Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies v2.c16: Footnotes

The Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies v2.c16

Language
English

Contents

Footnotes

Chapter One

v2.c16.s1.1

References given with "B" followed by a number are to items in Karl H. Potter, *Bibliography of Indian Philosophies* (Delhi : Motilal Banarsidass, 1970)

v2.c16.s1.2

1. For an explanation of these classifications see Nelson Goodman, *The Structure of Appearance* (Cambridge : Harvard University Press, 1951), especially Chapters 2-4.
2. For a list of the authors and works surveyed in this volume see pp. 9-12.
3. With questionable justice. See p. 12.
4. Erich Frauwallner, B1049.
5. The term "Naiyāyika" is the normal way in which an exponent of the Nyāya system is referred to. For convenience, and since in this volume the Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika doctrines are treated together as constituting one system of beliefs, I shall frequently use the term "Naiyāyika" to refer to a member of either school.
6. By Daniel H. H. Ingalls, B3417, and Karl H. Potter, B3719.
7. See Anantlal Thakur, B1106.
8. D. Gurumurti in the Introduction to B2980.
9. Umesh Mishra, B6026, pp. 38-50, lists the following 19 points of difference : (1) Nyāya's emphasis on epistemology, Vaiśeṣika on ontology; (2) Nyāya has 4 *pramāṇas*, Vaiśeṣika, 2; (3) Nyāya accepts 5 kinds of perception, Vaiśeṣika only 1; (4) according to Nyāya inherence is perceptible, but not according to Vaiśeṣika; (5) *pīṭharapākavāda*, Vaiśeṣika *pīlupākavāda*; (6) Nyāya believes that one motion lasts 3 or 4 moments, Vaiśeṣika that it lasts 7 moments; (7) Nyāya admits 5 fallacies of the *hetu*, Vaiśeṣika, 3; (8) Nyāya believes that in process there are several *vegas* produced in turn; Vaiśeṣika says there is only one; (9) Nyāya admits *sakhaṇḍopādhis*, Vaiśeṣika includes them under other categories (this applies only to the later schools); (10) Vaiśeṣika admits disjunction produced by disjunction, Nyāya does not; (11) Vaiśeṣika holds that 2 and higher numbers are produced by an *apekṣābuddhi*, Nyāya says that the *apekṣābuddhi* only manifests, does not produce those numbers; (12) Nyāya accepts contact between all-pervading substances, Vaiśeṣika does not; (13) the schools differ about the state of the self in liberation; (14) Nyāya uses the term *artha* to cover the 5 sense-qualities, while Vaiśeṣika uses it to cover all substances, qualities, and motions; (15) Vaiśeṣika classifies inferences in a fivefold manner (by effect, by cause, by contact, by contradiction, and by inherence), Nyāya thinks this classification useless; (16) Nyāya says tenderness is separate from hardness and both inhere in contact inhering only in earth, while Vaiśeṣika says they inhere in touch, not contact; (17) Naiyāyikas are Śaivas, Vaiśeṣikas, Pāśupatas; (18) there is reputed to be a difference of viewpoint about organisms, although Misra thinks there is not; (19) Nyāya says dreams may be true or false, but Vaiśeṣika says they are always false.
10. Frauwallner, B1049.
11. A. M. Frenkian, B8804.
12. Frenkian, B8804, p. 126.

v2.c16.s1.3

1. Barend Faddegon, B2603, p. 12.
2. Gopinath Kaviraj, B6004, p. 41.
3. Daniel H. H. Ingalls, B6100, p. 228.
4. Daya Krishna, "Three Conceptions of Indian Philosophy," *Philosophy East and West* 15 (1965), 50.
5. G. R. F. Oberhammer, B801A.
6. Paul Hacker, B8877.
7. Oberhammer, B801A.
8. Dharmendra Nath Sastri, B6152, pp. 87-91.
9. Hermann Jacobi, "A contribution towards the early history of Indian philosophy," *Indian Antiquary* (1918) 107-08.
10. Satischandra Vidyabhusana, Introduction to revised edition of B240.
11. George Chemparathy, "The testimony of the *Yuktidīpikā* concerning the *īśvara* doctrine of the Pāśupatas and Vaiśeṣikas," *Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde Sud- und Ostasiens*, IX, (Vienna, 1965), 130.
12. Daniel H. H. Ingalls, "Cynics and Pāśupatas: The Seeking of Dishonor," *Harvard Theological Review* 55.4 (1962) 281-98.
13. Gopinath Kaviraj, B6007, pp. 613-14.
14. Cf. D. R. Bhandarkar's Introduction to B3076, pp. iii-x.
15. Cf. Chemparathy, *op. cit.*, pp. 131-32.
16. Cf., e.g., Ingalls, B6100.
17. Chemparathy, *op. cit.*, p. 131.
18. Daya Krishna, *op. cit.*, pp. 48-49.
19. A useful work of this kind, one among many, is Satischandra Chatterjee's *The Fundamentals of Hinduism* (Calcutta : University of Calcutta Press, 1950, 1960).
20. Śrīharṣa's *Naiṣadhacarita* 17.74.
21. See summary of *Nyāyabhāṣya* I.¹.22, p. 241. It is not clear who the "some" are who "argue thus" about liberation involving pleasure: are they early Vedāntins? R. Shamasastry thinks they are "early Śaiva ekadeśins," i.e., he implies that there were those long before Bhāsarvajña among the Naiyāyikas who took this view. Cf. R. Shamasastry, B7992, pp. 355-56.
22. This paragraph is based on Umesh Mishra, B6026, pp. 379-83.
23. By Ānandavardhana. Cf. Anantalal Thakur, B2512.
24. Ingalls, B6100, p. 228.
25. These are slight modifications of Ganganatha Jha's translations of the passages.
26. "Entrenched" in the sense explicated by Nelson Goodman in *Fact, Fiction and Forecast* (Indianapolis : Bobbs-Merrill 2nd edn., 1965), pp.94ff.
27. A.K.R. Chaudhuri, B6074.

v2.c16.s1.4

¹ For the general conception of philosophical method sketched in the preceding paragraphs I follow for the most part the exposition of Nelson Goodman in *The Structure of Appearance*, *op. cit.*, especially Chapters 1-4.

v2.c16.s1.5

² T. R. V. Murti, B7909, p. 141.

v2.c16.s1.6

³ See Karl H. Potter, "Is Nyāya Logic Extensional or Intensional ?," *Journal of the American Oriental Society*, 88 (1969), 711-17.

Chapter Three

v2.c16.s2.1

4. Madeleine Biardeau, B8792, pp. 371-84.

v2.c16.s2.2

5. Cf. Willard Van Orman Quine, "Two Dogmas of Empiricism," in *From a Logical Point of View* (Cambridge : Harvard University Press, 2nd rev. edn., 1961), pp. 20-46.

Chapter Four

v2.c16.s3.1

1. For a development of this line of argument concerning the interpretation of Nyāya, see Karl H. Potter, "Astitva Jñeyatva Abhidheyatva," in *Festschrift für Erich Frauwallner*, Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde Sud— und Ostasiens, XII-XIII (Vienna 1968), 275-80.

v2.c16.s3.2

2. The importance of this point is rightly stressed by D. N. Shastri, B6152. See his index under *dharmadharmibheda*.

v2.c16.s3.3

3. The notion of a "self-linking connector" plays a large part in Navya-Nyāya. See Ingalls, B3417, pp. 75-76, passim.

v2.c16.s3.4

4. It is rejected explicitly by Raghunātha Śiromaṇi. Cf. Karl H. Potter, B3719, p. 87.

v2.c16.s3.5

5. B. Faddegon, B2603, pp. 141-46.

v2.c16.s3.6

6. Ingalls, B3417, pp. 67-71; also B. K. Matilal, *The Navya-Nyāya Doctrine of Negation* (Harvard Oriental Series, 46) (1968), 45-51.

v2.c16.s3.7

7. Cf. D. N. Sastri, B6152, p. 128; also Sadananda Bhaduri, B6048, p. 293.

v2.c16.s3.8

8. Cf. B. K. Matilal, B6127.

v2.c16.s3.9

9. There are minor ones, e.g., that given in *Nyāyakusumāñjali* sections 74-90 of Book One, pp. 564-565.

v2.c16.s3.10

10. Th. Stcherbatsky, B1174, Vol. I, 247, passim.

v2.c16.s3.11

11. Stcherbatsky, B1174, Vol. I, 256; Vol. II, 74ff.

v2.c16.s3.12

12. Kalidas Bhattacharya, B8567, p. 166.

v2.c16.s3.13

13. Kalidas Bhattacharya, B8567, pp. 167-71, discusses this relevance at length. He draws some devastating conclusions.

Chapter Five

v2.c16.s4.1

1. The methodology of such a constructive enterprise is set forth in Nelson Goodman, *The Structure of Appearance*, op. cit.

v2.c16.s4.2

2. The relation called the "resider-residence-relation" on p. 50 includes this relation, but also includes other relations which will be defined below, such as inherence and contact. It is important for the definitions to follow, however, that "L" as interpreted for our purposes cover only those locus-located relations which are self-linking (*svarūpasambandha*).

v2.c16.s4.3

3. Cf. p. 51.

v2.c16.s4.4

4. Furthermore, it is not the product of the substances which must satisfy the condition, but the product of the places they occupy. Even so, this definition probably fails; see the next footnote.

v2.c16.s4.5

5. I am quite aware that the account just given is difficult to square with the Vaiśeṣika theory that atoms are partless and of minimal size. The definitions offered in this section are not claimed to be accurate; they are intended to illustrate problems of formalizing Vaiśeṣika theory. More satisfactory formalizations will, I am sure, appear elsewhere soon.

v2.c16.s4.6

6. The symbol "[ ]" indicates that what is in the brackets is an ordered pair. Contact, as here defined, is a symmetrical relation. Later, in Navya-Nyāya, contact is analyzed into two asymmetrical relations for at least some cases.

v2.c16.s4.7

7. See pp. 414-415.
8. Cf. Karl H. Potter, B3719, p. 87.
9. D. N. Sastri, B6152, pp. 129-31, brings out the difficulty well.
10. Dharmakīrti's dates are estimated to be A.D. 600-660 by Erich Frauwallner. The Pramāṇavārttika is expected to be translated into English by Masatoshi Nagatomi in the Harvard Oriental Series soon.
11. Jitendranath Mohanty, B6133A, p. 38.
12. Harisatya Bhattacharya, B7818, p. 23.
13. B. Faddegon, B2603, p. 13.
14. Sadananda Bhaduri, B6048, p. 64.
15. Cf. Potter, B3719, p. 31-33.
16. B. N. Seal, B8908, p. 101.
17. See Bhaduri, B6048, Chapter IV, and Umesh Mishra, B6026, pp. 114-26.
18. The points involved here are much more complex than the text suggests. For good, extended discussions of the subject see Seal, B8908, pp. 104-17 and U. Mishra, B6026, pp. 75-95.
19. This is usually called pāñcabhautikavāda.
20. According to Ganganatha Jha the view to which Gautama is alluding is an old Sāṃkhya view that touch is the only sense-organ. Cf. Jha's Introduction to B264 (2).
21. See Masaaki Hattori, Dignāga, on Perception (Harvard Oriental Series, 47, 1968), 38-39.
22. Cf. Faddegon, B2603, p. 108.
23. See p. 113 for more on the distinction between specific and generic qualities.
24. U. Mishra, B6026, footnote 25 on p. 167.
25. U. Mishra, B6026, p. 170, notes that it is a view of the "Tantric school" that sound is a quality of God.
26. Potter, B3719, p. 23.
27. See Bertrand Russell, Human Knowledge, Its Scope and Limits (New York, 1948), pp. 266 ff.
28. Bhaduri, B6048, pp. 215 ff.
29. Bhaduri, B6048, p. 217.
30. Bhaduri, B6048, pp. 225-26.
31. Cf. Sadananda Bhaduri, B6044, and U. Mishra, B6026, pp. 132-59, for further discussions of the internal organ.
32. Mishra, B6026, pp. 375-76.
33. See Ingalls, B6100, for arguments.
34. See Jadunath Sinha, B8547, p. 304.
35. For an extended discussion of Udayana's arguments see Gopikamohan Bhattacharya, B6132.
36. See B. K. Matilal, B9041, for a discussion of this argument and the principle it depends upon.
37. See Bertrand Russell, "On denoting" in An Introduction to Philosophical Inquiry, ed. J. Margolis, (Toronto : Knopf, 1968), pp. 631-42.
38. See Bertrand Russell, "Descriptions," in Semantics and the Philosophy of Language, ed. L. Linsky (Urbana : University of Illionois, 1952), p. 98.
39. W. V. O. Quine, "On What There Is," in From a Logical Point of View, op. cit., p. 8.

Chapter Six

v2.c16.s5.1

1. For an instructive discussion of the view see a symposium involving G. F. Stout, G. E. Moore, and G. Dawes Hicks in *Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society*, Supplementary Vol. III (1923), particularly pp. 114ff. Compare Karl H. Potter, B6083.

v2.c16.s5.2

2. As, e.g., it is by Dhirendra Mohan Datta, B6086.

v2.c16.s5.3

3. Anantlal Thakur, B2512, says that Vādirāja, the Jain author, reports the view of the Bhūṣaṇakāra on this point. However, the summary (below) of *Nyāyabhūṣaṇa* suggests his information is mistaken.

v2.c16.s5.4

4. Cf. Ingalls, B3417, pp. 76-77.

v2.c16.s5.5

5. Bhaduri, B6048, pp. 113-14.

v2.c16.s5.6

6. On p. 82.

v2.c16.s5.7

7. Jaideva Singh, B8212, p. 358.

v2.c16.s5.8

8. B. N. Seal, B8908, pp. 137-43.

v2.c16.s5.9

9. Seal, B8908, p. 134.

v2.c16.s5.10

10. U. Mishra, B6026, p. 201.

v2.c16.s5.11

11. Seal, B8908, p. 136.

Chapter Seven

v2.c16.s6.1

1. H. N. Randle, B6014, p. 133.

v2.c16.s6.2

2. B. K. Matilal, B6155A, pp. 85-95.

v2.c16.s6.3

3. Cf. Karl H. Potter, "Is Nyāya Logic Extensional or Intensional ?," *Journal of the American Oriental Society* 88 (1969), 711-17.

v2.c16.s6.4

4. Ingalls, B3417, p. 40.

v2.c16.s6.5

5. Most Naiyāyikas think there is only one inherence, so this particular problem does not arise for them.

v2.c16.s6.6

6. Because universals cannot inhere in other universals on pain of infinite regress. See the fourth of Udayana's "impediments to universalhood," discussed on pp. 135-136.

v2.c16.s6.7

7. Bhaduri, B6048, p. 8.

Chapter Eight

v2.c16.s7.1

1. As indeed does Ingalls in B3417, p. 34, passim.

v2.c16.s7.2

2. We might say that a judgment is a belief-episode, intending that phrase in a fashion parallel to that use of "speech-episode" characteristic of contemporary British philosophers, as in Peter Strawson (speaking of J. L. Austin's view) in "Truth," reprinted in *Truth* (ed. G. Pitcher) (Englewood Cliffs, N. J. : Prentice-Hall, 1964), p. 33 ff.

v2.c16.s7.3

3. Jitendranath Mohanty, *Gangeśa's Theory of Truth* (Centre of Advanced Study in Philosophy : Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, West Bengal, 1966), p. 27.

v2.c16.s7.4

4. "Entertains" is a fudge for "either asserts or denies or commands or exhorts or ...," since language is used to do all these things with what are here being called "propositions."

v2.c16.s7.5

5. K. Kunjunni Raja, B6510A, p. 194.

v2.c16.s7.6

6. Cf. Ludwig Wittgenstein, *Philosophical Investigations*, (tran. G. E. M. Anscombe) (Oxford: Blackwell, 1953), pp. 1ff.

v2.c16.s7.7

7. K. Kunjunni Raja, B6510A, p. 124.

v2.c16.s7.8

8. Satischandra Chatterjee, B6035, p. 22.

v2.c16.s7.9

9. Ganganatha Jha, B5992, p. 284.

v2.c16.s7.10

10. G. R. F. Oberhammer, B801A.

v2.c16.s7.11

11. J. N. Mohanty, *Gangeśa’s Theory of Truth*, op. cit., pp. 2ff.
12. In the pre-Gangeśa literature, that is, Mohanty’s book, *ibid.*, and other sources clearly show that the Navya-Naiyāyikas discussed the problem.
13. I have indicated the sort of form such a system might take in formal terms on pp. 69-73, and a general account of the notion of system here employed was sketched in Chapter Three.
14. Cf. Mohanty, *Gangeśa’s Theory of Truth*, op. cit., pp. 52-54.
15. Gopinath Kaviraj, B7657.
16. Gopinath Kaviraj, B6007, p. 612.
17. Anantlal Thakur, B2589, p. 242.

Chapter Nine

v2.c16.s8.1

1. Cf., e.g., Hakuju Ui, B1048, p. 83.
2. See Ui, B1048, pp. 82ff.; also E. Frauwallner, B1049.
3. I. M. Bochenski, *Formal Logic*, (tran. Ivo Thomas, South Bend, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press 1961), p. 432.
4. See, e.g., Satischandra Vidyabhusana, B7617.
5. As recognized by Henry N. Randle, B7692.
6. Gerald Oberhammer, B1108, p. 130.
7. See, for example, A. B. Dhruva, B250; Anantlal Thakur, B801; Oberhammer, B1108; Ui, B1048, pp. 86-89.
8. Thakur, B801, pp. 85-86.
9. Randle, B6014, pp. 164-65.
10. Ingalls, B3417, p. 33.
11. Randle, B6014, pp. 170-72.
12. Cf. Sadhu Ram, B799.
13. See Randle, B6014, pp. 170-72. See also Oberhammer, B1108, pp. 136ff.
14. Guiseppe Tucci, B1077, pp. 383-84.
15. For the details of the summary of the following exchange between Naiyāyikas and Buddhists see Randle, B6014, Chapter IV (pp. 263-303).
16. Satischandra Vidyabhusana, B7534, p. 95.
17. Vidyabhusana, B7534, p. 95.
18. Guiseppe Tucci, B484, p. 480.
19. Stcherbatsky, B1174, Vol. II, 56-60.
20. Stcherbatsky, B1174, Vol. I, 244-45.
21. Stcherbatsky, B1174, Vol. II, 58.
22. B.K. Matilal, B800, pp. 69-73.
23. Stefan Stasiak, B971.
24. Randle, B6014, p. 156.
25. Cf. Yuichi Kajiyama’s translation of Mokṣākaragupta’s *Tarkabhāṣā* (Memoirs of the Faculty of Letters, Kyoto University, No. 10, Kyoto, 1966), note 259, p. 97.
26. Yuichi Kajiyama, “On the Theory of Intrinsic Determination of Universal Concomitance in Buddhist Logic,” *Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies*, 7.1 (1958), 34-35. This and the following pararagraph of the text follow Kajiyama’s article closely.
27. The classification goes back to Udayana’s *Ātmatattvaviveka*. See S. Bagchi, B8562, p. 151.
28. See Narendrachandra Vedantatirtha’s Introduction to B2699, p. 87.

v2.c16.s8.2

FOOTNOTES for SUMMARIES (prepared by Karl H. Potter unless otherwise indicated)

v2.c16.s8.3

1. KAṆĀDA (Footnotes 6-16 prepared by Masaaki Hattori)
1. Ui, B1048, pp. 4-5.
2. Bhimacarya Jhalakikar, B5967.
3. Cf. V. V. Sharma, B53, p. 225.
4. Ui, B1048, pp. 8-9.
5. Ui, B1048, pp. 40-64.
6. This statement is based on Jambuvijaya's edition of Candrānanda (B58). The sūtra-text commented on by Śamkaramiśra has ten chapters, each consisting of two sections, and the sūtrapāṭhas is quite different from that found in the Candrānanda version. Comparison of the sūtrapāṭhas is made on pp. 77-100 of B58.
7. The word padārtha ("category") does not occur in the sūtras.
8. In the sūtras, the word bhāva is used in the sense of sattā.
9. Later Vaiśeṣikas hold that the relation of inherence exists between (1) whole (avayavin) and parts (avayava), (2) quality (guṇa) and quality-possessor (guṇin), (3) motion (karman) and motion-possessor (kriyāvat), (4) universal (jāti) and individual (vyakti), and (5) an eternal substance (nityadravya) and ultimate particularity (antyaviśeṣa). The expression "effect and cause" does not apply to (4) and (5). Candrānanda states that "effect and cause" is a synecdoche; cf. his comment on VS VII.².29.
10. Later Vaiśeṣikas recognize 7 other attributes, namely gravity (gurutva), fluidity (dravatva), viscidity (sneha), impression (saṃskāra), merit (dharma), demerit (adharma) and sound (śabda), all of which are mentioned in the sūtras but are not listed here.
11. Substance is twofold : one possessing many substances (anekadravyaṃ dravyam) and one possessing no substance (adravyaṃ dravyam). There is no substance which possesses one substance.
12. Inference of this type (employed also in the previous section) is called pariśeṣa.
13. The Mīmāṃsaka view on sound is criticized.
14. The sūtra III.1.13 allows different interpretations. Candrānanda's interpretation has been adopted.
15. The peculiar property of color, etc., is colorness (rūpatva), etc. Cf. Candrānanda's comment on VS IV.1.9.
16. Attributes are noninherence causes (asamavāyikāraṇa), while space and time are efficient causes (nimittakāraṇa).

v2.c16.s8.4

² GAUTAMA
1. Cf. N.C. Vedantatirtha, Introduction to Vol. II, B2699, 69-82, for a thorough review of scholarly opinions, as well as an opinion of his own identifying the author of the Nyāyasūtras with Dīrghatamas of the Ṛg-Veda.

v2.c16.s8.5

2. Hermann Jacobi, B7535.
3. Satkari Mookerjee, B172, p. 150.
4. Cf. G. Jha, B5992 : 4, p. 256.
5. S.C. Vidyabhusana, B7606, pp. 155-66.
6. G. Oberhammer, in B801A.
7. Guiseppe Tucci, *Pre-Dinnāga Texts on Logic from Chinese Sources*, Gaekwad's Oriental Series, 49, (1929), xxvii.
8. Additional comments of interest concerning the author of the *Nyāyasūtras* may be found in the following: G. V. Devasthali, B6060; P. Masson-Oursel, B7674, p. 190 N. L. Sinha's Foreword to B240; Bodas' Introduction to B3910, p. 26; H.P. Sastri, B233, pp. 248-50; Dhruva, B250; N.C. Bhattacharya's Introduction to B263, D.R. Bhandarkar's Introduction to B3076; S. C. Vidyabhusana, B7617; Vidyabhusana, B7649; Ganganatha Jha's Introduction to B264 (2); B. Faddegon, B2603, pp. 46-47; H. N. Randle, B6014, p. 7.
9. There is little point in trying to translate Gautama's term *avyapadeśya* in the light of the differences of opinion found among the commentators as to what it means. See the commentaries on this *sūtra* by Vātsyāyana, Uddyotakara, Vācaspati, etc.
10. Again, these terms are left untranslated because they are differently understood by later writers.
11. It is unclear who is the opponent (*pūrvapakṣin*) and who is the proponent (*siddhāntin*) here.
12. It is doubtful who is the opponent and who is the proponent here; I give one reconstruction.
13. IV.1.21 is ambiguous.
14. This text's interpretation is dubious.
15. For a detailed summary of all 24 kinds, see the summary of *Nyāyabhāṣya*, pp. 272-274.

v2.c16.s8.6

³ VĀKYAKĀRA, 4. KAṬANDIKĀRA
1. Anantlal Thakur, Introduction to B58, pp. 11-12.

v2.c16.s8.7

² Thakur, B58, p. 13.

v2.c16.s8.8

³ S. Kuppuswami Sastri, "Rāvaṇa Bhāṣya," *Journal of Oriental Research* 3, (1929), 1-5.

v2.c16.s8.9

⁴ Thakur, B58, p. 13.

v2.c16.s8.10

⁵ VĀTSYĀYANA
1. Cf. G. Jha, B5992: 4, p. 261.

v2.c16.s8.11

² S. C. Vidyabhusana, B7606, pp. 155-66.

v2.c16.s8.12

³ Cf. Sadhu Ram, B799, p. 24.

v2.c16.s8.13

⁴ D. Gurumurti, Introduction to B2980, p. xxvi.

v2.c16.s8.14

⁵ Ingalls, B6100.

v2.c16.s8.15

⁶ G. Oberhammer, B801A.

v2.c16.s8.16

⁷ E. Windisch, B795.

v2.c16.s8.17

⁸ Paranjpe, B270.

v2.c16.s8.18

⁹ G. Jha, Introduction to B264 (2).

v2.c16.s8.19

¹⁰ Randle, B6014, pp. 21-22. Other informative secondary literature on Vātsyāyana and his commentary include: E. Frauwallner, B8590, p. 22, S. C. Vidyabhusana, B796, p. 87; Anantlal Thakur, B801, p. 82; H. Ui, B1048, p. 16; N. C. Vedantatirtha, Introduction to B2699 (2).

v2.c16.s8.20

11. There is some question about the status of parts of this section. Some of it has been argued to be sūtra or portions of a lost Vārttika. See E. Windisch, B795, and Randle, B6014, pp. 21-22 contra Windisch.

v2.c16.s8.21

12. But this argument may be an opponent's contention.

v2.c16.s8.22

13. Vātsyāyana's discussion of wholes begins here, though the sūtra is concerned with distinguishing perception from inference.

v2.c16.s8.23

14. I take this argument as Vātsyāyana's. Uddyotakara takes it as an opponent's view.

v2.c16.s8.24

15. Whether this is a separate topic is a matter of dispute. Also, it is, dubious who the opponent is in this section.

6. Candramati

v2.c16.s9.1

1. Erich Frauwallner, B1049.

v2.c16.s9.2

2. Hakuju Ui, B1048, p. 1.

v2.c16.s9.3

3. Ui, B1048, pp. 9-10.

v2.c16.s9.4

4. Frauwallner, B1049.

v2.c16.s9.5

5. No Sanskrit commentary has so far become known even by name. Shêng-tsung-shih-chü-i-lun-chang by Tau-shih (T'ang dynasty) and the commentary of the same title by K'uei-chi are on record, but are not extant. A good number of commentaries were written by Japanese Buddhist scholars in the Tokugawa period: Hōjū (18th century), Shōshūjikkugironki; Koktasu (18th century), Kachū Kandō Shōshūjikkugiron, etc. Cf. Ui, B1048, p. 11; Hajime Nakamura's Japanese translation with Introduction and Notes (Kokuyaku Issaikyō, Ronsho-bu 23, Tokyo, 1958), pp. 528-30.

v2.c16.s9.6

6. The name "Candramati" is found nowhere in Sanskrit sources. Hsuan-chang's translation of the name is Hui(mati)-yueh(candra). H. Ui and E. Frauwallner assume respectively Maticandra and Candramati to be the original name. Cf. Ui, B1048, p. 9, and Frauwallner, B1049. The original text is lost. The Chinese translation was done by Hsuan-chang in A.D. 648. The title was reconstructed from Chinese translation: Shêng-tsung-shih-chü-i-lun. Cf. Ui, B1048, p. 1.

v2.c16.s9.7

7. Regarding the additional 4 categories, see Ui, B1048, pp. 123-26.

v2.c16.s9.8

8. Dispositional tendency, merit, and demerit are not in the list of qualities in the sūtra. The view that the internal organ is the non-inherence cause of the qualities of the self involves difficulty, and therefore Ui reads the text in a different manner. Cf. Ui, B1048, pp.94, 142.

v2.c16.s9.9

9. Frauwallner considers that, in setting forth this theory of inference, the author is influenced by Vārṣagaṇya-Vindhyavāsin of the Sāṃkhya school, but not by Vasubandhu-Dignāga of the Buddhist school. On this ground he assigns the author a date earlier than that of Praśastapāda, whose theory of inference is influenced by the Vasubandhu-Dignāga theory. Cf. Frauwallner, B1049, pp. 71-80.

v2.c16.s9.10

10. According to Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika of a later period, relational absence is to be recognized as a type of absence under which prior absence, posterior absence, and absolute absence are grouped together. Cf. Athalye's edition of Annamhaṭṭa's Tarkasaṃgraha (B3910), p. 100.

v2.c16.s9.11

¹¹ The similarity to Praśastapāda's account is noticeable hereafter on many points. Cf. Ui, B1048, pp. 186ff.

v2.c16.s9.12

¹² Cf. Section (5) above; also Frauwallner, B1049, p. 74.

v2.c16.s9.13

7. BHĀVIVIKTA
1. Cf. Anantlal Thakur, B6072, pp. 385-94.
2. E. Steinkellner, B6135, pp. 149-62.
3. Oberhammer, B801A.
4. For references see Thakur, B6072.
5. In his Vādanyāyaṭīkā, p. 142, says Thakur in B6072.

v2.c16.s9.14

8. PRAŚASTAPĀDA
1. Erich Frauwallner, B8590, Vol. I, 16.
2. Theodore Stcherbatsky, B5281B. Stcherbatsky's views are summarized in Dhruva (B1073).
3. Cf. Krishna Rao (B970), who cites the authority of Kālipada Tarkācārya in his Introduction to B1055, p. 10.
4. Randle, B6014, pp. 26-32.
5. Frauwallner, B1049.
6. G. Tucci, B484 and B975.
7. Thakur, Introduction to B58, p. 12.
8. Recent papers by George Chemparathy have centered on the variety of names under which Praśastapāda and his works seem to have gone. See G. Chemparathy, "Praśastapāda and his other names," *Indo-Iranian Journal*, 12, (1970), 241-54, and "The various names for the famous Vaiśeṣika work of Praśastapāda," *Akhila Bharatiya Sanskrit Parishad*, 1.1 (1969), 23-28.
9. B. Bhattacharya, Introduction to B2278, p. 89.
10. Thakur, B58, p. 13.
11. Other sources on Praśastapāda's date and work : H. Ui, B1048, p. 18 B. Faddegon, B2603, pp. 23-37.
12. This is the title of Praśasta (pāda's?) commentary as given in Kamalaśīla's Pañjikā on the Tattvasaṃgraha of Śāntarakṣita, according to B. J. Sandesara in his Introduction to B58, p. vii. But see Chemparathy, *op. cit.*
13. S. Kuppuswami Sastri, B3930.

v2.c16.s9.15

9. UDDYOTAKARA
1. In the concluding colophon of the work. Cf. Vidyabhusana, B7606.
2. G. Jha, B5992 : 4, p. 262.
3. Jha, Introduction to B264(2).
4. Frauwallner, B8590, p. 22.
5. Cf. P. Tuxen, B3073; Jha, B5992; Vidyabhusana, B7606 and B1103.
6. Vidyabhusana, B1103; Vostrikov, B1201; Iyengar, B603A and B608; Tucci, B605 and B484; A. B. Keith, B604.
7. Oberhammer, B1108, p. 140.
8. D. N. Sastri, B6152, pp. 110-11.
9. Randle, B6014, p. 35.
10. Other secondary sources treating Uddyotakara's work : Thakur, B1106; P. Masson-Oursel, B7674, p. 206; Frauwallner, B1049.
11. See footnote 6 for literature discussing the authorship of the Vādavidhi.
12. According to Buddhists true perception should grasp the components of objects and not the objects themselves. Judgments about conventional objects, which involve bringing individuals under universals, are erroneous.
13. This refers to Dignāga, it seems clear; the definition is his.
14. Vācaspati Miśra says that this is Dignāga's definition.
15. Ganganatha Jha says this is Sāṃkhya's definition.

v2.c16.s9.16

16. Presumably by a Mīmāṃsaka.
17. This passage in Uddyotakara is obscure.
18. Credited by Vācaspati Miśra to Vasubandhu.
19. Having criticized the sūtra of Vasubandhu, presumably in the Vādavidhāna (?), Uddyotakara proceeds to criticize its commentary in a similar fashion. Cf. references under note 6 above.
20. Stasiak, B971, calculates he generates 2032 kinds.
21. Vācaspati Miśra calls this svarūpāsiddha.
22. See Vaiśeṣikasūtras V.8.¹.
23. Here Uddyotakara jousts with the Yogācāra idealist, specifically Vasubandhu, as is suggested by references to the Viṃśikā.

v2.c16.s9.17

¹ Cf. S. Mookerjee, B2477, who asserts that Jayanta refers to Śamkarasvāmin on p. 393 of Gangadhara Sastri’s edition of Nyāyamañjarī (B228).

10. Ātreya

v2.c16.s10.1

1. See Thakur, B2335 and Frauwallner, B8590, p. 17. Also Thakur, B2337, p. 249.
2. Cf. Thakur, B2335.
3. D. N. Sastri, B6152, pp. 103-107.
4. D. N. Sastri, B6152, pp. 103-107.
5. Thakur, Introduction to B58, p. 12.
6. According to several writers cf. D. N. Sastri, B6152, p. 107, note 102. But Sastri thinks these writers are mistaken.
7. Kuppuswami Sastri, “Rāvaṇa-Bhāṣya”, Journal of Oriental Research 3, 1929, pp. 1-5.
8. Thakur, Introduction to B58.
9. See B58.
10. Ui, B1048, pp. 14-15, 90-91.
11. Faddegon, B2603, pp. 34-40.
12. Ui, B1048.

11. Prīticandra

v2.c16.s11.1

1. Cf. D. C. Bhattacharya, B6105, p. 33.

12. Aviddhakarṇa

v2.c16.s12.1

1. For references, see Thakur, B6072.
2. Thakur, B6072.
3. Cf. B. Bhattacharya, Introduction to B2279.
4. Thakur, B6072.
5. Mahendra Kumar Jain, Introduction to B2433, pp. 75-76.
6. Umesh Mishra, History of Indian Philosophy, Volume Two (Allahabad, 1966), pp. 55-62.
7. Oberhammer, B801A.
8. Other references to Aviddhakarṇa are found in S. Mookerjee, B5283A, p. 85; E. Steinkellner, B6135.
9. Umesh Mishra, History of Indian Philosophy, Vol. 2, 57.

v2.c16.s12.2

² Cf. D. C. Bhattacharya, B6105, p. 34.

v2.c16.s12.3

³ G. Oberhammer, B1108, p. 149.

13. Śamkara (Svāmin)

v2.c16.s13.1

4. E. Steinkellner, B6135.
5. A. Thakur, B6072.
6. Umesh Mishra, *History of Indian Philosophy*, Vol. 2, 73-76.
7. Edited in B2660.
8. D. C. Bhattacharya, B6105, p. 34.
9. B6105, p. 33.

v2.c16.s13.2

14. VIŚVARŪPA and 15. DHAIRYARĀŚI
1. Cf. B. Gupta, B2488, p. 25.
2. E. Steinkellner, B6135.
3. This paragraph is based on Umesh Mishra, *History of Indian Philosophy*, Vol. 2, 116-19. Thakur, B6072, also cites references to Viśvarūpa in the *Tārkikarakṣāṭīkā*.

v2.c16.s13.3

16. JAYANTA BHAṬṬA
1. This tradition is reported by Ganganatha Jha, B2476, and is reviewed by others, including Hacker, B2484; Narahari, B2487; B. Gupta, B2488; and S. Mookerjee, B2477.
2. B. Gupta, B2488, p. 16.
3. Mookerjee, B2477, and Narahari, B2486, have studied Jayanta's style and personality.
4. According to Narahari, B2488A.
5. P. V. Kane, *History of Dharmaśāstra*, Vol. I (Poona, 1930), 698b.
6. B. Gupta, B2488, p. 16, reports that V. Raghavan thinks the *Nyāyakalikā* to be "a later compilation of Jayanta's sentences." Gupta credits Steinkellner for this information.
7. E. g., Thakur, B2464 and B2463, finds references to a work by this name in Jñānaśrimitra's *Īśvaravāda* and *Kṣaṇabhaṅgādhyāya*. Thakur thinks these passages refer to Trilocana's work, not Jayanta's.
8. Reported by S. N. Sukla in a paper read at the 1955 session of the All-India Oriental Congress. Sukla remarks that Phaṇibhūṣaṇa Tarkavāgisa refutes any relation of pupil-teacher or teacher-pupil between Jayanta and Vācaspati in his *Nyāyaparicaya* (B6022).
9. The editor of E says that it is Vācaspati Miśra who is being referred to! According to Oberhammer, B1108, Jayanta had two main sources, the *ācārya* and the *vyākhyātṛ*. Oberhammer thinks these philosophers are among those cited by Kamalaśila in his *Pañjikā* on Śāntarakṣita's *Tattvasaṃgraha*, and that they preceded Uddyotakara.
10. This is Dharmakīrti's famous definition, given in the *Nyāyabindu*. Cf. Theodore Stcherbatsky, B1174, Vol. II, 14.
11. The reference is to the *Yuktidīpikā*.
12. Probably Praśastapāda is referred to. But see p. 282 and note 8.
13. This whole discussion follows closely the *Vyadhikaraṇa* section of Kumārila's *Ślokavārttika*.
14. See J. Sinha, *Indian Psychology (Cognition)*, (Calcutta, 1958), Chapter XXI, for a more extended summary of Jayanta's arguments concerning meaning.
15. G. Jha, B2476.
16. Umesh Mishra, *History of Indian Philosophy*, Vol.2, 125.
17. G. Kaviraj, B6007, p. 625.

v2.c16.s13.4

17. THE NYĀYARATNAKĀRA
1. G. Kaviraj, B6007, p. 614.

v2.c16.s13.5

18. TRILOCANA
1. A. Thakur, B2724.
2. Thakur, B2724. Thakur thinks the order of mention, which has Trilocana third in line, is chronological. But D. C. Bhattacharya, B6105, says the order as given elsewhere has Trilocana before Bhāsarvajña.
3. D. C. Bhattacharya, B6105.
4. Thakur, B2464, has found references in Jñānaśrīmitra’s *Īśvaravāda* to this work under this title.
5. Attributed to Durveka Miśra, a Buddhist writer. Cf. Thakur, B2724.
6. Cf. A. Thakur, B2463, p. 40, and B6072.
7. Thakur, B2463, p. 40.
8. Thakur, B2463.
9. Gerhard Oberhammer, “Der Svābhāvika-Sambandha, ein geschichtlicher Beitrag zur Nyāya-Logik,” *Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde des Sud und Ostasiens*, 8 (1964), 131-81.
10. Thakur, B2463, p. 37.
11. Thakur, B2463; also S. C. Vidyabhusana, B7649.
12. Thakur, B2463, p. 39.
13. Thakur, B2463, p. 40.
14. Discussed in Oberhammer’s article referred to in footnote 9 above.

v2.c16.s13.6

19. BHĀSARVAJÑA
1. R. Samasastry, B7992, p. 354.
2. Cf. Ganganatha Jha, B2476; S. C. Vidyabhusana, B2503, p. 2.
3. A. Thakur, B2463, p. 40.
4. Daniel H. H. Ingalls, in the article cited in footnote 12, Chapter Two above.
5. D. R. Sarma, B2509.
6. This work has been edited by C. D. Dalal, Gaekwad Oriental Series, Baroda, 1920.
7. Cf. A. Thakur, B2512.
8. Thakur, B2512.
9. Additional materials on Bhāsarvajña can be found in the following : V. P. Vaidya, B2507; D. C. Bhattacharya, B2587 and B6105; G. Kaviraj, B6007b; C. R. Devadhar’s Introduction to B2505; U. Mishra, *History of Indian Philosophy*, Vol. 2, 81-90.

v2.c16.s13.7

20. SĀNĀTANI
1. D. C. Bhattacharya, B6105, p. 33.
2. V. Varadachari, B2747.

v2.c16.s13.8

21. VYOMAŚIVA (Footnotes 4-62 prepared by V. Varadachari)
1. G. Kaviraj, B6007, p. 627.
2. Cf. V. Varadachari, B1367, p. 173.
3. Cf. D. C. Bhattacharya, B6105, pp. 10-12. Other references to *Vyomavatī* are to be found in the following : E. Frauwallner, B8590, p. 17; D. R. Sharma, B1366A; Brahmananda Gupta, B1368.

v2.c16.s13.9

4. Cf. Citsukha, Tattvapradīpikā (B3225), pp. 176-77.

v2.c16.s13.10

5. This is given as the name of the work in the colophon in the Vizianagaram Sanskrit Series edition of the Padārthasaṃgraha (B1052).

v2.c16.s13.11

6. There are numerous references in the later works on Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika where this work is referred to as the Bhāṣya of Praśastapāda. E.g., (1) Jagadīśa's Sūkti (B1054), p. 1; (2) Viśvanātha Nyāyapañcānana's Siddhāntamuktāvalī (B4159), p. 188.

v2.c16.s13.12

7. The definition of bhāṣya as contained in: "Sūtrārtho varṇyate yena padaiḥ sūtrānusāribhiḥ svapadāni ca varṇyante bhāṣyaṃ bhāṣyavido viduḥ" does not apply to the Padārthadharmasaṃgraha. The only justification, though not really sound, that could be offered lies in the author's references to the aphorisms of Kaṇāda e.g., II.2.11 under kāla; IX.2.6 under ātman; VIII 1.1.9 under saṃkhyā; etc. This is only an inadequate defence. The Vyomavatī contains a number of references to the text of Praśastapāda as bhāṣya. See pp. 234, 246, 6, 257, 272 See also Nyāpakan dali (B1052), p. 289.

v2.c16.s13.13

8. The aphorism "dharmaviśeṣaprasūtā dravyaguṇakarmasāmānyaviśeṣasamavāyānāṃ padārthānāṃ sādharmyavaidharmyābhyāṃ tattvajñānān niḥśreyasam." (I.1.4) This must have been responsible for dividing the entire treatise under two heads, namely sādharmya and vaidharmya. For the aphorisms quoted see footnote 6 above.

v2.c16.s13.14

9. At Śaṃkara Miśra, Vaiśeṣikasūtropaskāra 9.2.13.

v2.c16.s13.15

10. See Nyāyakandalī (B1052), pp. 2, 280; Introduction, p. 19.

v2.c16.s13.16

11. See Vyomavatī (B1054), p. 19.

v2.c16.s13.17

12. See Vyomavatī (B1054), pp. 20 (ca), 462, 536, 607.

v2.c16.s13.18

13. This is dealt with in V. Varadachari, B2550B.

v2.c16.s13.19

14. See Introduction to the edition of the Nyāyakandalī (B1052), p. 19. Śrivatsa, who is said to have written the Līlāvatī, cannot be identical with Śrivatsa, a predecessor of Udayana and a Naiyāyika. His views are cited in the Tātparyapariśuddhi (in manuscript, collection of the Sanskrit Department, Madras University : II.89, 91; III, p. 30, p. 106; V, p. 27, p. 40.) The references prove that he wrote only on the Nyāya system. The Līlāvatī referred to here cannot be the same as the Nyāyalīlāvatī written by Śrī Vallabha (B2926, B2927, B2928). This work is, like the Padārthadharmasaṃgraha, an independent treatise on the Vaiśeṣika system.

v2.c16.s13.20

15. The following references to passages in the Padārthadharmasaṃgraha (B1052) may have formed parts of commentaries on Praśastapāda's work. Vyomaśiva does not mention any commentators by name: pp. 51, 107, 161, 162, 189, 190, 223, 228, 229, 246, 301, 330, 399, 446, 450, 466, 477, 478, 483, 487, 489, 502, 509, 511, 516, 524, 533, 538, 539, 541, 542, 549, 551, 552, 554, 555, 557 (twice), 561, 563, 594, 612, 619, 620, 621, 625, 634, 660, 661, 666, 679, 694.

v2.c16.s13.21

Some of these could have been references to works on other systems of thought. It is not possible from the evidence available to make a decisive statement on this. There are numerous references to interpretations which are condemned by Vyomaśiva. They are given below with reference to their subject matter : uddeśaprakaraṇa, p. 20 (Ka); viśeṣa-uddeśaprakaraṇa, p. 57; sādharmyaprakaraṇa, pp. 121, 125, 142, 156, 157; pṛthivī, pp. 222, 234; vāyu, pp. 274, 323; ākāśa, pp. 323, 326, 328; kāla, pp. 344, 346, 347; ātman, p. 394; manas, pp. 424, 426; guṇasādharmya, p. 434; guṇapākajaprakriyā, pp. 446, 450; saṃkhyā, pp. 456, 457, 468, 469; parimāṇa, p. 477; pṛthaktva, p. 481; vibhāga, pp. 498, 501, 503, 507; paratvāparatva, p. 516; buddhi, pp. 524, 533; viparyaya, p. 539; *pratyakṣa*, p. 554; *laiṅgika*, pp. 563, 564, 573, 574; *laiṅgikāvayava*, p. 602; *laiṅgikāpadeśābhāsa*, pp. 607, 618; *apratyayakarma*, p. 672.

v2.c16.s13.22

16. See the Introduction by Dundhiraja Sastri to B1054, p. 6.

v2.c16.s13.23

17. The *Saptapadārthī* of Śivāditya has much in common with the *Kiraṇāvalī*, *Lakṣaṇāvalī*, and *Lakṣaṇamālā* of Udayana. For instance, both writers divide the categories into positive and negative groups. The definitions of *tattva*, *lakṣaṇa*, *buddhi*, *viśeṣaṇa* and *upalakṣaṇa* are identical in the works of these two writers. On the contrary, *Vyomavatī* does not classify the categories into clear cut divisions such as positive and negative, nor does it contain definitions of the above-mentioned kind to suggest any relationship between him and Śivāditya. The two writers must have been different.

v2.c16.s13.24

18. The work under this title is cited in the *Nayanaprasādinī* on Citsukha’s *Tattvapradīpikā* (B3225), p. 180. It dealt with the *mahāvidyā* syllogism, and is now lost. There is no reference to this kind of syllogism in the *Vyomavatī* to suggest identity of Vyomaśiva and Śivāditya. The work *Lakṣaṇamālā* that is available is now declared to be the work of Udayana. Cf. A. Thakur, B2680.

v2.c16.s13.25

19. See *avayavin*, p. 46; *īśvaravāda*, p. 308; *kṣaṇabhaṅga*, p. 402; *pradhānavāda*, p. 546; *pratyakṣa*, p. 557; *śabdaprāmāṇya*, p. 584; *pramāṇasaṃkhyā*, p. 586. Vyomaśiva refers to his teacher on these pages.

v2.c16.s13.26

20. In two other contexts, reference is made to the preceptor. One is while explaining the purpose served by the use of the word “ekaikaśaḥ” in taking up the treatment of each category, p. 189. The other is reagarding the putting of emphasis on the treatment of the *hetu*, p. 565.

v2.c16.s13.27

21. Cf. pp. 483, 689.

v2.c16.s13.28

22. Pp. 579, 580, 591, 592, 598, 599.

v2.c16.s13.29

23. Pp. 221, 306, 307, 524, 525, 526, 567, 602, 627, 681, 686.

v2.c16.s13.30

24. Pp. 20 (gha), 329, 536.

v2.c16.s13.31

25. Pp. 129, 602.

v2.c16.s13.32

26. *Vākyapadīya* II, 419.

v2.c16.s13.33

27. Cf. *Nyāyakandalī* (B1052), pp. 117, 159.

v2.c16.s13.34

28. Cf. *Kiraṇāvalī* (B36), p. 226; *Vyomavatī* (B1054), p. 488.

v2.c16.s13.35

29. “yathaidhāṃsi samiddho ’gnir bhasmasāt kurute kṣaṇāt, jñānāgniḥ sarvakarmāṇi bhasmasāt kurute tathā.” *Bhagavadgītā* IV. 37

v2.c16.s13.36

30. “nābhuktaṃ kṣīyate karma kalpakoṭi śatair api, avaśyaṃ anubhoktavyam kṛtaṃ karma śubhāśubham.”

v2.c16.s13.37

31. This act shows the influence of theistic tendencies on the author. It is easy to trace it to the influence of the *Bhagavadgītā* and *Yogasūtras* which preach the act of surrendering everything to God. See *Bhagavadgītā* IX.27 and *Yogasūtra* with *Vyāsabhāṣya* II.1.

v2.c16.s13.38

32. This view was the one held by some religious schools of Vaiṣṇavism and Śaivism. The deep divine love which the followers of Vaiṣṇavite and Śaiva schools could not help but treat as the stage of release was marked by bliss, where the devotee can have a permanent abode in the vicinity of God. For the concept of *mokṣa* in the Vaiṣṇava and Śaiva schools see Citsukha’s commentary on *Nyāyamakaranda* (B3203), p. 271.

v2.c16.s13.39

33. “athāto dharmam vyākhyāsyāmaḥ”. *Vaiśeṣikasūtras* I.1.1.

v2.c16.s13.40

34. “yato ’bhyudayaniḥśreyasasiddhiḥ sa dharmaḥ”. *Vaiśeṣikasūtras* I.1.2.

v2.c16.s13.41

35. Cf. V. Varadachari, B6140A.

v2.c16.s13.42

36. The use of the word *chāyā* has significance here, as astudy of this becomes possible only in this case and not tamas or pitch-darkness, the word used by most of the other commentators on Praśastapāda’s work and later writers on the Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika system.

v2.c16.s13.43

37. See “bhūyastvāt gandhavatvāc ca pṛthivī gandhajñāne prakṛtiḥ,” Vaiśeṣikasūtras VIII.2.5. Śaṃkara Miśra remarks that the term bhūyastva is a technical one in the Vaiśeṣika system (cf. Upaskāra on this sūtra).

v2.c16.s13.44

38. See Nyāyabhāṣya (B253), p. 493.

v2.c16.s13.45

39. Vyomaśiva writes “asya ca sūtrasyedaṃ bhāṣyam : bhūyastvāt rasavattvāc codakaṃ rasajñāne prakṛtiḥ.” (p. 246) There is no aphorism of Kaṇāda like this, but Vyomaśiva adopts the sūtra-form for it as the pattern of the aphorism VIII.2.5. Justification for this is to be found in the aphorism “tathāpas tejo vāyuś ca rasarūpasparśaviśeṣāt,” Vaiśeṣikasūtras VIII.2.6.

v2.c16.s13.46

40. See “asya ca sūtrasyedaṃ bhāṣyam : bhūyastvāt rūpavattvāc ca rūpajñāne prakṛtiḥ kāraṇaṃ tejaḥ,” p. 257. An explanation similar to that given in note 39 applies here.

v2.c16.s13.47

41. See “asya ca sūtrasyedaṃ bhāṣyam : bhūyastvāt sparśavattvāc ca sparśajñāne prakṛtir vāyur iti,” p. 272. The explanation given in note 39 applies here.

v2.c16.s13.48

42. Śrīdhara and Udayana brush aside this view without entering into the merits of Vyomaśiva’s arguments.

v2.c16.s13.49

43. See Īśvarakṛṣṇa’s Sāṃkhyakārikās, verse 57.

v2.c16.s13.50

44. See Varadarāja’s Nyāyakusumāñjalibodhanī (B2985), p. 91.

v2.c16.s13.51

45. Trees do not have selves, according to Śrīdhara. Cf. B1052, p. 83.

v2.c16.s13.52

46. See “ātmā vā idam eka evāgra āsit,” Aitareya Upaniṣad I.1.

v2.c16.s13.53

47. The other commentators do not make any contribution of this kind on the topic.

v2.c16.s13.54

48. There is a lot of difference of opinion regarding how this is to be calculated. See Vyomavatī, B1054, pp. 445-50; Nyāyakaṇḍalī, B1052, pp. 108-11; Kiraṇāvalī, B36, pp. 182-92.

v2.c16.s13.55

49. “Sāmānyapratyakṣād viśeṣapratyakṣād viśeṣasmṛteś ca saṃśayaḥ.” Vaiśeṣikasūtras II.2.17.

v2.c16.s13.56

50. “Samānānekadharmopapatter vipratipatter upalabdhyanupalabdhyavasthātāś ca viśeṣapekṣo vimarśaḥ saṃśayaḥ.” Nyāyasūtra I.1.23.

v2.c16.s13.57

51. Vyomaśiva does not know the interpretation offered by Vācaspati Miśra for the last two words in Gautama’s definition.

v2.c16.s13.58

52. “Svarūpālocanamātram.” It is difficult to find out which writer was the earliest to use the expression ālocana. It occurs in Sāṃkhyakārikā 28 and in Kumārila’s Ślokavārttika, pratyakṣa section, verse 112.

v2.c16.s13.59

53. This is a novel interpretation not suggested by any writer on Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika. It is true that these safeguards are required to be made in this definition. The cognition produced from the hetu must be free from error (avitatham). It must be decisive (vyavasāyātmaka) and “nonverbal” (avyapadeśya). Expressions must not be used or must not form part of the inferential cognition, as otherwise there will not be any difference between inference and verbal testimony.

v2.c16.s13.60

54. See:

v2.c16.s13.61

“kāryakāraṇabhāvād vā svabhāvād vā niyāmakaḥ,
avinābhāvaniyamo darśanān na na darśanāt”.
Dharmakīrti’s Pramāṇavārttika, svārthānumāna 33.

v2.c16.s13.62

55. This may suggest the author’s having been a native of Kashmir. It cannot be taken as decisive evidence however, since a reference of this kind may be given by any writer, Kashmiri or not, who undertakes a pilgrimage to Kedārnāth.

v2.c16.s13.63

56. Among the commentators of the early period Vyomaśiva goes against the spirit of Praśastapāda’s utterance regarding the place of verbal testimony. Udayana, B36, pp. 301-17, also argues in the same strain. Śrīdhara, B1052, pp. 215-16, however, sticks to the purport of the passage in the original and argues for treating the verbal testimony as coming under inference.

v2.c16.s13.64

57. See Kiraṇāvalī, B36, pp. 319-21. Udayana’s treatment of this is more detailed than that of Vyomaśiva.

v2.c16.s13.65

58. Śrīdhara, B1052, pp. 220-22, and Udayana, B36, pp. 321-23, argue to bring comparison under inference.

v2.c16.s13.66

59. Though Praśastapāda wrote that nonapprehension should be brought under inference, all the three early commentators (cf. Nyāyakandalī, B1052, pp. 225-30; Kiraṇāvalī, B36, pp. 326-29) have attempted to show that perception itself enables the apprehension of absences and thus nonapprehension can be brought under perception.

v2.c16.s13.67

60. See Uddyotakara, Nyāyavārttika, B1104, p. 16; Vācaspati Miśra, Tātparyaṭīkā, B223, pp. 37-38; Udayana, Pariśuddhi, B2705A, pp. 303-13; and Kiraṇāvalī, B36, pp. 333-35.

v2.c16.s13.68

61. “Paśyataḥ cakṣuṣā rūpaṃ heśāśabdaṃ ca śṛṇvataḥ Kuranikṣepaśabdaṃ ca śveto ’śvo dhāvatīti dhiḥ.” Ślokavārttika VII, 358

v2.c16.s13.69

62. See :
1. “Vṛddhā yuvānaḥ śiśavaḥ kapotāḥ khale yathāmi yugapat patanti Tathaiva sarve yugapat padārthāḥ parasparānvayino bhavanti.”
2. “Yadyad ākāṃkṣitaṃ yogyam saṃnidhānaṃ prapadyate Tena tenānvitaḥ svārthaḥ padair eva gamyate.” where the views of the ancient and modern schools of Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika are expressed. The views stated and reflected upon in this passage by Vyomaśiva show the analytical approach adopted by his predecessors. These theories appear to have been held, but for a few of them, by writers in the Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika schools.

v2.c16.s13.70

63. Vyomaśiva refers to the Nyāyabhāṣya and cites passages from it (on pp. 20 (gha) and 329). He twice cites a passage from the Nyāyavārttika (cf. pp. 129, 602). A work probably on the Vaiśeṣika system called Padārthasaṃkara is cited twice (pp. 483, 689) in support of his interpretations. An obscure word, mibratava is used on p. 531 and it appears that it refers to the name of the followers of some school of thought whose view, according to Vyomaśiva, had been set aside. The identity of this school is hard to ascertain; the reading appears to be corrupt.

v2.c16.s13.71

In all likelihood Vyomaśiva was responsible for classifying the noninherent cause into two kinds and giving them a separate treatment in regard to certain qualities. Though he does not actually use the word, it is possible to guess that the first kind could have been named laghvī, since the latter is referred to by him as mahatī, which he illustrates on pp. 438, 476, 478, 488, 489.

v2.c16.s13.72

While interpreting the passage “evaṃ dharmair vinā dharmiṇām uddeśaḥ kṛta iti,” Vyomaśiva writes that the dharmins have been enumerated without their respective features. Vyomaśiva refers to a view of some scholars who hold, in contrast, that the dharmins are described here together with their features. A difficulty arises in justifying that view, since the word vinā, which means “without,” is found used. The author interprets vinā skillfully as “by Kaṇāda.” The word vi means “bird” and vinā thus means “by the bird ‘owl,’ ” which is another name for Kaṇāda (p. 114).

v2.c16.s13.73

Vyomaśiva, from the beginning of his attempt to comment on the Padārthadharmasaṃgraha, continues to refer to the tattvajñāna (true knowledge) as related only to the 6 categories, though he is not unaware of the role played by absences (p. 644).

v2.c16.s13.74

Though primarily he is a writer on the Vaiśeṣika school, Vyomaśiva brings in materials belonging to the Nyāya school to provide convincing expositions. This is clear from his treatment of the definition of perception and the number of fallacies of the hetu as well as topics such as the ways of losing an argument, futile rejoinders, and cavil (see pp. 326, 559, 676).

v2.c16.s13.75

There is, strictly speaking, no place in Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika for the liṅgaśarīra or "subtle body," since the self, which is all-pervasive, cannot move from place to place. If any reference is made to the self's going it must be taken to be a figurative expression. Getting reborn happens to the self which is of course there. Vyomaśiva recognizes, on the contrary, the existence of the subtle body; he calls it sūkṣmaśarīra, antarābhavaśarīra and ātivāhikaśarīra. He says that it must be admitted on the strength of the Vedic authority (pp. 20, 559, 676).

v2.c16.s13.76

Among the three commentators on the Padārthadharmasaṃgraha it is Vyomaśiva who was the earliest. References made by Vyomaśiva to previous commentators on Praśastapāda's work are by far more numerous than those found in the Nyāyakandalī or Kiraṇāvalī. Each of the authors of the other two commentaries was following his own tradition. In point of expression Vyomaśiva suffers in contrast with Udayana, whose language is very polished, forceful, and dialectic. Vyomaśiva's language is forcible but lacks vigor. It is very elaborate, but lacks the finish of Udayana. Śrīdhara's language is nearer Vyomaśiva's, but also greater in its appeal. Vyomaśiva has the unique distinction of having given a thorough exposition of the entire Padārthadharmasaṃgraha, leaving not a single passage unattended to. The same cannot be said of Śrīdhara and Udayana who, though attempting to comment on the original, did leave certain passages unexplained because they were simple. Of all three, Śrīdhara clings to the text and stands by the spirit of the text without swerving from the original. The other two very often bring in matters from the Nyāya sphere and incorporate them into Vaiśeṣika doctrine whenever they are found fitting. Udayana has, however, even more leaning to Nyāya than Vyomaśiva.

v2.c16.s13.77

In spite of all this Udayana came to be looked upon as an authority on the Vaiśeṣika system as well as on Nyāya. Later writers frequently refer to his views and make references to Śrīdhara sparingly. Vyomaśiva was forgotten in the later school of Nyāya and was referred to for his opinions only by a few writers such as Vallabha, Vādidevasūri, and others. The reason for this is not hard to guess. Udayana achieved unique distinction by his classic on theism, the Nyāyakusumāñjali, and acquired the coveted title Nyāyācārya. The authority which he wielded because of his reputation became applicable also in the field of Vaiśeṣika. There are passages to confirm this in Padmanābha Miśra's Setu on Praśastapāda (B1054), pp. 57, 62, 80, 119, 169, etc. See also Jagadīśa Bhaṭṭācārya's Sūkti (B1054), p. 166. Also Viśvanātha's Siddhāntamuktāvalī with Dinakarī pp. 76, 150, 501, etc.

v2.c16.s13.78

It is evident that Udayana's works eclipsed the contribution made by Vyomaśiva to Vaiśeṣika. Vyomaśiva's contribution is as important as that of Śrīdhara and Udayana and deserves careful and sympathetic appreciation.

v2.c16.s13.79

¹ Reported by Ganganatha Jha, B5992: 4, pp 263 ff.

v2.c16.s13.80

² D. C. Bhattacharya, B6105, p. 23.

v2.c16.s13.81

³ Umesh Mishra, History of Indian Philosophy, Vol. II, 100.

22. Vācaspati Miśra

v2.c16.s14.1

4. Ibid., p. 106, footnote 5.
5. Paul Hacker, B2484.
6. As pointed out by H. G. Narahari, B2487: 22.1-2, p. 78.
7. D. C. Bhattacharya, B2587.
8. See, e.g., D. H. H. Ingalls, B2173.
9. Narahari, B2487.
10. Professor Matilal writes: "This is a commentary on Uddyotakara's *Nyāyavārttika*. The job of a person writing a summary of a commentary like *Tātparyaṭīkā* is difficult and I doubt whether it can be done with much success. It seems to be doubly difficult when we think that Vācaspati comments not only on Uddyotakara but sometimes also on Vātsyāyana and Aksapāda. The *Tātparyaṭīkā* is an interesting and important document of the Nyāya school. There was a big time gap between Uddyotakara and Vācaspati and some interesting developments took place in the Nyāya school during this time. Part of the importance of *Tātparyaṭīkā* lies in the fact that it records some of these developments. In my synopsis I have tried to note them as far as practicable. But my synopsis, I admit, has been selective. In many places I have skipped. In some places, Vācaspati's remarks need much explaining, which I have found hardly feasible to be put in a summary. In general, I have refrained from making any value-judgment of Vācaspati's arguments--which, to be frank, do not always seem to be convincing. I also suspect Vācaspati's originality in many places as far as the Nyāya school is concerned. Besides, Vācaspati appears to have a somewhat clumsy way of putting even a subtle point which is apt to be missed at first sight."
11. For a translation of this portion of Vācaspati readers are referred to Theodore Stcherbatsky, *Buddhist Logic* (B1174), Vol. II, 255-98.
12. This passage also is translated in Stcherbatsky, *ibid.*

v2.c16.s14.2

²³ ADHYĀYANA
1. Umesh Mishra, *History of Indian Philosophy*, Vol. II, 127. See also A. Thakur, B6072, p. 15, who finds references to Adhyāyana in Abhayadeva's *Sanmatitarkaṭīkā* and Karṇagomin's *Pramāṇavārttikaṭīkā*.

v2.c16.s14.3

²⁴ VITTOKA
1. Umesh Mishra, *History of Indian Philosophy*, Vol. II, 116. On Vittoka cf. also A. Thakur, B2724 and B2663.

v2.c16.s14.4

²⁵ NARASIMHA
1. U. Mishra, *History of Indian Philosophy*, Vol. II, 93.

v2.c16.s14.5

² E. Steinkellner, B6135.

v2.c16.s14.6

²⁶ ŚRIDHARA
1. Cf. N. C. Bhattacharya, B2981, p. viii.

v2.c16.s14.7

² G. Kaviraj, B6007, p. 631.

First 191 of 318 passages. Read on

Cites (47)