The Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, Volume 6

The Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, Volume 6: Indian Philosophical Analysis

Copyright Date: 1992
Pages: 684
  • Cite this Item
  • Book Info
    The Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, Volume 6
    Book Description:

    Beginning in 1350, in regions that are now Bihar and Bengal in northeast India, there was produced a vast literature embodying a methodology that not only provides a high point in Indian philosophy but also became extremely influential in many other branches of Indian thought, including law, jurisprudence, and literary theory. This volume, the sixth in Karl Potter's monumental series, deals with that literature. Thirty-three works by fifty authors dating from 1350 to 1510 represent the philosophy of Nyaya-Vaisesika in the early stages of what was to become known as Navyanyaya, the "new" Nyaya. An extensive introduction is included. The major works treated in this volume are Gangesa's initial masterpiece, Tattvacintamani, and its remarkable commentary by Raghunatha Siromani.

    Originally published in 1994.

    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: 978-1-4008-6229-0
    Subjects: Religion

Table of Contents

  1. Front Matter
    (pp. i-vi)
  2. Table of Contents
    (pp. vii-x)
    (pp. xi-xii)
      (pp. 3-14)

      This, the second volume on the Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika system, takes up where Volume II of the Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies left off, in the early fourteenth century with the pivotal figure of Gaṅgeśa, author ofTattvacintāmaṇi. It covers what we know of the history of the school up to and including Raghunātha Śiromaṇi, who flourished (we estimate) about 1510. In the two centuries covered there are some 50 authors whose names have come down to us as identifiable as having lived in this period, who are held to be responsible for some 98 works expounding or defending the principles of Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika....

      (pp. 15-18)

      Perhaps the most dramatic development from the time of elder Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika to our period of Navyanyāya concerns the treatment of relations. The tendency in old Nyāya was to conceive of relations as entities belonging to one or another of the Vaiśeṣika categories. Thus inherence (samavāya) is counted as one of the seven fundamental categories (padārtha) of classical Vaiśeṣika, while contact (saṃyoga) and disjunction (vibhāga) are viewed as types of the second category, of qualities (guṇa). As time goes by there is a growing realization that each and every individual falling into one of the categories sustains relations with other individuals,...

      (pp. 19-52)

      Navyanyāya developed a language to describe knowledge and other allied cognitive states and attitudes. This language, which is different from ordinary Sanskrit, is technical in the sense that it contains terms for concepts which were developed to deal specifically with cognitive mental states. This is why, even though the metaphysics of Navyanyāya is realistic, it could be taken out of the metaphysical system and made to applymutatis mutandisnot merely to other philosophical systems but to all serious discourse as well. A mastery of the techniques of this language came to be considered necessary not merely for students of...

      (pp. 53-68)

      Concern with theory of knowledge is high during the period we are surveying in this volume. We have already seen, in Chapter Two of this Introduction, how Navyanaiyāyikas develop a highly technical method of limitors and self-linking connectors to accomplish quantification and other procedures for precise reference. In a broad sense of “epistemology” all these concerns fall within its purview, but we forbear to repeat them here. In the present section we survey developments in Navyanyāya ways of treating only a section of epistemology, specifically that of the instruments of knowledge.

      Before considering the several instruments, however, we should first...

      (pp. 69-82)

      It is to inference (anumāna) that Navyanyāya devotes its most innovative efforts. The innovations are not so much in theory as in method. Notable among methodological innovations is the remarkable increase in complexity of analysis, using abstract relations of the kind described in Chapter 2 of this introduction. The methods developed using these abstract relations have a general application that stretches far beyond the theory of inference. They were commandeered by the leading practitioners of many scientifically studied subjects. To understand medieval discussions of topics as disparate as jurisprudence, medicine and linguistics it is essential to master the technical terminology...

    • 1 GAṄGEŚA
      (pp. 85-312)

      While one might argue about the origins of “Navyanyāya” (the claim that Udayana is the “real” origin of that tradition is commonly maintained) there is no doubt that Gaṅgeśa’sTattvacintāmaṇiis the premiere work on which the crux of Navyanyṇya turns. Whatever may be the estimate of Gaṅgeśa’s dependence on others, something that still lies ahead of scholarship on Navyanyāya, it is hardly likely that his place in the movement can ever be usurped. As the summaries to follow will amply demonstrate, Gaṅgeśa’s was a unique talent, one which places him securely among the premiere philosophical minds the world has...

    • 2. VAṬEŚVARA
      (pp. 312-313)

      There are a number of writers who are obviously great figures in early Navyanyāya thought in the light of their frequent citation by writers whose works have survived. One of these is Vaṭeśvara Upādhāya, known as the “Darpaṇakāra” in both the fields of Nyāya and ofDharmaśāstra. He was a relative of a number of famous Naiyāyikas of subsequent generations. His son was named Pakṣadhara, but seems not have been the author of variousVivekas(see below, number 25). His grandsons Bhavanātha and Jīvanātha Miśra are to be found discussed below ( 11 and 12); Bhavanātha was the father of...

      (pp. 313-363)
      Nani Lal Sen

      According to Umesh Mishra, Vardhamāna was the eldest son of Gaṅgeśa¹. As we have seen, he must have written prior to 1360, since a manuscript dating from at least that date if not earlier exists. We estimate his date here as 1345. He is not to be confused with other Vardhamānas: e.g., a grammarian, the author ofGaṇaratnamahodadhi(referred to in theSarvadarśanasaṃgraha), or the Vivekakāra of Dharmaśāstra, who was taught by 21 Śaṃkara Miśra and 23 Vācaspati Miśra II.

      Vardhamāna is responsible for commentaries on many of the standard works of the Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika system. A problem has been raised...

      (pp. 363-363)

      A well-known Jaina author of philosophical works in the Jaina tradition such asRatnākarāvatārikāpañjikāandSyādvādakalikā, he is held to have flourished between 1325-1350. He is reported to have written a Nyāya work, aPañjikāon Śrīdhara’sNyāyakandalī, but the work has not come down to us....

      (pp. 363-368)

      A Śvetāmbara Jaina, pupil of Mahendra Sūri, who belonged to the family of Kṛṣṇarṣi. He wrote aTātparyadīpikāon Bhāsarvajña’sNyāyasāra. In addition, he is the author of a Jainakāvyain ten cantos titledKumārapāla(bhūpāla)carita, which has been published more than once. This latter work is dated 1366, which establishes his date firmly.

      “E” references are to Satischandra Vidyabhusana’s edition (B2503; RB3790), Biliotheca Indica 188, 1910. Section numberings correspond to those used in the Nyāyasāra summary in Volume II of this Encyclopedia.

      1. (E44-47) The purpose of including an invocation in a work is to get the work successfully accomplished...

      (pp. 368-374)

      A native of the Andhra country, this writer appears to have been patronized by the Vijayanagara king Harihara II, who ruled around 1400. Vidyabhusana dates Cinnam Bhaṭṭa at 1390, which we accept here. Cinnam Bhaṭṭa was the son of Sahajasarvajña Viṣṇubhaṭṭopādhyāya, thepaṇḍitain the court of King Harihara of Vijayanagar and an Advaita author referred to by the author of theSarvadarśanasaṃgraha. Cinnam Bhaṭṭa taught 15. Viṣṇubhaṭṭa and 16.Rāmeśvara (see below), both of whom commented on their teacher’s writings, or in Rāmeśvara’s case actually completed one of them.

      Two works are extant that seem likely to have emanated from...

      (pp. 374-374)

      Occasional citations of this Maithila writer indicate his date to be around 1400, and that he wrote at least two works: (1) a commentary on Gaṅgeśa’sTattvacintāmaṇiwhose title is not known, and (2) aMakarandaon Udayana’sNyāyakusumāñjali. He is quoted by Bhavanātha Miśra, Śaṃkara Miśra, Jayadeva Miśra, Padmanābha Miśra and Kṛṣṇadāsa Sārvabhauma. Dinesh Chandra thinks he is the earliest commentator on Gaṅgeśa (he is assuming Vardhamāna did not write on his father’s work). References toMakarandasin the literature are frequently to the later work of Rucidatta but may not all be such. Jayadeva refers to aMakaranda...

      (pp. 374-374)

      All we know of this writer is a name, quite possibly a pseudonym, cited by Vidyānivāsa. Umesh Mishra thinks he probably wrote a commentary onTattvacintāmaṇi. Dinesh Chandra suggests he may even have preceded Gaṅgeśa.New Catalogus Catalogorumplaces him in the 14th century. We guess, with hardly any evidence, 1400....

      (pp. 375-375)

      The author of aNyāyalocana, otherwise unnamed, is cited by a number of later Naiyāyikas as someone who controverted Gaṅgeśa’s definition of pervasion. These citers include Śaṃkara Miśra, Vācaspati Miśra II, Vāsudeva Sārvabhauma and Haridāsa Nyāyālaṃkāra....

    • 10. GAṄGĀDITYA
      (pp. 375-375)

      An early commentator on Gaṅgeśa’sTattvacintāmaṇi, Gaṅgāditya is mentioned by Vidyānivāsa Bhaṭṭācārya in hisVivecanā. Dinesh Chandra Bhattacharya cites a passage in that work which closely associates Gaṅgāditya with Vardhamāna, estimating that the former must have flourished around 1400 in Mithila....

      (pp. 375-375)

      Umesh Mishra¹ gives us considerable information on this author. He appears to have flourished around 1400, and was the grandson of 2. Vaṭeśvara, son of Ravinātha, and the eldest brother of 12. Bhavanātha Miśra, who was the father of 21. Śaṃkara Miśra. Jīvanātha taught theKhaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādyato his brother, who in turn taught it to Śaṃkara Miśra, whose commentary on the work is one of the most renowned.

      Umesh Mishra also gives us a few bits of information about the tenor of this writer’s thought. He was responsible for the definition ofpakṣaquoted by Śaṃkara Miśra in theVādivinoda.²...

      (pp. 375-376)

      Bhavanātha was the younger brother of 11. Jīvanātha Miśra and the father and teacher of 21. Saṃkara Miśra. Thus he is the grandson of Vāṭeśvara. His date is approximately computable, therefore, as 1410. V. Varadachari believes he wrote a commentary on theNyāyakusumāñjali. He apparently wrote on Pūrvamīmāṃsā and Grammar, and Umesh Mishra¹ believes he is the author of the well-knownNayaviveka, a prominent Prābhākara work. However, the date of that work is usually estimated as many centuries before—1050, e.g., is the estimate of T.R. Chintamani, who reports that that work must have been written before the time of...

      (pp. 376-380)

      Jetly refers to this Jain author as “the high priest of the Kharatara Gaccha from 1406 a.d. to 1419 a.d. ... successor of Jinarājasūri of Kharataragaccha...Then he was deposed on account of his having transgressed one of the vows.”¹ HisSaptapadārthīṭīkāmust have been written before 1414, since a manuscript exists having that date. He appears to have also written theVāgbhaṭālaṅkāraṭīkā, published in Grantharatnamala, Bombay (cf. NCat II, 80).

      “E” references are to the edition by J.S. Jetly (B2984; RB4601) of theSaptapadārthīand Jinavardhana’s commentary, Lalpatbhai Dalpatbhai Series 1, 1963.

      (E1) The word “guru” (in “Śambhu (Śiva), the...

    • 14. ŚIVAPATI
      (pp. 380-380)

      The father of 29. Yajñapati, Śivapati seems to have written a work on Nyāya, now lost, on which his son based his ownTattvacintāmaṇiprabhā....

      (pp. 380-380)

      A son of Peddi Bhaṭṭa and pupil of 6. Cinnambhaṭṭa, he composed aNiruktivivṛtion Cinnambhaṭṭa’sTarkabhāṣāprakāśikā. He must have flourished around 1420....

    • 16. RĀMEŚVARA
      (pp. 380-380)

      Pupil of Cinnambhaṭṭa, mentioned earlier as having completed his teacher’sTārkikarakṣāsaṃgraha. Should be dated around 1420....

      (pp. 380-382)

      He was the author of commentaryDīpikāor Nārāyaṇīon Udayana’sĀtmatattvaviveka. V. Varadachari notes that a manuscript dated 1462 exists, and that his style seems to suggest a pre-Śaṃkara Miśra authorship. Prof. Varadachari writes: “The colophon at the end of the first section refers to the author as Nārāyaṇācārya, son of Kṛṣṇācārya of Atrigotra. The author was deeply learned in the system of Nyāya (nyāyavidyāvipaścit). The author’s father was an ornament (tilaka) of Atrigotra. At the end of the second and third sections the author refers to himself as Nārāyaṇa. At the end of the third section his father is...

      (pp. 382-388)

      The dating of this writer presents difficulties. He was the teacher of Śeṣānanta, for whom we are told a manuscript exists of one of his works dated 1459. If that is correct Śeṣa Śārṅgadhara must have flourished at least 40 years earlier, say in 1420, which is the date we are assuming here. However, Umesh Mishra reports¹ that Śeṣānanta refers to Prataparāja as his patron, and Prataparāja lived around 1578. The other information supplied by these and other writers does not serve to settle the question, except that Umesh Mishra says that Śeṣānanta makes several references to a “Tarkasaṃgrahakāra”. If...

      (pp. 389-394)

      Vāsudeva is the author of a commentary,Padapañcikā, on Bhāsarvajña’sNyāyasāra. He tells us he is the son of Sūryasūri of Kashmir. The style of the commentary, and its lack of any trace of Navyanyāya style, suggests it is probably a work stemming from a period preceding that covered in the present volume. Since we are fortunate to have the following summary by Prof. Varadachari we include it here in close juxtaposition to the commentary of Jayasiṃhasūri on the same text.

      “E” references are to the edition by K. Sambasiva Sastri (B2508; RB3795), Trivandrum Sanskrit Series 109, 1931. Section headings...

      (pp. 394-395)

      Bimal Krishna Matilal, in his introductory comments preceding his edition of Śaśadhara’sNyāyasiddhāntadīpawith Guṇaratna’sṬippaṇī(L.D. Series 56, 1976) provides the best estimate of Guṇaratna’s identity and date. He tells us there were as many as four Guṇaratnas, but that the author of thisṬippaṇīcan be identified with the author of a well-known book on grammar titledKriyāratnasamuccaya, written in 1468vikrama saṃvat, i.e., 1412. The same Guṇaratna is also known for hisṬīkāon Haribhadra’sṢaḍdarśanasamuccaya. A biography of this Guṇaratna confirms this identification, and refers to Guṇaratna’s “vast learning and great skill in Tarkaśāstra” and debate....

      (pp. 395-453)

      Śaṃkara Miśra, the son of 12.Bhavanātha Miśra, lived during the second quarter of the 15th century in the village of Sarisava, about 18 miles from Darbhanga, belonging to the important Srotriya family of Mithilā called Śodarapura.¹

      Śaṃkara’s importance in the traditions of Nyāya and of Mithilā can be gauged by the stories that have grown up around him. We have quoted above Umesh Mishra’s report of the tradition about his birth as an incarnation of Śiva. Another famous legend concerns Śaṃkara’s precociousness. “The wife of Bhavanātha Miśra (her name was Bhāvānī) was so poor that she could not give any...

    • 22. HARI MIŚRA
      (pp. 453-454)

      Authorities conflict on this personage. Phaṇibhūṣaṇa Tarkavāgīśa¹ reports a tradition that Hari Miśra was the uncle and teacher of Jayadeva (also called Pakṣadhara) Miśra, and that Hari was a teacher of the famous Maithila poet Vidyāpati Ṭhakkura. Now Vidyāpati flourished in the first half of the 15th century, but Jayadeva a number of decades later, and so D.H.H. Ingalls² doubts that Hari Miśra was the teacher of Jayadeva. In fact, the solution is simply to recognize that the Pakṣadhara who is the nephew and pupil of Hari Miśra was not Jayadeva but another Pakṣadhara, perhaps the one known as the...

      (pp. 455-465)

      One of the great Maithila scholars of the period, Vācaspati came from a family of Mīmāṃsakas and made his fame as an authority on that topic, on which he says himself he wrote at least 30 treatises.¹ He was, as well, the teacher of Smārta Vardhamāna, author ofDaṇḍavivekaand most famous name in jurisprudence in India after the ancient authorities.

      Vācaspati Miśra’s family appears to have lived in several different villages of Mithilā during these days. Vācaspati himself had four wives, at least two of whom were related either by blood or through marriage to Śaṃkara Miśra. One of...

    • 24. MALLINĀTHA
      (pp. 465-470)

      Umesh Mishra tells us that this author was a “famous commentator ofkāvyas”¹ known as “Kolācala Mallinātha”.

      “E” references are to the edition by Arthur Venis (B2986, RB 4609) published serially inThe Panditnew series 21, 1899–25, 1903, and reprinted as a single volume at Banaras in 1906. The text is only available through Book One.

      2 (E6)Kārikā2 says that an instrument of knowledge is a means to knowledge, “or” it is the locus of valid knowledge and pervaded by it. Mallinātha denies that the “” in this stanza means “(exclusive) or”, and thinks rather that...

    • 25. PAKṢADHARA the Vivekakāra
      (pp. 470-471)

      There is considerable confusion about how many Naiyāyika Pakṣadharas there were and which works they wrote. We know that there was a famous scholar Jayadeva Miśra (our 31 below) who was also called “Paksadhara” and who wrote theĀlokaon Gaṅgeśa’sTattvacintāmaṇi. ThisĀlokabecomes the most important commentary on Gaṅgeśa prior to Raghunātha’sDidhitihalf a century later, and we know a lot about its author Jayadeva Miśra. A number of other works are also ascribed to a Pakṣadhara, however, and it is not entirely clear whose works these are, as some of them exist only in damaged copies...

      (pp. 471-472)

      Bhuvanasundara was a pupil of Somasundarasūri of the Tāpagaccha sect, who became the fifty-second head of the sect in 1404. Bhuvanasundara also studied under Guṇaratna, the author ofṢaḍdarśanasamuccayavṛtti, who is known to have flourished in 1409. One of Bhuvanasundarasūri’s pupils was Ratnaśekhara, who wrote aŚrāvakapratikramaṇasūtraṭīkāin 1440. Thus Bhuvanasundarasūri’s dates can be fixed at around 1390-1450.

      This author seems to have written three works, all onmahāvidyāinference. All three are published in M.R. Telang’s edition of variousmahāvidyāworks in Gaekwad’s Oriental Series 12, 1920. The major work isVyākhyānadīpikāon Vādīndra’sMahāvidyāviḍambana. This commentary seems to...

    • 27. ŚEṢĀNANTA
      (pp. 472-473)

      Śeṣānanta was the son of 18.Śeṣa Śārṅgadhara who flourished around 1420. A manuscript of Śeṣānanta’sPadārthacandrikāgives its date as 1459 a.d. We can therefore estimate this author’s date at about 1455. Two of his works are extant, a commentary on theSaptapadārthīand aPrabhā onŚaśadhara’sNyāyasiddhāntadīpa. Both have been published, though we have only found a summarizer for the first.

      “E” references are to the edition by Narendra Chandra Bagchi Bhattacharya (B2981, RB4598), Calcutta Sanskrit Series 8, 1934.

      (El05) It must be admitted that if a cause has opposed qualities (e.g., several colors) inhering in it the...

    • 28. NARAHARI, father of Vāsudeva Sārvabhauma
      (pp. 473-473)

      This Narahari seems to have been regularly confused with Narahari Upādhyāya (=Maheśvara Viśārada), who was the son of Yajñapati. Yajñapati’s son is a well-known author of several Nyāya works, but must have lived not far before the beginning of the 16th century. However, another Narahari is referred to as both the father and teacher of Vāsudeva. This Narahari is quoted by Jayadeva as well as by the later Narahari.

      Gopinath Kaviraj informs us that the father of Vāsudeva was a “Brahmin of the Rāḍhi class, born in a noble family at Vidyḍnagara in the city of Navadvīpa.”¹ According to Gopinath,...

      (pp. 473-485)

      Thanks to the work of Gopikamohan Bhattacharya we are well-acquainted with the available data about this author. His dates are given as c. 1410 to 1470. Prof. Bhattacharya considers his commentary to be the “earliest extant commentary onTattvacintāmaṇi”¹. He is cited by subsequent authors as “Upādhyāyamata”, and appears to have been the teacher of Jayadeva, whoseĀlokasoon became the most famous commentary of the time. TheĀlokais rife with criticisms of Yajñapati, as are Pragalbha and Vāsudeva’s commentaries (see below), and the criticisms of these authors are answered by Yajñapati’s son Narahari Upādhyāya in hisDūṣaṇoddhāraon...

      (pp. 486-486)

      An important author, Pragalbha’s works are as yet not available except in bits and pieces. He seems to have been the author of four commentaries. Most important is his commentaryPrāgalbhīon all four books of theTattvacintāmaṇi.¹ His commentary on the third book, onUpamāna, seems to have been one of the few such commentaries; most of those who commented on Gaṅgeśa’s work did not bother with this book, the shortest of the four. TheUpamānakhāṇḍacommentary has recently been edited from three manuscripts by Gaurinath Sastri.² Besides this the only other portion ofPrāgalbhīthat has been published...

      (pp. 486-489)

      Umesh Mishra¹ provides us with mountains of information about this author, and we have already considered some questions of his authorship in connection with several works attributed above, after consideration, to the earlier Pakṣadhara the Vivekakāra. We summarize here the voluminous findings of Umesh Mishra. Dineshchandra Bhattacharya² has also devoted several pages to this author’s history, but as Umesh Mishra’s treatment is subsequent to and corrective of certain features of Dineshchandra’s conclusions we shall report it here.

      Jayadeva Miśra belonged to the Sodarapura family of Mithilā, of Śāṇḍilyagotra. His father was Guṇe Miśra, and he lived in a village...

      (pp. 489-489)

      Śrīnātha was the younger brother of Vāsudeva Sārvabhauma’s father Narahari, which makes it relatively easy to estimate his date as around 1470. He appears to have written a commentary on theTattvacintāmaṇi, at least the first two parts of it. Tarasankar Bhattacarya reports “three definitions of Cakraborti”¹ that are discussed by Raghunātha Śiromaṇi among the 14 definitions in his section on such definitions....

      (pp. 489-490)

      This famous teacher appears to have flourished around 1480. He taught a number of famous people, not by any means confined to Naiyāyikas. Raghunātha Śiromaṇi studied with him. So did Raghunandana, generally held to be “the best authority on the Bengal school of Hindu law”¹. Another pupil was Kṛṣṇānanda, who wrote works on tantric charms and other kindred subjects,² Last and most celebrated of all, toward the end of his lifetime Vāsudeva was an instructor of Caitanya, the father ofAcintyabhedābhedaVaiṣṇava philosophy.

      Vāsudeva was born into “one of the greatest Brahmin families in Bengal, the Akhaṇḍala Banerjees (Bandyopādhyāya). This...

      (pp. 490-490)

      “Kṛṣṇānanda Vidyāviriñci is one more commentator on theTattvacintāmaṇi. His commentary goes by the name ofKṛṣṇa, to be more precise,Pratyakṣakṛṣṇa. He is described as a younger brother of Sārvabhauma.”¹...

    • 35. JANĀRDANA of Mithilā
      (pp. 490-490)

      This author came originally from Tirhut or Mithilā. He is the author ofPrakāśaon theTattvacintāmaṇi, which was wrongly ascribed to Timmabhūpāla.¹ His probable date is 1490....

      (pp. 491-491)

      See the previous paragraph. The work by Janārdana was wrongly ascribed to this author, who must be contemporaneous....

    • 37. MISARU MIŚRA
      (pp. 491-491)

      Another author who flourished around 1490, he was the author ofPadārthacandra, a work on Vaiśeṣika categories, as well as a work onsmṛtititledVivādacandra. “But the actual authorship of (both) work(s) is attributed to Lacchma Devī, who was the chief queen of Candrasimha, the younger brother of Bhairavasimha Deva.”¹ This author is a different person from the author of a work titledNyāyadīpikā....

      (pp. 491-491)

      New Catalogus Catalogorum, p. 121, dates this writer at 1494, the date of a unique, incomplete manuscript extant in Bikaner. The work is a commentary on theTarkabhāṣā....

      (pp. 491-491)

      Not to be confused with 28. Narahari the father of Vāsudeva, this Narahari is a rather better-known Naiyāyika, the son of Yajñapati and great-great-grandson of Vāṭeśvara. This Narahari studied under Yajñapati as well as Jayadeva, and wrote several works on a variety of topics. Available in manuscript is hisDūṣaṇoddhāra, a commentary (or at least based on a commentary) on the first two chapters of theTattvacintāmaṇi¹ in which Narahari defends his father’s views against Jayadeva’s. The author is aware, in addition to these two forebears, of Pragalbha Miśra, whom he quotes 9 times.

      In addition to theDūṣaṇoddhāraNarahari...

      (pp. 491-491)

      Umesh Mishra tells us that this writer was a son of Pakṣadhara Miśra and wrote a commentary on theTattvacintāmaṇidefending his father against Narahari. The title of the commentary is not known....

      (pp. 492-492)

      Umesh Mishra¹ informs us thatJāgadīśīattributes to Raghunātha Śiromaṇi the refutation of this writer’s arguments. That would suggest a date around 1500....

      (pp. 492-492)

      Another figure who must have flourished about the beginning of the 16th century, Śūlāpaṇi is quoted in thePadārtharatnamālāby Jānakīnātha Bhaṭṭācārya. No works, or even titles of works, on Nyāya are known. Umesh Mishra¹ guesses he may be the same as the author of aPrāyaścittavivekathat is quoted by Jānakīnātha in hisPadārtharatnamālāas well as by Laugākṣi Bhāskara....

      (pp. 492-492)

      Vāsudeva was Jayadeva’s nephew, and wrote hisNyāyasiddhāntasārato defend his uncle’s views. He must have flourished around 1500. The work is available in manuscript....

      (pp. 492-520)

      This prolific commentator was one of Jayadeva’s pupils, placing him around 1505. He belonged to the Sodarpura family of Mithilā, and was also known as Bhaktū. The date of 1505 is substantiated by a manuscript of a transcription by him of his teacher’sĀlokadated that year.

      We know of at least five of Rucidatta’s works. These are all commentaries. APrakāśaon Gaṅgeśa’sTattvacintāmaṇi, aMakarandaon Udayana’sNyāyakusumāñjali, and aVivṛtion Vardhamāna’sDravyakiraṇāvalīprakāśahave been published. AVibhāsaon theNyāyalīlāvatīof Vallabha and a commentary on Vardhamāna’sTarkabhāṣāprakāśaare available in manuscript.

      “E” references are to...

      (pp. 520-520)

      This Naiyāyika was the younger brother of 33. Vāsudeva Sārvabhauma, referred to by his son Vidyānivāsa Bhaṭṭācārya. Gopinath Kaviraj tells us he was a court pandit of the King of Gauḍa and was later converted to Caitanya’s Vaiṣṇavism as his brother was. His commentary on theTattvacintāmaṇicombined with Jayadeva’sĀlokais preserved in manuscript. Gopinath Kaviraj presumes that a MS. of the commentary onŚabdakhaṇḍaby Vidyāvācaspati is preserved in the Sarasvati Bhavana Library at Banaras....

      (pp. 520-520)

      Gaurinath Sastri reports that Raghunātha Vidyālaṃkāra identifies this author as thekaścit(“some say”) ofDīdhiti’s “tam nirasyati tac ce’ty api kaścit”.¹ Wethus date him around 1510, slightly ahead of Raghunātha Śiromaṇi....

      (pp. 520-520)

      Janeśvara was Vāsudeva Sārvabhauma’s son, according to Umesh Mishra¹ andNew Catalogus Catalogorum, as well as a pupil of Vāsudeva’s. Gopinath Kaviraj favors instead the traditional ascriptions to him of being the brother of Vāsudeva. Both Umesh Mishra and Gopinath Kaviraj take Vāhinīpati to be a Bengali—the first to comment on Jayadeva’sĀloka. The commentary, available in manuscript form, is titledUddyota. Vāhinīpati may be dated around 1510....

      (pp. 521-521)

      This writer’sŚiśubodhinīon Śivāditya’sSaptapadārthīis partly available in printed form. He must have flourished about the beginning of the 16th century....

      (pp. 521-521)

      According to V. Krishnamacharya Gadādhara, to be dated around 1510, wrote aPrakāṣaon theNyāyabhūṣaṇa. The work exists in manuscript....

      (pp. 521-590)

      After Gaṅgeśa himself Raghunātha Śiromaṇi is the arch Navyanaiyāyika. Reading Raghunātha’s works provides an experience both exhilarating and exasperating. Raghunātha’s writings, especially theDīdhition Gaṅgeśa’sTattvacintāmaṇi, constitute the quintessential source for the “new” Navyanyāya. The literature of Navyanyāya after Raghunātha is dominated by commentaries on hisDīdhitis; it is a literature that is vast and constitutes the most difficult material to read in all of Indian philosophy. Our summaries (below) of this material can hardly do justice to its complexity—rather than summary, the material requires expansion, with further commentaries on it, in order that its delicate distinctions be...

  6. NOTES
    (pp. 591-632)
  7. INDEX
    (pp. 633-672)