Browse articles

The Danasagara and the Danaratnakara

By Bhabatosh Bhattacharya

Vol. 26 · No. 4December - 1950pp. 330-332English

Summary

'The Danasagara and the Danaratnakara' by Bhabatosh Bhattacharya compares two Sanskrit works that, despite their similar titles, are distinct compositions produced centuries apart. The Dānasāgara (‘Ocean of Gifts’) is attributed to the twelfth‑century Sena king Ballala Sena of Bengal, while the Dānaratnākara (‘Jewel‑mine of Gifts’) is associated with the fourteenth‑century scholar Candesvara of Mithila. Bhattacharya notes that only a fifth of the Dānasāgara has been published, and the Dānaratnākara remains largely in manuscript form; his study is based on several manuscripts from libraries in Bengal and Bihar. He summarises his earlier research, which showed that Candesvara’s Krtyaratnākara drew heavily from Ballala Sena’s Dānasāgara, and that both texts discuss the merits, types and procedures of gifts (dāna) in Hindu ritual. In this paper, Bhattacharya examines parallels and differences between the two works. The Dānasāgara organises gifts according to recipients, occasions and ritual context, emphasising royal charity and the social obligations of kings. The Dānaratnākara, while drawing on similar sources, expands the classification of gifts and includes citations from later Dharmashastra commentators. Bhattacharya concludes that although the titles suggest a close relationship, the two texts were written independently in different regions and reflect evolving ritual practices over two centuries. He highlights the importance of editing and publishing these works to understand the development of Smriti literature and the social history of charity in medieval India.

Conclusion

Bhattacharya’s comparative study clarifies that the Dānasāgara and Dānaratnākara are separate compositions linked by theme rather than authorship. By tracing manuscript evidence and analysing content, he shows that the Sena king Ballala Sena’s work predates Candesvara’s treatise by about two centuries. Recognising their distinction helps avoid conflating sources and sheds light on the evolution of ritualistic discourse on charity. The article emphasises the value of continued manuscript research and critical editions for reconstructing India’s intellectual heritage.

Original PDF

Inline viewer

Checking source PDF

The viewer will load here if the archive file is reachable.