________________
62
KARIN PREISENDANZ.
Aniruddha's brief commentary, written probably at the end of the tenth century on difficult passages in the Nyāyabhāşya, Nyāyavārttika and Nyāyavārttikatātparyațīkā, is not preserved for the first adhyāya24 where one would expect explicit statements as to the author's conception of his own place in the tradition and his attitude towards its foundational work; elsewhere, it does not yield any relevant information. Bhattavāgīśvara's Nyāyatātparyadipikā is the only completely preserved direct commentary on the Nyāyasūtra between the Nyāyabhāsya and the fifteenth-century Nyāyatattvāloka; because it often follows the Nyāyavārttikatātparyațīkā in its interpretation of the sūtra-s, it has to be dated between this work and Udayana's Parisuddhi (first quarter of the eleventh century), which was certainly not known to its author. Bhattavāgīśvara, who may have been from the south, merely mentions that the Nyāyabhāsya and Nyāyavārttika served as his basis, that is, that he had examined the former word by word and followed the latter in order to be able to throw light on the intention of the Sūtra.25 The final puspikā, which consists of two verses and concludes both the fifth adhyāya and the whole work, has not been completely preserved and of its reconstruction I fail to grasp some details. It is clearly implied, though, that according to Bhattavāgīśvara, the 'Indra of sages' (munīndra) Akşapāda anticipated the controversy with the Buddhists and therefore enjoys timeless authority: Śiva himself smilingly approved of his work because Akşapāda wished to provide those who partake of intimate union with God (īśasāyujyabhāj) with dexterity in speech, considering that it would be indispensable for the instant defeat of their partners in debate (vādin) who are garrulous when it comes to claiming that their opponents have been defeated and to pronouncing unjustified objections; further, Akşapāda considered that in the face of such partners in debate those close to God were also in need of dexterity in speech for achieving the knowledge of the Self and proclaiming it. Immediately before this, as the conclusion properly speaking of the fifth adhyāya in the first quarter of the verse, knowledge of the true nature of the 'points of defeat' in debate
24 However, there is a reference to his Vivarana in Udayana's Parisuddhi which presumably relates to the first chapter of this commentary and testifies to the original completeness of the work; cf. Thakur (2000: 114). 25 Cf. NTD 1, 5-6: anvīksyānupadam bhāsyam apy anukramya vārttikam / nyāyasūtrārthatātparyadipikeyam vidhāsyate //; cf. also Thakur (1970: 37).