·HISTORY OF
NAVYA-NYAYA IN MITHILĀ
BY
Prof Dineshchandra Bhattacharya, M A
Mitula Institute of Post Graduate Studies and Research
in Sanskrit Learning
DARBHANGA
1958

·500S The GOVERNMFVI OF Bunt established the Mithila Institute of Post-Graduate Studies and Research in Sanskrit Learning at Darbhanga in 1951 with the object inter alia to promote advanced studies and research in Sanskrit learning to bring together the traditional Fandits with their profound learning and the modern scholars with their techni que of research and investigations to publish works of permanent value to scholars This Institute is one of the five others planned by this Government as a token of their homage to the tradition of learning and scholarship for which ancient Bihar was noted Apart from the Mithila Institute three others have been established and have been doing useful work during the last three or four years-- Nalanda Institute of Research and Post Graduate Studies in Buddhist Learning and Pali at Nalanda K P Jayaswal Research Institute at Patna and the Bihar Rashtra Bhasha Parishad for research and advanced studies in Hindi at Patna In the establishment of the Mithila Institute the State Government received a generous donation from the Maharajadhiraja of Darbhanga for construction of the building on a plot of land also donated by him As part of this programme of rehabilitating and te orientation of ancient learning and scholarship the editing and publication of this Volume has been undertaken with co operation of scholars in Bihar and outside The Govern ment of Bihar hope to continue to sponsor such projects and trust that this humble service to the world of scholar ship and learning would bear fruit in the fulness of time ·Abbreviations Benaras Catalogue) Bibliotheca) I(ndica) or Bibliotheca) Ind(ica) B(handarkar) Oriental) R(esearch) I(nstitute) Cabaton s Catalogue) Catalogue) of Ulwar Manu)s(cript)s Des(criptive) Catalogue) of A siatic Society) Des(criptive) Catalogue of) Manu)s(cript)s in the Jaina Bhandaras at Pattan Das(criptive Cat(alogue) of Mithila Manu)s(cript)s Des(criptive) Cat(alogue of the) Sarasvatı Mahal Tanjore Ganganatha) Jha R(esearch Institute) Journ(al) G(aekwad) O(riental) Series) I(ndian) A(ntiquary) I ndian) C(ulture) I(ndian) H(istorical) Qluarterly) IIndia) O(ffice) Jammu Cat(alogue) Journal) A(siatic) Society of) B(engal) Journal) B(thar) R(esearch) S(ociety) Journal), Bihar and) O(rissa) Research) S(ociety) Journal Ganganatha Jha R(esearch) I(nstitute) Jha Com(memoration) Volume) Nepal Catalogue) H P Sastru Proceedings) of the (All India) Oriental Conf(erence) Rosal) A(siatic) Society of) B(engal) Sarasvati) B(havana) S(tudies) Texts Tanjore Catalogue) Z(citschrift der) D(eutschen) M(orgenlandischen) G(esellschaft) ·Preface The following pages present the posthumous studies on the History of Navya-Nyaya in Mithilā by the late Professor Dineshchandra Bhattacharya who was a specialist in the much neglected branch of Indology--Study of Mşs. His contributions on the History of Vaidyaka, Dharmaśāstra, Navya-Nyāya and Sanskrit Grammar scattered in the pages of different scholarly journals will immortalise him It was in his mature years that he began to systamatuse the results of his studies. His Bengalı work--Vange Navya-Nyāya-carca was well received and fetched for him the much coveted "Rabindra Prize' from the Government of West Bengal. It was a matter of gratification that he accepted my offer to write a volume on the History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithilā. He came to Mithilā and examined the Manuscript Libraries of the Mithilā Institute and Raj Darbhanga, thrown open to him. But the beckon from beyond impelled him to make hurry and he could not finish the work on the plan challed out. His health was deteriorating rapidly and he breathed his last soon after he handed the press copy of the present work over to me, his consi- The work, however, will show that the author collected every available material in India and abroad and gave dered and impartial verdict on the problems taken up. It may be hoped that it will serve as an invitation to younger scholars to carry out further fruitful researches in the line A few minor omissions and anachronisms may be noticed. But in the absence of the author, I thought it fit to preserve his text as it is. Interested scholars may refer to his above-mentioned Bengalı work for more details. The author could not ·1 (8) add his Introductiсn which would have much enhanced the value of the Volume Professor Bhattacharya's MS. collection, so often referred to in these pages, has as it is reported, been donated to the Sanskrit Sahitya Parisad, Calcutta.' I take the opportunity to thank all those, particularly the authorities of the Raj Library, Darbhanga, Asiatic Society, Bengal, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Inststute, Poona, and Sarasvati Bhavana, Banaras, who allowed the author to utilize the materials at their disposal. I also like to record with thanks the help I received from Prof Anantalal Thakur of the Institute in carrying the work through the press and preparing the index for this volume 22-7-58 Darbhanga P. L. Vaidya Director ·CONTENTS CHAPTER Udayanācārya His Predecessors & Sucessurs pp. 1-54 Udayana Belonged to Mithilā p. 5, Aniruddha 7, Kandalikāra 8, Kāśıkākāra 11, Vyomaśivācārya 11, Jñānaśrı 13, Trilocana 16, Ratnakīrti 18, Rājakulpāda 18, Sānātani 19, Srivatsa 20, Vācaspati 22, Jinendra 30, Dharmottara 31, Prajñākara 31, Mahāvrata 32, Sankarācārya 33, Śālıkanātha 34, Bhāskara 35, Bhūsanakāra 35, Udayana's Pre-eminence 37. Udayana and Gangesa 39, Udayana and Śrīharsa 41, Date of Udayana 51. CHAPTER Pre-Gangeša Wnters pp. 55-95 śrivallabhācārya 55, śivāditya Miśra 61, Keśavamiśra 64. MM. Candra 66, Divākaropadhyāya 68, Prabhākaropādhyāya 74, Tarani Misra 76, Sondadopādhyāya 80, Manikantha Misra 82, Śaśadharācārya 87, Nārāyaṇa Sarvajña 91, Murāri Miśra 92, Jagadguru 93. CHAPTER I Gangeša Upādhyāya and his Son Vardhamāna pp. 96-112 Gangeśa's family 97, Date of Gangeśa 99, The Tattvacintāmaņi 104, Vardhamāna Upādhyāya 110. CHAPTER IV The Age of Expansion pp. 113-170 Jivanātha Miſra 113, Gangāditya 114, Ghațeśopādhyāya 114. Nyāyalocanakāra 114, Jayadeva-Pakşadhara 115, Tvanta Upadhyāya 128, Sarkara Miſra 134, Vācaspati II 143, Yajñapati Upādhyāya 158, Vateśvaropādhyāya 164.

·( 10 )
CHAPTER V
The Age of Four M's pp. 171-192
Madhava Miśra, Son of Jayadeva 171, Mādhava Miśra,
Son of Gadādhara 171, Bhagiratha Thakkura 172, Mahesa
Thakkura 172, Madhusudana Thakkura 176, Madhava Miśra,
Son of Khāntara 182, Keśava Miśra Tarkācārya 186, Devanātha
Thakkura 189,
CHAPTER VI
Modern Scholars pp. 193-205
Gokulanāthopādhyāya 193, Giridharopādhyāya 197,
Rūpanātha Thakkura 199, Vaśvanātha Jhā 201, Kaviratna 202,
Dharmadatta (Baccā ) Jhā 203.
Index

·HISTORY OF NAVYA-NYAYA IN MITHILA CHAPTERI UDAYANĀCĀRYA AND HIS PREDECESSORS Mituită with her natural barriers and a compact social and cultural hierarchy has held her own through the millenniums against disruptive forces, and has shed lustre right from the Vedic times in all phases of human knowledge. Her literary history has no parallel for its antiquity, diversity and continuity. By far the greatest contribution, however, that Mithilā? Nyayadarśana, - or applied Logic with a very wide sphere of. operation. "This system is broadly divided into two distinct schools, ancient and modern. In the following pages we shall attempt to give a brief account of the ample materials now available through further spade-work on the history and bibliography of Navya-Nyaza or the modern school of Indian Logic in Mithila." This modern school is commonly believed to have been founded by Gangeša Upādhyāya, who only consolidated it. The real founder is the great Udayanācārya, who had the -supreme privilege of occupying the threshold to ring out the old and usher the new age by his monumental works. On the 1. Rai Monomohan Chakravarti Babadur, who was a scholar of Botany and a member of the Executive Service, was, curiously enough, the first in the field and published the results of bis unique labours in an excellent' paper ( History of Navya-Nyaya in Bengal and Mithila : JASB, 1915, pp. 259-292). He was followed notably by MM. Dr. Gopinath Kaviraja, who succeeded in unravelling many new facts (Sarasvatt Bhavana Studies, · Vol. III. pp. 81-157 ). Also S. N. Sinha's History of Tithut, 1922, , pp. 108-88: App. A. Sanskrit writers of Mithilă. la this book family records, were consulted for the first time. Also Dr. Vidyabhusana's »History of Indian Logic, 1921, Part III.

·2 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithila one hand Udayana's Pariſuddhi forms the last part of the surviving classics pf the older school of the Nyāya populaiļy known as the Quadruplet or the Quintette, and on the other his Kusumāñjali is up-till-now a text-book of the Narya-Nyāya. Fortunately all his works are now available in print except a major portion of the Parisuddhi. These are : 1) Laksanavali (Vindhyeśvarıprasāda's ed., 1897, pp. 13). a Vaišeşika manual. Its authenticity, which is sometimes questioned, is proved by a reference in the Saradarśanasangraha (Abhyankara's ed. p. 221: the verse cited is from the present work) and by its several commentators viz. Śeşa Śārågadhara (f. 1500 A. D. in the Nyāyamuktārali, S. Gosvāmin's ed., Benares, 1900, pp. 72 ), Bhatta Keśava of the Laugākşi family of Benares ( Ms at Baroda : cf Tanjore Cat. p. 4643 ), Mahā. deva Somayājī ( Mahadeva Punatāmkara's Ms. copy at Sarasvati Bhavana, Banares ) and Viśvanātha Jha of Darbhanga. Its. date of composition 906 Saka ('ai red') is recorded in one single Ms. dated 1708 Samvat (No. 594 of Sarasvati Bhavana ). 2) Lakşanamala : this long-lost Nyāya manual of Udayana has at last been discovered and published (Journal of Oriental Research, Madras, XIX. i pp. 44-52). As there was a later 1. Two foremost Maithila scholars Vacaspati II and Sarikara refer to the older classics as चतुर्ग्रन्यो consisting of भाष्य-वार्तिक-तात्पर्यटीका परिशुद्धि. Thus- यदप्यविस्टोयतो जयति सा चतुर्ग्रन्थिका तथा यदपि भास्करो यदपि तत्वबोधोऽधिकः । वाचस्पतिकतन्यायवाचालोके आरम्भ लोक । पिनुर्ध्याश्या कृत्या मनमि भवनापस्य कृतिन. चतुर्ग्रन्यौप्रन्यानहमिह विमोक्तु व्यवसित । शंकरमिश्रकृत-निमत्रीनिवन्धव्याथ्यारम्मै । Abbayatılakopadhyaya in the Nyagalankara uses the happy terra पचवम्यान-न्यायमहाठक adding the onginal Sutras to the list -इति युगप्रधान- योजनेशरमरिशियलेश-भभयतिलकोपाध्यायनिर्मिठायां पचप्रधानन्यायमहातविषमपदम्याल्यायो न्यायालंधण्यायो पथमोध्यायः समर्थित ॥ ( Rotograph preserved in the Mithili Institute).

·Udayana and his Predecessors 3 work of the same name by Sivāditya Miśra the anonymous copy has been ascribed by the editor to the latter But it is undoubtedly the lost work of Udayana The first verse is identical with that of the Gunakıranavali, and Sıvāditya cannot possibly have borrowed Udayana's verse to begin with The learned editor has correctly noted that none of the numerous quotations from Śivāditya in the Chilsukhi-tika can be traced in the present work. We should add that both the quotations found in the Tarkıkaraksa ( pp 179 & 225 ) are exactly traced herein PP 46 & 50 ) and in both places the commentator Mallınātha clearly ascribes the present work to Udayana The very first Sutra of this manual (Paralela #T) is quoted and refuted in the Khandana along with two others from the Kusumangal, and Sankara Mišra correctly stated that it was taken from the Laksanamála of Nyāyācārya (śānkari P 146) Śivāditya could have no claim to that title as against Udayana specially in Mithilă in the times of Sankara This elementary manual should be introduced in seminaries with great benefit to beginners 3 4) Atmatattı artıeka or Bauddhadhıkāra and Nyāya- Kusumañjalı, both published with commentaries in various editions 5) Nyāyaparıśista or Prabodhasiddh a separate comment ary on the 5th chapter of the Nyāyasūtra the most intricate portion of the book (edited with Vardhamāna's Prakāśa by NC Vedāntatīrtha Calcutta 1938) In the last verse Udayana woefully laments that his exposition will hardly find a reader in a world devoid of intellectual eminence 6) Nyaya-vārtika-tātparya parisuddhi, better known as the Nibandha About one-third of the book was published from the Asiatic Society with Vardharāna's Prakāśa ( pp 768) All the above six works of Udayana, it should be carefully noticed are complete and each of them ends suitably with con·in the Introd WAS Sālagrāma 1 the Bhatisyapurana Parisista which is on the face of it a recent work It narrates the interesting story of his academic contest with a Buddhist scholar who came to the royal court of Mithila countered by Udayana by a greater miracle. In the final ordeal they both jumped from the top of a palm tree in which 6 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithilā been published (by MM Vindhyeśvariprasāda to the Nyāyar ārnika, 1916) forming the 30th chapter of with disciples and books for the purpose, Udayana came out successful in the debate which lasted for several days, and a miracle performed by the Buddhist before a Udayana escaped unhurt and the Buddhist died Udayana was high honoured by the Lord Jagannatha at Pun as His own incarnation and died a natural death in old age at Kāsi It clearly stated that his descendants were still living in Mithila अद्यापि मिथिलाया तु तदन्वयभवा द्विजा । विद्वास शास्त्रसपन्ना पाठयन्ति गृहे गृहे ।। A somewhat different version of the story was by Vidyābhūsana (1 c p 142 originally in the Journal of the Buddhist Text Society 1896, Pt 1 pp 20-21) probably from Tibetan sources When the Buddhist died in the ordeal by jumping from the top of a hill Udayana was stigmatised by the Lord Jagannatha as a murderer and died by self burnmg uttering the following verse still widely current among scholars addressing the Lord ऐश्वर्यमदमत्तोऽसि मामयज्ञाय वर्वसे । पस्थितेषु घोषु मद्धीना तव स्थिति ।। and no other work us ascribed to him. The sharp long at a Gaudaminan taka' in the lusumnjali atselft under 111 14) is a convmung proof tlaat the authce never belonged to Bengal. A clever Våtendra scholat of the Jast catury Ktote ( Logłubkatara Vol 3!1 p 150-61 ) about Udayana सयरायविध्य कुसुमानिन्। हरताप दमाद गोवे प्रचारिणम् ।। published Bhaduti ·sd essors The Pauranic version of the story seems to be more reliable Academic contests were the rule in those days, and Udayana's contest with a proud Buddhist scholar in the presence of the king of Mithilā seems to be substantially true We append below an alphabetical list of authorities cited directly and indirectly by Udayana in his works This list is obviously not exhaustive and the classical works--the Bhāsya, Vārtıka and Prasastapādabhäsya as well as the names of Dignāga and Dharmakırtı are omitted. We have attempted to collect all available information about some of the prominent names in the list. ANIRUDDHA the name of this ancient author was traced by us in the Didhıtı tika of Rudra Tarkavāgiša ( grandson of Bhavānanda Siddhāntavāgiša ) of Navadvēpa, who composed it about 1660 A,D? There are two references both on the denotation of a pronoun. It now appears that he is probably identical with the author of the Vivarana pañuikā, a commentary on the Bhāsya, Vārtıka and Tātparya In Udayana's Parisuddh the comment of a previous commentator on the Tātparyaţikā is cited and refuted in the following passage अनेनैव कारणमविद्यावृष्णे कार्या प्रवृत्तिरनुपगिणी धर्माधर्माविति टीकाव्याख्यान- मपहस्तितम् । (pp. 74-5). (cf. Tatparyaţıkā, Vizianagram ed., p 6, line 7). Whether this is a reference to Aniruddha we cannot say. It is our conjec- 1 Didhiti-Raudri is an extremely rare book there is a unique Ms copy preserved in the Alwar Maharaja's Library A complete transcript in 349 folios was very kindly procured and lent us by Maharajakumar Dr Raghubir Sinha of Sitamau The two passages of Aniruddha are found in fol 21b & 22a For Rudra's date and works vide our Bengali book Vange Navyanyāyacarca pp 144-47 For Aniruddha's newly discovered com mentary vide Dr JS Jetly's paper in the Journal of the Oriental Institute of Baroda, Dec 1954 to March 1955, pp 240-44 It is really surprising that a 17th century scholar of Navadvipa could mention the long lost name of an ancient authority on the Nyaya who probably preceded Udayana ·4 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithilā cluding verses Only the Panšuddhı ends with a closing phrase: (fat facerca fala) which is not metrical (Tanjore Cat, P 4487) But the next work is a notable exception on this point 7) Kitanarali the celebrated commentary on the Prasastapāda-Bhäsya upon which a vast literature flourished in Mithila and Bengal It is, as is well-known incomplete, and as far as available ends quite abruptly in the midst of the section on Buddhi in the second part of the Bhāsya There is not even the word afa at the end of the extant portion The editor of the Varanasi edition (Chowkh ed p 340 ) is quite wrong in stating that the section on Buddhi ends along with the extant text of the Kıtanāiali As a matter of fact, more than a third of the section remains unexplained by Udayana and the partim cular section of the Bhāsya ends only on page 348 of that edition Only two alternatives are possible here Ether Udayana left it incomplete by sudden death or the last portion of the glosswas lost due to unknown causes The first alternative seems to be more probable though further investigation on the text of the Keranavali is necessary The chronological order of Udayana's works (including Nos 1-2 which may be taken as preparatory manuals ) is probably what we have given above The Atmatattratueka is cited by name in the Kusumanizalı ( under V 3) both of which are mentioned in the Kıyanārali (pp 103 & 147) The Parisuddhı cites the Kusumanjalı (SB Ms No 51 under II 1 fol 58b & under II i foll 632 & 66b Also Baroda Ms No 1207 fol 18a under V 11) the Parisista ( under V 111, Baroda Ms foll 76 106 & 16b) and the Atmatatti alueka (under II 1 fol 58b along with Kusumañjal FitHETTEET947- न्यनुमानानि आत्मतत्त्वविवेके न्यायकुसुमाञ्जलौ च कृतपरिश्रमाणामनायासप्रपञ्च- 1 It is learnt that a further portion of the Kiranavalı has recently been discovered and is being edited by Muni Sri Jambuvijayajı ·Udayana and his Predecessors 5, Taf) Vāchaspati cites Prasastapāda's elaborate definition of happiness under the caption T2TE. Tutae. (Tātparyatika, p. 81 ) Udayana explains it in the Parisuddh (B.I. ed pp 531- 32 ), without referring to the Kıranārali, which evidently was not yet written or planned It is clear that Udayana wrote the independent treatises before the commentaries We have left out Nos 1-2 from this investigation, as they are to be taken as mere appendices to Nos, 6-7, both of them borrow benedictory verses from No 6, which was composed evidently before them UDAYANA BELONGED TO MITHILĀ For a proper understanding of Udayana's great achieve ment, it is necessary to ascertain the age and environments in which he lived. Though his provenance is not mentioned in his works, it is almost universally admitted by scholars that he belonged to Mithilā. He lived in a village named Kariyona near the Railway station Kāmataula, where his descendants are said to exist still with the surname 'Ācārya' and the ruins of his seminary are still pointed out Maithila scholars still narrate his anecdotes with delight An Udayanacanta has 1 Hist of T17hut 1922 p 174 in 2 Another less known tradition is recorded in fn 3 Vidyabhūsana (1 cp 142 ) is quite wrong to mention Mansoni as his birth place All the local traditions about Udayana should be carefully collected and properly investigated There was a famous Udayanacarya in the Bhadur family of the Varendra Brahmanas of Bengal who 18 stated in their genealogical works to be author of the Kusu mangalı We quote a half verse from an old Pañji in our possession (fol 3a) वेदानुद्धतवान् निगृह्य सकलान् बौद्धानसद्वादिनी प्रन्याश्रीकुसुमाजलेरयमहो य सृष्टिकर्ता महान् | This widely current tradition is entirely baseless This Udayana Bhaduri introduced certain reforms in the Varendra community with the help of the famous KullukaBhatta sometime after the reign of Ballala Sena He lived therefore, late in the 13th cent A D Moreover, Kusumañjali alone ·6 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithilā been published (by MM Vindhyeśvariprasāda in the Introd to the Nydyazārtika, 1916) forming the 30th chapter of the Bhairsyapurana-Parišista which is on the face of it a recent work It narrates the interesting story of his academic contest with a Buddhist scholar who came to the royal court of Mithilā with disciples and books for the purpose. Udayana came out successful in the debate which lasted for several days and a misacle performed by the Buddhist before a Sālagrāma was countered by Udayana by a greater miracle in the final ordeal they both jumped from the top of a palm tree in which Udayana escaped uphurt and the Buddhist died Udayana was highly honoured by the Lord Jagannatha at Puri as His own incarnation and died a natural death in old age at Kāsi It is clearly stated that his descendants were still living in Mithilā अद्यापि मिथिलाया तु वदन्ययभवा द्विजा । विद्वास शास्त्रसपन्ना पाठयन्ति गृहे गृहे ।। A somewhat different version of the story was published by Vidyābhūsana (I c p 142 originally in the Journal of the Buddhist Text Society 1896 Pt I pp 20-21) probably from Tibetad sources When the Buddhist died in the ordeal by jumping from the top of a huli Udayana was stigmatised by the Lord Jagannatha as a murderer and died by self burnung uttering the following verse still widely current among scholars addressing the Lord ऐश्वर्यमदमत्तोऽसि मामवज्ञाय वर्तसे । उपस्थितेषु वौद्धेषु मदीना तय स्थिति ॥ and no other work 18 ascribed to hin The sharp Ang at a Gaudamiman baka in the Kusumangal itself ( under III 14) s a conv ncing proof that the author never belonged to Bengal A clever Varendra scholar of the last century wrote ( Laghubhārata Vol III p 160 61 ) about Udayan: Bhaduri - स एपोदयनापायश्चिवाय कुमुमानखिम् । वोर्थपर्यटने लन्ध तस्माद् गोडे प्रचारितम् ।।

·Udayana and his Predecessors The Pauranic version of the story seems to be more reliable Academic contests were the rule in those days, and Udayana's contest with a proud Buddhist scholar in the presence of the king of Mithilă seems to be substantially true We append below an alphabetical list of authorities cited directly and indirectly by Udayana in his works This list is obviously not exhaustive and the classical works--the Bhāsya, Vārtika and Prasastapādabhāsya as well as the names of Dignāga and Dharmakırtı are omitted. We have attempted to collect all available information about some of the prominent names in the list, AMIRUDDEA the name of this ancient author was traced by us in the Didhiti-tika of Rudra Tarkavāgiša ( grandson of Bhavānanda Siddhāntavāgıśa ) of Navadvipa, who composed it about 1660 A.D." There are two references both on the denotation of a pronoun. It now appears that he is probably identical with the author of the Vivarana panika, a commentary on the Bhāşya, Vārtıka and Tātparya. In Udayana's Parśuddhr the comment of a previous commentator on the Tatparyatika is cited and refuted in the following passage अनेनैव कारणमविद्यातृष्णे कार्या प्रवृत्तिरनुपङ्गिणौ धर्माधर्माविति टीकाव्याख्यान- मपहस्तितम् । (pp 74-5). (cf. Tātparyaţikā, Vizianagram ed., p. 6, line 7). Whether this is a reference to Aniruddha we cannot say. It is our conjec- 1 Didhiti-Raudti is an extremely rare book there is a unique Ms copy preserved in the Alwar Maharaja's Library A complete transcript in 349 folios was very kindly procured and lent to us by Maharajakumar Dr. Raghubir Sinha of Sitamau The two passages of Aniruddha are found in fol 21b & 22a For Rudra's date and works vide our Bengalı book Vange Navyanyayacarca PP 14447 For Aniruddha's newly discovered commentary vide Dr J S Jetly's paper in the Journal of the Oriental Institute of Baroda, Dec 1954 to March 1955, pp 24044 It is really surprising that a 17th century scholar of Navadvipa could mention the long lost name of an ancient authority on the Nyaya who probably preceded Udayana ·History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithilā ture that the following passage of the Parisuddhi ( fol. 94b under I. i, 40 ) may be a reference to Aniruddha :-waga विवरणकाराणां संकुलानीव वासीति तदन्न निपुणेन मषितव्यम् । KANDALI-KĀRA: In the whole history of Indian Logic there is only one author Sridharācārya who definitely stated the date of composition of his major and only surviving work, the Nyayakandali, and the date 913 Saka (991-2 A. D.) is happily beyond any dispute. Rājasekhara, a Jaina scholar, wrote a sub-commentary on the Nyāyakandali in 1226 Śaka (1304 A.D.). He stated that the first commentary on the Prasastapadabhasya is the Vyomaiati, the second one the Nyayakandali and the third one is Udayana's Kiraņāı ali. In other words Sridhara of Bengal preceded Udayana. This chrono logical order is exactly corroborated by internal evidence aburrdantly found in the three gſeat Vaišeșika classics. Though Udayana has not referred to Sridhara or his work by name he undoubtedly consulted his work and refuted his views at every step in the Kirana.ali. (i) Vadindra explains the line प्रकरणशुद्धः संग्रहपदेनैव दर्शितत्वात् (Kiranavali, Chowkh. ed., p. 5) as a refutation of Sridhara- 1. Vizianagram ed, p 331. In the introd. (p. 22, fn. 5) the editor notes and rejects a variant 'varşābde' for 'Sakabde' The variant is manifestly wrong, for the word 'varşa' is a synonym of the word 'abda' and can by no stretch of exegesis be taken to mean the 'Vikrama-Samvat Rajasekhara's passage is cited in the Introd, PP 19-20 Vide also Peterson's third Report. 1887, p 273 ) For Sridhara's account vide our Bengalı work Vange Navyanyāyacharcha p 6-8 He belonged to a village named Bhūrisțştı still existing in the Hughlı district of West Bengal Śridhara's profound scholarship in all the six systems of philosophy, so much in evidence in his extant work, turned his native place into a famous seat of learning an Eastern India Kļşna Miśra, the court poet of Chăndella Kirtivarmā, about a century after Sridhara describes Mr Pride of his immortal drama Prabodhachandrodaya as an inhabitant of this very birth-place of Sridhara. Evidently the poet's attack was directed against a proud scholar, may be, of Sridhara's own family, ·Udayana and his Predecessors 9 cārya :-इति श्रीधराचार्यस्तदनुपपन्नमित्याह - प्रकरणशुद्धः ( B.I. ed., 622 about to be published ). Vādındra (fl, about 1225 A. D.) is the earliest commentator on the Kıraṇāvalı so far available. P. (ii) Śridhara's well-known views about tamas, which he carefully recorded thrice in the Kandali (PP. 9, 179, 240) apparently as his own, were discussed in the Kıranārali (B.I. Ed , pp. 111-12) and Vardhamāna definitely states here कन्दलीकारमतमुत्यापयति. Vardhamāna vouches for the Kandalikāra's priority to Udayana also in the Gunaprakasa (S. B. Ed., p. 77 erde Kırarāvali, Ben. Ed., p. 204). (in) The line कथं भावधर्माध्यारोपोऽभाव इति चेत् । न किंचिदेतत् (p. 110) is also exactly taken from the Kandalı (p. 9, last line ). (iv) Similarly the line पार्थिवपरमाणुगतरूपादिसंताने नैकान्तिकमिति चेन्न of the Kıraņāvali (p. 58 ) refers to the Kandali (pp. 4, 11, 13-14). (v) In the section on ākāśa ( Kıraņāvalı, Ben. Ed., p. 109 we find अन्ये त्वात्मान्तरग्राह्यत्वादिति अनेकप्रतिपत्तृसाधारणत्वादिति हेत्वर्थ वर्णयन्ति, स तु संदिग्धासिद्धः । This is also a clear reference to the Kandali (p. 60 ) as stated by the late Mm. V. P. Dube (vrde Intr. to the Nyāyakandalı, pp. 21-22 ). (11) In the section on Pộthivi in the Kandal (p. 31) we read : परमाणुस्वभावायाः पृथिव्याः सत्त्वे किं प्रमाणम् ? अनुमानम् । अणुपरिमाण- तारतम्यं क्वचिद् विश्रान्तं परिमाणतारतम्यत्वात् महत्परिमाणतारतम्यवत् . This argument is exactly reproduced in the Kıraṇāvali ( Ben, Ed., p. 52, B.L. EL,, 7. 224 ) with the heading syste E and refuted. Mathurānātha Tarkavāgiša in his Dravyakıraņāvalirahasya (Ms No. 139 of the Cal. Sans. College, fol. 88a) comments here ogni artta Thiya TUA सिद्धिप्रयोजकमनुमानमाह • अपरस्त्विति । अणुपरिमाणतारतम्यमिति । Mathurānātha must have had access to an unknown source ·10 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithilā in the present case, as he is not borrowing either from Vardhamāna or Padmanābha, both of whom are silent on the point. (un) In the second part (Gunakhanda) of his book also Udayana controverts the views of the Kandali in several places. For instance we read on page 160 ---रजतत्त्वमिव गुणत्वमुपदेशापेक्षेण चक्षुरादिना प्रत्यक्ष्त एव प्रतीयते इति तु स्वशिष्यन्यामोहन निमित्तमन्तरेणोप- BENTAHTISTIE ! This is a clear reference to the Kandali (p. 94 ) and Udayana's manner, of refutation seems to suggest that he had contact with Śrīdhara's pupils (v111) The passage 7 3 te ETYHRT HETI (Kıranavali, p 176) is also a refutation of the Kandali (p 104). Compare also 266 of the Kıranāvalı ( 27...za) with the Kandali (p. 179) It should be mentioned here that sankara Mišra in the Kanādarahasya stated three cases where the views of the Kandali are refuted in the Kıranavali and in every case the views controverted belong not to the Kandali at all but to the Vyomavatı Vide Kanadarahasya (pp. 81, 82 & 86 ) and the Vyomavatz ( Pp. 488, 494 & 502 ). The fact remains, however, that Sridhara's priority to Udayana was quite well-known in Sankara's times P Before the publication of the Kandal it was the opinion of MM. Vindhyeśvarıprasāda that Udayana preceded Sridhara, who wrote the Kandalı on the basis of the Kıraņāvali (Introd., 1941 V.S. p. 25). Subsequently he held the view that they were contemporaries and made a statement, which is on the face of it almost absurd that they cited each other's views (Introd. to the Kandalı, pp. 20-22 ). As a matter of fact the two instances of Śrīdhara's citation from Udayana referred to here ( ibid. p 21 f n. 3 ) are quite wrong In the first instance Sridhara states that according to some scholars ( and Udayana ·Udayana and his Predecessors 11 - (Keith is not certainly one of them ) the age-difference between the young and the old is caused not by the time-element but by the number of revolutions of the sun (Kandalı pe 64 )-a view ascribed in the Lilāvati ( 283 ) to the Bhusaņa and found already cited in the Vjomavati (p. 343 ) and the Tātparyaţika of Vācaspati (p 280 ) In the second instance (Kandali p 119) it is Udayana who violently criticises (p 204 ) Śridhara नष्टस्यापि समवायिकारणत्वमिति त्वलौकिकमवैदिक च, Sridhara has nowhere referred to the peculiar views of Udayana, who proves himself to be far more advanced and intricate in his arguments than Śridhara, for instance on the subject of the perceptibility of Vāyu ( Kiranāval pp. 82-84, handalı p 46) Nevertheless eminent scholars relying on the statement of the late MM. believed that Srīdhara lived to refute the views of Udayana Indian Logic and Atomism, 1921, p 32 also S. B. Studies, Vol. III, pp 111-12) KĀŠIĀKĀRA A passage of the Atmatattvaviveka ( B. I. ed., p 837 até anffyres and cf. also kıranävali, p. 101 and Nyāyalilavati, Chowkh, ed. pp. 260 61 ) refers according to Sankara Miśra to Kāśikākāra i, e. Sucarita Miśra, author of the Kasika on the ślokavārtika. The variant Kanıkākāra is evidently wrong as we are unable to trace the passage in Vācaspati’s Nyāyakanıkā. Moreover, this Kāśikākāra is cited also by Ratnakirti in two of his tracts—1śvarasādhanadūşana (p 42) and Vyāptınırnaya ( 99 ) and Ratnakırtı elsewhere cites Vacaspati's Kanıkā separately? VyoyaśivĀCĀRFA - Udayana in the kīranävali (p. 114) while explaining the argument establishing 'time' as a separate entity quotes the following passage 1. Vide Ratnakirtırıbandhāvali edited by Anantalal Thakur p 9 Also IBR S, XXXVII, Pt 3.4 Prof Thakur's paper "Ratnakirta and his works" (2 4 of Reprint ) The lower limit of Sucarita's date is now fixed at 1000 A D before the times of Udayana and Ratnakirtı These tracts of Ratnakirti throw a flood of light on a dark age ·2 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithila न चात्माकाशौ तथा भवितुमर्हतो विशेषगुणवत्वात् पृथिव्यादिवदित्याचार्याः । The reference is evidently to Vācaspati ( cf Tatpanatika, p. 280 अपि चाकाशात्मानो न परापरण्यतिकरकारणम् असाधारणगुणयोगित्वात् gfermentace). But curiously enough Vardhamāna in his gloss here definitely identifies this Acārya with Vyomašivācārya! and not Vācaspati. This can only be explained by the assumption that according to Vardhamāna Vācaspati came after Vyomaśıva. It should be noted in this connection that a careful study of the relevant passages of the Vjomavati (pp 342-43), Kandali (pp. 64; 168-9 ). Tātparzaļika (pp. 280-1) and Lilavati (p. 283 ), seems to show that all the scholars including Vācaspati attempted here to meet a familiar argument ascribed in the Lilavati to the Bhūşaņa ( of 'Bhāsarvaja) न च परत्वापरत्वसिद्धिरपि । बहुतरतपनपरिस्पन्दान्तरित- जन्मत्वेनैव तदुपपत्ते. इति भूपण . Vyomasiva preceded both Udayana and Sridhara. Let us give some references on the point, On p. 46 of the Kandali the views of a scholar (kaśct ) on the perceptibility of vāyu is refuted. The views belong to Vyomaśiva (pp. 272-4). Udayana ( pp. 82-84 ) mainly agrees with Sridhara here but criticises one of his arguments 99 THTHA rata i arraguirea sfat yea I On p. 52 of the Kandali the grammatical explanation of the word gffraiszal is a direct answer to Vyomaśiva's objection (p. 300 ). The views of 'eke' on p 134 & 136 are exactly taken from the Vyomavati (pp. 474, 477). The scathing criticism of the solution of an 'un-schooled' intellectual ( Kandal p. 147 ) is also directed against Vyomašiva (p 490) Compare also p. 200 of the Kandalı statg with p. 563 of the Vyomavati, here also Udayana agrees with Sridhara. On p. 392 of the Vyomavati a temple apparently built by a contemporary monarch named Sriharsa is referred to by way of illustration Seya TRI This monarch cannot certainly be identical with the great Harsavardhana who 1 Vardhamana’s gloss is corrected in the errata as Vyomaśıkhācbārya' but the reading Vyomaśivācharya' is found in a M1s. of Kiyanāvaliprakasa preserved in the Vangiya Sahitya Parişad, Calcutta ( fol. 61b) ·Udayana and his Predecessors 13 reigned about four centuries before Sridhara. The latter's scathing remarks about Vyomaśıva ( Kandalı pp. 146-47) point normally to a contemporary scholar, slightly senior to him. We are inclined, therefore, to identify the monarch with Śrīharşa. deva of Mālava, the grandfather of the famous Bhojadeva. This Sriharşa's known dates range from 1005 to 1029 V. S. (948-72 8. D.). The Vyomavati was written about 950 A, D. and quickly circulated among scholars of the different parts of India through the patronage of the Malava king yomaśıva was the pupil of a very distinguished scholar, who had written a number of dialectical tracts mainly against Buddhist views (unde Vyomavati pp. 46, 189 308, 399, 546, 557, 565, 584 & 586). Unfortunately his name is not mentioned by Vyomaśıva. A saint Vyomaśiva is abundantly eulogised in w. 22-42 of the Ranod stone inscription (Ep. Ind , I, pp. 351-61 ) and it has been suggested that he is identical with the present author (Introd, to Tarkasangraha GOS, o XIX, also I.HQ., X, pp 165-6) But the undated inscription has been assigned to the end of the 10th or the beginning of the 11th cenr, A. D. and unless the date is pushed back by half a century the identification cannot stand. It has been suggested (Journ G. Jha R I. Vol. III, p 44 ) that the date of the inscription along with that of Vyomaśıva and his patron Harsavardhana is about 645 A D. more than three centuries before the date indicated by paleography. This is on the face of it impossible and places the numerous authorities cited by Vyomaśıva (Dharmakırtı, Kumā- Tila, Prabhākara and others ) even before 500 A. V., of which we have not the slightest evidence yet discovered. Avantivarman mentioned in the inscription is not the Maukharı king, but the Kaśmir monarch who reigned in the 9th century A D. The statement that Vyomaśıva's views on Mokșa have been cited by Mandana and the Jaina scholar Akalanka cannot be substan. tiated JÑĀNAŠEI : Udayana wrote the Ātmatattvaviveka to meet the arguments of Buddhist scholars and among them by far the ·14 History of Navya Nyaya in Mithila greatest target of his attack was Jñanašri Though he is mentioned by name only once in the book ( B 1. ed, p 292 ) we gather from Sankara Miśra's commentary that he is cited and refuted more than a dozen times (289, 292-3, 317.356, 367, 371, 436, 453, 464-5, 489-90 & 841). The Atmatattravveka is the very first work of Udayana and it should be carefully noted that the first stroke of his genius was brought forth by his conflict with the last and the greatest dialectician among Buddhist logicians viz. Acārya Jñānaśrimitra—a fact which is now entirely forgotten The following facts about Jñanaśri (who should not be confused with the Kashmirian Jñānaśribhadra ) should be carefully considered. As many as twelve of his dialectical treatises in original Sanskrit have been discovered in Tibet and their photographs are now preserved in the Bihar Research Society. These are क्षणभङ्गाध्याय, व्याप्तिचर्चा, भेदाभेदपरीक्षा, ईश्वरवाद, अनुपलब्धिरहस्य, सर्वशब्दाभावचर्चा, अपोहप्रकरण, कार्यकारणभाव- सिद्धि, योगिनिर्णय, अद्वैतविन्दुप्रकरण, साकारसिद्धि and साकारसपहसून Except 7 arafais a small tract of only 6 folios none of his works nor any of the numerous works of his disciple Ratnakirtı have been translated into Tibetan. This proves that a period of decadence has already set in among the Buddhists and that they were losing in the intellectual fight with their opponents This is one of the reasons why Buddhism soon perished in India Iñanasri's masterpiece is the rear and this was sharply attacked by Udayana is his youthful zeal in a masterly way. We shall refer here to one brilliant stroke of Udayana as an illustration Jñanastı summarises his arguments in favour of the theory of momentariness by the logical method of difference in one single verse धर्मस्य कस्यचिवस्तुनि मानसिद्धा बाधाविधिव्यवहति किमिहास्ति नो वा। काप्यस्ति चेत् कथमियन्ति न दूपणानि नास्त्येव चेत् स्ववचनप्रतिरोधसिद्धि ।। 1 Anantalal Thakur Jñanaśrimitra and His works--JBRS Buddha- Jayanti Special Issue pp 186 92 ·Udayana and his Predecessors 15 This verse is quoted by Udayana in the Pariſuddhi (B. I. Ed. p.713 TATTT) and by Ratnakirtz (Tracts, p. 62 ) under the caption 248fta But in the Ātmatattvaviveka it is fully answered with remarkable banter and biting criticism and hurled back at its author with the change of three words --PERT trela eft ft (B I Edp 423) As typical instances of Udayana's early style we reproduce two of his remarks under this topic त्वयैव प्राहित शिष्य न चैव चेतनो ग्राहयितुमपि शक्यते ।। तस्मादलमगुलिदीपिकया ध्यान्तध्वसविधिमनुष्यायेति ॥ Jianasri is also cited by Udayana in the Parisuddhr under III 11 17 satage- टोकार्थेन ज्ञानप्रिया यत्किंचिदुक्त तन्न मगतीति । इत्येतावन्मात्रव्युत्पादनपरश्वाय गभीरतरो ग्रन्थमहाहर-सोऽयमुपरिपरिप्लवमान कथमिवावगाह्यताम् । (Chap. 3 fol 13a) It is wonderful how apparently with maturity of age and scholarship Udayana gives up his bantering style altogether Even a banter of Jñānaśri which he carefully reproduces here ( तदिय भेदाभेदानुकरणवार्ता नैयायिकाना गोपमुखात्सायसमिष्टता- sfangekla (zb fol 13b) could not bring out a retort from him His answer was simple and dignified ( तदेतदपि अनाकलितstarfa ETH) It is our conjecture that Jñānaśrı was alive when the Atmatattvaviveka was composed but he was dead when the Parisuddh was written That may have been another reason for Udayana to adopt a sober style Iñānaśrı according to Tibetan evidence was born in Gauda and was a pillar of Vikramasílā in Magadha (Vidyabhusana p 341 ) When Naropanta just before his death visited Vikramašīlā (in 1038 A D) 'he leaned on the right arm of Atisa while jñānasrimitra helped him with his left arm” Indian Pandits in Tibet, 1893, p 21 ) This proves that Iñānaśrı was junior in age to Naropanta and was a true contemporary of Atīša or Depankara Šrijñāna ( 982-1055 A D ) By all circumstances of age attainments and provenance, therefore, Triānaśrī was a formidable opponent of Udayana, whose eminence in the field of scholarship sprang from a desire to refute this Buddhist Philosopher and incidentally the first inception of the modern school of Logic resulted from the conflict.

·16 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithila TrilocaNA He was the professor (fara according to Vardhamāna) of Vācaspati as stated by himself ( Tātparya, p 87) Udayana informs us that though a considerable literature based on the standard work Vārtika had been existing before Vācaspatı (Parisuddh, p 9 fa falafel Heft) they failed miserably because the vigorous Vārtika tradition had long vanished. It was Trilocana who revived it. jñānaśrı at the end of his masterpiece regarded him as one of the great pillars of Indian Logic (JB RS, XXXVI, pt. 1-2) दुर्नीताश्रमवेदिकादृढतरस्तम्मानभून शकर- न्यायालकरण त्रिलोचन वचस्पत्याहयान हेलया । उन्मूल्य क्षणभङ्ग एप विहितो यत् पुण्यमाधत्त मे तेन स्तात् परपारगस्त्रिभुवने ज्ञानश्रियोऽय जन ।। Actual passages from Trilocana were hitherto almost untraceable in the classical works. Only one reference to him we could trace in the Parisuddhr under III u 17, where Vācaspatı's passage beginning with a fet greta (P 388 last line ) is according to Udayana (fol 12b ), a refutation of Trilocana A much more important reference is found in the following passage of Nyāzasāravcāra by Bhatta Rāghava (Ms. No 65 of the Sarasvati Bhavana, dated 1252 A D ) - greetean UTATAT अभिहितास्ते यथा (दृष्टान्तदोपनिश्चयानिश्चितास्तथा तद्दोपसदेहात् सदिग्धा इति यत् । स्यसमत तत् निलोचनाचार्यसमत ) मित्याह- अन्ये त्यिति । (fol 39a the portion within brackets is restored in the margin vide Nyayasāra BI ed p 13 ) This makes Trilocana earlier than Bhāsar ajña Many important facts are now available about Trilocana from recently published Buddhist works In Ratnakirti's Sarajñanddh (p 18) there is a quotation from Trilocana's Ngājaprakirncka. In Durveka Miśra's Dharmottarapradipa (Patna, 1955) there is a long quotation from Trilocana's Nyayabhasyatiha (pp_!73-74) ending with the enigmatic Phrase - तदेतत् कार्पटियकर्णाटरटिवमश्रद्धेय धीमाम् ॥ A Karnata in rags' probably points to his place of origin in the Kamāța coun try of South India. The most important discovery at the present ·Udayana and his Predecessors 17 moment is the fact that Trilocana's masterpiece was named the Nyājamañjari, probably identical with the Bhāsyatıkā cited above His distinguished pupil Vacaspati in his earliest work the Ngāyakanıkā distinctly mentions it in his obeisance to his professor in verse 3 at the beginning अज्ञानतिमिरशमनी परदमनी न्यायमजरी रुचिराम् । प्रसवित्रे प्रभविने विद्यातरवे नमो गुरवे ॥ That this cannot be a reference to Jayanta's celebrated work will be convincingly proved by the following evidence Ratnakirti wrote all his works as abridgments of larger works of his teacher Jñānaśrı" There is a quotation from Trilocana in a tract of Ratnakırtı (B I ed. p 58, Patna ed , p. 79 ) which is exactly borrowed from Jñānaśri's k sanabhangadhyāja But the latter refers it to the author of the Nyāzamañarı (paa ya RITTETETT TTE), In a subsequent passage also jñānaśrı clearly indicates that the Ngājamañjari is a work of Trilocana (2147 तर्हि, त्रिलोचनश्चर्नयति तथानयोरपि नीयतामभिप्राय -तथा च न्यायमञ्जरी fol 15a ) In his Iskaravādadūsara Jñanaśrí quotes again from the Mañari of Trilocana ( AFII fan gerne fol 22b) It will now be quite clearly understood that Aniruddha's numerous reference to the Mañarı (JOI, Baroda, Dec 54-March 55, pp 241-44 ) are not to Jayanta at all as mistaken by the learned Doctor but to Trilocana. The first two important references by Aniruddha are under the Sūtras II. 1 20 21 which are not even touched by Jayanta. Aniruddha refers to Trilocana by nam separately, but he does not se to be acquainted with Jayanta or his work It should also be carefully noted that none of the Buddhist scholars ever referred to i Abantalal Thakur Ratnakirti and His Works, J BRS, Vol XXXVII , We are indebted to Prof Anantalal Thakur of the Mithila Institute or kindly drawing our attention to these passages discovered by him fler painful search The photographs of these valuable works are preserved in the Bihar Research Society (vide Prof. Anantalal Thakur's notes on Guru Trilochana in JBRS, Vol XLI, Pt. IV, pp 508 10 & .C, Vol XIV No I pp 36-40) ·18 History of Navya Nyāya in Mithila Jayanta or his work. He was almost unknown in Eastern India, the venue of the great intellectual conflict between the Buddhists and the Tirthikas. A well-known definition of the term Vyāptı (Farhan Hart ) is really of Trilocana (Moksākara's Tarkabhāsā, p 23) Rarvakieti According to Sankara Miśra Udayana refuted the views of this Buddhist scholar in two places in the Atmatattvaviveka (Bl ed., pp. 435 & 462 ) Both the passages are traceable in the Chitradvaitasiddhi, a tract of Ratnakırtı mentioned by himself in the Ksanabhangasiddhi (BI ed, p 71, Patna ed p 90 ) and published recently from Patna (vide Ratnakırtınıbandhāvali 1957, ). Ratnakırtı was a prolific writer Besides the ten works published he wrote at least three more, mentioned by himself, which are yet to be discovered. His works were mostly abridged from the elaborate and larger treatises of his teacher Jñānaśrı as stated by himself at the end of the Sarvajñasiddh (p 28 ) that work was but a summary by *worthy' Ratnakīrti who was frightened at the prolixity of his teacher (सक्षेपो मम रत्नकीर्तिकृतिनस्तद्विस्तरतासिन 1). This proves that Jñānaśrı reached the peak in the dialectics of the Buddhist Logic and he lived to witness the fright of his worthy pupil who failed to meet the trenchant criticisms of Udayana against his own teacher For it is our conjecture that like Jñānaśrı Ratnakirti was alive when the Ātmatattraviveka was written Instead he only gratified himself by reproducing the arguments of Jñānaśrı against Vacaspati. The latter's brilliant advice to his Buddhist opponent for 'silence' (Tatparya, D 115 ) 18 answered by Ratnakirtı (B I ed p 64 ) evidently in the language of Jñānaśrı, but the retort of Udayana remains unanswered Udayana's sarcastic reference to Jñānaści's lessons to his 'sense less' pupil is evidently meant as a fung at Ratnakırtı. RÁJAKULAPĀDA a Buddhist logician cited by Ratnakirti (Patna ed p. 96) He preceded Vācaspati For under V 1 3 1 Introduction, Ratnakirtinibandhāvalı ·na and his Predecessors 19 Vācaspati ( 496 ) quotes an unnamed opponent (negatta P.) and refutes his arguments with the concluding remarks सोऽयमोदृशोऽसत्प्रलापो भवनि शारने निबन्धनीयो न त्वस्माभिरिति, व्यवमिय artaraffa The same phrase also occurs under V 17 (p 481 ) There is little doubt that in both the places the reference is to this hitherto unknown Buddhist scholar, who probably belonged to a royal family SĀVĀTANI Sankara Miśra in his Vadivinoda (p 2) refers to this scholar, according to whom a debate ( katha') is fourfold and not three-fold as almost universally regarded. The selfsame view of Sānātani is also referred to by Vācaspatr Miśra II in the Tattvaloka (fol 82a) and the Nyaratnaprakasa (fol 34a ) as traced by us. It now appears that both Sankara and Vācaspati derived their information from the following illuminating passage of the Parśuddhı under I 11 TTE- नैयायिकमते चतस्र कथा । स प्रतिपक्षस्थापनाहीनो वितण्डेत्यर (१२२१३) जल्पवद् वादस्यापि ‘परामर्शात् । पुरुषाभिप्रायानुरोधेन चतुर्थोदाहरणस्यापि उपपत्तेरिति सानातनि । एक एवायं कथामार्ग इति बाहा । ते द्वे अपि तिन एवेति नियमयता farra ? (fol 95b vide Tätparya, p 215). This proves that Sānātanı was an ancient Ācārya who preceded Vācaspati and belonged to Bengal. Under V.1 1 there is a discussion as to what is the gist of the whole chapter According to Sănātanı &c it is scrutiny (“parikṣā”) and according to others, including presumably Vācaspati ( p. 473 ) it is definition Udayana accepts the latter view ( fol. Za of Chap V of the Parisuddhư: auffa en ) Vardhamāna in the Tattvabodha elaborately brings out the arguments in favour of the former view characterising it as the older one (fol 3a JA STETAHIDA) Under V 1 32 again Vardhamāna has a long and interesting discussion as to why the Sūtrakāra defined 'anstyasama' before 'nityasama' by changing the order of his own list (in V11) Two fora mer views on the intricate point are stated and rejected by Vardhamāna, who gave his own explanation in the matter (foli. 57-58 ), wluch as far as we know, is not touched by any other 1 ·20 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithila commentator At the conclusion he raised the question whether the Bhāsyakāra was really responsible for this change of order and not the Sūtrakāra. On the authority of ancient ācāryas like Sānātanı Vardhamāna positively asserted that it was done by the Sutrakāra himself --अथ भाष्यकारस्यैवाय क्रमविपर्ययो न तु सून- कारस्य इत्येव किं न स्यात् । मैव-सूत्रकारस्यैवाय क्रमविपर्यास इति पूर्वांचायः सानातनिप्रभृतिभिरप्यभिधानात् ॥ So the supreme authority of this ancient scholar of Bengal, who must have written a commentary on the Nyāyadarśana was stull recognised in the times of Vardhamāna ŚRIVAT34 was the professor of Udayana himself This important fact which was quite unknown till recently, is now revealed through an examination of the unpublished portion of the Parisuddh. Udayarsa begins each chapter of the Parisuddhi with a prayer verse (vide Tanjore Cat. pp 4483-87) But the second chapter has the following additional verse - सशोध्य दर्शितरसा मस्कूपरूपा टीकाकृत प्रथम एव गिरो गभीरा । तात्पर्यतो यदधुना पुनरद्यमो ने श्रीवत्सवत्सलतयैव तथा तथापि ।। It is a fact that Vacaspati's commentary is expansive on the first chapter (forming about half of the whole book) where his profound exposition has been aptly described by Udayana as desert springs Udayana likewise exhausted his scholarship pter and disp of the rest very briefly ( the last four chapters of the Parisuddhı together comprising only 62 folios out of a total of 165 ) after taking lessons, it now appears, from Srivatsa There are five quotations from Srivatsa in the Parisuddhi The first one under II 1 68 runs - fol 58b of 1 The reading in the Tanjore Ms (Cat, p 4484 ) 13 corrupt We have given above the reading found in two Mss (No 49 & 51 ) of the Saratrati Bhavana Varanasi which agrees with that of the older copy (1501 Vikrama Samvat preserved in rotograph in the Mithila Jostitute, except that for 241 La the last line it reads 741 upon this ·d his r redecessors . 21 Ms No 51 of the Sarasvati Bhavana) ननु पदसमूहाना वाक्यानामित्य- सगत नहि वाक्यमपि स्वार्थे सकेतप्रहमपेक्षते पूर्वापरविरद्ध चेति । यदूचे स्वयमेव न पद तदर्थो वा वाक्यार्थबोघे लिङ्ग तर सबन्धमहानपेक्षणाद्" इति (तात्पर्यटीका पृ० २८०) श्रीवत्स । अनोत्तर-चाक्यान्यपि कचित् सक्त्यन्ते यथा कारयाबभूवे- त्यादि । तदभिप्रायेणेय टीका ॥ Srivatsa !s here finding fault with Vacaspati exactly quoting his words which are defended by Udayana, So Srivatsa was definitely junior to Vacaspats Under II 1 1(fol 592 ) Śrivatsa answers the charge of overlapping of matter in the two parts of the chapter The next quotation from Srivatsa is as follows -(from a Ms in our possession also fol 6ab of the rotograph chapter III) एव पञ्चमि प्रकरणैरात्मा परीक्षित । शरीरमिदानी परीक्ष्यते, अन श्रीवत्स -जन्यात्मपरीक्षारूपैकार्थतया गिथ साकातनाया एकवाक्यतया च कथ नामीभिरेफ- माह्निकमिति, उच्यते, शरीरादिप्रकरणानामारम्भरणीयाना तृतीयाध्यायानुप्रवेशस्य प्रागेव समर्थितत्वात् श्राह्निकान्तर्भूताना च तद्वयाघातात् स्वरूपतश्चोपसग्राहक्स्योपा- घेरभावात् द्वितीयाह्निकोपाधिना चानुपसग्रहात् पारिशेप्यात् प्रथमोपाधिनैव क्रोडी करणम् । न चात्मपरीक्षारूप उपाधिस्तथा भवितुमर्हतीति नासावाहिकोपाधि किंतु पूर्वोक्त एव । तत् किमेषा प्रकरणानामात्मपरीक्षा नार्थो न वा विवक्षित । न वर्थोऽपि विवक्षितोऽपि नाहिकोपाधिरिति म । प्रधानतया हि यो यस्यार्थ स तनोपाधिरिह विवक्षितो न तु प्रसङ्गत उपोद्घातत प्रपञ्चतो वा । इह च प्राधान्यादात्मपरीक्षा प्रथम- प्रकरणार्थ एव । दर्शनस्पर्शनाभ्यामेकार्थग्रहणादित्यनेन हि (३।१२१) व्यवस्थित विपयेभ्य इन्द्रियेभ्योऽव्यवस्थितविपयमात्मान साधयदा शरीरादिभ्योऽपि व्यतिरेक साधित एव, फेवल शिष्यबुद्धेर्षिशदीभावाय उत्तरन प्रपञ्चयते । तस्माद्यथोक्तमेव न्याय्यमिति। एतेनान्यनापीन्द्रियद्वैतादिप्रकरणेषु सर्गातरनुसधेयेति ।। (fol rb under III 1 27 cf Tatparyatika Vizra Ed p 363) The topic of consistent relation between the different Prakaranas forming a chapter dealt with here marks a distinct improvement upon Vācaspati's gloss where it is not touched upon Udayana reproduces the arguments of Srivatsa here with approval In the next quotation under III 1 66 (Tatparyal P 409) Srivatsa finds out a fallacy not detected by Vacaspati ।

·22 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithila and here again Udayana seeks to defend Vācaspati by a simple addendum :-(fol. 18a of the rotograph) facant.gyfalarcamientos तेषां पुरुपगुणप्रेरितभूतपूर्वकत्याभावेऽपि पुरपार्थक्रियासमर्थत्वादिति श्रीवत्सः। सत्यं- frece walla graziaureg14: || In the last quotation under V. il 1 Srivatsa finds fault, this time, with the Sūtrakāra for the absence of compound in the Sūtra and here again Udayana answers his objection : ( fol. 16a of Baroda Ms, of chapter V the name of Śrivatsa is omitted in the rotograph, fol. 7) strateegia: निष्षयोजन. निग्रहस्थानानां परस्परानपेक्षत्वसूचनायेति चेत्-जातिध्वप्येतत्समानमि- त्यसमासप्रसक्तिरिति श्रीवत्सः। अनोत्तरं-समशब्दाभ्यावृत्तौ सूत्रगौरवात् अनावृत्तौ संज्ञानुपपत्तेश्च समास | Whether Udayana has quoted these passages from any written work of Śrivatsa or from his verbal lessions it is not possible to determine at present. As no quotation of Śrivatsa is traceable anywhere else up till now it may be conjectured that Śrīvatsa, who presumably like his distinguished pupil belonged to Mithilā, did not write any book, : VACASPATI: Wrote the Bhāmatī, one of the classical works of the Sankara school of the Vedānta, towards the end of his life. He mentioned therein all the previous works of his own in the following order यन्न्यायकणिका-तत्त्वसमीक्षा-तत्त्वबिन्दुभिः । यन्याय-साख्य-योगानां वेदान्तानां निवन्धनः ।। Of these seven works the second Tattvasamikṣā, a commentary on the pre-Šankara Vedānta work of Maņdana named Brahmasiddhi, is lost. The rest raises Vācaspati to a position of supreme authority in all the five systems of Indian philosophy (omitting the Varšeşka which was ignored by him)-a position quite unique in the whole history of Indian culture. We are concerned here only with his Nyāya work, the Tātparyaţika, which eurs fry. him.. the field firm Logic the utie oi ikakāra or better Tātparyācārya," both used by Udayana. His success in thus single work was quite extraordinary, as he pushed out 1. Thakur. Tatparyacārya, J.A S.B, Vol. XVII, 1951, pp 24043. + ·Udayana and his Predecessors 23 of existence all the previous works upon the Bhasya or the * Vārtika. And it is a long list, as we can gather from recent discoveries. Among those who controverted Buddhist views and wrote commentaries, like Udyotalara, on the Bhasya Priticandra and Bhāvivekta preceded Dharmakirti and Aviddhakarna came after him ( vide Vadanyāya with comm., 1936, pp. 88, 96, 140 & 142. also 35, 40, 78,92 & 109 ). Durveka mentions three later names Adhyayana, author of the Rucţika ( Dharmottarapradipa, p. 175), Trilocana (pp 173-4 ) and Višvarūpa (R. 175). All their works have perished due to Vācaspati's pre-eminence Vācaspati undoubtedly belonged to Mithilā. We mention two local traditions. According to some he belonged to the village Makaranda in Mithılā. According to a note left by Chanda Jhā, the famous poet of Mithilā, Vācaspats belonged to the village TEMA within the Pargana FAZETEI now situated in Saharsa district forming the eastern boundary of Darbhanga. There is a couplet of Chandā Jhā, where eight adjacent villages, including Badagām, are mentioned as the place of Vācaspati वरसम बरइट बसनही वेलइठ श्रो बडगाम । बलिया बडिवन पथनहा श्रीवाचस्पतिधाम ।। The names of all the villages, it is curious to notice, begin with the same letter. Vacaspati's place of origin in Mithilā can be confirmed from internal evidence found in his works. For instance, in the Nyāyakanıkā (p. 301 ) as an illustration of an intricate argument occurs the following remarkable passage न खलु पाटलिपुत्रे उपलब्धस्य प्रासादस्य शिलाहदे स्मरन्नभ्रान्तः। Silahrada, which must have been a famous place in Vācaspati's times is difficult to identify now. It was the birth-place of Madhavakara, 1. Thakur ; Introduction Ratnakirtinibandhavali 2 Sahitya-Parişat-Patrika, Calcutta, Vol 11 (1904 A.D.), p. 75. The story of Vacaspati and his wife named Bhāmati is related in this paper. We are not aware where the village is situated. The next tradition seems to be more reliable.

·26 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithila Dharmottara flourished under King Vanapāla in the middle of the 9th century AD, though Vanapala is a mythical name coming after the first four or five names of the Pala dynasty. (Vidyābhūşana PP 329 & 518 Also Pag Sam, Index, P XXXIV read Vanapāla for Nayapāla ) A more definite reference to Dhammottara is found in the Rājatarangını (IV. 498 ) under the reign of Jayāpida (circa 800 A.D.) thus स स्वप्ने पश्चिमाशायां लक्षयन्नुदय रवे । देश धोत्तराचार्य प्रविष्टे साध्वमन्यत ॥ This clear date for both Dharmottara and Mandana cannot be lightly brushed aside. There is evidence that a long period of time, say about a century, intervened between Mandana and Kumānla. Mandana not only quoted exact passages of Kumārıla and Prabhākara (and the latter came after Kumārıla ) but, according to Vācaspati views of an 'old school of Prabhākara' (ETCATA1Cha ) are cited by him (Nyayakanika pp 96 & 109). Taranātha, the Tibetan historian, records in a true historical spirit the views of two ancient historians on the exact date of the foundation of the Pāla dynasty by Gopāla I According to Indradatta Gopāla was elected one year after what must have been a famous event in those times viz the death of Acharya Mimāmsaka" ('spyod pa') while according to Ksemendrabhadra it was seven years after that event (Schiefner, 1869, p. 204 ) The reference is evidently to Kumārıla who died thus in the first of second decade of the 8th century A D Mandana, therefore cannot be placed before 800 A D There is again a long interval of time between(Mandana and Vācaspati For, in the Nyayakanıka ( 109 ) Vacaspatı distinguishes between an 'old' and a 'new' school of Prabhākara The views ascribed in the passage under discussion to the new school are identical with those of Sälekanātha ( inde Rjuvimala, Madras ed, p 37 Chowkh. ed. pp 29-30) who therefore founded a new school of Prabhākara long after Prabhākara and ·Udayana and bis Predecessors 27 Maņdana. He cannot thus be a direct disciple of Prabhākara and was only slightly senior to Vācaspati, who refers to him as 'navināḥ. Sālikanātha's reference to himself as SHTRUTT: Rrez: does not mean direct discipleship, as interpreted by most of the scholars, but only affiliation. Śrídhara similarly refers to Kumārila in the Kandali as 'Guru' (pp. 248 & 257) and 'Mimāmsā-guru' (p. 220). The earliest date that can be assiga ned to Vācaspati is 900 A. D. about a century after Mandana. (2) Mandana was an earlier contemporary of Sankarācārya, whose date cannot be placed before 800 s. D. As Vācaspati has refuted the views of Sankara's opponent Bhāskara in the Bhāmati, we cannot place Vācaspati before 900 A. D. (3) Sridhara, the Kandalīkāra was thoroughly acquainted with the works of Maņdana ( vide Kandali pp. 218, 256. 271 & 274). He has cited and refuted the views of Mandana in the Vidhiviveka (p. 274 : EETEASE TARA Rafifa vide Vidhiviveka P. 231 ), but he was quite unacquainted with Vacaspati, who gave here (pp. 231-32 ) two illuminating interpretations of the particular passage of Mandana, Śridhara, moreover, in his famous dissertation on tamas ( darkness ) quotes two coup lets of an unknown author :-(pp. 9-10) न च भासामभावस्य तमस्त्वं वृद्धसंमतम् । छायायाः कार्यमित्येवं पुराणे भूगुणश्रुतेः ।। दूरासनप्रदेशादिमहदल्पचलाचना। देहानुवर्तिनी छाया न वस्तुत्वाद्विना भवेत् ॥ The same verses are cited by Vācaspati in the Nyāyakarika as from an af (p. 76) with considerable variation of readings; there are five lines in Vācaspati as against four les of the Kandali. This proves that they drew frotn is dependent sources unknown to each other. Sridhara refotes at someka the views of the Sāňkhyas on Satkaryavada zed the center verse where it is cited there. Ars ·24 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithilā a famous Vaidyaka author who is usually claimed as a Bengali and lived about 900-925 A. D. Presumably Vācaspati lived somewhere between Pāšalıputra in Magadha and Sılāhrada in Bengal. There cannot be any doubt that Vācaspati was a native of Eastern India In the Bhāmati under I, 111, 1 Vacaspati mentions an unusual word 'Hadi' in the following passage पारावारमध्यपाती हि सेतु ताभ्यामवच्छिद्यमानो जलविधारको लोके दृष्ट न तु वन्धहेतुमानम्--हडिनिगडादिष्वपि प्रयोगप्रसङ्गात् । The word is explained in the Kalpataru as a wooden frame with holes to bind crimnals by the leg (यर तु दारुणि छिद्रिते निग्राह्याणा पादप्रोतन तद्धडि ) In this peculiar sense the word is still used in Mithilā. The only lexicon where the word occurs is the Sabdamalā of Rāmeśvara (ER 978841 TFTU) from which it was borrowed in Wilson's dictionary and the Sabdakalpadruma Vācaspatı's peculiar verdict ( Tatparyatika, p 346) on mustard oil, respected in Bengal and Mithilā may also be regarded as a corroboration of his Maithila origin VACASIATI'S PATROV At the end of the Bhāmati Vacaspati paid a glowing tribute to a monarch named NRGA, who was reigning when that work was finished The panegyric in a couple of verses though oft quoted is reproduced below as it requires to be carefully analysed now under a new light नृपान्तराणा मनसाप्यगम्या भ्रूक्षेपमात्रेण चकार कीर्तिम् । कार्तस्वरासारमुपूरितार्थसाथै स्वय शास्त्रविचक्षणश्च ।।५ नरेश्वरा यचरितानुकारमिच्छन्ति क्तुं न च पारयन्ति । यस्मिन् महीपे महनीयरीती श्रीमन्नगेऽकारि मया निवन्ध ॥६ It appears that this monarch of holy renown has then reached the peak of his glory, his exemplary life providing an unattainable ideal for contemporary kings There is no direct reference here to his military success which must have ended lang ugo The Bhamati is the last work of Vācaspats. There is an important reference to a reigning monarch in the following passage 1 I.HQ, XXIII pp 153-54 ·-- cud his credecessors 25 of his very first work, the Nyāyakanıkā (p 290 )' - af क्रियाद्वय प्रतीयते, यथा निजभुजवीर्यमास्थाय शूरानादिशूरो जयति वन कथ वास्यार्थ- स्यैकत्वम् । जयार्थ च जिगीपोरादिशूरस्य निजभुजवीर्याश्रयक्रिया इत्यप्रधानत्वान्न वाक्यार्थ -विजयक्रियैव तु प्राधान्यात्तथा ॥ It is tempting to identify this monarch with Ādıśūra of Bengal who is credited in all genealogical works of Rādhiya and Vārendra Brahmanas with inviting and settling their first ancestors within his dominions, But all reliable evidence places this Ādıśura of Bengal about 700 AD before the rise of the Pāla dynasty It is much more probable that ādiśūra like Ādımalla is a honorific title and not a proper name at all It was apparently assumed by king NRGA when early in his career he was a conquering' (fering) monarch We heard a tradition in Mithila that Nrga belonged to the Gupta dynasty If Ādisūra is taken as his surname he might have belonged to an extinct Sūra' dynasty of Mithilā, a scion of which migrated to East Bengal early in the 14th century. This brings us to the great problem of his date The following evidence, which seems to have escaped the notice of eminent scholars places him certainly in the 10th century A D and not before (1) Vācaspati aligns himself definitely to the school of Mandana both in Mimānsā and Vedanta In the Nyāyakanıka a commentary on Mandana's Vidhruveka there is an exact quotation from a Buddhist scholar -(p 187) यथोक्त भदन्तेन, बुद्धथा कल्पितया विविक्मपरैर्यद्रूपमुल्लिख्यते, तद्बुद्धिर्न बहिरिति ।। The very same quotation is found also in the Tatparyatika (p. 339 ) under II 11 63 under the caption 72€ HTTEIT Stcherbatsky has shown (Buddhist Logic I p 476 fo & II, p 405 ff ) that the quotation is from the Apohaprakarana of Dharmottara preserved in Tibetan According to Vacaspati Mandana was refuting the views of Dharmottara in the origi- This makes Mandana a junior -nal passage of the Vidhiviveka contemporary of Dharmottara According to Tıbētan works 1 Sahitya Parişat Patrikā Vol 57, PP 66 70 ·that 28 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithilā appear that Śrīdhara was refuting the views of Vācaspata's Tattvakaumudi ( under Kārıkā 9), where the same old verse is also cited. But a close examination of the passages proves the exact words cited and refuted by Sridhara (e. g tay ETTRACT 579afeta p. 144 ) do not belong to Vācaspati at all and the ancient verse is already cited in the older work Yukt:dipika ( p 61). The apologetic words uttered by Sridhara at the end of the discussion express his veneration to an unknown scholar certainly different from Vācaspat: (age af Far frata) Similarly the Kārkā 67 explained in the Kandali (p. 284 ) is unaware of Vācaspati's better comment on the word en frunt. The three lines of Kumārıla cited by Sridhara in the chapter on Sāmānya (P 320) give again a reading some what different from that of Vācaspati in the Nyāyakanıkā (p. 188) Sridhara quotes ( 30 ) a line thus —7211 मायादुषप्रवाद -एक घ चित्र चेत्येतत्तध चित्रतर तत इति । Here again Vācaspati (Tatparyatikā, p. 454 ) adopts a different reading. All these point to the inevitable conclusion that Sridhara and Vācaspati were close contemporaries and did not consult each other's works. They both belonged therefore, to the last half of the 10th century A. D. (4) Trilocana preceded Bhāsarvajña as we have stated abovc. (p. 16) Trilocana's pupil Vācaspati was evidently junior to Bhosartajña For, in the Talpanafika ( pp 280-81 under 11.2 39 ) Vacaspata meets an argument ascribed in the Lilavati (p 283 ) to Bhūsana . e. Bhāsarvajña, suthor of the Nyazabhaşana Similarly Vacaspati was slightly junior to Vyomaštva (q. v.), cho wrote the Vyomaiti about 950 A D. Here again Vācaspat's close contemporaneity with Sridhara, who knew Vyamaſiva ( and Bbāsarvajña), is confittaed. (5) The carliest Buddhist scholar to refer to Vacaspata is, at the present state of our knowledge, Iñinalti ( v.), who it follored by his pupil Ratnakirt and a much later authora ·U -- and his redecessors 29 Moksăkara gupta (vide the latter's Tarkabhāşa, G, O. S., p. 24). Vācaspati is not mentioned even by so late an author as Durveka Miśra, who was a disciple of Jitāri and thus a co-pupul of Atīša. Two of Durveka's works have have been published, the Arcataloka (G.O.S ) and the Dharmottarapradipa (Patna, 1955). The sneering remarks of Jñānaści towards Vācaspati, as reproduced by Ratnakartı and Udayana, prove that they were not separated by a large length of time. It now appears that Ratnakırtı adopted a strictly chronological order when citing the views of Sankara, Trilocana, Nyāyabhūşana and, last of all, Vācaspati in the Kşanabhangasiddhi ( B I. ed pp. 57-58). Jõānaśrī was living still in 1041 A, D, and Vācaspati, the last and the greatest target of his attack, cannot certainly be placed before the 10th century A. D. (6) Among Hindu scholars the earliest to quote from Vācaspats is Udayana's teacher Śrīvatsa (q. v.), who must have been strictly a contemporary of Jñānaśrī, the period of activity of both of them can now be confidently placed in the first half of the 11th century A.D. (1000-1050 A.D.). (7) The cumulative effect of all the above evidences can no longer be doubted. It is simply impossible now to refer the date 898 found in Vācaspatı's Nyāyasticinibandha to the Vikrama era corresponding to 841-42 AD. This small tract of Vācaspati was evidently meant as a supplement to the Tătparyaţikā, as it is not mentioned separately among his works enumerated in the Bhāmatı It was thus composed along with his masterpiece the Tätparyatikā in 898 Śaka 1. e. 976-77 4. D. -a date which must have been very near the birth-dates of Jõānaśri and Śrīvatsa, both of whom might have seen Vācaspati alive in their early youth. If the books were composed in 841- 42 A, D. Vācaspatı's literary activity must be taken to have commenced about 825 , D., full two centuries before Jñānaſri wielded his powerful pen for the first time among Buddhist ·30 History of Navya-Nyaya in Mithila scholars to mcet his arguments. On the other hand we must huddle together all the host of brilliant scholars that preceded Vācaspati just within half a century --Mandana, Sankara, Bhāsarvajña, Trilocana, Šalikanātha, Vyomašiva &c. &c. On the face of it is an absurdity. JINENDRA: Towards the end of the Atmatalttavrıcka Udayana mentions the names of several Buddhist scholars branding each of them with one or other of several stigmas. Some of the names are new and cannot be identified e. g. Sarabha, Kānācārya and Subhati. The two scholars Jinendra and Jagadındulthough outside the Brahmanıcal Society, had written books which are universally respected ; in other words their religion did not stand in the way of their proper appreciation. This Jinendra is identical with Jincdrabuddhi ( as stated by the commentator Nārāyaṇācārya ), the famous author of the Kāśikāvvatanapatika, commonly known as the Ngasa, a. classical work of the Pānını school of grammar. This huge work has been fully printed by the Rajshahi Museum and throws much new light on the problems connected with the composition of the Kaśka. After a thorough examination of all available materials we had come to the conclusion that Jinendra lived in 800-850 A, D, The facts are very briefly stated. Jayāditya wrote a complete Vrtt: about 650 A. D Vămana, a Brahmanic scholar, revised the last three chapters not earlier than 700 A. D. This combined work, known as the Kaśka, was explained by Jinendra not earlier than 800 s. D for, Jinendra had referred to previous commentaries even on the later portion of Vamana This same Jinendrabuddhı had written a large commentary ( the Tibetan version consisting of 349 leaves ) named 1 DV Raghavan suggests that he may be identical with Joundu, Jain Antiquary 2 Introd to Parbhāsavętta &c of Puruşottama published by the Varendra Research Society, Rajshahi, 1946, pp 25 ·Udayana and his Predecessors 31 Višalamalavati on Dignāga's Pramānasamuccaya Vidyabhusana (1.c p 323) gives his date as about 725 A, D, when Vāmana's portion of the Kāśika was not yet written or circulated According to Durveka Miśra the following passage of Arcaţa ( who was identical with Dharmākaradatta uide pp. 233, 261 & 410 ) refers to Jinendra's gloss upon Dignāga -Baroda ed , 1949, p 218) यदा ह्याचार्यत्याप्येतदभिमतमिति कैश्चिद् व्याख्यायते । कैश्चिद् ईश्वरसेनजिनेन्द्रबुद्धिभृतिमि (b p. 405) "This piece of evidence proves that Arcata ( and Dharmottara ) cannot be dated before 800 A.D. DHARMOTTARA one of the greatest Buddhist authorities after Dharmakirti. He is cited both by Vācaspati and Śrīdhara (qv), In the Ātmatattvaviveka, according to the interpretation of Sankara Mıſra, Udayana had refuted Dharmottara in one place (B I. ed p 296), The actual passage of Dharmottara has been quoted by Sankara Dharmottara flourished according to the Rajatarangını (IV. 498) in the Teign of Jayāpīda of Kasmira (C. 800 A, D ). This date is corroborated by the references in the Arcataloka (Baroda, 1249 ) Arcata identical with Dharmākaradatta (ib., pp 232, 241 & 410 ) was the teacher of Dharmottara according to Tibetan evidence (Intro p xi) At any rate Dharmottara undoubtedly came after Archata ( vide Durveka's comm. PP 240, 242-3, 377) According to Durvka ( 405 ) Archata has referred to Jinendrabuddhı in one place (p 218) and Jinendra (q v.) cannot be placed before 800 2. D. Dharmottara must, therefore, be placed in the first half of the 9th century s.D, as the Tibetan historians recorded. PRAJNĀKARA cited by Udayana in the Pansuddhr (pp 667-8 & 730) The verse ated is evidently from Prajñākara's masterpiece the Pramānavārtikālankara. Udaya ·32 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithilā in the Atmatattvaviveka (B. I ed, p 907 ) has recorded the important tradition about Prajñākara that like Dharmkirti he was driven out from the orthodox Brahmanic society and had no other way but to accept Buddhism Tibetan historians place him in the 10th century a D (Vidyabhusana l. c. p 336) MADĀVRATA In the Kusumāñjalt Udayana in his discussion on ksanıkatva (Stavaka IV, p 17 ) has cited and refuted the views of the 'followers of Mahāvrata' (Hilaritat ) In the first Stavaka also in the context of Kārıkā 12 ( 57 ) the views of Mahāvrata have been criticised according to the interpretation of Varadarāja ( 31 ) who cites the following verse of Mahāvrata thereon फुसुमे बीजपूरादेर्यल्लावाद्यवसिच्यते । शक्तिराधीयते तेन काचित्ता कि न पश्यसि ॥ The Nyāyalılāvati of Srivallabhācārya quotes the same verse in a brilliant passage which is an elaboration of Udayana's words with an additional half verse from Mahāvrata in the section on Samskara (pp. 647 48 ) मृदमपि विप कश्चिन्मन्न करोति नियोजित । सृजति तदसौ काचिच्छक्तिं मृदोऽतिविमोहिनीम् ॥ Mahāvrata is also cited in Bhavanātha's Najaviveka (Madras ed, p 273) There is an important quotation from Mahāvrata in MM. Chandra's Amitabındu ( Ms. No III F. 149 of Asiatic Society, fol 45a) which ends —2549 YENYRETTİ57793 FIFALARI weara | Krsna Miśra in his allegorical drama Prabodhachandrodaya paints Mr Pride ( Ahamkāra') as well read in the advanced courses of studies then prevailing in Eastern India , of the six classical works mentioned (Act II, v.3) 'Māhāvrati' is the last of all Aų the works belong to the Bhatta and Prabhākara schools of the Mimāmsā According to the well informed commentator of the drama Nandilla Gopa, Mahāvrata belonged to the Bhatta school and was a rival of the Prabhākara scholar Mahodadhi who was a class mate of Sālika ·Udayana and his Predecessors 33 nātha and the author of a treatise named Siddhāntarahasya (महानतो भट्टमतानुवर्ती महोदधिप्रतिस्पर्धी) All the four scholars Salika, Mahodadhi, Vācaspati and Mahāvrata thus belonged to about the same age It is our conjecture, however, that the commentator has confused the affiliation of the two scholars Mahodadhı and Mahāvrata Mahodadhı belonged to the Bhatta school as he had refuted the well-known 'Anvitābhidhānal theory of the Prabhākara school (vide Nazaviveka, p 271 ) Mahāvrata, therefore, belonged to the Prabhākara school and as a consequence he was cited with approval. by M.M Chandra, who was an authority of the Prabhākara school and referred in his work to the classics of his own school alone. ŚŃKATĀCĀRYA This logician should be carefully distinguished from the great founder of the Advaita Vedānta. He was the earliest among orthodox scholars of Nyāya whose views were refuted by the Buddhist scholars jñānaśrī ( q. v ) and his pupil Ratnakırtı mention his name first of all, suggesting that he preceded both Trilocana and Bhāsarvajña who are named next to him Ratnakiti has preserved the name of one of his works the Sthirasiddhi from which a passage has been cited in the Sthrasıddhiduşana ( Patna ed. p. 108) Vācaspati in the Tātparjatıkā has referred to him as stated by Udayana in the Parisuddhi The passages are cited below मयोगपद्याभ्यामतिरिक्त तृतीय. प्रकारः प्रतीतश्चेत् प्रतीतत्वादेव न निषेध्यः न चेत् नतरामिति शकराचार्यः। तगह-तथा होति । (under III. 1. 17; Tātparya, p 387, line 14) ननु नानयोरेव क्रमाक्रमयोमिश्रीभावः प्रकारान्नरमाशङ्कितं शक्राचार्येण कि त्वन्यदेव किंचिदनुनयात्मकं भविष्यति । यथा पररस्मद्भिहिते स्वाभाविक प्रतिबन्धे पिशाचायमानः कश्चिदुपाधिरिति । तदुत्थाप्य दूपयति-त्यादेतदिति ! (ib , P 387, last line: both from fol. 12b of the third chap. of the Parisud- --dhi preserved in rotograph in the Mithila Institute) Both the passages are evidently taken from the Sthirasiddhi of Sankara ·34 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithila It should be noticed that Vacaspati criticises Sankara's argument in the last case ननु विकल्प्य शङ्कराचार्यण दूपितमेतत्-नोलादीनामप्रतिपत्तावाश्रयासिद्धतया प्रतिपत्तो धर्मिप्राहकप्रमाणयाधितयेत्यत आह नीलादयो होति । (fol. 38b of a Ms in our possession under IV 11. 35. vide Tatparya, p. 465, dine 11). This passage also seems to have been taken from the Sthirasıddhi? Sankarācārya is also cited in the Nyāyaparıśısţa (p. 17) as the head of a band of scholars differing from the Bhāsyas vārtikaschool This Sankara should also be distinguished from the earlier Sankara Svāmın referred to in Jayanta's Nyayamanjari (p. 293 ) and other works, Śărikanāru According to Vardhamāna the following passage in the Kıranävali under the interesting topic of the ocular organ being made up of light or not, cited and refuted by Udayana, refers to śālika, केचित्तु ससर्गिद्रव्यतया नि सरदेव नायनं तेजो बाह्यालोकेनकता गतं युगपदेव तावदर्थेन ससृष्टमिन्द्रियमुत्पादितवदिति शाखाचन्द्रमसोस्तुल्यकालमहणमुपपद्यत इति TUTTHIE 1 GHELI (Chowkh ed, p 75, B I ed, p 288 ) Vardhamāna notes in the Dravyaprakasa शालिकमतं दूषयितुमुपन्य. Rufat (Vangiya Sāhitya Parisat Ms. No. 1649, fol. 42a) The passage is very important, as pointing to the interesting fact, hitherto unknown, that Śālıkanātha commented on the Prasastapādabhāsya This is clearly stated by Chennubhatta in the Tarkabhasāprakāśika (Bombay ed., P 211 ) where another passage is cited -मृपिएडपाषाणादिलक्षण. शरीरेन्द्रियव्यतिरिक्तो विषय इति शालिकनाथ प्रशस्तपादभाष्यन्याख्याने न्यरूपयत् । The Rasasara Some Lost Nyaya Works and Authors Proceedings, Aloc, Ahmedabad 1 ·Udayana and his Predecessors 35 (pp. 100-1 ) also quotes him upon Prasastapāda. Moreover, as is now well-known, Udayana's twitting reference to a "Gauda' Mimāņsaka, who confounds verses from the Mania samhita as Vedic texts (1), is according to Varadarāja's note (p. 123) a fing at the 'Pañcıkākāra' (ie. Śālıkanātha). Under the same topic ( Kusumāñjalı, Chap. III ) Udayana in his own brilliant manner answers ſālıkanātha directly with the change of a single word (आप्तानाम् in place of पदानाम् ) in. the latter's verses प्राथम्यादभिधातृत्वात्तात्पर्योपगमादपि । प्राप्तानामेव सा शक्तिवरमभ्युपगम्यताम् ।। (vide Varadarāja's Kusumañjalıbodhani, 1922, P 127 ).. śālıknātha was the greatest authority of the Prabhākara school of the Mimāmsā He wrote three Pancıkās, the Ruvimala (on the Byhati of Prabhākara ), the Dipafıkha (on the Laghvi), and the standard work of the school, the Prakaranapancka, besides a Bhāşyapanıśışta. His works, though written Bengal, circulated quickly throughout India. He preceded Vācaspati ( q. v.). The following humorous verse is current about him in South India शालिकनाथवन्मूढो न जातो न जनिष्यते । प्रभाकरप्रकाशाय येन दीपशिखा कृता ।। BRĀSKARA the famous exponent of the Dvaitadvaita theory of the Vedānta. He has been cited by Udayana in the Kusumānjal (II, P 67: Havfruaffa puta gora Vardhamāna notes भास्कररित्रदण्डिमतभाष्यकार:). It is well-known that in his Bhāsya, published at Varanası, he refuted Sankarācārya and the views of the Buddhist scholar Dharmakirti, whom he calls 'Vipra-Bhikṣu' (p. 123). His views have been cited and criticised by Vācaspati in the Bhāmati BaŪŞAŅA : 1. e. Bhāsarvajña, author of the Nyayabhuşaņa a commentary on his own Nyāyasāra. The book, which is ·36 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithila almost indispensable for studies on the history of Nyāya- Vaišeşıka literature, remains yet to be published, though it was discovered long ago in a Jaina library beyond the reach of scholars (Ganakarika, Baroda ed , Introd p.1). As long ago as 1859 A. n., Hall knew ( Index, p 26 ) that the Bhūsana was a work of Bhāsarvajña, though there was much confusion later on. Udayana cited and refuted the Bhūsana several times in the Kıranāvali All the passages are interesting and are, therefore, reproduced below (1) यत् पुनराह भूपणो लक्षणं चिह्न लिङ्गमिति पर्याय इति, तदसत् । (Chowkh ed., p.43) (2) तस्माद्वरं भूषण —कर्मापि गुणस्तल्लतरणयोगादिति, न। (ib., p. 160 ). (3) एतेन स्वरूपाभेद एकत्वं स्वरूपभेदस्तु नानात्वं द्वित्वमिति भूपणः T6412ta l( ib., p 192 ). (4) व्यधिकरणमपि क्मैव विनाशक्मस्तु । न चातिप्रसङ्ग , श्राश्रयाश्रित- परम्परासंयोगस्यैव विनाश्यत्वात् । न इति भासर्वक्षमतनिरास' । (b., p. 232 • compare Lilavati p. 856). None of the above passages is traceable in the Nyāyasara; so they were all taken from the Nyāyabhūsana, a discursive work of great celebrity which earned for the author the epithet Bhūşanakāra, by which he was almost universally known. The earliest writer, as far as can be ascertained from the present materials, who grappled with his views was the Buddhist scholar Jõānaśrı. The four great 'pillars of Indian Logic (probably coming, from four different quarters ) were, according to Jõānaści, Sankara 'Nyāyālankarana', Trilocana and Vācaspati. For exigency of metre, the Bhūsana is mentioned by a synonym and before Talocana. In the body of the books of Jñānaśrī and his disciple Ratnakırtı (qv) the name Nyāyabhūşana is clearly given and correctly placed after Trilocana and before Vācaspatı, Bhāsarvajña, who very probably belonged ·Udayana's Pre-eminence 37 to Kāsmira, was slightly junior to Trilocana and slightly senior to Vācaspati and lived about the middle of the 10th century Api It is known that in the Bhūşana the views of the Buddhist scholar Prajñākara are controverted. ( Introduction to Ganakārika ). UDAYANA'S PRE-EMINENCE Udayana through his numerous works secured a position in the learned world which was quite enviable From the 12th century onwards he was looked upon as the greatest exponent of the Nyāya- Vaišeşıka doctrines and was the greatest target of all scholars of the opposing camps Deva Sūri ( 1086 1169 4 D.), a foremost Jaina logician drew up a sharp contrast between Udayana and the Kasmirian Jayanta, both of them being his targets of attack. He wrote यदन शक्तिसंसिद्धौ मज्जत्युदयनद्विप । जयन्त हन्त का तत्र गणना त्वयि कीटके ।। (Syādvadaratnākara, Chap II) Udayana's discourse on the Nyāya theory of causation and explanation of the term Śaktı involved in it is found in the Kusumanjal (1, pp. 63-64). There is a magnificent penpicture of Udayana found at the end of the first chapter of the Parisuddh which is cited below in full. It was probably written by an admirer who actually saw him alıve. वाचस्पतरुपरि तत्त्वविचारदत्त- तात्पर्यशुद्धिमकरोदुदयाभिधान । आशकमान इव नाशमसौ स्थकीत. वाचस्पति पुनरिवोज्वलयाबभूव ॥ बुद्धियत्य विचारणासु चतुरा वैदर्भगर्भाश्रया स्फारस्फूर्जदनेकतर्कविशदव्याहारसंरम्भिणी । i For his contributions etc vide Bhusanahāra o Bhasanamaia --Vangiya Sähtya Parishat Patrika, 1353, PP 22-32 ·38 History of Navya-Nyaya in Mithila कान्तिः शान्तिमयी तनुश्च नितरां वाणी सुधाप्राविणी स श्रीमानुयश्चकार सुकृती तात्पर्यशुद्धिं बुधः॥ सद्वारणीभरमन्दराचलचलन्निर्मग्यमानान्तर न्यायाम्भोनिधिपारिजाततिलका वाचस्पतिप्रेयसी। प्रीत्याकारि वराङ्गनेव विदुषां सन्तोपवाहिन्यसौ आन्तानामुदयेन तर्कनिकरे तात्पर्यशुद्धि सताम् ॥ X х X न्यायतात्पर्यसंशुद्धियौद्धसिद्धान्तहारिणा ॥ (fol 103 of the Rotograph in the Mithila Institute) How Udayana's name was respected highly even in hostile camps would be clear from the following illustration. The great polymath Venkatanātha (1268-1369 A. D. ) of the Rāmānuja school wrote the Nyāyaparıśuddhi, the bulk of which is taken up by an elaborate treatment of the Anumāna part (Chowkh. ed., pp 92-359 ), more specially of the subject of debate Unlike Gangeśa Venkatanātha has dealt with all the different classes of debate (Vāda, Jalpa and Vatandā ) and the intricate divisions of fallacies and qubbles. He has quoted. profusely from the works of his predecessors of the Rāmānuja school, who it appears grappled with the problems thoroughly and in a highly developed system of their own. The influence of Gangesa can nowhere be traced, but Udayana's influence is clearly stamped in their views. The celebrated line of the Kusumanjali, परस्परविरोधे तु न प्रकारान्तरस्थिति [III 8] is accepted as an universal maxim (p 133) Udayana, referred to as Nyāyā cārya (p 220 ), gave the best definition of the term Jātı ( ahh p. 221 ), according to Venkatanātha. A former scholar Varadavisnumiśra had dealt with the classes of Jātı just according to Udayana (quasi p. 235), who was thus formally regarded as the supreme authority on the subject His well- -known views on the term Tarka (sharply criticised by Sriharşa) are respectfully cited (327) ·Udayana and his Successors 39 Among the manuscripts upon which the Varanası edition of the Kiranavali is based the scribe of one ( Ms No. 3 dated 1506 Saka) eulogises Udayana in the following elegant verse, where he has been likenedito an incarnation of Siva, the god of learning वन्दे शिव शिवमिवोदयन निदान- मेक गभीरनयतत्वविवेकसिन्धो । दोषाकरादपि विविच्य कला भजन्त- मन्त कृताक्षतपद सुमन सहसे ॥ UDAYANA AND GANGESA There is hardly any topic dealt with in the four grand divisions of Gangeśa's work which had not been already argued by Udayana in his main works and specially in the Kusumānijah It is only in the method and mode of expression that Gangeſa excelled over Udayana, whose prominent theistic background had to give place to subtleties of argument in course of time The Isvaravāda portion of Gangeša failed completely to oust the Kusumāñjali, which held its own through almost a millenium When Vyāsatīrtha the giant scholar of South India of the Madhva community, grappled with the doctrines of Navyanyāya in the Tarkatāndava, he preferred in many places Udayana against Gangesa ( vide Tarkatāndava, Madras ed I pp. 148, 286 & 377) In fact his commentator Rāghavendratırtha distinctly wrote in one place ( 148 ) that Vyāsatirtha controverted in the Prāmanyavāda (Utpattiprakarana ) the 'older' argument of Udayana because Gangeśa only embel lished that argument with subtleties but could not give any new or original one of his own Similarly the Upamāna part of Gangesa practically became extinct as no scholar of any renown in Mithilā and Bengal (with the single exception of Pragalbha ) ever commented on it. In its place the corresponding portion of the Kusumānijalı ( chap. III) commended itself for studies in the Nyâya seminaries Chinnabhatta ·40 Histody of Navya-Nyāya in Mithila (p. 160 ) expressly recommended the Kusumāñjalı on the question of Upamāna as a separate means of valid Inow ledge. Vardhmāna in his several commentaries on Udayana has indicated the problems where his father Gangesa excelled in arguments Here are a few references in the kusumāñjali, Chapter I, there is an elaborate discussion on the much debated term 'Saktı', here Vardhmāna reproduced three passages of Gangesa ( pp 45, 48 & 51 ) In the second chapter Vardhamāna elucidated the text of Udayana on the favourite topic of Prāmānya, Sabdanıtyatā and Jātiśaktı with long and illuminating passages of Gangesa (pp 8 11, 36-37 & 47 49). There are very many passages of Gangesa cited by Vardhamāna in the Nibandhprakāsa Gangesa therefore cannot be separated from the moorings of Navyanyāya which were first land down by Udayana in his major works specially the Nibandha and Kusumāñjalı As a matter of fact Gangesa himself displayed hıs utmost veneration for Udayana by quoting his words in almost every section of his large work. Among the predeces sors of Gangesa by far the largest number of references belongs to Udayana Some of these are pointed out below. In the very first section ( Mangalavāda ) of the Pratyahsa part there is an exact quotation from the Dravzakıranāval of Udayana (B I ed, p 72 inde Kıranūvali, Chowkh ed p 3) In the next section (Prāmanyavāda ) a well known Kārıkā of the Kusumāñjalı (IV. 1 ) on the definition of Pramā is cited (p 366 ) and it is interesting to note that Udayana is given the flattering epithet Tantrika' here In the same section there is a quotation from the Bauddhādhikara ( 424) There are three references to Ācāryāh' towards the end ( pp 750 834 & 845). Gangesa's veneration for Udayana is best displayed in the section on Nirvikalpa (Pp 834-38 ) where after citing and refuting the views of Sivāditya Gangesa formulated his final views on the topic under discussion on the basis of an exact ·Udayana and his Successors 41 quotation from the Gunakıranavali (Chowkh ed . Pp. 201-2). which he fully explained in the manner of a regular commen. tator. In the Anumāna part, it is well-known that Udayana's. definition of the term Vyāpti and its component Upādhi has been explained by Gangeśa in the Pūrvapaksa section ( pp 77- 79 vide, Kusumāñjal III 2) Udayana's definition of Upādhı is also critically reviewed under Upādhivāda (pp 312-13) For other references to Ācārya in this part vide pp 593, 684. 888 ( from the Nibandha) and 934 Udayana could not be superseded by Gangesa at allfin the Iśvaravāda and Upamāna part in the Sabda part we need only refer to the long and slluminating passage of Udayana with which Gangesa concludes the section on Vidhivada ( pp 284 fï ) It need hardly be told that there are many other anonymous passages of Gangesa which are taken from Udayana. Commentators, specially Sārvabhauma trace the source in many places (vide Sārvabhauma's Anumānamanıparksă, foll. 53b 110b 1392 & 161a for the passages referred to vide B I ed., pp 166, 380 53. & 599 respectively) UDATAVA ATU Ś2144RS: Owing to decay of Buddhism in India and the consequent degeneration of Buddhist scholarshipspecially in the field of Nyāya studies Udayana's powerful onslaught against the Buddhist doctrines produced no effect in the Buddhist camp As far as we are aware no Buddhist scholar attempted to meet the arguments of Udayana whose triumph in the controversy was almost unparalleled It is a significant fact that the Buddhist logicians for almost a millenium quarelled with the orthodox logicians alone and their opposition to the other schools of Indian philosophy is quite negligible In the works of Jñānaśri and Ratnakırtı, for instance, no Prābha-- kara and Vedānta author is ever mentioned or refuted. There is much truth in the assertion that in certain fundamental ·Historiy of Navya-Nyāya in Mithilā doctrines the Buddhist and the Vedāntin sail in the same boat Chinnabhaſta explains a passage of the Tarkabhasa as referring to Hinahalat (p 250 ). whose views are summarised in to interesting Kārıkās It is nothing surprising, therefore, that within a century after Udayana, a most powerful and scathing criticism of the Nyāya doctrines emerged from the pen of a Vedānta scholar. In the Khandanakhandakhadza of Sriharsa the logician's method of fixing and defining the categories with formidable precision was assailed in such a devastating manner that it was hailed throughout India as a novel contribution in the field of dialectics Sriharsa's method of argument earned a special name as 'Khandanayuktı' and what is a most wonderful fact the Khandana, as Sriharsa's work is commonly called, came to be regarded as one of the classical works of Navynyāya Sriharsa was a 'Gauda' (ie a native of Bengal ) as cate gorically stated by Vidyapatı in the Purusapariksa ( under Medhavikatha बभूव गौडविपये श्रीहर्षो ना कविपण्डित ) and Vacaspati at the end of the Khandanoddhara The exact relation between Udayana and Srīharsa should be carefully determined, as they are the two towering figures that dominated dialectics in Eastern India for about three centuries before the work of Gangesa came to the forefront Both the Khandana and the Naisadha were written at the court of Kanyakubja and it is sometimes argued that Sriharsa also was a native of Kanyakubja We have collected elsewhere (I HQ XXII pp 144 46 ) quite a volume of evidence both internal and external to prove that Vidyāpati's statement about the provenance of Sriharsa is undoubtedly correct. Use of the word ulūlu' ( Naisadha XIV 51 ) udayabhāskara(XVIII 103 ) and the familiar name of a top still current in Bengal 'laladdımba' ( XXII 53) mention of peculiar marriage customs prevalent in Bengal, indiscriminate use in alliteration of the three sibilants the two nasals etc, and above all Sriharsa's writing a panegyric of the family of a Gauda king (Hist=fTTUTTET VII. 110 ) betray unmistakably ·Udayana and his Successors his Bengal origin, which is attested by many of his commentators like Cândū Pandita, Iśānadeva and Nārāyana. Udayana. was controverted, therefore, not by a 'Pāscātya' but by a 'Gauda' and this is quite in the fitness of things when we recollect that Bengal's rivalry with Mithilā was more pronounced from ancient times than with any other province. The Khandana criticises Udayana directly and right through, though the name of Udayana is not actually mentioned anywhere in the book. The very first definition of valid knowledge attacked by Śriharsa is a HT and this again is the very first sentence of Udayana's Laksanamala, as correctly stated by Sankara Miśra (Varanası ed. of the Sārkarī, pp. 143 44). Sriharsa's wonderful scrutiny of the two-worded phrase is a specimen of his profound scholarship ( Chowkh, ed. with Vidyāsāgari, pp 239-397). The next two definitions--278747f- 19:44 ( 26, PP 397-411 ) and 77494RTE AT (pp. 411-27) attacked by Sriharşa are exactly taken from Udayana's Kusumanjalı ( IV. 1 & 5). A Jaina scholar Abhayatılakopādhyāya, as we have stated before (p. 2, fn ), wrote a book of moderate length named Nyāyalankāra, consisting of notes on the knotty passages of the five great classics of Nyāya including last of all, Udayana's Parıšudhı? According to Anandapūrna (p, 129 ) a passage of the Nyāyālankāra is cited and refuted by Sriharsa 24191997- अन्थेऽनिर्वचनीयदूषणं यदभाणि तदनुवदति । At the end of the passage a line of Udayana's Kusumāñjal is quoted in support ( III. 8: परस्परविरोघे हि न प्रकारान्तरस्थिति Saharsa thus not only criticised Udayana alone but many of his followers also and this is very 1. Gunaratna in his Saddarśanasamuccayayrtti enumerated the works of the Nyāyadarśana (B. I ed., p 94). His description is slightly incor- • rect, the name srikantha ( whose Tippanaka on the castfera has been dis-- covered ) should come last of all after Abhayatılaka, whose authorship of the Nyāyālankāra is proved by recent discoveries ·History of Navya Nyāya in Mithila much in evidence throughout the Khandana. Unfortunately the scholiasts do not specify them, except in this single instance Udayana has been criticised in many other places (inde pp. 705, 747, 1327 etc ). The most interesting passage is the one, so often reproduced by scholars, where Sriharsa answers Udayana by hurling the latter's own words in the Kusumañjal ( III 7 ) against him in a slightly changed form ( Khandana, p 693) तस्मादस्माभिरप्यस्मिन्नये न सतु दुप्पठा। त्यद्गाथैवा यथाकारमतराणि क्यिन्त्यपि ॥ व्याघातो यदि शवास्ति न चेच्या ततस्तराम् । व्याघावावधिराशङ्का तर्क शवावधि पुत । (Khandana, op cit p 693 ) It has been one of the favorite topics of students of logic Gangeša answered Sriharsa in the section on Tarka ( Anumāna, B I ed p 233) and all scholiasts up to Gadadhara have delightfully dealt with the age-old conflict of Udayana and Sribarsa . We refer to two other typical passages of the Khandana where Udayana is subjected to detailed criticism In the second chapter Udayana's arguments for rejection of erroneous theo ries (fa) are cited from the Panšuddha (pp 1018-19 Anantapurna notes तात्पर्यपरिशुद्धी उदयनोक्तं दूपयितुमुपन्यस्यति ) Srn. harsa's counter arguments go to the end of the chapter Udayana is referred to here as In the last chapter ( pp 1170 76 ) a long passage 1 cited from the Ātmatattvaviveka (B. I ed pp 1170 1200) and refuted at length all these place Udayana in the position of the greatest opponent whom Sriharsa wanted to meet by arguments, Sriharsa's popularity Ściharsa s great achievement was. naturally hailed by the Vedāntists Vidyāranya triumphantly wrote in the Pancadasi ·Udayana and his Successors 45 निरुक्तावभिमानं ये दधते तार्किकादयः। हर्पमिश्रादिभिस्ते तु खण्डनादौ सुशिक्षिताः ।। Its reception in the land of Udayana is a great revelation Many Navyanyāya scholars of Mithilā (and Bengal) came to scoff at it but remained to pray. Divākaropādhyāya, Vardhamāna, Sankara Miśra and even so late an author as Gokulanātha had written commentaries on it So did Pragalbha, Padmanābha Miśra and Raghunātha (Vidyālankāra I of l'engal. Vardhamāna attempted a refutation of it also, but it is completely lost. Vācaspati II and Sankara, it is true, wrote powerful refutations. They were followed by two late scholars, Madhava Miśra of Mithila and Viśvanātha Panchanana of Bengal But on the whole the refutation of Śrīharşa's arguments at the hands of the Nyaya scholars of Mithilā and Bengal is somewhat halfhearted and considerably out-weighed by their agreeable studies of those arguments. This raises the problem of Vedāntic influence upon Udayana and other advocates of the uncompromising dualism of the Nyāya It is now well known that Udayana at the end of the Atmatattvaviveka attempted a remarkable and powerful synthesis of all the orthodox systems of philosophy and, though orthodox Nyāya scholars emphasise upon the exact gradation of the systems as envisaged by Udayana the crowning glory remaining with the Nyāya, Udayana's predilection towards the Vedānta cannot be brushed aside lightly. Phrases like her न हेया मोक्षनगरगोपुरायमागत्यात् from the pen of Udayana speak out his real mind Mahesa Thakkura, one of the later glories of Mithilā, similarly expressed his veneration for the Vedāntic principles. The Navyanyāya, as a matter of fact, concerned itself more and'more, as time went on, with the method of grap pling with problems, not so much with the matter and Sriharşa's method of vanquishing opponents consequently appealed to its votaries. An agreeable approach to the opponent's views 13 in ·46 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithila evidence even in the times of Vācaspati, when the conflict with the Buddhist scholars was at its height His application of the epithet Tāyın' of undoubted Buddhist origin to Aksapāda in the second prayer verse of the Tatpargatikā is quite revealing Date of Sriharsa is intimately related to that of Udayana and we shall discuss the problem at this place with up to date materials Sriharsa's date can be fixed within narrow limits from the following evidence Towards the end of the Khan dana (P 1327) he respectfully mentions the name of the ( Kasmirian ) rhetorician Mahımabhatta in the following verse दोप व्यक्तिविवेकेऽमु फपिलोकविलोचने। काव्यमीमासिषु प्राप्तमहिमा महिमाऽऽरत ॥ Mahimabhatta who came after Abhinavagupta ( 1015 A D.) and before Mammata ( c 1100 X D) must have been living about 1050 A D and was probably a native of Kasmira The earliest date that can therefore be assigned to Sriharsa is 1075 4D This dismisses any attempt (cf IA 1913 p 83 ) to place Sriharsa earlier On the other hand the earliest author who quoted from Sriharsa's Naisadhacarita is Mabendra Sūni a disciple of the famous Jaina polymath Hemacandra ( 1088-1172 A D ) In his commentary on the Anekarthasangraha of Hemacandra he quoted many passages of the Naisadha as illustrations, e g under II 18 ( 8 of extracts from the com mentary in Zachariae's edn 1893) II 56 ( 13 ) II 274 (p 43) II 299 (47) II 303 (ibid) II 527 ( 77 ) IV 155 ( 173 ) and IV 339 ( 184 ) This commentary which was published in the name of the author s teacher Hemacandra was written soon after the latter's death (ibid Preface p XIII) Sriharsa, as a native of Bengal and a protege of the king of Kanyakubja could not be supposed to have commanded the respects of foremost scholars of Western India unless he was at least an exact contemporary of Mahendra s guru Hemacandra or shghtly senior to him None of the authorities cited by Mahendra as far as can be ascertained belong to the latter ·Udayana and his Successors 47 half of the 12th century A. P. Śrīharşa must, therefore, have written his works in the second quarter ( 1225.50 A. D. ) of the century during the reign of Govindacandra of Kannauj ( 1104- 54 A, 1.), whose patronage of the poet is definitely stated by a commentator named Gadādhara?. Sriharsa, probably, started his literary career with small tracts like Amarakhandanam ( Madras Ms. No. R 1595 ) and Durupakosa (ibid. R 1607) with a view to enrich his vocabulary. Ksirasvāmın, in his commentary on the Amatkosaa, quotes a line from Śrīharsa sanghāta-mrtyur-marako manimāri ca devata ( II, 6 58). This is evidently from the Durrūpakosa or a similar work of the poet Ksīrasvāmın was quoted by Vardhamāna in the Ganaratnamahodadh ( Eggeling's edn , pp 306 and 430), which was composed in 1140 A D These early tracts of Sriharsa will have, therefore, to be assigned to the first decade of the century in the very beginning of reign of Govindacandra. It is possible that the poet in his very old age enjoyed the patronage of Vijayacandra (1169 A D) and Jayacandra, the son and grandson of Govindacandra But the statement of Rājasekhara Süri that the poet wrote in the reign of the latter prince need not be taken as literally true Rājasekhara could not correctly record the name and relation of Jayacandra in the Prabandhakosa. Besides the Narsadha and the Khandana, Sriharsa is known to have written many more works, mentioned by himself at the end of the several cantos of his poem. One of them is the Sthairyavicāra mentioned at the end of Canto IV of the Naişadha It appears that the editor of a Vedānta work Brahmaud abharanam (published at Kumbakonam ) had access to copies of this long lost work, from which he cited in the short introduction the following important (introductory ) verse 1 SR Bhandarkara Rep of a Second Tour in search of Sans Mss, 1907, pp 43 & 87 88 इति ह धूयते अराणस्या गोविन्दचन्द्रो नाम राजा बभूव तस्य सभाया यहव पण्डिता' बन तेषु च सर्वेषु भाइर्ष पर्णन्मण्डन य कृतवान् अपहनम् । 2 Oka's ed ,p 101 , Trivandrum ed , Part II, p 316 ·48 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithilā श्रीहर्पकृतौ स्थैर्यविचारप्रकरणे, तन्नदुर्यन्त्रमन्त्रैरपि बुधजनवागाधयोधापमृत्योः कृत्योद्यत्रधारापरपतरमतेगुमनाम्न शरारो.। चेष्टाभिष्टम्भकाना प्रतिविवुधसभोत्सातत्रध्वजाना- माजानज्ञानभाजा विभवमभिदघे चिद्विलासाख्यभूम्नाम् ।। Śriharsa herein glorifies the powers of one Cidvilāsa, who frustrated the black acts of a Tantrika named Gupta Cidvilāsa was by tradition the pontiff of the Kāmakoți shrine of Kāñci and his encounter with, and the subsequent conversion at his hands of the great Khandanahāra is recorded in a work named पुण्यश्लोक्मञ्जरी also cited in the same introduction (cf. सण्डखण्ड- मखण्ड खण्डनदाद्यौदएड्यमुद्दण्डवाग् ) The traditional date of Cudvilāsa, according to the records of the shrine, is 4268 4301 of the Kali era (1167 1200 An), which is about half a century too late for Sriharsa. Sriharsa also wrote a work named Sivafaktısıddhı (see canto XVIII) This book also was accessible to the above editor, who quoted the following stanza from it - तेनैवान्यनापि, क्षोणीस्त्रीमणिरत्रकाश्चिविकचत्काञ्चीपदोद्यद्रस- श्रीकामासनपासवासितमहासत्वोऽप्यसत्वच्यय । प्रस्फूर्जाच्चदचिद्वालवदुमासोमार्धचूडालयो- रैक्योक्ताविह भारती मदयता श्रीचिद्विलासो मम ॥ Here again Cıdvılāsa of the Kāmakotı shrine of Kañci is referred to in glowing terms and invoked for inspiration in the book which had for its subject the identity of Siva and Saktı The editor identifies this Cidvilāsa with Advaitānanda, the author of the Brahmaındyabharanam But the identity seems to be quite unwarranted Whether this Cidvilāsa is to be identified with Sriharsa's Guravah' cited by him in Khandana ( Chowkh ed, p 1316 ) cannot be determined at the present state of our knowledge ·49 Udayana and his Successors Among the three royal panegyrics written by Śrīharşa, all of them unfortunately remaining undiscovered, the Vyjayapra- Bastı ( mentioned at the end of canto V) was upon Vijayacandra, the son of his patron Govindacandra of Kanauj. We quote m support the gloss of one of the oldest commentators on the Naisadha named Śrivatseśvara from a very old palmleaf copy (stopping at Canto XI) preserved in the V R. Museum, Rajshahi (Ms. No 809 ) विजयचन्द्रस्य या प्रशस्ति कविना कृता, तत्र राज्ञो जीवितत्वाद्वा गौरवाद्वा श्रीशब्द. प्रयुज्यते। According to another commentator Gopinātha the Vijayaprasasti was a panegyric of the Gauda king Vijayasena (L 1639 fastadaily) But this seems hardly possible as Sriharsa wrote a separate Gaudorvifakulaprašasti (Canto VII), which was more likely in praise of the Sena kings Śrıharşa's connection with the court of Vijayasena however, may be taken as a fact. His connection with another royal court is proved by another panegyric the Chindaprašast: (Canto XVII ). But the Amavavarnana ( Canto IX) was not a royal panegyric ( 'praśastı'), as is sometimes interpreted by scholars, it must have been a small lyric poem describing the ocean ( cf Śrīvatsa's note संदृब्धं सन्दर्भीकृत प्रन्थितमिति यावत् अर्णवस्य वर्णन येन) Now we are confronted with the question--what length of time intervened between Udayana and Sriharsa As early as 1884 A, D, M. M. Vindhyeśvariprasāda discovered a definite answer to the question, which seems to have escaped the notice of scholars On the strength of a Naisadhatıkā by one Bhagiratha he stated that Sriharsa's father Śrīhira had academic contest with Udayana In other words Udayana was older than Sriharşa þy only one generation (vide Introd to Varśesikan. daršana, Śrāvana 1941 V, S, p. 26) Unfortunately the actua} words of the commentator were not quoted. The commentary Imed Gudhārthadipika is by far the most extensive ever ·50 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithila written on the Naişadha ; a fragment of it dated 1629 Saka (probably revised by the commentator himself) is now preserved in the Sarasvati-Bhavana (vide Introd. to the Tarkikarakşđ. pp. 30-31 ). The colophon proves that Bhagiratha wrote it at the court of Rājā Jñānachandra of Kūrmāchala, (1698-1708 A.D.) under whom and under whose son Jagaccandra ( 1708-20 A, D.) he wrote several other works. At the end of Canto I of this *Bhägirathi commentary there is a rushing flow of most fanciful etymologies of the names of Sriharșa and his parents ( fol. 83 ). One such etymology of the name Srihira, who was the father of Sriharsa, runs :- यद्वा हि निश्चयेन ईते उदयनाचार्यात्स्वयं कंपते होरः। सुपसुपेति समासः । श्रिया युक्तो हीरः श्रीहीरः । शाकपाथिवादिः । ईर् गती Hi Another etymology, equally fanciful, of the name Sriharsa runs : यद्वा हर्पते लिपति पित्रोराज्ञया उदयनाचार्यस्य पराभवकरणे प्रीतिमान् भवति हर्पः। हर्प स्नेहने । पचाद्यच् ।...Bhagiratha incidentally Tecords here two bits of an important tradition that Udayana defeated Srihira in the debate and Sriharsa avenged the defeat at the request of his parents. Bhagiratha is a very recent author ; he evidently derived his information from some of the many earlier commentaries consulted by him. One of the earliest and most learned scholiasts of the Naişadha was Cāņdū Pandita, whose commentary was composed in 1353 V. S.(i. e. 1296-97 A, D.). At the very commencement Candū Pandıta categorically stated that Udayana in a conquering campaign challenged Sriharşa's father in a debate and defeated him and Śriharşa, as a faithful son, avenged the defeat by meeting Udayana's arguments in the Khandana. The exact words of Cāņdū Pandita are : प्रथमं तावत् कविविजिगीषुकथायां स्वपितुः परिभावकम् उदयनम् अत्यमर्पणतया कटातयन् तग्रन्थमन्थीन् उ(द)ग्रन्थयितुं खएडनं प्रारिप्सु...मानसम् एकतानताम् आनिनाय ।। (Des. Cat. of Mss, B. O. R. I., Poona, Vol. XIII, Pt. I, D. 481 ) It should be carefully noticed that both Cāņdū Pan- ·Udayana and his Successors H3372 51 dita and Bhagiratha ( who might have based his etymological speculation on the words of the former ) mention the fact of Udayana's personal conflict with Sriharşa's father directly without the least suspicion about its veracity. But unlike Bhagiratha Cāndū Pandita is more definite about the manner of Śrīharşa's revenge, which took the form of a literary retort instead of a personal contest. It is interesting to note farther that, according to Candū Pandıta, Sriharşa's greatest ambition in life was to write this great Refutation and he acquired all his talents ( through devotions of the mystic Cintamanı-mantra ) with that end in view. It is substantially proved in our opinion by the fact that in his 'very angry' mood Śriharșa nowhere refers to Udayana by name in the Khandana. Sriharşa's conflict with Udayana was a common tradition current in the Indian seminaries, The editor of the Khandana with Sarkari has recorded a tradition that Śrīharsa debated directly with Udayana, who lived to answer Śrīharsa's arguments in the Atmatattvaviveka !! ( introd., pp. 6-7). These floating traditions have little historical value, but the definite incident of Śrīharşa's father Śrihīra's defeat at the hands of Udayana recorded in a commentary of the Naişadha within a century and a half from Sriharsa and exactly corroborated in later commentaries forms the kernel of truth behind them all. It is possible to fix roughly the time of this historic debate between Udayana and Srihira. It could never have taken place before 1050 A.D. and probably took place in the decade 1075-85 s.r., when Sriharsa was a mere boy. DATE OF U DAYANA: Under the above computation Udayana's date of birth would fall about 1025 8.D. and his period of activity would cover the last half of the century ( 1050-1100 A.D.). This is confirmed by a large volume of evidence which is summarised below. (1) Udayana's feeling of great diffidence expressed at the commencement of the Pariſuddhi, which was one of ·S2 History of Navya-Nyaya in Mithilā his last works, proves that he was removed by some length of time from Vācaspati, who, as we have shown before, had been quoted and sometimes criticised by Udayana's teacher Śrivatsa. This feeling of great and almost aweful reverence for Vācaspati persists throughout the Pariſuddhi and we quote below two magnificent verses from the unpublished portion of the book. At the end of the Pramāņa section Udayana writes : (fol. 710 of the Rotograph preserved in the Inititute) स्वच्छाः स्वभावशुचयोऽतिशयेन गुन्यो दुर्बन्धदुर्धरदुरामहदुःसभाव्याः । टोकागिरो विपदपारदविग्रुपो वा येषां वरो ननु वशे जगदेव तेपाम् ॥ At the end of I, ïi we find (fol. 1036 ) अनभ्यासज्ञेयात् श्रुतिवियरगर्भेषु लघुतः मुखपाह्यान्मन्दैः कुसुमसुकुमारात् प्रथमतः । मन श्रीमद्वाचस्पतिवचनविन्यासविसरात् घसत्यद्याप्येतन्मुरिव मुहुर्निवृतमपि ।। ( The reading in the Tanjore copy is somewhat corrupt : Cat., p. 4482.) It may be surmised, therefore, that Udayana was about three generations later than Vācaspati, whose date has been fixed by us as the latter half of the 10th century A.1). At the present state of our knowledge it is impossible to refer the date 898 of Vācaspati's Nyāyasūcnibandha to the Vikrama era and that ſaka date (corresponding to 976-77 s.r.) falls about a century before the flourishing period of Udayana under the above scheme. (2) Udayana's date is most intimately related to that of Jñānasri, who was directly controverted by him in his very first work, Atmatattvaviveka. And the date of Jñānaśrī is fixed beyond any dispute in the Tibetan works. He was an exact contemporary of Dipankara śrijñāna, surnamed Atīša. The latter's life, based on contemporary sources, was dis- ·Udayana and his Successors 53 .covered by S. C. Das in Tibet ; it was 'printed' 'in Tibet in the year called dog about the year 1250 A.D.' (Journ. Buddhist Text Society, I. i., 1893, p. 7 fn.). According to the Southern System of BỊhaspati Cycle introduced in Tibet about the year 1026 A.D. the year Sādhāraṇa (No. 44 ) is named Iron-dog in Tibetan (s. C. Das : Tibetan Grammar, 1915, App. V, pp. 9-10 ) and it fell exactly in the year 1250 A. D. Atisa ( who was born not in 980 A, D, but in 982-3 A. D.) left for Tibetan at the age of 59 in March 1041 A. D. (I H. Q., VI, p. 159). Just three years before (i. e in 1038 A. n.) the king of Tibet sent Nag-tsho (Vinayadhara ) to Magadha for bringing Atīša ; the elaborate account of his mission, which has been published, bears on the face of it a stamp of veracity so rare in ordinary works of the type. The Tibetan learnt on arrival that among the eminent Pandits under Atiśa one of the foremost was Ratnakīrti. In a grand assembly at Vikramaśīlā occurring soon after the Tibetan saw among others two teachers of Atīša viz. Vidyākokila and Naropānta (1. c. p. 18). Atīša consulted oracles in various places and at Vajrāsana and acted according to the instructions of 'Ācārya Jñānaści' (p 20). Sometime after (i. e. in 1039 A. D. ) Naropānta came on his last visit to Vikramaśīlā; "he leaned on the right arm of Atīsa while Jõānasrimitra helped him with his left arm". (p. 21 ) Naropānta died soon after in the South. This definitely proves that Atiśa and Jñānaśrī were the two towering figures of Vikramaśīlā at that time, though both of them were younger in age to Naropānta. Jñānaśrı was then evidently retired, succeeded by his distinguished pupil Ratnakirti. Like Atiśa he was presumably living still in 1050 A. D. and, as we have stated before, Udayana probably wrote the Atmatattvaviveka about this time (say within 1050-60 A, 1), ) when Jñānaśti was still alive. 1. The date of Atiśa's starting for Tibet, which exactly coincided with the king Nayapala's accession to the throne, is generally taken as 1038 A. D, that is three years earlier than the date we have given ( Vidyabhusana, l. c., p. 520) This date has been practically accepted in the ·54 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithila (3) Udayana on the one hand was one full generation (i. e. about 40 years ) later than Jñānaśri and on the other senior to Sriharşa by the same period of time and both these pieces of evidence happilly combine to settle his date within the last three quarters of the 11th century ( 1025-1100 ) A. D. as we have stated above Hist. of Bengal ( Vol I, p 177—where Nayapāla's reign starts from 1038 AD) Before Atiśa started for Tibet there was a fight between Nayapāla and Karna ( 'king of the Western countries'), this could not have taken place in 1038 A D when Karna was not yet on the throne The confusion is due to the fact that the Bțhaspatı cycle is current in two different bystems--the Prabhavādi (called the Southern system) and the Vijayādı (called the Northern system) The former and not the latter was introduced in Tibet (SC Das Tibetan Grammar, p xv & Bk 1.p 48 ) and the year Vikrama, when Atisa left for Tibet according to the Tibetan accounts, fell in 1038 A D according to the latter system, while it fell in 104C-41 A, D under the former system, which 13 still current in Tibet A similar confusion arose in computing the birth-date of Atiśa, which was in the Tibetan year Tsu tta (Water-horse) corresponding to the Chitrabhānu of the Brhaspati cycle, under the Southern system that year fell in 982-83 A D. and not in 980 A.D "Jñanaśri Mitra of Gauda” was a gatekeeper at Vikramasila under Canaka ( Vidyabhusana, p 520 ) but the Tibetan historians Tāranātha and Sumpo mention five mythical Pāla kings (including Canaka ) between Mahipala and Nayapāla. Unlike them the biographer of Atiśa correctly stated that Atiśa became High priest under Mahipāla (p. 11 ), the patron evidently of Jñanaśri also.

·CHAPTER II PRE-GANGEŚA WRITERS SRILATI ABDĀCĀKTA 13 the author of the Nyayallavati, one of the few orginal classics of the Navyanyāya, which has been happily published with three commentaries (Chowkh. ed, 1934, pp. 864 ) At the very, outset we should mention that the name of the author was Śruvallabha and not Vallabha. Vädindra calls hun by that name ( Rasasāra, p 92), while in the Chitsukhtikā he is invariably cited under the name of Śrīvallabha ( Bombay ed., 1915 PP 196 198, 230, 298-99 &c. more than a dozen times) and not even once as Vallabha. Rājasekhara in his commentary on the Kandali confused the name ( Peterson's Report, 1887, p. 273 eff g signed at faran श्रीनसाचार्यों ववन्ध ) and mistook the book as a commentary on the Bhăşsa, but he knew that the name of the author began with a 'Sri'. Gunaratna ( 1409 A.D. ) also followed Rājśekhara, but he described the book correctly (lc p 282 aadress sittairerate ) The Lilāvati, as the book is commonly known, covers the same grounds as the Prasastapādabhāsya, which be it known, was invariably called at the end of the six chapters of the book by the commentator Sridhara by the Correct and significant name Padārthapraveśa' (Kandali, pp. 94, 289, 311, 321, 324 & 330) In other words the (elaboration of the six categories of the Valsesika system which became the prime function of the Varšestka scholars ever since Praśastapāda to the detriment of the original Kanādasūtras, formed the main thesis of Śrivallabha, the first chapter of his book named (Padartha-) Vibhāgaparıccheda forming its great bulk (up to p. 731 of the Chowkh, ed ). Śrivallabha, however, displayed his originality by adding three small chapters at the end respectively elaborating Differance of properties (Vaidharmya ), Community of properties (Sadharmya ) and Operation (Prakriyā). The whole book is ·56 History of Navya-Nyaya in Mithila divided besides into 75 separate sections falling under the four chapters. Some of these sections including the whole chapter on Operation mark a departure from the doctrines of the original Sūtrakāra and a distinct tendency towards fusion with the Njāya. As a matter of fact, in the second introductory verse Srivallabha, with an excellent pun, describes Lady Līlāvati (the actual name of his own wife according to Vardhamāna and other scholiasts) as a skilful mistress in the premises of the Science of Reasoning (सान्वीतानयवेश्मकर्मकुशला strapazitetaat) This proves that according to śrivallabha the Vaišesika system as well as the Nyāya system both come under the term 'Anvikşıki. There have been borrowings from each other. For instance, Abhāva ( negation ) has been accepted as a separate category into the Vaiseșika from the Nyāya, just as the mental organ is introduced into the latter from the former. This, says Srivallabha (pp. 35-6, read with Vardhamāna), does not conflict with the individuality of the two systems. The section on Abhāva (pp. 544-79 ) is immediately followed in the Lilavati by the section on Apavarga ( Emancipation, pp. 580-98 ), both coming under the category of Guna. The Lilavati was by far the best Vaišeşıka treatise in the medieval period, and the most intricate one It outshone the more or less elementary treatises of Sarvadeva (whose Promāņumanjari, though popular, is only a booklet of 16 pages ), Vādiyāgīśvara (author of the Mānamanohara, not yet published)' and Sivăditya Mośra Like the works of Udayana on the one hand and that of Gangeśa on the other the intricacy of the Lilāvati attracted the best intellects of Mithila even before the times of Gangesa and it enjoyed the privilege of being the only post-Udayana work before Gangesa to rank among the immortal classics of Neo-Logic. The authorities cited in it are listed below alphabetically; Indra, a pre-Pāṇinian grammarian ( 625 ) ·Srivallabhācārya 57 Udayana în Tātparyaſuddh (p 445) the passage cited is interesting, it accords Udayana's fling at the scholars of Bengal for their incorrect pronunciation of the three sıbılants still Persisting in Bengal (शुक्लादिव्यावृत्तिनिबन्धनस्तु नीलादिव्यवहार शपयोरिव सव्यवहारो गोडानाम् "इत्यादि तात्पर्यशुद्धावुदयन । Kıranāvalıkāra (pp 399-400, 533 34 & 823). In the first two cases Udayana is criticised and rather violently ( SETTITARBEITTHET4172) in the second place, where Udayana's novel arguments against the admissibility of Upamāna as a means of valid knowledge are cited at length Carakācārya ( 816) Tikā (ie Kiranavalı, pp 38 & 39 ) The term is invariably applied to the Tātparyatika of Vācaspatı, but Śrivallabha as a protagonist of the Vaišesika in a manner paid his respects to Udayana by using the term for the Kıranavalı Instead Tutātıta (1 e. Kumārıla) mentioned along with Kirti, the Buddhist authority ( 480) Tattvakaumudi of Vācaspatı (p. 533 ) cited with approval on the refutation of Upamāna, Bhāsarvajña (p. 405) the passage is cited as very important यत्तु भासर्वशीय मतं पूर्वोत्पन्नत्व परत्वं पश्चादुत्पन्नत्वमपरत्वमिति तत् कणभक्ष- पक्षानमामानविजृम्भितम् । पूर्वपश्चाद्भावस्य परत्वापरत्वातिरिक्तस्य निर्वक्तुमशक्यत्वात्। Bhusana (1 e Nyāyabhūsana of Bhāsarvajña, pp 283, 357, 452, & 856) All the passages are important and should be carefully discussed We need only refer to one line of Srivallabha, which has been noticed by many scholars. af Thal- म्नातवा भासर्वज्ञस्य यदियमाचायमप्यवमन्यते । तथा च तदनुयायिनस्तात्पर्याचार्यस्य THESE-a predial (358 ). Padmanābha in his Anunaya commentary (Adyar Ms, P 143 of a transcript with the present writer) explains आचार्य द्वित्वस्वीकार करणादम् । तदनुयायिनः ·+ 58 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithilā कणादमचाभिज्ञस्य । We should better take Prasastapāda as the Acārya in this passage. It should be stated that Padmanăbha here mistook Bhāsarvajña and Bhūsana as different persons. The passage clearly indicates that according to śrivallabha Vācaspati ( Tātparyatika, p. 277 ) came after Bhäsarvajña. Paramakocakāra (p. 675. A Faiquail forachte sfa 40- कोषकारवचनात् ।) Mahāyrata (p. 647), an ancient Acārya. Vyomācārya (p. 834 . vide V3cmavati, p. 450 ). It should, moreover, be noticed that śrivallabha never refers to Udayana by the honorific title Ācārya almost universally attributed to him. To him Vācaspati was the 'Ācārya' (p. 533 ), the Tātparyācărya (p. 353 ) and the 'Paramanyāyācārya' (p. 762) Like Udayana Śrivallabha was a powerful writer. His intricate argumentative style is interspersed with elegant passages here and there. We may refer to the splendid passages on pp. 140, 144 and 648 as instances Śrivallabha undoubtedly belonged to Mithilā In the first place from the earliest times it was commented upon by Maithila scholars of the front rank lıke Prabhākara, Vardhamāna and Vateśvara and when Vardhamāna categorically states that in the first prayer verse and the second introductory verse the author had respectively referred through double entendre to his father Purusottama and his beloved wife Lilāvatī, there is not the remotest chance that the pedigree of a 'foreign' author could come within his knowledge so directly. Only a Maithila scholar's family details could be recorded by Vardhamāna in that manner. In the second place, Srivallabha incidentally refers to a reigning monarch in the following elegant passage - For another suggestion vide Tātparyācārya-JAS, Vol XVII, No 3 p 243 1 ·Śruvallabhācārya 59 'यदि च गगनमात्मा वान्यधर्मेणान्यमवच्छिन्द्यात् काश्मोरवर्तिना कुड्डुमरागेण कार्णाटचक्रवति(ललना करकमलवच्छिन्द्यात् । (p. 290 ; repeated by Vardhamāna in his commentary on the passage p 291 ) The passage is cited in the Nyājamuktāvali, a commentary on Udayana's Lakşanăvali by ſesa ſārangadhara (Varanası ed , a p 41), who made it more elegant by adding the word awar. It is also reproduced in the Citsukhi (p 322 ) and in the Upaskāra of Sankara Miśra ( under II 1 10) in a modified form. It was evidently inspired by a passage of the Kıranāval in the same section of Kāla (Varanası ed , p. 116 94991 CITATA नीलेन पाटलिपुत्रस्थितस्य स्फटिकमणेरुपरजनप्रसगात् । cf Upaskara on II. 11. 6). Cinnabhatta localised it by mentioning Vijayanagari and Virūpāksa instead (p. 228) We need hardly state here that Mithilā was under the rule of a 'Kārnāta' dynasty for two centuries and a half (from about 1100 to 1350 AD.), which was the most glorious period in the cultural and social history of Mithilā. The most illustrious among the kings of the dynasty was its founder Nānyadeva ( 1094 1147 A.D.) If the Bhu parikramana (fol 18b ) and the Purusaparıksā of Vidyāpatı are to be believed this monarch of the Kārnāta famıly' (Aula- FortT) was living still in the reign of Jayacandra of Kanau, (vide yake #277). There is hardly any doubt that Śrivallabha was referring to this monarch of Mithilā in the above passage It should be carefuly noticed that the reference is to a 'Kārmāta' family and not to a 'Karnāta' country. In the following interesting example of intuition' (141) Srivallabha refers again to a local monarch, who was not, how ever, a 'Cakravartın' (overlord) but only a 'Nrpatı” -(p 629) यथा चा स्वेच्छास्मृतपदार्थसाथै भवति-शालिगह्नो नृपतिरिदानी शृङ्गारसरमीतीरे देव्या लीलावत्या सह ललितमधुरं सद्गीतकमनुष्ठनीति ज्ञानम् । न चैप विपर्ययः संवादात्। [वर्द्धमानप्रकाश-आर्पज्ञानोदाहरणान्तरमाद, यथावेति ] That this is a reference to a living monarch is proved by the author's assertion that the incident known through intuition tallied with. facts. Sankara Miśra explains that it is an example of know- ·60 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithilā ledge at a distance in position, not in time. (ib, p. 629 देशविप्रकर्षण उदाहरति). Srivallabha frequently mentions Vārānasi ( pp. 140, 399- 400 ) with which he was apparently quite familiar In the first mention (p. 140 ) he seems to have recorded his personal experience that a pupil's brain improves sweetly from sips of Gangã water at Vārānasi after tasting myrobalan He must then have studied at Vārānasi and from early times Maithila students had kept up communication with that great centre of Indian culture and religion DATE OF ŚRIVALLABIA As we have stated above Śrivalla bha has not given the well known epithet 'Ucarya' to Udayana, from whom he was not much removed in time On pp. 37 40 he has cited the views of a scholar, partly of the same school, with whom however, he disagrees, who quoted the Tika (1 e. the Kıranävali vnde Guna part, p. 184, Rasasāra, p 22 and Gunaprakaśa p 48) in his support We should, therefore, place him about two generations after Udayana in the second quarter of the 12th century a. D late in the reign of Nanyadeva. His definition of Vyāptı, as is well known, is cited and refuted by Gangeśa in the section on Pūrvapaksa (B I ed, p. 83 and Lilavati, pp 496) But he was not cited anywhere by Śrī harsa, who was his exact contemporary On the other hand, a pre Gangesa scholar of Mithtlā named Prabhākaropādhyāya commented on his work perhaps for the first time Many authors of the 13th century A D. like Vādîndra and Citsukha, not belonging to Mithilă, have quoted him respectfully by It is impossible, therefore, to place him after 1175 A, D It should be mentioned here that Pratyagrupa, commentator of Citsukha in one place (Citsukhi, Nirn ed., p. 326 ) refers to the Lilavati as a 'recent book Pratyagrúpa's date is about 1350 AD. From the following quotation which we traced in Vardhamāna's Anviksānayatattuabodha it is gathered that . name ·Sivāditya Miśra 61 Besides the Lilavati śrívallabha wrote a commentary on the 5th chapter of the Nyāyasūtra, the most intricate part of the system. Many other scholars including Udayana tackled the -chapter separately. अत्र श्रीवल्लभः एवं विशेषविवक्षायां विपर्ययकारणाद्विपर्ययापादनं जात्यन्तरं स्यात् । सन्ति च सादृश्यज्ञानारोप्यस्मरणविशेषादर्शनानि । तस्मात्संशयपदमसत्य- चेदनोपलक्षणम् । तेन निर्णयकारणोपक्षेपे मिथ्याज्ञानकारणेन प्रत्ययस्थानमप्रमित- समः।। (under V. 1 14 ) Vardhamāna has referred to this View of Srivallabha also in the Pariſıştaprakasa (p. 38 ) under the caption केचिदाहु. Moreover, it is likely that Srivallabha wrote a separate tract named Isvarasiddhi cited by himself (p. 406 यथा चैतत्तथास्माभिरपि ईश्वरसिद्धावुक्तम् , for, the reference does not seem to be to the small section on Iśvara in the Lilāvati (pp. 239-62 ), where the relevant topic is not traceable. Siv DITYA MISLA The name of this great author of various works on the Nyāya-Vaiseșika now lives through his elementary treatise Saptapadarthi, which has long been published with various commentaries. Though all his polemical works have perished, his prayer at the end of the Saptapadārthi has been luckily fulfilled सप्तद्वीपा धरा यावद् यावत् सप्त धराधराः। तावत् सप्तपदार्थीयमस्तु वस्तुप्रकाशिनी ।। Gangeśa, who very rarely names his predecessors, made an exception in the case of śivāditya, who is cited by name in the section on Nirvikalpa (Prataka part, B. L. ed.,p 830): the following verse in the passage has been wrongly printed as prose व्यावर्तनीयमधितिष्ठति यद्धि साक्षा- देवहिरोषणमतो विपरीवमन्यत्।

·History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithila दण्डी पुमानिति विशेपणमन दण्डः पुंसो न जातिरनुदण्डमसौ च तस्य । fa ( 16., p. 829) It may be taken as a typical illustration of the style and consummate scholarship of śivāditya exhibited in his lost works which seem to have been both in prose and verse. In the present case Šivāditya was cited by Gangeśa only to be refuted Gangeśa's own views on the intricate point, the definition and function of Višeşana and Upalaksana, were based on a passage of Udayana (from the Kıranăvali, pp 201- 2) respectfully quoted and explained by hım (pp 834 5 ) Among the lost works of śivāditya the Laksanamāla, based on Mahāvidyā syllogism (vrde Citsukhitikā, pp. 180-81 ), was probably his masterpiece. We have stated before that the recently published work of that name, wrongly ascribed to him is really a long lost work of Udayana Not one single sentence of Sıvāditya, cited by different authorities can be traced in it. Śivāditya's array of intricate definitions, which earned for him the epithet of a 'follower of the new crooked path' was assailed by Vādīndra (Mahāvidyāvidambana, pp 74, 79, 109 & 117) and more frequently by Citsukha (vide Citsukhitīkā pp 180, 183, 192-3, 195, 200, 237, 295 6, 309, 323 & 327 8 ) in the second chapter of the Tattvapradipika Among these dozen quotations one (p 237 ) is particularly important Citsukha refers to it as a 'crooked course of the 'modern', which is really an elaboration of Udayana's words and anonymously quoted by Gangesa in the very beginning of the Upādhivāda. It should be noticed that this very passage of śivāditya is ascribed by Anandapūrna to Nārāyana Sarvajña (q. v.). None of these definitions are traceable in the Saptapadārth A very small tract of Sivāditya named Hetukhandana has been discovered Introd to Mahavidyāvidambana, p XIX), ·इत्याहुः। śivāditya Mušra 63 In it there are references to two lost works of ſıvadıtya. 'Upadhvārtıka' and 'Arthāpattwärtıka and to an unknown author of a certain 'Mayanandani' (fol. 8). Probably Śıvāditya had written a comprehensive work with the appelative 'Vārtıka', the above-mentioned works forming two of its parts Besides the long quotation by Gangesa ( Pratyakşa, pp. 829-30), many other passages of Śıvāditya, all of them intricate and learned, are found in various works. We quote some of them below. Vardhamāna in his Tattuabodha under V 1. 37 writes शिवादित्यमिश्रास्तु प्रयत्नकार्यत्वानेकत्वादिनानेन दृष्टान्तानेकत्वमुक्तम् । तथा च साध्यत्वेनैव हेतुना दृष्टान्त[न्तिरेणानिष्टापादनं कार्यसमः । (fol. 62b ) this seems to imply that like Udayana and many other scholars, śivāditya had written a separate commentary on the fifth chapter of Gautama. Jānakinātha in his Nyaya. siddhāntamañjari refers to an advanced view of Sivāditya thus (Chowkh ed, with Yādava's commentary, p. 9) --ftfery. मिश्रारतु करणाद्याकारानुगतमते करणत्वादिकमखण्डोपाधिरूपसामान्यमझीचक्रुः । Jānakinātha has quoted this same view of Sivāditya at the end of the Anavikşıkitattvavivarana (fol. 166b ). This classification of Upādhi into two classes, Sakhanda and Akhanda, already referred to by Gangesa ( Pratyaksa, p 842), has been variously ascribed to different scholars. Among Nyāya scholars Sıvāditya seems to be the earliest. In the Saptapadārthhe devides Śāmānya (Universals ) into two classes Jātı and Upādhi perhaps for the first time. Among other original views of śivāditya we should mention his definition of Darkness ( Saptapadārthi, p 84 TITA- नोलरूपोऽभावोऽन्धकारः) which is an adaptation of the famous views of the Kandali. Like Bhāsarvajña he accepts agafaa as a separate class of Hetvābhāsa, which according to him is sixfold Against all Vašeşıka views he enumerates an eleventh 'quarter' (Dik) named 'Raudri. He enumerates a third variety of Sāmānya 'Parāpara'. His predilection for the Kandali ·64 History of Navya-Nyaya in Mithila is again manifested in his admitting Citrarasa' (p. 26). Balabhadra, the commentator, remarks Farruhaa (p. 149 ). Śsvāditya's date can be easily fixed as the middle of the 12th century 4, 1). As he was controverted by the eminent scholar of South India, Vadindra, who flourished in the reign of the famous Yadava king Singhana ( 1210 47 4. D. ) he cannot be brought down further than 1175 A D He certainly came after Udayana and was one of the bright stars in the galaxy of great scholars who flourished about 1150 2 D-Srivallabha, Sriharsa, Vādıvāgīśvara and others. KESALA MIŠKA author the Tarkabhāsa, an elementary treatise of Nyāya Vaiśesika doctrines, which is more or less popular throughout India It is divided into two broad divisions—Pramāna and Prameya. It is not certain if he belonged to Mithilā As a matter of fact among its numerous commentators (in Dr. Bhandarkar's ed , pp xix xx the list contains 28 names ), there is only one Gopinātha who belonged to Mithilā but his commentary circulated not in Mithilā at all but in South India In the most flourishing period of advanced studies on Navyanyāya in Mithilā and Bengal the smaller and elementary works never attracted scholars and they became extinct or what is more surprising some of them created excel-- lent fields elsewhere There is a notable instance in the Nyāya. siddhantamañjarı of Jānakinātha which was composed at Navadvípa and completely forgotten there though it was studied at Varānası and elsewhere for a long time We believe the Tarkabhāsā similarly was driven out of Mithilā and became popular in Varānasi from where it circulated in other parts of India. Our reasons for regarding Keśava as a Maithila are the following (1) The title Miśra is found in the colophon of the Tarkabhāsā in all manuscripts and that, prima facie points to Mithilā as the author's birth place (2) Keśava was well-read in the works of Udayana. At the beginning of his work he ·Keśava Miśra 65 started with Udayana's definition of Pramā (2272igua taken from the Kusumāñjal IV 1 ) and towards the end cited his definition of the fallacy 'Asiddhi' (also taken exactly from the Kusumāñjal III. p 39 ) mentioning his name. Moreover, in the latter case Keśava attempts to meet in his own way the objection that Udayana's definition is open to the charge of overlapping. Keśava's predilection for Udayana might be taken as a good pointer to his place of origin. (3) According to Peterson (Cat. of Ulwar Mss, 1892, p 28 ) the splendid Mss Library of the Maharaja of Alwar preseves a copy ( Ms No. 653) of a commentary on the Tarkabhāsã by Vardhamana named Tarkaprakāśa and a sub-commentary on the same by Rucıdatta We failed to get any further information on these two unique manuscripts If they have been correctly described by Peterson it would be a convincing proof that Keśava belonged to Mithila For, a superior Maithila scholar of the position of Vardhamāna could not be supposed to have wielded his masterly pen upon an elementary work of foreign' origin Date of Keśava Miśra We are of opinion that Keśava belonged to the middle of the 12th century I 0. His direct mention of Udayana and the marked predilection for his views point to the same conclusion. Ile must have preceded Gangesa by a length of time For, Cinnabhatta ( late in the 14th century A. D.) commented on it at Vijayanagarī the great cultural centre of South India where Keśava's work must have circulated long ago Cinnabhatta it should be noted himself belonged to a very distinguished family and was quite unaware of Gangesa Vardhamāna again regarded the Lilavati and the Khandana, both written in the middle of the 12th century A D., as the latest classics for him to adorn with masterly commentaries As Keśava also seems to have attracted his pen, he cannot be later in date Kesava is unaware of the great Khandanakāra, who was probably his contemporary His early date is corroborated by the fact that his work bristles with a large ·66 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithilā number of various readings. According to Cinnabhațţa, (p. 137) and following him Višvakarmā (p. 42 ), Keśava has controverted the views of the Kandalíkāra (vide Kandali, p. 206 ) in his treatment of Anumāna. He has similarly rejected the Kandali's views on the nature of gold (which in Nyāya falls under the substance 'light') preferring Udayana's opinion on the point (vide Cinnabhatta, p. 214). Keśava, therefore, belongs to an early period, when Udayana's controversy with Sridhara was still a current topic. Dr. Bhandarkar (in his Introd., p. xxiii) suspected that Keśava Bhaſta, author of the Tarkadipikā upon the Tarkabhāşa "may be the same as Keśava Miśra. Keśava Bhatta, however, of the Laugākși family was a much later scholar of Vārānasi. He commented also on Udayana's Lakşanavali ( transcript at Mithilā Institute from Baroda ) and on the Saptapadārthipadārthacandrika (Tanjore Cat., pp. 4458-59). This latter Tıppaņi was composed in 1521 śaka ( 1599 A. IV.: इन्दुनेत्रशरभूमिते The corresponding correctly to the year Vikārin, according to the Southern system of the BỊhaspati cycle ). MABĀMABOPĀDUYĀYA CINDRA : One of the authors who is referred to anonymously by Gangeśa. In the śabdamanipariksa (of Vāsudeva Sārvabhauma) of which a unique manuscript is now preserved in the Sarasvatī-Bhavana, Vārānasi, ( foll. 23-143 dated 1503 Saka, the copy belonged to the famous M. M. Vidyānivāsa ) we discovered the follow- Ing passage : (fol. 118) अयं घ सिद्धान्तविरोधः प्रभाकरं प्रति, न तु मिश्र नाश्वानामेवात्र देवतात्वास्वीकारात् । तन्मतं तु वक्ष्यमाण चन्द्र राधान्तदूपणेनैव दूषितमित्युपेक्षितम् । (compare Rucidatta's Šabdamaniprakaſa, the Pandit, VIII, p. 132 ). There is another quotation from Candra in the same work (fol. 70a): sava il as for fi न फारणं जातिविषयत्वेन शक्तिशानादेव व्यकिधीसंभवात्तयोरेकधीवेद्यत्वनियमा- fafa Al Candeśvara (in Kętyaratnakara, p. 82 ) calls him a Tarere. Two works of this scholar have been ·Mahāmahopădhyāya Candra 67 discovered, which at one time exercised a great influence among dialecticians of Eastern India. One of it, the Amitabindu exists in a very incorrect copy in the Asiatic Society ( foll, 49 ), the colophon running : इति श्रीमहामहोपाध्याय-श्रीचन्द्रकृती अमृतविन्दुर्नाम TU HI It deals with 'Vidhi' and 'Apūrva' exclussively and proves its affiliation by quoting only from the Nibandhana (fol. 36b & 48a-b), Vivarana ( 23a, 360 & 486, both of Prabhākara himself ), Prakaranapañjika ( of ſālikanātha, 34a ) and Mahāvrata ( 45a ). This book also has been cited in Sārvabhauma's Sabdamanıpariksa ( under Apūrvavāda, fol. 28b : अतएव स्वर्गकामपोकं यागविषयक कार्यमिति प्रथमसोऽन्वयानुभवे अन्वयप्रयोजकबोद्धृत्वोपस्थितावनन्तरं यागविषयकं स्वर्गकामिकार्यमित्यमृतबिन्दु- ta: Trets FreFT:: Both Candra and his work, the Amitabındu were cited also in the Sabdalokoddyota of ( Sárvabhauma's son), Vāhinīpati Bhattācārya (fol. 23a-b of Ms. of the Bhau Daji collection at Poona ). Another work of Candra named Nayaratnākara exists in the Darbara Library at Nepal ( H. P. Šāstri : Nepal Cat., 1905, p. 113 ). At the end of this book Candra mentioned that he belonged to the 'Pośāli' family असौ चन्द्रः श्रीमानकृत नयरमाकरमिमं निबन्धं पोशाली-कुलकमलकेदारमिहिरः । There is no family in Mithila, as far as we have learnt, which has lośāli as its Mūlagrāma, though he has been claimed for Mithilā by M. M. Dr. Umesha Mishra (Jha Commemoration Vol., p. 243 ). Pośālī happens to be a well-known Śrotriya family of Rādhiya Brāhmaṇas of Bengal. It still survives in Bengal by the name 'I uśilāla' belonging to the Kāšyapa gotra.. In earlier genealogical works the name is mentioned regularly as 'Poşali' or 'Poşall' ( vide the texts cited by us in l. H.Q., III, p. 139 ). It was situated somewhere in Rādha or West Bengal. In this book Candra refers to the Vivarana, the Viveka, the Pañcika (of ſālikanātha ) and Srikara (Jha Comm. Vol., p. 245 ).

·His views 68 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithila Candra held independent views about the categories, which according to him were eleven in number, Sankara Mišra in the Vadivinoda (p. 53 ) and Padmanābha 10 hus Setutikā (p 105 ) describe him as "Prābhākaraikadešin' for that reason According to Candra Ownership’ (Fra) is the eighth category on the point are given and refuted by Vācaspati Miśra II in the Tattvaloka under 11. 1 33 (fol 1086 इत्यगत्याष्टम पदार्थ स्वत्वमिति चन्द्र ) and anonymously by Vardhamāna in the Lilāvatiprakāśa (pp 82-83). He was undoubtedly one of the Prabhākara scholars, whose works Gangesa specially studied under professors as stated by him at the commencement of his book (गुरुभि त्वा गुरूणा मतम् ) For, the Amrtabindu exibits to a large extent the Navyanyāya style of almost interminable streams of arguments and counterarguments so prominent in Gangesa. Candra was one of the original sources of Gangeša in the Vidhıvāda and Apūrvavāda portions of the Sabdakhanda and as such we cannot but refer to him here though we hold that he was a Bengalı by origin According to M, M, Dr. Mishra Candra's date is 'before 1100 1 D (Jha Comm Vol, p 246). This is no longer tenable The Viveka mentioned by Candra in the Nazaratnā kara is the Nayanıveka of Bhavanātha, who cites Śrikara by name (p. 271 ) Bhavanatha was most probably a rival and contemporary of Bhavadeva, as indicated by Nândilla Gopa in the commentary of the Prabodhacandrodaza ( 11, 3). Bhavadeva's period of activity has been fixed by us within 1060- 1110 A.D. (1.H Q. XXII, pp. 133-35 ). Candra cannot, therefore, be placed before the 12th century A. D. and as he is cited by Murărı he cannot be later either. DITĀKADORĀDOT SA a supreme authority in the Nyāya- Vaišesika literature of Mithilā, better known as the Uddyotakāra Divākara's name is familiar among scholars from a rare quotation found in Jagadıša's Šabdafaktiprakafika (Varanası ·Divákaropādhyāya 69 .ed., p. 171 in the section on Kāraka : fine di RTTTHE ज्ञानं जानात्यर्थ इत्युक्तस्थले मुख्यमेव कर्मत्वं घटादेरित्याह, सन्मन्द......). Jagadīša, a comparatively late author, borrowed this from the Anvikșikitattuavivarana, a separate commentary on Nyāyasūtra (Chap. V only ) by Jānakinātha, father of Jagadīša's teacher Rāmabhadra Särvabhauma ( Sarasvati-Bhavana Ms. of Rāmabhadra's Nyāyarahasya, fol. 1562 ). From Pragalbha's Martikā we first came to know that Divākara preceded Gangeśa. In the Isvaravada, commenting on the passage अथारणिमण्यभाववति...इति (B. I. ed., p. 131 ), Pragalbha explains GertRHAHIRIERI sua (Anumana-Pragalbhi, S. B Ms. fol. 190a and Bombay R. A. S. copy fol. 160a). There is a passage in the Dravyaprakāśa of Vardhamāna where two former explanations of a statement of Udayana are cited ( Kiranavalı, Varanası ed., p. 50 fn. : the reading in the B. I ed., pp. 217-18 18 corrupt :- अवयवानवस्थेति। यद्यपि अनवस्थामात्रं वीजाङ्कुरसाधारण्येन न दूषणं तथापि सर्वकार्यद्रव्यनाशात् प्रलयानन्तरं सृष्टिरिति व्यवस्थाविरह एवानवस्थेत्येके । द्वयणुका- वयवस्यानेकद्रव्यारव्यत्वे महत्त्वं स्यादित्यर्थ इत्यन्ये ॥ Pragaibha gives here a very informative note in the Dyazya-Pragalbhi (Navadvipa Ms. fol 113a): इत्येके प्रभाकराः। इत्यन्ये =दिवाकरोपाभ्यापा. Divakara, therefore, commented on the Kıranavali before Vardhamāna as did another rival scholar of Mithilā named Prabhākara. In the Dravya section Pragalbha has adorned his sub-commentary with very frequent quotations from Divākara ; we counted as many as 50 (from fol. 30 to 140 ), which is by far the largest number from a single author. Pragalbha evidently regarded him as a very great authority upon Udayana, Phrases like afri दिवाकरविरोधात् (fol. 83a), इति दिवाकरस्वरसः (51b), तथैव दिवाकरः (79a, 109b, 1216 & 130a ) display his regard for him. Some of these passages of Divākara also prove that Vardhamāna is indebted to a large extent to Divākara for the formidable precision of his style in defining various terms. Medieval scholarship for a long time consisted in bringing out the full significance of every part of these definitions. The definition of ·- 70 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithila Dravyatva in Dravyaprakāśa (B. I. ed., p. 164) was formulated by Vardhamāna after rejecting that of Divākara (p. 163) For, Pragalbha here again gives us the information ( fol 86b: दिवाकरमतं दूषयति-न चेति) Another well-informed scholar of Bengal Pundarikāksa Vidyāsāgara refers to Divākara in the following revealing passage of the Katantrapradipa in the section on Kāraka (printed In Gurunātha's ed. of the Kalapa, p. 715) - यद्यपि खण्डनटीकाया दिवाकरादिभिः संस्कारावच्छिन्ना बुद्धिर्जानात्यादेरर्थ इत्युक्तं संस्कारफलावच्छिन्नस्य धात्वर्थत्वादिति इति न्यायनिबन्योहयोतेऽपि दृश्यते- Here two works of Divākara have been mentioned by name, Khandanatikā and Nibandhoddyota The Uddyota has been mentioned by Vacaspati II in the Tattaloka (fol. 53a) under I. 1. 10. The illuminating passage is cited below यद्यपि प्रकरण- पर्यालोचनया क्षेत्रज्ञानामेव प्रमेयत्वं तन्मिथ्याज्ञानस्यैव संसारबीजत्वात् अन्ततः तत्तत्त्वज्ञानस्यैव मोक्षहेतुत्वात् । तथा च द्वे ब्रह्मणी वेदितव्ये इत्यादिश्रुतेर्मोक्षधीगोचर- स्वात् भगवतोऽपि धीविषयत्वमवगम्यते भास्करादिस्वरसाच्च । न च भगवदप्रमेयत्वपर- प्रमेयप्रकाशविरोधः तस्य नव्यमतपरत्वात् । अतएवैतदुइयोततृतीयप्रकाशावेवमेवेति । Sankara Miśra also mentioned the Uddyota as one of the three illuminating commentaries on the Nibandha. Vāsudeva Sārvabhauma in Anumānamanıparikşā (S. B. Ms. fol. 6a ) cited a doctrine of the Pramāņoddyota. Fortunately a fragment of the book is preserved in the Asiatic Society ( No 4770 of the Govt collection), though its great importance was missed by H. P Sastri and other scholars. This unique copy written in the Maithila script is dated 164 LS, but the copy in palm leaves is very much injured, several leaves are missing and several torn. It begins ॥ ॐ नमः सरस्वत्यै ॥ आत्मदेहेन्द्रियार्थज्ञामनसा यः परीक्षक. । वं तृतीयमिवाध्यायमनुध्यायामि शङ्करम् ।।

·Divakaropadhyāya 71 फलभागितयोद्देश्यमादौ परीक्षणीयमपरात्मान नमस्यति-विद्येति । तस्मै श्रपरब्रह्मणे कस्मैचित्सर्वप्रमेयमुरयाय दुर्विज्ञेयाय च नम । यत उदेति उदय प्रयोजनयोग तेन मोक्षलक्षणफलभागी भवतीत्यर्थ । अविद्या आत्मभ्रान्ति सैव रजनी तत्क्षये सति, कस्मात्तत्क्षय ? अत आह-विद्या आत्मतत्त्वसाक्षात्कार सैव पूर्व सन्ध्या तदुदयोद्रे कात् । अथवा विद्या आत्मनि श्रवणमननध्यानरूपा प्रतिपत्तयस्ता एव वित्र सन्ध्या उदयरतत्त्वसाक्षात्कारस्तदुद्रेकात् । अतएव विश्वतस्त्विप विश्वस्मिन् त्विट् प्रकाशो यस्य सर्वज्ञाय योगजधर्मादयादित्यर्थ । व्याख्यानान्तराणि द्रव्यकिरणावलीविलासे कृतान्यस्माभि । The last folto (which is fortunately preserved with the page mark lost the previous folio not however the immediately preceding one being marked 56) is wholly repro duced, containing an extremely valuable colophon though torn at a vital place • क इति निरोधायेति प्रकृतिपुरुपभेदनिरोधायेत्यर्थ । यथा सारयपक्ष उत्थापित्तस्तत्र दूपणमाह-ससारदशायामिति शेष सुगमम् ।। मिथिलेश्वरेण श्रीभाजिशान्तिक्रण विहित पदे य । तत्सू नुनाखिलतमासि नुदन्निवन्धोधोत स्फुट रचित एष दिवाकरेण ॥ दिवाकरा तोऽय समुद्यत । विद्वज्जनमन पद्ममुल्लासयतु सर्वदा । इति महोपाध्यायश्रीदिवाकरकृतो न्यायतृतीयाध्यायनिवन्धोयोत समाप्त ॥ देवराज्ये देउलाश्रीमत्कटके पीतूपाटकस उपाध्यायनीगिरीश्वरैलिखितमिदम् । ल स १६४ ज्येष्ठयदि ११॥ Divakara's father served a certain king of Mithila in an important priestly function and the transcript (dated somewhere between 1272 and 1283 A D ) was made when a certain king was reigning in Mithila As if by a conspiracy the two royal names have been torn off 1 In the above extract the name of Divākara s commentary on the Kıranavali has been preserved viz VITĀs. Mallinātha an his commentary on the Tarkikaraksa once (p 129) referred to Diväkara as the Vilāsakāra and cited his definition of Moksa (क्या चैकात्मनिष्ठनिखिलदुःखध्वससाकल्य मोक्ष मुमुक्षूणा च प्रत्येकमेकत्वान्ना- च्याप्तिश्चेति विलासकारोक्तलक्षणमुक्तमित्यनुसन्धेयम् ) Pragalbha also referred to him once as the Vilasakāra ( Dravya Pragalbhi, fol 73a ).

·72 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithilā The Vilasa is cited twice in Paksadhara's Dravyaviveka (fol 90a & 96a). In the above fragment of the Uddyota Divākara frequently cited from previous commentaries without of course naming them and in most places refuted their arguments e. g. atafan ( fol 21a ) 27 ipfaan ( 23 ), 1b (32a), FfXT ( 33b ), sfat fara 3 ( 55” ) and it ( 629 ) All these prove that a long line of scholasts upon Udayana's Nibandha existed before the times of Divākara The following passages are extracted from the fragment as somewhat interesting अत्र राजसूत्रक्रमेण (१) प्रकरणार्थश्चक्षुद्वैतमेव प्रतीयते चक्षुरद्वतन्तु सिद्धान्तो TENA ( fol. 16a ) कश्चितु हरोतक्यन्यत्वेन हेतुर्विशेषणीय इत्याह-तन्न, कपायस्य खदिरादेरपि जलमाधुर्यव्यक्षकत्वात् । (33b) पक्षधर्मतादिज्ञान ह्यनुमितिजनक न तु तर्क । ( 41a) Buddhist doctrines are refuted in this chapter and in that connection Divākara records the important fact that he commented also on Udayana's Bauddhādhikära i Finlin aterradarka विवरणेऽस्माभि. प्रपचितम् । (51b) It is interesting to note that this long lost commentary of Divākara bore the name the Aloka the title of the famous commentary of Jayadeva ( Pakşadbara ) on the Tattvacintaman. Divākară also commented on Udayana's Kusumāñjah and the name of this commentary was PARIMALA. It was mentioned by Sankara Mišra in the following line #TFIT 21 Era 9FSTT This portion of Sankara's commentary has been mysteriously tagged on to the beginning of Rāmabhadra Sărvabhauma's Kusumāñjalıkārıkaryakhyā, we have discussed the point under Tvantopādhyāya below Sankara evidently mentioned the three names of previous commentaries in the ascending order of chronology, proving that Duvākara preceded both Vardhamana and the Makarandakāra (1 e Tvantopādhyāya ). This Panmala of Divákara has been approvingly ·Vol I, Dıvākaropādhyāya 73 cited once by Sarvabhauma in his extensive commentary on a single phrase of Gangesa ( anagrgcama Vyāptivada Pūrvapaksa p 87) thus -युक्तक्षेप परिमलललित पन्था, सामानाधिकरण्यमात्रfa94%C4T ETTET ETTER I (Anumanamaniparksa fol 26a). The Parimala has also been cited by Rucidatta five times in the Makaranda upon Vardhamana s Kusumāñjalıprakasa ( unde Chowkh ed Stavaka I pp 22 23 III p 21 IV p 1 and Vp 10) The Parimala is not a sub commentary on Var dhamāna's Prakasa as is sometimes wrongly taken A frag ment of it was discovered long ago in a Jaina Bhandara, quite beyond the reach of scholars ( Descriptive Catalogue of Manuscripts in the Jain Bhandars at Pattan Introd p 44) Divakara became famous by his great com mentaries on all the major works of Udayana though there is no evidence available yet that he had commented on the Parı susta also We shall refer to an interesting doctrine which seems to have been first promulgated by Divakara positions ( Upasargas) according to a view ascribed commonly to the Kandalıkāra, (compare quantfernt Trace Kandalı p 2) directly denote meanings by the primary function of words in other words they are वाचक Udayana denies them any such function they only can elucidate meanings which primarily belong to the verbs to which they are attached they are only at Divākara adopted a middle course--they are als in cases where the primary meanings of verbs are contradicted by the prepositions in the rest they are att This view has been cited and rejected by Gangesa ( Sabda part Upasargavāda p 856) That the view was advocated by Divákara is stated by Pundarıkaksa Vidyasagara in the Katantrapradipa thus –तस्मात् धात्वर्थस्य विरुद्धार्थ प्रादिभ्यो यन लभ्यते । तनामी द्योतका ज्ञेया बुधैरन्यत्र वाचका । इति सतेप दिवाकरादेरपि मतमेतत् (Gurunatha s ed of Katantras The pre- That is to say P 651 ) ·74 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithila Divākara's date can now be definitely fixed within 1200- 50 & D He cannot be placed before 1200 A D as he had commented, perhaps for the first time, on the Khandana and referred to more than one previous commentaries on Udayana. On the other hand the date of the transcript of his Udyota (falling within 1272-83 A, D.) marks the lower limit of his date. The transcript might have been made within his very life-time PRADJĀKAROPĀDHYAYA One of the greatest pre Gangeſa scholars of the Nyāya Vaišeşika, whose name had been lost for a long time. He was not a Mimāmsaka and it goes without saying that he is not identical with Prabhakara Mišra the founder of a Mimāmsā school who preceded him by at least 500 years. He probably wrote commentaries on all the four major works of Udayana In the Dravya-Pragalbhi ( an unique manuscript preserved in the Public Library at Navadvipa dated 386 L. S, examined by us thoroughly 15 years ago ) the following references to Prabhakara were traced तथा प्रमाणप्रभाकर 16 ( fol 83a). This proves that Prabhākara wrote a commentary on Udayana's Partsuddht. तथा प्रभाकरे इन्द्रियलक्षणे दर्शनात् (fol. 98b this is also from the Nibandhatıkā). The next passage is cited in full (fol. 116b vnde Kıranāvali, B I ed, P 221) अतएव उसरेणी परमाणुत्वमेव स्वीक्रियते न महत्वम् । यत्तु वर्दमानेनोक्त तदभ्युपगमवादेनेति ध्येयम् । न च सुधापानरचितम् । न च इद दौतातिताना-तस्य परमाणुत्वे न तत्समवेत इति साध्यव्यापकत्वादिति प्रभाकर दिवाकराम्या स्वहस्ति- Talla for 11 In this illuminating passage Pragalbha refers to three distinguished scholiasts on the Airanduali which include Prabhakara In T19784191 2115 ( fol 133a vide B I, ed, 261 ), the full name with the title Upādhyāya attached should be noted. Pigerunfala (B. I. ed, p 268 ) - TEATYAMERE- रेवासिद्धिरिति प्रभाकर (fol. 132b) प्रभाकर दिवाकरो (136b) In the Upamåndsaṁgraha of Pragalbha (A S Ms. No. 1752 dated 1643 V S ) it is clearly stated that Gangeſa quoted Prabhākara's definition (fol. 4a WTGTUAN ·Prabhākaropādhyaya 75 WATER vide Upamānakkanda, B I ed, p 18) It is probable that Gangesa here quoted from Prabhākara's commentary on the Kusumañjalı. There is another quotation from Prabhakara in the same part of Gangeśa's work (p 90 Hyra a fol. 16a ) It is now possible to state that a famous passage of Gan gesa in the Vyāptivāda which has now developed into a separate section called state 77247, is a quotation from this Prabhākara. For, what Mathurānatha ( following Jayadeva's note प्रभाकरा अपि वदन्ति) vaguely explained as प्रभाकरसमति (p. 165) is really a quotation from Prabhākaropādhyāya as Pragalbha. definitely stated (fol 19a of Ms No. 298 of the Sarasvati- Bhavana अव प्रभाकरोपाध्यायमतमुपष्टम्भकमाहातएवेति) The mention of the title Upādhyāya conclusively proves that a particular scholar is meant here belonging evidently to the same school of neo logic and not certainly a follower of the Prabbakara school of Mimāmsā. Here also the passage is probably taken from Prabhākara's commentary on the kusumāñjali This Prabhākara also commented on the Lilāvati of Śrī vallabha. Bhagiratha in his sub-commentary on Vardhamāna's Lilāratıprakāśa pointed out two cases where Vardhamāna cited from Prabhākaropādhyāya (Chowkh ede, pp 142 and 355 प्रभाकरोपाध्यायमतमाह-) But in Paksadhara's Lilāvativiveka there are eleven such references ( Colebrooke's copy now in London IO foll, 2a 5a, 15a, 18a, 396, 495 58a, 61a, 78a and 93b ). Some of these references are important. The following passages cited by Vardhamāna in his Lilāvatiprakāśa are, according to Paksadhara, from Prabhākaropădhyāya (1) P 16 = 922171 (fol 5a) (2) p. 280 *1.. diagrafore I reap 4HT TTE-stafa ( 610 ). (3) p 283 पूर्व. इत्यन्ये । प्रभाकरोपाध्यायमतमाह-पूर्वमिति । (6.) (4) p 499 alfa i salgfors Harald cuffifa #CATER TUTTE 1 ·76 History of Navya Nyāya in Mithila मुपाध्युद्भावनापत्तिर्दोषस्तथा तवापि कृत्स्नसाध्यसबन्धाभावोद्भावनापत्तिरिति तुल्यमित्युपाध्याययोजनाया सप्रदाययोजनाया च दोपमाशकते-तीति। (99b). It should be noticed that in the second passage Vardhamana styles Prabhākara as Sampradāyaviť and in the last case Paksadhara refers to him simply as Upādhyāya The Name of Prabhākara s cornmentary was Prakāša’ as indicated by Paksadhara in one place (fol 58a अनाकाशपरिमाण दृष्टान्त अन्यतरघटितश्च ** 4737 i vide Lilavati p 264) In another passage ( 39b ) Prabhakara is stated to have accepted Kandalıkara's view about the existence of Chitrarasa' (vide Kandalı p 30 last line) We need hardly state that Prabhākara regarded as an authority by Vardhamāna was a Maithila and flourished about a century after Srivallabha in the middle of the 13th century A D TABANI MISRA One of the greatest pre Gangesa authorities of Mithila The name of his treatise is Ratnakosa, which has been respectfully cited by Manikantha and Gengesa A famous tract of Harırāma Tarkavagisa of Navadvipa ( professor of Gadādhara goes by the name of Ratnakosavicāra and its copies are available in almost every manuscript library in India It begins --परोक्षज्ञान निश्चयात्मकमेवेति सिद्धान्त रत्रकोपकारस्तु सत्प्रनिपक्षसवलनदशाया सशयात्मकानुमिति स्वीकरोति । (from an old copy in our possession ) The whole passage has been cited and refuted by Gangesa (Anumana pp 885 88) as well as by Manikantha ( 178 ) Describing a copy of Harırāma (or Gadadhara) elaborating this remarkable thesis of the Ratnakosa Hall wrote in 1859 (Index p 81 ) that its 'author has not been ascertained Unfortunately he added the following note later on (p 202 ) 'I know of another work called Ratnakosa a collection of aphorisms of definition by one Pșthvidhara Ācārya. This has misled scholars for the best part of a century to believe that Pythvidhara was the author of the Ratnakosa ated by Gangeša An unitelligible aphorism of Prthvidhara's Ratnakosa has been cited by Hall (gfa atst ·Tarani Miśra 77 77914#TUMHARAT Sänkhyasāra, Preface p 6, fn.). As numerous passages of the Ratnakosa cited by Gargesa are now available, it is beyond doubt that this latter work was a discursive treatise and did not consist of aphorisms at all. Rucıdatta distinctly states in the following passage that the name of its author was Tarani Misra -तथा च रनकोपे तरणिमित्रैरुक्तम् एवमभावत्वध्वंसत्यादिकं बोध्यम् ( Anumānaprakasa, Isvaravāda, printed in the appendix to Chowkh, ed. of Gādādharī, p 2015 two A.S. Mss fol 121b & 288a) While explaining the passage of the Ratnakosa cited in the Nyāyaratna of Manikantha ( 178 ) Vācaspati Miśra II notes FUTAXHCHTE ( fol. 376 ). It should, therefore, be taken as finally settled that the name of the long-lost Ratnakoşa's author was Taraſı Misra. There are six important passages of Ratnakoșa cited by Vardhamāna in the Parfıstaprakāśa (pp. 91, 105, 109, 110, 115 & 125 ). All of them belong to the section on Nigrahasthāna Except in the last case Vardhamāna cited the passages with approval. There are four important passages of the Ratnakoșa cited in the printed portion of the Nyayambandhaprakāśa of Vardhamāna. In the first passage (p. 163 तत्तदन्ते । अखएडोपाधी"इति रलकोपतः, compare also Lilavataprakasa P. 626 ) the peculiar view ascribed to the Ratnakoşa and refuted by Vardhamāna is already cited under the heading 97 ATE: by Gangesa himself ( Pratyaksa part, p 842) and also refuted by the latter. The second passage is much more important elucidating the basic doctrine underlying the first passage. It runs . -लकोपकृतस्तु द्विविधं हि सामान्य जातिरुपाधिश्च, समवेता जातिः असमवेतं चोपाधिसामान्यम् । अतएव भट्टपादै. जातेरन्यदेव ऋक्त्वादिसामान्य वनादिसामान्यवदभ्युपेतम् । यदाहुः- यौगिकानां यथा जातेल्यत्सामान्यमिप्यते । तथा समूहसामान्य जातं जातिविलक्षणम् ।। (araanfát URR) इति तथा च करणत्वमप्युपाधिसामान्यमित्याहुः । तन्न "(pp. 194-5). It ·78 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithila appears, however, that this Bhātta view was already accepted by Sivāditya Miśra (qv) and though Vardhamāna has not accepted it in the present passage he is distinctly cited by Pragalbha as advocating the selfsame view (Anumāna. Pragalbha fol. 182a) -न चापसिद्धान्त जातिभिन्नस्याखण्डरूपसामान्यस्यो- पाचे' वर्धमानचरत्रिसूत्रीतत्वबोधेऽभिहितत्वात् । The next passage (p 341) cites a denition of the term Vada from the Ratnakosa तस्माल्लाभपूजारयातोरनुद्दिश्य प्रवर्तितत्व वादलक्षणमिति रनकोपकार । तन्न । The last passage ( 468 ) is also a remarkable one, Vardhmāna refers to it at the end of a quotation from his father Gangesa and rejects it thus -एतेन सयोगो विशेपणता च द्वयी प्रत्यासत्तिर्न च समयायादिचतुष्टयमिवि रत्नकोपकृन्मतमयुक्तम् । Gangesa cted this anonymously ( Pratyaksa part p. 653 under Samavaya) Gangesa's indebtness to the Ratnakosa is clearly stated by Vācaspati Miśra II the refutation (ib. p 846) of Gangesa according to him follows the view pount of the Ratnakosa रलकोपदिशा . दूपयति-तन्नेति ( Pratyaksamaraprakasa, fol 59a) Vardhamana has also referred to the Ratnakosa in the Lilavatiprakasa. The passage on the section on Fallacy is reproduced below as a typical instance of the intricate style of the author. अर्थान्तरोपनायकस्मृत्यादिसहकारिता सामान्यत एव प्रत्यभिज्ञादी क्लृप्ता, वदिह सद्व्याप्तिपक्षधर्मताकलिड्गपरामर्शस्यासदर्थकाञ्चनमयत्वादिस्मृतिसहकारिवशाद् यत्रामासधीकारणत्व तयामास पृथक् । मैवम् । (Chowk ed, pp. 608-9 . Bhagiratha notes, रनकोशफन्मतमाशट्टते) . There are three passages in the Tattvaloka of Vācaspati Mišra Il referring to Tarzı Miéta Under L.» 7 He find लपणं तु तुल्ययलबोधितसाध्यविपर्ययत्यमिति तरणिमित्रा । तन्न "। There 19 an illuminating passage under II. 1. 38, which is also cited below fully as a typical instance of the style and scholarship of the great author ·Tarani Miśra 79 तरणिमिश्रास्तु प्रत्यक्षमेव काले मानम्, इदानी घट इत्यादिप्रत्यक्षस्य सर्वजन- सिद्धत्वात् । न चेदानोमिति बुद्धिः कालोपाधिविषया न तु कालविषयेति वाच्यम् । कालोपाधिर्हि परिस्पन्दनादिर्न च तदधिकरणको घटादिः। नन्वेवमिदानीमित्यादि- धिय: कालविषयत्वे तस्य चैक्ये दिवसादिविरूपज्ञानं कथम् ? इत्थं, तुहिनाचल- दक्षिणदिगवस्थितमिहिरमण्डलावच्छिन्नः कालोऽस्माकं दिनं तदुत्तरदिगवस्थितमिहिर- मण्डलावच्छिन्नः कालोऽस्माकं रात्रिः तत्पूर्व दिगवस्थितमिहिरमण्डलावच्छिन्नः कालोस्माकं प्रातः तत्पश्चिमदिगवस्थितमिहिरमण्डलावच्छिन्नः कालोऽस्माकं सायं सन्ध्येति--तदुपाधिप्रतिसन्धानानां तत्तदुपहितप्रत्ययोपपत्तिर्यथैकस्मिन्नेव महीमण्डले जम्बुद्वीपाद्युपहितबुद्धय इति । नन्वेकेन्द्रियेन कालो गृह्यते सर्वैरैव वा-प्राणादे- द्रव्यादेाहकत्यान्मनसो बहिरस्वातन्त्र्यात् कथमेव न सर्वत्र ज्ञानोपनीतस्यैवास्य भानात् इदानीमिति बुद्धरनादित्वात् अस्तु वानन्यगतिकतयास्वातन्त्र्येणैव सर्वेन्द्रियवद्योसौ भट्टवद् इत्याहुः। (fol. 112a-b). There is another long passage of Taran. Miśra under II. 1.63 (fol. 130a), where Vacaspati II made an elaborate treatment of Vidhivada (foll. 123-33). Sankara Miśra recorded an original view of the Ratnakoşa admitting a fourth kind of Kathā (Vadivinoda, p. 2) and cited its definition of the fallacy प्रकरणसम (b, p 17), It should be mentioned here that Gangesa has finally accepted the definition of the term Upadhi given by the Ratnakosa (p.336 : लक्षणं तु पर्यवसित..). That Garigesa refers to the Ratnakosakāra in the very last definition cited by him in the Purvapaksa (pp. 331-33) is clearly stated by both Sārvabhauma ( fol. 94 ) and Jayadeva (Aloka, fol. 34b), though Manikantha (p. 86) is not quite clear on the point. It is likely that Gangeša adopted a chronological order in citing and criticising the eight definitions in the Pūrvapaksa. If so, it may be also surmised that Tarani Mjśra came slightly after Manikantha and all of them were more or less contemporaries. Tarani Misra should, therefore, be living about 1300 A, D, . .

·80 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithila SONDADOPĀ DAYAYA (also spelt SOYDALA )': This superior scholar of Mithilā has been immortalised by Gangesa or more correctly by the scholiasts of Gangesa as the propounder of an exceptional kind of Negation 'whose counterpositiveness is determined by an essence pertaining to a different substratum' (व्याधिकरणधर्मावच्छिन्नप्रतियोगिताकः) and which is, therefore, universally existent Sondada consequently rejects in a manner the doctrine of Anyathākhyātı (erroneous conception ) advocated by orthodox Nyāya scholars. Gangesa refers to this amazing kind of Negation in the Vyāptivāda and rejects it concisely. Sārvabhauma notes at the beginning of the particular section . तत्र केवलान्वयिनि सोंदडीया केवलान्वयिसाध्या- TIFARE TI-a I (Anumānmāniparıksā, fol. 13a ), The arguments against Sondada elaborated by Yajñapati and Jayadeva, but ſiromaņı raised issues on the problem, concluding practically with an admission of that kind of negation, which marked one of the advanced courses of Navyanyāya studies and contributed to the fame and popularity of Sondada, who started the debate. were According to the scholiasts, Gangesa had referred to Sondada in many other places We shall soon see under Manikantha that in the Upādhivāda (p. 317-22 ) the views cated and refuted under the heading to were asscribed to 'Saundada' by Gadādhara (p 916). In the section on Ākānkşā (pp. 202-4) Sondada's definition of that term has been cited and refuted by Gangeśa. In the Vidhiyāda again a passage of Sondada has been cited twice ( Śabdakhanda, Pt. II, pp. 24 & 276), the last time under the heading out. This proves that Sondada, like Manikantha, was only slightly senior to Gangesa. A line in the STAKAF (p. 221 ? ) is a refutation of Sondada according to Vidyānivāsa ( 491 ). Vide, Sondala Upadhyāya Kaviraja, $ B. Studies, Vol II, p 199f. 1 ·Sondadopādhyāya 81 Mathurānātha in his commentary on Gangeśa has cited two passages of Sondadopādhyāya, not found elsewhere. The first is a definition of Kevalānvayı (B. I ed., p 575 ), which has been ascribed, wrongly as far as we have ascertained, in some copies to Upadhyāya se Yajñapatı, in whose work it is not traceable. There is another passage of Sondada cited by Mathurānātha under Vidhivada (p. 217 ). An intricate passage in the Siddhānta. portion of the section on Paramarsa ( pp. 508-9., beginning with अथ यो यत्र) is cited from Sondada, for Sārvabhauma clearly notes here सोन्दडीय समाधिमाशङ्कते- अथेति ( Anumānamanipariksa, fol. 131a). Sārvabhauma also quotes a long passage towards the end of the section on Badha as from Sondada and others ( fol. 205a इति वदन्ति सोन्दडप्रभृतय ). The following unteresting passage is found in the Tattvaloka of Vacaspati Misra II under I 1 22, where various views about salvation (Apavarga) have been cited and discussed सोन्दोपाध्यायास्तु-य एव परदु खस्यात्मन्यत्यन्ताभाव. से. एव सुखदु सप्रागभावेऽपि । तथा च यदा ते सहकारिसम्पन्ना भवन्ति तदा दु सं जनयन्ति नो चेत् पएडा एवेति युक्ता प्रमज्या । न च परदु सत्यात्यन्ताभाषस्य स्वदु खप्रागभावतादात्म्ये तस्य च प्रतियोग्युत्पत्ती नष्टत्वे परदु सात्यन्याभायोऽपि नश्येत् अन्यथा विरद्धधर्माध्यासे तन्नो भिद्येतेवेति वाच्यम्, परदेहावच्छेदेन नष्टस्यापि तदभावावच्छेदेनानष्टत्वात् । मैवम् । ( London I. O. copy, fol 63a ). A Smārta scholar of Bengal named Krpārāma Tarkavāgiša composed a large treatise named Navyadharmapradipa in 1686 Saka (10 1764-5 A.D.) In the explanation of the well-known Mimānšā argument called a fan occurs the following passage --न चार्थवादप्राप्तस्य कथं विधिविषयत्वमिति वाच्यम् , अभिधेयकृतस्यास्तावकत्वे अर्थवादस्य प्रमत्तगीतनापत्ते । स्तुत्या तु वस्य विधेयत्वं लभ्यते एव यत्स्तूयते तद्विधेयमिति न्यायादिति सोन्दडोपाध्यायफक्किका । (Ms No. 1602 of Vangiya Sahitya Parisad, Calcutta, fol 84a cf. Sabdakhanda, 11, pp 509-12) Sondada was regarded in his times as the supreme leader of the social hierarchy in Mithilā.

·82 History of Navya Nyāya in Mithilā This important fact is stated in a remarkable passage in the Tattvanırnaya of Paksadharopādhyāya (f 1400 A.D.), a very rare Smrti work It runs-अत्र च महाज(नाना सोन्दलोपाध्याया(ना)- मन्येपा च व्यवहार उपष्टम्भक इत्याहु (fol 26a of a fragment preserved in the Mithilā Institute, under the topic of Sapindíkarana to be performed on the 12th day ) as Sondada's date can be safely placed about 1300 A.D he was regarded as a 'recent scholar by both Manikantha and Gangeša The memory of his sogial supremacy was still alieve in 1400 A.D. and the intricate nature of his style and arguments betray a comparatively late age We are not inclined, therefore, to place him before 1275 A 1 MANIKANTHA MIŚRA One of the greatest and latest authorities of Navyanyāya consulted by Gangeša, who appears to have been profoundly influenced by him The only existing treatise by him named Nyāyaratna has been fortunately published recently in the Madras Govt Oriental series with a commentary by Nrsimhayajvan (1953 pp 249 with Introd etc.) It roughly covers the same ground as the Anumana part of Gangesa with which it bears a very fruitful comparison It is divided into 13 sections and the latter half of the book is taken up by an elaborate treatment of all the varieties of debates and fallacies including at the very end a small section on the Mahāvıdyå syllogisms It has been stated in the English Introduction (P XXXI ) that 'prionty between Gangesa and Manikantha cannot be proved, though it has been surmised on good grounds in the Sanskrit introduction ( 109 ) that Manikantha slightly preceded Gangesa. The following evidences on the point, some of which we had published about a decade ago (G Jha R I Journ., Vol IV, p 300 ) prove con clusively that Manikantha preceded Gangeſa and the fact was known to earlier Navyanyāya scholars ·$ Manikantha Miśra. 83 (1) In the Siddhānta portion of the Upādhivāda Gangesa cited a passage under the caption to (B. I. ed., pp. 365-69). Vasudeva Sārvabhauma distinctly notes here that the reference is to Manikantha-मणिकराठीयं मतमाह-अन्ये विति ( Sarasvati-Bhavana Ms. of Sārvabhauma's Anumānamanıparikṣā, fol. 106b ). As a matter of fact the first portion of the passage is found in the Nyāyaratna ( 92 ) Gangesa did not actually controvert the views expressed in the passage, but according to a wellknown convention among philosophical authors all passages ascribed to others are not their own and scholiasts invariably try to bring out the unexpressed defects In the present case also Sārvabhauma has criticised Manikantha on behalf of Gangesa (fol. 107-8 इदं मणिकरठमतमन्ये विति कृत्वा स्वासंमतमावेदयतां मणिकृतामयमभिसन्धिः:-). (2) Under the heading T Gangeša cited and criticised a definition in the very next passage ( pp. 369-74 ), which is immediately followed by a passage of map (p. 375 ) without any criticism. This latter is also taken from Manikantha. (Nyāyaratna, p. 94 ) and Sārvabhauma remarks to clear the somewhat anomalous reference (fol. 1086 ) -frafa Hai THER दूपयित्वा अन्येत्विति प्रक्रान्त-मणिकाठमतेन दूपयति केचित्त्विति ।...अयमेव सन्दर्भ । अन्यथा अन्येत्विति कृत्वा मणिकराठमतमभिधाय पुन. फेचिदिति तन्मताभिधानं पृथक् न युज्येत । (3) In the section on Parāmarśa the passage यह्निमत्वस्मरणं तत्र नास्ति किं तु व्याप्त्यवच्छेदकतयेति चेत्-न । (p 507 ) is a refutation by Gangeśa of Manikantha's views ( Nyāyaratna, p. 120, lines 9-10), as stated by Sārvabhauma (fol. 130b : मणिकएठसमाधिमाह-पृथगिति ). (4) A definition of Savyabhıcāra, one of the fallacies, has been cited and criticised by Gangeša ( pp. 812-13: Fifo manfafithe an ). It exactly occurs in the Nyāyaratna (p. 166) and we are again indebted to Sārvabhauma for the information (fol. 1896 : Afumazione quaffe ufaffer).

·84 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithila We should mention here that the first two passages referred to above are quoted more exactly by Vardhamāna and in a combined form in the Kusumāñjalıprakāśa (III, p 36 ) and what is much more important the first passage is also quoted in Vardhamāna's Pramānaprakaſa (p 691 ) under the heading #gerafachi Vardhamāna it should be noted wrote all his works after taking lessons directly from his father and Manikantha was to them a recognised authority of the school of Navyanyāya This is amply borne out by Gangesa's borrowings from Manikantha in every section common in their works We shall cite some instances It was Manikantha who first controverted the well known retort of Śriharsa against Udayana ( in the section on arka, p. 19) Gangesa reproduced the argument of Manikantha and added to it (p 233) There cannot be any doubt that Gangesa formulated his famous definition of the term Vyāptı ( known as Siddhāntalaksana p 100) on the basis of Manikantha's own definition (p 55 ) Gangeša s section on Upādhyabhāsa (pp 398 405) is wholly borrowed from Manikantha (pp 105-108 ) many of whose passages (including an important one of the Mūnamanohara as noted in the commentary, pp 106-7) have been omitted by him. Similar borrowings can be detected in the sections on Avayaya and Hetvābhāsa It should be noticed that Gangesa has entirely omitted the sections on Katha, Chala, Jātı, Nigrahasthāna and Mahāvidyā found in the Ngājaratna. In the sec- We should refer to one more passage, which has an important bearing on Manikantha's probable age tion on Upādhivada (pp 823 ) Manikantha cited and refuted the views of a scholar under the heading mehre Gangesa cited the same views under the heading and almost cxactly reproduced the arguments of Manikantha in their refutation ( Pp 317-22 ) with an additional argument of his own at the end According to Gadādhara ( Chowkh ed, p. 916) the Viens refuted by Gangesa in the passage under discussion were ·Manikantha Miśra 85 of Sondadopādhyāya. Though no other scholiast has mentioned this fact so categorically it is supported indirectly by Yajñapati whose words have been reproduced by Pragalbha : च्यधिकरणधर्मावच्छिन्न प्रतियोगिकाभाववादिनामेवेदं मतम्........ इत्यपि बदन्ति (Anumāna Pragalbhi, fol. 33a ). So also Sārvabhauma upon the same passage साधनाव्यापकतया अभावस्तु व्यधिकरणधर्मावच्छिन्नsfaglfira sfa Yurahan (fol. 91a ), as well as Jayadeva in the Aloka ( fol. 33a ). As Sondada has been cited by Gangesa also under the epithet BITE (Vidhıvāda p. 276), both Manikantha and Gangeša were slightly removed from the times of Sondada and all the three great scholars thus become more or less contemporaries, a fact of supreme importance for the purposes of chronolog There cannot be any question that a scholar referred to by Vardhamāna as 'Sampradāyavid' belonged to Mithilā In fact, a copy of the Nyājaratna in the Telugu characters preserved at 'Tanjore (Cat., p. 4735-7) mentions in the colophon, unfortunately corrupt in reading, that Manikantha was a "Tirabhuktıya' Miśra and was the Judicial chief of a certain king. The exact reading of the colophon runs face ay irrefrenteria राजधर्माधिकारिमणिकण्ठकृतन्यायरत्नं नाम प्रकरणं समाप्तम् | There was a conjunct consonant (') in the gap bored through by insects, The other copy in Grantha character was evidently only a transcript, more corrupt in reading, of the Telugu copy. It may be sunmised that the book was written at the court of a foreign kingdom (Uttaramuşka?) outside Mithila, a Maithila author would not describe himself as Tīrabhuktiya in his own country Manikantha may thus be among the band of scholars who carried the banners of Mithila in other provinces. In Mithilā also Maņıkantha's name was respectfully mentioned by eminent scholars. Vācaspati Miśra II wrote a commentary on the Nyāyaratna ; we have given an account of this interesting work in a subsequent chapter. Sankara Miśra quo- ·86 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithilā ted Manikantha's definitions of three Nigrahasthānas ( tafatto *TIES, TENTU) in the Vadivinoda (pp. 35 6 ), Yajñapati's son Naraharı Vādhyāya in the section on Pakşată attempted to answer an adverse criticism of his father by his teacher Jayadeva and quoted Manikantha in his own support -7727 पक्षताविरहव्यवहार एव नास्तीति वान्यं मणिकरठेन पक्षताविरहप्रदर्शनात् . साधक- Hata area greu achei (Tanjore Ms No. 10944 of Anumānadūsanoddhāra, fol 70a ), Jayadeva's nephew Vāsudeva in his turn attacked Naraharı and concluded his argument with the humorous line चिन्तामणिमनालोच्य मणिकण्ठप्रदर्शनमिति ( London, IO. copy of Vāsudeva's Chintāmanıtıkā, fol 44b ). All these references prove that inspite of Gangeśa's epochmaking treatise Manikantha's work continued to be studied in Mithilā for a long time and it enjoyed a pan Indian popularity, as its copies are preserved in almost all Mss libraries of India It is rather surprising that an 18th century scholar of South India commented on it, the published commentary was written under a monarch Cāmarāja (of Mysore ) who ruled late in the 18th. century ( Nyayaratna, p 7, Introd, p. XXXIV ). "Manikantha had written another book named NyĀYA- OINTZMANI twice quoted by him in the Nyāyaratna (pp 108 and 220). The name of this lost work has been printed as Nayacıntāmanı, but the variant (printed in p. 220 f. n ) is in our opinion the correct one. For, Vācaspati Miśra II in his commentary on the first passage quotes from this lost work and concludes .-अय च विवक्षितविवेको मया न्यायचिन्तामणी कृत इति तत 29124984474.1 (B.O R.I. Ms No. 775 of 1884 87, fol 25a ). The two references prove that it was a more elaborate work, covering partly at least the same ground as the Nyāyaratna. It was apparently superseded by Gangeša's work bearing almost the same name We believe a careful search among the large number of manuscripts of Gangeśa's work may lead to the disa covery of the long lost Cintamani of Manikantha.

·Saśadharācārya 87 Like all Navyanyāya authors of the period Manikantha quotes Udayana more frequently than any other authority, the Nyāyaparsista of Udayana has been cited a dozen times towards the end in the sections on Jāti and Nigrahasthāna (from p. 202 ) and what is somewhat surprising, mostly criticised The Kusumāñjalt is also cited and refuted once (P 81). Next to Udayana the Khandanakāra was reckoned with by Manikantha and refuted four times ( pp 19, 39, 155 and 173) But the most important reference found in Manikantha is to the Ratnakośakāra (pp 86 & 178 ) As far as our present knowledge goes, the Ratnakośa is cited by Manikantha alone among pre Gangesa authorities Among original views of Manikantha we need only refer to two remarkable ones Like Stromanı he has rejected Samānyalaksanā (pp 63 67 ), thus aligning himself for once with the Prabhākara school Gangesa's separate section upon that term finally establishes it as a fundamental doctrine of the Nyāya philosophy Manikantha s commentator Vācaspatı Misra II, therefore attempts a compromise ( fol 14b अत्र प्रामाणिका तस्मान्नाय ग्रन्थ सामान्यलक्षणाखण्डनपर , किंतु पूर्वोक्तयुक्तिमारखण्डनपर इत्याहु ।) According to Manikantha again Anupasamhārı is not a third variety of the fallacy named Savyabhıcāra as estab lished by Gangesa but is included in the Vyāpyatvāsıddha (pp 165, 171-2) SASA DIARĀCĀRYA One of the authorities consulted by Gangesa For it is definitely stated by Vidyānıvāsa Bhattācārya in the Pratyaksamanitika (Sarasvati Bhavana Ms, fol 22a ) that Gangeša refuted the views of Saśadhara in a well known passage of the Mangalavāda (B I. ed, p 110 ): विष्णुपुराणानुसारि शशधरीयलक्षणमाह-यत्तु रागेति । It should be noticed that Gangeśa in the passage under discussion has put in a nutshell of two lines the substance of a whole paragraph of Sašadhara (PP 18-20) The Nyāyasıddhāntadipa, of ·88 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithilā Saśdhara has been published with a commentary ( Varanasi, 1924 pp 652 ), though the edition is full of lecunas and incomplete towards the end It is possible now to assess the value of Śaśdhara's work as contrasted with Gangesa's classic It is a collection of 26 separate tracts on important topics of the Nyāya, arranged rather loosely Bendiction (pp 1-37 ) is followed by Darkness (pp"37-78 ) and Luminous Gold (pp 299 319 ) by Partial Etymology of words (pp 320 49) without any relevancy The commentary attempted to answer Gangeśa's criticism (vide Gangesa's Isvaravāda, BI ed, P 96-8 ) of Śaśadhar's views in some places (eg p 140 unit चिन्तामरिणतो दूपरणमलग्नकम् & p 141 इति गङ्गेशदूपणमलग्नक वेदितव्यम् ). But the commentator is quite wrong when he supposes in one place (p 198 ) that Saśadhara anticipated Gangeša "There cannot be any question that Saśadhara preceded Gangesa as can be easily proved by a comparison of their respective views on common topics The Vyaptivāda of Saśadhara (pp 379- 410 ) examines about a score of definitions of the term Vyaptı, of which the fifth one, among many others, exactly corresponds with a definition found in angesa's Pūrvapaksa (B I ed , p84, Similarly another intricate definition is examined by Sasadhara 395 & Gangesa p 72) But Gangeśa's treatment of the topic is far more advanced, methodical and cxtensive Śaśadhara cited towards the end of his tract (p. 406- 7) a view ascribed in the commentary to a certain Jarannaryāyika’, which is found almost axactly in the Vyaptıpañcaka. both ( P It should be mentioned in this connection that Gangesa cited two similar definitions ascribed universally to two scholars, who were celebrated for their invincible career as dialecticians by the nicknames 'Lion' and 'Tiger' and Gangeśa's passage on the point, which subsequently developed into a large section, came to be known as Simha-Vyāgher. What were the actual names of the two scholars has not been stated by any scholiast. But in the seminaries of Mithila and ·At never Sašadharācārya 89 Bengal their names are given out as Śaśadhara ( sometimes Śaśıdhara ) and Manıdhara The present work of Saśadhara does not exactly contain that definition But the fact remains that Professor Lion's definition was based on anonyābhāva' (vide Jayadeva's Āloka on the passage अन्योन्यात्यन्ताभावभेदेन लक्षणद्वयमाशङ्कय निषेधति-नापीति fol_bb of a Ms in our possession). And Saśadhara's own view was also on that same basis (p. 405). any rate it is beyond any doubt that Gangeśa's reference was to two scholars of his own region Vidyabhūsana (I c pp 207 8 ) made a very curious suggestion that the reference was to two Jaina scholars of Western India named Ananda Sūri and Amarcandra Sūri. This is on the face of it im probable. The above-named Jaina scholars could command circulation of their unknown works in Eastern India and they were not certainly so famous as to inf rence a superior scholar like Gangesa who, as a matter of fact has nowhere referred to any Jaina authority in his work Moreover, the two Jaina scholars were given the titles 'Tiger cub' and 'Lioncub' respectively in their boyhood by the famous Siddharāja. ( 1093 A D.) and not exactly Lion' and 'Tiger' वाल्येऽपि निर्दलितवादिगजो जगाद यो व्याघसिह शिशुकाविति सिद्धराज । (From Udayaprabha's Dharmābhyudaya Peterson's 3rd Rep, App I, pp. 16-19) In the Isvarānumāna Gangesa covers the same ground as does Śaśadhara in the six tracts viz Iśvaravāda proper (Gangeśa pp. 1-87), Sahajaśaktivāda (pp 87-134 ) Ādheyasaktıvāda (pp 134-148) Kāranatāvāda (pp 148-155) Muktivāda (pp 156-148) and Jñānakarmasamuccayavāda (pp. 184-95) and many passages of Gangesa can be traced in Sašadhara. For instance, similaCT. of Gangeća (p. 145) is a clear improvement upon Saśadhara (pp 158-9) and the next passage ( 145: at for arter4m!) is also borrowed from Saśadhara (p 160).

·90 History of Navya Nyāya in Mithila Gangesa has similarly borrowed phrases from Saśadhara in many other topics Sasadhara s date can be fairly fixed from the following evidence Saśadhara has approvingly quoted a Kārıkā (V 7) of the Kusumāñjalı under Vidhivāda (P 438 ) and has criti cised Srıvallabha's definition of Vyāptı (p 385) Moreover, Sivāditya's peculiar views on Darkness are cited by him (p 76 नोलरूपारोपविशिष्टस्तेज ससर्गाभावस्तम इति केचित्) The commentary correctly notes शिवादित्यमतमाह-नीलरूपेवि It should be noticed that Sasadhara has amplified the aphoristic words of Sivāditya as found in the Saptapadarthi (आरोपितनीलरूपोऽभावोऽन्धकार P 84 Cal Sans Series ) There is one more important reference in the section on the Luminosity of Gold Sasadhara cited and Tefuted an argument of Vadivāgisvara ( author of the Māna manohara as the commentary correctly notes p 305 ) All the above references prove that Sasadhara cannot be placed before the 13th century A D and probably lived about 1300 A D He is not mentioned by Citsukha nor even by the latter's very well informed commentator, Pratyaksvarūpa Hıs elaborate and intricate style of reasoning, which verges sometimes on that of Gangesa himself points him out as an elderly contemporary of the latter The fact that his work survived even after the epoch making book of Gangeśa seems to show that his fame as an invincible dialectician lingered long in Mithilā and even Jayadeva wrote notes on his work as proved by a Ms (not how ever examined by us) preserved at Varanası (S B Studies III, p 136 ) It is stated in the Introduction of the printed edition of Šafadhara's work from hearsay" (mud ), that Safadhara belosged to the Manasa ) hra and was the son of Dharanidnara and grandson of Maheśvara Pandita , he had a brother Prithvi dharācārya by name The whole of it seems to be a canard Hearsay in the present century cannot record so many exact details about a scholar of the 13th century ·Nārāyana Sarvajña 91 NARAYAŅA SARVAJÑA. In the Vidyāsagari commentary of the Khandana by the great Vedāntic scholar Anandapurna occurs the following passage ( Chowkh ed, p. 714) - --अत इति । व्याप्यनिरुक्तो व्यापक्त्वानिरक्तरेवेत्यर्थ । साध्यवन्निष्ठात्यन्ता- भावाप्रतियोगित्वं साध्यव्यापकत्व साधनवनिष्ठात्यन्ताभावप्रतियोगित्वं साधना- व्यापकत्वमिति नारायणसर्वज्ञमतमपि निरस्तम्, व्याप्स्यसिद्धौ साध्यसाधनमावा- सिद्धेरिति द्रष्टव्यम् । ननु च साधनाव्यापकत्वमपि सर्वत्र निश्चेतु शक्यमित्यस्मालागिर्द वक्तव्यम् । सत्यम् । ग्रन्थार्थ उपदेशतोऽवगन्तव्य इति अभिप्रेत्य व्यवहितसंबन्धितया FEUGETA FATH Here Anandapūrna has cited Udayana's definition of Upādhı as improved by a scholar named Nārāyana Sarvajña This improved version was unknown to the Khandanakāra, whose argument however is hurled against the improvement by Anandapūrna with some hesitation It should be noticed that Gangeša at the very beginning of his Upādhivada. cited this version and refuted it (B. I ed, p. 296 ), though none of his scholiasts mentioned the name of Nārāyana as its author. Anandapūrna (c 1350 A. D.) was thus quite unaware of the far more advanced views on the subject found in Gangesa's work, This Nārāyana Sarvajña may be identical with Sarvajña Nārāyana a famous commentator on the Manusamhıtā, who has been cited about a hundred times in the Dandaviveka of Navya- Vardhamāna. He was later than Govindarāja and preceded Kullūkabhatta, according to Rāghavānanda Sarasvati, another commentator ( Buhler's Introd, S. B E , pp cxxvili 1x) He was more probably a contemporary of Kullūka and belonged to the 13th century A. D. Sankara Miśra in the Upaskāra (p 329 under VII. 11. 10) cited and refuted the views of one Sarvajña ( za magh) on the term 'Vibhāga'. It is probable that this unknown Valšesika scholar is also identical with Nārāyana Sarvajña Navya- Vardhamāna calls him Nārāyana, Sankara calls him Sarvajña, ·92 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithila Anandapūrna calls him Nārāyana Sarvajña and in the Manutikā he is Sarvajña Nārāyana Evidently one person is meant by all these variants of a name The lexicographer of the same name cited by Rāyamukuta and the author of the Bhāratapra kaša ( on the Mahābhārata) should also be mentioned in this connection MURĀRI MIŚRA As is well known Gangesa in the Prāmānyavada refuted the views successively of Prabhākara, Bhatta and Miśra and Vardhamāna in the Kusumañjalıprakasa (II. p 9) mentioned the full name as Murārı Miśra. In the Išvaravāda also (B. I. ed pp 114 15 ) Gangesa referred to his views summarised by Vardhamāna ( Kusumāñjalıprakaśa, 1, p 49 ) In both these cases Murānı held views opposed to both Bhatta and Prabhākara though he was himself a Mimāmšā scholar and this has earned for him the celebrated adage *Murāris is the third way' (gerania gan ) His views on the problem of the apprehension of valid knowledge has been traced in Murari s commentary named Tripadınıtınayanam on Mim Sutra I. 11 1v (Poona Ms dated 1644 V S, fol. 18 vide Dr Miśra's monograph on Murari, p 10) Another tract of Murārı named Angatzanıruktı is also available in print In the commentary Murari has referred to the Vrvarana (of Prabhākara ), the Viveka (1e Nayaviveka of Bhavanātha ) the Panyika ( of Salkanātha ) and the Paribhāsā Among authors the notable names are Candra Nandana and Srikara The mention of Śrsīkara and Candra proves that his date falls after the 12th century 4,0 As he is not mentioned by any author before Gangesa there is hardly any doubt that he flourished in the 13th century. This is confirmed by the fact that Gangesa quoted him in the Isvaravāda under the caption 'Navyāstu' (p 114) He was undoubtedly one of the authors who greatly influenced Gangesa, as he admitted in the line गुरुभित्विा गुरूणा मवम् । He evidently belonged to Mithila, where in the pre-Gaigeśa period he was universally known ·+ Jagadguru 93 as 'Miśra'. The editor of the Lilāvati (Chowkh. ed.) confused him in the index with a much later 'Miśra', who commented upon Vardhamāna. JAGADGURU a hitherto unknown scholar who came after Udayana and before Gangesa. A passage in the Iśvaravāda (B I ed. p. 29 ) begins to SMETTAH Ifurti Trinta The Isvaravāda section of Gangeša is unfortunately neglected by Navyanyāya scholars due to the extreme popularity of Udayana's Kusumañjalı Jayadeva and his pupil Rucıdatta commented on this section only concisely. The only scholar who subjected the section to a detailed examination is, as far as we have ascertained, Pragalbhācārya, whose commentary on this section ( foll, 147 208 ) covers more than a quarter of of the whole Anumāna part, Pragalbha informs us that the above passage refers to a scholar named Jagadguru gurchagyererfastanet farer (fol. 157b of Sarasvati-Bhavana copy of Anumāna-Pragalbhi) Apparently Jagadguru had written a commentary on the Kusumāñjalı, from which the above passage was cited by Gangeśa. There is evidence that this Jagadguru had also commented on the Kirāvali. We have traced the following quotation in the Dravyaviveka of Paksadhara, which is an extremely rare sub commentary on the Dravyakıranavaliprekaša of Vardhamāna. Commenting on the line facias द्वीपवर्तिरविरश्मिजालस्य कालविशेषस्य रानित्यात ( Krranavaliprakasa, B I ed., p. 2) Paksadhara writes fastafa-TU EBATETIEN farta. I नन्येतद्द्वीपपदेन जम्बूद्वीपमुच्यते । तन च न रविरश्मिजालनिरास. मेरूत्तरदिशि तत्सत्त्वात् । किं प, महान्यकारे रागावपि पाकादिदर्शनादादित्यरश्मिसत्त्वाय- धारणादिसिद्धिरसीति चेत्-न, एतद्द्वीपपदेन भारतसएडस्यैव विवक्षणात् । अतएव "रात्रिज्ञानं" चेत्यादितमोवादस्थले स्वफलि(का) व्याउता जगद्गुरुणा प्रकाशकृता च द्वीपो मारत वर्पमित्यमिहितम् । (Fol. 3a-b of the unique London I 0. copy of the book ). The passage of the ·94. History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithila 2 Kirāvali in the sction on Darkness occures on p 19 of the Chowkh ed vide p 104 of B. I. ed for Vardhamāna's note). It is now apparent that Vardhamāna was indebted to Jagadguru for his explanation of the word 279 in the above passage of Udayana We have cited the above passage from Paksadhara in full as a typical instance of valuable historical materials relating to Sanskrit literature still lying hidden in obscure books in manuscript. Brief reference should be made of some other predecessors of Gangesa about whom much is not known. In the Mangalavāda of the Tattvacıntāman (B I ed, p 72) Gangeša attributes a view to 'others' (54975) Pragalbha alone identifies these 'others' with Raviśvara. cf tanpagtaifa-497 fafa (Pratyaksa Pragalbhi, ASB Ms, 15b). The same has been ascribed to Ravīśvara by Sesānanta in his commentary on Saśadhara's Nyāyasıddhantadipa One Nyāyabhāskarakāra also preceded Gangesa according to Kanāda Tarkavāgisa Gangeśa, is said to refer to this little known author in the Savyabhicāra section (अथ साध्यसशयजनककोटिद्वयोप- स्थापकधर्मताज्ञानविषयत्वे सति हेत्वभिमत स Tattvacıntāmanı, Anumāna part p 789-90 ) cf. PTFESTIU CUTE ufafa (A S B. Ms, 166b ). Again after gfrateegia in the Pratyaksakhanda, Jñaptivāda (p 268) has a complex syllogistic argument attached to it Vācaspata II attributes this to Bhāskārakāra (cf Cintamaniprakala, Baranası Ms 23a ) Gangesa quoted the openions. of Vatsesvara, the Mimãmsaka of the Prābhākara school, to whom the Mimamsamahamava is attributed. (Pratyakşa- Pragalbh, ASB Ms, 88b). We want to conclude this chapter with Harinātha Upadhyāya He seems to be the youngest of the Naiyāyikas alle ded to by Gangesa. The definition of 'hımsa' has been criticised in the Sabdakhanda, Vidhivãda section of the Tattvacın tad marn There a passage begins with अपरे तु अनमिसहितनरान्तरव्यापार- ·Harināthopädhyāya 95 WETTERT HOUETT FEH... I...(pp. 222-4). Mathuranātha clearly attributes this to Harinātha. We have examined the older commentary, the Sabdamaņiprakasa of Haridāsa Nyāyā. lamkāra on this passage. There also occurs the following introductory remark, Efathah ( Navadvipa Ms, 76b). In fact, there is a Smſti digest of Harinātha, which contains almost the same passage as quoted by Gaigesa. cf. तत्र नरान्तराज्यापारान्यवहित- प्राणवियोगफलकल्यापारकर्ता साक्षाद् वधी...। अतो व्यापारहेतुभूताभिसन्धाना- विषयनरान्तरल्यापारानपेक्षमरणजनकव्यापारो वधः। तत्कर्ता वधीत्यर्थः (AS B Ms, f. 110). Gangeša here used ‘vadhah' for 'hiñsa'. It may be added that Bhavadeva (c. 1100 A, D.) also discussed the definition of 'hanana' in his Prāyaścittaprakarana (pp. 1-8 ). But the discussion of Harinātha and Gangeša is more advanced and intricate, ·CHAPTER III GANGEŚA UPĀDHYAYA & HIS SON VARDĦAMĀŅA Gangeśa's achievement is quite unique in the history of philosophical literature in India. There is not another scholar, in the whole medieval period who had such a spectacular success through one single book. The Tattvacıntāmaņi, a treatise of about 12000 granthas in extent, appeared like a flash to dispel the gloom of centuries succeeding Udayana and laid the solid foundation of Indian dialectics. When a devotee of the belles-lettres encountered him on an occasion Gangeša is said to have uttered the following magnificent bravado. अनास्वाद्य गौडीमनाराध्य गौरी विना तन्त्रमन्त्रैविना शब्दचौर्यात् । प्रसिद्धप्रबुद्धप्रबन्धप्रवक्ता विरिश्चिप्रपञ्चे मदन्यः कविः कः ।। This accords well with his confident assertion at the commencem ment of his work that he was the 'presiding professor of philosophical conclusions' (FEELS: ) The book divided into four grand parts after the four means of valid knowledge pror pounded by Gotama has a total of 46 broad sections (12+17+ 1+16) exclusively dealing with the single topic of Pramāņa (mataha fafgeya ). This well-knit marshalling of all relevant dissertations (vādas ) into a single comprehensive treatise took the learned world by storm and in course of time single sentences of Gangeśa, such as the Vyāptipañcaka, developed into separate works of considerable length. The number of sub-sections, therefore, will now count well over two hundred. The book has been ably summarised by Vidyābhūsaņa ( l. C., . pp. 407.453 ). 4 Relevancy (fa) is one of the favorite topics of modern scholars and every section of Gangeśa's book has been subjected in the first instance to a scrutiny on that point. Before him ·Gangesa Upadhyāya & His Son Vardhamana 97 Manikantha and Saśadhara, whose works are now available in print had made collections of dissertations on similar lines but they failed miserably on that fundamental point though they paved the way for Gangeša The latter s style also improved considerably in precision and uniformity Methodology now became the key note of Indian logic and its repercussion on the historical and evolutionary treatment of topics was unfortunate Gangesa and his followers became concerned with what precisely is the argument for and against a problem and cared very little for who argued Gangeša s studies as he himself stated were confined to the Nyaya and works of the Prabhākara school which must have dominated higher studies in Mithila at that time Unlike Udayana whose talents developed through his conflict with the powerful Buddhist scholars Gangeśa's conflct was with the Prābhakaras whose arguments are refuted by him in most places This fact has been stated as the special feature of his work by Rucidatta (But the wonder is that in his whole book there are barely half a dozen specific names and among them only one probably was a Prabhakara viz Srikara (Isvaranumana, B I ed , p 186) Among the rest we need only mention Jayante who is given the epithet termoparta (Upar mana Pt. p 61 ) It should be noticed that this is probably the earliest mention of the Kasmirian author by an Eastern scholar Gangesa might have been a poet also in his times, as his son Vardhamāna testified to his poetic talents in the epithet सुकविकैरवकाननेन्दु Gangeſa's family Gangesa's name has been fortunately discovered by Prof R Jha in the Pañjis of Mithilā and this has an important bearing on his date •We shall quote the exact words of the genealogists and discuss them carefully There are two manuscript copies of what is called a 'Sakhāpañji' preserved in the Raj Library, Darbhanga One of them (Ms No 553 ) is very clearly written by one Purusottama at the village Mangalvani in 1642 Saka ( 1197 al 2) ·98 History of Navya Nyāya in Mithila and the other of about the same date is in a dilapidated condition both being in palm leaves Prof Jha is the only scholar who has studied them critically About Ratnakara son of Sāthu, of the EHfSTIA family of Vatsya gotra ) it is written by Purusottama छादनस तत्वचिन्तामणिकारक म०म० परमगुरु TATT In the other copy (fol 39a ) the same Ratnākara son of Sidhukara 1s described as छादनस चिन्तामणिकारक २ गद्देशदौ The figure 2 curiously stands for two M's i e Mahāmahopādhyāya at is is an abbreviation for liga stands for FILET Gangeśa thus belonged to a family of which the Mula grāma was Chādana a village which remains yet to be identified in Mithila The family which was inferior in social status is now extinct in Mithila According to the Gotrapanji it belonged to the Kāśyapa gotra It appears therefore that Vardhamāna was referring to his own family when he wrote in the kusumāñjalıprakaśa ( p 7) 717 tunia The daughter's son Ratnākara on the other hand belonged to one of the best families of Mithilā The Pañjis give elaborate accounts of the latter family, recording Ratnākara s alliances in great details. Gangesa s family is completely ignored and we are not expected to know even his father's name There is one more reference to Gangesa in the Panji About Bhaveśvara of the respectable Jazıbala famıly (of Sandılya gotra ) Purusottama wrote छादनस तत्त्वचिन्तामणिकारक जगद्गुरु म० म० गनेशसुत सूपनदी भण्डारिसमस हगदित्यदु(हित दौहित) सूपनभ्रातृ- Eftiaifa af EITI I This is exactly found also in the other copy (fol. 339a ) This proves that Gangesa had at least three sons, Vardhamāna Sūpana and Harśarmā It is interesting to find that the Paſījis record evidently from contemporary sources two of the highest titles with which Gangesa was endowed viz 'Paramguru' and 'Jagadguru-an evidence of the metconc career that he enjoyed in his own land Only Vācaspatı Miśra II enjoyed the former title according to the Panjis As there is no other reference to ·Gangesa Upādhyāya & His Son Vardhamana 99 Gangesa we can assume that the family dwindled into insignificance again and became extinct soon after his sons' death. His native place is unknown, unless it be identical with his ancestral village Chādana Absured stories about his illiteracy, his overnight acquisition of knowledge through divine grace without studies and his quarrels with an uncle are still told in Nyāya seminaries specially in Bengal. They are completely talsified by his own words at the commencement of his work. The well-known verse f fe ricavarne silent which he is said to have addressed to his uncle is ascribed it should be noted, by Vācaspati Miśra II in his Khandanoddhāra ( 149 ) to Dharmalıttı. Such stories existed from ancient times and travel from land to land to be localised wherever there are extra-ordinary talents Date of Gangesa We shall discuss the problem of Gangeśa's date in some details as there is much confusion among scholars about it Weber first suggested that Gangesa lived in the 12th century A. 1), (Hist of Indian Lit., p 246 fn.) the authority cited (ZDMG, XXVII 168 ) is really based on an opinion expressed by an Indian scholar of no note without any evidence that Gangeša lived '700 years ago ( Mookerjee's Mugazine, 1872, p. 123 ). The silent acceptance of such an unwarranted opinion by a scholar of Weber's repute produced perhaps a tendency among many scholars to place Gangesa too early Keith also argued ( Indian Logic and Atomism, 1921, p. 33 ) that he lived within 1150 1200 A. D. He was evidently influenced by Sualt (1. c. p 66 note cf, 1, 0, II, p 547 ). The evidence he put up, specially on the connected dates of Jayadeva and Rucidatta, is absolutely wrong as we shall prove at the proper place. Vidyābhūşana (J A S.B., 1918, p 282, also Indian Logic, pp 4C6-7) placed him about 1376 A. D'on the basis of a succession of generations of pupils which is not correct and which is fundamentally useless for chronological investigation.

·100 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithila According to Dr H, P Šāstrī a Ms. of Vardhamāna's Kusumāñjalıprakāša, now preserved in the Asiatic Society (No 794), provides a positive clue to his date The copy is divided into two parts written by two different hands with about a century intervening between them At the end of the part which was later in date there was a date '1342 Śaka' (1. e. 1420 21 A D.) The page mark 3 in the other part exhibits a peculiar form which was current, according to Bendall, within 1300-1360 A D. It is, therefore, impossible to place Vardhamāna after the 13th century AD (Hist of Tırhut, 1922, p 179 Des. Cat, A. S. XI, pp 96-7) The evidence is wholly wrong at every single step We have carefully examined the copy, the date of the so-called later part is now completely effaced and it is impossible to surmise that the date was legible a few As a matter of fact, Dr. Sāstrī gave the date as *1334 to a Pandit who published it in his book 'Kusumāñjalısaurabha' (1330 B S, Introd, p 13). He was not evidently sure of his reading of the date. The Ms. is on palm leaves and cannot be more than 400 years old by any consideration. Dr. Šāstri, moreover, completely failed to notice that the form of the figure 3 on pages 30-39 of the so called earlier part is quite modern in appearance and the same scribe used both the forms. It is impossible therefore to hold, as Bendall did that a particular form was current just within 60 years of the 14th century We have found the same form in many manuscripts of the 16th and 17th centuries years back AD Gangeśa's date can be fixed within narrow limits from a thorough investigation of literary evidence, internal and exter. nal, as well as facts from family history now available in abundance. (1) Among his predecessors, whose accounts have been collected in the last chapter, there are several who belonged to the 13th century A, D, We should repeat the names of Narā.

·VIBRA Gangesa Upādhyāya & His Son Vardhamāna 43392_ yana Sarvajña, Divakara, Manikantha and Harinātha. The last two scholars might be living still in the first quarter of the 14th century A, D and the terminus a quo of Gangeśa's period of activity should be taken as 1325 A D (2) The earliest writer to refer to Gangeśa as far as we can gather at present, is the great Maithila scholar Vateśvara Upadhyāya, who must have criticised Gangeſa sometime between 1350 75 A D Thus Gangeśa's period of activity terminated, at the present state of our knowledge, in 1350 A D (3) This is confirmed by the notable fact which seems to have escaped the notice of scholars, that no foreign' scholar has ever referred to Gangeša before 1400 AD We shall cite some instances The Nayanaprasādıni commentary on the Citsukhi is truly a cheering storehouse of quotations from all philosophical works written in India till the time of the author The Citsukhi was written in the middle of the 13th century and the commentary about 1400 A D We have failed to discover any reference in it to the Maithila scholars Taranı Miśra, Manikantha or Gangesa The views of 'new' dialecticians in Vādındra's Rasasāra (p 62 ) or the reference to the followers of the 'equivoque' in the Citsukhi (Bombay ed , 1915, pp 176 and 353 ) are sometimes loosely ascribed ( Introd to the Rasa sāra p.5 ) to Gangeśa in whose work they are not certainly traceable Gunaratna, who wrote one of his works in 1409 A D., does not mention Manikantha or Gangesa in his Şaddarśanasamuccayavitti Cinnabhaţța commented on the Tarkabhāsa under Śrī. Harihara-Mahārāja' ( so in the colophon, Dr. Bhandarkar's ed, p. 262 ), who was identical with Hanhara II of Vijayanagara (1377-1404 A D.). In the commentary itself there is incidental mention of "Vijayanagari' (p 228 ), the great centre of culture in South India But Cinnabhafta proves himself absolu- ·102 History of Navya Nyāya in Mithilā tely oblivious of the great upheaval of studies on the Tarkaśāstra in Mithila under Saśadhara, Manikantha and Gangeša and was still looking upon Varadarāja (p 133 & 145 ) and Vadīndra (p 214 ) as the latest authorities on the śāśtra It should be mentioned in this connection that about a century after Cinnabhatta Balabhadra of Varanasi a profound scholar of Navyanyāya of the Gangeśa brand, referred in his commentary on the Tarkabhāsā to the classical works of the school like Drazzopāja and Tattvabodha of Vardhamāna ( fol 4 of Poona Ms No 200 of 1884 6 ) and all the subsequent scholiasts of the book Viśvakarmā Govardhana Gopinātha and Gaurikānta to name only a few were followers of Gangeśa Similarly the great polymath of South India Anandapūrna Vidyāsāgara whose date has been fixed by Dr Raghavan as about 1350 s. n. (Annals of Oriental Research, IV , p 2), an his standard commentary on the Khandana of Sriharsa quoted an advanced refinement of Udayana's definition of Upādhr ascribed by him to one Nārāyana Sarvajña ( Chowkh edap 714) This particular refinement however, was cited and refuted by Gangeša at the very beginning of his Upādhivāda (Anumāna, B I ed , pp 296-9), where the subject was treated in a far more advanced and intricate manner, of which Vidyāsāgara was quite oblivious In South India the Mādhva scholars specialised in studies. on the Navyanyāja to an extent not found anywhere else (except Bengal) They refuted the arguments of Gangesa and his followers, meeting tliem in their own method But the earliest writer to launch this attack was the great Vųāsatirtha 1 1460-1539 A. 1 ), whose Tarkatāndara is, as far as we are aware, a pioneer work in the field No Madhsa scholar before Vyāsatirtha had any acquaintance with the Maithila upheaval under Gangesa.

·Gangesa Upadhyāya & His Son Vardhamāna 103 (4) Among Maithila scholars the date of Candeśvara, the author of the several Ratnakaras is now fixed beyond any dispute. He performed a Tulāpurusa in 1236 Śaka (1314 a 1.), evidently in his early youth, and wrote his last work the Rājamitiratnakara about 1370 8. D. under king Bhaveśa. Long before the discovery of the last named work it was known tradr tionally that he survived in the reign of king Bhavasımha (Hist. of Turhut, 1922, p. 170 fn ). His date of birth, therefore, cannot be placed before 1275 a. D. and the period of his literary activity must now be placed between 1320-70 A D The following synchronistic table makes Gangesa a contemporary of Candeśvara Devāditya of the Vs.phı family Vireśvara (1st son ) Jateśvara ( 4th son ) Chandeśvara Sūpana Gangesa Guniśvara =daughter daughter =Sadhukara (of Jajibāla family) (of Bambhanıñām family) daughter Ratnākara . Ratnākara had many wives and this was his last wife Gangeća, therefore, was very much senior to Sūpaná just like Candeśvara, *. who was the eldest man of the family in that generation This wife of Ratnākara, it should be noticed, was a cousin of the famous Vidyāpati. Guņiśvara, father-in-law of Ratnākara, was ninth in descent from the first ancestor of the Jajibāla family named Dandapāņı All these point to the conclusion that Gangesa can by no means be placed before 1300 A, D. (5) Candeśvara's younger cousin Rāmadatta engaged M M. Bhavašarman of the Khauāla family to write for him the Mahādānapaddhati. Bhavašarman, therefore, was an exact ·104 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithilä contemporary of Candeśvara and wrote that book in the second quarter of the century within 1325 50 A.D. Now Bhavasarmar's mother's mother was the eldest daughter of MM Kāhnu of the Sankarādhi family, who was thus about two gene rations earlier than Bhavasarman Kāhnu's second daughter was given in marriage to Laksmīśvara of the Jajibāla family, sixth in descent from the first ancestor Dandapāni Laksmiśvara's ( elder ) cousin Subhadatta was the great-grandfather (fiatie) of Harāditya (alias Jiva ), the husband of Gangesa's granddaughter ( 978 ) Gangesa therefore like Bhavašarman was two generations later than Kāhnu It confirms our contention that Gangeśa cannot be placed before 1300 A, D by any means Kāhnu's youngest daughter's daughter was the younger stepmother of M M Jagannātha of the Mandara family, father of the famous -Vateśvara Upādhyāya mentioned above Jagannātha was thus a contemporary of both Bhavašarman and Gangeśa, while Vateśvara becomes a contemporary of Gangeśa's son Vardhamāna The Tattvacintamani A rapid survey of the contents of the book is however necessary for our purpose Gangesa produced this 'jewel', as he states in the third introductory verse for the decoration of scholars and for dispelling the terrible darkness of heretics. Moreover, opponents ( so ably exposed herein ) will no longer press their views cleverly in debates and the doctrines of his own school are stated fully without mincing matters विपक्षपने न विचारचातुरी नव स्वसिद्धान्तवचोदरिदता। The ideal has been maintained by the author throughout with conspicuous success 1 Por other informations about Gangeša vide our 'Vange Navyanyayacarca' pp 15-19 ·Gangeša Upādhyāya & His Son Vardhamāna 105 In the first part dealing with Perception the preliminary section on Benediction (pp 5 114 ) thoroughly examines the topic in all its aspects and it has been elaborated by many later scholars, though Sıromanı did not touch it Gangesa deals with only the first and foremost of the 16 topics of Gautama, viz Pramāna and the next section on Prāmānya divided into three sub-sections Jñaptı (pp 114 286) Utpattı (pp 287 371) and Pramālaksana ( 372 429) really forms the introduction to the whole book and consequently this section and curiously enough this section alone of the Pratyaksa part is assiduously studied by all students of Navyanyaya The next section on Anyathākhyātı or Error ( pp 430-537) also belongs to the general introduction being a corollary to the previous section, the views of the opposing Prabhakara school who advocate in their Akhyātivada that no knowledge 15 an Error have been elaborately examuned in this section It is interesting to find that Gangesa has quoted five rare Kārıkās of the Prabhākaras (PP 465 468 470 474 & 475 6 ) in this section The four fold division of Pramāna and the definition of Pratyaksa is taken up in the next section which particularly deals with one of the terms used in the definition vız Sannıkarsa or Intercourse and its six varieties in the ordinary plane. The whole of this main portion including this section which really gave the name to this first part is now obsolete and its place has been taken by elementary works notably the corres ponding portion of the Muktavali Siromani did not touch this portion at all, proving that it was already getting out of date about 1500 A D Four of the varieties of Sannikarsa are based on Samavaya or Inherence, one of the Vaisesika categories which is not accepted by some schools of thought Gangeša devotes a small section for its establishment (PP 640 72 ) In the next section Anupalabdhe ( Non Perception) which is regarded as a sepa- ·106 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithilā rate means of valid knowledge by the Vedānta and Bhatta schools, specially for the knowledge of that much debated category Abhāva (Negation ), is rejected (pp. 673-92 ) from the Nyāya stand-point, under which Negation is perceptible through the senses One rare Kārıkā is cited in this section ( p 688 ), which is followed by an important section on Abhāva (pp. 693- 719 ), which unfortunately is not studied in the seminaries at present It should be noted that in the Sabda part Gangesa refers to an Abhāvavāda, which seems to be a separate and earlier tract on the subject -तदुक्तमभाववादे-अन्यद्भूतलज्ञानमन्यच्च TREETTAENA I (Śabda, Pt II, p 475 under saktivāda). In this section Gangesa cites the following brilliant verse of the opponents, who do not accept Abhāva as a separate category एतेन-"दृष्टस्तावदय घटोऽत्र च पतन् दृष्टस्तथा मुद्गर दृष्टा खर्परसहति परमितोऽभायो न दृष्टोऽपर । तेनाभाव इति श्रुति क निहिता किं चान तत्कारण स्वाधीना क्लशस्य केवलमिय दृष्टा क्पालावली॥" इति निरस्तम् । मुद्रपाताद् विनष्टो घट इति प्रतीत्यतिरिक्तविनाशानुभवात् (p 717) This very verse is traceable in Ratnakirtı's Sthirasiddhıdasana (Patna ed. of Ratnakirti's works p 111 ), ascer bed to his teacher (Figica )i e the great Jñanaśrī (Ratnakirti reads पलियस्य for क्लशस्य). Jnanasri was still a force to be reckoned with in Gangeśa's times The verse actually occurs in hıs Ksanabhangadhyāja In the next section on Pratyaksahārana (pp 720-62 ) the most elaborately treated subject is the peculiar Nyāya thesis that Gold is not a substance, but only a sort of light. One of the sources of Gangesa on the problem was Udayana (p 750). In the next section (pp. 763-83) the well-known Nyāya theory that Mind 13 an organ and it is minute ('anu' ) is established. Anuvyavasāya (apperception ), one of the vital things connec ted with Perception, is next dealt with (pp. 784-898), followed by Nin ikalpa and Savikalpa, the two kinds of Perception, with which the first part ends.

·1115 You a 107 'The second part on Anumāna ( Inference ) is by far the most popular, though the most intricate portion of the whole book. It is now broadly divided into two halves, commonly known as the Vyāptıkānda and Jñānakanda and scholars used to specialise in either of them or rarely in both The first seco tion on the definition of Anumiti or Inferential knowledge and establishing the validity of Inference against the views of Cārvāka (pp. 1-26 ) is immediately followed by a grand section, Vyāptivāda dilating on the first term of the definition viz. Vyāptı ( Invariable concomitance of the middle term with the major term ) There are seven sub-sections under it, viz. Vyāptıpañcaka (five provisional definitions ), Simha Vyāghri (two similar definitions of Professors Lion and Tiger ), Vya. dhikaranadharmāvacchinnabhāva, Pūrvapaksa (collection of various other definitions ), Siddhāntalaksana ( final definition of Gangesa), Sāmānyābhāva ( a separate class of Negation formulated for clearing a definition ) and Višesavyāptı (other specialised definitions) The next section on Vyaptıgrahopāya (pp. 174-252 ) consists of two sub sections, Tarka ( confutation) and Vyāptyanugama The first half ends with Sāmānyalaksanā, a much debated kind of preter-natural sense contact, established by Gangesa. The second half opens with Upādhi ( vicious condition ), its definition classification ground of vitiation and fallacious aspects. But the section is long out of date and is now almost a lost portion of the book The remaining sections are the delight of all serious students of Navyanyāya—Paksată ( on the minor term ), Parāmarśa ( Deduction), Kevalānvayī & Kevalavyatıreki ( kinds of Anumāna), Arthápatti (Presumption, not a separate Pramāna as advocated by the Mimāmsā) Avayava (five lembs of a syllogism ) and the last section on Hetvābhāsa (Fallacy ) consisting of ten sub sections viz Sāmänyanırukto (General definition), Savyabhıcāra &c (five kinds of fallacy with three sub classes treated in 8 different sub-sections) ·108 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithilā closing with a statement on the efficacy of fallacies in demonstrating inefficacy of arguments. The latest phase of Navyanyāya studies in India for about two centuries flowed through a large number of channels cut by single sentences or phrases of this part of Gangeśa's work and by far the widest channel emerged from the general definition of Fallacy. It has now assumed proportions through the efforts of all the best Indian brains in Navyanyāya, which is a world's wonder in the field of intellectual feats, though to the uninitiated it is only 'a vast mass of perverted imgenuity' ( Keith Indian Logic and Atomism p. 35 ) The Iśvaravāda of Gangeśa, which is the concluding section of this Anumāna part, is, as we have stated before, now obsolete, being lost in the unfadıng glory of the original Kusumāñjal of Udayana, on which it was based Likewise the Upamāna part of Gangesa has been quite out of date for a very long time Only one scholar of Mithilā as far as we are aware, commented on at viz Rucidatta. Pragalbha of Bengal distinctly stated that while there are ways devised by the learned on the three major parts, not even a *sigh' was made in the hard Upamāna part, where he was 'without a prop'. उपायाः प्रत्यक्षे चरममनुमाने च कृतिभि' फुवा शब्दे चित्रं न विलिसनमस्त्येषु किमपि । न चोच्छ्वासोऽप्योपमितिकरणेऽकारि गहने निरालम्बे किंचिल्लिखति भुवि यः सोऽन विरलः।। (Pragalbha's Upamanasangraha, A. S Ms., Introd. v 2). The fourth part of the Tattvacintamani deals with verbal testimony and is called the Sabdakhanda. It opens with the definition of verbal testimony Śabdanırūpana. A discussion on ſabdabodha (verbal judgement) follows. Šabdapramanyavada then proves the validity of verbal testimony as an independent ·Gangesa Upadhyāya & His Son Vardhamāna 109 organ of cognition. Then follow the dessertations on ākānksā (expectancy), yogyatā (compentency) āsatti (contiguity) and tātparya ( word import ) which are indispensable conditions to produce verbal judgement The Śabdānityatāvāda deals with non eternity of sound The ucchannapracchannavāda deals with the theory that sound is destroyed and not-concealed The vidhi, apūrva and śaktivadas deal with Vedic Injunctions merit and demerit and potentiality respectively. Next comes the dessertation on Laksanā-secondary meaning The following sections deal with the logical implication of the grammatical problems like compound words ( samāsa), verbal suffixes (ākhyāta), the roots ( dhātu ) and prefixes ( upasarga ) The concluding section establishes the validity of the four types of cognitive instruments after refuting the validity of antihya (tradition), janaśruti (rumour ) arthāpatti ( implication) and anupalabdhi (non apprehension ) Like the Anumanakhanda the Sabdakhanda also became highly popular and numerous commentaries were written on both of them In the Nyāya seminaries of Mithilā and Bengal almost equal importance was attached to both The work of Gangeša became highly popular very soon and was studied and commented upon in various centers of culture of India. It not only cast the works of the old school of logic into oblivion but the neo logical works of his predecessors also faded into insignificance and gradually were forgotten due to its overwhelming popularity and all embracing character. We, however, find scholars like Vardhamāna Vācaspati Miśra II, Sankara Miśra and others devoting much time and energy to revive the old school of Aksapāda But their efforts met with no conspicuous success The influence of Gangeśa's school was felt even outside the boundaries of India and we hear of Burmese Mss of neological works in Mss. Libraries (unde Io Cat. Vol II. P 576).

·110 History of Navya Nyaya in Mithilā VARDDAMĀVA UPADHYĀYA The Tattvacıntāmanı soon established a school through the works of Gangeśa's son and disciple Vardhamāna. The contributions of this great logician bear the titles 'prakāśa' and 'upāya. Later authors refer to him. as 'Upāyakāraka'. It appears that Vardhamāna had no sons but his grand children through a daughter were many and we get their accounts in the Pañurs We give below a list of Vardhamāna's Nyāya Vaišeşıka works (1) Anviksānayatattvabodha-commentary on chapter V of the sūtras of Gotama Pt. Surendralal Tarkatirtha utilized a Ms of this work in his edition of the Nyāyasūtravivarana. MM Ganganatha Jha is said to have discovered two Mss of it. One more is preserved in the Sarasvati Bhavana Baranası and a fourth in the Viśvabhāratī, śāntiniketana We have mentioned (p 78 above ) the Trzsūtritattvabodha of Vardhamāna. But no other information regarding the rest of the work is available. (2) Nyāyanıbandhaprakasa. It has partly been published in the Bibliotheca Indica series along with Udayana's Nyāyavārtikatātparyaparisuddhi. Vardhamāna must have completed the work and chapters I & III of it are available in a manuscript (No. III c 123 ) of the Asiatic Society, Bengal. A very old palm leaf Ms. of the Prameyanıbandhaprakāśa is preserved in the Government Sanskrit College Library, Calcutta, (3) The Nyāyapanſistaprakāśa has been published in the Calcutta Sanskrit Series along with the Nyāyaparıšista of Udayanācārya. (4) The Kusumāñjalıprakaśa has also been published long ago (5) The Kitanavaliprakasa - The Dravya and Guna sections have been published in the Bibliotheca Indica series and the Sarasvati Bhavana text series respectively.

·Gangeša Upādhyāya & His Son Vardhamana 111 (6) The Lilavutiprakāśa has been published from Chawkhamba, Baranasi. (7) A Ms. of the Khandaraprakasa is preserved in the Asiatic Society, Bengal. (8) Vācaspati Miśra II in his Khandanoddhāra (p. 77) mentions Vardhamāna's work bearing the same title (9) Padmanabha refers to the sub-commentary on the Bauddhādhıkāraprakāśa of Vardhamana by Balabhadra in the Setu (p. 378 ). ( 10 ) The Tarkaprakāśa on Keśava Miśra's Tarkabhāşa is said to have been preserved at Ulwar (Ulwar Cat, p. 28, No. 653 with a sub-commentary on the same Ibid, No. 654 ). It is said that an incomplete Ms. of the Maniprakasa of Vardhamana came to the Sarasvati Bhavana, ( Venis. Benares Cat. p 193), But we could not trace it For various reasons we cannot accept that Vardhamāna commented on the Tattvacintāmanı. Vardhamāna refers to his earlier works in subse quent ones. The Kusumāñjalıprakāśa mentions the Tattvabodha, the Nibandhaprakāśa and the Pariſistaprakāśa The Lilavatiprakasa mentions the Kusumāñjalıprakaśa, Vardhamāna quotes his father's views in numerous cases. But we find no reference to the Maniprakaśa either in his own works or in those of his successors On the other hand the remarks added to a big quotation from the Cintamani in the Nyāzanbandhaprakasa (pp. 677-92 )--"fa frescultatmig 471 gechip- रुको विस्तरो नानवधेयः seem to suggest that Vardhamāna wrote no commentary on his father's magnum opus. In case of the existence of such a commentary the clarification of his father's views in a different context would have been irrelevant. - As Vardhamāna was held in high esteem both in Mithilā and Bengal, non-mention of such an important commentary of Vardhamāna if ever written, in later' exegetical works on the Tattvacintāmani is impossible to conceive.

·112 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithila Vardhamāna tried to bridge the gulf between the two schools of orthodox Logic—the old and the new As we have just seen, he commented on the old classics current in his days, But the views of his illustrious father were always uppermost in his mind and he made the best use of them in his works As a smrti writer also, Vardhamāna commands great respects in Mithila. He wrote the Smrtiparibhāsā, the Sraddhapradipa, the Ācārapradipa and other smrtı digests.

·CHAPTER IV THE AGE OF EXPANSION JIVANATHA MIŚRA The eldest brother of Sankara Mısra's father Bhavanātha Sankara Mośra stated clearly in almost all his works that he had only reproduced the lessons he. had received on each of the classics commented by him from his own father, who again took lessons from his own brother Jivanātha, who might be regarded as the great genius behind all the eminence achieved by Sankara In the Vădivinoda (p 61 ) Sankara cited an important passage of Jivanātha on the section of fallacy ---साध्यात्यन्ताभावसामानाधिकरण्य सव्यभिचार इत्येके । साध्याभावसामानाधिकरण्यमात्र व्यभिचार ! कि च गन्धप्रागभायावच्छिन्नथिव्या गन्धात्यन्ताभाव एव इति नाय पन्या इति जीवनाथमिश्रा । This is a refutation of Gangesa (inde Anumāna part, B. I ed, pp 970-71 towards the end of the section on Badha ) There is another quotation from Jivanātha in the Upaskāra (under IX 11 1. B I. ed. p 392 ), it is an extremely intricate definition of the term 'paksa' Next to it, Sankara cated the well-known definition of Gangeša in a rather slighting mode (fa ft) and found fault with it (एतन्मत्ते बाधस्थलेऽपि पक्षता) referring to his own Manımayukha for further (adverse ? ) discussion Jivanātha's antagonism to Gangesa was evidently derived from Vateśvara Upādhyāya, who was his maternal grandfather according to reliable genealogical records. Vateśvara's descendant Naraharı in his critique on Smrti named Dvartanirnaya refers to Jivanātha's legal decisions several times (Darbhanga ed, pp 18, 20 & 58 ) and once as aligning with Vateśvara ( 16, p 32 - मेवात्मवृद्धप्रपितामहवटेश्वरोपाध्याया , जीवनाथमिश्रादयोऽप्येवम्) It appears that Jivanātha had written a critical treatise on Smrti named Dvaitanımaya. We traced the following rare quotation in Gokulanātha's commentary (Pradipa ) on Vācaspati's Drata- ·114 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithilā mirnaya (A, S Ms No. I.D 5, p 11 ) faca 519914-na-facta इतिपदसमभिव्याहारात्मपदाभ्या बाधितत्वादित्युक्तम् | Jivanātha's date is about 1400 A, D he was evidently not alive when Sankara Miśra took lessons from his younger brother and pupil Bhavanātha (about 1425 A. D.) Sankara was not a direct pupil of his uncle Jivanātha. GANGĀDI YA One of the earlier authorities upon the text of Gangesa His name was almost completely lost till we discovered the following reference in the Pratyakṣa part of the Cintamanivivecana of Vidyānıvāsa Bhattācārya. The unique manuscript of this work of Vidyānıvāsa now preserved in the Sarasvati Bhavana, Varanası, has been thoroughly examined and fully described by us in our account of Vidyānıvāsa (Vange Navyanyāyacarcā, pp. 63-78). In the section on Prāmānyavāda Vidyānīvāsa explains –(fol. 53) Hyufragtag tante- प्रसिद्धापार्थकमिति च शेयमिति नगर्भपाठो वर्द्धमान-गङ्गादित्यानुमत'। (inde B I. ed., p 239 fn & Mathuris, 240 ). The reading 4916- STARTATTETUT is actually found in the Gunaprakāśa of Vardhamāna (S. B. Text, p. 193) The mention of Gangāditya's name along with that of Vardhamāna proves that Gangāditya was an author of fairly early date say, about 1400 A, D and probably commented on Gangeśa's work. Vidyānivāsa wrote the commentary about 1490 A. D. GraȚEŚOP DUYĀYA Another name hitherto entirely lost mentioned by the above-mentioned Vidyānivāsa in the same. book (fol. 47a) - ava yrityratafaraata na gluten पीतादिभ्रम इति स्वीचके। तद्वदन दोपोत्कच्यात् संशयः स्यादिति चेत्-(nde B. I. ed, pp. 207-8). It is not unlikely that this unknown scholar, evidently belongarg to Mobilā, mignt have preceded Gangesa himnself NIY ALOCANAKABA. The name of this author remaids yet to be discovered. He was one of the earliest scholars ।

·runs Jayadeva alias Pakşadhara Miśra 115 who criticised Gangesa and evidently belonged to Mithilā. Sankara Miśra in the Vădivinoda cited his definition of 'Vyapti : (p. 57) साध्यामारववृत्तित्वमव्यभिचारः । अव्यभिचारित्वमेव च व्याप्तिः। अवृत्तिगगनादेाप्तिसत्त्वेऽपि पक्षधर्मताया असत्त्वात् न तल्लिंगतेति न्याय- लोचनकृतः । The language proves that the passage is meant as an answer to the Vyāptıpañcaka of Gangeśa In Sārvabhauma's Sabdamanıpariksa there are two references to the Ngāyalocana (Varanasi Ms , fol 28b & 85a), of which the first passage धर्मिण उपस्थितावपि द्वारत्वस्य तज्जन्यजनक्त्वरूपरय प्रमाणान्तरेणानुप• स्थितेरिति न्यायलोचनदूपणमपास्तम् । Here Sarvabhauma clearly indicates that the unknown author attempted to find fault with Gangesa Yet another passage of the Nyázalocana was traced by us in the Sabdamanprakāśa of the famous Bengalı scholar Haridasa Nyayalankara ( fol. 91b of a Ms. Preserved in the Anglo-Sanskrit Public Library at Navadvipa) It runs -एवं कीर्तनर्मनाशादिनाऽदृष्टान्तरं जायते तत पुण्यविनाश । एप रोगादिस्थले दुःख- विशेष एव सस्कारनाशकः । एवं नमस्कारादिनापि पापनाशायादृष्टान्तरं जन्यत इति न्यायलोचनमतम् । तत्तुन्छ तादृशनियमस्याप्रयोजकत्वेन दूरं निरस्तत्वात् । This also seems to be an attempt to find fault with Gangesa. As the book is not mentioned by any recent writer of Mithilā and Bengal the author must have flourished before 1400 the approximate birth date of Sankara Miśra as ascertained by us. There is an illuminating passage of the Nyājalocana in the Tattväloka of Vācaspati Miśra II under II 11.58 (fol 153a) न्यायलोचनकृतस्तु न शक्तत्वं पदत्वं तद्बुद्धिजनकतावच्छेदकरूपवत्वं तच रूपे यद्यस्ति तदा तदेव लक्षणं नोचेदिदमप्यकिंचित्करं तथा च येन रूपेण यनान्वयस्य शब्दस्य ईश्वरेणासाधारणो व्युत्पत्तिः कृता नाहशसाधारणव्युत्पत्तिविषयत्वमेव पदत्यं व्युत्पत्ति-- स्तु कचित् सङ्केत. कचिच्छक्यसबन्धः । न च वाक्येऽतिप्रसङ्गः तत्रासाधारणव्युत्पत्त्य-- भावात् यथा घटमानयेत्यादौ "इत्यादुः।। This is a clear refutation of Gangesa. JAYADEVA altas PAKSADHARA MISRA : is the only scholar of the post-Gangeśa period in Mithilā who succeeded in ·116 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithilā setting up a new school ( sampradaya ) of Navyanyāya through his immortal work--the Aloka on the three parts of Gangeśa's work (omitting the small Upamāna part) It dominated Nyāya studies throughout India for a long time Paksadhara's invincible career as a dialectician is immortalised in the line पक्षधरप्रतिपक्षो न लक्ष्यते कापि लोकेऽस्मिन् । The story of his encounter with Vyāsatirtha ( 1460-1539 1.1.) of Karnāta when he is said to have claimed in admiration of the latter. यधीत तदधीतं यदनधीतं तदप्यधीतम् । पक्षधप्रतिपत्तो नावेक्षि विनाभिनवव्यासेन ॥ or the far more well-founded victory over him of Śromanı of Bengal is really a reflex from his great glory The following account of him collected from authentic sources, some of which were not yet properly investigated, gives many new facts about him His works –He is universally known as the author of a single book, the Aloka, which practically superseded all previous commentaries on the Tattvacıntamant. But among the Sanskrit manuscripts procured by Colebrooke when in India about a century and a half ago and subsequently presented by him to the India Office Library there are two works by Paksadhara viz. Dravyaviveka ( as it is called by the author himself ) and Nyazalilavativveka A thorough examination of the two books, which it appears were not carefully scrutinized by Colebrooke himself or any other scholar, throws a flood of new light on the history of Nyāya- Vaisesika literature in Mithilā and reveals certain puzzling problems about Paksadhara himself The Dravyaviveka (10, 1, p. 665 ) contains no varses, devotional or otherwise, at the beginning and the name of its author is nowhere found IBN Krishnamurti Sarma in a Vol of Eastern & Indian Studies in honour of FW Thomas P 273 We have slightly emended the YETX to suit the metre Sri Sarma reads विपक्ष and नवोनम्यासेन ।

·Jayadeva alias Paksadhara Miśra 117 in the body of the book itself, except the cryptic and somewhat misleading colophon at the end (fol. 103a) –fa sagt टीकायां पक्षधर्या द्रव्यपदार्थः संपूर्णः।। The superscripts on the leaves are are foll. 1-3), 997 (foll. 10, 12-14, 103 ) and 45° ( foll. 15 onwards to the end). On the cover of the last leaf, the title runs FARUTOT 970. It is a brief but useful commentary on the Dravyaprakasa of Vardhamāna and is once referred to in the Lilavativnveka ( fol. 36b ) thus :—are afatit सम्यक् प्रपंचितमितोहोपेक्षितम् | We have traced the reference on folo 54 of the present work ( read along with Dravyaprakaſa of Vardhamāna, B. I. ed. of Kirana ali, pp. 204-6) Both the works entitled Viveka are therefore from the same pen But the most wonderful thing discovered 13 that the author frequently refers here to his commentary on the Tattvaantāmanı also entitled the Viveka and not the Aloka We quote one passage for example al fol 7a, vide Kiraņāvali B. I ed., p. 10) तथापीति । यद्यपि निषिद्धकर्मासक्तस्येति पूर्वदूषणमिहापि, आचारे च विशेषणं तत्रापि समानं तयापि तस्याभावगर्भतया गौरवकरत्वम् अन्न विधिमुखतया लापवमिति हृदयेनैतदेव लक्षणं सिद्धान्तितम् । शेपं च प्रत्यक्षविवेक प्रपंचितमितीहोपेक्षितम् ।। The Pratyaksarveka is also referred to in foll 60a, 76a, 796 and 101b Besides the Anumāna viveka (fol. 14a, 15b, 83a-b), the Guraviveka 18 mentioned once (fol. 86b ) as well as the Kusumāñjaliviveka (fol. 83a - प्रलयानुमानं कुसुमाजलिविवेके द्रष्टव्यम् ). There are four more references to a Viveka under a single topic (fol. 16a-b) which from the context points the Pratyakşaviveka The rare authorities cited in the book are listed below alphabetically. Kandalīkāra (fol. 27b - pilihisa 9701-70 Chart वदति न तु गुणमित्यप्रामाणिकोऽयं पद इत्यतो कादिन दर्शयति कन्दलीकार इति । Kusumāñjalt-Vardhamana ( 36b ). Jagadguru ( q. v. 3b ) Pancamaţika (66a Terrategiaa Talparya, p. 499).

·118 History of Navya Nyāya in Mithilā + Bhaskara ( 82b a passage in Anumānakhanda. B. I. ed., p. 633, lines 5-6 is ascribed here to a pre-Gangesa work, Bhaskara ). Lilavatıprakāśadarpanau ( 35a - la micranthacara- र्भावत्वे सति संयोगान्यप्रत्यासत्त्याघेयत्वमित्येव पाठः। rnde Nyayalalavati, Chowkh, ed , p. 798 ). Vilāsa 90a & 96a identical with Dravakıranāvalıvılása of Dıvākaropādhyāya ( 4. v.) The Lilāvativiveka (1 0,1, p 668 ) is a much bigger work and begins with the following prayer-verse वन्दे तं देवकीपुत्र पवित्रं पद्मलोचनम् । उन्मीलति यत सर्व या सर्व निमीलति ॥ But the name of the author here again is nowhere mentioned in the body of the book which ends ( fol. 129a ) with the colophon इति श्रीपक्षधरकृतो लीलावतीविवेक परिपूर्ण । There are references to the other works of the author viz. Pratyaksaviveka ( 15a, 20a, 39b, 43a, 86b 88b, 92b, 106b, 114a & 118b). Anumānaviveka ( 18b, 93a, 103b 1046 & 115b ). Šabdaviveka ( 520 ). Cintāmanıvıteka ( 452 & 114b ) Dravyaviveka (36b ) and Gunaviveka ( 286 ) The list of authorities cited, a much longer one, is given below arranged alphabetically Acārādarśa ( 22a ), Uddyota ( 18 ) Upādhyāya (93b: identical with Prabhākara ) Kandalıkāra (39b), Kalāpaparfısta ( 66a ), Kiranavaliprakāśa ( 282 ), Caturthaprakasa (576), Jateśvara (q v. 100b ), Darpana (1a, 2a, 6a, 7b & 28b). Dintiyaprakasa ( 18a & 53a), Dvrtizavārtika (60b ), Nibandha (103a ), Padamañjari ( 2a), Puruşottamadeva ( 2a ), Prabhākaropādhyāya (q. v 2a &c 11 times), Prameyaprakasa ( 53a ), Bhavadeva ( 216 ), Mahābhāsya (2a), Renukakanka ( 22a ), Harımıśra (2a) Two more works of Pakşadhara we are told (S B. S IIL. P 136 ) exist at Varanası, a Tippanı other than the Āloka on ·Jayadeva alias Pakşadhara Miśra 119 the Cintamani, which on examination may prove to be a part of the Viveka, and a Safadharavyākhyā. Jayadeva's nephew Vāsudeva, who was a pupil of Jayadeva, refers to another longlost work of Jayadeva named Pramananallava, which seems to have been an independant treatise rather than a commentary. The passage of Vasudeva runs --अतएव प्रमाणपल्लवेऽपि अन्योन्याभाव- ममय हेतुरिति सिद्धान्तित गुरुचरणेनापीति । ( Cintamanitrkā, London Ms, fol 315 ) The identity of this Vivekakāra Paksadhara as distingui shed from the Alokakara is now a great puzzle before us difficult to solve Paksadhara as a surname of the Alokakāra is well-known and the scribe of the Dravyaviveka undoubtedly supports the identity of the two-the Ālokakāra and the Viveka. kāra-when he uses the peculiar abbreviation of the surname *Pākhū'. For, in the family records of Jayadeva we come across exactly this very form of his nickname as current in Mithila In the Bhauāla branch of the Sodarapura family the Panya records - मिश्गूणेसुतौ मिश्रनाथु-जयदेवापरनामकमहामहोमिश्रपाखू- SfHeard I But this identity can only stand on the supposition that Jayadeva wrote two separate commentaries on the Tattvacintamani, the Viveka and the Aloka and that while the former is absolutely unknown in Mithila and Bengal the latter became a standard work throughout India. That an early work of a celebrated scholar, who himself refers to it frequently, would become extinct among his own direct disciples is extremely doubtful, At the beginning of the Pratzaksaloka, Jayadeva after saluting Siva (also invoked in the next part) clearly states अधीत्य जयदेवेन हरिमिश्रात् पितृव्यत । तत्त्वचिन्तामणेरित्यमालोकोऽय प्रकाश्यते ।। This normally means that the Aloka was his first literary venture and it would almost amount to an absurdity if we suppose, as we must in case the Viveka be also ascribed to him, that the ·120 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithila Aloka was composed after finishing a large number of scholia on almost all the standard works of Navyanyāya (including the Tattvacıntāmanı ) under the common appellative Viveka. Among the direct pupils of Jayadeva, Bhagiratha (alias Megha ) covered the same ground as the Dravyaviveka and the Lilāvativiveka of Paksadhara He very frequently refers to a previous commentator entitled 'Miśrāh' (Lilāvati, Chowkhamba ed , pp. 4, 11, 18 &c. more than 25 times), who, as we have ascertained, was neither Sankara Miśra ( who did not comment on Vardhamāna ) nor the author of the Lilavativiveka. under discussion One passage of Bhagiratha ( p 45 ) runs - एव चेयं फकिका किमितीत्यनन्तरमन तु तल्लिखन प्रमादादिति मिश्राणा लिखनं fani We have traced this peculiar solution of an intricate text in Paksadhara also Thus -(fol 13a of the Lilāvativrveka ) साप्रदायिकास्तु किमितीति फक्किकानन्तरमियं फक्किकेति फक्किका सचार्य astafret i This proves that Miśta of Bhagiratha preceded the Vivekakāra, whose arguments against the solution are not reproduced by Bhagiratha It is impossible, therefore, to identify the Vivekakāra with Jayadeva in the present state of our knowledge, The Dravyavrveka was superseded by the much more expansive works of Rucıdatta and Bhagiratha Many passages. of the Viveka are found incorporated in Rucıdattá's commentary without acknowledgement. Bhagiratha also seems to have referred to the Vrveka e.g under the term 'kechit' (Lilavati Chowk, ed, p. 53 cf, Lilavativiveka fol 15a) It is therefore, certain that the Vivekakāra preceded both by a length of time and he probably lived about 1450 AD He cannot be identical with Paksadhara Upadhyāya of the Mandara family, who lived about 1400 , D. Moreover, the author of the Darpana, cited in both the Vivekas before us, was Vateśvara, the father of Paksadhana Upādhyāya But this filial relation is not at all borne out in the two Vizekas ·Jayadeva alias Paksadhara Miśka 121 while in the Tattvanımaya, a Smrt work of this Pakşadhara. (L 1845 ) his father Vateśvara is praised and saluted eloquently We conjecture that the Vivekakāra is a third Paksadhara of unknown parentage and in our opinion, he is identical with Srimat-Paksadhara' of Amarāvatī who transcribed the Visnupurāna in 345 L S. Jayadeva never refers to his nickname 'Paksadhara' in the Aloka and it is extremely doutful if a scholar of his eminence and celebrity could find time to transcribe a Purana. But hitherto all scholars have taken this Paksadhara of Amarāvati as identical with Jayadeva (Vidyābhūsana, l. c, p 456 fn &c.) we Jayadeva's Professors --As have stated above Jayadeva distinctly mentions the name of his uncle Harimišra as his teacher in Nyāya both in the Pratyaksa and the Anumāna parts of the Aloka. The Pañjis record that 'Mahamahopädhyāya' Harımıśra was the eldest of the three brothers, but he was not a 'Mahāmahopadhyaya' of great eminence and did not probably compose any work The following quotation in the Lilāvativiveka probably refers to a grammarian of earlier date? हरिमिश्रास्तु-कर्मधारय एव समास । न चोत्तमपदपूर्व- निपावापत्ति विशेषणविशेष्यभाव प्रति कामचारात् । यथा हि, उत्तमोत्तमत्वं पुरुपान्तराद्विशेषयति तथा पुरुषत्वमप्युत्तमान्तरादित्याहु ॥ (fol 2a) Many portions of Jayadeva's Aloka were published long ago in the complete edition of the text of Gangeśa, as complements to Mathurānātha's commentary In the Pratyaksa part the published portion covers the sections from Samavāyavāda to Nirvikalpavāda (B I ed pp. 640-838 ) In the Anumāna part the whole of the Isvaravāda as well as the last section of the main part (B I ed, pp 983 97 ) is adorned with the Aloka In the Sabda part, where the Āloka begins For Harimiśra the grammatian and a commentator on the Kašika, vide Purusottamadeva s Panbhāşāurtt: &c (Rajshahi, 1946) App, P 128 & Iatrod p 5 ·122 History of Navya Nyāya in Mithila 1s with a salutation to Visnu (ara star ) instead of Sıva as in the first two parts the sections from the Jātiśaktivāda to the end (B I ed, Pt II, pp 556 866) are illuminated by the Aloka. It is a pity however that no complete edition of the Aloka, the greatest post Gangesa work of Navyanyāya in Mithila is likely to be published in the near future But there is almost an universal tradition in Mithila and Bengal that Jayadeva was a pupil of the celebrated Yajñapatı Upādhyāya For instance we find in the Sabdakalpadruma (Pt II 1749 Śaka p 1791) 774975212=EU LAPARTA` trailer 1 ("T") This tradition substantially corroborated by Jayadeva himself Any one who will take the pains of comparing the works of Yajñapatı and Jayadeva will be struck by the irteresting fact that Jayadeva has contro verted the views of Yajñapats at every step. In one such passage cited below, Jayadeva distinctly refers to Yajñapatı as Guru' Commenting on the text of Gangesa beginning with the word hielt (Anumāna, Upādhısıddhānta, B I ed. p 436) Jayadeva writes (Anumānaloka, AS Ms III A 25 fol 56a ) -79 7825ocastanarini 9974 तथोक्तम् । एव सति तत्रातिप्रसङ्गमाशक्य तन्निरासप्रयासगौरव च गुरूणा किमर्थ- मिति न जानीम | The whole controversy has been elaborately treated by Yajñapati's son Naraharı ( foll 57-66 of Tanjore Ms No 6268 ) Moreover, Padmanābha Miśra while explaining the above passage of Jayadeva clearly writes in the Pksadharoddhara (Poona Ms. No 785 of 1887 91, fol 54b)- एवमिति । व्यञ्जनवत्त्वेऽतिप्रसङ्गभङ्गाय यज्ञपत्युपाध्यायैर्यधर्मावच्छिन्नसाध्यव्यापकता तद्धर्मावच्छिन्नसाधनाव्यापकतेति लक्षणार्थों निरुतो न चैव तत्र याति (rde Narahani's Dusanoddhāra, fol 60) Mithila s glory in Navyanyāya - This conflict between the professor and the pupil marked the most glorious period of Navyanyāya studies in Mithila and its echo reached the farthest corners of the country The whole intelligentia, so to ·Jayadeva alias Paksadhara Miśra 123 speak, of Mithilā and Bengal was divided into two rival camps. Yajñapati's son Naraharı himself a direct pupil of Jayadeva, gave a spirited reply to all the points of controversy raised by his teacher and defended his father's views Vāsudeva, a nephew and pupil of Jayadeva, defended his uncle against the attacks of Narahari and many others of the rival camp Padmanābha Miśra, belonging to a Bengali family settled at Varanasi and adorning various royal courts of North India, wrote a commentary on the Aloka named Paksadharoddhāra wherein he inet the arguments of Narahari and others. Padmanābha's date falls in the latter half of the 16th century a p. The healthy controversy, therefore raged in Mithila and the adjecent tracts for well over a century It is a curious and significant fact that with the cessation of this controversy Mithila's literary glory practically came to an end Studies in Pratyaksa and Anumāna-The above controversy was confined to the first two parts of Gangeśa's work and in consequence, studies on the earlier classics of Udayana, Śruvallabha and Vardhamana considerably declined from this. period An intensive and extraordinary switch on Gangesa henceforth assumed proportions which have no parallel in the literary history of the world By Nature's laws the highest pitch, reached specially in Bengal on portions of the Anumāna part alone, marked after a certain period of lull a sharp decline that swept out the very foundations of Navyanyāya. including the solid work of Jayadeva Jayadera's famıly still survives in Mithila He belonged to one of the premier Śrotriya families of Mithilā named Sodarapura of ſandılya gotra. Varāhanātha, 10th (or 11th ) in descent from the first ancestor Halāyudha, settled in the village Bhauāla, after which this branch of the family came to be known He was Jayadeva's grandfather. According to tradition Jayadeva lived in the village named Yamasama. He ·History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithilā had a son named Mahāmahopādhyāya Madhava. There 13 evidence that this worthy son of Jayadeva wrote in defence of his father against the arguments of Naraharı The following "passage in the Manitikā of Jayadeva's nephew Vāsudeva refers to the long-lost work of Jayadeva's son. In the section on Kevalānvayi (B. I ed., p 566) Jayadeva's views ( fol 93a ) are refuted by Naraharı (fol. 83b ) Vasudeva begins his long note here thus -(fol. 58a ) na at nararafa greit 91T न स्यादभावाभावरूपत्वात्तस्य । न चेष्टापत्ति' स्पर्शसमवायोऽपि तदा स्यादेकत्वादिति - these are Narahari's words in a nut shell) 7,47 facut- तावच्छिन्नरूपाभावसद्भावात् रूपविशेषणता च नास्त्येव । इयान पर विशेष सा विशेषणता वायुतैवारमन्मते । तन्मते समवायेन फलतो न कश्चिद्विशेष इति । सोऽय पितृवचनानवबोधनिबन्धनो व्यामोह । इद तु चिन्त्यते । This proves that Mādhava, son of Paksadhara, was senior to Vasudeva. This is exactly corroborated in the family records. Gāngu of the Māndara family had five daughters. Mādhava ( son of 'Pākhū') married the third daughter named Gauri, while Vāsudeva married the daughter of the second daughter Jayamatı. Date of Jayadeva It can now be confidently asserted that all evidences, internal and external, point to the latter half of the 15th century 4. 1), as Jayadeva's period of activity and the Aloka was written sometime between 1465-75 A. D. Those who speculated on his date and identity without examınıng his work and without consulting a single person of Mithila, where Pakhu's name is a house hold word, naturally made astounding statements Keith, for instance, took Jayadeva to be 'no doubt' identical with the author of the Prasannaraghava against a volume of evidence to the contrary (1.0., II, p. 560 ). It 1 Vide Prof. R. Jha's illuminating paper on Kavitaja Bhanudatta in the Patna Vaveruty Journal, p 12 of offprint containing the genealogitable, ·Jayadeva alias Paksadhara Mzśra 125 Teed hardly be stated that Jayadeva, son of Mahādeva of the Kaundinya gotra and with a title Piyūsayarsa is quite a different person, who flourished two centuries before the Ālokakara Moreover, the gotra Kaundinya is of a very inferior rank among Marthila Brāhmanas Similarly the long-drawn controversy about the date of a copy of the Pratsaksaloka (L, 1976 ) -- whether it was 159 L S. or 1509 Śaka-1s quite meaningless There should not have been any question but that it is 1509 Śaka. Jayadeva must have survived till about 1500 D when he gave lessons to the illustrious Bhagiratha, one of his last pupils. On the other hand be was a generation later than Sankara Mišra who belonged to the same family and was his uncle (forcon ) in relation. Jayadeva's style The formidable and intricate style of Navyanyāya works which first took shape from the pen of Gangesa and some of his predecessors, further developed in the hands of Jayadeva, whose manner of arguing a point became the delight of all serious and hard scholars Methodology now became the highway of almost all these scholars who cared very little, as time went on, for the original doctrines and their sources Gangesa Jayadeva ar ſiromani with whom this intricate style culminated by joining hands with a formidable conciseness, sarely name their sources and their works are almost completely wanting in historical materials. The only specific names we could trace in the Aloka are Vatseśvara, author of the (Mimānsă ) Mahamova, Makaronda ( a lost commentary on the Kusumañjal ) and the Darpana in the Pratyaksa part and Bhaskara and a very rare name Pramānapărayana (fol. 131b ) in the Anumana part Jayadeva's pupils There was perhaps no scholar in Mithila and Bengal who could claim so many and such a galaxy of distinguished pupils as Jayadeva had in his seminary. He gave lessons to Naraharı, the son of his professor, to Mādhava, ·126 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithilā his own son, to his nephew Vāsudeva, to Sucikara Upādhyāya (according to tradition ), to the famous scholiast Rucidatta ( who gives him the highest literary title known in India Jagadguru') and last of all to the great prodigy Bhagiratha. We should state here that according to the latest evidence neither Vāsudeva Sārvabhauma nor his pupil Siromanı of Bengal ever came to Mithilā for studies ( vide Vange Navyanyāyacarcā, PP 36 37 & 40). Siromanı's pupılage under Jayadeva is therefore a myth. Jayadeva's popularity in Bengal We heard a curious. tradition in Mithilā, though not widely current there, that Jayadeva left Mithilā in his old age and took shelter in Bengal , This tradition is without foundation, but it is substantially correct in a cultural sense Jayadeva's school emerged out of his great conflict with Yajñapati, whose adherents were ultimately routed at the hands of Jayadeva's followers. No author, except perhaps Siromani, could claim like Jayadeva a band of scholars forming in his very life time a separate school on the basis of his work, which they adorned with regular commentaries One of his earliest commentators was Jaleśvara Vāhınīpati, a son of Jayadeva's contemporary Vasudeva Sārvabhauma , he wrote a Sabdalokodyota ( Vange Navyanyāyacarcă, p 43 ) probably in the lifetime of the Alokakāra. His preference for the Aloka over his own father's commentary the Pariksa ( 1b., pp 37-41 ) is an eloquent tribute to the spectacular success of Jayadeva. This popularity of Jayadeva among Bengalı scholars is a fact of supreme importance It is now completely forgotten that all the scholars of Navadvipa who commented on Siromanı almost invariably commented on Jayadeva also This continued for about two centuries and what is a marvellous fact, the Āloka survived as a text book at Navadvipa for over a century after it practically disappeared in Mithulā itself For, in the 17th century Gadādhara Bhattācārya ( 1604-1709 A, D.) the last great scholiast of Bengal commented on all the three parts of the ·Jayadeva alias Pakşadhara Miśra 127 Aloka (16., pp. 178-79), At Varanasi the Bengali scholars Rudra Nyāyavācaspati, Raghudeva Nyāyālaňkāra and Jayarāma Nyāyapancānana of the same century commented on the Aloka. We have already stated that Padmanabha of Bengal origin commented on the Aloka, but not on Stromani. We refrain from mentioning all the earlier names from ( Siromanı's fellowmate ) Haridãsa Nyāyālankára onwards, full accounts of whom are given in our Bengah work. In South India only the renowned scholar Annam Bhatta is known to have witten a commentary named Siddanjana on the Aloka (R 1536-37) A more recent and less-known scholar named Agnihotra Bhatta wrote a Sphurts on the Aloka, of which parts of the Pratyakșa and Anumāna sections exist in manuscripts at Tanjore ( Nos. 6095-97). It is however a curious fact that Jayadeva's pupil Rucidatta became more popular in South India His Cintamaniprakāśa much more than the Aloka succeeded in founding a sort of a sub-school of Navyanyāya and many distinguished scholars wrote subcommentaries on it. Jayadeva is descnbed by his pupil Bhagiratha as a 'Pandıta-kavi' ie he was both a scholar and a poet like his namesake who wrote the Candraloka and the Prasannaraghava and with whom he is mostly confused Whether any poem can be ascribed to him should be a matter of investigation. His poetic talents are also expressed in the following obituary verse about him which was discovered by us on the cover of the Ms. of Pragalbha's Upamānasangraha preserved in the Asiatic Society ( No. 1752 dated 1643 V. S.) It is a magnificent panegyrıc of the great scholar evidently from the pen of his direct pupils : कुन्दावदारयशसा जगदेव लब्धं साध्वीपयेन कवितापि गता नवागी । $ ·128 History of Navya Nyāya in Mithila स्वर्लोकमागिनि गुरौ जयदेवमित्रे रेत कर्कश तवैव न कोऽपि पन्था.।। T TANTOPÄDAYAYA The extra ordinary eminance of Jayadeva alas Pakşadhara put to shade all the previous scholiasts of Gangeśa, whose commentaries became extinct in no time In our attempt to rescue the names of some of these long forgotten scholars we came accross the extremely peculiar name of Tvantopādhyāya which was completely lost. Some years ago we thoroughly examined the Ms copy of the Anumānakhanda of a commentary named Paksadharoddhāra (B O R. I. Ms. No 735 of 1887 91 vide fol 39b for the actual name of the commentary) In this commentary Padmanābha wrote learned discourses on favourite topics of Navyanyāya and one of them is a long note on the (Vyaptı-) Siddhāntalaksana (fol. 22a 26a ) Towards the end ( fol 25b ) we come across the following passage तथापि वह्निघटोभयवानसौ भूमादित्यत्रातिव्याप्तिं वारयितुं यदवच्छिन्नाधिकरणत्वा- वच्छेदेन साध्यसामानाधिकरण्यस्यावश्यं वक्तव्यतया पूर्वप्रतीकवैयर्थ्यस्य त्वन्त-मते दूपणत्वादिति विचारसक्षेप'। ( The very unusual name found in the manuscript here looks like 'Tkanta', altogether a doubtful reading) Our suspicion, that the name of one of the earliest commentators of the Tattvacintamani has been preserved in this passage, turned into a conviction in a most unexpected manner. Sometimes ago we went to Triveni ( the Hooghly district of Bengal ) to examine what remained of the library of Jagannātha Tarakapañcānana ( 1694-1807 A, 1.) the greatest scholar of his age in Bengal A bundle of stray leaves was all that we could lay our hands upon, from which we recovered a very old copy in corypha leaves of Aniruddha's Pitydayta. A stray palm leaf, torn at both ends was found in this copy containing a most interesting book list. We reproduce the whole of it below as a piece of direct evidence on the courses of advanced studies in Bengal in the middle of the 16th century.

·ly اوره و al 129 It is dated 'Sam 430, 23 Śrāvana' evidently referring to the Lakşmaņa era which was adopted by the Nadia scholars from Mithila. The date falls in the 5th decade of the 16th century A.D. The superscript reads "Tălika-pustaka-bandha(ka) Nadia' (i.e., a list of books bartered at Nadia, the popular name of the city of Navadvipa): (Column 1 ) Kavyaprakāša, Purvakhandana, Anumāna-Miśra. Pratyakşa-Rantako(ddha)ra, Bauddhadhıkāra (5). (Column 2)" Sabdakhanda, Tattvaloka, Pratyakşa-Miśra, Vjavahā(ra)cintamani, Bauddhadhikara-Sankaramiśra (5). (Column 3) Lilavatyupāya (i. e. Lilavatiprakaša of Vardhamāna ). Tat-Jalada (i. e. comm. on-do-( the above) by Bhagiratha whose susname was 'Megha', and 'Jalada' 18 again a synonym of Megha), Kusumañjalyupāya, Guna (i. e, the portion of Udayana's Kirandvali on Guna, Sraddhakalpa (5). (Column 4) Dravyapāya (i.e. Vardhamāna's comm. on the Dravya part of Kiraņávali), Kusumañjali-Jalada, Šabda-Tvanta, Guna-Jalada (4).. (Column 5, torn) Gunopalya), Śabda-Gopi(nātha), Ācārāldarsa), Manu, Dra(vya?) (5). The list is a good evidence that the Bengali scholars at that time assiduously studied all up-to-date Maithila works, specially on Navyanyāya. The mention of Pratyakşakantakoddhara by Madhusūdana Thakkura is important as indicating the later limit in the date of its composition. The mention of 'Sabda-Tvanta' ( the reading is quite clear and beyond any doubt ) is certainly the most valuable feature of the list. It proves that the long-forgotten Maithila scholar Tvanta wrote a commentary on the Tattvacintāmani, of which the last part (Sabda-khanda ) was procured for the private library of Nadia. Padmanabha's reference is to the second part of the same commentary. That he commented also on the first part of Gangesa's work is proved by the following quotation traced by us in a unique copy of the - Pratyakşalokaprasarani by Kļşnadāsa Sārvabhauma, one of the earliest scholars of Nadia ·130 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithilā who lived in the second quarter of the 16th century A. D. (vrde Krsnadāsa's full account in our Bengali work Vange Navyanyāyacarcă, pp. 114-23) अत्र त्वन्तोपाध्याया-ननु अनुमानं प्रवर्तकं वा परिशेषानुमानविशेषणीभूत- सफलत्वसाधकं वा । श्राद्ये परिशेषानुमानविशेषानुमानविशेष्यसाधकस्यैव प्रक(त)- त्वात् कविसाध्यत्वपक्षेत्यापातत । द्वितीये एतावतारम्भस्य व्यर्थत्वात् मङ्गलं सफलं (स)माप्तिफलकं समाप्त्यन्याफलकत्वे सति सफलत्वादित्यस्यैव सम्यक्त्वात् इवि hei (fol. 7a of a dilapidated Ms in our possission: beginning of Mangalavāda, B I ed., p 9). At the present state of our knowledge this Tvantopādhyāya happens to be the earliest known commentator on Gangeśa's Tattvacntamani, for he preceded both Jayadeva Mıśra ( Paksadhara ) and Sankara Miśra as we shall presently see Tvantopādhyāya's commentary on the Kusumānjalı named Makaranda, The Kārkās of Kusumāñjalı were commented upon, among others, by Rāmabhadra Sārvabhauma and this 'Ramabhadri' was extensively studied in the Nyāya seminaries of Bengal till the last century. This Rāmabhadra was a son of the famous Jānakinātha Bhattācārya Cūdāmanı, author of the Nyarasıddhantamaſjari He mentioned his father's name in most of his works, eg,(I) in the beginning of the Nyayarahasya, श्रोभट्टाचार्यचूडामरिणतनय इद रामभद्रस्तनोति. This commentary on the Nyayasutras goes to the end of Chapter IV only, where the colophon runs-इति महामहोपाध्यायश्रीभट्टाचार्यचूडामरिणतनयश्रीभट्टाचार्य- Firemamafarafia -21472ETT Utst (fol 1206 of Nyāya- Vaišestka manuscript. No 9 of the Sarasvati-Bhavana, Benares. The commentary on chapter V proves on examination to be a separate work named Anviksikitattavvivarana by Rāmabhadra's father Bhattācārya Cadāmanı himself (Vide Sahitya Pansat- Patrka, Vol. 51, pp. 69-70) (2) In the beginning of the Gunarahasa चूडामणेस्तार्किकाणा पुर्गुणरहस्यकम् । रामभद्रसार्वभौमभट्टाचार्यविधीयते ॥ (v. 2, Ms in our possession) ·. Tvantopādhyāya 131 (3) In the beginning of a small work on Smętı named Samaya. Tahasya हरिहरपरणो पितरं तार्किकचूडामणिं नत्वा । क्रियते समयरहस्यं श्राद्धानां सार्वभौमेन ॥ (Ms. in our possession) ( 45 ) In a well known verse in the beginning of Rāmabhadra's Padārthatattvaţika(Benares Ed, p. 81 ) and Nañvādatika RAS.B Ms. No III G. 148, a unique copy dated 1957 Saka) -- तातस्य तसरसीरहकाननेषु, चूडामणेर्दिनमणेश्चरणौ प्रणम्य । श्रीरामभद्रसुकृती कृतिना हिताय, लीलावशात् किमपि कौतुकमातनोति ॥ All doubts about the identity of Rāmabhadra and his father should now be finally dissolved (cf. I.HQ, XX, pp. 190-92 ). The strange introductory verses found in the beginning of Rāmabhadra's Kusumañjalıkārkāvyākhya in all available Ms. copies-and we have examined scores of them—which created a baffling problem before two generations of scholars, must now be regarded as the composition of some scholar other than Rāmabhadra The first verse of benediction (आमोदेः परितोपिता.) has been traced in the Amoda, a commentary on the whole of Kusumanjali (and not on the Kārıkās alone ) by the famous Sankara Miśra of Mithila, whose parents are again unmistakeably invoked in the second verse भवानीभवनाथाभ्या पितृभ्या प्रणमाम्यहम् । यत्प्रसादादिदं शास्त्रं करतीरोपमं कृतम् ॥ Sankara has referred to his father Bhavanātha's instructions in many of his works, e g. Vadivinoda, Lilāvatikanthābharana and Upaskāra. It was MM, Dr Gopinātha Kavırāja who first discovered a superscnpt in a Ms. copy of the 'Rāmabhadri' (fol. 6a, इत्यन्तं शंकरमिनकृतं ततः सार्वभौमीयम् ), which clearly stated that the first 4 or 5 leaves of the book were of Sankara Miśra's come position and the rest Sárvabhauma's. (Kusumāñjalıbodhani, S. B. Text, Introd., pp, II-III f. n ) The 'Ramabhadrı', has ·132 History of Navya Nyāya in Mithila been published in the 'Ābutosa Sanskrit Series' of the Calcutta University (edited by Prof N C Vedāntatirtha) There is indelible evidence in the commentary itself that it is a medley of two different compositions The fourth kārkā (sāpeksatvāt.. ') is introduced twice in two different places, once on p 11 (falling under śankara Miśra's portion of the commentary) thus -तत्र चार्वाकस्येदमाकूत, न हि कारणत्व प्रत्यकं प्रमाण दण्डादी दृष्टेऽपि तत्र सन्देहात् कथमेवमत आह–सापेक्षत्वादिति । It should be noticed that the prose line immediately preceding the kārıkā is explamed in this portion On pp 13-14 again we read, at 1911 भाव कार्यकारणभावे न तावत् प्रत्यक्ष प्रमाण.. कारणवाया सभावनयैव तदुप- पत्तेबाह–सापेक्षत्वाद् । Here the explanation of the prose line 1s omitted and the rest of the earlier gloss is presented in a more elaborate and improved language We should mention that this twice repeated explanation is found in all the Ms copies we have examined including the two in our own possession That the earlier part was from the pen of Sankara Miśra is directly stated in three more manuscripts we have examined. We are in possession of a very old copy where it is written distinctly in the margin of the front page, 'Sankaramıśrasya Kusumanjaliznakhya' and on fol. 5a after fórnectafeta the portion sa BRIEFE is cancelled by smearing yellow pigment upon which at is written clearly इत्यन्ता श्रीमच्छकरमिश्रकृता कुसुमाञ्जलिकारिका. व्याख्या। अपर सार्वभौमीया । In the ancestral library of the late Pandita Daksınācarana Smſtitirtha of Calcutta we found another copy where it is written (fol. 6a ) format Imre TR मित्रीय वठ' सार्वभौमीयम्। Yet another copy was examined by us tn a village Satgeche in the Burdwan district among the remnants of a magnificent library which belonged to (Rāma) Dulāla Tarkavägisa (1732-1815 3 D. Jode of the greatest. Nauyāykaz of Bengal, whose 'Patrikas' on Navyanyāya became popular at one time throughout India. On fol Sa it is written, ist दिति । इति शकरमित समाप्त भव पर सार्वमीमीयम् ! This earlier portion, However, is not identical with the atant Amoda commentary of ·Tvantopādhyāya 133 Sankara. Why this is so and what became of the first part of Rāmabhadra's own commentary are not known and are likely to remain an unsolved mystery. The third verse in the beginning of Sankara Miśra's part of the Ramabhadri is as follows मकरन्दे प्रकाशे या व्याख्या परिमलेऽथवा । ततोधिका पितुर्व्याख्यामाख्यातुमयमुद्यमः ।। Of the three earlier commentaries on the Kusumañjal mentioned in this important verse the Prakasa by Vardhamāna is long available in print. The 'Parimala' is by Dıvākaropādhyāya and a direct commentary on the text. Who was the author of the Makaranda, mentioned in this list by Sankara Miśra ? Not certainly Rucıdatta, the author of the sub-commentary Prakāśamakaranda, who as a direct pupil of Jayadeva Miśra ( Paksadhara ) was at least one generation later than Sankara Miśra In fact this Makaranda is an earlier commentary directly on the Kusumanjali and we have traced a citation from it in the Pratyaksāloka of Jayadeva (towards the end of ‘Prāmānyavāda') -अतएव मकरन्दे अनभ्यासdia a tartavant Baafa (fol 28a of a very old copy with us ). Jayadeva was not certainly referring here approvingly by name to any work of his own pupil Rucidatta In fact a comparison with the corresponding passage in Rucıdatta (St. II, p. 7) proves that the view cited by Jayadeva does not belong to Rucidatta So the Makaranda happens to be a long-lost commentary on the husumānijal.. Fortunately about two years ago we succeded in getting hold of the above mentioned copy of the 'Ramabhadri in the collection of Duläla Tarkavägisa, where an inquisitive copyist wrote down the following invaluable marginal notes upon the third verse cited above (1) Makarande"TYANTOFĀDIYĀTA-krta-śāstre" (2) Prakate—"Vardhamānopādhyâya-k[(ta. ? gra-)athe" (3) Parmale--"Granthavišese".

·may 134 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithilā Date of Tuantopādhyāya ? Sankara Miśra in the above list of previous commentators has omitted other famous names, notably the Bodhani of Varadaraja, who was a Kasmirian. It be presumed that he preferred to confine himself to Maithila works only. As Vardhamāna came after Divākara, we are of opinion that Sankara drew up the above list in an ascending order of chronology. In other words, Tvantopādhyāya came after Vardhamana, though all three preceded Sankara's father Bhavanātha as the words of Sankara seem to imply. Now Śarkara's father and teacher Bhavanātha lived about 1400 A, D, and the date of composition of the two works of Tvantopādhyāya Mariţikā and Makaranda-may be placed within 1375-1400 A.D. We can hail the latter's name, therefore, as the earliest com mentator of Gangesa so far discovered. We should state here that Kļşñadāsa Sārvabhauma's quotation from Tvantopādhyāya, reproduced above, is followed by two other quotations from unnamed scholiasts, who evidently came after Tvantopädhyāya. ŚANKARA MIŚRA : is a name to conjure with in Mithilā. He was a poet (in Panditavijaya and Rasārnava), a dramatist (in Gauri-Digambara-Prahasana), a Smộti writer and above all a foremost Nyāya-Vaiſeșika scholar. He belonged to a most distinguished Śrotriya family of Mithilā and maintained two large seminaries in his celebrated homestead which is a place of pilgrimage in Mithilā. We shall confine ourselves in this account to his philosophical works only. The late M. M. Dr. Gangānātha Jha published in 1915 an edition of his Vadivinoda with an introduction containing a most interesting account of the great scholar of extra-ordinary talents. He confronted the reigning monarch (probably the famous Sivasimha ) when barely five years old with the extempore verse, still recited by Maithila students in wonder and worship :- यालोऽहं जगदानन्द! न मे पाला सरस्वती। अपूर्णे पंचमे वर्षे वर्णयामि जगत्त्रयम् ।।

·Sankara Mišra 135 - this royal visit fetched him money which by promise went to the drummer woman, whose drum sounded by itself at the time of Sankara's birth! She dug a tank with the money, which still goes by her name in the vicinity of Sankara's house. There is a copy of the Harivamša preserved in his house which was writen by his students in one night A copy of the Gitatika from his house ends अहो सर्पपसाम्राज्यमेवजानोव सन्जना । यामयुग्मेन यत्रासीदेतत्परशतद्वयम् ।। "These are some of the wonderful relics still bearing testimony to the halo that strode over Mithilā 500 years ago. Nyāya Vatbesika works of Sankara In the first flash of his great genius Sankara tackled all the hard classics of Navyanyāya without exception and wrote commentaries on each of them His earliest work in this line seems to be ( 1 ) the Manimayukha radiating on the work of Gangesa It has been mentioned by him in most of his works, eg in the Vadivinoda ( 59 ), Kanadarahasya ( 103 ), Lilāvatikanthabharana (p. 73), Upaskāra (pp 154, 161 189, 341, 351 & 405 ) and the Atmatattvavivekakalpalata (B 1 ed, p 534) He seems to have regarded it himself as one of his best contributions But the fact remains that in the heyday of Navyanyāya studies over the work of Gangesa under Yajñapati and his disciple Jayadeva 'the Mayukha of Sankara practically lost all its lustre As far as we are aware none of the eminent Nvyanyāya authonties of Mithilā and Bengal from Yajñapatı downwards ever'took any notice of the Manitika of Sankara, whose name is quite unknown in the mam group of Navyanyāya led by Gangeća. Why It 15 So is really a great mistery. Uptill now only one single copy of the last part of Sankara's Mayakha has been discovered proving that its circulation was very much limited This unique copy is now preserved in Jammu, Kasmıra beyond the reach of scholars. It is complete in ·Ends: . 136 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithila 55 folios only (Stein's Jammu Cat., p. 144, Ms. No. 1537)- Fortunately Stein realising the great importance of the copy has given extracts from the beginning and end (p. 332)-- We reproduce them below. Begins : तातादधीत्याखिलतन्त्रसारं महार्णवादीन् बहुशो निरूप्य । श्रीशंकरेणार्चितशंकरेण वितन्यते राब्दमणेमयसः ॥ चित्रा यद्भवनाथेन व्याहृतं तदिहाखिलं (१ लिखम्)। व्याख्यानगुणदोषाभ्यां स(म्बन्धो मतपितुर्न मे ॥१ चिन्तामणेरिह गभीरतरेऽम्बुराशा- वाशापि कस्य तरणाय गतत्रपस्य। तीर्णो मया परमयं भवनाथसूक्ति- पोताधिरोहणतिरस्कृतसाध्वसेन ॥२ न्यायाणवसहाकृष्टो मणिरन्यस्य दुर्लभः । वयं तु पोतवणिजो निजं मन्यामहे मणिम् ॥३ इति महामहोपाध्याय • सन्मिनश्रीभवनाथात्मजेन श्रीशंकरेण कृतोऽर्य चिन्तामणिमयूखः समाप्तः॥ There are certain revealing features even in the small extracts. In the post-colophon statement the titles (M. M. and Sanmisra), are attached to Bhavanātha alone, who was evidently still alive, and none to Saikara, confirming our suggestion that. this was his first work. In the opening verse Sankara betrays. his predilection for a book named Maharnava; it Nimansāmahāmava by Vateśvara belonging to the school of Prabhākara, This Prabhākara influence upon him might be one of the reasons for his unpopularity in the Gangesa group, though, pathetically, he claimed the Mani as his own. In the first verse at the end Sankara absolves bimself curiously from both merits and demerits of his work, which attach only to his father and not to him ; his task was only to write down what his father saíd! This sentiment is expressed by Sankara in most of his subsequent works ( vide Liloyatikanthābharana, the lacuna in the last verse should be filled up accordingly and Atmatattvavivekakalpalata at the end). . was । .

·Sankara Mišra 137 (2) Trısūtrinbandhavyākhyā : a commentary directly on the first portion of Udayana's Parisuddhi which was popularly known as Nibandha. A single copy of this extremely rare book of Sankara was discovered by H. P. Šāstri at Dinajpur (Notices, III, No. 136), It was complete in 123 folios written in the Bengali script Sankara admits at the commencement that he endeavours only to construe the text, which was adorned already with three illuminating commentaries viz. Prakāśa (of Vardhamāna ), Darpana (of Vateśvara ) and Uddyota (of Divākara ). The book is practically lost, Sankara has not referred to it in any of his works (3) Kıvanāzalınıruktiprakāśa this also seems from the name itself to be an analysis of the great treatise of Udayana. It is referred to only once in the Kanādarahasya (p. 177) It also remains yet to be discovered (4) Bhedaprakāśa published fortunately in the Sarasvati-Bhavana Texts (under the name of Bhedaratna 1933 pp. 73 from a Ms dated 1579 V, S ) It is a bold refutation of Vedāntic Monist from the standpoint of the stout dualism of the Nyāya. In striking contrast with Vācaspati s Khandanoddhāra, which lost itself so to speak on dialectic skill without grappling with the fundamental doctrines Sankara struck at the very root of the controversy with an array of both Vedic texts and arguments. It was for this reason selected as the target in preference to Vācaspatı's work by Madhusūdana Sarasvatī, who as the leader of the Sankarite saints of Varanasi, wrote a full refutation in the Advaitaratnaraksanam in a violent and most unsaintly language. There is an imaginary conversation towards the end of the latter book where Sankara is addressed as an aged bull (घृद्धोक्ष) And ſankara's mild protest also is recorded The Bhedaprakāśa was one of Sankara's earliest works. It is mentioned already in the Vadivinoda (p. 44). Hall (Index, p. 85 ) examined a copy at Varanasi and the very same ·138 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithila . e copy is now preserved at Jammu (Stein's Jammu Cat., 1894. pp. 327-28 ). The date of transcript is 1519 V.S. Caitra- Pūrņımā, Tuesday (corresponding correctly to March 16. 1462 A.D.) and it was copied at Kāšī, in the lifetime of Sankara. (5) Khandanaţikā : This was completely published from Varanasi as early as 1888 A, D. (edited by Bhāgavatācārya, pp. 732 ) and made Šankara's name well-known throughout the learned world. It was written after the Bhedaprakasa which is twice cited (pp. 61 & 124 : fagfamGU 1997)) and before the Vaduinoda probably. Like most of his works Sankara wrote this after taking 'illuminating lessons from his father, who again was indebted to his elder brother Jīvanātha (not Jayanātha ). The concluding verse as printed should be emended slightly thus : स्वभ्रातुर्जीवनाथस्य व्याख्यामाख्यातवान् यतः । मत्पिता भवनाथो या तामिहालिखमुज्ज्वलाम् ।। (p. 732) There is an interesting colophon at the end of the section on Anupalabdhi (p. 415) :- व्याख्यानमिदमस्माकं यथा पितृवचस्तथा । व्याख्यानगुणदोषाभ्यां संवन्धो मत्पितुर्न मे ॥ The next section begins with another interesting verse : या सूक्तिर्भवनाथवक्तकमलादुद्गत्वरी तत्कृतं सौभाग्यं प्रतिपद्य शुद्धमतिभिः श्लाघापदं लम्भिता । न्यस्ता सजनमानसे विजयतामापुष्पवन्तोदयं प्रन्यग्रन्थिविमोचनाय रचना वाचामियं शारी॥ It is a magnificent expression of his own talents coupled with a sense of rare filial obligation. Sankara evidently regarded this commentary as one of his masterpieces and the learned world seems to have endorsed it by, accepting it as Sankara's best work. In the very life time of Sankara a superior scholar Pragalbhācārya, who it should be noted, was not a Maithila, regar- ·Šankara Miśra 139 ded it as an authoritative work, upon which his own commentary on the Khandana was based. For, Pragalbha clearly states at the beginning of his commentary, Khandanadarpana Sinza वर्द्धमानरचितोपायान् विलोड्यापि च (verse 4 Khandana with 5 commentaries Chowkh ed., p. 4) Sankara appears in a dual role in this undertaking. In the first place he attempted to explain the views of Sriharşa faithfully from the standpoint of the Vedānta, but in many places (vide pp. 93-124) he attempted equally to meet the arguments of Sriharsa from the standpoint of dualism. Everywhere, however, he marvellously concluded with a compromise on behalf of Sriharsa and the phrases he used are quite amusing. Such are तथापि "श्रापाततो यदिदमद्वयवादिनीनाम्" इत्याढावेव तात्पर्यम् (p 95). तथापि "स्वप्रकाशसिद्धमेव ब्रह्माद्वैतम्" इति भाव.1 (p. 98). तथापि "तम्यप्रकाशपरमार्थचिदेय भूत्वा" इत्यत्र तात्पर्यम् । (p. 103 ). Tut "maitsta actit" I (p 109 ). Sankara's comments must have raised protests from staunch followers of the Vedānta. One of them was Raghunātha (Vidyalankāra ) author of the Bhūşamanı, the longest commentary on the Khandana. We have ated elsewhere Sārvabhaura's retort as recorded by Raghunātha, who was his grand-pupil. The passage of Sankara exactly occurs in the Khandanațıkā (p 95) In one place Sankara answers Śriharşa in a masterly way by twisting a verse of the latter सुदूरधावनाश्रान्ता वाधबुद्धिपरम्परा- विनिवृत्ताद्वयाम्नायैः पाणिग्राहैर्न जीयते ।। (p. 98) Raghunātha's criticism here, quoted in the footnote, ends with a most interesting remark, throwing a side-light on Sankara's popularity among his contemporaries as a poet rather than a scholar, इत्यलं काव्यरचनाकुशलानां तेनैव स्वशिष्यानामोदयतां खण्डनकयया । V ·140 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithilā There is a very old copy of Sankara's Khandānaţikā, preserved in the Sarasvati-Bhavana, Varanasi (Ms. No. 134 of the Dhundhırāja collection ). The post-colophon runs : शुभमस्तु पुस्तकस्य कर्तुले खकरय च। गौड राज्यमनुत्तमं सुविदितं यनास्ति पूगोच्चयः भृगारामृतवापिकापुरतय xxx सत्प्रीतये । भूपो यत्र सुरेश्वरस्य सदृशो विप्रा गुरुस्पर्द्धिन- स्तत्रोत्पन्न इमामसौ समलिखत् श्रीवासुदेव कृती ।। संवत् १५२६ समये श्रावण वदि द्वादशी शुक्रदिने । श्रीमत् काश्या विश्वेश्वर- TATUTTI I The date works out to be August 1473 (not 1472) 4. T., when Sankara Miśra was alieve, as the [scribe clearly indicates, (6) Kanādarahasya A very useful Vaišeşiką manual of moderate length fortunately published at Varanası (Chowkh., 1917, pp. 177). Sankara gives here a complete survey of all Vaišeşıka doctrines after the manner of Prasastapāda and though he has not indicated his sources, it is clear that he wrote after consulting all up to date works on the subject. The fling at the 'Gaudas' ( 48 ) for their incorrect pronunciation of the three sıbılants is exactly borrowed, for instance from the Lilaiati ( 445 ) As we have stated before (p. 10), Sankara wrongly ascribed three views of the Vyomāvati to the Kandali ( pp 81, 82 & 87 ), each of them refuted by Udayana Śankara has punctuated the manual with many Kātikās drawn from various sources (pp. 7, 23, 25, 26, 47, 88, 93, 98, 100, 109,123, 152 & 163 ). He betrays the influence of his age by waxing eloquent whenever a Gangesa brand topic crops UP (eg Vyāptivāda and Upādhıvāda on pp. 93.100 ) Like an orthodox Vaišesika Šarkara divided the book into six sections without adding one on Negation, (7) Vadivinoda a remarkable manual exclusively dealing with rules of debate and specially how to defeat a ·Sankara Miśra 141 proud opponent. It was edited by M. M. Dr. Gangānātha Jha ( Allahabad, 1915, pp 4+73 ) It is divided into 5 Ullásas under the scheme set forth in verse : कथातः प्रश्नतः प्रभज्ञानात् प्रभपराहतेः। प्रश्नानुत्तरतः कापि पराहकारशातनम् ।। The bulk of the book is taken up by the first chapter (pp. 1-14) on the rules of debate and the third (pp. 47-71 ) on the exact connotation of a problem containing a brilliant survey of all philosophical topics Unlike the other works of Sankara this book refers to many early authors and works, some of which are important. An alphabetical list is appended here. Anumānamayukha (p 59), Ācārya (17), Candra (53), Cintāmaņı (17), Jivanātha Miśra (61), Nyāyalocana (57), Bhedaprakāśa (44). Manılantha Miśra ( 17, 35-36 ), Ratnakosa (2,17), Mahārnava (53), Murārı Miśra (53), Lilavatı (+1). Vallabhācārya (41), Sankara (41), and Sănătant (2). The Vadi vinoda is mentioned in the Kaņādarahasya ( 103 & 177 ) and the Upaskāra (p.397). (8) Vaišeșıkasūtropaskara The original Vaiſeșikasutras of Kaņāda, like the Sankhyasūtras of Kapıla, were neglected by scholars ever since Prasastapāda composed the excellent manual named Padārthapraveśa which ousted all previous works of the school and came to be regarded as the Bhāșja, which it was strictly not. The paucity of literature upon the Sūtras as against that upon the so-called Bhāsya of Praśastapāda is well-known and by a stroke of genius Sankara Miśra immortalised himself by writing this running commentary upon the Sūtras. Śzikal was quite cascous vi the ad venturous nature of his task, which he likened to sporting in the sky, but his ambition was more than fulfilled when we find that the Upaskāra became the standard work on the subject throughout India. Sankara had written thus at the commencement of the book :

·142 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithilā (verse 3) सूत्रमात्रावलम्बेन निरालम्बेऽपि गच्छतः । खे खेलवन्ममाप्यत्र साहसं सिद्धिमेष्यति ।। The only previous work Sankara had before him was a certain Vịttı, which he had frequently cited (B. I. ed, 1861, pp 6, 51, 55, 58, 161, 200, 260, 264, 283, 411, 414 & 419). It was an early work,, as indicated by Sankara and is now completely lost. But Sankara admits in the second verse of the introduction that he was indebted to two persons for his knowledge on the Tantra viz the ancient sage Kanāda and the recent scholar Bhavanātha, his own father. Probably he had only fragments of the Vğıtı before him. Naturally Śankara had adorned his commentary with brilliant summaries of Navyanyāya topics, whenever he found an opportunity. For instance, the Mangalvāda (pp. 3-6), the Muktivāda (pp. 10 18) the Vyāptivāda (pp 149-55 ), Pākānumāna (pp. 285-92 ), Dvitvaprakarana (pp 318-24 ) and references to his own Manıtıkā betray his predilection. Nevertheless the Upaskāra is the only work now available on the Sūtras of Kanāda, which were shaped into a regular text-book, though how far they represent the original work of Kanāda remains a matter of investigation and speculation (9) Lilavatıkanthābharana A complete commentary on the work of Srivallabha It explains the original text and is not a sub-commentary of Vardhamāna's Prakaſa It was written after the Vadivinoda and the Kanādarahasya ( both mentioned on p. 777. The references to Bhāsarvajñācārya (wrongly printed in the Chowkh. ed, p.771) and the Kandalīkāra (p. 842 inde Kandali p. 119 ) should be noted As this work is now fortunately published along with Vardha- 'māna's Prakasa ( Chowkh, ed , 1934, pp. 834 ) we nyste the attention of scholars to a remarkable feature in it Sankara has nowhere mentioned the name of Vardhamāna commentary. On the other hand in many places Vardhamāna's in this ·Vācaspati Miśra 143 views have been cited anonymously (eg ut p. 13 ) and mostly criticised (अनादेयम् p. 2, अयुक्तम् Pp 10 & 76. Also Pp 47 48 where Vardhamana had refuted the words of a previous commentator ) Sankara appparently did not belong to the group of Vardhamāna who was looked upon somewhat in a spirit of rivalry This feeling towards Vardhamāna was undoubtedly acquired by Sankara from his father and senior uncle For he has stated at the end of his commentary that all his explanations had been derived from his father, who again learnt them from his elder brother स्वभ्रातुर्जीवनाथस्य व्यारयामाख्यातवान् यत । मत्पिता भवनाथो या तामिहालिखमुत्तमाम् ।। (p. 864 also Ātmatattvavivekakalpalatā B I ed, p. 948) VĀCASTATI MIŚRA II One of the greatest academic figures of Mithila and regarded as the foremost authority in Maithila Smrti He wrote in his old age the Sraddhakalpa (1 e. Patrbhaktitarangini) when he was the crest jewel of all the assemblies of (Maithila ) scholars ( according to the epithet सकलपण्डितमण्डलीशिरोमणिना found in the colophon of the book L 2001 ) In the following verse at the end of the book he recorded the total number of his previous works शास्ने दश स्मृतौ निंशनिबन्धा येन यौवने | निर्मितास्तेन चरमे चयस्येप विनिर्ममे ॥ Šāstra' as distinguished from 'smrti' means here the Nyāya philosophy For, Vācaspati himself states at the end of his Krtyapradipa ( Des Cat of Mithilā Mss Vol 1 p 67) - वशे जात कलुपरहित कर्ममीमासकानाम् अन्वीक्षाया गुरुकरुण्या लब्धतत्वावबोध । श्रीमान् वाचसतिरहमिह प्रीतये पुण्यभाजा नत्वा नत्वा कमलनयन कृत्यदीप तनोमि ।।

·144 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithilā The smrti works of Vācaspatı have engaged the labours of many distinguished scholars, notably M. Chakravartı ( J.A.S.B. 1915, pp. 394-400 ) and Kane (Hist. of Dharmasastra, I, pp. 399-400). We shall only attempt to give a brief account of the Nyāya works of Vācaspati in this book and assign his proper place in the history of Navyanyāya in Mithilā. Vācaspati wrote, what appears to be one of the best commentaries on the Ngayásūtras of Gotama-(1) the Nyāja-(or Naya-) Tattvaloka, better known as Tattvāloka. No complete copy of the book has yet been discovered. The largest fragment is preserved in London (I. O., I, pp 610-11)' which was examined by us thoroughly. The third introductory verse, cited by us before (p 2), where the six earlier commentaries are respectfully mentioned, proves along with the author's sense of diffidence exhibited in vv. 4-5 that it was one of the earliest works of Vācaspati, if not his very first work. धीरसङ्गममवाय मादृशेरल्पधीभिरपि यन्निवध्यते । तन्न चिनमतिमञ्जपाट(लि)काननेऽप्यसुरभिः मुरभिर्यत् ॥४ यत् कथंचिदिह किंचिदवद्यं स्यात् कचित्तदभिदोपकवन्धम् । संसरत्पुरपस्तमोऽनतीतः को न मुह्यति वच.पथे चरन् ।।५ : An alphabetical list of the authorities cited in the book is given below. 1 Eggeling's descriptive note requires correction The last folio with a blank reverse which is marked '182' in a decidedly later hand is really '164' which is missing in its proper place, this real page mark is still visible behind the present correction rol. 165-181 contain the commentary on the whole of the first "abnika of Chap III (with its colophon :n 1762) and of the whole of the first three ‘prakaranas' of the second ähnika'. This portion has a new pagination ( fol 1.17) along with the old one The Ms. is in the Bengali script from three different bands ( 1.120,21-26, 127-81). Fol. 113 1s missing in its place there is a f 1., marked 33, from the same hand but belonging to quite a different book of the five colophong two (812, 1761 ) name the book 'Njajalattialoka', two (134b, 164a ) 'Ng Iya and one ( 921 ) simply Tatt aloka'. + ·> 5 Vācaspati Misra 145 Acārya (i. e., Udayana ) 36a, 51b, 92b, 99b, 128b and 129b. Uddyota 53a. Kandalikāra 33a (on tamas ). Kirti ( i. e., Dharmakirti ) 42a'& 109b. Khandanoddhārakārādayah 84b: the reference is to the earlier work of Vardhamana cited by Vācaspati in his own Khandanoddhāra, p. 77. Candra 108b. Cārvāka 41a & 166a. Cintāmaņikstah 3b, 9a, 21b, 28b, 34a, 72, 73, 75b, 89a, 137a & 158. Jayanta 48b. Jaimini 41a & 41b. Tīkākştah 65b, 103a & 117a ( i. e., the earlier Vācaspati Miśra). Tarani Misra 88a, 112 & 130a. Tandıbrahmana 121a. Dignāga 14a, 365, 406, 47ab, 706, 7236 & 746 All the passages are taken from the Tātparyaţika of earlier Vācaspati. Nyāyalocanakştah' 153a. Prajñākara 42a. Prabhākaropādhyāya 70b : a later Nyāya scholar, Prameyaprakāśa (& Trtiyaprakāša) 53a (of Vardhamāna). Bharthari 77b. BhagavȚtti 77b. Bhāsya 11b, 14b & 94b. Bhāskara 12a, 21b, 53a & 67a. Mūdhyamaka 95a.

·146 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithila ! + } 4 Murārimisra 62b. Vațseśvara 127b. Vasubandhu 40b, 70b, 736 & 76a (all taken from the Tātparyatīka). Vācaspati Mišra (1) 62a. Vāmanavętti 77b. Vārsyaganya 41a ( also taken from the Tatparyaţika ). Vaibhāşikāḥ 10b & 22b. Śabara 50b. śivāditya Miśra 75a. Sānātani 82a. Sandalopādhyāya 63a. Sautrāntikāḥ 10ab & 22b. We have omitted in the above list the numerous references to unspecified sources like Prāñcah, Navyāh, Saugatāh, Sankhyāh, etc. The largest number of references belongs to Gangesa. In fact the Tattvāloka is one of the earliest attempts to explain the Nyāyasūtras under the new light of Gangeśa's epoch-making work. Whole chapters of the Cintamani have been summarised by Vacaspati under different sūtras, e.g.. Mangalavāda in the beginning, Muktivada under I. i. 22, Vidhivada under II. i. 63 etc. With the ever increasing popularity of the Cintamani the study of the original Nyayasatras declined. It is a remarkable and interesting fact that the Tattvaloka is more than double the size of the Nyayarahasya the next commentary on the Nyāyasutras which was written by Rāmabhadra Sārvabhauma of Navadvipa more than a century after Vācaspati--the corresponding portion of the present fragment of the Tattvaloka ends on folio 88a of the Baranasi Ms. of the Nyāyatahasya of about the same size. About a century later again, Viśvanātha Pañcānana wrote the Vrtti, which is much smaller in size than the Nyayarahasya and ·Vācaspati Mišra 147 in the 18th century, the Výtti of Viśvanātha again was summarised by an unknown scholar! It should be noted that Vācaspati has not referred to any of his own works in the Tattvaloka The text of the Nyāyasūtras as determined by himself was shown by Vācaspatt in a seperate booklet named (2) Nyayasūtroddhāra It was written when he was adorning the court of a certain king of Mithila. The total number of Sūtras according to him is 531 as against 528 arrived at by the earlier Vācaspati in the Nyayasūcinibandha It appears that the late Mahāmahopādhyāya V. P. Dvivedi had access to a Ms. of this work copied in Caitra 1428 The socalled Gautamsūtram printed along with the Nyāyabhāsya in pp. 28 with the introductory verse, श्रीवाचस्पतिमिश्रेण मिथिलेश्वरसूरिणा । लिख्यते मुनिमूर्धन्य श्रीगौतममतं महत् ।। is not an edition of the Nyāyasūtroddhāra, as is sometimes supposed, but only a text of the Nyāyasutras prepared by the editor of the Bhasya after cosulting various books including a copy of the Sütroddhāra, The next work of Vācaspati.-- (3) the Nyāyaratnaprakasa seems to have escaped the notice of all scholars commentary on the Nyāyaratna of Manikantha Miśra, a pre- Gangeśa Navyanyāya scholar of Mithılā There is a complete copy of Vācaspati's commentary at Poona which we have thoroughly examined The beginning and the end of this unique book are exactly reproduced below -(B.O.R I Ms No. 775 of 1884 87, foll 71 ) Begins कनकक(मललक्ष्मीस्पधिराधा)कुचाग्रथितनयन गस्मेरवक्ताम्बुजश्री । नवगगनतमालश्यामलामन्दगान क्षपयतु मम कर्म फरमकर(मिन) ॥१॥ (जीवातु)मकरध्वजस्य रमणीलावण्यदीचागुरु कारण्यकनिकेतनं निजगतामुत्पत्तिवीज मह । It is a ·-- 148 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithila उत्तुङ्गस्तनभारभङ्गुरवनुनृत्यत्कटातच्छटा- निष्पोतत्रिपुरारिधैर्यजलधिः पायाद्गणेशप्रसूः ॥२॥ भावसोत्कलिककैटभद्विषो लोचनार्धपथमेत्य निर्दताः। इन्दिरानयनपालिपंक्तयो होभरेण महणाः पुनन्तु नः ॥३॥ यस्य प्रांचः समजनिपत क्षोणिपालाः सहस्रं राकाचन्द्रप्रविमयशसो विश्वविख्यातवीर्याः। सोऽयं क्षोणीवलयतिलकः कोऽपि चौहारिण'वंशो- तंसो राजाजनि नयवतामणी वोर्यभानुः ॥४॥ दृष्टान्तोऽसौ नृपाणां नयविनयवतामग्रणीः शौर्यभाजां सीमा 'पंचाल भूमीवलयपरिवृढः किंकरो नन्दसूनोः । उद्यद्दोर्दपलीलानियमितनिखिलप्रत्यनीकावनीशो राजा 'श्रीमत्प्रताप' समजनि समयस्तस्य वंसावतंसः ॥४॥ तस्यास्ति विश्वमहनीयगुणाभिरामा लीलावती कनकजंगमकल्पवल्ली । 'पद्मावती'ति भुवनप्रथिताभिधाना शुद्धान्ववायविभवा महिपी नृपस्य ॥६॥ तस्या नियोगमधिगम्य महीमघोन्या 'वाचस्पति'गुरुपदाम्बुजनम्रमौलिः । नत्वा निशाकरकिशोरकिरीटरलं श्री'न्यायरत्नम'मलं विशदीकरोति ॥७॥ इह पण्डितप्रवरेण श्रीमता मणिकण्ठाचार्येण जगदुपशमनिदानभूतन्यायनयां- गतापने न्यायरत्नाभिधानप्रकरणरूपे गुरुणि कर्मणि पारिप्सिते शिष्टाचारानुमितश्रुति- बोधितकर्तव्यताकं मङ्गलमाचरितमपि नोपनिबद्धम् । न हि उपनियंधोऽपीष्टफलोत्पत्ती सन्त्रम् । (fol. 1a) Ends :-विभूपयति विश्वेषां विदुपां हृदयस्थलीम् । 'न्यारत्नप्रकाशो'ऽयं श्रोवाचसविना कृतः॥ तकान्तारचारिण्यः स्वलन्ति प्रायशो धियः। उत् समादधति प्राज्ञा एप धर्मः सनातनः ।। इति श्रीसमस्तप्रक्रियाविराजमानमहाराजाधिराजश्रीमप्रतापधीयमहामहिपी- श्रीपभापतीसमाविष्टभीवापसतिपिरपितो न्यापरमप्रकाराः समासः ॥ संवत् १६ योदशोरा प्रवर्चमाने दक्षिणायने श्रीरयो कार्तिक मासि मसितपक्षे एवीयामृगौ ·Vācaspati Miśra 149 (भट्टश्रीगोविंदात्मजेन कान्हाभिधानेन स्वपठनार्य तथा च) परोपकारार्थ मणिकण्ठटीका याचरपति(वे? )रलेखि। (fol. 71) The date of the copy works out regularly to be 1616 V. S. when Kārtika Badi 3 actually fell on a Friday, corres. ponding to Nov 17, 1559 8,D The commentary was written by Vācaspati at the request of Padmavati, queen of Mahărājādhırāja Pratāparudra ( son of Viryabhānu), a 'Chauhāni prince of Pañcālabhumi We are unable to trace the name of the king who must have flourished somewhere in the United Provinces in the second quarter ( 1425 50 A D ) of the 15th century A doubt will naturally arise whether this Vācaspati is identical with the famous scholar of Mithilā The following facts however substantially prove the identity The last verse at the end of the commentary embodying the author's diffidence and humble approach towards scholars is exactly reproduced in the beginning of the Khandanoddara. The views expressed in the present commentary regarding mangalā carana' exactly tally with those found in the Tattvaloka”, Moreover, a Navyanyāya work of Mithilā is not likely to engage the labours of a non Maithila or non-Bengalı scholar in the 15th century The question now is what led Vacaspati to leave his native land and seek patronage of a foreign prince Jecture that there was trouble at Mithilā when Narasimha of the junior-most branch of the Raj family became chief after the death of Sivasimha and Padmasimha of the senior branch sometime between 1425 and 1435 A. D. He came back probably when Bhairavasimha became the undisputed king of Mithilā. 1 Introd verse 4 ( with the reading for for fire ) The first leaf which is torn leaves lacuna in the first two verses which are filled up from readings in a small fragment ( foll 20 only) of this "very commentary preservod in the Oriental Institute Baroda (Ms. No 10287 ) this fragment goes up to the fol 11b of the Poona Ms Fol 2b विहितमपि पाम न्यबन्धि, न हि उपनिबन्योऽपि तत्र समिति । We con- ·150 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithila The Nyāyaratnaprakāša, unlike other works of the great author, is not discursive but concise It practically contains no references to works and authors other than those found in the Nyayaqatna itself Manikantha quotes from the Ratnakośa , one of the passages is ~~सशयविरोधिधर्मद्वयविषयानुमितिजनकत्व समविपक्षत्वमिति रनकोश'. Vacaspati comments तरणिमिश्रमतमाह-सशयेति and then (fol. 376 ), exactly reproduces the argument of Gangesa in refutation of this view. This finally settles Taranımıšra's authorship of the Ratnakosa. Vācaspati next wrote three independent treatises viz, (4) Pratyaksanırnaza, not yet discovered but cited in. the Khandanoddhāra (139) 1 (5) Anumānanıranaya, also cited in the Khandanoddhāra (pp. 72, 83,4 & 90), a Maithila fragment of this work is te ported from Nepal, wrongly described as a commentary on the Anumānakhanda The introductory verse cited below proves that like the Tattvacıntāmant at analyses the Nyâya and Mimämsä views on inference (Sastrı Nepal Cat, I p 94) आराध्य यादवकिशोरमविप्रयवादभ्यस्य गोतममत सह जैमिनीयम् । सार विविच्य मवयोरनयोरशेप वाचस्पतिविशदयत्यनुमानमार्गम् ॥ (6) Sabdanımaya cited in his own Dvartanımaya (Darbhanga ed p 8) (7) The Khandanoddhāra is a bold refutation of Sriharsa's Khandana from the standpoint of the Nyaya It is a. learned work and best displays the author's dialectical skill and vastness of learning The numerous references iound in the book are collected here alphabetically. Fol 34b of the RASB Ms of the Nydyaratna this passage 18 also ated by Ganges in a very much expanded form as from the Ratna koßakira Tatthacintamani B I Ed Anum.na pp 885-88 1 ·Vācaspati Miśra 151 (References are to the Khandanoddhara published in the Pandit, 1903-07, pp. 171 ) Ācārya ( pp. 13-14, 45, 55, 71 & 81 ), Ātmatattvaviveka ( 45 & 160 ), Kancanamālini (Kāvya ? p. 25), Kusumānjal (p. 71 ), Khandana (often), Khandanoddhāra (of Vardhamāna, p. 77 ), Guravaḥ (p. 99), Cintāmaņıkāra (p.75), Jarantah Jayantādayah ( 93 ), Tikā (p. 34 &c 6 times), Tattvabodha (p. 118), Tattvaloka (p 25), Tātparyācārya (p. 81), Dharmakırtı (pp. 148, 150 & 159 ), Narasimha (p. 40), Nibandhakrtaḥ (pp. 51 & 76), Nyāyācārya (P 68), Bhatta ( pp. 89 & 143), Bhāşya (p. 7), Bhūsaņa (p. 136). Manikantha (p. 124 ), Maharņava (p. 40 & 79), Māgha (p. 25), Maitreya (pp. 55 & 57 ), Ratnakoşa (not Ratnaprakāśa as printed, pp. 73 & 118), Līlāvatikştah (p. 76), Vatseśvara (p. 40), Vardhamānopā. dhyāya (pp. 77 & 150), Vivarana (p 35). Sankarācārya p. 32 ), and Harśarma (p 40) Vācaspati's contemporary śankara Miśra of Mithilā also wrote a Bhedaratna about the same time Both of them were regarded as the greatest opponents of the Vedānta at that time and drew forth a sharp and interesting retort from their younger contemporary Vāsudeva Sārvabhauma of Bengal, who had a distinct leaning towards the Vedānta, though he was also a distinguished commentator of the Tattvacntāmaſı. We quote this important passage of the Khandanabhūşāman of Raghunātha .- किंच, सर्वममिन्नं घटपटो भिन्नाविति बुद्धचो. प्रामाण्ये सति क बाध्यवाधक- भावकल्पना, न हि प्रमेयत्वादिनापि न सर्वमभिन्नं मन्यामहे इवि शंकरमिश्राणाम् अद्वैतखंडनं श्रुत्याऽस्मत्परमगुरुमि सार्वभौम-भट्टाचार्यरुक्तम् वाचस्पतिशंकरयोगौतम(कोतबु(द्धिशास्त्रगतियोः। निर्वापयामि गर्वमेकं ब्रह्मास्त्रमादाय ।। 1. vide fol. 68b of Ms No 95 of Sans Coll, Calcutta and fol 50b of Ms at Sarasvati-Bhavana, Varanasi. Compare Bhedaratna (S. B. Text, p 53 ) and Khandanoddhara (pp. 45-47 ) ·152 History of Navya Nyāya in Mithila The implication of the passage should not be ignored , Raghunātha the author of the Khandanabhusāmani, who calls Sārvabhauma his 'Paramaguru' becomes quite different from the famous Raghunatha Siromanı who was according to reliable evidence his direct pupil ( vide Vange Navyanyāja. carca, pp 36-37) The language of the above couplet of Sārvabhauma seems to show that Vācaspati slightly preceded Sankara Miśra, for, by ordinary rules of grammar, the compound should have been 18691947 as in the Dandaviveka of Vardhamana II (introd., y 6) (8) Vācaspati also commented on the Tattvdcintamani, perhaps last of all for, he has not referred to this commentary in any of his previous works as far as avaslable. There is a unique Ms of the Pratyaksa chapter of the Cintamaniprakasa preserved in the Sarasvati Bhavana? The colophon runs इति महामहोपाध्याय-सन्मित्र श्रीवाचस्पतिकृती चिन्तामणिप्रकाशे प्रत्यक्ष- परिच्छेद । अलेखि शुधिनाथेन." As we shall presently see it is probably the earliest extant commentary on the Tattvacintamani (9) That Vacaspati also commented on the Anumāna chapter of Gangesa will be apparent from the following evidence Kanāda Tarkavāgiša, who was by tradition a fellowstudent of Siromani, commented on the Cintamani. We have come across the following passage in the (Vyāptı) Pūrvapaksaprakarana of Kanāda's Anumānamanıvākhya वाचस्पतिमिश्रास्तु प्रागुक्तयोरत्यन्तान्योन्यामावगर्भलक्षणयो सिंहगुहावलोकन- न्यायेन दूषणान्तरमाह-महानसादाविति । उक्तलक्षणाभावात प्रागुक्तयोर्लक्षण- योरसत्त्वात् । युक्त चेद व्याख्यानमन्यथा लक्षणेत्यत्र उक्तपदवैय-पत्तेरिति प्राहु। आलोस्कृतस्तु (fol 15b of a Ms in our possession) Nyaya Vaibes ka Ms No 282 on palm leaf in the Bengali script, 1 fol 1 70 73 80 ·Vācaspati Misra 153 This peculiar interpretation of Vācaspati has also been cited under his name by Jagadīša Tarkālankāra in the Manimayükhaapparently borrowing from Kanāda Pragalbhācārya also respectfully quotes the interpretation under the flattering epithet 'Sampradāyavıdah. Moreover, in the Anumiti-prakarana of Anumānāloka of Jayadeva ( Pakşadhara ) the passage न च संशयस्थले विशिष्टधीरेव न तादृशीति वाच्यम् ( fol. 4b) refers, according to Bhavānanda Siddhāntavāgūša, to an interpretation of Vacaspati वाचस्पतिमतमाशंक्य निषेधति-न चेति. It should be noticed that both the passages of Vācaspati cited above have reference to particular text of the Cintāman and are not likely to belong to his independent treatise Anumānanırnaja. What was the tenth or the last work of Vācaspatı on the Nyāya remains a matter of speculation It may be the Sabdakhanda bf this Cintāmanıprakāśa or a commentary on the Ngājalilāvati, if the following passage, which we traced in a fragment of an unidentified commentary on the Lilāıatı-Siromani preserved in a private collection at Navadvipa warrants such a tonjecture .-न च व्याप्ती चरमद्रव्यपदं मणिध्वंसजन्यदाहस्य मएयु- पादानोपादेयत्वाभावात् व्यभिचारवारकमस्तु श्राद्य तु किमर्थमिति वाच्यं स्वार्ग- शरीरस्य आत्ममनःसंयोगध्वंसरूपप्रयागमरणजन्यत्वेन व्यभिचारवारकत्वात् इति arrafas: 1 2], (fol. 103b). Vācaspati also wrote a Sahasradhahārana on the Pūrvamimāṁsā rules of interpretation 'Two references to this work were traced by us in the Navyadharmapradipa of Kępārāma Tarkavāgāśa written in 1686 Śaka ( 1764- 5A. D.)* अनौडुम्बरी साम्री प्रतिमेति सायनः "उडुम्वरशासेति माधवाचार्यः इति सहस्राधिकरणे वाचस्पतिमिश्राः। This long lost work on the Mimansa may also have been included in his philoscphical works. Fol '12a of a fragment of 'Mūla Jāti' in our possession. सप्रदायविदस्तु सिंहावलोकनन्यायेन पूर्वलक्षणदयेऽन्याप्तिमाहेत्या | Fol 10a of (Anumäna-) Pragalbhi, Ms Na 298 of the Sarasvati Bhavana, Benaras. 3 Fol 16a of Bhavānaoda's Ālokamanısāta, Ms, No 361 of the Sarasvatt Bhavana. 4. Fol 16b of Ms No 1602 of the Vangiya Sahitya Pansad, Calcutta; the book is mentioned also in fol. 43b. > 1 2 ·154 History of Navya Nyāya in Mithilā Vacaspati and his contemporaries As the author of the above ten works Vacaspati chronologically stands at the top of a galaxy of Navyanyāya scholars of Mithila and Bengal As we have stated above Vācaspati preceded both Jayadeva and Pragalbhācārya A more convincing proof of Vācaspati's rela tion with the other great scholars of the period has been traced by us In the Prāmānyavāda (of the Pratyaksakhanda ) Vācaspati comments on the second 'Vipratipatti thus अन प्रामाण्यग्रहस्य तज्ज्ञानविषयकेश्वरज्ञानजन्यतया तज्ज्ञानविषयकज्ञान- जन्यत्व न्यायनयेनासिद्ध तज्ज्ञानमामाण्यस्येश्वरज्ञानविपयतया च तज्ञानविषयक- ज्ञानाजन्यज्ञानग्राहल परत पक्षेऽप्यक्षतमिति न वाच्य तज्ज्ञानविषयकसमानाधि- करणज्ञानाजन्यसमानाधिकरणज्ञानविषयत्वस्य विवक्षितत्वात् । जन्यपदद्वयप्रक्षेपेण तु न समाधान पर प्रति व्यायाप्रसिद्धे। Both the solutions suggested here for meeting the two objections the word Samānādhikarana' as an addendum being Vācaspati's own peculiar solution in preference to the word "Janya' suggested by a previous commentator have been refer. red to and rejected by Jayadeva ne-'नच समानाधिकरणपदजन्य पदाशुपादानमेव तदर्थ क्रियतामिति युक्त परमते व्यर्थविशेषणत्वात्' Bhavan nanda Siddhantavāgıša in his Pratyaksalokasaramañari stated in his comment on the present passage उपाध्याय-वाचस्पतिमिश्रयोर्मत निराचप्टेन चेति । द्वितीयतृतीयज्ञानयो समानाधिकरणत्व जन्यत्व या विशेषण- मित्यर्थ | In this comment Bhavananda mentions the name of Upadhyaya (1.e Yajfiapati) before Vacaspati This is not chronologically correct Bhavananda was a pupil of Krsnadasa Sárvabhauma from whom evidently he got the information Krsnadāsa's Pratzaksalokaprasarani has been recently discom vered by us He correctly notes here -वाचस्पतिमिश्रोपाध्याययोर्मत- माशय निषेधति-न चेति (fol 34a of Ms in our possession) It was known to Kțsnadāsa that both chronologically and exegeti- Fol 10b of Pratyakşacıntamaniptakaśa of Vicaspati Fol 14a of a Mis of the Pratyakşaloka in our possession 2 ·Vacaspati Miśra 155 cally Vācaspati preceded Upadhyāya?. Pragalbhácārya has also referred to the above solution of Vācaspatı, but the ground of his rejection of it is different -यद्वा ईश्वरज्ञानेन सिद्धसाधनवारणाय तदादायासंभववारणाय च तज्ज्ञानविषयकसमानाधिकरणज्ञानाजन्यसमानाधिकरण- ज्ञानग्राह्यमिति साध्यम् । तच्चिन्त्यम् । वस्तुत्वादिसामान्यलक्षणप्रत्यासत्तिजन्यज्ञानेन उक्तरूपवता न्यायमते सिद्धसाधनात्, न्यायनये व्यतिरेकसाधने याधाद्वा" । Rucidatta, the pupil of Jayadeva, reproduces here both the grounds of rejection (fol 32a, of A S Ms No III C 120):-परमते व्यर्थविशषणत्वात् , सामान्यलक्षणादिजन्यज्ञानग्राह्यत्वेन तथापिपूर्वोक्तदोपानतिवृत्तेश्च। Vasudeva Sārvabhauma's comment on the point is not available, but his pupil Siromani, curiously enough, sticks to the solution of Vācaspati ignoring the adverse criticisms ( Prāmānyavāda, 1901, p. 66) For the purposes of chronology all the above important references are, however thrown to the shade by the momentous discovery that Yajñapatı formulated his own solution of the problem after rejecting that of Vacaspati. Yajñapati comments on the point:-अन्ये त्वीश्वरज्ञानेन सिद्धसाधनवारणाय तदादाया- सम्भवस्य च वारणाय तज्ञानविपयसमानाधिकरणज्ञानाजन्यसमानाधिकरणज्ञान- ग्राह्यमिति साध्यं वर्णयन्ति । ( Pratyaksaprabha, Paris copy fol 23- 24) Yajnapatı's son Naraharı reproduces his father's argument in the Pratyaksadūsanoddhāra thus --( fol 29b of London copy ). न च तज्ज्ञानविषयकसमानाधिकरणज्ञानाजन्यसमानाधिकरणज्ञान- ग्राह्यमिति विधिकोट्यर्थ इति वाच्य तथापि सामान्यलक्षणादिजन्यज्ञानादिना सिद्ध- साधनस्य तावस्थ्यादिति चेत्-अनास्मपितृचरणा , तज्ञानविषयकसमानाधि- करणज्ञानाजन्यतन्मानविषयकज्ञानप्राह्यमिति विधिकोट्यर्थ तन्न सिद्धसाधनम् । तज्- ज्ञानविषयकज्ञानप्रामाण्यं न पक्ष तेन तन न वाधो दोष इत्याहु । Vacaspati, therefore, composed the commentary on Gangesa's work sometime before the whole band of brilliant scholars, both of Mithilā and Bengal, occupted the field. jayadeva, who wrote between 1460-75 A, D., was preceded by his teacher Yajnapatı ( about Fol 31b of RASB Ms No 4010. Fol. 29b of Pratyaksa Pragalbhi, RASB Ms No 1175, a very old copy dated 1575 V Sie, 1518 A D 1 2 ·156 History of Navya Nyāya in Mithila 1450 3 who again came after Vācaspati. On the other hand, Siromani's teacher Sārvabhauma was preceded by Pragalbhácārya, who was slightly senior to Jayadeva All of them Sárvabhauma, Pragalbha and Jayadeva criticised Yajñapatı and some times violently All these point to the conclusion that Vācaspati's Nyāya works were composed not later than 1440 A D and among his Nyāya works, it should be noted the Maniprakāśa was probably the latest. Vacaspatı lived long enough to witness in his old age the flying colours of Yajñapati and Jayadeva which fully eclipsed the glories of his early life in the field of Navyanyaya It is thus that the pathetic appeal at the end of his last work the Śrāddhakalpa becomes significant पदवाक्यमाननिपुणा करतलकुवलयापमानविश्वदृश । अवलोकयत कृतिमिमा करुणावरुणालयेन हृदयेन ॥ Vācaspati probably concentrated on studies in Smrti since the advent of Yajñapati and Jayadeva in the field of Navyanyāya. Vacaspatz's family As stated by himself Vacaspati be longed to a 'spotless' family of Karmamimānsakas In other words, all his ancestors were devotees of the Vedic culture and well versed in Mimānsã, the logic of the Veda. The Malagrāma of his famůy is named 'Pali' or 'Pallı' belonging to the Vatsya gotra, of which a branch is named after Vācaspatı's native village 'Samauli'. Quite a bewildering mass of materials of Vācaspatı's family connections are scattered in the Paſjis, where he is given the supreme title 'Paramaguru', which was never enjoyed by any other scholar in Mithila with the single exception of Gangeśa These valuable genealogical data have been critically studied and published by Prof Jha ( Svadesa, I. 111 pp 137-44) We need only refer to a few prominent details of chronological significance. He had four wives first wife's father was a grandson of Mahārāja Bhogiśvara and his eldest son (by this wife ) Laksminātha married the daugh. ter s daughter of M M. Rudradhara Upadhyāya, the famous His ·Vācaspati Miśra 157 Smārta, who was thus an exact contemporary and probably slightly senior in age to Vācaspati. His second wife's father was the daughter's son of Mahārāja Bhaveśvara. His third wife of the respectable 'Satalakhā' family was the first cousin of Sankara Miśra's third wife. His fourth, wife of the respectable 'Sodarapura' family was a cousin of Sankara Miśra, who was thus his exact peer in age, relation and, let us add, learning. His youngest son (by the third wife ) Mahopādhyāya Srihari Miśra gave his daughter in marriage to Bhavanātha, a son of M.M. Sucikara Upādhyāya of the Kujaule family. Vācaspati had a very large number of descendants, he had at least 28 grandsons, among whom only one M. M. Keśava (son of M.M. Naraharı) made his name in the learned world as the author of the Dvaitaparıśışța. Vacaspati's patrons In his early life Vācaspati went abroad and was patronised by Queen Padmāvati of Pañcâla. His connection with the rulers of Mithilā was, however, long and intimate. He wrote many works on Imſti in the name of Harinārāyana, the royal title of King Bhairavasinha, who was a cousin of his third wife The most famous compilation of Vācaspati ascribed to Harinārāyana is the Smrtımahārnava. This king Bhairava had five wives, according to the Pañjis, and the second wife named Jayāno is abundantly praised by Vācaspati in the introduction to his great discursive work Dvaitanirnaya ( verses 4-10). She was the mother of 'Rājādhirāja’ Purușottamadeva, who was younger to Rāmabhadra and did not evidently ascend the throne. She ceremoniously employed Vācaspati, 'the master of all sciences' (v. 7 : fafanaaraa) to write that book. It was written when Bhairava was still reigning. This Prince Puruşottama was sonless, though he had four wives. There is a copy of Mahadananırnaya at Nepal ( Sastri : Nepal Cat. Vol. I, pp. 122-3); it is ascribed to Harinārāyana in the beginning and to Rupanārāyana at the end. This has ·158 History of Navya Nyaya in Mithila caused some confusion, and it has been surmised that Bhairava enjoyed both royal titles (SN Sinha. Hist Tırhut, p 75 ) But it is extremely unlikely that father and son should have the It same 'Viruda'. The copy is not available for examination is much more likely that Bhairava was dead when the book was finished and his son Rāmabhadra was on the throne at the time. Vācaspati's last work the Pitrbhaktitarangini was expressly written at the fag end of his life at the request of the latter king. Date of Vacaspati Since the discovery of the Kandahā Inscription of Narasınhadeva (1 e Darpanārāyana, the father of Bhairava &c ) dated graft 1794High' which undoubtedly means 1375 Saka corresponding to 1453 4 A. D.? it is clear that Bhairava and his two sons Ramabhadra and Purusottama, all mentioned by Vācaspati, were living about 1480-1590 A. D. We should conclude, therefore, that the birth-date of Vācaspati cannot be placed before 1400 A, D. nor can it be placed after 1410 1, 1), in consideration of the fact that his philosophical works all written in his 'youth', could not have been composed after 1440 4 D, as we have stated above He must have survived till about 1490 A D if not later still Perhaps he was a man of the whole century YAJÑA PATI U PĀDIYĀYA Better and more commonly known as simply Upādhyāya was the author of a commentary named Prabha on the three parts of Gangesa's work (omitting as usual the Upamāna part). Copies of the Prabha are extremely rare There is a copy of the Pratyaksa part in the Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris (A. Cabaton's Cat of Mss, 1907, p. 150, No. 904, foll 100), a rotograph is now preserved in the Asiatic Society It is in Mathila script (not Bengali as written in the Cat ) and begins J BORS, XX pp 1619 Jayaswal took it to mean 1357 Saka as Narasınha's son Dhirasınha was already on the throne 1 ) in 321 L S But all canons of chronology go against the interpretation (unde Dr S Jha Vidydrati Girasangraha, Introd. pp 44-46 1 ·Yajñapati Upādhyāya 159 कनकनिकपभासा सीतयालिगिताङ्गो नवकुवलयदामश्यामवर्णोऽभिरामः। अभिनव इव विद्युन्मण्डितो मेघखण्डः शमयतु मम तापं सर्वतो रामचन्द्रः ।। तातग्रन्थपरिप्राप्तसिद्धान्तशिवमुष्टिना । क्रियते यज्ञपतिना तत्त्वचिन्तामणेःप्रभा । There is an old copy of the second part of the Prabha preserved in the Darbhanga Raj Library (foll 125, 5 hnes to a page the copy belonged to one Balarāma Chakravartī. 7 foll of Sūtras are added in the copy ending with the date 1408 Saka Sravana 28 1.e. 1486 A. D.). It begins गिरिशधनु(पि) (भ)मे भाविसंवन्धयोधा- दधिकव(लि)तलज्जामननानन्दभा(जो)ः। स हरतु दुरितं मे मैथिलीदाशरथ्यो । निभृतमिलदपाङ्गज्योतिपोः कोऽपि भावः ।। अनुसृत्य मतं सम्यक् पितुः शिवपतेर्मया । अनुमानपरिच्छेदे प्रभा संप्रति तन्यते ।। पूर्वापरपन्थैकवाक्यताप्रयोजकाकांक्षावीजभूता सद्गति प्रदर्शयन्नेव शिष्यावधा- नार्थमिदानीमनुमाननिरूपणं क्रियत इति प्रतिजानीते-प्रत्यक्षेति । अत्र प्रत्यक्षोप- जीवकेत्यादिना प्रत्यक्षनिरूपणानन्तरमनुमाननिरूपणे तयोर्हेतुहेतुमद्भावः सद्गति- जिमिति दर्शितम् । बहुवादिसंमत्तेत्यादिना तु प्रत्यक्षोपजीयकत्वाचिशेपेप्यनुमानोप- मानयोरल्पवादिविप्रतिपत्तिनिरासपूर्व निरूपणतयालघुप्रतीतिक्त्वेन प्रत्यक्षनिरूपणा- नन्तरं प्रथममनुमानमेय शिष्यजिज्ञासाविपयो भवतीत्युपमाननिरूपणात् पूर्वभायोऽनु- माननिरूपणस्येति प्रतिपादितम् ।। No copy of the last part of the Prabhā has yet been discovered as far as we are aware. That Yajñapati had commented on this part also may be inferred from the fact that a quotation of his son Narahari, who defended his father against the attacks of Jayadeva, has been found in Rāghavendratīrtha's ·160 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithilā Nyazadipa on the Tarkatāndava (Mysore ed , Vol II, p 35 ) referring to the Yogyatā section of the last part Upādhyāya is also cited in the Sabda-Pragalbht (Poona copy, fol. 2) Many unfounded traditions existed about Yajñapatı in the seminaries specially of Bengal It was given out for instance that Yajñapati was a son of Vardhamānopādhyāya and was more brilliant than the latter In the Sabdakalpadruma (p. 1791 under the word 'Nyāya ) it was stated that he was a pupil of both Gangesa and Vardhamāna (तयोश्छात्री मणिमिश्रयज्ञपत्युपाध्यायौ मणि प्रभा- Art) The extracts given above dispell all these traditions as entirely baseless and prove the following facts which should be carefully noted (1) His father named Sivapatı had written a certain book ( grantha') which does not seem to be a commentary and was probably an independent treatise on the Nyāya doctrines and Yejñapatı based his commentary on that book of his father He does not clearly state that he read with his father (2) Yajñapati's Prabhā superseded all previous commentaries on Gangeśa's work and land, so to speak, the solid foundation upon which the latest phase of Navyanyāya studies upon Gangeśa flourished and quickly attained almost inconceivable heights in subtlety. Some of the views of Upādhyāya are now permanently embodied in the current texts. The Prabha created quite a sensation in the learned world We have cited above the commencement of the second part of the Prebha on the initial point of relevancy ('sangatr) Yajñapatı’s pupil Jayadeva boldly characterised his reading of the text as spurnous (फेचित्तु पूर्वापर 'इहापि परम्परया कार्यकारणभाव सद्गतिरित्यभि- aferat aflystataifafa 973 944 | Anumānaloko, fol. 1). Unlike Jayadeva, Pragalbhācārya exactly quoted the words of Yajñapati and improved upon it by adding two arguments (see Anumana Pragalbhi). Śiromanı also accepted the reading of Yajñapati and wrote his brilliant thesis on 'sangatı", where Upadhyāya's viens were not ignored. The antagonism of Jaya- ·Yajñapati Upādhyāya 161 deva towards Yajñapatı had far-reaching effects as we have stated elsewhere on the cultural history of Mithilā. Hundreds of passages are now available where Yajñapatı has been criticised by various scholars besides Jayadeva. We shall refer to two great names whose works are still unpub- Iished. Pragalbha ( whose Mangalavāda has been published in the S. B Texts under the wrong idea that he belonged to Mithila ) cited Yajñapatı's views at every step and criticised them. We believe Pragalbha referred to his name only twice in the second part, the first time, it should be noted, respectfully in the plural number ( इति यज्ञपतय । तन प्रगल्भाश्चिन्तयन्ति Anur māna-Pragalbhi, fol. 22b under the section Kevalānvayı also 63a under the same section ) and his criticisms have always been sober and dignified. Not so, however, Sārvabhauma who was slightly junior to Pragalbha. In the only existing fragment of Sārvabhauma's Anumānamanıpariksā we counted as many as 52 references to Yajñapati by name (from fol. 29a ), by far the largest number to a single author and some of Sārvabhauma's criticisms have been violent For instance, afa यज्ञपतेस्तच्छिक्षिताना च मलपितम् ( fol. 42b under Visesavyāpti), तत्को यज्ञपतेरन्य. प्राज्ञम्मन्यो भापेत (49a under the same section) अन यज्ञपति- tastaticast ( 66a under Tarka & 84a under Upādhi ), sta 49746- 979qifa Tren (150a under Kevalānvayi ). Who were the scholars "deceived by Yajñapatı" cannot be spotted now in Mithilā or Bengal When Sārvabhauma wrote, somewhere between 1460 80 AD, Yajñapati and his unknown pupils formed a powerful group in Mithilā, as indicated by Sārvabhauma We shall refer here to an interesting passage, upon which a somewhat heated wrangling continued for sometime both in Mithilā and Bengal In the section on Kevalavyatıreki Gangesa scrutinised a passage of Udayana (B I. ed. pp. 599-601 ), for both Pragalbha उदयनाचार्याभिमत पक्षमाशङ्कने-अथेति ( fol 67b) and Sārvabhauma Hafa fol. 161a) clearly indi- ·162 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithila cated the source here Gangeća is extremely sober and dignified in almost all his criticisms, but surprisingly enough he closed his criticism here with the phrase इति शिष्यधन्धनम् (p. 601, the word 477 'causing confusion', though not Sanskrit, is locally used in Mithila and Bengal), Gangeśa's stricture against Udayana was rightly answered by Yajñapati ( as found in the lanzsāra Trivandrum ed, p. 98 ) with a closing retort शिष्यधन्धनत्याभिधान शिप्यधन्धनम् Jayadeva as usual with him, attacked Yajvapati closing with the phrase शिष्यधन्धनत्वाभिधाने frazeolit takaa igra may ib. p 98). Upon this Gopinatha correctly observes तन शिष्यधन्धनत्वारोप एव महतामनुचित इति । Arare case of a confusion many times confounded It should be noted that Gopinātha cited a Gauda' view also on the topic (p 99 ) which, however, cannot be traced in Sārvabhauma or Pragalbha and Siromanı did not touch the topic at all Yañapat's age and family We have stated under Vācaspati Miśra II that Yajñapati cited and refuted an exposition of the latter His date of composition of the Prabhā cannot, therefore, be placed before 1450 A, D, Nor can it be placed after 1460 A, D when his pupil Jayadeva along with the Bengali scholars Pragalbha and Sārvabhauma became probably acquainted with his views This is confirmed in our opinion by his family history, so elaborately treated in the Pañjis of Mithilā. We shall refer to some of his numerous alliances, (1) He belonged to the celebrated Måndara family of Kāšyapa gotra. He was closely and doubly related to Sankara Misra as shown in the chart below, ·Yajñapatı Upādhyāya 163 Vateśvara M M Visvanātha Vateśvara (of Māndara family) (of Sodarapur family) (of Māndara family) Pasupati (1 st)=daughter Ravinātha (3rd son)=daughter Śivapati (2nd son) Bhavanātha (2nd son) Yajñapatz (ist son) Sankara (Ist son) This makes Yajñapatı only slightly junior to Sankara, both belonging to the same generation Visvanātha's daughter was the second wife of Pasupati and Sivapati her second son. Pašupati's sister s husband Ravinātha again was the first son of the second wife of Visvanatha If Sankara Misra was born in the first decade ( 1400 10 A D ) of the century Yajñapatı was born, say, in the second decade ( 1410-20 A. .D.) (2) Yajñapati was also related to his distinguished pupil and critic Jayadeva ( Paksadhara ), though not quite so closely, as shown in the chart below, M.M Viśvanātha ( Sodarapuriya ) Rāmanātha ( first son) daughter-Pasupati Varáhanātha ( only son ) Śivapati (second son) Gūne ( second son ) Yajñapati (only son) Jayadeva ( second son ) Yajñapati is thus one generation senior to Jayadeva , but as Jayadeva belongs to the senior most branch of the family, Rāmanātha being the first son of the first wife of Viśvanātha, his difference in age with Yajñapatı cannot be more than a decade or two Jayadeva's birth date would be about 1435 AD), according to our surmise In other words Yajñpati was about 20 years senior to him. This date of ·164 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithilā Yajñapati 15 not in conflict with that of this great grandfather Vateśvara, who preceded him by one full century and was born, according to our surmise, in the first decade ( 1300-10 A 1. ) of the 14th century It should be noted that between Vateśvara and Yajñapatt all except Sivapatı were eldest sons and it would be reasonable to take 35 years to a generation as the average in this case. Yajñapati was a Mahāmahopādhyāya, which in Mithilā generally meant a master of all sciences Apparently Yajñapati was regarded in his times as an authority on the Dharmasastra also For, his son Naraharı in his critical work on Smrti named Dvaitanıyaya quoted a passage of his father (p 7 eta gaufhla firaun) on the topic of Daksınādāna ) It is probably a verbal verdict and does not refer to any Smrti work of Yajñapati VATEŚLARO PATIRIA a doyen of his times in the cultural aristocracy of Mithilā though his name is now almost forgotten. He was universally known as the Darpanakāra both in Nyāya and Smrti In the Pratsaksaloka Jayadeva answers an adverse argument of the Darpāna to a passage of Gangeša in the Siddhānta portion of Mangalavāda ( B I. ed , pp. 8999 Gangeſa handled the intricate ametafaT4KP in his argument here) The particular passage of the Aloka इह विनो मे माभूदित्यत्रेदमशग्यापि विशेपणत्वात् न्यायसाम्यमिति तु दर्पणस्य दूपणमनुचिसमयमेव इदन्त्यस्य प्रतियोगिनि यिने विशेपणत्वात् न तु 1 (From an old Ms in our possession, vide p 157 of Tattracıntāmans with comm. SB Texts, į1939, wrongly printed in the Pūrsapaksa portion ) The name of this Darpanahāra was quite unknown till we discovered the passage fully cited by Naraharı Upādhyāya in the Pratyaksadūsano ddhāra ( fol 19a of a unique Ms preserved in 1 O London) तदापि नागृहीवेति । अत्र वृप्रपितामह-बटेश्वरोपाध्यायचरणा-यन कल्पनीय- कल्पनोपपत्ति न्यायमाम्यमवर्ननीयमेवेवि #1 TL runs ·. + Vateśvaropādhyāya 165 of Vateśvara's argument (not cited in the Āloka ) was Testated by Vateśvara's great grandson Yajñapati, who was cited and criticised by many scholars ( vide the Pragalbhi printed in the S B Texts, pp 162, 164, Madhusudana's hantakod. dhāra, ib. p 158 ) We need only cite an unpublished note of Mādhava Miśra in the Pratyaksalokadıpıkā on the point वटेशाना मतमुपन्यस्यति--इह विन्न इति । अनायमाशय-यन कल्पनीय FTAFITAT facecai! (fol 44b of a unique Ms preserved in the Darbhanga Raj Library) It can now be stated confidently that the healthy conflict between Yajñapati and his pupil Jayadeva (so aptly described by Gokulanātha once as a 'famıly quarel' इति मिश्रारणामुपाध्याय सह स्वगोत्रकलहोऽवशिष्यते fol 88b of A, S Ms, of Siddhāntatattvaviveka ) which marked the most glorious period of the literary history of Mithila really started about a century earlier with Vateśvara as a bold opponent of Gangesa. This rivalry subsisted for about two centuries mainly through the descendants and relatives of Vateśvara and exercised a profound influence upon the cultural history of Mithilā as we shall presently see Vateśvara must have written several works both on Smrti and Nyāya with the appellative 'Darpana' But he was more famous as a Nyāya scholar One of his sons Paksadharopādhyāya wrote at the beginning of his Smrtı work named Tattvanirnaya न्यायार्णवपरिश्रान्तसूरितारणसेतवे । गुरवे श्रीवटेशाय सरार्फमतये नम ।। श्रीमत्पक्षधरैरेप प्रणम्य पितरं गुरम । घटेश्वर विमूढाना क्रियते तत्त्वनिर्णय ॥ (Ms preserved at Mithila Institute compare L 1845 ) In the fragment examined by us (foll 40 only ) Paksadhara has quoted his father's views on Smrtı topics ( fol 5b, 28a & 35b ), of these the second passage (282) is long and extremely important, as Vateśvara has cited therein with approval an opinion ·166 History of Navya Nyāya in Mithila of Duvākara Miśra's Suddhibimba which is quite a new discovery in the Smrti literature of Mithila Vateśvara has also been cited twice by his descendant Naraharı in the Dvartanirnaya (Darbhanga ed pp 10 & 32) The first passage ( GATHE- वटेश्वरोपाध्यायव्यारयानमप्यमुमेवार्थ सवदति । तथाहि 'इति दर्पणे तल्लिखितम् p 10) where Vatesvara quotes approvingly from a work named Sraddhapallava proves that his Smrtı work was named (Smrto ) Darpana Among his Nyāya works all of which seem to be now lost we have so far discovered the following names. (1) Nyaganbandhadarpana Sankara Mısra the commencement of his Trisutrınıbandhavyakhya (HP Sastrı , Notices II No 136 ) wrote प्रकाशदर्पणोद्दयोतकृद्भिारया कृतोज्ज्वला । तथापि योजनामात्रमुद्दिश्याय ममोद्यम | Of the three illuminating scholia on Udayana's Nibandha which Sankara had before him the Uddyota ( by Davākara ) is the earliest and possible the three names have been mentioned in the ascending order of chronology In that case the author of the Darpana must have slightly preceded Vardhamāna, whose Prakasa is mentioned first of all This Darpanakāra is undoubtedly Vatesvara (and not Mahesa Thakkura as surmised by M Chakravarti JASB, 1915, p 259 vide S B Studies III pp 148-49) Only one Darpanakāra was known in Mithilā in the 15th century A D whose identity was beyond any question (2) Ngājalılavatidarpana A reference to this long lost book is found in the following passage of Paksadhara s Dravya. unveka श्रतएव लीलावतीप्रकाशदर्पण्यो-भावत्वे सति सयोगान्यप्रत्यासत्त्या- taset" rata 976 (London, 1 O copy, fol 35a unde Lilāvati Chowkh ed p 798) Five more references have been traced in Paksadhara 5 Lilavalivileka , these are $ ·Vateśvaropādhyāya 167 यद्यपीति । अयं प्रतीक' पुरषोत्तमाय नमः इत्यनन्तरं कर्तुमुचितः दर्पणेपि तथै- वास्तीति ( London I O.copy, fol. la, very beginning), संज्ञाशब्दत्वे नान व्युत्पत्तिरिति दर्पणः ( fol. 2a) न च भावपदानं कल्पितं दर्पणे भावपदप्रक्षेपात् (tol. 6a rnde Lilavati, p. 18), अन मीमांसकानामिति (b., p. 21) अर्थापत्तिरूपप्रमाणप्रदर्शनार्थमुक्तम् इति दर्पणः (7b), अन विशुद्धसन्ततिजत्यमिति मूले ( P. 101) अन यद्यपि सर्गादाविदमव्यापकं तदा सन्ततेरभावात्तथापि ब्राह्मण्यव्यवस्थापकासाधारणाध्यापनादिकमनेनोपलक्षितमिति दर्पणः ( fol. 28b). The name of the author is not mentioned in any of these references but, as we have stated before, there was only one Darpanakāra known in Mithilā in the middle of the 15th century and he was undoubtedly Vațeśvara Upādhyāya There is an anonymous work named Upādhıdarpana preserved at Poona (B.O R, I. Ms. No 6 of 1898 99, foll.9). It begins श्रीरामचन्द्रं शिरसा प्रणम्य गुरुं च यज्ञेश्वरमस्मदीयम् । उपाधिसामान्यविशेपलक्ष्यविनिर्णयोऽयं क्रियते गभीर ॥ The references are to Udayana ( fol 2b, 5a), Varadarāja (2a), Vadindra 6b वादीन्द्रास्तूपाधिदूपणमेव न भवतीति भणन्ति ), Sivaditya Misra (3a तर्हि साध्यसाधनसंबन्धव्यापकत्वे सति साधनाव्यापकत्वमिति शिवादित्यमिश्रोक्तमेवोपाधिलक्षणं भवतु ) and Sridharācārya ( 3a). They prove that the author was fairly old and probably preceded Gangesa, as we are unable to trace any Gangesa-brand passage in the book. Moreover, Vateśvara is not likely to suppress his name if he were the author of the book, as the title would tempt one to surmise. Vateśvara's passage, where he had criticised Gangesa was probably taken from the Nibandhadarpana. The following passage, which we traced in Sārvabhauma's Manıparıkṣā, is likely to be from the same source. उच्यते । श्रवच्छेदकत्वमनेन रूपेण इदमिति प्रतीतिनियामक. खरूपसंबन्धः प्रतियोगित्ववत् । तदुक्तं दर्पणे-अवच्छेदकत्वं विशेषणताविशेष स चातिरिक्तः स्वरूपस्येत्यन्यदेतदिति ( fol. 50a under the section on Visesavyapti, ·168 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithila 1 B I, ed., pp. 156-57) It should be noticed that Sárvabhauma cited the extract in support of his own contention It appears that the intricate analysis of the term 'avacchedakatā', which subsequently culminated in the works of ſiromani and his followers, was first taken up by Vateśvara Vateśvara's Age and Family Vateśvara must have been a leader of the Maithila community in his times In the following verse of the Hariharasubhăsita Vatesa has been held as an ideal Śrotriya, he adorned his scholarship by successful teaching and his riches by charities विद्यामध्यापनै नवित्त नित्यमलगुरु । पुरा कीत्तिर्वटेशादीनाविवेशामुनाध्वना ॥ (XII. 25) (Prof R Jha's ed. p. 76) He was a distinguished member of the Māndara family, which has for its first ancestor, as recorded in the Pañyıs, one Narasimha with a very peculiar title aiaTUTETHETETTAENTTITY- HETHEI9767777 proving that at that time (in the 12th century A.D.) some of the scholars at least had a kind of military training Vateśa was 7th in descent from this Narasimha But in an old Palm leaf copy of a Sakhăpañ;i, preserved in the Darbhanga Raj Library the genealogy of the Māndara family starts from one Trinayana Bhatta, about 15 generations before Narasimha (the leaf unfortunately is torn with many names lost) the antiquity of the family, one of the oldest in the whole of India, going back to about 600 AD Vateśa was the third son of his father M M Jagannātha and his maternal grandfather was one attirarengt belonging to a family named गढनिसती Vateśvara himself had a numerous family and was closely connected with many distinguished families of Mithilā His date can be fairly fixed from reliable clues furnished by his family alliances, some of which we have examined elsewhere. His father contemporary of Gangesa. This confirmed by the following fact Vateśvara was a 15 ·Vateśvaropādhyāya 169 was a close relative and contemporary of MM Vośvanātha of the Sodarapurīa famıly, 'two of whose daughters were given in marriage to the eldest ( Paſupatı) and third son (Arganı ) of Vateśvara by his first wife, while a daughter of Vateśvara was married to the third son (Ravinātha ) of Viśvanātha. Now Visvanatha's second wife (ie the mother of Ravinātha ) was a daughter of Pritisarmā of the Naronaye family, who again was an exact, if not a bit younger, contemporary of Bhavašarma and consequently of Gangesa also For, Pritišarma's mother's mother was the younger sister of Bhavaśarma's mother's mother Pasupati as we have stated under Yajñapatı, was the latter's grandfather. Vateśvara's second son Raghupatı had a son named Prajñāpati who married Kamalā the daughter of Maharaja Sıvasınha's own sister According to the latest evidence Śıvasıðha was defeated by Ibrahim of Jaunpur in 1415-16 ÁD. (Bengal,, Past and Present, LXVII, 1948, p 36 fn ) and not earlier Sıvasinha's sister's daughter was born say, in 1385 A D. at the earliest and her husband's grandfather Vateśvara was born not earlier than 1300 AD Vateśvara's youngest son Surapati was the father of Vişnupuri's mother's mother. This also places the birth of Vateśvara not earlier than 1300 AD? Vateśvara's fifth son (1e. first son of his second wife ) was Pakşadhara, whose eldest son Mabīpatı was the father of M M. Rucıdatta's sister's husband Amarapati Even if we 1. Prof R Jha calculated Visnupuris date from that of śıvasınha (Patna University Journal, offprint, pp 911). Taking 1410 AD as the date of Sivasınha's death, the birth of Surapati's daughter's daughter Maura should be 1400 AD and Vateśvara's birth cannot be placed before 1300 AD, even if we assume an interval of 120 years between the birthdates of Vateśvara and his grand daughter (ie Surapati's daughter ) Bhavano, the mother of the above-mentioned Maura

·170
History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithila
suppose that Amarapati was born in 1425 A.n; at the earliest,
Vateśvara's birth cannot take place before 1305 & Da We
conclude, therefore, that Vațeśvara was born in the first decade
of the 14th century.

·CHAPTER V THE AGE OF FOUR M's MĀDIATA MIŚRA Son of the famous Jayadeva Mıśra alias Paksadhara (q. v ). He was also a M M. and probably wrote a work, where he defended his father against the arguments of Yajñapati's son Naraharı and others of that group MĀDIATA MISKA Son of Gadādhara wrote a Bhedadipikā in refutation of Vedantic monism Pandit Ramanatha Tarkaratna of the Asiatic Society visited Tırhut in search of Sanskrit manuscripts. He came across a copy of this extremely rare book sometime in 1878-79 D (L 1879 foll 60 ) and gave a good summary of it from which it appears that the author was well-read in the Vedānta The Bhamat: the Khandana and the Citsukhi are among the works examined and refuted by him Two verses are reproduced here from the Report य श्रीमती श्रीरपरा गदाधरा दसूत शास्वाम्बुधिपारदृश्वन । sitateert 19eTratad प्रवेश्य सिद्धान्तपथे स सेलति ।। माधवेन हरिभक्तिभञ्जिता- शेपकिल्विपभरेण तन्यते। भेटवर्मनि पिवकदीपिका मायिमोहतिमिरापनुत्तये 11 Fortunately the name of the author has been traced in the Paña jis. He belongs to a senior branch of the famous Sodarapura family, a common ancestor of which named Ratneśvara had three sons, M M. Haleśvara being the eldest one Madhava's descent from him is as follows Haleśvara-Rāju-Yogiſvara ·History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithila Varāha-Rati-Hore-Gadādhara---M, M. Madhava. He was thus three generations later than ſankara Miśra of the same family, who was fifth in descent from the second son of Ratneśvara This Mādhava Miśra lived, therefore, in the middle of the 16th century A D, about a century after Sankara Mišra. Mādhava Miśra, son of Jayadeva, was a generation earlier. BIAGIRATIA TIIA KLUBA An elder brother to Mahārajadhırāja Mahesa Thakkura was a celebrated logician of Mithilā. He completed his studies under Jayadeva at the age of twenty years. He commented upon the Dravyaprakaſa, the Gunaprakāša, the Kusumāñjalıprakasa and the Lilavatiprakasa. His works are either called Prakāśıkā or Jalada or Megha after his nickname 'Megha' It is presumed tha Vardhamâna's Prakašas on the Nibandha, the Nyāyaparıšista and the Atmatattvaviveka were not so much in use during Bhagiratha's time He read the Prakaśa on the last named work (cf Lilāvatımegha, Baranası ed. p. 9) but commented on the Ātmatattvaviveka (published in the Bibl Ind series ) itself Bhagiratha and Raghunātha Śıromanı were contemporaries and lived in about 1500 A D. but did not see the works of each other His Lilāratyalada, Kusumāñjalıjalada and Guna- Jalada are mentioned in a list of books prepared in 430 L. S. (p 129 ) Again the Dravyamegha and the Gunamegha have similarly been mentioned in another list of 409 L S The lowest limit of his scholastic activities may thus be fixed in 1905 A, D MAIEŠA THAKKOR Å One of the best scholiasts on the Aloka of Jayadeva. The Darpana, as his sub-commentary is named, seems to have extended to the first two parts of the book as no copy of the Śabdálokudarpana has yet been discovered The first section ( Mangalavāda) of the Pratyaksa part has been published along with the Aloka and two other commentaries in the Sarasvati-Bhavana Texts. A ·तक Mahesa Țhakkura 173 new edition of the Aloka and the Darpana is being published from the Mithilā Institude, Mahesa read Nyāya with M. M. Śucikara Pandita of the Kujaulı family; this fact is stated in the introduction to a drama named Ānandavijaya by Sucikara's great-grandson M. M. Rāmadāsa Upādhyāya :- पङ्कम अकरुन करोत्तओ शुइ पण्डिओ। तीय सिक्ख महेश लक्स- नरेस आणइ मएिडओ। [ तर्कपङ्कजारूप-करोत्तरः शुचिपण्डितः । तदीयशिष्यो महेशो लक्षनरेशानतिमण्डितः ।।] This Nātikā was written for Sundara Thākura, a grandson of Mahesa, and, therefore, it 15 stated afterwards in the Prastavanā : तर्हि गुरुकुलतया पूजनीयोऽयं कविः सुन्दरनरेशस्य । It is not known if this ſucikara had written any book, but in a book-list dated 1409 L. S. we found the name of a work 'Līlāvati-suci', which may be a work of this sucikara, a commentary on the Nyāyalilāvatī. There is evidence that Mahesa, probably after finishing his Nyāya studies, went to Vārāṇasi, where he read (Vedānta and Mimāńsā ) with Rāmeśvara Bhatta. Rāmeśvara's grandson Sankara Bhatta wrote his family history in a Mahākavya named Gadhıvansānuvarnanam (fragment now preserved in the Sarasvati Bhavana ). In the sixth sarga of the poem we find कश्चिच्च ठक्कुरमहेश इति प्रसिद्ध- स्तच्छिष्य आस पृथुतार्किकतैरभुक्तः। टोकां विधाय स तु पक्षधरीप्रचार aute qui fallna(v. 5, fol. 8b ) 1 This sucikara belonged to the Bhakharaula branch of the Kujaulı family of Katyāyana gatra. There was another sucikara belonging to the Govindavana branch of the same family and his grandson Sankara, author of the Smresudhakara ( composed in 1677 a D.) stated that his grandfather was a renowned Naiyāyika, ·174 History of Navya Nyaya in Mithila As a result of his studies at Varanası he formed a bias towards the Vedanta which was reflected in the following remarkable passage in the Anumana portion of the Darpana -तदेतत् सक्षेपेण वेदातिमत लिपित न दूपित श्रुतिपुराणस्मृतिशिष्टानुशिष्टत्वात् । (cited by MM Dr Kaviraja in SB S III p 142) Mahesa's fame as a logician spread far and wide as proved by the interesting epithet (the great dialectician of Tırabhukta’) used by Sankara Bhatta who was himself a leading scholar of Varanası Moreover Annam Bhatta the famous polymath of South India wrote his commentary on the Aloka named Siddhāñjana after consulting previous glosses ( on the Aloka ) notably by the four great M's of Mithila-Megha Mahesa Madhusudana and Madhava (R 1536 ) He has actually cited and refuted Mahesa s views (R 1537) Th s fame of Mahesa rested on his single work in logic viz the Darpand and it is not known that he had writ ten any other book in Njaza A thorough examination of the book is necessary for ascertaining Mahesa s position among contemporary scholars The date of composition of the Darpana can be fairly fixed from the following evidence (1) Sankara Bhatta has left clear chronological date in his family history Narayana Bhatta the eldest son of Ramesvara was born in Vaisakha 1435 Saka ( early in 1513 A D ) CV 6) The family removed from Vadyanagara to Dvaraku in the 4th year of Narayana whose Upanayana was performed there (V 16) Ramesvara settled at Kasi sometime after say in 1522 A (VI 1) His frst d sciple at hasi was a Konkana (VI 2) then two ascetics Damodara and Madhava Sarasvati (VI 3) Mahesa's name is found in VI 5 and in the very next verse it is stated that a Gurjara pupil read the Jahabhāsya along with Sridhara the second son of Ramesvara who was born on his way to hası ( not earlier than 1521 D ) It is therefore probable that Mahesa read with him somet me bet ·Mahesa ſhakkura 175 ween 1530-35 A, 1), and the Darpana was written within 1535- 40 4. D. very early in his literary career. (2) According to genealogical works authentically preserved in Mithilā Mahesa was the youngest child of his parents --youngest of four brothers and six sisters. All his brothers were great prodigies viz. Mahādeva, ( 4. v ) and Dāmodara, who composed their works within the first quarter of the century At the end of his very first work the Dravzaprakaśıka Bhagiratha has mentioned the name of Maheśa, who was bom, therefore, just within 1500-10 A. D. and wrote the Darpaņa when his age was about 30 only. (3) This agrees with the tradition that he went to the court of Rāņi Durgāvatı of Gaih Mandia, probably after the death of his immediate elder Dāmodara, who was patronised by Sangrāma Sāha ( d, 1530 M. D.). (4) The acquisition of the Darbhanga Raj by Maheſa is is dated in 1478 (‘randhra-turangama-śruti mahi') Šaka i e. 1556-57 A, D, when his age was about 50 according to our calculation. (5) In his old age he abdicated the throne and most of his works on Smrtí were composed after abdication. For, in his Tithitattvacıntāmanı he has referred to Raghunandana and Gopāla of Bengal (Ms. No 66 of the Mithilā Institute, fol. 9a - गौडरघुनन्दनगोपालप्रभृतयस्तु). Raghunandana wrote the Jyotisatattva (No 20 in the list of his works ) after 1489 Śaka ( 1567 A.D.) Mahesa, therefore, must have written this treatise in the last quarter of the century. But the mention of Gopāla is a great puzzle, for both the smộti writers of that name, the Kaumudikāra Siddhāntavāgisa and the Nirnaya-kāra Nyāyapañcānana were junior to Raghunandana and were living still in the first two decades of the 17th century. Probably the reference was to an earlier Gopāla. At any rate Maheśa becomes a contem- ·176 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithila porary at least of Raghunandana and his date of birth can never be placed before 1500 A. D It should be mentioned here that the late Dr H P. Sastri discovered a letter written by Mahesa to one 'Tärkikacūdamanı', whom he took to be identical with the famous Raghunātha Siromanı This letter was exibited by him in the Asiatic Society in April 1907 ( Proc A.SB p. lxxv ) and was discovered in a book named Varvasvatasiddhanta written in 1529 40 (Ind Ant 1912 p 9) The letter has been published in yol X of the Des Cat. of the Society (p 235) Dr. Şastri's conjecture about the identity of the person ( Maheśa Šarman ) who wrote the letter is entirely wrong The letter was written in the Bengali script, and though not dated 18 somewhat later than the manuscript of the work (named Jyotihsārasāgara composed in 1450 Saka, Vizasvatasıddhāntasāra being only a part) The author of the work (Gaurinātha of the Mukherji famıly) and all the persons referred to in the letter including Maheſa undoubtedly belonged to Bengal Mahesa Thakkura of Mithilā could never be supposed to have identified himself so immediately with the family of a Bengali scholar There is absolutely no evidence that he was a pupil of Siromanı or Cīdāmanı of Bengal The very idea of a Maithila pupil taking lessons from a Bengalı scholar was quite unthinkable at that period MADIUSU DANA THAKKURA might be regarded as the greatest Nyāya scholar of Mithilā in the first The first section ( Mangalavāda ) of his masterpiece the Kantakoddhāra has been published (Tattvacıntaman with Comm, S B Texts, 1939 ) In the third introductory verse he has boldly stated that his able arguments have removed all thorns in the Aloka and the lani and in the fourth verse he proudly advertised his scholarship in eight different branches of literature (Nyāsa. Vasbesika, half of the 16th century AD ·Madhusūdana Thakkura 177, Mimāńsā, Vedānta, Mahābhāsya, Kāvya, Dharmaśāstra and Mantraśāstra ). That it is not a mere idle boast will be apparent even from a study of the small printed portion of his work. His masterly elaboration of Mimānsă doctrines (pp. 60-64, 94-103, 141-45 ) and his quotations from Śridatta (p 40), Nyāyamahārņava (p. 41 ), Mahābhāşya (p. 42), Dravyaprakāśa (p. 60), Vateśvara (p. 37, 67, 175 ), Uddyota (p. 67, 119 ) and his own father (p. 34, 37, 76, 183) as well as his frequent refutations of previous glosses of unnamed scholars are some of the exceptional features of his performance. Unfortunately the printed portion forms only a hundredth part of his whole work. We add, therefore, brief notes on the unpublished parts. The first part of the Kantakoddhāra ends with the colophon : इति महामहोपाध्याय-सट्टारश्रीमधुसूदनकृतकण्टकोद्धारे प्रत्यक्षसण्डः परि- T: ( fol 120a of A. S. Ms. No. G. 1439, dated 491 L. S., copied at Vikramapura in Mithila ). The copy extends from the Prāmānyavāda to the end. We traced three references to Pragalbha ( 4a, 126 & 16a ) and an interesting one to an unknown scholar ( 20b : कल्पकम्मन्यास्तु"तदचातुर्यम ). We quote one remarkable passage ( fol. 58b ) : -äfte afa 1974. (p. 653 under Samavāyavāda ). ननु- वैशिष्टये यदि वैशिष्टयं तदा स्यादनवस्थितिः । अथ सत्र न वैशिष्टयं तदा स्यादनवस्थितिः ।।. वैशिष्टये तदभावोऽपि वैशिष्टयेनैव निर्वहेत् । तदन्तरेण नाभावे वैशिष्टयं हि त्वयेष्यते । a911 quiaffa Hai There are two fragments of this part at Tanjore (Foll. 27 and 131 : vide Tanjore Cat., pp. 453–437 ). The colophon cited (p. 4537) from the larger fragment (fol., 126, at the end of the section on Sannikarşa ) is extremely important. According to it Madhu- ·History of Navya-Nyaya in Mithua sūdana wrote this commentary under the patronage of one 'Mahārājādhırāja' Rāmarāja described, among others, as 'Karnāțaka Cakravarti'. The identification of this monarch is a great puzzle , there was no paramount king of that name in South India in the 16th century A, D as far as we are aware We shall discuss the point later on In a Darbhanga copy of this part ( No p. 321, foll 94 ) the author refers to his own invincibility thus (verse 2 ) It begins with the There वादीन्द्रमानमातङ्गसूदने मधुसूदने। वादिन्यादीयतान्नैव मुधा पक्षान्तरं बुधा.॥ There are two copies of the second (Anumāna) part in the Asiatic Society (Nos G. 1444, foll 174 and G. 1572, foll 142 ) both incomplete towards the end third verse of the first part Madhusūdana is commonly believed in Mithilā to have successfully controverted the views of Siromani of Bengal. This tradition is partially correct are eight passages in this part where Madhusūdana has cited and refuted "Gauda' views ( No 1572, fol 21a, 23a, 285, 31a, 71b 81a, 91b & 103b) Of these the second quotation is the well known definition of the term Vyāpti technically known as barea originally formulated by Sārvabhauma ( Anumanamaripariksā, fol. 14 ) and included among the famous 'fourteen definitions' of Siromani Here Madhusudana also cited and refuted a passage of Pragalbha (fol. 23a ) The next passage runs तथा च साध्यवदत्तिसकलपदार्थाभाववत्त्व यदधिकरणताया अन्यूनत्ति तत्त्वं पलितमिति गौडव्याख्यानमप्यपास्त वेदितव्यम् ( fol 28b) The passage exactly occurs in Siromani at the very beginning of the Pūrvapaksa section of Vyāptivāda. It is an original explanation of Siromanı and not borrowed from Sārvabhauma or Pragalbha. As far as we are aware Madhusūdana was the first among Maithila scholars to quote from ſiromani. The long passage quoted in the section on Tarka ( fol. 71b ) is also taken from Siromani, who under the heading for put in a nutshell various ·Madhusudana ſhakkura 179 comments on the point found in Sārvabhauma ( fol 63-65 ) The remaining five passages cannot be traced in Siromanı, Sārvabhauma or Pragalbha and were evidently cited from other Gauda scholars, whose names and works were lost during Siromani's great mastery The ending verses and colophon of this part is cited below from a Palm-leaf copy preserved in the Darbhanga Raj Library. इति कल्याणमस्तु मे ॥ आलोकमुक्त' सुमणी निबद्धैः शुद्धः सुवर्णरनुरञ्जिता या। सा रामभूपस्य बुधोत्तमाना- माकल्पमाकल्पतु कीर्तिरेषा ।। मधुसूदनेन यनान्मीमांसान्यायपारगेन कृतः । सुचिरं सुखयतु सुजनानालोके क्ण्टकोद्धार । कृतिमेतामनभ्यस्य मदीयामनसूयया । मणी यः पण्डितम्मन्यः स शोच्यः पशुपालवत् ।। इति महाराजाधिराजकार्णाटचक्रवर्तिभुजबलभीम - समस्तदिग्विजयार्जित- सम्पत्सन्तोपितनिखि(ल)भूमण्डलश्रीरामराजकारिताया महामहोपाध्यायसट्टफुरश्रीमधु- सूदनकृतावनुमानालोककण्टकोद्धारः सम्पूर्णमिति ॥ ल सं ५२६ फाल्गुनशुक्लाष्टम्या- मध्ययनशालिना श्रीभवदेवशर्मणा भौरमामेऽपूरीमिति || The scribe happens to be a grandson of the famous Bhagiratha Thakkura, the elder brother of Mahesa Thakkura. The author's extra-ordinary confidence about his own ability is reflected in the last verse. It should be carefully noted that this valuable copy gives the author's patron the important epithet 'Kāmāța-Cakravarti found in the Tanjore copy and it is a clue to the identity of the unknown monarch, who evidently belonged to the famous 'Kārņāta' family of Nānyadeva and not to the Karnāța country. It is our conjecture that after the overthrow of the last 'Onwara monarch Laksminatha Kaisanārāyana about 1526 A.D. and before Mahesa Thakkura acquired the kingdom of ·180 History of Navya Nyāya in Mithila Mithilā in 1556 a D, there was confusion in Mithila for about 30 years when many distinguished scholars left Mithilā to seek foreign patronage For sometime at least a scion of the long lost Karnata' family might have taken the reins of Government in Mithila and under this monarch named Rāmarāja Madhusūdana wrote his monumental work somewhere within 1525- 40 A D If it were written in a 'foreign land Madhusīdana would not have failed to refer to his Marthila origin in the colophon The last part (Śabda) is preserved at Darbhanga Raj Library in three different fragments constituting the whole The first portion (Ms No P 110, foll 148, up to Vidhivada) begins as usual with the verse AYTGAARTE--&c. The next portion ( No P 981 foll 81 ) is on Apūrvavāda and the last portion (No 97, foll 72 ) goes to the very end closing with the verse USAHA YAIT &c with the usual colophon, without however the mention of the patron's name as found at the end of the first two parts Perhaps the reign of Rāmarāja had ended by that time,' though the non-mention of the patron's name should be confirmed from other copies The Varanasi copy (S B. Studies, III, pp 155-6) also seems to omit the patron s name Madhusīdana composed a commentary named 'Jimoddhāra' on the Smrti work mayapradipa of Sridatta ( Ms No P 326 foll 43, dated 1652 Saka) and another on Vācaspatı's Draitanımaja (vide L 1853 foll, 121, named 'Jimoddhāra'). We examined the A Scopy (No G. 1589 foll 107, called -Prakaśa ) of the latter It was written after Śabdakantakoddhāra (mentioned in fol 31a) and after the Samazapradipajimoddhara ( fol 86a ) He refers once to his own Šaradatika (fol 15a) Partly due to maturity of age and partly also to the nature of the subject Madhusūdana's style is distinctly more sober here He does not, moreover, refer to his royal ·Madhusudana Thakkura 181 patron, whose connection with the great scholar must have been short lived. We quote an interesting passage where the viewpoints of the Nyāya and the Smrti are contrasted न हि तर्कशास्त इव धर्मशारनेऽपि पामरादिपुरुपशक्तिनिरूपणाय न्यायारम्भोऽपि तु धर्माधमनिर्णयायafa (fol. 38a ). wrote one Madhusudana's age and family Madhusudana belonged to one of the premier Śrotriya families of Mithilā named Ghusota of the Vatsa-gotra He was the seventh son of his parents and his father was Govinda Thakkura, the celebrated author of the Kāvyapradipa and Pujapradipa Madhusudana has quoted many passages of his father in the Kantakoddhara as well as the Jirnoddhāra (fol. 106a), proving that his father was also a scholar of the Nyaya and the Smrti in both of which he must have given lessons to his pupils though it is doubtful if he had actually written any works on the two subjects, Madhusūdana s date is quite beyond any dispute now. It can be fixed from the following evidences In the first place his elder brother Devanātha the fifth son of Govinda work in 400 L. S and his last work in 1486 Saka ( 1564 A D.) at a very old age Taking Madhusudana to be about years younger to Devanātha hıs date of birth would be about 1500 So that he was an exact peer in age of Mahesa Thakkura. As a matter of fact the Darpana and the Kantakoddhara do not refer to each other, as far as can be ascertained In the first flush of youthful zeal Madhusūdana must have wielded his powerful pen somewhere between 1525 35 A,D to combat the opponents of the Aloka both of Mithilā and Bengal. In a book-list dated 430 L S. (ie within 1540 50 AD) the mention of the Pratyaksa Kantakoddhāre ( see p. 129 above) proves that the book already circulated in Bengal in 1540 A D. This is confirmed by the following fact Madhusudana's mother was a daughter of Mahupādhyaya Vacaspati of the Māndara family, a first cousin of the famous Yajñapatt Upādhyāya In other words she was a sister of Narahari. a AD ·182 History of Navya Nyāya in Mithila copy of the Pujāpradipa was transcribed in 432 L S. at the request of Madhusūdana ( preserved at Darbhanga ) Madhusudana's eminence Madhusudana, more than any other scholar of his age in Mithilā, was recognized as an authority in other lands. Besides the famous Annam Bhatta of South India he has been quoted by name in the Vyakarana- Siddhāntasudhāndhi of Viśveśvara (Varanası ed , pp. 58 & 69) and in the Nyāyasıddhāntamāla of Jayarāma (S B, Text, p 161 ) Moreover, it is our conjecture that one of the great est scholars of Bengal Gunānanda Vidyāvāgisa was a student. of this Madhusudana For, in one of his works the Sabdalokaviveka he referred to his professor thus ( Ms No 366 of the Sarasvati-Bhavana ) मधुसूदनसद्व्यारयासुधाक्षालितचेतसा । गुणानन्देन कृतिना शब्दालोको विविच्यते । This echoes Madhusudana's opening verse in all the parts of his work. Gunānanda was a contemporary of Bhavānanda and flourished in the last half of the 16th century A 1. His pupilage under a Maithila scholar, of true is a fact of supreme importance in Bengal s relation with Mithila, which continued to attract superior scholars from Bengal even after the great mastery of Siromanı. MM MADHAVA MIŚRA One of the last great Navyanyāya scholars of Mithilā who had written regular and expansive commentaries on the Aloka. He was the last of the four great M's of Mithila, whose names are respectfully mentioned by the great Annam Bhatta of South India at the beginning of the latter's Alokatikā named Siddhāñjana ( Madras copy R. 1536, verse 5 ) मैघी महेशमधुसूदनमाघवादे याख्या गेम ·Madhava Miśra 183 सिद्धाञ्जन मणिविलोकनलालसाना. मालोकमार्गगमिनामहमातनिष्ये ।। Annam Bhatta who consulted all the four great authorities upon the Aloka evidently mentioned their names in the chronological order Mädhava therefore, came last of all and this is confirmed by internal evidence As far as we are aware there is only one copy of the first part of Mādhava's commentary now preserved in the Darbhanga Ray Library This unique Ms in palm leaves ( Ms No 130, foll 204) is unfortunately incomplete towards the end It goes up to the end of the section on Anyathākhyātı and stops in the next sentence upon the original text of Gangesa (B I ed p 538) Madhava calls himself a satkavi and this is amply borne out by the elegant verses at the beginning of this part which are fully reproduced below धारा स्नेहसुधारसस्य बहुधा मागल्यदीपाकुरा विस्तीर्ण विषमायुधेनवणिजा वीथीपु रत्नच्छटा । (प)श्चेषो पुरवैरिकोपदहनालीढस्य जीवातव' श्रीराधामधुवैरिणोरनुदिन पुष्णन्तु हम्भनय ॥१ अकाएडभवताण्डवस्सलदमन्दमन्दाकिनी प्रवाहकुहरक्वडमरुडिण्डिमाडम्बर । मम त्रिपुरनागरीनयननीरकल्लोलिनी विगाहनकुतूहली दिशतु भव्यमव्याहृतम् ॥२ श्रीगोपालादधिगतदृढन्यायसिद्धान्तसारो विद्योदारो दिनकरगुरी ज्यायसि प्रौढमक्ति । शास्ता विद्वत्पटलमुकुटश्रीकरश्रीहरीणा न्यायायाम्भोधौ गुरुरिव गुरु सौतर कर्णधार ॥३ देवकीचरणाम्भोजभ्रमरीभूतमोलिना श्रीमाधवेन क्रियते प्रत्यक्षालोकदीपिका ।।४ ·184 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithilā अनच्छाम्भोरक्षा मम य(दि च)वाचो गुरुगिरा- ममूपामासङ्गात्तदपि दधते कामपि रुघम् । विभूति श्रीशम्भोरुरसि मसृणाङ्गारमलिना न कि धत्ते गोरीकुचकलसपाटीरपदवीम् ।।५ निगूढमा(वगम्भीर पदवि(न्यास)बन्धुरम् । मदुक्तं यौवतञ्चैव पुष्णाति विदुपा मन ॥६ in प्रसगादिति-शिष्यशिक्षाप्रयोजनकमगलनिवन्धनेन स्मृतस्य शिष्याणामन- वधेयवचनत्वशङ्कयोपेक्षानहत्यादित्यर्थ । The small portion we had examined of this book proves that a vast literature had grown up round the Aloka of Jayadeva and Mādhava has cited passages from many authors, whose works are now lost There are several passages from a Gauda' (fol. 48, 158 etc ), of which the first passage is from Siromaņi. The Düşanoddhara (of Narahari) is cited in the section on Prāmānya ( fol 49), we have actually traced at the Pratyaksadūsanoddhara ( London I 0 copy, fol. 20b) Several passages are cited from 'Gurukarana' (1.e his father and teacher Khāntara Miśra fol. 49, 194 etc ). But by far the largest number of quotations are from Upădhyâya (ie Yajñapati ) almost on every page from folio 1. We shall specially refer to a passage, which probably refers to the Darpana of Maheśa, who is curiously called by the contemptuous epithet 'unreasonable' नियुक्किन्तु नान्ययेत्यादिकारणतामधिकृत्य सहचारग्राहकत्वविचार. 'अपि तु स्वरूपसवन्धरूपा कारणतामधिकृत्य "इत्येकमेव मिलितनिषेधात्मकं साध्यमित्याह । वन्न । (fol. 4) This substantially agrees with Mahesa's Views (Alokadarpana, S. B. Text, pp 17-18) There is a complete copy of the Anumāna part of Mădhava's work, cited by himself under the name of Anumanatokaprakasa in the former part (fol 3-4), in the Sarasvati Mahal Library of Tanjore ( Des Cat. pp 4523-24). There is noopening verse It ends (fol. 293) ·Madhava Miśra 185 ये वाञ्छन्ति मुकुन्दसिन्धुरपतेरद्दामविद्वद्गण- प्रौदाहङ्घतिशातनेन कदलीकोपानुकारं यशः। श्रीमन्गाधवसत्कवेहरसदाम्भोजैकतानात्मन- स्तरयेयं कृतिरुज्ज्वला विजयतामाचन्द्रतारोदयम् ।। सत्त्वः स्वभावशुद्धो मलिनामपि सत्कृति भजते । किं न मुदे मदिराक्ष्याः मृगमदकरीपरीरम्भः ।। इति महामहोपाध्याय-श्रीमाधवकृतानुमानालोकदीपिका संपूर्णा । समाप्तोऽयं ग्रन्थः। The manuscript is dated 1632 V. S. 'Aşādha-Sudi 6 Some'- this corresponds regularly to June 13, 1575 2,0. Monday. It was transcribed at the instance of Viśvanātha Tirtha ( probably of Varanasi, author of a commentary named Komala on Saśdhara's Nyāyasiddhāntadipa ) The colophon proves that Madhava did not comment on the last part of the Aloka. The most important fact stated in the ending verse is that Madhava became famous by vanquishing the proud scholars of the court of Gajapati Mukunda, evidently the last great independ. ent monarch of Orissa. Mukunda reigned from about 1552 4.D. to 1568 A.D. when he was defeated by the Sultan of Bengal. Mukundadeva's name is mentioned in the Saccaritamimānsā of Vidyānivāsa composed in 1480 Saka (1558 A.D), ) ( Vide Vange Navyanyāyacarca, p. 69 & 75). Madhava, therefore, must have composed this work about 1555 A.D., probably before Mahesa Thakkura ( whom he had characterised as 'unreasonable') acquired the kingdom of Mithilā. The date of the transcricript ( 1575 A.D. ) also points to the same conclusion. The author's triumph as a debater and a scholiast is further confirmed by Annam Bhatta, who mentioned his name in his own comentary. Madhava's family: Madhava Miśra's name has been traced in the Panjis of Mithilā. He belongs to the famous Sodarapura family, whose celebrity is considerably enhanced by the discovery of his name and that of his father there. His ·186 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mathilā name is found in the ‘Kataka' branch of the family and his des. cent is as follows. Ratneśvara's second son was M. M. Sureśvara, the common ancestor of many distinguished scholars. The branch of Sureśvara's family runs M. M, Sureśvara- M. M. Viśvanātha - Ratinātha - Dālu-Aphela-Divākara- *Prabhākarāparanāmaka-M M Khāntara'-M. M Madhava -Mahopādhyāya Bhagiratha This Mādhava is, therefore, one generation later than his namesake (the son of Jayadeva ) and the author of the Aloka, on which he commented, was his grand-uncle It was for this reason probably that Mādhava expressed his contempt for Mahesa Thakkura, who belonged to a different family This Madhava like many distinguished scholars of Mithilā was equally famous in Smộtı, in which he wrote a book named Divyadipika. A copy of it is preserved in the Darbhanga Raj Library ( vide Mithilā Mss , Vol. I, pp 225-26). One of the charming opening verses is cited below श्रीगोपालगुरोगिरी गुरुतरा मुक्ता इवाम्भोनिधे- रादाय द्विजभूपणेन गुरुणा श्रीसाँतरेणार्पिता । लब्धा दिव्यरसायणाधिकरसा प्राप्तप्रवोधोदय- दिव्याना विधयो विधेयचतुरै श्रीमाधवरुद्धृता ॥ KESATA MIŚBA TAREĀCĀRTA author of a commentary on the original Nyāyasūtras named Gautamiya sutraprakasa. There is a copy in palm leaves ( Ms No. 52, foll. 92 ) preserved in Raj Library, Darbhanga. fortunately wanting in the beginning and the end. In the Asiatic Society there is a copy of scattered leaves ( Ms No 3105, 24 leaves in total), containing, however, the first leaf, full of lacunas and the last It begins [91] Biete [ 1791].pearhean तेजस्तमालनील [शरणागववमपञ्जर वन्दे]॥ धास्ते यद्यपि पूर्वपण्डिसमता व्याख्यैव संख्याय[वा- मानन्दाय तथापि फेरावकवेर्वाचामिय गुम्फना।] 1$ UD ·Keśava Miśra Tarkācārya 187 The valuable end and colophon run . ( fol. 15b) उमापतिसगर्भस्य श्रीविश्वधरजन्मनः । श्रीमत्केशवमिश्रस्य कृतिर्विजयतेतराम् ।। श्रीकेशवेन व्यरचि प्रवन्धः पूर्णानि विश्वान्यपि यद्यशोभिः । शिष्यैर्यदीयैश्च परःसहः पारेसमुद्रानपि भूपिता भूः॥ नमामि सन्ननान् प्रीत्या न तु भीत्यापि दुर्जनान् । सज्जनः सानुबन्धश्चेत् दुर्जनः कि करिष्यति ।। इति महामहोपाध्यायतर्काचार्यवेदान्तव्यासश्रीशिवमिश्रकृते गौतमसूनप्रकाशे पञ्चमोध्यायः समाप्तः॥४३॥२४॥ The total number of Sūtras is thus recorded at the end I.40+ 20=60/II. 68+ 68%3D136/III. 69+ 73=142/IV.68+49= 117/V.43+24=67. After this there are three figures 60/5/22. The number of Sūtras totalling 522 is lesser than the earlier standard versions. This copy on paper belonging to one Gopi Bhatta is very old, but the Darbhanga copy is older still. The title "Tarkācārya' is not found in the Darbhanga copy, where at the end of the first chapter the following important colophon occurs: तोरभुक्तिमहीपाल-परिपन्मेख्यसूरिणा । श्रीकेशवकवीन्द्रेन कृता सूत्रप्रकाशिका । इति महामहोपाध्याय-वेदान्तव्यासश्रीकेशवमिश्रकृते गोतमसूत्रप्रकाशे प्रथमो- घ्यायः। लसं ४२४। It is also recorded at the end of II. 1 that the author taught both Nyāya and Vedānta at Kāśi : सुखेनाध्यापयन् काश्यां न्यायवेदान्तदर्शने । श्रीकेशवकविश्चक्रे न्यायसूत्रप्रकाशनम् ॥ It was apparently due to his residence at Varanasi that his fame as a teacher of more than one thousand pupils reached the ·188 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithilā shore of the ocean. The following two notes found in the fifth chapter of the book prove that he had previously written a treatise named Tarkatandava अनाधिक्यं च तत्सर्व दर्शित तर्कताण्डवे (fol. 23a) यथा च सङ्करजात्यनन्तर्भावो तथा प्रपश्चितं तर्कताण्डवे (fol. 34b). Fortunately the author has clearly mentioned the name of the family to which he belonged as well as the particular branch of it, in another treatise named Sankhyāpatımānam ( Ms No. 43-2 of the Darbhanga Raj Library, foll. 31). Verses 4-5 at at the begining of this work run - तीरभुक्तिमहीपालपरिपन्मुख्यसूरिणा । श्रीकेशवकवीन्द्रेण निबन्धोऽय विधीयते ॥ सख्यामानगुरुत्वादेविधायकनिषेधके । श्रुतिस्मृतिपुराणादौ वाक्ये स्पष्टीकरोम्यहम् ।। तनादौ मूलपरिभाषा It ends प्राड्विवाकागते वित्ते याजनाद्यागते तथा । कायक्लेश(ग)ते पुस कोऽपि दोषो न विद्यते ॥ इति महामहोपाध्याय-कटकयासिसोदरपुरकमलदिवाकर मिश्रश्रीकेशवकृतसख्या- परिमाणपुस्तक समाप्तम् ॥ In the Pañjis the name of the author has been traced exactly in the Kataka branch of the famous Sodarapura family. The genealogy is as follows M M. Vıśvanātha-Ratinātha--Miśra Dalu-Misra Gadadhara-Mahopādhyāya Viso (3rd. son)- Mahợpādhyāya Keśava. He had four sons and his wife's name was Sobha He was thus a second cousin of Khāntara Miśra (qv ) and two generations later than Sankara Misra. He must have written his works about 1525 AD and was the leading scholar evidently at the court of Mahārāja Laksminātba Kansanārāyana of Mithilā, the last monarch of the Oinwara dynasty. His name, therefore, is one more addition to the list of the galaxy of scholars belonging to the Sodarapura ·189 Devanātha Thakkura Tarkapancānana famıly that shed lustre on the cultural history of Mithila for several centuries. DESANATIA Tuah FURA, TARRAPAÑOĀNANA: a renowned author of Mithilā, better known as the 'Sapta-kaumudikāra'. The names of these 'seven' Kaumudis are 1. Adhikaranakaumudi on Mimāåså as applied to the Dharmaśāstra (Varanası ed , 1926, pp 62 ). 2. Kalakaumudi on Smſti (vide Mithilā Mss , Vol. I, p. 54, foll. 70 ) 3. Kävakaumudi on Rhetorics. ( Peterson's 3rd Rep. ) 4. Tantrakaumudi written in 1486 Saka ( 1564-5 A. D.)". 5. Aantrakaumudi written in 400 L. S. 6 Siddhantakaumudi ( cited in No 1, p. 6) 7. Smrtikaumudi (published in Mithilā Granthamālā up to p. 144 ). None of these works, however, belong to Navyanyāya in which he is known to have composed a work named Ālokapanšista. A copy of this rare book was discovered at Dinajpur in Bengal ( H. P. Sāstri. Notices, III, pp. 74-5. foll 143), it was transcabed at the request of the author himself (AETHET- ठक्कुरश्रीदेवनाथमहाशयानुशासनात् ) in 443 L. S.(चैनबदि एकादश्यां चन्द्रे) There is a copy preserved at Poona (BOR. I., No. 310 of 1880 81 foll. 1-42, 48-105 ). It begins रामेण दाशरथिनाधिसमं पिनाक- ढाकारशङ्कररखे जनकात्मजाया । पातु प्रमोद्भवसेलदनगर- माकस्मिकस्मितसमुल्लसितः कपोल ॥१ 1. The date 'Saka 1486 at the end of a copy in Assamesc bark (in possession of the present writer ) is certainly that of composition as the copy itself is not so old The date of the Mantrakaumudi is thus recorded in copies of 436 and 442 L S (examined by Prof R. Jha) - HU- सेनस्य वियच्छ्न्यान्धिलक्षिते | The reading विपद् म्यन्धि (Mithila Mss , II, Introd. p 4 ) seems to be wrong - ·190 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithila देवनाथेन गोविन्दचरणाम्बुजसेविना । चिन्तामणौ यदालोके परिशिष्ट तदुच्यते ॥२ करणस्येति । अनुमितिकरणस्यानुमानत्वेन तस्य जानित्वाभावादित्यर्थः । यत्तु व्याप्ति- ज्ञानत्वन करणत्वमेव नेति-तन्न । It should be noticed that unlike the present copy where the author proves himself an worshipper of Rāma and Sītā the Dinajpur copy makes him a devotee of Siva, though the 2nd introductory verse is the same in both. The first passage is from the Āloka. It ends with a long note on a passage of the Upamāna part, which no other scholar of Mithila (except the versatile Gokulanātha ) ever touched मूले योपलक्षणेति ।...मूले सामान्यतो दृष्टस्येति.. इत्यलं विस्तरेण । पक्षपातमनालम्ब्य विलम्ब्य गुरुगौरवम् । देवनाथो यथावस्तु परिशिष्टमचिन्तयत् ।। इति श्रीतत्त्वचिन्तामणावालोकपरिशिष्टेऽनुमानोपमानपरिच्छेद | Devanatha has recorded many important facts about himself and his father. He was the fifth son of his father (गोविन्दपञ्चमसुतो विदितो जगत्याम्, Mantrakaumudi, v.7, Tantrakaumudiv.4) When the Mantrakaumudi was written in 400 L. S. (not later than 1519 A.D.) his father was alive (गोविन्द एप भुवने विदितो चकास्ति v. 3). He must then have been quite young, for he states at the end of the book स्वगौरवेण कर्तव्या नोपेचात मनीपिभिः । मनुराह यचो प्राचं पालादपि भुमापितम् ।। He has given his genealogy from Ravikara (v.3) and described his father as well-persed at Minātāsā, Vadárta and Nyāga. (v.4). भीमासामवतार्य य सदसवामद्धा विवेके गुरुः यो वेदान्तविचारपारचरित सिद्धान्तवाचरपति.।

·Devanatha | hakkura larkapañcānana 191 प्राचार्योऽपि विचार्यते यदवधिनैयायिको वा न वा गोविन्दोऽयमखण्डमण्डलयशश्चन्द्रो जगत्प्राप्तवान् ॥ At the end also his father is extolled as wedded to Lady Logic - यस्तर्कतन्त्ररभणीकमनीयकान्तो गोविन्द एप भुवने विदित सुकौति । There cannot be any doubt therefore that Devanātha (and his younger brother Madhusūdana ) read Nyāya with his own father and the 'Gurucarana' mentioned in the Alokaparfısta evidently refers to his own father In the Adhikaranakanmudi Devanātha mentions a separate teacher named Soma Bhatta, who seems to have been a non-Maithila scholar possibly of Varanası At the end of the Tantrakaumudi he advertised his all round scholarship, just like his brother Madhusudana, as follows मीमासास्मृतितकतन्त्रकवितालङ्कारकोपागम- ज्योतिर्वेदपुराणभारतमतिर्यस्तर्कपश्चानन । देवोऽसी कमतेश्वर तितिपतिस्त देवनाथ चिरात् सप्राप्य स्वयमादरेण विदधे विद्वन्मुदे कौमुदीम् ।। Here we are confronted with the problem of his patronage by the king of Kamatā, which is identical with the kingdom of Kuchvihara. Devanātha distinctly says in the colophon that the book was written at the request of Malladeva Naranātāyana, who reigned from 1555 to 1587 A. D. The colophon runs इति समस्तप्रक्रियाविराजमानमहाराजाधिराजश्रीमल्लदेवनरनारायणकारिताया महा- महोपाध्यायतर्कपश्चाननश्रीदेवनाथकृताया तन्त्रकौमुद्या पद्धतिपरिछेद समाप्त । शक १४८६ ॥ (fol 100) The date of composttion ( 1564-5 8. D.) falls in the first decade of the reign, proving that Devanātha came to Kuchvihara soon after the coronation of Malladeva in 1555 & D. The Tantrakaumudi also states that before he came to Kuchvihara he had enjoyed the patronage of another monarch Gajapati Govindadeva ·196 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithilā एतन्मूलकमेव- सवत्सरद्वयेऽतीते वर्जितोर्जादिपञ्चक । पष्टोमासोऽधिमास' स्यात् खोबालैरपि गण्यताम् ।। इति परमानन्दठक्कुरवचनम् । इद च कस्यापियनस्थिती सवाद्यपि न नियतम्- अस्मिन्नेव एकत्रिशदधिकपोडशशताङ्किते १६३१ शककाले वैशाखो मलमास ॥ (fol. 8a of Ms No 592 of the Mithilā Institute ) Gokulanātha's statement is correct as there was actually a Malamāsa in Vaišākha in the year 1631 Saka corresponding to 1709 A 1. falling in the reign of Mādhava Sumha. Among the 13 professors mentioned in the above men. tioned declaration only Gokulanātha is specially panegyrized in the following words ये हि सकलसिद्धान्त युक्त्या खण्डयत शिरोमणे- मनिमपनेतु सिद्धान्ततत्त्वप्रभूतीन न्यायनिवन्धनान् बहुश प्रणीतवन्त सर्वसिद्धान्तgrat GATISI ( lines 8 10 ) Gokulanātha rose to be the Supreme Head of the University of Mithilā, so to speak, making decisions on all conceivable subjects The greatest literary, achievement of Gokulanātha was his attempt to disa credit Siromanı, the great refuter by arguments of all previous decisions and he wrote many works like the Siddhantatattva to that end This statement of his grandson is important for the history of Navyanyāya in Mitbilā and as we shall presently see, is substantially correct. NYAYA WORTS OF GOKULANĀTHA Among all the branches of Sanskrit literature mastered by Gokulanātha the hardest nut cracked by him was of course Navyanyāya, which had already reached the final stage of development in the hands of Gadādhara of Bengal ( 1604-1709 A, D ) about a generation before Gokulanātha In the final colophon to his work on Smrti named Kundakadamvarı (Ms at Raj Library, Darbhanga ) Gokulanātha's title is recorded as Mahamahopadhyāya Sattarkapañcānana' (i e a lion in all the six divisions of dialectics ), a true description of his invincible career as a dialectition, Among his works on Navyanyāya the following have been so far discovered ·Giridharopādhyāya 197 (1) Cakraraśmı-commentary on the Tattvacıntāmanı (2) Dikkalanırūpana-Ms Raj Library, Darbhanga (3) Didhitirdyota-com. on Raghunātha's Tattvacintamandidhitt (4) Kusumañjalıtıppana. (5) Khandanakuthāra—Ms Raj Library, Darbhanga (6) Laghavagauravarahasya. (7) Mithyātvanırukt (8) Nyāyasiddhantatattva. (9) Padavākyaratnakara (10) tivāda. GIBIDHAROPĀDIYĀTA The chance discovery of a single manuscript and the enterprise of an eminent logician of Mithila Jivanātha Miśra Tarkaturtha Nyāyaratna' are responsible for the publication of the Vibhaktyarthanırnaya (Chowkh ed, 1902, pp 477), one of the best books on the subject ever written in India A cousin and pupil of the great Gokulanātha of Mangroni, the author treated the subject in such a masterly way both from the grammarian's and logician's point of view that even Gokulanātha must have yielded his palm to him in many places When Giridhara wrote, say, about 1720 A D the most glorious period of Navadvipa has definitely ended with the death of Gadādhara in 1709 A, D, and the signs of a distinct revival of the ancient glory of Mithilā were discernible at Mangroni Pāninian studies, which never influenced the works of Jagadisa and Gadādhara of Bengal, shed lustre on Girdhara's 1 Jivanatha was the second Tarkatırtha' of Mithila and passed in 1893 as a pupil of Yadunatha Sarvabhauma of Navadvipa He lived at Sugaunā and belonged to the Sodarapura family The first Tarkatirtha' of Mithila was Santagopala Jha who passed in 1892 as pupil of Kailasa Siromani of Varanasi Umeša Miśra (pupil Śivacandra Sarvabhayma of Mulajore College ) and Vecana Jha (pupil of Yadunatha Sarvabhauma of Navadvipa ) passed 19 1895 In the very first year of examination in 1879 passed two scholars evidently of Mithila who should be identified I "T ·• . 198 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithilā work, which succeeded in keeping the enormous subtleties of Gadādhara within reasonable bounds without discarding them. Unlike his professor Gokulanātha, who had displayed some animus against the Bengal authorities, Gırıdhara cited siromanı with due regard Giridhara began his work with an obeisance to the god Śiva and to his own parents. It is interesting to note that he gives the epithet aanleitsigacha to his father Mahopādhyāya Vāgiſa who was also, therefore, a distinguished logician. Vägisa was the younger brother of Gokulanātha's father, being the fourth son of his parents (vide the family table published in the Proc Or, Conference, Benares session, p 318 ) He frequently refers to his teacher Gokulanātha and his famous work Padavākyaratnākara and mostly approves his views with addıtional arguments (गुरुचरणास्तु इति पदवाक्यरत्नाकरे प्राहु । युज्यते THE II pp. 37-40 See also pp. 45, 58, 126 30 142, 166, 184, 207, 225, 284-5, 312, 323 25, 342, &c. up to p 443) To give an idea of the courses of studies then current in the greatest centre of Sanskrit culture in Mithilā an alphabetical list of the authorities cited by Gundhara is given below. Anumānadidhıtı (p 369), Ākhyātavāda (pp 24, 85 & 114) of Siromanı Atmatattvavivekadidhıtı (194), Kašikā (51, 534 ), Kusumařijali ( Menu Frantant p 31 ), Kaiyyata (375) Kaunda Bhatta (p200), Gaudah ( 339, 346-47 being a refutation of Jagadīša's Śabdašaktiprakasika II. 129 & 359 ), Darpane Thakkurāh this important passage runs as follows Take FeaTaTaifafa ( Pratyaksa part, B I. ed. 833 ) व्रतविशेषवत्त्वादिरादिपदार्थ इति दर्पणे ठक्कुरा । व्रते विशेषो जटासबन्धता- वच्छेदको दर्शित एवं गुरुणा टीकेत्यत्र विवरणवाक्य टीकाशब्दार्थ । Didhitakrt ( 80 ) Prakasa ( HERE pacem p 366 the reference is to the Dravyakıranāvaliprakaša of Vardhamāna) Pratyaksāloka (FINT FW p. 251 ), Bhattapāda (p. 106 ), Bhasya- Vārtika-Tatparya (p. 117), Mandana Miśra (P 121-22 ), ·Rūpanātha Thakkura 199 Māgha (p. 74), Miśra i. e. Jayadeva (pp. 37, 202 & 251), Sabdāloka (Figlia fi: p. 202), śārkarabhāsya (p. 137), Sivāditya (p. 251), Soddandopādhyâya (read Sondada p. 161), Hari i. e. Bhartphari, author of the Vakyapadiya ( pp. 128.9 & 449 ), The Kārikā Ema: Tom &c, has been ascribed to Bhartphari evidently on the authority of Jagadīša's Sabdašaktiprakasika ; the mention of Bhābhata, who was most probably posterior to Bhartſhari, proves the ascription to be extremely doubtful, if not positively wrong. The Kārikā has not been quoted by any writer before Jagadisa and seems on the face of it of non-Pāṇinian origin. Giridhara proves himself very well-read in the Mithila and Bengal authors of the Navyanyāya as well as the recent Pāņinian works written at Varanasi. The mention of Mahesa Thakkura's Darpana proves that it was studied at Mangroni, obviously from patriotic considerations. No other commentary on the Āloka is mentioned in the list. M. M. RŪPAN THA TAAKKURA (TARBARATNA ): a protege and close relative of Mahārāja Mādhava Simha (1775-1807 A.D.) of Mithila, at whose request he wrote a sub-commentary on the Ālokadarpaşa of Maheśa. We reproduce below verses 3-6 from its beginning :- श्रीमट्ठकुरनिर्मिस्य सुकतिव्याख्याविहीनस्य वै दुर्बोधस्य च दर्पणस्य रचितुं भावप्रकाशाभिधाम् । टीको चेन्मम वासना परिणती हास्पैकमात्रप्रदा स्यादेपा सफला मुकुन्दचरणे भकिन भग्ना यतः ॥३ आसीद् यो मिथिलापुरे नरपतिः श्रीमान् महेशः सुधी- स्तस्याभूत्तनयः शुभकर इति स्यातश्च तस्यात्मभूः। श्रीनारायणठछुरोऽस्य तनयः शत्रुघ्ननामा गुणा- ·200 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithila . तस्यास्ते तनयः सुपुष्यनिलयः सत्काव्य चञ्चन्नयः श्रीमत्सएडवलाकुलाम्बुधिसमुद्भूतः फलानां निधिः । श्रीमान् माधवसिह पतिलालङ्कारचूडामणि-. दत्ताज्ञः खलु दर्पणं सुटयितु श्रीरूपनार्थ प्रति ॥५ श्रासीद् यस्तीरमुक्तो प्रथित्तवरयशाः श्रीमुवोधः मुधोन्द्रो गीर्वाणाधीशपूज्यप्रतिमफणिपतिप्रख्यविख्यावकीतिः । तस्याध्येतातियत्नान्नरपतितिलकादेशसो रूपनाथो वित्रीत्य दर्पणीयं परिमितवचसा भावमाविष्करोति ॥६ The colophon runs : इति महामहोपाध्यायश्रीमुवोघशर्माध्येतृमहामहोपाध्याय- श्रीमद्पनाथविरचिता सिद्धान्तलक्षणीय-दर्पणभावप्रकाशटीका समाता! It is thus a gloss on the first part ( up to the Vyāptivāda ) on the Anumänalokadarpara. Rūpanātha also composed advanced notes called Vivecana on the knotty parts of Navyanyāya, according to the then current standard of scholarship obtaining in Mithila and Bengal. His notes on the Samanyarirukti of Gadādhara were discovered. Rūpanātha also wrote at the request of his patron a Chandogāhnika on the religious duties of the Sāmavedins; it is still current in Mithila. Rūpanātha was a direct descendant of M. M. Dāmodar Thahkura, the immediate elder brother of Mahesa Thakkura. He belonged to the village Sarvasimā, where his descendants still survive, He was 7th in descent from Damodar and was born evidently about 1750 A.D. For, in the interesting Judger rment (Vyavasthapatra) in Sanskrit dated in 1716 Saka ( 1794 A.D.) Rūpanātha's name along with that of his eldest son Madhusudana is mentioned , Rūpanātha's father was the defendant in the suit, Rupanātha died shortly before 1750 Saka. (1828. A.D.), in. whath. "yeen this son Wohorithryaya Acyuta Thākura established a temple of Śiva named 'Acyuteśvara'. All the above details about Rüpanātha are taken from an excellent monograph in Maithili named 'Candraptıkulaprašastı' written by Pandit 1 ·Visvanātha Jhā 201 It should be noticed that Rūpanātha prosecuted his studies on Navyanyāya neither at Navadvipa nor at Varanasi, but in Mithilā under Mahāmahopādhyāya Subodha, who must have been a superior scholar in the second half of the 18th century, though his name is now completely forgotten Among the own sons of Rūpanātha two became scholars of repute viz Acyuta and M. M Mukunda Thakura and both of them specialised in Navyanyāya but they are not known to have composed any work on the subject. ViśA NĀTI. JIĀ a celebrated Naiyāyika of of Darbhanga He belonged to a famous Srotriya family of Thadhi He originally read with Parameśvara Jhā and Rddhinātha Jhā the talented scholars of Cakautı village and finished his studies at Navadvipa with Goloka Nyāyaratna the famous Patrıkākāra, and after his death with Prasanna Tarkratna He was exclussively a scholar of the latest phase of Navyanyāya When Mahesa Nyāyaratna visited his seminary at Darbhanga in 1891 he had eight students the largest number of Nyāya students in the whole of Mithila. He wrote a learned Patrikā named Siddhāntasāra on Vyadhikarana one of the knottiest sections of Gangesa. He also composed an extensive commentary named Prakāśa on Udayana's Laksanavali, which was fortunately published from Varanası ( 1822 Saka, pp 195 ). At the end of the book he has given the following account about himself श्रासीत् सोदरपूरमूलमहियाग्रामो भवानीपति- या ब्रीविचारनिर्मलमति रयातासिलै. सद्गुणे । Jivananda Thakura great great grandson of Rūpanatha (1999 V S, pp 82) and Asst Librarian Ray Library, Darbhanga 24 32 for Rupanatha's account, pp 35 36 for 'Acyuteśvara' and the reading of its inscription and pp 77-80 for the Judgement reproduced from the BO. RS, 1920 It is a full and authentic account of Damodara and his Vide PP ·202 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithilā तत्पुत्रो मतिमद्वरोऽखिलगुणप्रख्याततारापति. वारानाविभूषणाघ्रियुगलक्षोरोत्थसत्पट्पद. ।। तत्सू नुरेनं मिथिलामहीश- स्याज्ञामवाप्योदयनीप्रकाशम् । श्रीविश्वनाथ कृतवान् प्रयत्ना- न्मुदे बुधानां विमलप्रकाशम् ॥ इति मैथिलराजपण्डितनैयायिकवरोपाध्यायोपनामकश्रीमद्विश्वनाथशर्मकृतो लक्षणा- वलीप्रकाश समाप्त ॥ (p 193); The editor noted that it was composed in Caitra 1805 aka ( 1884 A D. शरवियद्गजचन्द्रमिते शके p_195) There are quotations from the Muktavali (p 19) Jagadīša ( 24 ), Sankara Miśra whose views on Tejastva are refuted (p 47 ) and the Vādivinoda of Sankara (p. 55 ), which was not yet printed Visvanātha has divided the original Book into four parts ( Pratyaksa etc ) after Gaigesa (pp. 113, 163 Upamāna finished in only a few lines) This is quite novel, though quite in keeping with the commentator's profession. For, all up-to-date scholars of Navyanyāya bring down every topic under the four grand divisions of Gangeśa's work. KAT IRATNA There is a copy in palm leaves of a commentary on the Pratsaksakhanda of Gangeša by one Kaviratna preserved in the Darbhanga Raj Library ( Ms No. P. 10, foll 88 incomplete towards the end) It begins प्रत्यक्षेऽपि प्रपश्यति प्रत्यक्षे दूपणं मुहुः । अथ श्रीकविरलेन तीरे नीर निरूप्यते ।। It seems to be an attempt to point out all erroneous explanations upon Gangeśa. The only Kaviratna known in Mithilā is a grand pupil of Gokulanātha. He is thus eulogised by the famous Maithila poet Candā Jhā इन्द्रपुरोहितनुल्या गोकुलनायाश्च ये स्याताः। रोपा शिष्या भासन परिडवरलेपु वागीशाः ॥

·Kaviratna 203 तच्छात्र कविरत्नं जने खगेशेति विख्यातः । यो तौ नरेन्द्रसिंहान्मिथिलेशात् सत्कृतौ युगपत् ।। गुरुशिष्यो गुरुविधौ सदवसरे माल्यसद्वस्त्र.॥ ( Kāsi-Śivastuti cited in Sinha's Hist. of Tuhut, p. 144) Narendra Sinha of Mithilā ( reigned 1743-70 A D.) was the son of Gokulanātha's patron Rāghava Sinha Kaviratna flourished, therefore, in the third quarter of the century, when studies on the original text of Gangesa were almost forgotten It should, however, be mentioned here that Vāgıśa was the name of an uncle (younger brother of the father) of Gokulanätha and it is extremely unlikely that the uncle took lessons from the nephew. If some other Vāgıša, pupil of Gokulanātha, is mentioned in the above tradition it requires careful investigation. Otherwise the tradition cannot be accepted as beyond any dispute DHARMADATTA JuĀ (alias BACCA J BĀ) was the most renowned scholar of Mithilā in recent times who earned for his versatility and profundity of leaming the title Master of all sciences' (Sarvatantra-svatantra ). He belonged to one of the premier Śrotriya families of Mithilā named Gangaul of the śāņdılya gotra His granfather M. M. Ratnapāni Jhā adorned the courts of Mahārāja Chatra Sinha (1807-39), his son Rudra Sinha ( 1839-50 ) and the latter's son Maheśvara Sinha (1850-50) Under their patronage he wrote a dozen works, mostly on Smrti, Baccă Jhā was born in March,1860 A,D He studied, taught pupils and composed works all his life and died in harness in August 1918 at the age of 59 only, when he was serving the Muzaffarpur Sanskrit College as its Principal. He took lessons successively from Jatādhara Jhā (of Pilokhwar), Viśvanātha Jhā (of Thādhi, his maternal uncle ), Babujana Jhā (of Pilokhwar ), Bāla Šāstrī and Visuddhānanda Sarasvati (both of Varanasi) When M. M. Mahesa Nyāyaratna, Principal of the Calcutta Sansknt" ·on 1925, 204 History of Navya-Nyāya in Mithilā College, visited his seminary at Nowani in 1891, he had 19 students with him reading six different subjects As a consummate scholar he wielded his powerful pen in many subjects, though most of his works remain unpublished. In Vedānta he wrote a gloss on the Adz aitasiddhicandrika, while his sub-commentary Güdharthatattvaloka Madhusudana's Gitaţika has been published. He wrote besides a Campu named Sulocana-Jadhava. He wrote many dissertations and glosses on the latest phase of Navyanyāya, some of which have been published securing for him a permanent place among the authors of Mithilā. The published books are 1. Vivrth on Jagadisa's Vyaptipaicaka (Varanasi, 1923, pp +1). 2 -do -do Siddhāntalaksana (-do- , 193) The closing verses are reproduced as a specimen of his style गुरूणामुपदेशेन प्रन्यार्थाना विचारणात् । वर्कसाराभिधमन्धे पूर्णः सिद्धान्तसारक. ॥१ श्रीधर्मदत्सतिना रचितेन यत्ना- देतेन मा मुदमुपेतु जनोऽपि विद्वान् । वालोपकारनसेनमवैत्यसूया- तीतो मुदं भजतु बाच्छमयूसचूडः ॥२ वश्वारिगलगलबारीक- सचारिचारुचरणान्तरस परन्तु । चेदामधुपएयिन. परिचिन्तनक- लायं विनिन्दितमुधारसमदिपुत्र्याः ॥३ 3 Viuytu on Gadidhara's Samanyanirukta (Varanasi, 1935, PP.) .. Gudharthatathaloha on Gadadhara's Viutpattiusda (Bombay, 1912. Published in his lifetime). This claborate work made the author's nanie celebrated throushout Inga?

·Dharmadatta Jhā 205 The following is a list of his unpublished works. Advanced notes on Jagadisa's Avacchedakatvanirukta, Vyaptyanugama, Paksatā,, Avavava, Savyabhicāra, Satpratipaksa and Gadadhara's Saktivāda. He also commented on the Khandana and on Vardhamāna's Kusumāñjalıprakāśa His explanation of Anandapūrna's two knotty phrases on Išvarānumāna, which taxed the brains of all the best scholars of his times, has been published (Chowkh. ed. of Khandana with 5 commentaries, pp. 5-7). He, moreover, proved his acumen by writing commentaries on the older classics the Nyāyabhāsya and Vācaspati's Tātparyațrka, whose studies revived only late in his life. His masterly style is illustrated in the following closing verses of his gloss on the Avacchedakatvanıruktı, which convey a double meaning गङ्गेशसपर्कवशादिवाधाद् व्याप्तिर्यमके किल तारकारिम् । अपोपयद् यं रघुनाथविद्या सुकृत्तिकास्या इव वत्सलत्वात् ॥ अभूदवच्छेदकनामधेयो यस्त्रासयन्नल्पमतीन् जगत्याम् । कृत्ये करोत्यस्य वचोभिरुच्चे रनुग्रहं श्रीजगदीशनामा । तस्यातिगम्भीरवचोभरस्य व्याख्यापिता श्रीशपदे मुद्दे स्यात् । सता समालम्ब्य वचासि धर्म- दत्तेन सम्यग्रचिता प्रयत्नात् ।। Many of his pupils and grand pupils are still carrying his banners in various parts of India'. 1. We are indebted to one of his worthy pupils Pandit Saśınath Jha for some of the details given above. He has himself emulated his great teacher by writing a very advanced thesis on "Ttitalávacchedakatavada (lit three storied edifice of the term Avacchedakatā ), which, happily, has been published by the Mithila Institute. For list of Baccā Jhā's works vide Introd. to his gloss on Samānyanıruktı ( Kashi Sans Series, 1935). .

·INDEX Abhayatilakopādhyāya 2n, 43 Osiddhāñjana 174 43n Amaracandra Sūri 89 Abhinavagupta 46 Amarakhandana 47 Ācāradarsa 118, 129 Amarakośa 47 Ācārapradipa 112 Amarapati 169 Ācārya 12, 58, 60, 141, 145, Amavavarnana 49 151 Āmoda 131 Acyuta Thakkura 2007 Amſtabındu 32, 67f Adhikaranakaumudi 189, 191 Amộtodaya 195 Adhyayana 23 Ādımalla 43f, 62, 91f, Anandapurna 25 Ādıśūra 102, 205 25 Ānanda Sūri 89 Advartānanda 48 Anandavijaya 173 Advaitaratnarakșana 137 binduprakarana 14 | Anantalal Thakur 11n, 14n, siddhicandrika 204 17n, 22n, 23n Agnihotrabhatta 46 127 Anekarthasamgraha Akhyatavāda 198 Angani 169 92 Akşapāda 46, 109 | Angatvanıruktı Alamkāra 191 Aniruddha 7, 17, 128 Aloka (of Pakşadhara on T.c.) Annambhatta 127,174,182,185 85, 116, 119f, 122-127, Anumāna (cintāman) 82, 102, 172f, 176, 181-186, 190, 199 | 107, 109, 113, 118, 122F, 250, Aloka (Anumāna-) 122, 125, 150n, 152 127, 129, 153, 160 Anumānaſcintāmanı)didhat: 198 darpana 184, 199 ºmanıparıkşā 41, 70, ºdarpana (Ānumāna) 200 80, 83, 161, 178 Alokakara (kẹt) 119, 125, 152 Omaņıvzākhya 152 Alokamansara 153n mayūkha pariſista 189-191 mirnaya 150, 153 prakasa (Anumāna) 184 pariksa 81 141 ·199 138 145 50 66, 101 145, 199 29 pragalbhi 69, 78, 85, Bhabbata 93, 153, 160f Bhagavatācārya prakasa 77 Bhagavpitz vivcka 117€ | Bhagiratha Thakkura 50f, 75, Anuraya 57 120,125-7,129,172,175,179 Anupalabdhirahasza 14 | Bhagiratha (Son of Madhava ) Anuksanayatattvavivarana 63 186 badha 60, 110 Bhagirathi Anulkşkitattvavivarana 69, Bhamati 22,24,27,29,35,171 130 Bhandarkar Apohaprakarana 14, 25 Bhärataprakāša 92 Apuccha Jha 197 | Bhariſhan Arcata 31 Bhāsarvajña 12,28,33,355,57f, Arcatalokat 63, 142 Arthapattue artika 63 Bhaskara 27,35,70,118,125,145 Atiša (Dipankara) 15, 29, 526, Bhāskarakſt 94 54n, Bhasja 7, 23, 145, 151 Atmatattvaviveka (Sce Baudha-Bhasya (Praſastapäda-) 55,141 dhkkāra also) 3f, 11, 13 - 15, | Bhasyakāra 20 18, 30-32, 448, 51-53, 151, 172 Bhagatikā 17 didhult 198 parißış! 35, "kalpalata 1351, 143 Bhāşya Vārtika School 34 Aiacchedakatvaniruhti 205 Bhatta (Bhattapāda) 79, 92, Avajaid 265 114, 151, 198 Aviddhalarna 23 Bhattácăryacūdămaņı 130 Babujana Jha 203 | Bhatia Keśava 2 Balabhadra 64, 102, 111 Bliatta Raghava 16 Bila Sastri 203 Bhatta Schcol 32f, 106 Bauddhadhikkara (cf Almalat- Bhavadeva 68, 95, 118 fonicka) 3, 72, 129 Bhavananda (Sıddhāntavagisa) aloka (of Dwākara) 12 7, 153, 153n, 154, 182 prakasu 111 ) Bhavanatha 32, 68, 92, 113, Sankari 129 131, 134, 136, 138, 157, 163 Bendall ico Bhavinipati 201 199 Bengal, Past and Present 169 / Bhatapakala ·Bhavašarman 103f, 169 Cidvilāsa 48 Bhavrşapurānaparıśışta 6 Contāman (cf. Tattvacinta. Bhāvivikta 23 mani & Man also 86, 111, Bhedābhedapariksā 14 141, 146, 153, 190 Bhedaprakāša 137, 141 Cintāmaņıkſt 88, 145, 151 ratna 137, 151, 151n, Cintāmaņımantra 51 Bhojadeva 13 Cintāmanıprakāśa 94, 127, Bhūparikramaņa 59 152f Bhūṣāmani 139 ºtika 86, 119 Bhūşana 11f, 357, 57f, 151 tippani 118f Bhūsanakāra 36, 770 vivecana 114 Bodhani (Kusumāñjali) 134 viveka 118 Brahmasıddhi 22 Citrādvaitasiddhi 118 Brahmaudyabharana 47f Catsukha 60, 62, 90 Byhat 35 Citsukh: 59f, 101, 171 Buddhist Logic 25 tikā 3, 55, 62 Cakrarasmi 197 Colebrooke 75, 116 Candeśvara 66, 103f Dāmodara Țhakkura 175, 200 Candra 32f, 66-8, 92, 141, 145 | Dandaviveka 91 Candrāloka 127 Darpana (Smộtz- ) 166 Candrapatıkulaprasasti 200n Darpana ( of Mahesa ) 118, 120, 167, 172f, 175, 181, Cândupandita 54n, 57 184, 198 107, 145 Pratyaksa 125 2n Anumanaº 174 118 ºbhāvaprakāśa 200 Chakravartı (Manomohana) 1n, Darpana ( of Vateśvara ) 137, 144, 166 164 Chanda Jhā 23 Darpanakāra 164, 166, 167 Chandella Kirtivarman 8n Das S.C. 53 Chandogāhnika 200 Datta 193 Chennu (Chinna) bhatta 34, Devanātha Thakkura 181, 39, 42, 59, 65f, 101f 189-192 Chindaprašastz 49 Devaşūri 37 43, 50f Caraka(Ācārya) Cārvāka Caturgranthi Caturthaprakāśa ·?n Duirūpakoša (iv) Dharmabhyudaya 89 Duaitanirnaya 113, 150, 164, Dharmadatta (Baccal Sha 203 166 of Jivanātha 113f Dharmākaradatta 31 of Narahari 113 Dharmakīrtı ( or Kirti ) 7, 13, of Vācaspati II 113, 23, 27, 31f, 35, 99, 145, 151 157, 180, 194 Dharmottara 257, 31 pradipa 113 Dharmottarapradipa 16, 23, 29 Dvaitapanśışta of Keśava 157 Didhtrraudri 47 tika Duitiya-prakāša 118 vidyota 197 'vārtika 118 Dignāga 7,31, 145 Dvivedi V. P. 10, 147 Dikkūlanırūpaņa 197 1440 Diparikaraśrijñāna (Atīša) 15, Eggeling Ekāvali 195 52 Fateh Sah 195 Dipaskhāpañcikä 35 Divākara Upadhyāya 45, 68- Gadădhara (Bhațțācārya) 44, 70, 72-74, 101, 134, 137, 47, 76, 80, 84, 126, 1977, 200, 204 166 Gadhivaṁsānucarita 173 Mušra 166 36 -teacher of Madhava Ganakanka 183 Divyadipika 186 Ganaratnamahodadhi Dravya (-Kiranavali) 129 Gangāditya 114 Jegha 172 Gangānātha Jhā 110, 134, 141 "Pragalbhi 69, 71, 74 Gangesopādhyaya 1, 38-41, "Prakasa 34, 691, 93, 44, 551, 60 63, 657, 69, 73- 117, 172, 175, 177,198 102, 106-9, 113, 115f, Praliassa 9 122f, 125, 128-30, 134f, upaya 102, 129 146, 150, 150, 152, 155, Ovilasa 71, 118 160-62, 165, 167-9, 183, vizeka 72, 93, 116, 194n, 2018, 205 118-20, 166 Gauda 198 Dulala Tarlavagisa 133 Mimarsaka 6n, 35 Dureka Mišra 16, 23, 29,31 Gauridigambarapralasana 134 Dugano Whata 122, 184 l Gauforvilaku'aprakash 42, 49 ·1n, 131 Gaurikanta 102 | Gupta-a Tantrika 48 Gautama (cf. Gotama) 63, Haleśvara 171 105, 151 Haridāsa Nyāyālankāra 95, 115 Gautamasutra (cf. Nyāyasūtra) Hariharasubhāşıta 168 147 Harimisra 118, 121 Gautamiyasūtraprakāśa 186f -Grammarian 121n Ghateśopādhyāya 114 Harināthopadhyāya 94F, 101 Giridharopādhyâya 197, 199 Hari Sarman 151 Gitātika 135 Harırāma Tarkavāgisa 76 Goloka Nyāyaratna 201 Hanvaſsa 135 Gokulanātha Upādhyāya 45, Harşavardhana 12f 113, 190, 193f, 194n, Hemacandra 46 195-8, 202f Hetukhandana 62 Gopāla 1, 175, 183 | History of Bengal 54n Gopinātha 49, 64, 102, 162 History of Dharmaśāstra 144 Kavirāja History of Indian Literature 99 Gotama (cf. Gautama also ) History of Indian Logic in 96, 150 | History of Navyanyaya in Ben- Gotrapani 98 gal and Ithila in Govardhana 102 History of Tirhut in, 5n, 100, Govinda 191 103, 158, 203 candra 47, 49 Index ( Hall) 36, 137 Ⓡrāja 91 Indian Logic 99 "Thakkura 181 Indian Logic and Atomism 11, Gudhārthadīpıka 49 99 tattvăloka 204 ) Indra-Grammarian 56 Guņānanda Vidyāvāgiša •182 Indradatta 26 Gunaratna 43n, 55, 101 Īśänadeva 43 Guna (-kıraņāvali) 129 Išvaravāda 14, 69 Jalada 129, 172 dusana 17 Jegha 172 Isvatasiddhi 61 rahasya 130 Isvarasena 31 Oprakaſa 60, 114, 172 | Isvarasādhanadūşana 11 upaya 129 Jagaccandra 50 viveka 117f Jagaddhara 194n ·( ) Jagadguru 93, 117 Jyothsārasangraha 176 Jagadindu 30 Jyotışatattva 175 Jagadića Tarkälainkāra 686, Kailasa Siromani 197 153, 197-9, 202, 204f Kaiyyata 198 Jagannātha Tarkapañcānana Kalakaumudi 189 128, 168 Kalāpaparıbısta 118 Jaimını 145 Kaņabhaksa (Kaņāda) 57 Jalada 172 Kānācārya 30 Jaleśvara Vahinipatı 67, 126 Kaņāda 57f, 141f Jambūvijaya 4n Kanadarahasya 10, 135, 137, Jánakınātha ( Bhattācārya- 140-2 cūdāmanı) 63f, 69, 130 Kanāda Tarkavāgıśa 94, 152f Jayanārayana Kancanamālıni 151 Nyāyapañcānana 127 Kandali (Nyāya-) 9-13,228,73, Jayarāma 182 55, 63, 66, 76, 140 Jayacandra 47, 69 Kandalîkāra 8f, 27, 66, 73, 76, Jayadeva ( Pakşadhara ) 72, 117€, 142, 145 75, 80, 85f, 89f, 93, 99,115, Kane 144 120, 122-8, 130, 133, 135, Kaņıkākāra (Vacaspati I) 11 153-6, 159-65, 1711, 184. Kantakoddhāra 165, 176, 179, 199 181 Jayadeva ( Piyūṣavarşa) 125 °(-Pratyaksa) 129 Jayaditya 141 Jayanta 178,34,37,97,145,151 Karna 54n Jayāpida 31 ) Karyakatanabhāvasıddha Jinendrabuddhi 30f Kasika 11, 306, 121n, 198 Jirnoddhara 1801 Kāśıkākāra 11 Jitán 30 Kalıkavivaranapanljika 29 Jivānanda Thakura 2010 Kafisivastuti 203 Jivanātha Miśra 1137, 138, Katantra 73 141, 197 pradipa Jñanacandra 50 Kaumudikara 175 Jñanašribhadra 14 Siddhantavāgiša 175 Jñanaśrimitra 139, 14n, 15,171, Kaunda Bhajja 198 281, 33, 36, 41, 52-4, 540, 106 | Kaviratna 2027 30 Kapıla 70, 73 ·(vu) Kavyakaumudi 189 Kļşnadāsa Sārvabhauma 129f, pradipa 181 134, 154 prakāśa 129 | Kļşņa Miśra 8n, 32 Keith 11, 99, 124 KỊsnamūrti śarman 116n Keśava 65f, 187 Kytza-pradipa 143 -son of Naraharı 157 ratnakāra 66 -Miśra 64, 111, 188 | Kşanabhangadhyāja 14, 106 -Mišra Tarkācārya 186 | Kşanabhangasiddhi 18, 29 Khadganātha Jhā 197 Kșemendrabhadra 26 Khagesa 203 Kşirasvāmın 47 Khandana(-khandakhadya) 3, | Kullūkabhațța 91 42-4, 46, 50f, 74, 91, 102, Kumārıla 13, 26-28, 57 139, 150f, 171, 205 | Kundakādambarı 194n, 196 bhūṣāmanı 151f Kusumāñjal ( Nyāya kº also ) ºkuthara 197 2-4, 5n, 32, 35, 37-41, 43f, Oprakasa 111 65, 72, 75, 87, 90, 93, 108, (Purva-) 129 130, 133, 151, 198 °ţikā 70, 138-40 -bodhani 35, 131 -uddhāra 42,99 111, Jalada 129, 172 137, 145, 149-51, 5in -Kārkāvyakhy a 72, 131 Khandanakara (kẹt) 48, 65, 87, 91 -makaranda 72f, 125, 145 130, 133f Khandanoddhārakāra Khāntara Miśra 183f, 186 -prakaśa of Vardha- Kiranavalt 4f, 8-11, 34, 36, māna 72f, 84, 92, 98, 39, 57, 59f, 62, 69, 71, ico, 110, 117, 133, 74,93f, 117 172, 205 40 Saurabha (Dravyaº) 100 (Gunaº) 3, 10, 41 -tippana 197 Kıraņāvalikara 57 -upāja Kiranavaliniruktiprakasa 137 -Viveka 117 •Pakşadhani 117 -vyakhyā (Sankara Prakasa 12n, 118 Miśra ) 132 Komala 185 | Lāghavagaūravarahasya 197 Kſpārāma Tarkavāgiša 81,153 L- Laghubhārata бо 129 ·103 (VII) Lagh 35 Māgha 151, 199 Lakşanamala 27, 43 | Mahabharata 92, 191 (of Šuvāditya) 62 Mahābhasya 118, 174, 177 Laksaņāuah 2, 59, 66, 201 | Mahadāna-rinaya 157 -prakaša 202 -paddhati Lilavati (also NyIya-) 11, 55, Mahādeva 175 60f, 75, 93, 120, 140f, 166 -Somayaji 2 galada 172 Mahavidyāvdambana 62 "kanthābharara 131,135f, Mahāvrata 32f, 58, 67 142 | Mahendrasuri 46 Lilāvatikit 151 Meheśa Nyāyaratna 201, 203 Lilāvatt-megha 72 Thakkura 45, 166, ºprakaļa (or upāya) 172, 174-6, 179, 181f, 68, 75, 77, 111, 118, 185f, 1998 129, 142, 166, 172 Mahimabhatta 46 Stromani 153 Mahipala 54n suci 173 Manipati 169 upaya-Jalada 129 Mahodadha 32f viveka 75, 117, 118, vaghi (cf. Jalada & Megha ) 120f, 166 182 Madhava 45, 124, 165, 174, Maitreya 157 182, 1846 ) Mallinātha 3 "kara 23 Makarandakāra ācārya 153 46 °Misra ( Son of Gada- Matmata Vanamanohara 56, 84, 90 dhara) 171f (Son of Jayadeva) 171, Mandana Móra 13, 22, 25-7, 198 186 (Son of Khāntara) 182 Vant ( Tattvacintīmanı) 176, 183 'Sarasvati 174 Mandhara 89 Madhusudana Sarasvati 137 Manikanjha Mušra 769, 798, Thakkura 129, 165, 174, 82-7.97, 101f, 141, 148, 150 176-8, 180-2, 191f, Manikanjhatiks 149 200, 20+ Manımayakha 113, 135, 153 Madhyamaka 145 praksid 111, 156, 1671 ·(ix) Manisāra 162 Naraşırha 151, 168 ºtikā 69, 124, 134, 142 Nārāyana 43 Mañari 17 Ācārya 30 Mantrakaumudi 189, 189n, Sarvajña 62, 91, 101, 190, 192 102 Mantraśāstra 177 | Nāropānta 15, 53 Manusamhita 35, 91, 129 Navyadharmapradipa 153 ºtika 92 | Nayanaprasādıni 101 Māsamimānsă 195 Nayaviveka 68,92 Mathurānātha Tarkavāgisa Nayapāla 26, 53n, 54n 9, 75, 81, 95, 121 Nibandha (cf. Parifuddhi) 3,40, Mathuri 114 70, 72, 118, 137, 172 Mayanandani 63 Nibandhadarpana 167 Megha 172, 174 Nibandhakịt 157 Mimānsā 150, 156, 173, 177, Nibandhana 67 190f Nibandhaprakāśa 40, 111 Mímānsaka 167 74 Mimānsămaharnava 94, 125, Suddyota 70€ 136, 141, 151 | Nirnayakāra 175 Mithatvanırukti 197 Notices (H. P. Sastrı) 137,166, Mokşākara Gupta 18 22 189 Mookerjee's Magazine 99 | Nțga 24 Murārı Miśra 63, 92, 114, 141, Nįsimhayajvan 82 146 Nyasa (cf. Kaśıkāvivarana- Muktavali 105, 202 pañjikā) 30, 176 Mukunda Thākur 187, 190, 193 Nag-tsho 53 Nyāya-bhāskarakāra 94 Naişadha(carta) 42, 46, 49f Nyāyabhasza 147, 198, 205 ºtikā 49 bhāşyaţikā 16 Nandana 92 bhūşana 29, 35f, 57 Nāndılya Gopa 32, 68 | Nyāyācārya 3, 151 Nañvădaţika 131 | Nyázacıntāmanı 86 Nãnyadeva 59f darśana 1,20 Naraharı 86,113, 122-125,155, dipa 160 157,159,164,166,171,181,184 Skandali 8 Pţikā 201 Nyāya ·2,59 Nyāgakanıkā 11, 17, 22f, Nyāyasiddhāntatattva 197 25-7 ºsūcınıbandha 29, 52, kusumañjali 3 147 Palankara 2n, 43, 43n sutra 3, 61, 69, 144, Nyāyālamkaraña (Bhāsarvajña) 146f, 186 16, 36 ºsūtravivarana 110 Nyāgalilāvati ( also Lilāvati) ºsūtravịttı 146f 32, 55f, 118, 153, 173 sütroddhāra 147 darpana 166 Stattväloka 144, 144n locana 115, 141 'vārtika 6, 198 Nyāyal canakara(kẹt) 114,145 vārtıkatātparyaparı- Nyāja-maharnava 177 fuddht 3, 110 Omañljan (of Jayanta) Padamañjari 118 17, 34 Padārthapraveśa 55, 141 muktavali °tattvatika 131 °muktavalidarpana 166 Padavākyaratnākara 197€ mbandhaprakāśa 77, Padmanabha Miśra 10,45,57f, 110f ºparıśışta 3, 34, 87, 68, 111, 122f, 127-9 Pag. Sam 26 110, 172 Pakşadhara 72, 75f, 93f, 115f, parıśıştaprakasa 110 parfuddhi 1185, 121, 128, 38 133, 153, 163, ºprakirņaka 16 166, 169 Prahasza 69, 130, 146 Pakşadhari ( Dravya-) 117 ratna 77, 82-6, 148, 150, 150n Pakşadhatoddhāra 122f, 128 ratnākara 67f Pakşadharopādhyâya 82, 118, Oratnaprakasa 147f, 165 150 Paksata 205 sara 16, 35f Paſcadafi 44 sdraurcara 16,36 Pancamatika 117 osiddhantadipa 87, 94, Pañcıkākāra (cf. Sálıkanātha ) 182, 185 35 siddhantamanijari 64, Pandıtavijaya 134 130 Pånini 30, 197 ·(x1) Pañji 5n, 97f, 110, 121, 156f, Prabodhasiddhi 3, 162, 168, 171 Pragalbhācārya 45, 69, 71, 74, Paramakosakāra 58 78, 85, 93f, 108, 127, Paramānanda Thakkura 196 138f, 153-6, 160-2, 179 Paramanyāyācārya ( Vācas Pragalbhi 165 pati I) 58 (Pratyaksa) 94, 155n Paramęśvara Jhā 201 Prajñākara 31f, 37, 145 Paribhāṣāvýtt 121n Prakaranapañcakā 35, 67 Pariksā 126 Prakāśa 59, 137, 166, 172, Parśışta 4, 73 198, 201 ºprakāśa 3, 61, 77, 111 ºmakaranda 133 Parimala (on Kusumāñjalı) Prakāśıka (of Bhagiratha) 172 72f, 133 Pramāņa-mañjari 56 Parisuddhi (cf. Nibandha) 2,4f, pallava 119 7f, 15f, 19, 31, 33, 43f, °pārājana ( of śālika 51f, 74 nātha 125 'prakāśa 3 ºprakasa 84 Pasupati 163, 169 samuccaza 31 Peterson 65, 89 Puddyota 70 Pītāmbara Vidyānidhi 193f vartikalaṁkāra 31 Putzbhaktitarangini Prameyanıbandhaprakāśa 110, Patrdayıtā 128 118, 145 Prabandhakosa 47 Prasannarāghava 124, 127 Prabha (on Tattvacıntāmanı ) Prasanna Tarkaratna 201 158-60, 162 ( Pratyakşa.) Prasastapāda 5, 35, 58, 141 Prabhākara 13, 265, 35, 41 Praſastapādabhāsza 4,7,34,55 67, 105 | Pratyagrūpa 60 Prabhākara Miśra (Mimāása- | Pratyakşa (antāman) 61, 63, ka) 74 77, 94, 123, 198 School 32f, 35, 75, 87, aloka 119, 125, 127, 94, 97 133, 159n "Upadhyāya 60,69,74f, alokasātamañjari 154, 118, 145 164, 198 Prabodhacandrodaya 32, 68 °ālokadipika 143, 158 155 ·87 Ramabhadri 130f, 133 24 (XII) alokaprasāran: 129, Raghupati 169 154 Rājakulapāda 18 Ocintīmaniprakasa Rojantiratnākara 103 154n Rājasekhara 8, 8n, 47, 55 darpana 172 Rajasūtra 72 ºdüşanoddhāra 155,184 Rájatatangini 31 ºkantakoddhāra 181 Rámabhadra Sārvabhauma 69, maņipariksa 78 72, 130, 133, 146 mantika Maira 129 Rāmadāsa Upadhyāya 173 'nırnaja 150 R(amānātha) Jhā 124n, 169n, viveka 117f 194n Praudha Gauda Nasyāyıka 19 Rāmanātha Tarkaratna 171 Prājaścittaprakarana 95 | Rāmānuja school 38 Priticandra 23 Rāmarāja 178-80 Prinsarmā 169 Ramešvara Pythvidharācārya 76 °Bhatta 173 Pajāpradipo 181f | Rasārņava 134 Pundarikākṣa Vidyāsāgara 70, Rasasara 34, 55, 60, 101 73 | Ratnākara 103 Purjaslokamantzari 48 Ratnakirti 11, 11n, 15-17, Purana 191 17n, 18, 28, 33, 36, Puruşapariksa 42, 59 41, 53, 106 Purusottama 58 Ratnakirtinibandhavali 11n,i8, 118, 12in 18n, 23n Pūrvarnimāmisă 153 Ratnakosa 76.79, 87, 141, Raghavan 30n, 102 Rāghavendra Sarasvati 91 Ratnakoşakāra 76,788,87,15Cn 'tirtha 39, 159 Ratnakoşacara 76 Raghudera Nyayâlankära 127 Ratnapani Jhā 203 Raghunandana 1751 | Ravinatha 163, 169 Raghunatha 151f Ravissara 94 Raghunātha Śsroman ( Šara Riyamukuta 92 man also ) 172, 1761 Rddhinitha Jha 201 "Vidy ilankára 45, 139 Roukakinku 118 dcva 150f ·(xiii) Report : Bhandarkara 47n Osiddhi 14 : Peterson 8n, 89 Sakhāpañiji 97, 168 Rjuvimala 26 Şaktīvāda 197 Opañarka 35 Sālıkanātha ( See Pañcıkākāra Rucitika 23 also ) 26f, 32-5, 67 Rucidatta 65f, 77, 93, 97, 99, Salivahana 59 108, 120, 126f, 133, | Samānyanıruktı 200, 205n 155, 169 | Samayapradipa 180 Rudradhara Upādhyāya 156 pradipāzirnoddhāra 180 Rudra Nyāyavācaspati 127 Ⓡrahasya 131 Rudra Tarkavāgisa 7 Sänātani 19f, 141, 146 Rūpanātha Thakkura 199-201śankara 34, 120 Sabara 146 Śänkarabhāşya 199 Sabda(cıntāmanı) 80F, 94, 106, Sankara Bhatta 173f 108f, 121, 129 •Ācārya 27, 33, 151 aloka 199 Ācārya (Vedāntın) 35, alokaviveka 182 141 Palokoddsota "Miśra 2n, 3, 10, 14, "Gopinātha 129 19,43, 45, 59,68,70,72, ºkalpadruma 24, 122, 79, 85, 91, 109, 113-5, 125, 130-43, 151f, 157, māla 24 162f, 166, 172, 202 Omanipariksa 66f, 95, °( Naiyāyıka ) 16, 29, 115 33f, 36 °manıprakasa "Svāmin nirnaya 150 | Sankari 3 "Pragalbhi 160 °(on Khandanaº) 51 Śaktiprakāśika 68, Sārkhya 27, 146 198f Sankhyāpayımānam 188 "Tuanta 129 Sankhyasāta 77 Saccaritamimāṁsa 185 sūtra 141 Şaddarsanasamuccayavrtti 43n, śāntagopāla Jha 1970 101 | Saptapadārthi 61-3, 90 Sahasrādhikarana 153 padarthacandrika 66 Sakārasangrahaśāstra 14 ! Sarabha 30 67, 126 160, 180 66, 115 34 ·In, 153 196, 198 159f, 163 (xiv) Sarayantra 194n, 195, Siddharāja 89 ºyantri 193, 194n Singhana 64 Sárvabhauma 41, 67 73, 80f, | Sinha-vyāghri 107 83,85, 115,152, 156, Sinha S. N 1615, 168, 178f Siromaņi 80,87,105,116,125f, Sarvadarśanasaṁgraha 2 152, 155f, 160, 162, Sarvadeva 56 168, 176, 178f, 184, Sarvajña 91 'nārāyana 92 sivacandra Sārvabhauma 197 Sarvajñasiddhi 16 Sivāditya Miśra 3,40, 56, 61-4, Sarvababdābhāvacarca 14 78,146,90,167,199 Śaśadharācārya 87, 89, 94, 97 Sivapati 102 Sivasaktısıddhi 48 Šafadharavy akhya(Pakşadhara) Sivasınha 169, 169n 119 | Slokavārtika 11 Śaśınātha Jha 205n Smặti-kaumudi 189 Šāstri H P. 100, 137, 150, 157, Omahārnava 157 166, 176, 189 ºparbhaşa 112 Satpratipaksa 205 Osudhakara 173 Saugata 146 Sondadopadhyāya 80-2, 85, Sautrāntika 146 146, 199 Savyabhıcara 205 Sphartı 127 Sāyana 153 Sraddhakalpa 129, 143, 156 Schiefner 26 pallava 166 Sesānanta 94 Opradipa 112 Seșaśārngadhara Śridatta 2 177, 180 Setutika 68 Śridharācārya 8, 8n, 9-13,271, Siddhunjana 1271, 1821 31, 55, 66, 167 Siddhantalaksana 204 157, 183 kaumudi (Devanātha) Sriharşa 12, 38, 41-51, 54, 60, 189 64, 84, 102, 139, 150 rahasya 33 ) Sriharşadeva 13 201 Şrihira 49-51 tattia 196 Srikantha tatttauit cka 165 1 Šrilara 67, 92, 97, 183 śrihanı sura ·99 11, 11n (xv) Śrivallabhācārya 55-61, 64, Tarka-prakāla 111 75f, 90, 123, 142 ºsangraha 13 Srivatsa 20-2, 29, 49 Otāndava 39, 102, 160 Srivatseśvara 49 (of Keśava) 188 Stcherbatsky 25 Tärkıkacūdamanı 176 Stein 136, 138 Tarkıkarakşa 3, 50, 71 Sthairzavicāra 47€ Tātparyācārya 22,58,5&n,151 Sthirasiddhi 33f Tātparya(pari)ſuddh 37f, 57 °duşana 33, 106 Tātparyatikā 5, 7, 11, 16, 19, Suali 21f, 24, 289, 33, 46, S(ubhadra) Jhā 158 57f, 146, 198, 205 Subhūti 30 Tattvabindu 22 Subodha 2007 hodha 19,63,102,111,151 Sucanta Miśra 'cintāmanı (Cintamani & Sucikara Upadhyāya 126, 157, Mani also) 173 173n 72, 94, 96, 104, 108, 111, Śuddhibimba 1165, 120, 128-130, 150, Sulocanāmadhava 204 150n,151-2,159,164,176 54n didhitz 197 Sundara Thākura 173 Tattvacıntāmaņıkāra 98 Surapati 169, 169n | Tattvadipini 194n Surendralal Tarkatirtha 110 "kaumudi 28, 57 Sureśvara 186 Paloka 68,70,78,81,115, Sūtrakāra 20, 22, 56 129, 144n, 146, Tandıbrāhmana 145 149, 151 Tantrakaumudi 189.91 Onirnaja 82, 121, 165 Tantravartika 77 Opradipika 62 Tāranātha 26, 54n ºsamiksā 22 Taraņi Mišra 76-9,101,145,150 Tika ( Tātparya- ) 15, 60, 151 Tārāpati 202 Tikā ( Kiranavali-) 57 Tarka 191 | Țīkākāra 22, 145 Tarkabhāşa (of Mokşākara) 18 Pippanaka ( of Srikantha) 43 (of Keśava) 29, 42, Tithitattvacintamani 175 64f, 102, 111 Tridandimatabhāşyakāra 35 Oprakaſika 34 1 Trilocana 6, 16, 23, 28, 33, 365 166 Sum po ·198, 202f í xvi) Tripādinitınımaya 92 | Vacaspati II 2n, 11, 19, 45, 68, Trisūtri-nbandhavyākhyā 137, 70,77-9,856,98f,109,111, 166 137, 143, 145f, 149-56, "tattvabodha 78, 110 162, 181, 194 Tritalāvacchedakatāváda 2050 Vacca Jhā (Dharmadatta) 203, 205 Tautātika 57 23 Tvantopädhyāya 72, 128-30, Vadangaza 133f Vâdıvāgiśvara 56, 64, 90 Udayabhadra 89 Vādindra 8f, 55, 60, 62, 64, Udayanācārya 1-11, 11n, 12, 101f, 167 14-5, 18,20-2, 29, 31, 35, Vadivinoda 19, 68, 79, 86, 113, 37f.4C-5, 50-2, 54, 56-66, 115, 131, 134f, 137, 140-2, 202 69, 72, 74,84, 87, 91,93f, Vāgisa 97, 102, 108, 110, 123, Vabhāşıka 146 137, 145,161f, 166, 2017 Vašeşika 2, 176, 193 Udayanacarita 5 Vaišeşıkadarśana 49 Uddyota (on Nibandha of 141 Divākara ) 70, 72, 118, Osutraurttı 142 137, 145, 166, 177 Vaivasvatasiddhanta 176 Uddyotakāra 23, 68 176 Umāpati 187 | Vakyapadiya -199 Umesha Miśra 678, 197n Vallabhācārya 141 Upadhıdarpana 167 Vāmadeva Upādhyāya 194 vārtika 30f Upamāna(-cintamani) 75, 97, Vamanavrttı 146 108, 190 Vanapāla 26 Osangraha 74 108,127 Vange Navyanyāyacarca 8n, Upaskara (Varšeşıkasūtra-) 59, 104n, 114, 126, 130, 91, 113, 131, 141f 152, 185 Upāyakäraka 110 Varadarīja 35, 102, 134, 167 Vācaspatı 1 5, 11f, 16-23, 23n, Varadavıspumisra 38 24, 24-9, 31, 33-38, 46, Vardhamāna ( author of Gana- 52, 57f, 81, 87, 146f, 153, Tatnamahodadhi ) 47 158, 205 Vardhamana (Nayya ) 91 sutra sara 63 | Vāmana ·(xvii) Vardhamana Upādhyāya 3, 9f, Vidyānivāsa Bhațțācārya 66 12, 16, 19f, 34f, 40, 45, 80, 85, 87, 114 56, 58-61, 63, 65, 68-70, Vidyāpati 42,5. 72, 74-8, 84f, 92-4. 97f, Vidyāpatıgitasangraha 15€ 100, 102, 104, 109-12, Vidyāranya 44 114, 117, 123, 129, 133f, Vidyāsāgara 102 137, 139, 142€, 145, 151, | Vidyāsāgari 43, 91 160, 198, 205 Vijayacandra 47, 49 Vārşaganya 146 Vijayaprašasti 49 Vārtika 7, 16, 23 | Vijayasena 49 Vasavadatta 194 Vilasa 72 Vasubandhu 146 | Vilāsakāra 71 Vāsudeva 86, 119, 123f, 126 Visalāmalavati 31 Sārvabhauma ( see Visnupurāna 121 Sārvabhauma also ) 66, 70, Vişnupuri 169n, 83, 126, 151, 155 Visuddhānanda Sarasvati 203 Vateśvara (Upadhyâya) 58, 94, Viśvadhara 187f 118, 120f, 125, 136, 146, Višvakarman 66, 102 151, 163-9, 169n, 170, Viśvanātha 163, 169, 186, 188 177, 101, 104, 113, 164 "Jha 2, 201-3 Vecana Jhā 197n Pancānana 45, 146f Veda 191 ºtirtha 185 Vedānta 22, 35, 41, 151, 171, Višvarūpa 23 173, 177, 187, 190, 193, 204 Viśveśvara 182 132 Vedāntatirtha, N.C. Vivarana 67, 92, 151 Venkatanatha 38 Vivaraṇakāra 8 Vedānta school 106 Vivaranapañjika 7 Venis 111 Vivecana 200 Vibhaktzarthanımaya 197 Viveka 67f, 119 Vidhiviveka 25, 27 | Vivekakāra 119-21 Vidyābhūsana, S.C. In, 5n, 6, Vivſtı 204 15, 26, 318, 53n, 54n, Vittı(Kāśikā-) 30 89, 96, 99, 121 Vyakaranasıddhanta. Vidyākokila 53 suddhanidh: 182 ·(XVIII) Vyaktıviveka 46 Vyomavati 8, 10-3,58, 140* Vyapticarca 14 Weber 99 Vyāptınıranja 14 Wilson 24 Vjāptıpañcaka 204 Yadunatha Sārvabhauma 1970 Viaptanugama 205 | Yajñapatı 80f, 858, 122, 126, Vyavahüracintamani 129 135, 154-56, 158f, 161, Vyāsatirtha 39, 102, 116 163, 165, 169, 171, 184 Vycmaśıkhácārya 12n Yajñeśvara Vyomaśivācārya 11f, 120, Yoginimaja 13, 58 Vuktıdıpika 28 167 ERRATA Live Page for Read 48 21 प्रस्फूर्ताचदचिद्वाल प्रस्फूर्जञ्चिदचिद्विलास 74 5 Udyota Uddyota 80 6 व्याधिकरण व्यधिकरण 88 2 lecunas lacunas 26 axactly exactly 118 25 Jatesvara Vateśvara 122 26 Pksadharoddhāra Paksadharoddhara 142 11 Vnitti Vrtti 160 15 Yejñapati Yajñapati 165 12 quarel quarrel 168 27 महत्तक महत्तक 184 17 Gurukarana Gurucarana 195 19 Mahomedan) Hindu In a few cases 'ch' has inadvertently been used instead of'ch for:

·BITKILA INSTITUTE SERIES
A. Works of Ancient writers critically edited
with Introductions etc.
1. Tattvacıntāman Neo-logic, by Gangeša Upādhyāya with
Aloka of Jayadeva and Darpana of Maheśa Thakur , edited by
Dr. Umesha Mišra ( Vol. I, pt. I), 1957, Rs. 12.00
2. Kāvyapariksa Rhetorics, by Śrivatsalāñchana Bhattācārya,
edited for the first time by Dr. P L. Vaidya, 1956, Rs 8:00
3. Pārijātaharana Epic poem, by Kavikarņapūra edited for
the first time by Prof. Anantalal Thakur, 1956, Rs. 8 00
4. Kavyalaksanaratnaſri Rhetorics, by Ratnaśrijñāna of
Ceylon (on the Kāuz ādarśa of Dandın ) edited for the first
time by Prof. Anantalal Thakur & Prof. Upendra Jha, 1957,
Rs. 15 00
5 Vaišeşıkadarśana. with an old and anonymous commentary,
edited for the first time by Prof. Anantalai Thakur, 1957,
Rs. 6.50
6. Abhijñānašakuntalan Drama, Maithil version with the
commentaries of Sankara and Naraharı edited for the first time
by Prof. Ramanath Jha 1957,
Rs, 15 00
7. Agamadambara Drama of Jayanta Bhatta,
In preparation
.8. Lilavati with Vasana Astronomy,
In the Press
9. Vişnuputāna critical edition,
Undertaken