The Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, Volume 2: Indian Metaphysics and Epistemology: The Tradition of Nyaya-Vaisesika up to Gangesa

The Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, Volume 2: Indian Metaphysics and Epistemology: The Tradition of Nyaya-Vaisesika up to Gangesa

Copyright Date: 1977
Pages: 760
  • Cite this Item
  • Book Info
    The Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, Volume 2: Indian Metaphysics and Epistemology: The Tradition of Nyaya-Vaisesika up to Gangesa
    Book Description:

    The complementary systems of Nyaya and Vaisesika constitute one of the oldest and most important traditions within Indian philosophy. This volume offers a systematic and detailed exposition of the two schools from their beginning to the time of Gangesa (A.D. 150-1350). An extensive interpretive essay introduces summaries of most of the known works written within the tradition. The result is both an excellent introduction for students and an indispensable guide to the thought and literature of early Nyaya-Vaisesika.

    Originally published in 1978.

    ThePrinceton Legacy Libraryuses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These paperback editions preserve the original texts of these important books while presenting them in durable paperback editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since its founding in 1905.

    eISBN: 978-1-4008-7075-2
    Subjects: Philosophy

Table of Contents

  1. Front Matter
    (pp. i-vi)
  2. Table of Contents
    (pp. vii-x)
    (pp. xi-xiv)
      (pp. 1-17)

      A full-scale philosophical system is generally expected to speak to problems in the following areas: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and theory of value, logic, and philosophical method. The system of Indian philosophy known as Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika is such a full-scale system. Its contribution in each and every one of these areas is extensive, interesting, and usually of fundamental importance, as this introduction will attempt to show.

      Metaphysics: Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika offers one of the most vigorous efforts at the construction of a substantialist, realist ontology that the world has ever seen. It provides an extended critique of event-ontologies and idealist metaphysics. It starts from...

      (pp. 18-37)

      Philosophical system building in India is almost invariably connected by its creators with the gaining of perfection, which has various names in Indian thought but which we shall here call regularly “liberation.” One topic reviewed below is the extent to which this commitment to liberation is mere windowdressing in the case of Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika, which some critics view as studying logic and debate for their own sake. We shall have occasion to look at the religious affiliations of our philosophers in this connection, and to attempt to gauge the relevance of their religious convictions to their philosophy. Then, after summarily reviewing...

      (pp. 38-46)

      What is a philosophical system ? Asystemis a set of concepts which are interrelated so as to explain what needs to be explained fully, accurately, and with no waste motion. In India aphilosophicalsystem is one which is pertinent to the ultimate supreme value of mankind, the gaining of liberation. Expanding on this a bit, we can discern several criteria that an Indian philosophical system will try to satisfy.

      The statements in which the interrelated concepts which comprise the system are expressed must all be true. What is sought is truth; what truth is is itself a...

    • 4. RELATIONS
      (pp. 47-68)

      We shall not delay any longer getting into the system itself. First of ail, we shall survey the ontological categories of the Vaiśeṣika, which are accepted also by Nyāya. Later on we shall turn to problems of epistemology. Inevitably, whichever way we choose to expound this system, it will turn out that we must refer to material as yet unexplained in order to fully illuminate what is under discussion at the moment. That is the way with a philosophical system; were it not so, the more unsystematic one’s philosophy must be. Thus, as we have chosen to treat metaphysics before...

    • 5. SUBSTANCE
      (pp. 69-111)

      In the foregoing chapter we took occasion at one point to glance briefly at the Vaiśeṣika list of 7 categories: substance, quality, motion, universal, individuator, inherence, and absence. What is the reason for admitting only 7 categories, and why just these 7 ? The answer lies in the necessities of the constructive enterprise to which I have alluded. Likewise, when we come to look at the list of 9 kinds of substance, 24 kinds of qualities, etc., similar questions are raised and the answer lies again in the manner in which the system can be built up. In order to...

      (pp. 112-132)

      The second of the 7 Vaiśeṣika categories is referred to under the Sanskrit termguṇa, and this term is usually translated by the English word “quality.” The implications of “quality,” as that term is normally used in Western philosophy, do not altogether match those ofguṇain Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika, however, since Western philosophers generally think of qualities as repeatable properties, while the Vaiśeṣikaguṇais not repeatable. Thus, in Nyāya a white substance has a particular whiteguṇaof its own, different from the whiteguṇasof other white substances and whiteness, the universal property, resides in the several white colors...

      (pp. 133-146)

      We now turn to those problems of ontology which have a close kinship with various issues of great interest to philosophers in the West as well as in India, issues which divide realists from nominalists and conceptualists, which probe such ultimate questions as “how does one tell one thing from two?” and “what is the status of negation?” With respect to all of these issues there is one generalization which can be made in characterizing the position of Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika, and that is that in resolving issues such as these a Naiyāyika is prone to proceed through verification rather than through...

      (pp. 147-178)

      We turn now from the ontological speculations of the Naiyāyikas to their methodology and epistemology. The various topics raised in discussions of these matters interpenetrate in complicated ways, and there is no clear-cut expository tradition to follow. Since meaning and truth have been analyzed in detail by recent Western philosophers, I have approached Nyāya material in ways reminiscent of certain parallel Western analyses. In this I am reflecting a growing tendency on the part of recent Nyāya scholars.

      The theory of meaning is logically prior to theory of knowledge in the following respect. If we suppose, as is natural, that...

      (pp. 179-208)

      All systems of Indian philosophy except the Cārvākas accept inference as an instrument of valid knowledge. The science of reasoning (nyāya) is alluded to in very early Indian texts, and the name of the Nyāya school indicates that Indian intellectuals looked to this school as the authority in matters of detail connected with logic. Not that Naiyāyikas had a corner on the subject. Most of the other systems proposed theories in the area of logic and reasoning, and some (notably Sāṃkhya) may well have antedated the Naiyāyikas on certain important points. In particular the logical theories of Buddhists of Dignāga’s...

    • 1. KAṆĀDA: (Ulūka, Kaṇabhakṣa, Kaṇabhuj, Kāśyapa)
      (pp. 211-220)

      The author of the earlier of the two sets of aphorisms central to this system, theVaiśeṣikasūtras, is referred to by several names; the one usually used now is Kaṇāda. As is common with important authors of ancient times, numerous legends have grown up around this personage, some of them rather amusing. In the case of Kaṇāda there are stories based on his name. One is that he is known as Kaṇāda because of his atomic theory — the etymology is supposed to give us “atom-eater” for the name. Another is reported in theLife of Harivarman(A.D. 450) :...

    • 2. GAUTAMA: (Akṣapāda, Dīrghatamas, Gotama, Medhātithi Gautama)
      (pp. 220-238)

      It is common practice to refer to the author of theNyāyasūtrasas “Gautama” or “Gotama.” Unfortunately it is a very common name in India, and various personages by this name probably flourished in very ancient times. Indian scholars have attempted to identify the author of thesesūtraswith one or another such person, some of them apparently dating back even to earliest Vedic times.¹

      Other scholars, with perhaps more caution, suggest that the work we now have grew in several stages, some of which may have been in existence before the beginning of our era, and that while Gautama,...

      (pp. 238-239)

      It is probable that several commentaries were written on theVaiśeṣikasūtrasin the period prior to Praśastapāda’s at the end of the 6th century. No such commentaries have been preserved, but in Mallavādin’sNayacakra, a work of the 5th century, we find references to a commentary on theVaiśeṣikasūtrascalledVākya, on which we are told there was aBhāṣyain turn. A work calledVaiśeṣikakaṭandiis twice referred to by Mallavādin, who describes it as “an elaborate work based on thesūtrasofKaṇāda.” ThisKaṭandīis also mentioned in Murārimiśra’sAnagharāghava, where Rāvaṇa is said to be well-versed...

      (pp. 239-274)

      According to Vācaspati Miśra, the given name of the author of theNyāyabhāṣyawas Pakṣilāsvamin; Vātsyāyana is a patronymic.¹ Vidyābhūṣaṇa tells us that he is sometimes called Drāmila or Drāviḍa, suggesting that he came from the south.² Estimates of his date range from as early as 600 B. G.³ to as late as 539. A.D.⁴ The latter date seems to have some merit, although Ingalls gives the date as the 3rd century on the grounds of Vātsyāyana’s apparent lack of acquaintance with Yogācāra philosophy as well as his archaic sytle.⁵ Oberhammer’s reasons for dating Vātsyāyana in the second half of...

      (pp. 274-281)

      We treat next an odd work entitledDaśapadārthaśāstrapreserved in Chinese. It is an odd work because the system it presents differs in fundamental respects from classical Vaiśeṣika, although it is clear that a type of Vaiśeṣika system is being expounded. It has a certain importance for Chinese thought, in that it was the only non-Buddhist work other than theSāṃkhyakārikāsto have been translated into Chinese.¹ It was, in fact, translated by the famous Chinese pilgrim Hsuan-tsang; Ui gives the date of the translation as A.D.648.²

      The work is available in translation from the Chinese in the volume by...

      (pp. 281-281)

      This writer is mentioned in a Buddhist work of the 8th century by Śāntarakṣita. Bhāvivikta is said to have written a commentary on aNyāyabhāṣya, presumably Vātsyāyana’s.¹ Scholar’s estimates of his date vary.

      Steinkellner² places him after Uddyotakara, but Oberhammer³ dates him 520 to 580, since he identifies him as one among certain teachers who flourished prior to Uddyotakara and to whom Jayanta refers.

      The views which are attributed to him by Śāntarakṣita are the following :⁴

      1. Since the ego-making faculty(ahaṃkāra) is self-cognizable, the self is perceptible and can be proved thereby.

      2. We can sometimes perceive substances without their qualities,...

      (pp. 282-303)

      Although theVaiśeṣikasūtrasare no doubt the most authoritative Vaiśeṣika source, it is the Vaiśeṣika system as seen through the eyes of Kaṇāda’s most important commentator which is known as the standard old Vaiśeṣika. This writer is Praśastapāda, author of thePadārthadharmasaṃgraha. Frauwallner gives his date as the last half of the sixth century,¹ although other writers have attempted to place him earlier. E.g., Stcherbatsky argued² that Praśastapāda must have been contemporary with Vasubandhu, since Vasubandhu quotes Vaiśeṣika views which to our knowledge are only found in Praśastapāda. This line of argument has also been used by others³ to push...

      (pp. 303-337)

      Probably the most persistent champion of the Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika cause during the height of the period when the system was challenging and being challenged by Buddhist logicians such as Dignāga and Dharmakīrti is Uddyotakara, the author of theNyāyavārttika. This work is an extended commentary on Vātsyāyana’sNyāyabhāsya, in which its author develops many new arguments and sometimes presents new or alternative explanations for some of thesūtras.

      Uddyotakara himself mentions his place of residence as Śrughna, which has been identified as a town in the Punjab on the west bank of the Jamunā about 40 miles north of Thāneśvar.¹ He...

    • 10. ĀTREYA
      (pp. 337-338)

      Though, as mentioned earlier, theVaiśeṣikasūtrassuffered from lack of commentators, at least commentaries have been preserved for us since there are references to at least one such commentary in early times. The Jain writers Vādideva Sūri (fl. 1130) and Gunaratna (fl. 1400) mention aBhāsyacalledĀtreyabhāṣyaorĀtreyatantra, as does Vādīndra (1175-1225), a Nyāya writer treated below.¹ Vādideva calls its author “a ripe old leading Brahmin” (to adopt Thakur’s translation ofvarṣiyān viprapuṅgavaḥ). He details the views of its author on three points : (1) On the presence of the termgunain the definition of substance given...

      (pp. 338-338)

      As we have seen, Śāntarakṣita mentions this author along with Uddyotakara and Bhāvivikta as the major rivals of Dharmakīrti.¹ Apart from locating his date at or prior to the time of Dharmakīrti, however, nothing more can be learned from this information....

      (pp. 338-340)

      We are now well into the dark period in the history of Nyāya-Vaiṣeṣika literature, a period between the time of Uddyotakara and Jayanta Bhatta, spanning three centuries. All our information about the development of thought in the school during this time is necessarily inferential, at least until manuscripts at present unknown are discovered. (This is by no means impossible even today, however.)

      Aviddhakarna is one of the most widely discussed authors of this period. References to him are found in various Buddhist works by such writers as Śāntarakṣita, Kamalaśīla, and Karnagomin. He is also known from Jain sources written by...

    • 13. ŚAṂKARA (SVĀMIN)
      (pp. 340-341)

      Śaṃkara is another old Naiyāyika of whom we hear much from Buddhist and Jain writers. He is also referred to by Jayanta at least once,¹ and by Vācaspati Miśra.² Oberhammer³ concludes he must have lived between Dharmakīrti and Śāntarakṣita, and Steinkellner’s study concurs.⁴

      The title of the work he is known for isStkirasiddhi. Thakur⁵ has collected references to views he is supposed to have held, and Umesh Miśra⁶ has also discussed some of these.

      1. God has a body; in fact, He has several bodies.

      2. The conditions for the perception of something are sufficient to bring about the perception of its...

      (pp. 341-341)

      Jayanta Bhatta mentions several old Naiyāyikas in his playĀgamaḍambarī. Two are Viśvarūpa and Dhairyarāśi.¹ It seems that Viśvarūpa wrote a commentary calledṬikāon theNyāyabhāṣya. Steinkellner² places both these authors in the first half of the 9th century.

      Varadarāja Miśra in hisTārkikarakṣārefers to several views held by Viśvarupa concerning the ways of losing an argument. He seems to have limited the fault of repetition or redundancy to certain contexts only, namely those where necessity (niyama) has been shown. In such a context, however, even the mere repetition of words constitutes a fault. Finally, concerning the 19th...

      (pp. 341-395)

      Our next author is an especially interesting one. It seems that at the end of the 7th century a Gauḍa Brahmin of the Bharadvājagotranamed Śakti migrated from Bengal to Kashmir. His son, or perhaps his grandson, Śaktisvāmin, became minister to king Muktāpida (invested 733). Śaktisvāmin’s grandson was named Candra: he may or may not be the Gandra who commented on Prabhākara Mimāṃsā works. Gandra’s son was named Jayanta Bhaṭṭa.¹ On the basis of the above genealogy one must place him toward the close of the 9th century. Thisisconfirrnedbythefactthatone of Jayanta’s works, a drama entitledĀgamaḍambara, was written during...

      (pp. 395-395)

      Gopinath Kaviraj¹ remarks that there was an old work called “Nyāyaratna” on which Vācaspati Miśra is reputed to have written a commentary. The work is lost, and we know nothing of it....

    • 18. TRILOCANA
      (pp. 396-398)

      This philosopher, whose works have been lost, was clearly one of the leading Naiyāyikas among the brilliant group who taught and wrote during the 9 th century. Vācaspati Miśra identifies him as his teacher,¹ and Jñānasrlmitra, the 11th century Buddhist logician, identifies him as one of the four “pillars of Nyāya” along with Śaṃkara, Bhāsarvajña, and Vacaspati.²

      D. G. Bhattacharya³ suggests, on the basis of a quotation found in the Dharmottarapradipa, which appears to refer to Trilocana as a “Karnata in rags,” that he came from the Mysore area. As to his date, we must conclude that he flourished around...

      (pp. 398-424)

      We come now to the philosopher who may well represent the source of the most important schism in the Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika school.

      If not the source, he is the first known proponent of a number of doctrines which diverge boldly from the accepted traditional views of all the authors we have so far considered. We review below (under theNyāyabhūṣaṇaentry) some of these unorthodox theories. They are referred to often as the views of the “(Nyāya) ekadeśins,” i.e., a section of the Naiyāyikas. Samasastry¹ notes that since, e.g., Sureśvara refers to theseekadeśinsin hisMānasollāsa, accurately identifying one of...

    • 20. SĀNĀTANĪ
      (pp. 424-424)

      Dinesh Chandra Bhattacharya tells us¹ that in Udayana’sPariśiiddhithere is a reference to this writer, who, Bhattacharya thinks must have antedated Vācaspati Miśra. The passage says Sānātanī was a Bengali. He must have written a commentary on theNyāyasūtras. He is also referred to by Vardhamāna. In thePariśuddhipassage he is credited with having held that there are 4 rather than 3 kinds of controversy (kathā). V. Vardachari reports² that Udayana twice refers to Sānātani....

    • 21. VYOMAŚIVA
      (pp. 424-453)

      Vyomaśiva seems to have been the earliest of the three great commentators on Praśastapāda’sPadārthadharmasaṃgraha, although it is likely that all three were contemporaries. (The other two are Śrīdhara and Udayana). Gopinath Kaviraj writes that he “seems to have been a Śaiva saint of the South… Vyomaśiva was the leader… at any rate a learned representative of a distinct section of the Vaiśeṣika school¹…”. Estimates of his date vary, but V. Varadachari, whose summary follows, estimates 950, and this seems to agree well with most other suggestions.² Vardhamāna tells us that he preceded Udayana, and D.C. Bhattacharya claims that views...

      (pp. 453-483)

      This writer is well known to students of Indian philosophy, for he contributed to a variety of different systems, and each of his contributions seems to have been highly thought of. In this respect he is very unusual among Indian philosophers. Traditionally, he is held to have been a Maithili Brahmin, and to have lived somewhere near the Nepal frontier. There is a village in that region named Bhāmā, which is supposed to have been named after Vācaspati’s daughter, to whom he commemorated the Advaita commentary entitled Bhāmatī.¹ On the other hand, Dinesh Chandra Bhattacharya mentions a second tradition, according...

    • 23. ADHYĀYANA
      (pp. 484-484)

      Durveka Miśra, the author of the Buddhist workDharmottarapradīpa, quotes this author as having written a work entitledRuciṭikā, which was probably a commentary on theNyāyabhāṣya. The passage Durveka quotes deals with Adhyayana’s views on the analysis of the first member of the argument form, the hypothesis. Adhyāyana appears to think that properly this member ought not to be construed as speaking of an object with its property, since initially all we cognize is a place with a property and only later do we remember the pervasion and so identify the object for what it is. Thus the usual...

    • 24. VITTOKA
      (pp. 484-484)

      “Ratnakirti mentions the view of one Āstika Naiyāyika named Vittoka, in connection with Īśvarasiddhi in hisĪśvarasādhanadūṣaṇa. There is a long passage attributed, as it seems, to Vittoka. Though it is the first time that we have come across his name, yet from the nature of the quotation and the importance given to his view by Ratnakīrti, it seems that Vittoka wrote some treatise on Nyāya directly, or wrote a commentary on theSūtraor theNyāyabhāsya. While quoting the opinion of Vittoka, Ratnakīti refers to him later than Vācaspati, and so he may be placed after Vācaspati.

      “Vittoka is...

    • 25. NARASIMHA
      (pp. 484-484)

      This author is also referred to in the same work of Ratnakīrti mentioned in the preceding quotation. Mishra¹ estimates his date as prior to that of Trilocana, on the basis of the order in which Ratnakirti lists their names; Steinkellner,² on the other hand, gives the 10th century....

    • 26. ŚRĪDHARA
      (pp. 485-520)

      This writer flourished in A.D. 991, according to his own testimony. He is celebrated by Bengalis as the “first Bengali writer on philosophy.”¹ He tells us he came from “Bhuriśreṣtha in Rārhā (modern Bhursut) in Howrah district,” and identifies his parents as Bāladeva and Acchokā, his patron as Pandudāsa, a Kāyastha. Gopinath Kaviraj² finds that Śrīdhara wrote four books—a Vedānta work entitledAdvayasiddhi, a Mīmāmsā work entitledTattvaprabodha, a work calledTattvasamvādinī, and theNyāyakandali, on Praśastapāda’sPadārthadharmasaṃgraha. Kaviraj thinks that this work is also calledSaṃgrahaṭikā, and Śrīdhara certainly refers to such a work but since the reference...

    • 27. ŚRĪVATSA
      (pp. 520-521)

      Udayana in hisPariśuddhiproduces some arguments of this writer, and Dinesh Chandra Bhattacharya¹ quotes one verse which seems to him to imply that Udayana took lessons from Śrivatsa. The arguments Udayana reviews are directed against Vācaspati’s views, and Udayana undertakes to defend Vācaspati against them.² Thus Śrīvatsa must come after Vācaspati but before Udayana, i.e., around the first half of the 11 th century. He probably lived in Mithilā....

    • 28. ANIRUDDHA
      (pp. 521-521)

      A manuscript of this writer’sVivaraṇapañjikāwas discovered by K. K. Shastri in Jaisalmer in 1943.¹ This is a commentary on theNyāyasūtras,Nyāyabhāṣya,Nyāyavārttikaand itsTātparyatīkā. The first chapter of the manuscript is missing. Aniruddha’s work is the first of its type—a commentary on the several commentaries and subcommentaries preceding him on the NS. Later writers who essayed the same kind of collective commenting were Śrīkaṇṭha and Upādhyāya Abhayatilaka. These works, however, include Udayana’sPariśuddhiwithin their purview, which strongly suggests that Aniruddha did not have that work in hand at the time of his writing. Furthermore,...

    • 29. UDAYANA
      (pp. 521-603)

      Of all the Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika authors with the possible exception of the authors of the two sets ofsūtras, Udayana is probably the most revered by followers of the school. He it is to whom credit is given by Naiyāyikas for having demolished in final fashion the claims of the Buddhist logicians. All his works, or at least all of which we know, have been preserved, which attests to the respect in which he was held from the beginning. In particular, hisNyāyakusumādñjalistill finds a place in the curriculum of the classically educated Bengali, and is celebrated by modern logicians...

      (pp. 603-612)

      According to S. Subrahmanya Sastri¹ this author was a monarch who ruled in the Konkan in the early part of the 12th century. He quotes P. V. Kane : “A grant dated Saka 1049 (+ 78 = 1127) of Aparādityadeva who donated a village named Vadavali…. He was the son of Anantadeva, grandson of Nāgārjuna and traces his descent to Jimūtavahana son of Jimutaketu famous for his selfsacrifice. In this inscription (in which the grant is mentioned) Aparādityadeva is styled Śīlāhāraṇarendra and Jimūtavāhananvayapraśasta. It appears that the date of Aparādityadeva I referred to in these grants falls between A.D. 1115...

    • 31. ŚRĪKAṆṬHA
      (pp. 612-612)

      ThePañcaprasthānanyāyatarkaby this writer is another compendious commentary on theNyāyas ūtrasand subcommentaries by Vātsyāyana, Uddyotakara, Vācaspati Miśra, and Udayana, in the style of Aniruddha (cf. p. 521). A manuscript of the work is available, we are told by Jetly,¹ at Jaisalmer. The comments of D. C. Bhattacharya on his date in different places are contradictory : on one occasion² he asserts that Śrīkaṇṭha must have lived after Abhayatilaka, the author of another work in this same style. But Jetly³ has examined the manuscript of Abhayatilaka’s work and says that Abhayatilaka remarks that he has followed Śrīkaṇṭha’s work...

      (pp. 612-613)

      Anantalal Thakur reports that in the Library of the Asiatic Society in Calcutta there is an incomplete manuscript, written in Maithili and Newari scripts, of a work commenting on Chapters 9 and 10 of theVaiśeṣikas utras, which is called in its colophonsSriKaṇādasutravrtti. ¹ The date of the author of this commentary must, on internal evidence, be located during the reign of King Vallālasena of Bengal. Thakur gives conflicting dates for this king’s reign; in one place² he gives 1158 to 1178, but in a subsequently published article³ he says that Vallālasena died in 1118 or 1119.

      Thakur also...

      (pp. 613-629)

      Not much is known about the author of theNyāyalīlāvatī. He seems to have been a native of Mithilā who knew Banaras well and perhaps studied there.¹ According to Vardhamāna Vallabha also wrote a commentary on the Fifth book of theNyāyas ūtras, and probably he also wrote a work entitledĪśvarasiddhi.² Bodas reports³ that theNyāyalīlāvatīis mentioned in a Kannada poem which was written between 1210 and 1247,⁴ and D. C. Bhattacharya says⁵ that on the evidence of a later writer Vallabha is connected with the “Karṇāṭa” dynasty of Mithilā under Nānyadeva, who flourished from 1097 to 1147....

      (pp. 629-642)

      This writer probably lived in the middle of the 12th century. Though Vidyabhusana speculated that he came from Āndhra¹ and Gopinath Kaviraj claims he is from Mithilā,² other scholars are unanimous that he was a Kashmiri. He was the author of a commentary on Udayana’sNyāyakusumāñjalicalledBodhanī, and an independent treatise,Tārkikarakṣā, on which he also wrote an auto-commentary,Sārasaṃgraha. Aufrecht mentions a commentary on Udayana’s Kiraṇāvalī.³ There is also aNyāyadipīkāattributed to a Varadarāja, who may or may not be our author. According to Gopinath Kaviraj,⁴ Varadarāja wrote hisTārkikarakṣābefore theBodhanī.⁵

      “E” references are to...

    • 35. ŚIVĀDITYA
      (pp. 642-646)

      This author is well known to Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika scholars for his useful handbook, theSaptapadārthi. A surprising amount of misinformation and misapprehension has been disseminated about him in the literature, however. A number of scholars¹ were for a long while under the impression that Śivāditya was identical with Vyomaśiva, and estimated his date around 950 accordingly. The identification does not seem reasonable. For one thing, Śivāditya’s work on the seven categories follows the strict Vaiśeṣika scheme of two instruments of knowledge, for example, while Vyomaśiva admits verbal authority as a separate instrument. But this is not the most impressive reason against...

      (pp. 646-658)

      This author, who is usually referred to as Vādīndra, gives us quite a bit of information about himself. He says he is a “religious councillor” (dharmādhyakṣin) of one Śrīsiṃha, and is patronized by Śrīkṛṣṇabhūpāla who is Śrīsiṃha’s grandson. This would seem to indicate that Vādīndra flourished at the court of King Śinghana of the Yādava dynasty of Devagiri (modern Daulatabad) during the first quarter of the 13th century,¹ This fits other references to him, e.g. by Vedānta Deśika, the Viśiṣṭādvaita leader, as well as Bhaṭṭa Rāghava, who was Vādīndra’s pupil and dates hisNyāyasāravicāraas written in 1252.²

      Vādīndra wrote...

      (pp. 659-659)

      As was mentioned above, this author tells us he is the pupil of Vādīndra.¹ His only known work is a commentary,Vicāra, on Bhāsarvajña’sNyāyasāra. In that work he gives the date of its composition in an ambiguous way, so that it can be construed as either 1174 or 1274śaka. If the former is correct, it equals A.D. 1252, if the latter, 1352. Gopinath Kaviraj prefers the former and cites some evidence about the manuscript to support this.²

      P. L. Vaidya’s notes on his edition of theNyāyasāraprovide some information about Bhaṭṭa Rāghava’s views.³

      (1) Rāghava mentions and...

      (pp. 659-660)

      The information given here on this author, who wrote several works, is due almost entirely to the researches of D. C. Bhattacharya.¹ He seems to have commented on four of Udayana’s works, as well as on Śrīharṣa’sKhaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya. Bhattacharya estimates his date as the first half of the 13th century on the basis of the fact that a manuscript of a fragment of aNibandhoddyotadates from between 1272 and 1283.

      ThisUddyota, on either Udayana’sNyāyapariśiṣṭaor hisPartiśuddhi, is one of the five works attributed to Divākara, of which only two are known to exist in extant manuscripts....

      (pp. 660-663)

      V. Raghavan tells us that he has inspected a manuscript at Bikaner of this author’sManāmanohara.¹ It is a Vaiśeṣika work concerning seven categories in seven sections, defending each category mainly against Mīmāṃsā and Advaita arguments, occasionally citing “Saugata” and “Sāṃkhya.” “There seems to be a gap in the portion dealing withviśeṣa,” he adds. The categories ofśakti, sādṛśya, pradhāna, tamasare refuted. The last section deals withmokṣaalong Vaiśeṣika lines, criticizing Advaita. The work mentions Vyomaśiva and Prabhākara.

      The author was a Śaiva, Raghavan says.² He is referred to by Ānandānubhava (see below), who calls him “vāmamatānusārin.”...

      (pp. 663-663)

      D. C. Bhattacharya notes that this writer is said by Ānandapūrṇa Vidyāsāgara to have improved on Udayana’s definition ofupādhi. Bhattacharya suggests that he may be identical with the commentator onManusaṃhilāwho flourished in the 13th century. Śaṃkara Miśra also seems to refer to him in hisUpaskārain the section on disjunction.¹

      On the other hand, Umesh Mishra finds that Ānandapūrṇa, in his commentary on theKhaṇṇanakhaṇṇakhādyaof Śrīharṣa, refers explicitly to the view of Nārāyaṇasarvajña which he says has been refuted by Śrīharṣa. Assuming this means that Nārāyaṇa sarvajña lived prior to Śrīharṣa, Mishra dates him in...

    • 41. KEŚAVA MIŚRA
      (pp. 663-667)

      This author is known for one work only, the handbook entitledTarkabhāṣāwhich has been edited and translated a number of times. Ganganatha Jha affirms¹ that he lived in Mithilā, and D. C. Bhattacharya gives reasons² for thinking that this is so. There has been some discussion concerning his date, but the best guess would seem to be mid-13th century.³ Umesh Mishra notes the interesting fact that of the some twenty commentators who have commented on theTarkabhāṣā“a large majority…hail from the South,” and “Govardhana is the only commentator from Mithilā so far known.”⁴

      “E” references are to the...

      (pp. 667-667)

      This author is well known to students of Advaita Vedānta, and all but one of his known works follow that school’s thought. The exception is his commentary entitledNyāyakalānidhion Bhāsarvajña’sNyāyasāra, which has been printed recently in the edition by S. Subrahmanya Sastri.¹ Pandit Subrahmanya Sastri reports that the contents of this commentary are unremarkable, it being a simple and straight forward interpretation. The manuscript breaks off in the portion onvipratipatti, picks up again at the section on onlypositive inference. The colophons at the end of the second and third chapters give the author’s name as Ānandānubhava, but...

      (pp. 667-667)

      This Maithili author lived in the 13th century also.¹ He is said to have been the first commentator on Vallabha’sNyāyalilāvati, and also probably commented on Udayana’sPariśuddhi, Ātmatattvaviveka, andNyāyakusumāñjali. According to Pragalbha, Gaṅgeśa quotes Prabhākara’s definition of “specific” (asādhāraṇa). According to Jayadeva and Mathurānātha, Gaṅgeśa is referring to Prabhākara too, when he cites “ata eva kara.”² The commentary on theNyāyalilāvatiis referred to many times by Vardhamāna and Pakṣadhara. The name of the commentary was apparentlyPrakāśa.³ None of these works have been discovered, however....

      (pp. 668-668)

      This writer composed a large commentary on theNyāyas ūtras, Bhāṣya, Vṣrttika, Tṣtparyaṭikā, andPariśuddhi, manuscripts of which are available at Jaisalmer and Surat according to J. S. Jetly.¹ The work follows Śrīkaṇṭha’sPañcaprasthānyāyatarkaby the author’s own statement. He tells us that he is the pupil of one Lakṣmītilakagaṇi, clearly a Jain, as is Abhayatilaka himself, for he wrotestotrasandstavasof Jain sentiment as well as a commentary on Hemacandra’sDvyāśraya Mahākāvya. He refers to a distinction among Vaiśeṣikas between the “old” (jarad) ones who accepted three instruments of knowledge, whereas the “new” (nūtana) ones accept only...

      (pp. 668-668)

      According to D. C. Bhattacharya, this “Sondaḍa was regarded in his time as the supreme leader of the social hierarchy in Mithilā.”¹ He lived slightly prior to Gaṅgeśa, who refers to him in many places. Thus we may date him in the early 14th century.

      His best known contribution is a novel view about an additional kind of absence, one “whose counterpositiveness is determined by an essence pertaining to a different substratum” (vyadhikaraṇadharmāvacchinnapratiyogitākaḥ). This absence is therefore universally occurrent, and thus Sondaḍa in a fashion rejects the doctrine ofanyathākhyāti.²...

      (pp. 668-682)

      Professor V. Varadachari contributes this account of this writer: “Maṇikaṇṭha Miśra was a native of Tīrabhukti, a part of Mithilā. He is the author of theNyā yaratna, a logical text on the argumentative aspects ofNyāya. He is known to have written another treatise namedNayacintāmaṇi, which is now lost. This is stated by the author himself on two occasions. The first one is on p. 108 of theNyāyaratna, where the author states that he dealt with the topic ofupādhiin greater detail there.Ṣaṭpakṣi, saptapakṣi, and others are stated to have been discussed by him (p....

    • 47. ŚAŚADHARA
      (pp. 682-684)

      According to D. C. Bhattacharya this writer is another Maithili, who flourished around 1300. Four titles are attributed to him:Nyāyasiddhāntadīpa, Nyāyamīmāṃsāprakaraṇa, Nyāyanaya,andŚaśadharamālā. Gopinath Kaviraj² thinks that the second and third of these are identical. Kaviraj reports that one tradition attributes the “Lion” definition discussed in theTattvacintāmaṇito Śaśadhara.

      Professor V. Varadachari³ gives some information concerning Śaśadhara’s views on the invocation (maṅgala). Śaśadhara agrees with Gaṅgeśa and Śrīdhara, as against the older view maintained inVyomavatīandKiraṇāvali, for example, that an invocation is a kind of judgment residing in the self; obstacle destruction too resides in...

    • 48. TARAṆI MIŚRA
      (pp. 684-684)

      This is the “Ratnakośācārya” referred to frequently in later literature. The name of the author of theRatnakośais given as Taraṇi Miśra by Rucidatta and by Vācaspati Miśra II. Vardhamāna gives six views of this author on the ways of losing an argument, and in another place four more. Śaṃkara Miśra says that the Ratnakośācārya admits a fourth kind of controversy.¹

      D. C. Bhattacharya suggests that Taraṇi Miśra came after Maṇikaṇṭha and is more or less contemporary with Gaṅgeśa. We have seen above, however, that Maṇikaṇṭha mentions the views of the Ratnakośācārya; thus we may assume they were near...

    • 49./50./51./52./53./54./55./56. Jagadguru; Ravīśvara; Nyāyabhāskarakāra; Viṣṇumiśra; Vidyādharamiśra; Śrīkara; Bharadvājavṛttikāra (?); Candrānanda
      (pp. 684-686)

      Finally, there are a few names and works which seem to belong to our period but which are pretty well undatable within several centuries.

      D. C. Bhattacharya¹ mentions three writers who flourished “before Gaṇgeśa”. One of these is JAGADGURU, who according to Pragalbha had views on, and presumably commented on, the •Nyāyakusumāñjali· He may have commented onKiraṇāvalīalso, as Pakṣadhara’sDravyavivekarefers to aPrakāśa. Another author is RAVĪŚVARA, about whom we know nothing. The NYĀYABHĀSKARAKĀRA is known only as the author of a work by that name. VIṢṆUMIŚRA is mentioned by Anantlal Thakur² as a writer about whom...

    (pp. 687-716)
  7. INDEX
    (pp. 717-744)