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

THE
VYAVAHĀRAMAYŪKHA
Composed by
BHATTA NĪLAKANTHA
1 Having spoken of the ways of royal policy and fittingly bowed to the
lotus-like feet of the refulgent (Sun), Nīlakantha composes a little (work) on
the disposal (decision) of vyavahāra (judicial proceedings)
2 I contemplate my revered (father) S'aṅkara, the only leader among
the best of Brāhmanas, who looked after the religious practices (of the peo-
ple), who was endowed with happiness, who was the teacher of all in Kās'ī
(Benares)
3 That highest Person, who appeared in two forms in this world for
propounding two conflicting paths (systems), has here (now) accepted the
non-difference of (the views of the two) Mīmāmsakas, (being born) in one
form as Bhatta S'aṅkara
4 There are certain (doctrines) here which are accepted by some who
lead (people) astray; I have discarded them as they are baseless On account
of this (discarding) there is no deficiency of treatment in this (work), wor-
ship does not become deficient by the absence of the flower of the sky
V 1 'Having spoken policy'—This refers to the composition of the Nītimayūkha,
which immediately preceded that of the Vyavahāramayūkha
V 2 This verse also applies to god S'aṅkara by means of Śleṣa (Paronomasia) The
words द्विजराज, वृष, शिवान्वित are paronomastic The verse (with S'aṅkara) means 'I contem-
plate (the god) S'aṅkara, who has the moon as the only thing (by way of decoration) on his head
who is the lord of the Bull, who is accompanied by Pārvatī (called S'ivā), who is the inspirer
of all in Kās'ī and who is an object of worship'. S'iva is the presiding deity of Benares
V 3 For detailed explanation of this verse, vide notes to V M pp 1—3 The two
Mīmāmsakas are Prabhākara and Kumārila Nīlakantha claims that his father explained
away the differences between the views of Prabhākara and Kumārila Mandlik's explanation
that the first half of the verse refers to S'ankara and Kumārila and that the latter half says that
S'aṅkarabhatta accepted the identity of the human soul with the divine essence propounded
by Vyāsa is far-fetched and wrong The doctrine of advaita was not propounded by
Mīmāmsakas properly so called and Vyāsa and his school are hardly ever designated
Mīmāmsakas.
V 4. Khapuspa (sky—flower) is a symbol of what is absolutely non existent Vide
notes to V. M. p. 3 for khapuspa.