95. Madanaratna
Volume I: Part II pp. 804–809
95. Madanaratna
95. Madanaratna
The Madanaratna is an extensive digest on Dharmaśāstra but only one part of it has been edited by the present author for the Anup Sanskrit Library of Bikaner and published in 1948. The Introduction to that edition ( pp. VIII-IX ) may be consulted for more informatioṇ In the colophons of msṣ it is also called Madanaratnapradīpa or simply Madanapradīpa. The work was divided into seven1 sections called uddyotas on samaya (or kāla), ācāra, vyavahāra, prāyaścitta, dāna, śuddhi, śānti. The order of the various sections was the one indicated, the samayoddyota being the first part. I have not been able to examine the msṣ of all the uddyotaṣ
The Samayoddyota deals with the subjects usually treated of in works on kāla, viz. discussions about the year, the seasons, the months, the intercalary months, the rules about tithis, the rules about the proper times for various religious observances, gifts, homa, the rules about kalivarjya.
There is a mṣ of the Dānoddyota in the Ānandāśrama collection at Poona ( No. 2378 ). Recently ( i. e. in 1964 ) the Sanskrit Academy of the Osmania University ( Hyderabad, Deccan ) published a part of the Dāna-vivekoddyota in the Sanskrit Academy Series ( the General editor being Dr. Aryendra Sharma, M. A., D. Phil., Head of the Department of Sanskrit at the Osmania University and the Editors being Shri Khanderao Deshpande, M. A., and Shri D. G. Padhye, B. A. ( Kāvyatīrtha- 95. Madanaratna Sahityālaṅkāra ). The first printed part extends to 272 pages and it is stated that the whole work on Dāna to be published will occupy about 1100 pages in three parts ( in all ). The first part so far published has been well printeḍ There are seven parts of the Madanaratnapradīpa which is a huge work, divided into seven parts, of which the first part on Vyavahāra was edited by me and published in 1948 for the Anup Sanskrit Library of Bikaner. The following are the subjects treated of :— eulogy of dāna; the nature of dāna, various kinds of dānas; the constituent elements ( aṅgāni ) of dāna; the donor, proper persons for gifts, persons underserving of gifts, what things cannot be given away, proper and improper times and places for dāna, measures of corn and other substances and weights and units of length &c., finding out the east and other directions, characteristics of a toraṇa, Pātaka and maṇḍapa, tulā-puruṣa ( weighing oneself against gold or silver ), gift of a thousand cows and other maġaificent gifts, dedication of a tank or well and planting of a garden &c. In this work the author refers to Kalpataru and to Hemādri as a dākṣiṇātya- nibandhakāra.
Deccan College mṣ No. 392 of 1891–95 deals with the śānti sectioṇ It treats of rites for propitiating gods and planets and averting the evil consequences of great or small portentous phenomena, such as Vināyaka-snāna, sūrya-śānti, navagraha-śānti, śāntis for birth on certain evil nakṣatras like mūla, āśleṣā and evil astrological conjunctions like vyatīpāta, vaidhr̥ti, saṁkrānti; rites for the safety of the foetus and of the newly born infant; ayudahoma, lakṣahoma, koṭihoma &c. In this section sages like Uttara-Garga, Kātyāyana, Nārada, Baijavāpa ( on grhya ), Mānava-saṃhitā, Yājñavalkya, Śaunaka and purāṇas like the Skanda, Bhaviṣyottara, Viṣṇudharmottara are very frequently citeḍ Besides the following are among the authors and works referred to :— Apekṣitārthadyotinī, a commentary of Nārāyaṇa, Karmavipākasaṁgraha, Karmavipākamuccaya, Kumāratantra promulgated by the son of Rāvaṇa, Prayogasāra, Vijñāneśvara- cārya ( in the plural ).
A mṣ of the Ācāroddyota is noticed by Burnell in his Tanjore Cat. ( p. 137 b). Stein ( in his Cat. of Jammu msṣ ) notices an incomplete mṣ of the Vyavahāroddyota ( p. 98 2437. M. M. Haraprasad Shastri notices a mṣ of the Prayaścittoddyota (Nepal Palm-leaf and Paper Msṣ Cat. XVIII and p. 223).
From the colophons at the end of the several msṣ of the Madanaratna it appears that the work was composed under the patronage of king Madanasimha-deva, son of Saktisimha.2 The king is styled mahārājādhirāja and one of his titles is Kodanda-parasūrama (meaning ‘who was a veritable Parasurāma in wielding the bow’). The introductory verses3 to the Samayoddyota in the Viśrāmbāga collection and the Ulwar mṣ refer to Delhi-deśa and its king named Mahāpāladeva. Then verse 9 speaks of Dāmodara whose exact relationship with Mahāpāladeva is not clear. Dāmodara is said to have made the yāvanas of Mūlasthāna (modern Multan in the Punjab) give up the slaughter- ing of cowṣ The whole pedigree is given below.4 Saktisimha is said to have eclipsed even Bhoja. It is further said that Madanasimha called5 together four learned men viz., Ratnākara, Gopināth, Viśvanātha and Gaṅgadharabhaṭṭa and entrusted the composition of the digest to theṃ The colophon6 at the end of the Śāntyuddyota in the Deccan College says that it was composed by Viśvanātha, a resident of Benares and son of Bhaṭṭapūjya, a Śrīmālī Gurjara ( Brāhmaṇa ). There is a similar colophon at the end of the Prāyaścittoddyota noticed by M. M. Haraprasad Sastri.
The Vyavahāra section of the Madanaratna is a large work in 348 printed pageṣ It deals with both judicial procedure and the eighteen titles of law ( Vyavahārapadas ). A brief analysis of its contents is set out here :— The meaning of Vyavahāra, names of the titles of law ; Sabhā ( court of justice ) and its adjuncts; the king himself should preside over the court, or a judge ( prādvīvāka ) should preside and may be helped by sabhyas ( persons expert in law, as stated by Yāj. II. 2 ); requisite quali- fications of judge and members of court ; when the parties may appear through agents; modes of proof viz. documents, witnesses, possession ; requisites of plaint and of the reply ; requisites of royal edicts ; contents of the decision in a legal dispute ; Paścātkāra and Jayapatra ; inference of three kinds ; characteristics of possession as means of proof ; when ordeals are to be resorted to; nine kinds of ordeals ; special oaths ; details of the several ordeals ; punishments may be of the body or in money ( property ); punishment for brāhmaṇa is banishment ( and not of the body ) or shaving the head or making a mark on the forehead or banishing after seating him on an ass ; when a judgement of a court may be reviewed ; when a person is held to be major ; recovery of debts is the first vyavahārapada ( cause of legal dispute ) among the 18 ; when interest is allowed and the rates of interest ; rule of dāmaduppata ; mortgage and pledge and various kinds of them ; surety of various kinds ; rules about suretyship, debts and about the liability of the heirs of the surety ; modes of covering debts when the debtor fails to pay ; liability of son or other heirs to pay the debts of their father or ancestor ; deposits and the like ; sale of or use of property by one not the owner of it ; rules about property lost and found by one who is not the owner ; rules about partnership and partners ; non- rendition or resumption of gifts ; disputes between master and servant or herdsman ; violation of compacts and the meaning of naigama and vrata, pūga, gaṇa, saṅgha, gulma ; repentance after purchase or sale or non-delivery after sale ; breach of contract of service; boundary disputes; abuse and defamation; assault and battery; theft; adultery; duties of husband and wife; partition of heritage; property not liable to partition; fresh partition as to concealed ancestral estate; definition of *strīdhan*a and kinds thereof; heirs to *strīdhan*a ; heirs of sonless person; gambling and prize-fighting; miscellaneouṣ
Since the Madanaratna mentions the Mit., the Kalpataru and Hemādri, Ratnākara and Mādhavīya, it must be certainly later than about 1360 A. D. It is quoted as a great authority by the writers of the 16th and 17th centuries, such as Nārāyaṇabhaṭṭa, Kamalākarabhatta, Nīlakaṇṭha and Mitramiśra. In the Vyavahāra-mayūkha Nīlakaṇṭha relies upon the Madanaratna as often as ( if not oftener than ) the Mitākṣarā. The Vyavahāra-mayūkha of Nīlakaṇṭha published in BORI in 1926 mentions the Madanaratna or simply Madana about two dozen times; out of these on some pages such as pp. 98, 136, 145 of the text it shows that the Madanaratna differs from Vijñāneśvara, though on p. 139 it doubts the correctness of the explanation given by the Madanaratna. In other cases it cites the Madanaratna generally as supporting his own viewṣ The Mayūkha quotes Smārtābhaṭṭācārya ( i. e. Raghunandana ) on pp. 63 and 88 ( text ). On p. 88 ( text ) it mentions Vācaspati. The Madanaratnapradīpa on Vyavahāra mentions ‘ Mādhavīye-vidyāraṇyāśrīcaraṇāḥ ’ on pp. 86 and 360, while on pp. 18 and 20 it simply says ‘ Mādhavīye ’. The Viramitrodaya7 says that the author of the Madanaratna refers to the views of the Mitākṣarā, Kalpataru and Halāyudha.
It may be noted that it states on p. 335 that the Samaya-nirṇayodyota and the Ācāravivekodyota had already been composed by the author. It profusely quotes in Vyavahārodyota Manu, Yājñavalkya, Nārada, Kātyāyana and Bṛhaspati. The Parāśaramādhavīya references on pp. 18. 20. 86, 360 show that he held that Mādhava was identical with Vidyāraṇya. This fact that an author who flourished in northern India about 1400 A. D. held this view strongly militates against father Heras' sweeping assertions against the identity of the two. A remarkable matter is that he speaks of Dhāreśvara i. e. Bhoja ‘as bhatta’ on p. 324 (etat Dhāreśvarabhattenāpyāśritam). Madanasimha and his ancestors are spoken of as ruling the country about Delhi. Though Madanasimha bears the high-sounding title of mahārājādhirāja it is highly probable that he was some feudatory chief under the Mahomedan rules of Delhi. It is difficult to conceive of a period between 1300 and 1500 A. D. when a Hindu ruler was king of Delhi. It may be that during the troublous times of Muhammad Tughlak (1325–1351 A. D.), when the capital was transferred from Delhi to Doulatabad, or during the weak rule of the last kings of the Tughlak dynasty (1388–1413 A. D.). Madanasimha's predecessors might have usurped some territory about Delhi and ruled over it. At all events it would not be far from correct if the Madanaratna be placed about 1400–1450 A. D. M. M. Haraprasad Sastri (Report on palm-leaf and paper msṣ from Nepal, Intro. pp. 31–32) tells us that the dynasty to which Madanasimhadeva belonged ruled over Gorakhapur-Champaran (Western Tirhut), that Madanasimhadeva was preceded by Śaktisimhadeva, whose predecessor was Prthvisimhadeva. The learned Sastri further says that a mṣ of the Madanaratnapradīpa-prāyaścittodyota applies the title ‘kodandaparaśurāma’ to Madana (p. 223), that a mṣ of the Amarakośa was copied in samvat 1511 (1454–55 A. D.) when Madanasimha ruled over Campakāraṇyanagara (p. 51 of the body of the Report) and that a mṣ of the Narasimhapuraṇa was copied in La-saṁ 339 (1457–58 A. D.) when Mahārājādhirāja Madanasimhadeva ruled over Goraksapura i. e. modern Gorakhpur (p. 29 of the Report). It is likely that some confusion arose among the scribes of the work owing to the fact that two chieftains bearing the name Madanasimha flourished at the same period near Delhi and Gorakhpur. The great similarity of the names Madanapāla and Madanasimha misled J. C. Ghose (Hindu Law, vol. II, p. xiv. eḍ of 1917) into holding that the Madanapārijāta and the Madanaratna were written under Madanapāla. But it is clear from the ancestry of the two kings, Madanapāla and Madanasimha, and the names of the real authors of the digests (Madanapārijāta and Madanaratna) that they have no connection with each other.
H. D.—102