A History of Sanskrit Literature c33.s5.31

c33.s5.31

As practical guides to the two schools serve a number of short handbooks which deal with the doctrines of both as a whole and present a fusion of the two traditions. One of the earliest of these is Çivāditya's *Saptapadārthī*,² which is earlier than Gañgeça; Keçava Miçra's *Tarkabhāṣā*³ is variously assigned to the thirteenth or fourteenth century; Laugākṣi Bhāskara's *Tarkakaumudī*⁴ is by the author of the *Arthasaṁgraha* on the *Mīmāṁsā*, and may be after 1400; Annam Bhaṭṭa, a native of southern India, wrote his *Tarkasaṁgraha*⁵ with an important commentary before 1585, and the *Tarkāmṛta*⁶ of Jagadīça falls *c.* 1700. The *Bhāṣāpariccheda*⁷ of Viçvanātha is approximately dated by the fact that its author commented on the *Nyāya Sūtra* in 1634; the text is in 166 memorial verses, some of which are borrowed from older sources, as is seen from the fact that they are given also in Sureçvara's *Mānasollāsa*, where they doubtless represent borrowing from a contemporary text. In this period divergences of view between Vaiçeṣika and Nyāya had reduced themselves to very minor, not to say scholastic, points. The schools were now fully theistic, as had individual adherents been for a long time; Udayana, like Uddyotakara, was a Çaiva and identified God with Çiva, and the Buddhist writers Guṇaratna and Rājaçekhara report on the Çaiva affiliations of Nyāya and Vaiçeṣika sects in their time.