Nyayakandali

SR No.: 004336
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: J S Jetly, Vasant G Parikh
Publisher: Oriental Research Institute Vadodra
Publication Year: 1991
Total Pages: 748
Language: Sanskrit
Classification: Book_Devnagari
File Size: 16 MB

Page 14

ceived, but is known through inference. Naiyayikas like Udyotakara, on the other hand firmly believe that inherence is perceptible. The commentators on PDS, being aware of this controversy, tactfully suggest that this is one of the few traditional differences between Vaisesika and Nyaya systems. It seems that many commentaries might have been written on PDS, four are prominent and often quoted among them. These commentaries are (i) Vyomavati by Vyomasivacarya (ii) Nyayakandali by Sridharacarya (iii) Kiranavali by Udayanacarya and (iv) Lilavati. The last is not available. but tradition ascribes its authorship to Srivatsa who is referred to by Udayana in his Parisuddhi. Nyava-Lilavati of Vallabha ( Published by Nirnaysagar Press) is an independent work on Vaisesika system and thus it is different from the Lilavati-a commentary on PDS. Rajasekhara in his Panjika - a commentary on Nyayakandali refers to these commentaries and indicates that the author of Lilavati is Sri Vatsacarya (P. 2). Internal evidence shows that Nyayakandali is preceded by Vyomavati and is followed by Kiranavali. Panjika ascribes some of the views refuted by Sridhara, to Vyomasiva and thus suggests that Sridhara was well aware of Vyomavati and he also preferred to differ from Vyomasiva occasionally. Vyomavati was studied by Jain scholars like Prabhacandra (9th Century A.D.) and others. This also suggests that it was earlier than Nyayakandali. Vyomasiva has given full justice to PDS, as he has left no portion-however simple it may be uncommented. He however does not stick to Vaisesika tenets always. For example Vyomasiva does not approve of Prasastapada's contention regarding the place of verbal testimony (Sabda Pramana ). Prasastapada's statement establishing verbal testimony under inference, is cleverly interpreted by Vyomasiva so as to show that all instruments of knowledge except verbal testimony are to be included under inference. Vyomasiva himself however, was not happy with this interpretation and gave another reading, making it possible to classify the verbal testimony as a kind of inference! But this does not prevent bis genuine attitude of leaning more on Nyaya system. Udayana also favours Nyaya system sometimes in Kiranavali. Sridhara on the other hand seems to adhere to Vaisesika system in interpreting PDS. To refer to the above discussion about verbal testimony, Sridhara categorically states that the explicit meaning of the relevant sentence of PDS is the inclusion of verbal testimony under inference'. However it does not imply that he is averse to Nyaya system. He often quotes and favours also Nyaya system in course of discussion on some problems, where generally they are in agreement with Vaisesika system. In fact the very name of his commentary i.e. Nyayakandali shows his soft attitude towards Nyava system.