________________
80
KARIN PREISENDANZ.
Pundarīkāksa Vidyāsāgara, a cousin of Vāsudeva Sārvabhauma.97 Should this identification be correct, it would imply that Kesava Miśra was aware of some sūtra-interpretations in a late fifteenthcentury Nyāyasūtra-commentary written in Bengal, if he did not even have a copy of the whole work at his disposal. Vidyāsāgara for his part refers to the pre-Gangesa Nyāyabhāskara and Vardhamāna's late fourteenth-century Tattvabodha among other works belonging to Mithilā.99
In spite of these and the few other references to earlier work done on the Nyāyasūtra, on the whole the emerging picture presented by the Gautamīyasūtraprakāśa, 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 Nyāyatattvāloka. However, another kind of intellectual interest, towards which a tendency could already be noted in the Nyāyatattvāloka in conjunction with the Nyāyasūtroddhāra, can be observed with the Gautamīyasūtraprakāśa, namely, a strong concern about the constitution of the root text. The individual adhyāya-s of the commentary are followed by verses in which the number of the sūtra-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 adhyāya, the number of prakarana-s of the whole śāstra is also indicated in a verse. In consonance with this attention to formal features, Keśava Miśra devotes more space than his predecessors to the discussion of struc
97 Cf. GSP 32. 4-8 and 76, 12-19, and Thakur (1976). Pundarīkākṣa Vidyāsāgara was a scholar of grammar (with extant works) who is said to have also composed commentaries on the Alankāraśāstra works by Dandin, Vamana and Mammata. Väsudeva Sārvabhauma's father, the scholar Narahari Viśārada, was Pundarikáksa'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 adhyāya I (GSP 24, 16-22, vv. 2-3): aksi (= 2) pañca (5) dhruvas ( 14) caiva tri (3) şad (6) aśva ( 7)* yugandharah (= 2) / paścāt tri(3)şad(6)vasu( = 8)trīņi(3) prathamādhyāyasūtrakam // sambandha[1]māna[2]meyān [3] tatpūrvāngam (4) tadaśrayah [5] // tatsvarüpam (6) cottarāngam (7) prathame, carame punah // kathā (1) ca hetvābhāsās [2] ca chalam (3) cāśaktilingakam [4] //. • aśva seems to be a mistake because the prakarana contains not seven but eight sūtra-s. For this reason, Kishor Nath Jha corrects sadaśva to sadvasu. 101 Cf. GSP 24, 23-24 (v. 4): sapta(7)śruti(= 4) grahāl = 9)mbhodhi(= 4) grahā( = 9)śvaus = 7) vāsava( = 14)
r'tukau( = 6) //