79. Jīmūtavāhana

Volume I: Part II pp. 699–712

79. Jīmūtavāhana

79. Jīmūtavāhana

Jīmūtavāhana is the first of the triumvirate of Bengal writers on dharmaśāstra, the other two being Śūlapāṇi and Raghunandana. Only three works of his are known and they have all been printed viz : the Kālaviveka (B. I. series, 1905), the Vyavahāramātṛkā (published in the memoirs of the Bengal Asiatic Society, vol. III., No. 5, pp. 277-353, edited by the late Sir Asutosh Mukerji), the Dāyabhāga (published several times). It appears that these works were intended to form part of a vast treatise on dharmaśāstra called Dharma- ratna, as stated in the Kālaviveka.¹ In this work I have used the edition of the Dāyabhāga printed in 1829. The Kālāviveka as its name implies contains discussions as to the appropriate seasons, months and times for the performance of religious rites and duties, the determination of intercalary months, the question whether the month for certain festivals and rites, was to be solar or lunar, the proper time for the cessation and starting of Vedic studies (Utsarjana and Upākarma), the rise of Agastya, the four months during which Viṣṇu was supposed to sleep on the ocean, the times for various festivals including the Kojāgaru and the Durgotsava, the eclipseṣ The work is named Kālāviveka not only in the colophon, but also in the body itself² Some of the sections of the work also are styled _viveka_ (e. g. Amāvāsyāviveka pp. 354-365, dviraṣāḍhaviveka pp. 169-174). The object with which the work was composed is stated in the 2nd verse³ as follows :—‘ Kāla ’ (the topic of proper times for religious duties) has not been understood by some writers; it has been based upon ancient texts and compressed into narrow compass by others; therefore it is dealt with by me in such a way as to be easily understood even by dull-witted personṣ M. M. Chakravarti (JASB 1915 p. 314) draws from this the conclusion that ‘no previous treatise specially dealing with _Kāla_ alone was known to the author’. This is not a sound conclusioṇ All that Jīmūtavāhana claims is that he fact in one verse he brings together seven predecessors⁴ who expatiated on Kāla and whose works have become worth little on account of the appearance of the Kālāviveka. As long as the works of all these writers are not recovered it is impossible to assert that Jīmūtavāhana had before him no previous work dealing specially with _Kāla_. Besides the astronomical and astrological works of ancient writers such as those of Varāhamihira and Brahmagupta, the ancient smṛtis and purāṇas, the important works and authors mentioned are enumerated in the note below.⁵ Most of these nibandha-kāras are quoted by him in his two other works also. Yogī-śvara⁶ seems to be an author different from Yājñavalkya who also is styled Yogīśvara, since the view ascribed to him is not found in Yāj. In some copies of the Mit. also an author⁷ Yogīśvara is named who explained the conflicting texts about a widow’s right to succeed to her husbanḍ But Yogīśvara in the Mit. is probably a misprint or copyist’s error for Dhāreśvara as some Msṣ read Dhāreśvara. In the Kālāviveka Jīmūtavāhana makes frequent and effective use of Pūrvamīmāṁsā maxims⁸ and shows that he had made a profound study of that systeṃ In the Durgotsava-viveka⁹ of Śūlapāṇi the Kālāviveka is quoteḍ It is also quoted in the Śrāddhacintāmaṇi of Vācaspati, in the Śrāddha-kaumudī ( p. 328 ) and Varsakriyā-kaumudī of Govindānanda and in several Tattvas of Raghunandana, e. g. ( Vol. I ) Tithi 141, 144, Āhnika 341, Mala° 834, ( Vol. II ) Ekādaśī 41, 46, 87 ( eḍ of 1895 ).

The Vyavahāramātṛkā as its very name implies deals with the elements of vyavahāra ( i. e. judicial procedure ). It speaks of the eighteen titles of law, the derivation of the word prāḍvivāka ( judge ), the persons fit to be appointed judges, different grades of courts, duties of sabhyas, four stages of vyavahāra, pūrvapakṣa ( plaint ), pratibhū ( surety ), blemishes in a plaint, uttara ( reply of the defendant ), four kinds of uttara, blemishes in uttara, kriyā ( proof or burden of proof ), divine ( daivī ) and human ( mānuṣī ) proof ( viz. : ordeals, inference, witnesses, documents, possession ), persons incompetent to be witnesseṣ Ordeals have not been dealt with by the author. The first verse of the work ¹⁰ styles it Vyavahāramātṛkā. The last verse ¹¹ but one suggests the name Nyāyamātṛkā which practically is a synonym of Vyavahāra-mātṛkā and the colophon at the end of a mṣ in the Govt. Msṣ library at the B.O.R. Institute calls it Nyāya-ratnamālikā.

About twenty smṛtikāras ¹² are mentioned in the Vyavahāramātṛkā. Kātyāyana, Bṛhaspati and Nārada are the three smṛtikāras most frequently quoted, nearly two-thirds of the quotations in the entire work being derived from theṃ Among the nibandhakāras the following are named :- Jitendriya, Dīkṣita, ( p. 302 ), Bāla ( p. 346, the same as 79. Jīmūtavāhana Bālaka ), Bhojadeva ( pp. 284, 305 ), Mañjarīkāra ( i. e. Govindarāja ), Yogīoka, Viśvarūpa, Śrīkara ( pp. 292, 334 or Śrīkaramiśra p. 342 ). About Viśvarūpa he says ¹³ "I have put forward this conclusion of the ancient writers, I have refuted the objections of Viśvarūpa and others and dealt with them at length'. Yoglokan and Śrīkara are generally quoted for being refuted and the former is frequently jeered at as 'tārki-kāmanya' or 'nava-tārkikam-manya'. In this work Jīmūtavāhana displays great familiarity with the ancient dialecticṣ In some cases what the printed text exhibits ¹⁴ as prose really constitutes verseṣ Sir Asutosh Mukerji is not accurate when he says in the preface that 'Jīmūtavāhana refers to a number of jurists not mentioned by any other author, e.g. Jitendriya, Yoglokan, Balaka, Viśvarūpa, Śrīkara and Mañjarikara'. It has been shown above that both Viśvarūpa and Śrīkara have been mentioned by the Mit. which is certainly earlier than Jīmūtavāhana and by a host of other writers who were either earlier than or contemporaries of Jīmūtavāhana. The Vyava-hāramātrkā is quoted in the Vyavahāratattva ¹⁵ ( pp. 199, 214, 225 vol. II. ) and the Dayatattva p. 179 and Divyatattva pp. 586, 583.

The dāyabhāga is the most famous of Jīmūtavāhana's workṣ In matters of Hindu law such as inheritance, partition strīdhana, re-union, it is of paramount authority in modern British Indian courts in Bengal, except in those cases where The Mitākṣarā is applicable. The names of more than a dozen commentators of it are known and Pandit Bharatacandra Širomaņi published it with seven commentaries (1863–1866). It was translated into English by Colebrooke. In many editions (such as that of Jivananda) it is divided into sections though there were no divisions in the original work. The contents of the Dāyabhāga are:— Definition of dāya; father's power over ancestral property; partition of father's and grandfather's property; division among brothers after their father's death; definition, classification and devolution of strīdhana; persons excluded from inheritance and partition on the ground of disabilities; property which is impartible (in its very nature or because it is self-acquired); order of succession to one dying sonless; re-union, partition of coparcenery property concealed but discovered afterwards, indicia of partitioṇ

Some of the peculiar doctrines of the Dāyabhāga which are of fundamental importance and which sharply distinguish it from the Mit. are: sons have no interest in ancestral property by birth, sons can claim partition only after extinction of their father's ownership (i. e. after his death or on his becoming patita or a saṁnyāsin) or partition can take place between father and sons if the father so desires, a widow succeeds to her husband's interest on his death even if he be joint with his brother, the right to take a deceased person's estate is regulated by the spiritual benefit conferred by the person claiming as heir (by means of the offering of piṇḍas) and not by the principal of consanguinity (as in the Mit. ).¹⁶

It should be noted by all Hindus that the Hindu Succession Act (Act No. 30 of 1956) passed by the parliament of India has made substantial changes in the law laid down both by Jīmūtavāhana and the Mitākṣarā as regards partition, succession and kindred matterṣ But this is not the place to dilate on this topic. The foot-note on this paragraph avers that one called ‘niravadyavidyoddyota’ (lit. one who possesses the brilliance of spotless vidyās) put forward that the guiding principle in preference among heirs is the spiritual benefit that the heir will confer on the deceaseḍ It is remarkable that in the Harṣacarita (first Ucchavāsa, last paragraph) we have a statement that Bāṇa resorted to gurukulas that were radiant with spotless learning (niravadya-vidyāvidyotanāni ca kulāni sevamānaḥ). The word also occurs in the Dāyabhāga before the passage quoted from Yājñavalkya II. 122 (bhūrya pitāmahōpatta.........cōbhayōḥ) in chap. II section 9 of the Dāyabhāga, where the explanation of this verse by ‘Niravadyavidyota’ is cited (which is in direct conflict with that of the Mitākṣarā). That expression in the Dāyabhāga may be explained in several ways : (1) Udyota is the name of a person whose learning was blamelesṣ Pāṇ. III. 1. 101 tells us that ‘avadya’ means ‘garhya’ (deserving to be censured). Śrīnātha (1470–1540) and Maheśvara take it in that sense. Other commentators take it as a title or distinction conferred on the man and hold that Udyota means refulgence.

Besides the smṛtikāras,¹⁷ the Mahābhārata and the Mārkaṇḍeyapurāṇa the following authors are referred to by name in Dāyabhāga :— Udgrāhamalla, Govindarāja (an author of Manutīkā), Jitendriya, Dīkṣita, Bālaka, Bhojadeva or Dhareśvara, Viśvarūpa and Śrīkara.

The word ‘Udgrāhamalla’ is taken by the commentators as not being a proper name, but as a common noun meaning ‘a disputant that takes up the position opposed to the one advanced by the author’; e. g. most commentators say that ‘Udgrāha’ means simply ‘vāda’ and explain ‘udgrāho vādaḥ tatra mallasyā samarthasya galahastavan- nivārakaḥ ityarthaḥ.’ They do not quote any kośa to support their meaning of ‘udgrāha’ as ‘vāda’. Udgrāhamalla may be a proper noun just as we have Todaramalla among authors on Dharmaśāstra and as the word ends in ‘malla’ (a gymnast ) the author naturally gives a reply in gymnastic terms that a verse of Devala would completely vanquish (lit. throttle) hiṃ It may be noted that Maheśvara (a commentator) holds that Udgrāhamalla is the name of a Smṛti writer. The present author does not say that the meaning proposed by commentators is quite wrong or impossible, but holds that the meaning proposed by him appears to be the proper one. Pāṇini has a special sūtra ‘udi grahaḥ’ III. 3. 35 for the word उद्ग्राह्.

In the dāyabhāga Jīmūtavāhana quotes among Smṛti sages Manu (most frequently), Nārada, Yājñavalkya, Bṛhaspati, Kātyāyana, Viṣṇu, Gautama, Vasiṣṭha, Harita, Baudhāyana, Bṛhanmanu, Vyāsa, Śaṅkhalikhita, Devala, Yama, Uśanas, Vṛddha-kātyāyana, Āpastamba, Vṛddha-śatātapa, Paiṭhīnasi. Among the Purāṇas, the Mārkaṇḍeyapurāṇa (XI. 40) alone is quoted by name in the dāyabhāga.

The Nibandhakāras mentioned by name in the dāyabhāga are, besides Niravadyavidyoddyota, Jitendriya (thrice mentioned), Govindarāja, Dhāreśvara Bhojadeva, Dīkṣita (only a title), Bāla or Bālaka (ṃ five times), Viśvarūpa (ṃ thrice) and Śrīkara (ṃ five times, once as Śrīkaramiśra). Udgrāhamalla¹⁸ is referred to on the distribution of strīdhana and it is said that Udgrāhamalla (i. e. his view) is throttled by the text of Devala. It appears, therefore, that Udgrāhamalla was not a smṛti writer, but a nibandhakāra. Dīkṣita¹⁹ is credited with the view that, among daughters, those who have sons or are likely to have sons are preferred to those who are either barren, widowed or who give birth to daughters alone and the dāyabhāga approves of this view. There is one more writer who is referred to twice with great respect as Niravadyavidyoddyota. Whether this is a mere descrip-tion or title ('the refulgence of whose learning is spotless') or 79. Jīmūtavāhana whether the author's name was Uddyota and niravadyavidya (‘ whose learning in spotless ’) is an epithet, it is difficult to say. For a correct knowledge of the origin and development of the theory of spiritual benefit propounded in the Dāyabhāga, it would be extremely desirable to know who this writer was, as Jīmūtavāhana tells us that that view was brilliantly set forth by Niravadyavidyoddyota. The same writer is also quoted on the well-known verse of Yājñavalkya ‘ bhūryā pitāmahōpāttā &c., ’ which is the sheet-anchor of Vijñāne- śvara’s theory about the son’s rights by birth in ancestral family property.²⁰

Jīmūtavāhana gives very little information about himself. In the colophons of his works he is described as Pāribhadrīya Mahāmahōpādhyāya and at the end of the Vyavahāramātr̥kā ( vide note 999 above ) he tells us that he was born of the Pāribhadra family ( kula ).²¹ It is said that this name of the family still survives in the Parihal or Pari Gai, a section of Rāḍhīya Brāhmaṇas ( Ghose’s Hindu Law, 3rd edition, pp. xvi–xviii and JASB 1915 p. 320 ). It is also said that Edu- miśra in his Kulakārikā tells us that Jīmūtavāhana was chief judge in the reign of Viṣvak-sena of Bengal and that he was 9th in descent from Nārāyaṇabhaṭṭa, one of the five Brāhmaṇas brought by Ādiśūra. The information supplied by the match-makers of Bengal is, as shown above ( vide pp. 632–33 above under Halāyudha ), not worth reliance, unless corroborated by independent evidence. It is also said that for fourteen genera- tions the Brāhmaṇas of Pārīgrāma have been degraded and so Jīmūtavāhana would not have paraded the fact that he was Pāribhadrīya if at the time when he wrote his subcaste had been degraded ( Intro. to Kālāviveka p. VIII ). The fact that Jīmūtavāhana was a native of Rāḍhā is testified by his statement in the Kālāviveka that Agastya ( Canopus ) rose in Ujjayinī when four days of the month of Bhādrapada remained, but that in Rādhā Agastya rose when seven days of the month were yet to ruṇ¹⁰¹⁰

Extremely divergent views have been held as to the date of Jīmūtavāhana. He has been assigned to various dates from the 11th to the 16th century. In L. R. 41 I. A. at p. 298 it is said by their Lordships of the Privy Council that the Mit. was earlier by five centuries than Jīmūtavāhana. Dr. Jolly (R. u. S. p. 37) assigns him to the 15th century. For a statement of the various dates and their examination the article of M. M. Chakravarti in JASB for 1915, pp. 321–327 and Mr. Panchanan Ghosh’s learned article in 26 Calcutta Law Journal (journal portion p. 17. ff.) may be consulteḍ Since Jīmūtavāhana mentions Dhāreśvara Bhojadeva and Govindarāja, he cannot be placed earlier than the last quarter of the 11th century. Since he is quoted by Śūlapāṇi, Vācaspati-miśra and Raghunandana, he cannot be later than the middle of the 15th century. The Kāla- viveka furnishes important data. On a mṣ of the Kālāviveka there is a note made about the birth-date of the son of a certain Ghaṭakasimha with the horoscope of the chilḍ The year speci- fied therein is śake 1417, i. e. 1495 A. D. It follows from this that the Mṣ itself must have been copied sometime before this and the original work must be much earlier still. So the Kāla- viveka cannot be placed at any rate later than about 1400 A. D.

In the Kālāviveka Jīmūtavāhana tells us that his predecessor Andhuka¹⁰¹¹ exhibited a certain astronomical matter in śake 952 (i. e. 1030 A. D.) and that he declared an intercalary month in śake 955.

Similarly Jīmūtavāhana expatiates upon several¹⁰¹² minute astronomical and astrological details which were observed in 79. Jīmūtavāhana the śaka years 1013 and 1014 (i. e. 1091 and 1092 A. D.). It is impossible to suppose that an author would enter into such minute details about a time which was anterior to his own by centurieṣ Generally astronomical works take for their calculations starting points or years which were within their own experience or very nearly so. Therefore it appears to be a sound conclusion to hold that the Kālāviveka was composed soon after śaka 1013 or 1014 (i. e. 1091 and 1092 A. D.). Hence it follows that the literary activity of Jīmūtavāhana lay between 1090 and 1130 A. D. The Kālāviveka seems to be his first work. The Vyavahāramātṛkā would naturally come before the Dāyabhāga. He seems to have contemplated writing²² on ṛṇādāna also, as he says in the Dāyabhāga that a certain matter would be expound- ed by him in ṛṇādāna.

The most cogent argument that can be advanced against the above early date assigned to Jīmūtavāhana is that neither of his compositions is mentioned by Bengal writers and works on Dharmaśāstra belonging to the 12th, 13th and 14th centuries such as the Haralatā, the commentary of Kullūka etc. No satisfactory explanation can be offered of this silence. But it is a very precarious thing to conclude from this silence that Jīmūtavāhana's works did not exist during those centurieṣ It is safer to base conclusions about his date on the positive evidence contained in his works rather than rely upon the negative argument from silence in later workṣ When some of his commentators say that he criticises the views of Cāṇḍeśvara, Miśra and others we should not take them seriously. The commentators had no idea of the exact chronological position of writers long anterior to theṃ All they mean is that Jīmūtavā- hana criticises views that were shared also by Cāṇḍeśvara and otherṣ Another important question is whether Jīmūtavāhana who is certainly a little later than the Mit. criticizes it. The Vivāda-tāṇḍava of ²³ Kamalākara says that Jīmūtavāhana held that the view about the equal ownership of father and son in ancestral property was put forward for precluding the possibility of the uncle taking the whole estate of a man dying (in union) leaving a son or a predeceased son's son or for precluding the possibility of an unequal distribution of ancestral property by a father among his sons and that Jīmūtavāhana took up this position, being blinded by his hatred of the Mit. The Vīramitrodaya ²⁴ also says that Jīmūtavāhana criticizes the Mitākṣarā definition of vibhāga and the view of the Mit. about the times for partitioṇ The Vyavahāramāṭṛkā ²⁵ also appears to criticize several times views which were held by the Mit. and the correspondence is very striking. On this point this much may be said that the points selected for attack by Jīmūtavāhana do occur almost in the same words in the Mit. but, since the Mit. is not expressly mentioned and since it is likely that other writers like Asahāya and Bhāruci whose works have not yet been discovered might have contained the very same words that are found in the Mit., it is somewhat hazardous to assert that Jīmūtavāhana criticizes the Mit. alone and no other work. All that one can advance is that it is quite within the bounds of possibility that Jīmūtavāhana criticizes the Mit.

Raghunandana in his Smṛtitattva differs rather rarely from Jīmūtavāhana; vide (Vol. I.) Tithitattva pp. 52-53, Malamāsa p. 849; (Vol. II.) Ekādaśī p. 88. He quotes Kālāviveka frequently e. g. in Tithi pp. 106, 107, 141, 144, Mala° p. 834, Ekādaśī pp. 41,87; he mentions the Vyavahāramātṛkā in Vya. tattva pp. 199, 214, 225, the Dāyabhāga in Dāyatattva pp. 164, 174, 194. He names Jīmūtavāhana frequently as in Vol. I Tithi pp. 24, 144, Prāyaścitta p. 482, Mala° pp. 767, 781; (Vol. II.) Dāyatattva p. 194, Eka- daśī pp. 5, 36, 38, 40, 51, 53, 103.

Several commentaries on the Dāyabhāga have been publisheḍ The more important commentators are (1) Śrīnātha Ācaryacūḍā- maṇi, Guru of Raghunandana²⁶ (flourished about 1470-1540 A. D.); vide JASB ( New Series) vol. XI. pp. 344-351 for his parentage, works and time of Śrīnātha; (2) Ramabhadra Nyāya- laṁkāra Bhaṭṭācārya, son of Śrīnātha-Ācaryacūḍāmaṇi (flourished about 1510-1570. Vide for his commentary ‘Our Heritage’ vol. VI. pt. I pp 43-53; I. H. Q. vol. 33; (3) Acyutānanda Cakravartin (flourished about 1510–1570); (4) Maheśvarabhaṭṭācārya (about 1530-1600); (5) Śrīkṛṣṇa Tarkālaṁkāra (flourished about the middle of the 18th century).

There is a commentary on the Dāyabhāga professed by Raghunandana. Colebrooke suspected that it was not a work of Raghunandana. Rai Bahadur Manmohan Chakravarti holds that it is Raghunandana’s (J. A. S. B. vol. XI, N. S. for 1915, pp. 302, 352 ), on the ground that the final colophon gives the kula as Vandyaghaṭīya and the father’s name as Hariharabhaṭṭācārya. This is not a very strong grounḍ Any scholar desirous of passing off his own work as Raghunandana’s could very easily have put in these itemṣ It was included among the commentaries on the Dāyabhāga published by Pandit Bharatacandraśiromaṇi in his edition of the Dāyabhāga with commentarieṣ It is very likely that Raghunandana wrote a commentary on the Dāyabhāga. Unless strong grounds are shown to doubt the authorship of Raghunandana, we may concede that he wrote it.

On Jīmūtavāhana, his work and times one may read with profit Rai Bahadur Manmohan Chakravarti's learned contributions to the ‘History of Smṛti in Bengal and Mithilā’ in J. A. S. B. ( New Series ) Vol. XI ( pub. in 1916 ) pp. 311–327.

As to Jīmūtavāhana's time there is a sharp divergence of views among scholarṣ Jīmūtavāhana mentions Dhāreśvara Bhojadeva in his three works and Govindarāja in the Dāyabhāga (XI. 2. 22–23. Jīv. eḍ 1893 ). Vide above under Govindarāja ( p. 657 ṇ 897a. ). Therefore he cannot be placed earlier than about 1125 A. D. The divergence of views among scholars concerns the latest date to which he is to be assigneḍ M. M. Chakravarti (J.A.S.B. vol. XI. pp. 322–324 ) points out that the Kālāviveka of Jīmūtavāhana is quoted in the Durgotsavaviveka of Śūlapāṇi and therefore Jīmūtavāhana cannot be placed later than the end of the 14th century A. D. Another argument for an early date is supplied by the astronomical references in the Kālāviveka. It may be noted that in the Kālāviveka (the earliest of his three works) he refers to the rising of the star Agastya ( Canopus ) in his own day in his homeland in Rāḍhā and in Ujjayinī. He says²⁷ 'the rising of Canopus takes place on different days according to the country (in which an observer resides ); to illustrate, that star is first seen in Rāḍhā when seven days are yet to run of the month of Bhādrapada, while in Ujjayinī it rises when only four days of Bhādrapada are yet to run; again he notes that Agastya is seen rising in Ujjayinī when twenty-six days of Leo have passed away and in Rāḍhā, Canopus is first seen rising when twenty-three days of the sign of Leo are past. Here it is clear that he is referring to the appearance of heavenly bodies in his own day. In other