Production Of Philosophical Literature In South Asia During Pre Colonial Period

Author(s): Karin Preisendanz
Publisher: Karin Preisendanz
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269575/1

Page #1
Journal of Indian Philosophy (2005) 33:55-94 DOI 10.1007/s10781-004-9055-1 (c) Springer 2005 KARIN PREISENDANZ THE PRODUCTION OF PHILOSOPHICAL LITERATURE IN SOUTH ASIA DURING THE PRE-COLONIAL PERIOD (15TH TO 18TH CENTURIES): THE CASE OF THE NYAYASUTRA COMMENTARIAL TRADITION* Dedicated to Mm. Professor Anantalal Thakur in respectful appreciation of his foundational contribution to the study of the history of Nyaya The following essay will present a broad survey as well as some first observations and results concerning the Nyayasutra commentarial tradition and its individual scholars in the pre-colonial period, from the fifteenth to the eighteenth centuries, in accordance with the focus of the international project 'Sanskrit Knowledge Systems On the Eve of Colonialism' in which I am a participator. To be able to outline the general developments and specific changes which occurred just before *This contribution is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0135069. Access to the manuscript materials preserved at Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute to which reference is made in this contribution has been provided by the Sanskrit Knowledge Systems Project; I would like to take the opportunity to thank BORI for this most collegial cooperation. I also want to express my gratitude to the Sanskrit College, Kolkata, and its Acting Principal, Dr. Jayanta Chakraborty, as well as to the dedicated staff of Sarasvati Bhavana Library, foremost the chief librarian, Dr. Suryakant Yadav, and the former Vice-Chancellor of Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi, Dr. Ram Murti Sharma, for generously permitting access to their manuscript holdings and greatly facilitating my work at these institutions in the years 2001 and 2002..In Darbhanga, access to the manuscript collection at Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University (Darbhanga Raj Library) was granted in 2002 by the Vice-Chancellor, Dr. Kishor Kunal, and kind assistance provided by the Head Librarian, Dr. Jha, and the retired manuscript curator ("Mahatmaji"). At the Mithila Research Institute, the Director, Dr. Krishnakant Trivedi, permitted me in the same year to explore part of the Institute's manuscript holdings; in this I was supported by the whole staff, foremost by my dear friend, Dr. Mitra Nath Jha, Director of the Manuscript Department. Furthermore, I am grateful to Dr. Saroja Bhate for her kind assistance in obtaining photocopies of the Nyayasutra ms. owned by the Prajna Paghasala Mandala, Wai, referred to in n. 62. Cordial thanks are due to my husband, Dr. Eli Franco, and my colleague Dr. Anne MacDonald, Vienna, for their many valuable comments and suggestions, and to Dr. Sudipta Kaviraj, London, for his insightful and inspiring remarks on an earlier version of this paper.

Page #2
56 and during this period I will have to provide a wider context and therefore first present a concise survey and analysis of the earlier commentarial tradition. Only with some understanding of this prehistory, both in general and from the relevant points of view such as the commentators' motivation in composing their works, their intended audience, their attitude towards the foundational text and other, earlier commentarial works of the tradition, and their selfunderstanding in general, can one proceed to ask the right questions, to examine these aspects in the commentarial tradition of the relevant pre-colonial period, and to characterize its development and special features. Wherever possible, observations relating to the social and political-historical contexts of the authors of these commentaries and to the circulation of their works will be made. KARIN PREISENDANZ As is well known, it was during Kushana rule and the following Gupta period that the major philosophical traditions of Classical South Asia crystallized on the sub-continent. Among them, the Nyaya or 'logic' tradition most probably arose within an intellectual environment of thinkers who were concerned in a scholarly manner with the prerequisites and principles of sound academic debate, with its instruments and its general rules; at the same time these thinkers must have also become engaged in philosophical questions, foremost in questions belonging to the domain of epistemology, which is of immediate relevance to debate, but also in questions pertaining to philosophy of nature, that is, the realm of physics, and to some extent metaphysics. This combination of areas of intellectual concern pro-. vided fertile ground for the formation of a full-fledged philosophical tradition. Inasmuch as the art of debate and reasoned argumentation is of relevance to all philosophical and scholarly endeavours, it is not surprising that the Nyaya tradition from early on occupied a central position in South Asian intellectual history, which is reflected in its strong influence on other philosophical traditions and Sanskritic sciences in general, from a doctrinal as well as from a formal point of view. The Nyayasutra or Nyayasastra, as the foundational work of the tradition is most commonly called in the early tradition, is ascribed to the sage Aksapada of the Gotama clan; there are indications that it was probably finalized in its classical form available to us nowadays. by anonymous redactors in the first half of the fifth century.2 Next to its most ancient core, i.e., the first and last chapters, which betrays the For a summary, cf. e.g., Franco/Preisendanz (1998a). 2 Cf. Franco/Preisendanz (1995: 85-86), Franco (2002: 283).

Page #3
THE NYAYASUTRA COMMENTARIAL TRADITION 57 origins of Nyaya in the tradition of debate, in its three middle chapters the work presents - in a more or less systematic arrangement - numerous dialectically structured discussions on epistemological, psychological and metaphysical topics, as well as on topics of philosophy of nature, leading to the establishment of the position of the Nyaya proponent. The partners in conversation, or rather opponents in dispute, who can be identified by us or were already identified by the early commentators, are thinkers within the Nyaya tradition itself and contemporary or slightly anterior philosophers of rival traditions such as the Sankhya and the Mimamsa, the latter especially in the context of philosophy of language. Further opponents can be determined as adherents of the largely lost materialist tradition of Indian philosophy and as philosophers belonging to the early Buddhist traditions of Madhyamaka and Yogacara as well as representatives of early classical Buddhist scholastics. Owing to their diametrically opposed metaphysical and epistemological presuppositions, the exchange of opinions with the Buddhist thinkers as reflected in the Nyayasutra was especially fierce and controversial; prominent examples are the questions of the existence of an individual, permanent and substantial Self (atman) in (wo)man" or of the nature and very possibility of means of valid cognition (pramana). Those philosophers who were close to the tradition of the Nyayasutra and studied it in subsequent times must have considered their required contribution to the tradition to consist in the explanation of the pithy statements of the Sutra under the aspect of their wording and content. This was achieved by them in accordance with their own philosophical ideas and knowledge of the tradition as such, probably taking into special consideration the explanations of their teachers; in the process they brought the philosophical discussions in the Sutra itself and earlier commentaries on it up to date. Most of the literature of classical Nyaya thus presents itself in the form of commentaries on the Nyayasutra, sub-commentaries and further commentaries on these, and we know of quite a number of works belonging to these genres. For a brief survey, cf. e.g., Franco/Preisendanz (1998b). 4 Cf. especially Oetke (1984: 247-278), Preisendanz (1994). scr. Oetke (1991).

Page #4
58 KARIN PREISENDANZ Except for some fragments, however, these works have been lost. Only a few independent treatises belonging to the classical and early medieval periods have been preserved or are known to have existed; the major ones among them which have come down to us, such as the Nyayamanjari and the Nyayabhusana, frequently refer to the Nyayasutra, together with the earliest commentary, the Nyayabhasya, to its only preserved classical sub-commentary, the Nyayavarttika, and to other lost commentarial literature, and therefore can be considered to partake to a certain degree of the nature of a commentary. From the point of view of our contemporary analysis of the situation, owing to their conciseness and resulting ambiguity the roughly five hundred ancient sutra-s of the Nyayasutra were suitable to serve as directives for the discussion with rival philosophers even half a millennium after their composition, just as ancient landmarks may provide guiding points of reference even for the pilots of modern vehicles. However, as has been observed by others with respect to Sanskritic commentarial literature in general, according to the - mostly only implicit - understanding of the authors of these commentarial works the individual aphorisms already contain the opinions and positions explicated by themselves in the light of the contemporary state of philosophical discussion; the doctrinal edifice which has been sketched in the Nyayasutra, including the rival critiques and positions, thus anticipates - as we would express it - the later developments or can harmoniously accommodate them. No express claim is made to personal intellectual originality or innovation on the part of the individual thinkers; it is rather explicitly denied in some cases. A further explicit authorial attitude to be encountered is that the commentarial activity serves the re-establishment of doctrinal positions expressed in the foundational work which have been misunderstood by opponents and therefore attacked or dismissed, with the result that their real meaning has become concealed. Uddyotakara, the sixth-century author of the Nyayavarttika on the Nyayabhasya, states in the auspicious invocatory verse (mangalasloka) of his work: * For a survey of this lost commentarial literature with references to the relevant secondary literature, cf. Steinkellner (1961), to be updated with the help of more recent contributions by himself (cf. Steinkellner, 1977) and scholars such as Solomon (1970, 1971, 1973, 1974, 1976, 1977-1978, 1980, 1986), Shah (1972), Thakur (1970, 1981, 2000: 110-111) and Wezler (1975). ? Cf. Frauwallner (1936), Gupta (1963: 24-25, 9711), Schmithausen (1965: 162ff, 248ff.), Shah (1972: 5-9) and Wezler (1975). 8 A notable exception to this is the Nyayasara by Bhasarvajna.

Page #5
THE NYAYASUTRA COMMENTARIAL TRADITION "In the following I will [now] compose a compendium of the teaching (sastra) that has been proclaimed by Aksapada, the foremost of sages, for the sake of the world's [mental and spiritual] peace, [a compendium] which [should] cause the misperceptions of poor logicians to vanish."9 59 10 It is generally assumed and indeed highly probable that the 'poor logicians' (kutarkika) referred to by Uddyotakara here were foremost the proponents of the rising school of Buddhist epistemology and logic, in the first place Vasubandhu and Dignaga, the major critics of relevant aspects of the early Nyaya tradition, with whose novel conceptions Uddyotakara concerned himself in extensive polemic discussions. From our point of view, but by no means explicated in this way by Uddyotakara himself, their critique resulted from the antiquity and outdatedness of the foundational text of Nyaya in logical matters, a situation which would normally require, as the appropriate reaction of a commentator whose tradition is under attack, a fresh interpretation of the old positions in the light of the new developments, here the developments in logic brought about by Buddhist thinkers. However, Aksapada's status of a sage (muni) addressed by Uddyotakara in his mangalasloka may have ruled out such an interpretation in the latter's eyes. This status becomes evident also in the concluding verse of the Nyayabhasya where Vatsyayana refers to Aksapada as a rsi; could it be that even though the last touches on the final redaction of the classical Nyayasutra cannot have taken place much earlier than some fifty years before the composition of the Bhasya,2 Vatsyayana rightly realized that the core portions of the Sutra go further back in time? As regards Uddyotakara's reference to the purpose of Aksapada's teaching, namely, to the mental and spiritual peace of the world (jagatah samaya), it could 11 12 9 Cf. NV 1, 3-4: yad aksapadah pravaro muninam samaya sastram jagato jagada | kutarkikajananivrttihetuh karisyate tasya maya nibandha . Umesh Mishra, whose account of the history of classical Nyaya displays an astonishingly fierce anti-Buddhist attitude, thinks that the verse refers to Buddhist attempts to 'destroy' or 'distort' the Nyayasutra because their own arguments had been refuted with the help of the powerful logical and dialectical means expounded there (cf. Mishra, 1966: 21). 10 Cf. already Vacaspati Misra's commentary treated below on pp. 60-61. "Cf. NBh 320, 17-18: yo 'ksapadam rsim nyayah pratyabhad vadatam varam tasya vatsyayana idam bhasyajatam avartayat ||. 12 On the date of the Nyayabhasya, cf. Franco and Preisendanz (1995) and Franco (2002: 282-283), corroborating Oberhammer (1964).

Page #6
60 KARIN PREISENDANZ well have been provoked by the epithet 'desiring the good of the world' (jagaddhitaisin) assigned to the Buddha as an authority in Dignaga's famous mangalasloka of his Pramanasamuccaya.13 The intense controversy of the Nyaya tradition with the Buddhist epistemologists in the wake of Dharmakirti's formidable works continued to inspire Naiyayikas to turn to commentarial work in the described manner. In the tenth century, Vacaspati Misra, according to the mangalasloka-s of his Nyayavarttikatatparyatika, claims to have defended the Nyayavarttika against criticism that is based on the mere distortion of Uddyotakara's explanation of Aksapada's work.14 Vacaspati Misra's wish concluding the mangalavada points again towards the Buddhist logicians as 'live' opponents. He says: "I wish to obtain at least some merit from extracting (saving) Uddyotakara's over-aged cows (words), which have become submerged in the hard-to-traverse swamp of bad compositions." His metaphor of the 'over-aged cows' suggests that Vacaspati Misra was well aware of the weakness and obsoleteness of Uddyotakara's logic once Dharmakirti had developed his new ideas on the 13 Cf. Hattori (1968), Appendix A following p. 238 (Sanskrit reconstruction), p. 1, 1-2: pramanabhutaya jagaddhitaisine pranamya sastre sugataya tayine / pramanasiddhyai svamatat samuccayah karis yate viprasrtad ihaikatah II. On the relationship of the various epithets according to Dharmakirti's and his commentators' interpretation and on the relevance of this relationship for the proofstrategy of the Pramanasiddhi chapter of the Pramanavarttika cf. Franco (1997, chapter 1). Also Vatsyayana's use of the epithet 'best of speakers' (vadatam varah) relating to Aksapada (cf. n. 11 above) may have been a reaction to the mangalasloka of a prominent Buddhist treatise, namely, of Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika (MMK 11, 15-16), in which the Buddha is characterized as the best of speakers': yah pratityasamutpadam prapancopasamam sivam/ desayamasa sambuddhas tam vande vadatam varam //. 14 Cf. NVTT 1, 7-8: granthavyakhyacchalenaiva nirastakhiladusana / nyayavartrikatat par yatikasmabhir vidhasyate //. 15 Cf. NVTT 1, 9-10: icchami kim api punyam dustarakunibandhapankamagnanam / uddyotakaragavinam atijarafinam samuddharanat //. Cf. also the first verse of the puspika (NVTT 700, 2-3): yad alambhi kim api punyam dustarakunibandhaparkamagnanam / uddyotakaragavinam atijaratinam samuddharanat //.... A slightly reworded form of the latter verse appears in the concluding verses of the Nyayasucinibandha ascribed to Vacaspati: yad alambhi kim api punyam dustarakunibandhaparkamagnanam / srigotamasugavinam atijarafinam samuddharanat //.... According to Umesh Mishra's interpretation Vacaspati refers here to the attempts of the Buddhists to 'do wrong to the Nyayasutra (cf. Mishra, 1966: 22).

Page #7
THE NYAYASUTRA COMMENTARIAL TRADITION 61 foundations laid by Dignaga and his own teacher Isvarasena. This clearly contrasts with what Vacaspati has to say on Uddyotakara's mangalasloka and the role of his commentary vis-a-vis the teaching of Aksapada: The 'poor logicians, whom he identifies as Dignaga and other hostile scholars posterior (arvacina) to Vatsyayana, had covered the sastra with the darkness of bad reasons, with the result that it was no longer suitable to determine the true nature of things; Uddyotakara, however, removed this darkness by means of the light of his composition." We can infer here that for Vacaspati Misra Aksapada, the venerable sage (bhagavan munih), ' remains the timeless authority; only the attempts by later scholars, such as Uddyotakara, to defend his teachings against unfair and unfounded accusations can lose their strength and become antiquated. Aksapada's authority - as opposed to that to which the Buddhist opponents appeal - is further stressed by Vacaspati Misra's employment of epithets that, once more, are commonly and typically applied to the Buddha. In one of his mangalasloka-s he calls Aksapada a 'protector' (tayin)," a term which is commonly used by Buddhists and Jains as an epithet of the Buddha and of Mahavira and other Tirthamkaras respectively20 and which immediately evokes again Dignaga's mangalasloka of the Pramanasamuccaya;?' furthermore, when referring to Uddyotakara's successful efforts in the defence of the sastra at an earlier time in the history of Indian philosophy Vacaspati Misra applies the epithet 'of highest compassion' (paramakarunika) to Aksapada22 which may take its inspiration from Dharmakirti's stress on compassion as the proof or means of the Buddha's being an authority.25 16 Cf. also Thakur (1947: 37). " Cf. NVTT 2, 4-6: yadyapi bhasyaksta krtavyutpadanam etat tathapi dignagaprabhrtibhir arvacinaih kuhetusantamasasamutthapanenacchaditam sastran na tattvanirnayaya paryaptam ity uddyotakarena svanibandhoddyotena tad apaniyata iti prayojanavan arambha iti. 18 Cf. NVTT 2, 10 (cf. the quotation below, n. 22). 19 Cf. NVTT 1, 5-6: namami dharmavijnanavairag yaisvaryasaline / nidhaye vagvisuddhinam aksapadaya tayine //. 20 On the original meaning and development of the term tayin, cf. Roth (1968). 4 Cf. Hattori, loc. cit. (cf. n. 13 above). This occurrence is evidence for the fact that the meaning of protector had been attached to the Sanskritized term tayin even before the seventh or eighth century, that is, the period which has roughly been assumed by Roth for this change (cf. Roth, 1968: 61). 22 Cf. NVT? 2, 10: paramakaruniko hi bhagavan munir jagad eva duhkhapankamagnam uddidhirsuh sastram pranitavan. 24 Cf. PV Pramanasiddhi chapter, v. 34; see also Franco (1997: 19ff.).

Page #8
62 KARIN PREISENDANZ. Aniruddha's brief commentary, written probably at the end of the tenth century on difficult passages in the Nyayabhasya, Nyayavarttika and Nyayavarttikatatparyatika, is not preserved for the first adhyaya24 where one would expect explicit statements as to the author's conception of his own place in the tradition and his attitude towards its foundational work; elsewhere, it does not yield any relevant information. Bhattavagisvara's Nyayatatparyadipika is the only completely preserved direct commentary on the Nyayasutra between the Nyayabhasya and the fifteenth-century Nyayatattvaloka; because it often follows the Nyayavarttikatatparyatika in its interpretation of the sutra-s, it has to be dated between this work and Udayana's Parisuddhi (first quarter of the eleventh century), which was certainly not known to its author. Bhattavagisvara, who may have been from the south, merely mentions that the Nyayabhasya and Nyayavarttika served as his basis, that is, that he had examined the former word by word and followed the latter in order to be able to throw light on the intention of the Sutra.25 The final puspika, which consists of two verses and concludes both the fifth adhyaya and the whole work, has not been completely preserved and of its reconstruction I fail to grasp some details. It is clearly implied, though, that according to Bhattavagisvara, the 'Indra of sages' (munindra) Aksapada anticipated the controversy with the Buddhists and therefore enjoys timeless authority: Siva himself smilingly approved of his work because Aksapada wished to provide those who partake of intimate union with God (isasayujyabhaj) with dexterity in speech, considering that it would be indispensable for the instant defeat of their partners in debate (vadin) who are garrulous when it comes to claiming that their opponents have been defeated and to pronouncing unjustified objections; further, Aksapada considered that in the face of such partners in debate those close to God were also in need of dexterity in speech for achieving the knowledge of the Self and proclaiming it. Immediately before this, as the conclusion properly speaking of the fifth adhyaya in the first quarter of the verse, knowledge of the true nature of the 'points of defeat' in debate 24 However, there is a reference to his Vivarana in Udayana's Parisuddhi which presumably relates to the first chapter of this commentary and testifies to the original completeness of the work; cf. Thakur (2000: 114). 25 Cf. NTD 1, 5-6: anviksyanupadam bhasyam apy anukramya varttikam / nyayasutrarthatatparyadipikeyam vidhasyate //; cf. also Thakur (1970: 37).

Page #9
THE NYAYASUTRA COMMENTARIAL TRADITION 63 determined in the final ahnika is said to be of great consequence in the two hostile types of debate, i.e., the verbal contest (jalpa) and the contentious debate in which the opponent merely puts forth objections (vitanda). The reference to knowledge of the Self (atmavisayajnana) and closeness to God in connection with hostile debate thus alludes again to the heated controversy with the Buddhists - skilled in debate and convinced of their superior logic and argumentation - which centred on the two issues of the existence of the Self and God. 26 Thus, the programmatic statements of the examined major commentators of classical Nyaya27 reveal that the Nyaya scholars themselves explicitly acknowledged that what we conceive as the lively and creative development of philosophical ideas in their time took place especially in the controversy with the Buddhist philosophers; we can also observe how the Naiyayikas managed to place this perceived evolution of ideas within the formal framework of the obviously timeless authority of the Nyayasutra. The debate with the Buddhists was always conducted in view of this timeless authority but nevertheless accompanied by some conception of the historical progression of ideas and concepts in the context of this exchange and 26 Cf. NTD, Thakur's introduction, pp. tha-da, for a reconstruction of the verses in sardulavikridita metre: evam nigrahavastutattvam akhilam nirnitam etat punah. jnatam jalpavitandayor bahu phalam sute svayam vadinam [sadyo nigrahajativada]mukhara jetum katham vadinah, sak yante katham evam atma visayam jranam katham vocyate // iti jagati jananam isasayujyabhajam anupajanita (daksyam ditsate] bhasanesu / pasupatir api yasmai sasmitah sadhu sadhv itvadad (recte: ity avadad) avatu so 'sman aksapado munindrah //. My tentative translation runs as follows (reconstructed elements are placed between round brackets): "In this way the full true nature of the topic of defeat (in debate) has been determined. If this, however, is understood, it will by itself produce rich fruit in verbal contest and contentious debate (i.e., such debates in which the opponent merely contends the proponent's position) for those involved in debates. - May Aksapada, the-Indra of sages, protect us, [he] to whom the Lord of Animals for his part smilingly said 'Excellent, excellent!' (when the former formed the wish to endow) those persons in the world who partake of intimate union with God (with dexterity) in speech which had not yet arisen (in them), wondering how partners in debate who are loquacious (in claiming defeat of their opponents and pronouncing unjustified objections) could be defeated instantly, [and] how the knowledge which has the Self as its object (could) in this way (i.e., if one is confronted with such opponents) (?) (arise) or be proclaimed (?)." 27 Within the scope of the present contribution, the important evidence of Jayanta Bhatta's Nyayamarijari and Bhasarvajna's Nyayabhusana, which may be considered as part of the classical commentarial tradition in the wider sense of the word, will have to be considered separately.

Page #10
64 KARIN PREISENDANZ thus it would be unjustified to speak of blind traditionalism or lack of historical consciousness on the part of the Nyaya scholars. The defence of the authority of the Nyayasastra against the powerful Buddhist epistemologists constituted the main inner or intellectual motivation of the commentators whose works have been preserved; the frequent references by Buddhist authors of the classical period to other, now lost commentaries allow the inference that their authors as well participated in this defence. This fruitful controversy reached its culmination in the early medieval period, in the eleventh century. Now the debate is for the first time conducted in truly independent treatises, foremost by the great logician Udayana. Udayana was obviously dissatisfied with the many commentaries and sub-(sub-)commentaries on the Nyayasutra which were after all formally and structurally bound by the given, partially very archaic formulations and argumentation of their root text(s), and no longer convinced about the effectiveness of works belonging to this genre when the logically impeccable establishment of the central metaphysical presuppositions of the Nyaya tradition against the formidable Buddhists was concerned. However, next to his famous treatises establishing the existence of an individual and permanent Self (atman) and the existence of an omniscient eternal creator-god, the Atmatattvaviveka and the Nyayakusumanjali, and two small works which present exhaustive definitions pertaining to the central topics of the Nyaya system, the Laksanavali and the Laksanamala, Udayana also devoted himself to writing a commentary on Vacaspati Misra's commentary on the Nyayavarttika; this occurred demonstrably and, I think, significantly after he had completed his independent treatises.28 Commenting on Vacaspati's comments on Uddyotakara's mangalasloka, Udayana makes a few remarks that point to his historical understanding of the Nyaya tradition. He considers the Nyayavarttika an ancient (cirantana) composition that has been embraced or recognized by great personalities (mahajanaparigrhita), obviously a sign of its authority. Nevertheless, there are many other such compositions; why bother about this one? In the course of his discussion Udayana suggests inter alia that its tradition may have been interrupted or broken off. Elaborating upon Vacaspati's cow-metaphor (cf. above, p. 60) he speaks of Uddyotakara's philosophical tradition as the cows' (i.e., words') youth; this youth, 28 Cf. Chemparathy (1972: 22-25).

Page #11
THE NYAYASUTRA COMMENTARIAL TRADITION however, has been lost owing to the cows' maturation in time, i.e., their getting older with time. Why then, some fictitious partner in discourse asks, should they not be rejuvenated by means of directly administrating the life-giving elixir consisting in the readily obtained teaching of Vacaspati's guru Trilocana?29 Udayana considers this suggestion to be appropriate; however, first the Varttika has to be extracted from the swamp of bad treatises and put on firm ground. again, this ground being Vacaspati's commentary on it.30 The even more ancient Nyayabhasya, however, is conceived by Udayana as having the form of the body of the sastra and thus not considered by him as something additional to it, just like the Mimamsa in relation to the Veda; this statement has a predecessor already in Uddyotakara's puspika where he calls Vatsyayana 'the likeness (pratima) of Aksapada,' or - following another reading of the verse - ascribes to him the intuition (pratibha) of Aksapada.32 This close association of Sutra and Bhasya, not unparalleled in the early classical philosophical literature, may well account for the fact that even after 65 29 Next to Trilocana's presumed lost commentary on the Nyayabhasya, his main work Nyayamanjari could have had the form of an extensive commentary on the Nyayasutra itself (cf. Steinkellner, 1961: 157; Solomon, 1986: 560, 564); Thakur, however, considers the Nyayamanjari to have been a commentary on the Nyayabhasya (cf. Thakur, 2000: 110). As only fragments of Trilocana's writings are preserved, it is difficult to determine the formal nature of these works (cf. also Thakur, 1947: 37) because he could have commented directly on selected sutra-s also in a commentary on the Nyayabhasya or even the Nyayavarttika. 30 Cf. NVTP 3, 4-11: nanu cirantane 'smin nibandhe mahajanaparigrhite bahavo nibandhas tathavidhah santiti krtam anenety aha - icchamiti (cf. NVTT 1, 9, quoted in n. 15 above), nanu yadi granthakarasampradayavicchedena te nibandhah katham kunibandhah (cf. again NVTT 1, 9)? atha sampradayo vicchinnah katham tavapiyam vicchinnasampradaya tatparyatika sunibandha ity ata aha atijaratinam (cf. NVTT 1, 10, quoted in n. 15 above) iti. uddyotakarasampradayo hy amusam yauvanam. tac ca kalaparipakavakad galitam iva. kim namatra trilocanaguroh sakasad desarasayanam asaditam amusam punarnavibhavaya diyata iti yujyate. na ca kunibandhapankamagnanam tad datum ucitam. atas tasmad utkrsya svanibandhasthale sannivesanarupasamuddharanam eva sampratam ity arthah. 31 Cf. NVTP 3, 19-20: bhasyasya ca tadvivaranarupasya sastrasarirarupataya na sastrad adhikyam manyate mimamsaya iva vedat. Cf. NV 530 9: yad aksapadapratimo bhasyam vatsyayano jagau .... This reading is confirmed by Vindhyeshvari Prasad Dvivedin's edition in Bibliotheca Indica 113 (Calcutta 1887-1914), reset as Kashi Sanskrit Series 33 in 1915 (Benares). However, in his extensive erudite introduction, the esteemed pandit refers to the relevant verse with the alternate reading -pratibho, in this context preferred by him to -pratimo, as read by some of his mss. (cf. p. 56 of his Bhumika to the B.I. edition and p. 73 of the Bhumika in KSS 33, with n. 2). The edition of the NV in the Calcutta Sanskrit Series (No. 18 and 29, Calcutta 1936-1944), which solely relies on the two editions by Vindhyeshvari Prasad Dvivedin (cf. Preface p. 7), curiously enough reads aksapa

Page #12
66 KARIN PREISENDANZ Uddyotakara's time quite a number of now lost commentaries were produced on both the basic sutra-text and the Bhasya.33 With Udayana, whom tradition places in Mithila,54 the period of voluminous commentaries and sub-sub-)commentaries on the Nyayasutra seems to come to an end and a new period begins in which a large number of independent treatises are produced that continue the new development ushered in by Udayana's logical, terminological and argumentative innovations. Further, both Udayana's independent and commentarial works now become the objects of commentarial efforts; it may be owing to a large extent to this stellar personality, who was rightly recognized as an innovator of pivotal importance,"s that the classical Nyaya commentaries known to us have been preserved, for had he not chosen to comment upon Vacaspati Misra's Tatparyatika this work as well as the Nyayabhasya and -varttika might have subsequently been neglected and perhaps even lost. Admittedly, there are references to a few works commenting upon the ancient foundational text in the centuries after Udayana. In the twelfth century Sriman(?), the teacher of the author of the so-called Sena court commentary on the Vaisesikasutra written in Vallala Sena's time, may have composed a Nyayasutra commentary. His disciple describes him as reviving Nyaya studies by means of his mature conceptualization after Gotama's words had become endangered by the speech of bad people (durjana); similarly, with (Footnote 32 continued). dapratibho (as reported also by Thakur for NV 530, 9) without further comment. It has to be noted, though, that pratibha may also mean 'appearance, look'; if this meaning is assumed here, rather than the more philosophical meaning 'intuition,' the semantic difference between the two compounds ending in pratimah and pratibhah would not be significant. I am indebted to Ms. Susanne Bohdal for this observation. Unfortunately, Vacaspati, Aniruddha and Abhayatilaka (in his Nyayalankara) do not comment on this verse. 33 Vacaspati Misra's teacher Trilocana has already been mentioned; for further information and materials on Bhavivikta, Aviddhakarna, Sankarasvamin, Visvarupa, Udbhata and Adhyayana, cf. the contributions listed above, n. 6. Udbhata, Sanatani, called praudhagaudanaiyayika by Udayana, and Srivatsa are credited with commentaries on the basic text only (Thakur, 1970: 34, 2000: 113); such a commentary is also reported to have been written by the teacher of the Vaisesika scholar Vyomasiva (cf. Thakur, 1970: 36, 1981: xxii). 34 Cf. Bhattacharya (1958: 5-7). 35 For Udayana as the actual founding figure of Navya-Nyaya, cf. e.g., Jha (1994: 18ff.), Bhattacharya (1958: 1-2 and 39-40), Mishra (1966: 237-239, 269-270), Matilal (1977: 101), Phillips (1995: 44-69) (however, with Phillips himself disagreeing with this position); Laine (1998), Wada (1990: 14, 22, 2001: 519-530).

Page #13
THE NYAYASUTRA COMMENTARIAL TRADITION 67 regard to his own commentary on the Vaisesikasutra he says that he is eager to demolish the positions of the heretic scholars (pasandipandita).36 The information provided by the author of the Sena court commentary in respect to his teacher's work on the Nyayasutra implies a general neglect of the Nyayasutra in the medieval period after the rise of Udayana.37 The then extant commentaries obviously did not enjoy sufficient popularity or were 36 Cf. especially Thakur (1965: 331) as well as Thakur (1970: 36, 1981: xxii); the ninth adhyaya of the Sena court commentary on the Vaisesikasutra was edited by Thakur in 1985 as an appendix to his edition of Vadindra's long commentary on the Vaisesikasutra (Maharajadhiraja Kameshvar Singh Grantha Mala 21, Darbhanga). The two pre-colophon verses of the Newari ms. (containing the tenth and last adhyaya of the commentary) that praise Sriman's (?) revival of Gautama's teachings and refer to the anonymous author's own ambitions run as follows: durvarasama drpta durjanavacovajranalenahatah srimadgotamanirmita rasayutas ta bhararivallayah yena praudhavikalpajalasalilair ujjivitah santatam jiyad adbhutakirtir ujjvalagunah sriman asau me guruh || tatprasada samajvaptam mayaitat kincid Tritam/ pasandipanditafvrata]khandanahatakautukat | Sriman, my teacher, of marvellous fame and splendid good qualities, should always be victorious, he who revived, by means of showers of water, [i.e.] the profusion of [his] mature conceptualization, the creepers, [i.e.] words, shaped (composed) by the glorious Gotama [and] full of sap (essence) [but] struck (assaulted) by lightning-fire, [which is] the speech of bad people who are difficult to be checked, mean (?) and arrogant. Whatever [I] have said [here] out of an eagerness, provoked [by him], to demolish [the positions of] the heterodox scholars has been obtained by me thanks to his graciousness." The rather aggressive attitude towards heterodox scholars, presumably Buddhists, may be seen in connection with the revival of Brahmanism under the Sena dynasty after the preceding Buddhist Pala dynasty had mainly supported Buddhist scholarship (cf. Chakravarti, 1906: 157, 1929-1930: 247, 1930: 24). 37 Further post-Udayana and pre-Gangesa commentaries on the Nyayasutra were a certain Bhaskara (cf. Thakur, 1970: 35, 1981: xxi; Sen, 1978) and, possibly, a Ratnakosa by Tarani Misra (cf. Bhattacharya, 1947: 303, 1958: 76-79 as well as Bhattacharya 1978: chapter II, without reference to this work's being a commentary, and Thakur, 1981: xxi; cf. also GSP 44, 15 [see nn. 102 and 124 below]). Cakrapanidatta, the eleventh-century Bengali author of the Ayurvedadipika on the Carakasamhita, is credited by the late medieval commentator on the Carakasamhita and Cakrapanidatta's Cikitsasangraha, Sivadasasena (fifteenth century), with a Nyayavrtti (Thakur, loc. cit., unfortunately without reference), which would accord with Cakrapanidatta's obvious first-hand knowledge of the Nyayasutra, as displayed in his commentary, especially on the philosophical-dialectical portions of Carakasamhita Vimanasthana, adhyaya 8. However, Meulenbeld's History of Indian Medical Literature does not mention such a work of Cakrapanidatta's or such an attribution (cf. Meulenbeld, 2000: 86). The works sometimes attributed to Cakrapanidatta which are listed in the History include a treatise on grammar (Vyakaranatattvacandrika), but no work in the field of Nyaya.

Page #14
68 KARIN PREISENDANZ 39 not considered relevant enough to the advancement of the Nyaya tradition to be studied, repeatedly copied and spread for the purpose of study and therefore were not preserved. This proposed development should be seen in the light of the fact that about a hundred years after Udayana's time the long-lasting and fertile controversy with the Buddhist epistemologists had come to an end.38 As is well known, the completion of the conquest of northern and eastern India towards the end of the twelfth century and the turn of the thirteenth by the Afghan-Turkish Ghurids brought an end to Buddhist learning. which was mainly located in the large monastic universities; especially Muhammad Bakhtyar Kilji's conquest of Bihar and Bengal, that is, of regions where Buddhism had previously been generously sup-. ported by the Pala dynasty, must have had disastrous effects on Buddhist scholarship. Only in remote Kashmir, next to Nepal a major refuge for Buddhist scholars, did Buddhist monastic communities continue to foster Buddhist learning until the middle of the fourteenth century.40 Even though central philosophical positions of the former Buddhist opponents were still controversially discussed in South Asia, owing to historical-political changes these opponents had ceased to be living rivals with ever novel and sharp criticism of fundamental Nyaya presuppositions and especially pointed attacks on religious beliefs, such as those in the existence of the Self and God. The new major living adversaries of the Naiyayikas were from then onwards the scholars of medieval Mimamsa and the adherents of the various branches of Vedanta philosophy, both groups within the fold of astikya as opposed to the nastikya of the Buddhists. It appears that in spite of their radically different metaphysics and epistemology the 38 Chintaharan Chakravarti, on the other hand, blames the Buddhist dominance under the preceding Pala rule for causing an alleged decline of Brahminical scholarship during this period. According to him, the effect of the Palas' sponsoring of Buddhist scholarship was so severe that even after the revival of Brahmanism under the Sena dynasty no philosophical literature was produced in Bengal. Cf. Chakravarti (1929-1930: 247-248). Monmohan Chakravarti's opinion is less extreme; he presumes that Sanskrit Studies were not much attended to up to the time of Sena rule on account of Buddhist influences (cf. Chakravarti, 1906: 157). 39 Cf. Wink (1999: 135-149, 334-351). This does not mean, however, that Buddhism did not continue in some popular form in Bengal after these events; cf., e.g., Chakravarti (1930: 24). 40 Cf. Naudou (1980: 242-258). Orissa also provided a place of refuge for Buddhist monks from the north and was the home of Buddhist communities with now less generous, fluctuating royal support for the building of temples and upkeep of monasteries at least up to the sixteenth century (cf. Mitra, 1980: 224, 226). However, scholarly works by Buddhists living in this area of South Asia after the Muslim conquests in the north have not come down to us.

Page #15
THE NYAYASUTRA COMMENTARIAL TRADITION 69 Naiyayikas did not consider these groups a serious threat to the doctrinal edifice of Aksapada and its long-claimed timeless authority. As a result its defence in the form of commentary was no longer intellectually exciting and ceased to present an urgent challenge to Nyaya scholars. It is telling that the earliest Nyayasutra-related commentaries that have come down to us from the post-Buddhist period are two works of a peculiar nature: different from the older commentaries known to us they do not present a running commentary with attached independent reflections on the contemporaneous state of a certain philosophical topic, often inclusive of some polemic discussion, but treat individual, philologically as well as argumentatively difficult points of the basic text and the Nyayacaturgranthika, that is, the four classical commentaries from the Bhasya up to the Parisuddhi. It is a purely scholarly or almost 'antiquarian' interest in the so-called Pancaprasthanan yayamahatarka, and primarily in Udayana's commentary, that seems to have prompted the authors of these works. The later of the two, the Jain scholar Abhayatilaka, wrote his Nyayalankara in Prahladanapattana in Gujarat in the last quarter of the thirteenth century. Abhayatilaka, who belonged to the Kharataragaccha, was a pupil of Jinesvarasuri and greatly indebted to his senior fellow student Laksmitilaka" who - according to the concluding verse of the Nyayalankara, which is called a pancaprasthananyayamahatarkavisamapadavyakhya in the colophon"2 - revised the work very carefully,43 as he also did in the case of Abhayatilaka's Dvyasrayakavyatika.44 The two monks thus appear to have engaged in a joint scholarly project on the classical commentaries on the Nyayasutra. Abhayatilaka frequently discusses variant readings to the texts and even suggests emendations, anticipating a new, pronouncedly text-critical approach towards the foundations of a philosophical tradition. Srikantha's earlier Tippanaka, called a pancaprasthananyayamahatarkadurgamarthavyakhya in the Nyaya 41 Cf. the references to Jinesvara and Laksmitilaka in the fourth introductory verse of the work (NA I, 11-12). 42 Cf. also the designation as sudurgamapadavyakhya in NA I, 14 (fourth introductory verse). 43 Cf. NA 794, 19: srilaksmitilakopadhyayaih samsodhiteyam atinipunam /. 44 Cf. Thakur (1981: xxx). Further information on Abhayatilaka is provided in the Kharataragacchagurvavali: he was initiated in 1235 and became upadhyaya in 1263, the same year in which he defeated the Digambara Vidyananda in a debate held at Ujjayini (cf. Thakur, loc. cit.).

Page #16
70 KARIN PREISENDANZ lankara and declared to be its model,os is preserved on only the first four sutra-s; according to the testimony of some intermediate colophons, it contains a series of detailed topical expositions and comments (avacurni-s).46 Together with the further development of the text-critical approach a revival of interest in commenting extensively upon the Nyayasutra can be noted in the fifteenth century, with the voluminous Nyayatattvaloka by the Naiyayika and Dharmasastrin Vacaspati Misra of Mithila." Besides offering a commentary directly on the sutra-s, Vacaspati provides long summaries of and discussions on portions of Gangesa's Tattvacintamani, thus making his commentary a vehicle of the most recent advances in Nyaya. However, he also quotes frequently from the Nyayacaturgranthika, which he praises as exceedingly skilful or proficient, as opposed to his own slim and unimportant work. Next to these four works, he refers to the Bhaskara, one of the few but lost post-Udayana commentaries on the Nyayasutra known to us.48 Being Vacaspati's first work, the Nyayatattvaloka seems to evidence the conscious effort of a young Nyaya scholar to turn back in appreciation to the classical commentaries and to the root text of the tradition itself, this impression is strengthened by the fact that Vacaspati also compiled the Nyayasutroddhara in the early part of his career.49 In this little work 45 Cf. NA 1, 15-16 (introductory verse 5): srisrikanthenahita durgamarthavyakhyasmabhir yavatiksambabhuve / pancaprasthanyayatarkasya tasyas tavat yah sa*nya vidheyeti bodhyam //. * scil. sudurgamapadavyakhya mentioned in verse 4, cf. n. 42 above 46 Cf. e.g., SKT 57, 11: avayavavacurnih. 47 Before Vacaspati Misra, Gangesa's son Vardhamana commented upon Udayana's Parisuddhi, as well as on others of his works. Vardhamana's Anviksanayatattvabodha, which is a direct commentary on the last adhyaya of the Nyayasutra, does not give us any clues as to his motivation in writing this work or his attitude towards the basic text. It is doubtful whether he ever wrote a direct commentary on the whole Nyayasutra (cf. Preisendanz, 1994: 20-21). 48 Cf. above, n. 37, and Bhattacharya (1947: 297). Further references are to Udayana's Parisista, a commentary on the last adhyaya of the Nyayasutra, and to Vardhamana's Tattvabodha (cf. above, n. 47). His reference to Sanatani (cf. above, n. 33) may be secondary inasmuch as it was taken directly from Udayana. 49 A completely different interpretation is provided in the context of Mishra's general and not very subtle anti-Buddhist attitude: there was a need to compile not only the Nyayasucinibandha (cf. above, n. 15), but also the Nyayasutroddhara because the text of the Nyayasutra had been twisted and distorted by the evil Buddhists, who went so far as to even interpolate sutra-s to do damage to this work (cf. Mishra, 1966: 292). Monmohan Chakravarti, for his part, describes Vacaspati as a smrtiwriter who could not avoid the general contagion, and touched also on Nyaya' (cf. Chakravarti, 191 5b: 432)!

Page #17
THE NYAYASUTRA COMMENTARIAL TRADITION he established what he considered to be the authentic Nyayasutratext, assembling those sutra-s he considered genuine and presenting - without further comment or even discussion - their correct readings. In devoting himself to this task, just like in writing the Nyayatattvaloka, Vacaspati must have carefully studied the earlier commentaries available to him and evaluated their testimony. For the purpose of compiling the Nyayasutroddhara special attention was paid by him to the Nyayabhasya. This is suggested by the mangalasloka of the Nyayasutroddhara according to one of the manuscripts of the work accessible to me.50 The title word uddhara of the compilation is telling: understood in the light of the mangalasloka, the work constitutes an 'extraction' of the Nyayasutra from the Nyayabhasya, the oldest and only classical direct commentary available to Vacaspati and his contemporaries, the concise graha nakavakya-s of which had been susceptible to being taken as part of the root text in the course of transmission early on. The fact that the word uddhara also means 'rescue' and is in this latter sense used technically to refer to the restoration of temples and cult-images, may in addition throw some light on Vacaspati's perception and evaluation of the state of his tradition's foundational text at that time.51 71 Vacaspati Misra's historicist perception of the Nyaya tradition which is implied in the above becomes evident in the way he refers to his fellow philosophers in this tradition and their respective historical position. The expressions used by him are navyah or navinah for the "new" generation(s), vrddhah, prancah and sampradayikah, or even vrddhatamah for the 'older,' 'traditional' generation(s). In his recent 50 Cf. the Jodhpur ms. (ms. no. 27940 in the catalogue of the Sanskrit and Prakrit manuscripts in the Jodhpur collection of the Rajasthan Oriental Research Institute, edited by T. Joshi and D. Sharma) fol. 1v 1-2: srivacaspatimisrena mithileivarasurina / srigautamiyasutrani likhyante bhasyatah prthak II. The same introductory verse appears at the beginning of a Nyayasutroddhara ms. preserved at the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute (BORI) (ms. no. 740 of 1887-1891, fol. Iv 1). On the problematic issue of the various published Nyayasutroddhara-s, also in relation to the published Nyayasucinibandha, cf. Preisendanz (1994: 3-5). A comparative study of sutrapatha-mss. which bear the title Nyayasutroddhara and other titles and in which the respective compilation of the sutra-s is ascribed to Vacaspati Misra II is under preparation. 51 Cf. also the expression samuddharana - relating to Uddyotakara's Nyayavarttikaused by Vacaspati Misra I in the introductory and concluding verses of the Nydyavarttikatatparyatika (cf. above, n. 15). 52 Cf. also the frequently used sampradayas tu..., in contradistinction to the nayvah or anye.

Page #18
72 KARIN PREISENDANZ. paper on the new intellectuals of the seventeenth century, Sheldon Pollock has singled out usages of this kind as indicative of the new intellectual climate of the period in which, contrary to the preceding times, one's own position within a scholarly tradition is conceptualized in a historicist manner, that is, self-consciously located within a historical sequence and labelled accordingly. As Pollock points out, this intellectual attitude is to be observed in the discourse involving one's own tradition, be it a philosophical tradition or some other scholarly or scientific tradition. Additionally, the relevant rhetorical elements are expressive of some awareness of the progress, from the point of view of content, of scholarly analysis, or at least of the expectation of such progress. As the example of Vacaspati shows, this phenomenon can be registered already in the fifteenth century, and before that it can be observed with Gangesa and the preGangesa Naiyayika Manikantha. Connected with the phenomenon and cause for some internal tension is the enduring high respect for the authority of the legendary founder of the tradition, expressed especially at the beginning and end of scholarly works. Returning to Vacaspati, I would like to point out in this connection that he speaks of Aksapada as a great sage (mahamuni) who founded Anviksiki to rescue the transmigrating beings sunk into in the swamp of suffering. 54 Besides the reverence for Aksapada expressed here, one has to note the employment of the designation Anviksiki for the Nyaya tradition, a designation which goes back to Vatsyayana's early efforts to establish his philosophical tradition among the orthodox sciences under the name of Nyaya, as the centrally important 'investigating [science]' praised already in Kautalya's Arthasastra." I consider this use of an ancient, highly suggestive designation, which occurs several times in the Nyayatattvaloka, as indicative of Vacaspati's renewed pride in the historically conceptualized antiquity of his own tradition and of his positive evaluation of its foundational work in spite of its obsoleteness on the surface level. A further telling designation for the teaching or doctrinal edifice (sastra) of Nyaya used by Vacaspati is Pancadhyayi, 50 a term that immediately effects some association with 53 Cf. Pollock (2001, especially 7-14). 54 Cf. NTA3, 14-16: ... iti sarvam abhisandhaya duhkhaparkamagnan samsarina uddidhirsann aksapado mahamunis tadupasamas ya paramparopayabhutam anviksikim praninaya; cf. also the appellation Aksacaranamuni in NTA 26, 19 (... manasa indriyatabhyupagamo 'ksacaranamuneh ...) and 117, 20(...asutritamanasendriyatabhyupagamo 'ksacaranamuneh). 55 Cf. Preisendanz (2000: 225-230). 56 Cf. NTA 16, 20 (pancadhyayi sastram).

Page #19
THE NYAYASUTRA COMMENTARIAL TRADITION 73 Panini's Astadhyayi and accords it equal status, albeit in another basic scholarly discipline. This suggestive designation, which is uncommon in the classical and medieval period, is also found in the colophons of some Nyayasutrapatha manuscripts of northern India accessible to me which date from the pre-colonial and early colonial period, among them an alleged Nyayasutroddhara manuscript. Anviksiki, for its part, reappears in the title of Janakinatha Bhattacarya Cudamani's sixteenth-century commentary on the fifth adhyaya of the Nyayasutra, the Anviksikitattvavivarana. * This revaluation of the ancient tradition, within a clear historical perspective, as an intellectual re-orientation, may be understood in a very general way within the context of the regional history of Mithila or Tirhut, a region which was much more removed from the direct political and cultural impact of the Delhi Sultanate than other parts of northern India. Already the Karnata dynasty, from the eleventh century onwards until the invasion of Mithila by the Tughluqs in 1324,59 and afterwards the rulers of the Kamesvara-Oinivara dynasty provided a very fertile climate for the growth and development of especially Dharmasastra and Nyaya in Mithila. Romila Thapar has suggested that the late medieval and early modern nonMuslim rulers of regional kingdoms in northern India turned to the promotion of Sanskritic scholarship in general to assert their cultural identity, at the same time distancing themselves from the remote 57 Cf. Sarasvati Bhavana Library (SBL) ms. no. 33181, fol. 12r 12; cf. also BORI ms. no. 25/1879-1870, fol. 14r 2. For a classical occurrence of the term, cf. NV 1, 13. Cf. also Mitramisra's Viramitrodaya (CSS 62) 9. 26-27 on Yajnavalkyasmrti 1.3: parcadhyayisastram aksapadapranitam, and Prasthanabheda (ASS 51) 6, 7. 58 Cf. SBL ms. no. 33189, fol. 166v 3. Cf. also the introduction to Ramabhadra Sarvabhauma's Nyayarahasya, after the six mangalasoka-s: atha bhagavatak sapadenanviksikim samaripsamanena kim iti mangalam mahitam (SBL ms. no. 33189, fol. Ir 5-6; BORI ms. no. 28/1898-1899, fol. lv 6-7; BORI ms. no. 743/1882-1883, fol. Ir 7-8 reads bhagavata kanadena; the Nyayarahasya, together with the Anviksikitattvavivarana, has been edited for the first time in December 2003 by Prabal Kumar Sen, but I could procure a copy of the two volumes only after this paper was already in print). The designation Anviksikisasana appears twice in the introductory part (fol. lv 1) of an as yet unstudied commentary on the Nyayasutra together with the Nyayabhasya (and Vartika?) preserved at the Sanskrit College, Kolkata (hand list of Nyaya-Vaisesika manuscripts no. 1372 = descriptive catalogue of 1965 no. 252). For the use of the designation Anviksiki referring to the Nyayasutra and - sastra. cf. also Krsnakanta Vidyavagisa's Sautrasandi pani, a commentary on the Nyayasutra written in 1818 in Bengal (cf. the second introductory verse, which I fail to understand in some details, quoted in Sastri, 1968: 520). 59 Cf. Choudhary (1970: 25-26, 31-54). 60 Cf. Choudhary (1970: 26-27, 58-94), Mishra (1979: 69-88).

Page #20
74 KARIN PREISENDANZ . Muslim rulers and their cultural elite in this way, possibly also to bolster their own legitimization as indigenous (semi-independent rulers. The appreciative return to the ancient "roots" of Nyaya within the - from the point of view of content and scholarly sophistication - innovative and advanced intellectual climate of Navya-Nyaya, a return which we see commencing in Mithila with the Nyayatattvaloka, may be placed within this wider context of external motivation; the latter may have promoted such an intellectual re-orientation, in any case presented a sympathetic historical setting for it and thus enhanced the internal motivation of scholars, while the indirect impact of Muslim rule and culture transmitted to Mithila owing to the increased mobility of and social interaction between members of the intellectual elite may have been responsible for or at least reinforced the more and more pronounced historicist concept of the Nyaya tradition as such. Unfortunately, we do not know the precise circumstances of the composition of the Nyayatattvaloka and the compilation of the Nyayasutroddhara, except that they were Vacaspati's first works. However, the evidence of either of the two alternative verses prefixed to the Nyayasutroddhara manuscripts accessible to me indicates that he was already at that time a scholar connected with the court of a Mithila ruler.62 His numerous and celebrated works in Dharmasastra were all written after his Nyaya works, under and for the Kamesvara rulers Harinarayana (Bhairavasimha) and his son Rupanarayana (Ramabhadra),64 perhaps following a brief stay abroad in Pan 61 Cf. Thapar (1990: 314). 62 Cf. SBL mss. no. 32672, 33181 and 33219; cf. also ms. no. 5682 (catalogued as a Nyayasutra ms.) of the Prajna Pathasala Mandala, Wai: srivacaspatidhirena mithilesvarasurina / likhyate munimurdhanyasrigautamamatam mahat //; for the alternative verse cf. above, n. 50. 63 Cf. e.g., the introductory verses to the Dvaitanirnaya, which also refer to Queen Jaya(no) as commissioning the work, referred to in Chakravarti (1915b: 427), Bhattacharya (1958: 157), Kane (1975: 847). 64 The Mahadananirnaya is attributed to both Harinarayana and Rupanarayana in verses attached to the beginning and end of the work respectively; the authorship of Vacaspati is reduced to 'assistance' (sahakarita) in the first case, scil. srivacaspatidhiram sahakaritaya samasadya/ sribhairavendranrpatih svayam mahadananirnayam tanute //, and not even mentioned in the second. The Pitrbhaktitarargini or Sraddhakalpa, Vacaspati's last work, was written at the request of the latter. Cf. Chakravarti (1915b: 427, 429), Bhattacharya (1958: 157-158) and Kane (1975: 849, 851-852, with n. 1288).

Page #21
THE NYAYASUTRA COMMENTARIAL TRADITION calabhumi.65 Born in a family of Karmamimamsakas,66 he achieved a high position at the court of Mithila owing to his expertise in Dharmasastra." Basing himself on the Mithila panji-s, introduced by the Karnata ruler Harasimhadeva in 1324, Dineshchandra Bhattacharya provides us with further details as to Vacaspati's personal and scholarly network.68 He was from the Samauli branch of a family belonging to the Vatsyagotra, with Palli as their mulagrama, and related by his fourth wife of the famous Sodarapura family to another important Naiyayika of the fifteenth century, Sankara Misra,70 while his first two wives linked him with the royal family." One of Vacaspati's granddaughters was married to Bhavanatha, the son of Sucikara Upadhyaya of the Kunjapalli (Kujauli) family of Bhakharauli (Bhaura);72 Sucikara, a pupil of the illustrious Naiyayika and commentator on the Tattvacintamani Jayadeva alias Paksadhara Misra (related to Sankara Misra, who was a paternal uncle [pitrvya] of his, and thus also a member of the Sodarapura family) was the teacher of Mahesa Thakkura, the founder of the Darbhanga Raj in 1556/1557 and author of a celebrated commentary on Paksadhara's Aloka on the Tattvacintamani." 75 65 Cf. Bhattacharya (1947: 301-303, 1958: 148-149) on the evidence of the introduction to Vacaspati's Nyayaratnaprakasa, a commentary on Manikantha's Nyayaratna. 66 Cf. the final verse of his Krtyapradipa quoted by Bhattacharya (1947: 295, 1958: 143): vamise jatah kalusarahite karmamimamsakanam anviksayam gurukarunaya labdhatattyavabodhahh | sriman vacaspatir aham iha pritaye punyabhajam natva natva kamalanayanam krtyadipam tanomi //. 67 In the colophons to the Pitrbhaktitarangini (cf. Chakravarti, 1915b: 429; Bhattacharya, 1958: 143; Kane, 1975: 851, n. 1288) and Sudracaracintamani (cf. Kane, 1975: 851) Vacaspati is called sakalapanditamandalisiromani and parisad (advisor in difficult legal points) to the two kings; in the Dvaitanirnaya we find the epithet nikhilatantravid (cf. Bhattacharya, op. cit., 157). 68 Cf. Bhattacharya (1958: 157). 69 On the illustrious Sodarapura family cf. Mishra (1966: 400-401). 70 This wife was a cousin (pitrvyaputri) of Sankara Misra (cf. also Mishra, 1966: 290). 7 His first wife's great-great-grandfather was Raya Bhogisvara (cf. Chakravarti, 1915b: 415-416), his second wife's father was the son of the daughter of Bhogisvara's younger brother Bhavesvara (Bhavesa, Bhavasimha), the first ruler over all of Mithila (cf. Chakravarti, 1915b: 417); cf. Bhattacharya (1958: 156-157) and Mishra (1966: 289). 72 Cf. also Mishra (1966: 358). 73 Cf. Bhattacharya (1958: 125-126). 74 On Mahesa Thakkura, the first ruler of the Khandavala dynasty, cf. Bhattacharya (1958: 172-176) and Mishra (1966: 355-361). The Darpana was an early work of his

Page #22
76 KARIN PREISENDANZ. The renewed interest in the Nyayasutra demonstrated by Vacaspati Misra in fifteenth-century Mithila re-manifests itself about a hundred years later in the person of Kesava Misra, who composed a Gautamiyasutraprakasa." Kesava Misra, son of Visvadhara and brother of Umapati, 76 was a third-generation descendent of Sankara Misra and belonged to the Kataka branch of the Sodarapura family; besides his Nyayasutra commentary and another, earlier and most probably more extensive Nyaya work entitled Tarkatandava," he wrote several works on poetics as well as Dharmasastra works.78 In some of the puspika-s of his Nyayasutra commentary, he introduces himself as the main scholar on the advisory board of the king of (Footnote 74 continued). and may have been written between 1535 and 1540 according to Bhattacharya; Mishra even calls it his first work (Mishra, 1966: 358) which, however, makes it impossible that it was written in 1612, as Mishra states following Parameshvar Jha (cf. Mishra, 1966: 356). Paksadharipracara, mentioned in the Gadhivamsavarnana (cf. Benson, 2001: 112) may have been an alternative title of this work. Mahesa Thakkura is also said to have introduced the dhautapariksa for Maithila scholars in 1550 (cf. Mishra, 1966: 360; Jha, 2001: 271). 75 This is the title of the work according to the colophon after adhyaya 1.2 in the ms. preserved at Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University (which may also be the source for the corresponding longer colophons after the other preserved adhyaya ends, i.e., 3.2, 4.2 and 5.2, as well as after the end of 5.1 printed in K.N. Jha's edition) even though the puspika concluding adhyaya 1, just as the one after adhyaya 3, refers to a Sutraprakasika; cf. GSP 24, 14-15 (1.2) and 70, 4-5 (3.2]: tirabhukrimahipalaparisanmukhyasurina srikesavakavindrena krta sutraprakasika // against GSP 25, n. 1: iti mahamahopadhyayavedantavyasasrikesavamisrakrtegautamiyasutraprakase ... (cf. also GSP 70, 14-15 (3.2); 97, 15-16 14.21: 114, 13-14 15.11: 124, 25-26 (5.2); in shorter form, possibly provided by the editor, GSP 17, 34 [11] and 54, 31 (3.1)). The introductory verses to adhyaya-s 2, 4 and 5 speak of a Nyayasutraprakasana, unless this is not at all a title but refers to the poet's activity (GSP 25, 12 (2.1); 71, 4 [4.1); 98, 6 (5.1)): sukhenadhyapayan kasyam nyayavedantadarsane / Srikesavakavis cakre nyayasutraprakasanam //; in the slightly modified verse at the beginning of adhyaya 3 this is replaced by sutravyakhyana (GSP 41, 4 13.11). On Kesava Misra cf. Bhattacharya (1958: 186189); Mishra (1966: 368-370). 76 Cf. GSP 17, 32, 86, 27, 97, 13, 114, 10 and 124, 17: umapatisagarbhena srivisvadharajanmana/srivisvadharasununa / ...; umapatisagarbhasya srivi vadharajan manah / .... 77 Cf. GSP 23, 19 (... iti prapancitam mayaiva tarkatandave); 104, 17 (vistaras tu tarkatandave); 112, 19 (tat sarvam darsitami tarkatandave); 122, 13 (... tatha prapancitam tarkatandave) (cf. also Bhattacharya, 1958: 188). 78 Cf. Jha (1978: [2H3]), referring to the evidence of the colophon of Kesava Misra's Sankhyaparimana and the Maithila parji-s.

Page #23
THE NYAYASUTRA COMMENTARIAL TRADITION 77 Tirabhuktiwho may have been the last ruler of the KamesvaraOinivara dynasty, Kamsanarayana (Laksminatha). So It seems, though, that he commented only upon the first adhyaya in Mithila and then, during the troubled times following the overthrow of the Kamesvaras, left the region; the remaining adhyaya-s were expounded by him while he was 'happily teaching the philosophical world views of Nyaya and Vedanta in Kasi,' as he states in his introductory verses to these chapters. 81 Chapters one, three and four are dated 1553, 1557 and 1560 (i.e., Laksmana era 434, 438 and 441) respectively in the manuscript preserved at Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University; should this manuscript actually be a rare autograph, as suggested by the editor of the work, Kishor Nath Jha,82 this would mean that Kesava did not return to Mithila after the Darbhanga Raj had been granted by Akbar to Mahesa Thakkura- allegedly in recognition of his abridged translation of the Akbarnama into Sanskrit under the title Sarvadesavrttantasangraha83 - but chose to continue teaching in the city of Kasi,84 where Mahesa Thakkura himself had studied Mimamsa and Vedanta under Ramesvara Bhatta of the famous Gadhi family before he acquired the Raj. The autograph of the Gautamiyasutraprakasa, however, must eventually have found its way from Kasi to Mithila. Jha identifies Kesava as one of the pandits who contributed to the Kavindracandrodaya, the 'Festschrift' that was compiled to praise Kavindracarya Sarasvati for having convinced the Moghul ruler Shah Jahan to abolish the tax for pilgrims visiting Kasi and Prayaga earlier introduced by him. 86 Indeed, four verses in this compilation were composed by a certain Kesava Misra, the twelfth of the altogether 69 contributors;8? however, as this tax must have been abolished at least some years after 1628, the year of Shah Jahan's 79 Cf. GSP 24, 14 and GSP 70, 4, quoted above in n. 75. Cf. also the initial verse of his Alark arasekhara quoted in Jha (1978: [4)). 80 Cf. Bhattacharya (1958: 188), Jha (1978: [3]). On Laksminatha cf. Chakravarti (1915b: 430-431). 81 Cf. GSP 25, 11-12, 71, 3-4 and 98, 5-6 quoted in n. 75 above. Cf. also Thakur (1976: 265). 82 Cf. Jha (1978: [2]). 83 Cf. Sarma (2002: 74-75). 84 It has to be noted, though, that at the end of adhyaya 3 the reference to Kesava Misra's position at the court of Mithila is repeated; cf. n. 75 above. 85 Cf. Shastri (1912: 9) and Bhattacharya (1958: 173-175); cf. also Benson (2001: 112). It is chronologically almost impossible that Mahesa Thakkura spent his last years in Kasi studying with Ramesvara Bhatta, as stated by Mishra (1966: 360). 86 Cf. Jha (1978: [3]). 87 Cf. Gode (1954: 366) and Upadhyaya (1994: 85).

Page #24
78 KARIN PREISENDANZ enthronement,88 from the chronological point of view this identification seems very improbable. 90 89 92 Kesava Misra's basic attitude towards the roots of Nyaya is not so much different from that of Vacaspati Misra of Mithila. For him, too, the venerable author of the doctrinal edifice of Nyaya, whom he calls by his gotra-name Gotama, is a great sage, even the greatest sage, endowed with greatest compassion (paramakarunika). Just as Vacaspati, Kesava refers to the Nyayasastra as Pancadhyayi" and Anviksiki. The classical commentaries are referred to by him," but the brief references seem to be second-hand and do not attest to much genuine interest in these works or to their profound study, except maybe of the Tatparyatika or Udayana's unacknowledged - Parisuddhi. A number of positions are attributed to the 'ancient ones' (vrddhah, prancah), but not in opposition to the 'new' scholars. Regarding the substance of his commentary, Kesava is very much. indebted to Vacaspati's Nyayatattvaloka, even though he does not take into consideration the more extensive and sophisticated digres sions in this commentary. He frequently paraphrases or summarizes the explanations of the sutra-s in the Nyayatattvaloka in his own words or slightly modifies them. Sometimes the correspondences are so close that it is even possible to emend the obviously corrupt text of the edited Gautamiyasutraprakasa on the basis of the Nyayatattvaloka. It is therefore surprising that Kesava does not mention Vacaspati or his work on the Nyayasutra explicitly anywhere in the Gautamiyasutraprakasa. However, there may be some implicit reference after all. In his rather boastful mangalasloka-s Kesava states that there is indeed no lack of knowledgeable scholars familiar with the ways of reasoning who previously assembled in the dense thicket of Nyaya; however, there are also some scholars of Nyaya, desirous 88 Cf. Gode (1954: 370). 89 Cf. GSP 1, 8: paramarsani sutrani... (v. 3a). 90 Cf.. GSP 1, 24: atha paramakaruniko bhagavan gotamo maharsih samsarangaresu pacyamanan samuddidhirsuh.... 91 Cf. e.g., GSP 1, 12: ... pancadhyayiparinatarahasyapranayinah... (v. 4c) (cf. the full quotation in n. 96 below) and 3, 13: pancadhyayi sastram. 92 Cf. the continuation of the sentence quoted in n. 90 above: dyasiroratnabhatamanviksikim pranitavan sakalavi 94 I.e., there are a few quotations from the Bhasya, the Varttika and the Tika as well as from the Nyayamanjari, and even two references to Sanatani (cf. above, n. 33). Kesava rather uses the neutral expressions anye, apare, eke and kecit. In at least one case (GSP 98, 18), acaryah seems to refer to Vardhamana, whose position is rejected in favour of that of the 'ancient ones.'

Page #25
THE NYAYASUTRA COMMENTARIAL TRADITION 79 of knowing the fully developed secret of the Pancadhyayi, who are - in their interpretation of this science - disposed to go against the rule to avoid contradiction. Although there exists a commentary (vyakhya) by an earlier learned man for the delight of those endowed with analytic understanding, Kesava continues, his (i.e., Kesava's) own composition cannot be obtained elsewhere on account of its spotless virtues, such as excellence of explanation, conciseness and simplicity of expression, mutual coherence and harmony of individual topical sequences (?). I would like to suggest that it is the author of the Nyayatattvaloka to whom he obliquely refers to in these verses as an earlier scholar and with whose work he compares his own composition. Kesava thus would have appreciated the Nyayatattvaloka as a demanding commentarial work meant for specialists who can follow the analytical discussions on central Navya-Nyaya topics as presented by Vacaspati with reference to the Tattvacintamani; at the same time he would imply that compared to his own commentary the Nyayatattvaloka contained less excellent explanations of the sutra-s themselves, was too extensive and complicated in its wording, less coherent and presented a not always felicitous order of topics treated (?). Furthermore, he may have implied that the spotless qualities of the Gautamiyasutraprakasa ensure an appropriate understanding of the 'secret' of the Pancadhyayi also for those interested Naiyayikas who are prone to misunderstanding it, something which the Nyayatattvaloka could not achieve owing to its complicated expositions taking into consideration the developed contemporary discourse as well as its more difficult, less smooth style. Two extensive quotations in the Gautamiyasutraprakasa come from a certain Vidyasagara, the author of a lost sika on the Nyayasutra whom Anantalal Thakur has identified with 9 The wording is too laconic to decide the precise nature of the contradiction. Kesava Misra may have had in mind contradiction with reasoning in general or with relevant contemporaneous ideas, or with older, established traditional explanations. 96 Cf. GSP1, 10-17 (vv. 4-5): iha nyayaranye prakrtigahane tarkasaranipravina vidvamsah kati kati na purvam samabhavan param pancadhyayiparinatarahasyapranayino virodhavyasedhavyasanapatavah kecana punah // aste yadyapi purvapanditakrta vyakhyaiva samkhyavatam anandaya tathapi kesava kaver vacam iyam gumphana / vyakhyasausthavasabdalaghavamithahsambandhapurvaparapratyarthapratibaddha(?) nirmalaguna kutranyato labhyatam //.

Page #26
80 KARIN PREISENDANZ. Pundarikaksa Vidyasagara, a cousin of Vasudeva Sarvabhauma.97 Should this identification be correct, it would imply that Kesava Misra was aware of some sutra-interpretations in a late fifteenthcentury Nyayasutra-commentary written in Bengal, if he did not even have a copy of the whole work at his disposal. Vidyasagara for his part refers to the pre-Gangesa Nyayabhaskara and Vardhamana's late fourteenth-century Tattvabodha among other works belonging to Mithila.99 In spite of these and the few other references to earlier work done on the Nyayasutra, on the whole the emerging picture presented by the Gautamiyasutraprakasa, as already indicated above (cf. p. 78), is one characterized by a lack of historical depth and perspective as compared to these aspects as they are evident in the Nyayatattvaloka. However, another kind of intellectual interest, towards which a tendency could already be noted in the Nyayatattvaloka in conjunction with the Nyayasutroddhara, can be observed with the Gautamiyasutraprakasa, namely, a strong concern about the constitution of the root text. The individual adhyaya-s of the commentary are followed by verses in which the number of the sutra-s relating to the individual topics (prakarana-s) is indicated both by cardinal number words and by descriptive number words; also the topics themselves are enumerated.'00 At the conclusion of the first adhyaya, the number of prakarana-s of the whole sastra is also indicated in a verse. In consonance with this attention to formal features, Kesava Misra devotes more space than his predecessors to the discussion of struc 97 Cf. GSP 32. 4-8 and 76, 12-19, and Thakur (1976). Pundarikaksa Vidyasagara was a scholar of grammar (with extant works) who is said to have also composed commentaries on the Alankarasastra works by Dandin, Vamana and Mammata. Vasudeva Sarvabhauma's father, the scholar Narahari Visarada, was Pundarikaksa's uncle; cf. Bhattacharyya (1940: 59). 98 Cf. above, n. 37. 99 Cf. Thakur (1976: 267). 100 cf. e.g., the verses at the conclusion of adhyaya I (GSP 24, 16-22, vv. 2-3): aksi (= 2) panca (5) dhruvas ( 14) caiva tri (3) sad (6) asva ( 7)* yugandharah (= 2) / pascat tri(3)sad(6)vasu( = 8)trini(3) prathamadhyayasutrakam // sambandha[1]mana[2]meyan [3] tatpurvangam (4) tadasrayah [5] // tatsvarupam (6) cottarangam (7) prathame, carame punah // katha (1) ca hetvabhasas [2] ca chalam (3) casaktilingakam [4] //. * asva seems to be a mistake because the prakarana contains not seven but eight sutra-s. For this reason, Kishor Nath Jha corrects sadasva to sadvasu. 101 Cf. GSP 24, 23-24 (v. 4): sapta(7)sruti(= 4) grahal = 9)mbhodhi(= 4) graha( = 9)svaus = 7) vasava( = 14) r'tukau( = 6) //

Page #27
THE NYAYASUTRA COMMENTARIAL TRADITION 81 tural considerations, such as the correct number and extent of prakarana-s02 and their sequence and coherence as regards content (sangati). Furthermore, he discusses the status of disputed sutra-s 103 as well as the precise wording and extent of certain sutra-s. 104 I would like to suggest that with the Gautamiyasutraprakasa a significant further step takes place in the development of what one could call Nyayasutra-commentaries with a 'philological and text-critical emphasis, as opposed to such commentaries with philosophical and historical emphasis. This new tendency finds its culmination in the Nyayatattvapariksa, also known as Anviksatattvapariksa."Os According to the colophon of the manuscript preserved at the Mithila Research Institute, Darbhanga, 106 which has convincingly been argued to be an autograph by Prabal Kumar Sen, 107 this commentary was written in 1735 by Vamsadhara in the village of Mangalavani (Mangarauni, Mangroni) near Madhubani. The first introductory verse of two incomplete mss. of the Nyayatattvapariksa kept in the Sarasvati Bhavana Library108 provides the further information that Vamsadhara was the student of (Footnote 101 continued). jimutal = 17)(?)* vahav(= 7) adyantahnike prakaranam kramat //. * jimuta, not recorded as a descriptive number word, is an epithet of Siva and may therefore correspond to 11; the actual number of prakarana-s in the first ahnika of the final adhyaya according to the Gautamiyasutraprakasa is 17. 102 Cf. e.g., the discussion as to the reason why Nyayasutra 3.1.12-14 do not form a separate prakarana, as assumed by Tarani Misra in his Bhasva (cf. above, n. 37; cf. also n. 124 below), in GSP 44, 15-19 or to why the first five prakarana-s of the third adhyaya do not form an ahnika by themselves in GSP 47, 4-6 (atmapariksanumitaih in line 4 should probably be corrected to read atmapariksantarbhutaih). Cf. also GSP 33, 14-16 on the possibility that the third and fourth prakarana of the first ahnika of the second adhyaya form an independent ahnika, and GSP 57,4-7 on the suggestion that the second prakarana of the second ahnika of the third adhyaya constitutes only a part of the first prakarana. 103 Cf. e.g., the discussion on Nyayasutra 3.1.28-30 in GSP 47, 26-28 and on 3.2.10 in GSP 56, 24-25. 104 Cf. e.g., the comments on Nyayasutra 3.2.10 in GSP 56, 26-29. 105 Thus, Mishra's statement that Kesava Misra was the last Maithila scholar of the traditional type who wrote a commentary on the Nvayasutra (cf. Mishra, 1966: 369) has to be taken with caution. 100 Ms. no. 497. The colophon is quoted in Sen (1980: 103); however, I read the expanded title of the work mentioned there as maharsigautamapranitanyayatati vapariksa (instead of -nyayasya tattva-). 107 Cf. Sen (1980: 103-105). 108 SBL mss. no. 31556 (containing the commentary on the first adhyaya) and 31557 (covering the first ahnika of the first adhyaya and parts of its second ahnika, discontinuing right in the middle of the commentary on Nyayasutra 1.2.12), obviously not known to Sen. The two manuscripts preserved in Darbhanga (at the

Page #28
82 KARIN PREISENDANZ Gokulanatha and that Gokulanatha, together with his younger brother, Vamsadhara's maternal uncle (matula) Jagannatha '09 - with whom he spend some years in Garhwal under the patronage of the Muslim ruler Fateh Shah' -, taught Vamsadhara how to comment (Footnote 108 continued). Mithila [Research] Institute and the Darbhanga Raj Library, i.e., the Library of Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University (KSDSU)) and available to Sen for his 1980 study are incomplete at the beginning the first contains the commentary on Nyayasutra 1.1.11 to 1.2.3 only, the second the complete text starting with adhyaya 2. A further ms. of the commentary on the first adhyaya, dated 1187 Bengali era (= 1780), has been reported by Rajendralal Mitra (cf. also Jha, 1947: 322) to be preserved at Magrani (= Mangalavani), in the possession of a certain Pandit Chhoti Jha (cf. Mitra and Sastri, 1990: 193, no. 1877); beginning and end of this ms. (= M), also unknown to Sen and maybe not available any longer, have been transcribed by Mitra. Mitra correctly listed this ms. under the title Nyayatattvapariksa. Just as in the case of the ms. belonging to the Darbhanga Raj Library (cf. Sen, 1980: 101), SBL mss. no. 31556 and 31557 of the Nyayatattvapariksa are catalogued as containing an Anviksatatt vapariksa although the two preserved colophons after the first ahnika of the first adhyaya clearly identify the work's title as Nyayatati vapariksa; cf. fol. 41 v 4 and fol. 37r 8: iti nyayatati vapariksayam prathamadhyayasya (ms. no. 31556 reads: prathamadhyaya-) prathamahnikam tatt vatah pariksitam. The colophon at the end of adhyaya 1 in ms. no. 31556 (fol. 50v 6) gives the alternative title Anviksatati vapariksa which may be the result of the scribe's having been influenced by the beginning of the immediately preceding concluding verse anviksa'prathamadhyaye dvitivahnikagocarah/ tativaihpariksitah samyak srivamsadharasarmana // (fol. 50v 5-6); cp, the similar second introductory verse to the second ahnika of the first adhyava which is preserved in the KSDSU ms. (as reported in Sen, 1980: 101), but not in SBL mss. no. 31556 and 31557. Also the final colophon of M confirms the title Nyayatattvapariksa; cf. Mitra and Sastri (1990: 194): iti nyayatattvapariksayam prathamo 'dhyayah. M: anviksah; ?ms. no. 31556: tatt vai 109 cf. also Jha (1965: xiii). The syntax of the verse (cf. n. 111 below) does not attest to a third preceptor and Jha, who lists the names and aliases of the three brothers of Gokulanatha, does not mention a brother called Sambhu (loc. cit.); cf. also the genealogy of the Phanandaha or Phanadaha family given in Jha (1947: 318) and Mishra (1966: 375). The word sambhu, as an adjective meaning 'helpful, gracious,' is clearly used here to qualify Vamsadhara's maternal uncle Jagannatha (cf. also Jha, 1947: 322 on the evidence of the two introductory verses of the Nyayatal vapariksa as quoted by Rajendralal Mitra from the Mangalavani ms. (cf. n. 108 above]), and does not refer to a further maternal uncle named Sambhu, as assumed in Sen (1980: 100) with reference to the very similar verse in the beginning of Vamsadhara's Anumanadidhititati vapariksa. This is supported by the fact that in the second introductory verse to the Nyayatati vapariksa as found in SBL mss. no. 31556 and 31557 as well as in the Mangalavani ms. Jagannatha is mentioned again and designated as matula (cf. again n. 111 below). 110 Cf. Jha (1947: 314 and 322) and Bhattacharya (1958: 195) (on Gokulanatha).

Page #29
THE NYAYASUTRA COMMENTARIAL TRADITION 83 upon the statements of Aksapada; thus Vamsadhara was Gokulanatha's sister's son (bhagineya), which fits well with the fact that Mangalavani is the native village of the well-known Naiyayika Gokulanatha. "12 Jagannatha must have assumed the role of the principal teacher of Vamsadhara while his elder brother was busy as a scholar at the court of the Kamesvara ruler Raghava Simha or after he had departed for Kasi, where he passed away at the age of ninety." This is corroborated by the fact that according to the sarayantra declaration of Datta Sarman's (cf. below) the anviksiki vidya is said to have passed on from Gokulanatha to Jagannatha to Vamsadhara."14 Vamsadhara, himself of the Darihara family,"15 is also said to have enjoyed the patronage of Raghava Simha of Mithila 16 and, like several other members - including of course Gokulanatha - of the learned family of his mother and of his scholarly lineage, passed the highly demanding sarayantra examination, thus succeeding his uncle "! Cf. SBL mss. no. 31556 (fol. lv1-2) and 31557 (fol. lv 1-2); Mangalavani ms. (= M) (Mitra and Sastri, 1990: 193-194): suror go'kulanathatas tadanujad yo va jagannathatah sambhoh prapimaya ksapadavacanavyakhyavidhir matulat / tati vam gudham api svabhavagahane nyaye pariciksisoh srimadvamsadharas ya me 'tra saranam sarvarthacintamanih /l. Ms. no. 31557: kuo-; - M: missing due to damage to leaf; ' Ms. no. 31556: sambho, M: missing due to damage; Mss. no. 31556 and 31557: satrvam ca cintamanih This verse is very similar to the third introductory verse to Vamsadhara's Anumanadidhititativapariksa quoted in Sen (1980: 100) (who there reads gurvoh instead of suroh in the beginning, and satkrsnacintamanih[?] instead of sar varthacintamanih in the last pada). The second introductory verse to the Nyayatati vapariksa according to SBL mss. no. 31556 (fol. lv 2-3) and 31557 (fol. lv 2-3) as well as M reads as follows: matulasrijagannathad adhitya nyayadarsanam/ srimadvamsadharas tatra tattvam samyak pariksate' //. 'Ms. no. 31556: pariksite, M: pariksyate 112 Cf. Jha (1965: xiii, xv) and Sen (1980: 105). 113 Cf. Bhattacharya (1958: 195-196), where Madhava must be a mistake for Raghava. Madhava Simha Bahadur became the ruler of Mithila only in 1785. 114 Cf. Jha (1947: 310): iyam anviksiki vidya ... mahamahopadhyayagokulanathasarmasu sthapita ... tato pi mahamahopadhyayajagannathadvitiyena jagannathasarmana samasadita tatas ca mahamahopadhyayavamsadharasarmanalambhi .... Jha (1947: 322) speculates that Jagannatha may have taken upon himself the teaching of his sister's son after his elder brother had passed away. However, at least at the time of the completion of the Nyayatattvapariksa Gokulanatha may have been still alive; cf. Bhattacharya (1958: 195) who argues that he must have died in the decade 1730-1740. His Cf. Jha (1947: 318 and 322-323), Jha (1965: xiii). 116 CC. Jha (1965: xv). The Khandavala family, which had assumed the dynastic 'surname' Thakkura after the acquisition of the Darbhanga Raj, changed its name to Simha from the time of Raghava Simha onwards; cf. Mishra (1966: 357, n. 1) and Choudhary (1970: 171).

Page #30
84 KARIN PREISENDANZ Jagannatha. Information about this official distinction is obtained from the valuable and interesting document (preserved in two copies) containing a declaration circulated by Gokulanatha's grandson Datta Sarman in which the latter announced his intention to take the sarayantra." Like Vacaspati Misra of Mithila, Vamsadhara was also renowned as a dharmasastrin."18 Vamsadhara's commentary on the Nyayasutra has been aptly described by Prabal Kumar Sen, with respect to its sources - among which the Gautamiyasutraprakasa figures prominently - and specific text-critical methods."19 Especially noteworthy is Vamsadhara's distinction between mulasutra-s and bhasyasutra-s, that is, his coinage of a new methodological term for those succinct sentences of the Nyayabhasya which were considered by some as original sutra-s. 120 In this way Vamadhara distinguishes the latter from the text of the foundational work by sage Aksapada2and at the same time suggests that they are endowed with if not equal then at least similar authority. 122 Another novel text-critical expression introduced by Vamsadhara into Nyayasutra exegesis is the term sesapuraka, referring to those parts of the Nyayabhasya which supply what remains to be said by the author of the root text, almost as if they reflected his own unsaid words.123 As in the Gautamiyasutraprakasa, considerable space 117 Cf. Jha (1947); cf. also Bhattacharya (1958: 193-194) and Mishra (1966: 381382). According to Triloknath Jha (2001: 270-271), Vamsadhara's uncle Gokulanatha was the last sarayantri, a statement which has already been made by Ganganath Jha in 1928-1929 (cf. the reference in Jha, 1947: 321); to solve the obvious contradiction resulting from the evidence of the Datta Sarman's declaration. Ramnath Jha considers that after Gokulanatha's time the examination did no longer take place with the participation of the public (cf. Jha, loc. cit.). 118 Cf. Jha (1965: xiii). 119 Cf. Sen (1980). 120 Cf. the excerpts given in Sen (1980: 108-109, 119-120, 122-123). In general, the text as presented by Sen often requires obvious emendations and conjectures, sometimes based on the evidence of other commentaries; however, it is outside the scope of the present contribution to individually point these out and justify them. 21 Cf. the reference to Aksapada in the concluding verse no. 3 of the Nyayatattvapariksa (quoted in Sen, 1980: 103): jnanambhonidhir aksapada rsibhrn nyayo 'sya suktam mahat, tatt vam gudham amusya tasya vihita yaisa pariksa maya / I fail to understand rsibhrt in the relevant first pada of this verse and unfortunately did not prepare my own transliteration of it when I saw the ms. Could rsibhrt be a scribal mistake or misreading? 122 For an example of an extended discussion on the status of disputed sutra-s, cf. Sen (1980: 111-112; cf. also 126-127). 123 Cf. the example in Sen (1980: 114). Cf. also Sen (1980: 106).

Page #31
THE NYAYASUTRA COMMENTARIAL TRADITION is given to the discussion of the extent and names of the prakarana-s'24 as well as of their mutual relationship and pertinence (sangati);"25 individual readings of sutra-s, their extent and order are also discussed. 126 Here and in the discussion of disputed sutra-s Vamsadhara often agrees with Kesava Misra's verdict. It can therefore be assumed that he utilized the Gautamiyasutraprakasa when composing his work, additionally borrowing the references to earlier commentaries from it.121 In one of his introductory verses, Vamsadhara mentions his exclusive desire for discernment and claims that accomplishment in discernment between what is true and false (right and wrong) will result in the disappearance of low-minded persons in this world.128 Could it be that with the term discernment (viveka) Vamsadhara also refers to his textcritical approach towards the Nyayasutra? To sum up and conclude: In the eleventh century, when treatises written in the old style of proliferating sub-commentaries, sub-subcommentaries, etc., on the Nyayasutra were no longer considered adequate to effectively counter the increasingly sophisticated challenge of the Buddhist epistemologists, this type of literary production was discontinued and gave way to more focussed independent treatises which subsequently flourished, unburdened or unimpeded by the task of Sutra exegesis and apologetics. After the demise of Buddhism in India and the firm establishment of Muslim rule in the north, related but categorically distinct external factors which must have jointly influenced the motivation of scholars, we can observe, in the 124 Cf. e.g., the discussion and rejection of Tarani Misra's opinion, expressed in his Bhasva, that Nyayasutra 3.1.12-14 form a separate prakarana (Sen 1980: 114-115), to be compared with the one in the GSP (cf. n. 102 above); cf. also Sen, 1980: 123 124. 125 Cf. Sen (1980: 109-110). 126 Cf. Sen (1980: 106-107, 109, 116-117, 125-126, 127-128). 127 Cf. also Sen (1980: 129). The earlier commentaries, as mentioned in the Nyayatattvapariksa and listed by Sen, are the Nyayabhasya, Nyayavarttika, (Nyayavarttikatatparya) sika, Nibandha (i.e., Parisuddhi), Bhaskara (cf. Sen, 1980: 106, and above, p. 80), Tattvabodha and Nyayanibandhaprakasa; the names of Sanatani (cf. Sen, 1980: 127-128; cf. nn. 33 and 93 above), Tarani Misra (cf. Sen, 1980: 114-115; cf. nn. 37 and 102 above) and Vidyasagara (cf. Sen, 1980: 109, p. 80 above and already Thakur, 1976: 265), next to Kesava Misra himself (cf. Sen, 1980: 107), suggest references to further commentaries on the Nyayasutra (cf. Sen, 1980: 102-103). 128 Cf. introductory verse no. 1 at the beginning of the second ahnika of the first adhyaya (SBL mss. no. 31556 fol. 41v 4-5 and no. 31557 fol. 37r 8-9; quoted from the Mithila Research Institute ms. in Sen (1980: 101): tvam vani vamisadharasurir upasya matar ekam vivekam abhilasapadani* karoti / jatodaye sadasator vimale viveke loke na ke 'pi purusah krpana bhavanti //. * Both SBL mss. read abhilasapade

Page #32
86 KARIN PREISENDANZ. fifteenth century, a return of concern with the Nyayasutra, the ancient foundational work of the Nyaya tradition, accompanied by a new kind of focussed and increasingly intense interest in its text-critical analysis which involved inter alia the evaluation of sporadic earlier text-critical remarks and positions; furthermore, the formerly prominent engagement in controversies with Buddhist philosophers occasioned either directly by topics addressed in the Sutra or indirectly by related reflections in the sub-commentaries gives way to the endeavour to present and comment upon, wherever appropriate, the relevant topical discourse found in recent and contemporary Navya-Nyaya treatises. The mentioned turn together with the new attitude may well have been part of a historicist search for originality and authenticity which in this specific case, i.e., with regard to the Nyayasutra, had become possible because there was no longer any psychological and ideological need to respond to the Buddhist challenge in any interpretation of and comment on the Sutra; a second reason may be that the necessity to present the Sutra as the internally undisputed and unambiguous foundation of the Nyaya tradition vis a vis the Buddhist critics was not felt any longer. The historicist stance indicated by the text-critical approach is also reflected in the more and more prominent historicist periodizations which had been expressed in the works of the Nyaya tradition in north-eastern India already in the thirteenth century. Both intellectual phenomena, the historicist search for originality and authenticity as well as the historicist periodizations, may have been influenced by the increasing intellectual interaction of the non-Muslim elite with Islamic culture which can be specifically demonstrated for some Nyaya scholars, the former phenomenon having possibly been motivated by the wish to assert one's own cultural identity and - in view of the clear realization of the historical antiquity of the object of examination - superiority vis a vis the Muslim rulers. This latter inner motivation may have coincided with or been reinforced by the external factor of the boosted promotion of Sanskritic scholarship by local non-Muslim rulers, some of them Sanskrit scholars themselves and some related to prominent scholars through family ties, for their own purposes of cultural self-assertion and legitimization. APPENDIX AND OUTLOOK The line of development regarding the major Nyayasutra-commentaries and the attitudes and approaches of their authors sketched

Page #33
THE NYAYASUTRA COMMENTARIAL TRADITION 87 above has, of course, only the nature of a working hypothesis which has to be corroborated in further detail or to be modified in the light of a more thorough analysis of the works and other testimonies. Also, the information about the authors themselves, their patrons and their networks is only fragmentary and remains to be fleshed out. Furthermore, the tradition of Navya-Nyaya in Navadvipa, where after Ilyas Shah the general conditions for scholarship and for scholarly travel (foremost to centres of learning such as Mithila and Kasi) must have improved, resulting in the production of a voluminous philosophical literature,129 could not be addressed within the scope of the present contribution. The Navadvipa tradition of commenting upon the Nyayasutra is mainly represented by a small fragment of a Nyayasutravyakhya by Mathuranatha Tarkavagisa, followed by Ramabhadra Sarvabhauma's important Nyayarahasya (end of the sixteenth/beginning of the seventeenth century), both works that I have not yet been able to study in sufficient detail. 130 Supplementing his father's commentary on the fifth adhyaya only of the Nyayasutra, that is, Janakinatha's above-mentioned Anviksikitattvavivarana,"51 Ramabhadra, who was the teacher of the more famous Jagadisa Tarkalankara,132 commented on the first four adhyaya-s. Another prominent representative of this tradition is Visvanatha Pancanana, whose well-known, but not yet thoroughly studied Nyayasutravrtti was completed in 1634 in Vindavana, that is, some hundred years after Kesava Misra of Mithila wrote his Gautamivasutraprakasa; his self-proclaimed motive in composing this commentary was to make the extensive Nyayasastra of Aksapada, whom he elsewhere calls a sage, 133 able to be understood easily and without much effort even 129 Cf. Chakravarti (1915a: 272, 1929-1930: 249). 130 For a first study of the Nyayarahasya cf. Sen (1987, for Sen's recent edition of this work cf. n. 58 above). Sulapani (Thakur. 1970: 37, 1981: xxii) and Svapnesvara (Thakur, loc. cit.), grandson of Vasudeva Sarvabhauma (Bhattacharyya, 1940: 60), are said to have written commentaries on the Nyayasutra, but their works have not yet been located. Among other preceding commentaries on the Nyayasutra quoted by Janakinatha he refers to the lost Bhaskara (cf. n. 37 above) (cf. Mishra, 1966: 421, relying on information provided by Dineshchandra Bhattacharya). 132 Cf. Chakravarti (1915a: 281-282) and Kaviraj (1982: 86) with reference to the Nyayarahasya in the latter's sabdasaktiprakasika. >> Cf. the first concluding verse of the Nyayasutravriti in which Visvanatha also refers to (Raghunatha) Siromani, devotee of Krsnacandra, with the help of whose utterances he composed his commentary (NVr 1201, 16-19): esa munipravaragautamasutravittih srivisvanathakrtina sugamalpavarna / srikrsnacandracaranambujacancarikasrimacchiromanivacahpracayair akari //.

Page #34
88 KARIN PREISENDANZ. by lazy-minded people. 134 Visvanatha Pancanana, the youngest son in the family, 135 was a student of his father Vidyanivasa Bhattacarya, who is honoured by him in one of the intcoductory verses of the Nyayasutravrtti, 136 and regularly mentioned in the intermediate and final colophons of the manuscripts of this work. Quite a number of details are known about Vidyanivasa Bhattacarya whom Dineshchandra Bhattacharya calls 'the leader of Bengali scholars in Benares for a long time': he was defeated in a dispute with the Mimamsaka Narayana Bhatta of the Gadhi family (cf. above, p. 77) 37 on the occasion of a sraddha ceremony in Todarmall's house in Delhi 38 and is mentioned in the Ain-i-Akbari in the fourth category of the learned men of Akbar's time, namely, among those who look upon testimony as something filled with the dust of suspicion and handle nothing without proof'; he signed a nirnayapatra issued in 1583 in Kasi and may have been among the contributors to the Kavindracandrodaya (cf. above, p. 77).140 According to Umesh Mishra14 he was the son of a younger brother of Vasudeva Sarvabhauma; this statement tallies with Baldev Upadhyaya's comment that he was the son of the youngest son of Narahari Visarada, 42 named Vidyavacaspati.143 A grandson of his, Govinda Bhattacarya, son of Vidyanivasa's son Rudra Nyayavacaspati Bhattacarya, '44 may have been the 27th among the 77 134 Cf. introductory verse no. 5 (NVr 28, 25-26): alasamatir apidam vistriam nyayasastram virahitabahuyatno lilaya vettu vijrah/ iti vinihitacetah kausalam kartukamo gurucaranarajo 'ham karnadharikaromi //. Cf. Mishra (1966: 434) and Upadhyaya (1994: 34). 136 Cf. introductory verse no. 4 (NVr 28, 23-24): advaitam gurudharmayor iva lasatksmamandalimandanam rupam kincana paurusam gira iva pragalbhyasampadakam dane karnam ivavatirnam aparam dane dayadaksinam tatam visvavisaricaruyasasam vidyani vasam numah //; cf. also verse 6 where Visvanatha refers to himself as son of Vidyanivasa (NVr 29, 24): vidyanivasasunoh krtir esa visvanathasya / vidusam atisuksmadhiyam amatsaranam mude bhavatu //. 137 According to Mishra (1966: 434), Vidyanivasa was the winner, a statement which is most probably a mistake. 138 Cf. Shastri (1912: 9-10) and Upadhyaya (1994: 47); cf. also Benson (2001: 113) whose ms. evidence does not support Shastri's characterization of the nature of the dispute but points to another topic of discussion. 1.39 Cf. Bhattacharyya (1937: 34-35). 140 Cf. Shastri (1912: 12). 141 Cf. Mishra (1966: 434). 142 Cf. n. 97 above. 143 Cf. Upadhyaya (1994: 34). 144 Cf. Chakravarti (1915a: 286, 288).

Page #35
THE NYAYASUTRA COMMENTARIAL TRADITION 89 scholars who signed a nirnayapatra issued in Kasi in 1657 (cf. be low).145 In addition, the Nyayasiddhantamala, a commentary in the broader sense on selected sutra-s of adhyaya-s 1 and 5.2 of the Nyayasutra, 46 written in the second half of the seventeenth century in Kasi by the Bengali Jayarama Nyayapancanana,147 a student of Ramabhadra Sarvabhauma, 148 remains to be examined. 149 Jayarama Nyayapancanana's signature appears as the 74th name on the already mentioned vyavastha- or nirnayapatra issued in 1657 in Kasi;150 he also contributed to the Kavindracandrodaya." A further unexplored, still not edited commentary is the Mitabhasini by Mahadeva Bhattacarya of the last quarter of the seventeenth century, of which several manuscripts are preserved;152 Mahadeva, son of Vagisvaracarya and Bhagirathi, wrote this commentary at the request of a certain Somesvara Bhatta. He may have been a Vedantin and also author of the Sankhyavsttisara. 53 Only after these available materials have been taken into consideration will our broad picture of the commentarial literature on the Nyayasutra from the fifteenth to the eighteenth century, their authors and their contexts, become more complete, ready to be filled in with further details gained from additional sources. 145 Cf. Gode (1943: 136), Bhattacharyya (1945: 94-96) and Upadhyaya (1994: 87). 146 Cf. Shastri (1928: (1)(5), (9)-(10)); see also the characterization in Chakravarti (1929: 230) and Mishra (1966: 438). 147 Cf. Chakravarti (1915a: 283) and Kaviraj (1982: 94-95); according to Kaviraj, the work was composed in 1693. 148 Kaviraj, followed by Shastri (1928: (17H18]), identifies Jayarama's teacher with Ramabhadra Siddhantavagasa, the grandson and student of Jagadisa (Kaviraj, 1982: 94, 89-90). However, Bhattacharyya has clearly shown that this Ramabhadra must be Ramabhadra Sarvabhauma because Jayarama refers to the latter's Nyayarahasya ascribing the quoted passage to guravah (cf. Bhattacharyya, 1945: 96-97; cf. also Mishra, 1966: 435, 437). 149 The work refers to the Nyayabhasya, the Nyayavarttika, the Tatparya ika and Vardhamana's Nyayanibandhaprakasa and Tattvabodha; Udayana may be referred to by acaryah. Jayarama also mentions the Bhaskara (cf. n. 37 above) and Sanatani (cf. n. 33 above) once. 150 Cf. Kaviraj (1982: 152); Shastri (1928: 19); no. 68 in the list as presented in Gode (1943: 138), no. 31 in Upadhyaya (1994: 87). 151 Cf. Gode (1943: 138) and Upadhyaya (1994: 85). 132 Cf. Kaviraj (1982: 103). 153 CE Kaviraj (1982: 103, 154). Gaurinath Sastri, relying on the Navadvipamahima, mentions still another Vrtti on the Nyayasutra written in the niiddle of the eighteenth century in Navadvipa, by a certain Sivarama (cf. Sastri, 1968: 518). However, this work has not yet been discovered.

Page #36
90 KARIN PREISENDANZ SOURCES GSP: Gautamiyasitraprakasa of Kesavamisra, ed. Kishor Nath Jha. Allahabad: G.N. Jha Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapeetha, 1978. NA: Nyayalankara (Parcaprasthananyayamahatarkavisamapadavyakhya) of Abha yatilaka Upadhyaya, ed. Anantalal Thakur and J.S. Jetley. Gaekwad's Oriental Series 169. Baroda: Oriental Institute, 1981. NTA: Nyayatativaloka of Vacaspati Misra II (Junior), ed. Kishore Nath Jha. Ganganatha Jha Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapitha Text Series 33. Allahabad: G.N. Jha Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapeetha, 1992. NTD: Nyayatatparyadipika of Bhattavagisvara, ed. Kishor Nath Jha. Allahabad: G.N. Jha Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapeetha, 1979. N Bh: Nyayabhasya: Gautamiyan yayadarsana with Bhasya of Vatsyayana, ed. Anantalal Thakur. Nyayacaturgranthika Vol. I. New Delhi: Indian Council for Philosophical Research, 1997. NV: Nyayavartika: Nyayabhasya varttika of Bharadvaja Uddyotakara, ed. Anantalal Thakur. Nyayacaturgranthika Vol. II. New Delhi: Indian Council for Philoso phical Research, 1997. NVr: Nyayasutravrtti of Visvanatha Pancanana, in Nyayadarsanam, ed. Taranatha Nyaya-Tarkatirtha, Amarendramohan Tarkatirtha and Hemantakumar Tarkatirtha. Calcutta Sanskrit Series 18 and 19. Calcutta: Metropolitan. Publishing & Printing House, Limited, 1936-1944. NVTT: Nyayavarttikatatparyalika of Vacaspatimisra, ed. Anantalal Thakur. Nyayacaturgranthika Vol. III. New Delhi: Indian Council for Philosophical Research, 1996. NVTP: Nyayavarttikatatparyaparisuddhi of Udayanacarya, ed. Anantalal Thakur. Nyayacaturgranthika Vol. IV. New Delhi: Indian Council for Philosophical Research, 1996. PV: Pramanavartika of Dharmakirti, in: Yusho Miyasaka, 'Pramanavarttikakarika (Sanskrit and Tibetan)', Acta Indologica 2 (1971/1972), 2-206. MMK: Mulamadhyamakakarikas (Madhyamikasutras) de Nagarjuna avec la Prasannapada Commentaire de Candrakirti, ed. Louis de La Vallee Poussin. Bib liotheca Buddhica 4. S.-Petersburg: Academie Imperiale des Sciences, 1903-1913. SKT: Srikanthatippanakam (A Commentary on the Major Nyaya-texts) By Srikanthacarya, ed. Anantalal Thakur. Bibliotheca Indica 313. Calcutta: Asiatic Society, 1986. REFERENCES Benson, J. (2001). "Samkarabhatta's family chronicle. The Gadhivamsavarnana', in Axel Michaels (ed.), The Pandit: Traditional Scholarship in India (pp. 105-118). New Delhi. Bhattacharya, D. (1958). History of Navya-Nyaya in Mithila. Mithila Institute Series 2. Darbhanga. Bhattacharya, D.C. (1947). 'Nyaya works of Vacaspati Misra II of Mithila', Journal of the Ganganatha Jha Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapeetha 3(3-4), 295-312. Bhattacharya, G. (1978). Nayva-Nyaya. Some Logical Problems in Historical Per spective. Delhi/Varanasi. Bhattacharyya, D. (1937). "Sanskrit scholars of Akbar's time", Indian Historical Quarterly 13, 31-36. Bhattacharyya, D.C. (1940). "Vasudeva Sarvabhauma', Indian Historical Quarterly 16, 58-69.

Page #37
91 THE NYAYASUTRA COMMENTARIAL TRADITION Bhattacharyya, D.C. (1945). 'Bengali scholars at Benares (1657 A.D.)', Indian Historical Quarterly 21, 91-97. Chakravarti, M. (1906 [1907]). 'Sanskrit literature in Bengal during the Sena rule', Journal & Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal (New Series) 2, 157-176. Chakravarti Bahadur, R.M. (1915a). 'History of, Journal & Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, (New Series) 11, 259-292. Chakravarti Bahadur, R.M. (1915b). 'History of Mithila during the pre-Mughal period', Journal & Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal (New Series) 11, 407-433. Chakravarti, C. (1929). 'Bengal's contribution to philosophical literature in Sanskrit', The Indian Antiquary 58, 201-206, 230-233, continued in Chakravarti (1930). Chakravarti, C. (1929-1930). 'Bengal's contribution to Sanskrit literature (A chronological frame-work)', Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute 11, 235-258. Chakravarti, C. (1930). 'Bengal's contribution to philosophical literature in Sanskrit', The Indian Antiquary 59, 23-27. Chemparathy, G. (1972). An Indian Rational Theology. Publications of the De Nobili Research Library 1. Wien. Choudhary, R. (1970). History of Muslim Rule in Tirhut (1206-1765 A.D.). Chowkhamba Sanskrit Studies 72. Varanasi. Franco, E. (1997). Dharmakirti on Compassion and Rebirth. Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 38. Wien. Franco, E. (2002). A Mimamsaka among the Buddhists. Three fragments on the relationship between word and object', in J. Braarvig et al. (eds.), Buddhist Manuscripts in the Schoyen Collection, Vol. 2 (pp. 269-285). Oslo. Franco, E. and Preisendanz, K. (1995). 'Bhavadasa's interpretation of Mimamsasutra 1.1.4 and the date of the Nyayabhasya', Berliner Indologische Studien 8, 81-86. Franco, E. and Preisendanz, K. (1998a). "Nyaya-Vaisesika', in Edward Craig (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol. 7 (pp. 57-67). London. Franco, E. and Preisendanz, K. (1998b). 'Gautama, Aksapada', in Edward Craig (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol. 3 (pp. 859-861). London. Frauwallner, E. (1936). 'Beitrage zur Geschichte des Nyaya. I. Jayanta und seine Quellen', Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde des Morgenlandes 43, 263-278. Gode, P.K. (1943-1944). 'Some new evidence regarding Devabhatta Mahasabde, the father of Ratnakarabhatta, the guru of Sevai Jaising of Amber (A.D. 1699-1743)', Poona Orientalist 8(3-4), 129-138. Gode, P.K. (1954). 'Bernier and Kavindracarya Sarasvati at the Mughal court', in Studies in Indian Literary History, Vol. 2 (pp. 364-379). Bombay. Gupta, B. (1963). Die Wahrnehmungslehre in der Nyayamanjari. Walldorf. Hattori, M. (1968). Dignaga, On Perception. Harvard Oriental Series 47. Cambridge, Mass. Jha, G. (1994). Sadholal Lectures on Nyaya. Sri Garib Das Oriental Series 178. 2nd ed. Delhi. (1st ed. Allahabad 1912-1916). Jha, K.N. (1978). avataranam, in GSP (pp. [1]-[14]). Jha, R. (1947). The declaration of a sarayantri', in A.S. Altekar (ed.), Proceedings and Transactions of the All-India Oriental Conference. Twelfth Session. Benares Hindu University 1943-4; Vol. I: Proceedings. Transactions, Bulletins, Minutes of Meetings, Lists of Members, Delegates, etc. (pp. 309-325). Benares. Jha, T. (ed.) (1965). The Viratarangini of MM. Citradhara of Mithila. Darbhanga. Jha, T. (2001). 'Sanskrit studies in Bihar', in Vachaspati Upadhyaya (ed.), Sanskrit Studies in India, (pp. 266-276). New Delhi.

Page #38
92 KARIN PREISENDANZ Kane, P.V. (1975). History of Dharmasastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law). Government Oriental Series Class B, No. 6. Vol. I, Part II, revised and enlarged. Poona. Kaviraj, G. (1982). The History and Bibliography of 'Nyaya-Vaisesika Literature. Princess of Wales Sarasvati Bhavana Studies Reprint Series 2. Varanasi (reprinted from Vol. 3-5 and 7, 1924-1926 and 1929). Laine, J. (1998). 'Udayana (11th century)', in Edward Craig (ed.). Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Vol. 9 (pp. 512-513). London. Matilal, B.K. (1977). Nyaya-Vaisesika. A History of Indian Literature VI, 2. Wiesbaden. Meulenbeld, G.J. (2000). A History of Indian Medical Literature. Vol. 2. Groningen. Mishra, U. (1966). History of Indian Philosophy. Vol. 2. Allahabad. Mitra, D. (1980). Buddhist Monuments. Calcutta. Mitra, R. and Sastri, H. (1990). Notices of Sanskrit Manuscripts. Sharada Oriental Series 1. Vol. 5. Reprint Delhi: Sharada Prakashan. Mishra, V. (1979). Cultural History of Mithila. Allahabad: Mithila Prakasana. Naudou, J. (1980). Buddhists of Kashmir. Delhi. Oberhammer, G. (1964). 'Paksilasvamin's introduction to his Nyayabhasyam', Asian Studies 2(3), 302-322. Oetke, C. (1984). "Ich" und das Ich. Analytische Untersuchungen zur buddhistischbrahmanischen Atmankontroverse. Alt- und Neuindische Studien 33. Wiesbaden. Oetke, C. (1991). Zur Methode der Analyse philosophischer Sutratexte. Die Pramana Passagen der Nyayasutren. Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik Monographie 11. Reinbek. Phillips, S.H. (1995). Classical Indian Metaphysics. Refutations of Realism and the Emergence of "New Logic". Chicago/La Salle, Illinois. Pollock, S. (2001). 'New intellectuals in seventeenth-century India', The Indian Economic and Social History Review 38(1), 3-31. Preisendanz, K. (1994). Studien zu Nyayasutra III.I mit dem Nyayatattvaloka Vacaspati Misras II. 2 vols. Alt- und Neuindische Studien 46. Stuttgart. Preisendanz, K. (2000). 'Debate and independent reasoning vs. tradition: On the precarious position of early Nyaya', in Ryutaro Tsuchida and Albrecht Wezler (eds.), Haranandalahari. Volume in Honour of Professor Minoru Hara on his Seventieth Birthday (pp. 221-251). Reinbek. Roth, G. (1968). "A saint like that" and "a saviour" in Prakrit, Pali, Sanskrit and Tibetan literature', in Shri Mahavir Jaina Vidyalaya Golden Jubilee volume. Part I (pp. 46-62). Bombay. Sarma, S.R. (2002). 'From Yavani to Samskrtam: Sanskrit writings inspired by Persian works', Studies in the History of Indian Thought 14, 71-88. Sastri, G. (1968). 'Post-Gadadhara Naiyayikas of Bengal (1600-1800 A.D.)', in Jan C. Heesterman (ed.), Pratidanam. Indian, Iranian and Indo-European Studies Presented to Franciscus Bernardus Jacobus Kuiper on his Sixtieth Birthday (pp. 516-522). The Hague/Paris. Schmithausen, L. (1965). Mandanamisra's Vibhramavivekah. Sitzungsberichte der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, philologisch-historische Klasse 247,1 (= Veroffentlichungen der Kommission fur Sprachen und Kulturen Sudasiens 2). Wien. Sen, P.K. (1978). 'Nyayabhaskara - a lost Nyaya work', Journal of Indian Philosophy 5, 267-274. Sen, P.K. (1980). 'Vamsadhara's works and his textual criticism of the Nyayasutras', Journal of Indian Philosophy 8, 99-113.

Page #39
THE NYAYASUTRA COMMENTARIAL TRADITION 93 Sen, P.K. (1987). "Nyayarahasya and some disputed Nyayasutras', in R. Mukhopadhyaya et al. (eds.), Philosophical Essays: Professor Anantalal Thakur Felicita tion Volume (pp. 151-165). Calcutta. Sen P.K. (ed.) (2003). Nyayasutras with Nyayarahasya of Ramabhadra Sarvabkhauma and Anviksikitativavivarana of Janakinatha Cudamani. 2 vols., Bibliotheca Indica Series 324 Kolkata. Shah, N.J. (1972). Introduction, in Nagin J. Shah (ed.), Cakradhara's Nyaya manjarigranthibhanga. L.D. Series 35 (pp. 1-14). Ahmedabad. Shastri, H. (1912). 'Dakshini pandits at Benares, The Indian Antiquary 41, 7-13. Shastri, M.D. (1928). Introduction, in Mangal Deva Shastri (ed.), The Nyaya Siddhanta Mala of Jayarama Nyaya-Pancanana Bhattacarya. The Princess of Wales Sarasvati Bhavana Texts. 21 (Part II) (pp. 1-26). Benares. Solomon, E.A. (1970). 'Aviddhakarna - a forgotten Naiyayika', Vidya 13(1), 18-40. Solomon, E.A. (1971). 'A further note on Aviddhakarna', Vidya (Humanities) 14(2), 19-24. Solomon, E.A. (1973). "Forgotten Naiyayikas: (2) Acarya Adhyayana', Vidya (Languages) 16(3), 59-70. Solomon, E.A. (1974). "Forgotten Naiyayikas: (3) Bhavivikta', Vidya (Languages) 17(1-2), 23-35. Solomon, E.A. (1976). "Forgotten Naiyayikas: (4) Visvarupa', Vidya (Languages) 18(4), 13-28. Solomon, E.A. (1977-1978). 'Bhatta Udbhata', Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute 58-59 (1977-1978) (= Diamond Jubilee Volume) (pp. 985-992). Solomon, E.A. (1980). 'Trilocana: a forgotten Naiyayika', Vidya (Languages) 23(1), . 17-46. Solomon, E.A. (1986). "Trilocana - a forgotten Naiyayika', in Wolfgang Morgenroth (ed.), Sanskrit and World Culture. Proceedings of the Fourth World Sanskrit Conference of the International Association of Sanskrit Studies Weimar May 23-30. 1979 (= Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur des Alten Orients 18) (pp. 560-566). Berlin. Steinkellner, E. (1961). 'Die Literatur des alteren Nyaya', Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde Sud- und Ostasiens 5, 149-162. Steinkellner, E. (1977). "On the date and works of the Naiyayika Sankarasvamin', Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde Sud- und Ostasiens 21, 213-218. Thakur, A. (1947). "The Naiyayika Trilocana as teacher of Vacaspati', Indian Culture 14(1), 36-40. Thakur, A. (1965). "Studies in a fragmentary Vaisesikasutravrtti', Journal of the Oriental Institute Baroda 14, 330-335. Thakur, A. (1970). 'Lost and little known Nyaya works', Rtam 1(2), 31-38. Thakur, A. (1976). "Vidyasagara and his Nyayasutratika', Journal of the Oriental Institute Baroda 25(3-4), 265-267. Thakur, A. (1981). Introduction to NA, pp. XV-xxxi. Thakur, A. (2000). "Nyaya-Vaisesika studies and their revival', Journal of the Asiatic Society 42(1-2), 107-118. Thapar, R. (1990). A History of India. Vol. 1: From the Discovery of India to 1526. New Delhi (first edition: Harmondsworth 1966). Upadhyaya, B. (1994). Kasi ki Panditya-Parampara. Varanasi. Wada, T. (1990). Invariable Concomitance in Navya-Nyaya. Sri Garib Dass Oriental Series 101. Delhi. Wada, T. (2001). "The analytical method of Navya-Nyaya', Journal of Indian Philosophy 29(5-6), 519-530.

Page #40
94 KARIN PREISENDANZ Wezler, A. (1975). "Zur Identitat der "acaryah" und der "vyakhyatarah" in Jayantabhattas Nyayamanjari, Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde Sud- und Osta siens 19, 135-146. Wink, A. (1999). Al-Hind. The Making of the Indo-Islamic World. Vol. 2: The Slave Kings and the Islamic Conquests 11th-13th Centuries. New Delhi. Institute for South Asian, Tibetan and Buddhist Studies University of Vienna Spitalgasse 2, 2.1 A-1090 Vienna Austria E-mail: karin.preisendanz@univie.ac.at