·GAEKWAD'S ORIENTAL SERIES
Published under the Authority of
the Government of His Highness
the Maharaja Gaekwad of Baroda
GENERAL EDITOR :
B. BHATTACHARYYA, M.A., PH.D.,
RAJYARATNA, JNANAJYOTI
No. XCII
भट्टश्रीलक्ष्मीधरविरचिते
कृत्यकल्पतरौ
पञ्चमो भागः
॥ दानकाण्डम् ॥

·KRTYAKALPATARU
OF
'BHATTA LAKSMIDHARA
Vol. V. DANAKANDA
Edited by
K. V. RANGASWAMI AIYANGAR
Baroda
Oriental Institute
1941

·Pages 9-89€ printed by Jaya Krishna Das Gupta, at Vidya
Vilas Press, Benares City and Pp. i–xvi and 1-130
printed by C. Subbarayudu, at the Vasanta Press,
Adyar, Madras, and Published on behalf of the
Government of His Highness the Maharaja
Gaekwad of Baroda by Benoytosh
Bhattacharyya at the Oriental
Institute, Baroda.
Price Rs. 9

·PREFACE THE desire to present a systematic exposition of the teachings of Dharmas'āstra in elaborate treatises led to the composition of great digests. The earliest of them synchronised with the rise of the Rājput dynasties of mediæval India. Among such works, the Krtya-Kalpataru of Lakşmīdhara has long held a pre-eminent position. But, manuscripts of it disappeared even in North India through the violence of the early Musulman conquests, and few copies of the whole nibandha were known. Peterson's discovery of an almost complete set in 1880 (he wrongly named it Krtya-ratnakara) in the Library of His Highness the Mahārāņa of Udaipur remained unnoticed till attention was again drawn in 1915 to the work by an article of Rai Monmohan Chakravarti Bahadur in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. Rajendralala Mitra and Aufrecht had noticed manuscripts of sections of it, but without any recognition of its value both intrinsically and as the oldest surviving nibandha on Dharma. Even writers on the Gāhadvāla rulers of Kānauj, under whom there was a final flare up of Hindu supremacy in North India before it passed under the Muslim yoke, failed to notice it as the most conspicuous proof of the revivalist enthusiasm and literary patronage of those kings. A recent history of Kānauj, for example, shows so little perception of the importance of the Digest and knowledge of its contents that it dismisses the Krtya- Kalpataru with a few lines, naming as its chief kāņdas those on Vyavahāra, Vivada (sic), Dana and Rajadharma.

·11 was It is impossible to study the chief secondary works on Dharmas'āstra without becoming aware of the importance of Lakşmīdhara's treatise and a longing to study it. The feeling had long been mine but the publication of the nibandha seemed impossible of realisation. Early in 1934, however, by a fortunate accident, I was honoured with an audience by His Highness the late Mahārāja of Baroda, Sir Sayaji Rao Gaekwad, wellcharacterised as the Vikramaditya of our Age.” The Prime Minister, Sir V. T. Krishnamachari, K.C. I. E. present at the interview. A gracious invitation was extended to me to edit some works for the Gaekwad's Oriental Series. An explanation of the importance of the Krtya-Kalpataru, its size, rarity and fitness to figure in that great series aroused the interest of His Highness, who expressed a wish to have all facilities given me to edit the to edit the work properly. The chief difficulty had been that of obtaining the manuscript of the nibandha from the Udaipur Palace. The Prime Minister applied for the loan of the manuscript. The Udaipur authorities promised to see if it was still in existence. After further correspondence, and a personal recommendation to His Highness the Mahārāņa by Col. Sir Donald Field, C.I.E. (now Prime Minister of Jodhpur) supporting the application for the loan of the manuscript, the promise of the early supply of a transcript of the entire nibandha was received. The transcript was despatched in July, 1935, and was received by me on the day on which I assumed charge of the Principalship of the Central Hindu College in the Benares Hindu University. An examination of the manuscript revealed its very defective state. It became clear that the publication of parts of it, for which there was no second manuscript, would have to lie over on the chance of an assiduous search revealing the existence of further copies. I also found that it had been extensively laid under contribution by later writers like Hemādri, Caņdes'vara and ·vii as Mitra Mis'ra. It seemed possible to derive help in the elucidation of obscure passages in the Krtya-Kalpataru from the digests composed by these later writers wherever their works covered the ground previously traversed by Lakşmīdhara. A search for further manuscripts was begun at once. Press copies of the entire work were made and kept in readiness for collation with manuscripts that might be secured. To postpone the editing of the nibandha till all known manuscripts were secured for comparison would have hung up publication for years. Accordingly, I decided on proceeding with the editing of such kāņdas could be dealt with on the basis of accessible manuscripts. In this way, five kāņdas were edited and sent to the press, viz., Dana, Rajadharma, Tirtha, Mokșa and Gșhastha. For some of these, fresh manuscripts became available, either when the printing was proceeding, or after the printing of the text had been completed. In such cases, the variant readings of the new manuscripts were either incorporated in footnotes or reproduced in appendices. A manuscript for each of two missing sections of the Digest, unhappily incomplete, which are not represented in the Udaipur set, was discovered. They have to stand over till fresh exploration or a fortunate chance provides fresh manuscripts that would fill in the gaps in the manuscripts so secured. The first of the sections to be completed, after the utilisation of every manuscript known to be in existence, is the Danakanda. It is now released. The last of the manuscripts to be utilised for it was discovered in the Junior Bhonsle Rāj Library in 1939. Its readings were collected and printed as a final appendix. Before it could be completed by the addition of appropriate introductions on the Krtya-Kalpataru in general, and on Danakanda in particular, work that would not permit of any other pursuit intervened. It absorbed all my time. When release came a year ago, impaired health caused further ·viii delay. It was thus possible to resume the work and complete it only recently. As now presented, the first of the sections of the great Digest of Laksmīdhara to be published is really its fafth part. It is issued with the full complement of textual variants, footnotes indicating the obligations " of later writers like Hemadri to Lasmīdhara's work, appendices identifying the Vedic mantras cited in the text as well as the quotations from smrtis, Epics and Puranas, and collecting the pratijnah or visaya-nirdes'a of later treatises on Dana, like those of Ballāla Sena, Hemadri, Candes'vara, Madanasimha, Dalapati, and Mitra Mis'ra, and enumerating known works on Dana. The purpose of the extracts on pratajna is to show the way in which Laksmidhara's work was amplified, amended or developed by later writers. Of the later treatises on Dana, Ballala Sena's Danasagara has been published partially but the greater part of it remains unprinted. The others, with the exception of Hemadri's Dānakhanda, are not yet printed. For the comparative study of Dana all of them are needed along with several other works available either in print or in script. The preparation of copies (and in one case of photographs) of these, which are so necessary for a comprehension of the evolution of Dana literature, has involved much labour, time and expense. The reed to study them has also delayed the present publication. But it seemed well worth while to face the delay rather than follow the practice of publishing, without comparative studies involving such preliminary work, what are in effect nothing more than copies in print of manuscripts, with all their defects unremoved. The Introduction prefixed to the Danakanda of the Krtya-Kalpataru falls into two parts. The first treats of the Digest and its author, and the second of the Danakanda specifically and in relation to the evolution of the literature of Gifts. In the former, the information that can now be gathered about Laksmīdhara, his patron ·ix king Govindacandra and the Krya-Kalpataru are summarised, and the time-relation of Lakşmidhara's work to the famous Mitakşara of his contemporary Vijñānes'vara and. to the commentary of Aparārka is discussed on data not previously utilised. My conclusions are at variance with the views now holding the field, and advocated by writers of authority like Mr. P. V. Kane, but they are believed to rest on evidence which can not be lightly rejected or refuted. My aim in the Introduction has been to present part of a sketch, founded on a comparative study of the nibandha of which one section is now published (from among fourteen) of the Indian view of life as cherished by those who felt the urge to expound it in great digests, both as a personal duty and as an obligation of Rajadharma in its narrower and wider senses. The general introduction on the Krtya-Kalpataru and Laksmīdhara is largely a recast of two papers which appeared some months ago in the volume commemorating the Silver Jubilee of the Madras Law Journal. The duty remains to state my obligations. They are naturally heaviest to His Highness the late Mahārāja Gaekwad of Baroda for graciously approving of the inclusion of the nibandha in the Gaekwad's Oriental Series and in commanding the provision of the necessary facilities, to His Highness the Mahārāņa of Udaipur for sanctioning the preparation and supply of a careful transcript of all the twelve käņdas in the Palace Library at Udaipur, and to Sir V. T. Krishnamacharya K.C.I.E., for the warm interest he has taken in the work from its inception, for the freedom given to the editor to select his own printers and choose a format that would be worthy of so important a work and of the series in which it would appear, and for securing for my use manuscripts or transcripts of the Krtya-Kalpataru that would not have been available to me without his intercession. Dr. B. Bhattācārya, the learned Director of the Oriental Institute and the General Editor of the Gaekwad's Oriental ·х Series, has met with promptness and sympathy all my requests for help in securing manuscripts. He also undertook the laborious task of comparing my press copy of the Danakanda with the India Office manuscript of it, that he had secured on loan, as, under the rules, it could not go out of his personal custody. To Col. Sir Donald Field, I owe thanks for supporting by a personal letter to His Highness the Mahārāņa of Udaipur the request for the supply of a transcript of the entire Digest. I owe the access to the Junior Bhonsle Rāj manuscript collection, which resulted in the discovery of manuscripts of some kāndas of the Krtya-Kalpataru, to the Hon'ble Mr. B. S. Niyogi, Judge of the High Court of Nagpur. To the Council of the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal and to the authorities of the University of the Punjab, I am indebted for the courteous loan of manuscripts in their libraries. To Mahāmahopadhyāya Pandit Gopinath Kaviraj, M.A. and Dr. Mangaldeva Sāstri I am indebted for the loan of many manuscripts from the Sarasvatibhavan at Benares. To the authorities of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, I am in debt for the loan of the manuscripts of the Danaratnakara, the Danasara and the Danaratnapradīpa from the Anandās'rama at Poona. Vaidyaratna Captain G. Srinivasa Murti, B.A., B.L., M.B., C.M., the erudite Director of the. Adyar Library, has placed me under unforgettable obligation by having manuscripts of several works on Dana, like the Danaratnakara, Danapradipa, Danaprakasa and Dana- Kamalakara that were needed for comparative study, transcribed at the cost of the Adyar Library and placed at my disposal for editing the Dana-Kalpataru. Mr. Chintaharan Chakravarthy, M.A., of the Bethune College, Calcutta, arranged to get me copies of passages from the Danasāgara manuscript in the Library of the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal. In the actual editing of the Dana-Kalpataru and in taking it through the press, I have been continuously ·xi helped by my former pupil and colleague, Mr. A. N. Krishna Aiyangar, M.A., L.T., now of the Adyar Library, while in the work of collating my press copy with manuscripts in Maithili, in interpreting difficult passages in the text and in comprehending s'rauta-prayoga, my debt is heavy to my friend and former colleague Mahamahõpādhyāya Pandit A. Chinnaswami Sastri, Principal of the College of Theology in the Benares Hindu University, and his Assistant, Mimamsācārya Pattabhirama S'āstri. In preparing the bibliography of Dāna literature I have received help from Dr. V. Raghavan, M.A., Ph. D., of the University of Madras and of course from Mr. Kane's exhaustive list. Vasumatīvilasa, Mylapore K. V. RANGASWAMI 19th November 1941 ·CONTENTS PAGE PREFACE V -- 46 57 Introduction I: Lakşmidhara and the Křtya-Kalpataru Note A : Verses introducing the Krtya-Kalpataru Introduction II: Dāna-Kalpataru Note B: Digests anterior to the Krtya-Kalpataru Note C: Manuscripts of the Dānakāņda of the Křtya- Kalpataru Note D: List of Works on Dāna 120 124 127 . दानकाण्डविषयसूचिका . .. . or ३ . . . १६ २६ ४९-११९ . . मङ्गलाचरणम् विषयनिर्देश: १. दानस्वरूपम् २. देयादेयानि ३. पात्रलक्षणम् ४. महादानानि (१) तुलापुरुषदानविधिः (२) हिरण्यगर्भदानविधिः (३) ब्रह्माण्डदानम् (४) कल्पपादपदानम् . (५) गोसहस्रदानम् (६) कामधेनुदानम् (७) हिरण्याश्वदानम् (८) अश्वरथदानम् (९) हेमहस्तिरथदानम् ६३ ६७ ७१ . . . . . . ७४ . . ७८ ८१ ८३ ८६ . . .

·viv PAGE ८९ . . . . . . . . . ९५ ९९ १०१ १०४ १०७ ११० ११३ . . . . . . . . ११८ १२०-१४० १२० १२८ १२९ १३० . . (१०) पञ्चलाङ्गलदानम् . (११) पृथ्वीदानम् (१२) विश्वचक्रदानम् (१३) कल्पलतादानम् (१४) सप्तसागरदानम् (१५) रत्नधेनुदानम् (१६) महाभूतघटदानम् । पद्मपुराणोक्त ब्रह्माण्डदानम् . कालिकापुराणोक्त गोसहस्रदानम् आदित्यपुराणोक्त गोसहस्रदानम् महाभारतोक्त गोसहस्रदानम् ५. पर्वतदानानि (१) धान्याचलदानम् (२) लवणाचलदानम् (३) गुडपर्वतदानम् (४) कनकाचलदानम् . (५) तिलाचलदानम् (६) कार्पासाचलदानम् . (७) घृताचलदानम् (८) रत्नाचलदानम् (९) रूप्याचलदानम् . (१०) शर्कराचलदानम् ६. गुडधेन्वादिदानानि पञ्चधेनुदानम् तिलधेनुदानम् घृतधेनुदानम् जलधेनुदानम् तिलधेनुदानम् (आदित्यपुराणोक्त) घृतधेनुदानम् ( जलधेनुदानम् ( रुपतो गोदानम् कपिलागोदानम् . . . १३२ १३३ १३५ . . . . १३८ १४१-१७६ . . . . . . . . . १४६ १४८ १५० १५२ १५४ १५६ १५८-१७६ १६० " . . . . A .

·XV PAGE १६६ १७७ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . उभयतोमुखीदानम् ७. हेमगवीदानम् . ८.. वृषभदानम् ९. कृष्णाजिनदानम् १०. भूमिदानम् ११. सुवर्णदानम् १२. विद्यादानम् १३. कल्पदानम् १४. तिथिदानम् मासदानम् १५. नक्षत्रदानानि १६. अन्नदानम् १७. आरोग्यदानम् १८. अभयदानम् द्विजस्थापनम् १९, प्रकीर्णदानानि २०. कूपवापीतडागविधिः द्वारीबन्धः २१. वृक्षप्रतिष्ठा वृक्षारोपणविधिः २२. आश्रयदानम् . प्रतिश्रयदानम् १८० १८७ १९४ २०० २२९ २३१ २३६ २४१ २४६ २५० २५२ २५५ २५७ २७६ २८९ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ३०२ ३११ ३१२ . Appendix A-Readings of the Punjab University MS. . . Appendix B. १. बल्लालसेनकृतदानसागरप्रतिज्ञा २. हेमाद्रेः दानखण्डानुक्रमणी ३. चण्डेश्वरस्य दानरत्नाकरप्रतिज्ञा विषयानुक्रमणी च ४. मदनसिंहस्य दानविवेकोद्योतानुक्रमणिका ५. मित्रमिश्रस्य दानप्रकाशे प्रतिज्ञा Appendix C-Vedic Mantras cited Appendix D--Works cited ३३७ ३४५ ३४५ ३४७ ३५१ ३५४ ३६७ . . . .

·xvi
PAGE
Appendix E-Identification of Quotations
३६२
Appendix F-Half-verse Index of Quotations ३६७
Appendix G-Readings of the Manuscript in the
Library of the Junior Bhonsle Raja, Nagpur ३८३-४१२
Appendix H-दलपतिकृत नृसिंहप्रसादे दानसारे प्रतिज्ञा ४१३-४१५

·I LAKŞMIDHARA AND THE KRTYA-KALPATARU MODERN NEGLECT OF NIBANDHAS IN modern treatises on Hindu Law sufficient justice is rarely done to the importance of the Digest (nibandha) in the evolution of Hindu social and legal institutions. This is largely due to the circumstance that attention has been almost entirely monopolised by the great commentaries (bhāsyah) like those of Visvarūpa, Vijñānesvara, and Aparārka on Yājñavalkya, and Medhātithi, Govindaraja and others on Manu. The reputation of the Mitākşară of Vijñānes vara has thrown into the shadow that of the digests, which were either anterior to or nearly contemporary with it. It is true that the digests of S'rīkara and Bhoja, to which the Mitākşarā refers, have long been lost, but enquiry might well have been made for a work like the Krtya- Kalpataru, which has been quoted with frequency and respect by digests from the middle of the twelfth century onwards. It is noteworthy that even a specialist like J. Jolly, who discussed the value of the digest literature nearly sixty years ago,' failed to do .full justice to it. While he contended that “it may be confidently asserted that the supreme Rulers of Indian States in all parts of the Peninsula have always taken an active interest in the composition of Law-Digests and Commentaries, and this fact must needs raise a strong presumption in favour of the practical nature of these works," he conceded that it was "out of the question to compare them in any way to the law-codes of > They did their work so well that their Commentaries and Digests have, in effect, superseded the Smritis, at any rate in a very large measure. (Mayne's Hindu Law, 10th edition, 1938, p. 42.) Mr. P. V. Kane gives the commentaries and digests together one section viz., 57, pp. 246-247. History of Dharma- Sastra. Vol. I. ? History of Hindu Law, (Tagore Law Lectures, 1883), 1885.

·2 THE DĀNA KANDA modern Europe.” He regarded the Digest as analogous to European treatises, which are cited in legal decisions, and as merely containing statements of law which their Hindu readers would know how far to apply or not in the actual conditions of the prevalent customary law. Jolly's references to the digest literature in his earlier work are only to comparatively late digests like those of Hemādri, Dalapati, and Țodarmal. SCANTY KNOWLEDGE OF THE KALPATARU Lakşmīdhara's work was quite unknown to him. If he had had access to it, he would have seen its unique value and cited it as a prominent instance of a digest of law, whose binding authority, on the kingdom for which it was composed, must have been unquestioned, in view of the rank and position of its author and of the royal mandate which was responsible for its composition. Even in 1896, when he wrote his later treatise' he had no perception of the importance of this digest which he named. He was obviously unfamiliar, even in 1928, with the contents of those parts of it which he described in the English version of his Hindu Law and Custoin." Virtually little was known of Laksmīdhara till 1916, when Rai Bahadur Monmohan Chakravarti included a short note on the Kalpataru at the end of an article on the contributions to Smrti by writers of Bengal and Mithila. He actually handled manuscripts of four sections of the Kalpataru in the library of the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal. It was left to Mr. P. V. Kane to collect the available information on this digest and present it in the light of his own inspection of manuscripts of two sections, namely, Rājadharmakānda and Vyavahāra-kānda.* He had no access to the remaining parts though he was aware that Dr. P. Peterson had noted, as early as 1882, the existence of manuscripts of twelve out of its fourteen sections in the library of His Highness the Mahārāņa of Udaipur. Peterson's interests and knowledge did not extend to Dharmasastra. He had - Recht und Sitte, Strasburg, 1896. ed. Bata Krishna Ghosh, Calcutta, 1928. 3).A.S.B., 1975, pp. 311-375. History of Dharmaşastra, Vol. I, 1930, pp. 315-318. Report on the Search for MSS. in the Bombay Circle, 1883, pp, 108, 111. 5 ·LAKSMĪDHARA AND THE KŘTYA-KALPATARU 3 contented himself with quoting only the first quarters of the invocatory verses prefixed to each of the kārdas and their colophons. His unfamiliarity with the nibandha literature made him cite the work, in spite of the explicit statement in the colophons, as Krtya-ratnākara, which is the distinctive title of a section of a similar digest composed by Candesvara, in imitation of the Kalpataru' early in the fourteenth century. INFLUENCE OF THE KALPATARU The printing of some of the later nibandhas, which have laid the Kalpatarul under liberal contribution, and the examination of manuscripts of unpublished digests, which have cited the Kalpataru freely, now make it possible to understand the reason for the great reputation which it formerly enjoyed, and the extent of its influence. Monmohan Chakravarti showed that the influence of the Kalpataru was traceable not only on the later writings of the Bengal and Mithila schools of Hindu Law but over all the chief legal writers in North India and the Dakhan. In Bengal, Aniruddha (c. 1160 A.D.) was the earliest to quote the Kalpataru as an authority, and Ballälasena, (c. 1165 A. D.) who was only a generation removed from Lakşmīdhara, was influenced by him. S'ūlapāņi (c. 1400 A. D.), S'rinātha (c. 1500 A. D.) and Raghunandana (c. 1490-1570 A. D.) in Bengal, S'rīdatta (c. 1245 A. D.), Caņdes vara (c. 1300-1360 A. D.), Vācaspati Misra (c. 1450 A. D.) and Rudradhara (c. 1360-1400 A. D.) in Mithila, Harinātha (c. 1350 A. D.), Srīdhara (c. 1150 A.D.) Visvesvara Bhatta, Madanapāla (c. 1360-1390 A.D.) and the Madanaratna (c. 1425 A. D.) in North India, Hemādri (c. 1260 A. D.) and Pratāparudra (c. 1497-1539 A. D.) in the Dakhan are among those who used Lakşmīdhara's digest in composing their own works. Along with references to Lakşmīdhara and his digest in terms of deep veneration, we find in many later works, e.g., those of Hemādri, Madanasimha and Caņdesvara, the reproduction wholesale of pages after pages of the Kalpataru. Owing to this method of appropriation practised by the later digest writers, almost the whole of certain sections of the Kalpataru can now be detected in some later digests. This is the case with the Printed in 1926 in Bibliotheca Indica. 1 ·2 THE DĀNA KANDA modern Europe." He regarded the Digest as analogous European treatises, which are cited in legal decisions, and merely containing statements of law which their Hindu reade would know how far to apply or not in the actual conditiops the prevalent customary law. Jolly's references to the dige literature in his earlier work are only to comparatively late diges like those of Hemādri, Dalapati, and Todarmal. SCANTY KNOWLEDGE OF THE KALPATARU Lakşmīdhara's work was quite unknown to him. If he has had access to it, he would have seen its unique value and citer it as a prominent instance of a digest of law, whose binding authority, on the kingdom for which it was composed, must have been unquestioned, in view of the rank and position of its author and of the royal mandate which was responsible for its composition. Even in 1896, when he wrote his later treatise' he had no perception of the importance of this digest which he named. He was obviously unfamiliar, even in 1928, with the contents of those parts of it which he described in the English version of his Hindu Law and Custom." Virtually little was known of Lakşmīdhara till 1916, when Rai Bahadur Monmohan Chakravarti included a short note on the Kalpataru at the end of an article on the contributions to Smrti by writers of Bengal and Mithila. He actually handled manuscripts of four sections of the Kalpataru in the library of the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal. It was left to Mr. P. V. Kane to collect the available information on this digest and present it in the light of his own inspection of manuscripts of two sections, namely, Rājadharmakānda and Vyavahāra-kārda. He had no access to the remaining parts though he was aware that Dr. P. Peterson had noted, as early as 1882, the existence of manuscripts of twelve out of its fourteen sections in the library of His Highness the Mahārāņa of Udaipur. Peterson's interests and knowledge did not extend to Dharmasastra. He had 9 Recht und Sitte, Strasburg, 1896. ed. Bata Krishna Ghosh, Calcutta, 1928. 3J.A.S.B., 1915, pp. 311_-375. * History of Dharmaşastra, Vol. I, 1930, pp. 315-318. Report on the Search for MSS. in the Bombay Circle, 1883, pp, 108, 111. 6 ·LAKSMĪDHARA AND THE KŘTYA-KALPATARU 3 contented himself with quoting only the first quarters of the invocatory verses prefixed to each of the kändas and their colophons. His unfamiliarity with the nibandha literature made him cite the work, in spite of the explicit statement in the colophons, as Krtya-ratnākara, which is the distinctive title of a section of a similar digest composed by Candesvara, in imitation of the Kalpataru' early in the fourteenth century. 1 INFLUENCE OF THE KALPATARU The printing of some of the later nibandhas, which have laid the Kalpataru under liberal contribution, and the examination of manuscripts of unpublished digests, which have cited the Kalpataru freely, now make it possible to understand the reason for the great reputation which it formerly enjoyed, and the extent of its influence. Monmohan Chakravarti showed that the influence of the Kalpataru was traceable not only on the later writings of the Bengal and Mithila schools of Hindu Law but over all the chief legal writers in North India and the Dakhan. In Bengal, Aniruddha (c. 1160 A.D.) was the earliest to quote the Kalpataru as an authority, and Ballālasena, (c. 1165 A. D.) who was only a generation removed from Lakşmīdhara, was influenced by him. S'ūlapāņi (c. 1400 A. D.), S'rinātha (c. 1500 A. D.) and Raghunandana (c. 1490-1570 A. D.) in Bengal, S'rīdatta (c. 1245 A. D.), Caņdesvara (c. 1300-1360 A. D.), Vācaspati Misra (c. 1450 A. D.) and Rudradhara (c. 1360-1400 A. D.) în Mithila, Harinātha (c. 1350 A. D.), S'ridhara (c. 1150 A.D.) Visvesvara Bhatta, Madanapāla (c. 1360-1390 A.D.) and the Madanaratna (c. 1425 A. D.) in North India, Hemādri (c. 1260 A. D.) and Pratāparudra (c. 1497-1539 A. D.) in the Dakhan are among those who used Lakşmīdhara's digest in composing their own works. Along with references to Laksmīdhara and his digest in terms of deep veneration, we find in many later works, e.g., those of Hemādri, Madanasimha and Caņdes vara, the reproduction wholesale of pages after pages of the Kalpataru. Owing to this method of appropriation practised by the later digest writers, almost the whole of certain sections of the Kalpataru can now be detected in some later digests. This is the case with the ? Printed in 1926 in Bibliotheca Indica.

·4. THE DĀNA KANDA Viramitrodaya of Mitra Misra,' the one work which, in its rang and size, if not in its quality, excels the Kalpataru. The curiou: system of wholesale borrowing' was probably deliberate and designed with the purpose of making the later work supersede ar earlier. It will partly account for the almost total disappearance of some of the great digests of the earlier epoch.' In the later digests the deferential manner in which views of Laksmīdhara are quoted suggests not merely the great value attached to his pronouncements but the merit of citations from a work which had become scarce. It may be noted, as an illustration, that the Sarasvati-vilása of Pratāparudra-deva has a whole chapter (paras 627 to 773 in the edition of Foulkes) summarising the views of Lakşmidhara on the division of inheritance (dāyabhāga). Not less noteworthy is Pratāparudra's reference to the author of the Kalpataru as Bhagavān Lakşmīdhara, giving him the rank of an ăcārya or rşi. The influence of Laksmīdhara did not penetrate to South India. He is not referred to by writers like Varadarāja, the author of Vyavahāra-nirnaya,' Devaņņa Bhatta and Mādhavācārya, very probably because they had no access to the Kalpatari. The circumstance that Benares, in which Lakşmidhara probably lived and wrote, was repeatedly sacked by the Muhammadan invaders within a few years of Lakşmīdhara's death, and the whole area was thoroughly ravaged,' will account for the almost total disappearance of manuscripts of Krtya-kalpataru, and the impossibility of the extension of its doctrines, in the following centuries, to an area so remote as South India. Composed between 1610 and 1640 A. D. under the patronage of Bir Singh of Orchha, the favourite of Jahangir. Twenty-two sections of it are known, and half the number has been printed at Benares, (1906-1939). 3" As better and more compact digests came to be composed in later times, the Kalpataru fell more and more into obscurity. It is for this reason that MSS. of the work are rare (Kane, op.cit., p. 318). It cannot be asserted with justice that later digests like the Ratnakara, Madanaratra and Viramitrodaya are * better and more compact” than the Kalpataru. paras 627-773 in T. Foulkes, Hindu Law of Inheritance according to the Sarasvatī-vilasa, 1881 ; and pp. 421-430 in the Mysore edition of Sarasvati. vilasa, 1927. 4 This work is about to be published by me. Varadarāja, probably lived before Mādhavācārya. 5 In 1194 Benares was sacked on the defeat and death of Jayacandra, and over a thousand of its temples were destroyed. (Briggs, Ferislaah, I, p. 179; Elliot, History of India, II, p. 223.) 3 ·LAKSMĪDHARA AND THE KŘTYA-KALPATARU 5 THE EVOLUTION OF THE NIBANDHA Before proceeding to describe Lakşmīdhara's work, a brief reference may be made to the place of the Digest (nzibandha) in the evolution of Hindu Law. Our social institutions have, in a correct perspective, to be viewed neither as mere instruments nor as mere ends. While they serve initial and intermediate ends they cannot reach the ultimate end. They help our progress to the goal and furnish the means to the self-discipline without which reaching the goal viz., Moksa, will be impossible. In the almost endless chain of rebirth (samsāra), and in man's advance towards the end of re-birth, he is helped or retarded by his own actions (karma). The eternal (sanātana) institutions and ideals of life are designed to help the realisation of this end, The value of incarnating as a human being lies in the opportunity furnished by a regulated life in this world to break the chain of samsāra. Man attains the end not by flying from the world but by living in family and society. Responsibility for his destiny lies individually on every human being and collectively on society, represented by those who act as the guardians of the eternal social order (varnās'rama-dharma). The social classes (varņāl) are interdependent. So are human aims (puruşārthāh). Institutions arise from the desire for well-being (artha and kāma) and they are sustained and directed by duty (dharma) towards emancipation (mokşa). As a measure of discipline and training, and for the attainment of the goal, life is divided into stages marked by resting places' (īsramäh). The march from stage to stage is prog. ressive, and the four īsramas, like the four varnas, are all of equal importance and they are also interdependent. Society, as represented by the King, has a responsibility as well as an interest in the due maintenance of the social order, which is itself part of a scheme that is behind and beyond the short span of human life. The principles regulating life are embodied in concepts of duty (Dharına) ranging from the widest and the most general to the narrowest and individual. The fundamental purpose of education and training is to inculcate the lessons of duty Dharma). The science of duty (Dharmasastra) is the science of life. 1 I developed the ideas in 1934 in my Calcutta University Lectures, and have repeated them in my Rajadharna, 1941. & ·6 THE DĀNA KĀNDA From these conceptions sprang the belief in the paramount value of Dharmas'āstra. Its principles were taught in the schools, and were taught orally. To fix the teaching in the memory, mnemonic devices were adopted. The lessons were strung as a series of aphorisms (sütrāni). As the content of Dharma is the same for every one, and is immutable, a fundamental unity must exist in the teachings of all schools. But, the schools may vary mnemonic devices, and the adjustment of stress on different aspects of Dharma, according to the needs of particular persons or occasions. It leads to apparent differences of doctrine in the manuals made up of siītras or easily remembered verses composed for use by different schools. When such differ. ences become numerous or acute, through the multiplication of Dharma-Sūtras, the need for reconciliation, comprehension and simplification, for the benefit of persons who cannot depend entirely upon oral tradition and memory, leads to the composition of comprehensive works (samhitāḥ). They collect the teachings of the sūtras, add the explanatory matter orally given by teachers. and present them in orderly treatises like the Manu-smrti or Manusamhitā. As social life becomes varied and complex, and oral expositions of the samhitās on Dharma are found to be insufficient for the preservation and promulgation of the principles of Dharma, commentaries (bhāşyah) on the Samhitãs come to be written. The hypothesis that Dharma is comprehensive, complete, consistent and suited to all possible situations and changes in human life is there always. Apparent contradictions in the works on Dharmas'āstra can be resolved by the application of rational principles of interpretation (Mimāmsā), which will reveal the underlying consistency. Commentators specialize on, the resolution of such contradictions' Commentaries come to contain not merely verbal explanations but discussions of fundamental principles and their re-enunciation. A great commentator like Medhātithi or Vijñānes vara selects a well-known Samhitti on Dharma like that of Manu or Yājñavalkya and, while professing only to interpret his text, he actually proceeds to summarise the teachings on Dharmasāstra is its entirety, and to make elaborate 1 "The authors of the Commentaries and Digests assume that the smrtis constitute a single body of law, one part of which supplements the other, and every part of which, if properly understood, is capable of being reconciled with the others." (Mayne's Hindui Law, 10th edition, 1938).

·LAKŞMĪDHARA AND THE KŘTYA-KALPATARU 7 comments in which, by refined and intricate reasoning, reconciliation is sought to be effected between apparently conflicting authorities and the opposition between Dharma and recognised usage (ācāra). Such commentaries are specially intended for the benefit of the scholar and legist. A simpler codified form of Dharma is required of the less advanced students. The need is met by verse-summaries of Dharma (Dharma-sarigrahāḥ) in which principles are enunciated, differentiated and reconciled. Such a work was composed by Medhātithi but is now lost. To this class belong the versified summaries of the principles of Dharma as laid down by the twenty-four (Catur-vims'ati-mata) or thirty-six (Şaţtrimsat-mata) exponents of tradition (smrtikārāh)." The elaboration of devices for the conservation and diffusion of Dharmasāstra does not stop even here. The King, as the leader of society, has as his personal responsibility (Rājadharma) the obligation firstly to understand himself correctly the principles of Dharma which should regulate the conduct of every one in the kingdom, and secondly to see that those who administer the kingdom, as well as those for whose benefit they administer Dharma, have a clear view of their respective duties. The device chosen for realizing this object is the Nibandha or the Digest.' A conscientious king so educates himself to a mastery of Dharmasastra that he can himself expound Dharma in a commentary or digest. So acted Aparārka, who composed (c. 1125 A.D.) a famous commentary on Yājñavalkyā-Smrti and Bhoja Dhāresvara, who composed a digest a century earlier. Other kings, not so gifted, would commission a learned Minister to compose the digest. The founder of a dynasty, whose rise to supremacy is recent, or whose pretensions to the throne or to Ksatriya lineage are disputable, would try to show his zeal for upholding 2 2 3 4 cf. as a type of the class the now lost Smrtisangraha, which is frequently cited by the Mitakşara, Aparārka and Smrticandrika (Kane, pp. 239-242). Kane, op. cit., pp. 223-225 and pp. 237–238. See my lectures on Rajadharma (1941) passim. Kane, op. cit, p. 247. Kane, pp. 275-279(Bhoja) and 323–334 (Aparārka). The Mitakşarā, which is virtually a digest, was obviously commissioned by the Cālukya emperor Vikramaditya VI, as may be seen from its concluding verses. Sankarabhatta in his Dvaitanirnaya (c. 1540-1600 A.D.) describes Vijñādes vara as the most eminent of the nibandha-kāraḥ. (Kane, op. cit., p. 247) Aparārka's Commentary is even more like a nibandha than the Mitaksāra. 5 6 ·8 THE DĀNA KĀNDA Dharma by arranging for the composition of a digest.' An ambitious prince will now and then try to make up for his relative inferiority in the scale of rulers by undertaking the provision of a digest comparable with those undertaken by rulers of the first rank. In the days in which Hindu society appeared to be threatened with dissolution, owing to the onslaught of enemies of alien race and faith, there was a special inducement to the zealous in the Hindu fold, to re-state in new digests the principles of Dharmastāstra. These conclusions follow from even a cursory perusal of the history of Dharmasāstra. The Nibandhas of Ballālasena (Sāgara), Candes vara (Ratnākara), Madanasimha (Madanaratna), Dalapati (Nysimhaprasāda), Pratâparudra, Mitra Misra (Viramitrodaya), Anantadeva (Kaustubha) and Nīlakantha (Mayrīkha) illustrate them. An ambitious ruler of a new dynasty goes further. He gets a learned Brahman to act as his Chief Minister, entrusts to him the organisation of a Hindu literary and religious revival as well as the composition of a first-class digest of Dharmasastra. Το such aspiration we owe the monumental digest of Hemādri, composed when he held the office of the Minister under Mahā. deva, the Yādava King of Devagiri. Madhavācārya's Bhasya on Parāsarasınşti, and Vijñānes vara's Mitākşarī, whose concluding verses glorify the Cālukya king Vikramāditya VI. The work of Dalapati and of Akbar's Revenue Minister Todarmal (Saukhya) * reflect the tolerance of Musulman rulers, who permitted, even if they did not commission digests of Dharmasāstra for the benefit of their Hindu subjects. LAKŞMĪDHARA'S EMINENCE Among such works, Krtya-Kalpataru stands pre-eminent. Its author Bhațța Lakşmīdhara describes himself as the Chief Minister for Peace and War (Mahā-sändhi-vigrahika) of Mahārājādhirāja Govinda-candra-deva, and as the son of Bhatta HỊdayadhara, who had held the same office. In the brief 1 cf., Govindacandra of Kanauj or Bukka I of Vijayanagara. ?e.g. Madanasinha, Bhagavanta of Bhareha, Birsingh of Orchha, Bāz Bahadur-Candra of Kumaon etc. Kane, pp. 421-423. The seven Saukhyas of his digest are collectively known as modarananda. 3 ·LAKSMĪDHARA AND THE KRTYA-KALPATARU 9 1 introductory verses' prefixed to each of the sections of his Digest, he bases his competence to deal with the matters comprised in the section, on his possession of the appropriate qualities, as adhikīra for undertaking to write on it. Thus, he claims to have been trained in the austere school of brahmacarya before he became a householder (grhastha), and devoted himself to the studies and ritual prescribed for Brahmans. He had performed the prescribed daily baths and yajñas, and omitted the timely performance of no rite prescribed for a srotriya. With piety, he had propitiated his ancestors (pitrgana) by the due performance of srāddhas. He had purified the earth' by the excavation of tanks, the planting of trees, and the foundation of villages given as gifts to learned Brahmans, and in other ways illustrated in his own life the duty to make gifts (dāna). The rest-houses, which he had constructed on the routes leading to holy places (tīrtha) were crowded with the devout pilgrims who had undertaken the toilsome journeys to wash away their sins. By his performance of expiatory rites he had become the luminary of Dharma, by whose light the world guided itself. It was owing to his wise counsel that Govindacandra trod the path of righteousness, and attained supremacy over many kings. By his mastery of the different branches of learning, by his eloquence, and by his trained intellect, he had attained the capacity to expound, as a judge, the intricacies of law in such a way as to win the spontaneous admiration of the learned men who crowded his court. When, as Chief Minister, he undertook “the yajña (sacrifice) of the protection of the world (visva-pālana),' the virtuous subjects (sādharah) attained prosperity (pușți) and calmness of mind (sānti). By his own studies in philosophy and stāstra he had attained an unmatched capacity to expound them in such a way as to help the good to overcome the darkness I These are printed with a translation at the end of this general introduction. ? Yājñavalkya (I, 111) distinguishes between s'rotriya and vedaparagaḥ. The Mitakşarā explains the distinction : One who has studied one Sakha of the Veda thoroughly is a Srotriya, and one who can teach one Sakha is a vedaparagah. This follows Baudhāyana : एका शाखामधीत्य श्रोत्रियो भवति. Apastamba would make the successive mastery of the Vedas one by one the test : धर्मेण वेदानाश्च एकैक- HEITI sifat Hafst. Tarkavācaspati, following Bhavabhūti (Malatimadhava, I, 5) makes acara qariferat face the test. V. N. Māņşlik follows Apastamba, but misquotes Vijñānes'vara's definition of vedaparaga (Trn, of Yājñavalkya, p. 176 n.)

·10 THE DĀNA KĀNDA of delusion (11āvātanalı) and achieve the happiness of ultimate release from re-birth (Moksa). Stripped of poetical imagery, the verses in which the qualities of the author are described by himself, amount to this. Lakşmīdhara was by birth a s'rotriya whose family had attained to the dignity of being termed Bhattas. He was born and lived in affluence. The position of Chief Minister, which he came to occupy, had been held previously by his father. Apparently, the Gāhadvāla dynasty, to which his master Govindacandra belonged, acted on the ancient precept that kings should employ only those whose ancestors had shown marked fidelity to the kingdom.' The inscriptions of the dynasty show that this principle was followed in other appointments also. For example, a considerable number of copper-plate grants discovered at Kamauli (now in the Lucknow Museum) show that the office of Chief Priest (Mahāpurohita) at Benares was hereditary in the family of Dīkşita Jāgūsarman, to whom most of the grants were made. Either as Chief Minister or previously as Chief Justice, Lakşmīdhara had proved an efficient administrator. By his prowess he had reduced the king's enemies to beggary and misery. He had made extensive benefactions as ordained by the sästras which he expounded. His claim to many-sided learning is fully borne out by his Digest which not only displays a mastery of Purāna and Smrti, as pointed by Mr. Kane, but shows that he was a Mimāinsaka profoundly learned in the Veda.“ LAKŞMĪDHARA'S LEARNING 1 The bounds of his knowledge cannot be discovered merely-from his quotations. True to the convention that a Dharma-Nibandha स मन्त्रिणः प्रकुर्वीत प्राज्ञान् मौलान् स्थिरान् शुचीन् (Yajnavalkya, I, 312). . See the Kamauli plate of Vijayacandra and the Yuvarāja Jayacandra Samvat, 1224 (Epig. Ind. IV, pp. 118 ft.). 3 विश्रान्ताः विमुखाः क्षतेन्द्रियसुखाः क्ष्मातल्पनिद्रालवो भिक्षावृत्तिजुषस्त्वचा परिचिताः कौपनीमात्राम्बराः । नीताः कालवशेन यस्य रिपवः तद्ब्रह्मचर्यं परं काण्डे स प्रथमाश्रमे प्रथमतः प्रस्तौति लक्ष्मीधरः ॥ 4 Mr. P. V. Kane's statement that the Kalpataru"generally quotes only the Smrti writers, the epics and the puranas " (op. cit, p. 317) overlooks his many Yedic citations. See Appendix C infra, ·LARSMIDHARA AND THE KRTYA-KALPATARU 11 should rely on no authority which was not sāstraic, Lakşmidhara confines his quotations to srauta and smārta literature, the great epics (itihāsa) and purāna, and refers only occasionally to the views of previous writers on Dharma.' Even without his explicit references to Kumärila (as Bhattapāda) and S'ābrasvāmin, his proficiency in Piirva-Mīmāsa, so necessary for the study, understanding and exposition of Dharmas'āstra, is evident throughout his work. His interpretations of philosophical pas. sages from the Upanişads and the Bhagavad-Gītā as well as the Vedānta-Siītra in the Mokşcz-kānda show his conversancy with the older commentaries. In the notes, which I am appending to my edition of the Mokşa-kānda, I am giving passages from the commentaries of Slankara and Rāmānuja, which he may have had in mind when he gave his own interpretations of important texts. On only two occasions does he cite a lay authority In the s'ānti-kända he quotes Varāhamihira ; and in Naiyata. kāla-kānda he quotes an unnamed work on astrology (Jyotiss'āstra). Unlike the authors of later digests, who crowd their pages with indiscriminate citations, Lakşmidhara shows restraint in quotation, and discriminates between the available authorities, using only those whose authenticity or authority is indisputable. Among the eighteen major Purāṇas, he lays under contribution only twelve, ignoring the other six. The Purāſas he has not quoted are Vişnu-Dharmottard, Bhagavata, Āgneya, Brahma. vaivarta, Kirma, Näradīya, and Gāruda. These were all known to Al-biruni, who wrote a century before Lakşmīdhara. The rejection of Vişnu-Dharmottara (which Hemādri and Mitra Misra freely use) shows that, in his view, it was not an authentic portion of the Vaisnava-purāna. He quotes extensively from five Upa-purāṇas namely the Nrsimha, Āditya, Devi, Kālikā and Nandi. No copy of the last named upa-purāṇa is now traceable.' The published S'aura-purāna does not contain any of the passages cited by Lakşmīdhara from the Aditya-Purāņa. The two must be different. It may be noted that the Matsya-Purāņa ? Later writers were not so scrupulous. Thus, Nilakantha cites Cāņakya and Kamandaka in his Niti-mayūkha. ? See Sachau's trn., I, pp. 130-131. Al Biruni includes among the malapuranas the Aditya, Narasııhc-purana and the Nandapurana, which Lakşmidbara quotes frequently. See my article on Nandipuraņa, in New Indian Antiquary, Vol. IV, part 5, pp. 157-161. 3 ·12 THE DĀNA KĀNDA 1 (LIII, 60) mentions only four upa-purānas namely the Nārasimha, Nandi, Samba and Aditya. The Kurma-purīna gives a list of upa-puraņas, which omits the purānas named after Nandi and Devī (I, 1, 17-20). The citation of upa-purīņas side by side with maha-purānas, as equally authoritative shows that in Lakşmidhara's view, or in his day, the former were not regarded as in any way inferior to the latter.' Certain ancient smrti writers, whose works are now lost, are referred to by Lakşmidhara. They are Bhāguri, Bhartr. yajña (who is quoted by Medhātithi), Jayasvāmī (who is once mentioned by Raghunandana), Madhavasvāmī,' and an unknown writer named Utathyatanaya.' When these writers are cited by writers later than Lakşmidhara, they clearly do so without a personal knowledge of the authors quoted, and appear to borrow the references second-hand from the Kalpataru. Lakşmidhara naturally respects the authority of Medhātithi, who is quoted in three kāņņas, as well as of Visvarūpa, the earliest extant commentator on Yājñavalkya. He knows a Hārīta-Bhāșyakāra, from whom Hemādri has quoted a passage, to which Mr. Kane has drawn a attention, but it occurs in the Srāddha Kānda of the Kalpataru, from which Hemādri obviously took it without acknowledgment." He refers to a Bhāratabhāva-prakāsakāra, whose work has not survived, His scrupulous honesty compels him to refer to the views of six earlier Nibhandas, which are now totally lost to us : Mahărņava, Prakāsa, Pārijāta, Ktīsnadhenu, 3 Ballāla-sena (c. 1069 A.D.) was almost as critical in his citation of Puränic literature. Devipurana, which he rejects as unorthodox, is much relied on by the Kalpataru which cites it as an authority. See the extracts from Danasugaru on pp. 337_-343 infra. The equal validity of the two classes of Puranas is the thesis of Dr. R. C. Hazra (Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1940, pp. 38--62), (c 600 A.D.) See Dr. C. Kunhan Räja's edn. of his Rigucia-bhusya, 1939. Madhavasvāmi is probably the vedic commentator. Sıyticandrika cites a Utathya as the author of a Smrti. For four of the above writers See Kane, passim. Manu mentions a Utathyatanaya, (III, 16). Utathya is represented in the Mahābharata as a son of Angiras and brother of Bphaspati and Samvarta (Ādi., 67, 5; Anu., 132, 42). His wife was Mamatā, and her son by Utathya was the blind Dirghatamas (Anu., 113, 22). Bţhaspati raped her, and the son of the union was Bharadvāja (Vişnupuräna, IV, 19). On the rule that the owner of the ' soil' is the owner of the fruit, Bharadvāja may be regarded as Utathya-tanaya. Kane, op. cit., p. 71. 5 Dr. V. S. Sukthankar, editor of the Mahabharata, tells me that he has not come across this commentary, which must be ancient.

·LAKŞMĪDHARA AND THE KRTYA-KALPATARU 13 Mālā and a work of Halāyudha, who appears to be different from the author of Brāhmana-sarvasva. LAKŞMĪDHARA's PATRON, GOVINDACANDRA Govindacandra's inscriptions run for nearly half a century from 1104 A.D. to 1154 A.D.' His grand-father Candradeva, who is said to have conquered Kanauj,' and who is described as "the protector of holy places of Kāsi, Kusika, Uttarakosala, and the city of Indra," claims to have been an ardent and generous patron of Brahmans. Numerous land grants are to his credit. In one case, a grant of his grand-father is to 500 Brahmans. Madanapāla, (c. 1090 A.D.) the son and successor of Candradeva and the father of Govindacandra, does not appear to have taken any active part in the government of his kingdom. His grants are made in his name either by his son Govindacandra as Yuvarāja or by one of his queens. Such a grant, made in 1105 A.D. states explicitly that it was sanctioned by Govindacandra's mother. She was probably Regent, and it is not unlikely that Madanapāļa was a prisoner at that time in the hands of the Musulmans. An inscription of Govindacandra (1109 A.D.) states that he inflicted repeated defeats on the Muhammadan Amir (Hāmmīra). The Sarnāth inscription states that he was Vişņu Himself incarnated to protect Benares from the wicked Turuşka. The references in these inscriptions are apparently to the expedition which King Māsud III of Ghāzni (1098-11115 A.D.) sent against "the capital of Hind, the Kāāba of the Shamins and Kibla of the Infidels." The ruler of Kanauj Kane, op. cit., pp. 293-301 and 306-309 See infra Note B (Nibandhas before the Kalpataru). ?R. S. Tripāțhi, History of Kanauj, 1937, pp. 386-7, and Catalogue of Inscriptions in the Lucknow Museum, 1915, pp. 10–29. 3 Ind. Ant., XVIII, p. 18. * Lucknow Catalogue, op. cit., p. 9 and Epig. Ind. XIV, p. 192 (Candravati plates of Candradeva, 1096 A.D.) 5 Lucknow Catatlogue, p. 10, and Tripāthi, op. cit., Ind. Ant. XVIII, pp. 16-18. It does not mention its approval by any one else. Epig. Ind., IX, pp. 324—27. वाराणसी भुवनरक्षणदक्ष एको दुष्टात्तुरुष्कसुभटादवितुं हरेण । उक्तो हरिः स पुनरत्र बभूव तस्माद गोविन्दचन्द्र इति प्रथिताभिधानः ॥ p. 305. 6 7 ·14 THE DĀNA KANDA on is stated by the Muhammadan historian to have suffered serious reverses, and to have been “compelled to ransom his person by a large sum of money."! Govindacandra turned the tables the Muhammadans and drove them beyond the confines of the kingdom of Kanauj. He appears to have extended his dominions into Magadha and to have fought a successful campaign against the ruler of Dasārna. The Gāgāha plate claims that he (1142 A.D.) captured the elephants of nine kings and made himself the leading monarch in Jambū-dvīpa. According to the Rājataraiigini he entered into friendship with Jayasimha of Kāşmīr (1128-1149 A.D.) and deputed a scholar named Suhaļa to attend a parişad convened by the Kāşmirian Minister Alankāra (S'rīkaņțhacarita)." Govindacandra entered into diplomatic relations with Siddharāja-Jayasimha of Gujarat and with his powerful contemporary Kulottunga-Cola (1070-1120 A.D.)" These alliances would suggest some tension of feeling between Govindacandra and Vikramāditya VI (1076 A.D. 1125 A.D.) the powerful ruler of the Dakhan. 3 LAKSMIDHARA'S SERVICES TO HIS KING The opening verses of the Kalpataru allude to the victorious campaign of Govindacandra against the Muhammadans. A s'loka introducing the Rajadharma-kānda justifies Lakşmīdhara's title to expound Rājadharma by pointedly claiming that Govindacandra's benevolent rule and conquests of many kings were entirely due to 1 Tripāthi, op. cit., 318. Epig. Ind., XIII, p. 218. The same claim is made in earlier grants c.g. Maner copper-plate of 1125-26 A.D., J.B.O.R.S., 1916, pp. 441-447. 3 sstat: Fronteratio grari सव्यधाद्भव्यभूभोगवैभवानभिमानिनः ॥ VIII, 2453, (ed. Durgaprasäda). अन्यस्स सुहलस्तेन ततोऽवन्धत पण्डितः । दूतो गोविन्दचन्द्रस्य कान्यकुब्जस्य भूभुजः ॥ xxV, 102. • Prabandha-cintamani, III, 121. Jayasimha, reigned from c. 1093 to 1143 A.D. * An incomplete Gāhaờvāla inscription, dated in the 41st year of Kulottunga, gives the Kanauj pras'asti. “The increased emphasis on Sun-worship in the Cola country in Kulottunga's reign may be due to the close association with the Găhadvälas, who were great worshippers of the Sun." (K. A. Nilakantha Sāstri, Colas, II, 1937, p. 40).

·LAKSMĪDHARA AND THE KRTYA-KALPATARU 15 the merit of his advice as Minister. In the introductory verses of the Kalpataru, Lakşmidhara claims that he made his King rule over the Sea-girt earth' and that by his resolute fighting myriads of his King's enemies were destroyed. Such declarations, in a work written by the command of a powerful ruler like Govindacandra and certain to be perused by him, could not have been made by even a favourite Minister unless his services were of such an outstanding character that a public recital of them before the reigning king was allowable. The value of the restrained statements of his accomplishments and services, which Lakşmidhara makes in the very brief introductions to the different parts of his Digest, consists in showing that he was not only a great and devout scholar of massive learning and subtle intellect, but that he was also a soldier, administrator and diplomatist, born and bred in an atmosphere of public affairs, In this respect, he should be ranked higher than even a great jurist like Vijñānesvara, and only with scholar-statesmen like Mādhavācārya, or Caņdes vara, or Cāņakya. The reference in the Kalpataru to Govindacandra's victories over the Muhammadans occurs at the beginning of the first Kānda, while the allusion to his diplomatic successes and wise counsel to his king occurs at the beginning of the eleventh section of the Digest. It is therefore, tempting to surmise that Lakşmīdhara, as befits the son of a Prime Minister, was the trusted companion and friend of Govindacandra; when he was Yuvarāja in the life-time of his father Madanapāla, and that the appointment of Laksmidhara both as Prime Minister and as the scholar deputed for the composition of a digest of Dharma, which might fitly usher in the glorious reign of an ambitious and pious ruler, who had already displayed the qualities of a successful soldier and skilled administrator in the troubled reign of his father, synchronised with the accession of Govindacandra. That the percepts which Lakşmīdhara put into the Kalpataru were actually followed is evident from the inscriptions of Govindacandara as well as those of his two immediate predecessors and successors. 1 तत्सर्व खलु यस्य मन्त्रमहिमाश्चर्य स लक्ष्मीधरः . पृथ्वीं साधयतः समुद्रवसनाम् . Tripāțhi, op. cit., pp. 337–359. 3 1 2 3 ·16 THE DĀNA KANDA REVIVALIST ORIGIN OF THE KALPATARI The Gāhaļvālas sprang into eminence suddenly. They were so to speak parvenus. A ruler of an old and well-established dynasty does not feel the urge, which one of a new dynasty does, to commemorate his entry into the ranks of powerful monarchs by some notable action that would capture contemporary imagination and leave a permanent impress of his reign on history. Temples or monuments of brick or stone however nobly planned, cannot outlast a great contribution to letters or thought. It was in this belief that Govindacandra must have planned the compilation of a great digest of Dharm7, at a time when there was a danger of its perishing, along with the Hindu kingdoms, before the onslaught of a ruthless and powerful enemy of an alien race and faith. It was in the same spirit that Bukka I of the newly founded kingdom of l’ijayanagara ordered (iidiset) Mādhavācārya to explain the meaning of the Veda (l'edürthasyaprakāsane) and to compose for the guidance of himself and his successors a monumental commentary on Purusara.smrti, the Dharina-s'āstra specially recommended for the Iron Age (Kali- Yuga). The addition of an elaborate treatise on l'aruhira to this commentary by Mādhavācārya, and his tacking it to the brief statement in the Smrti that 'the king should protect his subjects and his kingdom through Dharma'' is in harmony with the hypothesis that the statements in a Smrti require to be supplemented and elucidated by traditional interpretations, so as to make good the many apparent omissions or gaps. UNIQUENESS OF THE KALPATARU Among digests, the Kalpatarui occupies a unique position. Its author was a scholar-statesman. He was a critical and conscientious compiler, discriminating between his sources and scrupulous about the purity of his texts. The high reputation which the Kalpataru commanded in later times for its scholarship ?" The Gähadválas emerge into the light of history so suddenly that it is difficult to clear away the obscurity hanging over their origin." (Tripathi, op. cit., p. 296.) क्षत्रियस्तु प्रजारक्षन् क्षिति धर्मेण पालयेत् । 2 ·LAKSMĪDHARA AND THE KRTYA-KALPATARU 17 as well as its critical acumen may be illustrated. Thus, in discussing the value of his authorities, Mitra Misra (Vīramitrodaya, Paribhāṣā-prākāsa) justifies his recognition of a Smrtisarigraha on the ground that it had been accepted (parigrhitan) by the Kalpataru. It is curious that the work in question does not appear to be quoted anywhere in the Kalpataru. That, however, is immaterial to the argument; it was sufficient for Hindu legists to be told that the Kalpataru had admitted the authority. Such a declaration would have shut the mouth of possible objectors. Any reading accepted by Laksmīdhara, even if opposed to the texts available to later commentators and digestmakers, was never rejected. It was either accepted or explained away. Lakşmidhara's skill lay in selecting the necessary texts and stringing them together. He interpolates a rare comment or interpretation. So much value was attached to his selective capacity and his occasional elucidation of a word or a passage here and there, that later writers invariably reproduced his citations as well as his annotations without altering a syllable. Finality was held to attach to whatever he had written.' ITS PLAN In two other respects also the Kalpataru is unique. Firstly, it is distinguished by having been written in accordance with a well-conceived and logical plan. A digest must be true to the underlying principles of Hindu life. A cursory reading of even a comprehensive smrti like that of Manu or Yājñavalkya will fail to disclose the background of Hindu life. Lakşmīdhara so planned his Nibandha that it followed the natural sequence of life, in its different stages and activities, as laid down in the S'āstras. To a Hindu, life commences with conception and marches through the prescribed four stages or cīsramas to the final release (Mokşa), which crowns a life properly lived. The Kalpataru is 1 This is his own claim : एकार्थेष्वेकमेकं, क्वचिदपरमपि स्वीकृतं, कार्ययोगात् , न्यस्तं विज्ञानमूलं, प्रचरदपि परित्यक्तमज्ञानमूलम् । शिष्टैस्सम्यग्गृहीतं वचनमभिहितं, स्पष्टितं चाऽस्फुटार्थ यत्राऽपरो विरोधः स्फुरति विरचिता तेन तत्र व्यवस्था ॥

·18 THE DĀNA KĀNIA accordingly divided into fourteen books or kungas, and each book is divided into chapters or parvas. At the beginning of cach book, Lakşmidhara recites the headings of the chapters as a declaration (pratijñā) of what he intends to set down in that book. Each book follow's its predecessor in a natural sequence which will be apparent even in a mere enumeration. They are grouped and were probably written in the following order : 1. Brahmacāri-kānda commences with Paribhusa (definitions) and traces the duties of a boy up to the end of Brahma. carya. 2. Grlastha-kāņda the duties of the householder, including the rites of marriage which precede the entry into the Grahasthâsraina. 3. Naiyata-kāla or Āhnika-kīnda on the daily ritual to be followed by a house-holder. 4. Sraddha-kānda on the ceremonies to be done for pro. pitiating ancestors (pitrs). 5. Dāna-kānda on the religious gifts the making of which is an obligation laid on grhasthas. 6. Pratistha-kunda on the consecration of idols etc. 7. Pijā-kānda,' dealing with the ritual of worship. 8. Tirtha-kānda on pilgrimages to sacrcd places. 9. Vrata-kāņda dealing with the performances of the periodical vratas." 10. S'uddhi-klīnda on purification. 11. Rījadharma-kundu dealing with the specific obligations of princes. 12. Vyavahira-kiinda on Civil law and procedure. 13. S'ānti-kunda on the propitiatory rites. 14. Mokşa-kunda dealing with the steps necessary for salvation, Of the three debts (rnatray.) with which man is horn and which he has to discharge in this life, the means of discharging 1 The subject of this section of which no MS, had been known till I dis. covered one in January 1939 in the Bhonsle Raj Library at Nagpur was correctly surmised by M M. Chakravarti (J. B. A.S., 1916, p. 359). * M. M. Chakravarti, op. cit., p. 359 wrote: "In the Molanase and Prix. yasccitta tattvas, Raghunandana quotes a Prayasccitta-kända-kalpataru. That Lakşmidhara wrote on Prayasccitta is clear from the Prüyasccittervitika of of S'ūlapāni." Lut, I discovered Vrata-kauda at Nagpur, which fills the gap. The Asiatic Society in Calcutta has a fragment of a Prayascitta-lalpataru. Only one other digest, viz., the Viramitrodaza deals with Moksa. 9 ·LAKSMĪDHARA AND THE KRTYA-KALPATARU 19 the first, the debt to seers, are set out in the first kārda, dealing with brahmacarya, that of discharging the second (pitz-ınam), the debt to ancestors in the second, third and fourth kārdas, dealing with grhastha-dharma, ālnika and s'riddha, and the third, the debt to the Gods, (deva-rram) by the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth kāndas dealing with gifts, dedication, worship, pilgrimages vows, as means of grace' to attain the mental peace (S'ānti), which is preliminary to the final release (Mokşa), and which form the subjects of the tenth and fourteenth kāndas. The eleventh and twelfth kāņdas deal with the civil environment in which a man has to live and function, and its attunement to the needs of the progress to ultimate beatitude. No other digest has essayed so logical and so comprehensive a presentation of the revealed laws of life. When finished, the Kalpataru must have provided a complete and authoritative survey of Hindu Dharma made for the benefit of posterity. It is tragic that so noble a work should have almost perished in the calamities attending the early Muhammadan conquests. ITS SIZE The comprehensive range outlined for it, has made the complete Kalpataru a work of great volume, in spite of the obvious attempts by Lakşmidhara at brevity. He not only eschews unnecessary comment, but in sections dealing with religious rites, he contents himself with a bare indication of the mantras to be used and the rituals to be followed, without giving in full the prayoga for the benefit of the officiating priests (purohita). He does not repeat in one Kānda what is dealt with in another. The underlying assumption in the Kalpataru is that it will be used only by trained scholars, who could be trusted to understand it without commentary, and who would be able to act upon the briefest hints for selecting the appropriate mantras or prayoga. The cumbersome growth of later digests, dealing with matters already dealt with by the Kalpatarul, is largely due to the addition of material, which Lakşmīdhara was content to leave to the priest with bare indications. When The Danasagara, which Ballālasena composed' with the help of Aniruddhabhatta in 1169 A.D., in the generation following Lakşmidhara's, quoted in extenso all the mantras to be used in making gifts, while the Kalpataru merely names them.

·20 THE DĀNA KANDA learning and priest came to be divorced, full description of prayoga became necessary, and the cumbersome digests of Hcmādri, Madanasimha and Mitra Misra came to be preferred to the more restrained Kalpataru. Even with these self-imposed restrictions, Lakşmidhara's work attained a size, which makes it stand only second to the Vīramitrodaya in bulk.' Its Tiurahira-kiindu is among the larger treatises on the subject. But, in studving it, as in studying any other part of the Kalpataru, the underlying unity of the entire work must be borne in mind, and for xplanations or matter, which may be wanting in one part we must learn to turn to another. The Kalpataru like every Dhuru-Samhiti, kas designed to be studied as a whole, and not in spratu selfcontained sections." It is not necessary, to describe in advance the specifio doctrines of Lakşmidhara. The textual difficulties in the way of editing it virtually compel the study of the vast literature of Dharmas'īstra.' When completed, the birtu Kalpataru will also provide ample material to those who endeavour to reconstruct either the lost codes, whose number is * legion,' or the authentic text of Purānas and Epics, which have come to us in forms so different from those in usc, nilien they were laid under contribution by great lawyers and schuliasta, like the forgotten Minister of the last independent llindu emperor of North India. Its fourteen volumes contain about thirty-thousanı genthus, it', umut one-third the size of the Mahabharata. The Virumttrodlar is in twenty two parts. ? The distortion of Hindu Law by modern lawyers and juicing I * on their viewing vyavahura apart from other sections of Diurna Sastri and an upwarranted distrust of the Mimarisc rules of interpretation. C1. Varghe's Itindu bord, 10th edition, pp. 41-42. 3 The library of H. H. the Mahäräna or Claipur contains a set of the killar!! in which the seventh and ninth parts are wanting. Pragments of the birlportare have been found in some libraries, but for certain landers like the frul.seventh, the ninth and the thirteenth, we have now to depend upon solitary, defecte and in correct manuscripts. In preparing my cdition of the Kolpataru, I have tried !? secure every known manuscript of any portion of it and have found that some which had been in existence sixty years ago are now lost beyond recovery editing of a work of such importance from one or two manuscripts is very difticult Help has, however, come from an unexpected quarter. The thoroughnes with which whole passages from the Kalpataru have been appropriated by later authors like Hemådri, Candes vara and Mitra-Miséra makes it possible to fill up gaps in our text or clear up obscurities caused by copyists. Nevertheless, the task is formidable.

·LAKSMĪDHARA AND THE KRTYA-KALPATARU 21 LAKSMĪDHARA, VIJÑANESVARA AND APARĀRKA Lakşmīdhara is as eminent among the authors of digests (nibandha) as the author of the Mitākṣarā is among commenta- By a curious coincidence, both were contemporaries, and cach was commissioned by a powerful ruler, who claimed simrajya, to compose a Dharmasastra work, which would prove a fit monument of the reign of the patron. Another famous commentator, Aparārka or Aparāditya of the S'ilāhāra dynasty of Konkan, was also a contemporary of the other two great smärtaş. How far they were coeval we have no means of ascertaining with certainty. Vijñānesvara is considered as having made no reference in his great commentary to either of his rivals. It has also been assumed that he is the oldest of the three, and wrote his work along before the other two started their compositions. In regard to Aparārka's silence about the Mitrīkşarī, of which his ignorance cannot bo presumed, as he was so close a neighbour of Vijñānesvara's patron Vikramānka or Vikrāmāditya VI of the Cālukya dynasty of Kalyāņa (c. A.D. 1076 to 1127) it was suggested by Jolly in 1883 that “the fact that he never mentions the Mitüksará by name, has been explained as a result of Indian etiquette, which does not allow a royal author to notice expressly the opinions of another sovcreign's servant by name." Mr. P. V. Kane' rejects the suggestion and points out that “it is doubtful whether any such etiquette ever existed," and that " works of royal authors such as the 'Madanapīrijata or the Sarasvativilāsa do not appear to have followed the rule." Mr. Kane also points out' that Aparārka studiously avoids the mention of every ancient commentator." THREE CONTEMPORARY EMPERORS The reign of Lakşmidhara's patron, the Gāhadvāla ruler Govindacandra of Kānauj, extended from about A.D. 1110 to 1154, the date of his latest extant record. But, during the History of Hindu Law, 1885, p. 13 ; Journal of Hireve History, III, p. 17. * History of Dharmasastra, Vol. I, 1930, p. 330. Lakşmidhara must have knows the work of Bhoja of Dhära, whom he never cites. His silence may support Jolly's theory, 1 ·22 THE DĀNA KANDA nominal reign of his father Madanapāla (A. D. 1099 to 1110) he was actually exercising the functions of a sovereign, and there is a record of a gift which he made in that capacity bearing a date equivalent to A. D. 1104. Along with the two powerful rulers of Hindusthan and the Dakhan, mention must be made of an equally powerful and eminent contemporary ruler, the Cola emperor, Kulottunga I (n. D. 1070 to 1120), who ruled the whole of the peninsula south of the Tungabhadra, along with a considerable portion of the old Vengi kingdom of the Eastern Cālukya dynasty.? It is noteworthy that each of these pou erful kings ruled for about half a century, that they were all ambitious and warlike as well as extremely capable, and that the comparative peace which India enjoyed for about three generations was largely the result of the wholesome respect that each of these had for the power of the others. They were all patrons of letters. None of the three was young when he ascended his throne, and had no previous administrative experience. It is valid to assume an intense feeling of emulation among the three kings, and there is evidence to show that their diplomatic activities were directed to produce one another's encirclement. TIME RELATION OF THE THREE SMÄRT.IS The conditions must have strongly favoured the movennent of ideas, as represented in capital literary works, throughout India in such times, even if we did not know that the tireless march of pilgrims to the tirthas scattered over India should have * The Basahi plate of Maharajaputra Govindacandra, Ind. Ant., XIV. pp. 101-104 ; R.S. Tripathi, History of Karnauj, 1935, p. 305. The earliest extant record of Govindacancira «s king is the kamauli plate of V.S. 1171, bearing a date equivalent to the 15th October, 1114, (Epig. Ind.. IV, pp. 101-103), but it is probable that he came to the throne in AD 1110 four years earlier: The Rähan copper-plate of Madanapala and Govindacandra dated V.S. 1166 (3rd January 1100 A.D.) purports to be issued by command of Govindacandra himself and contains an injunction to implement the gift to Rai-Puijñt. mantri-purohita-amatya-aksapatalaka-blindagarika-bhisak-senapafyustult. purika-sanasta-dhikaripurusadim, though Govindacandra is still designated as Maharajaputra only. It ends with an allocution on the transitoriness of life and the merit of giſts, and does not state as in the plate of A.D. 1104 that it received the concurrence of the Queen or any one else. The designation applied to Govindacandrarzis Maharajaputra, not Yuvaraja, as in the basalu plate of A.D. 1104 (Ind. Ant., XIV. pp. 100-104 ; J.A.S.B., XLII, pp. 314-321). Nilakantha Sastri, Colas, II, pp. 38-39. . 2 ·LAKSMĪDHARA AND THE KRTYA-KALPATARU 23 refacilitated the exchange of ideas and the rapid circulation of books of merit. Further, when a great king commissions the composition of a digest, or a commentary which would be as good, as a digest of Dharmastāstra, it is natural to presume that no effort would be spared to place all available material, including the latest, before the authors entrusted with so sponsible a duty. The point needs some emphasis, as it is usually assumed, that the percolation of views in books takes at least a generation to reach countries other than those in which they were written. The history of Dharmasastra in India negatives such a view. It is therefore unnecessary to assign arbitrarily, on such an assumption, fairly long intervals between two works, which are believed to be connected by one alluding to or borrowing from the other, to allow of this penetration. Mr. Kane has, for instance, acted in this manner. He holds that the Mitakşarī "must have been composed at the latest before 1100 A.D.," because “Vijñānesvara is named in the Kalpatari,'' which he holds as having been composed in the second quarter of the 12th century, and "the Kalpataru also mentions Vādibhayamkara (sic)” a writer supposed to have been, on the authority of the Viramitrodaya a a follower and critic of Vijñānosvara. On somewhat similar grounds among others the composition of Aparārka's commentary is put at about 1125, almost the date assigned by Mr. Kane to the composition of the Kalpataru.' ! The point is illustrated by Lakşmidhara's reference to Gopāla, the author of the Kamadhenu as his cuyasya, i.e., contemporary and friend, in mentioning previous works compared with which his own kalpataru is markedly superior. Mr. Kane, (op. cit., p. 296), places Gopāla at least a generation before Lakşmidhara, and assigns him to the period between 1000 and 1100 A,D, The references are worth quoting in full : पौराणीरेव वाणिः क्वचिदकृतकृतौ क्वापि भूयस्स्मृतीनां गोपालस्तद्वयस्यः खकृतिविरचनं वाक्यरूपेण चके । श्रौतस्मादिसारैः विबुधजनमनोहारिकारिष्यतेऽयं मीमांसोत्तासिताथैः : अपृथुरथकथाऽतीतरन्ध्रः प्रबन्धः ।। यस्योत्थिती स्थितिमती न महार्णवेश्रीः निद्रां दधाति यदधः किल कामधेनुः । तस्यास्तनिष्यति रतिं विबुधद्विजानां आनन्दितुं किमु न कल्पतरोः प्ररोहः ॥

·24 THE DĀNA KANDA APARĀRKA'S DATE Thus for the determination of the dates' of these cardinal works our reliance must be mainly on internal evidence of borrowing or obligation and the dates of the royal patrons. We may leave out the work of Aparārka, which must have been composed when he was a king (A.D. 1110 to 1140) and when he was in the height of his power and prosperity, which would narrow the limits further, as we know that after a disastrous war with the Kadamba king of Goa, Jayakes'in II (circa 1104 to c. 1147-8), in which he lost and regained most of his territories in North Konkan, he had the needed peace of mind for such an undertaking as the composition of his famous commentary only after 1126, and concentrate our attention on the Mitrīksari and Kalpataru." ALLEGED REFERENCE TO VIXINESVARA IN THE KALPATARU 2 Mr. Kane discovered two allusions to the author of the Mitākṣarā in a modern transcript of the Vyavahirakiing of the Kalpataru in the Sarasvatībhavan at Benares. This transcript, which I have had occasion to utilise, is obviously a copy of a manuscript in fairly modern characters in the library of the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal, which itself seems derived from an older Maithili manuscript in the Rāj Library at Darbhanga. All these have been available to me. The three manuscripts have to be treated as one. The oldest manuscript which I have used is from the library of H. H. the Mahā Rāņa of Udaipur in Mewar. It is undated but clearly belongs to the 16th century at the latest. A manuscript of which a copy was secured from the Raghunāth Temple Library at Jammu seems to be also dependent on the group mentioned above, and to be identical with them except for copyists' errors. It bears the late date Samvat 1846 (1790 A.D.). 1 Mr. Kane's conclusion is that the Kalpataru must have been written between 1100 and 1150 A.D., and probably in the 2nd quarter of the 13th century (op. cit., p. 317). ? A. S. Altekar, "The Silähäras of Western India," Indian Culture', II, pp. 412-413. The turning battle in the S'ilähära-Kadamba war was fought in A.D. 1126. As a result of this victory Aparārka ceased to be a kadamix? feudatory and regained most of his hereditary possessions.'

·LAKSMĪDHARA AND THE KRTYA-KALPATARU 25 The first of the two passages occurs in the chapter on Ordeals (dirya), sub-section Kosadivya, and Slaves (Dasyadhi. kāriņal). It runs, in most of the manuscripts, thus: शोध्यस्य जननी तातः पुत्रो वा तत्सहोदरः । Hrafgaaat staf Tat: qfalfaat: 111 इति वादिभयङ्करे बृहस्पतिवचनात् ॥ In Vircmitrodaya, Vyavahārakānda, Vādibhayamkara is described as a work by a follower anuyāyī) of Vijñānesvara, who exposed an apparent inconsistency in his master, in explaining a verse of Yiñitalkyasmrti (II, 51). The passage runs thus : विज्ञानेश्वरानुयायी यथात्र वादिभयङ्करकृदाह- अहो बत जगख्यातविज्ञानेश्वरयोगिनः । पूर्वापरविरोधेऽपि नाऽनुसन्धानमद्भुतम् ।। This passage is wanting in the Udaipur MS., which is the oldest used, while it occurs in the rest. 2 AUTHENTICITY OF THE PASSAGES EXAMINED: FIRST PASSAGE The concurrence of testimony in four MSS. will create a presumption in favour of the authenticity of this text as part of the original Kalputari, if the manuscripts are independent and not transcripts of one original as is the case. We have thus a con- Aict between two sets of manuscripts, one furnishing the above text and the other omitting it. Is there any method of checking the genuineness of the citation from V'ādibhayamkarak’t ? It seems to me that there is. The verse is alleged to be a text of Brhaspati, which Lakşnī. dhara took second-hand from the above scholiast, quoting the source of his information. Till now the writer who furnishes this citation from Brhaspati is known only from this passage and the other quoted by Mitra Misra in Virainitrodaya. A passage from Brhaspati, if authentic, is hardly likely to be missed by "Op. cit., p. 290, notes 640 and 641. It appears to me that Vadiblayamkara is the name of a work, rather than of an author, as assumed by Mr. Kane. ? Viramitrourya, Vyavahäraprakas'a Ed. Jibānanda 1875, p. 350.

·26 THE DĀNA KANDA digest-writers and commentators, and especially by writers who take delight in bringing into as many authoritative citations as possible, like Mitra Misra himself. It is remarkable that not only is the Bịhaspati quotation missing in Mitra Misra's work, at the corresponding place and context, but it is missing in such special studies of divya (ordeals) as Raghunandana's Divya - tattva. It is even more strange that it is unavailable among the ninety-two verses from Brhaspati, which occur in the digests and commentaries on divya. The passage, cited on the authority of Vädibhayamkarakrt, is also tautologous, when considered with the following genuine verse of BỊhaspati, which is cited in many digests to show that the effect of the ordeal should be watched not only on the man subjected to it but on his wife, children and effects : सप्ताहाद्वा विसप्ताहाद्यस्य हानिन जायते । पुत्रदारधनानां च स शुद्धस्यान्न संशयः ।। Alternative readings : यस्याति ने प्रजायते and उभयत्राऽपि । The alleged quotation seems to add to the number of persons (to be watched for the effect of the test) the parents, brothers and jñātis. But, as it mentions the wife and sons, who are already included in the above authentic verse, the tautology would justify the rejection of the alleged text. In no other case has Lakşmīdhara cited a source for a quotation from a writer so well known as Bșhaspati. If the sloka in question is authentic, it might have been brought in for the purpose of elucidating the term jícīti, in the following verses of Kātyāyana and Lakşmidhara's comment thereon, which precede the citation : अथ देवविसंवाद त्रिसप्ताहात्तु दापयेत् । अभियुक्तं प्रयत्नेन तमर्थ दण्डमेव च ॥ तस्येकस्य तु सर्वस्य जनस्य यदि तद्भवेत् । रोगोऽग्निर्जातिमरणं ऋणं दद्यात् दमं च सः ।। See my edition of the reconstructed Byahaspati-smrti, 1941, VII, 65.

·LAKSMĪDHARA AND THE KRTYA-KALPATARU 27 ज्वरातिसारविस्फोट: शूलादिपरिपीडनम् । नेत्ररुग्गलरोगश्च तथोन्मादः प्रजायते ॥ शिरोरुग्गलरोगश्च देविका व्याधयो नृणाम् ।' gafatara: ' Sanat Tifa Toga TT fazte: 1 sense BỊhaspati's alleged verse will then have to be treated either as a definition of the term jñāti or as a restriction of the general of the term for the special purpose of limiting the applicability of the test or ordeal only to some, as against all jilītis. The word ' s'odlıyasya at the beginning of the sloku shows that it was intended to be part of the general treatment of ordeals, as it refers to the person to be tested' (s'odhya). If the sloka is intended to convey Brhaspati's idea of jritivarga it will show that he took a narrower view of the limits of jñātivarga than other authorities. The jñāti circle will then include only a man's parents, sons, brothers, and the caste-wife, who has had male progeny. Others have construed the term more liberally. In the list of persons who are to honour the new bride, Yājñavalkya mentions the bride's husband, her own brothers, her jñiti-rurgu, her father-in-law and mother-in-law, brothers-in-law (ix. brothers of her husband) and bandhuvargah. In explaining the verse, Visvarūpa interprets the word jñati (ñitisabda) maternal uncle and others'' (mâtulădil).' Medhātithi in commenting on the word 'jñātayaḥ' in Manusmrti, A as The passage may be rendered as follows:- (The judge) should strictly compel the accused to pay, after three weeks, in case of the calling of the fateful calamities (on the defendant undergoing the kossa or the tundulu ordeal), a fine and the subject of the dispute. If any one of the following befalling lum alone and not all people in the neighbourhood) viz. disease, fire, ceath of a relation (ñati), then he should be made to pay the fine as well as the debt (which is the subject of the dispute). The diseases brought on by the wrath of Fate are fever, diarrhoea, carbuncles, suttering from rheumatism, diseases of the eye and throat, insanity, hcadache and fracture of the arms. 'Devavisamvādah, mcans calamities like disease and death of relations caused by Fate." ? Yajñavalkyasmrti, 1, 82. भर्तृभ्रातृपितृज्ञातिश्वश्रुश्वशुरदेवरैः । बन्धुभिश्च स्त्रियः पूज्या: भूषणाच्छादनासनैः ॥ 3 Ed. Ganapati S'astri, 1922. Trivandram, p. 84 (T. S. S. No. 74).

·28 THE DĀNA KANDA 1 III, 264 (254 in Jhā's Edn.) distinguishes between jñāti and bandhu thus : 'ज्ञातयः' सगोत्राः । मातृश्वशुरपक्षः ‘बान्धवाः: Kullūka follow's the interpretation of Visvarūpa in interpreting Manu's, injunction that one guilty of mahāpātakı (inexpiable sin) should be abandoned even by his relations. He takes jñlīti' to mean 'miītuliīdi," i.l., the maternal uncle and others; but in explaining the same word in Manusmrti (III, 264), he follows the distinction between Jížāti and bandhu made by Medhātithi. Buehler in translating the verse 3 has accordingly treated jñātayah as cquivalent to 'paternal relations' and — bāndhavān ' as signifying - maternal relations,' a distinction which he repeats in translating jñiti and sambandhi in Manusmrti, IX, 239. Mitra Misra' in interpreting the verse in Yājñavalkya-smrti on the perpetual tutelge of women, construes jñātyaha' as 'sapindāļ.' The S'abdakalpadruma gives an elaborate reckoning of jñītivargız : सप्तमपुरुषपर्यन्तं सपिण्डः । ततः त्रिपुरुषपर्यन्तं सकुल्यः । ततः चतुर्थपर्यन्तं समानोदकः । ततः परं गोत्रजाः ॥ It will be seen that there has been wide disagreement among authorities on the signification of the term jñāti. It is incredible that an authoritative definition of it by a jurist of the eminence Ed. Gangānāth Jhã, Bibliotheca Indica, Vol. I, 1932, p. 319. The s'loka of Manusmrti (III, 264, in the ordinary editions and 111, 254 in Jha's Ed. of Medhatithi) runs as under : प्रक्षाल्य हस्तावाचम्य ज्ञातिप्राय प्रकल्पयेत् । ज्ञातिभ्यः सत्कृतं दत्वा बान्धवानपि भोजयेत् ॥ Manusmrti, IX, 239 ज्ञातिसम्बन्धिभिस्त्वेते त्यक्तव्या कृतलक्षणैः । S.B.E., XXV, 1886, p. 384. Vajñavalkyaşıyti: रक्षेत्कन्यां पिता विन्नां पतिः पुत्रश्च वार्द्धके । अभावे ज्ञातयस्तेषां न स्वातन्त्र्यं क्वचित् स्त्रियः ॥ The comment of Mitra Mis'ra is : एवं रक्षणसमर्थानां पित्रादिपुत्रान्तानां असत्वे तदतिरिक्ताः सपिण्डाः रक्षेयुः, एव खदोषपरिहारार्थम् ॥ (Chowkhamba Edn. of Yajñavalkyasmrti with the commentary Viranitroduya, p. 150.) Ed. Vasu, 1878. । त ·LAKSMIDHARA AND THE KRTYA-KALPATARU 29 of Brhaspati should not have attracted the attention of conmentators and nibandhakuras, and that it should be left to be gathered cren by Lakşmīdhara from an obscure writer like Vādibhayamkarak’t. If the verse attributed to Brhaspati is, on the other hand, a limiting clause attached to that of Katyāyana and other writers about the kinsmen who should be watched for the effects of the ordeal, it is no less strange that so important a restricting clause should not have found its way in other later or carlier writers who treated of ordcals. The circumstances in regard to this quotation are so suspicious that its ascription to Brhaspati solely on this passage referring to Vādibhayamkarakrt, which might have been interpolated into the text by a reader of Lakşmīdhara's digest, is not justified, and I have had to reject it in my reconstruction of Brhasputismrti, in the Baroda Oriental Scries. SECOND PASSAGE We may now consider the second ground of the view of Mr. Kane that Lakşmidhara quotes Vijñānesvara. The Sarasvatibhavan transcript of Vyuvahuīru-Kalputuru reads- क्षत्रधर्मस्तु ब्राह्मणो ब्राह्मणं दासकर्मणि न कारयेदिति विज्ञानेश्वर FATA: 1 This sentence occurs almost at the end of a short paragraph in which Lakşmidhara discusses the effect of the injunctions of Nārada and Katyāyana on the circumstances in which members of the four castes can become slaves (dāsiņ). The paragraph is defective in the Udaipur manuscript and hardly makes any mcaning; and it contains neither the name of Vijñānes vara nor of the Parijūtu and of Haläyudha which occur in other manuscripts. A manuscript of the work, which belonged to the lato Mahāmahopädhyāya Baccha Jhä of Dharbhanga gives a condensed version of the passage: 'तदूनमिति' शीलाध्ययनसम्पन्नं ब्राह्मणं, शीलाध्ययनसम्पन्नो ब्राह्मणः कर्मकारयेदिति योजना। 'अशुभं' विण्मूत्रशोधनादि । 'क्षत्रविटशूद्रधर्म' इत्यादि-क्षत्रियादिधर्मो ब्राह्मणः दासकर्मणि न कारयेदिति बृहस्पतिमतं इत्यर्थः ॥

·30 THE DANA KANIYA A manuscript in the Dharbhanga Palace Library contains only the above short passage with the following changes : (a) It adds : कामत: तदिच्छया after योजना. (3) It interpolates ब्राह्मणम् between ब्राह्मणः and दासकर्मणि.. This manuscript was copied for me through the Baroda Oriental Institute and bear its Stock Number 13929. Another manuscript from the Dharbhanga Palace, which was also copied for me (and which bears the Baroda No. 13928) gives the longer version, which occurs also in a transcript from Jammu, and which is virtually identical with the transcript in Sarasvatibhavan used by Mr. Kane, and its source, viz., the MS. in the Asiatic Society at Calcutta. The longer passage, as edited from these manuscripts, runs as follows: शीलाध्ययनसम्पन्नो ब्राह्मणः, कामतः ' इच्छन्तं, तदूनं ' शीलाध्य- नान्यूनं, कर्मकारयेदिति योजना । तत्रापि 'न अशुभं,' विण्मत्रशोधनादिकं, न कारयेदित्यर्थः । 'क्षत्रविद् शूद्रधर्मस्तु' इत्यादि । क्षत्रवैश्यशूद्राणां तु सगुणानां अपि सावण्ये अपि कदाचिद्दासस्वामिभावो भवेत् । ब्राह्मणस्तु 'समवर्ण' समानगुणं दासकर्मणि न कारयेदिति बृहस्पति मन्यते इत्यर्थः । इति पारिजात-हलायुधस्वरसः । क्षत्रविट्शूद्वधर्मस्तु ब्राह्मणः ब्राह्मणदास- कर्मणि न कारयेदिति विज्ञानेश्वर स्वरसः । सर्वाश्चायं अर्थः उपग्राह्य एव ।। On an analysis of the manuscripts, it is seen that the references to Pārijāta, Halāyudha and Vijñānesvara are found in three manuscripts, viz., at Calcutta, Dharbhanga and Jammu, and a transcript of the Calcutta manuscript at Benares; and in three independent manuscripts, namely those at Udaipur, Dharbhanga Palace and Navani in Dharbhanga (belonging to Baccha Jhā) the references are entirely absent. In considering the authenticity of the references in this passage, it would be helpful to examine the reproduction (with. out the omission of even a word) of the whole of this section of the Kalpataru by Candesvara in the Dusyädhikāravidhih, chapter of his Vivādaratnākara'. In this reproduction, the prose explanations which are missing in the group of three 1 Ed. Bibliotheca Indicer, 1887, pp. 152--155 ·LAKSMĪDHARA AND THE KRTYA-KALPATARU 31 manuscripts, that give the shorter version of the comment reproduced above, are found as in the Asiatic Society's manuscript and those derived from it. Candesvara gives the crucial passage thus: समवर्ण समानगुणं न कारयेदिति बृहस्पतिः भन्यते इति पारिजात हलायुध स्वरसः । क्षत्रविट्शूद्रधर्मस्तु ब्राह्मणो ब्राह्मणं दास- कर्मणि न कारयेदिति लक्ष्मीधरस्वरसः । सर्वश्च अयं अर्थ: उपग्राह्य एवेति ।। ब्राह्मणस्तु सवर्ण 1 It should be noted that the view attributed to Vijñānesvara as his personal opinion (starasah) is here ascribed by Candesvara not to Vijñānes vara but to Lakşmidhara himself. It is not open to contend that Candesvara committed an error in giving the opinion as Lakşmīdhara's; for, what is stated is the view of Lakşmīdhara, as gatherable from the entire section, while it is opposed to the opinion of Vijñānesvara, as given in the Mitaksari. The point will be clear if the tenor of the discussion is briefly stated. Of the several modes in which servitude may arise there are two, vie., hy a person surrendering volunturily his liberty, even as a woman does when she marries, or forfeiting it by doing something which is heinous. There is further the general rule, which is stated in several smrtis, that a Brāhmanı cannot be made a slave. Thus Kätyāyana" lays down : त्रिषु वर्णेषु विज्ञेयं दाम्यं विप्रभ्य न कचित् । The piirvīrdha refers to the assumption of slavery voluntarily, like a wifc, by giving away one's liberty (svirtantra-syūtinano dānāddasatavam däravat matam). Kätyäynna also says: ब्राह्मणस्य हि दासत्वात् नृपतेजो विहन्यते । (By the slavery of : Brahman the lustre of the King is lost.) Ed. Bibliotheca Indica, 1887, p. 153, Kane, k'aty@ganasmrtisaroddhard, 1933, verse 715. * ibid., verse 717.

·32 THE DĀNA KANDA A person who renounces the ascetic life (prazraj js="cītersituli becomes, according to Yājñavalkya the life-long slave of the King. The same rule is given by Nārada in specifying the person whose slave a person abandoning the ascetic order becomes : राज्ञो हि दासस्स्यात् प्रव्रज्यावसितो नरः । ' He becomes the slave of the King. He cannot be umancipated (na tasya inoksosti) being a slave for life ::: The rule implies that a Brāhmaṇa can be the slave of a king, who will normally belong the ksatriya caste and who can be of even a lower caste. If such a degradation of status of a Brah. maņa occurs, it would be opposed to another rule of law that the relation of master and slave can exist only between those of equal caste (varna) or in the order of the castes (1711ulomutah), the master being of the higher and the slave of the lower castu. The reverse order is prohibited : वर्णानामानुलोम्येन दास्यं न प्रतिलोमतः । The prohibition of pratiloma in the relation of master and slave is repeated by Nārada, who states in the only exceptions to the rule that those who abandom their asrama-turmer (the persons who renounce asceticism for example) can have a priti. loma relationship : वर्णानां प्रातिलोम्येन दासत्वं न विधीयते । स्वधर्मत्यागिनोऽन्यत्र Vijñānes vara in commenting on the passage in Yājñavalky? prohibiting pratiloma relationship between slave and master atos the above rule of Nārada to show that a pratiloma relntion cur exist between master and slave, as when a king hecomes the 1 See II, 183 : प्रव्रज्यावसितो राज्ञो दास आमरणान्तिकम् । 2 Ed. Jolly, Bibliotheca Indica, 1886, p. 148 : राज्ञां एव तु दासस्यात् प्रव्रज्यावसितो नरः । न तस्य विप्रमोक्षोऽस्ति न विशुद्धिः कदाचन ॥ 3 Vajñavalkyasıyti, II, 189. 4 Naradasmrti, V, 39, ·LAKSVĪDHIRI AND THE KRTYA-KALPATARU 33 on ner of a slave, who had forfeited his liberty by abandoning his dharma as an ascetic : स्वधर्मत्यागिनः पुनः परिव्राजकस्य प्रातिलोम्येन दासत्वमिष्यत एव । Accordingly, lijñānesvara's view is that a Brāhmaṇa ascetic, who renounces his Sunrisa, becomes for life the slave of one inferior to him in caste. But, the passage in the kalpataru, which is brought up as containing a reference to l'ijñānesvara's view, definitely ascribes to him, as his characteristic opinion (starasuh), the conclusion that the rule for Ksatriyas, Vais'yas and S'ūdras is that they cannot put a Brāhmana in the position of a slave to do a slave's work.' COXCLUSION If Laksmidhara desired to refer to a writer, he would obviously not have done so by attributing to him the exact opposite of the views to which he had given public expression, in a hook which must be available to every one. This is just what he must be deemed to have done, if we accept the view that the passage cited above is authentic and contains Lakşmidhara's citation of vijnanesvara's opinion on the controverted point. The view embodied in the passage is that of Lakşmidhara and not that of Vijñānesvara. Candesvara was therefore right in citing the conclusion embodied in the above vyavastha (opinion) as Lakşmidhara's. Its attribution to Vijñānesvara only slows that he who inade it had not read the llituksarti ! It may be noted (as a justification for Candesvara's citing the passage as Lakşmidhara's special view) that, in the selection of authorities from smrti to decide the question--whether under any or particular circunstances a member of the first caste (pruthuma-varn«) can be enslaved--- Lakşmidhara deliberately refrained from citing Vrijñuralkyasmrti and coupling it, as done by the Mitükşurii, with the amplification by Näradusmrti, and that authorities are brought in to support his thesis that under no circumstances can a Brähmana he brought down to a servile Comment on Yajfjävalkya, II, 183. 'क्षत्रविदशद्वधर्मस्तु बामणो ब्राह्मणं दासकर्मणि न कारयेदिति विज्ञानेश्वरखरसः ॥ (Vyavhara-halpataru, Folio 380 of Sarasvatibhavan Transcript).

·3+ THE DANA KANDA status. His view is in harmony with that of Visrusmrti' which imposes the highest amercement for violence (uttam-stīhasidanda) for the offence of reducing to servitude a Brāhmaṇa and also with that of Kātyāyana and Brhaspati. It is thus clear that the reference to Vijñānesvara in the Kalpataru is not authentic. Both this sentence and the one bringing in an alleged quotation from BỊhaspati are manifestly the interpolations of some reader, who noted them in his COPY of the Kalpataru, and when the manuscript was again copied, the scribe, as scribes still do, embodied the marginal note of the reader in the text, as if it was part and parcel of the text." LAKSMĪDHARA'S CITING VIJÑANES'VARA OTHERWISE IMPROBABLE ALSO Even apart from the drift of this line of evidence, the balance of probabilities is against Lakşmīdhara making any open allusion to Vijñānesvara, even if it be conceded that, owing to the assumed chronological relationship between the two writers, such a reference was possible. The position of the two writers precludes such acknowledgment. Lakşmidhira was, for instance, the chief minister of the powerful king of Kānauj, who was extending his dominions and adding to them, so as to come within striking distance of the dominions of the Cālukya ruler, Vikramāditya VI, whom Vijñānesvarā glorifies.' The fourth Vişnusmrti, V, 151 Ed. Jolly :-*FAME are fullaea artararat दण्डः। . This is technically known as 'reader's conflation.' Conflation in the appearance in a manuscript of readings which are neither derived front the archetype (by continuous descent), nor are original variants of its own or of any of its ancestors, but have been imported. The type of interpolation now noticed in the Kalpataru will be termed also as contamination" by some critics. (W. W. Greg, The Calculus of Variants, Oxford, 1927, p. 56). 3 A copper-plate grant dated Vikrama-samvat, 1177 (i.c. a. 1)., 1120) now in the possession of the Asiatic Society in Calcutta, mentions that Govindacandra sanctioned the transfer of the village of Karanda and the talla of Karanda in the pattala of Antarāla, which was originally granted by Yasaḥkarna, from the possession of Bhattāraka Rudras'iva, a royal chaplain, into that of the Thahkura Vasiştha, Yasahkarņa is obviously the Cedi ruler who was the son and successor of the more famous conqueror Karna of the Kalacuri dynasty, whose reign must have come to an end before A. D. 1080 as in the Candravati copper-plate of King Candradeva of Kanauj it is stated thus: “When Bhoja went to Heaven, and when Karpa remained only in renown, and when the earth was being troubled, she found a refuge and a protection in Candradeva Gübadvāla" (Ind. Ant., XIV. p. 103). From A. D. 1117 the title "as'vapati-gajapati-narapati-rajyatrayadhipati" appears in the grants of Govindaçandra of Kanauj, (Ind. Ant., XVIII, pp. 19-20) and is ·LAKSJIDHIKI ND THE KRTYA-KILPITIRU 35 and sixth verses in the conclusion of the litāksuri, which are indubitably by Vijnanesvara himself, makes thcsc claims : * There is and there will never be on the carth, a city cqual to Kalyāna (Vikramaditya's Cirpital). No king who could be compared to Vikramārka has crer been seen or head of. The learned Vijñānestala cannot submit to be compared to the slightest extent with a rival. Hay these three', who are comparable to the Kalpavyksur (the 1177ortal Wish-yielding tree), last (live) till the end of the present cycle of time (kulpa). From the causcway of the ornament of the race of Raghu, which is masseu fame (i.c., “Rama's Bridge") to the monarch of the mountains (i.c., the Himalayas), and from the western occan, whosc waves are raised by the gamhols of shoals of fishes, to the castern occan (i.c., from the Indian Ocean to the Bay of Bengal), may Vikramadityadevi, whose feet are resplendent from the lustre of the gems on the diaders of prostrating kings, protect the entire world so long as the Moon and the Stars endure." 1 IMICATIONS OR VISINESVIKI'S L'ANEGYRIC The panegyric is as usual conched in somewhat exaggcrated terms, but the skill of the inthor is shown in bringing into it innuendoes and references to facts or claims which a contemporary would readily detect. Thus, the words referring to the western occan, as one of the limits or Vikramaditya's dominion, contain a concealed reference to us great contemporary and enemy, Kulottunga Col, which has not till now caught the attention of scholars. The words catulatimi-k'ulottunguringutturavigiat conunueri in the descript2017 of this stickers Liker on the same title s disken by the tierlı ruler Vrhasran ( 1155 1.) It has been resteel that the rulers of the Anellira country Here the Varpatis. C. V. Vandva, llistory of Morliceul indu, 11, 1), p 1911, नासीदस्ति भविष्यति क्षितितले कल्याणकल्प पुरे नो दृष्टः श्रुन एव क्षितिपतिः श्रीविक्रमापिमः । विज्ञानेश्वरपतिो न भजते किं चान्यदन्योपम- श्राकल्पं स्थिरमस्तु कल्पलतिकाकल्पं नंदतत्रयम् ।। आसेतोः कीर्तिराशे रघुकुलतिलकस्या च शैलाधिराजात. आ च प्रत्यक् पयोधेः बटुलनिमिकुलोनुमारिकत्सरझात् । आच प्राचीसमुद्रानननृपतिशिरोरत्नभाभामरांघ्रिः पागादानन्तारं जगदिदमखिलं विक्रमादित्यदेवः ।।

·36 THE DĀNA KĀNDA which qualify in the more obvious sense' the western ocean with waves raised by the gambols of shoals of giant fishes,' may be taken as qualifying the eastern ocean' in the concealed sense of "the unsteady movements of the struggling whale, of a Kulottunga.” The spiteful statement may have been put in for the special delectation of Vikramāditya, even as even more spiteful allusions to Kulottunga, under a corrupt form of his earlier title, Rājendra,' (Rājiga) occur frequently in the poem (Vikramārkadevacarita) in which Bilhaņa lauded the life and achievements of Vikramāditya VI. Bilhaņa refers to Kulottunga specifically as "the family foe" of Vikramāditya. The careers of the two kings should have, by their remarkable parallelism, intensified the bitterness of their rivalry. Both came to their imperial heritage by what Bilhaņa calls “the concurrence of fortune," at almost the threshold of middle age. Both ruled for half-a-century. The Vengi country, forming the area between the mouths or deltas of the Krsņā and Godavari rivers, was onc of the bones of contention. The tract was originally a part of the Cālukya empire in the seventh century, and becamc independent under a younger branch of the original Cālukya line (the "Eastern" Cālukyas). Vikramaditya belonged to the later Cālukya line, whose kinship with the older line was hypothetical, while Kulottunga was by descent a scion of both the older Cālukya line (through the Eastern Cālukyas of Vengi) and of the Colas. Before he became the Cola emperor in 1070, he had fought, in A. D. 1067, Vikramāditya, who was then the favourite of his father Somes vara I, the founder of Kalyāna, and obtained from his admirers the title Virudarija-bhayamkara, * the terror of Virudarāja or Vikramāditya'.' The Cālukya had almost recovered Vengi, when the news of his father's death and the accession of his elder brother and chemy, Somes'vara II made Canto VI, s'lokas 26 and 27: अथ कतिषुचिदेव दैवयोगात् परिगलितेषु दिनेषु चोलसुनोः । श्रियमहरत राजिगाभिधानः प्रकृतिविरोधहतस्य चेझिनाथः ।। कुटिलमतिरसासौ विशङ्कमानः पुनरमुमेव पराभवप्रगल्भम् । प्रगुणमपकृतपृष्टकोपहेतोः प्रकृतिविरोधिनमस्य सोमदेवम् ॥ * Kalingattupparani, X, 25, referring to the war of 1067 states that it was in this war that Kulottunga earned the title of 'Terror to Viruduraja or Vikrama. ditya' (Viruduraja-bhayankara). Sec Nilakantha S'astri, Cotas, 11, 1937, p. 5.

·LAKSMIDHARA AND THE KRTYA-KALPATARU 37 him withdraw (A. D. 1069). Vikramāditya had married a Cola princess, the daughter of the cmperor Virarājendra I, and so had a shadowy claim to the Cola heritage. Six years after the accession of Kulottunga to the Cola throne war broke out again between him and Vikramāditya, who was to scize the Cālukya throne (A. D. 1076) on the defeat of his brother by Kulottunga, who had meanwhile turned the tables on his rival, conquered Konkan and the Mysore country, and reached the western sea. Kulottunga was however unable to push his advantages far, owing to the revolt of Ceylon and the invasion of Vengi by Yasah- Karņadeva, the Ilaihaya king.' By A. D. 1076 Kulottunga had reconquered Vengi and appointed a son as viceroy over the tract. He began his campaigns against Kalinga, on the northern frontier of Vengi, in A. 1 1096 and a more famous invasion of Kalinga in A. 1), 1110, which his gencral Karunākara over-ran. In A.1). 1115 his dominions reached their muximum extension, and virtually embraced thc cntire area of the present Madras Presidency. By 1116 A. D), the tide turned against Kulottunga. The Mysore territory was lost by that year. By 1118 Vikramaditya had reconquered almost the whole of Vengi," and his territory had then really extended from the Western to the Eastern ocean, as stated in the panegyric of Vijñänesvara, quoted above. The diplomatic activity of Vikramāditya was aimed at embarrassing his rival, by instigating cncmics and rebellious feudatories. The Pandya revolt, the Ceylon rebellion and the troubles in Vengi and Kalingii, as well as in the Kannada country, were all fomented by him. The wish that Vikramaditya should continue to rule from Rameswanam to the Himalayas, expressed in Vijñānesvara's panegyrical verse, should be construed as a rcflection of these alliances and the extension of the sphere of his intluence to the dominions of the Cola cmperor. If the description of Vikramaditya's sovereignty Ibla, pp. 4--14. Ibih 4 Ibid., pp. 33--38 Ibid., pp. 38--39 Ibid., pp. 41-44 Ibid., p. 44 to 47. "That Vikramaditya's rule did ewend in this period to the whole of the Telugu country becomes clear from the provenance of his inscriptions." Ibid., Ch. XI11 (pp. 1-GO) pessim.

·38 THE DĀNA KĀNDA as extending from ocean to ocean, and from Rama's Bridge, is realistic and not an empty vaunt it can only refer to a period after 1118 towards the end of the reign of Vikramāditya, who died in A.D. 1127. The prayer for stability (ākalpım sthiran astu) which Vijñānesvara has uttered must have reference to the varying fortunes of the conquered areas, just as the reference to the struggles of "the whale Kulottunga is an allusion to his last war against his rival. DATE OF THE MITĀKSARĀ Considered in this way, the date of the Mittīkșară must be about A. D. 1120, i.e., twenty years later than the lutest limit assigned by Mr. Kane to its composition and fifty years later than his upper limit for Vijñānesvara.' A considerable part of the Digest of Lakşmidhara must, on the date given below, have been composed before this date. That is to say, the Digest should have been written early in the reign of Govindacandra, while the commentary (i.e., the Mitakşarā) should have been composed towards the end of the long reign of Vikramāditya. This is borne out by the tenor of Vijñanesvara's panegyric which seems to refer to what has been accomplished rather than to glories to come. GOVINDACANDRA'S VICTORIES To turn to the wish that that the Cālukya king should rule from the Himālayas to Rameswaram, we must treat it as a pious aspiration if we remember the rapid expansion of the power and dominions of the Gāhadvāla dynasty of Kānauj in spite of the ever present fear of Musalman invasion and conquest. In the Rāhan plate of A. D. 1106, the Yuvarāja Govindacandra records 1 3 1" The Mitaksaru was composed between 1070-1100 A .." (Ilistory of Dharmastātra, Vol. I, p. 290.) The panegyric begins with the words "there never was, is or never will be" (nāsidasti bhavisyati kşititale). The fear of the Muhammadan was responsible for the permanent addition of a new tax, named Turuksa danda, a Turk-geld, to the financial imposts of the Kānauj kingdom. It makes its appearance among extant epigraphs in the Rihan copper-plate grant of Madanapala and Govindacandra, dlated A. D. 1109, and continues to the end of the reign of Jayacandra, who was conquered and killed by the Muhammadans in A. D. 1194.

·LAKSUDHARA AND THE KRTYA-KALPATARU 39 that he had again and again by the play of his matchless valour" compelled the Amir (Hammira)" to lay aside his enmity." grii rzeraT FETARTOT-71CA1 À faca.' Before 1126 he had annexed parts of Magadha." In 1120 he had changed a gift of a village by the Cedi king Yasuh karna,' and a prince of the line claims in s. 1), 1114 to have been honoured for his valour by the king of Kānauj. Govindacandra's victory in Dasārna on the day of the birth of his grandson Jayacandra is said to have been the reason for giving his name to the latter.' The Gāgaha plate (now in the British Museum) of A. D. 1142 describes Govindacandra as having captured the clephants of " nine kings." He had apparently no powerful rival in North India, and the only rulers whose poner could match his were Kulottunga, whose armies marched to the limits of North Kalinga, and Vikramaditya 11. His relations with these two kings seem to have been dictated by the Hindu political principle that a neighbour, whose frontiers march with one's own, is an enemy (ari), actual or potential, while the neighbour's neighbour on the opposed side is luis ally (mitru), actual or potential, while that ruler's mighbour on the other side is the potential ally of his enemy (urermitrur)." Thus, to Govindacandra, the 'enemy' will be Vikramaditya, and 'ally Kullottunga, while to Vikramādityi, the natural illies will be: those opposed to Kulottunga, like Vijayabahu, the king of Ceylon, who reconquered Pollannāru (1.1). 1070) and freed Ceylon from Cola rule, the kings 1 4 For the kiban plate stand int. XVII, pp. 14--19. It is reprinted fully in Vaidya's Histort of Warta txl laulu, 11, pp. 179-150. 'The Sanet 11sfifue's plata inscription of A. n. 1120 recoril: the grant of a village near futna brytinuincurit It is published in the ournal of the Bhar and Orissa Research Society, II (1910). pp. 111.17 St*** 1937, 1, 21 and S. 1., XXX1, p. 124. Si the Katnapur inscription of Jajalladeva dated in the Cedi year 866 or 1114 A, D. It declares that Jajalladevii, who was descended from an earlier king of the same line as the famous Colli rulers (itingeyaduva, Karna and Yasah karna. on account of luas prowrss was like a (nend honoured with fortune" by the king of Känyakubja, die Gurindarisodril who was then reigning, " For the Ciupaha plate su kpigraphia Indica X111, pp. 216 -320 and Ind, Aut, XVII1, pp. 20-21. The victory over the " nine kings" is mentioned in earlier epigraphe of the king, and the carliest extant reference A. D. is in the Pali plate or 114. U. 1.0. KS, 1930, pp. 233-238. It clearly ready Narva-lajja instead of Naval, which alters the meaning completely.) See Sarda VIII of kümandaka's Nitisaru, slokas 10 to 501) pp. 105 to 114 of the Trivandrum Edn. 1912). Nilakangha s'astri, Culus, II, p. 17. #1 1 ·40 THE DĀNA KĀNDA of the Hoysala dynasty' and the kings of Kalinga." The influence of the principle on the relations of the three great contemporaries is evidenced by history. Vijayabāhu of Ceylon is said to have married Līlāvati, the daughter of Jagatīpāla 'of Kānauj. The queen of Jagatípāla is said to have been an internee in the Cola kingdom, from which she escaped with her daughter to Ceylon. We do not know when this marriage took place, but it must have been in the reign of Vijayabāhu, which extended from c. A.D. 1060 to 1120 practically covering the reigns of Kulottunga and Vikramāditya, and probably after he had freed Ceylon from the Cola supremacy: The dynastic lists of Kānauj, either of the Pratīhāra dynasty or of the Rāştrakūta branch, which apparently had possession of Kānauj till c. 1085, when it was seized by Candradeva of the Gähadvāla dynasty, the grandfather of Govindacandra, do not contain the name Jagatipāla. He was probably an obscure person with pretensions to Pratīthāra or Rāştrakūta lineage. The flight of the distressed queen of Kānauj’ with her daughter must have been after Candradeva's conquest and after she had lost all hope.' Why did the fugitives escape from the kingdom of Kulottunga in which they were seeking an asylum ? The answer is suggested by the intimate and friendly relations between Govindacandra and Kulottunga of which evidence exists in a stone epigraph (incomplete or mutilated in some rebuilding operation) of the sovereign of Kānauj, bearing a Cola date corresponding to A.D. 1110, which exists on the walls of a temple in the Cola capital Gangaikondacolapuram. This inscription gives the familiar Gahadvāla prasasti, and ends (before mutilation commences) with the name of Candradeva, the grandfather of Govindacandra, to whose reign the inscription clearly belongs. The late Mr. V. Venkayya suggested that the inscription was perhaps incised during a friendly visit of the Kānauj king to Kulottunga. This is very unlikely. It is more probable that the endowment recorded in this inscription was intended as a gesture Nilakantha Sastri, Colas, II. pp. 41–44. ? Ibid., pp. 34-38. 3 Ibid., p. 17. * Tripathi, History of Kanauj, 1937, pp. 288-290. - Para 56 of the Annual Report of the Madras Assistant Superintendent for Epigraphy, for 1907-1908.

·LAKSMIDHARA AND THE KRTYA-KALPATARU 41 of friendship, and was allowed, with the prasasti of a reigning foreign ruler to be put up in the very capital of the Cola emperor. It is natural that this alliance between Kulottunga and Govindacandga should shut the Cola dominions to any pretender to the lordship of Kānauj. It will account for the flight of the mother of Lilāvatī to Lankā, and Līlāvati's own marriage to the king of Lankā who had driven the Colas out of the island. The intense ill-will between Vikramāditya and Kulottunga is evidenced both by contemporary literature (c. g., Vikramikadevacarita and the colophon to the Mitīksari,) and inscription. Govindacandra's diplomatic activities naturally extended to all possible cnemies of Vikramaditya VI. Thus, he is said in the Prabandhacintiimani to have received an envoy from the Călukya ruler of Anhilvād (Gujarat), the warlike Siddharāja Jayasimha (A.D. 1093 to 1143) the predecessor of the more famous Kumārapāla (A.D. 1143-1172). In an Indian kingdom the responsibility for making alliances rests with the lahtistinidhivigranika or Chief Minister for War and Peace.. This was the office held in the kingdom of Känauj, by both Bhatta Lakşmidhara and by his father Bhatta HỊdayadhara and is signified by the term Mantri, which occurs at the head, of an enumeration of the officers of state to whom the Kamauli grants of Govindacandra were addressed for execution. In the cighth sloka introducing his work, Lakşmidhara describes himself See Inscription No. 101 of 186, Madras Epigraphist's Collection, where 'Vikkalan, 1.6. Vikramachtva Vi and Singanan, ie the Kadamba King Jayasimba, the ally of Vikramaditya, are said to have plunged into the western sca' on their route in battle by Kulottunga c. A.1). 1070. * The Prahunithtarcintamani. Ed.. Jinavijayamuni. 111, 131, states that Siddhamija Jayasimht sent an envoy to the king of Kis'i. The pxmpous title does not appear in the Gäkarvala inscriptions, where the Mantra is mentioned, immcdiately after the queen and yuvarája, among those commanded to give effect to the grantee's wishes. The title of Mahasaulhivigrahita dlescribes an important duty of the Chief Minister (Mantri). It occurs in Raştrakufa records, where the functionary is usually entrusted with the duty of drawing up the copper plate grants recording gifts or alicnations. This duty is assigned to this ofhcer in an anonymous text quoted in the Mitaksura, on Yajna. valkya, 1, 319-320 : The drafter (nf the copper-plate) should be the Sanhivigrahikakiri. He should dralt the charter as dictated by the king himself,' Apparently the responsibility for accurately expressing the king's commands could not be entrusted to any lower person than the Chief Minister, responsible for the policy of the kigdom. The philosophical reflections on the transitoriness of life and the cnduring nature of charity, which occur in some of the Gahadvāla inscriptions, must be deemed to represent the very words of the donors le.es Candradeva's Candravati plate of 1093, and Madanapala-Govindacandra plate of 1099). Sec A, S. Altakar, Kastrukülas and their Times, 1934, p. 166.

·42 THE DĀNA KANDA 66 as Mantrīs varah." This should be treated as a parycīya for the official title of Mahāsāndhivigrahika, which appears over and over again in the colophons. In two places, viz., at the beginning of the first kānda and at the beginning of the Rajudharmakānda, Lakşmīdhara proclaims that it was solely through his counsel that king Govindacandra attained supremacy over other kings, trod the path of righteousness, and made many crowned heads humble themselves at the feet of this king. Such an open declaration in a work written by command of a powerful ruler could not have been made unless the truth underlying it was well-known. The Cola alliance, of which we have evidence, soon after the formal assumption of sovereignty of Govindacandra about A. D. 1110 may have been due to his Minister's skill, and intended to check the designs of the aged and warlike ruler of the Dakhan. It is noteworthy that in the description of the prowess of his king, in the introductory stanza, Lakşmīdhara refers only to two exploits specifically, viz., repeated defeats of the Hammira, i.e., the Muhammadan invader, and the humbling of the Gauda ruler. The first exploit occurred only during the reign of Madanapāla, when as Yuvarāja Govindacandra was virtual ruler. The second exploit, i.e., the humbling the Gauda, must refer to some attack, of which we have found no record as yet that occurred early in the reign, on Madanapala of the Päla dynasty of' Bengal, who had sought the alliance of Candradeva, Govindacandra's grandfather, when attacked the Sena king Vijayasena. It cannot refer to the later conquest of Pāla territory as far as Monghyr, since in the Rāhan plate of A.D. 1109 Govindacandra is already described as "terrific in cleaving the frontal lobes of arrays of irresistible mighty elephants from Gauda,” The same inscription records that he again and again by the play of his matchless fighting compelled the Hammira to lay aside his enmity," in language recalling Lakşmīdhara's prusastī of Govindacandra : असम-समर-सम्यक्-लम्पटश्शौर्यभाज अवधिरवधियुद्धे येन हम्मीरवीरः ।। The omission to refer to the later conquests in Dasārpa and Magadha and to the victory over the nine kings' (rava-rīja) and to Govindacandra's later title_asvapati, gujapati, narapati, ·LAKŞMIDHARA AND THE KRTYA-KALPATARU 43 rājyatrayadhipati vividha-vidyā-vicāra-vācaspati (these could not be missed by a Minister who composes an eulogy on his Sovereign)-makes it clear that his vague references, other than these two specific claims adduced on his behalf to Govindacandra's military exploits, must have been due to Lakşmidhara having written early in the reign before those conquests were made and new virudas acquired. There is no violence to probability in such a view, because Govindacandra had been virtual ruler for a dozen years before his formal accession, and even as Yuvarāja must have attained manhood.” As Lakşmīdhara's father was also a Minister before him, it is not unlikely that father and son served Govindacandra's father and Govindacandra himself, and that they had been commissioned for the composition of the Kalpataru even before the formal beginning for the reign of Govidacandra, who is pointedly praised by Lakşmidhara for his self-mastery, and learning. The inscriptions show that Govindacandra's predecessors were devoted to Hinduism.* I The viruda "as'vapati-gajapati-narapati räjyatryadhipati vividha-vidyavicãra-vācaspatih" appears first, in the extant inscriptions, in a grant dated A.D. 1117 (Ind. Ant. XVII, pp. 19-20), and the reference to the exploit of capturing the elephants of nine kings first appears in an inscription of A.D. 1114 (the copper-plate, Pali, J. B.O.R.S., 1930, pp. 233-238) but it has been translated as referring to the new kingdom (Navarajya-gaja) personified as an elephant, instead of being taken as referring to the elephants of nine kings (Navarujagajo narendrah), The full sentence is : तस्मादजायत निजायतवाहुवल्ली बद्धावरुद्धनवराज(ज्य)गजो नरेन्द्रः । सान्द्रामताद्रवमुचां प्रभवो गवां यो गोविन्दचन्द्र इति चन्द्र इवांबुराशेः ॥ As this sloka is repeated in subsequent grants, as an official prasasti, and as when it first appears Govindacandra must have been ruler for atleast ten years, the description of him (under this verse) of having by his powerful arms bound and controlled the elephant (which was) the new kingdom, is pointless. Grants of A. D. 1114 refer to the Yuvarāja among those asked to implement them. A Yuvarăja must be atleast sixteen years of age. As Govindacandra was Yuvarāja as early as atleast 1099 when in a grant issued by him in the life time of his father, he omits to mention the Yuvarāja (i.c., himself) among those commanded to give effect to the grant, he should bave been at least thirty years of age in 1110. His latest extant inscription is dated A. D. 1154, when on this supposition he must have been seventy-four, not an improbable age considering what his contemporaries Vikramiditya, Kulottunga and others attained. 3 It is expressly stated in some of the colophons to the Kalpataru that Hidayadhara, the father of Lakşmidhara was also Mahasandhivigralika. 4 This is evident from the pious allocutions in some of their inscriptions, and from the claim of Candradeva that he was the protector of the holy places of Käs'i. Kus'ika, Uttarakosala, and Indrasthāniya, as well as from the general tenor of their rule.

·44 THE DĀNA KANDA KALPATARU EARLIER THAN MITĀKŞARĀ To sum up. Any possibility of Lakşmidhara's making a reference to Vijñānesvara is ruled out on two grounds mainly, viz. : (1) the dictates of prudence, because no sensible Minister will cite as an authority an adherent of his king's rival or enemy; and (2) the impossibility of an earlier work quoting a later. For, it follows from the data already adduced that the Kalpataru, should have been composed about A. D. 1110, early in the reign of Govindacandra, while the Mitākşară could not have been completed before A. D. 1120. In any case, the Mitakşarī, even if it had been composed a few years before the kalpataru, could not have assumed sufficient importance in the eye of so proud a scholar as Lakşmīdhara, who has described his many claims as a nibandha-writer, as to make him rank it as authority with Gopāla's Kamadhenu, Parijata, Prakāsa, Mahārņavı, Halāyudha, and Mālā, referred to either in the introductory verses or cited in the body of the Kalpataru.' The alleged citation of Vijñānesvara by Lakşmīdhara has accordingly to be rejected as spurious, VERBAL IDENTITY BETWEEN BOTH WORKS In an examination of the Vyavahārakānda three instances have come to light in which the interpretation of certain smrti verses is in almost the same words in both the Mitäkşarī and the Kalpataru. The verbal identity may be accidental, as the verses are not difficult, or the commentary may have been copied Lakşmidhara is critical of the predecessors whom he names. He claims that after the composition of the Kalpataru the splendour of the Maharnava, was lost. The Kamadhenu had to słumber at the foot of the K'alputarıt, and inferior works like the Mala need not be counted at all among those that would be treated with regard after his own composition came out. The claims are urged in these two verses : यस्योत्थितौ स्थितमती न महार्णवे श्रीः निद्रां ददाति यदधः किल कामधेनुः । तस्यास्तनिष्यति रतिं विबुधद्विजानां आनन्दितुं किमु न कल्पतरोः प्ररोहः ॥ का चिन्तैव महार्णवानुसरणे का कामधेनुस्पृहा क्षुद्राः कस्य परिस्फुरन्ति हृदये ते (रत्न) मालादयः । श्रीलक्ष्मीधरबुद्धिवैभवसुधासेकप्रभावादयं येनात्रैव जगत्त्रयोपकृतये कल्पद्रुमः कल्पते ॥

·LAKSMĪDHARA AND THE KRTYA-KALPATARU 45 from an earlier writer by both authors. Ingenuity may see in the prayer of Vijñānes vara that his work, his city and king should last as long as the Kalpalată, a concealed compliment to the Kalpataru.' Such a surmise will not be ruled out as improbable if both writers had been attached to the court of the same ruler or of friendly kings. The circumstance that their allegiance was divided, between two powerful and passively hostile kings, makes the suggestion weak. But, whether the two writers knew each other or not, it is a mark of the powerful wave of Hindu feeling, which was stimulated by the Muhammadan attacks and the rise of new states, that such cardinal works as those of Laksmīdhara, Vijñānesvara and Aparärka should have been produced in the same generation. Cf. Akalpam sthiramastu Kalpalatika-kalpam tadetattrayam. * Govindacandra is referred to, not only by Musalman writers, but by Lakşmidhara himself as the Ruler of Käs'i (Benares). Many of his grants were made there after bathing at one or other of its holy tirthas. Lalmidhara must have himself resided there, and been a well-known figure. If, as is probable, Vijanes'vara made the routine pilgrimage to Käs'i the two may have met though it might have been after their respective works were composed.

·NOTE A LAKSMĪDHARA has prefixed fifteen verses to the first book of the Krtya-Kalpataru, which deals with the first īsrama and forms also an introduction to the whole work. Of these, the first three contain prayers to Vişnu, who seems to have been Lakşmīdhara's tutelary deity, Siva and Manu. The invocation of Manu is appropriate as Lakşmidhara proposes to expound Dharma. The next four verses contain a panegyric with historical allusions to Laksmīdhara's patron and king, Govindacandra. The remaining eight verses set forth the author's qualifications and the merits of the work. Besides these fifteen verses, the Brahmacārikānda has an introductory verse, in which again Lakşmīdhara describes his own prowess by which his enemies were reduced to the life of hardship and austerity prescribed for Brahmacārins. To each of the succeeding thirteen kändas a similar verse is prefixed in which similar justification for his dealing with the subject of each book is adduced. These verses furnish the only direct information on Lakşmidhara's career and achievements. We learn from them that he had enemies over whom he ruthlessly triumphed, that he was a wealthy grhastha, whose life was an example to others, that he performed with diligence and scrupulous care the prescribed rites for a Brahmana and made Dharma forget its "separation from the Golden Age," that he duly discharged the duties to ancestors in the way of sråddhas, that he made many agrahārasthapanas, that he founded on the pilgrim routes satrālayas, that he was the “ holiest of the holy", in view of his purificatory rites, that his exposition of law as a judge roused the spontaneous admiration of the learned, that his assumption of the sacred duty (yajña) of the protection of the Universe" (in plain prose, his prime ministership) brought peace and purification from sin to countless people, and that he was deeply versed in Vedānta and the way of salvation,

·LAKŞMĪDHARA AND THE KRTYA-KALPATARU
47
These verses are in many places corrupt, and have had to
be restored. This has been so particularly in regard to the
sixteen slokas with which the first kānda begins. Only a single
manuscript of Brahmaciri-kānda is so far known, and it is very
defective. It has lost the last pages of the kāņda, making it
difficult to publish it first. Its publication is held over in the
hope that one other manuscript of it at least will come to light.
The prefatory verses have been reconstructed with the help of
Dr. V. Raghavan, M.A., Ph. D., of the Sanskrit Department of
the University of Madras. They are reproduced below, as
restored. The English translation which follows the text is
Dr. Raghavan's. The introductory verse of the sixth book which
deals with pratisthu is wanting in the Udaipur Palace manuscript
of it, and the work begins abruptly. A second manuscript, which
I was able to secure, has also lost the first leaf which would
have contained the introductory sloka. The mansucripts of the
piijā and vrata sections are similarly defective. The headings do
not occur in the manuscript.
प्रार्थना
(विष्णुः)
देवः स्पुरन्महिमतत्तदनन्तमत्स्यकूर्मादिजन्मकथिताऽद्भुतवैभवो यः ।
ब्रह्माण्डबुद्बुदतया स्फुरदंशलेशः मायामपोहतु स बोधमहोदधिर्वः ॥ १ ॥
(शिवः)
जाने यस्य ललाटलोचनशिखा, लेखाऽपि चन्द्री, विभो
रंमाशोममयं (1) जगज्जनयितुं बीजाय सञ्जायते ।
तस्योर्मिव्यपयोगियोगिजनताहृत्पद्मसमस्थित.
स्फारध्वान्तहरं हरस्य दहरस्थानं महामो महः ॥ २ ॥
(मनुः)
सुहृद्यः सुकृताऽपुण्यक्षीरनीरविवेचनः ।
मनुमानसमाविश्य राजहंसः पुनातु वः ॥ ३ ॥

·48 THE DĀNA KĀNDA राज्ञः प्रशंसा श्रीमन्मानववासवस्स विजयी गोविन्दचन्द्रोऽस्ति यः क्रीडातर्जितगौडगर्जितभयस्तम्भीभवत्यार्थिवः सर्वोवीन्द्रजयप्रतिश्रुतिवियत्संकोचनाशंकिना येनात्माऽपि जितस्ततश्शमभृता मन्ये किमन्ये परे ॥ ४ ॥ एष ज्ञानपराक्रमैकवसतिः गोविन्दचन्द्रः परं कन्दर्पस्य च वैरिणाञ्च विशिखैः रक्तोऽभितः शोभते । मायामप्यवनीशमण्डलमपि स्वच्छन्दमुच्छिन्दता येनाऽऽमा कृतिना दिनैः कतिपयैरद्वैतमारोपितः ॥ ५ ॥ कोशान् गेहेष्वमुञ्चन् पथि करितुरगान् बान्धवानर्धमार्गे दुर्गेह्यन्तःपुराणि प्रतिरवचकिताः पर्वतेभ्यो निवृत्ताः । यस्योद्योगे द्रवन्तोऽसमसमरसमारंभगम्भीरभेरी- भाङ्काराकीर्णकर्णज्वरभरतरलप्रेक्षिताः शात्रवेशाः ॥ ६ ॥ स किल सकलदृप्तक्षत्रनक्षत्रलक्ष्मीहरणकिरणमाली कस्य न स्यान्नमस्यः । असमसमरसंपल्लम्पटः शौर्यभाजामवधिरवधि युद्धे येन हम्मीरवीरः ॥ ७ ॥ ग्रन्थकर्तुः प्रशंसा विद्यावल्लिविलासभूरुहवरो वीरस्य विप्रोत्तमः श्रीलक्ष्मीधर इत्यचिन्त्यमहिमा तस्यास्ति मन्त्रीश्वरः । भूभर्तुः पदचक्रवाकमिथुनक्रीडार्थमासूत्रिता येनाऽनेकनरेन्द्ररत्नमकुटज्योतिर्मयी वाहिनी ॥ ८ ॥ हुत्वा लक्षमरातिभूपतिशिरःपद्मानि शौर्यानले पृथ्वीं साधयता समुद्रवसनां श्रीदेवकाशीपतेः । एतेनोत्तमसाधकेन कति न क्रुराशयाः प्रापिताः सङ्ग्रामवतनैष्ठिकेन विलयं विद्यार्थिना पार्थिवाः ॥ ९ ॥ ग्रन्थस्य प्रशंसा तेनायं वेदमूलः स्मृतिनिचयमयस्कन्धवान् यः पुराण- व्यूहव्युत्पन्नशाखः प्रकरणनिकरोदण्डकाण्डप्रचण्डः । ।

·LAKSMĪDHARA AND THE KRTYA-KALPATARU
49
उन्मीलद्वाक्यपत्रः स्फुरदतिविशदज्ञानरम्यप्रसूनः
श्रीमद्धर्मार्थकामाऽमृतमयफलदस्तन्यते कल्पवृक्षः ॥ १० ॥
पौराणीरेव वाणीः कचिदकृतकृतौ वापि भूयस्स्मृतीनां
गोपालस्तद्वयस्यः स्वकृतिविरचनं वाक्यरूपेण चक्रे ।
श्रौतस्मादिसारैर्विबुधजनमनोहारि कारिष्यतेऽयं
मीमांसोत्तंसिताफर पृथुरथ कथातीतरन्ध्रः प्रबन्धः ॥ ११ ॥
यस्योत्थितौ स्थितिमती न महार्णवे श्रीः
निद्रां दधाति यदधः किल कामधेनुः ।
तस्याऽऽतनिष्यति रतिं विबुधद्विजानाम्
आनन्दनः किमु न कल्पतरोः प्ररोहः ॥ १२ ॥
का चिन्तैव महार्णवानुसरणे का कामधेनुस्पृहा
क्षुद्राः कस्य परिस्फुरन्ति हृदये ते [रत्नमालादयः ।
श्रीलक्ष्मीधरबुद्धिवैभवसुधासेकप्रभावादयं
येनाऽत्रैव जगत्त्रयोपकृतये कल्पद्रुमः कल्पते ॥ १३ ॥
एकार्थेष्वेकमेकं क्वचिदपरमपि स्वीकृतं कार्ययोगात्
न्यस्तं विज्ञानमूलं प्रचरदपि परित्यक्तमज्ञानमूलम् ।
शिष्टैस्सम्यग्गृहीतं वचनमभिहितं स्पष्टितं चाऽस्फुटार्थ
यत्राऽपारो विरोधः स्फुरति विरचिता तेन तत्र व्यवस्था ॥ १४ ।।
लक्ष्मीधरेण मुनिमुख्यवचस्समुद्र
न्यायाद्रिणा किल विलोड्य समुद्धृतोऽयम् ।
काण्डैश्चतुर्दशभिरद्भुतपर्वबन्धैः
वाञ्छोचितं फलति कल्पतरुन कस्य ॥ १५ ॥
काण्डोपक्रमश्लोकाः
[ब्रह्मचारिकाण्डोपक्रमे---]
विशाला (?) विमुखाः क्षतेन्द्रियसुखाः मातल्पनिद्रालवो
भिक्षावृत्तिजुषस्त्वचा परिचिताः कौपीनमात्राम्बराः ।
नीताः काश्याधिपस्य येन रिपवस्ते ब्रह्मचर्य परं
काण्डे स प्रथमाश्रमं प्रथमतः प्रस्तौति लक्ष्मीधरः ॥ १ ॥

·50
THE DĀNA KANDA
गृहस्थकाण्डोपक्रमे-]
स्वाध्यायाधिगमोऽर्थतत्त्वगतये सा कर्मनिष्पत्तये
सा निश्शेषमलक्षयाय स पुनर्मोक्षाय यस्याऽभवत् ।
दत्तानेकपुरद्विजोत्तमवधूसंगीतनादोत्सवो
गार्हस्थ्यं वदति द्वितीयमधुना काण्डं स लक्ष्मीधरः ॥ २ ॥
नयतकालकाण्डोपक्रमे---]
येन प्रत्यहमभ्रसिन्धुपयसि स्नानादिभिः कर्मभिः
यज्ञैः कर्मभिः [पञ्चभिः) अप्यपास्तकलिभिर्नीतः परामुन्नतिम् ।
धर्मो विस्मृतवान् कृतस्य विरहक्लेशं स लक्ष्मीधरः
काण्डं नैयतकालिकं कलयति प्रीत्यै तृतीयं सताम् ॥ ३ ॥
[श्राद्धकाण्डोपक्रमे-]
यः पुण्यात्मा धिनोति प्रतिदिनममितैर्हन्तकारैर्मनुष्यान्
कव्यैरव्याजभव्यैः पितृगणममरस्तोममस्तोकहव्यैः ।
श्रीनाथध्यानसिन्धुप्लवनसुखरसोपेतचेतोमराल:
स श्रीलक्ष्मीधरोऽयं विरचयति सुधीः श्राद्धकाण्डं चतुर्थम् ॥ ४ ॥
दानकाण्डोपक्रमे----]
येनाविच्छेदवेदध्वनिहतकलिभिः श्रोत्रियाणां पुरीभिः
फुल्लाब्जामोदमाद्यन्मधुकरमुखरव्योमभागैस्तडागैः ।
चक्रे धात्री पवित्रा विभववितरणैरर्थिवाञ्छातिरिक्तैः
स श्रीमानेष लक्ष्मीधर इह तनुते पञ्चमं दानकाण्डम् ॥ ५ ॥
तीर्थकाण्डोपक्रमे-]
धर्म निर्मलहेमकुम्भशिरसो यस्यामराणां गृहाः
संख्यातीतमुमुक्षुभिक्षुपरिषन्मित्राणि सत्रालयाः ।
तीर्थेषु प्रथयन्ति धर्मनगरद्वारानुकारास्तुलां (2)
काण्डे तीर्थविवेचनं क्तिनुते लक्ष्मीधरस्सोऽष्टमे ॥ ६ ॥

·LAKSMIDHARA AND THE KRTYA-KALPATARU
51
शुद्धिकाण्डोपक्रमे-]
वर्णादप्युचितार्जनादपि भृशं शुद्धैर्यदीयैरमी
दौर्गत्यादपि दुष्कृतादपि गताः शुद्धिं द्विजाः काञ्चनैः ।
धर्मेन्दोरुदयाचल: स दशमे काण्डेऽत्र लक्ष्मीधरः
शुद्धिं शुद्धिमतां वरो विरचयत्याचारवारान्निधिः ॥ ७ ॥
राजधर्मकाण्डोपक्रमे-]
न्याय्ये वर्त्मनि यज्जगद्गुणवतां गेहेषु यद्दन्तिनो
राज्ञां मूर्धनि यत्पदं व्यरचयद्गोविन्दचन्द्रो नृपः ।
तत्सर्वं खलु यस्य मन्त्रमहिमाऽऽश्चर्य स लक्ष्मीधरः
काण्डे शंसति राजधर्मनिचयानेकादशे पुण्यधीः ।। ८ ।।
व्यवहारकाण्डोपक्रमे ---]
नानाशास्त्रवचोविचारचतुरप्रज्ञाबलस्थापित-
न्यायादिव्यवहारमार्गविशदास्तास्ताः प्रगल्भा गिरः ।
यस्याऽऽकर्ण्य विपश्चितः प्रतिसभं रोमाञ्चमातन्वते
काण्डे स व्यवहारमत्र तनुते लक्ष्मीधरो द्वादशे ॥ ९ ॥
शान्तिकाण्डोपक्रमे---]
यस्मिन्विश्रति विश्वपालनमहायज्ञं द्विजन्मोत्तमे
प्राप्ताः शान्तमलीमसास्सुरुचयः पुष्टिं परां साधवः ।
काण्डं शान्तिकपौष्टिकाश्रयमथ ब्रूते स लक्ष्मीधरो
धौरेयः कृतिनां त्रयोदशमिह प्रज्ञालतापादपः ।। १० ।।
मोक्षकाण्डोमक्रमे--]
वेदान्तोक्तिविवेकवैभवगलदुर्वारमायातम-
स्वैरोन्मीलदमेयचिन्मयपरब्रह्मैकतानात्मने ।
ते यस्मै स्पृहयन्ति लब्धपरमानन्दास्सनन्दादयः
काण्डे वक्ति चतुर्दशे द्विजवरो मोक्षं स लक्ष्मीधरः ॥ ११ ॥

·THE DĀNA KANDA N TRANSLATION INTRODUCTORY VERSES 1. May that God, the great ocean of Knowledge, remove Delusion. He whose miraculous powers are proclaimed by the several endless and glorious incarnations of the Fish, the Tortoise and others, and but a fraction of whose aspect quivers as the bubble of cosmos. 2. We adore that effulgence in the heart of Hara which destroys the vast darkness in the heart (lotus-like abode of heart) of the yogic persons who free themselves from the (sixfold) waves (of misery, delusion etc.) that Lord Hara the flame of whose forehead. eye and whose lunar digit, methinks, become.... the germ for creating the universe. (Part of the second line of the verse could not be reconstructed.) 3. May the good-hearted Manu, foremost among kings, who discriminates the good and the sinful, even as the charming kingly swan, diving in the Mānasa lake would discriminate milk and water, enter your mind and purify you. 4. There is the victorious king Govindacandra whose mere sport threatened the Gauda king whose (panicky) shout (in turn) alarmed to stupefaction all other kings. Need it be mentioned that he subdued the other enemies, he who restrained (literally conquered) his own self, being a man of selpossession, from the conquest of all the kings, fcaring that the skies would shrink if he took the vow to conquer all the kings? 5. This unique abode of knowledge and valour, Govindacandra, shines ruddy all around with the shafts of the god of Love and enemies alike; the successful Govindacandra who, by freely uprooting both Illusion and enemy-kingdom, established himself within a few days as Absolute, without a second. 6. In whose campaign, the fleeing enemy kings, with their looks reeling with the weight of panic caused by the deep noises of the drums (sounding) at the ·LAKŞMIDHIRI AND THE KRIYA-KALI'ATARU 53 beginning of the unequal battle, turn back from mountain (caves) frightened by the echoes, and lcave their treasuries in their abodes, their elephants and horses on the highway, their kinsmen in halfway and their harcm in the fort. 7. The Sun who puts out the splendour of all the haughty kings who are merely like so many stars, by whom will that Govindacandra be not respected ?--He who killed in battle the heroic Hammira, a paragon of valour who was cager for the fortune of an unequal combat. S. To that heroic king there is the chicf minister, foremost Brähmana of unimaginable greatness, Lakşmidara, an excellent tree for the creeper of learning to grow upon; he, who for the sport of the Cakravākabirds of his king's fect, provided a river in the form of the glitter of the jeweiled diadems of numerous kings. 9. How many wicked kings have not been made to disappear by him who initiated himself in the battlevow, a secker of miraculous power and an excellent votary accomplisher), who in the fire of his valour, made oblations by a lakh of lotuses in the form of cnemy kings' heads and performed the rite of securing for the king of Käsi the sca-girt earth. 10. By him is raised this Divine Tree (work called Kalpataru) of which the Vedas are the roots, the Smrtis the boughs, the Purāņas the branches, formidable with the long stalks of numerous Prakaraņas, spreading the leaves of quotations, fluttering with the beautiful blossoms of pure knowledge and giving the fruits of Dharma, Artha, Kama and Moksa (Ampta). 11. Now he extracted passages from the Purānas and now again, from the Smytis ; thus did Lakşmidhara's friend, Gopāla, make his work a mere collection of quotations. But this compact work shall be done, with no loophole to complain of, satisfying the minds of the learned, with the essence of the Vedas and the Smrtis, and with its ideas crowned with interpretations and discussions, 1 ·54 THE DANA KANIDA COW 12. Will not the delightful growth of Kalpataru, (the celestial tree and this work) give joy to the birds of the learned (the Brāhmans and the gods), the Kalpataru after .whose appearance, excellence (Lakşmi) does not stay in the great ocean (the work Mahārņava) and at whose feet the celestial milch (the work Kāmadhenu) sleeps (remains an unopened book)? 13. Now that this Kalpadruma, thanks to the efficacy of the ambrosial watering of the intellectual powers of Lakşmidhara, is here, capable of helping the three worlds, why think even of going after the great ocean (the work Mahārņava)? Why desire for the celestial cow (the work Kamadhenu)? In whose mind will occur those trifling things, gem-necklace etc. (works like the Ratnamālā) ? 14. Of authorities on the identical topic, a single text has been adopted at one place, and another at another place, as purpose required; that which is based on knowledge has been kept and that which is based on ignorance has been abandoned, though it is current ; the view adopted fully by the authorities has been taken and that which was ambiguous has been clari. fied; and where there was an endless controversy, there a finding has been made by Lakşmidhara. 15. To whom will not this celestial tree (the work Kalpataru) give the fruit, according to desire, the Kalpataru with wonderful nodes (sections) and fourteen branches (books), and which has been raised by Lakşmidhara, out of the ocean of sayings of the chief scers, churning it with the mountain of his intcrprctation. OPENING S'LOKAS OF EACH KĀNIJA 1. Lakşmidhara begins the first Asrama in the first book, he who reduced to Brahmacārya the enemies of the king of Kāsi, enemies who (like the Brahmacärins) had to turn away form, were deprived of sensepleasures, had to sleep on a bed of earth, took to ·LAKŞVĪDIARA AND THE KRTYA-KALPATARU 55 begging alms, accustomed theniselves to hides, and had but loincloths as dress. 2. Lakşmidhara now gives out the second book on the subject of Household life, he who learnt and recited the Vedas for realising the truth of their meaning, realised that meaning so that his karnans may properly be done, did his karmans properly for the total destruction of impurity, had his impurities destroyed for the purpose of deliverance,-Lakşmīdhara who was responsible for the music festivities of the ladies of the excellent Brahmins to whom he had gifted many habitations. 3. Lakşmidhara writes for the satisfaction of the good the third book on Niyatakāla, he who, by his daily duties like bathing in the Ganges and by his Kali-scaring fivefold yajias, took Dharma to a great height and made it forget the pang of separation from the Krta age. 4. The wise Lakşmidhara writes the fourth S'rāddha Kända, the swan of whose heart has the delectation of the joy of Hoating in the river of the meditation of Visnu, that blessed soul, who, everyday gratifies men with unbounded offerings due to guests, the manes with guileless and happy Kavya-offerings and the gods with abundant kavya-offerings. 5. Lakşinidhara does here the fifth Dāna Kānda, he who sanctified the earth with gifts of wealth over-reaching the ambitions of the supplicants, by (the construction of) tanks whose atmosphere was resounding with (the hum of) the bees reeling in the odour of the blown lotuses, and by the foundation of) towns of Vedic scholars which put an end to Kali through unbroken Vedic recitations. 6. Lakşmidhara examines the subject of Tīrthas in the cighth Chapter, he whose dharma is proclaimed by temples with bright golden finials, by resthouses accommodating collections of numberless recluses and mendicants and (portals or archeş or stepways ?) resembling portals to the City of Dharma, at bathing ghats, ·56 THE DĀNA KĀNIA 7. In this tenth book, Laksmīdhara, the rising mount for the moon of merit, the foremost of the pure, the ocean of approved modes of action, deals with Sluddhi, he through whose gold, pure in colour (or carat) and in the method of their acquisition through proper ways Brāhmanas were freed from poverty and improper acts. 8. Lakşmīdhara speaks of the Rājadharma in the eleventh kānda, he whose mind is in meritorious acts, and thanks to whose miraculous great counsel, king Govindacandra was able to do all that, vis., the placing of the world on the righteous path, the placing of elephants in the house of men of qualities, and the placing of his own feet on the head of kings. 9. Lakşmidhara deals here in the twelfth book with Vyavahāra, whose several authoritative words at the meetings of the court, clear in their procedure, with principles established by the force of his intellect rendered capable by his investigations in several sāstras, the wise listen to and feel thrilled. 10. Lakşmīdhara, the tree supporting the creeper of intelligence, the foremost of the successful, speaks then of the thirteenth book here dealing with Rites propitiatory and acceleratory, while which great Brahman was doing the great vajna of protecting the universe, the good men had all their distresses put down and with great lustre, attained supreme welfare 11. Lakşmīdhara, that excellent Brāhmana speaks of Moksa in the fourteenth chapter, he whose soul is in unison with the Supreme Spirit of the form of the inscrutable knowledge, freely manifesting itself when the irremovable darkness of Māyā drops as a result of the abundant discriminatory knowledge of the words of the Vedānta, and for whom Sananda and other (Siddhas) who have attained the Supreme Bliss, yearn.

·II INTRODUCTION TO THE DĀNA-KALPATARU Comprehensiveness of the Dana-Kalpataru THE tifth kāņda of the krtya-Kalpataru deals with gifts (dina). It is one of the larger sections of the Digest as it dealt with a subject which must have been topically of interest to kings and great nobles, who alone could make the sixteen “great gifts,” the ten "mountain" dānas, etc., as well as the ordinary gifts which were within the means of ordinary folk. The spiritual efficacy ascribed to gifts and endowments must have specially appealed to those who believed in them as the appointed means of grace in the iron age (Kaliyuga). In even works specially devoted to gifts, the mahadīnas might come to be omitted on the ground that they (the books) were intended for common people, and not for kings and nobles, who alone could command the resulrces necessary for the making of the major gifts. Vijñānesvara perhaps took this view, as his commentary on the eighteen slokas in which Yajnavalkya dealt with dina (I, 198-216) hardly covers -tive printed pages. Govindānanda Kavikankaņācārya' deliberately omits the sixteen mahudinas, the ten acaladūnas and thu dhenu-dünas on the ground that thesc, described in the Maisyupurīt, were within the capacity of only ruling princes and noblemen, and that they could turn for information about the omitted great gifts to treatises on mahidana. Aparārka, on the other hand, wrote what is virtually a digest on gifts (dānanibandha), running to 136 pages of print, in commenting on the Govindananda's Danakriya-kaumudi, p. 86 (Bib. Ind. 1903). तुलापुरषादि षोडशमहादानानि धान्याचलादि दशविधाचलदानानि मत्स्यपुराणोक्तानि महाराजेतरसाध्यान्मत्रोपिक्षितानि महादानपद्धती द्रष्टव्यानि । अन्यानि दानानि यथायथमा- करेल्वानि ॥ Govindananda's date is 1500-1540 A, D. Aparárka (c. 1120 A, D.). See pp. 281-416 (ed. 1903). 3 ·58 THE DĀNA KĀNDA same verses as the Mitākṣarā. He probably did so, because to kings like him the subject had peculiar attraction and value. That Lakşmīdhara's interest in gifts (dāna) was not merely theoretical is shown by the claims he puts forward in the sdoka introducing the Dänakānda. He proudly declares that the Lakşmidhara, who devotes his fifth discourse to dana is he s who sanctified the Earth with gifts surpassing the expectations and hopes of supplicants, with tanks (that he had constructed out of his bounty) which resounded with the hum of bees attracted by the fragrance of the full-blown lotuses that filled them, and with towns of Vedic scholars, whose uninterrupted Vedic chant dispersed the darkness of the Kali age." In founding agrahāras and excavating tanks, he was fulfilling not only the duty which he describes at length as lying on all affluent grhasthas to spend their wealth in pious ways, but was setting an example to his own sovereign, whose many inscriptions give evidence of an abiding faith in the saving virtues of gifts made in accordance with the sästras. The wide vogue of dana is illustrated by another significant instance. Candes vara, whose Dānaratnākara, like all his other works, is virtually a rehash of the Dänakānda of the Krtya-Kalpataru, actually performed the Tulādāna in A. D. 1314. In later times, after Hemädri had embodied in the Dänakanda of his great digest, the Caturvargacintamani, all previous teachings on gifts, kings, who made the mahädānas, used to describe themselves as those who had performed the mahädānas described by Hemadri.' Pre-Kalpataru Treatment of Dana If not the earliest digest to deal extensively with Gifts, the Krtya.kalpataru is without doubt the earliest, which deals with 9 3 See the mangala s laka on p. 1 ra. Apasta-kalibhih is an expression which occurs also in inscriptions. p. 14 of the Introduction by K. P. Jayaswal to his ed, of the Rajanitiratnekara (1924). * Epigraphia Carnatica, VIII, Tirthahalli, 12. In Rasarnava-Sudhakara of Simha-bhūpāla (c. 1360 A.D.) the following verse appears : हेमाद्रिदानः धरणीसुराणां महाचलं हस्तगतं विहाय । यः चारुसोपानपथेन चक्रे श्रीपर्वतं सर्वजनप्रगम्यम् ।। The reference is to the flight of steps at Srisailam or Mallikarjuna-Kgetra, ·INTRODUCTION 59 the subject adequately. It is noteworthy that though Lakşmidhara refers, in other works of his, to predecessors like the authors of the Praktīsa, Pirijūta, Kamadhenu and possibly a Mahārņava, as well as to Halāyudha, not one of these is alluded to or cited in the Däna-Kalpaturu. Almost coeval with him is Aparārka, whose treatment of diina is unusually full, as already noticed, and who cites no carlier digest, or commentary. The Dānasāgara of Ballāla Sena (composed in S'āka 1091, i.e., A.D. 1161-69) refers to the Kalpataru. A comparison of the printed fragments of this work with the Kalpataru shows that the material of the latter is utilised and expanded by the addition of prayoga-vidhi (procedure) for each diing, and for donors following each Veda, with a recapitulation of the Vedic mantras to be recited at the time, which are only named or alluded to by Lakşmidhara. It would be open to presume from the circumstance that later writers on dina like Candes vara (c. A.D. 1314), Madanasimha, Hemādri and Mitra Alisra expanded only the Dāna-Kalpatarı, building their own works round the core of Lakşmidhara's book but for one circumstance, vis, that Candesvara cites the following digests, vis. Keinudhenu (once on p. 118, Adyar Transcript), Prakisa (ib. fol. 59, 78 and 3+1), Pirijată (fol. 66, 83, 152, 155, 260, 270 and 356) and Bhipälupaddhati (fol. 84, 102, 152, 161, 170, 171, 173, 192, 197, 206 and 326), among which all but the last are pre-Kalpataru. The citations of Pärijäta and Bhüpālapaddhati alone relate to dana pure and simple. Whether the former of these two was a digest which treated of dana also, or separately, it is evident that Lakşmidhara's work superseded it completely, and that for all later literature on gifts the source was only the Diru-Kulputarı. VEDIC LITERATURE ON GIFTS Näras'amsah The literature of gifts (dana) has great antiquity, and its importance and underlying principles are recognized in Vedic literature. In the Rg Veda there is a whole class of hymns known as ddna-stuti, in praise of gifts and liberality. They reflect the gratitude of priests for the extra-ordinary munificence ·60 THE DĀNA KANDA 1 shown by royal patrons. Among the donors commemorated are king Svanaya (R.V., I, 125, 126), Taranta, Purumīha and Rathavīti (R.V., V, 61), Sudāsa Paijavana (R.V., VII, 18), Kas'u Caidya (VIII, 5), Tirindīra Pāras'avya (R. V.), Kānīta (R.V., VIII, 46) and Slāvarņi (R.V., X, 62). The vast dimensions of the commemorated gifts perhaps conceal poetical exaggeration. The liberality of such patrons was to be held up to the admiration of later generations by legends which had to be recited at sacrifices. Such stories are described as praise of men" (närasamscī) and, the Sarikhāyana-srauta-stītra (XVI, 11)! mentions the following as fit for such recital; the legend of S'unasșepha; the story of Kaksivat Aus'iga, who received gifts from Svanaya Bhāvya ; the story of S'yāvāsva Ārcanānasa, who received gifts from Vindadasvi ; the gifts of the carpenter Bybu to Bharadvāja ; the story of Vasiştha, the purohita of Sudās Paijavana ; the story of Vatsa Kāņva, who received gifts from Prthusravas Kānīna : the account of Praskaņva, who got presents from Medhya Mātaris va and of the Mānava who received gifts from Angiras. The currency of similar legends of liberality is evidenced from the well-known recital of the names of a number of famous donors in the Mahabharata", cited also by Mitra Misra in Dänaprakās'a (Adyar Transcript, I, fol. 13-14). Among them are Rantideva, S'ibi Ausīnara, Pratardana king of Kāsi, Devavrata, Atreya Samkřti, Ambarīşa, Yuvanäsva, jāmadagnya, Mitrasaha, and Sahasrajit, Dänastuti 3 1 The typical Dänastuti not only praises individual instarces of liberality in royal patrons, but lauds liberality itself in general terms, pointing out its spiritual advantages to the giver. Thus, R.V., I, 125 (4-7) has : ed. A. Hillebrandt, Bibliothecu India, III, (1897), pp. 369-371 : सर्वाण्येतानि आरव्यानानि नराणां पुरुषाणां दक्षिणाप्रशंसकानीत्येन रूपेण भवन्ति । पुरुषरूपः पुमान्नररूपेण प्रशस्यत इति नारशंसः । नरैर्वा परमात्मदर्शिमिः श्रद्धदानः प्रशस्यत इति नारशंसः ॥ * infra. pp. 272-274. उपक्षरन्ति सिन्धवो मयो भुव ईजानं च यक्ष्माणं च धेनवः । पृणन्त च पपुरि च श्रवस्यवो घृतस्य धारा उप यन्ति विश्वतः ॥ ४॥ नाकस्य पृष्टे अघि तिष्टति श्रितो यः

·INTRODUCTION
61
3;
To him who freely gives and fills on all sides full streams
of fatness How and make him famous.
On the high ridge of heaven he stands, exalted, yea, to the
gods he goes, the liberal giver.
The streams, the waters flow for him with fatness; to him
this guerdon ever yields abundance.
For those who give rich meeds are all these splendours,
for those who give rich meeds suns shine in heaven.
The givers of rich meeds are made inmortal; the givers
of rich fees prolong their lifetime.
Let not the liberal sink in sin and sorrow, never decay the
pious chiefs who worship.
Let every man besides bc their protection, and let afflic-
tions fall upon the niggard.
R.V., ... 107 is a long paean of praise of liberality. It says
with emphasis :'
8. The liberal dic not, never are they ruined; the liberal
suffer neither harm or trouble.
9. The light of heaven, the universe about us-all this
does sacrificial guerdon (daksini) give them.
Assist ye gods, the liberal man in battles; the liberal
giver conquers foes in combat.
R.V., X, 117, 1-4, lauds in striking terms the giver of food
to the hungry, and is the Vedic basis of Annudāna :
The gods have not ordained hunger to be our death ; even
to the well-fed man comes death in varied shape.
2. The man with food in store who, when the needy
comes in miserable case, begging for food to eat,
hardens his heart against him-even when of
-
पृणाति स ह देवेषु गछति । तस्मा आपो घृतमर्षन्ति सिन्धवस्तस्मा इयं दक्षिणा पिन्वते
सदा ॥ ५॥ दक्षिणावतामिदमानि चित्रा दक्षिणावतां दिवि सूर्यासः । दक्षिणावन्तो अमृतं
भजन्ते दक्षिणायन्तः प्रतिरन्त आयुः ॥ ६ ॥ मा पृणन्तो दुरितमेन आरन्मा जारिषुः सूरयः
सुव्रतासः । अन्यस्तेषां परिधरस्तु कश्चिदणन्तमभि सं यन्तु शोकाः ॥ ७ ॥
न भोजा मनुन न्यर्थमीयुर्न रिष्यन्ति न व्यथन्ते ह भोजाः । इदं यद्विश्वं भुवन
खश्चैतत्सर्व दक्षिणेभ्यो ददाति ॥ ८ ॥ भोमा जिग्मुः सुरभि योनिमप्रे भोजा जिम्युर्वध्वं १ या
सुवासाः ॥ भोजा जिम्युरन्तः पेयं सुराय । भोजा जिग्युर्वे आहूताः प्रयन्ति ॥ ९ ॥ भोज-
मवाः सुषुषाहो वहन्ति सुद्धयो वर्तते दक्षिणायाः । भोज देवासोऽवला भरेषु मोजः शत्रू-
समनी केषु जेता ॥५॥

·62 THE DĀNA KĀNDA old he did him service-finds not one to comfort him. 3. Bounteous is he who gives unto the beggar, who comes to him in want of food and feeble. Success attends him in the shout of battle. He makes a friend of him in future troubles. The praise of liberality is of the gifts of sacrificial fee or dakşiņā. The fee took not only the form of gold, but more usually was in the form articles of personal property such as kine, horses, buffaloes, or camels, ornaments etc. Land is not mentioned as a dakşiņā except with disapproval (S'atapatha- Brāhmana XII, vii, 1, 15). The rule that when no article is specified for the fee, the cow is meant (Kätyāyana-Srauta- Sütra, xv, 2, 13)? indicates that the old fee was a cow. As dakşină means prolific," a word which aptly describes the cow, the term came to apply generally to fee or guerdon. No sacrifice was complete without a daksinā, and the number of fees or occasions for their payment in a sacrifice is specified e.g., 33 in a Sautrāmani. The S'atapatha-Brahmana " (II, 2, 2) derives the term from daksaya, ' to invigorate,' and points out that the fee invigorates the gods by being paid to the priest. The glory of the sacrifice is the gift; the priest should not therefore give it न वा उ देवाः क्षुधमिधं ददुरुताशितमुपगच्छन्ति मृत्यवः । उतो रयिः पृणतो नोप दस्यत्युताष्टणन्मर्डितारं न विन्दते ॥ य आध्राय चक्रमानाय पित्वो ऽन्नवान्त्सनफितायो पजग्मुषे । स्थिर मनः कृणुते सेवते पुरीतो चित्स मडितारं न विन्दते ॥ स इद्भोजो यो गृहवे ददात्यनकामाय चरिते कृशाय । अरमस्यै भवति यामहूता उतापरीषु कृणुते सरवायम् ।। न सखा यो न ददाति सरव्ये स चाभुवे स चमानायपित्वः । आपस्यात्प्रेयान तदोको अस्ति पृणन्तमन्यमरणं चिदिच्छेत् ॥ 'त" ह कश्यपो याज्ञयां चकरा । तदपि भूमिः श्लोकं जगौ 'न मा मर्त्यः कश्चन दातुमर्हति विश्वकर्मम्भौवन मन्द आसिथ उपसंक्ष्यति स्या सलिलस्य मध्ये मृषेष ते संगरः कश्यपायेति ॥ed. A. Weber, 1855, p. 1002. ३ अलिङ्गग्रहणे गौः सर्वत्र ॥ ed. Vidyadhara, 1924, II, p. 56. * तं देवा दक्षिणामिरदक्षयंस्तद्यदेनं दक्षिणाभिरदक्षयं स्तस्माइक्षिणा नाम तबदेवान यज्ञस्य हतस्य व्यथर्ते तदेवास्यैतद्दक्षिणाभिर्दक्षयत्यथ समृद्ध एव यज्ञो भवति तस्यादक्षिणा ददाति || (Ibid., p. 146) ·INTRODUCTION 63 away, atleast on the day he receives it. (ib. XIV, 1, 32). It should be given freely by the sacrificer, and "let there be no bargaining as to daksiņā, for by bargaining the priests are deprived of their place in heaven" (ib. IX, 5, 16). The sacrificer ransoms himself when the dakšiņi is accepted ". (Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, XV, 1) and the fee strengthens (dakşayati) the sacrifice. The Taittiriya Samhita (V, 6, 9)? insists on the necessity for daksini : "Him who piles his fire, he should enrich with sacrificial gifts, for thereby, verily, he preserves the sacrifice." Free Gifts yana was The daksina is given within the vedi, 1.c., the sacrificial enclosure. Free gifts or liberality outside a sacrifice are not less commendable. The Chandogya Upanisad (IV, 1, 1-3) illustrates it by a story. A Sudra named Janasruti Pautrāso munificent a giver for acts of piety and kept an open house for all guests, that his “glory" spread above his dwelling to heaven and flying hamses were afraid of getting scorched by the glory. But what is given should be one's own ; for, as laid down by the Taittiriju Sahmitu (VI, 1, 6, 3) " it is a tapas only when a person makes a gift of only what he owns (Etat khalu tiitu tupu ityihuh yah stam dudati iti). > Eulogy of Brahmanus Gifts mentioned in the Veda being fees (daksinā) it naturally follows that the recipients had to be Brāhmaṇas. The S'atupathu Brühmana (II, iii, 1+) raises the learned priest to the । अधिजो यशो दक्षिणा हैव नयशस्तस्माथामस्यै दक्षिणामानयेयुर्न त । इत्सयो- ऽन्यस्माऽअतिविशेमेयन्मेदं यश आर्गस्तत्सद्यो ऽन्यस्माऽतिदिशानीति यो वैव भूते पहे वा तदात्मन्येवैतद्यशः कृत्वा यदेव तवति तत्स ददाति हिरण्यं गां वासोऽश्वं या॥ (Ibid., p. 1023) 'किं नु लोक्यं किमलोक्यमामात्मा वै यहस्य यजमानोहान्यत्विजो यत्र वा 5 आत्मा तदानि यत्रोमानि तवारमा यदि वा ऋविजो लोका भवन्त्यलोक उ तर्हि यजमान उभये हि समानलोका भवन्ति दक्षिणामु स्वेन न संदिव्य संवादे नैव विजो लोका इति ॥ (Ibid., p. 970) मोऽस्यामि विनुयात दक्षिणाभिने राधयेदमिमस्य वृधीत यो ऽस्यामि चिनुयातं दक्षिणामी राधयेदमिमेव तत् स्पृणोति ।।

·64 THE DĀNA KANDA level of gods : “And, verily, there are two kinds of gods: for the gods themselves are assuredly gods; and the priests who have studied and mastered the Veda are the human gods." This is the sruti-pramāna for the declaration in later smſtis (e.g. Visnusmrti, XIX, 20-22)? that the “gods are invisible deities, the Brāhmanas are visible deities; the Brāhmaṇa sustains the world; it is by the favour of the Brāhmaṇa that the gods reside in heaven,” (since he performs the sacrifices to the gods). 1 Istā-Pirta As the daksina is voluntary, not capable of being contracted for in advance without incurring sin, and the strotriya has a duty to officiate in sacrifices when called upon for his help in that direction, it is not to be regarded as quid pro quo. Therchy it approaches closely the later definition of a dana. In Vedic literature, a distinction of gifts in sacrifices and outside the vedi (sacrificial enclosure) seems implicit in the expression ista-pirta, which is used to denote comprehensively the spiritual merit (punya) accumulated by a man. The merit adheres to a person, and is destroyed or reduced by any wrong or sinful act of com. mission or omission. It meets the soul after death in other worlds. In the famous hymn to Yama in the R. V. (-4, 14) the spirit of the dead man is thus addressed : (8) Join thyself to Yama and the Fathers (pitys) ; Meet there thy reward in highest heaven; (s«m«yamener ista-piirtena parame vyoman) Return to home, free from all imperfection; In radiant power gain union with thy body.! 1 देवाः परोक्षदेवाः प्रत्यक्षदेवाः ब्राह्मणाः । ब्राह्मणैर्लोका धार्यन्ते । ब्राह्मणानां प्रसादेन दिवि तिष्टन्ति देवताः । ब्राह्मणाभिहितं वाक्यं न मिथ्या जायते कचित् ॥ ? Kaegi's Rig Veda, trn. Arrowsmith, 1902, p. 70. Griffith's more literal version of the rk is as follows: "Meet Yama, meet the Fathers, meet the merit of free and ordered acts, in highest heaven. Leave sin and evil, seok anew thy dwelling. and bright with glory wear another body." Griffith translates. $$-pårta as * prescribed sacrifices and voluntary good works,' whose merit is stored up in heaven to be enjoyed on arrival by the spirits of the pious who have performed them." (Hymns of the Rig Veda, iv, 1902, p. 129 note.)

·INTRODUCTION 65 Literally istui is what is sacrificed, and pirta, what is filled, or completed. To the departed spirit his good acts are to be revealed, having proccded him to heaven : What has flowed from purpose, or heart," Or what is gathered from mind or sight, Follow to the world of good deed, Where are the scers, the first-born, the ancient ones. This I place around thee, O abode, the treasure Whom the all-knower hath brought here; After you the lord of the sacrifice will follow ; know ye him in the highest firmament. know ye him in the highest firmament, O gods associates, ye know his form ; When he shall come by the paths god-travelled (patibhiḥ devayānail) Do ye reveal to him what is sacrificed and what is bestowed. (istipürte krnutădăvirasmai) What is offered, what is handed over, What is given, the sacrificial fee (dakşinih) That may Agni Vaisvānara Place in the sky among the gods for us. 1st-i-pirta has efficacy even in this life. It saves one from his enemies; whether it be one's own or of one's ancestors. (Atharta Veda, II, 12. 4: ista-purtam avatu nah pitynām). A sixteenth part of the isti.pirta of a dead person forms a levy by the assessors of Yama, which can be redeemed before-hand, in this life itself by sacrificing a ram. (Atharva Veda, III, 29, 1). To lose one's istu-pürta was a terrible prospect. The eternal and reciprocal union of the sacrificer and his ista-purta is what one longs for and prays to Agni for (Vājasaneya Samhita, XV, 54 : Udbudhyasvágne prati jägrhi tvam-iştüpürte sainsrjetnāmayam ca.). A false reply to an enquiry destroys, according to the Muhabharata (cited by the S'abdakalpadruma), the istā-pürta of 13 Keith, Veda of the Black Vajus School, I, 1914, p. 100, 11.,, explains pürtin one who has satisfied the priests'. * Keith's tra. op. cit. p. 475 (Vol. II).

·66 THE DĀNA KANDA seven generations preceding and following the sinner. Unrestrained evil (caurakarma) in a kingdom destroys the king's istapurta, according to the Märkandeya Purāņa (18,6).' A sin of omission, like the failure to feed a Brāhmaṇa guest,“ destroys (the offender's) hopes (āsā) and expectations (pratīkşi), his possessions, his righteousness (suinrta) his istā-pirta and all his sons and cattle”, according to the Kathakopanisad (1, i, 8). Manusmrti (IV, 227) includes both istri and parta under dāna, when it lays down that one should, according to his means (saktitah) discharge the duty of gifts (dūna-dharma nişeveta), which consists in istā and pārta, after obtaining a suitable recipient (pātram āsādya) and with a joyous mind (paritustena bhāvena)." Medhātithi explains the terms thus : "Iştam is what is performed within the bounds of the sacrificial enclosure (antarvedi), like a sacrifice; purtam is what is done outside these limits, like presents for unseen benefits) adrstartham)” (IV, 226). The definition limits the use of the terms to cases of charity in which an invisible benefit alone accrues. In a passage ascribed to the Mahābhārata by Aparārka (p. 290) istam comprehends what is offered to the single (domestic) fire, the triple (srauta) fire and whatever is given as a gift within the sacrificial enclosure (antarvedyam ca yad-danam), while purtam refers to the dedication of wells, large and small (vipi-küpa), tanks, temples, gardens and the giving of cooked food (anna. pradānain). The sense of terms is illustrated and extended in 1 इष्टापूर्तविनाशाय तद्राज्ञश्चौरकर्मणः । यद्यन्यैः पाल्यते लोकस्तद्धृत्यन्तरसंश्रितः ॥ 2 वैश्वानरः प्रविशति अतिथिाह्मणो गृहान् । तस्यैता शान्ति कुर्वन्ति हर वैवस्वतोदकम् ॥ आशाप्रतीक्षे संगत सूनृतां चेष्टापूर्ते पुत्रपशूश्च सर्वान् । एतदृते पुरुषस्याल्पमेधसो यस्यानशनवसति ब्राह्मणो गृहे ॥ श्रद्धयेष्टं च पूर्तं च नित्यं कुर्यादतन्द्रितः । श्रद्धाकृते त्यक्षये ते भक्तः स्वागतेधनैः ।। दानधर्मे निषेवेत नित्यैष्टिकपौर्तिकम् । परितुष्टेन भावेन पात्रमासाद्य शक्तितः ॥ * एकामिकर्म हवनं त्रेतायां यश्चहूयते। अन्तर्वेद्यां च यहानमिष्टमित्यभिधीयते ॥

·INTRODUCTION 67 two verses, which are attributed in the Malamasatatva of Raghunandana to Jatukarnya, one of which is identical with that from the Mahabharata illustrating the moaning of purta. The second half of the first of the two verses is identical with the first half of five half-verses cited as from Närada by Apararka ; it says that honoring a gucst (i... feeding him with daksina) and vaisvaderu sacrifice constitute istan. Jatukarnya adds to these two the agnihotra, austerity (tapus), truth (satyam) and the upkeep of the Veda (iedunam cu paripalanam). For the ista the right to perform (adhikiru) rests only with the regenerate varņas (dvijati), while all, including the Sudra and women, have the capacity, and the duty to make purtu gifts. Wealth has its obligations as well as its privileges. The duty to give lies on every one with means to do so. The sloka cited by Aparärka from Vțddha- Vasistha (p. 199) that "the two who could be unceremoniously drowned, after tying stones round their necks, are the rich man who will not give, and the poor man who is not austere " states rhetorically the accepted view, on which the entire edifice of Duna-dharma is built. EVOLUTION OF THE DANA DOCTRINES The doctrine of Gifts has thus a long history. Belief that what is given away in this life is a means of happiness in the next is both ancient and universal. Faith in the efficacy of the great sacrifices naturally magnified the value of the priests whose lielp was necessary for the successful and proper performance of the sacrifices. The daksin of the priest was like the offerings made into the fire for the gods, and for the offerings in the sacrifice. In all three cases, the offering was parted with by the sacrificer, whose property in it ceased with the act. In an offering to the sacred fire as well as in the great sacrifices, prayer and supplication to the deities prcceded the act of libation. An attitude of pious devotion was essential to their success. Analogy वापीकूपताकानि देवतायनतनानि च । अभप्रदानमारामः पूर्तमित्यभिधीयते ॥ It is ascribed also to Bphaspati: दावेवाप्सु प्रवेष्टव्यौ गले बड़ा महामिलाम् । भनमन्तमदातार दरिद्रं वातपस्विनम् ॥ 1 ·68 THE DĀNA KANDA transferred these features to gifts, whether made in sacrifices or ceremonies like the s'rāddha, and the act of giving had to be preceded by ceremonious homage to the donce and a proper frame of devout belief in the donor. For the efficacy of a honra (domestic sacrifice) or a yīga, the necessary articles and wealth had to be owned by the karti (sacrificer) and to have been acquired in righteous way. The fruitfulness of a gift (dina) was made to depend on similar pre-requisites. The difference between dakşiņā and dāna melted away, when their common elements, viz. non-contractual character, aiin of an invisible spiritual benefit (apürva, adrstaphala), sacrificial basis and ritualistic formalities, were visualised. The recognition is old. the Taittiriya Aranyaka (X, 63, i) it is declared : "Dāna is the armour (varitha) of the sacrifice. In the world of guerdon (dakşiņā-loke) all beings subsist on the giver. By gifts (duncna) evil spirits are driven away. By diinu those who hate become friends. Everything rests on däna. Therefore diina is said to be the best." The psychological association of charity (dinu) with restraint (dama) and compassion (dayli) is behind the injunction of Prajapati to gods, men and asuras, in the Brhadäranyakopanişad (V, 2, 3): "Be subdued. Give (gifts). Be merciful. Therefore let this triple truth be taught : Dumam, Dänam and Dayā."'! GROWTH OF THE LITERATURE OF DIXA The importance of Dūna grew with the rise of non-Ksatriya dynasties, and the increasing opulence of devout S'udras, to whom the way of yāga was not open. Even otherwise, the equilibrium in a society in which the paramount duties of spiritual leadership and education rested on a small section of the people, which was bound to render its services without demanding remuneration, while economic and political influence as well as affluence went to the other sections, necessitated liberality being inculcated as a religious duty, when the beneficiaries would be those of this Cited by the Viramitrodaya, Dänaprakas'a, fol. 9 as from Kanvasakha, Rangaramanuja explains thus: Danta bhavata, danan kurula, dupam kuruta iti, p. 267 ed. Anandas'rama, 1911. The same passage is cited by Madarapradipa, fol. 9 As from Satapatha. brahmana (sic).

·INTRODUCTION 69 dedicated class. Expediency as much as faith must have strengthened the trend to magnify the virtue of charity, especially towards the class devoted to learning and spirituality. The idea that the gods are pleased when gifts are made leads to the further idea that particular types of gifts, given in particular ways are specially acceptable to particular divinties. Similarly, the old idea that an unseen good of an enduring character that survives the bodily dissolution of the doer, and adheres to him as a beneficial influence in other lives, gives place to the idea that some kinds of gifts, made in certain places and on certain occasions, lead the donor after death to particular heavens. While the summum bonum of the intellectual continues to be the conquest of karma and rebirth, to men of ordinary mould, life in a paradise, (one of the many heavens or loka of Paurānic Hinduism) has a more direct and effective appeal. Puranic literature worked out in detail the connection between gifts and such paradisaical lives, and stressed the ritualistic and magical accompaniments of donation. Systematisation, classification and analogy were allowed frec play in the evolution of an extensive dina-dhurma, which strayed more and more from the Vedic belief in Frage, homa and istii piirta, and established concrete relations hetween certain types of ornate gifts and their reactions on the fortunes of the donors both in this life and after death. The possibilities of claboration are exploited by the Purānas and the Lpa-puränas as well as by Tantric works. Simple charity, inspired by compassion and universal benevolence, which was huld out by Buddhism as an ethical means of release from the bondage of samsara (re-incarnation) was unable to hold its own against the attractions of ornate däna held out in Purāņic literature. Though the smrtis forbade gifts made for ostentation, yet to kings of new dynasties, often of dubious varia, the performance of the more expensive gifts, like that of the great yagas, had a powerful attraction. The pageantry of splendid gifts, claiming to be made in accordance with sastras, had great valuc to new dynasts. The voice of the philosopher and the passionate denunciations of the followers of Bhakti-märga are 1 $. Mundaka Upanisad. I, ii, 10: "Considering ista-pürta as the best, these fools nothing higher, and thoy re-enter the world having enjoyed their reward In paradise.

·70 THE DANA KANDA powerless against the elaborated Dana-dharma, which is elucidated in digests and special treatises of growing bulk. Its Imposing Size The literature of Dana even in its surviving form is of imposing extent. A great part of the Anusasanaparva of the Mahabharata (chs. 57-99) is devoted to it, while topics connected with dana are dealt with in other parvas. Among the mahapuranas, the following deal with the subject: Agnipurana (chs. 209-213); Bhavisya, IV, 150 ff.; Brahma, 109 (specially on annadana); Brahma-vaivarta, Prakrti-khanda, 27; Garuda, 51 ; Kurma, Uttarardha, 26; Linga, Uttarardha, 28, mahadanas; Matsya, chs. 81-91, 205-206, 274-289 ; Norada, Purvardha, 19 and 31, and Uttarārdha, 41-42; Pudma, Ādi., 57, Bhūmi., 39-40, 94, Brahma., 24, Srsti., 45, and 75, Uttara., 27, 28, and 33; Skanda, I, 2, III, 2. 34, VII, 1, 5 and 208 ; Varuha, 99-111. There are considerations of Utsarga and Pratistha in the Agni, (38-106) Bhavisya, II, Garuda, 45-48, Narada, I, 13, Paạma, (Uttara, 122, 127, and 28, Srsti, 54-56), Sira, 11. The above references, which are taken from Mr. Kane's History of Dharmasastra, I, 1930, pp. 159-167, refer only to printed Puranas. Among these, Laksmidhara cites only the following major Puranas: Padma, Brahma, Bhavisya, Mutsya, Varaha and Skanda. He also quotes the Vayu-purana and the Markandeya-purana, besides the following Upa-puranas: Adityapurana (unprinted), Kalika-purana, Devipurana, Nandipuran. (known only from quotations mostly having their source in the Dana-Kalpataru itself), Narasimhapurina and Vumanapuruna. In many cases the texts of the printed works do not give the passages quoted, thereby raising a presumption of their authenticity in their present form.' A similar deduction about the omitted Puranas is barred by Laksmidhara's declaration that he avoided repetition wherever possible. One of the subsidiary uses of the publication of the Krtya-Kalpatans will be the help it will render in the preparation of pure texts of the Puranas. This is so with the editions of Devipurana printed at Calcutta and Bombay and the Bombay editions of Brahnapurana.

·INTRODICTION 71 POST-KALI'ATARI LITERATURE OF DĀNA There is no reason to believe that Lakşmidhara had any predecessors in the treatment of dāna in a special treatise. The more considerable works on Düna-dharma written after his time seem to be based ultimately on his treatise. The Bhupālapaddhati, which is cited by Candes vara in Dānaratnākara several times, is probably 3 section of the work named Bhūpālasamuccaya, quoted by him in the artraruthukaru (p. 205) under that name, or as Bhupilu krtye-sumuccaya (pp. 278, 313, 496), and it may be a lost work of Bhojir Bhüpāla, who is named in the same work (p. 58). The Dunasigara, the first considerable treatise on dana after the huiputaru, was written in 1168 A.D. It is stated, by Raghunandana with great approximation to probability, as really composed by Aniruddha, his purohita, and the author of Pitrdayiti and flarulati. The very full treatment of prayoga-mantras, arranged for each vedic sākhā separately, which is the notable improvement on the Dänakalpataru made by the Dinasagara, is obviously the contribution of a vaidika like Aniruddha. It may be noted that Ballāla Sena takes pride in the introductory verses prefixed to the Dänasāgara in describing himself as the disciple of Aniruddha. (Inf. p. 338, sl. 4; Votrürerira Gospatir narapaterasyūniruddho guruh). Nearly a hundred years later, Hemādri contributed to his Caturvargacintamani, an claborate section on Dāna (Dana-Kanda). It is the largest existing treatise on the subject. How thoroughly it absorbed, even to the extent of the appropriation of verbal explanations and comments of the Dänakalpataru will be seen from my footnotes in which such obligations are noticed. Candesvara's Dinaratnakaru is a much shorter work, and it must have been composed after his Krtyaratnükara to which a reference is made in the pratijai, and probably after the Vyavahāra, S'uddhi, Vivada and Grhastha Ratnakaras, if the concluding verse of the Danaratnakara, in which they are named, is authentic (p. 548). He must have composed it before the Krtyacintamani, Dānavākyävali, and the Răjanitiratnākara, the other works composed by him. It may be taken that the Dänaratnākara was composed before 1300 A.D., i.e., a generation later than Hemādri's immense digest, to which Candesvara's work contains no reference. The ·72 THE DĀNA KĀNDA in > > close proximity in age between the two compilers might explain the omission. Even more directly than Hemādri, Caņdes'vara builds his book around the core of Lakşmidhara's treatise on dāna. As against 22 chapters of Dänakalpataru, the Değixaratnākara has 29. Candes vara draws upon Bhūpāla and even more on Ballāla Sena, to supplement his borrowings from Lakşmidhara. He cites some more Purāņas than his original, ris. Agni, Ādi, Kirma, Garuda, Näradiya, Brahmända, Vişnu, Linga, Simba, and Sliva. He also quotes Pancarátra and Darsuna works. The additions he has made are obviously of passages which must have been available to Lakşmīdhara who had rejected them. doctrine and statement, he adds little to the Dinakalpataru, in spite of his parade of wider reading. Candesvara's cousin Rāmadatta wrote in the first quarter of the 14th century a Dänapaddhati, dealing with the 16 mahudānas. In Mithila the subject continued to attract writers, and Dr. Jayaswal's "Catalogue of Smrti MSS. in Mithila mentions several works like Dänaväkyāvali of Vidyāpati Thakur (c. 1425 A.D.) and a work of the same name by his patron Queen Dhiramati. I work named Dānārnava was also composed by command of this queen. The Mahadānanirnaya of the renowned Maithila-smirtu Vācas- Misra exists in a manuscript in Nepal bearing a date equal to A.D. 1511, and the book itself must have been composed forty or fifty years atleast earlier. (Kane, I, p. 405), In the Baroda Oriental Institute there exists a treatise on dāna named Aghabädava or Danastira (MS. No. 7129 C) which claims to be the work of Visvesvara Bhatta, the real author of Madnapārijāta, compiled under the patronage of Madanapala, whose date is placed by Mr. Kane (1, p. 389) between 1360 and 1390 A.D. The colophon is in places almost identical with verses in Madanapārijāta, and about the authenticity of its being a composition of Visvesvara Bhatta there can be no doubt. The reputation of its author will justify a closer examination of this hitherto unrecognised work of Visvesvara Bhatta.' "My attention was drawn to this work four years ago by Dr. V. Raghavan of the Catalogus Catalagorunu department of the University of Madras. The colophon of Aghabadava which he has supplied me leaves no doubt of the identity of the author of this treatise on Dana and the famous author of the Subodhini and the Madana-parijata. Mr. Kane who had apparently not seen the manu. script, naturally records the authorship of the Aghabadave and the Subodhini 15 of two different persons (ob. cit. n. 7421 ·IXTkon CTIOX 73 The great digestValurinn.pridipu has a section devoted to Dimni, named Dinvitekod-dyolu which should have been composed, according to Mr. Kane (op. cit. p. 393) between 1425-1450 3.1 in examination of its contents shows that, like other digests on diin, it has fully exploited the Däna- Kalputuru, adding to it additional citations from Purāṇas etc., which Laksmadhara had discarded. It mentions the Kalpataru by name two or three times, but its obligations to the earlier work are clear even without a formal citation. It runs in a transcript made from it VIS. in the Inandāsrama at Poona, to 1500 quarto pages.' Among previous works mentioned by name are the works of Bhupali, the Kulputurn, the Rutnikara, the Dāna-stīgar (to which many of its prurogas may be traced), the Däna-viveka (which is also cited by Hemädri) and the opinion of Cintamanikira. The last name is intriguing. Vācaspati Misra's works have names ending with "cintamani." If it is Väcaspati who is alluded to under this designation, the citation will run against the dates of Madanasimha (A.D. 1425-1450) and of Vācaspati (c. 1450 A.D.) now accepted. The only work of this great Maithila en Diind, which is known is thc Mahidīna-nirnaya, and why its author should he called Cintamanikära" will still remain to be explained. We know of no other writer prior to Madanasimha to whom this designation would apply. The Wudunrulna-pradipu on Dina illustrates the way in which a digest grows like an ice-ball. It contains nothing new on the theory of Dime, which might add to what we find in the Kulputuru. Its prugogas are not better or fuller or clearer than those of Dinasigurt. But, on such matters as the erection of kundas er pavilions etc., it dilates and quotes extensively from works on S'ilpasisire, like Västusastru, Visvambhara-Vlāstu- Sustru (p. 178), Alayadipika (p. 264), (p. 185), Vis'vukarınīya (p. 220) and Varthasamhita ie, the Brhatsamhită of Varāhamihira (p. 173). It quotes works on astrology for proper moments for gifts, like the Jyotis-süstra (p. 108), Jyotir-Parásara, (p. 111), and Siddhanta-sekhara (p. 189), Brahma-yāmala (p. 231), Utpala-purimala (p. 241), and Siddhanta-samhită (p. 263). Works on Saiva and Vaişpaya Agama like Slivadharmottara (p. 114), Midgama (p. 190), S'äradātilaka (p. 198), Kāmikāgama Now in the Adyar Library, Madres.

·74 THE DĀNA KĀNDA (p. 199), Prathamāgana (p. 212), Pinguliguma (p. 213), Klilottara (p. 212), Svayambhuvcīgamu (p. 217), Lalitu-vijaya (p. 645) and Pāñcarātra (p. 753) are freely cited. The way in which these works are brought in shows the growing artificiality of the two catment of Dāna, the magical rites with which the old simple donative offerings were gradually smothered, and the atmosphere of mystery with which the giving of gifts began to be shrouded. By the end of the fifteenth century A.D. this transformation was complete. The contribution of the sixteenth and carly screnteenth centuries to Dina lore consists in the systematisation of the doctrine and ritual, the application of Mimums: rules, of which the new writers, like Lakşmidhara and the old blusyakiras were masters, and attempts to separate the more ornate dinus from the less. The emulation to excel older writers in comprehensiveness also is in evidence in writers like Mitra Mistra, the author of the biggest extant digest, the Virımitrodiru. There is a tendency to hark back to older authorities like the hulputuru and the Pārijāta, in preference to the intervening writers. Smaller compendia (like Divākara's Dinacandriki, c. 1675 A. 1), are popular.' When ambitious princes wish to commemorate their achievements by splendid coronations and curmonial gifts, conforming to the rules laid down for Alltidants, special heirophants like the celebrated Gāgā Bhatta or Visvas vara Bhatta are engaged, as he was for the coronation and allied ceremonies of S'ivāji (1. D. 1676). Greater importance is attached than before to gifts at sacred tirthas, and on special occasions. Pirta gains precedence over ista, and gifts to individuals become not more important than dedications for public purposes, which suit better the changing spirit of the times. Scholars no more concern themselves with elaborating the rules for gifts which were becoming obsolete. The special trcatises on 1 The Danacandrikt contains details of an astonishingly large numler of gifts. Its author Divakara was the daulitru of Ramakrspa Bhajja, father of Kame. läkara Bhațţa. Mr. Kane fixes his literary activity between 1620 and 1670 A,D. Among writers or works cited by him are the Kalpataru (p. 39). Vijdanes'vara (p. 97), Smrtyarthasara of Sridhara (p. 101). Hemadri (pp. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 14, 18. 23, 39, 46, 47, 50, 54, 55, 69, 82, 83, 84 and 97). Takkur (Vidyapati, Madnratuit, pp. 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 36, 50), Maharpava (p. 96). Karnavipakasaru (p. 67). Alayūku (p. 14, 29), Prayogaratna (p. 36), Dinaviveka (p. 31) and Saf.trimisan. mata (p. 97). Neither Canges vara's work on Dana, nor Mitramis'ra's is referred to.

·I.XTRODICTION 75 Dina of the carly seventeenth century,' which reflected the love of comprehension and vast erudition of the last of the distinguished wibundha-kiirus like Vitra Visra, Bhatta Nīlakantha and his cousin kamalâkara. become works of reference permanently occupying the upper shelves of libraries. The newer writers even on Dinu, like Govindananda concern themselves only with the dinas which have uses in the life of the average man. The legal aspects of gifts are more studied than their ritualistic and mystic aspacts. Dinu comes to occupy a minor place in the popular manuals of daily duties (ihnika)." Its study partakes more the character of an antiquarian exercise than the cultivation of a subject of vivid and widespread interest. Its academic lise is in its furnishing the background for the donative inscriptions, which virtually monopolise the extant epigraphic material. INVLYSIS OR DANA-DHARMA We may now proceed to state briefly the relevant teachings of Dunst.dharma as set forth in Laksmidhara's primary work, and as developed by his major successors. THE PRAISE OF DANA Lakşmidhara, after indicating the scope and subject-matter of his hook in the vişaya-nirdesah or pratijna (pp. 1-2) proceeds to discuss the the nature of Dana. Writers who followed him have usually begun with an eulogy of gifts, in which they show its importance (e.g. Danaprakása, fol. 8-), Candesvara (p. 3) simply cites Manu's injunctions (I, 86, and IV, 227) to practise Dāna as the chief virtue of Kaliyuga, in suitable charitable works (pürta) and sacrifices (Ista). . Nilakantha's Dananayakha has been printed. He departs from the practice of older writers in separating atsargu (the old parta) and pratistha, which partially covered the ground of pürta, from Dana, and devotes special sections to each of the threc, "The Dana-kamalakara of Kämaläkara is on the same model, is even larger and is unprinted. I have used a transcript made, under my supervision for the Adyar Library. The Dana-prakasa of Mitra Mis'ra, the last of a line of illustrious treatises, is also unprinted, and I have used a transcript made by me for the Adyar Library, The South Indian smärtas like Härita Venkatācārya, the author of Smrtiratnakara and Vaidyanaths Diksita, the author of Smrtimuktüphala, do not concern themselves much with Dina, except so far as it comes within ahnika, t'raddha, prayasccitta, and asauca, Kings had Hemādri, ·76 THE DĀNA KANDA The duty is enjoined briefly on p. 10. Few of the later writers who cite Vedic praises of gifts refer to the famous dānastutis, possibly from regarding them as related to dakșiņa rather than dāna. The Viramitrodaya cites (following the Madana-pradipa) a long passage from the Mahabharata (fol. 13-14) on famous royal donors. The important duty of gifts is shown by imprecations against those who say: "Do not give” when one is about to make a gift, or perform a sacrifice (p. 24). As there is no special merit in merely discharging an ordinary duty, taking credit for a gift is sinful. Accordingly, following Manu (IV, 237), the advertisement of a gift is condemned as likely to weaken its beneficial effects (p. 24). On the same ground, gifts have to be given without solicitation (p. 4). Reciprocal gifts are not gifts : they are sinful (p. 4). The destiny of wealth is to be acquired righteously and developed and distributed in gifts to deserving persons (p. 4). NATURE OF DĀNA (DĀNASVARUPAM) A real gift (dharma.dāna) is made without expectation of a return, it is given to one who is indicated as a proper recipient by the sāstras (nudite pâtre), and it is given freely and with devotion (p. 5). Donations made out of fear, cupidity, love, shame, and pleasurable impulse, are miscalled Duna (p. 6). The six elements of a gift are the donor, the donee. a devout frame of mind in both, the object to be given, time and place. The old idea that a gift entails a reduction of the merit (punya) of the recipient, and must be balanced by (1) the possession of adequate acquired spirituality and merit and (2)" by penance, is behind the rules defining the high qualities which the perfect donee and donor should have. One who suffers from diseases due to bad karma in previous births (pipa-rogi) is not a person from whom one can safely take a gift; nor one who follows a bad life or calling; nor one who is afflicted with misfortune (p. 6). A gift wrongly made might not only fail to attain its invisible good effect (adrsta-phala) but have either no effect or lead to an evil recoil on the donor (p. 7). Gifts are of four classes : of permanent good effect, of daily benefit, of affection, of expediency (p. 8). Gifts may be made with or without ·INTRODUCTION 77 the sacred fire. Certain articles constitute the best, some of the middling and others bad gifts. To donate what has been unlawfully acquired is bound to result only in evil (p. 9). What is given or promised can not be taken back (p. 11). Give respectfully, and receive a gift with honor (p. 12). The decadence of our age is shown by donees coming voluntarily for gifts (p. 13). A devout spirit corrects errors in gift-ritual (p. 14). All gifts must be made by pouring water (p. 14). To give is the test of the good householder (p. 15). Give secretly (p. 15); it is the best way. DEFINITION OF GIFT Laksmıdhara omits a definition of Dana, contenting himself with a general indication. As it enters into litigation as well as dharmo, later writers have explored its scope. The Mimamsa definition of a gift is that it begins with the relinquishment of ownership by the giver and ends with the acquisition of ownership by the recipient. Under this definition, acceptance, pratigraha, is necessary for completing a gift. A mere offer to give might fail to find a response in a willingness to accept. Thus, in a formal gift, the offer is made to a person, as in the gift of a kanya, the offer is permitted by the donee saying, Give (dadesza), the gift is then made in the form prescribed, and completed by the pouring of water. The invisible effect (apiirta, adrsta) is started by the offer, but the obligation lies on the donor to complete the gift, if he should get the beneficial mvisible effect. In the case of a gift dedicated to an absent person, who is the mentally elected donee, if the donor pours water on water, his ownership is terminated, and he can not recall the gift ; but, till it is taken over by the intended donee, the latter does not acquire the disability (spiritual) of receiving a gift (na dosabhak). To get the full effect, the donor must protect the gift till it is taken over by the donee. On this principle, dina is distinguished from yaga and homa, as in the latter there is no acceptance of the offering or libation by the deity intended as recipient. In this view, a pratistha or dedication or a purta He should do so, as the sacrificer bas to see that the oilering meant for the fire is not released till it falls into the fire : अग्न्युरेशस्यक पुरोडाशावाविव ।

·78 THE DANA KANDA or a gift for a public purpose of a tank, garden etc. will not rightly come under dānia. And as a gift has to be made, with proper forms, and with a dakşiņā (guerdon), free teaching can be called vidya-dana only by analogy (guna-dana), as the teacher does not give a fee to the pupil before imparting instruction to him free. Nor will the gift of a son in adoption, and gifts of affection (kāma-dana) be real dana. Nīlakantha, who begins with this discussion, would not dismiss the gifts, excepting the dharma-dana, as not in the category, by applying the fiction (as in the fiction of purchasing soma for a sacrifice, when it is really provided by the sacrificer to the person supposed to sell it to the sacrificer) of conformity. But, he excludes from his treatment of dana dedications for public purposes. Lakşmidhara, though a Mimām saka, discards the question definition, contents himself with an indication of the rough constituents of diina, following Devala, and treats as dāna whatever conforms to the prescribed requirements as regards the qualities of giver and recipient, the objects of the gifts, and due conformity to prescribed procedure. Utsaraga (dedication) comes within the scope of his treatment of duina, and his position approximates dina to homa and yāga, and brings it into line with ancient usage. This is in conformity with what Govindānanda states as the feature commonly associated with dāna, viz. relinquishment which aims at the creation of ownership in the person contemplated (Uddes'yagatasviimittajanakust. yāgo dānam)? But as mere relinquishment leading to the generation of ownership in another of the object relinquished may bring a sale within the definition, qualifying words have to be used to restrict the use of däna to correct cases of gifts, as laid down in the sāstras. Accordingly Govindananda modifies the rold definition by additional clauses thus: "Dina is the relinquishment of ownership in an object, in ways laid down by the sāstras, following the giving and acceptance of the object in the manner laid down by the s'āstras.' Under this definition Dana-Ariya-kaumudi, p. 124 : वेदबोधितत्यागस्य यागो दानं होमो वा इति त्रितयान्यतरनियमात सर्वसत्त्वसम्प्रदानक- कूपवाग्याधुत्सर्गस्य । *Ibid., p. 3. Tbid., p. 2. शास्त्रोकसंप्रदानस्वीकारसंपादकः शास्त्रोकप्रकारो द्रव्यत्यागो दानमिति वैधदानलक्षणमायतम् ॥ + ·INTRODUCTION 79 failure to conform to the procedure laid down will invalidate the claim of a transfer to be deemed a gift (dāna). Thus, according to the Dinaratnīkura, a dana can not be made after the donor has taken his food.' If this condition is not complied with, a dünu will be no dūnu, as it will not conform to ways laid down by the s'āstras. The mental attitude is important to determine whether a transfer is a dana or not. Devala, cited by Lakşmidhara, insists on the donor not expecting a return (anavekşya prayojanam) for the gift as essential. Thus, wedding and birthday presents which are nowadays given, in the confidence that similar presents will be received from the recipients by the donor later on in his turn, will violate this condition of dāna, which of course bars a sale, open or disguised, from inclusion in the category. A spiritual return (adrsta prayojanam) is not, however, barred as an expectation which would invalidate the gift : for, what is to be avoided is the expectation of some advantage or benefit from the person who receives the gift, and not what ariscs from the act of donation in accordance with the sāstras. PRATIGRAHA It has been pointed out that while yāga, homa and dāna have, as pointed out by Sabara-svāmin (IV, 2, 28), a common element in offering', involving relinquishment of ownership, only in ding is the thing actually taken away by the recipient. In yagu and home this is wanting in a literal sense, though it is presumed that what is offered to a deity or the fire is accepted and taken over, when the ceremony is properly done, as in the merc verbal surrendership of ownership to the deity in ylīga. following prescribed rites, and the thing offered in homa is thrown into a prescribed receptacle, such as water or the fire." The formal taking over is prutigraha, which, in the case of a human donec is not to be automatically presumed. The pratigraha, or taking over, entails both a mental attitude as well as 'p. 7. अष्टमश्रुते दानं भुक्त्वा दानं न दृश्यते । पुनरागमनं नास्ति तस्य दानमनर्थकम् ॥ भोजनानन्तरं दानं कचिन दृश्यते । पुनरतिफलद्वारागमनं पुन नास्ति । अत एव तदनर्थक फलशून्यत्वादित्यर्थः ॥ * Sabara-bhagya, Tra. G. Jha, II, 1934, p. 785.

·80 THE DĀNA KÄNDA 1 as physical acts. The former 'consists, as pointed out by Medhātithi (Alun, IV, 5), in the donee's faith that by his accepting the thing given the donor will obtain some spiritual merit (panya) or invisible benefit (adrstam). The latter comprise the recitation by the donee of certain prescribed muntrus' (such as devasya tviī, and the taking over of the object given away in the manner prescribed ; e.g. a cow by the tail, an elephant by the trunk, a horse by its mane, a dāsi by touching her head etc. Want of formal pratigrahu, in any way, makes a gift incomplete, viewed dana. Almsgiving, casual presents to relations, tips to servants, will not be dāna. General poor feeding will not be dina, though usually alluded to by analogy as annadunu. A versc of the Agnipurīna is quoted by Govindānanda for instance, which extols the limitless reach of a dānu by describing how, after mentally deciding upon a recipient of a gift, the giver can complete the gift, by pouring water (as a mark of renunciation of ownership) on the ground; but it is explained away by pointing out that if by any chance the intended donec does not get possession of the thing, the danc has not fructified, by being left incomplete. The verse is cited in a slightly different form by Nīlakantha, so as to convey the same sense of incompleteness, only so far as the donee is concerned : “If a donor, after determining mentally the person to whom the gift is made, pours water on water, then he obtains the fruit of the action, while the intended) donee does not acquire the sin of acceptancc. A third condition of a correct pratigrahu is that in the formula with which the donation is made the name of thre particular deity to whom the object donated is sacred must be mentioned. The recital of the deity's name corresponds to the indication of the name of the ri and chanders in the formula preceding the repetition of a Vedic mantra. When, specific results, besides the unseen benefit (adrstu-phula), are indicated in sāstras for any gifts validly made, the specification of such । नैव ग्रणमात्र प्रतिग्रहः । अदृष्टबुद्धया दीयमानं मन्त्रपूर्व गृहत: 'प्रतिग्रहो' भवति । न च भैक्षे 'देवस्य त्वादि' मन्त्रोच्चारणमस्ति । न च प्रत्यादिना दानग्रहणे ॥ (ed. Jha, I, p. 329) % This is repeared and axplained away in a lengthy note by Vinamitrodaja also, I, fol. 35-38. See also Danakriyakaumudi, p. 3. 3 Danancyükha, p. 2. !

·INTRODUCTION 81 ains is an ingredient of the formula of donation. Other details of the actual ceremony of dāna are laid down and are to be regarded as essential to validity of a gift ; e.g., the presentation of a daksini to the donec, seating the donee so as to make him face west, the donor facing east, except for kanyādāna, for which the donce is seated facing east. The dravyadevatas are named, following a purāna (e.g., Vişnudharınottara) in the later works on dāna like Danamayukhu (pp. 11, 13). Dänakriya-kaumudi (pp. 5-7).' Dana is a religious act. It has to be done with scrupulous regard to the procedure prescribed, not only for all dānas, but the procedure indicated for individual dānas. The donor is assisted by a purohitır, learned in the procedure, and will not therefore ordinarily go wrong. The recipient has an obligation not less onerous, and in fact more onerous. Fault in procedure will, from the standpoint of the giver only make him lose the expected benefit. But a defect in procedure will be serious to the donec (pratigrahi), since every dāna carries with it a load of demerit, which will be intensified by errors in procedure, such as the omission of the correct mantras, or use of wrong mantras, or omission of some formulæ. Such results may be calamitous to the donec." This is why Manusmrti (IV, 187) contains this warning: "Without a correct knowledge of the rules prescribed by the sacred law for the acceptance of gifts, a wise man should not accept anything, even if he is pining (at the time) with hunger." * The recipient of a gift must firstly possess the learning and spirituality, when will enable him to get over the bad effects of the acceptance of a dāna, and secondly, he must perform the penances (priyscitta) enjoined for the acceptance of gifts generally and specifically. This why, according to Manu (IV, 191) "an ignorant person should be afraid of accepting any presents; for by reason of (even) a very small (gift, which he accepts), he, as a fool, sinks into hell, as a cow sinks into a Manu indicates the evils which will follow acceptance of particular gifts, without either the capacity to merit them and See also Viramitrodaya, fol, 154-155. % He may become a Brahmaraksas. न द्रव्याणामविज्ञाय विधि धर्म्य प्रतिग्रहे। प्रामः प्रतिग्रहं कुर्यादवसीदनापि क्षुधा ।। तस्मादविद्वान् बिभियाधस्मात्तस्मात्प्रतिग्रहात् । स्वल्पकेनाप्यविद्वान् हि पङ्के गौरिव सीदति ॥ morass."

·82 THE DĀNA KANDA get over their bad influences, or through errors in procedure, thus: “Gold and food destroy his longevity, land and a cow his body, a horse his eye, a garment his skin, clarified butter his energy, seasamum seed his offspring." IV, 189). The risk is so great that Yājñavalkya utters this warning (1, 213) : " He who though fully competent to accept (pratigraha-samarthopi) does not accept a dana attains the several worlds which are attained by those who are charitable and attain by their gifts." Reluctance to accept (pratigrahe samkucita hasta) is one of the qualities of the person who is a fit donee, according to l'asistha (VI, 25, cited on p. 27, infra.) Sītā describes Rāma as a donor and as one who will not receive gifts." LAKŞMĪDHARA ON DĀNA PROCEDURE The importance of the ritual in dina is responsible for the careful description of prayoga in post-h'alpataru works on gifts. Lakşmīdhara gives the special ritual for some of the greater gifts, along with the names of the mantras to be recited at the time, but the general rules are assumed as within the knowledge of his readers, or atleast the purohits, who will guide them, when they put the teachings of his work into effect. Some of the later works have chapters on paribhuşii (definitions), corresponding to a general clauses section in relation to gifts (e.g. Madanaratna, p. 136 ff.) and (Viramitrodaya, p. 130 ff.) in which such matters as the measurement of objects to be donated etc. are treated of. The general attitude of Lakşmīdhara is that his work is adaressed to kings and laymen, who will requisition the services of men learned in the details of ritual when necessary, and to Vaidilers to whom detailed instruction will be unnecessary. In many cases, he merely mentions the short name of the riks to be used. (e.g. Pavamānam, p. 283, Ratrisiktam, p. 283 etc.). In Appendix C, an attempt is made to identify the Vedic mantras to which Lakşmidhara has referred in this way. (pp. 354-358). हिरण्यमायुर्रमं च भूर्गौश्चाप्योषतस्तनुम् । 399747962 arti aufener tot: " प्रतिप्रहसमर्थोऽपि नाऽऽदत्ते यः प्रतिग्रहम् । ये लोका दानशीलानां स तानासोति पुष्कलान् । दद्यासप्रतिगृह्णीयात् . CHF921: (Ramayana, V, 33, 25). . $ ·INTRODUCTION 83 DAKȘIŅĀ One of the conditions of a valid dulu is the presentation of a duksine to the recipient, over and above the article given away. This is in accordance with the old Vedic ritual. Its omission will invalidate a dönt and make it productive of neither good nor evil. A yajru without duksini and devotion (sraddha) is of the worst kind (toimusam) according to the Bhagavadgitā (XVII, 11-13). The dakşın is specified for various gifts. It must be in gold, except when gold itself is the gift, when the daksina must be in silver. (Diinakriyakaumudi, p. 11; Madnapradipa, p. 154). In many cases the exact dakşiņā is specified. Where such specific indication is wanting, the dakṣiṇā should bear a proportion to the value of the object given. According to the Dänecandrikii, (p. 3) quoting Vyasa, this should be one-tenth of the value of the object presented, where no proportion is specified for a dinu, but it is recommended that it should one-third of the value of the thing given away. In the gift of idols (pratimadinu) Diväkara mcntions a third or a fourth of the value of the thing presented as a suitable duksinā (ib. p. 68). Ten per cent of the value is the proportion indicated in Madrapradība (p. 156) on the authority of the Skandu-purina, for gifts for which there is no tixed dukşinii. To give a dukşiņu lower in value than that proper for the gift or sacrifice will be to run serious risks. According to Manu (XI, 40) ? " the organs (of sense and action), honour, (bliss in heaven, longevity, fame, offspring, and cattle are destroyed by a ruña at which too small dakşiņas are offered." Accordingly, Manu advises persons of small means to control their desire to perform meritorius acts, which entail the payment अफलाकांक्षिभिर्यज्ञो विधिदृष्टो य इज्यते । यष्टव्यमेवेति पुनः समाधाय स सात्त्विकः ॥ अभिसंधाय तु फलं दम्भार्थमपि चैव यः। इज्यते भरतश्रेष्ठ तं यज्ञं विद्धि राक्षसम् ॥ विधिहीनमसृष्टानं मन्त्रहीनमदक्षिणम् । श्रद्धाविरहितं यज्ञं तामसं परिचक्षते ॥ इन्द्रियाणि मशः खर्गमायुः कीर्ति प्रजाः पशून् । इन्त्यल्पदक्षिणो यः तस्मानाइल्पधनो यजेत् ॥

·84 THE DANI KAN!! of dakșiņā. (XI, 39)'.lccordingly estimating the value of a gift, and in cases in which a gift is measurable by weight, cubic content or area to measure them properly. is a duty cast on the donor in order that there might be no error in dimension or valuation. Hence, later digests like Maddunurdin (p), 154 ff) and Virmitrodaya (p. 130 ft.) have sections called "puribhușcă” (conventions) dealing with measurements of land (hhiimingin), of things (crazyamīnamn) etc. The Kulput17!!! omits such indications of the amount to be given and has no paribhuisã section in its Dänakānda, consistently with its design of all such things to priests learned in Priyogi. 1 OTHER DETAILS OF DAX. K111.11 For cach specific diny there are certain specific inaintris to be recited by the donor and the dance respectively, and certain formulæ to be uttered in making the gift and in accepting it. The later digests detail these. The 1941 trues recited by the donor generally rclate to the spiritual quality of the article given away, or are addressed to it as apostrophised. The mantris to be recited by the doncc are usually the Sucitrum beginning with the words " Derusya tri suvituh pruzstve' s'einarbihublyam påsyo hustubhym, prutigrinumi," Taittiriya Samlilit, 11, 1), , f), ctc.) and the Kiimustuti (beginning with the words : " liv idam kusma udut," TB., 2, 2, 5, 5 etc., after which he should repcat the name of the object received and its tutelary duity: Dunc. kriyız-kuumudi, p. 15). The donor and the dance an: to sit facing uch other, the donor facing cast, wxcept in kunyidin bilt of is virgin) when the donce sits facing cast, and they are te sit on kusu grass. They must both have bathed, performed sandhysi, and acumunu (sipping water thrice with muntrus), Xeither should wear wet clothes (Viramitroduya, p. 150, citing Apastambi); ind both should wear paritra on their right ring fingers, and wear uttariyu (the second cloth). The hands should be held between the knces (antarjinukaruh), and the gift should be grasped by the 1 i guerra Fata waumt fortfart: नस्वल्पदक्षिण यजेतेह कथंचन ।।

·INTRODUCTION 85 right hand. The dakṣiriī must be placed in the centre of the right palm of the donee. Water should be poured through kus'a (kus odakam) on the recipient's palm. The formula of giving should mention the name of the person to whom the gift is made, his father's name, his grandfather's name and gotra, the object given, and purpose of the gift, and the words of donation, viz. tubhyam aham sampradate must be followed (except, in the case of kanyādana) by the words na mama. A gift should not be made or received wearing yellow or coloured clothes, according to a verse of Bodhāyana quoted by Mitra Misra (op. cit. p. 150). Ordinarily a duna must not be made at night, such gifts as utkrānti-dīna and gifts during eclipses being obvious exceptions. Other exceptions to the rule are marriages (in areas in which they are celebrated at night), the birth of a child, and the occurrence of kațaka and makara-samkramana. During the asauca (impurity) of either party a dāna is not permissible but in many cases a bath taken immediately before the ceremony purifies immediately (sadyas-saucam). Those occupied in sacrifices, and vratas as well as kings are to be regarded as free of impurity, arising from birth or death. (Dānakriyākaumudi, p. 25).' CLASSIFICATIONS OF GIFTS There are many formal classifications of gifts according to form, purpose, parties, time, place, circumstance, object given away, ritual followed, and ethical nature. The divisions are useful in 'bringing out the elements of true and simulative or false gifts. Lakşmīdhara gives some of the classifications for the purpose of bringing out the relevant features of a true dāna (pp. 5-11). The causative factors of gifts (adhisthänäni) of a dīna are six, according to Devala (p. 5), viz., dharma, artha, küma, vrida (shame), harşa (joy) and bhaya (fear), and each may 'राज्ञां च सूतकं नास्ति व्रतिनां न च सत्रिणाम् । दीक्षितानाच सर्वेषां यस्य चेच्छन्ति ब्राह्मणाः ॥ ऋत्विजां दीक्षितानां च यज्ञियं कर्मकुर्वताम् । सत्रि-व्रति-ब्रह्मचारि-दातृब्रह्मविदां तथा ॥ दाने विबाहे यज्ञे च सझामे देशविलवे । आपद्यपि हि कष्टायां सयः शौचं विधीयते ।।

·86 THE DÄNA KANDA inspire a gift. Of these the first alone is a true dana. An old Vaidika classification is fourfold: dhruvam, dijasrikam, kāmyam and naimittikam (p. 7). Manu (IV, 226) divides gifts into two classes, viz., aistika, what is given in a yajña, and partika,what is given outside the sacrificial enclosurc (redi), p. 10. The famous classification of danas into sättvika (morally good), rajasa inspired by feeling) and tāmasa (black), which is made by the Bhagavadgitti (XVII, 20-22) is reproduced (p. 11) for the purpose of showing that the true gift should not be tainted by self-interest or association with wrong persons, places or moments. The essential features of a real dina, its irrevocability (pp. 11-12) its reverential release, (pp. 12-13), its unsolicited fulfilment, its backing of intense devotion (sruddha), which is even more important to its efficacy than mantru and home (p. 14), its commencement and end in benedictory mantras (svasttivācya, p. 15) are all implicit in the classifications and are explained by Lakşmīdhara by suitable citations. FIT OBJECTS OF DANA Lakşmidhara's discussion of what is fit to be donated and what is not does not deal with particular things so much as classes of things. According to the old belief, which is reflected in the Vedas, many things which are included in major and minor gifts taint the recipient more or less serionsly and are therefore either discouraged as gifts or condemned. There is apparent contradiction even in the most ancient literature on the suitability and the unsuitability of the same object for a gift or daksiņıă. Thus in the higvedu (X, 107) the gift of horses is lauded; while in the Taittiriya Samhita (11, 2, 6, 3) it is included in the general condemnation of accepting animals with two rows of teeth. On the other hand the Gautama-Dharmasitra (XIX, 16) says: "Gold, a cow, a dress, a horse, land, tila, clarified butter and cooked food are gifts which destroy sin.' The Viramitrodaya cites an unidentified passage from the Veda (srutili) to the effect that an elephant should not be accepted as a gift. (Na hastinam pratigrhniyat ... iti srutih, p. 99), though "A measure of himselt ho obtains who accepts an animal with teeth in both jaws, whether horse or man; ho who has accepted an animal with teeth in both jaws should offor on twolve potsherds to Vais'vånara“ (Keith's tro. p. 151).

·INTRODUCTION 87 1 it devotes a great deal of space to the laudation of gifts of elephants, like other books on Dāna. In fact, there is hardly any object which is commended as bringing spiritual merit and advantage even in this life to the donor, which is not, at the same time, held out as sinful of acceptance. Divākara (Danacandrikā, p. 96) cities a s'loka which condemns the acceptance of gifts of sesamum seed, cows, elephants, horses, buffaloes, skins, idols, a cow at the point of giving birth to a calf (ubhayamukhi), these are the seven gifts of terrible portent in acceptance. The last of these is praised as one of the most efficacious gifts in all works on Dāna, and yet, the Dānaratnākara (p. 45) cites a sloka? from the Adityapurāna which states that the fool (miīdho) who accepts a ubhaytomukhi is bound by a thousand fetters of Varuņa (Varuna-pisa) each of which will take a century to loosen. Caņdes vara himself devotes a section to the praise of this gift (pp. 303-308) which cites the Matsyapurāņa to show that the donor of this cow will live in heaven as for as many yugas as there hairs on the body of the cow (p. 305). The whole of this section is borrowed' by Candes vara from the Dānakalpataru, infra, pp. 165-176. On p. 45 of Dīnaratnākara, Caņdesvara quotes the Agni and Brahma purānas to show that grave post-mortuary calamities befall one who accepts the following as gifts : elephants, horses, chariots, the beds and seats of dead men, the skin of the black antelope (krsnajina), a cow at the point of delivery, etc. are asked to undergo the sacramental rites of birth, naming ete., anew. Such persons 3 । तिलधेनुर्गजोवाजीमाहिषाजिनमूर्तयः । मुरभिस्सूयमाना च घोराः सप्तप्रतिग्रहाः ॥ इति निषेधात् । ' किं करिष्यत्यसौ मूढो गृहन्नुभयतोमुखीम् । सहस्तं वारुणपाशात्पुरधारासिसम्मताः ॥ तस्य वर्षशतेपूर्णे पाशः एकः प्रमुच्यते। एतामवस्थामामोति गृनुभयतोमुखीम् ॥ * आमेयपुराणे- हस्त्यश्वरथयानानि मृतशय्यासनानि च । कृष्णाजिनं च गृहाति अनापत्यु द्विजोत्तमाः ॥

·88 THE DĀNA KANDA Lakşmīdhara omits both the mention and the explanation of such contradiction, though he must have been aware of them. The explanation is found in the sentence cited from the Visnudharmottara-puräna in Dānaratnapradipa (p. 99) that all acceptance of gifts destroys brāhmanic lustre ! A gift has to be looked at from two standpoints. From the point of view of the giver, the rarer or more valuable the gift, the greater the advantage to him, if the gift is accepted; while, from the standpoint of the donee, it carries a correspondingly heavy load of sin, that only his acquired punya (spiritual merit), tapas (pious austerity) and virtue springing from conduct and learning can overcome, the aid of appropriate penances. In the theory of Dāna the monopoly of pratigraha conferred on the Brāhmaṇa was a source of danger rather than an enviable privilege. The underlying principles of Dina will explain the great importance attached in all discussions of Gifts to what may or may not be given away properly (deyūdeya) and the qualities of the eligible donor and donee (datrpratigrhit-laksanum). FIT CLASSES OF GIFTS Lakşmidhara repeats the old teaching that one should not starve his family in a desire to be charitable. It is allowable to give away only what is left over after the needs of the donor and his family are provided for. He is a fool who starves his kith and kin and gives to strangers (p. 16). A man is not permitted to give away his all (sarvasvam), nor can he give away what is not his own. What is already promised away is not one's own, and so cannot form a new gift. Can a wife or son be gifted away ? Laksmidhara cites Yājñavalkya (II, 175) who lays down that " without detriment ततोऽभयमुखी लोभात् सशैलां मेदिनी द्विजः । गृहन् पापपरो नित्यं कूटसाक्षी च कापटी ॥ मयकृदधमो लोके स प्रेतो जायते नरः । 1 ब्रह्मपुराणे- गृहीतानां तु तस्यां तु पुनस्संस्कारमहति । प्रतिप्रहेण विप्राणां ब्रह्मतेजो विनश्यति ।।

·INTRODUCTION 89 to one's property everything may be given away except wife and son.” According to Daksa (p. 17) a wife and her separate property (dārāsca taddhanam) can not form gifts. He cites (p. 18) the verses of Kātyāyana (ed. Kane, v. 638-639) which gives the right to sell or gift away wives and sons only in times of adversity, and which forbids the transactions when they are unwilling. The Vyavahāramayükha denies ownership in wife and son, while the Mitākṣarā (II, 174) asserts it but rejects the right to give them away.' Lakşmīdhara's position seems to underline their unwillingness as a cause of the ineligibility of wives and sons for gifts (p. 18). The question of giving away a son arises in Adoption. Lakşmīdhara relies on Vasiştha (XV, 1-5), who holds that the parents have the right to give away, sell or abandon their sons, but forbids the adoption (giving and receiving) of an only son, and the gift of a son in adoption) except with the husband's permission. Among things which can not be gifts are used articles (p. 18), the proceeds of the sale of the Veda (p. 19) and the wages of prostitution (p. 19). The gift of gold, silver and copper to ascetics, cooked food to householders, curds to vīnaprasthas (anchorites) and work to beggars is forbidden (p. 20). Certain things should not be given for common use by several donees, e.g. cows, a house, a woman, and a bed (p. 21). A gift which results from a contract (prasna-piirvam) is condemned (p. 23). Advertisement destroys the merit of a gift (p. 24). Wealth from a vicious person is unfit for a gift (asad-dravya-dānam asvargyam, p. 22). WHO CAN BE GIVEN A DĀNA The determination of suitable receptacle (patrc) for a dāna is the heaviest responsibility laid on a donor, as a gift to an unsuitable person will not merely cancel the value of the gift but recoil on both giver and donee. The capacity of a gift to pull down a recipient makes the possession of adequate merit by a doncc all the more important. The learned and virtuous Brāhmana will have the capacity. The primacy (sarvasya Kane's ed. of Vyavalumanayikhu, 1926, p. 370. 12 ·90 THE DĀNA KĀNDA prabhavaḥ, in the words of Yājñavalkya, I, 198-200)' of the Brālımaņa is due to his creation by the Creator for the protection of the Veda, the satisfaction of gods and ancestors, and the conservation and protection of Dharma. By mere erudition, or austere life fitness to receive a gift can not arise in a Brāhmana unless these are combined with purity of life (p. 30). Devotion to Vedic study, pure birth, chastity, serenity, fear of sin, devotion to the Fire, addiction to religious vows, love of cows, repulsion to killing animals and unwillingness to accept gifts, these are the qualities which make the ideal Brāhmaṇa recipient (p. 27). He will be one who does not eat the food of the Sūdra (S'adrun. 11am yasya na udare, p. 28). Poverty and hunger are additional attributes of the ideal donec (p. 29). The genuine Brāhmaṇa is an embodiment of all virtues and sacred learning (p. 30). Even among Brāhmaṇas, who are eligible for gifts, there are degrees of merit and grades. A famous description of eight grades of Brāhmaṇas, arranged in the ascending order of merit (pp. 30-31) is given by Lakşmīdhara, and is copied in later digests (c.g. Dānaratnākara, p. 51). The eight grades are mitra (the Brālmaņa whose only qualification is his caste), Brakmanı (who, to merit the name, must have learning and character) srotriya (who has studied atleast one Veda with its adjuncts and is devoted to the six karınas and yogas), anticinc (who besides being pure of heart and maintaining the six fires, has mastered the meaning of the Vedas), bhriina (who has the additional merit of performing yajñas daily and subsisting by eating what remains of the offerings), rșikalpa (who is master of himself as well as worldly and Vedic wisdom besides) şi (who, besides, lives a celibate and has acquired the power to bless or curse with effect), and muni (who has, in addition, gained control over his cmotions and activities, and has become indifferent equally to gold and dross). Similarly, the digests beginning with the Kulputuru (p. 38) cite as authority तपस्तप्त्वासजमा ब्राह्मणान्वेदगुप्तये । तृप्त्यर्थ पितृदेवानां धर्मसंरक्षणाय च ॥ सर्वस्य प्रभवो विप्राः श्रुताध्ययनशालिनः । तेभ्यः क्रियापराः श्रेष्ठास्तेभ्योऽप्यध्यात्मवित्तमाः॥ न विद्यया केवलया तपसा वापि पात्रता । यन्न समिमे चोमे तद्धि पानं प्रकीर्तितम ॥

·INTRODUCTION 91 Manu's enumeration of the nine kinds of snătakas, to whom both food and dakṣiṇā should be given everywhere, while for those who are not of the nine classes, though Brāhmaṇas, the gift of cooked food outside the sacrificial enclosure (bahirvedi) is alone permissible (XI, 1-3). The nine types thus commended are the Brāhmaṇa who desires help in order to make a sacramental marriage (sāntanika), he who needs support for performing a ylīga (yaksyamāna), he who is on his travels, (adhvaga), he who has given away his all (sārva-vedasa) as a gift in a väga, he who solicits help on behalf of teacher, father or mother, and he who is afflicted with disease (upatāpināḥ). It will be noticed that Manu rests eligibility on the purpose or use to which a gift will be put, rather than on the personal attributes of the donee. It must be regarded as suggesting within the classes eligible, an order of preference based on the consideration of the past record in charity and future charitable purpose of the donee. The help to the diseased Brāhmaņa is to be construed from the parallel passages of Gautama, Baudhāyaṇa and Apastamba, which are cited, (pp. 38-39) as for the purchase of medicine (ausadhārtham). To beg is permissible only on such accounts, for failure to help the teacher etc., might entail their transgression of the law (niyamavilopah) according to Āpastamba (II, X, 1-3). To solicit a gift in the interests of a preceptor (guru) is extended in a famous legend of Kālidāsa (Raghuvamsa, V, 1-25) to solicitation of wealth to pay a gurudaksina at the end of studentship. Āpastamba definitely prohibits begging for the sake of one's own sense-gratification. (Indriyaprītyarthan tu bhikṣaṇam animittain ; na tadādriyeta). WHO CAN NOT BE GIVEN A DĀNA The sacramental nature of Dina restricts its recipients to the first varna. Among the persons so eligible, the merit of a gift rises in magnitude from unit to a thousand as it is given to a Brāhmaṇa who is an A-brāhmaṇa, a Brāhmana-bruva, a learned Brāhmana and one who is master of the Vedas (p. 33). The six classes of Brähmanas, who are A-brahmanas are (p. 34), those who are respectively in the King's service, in trade, engaged in helping many persons to sacrifice (hah14-y'rījaka), village mendicancy, ·92 THE DĀNA KANDA and village and town service, as well as Brāhmaṇas who do not perform their daily rites. The Brāhmana-bruva is defined, (p. 47) as one who having undergone the sacramental rites yet is devoid of Vedic knowledge and attachment to religious mows (vrata-vihina). Brāhmaṇas who follow tainting occupations, such as cow-keeping, trading, artisanship, domestic service and lending money for interest, are to be excluded from gifts (Manu, VIII, 102 ff., cited on, p. 35). Dancers and singers (though Brāhmaṇas) are excluded by Visnu-sinrti, XCIII, 14, (p. 40). To make gifts to Brāhmaṇas devoid of Vedic learning is described by Vasiştha as pouring an offering on ashes (p. 42). The eligible Brāhmaṇa, who gives away the gift he has received to persons of ill-fame or misuses the gift should not (again) be given a dana (p. 43). Those who teach (the Vedas) to Sūdras (vrsalidhyapakāḥ, p. 44) the sinful Brāhmaṇa, who delights to injure living beings but conceals his wickedness like a cat (baidala. kavrati) or the shortsighted one who is vicious and selfish like a crane (baka-vrttal) are also unfit to be donees, (p. 46) along with him who marries a vrișali, p. 48, (vrsalipatil). The last interdiction is not aimed at one who has married a S'üdra wife (as such marriages are forbidden in Kaliyuga) but against the five kinds of vrşaļīs described in the anonymous quotation in Mitākşari and the Vīramitrodaya-cyarahāraprakisa (ed. Jīvānandanda, p. 73.)' DONEES ELIGIBLE WITHOUT QUESTION There are certain classes of persons to whom preference is recommended on the principle of charity beginning at home, provided they are otherwise eligible: a neighbour (sannikrsta or ūsannah), relatives, and descendants (p. +2). To overlook them in favour of distant cligibles is sinful. The performance of sainskāras to orphan boys of Brāhmaṇa varna is lauded as excelling all gifts (p. 37). To give to father, mother, brothers, sons, one's wife and daughters is meritorious. Lakşmidhara adds the explanation that what is commended is a gift peculiarly the मिताक्षरायां स्मृतिः- चण्डाली बन्धकी वेश्या रजस्था याच कन्यका । कढा या च सगोत्रेण वृषल्यः पञ्चकीर्तिताः॥

·INTRODUCTION 93 own of the persons who are donees (prātisvikam) like the gift of learning to sons or strīdhana to daughters (p. 40). The purohita is commended as a fit recipient by Visnu-sinsti (XCIII, 5). Lakşmidhara adds the comment that purohitas and others (ādayah) become fit (pātrāni) even if they have no other qualfications (anyagunarahito api) by the mere fact of their being purohitas etc., (p. 39). How this rule was acted upon in a liberal way is evidenced by the inscriptions of the Gāhadvāla dynasty, most of which are concerned with grants recording gifts made to the royal purohita Jägusarman and his son Paharājas'arman.' The feeble (dina), the blind (andha) and the miserable (krpana) are recommended for gifts by preference by Samvarta (p. 40). That the rule is restricted, as regards vaidha-dāna, i.e. gifts in accordance with rules, only to Brāhmaṇas having these qualities, may be inferred by the citation of the Mahābhārata (p. 48) rule that the blind, the lame, the deaf, the dumb, and those afflicted by disease are to be maintained by the king, but they are not to be given gifts involving pratigraha (formal acceptance). GIFTS TO WOMEN The prohibition of sacrifices by a woman, in her own right, (Manusmrti, V, 155) involves, apart from her subordination or "perpetual tutelage," the disability to make dānas, which involve the recitation of mantras. Näradasınti, (p. 56 f.n.) definitely denies to women the right to make a gift. The presents made to a wife by father, mother, brethren at any time, and out of affection by the husband after marriage, and presents made by others at the wedding or grhapravesa, which are the six sources of strīdhana according to Manusmrti (IX, 194) : do not come . See the summary of the Kamauli plates etc., in the Catalogue of Archaeological exhibits in the Lucknow Muscu177, 1915, passim and Epigraphia Indica , XXVI, (1941), p. 69. नाधिकारो भवेत् स्त्रीणां दानविक्रयकर्मसु । यावत्सजीवमाना स्यात्तावद्भोगस्य सा प्रभुः ॥ 'अध्यग्न्यध्यावाहनिक दतं च प्रीतिकर्मणि । भ्रातृमातृपितृप्राप्तं षड्डिधं स्त्रीधनं स्मृतम् ॥

·94 THE DĀNA KANDA within the strict meaning of dāna, and can not be held to establish a woman's right to pratigraha. The only authority, in works on Dāna, conceding the right to women (married) to receive a dāna is found in a verse of Vişnudharmottara 'laying down that "a dāna to a woman should be given into the husband's palm, and in no other way." But as the procedure will not conform to sāstra, the dāna should be regarded as gauna. ELIGIBILITY OF A NON-BRĀHMANA TO RECEIVE A DĀNA The question is raised in verses attributed to Bịhaspati and Yama, cited in the Kalpataru, and in all subsequent digests. The verse of Yama says: “If the merit of a gift to a S'ūdra is equal to a unit (samagunan), then the merit of a dina to a Vaisya is threefold (that to the Sūdra), of that to a Kşatriya six-fold and to a Brāhmaṇa ten-fold." The estimate of Bșhaspati' is slightly different : "If the merit of a dana to a Sudra is one, it is twice that in a gift to a Vaisya, thrice in a gift to a Ksatriya, and sixfold in one to a Brāhmaṇa ; while in a gift to a S'rotriya it is a thousand-fold, twice that in a gift to a preceptor (actīrya), a hundred-thousand-fold in a gift to one who knows his soul, (ätmajñe) and infinite in the case of a dana to one who tends the sacred fire (agnihotrin)." The implication of these verses is that a dána to a S'üdra is of very low merit relatively to that to other castes, and that men of every caste may receive a dana, But, the test of a proper dāna is its being made with proper religi. ous rites, such as the recital by the recipient of the sävitra and käinastuti. This the S'üdra atleast cannot do. Further, in the definition of the duties of the four varnas, while din is common to all, pratigraha is only for the Brāhmaṇa. Lakşmidhara adds no comment, as perhaps he deemed it unnecessary in regard to a position :well-known to all sisthas. It has made later writers, Cited in Madanaratna, Danapradipa, p. 80: स्त्रीणां दानं प्रदातव्यं भर्तृहस्तेषु नान्यथा । प्रोक्त सञ्जाहणं ह्येतत् गुप्तं भर्तुः प्रयच्छतः ॥ प्रथमबृहस्पति वाक्ये वर्णापेक्षया उत्कर्षः । द्वितीयवाक्ये प्रामाणापेक्षया ।।. एतत्र उत्कृष्टशद्रादिविषयम् ॥

·INTRODUCTION 95 ܬܕܕ however, suggest interpretations of the verses as they seem to run counter to s'astra. Candes vara gives this explanation of the two verses of Brhaspati : " The first verse of Brhaspati gives the effect according to caste, and the second according to the grades of Brāhmanas" (p. 62). He explains the rule of Yama as related only to the best among Sudras and others.”' Hemadri (Danakhanda, p. 31) adds this comment on these and connected verses: "In these, certain (-brāhmana, brahmana-bruva and other unfit recipients even are treated as recipients, but it is only in relation to gifts, which are not accompanied by the recitation of mantras, which must be repeated in danas like those of cows etc."! The Danapradipa · adds this comment to the citations from Brhaspati (p. 53) : "The ascription of the right to recieve (gifts) to Sūdras and the like should be understood to relate only to the gifts of food and the pledge of safety and the like. So according to the Visnudharmottara : 'The gift of food must be made at all times and to every one by one who looks for Dharma, and in the gift of food the search for even an iota of eligibility to accept must not be made'; and the words of Gautama 'to others a cooked food; and the words of Samvarta and others that ' by the fulfilment of the gift of a pledge of security (abhayapradana) one attains all that he wishes for.?»3 The Danamayıkha (p. 5), explains away the verses of Brhaspati thus: “Thus, the ascription of eligibility to accept gifts (patrata) to S'udras and others, is in regard to (only) food and clothing; for, in (gifts) of food and clothes, it is never the practice to enquire into the eligibility for the reception of a gitt (of the persons to whom food and raiment are to be given); for, it is laid down in the Visnudharmottara that eligibility „for food comes from hunger and for clothes from nakedness. Gifts to those who have no real eligibility for a gift must be 1 एतेषु केषांचिद्राह्मणब्राह्मणब्रुवादीनामपात्राणामपि पात्रत्वनिरूपणं मन्त्रवद्वादिदान- व्यतिरिक्तदानविषयम् ॥ अत्र शदादीनां पात्रत्वनिरूपणमन्नाभयादिदाने बोद्धव्यम् ॥ "अनाने न कर्तव्यं पात्रावेक्षणमण्वपि । अमं सर्वत्र दातव्यं धर्मकामेन वै द्विज ॥" इति विष्णुधर्मोत्तरवचनात् । “ कृताक्षमितरेभ्य" इति गौतमस्मरणात्, “कृतमभयप्रदानेन सर्वान्कामान् वामुयात् " इति सम्वर्तादिवचनात् ॥

·96 THE DĀNA KĀNDA made without mantras. The comment of Mitra Misra on the point in the manuscript is not clear (p. 58, Dānaprakāsa). Abhayādāna will apply to all classes of recipients. Govindananda excludes it from Dăna proper on the ground that it involves only the removal of fear and no handing over. (Dinakriyākaumudi, p. 3)." ANNADĀNA scope of Both the gift of food and the grant of asylum (abhuyu, lit. freedom from fear) are treated by Lakşmidhara as within the Dāna. He devotes separate sections to them. (inf. pp. 246-249 and pp. 252-254). While, following ancient authorities and the Dāna principle of proper pratigraha, the gift of food to Brāhmaṇas is praised, (p. 247) annadīna is justified on the more general ground of its being a source of life, annáttu prajananam nrnam). Even the gods desire food, says the Nandipurānıı (devä hi annaktīmkşina), p. 248). Accordingly, it is wise to offer food to gods generally and particularly to one's favourite deity (istadevatā). The heaven of Prajāpati is attained by one who gives food even to insects, birds, dogs and outcastes (candāļa). Candesvara developes the merit of annadiina further (pp. 404-416) and points out the punya following the gift of provisions like ghee, oil, honey, salt, cooking vessels and firewood for cooking, as corollaries (p. 416). Hemadri (p. 900) stresses the competence of all persons to get gifts of food (na tasya pătravidhih). He cites the Mahābhiirata (p. 893) to show that the gift of food to the Südra is even more meritorious than to the Brāhmaṇa (which is an exaggerated way of declaring that the Sūdra is equally entitled to food)-innurdanan hi șidre ou brāhmanebhyo visisyate--and to interdict any questioning of the hungry person as to his gotra, carana, learning, native region ctc. He developes the merit of the gift of provisions etc., from that of annadāna and of ăna (uncooked or raw) anna (food) (p. 902). 1 यत्तु बृहस्पतिना शहादीनामपि पात्रोक्तता सा अमाच्छादनपरा। अभाच्छादनेषु पात्रं नैव विचारयेत् । अनस्य दुषितं पात्रं विवस्रो वसनस्य च" इति विष्णुधर्मोके । अपात्रामाऽमन्त्रकम् दानम् ॥ अभयदानस्य तु भयनिवारणरूपत्वात् सुतरामेव तत्र दानशब्दो गौणमेव ।।

·INTRODUCTION 97 The gift of drink to the thirsty is naturally associated with the gift of food. Hemādri, like later writers, gives a section to the provision of wells, and watersheds in desert places and roads (pp. 195.906) and the gift of the pot filled with cool water (dharma-ghata), while Lakşmidhara is content to refer to them in miscellaneous gifts (prakīrṇa-dānāni) e.g., water-giving, p. 257a and 261, and water-sheds (prapă), p. 263. The raison d'etre of the jala-dhenu-dāna among the ten dhenu-dānas must have been the gift of water to the thirsty, but it was smothered by the ceremonies which made the gift of the containing vessel more important than that of the lifegiving fluid it conveyed, (see inf. pp. 156-157). While in its transformed condition jaladhenu could only be given to a Brāhmaṇa, the gift of water and the provision of sources of water open to every one, irrespective of pratigraha qualification. Were ABHAYA-DANA C6 To the same class of gifts which are unrestricted as regard recipients belongs Abhaya-dāna, the gift of security, to which Lakşmīdhara devotes a special section. One must live free from fear, if one is to live at all. Abhaya-dana is open not only to all men, but to all living beings, and in its extended scope merges into a-prānivadha and a-himsā. The gift of abhaya to even a single living creature is better than the gift of a thousand cows to each of a thousand Brāhmaṇas," (p. 252). It should be made to animals, great and small, healthy and diseased, cruel or gentle. (Nandipurīna, cited on p. 252). To refuse abhaya to a suppliant through fcar, hatred or greed is as heinous as slaying a Brahmana, (p. 253). When an animal is being tortured or killed, to look on passively, when able to save it, is an inexpiable sin. Rama's famous declaration that protection was due even to an enemy, who called for it, if one was not to incur the eternal censure of the world, is cited, (p. 253). It is greater than the formal gifts attended with ceremony and ritual, and is rightly included among major gifts by Lakşmīdhara, undeterred by pedantic considerations.' It became & fruitful cause of war in Rajputana. 13 ·98 THE DĀNA KĀNIA ĀROGYA-DĀNA The gift of health goes with that of food and drink. On this ground the provision of hospitals and the work of the physician are lauded, as within an Arogya-dīna. The practice of medicine is held to carry a taint, possibly through association with dissection of corpses in the period of training. Manu excludes the physician from srāddhas (III, 154 and 180) and his food is not fit to be eaten by a Brāhmana (IV, 212). Notwithstanding so authoritative a pronouncement, Lakşmidhara gives special praise to the foundation of hospitals (cirogyasālā), declares the physician a krtärtha (one who has fulfilled his mission in life), if he succeeds in saving, by his skill and medicines, even one sufferer from pain and death, and confidently predicts for him, his ancestors and descendants upto seven generations, a place in the heaven of Brahma. The assurance is repeated : "he who relieves even to a small extent the pain of one afflicted with disease, obtains the same heavenly bliss as those who perform yajñus and sacrifices" (p. 251). In thus ennobling service to humanity by including it among the sacred gifts, Laksmīdhara, as a pioneer, shows his practical statesmanship. His omission to strain the meaning of the term dāna, following the Alimīmsu in which he was proficient, and his refraining froin explaining away the verses of Bihaspati which allow of a-strotriya-pratigraha have to be regarded as deliberate, in view of his humane conception of charity. GIFTS TREATED OF BY LAKSMĪDHARA The bulk of the Duna-Kalpataru is devoted to a detailed description of a number of gifts, mainly on purāņic authority though occasionally smrtis are cited in support of the commenda. , tion of the merit of particular dānas. A feature of the praises of dānas which has to be correctly appreciated is this. When it is necessary to commend one dāna, it is done with rhetorical exaggeration by declaring it to be higher than all or the best reputed danas. A comparison of such superlatives will leave the impression that all gifts are equally of superlative eminence. Their relative value in the eyes of the nibandhakira and his ·INTRODUCTION 99 contemporaries has to be gathered from precedence in treatment and, to some extent, from the care bestowed in elaborating details of ritual. Judged in this way it will be found that to Lakşmidharı (and, following him to other digest writers) the so-called Mahvidūnas are pre-eminent among gifts. They take up 71 pages (pp. 49-119). Next in importance will seem the ten Meru or Parvata or Acala dānas, and the ten Dhenu dānas, which take up the next two chapters (pp. 120-176). Five chapters which follow treat of the basic elements of the big gifts, viz., the gifts of cows, bulls, skin of the black antelope (krsilājina), land (bhiūni) and gold (suvarnī). The parvatu gifts are spread over a krsnājina, and the dheiiil gifts are similarly made on the spread out krsnãjina, decorated so as to simulate a cow and its calf. In all the three major classes of dānas, gold plays the most important part, and after it silver, in decoration, in dakşiņā and in the gift proper itself. The black antelope was the holiest of animals, and the Aryan country was defined as that over which the antelope roams.' The S'atapatha-Brāhmaṇa repeatedly mentions the use of its skin in sacrifices. Two black antelope skins represent heaven and the earth. The black antelope skin represents the sacrifice.' It is the earth. Its hairs represent the metres. The body of a dead person was laid upon it as a sign of purity.' Vasişthasmrti (XXVII, 20-22) declared that he who gives as a gift the skin of the black antelope, the hoofs of which are still attached to the skin, and the navel of which is adorned with gold, after covering the skin with tilu, has given away the equivalent of the carth with its mountains and forests. The merit of a gift of gold, sesamum, honey or butter is multiplied when the article is placed on an antelopes skin and given away. The sanctity of the cow is ancient, and its gift is of supreme merit from the Vedic times. So of gold. Thus, in view of the ritual bringing all these into the Muhidances and their corollaries the dhenu and uciler gifts, it would be more logical to treat of these basic gifts before dealing with the better advertised Mahadānas etc. The precedence given to the latter must be explained on the ground of its lure to kings and princes to whom the great digests owed their existence, directly as inspirers or indirectly as the parties addressed. Manu, II, 23. Esgeling's trn. S. B. E., XII, 5, 25. etc. Ibid., XXVI, 25. XII, 215-217. ibid., XLIV, 210, "Ibid., XLI, 266. Ibid., XLIV, 200, 203. ?? 3 1 7 اب ·100 THE DĀNA KĀNDA The scope for infinite number and variety in gifts is disclosed by the permutations and combinations possible with basic elements and the construction of gifts by mimetic magic, as well as the utilisation of the principle that whatever is neededa professionally by a person is the best of all gifts to him. It is to Lakşmidhara's credit that the number he had in view is comparatively small. It could not have been due to a larger number not having been evolved in his time, as the Purāņas, which are his sources, deal with many more than he has described. It is noteworthy that Ballāla Sena, who is removed by only a generation from Lakşmidhara, takes credit for describing as many as 1374 gifts,' in his Dūnastgara, and he modestly adds that there were very many more which he could have described but did not through fear of taking up too much space. Even small books like Danamayükha and Dānacandriku deal with many more diinas than Lakşmīdhara does. The way in which dānas are multiplicd may be illustrated by instances. There are acala-dīnus, perhaps so called because the things to be given away were, when solid, heaped on the antelope skin in a pyramidal form, or perhaps because each of them was believed to be like giving the mountain Meru itself. After the ten acaludanas, ten sikhara, or peak dānas come into existence (vide the enumeration from Viskidharma cited in Däna-candriki, p. 66). The gift of cows is subdivided into (1) the gift of a thousand cow's at a time, (2) the gift of the golden cow (hemaguvi-danı, inf. p. 177), (3) Kamadhenu, (4) Ratnu-dhenu, (5) Rüpato-godinu, (6) Kapilu-duine, (7) Ubla. yatomukhi-dūna, according to the form; and according to occasion of gift or specific purpose into six classes (Danacandrikii, p. 52) viz., pāpa-apanoda, sin-destroying cow-gift, debt-destroyinggodāna, prayasccitta-go-dāna, vuitarini-go-dana (the gift of a cow to enable the soul to cross thc Vaituraại river in the spirit world), the gift of a cow at the moment of death (utkrünti-go-dina) and the gift of a cow to attain release (truksie-dhoni-dana). ANTIQUITY OF THE GREAT GIFTS It should not be inferred from what has been said of the multiplication of danas by imitation or division that the traditional infra. p. 342, 61. 53. * p. 342, si. 68.

·INTRODUCTION 101 . great gifts are of late evolution. The Tula-dāna has an ancient history, and its presence in trans-Indian regions from which it was reimported into Mughal India in Jahāngīr's reign, will show that it might be a common inheritance of Aryan peoples. In the measurement of special buildings and even in house-construction, it is an ancient custom to take the unit of measurement as the finger, the span of the hand or the length of the foot of the owner. Similarly to measure a gift by the weight of a person seems natural. Its original purpose might have been what is now a subordinate feature of Tulā.dāna, viz, giving away a person's weight to get rid of disease or evil influence. The trans-Indian custom of weighing a person with edible articles, wearing apparel etc. seems also old. For one of the mahā-dānas, viz. Kalpa-pădapa-dāna, we have early epigraphic testimony. The famous inscription of King Kharavela of Kalinga at Hathigumpha states: "In the ninth year, he (Kharavela) gives away a Kalpa-tree with leaves on, and horses, elephants, and chariots with their drivers ; he gives houses and asylums for all to make all those gifts accepted, he also feeds Brāhmaṇas lavishly."! The passage in the inscription appears to refer not only to the Kalpavrkșa-dāna, but to three other Mahadānas, viz. the Hemahasti, Hemahasthiratha, and Hirany.isva, and two dinas besides, viz. grhadana and israya dāna, not to mention annudāna. The king who made the gifts was a Jaina, and the force of custom compelling kings to make such great gifts at coronation must have been great to make a non-Brāhmanical ruler perform them. That the habit had been deeply rooted in the land, so much so that persons of foreign birth, professing the Brāhamanical faith, were obliged to conform to it, is witnessed by the Nasik inscriptions, (X, XI and XIV) of Uşavadāta (c. 120 A. D.) (Rşabladatta), son-in-law of the satrap Nāhapāņa, which describe the many magnificent charities of this prince. They are summarised in Pandit Bhagavanlāl Indrāji's History of Gujurut, 1896, pp. 25-26, and in the editions of the inscriptions in Epigruphia Indica (VIII, p. 78 ff.) Summed up, his benefactions come under the following heads of dāna : many gosahasradinas; suturnudāna; ugrahāra-pratisthā; bhinidāna ; cost of many künyadūnas; wkşa-pratistha; asraya, prutisraya, Dr. Kl. Jaraswal's trn., J. B.O.R. S., III, 1917, p. 463.

·102 THE DĀNA KÄNDA grhadīnas, mațhadāna, vāpi-ktīpa-tudugadi-dāna and setubandhadünam. Instances in later history are innumerable. The inscriptions of Asoka show that arogya, dis rayu, pratisrupu and abhaya dānas were among the emperor's benefactions. THE MAHĀDĀNIS I The classical enumeration gives these as sixteen. They are: (following the enumeration of Laksmīdhara) : (1) Tulupuruşa ; (2) Hiranyagarbhu ; (3) Bruhınīdu ; (+) Kalbupidupa; (5) Gosahasra ;(6) Kūmudhenu; (7) Hirunylis'ut; (8) Asturuthu; (9) Hemahastirathu ; (10) Paſcalingalı; (11) Pithivi; (12) Visvacakra ; (13) Kalpalutā; (1+) Suptustīgant; (15) Ratnadhenu; and (16) Mahabhita.ghat diinas. Alternative names are Dhara-dând or Hemudhari-dana for Pithiridiina, and Mahikulpalatii for Kalpalati. Of these the Hirunyagurbhu, in wbich the donor enters a golden vessel, and simulates a rebirth, has been used for the purpose of elevating the social status of kings, and make them claim equality in interdining with Brāhmaṇas. In Travancore it was in tise in every new reign, along with Tulāpuruşadana, the first signifying acquisition of divinity as well as royalty, and the second royalty. The first ends with the mantra: "Formerly I was born a man of my mother; now born of yoni assume a divine form” (p. 66, 11. 5-6). The Brahmundu, Viskuricukri, Prthivi, Septusugan, and Jahuibhitarghutu symboliso the gift of the entire universe and its contents, by the reincarnated donor. The two Kalpulată gifts symbolise the donor's capacity to grant all wishes ; when they are symbolically given, every wish has been fulfilled in the donee. So with the Kamdhen-dana. In every case no living animal or plant is used, but figures in gold, sometimes jewelled, are used. The objccts are made ornate to complete the symbolism, and they are given away to the priests, the chief priest getting a much bigger share than the others, who range in number from four to eight. The feeding of Brāhmaṇas and making presents of gold etc., to them are incidental to all the gifts. The solemnity of the gifts is enhanced by the preparation which the donor has to undergo, the collection of the materials for the ceremony, the preparation of the chief object, the invocations of deities, the addresses to the objects to ·INTRODUCTION 103 be given away or, as in Tulādina to the balance itself, and the general resemblance throughout of each dāna to the great sacrifices (sattra) of Vedic times. The spiritual advantages held are relatively small, as compared with those promised for many smaller dānas, but none of them will have the spectacular, publicity and emotional aspects of the Mahādānas, which therefore naturally appealed to kings, especially of newly founded kingdoms. To perform these sixteen great gifts lifted a new ruler to a position of social eminence among princes and in the princely order. The placing of Tulādāna first in his enumeration by Lakşmidhara, while in other lists it comes third, was perhaps deliberate. To the Gāhadvālas the first had more significance than the second and third which meant only a rise in varna, which might not be recognised easily even after Hiranyagarbha by rival kings or the sacerdotal order. Aparārka (p. 326) cites a purāna (omitted by Lakşmīdhara) to the effect that the gift of Kalpavrksc might cure sonlessness in man or woman.' EPIGRAPHIC EVIDENCE OF THE PRACTICE OF MAHĀDĀNAS Indian history has benefited more from the practice of charitable donations than the history perhaps of any other country. Though ostentation is detrimental to the spiritual effect of a dana, to say that a prince had performed the prescribed gifts was deemed only a declaration of his orthodoxy and goodness, and the claim in inscriptions was not barred, especially when made by successors in glorifying their ancestors, as in such cases it will not he self-advertisement. The prescription in smitis of a permanent record for gifts of land and the practice of making village bodies trustees in perpetuity for endowments of na religious character led to the wide-spread practice of recording all such gifts on copper-plates. The epigraphic material now available is very largely in the form of such grants or dana-patra. अस्य भविष्योत्तरे विशेषः-श्रीभगवानुवाच- 3rger: 969 RETT a Tearcast सौवर्णस्तेन दातव्यः कल्पवृक्षो गुणान्वितः ॥ तेन पुत्रवतां लोके गच्छेद्देवि न संशयः ।

·104 THE DĀNA KANDA Pilgrimage (tīrtha-yatra), vows (vrata) and gifts (dāna) replace the old yāgas in popularity with kings. It is possible that the substitution was encouraged by the tradition that Kşatriyas had been uprooted by Paras'u Rāma, and that rulers of our age were not of the second caste, and therefore not possessed of adhikara (spiritual right) to perform jāgas. The prescription of gifts as means of salvation in the Kaliyuga, as compared with tapas, yajña, and satyain in older ages, must be read with the Purānic statement that in the Kali age kings will not be Ksatriyas. Some instances may be cited. Dantidurga (c. 754 4.D.) repaired to Ujjain, where he performed the hiranya-gurbhu-dana.' A courtesan of Pattādkal gave in c. 770 A.D. : an abhayainukhi-dana. Three rulers of the Răstrakūta line are known from their inscriptions to have done the Tulīpuruşa-dána vis., Dantidurga, Indra III (c. 915 A.D.) and Govinda IV 10.918 A.D.).* In South India, the Cola emperor Rājarāja performed the Hiranya-garbha and Tulūpuruşadīna, with his queen Dantisakti in the 29th year of his reign (c. 1114 A.D.)' The gold used in this ceremony was utilised in a later donation by the queen next year.' Parāntaka I (907-953 A.D.) claims to have done many hemagarbha and tulābhāra dānas". In North India, the Candravali plate of the Gahadvāla Candradeva (1093 A.D.) as well as the Candravati plate of 1099 contain exhortations on the transitoriness of life, the eternal character of charitable donations, especially of land and the resolution of the king, to make a gift of land, after consulting those who were learned in the s'astras, and in accord with sruti and smrti. The allocution is significant as coming from an ancestor of Lakşmidhara's patron Govindacandra. After the composition of Hemādri's Dinakhanda, which became better known in South India than his original, the 1 Epigraphia Indica, XVIII. p. 348. Indian Antiquary, XI, p. 125. 3 Indian Antiquary, XI, p. 111; Epigraphia Indica, IX, p. 24: Epigraphia Indica VII, p. 30. * Madras Epigraphist's Report, 1907, No. 42. For Hirugagarbha in modern times. See Galletti, The Dutch in Malabar, p. 110. South Indian Inscriptions, VIII, 237. Ibid., II, p. 383, v. 7. Epigraphia Indica, XIV. pp. 193-209. Thirty-two villages were given as dakşına after the performance of go-sahasradana and tuladurusa-dana. Sahet-Mahet inscription of Govindacandra (1125 A.D.) mentions * hema. tuladana of Govindacandra. Bpig. Ind., XI, pp. 2011. 7 ·INTRODUCTION 105 Kalpataru, gifts are made, on the express authority of Hemādri. Thus in an inscription dated 1369 A.D., commemorating the construction of an irrigation reservoir, the following statement is made of the donor : "v. 22. Making charities in various ways in keeping with the treatise of Hemādri, he heard that the merit attaching to the gift of water was the greatest of all.” 1 A similar allusion to Hemädri is found in a Mysore inscription dated 1405 a.d. The feeding of a hundred-thousand Brāhmaṇas and the performance of the pancalāngala by Devaraya II of Vijayanagara (about 1428 A.D.) are commemorated in an inscription." Krşņadevarāya"and Acyutarāya performed tulapuruşadānās. In Orissa, Anangabhīma III (d. 1238 A.D.) performed a tulāpuruşadāna at Puri." As late as 1568 A.D., Mukunda, the last of the Gajapati dynasty, claims to have done this mahādāna.' Its revival in Mughal times by Hindu princes was due to revivalist influences. THE TEN GREAT GIFTS The term Mahādāna is usually associated only with the above sixteen gifts. But the later digests quote a sloka which is found both in Karmapurtīna (from which it is cited by both Dananayukha, p. 151, and Dānacandrikā, p. 17) which mentions ten mahādīnas (dusa-inahă dārāni). These are: gifts of gold, horses, sesame seed, elephants, slave girls, chariots, land, houses, a virgin for marrriage, and the kapila cow. The objects named show that the list is old, as it refers to things which have always been esteemed as gifts. Sesame is an essential additional ingredient of the donation in all gifts, including the sixteen great gifts etc. Some of these are dealt with by Lakşmīdhara in separate sections (e.g., suvarnadana, pp. 194-199; bhümidāna, . + ' l'orumamilla tank inscription, Epig. Irud., XIV, pp. 97ff. Epigraphia Carnatica, Tirthahalli, 12, in Vol. VIII. *). B. B.R.A.S., XII, p. 3. Epig. Imoi., VII, p. 17. Madras Epig, Rep., 1919. ins. 511, 543 and 546; 1920, para 47. The tula-dana of Acyutaraya was of pearls. He did the liranya-prthvi (suvarnakm) sahadane also, Epig. Carn., Sh.1, in Vol. VII, and Hn. 13, Vol. X. *R, D. Banerji, History of Orisse, 1930, I, p. 262. Ibid., p. 347 + ·106 THE DĀNA KÁNIA pp. 186-193; kapila-go-dāna, pp. 161-166), or are very briefly referred to in the chapter on prakirnadānāni (pp. 266-275). In this section will be found approval of tila-dana daily (tili nityam pradātavyā yathāsakti), (p. 258), grha-dina, (p. 257, 258, (260) gifts of chariots, (p. 267) and horses, (p. 257). It is noteworthy that no special mention is made of such gifts as kanycīdina, gajadāna and dāsidana. The first of these is pertinent in a general digest embracing the whole field of Dharma like the Krtya-Kalpataru to its Grhastha-kända, the second will be beyond the means of those who cannot make the 36 major gifts among which it will come incidentally, and the last (dasi-dana) would have become obsolete in its days. The provision of naivesiku (interpreted by the Mittīkşarī as the requisites of marriage, such as a virgin bride, ornaments and houses) to learned Brāhmaṇas is enjoined as a regal duty by Yājñavalkya (1, 333).' The section on dvijasthapanam (pp. 257-256) deals with this provision, but as a moral duty of the affluent, rather than as a duty of the king, as laid down by Vājñavalkya. The agrahārapatisthi, which is alluded to in Raghuvamsa (I, 44), and which is a feature of regal gifts, as recorded in inscriptions, and as claimed by Lakşmi. dhara himself as one of his achievements, has to be associated with this section. It is curious that for so important a topic fuller treatment is not accorded. OTHER TEN DĀNAS The Madanaratne cites Jătukarnya for an enumeration of ten gifts, which are recommended to be made at the moment of death (utkrāntya). These are of cows, land, tila, gold, clarificd butter, clothing, grains, molasses, silver and salt. These gifts are to be made when one is about to dic or after he is dead, for his benefit. The sixteen great gifts are to be regarded, according to a verse of the Bhavisyapurina, quoted by Hemādri (p. 20), 1 उत्क्रान्त्यादीनि दानानि दशदद्यान्मृतस्य तु । गोभूतिलहिरण्याज्यवासोधान्यगुडानि च ॥ रौप्यं लवणमित्याहुर्दशदानान्यनुकमात् । एतानि दशदामानि नराणां मृत्युजन्मनोः ॥ कुर्यादभ्युदयार्थं च प्रेतेऽपि हि परत्र च ।

·INTRODUCTION 107 as gifts par excellence (ati-dānāni). He also cites the Sāmavedopanişad for regarding the gift of cows, land and books Sarasvati or learning as three atidānas." THE ACALA AND DHENU GIFTS The Meru mountain is the centre of the Universe and is inhabited by the gods and demigods. The acala-danas are to apostrophise this holy mountain (as described on p. 125), and the various objects are to be addressed as having taken the form of this mountain (parvata-rūpena pāhi samasära-sägarāt, p. 128). In short, the Meru gift is a kind of multiplier, combining the gift of all the contents of the mountain, emblematically represented by figures of gold, and the particular articles to which mystic virtues are attached : (e.g., Tila is supposed to be sacred because born of the body of Vişnu, p. 132. The Dhenu is supposed to represent the S'akti of the Trimūrti and particularly of Lakşmi, and to carry with it the sin-destroying efficacy of the go-dana (sarvāpāhară dhenuh, p. 142). The cows are apostrophised in the mantra for the gifts under this head. (p. 144). The gifts of this class are not to be deemed as substitutes for go-ding but to exceed it in virtue, probably because of the combined virtue of the component principles. GO-DĀNA The sanctity of the cow follows from the ancient pastoral life of Aryan peoples. In the Rigveda divine honours are paid to it. It is called a goddess )R. V. VIII, 101)," and is hymned as the mother of the Rudras, the daughter of the Vasus, the sister of the Adityas and the source (näbhi) of nectar. Its sanctity महादानानि वै विद्यादतिदानानि सर्वदा । " महादानानि" वक्ष्यमाणानि षोडश तुलापुरुषादीनि, इति हेमाद्रिः । 'त्रीण्याहुरतिदानानि गावः पृथ्वी सरखती। नरकादुद्धरन्त्येव जपवापनदोहनात् ॥ माता रुद्राणां दुहिता वसूनां खसादित्यानाममृतस्य नाभिः । अनु वोचं चिकुतुषे जनाय मा गामनागमदितिं वषिष्ट । वचोविदं वाचमुदीरयन्ती विश्वामिधीभिरुपतिष्टमानाम् । देवी देवेभ्यः पर्येयुषी गामा माधुक्त मयों दभ्रचेताः ॥

·108 THE DANA KANDA 1 was communicated to pañcagavya, which is administered as the sovereign purifier. Its touch purified, and only its mouth was impure.' To defend the cow was a duty, like defending Brāhmaņas, and one who lost his life in doing so was saved by the service from the most heinous sins." The ordinary benediction is go-brāhmanebhyo subhain astu nityam' ('may all be well with cows and Brāhmaṇas '). It took precedence in such phrases, which recur in inscriptions, of even the first varna. To have a cow was to have not only a useful animal, but to have Lakşmī dwelling in the house. The dun cow (kapilā) was regarded, perhaps on account of her rarity, as even holier that the ordinary We can therefore understand the attention given by Lakşmidhara to the gift of this divine animal in various forms and circumstances; as herself, (pratyakşata), or (rupato) as kapilā, and as ubhayatomukhi (pp. 158-160, 161-166, and 166-176). To give a golden image of the cow was even more sanctifying. It combined the virtues of gold and the cow in one gift. It may be noted that in all gifts of cows, the gilding of the horns with gold and of the hoofs with silver is prescribed (hemasringim, ruīpyakhurām, p. 158). As the gift of cows alone without similar provision for stud-bulls, is incomplete economically, vrşabha-dāna is commended. The gift should be of a bull and it may be subsequently used for draught or pulling the plough (pp. 170-171). COW. GIFT OF ANTELOPE SKIN The gift of krsnājina signifies not only its intrinsic holiness but is in accord with the precept that the best of all gifts is what is likely to be useful to the recipient.' The Brāhmaṇa irr all āsramas needed it as a seat for himself, and it was required as a 1 1 Baudhayana-Gyhyasútra, II, 20: Yajñavalkya smrti, IIT, 314. * Manusmrti, V, 125 : gavaghratam mnrtpraksepana suddhyati. The impurity of the cow's mouth, to which Medhătithi alludes (gavo inedhya mukhadrie) is balanced by the purity of the hind quarters. (Manusmrti, V, 130). 3 Manusmrti, XI, 79; gavarthe sadyah pranan parityajet, muayate brahm. hatya, gopta ga-brahamanasya ca. Madanapradipa, p. 79. येन येन च भाण्डेन यस्य वृत्तिरुदाहृता । तत्तस्यैव प्रदातव्यं पुण्यकामेन धीमता ॥

·INTRODUCTION 109 base for the acala gifts. Its donation is best for one who maintains the holy fire (ahitagni, p. 186). THE GIFT OF LAND (BHUMIDANA) In historical times the gift which was most valued was that of land. Its permanence and fruitfulness gave it precedence over other gifts. As the donee, being a Brahmana would enjoy, even without express grant, immunity from taxation for it, and it would be heritable, it was much esteemed. The reckless gift of land might embarrass kings who succeeded as descendants or conquerors those who lavishly gave away lands. The resumption of lands so given away would be a natural proceeding for one who sought to economise the resources of the state. Land which passed into Brāhmaṇa hands was like fiefs in nortmain in mediaeval England. But, the ordinary rule of irrevocability, applicable to all gifts' was applied with special stringency (and strengthened by imprecations of a terrifying kind) to guard against any attempts to resume lands which had been given as dana. Land (bhr) was sacred to Vişņu (blur-vaisnavi, p. 190), and anscestors are said to shout with joy when a son is born in their line, according to Brhaspati, because they feel that there is a (potential) giver of land in charity (p. 190). For safety, the gift of land is asked to be engraved on copper plate grants, of which records would be kept in the state archives. It was the duty of the Mahasandhivigrahika (the analogue of the Nāna Fadnavis of the later Maratha empire) to compose and supervise such grants." Lakşmıdhara held this office. The section on bhamidana (pp. 186-193) omits these rules, in which he must have been expert. The reason is that the Danakanda was only a section of a digest, and the Vyavaharakanda is the proper section Yajnavalkya, 11, 176. प्रतिग्रहः प्रकाशस्स्यात् स्थावरस्य विशेषतः । देयं प्रतिश्रुतं चैव दत्वा नाऽपहरेत्पुनः ॥ Bphaspatismrti (ed. Rangaswami), pp. 61-62. Altekar, Raştrakrifas, 1934, p. 166. Mitaksará cites (I. 319-320) the following text: सन्धिविग्रहकारी तु भवेद्यस्तस्य लेखकः । स्वयं रामा समादिष्टः स लिखेद्राजशासनम् ॥ 1 ·110 THE DĀNA KANDA to deal with them. The Gāhadvālas, whom he served, delighted to give away lands, and the inscriptions of Govindacandra and his predecessors (e.g., the Basāhi plate of 1104 A.D., Ind. Antiq. XIV, pp. 100 ff, and the Rāhan plate of 1109 A.D., ib. XVIII, pp. 14 ff,) contain eulogies of bhiimidāna. The grants are carefully drawn up in legal terms and all the regalia, i.e., state's rights, which are given away with the lands are named in the grants. VIDYADĀNA From an epigraphist's point of view the chief pre-occupation of royal donors would appear to be the gift of lands, which is the ordinary subject of a copper-plate grant. Curiously, Lakşmidhara devotes less space to it than he gives to another gift, which he deals with con amore, as a scholar as well as a statesman. (pp. 200-228). Later digests virtually reproduce Lakşmidhara's section on this subject. The gift of the Veda (brahmadanam), according to Manusmrti (p. 200, IV, 223) excels all other gifts. The praise is endorsed by Yājñavalkya (1, 212). Yama widens the scope of the gift (p. 201) by making it the gift of the sustras. The citations are loosely strung by Lakşmidhara, and it may seem that the commendation of the present of transcripts of sāstraic, purānic and other works, which forms the bulk of the citation, was applicable also to the Veda. This is not the correct view. There was prejudice against the substitution of books for oral instruction in ancient India, and the "seller of the Veda 9 * About five-hundred copper plate grants are preserved in the office of the Government Epigraphist at Madras. Of these over 400 deal with land grants. See List of Inscriptions 172 the Office of the Superintendent of Epigraphy, 1941, pp. 118-136. Aparärka (p. 1114) cites the following s'loka, among others, from Caturrimsatimata prescribing penance for selling the Veda : चान्द्रायणं प्रकुर्वीत एकाहाद्वेदविक्रये। Smeticandrika (ed. Mysore) I, p. 51 states that he who has studied from books, relying thereon, and not learnt from his Guru, fails to shine in an assembly, even as women who have been impregnated by paramours; and that reliance on books is of the same category as dicing, acting, women, idleness and sleep in being an abstruction to learning : पुस्तकप्रत्ययाधीतं नाधीतं गुरुसमिधी। प्राजते न सभामध्ये जारगर्भ इस लियाः॥

·INTRODUCTION 111 (Veda-vikrayi), who is held up to reprobation, is not only the person who offends against the canon of free teaching, but against one who offends against the spirit of oral teaching by writing out the Veda and selling it. The way in which instruction is to be given is oral. This is shown by the citation from the Mahabhurata (p. 203) where the work of the teacher“ who speaks (brīyāt) the holy Veda (dharıyān brāhmīm sarasvatīm) to the pupil is lauded. The literature to be reduced to writing, so as to be given as gifts, consists of the Vidyīs and Kalas among which the Nandipurana, which Lakşmidhara quotes extensively, includes the Vedas and their angas (p. 208) but it avoids suggesting that copies of the sacred canon should be made for sale of presentation. The implication of its description (p. 213, lines 1-2) is that what is commended is gift of such knowledge orally by teacher to pupil. The section is valuable for giving a conspectus of the knowledge available at the time, and of the contents of the Purāņas, as well as the realistic description of the work of the copyist, and the glorification of his calling and of calligraphy.' KALPADĀNA The gift of kalpas, or months of Brahma (p. 230), which as enumerated number thirty in all, seems a mystic ceremony in which images of gold representing each of the kalpas were given away, after an unspecified ritual. GIFTS ACCORDING TO AUSPICIOUS MOMENTS The merit of a dana is enhanced if it is made at a tirtha or holy place like Prayāga or Kāsī, or on the banks of a sacred stream or at the confluence of rivers or on the banks of the For a fuller treatment sec my article on Vidyadina in Annamalai Commemoration Volume', 1941. pp. 406-512. द्यूतं पुस्तकशुश्रूषा नाटकासक्तिरेव च । बियस्तन्द्री च निद्रा च विद्याविघ्नकराणि च ॥ Conimenting on Valmiki's injunction (I, 5, 4) on hearing the Ramayana chanted: धर्मकामार्थसहितं श्रोतव्यमनसूयया । Govindaraja caplains : 'श्रोतव्यम् ' न तु खयं लिखितपाठेन निरीक्षितव्यम् ।

·112 THE DĀNA KĀNDA ocean. The treatment of the merit of localities is omitted in this book by Lakşmīdhara, as one of the sections of the digest is the Tirtha-kānda. But the indication of proper times, by tithi, naksațra, or māsa is relevant to dāna, and is briefly touched upon (pp. 240-249). As gifts, which should form part of special ceremonies or ordinary daily routine come up in the sections of the digest on Kūla, Sträddha, and Tirtha the perfunctory way in which the matter is dealt with here, as compared with later works on Dāna, will be intelligible. MISCELLANEOUS GIFTS A large number of minor gifts are lumped together in a chapter to which the title prakīrṇa (scattered) is given, following the usage of some of the later smrtis like those of Bphaspati and Nārada. There is a certain amount of repetition in this chapter of what is stated in previous and succeeding chapters. The lists are illustrative and not exhaustive, as Ballāla Sena was able to name nearly 1400 dinas in his Dānustgara. The Dănaratnākara and the Madnaratna, which closely follow the Kalpataru, have this section, but the former has condendsed and the latter has rearranged the matter of their original. The miscellaneous enumeration brings in about fifty more gifts. These include vital things like the gift of life, gifts to enable a person get married (naivesika), the sacred thread (vajñopavita) and ingredients for the daily firerites like clarified butter, sarpis and seating planks (isana), articles of apparel, turbans (ustīsa), fans, fly-whisks (câmaru), umbrellas (chatra), shoes, ornaments, unguents and scents («uttidana, gandha), flowers, incense, pearls, conches (sankha), pan (tämbula), oils for consumption and lighting, lamps, (dipa), uimalaka; (the Indian gooseberry), medicines, fruit and edible and medicinal roots, beds and bedsteads (sayya and sayuna), cooking and other household vessels, fuel for cooking and for warmth in i Hemādri and Madansimha expand the gifts according to appropriate moments so as to bring in gifts for all the Ave, (pancanga) features of the day, and deal with gifts for each day of the week (varadana), and each yoga and karana (Henadri. pp. 806-814). The six seasons (sadrtavah) and the two solsticos (ayana) have their gifts in Madnaratnapradipa (pp. 124-125), while the gifts et the intersection of the ayanas (samkranti) are always famous (Homddri. p. 814 f.) The inscriptions show that gifts were invariably made in connection with the moments declared as specially efficacious.

·INTRODUCTION 113 winter, grains of all kinds, condiments, cooked food (anna), milch-cows, salt, (lavana) sugar, sugarcane-juice and honey, draught oxen, horses, elephants and carriages (upānaha), musical instruments and above all the gift of sacred knowledge (brahmadana). That the list is not meant by Lakşmidhara himself to be exhaustive is seen by the omission of an article so usually give as woollen blankets (kambala), when such a thing as the domestic bucket for water (ghatīpātra) is not forgotten. Vişnusmrti (XCII, 32) is cited (p. 268) for the comprehensive statement that whatever possesses which is dear to him or covetable by others (istatamam loke) is a (suitable object of däna. а man DEFINITE RESULTS OF GIFTS In the ancient theory of dakşina and dana, an invisible but all the same potent and indestructible influence follows from them, when properly given. This vague indication was perhaps insufficient to stimulate liberality. So, specific results of a postmortuary character are attached to each of the major, and to even each of the ininor gifts. According to Hemādri, (p. 827) gifts which have an immediate effect in life are of two kinds: those which increase enjoyments (bhogada) and those which destroy illnesses (rogahara). Man is surrounded by evil influences, which will prevail against him unless countered. They may spring from the conjunctions of moments, (hence dānas for each tithi, vāra and Nuksatra), or through the adverse influence of planets, which require to be counteracted by grahas'ünti (pacificatory) rites and gifts. The Kalputaru has a special section dealing with propitiatory rites (sünti-karma). It is the thirteenth part of the great Digest, and is the progenitor of works, which deal with apprehensions due to evil influences and ways of overcoming them by propitiation (santi) like S'ānti-Kamalakara. The omission of such topics as grahasānti by gifts in the section dealing with Däna is obviously to prevent repetition. Hemadri and Mudanaratna (pp. 1147 ff.) deal with grahasanti under gifts as they apparently had no separate work dealing with propitiations of all kinds, of which gifts will form one.

·114 THE DĀNA KANDA A passage from Narasimhapurāņa (one of the upa-purāņās, often cited in the Kalpataru), is reproduced on p. 269, giving a list of twenty-one paradises (svarga) to each of which the donor of a particular gift is automatically lifted after his death. This is followed by the long citation from the S'āntiparva (ch. 240, sl. 12-38) of the Mahābhārata commemorating the glorious afterdeath destiny of some illustrious donors of the past. PROVISION OF WATER In a tropical country in which animal and vegetable life is dependant on seasonal rains and the storage of water for drink and irrigation in suitable reservoirs, or the tapping of subterranean springs by deep wells, special merit will naturally attach to the provision of such facilities for water. To a statesman the subject will appeal even more than to a mere ritualist. The supply of water naturally leads to the subject of tree-planting, both for shade and for other uses, as trees depend on water even more than animals. The two topics are usually not held to come under the strict view of Dana, as already explained, as the dedication of trees and tanks is not to be classed under a gift to a specific donee. The beneficiaries in these dedications are indeterminate. The benediction at the end calls for the satisfaction (by the act of dedication) of the gods, ancestors and men (deva pitrmanusyāḥ priyantām iti utsrjet, p. 288). Nīlakantha deals with these topics in a separate section of his digest (Utsargamayūkha.) It is a very small section, hardly deserving to be placed side by side with the other mayükhas, but purism required a separate treatment of itsarga apart from dāna, to which a mayükha is devoted. Lakşmüdhara was an expert in Mimāmsa and must have been aware of the solecism of bringing such works of public utility under dāna. His action in defying convention, in view of the practical importance of such works, and of giving additional attractions to them by classifying them under gifts of spiritual efficacy has given a lead to subsequent writers, who, with the exception of Nīlakantha, have followed his example and dealt with such dedications as gifts, finding, like Govindananda, warrant for it under the rule that an absent or invisible donee might be given a gift (even without his knowledge) ·INTRODUCTION 115 by simply pouring water on the ground, aiter mentally resolving that the gift should go to him (p. 124)' The sources of water supply are treated, as stated in a definition cited from the Kapila-pañcarātra in the Dānakriyakaumudi (p. 126) as five : the kipa or well, which may have a diameter upto fifty spans of the hand; the vāpikā, with a diameter upto 100 spans ; puskariņi, which exceeds a hundred spans, and goes upto 200; tadāga, whose width extends 800 spans; and the nadi (river) which exceeds this too." The spiritual advantage accruing to a giver is in proportion to the size of the reservoirs." To understand the descriptions, one must have knowledge of parts of India in which water is struck in wells at great depths, and the cost of even a small well is considerable. To excavate a well and line it with stone or brick, build steps to get at the water, and plant around the well groves of shade-giving or fruit-trees, and then find that the well goes dry, is not an unusual experience in North India. Such drying up is deemed providential, and as due to failure to make the dedication with proper ceremonies, and to begin the excavation at suitable astrological moments. The wells spoken of are, not those reserved for private use (though to them also the astrological and ceremonial rites will apply) but wells thrown open to the public, after making the dedication in the presence of the sacred fire (which is a witness, agni-säkşi) and worshipping the Ocean (Samudra) as the divine parent of all water (p. 278). The goddess Ambikā and the god Ganesa (Vināyaka) are to be Worshipped in effigy, at the cominencement of the ceremony of dedication, and the idols are to be left immersed in water. The ritaal includes the worship of the Fire and Varuņa, with a number of Vedic mantras (which are specified on pp. 283-284, and identified on pp. 355-357 in Appendix C). A full quota of priests is needed for the rites, who are to receive appropriate मनसा पात्रमुद्दिश्य भूमौ तोयं समुत्सृजेत् । विद्यते सागरस्यान्तो न तदानस्य विद्यते ॥ * पश्चाशद्रि भवेत् कूपः शतहस्ता तु वापिका । goare fata fragtataget तडागोऽष्टशतस्यान्तस्थो नदी च स्यात्तदूर्द्धतः । "एको च संख्यातारतम्येन गाम्भीर्यतारतम्येन च फलस्यापि तारतम्य बोद्धव्यम् ॥ !

·116 THE DĀNA KĀNDA dakşiņas. In the rithal given metal figures of aquatic animals like crocodiles (111akara) and fish (matsya) are to be immersed in the sacrificial pot, the emblem of the future reservoir. Till the ceremonies are completed, the water is declared impure mand unfit for use. (Utsargamayikha, p. 23, ed. Gujarathi Press).' An additional rite is to pour into the well water from sacred rivers, then worship the Mothers of the waters (Bhavisyapurdna, cited in Utsargamayikha, p. 8) and to imagine (with invocation) twenty named tirthas in groups of five (pañcatirtāni) as resident in the well. (Danaratnapradipa, IV, p. 297).' The dedication should be to all living beings, who should be invited by the donor to revel in the water.! DvĀRĪBANDHA A special type of work, which Lakşmidhara holds up to veneration, is the damming of a mountain spring, so as to form, from the nature of its location, a high level reservoir, which might be used for irrigation. The value of such a reservoir will be evident to those who are familiar with the Gangetic plain, in which water from the great river is so far below the level of the adjoining arable area that lifting it is difficult. The Ganges Canal starts from the Himālayas near Hardwar. The bund may be a long वापी कूपतडागेषु संस्थितं प्रथमं जलम् । अपेयं तु भवेत्सर्व तज्जलं सूतिकासमम् ॥ एवं जलं जले क्षित्वा पूजयेज्जलमातरः । 'कुरुक्षेत्रं गया गङ्गा प्रभासः पुष्कराणि च । एतानि पंचतीर्थानि तडागे निवसन्तु मे ॥ वितस्ता कौधिकी सिन्धु सरयूश्च सरस्वती । एतानि पंचतीर्थानि तडागे निवसन्तु मे ॥ दशार्णमुरलासिन्धुरेवावर्ता दृषद्वती। एतानि पंचतीर्थानि तडागे निवसन्तु मे ॥ यमुना नर्मदा रेवा चन्द्रभागा च वेदिका । एतानि पंचतीर्थानि तडागे निवसन्तु मे ॥ गोमती वाङ्मती शोणा गण्डकी सागरेस्तथा । एतानि पंचतीर्थानि तडागे निवसन्तु मे ।। 4 " सामान्यं सर्वभूतभ्यो मया दत्तमिदं जलम् । रमन्तां सर्वभूतानि मानपानावगाहनः ॥"

·INTRODUCTION 117 one. In that case, sluice-gates for the dlaining of excess water (dvāraka) have to be provided (p. 292). Flights of steps may be built, into it, and gardens and temples near the bund. The description seems to imply one of an actually existing irrigation dam. The merit of constructing such a reservoir is naturally greatest among the provision of supplies of water. * The merit (punya) which accrues from the Vedic sacrifices of the cow, man and the horse, are excelled by the merit accruing from the construction of such a dam” (p. 296). TEMPLES AND MATHAS A brief allusion to the merit of dedicating temples and mathas is made in the context of providing a large reservoir (pp. 197-199). It is expressly enjoined that such structures are not to be constructed in waterless places, nor should such reservoirs be deemed complete without adjoining shrines, whose benedictory influence will protect them (p. 299). A temple of Vighnes'a is specially valuable for such protection (p. 299). DEDICATION AND PLANTING A love of trees is natural in a tropical country subject to periods of heat and drought. Dedication of trees is of use as protecting them against wanton cutting down. Mangoes and pomegranates are recommended (p. 301) along with other fruit trees for planting. The verse of Bhuvişyapurāra stating that he who plants an asvattha, a picumanda, a nyagrodha, ten tamarind trees (tintrini), three each of kapittha, bilva, and amalaka, five mangocs and five cocoanut trees, never goes to hell is cited in other digests. To treat an (1 s'vattha as a son, perform its upan yang and marry it in due course to a smaller tree, which will twine itself with the asvatthu, was recommended for childless men. Lakşmidhara docs not pitch the service very high : अश्वत्यमेकं पिचुमन्दमेकं न्यग्रोधमेकं दशतिन्त्रिणीकम् । कपित्थविल्यामलकत्रयं च पचाननाली नरकं न याति ॥ Cited with variants hy Hemadri, p. 940. 'पपुराणे-अपुत्रस्य च पुत्रत्वं पादपा इह कुर्वते । यच्छन्ति रोपकेभ्यस्ते सत्तीर्थे तर्पणादिकम् ॥

·118 THE DĀNA KANDA planting five trees absures one of the heaven of S'iva (p. 303)! He who donates a fruit tree to Dharma (charity) reaches the mansion of Varuņa after death (p. 304). The merit of adopting the asvattha tree is extended to other trees like the pipkala, plakṣa etc. The adoption of a tree may be made, like that of a living son, with datta-homa rites in the presence of the Fire. (p. 308). The virtues of arboriculture are lauded with picturesque exaggeration in a couplet. "In merit, the provision of ten wells is equal to that of giving on vāpī, of ten vāpis is the provision of one big tank (hrada), a son brings merit equal to that of to ten large tanks, but a tree confers the same spiritual advantage as ten sons." ĀSRAYA AND PRATIS'RAYA Lakşmidhara's treatise on Däna onds with a short eulogy of the construction of cīsraya (homes of rest) for ascetics (commonly spoken of as ūsrama) and of rest-houses for travellers (pratisraya), both in the vicinity of towns and on the road-side. These are dedicated specially to the regenerate classes (dvijatayaḥ, p. 312). The choultry is to have as protection the idols of some of the gods. “Who is competent to sum up the spiritual fruit (phala) of a rest-house so dedicated ? A bald estimate will put its benefit as four, vis., comfort, kingship, fame and prosperity." CONCLUSION With the above words ending with the auspicious word sriyah," Lakşmidhara brings to an end his review of Dinadharma. He did his self-appointed task in no spirit of mechanical reproduction of ancient dicta, but used his judgment as regards what should be stressed and what slurred over, within the limits of the conventions to which he had to conform. His individuality is evident in the selection for prominent commendation of the donations or dedications which aim at reducing human suffering, pain and ignorance. The treatment of Vidydding reflects the insfght of the scholar and statesman. Indian social order was maintainable only by an equipoise of duties laid on ·INTRODUCTION 119 different social grades. Public honour and spiritual service went to a section, which was divorced from worldly ambitions and pursuits, leaving it to follow its high duty without the distractions of common desires, as well as of ordinary economic pursuits. Social esteem can reconcile a class to high service combined with life-long poverty, as it did in India almost to the threshold of our times. But, to make the members of the class maintain themselves, would be to endanger the single-minded discharge of their spiritual and educational duties. So, their endowment became a responsibility of the rest of society. Their maintenance had to be done in a way that would not run into conflict with their self-respect, or degrade them with the taint of mendicancy. Such men should not beg; they were not to ask in order to receive. That charity might prove a curse to him who receives was a truth that was visualised in the attitude to Dana, which made acceptance of a gift a moral peril, that could be faced by a donee only from a high sense of helpfulness induced by a feeling of compassion for a donor to whom a gift was the only way of escape from present or prospective ill. The aim must be to induce in the affluent classes a sense of their obligations to the distressed and the poor, to generate a feeling of reciprocal dependence in all classes of society, to instil the feeling that moral and spiritual responsibility do not begin or end with life in this world, to strengthen conviction in the grave responsibility for the upkeep of social order and the order of the universe, which lies on those to whom are given wealth and worldly power. One way of developing and enforcing the conviction, is shown in the ancient doctrine of gifts. Its enunciation, elucidation and elaboration, so as to suit the changing needs of the age, was a duty of the lawgiver and the statesman. Lakşmidhara, on whom this high duty was devolved by his erudition, birth, and office, entered into its spirit, and essayed to display the menns of grace to his patron and to future kings by the insight into Dharma, learning and literary skill which are reflected in the Dana-Kalpataru.

·NOTEB DIGESTS ANTERIOR TO THE KRTYA-KALPATARI THE composition of a digest (nibandha) imposes more strain on the skill of a smrti-exponent than the composition of an elaborate commentary (vyākhyā or bha$pa) on a smrti enjoying universal esteem. The commentator is saved the necessity for a logical presentation of his material, as he is bound to follow the arrangement of matter in his original. In a diffuse smrti like that of Manu, in which the same topic is treated of in different chapters, this will lead to either repetition, or condensation in one place of what has been explained in another, and the commentator's views, in relation to the various authorities which he cites and explains, will be scattered over different sections. digest can make its own scheme and then follow it. It is not restricted to any arrangement that is laid down in a smşti, except in regard to such well-recognised divisions as the eighteen topics of vyavīhāra, and even in treating of the latter, it can follow its own order of presentation of the topics. Yājñavalkya-sirti is not only more compact but is better arranged than other smitis, A running commentary on it will be ordinarily more logical in arrangement than a similar comment on a loosely strung smrti, like that of Parāsara or Visnu. This was probably why Vijñānesvara chose to present his digest of Dharmasistra in the form of a commentary on that code. As already pointed out, Laksmīdhara excels the authors of other digests in following a logical scheme, consistent with the Indian view of life, grouping the treatment of the several aspects of Dharmasastra on fourteen major topics, which punctuate a man's life between conception and emancipation. Lakşmidhåra was not the inventor of the digest. There were not only bhasyas, like the famous commentaries on Manu ·INTRODUCTION 121 new and Yājnavalkya by Medhātithi and Visvarūpa, but nibandhas in the field before the appearance of his work. He recognises their existence, not only by citing some of them, like the Prakasa and the Pārijāta, along with an unnamed work of Haläyudha, and the Kāmadhenu,' in explaining a passage of Kātyāyana, but he alludes vaguely to the existence of other works by the expression prabhrtayaḥ, appended to the enumeration of the authorities. He justifies the attempt to supply a nibandha by stating that it excelled previous writings of the class. In verses 12 and 13, in the proem to the Krtya-Kalpatarum he definitely names three works which his digest excelled. These are the Mahārņava, the Kamadhenu and the Mālā, for which the full name Ratnamäla is conjuctured on metrical grounds. Of these, the Mālā is a work of which we possess no knowledge besides this allusion. The Kamadhenu is a well-known work to which others besides Lakşmīdhara have paid tribute. Following the example of Lakşmīdhara, whom he deliberately imitates in his proem to his Kętya-ratnākara, Caņdesvara places only three works at the head of the class which his Ratnākara is claimed to have excelled. These are in the order of enumeration, the Kamadhenu, the Kalpatari and the Pārijāta. He cites the Maharşava, as Smrti-Maharnava-kāraḥ in the Krtyaratnikara. He also refers to Bhoja-bhipāla either as Bhūpāla or Bhoja-Bhūpāla several times." It has been noted already that though Bhoja is definitely earlier than Lakşmīdhara, the latter does not refer to him at all anywhere in his digest. Candesvara cites Halāyudha, who must be the same writer 1“यदा प्रसादे खामिना दासस्य कृते दत्तं तत्र दासधनेऽपि स्वामी प्रभुरिति प्रकाश-हलायुध-कामधेनु-पारिजातप्रभृतयः ।' (व्यवहारकल्पतरौ). Sec Note A, infra. pp. 45-56. यस्मिन्न किश्चिदपि शंसति कामधेनुः यष्टमल्पमपि कल्पतरु नेदसे। घते न गन्धमपि कधन पारिजातः तत्सर्वमेष विपिनक्ति नयप्रवीणः ।। (Krtyaratnakara, Bib. Ind., 1925, p. 6). Ibid... 695. bit., पृ.५८, १७१, १७७, २०५, २७८, ३२३, ४९६,०६३५. Infra, p. 31, notc 2. Krtyaramakare. pp. 319, 327, 333. 8 1 7 ·122 THE DĀNA KANDA referred to by Lakşmadhara. These are the pre-kalpataru writers or works alluded to or cited by Caņdes'vara. That Caņdes vara's enumeration does not follow chronology is evident from his placing the Kalpataru between the Kimadhenu and the Pārijāta, both of which are named in the Kalpa. taru. If Gopāla is the author of the Kiūmadhenu, as is argued on grounds which appear conclusive, by Mr. Kane,' he was not far removed from Lakşmidhara in point of time, as in verse 11 of his proem, the latter describes Gopāla as his friend (tad-vayasya”). We may take the Krūmadhenu as composed earlier than the Krtya-Kalpataru but in the same generation. We have the additional information in the above sloka (i.c., 11) that Gopāla composed his work in the form of vākyas: गोपालस्तद्वयस्यः स्वकृतिविरचनं वाक्यरूपेण चके। If it means merely that the work of Gopāla was in prose (väkya) it is not easy to see how it differs from the other nibandhus, unless we construe the description as implying that the work was a prose summary of Dharmas'īstra, a Dharmasangraha, which did not follow the earlier practice of being couched in verse. We have an example of this type of composition in the Smrtyurtlasīra of Strīdhara (c. 1150-1200 A.D.)', which is mostly in prose, and treats of most topics of Dharmasastrit, with the prominent exception of vyavahāra. It is noteworthy that while Lakşmidhara in his claim for supremacy for his Digest mentions only three as those which it superseded, vis., the Kämadhenu, the Mahārnava and the Mali, the presumption is justifiable that he regarded these alone as serious rivals of his own work. But, why does he not cite tiem anywhere in his book? That he did cite atleast one of them is likely, and it is the Mahirnava. The reasons for this deduction are these. Mahārnava is apparently referred to when he cites the Smrti-Mahārnava by Candesvara. Hemädri refers to Mahir nava, Smrti-mahārnava like (Candesvara) and Mahirnava. Prakäsa.* It is extremely likely that all these names refer to one Op. cit., pp. 395-296. Kanc, op. cit., p. 237. It was printed in the Anandásrama Series. ३" महार्णवप्रकाशकारो मन्यते" चतुर्वेग, III, I, 1031.

·INTRODUCTION 123 and the same work, as suggested by Mih. Kane,' and that the Prakāsa and Mahārnava are identical. The proem of Laksmīdhara alludes to a digest, which he calls the Mālā, of which we have been unable to obtain a trace. That it must have been of sufficient reputation to justify its being mentioned side by side with the Kārnadhenu and the Mahārnava is to be inferred from Lakşmīdhara's mention of it in such a context. But that so prominent a work should not have been mentioned at all by Candes vara and later writers will appear strange, unless the name Mālā conceals an allusion to some work of established reputation like the Parijäta. Kane, op. cit., p. 308.

·NOTE C MANUSCRIPTS OF THE DĀNAKĀNDA OF THE KRTYA-KALPATARU So far as known only seven manuscripts or fragments of manuscripts of this section of the Krtya-kalpaturu are now available. They have all been used, in preparing the present edition. The press copy was based on a transcript carefully made under orders of the Government of His Highness the Mahārāņa of Udaipur (Mewär) of an undated manuscript in the Palace Library at Udaipur. The original manuscript is on paper, and consists of 93 folia, each page containing on the average ten lines and forty letters to a line.' Its appearance is old, and it is apparently a transcript of a much older manuscript. Its agreement with the text adopted by Hemādri in many cases suggests that it is from an original that he used, or that both were descended from a common manuscript. The oldest dated manuscript of this section of the great Digest is one in the Library of the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal. It bears the stock number 4026, and is on palin-leaf, closely written in old Maithila characters. In appeararice it is discoloured and is in parts worm-eaten. There are 131 leaves in all, with five lines to a page. The post colophon ' gives two Peterson's " Report on the search for Sanskrit MSS. in the Bombay Circle, 1882-1883, 1883,"p. 109. *लसं ३७४ कात्तिक सुदि ५ छवि अजिनौलीग्रामे समस्तक्रियाविराजमाने महावर कुमार श्रीमद्गदाधरसिंहदेवपादानामाज्ञया श्री शुभपतिना लिखितमिदं पुस्तकमिति शके १४२६ ॥ नमो भवानीवदनारविन्दविलोकनव्यप्रविलोचनाय । अपारसंसारसमुद्रपारसन्तारसेतो भवतो (वे) भवाय ॥ कमलनयन वासुदेव विष्णो धरणिधराच्युत शंखचक्रपाणे। भवशरणमितीरयन्ति ये वै त्यज भट दूरतरेण न पापान् ।। धन्यन्तदेव लग्नं तनक्षत्रं तदेव धन्यमहः । करणस्य च सा शुद्धिः यत्र हरिः प्राय नमस्क्रियते ॥ गतलक्ष(क्ष्मणदेवीय चतस्सप्तत्यधिकशतत्रयान्दीय कार्तिकामपंचम्यां रोहिणेये ॥

·INTRODUCTION 125 dates, one in S'āka and the other in the Lakşmaņasenīya era. They are (L. S.) 374 (A.D. 1493) and (S'āka) 1426 (A.D. 1504). The two dates do not agree, as there is a discrepancy of eleven years between the two. As the L. S. date is given in words also, it has to be taken as the actual date of the transcription of this inanuscript. Rai Bahadur Monmohan Chakravarti (J. A. S. B., N. S., XI, p. 358 footnote) pointed out that the scribe S'ubhapati, who made this transcript in L. S. 374 by order of Gadādharadeva made a copy of another manuscript in L. S. 373 (Rajendralāla Mitra, Catalogue of Manuscripts from Nepal, p. 65). Gadādhara-deva was the grandson of Dhirasimha, brother of the Maithila king Bhairavendra. The Garigākrtyaviveka was composed in L. S. 376, when Rāmabhadra, son of Bhairavasimha or Bhairavendra was ruling. (J. R. A. S., N. S., xx, 554). The next in order of date of the seven manuscripts is one in the Colebrooke collection in the India Office Library. (No. 1461). It is on paper, and contains 101 leaves, closely written in Bengali characters, with ten or eleven lines to a page. The first four folia are by a different hand from the rest of the manuscript. It was copied by the S'ūdra Kavicandra in S'āka 1510 (i.e. 1588), and cuologises the Bhattacārya family. The literary activity of the great Smārta Bhattacārya, Raghunandana, is dated between 1520 and 1570 A.D. by Mr. Kane, while Monmohan Chakaravarti (J. A. S. B., N. S., xi, pp. 351-357) places him between 1510 and 1565 A.D. It is possible that this copy was made for one of his descendants, or even for him. The next manuscript of Dăna-Kalpataru in point of age is one in the Library of the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal, bearing the number 10236. It is on paper, the leaves are marked 17-24 and 1-8, with ten to cleven lines to a page. It is a fragwent and deals only with putrīpatra-niripanain. It bears the date Sanvat 1658 (1601 2.1).). I discovered in January 1939 in the Junior Bhonsle Maha. raja's Library at Nagpur a legibly written paper manuscript in Nägari script. It had lost the first two leaves, dealing with pp. 1-4 infra. On last leaf it states that it was copied by t See 313 infrat History of Dharias':7stra, I. p. 419. + ·126 THE DĀNA KANDA Govinda in Samvat X735 (i.e. 1688 A.D.). As this manuscript came to light after the book had been printed, its readings are now presented in Appendix G (pp. 383-412, infra). Pandit R. Anantakşşņa S'āstrī secured from Benares for the University Library at Lahore a manuscript of this kāņda, and drew my attention to the manuscript early in 1938.' It bears the stock No. 8162. Its readings are collected in Appendix A (pp. 315-330, infra). On the fly leaf it bears the Samvat 1778 (i.e. 1722 A.D.) The Sarasvatībhavan at Benares has five loose folia dealing with a dānaprayoga from the Krtya-Kalpataru. It presented no special readings. His letter to me is dated 15-1-1938. He had also secured a manuscript of the Tirthakanda for the Library of the Punjab University.

·NOTE D LIST OF WORKS ON DANA * An asterisk denotes that the work has been printed. Denotes that a transcript now exists in the Adyar Library A. Parts of Nibandhas dealing with Dāna * Dana-Kalpataru of Laksmīdhara (c. 1110 A.D.). Dänasägara of Ballālasena (c. 1168 A.D.) ; partially printed. Dänakhanda of Hemādri (c. 1270 A.D.) ; part of Caturvargacintamani (pr. Bibliotheca Indica, and Prabhākarī and Co., Benares). + Dänaratnākara of Candes vara (c. 1300 A.D.). ! Dänaratna or Danavivekoddyota of Madanasimha, (c. 1425 A.D.) part of Madanaratnapradipa. Danasära of Dalapati (part of Nrsimhaprasāda) c. 1500 A.D. * Dänakriyakaumudi of Govindānanda (c. 1500 A.D.), part of his Kaumudi series (Bibliotheca Indica, 1903). Dinatátve of Ragunandana (Jayaswal's Catal, 200) c. 1550 A.D. Danasaukhya of Țodarmal (c. 1580 A.D), part of Saukhya series Danakautuku of Nandapandita (c. 1600 A.D.) part of Harivansavilisa. Duna-Kamalākaru of Kamalakara Bhatta (c. 1625 A.D). Danamayikha of Bhatta Nilakantha (c. 1625 A.D.) part of the Bhagavanta-Bhaskara. Dänaprakäsa of Mitra Misra (c. 1625 A.D.), part of the Viramitroduya. Dinakaustubha of Anantadeva (c. 1650 A.D.), part of Smrtikaustuoha. Dana-hirävaliprukusa of Divākara, son of Bhāradvāja Mahadeva (c. 1685 A.D.), part of Dharmasastra-sudhānidhi.

·128 THE DANA KANDA Danaratnakara of Bhattarama (c. 1675 1.D.) part of Anupaviveka. Danaratna of Manirama Diksita (c. 1160 A.D.) part of Anupavilasa or Dharmambodhi. Dana-bhagavata of Varni-Kuberananda, protege of Rana Samgrama Singh (c. 1500 A.D.). Dana-parijata of Ananta Bhatta son of Nagcs'a Bhatta (c. 1625 A.D.) part of Parijīta series. B. Treatises on Dana Danakanda (said to be extracted from Rudra-Yamala) Danacandrika of Srinatha Acaryacudamani (c. 1500 A.D.) Calcutta Sanskrit College, II, 556, 563). Danacandrika of Gautama (B., 3. 92). Danacandrika of Jayarama (L: 2102) “ Abstract of Hemadri” (Kane). * Danacandrika of Divakara (Kale) ; pr. Bombay. Danacandrika of Nilakantha (Hiralal, 2176-2178). Danacandrika of Vrindavana (N.W., 136; N.P. ii, 26-). Danacandrikavali of S'rīdharapati (Rielhorn, 74). Danadarpana cited by Raghunandana (Oxf., 292). Danadinakara of Kamalakara (L., 180; B., 3, 90). Danadinakura of Divakara son of Dinakara (K. 180). Danadıdhiti of Nilakantha son of Bhaskara (Aufrecht, III, 54). Danadipavalı (Haraprasad, Rep. Search., 1895-1900, p. 15). Danadipavakyasamuccaya (Peterson, I, 116). Danadharma-vyakhya by Arjunamisra (Varendra Res. Socy, Rajshahi). Danadharmaprakriya of Bhavadeva Bhatta, son of Krsnadeva of Mithila (L. 1834) prior to 1600 A.D. (Mitra, Notices of USS. V, 144 ; Jayaswal, 188-189). Danapanjika of Suryasarman, composed under orders of Navaraj Simha (Peterson, V., 177; Jayswal, 187, 195). Danapanjı of Ratnakara Thakkura (summary of Danasdgara), L., 2002 ; Petrson, I, 116, III, 387). Danapaddhati of Ramadatta, cousin of Candesvara, and minister of the Karnata king Nrsimha of Mithila, c. 1350 A.D.; (Mack. 33; I. O. Cat. ii, 1714).

·INTRODUCTION 129 Danapaddhati by Gaga Bhatta (Visvesvar Bhatta), c. 1650 A.D. (Hiralal, 2183; Bikanir, 2422). Danapariksa of Sridhara Misra (Kāsmīr, 24). Dancperijata of Ksemendra (L. 2822). Danapradipa by Madhava son of Visnu (Hīralal, 2184 ; Nep. Cat. Haraprasad, 1238). Danaprayoga by Bhattoji (L. 4161). Danamanjarı by Vrajaraja (N.W. 164). Danamanohara by Sadasiva (c. 1679 A.D.) ; B, 3, 92 ; Bikanir New List, 1971. + Danavakyasamuccaya of Yogisvara (anterior to 1300 A.D.) (B, 3, 92 ; Kh., 73; Adyar, I, p. 111). Danavakyavali of Vidyapati Thakkura, composed at the instance of Queen Dhiramati wise of Nrsimhadeva of Mithila (c. 1400 A.D.) L., 1830; Bikanir, N.L., 2003; Jayaswal, 192, 194; Hiralal, 2193. It is sometimes attributed to Queen Dhiramati herself. Danavakyavali by Vires'varasunuh (i.e.) Candesvara, c. 1300 A.D.; Oudh, 516. Danaviveka cited by Hemadri and by Nilakantha; Khatma, 3. Danavyasa cited by Candesvara in Danaratnakara (1.0. Cat. Eggeling, p. 412). Danaviveka by Bhanuji Diksita son of Bhattoji Dīkşita (c. 1650. A.D.); Peterson, VI, 83; Hiralal, 2194-5. Danasagara by Kamadeva Maharaja (of Mithila ?) L., 2179. Danasura or Aghabadava of Visvesvara Bhatta (Baroda Oriental Institute, 7129), the author of Madanaparijata (c. 1380 A.D.) Danarnava composed for Queen Dhiramati (c. 1400 A.D.); Madras Orl. MSS. Lib., 3209. Danoddyota by Krsnarama (N.W., 106, 174). Wahudanapaddhati of Rupanarayana (1.0. Cat., p. 550) cited by Vacaspati Misra (c. 1450 A.D.). llahadananirnaya of Bhairavendra of Mithila (supposed to have heen composed by Vacaspati Misra; Haraprasad, Cat., 36, 122. Ulwar, Catl. 1413). Tuladanavidhi of Nārāyana Bhatta, son of Rāmesvara (c. 1550 A.D.). l'rinted by C. Subbarayudu at the Vasanta Press, Adyar, Madras, India.