PRABAL KUMAR SEN

NY.~YABH.~SKARA - A LOST NY~,YA WORK*

NySyabh~skara (NB) is a pre-Gaflge~a work of the NySya School. The late Professor Dinesh Chandra Bhattacharyya first drew our attention to it. On the basis of commentaries by V~caspati Migra II, Jayadeva MiCra and Ka.n~da Tarkav~gi~a, he maintained that Gafige~a Up~dhy~ya refers thrice to the views of NB in his Tattvacint~man.i (TCM). He also traced some references to NB in Ny~yatattv~loka (NT~,) of VScaspati MiCra II, Ny~yarahasya (NR) of

RSmabhadra Sarvabhauma and AnvrksikTtattvavivaran.a (ANTV) of J~inaki-n~tha CQ.d~ma0. i. 1 NTA, NR and ANTV are all post-Gafige~a commen- taries on the Ny~ya-Sfitras (NS) of Gautama. Gafigega belonged to the 14th century A.D., 2 which thus becomes the lower limit for the composition of NB No further details about NB are furnished by Bhattacharyya.

A careful analysis of the relevant passages in TCM, NTA, NR and ~,NTV yields some interesting data regarding the nature and contents of NB. The passages along with the analysis thereof are presented here for the consider- ation of scholars. Since NT,~, NR and ANTV have not yet appeared in print, the passages will be quoted in their entirety.

In the section of J~aptiv~tda in TCM, we find the following passage:

Yattu - iyaria p.rthivityanubhaval3, p.rthivitvasamEn~dhikarana- dharm~vacchinnap.rthivivi~e s.yakavis.ayat~ka .h, p.rthivitvavyadhi- kara.nadharm~navacchinnap.rthiviv.~tivisayatLko v~, gandh~sa- m~n~dhikara .nadharmaprakarakavis.ayat~pratiyogijfi~natv~t, agandhavadav.rttip.rthivitvaprakSrakavisayatSkatv~t, gandh~sa- mSn~dhikara.navisayat~pratiyogij~natv~d veti. Tan na, s~dhy~prasiddhe .h. 3

The view stated and rejected by Gafigega has been ascribed by V~caspati MiCra II in his Cint~man.iprak~da to 'Bh~skarak~ra'. 4 The word 'Bh~skara' is, as we shall later see, an abbreviation of 'Ny~yabhaskara'.

In the Kevalavyatirek~ section of TCM, the following passage occurs:

Yad va - jivaccharirarh tadavayavo v~ ~tmabhinnatve sati ~tmavi~es.agunak~ra .nabhog~nadhikaranavrttisariayogavat,

Journal of lndian Philosophy 5 (1978) 267-274. All Rights Reserved Copyright © 1978 by D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland

268 P.K. SEN

prS.nEnyatve sati jfiSnakSra.nibhfitapr~.nasarhyogavattvSt, yan naivaria tan naivarh, yath~ ghat.al3.. Atmapr~nasarhyoga.h pr~namana.hsarhyogo v~ ~arirapr~.nasarhyogenaiva anyath~siddho na k~ranam. Bhog~dh]ratvarh bhogasamavSyik~ra.n]tiriktav.rtti, sakalabhog~dhikaranav.rttitv~t, prameyatvadivat - iti T~rkiki rl-til3., s

In Dravyaviveka (a commentary on Dravyakiran.~val~), Jayadeva MiCra ascribes the above view to BhSskara. 6 The closing remark - "iti T~rkiki ritil3."

- suggests that Gafige~a is in favour of it. Both the passages quoted above contain extremely complicated arguments,

and technical terms of Navya-Ny~ya are used profusely in their formulation.

If these are exact quotations from NB, then NB should be placed very close to TCM so far as style of writing is concerned.

We now quote a passage from the Savyabhic~ra section which runs as follows:

Atha s~dhyasarh~ayajanakakot.idvayopasth~pakapaksadharmatS- jfi~navis.ayatve sati hetvabhimatal3, sal?.. Vipratipattis tu pratyekaria na rathe, na v~ paks.av.rttil3, s~dhSranam anvayena as~dh~ranaria vyatirekena anupasariahSri paks.a eva ubhayas~hacarye.na

kot.idvayopasth~pakal3. Keval~-avayis~dhyak~nupasarhh~r~, 'ayarh ghata etattvgt' ity as~dhgra0, a¢ ca saddhetur eva, tadajfiff.na~ do.sa.h puru.sasya. Ata ev~sgdhgrap, aprakaranasamayo.h anityado- s.atvam, anyath~ saddhetau b~tdh5dijfi~ne hetv~bh~s~dhiky~pattil3.. Na ca prameyatvena abhed~-mm~me, '~abdo' nityal3, gabd~k~- g~nyataratv~t' ity atra ca s~dh~ra.ne avy~ptil3., tayo.h s~dhyavada- vrttitvena viruddhatv~t - iti cen na. Etadajfi~ne'pi s]dhSra.ny~di- pratyekasya jfi~n]t udbh~van~c ca sva-par~numitiprativandhSt, udbh~vitarh nirv~fft~rtharh s~dhgran~der avasyodbh~vyatvena tasyaiva dos.atv~t c a . 7

This passage contains the last but one of the opponents' definitions of Savyabhic~ra discussed by Gafigega. Unlike the previous def'mitions, Gafigega states this definition in detail, and his refutation of it is also elaborate.

In his commentary on TCM, Ka.n]da TarkavSgiga ascribes this definition to 'Bh~skarak.rt'. 8

An examination of this passage shows that the author of NB had discussed

NY.~YABHASKARA - A LOST NYAYA WORK 269

the hetv~bh~as with remarkable subtlety. The manner in which Gaflgega

discusses this view also suggests that NB was held in high esteem during his

time. None of these passages, however, furnishes any clue to the nature of NB.

The references in NT~,, NR and ~,NTV are more helpful in this respect, and to these we now turn.

The third introductory verse of NTA is:

Yad apy atipat.iyasi jayati s~ Caturgranthik~

Yath~ tad api Bh~skaro yad api Tattvabodho' dhikal3/ TathSpy atitaniyasi sphut.apad~rthas~rthodaye Mam~bhinavabh~s.ite budhajan~3 pradadhvarh manal3.//9

In this verse, NB is named along with 'Caturgranthik~' "four books" (a collec- tive name for Nyayabh~s.ya, Ny~yav~rttika, T~tparyat. Tk~ and T~tparyat. T- kapariguddhi) and Tattvabodha. Tattvabodha is an abbreviation of

Anvrks.#nayatattvabodha (ANTB) of Vardh~nana Upgdhygya, the son of

Gahge~a Up~dhy~ya. ANTB is a commentary on the Ny~yas~tras. Thus, NB

has been mentioned along with works that are either commentaries on the

Ny~yasfttras, or subcommentaries thereon. Moreover, NB has been placed

between the works of Udayana and Vardham~ma. Since the author of NB preceded Gafigega, he preceded Vardham~na as

well. It is an established fact that Udayana also preceded Vardham~ma.

Instances are not rare where previous works referred to have been mentioned

in their chronological order. 1° Taking these facts into consideration, we put

forward the following hypotheses:

(i) NB is closely related with the Ny~yas~tras. (ii) V~caspati Migra II has named the works according to their

chronological order.

NT~, on Nyftyasatra 1.1.1 contains the following passage:

Atra ca sarvapadSrthapr~dhSaayapratip~dan~ya dvandva.h sam~sa.h,

itarath~ tadapr~pte.h. Nirde~e yath~vacanarh vigraha iti Bh~s.yam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . tena pram~.n~ni ca prameya~ ca sarh~aya~ ca prayojana~ ca dr.s.t~ntag ca siddh~ntag ca avayav~ ca tarka~ ca nim. ayag ca v~da~ ca jalpag ca vita.n.da ca hetv~bh~s~g ca chal~mi ca j~tayag ca nigrahasth~n~ni ceti. ChalSdis.u phalas~dhanatvam ekaikasyevety eka vacanam iti Bhgskara.h. 11

270 P.K. SEN

This passage shows that the author of NB offered an interpretation to Ny~yasatra 1.1.1, and that he disagreed with V~tsy~yana on certain points. A similar disagreement has been noted by Vigvan~tha Pafic~mana as well. 12 This strengthens our first hypothesis.

While commenting on NyYryasf~tra 1.1.2, V~caspati Migra II raises the problem of JfiS_qakarmasamuccayav~da, and he presents the argument in

favour of this view in the following way:

Viv~d]dhy~sitakarm~ni bhogan~gy~mi, acirnaprSyagcittakarmatv5t,

deh~rambhakakarmavat.~3

This argument may be regarded as inconclusive. Ahgapurvas cannot be said

to be destroyed by the pleasure caused by them, since they produce no such pleasure. They are said to be destroyed by the pradh~naparva produced by them. Thus, the universal proposition assumed in the above mentioned argu- ment does not apply to the ahgapurvas, and is consequently false. While

replying to this objection, V~caspati MiCra II states that according to the author of NB, the ahgftparvas are destroyed by the pleasures generated by them ("Afig~prarvasya bhogan~yataiveti Bh~skara.h"). 14 It is clear that on this issue the author of NB did not accept the traditional view.

NTA on NyTayasatra 1.1.10 (Icch~dve.saprayatnasukhadu.hkhajfi~n~ny at- mano lihgam) raises the question whether all the definitions proposed in this

Sfitra are applicable to all the selves. In this connection, Vacaspati says:

Atra cecch~prayatnajfi~many~tmam~trasya laks.anSni, ges.am sarhsSri .nS_rn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yadyapi prakara.napary~locanay5

ksetrajfign~a eva prameyatvam . . . . . . . . . . tath~pi 'dye Brahma0. e veditavye' ity~di~rute.h moks.adhigocaratv~d Bhagavato'pi dhivis.ayatvam avagamyate, Bh~skar~disvaras~c ca. is

This shows that according to the author of NB, God is one of the prameyas (provable realities). This is again a departure from tradition, and V~caspati Migra II is in favour of it.

NT~, again refers to the view of NB while discussing the definition of dr.s.t~nta as proposed in Ny~yasatra 1.2.25. While explaining the word

'buddhisSmya', V~caspati says:

BuddhisSmyam iti tu pram~nopadar~anam, na hi buddhyavis.aye.na jfi~nena dr.s.t~nto grhyata iti Bh~skar~dayal3.. 16

NY~.YABH~,SKARA - A LOST NYAYA WORK 271

This corroborates once again our first hypothesis. The references to NB in NR and ANTV furnish more exact evidence in this respect.

The traditionally accepted reading of Ny~yasfttra 2.1.15 is "Traik~lyS-

pratis.edha~ ca gabd~d atodyasiddhivat tatsiddhe.h." RSmabhadra accepts the reading "Sabd~dStodyasiddhivat tatsiddheh." R~mabhadra deliberately departs from the tradition, as is evident from his statement: "V~rttika -

T ~ d a u tu 'traikSly~pratis.edhag ca gabd~d5todyasiddhivat tatsiddhe.h' ity eva

sGtram." 17 RSmabhadra justifies his choice thus: "Vastutas tu 'traikSJy~prati- s.edhag ca' iti sfitr~distharia Bh~s.yaria, Bhaskara - Tattvabodhadau tatgGnyasya- iva sGtrasya pEt.had iti dhyeyam." la

It is evident that R~mabhadra depends on NB and ANTB for determining

the correct reading of the Ny~yas~tras. This suggests that NB, like ANTB, was a commentary on the Ny~yasfttras.

After commenting on Ny~yas~tra 2.2.47, Ramabhadra comments on the following sentences:

(i)

and

(ii)

Var.natv~vyatirek~d var.navik~ra.nSm apratis.edhah.

Sam~nyavato dharrnayogo na sSm~nyasya.

And after commenting on these sentences, he says:

Vastutas tu 'Varnatv~vyatirek~d' ity~di dvayarh na sGtrada, Bh~skar~d~v abh~vat, kin tu Bh~s.yam iti mantavyam.19

This shows that RSanabhadra depends on NB for identifying individual

Ny~yasGtras as well. This suggests once again that NB was a commentary on

the Ny~yas~tras. After commenting on Ny~yas~tra 4.1.8, R~mabhadra introduces the

aphorism "Nimittanaimittikabh~vopatteg ca tulyajatiy~n]m apratis.edhal3." with the remark "Bh~skaramatralikhitarh sfitram." 2o

This proves conclusively that NB was a commentary on the Ny~yasatras. Had it not been so, the exact position of an aphorism could not be deter- mined according to its verdict. RS.mabhadra has, however, overlooked the fact that the aphorism concerned has been recognized in the T~tparyat.ika.

~,NTV on NySyasatra 5.1.4 presents the definition of Utkars.asam5 j~ti as

suggested by Udayana in the following words:

272 P.K. SEN

. . . . . . . s~dhyas~dhanayor anyatare.na paksadr.s.tEntayor anyatarasmin svSv.rttyanyataravrttidharmopap~danStmik5 jStir utkars.asameti tes.~rn ~ a y ~ . 21

This is followed by the following remark:

Bh~skarSdau tv anyataravrttiti gfinyam etad eva laks.a.nam etanmate d.r~yate. 22

In a similar vein JSJlakinStha refers to the views of Udayana and the author of NB in ~,NTV on Ny~yasf~tra 5.1.42 in the following way:

Pratis.edham dvit~yam paks.arh sados.am abhyupetya anuddhrtya yal 3 pratis.edhal 3 t.rt~yah paksa13, tasya vipratis.edhag caturthat). paks.ah, tatra sam~madosaprasafig~tmik~ matSnulna paficamiti BhSskarakrtal 3. ,~c~rySs tu pratis.edhasya dos.am anuddhrtya tasya vipratis.edho yo'yarfi bhavat~ k.rta.h sa mat~nujfiety artham ~u13. 23

From these two citations it becomes clear that Udayana and the author of NB gave different interpretations to some of the Ny~yasf4tras. If we may

assume that Udayana preceded the author of NB, we may also surmise that the latter criticized the former. It is to be noted that J~nak~nStha has not accepted the above definitions proposed in NB.

~,NTV on Ny~lyasf~tra 5.2.3 contains the following passage:

... pratij~te'rthavigiste parena dQsite dharm~ntararh praks.ipya tasygrthasya punarnirde~a.h pratijfigntaram ity artha13, 'parena dfis.ita' ity abhidh~n~n nigamanavyavaccheda.h, lak.sanaifi tu paroktadfis.anoddh~rSya pfirv~nuktavi~es.anavatab, p~rvoktasya sSdhy~rh~asya pratip~danam - iti Bh~skara-Tattvabodhau. 24

This shows that besides adopting the NB reading of the Ny~yasgtras, Vardham~na also at times followed NB in interpreting the Ny~yasgtras.

,~NTV on Ny~yas~tra 5.2.16 refers once again to Udayana and the author of NB. The relevant passage is:

. . . . . anuvSdayogyak~le svasthenS_nanuv~do 'nanubh~s.a.nam iti laks.an.am nirvyfi.dham . . . . . . Na caivam ajfi~naviks.epayor etadvySpyat]pattil3, anyfin~j~n~vis.k~re kath~vicchede v~ tayo.h sSmrSjySt. Sth~pan~rh samyag vidh]ya ajfiSn~visk~ra eva kathS- vicchede v5 tayor asarfikara iti tu Bh~skarak.rta.h. 'Ajfi~nam

NYAYABH~,SKARA - A LOST NYAYA WORK 273

anfivis.kurvato vy~jena kath~n avicchindate'ti viges.anafia deyam iti tu ,~cgry~13., ananubhgs.a0, aft ca anubhSsanavirodhi vy~p~ra ity api. :s

In this passage, JSnakin~tha has defined the Nigrahasth~na called 'Ananu- bh~sa.na', and shown how it is to be distinguished from 'Ajfi5na' and 'Viksepa'.

In this connection, he has referred to Udayana and the author of NB, who are

once again in disagreement.

ANTV on Ny~yas~tra 5.2.20 contains yet another reference to the author

of NB. The passage concerned is:

Bh~skarak.rtas tu - paficamy5 anantaram svabhinna iti ~es.al3, tena

svapaks.ados.abhyupagamo matanujfia. Na caivaria tenaiva dQsa.nena

nigrhitatvat krtam anayeti vAcyam, yatra sthSpanSy~rh pSrn~ySm

anadhyavasSya - dus.t.o'yaria matpaks.a iti vraviti tatr~sy~al3.

sSmr~jy~t - ity ~hu.h. Tadapi na, paficamy~divaiyarthyAp~t~t. 26

In this passage, JSnakin~tha has stated and rejected the interpretation of

Nyayasfttra 5.2.20 as suggested in NB. The last reference to NB in ANTV occurs in a passage connected with

Nyayasfttra 5.2.24. While commenting on this aphorism, JS.nakin5tha, for reasons best known to him, embarks on an analysis of cases. In course of dis-

cussing the definition of dative case he says:

Nygyabh~skaralq't. as tu - kriyay~ sariabandhikartum is.t.arh

samprad~narh, tathaiv~nugAsan~t, na tu dadgfikarma.neti, tathff'grute .h. Evafi ca 'rajak~ya vastrg.ni dadAti' ityapi sygd eva, 'rajakasya vastr~ni dadSti' iti tu sambandhavivaksay5 s.as.t.hL Ata

eva 'vrksayodakam asificati', 'mitr~ya dfitam presayati ' , 'gatrave

astrarh muficati' ity~dayal3, prayog~, ity ~hu.h. Tac cintyam. 27

The peculiarity of this passage is that it mentions the full name of NB.

J~nakinStha has once again mentioned a view expressed in NB, and given it

the dignity of his criticism. It is difficult to determine in what context the author of NB discussed the problem of dative case. Be that as it may, the

usual Ny~ya predilection for ordinary usage is clearly discernible in his view. It is a matter of regret that this important commentary on the Nyayasf~tras

is now lost. Even the identity of its author is unknown to us. However, further research may enable us to furnish more details about this work and its author.

Department of Philosophy, Calcutta University

2 7 4 P . K . SEN

N O T E S

* The author is grateful to Mr. P. K. Roy, Lecturer in Philosophy, Vi~va-Bh~ati for a microfilm of Nyfiyatattv£1oka. He is also indebted to Prof. A. Thakur, Ex-Director, K. P. J. Institute and Dr. N. C. Goswami, Lecturer in Sanskrit, Calcutta University, for their valuable advice. 1 (1), page nos. 2, 94, 118,145. (2), page nos. 107,124. 2 (1), pp. 103-4 . 3 (3), Vol. I, p. 268. 4 (1), p. 94. s (3), Vol. II, p. 633. 6 (1) ,p . 118. 7 (3), Vol. II, pp. 789-91 . 8 (1), p. 94. 9 (7), fol. la. 1o See, for instance, (5), p. 159. 11 (7), fol. l l b - 1 2 a . 12 (8), p. 3. 13 (7), fol. 2lb. 14 Ibid. 15 (7), fol. 52b-53a . 16 (7), fol. 67a. 17 (6), fol. 27b. Is (6), fol. 28a. 19 (6), fol. 46a. so (6), fol. 69a. 21 (4), fol. 94b. 52 Ibid. 23 (4), fol. 109b. 24 (4), fol. l12b. 2s (4), fol. 119a. 56 (4), fol. 120a. 27 (4), fol. 125a.

B I B L I O G R A P H Y

(1) Bhattacharyya, D. C., History of Navya-Nydya in Mithild, Darbhanga, Mithila Research Institute, 1958.

(2) Bhattacharyya, D. C., Vdhgdlir Sdrasvata Avaddna (in Bengali), Calcutta, Vangiya Sahitya Parishad, 1952.

(3) Gafige~a, Tattvacintdmani, Ed. Tarkavfigi~a, K, Calcutta, Asiatic Society of Bengal, 4 Vols, 1884-91.

(4) Jgnakinfitha, Anv[ksikitattvavivaranam (Mss. in my possession). (5) JfiSna~rimitra, J~dnagr[mitranivandhdvali, Ed. Thakur, A, Patna, K. P.J. Institute,

1957. (6) Rfimabhadra, Nydyarahasyam (Mss. in my possession). (7) V~caspati MiCra II, Nydyatattvdloka (Mss. in India Office Library). (8) Visvan~tha, Nydyas~travrtti, Ed. Vedgnandasvfimi, Varanasi, Gupta Book Depot, 1919