Prologue And Epilogue Verses Of Vacaspati Misra I

Author(s): Ashok Aklujkar
Publisher: Ashok Aklujkar

Page 10

Ashok Alelujkar
122
(19)
(18)
Prologue and Epilogue Verses of Vācaspati-misra-1
123
currence is not a common phenomenon in Vācaspati's prologue and epilogue verses. More importantly, there are other explanations, at least as plausible as the 'ethos' explanation given just now, for the recurrence.
The completion of the former took place before or very close to vatsara 898 in which the Nylya-suci-nibandha is said to have been finished.
$3.2 The Nyaya-suci-nibandha is hardly a work for which Vacaspati would have claimed authorship in the usual sense of the term. In presenting it, he was simply rendering service to the field, essentially not different from the service we render through editing of mss or publication of bibliographies. Although scholars (e.g. Sankaranarayanan 1997:116-118, following several other students of Vācaspati's works) have placed the Nyāya-suci-nibandha before the Nyāyavärttika-tātparya-tika in the chronological order of his works, it is more likely that the Nyāya-sūci-nibandha was a by-product of the study Vacaspati undertook to prepare himself for writing the Nyaya-värttika-tātparya-tika and of the notes he must have made while he was writing the Nyaya-värttika-tatparyatika. Hence, his adaptation of essentially the same prologue and epilogue and his addition of two simple anusubh verses giving only the practical information about the composition of the Nyāya-sūci-nibandha make eminent sense.
To determine that Vācaspati presented the Nyaya-sūcl-nibandha to the scholarly world after completing or essentially completing the final text of the Nyaya-värttika-tātparya-tīkā, we do not have to go by common sense alone. The verses icchami ... and yad alambbi ... contain indications to that effect. When they occur in the Nyāya-värttika-tātparya-tika, the word uddyotakara fits the metre naturally. When one of them occurs in the Nyaya-suci-nibandha, the padding prefix su is needed".
Thus, one gain of our study of Vācaspati's introductory and concluding verses is that we can adjust our chronology of Vacaspati's works to reflect the more plausible 'Nyaya-värttika-tātparya-ţika Nyaya-suci-nibandha' order.
$3.3 The other case of redeployment is found in $2.la and $2.7a. Verse 4 of the Nyaya-kanika prologue is identical with the last verse in the prologue of the Bhamatt: dcdrya-kerti-nivefanam apy avadhatant vaco 'smadddin /rathyodalam iva ganga-praudba-patah pavitrayati //. One way of looking at the recur. rence would be that Vācaspati, for some reason, wanted the prologue of his last work to end like the prologue of his first work. However, given the absence of a similar parallelism in the epilogue (the Nyāya-kanikā does not seem to have had one; the Bhämati has a quite long and specific one), I do not see much benefit in pursuing this possibility.
The alternative of imagining that acārya-kerti- ... is a later addition to the Nyāya-kanika prologue is not open to us, even though there is room to raise suspicion about the authenticity and necessity of the first verse of that prologue (S2.1b). Vācaspati has implicitly or explicitly expressed respect for the authors of the commentanda whenever he has appeared in the role of a commentator. Not having a verse in praise of Mandana before he begins to comment on the Vidhi-viveka would be very odd. The commentator Parameśvara-I, too, comments on the verse and attests to the fact that the verse has been in the Nyāyakanikā mss for at least 600 years.
Is it, then, possible that dcdrya-kerti-... is an interpolation in the Bhāmati? It is not as badly needed in the Bhamati as it is in the Nyaya-kanika. There is a verse before it (natvā vifuddha-vijñānam Samkaran karunanidhim / bbāsyam prasanna-gambbirami tal-pranitant vibbajyate // which adequately meets the expectation created by Vācaspati's (and others' practice of expressing respect for the author of the commentandum. Secondly. Amalananda does not gloss acarya-kerti ... (and natva ... Akhandānanda glosses both).
These considerations are relevant and valid. However, it would be hasty to assign a visitor' status to the verse in question on their basis. We should not conclude on the basis of absences alone (absence of the need for a second homage and absence of explicit recognition by Amalananda). The verse does not conflict with any other detail in the prologues or epilogues or with any other statement made by or about Vacaspati. We should wait until we find out if there is truly objective support for declaring it an interpolation. Only a critical edition of the Bhamat (which, to my knowledge, has so far not been published) or availability of some other old commentaries will help us in settling the issue, it seems.
M (a) Srinivasan (1967:61-63) comes close to stating the points I state here but with the intention of doubting Vacaspati's authorship of the Nyaya-suc-nibandha. I think the work can be and should be wscribed to Vacaspati even if a difference of readings was discovered between its sutra-patha and the sotras cited in the Nyaya vårttika-tåtparya-lika. In writing the latter, Vacaspati could have abide by the 'sthitasya gatis cintanya' convention I discuss in note 30. He could have followed the readings found in Uddyotakara's work or tradition.
(b) That Amalananda, while glossing Bhamati epilogue verse ), identifies Vacaspati's nihunchana in Nyiya with the Nyaya vinttika-tātparya-ka, not with the Nyaya süc nibandha, could be due to his awareness that the latter is not Vacaspali's work in the usual sense of the term. His gloss need not imply that Vacaspati did not work for the Nyaya-sac-nibandha.
The verses contain a metaphor made possible by paranomasia Unless go is taken both as 'cow' and speech, statement, discourse,' pake and seruddhawa do nos deliver their full meanings. It is unli. kely to be the case that the intention was to suggest that only good cows vil sinking in mud or murchland should be rescued.
I will stay away here from the debate regarding whether altare refers to the Sativat era or the Saka era.