De Simini Journal of Indian Philosophy

1 23

Journal of Indian Philosophy ISSN 0022-1791 J Indian PhilosDOI 10.1007/s10781-014-9249-0

Observations on the Use of Quotations inSanskrit Dharmanibandhas

Florinda De Simini

1 23

Your article is protected by copyright and all

rights are held exclusively by Springer Science

+Business Media Dordrecht. This e-offprint

is for personal use only and shall not be self-

archived in electronic repositories. If you wish

to self-archive your article, please use the

accepted manuscript version for posting on

your own website. You may further deposit

the accepted manuscript version in any

repository, provided it is only made publicly

available 12 months after official publication

or later and provided acknowledgement is

given to the original source of publication

and a link is inserted to the published article

on Springer's website. The link must be

accompanied by the following text: "The final

publication is available at link.springer.com”.

Observations on the Use of Quotations in SanskritDharmanibandhas

Florinda De Simini

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Abstract This article examines some of the strategies adopted by the authors of

Sanskrit law digests (Dharmanibandhas) in dealing with quotations. Given the

peculiar nature of the Nibandhas, which in the majority of cases are almost

exclusively made of quotations from authoritative texts (chiefly Dharmasutras,

Dharmasastras and Puran˙as), citations are here not only a method to support a

viewpoint, but constitute the very core of the text. In order to narrow the topic, the

analysis has been restricted to a sub-category of the Dharmanibandha genre, i.e. the

so called dānanibandhas, the digests specialized on the rules for gifting. Given their

chronological distribution, these texts can be considered representative of the ten-

dencies emerging in this branch of literature. The focus will lie both on the general

rules and conventions accepted by the various Nibandha authors (nibandhakāras),and on concrete examples of the different methods applied while quoting from the

same texts. Particular attention will be given to the methodological statements

detected in these works, like the incipit of Laks˙mıdhara’s Kṛtyakalpataru (first half

of the twelfth century) and that of Ballalasena’s Dānasāgara (second half of the

twelfth century).

Keywords Dharmanibandhas · Dharmasastra · Dāna · Law digests ·

Textual reuse

1 Introduction

The tendency to compose anthologies made up of quotations from various sources is

widespread in Indian cultures, and has found expression in a variety of languages

F. De Simini (&)

University of Naples “L’Orientale”, Naples, Italy

e-mail: [email protected]

123

J Indian Philos

DOI 10.1007/s10781-014-9249-0

Author's personal copy

and contexts.1 One of the categories in which this trend reaches its peak are the

textual compendia based on Dharmasastras, commonly referred to by the name

‘Dharmanibandhas’ or, simply, ‘Nibandhas’. These texts are long compositions

which collect more or less extended quotations from Dharmasutras, Dharmasastras

and Puran˙as, and arrange them in thematic units within a systematic treatise;

quotations alternate with a commentary composed by the Nibandha authors

(nibandhakāra). The commentarial portions are in many cases close to nonexistent

or limited to brief glosses, a circumstance that makes their importance secondary to

that of the quoted passages.

The production of these texts covers a time range from the Middle Ages until the

nineteenth century: the earliest Dharmanibandha that is completely extant is the

Kṛtyakalpataru of Laks˙mıdhara (twelfth century),2 while the last compendia based

on Sanskrit Dharmasastras were composed under (and also at the command of) the

British rulers.3

1 See, for instance, the collections of subhāṣitas, composed from the ninth to the tenth century onward

(Sternbach 1974, p. 4ff.) in Sanskrit, Pali, Prakrits and local languages, as well as the gnomic work of

Can˙yaka and other authors (Sternbach 1974, p. 44ff.). Other texts that often had the character of

anthologies were the ritualistic manuals (paddhati), like the late Saiva work Ātmārthapūjāpaddhati byNigamajnana II, an author of the sixteenth century (see Ganesan 2009). Another example of an anthology

in the Saiva tradition is the Śataratnasaṃgraha of Umapati Sivacarya (c. 1320), who surveys the

Saivasiddhanta scriptures on the topic of jñāna and dīkṣā (Gonda 1977, p. 213 fn. 200). Instances of

digests in non-Hindu contexts, like the Jain śrāvakācāras, have been collected by Heim (2004).2 Laks

˙mıdhara’s work can be dated with certainty thanks to the references that the author gives in the

introductory stanzas of his extensive digest (see infra fn. 6). In verses 12 and 13 of his introduction, he

mentions a few works, now lost, that his Nibandha is claimed to have surpassed: the Mahārṇava, theKāmadhenu, and the Mālā. References to other preceding digests, like the Parijāta, occur in a passage of

his Vyavahārakāṇḍa, as well as in the introduction of Can˙d˙esvara’s Kṛtyāratnākara (see Aiyangar 1941b,

pp. 121–122).

According to the arguments given by Rocher (2002, pp. 6–24), it is also possible to date to the beginning

of the twelfth century the important Dāyabhāga of Jımutavahana, whose dating has been controversial.

This is a compendium on the law of inheritance, most likely included in a larger digest which has not

survived in its entirety (Rocher 2002, p. 8).

The Nibandhas may have an antecedent in earlier works like the Ṣaṭṭriṃśanmata, the Caturviṃśanmataor the Smṛtisaṃgraha, whose purport was that of embodying the teaching of the preceding Smr

˙tis on

different topics (Kane 1968, pp. 510, 535, 537).

Also the work of Bhoja, king of Dhara (c. 1030), can be dated to an early period; but given the

fragmentary preservation of his Rājamārtaṇḍa on Dharmasastra, it is not even possible to distinguish

whether this was a commentary or a digest (Kane 1975, p. 586).3 According to the Judicial Plan that the Committee of Circuit, presided over by Warren Hastings,

prepared on August 15, 1772, the ‘Laws of the Shaster [scil. śāstra]’ had to be followed in litigations

concerning the Hindus, as well as the ‘Laws of the Koran’ in case of litigations involving Muslims. The

pertinence of Hindu and Islamic law was, however, restricted to certain spheres like inheritance, marriage

and so on. Following this, paṇḍits were appointed in the Courts until 1864, when this office was

abolished.

For the complex topic of the so-called Anglo-Hindu law, and the many cultural implications it had, the

reader is referred to the relevant contributions (like Misra 1959, Derrett 1961a, Lariviere 1989b). One

thing that has to be noted here is that the attempt at applying the Dharmasastra to the actual settlement of

disputes represented an incentive to write original works on the topic, and these were chiefly in the form

of digests. Famous examples are the digest compiled in Calcutta by eleven paṇḍits following Hastings’s

instructions, called Vivādārṇavabhañjana ‘Remover of the Ocean of Litigations’ (the text also had

different names, however; see Derrett 1961b, pp. 85–88), as well as the Vivādabhaṅgārṇava, ‘Ocean of

the Settlement of Litigations’, composed by Jagannatha Tarkapancanana at the request of William Jones,

F. De Simini

123


The nibandhakāras do not insert quotations into autonomous treatises in order to

support and elucidate their views, but conceive the cited passages as the very core of

their work. If we exclude citations, in many cases we would scarcely be left with a

‘text’ in the proper sense of the word. This extensive use of quoting was, in the field of

Dharmasastric literature, not a prerogative of the digests, since the almost contem-

porary commentaries on Dharmasastras4 also used to rely abundantly on quotations

from their authorities. The Nibandhas and the commentaries constituted, altogether, a

greater category of interpretative literature on Smr˙ti, whose emergence is considered a

turning point in the history of Sanskrit literature on Dharma.5 Although the Nibandhas

tended to assume some characteristics of the Dharmasastra commentaries, there is a

main difference between the two, i.e. that the digests did not have one mūla-text tocomment upon. This means that the digest writers, in principle, had a higher level of

freedom in the selection and arrangement of the topics—and they played this authorial

role chiefly by quoting from their authorities and interacting with them.

2 Sources

The specimens presented in the next pages are all collected from texts belonging to

a ‘subcategory’ of the Dharmanibandha genre: the digests, or sections of digests,

entirely devoted to the topic of dāna. It is possible to refer to these compendia by

the collective name dānanibandha, attested in the seventh introductory stanza of the

Dānasāgara (p. 2). These texts can be considered representative of the entire

category, since they are distributed in different regions and historical periods;

moreover, they are ascribed to some of the most renowned nibandhakāras. Their

Footnote 3 continued

who did not live long enough to translate it into English (Derrett 1961b, pp. 88–95). This burden passed to

Colebrooke (1801), whose translation was completed in 1796 and published as A digest of Hindu law oncontracts and successions (1797–1798).

The British did not only demand the composition of new works in Sanskrit, but also relied on the

authority of those that were extant at that time. Among these, particular attention was paid to the

Mitākṣarā (a commentary on the Yājñavalkyasmṛti authored by Vijnanesvara, datable between the

eleventh and twelfth century), adopted for the laws of inheritance in all of India save for Bengal, and the

Dāyabhāga of Jımutavahana, which was used in Bengal instead (Olivelle 2010, p. 53).

In this experimental system of administration, the interpretative literature was assigned great authority:

in case of conflict between a Smr˙ti and a digest or commentary, the latter prevailed over the Smr

˙ti

(Rocher 1972, p. 420).4 The earliest commentaries can be dated to the eighth to tenth century: to this time span, the commentary

of Asahaya on the Nāradasmṛti, as well as those of Bharuci and Medhatithi on Manu, and Visvarupa’s

commentary on the Yājñavalkyasmṛti (Olivelle 2010, p. 52) belong.5 According to a classical analysis of the underlying continuity between commentaries and Nibandhas,

the latter can be seen as an evolution of the commentarial literature, which tended to make an increasing

use of citations in an advanced stage of its development (this is the case of two important commentators

on the Yājñavalkyasmṛti, Vijnanesvara, author of the famous Mitākṣarā, eleventh to twelfth century, and

Apararka, twelfth century). According to this view, the Nibandha literature is a further step in the process

leading to an ‘inclusive’ way of discussing Dharma, a method that tries to take into consideration the

whole tradition accepted by the authors. For references, see Kane (1968, pp. 545–546), Lingat (1993, pp.

107–111); for a more geopolitical hypothesis on the emergence of the Dharmanibandha genre, see

Pollock (1993).

Use of Quotations in Sanskrit Dharmanibandhas

123


names are: the Dānakāṇḍa of the Kṛtyakalpataru by Laks˙mıdhara (first quarter of

the twelfth century);6 the Dānasāgara, attributed to the king Ballalasena (second

half of the twelfth century);7 the Dānakhaṇḍa of the Caturvargacintāmaṇi by

Hemadri (thirteenth century);8 the Dānavivekoddyota by Madanasim˙hadeva

(fifteenth century);9 the Dānakriyākaumudī by Govindananda Kavikankanacarya

(c. first half of the sixteenth century);10 the Dānamayūkha of the

Bhagavantabhāskara by Nılakan˙t˙ha Bhat

˙t˙a (seventeenth century).11

The research presented in the next pages will, by means of a comparative analysis

of selected passages, highlight the criteria followed by the nibandhakāras in the

choice of sources, as well as the strategies adopted in the practice of quotation.

6 In the introductory stanzas of his vast Nibandha, Laks˙mıdhara is identified as chief minister

(mahāsāṃdhivigrahika, st. 8) of Govindacandra; the latter is in his turn celebrated as king of Kası (st. 9),

leader of a war campaign in Magadha (st. 4) and victorious on the ‘valiant Hammıra’ (st. 7, hammīravīra),a name that usually designates Muslim kings. Laks

˙mıdhara’s patron can be identified with king

Govindacandra of the Gahad˙avala dynasty of Kanauj, since the information provided by the

nibandhakāra matches what we know from epigraphical evidence (see Tripathi 1959, pp. 307–312).

Terminus post quem and ante quem for Govindacandra’s reign are 1109 and 1168 AD, dates that are thus

also indicative of the period in which the Kṛtyakalpataru must have been written.

For more details on the dating of Laks˙mıdhara, cf. Kane (1975, p. 685 ff), Brick (2009, pp. 63–71).

7 Ballalasena was a king of the Sena dynasty, which likely originated as a vassal of the weakened Pala

lineage and ruled over Bengal and western Bihar (Majumdar 1963, p. 208). The Dānasāgara is attributed

to him, celebrated in the introductory stanzas together with his grandfather Hemanta Sena (st. 3) and his

father Vijaya Sena (st. 4). His teacher Aniruddha is eulogized as the source of Ballala’s knowledge and,

thus, as the person who made possible the composition of the Dānasāgara, in a passage (st. 6) which

leaves room for the hypothesis that he was the actual author of the digest (Kane 1975, pp. 733–734). On

the influence of Ballalasena’s royal role on his work, see infra, end of section 3.8 In the opening stanzas of the Caturvargacintāmaṇi, Hemadri is identified with the officer in charge for

the administrative records (śrīkaraṇaprabhu, st. 13: this title is reported as samastakaraṇādīśvara in the

concluding colophons of the chapters) of king Mahadeva. This king belonged to the Yadava dynasty of

Devagiri (later Daulatabad) and ruled between 1260 and 1270 (see Yazdani 1960, pp. 545–548). Hemadri

may have held important positions also during the reign of Ramacandra (1271–1311, according to

Yazdani 1960, pp. 549–555), Mahadeva’s successor (Kane 1975, p. 753). Hemadri’s digest is also

mentioned in a few epigraphical recordings claiming that certain procedures have been carried out in

compliance with Hemadri’s teachings (for examples of those records, see Kane (1975, p. 755) and Talbot

(2001, p. 270 fn. 4)).9 Very little is known about him. According to Shastri (1905, p. XVIII), who based his deduction on his

reading of the colophons, he was a Rajput from the surroundings of Delhi. Kane agrees with this idea,

adducing further evidence from colophons (1948, pp. XI–XII, 1975, p. 806). Neither scholar can confirm

the information otherwise. Moreover, the proposed dating to the first half of the fifteenth century is based

only on a few pieces of information provided by colophons, and on a relative chronology of the works

which quote the Vivekoddyota (Kane 1975, pp. 808–809).10 The dating of Govindananda to the first half of the sixteenth century is approximate, due to the lack of

certain external references in his work (see discussion in Chakravarti (1915, pp. 355–356) and Kane

(1975, pp. 882–889). The author was active in Bengal.11 The Bhagavantabhāskara (‘The Sun Bhagavanta’), divided into different sections called mayūkhas(‘rays’), was Nılakan

˙t˙ha’s main work. The text was named after Bhagavantadeva, a ruler associated with

the Rajput clan of the Sengara (see Shastri 1913, p. 23; Kane 1975, p. 938). According to both scholars,

this clan was attested in the seventeenth century in the historical region of the Bundelkhand, in the

northern Madhya Pradesh state. The Sengara clan is connected to the Bundelas, a Rajput lineage which

emerged in the fourteenth century and gave its name to the Bundelkhand. The relative chronology also

seems to confirm for Nılakan˙t˙ha a date in the first half of the sixteenth century (Kane 1975, pp. 940–941).

F. De Simini

123


A big limitation in the study of the Dharmanibandhas is the lack of critical editions

(when not of printed texts at all) realized on the basis of satisfactory philological

criteria, with a few exceptions.12 The practical impossibility of undertaking a

complete philological reconstruction before researching these texts should, however,

not prevent one from trying to work at least with the materials available in printed

form. This investigation has been restricted to a selection from the latter texts, which

have nonetheless been read through the lens of philological awareness.

The varying role of the authors, as exemplified exactly by the different ways in

which they use quotations, has been the basis for Duncan J. Derrett’s classification

of the Nibandhas: to a first category he ascribes texts that are almost exclusively

composed by citations, put together ‘with scissors and paste’, while a second

category of texts is described by him as ‘more highly prized’, written by their

authors ‘as lectures’.13 The oldest among our sources, namely the Kṛtyakalpataru,the Dānasāgara and the Caturvargacintāmaṇi, would belong to the ‘scissors and

paste’ model, while the others would be assigned to the ‘lecture’ type, along with

further famous works like the Ratnākaras by Can˙d˙esvara (first half of the fourteenth

century)14 and the Tattvas by Raghunandana (sixteenth century).15 These statements

imply that some compositions are almost a mere list of quoted passages, in which

the authorial work is less effective and more mechanical, while in the texts

belonging to the ‘lecture’ model authors should have played a more active role in

structuring the contents of their works, in which ‘the bulk of argumentation by the

author thus equalled, or exceeded, the bulk of supportive citations’.16

As a matter of fact, moving from general considerations of the texts as a whole to

a deeper analysis of single sections, it will become clear how, also in the case of the

apparently ‘driest’ works, the strategies adopted in dealing with sources were often

far from a mechanical ‘scissors and paste’ job, rather implying precise theoretical

reflection and communicative awareness. The selection of the sources and, within

them, of the passages to quote, as well as the ways of arranging them, express

authorial agency sometimes even better than the commentarial sections do. It is

undeniable that, if we consider this genre historically, important differences emerge

concerning the use of quotations, especially related to their level of interaction with

the ‘text’, which means with the commentarial sections and introductions written by

the nibandhakāras. At the same time it is worth noticing how the peculiarities that

12 An exception is the still unpublished edition of Laks˙mıdhara’s Dānakāṇḍa, topic of a doctoral thesis

defended by Brick (2009) at the University of Texas at Austin.

Among the digests whose text has been critically edited, we shall mention the Divyatattva by Lariviere

(1981), the Vyavahāracintāmaṇi by Rocher (1956), and the Dānasāgara by Bhattacharya (1956).

One of the most recent published editions of a Dharmanibandha is the Dayābhāga of Jımutavahana by

Rocher (2002). The latter, as the editor himself states in the introduction (p. 49), cannot be defined ‘truly

critical’, and in fact does not conform to the norms and conventions adopted in the practice of textual

criticism.13 Derrett (1973, p. 52). Derrett refers to the respective authors of these two categories of texts as ‘the

administrator-scholar’ and the ‘digester of conflicting views’.14 Kane (1975, pp. 770–771).15 Chakravarti (1915, pp. 351–355).16 Derrett (1973, p. 52).


123


distinguish the approach of the digest writers to their sources and the ways of

quoting them do not necessarily have to be read on a diachronic level, as if the genre

was ‘evolving’ from simpler to more articulated stylistic patterns. There are, in

some respects, more relevant differences between the Dānakāṇḍa and the

Dānasāgara, which are almost contemporary, than between the Dānakhaṇḍa of

Hemadri and the Dānavivekoddyota attributed to Madanasim˙hadeva.

A central issue for the comprehension of the expressive and hermeneutic

strategies adopted in the Dharmanibandhas would be the understanding of the

function held by these texts in the societies that produced them. This highly

important problem can be mentioned just in passing here, but it is essential to be

aware of it in all discussions on Dharmasastra. The two main views challenging

each other—whether these texts served the theoretical aim of preserving and

interpreting Dharma, or were actually used for administrative purposes—probably

need to be conciliated for attempting a broader understanding of the issue.17

Supporting one or the other viewpoint would dramatically change our perspective

on the texts and the approach to the study of quotations. It is in fact realistic to think

that the actual function ascribed to the Nibandhas had a strong influence on the ways

of selecting and articulating citations, which is the main expressive strategy of the

digests.

3 About Quotations and Quotation Techniques in Sanskrit Digests on Dāna

The simplest way to structure the text, widely used especially in those Nibandhas

that have less developed commentarial sections and show a lower level of

interaction between the contents of the quotations and those of the commentary, is

to list all citations related to a certain topic immediately after the title of the chapter

(or paragraph, if any). This title is simply introduced by atha, while quotations are

normally preceded by a heading conveying the name of the source. There are two

main ways for acknowledging the source of a quotation: putting its title in the

locative case, or mentioning the name of the mythical authors of Smr˙tis in the

nominative. The reference to the title is most frequently used when the source is a

Puran˙a; besides the use of the locative, the ablative, as well as the nominative are

also attested, although less frequently. Titles may or may not be preceded by the

adverb tatra (‘on this [topic]’), as well as by declarative expressions like tad uktam,which have to be understood anyway in order to make sense of the locative

construction. The title can sometimes be combined with the word vacana.18

17 The topic has been recently treated by Lariviere (2004), who leans toward the second position,

according to which the Dharmasastric texts were indeed connected to the administration of the territory.

This is in contrast to the interpretation of Rocher, who has maintained that an irreconcilable hiatus

separated the Dharmasastras from actual administrative and legal purposes, blaming the British for having

given rise to the confusion between Dharmasastras and Law Codes, not least by isolating the procedural

sections (vyavahāra) from the larger context of ‘Dharma’ (2012 p. 56). For a critical survey of the topic

see Davis (in Rocher 2012), p. 18ff.18 See expressions like śātātapavacanāt or vaśiṣṭhavacanāt (DKh. p. 29).

F. De Simini

123


Furthermore, when the source is acknowledged by using the proper names of the

Sm˙rti authors, these names can be accompanied by a declarative verb.19

Just as there are many cases in which the digest writers were quoting from

sources that we do not know otherwise,20 there are also less frequent cases of

passages cited without an explicit reference to the source. Here we can surmise that

the nibandhakāras were quoting by heart without having the source in front of them,

or that the source may have been unknown to them. In these circumstances, authors

resorted to generic expressions to introduce them, such as śruti, kecit, ślokāḥ and so

on. The passages introduced in this manner are usually still untraceable today.21

Thus, the general tendency of these works is to make quotations explicit, and not

to silently embed them in the text. This explicitness is common to all the treatises

under examination, and rests on the peculiar nature of the use of quotations in

Dharmanibandhas: they were conceived as the core of the text, and the

authoritativeness of their sources was the ground for establishing the trustworthiness

of their contents. This is strictly connected with another feature, which is that of the

professed literality of the quoted passages. If a citation is introduced by stating that

‘so has spoken’ a certain author, or that ‘this has been taught’ in a certain text, this

means that the digest writers claim to be reporting the passages in their literal form,

no matter if there are adjustments, for instance, in the order of the stanzas, or if

citations are not reported in their entirety, or sometimes even wrongly attributed.

The nibandhakāra is there to let his authorities speak using their own words and, in

principle, to interfere as little as possible with their texts. Some simple strategies are

devised for showing loyalty to the sources, like the habit of emphasizing the

omission of portions of the original texts by using the adverb tathā.There are exceptions to this general practice, like cases of explicit though not

literal quotations, in which the text is presented in an abridged version. At the

beginning of the paragraph on the purāṇadāna of the Dānamayūkha, for instance,Nılakan

˙t˙ha quotes a passage from the Varāhapurāṇa (corresponding to 112.69 cd-

19 See, for instance, the following expressions occurring in Hemadri’s Dānakhaṇḍa: yad āha śātātapaḥ(p. 28), introducing a quotation of the now lost Śātātapasmṛti; or tac ca vyākhyātaṃ manunā (p. 51),

introducing MS 9.194, followed by yājñavalkyo ’py āha, which precedes the quotation of YS 2.143. A

quotation from a Puran˙a can also be introduced by the name of its ‘author’, like in the case of the

expression matsya uvāca, which sometimes precedes quotations from the Matsyapurāṇa (see, in the

Dānakhaṇḍa, examples at p. 265 and p. 274).20 Important Smr

˙tis and Puran

˙as are known only through the quotations of the Dharmanibandhas; among

these are the Bṛhaspatismṛti, the Kātyāyanasmṛti and the Devalasmṛti, as well as the Ādityapurāṇa and theNandipurāṇa.There have been attempts at reconstructing the lost works on the sole basis of the indirect transmission

represented by the quotations. This is the case of all three Smr˙tis mentioned above: the Kātyāyanasmṛti,

limited to its vyavahāra section, has been reconstructed by Kane (1933), while the text of the

Bṛhaspatismṛti has been restored by Aiyangar (1941a). More recently, a reconstruction of the Devalasmṛtiby Wadekar (1996) has also appeared.

The contribution of the digests to the knowledge of Indian traditional literature is, therefore, enormous.

Moreover, it has been convincingly argued that exactly the success of the Nibandhas may have been a

reason for the disappearance of some of their sources (Lingat 1993, p. 107).21 It may be argued that these quotations were made up by the nibandhakāras in order to support their

viewpoints. In any case, the low frequency of cases of quotations with generic captions in the examined

texts and their small influence on the main exposition make this possibility less plausible.


123


72) on the names of the eighteen Mahapuran˙as (p. 242). He does not resort to the

most frequently cited source on the topic, which is Matsyapurāṇa 53. In this

passage, the Matsyapurāṇa briefly describes the mentioned Puran˙as and their

donation, always associated with the gifting of a specific dakṣiṇā. The Varāha-purāṇa passage, by contrast, is restricted to a list of titles and, differently from the

Matsyapurāṇa, does not give any information about the actual donation of these

books. These pieces of information are given by Nılakan˙t˙ha in a short prose section

which follows the Varāhapurāṇa quotation, closed by iti. This is, however, not anoriginal commentary by the author but in fact a paraphrase of Matsyapurāṇa 53, as

declared by the conclusive statement etanmūlaṃ mātsye, ‘The source of this is in theMatsya[purāṇa]’. The Matsyapurāṇa, the main authority on the subject and among

the most quoted texts on dāna in general, is thus not reported literally, but reworded

and summarized in a commentary-like section, in order to add the information that

was missing in the former quotation. To give an idea of the procedure carried out by

the nibandhakāra, we can compare here a few verses from the Matsyapurāṇa with

the respective sentences of the Dānamayūkha:

Matsyapurāṇa 53.13; 18–19��

Dānamayūkha, purāṇadāna, p. 242brahmam

˙tridasasahasram

˙puran

˙am˙

parikırtyate | brahmam˙jaladhenuyutam

˙likhitva tac ca yo dadyaj vaisakhyam

˙devaphalam

˙jaladhenusamanvitam | brahmalokah

˙vaisakhapurn

˙imayam

˙ca brahmaloke

mahıyate || 13

[…] […]

yatra tad vayavıyam˙syad

rudramahatmyasam˙yutam |

caturvim˙sasahasran

˙i puran

˙am˙tad

ihocyate || 18

saivam˙gud

˙adhenusahitam

˙sravan

˙yam

˙phalam

˙sivalokah

˙sravan

˙yam

˙sravan

˙e masi

gud˙adhenusamanvitam |

yo dadyad vr˙s˙asam

˙yuktam

˙brahman

˙aya

kut˙umbine |

sivaloke sa putatma kalpam ekam˙vasen

narah˙|| 19

The paraphrase of the Dānamayūkha is not always literal anyway, as already

highlighted in the scheme above. The list of the Varāhapurāṇa and the one

contained in the Matsyapurāṇa differ as to the name of the fourth Puran˙a, that is the

Vāyupurāṇa according to the Matsyapurāṇa, and the Śivapurāṇa for the Varāha-purāṇa.22 Nılakan

˙t˙ha, following the Varāhapurāṇa’s account, inserts the word śaiva

22 As for the replacement of the Vāyupurāṇa by the Śivapurāṇa in a great number of Mahapuran˙as lists,

see Rocher (1986, p. 33).

F. De Simini

123


in his paraphrase, and prescribes its donation in the same period of the year and

together with the same dakṣiṇā that the Matsyapurāṇa attributes to the donation of

the Vāyupurāṇa. Also in this regard, however, Nılakan˙t˙ha’s parallel is not that

precise—or, rather, it is less exhaustive than the long passage from the

Matsyapurāṇa, on which he had explicitly based this section. In the Dānamayūkha’spassage, for instance, the dakṣiṇās attributed to the different Puran

˙as are sometimes

simplified, other times enhanced. In the stanzas quoted above, the dakṣiṇāsprescribed by the Matsyapurāṇa are a ‘water-cow’ (jaladhenu) for the Brahma-purāṇa (MP 53.13), a ‘sugar-cow’ (guḍadhenu) and a bull (vṛṣa) for the

Vāyupurāṇa (MP 53.19). In the Dānamayūkha’s paraphrase no mention is made

of the bull in the case of the Śivapurāṇa, whose corresponding dakṣiṇā is limited to

the guḍadhenu. Other examples are those of the Padmapurāṇa and the Varāha-purāṇa, to which the Matsyapurāṇa attributes two dakṣiṇās each, whereas they get

only one according to the Dānamayūkha.23 The Nāradapurāṇa, by contrast, is

linked by the Dānamayūkha to the donation of gold instead of the ‘milk-cow’

prescribed by the Matsyapurāṇa (MP 53.24). A few differences also concern the

appropriate time for donation. In the case of the Garuḍapurāṇa, for instance, theMatsyapurāṇa does not specify the exact time for the ritual gifting (MP 53.54),

while the Dānamayūkha fills this gap by prescribing the donation of the

Garuḍapurāṇa at the viṣuva (equinox), when according to the Matsyapurāṇa(53.52) it had to be donated the Matsyapurāṇa itself. The nibandhakāra is therefore

actively interacting with the text of his authority, presumably adapting it either to

new cultic usages or to later developments in the interpretation of the puran˙ic rules.

Also worthy of examination are the few cases of ‘multiple-source quotations’, in

which the digest writers acknowledged, for the same passage, two or more different

sources under the same heading, thus recognizing that the text had been reused by

different Smr˙tis. Let us consider, for instance, the passages ascribed to ‘Manu and

Vis˙n˙u’, like a quotation from MS 4.192–194 reported both by Laks

˙mıdhara (p. 317)

and Hemadri (p. 38).24 From this passage, only the first stanza can be actually found

in the extant text of the Viṣṇusmṛti (corresponding to VS 93.7). The caption that

Laks˙mıdhara appends to this quotation contains interesting information: while

Hemadri indicates as his source simply manur viṣṇuś ca (manuviṣṇuś ca in the

printed edition), Laks˙mıdhara also adds prathame, ‘with reference to the first

[stanza]’. This is in fact the only quotation shared by the two sources, while the

remainder is attested only in the Manusmṛti. From this we can deduce that either

Hemadri was looking at a different recension of the text, or that he had simply been

less accurate in reporting the quotation. Once again, it is important to specify that

23 The Matsyapurāṇa associates the donation of a golden lotus and sesame seeds to that of the

Padmapurāṇa (MP 53.15), and the gifting of a golden image of Garud˙a and a ‘sesame-cow’ to that of the

Varāhapurāṇa (MP 53.41); the Dānamayūkha reduces these dakṣiṇās to the golden lotus in the case of thePadmapurāṇa and a ‘sugar-cow’ in the case of the Varāhapurāṇa. Similarly the Viṣṇupurāṇa, whoseprescribed dakṣiṇā was a ‘ghee-cow’ according to the Matsyapurāṇa (MP 53.17), is associated by the

Dānamayūkha to the donation of a golden cow.24 DK p. 317 (=DKh p. 38): manur vis

˙n˙us ca prathame | na vary api prayaccheta baid

˙alavratike dvije | na

bakavratike pape navedavidi dharmavit || tris˙v apy etes

˙u dattam

˙hi vidhinoparjitam

˙dhanam | datur

bhavaty anarthaya paratradatur eva ca || yatha plavenaupalena nimajjaty udake taran | datr˙pratigrahıtarau

tathaivajnau nimajjatah˙||


123


the lack of a philological study of Hemadri’s text gives our statements a lower level

of certainty.

The parallels between the Manusmṛti and the Viṣṇusmṛti in this regard are more

extensive than this single stanza, also including MS 4.195–197. The latter verses are

quoted by both nibandhakāras in a contiguous quotation, which in the case of

Hemadri is preceded by a short citation from the Yamasmṛti. Also in this case,

Laks˙mıdhara is more accurate than Hemadri in reporting the source of the citation:

he introduces the passage with manur viṣṇuś ca dvitīyavarjam, meaning ‘Manu and

Vis˙n˙u with the exception of the second [stanza]’.25 With the latter expression

Laks˙mıdhara rules out the possibility that the second stanza of his quotation was

traceable by him in the Viṣṇusmṛti. Hemadri, on the contrary, attributes the whole

quotation only to the Viṣṇusmṛti, thus attributing the second stanza to it as well,

while Laks˙mıdhara had explicitly attributed it only to the Manusmṛti. This stanza is

in fact absent in the parallel passage of the Viṣṇusmṛti; moreover, it is also lacking in

the extant text of the Manusmṛti.26 It is highly probable, thus, that Laks˙mıdhara was

reading from a Manusmṛti recension in which the passage was still preserved, since

his remark seems to regard solely the Viṣṇusmṛti. Hemadri, by contrast, disregards

the parallel of the Manusmṛti that he had observed just above, pointing to the (not

proven) circumstance that the second stanza of the quotation was accessible to him

within the Viṣṇusmṛti, as opposed to Laks˙mıdhara.

In the very same chapter, on the feature of a fit recipient for donations (pātra), thereare other examples of multiple-source quotations. Here we find, for instance, a

quotation consisting of two stanzas even attributed to five different sources. Once

again, Laks˙mıdhara is more accurate—or, we should say, more in accordance with

our knowledge of the extant texts: vaśiṣṭhavyāsaśātātapaparāśarāḥ baudhāyanaś cadvitīye, he declares, and in Baudhayana’s text we trace, as a matter of fact, only the

second stanza.27 The Dānakhaṇḍa’s text, by contrast, presents the reader only with alist of sources: tad uktaṃ vyāsavaśiṣṭhabaudhāyanaśātātapaparāśaraiḥ.28

25 DK p. 318 (=DKh pp. 38–39): manur vis˙n˙us ca dvitıyavarjam | dharmadhvajı sada lubdhas chadmiko

lokadambhikah˙

| baid˙alavratiko jneyo him

˙srah

˙sarvabhisam

˙dhakah

˙|| yasya dharmadhvajo nityam

˙suradhvaja ivocchritah

˙| pracchannani ca papani baid

˙alam

˙nama tadvratam || adhodr

˙s˙t˙ir naikr

˙tikah

˙svarthasadhanatatparah

˙| sat

˙ho mithyavinıtas ca bakavratacaro dvijah

˙|| ye bakavratino vipra ye ca

marjaralinginah˙| te patanty andhatamisre tena papena karman

˙a ||

26 Olivelle (2005, p. 543, see reference under Manusmṛti), cites this śloka in the apparatus of his critical

edition as an additional stanza, discussed also by Medhatithi. The latter accepts it as authoritative.27 DK p. 314 (=DKh p. 33): vasis

˙t˙havyasasatatapaparasarah

˙baudhayanas ca dvitıye | yasya caikagr

˙he

murkho dure capi bahusrutah˙| bahusrutaya datavyam

˙nasti murkhe vyatikramah

˙|| brahman

˙atikramo nasti

vipre vedavivarjite | jvalantam agnim utsr˙jya na hi bhasmani huyate ||

28 The inclusion of identical passages in more than one Smr˙ti, and the consequent multiple attribution of

the same verses by commentators and digest writers, could reveal cases of literal borrowings and

interpolations. However, such instances have been explained by some scholars rather as the result of a

first oral phase in the transmission of these teachings. This has been argued, among others, by Lariviere

(1989a, pp. X–XII), who openly agrees with the theory of E. Washburn Hopkins. According to this view,

before the actual compilation of the Smr˙tis there were gnomic verses being cited by śiṣṭas in support of

the administration of justice. The attribution to mythical authors may have happened only at the time of

their actual compilation in the form of mūla-texts. It is possible, however, according to Lariviere, that this

attribution had already happened when the verses were still part of a traditional knowledge transmitted

chiefly by heart. The fact that they were grouped under the name of a common mythical author when their

F. De Simini

123


The concise examination of these examples in and of itself gives an idea of the

philological implications that can be derived from a perusal of the quotations in the

Dharmanibandhas, and how important these may be for reconstructing the textual

histories of their sources. It has been said that the digests often transmit texts that are

now lost (see section 3 and fn. 21), but their importance in the textual transmission

of the Sanskrit Dharmasastras and Puran˙as is also connected to the testimony they

offer on the works that are known through direct tradition. Discrepancies and

correspondences, as well as untraceable passages in the texts as we know them

today are, in most cases, fundamental evidence of the stage reached by the sources

at the time in which the Nibandhas were composed. The latter are therefore

fruitfully used as testimonia in the philological work on their sources.29 The

situation is further complicated, and at the same time made more interesting, by the

fact that the nibandhakāras most likely used to rely also on the quotations already

available in their predecessors’ works,30 as exemplified by the few examples of

multiple-source quotations in Laks˙mıdhara and Hemadri. The debt towards the

earlier digests, usually not acknowledged,31 is especially evident when a later

Footnote 28 continued

transmission was still ‘open’ would account for the confusion in the attribution of passages when the texts

became part of a better established and closed tradition.

The same topic has been treated by Aiyangar in the introduction of his reconstructed Bṛhaspatismṛti(1941a), to which Lariviere makes reference (p. XII, fn. 10 and 13). The rather unfounded conclusion of

the Indian scholar was: ‘When the same verses are attributed to more than one author there is a great

probability of dual or multiple authorship’ (p. 150). He was very critical towards the idea that the Smr˙tis

could have borrowed textual materials from each other, as well as keen on believing that quoting from

written texts rather than by heart limited the number of mistakes in the attribution by commentators and

nibandhakāras (p. 149).29 An analysis of the Dharmanibandha quotations has proven useful, for instance, in the study of the

textual transmission of the Skandapurāṇa, as discussed in Adriaensen et al. (1998, pp. 7–11); see on this

topic also the studies of Bisschop (2002), Torzsok (2004), Harimoto (2004) and (2007).

In a less systematic way, quotations in the Dharma digests have generally been used in past attempts to

reconstruct the chronology of Puran˙as or Puran

˙ic chapters (see, for instance, Hazra 1940, pp. 1–189).

30 Considerations on this topic, with regards to Candesvara and the relations between his work with that

of his main predecessors, in reference to the transmission of the Skandapurāṇa, in Harimoto (2004) and

(2007).31 Nılakan

˙t˙ha, however, explicitly admits at the beginning of his work that he has also examined

other digests. See DM p. 1: srutıh˙smr

˙tır vıks

˙ya puran

˙ajatam

˙tattannibandhan api sannibandhan |

srısankarasyatmaja es˙a dane srınılakan

˙t˙ha vivr

˙n˙oti kr

˙tyam || 2 ||; ‘After having examined the texts of the

Revelation [and] Tradition, [and] the Puran˙as, as well as the relevant digests treating this and the other

topic, this son of the glorious Sankara, the glorious Nılakan˙t˙ha, expounds the procedure [to be followed]

when performing dāna’.I have interpreted the term sannibandhān in the second pāda of this stanza as a tatpuruṣa compound

modified by tattannibandhān. This is not, however, the only possible way to interpret the text. Given that theclusters -ndha- and -ddha- are very easily confused in Sanskrit manuscripts, sannibandhān could be a

corruption of the p.p.p. sannibaddhān. In this case, tattannibandhān would be object of vīkṣya, to which

sannibaddhān is referred (‘having examined … the various digests closely connected to the topic‘).

Alternatively, sannibandhān could also be emended into sannibadhnan and interpreted as a present

participle referred to the subject śrīnīlakaṇṭha and having tattannibandhān as its object. Themeaning in this

case would be ‘putting together’, ‘anthologizing’. The author would therefore be declaring that, after

examining the texts of the Sruti and Smr˙ti, he composes his work by binding together also the digests of his

predecessors. This last option is perhaps the least plausible, also due to the excessive candor with which the

author would admit to have ‘assembled’ the texts of other nibandhakāras.


123


nibandhakāra does not include additional stanzas beside those of the earlier

Nibandhas,32 or even drags in his treatise glosses and commentarial remarks already

available in the preceding digests. Some examples of this phenomenon, whose

systematic investigation can be telling in a study of textual circulation in India, are

offered by several passages of our sources.

One interesting case is that of the Nandipurāṇa, an Upapuran˙a which is not

known by direct transmission. The single longest quotation from this Puran˙a on the

topic of dāna is reported in the chapters dealing with the ritual called vidyādāna(‘Gift of Knowledge’),33 and with the exception of the Dānamayūkha is available in

all our sources, though not always in its entirety. A first point to note, when we

compare the Nandipurāṇa quotation in the different nibandhakāras treatment of the

topic, is that Laks˙mıdhara and Hemadri cite the longest passage, and no digest

writer after them adds stanzas that are not already found in Hemadri’s long

paragraph. Furthermore, a comparison of the glosses added to the text shows that in

a certain phase of the transmission they had most likely passed almost unchanged

from one Nibandha to the other: Laks˙mıdhara and Hemadri, for instance, who add to

the Nandipurāṇa passage sixteen and fourteen glosses, respectively, share eleven of

these, with only a few slight changes.34 Madanasim˙hadeva, who on the same topic

quotes from the Nandipurāṇa only stanzas which are found in the works of the

preceding authors, has also inserted two of these remarks in his text, though adding

a few original ones.35 Similar proportions are reflected in other works cited in the

same paragraph. There is, for instance, a short quotation from the Mahābhārata in

which Laks˙mıdhara joins two stanzas from different parts of the poem (MBh

13.68.5 and MBh 13.74.19); this passage is provided by the author with a brief

definition (brāhmī vedārthānugatā) also found in the Caturvargacintāmaṇiconcerning the same locus. A long passage from Devīpurāṇa 91, also on the topic

of vidyādāna, is again accompanied by a few brief notes, all four of them shared

literally both by the Dānakāṇḍa and the Dānakhaṇḍa, whereas the Dānavi-vekoddyota does not quote this passage at all; an important passage from

Matsyapurāṇa 53, quoted on this same topic, has however a few short annotations

in Laks˙mıdhara and is not commented upon by Hemadri nor by Madanasim

˙hadeva.

32 In discussing the transmission of the Bṛhaspati and the Kātyāyanasmṛti, Aiyangar (1941a, p. 72) evenargues that if a passage from these texts is found quoted in the most recent works, while being absent

from earlier digests or commentaries, it is not correct to presume that the more recent authors still had

access to the original text they were quoting from. Instead of assuming that the latest digest writers could

still be reading from the original text of the two lost Smr˙tis, even increasing the number of quoted

passages, Aiyangar maintains that the quotations have been most likely taken from an earlier, lost digest.

However, these statements are not proven and remain a petitio principii.33 This ritual consisted both in the oral impartation of teachings and in the gifting of manuscripts. For

more information and references, see De Simini (2013). All the digests consulted for this paper deal with

this topic, under different rubrics: see DK, pp. 440–466, DS pp. 463–491, DKh pp. 511–563, DVU vol.

3 pp. 157–161, DKK pp. 67–71, DM pp. 241–244.34 Strictly speaking, there is only one gloss on this quotation which is available in Hemadri’s

Dānakhaṇḍha and not in Laks˙mıdhara’s work: dharmaśāstraṃ smṛtayaḥ (DKh, p. 514).

35 The glosses that are shared by Madanasim˙hadeva with Laks

˙mıdhara and Hemadri are the two short

definitions: purātanaṃ purāṇam and sasyavedaḥ kṛṣiśāstram (DVU p. 158).

F. De Simini

123


The situation is similar if we move from this paragraph to another commented

quotation of the Nandipurāṇa elsewhere in the text, like the one in the chapter on

the ārogyadāna, the ‘Gift of Health’.36 The Nandipurāṇa passage quoted at the

beginning of this chapter is interrupted by a short gloss of Laks˙mıdhara, which is

followed by a quotation from the Suśrutasaṃhitā (1.7). After that, the Nandipurāṇacitation is resumed. The passage from the Suśrutasaṃhitā is not included among the

authorities cited on the topic of the ārogyadāna, but functions as a commentary on

the text; therefore, instead of being introduced by its title, it is simply concluded by

iti suśrutoktāni.37 This short remark is reproduced literally in the Dānakhaṇḍa of

Hemadri, who on this topic quotes the same Nandipurāṇa passage of Laks˙mıdhara,

though enlarging the chapter with a quotation attributed to the Skandapurāṇa.Madanasim

˙hadeva (DVU vol. 3 p. 264) just reports a much shortened version of

both the Nandipurāṇa and the Skandapurāṇa quotations of Hemadri, stressing the

omissions with the adverb tathā and adding a stanza from the Saurapurāṇa(attested, with a few variations, in DKh pp. 539–540).

A thorough study of features like the mechanical repetition of commentarial

remarks, as well as the reuse of texts quoted by the preceding digests, can indeed

prove that the nibandhakāras were writing their compendia having in mind the

model of their predecessors, and used them as an unacknowledged source of

quotations. What seems to emerge from these brief examples, though, is a dynamic

in which the clear reliance on the predecessors is contrasted with the attempt to

differentiate their own works even just by rearranging passages that were already

cited in the earlier Nibandhas. These mechanisms are more patent in those texts—

like the Dānakāṇḍa, the Dānakhaṇḍa and the Dānavivekoddyota—that do not insert

quotations in a general discussion of the topics, but rather list them, together with

other subject-related passages, in a sort of ‘catalog’, only seldom interrupted by

glosses and other short commentaries. The latter are added only occasionally and

not linked by any particles to the quoted passages which, in their turn, are normally

not closed by iti, even when the citation is interrupted to insert one of these remarks.

There are cases in which quotations are introduced by a few words, foregoing the

title of the source and functioning as connectors between the quotation and the

general context of the paragraphs,38 although the common trend of these texts is that

of simply listing quotations without further remarks but the title of the source.

Among the authors who use to comment more extensively upon the text of their

quotations, a noteworthy case is that of Ballalasena. He does not limit himself to

adding remarks to the quoted passages, but also concludes each chapter with a prose

section which is sometimes entitled prayoga: here the contents of the quotations areplainly expounded with attention to their practical application. The nibandhakāratries to find connections between the instructions given by his authorities and the

36 DK p. 487, DKh p. 893, DVU vol. 3 p. 263.37 DK p. 487: as

˙t˙av angany ayurvedasya tad yatha salyam

˙salakyam

˙kayacikitsa bhutavidya

kaumarabhr˙tyam agadatantram

˙rasayanatantram

˙vajıkaran

˙atantram iti susrutoktani | The quotation from

the SuS begins with tad yathā.38 See, for instance, a few examples taken from Hemadri’s text: ācāryas tu mahābhārate, DKh p. 28,

introducing the definition of an ācārya; saptaṛṣilakṣaṇam āha yamaḥ, DKh p. 242, on the features of the

saptaṛṣis.


123


actual religious performance, an attempt that has to be read in the context of the

restoration of orthodox beliefs that this monarch was promoting (c. infra).

4 Dealing with the Quoted Text: Selection and Arrangement of Quotations inthe Dānanibandhas

Commenting upon the quoted passages was only one of the methods by which

authors interacted with the text of their citations. Moreover, in many cases, it was

not even the most widespread one. On the other hand, the fact that many of these

works were solely or chiefly composed of quotations did not imply that they were

mere assemblages of quoted sources. The nibandhakāras did not act as compilers

who renounced their authorial role: although digest writers were theoretically

supposed to step back and let other texts speak, they nevertheless managed to devise

strategies in order to shape the contents of their sources in original ways. What has

been defined as the ‘unchangeable element’39 of a Nibandha, i.e. the quoted text,

could indeed be ‘modified’ to some extent, in order to be adapted to the (still

debated) function they played in society.

The first method by which authors could model the quoted text of a Nibandha

was the application of different criteria to the selection of sources to cite. In spite of

the proven reliance on their predecessors, the choice of sources can vary

significantly from one digest to another, even when they treat the same topics.

Interesting examples of this can be observed again in the aforementioned chapters

on vidyādāna (cf. Sect. 3 fn. 33). As regards the choice of sources to quote on this

subject, Laks˙mıdhara and Ballalasena show a certain uniformity;40 there is,

however, an interesting difference, namely the absence of the Devīpurāṇa among

Ballalasena’s sources. The reasons for this choice have been explained by the author

in the introduction of his work (see infra). Striking differences emerge from the

comparison of these chapters of the two Nibandhas with the analogous one in the

Caturvargacintāmaṇi. Hemadri, who expands the treatment of the topic far beyond

the limits set by his predecessors, not only quotes from all the works chosen by

them, but also adds a number of Smr˙tis and Puran

˙as (quoting from Bṛhaspatismṛti,

Paiṭhīnasismṛti and Aṅgirassmṛti, as well as from Garuḍapurāṇa, Vārāhapurāṇaand Kālikāpurāṇa, just to mention a few examples). Later authors tend to use the

same quotations as the preceding digests, though combining them differently.41 It is

significant that all the Smr˙tis and Puran

˙as cited by Madanasim

˙hadeva, Nılakan

˙t˙ha

and Govindananda on the topic of vidyādāna are also mentioned in Hemadri’s

39 Rocher (1953, p. 20).40 The sources on vidyādāna quoted by Laks

˙mıdhara are (in order of mention): Ādityapurāṇa,

Manusmṛti, Yājñavalkyasmṛti, Yamasmṛti, Devīpurāṇa, Mahābhārata, Nandipurāṇa and Matsyapurāṇa;the Bengoli author quotes (in order of mention) from Matsyapurāṇa, Kūrmapurāṇa, Manusmṛti,Yājñavalkyasmṛti, Yamasmṛti, Ādityapurāṇa, Viṣṇudharmottara and Nandipurāṇa.41 The Dānavivekoddyota quotes Viṣṇudharmottara, Bṛhaspatismṛti, Nandipurāṇa, Garuḍapurāṇa,Vārāhapurāṇa, Vahnipurāṇa and Devīpurāṇa; the Dānakriyākaumudī quotes Nandipurāṇa, Hayaśīrṣa-pāñcarātra, Harivaṃśa, Matsyapurāṇa and Skandapurāṇa; the Dānamayūkha quotes from

Vārāhapurāṇa, Garuḍapurāṇa and Bhaviṣyapurāṇa.

F. De Simini

123


chapter, with the sole exception of a quotation from the Hayaśīrṣapāñcarātra in the

Dānakriyākaumudī.The criteria followed by the nibandhakāras in selecting their materials were

certainly various, and need to be studied alongside the historical background of each

digest. Fortunately, there are at least two interesting passages from as many

dānanibandhas that provide us with an insight into the principles at work in

choosing the sources. Given the peculiarity of these passages in which the writers

discuss their approach to the tradition, it is worth reading them in their own words.

The passages in question belong to the introductory remarks of Laks˙mıdhara’s

and Ballalasena’s digests. Although they are very different from each other—the

passage of Laks˙mıdhara is limited to one, rather laconic stanza, while Ballalasena

argues relatively at length—they nevertheless allow us to trace a few constants in

their methods.

Interesting observations can be found in the fourteenth sragdharā strophe of

Kṛtyakalpataru’s introduction:42

ekārtheṣv ekam eva43 kvacid aparam api svīkṛtaṃ kāryayogānnyastaṃ vijñānamūlaṃ pracarad api parityaktam ajñānamūlam |

śiṣṭaiḥ samyaggṛhītaṃ vacanam abhihitaṃ spaṣṭitaṃ cāsphuṭārthaṃyatrāpāro virodhaḥ sphurati viracitā tena tatra vyavasthā || 14 ||

In [passages dealing] with the same topic, only one [authoritative] text

(vacana)44 has been adopted; elsewhere also others, depending on the task. [A

text] rooted in [real] knowledge has been inserted; one not rooted in real

knowledge has been refused, even if it is current. One that has been recognized

as correct by the learned Brahmins has been quoted, and [if] its meaning was

unclear, it has been explained; when an insurmountable contradiction appears,

a solution has been arranged by him [=Laks˙mıdhara] (14).

The first remark is about the necessity of avoiding redundancy by choosing to quote

only one passage per subject. The need for conciseness will prove to be one of themost

important criteria in the construction of a Nibandha, as Ballalasena also repeatedly

affirms. This must have been particularly important for Laks˙mıdhara: as regards the

number of quoted sources, this author often turns out to be the most concise of his

generation. Furthermore, it is clearly stated that the essential criteria for recognizing

the authoritativeness of the sources were their being rooted in real knowledge and the

consensus of the learned Brahmins (śiṣṭa). Popularity, as Laks˙mıdhara remarks, does

not make any difference. The direct intervention of the author in the text is

theoretically prescribed only in case of difficult passages, or passages whose

42 I quote this passage from Aiyangar edition (1941b, p. 49), indicated by T in the essential apparatus

provided here. I have reintroduced all the anusvāras that were missing in the text, most likely due to a

typographical mistake.43 ekam eva coniec. ] ekameka T44 The word vacana (lit. ‘statement’), here intended as ‘teachings’, ‘[authoritative] text’, is central to this

stanza. Although it is explicitly mentioned only in pāda 3, it most likely must be supplied in each of the

first three pādas. To vacanaṃ refer the p.p.p. svīkṛtaṃ, nyastaṃ, parityaktam, gṛhītaṃ, abhihitaṃ and

spaṣṭitaṃ, the adjectives ekam and aparam as well as the bahuvrīhis vijñānamūlaṃ, ajñānamūlam and

asphuṭārtham.


123


interpretation was still ambiguous. In these circumstances, where the consensus of the

śiṣṭas was apparently shaky, the author took the liberty of making a choice himself.

What emerges from these statements is the image of an author whose role is that of

selecting and preserving an established tradition, intervening with his own remarks

only in order to clarify difficulties and, eventually, settle a dispute.

Different is the approach of the Dānasāgara, almost contemporary with the

Kṛtyakalpataru. As noted above (see second page of section 4), Ballalasena exhibits

a more ‘dynamic’ relationship with the text of his authorities, adding more frequent

comments and final considerations at the end of each chapter. This is also true in the

introductory verses of the Dānasāgara, in which the nibandhakāra gives an account

of the Smr˙tis accepted as valid sources of quotations and those that have been

refused. This last portion is most interesting, since here the author also offers a

singular overview of the reasons for the rejection of certain Puran˙as:45

bhāgavataṃ ca purāṇaṃ brahmāṇḍaṃ caiva nāradīyaṃ ca |

dānavidhiśūnyam etat trayam iha na nibaddham avadhārya || 57 ||

bṛhad api liṅgapurāṇaṃ matsyapurāṇoditair mahādānaiḥ |

avadhārya labdhasāraṃ46 dānanibandhe ’tra na nibaddham || 58 ||

saptamyavadhi purāṇaṃ 47 bhaviṣyam api saṃgṛhītam atiyatnāt |tyaktvāṣṭamīnavamyoḥ48 kalpau pāṣaṇḍabhir grastau || 59 ||

lokaprasiddham etad viṣṇurahasyaṃ ca śivarahasyaṃ ca |

dvayam iha na parigṛhītaṃ saṃgraharūpatvam avadhārya || 60 ||

bhaviṣyottaram ācāraprasiddham avirodhi ca |

prāmāṇyajñāpakādṛṣṭer granthād asmāt pṛthak kṛtam || 61 ||

pracarad rūpataḥ skandapurāṇaikāṃśato’dhikam |

yat khaṇḍatritayaṃ pauṇḍrarevāvantikathāśrayam49 || 62 ||

tārkṣyaṃ purāṇam aparaṃ brāhmam āgneyam eva ca |

trayoviṃśatisāhasraṃ purāṇam api vaiṣṇavam || 63 ||

ṣaṭsahasramitaṃ laiṅgaṃ purāṇam aparaṃ tathā |

dīkṣāpratiṣṭhāpāṣaṇḍayuktiratnaparīkṣaṇaiḥ || 64 ||

mṛṣāvaṃśānucaritaiḥ koṣavyākaraṇādibhiḥ |

asaṅgatakathābandhaparasparavirodhataḥ || 65 ||

tan mīnaketanādīnāṃ bhaṇḍapāṣaṇḍaliṅginām |

lokavañcanam ālokya sarvam evāvadhīritam || 66 ||

tattatpurāṇopapurāṇasaṃkhyābahiṣkṛtaṃ kaśmalakarmayogāt |pāṣaṇḍaśāstrānumataṃ nirūpya devīpurāṇaṃ na nibaddham atra || 67 ||

ye dānadharmavidhisaṃstutaye purāṇapuṇyāgamasmṛtigirāṃ bahavo vivartāḥ |

te granthavistarabhayād avacitya kecid asmābhir atra kalitāḥ kalayantusantaḥ || 68 ||

45 I quote the following āryās from the printed edition, pp. 6–7, again designated with the siglum T in the

apparatus.46 labdhasāraṃ coniec. ] tūlyasāraṃ T47 saptamyavadhi coniec. ] saptamyaiva T48 tyaktvāṣṭamīnavamyoḥ ] tyaktvāṣṭamīnavamyau T49 ˚revāvanti˚ em. ] ˚rerāvanti˚ T

F. De Simini

123


As for the Bhāgavatapurāṇa, the Brahmāṇḍa and the Nāradīya: after havingascertained that these three do not treat the prescriptions about gifting, they

have not been included (nibaddha) in this work. (57) / Also the long

Liṅgapurāṇa50 has not been included in this composition on gifting, after

considering that the core [of its contents] has been obtained51 from the

mahādānas treated in theMatsyapurāṇa. (58) / Up to the saptamī[kalpa],52 theBhaviṣyapurāṇa has also been included, with great effort, having refused the

kalpas of the eighth and ninth [tithi],53 which are involved in heterodox

doctrines. (59) / That couple consisting in the Viṣṇurahasya and the

50 The author makes a difference between a ‘long’ (bṛhat) Liṅgapurāṇa (st. 58) and a possibly shorter

one, measuring 6000 stanzas (st. 64). This allows us to assume that there were two texts known to him

under the title Liṅgapurāṇa, which may correspond to the two portions (Pūrvabhāga and Uttarabhāga)that form the extant text. Although there is no clear evidence for it, it is interesting to note how the

Pūrvabhāga of the extant version is indeed longer (108 chapters versus the 55 of the Uttarabhāga).Moreover, it has been argued that originally the two bhāgas were indeed two different works

(Gangadharan 1980, p. 12ff.). Ballalasena was thus accepting the ‘long’ Liṅgapurāṇa, since he did not

quote from it only because its contents are less original than those of the Matsyapurāṇa. On the contrary,

the ‘other’ Liṅgapurāṇa, maybe the Uttarabhāga, is included in a list of works which are charged with

heterodoxy and, therefore, not accepted.51 The editor’s conjecture of tulyasāraṃ is not well supported by the manuscript tradition, which reports

the past participle labdhaº (ms. I.O., which drops an anusvāra at the end of ˚sāraṃ) or ālabdhaº (ms. A)

in the first part of the compound; the only exception is ms. B, which reads here tacca sāraṃ. The restoredreading labdhasāraṃ is metrically equivalent and more faithful to the tradition. The compound has been

interpreted here as a sāpekṣasamāsa, in which the first member has to be constructed with elements that

are external to the compound, in this case matsyapurāṇoditair mahādānaiḥ. The meaning of this

construction will thus be ‘The essence has been obtained from the “great gifts” as taught in the

Matsyapurāṇa.’52 The numerals in this and the other pāda designate the respective tithi of the month of Brahma. Here the

text had to be slightly emended. The editor had conjectured saptamyaiva purāṇaṃ on the basis of the

following variants attested in the manuscript tradition (according to the critical apparatus): saptamaṃvāyupurāṇam (ms. A), saptamyavāvapurāṇaṃ (ms. B) and saptamyavadhipurāṇe (ms. I.O.). None of

these variant readings make sense in the text, nor fit the āryā meter; the conjecture of the editor, by

contrast, is perfectly fine as regards the meter, but grammatically odd. The idea that the text is most likely

to convey is that the Bhaviṣyapurāṇa has been quoted only up to the saptamīkalpa, the end of which

corresponds to the end of the first parvan (the Brāhmaparvan) in the extant version of the Puran˙a. If one

compares this statement with the quotations of the Bhaviṣyapurāṇa traceable in the Dānasāgara, onerealizes that they were in fact all taken from the first section of the text. The compound saptamyavadhi‘up to the saptamī[kalpa]’ thus seems a better reading than saptamyaiva. The reading saptamyavadhiseems confirmed by the manuscript designated in the critical apparatus with I.O. (India Office), which is

however reported as having the locative purāṇe instead of purāṇaṃ. The reading saptamyavadhi purāṇaṃis furthermore confirmed by Hazra (1940, p. 171 fn. 228).53 The text of the critical edition is problematic in this respect: the editor chooses tyaktvāṣṭamīnavamyaukalpau, apparently relying on the variants provided by mss. A and B (the critical apparatus is a negative

one, so it just accounts for the variant ºnavamyoḥ kalpau in I.O.). The text, though metrically fitting the

āryā meter, is problematic from the point of view of the grammar. The meaning of the sentence is, also in

this case, intuitive: the author has disregarded the aṣṭamī- and navamīkalpas since they were considered

heterodox. The problem with the reading is that, in order to make sense of it, one has to construe the

feminine dual aṣṭamīnavamyau with the masculine dual kalpau, to which the past participle grastau also

refers. I therefore prefer the reading of I.O., with a genitive referring to the parts to be omitted.


123


Śivarahasya,54 [though] universally recognized, has not been accepted here

after having ascertained that [they] are [themselves] compendia. (60) / The

Bhaviṣyottarapurāṇa, well established by customary usage and not contra-

dictory, has been set apart from this book because we don’t see any sign of its

being authoritative.55 (61) / The additional triad of sections circulating under

the form of individual portions belonging to the Skandapurāṇa, that is the [setof works] based on the stories of Paun

˙d˙ra, Reva and Avanti;56 (62) / The

Puran˙a of Garud

˙a, the other one of Brahma as well as the [other] Agnipurāṇa,

[and] also the Viṣṇupurāṇa consisting of 23,000 [stanzas],57 (63) / As well as

the other Puran˙a of the Liṅga, which contains 6,000 [stanzas]: all these have

been completely repudiated, since [they] have been regarded as a universal

deceit [perpetrated by] impostors, heretics and hypocrites [inspired by] Kama

and so on. [This consideration was made] due to [their]58 connection with

initiations (dīkṣā), installations (pratiṣṭhā), heretical reasonings, gemmology,

false genealogies, [as well as] with [wrong] lexica, grammatical analyses and

so on, [and also] because they contain incongruous stories, wrong connections

and reciprocal contradictions. (64–66) / The Devīpurāṇa, excluded from the

group of the various Puran˙as and Upapuran

˙as, has not been included

(nibaddha) due to involvement in impure rituals, having noticed that it accepts

the teachings of the heretics. (67) / Only a few of those numerous collections

of Puran˙as, holy scriptures and Smr

˙tis [that were composed] with the purpose

of praising the prescriptions about religious gifting have been considered [by

me] in this work, after having collected [them], out of fear that [this] book

would have been [too] long. May the good ones consider [them] valid! (68).

54 By Śivarahasya the author may refer here to a homonymous khaṇḍa, which claims to belong to the

Śāṅkarī- or Agastyasaṃhitā of the Skandapurāṇa (Rocher 1986, p. 236). Reinhold Grunendahl (Schreiner1997, p. 296) identifies the Viṣṇurahasya with a Pancaratra text transmitted in various Newari

manuscripts. He furthermore adds (Rocher 1986, p. 236, fn. 2) that in South Indian libraries he detected a

number of manuscripts entitled Viṣṇurahasya, which, however, do not seem to correspond to the

previously mentioned work.55 Lit. ‘Because there is no direct experience of an indicator of [its] authoritativeness’.56 Ballalasena is referring here to three additional khaṇḍas attributed to the Skandapurāṇa, which were

considered inauthentic and refused (see Adriaensen et al. 1998, p. 8).57 The Brahmapurāṇa, the Agnipurāṇa and the Viṣṇupurāṇa mentioned here do not correspond to the

homonymous Mahapuran˙as, from which Ballalasena did quote and which he mentioned in the list of

accepted sources (see pp. 2–3). They are designated as ‘other‘ (aparam), a qualification that the author

uses only once in the verse but that we should understand as referred both to the Brahmapurāṇa and the

Agnipurāṇa. The Viṣṇupurāṇa mentioned in this passage is distinguished from the homonymous

Mahapuran˙a by being defined as the one ‘measuring 23,000 stanzas’. This means that the author was

aware of the production of new Puran˙as to which were attributed titles of already existing Puran

˙as in

order to attain authority. These later works were considered spurious by Ballalasena and, therefore,

rejected.

Hazra (1940, p. 138) notes that the verses Ballalasena attributes to the Agnipurāṇa are not traceable in

the extant Agni. The latter could indeed correspond to the ‘spurious’ one rejected by the nibandhakāra. Asregards the existence of two different Brahmapurāṇas, the extant one quoted by Hemadri and others, and

another, still unavailable one quoted by Laks˙mıdhara, Jımutavahana and other nibandhakāras, see

Kumari (1968, p. 12ff)., as well as the exhaustive study of Fuji (1994).58 Scil. of the aforementioned Puran

˙as.

F. De Simini

123


Ballalasena expands on the three main ideas that we have already spotted in the

introduction of the Dānakāṇḍa—conciseness, authoritativeness of the sources and

disregard for the popularity of a work—while also providing useful pieces of

information for the transmission history of the Puran˙as he mentions. The possibility

of discerning between non-valid and valid Smr˙tis—and, among the latter, between

those that are worth quoting and those that are not—appears to be the main concern

of our author, revealing that his epoch must have experienced a great proliferation

of texts claiming authority. The reasons given for not including Puran˙as that he still

considered valid are: that they do not deal with the main topic of the digest (st.

57);59 that their contents are clearly taken from another work (which he possibly

considers earlier or in any case more original, see st. 58); that they are just

summarizing what other works treat at length (st. 60). This preliminary selection of

sources slightly resembles the phase of recensio that in textual criticism precedes the

proper reconstruction of a text. The necessity of restricting the number of authorities

to quote is reasserted also in the final stanza, where the nibandhakāra refers to the

‘fear’ of making a big book (st. 68)—perhaps ironically, considering the imposing

size of the Dānasāgara.Ballalasena also had to cope with a series of works that claimed to be authoritative

but in fact, according to him, were not. In the remaining stanzas of his introduction the

author states that the popularity gained by such works was not a sound principle by

which to evaluate their validity, if they did not prove to be authoritative themselves (st.

62); and that ‘heterodox doctrines’ had both contaminated sections of works (that

could thus be accepted only partially) and inspired the composition of new, spurious

Puran˙as. The list furnished at stanzas 62–63 deserves further consideration: what we

find here are almost exclusively works, or autonomous sections of works, that assert

their authority by circulating under the name of an earlier Puran˙a. The three khaṇḍas

mentioned at st. 62 had been added to amajor text,whereas to the Puran˙as at st. 63,with

the only exception of the Garuḍapurāṇa, were assigned the names of Puran˙as whose

authority had been previously acknowledged. The author thus proves to be perfectly

aware of the process of composing new works that then entered the ‘religious

repertory’ of the time. His attitude was rather conservative, since it led him to reject

also works like the Devīpurāṇa and the Garuḍapurāṇa, which were quoted by other

nibandhakāras (see above fn. 41–42). Among the topics that Ballalasena considers

revealing of heterodoxy, the reference to pratiṣṭhā ceremonies and initiations suggests

that the author wishes to expunge the ‘impure’ elements derived from the influence of

Tantric Saivism on the Smarta tradition.60

Even in the cases where digest authors used to treat a topic by quoting the same

sources as their predecessors, they succeeded in differentiating their texts by giving the

quotations a different arrangement. Variability in the arrangement of quotations

concerns both the chapters as a whole, for the same Smr˙tis could be quoted in different

orders, and the single quotations. Nibandha authors took the liberty of elaborating the

59 Hazra (1940, p. 19) noticed that Hemadri did attribute to this Puran˙a stanzas on the topic of dāna that

are not traceable in the text as we know it today, nor are quoted by Ballalasena. Thus, it seems that the

Brahmāṇḍapurāṇa known to Hemadri was different from the one extant today and possibly also from the

one read by Ballalasena.60 On this, see also Sanderson (2009, pp. 249–252).


123


text of the same citations in many different ways. One nibandhakāra may quote a

passage from a Puran˙a in its entirety and without interruptions, another may prefer to

split the passage in many different quotations, alternated with citations from other

Smr˙tis; yet another may quote only the key passages, sometimes also omitting large

sections. The verse order of a passage is also not always respected. In order to illustrate

these cases, it will be useful to examine once again the long quotation from

the Nandipurāṇa on the topic of vidyādāna already mentioned in section 3.61 The

nibandhakāras who quote this passage—Laks˙mıdhara, Ballalasena, Hemadri,

Madanasim˙hadeva and Govindananda—modify the text of the citation in accordance

with the stylistic patterns that more generally characterize their works.

Laks˙mıdhara quotes 127 stanzas of the Nandipurāṇa on the topic of vidyādāna

without interruption, except when a gloss or a comment is inserted. The same

treatment is applied to other quotations in this chapter: the author never quotes twice

from the same text, but skips to another quotation only when he is done with the

former. Ballalasena quotes and omits the same Nandipurāṇa stanzas as Laks˙mıdha-

ra, with a few negligible exceptions.62 The Bengoli author, however, splits the long

passage in smaller quotations, attributing to each of them a ‘title’ corresponding to

short nominal sentences introduced by atha.63 The citation is thus organized

according to the different topics treated in the text, but the verse order followed is

the same as in Laks˙mıdhara. Hemadri, by contrast, changes the text more radically.

First of all, he quotes some stanzas in a different order: stanzas 29–31 in

Laks˙mıdhara’s quotation from the Nandipurāṇa (corresponding to stt. 28–30 in

Ballalasena’s passage)64 become stt. 1–3 in Hemadri’s chapter. The first stanza of

the Nandipurāṇa quoted by Laks˙mıdhara and Ballalasena is the thirtieth in

Hemadri’s citation, which for the rest follows the text of his predecessors, though

with some small omissions. What differentiates Hemadri’s approach is the fact that

he splits the quotation into different portions, citing each of them in different

subparagraphs along with passages from other works.65 While Ballalasena, though

introducing headings in order to organize the contents of this long passage, still

preserves the excerpt in its entirety, Hemadri dissolves it by inserting quotations

from other texts. Hemadri also applies this method to other citations, as in the case

of the long passage from Devīpurāṇa 91 on the same topic, cited as a whole by

Laks˙mıdhara while fragmented by Hemadri.

61 For page references, see fn. 33.62 Recall that, even if the Nandipurāṇa is not extant, we can detect where omissions have occurred

because they are usually highlighted by the use of the adverb tathā.63 The following headings, all introduced by atha, are affixed to the Nandipurāṇa passages:

gurupraśaṃsā; vidyādānapātrāṇi; pustakalikhanārambhaḥ; sarayantravidhiḥ; patrasañcayavidhiḥ;masīnirmāṇam; lekhanīyaṣṭikānirmāṇam; ādarśapustakāropaṇam; lekhakasyālaṅkārādidānapūrvakali-khanārambhaḥ; śodhanavidhiḥ; devāyatananivedanavidhiḥ; śrotṛpāṭhakaguruguṇasahitavyākhyānavidhiḥ;vyākhyāyāṃ vidhiniṣedhavidhiḥ; pāṭhakramaḥ; cintāvidhiḥ; śāstravyākhyāsamāptikṛtyam; brāhmaṇāyadānam; śāstrānuṣṭhānam; vidyādānaphalam.64 In referring to the Nandipurāṇa, I have numbered the stanzas of the passage under examination

independently from the other works mentioned in the same chapters of the Dharmanibandhas.65 The subparagraphs into which Hemadri groups his quotations on this topic are: vidyādānapraśaṃsā,vedadānaṃ, śāstradānam, smṛtidānaṃ, purāṇadānaṃ and sarvaśāstrasādhāraṇadānavidhiḥ. The passagefrom the Nandipurāṇa is distributed between the first, the third and the last one.

F. De Simini

123


Madanasim˙hadeva’s approach resembles that of Hemadri, since he also splits the

single quotation in shorter passages, quoted under different subparagraphs.66 There

are, however, two big differences: Madanasim˙hadeva quotes, from the same

Nandipurāṇa passage, less than 50 % of the total number of stanzas quoted by his

predecessors, and the same author arranges the stanzas in a more drastically altered

succession. An example of his freedom in reshaping the text of a quotation by

rearranging its verses is given by the sequence of Nandipurāṇa stanzas quoted at thebeginning of the paragraph on ādhītaśāstrasya śiṣyebhyo vyākhyādānavidhiḥ, wherethe first four ślokas in a row correspond, in the arrangement given by Laks

˙mıdhara, to

stt.114 cd-115 and 83–84.67 Finally, Govindananda quotes a much smaller section

from the Nandipurāṇa, corresponding to the eulogistic stanzas of DK 117–125.68

5 Concluding Remarks

In the preceding pages I have tried to outline some of the most significant

characteristics of the use of quotations in works that do not consist of almost

anything else. From this sketch, it emerges that the authors’ approach to the quoted

sources was less rigid and more dynamic than expected. The text of the authorities

was from time to time rearranged, juxtaposed with that of other sources, reduced in

size when not almost completely omitted, paraphrased. The choice of the sources

presupposed a philological and interpretative work on a massive tradition that

claimed authoriality, implying thus a deep reflection on religion and society.

A thorough study of the expressive methods used in this literature can indeed be a

key factor in the understanding of the functions that this huge attempt at

systematizing the knowledge of Dharma may have had in the communities that

produced the Nibandhas.

Acknowledgments This is a revised version of the paper entitled Thinking Through Quotations: TheCase Of The Medieval Dharmanibandhas, which I presented on December 22 at the conferenceQuotations And Re-use of Texts in Sanskrit Philosophical Literature. A Coffee Break Conference(December 21–22, 2012) in Rome (University La Sapienza). I sincerely thank Francesco Sferra, PeterBisschop, Elisa Freschi and Harunaga Isaacson for having read a draft of this article and helping meimprove it with their suggestions and observations. I am also very grateful to my friend and colleagueKristen De Joseph for her help in revising the English text.

66 The paragraphs into which the Dānavivekoddyota divides its quotations on vidyādāna are:

vidyādānaphalāṇi; āsāṃ dānavidhiḥ; smṛtidānam; smṛtidānavidhiḥ; ādītaśāstrasya; śiṣyebhyovyākhyānadānavidhiḥ; purāṇadānāṇi; bhārataśravaṇavidhiḥ; śivaśāstrādidānam. The Nandipurāṇapassage is quoted under vidyādānaphalāṇi, smṛtidānam, smṛtidānavidhiḥ, śiṣyebhyo vyākhyānadānavi-dhiḥ, purāṇadānāṇi and sivaśāstrādidānam.67 See DVU, vol. 3 p. 169 (=DK p. 459 and p. 456): anenaiva vidhanena brahman

˙e sılasaline |

prabodhavati dhıyukte yuktajne vedavadini || vinyaset tu subham˙sastram

˙mahapun

˙yajigıs

˙aya | [comm.:

anena purvoktena prakaren˙a | yatha] gurus ca dharmavan prajnah

˙srutasastro vimatsarah

˙|| viprah

˙prakr

˙tisam

˙suddhah

˙sucismitamukhah

˙sada | suvrato vr

˙tasastrajnah

˙sabdasastravisaradah

˙|| abhyastasastrasan-

dohah˙prakr

˙tarthapravartakah

˙| [comm.: prakr

˙teti prastutarthabhidhayı | tatha ] sastrarthapadavid dhıman

padaslokarthabodhakah˙||

68 DKK, p. 67.


123


Abbreviations

DK Danakan˙d˙a.

DKh Danakhan˙d˙a.

DKK Danakriyakaumudı.

DM Danamayukha.

DS Danasagara.

DVU Danavivekoddyota.

MP Matsyapuran˙a.

MS Manusmr˙ti.

SuS Susrutasam˙hita.

YS Yajnavalkyasmr˙ti.

Bibliography

Primary Literature

Danakan˙d˙a of the Kr

˙tyakalpataru The Dānakāṇḍa («Book on Gifting») of the Kṛtyakalpataru [by

Laks˙mıdhara]: A Critical Edition and Annotated Translation, D. Brick (Ed.), Unpublished PhD

Dissertation, May 2009 University of Texas at Austin.

Danakriyakaumudı Dānakriyākaumudī of Govindānanda Kavikaṅkanācārya, K. K. Smr˙tibhus

˙an˙a (Ed.),

Calcutta 1903, The Asiatic Society of Bengal, Bibliotheca Indica nos. 1028 and 1039.

Danakhan˙d˙a of the Caturvargacintaman

˙i Chaturvarga Chintámaṇi by Hemádri, Vol. I: Dánakhaṇḍa, P. B.

Siroman˙i (Ed.), Calcutta 1873, Bibliotheca Indica, New Series, nos. 228, 237, 242, 245, 257, 262,

267, 274, 278, 281 & 290.

Danamayukha Dānamayūkha of Nīlakaṇṭha Bhaṭṭa, V. R. Lele (Ed.) Bombay 1924, Manilal Itcharam

Desai.

Danasagara Dānasāgaraḥ of Ballāla Sena, Critically Edited With Introduction and Index, BhabatoshBhattacharya (Ed.), Calcutta 1956, Bibliotheca Indica no. 274.

Matsyapuran˙a The Matsya Puranam, Nandalal More (Ed.), Calcutta 1954, Gopal Printing Works,

Gurumandal Series no. 13.

Manusmr˙ti Manu’s Code of Law: a Critical Edition and Translation of the Mānava-Dharmaśāstra,

Patrick Olivelle (Ed.), New York 2005, Oxford University Press.

Yajnavalkyasmr˙ti Yājñavalkyasmṛti of Yogīśvara Yājñavalkya, With the Commentary Mitākṣarā of

Vijñāneśvara, Narayan Ram Acharya (Ed.), Bombay 1949, Nirnayasagara Press.

Susrutasam˙hita The Suśrutasaṃhitā of Suśruta: with the Nibandhasaṅgraha commentary of Śrī

Dalhaṇāchārya and the Nyāyachandrikā Pañjikā of Śrī Gayadāsāchārya on Nidānasthāna, JadavjiTrikumji Acharya & Narayan Ram Acharya (Eds.), Bombay 1938, Nirnaya Sagar Press [3rd revised

edition; 1st edition 1915].

Secondary Literature

Adriaensen, R., & Bakker, H. I. (1998). The Skandapurāṇa 1, Adhyāyas 1–25, critically edited withprolegomena and English synopsis. Groningen: Egbert Forsten.

Aiyangar, K. V. R. (1941a). Bṛhaspatismṛti (reconstructed). Gaekwad’s Oriental Series no. 85 Baroda:

Oriental Institute.

Aiyangar, K. V. R. (1941b). Kṛtyakalpataru of Bhaṭṭa Lakṣmīdhara: Dānakāṇḍa. Gaekwad’s Oriental

Series no. 92 Baroda: Oriental Institute.

Bisschop, P. (2002). On a quotation of the Skandapurāṇa in the Tīrthavivecanakāṇḍa of Laks˙mıdhara’s

Kṛtyakalpataru studies in the Skandapuran˙a V. Indo-Iranian Journal, 45, 231–243.

Chakravarti, B. R. M. (1915). Contributions to the History of Smr˙tis in Bengal and Mithila, Part I. Journal

of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 11, 311–375.

F. De Simini

123


Colebrooke, H. T. (1801). A digest of Hindu law on contracts and successions: With a commentary byJagannát’ha Tercapanchánana. London: J. Debrett and Wilson & co.

Derrett, J. D. M. (1961a). The administration of Hindu law by the British. Comparative Studies in Societyand History, 4.1, 10–52.

Derrett, J. D. M. (1961b). Sanskrit legal treatises compiled at the instance of the British. Zeitschrift fürvergleichende Rechtswissenschaft, 63, 72–117.

Derrett, J. D. M. (1973). Dharmaśāstra and Juridical Literature. In J. Gonda (Ed.) A history of Indianliterature (vol. 4.2). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz Verlag.

De Simini, F. (2013). Ritual aspects of manuscript transmission in premodern India: A historical study ofVidyādāna through textual sources: With a first critical edition and English translation ofŚivadharmottara’s chapter two ‘on the gift of knowledge’. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University

of Turin.

Fuji, M. (1994). On the textual function of the Nīlamatapurāṇa. In Y. Ikari (Ed.) A study of the Nīlamata:Aspects of Hinduism in ancient Kashmir. Report for the Research Project: Studies in Traditional

Cultures in the Context of Ancient Indian and Indoeuropean Societies (pp. 55–136). Kyoto: Kyoto

Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University.

Ganesan, T. (2009). Two Śaiva teachers of the Sixteenth Century: Nigamajñāna I and his DiscipleNigamajñāna II. Publications hors serie, 9. Pondichery: Institut francais de Pondichery.

Gangadharan, N. (1980). Liṅgapurāṇa: A study. Delhi: Ajanta Publications.

Gonda, J. (1977).Medieval religious literature in Sanskrit. In J. Gonda (Ed.), A history of Indian literature(Vol. 2.1). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz Verlag.

Harimoto, K. (2004). Some observations on the Revā- and Ambikākhaṇḍa recension of the Skandapurāṇa.In H. Bakker (Ed.) Origin and growth of the Purāṇic text corpus, with special reference to theSkandapurāṇa, papers of the 12th World Sanskrit Conference (vol. 3.2, pp. 41–64), Delhi: Motilal

Banarasidass Publishers.

Harimoto, K. (2007). The Original Skandapurāṇa, Laks˙mıdhara and Can

˙d˙esvara. Studies in the

Skandapurāṇa VIII. Indo-Iranian Journal, 49, 23–38.Hazra, R. C. (1940). Studies in the Purāṇic Records on Hindu Rites and Customs. Dacca: Dacca

University Bulletin no. 20.

Heim, M. (2004). Theories of the Gift in South Asia: Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain reflections on Dāna. NewYork-London: Routledge.

Kane, P. V. (1933). Kātyāyana Smṛti (reconstructed). Poona: Oriental Book Agency.

Kane, P. V. (1948).Madanaratnapradīpa (Vyavahāravivekoddyota): An extensive digest on Dharmaśāstracompiled under the patronage of King Madanasiṁha. The Ganga Oriental Series no. 6 Bikaner:

Sanskrit Library.

Kane, P. V. (1968). History of Dharmaśāstra (ancient and mediaeval religious and civil law) (Vol. 1.1).Government Oriental Series, Class B, no. 6 Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. [2nd

edition revised and enlarged; 1st edition: 1930].

Kane, P. V. (1975). History of Dharmaśāstra (ancient and mediaeval religious and civil law) (Vol. 1.2).Government Oriental Series, Class B, no. 6 Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. [2nd

edition revised and enlarged; 1st edition: 1930].

Kumari, V. (1968). The Nīlamata Purāṇa: A culture & literary study of a Kaśmīrī Purāṇa (Vol. 1).

Srinagar-Jammu: J & K Academy of Art, Culture and Languages.

Lariviere, R. W. (1981). The Divyatattva of Raghunandana Bhaṭṭācārya: Ordeals in classical Hindu law.New Delhi: Manohar Publications.

Lariviere, R. W. (1989a). The Nāradasmṛti. Philadelphia: Department of South Asia Regional Studies,

University of Pennsylvania, University of Pennsylvania Studies on South Asia nos. 4-5.

Lariviere, R. W. (1989b). Justices and Pan˙d˙itas: Some ironies in contemporary readings of the Hindu

legal past. The Journal of Asian Studies, 48(4), 757–769.Lariviere, R. W. (2004). Dharmasastra, custom, “Real Law” and “Apocryphal” Smr

˙tis. Journal of Indian

Philosophy, 32, 611–627. [first appeared in Bernhard Kolver (ed.), Recht, Staat und Verwaltung imklassischen Indien, Munich 1997, Oldenbourg].

Lingat, R. (1993). The classical law of India. Translated from the French with additions by Duncan M.Derrett. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt Ltd. [1st edition in English: Berkley

1973, University of California Press. Original French edition: Les Sources du Droit dans le SystèmeTraditionnel de l’Inde, The Hague 1967, Mouton & Co., Ecole pratique des hautes etudes, Sorbonne,

6me section: sciences economiques et sociales.].


123


Majumdar, R. C. (1963). The history of Bengal: Hindu period (Vol. 1). Dacca: University of Dacca. [1st

edition: 1943].

Misra, B. B. (1959). The Central Administration of the East India Company, 1773–1834. Manchester:

University Press.

Olivelle, P. (2010). Dharmasastra: A textual history. In T. Lubin, D. R. Davis Jr., & J. K. Krishnan (Eds.),

Hinduism and law: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pollock, S. (1993). Deep orientalism? Notes on Sanskrit and power beyond the Raj. In C. A. Breckenridge

& P. van der Veer (Eds.), Orientalism and the postcolonial predicament: Perspectives on South Asia(pp. 76–133). Philadelphia: South Asia Seminar Series, University of Pennsylvania Press.

Rocher, L. (1953). The quotations from the Dharmasutras and Dharmasastras in the Dharmanibandhas.

Journal of the Oriental Institute, 3(1), 1–7.Rocher, L. (1956). Vācaspati Miśra’s Vyavahāracintāmaṇi: A digest on Hindu law procedure. Gent:

Gentse Orientalistische Bijtragen.

Rocher, L. (1972). Indian response to Anglo-Hindu law. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 92(3),419–424.

Rocher, L. (1986). The Purāṇas. In J. Gonda (Ed.), A history of Indian literature (Vol. 3.3). Wiesbaden:

Otto Harrassowitz Verlag.

Rocher, L. (2002). Jīmūtavāhana’s Dāyabhāga: The Hindu law of inheritance in Bengal. Edited andtranslated with an introduction and notes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rocher, L. (2012). Studies in Hindu Law and Dharmaśāstra. Edited with an introduction by D. R. Davis Jr.London: Anthem Press.

Sanderson, A. (2009). The Saiva age. The rise and dominance of Saivism during early medieval period. In

S. Einoo (Ed.), Genesis and development of tantrism (pp. 41–349). Tokyo: Institute of Oriental

Culture, University of Tokyo.

Schreiner, P. (1997). Nārāyaṇīya-Studien. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz Verlag. (mit Reinhold

Grunendahl Angelika Malinar Thomas Oberlies).

Shastri, L. (1905). A catalogue of palm-leaf and selected paper Mss. Belonging to the Durbar Library,Nepal (Vol. 1). Calcutta: Baptist Mission Press.

Shastri, L. (1913). Preliminary report on the operation in search of Mss. of Bardic chronicles. Calcutta:Asiatic Society of Bengal.

Sternbach, L. (1974). Subhāṣita, gnomic and didactic literature. In J. Gonda (Ed.), A history of Indianliterature (Vol. 4.1). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz Verlag.

Talbot, C. (2001). Precolonial India in practice: Society, region, and identity in medieval Andhra. NewYork: Oxford University Press.

Torzsok, J. (2004). Three Chapters of Saiva Material Added to the Earliest Known Recension of the

Skandapurāṇa, In: H. Bakker (Ed.) Origin and growth of the Purāṇic text corpus, with specialreference to the Skandapurāṇa, Papers of the 12th world sanskrit conference (vol. 3.2, pp. 17–40).

Delhi: Motilal Banarasidass Publishers.

Tripathi, R. S. (1959). History of Kanauj to the Moslem conquest. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.

Wadekar, M. L. (1996). Devalasmṛti-reconstruction and critical study. Delhi: Koshal Book Depot.

Yazdani, G. (1960). The early history of the Deccan (Vol. 2). London: Oxford University Press.

F. De Simini

123


De Simini Journal of Indian Philosophy

Documents