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, 2-8-0INTRODUCTION.
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 Vidyéii
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 ( Pianiv
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, wyvii
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 abovexii
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 Eaitioxiii
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 Védavaex
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 Orientalxvil
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