________________
70
KARIN PREISENDANZ
lankāra and declared to be its model,os is preserved on only the first four sūtra-s; according to the testimony of some intermediate colophons, it contains a series of detailed topical expositions and comments (avacūrni-s).46
Together with the further development of the text-critical approach a revival of interest in commenting extensively upon the Nyāyasūtra can be noted in the fifteenth century, with the voluminous Nyāyatattvāloka by the Naiyāyika and Dharmaśāstrin Vācaspati Miśra of Mithilā." Besides offering a commentary directly on the sūtra-s, Vācaspati provides long summaries of and discussions on portions of Gangesa's Tattvacintāmaņi, thus making his commentary a vehicle of the most recent advances in Nyāya. However, he also quotes frequently from the Nyāyacaturgranthikā, 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 Bhāskara, one of the few but lost post-Udayana commentaries on the Nyāyasūtra known to us.48 Being Vācaspati's first work, the Nyāyatattvāloka seems to evidence the conscious effort of a young Nyāya 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 Vācaspati also compiled the Nyāyasūtroddhāra in the early part of his career.49 In this little work
45 Cf. NA 1, 15-16 (introductory verse 5): śrīśrīkanthenāhitā durgamarthavyākhyāsmabhir yāvatīkşambabhūve / pañcaprasth<ān>anyāyatarkasya tasyās tāvat yah sa*nyā vidheyeti bodhyam //. * scil. sudurgamapadavyākhyā mentioned in verse 4, cf. n. 42 above 46 Cf. e.g., ŠKȚ 57, 11: avayavāvacūrnih. 47 Before Vācaspati Miśra, Gangesa's son Vardhamana commented upon Udayana's Parisuddhi, as well as on others of his works. Vardhamāna's Anviksānayatattvabodha, which is a direct commentary on the last adhyāya of the Nyāyasūtra, 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 Nyāyasūtra (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 adhyāya of the Nyāyasūtra, and to Vardhamāna's Tattvabodha (cf. above, n. 47). His reference to Sānātani (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 Nyāyasūcīnibandha (cf. above, n. 15), but also the Nyāyasūtroddhāra because the text of the Nyāyasūtra 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)!