Indian Antiquary Vol 58

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Charles E A W Oldham, S Krishnaswami Aiyangar, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarka
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 218

202
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[NOVEMBER, 1929
began in right earnest and within a very short time absorbed almost the entire attention of the people, and the study of all other branches of philosophy was almost totally eclipsed. In fact by about the end of the sixteenth century Nadia in Bengal rose to be the most important centre of Nyaya culture and continued to be so until recently. And though Nyaya was the latest to engage the attention of the people it came to be the most favoured subject and earned a well-deserved name for Bengal.
We now propose to give an account of the literature of the different schools of philosophy that was produced in Bengal.
Mimâm sâ.
Works on Mîmâmså proper are rare in Bengal. This is but natural in view of the fact that Vedic sacrifices had long gone out of practice here, it seems from after the time of the Pâlas: and it is with the various sacrificial injunctions that Mima sa principally concerns itself.
But it seems that originally when sacrificial rites had not altogether been obliterated the study of Mîmâmsa also was not quite unknown here. The Prabhakara school of Mimamsa is known to have been cultivated here as early as the time of Devapâla as we know from the introductory verses of Nârâyana's Cchandogaparisista prakása (Bib. Ind.). Froni the Bangarh inscription (1. 48) of the time of King Mahîpâladeva we come to know that Mîmâm sâ (which possibly refers to Pârva Mîmâmsâ) was studied in his time. Udayanacharya (tenth century) in his Nyaya-kusumanjali (III, XIV) refers to the Mîmâmsaka of Gauda, which may be a reference to a particular school, or to an individual scholar that flourished presumably before his time. If it refers to a school, we know very little about it. But Varadaraja in his Kusumanjali-bodhini (p. 123), a commentary on the work of Udayana, interprets the word as referring to Pañchikákára, who in all probability is to be identified with Sâlikanatha, the famous author of Prakarana pañchika (p. viii). If Salikanatha was a Bengalec it would seem there was a lively culture of Mimâm sâ in Bengal as early as the seventh century of the Christian era. Little, however, seems to have survived in Bengal of the school of Sâlika. Sridhara (eleventh century) refers to his Tattva-prabodha in his Nyaya-kandali (p. 146, 1. 4), which from the way it is mentioned may be a work of Mimamsa. Bhatta Bhavadeva (twelfth century) was not only proficient in the study of Mimâmså but had also composed a work on the Mimâmså system-the Tautâtitamata-tilaka-a gloss on the celebrated work of Kumârila (I. O., IV, 2166). It is probably to this work that the prasasti of Bhavadeva refers, where it is stated that he compiled a work on Mîmâmsâ in 1000 nyayas (Ep. Ind., vol. VI, p. 203-7, v. 23).
Even as late as the time of the Senas we know that Halayudha of the court of King Lakṣmaṇasena composed a work called Mimámsá-sarvasva, which he himself refers to in the introduction (v. 19) to his Brahmana-sarvasva. If it is identical with the Mimámsá-sástrasarvasva (L, IV, 1507; Hall, p. 182, 207), available only in fragments, it is a commentary on the Mimamsa-sutra. Halâyudha also refers to the fact that though Bengal paid scant regard to the study of the Vedas she studied Mîmâmsd. 3
Gangesa (thirteenth century) in his Tattvachintamani (Bib. Ind.-Sabda prâmanya-vâdu, p. 88) refers to the view of Gauda mîmâmsaka. But it is doubtful if any school of Mîmâmsâ existed in Bengal in his time. He scems to have been indebted for this reference to Udayana, who also refers to it almost in identical words.
In later times also the study of Mîmâmsa was not altogether unknown in Bengal. It was studied in so far as its principles were required to elucidate scriptural paradoxes and Smrti texts.
1 Gaudalekhumti, p. 97.
• Sarasvati Bhavan sories, Benares. Brahmana-sarvasoa (Litho, edition, Benares).