________________
84
KARIN PREISENDANZ
Jagannātha. Information about this official distinction is obtained from the valuable and interesting document (preserved in two copies) containing a declaration circulated by Gokulanātha's grandson Datta Sarman in which the latter announced his intention to take the śarayantra." Like Văcaspati Miśra of Mithilā, Vamsadhara was also renowned as a dharmaśāstrin."18
Vamśadhara's commentary on the Nyāyasūtra has been aptly described by Prabal Kumar Sen, with respect to its sources - among which the Gautamīyasūtraprakāśa figures prominently - and specific text-critical methods."19 Especially noteworthy is Vamsadhara's distinction between mülasūtra-s and bhāsyasūtra-s, that is, his coinage of a new methodological term for those succinct sentences of the Nyāyabhāsya which were considered by some as original sūtra-s. 120 In this way Vamadhara distinguishes the latter from the text of the foundational work by sage Akşapāda2and 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 Vamśadhara into Nyāyasūtra exegesis is the term sesapūraka, referring to those parts of the Nyāyabhāşya 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 Gautamīyasūtraprakāśa, 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 Gokulanātha was the last śarayantri, 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 Gokulanātha'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 Akşapāda in the concluding verse no. 3 of the Nyāyatattvaparīksā (quoted in Sen, 1980: 103): jñānāmbhonidhir akşapāda rşibhrn nyāyo 'sya sūktam mahat, tatt vam gūdham amuşya
tasya vihitā yaişā parīkşā mayā /
I fail to understand rsibhrt in the relevant first pāda of this verse and unfortunately did not prepare my own transliteration of it when I saw the ms. Could rşibhrt be a scribal mistake or misreading? 122 For an example of an extended discussion on the status of disputed sütra-s, cf. Sen (1980: 111-112; cf. also 126-127). 123 Cf. the example in Sen (1980: 114). Cf. also Sen (1980: 106).