व्यवहारमयूख (नीलकण्ठ भट्ट - पश्चिमी भारत की हिन्दू न्याय-संहिता एवं व्यवहार कोष)

XII VYAVAHĀRAMAYŪKHA
appendix to the edition of the Vyavahāramayūkha (Bhandarkar Oriental
Institute Poona). In that work he refers to the Vyavahāramayūkha as
already composed by him. So that work is not a first rough draft or plan of
the Vyavahāramayūkha but is rather an epitome of his larger work for the
benefit of beginners. He appears to have composed a separate work on adop-
tion viz Dattakanirṇaya.
Nīlakaṇṭha's literary activity must be placed in the first half of the
17th century. We saw above that his grandfather Nārāyaṇabhaṭṭa was
born in 1513. His father Śaṅkara bhatta quotes in his Dvaitanirṇaya the
Toḍarānanda which must have been composed between 1570 – 1586 (the year
of the death of Todarmal). So the Dvaitanirṇaya was not composed much
earlier than 1600 A. D. Kamalākara who was the paternal first cousin of
Nīlakaṇṭha composed in 1612 A. D. his Nirṇayasindhu which was one of his
earliest works. One ms. of the Vyavahāratattva bears the date saṃvat 1700
(i. e. 1643-44 A. D.). Śaṅkara the son of Nīlakaṇṭha composed his Kuṇḍa-
bhāskara in 1671 and Divākarabhaṭṭa daughter's son of Nīlakaṇṭha wrote
his Ācārārka in 1686 A. D. Therefore Nīlakaṇṭha's literary activity lies bet-
ween 1610 and 1650 A. D.
Nīlakaṇṭha occupies a prominent position among the mediaeval Sanskrit
writers on dharmaśāstra. He frequently differs from Vijñāneśvara the re-
nowned author of the Mitākṣarā. These differences have been pointed out
in the notes and in the Index. In the arrangement of the subjects of
dharmaśāstra and in their treatment he was largely influenced by the Madana-
ratna. He frequently refers to other digests and encyclopaedias like his own
viz. the Caturvargacintāmaṇi of Hemādri, the Vivādaratnākara of Caṇḍeśvara,
the Nṛsiṃhaprasāda and the Toḍarānanda. Nīlakaṇṭha expresses frank dissent
even from the most eminent of his predecessors. He boldly criticises even
his father's views, though Śaṅkarabhaṭṭa was a profound Mīmāṃsaka.
Nīlakaṇṭha was himself a profound student of the Mīmāṃsā system. In the
vastness of the materials drawn upon, in ease and grace of style, in the
brevity and lucidity of his remarks, in clearness of vision and in logical pre-
sentation of topics he is hardly surpassed by any mediaeval writer on
dharmaśāstra.
A few words about the position of the Vyavahāramayūkha in modern
Hindu Law may not be out of place here. It has been repeatedly held by
the Privy Council and by the Bombay High Court that the Mitā-
kṣarā and the Mayūkha are the books of chief authority in Western India.¹
In the Maratha country and in the Island of Bombay the Mayūkha is of
paramount authority and a secondary place is given to the Mitākṣarā. (see
1 See for instance 12 B. H. C. R. (O. C. J.) 325 at p. 328; L. R. 24 I. A.
28 at p. 44; 11 Bom. L. R. 641 at p. 650; Bai Kesserbai v. Hunsraj Morarji 33 I. A. at p. 186; Krishnaji
v. Chundrabhagabai 12 Bom. 110 at p. 117 (P. C.).