on Yāj. II. 119 Mitākṣarā has a long note, but Kalpa° Vy. p. 674 simply quotes the verse.

Scores of Yāj. verses occur on which Kalpataru is silent and Mit. has long notes and so references to the pages of the Kalpataru ( on Vy. ) and the verses of Yāj. ( not mentioned immediately above ) are given below in one place: p. 8 ( I. 1, Mit. half a page ), 17 ( II. 19, Mit. ten lines ), 45 ( II. 2, pages in Mit. ), 60 ( II. 6, Mit. two pages ), p. 68 ( II. 7 half verse ), ( Mit. has two pages ); 92 ( II. 22, one page in Mit. ), 105 ( II. 63-69, mit. one page ), 142 ( II. 81-82 ), Mit. one page and a half ), 147 (II. 83, Mit. nearly one page ), 162 ( II. 91, one page in Mit. ), 180 ( II. 27 half verse, 1½ pages in Mit. ), 185 ( II. 27 half verse Mit, more than half a page ), 204 ( II. 98, nearly one page in Mit. ), 218 ⁹ ( II. 100-102 Kalpa° two lines, over three pages in Mit. ), 308 ( II. 56, Mit. more than half a page ), 318 ( II. 49, Mit. 11 lines of comment ), 350 ( II. 169, Mit. has nine lines ), and criticizes Śrīkara ) 374 ( II. 175, Mit. more than half page ), 376 ( II. 176, Mit. has one page ), 436 ( II— 258, Mit. has half a page ), 442 ( II. 152, more than a page in Mit. ), 537 ( II. 275, Mit. has more than a ), 586 ( II. 288, about a page in Mit. ), 587 ( III. 232-3, two thirds of a page ), 598 ( II. 290 more than a page in Mit. ), 619 ( I. 86, Mit. 1½ pages ), 654 ( II. II4-5, Mit. one page ), 671 ( II. 124 Mit. one page ), 676 ( II. 118-119, Mit. two pages ), 716 ( II. 132, Mit. more than a page ), 721 ( II. 127, Mit. more than a page ), 764 ( II. 199-200, Mit. half a page ), 825 ( I. 96, Mit. one page ). Many such examples about verses of Yāj. ( commented upon at some length by the Mit. and only quoted without comment or with very brief comments by Lakṣmīdhara ) can be cited from other Kāṇḍas, but for reasons of space the pre- sent author has to be content with stating some striking exa- mples from the Śrāddha-kāṇḍa. Yāj. I. 256 refers to the times of Ekoddiṣṭaśrāddha. The Mit. has two closely printed pages of comment on thiṣ Kalpataru ( on Śrāddha ) merely quotes the verse and has no word of comment. Similarly, on Yāj. I. 252 the Mit. devotes one page of comment, while Kalpa° ( on Śrāddha ) has no comment ). Yāj. I. 253–254 ( deal- ing with Sapiṇḍīkaraṇa ) have three printed pages of comment. ( one page being devoted to evolving order out of varying views of the Sapiṇḍīkaraṇa of one’s mother ( acc. to Paithi- nasi, Yama, and Uśanas, while the Kalpataru on Śrāddha quotes Yāj. I. 253–54 ( on p. 257 ) and sets out only one view; ( p. 258 ), but the Mit. has a vyavasthā on three different views similarly, on Yāj. I. 256 ( on the proper times for Ekoddi- ṣṭa-śrāddha the Mit. quotes the verses of about a dozen sages and of Dākṣiṇātyas, Urddhas and brings order out of the chaos, while Kalpataru on Śrāddha° ( pp. 250 and 262 ) quotes Yāj. I. 256 ( badly printing it on p. 250 ) and hardly refers to several sages and viewṣ The Kalpa°. on Śrāddha p. 257 quotes the two verses but has only less than two lines of comment.

The present author finds that, compared with citations from Kātyāyana, Nārada, Bṛhaspati and Manu, the Kalpataru ( on Vyavahāra ) is sparing in its quotations from yajña- valkya and further has no words of comment in many places at all even when it cites Yāj.

The present writer has a suspicion that Lakṣmīdhara wanted to avoid comparison of his performance with the lear- ned explanations of the Mit.

That scholars should not be misled by the bulky nature of the volume on Vyavahāra, some further matters must be brought to their notice. On pp. 394, 395 the text consists of only three lines and on p. 397 of only five lines, the rest being taken up by extracts from other works and argumentṣ In the following cases half the page or more than half is taken up by quotations from other works or arguments ( in a few cases ) or readings ( rarely ) viz. pp. 320–1, 365, 387–90, 392, 398, 400-402, 404, 410, 439, 450, 461, 514, 538, 539, 605, 635, 637, 649, 658, 667, 674, 679, 732, 739, 759, 765, 769, 804-5.

The present author has not shown the waste of space in in other kāṇḍas for reasons of space. The same thing is found in other kāṇḍaṣ For example, in the Gr. Kāṇḍa half a page or more has been taken up by the footnotes, viz pp. 4, 7, 9, 10, 14 18-20, 24, 35-6, 40, 48, 50, 62 (18 footnotes), 70, 73, 96, 181-2, 230, 232, 301, 415 etc. After carefully considering the matters to which attention has been drawn above, the present author asserts without fear of contradiction that the text of kāṇḍa XII. on Vyavahāra is smaller in mere extent than the Mitākṣarā on Yāj. II. ( dealing with the same subject which has been printed in small type and in a com- pact manner and that, as regards quality, it is far inferior to the Mitākṣarā. It is unnecessary to cite instances where Mit. refers to the Pūrvamīmāṁsā and its commentors in the sec- tion on Vyavahāra alone ( as in the Intro. to Yāj. II. 114, on II. 135-136, II. 137 &c. ), while in the Kalpataru on Vyava- hāra discussions on or references to Pūrvamīmāṁsā are gene- rally conspicuous by their absence.

XIII. The thirteenth Kāṇḍa dealt with ‘Śāntika’ ( pro- pitiatory rites for averting a deity's wrath or effects of evil planetary influences or other misfortunes ) and Pauṣṭika rites such as homa and the like performed for longevity &c. For detailed treatment of Śāntika rites, vide H. of Dh. Vol. V part 2 pp. 719-814 and for the meaning of Pauṣṭika, vide H. of Dh. Vol. V part I p. 349.

XIV. Mokṣakāṇḍa pub. in 1945 ( The Introductory verse¹⁰ to this kāṇḍa states ‘Lakṣmīdhara, the best among brāhmaṇas, speaks in the 14th kāṇḍa about Mokṣa after which ( Mokṣa ) hanker Sananda and others that secured supreme bliss, which ( mokṣa ) is ( or consists in ) non-difference from the Highest Brahma that is pure consciousness ( cit. ), that is inconceivable ( to ordinary human minds ) and that freely manifests itself when the darkness caused by Māyā that is difficult to remove but that drops away ( vanishes ) when there is perfect discrimination of the words of the Vedānta ( the Upaniṣads ). Vide the verse 'cinmayasyāprameyasya &c.' quoted on p. 118 ṇ 305 of H. of Dh. Vol. V part 1. On reading the Introductory verse which speaks of Māyā as tamas which is removed by correct knowledge ( viveku ) and which 73. The Kalpataru of Lakṣmīdhara speaks of Mokṣa as identity ( ekātānatā ) with highest Brah- man, the conclusion follows that it breathes the pure Advaita Vedānta. The present author has no desire to argue at length with the editor who did not apparently know his own mind as shown by the notes cited here. In the notes (to Mokṣa Kāṇḍa ) on p. 327 he remarks ‘his ( Lakṣmīdhara's ) view of Mokṣa does not agree with the Advaita or the Viśiṣṭādvaita and adds ‘Mukti is said to consist in the absorption in the jīva in Brahman ( aikya, laya or tanmaya ). This is the view of Bhāskara’. On p. 340 of the Notes on Viṣṇu- purāṇa quoted at great length on pp. 102-108 of Mokṣa- kāṇḍa the editor remarks ‘in fact the long quotation from the Viṣṇupurāṇa which is held up as the true view ( and so the author's ) contains many indications of a trend towards Viśi- ṣṭādvaita and of opposition to Advaita’ and then specifies four indicationṣ As stated above the Editor was in two minds and probably Lakṣmīdhara and his helpers might have been in the same predicament. On p. 343 the explanation of the word ‘Yogayuktaḥ’ in Gītā V. 6-7 by Lakṣmīdhara as ‘advaitadarśane sthitaḥ’ induces the editor to say that Lakṣmīdhara leans more to Bhāskara. In the notes on p. 341 referring to Viṣṇupurāṇa ( 3 verses quoted on p. 113 ) the edi- tor remarks ‘the leaning of Lakṣmīdhara to Viśiṣṭādvaita in this may be noted’. The present author does not want to say much here. One thing appears to be almost certain viz. that Lakṣmīdhara composed his digest according to the present author at the earliest from 1125 to 1145 A. D. It is difficult to hold that the bhāṣya of Rāmānuja who belonged to South India had penetrated to Kanoj and was studied there ten years before 1130 A. D. by Lakṣmīdhara and the pandits who helped hiṃ

Besides, Lakṣmīdhara and his helpers do not appear to have been profound students of the Upaniṣads and the Vedā- ntasūtra and the bhāṣyas thereoṇ They appear to have been mere paurāṇikas or reciters of the Mahābhārata so far as Mokṣa is concerneḍ Lakṣmīdhara, after quoting Bhagavad- gītā II. 59 ( on p. 98 ) explains ( on p. 99 ) ‘rasavarjam-itya- tra rasa rāga iti Gītābhāṣyam’. It should be noted that the word ‘Gītābhāṣyam’ is in the singular ( nominative ). The natural and proper inference is that he refers to a single bhāṣya on the Gītā. If he meant to refer to more than one bhāṣya on the Gītā, he would have said Gītābhāṣye ( nomi- native dual) or Gitābhasyāni (plural). The editor jumps to the conclusion that L. was conversant with the bhāṣyas of both Sankara and Rāmānuja. This is an unwarranted conclusioṇ L. meant to refer to a single bhāṣya that is clear. The learned editor could have said that L. refers to Rāmānuja's bhāṣya alone. He would have then been met by the reply that Sankara's bhāṣya was about 300 years earlier than Lakṣmīdhara and than Rāmānuja's bhāṣya and Sankara does explain the word 'rasa' as 'rāga' (as admitt- ed by the editor) and that there is nothing to prove that Rāmānuja's bhāṣya on the Gitā was studied in north India as early as the first and second quarters, of the 12th century A. D.

Rāmānuja is said to have been persecuted by Kulottunga Cola (1070-1120 A. D.). Prof. Nīlakanta Sastri in his work on the ‘Colas’ (2nḍ eḍ 1955) appears to hold that the mate- rial is shifty, that to refrain from dogmatising is as neces- sary as it is difficult, but (on p. 644) he says the leading instance of religious intolerance in the period of Cola rule is that of the persecution of Rāmānuja and his followers by a Cola monarch whose identity is not altogether free from doubt. The traditional dates of Rāmānuja's birth and death are 1017–1137 A. D. (i. e. he is supposed to have lived for 120 years). He composed many workṣ His bhāṣya on the Gitā presupposes his bhāṣya on the Vedāntasūtra and the bhāṣya on the latter (called Śrībhāṣya) presupposes his work Vedārthasangraha (vide Śrībhāṣya, eḍ by M. M. Abhyankar- sastri, on I. 1 p. 58). He wrote also other workṣ If we believe that he was persecuted by Kulottunga (Chola or some other Chola King) his works could not have spread to the North easily or before his death. Further, the Mokṣakāṇḍa is the last of the 14 Kāṇḍas and so must have been the last to be handled in the series of Kāṇḍaṣ It will be shown a little later on that the kāṇḍas were taken up in order one after another and not in pellmell order. The present author thinks that Lakṣmīdhara refers in the word Gitābhāṣyam on p. 99 of the Mokṣakāṇḍa to the bhāṣya of Śańkarācārya (in a colour- less way), probably because he had no definite opinions of his own on the abstruse questions of the branches of Advaita philosophy. In E. I. Vol. XIV pp. 83-96 (on the Srirangam plates of Mummadi Nayaka of Saka-samvat 1280, eḍ by T. A. 78. The Kalpataru of Lakṣmīdhara

Gopinatharao ) at p. 86 reference is made to Rāmānuja's stay for not less than 20 years in Hoysala country and to his return to Śrīrangam after the death of the prosecuting Cola king in A. D. 1118 and that the remaining third part of the Śrībhāṣya was finished theṇ This would lead to the conclusion that the Śrībhāṣya was completed at the earliest about 1120 A. D. or a little later. The Gītābhāṣya pre-supposes the Śrībhāṣya and therefore it might have been composed about 1125 or later. Some years must have elapsed before msṣ of it reached Northern India and were studied there. If the ' Gitābhāṣyam ' mentioned in the Mokṣakāṇḍa ( p. 99 ) is to be understood as Rāmānuja's bhāṣya it would follow that the Mokṣa-kāṇḍa of the Kalpataru could not have been composed before at least 1140 or 1145 A. D.

The above views have been advanced on the basis more or less of the traditional dates of Rāmānujācārya's birth and death.

No epigraphic record directly mentioning Rāmānuja has been found so far.

The results of modern research differ a great deal from the traditional accounts and among themselveṣ An impor- tant contribution is that of Mr. T. A. Gopinatha Rao who delivered the Sir Subrahmanya Aiyyar Lectures on 'the History of Śrī-Vaiṣṇavas ' in 1917, which were published in 1923. He refers ( pp. 14–15 ) to several Guruparamparās and monogra- phs on individual ācāryaṣ The earliest extant work ( accord- ing to him ) is the Divyasūricarita of Garuḍavāhana Paṇḍita¹² who claims to be a contemporary of Rāmānujācārya and it mentions no yugas and years but only the month, tithi and the nakṣatra at the time of the Ālvārs and ācāryaṣ It appears to the present author that most of these traditional accounts (particularly the later ones) are altogether unreliable. For example, the dates of the birth and death of Śrī Rāmānuja are given in them as 1017 and 1137 A. D. But in some accounts about Āḷvandār, the grandson of Nātha- muni and the Guru of Rāmānuja, it is stated that he (i.e., Āḷvandār) was born after 1024 A. D. i. e. the traditional accounts lead to this that the teacher was born after the disciple (vide p. 31 of Gopinatha Rao's Lectures ). It is not necessary for the present author to go into the different dates and eventṣ Two-thirds of the Śrībhāṣya had been finished, according to the traditional sources, when the Cola persecution began and it was completed, according to the Rāmānuja- rya-divyacaritain, in Śaka 1077 (1155 A. D. ) Vide p 34 of Gopinath Rao's Lectureṣ The Gītābhāṣya of Rāmānuja was composed (as proved by internal evidence ) after the Śrī- bhāṣya. If the word Gītābhāṣyam (on p. 99 of the Vy. Kāṇḍa ) refers to Rāmānuja's bhāṣya as Prof. Aiyangar argues (vide above) then the Vy. Kāṇḍa must have been completed long after 1155 A. D. There is no doubt that the Mit. was completed before 1125-26 A. D. at the latest (as shown above ). Therefore, it would follow that L. came several decades after it and borrowed from it. Mr. Gopinath Rao advances certain arguments and concludes (p. 34) ‘it is extremely likely that the date of the completion of the work ( Śrī-bhāṣya ) was 1047 Śaka (1125 A. D. ) and Śaka 1077 is a mistake for 1047’. On pp. 37-38 Mr. Gopinath Rao holds that the persecutor of Rāmānuja was the Cola king Kūlottunga I. On the other hand, Mr. T. N. Subramaniam in the long Introduction to South Indian temple Inscriptions Vol. III part 2 (Madras Govt. Oriental Series No. CLVI adds a note on the date of Rāmānuja (pp. 147-160), and holds that the Divyasūri-caritam and Yatirājavaibhavam are later compositions, that Tamil verses quoted in the Rāmā- nujārya-divyacaritai are perhaps the earliest of the available materials and draws the following conclusions (p. 160):

1. Kūļottunga II was the Cola monarch who was the contemporary of Rāmānuja and who persecuted him and the followers of the Vaiṣṇava faith; 2. the flight of Rāmānuja from the Chola dominion to the Hoysaḷa country took place in 1138 A. D. 3. he returned to Śrīrangam after twelve years on hearing of the death of the Chola who persecuted him in 1150 A. D. 4. the Śrībhāṣyam was completed only in Śaka 1977 or 1155-56 A. D. after his return from Mysore. If these conclusions were accepted, it would follow that the Gītābhāṣya was completed by Rāmānuja about or after 1160 A. D. and that, if ‘Gitābhāṣyam’ on p. 99 of Mokṣakāṇḍa refers to Rāmānuja’s bhāṣya then that part was composed not earlier than 1165–70 A. D. i. e. about fifty years after the latest date for the Mitākṣarā.

The references to the Upaniṣads and the Vedāntasūtra in the Mokṣakāṇḍa are very few. On p. 6 there is a reference to Chāndogya Up. (VIII. 3. 4). On p. 62 in explaining Manu VI. 83 ‘adhyātmikaṁ ca satatam Vedāntābhihitam ca yat’, there is a reference to the Br. Up. but the Brahmasūtra passage is not expressly stateḍ On p. 143 the Chāndogya Up. VIII. 2.1 is mentioned and Vedāntasūtra IV. 4. 1 relating to it is quoteḍ On p. 262 a short passage from Br. Up. VI. 2.15 ‘arciso ahaḥ, ahna āpūryamāṇa-pakṣam’ is quoted and very briefly explaineḍ The Upaniṣads, the Vedāntasūtra and Gītā are held by all ācāryas to be the three primary and principal sources of Vedāntaśāstra. The first two do not appear to have been much studied or relied on by Lakṣmī- dhara and his helpers; they have hardly quoted even a dozen Upaniṣad passages nor even three sūtras out of the 555 of the Vedāntasūtra, but have quoted hundreds of verses from the Mahābhārata and Purāṇaṣ There is no reference to basic texts like ‘tat-tvamasi’ (Chāndogya VI. 8.7 repeated seve- ral times later) or ‘ahaṁ brahmāsmi’ (Br. Up. I. 4. 10), or ‘Satyaṁ jñānam-anantam Brahma’ Tai Up. II. 1). Here and there a verse is quoted (which occurs in an Upaniṣad as the verse ‘eṣa sarvesu’ which is Kāṭhopaniṣad 3 12 but cited after Gītā passages (on p. 133 of 14th Kāṇḍa). On p. 143 one passage from Chāṇ Up. is quoted and a sūtra is quoteḍ

On p. 202 the editor cites a few words¹³ from Br. Up. III. 8.9 and II. 1.20 and from Chāṇ Up. I. 5.3, all in a mutilated state without specifying the work from which they are takeṇ Lakṣmīdhara quotes about 105 verses from the Manu-smṛti in Mokṣakāṇḍa (principally from chapters VI and XII). From the Mahābhārata hundreds of verses are quoted among the Purāṇas, the Viṣṇupurāṇa, the Mārkaṇḍeya, Narasimha, Brahma, Brahmāṇḍa and Vāyu are largely quoteḍ Among smṛti writers, Yāj., Dakṣa, Devala, Śaṅkha, Śaṅkhālikhita, Hārīta are largely quoteḍ Many verses are quoted from the Yogiyājñavalkya, comparatively a late work. This shows that the chief primary sources of Vedānta viz. Upaniṣads and the Vedāntasūtra were almost totally neglected and secondary and even tertiary sources such as Purāṇas and Yogiyājñavalkya are very much in evidence. The topics discussed in the Mokṣakāṇḍa are: Introduction to Mokṣa (from Mārkaṇḍeyapurāṇa, chap. 38), Mokṣasvarūpa, Vānaprasthya (becoming a forest hermit), the dharmas of a forest hermit (Manu VI. 5–16 and 27–32 and others), the stage of a Yati (chiefly Manu VI. 33–37 and 41 etc.), the procedure of sannyāsa, Dharmas of a Yati, viz. Vairāgya (freedom from desires), giving up Kāma, anger, greed &c., control of senses; creation of the tattvas acc. to Sāṅkhya; thoughts on the bodies of gods, on human bodies (as dirty &c.) and of lower animals; Jīva and Brahma; about Jñāna and Karma; the matters that lead to ātmajñāna; Yoga with its ramifications; the nature of dhyeya (what is to be contemplated upon); signs when one is successfully pursuing Yoga; the ten Upasarga (hindrances) of Yoga; the Vibhūtis (or siddhis, that is esoteric powers) due to practice of Yoga; who is a sthitaprajña and his characteristics, doings &c.; what happens to him who fails before reaching complete Yoga; signs of approaching death; passing of the soul from the body.

From certain references in the kāṇḍas themselves it clearly appears that the fourteen kāṇḍas were composed one after another in order and were not being dealt with simultaneously. For example, on p. 176 of Br. K. it is stated ‘Japetīkartavyatām Naiyatakālike vakṣyāmaḥ’ (the Naiya-ta° being the 3rd Kāṇḍa); on p. 314 of the Gṛhastha kāṇḍa we have ‘narakāṁśca prāyaścitta-kāṇḍe vakṣyāmaḥ’ (Prā-yaścitta-kāṇḍa being the 9th ). On p. 332 of Gṛhasthakāṇḍa ‘śuśrūṣāśvarūpanivṛttau Brahmacārikāṇḍebhihitau’¹⁵ (Br. K. is the first and Gr. K is second ).

TABLE SHOWING SOME PARTICULARS SUCH AS PAGES ABOUT ELEVEN VOLUMES SO FAR PUBLISHED

| Kāṇḍa | Introduction excluding Preface. | Text pp. | Appendices including index of half verses and V. L. in Msṣ pp. | Price Rṣ | | :-------------- | :------------------------------ | :------- | :------------------------------------------------------------- | :-------- | | 1. Brahma° | 93 | 280 | 48 | 11 | | 2. Gṛhastha | 132 | 435 | 77 | 12 | | 3. Naiyatakāla | 58 | 480 | 95 | 19-50 | | 4. Śrāddha | 51 | 279 | 68 | 15 | | 5. Dāna | 129 | 313 | 101 | 9 | | 6. Vrata | 14 | 469 | 10 | 17 | | 7. (not Pub ) | | | | | | 8. Tīrtha | 80 | 264 | 33 | 8 | | 9. (not Pub.) | | | | | | 10. Śuddhi | 42 | 182 | 38 | 9.36 | | 11. Rājadharma | 95 | 212 | 61 | 10 | | 12. Vyavahāra | None | 834 | 12 | 26.75 | | 13. Śāntika (not Pub.) | | | | | | 14. Mokṣa | 62 | 262 | 91 | 12 | | | 756 | 4010 | 634 | 149.61| A few remarks about the text of this large nibandha would not be out of place. The manuscript material was rather meagre and inferior. For example, on p. VIII in the Preface to the Br. Kāṇḍa it is stated that the edition is based on a single ms and on p. IX it is stated that the Udaipur ms ( which belongs to the 16th century A. D. probably ) was full of large elisions and omissions, that such omissions were filled up from citations of the same passages in later digests and that the missing parts so supplied are shown within rectangular bracketṣ On p. 279 in a note the Editor himself says that the mṣ is very defective. The editor does not give even a specimen page of that mṣ nor does he describe who the scribe was or how many folios it containeḍ In Vy. Kāṇḍa on p. 376 the editor remarks ( in note 4 ) mss corrupt, passages restored conjecturally from the msṣ and the following comment Vivādaratnākara ( then quotes three lines from V. R. p. 130 ). The most remarkable thing is that he does not put his conjectural reading in square brackets as he does in some other caseṣ On p. 377 he notes that there is a gap of more than two printed pages up to the top of p. 380 in Udaipur and Bikaner msṣ In the case of the Vratakāṇḍa ( 6th in the series of kāṇḍas ) the Editor states ( on p. VI Preface ) that the edition 'is based on the Nagpur and Ujjain Msṣ Not a word more is said about the scribe, the number of folios, the date of the copying of the msṣ or other detailṣ That page also states that the Nagpur Mṣ was so brittle that the curator would not allow a mechanical photographing and that somehow a transcript of such a dilapidated mṣ was made on the spot and supplied to the Editor. One would naturally feel great diffidence before drawing chronological and other conclusions based on a text that is constituted from such materialṣ As regards the Śrāddhakāṇḍa, there is no descrip- tion of the msṣ anywhere. As regards some Kāṇḍas the msṣ material seems to have been somewhat better. For example, as regards the Dāna-kāṇḍa, on pp. 124-126 of the Introduc- tion he gives some information of the msṣ relied upon for constituting the text. But the description of the msṣ is not what is required in such cases but is vague. In this kāṇḍa the editor expends thirty pages ( pp. 383-412 ) for set- ting out the readings of a ms from the Nagpur Bhosle Raja's Library. If only important readings had been given ( and not also obvious scribal errors ), a few pages only would have been enough. In the Gṛhasthakāṇḍa also 25 pages ( pp. 430– 460 ) are expended on various readings of two msṣ In the Vy. Kāṇḍa the preface ( pp. VIII–IX ) refers to some msṣ and copies, but no detailed descriptions of msṣ or copies are given in one place and the footnotes refer merely to msṣ J. A. S. B. and S. B. and Ja ( i.e. mss from Jammu ) and ‘da’ ( Darbhanga mss ). The state of the mss and this way of dealing with them detracts greatly from the value of conclusions drawn on the basis of the text presented with the help of such msṣ

The Personal History of Lakṣmīdhara : Our knowledge of the personal history of L. has to be derived from his own works, particularly from the Introductory verses to the Br. Kāṇḍa and the colophons at the end of the different Kāṇḍaṣ Most of the colophons ( as indicated in the note below ) state L. was the son of Bhaṭṭa Hṛdayadhara and was himself a Sāndhivigrahika or Mahāsāndhivigrahika ( minister or great minister for peace and war ), some adding that he was minister to king Govindacandra. If the father Hṛdayadhara had also been a minister for peace and war Lakṣmīdhara would certain- ly have mentioned that fact in the Introductory verses to the Brahmacārikāṇḍa. It is somewhat remarkable that the numerous Gāhaḍwāla inscriptions do not disclose the name of any mantrin but mention the dignitaries called Purohita, Mahattaka, Pratīhāra &c.

There are sixteen verses in the Introduction to Br. Kāṇḍa. In the first three verses obeisance is offered to Viṣṇu, Hara ( Śiva ) and Manu ; verses 4–7 contain highflown praise of victorious king Govindacandra ( which will be dealt with later ) ; verses 8 and 9 praise Lakṣmīdhara who is said to be the chief mantrin ( minister ) of the heroic king ( Govindacandra ), whose ( Lakṣmīdhara's ) greatness is inconceivable and who provided, for the sport of two Cakravāka-like feet of the king, a river in the form of the brilliant lustre of the jewelled crowns of many kings ; how many wicked kings have not been sent to their doom by this best of seekers ( after great powers ) who is solely devoted to the vow of fighting and who also seeks Vidyāṣ who, in securing the earth girt by the ocean for the king of Kāśī, offered in the fire of valour one lakh of the lotus like heads of enemy kings', and then verse ten contains high praise of his own work called Kalpavṛkṣa that yields the fruits of Dharma, Artha, Kāma and immortality ( mokṣa ) and verses 11 to 13 mention three works that preceded his; he speaks rather slightly about two of them and very dispara- gingly about the thirḍ These verses may be translated as follows: ‘Gopāla, his (i.e. Lakṣmīdhara’s) friend composed his own work in the form of sentences ( that is, in prose?) by embodying Purāṇa passages in some arts and often passa- ges from the smṛtis But this digest ( of L. ) which is not extensive will be caused to be composed, that will delight the minds of learned men by its containing the essence of the Vedas and Smṛtis and by the import which is set off by Mī- māṁsā ( doctrines ), in which defects cannot be found at all. Will not the delightful growth of Kalpataru ( heavenly desire- yielding tree, the work so called ) by him (i.e. written by L.) afford pleasure to learned dvijas ( or to gods and brāhmaṇas ), the Kalpataru on whose appearance Śrī ( excellence, Lakṣmī ) does not stay in Mahārṇava ( a work so called, great ocean ), Kalpataru under which Kāmdhenu ( the work so called and the celestial cow ) goes to sleep ( remains unread )? Now that this Kalpadruma ( desire-yielding tree, the work called Kalpataru ), owing to the power of the ambrosial sprinkling of the opulent intellect of Lakṣmīdhara, will, while in this world, tend to the benefit of the three worlds, why think of following after Mahārṇava ( a work so called, the great ocean), why hanker after Kāmadhenu ( the celestial cow and the work so called ), to whose mind will occur the worthless Ratna- mālā ( the work so called, a jewel necklace ) and others?

From these three verses we learn that Gopāla, a friend of Lakṣmīdhara, had already composed a work embodying in his own words the gist of Purāṇas and Smṛtis ( that work was called Kāmadhenu, vide section on Kāmadhenu above ); that there was another work called Mahārṇava¹⁶ and a third called Ratnamālā and some other digests had already been composeḍ What fault L. finds with Kāmadhenu it is difficult to under- stanḍ From passages in the Vivādaratnākara ( pp. 5-6, -135, 150 ) and works such as Hāralatā it is clear that the Kāma- 78. The Kalpataru of Lakṣmīdhara dhenu contained verses ( of Nārada, Kātyāyana and others ) and explained them ; vide also Vyavahārakāṇḍa p. 379 note 1. The word Vayasya is important. Acc. to Pāṇ. IV. 4. 91 Vayasya means ‘ Vayasā tulyaḥ’. Gopāla as stated in V. 11 of Intro. to Br. Kāṇḍa had digested single-handed smṛtis and Purāṇas and then wrote the work called Kāmadhenu. That task must have taken several yearṣ Therefore it would not be wrong to hold that he completed the work when he was about forty years olḍ After Gopāla had reached that stage Lakṣmīdhara started on the project of a big digest and must have been nearly of the same age at least. The word ‘ Kāriṣyate ’ in verse 11 above is in the future tense of the causal of the root kṛ ( to do ). That shows that long after Gopāla’s work was completed, this digest was begun and was composed not by Lakṣmīdhara single-handed but with the help of other learned meṇ The Introductory verse to the Br. K. is : L. first begins to write on the first āśrama, L. who reduced the enemies of the king of Kāśī to the stage of brahmacarya, because the enemies harassed by him, had to turn away ( like brahma-cārins ) from sensual pleasures, had to sleep on the earth as their bed, were reduced to the stage of begging alms, were clad only in loin cloth and were familiar with their skins ( i.e. they did not cover their bodies with anything ).

The victorious Govindacandra mentioned in verse 4 ( in Introḍ to Br. Kāṇḍa ) is the Gāhaḍwāla king of that name who ruled at Kānyakubja ( modern Kanoj ) and Kāśī. In verse 4 it is said ‘ Kings were paralysed through fear by hear- ing the trumpetings of the elephants of the Gauḍa king, who was easily ( lit. sportively ) threatened by Govindacandra ( vijayī Govindacandro’sti yaḥ krīḍātarjita-Gauḍa-garjita- bhaya-stambhībhavat-pārthivaḥ ). In verse 7 of the Intro. Govindacandra is said to have killed in battle the heroic Hammīra,¹⁷ the acme among valorous men ( śauryabhājām- avadhiḥ avadhi yuddhe yena Hammīra-viraḥ ). From verse 8-9 of the Intro. it follows that L. rose to be chief minister of king Govindacandra¹⁸ and fought (as commander) many sanguinary battles on behalf of his king, in which thousands of soldiers and kings were killed (this statement appears certainly highly exaggerated ). This task of an extensive work on dharmaśāstra in fourteen parts was undertaken not only after the Kāmdhenu of Gopāla, a friend of I., was composed but also (1) after Govindacandra fought with an (unnamed) Gauḍa king; (2) after G. killed in battle Hammira; (3) after numerous fights with other kings in which thousands were slain : (4) and after, as stated in Introductory verse of Rājadharma-kāṇḍa, men of character had risen to high opulence and after many kings had meekly submitted to Govindacandra owing to the wonderful greatness of Lakṣmīdhara's policieṣ

There are numerous inscriptions (mostly copper-plates) issued by the Gāhaḍwālaṣ The pedigree begins with Yaśovigraha (as in E. I. IV pp. 99-101). Candradeva is described as having conquered the kingdom of Kānyakubja (in E. I. vol. VII pp. 85-93 ' Paramabhaṭṭārāka-mahārājādhirāja-parameśvara-nijabhujopārjitaśrī-Kānyakubjādhipatya-Śrī-candradevaḥ ').

It is necessary for our purpose to refer to a few Inscriptions only. (1) The Basahi grant of Vikrama year 1161 (1104 A. D. ) issued by Govindacandra, as with the consent of Purohita Jāgūka, Mahttaka Bālhāna and Pratīhara Gautama (in I. A. Vol. 14 pp. 101-104); (2) the Kamauli grant of Vikrama year 1162 (1105 A. D.) issued by Govindacandra with the consent of persons mentioned in the preceding grant and queen Rālhaḍevī (E. I. Vol. II, pp. 358-61); (3) The grant of Madanapāladeva on Akṣayyātritīyā of Samvat 1164 (i. e. 1107 A. D.) made after a bath in the Ganges ( U. P. H. S. Vol. 14 pp. 69–77) ; (4) the Rahan grant of Vikrama year 1166 (1109 A. D.) issued by Govindacandra with the consent of Maḥattaka Gāṅgeya (I. A. Vol. XVIII pp. 14–19). Here Madanapāla is described with all the high imperial titles and it is added ‘ asyavātmajo Mahārājaputro Govindacandradevaḥ ’ and p. 16 (lines 8–9) states that Govindacandra was terrible in splitting the temples of the array of elephants belonging to the Gauḍa king and made Hammira give up his enemy by oft-repeated unparalleled work in battle and this grant was made with the consent of Maḥattaka Gāṅgeya. What had happened to Madanapāla between 1107 (the date of his inscription cited above as No. 3) and 1109 A. D. is not clear. It is suggested by some scholars that he was captured in some battle and had to be ransomed later by Govindacandra. The Kalpataru says that Hammira was killed in battle by Govindacandra while the above inscription says that Hammira became friendly with Govindacandra. Among the numerous inscriptions of the Gāhaḍwālas none refers to the killing of Hammīra by Govindacandra. Probably these two are different Hammiras altogether or it is possible that L. is only reporting the legends he might have heard many years afterwardṣ In the undated Sārnāth inscription of queen Kumāradevī, in E. I. IX. (pp. 324, 327, verse 16) reference is made to Govindacandra as an incarnation of Hari ( at the request of Hara ) for guarding Varanasi against the wicked Turuṣka warrior. In the copper-plate of King Jayacandra in Saṁvat 1243 (1187 A. D.) both Govindacandra and his son Vijayacandra are extolled ‘ veritable Bṛhaspati in reflecting over various lores’ ( vividhavidyā-vicāra- vācaspati ).

The Gauḍa king with whom Govindacandra came in conflict was Rāmapāla of the Pāla dynasty of Bengal, who ruled for at least 42 years from about 1077 to 1120 A. D. (Dr. R. C. Majumdar’s History of Bengal 1943, Vol. I. pp. 155 ff.). Rāmapāla kept in check the growing power of the Gāhaḍ- wālas and brought about a diplomatic marriage between Kumāradevī, whose mother was the daughter of King Mathana ( better known as Mahana ), famous Rāṣṭrakūṭa king and maternal uncle of Rāmapāla. It would be noticed that the grants No. 1, 2 and 4 ( referred to above ) were issued by H. D.—87 Govindacandra only as Rājaputra with the consent of some high dignitaries of the king; among them there is no Hṛdaya- dhara nor Lakṣmīdhara. The Sāndhivigrahika is a high functionary and occurs in Gupta Inṣ No. 1 (the praśasti of Samudragupta) on pp. 10, 16 and Mahāsāndhivigrahika in the Gupta Inscription No. 22 of Hastin in Gupta year 163 pp. 100, 104, in Viṣṇu-dharmottara-purāṇa II. 24. 24-25 and the mit. on Yāj. I. 320 provides that the lekhaka of a royal grant should be the minister for peace and war, being ordered by the king himself to do so.

As regards Hammīra, with whom Govindacandra fought but became friendly in 1109 A. D. he is generally identified with Hājīb Tughā-tīgin, who invaded India between 1099– 1155 A. D. (vide Dr. Niyogi's work 23, 58–59 ). Any moslem chief or commander was, it appears, spoken of in Sanskrit Inscriptions as Hammīra e. g. another Hammīra (other than the one that clashed with Govindacandra) is mentioned as having come in conflict with Vijayacandra, son of Govinda- candra (vide I. A. Vol. 15 pp. 7–9). Hammīra is mentioned as killed by Vijayacandra in another inscription of Saṁvat 1237 ( 22nd Feb. 1181 A. D. ) in Lucknow Museum Plates of Jayacandra (E. I. Vol. I. 24 pp. 291–95 at p. 294 verse 10 ).

One of the earliest dated Inscriptions of Govindacandra as king is the Kamauli Plate of Samvat 1171 (of 15–10–1114 ) in E. I. IV pp. 101–103, a slightly earlier one by a few months being the one in J. B. O. R. S. Vol. XIX pp. 233 ff. and he ruled till 1154 A. D. One of his latest inscriptions is dated 10–8–1154 (in E. I. IV pp. 116–17 ). Lakṣmīdhara nowhere refers to Govindacandra as Mahārājaputra (as done by the Rahan grant, I. A. Vol. XVIII pp. 14–19 set out above ). He appears to have come in contact with Govindacan- dra after the latter became king in 1114 A. D. but the exact date when he came to the notice of king Govindacandra is stated nowhere. However learned and clever a man may be it is many years before he becomes chief minister (as Lakṣ- mīdhara became and says in verse 8 of the Intro. to Br. Kāṇḍa). On his own showing he fought many sanguinary battles with the foes of Govindacandra in which one hundred thousand warriors were killeḍ This may be an over-drawn picture, yet there may be a substratum of truth in it. Further, by his wonderful handling of political affairs, he forced many rulers to acknowledge Govindacandra as suzaraïn ( Intro. ver- se to Rājadharmakāṇḍa ) and bow at his feet. As all these varied activities of L. and his becoming chief minister are mentioned in the Intro. to Br. K., it clearly follows that he started the plan of the great digest some time after he found peace and leisure. Supposing L. came to the notice of Govin- dacandra in 1115 ( i. e. immediately after he became king ), his rise to the position of a chief minister, sanguinary battles and conquests should have taken at least ten or fifteen years more i. e. it appears that he could not have started the plan of a large digest before 1125 or 1130 A. D. i. e. some years after the latest date that can be assigned to the Mit.

Lakṣmīdhara appears to have been self-centred and boastful. He mentions Gopāla as a friend and as one who composed a work in which he made use of Smṛtis and Purāṇa passages and names the Kāmadhenu ( which was the work of Gopāla as shown above ) and mentions both slightingly ( in verses 11–13 of Intro. to Br. K. ). He had not the goodness even to acknowledge some merit in his friend’s work and to advance the interest of his less fortunate friend by expressly quoting a few passages from that work. He studiously avoids quoting any passage expressly from the Kāmadhenu. He thus treated his friend most shabbily.

From what Cāṇḍeśvara and others say about the Kāma- dhenu the latter appears to have been a good work on several branches of dharmaśāstra not inferior in performance to Bhoja’s work and the Kalpataru. For example, the Kṛtyaratnākara of Cāṇḍeśvara ( on p. 30 ) speaks of the Kāmadhenu as equal in authority to the Rājā ( i. e. Bhoja ‘Rājatulyayogakṣema). In the same work on p. 156 Bhūpāla, Kāmadhenu and Kalpa- taru are spoken of in the same breath. On p. 443 of the same work, we have the passage ‘Gopāla–Bhūpāla–Kalpataru–Pāri- jāteșu tu Śākaṭānyajāvikam iti pāṭhaḥ sa tu sugamaḥ’. The present author cannot help suspecting that L. feared com- parison of his work with Gopālas and so tried to ignore and disparage it and that he might have quietly made use of Gopāla’s work without-acknowledgement. L. studiously avoids reference to Dhāreśvara Bhoja, Śrīkara and Bhāruci, whom the Mit. frequently mentions, as shown in the present author’s paper on ‘the predecessors of Vijñāneśvara in J. B. B R. A. S. for 1925 pp. 193–221 ). Bhoja’s greatness and death are referred to in an early Gāhaḍvāla grant, viz. the Basahi grant of 1104 A. D. where we have the verse ‘yāte śrī-Bhoja- bhūpe vibhudhavaravadhū-netrasimātitithitvam’ (verse 3 in I. A. vol. 14 at p. 103 ).

Lakṣmīdhara might have been a learned man in his own way and had experience as a councillor, administrator and probably as a judge also. But the editor makes certain claims for him which cannot be allowed at all. On p. 10 of the Intro. to Dānakāṇḍa, the editor says ‘his digest which ... shows that he was a Mīmāṁsaka profoundly learned in the Veda. On p. 11 (of Intro. to Dānakāṇḍa) the editor asserts ‘even without his explicit references to Kumārila (as Bhaṭṭapāda) and Śabarasvāmin), proficiency in Pūrvamīmāṁsā necessary for the study, understanding and exposition of Dharmaśāstra is evident throughout the work’.

In the eleven Kāṇḍas so far printed the present author has not been able to find a single discussion on any sūtra of Jaimini or Śabara's extensive bhāṣya. The present author would like to be correcteḍ What he is emphasizing is that Lakṣmīdhara's extensive work gives no evidence whatever of a deep study of the sūtras of Jaimini nor of Śabara’s very bhāṣya nor do his kāṇḍas mention even a few well- known nyāyas (vide pp. 1339, 1351 of Vol. V. of H. of Dh. for the mention of about 170 nyāyas, mostly mentioned from Mīmāṁsā works). Śabarasvāmī is once men the Vy. Kāṇḍa ¹⁹ in connection with some words in Śāṅkha- 78. The Kalpataru of Lakṣmīdhara likhita. So far as I see Kumārila is only twice mentioned as Bhatta-pāda in Br. Kāṇḍa on p. 15 and p. 21 (a verse from Tantravārtika). It is most extravagant praise to say on this slender basis that Lakṣmīdhara's proficiency in Pūrva-mīmāmsā is evident throughout the work.

Certain passages in the Kalpataru on Vy. are more or less identical with passages of the Mit. A few examples are noted below^*: Many cases of the same sort may be cited but that cannot be done for reasons of space. The above verses clearly show that the brief remarks in the Kalpataru (on Vy.) are borrow- ed from the Mitākṣarā. If as argued above, the Mit. was ( Continued from the previous page ) ते निर्लोभं निर्गतलाभं लाभमाच्छिद्य व्ययेयुः बहिः कुर्य़ुः । यस्थ सम्भूय- कारिणां मध्ये भाण्डप्रव्यवेक्षणादिकं कर्तुमसमर्थोऽसावन्वयेन स्वं कर्म भाण्डवाहनेन तदाव्यवयपरीक्षणादिकं कारयेत् ; कल्प० (व्यव.) p. 361 explains ‘जिह्वां बध्यक्रू निर्लोभं लाभमाच्छिद्य व्ययेयुः सम्भूयकारिणः । अशकः [असमर्थः] भाण्डपुिण्डव्यायावेक्षणे’ । here असमर्थः is in brackets (because it is restored from the (मिता.) ‘पिण्ड’ does not make any good sense. The ms was probably bad enough. ^{26 27 28} The words ‘तत्र सांख्यानामेका मूलप्रकृति’.......‘up to श्रीणयन्तःकरणानि’ Aparārka p. 987 lines 4-7 after eight lines from Mokṣakāṇḍa p. 1,006 these four lines begin a new section with the words ‘तत्र देवलः । तत्र सांख्यानामेका......’ and end with the words श्रीणयन्तःकरणानि दश बहिःकरणानि. ( Continued on the next page ) 78. The Kalpataru of Lakṣmīdhara composed between 1100–1120 A. D. and the Kalpataru bet- ween 1125–1145 A. D. the latter must be presumed to be the borrower. The present author is not much interested in the question whether the Kalpataru borrowed or not. He is in- terested only in negativing the astounding statement of Prof. Aiyangar that the Mit. knew the Kalpataru (as disclosed by verse 4 at the end of the Mit. ). Unless it is proved that the Kalpataru was completed at least some years before 1100 A. D. it is impossible to hold that it was known or relied upon in the South by the Mit. in 1100–1120 A. D. The learned editor of the Kalpataru admits (on p. 4 of the introduction to Dānakāṇḍa) that the influence of L. did not penetrate to South India and that he is not referred to by Varadarāja (a. of Vya- vahāranirṇaya ) by Devaṇṇa bhaṭṭa (a. of Smṛticandrikā) and by Mādhavācārya. In view of the historical sequence of events and the large number of identical explanatory passages in the Kalpataru, the present author thinks that it is unnecessary for him to reply to the arguments of the editor of the Kalpataru in greater detail.

The late Prof. Aiyangar did not carefully consider the chronological sequence of events and the close agreement of the brief explanations of L. with the lengthy explanations in the Mitākṣarā. In the first edition of the H. of Dh. the present author relied upon a passage occurring in the Saras- vatībhavan mṣ of the Kalpataru about a quotation from Bṛhaspati relied upon in the Vādibhayankara (the author of which was according to the Vīramitrodaya, a follower of Vijñāneśvara. The Editor of Kalpataru on Vy. (on p. 248) refers to this view of the present author and rejects it. It is unnecessary for the present purpose to go into the question where what Vādibhayaṅkara quotes as a verse of Bṛhaspati is so or not. One ms of Kalpataru (Vy.) had that passage, two other msṣ from Udaipur and Bikaner had not got it. Prof. Aiyangar does not hesitate to pass off as Lakṣmīdhara’s the whole of the Br. Kāṇḍa based only on a single very defective ms, (vide above ) and to draw conclusions from it. Besides, he himself shows (on p. 293, note 4) how his Udaipur mṣ has a gap of two printed pages beginning on that page. He could and should have said that it is possible that the single ms may represent the correct text while the two others having gaps in some other parts might have omitted that portioṇ The present author also relied (in the first edi- tion of the H. of Dh.) on a passage of the Benares College ms (on Vy.) where the view of Prakāśa, Halāyudha, Kāmadhenu and Pārijāta on a verse of Kātyāyana was cited (H. of Dh. p. 293, ṇ 649). With this the Editor deals on pp. 394-5 and 397, (in footnotes). The present author would have to write several pages against this view of the Editor. For the present author’s own view about L. being later than the mitākṣarā and the borrower, relies mostly on the historical data and incidents and on the large number of passages in one Kāṇḍa alone (cited above) which fair minded persons would hold to be borrowings from the mitākṣarā by the Kalpataru.

In the Intro. to the Dānakāṇḍa (p. 17) Prof. Aiyangar states ‘in two other respects also the Kalpataru is unique. Firstly, it is distinguished by having been written in accor- dance with well-conceived and logical plaṇ A cursory read- ing of even a comprehensive smṛti like that of Manu or yajña- valkya will fail to disclose the background of Hindu life.’ Compare this downright assertion with another statement in Intro. to Br. Kāṇḍa (p. 3) ‘it is built on a careful plan, which largely follows the arrangement of topics in Manu’s great work.’ The present author does not like to say much against the learned Professor as regards his criticism of Manu that reading it would not disclose the background of Hindu life, because he contradicts himself by saying that L. largely follows Manu’s plan and because he really follows Yaj. and the logic, if any, behind the order of the 11 Kāṇḍas is restrict- ed to the first five and the Kāṇḍas eleven, twelve and fourteeṇ It must be, however, pointed out that it is the Yajña- valkya smṛti that lays down a careful and logical plaṇ The Yaj. Smṛti, after the first nine Introductory verses, treats in order of the following topics; Brahmacārin (I. 10–50), Gṛhas- thāśrama (I. 51–96), daily duties of Gṛhastha (Āhnika I. 97– 181), Dāna (I. 198–216), Śrāddha (I. 217–268), Rājadharma (I. 309–368 ), Vyavahāra (II. 1–307), Āśauca (III. 1–34), Vānaprastha (III. 45–55), Yatidharma (III. 56–205), Prāyaś- citta (III. 206–334). The order in Yaj. from Brahmacārin to Śrāddha is almost the same as Lakṣmīdhara’s but is a little better than that of L. Similarly, Yaj. speaks of rāja- dharma before vyavahāra (as L. does). But the logic in placing vrata as 6th and tīrtha as 8th, pratiṣṭhā (or pūjā or both) as 7th and placing Śāntika as 13th (and not after Pūjā) is not clear to the present author. The fact appears to be that the learned Editor having spent many years over the Kalpataru developed a faculty for over-statements about L.

The Kalpataru is extensive, but the Vīramitrodaya is unique in its size, range and quality. The Kalpataru has size (though it is not as extensive as the Vīramitrodaya), has great range, but in quality it is very much inferior not only to the mitākṣarā, but also to some other digestṣ Lengthy discussions in the Kalpataru are few and far betweeṇ It is more in the nature of a collection from all smṛtis Hence one noteworthy feature of it is that it often states how the same verse occurs in several smṛtis A few striking examples are noted here. In Śrāddha-kāṇḍa p. 187 he quotes Manu III. 236–37 and remarks that they occur in Hārīta, Viṣṇu, Yama, Śātātapa in Ūśanas ( the 2nd only ). In Br. kāṇḍa p. 40 he quotes Manu III. 114–15 and adds that these two occur also in Vasiṣṭha Yama, Parāśara and Baudhāyana and the 2nd in Paithinasi also and they do occur in the printed Vaṣ (III. 5–6 ). In Br. K. p. 181 he 'quotes the verse 'savyāhṛtiṃ.. prāṇāyāmaḥ sa ucyate' as occurring in Śaṅkha, Vasiṣṭha, Aṅgiras, Bṛhaspati, Paithinasi and Baudhāyana and it does occur in Vaṣ VII. 14 ( Ānandāśrama collection ). On p. 742 of Vyavahārakāṇḍa and p. 432 of Gṛhastha K. he quotes the verse 'putreṇa lokāṇ..vistapam' as occurring in Manu, Śaṅkhalikhita, Viṣṇu, Vasiṣṭha and Hārīta and it does occur in Viṣṇu, Dh. S. 15. 45, Vaṣ 17. 5 and also in Manu IX. 137 and Bauḍ Dh. S. II. 9.6. On pp. 36-37 of Vyavahāra K. he quotes three verses, the first of which L. states occurs in Manu, Nārada, Hārīta and Baudhāyana. All three occur in Manu VIII. 18, 19 and 14 and all three in Nārada III. 8, 12, 13 p. 43 (Dr. Jolly's eḍ in B. I. Series ) and the first in Baud Dh. S. I. 10. 30. Such illustrations lead one to con- clude that L. had collected a large number of the mss of Smṛtis and had directed his pandits to make an exhaustive concordance of smṛti verseṣ

On pp. 174-175 of his work Aparārka quotes a long extract from Devala in prose and verse on ‘Doṣas’, which exhibits striking skill in defining several wordṣ On Yāj. III. 109 (pp. 986-988) Aparārka quotes a very long prose passage from Devala (a small portion of which also occurs in the Mokṣakāṇḍa of Kalpataru pp. 100-101. Aparārka sets out at length (in prose) the purport of about two dozen verses of the Sāṅkhyakārikā, while the Mokṣakāṇḍa (pp. 100-101) contains less than half of what Aparārka says (practically in the same words as those of Aparārka. It should be further noticed that in the Mokṣakāṇḍa there is another long prose passage beginning with the words ‘ Atha mūlaprakṛtir- avyaktam ’ (p. 100 last six lines and on p. 101. 1. 14) ending with the words ‘ityutpattikramaḥ’ which is part of the passage cited in Aparārka pp. 987-88 (which adds some words not found in the Mokṣa-kāṇḍa) ‘yo yasmād-utpadyate..... sa tasmin līyata iti vāpyayakramaḥ’. Another very signi- ficant circumstance is that the long passage from Devala extending to about two pages in Aparārka is followed by five verses of Yama on the Sāṅkhya system, which also occur in Mokṣakāṇḍa (pp. 101-102) with one slight change in the last verse.

From the close agreement between passages of Devala in both Aparārka and Mokṣakāṇḍa with some omissions in the latter, it appears to the present author that the author of the Mokṣakāṇḍa used a mṣ of Aparārka’s work (in which there was probably no demarcation of clauses and which was also slightly defective) and the editor of the Mokṣakāṇḍa committed mistakes in separating the clauseṣ

One remarkable circumstance bearing on the relative chronological positions of the Mitākṣarā and the Kalpataru may be noted here. The Hāralatā of Aniruddhabhaṭṭa was composed about 1160 to 1170 A. D., as he was the guru and Dharmādhyakṣa of king Ballālasena of Bengal, who composed his Dānasāgara in Śaka 1091 (1169-70 A. D.). Two works viz. Kāmadhenu and Kalpataru were composed in the realm of the Gāhaḍwāla King Govindacandra. The Hāralatā mentions the Kāmadhenu several times as an authority of the same weight as Viśvarūpa, Bhojadeva, and Govindarāja (vide pp. 41, 117, 174 of the Hāralatā); while the vast digest of Kalpataru of Lakṣmī- dhara is not mentioned even once anywhere by the Hāralatā. If the Kāmadhenu, disdainfully spoken of by Lakṣmīdhara, could penetrate to Bengal before 1160-70 A. D. and be treat- ed there as a work of authority, it is very surprising that the Kalpataru backed by the glamorous career of the great Minister Lakṣmīdhara and dealing at length with the same topics as those treated of in the Hāralatā should not have been referred to even once in the Hāralatā.

This leads to the conclusion that portions of the Kalpa- taru were composed decades later than the time when the Kāmadhenu was composed and earlier than 1160 A. D. only by a decade or so.