98. Shūlapāni

Volume I: Part II pp. 823–840

98. Shūlapāni

98. Śūlapāṇi prescribes that the strīdhana of a woman on her death passes to her sons and to daughters that are unmarried, but the married daughter ( in such a case ) receives a small part as a token of honour to her. The Dāyabhāga by a slight change ( samūḍhā to na labhen-mātṛkam dhanam’ ) denies to the married daughter the right to receive even a token part of her mother’s strīdhana.

In the above cases the original text must have been only of one tenor, but by a slight change the same verse is made to yield a different sense.

As this Varadarāja is quoted in several places in the Vyavahārakāṇḍa of the Sarasvatīvilāsa of Pratāparudra ( on pp. 135, 179, 268–269, 276, 319 ), his work must be earlier than about 1500 A. D. as Pratāparudra ruled from 1497 to 1538 A. D. and refers to him as one among ādhunika writers ( p. 325 ). It should be noted that the Sarasvatīvilāsa, which quotes Aparārka many times ( as on pp. 230, 262, 264, 308, 344–45, 354, 367 &c. ) and the Caṇḍrikākāra ( i. e. author of Smṛticandrikā ) dozens of times ( as on pp. 212, 230, 235, 242, 264, 267, 275, 308, 350 ) never speaks of Aparārka or the Caṇḍrikā or Smṛticandrikā as ādhunika. The Smṛticandrikā would have to be placed between 1200–1240 A. D. as it quotes Aparārka and is quoted very largely by Hemādri. Therefore Varadarāja must be later than 1300 A. D. and would have to be assigned to a period between 1450–1495 A. D. ( in order that he may be styled Ādhunika in a work composed in the first quarter of the 16th century ).

98. Śūlapāṇi Jīmūtavāhana, Śūlapāṇi and Raghunandana are the three leading and very eminent writers on dharmaśāstra from Bengal. Rai Bahadur Manomohan Chakravarti in his learned and long paper ‘Contributions to the History of Smṛti in Bengal and Mithila’ in J. A. S. B. ( New Series ) Vol. XI ( 1915 ) deals with Bengal authors on Smṛti in pp. 311–406 and deals with Śūlapāṇi in pp. 336–343 giving a very interesting account of his works and time.

The earliest work of Śūlapāṇi appears to have been his Dīpakalikā, a commentary on the smṛti of Yājñavalkya. It is a very brief commentary. Rai Bahadur M. M. Chakravarti had no printed edition of the Dīpakalikā and relied upon a mṣ from the Sanskrit College. The Dīpakalikā¹ was published by Mr. Gharpure in 1939 in his series of Hindu Law textṣ Raghu- nandana quotes or refers to it very often in spite of its small size (vide vol. I, Śrāddha, pp. 201, 208, 225, 247; Āhnika 454; Prāyaścitta 543, 546; vol. II Udvāha 138, Vyavahāra 224, 225; Divya 577. The portion on the dāyabhāga section (Yājñavalkya II, verses 114–149) is contained in five printed pages (vide Ghose’s Hindu Law, edition of 1917, vol. II. pp. 550–554). In this commentary, besides the sages he names only a few writers and works on dharma, e. g. the Kalpataru, Govindarāja, the Mitākṣarā, Medhātithi and Viśvarūpa. He entertained somewhat archaic views on matters of inheritance. For example, he holds that the text speaking of the right of the parents to succeed before the brothers of the deceased has reference to property acquired by the deceased from his father or grand-father. He explained the word ‘apratiṣṭhitā’ in the sūtra of Gautama ‘strīdhanam duhi- trṇāmaprattānām-apratiṣṭhitānām ca’ in the same way as Aparārka, Jīmūtavāhana and the Smṛticandrikā.² He says that a full brother though not re-united succeeded before a half-brother 98. Śūlapāṇi

though re-uniteḍ³ This explanation of the much canvassed verse of Yāj. offered by Śūlapāṇi is referred to by the Viramitro- daya.⁴ The Vyavahāratattva of Raghunandana several times refers to Śūlapāṇi’s explanations of Yāj.⁵

In the Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 390 of Jivananda’s eḍ) Śūlapāṇi states that he has already composed a commentary on Yāj. The Śuddhitattva (vol. II p. 380) mentions that Śūlapāṇi also com- posed ‘ Parisista-dīpakalikā ’.

Śūlapāṇi wrote several small treatises on topics of dharma- śāstra. It is doubtful whether he contemplated or proposed to make them parts of a huge digest on smṛti. At least twelve tractales of his ending in the word ‘ Viveka ’ are knowṇ Chakra- varti on p. 337 of his paper opines that the several ‘ small treatises formed parts of general treatise by name the Smrtiviveka.’ With great respect I demur to this conclusioṇ He nowhere drops even a hint that he meant these large and small treatises to be parts of a Smrtiviveka viz. Ekādaśi-viveka, Tithi-viveka, Dattaka-viveka, Durgotsavaprayoga-viveka, Durgotsava-viveka, Dolayātrā-viveka, Pratiṣṭhā-viveka, Prāyaścitta-viveka, Rasayātrā-viveka, Vratakāla- viveka, Śuddhi-viveka, Śrāddha-viveka, Saṁkrānti-viveka, Sām- bandha-viveka (on marriage). Of these the Durgotsavaviveka seems to have been amongst his latest works, since he names therein five of his vivekas on durgotsava-prayoga, pratiṣṭhā, prāyaścitta, śuddhi and śrāddha. The Śrāddha-viveka is the most famous of his works and has been printeḍ His Prāyaścittaviveka and Durgotsava-viveka have also been published, the former by Jivananda (1893) and the latter by the Sanskrit Sāhitya Pariṣad at Calcutta in Bengali characterṣ In the Durgotsava-viveka he deals with the worship of Durgā in Āśvina and also in spring (hence the deity is called Vasanti). In the Durgotsava viveka, besides such purāṇas as the Kalikā, Bhaviṣyottara, Bhāgavata, Devī, he names a host of writers and works as noted below.⁶ In spite of Aufrecht's view the Saṁvatsara-pradīpa is not his own work. The Saṁvatsarpradīpa mentioned by Śūlapāṇi in Durgo-tsavaviveka appears to have been a work of Halāyudha, as Raghu-nandana states in Ekādaśītattva (vol. II. p. 51, ‘Saṁvatsara-pradīpe Halāyudhopī etanmatānusārī’) and in Śuddhi (Vol. II p. 327 ‘ata eva saṁvatsara-pradīpe Halāyudhenoktam). The Saṁvatsarpradīpa without the author’s name is quoted by Raghunandana many times, as in (vol. I) Tithi (pp. 34, 43, 49, 106 ); Śrāddha, p. 250, Prāyaścitta p. 508, Malamāsa pp. 754, 848 ; in vol. II Ekādaśī pp. 8, 40, 61-62, 65, 83, and Śuddhi 382. A Sārasamuccaya is also mentioned in Hemādri (Dānakhaṇḍa page 135 ). The Smṛtisāgara is probably the same as the Govindārṇava of Śeṣa Nṛsiṁha. Śrīkaramiśra is probably the ancient author referred to even by the Mitākṣarā.

Śūlapāṇi is mentioned by name by Raghunandana in some places without any title (as in vol. I Malamāsa pp. 748, 854–55; Vol. II. p. 577 Divya ), sometimes as upādhyāya (vol. I. Dāya 175 ) and very often as Mahāmahopādhyāya (as in vol. I Prāyaś-citta pp. 528, 553 ; vol. II. Vyavahāra p. 197, Śuddhi p. 296 ). Brief notes may be added on a few of his workṣ

The Sambandhaviveka⁷ was edited by Dr. J. B. Chaudhuri (Calcutta ) in 1942 with an Introduction of 23 pages dealing with the origin and development of the forms of marriage (8 forms in the Gaut. Dh. S. and in Āśv. Gṛ. I. 6) and contain- ing a few remarks on the work of Śūlapāṇi. A work of the same name by Bhavadevabhaṭṭa who flourished at least three centuries before Śūlapāṇi has also been edited by Dr. S. C. Banerjee in N. I. A. Vol. VI. pp. 97–102. A comparison of the works of the same name by Bhavadeva and Śūlapāṇi would be interesting but reasons of space prevent any such attempt. It is a misnomer to speak of the small treatises of Śūlapāṇi as granthas or nibandhaṣ It is cumbersome and unnecessary to mention and describe all the writings of Śūlapāṇi (in a work like the present general History of Dharmaśāstra) said to be 23 by Dr. S. C. Banerjee in N. I. A. vol. V. pp. 169–176.

For the Dolayātrāviveka one has to turn to the volume of studies presented to the present author on his completing 60 years on the 7th May 1941, to which Dr. S. C. Banerji contributed a paper containing the text of Dolayātrāviveka of Śūlapāṇi (pp. 56–62) based on seven msṣ belonging to the Dacca University msṣ library. It is a small tract of about five printed pages (if the footnotes about different readings of the msṣ be excluded). Dolayātrā means the festival of swinging (of the image of Kṛṣṇa). Half of the work is taken from Skandapurāṇa, some verses are also quoted from the Brahmapurāṇa and Devipurāṇa and the work called Bhujabalabhīma is also citeḍ The festival may be celebrated for three days or five dayṣ Ordinarily it is celebrated on the full moon day of Phālguna (but questions arise when Paurnimā is mixed with Caturdaśī) or with Uttarāphālgunī nakṣatra. The conclusions are stated in the note below⁸ when one or two of the three required particulars are wanting.

A few words are required to be said on the two extensive and important works of Śūlapāṇi, viz. Prāyaścittaviveka and Śrāddhaviveka. But the Śrāddhaviveka not being available to me in Devanāgarī script, I have had to give up the idea of say-ing something about it. The first was printed over seventy years ago by Jivananda with the commentary of Govindānanda called Tattvārthakaumudī and contains 544 printed pageṣ Hundreds of Prāyaścittas on serious and insignificant transgressions are mentioned in this work. It is difficult to believe that all these (or even large portions) were actually practised by the people in the author's days or even centuries before hiṃ A brief statement of its contents is given here.— Etymology⁹ of the word Prāyaścitta according to Aṅgiras and Hārīta; how sins are incurred (acc. to Manu XI. 43, Yāj. III. 219–220); the effect of sins are experienced in the present life itself or in another life (Yāj. III. 32–33); sinners fall into hell or are born with bodily defects (Manu XI. 49, 52); narakas (hells) are many acc. to Manu IV. 88–90; two views – one is that the results of every act must be endured and there is no escape from them; the other is that results of sins may be avoided or mitigated by appropriate acts and penances declared in the śāstras (Manu XI. 45, 46, 53); distinction between sins committed through ignorance and sins committed of set purpose (Yāj. III. 226); sinner should approach a pariṣad (assembly of learned men) or the king; constitution of pariṣad for prescribing appropriate penances (pp. 27–29); various methods for reducing or removing effects of sins (Manu XI. 227, 230); enumeration of penances like kṛcchra, cāndrāyaṇa, prājāpatya, sāntapana, parāka; secret penances like japa of mantras and homas; nine kinds of sins, such as atipātaka, mahāpātaka, anupātaka, upapātaka, jātibhramśākara &c.; enumeration and definitions of these; acc. to Viṣṇu (34. 1) there are three atipātakas viz. incest with mother, daughter or daughter-in-law; Manu does not mention atipātakas as a distinct class; for Atipātakas, penance for these is entering into fire; Prāyaścittas for the five Mahāpātakas (in Manu XI. 54); upapātakas are 38 in Manu (XI. 59–66); Jātibhraṁśākara are sins mentioned in Manu XI. 67–70; penances for Mahāpātakas; no sin incurred when a brāhmaṇa who is being treated medically dies (Yāj. III. 284); Manu (VIII. 350–52) and many ancient sages very clearly accept the right of private 98. Śūlapāṇi

defence by stating that even if one's guru or a boy or an old brāhmaṇa approaches with a weapon to harm a person, the latter should kill him without further thought¹⁰; penances for killing a brāhmaṇa (13 indicated by Manu XI. 72–82 as stated in the Pr. Viveka p. 65); but this applies only when killing is not of set purpose; P. (stands for Prāyaścitta or Prāyaścittas in this summary') for those who abet killing or who encourage or merely approve; P. are more severe according as the culprit in the case of killing a brāhmaṇa is a Kṣatriya or of another varṇa or even in other offences (than killing a brāhmaṇa); Dakṣiṇā in penances depends upon the means of the guilty person; penances for drinking surā,¹¹ meaning of surā (Manu XI. 93), since all intoxicants are not regarded as surā (pp. 89 ff.); P. for theft of gold (pp. 107–127); Technical meaning of Suvarṇa; punishments for theft of gold of different quantities and discussion of the meaning of steya; punishments for theft of gold (including fines); P. for adultery with a wife of one's guru (pp. 128-140); different meanings of guru (Yāj. I. 34, Manu II. 142 and 149); Gautama II. 56, Devala who describes eleven kinds of gurvāṅganā; P. for contact with sinners (pp. 140-176); nine kinds of contact (saṁsarga) acc. to Bṛhaspati; P. for anupātakas (those that are equal to mahāpātakas acc. to Manu XI. 55-58, pp. 176-192); P. for Upapātakas (192 ff.) mentioned in Manu (XI. 59-66; 59 Upapātakas (Govadha is the first and Nāstikya is the last of them); P. for killing a cow (Manu XI. 108-116); they varied according as the cow belonged to a brāhmaṇa or to men of other varṇas; P. for killing a Kṣatriya (Manu XI. 126-130) or one who is born of a pratiloma and others (pp. 221-22); P. for killing women of the several varṇas (pp. 223-28); P. for killing a foetus (pp. 228-29); P. for killing an elephant, horse, donkey and other animals, birds, fishes (pp. 229-43) and for cutting trees, creepers &c. double¹²⁵⁴ fines for cutting trees growing in cemeteries, on boundaries, holy places, temples (Yāj. II. 227-229); no fault if trees are cut for making ploughs or utensils to be used in sacrifices (p. 245); P. for eating food and things forbidden (pp. 248-53); P. for taking food from washermen, Kāpālikas, caṇḍālas &c. (pp. 256-59); no P. in certain cases for partaking of flesh even by brāhmaṇas (pp. 277-78); P. for eating food or flesh that is not allowed by śāstra (pp. 281-82); fast as a P. for not performing one's daily duties as laid down by the Veda (p. 286 quoting Manu XI. 203); P. for eating onions, garlic &c. (pp. 293-95); P. for drinking surā, urine &c. through ignorance for men of the three varṇas (pp. 303 ff.), P. for eating fooḍ some part of which was eaten by a cat, crow, dog or having hair in it (pp. 320-21); P. for dining in a row with men 98. Śūlapāṇi of other varṇas or for drinking water from a well used by caṇḍālas or from a vessel used by them (pp. 323–28); P. for drinking milk which is declared to be unfit (pp. 335–36 quoting Gau- tama Dh. S. 17. 22–26, Manu V. 8–9, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 51. 38–41); general rule that where penances are not declared in one Smṛti, one may draw upon other smṛtis or the opinion of śiṣṭas (as Śāṅkha-smṛti says); as regards upapātakas the rule laid down in Viṣṇu¹² is that the full penance is to be gone through by a brāh- maṇa, 3/4th by a kṣatriya, one-half by a Vaiśya and 1/4th by a śūdra (p. 340); different P. for theft of various articles, crops and animals (pp. 341–48); when adultery is forbidden only as upapātaka (pp. 349–53); offenders committing adultery with women of a higher varṇa were treated with great severity (pp. 354–55) and women of higher varṇa committing adultery with a śūdra or antyaja were to be killed or driven away (p. 360); P. for having intercourse with one’s wife on what are called parvan days (pp. 367–68 quoting Manu IV. 128 and XI. 203 which prescribe fast); P. for married woman guilty of adultery (Manu XI. 176 and Yaj. I. 70, 72); P. for a brāhmaṇa woman raped by a brāhmaṇa or by a person of another varṇa (pp. 370–73); P. for a man having intercourse with a woman of any one of the seven antayajas knowingly or through ignorance (pp. 374–75); P. for a person marrying or setting up a sacred fire before an elder brother or for a younger sister marrying before an elder one (pp. 378–83); P. for vrātya i. e. a person belonging to one of the three varnas whose upanayana was not performed even uptill the 16th, 22nd or 24th year from birth as required by Manu XI. 196, Yaj. I. 37–38 (pp. 384–86); P. for an avakīrṇin (one who has sexual intercourse while he is a brahmacārin or for marrying in ignorance paternal aunt's or maternal aunt's or maternal uncle's daughter¹³) pp. 387–391; P. for one who gives up tending sacred vedic fires set up by him (Manu XI. 41); P. for Brāh- maṇa not studying the Veda or not performing yajña, or not 98. ū lapāni

having a son that he may undergo is the same as the P. for govadha or if not able to do so donate twelve cows or ten cows and a bull (pp. 394–95); P. for a Vedic student sleeping after sunrise, not doing worship and not begging for food for a householder brāhmaṇa (who is not ill), not doing daily acts enjoined by the Veda or neglecting them for long periods (pp. 396–400) or for being a purohita for a śūdra or receiving gifts from him except in adversity or from seven antyajas, cāṇḍālas or patitas (pp. 401–413); P. (vaiśvānara iṣṭi) for accepting gifts made by others for becoming free from results of Mahā-pātakas or lesser sins (p. 414–416 quoting Yāj. III. 250, Manu XI. 193 and 253); mention of gifts of high value, middling and low value (pp. 417–18); in difficulty a brāhmaṇa may do the work of a kṣatriya or vaiśya, but when the difficulty is gone he should give up the wealth so acquired (p. 418 quoting Yāj. III. 35); P. for a brāhmaṇa following the profession of actor, dancer, singer, subsisting on wife’s strīdhana (enumerated at great length from Yama, pp. 421–22) or for engaging in the sale of things that are declared to be improper for sale by brāhmaṇas such as sale of milk (as in Manu X. 92) or for visiting certain countries except on pilgrimage (pp. 425–30); P. for speaking untruth¹⁴ or being a false witness (pp. 431–33); P. for showing disrespect to one’s guru or to a brāhmaṇa (p. 437); Where no prāyaścitta is expressly specified for a sinful act Prājāpatya is the one to be undergone (p. 440); P. for one who after resorting to sannyāsa, wants to return to his former status after a short time or after the passage of a long time or Prājāpatya penance for a woman who runs away from the funeral pyre after having first resorted to it (pp. 444–46); P. for one bitten by a dog, jackal, donkey, village hog (pp. 448–51); P. for carrying the body of one who was killed by cows or by a brāhmaṇa or that of one who commits suicide (452–54); P. for one who was forcibly made a slave by mlecchas¹⁵ and compelled to do condemned acts such as killing cows or eating the flesh of donkeys, camels, swine (six verses quoted from Devalasmrti); P. for ascetics ( Yati) who contravene the vratas prescribed for them (pp. 460–64); P. for using a car drawn by camels or donkeys (462–63); P. for acts for which penances are not expressly specified (p. 467); P. for touching one who should not be touched is a bath (Manu V. 85); P. for touching onions and garlic (p. 481); P. for touching human bone (p. 484); Bālā (one below 16 years), old man (man above 80 years) and women have to undergo only half of the P. that may be awarded to a male (p. 491); a person whose lapse is known should undergo the P. laid down by the pariṣad, but one whose lapse is not known to others should perform the P. in secret (such as the one prescribed by Manu XI. 257) and in the case of a mahāpātaka, one hundred prāṇāyāmas when not known to others ( vide Yāj. III. 305); procedure of undergoing P. (pp.503 ff.); description of some Prāyaścittas such as prājāpatya, several kṛcchras (pp. 509–512); sāntapana (512 ff.) Parāka (Manu XI. 215); Brahmakūrca (pp. 515–16); Candrāyaṇa (Manu XI. 216–20) as P. and its five varieties; Tulāpuruṣa (p. 521 quoting Yāj. III. 322); Māṣopavāsa, vrata for twelve years for the murder of a brāhmaṇa (Manu XI. 72); options in the case of some vratas such as naktavrata equated with a gift of a 98. Śūlapāṇi silver māṣaka (p. 522); Prājāpatyavrata held equal to the gift of a cow yielding milk (pp. 525, 528–29) or its price; Gautamadharmaśūtra (19. 11–18) prescribed various optional prāyaścittas (for purification) viz. Japa (of sacred texts), tapas, homa, fast and gifts and among gifts of cows also there were certain options (Pr. Viveka pp. 530–534 quoting Manu XI. 127–130, Yāj. III. 266–67); P. for twelve years may be held equal to donating 180 cows yielding milk (p. 538); on p. 538 Parāka is held equal to gift of five milk-yielding cows¹⁶ and these equations are mainly based on the dicta of authoritative texts (pp. 539–40) and Śūlapāṇi discusses here and there the reasonableness of these equations (on pp. 538–544).

The Prāyaścittaviveka is very often referred to by Raghunandana in his Smṛtitattva. Vide (vol. I.) Tithi pp. 28, 90 (Prāyaścittavivekakṛtam mate tu); Āhnika pp. 341, 350; Prāyaścitta 467, 470, 472, 477, 481 (criticised), 485, 513, 517 tac-cintyam); Vol. II–Ekādaśī p. 8, 15, (Prāyaścittavivekakṛdbhiḥ); Udvāha p. 112, Dāyatattva p. 182; Śuddhi p. 283. The Śrāddhaviveka is also frequently mentioned, e. g. (vol. I) Tithi pp. 12, 18, 154; Śrāddha pp. 190, 194, 206, 223, 271, 290; Prāyaścitta p. 471, Mala° pp. 769, 801, 850 (plural kṛdbhiḥ’ used); vol. II. Ekādaśī pp. 85, 179; Śuddhi p. 377. It appears, from the fact that the honorific plural is used by Raghunandana when referring to the author, that Śūlapāṇi was alive or recently dead when Raghunandana began to collect material for his work.

Among the authors and works (omitting Dharmaśūtras, Smṛtis and their authors) the following may be cited as mentioned by Śūlapāṇi in Prāyaścittaviveka: Kapardibhāṣya (p. 536); Kalpataru (several times as on pp. 104, 144, 149, 155, 178, 180, 359, 364); Govindarāja (p 91); Jīkana (about 18 times as on pp.19, 50, 86, 94, 97 &c.), Dharmapradīpa (about a dozen times pp. 209, 257, 281, 335, 347, 366, 379, 401, 442, 446, 477, 526 (those underlined dissented from); Dhāreśvara (p. 61, same as Bhojadeva); Bālaka (pp. 43, 55, 93, 125, 131 on gurvangana), pp. 149, 146, 364 (dissented from); Bhartṛyajña (p. 254), Rājan (Bhojadeva) 150,152, 157; Lakṣmīdhara 319, Viśvarūpa 91, 119; Śrīkara 66 (dissented from); M. M. Chakravarti (JASB. 1911, p. 339) does not mention Kapardibhaṣya and Bhartṛyajña. On pp. 98, 139, 536–37 Śūlapāṇi refers to Mahādevapada and on p. 118 Śrīmaheśvara, all referring to God Śiva as the interlocutor in the Bhaviṣya Purāṇa.

The chronological relation between Śūlapāṇi and Vacaspati- miśra appears to be this that Śūlapāṇi was the older of the two, though they appear to refer to each other. For example, the Dvaitanirṇaya of Vācaspati (p. 102 in the Śastramālā Series of Benates) mentions Śrāddhavivekamata. On the other hand, in the Rasayātrāviveka (which appears to be his last work) Śūlapāṇi mentions the Tīrtha-cintāmaṇi of Vācaspatimiśra.¹⁷

At least thirteen Vivekās are known viz. Ekādaśī, Tithi, Dattaka, Durgotsava, Dolāyātrā, Pratiṣṭhā, Prāyaścitta, Rasa- yātrā, Vratakāla, Śuddhi, Śrāddha, Saṅkrānti, Sambandha. The Vratakālāviveka is published by Prof. S. C. Banerji in I. H. Q. Vol. 17 for 1941 (appendix pp. 1–24, based on seven msṣ). It mentions the Tithiviveka as already composed (p. 11) and also Pratiṣṭhāviveka (p. 24). He makes remarks on Vratas in general and then deals with individual vrataṣ It differs from the Vratatattva of Raghunandana (vol. II. pp. 151–161 ) in that Raghunandana deals with the characteristics and rites of Vratas in general. For a short work (as the Vratakālāviveka is) Śūlapāṇi mentions a large number of authorities; many Purāṇas are relied upon as much as Smṛti works and writerṣ

The Tithiviveka¹⁸ of Śūlapāṇi was edited by Prof. S. C. Banerji in P. O. Vol. VI. pp. 230–38, Vol. VII. pp. 8, 95–103. It is very brief, the text based on two msṣ covering about 12 pageṣ It mentions that the Śrāddhaviveka had been written before it. The object is to resolve the doubts caused by differ- ent views in the authoritative workṣ Relying on two verses 98. Śūlapāṇi of Devala (quoted below)¹⁹ he appears to lay down the propo- sitions that in a rite to be performed for worship of gods, find out whether the tithi required exists at sunrise (and it does not matter if it does not exist later) and in rites in honour of pitṛs (manes) find out the tithi that exists at sunset and per- form the rite on it. Dr. J. B. Chaudhuri edited the Tithi- viveka (Calcutta 1964) with the commentary called Tātparya- dīpikā by Śrīnātha-ācārya-cūḍāmaṇi, son of mahāmahopādhyāya Śrīkara and guru of Raghunandana Bhaṭṭācārya.

A work called ‘Caturaṅgadīpikā’ (manual of fourhanded chess) composed by Śūlapāṇi was edited by Mr. Mano Mohan Ghosh in 1936 with an Introduction, Sanskrit text (pp. 1–24), English tr. (32 pages), Index of important words, proper names and general index (pp. 33–36). It is mentioned by Raghu- nandana in (vol. I.) Tithitattva pp. 137–139. Vide Prof. S. K. Chatterji felicitation volume pp. 267–275 for Lexicographical notes on this work by Prof. E. D. Kulkarni.

Four works of Śūlapāṇi are very famous viz. the Dīpakalikā, Prāyaścittaviveka, Durgotsavaviveka and the Śrāddhaviveka. Unfortunately the last two works are not yet printed in Deva- nāgarī script. The Durgotsavaviveka has been published by the Sanskrit Sahitya Pariṣad of Calcutta in Bengali script and the Śrāddhaviveka has similarly been published in the Bengali script by M. M. Candicarana Smṛtibhuṣaṇa of Calcutta.

Śūlapāṇi is mentioned with great respect by Raghunandana not only by the addition of titles like Mahāmahopādhyāya but by referring to him in the plural as in (vol. I. Tithi p. 90, Prāyaś- cittavivekakṛtam mate tu) and in Vol. II. Ekādaśī p. 15 (Prāyaś- cittavivekakṛdbhir-uktam).

Śūlapāṇi gives hardly any information about himself.²² In the colophons of his works he is styled Mahāmahopādhyāya and also Sāhudiyān or Sāhudiyala or Sāhudiyā (in a mṣ of the Dīpakalikā). What this last means is not clear. It is possible that he came from some place called Sāhudi. There is hardly any reliable evidence to establish that the Sāhudiyā was a degraded section of the Rāḍhiya brāhmaṇas in Bengal from the time of Ballālasena. I understand from Bengali friends that in these days also the surname Sāhudiyān is extant among the śrotriya brāhmaṇas of the Rāḍhiya group in Bengal. Raghunandana (a great Bengali writer) often refers to im as Mahāmahopādhyāya (vide pp. 827–28 above).

There are several commentaries on the Śrāddhaviveka such as those of (1) Śrīnātha-Ācaryacūḍāmaṇi, son of Śrīkara and Guru of Raghunandana; (2) Acyuta Cakravartin; (3) Govindānanda; (4) Śrīkṛṣṇa (printed in Bengali type); (5) Nīlakaṇṭha; (6) Jagadīśa; (7) Rāmakṛṣṇa. Some commentaries on the Prāyaścittaviveka also exist. Besides, the Tattvārthakaumudī of Govindānanda (already referred to on p. 828) there is a commentary called Kaumudī or tippanī by Rāmakṛṣṇa and another coṃ called Nigūḍhārthaprakāśikā.

As Śūlapāṇi names the Ratnākara of Cāṇḍeśvara and Kālamādhavīya, he must be later than about 1365 A. D., since some time must have elapsed before a work from Vijayanagara came to be regarded as an authority in Bengal. As Śūlapāṇī's works are mentioned by Rudradhara, Govindānanda and Vācaspati, the former must be earlier than about 1460. In this connection it has to be noted that Govindānanda not only comments upon Śūlapāṇi's works but probably looks upon Śūlapāṇi as an old writer along with Aniruddha.²²

A mṣ of the Prāyaścittaviveka was copied at Benares in śake 1410 (i. e. 1481 A. D.).²³ Mṣ No. 10849 of the Prāyaścitta- viveka in the Baroda Oriental Institute’s Library was copied in Vikrama year 1501 Māgha (i. e. about February 1445 A. D.). The post-colophon entry in that mṣ is set out below.²⁴ From all these data it follows that Śūlapāṇi flourished between 1365 and 1445 A. D.

Dr. Hazra in A. B. O. R. I. Vol. 32 (for 1951) in note on p. 46 says that Śūlapāṇi’s Tithiviveka and Śrāddhaviveka are mentioned by Rāyamukuṭa in the Smṛtiratnahāra which was composed before Rāyamukuṭa’s commentary on the Amarakośa and that commentary was begun in 1431-32 A. D. But in I. H. Q. vol. 17 (pp. 456–471) it is pointed out by Prof. Dineshcandra Bhattacharya at p. 468 that the Ṭīkā on the Amarakośa was composed in Śake 1396 i. e. 1447–75 A. D. and not in śake 1353 (which was mentioned incidentally in the mṣ and was taken by Colebrooke and later scholars as the date of composition). Further contributions on the same subject appear in I. H. Q. vol. 18. pp. 215–224 against Prof. Bhattacharya, to which the latter replies in I. H. Q. vol. 19 pp. 182–190, to which Ahmed Hasan (the writer of the paper in I. H. Q. vol. 18) gives a rejoinder in I. H. Q. vol. 30 pp. 261–270. I cannot go here in these controversieṣ It has to be remembered that the fragment of Smṛtiratnākara refers to the Śrāddhaviveka about three dozen of timeṣ I agree with Prof. Bhattacharya's view. So even the dates proposed in the first edition (1375–1460 A. D.) for Śūlapāṇi were not altogether wide of the real date. In this edition an attempt has been made to advance somewhat more definite dates for Śūlapāṇi, that is all.

It appears that Śūlapāṇi, Rudradhara and Vācaspati were more or less contemporaries of one another. Rudradhara men- tions on p. 50 ( of his Śrāddhaviveka ) ' Gauḍīya-Śrāddhaviveka '.