________________
INTRODUCTION
Printed Edition unambiguously calls it Nyayasiddhāntadipa and accordingly names his commentary Nyayasiddhantadipa-prabha The Lustre of the Lamp of Nyāya Doctrinal Conclusions'.
This evidence seems to suggest that the alternative title of the work was Nyayaratna, and it was a prakarana-grantha 'independent treatise' as opposed to being a commentary or fika. But there was another improtant preGangeša text on Navya-nyāya, which was called Nyāyaratna(NR). This was written by Manikantha Miśra of Miibilā. Thus, it might be supposed that when both Śaśadhara and Maņikantha became recognised auothers in Navyanyāya, the necessity arose to distinguish the two texts clearly. Hence, the alternative title of Saśadhara's work was gradually pushed into the background.
There is, however, another way of construing and interpreting the above evidence. It may be that when both texts, NSD and NR, became recognised authorities in Navya-nyāya, the scribes and the compilers of manuscripts confused the title of one with that of the other. And this explains the prevalence of the title Nyāyaratna in the colophons of NSD mss. I am, however, inclined to accept the first hypothesis. For the earliest manuscript of NSD that I have examined belongs to the 16th century (see below) and mentions, nevertheless, the title Nyāyaratna in its colophon.
Manuscript Materials A considerable portion of Śaśadhara's NSD was printed and serialized in different issues of a now defunct Sanskrit journal : The Pandit, of Benares (vols; XXV-XLII, 1876-1920). Later on, in 1924, Pandit Dhundhiraj Shastri, in collaboration with MM. Vindhyeshwari Prasad Dwivedi, published an edition of NSD along with the commentary of seşānanta, NSDPrabha. This edition (published by E. J. Lazarus & Co., Benares Cantt.) barely added anything more than what had already come out in the previous Issues of The Pandit. Dhundhiraj Shastri said in the Introduction that he had prepared the editon having obtained, from Principal Arthur Venis of Benares Sanskrit College, two incomplete manuscripts of NSD and three manuscripts of the NSD-prabha. He also admitted that the manuscripts he used were full of mistakes and lacunae. In fact, certain folios of mss. were missing. Thus, the text of NSD that was published remained incomplete.
The beginning portion of the chapter called Abhāvavada was missing. Pandit Dhundhiraj remarked in this context as follows (in a footonte on p. 573): “abhavavade yatra yatra mülam kāțhinyeno palabdham tatra tatra dasyate, samagrasyānu palambhad iti.” (“Since the entire text of the Abhāvavada is not available, only such portions of the text will be given as could be dec.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
