You are on page 1of 40

Journal of Indian Philosophy (2005) 33:5594 DOI 10.

1007/s10781-004-9055-1 KARIN PREISENDANZ

Springer 2005


Dedicated to Mm. Professor Anantalal Thakur in respectful appreciation of his foundational contribution to the study of the history of Ny"ya a
The following essay will present a broad survey as well as some rst " " observations and results concerning the Nyayasutra commentarial tradition and its individual scholars in the pre-colonial period, from the fteenth to the eighteenth centuries, in accordance with the focus of the international project Sanskrit Knowledge Systems On the Eve of Colonialism in which I am a participator. To be able to outline the general developments and specic changes which occurred just before
This contribution is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0135069. Access to the manuscript materials preserved at Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute to which reference is made in this contribution has been provided by the Sanskrit Knowledge Systems Project; I would like to take the opportunity to thank BORI for this most collegial cooperation. I also want to express my gratitude to the Sanskrit College, Kolkata, and its Acting Principal, Dr. Jayanta Chakraborty, as well as to the dedicated sta of Sarasvati Bhavana Library, foremost the chief librarian, Dr. Suryakant Yadav, and the former Vice-Chancellor of Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi, Dr. Ram Murti Sharma, for generously permitting access to their manuscript holdings and greatly facilitating my work at these institutions in the years 2001 and 2002. In Darbhanga, access to the manuscript collection at Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University (Darbhanga Raj Library) was granted in 2002 by the Vice-Chancellor, Dr. Kishor Kunal, and kind assistance provided by the Head Librarian, Dr. Jha, and the retired manuscript curator (Mahatmaji). At the Mithila Research Institute, the Director, Dr. Krishnakant Trivedi, permitted me in the same year to explore part of the Institutes manuscript holdings; in this I was supported by the whole sta, foremost by my dear friend, Dr. Mitra Nath Jha, Director of the Manuscript Department. Furthermore, I am grateful to Dr. Saroja Bhate for her kind assistance in " " obtaining photocopies of the Nyayasutra ms. owned by the Prajn" P"tha"la a a : sa Mandala, Wai, referred to in n. 62. Cordial thanks are due to my husband, Dr. Eli :: Franco, and my colleague Dr. Anne MacDonald, Vienna, for their many valuable comments and suggestions, and to Dr. Sudipta Kaviraj, London, for his insightful and inspiring remarks on an earlier version of this paper.



and during this period I will have to provide a wider context and therefore rst present a concise survey and analysis of the earlier commentarial tradition. Only with some understanding of this prehistory, both in general and from the relevant points of view such as the commentators motivation in composing their works, their intended audience, their attitude towards the foundational text and other, earlier commentarial works of the tradition, and their selfunderstanding in general, can one proceed to ask the right questions, to examine these aspects in the commentarial tradition of the relevant pre-colonial period, and to characterize its development and special features. Wherever possible, observations relating to the social and politicalhistorical contexts of the authors of these commentaries and to the circulation of their works will be made. As is well known, it was during Kushana rule and the following Gupta period that the major philosophical traditions of Classical South Asia crystallized on the sub-continent. Among them, the Ny"ya or logic tradition most probably arose within an intellectual a environment of thinkers who were concerned in a scholarly manner with the prerequisites and principles of sound academic debate, with its instruments and its general rules; at the same time these thinkers must have also become engaged in philosophical questions, foremost in questions belonging to the domain of epistemology, which is of immediate relevance to debate, but also in questions pertaining to philosophy of nature, that is, the realm of physics, and to some extent metaphysics. This combination of areas of intellectual concern provided fertile ground for the formation of a full-edged philosophical tradition.1 Inasmuch as the art of debate and reasoned argumentation is of relevance to all philosophical and scholarly endeavours, it is not surprising that the Ny"ya tradition from early on occupied a central a position in South Asian intellectual history, which is reected in its strong inuence on other philosophical traditions and Sanskritic sciences in general, from a doctrinal as well as from a formal point of view. " " " s" The Nyayasutra or Nyayaastra, as the foundational work of the tradition is most commonly called in the early tradition, is ascribed to the sage Aksap"da of the Gotama clan; there are indications that it : a was probably nalized in its classical form available to us nowadays by anonymous redactors in the rst half of the fth century.2 Next to its most ancient core, i.e., the rst and last chapters, which betrays the
1 2

For a summary, cf. e.g., Franco/Preisendanz (1998a). Cf. Franco/Preisendanz (1995: 8586), Franco (2002: 283).



origins of Ny"ya in the tradition of debate, in its three middle a chapters the work presents in a more or less systematic arrangement numerous dialectically structured discussions on epistemological, psychological and metaphysical topics, as well as on topics of philosophy of nature,3 leading to the establishment of the position of the Ny"ya proponent. The partners in conversation, or rather opponents a in dispute, who can be identied by us or were already identied by the early commentators, are thinkers within the Ny"ya tradition itself a and contemporary or slightly anterior philosophers of rival traditions such as the S"nkhya and the M" ams", the latter especially in the a_ m" : a context of philosophy of language. Further opponents can be determined as adherents of the largely lost materialist tradition of Indian philosophy and as philosophers belonging to the early Buddhist traditions of Madhyamaka and Yog"c"ra as well as representatives of a a early classical Buddhist scholastics. Owing to their diametrically opposed metaphysical and epistemological presuppositions, the exchange of opinions with the Buddhist thinkers as reected in the " " Nyayasutra was especially erce and controversial; prominent examples are the questions of the existence of an individual, permanent " and substantial Self (atman) in (wo)man4 or of the nature and very ": possibility of means of valid cognition (pramana).5 Those philosophers who were close to the tradition of the " " Nyayasutra and studied it in subsequent times must have considered their required contribution to the tradition to consist in the explanation " of the pithy statements of the Sutra under the aspect of their wording and content. This was achieved by them in accordance with their own philosophical ideas and knowledge of the tradition as such, probably taking into special consideration the explanations of their teachers; in " the process they brought the philosophical discussions in the Sutra itself and earlier commentaries on it up to date. Most of the literature of classical Ny"ya thus presents itself in the form of commentaries on the a " " Nyayasutra, sub-commentaries and further commentaries on these, and we know of quite a number of works belonging to these genres.

3 4 5

For a brief survey, cf. e.g., Franco/Preisendanz (1998b). Cf. especially Oetke (1984: 247278), Preisendanz (1994). Cf. Oetke (1991).



Except for some fragments, however, these works have been lost.6 Only a few independent treatises belonging to the classical and early medieval periods have been preserved or are known to have existed; the major ones among them which have come down to us, such as the " " ": : Nyayamanjar" and the Nyayabhusana, frequently refer to the i " " " ": Nyayasutra, together with the earliest commentary, the Nyayabhasya, " " to its only preserved classical sub-commentary, the Nyayavarttika, and to other lost commentarial literature,7 and therefore can be considered to partake to a certain degree of the nature of a commentary.8 From the point of view of our contemporary analysis of the situation, owing to their conciseness and resulting ambiguity the roughly ve hundred " " " ancient sutra-s of the Nyayasutra were suitable to serve as directives for the discussion with rival philosophers even half a millennium after their composition, just as ancient landmarks may provide guiding points of reference even for the pilots of modern vehicles. However, as has been observed by others with respect to Sanskritic commentarial literature in general, according to the mostly only implicit understanding of the authors of these commentarial works the individual aphorisms already contain the opinions and positions explicated by themselves in the light of the contemporary state of philosophical discussion; the doctrinal edice which has been sket" " ched in the Nyayasutra, including the rival critiques and positions, thus anticipates as we would express it the later developments or can harmoniously accommodate them. No express claim is made to personal intellectual originality or innovation on the part of the individual thinkers; it is rather explicitly denied in some cases. A further explicit authorial attitude to be encountered is that the commentarial activity serves the re-establishment of doctrinal positions expressed in the foundational work which have been misunderstood by opponents and therefore attacked or dismissed, with the result that their real meaning has become concealed. Uddyotakara, the " " " ": sixth-century author of the Nyayavarttika on the Nyayabhasya, states _ in the auspicious invocatory verse (mangalaloka) of his work: s
6 For a survey of this lost commentarial literature with references to the relevant secondary literature, cf. Steinkellner (1961), to be updated with the help of more recent contributions by himself (cf. Steinkellner, 1977) and scholars such as Solomon (1970, 1971, 1973, 1974, 1976, 19771978, 1980, 1986), Shah (1972), Thakur (1970, 1981, 2000: 110111) and Wezler (1975). 7 Cf. Frauwallner (1936), Gupta (1963: 2425, 97), Schmithausen (1965: 162, 248.), Shah (1972: 59) and Wezler (1975). 8 " " A notable exception to this is the Nyayasara by Bh"sarvajna. a



In the following I will [now] compose a compendium of the teaching (astra) that has been proclaimed by Aksap"da, the s" : a foremost of sages, for the sake of the worlds [mental and spiritual] peace, [a compendium] which [should] cause the misperceptions of poor logicians to vanish.9 It is generally assumed and indeed highly probable that the poor " logicians (kutarkika) referred to by Uddyotakara here were foremost the proponents of the rising school of Buddhist epistemology and logic, in the rst place Vasubandhu and Dign"ga,10 the major critics a of relevant aspects of the early Ny"ya tradition, with whose novel a conceptions Uddyotakara concerned himself in extensive polemic discussions. From our point of view, but by no means explicated in this way by Uddyotakara himself, their critique resulted from the antiquity and outdatedness of the foundational text of Ny"ya in a logical matters, a situation which would normally require, as the appropriate reaction of a commentator whose tradition is under attack, a fresh interpretation of the old positions in the light of the new developments, here the developments in logic brought about by Buddhist thinkers. However, Aksap"das status of a sage (muni) : a _ addressed by Uddyotakara in his mangalaloka may have ruled out s such an interpretation in the latters eyes. This status becomes evident " ": also in the concluding verse of the Nyayabhasya where V"tsy"yana a a refers to Aksap"da as a : : i;11 could it be that even though the last a rs : " " touches on the nal redaction of the classical Nyayasutra cannot have taken place much earlier than some fty years before the composition ": a a of the Bhasya,12 V"tsy"yana rightly realized that the core portions of " the Sutra go further back in time? As regards Uddyotakaras reference to the purpose of Aksap"das teaching, namely, to the : a mental and spiritual peace of the world (jagatah samaya), it could :  "
9 Cf. NV 1, 34: " yad aksapadah pravaro mun"nam amaya sastram jagato jagada / i " : s " " : " : : " " " " kutarkikajnananivrttihetuh karisyate tasya maya nibandhah //. : : : : Umesh Mishra, whose account of the history of classical Ny"ya displays an a astonishingly erce anti-Buddhist attitude, thinks that the verse refers to Buddhist " " attempts to destroy or distort the Nyayasutra because their own arguments had been refuted with the help of the powerful logical and dialectical means expounded there (cf. Mishra, 1966: 21). 10 Cf. already V"caspati Miras commentary treated below on pp. 6061. a s 11 Cf. NBh 320, 1718: " : " ": yo ksapadam : : im nyayah pratyabhad vadatam varam / rs : : " " " ": " tasya vatsyayana idam bhasyajatam avartayat //. : 12 " ": On the date of the Nyayabhasya, cf. Franco and Preisendanz (1995) and Franco (2002: 282283), corroborating Oberhammer (1964).



well have been provoked by the epithet desiring the good of the world (jagaddhitaisin) assigned to the Buddha as an authority in : _ ": Dign"gas famous mangalaloka of his Pramanasamuccaya.13 a s The intense controversy of the Ny"ya tradition with the Buddhist a epistemologists in the wake of Dharmak" rtis formidable works continued to inspire Naiy"yikas to turn to commentarial work in the a described manner. In the tenth century, V"caspati Mira, according a s _ " arttikatatparyat"ka, claims to " " to the mangalaloka-s of his Nyayav s :i " " " have defended the Nyayavarttika against criticism that is based on the mere distortion of Uddyotakaras explanation of Aksap"das work.14 : a _ " V"caspati Miras wish concluding the mangalavada points again a s towards the Buddhist logicians as live opponents. He says: I wish to obtain at least some merit from extracting (saving) Uddyotakaras over-aged cows (words), which have become submerged in the hard-to-traverse swamp of bad compositions.15 His metaphor of the over-aged cows suggests that V"caspati a Mira was well aware of the weakness and obsoleteness of Uddyos takaras logic once Dharmak" had developed his new ideas on the rti
Cf. Hattori (1968), Appendix A following p. 238 (Sanskrit reconstruction), p. 1, 12: ": " " " "" pramanabhutaya jagaddhitaisine pranamya sastre sugataya tayine / : : : ": " pramanasiddhyai svamatat samuccayah karisyate viprasrtad ihaikatah //. : : : : " On the relationship of the various epithets according to Dharmak" rtis and his commentators interpretation and on the relevance of this relationship for the proof": " strategy of the Pram"nasiddhi chapter of the Pramanavarttika cf. Franco (1997, a: ": chapter 1). Also V"tsy"yanas use of the epithet best of speakers (vadatam varah) a a : _ relating to Aksap"da (cf. n. 11 above) may have been a reaction to the mangalaloka s : a " " " of a prominent Buddhist treatise, namely, of N"g"rjunas Mulamadhyamakakarika a a (MMK 11, 1516), in which the Buddha is characterized as the best of speakers: " : yah prat"tyasamutpadam prapancopaamam sivam / i s : :  ": deayamasa sambuddhas tam vande vadatam varam //. s " " : 14 Cf. NVTT 1, 78: : " " " ": : " granthavyakhyacchalenaiva nirastakhiladusana / " " " " nyayavarttikatatparyat"kasmabhir vidhasyate //. :i " " 15 Cf. NVTT 1, 910: : " _ " " icchami kim api punyam dustarakunibandhapankamagnanam / : : uddyotakaragav"nam atijarat"nam samuddharanat //. i " i ": :" " Cf. also the rst verse of the puspika (NVTT 700, 23): : : _ " " yad alambhi kim api punyam dustarakunibandhapankamagnanam / : : uddyotakaragav"nam atijarat"nam samuddharanat // . i " i ": :" A slightly reworded form of the latter verse appears in the concluding verses of the " "i Nyayasuc"nibandha ascribed to V"caspati: a _ " " yad alambhi kim api punyam dustarakunibandhapankamagnanam / : : i sr"gotamasugav"nam atijarat"nam samuddharanat // . i " i ": :" According to Umesh Mishras interpretation V"caspati refers here to the attempts of a " " the Buddhists to do wrong to the Nyayasutra (cf. Mishra, 1966: 22).



foundations laid by Dign"ga and his own teacher "svarasena.16 This a I clearly contrasts with what V"caspati has to say on Uddyotakaras a _ ` mangalaloka and the role of his commentary vis-a-vis the teaching of s Aksap"da: The poor logicians, whom he identies as Dign"ga a : a "i and other hostile scholars posterior (arvac"na) to V"tsy"yana, had a a " covered the sastra with the darkness of bad reasons, with the result that it was no longer suitable to determine the true nature of things; Uddyotakara, however, removed this darkness by means of the light of a s his composition.17 We can infer here that for V"caspati Mira " Aksap"da, the venerable sage (bhagavan munih),18 remains the timeless a : : authority; only the attempts by later scholars, such as Uddyotakara, to defend his teachings against unfair and unfounded accusations can lose their strength and become antiquated. Aksap"das authority as : a opposed to that to which the Buddhist opponents appeal is further stressed by V"caspati Miras employment of epithets that, once more, a s are commonly and typically applied to the Buddha. In one of his _ " mangalaloka-s he calls Aksap"da a protector (tayin),19 a term which s : a is commonly used by Buddhists and Jains as an epithet of the Buddha and of Mah"v" and other T" a ra rthamkaras respectively20 and which : _ immediately evokes again Dign"gas mangalaloka of the Praa s 21 ": manasamuccaya; furthermore, when referring to Uddyotakaras " successful eorts in the defence of the sastra at an earlier time in the history of Indian philosophy V"caspati Mira applies the epithet of a s " : highest compassion (paramakarunika) to Aksap"da22 which may take : a its inspiration from Dharmak" rtis stress on compassion as the proof or means of the Buddhas being an authority.23
Cf. also Thakur (1947: 37). ": " " " Cf. NVTT 2, 46: yadyapi bhasyakrta krtavyutpadanam etat tathapi digna: : " : "i : " " " gaprabhrtibhir arvac"naih kuhetusantamasasamutthapanenacchaditam sastram na : " : : " tattvanirnayaya paryaptam ity uddyotakarena svanibandhoddyotena tad apan"yata iti i : " : " " prayojanavan arambha iti. 18 Cf. NVTT 2, 10 (cf. the quotation below, n. 22). : 19 Cf. NVTT 1, 56: : " " " namami dharmavijn anavairagyaivaryaaline / s s" " s " nidhaye vagviuddh"nam aksapadaya tayine //. i " : " " 20 " On the original meaning and development of the term tayin, cf. Roth (1968). 21 Cf. Hattori, loc. cit. (cf. n. 13 above). This occurrence is evidence for the fact that " the meaning of protector had been attached to the Sanskritized term tayin even before the seventh or eighth century, that is, the period which has roughly been assumed by Roth for this change (cf. Roth, 1968: 61). 22 " : " _ Cf. NVTT 2, 10: paramakaruniko hi bhagavan munir jagad eva duhkhapan: : kamagnam uddidh"rsuh astram pran"tavan. i : : s" : :i " 23 Cf. PV Pram"nasiddhi chapter, v. 34; see also Franco (1997: 19.). a:
17 16



Aniruddhas brief commentary, written probably at the end of the " ": " " tenth century on dicult passages in the Nyayabhasya, Nyayavarttika " " " and Nyayavarttikatatparyat"ka, is not preserved for the rst i " : " adhyaya24 where one would expect explicit statements as to the authors conception of his own place in the tradition and his attitude towards its foundational work; elsewhere, it does not yield any " " relevant information. Bhattav"g"svaras Nyayatatparyad"pika is the i " : : a  " " only completely preserved direct commentary on the Nyayasutra " ": " " between the Nyayabhasya and the fteenth-century Nyayatattvaloka; " " " because it often follows the Nyayavarttikatatparyat"ka in its interi " : " pretation of the sutra-s, it has to be dated between this work and Udayanas Pariuddhi (rst quarter of the eleventh century), which s was certainly not known to its author. Bhattav"g"svara, who may : : a  " ": have been from the south, merely mentions that the Nyayabhasya and " " Nyayavarttika served as his basis, that is, that he had examined the former word by word and followed the latter in order to be able to " " throw light on the intention of the Sutra.25 The nal puspika, which : " consists of two verses and concludes both the fth adhyaya and the whole work, has not been completely preserved and of its reconstruction I fail to grasp some details. It is clearly implied, though, that according to Bhattav"g"svara, the Indra of sages : : a  (mun"ndra) Aksap"da anticipated the controversy with the Buddhists i : a  and therefore enjoys timeless authority: Siva himself smilingly approved of his work because Aksap"da wished to provide those who : a " partake of intimate union with God ("asayujyabhaj) with dexterity in is " speech, considering that it would be indispensable for the instant " defeat of their partners in debate (vadin) who are garrulous when it comes to claiming that their opponents have been defeated and to pronouncing unjustied objections; further, Aksap"da considered : a that in the face of such partners in debate those close to God were also in need of dexterity in speech for achieving the knowledge of the Self and proclaiming it. Immediately before this, as the conclusion " properly speaking of the fth adhyaya in the rst quarter of the verse, knowledge of the true nature of the points of defeat in debate
However, there is a reference to his Vivarana in Udayanas Pariuddhi which s : presumably relates to the rst chapter of this commentary and testies to the original completeness of the work; cf. Thakur (2000: 114). 25 Cf. NTD 1, 56: ": " anv"ksyanupadam bhasyam apy anukramya varttikam / i : " : " " " " " nyayasutrarthatatparyad"pikeyam vidhasyate //; i : cf. also Thakur (1970: 37).



" determined in the nal ahnika is said to be of great consequence in the two hostile types of debate, i.e., the verbal contest ( jalpa) and the contentious debate in which the opponent merely puts forth objec" tions (vitanda). The reference to knowledge of the Self (atma::" visayajnana) and closeness to God in connection with hostile debate " : thus alludes again to the heated controversy with the Buddhists skilled in debate and convinced of their superior logic and argumentation which centred on the two issues of the existence of the Self and God.26 Thus, the programmatic statements of the examined major coma mentators of classical Ny"ya27 reveal that the Ny"ya scholars a themselves explicitly acknowledged that what we conceive as the lively and creative development of philosophical ideas in their time took place especially in the controversy with the Buddhist philosophers; we can also observe how the Naiy"yikas managed to place this a perceived evolution of ideas within the formal framework of the " " obviously timeless authority of the Nyayasutra. The debate with the Buddhists was always conducted in view of this timeless authority but nevertheless accompanied by some conception of the historical progression of ideas and concepts in the context of this exchange and
Cf. NTD, Thakurs introduction, pp. tha-da, for a reconstruction of the verses in : : " " sardulavikr"dita metre: i: " : evam nigrahavastutattvam akhilam nirn"tam etat punah, jnatam jalpavitandayor bahu: : :i : :: phalam sute svayam vadinam / : " : " " " " " " [sadyo nigrahajativada]mukhara jetum katham vadinah, akyante katham evam atma: : " : s " : visayam jnanam katham vocyate // : : : " " is " "" ": : ": : : iti jagati jananam "asayujyabhajam anupajanita [daksyam ditsate] bhasanesu / " " paupatir api yasmai sasmitah sadhu sadhv itvadad (recte: ity avadad ) avatu so sman s : " aksapado mun"ndrah //. i : " : My tentative translation runs as follows (reconstructed elements are placed between round brackets): In this way the full true nature of the topic of defeat [in debate] has been determined. If this, however, is understood, it will by itself produce rich fruit in verbal contest and contentious debate (i.e., such debates in which the opponent merely contends the proponents position) for those involved in debates. May Aksap"da, the Indra of sages, protect us, [he] to whom the Lord of Animals for his : a part smilingly said Excellent, excellent! (when the former formed the wish to endow) those persons in the world who partake of intimate union with God (with dexterity) in speech which had not yet arisen [in them], wondering how partners in debate who are loquacious (in claiming defeat [of their opponents] and pronouncing unjustied objections) could be defeated instantly, [and] how the knowledge which has the Self as its object [could] in this way (i.e., if one is confronted with such opponents) (?) [arise] or be proclaimed (?). 27 Within the scope of the present contribution, the important evidence of Jayanta " " ": : Bhattas Nyayamanjar" and Bh"sarvajnas Nyayabhusana, which may be considered i a :: as part of the classical commentarial tradition in the wider sense of the word, will have to be considered separately.



thus it would be unjustied to speak of blind traditionalism or lack of historical consciousness on the part of the Ny"ya scholars. a " s" The defence of the authority of the Nyayaastra against the powerful Buddhist epistemologists constituted the main inner or intellectual motivation of the commentators whose works have been preserved; the frequent references by Buddhist authors of the classical period to other, now lost commentaries allow the inference that their authors as well participated in this defence. This fruitful controversy reached its culmination in the early medieval period, in the eleventh century. Now the debate is for the rst time conducted in truly independent treatises, foremost by the great logician Udayana. Udayana was obviously dissatised with the many commentaries and " " sub-(sub-)commentaries on the Nyayasutra which were after all formally and structurally bound by the given, partially very archaic formulations and argumentation of their root text(s), and no longer convinced about the eectiveness of works belonging to this genre when the logically impeccable establishment of the central metaphysical presuppositions of the Ny"ya tradition against the a formidable Buddhists was concerned. However, next to his famous treatises establishing the existence of an individual and permanent " Self (atman) and the existence of an omniscient eternal creator-god, " " " the Atmatattvaviveka and the Nyayakusumanjali, and two small works which present exhaustive denitions pertaining to the central "" topics of the Ny"ya system, the Laksanavali and the Laksanamala, a : :" : : Udayana also devoted himself to writing a commentary on V"caspati a " " Miras commentary on the Nyayavarttika; this occurred demons strably and, I think, signicantly after he had completed his independent treatises.28 Commenting on V"caspatis comments on Uddyotakaras a _ mangalaloka, Udayana makes a few remarks that point to his s historical understanding of the Ny"ya tradition. He considers the a " " Nyayavarttika an ancient (cirantana) composition that has been " embraced or recognized by great personalities (mahajanaparigrh"ta), : i obviously a sign of its authority. Nevertheless, there are many other such compositions; why bother about this one? In the course of his discussion Udayana suggests inter alia that its tradition may have been interrupted or broken o. Elaborating upon V"caspatis a cow-metaphor (cf. above, p. 60) he speaks of Uddyotakaras philosophical tradition as the cows (i.e., words) youth; this youth,

Cf. Chemparathy (1972: 2225).



however, has been lost owing to the cows maturation in time, i.e., their getting older with time. Why then, some ctitious partner in discourse asks, should they not be rejuvenated by means of directly administrating the life-giving elixir consisting in the readily obtained teaching of V"caspatis guru Trilocana?29 Udayana considers this a " suggestion to be appropriate; however, rst the Varttika has to be extracted from the swamp of bad treatises and put on rm ground again, this ground being V"caspatis commentary on it.30 The even a " ": more ancient Nyayabhasya, however, is conceived by Udayana as " having the form of the body of the sastra and thus not considered by him as something additional to it, just like the M" ams" in relation m" : a to the Veda;31 this statement has a predecessor already in Uddyota" " karas puspika where he calls V"tsy"yana the likeness (pratima) a a : of Aksap"da, or following another reading of the verse ascribes a : " to him the intuition (pratibha) of Aksap"da.32 This close association : a ": " of Sutra and Bhasya, not unparalleled in the early classical philosophical literature, may well account for the fact that even after
" ": Next to Trilocanas presumed lost commentary on the Nyayabhasya, his main " work Nyayamanjar" could have had the form of an extensive commentary on the i " " Nyayasutra itself (cf. Steinkellner, 1961: 157; Solomon, 1986: 560, 564); Thakur, " however, considers the Nyayamanjar" to have been a commentary on the i " ": Nyayabhasya (cf. Thakur, 2000: 110). As only fragments of Trilocanas writings are preserved, it is dicult to determine the formal nature of these works (cf. also " Thakur, 1947: 37) because he could have commented directly on selected sutra-s also " ": " " in a commentary on the Nyayabhasya or even the Nyayavarttika. 30 " Cf. NVTP 3, 411: nanu cirantane smin nibandhe mahajanaparigrh"te bahavo : i " " ": " " i nibandhas tathavidhah sant"ti krtam anenety aha iccham"ti (cf. NVTT 1, 9, quoted in i : : " " " ": n. 15 above). nanu yadi granthakarasampradayavicchedena te nibandhah katham : ": " "i : kunibandhah (cf. again NVTT 1, 9)? atha sampradayo vicchinnah katham tavap"yam : : : " " " " i " vicchinnasampradaya tatparyat"ka sunibandha ity ata aha atijarat"nam (cf. NVTT : :i " 1, 10, quoted in n. 15 above) iti. uddyotakarasamprad" hy am": am yauvanam. tac ca ayo us " : " " " " "s " kalaparipakavaad galitam iva. kim namatra trilocanaguroh sakaad upas" : : " "" ": " : dearasayanam asaditam amusam punarnav"bhavaya d"yata iti yujyate. na ca s i " " i _ " ": " " kunibandhapankamagnanam tad datum ucitam. atas tasmad utkr: ya svanibandhasthale :s " " sanniveanarupasamuddharanam eva sampratam ity arthah. s : : 31 ": " Cf. NVTP 3, 1920: bhasyasya ca tadvivaranarupasya astraar"rarupataya na s" s i " : " " " " " sastrad adhikyam manyate m"mamsaya iva vedat. i ": " " : 32 ": : " " Cf. NV 530 9: yad aksapadapratimo bhasyam vatsyayano jagau / . This reading : " is conrmed by Vindhyeshvari Prasad Dvivedins edition in Bibliotheca Indica 113 (Calcutta 18871914), reset as Kashi Sanskrit Series 33 in 1915 (Benares). However, in his extensive erudite introduction, the esteemed pandit refers to the relevant verse with the alternate reading -pratibho, in this context preferred by him to -pratimo, as " " read by some of his mss. (cf. p. 56 of his Bhumika to the B.I. edition and p. 73 of the " " Bhumika in KSS 33, with n. 2). The edition of the NV in the Calcutta Sanskrit Series (No. 18 and 29, Calcutta 19361944), which solely relies on the two editions by Vindhyeshvari Prasad Dvivedin (cf. Preface p. 7), curiously enough reads aksapa: "



Uddyotakaras time quite a number of now lost commentaries were ": " produced on both the basic sutra-text and the Bhasya.33 With Udayana, whom tradition places in Mithil",34 the period of a voluminous commentaries and sub-(sub-)commentaries on the " " Nyayasutra seems to come to an end and a new period begins in which a large number of independent treatises are produced that continue the new development ushered in by Udayanas logical, terminological and argumentative innovations. Further, both Udayanas independent and commentarial works now become the objects of commentarial eorts; it may be owing to a large extent to this stellar personality, who was rightly recognized as an innovator of a pivotal importance,35 that the classical Ny"ya commentaries known to us have been preserved, for had he not chosen to comment upon " " ": V"caspati Miras Tatparyat"ka this work as well as the Nyayabhasya a s :i " " and -varttika might have subsequently been neglected and perhaps even lost. Admittedly, there are references to a few works commenting upon the ancient foundational text in the centuries after  m" Udayana. In the twelfth century Sr" an(?), the teacher of the author " of the so-called Sena court commentary on the Vaiesikasutra written s : " " in Vall"la Senas time, may have composed a Nyayasutra commena tary. His disciple describes him as reviving Ny"ya studies by means of a his mature conceptualization after Gotamas words had become endangered by the speech of bad people (durjana); similarly, with

(Footnote 32 continued). dapratibho (as reported also by Thakur for NV 530, 9) without further comment. It " has to be noted, though, that pratibha may also mean appearance, look; if this meaning is assumed here, rather than the more philosophical meaning intuition, the semantic dierence between the two compounds ending in pratimah and pratibhah : : would not be signicant. I am indebted to Ms. Susanne Bohdal for this observation. " " _ " Unfortunately, V"caspati, Aniruddha and Abhayatilaka (in his Nyayalankara) do a not comment on this verse. 33 V"caspati Miras teacher Trilocana has already been mentioned; for further a s information and materials on Bh"vivikta, Aviddhakarna, Sankarasv"min, Vivaa a s :  _ r"pa, Udbhata and Adhyayana, cf. the contributions listed above, n. 6. Udbhata, u : :  vatsa are credited with " S"n"tani, called praudhagaudanaiyayika by Udayana, and Sr" a a : : commentaries on the basic text only (Thakur, 1970: 34, 2000: 113); such a commentary is also reported to have been written by the teacher of the Vaiesika scholar s : Vyomaiva (cf. Thakur, 1970: 36, 1981: xxii). s 34 Cf. Bhattacharya (1958: 57). 35 For Udayana as the actual founding gure of Navya-Ny"ya, cf. e.g., Jha (1994: a 18.), Bhattacharya (1958: 12 and 3940), Mishra (1966: 237239, 269270), Matilal (1977: 101), Phillips (1995: 4469) (however, with Phillips himself disagreeing with this position); Laine (1998), Wada (1990: 14, 22, 2001: 519530).



" regard to his own commentary on the Vaiesikasutra he says that he s : is eager to demolish the positions of the heretic scholars ": : : : : (pasandipandita).36 The information provided by the author of the Sena court commentary in respect to his teachers work on the " " " " Nyayasutra implies a general neglect of the Nyayasutra in the medieval period after the rise of Udayana.37 The then extant commentaries obviously did not enjoy sucient popularity or were
Cf. especially Thakur (1965: 331) as well as Thakur (1970: 36, 1981: xxii); the " " ninth adhyaya of the Sena court commentary on the Vaiesikasutra was edited by s : Thakur in 1985 as an appendix to his edition of V"d" a ndras long commentary on the " Vaiesikasutra (Maharajadhiraja Kameshvar Singh Grantha Mala 21, Darbhanga). s : The two pre-colophon verses of the Newari ms. (containing the tenth and last  m" " adhyaya of the commentary) that praise Sr" ans (?) revival of Gautamas teachings and refer to the anonymous authors own ambitions run as follows: "" " " ":  i " " " durvarasama[drpta]durjanavacovajranalenahatah sr"madgotamanirmita rasayutas ta : " i bharat"vallayah / : " yena praudhavikalpajalasalilair ujj"vitah santatam j"yad adbhutak"rtir ujjvalagunah i ": i : : i " : : r"man asau me guruh // si " : " " " : tatprasada[sama]vaptam mayaitat kincid "ritam / i ": : : " " pasandipandita[vrata]khandanahutakautukat //. :: :: " "  m" Sr" an, my teacher, of marvellous fame and splendid good qualities, should always be victorious, he who revived, by means of showers of water, [i.e.] the profusion of [his] mature conceptualization, the creepers, [i.e.] words, shaped (composed) by the glorious Gotama [and] full of sap (essence) [but] struck (assaulted) by lightning-re, [which is] the speech of bad people who are dicult to be checked, mean (?) and arrogant. Whatever [I] have said [here] out of an eagerness, provoked [by him], to demolish [the positions of] the heterodox scholars has been obtained by me thanks to his graciousness. The rather aggressive attitude towards heterodox scholars, presumably Buddhists, may be seen in connection with the revival of Brahmanism under the Sena dynasty after the preceding Buddhist P"la dynasty had mainly supported Buddhist scholara ship (cf. Chakravarti, 1906: 157, 19291930: 247, 1930: 24). 37 _ s " " Further post-Udayana and pre-Gangea commentaries on the Nyayasutra were a " certain Bhaskara (cf. Thakur, 1970: 35, 1981: xxi; Sen, 1978) and, possibly, a Ratnakosa by Tarani Mira (cf. Bhattacharya, 1947: 303, 1958: 7679 as well as s : : Bhattacharya 1978: chapter II, without reference to this works being a commentary, and Thakur, 1981: xxi; cf. also GSP 44, 15 [see nn. 102 and 124 below]). Cakra" p"nidatta, the eleventh-century Bengali author of the Ayurvedad"pika on the a: i " " " Carakasamhita, is credited by the late medieval commentator on the Carakasamhita : :  " _ and Cakrap"nidattas Cikitsasangraha, Sivad"sasena (fteenth century), with a a: a " : Nyayavrtti (Thakur, loc. cit., unfortunately without reference), which would accord " u with Cakrap"nidattas obvious rst-hand knowledge of the Nyayas"tra, as displayed in a: " his commentary, especially on the philosophicaldialectical portions of Carakasamhita : " Vim"nasth"na, adhyaya 8. However, Meulenbelds History of Indian Medical Literaa a ture does not mention such a work of Cakrap"nidattas or such an attribution (cf. a: Meulenbeld, 2000: 86). The works sometimes attributed to Cakrap"nidatta which are a: " " listed in the History include a treatise on grammar (Vyakaranatattvacandrika), but no : work in the eld of Ny"ya. a



not considered relevant enough to the advancement of the Ny"ya a tradition to be studied, repeatedly copied and spread for the purpose of study and therefore were not preserved. This proposed development should be seen in the light of the fact that about a hundred years after Udayanas time the long-lasting and fertile controversy with the Buddhist epistemologists had come to an end.38 As is well known, the completion of the conquest of northern and eastern India towards the end of the twelfth century and the turn of the thirteenth by the AfghanTurkish Ghurids brought an end to Buddhist learning, which was mainly located in the large monastic universities; especially Muhammad Bakhtyar Kiljis conquest of Bihar and Bengal, that is, of regions where Buddhism had previously been generously supported by the P"la dynasty, must have had disastrous eects on a Buddhist scholarship.39 Only in remote Kashmir, next to Nepal a major refuge for Buddhist scholars, did Buddhist monastic communities continue to foster Buddhist learning until the middle of the fourteenth century.40 Even though central philosophical positions of the former Buddhist opponents were still controversially discussed in South Asia, owing to historicalpolitical changes these opponents had ceased to be living rivals with ever novel and sharp criticism of fundamental Ny"ya presuppositions and especially pointed attacks a on religious beliefs, such as those in the existence of the Self and God. The new major living adversaries of the Naiy"yikas were from then a onwards the scholars of medieval M" ams" and the adherents of the m" : a various branches of Ved"nta philosophy, both groups within the fold a " " of astikya as opposed to the nastikya of the Buddhists. It appears that in spite of their radically dierent metaphysics and epistemology the

Chintaharan Chakravarti, on the other hand, blames the Buddhist dominance under the preceding P"la rule for causing an alleged decline of Brahminical schoa larship during this period. According to him, the eect of the P"las sponsoring of a Buddhist scholarship was so severe that even after the revival of Brahmanism under the Sena dynasty no philosophical literature was produced in Bengal. Cf. Chakravarti (19291930: 247248). Monmohan Chakravartis opinion is less extreme; he presumes that Sanskrit Studies were not much attended to up to the time of Sena rule on account of Buddhist inuences (cf. Chakravarti, 1906: 157). 39 Cf. Wink (1999: 135149, 334351). This does not mean, however, that Buddhism did not continue in some popular form in Bengal after these events; cf., e.g., Chakravarti (1930: 24). 40 Cf. Naudou (1980: 242258). Orissa also provided a place of refuge for Buddhist monks from the north and was the home of Buddhist communities with now less generous, uctuating royal support for the building of temples and upkeep of monasteries at least up to the sixteenth century (cf. Mitra, 1980: 224, 226). However, scholarly works by Buddhists living in this area of South Asia after the Muslim conquests in the north have not come down to us.



Naiy"yikas did not consider these groups a serious threat to the a doctrinal edice of Aksap"da and its long-claimed timeless authority. : a As a result its defence in the form of commentary was no longer intellectually exciting and ceased to present an urgent challenge to Ny"ya scholars. a " " It is telling that the earliest Nyayasutra-related commentaries that have come down to us from the post-Buddhist period are two works of a peculiar nature: dierent from the older commentaries known to us they do not present a running commentary with attached independent reections on the contemporaneous state of a certain philosophical topic, often inclusive of some polemic discussion, but treat individual, philologically as well as argumentatively dicult " " points of the basic text and the Nyayacaturgranthika, that is, the four ": classical commentaries from the Bhasya up to the Pariuddhi. It is a s purely scholarly or almost antiquarian interest in the so-called " " " Pancaprasthananyayamahatarka, and primarily in Udayanas commentary, that seems to have prompted the authors of these works. The later of the two, the Jain scholar Abhayatilaka, wrote his " " _ " Nyayalankara in Prahl"danapattana in Gujarat in the last quarter of a the thirteenth century. Abhayatilaka, who belonged to the Kharataragaccha, was a pupil of Jinevaras"ri and greatly indebted s u 41 to his senior fellow student Laksm" : tilaka who according to the " " _ " " concluding verse of the Nyayalankara, which is called a pan caprastha" " " " nanyayamahatarkavisamapadavyakhya in the colophon42 revised the : work very carefully,43 as he also did in the case of Abhayatilakas "s " :i " Dvyarayakavyat"ka.44 The two monks thus appear to have engaged in a joint scholarly project on the classical commentaries on the " " Nyayasutra. Abhayatilaka frequently discusses variant readings to the texts and even suggests emendations, anticipating a new, pronouncedly text-critical approach towards the foundations of  kan : a philosophical tradition. Sr" : thas earlier Tippanaka, called a : : " " " " " " " " pancaprasthananyayamahatarkadurgamarthavyakhya in the NyayaCf. the references to Jinevara and Laksm" s : tilaka in the fourth introductory verse of the work (NA 1, 1112). 42 " " Cf. also the designation as sudurgamapadavyakhya in NA 1, 14 (fourth introductory verse). 43 " " : Cf. NA 794, 19: r"laksm"tilakopadhyayaih samsodhiteyam atinipunam /. si : i : : 44 Cf. Thakur (1981: xxx). Further information on Abhayatilaka is provided in the " i " " Kharataragacchagurvaval": he was initiated in 1235 and became upadhyaya in 1263, the same year in which he defeated the Digambara Vidy"nanda in a debate held at a Ujjayin" (cf. Thakur, loc. cit.).



_ " lankara and declared to be its model,45 is preserved on only the rst " four sutra-s; according to the testimony of some intermediate colophons, it contains a series of detailed topical expositions and com": ments (avacurni-s).46 Together with the further development of the text-critical approach a revival of interest in commenting extensively upon the " " Nyayasutra can be noted in the fteenth century, with the voluminous " " Nyayatattvaloka by the Naiy"yika and Dharma"strin V"caspati a sa a Mira of Mithil".47 Besides oering a commentary directly on the s a " sutra-s, V"caspati provides long summaries of and discussions on a _ s " : portions of Gangeas Tattvacintamani, thus making his commentary a vehicle of the most recent advances in Ny"ya. However, he also a " " quotes frequently from the Nyayacaturgranthika, which he praises as exceedingly skilful or procient, as opposed to his own slim and unimportant work. Next to these four works, he refers to the " Bhaskara, one of the few but lost post-Udayana commentaries on " " a the Nyayasutra known to us.48 Being V"caspatis rst work, the " " Nyayatattvaloka seems to evidence the conscious eort of a young Ny"ya scholar to turn back in appreciation to the classical coma mentaries and to the root text of the tradition itself; this impression is strengthened by the fact that V"caspati also compiled the a " " " Nyayasutroddhara in the early part of his career.49 In this little work
Cf. NA 1, 1516 (introductory verse 5):  is i : : " " " " " " " i : ": " sr"r"kanthenahita durgamarthavyakhyasmabhir yavat"ksambabhuve / " " " " ": " " pancaprasth<an>anyayatarkasya tasyas tavatyah sa*nya vidheyeti bodhyam //. " " * scil. sudurgamapadavyakhya mentioned in verse 4, cf. n. 42 above 46  : " ": : Cf. e.g., SKT 57, 11: avayavavacurnih. 47 _ s Before V"caspati Mira, Gangeas son Vardham"na commented upon Udayaa s a nas Pariuddhi, as well as on others of his works. Vardham"nas Anv"ksanayas a i :" " " " tattvabodha, which is a direct commentary on the last adhyaya of the Nyayasutra, does not give us any clues as to his motivation in writing this work or his attitude towards the basic text. It is doubtful whether he ever wrote a direct commentary on " " the whole Nyayasutra (cf. Preisendanz, 1994: 2021). 48 Cf. above, n. 37, and Bhattacharya (1947: 297). Further references are to Uda" " " yanas Pariista, a commentary on the last adhyaya of the Nyayasutra, and to Vars :: dham"nas Tattvabodha (cf. above, n. 47). His reference to S"n"tani (cf. above, n. 33) a a a may be secondary inasmuch as it was taken directly from Udayana. 49 A completely dierent interpretation is provided in the context of Mishras general and not very subtle anti-Buddhist attitude: there was a need to compile not only " "i " " " the Nyayasuc"nibandha (cf. above, n. 15), but also the Nyayasutroddhara because the " " text of the Nyayasutra had been twisted and distorted by the evil Buddhists, who " went so far as to even interpolate sutra-s to do damage to this work (cf. Mishra, 1966: 292). Monmohan Chakravarti, for his part, describes V"caspati as a smrtia : writer who could not avoid the general contagion, and touched also on Ny"ya (cf. a Chakravarti, 1915b: 432)!



" " he established what he considered to be the authentic Nyayasutra" text, assembling those sutra-s he considered genuine and presenting without further comment or even discussion their correct readings. In devoting himself to this task, just like in writing the " " Nyayatattvaloka, V"caspati must have carefully studied the earlier a commentaries available to him and evaluated their testimony. For the " " " purpose of compiling the Nyayasutroddhara special attention " ": ya. This is suggested by the was paid by him to the Nyayabhas _ " " " mangalaloka of the Nyayasutroddhara according to one of the s " manuscripts of the work accessible to me.50 The title word uddhara of _ the compilation is telling: understood in the light of the mangalaloka, s " " the work constitutes an extraction of the Nyayasutra from the " ": Nyayabhasya, the oldest and only classical direct commentary available to V"caspati and his contemporaries, the concise graha a " nakavakya-s of which had been susceptible to being taken as part of : the root text in the course of transmission early on. The fact that the " word uddhara also means rescue and is in this latter sense used technically to refer to the restoration of temples and cult-images, may in addition throw some light on V"caspatis perception and evaluaa tion of the state of his traditions foundational text at that time.51 V"caspati Miras historicist perception of the Ny"ya tradition a s a which is implied in the above becomes evident in the way he refers to his fellow philosophers in this tradition and their respective historical ": position. The expressions used by him are navyah or nav"nah for the i ": ": " : " " ": new generation(s), vrddhah, prancah and sampradayikah,52 or even : ": vrddhatamah for the older, traditional generation(s). In his recent :
Cf. the Jodhpur ms. (ms. no. 27940 in the catalogue of the Sanskrit and Prakrit manuscripts in the Jodhpur collection of the Rajasthan Oriental Research Institute, edited by T. Joshi and D. Sharma) fol. 1v 12: i " " :" sr"vacaspatimirena mithilevarasurina / s : s i ": sr"gautam"yasutrani likhyante bhasyatah prthak //. i " ": : : " " " The same introductory verse appears at the beginning of a Nyayasutroddhara ms. preserved at the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute (BORI) (ms. no. 740 of 18871891, fol. 1v 1). On the problematic issue of the various published " " " " "i Nyayasutroddhara-s, also in relation to the published Nyayasuc"nibandha, cf. Prei": " sendanz (1994: 35). A comparative study of sutrapatha-mss. which bear the title " " " Nyayasutroddhara and other titles and in which the respective compilation of the sutra-s is ascribed to V"caspati Mira II is under preparation. " a s 51 " " Cf. also the expression samuddharana relating to Uddyotakaras Nyayavarttika : used by V"caspati Mira I in the introductory and concluding verses of the a s " " " Nyayavarttikatatparyat"ka (cf. above, n. 15). :i " 52 " ": Cf. also the frequently used sampradayas tu, in contradistinction to the nayvah or anye.



paper on the new intellectuals of the seventeenth century, Sheldon Pollock has singled out usages of this kind as indicative of the new intellectual climate of the period in which, contrary to the preceding times, ones own position within a scholarly tradition is conceptualized in a historicist manner, that is, self-consciously located within a historical sequence and labelled accordingly. As Pollock points out, this intellectual attitude is to be observed in the discourse involving ones own tradition, be it a philosophical tradition or some other scholarly or scientic tradition. Additionally, the relevant rhetorical elements are expressive of some awareness of the progress, from the point of view of content, of scholarly analysis, or at least of a the expectation of such progress.53 As the example of V"caspati shows, this phenomenon can be registered already in the fteenth _ s century, and before that it can be observed with Gangea and the pre_ s Gangea Naiy"yika Manikantha. Connected with the phenomenon a : :: and cause for some internal tension is the enduring high respect for the authority of the legendary founder of the tradition, expressed especially at the beginning and end of scholarly works. Returning to V"caspati, I would like to point out in this connection that he speaks a " ks " of Aksap"da as a great sage (mahamuni) who founded Anv" : ik" to : a rescue the transmigrating beings sunk into in the swamp of suering.54 Besides the reverence for Aksap"da expressed here, one has to : a " ks note the employment of the designation Anv" : ik" for the Ny"ya a tradition, a designation which goes back to V"tsy"yanas early eorts a a to establish his philosophical tradition among the orthodox sciences under the name of Ny"ya, as the centrally important investigating a [science] praised already in Kautalyas Arthaastra.55 I consider this s" : use of an ancient, highly suggestive designation, which occurs several " " times in the Nyayatattvaloka, as indicative of V"caspatis renewed a pride in the historically conceptualized antiquity of his own tradition and of his positive evaluation of its foundational work in spite of its obsoleteness on the surface level. A further telling designation for the teaching or doctrinal edice (astra) of Ny"ya used by V"caspati is s" a a 56 Panc"dhy"y" a term that immediately eects some association with a , a
Cf. Pollock (2001, especially 714). " " _ " Cf. NTA 3, 1416: iti sarvam abhisandhaya duhkhapankamagnan sams" : a uddi: : arin " " dh"rsann aksapado mahamunis tadupaamasya paramparopayabh" am anv"ksik"m prai: s ut" " i : i : : " " nin" : aya; cf. also the appellation Aksacaranamuni in NTA 26, 19 ( manasa indri: : " " yat" abhyupagamo ksacaranamuneh ) and 117, 20 ( asutritamanasendriyat" a: : : bhyupagamo ksacaranamuneh). : : : 55 Cf. Preisendanz (2000: 225230). 56 " " " i " Cf. NTA 16, 20 (pancadhyay" sastram).
54 53



"i P"ninis Astadhyay" and accords it equal status, albeit in another a: : :" basic scholarly discipline. This suggestive designation, which is uncommon in the classical and medieval period, is also found in the " " ": colophons of some Nyayasutrapatha manuscripts of northern India accessible to me which date from the pre-colonial and early colonial " " " period, among them an alleged Nyayasutroddhara manuscript.57 " ks , Anv" : ik" for its part, reappears in the title of J"nak" atha a n" "c"rya C"d"manis sixteenth-century commentary on the fth Bhatta a u:a : :: " i : i " " " adhyaya of the Nyayasutra, the Anv"ksik"tattvavivarana.58 : This revaluation of the ancient tradition, within a clear historical perspective, as an intellectual re-orientation, may be understood in a very general way within the context of the regional history of Mithil" a or Tirhut, a region which was much more removed from the direct political and cultural impact of the Delhi Sultanate than other parts of northern India. Already the Karn"ta dynasty, from the eleventh a: century onwards until the invasion of Mithil" by the Tughluqs in a 59 a s v" 1324, and afterwards the rulers of the K"mevaraOin" ara dynasty60 provided a very fertile climate for the growth and development of especially Dharma"stra and Ny"ya in Mithil". Romila sa a a Thapar has suggested that the late medieval and early modern nonMuslim rulers of regional kingdoms in northern India turned to the promotion of Sanskritic scholarship in general to assert their cultural identity, at the same time distancing themselves from the remote
Cf. Sarasvati Bhavana Library (SBL) ms. no. 33181, fol. 12r 12; cf. also BORI ms. no. 25/18791870, fol. 14r 2. For a classical occurrence of the term, cf. NV 1, 13. Cf. also Mitramiras V" s ramitrodaya (CSS 62) 9. 2627 on Y"jnavalkyasmrti 1.3: a : " " is " " pancadhyay"astram akapadapran"tam, and Prasthanabheda (ASS 51) 6, 7. s " i 58 Cf. SBL ms. no. 33189, fol. 166v 3. Cf. also the introduction to R"mabhadra a " _ ": " S"rvabhaumas Nyayarahasya, after the six mangalaoka-s: atha bhagavataksapadea s " i : i " " _ nanv"ksik"m samaripsamanena kim iti mangalam mahitam (SBL ms. no. 33189, fol. lr : 56; BORI ms. no. 28/18981899, fol. 1v 67; BORI ms. no. 743/18821883, fol. 1r " i " " 78 reads bhagavata kanadena; the Nyayarahasya, together with the Anv":" ksik"tattvavivarana, has been edited for the rst time in December 2003 by Prabal : i : Kumar Sen, but I could procure a copy of the two volumes only after this paper was " ks a already in print). The designation Anv" : ik"s"sana appears twice in the introductory " " part (fol. 1v 1) of an as yet unstudied commentary on the Nyayasutra together with " ": " the Nyayabhasya (and Varttika?) preserved at the Sanskrit College, Kolkata (hand list of Ny"ya-Vaiesika manuscripts no. 1372 = descriptive catalogue of 1965 no. a s : " ks " " 252). For the use of the designation Anv" : ik" referring to the Nyayasutra and " sastra, cf. also Kr: nak"nta Vidy"v"g"sas Sautrasand"pan", a commentary on the s: a a a  i i : " " Nyayasutra written in 1818 in Bengal (cf. the second introductory verse, which I fail to understand in some details, quoted in Sastri, 1968: 520). 59 Cf. Choudhary (1970: 2526, 3154). 60 Cf. Choudhary (1970: 2627, 5894), Mishra (1979: 6988).



Muslim rulers and their cultural elite in this way, possibly also to bolster their own legitimization as indigenous (semi-)independent a rulers.61 The appreciative return to the ancient roots of Ny"ya within the from the point of view of content and scholarly sophistication innovative and advanced intellectual climate of Navya-Ny"ya, a return which we see commencing in Mithil" with the a a " " Nyayatattvaloka, may be placed within this wider context of external motivation; the latter may have promoted such an intellectual re-orientation, in any case presented a sympathetic historical setting for it and thus enhanced the internal motivation of scholars, while the indirect impact of Muslim rule and culture transmitted to Mithil" a owing to the increased mobility of and social interaction between members of the intellectual elite may have been responsible for or at least reinforced the more and more pronounced historicist concept of the Ny"ya tradition as such. a Unfortunately, we do not know the precise circumstances of the " " composition of the Nyayatattvaloka and the compilation of the " " " Nyayasutroddhara, except that they were V"caspatis rst works. a However, the evidence of either of the two alternative verses prexed " " " to the Nyayasutroddhara manuscripts accessible to me indicates that he was already at that time a scholar connected with the court of a sa Mithil" ruler.62 His numerous and celebrated works in Dharma"stra a were all written after his Ny"ya works, under and for the K"mevara a a s u aa : rulers Harin"r"yana (Bhairavasimha)63 and his son R"pan"r"yana aa : : 64 (R"mabhadra), perhaps following a brief stay abroad in Pana
61 62

Cf. Thapar (1990: 314). Cf. SBL mss. no. 32672, 33181 and 33219; cf. also ms. no. 5682 (catalogued as a " " Nyayasutra ms.) of the Prajn" P"tha"la Mandala, Wai: a a : sa :: i " sr"vacaspatidh"rena mithilevarasurina / i : s " :" " likhyate munimurdhanyar"gautamamatam mahat //; si : for the alternative verse cf. above, n. 50. 63 Cf. e.g., the introductory verses to the Dvaitanirnaya, which also refer to Queen : Jay"(no) as commissioning the work, referred to in Chakravarti (1915b: 427), a Bhattacharya (1958: 157), Kane (1975: 847). 64 " " The Mahadananirnaya is attributed to both Harin"r"yana and R"pan"r"yana in aa : u aa : : verses attached to the beginning and end of the work respectively; the authorship of " " V"caspati is reduced to assistance (sahakarita) in the rst case, scil. a i " " " "" sr"vacaspatidh"ram sahakaritaya samasadya / i : i " " sr"bhairavendranrpatih svayam mahadananirnayam tanute //, : : : : :  " _ i and not even mentioned in the second. The Pitrbhaktitarangin" or Sraddhakalpa, : V"caspatis last work, was written at the request of the latter. Cf. Chakravarti a (1915b: 427, 429), Bhattacharya (1958: 157158) and Kane (1975: 849, 851852, with n. 1288).



c"labh"mi.65 Born in a family of Karmam" amsakas,66 he achieved a a u m" : high position at the court of Mithil" owing to his expertise in a a Dharma"stra.67 Basing himself on the Mithil" pan i-s, introduced by sa j" the Karn"ta ruler Harasimhadeva in 1324, Dineshchandra Bhattaa: : charya provides us with further details as to V"caspatis personal and a scholarly network.68 He was from the Samauli branch of a family " " belonging to the Vatsyagotra, with Pall" as their mulagrama, and related by his fourth wife of the famous Sodarapura family69 to  _ another important Naiy"yika of the fteenth century, Sankara a 70 Mira, while his rst two wives linked him with the royal family.71 s One of V"caspatis granddaughters was married to Bhavan"tha, the a a  son of Sucikara Up"dhy"ya of the Kunjapall" (Kujaul" family of a a )  Bhakharauli (Bhaura);72 Sucikara, a pupil of the illustrious " : Naiy"yika and commentator on the Tattvacintamani Jayadeva alias a  _ Paksadhara Mira (related to Sankara Mira, who was a paternal s s : uncle [pitrvya] of his, and thus also a member of the Sodarapura : s : family)73 was the teacher of Mahea Thakkura, the founder of the Darbhanga Raj in 1556/1557 and author of a celebrated commentary " " : on Paksadharas Aloka on the Tattvacintamani.74 :
Cf. Bhattacharya (1947: 301303, 1958: 148149) on the evidence of the " "s introduction to V"caspatis Nyayaratnaprakaa, a commentary on Manikanthas a : :: " Nyayaratna. 66 Cf. the nal verse of his Krtyaprad"pa quoted by Bhattacharya (1947: 295, 1958: 143): i : " " vamse jatah kalusarahite karmam"mamsakanam anv"ksayam gurukarunaya labdhai ": i : " ": : " : : : " " tattvavabodhah / : i " " " ": " " sr"m an v acaspatir aham iha pr"taye punyabh aj am natv a natv a kamalanayanam i : : krtyad"pam tanomi //. i : : 67 _ i In the colophons to the Pitrbhaktitarangin" (cf. Chakravarti, 1915b: 429; : " " " " : Bhattacharya, 1958: 143; Kane, 1975: 851, n. 1288) and Sudracaracintamani (cf. Kane, 1975: 851) V"caspati is called sakalapanditamandal"iromani and parisad a :: : : is : : (advisor in dicult legal points) to the two kings; in the Dvaitanirnaya we nd the : epithet nikhilatantravid (cf. Bhattacharya, op. cit., 157). 68 Cf. Bhattacharya (1958: 157). 69 On the illustrious Sodarapura family cf. Mishra (1966: 400401). 70  _ This wife was a cousin (pitrvyaputr") of Sankara Mira (cf. also Mishra, 1966: i s : 290). 71 His rst wifes great-great-grandfather was R"ya Bhog"svara (cf. Chakravarti, a  1915b: 415416), his second wifes father was the son of the daughter of Bhog" svaras younger brother Bhavevara (Bhavea, Bhavasimha), the rst ruler over all of s s : Mithil" (cf. Chakravarti, 1915b: 417); cf. Bhattacharya (1958: 156157) and Mishra a (1966: 289). 72 Cf. also Mishra (1966: 358). 73 Cf. Bhattacharya (1958: 125126). 74 On Mahea Thakkura, the rst ruler of the Khandaval" dynasty, cf. Bhattacharya s : a :: (1958: 172176) and Mishra (1966: 355361). The Darpana was an early work of his :



" " The renewed interest in the Nyayasutra demonstrated by V"caspati a Mira in fteenth-century Mithil" re-manifests itself about a hundred s a years later in the person of Keava Mira, who composed a s s 75 "s s s s Gautam"yasutraprakaa. Keava Mira, son of Vivadhara and i "  _ brother of Um"pati,76 was a third-generation descendent of Sankara a Mira and belonged to the Katak" branch of the Sodarapura family; s : a " " besides his Nyayasutra commentary and another, earlier and most ": : probably more extensive Ny"ya work entitled Tarkatandava,77 he a wrote several works on poetics as well as Dharma"stra works.78 In sa " " " some of the puspika-s of his Nyayasutra commentary, he introduces : himself as the main scholar on the advisory board of the king of

(Footnote 74 continued). and may have been written between 1535 and 1540 according to Bhattacharya; Mishra even calls it his rst work (Mishra, 1966: 358) which, however, makes it impossible that it was written in 1612, as Mishra states following Parameshvar Jha " " (cf. Mishra, 1966: 356). Paksadhar"pracara, mentioned in the Gadhivamavarnana (cf. i : :s : Benson, 2001: 112) may have been an alternative title of this work. Mahea s Thakkura is also said to have introduced the dhautapar"ksa for Maithila scholars in i :" : 1550 (cf. Mishra, 1966: 360; Jha, 2001: 271). 75 " This is the title of the work according to the colophon after adhyaya 1.2 in the ms. preserved at Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University (which may also be " the source for the corresponding longer colophons after the other preserved adhyaya ends, i.e., 3.2, 4.2 and 5.2, as well as after the end of 5.1 printed in K.N. Jhas edition) " " " even though the puspika concluding adhyaya 1, just as the one after adhyaya 3, refers : "s " " to a Sutraprakaika; cf. GSP 24, 1415 [1.2] and 70, 45 [3.2]: " :" t"rabhuktimah"palaparisanmukhyasurina / i i " : i s "s " sr"keavakav"ndrena krta sutraprakaika // i : : " " " " " " " si s against GSP 25, n. 1: iti mahamahopadhyayavedantavyasar"keavamirakrtegaus : "s tam"yasutraprakae (cf. also GSP 70, 1415 [3.2]; 97, 1516 [4.2]; 114, 1314 [5.1]; i " 124, 2526 [5.2]; in shorter form, possibly provided by the editor, GSP 17, 34 [1.1] " and 54, 31 [3.1]). The introductory verses to adhyaya-s 2, 4 and 5 speak of a " " "s Nyayasutraprakaana, unless this is not at all a title but refers to the poets activity (GSP 25, 12 [2.1]; 71, 4 [4.1]; 98, 6 [5.1]): " " "s " : " " sukhenadhyapayan kayam nyayavedantadarane / s i s " " "s sr"keavakavi cakre nyayasutraprakaanam //; s " in the slightly modied verse at the beginning of adhyaya 3 this is replaced by " " " sutravyakhyana (GSP 41, 4 [3.1]). On Keava Mira cf. Bhattacharya (1958: 186 s s 189); Mishra (1966: 368370). 76 " Cf. GSP 17, 32, 86, 27, 97, 13, 114, 10 and 124, 17: umapatisagarbhena sr": i "s i s " " " vivadharajanmana/r"vivadharasununa / ; umapatisagarbhasya r"vivadharajan s si s manah / . : 77 ": : Cf. GSP 23, 19 ( iti prapancitam mayaiva tarkatandave); 104, 17 (vistaras tu : ": : ": : " tarkatandave); 112, 19 (tat sarvam daritam tarkatandave); 122, 13 ( tatha pras : : ": : pancitam tarkatandave) (cf. also Bhattacharya, 1958: 188). : 78 Cf. Jha (1978: [2][3]), referring to the evidence of the colophon of Keava Miras s s _ " ": Sankhyaparimana and the Maithila panj"-s. i



T" rabhukti79 who may have been the last ruler of the K"mevara a s Oin" ara dynasty, Kamsan"r"yana (Laksm" atha).80 It seems, though, v" aa : n" : : " that he commented only upon the rst adhyaya in Mithil" and then, a during the troubled times following the overthrow of the K"mevaras, a s " left the region; the remaining adhyaya-s were expounded by him while he was happily teaching the philosophical world views of Ny"ya and a Ved"nta in K"" as he states in his introductory verses to these a as, chapters.81 Chapters one, three and four are dated 1553, 1557 and 1560 (i.e., Laksmana era 434, 438 and 441) respectively in the manuscript : : preserved at Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University; should this manuscript actually be a rare autograph, as suggested by the s editor of the work, Kishor Nath Jha,82 this would mean that Keava did not return to Mithil" after the Darbhanga Raj had been granted by a Akbar to Mahea Thakkura allegedly in recognition of his abridged s : " translation of the Akbarnama into Sanskrit under the title Sarva_ deavrttantasangraha83 but chose to continue teaching in the city of s : " s : m" : a K"" 84 where Mahea Thakkura himself had studied M" ams" and as, Ved"nta under R"mevara Bhatta of the famous G"dhi family before a a s a :: "s i " he acquired the Raj.85 The autograph of the Gautam"yasutraprakaa, however, must eventually have found its way from K"" to Mithil". as a Jha identies Keava as one of the pandits who contributed to the s Kav"ndracandrodaya, the Festschrift that was compiled to praise i Kav" ac"rya Sarasvat" for having convinced the Moghul ruler ndr" a Shah Jahan to abolish the tax for pilgrims visiting K"" and Pray"ga as a 86 earlier introduced by him. Indeed, four verses in this compilation were composed by a certain Keava Mira, the twelfth of the s s altogether 69 contributors;87 however, as this tax must have been abolished at least some years after 1628, the year of Shah Jahans
Cf. GSP 24, 14 and GSP 70, 4, quoted above in n. 75. Cf. also the initial verse of _ " s his Alankaraekhara quoted in Jha (1978: [4]). 80 Cf. Bhattacharya (1958: 188), Jha (1978: [3]). On Laksm" atha cf. Chakravarti : n" (1915b: 430431). 81 Cf. GSP 25, 1112, 71, 34 and 98, 56 quoted in n. 75 above. Cf. also Thakur (1976: 265). 82 Cf. Jha (1978: [2]). 83 Cf. Sarma (2002: 7475). 84 " It has to be noted, though, that at the end of adhyaya 3 the reference to Keava s Miras position at the court of Mithil" is repeated; cf. n. 75 above. s a 85 Cf. Shastri (1912: 9) and Bhattacharya (1958: 173175); cf. also Benson (2001: 112). It is chronologically almost impossible that Mahea Thakkura spent his last s : years in K"" studying with R"mevara Bhatta, as stated by Mishra (1966: 360). as a s :: 86 Cf. Jha (1978: [3]). 87 Cf. Gode (1954: 366) and Upadhyaya (1994: 85).



enthronement,88 from the chronological point of view this identication seems very improbable. Keava Miras basic attitude towards the roots of Ny"ya is not so s s a much dierent from that of V"caspati Mira of Mithil". For him, a s a too, the venerable author of the doctrinal edice of Ny"ya, whom he a calls by his gotra-name Gotama, is a great sage, even the greatest " : sage,89 endowed with greatest compassion (paramakarunika).90 Just "stra as Panc"dhy"y"91 and as V"caspati, Keava refers to the Ny"yaa a s a s a a " ks . Anv" : ik" 92 The classical commentaries are referred to by him,93 but the brief references seem to be second-hand and do not attest to much genuine interest in these works or to their profound study, except " maybe of the Tatparyat"ka or Udayanas unacknowledged :i " Pariuddhi. A number of positions are attributed to the ancient ones s ": " : (vrddhah, prancah), but not in opposition to the new scholars.94 : Regarding the substance of his commentary, Keava is very much s " " indebted to V"caspatis Nyayatattvaloka, even though he does not a take into consideration the more extensive and sophisticated digressions in this commentary. He frequently paraphrases or summarizes " " " the explanations of the sutra-s in the Nyayatattvaloka in his own words or slightly modies them. Sometimes the correspondences are so close that it is even possible to emend the obviously corrupt "s text of the edited Gautam"yasutraprakaa on the basis of the i " " " Nyayatattvaloka. It is therefore surprising that Keava does not s " " mention V"caspati or his work on the Nyayasutra explicitly anywhere a "s in the Gautam"yasutraprakaa. However, there may be some implicit i " _ reference after all. In his rather boastful mangalaloka-s Keava states s s that there is indeed no lack of knowledgeable scholars familiar with the ways of reasoning who previously assembled in the dense thicket of Ny"ya; however, there are also some scholars of Ny"ya, desirous a a
Cf. Gode (1954: 370). " Cf. GSP 1, 8: paramarsani sutrani (v. 3a). : ": " ": 90 Cf.. GSP 1, 24: atha paramak" : iko bhagav" gotamo maharsih sams" ang" : u pacarun an : : : ar" _ ares yam" an samuddidh"rsuh . an" i: : 91 " "i Cf. e.g., GSP 1, 12: pancadhyay"parinatarahasyapranayinah (v. 4c) (cf. the : : : : " " i " full quotation in n. 96 below) and 3, 13: pancadhyay" sastram. 92 Cf. the continuation of the sentence quoted in n. 90 above: sakalavi"s " " " i : i: dyairoratnabhutam anv"ksik"m pran"tavan. :i " 93 ": " I.e., there are a few quotations from the Bhasya, the Varttika and the T"ka as well :i " " as from the Nyayaman i, and even two references to S"n"tani (cf. above, n. 33). a a jar" 94 Keava rather uses the neutral expressions anye, apare, eke and kecit. In at least s " " ": one case (GSP 98, 18), acaryah seems to refer to Vardham"na, whose position is a rejected in favour of that of the ancient ones.
89 88



of knowing the fully developed secret of the Panc"dhy"y" who are a , a in their interpretation of this science disposed to go against the rule " to avoid contradiction.95 Although there exists a commentary (vya" khya) by an earlier learned man for the delight of those endowed with analytic understanding, Keava continues, his (i.e., Keavas) own s s composition cannot be obtained elsewhere on account of its spotless virtues, such as excellence of explanation, conciseness and simplicity of expression, mutual coherence and harmony of individual topical sequences (?).96 I would like to suggest that it is the author of the " " Nyayatattvaloka to whom he obliquely refers to in these verses as an earlier scholar and with whose work he compares his own composi" " " tion. Keava thus would have appreciated the Nyayatattvaloka as a s demanding commentarial work meant for specialists who can follow the analytical discussions on central Navya-Ny"ya topics as prea " : sented by V"caspati with reference to the Tattvacintamani; at the a same time he would imply that compared to his own commentary the " " " Nyayatattvaloka contained less excellent explanations of the sutra-s themselves, was too extensive and complicated in its wording, less coherent and presented a not always felicitous order of topics treated (?). Furthermore, he may have implied that the spotless qualities of the "s Gautam"yasutraprakaa ensure an appropriate understanding of the i " secret of the Panc"dhy"y" also for those interested Naiy"yikas who are a a a " " prone to misunderstanding it, something which the Nyayatattvaloka could not achieve owing to its complicated expositions taking into consideration the developed contemporary discourse as well as its more dicult, less smooth style. "s Two extensive quotations in the Gautam"yasutraprakaa come i " from a certain Vidy"s"gara, the author of a lost T"ka on the aa i " : " " Nyayasutra whom Anantalal Thakur has identied with

The wording is too laconic to decide the precise nature of the contradiction. Keava Mira may have had in mind contradiction with reasoning in general or with s s relevant contemporaneous ideas, or with older, established traditional explanations. 96 Cf. GSP 1, 1017 (vv. 45): " " : ": : " : iha nyayaranye prakrtigahane tarkasaraniprav"na vidvamsah kati kati na purvam i: " : : samabhavan / " "i " param pancadhyay"parinatarahasyapranayino virodhavyasedhavyasanapatavah kecana : : : : : : punah // : " " " " " " " aste yadyapi purvapanditakrta vyakhyaiva samkhyavatam anandaya tathapi keavas :: : : " " " " " kaver vacam iyam gumphana / : " " :: " " " vyakhyasausthavaabdalaghavamithahsambandhapurvaparapratyarthapratibaddha(?)s : " " nirmalaguna kutranyato labhyatam //. :"




Pundar" aksa Vidy"s"gara, a cousin of V"sudeva S"rvabhauma.97 aa a a : : k" : Should this identication be correct, it would imply that Keava s " Mira was aware of some sutra-interpretations in a late fteenths " " century Nyayasutra-commentary written in Bengal, if he did not even have a copy of the whole work at his disposal. Vidy"s"gara for his aa _ s " " a part refers to the pre-Gangea Nyayabhaskara98 and Vardham"nas late fourteenth-century Tattvabodha among other works belonging to Mithil".99 a In spite of these and the few other references to earlier work done " " on the Nyayasutra, on the whole the emerging picture presented by "s the Gautam"yasutraprakaa, as already indicated above (cf. p. 78), is i " one characterized by a lack of historical depth and perspective as " " compared to these aspects as they are evident in the Nyayatattvaloka. However, another kind of intellectual interest, towards which a ten" " dency could already be noted in the Nyayatattvaloka in conjunction " " " with the Nyayasutroddhara, can be observed with the Gau"s tam"yasutraprakaa, namely, a strong concern about the constitution i " " of the root text. The individual adhyaya-s of the commentary are " followed by verses in which the number of the sutra-s relating to the individual topics (prakarana-s) is indicated both by cardinal number : words and by descriptive number words; also the topics themselves " are enumerated.100 At the conclusion of the rst adhyaya, the number of prakarana-s of the whole astra is also indicated in a verse.101 In s" : consonance with this attention to formal features, Keava Mira s s devotes more space than his predecessors to the discussion of strucCf. GSP 32, 48 and 76, 1219, and Thakur (1976). Pundar" aksa Vidy"s"gara aa : : k" : was a scholar of grammar (with extant works) who is said to have also composed _ a sa commentaries on the Alank"ra"stra works by Dandin, V"mana and Mammata. a :: : V"sudeva S"rvabhaumas father, the scholar Narahari Vi"rada, was Pundar" aksas a a sa : : k" : uncle; cf. Bhattacharyya (1940: 59). 98 Cf. above, n. 37. 99 Cf. Thakur (1976: 267). 100 " Cf. e.g., the verses at the conclusion of adhyaya 1 (GSP 24, 1622, vv. 23): aksi (= 2) panca (5) dhruva (= 14) caiva tri (3) : ad (6) ava (= 7)* yugandharah s s : s : : (= 2) / " " " pacat tri(3)sad(6)vasu(= 8)tr"ni(3) prathamadhyayasutrakam // s " i: : : " " "s sambandha[1]mana[2]meyani[3] tatpurvangam [4] tadarayah [5] // " "_ : : "_ : " : tatsvarupam [6] cottarangam [7] prathame, carame punah // : " " " "s "s _ katha [1] ca hetvabhasa [2] ca chalam [3] caaktilingakam [4] //. : * ava seems to be a mistake because the prakarana contains not seven but eight s : " sutra-s. For this reason, Kishor Nath Jha corrects : adava to : advasu. s : s s : 101 Cf. GSP 24, 2324 (v. 4): " " " sapta(7)rut"(= 4) graha(= 9)mbhodh"(= 4) graha(= 9)vau(= 7) v asava(= 14)s i i s rtukau(= 6) //



tural considerations, such as the correct number and extent of prakarana-s102 and their sequence and coherence as regards content : _ " (sangati). Furthermore, he discusses the status of disputed sutra-s103 104 " as well as the precise wording and extent of certain sutra-s. I would "s like to suggest that with the Gautam"yasutraprakaa a signicant i " further step takes place in the development of what one could call " " Nyayasutra-commentaries with a philological and text-critical emphasis, as opposed to such commentaries with philosophical and historical emphasis. " This new tendency nds its culmination in the Nyayatattvapar"ksa, i :" also known as Anv"ksatattvapar"ksa.105 According to the colophon of i :" i :" the manuscript preserved at the Mithila Research Institute, Darbhanga,106 which has convincingly been argued to be an autograph by Prabal Kumar Sen,107 this commentary was written in 1735 by _ _ _ Vamadhara in the village of Mangalavan" (Mangaraun" Mangroni) , :s : near Madhubani. The rst introductory verse of two incomplete mss. " of the Nyayatattvapar"ksa kept in the Sarasvati Bhavana Library108 i :" provides the further information that Vamadhara was the student of :s
(Footnote 101 continued). " " " " " j"muta(= 17)(?)*vahav(= 7) adyantahnike prakaranam kramat //. i " : :  * j"muta, not recorded as a descriptive number word, is an epithet of Siva and may i " " therefore correspond to 11; the actual number of prakarana-s in the rst ahnika of the : " "s nal adhyaya according to the Gautam"yasutraprakaa is 17. i " 102 " " Cf. e.g., the discussion as to the reason why Nyayasutra 3.1.1214 do not form a ": separate prakarana, as assumed by Tarani Mira in his Bhasya (cf. above, n. 37; cf. s : : also n. 124 below), in GSP 44, 1519 or to why the rst ve prakarana-s of the third : " " " adhyaya do not form an ahnika by themselves in GSP 47, 46 (atmapar"ksanumitaih i :" : " " : in line 4 should probably be corrected to read atmapar"ksantarbhutaih). Cf. also GSP i :" " 33, 1416 on the possibility that the third and fourth prakarana of the rst ahnika of : " " the second adhyaya form an independent ahnika, and GSP 57, 47 on the suggestion " " that the second prakarana of the second ahnika of the third adhyaya constitutes only : a part of the rst prakarana. : 103 " " Cf. e.g., the discussion on Nyayasutra 3.1.2830 in GSP 47, 2628 and on 3.2.10 in GSP 56, 2425. 104 " " Cf. e.g., the comments on Nyayasutra 3.2.10 in GSP 56, 2629. 105 Thus, Mishras statement that Keava Mira was the last Maithila scholar of the s s " " traditional type who wrote a commentary on the Nyayasutra (cf. Mishra, 1966: 369) has to be taken with caution. 106 Ms. no. 497. The colophon is quoted in Sen (1980: 103); however, I read the " expanded title of the work mentioned there as maharsigautamapran"tanyayatattvapa: :i " r"ksa (instead of -nyayasya tattva-). i :" 107 Cf. Sen (1980: 103105). 108 " SBL mss. no. 31556 (containing the commentary on the rst adhyaya) and 31557 " " " (covering the rst ahnika of the rst adhyaya and parts of its second ahnika, " " discontinuing right in the middle of the commentary on Nyayasutra 1.2.12), obviously not known to Sen. The two manuscripts preserved in Darbhanga (at the



Gokulan"tha and that Gokulan"tha, together with his younger a a " brother, Vamadharas maternal uncle (matula) Jagann"tha109 with s a : whom he spend some years in Garhwal under the patronage of the Muslim ruler Fateh Shah110 , taught Vamadhara how to comment :s

(Footnote 108 continued). Mithila [Research] Institute and the Darbhanga Raj Library, i.e., the Library of Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University [KSDSU]) and available to Sen for his 1980 study are incomplete at the beginning: the rst contains the commentary " " on Nyayasutra 1.1.11 to 1.2.3 only, the second the complete text starting with adh" " yaya 2. A further ms. of the commentary on the rst adhyaya, dated 1187 Bengali era (= 1780), has been reported by Rajendralal Mitra (cf. also Jha, 1947: 322) to be _ ), preserved at Magr"n" (= Mangalavan" in the possession of a certain Pandit Chhoti a: Jha (cf. Mitra and Sastri, 1990: 193, no. 1877); beginning and end of this ms. (= M), also unknown to Sen and maybe not available any longer, have been transcribed by " Mitra. Mitra correctly listed this ms. under the title Nyayatattvapar"ksa. Just as in i :" the case of the ms. belonging to the Darbhanga Raj Library (cf. Sen, 1980: 101), SBL " mss. no. 31556 and 31557 of the Nyayatattvapar"ksa are catalogued as containing an i :" " Anv"ksatattvapar"ksa although the two preserved colophons after the rst ahnika of i :" i :" " " the rst adhyaya clearly identify the works title as Nyayatattvapar"ksa; cf. fol. 41v 4 i :" " " " and fol. 37r 8: iti nyayatattvapar"ksayam prathamadhyayasya (ms. no. 31556 reads: i : " ": " " " prathamadhyaya-) prathamahnikam tattvatah par"ksitam. The colophon at the end of i : : : " adhyaya 1 in ms. no. 31556 (fol. 50v 6) gives the alternative title Anv"ksatattvapar"ksa i :" i :" which may be the result of the scribes having been inuenced by the beginning of the immediately preceding concluding verse " " ": anv"ksa1prathamadhyaye dvit"yahnikagocarah / i :" i " i : tattvaih2 par"ksitah samyak sr"vamsadharaarmana // (fol. 50v 56); i : ": s : :" " " cp. the similar second introductory verse to the second ahnika of the rst adhyaya which is preserved in the KSDSU ms. (as reported in Sen, 1980: 101), but not in SBL mss. no. 31556 and 31557. Also the nal colophon of M conrms the title " " Nyayatattvapar"ksa; cf. Mitra and Sastri (1990: 194): iti nyayatattvapar"ksayam i :" i : " ": " : prathamo dhyayah. 1 M: anv"ksah; 2ms. no. 31556: tattvai i : ": 109 Cf. also Jha (1965: xiii). The syntax of the verse (cf. n. 111 below) does not attest to a third preceptor and Jha, who lists the names and aliases of the three brothers of  Gokulan"tha, does not mention a brother called Sambhu (loc. cit.); cf. also the a genealogy of the Phanandaha or Phanadah" family given in Jha (1947: 318) and a :  Mishra (1966: 375). The word sambhu, as an adjective meaning helpful, gracious, is a clearly used here to qualify Vamadharas maternal uncle Jagann"tha (cf. also Jha, :s " 1947: 322 on the evidence of the two introductory verses of the Nyayatattvapar"ksa i :" _ as quoted by Rajendralal Mitra from the Mangalavan" ms. [cf. n. 108 above]), and  does not refer to a further maternal uncle named Sambhu, as assumed in Sen (1980: 100) with reference to the very similar verse in the beginning of Vamadharas :s " i Anumanad"dhititattvapar"ksa. This is supported by the fact that in the second i :" " introductory verse to the Nyayatattvapar"ksa as found in SBL mss. no. 31556 i :" _ and 31557 as well as in the Mangalavan" ms. Jagann"tha is mentioned again and a " designated as matula (cf. again n. 111 below). 110 Cf. Jha (1947: 314 and 322) and Bhattacharya (1958: 195) (on Gokulan"tha). a



upon the statements of Aksap"da;111 thus Vamadhara was Goku: a :s " lan"thas sisters son (bhagineya), which ts well with the fact that a _ Mangalavan" is the native village of the well-known Naiy"yika Go a 112 a kulan"tha. Jagann"tha must have assumed the role of the principal a teacher of Vamadhara while his elder brother was busy as a scholar :s at the court of the K"mevara ruler R"ghava Simha or after he had a s a : departed for K"" where he passed away at the age of ninety.113 This as,  is corroborated by the fact that according to the sarayantra de " i : i " claration of Datta Sarmans (cf. below) the anv"ksik" vidya is said to have passed on from Gokulan"tha to Jagann"tha to Vamadhara.114 a a s : Vamadhara, himself of the Darihar" family,115 is also said to have a :s enjoyed the patronage of R"ghava Simha of Mithil"116 and, like a a : several other members including of course Gokulan"tha of the a learned family of his mother and of his scholarly lineage, passed the  highly demanding sarayantra examination, thus succeeding his uncle
_ Cf. SBL mss. no. 31556 (fol. 1v12) and 31557 (fol. 1v 12); Mangalavan" ms. (= M) (Mitra and Sastri, 1990: 193194): " " " " " " " suror go1kulanathatas tadanujad yo va2 jagannathatah ambhoh3 prapimaya: s : " " " " ksapadavacanavyakhyavidhir matulat / : " " " tattvam gudham api svabhavagahane nyaye par"ciksisoh r"madvamadharasya me tra i :: : si :s : ": aranam sarvarthacintamanih4 //. " " : : s : : 1 Ms. no. 31557: kuo-; 2 M: missing due to damage to leaf; 3 Ms. no. 31556: ambho, s " : : M: missing due to damage; 4 Mss. no. 31556 and 31557: sattvam ca cintamanih : This verse is very similar to the third introductory verse to Vamadharas Anu:s " i manad"dhititattvapar"ksa quoted in Sen (1980: 100) (who there reads gurvoh instead i :" : " " " : : " : of suroh in the beginning, and satkr: nacintamanih[?] instead of sarvarthacintamanih in : : s: " " the last pada). The second introductory verse to the Nyayatattvapar"ksa according to i :" SBL mss. no. 31556 (fol. 1v 23) and 31557 (fol. 1v 23) as well as M reads as follows: " si " " " matular"jagannathad adh"tya nyayadaranam / i s i sr"madvamadharas tatra tattvam samyak par"ksate1 //. i : :s : 1 Ms. no. 31556: par"ksite, M: par"ksyate i : i : 112 Cf. Jha (1965: xiii, xv) and Sen (1980: 105). 113 Cf. Bhattacharya (1958: 195196), where M"dhava must be a mistake for a R"ghava. M"dhava Simha Bah"dur became the ruler of Mithil" only in 1785. a a a a : 114 " i : i " " " " " Cf. Jha (1947: 310): iyam anv"ksik" vidya mahamahopadhyayagokulana" " " " " " " thaarmasu sthapita tato pi mahamahopadhyayajagannathadvit"yena jagannas i "" " " " " thaarmana samasadita tata ca mahamahopadhyayavamsadharaarmanalambhi . s s s :" : :" Jha (1947: 322) speculates that Jagann"tha may have taken upon himself the a teaching of his sisters son after his elder brother had passed away. However, at least " at the time of the completion of the Nyayatattvapar"ksa Gokulan"tha may have been i :" a still alive; cf. Bhattacharya (1958: 195) who argues that he must have died in the decade 17301740. 115 Cf. Jha (1947: 318 and 322323), Jha (1965: xiii). 116 Cf. Jha (1965: xv). The Khandaval" family, which had assumed the dynastic a :: surname Thakkura after the acquisition of the Darbhanga Raj, changed its name to : Simha from the time of R"ghava Simha onwards; cf. Mishra (1966: 357, n. 1) and a : : Choudhary (1970: 171).



Jagann"tha. Information about this ocial distinction is obtained a from the valuable and interesting document (preserved in two copies) containing a declaration circulated by Gokulan"thas grandson Datta a  Sarman in which the latter announced his intention to take the  sarayantra.117 Like V"caspati Mira of Mithil", Vamadhara was also a s a :s renowned as a dharmaastrin.118 s" " " Vamadharas commentary on the Nyayasutra has been aptly :s described by Prabal Kumar Sen, with respect to its sources among "s which the Gautam"yasutraprakaa gures prominently and specic i " text-critical methods.119 Especially noteworthy is Vamadharas dis:s ": " " " tinction between mulasutra-s and bhasyasutra-s, that is, his coinage of a new methodological term for those succinct sentences of the " ": " Nyayabhasya which were considered by some as original sutra-s.120 In this way Vamadhara distinguishes the latter from the text of the s : foundational work by sage Aksap"da121 and at the same time suggests : a that they are endowed with if not equal then at least similar authority.122 Another novel text-critical expression introduced by " " : " Vamadhara into Nyayasutra exegesis is the term sesapuraka, referring :s " ": to those parts of the Nyayabhasya which supply what remains to be said by the author of the root text, almost as if they reected his own "s i " unsaid words.123 As in the Gautam"yasutraprakaa, considerable space
Cf. Jha (1947); cf. also Bhattacharya (1958: 193194) and Mishra (1966: 381 382). According to Triloknath Jha (2001: 270271), Vamadharas uncle Goku:s lan"tha was the last arayantr", a statement which has already been made by a s i Ganganath Jha in 19281929 (cf. the reference in Jha, 1947: 321); to solve the ob vious contradiction resulting from the evidence of the Datta Sarmans declaration, Ramnath Jha considers that after Gokulan"thas time the examination did no longer a take place with the participation of the public (cf. Jha, loc. cit.). 118 Cf. Jha (1965: xiii). 119 Cf. Sen (1980). 120 Cf. the excerpts given in Sen (1980: 108109, 119120, 122123). In general, the text as presented by Sen often requires obvious emendations and conjectures, sometimes based on the evidence of other commentaries; however, it is outside the scope of the present contribution to individually point these out and justify them. 121 " Cf. the reference to Aksap"da in the concluding verse no. 3 of the Nya: a yatattvapar"ksa (quoted in Sen, 1980: 103): i :" " " " " : jn anambhonidhir aksapada : : ibhrn nyayo sya suktam mahat, tattvam gudham amusya : " rs : : ": : " " :" i :" tasya vihita yaisa par"ksa maya / . " I fail to understand : : ibhrt in the relevant rst pada of this verse and unfortunately rs : did not prepare my own transliteration of it when I saw the ms. Could : : ibhrt be a rs : scribal mistake or misreading? 122 " For an example of an extended discussion on the status of disputed sutra-s, cf. Sen (1980: 111112; cf. also 126127). 123 Cf. the example in Sen (1980: 114). Cf. also Sen (1980: 106).



is given to the discussion of the extent and names of the prakarana-s124 : _ as well as of their mutual relationship and pertinence (sangati);125 " individual readings of sutra-s, their extent and order are also dis126 " cussed. Here and in the discussion of disputed sutra-s Vamadhara :s often agrees with Keava Miras verdict. It can therefore be assumed s s "s that he utilized the Gautam"yasutraprakaa when composing his work, i " additionally borrowing the references to earlier commentaries from it.127 In one of his introductory verses, Vamadhara mentions his exclusive desire :s for discernment and claims that accomplishment in discernment between what is true and false (right and wrong) will result in the disappearance of low-minded persons in this world.128 Could it be that with the term discernment (viveka) Vamadhara also refers to his text:s critical approach towards the Ny" utra? ayas" To sum up and conclude: In the eleventh century, when treatises written in the old style of proliferating sub-commentaries, sub-sub" " commentaries, etc., on the Nyayasutra were no longer considered adequate to eectively counter the increasingly sophisticated challenge of the Buddhist epistemologists, this type of literary production was discontinued and gave way to more focussed independent treatises which subsequently ourished, unburdened or unimpeded by the task of S"tra exegesis and apologetics. After the demise of Buddhism u in India and the rm establishment of Muslim rule in the north, related but categorically distinct external factors which must have jointly inuenced the motivation of scholars, we can observe, in the
Cf. e.g., the discussion and rejection of Tarani Miras opinion, expressed in his s : ": " " Bhasya, that Nyayasutra 3.1.1214 form a separate prakarana (Sen 1980: 114115), : to be compared with the one in the GSP (cf. n. 102 above); cf. also Sen, 1980: 123 124. 125 Cf. Sen (1980: 109110). 126 Cf. Sen (1980: 106107, 109, 116117, 125126, 127128). 127 Cf. also Sen (1980: 129). The earlier commentaries, as mentioned in the " " ": " " Nyayatattvapar"ksa and listed by Sen, are the Nyayabhasya, Nyayavarttika, i :" " " " " (Nyayavarttikatatparya)T"ka, Nibandha (i.e., Pariuddhi), Bhaskara (cf. Sen, 1980: s :i " " "s 106, and above, p. 80), Tattvabodha and Nyayanibandhaprakaa; the names of S"n"tani (cf. Sen, 1980: 127128; cf. nn. 33 and 93 above), Tarani Mira (cf. Sen, a a s : 1980: 114115; cf. nn. 37 and 102 above) and Vidy"s"gara (cf. Sen, 1980: 109, p. 80 aa above and already Thakur, 1976: 265), next to Keava Mira himself (cf. Sen, 1980: s s " " 107), suggest references to further commentaries on the Nyayasutra (cf. Sen, 1980: 102103). 128 " Cf. introductory verse no. 1 at the beginning of the second ahnika of the rst " adhyaya (SBL mss. no. 31556 fol. 41v 45 and no. 31557 fol. 37r 89; quoted from the Mithila Research Institute ms. in Sen (1980: 101): " : ": " " ": " tvam vani vamadharasurir upasya matar ekam vivekam abhilasapadam* karoti / :s : : " jatodaye sadasator vimale viveke loke na ke pi purusah krpana bhavanti //. : ": : : " ": * Both SBL mss. read abhilasapade



" " fteenth century, a return of concern with the Nyayasutra, the ancient foundational work of the Ny"ya tradition, accompanied by a new a kind of focussed and increasingly intense interest in its text-critical analysis which involved inter alia the evaluation of sporadic earlier text-critical remarks and positions; furthermore, the formerly prominent engagement in controversies with Buddhist philosophers occasioned either directly by topics addressed in the S"tra or u indirectly by related reections in the sub-commentaries gives way to the endeavour to present and comment upon, wherever appropriate, the relevant topical discourse found in recent and contemporary Navya-Ny"ya treatises. The mentioned turn together with the new a attitude may well have been part of a historicist search for originality and authenticity which in this specic case, i.e., with regard to the " " Nyayasutra, had become possible because there was no longer any psychological and ideological need to respond to the Buddhist challenge in any interpretation of and comment on the S"tra; a second u reason may be that the necessity to present the S"tra as the internally u ` undisputed and unambiguous foundation of the Ny"ya tradition vis a a vis the Buddhist critics was not felt any longer. The historicist stance indicated by the text-critical approach is also reected in the more and more prominent historicist periodizations which had been expressed in the works of the Ny"ya tradition in north-eastern India a already in the thirteenth century. Both intellectual phenomena, the historicist search for originality and authenticity as well as the historicist periodizations, may have been inuenced by the increasing intellectual interaction of the non-Muslim elite with Islamic culture which can be specically demonstrated for some Ny"ya scholars, the a former phenomenon having possibly been motivated by the wish to assert ones own cultural identity and in view of the clear realization of the historical antiquity of the object of examination superiority ` vis a vis the Muslim rulers. This latter inner motivation may have coincided with or been reinforced by the external factor of the boosted promotion of Sanskritic scholarship by local non-Muslim rulers, some of them Sanskrit scholars themselves and some related to prominent scholars through family ties, for their own purposes of cultural self-assertion and legitimization.

" " The line of development regarding the major Nyayasutra-commentaries and the attitudes and approaches of their authors sketched



above has, of course, only the nature of a working hypothesis which has to be corroborated in further detail or to be modied in the light of a more thorough analysis of the works and other testimonies. Also, the information about the authors themselves, their patrons and their networks is only fragmentary and remains to be eshed out. Furthermore, the tradition of Navya-Ny"ya in Navadv" a pa, where after Ilyas Shah the general conditions for scholarship and for scholarly travel (foremost to centres of learning such as Mithil" and K"" must a as) have improved, resulting in the production of a voluminous philosophical literature,129 could not be addressed within the scope of the present contribution. The Navadv" tradition of commenting upon pa " " the Nyayasutra is mainly represented by a small fragment of a " " " " Nyayasutravyakhya by M"thur"n"tha Tarkav"g"sa, followed by a a a a  " R"mabhadra S"rvabhaumas important Nyayarahasya (end of the a a sixteenth/beginning of the seventeenth century), both works that I have not yet been able to study in sucient detail.130 Supplementing " " " his fathers commentary on the fth adhyaya only of the Nyayasutra, " i : i that is, J"nak" athas above-mentioned Anv"ksik"tattvavivarana,131 a n" : R"mabhadra, who was the teacher of the more famous Jagad"sa a  " Tark"lank"ra,132 commented on the rst four adhyaya-s. Another a _ a prominent representative of this tradition is Vivan"tha Panc"nana, s a a " " whose well-known, but not yet thoroughly studied Nyayasutravrtti : was completed in 1634 in Vrnd"vana, that is, some hundred years a : "s after Keava Mira of Mithil" wrote his Gautam"yasutraprakaa; his s s a i " self-proclaimed motive in composing this commentary was to make " s" the extensive Nyayaastra of Aksap"da, whom he elsewhere calls : a a sage,133 able to be understood easily and without much eort even
Cf. Chakravarti (1915a: 272, 19291930: 249). " For a rst study of the Nyayarahasya cf. Sen (1987, for Sens recent edition of u a : this work cf. n. 58 above). S"lap"ni (Thakur, 1970: 37, 1981: xxii) and Svapnevara s (Thakur, loc. cit.), grandson of V"sudeva S"rvabhauma (Bhattacharyya, 1940: 60), a a " " are said to have written commentaries on the Nyayasutra, but their works have not yet been located. 131 " " Among other preceding commentaries on the Nyayasutra quoted by J"nak" atha a n" " he refers to the lost Bhaskara (cf. n. 37 above) (cf. Mishra, 1966: 421, relying on information provided by Dineshchandra Bhattacharya). 132 Cf. Chakravarti (1915a: 281282) and Kaviraj (1982: 86) with reference to the  " "s " Nyayarahasya in the latters Sabdaaktiprakaika. s 133 " " Cf. the rst concluding verse of the Nyayasutravrtti in which Vivan"tha also s a :  refers to (Raghun"tha) Siromani, devotee of Kr: nacandra, with the help of whose a : :s: utterances he composed his commentary (NVr 1201, 1619): : " " " esa munipravaragautamasutravrttih sr"vivanathakrtina sugamalpavarna / :" :" : : i s : "  i : s: " sr"kr: nacandracaranambujacancar"kar"macchiromanivacahpracayair akari //. i si :" : :
130 129



by lazy-minded people.134 Vivan"tha Panc"nana, the youngest son s a a a a in the family,135 was a student of his father Vidy"niv"sa Bhatt"c"rya, : :a a who is honoured by him in one of the introductory verses of the " " Nyayasutravrtti,136 and regularly mentioned in the intermediate and : nal colophons of the manuscripts of this work. Quite a number of details are known about Vidy"niv"sa Bhatt"c"rya whom a a : :a a Dineshchandra Bhattacharya calls the leader of Bengali scholars in Benares for a long time: he was defeated in a dispute with the M" amsaka N"r"yana Bhatta of the G"dhi family (cf. above, m" : aa : a :: " p. 77)137 on the occasion of a sraddha ceremony in Todarmalls house in Delhi138 and is mentioned in the Ain-i-Akbari in the fourth category of the learned men of Akbars time, namely, among those who look upon testimony as something lled with the dust of suspicion and handle nothing without proof ; he signed a nirnayapatra issued in 1583 in K""139 and may have been among the as : contributors to the Kav"ndracandrodaya (cf. above, p. 77).140 i According to Umesh Mishra141 he was the son of a younger brother of V"sudeva S"rvabhauma; this statement tallies with Baldev a a Upadhyayas comment that he was the son of the youngest son a a of Narahari Vi"rada,142 named Vidy"v"caspati.143 A grandson of sa his, Govinda Bhatt"c"rya, son of Vidy"niv"sas son Rudra Ny"a a a : :a a yav"caspati Bhatt"c"rya,144 may have been the 27th among the 77 a : :a a
Cf. introductory verse no. 5 (NVr 28, 2526): : " s" alasamatir ap"dam vistrtam nyayaastram virahitabahuyatno l"laya vettu vijnah / i : i " : : : : ": " "i iti vinihitacetah kaualam kartukamo gurucaranarajo ham karnadhar"karomi //. s : : : : 135 Cf. Mishra (1966: 434) and Upadhyaya (1994: 34). 136 Cf. introductory verse no. 4 (NVr 28, 2324): : advaitam gurudharmayor iva lasatksmamandal"mandanam rupam kin cana paurusam : : " :: i :: : " : : : " " gira iva pragalbhyasampadakam / " " i : " : : : " : s " " dane karnam ivavat"rnam aparam dane dayadaksinam tatam vivavisaricaruyaasam s : : " : " " : vidyanivasam numah //; : cf. also verse 6 where Vivan"tha refers to himself as son of Vidy"niv"sa (NVr 29, 24): s a a a : " " " : : " vidyanivasasunoh krtir esa vivanathasya / :" s " ": " : " : vidusam atisuksmadhiyam amatsaranam mude bhavatu //. :" 137 According to Mishra (1966: 434), Vidy"niv"sa was the winner, a statement which a a is most probably a mistake. 138 Cf. Shastri (1912: 910) and Upadhyaya (1994: 47); cf. also Benson (2001: 113) whose ms. evidence does not support Shastris characterization of the nature of the dispute but points to another topic of discussion. 139 Cf. Bhattacharyya (1937: 3435). 140 Cf. Shastri (1912: 12). 141 Cf. Mishra (1966: 434). 142 Cf. n. 97 above. 143 Cf. Upadhyaya (1994: 34). 144 Cf. Chakravarti (1915a: 286, 288).



scholars who signed a nirnayapatra issued in K"" in 1657 (cf. beas : low).145 " " "" In addition, the Nyayasiddhantamala, a commentary in the " " broader sense on selected sutra-s of adhyaya-s 1 and 5.2 of the " " Nyayasutra,146 written in the second half of the seventeenth century in K"" by the Bengali Jayar"ma Ny"yapanc"nana,147 a student of as a a a a R"mabhadra S"rvabhauma,148 remains to be examined.149 Jayar"ma a a Ny"yapanc"nanas signature appears as the 74th name on the already a a " mentioned vyavastha- or nirnayapatra issued in 1657 in K"" 150 he as; : also contributed to the Kav"ndracandrodaya.151 A further unexplored, i ": : i still not edited commentary is the Mitabhasin" by Mah"deva a Bhatt"c"rya of the last quarter of the seventeenth century, of which a a :: a a several manuscripts are preserved;152 Mah"deva, son of V"g"svar"c"rya and Bh"g"  a a a rath" wrote this commentary at the request of , a certain Somevara Bhatta. He may have been a Ved"ntin and also s a :: "_ " author of the Sankhyavrttisara.153 Only after these available ma: terials have been taken into consideration will our broad picture of " " the commentarial literature on the Nyayasutra from the fteenth to the eighteenth century, their authors and their contexts, become more complete, ready to be lled in with further details gained from additional sources.
145 146

Cf. Gode (1943: 136), Bhattacharyya (1945: 9496) and Upadhyaya (1994: 87). Cf. Shastri (1928: (1)(5), (9)(10)); see also the characterization in Chakravarti (1929: 230) and Mishra (1966: 438). 147 Cf. Chakravarti (1915a: 283) and Kaviraj (1982: 9495); according to Kaviraj, the work was composed in 1693. 148 Kaviraj, followed by Shastri (1928: [17][18]), identies Jayar"mas teacher with a R"mabhadra Siddh"ntav"g"sa, the grandson and student of Jagad"sa (Kaviraj, 1982: a a a   94, 8990). However, Bhattacharyya has clearly shown that this R"mabhadra must a " be R"mabhadra S"rvabhauma because Jayar"ma refers to the latters Nyayarahasya a a a ascribing the quoted passage to guravah (cf. Bhattacharyya, 1945: 9697; cf. also : Mishra, 1966: 435, 437). 149 " ": " " " The work refers to the Nyayabhasya, the Nyayavarttika, the Tatparyat"ka and :i " " "s Vardham"nas Nyayanibandhaprakaa and Tattvabodha; Udayana may be referred a " " ": " to by acaryah. Jayar"ma also mentions the Bhaskara (cf. n. 37 above) and S"n"tani a a a (cf. n. 33 above) once. 150 Cf. Kaviraj (1982: 152); Shastri (1928: 19); no. 68 in the list as presented in Gode (1943: 138), no. 31 in Upadhyaya (1994: 87). 151 Cf. Gode (1943: 138) and Upadhyaya (1994: 85). 152 Cf. Kaviraj (1982: 103). 153 " Cf. Kaviraj (1982: 103, 154). Gaurinath Sastri, relying on the Navadv"pamahima, i " " mentions still another Vrtti on the Nyayasutra written in the middle of the eighteenth :  century in Navadv" pa, by a certain Sivar"ma (cf. Sastri, 1968: 518). However, this a work has not yet been discovered.



SOURCES "s GSP: Gautam"yasutraprakaa of Keavamira, ed. Kishor Nath Jha. Allahabad: i " s s G.N. Jha Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapeetha, 1978. " " _ " " " " " " NA: Nyayalankara (Pancaprasthananyayamahatarkavisamapadavyakhya) of Abha: " " yatilaka Upadhyaya, ed. Anantalal Thakur and J.S. Jetley. Gaekwads Oriental Series 169. Baroda: Oriental Institute, 1981. " " " NTA: Nyayatattvaloka of V"caspati Mira II (Junior), ed. Kishore Nath Jha. a s Ganganatha Jha Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapitha Text Series 33. Allahabad: G.N. Jha Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapeetha, 1992. " " NTD: Nyayatatparyad"pika of Bhattav"g"svara, ed. Kishor Nath Jha. Allahabad: i " : : a  G.N. Jha Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapeetha, 1979. ": " ": " " NBh: Nyayabhasya: Gautam"yanyayadarana with Bhasya of Vatsyayana, ed. i s " " Anantalal Thakur. Nyayacaturgranthika Vol. I. New Delhi: Indian Council for Philosophical Research, 1997. " " " ": " " " NV: Nyayavarttika: Nyayabhasyavarttika of Bharadvaja Uddyotakara, ed. Anantalal " " Thakur. Nyayacaturgranthika Vol. II. New Delhi: Indian Council for Philosophical Research, 1997. " " " NVr: Nyayasutravrtti of Vivan"tha Panc"nana, in Nyayadaranam, ed. Taranatha s a s a : : Nyaya-Tarkatirtha, Amarendramohan Tarkatirtha and Hemantakumar Tarkatirtha. Calcutta Sanskrit Series 18 and 19. Calcutta: Metropolitan Publishing & Printing House, Limited, 19361944. " " " NVTT: Nyayavarttikatatparyat"ka of V"caspatimira, ed. Anantalal Thakur. a s : :i " " " Nyayacaturgranthika Vol. III. New Delhi: Indian Council for Philosophical Research, 1996. " " " " " NVTP: Nyayavarttikatatparyapariuddhi of Udayanacarya, ed. Anantalal Thakur. s " " Nyayacaturgranthika Vol. IV. New Delhi: Indian Council for Philosophical Research, 1996. ": " PV: Pramanavarttika of Dharmak" in: Yusho Miyasaka, Pram"nav"rttikak"rik" rti, a: a a a (Sanskrit and Tibetan), Acta Indologica 2 (1971/1972), 2206. " " " " " MMK: Mulamadhyamakakarikas (Madhyamikasutras) de Nagarjuna avec la " " " Prasannapada Commentaire de Candrak"rti, ed. Louis de La Vallee Poussin. Bibi liotheca Buddhica 4. S.-Petersburg: Academie Imperiale des Sciences, 19031913.  :  i :: : " SKT: Sr"kanthatippanakam [A Commentary on the Major Nyaya-texts] By :  i :: " " Sr"kanthacarya, ed. Anantalal Thakur. Bibliotheca Indica 313. Calcutta: Asiatic Society, 1986. REFERENCES  : " Benson, J. (2001). Samkarabhattas family chronicle. The Gadhivamsavarnana, in :: : : Axel Michaels (ed.), The Pandit: Traditional Scholarship in India (pp. 105118). New Delhi. " " Bhattacharya, D. (1958). History of Navya-Nyaya in Mithila. Mithila Institute Series 2. Darbhanga. Bhattacharya, D.C. (1947). Ny"ya works of V"caspati Mira II of Mithil", Journal a a s a of the Ganganatha Jha Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapeetha 3(34), 295312. " Bhattacharya, G. (1978). Nayva-Nyaya. Some Logical Problems in Historical Perspective. Delhi/Varanasi. Bhattacharyya, D. (1937). Sanskrit scholars of Akbars time, Indian Historical Quarterly 13, 3136. Bhattacharyya, D.C. (1940). V"sudeva S"rvabhauma, Indian Historical Quarterly a a 16, 5869.



Bhattacharyya, D.C. (1945). Bengali scholars at Benares (1657 A.D.), Indian Historical Quarterly 21, 9197. Chakravarti, M. (1906 [1907]). Sanskrit literature in Bengal during the Sena rule, Journal & Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal (New Series) 2, 157176. Chakravarti Bahadur, R.M. (1915a). History of, Journal & Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, (New Series) 11, 259292. Chakravarti Bahadur, R.M. (1915b). History of Mithil" during the pre-Mughal a period, Journal & Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal (New Series) 11, 407433. Chakravarti, C. (1929). Bengals contribution to philosophical literature in Sanskrit, The Indian Antiquary 58, 201206, 230233, continued in Chakravarti (1930). Chakravarti, C. (19291930). Bengals contribution to Sanskrit literature (A chronological frame-work), Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute 11, 235258. Chakravarti, C. (1930). Bengals contribution to philosophical literature in Sanskrit, The Indian Antiquary 59, 2327. Chemparathy, G. (1972). An Indian Rational Theology. Publications of the De Nobili Research Library 1. Wien. Choudhary, R. (1970). History of Muslim Rule in Tirhut (12061765 A.D.). Chowkhamba Sanskrit Studies 72. Varanasi. Franco, E. (1997). Dharmak"rti on Compassion and Rebirth. Wiener Studien zur i Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 38. Wien. Franco, E. (2002). A M" amsaka among the Buddhists. Three fragments on the m" : relationship between word and object, in J. Braarvig et al. (eds.), Buddhist Manuscripts in the Sch(yen Collection, Vol. 2 (pp. 269285). Oslo. Franco, E. and Preisendanz, K. (1995). Bhavad"sas interpretation of M"a i ": " " " ": mamsasutra 1.1.4 and the date of the Nyayabhasya, Berliner Indologische Studien 8, 8186. Franco, E. and Preisendanz, K. (1998a). Ny"yaVaiesika, in Edward Craig (ed.), a s : Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol. 7 (pp. 5767). London. Franco, E. and Preisendanz, K. (1998b). Gautama, Aksap"da, in Edward Craig : a (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol. 3 (pp. 859861). London. Frauwallner, E. (1936). Beitrage zur Geschichte des Ny"ya. I. Jayanta und seine a Quellen, Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde des Morgenlandes 43, 263278. Gode, P.K. (19431944). Some new evidence regarding Devabhatta Mah"abde, the as :: father of Ratn"karabhatta, the guru of Sevai Jaising of Amber (A.D. 16991743), a :: Poona Orientalist 8(34), 129138. Gode, P.K. (1954). Bernier and Kav" ac"rya Sarasvat" at the Mughal court, in ndr" a Studies in Indian Literary History, Vol. 2 (pp. 364379). Bombay. " Gupta, B. (1963). Die Wahrnehmungslehre in der Nyayamanjar". Walldorf. i " Hattori, M. (1968). Dignaga, On Perception. Harvard Oriental Series 47. Cambridge, Mass. ": " " Jha, G. (1994). Sadholal Lectures on Nyaya. Sri Garib Das Oriental Series 178. 2nd ed. Delhi. (1st ed. Allahabad 19121916). Jha, K.N. (1978). avataranam, in GSP (pp. [1][14]). : Jha, R. (1947). The declaration of a arayantr" in A.S. Altekar (ed.), Proceedings s , and Transactions of the All-India Oriental Conference. Twelfth Session. Benares Hindu University 19434, Vol. I: Proceedings, Transactions, Bulletins, Minutes of Meetings, Lists of Members, Delegates, etc. (pp. 309325). Benares. _ :i " Jha, T. (ed.) (1965). The V"ratarangin" of MM. Citradhara of Mithila. Darbhanga. i Jha, T. (2001). Sanskrit studies in Bihar, in Vachaspati Upadhyaya (ed.), Sanskrit Studies in India, (pp. 266276). New Delhi.



Kane, P.V. (1975). History of Dharmaastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and s" Civil Law). Government Oriental Series Class B, No. 6. Vol. I, Part II, revised and enlarged. Poona. " Kaviraj, G. (1982). The History and Bibliography of Nyaya-Vaiesika Literature. s : Princess of Wales Sarasvati Bhavana Studies Reprint Series 2. Varanasi (reprinted from Vol. 35 and 7, 19241926 and 1929). Laine, J. (1998). Udayana (11th century), in Edward Craig (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Vol. 9 (pp. 512513). London. " Matilal, B.K. (1977). Nyaya-Vaiesika. A History of Indian Literature VI, 2. Wiess : baden. Meulenbeld, G.J. (2000). A History of Indian Medical Literature. Vol. 2. Groningen. Mishra, U. (1966). History of Indian Philosophy. Vol. 2. Allahabad. Mitra, D. (1980). Buddhist Monuments. Calcutta. Mitra, R. and Sastri, H. (1990). Notices of Sanskrit Manuscripts. Sharada Oriental Series 1. Vol. 5. Reprint Delhi: Sharada Prakashan. Mishra, V. (1979). Cultural History of Mithila. Allahabad: Mithila Prakasana. Naudou, J. (1980). Buddhists of Kashmir. Delhi. Oberhammer, G. (1964). Paksilasv"mins introduction to his Ny"yabh": yam, Asian a a as : Studies 2(3), 302322. Oetke, C. (1984). Ich und das Ich. Analytische Untersuchungen zur buddhistisch" brahmanischen Atmankontroverse. Alt- und Neuindische Studien 33. Wiesbaden. ": " Oetke, C. (1991). Zur Methode der Analyse philosophischer Sutratexte. Die Pramana " " Passagen der Nyayasutren. Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik Monographie 11. Reinbek. Phillips, S.H. (1995). Classical Indian Metaphysics. Refutations of Realism and the Emergence of New Logic. Chicago/La Salle, Illinois. Pollock, S. (2001). New intellectuals in seventeenth-century India, The Indian Economic and Social History Review 38(1), 331. " " " " Preisendanz, K. (1994). Studien zu Nyayasutra III.1 mit dem Nyayatattvaloka " Vacaspati Miras II. 2 vols. Alt- und Neuindische Studien 46. Stuttgart. s Preisendanz, K. (2000). Debate and independent reasoning vs. tradition: On the precarious position of early Ny"ya, in Ryutaro Tsuchida and Albrecht Wezler a " (eds.), Haranandalahar". Volume in Honour of Professor Minoru Hara on his i Seventieth Birthday (pp. 221251). Reinbek. Roth, G. (1968). A saint like that and a saviour in Prakrit, Pali, Sanskrit and Tibetan literature, in Shri Mahavir Jaina Vidyalaya Golden Jubilee volume. Part I (pp. 4662). Bombay. Sarma, S.R. (2002). From Y"van" to Samskrtam: Sanskrit writings inspired by a : : Persian works, Studies in the History of Indian Thought 14, 7188. Sastri, G. (1968). Post-Gad"dhara Naiy"yikas of Bengal (16001800 A.D.), in Jan a a " C. Heesterman (ed.), Pratidanam. Indian, Iranian and Indo-European Studies Presented to Franciscus Bernardus Jacobus Kuiper on his Sixtieth Birthday (pp. 516522). The Hague/Paris. Schmithausen, L. (1965). Mandanamiras Vibhramavivekah. Sitzungsberichte der s :: : Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, philologischhistorische Klasse 247,1 (= Veroentlichungen der Kommission fur Sprachen und Kulturen Sud asiens 2). Wien. Sen, P.K. (1978). Ny"yabh"skara a lost Ny"ya work, Journal of Indian Philosophy a a a 5, 267274. a u Sen, P.K. (1980). Vamadharas works and his textual criticism of the Ny"yas"tras, :s Journal of Indian Philosophy 8, 99113.



Sen, P.K. (1987). Ny"yarahasya and some disputed Ny"yas"tras, in R. Mukhoa a u padhyaya et al. (eds.), Philosophical Essays: Professor Anantalal Thakur Felicitation Volume (pp. 151165). Calcutta. " " " " " Sen P.K. (ed.) (2003). Nyayasutras with Nyayarahasya of Ramabhadra Sarvabkhauma " i : i " i " ": " : and Anv"ksik"tattvavivarana of Janak"natha Cudamani. 2 vols., Bibliotheca Indica : Series 324 Kolkata. " Shah, N.J. (1972). Introduction, in Nagin J. Shah (ed.), Cakradharas Nyaya_ manjar"granthibhanga. L.D. Series 35 (pp. 114). Ahmedabad. i Shastri, H. (1912). Dakshini pandits at Benares, The Indian Antiquary 41, 713. " Shastri, M.D. (1928). Introduction, in Mangal Deva Shastri (ed.), The Nyaya " "" " " " Siddhanta Mala of Jayarama Nyaya-Pancanana Bhattacarya. The Princess of :: " " Wales Sarasvati Bhavana Texts 21 (Part II) (pp. 126). Benares. Solomon, E.A. (1970). Aviddhakarna a forgotten Naiy"yika, Vidya 13(1), 1840. a : Solomon, E.A. (1971). A further note on Aviddhakarna, Vidya (Humanities) 14(2), : 1924. " a Solomon, E.A. (1973). Forgotten Naiy"yikas: (2) Ac"rya Adhyayana, Vidya a (Languages) 16(3), 5970. Solomon, E.A. (1974). Forgotten Naiy"yikas: (3) Bh"vivikta, Vidya (Languages) a a 17(12), 2335. Solomon, E.A. (1976). Forgotten Naiy"yikas: (4) Vivar"pa, Vidya (Languages) a s u 18(4), 1328. Solomon, E.A. (19771978). Bhatta Udbhata, Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental :: : Research Institute 5859 (19771978) (= Diamond Jubilee Volume) (pp. 985992). " Solomon, E.A. (1980). Trilocana: a forgotten Naiy"yika, Vidya (Languages) 23(1), a 1746. Solomon, E.A. (1986). Trilocana a forgotten Naiy"yika, in Wolfgang Morgenroth a (ed.), Sanskrit and World Culture. Proceedings of the Fourth World Sanskrit Conference of the International Association of Sanskrit Studies Weimar May 2330, 1979 (= Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur des Alten Orients 18) (pp. 560566). Berlin. Steinkellner, E. (1961). Die Literatur des alteren Ny"ya, Wiener Zeitschrift fu die a r Kunde Sud- und Ostasiens 5, 149162.  _ Steinkellner, E. (1977). On the date and works of the Naiy"yika Sankarasv"min, a a Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde Sud- und Ostasiens 21, 213218. Thakur, A. (1947). The Naiy"yika Trilocana as teacher of V"caspati, Indian Culture a a 14(1), 3640. Thakur, A. (1965). Studies in a fragmentary Vaiesikas"travrtti, Journal of the s : u : Oriental Institute Baroda 14, 330335. Thakur, A. (1970). Lost and little known Ny"ya works, Rtam 1(2), 3138. a : Thakur, A. (1976). Vidy"s"gara and his Ny"yas"trat" a, Journal of the Oriental aa a u :k" Institute Baroda 25(34), 265267. Thakur, A. (1981). Introduction to NA, pp. xvxxxi. Thakur, A. (2000). Ny"ya-Vaiesika studies and their revival, Journal of the Asiatic a s : Society 42(12), 107118. Thapar, R. (1990). A History of India. Vol. 1: From the Discovery of India to 1526. New Delhi (rst edition: Harmondsworth 1966). "si i ": : " Upadhyaya, B. (1994). Ka" k" Panditya-Parampara. Varanasi. " Wada, T. (1990). Invariable Concomitance in Navya-Nyaya. Sri Garib Dass Oriental Series 101. Delhi. Wada, T. (2001). The analytical method of Navya-Ny"ya, Journal of Indian a Philosophy 29(56), 519530.



" " ": " "" : Wezler, A. (1975). Zur Identitat der acaryah und der vyakhyatarah in Jayantabhattas Ny"yamanjar" Wiener Zeitschrift fu die Kunde Sud- und Ostaa , r :: siens 19, 135146. Wink, A. (1999). Al-Hind. The Making of the Indo-Islamic World. Vol. 2: The Slave Kings and the Islamic Conquests 11th13th Centuries. New Delhi.

Institute for South Asian, Tibetan and Buddhist Studies University of Vienna Spitalgasse 2, 2.1 A-1090 Vienna Austria E-mail: