92. Harinātha

Volume I: Part II pp. 775–777

Harinātha is primarily recognized as the author of an influential digest, the *Smṛtisāra*. This scholarly work is notable for its meticulous approach, wherein Harinātha names and cites numerous authorities, thereby drawing upon a vast tradition of Dharmaśāstra scholarship. The contents of his *Smṛtisāra* are comprehensive, systematically exploring various facets of dharma, as is characteristic of such synthesising texts of Hindu law and custom. From a chronological perspective, Harinātha is generally believed to have flourished sometime between 1300 and 1400 A.D., placing him firmly within the later medieval period of Dharmaśāstra literature. It is also pertinent to note that his *Smṛtisāra* is not singular in its appellation; rather, several other independent works from a similar period or genre were also styled *Smṛtisāra*, requiring careful scholarly discernment to avoid conflation and ensure accurate attribution.

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

92. Harinātha

92. Harinātha Ratnākaras, some of which (like vivāda and dāna) refer to his weighing himself against gold in 1314 A. D. and his high position at the court of Harisiṁhadeva, were composed between 1314 and 1324 A. D. His Rājanītiratnākara was composed at the command of Bhaveśa. This last belonged to the line of the Kāmeśvara dynasty which began to rule Tirhut in the third quarter of the 13th century, in 1370 A. D. according to Mr. Jayasval (introduc-tion to Rājanītiratnākara, r ). Therefore the literary activities of Cāṇḍeśvara extended over about 50 years from 1314 and the Rājanīti-ratnākara was probably his last work composed at a very advanced age. For the somewhat controversial and confused chronology of the Tirhut kings of the Karṇāṭa and Kāmeśvara dynasties, vide Hp. cat. ( Introduction p. 31 ); Grierson in Inḍ Ant. vol. 14, pp. 182–196 and Inḍ Ant. vol. 28, pp. 407–433 ( M. M. Chakravarti ); JBORS vol. IX, p. 300 and X, p. 37 ( Jayasval ).

Cāṇḍeśvara exercised very great influence over Maithila and Bengal writerṣ Misarumiśra, Vardhamāna, Vācaspati-miśra and Raghunandana¹ very frequently quote hiṃ The Vīramitrodaya ( p. 181 ) calls the Ratnākara ‘Paurastya-nibandha’ ( eastern digest ).

92. Harinātha Harinātha is the author of a digest called Smṛtisāra on several topics of dharmaśāstra. No part of this work has been yet printeḍ In the India Office there are two msṣ of the Smṛtisāra ( I. O. Cat. p. 448, No, 1488 and p. 449, No. 1489 ). The first ( pramāpakāḥ ) on Dharmaśāstra, out of which the Karmapradīpa, the Kalpataru, the Kāmadhenu, Kumāra, Gaṇeśvaramiśra, Vijñāneśvara, Vilamba (?), Smṛtimañjūṣa and Harihara deserve special mentioṇ This mṣ contains the portion of the Smṛtisāra on the saṁskāras, rites on death, śrāddha and prāyaścitta. The other mṣ deals with the principal topics of vivāda ( various titles of law ) and vyavahāra (judicial procedure), viz. partition, father's share on partition, larger share to the eldest son, persons excluded from partition and inheritance, impartible property; strīdhana; the several kinds of sons ; succession to the sonless; re-union; gambling and prize-fighting and other titles of law ; various methods of daṇḍa ( punishment ); the various units of measure etc. ; judicial procedure i. e. the plaint, the reply, the means of proof, viz. documents, witnesses, posses- sion, reasoning, oaths and ordeals ; review of judgment; minority and dependence; rules about succession according to various authorṣ This last portion appears to be a sort of supplement, wherein the views of Bālarūpa, Pārijāta, Halāyudha, Kalpataru and of the Smṛtisāra itself on the order of succession to a man dying sonless are set forth. Viśvarūpa and Śrīkara are named in the summary of Bālarūpa's views and the Prakāśa at a later stage ( folio 148 b ). Bhavadeva-nibandha is also expressly named on possessioṇ

No information is given in the msṣ about Harinātha himself. He is styled in the colophons ‘ mahāmahōpādhyāya. ’ In several places he refers to the views of the Gauḍas on ācāra; e. g. he cites the view of the Gauḍas that on a fasting day or śrāddha day one should not employ the twig used in dantadhāvana and that when there is Ekādaśī on two days a house-holder should observe a fast on the first and a yati on the seconḍ It appears that he was not a Gauḍa but rather a Maithila.

The India Office mṣ of the vivāda portion of the Smṛtisāra is dated saṁvat 1614 (i. e. 1558 A. D.). Another mṣ of the same portion ( vide Mitra's Notices, vol. V, p. 232, No. 1913 ) was copied in Lakṣmaṇa saṁvat 363 i. e. 1469-1470 A. D. Śūlapāṇi quotes the Smṛtisāra in his Durgotsavaviveka. Misarumiśra in his Vivādacandra several times refers to the opinions of the Smṛtisāra.² Hence it follows that the Smṛtisāra was composed 92. Harinātha

before the last quarter of the 14th century. Cāṇḍeśvara in his voluminous work nowhere refers to Harinātha nor does the latter refer to hiṃ Hence they were probably contemporaries or not separated by any appreciable interval of time. As Harinātha mentions the Kalpataru and Harihara, he must be later than about 1250 A. D. If Gaṇeśvaramiśra³ mentioned by Harinātha be the author of the Sugatisopāna (which is extremely probable) who was an uncle of Cāṇḍeśvara, then Harinātha cannot be earlier than about 1300 A. D. Harinātha is mentioned in the Danda- viveka p. 251 and on p. 326 and the latter refers to the author of Smṛtisāra on pp. 141, 197, 282, 284. Raghunandana in Smṛti- tattva, (vol. I) Tithi p. 85, criticizes the meaning of Varuṇa given by Harinātha ; Prāyaścitta p. 536 (mentioned as Harinātho- pādhyāya) ; Vol. II. Ekādaśī pp. 7, 105, Udvāha p. 108, Śuddhi- tattva 240 (as against Bhavadevabhaṭṭa). The Smṛtisāra is several times mentioned as an authority in the Śrāddhaviveka of Rudradhara (Benares S. Series on pp. 14, 48, 50), who is fre- quently mentioned by Raghunandana in the Smṛtitattva (vol. I) Tithi pp. 136, 137, 186, Śrāddha p. 226, Prāyaścitta p. 542. The Smṛtisāra is mentioned by the Vivādacintāmaṇi⁴ by Vācaspati- miśra (on p. 36 of the edition of 1837). Therefore Harinātha flourished sometime between 1300-1400 A. D.

There are several works styled Smṛtisāra e. g. of Keśava- śarmā (Mitra's Notices, vol. II. p. 76), of Yādavabhūṣaṇa-bhaṭṭā- cārya (Mitra's Notices, vol. IV p. 213 No. 1642), of Devayājñika (D. C. Mṣ No. 266 of 1884-87 and 344 of 1886-92, the latter being called Smṛtisārasangraha). Hence it often becomes difficult to say in the case of later works, what particular Smṛtisāra is being quoteḍ

The दानरत्नाकर is mentioned by रघु in स्मृतिरत्न (vol. I) in प्राय० p. 478; the पुजार० (in vol. I) तिथितत्त्व pp. 102 and 129, आह्निक-तत्त्व p. 397; शुद्धिर्नाकर (vol. I) मळमास p. 795, (in vol. II) शुद्धिस्तत्व p. 301; कृत्यरत्नाकर is mentioned by Raghu. in (vol. I) Tithi p. 85, Jyotistattva p. 688 and Mala. on p. 768; the गृहस्थरत्नाकर (vol. I) Tithi p. 120, Prāyaścitta pp. 509, 520; (vol II) Udvāha p. 146. ↩
e. g. न वाचः कालसंबोधश्चिद्गोत्ति न विक्रय इति वचनात् कालसंबोधः काला- वशानं निसर्गोज्ञ व्याकरणम् । आग्याधिष्विणयमिति स्मृतिसारः । folio 5a of विवादचन्द्र ( D. C. mṣ No. 57 of 1883-84) ; अत एव स्मृतिसारे यदा निसर्गं केनचित्तुणे संसर्गो ( संसूथो ? ) तदा तदद्वनं संसूचोऽपि गृहीयाद्यान्नासंसूचपुत्रः संसूचिनस्तु संसूचीविषेणेणाभिधानादित्यनुक्तम् । folio 37 b; vide also 57 b for another reference to स्मृतिसार. ↩
श्यः कर्तासीति निश्चित्य दाता विप्राद्भिन्नमन्त्रयेत् । निरामिषं सकृद्द्वत्वा सर्वमुत्कृजने गृह्ने । असंभवे परेधुर्वा ब्राह्मणास्तान्निवेदयेत् ।। अत्र गणेश्वरमिश्राः । इदं वाक्यं निरा- मिषसकृद्रोजनविशिष्टे निमन्त्रणविषयकमतो निमन्त्रणाद्धि निरामिशसकृद्रोजना- दीनि श्रुतिबलात् । स्मृतिसार ( I. O. mṣ No. 1488 ). ↩
पुत्रदारसर्वस्वप्रतिक्षेपेतु चतुर्ष्वपि स्वातन्त्र्यें सत्स्वपि वचनबलादेव दानबन्ध इति । स्मृतिसारमते तु सर्वस्वे दानं स्थितमेव स्वतन्त्रस्वामित्वत्वात्, किंतु दातुः प्रत्य- वायो निषिद्धाचरणादिति । विवादचिन्तामणि p. 36. In Srimati Sabitri v. Mrṣ F. A. Savi. ( I. L. R. 12 Patna, p. 359 at p. 513 ) this view of the Smṛtisāra is referred to and discusseḍ H, D, 98 ↩

91. Candeshvara 93. Mādhavācārya