UpdateBot at 18:12, 8 January 2022

2022-01-08T18:12:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:42, 8 January 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{short description\|Ancient Indian legal commentary}}		{{short description\|Ancient Indian legal commentary}}
			{{italics title}}
	The '''{{IAST\|Mitākṣarā}}''' is a ''{{IAST\|vivṛti}}'' (legal [[Commentary (philology)\|commentary]]) on the [[Yajnavalkya Smriti]] best known for its theory of "inheritance by birth." It was written by [[Vijñāneśvara]], a scholar in the [[Western Chalukya]] court in the late eleventh and early twelfth century. Along with the [[Dāyabhāga]], it was considered one of the main authorities on [[Hindu Law]] from the time the British began administering laws in India. The entire {{IAST\|Mitākṣarā}}, along with the text of the ''{{IAST\|Yājñavalkya-smṝti}}'', is approximately 492 closely printed pages.<ref>Kane, P. V., ''History of Dharmaśāstra'', (Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1975), Volume I, Part II, 604.</ref>		The '''{{IAST\|Mitākṣarā}}''' is a ''{{IAST\|vivṛti}}'' (legal [[Commentary (philology)\|commentary]]) on the [[Yajnavalkya Smriti]] best known for its theory of "inheritance by birth." It was written by [[Vijñāneśvara]], a scholar in the [[Western Chalukya]] court in the late eleventh and early twelfth century. Along with the [[Dāyabhāga]], it was considered one of the main authorities on [[Hindu Law]] from the time the British began administering laws in India. The entire {{IAST\|Mitākṣarā}}, along with the text of the ''{{IAST\|Yājñavalkya-smṝti}}'', is approximately 492 closely printed pages.<ref>Kane, P. V., ''History of Dharmaśāstra'', (Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1975), Volume I, Part II, 604.</ref>

193.48.45.220: Added details about the Bālaṃbhaṭṭī

2021-06-24T15:11:20Z

Added details about the Bālaṃbhaṭṭī

New page

{{short description|Ancient Indian legal commentary}}
The '''{{IAST|Mitākṣarā}}''' is a ''{{IAST|vivṛti}}'' (legal [[Commentary (philology)|commentary]]) on the [[Yajnavalkya Smriti]] best known for its theory of "inheritance by birth." It was written by [[Vijñāneśvara]], a scholar in the [[Western Chalukya]] court in the late eleventh and early twelfth century. Along with the [[Dāyabhāga]], it was considered one of the main authorities on [[Hindu Law]] from the time the British began administering laws in India. The entire {{IAST|Mitākṣarā}}, along with the text of the ''{{IAST|Yājñavalkya-smṝti}}'', is approximately 492 closely printed pages.<ref>Kane, P. V., ''History of Dharmaśāstra'', (Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1975), Volume I, Part II, 604.</ref>

==Author==
Vijñāneśvara lived at Marthur near kalaburagi (Karnataka), near the end of the eleventh century during the reign of [[Vikramaditya VI]] of the Cālukya dynasty of Kalyāni, one of the great rulers of the Deccan.<ref>Lingat, Robert, ''The Classical Law of India'', (New York: Oxford UP, 1973), 113.</ref> He was a "profound student of the [[Purva-Mimamsa]] system,"<ref>Kane, P. V., ''The History of Dharmaśāstra'', (Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1975), Volume I, Part II, 603.</ref> a system of exegetical thought focused on the interpretation of the Vedas. Contrary to Derrett's opinion based on Yajnavalkya 2.4 and 2.305 that Vijñāneśvara was a judge, Kane holds that these passages about characteristics of judges do not reflect a social or historical reality, but rather an interpretation based upon Mimamsa.<ref>Kane, P. V., ''History of Dharmaśāstra'', (Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1975), Volume I, Part II, 610. Kane's opinion is confirmed in Ludo Rocher, "Schools of Hindu Law," ''India Maior'' (Gonda Volume). Leiden, 1972, 172, who emphasizes Vijñāneśvara's self-presentation as a yogi, ascetic, or hermit.</ref>

==Date and historical context==
Kane places the {{IAST|Mitākṣarā}} between 974 CE and 1000 CE, but he says, "there is no evidence to establish the exact time when the work was undertaken."<ref>Kane, P. V., ''History of Dharmaśāstra'', (Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1975), Volume I, Part II, 609.</ref> He places it after 1050 CE because it names Viśvarūpa, [[Medhātithi]], and Dhāreśvara, other commentators, as authoritative sources. Derrett places the text between 1121 CE and 1125 CE, a much shorter time frame than Kane, but Kane claims that this time frame is purely arbitrary, and Derrett does not provide the evidence to support his claim.<ref>Kane, P. V., ''History of Dharmaśāstra'', (Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1975), Volume I, Part II, 609.</ref> Lingat, however, is content to place the {{IAST|Mitākṣarā}} simply at the end of the eleventh century.<ref>Lingat, Robert, ''The Classical Law of India'', (New York: Oxford UP, 1973), 113.</ref> Historically, Vijñāneśvara was attempting to clarify and explain parts of the {{IAST|[[Yājñavalkya Smṛti]]}}, and he was criticizing and discussing earlier commentaries on the same text in an attempt to reconcile differences and further explain the meaning and the significance of the text.

==Sources and topics==
Vijñāneśvara's commentary "brings together numerous {{IAST|[[smṛti]]}} passages, explains away contradictions among them by following the rules of interpretation laid down in the [[Purva Mimamsa]] system, brings about order by assigning to various dicta their proper scope and province...and effects a synthesis of apparently unconnected {{IAST|smṛti}} [[injunctions]]."<ref>Kane, P. V., ''History of Dharmaśāstra'', (Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1975), Volume I, Part II, 600.</ref> In this sense, the commentary is similar to a digest (nibandha) in that it attempts to draw into the commentary outside opinions about the same passages of the text which he is commenting on. Although he is commenting on the {{IAST|[[Yājñavalkya Smṛti]]}}, he cites numerous earlier commentators as well, including Viśvarūpa,<ref>Author of the ''{{IAST|Bālakrīḍā}}'', a commentary of the {{IAST|[[Yājñavalkya Smṛti]]}}</ref> [[Mēdhātithi]],<ref>An earlier commentator on the {{IAST|[[Manusmṛti]]}}</ref> and Dhāreśvara. The {{IAST|Mitākṣarā}}'s most important topics include property rights, property distribution, and inheritance. This text has become the authority, especially on inheritance, throughout most of India after the British began to move in.

==Effect on British India==
The {{IAST|Mitākṣarā}}, along with the [[Dāyabhāga]], became an influential source for British Courts in India. The {{IAST|Mitākṣarā}} was influential throughout the majority of India, except in [[Bengal]], [[Assam]] and some of the parts in [[Odisha]] and [[Bihar]], where the [[Dāyabhāga]] prevailed as an authority for law. The British were interested in administering law in India, but they wanted to administer the law that already existed to the people. Thus, they searched for a text that could be used to help solve disputes among the people of India in manners which were already customary in the sub continent. These disputes often involved property rights or inheritance issues. Thus, the first translation of the {{IAST|Mitākṣarā}} was by [[Henry Thomas Colebrooke|Colebrooke]] in 1810,<ref>Lingat, Robert, ''The Classical Law of India'', (New York: Oxford UP, 1973), 113.</ref> and it was only this section of the text that gave the British insight on how to deal with inheritance issues. At that point, the {{IAST|Mitākṣarā}} held the status of a legislative text because it was used as a direct resource regarding inheritance in the courts of law in most of India.

==Translations==
[[Henry Thomas Colebrooke|Colebrooke]] did the first translation of the {{IAST|Mitākṣarā}} in 1810 because there was an immediate need in the British courts for the "law" (or as close as they could get to the law) regarding inheritance that already existed among the people of India. W. Macnaghten did the second translation, dealing with procedure, in 1829. Finally, J. R. Gharpure provided us with a complete translation of the {{IAST|Mitākṣarā}}.<ref>Lingat, Robert, ''The Classical Law of India'', (New York: Oxford UP, 1973), 113.</ref>

==Sub-commentaries==
Several sub-commentaries have been written on the {{IAST|Mitākṣarā}}, including the ''Subodhinī'' of Viśveśvara (c.1375), the ''{{IAST|Bālaṃbhaṭṭī}}'' of Bālaṃbhaṭṭa Payagunde (c.1770).<ref>Bhattacharya, D.C. (1962). ''The Nibandhas'' in S. Radhakrishnan (ed.) ''The Cultural Heritage in India'', Vol.II, Calcutta: The Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture, {{ISBN|81-85843-03-1}}, p.366</ref> and the ''{{IAST|Pratītākṣarā}}'' of {{IAST|Nandapaṇḍita}}. The ''{{IAST|Bālaṃbhaṭṭī}}'' is notable for having greatly informed [[Henry Thomas Colebrooke|Colebrooke]]'s translation of the {{IAST|Mitākṣarā}}, and also for possibly having been written by a woman, Lakṣmīdevī.<ref>Li, Charles, ''Lakṣmīdevi's "intellectual petticoats" and the flamewar it inspired'', 2021.</ref>

==Notes==
{{reflist}}

==References==
* Suryanath U. Kamat, A Concise history of Karnataka from pre-historic times to the present, Jupiter books, MCC, Bangalore, 2001 (Reprinted 2002) OCLC: 7796041
* K.A. Nilakanta Sastri, History of South India, From Prehistoric times to fall of Vijayanagar, 1955, OUP, New Delhi (Reprinted 2002), {{ISBN|0-19-560686-8}}
* Charles Li, [https://tst.hypotheses.org/2542 "Lakṣmīdevī’s 'intellectual petticoats' and the flamewar they inspired."] [https://tst.hypotheses.org ''Texts Surrounding Texts: Satellite Stanzas, Prefaces and Colophons in South-Indian Manuscripts.''] 11 June 2021.

==External links==
*[http://www.ebc-india.com/lawyer/articles/2005_7_3.htm The Importance of Mitakshara in the 21st century by Justice Markandey Katju]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Mitaksara}}
[[Category:Hindu law]]
[[Category:Ancient Indian law]]

Mitākṣarā - Revision history

UpdateBot at 18:12, 8 January 2022

193.48.45.220: Added details about the Bālaṃbhaṭṭī