Vyavaharasaukhya

Vyavahārasaukhya. The Treatise on Legal Procedure in the Todarānanda

Vyavahārasaukhya

The Treatise on Legal Procedure in the Todarānanda • • composed at the instance of Todaramalla • • during the Reign of Akbar Edited by Ludo Rocher

Edited by Ludo Rocher

euro 30,00

www.sefeditrice.it

Società

Editrice Fiorentina

Introduction

VYAVAHĀRASAUKHYA The Treatise on Legal Procedure in the ṬOḌARĀNANDA composed at the instance of

ṬOḌARAMALLA during the reign of Akbar Edited by Ludo Rocher

Ù i

ii Ù

Vyavahārasaukhyam

‘Alti Studi di Storia intellettuale e delle Religioni’ Series The volumes featured in this Series are the expression of an international community of scholars committed to the reshaping of the field of textual and historical studies of religions and intellectual traditions.

The works included in this Series are devoted to investigate practices, rituals, and other textual products, crossing different area studies and time frames. Featuring a vast range of interpretative perspectives, this innovative Series aims to enhance the way we look at religious and intellectual traditions.

Series Editor Federico Squarcini, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, Italy Editorial Board Piero Capelli, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, Italy Vincent Eltschinger, École Pratique des Hautes Études, Paris, France Christoph Emmrich, University of Toronto, Canada James Fitzgerald, Brown University, USA Jonardon Ganeri, British Academy and New York University, USA Barbara A. Holdrege, University of California, Santa Barbara, USA Sheldon Pollock, Columbia University, USA Karin Preisendanz, University of Vienna, Austria Alessandro Saggioro, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy Cristina Scherrer-Schaub, University of Lausanne and EPHE, France Romila Thapar, Jawaharlal Nehru University, India Ananya Vajpeyi, University of Massachusetts Boston, USA Marco Ventura, University of Siena, Italy Vincenzo Vergiani, University of Cambridge, UK Editorial Coordinator Marianna Ferrara, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy

Introduction

VYAVAHĀRASAUKHYA The Treatise on Legal Procedure in the ṬOḌARĀNANDA composed at the instance of

ṬOḌARAMALLA Akbar

during the reign of

Edited by Ludo Rocher

Ù iii

iv Ù

Vyavahārasaukhyam

Società Editrice Fiorentina www.sefeditrice.it This edition first published in Italy 2016

by Società Editrice Fiorentina via Aretina, 298 - 50136 Florence, Italy Tel. +39 055 55 32 92 4 | Fax +39 055 55 32 08 5 info@sefeditrice.it

© 2016 Società Editrice Fiorentina individual chapters © Ludo Rocher The moral right of the authors has been asserted.

All rights reserved.

Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise), without the prior written permission of both the copyright owner and the above publisher of this book.

ISBN-13: 978 88 6032 387 3 (Hbk) ISBN-10: 88 6032 387 3 (Hbk)

Introduction

Ù v

Contents

Preface

ix

Abbreviations xi

Introduction 1 Rājā Ṭoḍaramalla 1 The Ṭoḍarānanda 5 Composition 6 Authorship 7 Date 10 The Ṭoḍarānanda in later texts

11 The Ṭoḍarānanda and Akbar 11 Other Sanskrit documents connected with Ṭoḍaramalla 13 The Vyavahārasaukhya 14 The edition 14 The Vyavahārasaukhya and earlier texts 17

¡& Vyvharsa=Qym« ivcarivi<hzR: dexacaraid: πa#«ivvak: swa sWyopdex: VyvharlΩ%m« ivcarivi<: wazaivi<hzR:

19 19 27 30 31 37 41 44 59

vi Ù

Vyavahārasaukhyam

¢Árivi<hzR: 67 πitini<: 80 πTyakiltm« 82 h]n: 84 s\i<ivi<hzR: 91 i˚yadanivi<hzR: 93 i˚yapad: 95 saiΩivi<hzR:

107 saÛyanhaR: 116 saiΩπTyu¯ar: 124 saiΩdUz%m« 126 saiΩπÍnaid 128 saiΩxp&: 134 saÛyui_ivi<:

137 saiΩpr]Ωa 139 saiΩd^#:

141 sTyapvad:

144 saiΩblablm«

146 saiΩingd: 147 ilqnivi<hzR:

149 rajxasnm«

153 sÕeQym«

156 ¡sÕeQym«

157 dUiztleQypr]Ωa

159 leQyblm«

162 leQyda=bRLym«

164 wui_ivi<hzR: 167 wogivC"ede in%Ry:

177 yui_ivi<hzR:

179 idVyivi<hzR:

183 ivzyanusare% idVyin%Ry: 184 kalivxeze idVyivxez:

187 v%‹ivxezanusare% idVyVyvS&a

188 idVydex:

192 idVyivi<:

193 <!ivi<:

195 ¡iGnivi<:

204 toyivi<: 212 ivzivi<:

217

Contents

Ù vii

koxivi<:

t^#ulivi<:

t´mazivi<:

falivi<:

<mRjivi<:

xp&ivi<:

d^#VyvS&a

in%Ryπkarivi<hzR:

in%RyanNtrk›Tym« jiyπitpiÁ: punNyaRy:

k›tinvfliÁ:

SvtN†aSvtN†lΩ%m«

222 225 227 228 228 229 231 233 236 238 239 240 243

Bibliography

247

Index of smṛti quotations

251

Preface

My intention to publish an edition of the Vyavahārasaukhya goes back many years. During an extended research stay at the Deccan College Research Institute in Pune in 1953–1955, I obtained, through the good offices of Professor S.M. Katre and Dr. M.M. Patkar, a microfilm of a manuscript of this text from the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute in Pune and two from the Anup Sanskrit Library in Bikaner.

On my return to Belgium, I transcribed the manuscript from Pune and collated those from Bikaner. After my transfer to the University of Pennsylvania, I received a microfilm of a codex from Sarasvati Bhavan in Varanasi, which had been ordered and prepared years earlier, but mislaid on a shelf until one of my students retrieved it. This manuscript, too, was collated with the other three.

These circumstances only partly account for the further delay in completing this edition. Notwithstanding intermittent efforts, the burdens of teaching and guiding students to the Ph.D. degree, and other research projects, prevented me from carving an uninterrupted period of time to work on the Vyavahārasaukhya.

Finally, after reaching retirement, I was able to return to the text I had processed when the only way I had of typing devanāgarī script and Roman script with the required diacritic signs were the fonts, Madhushree and Manjushree respectively, created by Professor Madhav M. Desh­­pande. Much time has been spent since to adapt the earlier format to the modalities of current computer publishing.

I hope that an edition of the Vyavahārasaukhya, a text attributed to a famed Hindu minister of the Mughal emperor Akbar, will

x Ù

Vyavahārasaukhyam

provide a new and valuable component in the history of Indian legal proce­dure and a window into Sanskrit legal scholarship under Muslim rule.

In addition to the institutions that allowed me to make use of manuscripts in their collections, and the authorities at the Deccan College who made access to these manuscripts possible, I wish to thank Professor Patrick Olivelle, who, as on prior occasions, shared with me his extensive technical expertise in editing Sanskrit texts. It was Patrick, also, who established contact with Dr. Federico Squarcini, to whom I am grateful for having the volume published.

I also wish to thank my colleague at the University of Penn­ sylvania, Professor Emeritus William L. Hanaway, for helping me uniformly to transliterate Persian terms used in the Introduction.

Last, but not least, my thanks go to my loving companion of fifty-three years, whose sharp eye for detail has saved this volume from many inconsistencies and inaccuracies. Working on the Vyavahāra­saukhya was yet another imposition on her time and her own research, in addition to the constant physical and moral support she provided after major surgery weakened me in the final stages of this project.

Ludo Rocher Philadelphia, February 2014

Abbreviations

ABORI ĀnSS Āp

Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute Ānandāśrama Sanskrit Series Āpastamba(dharmasūtra). Ed tr P. Olivelle. Delhi 2000 ĀpHda Haradatta: Ujjvalā. Ed G. Bühler. BSS 44, 50. 3rd ed 1932 Apu Agnipurāṇa. Ed ĀnSS 41. 1951 ASB Asiatic Society of Bengal B Bṛhaspati(smṛti). Rec K.V. Rangaswami Aiyangar.

GOS 95. 1941. Tr J. Jolly. SBE 33. 1889 [The numbers added after B verses refer to Rangaswami Aiyangar’s rec] Bau Baudhāyana(dharmasūtra). Ed tr P. Olivelle. Delhi 2000 BauVva Govindasvāmin: Vivaraṇa. Ed A. Chinnasvāmi. KSS 104. 1934 BI Bibliotheca Indica BORI Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute BS Bibliotheca Sanskrita BSS Bombay Sanskrit Series ChSS Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series conj conjecture Dāta Raghunandana: Dāyatattva.

Ed Jīvānanda Vidyāsāgara. 2nd ed Calcutta 1895 Dhko Lakṣmaṇaśāstrī Jośī. Dharmakośa. Vyavahārakāṇḍa.

Vyavahāramātṛkā. Wai 1937 Dta Raghunandana: Divyatattva. Ed tr R.W. Lariviere.

Delhi 1981

xii Ù

Vyavahārasaukhyam

Dvi Vardhamāna: Daṇḍaviveka. Ed Kamalakṛṣṇa Smṛtitīrtha. GOS 52. 1931 ed edited, edition G Gautama(dharmasūtra). Ed tr P. Olivelle. Delhi 2000 GHda Haradatta: Mitākṣarā. Ed G.Ś. Gokhale. ĀnSS 2nd ed 1931 GMka Maskari: Bhāṣya. Ed L. Śrīnivāsācārya. BS 50. 1917 GOS Gaekwad’s Oriental Series H Hārīta(dharmaśāstra). Rec tr J. Jolly. Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 18.2, 1888–1889, 505–524 Hyu Halāyudha(nibandha). Rec L. Rocher. JOIB 3, 1954, 328–344; 4, 1954, 13–32; 5, 1956, 325–329 JOIB Journal of the Oriental Institute, Baroda K Kātyāyana(smṛti). Rec tr P.V. Kane. Poona 1933 KApp Kātyāyana Appendix. Rec K.V. Rangaswami Aiyangar. Festschrift P.V. Kane, Poona 1941, 7–17 Kpu Kālikāpurāṇa quoted in Dhko KSS Kashi Sanskrit Series M Manu(smṛti). Tr ed P. Olivelle. Oxford 2005 MBhru Bhāruci: Manuśāstravivaraṇa. Ed tr J.D.M. Derrett.

Wiesbaden 1975 MGvi Govindarāja: Govindarājīyā. Ed V.N. Mandlik. Bombay 1886 MKlū Kullūkabhaṭṭa: Manvarthamuktāvalī. Ed N.R. Ācārya. NSP 10th ed 1946 MMdhā Medhātithi: Bhāṣya. Ed V.N. Mandlik. Bombay 1886. Tr G.N. Jha. Calcutta University 1920–1926 MNa Nandana: Nandinī. Ed V.N. Mandlik. Bombay 1886 MRca Rāmacandra. Ed ditto MRvā Rāghavānanda: Manvarthacandrikā. Ed ditto Mā Mātṛkā (introductory chapters of N) Mbh Mahābhārata. Ed V.S. Sukthankar et al. Poona 1933–1972 Mra Madanasiṃha: Madanaratnapradīpa. Vyavahāravivekoddyota. Ed P.V. Kane. Bikaner 1948 ms(s) manuscript(s) N Nāradasmṛti. Ed tr R.W. Lariviere. Philadelphia 1989; Delhi 2003 NAhā Asahāya: Bhāṣya. Ed tr ditto Nj Nāradasmṛti with Asahāya’s Bhāṣya (fragments). Ed J. Jolly. BI work 102. 1885 NMs Nāradīyamanusaṃhitā with Bhavasvāmin’s Bhāṣya.

Ed Sāmbaśiva Śāstrī. TSS 97. 1929 NCC New Catalogus Catalogorum. Ed V. Raghavan et al.

Madras 1949–

Introduction A bbreviations

Ù xiii

NK Nyāyakośa. Ed Bhīmācārya Jhalakīkar. Poona 1928 NSP Nirṇaya Sāgar Press om omitted, omission orig original(ly) Pi Pitāmaha(smṛti). Rec tr K. Scriba. Leipzig 1902 Pmā Sāyaṇamādhavācārya: Parāśaradharmasaṃhitā Vyava hārakāṇḍa. Ed V.G. Śāstrī. BSS 67. 1911–1917 Pr Prajāpati(smṛti) quoted in Dhko Q Quotations from N. Rec J. Jolly. SBE 33. 1889 Rām Rāmāyaṇa. Ed G.H. Bhatt et al. Baroda 1960–1975 rec reconstructed, reconstruction Rkau Rājadharmakaustubha. Ed Kamalakṛṣṇa Smṛtitīrtha.

GOS 72. 1935 Rra Candeśvara: Rājanītiratnākara. Ed K.P. Jayaswal. 2nd ed Patna 1936 SBE Sacred Books of the East Sca Devaṇṇabhaṭṭa: Smṛticandrikā. Vyavahārakāṇḍa. Ed L. Śrīnivāsācārya. BS 45. 1914 sh second hand ŚL Śaṅkhalikhita(dharmaśāstra). Rec P.V. Kane. ABORI 7. 1926–1927, 101–128; 8. 1927–1928, 93–132 Ssā Harinātha: Smṛtisāra. India Office ms San. 301 Svi Pratāparudra: Sarasvatīvilāsa. Ed R. Shama Sastry.

BS 71. 1927 tr translated, translation TSS Trivandrum Sanskrit Series U Uśanaḥ(smṛti) quoted in Dhko UP University Press Va Vasiṣṭha(dharmasūtra). Ed tr P. Olivelle. Delhi 2000 Vca Misaru Miśra: Vivādacandra. Ed P. Mitra. Calcutta 1931 Vi Viṣṇu(smṛti). Tr ed P. Olivelle. Cambridge, MA, 2009 ViNpa Nandapaṇḍita: Vaijayantī. Ed V. Krishnamacharya.

Adyar 1964 Vka Lakṣmīdhara: Kṛtyakalpataru. Vyavahārakāṇḍa. Ed K.V. Rangaswami Aiyangar. GOS 119. 1953 Vma Nīlakaṇṭha: Vyavahāramayūkha. Ed P.V. Kane. Poona 1926 Vmāt Jīmūtavāhana: Vyavahāramātṛkā. Ed A. Mookerjee.

Memoirs of the ASB 3.5. 1910–1914 Vni Varadarāja: Vyavahāranirṇaya. Ed K.V. Rangaswami Aiyangar. Madras 1942 Vpra Mitramiśra: Vīramitrodaya. Vyavahāraprakāśa. Ed V.P. Bhāṇḍārī. ChSS 30.7. 1932 Vra Caṇḍeśvara: Vivādaratnākara. Ed Kamalakṛṣṇa Smṛtitīrtha. BI work 103. 1931

xiv Ù

Vyavahārasaukhyam

Vsā Dalapatirāja: Nṛsiṃhaprasāda. Vyavahārasāra. Ed V.S. Tillū. Banaras 1934 Vsau Ṭoḍaramalla: Ṭoḍarānanda. Vyavahārasaukhya Vta Raghunandana: Vyavahāratattva. Ed Jīvānanda Vidyāsāgara. 2nd ed Calcutta 1895 Vtā Kamalākarabhaṭṭa: Vivādatāṇḍava. Ed M.N. Dvivedi.

Baroda 1901 Vti Bhavadeva: Vyavahāratilaka. Rec L. Rocher. Annals of Oriental Research 15, 1957, Sanskrit 19–41 vulg vulgate Vy Vyāsa(smṛti). Rec B.K. Ghosh. 1. Festschrift W. Geiger, Leipzig 1931, 108–121; 2. Zeitschrift für Indologie und Iranistik 9, 1933–1934, 78–92 Vyci Vācaspatimiśra: Vyavahāracintāmaṇi. Ed tr L. Rocher.

Ghent 1956 Vyra Caṇḍeśvara: Vyavahāraratnākara. Rec L. Rocher, JOIB 5, 1956, 249–265 Y Yājñavalkya(smṛti). Ed tr A.F. Stenzler. Berlin 1849 YArā Aparāditya: Aparārka. ĀnSS 46. 1903–1904 YBkrī Viśvarūpa: Bālakrīḍā. Ed T. Gaṇapati Śāstrī. TSS 74, 80. 1922–1924 YDka Śūlapāṇi: Dīpakalikā. Ed J.R. Garpure. Bombay 1939 YMtā Vijñāneśvara: Mitākṣarā. Ed V.L. Paṇaśīkara. NSP. 4th ed 1936 YMtāBbha Bālambhaṭṭa: Vyavahārabālambhaṭṭī. Ed N.P. Parvatiya. ChSS 41. 1914 YVmi Mitramiśra: Vīramitrodaya. Ed N.Ś. Khiste. ChSS 62.

1930 Ya Yama(smṛti) quoted in Dhko

Introduction

Rājā Ṭoḍaramalla The Vyavahārasaukhya, which is edited here for the first time, is part of a dharmanibandha titled Ṭoḍarānanda, attributed to Rājā Ṭoḍara­malla. Whether the nibandha was actually written by Ṭoḍaramalla or written for him, will be discussed later. The fact is that a nibandha on all aspects of Hindu dharma, connected with the name of one the most prominent figures at the emperor’s court, was composed during the reign of Akbar. Ṭoḍaramalla was a ṭaṇḍana khatrī,1 born in Lāharpur in Awadh (modern Sītāpur District, Uttar Pradesh).2 By the time of his birth, the once prominent family had fallen on hard times, the result, according to an introductory verse to the entire nibandha, of the generosity of his father, Bhagavatīdāsa.3 Ṭoḍaramalla’s military and administrative achievements, which allowed him to rise from a minor writer to the post of Vakil of the Mughal empire, are well known and have been described repeatedly, most often on the basis of contemporary Persian doc1 Cf. introductory verse 15b of the Sargasaukhya: Ṭoḍaramalla eṣa . . . bāhūd­ bhavas ṭaṇḍanaḥ (Vaidya 1948: 5). The manuscript Kane consulted for the Saṃhitā section of the Jyotiḥsaukhya reads ṭaṇḍala instead of taṇḍana (Kane 1975: 911 n. 1372). For Ṭoḍaramalla’s ancestry, see Sargasaukhya verses 7–13 (Vaidya 1948: 4–5).

2 Not in Lahore, as in Blochmann and elsewhere. Grierson (1889: 34) traced the origin of the error to the Ma’āsir al-Umarā. On Lāharpur, see Imperial Gazet­ teer of India (1908, 16: 95), and District Gazetteers of the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh. Sitapur (1923: 124, 174–178).

3 13d: yaddānena daridraveśmasu ciraṃ dāridryam unmīlitam (Vaidya 1948: 5).

2 Ù

Vyavahārasaukhyam

uments and of Heinrich Blochmann’s biographical note to his translation of Abu’l Fazl ‘Allāmi’s Āyin-e Akbari.4 Contemporary Persian sources are not unanimously favorable to Ṭoḍaramalla. The fact that throughout his life he remained a staunch Hindu may have played a role in Abu’l Fazl’s mixed evaluation: He was the unique of the Age for uprightness, straightforwardness, courage, knowledge of affairs, and the administration of India. If he had not had bigotry, conventionalism, and spite (kīnatozī), and had not stuck to his own opinions, he would have been one of the spiritually great. 5

As could be expected, Abdulqādir Badā’uni’s Muntakhab altavārikh, which was written in secret to counterbalance Fazl’s accounts of Akbar and the emperor’s Din-e Ilāhi,6 is not sympathetic to Ṭoḍara­malla: On the twenty-second of Rabī-us-sānī of the year nine hundred and ninety-six the New Year’s day of the thirty-third, or thirty-fourth year the Ascension took place . . . At this Time Qulij Khān came from Gujrāt to pay homage, and brought all kinds of presents. And a command was issued, that he in conjunction with Rājah Todar Mal (who had become a very imbecile old man, and whom one night about this time a rival had been in wait for, and wounded with his sword, and grazed his skin) should conduct the administrative and financial concerns of the Empire.7

Similarly, about Ṭoḍaramalla’s death: In the year nine hundred and ninety-eight Rājah Todar Mal, and Rājah Bhagwān Dās ‘Amīr-ul-umarā, who had remained behind at Lāhor hastened to the abode of hell and torment, and in the lowest pit became the food of serpents and scorpions, may God scorch them both! And they found the mnemosynon: ‘One said: Todar and Bhagwān died; and the other made these verses on him: – Todar Mal was he, whose tyranny had oppressed the world, When he went to Hell, people became merry, I asked the date of his decease from the Old Man of Intellect: Cheerfully replied the Wise Old Man: he is gone to Hell.’8

4 Blochmann 1965: 376–379, # 39. Cf. Smith 1917: 242–243; Agrawal 1986: 73–78, 120–122, and passim); briefly, Pingree 1976: 77b–78a.

5 Beveridge 1977: 3. 862. Beveridge’s indexes to vol. 2 and, especially, to vol.

3 are helpful; and so are De’s (1936: 820–821).

6 Spuler 1968: 161.

7 Lowe 1973: 2. 377.

8 Lowe 1973: 2. 383.

Introduction

Ù 3

The military and administrative exploits of Ṭoḍaramalla are not important in the context of this volume.9 We are concerned here with Ṭoḍaramalla as the author or patron of the Ṭoḍarānanda, an encyclo­pedia of Hindu dharma, which is not mentioned in Persian accounts.

As already noted, the Ṭoḍarānanda acquires a special interest from the fact that, in the midst of his Muslim environment, Ṭoḍara­malla is reputed to have been and remained a strict, orthodox Hindu. The introductory verses of the Sargasaukhya describe him as follows: yasya cetasi govindabhaktir eva garīyasī |

nārīcandanacīrādyā viṣayā viṣasaṃmitā || 16 || ceto yasya nirantareṇa bhagavatpādāmbhuje bhṛṅgati

prāptaṃ yena tapobalena mahatā sāmrājyam atyadbhutam | yatkīrtiṃ śrutilolakuṇḍalayugaṃ gāyanti devāṅganāḥ

so ’yaṃ ṭoḍaramallabhūmiramaṇaḥ kenopameyo bhavet || 17 || taḍāgānāṃ yāgān ativimalamūrtiḥ samakarod

asau saudheṣv antarmuramathanamūrtīṃś ca vividhāḥ | vidhāya prārambhād upavanavinodaṃ bhagavato

yaśaḥ svīyaṃ rājā jagati bahuśaḥ pallavayati || 18 ||10

In the introductory verses of the Ācārasaukhya, he is praised thus: yasyācāravidhir vidher api camatkāraṃ manasy āvahal | lakṣmīnāyakapādapadmabhajane sarvātmanā niṣṭhitaḥ ||11

Even if Abu’l Fazl failed to appreciate Ṭoḍaramalla’s devotion, it elicited Akbar’s sympathy. In connection with an incident in 1577, at the time when the royal camp moved from place to place, the Akbar Nāma provides the following detail: Just as he [Ṭoḍaramalla] was one of the unique of the age for practical wisdom, and trustworthiness, so was he at the head of mortals for superstition and bigotry. His rule was that until he had performed in a special manner his idols-worship [sic], and had adored them after a thousand fashions, he would not attend to business nor eat or drink. Suddenly, in the turmoil of moving the camp, the idols of that simpleton were lost. In his heartfelt folly he abandoned sleep and food. H.M. had compassion on him and 9 Romesh C. Dutt’s (1848–1909) historical novel Vāṅgā vijetā, translated by his son, Ajoy Dutt, as Todar Mull. The Conquest of Bengal (1947), contains little material on Ṭoḍaramalla. For Ṭoḍaramalla’s revenue reforms, which are often mentioned approvingly in British documents, see Das 1978.

10 Vaidya 1948: 5.

11 Vaidya 1948: xxix. Cf. the introduction to the Śuddhisaukhya below.

Vyavahārasaukhyam

4 Ù

administered consolations to him. He recovered somewhat and addressed himself to his duties.12

In 1589, when Ṭoḍaramalla’s health was failing, he requested Akbar’s permission to retire and spend his remaining days on the bank of the Ganges at Hardwar. Akbar, who was near Kabul at the time, granted permission, but, on second thought, recalled him.

One of the occurrences was the giving leave to Rajah Todar Mal to betake himself to the fields of freedom, and then his being recalled. On this day a petition came from him to the effect that old age and sickness had prevailed over him, and that apparently he was near his death. He prayed for permission to resign in order that he might go to the bank of the Ganges, and spend his last breaths in remem­bering God. H.M. in accordance with his request sent an order and expressed the hope that his spirit might obtain relief by this means. Afterwards admonitions were sent to the effect that no worship of God was equal to the soothing of the oppressed, and that it would be better for him to give up his idea (of retirement) and to spend his last breath in serving man, and to make that the provision for his final journey.13

When the emperor’s order reached him, “at the pond he had made near Lahore,”14 Ṭoḍaramalla did turn back, but he died in mid-November 1589. Bhagvān Dās, who attended Ṭoḍaramalla’s crema­tion, probably in Lahore, died five days later. Akbar’s concern for both Hindu officers is evident from the following passage in the Akbar Nāma: It appears that H.M. had an intimation of the approaching ends of those two officers. When he went on expeditions he (as a rule) did not leave more than two high officers in the capital, and he had arranged that Rajah Bhagwant Dās and Rajah Todar Mal should be in the capital of Lahore. On the very day of the march, Qulīj K. was also sent off. On this day the mystery was made plain.15

As far as Ṭoḍaramalla’s patronage of Hinduism is concerned, reference also needs to be made to his role in the reconstruction, in 1585, of the ruined Viśvanātha/Viśveśvara temple in Varanasi.

On the initiative of Nārāyaṇabhaṭṭa,16 and under the patronage Beveridge 1977: 3. 310.

Beveridge 1977: 3. 858, early October 1589. Cf. Elliot 1975: 2. 126. A similar story, without any reference to resignation and its reversal, occurs in the Tabaqāt-e Akbari (De 1936: 2. 627).

14 Beveridge 1977: 3. 862.

15 Beveridge 1977: 3. 863.

16 On Nārāyaṇabhaṭṭa’s role in the composition of the Ṭoḍarānanda, see below.

12 13

Introduction

Ù 5

of Ṭoḍara­malla, it was rebuilt “perhaps on the most magnificent scale ever . . . The temple was grand in scale and execution, consisting of a central sanctum, the garbha griha, surrounded by eight pavilions, or mandapas.”17 It was demolished again in the time of Aurangzeb.

The Ṭoḍarānanda Little was known about, and scant attention was paid to, the Ṭoḍarānanda until 1945, when K. Madhav Krishna Sarma, the Curator of the Anup Sanskrit Library in Bikaner, brought it to notice as “an encyclopaedia of Hindu law, written under the patronage of Ṭoḍaramalla.”18 Earlier, in the Tagore Law Lectures of 1883, Julius Jolly had referred to “Ṭoḍarānanda’s Saukhyas” as an “instance of a Digest which does not find a suitable place in any of the traditional five schools of Indian law.” Jolly knew of a Deccan College manuscript, dated 1581 C.E., “of the first section of the Vyavahāra­saukhya,” and of some other saukhyas in the Library of the Maharaja of Bikaner. Yet, he thought that “Ṭoḍarānanda is the same man as Ṭoḍaramalla, the able and powerful Hindu Minister of the Mogul Emperor Akbar.”19 One of the reasons for this neglect may have been that the royal library in Bikaner, which preserves the largest collection of Ṭoḍa­rānanda manuscripts, was in disarray until it was converted into a public institution under the impulse of K. M. Panikkar, who resided in Bikaner State from 1939 until 1949, part of the time as divān of the Mahārāja. Panikkar invited C. Kunhan Raja to examine the manu­scripts and prepare a printed catalog. The publication of this catalog,20 and the article by K. Madhav Krishna Sarma, Kunhan Raja’s collabo­rator, led to heightened interest in the Ṭoḍarānanda.

Eck 1990: 134.

Sarma 1945: 63. In May 1944, Sarma proposed to Vaidya that he undertake the edition of the Ṭoḍarānanda in the Ganga Oriental Series (Vaidya 1948: ix).

19 Jolly 1885: 19–20. Jolly repeated the identification in the index, but he —or his editor— added, in brackets: “It appears more probable, however, that the designation of Ṭoḍarānanda belongs by right to the work compiled by Ṭoḍar Mall” (343). Jolly (1895 = 1928: 82) briefly but clearly referred to “the Ṭoḍarānanda of Ṭoḍaramalla.” Note also that Kane’s treatment of Ṭoḍaramalla in the first volume of his History of Dharmaśāstra is far more substantial in the second edition (1975: 907–913) than it was in the first (1930: 421–423).

20 Kunhan Raja and Sarma 1944–1948. For the Ṭoḍarānanda, see 2. 172–175.

On Panikkar’s role in this enterprise, see Panikkar 1977: 125, 136–137. Cf. Narendranath 1998: 105.

17

18

Vyavahārasaukhyam

6 Ù

Composition The Ṭoḍarānanda is one of the more voluminous dharmanibandhas. According to the introductory verses of the entire text, it consists of twenty-two parts, appropriately called saukhyas (most of them in turn subdivided into harṣas): (1) sargo (2) ’vatārāḥ (3) kālasya gaṇanaṃ (4) kālanirṇayaḥ | (5) deśā (6) dvijātisaṃskārā (7) ācāraḥ (8) śuddhinirṇayaḥ || 24 || (9) śrāddhāni 21 (10) varṣakṛtyāni (11) vratānāṃ vidhayas tataḥ | (12) pratiṣṭhāvidhayaḥ (13) pūjā devatānāṃ tataḥ param || 25 || (14) dānāni (15) grahayāgādiśāntikaṃ (16) tairthiko vidhiḥ | (17) vivāho 22 (18) vyavahāraś ca (19) rājanītis tataḥ param || 26 || (20) prāyaścittaṃ (21) karmapāka (22) āyurvedaḥ prasaṅgataḥ | granthe’smiṃṣ ṭoḍarānande sarvam etan nibadhyate || 27 ||23

In addition, an Āgama- or Mantra-saukhya has been preserved,24 and the Vyavahārasaukhya (6) refers to a Vivādasaukhya.

Vaidya (1948: 414) estimated that the preserved parts of the Ṭoḍa­rānanda amounted to 72,150 ślokas; if we include the as yet untraced Rājanīti- and Karmavipāka-saukhyas plus the missing parts of the Śrāddhasaukhya,25 the total may have reached about 80,000 ślokas, i.e., about as much as the Mahābhārata without the Harivaṃśa.

The first two saukhyas (Sarga- and Avatāra-) have been edited, in one volume, by P.L. Vaidya (1948).26 The Āyurvedasaukhya (no.

22) has been edited and translated, in nine volumes, by Vaidya Bhagwan Dash and Vaidya Lalitesh Kashyap (1980–1997).27 The Vāstu­saukhya, also called Gṛhasaukhya (introductory verse 3) has Kane (1975: 910) provides a list of sources quoted in the Śrāddhasaukhya.

Here, too, Kane (1975: 910) provides an even more detailed list of sources quoted.

23 Vaidya 1948: 6.

24 The Āgamasaukhya begins: rājā ṭoḍaramallaḥ kurute toṣāya dhīmatām eṣaḥ | samprati sumantrapaddhatisaukhyaṃ śrīṭoḍarānande (Vaidya 1948: 413, quoting Kunhan Raja and Sarma 1944–1948: 2. 174, no. 2376). Vaidya’s suggestion that this saukhya may have been added at a later stage to maintain the encyclopedic character of the digest is gainsaid by the early date of the manuscript: saṃvat 1631 (1573–74 C.E.). Vaidya also suggested that this text may have been a section of a larger Āgamasaukhya.

25 The Śrāddhasaukhya (Kunhan Raja and Sarma 1944–1948: 2. 172, no.

2356) is preserved in only one manuscript, the beginning and the end of which are lost (Vaidya 1948: 406).

26 This introduction owes much to Vaidya’s 1948 publication, both to its intro­duction (xvii–xxxi) and to its three appendices (387–414).

27 Cf., prior to the translation, “Todarananda Ayurvedasaukhya. A Medical 21

22

Introduction

Ù 7

been edited, with a Hindi translation, by Śailajā Pāṇḍeya (1993) and by Kamalakānta Śukla (1996).

Authorship Ṭoḍaramalla is repeatedly praised for his wisdom and for having composed the Ṭoḍarānanda. The second verse of the Vyavahāra­ saukhya uses the verb tanoti (1),28 the introductory verses of the Āgamasaukhya kurute,29 the introduction to the Vivāhasaukhya brūte.30 Occasionally other terms are used, such as in the Prāyaś­ cittasaukhya: purāṇasmṛtivyākhyāni saṃgṛhya sumanīṣayā | rājñā Ṭoḍaramallena prāyaścittaṃ vivicyate ||31

or, in the final colophon of the Avatārasaukhya: -śrīmaṭṭoḍaramallaviracite ṭoḍarānande avatārasaukhye daśamo harṣaḥ ||32

and, in the first verse of the Yātrāsaukhya: Ṭoḍaro . . . kathayati . . . yātrāsaukhyam.33

Ṭoḍaramalla’s authorship also seems to be supported by the intro­duction to the Dānasaukhya: yaḥ śāstrāṇāṃ prathamamukuro jñāninām ekaratnaṃ

dharmādhāro dharaṇivalaye viśrutaṣ Ṭoḍarākhyaḥ | rājā so ’yaṃ nṛpabhagavatīdāsavaṃśāvataṃso 34 vidvatkoṭiṣṭarasitamahimā (prathitamahimā?) dānasaukhyaṃ vidhatte ||35

Manu­script of Akbar’s Reign,” Journal of the Department of Medicine 3, 1965, 151– 160, 201–219.

28 Likewise tanoti (Śuddhisaukhya, Vaidya 1948: 405); tanute (Ācārasaukhya, ibid. 404); tanyate (Samayasaukhya, ibid. 402; Saṃskārasaukhya, ibid. 403; Vrata­ saukhya, ibid. 406; Pūjāvidhānasaukhya, ibid. 407); vitanute (Śāntikapauṣṭika­ saukhya, ibid. 409).

29 Vaidya 1948: 413.

30 Vaidya 1948: 409.

31 Vaidya 1948: 411.

32 Vaidya 1948: 386.

33 Vaidya 1948: 407.

34 Bhagavatīdāsa was Ṭoḍaramalla’s father. For a more extensive genealogy, see the introductory verses to the Sargasaukhya (Vaidya 1948: 4–5).

35 Vaidya 1948: xxv. The first part of pāda d of this verse is obviously corrupt.

Vyavahārasaukhyam

8 Ù

Yet, an introductory verse of the Sargasaukhya makes it clear that the nibandha was, in fact, compiled, in Varanasi, not by Ṭoḍaramalla himself, but by several pandits, at the instance of Akbar’s minister.36 The Sargasaukhya also states that Ṭoḍaramalla karoti the Ṭoḍa­rānanda (verse 20), that the book is lokopakārī nṛpateḥ prayāsaḥ (verse 21), and that, in it, śrutismṛtipurāṇāni . . . saṃkṣiptāni mahī­bhṛtā (verse 22), but the preceding verse (19) states unambiguously: asau kadācid viduṣo viśuddhān

āhūya satkṛtya vinītamūrtiḥ | nānāpurāṇasmṛtisārabhūtaṃ

samādiśad grantham amuṃ vidhātum ||37

To the same effect, the introduction to the Varṣakṛtyasaukhya uses the causative form kāritā:

yena mlecchapayodhimagnanigamoddhārakriyā kāritā |38

Again, in the introduction to the Āyurvedasaukhya:

tadājñayā Suśrutādisāram uddhṛtya sādaram |

nibadhyate hitaṃ sarvaṃ viśadākṣaranirmalam | granthe’smiṃṣ Ṭoḍarānande sarvārthaparivṛṃhitam ||39

Vaidya (1948: xxvii–xxviii) went one step further. According to him, the pandits who composed the Ṭoḍarānanda were headed by Nārāyaṇabhaṭṭa (born C.E. 1513–14),40 whose second son, Śaṅkara­ bhaṭṭa, wrote a history of the family, the Gādhivaṃśānucarita (ca.

1570–1580 C.E.). From this text we learn that, at a śrāddha ceremony in the house of Ṭoḍaramalla, Nārāyaṇabhaṭṭa defeated in a disputation all the pandits of Mithilā and Gauḍa, including Vidyānivāsa, then the leading pandit at Navadvīpa. And the text describes Ṭoḍaramalla as a patron of learning, who had a compilation made of smṛti, jyotiṣa, vaidyaka, and other śāstras.41 Cf. a commentary on the Gaṇitasaukhya: vyadhatta śrīṭoḍarendranṛpatiḥ (Vaidya

1948: 399).

36 Hence also Vaidya (1948: xxvi): “I however do not think that Ṭoḍarmal is the author of the work.”

37 Vaidya 1948: 5–6.

38 Vaidya 1948: xxvii, 406.

39 Vaidya 1948: 412.

40 On Nārāyaṇabhaṭṭa, see Kane 1926: v–xvi; Kane 1975: 903–907; Salomon 1985: xxiv–xxvii.

41 Cf. Sastri 1912: 9; Kane 1975: 903 n. 1364. The NCC (5, 1969, 348) refers to a single manuscript of the Gādhivaṃśānucarita Haraprasad Sastri had made for himself from an original in Varanasi.

Introduction

Ù 9

Vaidya (1948: xxviii) considered Nārāyaṇabhaṭṭa personally responsible for the parts dealing with the Purāṇas, dharmaśāstra in all its branches, and the Mantra- or Saṃhitā-saukhya.42 I agree with Kane (1975: 912–913), who found Vaidya’s position unfounded.

First, the introduction to the Sargasaukhya (verse 19; see above) unambiguously states that Ṭoḍaramalla charged several pandits to compose the Ṭoḍarānanda. Second, since Nīlakaṇṭha is explicitly referred to as the author of the Jyotiṣasaukhya, one would expect Nārāyaṇa’s name, too, to have been preserved as that of the author of the other saukhyas.43 As the other saukhyas, the jyotiṣa treatise in the Ṭoḍarānanda occasionally uses the term karoti,44 or brūte.45 We are, however, better informed on the authorship of the jyotiṣa treatise than we are on any other part of the Ṭoḍarānanda. The Jyotiṣasaukhya consists of three skandhas: the Saṃhitāsaukhya (the Vāstusaukhya section of which has been edited twice),46 the Gaṇitasaukhya, and the Horā­saukhya.47 In the introduction to the Vāstu- or Gṛha-saukhya, Nīla­kaṇṭha pays homage to his father Ananta, but clearly declares that he himself composed the text at the instance of Ṭoḍaramalla:

govindapādakamaladvayayojitamānasaḥ |

gṛhasaukhyaṃ nīlakaṇṭho brūte śrīṭoḍarājñayā || 3 ||48

42 Srivastava (1972: 127) went too far in the opposite direction: “A scholar, named Nilakantha, produced a voluminous work on judicial procedure, auspicious time for marriages, religious ceremonies and on law and medicine and entitled Todarananda. He was no doubt patronised by the famous revenue minister of Akbar, Raja Todar Mal.” 43 Kane (1975: 912–13), in turn, speculated that Nārāyaṇabhaṭṭa probably refused to undertake the composition of the Ṭoḍarānanda “because he had become old (he would have been about 59 years old in 1572).”

44 Horāsaukhya (Vaidya 1948: 400).

45 Gaṇitasaukhya (Vaidya 1948: 399) and the astronomical Vyavahārasaukhya (ibid. 401). The latter text, which is totally different from the Vyavahāra­saukhya published in this volume, is explicitly attributed to Ṭoḍaramalla: jagaddhitāya vyavahārasaukhyaṃ brūte sphuṭaṃ ṭoḍaramallabhūpaḥ (intro­ductory verse 2). It is preserved in two mss: Sastri (1917–1966, 10, part 2: 287–288, no. 7117), and Kunhan Raja and Sarma (1944–1948: 2. 174, no. 2373).

46 Cf. Maṇḍanamiśra’s foreword to Śukla 1996: 1: “siddhāntaḥ saṃhitā horā ceti bhedena triskandhātmakam idaṃ śāstram. . . Saṃhitāskandhasya viśiṣṭo bhāgo vāstuvidyātvena vikhyātaḥ.”

47 Mss at Pingree 1976: 177a–179a.

48 The reading of verse 3cd is that which Pingree (1976: 179a) found in the mss. Both editions of the Vāstusaukhya —without mentioning their source— adopted the reading gṛhasaukhyaṃ tanoty eṣa śrīṭoḍaramahīpatiḥ. Whereas, in this case, praises for Ṭoḍaramalla and Nīlakaṇṭha’s authorship must be considered alternative readings, the introductory verses of the Sargasaukhya exhibit both alternatives successively within the same manuscripts. For tanoti, cf.

Vyavahārasaukhya (verse 2).

Vyavahārasaukhyam

10 Ù

The colophon of the Saṃhitāsaukhya unequivocally states that Ṭoḍa­ramalla ordered Nīlakaṇṭha, son of Ananta,49 to write this section: śrīmanmahārājādhirājaṭoḍaramallakārite śrīmaddaivajñānantasutanīlakaṇṭhavipaścidviracite ṭoḍarānande saṃhitāsaukhyaṃ samāptam.50

Finally, in his commentary on the Saṃjñātantra, the first section of Nīlakaṇṭha’s Tājikanīlakaṇṭhī (1622 C.E.), his son Govinda writes that his father was honored by Akbar and that he composed the Jyotiṣasaukhya for Ṭoḍaramalla:51

yannāma prathitaṃ hi bhūmivalaye śiṣyapraśiṣyair mahad bhūmīpālasamūhasevitapadādyo‘kabbareṇānvitaḥ |

śrīdillīprabhuno hi ṭoḍaravibhor ānandadaṃ jyotiṣaṃ

triskandhaṃ svakṛtaiḥ supadyanivahais tat tājikaṃ cākarot ||9||

Thus, the author of the jyotiṣa treatise in the Ṭoḍarānanda was Nīla­kaṇṭha, son of Ananta, better known as the author of the Tājikanīla­kaṇṭhī.52 In addition to the Jyotiṣasaukhya, Pingree (1984: 142b–143a) lists as “additional manuscripts of the sections of the Ṭoḍarānanda written by Nīlakaṇṭha” the Vivāhasaukhya and the Saṃskārasaukhya.

Date A number of manuscripts of individual saukhyas at Bikaner are dated from 1572/73 to 1581/82 C.E.53 The oldest of the two dated manu­scripts of the Vyavahārasaukhya goes back to 1572/73 C.E. It is tempting to consider these dates as the dates of their composition.54 Yet, many manuscripts are so incorrect that, un49 Note that Nīlakaṇṭha Daivajña, son of Ananta, is different from Nīlakaṇṭha, son of Śaṅkarabhaṭṭa, and author of the encyclopedic Bhāgavantabhāskara (literary activity 1610–1650, Kane 1926: xxvi).

50 Deccan College ms 915 of 1886–1892, quoted by Vaidya (1948: 398) and Kane (1975: 911 n. 1372).

51 Kane 1975: 911, from an Alwar ms (Peterson 1892: no. 502). Velankar (1926–1930: 1.87, no. 262) refers to a ms of Govinda’s commentary dated 1622.

52 On Nīlakaṇṭha and the Tājikanīlakaṇṭhī, see Pingree 1976: 177b–178b; 1984: 186a–189b.

53 Kunhan Raja and Sarma (1944–1948: 2. 172–175): both Sarga- and Vyavahāra- 1573 C.E. (nos. 2361, 2371); both Ācāra- and Āgama- 1574 C.E. (nos.

2360, 2376); both Śuddhi- and Vrata-saukhyas 1582 C.E. (nos. 2366, 2367).

54 Based on the date of the Pune ms, Kane (1975: 911) dated the Vyavahārasaukhya to 1581/82 C.E.

Introduction

Ù 11

less the text was carelessly written from the start, one may wish to think of them as very early copies.55 The Ṭoḍarānanda in Later Texts The Ṭoḍarānanda was referred to in texts on dharma soon after its completion. It appears among the many works quoted in the Dvaita­ nirṇaya by Śaṅkarabhaṭṭa (literary activity C.E. 1580–1600), the son of Nārāyaṇabhaṭṭa.56 Śaṅkarabhaṭṭa’s youngest son, Nīlakaṇṭha (literary activity C.E. 1610–1645),57 referred to the Ṭoḍarānanda in several of his mayūkhas: in the Vyavahāramayūkha,58 and, according to Kane, also in the Saṃskāra-, Śrāddha-, Dāna-, and Prāyaścittamayūkhas (here called Ṭoḍarānandīya). In the Nirṇayasindhu, Nārāyaṇabhaṭṭa’s grandson and Nīlakaṇṭha’s paternal nephew, Kamalākarabhaṭṭa (literary activity C.E. 1610–1640),59 quoted the Devīpurāṇa via the Ṭoḍarānanda, referred to the Ṭoḍarānanda three more times, and also quoted the Tīrtha- and Tithi-saukhyas.60 The Ṭoḍarānanda and Akbar No one is likely to dispute Jolly’s assessment that “[i]t fits in with the conciliating spirit of Akbar’s general policy that one of the most influential men of his court compiled a bulky Sanskrit work on Hindu Law.”61 Lingat went further: It is possible that the curiosity or spirit of tolerance of a ruler like Akbar will explain how he could prompt Ṭoḍar Mal to compose a digest. But it is difficult to imagine that he saw nothing in it beyond a literature inspired by the religious zeal of his minister. In reality the flowering of treatises and digests during the Muslim period seems to have been due to the need for a renewal of that literature, or rather for a new effort on the part of interpretation to adapt the law to the changes that must have come about in Hindu opinion and manners as a result of the Muslim conquest.62 55 Cf. Dash (1980: xii) on the Āyurvedasaukhya mss: “All the manuscripts procured for the editing of this work were full of grammatical and syntactical errors. Some of the mistakes were common to all manuscripts. . . Some portions of the manuscripts were so corrupt and incomplete that we did not think it proper to include them in the main text.”

56 Cf. Kane 1922: 71. Kane (1975: 913) refers to five citations.

57 Kane 1975: 941. This Nīlakaṇṭha is different from Nīlakaṇṭha, son of Ananta, who composed the jyotiṣa section of the Ṭoḍarānanda.

58 Kane (1926: 33): ṭoḍarānande nāradaḥ (Vsau 254).

59 Kane 1975: 932.

60 Kane 1926: 491; 1975: 913 n. 1378.

61 Jolly 1885: 20.

62 Lingat 1973: 259–260 (emphasis added).

12 Ù

Vyavahārasaukhyam

This enlarges on K.M. Panikkar’s statement in his foreword to the 1948 edition of the Ṭodarānanda: Whether Todar Mall wrote any portion of this vast work it is not possible to say with certainty. It is however obvious that the work was composed under his personal direction and incorporated much of his views on matters which were of vital importance to the Hindu community at that time.63

To Panikkar’s query, “whether the close relationship between Raja Todarmal and Akbar had brought about any modernisation in the traditional Hindu point of view,” Vaidya responded cautiously but unambiguously: “Although it is somewhat early to have a forecast on this question, I am afraid that inborn orthodoxy of Raja Todarmal and of the Benares Pandits would hardly show such a tendency” (1948: x). Without venturing a judgment about the Ṭoḍarānanda as a whole, the evidence shows that, as far as Hindu legal procedure is concerned, the author of the Vyavahārasaukhya remained true to prior nibandhas, many of which he quotes, and that he did not attempt to adapt his text to sixteenth-century circumstances in Akbar’s India.64 Citing the introduction to the Śuddhisaukhya, ādiṣṭe śrutibhiś cirantanamunistomair muhuḥ śīlite prācāṃ puṇyapathe duruktiśatakair mliṣṭe janālasyataḥ | mālinyāny apanīya saṃgrahamiṣād enaṃ pariṣkurvato bhūyād eṣa pariśramo’pi jagadānandāya bhūmipateḥ ||65

Derrett (1973: 53–54) ingeniously suggested that the text of the Ṭoḍa­rānanda implies that it was composed as a reaction to the harm done by Muslims to traditional Hindu dharma. Yet, the fact that the rules of proper behavior have become mliṣṭa is said to be the result of people’s ālasya “indolence,” a common attribute of life in the kali age. Also, while I concede that the text of the Ṭoḍarānanda, even in manuscripts close to the original, does not always conform to the rules of Pāṇini’s grammar,66 the Aṣṭādhyāyī (7.2.18) does restrict the meaning of mliṣṭa to avispaṣṭa “indis63 Vaidya 1948: xv. This trend of thought fits in with a common notion that “the later commentators describe a state of things, which, in its general features and in most of its details, corresponds fairly enough with the broad facts of Hindu life as it then existed” (Mayne 1950: 4, citing the Vyavahārasaukhya as one of two examples).

64 On the sources of the Vyavahārasaukhya, see below.

65 Vaidya 1948: 405.

66 Cf. Dash (1980: xii): “All the manuscripts procured for the editing of this work were full of grammatical and syntactical errors. . . Many terms and affixes

Introduction

Ù 13

tinct, sloppy;” any other meaning, all the more one that implies an external agent, would require the causative form mlecchita.67 Other Sanskrit Documents connected with Ṭoḍaramalla Without referring to a source, Grierson (1889: 35) attributed to Ṭoḍa­ramalla a Persian translation of the Bhāgavatapurāṇa.68 Among other texts connected with Ṭoḍaramalla, best attested thus far is Maṇirāma’s Padyasaṃgraha. Vaidya (1948: 393–394) quotes five stanzas from Deccan College ms 361 of 1884–1886, from which “it appears that Maṇirāma may either himself be a protégé of Ṭoḍar­mal, or was very closely connected with Pandits patronized by him. Maṇirāma’s age therefore will be between 1589 and 1650 A.D.”69 A Ṭoḍaraprakāśa, by Raghunandanamiśra, seems to have been written under the patronage of Ṭoḍaramalla.70 Manuscript catalogs by Kielhorn and others include a text on jyotiṣa, called Ṭoḍararāja or Ṭoḍaramallarāja, by Nīla-kaṇṭhācārya.71 A Svaramelakalānidhi on music, by Rāmāmātya, appears to have been patronized by Ṭoḍaramalla.72 Finally, the Draupadī Kuṇḍa inscription in Varanasi, dated saṃvat 1616 (1558/59 C.E.), commemorates the digging of a tank by order of Ṭoḍaramalla: kratunigamarasātmāsaṃmite vatsareśe

sukṛtikṛtihitaiṣī ṭoḍarakṣoṇipālaḥ | vihitavividhapūrto’cīkarac cāruvāpīṃ

vimalasalilasārāṃ baddhasopānapaṅktim ||73

used in this work do not stand correct according to the tradition of Pāṇini’s

grammar.”

67 Kāśikā on Aṣṭādhyāyī 7.2.18: mliṣṭam iti bhavaty avispaṣṭaṃ cet; mlecchitam anyat. Cf. Vaidya’s free rendering: “grew obscured . . . by the laziness of the people” (1948: xxix).

68 Hence, also Subhan (1974: 527). Grierson added: “His influence in making Hindūs learn Persian is equally noteworthy, as it accounts for the formation and acceptance of Urdū.”

69 Kane (1975: 1201) dates one Maṇirāma, son of Gaṅgārāma, grandson of Śivadatta, “about 1630–60.” He is the author of the Anūpavilāsa or Dharmāmbhodhi, the Sukhabodhinī (a commentary on the Manusmṛti), etc.

70 Vaidya 1948: xxxi; Srivastava 1972: 127. The NCC (8, 1974, 3) lists mss of this text in Pune (Deccan College ms 214 of 1884–1887) and at Lahore (Kunte 1880: 14).

71 Kielhorn 1874: no. 228; Devīprasāda 1893: 14; Hiralal 1926: 175, no. 1893.

72 Kunhan Raja and Sarma 1944–1948: 3. 267, no. 3540, C.E. 1686.

73 For the complete three-stanza text of this inscription, see Vaidya 1948: 394. A verse of the Sargasaukhya (Vaidya 1948: 5) praises Ṭoḍaramalla for spon­ soring tanks and various other works of devotion:

Vyavahārasaukhyam

14 Ù

The Vyavahārasaukhya The Edition This first edition of the Vyavahārasaukhya is based on four manuscripts, all in devanāgarī script, two from Bikaner (B1, B2), one from Pune (P), and one from Varanasi (V).

B174 Anup Sanskrit Library, Fort, Bikaner. 93 folios. 285 x 130 mm.

On the verso of 1a and 90b (called 91): śrīsarvavidyānidhānakavīn­ drācāryasarasvatīnāṃ ṭoḍarānande vyavahārasaukhyam. The manu­ script is dated saṃvat 1630 varṣe phālgunasudi 11 budhe, i.e. 1572/73 C.E. It ends: āgaranaigare śrī akabarasāhijalāladīrājye likhitaṃ ṭhā. harivaṃsugopācalī.

B275 Anup Sanskrit Library, Bikaner. Fol. 1b–90a. 275 x 136 mm. It starts at mārgeṣu 4, M 8.3. No date.

P76 Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune. Country paper.

Folios 1–95, folios 2–3 missing. 163 x 140 mm. 10 lines to a page, 35 akṣaras per line. This manuscript is dated saṃvat 1638 samaye karasudi 1 sukravāre, i.e. 1580/81 C.E. V77 Sarasvati Bhavan, Varanasi. 89 folios, 295 x 130 mm. 10 lines to a page, 39 akṣaras per line. The last two folios are worn out.

No date.

Although we have in B1 and P two old, dated manuscripts —or possibly, copies of manuscripts that were dated 1572/73 and 1580/81, respectively—, we possess neither the original text nor the archetype from which all manuscripts are derived.

The relationship between the preserved manuscripts is clear.

It can be summarized in the following stemma codicum:

taḍāgānāṃ yāgān ativimalamūrtiḥ samakarod

asau saudheṣv antar muramathanamūrtīś ca vividhāḥ |

vidhāya prārambhād upavanavinodaṃ bhagavato

yaśaḥ svīyaṃ rājā jagati bahuśaḥ pallavayati || 18 || 74 Kunhan Raja and Sarma 1944–1948: 2. 174, no. 2371.

75 Ibid., no. 2372.

76 Sharma 1947: 142–143, no. 1274.

77 Shukla 1956: 204, no. 13966.

Introduction

Ă&#x2122;Â Â 15

[X] _______________|_______________ |

| B1 (1572/73) B2 ________|________ | | P (1580/81) V This stemma is based on the following observations: 1. B1, P, and V are more closely related to one another than they are to B2.

1.1. In a number of cases, B2 alone preserves correct readings where the other three manuscripts are identically wrong.

1.2. Conversely, there are instances in which B2 alone is wrong and the other three identically correct.

2. B1 is the source of P and of V. 2.1 In addition to its later date, it is clear that P cannot be the source of B1.

2.1.1. There are errors in P that do not appear in B1 (nor in V).

2.1.2. Most important, errors in P can be explained by the layout of B1.

Occasionally, P omits one full line of B1; or P repeats twice one full line of B1; or P transposes two lines in B1.

2.2. V is not the source of B1.

2.2.1. There are errors in V that do not appear in B1 (nor in P).

2.2.2. Here, too, errors in V can be explained by the layout of B1.

Like P, V occasionally omits one full line of B1.

2.3. P and V are not copies of one another.

2.3.1. V is not a copy of P, because there are errors in P that are absent in V. 2.3.2. P is not a copy of V, because there are errors in V that are absent in P. 2.4. V is later than P. P was copied from B1 before B1 had been corrected by a second hand; V was copied after the corrections.

The edition is, therefore, based primarily on B1 and B2, both of which derive from one lost archetype X. On numerous occasions, identical, minor and major, errors appear in both B1 (followed by P and V) and B2.

Archetype X is reconstructed in this edition on the basis of the following principles.

1. As long as B1 and B2 offer the same acceptable reading, this reading is adopted in the edition. This principle is observed to the largest possible extent, even when it is inconsistent with or contrary to tradition.

16 Ù

Vyavahārasaukhyam

2. The archetype X was obviously poorly and unclearly written.

2.1. Throughout the text, B1 and B2 exhibit numerous identical minor scribal errors. These errors are silently corrected, and not included in the critical apparatus.

Consonants that looked similar (v/r; p/v; n/t) were interchanged in the archetype.

2.2. Alternative readings, reflecting a regional pronunciation of Sanskrit, often occur in B1 and B2. They are signaled in the apparatus by “or.”

-ḥs- or -ss-; s or ś; ṣ or kh; -o or -au.

3. Major errors in X, and, hence, in both B1 and B2, are discussed in the apparatus. Solutions are proposed, either as conjectures, or, when­ever possible, by reference to parallel passages in other nibandhas.

4. More significant for the reconstruction of X is the fact that B1 and B2 exhibit numerous identical lectiones singulares in the quotations from smṛtis. These are, as far as possible, maintained in the text, and signaled as such, by opposing them to the common readings, which are listed after the abbreviation “vulg” in the apparatus.78 In some cases, the lectiones singulares are supported by the Vsau commen­tary.

5. B1 and B2 display identical omissions.

5.1. Parts of quotations that are required by the context, even some on which the Vsau itself comments, are missing. They are added in the text from the most likely parallel nibandhas, and, in the notes, sig­naled by the abbreviation “conj,” followed by “cf. vulg” and the common reading(s).

5.2. Such omissions are especially noticeable in consecutive quotations from smṛtis, where B1B2PV fail to mention the transition from one smṛtikāra to another.79 The missing smṛtikāras’ names are reintroduced in the text, with the abbreviation “B1B2PV om” in the apparatus.

6. The unclear writing of X accounts for B1 and B2 copying it differently.

7. When either B1 or B2 alone presents the obviously correct reading, this reading is adopted in the edition; the incorrect reading does not appear in the apparatus.

7.1. On balance, B2 is more often correct than B1.

78 In this respect my approach differs from Vaidya’s: “When the source of the citation was definite and traced, I used the printed edition of the work and noted down the variants from the printed edition under the designation T” (1948: xvii).

79 This has led to erroneous attributions of smṛti passages in the Dhko, which used Vsau ms P.

Introduction

Ù 17

7.2. Only occasionally is B1 correct, whereas B2 is not.

8. There are a number of cases in which B1 and B2 present different acceptable readings. Since B2 is generally more correct than B1, the edition tends to use the acceptable readings of B2 in preference to equally acceptable readings in B1. Whatever the case may be, the other acceptable reading appears in the apparatus.

The Vyavahārasaukhya and Earlier Texts In addition to Ṭoḍaramalla’s own Vivādasaukhya (6), the Vyavahāra­saukhya quotes, by name or anonymously, approvingly or disapprov­ingly, a number of earlier commentaries and nibandhas: anye 161, 172, 382, 557 apare 160 āhuḥ 300, 376, 392, 452, 464, 506, 520, 547, 656, 628, 678, 704, 710 eke; anye/apare 347, 564 kecid 4, 108, 238, 288, 311, 499 kvacid 80, 93, 134, 160, 547 Pārijāta 118, 149, 161, 236, 271, 290, 335, 341, 405, 544 Bhavadeva 170, 172 Mitākṣarā(kāra) 161, 172, 225, 225, 449, 467, 542, 599, 661, 703 (Vyavahāra)kalpataru(kāra) 105, 130, 149, 158, 158, 174, 238, 290 Vyavahāraratnākara 290, 502 Śiṣṭāḥ 669, 671 Harihara 556 Halāyudha 189, 564 Not overtly quoted are three nibandhas to which many passages of the Vyavahārasaukhya bear a close resemblance and which may well have served as its sources: Misarumiśra’s Vivādacandra, Hari­ nātha’s Smṛtisāra, and, especially, Vācaspatimiśra’s Vyavahāra­ cintāmaṇi. To clarify some less transparent passages in the Vsau commentary, corresponding commentary from these sources is added in the apparatus.

It is clear, however, that, even though the Vyavahārakalpataru is no longer referred to by name after 290, of all earlier commentaries, it is the main source of the Vsau throughout.

1. In a number of cases, the Dhko notes confirm that, among the digests known to predate the Vsau, quotations from smṛtis appear in Vka and Vsau only. Less often, quotations appear only in Vka, Vyci, and Vsau. Such cases are fully documented in the apparatus.

18 Ù

Vyavahārasaukhyam

2. The structure of the Vsau matches that of Vka. Smṛti passages are often quoted in the sequence found only in Vka. Most significant, only Vka and Vsau have separate sections on sandhi (207–209) and sākṣipratyuddhāra (303–311).