87. Haradatta

Volume I: Part II pp. 742–748

87. Haradatta

87. Haradatta

Haradatta’s fame stands very high as a commentator. He wrote a commentary called Anākulā on the Āpastamba-gṛhya-sūtra ( D. C. Mṣ No. 2 of 1866–68 ), a commentary on the Āpastambīya-mantra-pāṭha ( vide Dr. Winternitz’s eḍ of 1897, p. XIII. ), a commentary called Anāvilā on the Āśvalāyana-gṛhya-sūtra ( published in the Trivandrum Series ), a commentary called mitākṣarā on the Gautamadharmaśūtra and a commentary named Ujjvalā on the dharmasūtra of Āpastamba. His commentaries are very good models of ideal commentarieṣ His commentary on the dharma-sūtra of Gautama ( printed by the Ānandāśrama Press, Poona ) is more concise than that on the Dharmasūtra of Āpastamba ( large extracts of which were published by Bühler in his edition in the B. S. Series, the whole being printed by Halasyanath Sastri at Kumbhakonam and in the Mysore Government Oriental Library Series ). In his commentary on the Dharmasūtras he quotes verses from numerous smṛtis and from the purāṇas but hardly ever mentions by name any commentator or nibandhakāra. In his Anāvilā ( page 9 ) he quotes the views of a Bhāṣyakāra who is probably Devasvāmin and mentions also a Chāndogagṛhyabhāṣya-kāra (on I. 2. 3). In his commentaries on both the Dharmasūtras he frequently quotes the opinions of previous commentators with the words ‘anye,’ ‘aparaḥ,’ ‘kecit;’ vide G. Dh. S. II. 28, VII. 4 and 14, IX. 52, XI. 17, XII. 32 and 33, XXIV. 5, XXVI. 9, XXVIII. 7 and 44; Āp. Dh. S. I. 1. 4. 24, I. 2. 5. 2 and 18, I. 3. 10. 4, I. 3. 11. 20, I. 5. 15. 20 etc. From the fact that he mentions two interpretations on Āp. Dh. S. I. 2. 5. 2. with the words ‘apara āha’ and ‘ityanye’ and several interpretations on II. 7. 17. 22 it follows that he had before him two or three commenta-ries on Āp. Dh. S. In Bühler’s edition Haradatta on Āp. Dh. S. I. 1. 2. 38 appears to refer to a gṛhya-vṛtti, but in the Kumbha-konam edition the reading is different ( viz. gṛhye gatam ). He is very careful to point out the un-Pāṇinean forms in the sūtras of Gautama¹⁰⁷⁹ and Āpastamba, explains at great length all grammatical matters and generally prefers readings that are in consonance with the rules of Pāṇini. He very often says that the text of the sūtras, particularly of Āpastamba, as handed down by oral tradition was either wrong or followed Vedic usage as regards grammar.¹

From various references Haradatta seems to have been an inhabitant of Southern India or was at least very familiar with Its usageṣ On Gautama XI. 20 he instances several usages of the Colaṣ On Gautama XV. 18 he gives a synonym in the Draviḍa language for² a skin disease called ‘Kilāsa.’ On Āp. Gr. S. VI. 6 (the sūtra ‘nadinirdeśaśca’ etc.) he gives Kāverī and Vegavatī as instanceṣ On Āp. Dh. S. II. 11. 29. 15 (last sūtra) he refers to certain practices of the Draviḍas observed when the Sun is in Aries or Virgo.³ The Vīramitroddaya classes Haradatta and the Smṛticandrikākāra among southern nibandhakāraṣ⁴ From his remark on Āp. Dh. S. II. 7. 17. 25 (the sūtra ‘anyatra rāhudarśanāt’) that the northerners do not recite that sūtra it appears that he affirms that he was a southerner.

Haradatta seems to have been a great devotee of Śiva. He begins his commentary on Gautama, on Āśvalāyana–gṛhya and Āp. Gr. with an obeisance to Rudra and his commentaries on Āp. Dh. S. and on the Āpastambīya–mantra–pāṭha (otherwise called Ekāgnikaṇḍa, 25th and 26th praśnas of Āpastamba–kalpa) with an obeisance to Mahādeva. Burnell (Tanjore msṣ cat. p. 170) tells us that according to tradition in Southern India, Rudradatta, the commentator of the Āp. Śrauta-sūtra, is the same as Haradatta. In his commentary on Āp. Gr. S. I. 13. 5 (ghoṣavad caturaṣaram vā) he gives as instances of the names of males Hara, Rudra, Deva, Haradatta and Bhavanāga. In the colophons the Anāvilā is described as the work of Haradattācārya–miśra. Haradatta ( on Āp. Dh. S. I. 8. 22. 1–2) has a disquisition on the correct knowledge and realization of the self (Ātman). He quotes Mundakopaniṣad II. 9 ( bhidyate &c.), Chāṇ Up. VI. 24. 3 and Yaj. Smṛti I. 8 ( ayam tu paramo dharma yad yogenātma-darśanam), puts the Advaitavedānta view in a nutshell, narrates the story of a prince brought up since boyhood among Śabara (bhīl) children regarding himself as a Śabara, but the truth dawns upon him when his mother tells him who he really was; and quotes four Śārdūlavikrīḍita verses on the same story and the moral.⁵

Ghose in his Hindu Law (3rd eḍ Intro. p. xv) says that, like Medhātithi, Haradatta denies the heritable rights of widows and must have come before Vijñāneśvara and not after. But Ghose appears to be wrong. Haradatta first says that according to the ācārya (i. e. Āpastamba) the sapiṇḍas of the deceased who took the property were obliged to maintain the widow of the deceased, while the view of Gautama was that the widow took, on failure of male issue, an equal share along with the sapiṇḍas, and then Haradatta says that he himself liked the latter view.⁶ He often gives interesting informatioṇ On Gautama XVII. 33 he tells us that asafoetida is eaten by all, even though it is a matter for consideration whether being the exudation of a tree, it is to be regarded as due to cutting ( and so forbidden).⁷ On Āp. Dh. S. II. 2. 5. 14 he cites as an example of reviling (ā-krośa) the 87. Haradatta

following: ‘the Taittirīya is a Śākhā that is ucchiṣṭa (the leavings of food eaten ), the Yājñavalkya and other Brāhmaṇa works are modern’.⁸ On Gautama IV. 5 he says that what distinguishes the Prājāpatya form of marriage from the Brāhma and others is that there is in the former a stipulation that the husband is not to enter into another order of life (āśrama) nor is he to marry another womaṇ⁹ On Āp. Dh. S. I. 4. 12. 15 he says that whereas in the case of marriage with a paternal aunt’s or maternal uncle’s daughter, the act springs from the fact that one is pleased thereby, there is no necessity to infer a śāstra (a Vedic passage) once existing but now lost (in support of such usage).¹⁰

The date of Haradatta is a rather difficult probleṃ Bühler (S. B. E. vol. II. p. XLIII ) at first thought that Haradatta probably wrote in the 16th century, but in his 2nd edition of the Āp. Dh. S. he says (p. VIII ) that the Munich mṣ of the Ujjvalā written in Poona about 1600 A. D. shows the interpolated text found in all Devanagari copies and that therefore Haradatta is older than at least 1450-1500 A. D. The Vīramitrodaya¹¹ frequently cites the Mitākṣarā of Haradatta on Gautama. Nārāyaṇabhaṭṭa ( born in 1513 A. D. ) in his Prayoga-ratna quotes Haradatta’s comment on Gautama VIII. 14-22 about saṃskāras and his son Śaṅkarabhaṭṭa names both the Mitākṣarā and the Ujjvalā of Haradatta in his Dvaitanirṇaya. The Prayogapārijāta of Nṛsiṃha, which is quoted in the Prayogaratna of Nārāyaṇabhaṭṭa and is therefore not later than the first quarter of the 16th century, cites Haradatta’s explanation of Āp. Gṛ. S. ( on ‘pravāsād-etya putra-sya śiraḥ parigṛhya japatī’ etc. ) and contrasts it with Nārāyaṇa’s view. The Subodhinī of Viśveśvarabhaṭṭa ( about 1375 A. D. ) on Mit. ( Yāj. II. 132 ) quotes certain smṛti passages as found in the vṛtti of Āpastamba which are found in Haradatta’s glosṣ¹²

H. D.—94 ( Continued on the next page ) Hence it follows that Haradatta cannot be later than about 1300 A. D. The fact that Haradatta hardly ever names any commentator except perhaps Devasvāmin, the Bhāṣyakāra of Āpastamba-gṛhya, and that he holds antiquated views about the widow's right to succeed to her deceased husband's estate are strong arguments in favour of the view that Haradatta is comparatively an early writer. Hardly any writer after Vijñāneśvara assigns the same position to the widow as Haradatta doeṣ Hence it appears that Haradatta could not have flourished much later than 1100 A. D. So he must be placed between 1100–1300 A. D., very probably near the earlier limit than the later one.

One important question is as to the identity of Haradatta, the commentator of the Dharma and Gṛhya sūtras and Haradatta, the author of the Padamañjarī, a commentary on the Kāśikā of Vāmana and Jayāditya. Bühler felt uncertain about the identity. Śaṅkarabhaṭṭa in his Dvaita-nirṇaya speaks of Haradatta as expounding¹³ a kārikā of Hari (Vākyapadīya III. p. 260, Benares eḍ) and also speaks of Haradatta as the author of the Ujjvalā and the Mitākṣarā without making any distinction between the two. This shows that he regarded the two as identical. Haradatta in his commentaries on the Dharmasūtras gives far more attention to grammar than almost any other commentator of Dharmaśāstra.¹⁴ His grammatical disquisition on Āp. Dh. S. I. 2. 5. 18 (‘plavanam ca nāmno’ etc.) is almost identical with the Padamañjarī on Pāṇini VIII. 2. 83 (‘pratyabhivādeśūdre’). On Āp. Dh. S. II. 7. 17. 17 he quotes a verse as from the grammarians for defining the location of the udīcyaṣ¹⁵ The Mādhavīya Dhātu- vṛtti mentions the Padamañjarī. From this it follows that the Padamañjarī was composed before 1300 A. D. Dr. Belvalkar places Haradatta, the author of the Padamañjarī, about 1100 A. D.¹⁶ The learned editor of the Anāvīlā in the Trivandrum Series points out that, as Haradatta is quoted in the Puruṣakāra which in its turn is mentioned in the Dhātu-vṛtti of Mādhava and as Śaraṇadeva, the author of the Durghaṭa-vṛtti, who wrote in śake 1095, cites the Jainendra and Kaiyaṭa but not Haradatta nor the Padamañjarī, Haradatta wrote about the close of the 12th century A. D. These circumstances render it highly probable ( if not certain ) that Haradatta, the commentator of the Dharma-sūtras, is the same as the author of the Padamañjarī and that he flourished between 1100 and 1300 A. D. and probably about 1200 A. D. The Smṛticandrikā twice refers to the bhāṣya of the Āpa-stamba-dharma-sūtra.¹⁷ Haradatta's commentary is styled vṛtti and not bhāṣya and the citations do not occur in his work. Hence it appears that the Smṛticandrikā did not know Haradatta's works and the latter could not have flourished much earlier than the Smṛti-candrikā.

In the Padamañjarī Haradatta is said to have been the son of Padma ( Rudra )-kumāra, younger brother of Agnikumāra and a pupil of Aparājita.¹⁸ In his Padamañjarī Haradatta employs the word ‘kūcimāñci’ which is a Telugu worḍ¹⁹ The Bhāvi-ṣyottarapurāṇa printed in Grantha characters contains 12 chapters ( 54th to 65th ) and the Śivarahasya printed in the said characters has one chapter ( 17th ) which set out the life ( carita ) of a Haradattācārya. It is stated there that Haradattācārya's original name was Sudarśana, that he was the son of Vāsudeva and that he died 3979. years after Kaliyuga began¹⁰⁰⁰ (i. e. 878 A. D.). This Haradattācārya, being the son of Vāsudeva, was not the same as the author of the Padamañjarī, who was the son of Padmakumāra. This earlier Haradatta may probably be the same as the Haradattācārya cited as an authority in the Sarvadarśana- saṁgraha on the Nakulīśa-pāśupatadarśana.²¹ Dr. Jolly (R. u. S. p. 33) identifies without sufficient foundation the Haradattā- cārya of the Sarvadarśana-saṁgraha with Haradatta, the com- mentator of Āpastamba and Gautama.

A work called Hari-hara-tāratamya and another called Caturvedatātparya-saṁgraha are ascribed to a Haradatta. Of the latter there is a mṣ in the Deccan College collection ( No. 109 of 1871-72 ), which contains 154 verses of fine penmanship. The first and last are given below.²² Whether these two works were composed by Haradatta, the commentator of the Dharma- sūtras, it is difficult to say. In the latter work the author sings a hymn of praise to Śiva as the supreme deity, points out how the Vedic mantras refer to him, how the various rites are meant for him, refers to the mythological representations of Śiva as Kirāta, or as wearing skin etc. All the verses upto 143 are in the Vasantatilakā metre, while towards the end there are a few verses in other metres such as Śikhariṇī and Rathoddhatā. He was a staunch Śaivite,²³ though the hymn breathes a spirit of tolerance and sympathy for different religious and philosophical