weedeat aetaneraary aTTrapiezatatanat aaa | wat gortafeatiataar geratat Racr—facnfecanatar | MAHAVIDYA-VIDAMBANA BHATTA VADINDRA WITH THE COMMENTARIES OF ANANDAPURNA anD BHUVANASUNDARA SURI ‘Tue Das’4-SLoxI OF KuLA‘RKA PANDITA wit VIVARANA AND VIVARANA TIRPANAL FIT EDITED WITH INTRODUCTION AND APPENDICES MANGESH RAMAKRISHNA TELANG Rummy HEap SurnasTmpAx o¥ THE BosRAY HGH Count. AND EDITOR oF SANOIT RATNAKAR &c. PUBLISHED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF HIS HIGHNESS THE MAHARAJA GAEKWAD OF BARODA. CENTRAL LIBRARY BARODA, 1920,Prblished by Janardan Sakharamn Kodulkar, M, A., LL, B.,Carator of State Libraric Baroda, for the Baroda Government, and Printed by Masilal Itcharam De ‘Phe Gujarati Printing Press, No. 8, Sassoon Buildings, Circle, Fort, Bombay. Price Rs, 2-8-0INTRODUCTION. In this 12th Volume of the Gaekw4d’s Oriental Series four different books are published together as all of them treat the same topic viz, Makév ‘They are as follows: — 1 Rerfrarfieraa of atmererardteg with two commentaries, 1 HT PSPASMA of AAT and 2 sarearadifaar of wget, agrerfrerfise of grrgrarattt. raainerfianga of gereafea. nerfrergeraretfarent of an unknown author with the commentary nerfrerPacnfiaa of qaAErTT. Of these the first two are refutations of the method of Mahavidy4 in- ferences or syllogisms. The third is the original text of Rules laid down to frame Mah4vidy4 syllogisms and the fourth is a Vivarana i.e, exposition of those rules. mR 02 10 What is Mahavidy4—Before attempting to give an account of the life; date and place &c. of the authors of the above works, it would be proper to introduce the reader to the subject-matter of these books viz. Mahdvidyd syllogisms. ‘The word ‘Mahavidy4’ originally meant ‘a great science.’ Secondly it means according to Vachaspatya of Prof, Téranitha Tarkavachaspati, the ten goddesses beginning with Xé/7 &c. I quote here the portion of Vachaspatya so far as relates to the word Mabdvidya:— aerenr—elt ato—“aret art netfee Great gata | edt forme 3 Peer garadt car 1 ane feafier a aragt eaerteat 1 cat ga nerfian: 1” egurg wreaftg ag ty | Unfortunately the name of the book wherefrom these verses are quoted is not mentioned by Prof. Térandtha. According to this authority, however, the word ‘Mah4vidya’ means the ten goddesses known in the Tantra Shéstra, No other meaning of the word is given in that great dictionary. Ta the commentary of the 17th verse of Lalitésahasrandma Bhiskara-rfya (about A. D, 1562) in explaining the difference between Mantya and Vidyéii tion of amale deity is termed a Mantra.and that ofa 1 Thus according to Tantra Shdstra, Vidy4 means an ‘And Mab4vidy4 may therefore mean a great 5 itis able to grant all the gemrat: says that the incanta female deity a Vidyé. incantation of a female deity. or important incantation in as much 9: to its devotee. ; _ But the word Mehividyd as used in the works now published has quite a diferent meaning, Vadindra, the author of Mabavidya-vidambane explains it as tollows:— : prorat eaak satan tg: arventiavizaacreatieiar eaftand grafted areata | ters RePeraaficerfeasetatiee | merfaenaeraa gy. 3 ‘aus; “a positive probans which being present in the subject proves the positive-negative probandum as desired by a disputant by force of the cizeum stance that the pervader (av) would not be established, is termed ‘Mahd- vidyé! It is called Mahdvidy4 because itis free from all fallacies beginning with ‘unproven probans’ &e.”” It is quite natural for any one to be curious to know how the word Makévidyé which originally meant a female deity or a great incantation according to the Tantra Shéstra came to denote Kevaldnvayi-hetu ive. a purely positive prodans in logic or Nyya Shéstra, ‘This can be answered only on the assumption that Kulirka Pandita who is the reputed author of the marteraretster must have used the word Mah4vidy4 symbolically to denote the Kevaldnvayi-hetu, as the number of the Mahavidyé syllogisms is Skodasha, that is, 16 which corresponds with Shodashi which is also one of the names of the female deity (of the Tntrikes) specially worshipped by him. ‘Thus it appears that Kulirka Pandita being himself a great Tantrika may have specially made use of the numbers ten and sixteen symbolically in cousideration of his great devotion and reverence for the female deity, As far asI know there is no other explanation forthcoming, References to Mahavidyd in ancient Sanskrit Books—Now let us see what information we can collect about Makividy4 and Kulérka Pandita from ancient Sanskrit works, ‘The Mahavidyé syllogisms have uot been mentioned in the Vaigeshika stitras of Kapaa, its Bhéshya of Prasastapéda and its commentary Nydya- Kandalt of Getdharéchésya (A.D.991). Similarly we do not find any trace of the Mahfvidsé syllogisms in the Nydyasttras of Gotama, its Bhéshya of Vitsyfyana, its Vartika of Uddyotakara and its commentary Nyéyavittika. t&tparyatika of Véchaspatimishra (Samvat 898, A.D. 842), Se ase (Sam 1 te wa: ster fer cht aafteiiégetit oe ReafaamarerTgeATe fe Rear rare Wa RR | afeareeeata 9. 5 ( Pianiv isms is Amalduanda alias Vyistétama (about A. D, 1247-1260), the author of (1) Vedaat Kalpataru," a commentary on the well-known Bhamati of Vachaspati Miéra and (2) Sastrardarpana,* an original treatise on the Adhikaranas of Bramba Sutras. - "Phe next reference to Mahévidyé is by Auandajndua better known as Awandagisi (A. D. 1260-1320) in his able work ‘Tarkasangraha which is a refutation of the various definitions of the categories &c. current in the Vaideshike and Nydya systems of philosophy.° For the sake of the convenience of the reader, full quotations from this as well as other works referring to Mahavidyé, Kuléska Pandita and Vadindra are given in a separate statement after this Introduction. ‘The next author who refers to Mahividy4, Vadindra and his Mahavidyé ‘Vidamban is the great Ramdnuja Philosopher Srivenkatandtha well known by. the epithet Vedinticharya. He lived between A. D, 1267-1369." In his two works on the system of Réméuujé’s philosophy viz. Nyéyaparishuddhi? and ‘Tattva-Mukta-Kalipa,* Veukatanathe refers to Mahdvidya syllogisms. In the latter work he further mentions Védindra and his (Mahévidyé) Vidambana also. He has refuted Vadindra’s view that the Kevalanvayi-hetu is entirely untenable, He agrees that the method of Mahavidya is not sound but holds that the Kevalinvayi-hetu with a Kevalanvayi-sidhya is sound and can be logically established. "The next refereuce to Mahdvidya-vidambaua under the name of Daga- ‘dloki-vidambana and to its author Vadiudra is made by Sesha Sarngadhara in bis Nydya-Muktavali’ which is a commentary on the Lakshanfvali of the celebrated Naiyayika Udayanachdrya, Sesha Sarngadhara flourished about A.D. 1450," __Further_we find that Pratyagripabbagavin has mentioned Kularka’ 1 wi ag merirarerara aA saat: everiay Sf daraerne AGL AH Le . (2 440 Fa) 2 aefrerativen Reraverat Greats 1 madi: af. 8 St. @ aH ; ; (2 aay archer) 48 Vide Anandajzana’s Tarkacangrahs p.22 published as No. III of this series (Gackwad's Oriental ) 4 Vide the preface of U2U@APG7HI Vol I (V4ai Vilés Edition)! 5 Vide Nyiyaparishaddhi. pages 125, 126, 273 to 276 and 278. (Choukhambé Edition). 6 Vide Tattwamukti-Kalipa with Sarvirthe-siddbi, pages 478, 486, 6 to 491 (Reprint from Pandit, Benares), BEATE BO and AGS 7 Vide Uatabanavali pages 6, 23, and 42, (Reprint from Pandit, Benares). | ea Introdudtion to Tarkassngrahs of Anandajaana p. xviii (Gackwad’s griental series). Dr, Arthar Venice in his bibliographicel note on Lakshanavali places Seuhs éharngedbara between the 15th and 17th centuries, 9 See Tattrapradipika p. 204, (N.S, Edition).v Pandita only once, and Mabavidya? and Vadindra? several times in his commentary Neyanaprastdinf on Chitsukhacharya’s Tattvapradipika, ‘Thus from the foregoing references we find that the Mahavidy4 syllo- gisms were first known in the 12th century and since then they have been referred to by some authors till the 15th century of the Christian era. But it is rather curious that none of the Maithila and Bengal Naiyiyiks of the Modern school such as Gangeéopadhyaya, Raghunétha Siromani, Mathurdndtha, Jagadifa, Gadadhara and others mention Mahavidya, Kulérka Pandita Vadindra and his Mahavidya-vidambana in the discussion of the Kevalanvayi- hetu in their works. Date of Mahdvidy4é—rFrom all the above evidence we can definitely say that the method of Mahavidya syllogisms had its origin before the 12th . century. From the statements made by Vadindra and Bhuwanasundara in their works, it is certain that one Kularka Pandita was the author of the tea Mahavidya Karikés (verses) or garatatagyfaeraa. Who is Kulirka Pandita—As regards the life and date of Kularka Pandita very little can be gathered. ‘The only manuscript of Dagasloki-Mah4- vidya Satra that was furnished to me does not give any information about the author of the work either in the beginning or end. It contains no Mangala verses, Nor do the ten verses possess any internal evidence to determine the name of its author, The authorship of these verses is ascribed to Kulirka Pandita on the authority of the statements made by Vadindra, Bhuvanasundara and Pratyagripa-bhagavaa in their works. My learned friend T, M. Tripathi Esq. B. A. of Bombay in his Introduc+ tion to the Tarkasangraha of Anandajndna p. xix says “Kularka Pandita does not seem to be a proper name but originally an epithetical name-Pandita- Kularka (i.e, the sun in the assemblage of learned men) mistaken for a proper name by separating the frst word Pandita and transposing it,” This may perhaps be so but it gives us no clue to find out the real name of Kularka Pandita, Whether Kulirka Pandita is identical with Sivaditya Migra— ‘Vadindra at the beginning of the third chapter of his Mahavidya-vidambana says as follows:—Since Sivaditya and other logicians knowing that the positive-negative srodans is nullified by Upadbi (accident) have proclaimed the Mabavidya syllogisms, I, Vadindra, the religions councillor of King Srisimha have made these efforts to refute them.?”* 1 Bee ‘Tattva-pradipika pages 18, 21, 181, 184, 206, 243, 284 and 289, 4 See Ditto pages, 171, 181, 183, 184, 206, 208, 221, 285, 286 and 243, 3 suftentateenaentieremn, 1 sotfearertrer: Rrarkenteaifie: va 0 ‘aang Raa Fraser: | shfeeaniain ardor fella ng e arfienfacrar 2.2.5,vi ‘This statement may lead one to think that Sivaditya himself may be Kulrka, as he is said to have proclaimed Mahavidya syllogisms. But this is not sufficient to identify Kularka Pandita with Sivaditya Miéra. For, Vadindra, Pratyagriipa-bhagavan and Bhuyansundara have all separately mentioned the names of Kularka Pandita and Sivaditya ‘Misra in their works. Vadindra mentions Kulirka Pandita only once and Sivaditya? Misra four times separately. Pratyegripa-bhagavin, the commentator of Chitsukhi, also mentions the name of Kuldrka* Pandita only once and that of Sivaditya* some ten times separately. Bhuvanasundara in his commentary on Mahévid vidambane also mentions Kulérka Pandita and Sivdditya Migra separately, Had both of them been identical Bhuvanasundara would have explained it accordingly in the commentary. Besides, wherever the name of Kuldrka Pandita appears in the above books, it is invariably mentioned in connection with the Mahavidyé syllogisms only and not in connection with any other topic, But the name of Sivaditya Migra is mentioned in connection with the definitions of Guna, J4ti, Satpratipaksha &c. No doubt SivAditya Misra seems to have made use of the Mahdvidyé syllogisms of Kulérka Pandita and written either a commentary on the Daéar Slokt-Mabavidyé-stitra or an original work in support of the same as may be inferred from a verse of Sivaditya’s quoted by Védindra in his Mahavidya- vidambana.* In commenting on this verse Bhuvanasundara says that the verse is quoted by Vadindra from another treatise on Mahavidya,® Many Authors Wrote Works on Mahavidya Before Vadindra— Many leamed men who preceded Védindra seem to have written works either in refutation or support of the Mabavidy4 syllogisms, For, Vadindra 1 garbaficttes Warfare Ser squats Rag au fae a a 2 wag Rretetem: | Raific fie g, we Remar: Rea kerzatier Bes safineg ward 2 fiedt « termaracafe Renflemfaifier! 9 45 Reaktor gests earmeie gar 1 8 Vide Chiteukbi p. 804 (X, §, dition). 294 4 Vide Ditto pp. 180, 183, 190, 192, 200, 287, 310 12 iti eae and 823 (N, 8, Edition), achemaficetceraetia: 1 j eh oreaa: ae) Baareafee waft Rafe fio uw | § 9 sitet auReEmM eM oa aE od aE i we Betaommafadea a Rerafveraaceay | Falfte fae 9, wyvii eproduces some arguments of an older atithor in refutation of Mahdvidya? and uso. some argument of another author in support of Mahévidyé.? Bhuvana- undara in his commentary on the former portion of this text has a note that he author (VAdindra) reproduces an objection put forward by another Vidam- vanakéra (i, e. another critic who had written a Vidembana or refutation of Aahévidyd) and on the latter portion he adds a note that the author repro- luces a syllogism explained by an Ekadesi i. e. an author who partially upports Mahévidyé. Moreover Vadindra in the secoud chapter of the Aahdvidyé-vidambana? quotes a verse from an older author in refutation of he Kevalénvayi-hetu. ‘The author of Mahévidyi-vivarana at the end of the work, states that Ithough the ten verses of Mahévidyé had heen annotated by the ancients, he 4s explained them for the edification of the dull-witted.+ It must be noted here that Mr. S. Kuppusvami Sastri of Madras has scently acquired two different Commentaries on Mahfvidyé, one of them y Purushottamavana, and another by Parna-prajna. Veukatandtha Vedantéchirya (A.D, 1267-1269) in his Nydyapariguddhi ays that the ‘crooked syllogisms”” set forth in Mabdvidyé, Ména-Manohaza, ‘ramdgamanjari &c. are fallacious. Sriniviséchérya in his commentary Ny4yaséra oa Nydyapatiguddhi in splaining the above passage says ““Mahévidy4, M4namanohara, and Praména« anjari are the names of books. ‘There are many such books. ‘The ‘crooked Mogisms’ which are set forth in all those books and which are common to e antagonistic party are included under the fallacy termed ‘Unproven robans,"¢ 1 agner Bfaga ettrafterrerad at x x x x azar afr nafte fie g, ¢-¥ 2 ag ed aarateaatatcaiantas ssa’ Bat Rar eR | Faifis fie g. 5° 8 ant et a Raararadt ates arash mafic fio 9, ve Bhovanasundara gives the complete verse in his commientary on p. 77 remarking that ig from the work of an ancient Achérya. 4 naftareretat Ranft Pred | aeahafefiead fata aarmay U maf. Peg. ae 5 daa ha-nmmteramrifetargirenf canary, (staat) | saraftah: a. Ree (steer) 6 Agha sera 1 darter ashe mea: AAS 09 7 ofearfr reETaTTf enguarariasseT smarter faa: | raraftgfadiar 9. aye (aea)vill ‘Thus many learmed men seem to have handled the ‘Mahavidy4-syllogisms som A.D, 1100 to 1500. ee Daga-éloki-Mahividyd Satra—tt we examine the Dagadloki Mahdvidyé stra, we find that it consists of only ten verses in Anushtubh Metre, the eh Netse being in Upajiti Metre, ‘These 10 verses lay down 16 rules for-framing the various Mahdvidys spllogisms, each rule being followed by an example of the syllogism framed under that rule. ‘Whe author of the Mahdvidyé sitra abruptly begins the rules without the usual Mangela (invocation) or prefatory remarks, Further he has neither mentioned the introductory reasons (siga-yaqua) uot even hinted at them.’ ‘The author of the Mabévidyé-vivarana has marked this defect and observed ‘some men find fault with this treatise for not mentioning the relation and use? &e.? He has tried to answer this objection by explaining that as the ‘book treats of a subordinate topic of a science, it is covered by the Anubandha- Chatuhtaya of the principal science.’ The origin and object of Mahavidys syllogisms—Bhuvana-sundara~ sari at the commencement of his commentaries on Mab4vidy4-vidambana and Mab4vidyé-vivarana gives two verses* in Aryd metre stating how Mahé- vidy4 syllogisms originated. ‘The purport of these verses is as follows:—‘‘The Bhittas (followers of the Mimins{ school of Kumérila Bhatta) hold sound to ‘be eternal but the Yougas’ i.e, Vaigeshikas or Naiyéyikas hold it to be non- eternal, Hence a controversy atose between them, Therefore in order to convince the Bhétta disputants of the non-eternity of sound the great Acharya of the Yougas created the Mahavidya syllogisms.”” T The Suoskrit authors generally at the commencement of a book state the four introdactory reasons viz 1 f49a subject of the book, 2 salma use of the book, 3 sifuertt ‘the person qualified to study or read the book, 4 Gq the relation of the book to the subject matter &e, 2 ag Beearteenierta aeicnamfata | aaa 2. a¢6 3 mraarerReatiekaddve seems eal aac 1 aa: arate BReaR aaa afaarfiaet 2. 4° 4 ana frei at Alora arftnaed a1 sferrae aalst sraraat Paria nau areata’ ofimefag rariiar| aharani ak: gaatat waar mafrafaeaa 2. 8, v4 5 For the ase of the word ‘alv? in the sense of a follower ‘iSeshika or Nyaya. school ot philosophy see aammraaerataregr with ‘orerseeay tebe ras aR. 293,95, 935 TRY ZETA, 4,944, 04, 265 and BERRA TT Ue, a88 ROC: | an? o Gterganreyaa 9 &, ¢, 40, Yo, ve, ve Ge, Gaparatza, a Jain author (AL D 1) asys that the Naiyayikas were called “yougas” and the VaiSeshikas “Pigupatas.’? _/ #9 and of eageaaa of Gopazains (Bibliothecs Indica Haition),ix ‘The controversy about the eternity or otherwise of sound existed from 4 very ancient time between the Miménsakas on one hand and the Vaieshikas Naiyiyikas, Buddhists &c. on the other. This is evident from Jaimini’s ‘Mimdnsé sittra,! Sabara’s Bhdshya,? Kumétila’s Slokavdrtika,® Parthas4rathi Miéra’s Siistradipiki* and a number of works on Miméusi in which a separate Adhikarana, generally known as the ‘Sabdanityat@dhikarana,’ is devoted to prove the eternity of sound and refute the contrary arguments of the Naiyéyiks, Buddhists &c. On the other hand the view of the Mim4nsakes is criticized by the Vaigeshikas in Kag4da’s Vaigeshika siitra,* Pragastapida's Bhdshya,* Sridhara’s Nyéyakandali &e. and by the Naiydyikas in Gotama’s Nydya- siitra,? Vétsyyana’s Nydyabhdshya, Udyotakara's Nydya-virtika,? Vachaspati Migta’s Ny4yavartika-titparya-tikii,? Jayanta Bhatta’s Nyéya-Manjari?” &c, * Sankara Migra alludes to this controversy in his Vadivinoda.’? Thus the cons troversy about the eternity of sound has been carried om by the Miméasé and the Nydya and Vaigeshika schools of philosophy even in later books, And as stated in the above Ary4, Yougéchrya who was a follower of the Vaiseshika or the Neiydyika school seems to have revived the controversy by inventing the method of Mahévidy syllogisms to refute the eternity of sound maintained by the Miménsakas. The word Yougdchdrya appears to be an honorific of Kularka Pandita who according to the statements of both Vadindra and Bhuvanasundara is the author of the Mahavidy4 Karikés, ‘Vadindra has explained and supported the Mab4vidys syllogisms in the first chapter of his Mah4vidy4-vidambana, although he hes refuted them in the second and third chapters. He says that his efforts in the expositions of these syllogisms have a two-fold object viz. firstly, it would remove the im- pression of the Mahdvidyvadi that his opponents do uot understand the Mah4vidy4 syllogisms, and secondly, a disputant whose resoutces fail him during a discussion for want of accurate reasoning may employ the Mahévidyé 1 ttatereg, aaron 9.9.¢-33 2 arraned g, 4¢-23 (Stara ) 3 Slmfde a. vaemews ( eet) 4 apadifier 9. 933-948 ( fide ) 5 Fafienad weefiermcreneattt erat 3 a. 2 q, 29-2 6 saeraaned smramractatd 9, yeu-zee (Pm. wit) 7 ame arm oz. 2 Ay Gove ( fast Belt) 8 smaaféé g. Re%-2 te (aezaT Ae) 9 saraenfiveareddtar 9. yout (Pi. at) 10 raramert 2. Ro4-223 (fast, areit ) LL wafiaaternt: f ear aaiatifa tafretaiesatitaanaaitaga x x x Pa eaAATETTRR AIH | affine a. ay ( smararg)vili ‘Thus many leaned men seemt to heve handled the Mahdvidyt-sylogisms from A. D. 1100 to 1500. ones Daéa-loki-Mahividys Stitra—tf we examine the Dasasloki Mabavidyé stra, we find that it eonsists of only ten verses in Anushtubh Mette, the th Sense being in Upajiti Metre, These 10 verses lay down 16 sulesfor-framing the various Mahévidyé syllogisms, each rule being followed by au example of the syllogism framed under that rele, ‘The author of the Mahdvidyé sitra abruptly begins the rules without the usual Mangala (invocation) or prefatory zemarks, Further be has neither mentioned the introductory reasons (wgyewaqza) nor even hinted at them,? The author of the Mahévidyé-vivarana has marked this defect snd observed “some men find fault with this treatise for not mentioning the relation and nse? &c. He has tried to answer this objection by explaining that as the ook treats of a subordinate topic of a science, itis covered by the Anubandha- Chatushtaya of the principal science.® The origin and object of Mahévidys syllogisms—Bhuvana-sundara- siti at the commencement of his commentaries on Mahévidyiwidambana and Mahfvidyé-vivarana gives two versest in Aryé metre stating how Mahé- vidyé syllogisms originated. ‘The purport of these verses is as follows:—'*The Bhéttas (followers of the Miminsi school of Kumérila Bhatta) hold sound to be eternal but the Yougas* ie, Vaigeshikas or Naiydyikas hold it to be non- eternal, Hence a controversy arose between them, Therefore in order to convince the Bhétta disputants of the non-eternity of sound the great Acharya of the Yougas created the Mabévidya syllogisms,”” 1 The Sanskrit authors generally at the commencement of a book atate the four imtroduetory reasons viz 1 faa subject of the book, 2 salsa use of the book, 8 sifaartt ‘the person qualified to stady or read the book, 4&9 the relation of the book to tho subject matter &e, 2 gag temicnaierta safcteamaba | aaRatan s. a¢° 3 arenfinieatietasdns fe ee | aah gar 1 aa: ratte Ba aaa! . ara fteatiaet 2, 982 4 arer fa ae ahora arora a1 sfeaad aalsd sraetal Partisan 9 areata aftmatag areata | ataranil aa: seaat wafer 3 wearafaeraa 9. %, 348 5 For the ase of the word ‘ala? in the sense of a follower of the Vaigeshika or Nyaya sebool of philocophy see samaaataiawEn with taravaaferie afese 9g. 4% GR FEY Ga GAR 4,949, us, cf; and aaRAAATIOS TT BY,988, ROCs an? o ater 2 &, 8 2%, 29, ¥¥, ¥e Ge, Ganaratna, a Jain author (A. Pp laa i ‘the Naiyiyikes were called “yougas” and the Vaisesbikas “PaSupatas. 7-49 and 51 of eeeieageqagly of Ganeratus (Bibliotheca Indioa Edition),ix The controversy about the eternity or otherwise of sound existed from @ very ancient time between the Mimdnsakas on one hand and the Vaiseshikas Naiyiyikas, Buddhists &c. ou the other, ‘This is evident from Jaimini’s Miménst satra,! Sabara’s Bhdshya,? Kumdtila’s Slokavartika,® Pirthasérathi Miéra’s Sistradipiki* and a number of works on Miméusi in which a separate Adhikarana, generally known as the ‘SabGanityat4dhikarana,’ is devoted to prove the eternity of sound and refute the contrary arguments of the Naiydyiks, Buddhists &c, On the other hand the view of the Mimansakas is criticized by the Vaigeshikas in Kandda’s Vaigeshike siitra,? Prasastapida’s Bhdshya,* Sridhara’s Nyéyakandali &c. and by the Naiydyikas in Gotama’s Nydya- sitra,” Vatsyéyana’s Nyéyabhdshya, Udyotakara’s Nydya-vistika,* Vachaspati Migra’s Nydyavirtika-titparya-tiki,? Jayanta Bhatta’s Ny4ya-Manjari” &c. * Sankara Miéra alludes to this controversy in his Védivinoda.'! ‘Thus the con+ troversy about the eternity of sound has been cartied on by the Mimdns4 and the Nyéya and Vaigeshika schools of philosophy even in later books, And as stated in the above Ary4, Yougdchdrya who was a follower of the Vaiseshika or the Naiydyika school seems to have revived the controversy by inventing the method of Mahdvidy4 syllogisms to refute the eternity of sound maintained by the Mimdusakes, ‘The word Vougdchdrya appears to be an honorific of Kularka Pandita who according to the statements of both V4dindra and Bhuvanasundara is the author of the Mahavidy4 Kérikés, ‘Vadindra has explained and supported the Mab4vidyé syllogisms in the first chapter of his Mab4vidyd-vidambana, although he has refuted them in the second and third chapters. He says that his efforts in the expositions of these syllogisms have a two-fold object viz. firstly, it would remove the im- pression of the Mahdvidy4vadi that his opponents do not understand the ‘Mahdvidyé syllogisms, and secondly, 2 disputant whose resources fail him during a discussion for want of accurate reasoning may employ the Mahdvidya 1 diatarad, aeaficaranPiaet 9.9,.8-22 2 mrad g. 9¢—82 (aharar ) 8 Stents @. wrc-ews ( aie) A mredifirar 9. 933-948 ( fivhaaig ) 5 Bahia aecieaadireneat erat 8 aT. 8G. RI-Bs. 6 sancarered araeetatd g Reece (Ps, aialt) 7 rare ARRAPIAATTTRAG a, FO. FA, AR—¥o (PR BEAM) 8 rmaarfée 2. 2eR-2 10 ( eae FE) 9 rarranfiemreaddtar 9. gou-22y (Past arat) 10 raramant 9. 24-223 ( faa. zrait ) Ll eafiaaeat: f% eat aractafafe vaPadhaiasfitaaraaitnea x x x ‘FatraheagaTAT ATER Aza | alferte a. av ( eA)x syllogisms against the Buddhists, just as Jétés (futile rejoinders) are employed when one fails to duly detect faults? (in the arguments of his opponent). But at the end of the third chapter Védindre raises a question “What is the object of refuting the Mohdvidyé syllogisms which can be used to prove anything desired by oneself ?””? He answers this question as follows:—'The object of refuting the Mabavidyé syllogisms is to Gemonstrate that they are fallacious like Jatis i. e, futile rejoinders. Otherwise the pupils who may be employing the Mahavidya syllogisims (iu a controversy) will be defeated on account of the faults previously pointed out by the opponent.””* It may be observed here that both Venkatandétha Vedéutichdrya and Pratyagripa-bhagawén style the Mahévidyé syllogisms as {¢Vakrénumdnas’? (amram) i. €. crooked syllogisms,* Why Mahavidya syllogisms became obsolete—The {Mahavidy4 syl- logisms seem to have aroused a keen interest among the Pandits of the 11th to 15th centuries and therefore they have been referred to in several works composed during that period as shown above. Many books were written in support as well as in refutation of Mab4vidyé, But none of them seem to have lived after Védindra wrote his Mahavidyé-vidambana and completely exploded the theory of Mab4vidy4 syllogisms by proving them to be fallacious, Hence none of the authors aiter the fifteenth century refer to these syllogisms, "The modern Bengal school of Nyéya has not at all recognized them, Vadindra and his Mahdvidyé-vidambana—So far we have tried to explain what is meant by Mahvidyé and given an account of its author Kulérka Pandita and his work Dafasloki-MahSvidy4 Satra, Now we shall turu to Vadindra and his work Mahividyi-vidambana, Like many other Sanskrit authors very little is known of the life, time and place of Vidindra. Whatever information we can gather from his own work and from the works of other authors who have noted bis name or works will form the materials for the outline of his life-sketch. 1 sft qerafinrenstagecae | @ Preeti after uy a seaqureersfegat dharthaft sayfa: etaer:, amemaRegtt stents. FRB a As 1 wafiafie g, we R vifiemerentarmere ten frag | mafrae 9. 9x5 ‘ 3 snthita camera Tar FaRaetaat Rent aftagaRamdte + ware 1 - warfeafte a. 945 oat aga FasraReahy ererarfiea emarerart ‘TREHION g. vou, veg (fag. g.) Ag swale dara erat naheafieh araahaty seaate 1 arandifivedtar 2. 93 (fH, at.)xi ‘The tiame Vidindza is not a proper noun as it is added as an epithet to the name of a learned man who has been at the same time a great contro versialist, In the colophous at the end of all the three chapters of the Mabividyé-vidembana, Vidindse prefixes the epithets Harakinkare,‘Nyéya- charya, Patamapandita and Bhatta.’ In verse 2 on p.2of the Mahividyé- vidambana he styles himself as Sankara-kinkara which is synonymous with Harakinkara.? Madhavitya has quoted 2 verse under the name of Saukara-~ kinkara in his Sarvadarshana-sangraha.* Vidindra may have used this epithet to express his devotion to the deity Siva whom alone he praises in the Mangala verses at the commencement of all the chapters of Mahividya-vidambena, My learned friend Mr. T. M. Tripathi B. A. of Bombay is of opinion that as Vidindra was a pupil of Vogiévara alias Sankara, he styles himself Sankara-kinkara.* ‘This view also is possible. For Védindra mentions his preceptor as Vogiivara at the end of Mahavidyé-vidambana.’ But I have not been able to find any authority to identify Yogisvara with Sankara, Vidindra’s other epithets viz. Nyéyécharya, Parame-pandita and Bhatta signify that he was a great logician, Mimansaka, and well-versed in the Sistras. Vadindra’s real name—Vidindra’s real name seems to have been Mahideva. For, his pupil Bhatta Righava in the beginning of his com- mentary Nydyasira-vichira on Bhdsarvajna's Nydyaséra has the following verse: netand at a edgar! aeaateag fret afteterg ger tle 1 eft diafeeearararivmaienadea feted mafaartacest weft 2 ageale ardkaaa teehigt 1 saat meat WRN 3 cat Prefs agehegin— aggre aa’ af aaa 1 mrepaaaaagea Tafa waetiarise: %. Se ( aaeraa ) 4 See Introduction to Anandajnina’s Tarkesauigraba pr svi (Gackwad’s Oriental series). 5 dvforat: eeePrenarara aaa: | eran weaned) wafaerfieraay Ul naferafite g. ave 6 This verse is quoted from the catalogue of the India Office Sanskrit Manuscripts, My friend Mr. T. M. Tripathi was kind enough to get for me the loan of a manuscript of this unpublished commentary on Bhisarvajna’s Nyéyaséra from the Dabilakshmi Library at Nadiad, District Kaira, Unfortunately some portion of this commentary at the beginning and at the end seems to have been lost. Thus I could not find the abovexii and the colophon of the aforementioned commentaty runs as follow aft angaradtatieratigratfeareagererat apes arrarcar aaa: ofiede: Bara: I From these statements it is clear that Vidindra was the preceptor of Bhatta Righava and that Vadindra’s proper name wes Mahideva, “He was also called ‘Sarvajna’ well-versed in all the éistras. Vadindra’s date—Bhatta Righava, Vadindra’s pupil, at the end of the aforementioned commentary gives the Saka yeat of its composition in the following verse:— ae aganftdeat at: mahivate a aftr | hafta aya ate wi rare: ofterfa waa: u? Now this verse can be interpreted in two ways:— Lopate dt: Rerfit: anid: wate ageatides a =500 x 2=1000-+100+74= Shake 1174 (A. D. 1252). 2 pats gt: gait: fark: nah agate ah =500+100=600 x 2=1200+74=Shaka 1274 (A, D. 1352). ‘Whe above two interpretations create a doubt as to the exact date o Bhatta Righava, My learned friend Mr, T.M. Tipithi has provisiouall accepted the second interpretation and fixed Bhatta Raghavi’s date as A.C 1352 relying on the circumstance that “‘Jayasimba stiri (who has also writte a commentary (about A. D. 1366) on the Nyiyasira of Bhisarvjna) is de: ctibed by his pupil Nayachandza-stti (in his Hammira Kivya) to have defeate in a debate Siranga who was a great logician and who can be safely identifie ‘verse in the manuscript. But on going through the existing portion I found Vadindi referred to in the following passages:— 1 antago cen art wdtanientat ered HATE Manasoript leat 88 2 arvafieanarg Ditto leat 39 3 agm acta a aRRATREAERENT: | 4a wannabe aie aAcla Ditto leat 44 1 This is quoted by Mabimshopadhyiya Satischand: idyAbl a i adhyiya Sat .Vidyébhugana M, A, Ph. in his Introduction to Bhisarvajua’s Nydyasira fr ri ay vi the Queen's College Library, Benaree, ee et Natalie 2 Bee M, M, Satischandre’s Introduction to Nyayasira p: 7 (Biblio, Indica Eaitioxiii with the father of Raghava."” He has deducted 27 yeats from Bhatta Righava’s date A. D, 1352 on account of the difference between the ages of the pupil and his preceptor and held Vidindra to have flourished about A.D. 1325. But owing to some fresh evidence revealed in Vidindra’s Mahévidyé- vidembaua itself we shall have to accept the first interpretation of Bhatta Righava’s verse mentioned above and push back Righava’s date to A. D. 1252. For, Vidindra says that he was a religious councillor of the king Srisimha.* Now, we do not find any king of this name among the several Dynasties of the North or the South between A.D. 1250-1350, But from the history of the Dynasty of the Vidavas of Devagiri (Modern Doulatébid) we find that king Singhana (Reigned A.D. 1210 to 1247) of that Dynasty was also named .Simha.? The very name Srisimha mentioned by Vidindra occurs as the name of king Singhana in a verse (eulogizing his conquests) in the first out of the two Rajaprasastis composed and included in his Chaturvarga-Chintamani by Hemidsi who was the minister of Singhana’s grandson Mahideva (A. D, 1260- 1271). We quote the verse here:— agaatitead fied wattac: carafe: agreafefa: sae eee areraerstat: | agrefatirentaadat aaiserea a: oifaeer adtvafisaa agredtertad ul ve ut Again the name Simba as another name of Singhaga is mentioned by Jablana in his Sdktimuktivall, Jahlaga was the commander of troops of elephants in the reign of King Krishna (A. D. 1247-1260) who was a grandson of Singhaya and occupied the throne after him. In the following verses of his Sdktimuktavali Jablena says that Janirdana, a commander of troops of elephants taught Simba ie. Singhaua the art of managing elephant: aT sandarce: tftarfesita: | aaa Tad TAT ae Paar Prandtatiay ul 48 01 fadsomrfieeta asfirat az07 | afeanrate® 1 Vide Introduction to Ansndsjnina’s Tarkasangraha p, xvi (Gaekwad’s Oriental series No. III). 2 Bara fatto frereenaa: | sifeeratade aaa fehat v2 0 narrate 2 $8 8 Vide Bombay Gazetteer Vol. I, Part II p, 522. 4 Vide Bombay Gazetteer Vol. I, Part II p. 272. 5 These verses are quoted in the History of the Dekkan, Bombay Gazetteer Vol. I, Part IT, p. 289.xiv ‘hus we find that Srisimha or Simba was another name of king Singhaya ofthe Vadava Dynasty of Devagiri, He reigned at Devagiri from A.D, 1210-1247. Now we shall state some reasons to prove that Vidindrés date suggested by Mr, Tripathi as A.D. 1325 is incompatisle with the following fact. We have already stated that Venkatanitha Vedintichirya who flourished between ‘A. D. 1267-1369? has mentioned Vidindra by his name and referred to his work Mahividyi-vidambana in his TattvaMukti-Kalipa. Supposing Veu- Katandtha wrote this work in his 50th year if not earlier, the year of its composition would be A. D, 1317. ‘Then we shall have to hold Vadindra to have been a contemporary of Venkatanitha, But Venkatanitha mentions ‘Vidindra’s name along with that of Udayanichirya (A. D. 984). He must have therefore mentioned Vadindra as an old author and not as a contempor- ary one. He has refuted Vidindra’s view thet the Kevalinvayi-hetu is entirely untenable.’ Sanskrit authors when they criticize the views of cou- temporary writers do not generally mention their names in their works. Had ‘Vadindra been a contemporary author, Veukatanitha would not have referred to him by his name, For these reasons Vidindra must be placed before Ven- katanatha, that is, before A.D. 1267. If we accept the first interpretation of the above quoted verse of VAdindra’s pupil Bhatta Righava, we get the year A. D. 1252 as his date and deducting 27 years there from on account of the difference in the ages of the pupil and the preceptor we get A. D. 1225 as Vadindra's date. If we place Vadindra about A. D. 1225 it suits well with the period of King Srisimha alias Singhaya of Devagiri, A. D. 1210-1247, mentioned in the History of the Dekkan, and with the mention of Vadindra’s name by Venkatanitha, Singhana seems to have been a great patron of learning. For Sirgadeva, the author of Sangita-Ratuikara, an important work on Indian Music was patronized by Singhana, It is therefore likely that Vadindra also was patronized by Singhana by conferring upon him the appointment of his Religions Councillor (wqteqa) as stated by him in his Mabividyi-vidambana p. 99. ‘Thus if we fix Vidindra’s date as A. D. 1225, it does not -affect any of the established dates of other authors, Ou the other hand, if we accept A. D. 1325 as the date of Vidindra we are unable to satisfactorily explain Venka- tanathas reference to Vadindra, as the former was born eatlier i.e. in A. D. 1267. Besides we cannot find any King of the name of Srisimha between A. D. 2267-1850 dently Bin with he usinho meatoned by Wind, For ¢ Rejagopélacharyis life of Venkstanitha in the Vanivilas edi bbyadaya p. xvi. so tha Fanhria o 2 a ac camer aR EMETM a eR sea: sears oft meee: rh armen ane: feces ie Dawe pay ee ee mn of Védavaex all these reasons we must conclude that Vidindra lived during the reign of the king Srisimha alias Singhana of Devagiri about A. D. 1210 to 1247. Vadindra’s Works—Now let us make an enquiry as to what works were written by Vadindra, He has not referred to any of his other works by name in his Mahavidyd-vidambana. But at the end of the book he observes “‘other kinds of faults falling under the heading of particular Arthinteratd affecting particular Mahividys syllogisms will be set forth in another place,’?? Bhuvana- sundara in his commentary on this passage says that “in another place’? means ‘tin another book.”"* ‘Thus it is clear that Vidindra had also written another work criticizing the Mahividyi, syllogisms in detail. But it cannot be traced. Vadindsis pupil Bhatta Righava has quoted the following verse under ‘the name of Vidindra in the commentary of Nyiyasira of Bhisarvjua without mentioning the name of the work from which it was extracted :— ag air — aa aareareezandat: | a4 vara eafitat aavdara I Manuscript of Nyayasira-vichara® leaf 44, As this verse is not found in the Mahividyi-vidambana, it must have been taken from some other work of Vidindra on logic. 1 8g aaftafidatien afitiaen eaicenttan:, tows qereiers ea 1 wulafe g. ae 2 Bg meres | aan eaedt a warfare dar 9. oe 3 The following information from the manuscript of Nydyasirvichira is given here as ib is of historical interest, In this commentary Bhatta Righava has the following P ee aeareanor tives ganged cevftenq 1 wd ca-afweral watt waar anad sft camafavar adie arrameafia 4 at 1 ae: afreaahaas zeaseearar aun | ace, gfaacea ame saigesafahe | Manuscript of Nyiyaséra-vicbira, leaf 6, Here the Khandanamandana alladed to is Shribarsha, the author of Khandana and the ‘Iévarvida’ meant is Shriharsha’s ‘igyaribhisandhi’ which is mentioned in Khan- dana by Shriharsha himself in two places.* The ‘iévaravada’ mentioned by Bhatta Raghava is not the 3rd Parichheda of Khendana, because no such argument as is stated in ‘the above passage is to be found in that Parichheda. This tévardbhisandhi of Shriharshs seems to have been well-known at Righava’s time (A.D. 1252). But no Manuscript of it has yet come to light. 4 aia bachrerdt aoa Ader 1 area g, sow (ataear ) vahererfrarerral anceaned adarracaed geez | aver 9, yov9 (Shera)xvi Midhavirya (A.D. 1398) in the Akshapidadargaua of his Sarvadarsana. sangraha quotes the following verse under the name of Shaukara-Kinkara who is no other than Vidiudra as has been stated before:— wn fraty agg eggs Fim ward aft ara | ererearararagrets arafidat: 1 aaqaineing: % 9¢ (ardarae ) "This verse too is not found in Mabividyd-vidambana, It must have also ‘been quoted from some other logical work of Vidindra, Sesha Sémngadhara, author of the commentary Nyiya-muktivali on Udayandchérya’s Lakshagivali and Pratyagripa-bhagavin, author of the Nayana-prasidini commentary on Chitsulhichirya’s Tattvapradipika, also quote somte definitions under the name of Vidindra, All these quotations are not to be found in the Mahividyi-vidambana, From all the above information it is evident that Vidindra must have written several other works on logic besides the Mahividyi-vidambana. His other known work is (2) Rasasira, a commentary on Guna-kiranivali of Udayanichirya, a manuscript of which is said to be in the Library of the Benares Sanskrit Colloge.' A third work by him, styled gmgqafara has been recently discovered and secured for the Madras Government Oriental Library by the well-known Pandit S, kuppusvimi Sistri, If these works be published they may perhaps throw some more light on Védindra and his works. The scheme of Mahavidy4-vidambana—vidindra has divided his Mahavidyé-vidembana into three chapters called Farichhedas, In Chapter I after the usual Mangala he has defined Mahividy and after answering certain objections raised by others against Mahividyd syllogisms, has given 70 syllogisms to prove the non-etemity of sound adding explanatory notes to almost all of them. ‘Thusin the first Chapter he has supported these syllogisms answering the criticisms of other old authors, In Chapter I he has commenced the refutation of the Mahividyé syllogisms by criticizing the several definitions of Kevalinvayi-hetu, In Chapter IIT he has pointed out how these Mahividvi syllogisms are subject to Upddhi (accident) and how they could be demonstrated to be fallacies such as Virud- aha (Contradictory probans), Anaikintika (Inconclusive probans), and Satpratipaksha (neutralized probaus). ‘Then he has shown how these syllo- gisms can be contradicted by other syllogisms of the same kind, Subsequently he has Pointed out defects iu the Mahividyé syllogisms such as Siddhinta- akatva (setting at nought the theories accepted by one’s own school of 1 Bee Introduction, Anandajadna’ EE ( i eed ne eteoon, Aamdsjsings Tarkenegeaa p. xix Gackm’e Orientalxvil philosophy), Sva-vyighitakatva (self-coutradiction) and Arthintaratj (prov- ing something which is not intended). In conclusion he has stated that these Mahividys syllogisms canuot prove the non-eternity of sound, He has there~ fore condemned the Mahividyis as useless in a controversy. Vasdindra’s preceptor—tin the last verse of his Mehividyd-vidambana Vidindra mentions the name of his preceptor as Yogishvara!. It is already suggested that his name might have been Sankara as Vadindra styles him- self as Sankara-Kinkara (servant of Sankara), But no farther information is available about him, Authors Mentioned by Vidindra—vadindra has referred to gitrakira, Bhishyakira and Tikikixa without mentioning their names. But the authors meant by these epithets are Kapida, author of the Vaiseshika stitras, Pragastapida, author of the Pragastapida Bhishya on Vaigeshika-sitras and Udayanichirya and S:idharichirya, authors of Kizandvali and Kandali respectively which are commentaries on Prasastapida’s Bhishya. ‘The authors mentioned by Vidindra by a direct reference to their names are Udayanichirya and Sivaditya Misra. 1 sqqarai—He was a great Naiyiyika of the old school. He seems to have been a Maithila Brahmana, His date is Saka 906 (A.D. 984), His known works are (1) Nyéyakusuménjali, an original work proving the exis- tence of God according to the Naiyiyika theory (2) Atma-tattva-vireka or Bouddha-dhikkéra, refutation of Buddhistic Philosophy,-(3) Kirandvali, a commentary on Prasastapide-bhishya,-(4) Titparya-tikd-parishuddhi, a commentary on Vichaspati Mishra’s Nydyavirtika-titparya-tiki,-(5) Laks- hanivali, a small treatise containing definitions of the categoties &c, and (6) Nydyaparigishta or Upidhi-prakarana, 2 firarfkeafirer—tt is stated before that Vidindra undertook to refute the theories of Sividitya Misra about Mahividyé. Accordingly he has quoted and refuted his views in the third Parichheda of the Vidambani*, Sividitya or Sividityamisra as he is mentioned by both names by Vidindra and Pratyagrapa- bhagaviin, is said to have lived between the close of the tenth century and the early beginning of the eleventh century*, that is about A. D, 975-1025. Prof, Ghate identifies Sividitya Mica with Vyomagivichitya, author of Vyomavat!, a commentary ou Prasasta-pida’s Bhashya, on the doubtful 1 avitaad: aeqftarnara aaa:) —aarfiafe 9. avs, 2 At the end of his Lakshanivali Udayana gives the date of its composition in the following verses sataagafiaeadiog aaraa: 1 aigarat etait came Bae g. VR (Pandit Bd.) 8 See pages 109 and 117 of Mahavidyi-vidambana, 4 See Prof. Ghate’s Introduction to Sapte-paidrthi p. X (Bom elition of 1909),xviii authority of a colophot of only oue manuscript of Sapté-padirtht belonging to the Benares Sanskrit College which runs as follows: aha at aia Prarardfiefiar aati aacerit aaa” But Rima-Sistri Tailanga, Assistant Priessor, Beues Sanskrit College who first attracted notice to this colophon in his perlace to the Sapta-padértht has expressed his doubt as to whether the copyist nay not bave written the name wrongly*, Besides, Pratyagrapa-bhagavin (author of the Nayaua-prasidini commentary on the Tattva-pradipikii of Ghitsukhichizya), bas alluded to Sividitya Misra and Vyomasivichirya separately, He has mentioned the former by his name some ten times’ but the latter only once*. Vallabhichésya (A.D. 984-1178) in his Nydyarlilivati mentions one Vyomichirya. Pethaps he may be the same as Vyomaéivachirya, But Vallabha does not mention Shividitya, Rijaéekhara, a Jain author of the commentary Panjiki om Prasastapida Bhishya,! says that one Vyomasivichirya wrote a commentary named Vyoma- vati on the Praéastapida Bhishya. But no copy of this Vyomavati is yet available, Ifa manuscript of it be found, it may perhaps throw some light on this point. We must therefore wait for further proof to identify Sividitya Misra with Vyomaéivichirya. Sividitya’s Works—1 aaagrelf—As regards the works of Sividitya migra, his Sapta-padérthi is well known and was published with the commentary Mitabishigi of Madhava Saraswati in the Vizianagaram Series in Benares in 1893 and with the commentary Padértha-chandrika of Sesha Ananta, by Prof Ghite in ombay in 1909. 2 wauMTSI—This work is mentioned in several books om logic. The @efinition of correct knowledge viz ‘qemaafsaan has been criticized by Sri- harsha (A. D. 1187) in bis Khandana-khanda-khidya and Sankaramigra (A. D. 1529), commentator of Khandana in explaining this portion of the text states that this is the first definition in the Lakshanaméla of Nyiyichirya® (i.e, Sivadiya Migra) . Varadarija (Between A, D, 1097-1200 ) in his Tirkikaraksh4 quotes the @efinition of Zinga’ from the Lakshanamili. It may be observed here that Prof. Ghite’s Introduction to Sapta-padirthi p. X (Bom Hdu of 1908) 2 See Sapta-padirthi, preface p. 1 (Vijaya. 8, Series 1898) 8 See pages 180, 188, 190, 192, 195, 200, 237, 295, 310 and 225 (Tattva-pradiptka N.S. Raition) me 4 Bee page 193 (Ditto) 5 See Introduction to Prasastapida-bhishya p. 19 (Visia, Series) 6 aREeamTE a sais sae are faqenMt—araeAane | WRETRIESTT gay aye _ (Lazarns Edition, Benares A. D, 1888) 7 Prnfisaerivcats feat sare 1 aufereat g. 448 (at)xix Mallindtha in his commentary of Tarkikarakshi in giving the source of the said definition says that it is from Udayana’s work. He seems to have mis+ taken Lakshanamala for Udayana'’s Lakshanivali. For, the said definition is not to be found in Lakshanivali. 38 Eqewad—This work of Sividitye Migza was so long unknown. My friend Mr. T. M. Tripsthi kindly sent his manuscript of it to me for reference. It consists of 8 leaves but unfortunally the first leaf is lost. The colophon runs as follows: —« gf frafhafiafictia taaest aera 1”, The manuscript is almost unintelligible owing to very bad mistakes committed by the copyist from the beginning to the end. The subject of the book seems to be the refutation of the view of the Miminsakas about Hew (cause). Hed not the first leaf been lost, the Maunscript would have perhaps furnished some more information about Sivaditya. In this book Sivaditya has alluded to two of his works which were not hitherto known even by name. They are Upidhi- vittika’ and Arthapatti-virtika?. Whether these two treatises are separate books or form parts of a larger work cannot be decided at present, as the manuscripts of these works have not yet come to light. It may also be mentioned here that Sividitya Misra quotes a verse under the name of Mayanandanikira® (Ménanandini-kara ?) in the Hetukhandana. Nothing is at ptesent known about this author or his work from which the verse has been quoted by Sivaditya. It is likely that the copyist may have committed a mistake even in transcribing the name of the author as it sounds rather strange to the ear. ‘The following verse is quoted by Vidindra under the name of Sivaditya Migra 8 ceqakarafeeac terrae ae: | wa: area: areal drrareafeaesy warhienfa. 2. 02 1 afitsa ReahiPeeeaieah agang (2) uerafa (2) seattam sah antes | 2 gar a aeaia Prarie — rarer 3 Prva anfiaana 9 Reeser | atte cnafegsnd erraramet a at fda: 0 Manuscript of Hetukhandana leaf 8 Manuscript of Hetokbandana leat 2 3 cafe ararargiaatc— aa arairadh 2 Fae afheraa | saroratfaetia carataferreeaa ‘Manuecript of Hetukhandsna leat 8