________________
THE NYAYASŪTRA COMMENTARIAL TRADITION
79
of knowing the fully developed secret of the Pañcädhyāyī, who are – in their interpretation of this science - disposed to go against the rule to avoid contradiction. Although there exists a commentary (vyākhyā) by an earlier learned man for the delight of those endowed with analytic understanding, Keśava continues, his (i.e., Keśava'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 Nyāyatattvāloka to whom he obliquely refers to in these verses as an earlier scholar and with whose work he compares his own composition. Keśava thus would have appreciated the Nyāyatattvālokā as a demanding commentarial work meant for specialists who can follow the analytical discussions on central Navya-Nyaya topics as presented by Vācaspati with reference to the Tattvacintāmaņi; at the same time he would imply that compared to his own commentary the Nyāyatattvāloka contained less excellent explanations of the sūtra-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 Gautamīyasūtraprakāśa ensure an appropriate understanding of the 'secret' of the Pañcādhyāyī also for those interested Naiyāyikas who are prone to misunderstanding it, something which the Nyāyatattvāloka 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 Gautamīyasūtraprakāśa come from a certain Vidyāsāgara, the author of a lost sīkā on the Nyāyasūtra whom Anantalal Thakur has identified with
9 The wording is too laconic to decide the precise nature of the contradiction. Keśava Miśra 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 nyāyāranye prakrtigahane tarkasaranipravīņā vidvāmsah kati kati na pūrvam
samabhavan param pañcādhyāyīparinatarahasyapranayiņo virodhavyāsedhavyasanapatavah kecana
punah // āste yadyapi pūrvapanditakrtā vyākhyaiva samkhyāvatām ānandāya tathāpi keśava
kaver vācäm iyam gumphanā / vyākhyāsausthavaśabdalāghavamithahsambandhapūrvāparapratyarthapratibaddha(?)
nirmalagunā kutranyato labhyatām //.