II «ft: II

Annamalai University Sanskrit Series: No. J.

T A T T V A B I N D U

BY
VÄCASPATIMISRA

WITH

T A T T V A V I B H Ä V A N Ä

BY
RSIPUTRA PARAMESVARA

EDITED BY
Mlmämsakaratna Mimämsävisärada Vedasiromani
V, A. RAMASWAMI SASTRI, M.A,,
Lecturer in Sanskrit, Annamalai University
WITH
A FOREWORD

BY
Mahämahopädhyäya
'ROF, S. KUPPUSWAMI SASTRIGAL, M.A., LE.S. (Retd),

AND WITH
AN INTRODUCTORY NOTE

BY
PROF. K. RAMA PISHAROTI, M.A., L.T.,
Professor of Sanskrit and Dean of the Oriental Faculty,
Annamalai University»
 PREFACE

r
T " r H I S edition of V a c a s p a t i m i s r a ' s Tattvabindu
JL and of its c o m m e n t a r y Tattvavibhavana
b y P a r a m e s v a r a I I is based on (1) a t r a n s -
cript of a m a n u s c r i p t Tattvavibhavana preserved
in t h e M a d r a s G o v e r n m e n t Oriental M a n u s c r i p t s
L i b r a r y , a n d (2) t h e B e n a r e s Edition of t h e
Tattvabindu. Since t h e commentator h a s made
it a rule to quote t h e full text by p a r t s before
commenting on it, his t e x t h a s been accepted
for t h i s edition. B u t t h e m a n y lacunae in t h e
text h a v e been filled tip w i t h t h e help of t h e
printed book. T h e readings both in t h e t e x t
and t h e c o m m e n t a r y a r e however found defective
in some i n s t a n c e s , and suggestions of b e t t e r
readings a r e given in b r a c k e t s .

The c o m m e n t a r y is indispensable for a correct

appreciation of t h e intricacies of V ä c a s p a t i m i ä r a ' s
t h o u g h t and style. P a r a m e ä v a r a I I who lived
more t h a n half a millennium after V a c a s p a t i -
misra, considers occasionally t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s
of t h e earlier c o m m e n t a t o r s on t h e Tattvabindu
and t h e various readings of t h e text. I n i t s
S p h o t a k h a n d a n a section he cites k ä r i k ä s and
prose passages from t h e Sphotasiddhi of M a n d a n a -
misra and advances t h e i m p o r t a n t and i n t e r e s t i n g
view t h a t t h e first p a r t of the Tattvabindu
contains a direct refutation of t h e views of
M a n d a n a m i ä r a on the t h e o r y of Sphota. Para-
m e s v a r a I I w a s no doubt thoroughly familiar w i t h
all t h e w o r k s of K u m ä r i l a , probably including t h e
Brhattika, and of P r a b h ä k a r a with S ä l i k a n ä t h a ' s
 VIII PREFACE
commentaries thereon. H e w a s equally familiar
w i t h other a u t h o r i t a t i v e w o r k s like t h e Naya-
viveka and t h e Vivekatattva, and he h a s displayed
in his w o r k a critical estimate of both t h e
B h ä t t a and P r ä b h ä k a r a schools of M ü n ä m s ä .
Consequently he offers to s t u d e n t s of M i m ä m s ä
S ä s t r a solutions for m a n y k n o t t y problems
concerning t h e historical and t h e doctrinal sides
of t h i s S ä s t r a .

I t now remains for me to acknowledge t h e

help I have received in editing this work. I owe
a deep debt of g r a t i t u d e to m y friend and
colleague B r a h m a ä r i K. A. S i v a r a m a k r i s h n a Sas-
trigal Avl., V e d ä n t a and V y ä k a r a n a Siromani,
P a n d i t in Sanskrit, and to m y friend and t e a c h e r
B r a h m a s r i S. K. R a m a n a t h a Sastrigal Avl., Lec-
t u r e r in Sanskrit, M a d r a s University, for their
valuable suggestions in the fixing up of t h e t e x t
and in proof-reading; and to m y friend M . R . R y .
R. S a t y a n a t h a A y y a r Avl., M.A., L.T., L e c t u r e r
in H i s t o r y , for his valuable suggestions in t h e
preparation of t h e historical portions of t h e
Introduction. I a m profoundly grateful to
Professor K. R a m a Pisharoti, M.A., L.T., Professor
of Sanskrit, for his kindness in revising t h e
m a n u s c r i p t of m y Introduction. I t is difficult
for me to adequately t h a n k m y revered Professor
Mahämahopädhyäya Darsanakalänidhi Vidyä-
v ä c a s p a t i K u l a p a t i S. Kuppuswami Sastrigal Avl.,
M.A., I.E.S., Retired Professor of S a n s k r i t and
Comparative Philology, Presidency College, Mad-
r a s , for t h e kindness and readiness w i t h which
he h a s enriched this work w i t h his FOREWORD.
I sincerely t h a n k P a n d i t L a k s h m a n a Sastri
T a i l a n g for having allowed me to incorporate
in this edition t h e Tipparu of his late brother,
 PREFACE IX
MM. Manavalli G a n g a d h a r a Sastri. I cannot
forget t h e great help t h a t m y friend B r a h m a ä r l
V e d ä n t ä l a n k ä r a V e d ä n t a Siromani T. V. R a m a -
c h a n d r a D i k s h i t a r AvL, Professor of Vedänta,
S a n s k r i t College, Mylapore, M a d r a s , h a s rendered
me in suggesting almost all the improvements
to t h e printed text incorporated in Appendix V.
I have t o record m y t h a n k s to t h e C u r a t o r s of
t h e M a d r a s Govt. Oriental Mss. L i b r a r y and
t h e A d y a r ' L i b r a r y for t h e facilities t h e y have
given me to consult m a n y valuable m a n u s c r i p t s .

I wish to express m y indebtedness to t h e

authorities of t h e University, and in particular
to M.R.Ry. Dewan B a h a d u r S. E. R u n g a n a d h a n
AvL, M.A., I.E.S., Retired Vice-Chancellor of t h e
A n n a m a l a i University, for p e r m i t t i n g me to edit
this work, and to t h e Right Hon'ble V. S. Srinivasa
Sastri, P.C., C.H., LL.D., t h e Vice-Chancellor, for
graciously p e r m i t t i n g me to dedicate this work
to him.

L a s t l y , T have to express m y sincere t h a n k s

to t h e Superintendent, St. Joseph's I n d u s t r i a l
School P r e s s , Trichinopoly, for t h e n e a t printing
a n d get-up of t h e work.

UNIVERSITY, ") ^ T A __
V A
ANKAMALAINAGAR. ' ' ^AMASWAMI SASTRI.
1-12-1935. ) Editor.
 CONTENTS

Pages
FOREWOKD . . . XIII-XV

INTRODUCTORY NOTE . . . XVII-XIX

INTRODUCTION . . . . 1 - 1 9 7

TEXT . . . . \-\\\

APPENDIX I . . . 1-7

II . . . 9-10

Ill . . . . 11

IV . . . . 12-22

V . . 23-25

ERRATA . . . . . 2 6 - 2 8

INDEX OF AUTHORS . . . 29-30

INDEX OF WORKS . . . 31-33

GENERAL INDEX . . . 34-50

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . 5 1 - 5 4
 FOREWORD

BY
Mahämahopädhyäya
S. KUPPUSWAMI SASTRI, M.A., I.E-S. (Retired)

T N compliance w i t h t h e request of m y friend

and former 1 pupil Mr. V. A. R a m a s w a m i
Sastri, M.A., M i m ä m s ä Siromani, L e c t u r e r in
Sanskrit of t h e A n n a m a l a i University, A n n a -
m a l a i n a g a r , Chidambaram, I gladly w r i t e this
short Foreword.

Mr. V . A. R a m a s w a m i S a s t r i h a s rendered
a highly valuable service to S a n s k r i t scholars
who a r e i n t e r e s t e d in t h e study of advanced
S ä s t r a i c t e x t s in t h e original, by bringing out
a v e r y reliable edition of V ä c a s p a t i m i s r a ' s
Tattvabindu, together with the commentary
called Tattvavibhävanä by P a r a m e ä v a r a I I , of
t h e K e r a l a c o u n t r y . V ä c a s p a t i m i s r a belongs to
t h e middle of the n i n t h c e n t u r y A. D. and P a r a -
m e s v a r a I I flourished in t h e P o r k u l a m village
of K u n n a n k u l a m , n e a r G u r u v ä y ü r , in t h e Cochin
State, in t h e former half of the fifteenth cen-
tury A.D.

V ä c a s p a t i m i s r a ' s Tattvabindu is a s h o r t and

highly difficult text. I n his c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y
r h y t h m i c and s t a t e l y diction, V ä c a s p a t i m i s r a
reviews in t h e Tattvabindu, the V a i y ä k a r a n a
doctrine of Sphota, m a i n l y as expounded by
Bhartrhari and Mandanamisra, and amplifies and
reaffirms K u m ä r i l a ' s criticism of Sphota doctrine.
B h a r t r h a r i and M a n d a n a in their exposition of
XIV FOREWORD

t h e sphota doctrine worked out fully t h e onto-

logical implication involved in w h a t m a y be
described, in t e r m s of modern psychology, as a
Gestalt view of t h e experience relating to t h e
complete and self-contained significative unit,
called sentence (väkya), by establishing the doc-
trine of ßabdadvaita and reconciling it w i t h t h e
Upanisadic doctrine of Brahmädvaita. The sub-
stantival pluralism of t h e M i m ä m s a k a s , both of
the schools of Kumarila and Prabhäkara, set its
face against all kinds of Advaitism and w a s
opposed to B h a r t r h a r i ' s Sabdädvaita. Though
V ä c a s p a t i m i s r a w a s one of t h e g r e a t e s t Advaitins
and w a s dominated, in a large m e a s u r e , by t h e
spirit of philosophical accommodation which
characterised M a n d a n a ' s g r e a t Advaitic classic—
Brahmasiddhi, he chose to maintain, in his
Tattvabindu, the attitude which Kumärila
adopted towards the doctrine of Sphota in his
Slokavarttika.

The Commentary—Tattvavibhävanä—which is
incorporated in this edition, is lucid and v e r y
helpful in u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e t e x t of Vacaspati-
misra. Though this c o m m e n t a r y is generally
reliable, it m u s t be said t h a t the learned com-
m e n t a t o r nods in some places. F o r instance,
at page 96 of t h e text, t h e commentator h a s
adopted a defective reading—" T§**rrHT%rT ff ^TT^TCT
snrteRtft **?%: wl\M4 "; and he h a s entirely missed
t h e m e a n i n g of t h e technical t e r m s used in this
text. By the w a y it m a y be observed t h a t t h e
correct reading of this text is :—"
as given in t h e footnote;
and t h a t this text refers to t h e three types of
cognitions which are capable of being reproduced
in memory—viz., qgsrera", sr^TTHsrerc and srr^srerc and
 FOREWORD XV
which Prasastapäda describes in his Padartha-
dharmasangraha- in t h e Samskära section of the
gunagrantha.

The elaborate and scholarly introduction,

giving a historical s k e t c h of t h e Mlmamsa liter-
ature, and t h e thorough-going analysis of t h e
Tattvabindu, in English, which the learned editor
h a s prefixed to his edition of the work, greatly
enhance t h e value of this edition as an i m p o r t a n t
book of reference. I h e a r t i l y c o n g r a t u l a t e Mr.
R a m a s w a m i Sastri on this s u b s t a n t i a l and
scholarly contribution, which he h a s made, in
his edition of the Tattvabindu, to t h e printed
S ä s t r a l i t e r a t u r e in S a m s k r i t and to t h e study
of Indian Philosophy in general.

The typographical execution and t h e get-up

of t h e book reflect g r e a t credit on t h e P r i n t e r s ,
St. Joseph's I n d u s t r i a l School P r e s s , Trichinopoly.

5, NORTH MAD A STREET,^

MYLAPORE, MADRAS. [ S. KUPPUSWAMI SASTRL
19-11-35. )
 INTRODUCTORY NOTE

BY
PROF. K. R. PISHAROTI, M.A., L.T.,
Head of the Department of Sanskrit and Dean of
the Faculty of Oriental Studies,

H T H E Tattvabindu of V ä c a s p a t i m i s r a with t h e
c o m m e n t a r y called Tattvavibhävanä of P a r a -
meSvara I I öf P a y y ü r B h a t t a m a n a , rightly
styled Mimämsäcakravartin, is h e r e issued for
t h e first time as A n n a m a l a i U n i v e r s i t y Sanskrit
Series No. I l l , and I h a v e g r e a t pleasure to
commend it to t h e public. The first of t h e
series w a s K u l a s e k h a r a ' s Mukundamalä, a hymn
of praise to M u k u n d a , and t h e second, Sabhä-
pativüäsanätßka, a glorification of N a t a r ä j a and
this inquiry into T r u t h embodied in t h e Tattva-
bindu comes fittingly as t h e third.

The Tattvabindu of V ä c a s p a t i m i ä r a is t h e
most a u t h o r i t a t i v e t r e a t i s e on t h e source of
verbal cognition from t h e epistemological stand-
point of t h e Mlmamsakas and it occupies an
i m p o r t a n t place in t h e dialectic l i t e r a t u r e of
t h i s school of I n d i a n t h o u g h t . The abstruse
problem discussed herein in t h e lofty and p r e g n a n t
language of V ä c a s p a t i h a s a l w a y s made t h e
work a h a r d n u t to c r a c k even for the best of
Mlmamsa scholars. A c o m m e n t a r y giving an
authoritative exposition of t h e text was a
long-felt desideratum, and this is now supplied
by t h e publication of t h e Tattvavibhävanä, of
Mimämsäcakravarti Parameävarabhatta than
whom a b e t t e r exponent VacaspatimiSra could not
h a v e had. T h e p r e s e n t publication will, therefore,
be welcomed by all s t u d e n t s of Mimamsäsästra.
XVIII INTRODUCTORY NOTE

The work h a s been edited by m y friend and

colleague, Veda-Mlmämsä Öiromani V. A. R ä m a -
swami Sastri, M.A., L e c t u r e r in Sanskrit. He
h a s brought to bear on this publication the r a r e
combination of the intensive learning of a Siro-
mani and t h e critical scholarship of a M a s t e r of
A r t s . A s t h e publication itself will bear out,
t h e w o r k h a s taxed all t h e critical ingenuity
and scholarship of the editor and b e t t e r justice,
I believe, could not in t h e circumstances have
been done to t h e text and p a r t i c u l a r l y to t h e
commentary.

The introduction is fairly long, but t h e

l e n g t h w a s obviously unavoidable, for so far we
have no systematic history of M i m ä m s ä s ä s t r a
presented to us. I t stands as a striking evidence
of t h e patience and industry of t h e editor; for
he h a s critically noticed with biographical details,
as far as available, n e a r l y seventy authors, more
or less in chronological sequence, besides telling
forth in Appendices I and I I a list of fifty
a u t h o r s and works, partially or imperfectly
known. This is a m a t t e r of no small credit to
t h e editor, particularly when it is remembered
t h a t he h a s had to a t t e n d to his usual lecture
w o r k in t h e University and h a s had no direct
and immediate access to a n y m a n u s c r i p t library.
I t is possible t h a t all his conclusions m a y not
be acceptable and some of t h e m m a y even prove
w r o n g in t h e light of fresh evidence t h a t m a y
be forthcoming, but t h a t does not t a k e a w a y
from t h e value of this piece of pioneer work.
I n a n y case he h a s certainly opened up a
p a t h w a y in t h e tangled forest of t h e history of
M i m ä r h s ä ö ä s t r a and to t h a t extent, a t least, he
h a s e a r n e d t h e t h a n k s of all students of this
 INTRODUCTORY NOTE XIX
b r a n c h of S a n s k r i t l i t e r a t u r e . Appendix I I I
giving a n alphabetical index of t h e Karikas of
t h e text, Appendix I V s e t t i n g forth t h e quota-
tions occurring in t h e t e x t and c o m m e n t a r y with
their sources identified, as far as possible,
Appendix V suggesting improved readings both
in the text and c o m m e n t a r y and filling up to t h e
extent possible lacunae in t h e l a t t e r and t h e
t h r e e Indexes—these, it needs scarcely be said,
add g r e a t l y to t h e value of t h e publication to
t h e critical student.
I t is a m a t t e r of g r e a t gratification to me,
as it m u s t be to e v e r y lover of Sanskrit, t h a t
t h e D e p a r t m e n t of S a n s k r i t of t h e A n n a m a l a i
U n i v e r s i t y h a s been enabled to contribute its
own humble s h a r e in t h e further elucidation of
S a n s k r i t l i t e r a t u r e by t h e publication of un-
published w o r k s and for t h i s t h e t h a n k s of t h e
D e p a r t m e n t a r e due t o t h e a u t h o r i t i e s of t h e
University.

DEPARTMENT OF SANSKRIT,')
ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY. ( K. R A M A P I S H A R O T I .
1-12-35 )
 INTRODUCTION

PART I.

A SHORT HISTORY OF
THE PÜRVA MIMÄMSÄ S'ASTRA

The History of the Pürva Mlmämsä Öästra may be

divided into—
(1) Pre-Kumärila period, from the earliest times
to A. D. 600 ;
(2) Kumärila period, from A. D. 600 to 900; and
(3) Post-Kumärila period, from A. D. 900 to the
present day.
' I ' R U T H w a s passionately p u r s u e d in A n c i e n t
•*• India. H e r quest after t r u t h gradually
led to t h e development of t h e intuitionistic
and t h e rationalistic tendencies a n d u l t i m a t e l y
to t h e realisation of dharma and moksa, t h a n k s
to t h e emergence of upanisads in t h e philosophy
of atman. These two tendencies c u l m i n a t e d on
t h e one side in t h e Vedanta Sütras of B ä d a r ä y a n a
and on t h e other in J a i m i n i ' s Pürvamimafnsa
Sütras. T h e l a t t e r m a r k t h e development and
culmination of t h e influence of t h e r a t i o n a l i s t i c
tendency on t h e ritualistic aspect, both exegetical
and doctrinal.* I t is probable t h a t t h e Acaryas
referred t o by J a i m i n i m i g h t h a v e composed
t h e i r own S ü t r a s of vedic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . I n all
probability, Jaimini, like P ä n i n i in t h e h i s t o r y of
S a n s k r i t g r a m m a r , summed up all t h e labours
of his predecessors and improved on t h e i r w o r k
t o s u c h an extent t h a t h e b e c a m e t h e only
S ü t r a k ä r a in this r e a l m of I n d i a n T h o u g h t .
* Vide MM. S. Kuppuswami Sastrigal's "A Primer of
Indian Logic "—Introduction pp. VI & VII,
2 INTRODUCTION
Mimämsä: References in the Vedic Texts.

The t e r m ' mimämsä' is derived from t h e

nan—to know—with t h e desiderative suffix
' san'; and it m e a n s t h e desire for knowledge!
I n most recensions of t h e Vedas t h e Sannanta root
' mimamsa' is found used e i t h e r as a n o u n or a
verb in t h e combined sense of desire for knowl-
edge and of discussion. T h e Taittirlyasamhüä
of t h e K r s n a Yajurveda u n d e r s t a n d s t h e t e r m
mlmamsante in this sense : t h u s VII—5-7-1 s a y s
" utsrjyäm notsrjyämiti mlmamsante brahmavä-
dinah taddhahuh utsrjyäm eveti"2 VI—2-6-4
"vyävrtkämam yam pätre vä talpe vä mlmämse-
ran" h a s t h e word ' mlmämseran' used in t h e
sense of discussion; II—5-3-7 introduces a
doubtful point w i t h t h e words ' Brahmavädinah
vadanti' w i t h o u t using t h e verb ' m l m a m s a n t e ' .
The Tandyabrahmana of t h e S ä m a V e d a also
supports t h e same v i e w : t h u s VI—5-9 h a s a
passage w i t h t h e word mlmämseta—'brähmanam
pätre na mlmämseta '3 and in X X I I I — 4 - 2 t h e
form ' mlmämseran' is employed : " yah talpe vä
udake vä vivähe vä mlmämseran ta etä upeyuh ".
I n t h e Kausitakibrähmana of t h e Rg-Veda t h e
verb 'mlmamsante' and t h e n o u n 'mimämsä'
are found used : II—9 s t a t e s t h a t " uditehotavyam
anuditam iti mlmamsante—they investigate (the

1. Compare Pänini's sütra—' mänbadhadänsänbhyo dir-

ghah ca abhyäsasya' III—1. 6 ; and Kätyäyana's Värttika—
* mäneh jijnäsäyäm'.
2. "The expounders of Brahman discuss (the question)
whether (a day) should be omitted or not; on this (they)
say that it must be left out."—(P. V. KANE, P. M. System,
P. 2.)
3. ' One should not discuss the merits of a brahmana'
 PÜRVA MlMAMSA &ASTRA ä

question) w h e t h e r oblation should be offered to

F i r e w h e n t h e Sun rises or before t h e Sun rises " ;
and after some r e m a r k s on e a c h of t h e two
alternatives, t h e conclusion is arrived a t t h a t
"tasmät anudite hotavyam—the oblation should
be offered before Sunrise " ; X X V I — 2 and 3 use
t h e words ' mlmämsä' and ' Mlmamsante': athato
1
goayusoh mlmamsa' ' a t h a kascit sastre va
anuvacane vä pramattah upahanyat vicikitsa va
syat upahatam abuddham atikrantam manyamano
manasa vrttäntam lksamäno vinivrtya upahatam
anupahatam krtva anantaryat prayogah syat
vrttäntat iti mlmamsante '2. I n X V I I I — 4 of t h e
same B r ä h m a n a t h e word ' mlmamsa' is found
used in t h e sense of discussion, 4 athatah pari-
dhänasyaiva mlmamsa '3. I n t h e Kanva recension
of t h e ßatapathabrähmana of t h e W h i t e Yajur-
veda t h e word mlmamsa is used—' saisü mlmäm-
saiva ' \

I n t h e Upanisads we frequently m e e t w i t h
this word. I n t h e Chandogyopanisad of t h e
S ä m a V e d a V—11-1 it is said t h a t " Pracinasala
Aupamanyavah mahasrotriyah sametya

1. 'Then follows the discussion of the Go and Äyus

(in the Gavämayana satra sacrifice)'—KEITH.
2. "Now they discuss (this question)—'supposing some
one in carelessness makes a blunder in a Sastra or a
recitation or if there is doubt, should one, thinking that
the error has passed unnoticed, mentally considering the
(place of) occurrence, having gone back and remedied the
error, proceed immediately from the (place of) occurrence
(of the error) ? "—KEITH, p. 497.
3. ' Now begins the discussion of the Paridhäna itself'.
—KANE.
4. This, however, is mere speculation'.—[EGGELING'S
translation. (S. B. E. Vol. XXYI, p. 25.) ]
 i INTRODUCTION
mimämsäncakruh—Ko nu atma kim brahma iti "*•
I n t h e Taittirlyopanisad of t h e Black Y a j u r v e d a
II—8-1 occurs the word mimamsa—c saisä änan-
dasya mimamsa bhavati'2. In the Kenopanisad
of t h e T a l a v a k ä r a recension of t h e S ä m a V e d a
t h e n o u n form 'mlmamsya' w i t h t h e suffix cyat9
is found employed: " yadi manyase suvedeti
daharam evapi nünam tvam vetha brahmano
rüpam yadasya tvam yadasya devesu atha nu
mimämsyam eva te manye viditam"*.

References in the Smrtis.

Similarly the words ' mlmämseta' and ' mi-

märhsä' a r e found in some of t h e ancient
Dharmasütras: for example, t h e Bodhäyana and
Väsistha Dharmasütras, I—4-10 and X I I — 2 u s e
t h e w o r d ' mimamsante' in t h e sense of discussion:
" Astamite aditye udakam grhniyat na grhnlyat
iti mimamsante Brahmavadinah "4. " Tatra
(mithyävyäkrtau) präyascittam kuryät na kuryü-
5
diti mimamsante" . The references from t h e
1. "Several learned Vedic students like Präcmasäla
Aupamanyava have assembled together and discussed the
question 'Who is the Ätman? ' 'What is Brahman?'"—
(P. V. KANE'S P. M. System).
2. "This is (the result of) the discussion on Bliss."—
(Ibid.)
3. " Thou knowest indeed very little of Brahman's form
if thou knowest ' I know it well'. What thou knowest of
this brahman among the gods is also very little. Therefore
the nature of brahman is still to be ascertained or discussed
by Thee."
4. " The Brahmavädins discuss whether water can be
drawn at sunset."
5. "(The scholars) discuss whether any expiatory
ceremony is to be enjoined or not (when one utters false-
hood, etc.)"
 PÜRVA MIMÄMSÄ SÄSTKA 5

B r ä h m a n a s and Smrtis, given above, show clearly

t h a t t h e l a t e r Vedic period witnessed discussion
of m a n y topics of a doubtful n a t u r e , and analysis
of t h e i r pros and cons leading to final conclusions.

Mimamsa : Rules of Interpretation—

References in Smrtis and later Literature.

Such discussions regarding not only t h e

Vedic subjects b u t also t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e
Vedic t e x t s came into vogue t o w a r d s t h e close
of t h e Vedic period. The Gautamadharmasütra
1-5 s a y s — ' tulyabalavirodhe vikalpah n. Jaimini
also in his Pürvamimäihsäsütras XII—3-10 s a y s —
' ekärthästu vikalperan samuccaye hi avrttih syad
pradhanasyav\ T h e Apastambadharmasütra 1-1-
4-8 s a y s — ' tfrutirhi ballyasi anumanikadacarat '3.
J a i m i n i also holds t h e same in I—3. 3 : * virodhe
tvanapeksam syat asati hyanumanam'4. I n 1. 4.
12. 1. Ä p a s t a m b a s a y s ' yatra tu prltyupaldbdhi-
tah pravrttih na tatra sastramasti'5. This well
resembles J a i m i n i ' s S ü t r a I V — 1 . 2 6. Similarly

1. "When there is a conflict of two texts of equal

authority, either may be accepted (as pramäna)."
2. "There is option between two or more objects which
have the same utility or purpose."
3. ' Sruti (a vedic text) is an authority more powerful
than äcära (custom), the authoritativeness of which is
inferential.'
4. ' A vedic text, which is independent, is more authori-
tative than a smrti text when there is a conflict.'
5. "When an action is due when one has ready
pleasure therefrom, there is no inference of Sästra."—(P. V.
KANE'S P. M. System, p. 3.)
6. ' Yasmin prilih purusasyn tasya lipsärthalaksanä-
vibhaktatväW
6 INTRODUCTION
Ä p a s t a m b a ' s S ü t r a II—6. 13. I 1 b e a r s a close
resemblance to Jaimini's VI—1-15 2 . These
parallel references, t h o u g h t h e y m a y not t h r o w
a n y light on t h e dates of those Sutras, show
t h a t early enough, rules for t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n
of Yedic t e x t s m u s t have been formulated and
generally accepted.
Jaimini refers in his s ü t r a s to m a n y Acäryas 3 —
A t r e y a , Kärsnäjini, Bädari, Ä s m a r a t h y a , Aiti-
s ä y a n a , K ä m u k ä y a n a , L ä b u k ä y a n a and Ä l e k h a n a .
F r o m t h e Mahäbhäsya of P a t a n j a l i (150 B.C.)4
it is clear t h a t t h e M i m ä m s ä doctrines w e r e
well developed and embodied in aphoristic litera-
t u r e . The references to Nyayavitsamaya (II—
4-8-13)5 and Nyäyavid (II—6-14-13) 6 indicate t h a t
Mimärhsä as a s y s t e m m u s t h a v e been elaborated
before t h e time of Ä p a s t a m b a . A n d since J a i m i n i
1. " Vivähe duhitrmate dänam kämyam dharmärtham
srüyate tasmäb duhitrmate atiratham tad mithyäkuryäd iti
tasyäm krayasabdah samstutimätram dharmäddhi sambandhah."
2. ' Krayasya dharmamätratvam.'
3. Jaimini quotes various Äcäryas: Ätreya—IV. 3. 18,
V. 2. 18, VI. 1. 26; Ailisäyana—III. 2. 43, III. 4. 24, VI. 1.
6 ; Kämukäyana—XL 1. 58, XI. 1. 61; Kärsnäjini—IV. 3.
17, VI. 7. 35; Bädari—III. 1. 3, VI. 1. 27,' VIII. 3. 6,
IX. 2. 33; Läbukäyana—-VI. 7. 37 ; Äsmarathya—VI. 5. 16,
XVI. 2. 1 (2); Älekhana—VI. 5. 17, XVI. 2. 1 (1).
Jaimini refers to some Äcäryas as ' eke'—IX. 3. 4.
4. The Mahäbhäsya of Patanjali speaks of Mimamsa-
kas.—(KEILHORN Vol. I. P. 239); Patanjali instances a
Brahman! who studied Käsakrtsnl—Mimämsä propounded
by Käsakrstni: * Käsakrtsninä proktä mimämsä Käsakrtsnl,
Käsakrtsnim adhlte Käsakrtsnä brähmanl'—(ibid. Vol. II.
pp. 208, 249, 325). P. V. KANE'S P. M. System, p. 3.
5. ' Ahgänäm tu pradhänaih avyapadesa iti Nyäyavitsama-
yah.*
6. * Athäpi nityänuvädam avidhim ähuh Nyäyavidah.'
 PÜRVA MIMÄMSÄ SÄSTRA 7
refers to over half a dozen äcäryas—pre-
sumably Mimämsäcäryas—one may legitimately
conclude t h a t this science m u s t h a v e been
systematised long before his time.

Jaimini's Pürva Mimämsä Sütras.

N o t h i n g definite can be said about t h e age

of J a i m i n i ; his S ü t r a s m a y , however, be assigned
to about 300 B1. C.1 T h e y h a v e no direct reference
to t h e Buddhistic doctrine or philosophy, t h o u g h
according to t h e c o m m e n t a t o r s , t h e y refer to t h e
Mlecchaprasiddhi in sabdas. 2 T h e y refer to t h e

1. Das Gupta's 'A History of Indian Philosophy'

Vol. I. p. 370:—'Jaimini's Mimämsä Sütras were probably
written about 200 B. C' Sir S. Radhakrishnan's Indian
Philosophy Vol. II. p. 376 and footnote:—" The Fourth
Century B. C. is the earliest period we can assign for
Jaimini's work." Professor Jacobi in his contribution to
4
Indian Studies in honour of Charles Rockwell Lanman'
(1929) pp. 145-165, places the Mlmämsäsütras of Jaimini
between 300—200 B. C. on the assumption and belief that
Jaimini is post-Päniniyan, a contemporary of Kätyäyana
and prior to Pataiijali. Professor Keith in his paper on
' Some Problems of Indian Philosophy' (I. H. Q. 1932) does
not, however, accept the reasons of Professor Jacobi,
but has assigned the philosophical sütras including the
Mimämsäsütras to a date 'between the chief Upanisads
and the third and fourth century A. D. (Sanskrit Literature
p. 472.) In his Karmamlmämsä also he says that 'it is,
then, a plausible conclusion that the Mimäsmä Sütra does
not date after 200 A. D.' (p. 5.)
2. I. 3. 8-9 discuss whether dryaprasiddhi and mleccha-
prasiddhi are equal authorities in the Öabdärthanirnaya,
and it concludes that the former is a greater authority
than the latter, if there is conflict between them. I. 3. 10
decides, however, the authoritativeness of the mleccha-
prasiddhi in instances where there is no aryaprasiddhi
e.g., pika, nema, etc.
8 INTRODUCTION
Smrtis,1 äcäras (customs), Kalpasütras* and
Vyäkarana? and establish t h e i r prämänya so far
as dharma is c o n c e r n e d ; and t h e s e raise t h e
presumption t h a t J a i m i n i is post-Päniniyan.

The relation of J a i m i n i ' s Mlmämsä Sütras

to B ä d a r ä y a n a ' s Vedänta Sütras can be t r a c e d
very easily. The a u t h o r s of both t h e s ü t r a s
refer to e a c h o t h e r as a u t h o r i t i e s on t h e i r
systems 4 , b u t B ä d a r ä y a n a objects to most of
Jaimini's m e t a p h y s i c a l views. A r e we to under-
stand from t h i s t h a t J a i m i n i is to be regarded
as one a m o n g t h e V e d ä n t a s ü t r a k ä r a s whom
B ä d a r ä y a n a quotes ? On t h e a u t h o r i t y of
S u r e s v a r ä c ä r y a ' s Naiskarmyasiddhi5, it can be

1. I. 3. 1 (1-2) deal with the prämänya of the Smrtis

on dharma and explains through the pratyaksasruti which
is now to be inferred. I. 3. 2 (3) decides the aprämänya
of the Smrti if it is in conflict with a Sruti.
2. I. 3. 11-14 decide the prämänya of the Kalpasiitras
on dharma, like other Smrtis.
3. I. 3. 24-29 deal with the sädhusabdaprayoga in vedic
functions, which can be acquired only by a systematic
study of the science of grammar. Hence the authoritative-
ness of Grammar on dharma.
4. Jaimini refers to Bädaräyana in I. 1. 5 ; V. 2. 19;
VI. 1. 8; X. 8. 44, and XI. 1. 63. Bädaräyana refers to
Jaimini in I. 2. 28; I. 2. 31; I. 3. 31; III. 2. 40 ; III. 4.
2; III. 4. 18; III. 4. 40; IV. 3. 12; IV. 4. 5, and IV. 4.
11. In these references Jaimini accepts Bädaräyana's views
mostly while Bädaräyana does not approve of Jaimini's
views.
5. " Yadapi Jaiminiyam vacanam udghätayati^ tadapi
tadvivaksäparijnänädeva udbhävyate. kirn käranam. yato na
Jaimineh ayam abhipräyah—ämnöyah sarva eva kriyärthah—itu
Yadi hyayam abhipräyosbhavisyat ' athäto brahmajijnäsä, Jan-
mädyasya Yatah' ityevamädi brahmavastusvarüpamätrayäthätmya-
prakäsanaparam gambhiranyäyasandrbhdham sarvavedäntärtha-
mlmämsanam hnmacchänrakam näsütrayisyat; asütrayacca.
 PÜRVA MIMÄMSÄ SÄSTRA 9

held t h a t J a i m i n i h a s composed his own Vedänta

Sütras, t h e first two s ü t r a s of which are t h e

Tasmät Jaiminereva a yam abhipräyo—yathaiva vidhiväkyänäm

svärthamälre prämängam, evam aikätmyaväkydnäm api anadhi-
gatavastuparicchedasämyät üi."—Naiskarmyasiddhi, P. 52. B. S.
P. S. No. XXXVIII.
In Lecture IY—Vedänta in the Brahmaputras—in his
Shree Gopal Basil Mallik Lectures (1925), Professor S. K.
Belvalker observes : " That a ' Särirakasütra' beginning with
the first two sütras of the present Brahmasütra was
actually composed by Jaimini, the author of the Pürva
Mimämsä Sütras, is unambiguously declared by no less a
writer than Suresvaräcärya, author of the Naiskarmya-
siddhi ; and this Särirakasütra may very well have been
the postulated ' Chändogya ' Brahmasütra, not only for the
reason that both the writer (Jaimini) and the Upanisad
(Chändogya) belong to the Säma Yeda, but also for the
further reason that, with one solitary exception in all the
other reference to Jaimini in the Vedänta Sütras—where
the references are directly to a textual exegesis—we find
him discussing a passage from the several Prapäthakas of
just the Chändogya Upanisad." (P. 141). Thus, Professor
S. K. Belvalker along with Deus3en, believes that like ten
pratisäkhlya Kalpasütras, Jaimini's Vedänta Sütras belonged
to the säkhäs of the Säma Veda, particularly to that of
the Chändogyopanisad and that 'this Särirakasütra was
bodily incorporated within, and forms the main part of the
contents of, the present text of the Brahmasütra (of Bäda-
räyana)'. (P. 142).
It may be observed here that it is doubtful whether
Jaimini and the predecessors of Jaimini and Bädaräyana
wrote pratisäkhlya Brahmasütras, (like the Kalpasütras) on the
ground that the aims and function of the Brahmasütras
and the Kalpasütras are different (i.e.) the former attempting
a correct interpretation of doubtful or ambiguous passages
in the Karmakända and Upanisads, while the latter, cata-
loguing the duties of a sacrificer that are scattered in one
or other of the säkhäs of the Vedas. That the Brahma-
sütras attempt a synthetic study of the Upanisads is even
accepted by Professor S. K. Beivalker when he says " that
B
10 INTRODUCTION
same as those of t h e e x t a n t S ü t r a s of Bäda-
räyana1. Jaimini and B ä d a r ä y a n a , however,
agree in t h e i r doctrines regarding t h e ritualistic
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e Karmakanda, and Bäda-
r ä y a n a quotes, according to t h e c o m m e n t a t o r s ,
Jaimini's S ü t r a s as ' taduktam' in m a n y i n s t a n c e s ;
while in Sütras like 4 dharmam Jaiminirata eva'
and ' ata eva ca nityatvam' he recognises t h e
doctrine of apürva and t h a t of e t e r n i t y of t h e
V e d a s as established by Jaimini in t h e S ü t r a s
' Codanapunararambhah' and ' uktam tu sabda-
pürvatvam \
About t h e personal h i s t o r y of Jaimini, we
know next to nothing. The P a i i c a t a n t r a tells
u s t h a t an elephant crushed to d e a t h Jaimini,

the original Chändogya Brahmasütra has undergone two

radical overhaulings : first when the pratisäkhiya Brahma-
sütra was enlarged in scope so as to be a sarvasäkhlya text
giving a harmonious interpretation of the teaching of the
Upanisads as a whole, and secondly by the addition of the
controversial matter—and in particular the Tarkapäda (II. 2)—
meant to carry the warfare into the enemy's own territory "
(P. 144). It is possible to maintain that the Tarkapäda
in the present Brahmasütra is a new feature of its own;
but it is to be accepted as an undeniable fact that all
Brahmasütras, like the Pürva Mimämsä Sütras, as the
Science of Exegesis, attempt a synthetic study of all Upa-
nisads of all säkhäs of all Vedas so far known or were
available to them.
1. Prof. K. A. Nilakantha Sastri in his paper on * Jaimini
and Bädaräyana' duplicates Jaimini to differentiate the
Mlmämsist from the Vedäntin. {Vide Indian Antiquary,
Vol. L. 211 ff.) But, in some cases of Äcäryas, the
Mlmämsist himself can be a Vedäntin. The Jaimini
referred to in the ääbarabhäsya on VI. 3. 1. may, however,
be a different person other than the Pürva Mimämsä Sütra-
kära. Hence no room for assuming a third Jaimini as a
darsanakdra. (See KEITH'S Sanskrit Literature, p. 475 f. n.)
 PÜRVA MIMÄMSÄ gÄSTRA 11

the author of t h e Pürvamimämsäsütras1.

While giving t h e V i d y ä v a m s a , t h e Sämavidhüna-
brähmana mentions J a i m i n i as t h e disciple of
P ä r ä s a r y a V y ä s a 2 . I n a n o t h e r place we find
t h e divine origin of t h e M i m ä m s ä S ä s t r a men-
tioned and its popularisation by m a n y Ä c ä r y a s ,
t h e last of whom w a s Jaimini. 3 The Bhagavata-
purana says t h a t V y ä s a , t h e son of P a r ä s a r a
b y Satyavati,' divided t h e V e d a s into four and
gave i n s t r u c t i o n s in t h e Sämavedasariihitä to
Jaimini, one of his four disciples 4 . I n X I I — 6 .
75 of t h e same P u r ä n a , J a i m i n i is said to be
1. " Simho vyäkaranasya karturaharat pränän priyän
Pänineh.
jMimämsäkrtamunmanätha sahasä hastt munim
Jaiminim"
2. '* Sozyam präjäpatyo vidhih tarn imam prajäpatih
brhaspataye proväca brhaspatih näradäya närado visvaksenäya
visvakseno vyäsäya päräsaryäya vyäsah päräsaryo jaiminaye
jaiminih pauspindyäya päräsaryäyanäya päräsaryäyano bäda-
räyanäya"—(quoted by Prof. K. A. Mlakantha Sastri in his
paper on l Jaimini and Bädaräyana.' P. 173, I. A. Vol. L. 1921.)
3. "Brahma prajäpataye mimämsäm proväca sopindräya
sopyagnaye, sa ca vasisthäya, sopi paräsaräya paräsarah krsna-
dvaipäyanäya sopi jaiminaye sa ca svopadesät anantaram imam
nyäyam granlhe nibaddhavän iti." Another version of this
guruparamparä is known with slight modification—' Brahma
mahesvaro vä prajäpataye mimämsäm proväca prajäpatih indrä-
ya indra ädüyäya sopyagnaye elc'—{Yuktisnehaprapürani, P. 4.
N. S. Ed.)
4. ' Paräsarät satyavatyäm amsämsakalayä vibhuh;
avartirno mahäbhäga vedam cakre caturvidham.
* ** * ** #
## #
##
täsäm sa caturah sisyän upähüya mahämatih;
ekaikäm samhitäm brahman ekaikasmai dadau vibhuh.
* -x- # *
sämnäm Jaiminaye präha tathä chandogasamhitäm.
(Sri Bhägavatam, XII. 6. 49—55.)
 12 INTRODUCTION
the t e a c h e r of S u m a n t u and a p r o m u l g a t o r of
the S ä m a Veda. I n t h e Äsvalayanagrhyasütra
the n a m e of Jaimini occurs along w i t h Sumantu,
V a i s a m p ä y a n a and others as one of t h e Dhar-
mäcäryas. 1

The Contents of the Pürva Mimämsä Sütras.

Jaimini's Pürva Mimämsä Sütras contain

16 chapters, the last four of w h i c h a r e generally-
known as the Sahkarsakanda. T h e first 12
chapters a r e more popular t h a n t h e last four
and most of t h e g r e a t w r i t e r s like Kumärila-
b h a t t a on t h e P ü r v a M i m ä m s ä S ä s t r a have
w r i t t e n commentaries or n i b a n d h a n a s on t h e
Dvädasalaksani. The a r r a n g e m e n t of t h e Dvä-
dasalaksani is as follows: T h e first chapter
deals with all pramänas on Dharma; t h e second,
the bheda, t h e difference, between one D h a r m a
and t h e o t h e r ; t h e third, t h e ahgatva; the
fourth, t h e prayojya-prayojakabhäva; t h e fifth,
t h e krama, i.e., sequence between karman and
karman \ t h e sixth, t h e adhikara—the qualifica-
tions of a sacrificer, e t c . ; t h e s e v e n t h and
eighth, t h e atidesa, (the application and assimi-
lation of one karman on t h e similarity of t h e
o t h e r ) ; t h e ninth, üha ; t h e t e n t h , bädha ; t h e
eleventh and twelfth, tantra and prasahga res-
pectively. These constitute t h e most important
part of t h e s y s t e m .
The Sahkarsakanda constituting t h e last four
chapters of t h e P ü r v a M i m ä m s ä S ü t r a s , also
known as t h e Devatadhyaya as a major portion
1. " Präclnäviti Sumantu-Jaimini-vaisampäyana-paüasütra'
bhäsyabhäratamahäbhäratadharmäcäryäh "— (Äsvaläyanagrhya-
sütra, III. 4. 5.) Trivandrum Sanskrit Series No. (XXVIII
1923).
 PÜRVA MIMÄMSA äÄSTRA 13

of it deals w i t h t h e d e v a t ä s in vedic sacrifices,

some modern scholars hold, is not a genuine
p a r t of t h e s y s t e m . B u t it can be m a i n t a i n e d
t h a t it is genuine and it completes t h e Dvadasa-
laksani1, because just like t h e Tantradhyaya
and Prasahgadhyaya, it helps t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n
of dharma in vedic p a s s a g e s as are s c a t t e r e d
and ambiguous. F u r t h e r its genuineness is clear
from t h e reference m a d e by B ä d a r ä y a n ä in his
s ü t r a — ' p r a d ä n a v a d e v a taduktam' which refers
to t h e S a n k a r s a k ä n d a - s ü t r a — ' n a n a vä devatä
prtagjnänüt.' And lastly, U p a v a r s a , Bhavadäsa,
Devasvämin, R ä j a c ü d ä m a n i Diksita and B h ä s k a -
r ä r y a (makhin) h a v e commented on those sütras. 2
F o r t h e s e and o t h e r r e a s o n s we hold t h a t t h e
Sahkarsakända is genuine. The full s ü t r a text
is y e t u n f o r t u n a t e l y not available and we cannot
w i t h exactitude speak of its contents.

J a i m i n i is also credited w i t h a n o t h e r work—

Chändogyänuväda—probably a ritualistic work
of t h e K a l p a s ü t r a character. 3 To h i m a r e also
ascribed a Srauta Sütra and a G-rhya Sutra,4

1. Vide the author's paper on ' Sahkarsakända—a genuine

supplement to the Pürva Mimämsä Sästra' MM. Haraprasäda
Säsfcri Commemoration Volume, I. H. Q., Vol. IX, 1933.
2. Sabarasvamin refers to the Sankarsakända in his
Bhäsya XII. 2. 11: * iti Sahkarse vaksyati ' which proves
that the Sahkarsakända sütras are from the pen of Jaimini
and that they are genuine. The traditional belief that Sabara-
svämin has written a Bhäsya on those chapters has not
as yet been proved by literary or other evidences.
3. Vide the Tantravärttika I. 3. 2 (5)—' etajjaimininaiva
Chändogyänuväde.'
4. Vide Keith's Karmamimämsä : page 5.
14 INTRODUCTION

{d) Upavarsa.

The earliest commentator on t h e S ü t r a s is

t h e famous V r t t i k ä r a U p a v a r s a , t h e r e p u t e d
a u t h o r of t h e Vrtti on t h e t w e n t y c h a p t e r s of
t h e P ü r v a and U t t a r a M i m ä m s ä S ü t r a s . H e is
held in g r e a t reverence as is clear from t h e
association w i t h his n a m e of t h e honorific title
' bhagavän \ Sabarasvämin refers to him as
Bhagavan Upavarsah in his Bhasya on 1-1-5 : ' atha
gaurityatra Kassabdah f gakaraukaravisarjaniya
iti bhagqvän Upavarsah.1 S a n k a r ä c ä r y a in his
Devatädhikaranabhäsya s a y s 'varna eva tu sabda
iti Bhagavan Upavarsah.1

Upavarsa s Personality.

W h o this famous V r t t i k ä r a is h a s been a

subject of controversy. MM. S. K u p p u s w a m i
Sastrigal holds t h a t U p a v a r s a is identical w i t h
Bodhäyana. 1 Dr. S. K r i s h n a s w a m i I y e n g a r does
not accept this identity 3 ; for, t h e Prapanca-
hrdaya mentions both B o d h ä y a n a and U p a v a r s a
as a u t h o r s of t h e commentaries on t h e 20 chap-
t e r s of t h e P ü r v a and U t t a r a M i m ä m s ä S ü t r a s 3 ;
and t h e Manimekhalai refers to one K r t a k o t i
(along w i t h Jaimini and V y ä s a ) as an Äcärya
who h a s formulated eight pramänas.* Dr. I y e n g a r
therefore t r i e s to identify this K r t a k o t i w i t h

1. Vide his paper on ' Bodhäyana and Dramidßcärya—

two old Vedäntins presupposed by Bämänuja' submitted to the
Third Oriental Conference, Madras, (1924).
2. Vide his ' Manimekhalai in its historical setting'
pp. 91-92.
3. Prapancahrdaya—(T. S. S. XLV. P. 39).
4. Vide Dr. S. K. Iyengar's 'Manimekhalai in its his-
torical setting' p. 189.
 PÜRVA MIMÄMSÄ SASTRA 15
1
Bodhäyana, t h e a u t h o r of t h e Krtakoti Vrtti, as
t h e Prapancahrdaya holds, assuming t h a t t h e
n a m e K r t a k o t i might be easily applied to both
t h e a u t h o r and t h e work. The identity of t h e s e
a u t h o r s — U p a v a r s a and Bodhäyana—and—Bodhä-
y a n a and K r t a k o t i — i s t h u s an open question.
Still it m a y be reconsidered in the light of t h e
following:

(1) U p a v a r s a , it is contended, has established

t h e Vibhutva of Ätman in his Vrtti on I I I - 3 . 53
of t h e Brahma Sütras, a resume of which is
available in t h e Atmaväda of the Säbarabhäsya on
I. 1. 5 of t h e P ü r v a M l m ä m s ä S ü t r a s . Bodhäyana,
on t h e o t h e r hand, m a y be held to have enun-
ciated t h e doctrine of Jlvänutva in his Vrtti on
t h e B r a h m a S ü t r a s , for E ä m ä n u j a , in t h e opening
words of t h e Sribhasya, says t h a t he closely
follows B o d h ä y a n a ' s Vrtti and proceeds to establish
the doctrine of Jivänutva in his Bhäsya. This
would suggest t h e difficulty of the identity
sought to be established between U p a v a r s a and
Bodhäyana.

(2) T h e K r t a k o t i of t h e Manimekhalai accepts

eight pramänas. B o d h ä y a n a , t h e famous V r t t i k ä r a
of t h e P ü r v a and U t t a r a Mlmämsä S ü t r a s ,
cannot h a v e accepted t h e eight pramänas but
only six, or less t h a n six, according to commen-
t a t o r s . So t h e a u t h o r i t y of t h e Manimekhalai
on this m a t t e r is questionable. I t will be well
to remember h e r e t h a t t h e Manimekhalai is only
a romance2 and need not be t a k e n seriously.

1. Ibid., p. 92.
2. Vide A. B. Dhruva's Introduction to his edition of
Dinnäga's Nyayapravesa, p. xv. (G. 0. S. No. xxxviii).
16 INTRODUCTION
W e a r e n o t u n a w a r e of t h e contention t h a t t h e
question of t h e pramänas is one of classification
and we would s a y t h a t such a contention cannot
s t a n d in view of the fact t h a t t h e pramänas
c o n s t i t u t e t h e fundamentals of every s y s t e m of
Indian Philosophy, p a r t i c u l a r l y because the
Manimekhalai is basing a classification of t h e
s y s t e m s on t h e n u m b e r of pramänas accepted.
T h u s " six are t h e systems t h a t a r e founded on
t h e basis of those i n s t r u m e n t s of k n o w l e d g e :
(1) L o k ä y a t a , (2) Bauddha, (3) S ä n k h y a , (4) N a i -
y ä y i k a , (5) Vaisesika, and (6) Mimämsä. 5 ' 1 The
L a o k ä y a t i k a s accept one pramäna—pratyaksa,
t h e B a u d d h a s and Vaisesikas, two—pratyaksa and
anumäna, t h e S ä n k h y a s , three—pratyaksa, anu-
mäna and §abda, t h e N a i y ä y i k a s , four—pratyaksa,
anumäna, upamäna and sabda, and t h e Mlmämsa-
k a s (Bhättas) as well as by t h e Advaiti Vedän-
tins, six, pratyaksa, anumäna, upamäna, sabda,
arthäpatti and anupalabdhi. W e may, therefore,
conclude t h a t U p a v a r s a is distinct from Bodhä-
yana and KrtakotL

Upavarsa s Date (C. 100 B. c—A. D. 200).

T h e date of U p a v a r s a is as unsettled a
question as t h a t of his personality. W e can
h e r e l a y down only t h e limits within which he
m u s t h a v e lived. Sabarasvämin who lived about
A. D. 200 quotes U p a v a r s a and t h i s gives us t h e
l a t e s t limit. If t h e view t h a t t h e Vrttigrantha
in S a h a r a ' s Bhäsya on 1-1. 5 extends to the end
of t h e Bhäsya t h e r e o n is accepted, U p a v a r s a
m u s t be t a k e n as mentioning and refuting the
doctrine of t h e Samudäyasabda of t h e G r a m m a r -
i a n s ; and in t h e history of S a n s k r i t G r a m m a r

1. ' Manimekhalai in its historical setting ' p. 192.

 PÜRVA MIMÄMSÄ SÄSTRA 17

it is Patanjali who first enunciated t h e doctrine

t h a t the Sphotasabda is both väcakatväsraya and
1
(while manifest) arthapratyäyaka, t h o u g h Pänini,
Vyädi, K ä t y ä y a n a and o t h e r A c ä r y a s before
P a t a n j a l i have spoken of t h e Sabdanityatva.
This would prove t h a t V r t t i k ä r a U p a v a r s a m u s t
be subsequent to P a t a n j a l i . Hence the Vrtti-
k ä r a U p a v a r s a m a y be assigned to t h e period
from C. 100 B. C. to A. D. 200.
I t is suggested t h a t U p a v a r s a might be
placed between P a t a n j a l i and K ä t y ä y a n a about
200 B. C.2 on t h e ground t h a t U p a v a r s a allows
t h e Caturthisamäsa in t h e compound 4 Brahma -
jijnäsä' in t h e S ü t r a ' athato brahmajijnäsä'
and t h a t this caturthisamäsa is sanctioned by
K ä t y ä y a n a by t h e V ä r t t i k a ' asvaghosädinümupa-
sahkhyanam,' b u t overruled by P a t a n j a l i who
says ' asvaghosädayastu sasthisamäsä eva \ This
is not convincing.3 H e r e we see only U p a v a r s a ' s
partiality for K ä t y ä y a n a w h i c h is justifiable
because he himself is a g r e a t g r a m m a r i a n .
A parallel instance of t h i s Caturthisamäsa can
be cited here from S a b a r a s v ä m i n ' s Bhäsya on
1-1. 1 (dharmäya jijnäsä dharmajijnäsä, sä hi
tasya jnätumicchä.' N o doubt, K u m ä r i l a b h a t t a ,
a l a t e r exponent of t h e M I m ä m s ä S ü t r a s like
S a n k a r a of t h e V e d ä n t a S ü t r a s , h a s felt t h e
unsoundness of this Caturthisamäsa and tried
to get over t h e difficulty by explaining t h a t t h e

1. See the writer's paper on the * Doctrine of Sphota'

in the Annamalai University Journal, Vols. I. (Part 2),
and II. (Part 1).
2. Journal of Oriental Research, Vol. III. Part I. (1929).
3. For a detailed discussion of this point, see the
writer's paper on * Old Vrttikäras on the Pürva Mimdiksd
Sütras' I. H. Q., September 1934.
c
 18 INTRODUCTION
passage in question in t h e B h ä s y a does not
constitute t h e exact vigrahaväkya but only indi-
cates by Caturthl t h a t t h e dharma is the final
fruit or goal of t h e discussion and t h a t t h e
sasthisamäsa is suggested also in t h e Vivarana-
bhäsya ' sä hi tasya jnätumicchä ' by t h e genitive
in ' tasya \ This is not t h e only instance w h e r e
a l a t e r c o m m e n t a t o r is driven to ingenious
devices in his anxiety to justify his author. 1
I n such cases t h e c o m m e n t a t o r m a k e s clear
not so m u c h t h e meaning of t h e passage as his
own desire for g r a m m a t i c a l c o r r e c t n e s s . If t h e
Caturthisamasa were an accepted factor in Sans-
k r i t even in i n s t a n c e s w h e r e t h e r e is no pra-
krtivikrtibhäva, t h e n K u m ä r i l a would not h a v e
v e n t u r e d to say t h a t t h e first passage in t h e
Bhäsya does not give t h e vigraha. Nowhere is
such a t h i n g seen or accepted as t h e vigraha-
väkya w i t h o u t t h e vigraha and t h e vivaranaväkya
w i t h it. 2 Most probably, S a b a r a s v ä m i n might
have t a k e n the Caturthisamasa—' dharmäya
jijnäsä '—from U p a v a r s a ' s Vrtti (which, no doubt,
requires f u r t h e r proof), and as such, he might
have in t h i s instance only followed V r t t i k ä r a
U p a v a r s a and not Patafijali. 3
1. Kumärila's Värttika on I. 3. 2 gives us another
instance:
"pramänäyäm smrtau sparsanam vyämohah
sparsane pramäne smrtih vyämohah " (Bhäaya):
"pramänamayate yäti müiabhütäm srutim yatah;
Kvibantädayateh tasmät pramänä smrtirucyate."
(Värttika)»
2. Compare Appayya Diksita's remark in his Kalpataru-
Parimala I. 1. 1. See the writer's paper on ' Old Vrttikäras
on the P. M. Sutras' I. H. Q., September 1934 (foot-note p. 436).
3. See ibid foot-note pp. 436 & 437. For Upavarsa's
views as gleaned from Sahara's Bhäsya and Kumäriia's
Värttika, see ibid. pp. 437-448.
 PÜRVA MIMÄMSÄ SÄSTKA 19
Bhavadasa {C. A. D. 100—200).

Next to U p a v a r s a comes B h a v a d a s a in
chronological order. No tangible evidence h a s
been yet found for fixing up t h e date of
this V r t t i k ä r a ; b u t if t h e Prapancahrdaya is
trusted, B h a v a d a s a is to be placed subsequent
to U p a v a r s a and before S a b a r a s v ä m i n . That
Bhavadasa flourished before S a b a r a s v ä m i n is
well proved by l i t e r a r y evidence. The v e r y
opening Bhäsya of t h e Jijnäsüdhikarana 'lohe
yesvarthesu prasiddhani padani \ etc. is, accord-
ing to K u m ä r i l a ' s S i o k a v ä r t t i k a , open to six
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s ; 1 of these, t h e second is t h e upa-
lambhapaksa—negation or condemnation of some
of the old i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of t h e S ü t r a s by V r t t i -
k ä r a Bhavadasa. 2 K u m ä r i l a himself mentions
1. * loka ityasya bhäsyasya sadarthän sampracaksate' S. V.
I. 1. 1. ' *
2. " Vrttyantaresu kesäncit laukikärthavyatikramdh;
sabdänam drsyate tesäm upälambhoyamucyate.
1
athäta' ityayam loke nänantarye prayujyate;
tasmät tädarthyametasya paribhäsädibhih bhavet
prasiddhahänih sabdänam aprasiddhe ca kalpanä;
na käryä Vrttikärena sati siddhärthasambhave."
(& Y. I. 1. 1. verses 33-35).
Pärthasärathimisra in his Nyäyaratnäkara comments on
this Värttika thus :—upälambhapaksam parigrhnäti—Vrttyan-
taresviti. Kesäficit—Bhavadäsädinäm—Vrttyantaresu, Kldrsah
punarupälambhah iti tat svayam darsayati—athäta iti. Pada-
dvayam arthadvayaväci lokaprasiddhamapi Bhavadäsena eka-
padikrtya änaniaryamäträrtham vyäkhyätam, tadayuktamiti—
upälambha iti. (Chaukhamba Edn., pp. 11 & 12).
Sucaritamisra in his Käsikä observes thus :—' Vrttyan-
taresu iti; Kesäncit hi Bhavadäsädinäm Vrttyantaresu sabdä-
näm alaukikortha upavarnitah Kva punah Bhavadäsena
alaukikärthagrahanam krtam, yadevam upälabhyate; ata aha—
athäta iti Bhavadäsena ca uktam—"athäta ityam sabda
änantarye prayujyate " iti. (Käsikä, T. S. S„ pp. 13 & 14).
 20 INTRODUCTION

Bhavadäsa (the n a m e of t h e Vrttikära) in

explaining t h e stutipaksa—

' pradarsanärthamityeke kecinnänärthaväcinah \

samudäyädavacchidya Bhavadäsena kalpüat' n1

This evidence proves t h a t Sabarasvämin was

subsequent to B h a v a d ä s a .

Devasvämin in his Bhäsya on t h e Sahkarsa-

kanda X V . 11. 1 says ' asmin pade ' apürvät tathä
somah * ityärabhya äpädaparisamäpteh Bhävadäsa-
meva bhäsyam iti'; and t h i s indicates t h a t
Devasvämin, an a u t h o r of t h e p o s t - K u m ä r i l a
period, h a d great regard for B h a v a d ä s a . A s t h e
Prapancahrdaya s t a t e s , B h a v a d ä s a , just like
Upavarsa, wrote a Vrtti on t h e 16 c h a p t e r s of
the P ü r v a M i m ä m s ä S ü t r a s . H i s Vrtti,—only a
s u m m a r y of U p a v a r s a ' s Vrtti on t h e P ü r v a
M i m ä m s ä Sütras—though criticised by Sabara-
svämin and his followers, w a s considered by
Devasvämin as a Bhasya and it w a s a guidance
for him.
A s Bhavadäsa's Vrtti is not available,
nothing can be said in r e g a r d to his views on
pramanas and other topics. B u t from a study
of K u m ä r i l a ' s Varttika and its commentaries
it can be understood t h a t he considered t h e two
words ' atha' and ' atah' in t h e S ü t r a ' athäto
dharmajijnasa' as one word in t h e sense of
änantarya; similarly, he divided t h e fourth
Sütra into two, t a k i n g t h e former as laying down
t h e definition of pratyaksa and t h e l a t t e r empha-
sizing its u n a u t h o r i t a t i v e n e s s {aprämänya) on

1. S. Y. Chau. Edn., pp. 21 & Z%.

 PÜRVA MlMÄMSÄ SASTRA 21

m a t t e r s of super-normal dharma.1 These views

were, however, refuted by Sabarasvämin, K u m ä -
rila and t h e i r followers.

Sabarasvämin (C. A. D. 200)

The next g r e a t a u t h o r i t y known to us is
S a b a r a s v ä m i n . H i s Bhäsya is t h e earliest e x t a n t
c o m m e n t a r y on J a i m i n i ' s S ü t r a s in t h e bhasya
style. I t is lucid and clear in expression and
simple and mellifluous in diction. B o t h in m a t t e r
and m a n n e r it resembles Patanjali's Mahabhasya
and S a n k a r ä c ä r y a ' s Brahma Sütra Bhasya, The
simple conversational style which appears in its
perfection in t h e Mahabhasya, is h e r e again seen
in its finished form after a lapse of over t h r e e
h u n d r e d y e a r s , only t o be seen once again five
h u n d r e d y e a r s l a t e r in S a n k a r a ' s Brahma Sütra
Bhäsya.
R e g a r d i n g his d a t e and personal history,
he is c e r t a i n l y l a t e r t h a n U p a v a r s a and prior
to B h a r t r m i t r a , as we shall show l a t e r . H e h a s
not, however, mentioned Patafijali by n a m e as
he h a s done P ä n i n i and K ä t y ä y a n a . 2 Among
1. ' Varnyate sütrabhedena yena pratyaksalaksanam.' (&. V.)
The Nyäyaratnäkara on this observes :—* Bhavaddsena
etat sutram dvidhä krtvd ' satsamprayoge' ityddi ' pratyaksam '
ityevamantam pratyaksalaksanaparam; ' animittam ' ityddi tasya
dharmam prati animittatvaparam vydkhydtam; tat upanyasya
düsayati—' Varnyate' iti. Pp. 133 & 134.
The Kdsikd also observes :—" tadidam Vrttyantare ani-
mittddavacchidya tat pratyaksam ityevamantam laksanaparam
vydkhydtam; tat upanyasya düsayati—Varnyate iti ". T. S. S.,
p. 204.
2. In I. 1. 5 &abara mentions Pänini, and in X. 8. 1
(4) both Pänini and Kätyäyana with the honorific title
4
bhagavdn'; but he asserts that Pänini is a greater
authority than Kätyäyana. " Sadvdditvdcca Pdnineh vacanam
pramdnam ; asadvdditvdt na Kdtydyanasya."
22 INTRODUCTION

t h e chief a u t h o r s h e h a s quoted Y ä s k a as t h e
Sästrakära and P i n g a l a a s t h e a u t h o r of t h e
Chandassastra, and among w o r k s , t h e Bodhayana
and Äpastamba Dharmasütras, the Manusmrti,
t h e Mahabharata and t h e Puranas as well as
t h e niralambana and sünya vadas of Buddhism,1
The place of his b i r t h is n o t definitely known.
Most probably he m i g h t be a N o r t h e r n e r . In
I I - 3 . 2 of his Bhäsya he m a k e s m e n t i o n of t h e
Ändhras as against t h e Äryävartaniväsins, as
using t h e word c rajan' in t h e sense of a K s a t r i y a
who does not even p r o t e c t a c o u n t r y or a
kingdom. One verse, t h e a u t h e n t i c i t y of w h i c h
is questionable, s t a t e s t h a t S a b a r a s v ä m i n h a d
four wives belonging t o t h e four c a s t e s and six
sons by t h e m 2 — V a r ä h a m i h i r a by t h e B r a h m i n
wife, B h a r t r h a r i a n d V i k r a m a by t h e K s a t r i y a
wife, H a r i s c a n d r a and S a n k u by t h e V a i s y a
wife and A m a r a (simha) by t h e Südra wife.
Tradition says t h a t his real n a m e w a s Äditya-
deva and t h a t he got t h e n a m e Sahara for his
having disguised himself as a forester fearing
J a i n persecution. According to the Dattaka-
mimämsä, one S a h a r a h a s commented on t h e
1. In I. 1. 5 he mentions Yäska by the title Sästrakära,
Pingaia as the author of the Chandassästra; in I. 1. 2,
Manu and in VI. 1 cites one verse as a Smrti passage
which is more or less the same as the Manusmrti IX. 416 and
the Mahabharata Udyogaparva—33. 64 ; in VI. 8. 18 he cites
an Äpastamba sütra as a smrti passage; in I. 3. 3 he
might have referred to by the phrase—Vedabrahmacarya-
carana—the Baudhäyana passage (I. 2. 1) which he also
uses.
2. l Brähmanyämabhavat Varähamihiro Jyotirvidämagranlh
räjä Bhartrharisca Vikramanrpah ksaträtmajäyä-
mabhüt;
Vaisyäyäm Haricandravaidyatilako jätasca Sahkuh krti
Südräyäm Amarah sadeva Sabarasvämidvijasyätmajäh.'
 PÜRVA MIMÄMSÄ äÄSTRA 23
Satyäsädha Srautasütras. I t is also said t h a t a
Sabarasvämin, son of Diptasvämin, w r o t e a com-
m e n t a r y called Sarvarthalaksani on t h e Lingänu-
säsana. I t is v e r y doubtful w h e t h e r t h e s e a r e
identical w i t h t h e a u t h o r of t h e Mimärhsä
Bhäsya.
It h a s been already said t h a t S a b a r a s v ä m i n ' s
Bhäsya is t h e earliest e x t a n t c o m m e n t a r y on
the 12 a d h y ä y a s of t h e P ü r v a Mimärhsä S ü t r a s .
In X I I - 2 . 11 he refers to t h e Sankarsa, 1 but
it is not known w h e t h e r he w r o t e a Bhäsya2 on
it also. M a n y Vrttis and Bhäsyas existed before
his t i m e ; t h e more important of t h e views of
his predecessors a r e preserved in t h e Bhäsya,
as is proved by K u m ä r i l a . His w o r k is, t h e r e -
fore, an i m p o r t a n t source-book for t h e recon-
s t r u c t i o n of t h e earlier aspects of this s y s t e m
of philosophy. 3 H e refers in his Bhäsya to some
V r t t i k ä r a s chiefly to Upavarsa 4 as we have
already mentioned, and it is from t h e Bhäsya
t h a t we get a n y idea of t h e V r t t i k ä r a s ' contri-
bution to this Sästra. H i s r e m a r k t h a t in
g r a m m a t i c a l operations P ä n i n i is a g r e a t e r

1. * iti Sahkarse vaksyati.'

2. This Bhäsya was published first in the Bibliotheca
Indica and then in the Chaukhamba Series at Benares.
Two parts of its translation in English by MM. Dr. Ganga-
natha Jha were published in the Gaekwad Series, Baroda,
(1934).
3. Vide the writer's paper on ' The Old Vrttikäras on
the P. M. Sütras' I. H. Q., September 1934
4. It is now accepted on ail hands that the Vrittigrantha
in Sahara's Bhäsya on I. 1. 5 goes to the end of that
adhikarana and that the ätmaväda therein is a resume of
Upavarsa's Vrtti on III. 3. 53 of the Vedänta Sütras. For
other details of Upavarsa and of other Vrttikäras, see the
paper on ' The Old Vrttikäras on the P. M. Sütras/
 24 INTRODUCTION

a u t h o r i t y t h a n K ä t y ä y a n a is really interesting.
H e says t h a t P ä n i n i is t h e t r u t h - s p e a k e r and
K ä t y ä y a n a is a liar. 1 This indirectly supports
t h e non-validity of t h e d i c t u m of t h e g r a m m a -
rians—' yathottaram muninam pramanyam'—so
t h a t t h e caturthisamäsa in t h e compound ' dhar-
maya jijnäsä' which is an i n s t a n c e not satisfy-
ing t h e condition of prakrti-vikrtibhäva, can be
justified on t h e a u t h o r i t y of t h e V ä r t t i k a k ä r a
who does not impose this condition for caturthi-
samasa as noticed below.

Bhartrmitra (C. A. D. 300—600)

J u s t as t h e r e was an i n t e r v a l between Upa-

v a r s a and Sabarasvämin, so also between Sabara-
svämin and K u m ä r i l a b h a t t a , t h e famous V ä r t t i k a -
k ä r a on Sahara's Bhäsya, t h e r e w a s a long gap
of time w h e n m a n y a c o m m e n t a t o r both on t h e
S ü t r a s and on t h e B h ä s y a flourished. Among
t h e m B h a r t r m i t r a w a s one whose n a m e w a s
associated w i t h the title Äcarya.
According to P ä r t h a s ä r a t h i m i s r a ' s Nyüya-
2
ratnäkara , B h a r t r m i t r a is referred to by K u m ä -
rila in his Slokavärttika.
' Prayena sarvä mlmämsä haut a lokäyatikrtä.'
H e w a s , according to K u m ä r i l a , an Ä c a r y a who
h a d introduced m a n y apasiddhäntas into t h e
s y s t e m of the P ü r v a m i m ä m s ä and t h u s made it

1. Vide his Bhäsya X. 8. 1.

2. * nanu mintänisäyäh cirantanäni Bharlrmiträdiracitäni
vyäkhyänäni vidyante, kinianena ityata aha—präyeneti. Mimäm-
sä hi Bhartrmiträdibhili alokäyataiva satt lokäyatikrtä nitya-
nisiddhayoh iqtänistam phalam nästityädi bahvaprasiddhänta-
parigraheneti tarn ästikapathe kartum Värttikärambhayatnah
krto mayä üi.' (Chau. Edn., pp. 3-4)
 PÜRVA MIMÄMSÄ SÄSTBA 25

laukäyatika—an atheistic system. On t h e author-

i t y of t h e Nyäyaratnäkara which e n u m e r a t e s
some of t h e s e apasiddhäntas such as 'nitya-
nisiddhakarmanäm phalarähityam.' (There is no
fruit for (the performance of) t h e nitya and prohi-
bited karmans). M M . S. Kuppuswami Sastrigal
in his paper on ' the Prabhakara School of Karma
Mimärhsä'1 p u t s forth t h e suggestion t h a t ' P r a -
b h a k a r a w a s not (perhaps) t h e founder of t h e
P r a b h a k a r a School of K a r m a Mimäihsä which
(according to P . M i s r a ' s Nyäyaratnäkara) must
have been r e p r e s e n t e d in t h e a n t e - K u m ä r i l a
period by w r i t e r s like B h a r t r m i t r a ' . B u t M M .
N. S. A n a n t a k r i s h n a Sastrigal, in t h e English I n t r o -
duction to his edition of t h e Prabhäkaravijaya,2
contends t h a t if B h a r t r m i t r a were ever t h e
founder of t h e P r a b h a k a r a school, P r a b h a k a r a
would not h a v e commented on t h e Säbarabhäsya,
and t h a t B h a r t r m i t r a could not therefore h a v e
been the original propounder of t h e P r a b h a k a r a
doctrines. In either case, it is not yet definitely
known whether Bhartrmitra has written a Vrtti
on Jaimini's Sütras or a commentary on Sahara's
Bhäsya.
On t h e a u t h o r i t y of Y ä m u n ä c ä r y a ' s Siddhi-
traya? m a n y scholars opine t h a t B h a r t r m i t r a h a s
commented on t h e V e d ä n t a S ü t r a s of B ä d a r ä y a n a .
But t h e r e is no f u r t h e r evidence to s u b s t a n t i a t e
t h a t view.
T h a t t h e V ä r t t i k a k ä r a who is quoted by
S ä l i k a n ä t h a in his Prakaranapancikä is K u m ä r i l a

1. Vide the Proceedings of the Second Oriental Con-

ference, Calcutta, pp. 410-411.
2. Prabhäkaravijaya (Sanskrit Sähitya Parishad Series,
PP. 1-4).
3. Benares Edition, pp. 4-5.
D
 26 INTRODUCTION

and none other is now accepted by all scholars, 1

since t h e majority of t h e K ä r i k ä s cited by
S ä l l k a n ä t h a m a y be traced t o K u m ä r i l a ' s Sloka-
varttika and Brhattlka.
B h a r t r m i t r a is referred t o by K u m ä r i l a in
1-1. 62 and by J a y a n t a b h a t t a in two places in his
NyayamanjarV and to him is ascribed t h e view
t h a t t h e sensory organ—ear—is n o t h i n g but t h e
samskära (impression) produced by dhvani.
M u k u l a b h a t t a in his Abhidhävrttimätrkä men-
tions h i m with t h e title Acarya and a t t r i b u t e s
to h i m t h e oft-quoted verse— 4
' abhidheyena sämlpyät särüpyät samavayatah i
vaiparityat kriyayogat laksanä pancadhä matä1 It
B h a r t r m i t r a m a y be placed between Sabara-
svämin and K u m ä r i l a b h a t t a i.e., C. A. D. 300-600.
F r o m t h e reference of K u m ä r i l a cited above,
it is clear t h a t his Värttika on t h e Sahara-
bhäsya w a s intended to m a k e t h e M i m ä m s ä

1. Vide MM. S. K. Sastrigal's paper on ' Further Light

in the Präbhäkara School of Karma Mima.rnsä* submitted to
the Third Oriental Conference, Madras (1924); and MM.
K S. Anantakrishna Sastri's Edition of the Präbhäkara
Vijaya.
2. k imameva ca samskäram sabdagrahamkäranam;
Kecittu panditammanydh srotramityabhimanyate.'
Samjnäsancaranäccaisäm bahumänah svacetasi;
Mudhaisäm bahumänoyam vastvanutpädya kincana,
S. V. L 1. 6. 130-131.
Pärthasärathimisra while commenting on these Värttika
verses observes thus :—* atha -Bhartrmitro vadati—na srotram
ndma kindt, tasya ca dhvanijanyah samskdrah' iti dvayam
Kalpyam; ddau dhvanijanyah samskdra eva srotram, tat
upanyasya updlambhate—Imam iti. (Chau. Edn., pp. 763.)
3. Vizianagaram Sanskrit Series, pp. 213, 226.
4. Nirnaya Sagara Edition, p. 14.
 PÜRVA MIMAMSA ÖASTRA 27

s y s t e m an ästikadarsana as against the heterodox

views and apasiddhäntas propounded by B h a r t r -
m i t r a . H a d B h a r t r m i t r a flourished before Sabara-
svämin, K u m ä r i l a would have given this compli-
m e n t to t h e B h ä s y a k ä r a a s an ästikasiromani,
as he did in t h e Atmavada on 1-1. 5.

" ityaha nastikyaniräkarisrtuh

atmästitäm Bhäsyakrdatra yuktyaf>1

1. Bhartrhari (who died about A. D. 600) is believed by

eminent writers to have written Vrttis or Bhdsyas on both the
Pürva and the Uttara Mimärhsä Sütras. None of them is
however available to us. But, as there are strong evidences
to show that he has elucidated many important doctrines
of both the Mimärhsä systems in his famous Väkyapadiya,
would it be far-fetched to suggest that he might not have
written any commentary on those sütras ? (Vide the writer's
paper on ' The Doctrine of Sphota \ Annamaiai University
Journal, Vol. I., Part 2, p. 235, foot-note.)
 K u m ä r i l a b h a t t a is t h e most outstanding
figure of t h e period under survey. I t is a m a t t e r
of g r e a t i n t e r e s t for a s t u d e n t of S a n s k r i t liter-
a t u r e to l e a r n t h a t t h e period from A. D. 600 to
900, which we have named t h e Kumärila Period,
produced m a n y 'dominent Sästrakäras in almost
all b r a n c h e s of S a n s k r i t learning. I n t h e field
of Mimärhsä, K u m ä r i l a b h a t t a , P r a b h ä k a r a b h a t t a ,
M a n d a n a m i s r a , S ä l i k a n ä t h a m i s r a and V a c a s p a t i -
m i s r a are t h e g r e a t luminaries whose epoch-
m a k i n g contributions enriched t h e P ü r v a Mimäm-
sä S ä s t r a and led to its b r a n c h i n g off into two
schools, popularly known as t h e Bhätta and the
Präbhäkara.

Kumärilabhatta (C. A. D. 620-700).

K u m ä r i l a b h a t t a , t h e most o u t s t a n d i n g figure
of t h e period, is t h e well-known a u t h o r of t h e
Mlmämsä Värttika.1 In the Vyäkaranädhikarana
of his Tantravarttika, he refers t o B h a r t r h a r i ' s
Väkyapadiya and as such he m u s t h a v e flourished
after B h a r t r h a r i who, according to It-sing, died
about A. D. 650. H e is believed to be t h e guru
of M a n d a n a m i ä r a (C. A. D. 670-740). So he m a y
be assigned to the 7th c e n t u r y .

1. Tradition says that Kumärila was an incarnation

of God Subrahmanya. It would further have it that he
was a scholar well-versed in the orthodox systems of philo-
sophy and other allied branches of knowledge, and that
later, in the guise of a buddhist mendicant, he studied
Buddhism first-hand under a Buddhist Äcärya and gave it
its death-blow by writing his Slokavärttika on the Tarka-
päda of the Säbarabhäsya and that he burnt himself in a
pyre of chaff-fire for his purification and release from the
curse of his Buddhist teacher.
 PÜRVA MIMAMSÄ &ASTRA 29

M a n y scholars believe t h a t K u m ä r i l a w a s a
S o u t h e r n e r in view of t h e fact t h a t he h a s used
in his T a n t r a v ä r t t i k a m a n y Dravidian words whose
semantic relationship to S a n s k r i t words h a s been
emphasised. 1 B u t S ä l i k a n ä t h a ' s references to him
in his w o r k s as V ä r t t i k a k ä r a Misra probably
indicate his N o r t h e r n origin.

Kumärila the Värttikakära.

Kumärila is t h e father of t h e Bhatta school

of the Pürva Mimärhsä System. A s t h e V ä r t t i k a -
k ä r a of this Sästra his position is unique, unlike
t h a t of t h e V ä r t t i k a k ä r a s . in other Sästras; for,
w h e r e a s t h e s e have been superseded in t h e i r
a u t h o r i t a t i v e n e s s by t h e B h ä s y a k ä r a s , K u m ä r i l a
is accepted as more a u t h o r i t a t i v e t h a n t h e
B h ä s y a k a r a (Sabarasvämin) himself.
I n m a n y places, K u m ä r i l a ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n
of t h e Sütras differs considerably from t h a t of
t h e B h ä s y a k a r a , not on account of personal bias
b u t of s t r i c t e r logical discipline. T h u s , for
i n s t a n c e , in 1-3. 2 ' virodhe tvanapeksam syät asati
hyanumänam' we h a v e got one s t r i k i n g i n s t a n c e
w h e r e t h e B h ä s y a k a r a and t h e V ä r t t i k a k ä r a
give different i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . S a b a r a s v ä m i n s a y s
t h a t if a n y Smrti which is a l w a y s a n anumäna
is in conflict w i t h a Sruti which is accepted (as
a pratyaksa), t h e former becomes invalid as an
a u t h o r i t y on dharma. He illustrates this with
t h e Sruti—'audumbarim sprstvä udgäyeV—'the
udgätr priest should c h a n t by t o u c h i n g t h e sacri-
ficial post,' which is in conflict w i t h t h e Sruti
4 c
audumbari sarvä vestayitavyä'— t h e sacrificial
post m u s t be completely t i e d ' (with a cloth).

1. Vide the Tantravärttika, I. 3. 5 (10).

30 INTRODUCTION

H e r e t h e conflict is evident in t h a t t h e touching

of t h e post by udgatr is impossible in case it is
covered w i t h cloth. I n this i n s t a n c e t h e B h ä s y a -
k ä r a h a s expressed t h e siddhänta t h a t t h e Smrti
is u n a u t h o r i t a t i v e since it is in conflict w i t h t h e
Sruti on t h e ground t h a t Sruti is pratyaksa, an
independent a u t h o r i t y , while Smrti is anumäna,
dependent on a Sruti, t h e existence of which is
to be inferred from t h a t Smrti. K u m ä r i l a is not
satisfied w i t h this explanation. H e a s k s : how
can anybody a s s e r t t h a t t h e r e w a s no pratyaksa-
sruti in t h e by-gone ages, a reproduction of
which this Smrti gives us ? A n d w h e r e shall we
hide our faces w h e n t h e f u t u r e reveals to us
t h a t Sruti which is now supposed to be l o s t ? 1
H e suggests t h a t t h e r e a r e two aspects of pra-
many a—the bodhakatva aspect and t h e anustha-
pakatva aspect. Of t h e s e t h e former is common
to both Sruti and Smrti; and t h e l a t t e r — t h e
anusthäpakatva aspect—may not be accepted for
t h e Smrti if it conflicts w i t h Sruti, till such time

1. Vide his remarks on I. 3. 2 (4).

* Kathamaiträyaniyädipathitasrutimülikäh;
drsyante smrtayah sarvah bhadropanayanddisu.
tadä tanmadhyapätyekam väkyam kincidapasmrtih;
müläntarodbhavam vaktum jihvä no na pravartate.
bädhitä ca smrtirbhütvä käcinnyäyavidä yadä;
srüyate na cirädeva säkhäntaragatä srutih.
tadä kd te mukhacchäyä syännaiydyikamäninah;
bädhäbädhänavasthänam dhruvamevam prasajyate.'
He says also that the sarvavestanasmrti is based on one
prakäsasruti:—' etat Jaimininaiva chändogyänuväde sätyäyani-
brähmanagatasruiimülatvena audumbariprakarane ca sätyäyani-
näm täm ürdhvadesena ubhayatra väsasi darsayatiti ' vaistutam
vai väsah srlh vai väsah srih säma' iti darsite tatprasahgena
audumbarlvestanaväsasopi prakäsasrutimülatvameva anväkhyä-
tarn,'
 PÜRVA MfMÄMSÄ älSTBA 3i
as t h e basis of t h e Smrti is not revealed.
If t h e future reveals to u s t h e basic Sruti for
t h e Smrti, t h e anusthana m a y be in either way. 1
K u m ä r i l a ' s g r e a t w o r k constitutes an ex-
tensive c o m m e n t a r y on t h e Säbarabhäsya. The
various p a r t s of this C o m m e n t a r y a r e known
by (i) t h e Slokavarttika, (ii) t h e Tantravarttika,
and (iii) t h e Tuptlkä?

The Slokavarttika is in verse mostly in t h e

anustup m e t r e and forms as m u c h a critical
c o m m e n t a r y on t h e tarkapäda of t h e Säbara-
bhäsya as it is an original w o r k in t h e M l m ä m s ä
System, w h e r e t h e a u t h o r h a s displayed sound
judgment in all m a t t e r s of controversy coupled
w i t h poignant h u m o u r . H i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of
t h e opening Bhäsya in t h e jijnäsädhikarana in
six different ways—not to speak of his t e n other
1. In the same adhikarana Kumärila observes:—
' etaddhi Jaimininä atyantam hitopadesind jijndsubhyah prati-
pddyater—
Ydvadekam srutau karma smrtau vänyat pratiyate;
tdvattayorviruddhatve srautdnusthdnamisyate.'
2. The Ölokavärttika was published at Benares with
the commentary Nyäyaratnäkara (1898) and a part of it
at Trivandrum (T. S. S.) with the Käsikä (1926). The
Tantravarttika and Tuptlka were published at Benares and
at Poona. The English" translation of both the £loka-
värttika and the Tantravarttika by Dr. Jha were also
published at Benares.
Mädhavasarasvati in his Sarvadarsanakaumudl gives
the list of works of Kumärila:—l tatra sahasrddhikarana-
dvädasalaksanyä mimamsäyäh caturvimsatisahasram Sahara-
svämikrtam Bhäsyam, Tadupari prasthänadvayam—Bhdttam
Prdbhdkaram iti. Tatra Bhattdcdrydnäm panca vydkhydndni
bhdsyasya:—ekd Brhattikd, dvitlyd Madhyamatikä, trliyä Tuptikd,
caturthi Kdrikä, pancamam Tantravärttikam uktdnuktadurukta-
cintakam. Tatra Brhan-Madhyamatike samprati na vartete.'
32 INTRODUCTION

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s mentioned in S ä l i k a n ä t h a ' s Rju-

vimala and other P r ä b h ä k a r a works—is no doubt,
a m a s t e r s t r o k e of his versatile genius. While
discussing in 1-1. 2 t h e a u t h o r i t a t i v e n e s s of codana
on t h e super-normal Dharma, he h a s established
t h e doctrine of svatah pramanya of pramänas,
i. e., t h e validity of a cognition is contributed
by t h e causes of t h e cognition itself. This is
one of t h e most important doctrines in t h e
epistemology of t h e P ü r v a and U t t a r a M i m ä m s ä
S y s t e m s of Philosophy. Again, his critique of
U p a v a r s a ' s definitions of t h e six pramanas, as
given by Sabarasvämin in his Bhäsya, is as
complete as it is brilliant. His criticisms of t h e
Buddhistic views of niralambanatva and sünyatva
ascribed to t h e cognitions and his refutation of
B h a r t r h a r i ' s doctrine of sphota a r e c e r t a i n l y
models of exposition. I n connection w i t h t h e
first of t h e s e he h a s established t h e anumeyatva
of cognition from t h e präkatya or jnätatä, in
c o n t r a s t w i t h t h e svaprakäsatva of cognitions
as accepted by t h e Advaitins and others. He
h a s f u r t h e r elaborated t h e view of t h e e t e r n a l i t y
of sabda and artha and their sambandha (relation)
as explained b y t h e S ü t r a k ä r a , t h e V r t t i k ä r a
and t h e B h ä s y a k ä r a . I n t h e Ä t m a v ä d a h e h a s
not denied t h e existence of Iävara, for he h a s
laid down t h a t one should acquire the knowledge
of t h e Supreme Self—Iävara—by t h e proper
s t u d y of t h e Upanisads. I n t h e Väkyärthädhi-
karana 1-1. 7 he h a s well elucidated t h e abhihi-
tanvayavada in säbdabodha as explained by
the Bhäsyakära. This is one of t h e i m p o r t a n t
t e n e t s of t h e B h ä t t a School, in contrast w i t h
t h e anvitäbhidhänaväda as held by the Präbhä-
karas who represent a rival school in t h e
M i m ä m s ä System of Philosophy.
 MIMÄMSÄ ^ÄSTHA S3

The V ä r t t i k a on t h e B h ä s y a from 1-2. 1 to

the- end of t h e t h i r d A d h y ä y a is known as t h e
Tantravärttika. I t is mainly in prose but is
i n t e r s p e r s e d w i t h a good n u m b e r of verses.
Besides being a good c o m m e n t a r y on t h e Bhäsya,
it is, like t h e ßlokavarttika, an original t r e a t i s e
on t h e P ü r v a M i m ä m s ä System. In many
instances h e h a s given his own i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s
of t h e nyäyas, sometimes superseding and some-
times supplementing those of t h e Bhäsyakära.
I n t h e Smrtipäda he h a s advisedly appeared
as a g r e a t debator and controversialist and given
his own i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Nyäyas, and h a s t h u s
been able to suggest n e w solutions for problems
connected w i t h t h e prämänya of äcära. Probably
for t h e first time in a text-book of Dharma-
mimämsä Ätmatusti as a pramäna on Dharma
h a s been i l l u s t r a t e d by a quotation of t h e words
of King D u s y a n t a from t h e magnum opus of t h e
g r e a t e s t p o e t - d r a m a t i s t of India, K ä l i d ä s a :

" Evanca vidvadvacanat vinirgatam

prasiddharüpam kavibhih nirüpitam I
'satam hi sandehapadesu vastusu
pramänamantahkaranapravrttayah'" n
H e h a s also elaborately discussed and tried to
uphold t h e a u t h o r i t a t i v e n e s s of some äcäras of
doubtful m o r a l value of some g r e a t and impor-
tant personages—Krsna, Vyäsa, Parasuräma,
Bhisma a n d t h e P ä n d a v a s . E a c h and e v e r y
point of t h e Pürvapaksin he h a s answered from
t h e commonsense point of view, and a successful
a t t e m p t h a s been m a d e to establish t h e Prä-
mänya of t h e deeds of those g r e a t seers who
are supposed t o be sistas.
 34 INTRODUCTION

The c o m m e n t a r y (from t h e f o u r t h A d h y ä y a
to t h e end of the twelfth A d h y ä y a ) is known
as t h e Tuptika. I t is a s h o r t Tlka or gloss,
and his brevity of expression and his power of
condensation of topics are p a r t i c u l a r l y note-
w o r t h y in this p a r t of t h e C o m m e n t a r y , as his
power of exposition and elaboration a r e in t h e
ßlokavärttika and Tantravarttika.

The Brhattika and the Madhyamatika.

To K u m ä r i l a h a s also been ascribed t h e

a u t h o r s h i p of two more w o r k s — t h e Brhattika
and t h e Madhyamatika—1 t h e former probably
an elaborate t r e a t i s e and t h e l a t t e r presumably
a s u m m a r y of t h e former. For, a u t h o r s like
S o m e s v a r a b h a t t a and N ä r ä y a n a b h a t t a mention
t h e Brhattika and quote from it verses which
a r e not found in t h e &lokavarttika and t h e
Tantravarttika^.

Prabhakaramisra {C. A. D. 650-720).

K u m ä r i l a h a d t h e unique fortune to h a v e
a band of distinguished disciples some of whom

1. The discovery that Kumärilabhatta has written a

commentary called Brhattika has now led scholars to believe
that such värttika verses cited by Sällkanätha and other
authors of the Präbhäkara school as are not found either
in the Slokavärttika or in the Tantravarttika may be traced
to the Brhattika, and that the Värttikakäramisra mentioned
by Sällkanätha in his Prakaranapancikä and other works
may therefore be none other than Kumärila. If this view is
accepted, there is no room for the assumption that there was
a Värttikakära other than Kumärila as the precursor of the
Präbhäkara school of the Mimamsä Sästra.
2. Nyäyasudhä, I. 3. 10. pp. 329 & 330. Chaukamba
Edition. Mänameyodaya. Arthäpatti Section, p. 126, T. P» H.
Oriental Series, 1933.
 PÜRVA MTMÄMSÄ SÄSTRA 35

produced epoch-making w o r k s . Amongst t h e m

are P r a b h ä k a r a B h a t t a , familiarly known as
Guru, M a n d a n a m i s r a and U m v e k a B h a t t a alias
Bhavabhüti.

M M . Dr. G a n g a n a t h a J h a holds t h a t P r a b h ä -
k a r a (misra) belonged to t h e a n t e - K u m ä r i l a
period and t h a t he w a s not, unlike Kumärila,
an innovator or reformer 1 . H e h a s tried to prove
that by showing t h a t P r a b h ä k a r a ' s style is very
simple, natural and graceful while K u m ä r i l a ' s
is elaborate, majestic and forceful. B u t MM.
S. Kuppuswami Sastrigal h a s tried to prove
t h a t P r a b h ä k a r a is a y o u n g e r contemporary of
Kumärila 2 . Tradition s a y s t h a t t h e former h a s
studied under t h e l a t t e r . The title ' guru' of
P r a b h ä k a r a is explained by a curious incident.
Once w h e n K u m ä r i l a h a d to explain an ambi-
guous passage ' aträpi noktam tatra tu noktam
iti dviruktam \ to his own s t u d e n t s , he could
not m a k e out t h e puzzle and w e n t a w a y to his
house. B u t after some time, one of his disciples,
P r a b h ä k a r a , solved t h e puzzle 4 atra apina uktam,
tatra tunä uktam iti dvih uktam' and gave t h e
solution in w r i t i n g to t h e wife of t h e i r t e a c h e r
w h e n he w a s not in his house. On r e t u r n , t h e
t e a c h e r saw it and w a s immensely pleased with
it and commended P r a b h ä k a r a for his ingenius
explanation by conferring on h i m t h e title 'guru.
F r o m t h a t time P r a b h ä k a r a is known as 'guru*
and his school as ' g u r u m a t a \

1. Vide his Prabhäkara Mimämsä: a reprint from

4
Indian Thought' pp. 12-17. Kef er also Keith's A History
of Sanskrit Literature, pp. 473-474.
2. Vide his paper 4 Further Light on the Prabhäkara
Problem ' in the Proceedings of the Third Oriental Conference,
1924, pp. 474-481.
 36 INTRODUCTION

Prabhäkara's Works.

P r a b h ä k a r a h a s w r i t t e n two commentaries on
the S ä b a r a b h ä s y a ; the Laghvi, otherwise known
as t h e Vivarana, and the Brhati also called the
Nibandhana. I t w a s presumed till very recently
t h a t t h e L a g h v i w a s identical w i t h t h e Nibandhana,
and t h e B r h a t i , w i t h t h e V i v a r a n a . The mist is
now cleared off 1 ; for, B h a v a n ä t h a ' s Nayaviveka
and V a r a d a r ä j a ' s Nayavivekadipika show t h a t
' N i b a n d h a n a ' is a n o t h e r n a m e for t h e B r h a t i and
4
V i v a r a n a ' for t h e Laghvi, t h o u g h these two
t e r m s a r e a p p a r e n t l y contradictory. I t is also
believed on t h e evidence of Öälikanätha's com-
m e n t a r i e s 3 on t h e s e two works t h a t P r a b h ä k a r a
in all probability w r o t e his L a g h v i first wherein
he h a s elucidated his doctrines, and t h a t after
K u m ä r i l a h a d w r i t t e n his V ä r t t i k a , he might have
composed his B r h a t i criticising now and t h e n
the V ä r t t i k a k ä r a ' s views.

Prabhäkara and Kumärila Compared.

T h a t P r a b h ä k a r a seems to be a g r e a t e r
genius t h a n K u m ä r i l a is shown by t h e fact t h a t
he h a d his immediate follower in his disciple
S ä l i k a n ä t h a who h a s w r i t t e n first-rate com-

1. Vide Dr. T. R Chintamani's paper on 'The Works

of Prabhäkara': Journal of Oriental Research, Madras,
Vol. Ill, pp. 281-291 (1929).
2. See Öälikanätha's opening remark in his Rjuvimald—
' * loke ' ityädi bhäsyam ' yatnagauravam prasajyeta' ityeva-
mantam athasabdadüsanärtham aucityänubhäsanaparam iti
Värttikakärena vyäkhyätam. Tattu mandaprayojanamiti matvä
Tikäkärah prayojanam darsayati—loka ityädi bhäsyasyetyädinä.'
(Rjuvimalä, Madras Edition, pp. 1 & 2.) See also ibid, p. 116
which refers to ' Bhagavän Värttikakära ' and ' Tikäkära '
the latter refuting the former—i tadetat Tlkäkäro na mrsyati.'
 PÜRVA MlMÄMSÄ SASTRA 37

m e n t a r i e s on his m a s t e r ' s w o r k s ; b u t K u m ä r i l a
had three g r e a t disciples, none of whom w a s so
devoted to him as S ä l i k a n ä t h a w a s to P r a b h ä k a r a .
Umveka, the earliest c o m m e n t a t o r on t h e Sloka-
v ä r t t i k a , w a s no doubt a follower of K u m ä r i l a ' s
school; yet he, as his opening verse ' ye nama
kecidiha nah prathayantyavajnäm' etc., and his
other remarks indicate, h a d in m a n y instances
to'deviate from his t e a c h e r ' s p a t h . M a n d a n a -
miöra, another famous disciple of Kumärila,
has rooted out, in his Sphotasiddhi, the theory
of Varnanityatva as held by K u m ä r i l a in t h e
sphotakhandana section of his Slokavärttika.
But later the tables were turned against Prabhä-
kara, and no work of his or of his followers
has been studied. On t h e o t h e r hand, K u m ä r i l a ' s
works are widely read both by t h e M i m ä m s a k a s
and the Vedäntins, and his school h a s become
known as t h e " B h ä t t a School ". V ä c a s p a t i m i s r a
of the 9th c e n t u r y and A p p a y y a D i k s i t a of t h e
16th century, two g r e a t m a k e r s of t h e h i s t o r y of
t h e Advaita V e d ä n t a , a r e pioneers in popularising
t h e study of t h e M i m ä m s ä r u l e s in o t h e r S ä s t r a s .
Pärthasärathimisra, Somesvarabhatta, Mädhavä-
c ä r y a and K h a n d a d e v a m i s r a a r e some of t h e
chief a u t h o r s in t h e r e a l m of t h e P ü r v a
Mimämsä Öästra who h a v e both synthetically and
analytically explained t h e r u l e s of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n
of the vedic and smrti t e x t s in t h e most successful
manner.
A passing reference to some of t h e i m p o r t a n t
differences in t h e doctrines propounded by
K u m ä r i l a and P r a b h ä k a r a m a y be quite i n t e r e s t -
ing. As C o m m e n t a t o r s on t h e Sabarabhasya on
t h e P ü r v a M i m ä m s ä S ü t r a s , both h a v e accepted
t h e Vedapramanya a s t h e f u n d a m e n t a l doctrine
38 INTRODUCTION

of the P ü r v a M i m ä m s ä Öästra. Both have t h u s

recognised t h e agama or sabda as an a u t h o r i t y
on t h e alaukika dharma.
(i) P r a b h ä k a r a holds t h a t sabda, both laukika
and alaukika, conveys a complete idea if it is
related to a kriya or kärya, i.e., if a n y t h i n g
already known in our worldly experience is
conveyed by the words in a sentence, t h a t
sentence cannot be called pramana. Only
t h a t is pramäna which conveys a new idea of
a valid c h a r a c t e r . So to t h e P r ä b h ä k a r a s who
are in a sense supposed to be t h e idealists among
t h e Mimamsakas, the Vedic injunctions alone
are pramanas among sabdas. The words and
sentences used in our every-day conversation
are not necessarily conveying new, u n k n o w n or
original i d e a s ; hence they are not pramänas.
B u t t h e B h ä t t a s , i.e., K u m a r i l a and his followers,
hold t h e c o n t r a r y view and s a y t h a t there is not
m u c h difference between laukika and vaidika
sabdas; all words alike convey their ideas,
w h e t h e r t h e y are already known to the h e a r e r
or not.
H o w a verbal cognition arises from a
s e n t e n c e is a question which h a s been answered
by P r a b h ä k a r a and K u m ä r i l a in different w a y s .
P r a b h ä k a r a holds t h a t sentence is the unit of
language and t h a t each word in a sentence
conveys both t h e object and its anvaya (relation).
Kumärila, on t h e other hand, observes t h a t
words convey their ideas—padärthas—and t h a t
those ideas a r e capable of conveying their relation
which is considered to be t h e Väkyärtha: ' padaih
abhihitah padartha eva vakyartham bodhayeyuh \
This is known as t h e 'abhihitanvayavada' of
t h e B h ä t t a s , which h a s already been explained
 PÜRVA MlMAMSÄ SÄSTRA 30

in t h e Sabarabhäsya (1-1. 7) and in B h a r t r h a r i ' s

Väkyapadiya (Kända II). P r a b h ä k a r a ' s view is
known as t h e ' anvitäbhidhänaväda.' H e n c e it is
one of t h e fundamental doctrinal differences
between K u m ä r i l a and P r a b h ä k a r a . V ä c a s p a t i -
miSra in his Tattvabindu, P ä r t h a s ä r a t h i m i s r a in
his Nyayaratnamalä and B r a h m ä n a n d a S a r a s v a t i
in his Laghucandrika and Siddhäntabindutikä
have given a critical exposition of these
doctrines and shown a p a r t i a l i t y for t h e Abhi-
Mtanvayavada of K u m ä r i l a b h a t t a .

(ii) Another i m p o r t a n t doctrinal difference

lies in t h e i r explanation of abhäva. Kumärila-
b h a t t a and his followers have, like t h e N a i y ä y i k a s ,
recognised abhäva as a separate category. But
P r a b h ä k a r a h a s explained it as t h e adhikarana-
svarüpa.

A s a corollary to t h i s t h e P r ä b h ä k a r a s
have not accepted t h e sixth pramana—anupa-
labdhi. On t h e other hand, t h e B h ä t t a s who have
accepted abhäva as a s e p a r a t e category, h a v e
been forced to recognise anupalabdhi as a
s e p a r a t e pramäna for experiencing abhäva, and
t h e y define anupalabdhi a s — ' abhävopi pramänä-
bhävah nästityasyärthasya asannikrstasya. Hence
the general r e m a r k t h a t t h e P r ä b h ä k a r a s a r e
t h e pancapramänavädins and t h e B h ä t t a s , t h e
satpramänavädins.

(iii) The third i m p o r t a n t doctrinal differ-

ence between t h e P r ä b h ä k a r a s and t h e B h ä t t a s
lies in t h e i r t r e a t m e n t of bhramajnäna. The non-
recognition of a s e p a r a t e cognition, called non-valid
cognition, by t h e P r ä b h ä k a r a s , is known, in t h e
Ö ä s t r a k ä r a s ' pharaseology, as akhyäti, which
40 INTRODUCTION
literally means ' absence of cognition.' The P r ä -
b h ä k a r a s say t h a t t h e cognition * t h i s is s i l v e r '
is a combination of two c o g n i t i o n s : ' this' is a
perception (pratyaksa) of t h e n a c r e which t h e
m a n perceives and 4 silver ' is t h e r e m e m b r a n c e of
some silver which t h e perceiver h a s already
seen at a jeweller's. A n d t h e n , w h y does t h e
perceiver r u n to t h e spot w h e r e he sees only
t h e nacre ? The answer is simple. The m a n
does not at t h a t time realise t h a t t h e r e a r e
two cognitions presenting t w o objects, and this
non-experience of t h e difference between t h e s e
two cognitions is responsible for his i n s t a n t a n e o u s
and insensate action. This is w h a t is t e r m e d
Akhyati and it stands for t h e non-recognition of
a s e p a r a t e non-valid cognition. The B h ä t t a s ,
on the other hand, describe it as t h e Viparlta-
khyäti. This Viparitakhyati is t h e same as t h e
anyathäkhyäti of the N a i y ä y i k a s with t h e differ-
ence t h a t t h e B h ä t t a s call t h e sannikarsa
(relation) asat (non-being), while t h e N a i y ä y i k a s
accept it as alaukikasannikarsa—Jnänalaksanä-
pratyasatti.1
Some other i m p o r t a n t doctrinal differences
between t h e two schools r e l a t e to t h e import of
t h e potential mood—lin—and t h e exact subject-
m a t t e r (Visaya) for discussion in most of t h e
adhikaranas in the Dvädasalaksani. I n spite of
these differences both K u m ä r i l a and P r a b h ä k a r a
are very great n a m e s in t h e field of Mimämsä.
Mandanamisra {C. A. D. 680—750).
His Identification.
According to Ä n a n d a g i r i ' s Sankaradigvijaya
M a n d a n a m i s r a w a s t h e h u s b a n d of K u m ä r i l a ' s
1. Vide MM. S. Kuppuswami Sastri's A Primer of
Indian Logic, p. 167.
 PÜRVA MIMÄMSÄ SÄSTRA 41
sister. F u r t h e r he is traditionally known as a
disciple of K u m ä r i l a . So he should be a contem-
p o r a r y of K u m ä r i l a ^ n d m a y therefore be placed
between A. D. 670 and 740.

V i d y ä r a n y a ' s äahkaradigvijaya records t h e

identity of M a n d a n a w i t h S u r e s v a r ä c ä r y a , one
of the four disciples of Sri Ö a n k a r ä c ä r y a . Many
evidences, however, prove that Mandana
d Suresvara are different. M a n d a n a h a s w r i t t e n
an Advaita work—Brahmasiddhi—and his advaita
views as embodied in this work, are considerably
different from those of S u r e ä v a r ä c ä r y a which
a r e found elucidated in his Naiskarmyasiddhi and
Varttika on the Brhadaranyaka and Taittiriya
Upanisad Bhasyas of Ö a n k a r ä c ä r y a . Those who
hold t h e identity a r g u e t h a t M a n d a n a ' s views
a r e completely changed after he became a dis-
ciple of S a n k a r a . This h a r d l y convinces t h e
other school of critics and t h e y do not therefore
accept t h e identity. B u t since t h e ßahkara-
digvijaya of Y i d y ä r a n y a identifies M a n d a n a w i t h
S u r e s v a r ä c ä r y a and w i t h V i s v a r ü p ä c ä r y a and
since M a n d a n a ' s i d e n t i t y w i t h t h e former is
out of place, t h e y identify him w i t h V i s v a r ü p ä -
cärya.

H e r e , t h e r e a r e t h r e e problems in i d e n t i t y :
Mandana-Sureävara, Mandana-Visvarüpa and
Suresvara-Visvarüpa. Of t h e s e identities, t h e
i d e n t i t y of S u r e s v a r ä c ä r y a w i t h V i s v a r ü p ä c ä r y a
is more probable t h a n t h a t of M a n d a n a w i t h
S u r e s v a r a or t h a t of M a n d a n a w i t h V i s v a r ü p a .
F o r in t h e first place, M ä d h a v a in his commen-
tary on the Parasarasmrti quotes from Suresva-
r a ' s Brhadäranyakopanisadbhäsyavärttika with
 42 INTRODUCTION
t h e prefatory note—' Varttike Visvarüpäcärya
udäjahära—
* ämre phalärthe ityädi hyäpastambasmrteh vacah;
phalabhäktvam samäcaste nityänämapi karmanäm.'

Secondly, in his Vivaranaprameyasangraha,

he quotes a verse from t h e same V ä r t t i k a
ascribing it to V i s v a r ü p a . I n his Purusartha-
prabodha, B r a h m ä n a n d a b h ä r a t i speaks of Sures-
v a r a ' s Naiskarmyasiddhi as a w o r k of Visva-
rüpäcärya—
" ityevam naiskarmyasiddhau
brahmamsaih brahmavittamaih \
Srimadbhih Visvarüpäkhyaih
äcaryaih karunarnavaih \\"
Similarly m a n y w o r k s like R ä m a t i r t h a ' s
Mänasolläsa, t h e Vrttäntavüäsa and t h e Guru-
vamsakavya support t h e identity of S u r e s v a r ä -
cärya with Visvarüpäcärya. On t h e basis of
these l i t e r a r y evidences Mr. P . V. K a n e concludes
' t h a t M a n d a n a ' s l i t e r a r y activity lies between
(A. D.) 690-710; t h a t of U m v e k a between (A. D.)
700-730 and S u r e s v a r a ' s between A. D. 800-840
and t h a t U m v e k a and B h a v a b h ü t i a r e identical,
b u t t h a t M a n d a n a and S u r e s v a r a a r e separated
by 100 y e a r s / 1 So M a n d a n a and S u r e s v a r a a r e
different a u t h o r s .

Mandanamisra's Works.

M a n d a n a m i ä r a is known to h a v e w r i t t e n six
works. T h e Vidhiviveka? is chiefly an exposition

1. Vide his History of Dharma Sästra under Visva-

rüpäcärya, pp. 252-264.
2. The Vidhi Viveka was printed with the commentary
Nyäyakanikä in the 'Pandit', at Benares (1907).
 PÜRVA MIMÄMSÄ SÄSTRA - 43

of t h e Vidhyartha. I t refutes the views of t h e

B h ä t t a s and t h e P r ä b h ä k a r a s regarding vidhyartha
(the import of t h e vidhi-lih) and accepts ista-
sadhanatva a s t h e chief import, of Vidhi and
elucidates it. Incidentally he discusses m a n y an
important topic such as the existence of Sarvajna
pTyf&vara, and t h e conception of apürva. The
JBhävanäviveka1 is a n o t h e r important work of his,
llhibh primarily deals w i t h the n a t u r e and scope
oftthe arthdbhavana. H e r e the a u t h o r establishes
3#ell ubhävanä* as t h e import of t h e Äkhyata-
pratyaya which is considered to be s e p a r a t e
from the dhatvartha (the import of t h e dhatu)
in combinations like pacati and yajate, and also
elucidates t h e differences between the two bha-
vanäs—arthabhävanä and sabdabhävanä—which
constitute one of t h e fundamental views common
to all schools of t h e M i m ä m s a k a s , t h o u g h t h e y
differ m u c h in t h e explanation of t h e n a t u r e and
scope of t h e s e two bhävanäs. Both t h e s e w o r k s
contain Karikas w i t h Vivarana. T h e y would
have become v e r y good p r a k a r a n a w o r k s in
M i m ä m s ä b u t for t h e t e r s e n e s s and obscurity of
their language. A n o t h e r very i m p o r t a n t w o r k
in verse is his Vibhramaviveka* which elucidates
the five khyütivädas. These works a r e generally
not intelligible w i t h o u t a c o m m e n t a r y . The

1. The Bhävanäviveka was edited by MM. Dr. Ganga-

natha Jha (in two parts) with the commentary of Umveka
in the Sarasvati Bhavana Text Series, Benares.
2. The Vibhramaviveka was edited by MM. S. Kuppu-
swami Sastrigal and Vedänta Siromani T. V. Ramachandra
Dikshitar in the Journal of Oriental Research, Madras.
Prof. MM. S. K. Sastrigal has dealt with the five khyatis
in a learned introduction to that work.
 44 INTRODUCTION

Mimämsüsütränukramani1 is a descriptive Index

in verse of t h e a d h i k a r a n a s of t h e 12 c h a p t e r s
of t h e P ü r v a M i m ä m s ä S ü t r a s . I t is a good
i n t r o d u c t o r y work for the s t u d e n t of M i m ä m s ä
Öästra in t h e a d h i k a r a n a p r a s t h ä n a . M a n d a n a -
m i s r a , in t h e Sphotasiddhi? appears as a
s t a u n c h advocate of the doctrine of 'Sphota;
and as a close follower of B h a r t r h a r i he vehe-
m e n t l y criticises even his t e a c h e r K u m ä r i l a -
b h a t t a ' s refutations of t h e sphota doctrine as
set forth in his Slokavärttika. Though the
Sphotasiddhi is not an original t r e a t i s e , it is a
s t r o n g defence of sphotaväda against the a t t a c k s
of t h e Varnavadins. I n his BrahmasiddhP he
elucidates his Advaita views which differ consi-
derably from those of S a n k a r ä c ä r y a ; and so,
like Gaudapäda, he is a notable figure in t h e
pre-Sankara Advaita School.
Umvekabhatta (C. A. D. 670-750).
U m v e k a b h a t t a is traditionally known as a
y o u n g disciple of K u m ä r i l a b h a t t a and hence
m a y be assigned to A. D. 670-750. MM. S. Kuppu-
swami Sastrigal suggests t h e identity of U m v e k a
w i t h t h e famous d r a m a t i s t Bhavabhüti. 4 In
1. The text of the Mimämsäsütränukramani was
published at Benares; a second edition of the same has
been published together with an elaborate commentary by
Dr. G-anganatha Jha.
2. The Sphotasiddhi (with its commentary Gopälikä) was
edited by Pandit S. K. Ramanatha Sastri under the auspices
of the Madras University.
3. The Brahmasiddhi is in course of publication by the
Madras Government under the editorship of MM. S. K. Sas-
trigal.
4. See his papers on *The Präbhäkara Schools of
Karma Mimämsä' and on 4 Further Light of the Prä-
bhäkara Problem', submitted to the Second and Third
Oriental Conferences, 1922 and 1924
 PÜRVA MIMAMSÄ §ÄSTRA 45

support of t h i s identification, some l i t e r a r y evi-

dences m a y be cited. T h e first and foremost is
t h a t t h e C o m m e n t a t o r on the Tattvapradipikä
of C i t s u k h ä c ä r y a identifies B h a v a b h ü t i with
1
U m v e k a — ' B h a v a b h ü t i h Umvekah' One of t h e
early m a n u s c r i p t s of t h e Malatlmadhava contains
colophons a t t r i b u t i n g t h e d r a m a to U m v e k ä c ä r y a ,
the disciple of Kumärilabhatta. 2 And l a s t l y t h e
-|ommentary on the Slokavärttika begins w i t h
tKe verse—
4
Ye nama kecidiha nah prathayantyavajnam'
etc., which is found in t h e prologue to t h e
Malatlmadhava w i t h full reference to its a u t h o r —
Bhavabhüti.

Some objections a r e however raised a g a i n s t

this identity. I n t h e prologues to t h e t h r e e
d r a m a s of Bhavabhüti, one J n ä n a n i d h i — a n d n o t
K u m ä r i l a b h a t t a — h a s been referred to a s t h e
a u t h o r ' s t e a c h e r ; and we have no evidence t o
identify K u m ä r i l a b h a t t a w i t h J n ä n a n i d h i . A g a i n
in t h e prologue to t h e Malaü-Madhava, Bhava-
bhüti h a s spoken of his proficiency in v a r i o u s
branches of learning—Vedas, Upanisads (Vedän-
ta) S ä n k h y a and Yoga s y s t e m s of philosophy 3 ;
but he h a s not made a n y reference to M i m ä m s ä .
H a d U m v e k a and B h a v a b h ü t i been one a n d t h e

"1. Citsukhäcärya 's Tattvapradipikä, N. S. Edn., p. 265.

2. ' iti Sri Bhaüa-Kumärüasisyakrte Mälatimädhave trtl-
yohkah'. ' iti Sri Kumärüasvämiprasädapräptavägvaibhava-
srlmadumvekäcäryaviracite Mälatimädhave sasthohkah \
3. ' Yadvedädhyayanam tathopanisadäm Sähkhyasya
Yogasya ca
Jnänam latkathanena kirn, na tu tatah kascit guno
nätake.
[Prologue to the Malatlmadhava].
46 INTRODUCTION

same, it is legitimately contended, he ought to

have n a t u r a l l y mentioned M i m ä m s ä in which
U m v e k a is a reputed a u t h o r .

The second objection is not so serious as

the first. T h o u g h the d r a m a t i s t h a s not included
M i m ä m s ä in t h e list of s ä s t r a s on which he is
said to h a v e acquired proficiency, one can well
discern t h e d r a m a t i s t ' s unrivalled Vedic scholar-
ship, allusions to which are a b u n d a n t in t h e
Mahaviracarita and t h e Uttararämacarita. More-
over, t h e reference in t h e verse—'yadvedädhya-
yanam'—implies t h e study of t h e P ü r v a m i m ä m s ä
system, w i t h o u t which t h e s t u d y of the V e d a s
is not complete : c. / . ' Svädhyäyosdhyetavyah '
and ' Athäto dharmajijnasa '. B u t t h e first ob-
jection appears more serious since it is necessary,
according to d r a m a t i c conventions, to mention
all t h e gurus of t h e d r a m a t i s t w h e n a reference
is made to t h e m in t h e prologue. So if Kurna-
rila were ever B h a v a b h ü t i ' s teacher, his n a m e
also should have been mentioned.

Umveka's Works.

U m v e k a is credited w i t h t h e authorship of
two commentaries, one on t h e Slokavarttika of
K u m ä r i l a b h a t t a 1 and t h e o t h e r on t h e Bhävanü-
viveka of Mandanamisra. 2 U m v e k a is also known

1. His commentary on the Slokavärttika is now in

course of publication under the editorship of Pandit
S. K. Ramanatha Sastrigal under the auspices of the
Madras University.
2. It was published under the editorship of Dr. Ganga-
natha Jha as No. 6 of the Prince of Wale's Sarasvati
Bhavana Text Series, Benares.
 PÜRVA MIMÄMSÄ ^ÄSTßA 4?
as a Ntbandhanakära.1 W h e t h e r he h a s w r i t t e n
a n y nibandhana (independent work) o t h e r t h a n
those commentaries is not known.

I t is believed t h a t t h e c o m m e n t a r y on t h e
älokavarttika is a joint production of U m v e k a
and J a y a m i ä r a (the son of K u m ä r i l a B h a t t a ) and
ä s such, it is t h e earliest c o m m e n t a r y on t h e
&lokavarttika. From t h e opening verse of this
^ S m e n t a r y , It can be presumed t h a t he w a s
2
not appreciated in his days, but he was confident
that posterity would recognise him. H i s adapta-
tion of the epic verse in the Codanasütra—

, " Ourorapyavaliptasya käryäkäryamajänatah i

. , Utpatham pratipannasy a parity ago vidhiy ate \\'y

well speaks of his independent outlook and love

of t r u t h on account of which he had t h e bold-
ness to challenge even his Guru.2 In this
respect, U m v e k a h a s done t h e right t h i n g as a
critic and as such commands our admiration.

1. According to Paramesvara II (the commentator on

the Tattvabindu) we have to believe that Cidänanda, in the
introductory portion of his Sfttitattvävirbhäva, has mentioned
Umveka as a great Ntbandhanakära.
2. Rämakrsna's Yuktisnehaprapürani on I. 1. 2:—" atra
UmvekabhaUaih :—' idantu värttikakäriyam düsanam samartha-
nam ca sarvam eva ahinavisirnam' ityädinä 'syenädau na
kasyacit anarthatvam, brahmahatyädaya eva tu anarthatvena
arthapadavyävartyäh; syenädinäntu na säksät, näpyupacärena,
näpi tatphalasyänarthatvam iti tasyänarthatvapratipädanaparam
' syeno vajrah ' ityädi bhäsyam upeksaniyam—
* Gurorapyavaliptasya käryäkäryamajänatah;
Utpatham pratipannasya 'parüyägo vidhiyate ".
ilyantena granthena värtlikam bhäsyanca düsitam, (tadasmäbhih
granthavistarabhayät prakrlänupayogäcca na likhitam)."—N. S.
Edn., p. 30.
48 INTRODUCTION
I t is u n f o r t u n a t e t h a t K u m ä r i l a had not
even one disciple to follow him. H i s disciple
P r a b h ä k a r a , we have seen, founded a new school
called after his own n a m e , which grew up as an
anti-Kumärila school. M a n d a n a m i s r a and Um-
v e k a w e r e both u n c h a r i t a b l e in their criticism
of t h e i r t e a c h e r t h o u g h t h e y continued in t h e
K u m ä r i l a school. So t h e t h r e e disciples of
Kumärila, each independent in his own way,
i n s t i t u t e d in a sense an a n t i - K u m ä r i l a clique.

äälikanätha (C. A. D. 690-760).

M a h ä m a h o p ä d h y ä y a S ä l i k a n ä t h a is tradi-
tionally k n o w n as t h e direct disciple of P r a b h ä -
k a r a b h a t t a . H e quotes verses from M a n d a n a -
m i s r a ' s Vidhiviveka.1 V ä c a s p a t i m i s r a , t h e reputed
a u t h o r of t h e n i n t h c e n t u r y , quotes from Sälika-
n ä t h a ' s Rjuvimalä? So he might well be placed
between A. D. 690 and 760, or even earlier.
A s a devoted disciple of P r a b h ä k a r a , Sälika-
n ä t h a h a s popularised his t e a c h e r ' s views by
1. Sälikanätha quotes in his Prakaranapancikä (p, 178,
Benares Edn.) two verses of Mandana:—'pumsäm nestäbhyw
päyatvät', * Karturistäbhyupäye hi '.—(Vidhiviveka, pp. 243 &
302, Benares Edition).
2. The passage in the Nyäyakanikä (p. 109, Benares
Edition)—4 atraiva Jaratpräbhäkaronnltärtham guroh vacah
sangacchata ityaha navinästünnayanti—' anirüpitaniyoga-
vyäpärasyedam codyamityupakramya idam uktam—' Kartavyatä-
visayo niyogaty na punah Kartavyalämätram' iti. Yägakarta-
vyatdnusthänam visayo niyogasya, tena niyogah sddhyate na tu
yägasyänusthanam jnäpayati." Here the reference to ' navinas '
is, according to Professor MM. S. Kuppuswami Sastrigal,
to äälikanätha whose explanation of this Tikägrantha in his
Bjuvimald (Madras Edition, p. 37) Väcaspati practically
repeats verbatim. See MM. S. Kuppuswami Sastrigal's paper
on * Further Light on the Prabhäkara Problem' (p. 479).
 PÜRVA MIMÄMSÄ älSTRA 49

writing two valuable commentaries—the Dipa-

sikhä on t h e Laghvl and t h e Rjuvimala1 on the
Brhati. Besides t h e s e two commentaries, he h a s
also composed t h e well-known prakarana work,
called Prakaranapancika?

The topics discussed in the Prakaranapancika

are varied and v e r y i m p o r t a n t for the
popularisation of t h e P r ä b h ä k a r a school. The
| $ r k v ' b 6 g i n s ' with the discussion of t h e adhya-
"yünävidhi—whether t h e s t u d y of t h e vedas by
ilieTraivarnikas is enjoined by t h e Vidhi ' sva-
dhyayozdhyetavyah* or w h e t h e r it is to be en-
joined by t h e acaryakaranavidhi. This is a
subject which as an i n t r o d u c t o r y topic of t h e
M i m ä m s ä ä ä s t r a is discussed in most of the
Mimärhsä works, both e l e m e n t a r y and advanced;
and while t h e B h ä t t a s establish t h a t the injunc-
tion * svadhyayozdhyetavyah' enjoins t h e adhya-
yana of t h e V e d a s for t h e sake of arthajnana,
t h e P r ä b h ä k a r a s criticise this view mainly on
t h e ground t h a t t h e svädhyayavidhi h a s no
reference to adhikärin, which t h e y find in t h e
äcäryakaranaväkya. I n the beginning of his work

" Svüdhyäyavidhivükyarthavicare prayatämahe \

Prabhäkaragurordrstyä mimamsarairibha-
siddhaye (I"
Öälikanätha promises to discuss (first) t h e t r u e
import of t h e Svädhyayavidhi^ as his teacher,
P r ä b h ä k a r a , h a s expounded it. T h e first topic
discussed is known as t h e ' S a s t r a m u k h a ' i.e.,
1. Its Tarkapäda with the Brhati and the Bhäsya was
edited by Pandit S. K. Ramanatha Sastrigal under the
auspice3 of the University of Madras (1934).
2. It was published by the Chaukhamba Book Depot
at Benares in 1903.
G
50 INTRODUCTION

introducing t h e student to t h e S ä s t r a . This is

w h a t S ä l i k a n ä t h a h a s said in t h e compound—
Mimämsärambhasiddhaye. The o t h e r important
topics discussed a r e — J ä t i n i r n a y a ; (the concep-
tion of jati—generality); t h e conception of non-
valid cognition (in t h e Nayavithi); t h e conception
of five pramanas (omitting Anupalabdhi); the
Vedaprämänya (in t h e Nirmalanjana section);
t h e conception of Atman (in t h e Tattvaloka sec-
tion) ; and t h e exposition of Väkyärthävagama
(in t h e Väkyärthamätrkä) and o t h e r minor topics
(such as found in sections like t h e Atidesapärä-
yana).

There is a n o t h e r work w r i t t e n by Sälika-

n ä t h a , known as Mimämsäbhäsyaparisista1 which
seems to be, as t h e title shows, a supplement
to t h e Säbarabhäsya.

Mahodadhi and Mahavrata (C. A, D. 700-770).

N e x t to Öälikanätha come Mahodadhi and

M a h a v r a t a in chronological order. The commen-
t a r y Candrika on verse 3 of A c t I I of t h e alle-
gorical d r a m a — t h e Prabodhacandrodaya—
" Naivasravi gurormatam
na viditam Kaumarilam darsanam
Tattvajnanamaho na Salikagiram
Vücaspateh ka katha \
Süktam napi Mahodadhe-
radhigatam Mahavratl neksitä
Süksmä vastuvicäranä nrpasubhih
svasthaih katham sthiyate w "

1. This is in course of publication by the Madras

University.
 PÜRVA MIMÄMSÄ SÄSTBA 51
m a k e s clear t h a t Mahodadhi is a contemporary
of Öälikanätha and a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the P r ä -
b h ä k a r a school. 1 Mahodadhi is credited with t h e
a u t h o r s h i p of a Nibandhana work. M a h ä v r a t a ,
a c o n t e m p o r a r y of Mahodadhi, belonged to t h e
Kumärila school; he is said to have refuted in
his work the views of his rival Mahodadhi.
^h^Nayaviveka of B h a v a n ä t h a b h a t t a of about
filtn century refers to t h e s e two a u t h o r s 2 ; and
{jjjQ I they /• may be well assigned to t h e period
A» D»^700-770. About their works nothing is
known except an e x t r a c t cited by B h a v a n ä t h a
in his Nayaviveka.

Väcaspatimisra (C. A. D. 800-900).

N e x t comes V ä c a s p a t i m i s r a whose date is

fixed by scholars from his references in his
w o r k s . I n his Nyüyasücinibandha he h a s given
t h e date of completion of t h a t work 898 Vikrama
era which is equivalent to A. D. 841-2. 3 H e is
certainly earlier t h a n U d a y a n ä c ä r y a , t h e reputed
a u t h o r of a commentary—Parisuddhi—on V ä c a s -
pati's Nyäyavärttikatätparyatikä. Udayanäcärya's
date can be fixed as t h e middle of t h e 10th
c e n t u r y from t h e Laksanävall wherein he h a s
given in t h e verse ' Tarkämbarähkapramitesvati-
tesu sakantatah' t h e date of composition of t h a t

1. Vide the Journal of Oriental Research, Vol. II,

pp. 62-64. The Candrikä says ' mahodadhirnäma Särikanäma
(Sälikanätha) sahabrahmacärl gurumate nibandhanakartä Bhava-
näthavat Mahävrato näma bhattamatänuvarti Mahodadhi-
pratispardhi'. N. S. Edition, p. 53.
2. Vide I. 1. 7 of the Nayaviveka.
3. See Das Gupta's History of Indian Philosophy,
Vol. I, p. 107; Keith's Indian Logic and Atomism, p. 29.
 52 INTRODUCTION
work, which is calculated by scholars as
A. D. 984 1 Therefore t h e earliest date to which
V ä c a s p a t i MiSra m a y be assigned is between
A. D ; 800 and 900, since h e is l a t e r than
Sri S a n k a r ä c ä r y a .
Scholars are of opinion t h a t V ä c a s p a t i m i s r a
belonged t o a place in Behar or Bengal in view
of t h e fact t h a t he h a s repeatedly referred to
m u s t a r d oil in his works. I t h a s also been
conjectured t h a t in w h a t correspondence to
Ancient Mithila, t h e r e is a city called Bhama
{Bhämatl) and a t a n k of t h e s a m e n a m e .
About his person and a n c e s t r y , nothing is
known except t h e tradition t h a t he is t h e incar-
n a t i o n of Öankara himself in order to popularise
t h e A d v a i t a s y s t e m t h r o u g h his 'Bhämatl1.
T h a t he w a s always devoted to study and w a s
engaged in composing s t a n d a r d w o r k s like t h e
Bhämatl in all S ä s t r a s is noteworthy. I n t h i s
connection a curious story is n a r r a t e d . I t is
said t h a t during his m a r r i a g e he h e a r d some
learned discussions of great pandits which w a s
a custom prevalent in ancient India on such
occasions. H e w a s m u c h a t t r a c t e d by t h e dis-
cussion and consequently cultivated t h a t a r t
all his life-time. The result w a s t h a t he devoted
his life t o t h e t a s k of writing a u t h o r i t a t i v e
t r e a t i s e s on all darsanas. Though he w a s a
Grhastha, his e n t h u s i a s m and zeal for study w a s
so g r e a t t h a t he lived as a practical Brahma-
cärin. H e w a s , however, not slow to realise his
neglect of his d u t y towards his wife and as a
compensation he called his magnum opus, after
h e r name—Bhämatl—in t h e pious hope of h a n d i n g
down h e r n a m e to posterity.
1. See Keith's Indian Logic and Atomism, p. 31.
 PÜRVA MIMÄMSA äÄSTRA 53

About his t e a c h e r s , one T r i v i k r a m a h a s

been mentioned as his N y ä y a teacher. 1 I n his
B h a m a t i one king ' Nrga' is mentioned. 2 Scholars
have not y e t been successful in identifying this
king, t h o u g h an a t t e m p t h a s been made by some
to identify him w i t h a king of Mithila, a prede-
cessor of N ä n y a d e v a who is known to have
ruled his kingdom about 1019 Vikrama era, i.e.,
A. D. 962. This predecessor is also said to have
been n a m e d in' some inscriptions Kiratadhipati
(the king of Kiratas who a r e believed to h a v e
possessed h u m a n vehicles). MM. Dr. G a n g a n a t h a
J h a in t h e S a n s k r i t I n t r o d u c t i o n to his edition
of the Sankhyatattvakaumudl says t h a t 'nrga'
can be i n t e r p r e t e d as ' o n e who h a s a h u m a n
vehicle'. H e also holds t h a t V ä c a s p a t i m i ä r a
was born in Mithila.

Väcaspatimisra a Literary Genius.

V ä c a s p a t i m i s r a is considered to be one of
the g r e a t e s t l i t e r a r y geniuses t h a t India h a s
ever produced. H i s n a m e is ever associated
with t h e honorific title ' sarvatantrasvatantra'
which is a r a r e honour conferred only upon
l i t e r a r y prodigies. H i s l i t e r a r y productions b e a r
ample t e s t i m o n y t o t h e h o n o u r and dignity t h a t
are always associated w i t h t h a t title.

H e is said to be one of t h e s e r a r e scholars

who have w r i t t e n a u t h o r i t a t i v e commentaries on
the s t a n d a r d w o r k s in all t h e six A s t i k a d a r s a n a s —
Orthodox S y s t e m s of I n d i a n philosophy. To his
genius t h e grouping of N y ä y a and V a i s e s i k a
1. Vide his Tätparyatlkä, Benares Edition, p. 133.
* Trivikramagurünmtamärgänugamanonmukhaih;
yathämänam yathävastu vyäkhyätamidamidrsam \
2. Vide Bhämati II. 1. 33 and the last verse.
54 INTRODUCTION

under s e p a r a t e heads did not probably appeal,

because he h a s not w r i t t e n a n y w o r k on t h e
V a i s e s i k a s y s t e m ; he h a s however composed a
v e r y a u t h o r i t a t i v e commentary—Nyüyavärttika-
tatparyatika on U d y o t a k a r a ' s Nyäyavarttika,
which would have sunk into oblivion but for
V ä c a s p a t i m i s r a ' s commentary on it. T h e g r e a t
service t h a t V ä c a s p a t i rendered to t h e Nyaya
s y s t e m is t h e establishment of t h e original nyaya
doctrines as embodied in t h e Nyayasütras as
explained by the N y ä y a b h ä s y a k ä r a and t h e
N y ä y a v ä r t t i k a k ä r a , but adversely criticised by
eminent Buddhist Ä c ä r y a s like D i n n ä g a and
Dharmakirti. I n t h e Nyaya l i t e r a t u r e he is
generally known as the Tätparyatlkäcärya. His
o t h e r w o r k in N y ä y a philosophy is t h e Nyaya-
sücinibandhana, which is regarded as a n appen-
dix to his Tätparyatikä.

H i s contributions to t h e S ä n k h y a and Yoga

s y s t e m s of philosophy consist in t h e two com-
mentaries—(i) t h e Sänkhyatattvakaumudi1 on
I s v a r a k r s n a ' s Sankhyakarikas, and (ii) t h e Yoga-
bhäsyavisäradi on V y ä s a ' s Yogasütrabhäsya?
N e x t to Gaudapäda's Bhäsya on t h e Sänkhya-
karikas, his Sänkhyatattvakaumudi is t h e s t a n d a r d
c o m m e n t a r y ; it even rivals t h e former in offer-
ing clearer and more exhaustive explanations of
t h e S ä n k h y a tenets, which a r e m u c h divergent
from those of other systems.

H i s works in t h e M i m ä m s ä s y s t e m of phi-
losophy are (1) the Nyäyakanikä—a commentary

1. The text and English translation by Dr. G-anganatha

Jha were published at Benares.
2. It was published at Poona (together with the Sütras
and Bhäsya).
 PÜRVA MlMÄMSÄ ^ÄSTRA 55
1
on M a n d a n a m i s r a ' s Vidhiviveka and (2) t h e
Tattvabindu.2 Besides being a good commentary,
the Nyayakanika is a n a u t h o r i t a t i v e t r e a t i s e
discussing m a n y philosophical doctrines such as
t h e satkäryaväda, t h e asatkäryaväda, the khyätis
and t h e ksanabhangaväda. H i s Tattvabindu is a
short t r e a t i s e w h e r e i n t h e a u t h o r in powerful
language elucidates t h r e e main and two sub-
ordinate views, which w e r e c u r r e n t among t h e
scholars in philosophy on t h e important question
—what a c t u a l l y c o n s t i t u t e s t h e karana, the
efficient cause, in verbal cognition—Sabdabodha.
First, he t a k e s up t h e V a i y ä k a r a n a conception
of sphota which as one u l t i m a t e sabda—the
sonant substratum, accounts for all differences
in the sabda perception and as such is t h e
karana of t h e sabdabodha. This he refutes on
t h e lines a l r e a d y e n u n c i a t e d by K u m ä r i l a in his
Sphotaväda section of t h e Slokavärttika. Then
he considers t h e view t h a t t h e last varna or t h e
varnavali in combination w i t h t h e samskaras
produced by t h e experiences of t h e previous
sounds in a word, is t h e cause of t h e sabdabodha.
Even t h i s view is discarded by him. Then he
discusses a t l e n g t h T i k ä k ä r a ' s view of t h e anvi-
täbhidhänaväda from all points of view in its
favour as p u t forth by t h e T i k ä k ä r a (Prabhä-
k a r a ) and his g r e a t disciple, Sälikanätha, and
refutes t h e m . Finally he elaborates his own
solution ' t h e abhihitänvayaväda', according to

1. The Nyayakanika (with the Vidhiviveka) was pub-

lished in the ' Pandit' at Benares.
2. The Tattvabindu was first published in the ' Pandit'.
Another edition of the same (together with the TattvavibM-
vana) now appears in the Annamalai University Sanskrit
Series No. 3. (A. U. S. & 3).
36 INTRODUCTION
which words while u t t e r e d convey t h e padärthas,
which in t h e i r t u r n , convey t h e vakyartha, the
cognition of which is t h e vakyarthajnana, other-
wise known as t h e sabdabodha. I n other words,
t h e words or t h e cognitions of t h e words are
not t h e efficient cause of t h e sabdabodha, b u t
t h e padarthas, which conveyed by t h e padas do
become t h e karana of t h e sabdabodha.
H i s V e d ä n t a w o r k s are—(1) t h e Brahma-
tattvasamiksä1 a c o m m e n t a r y on t h e Brahma-
siddhi of M a n d a n a m i s r a and (2) t h e Bhämati?
an a u t h o r i t a t i v e c o m m e n t a r y on S a n k a r ä c ä r y a ' s
Brahmasütrabhäsya. T h e former like his Nyaya-
kanikä is considered to be a n a u t h o r i t a t i v e
c o m m e n t a r y on t h e Brahmasiddhi.
I t is conceded now by some scholars t h a t
V ä c a s p a t i m i s r a h a s d r a w n inspiration from
M a n d a n a ' s Brahmasiddhi for his V e d ä n t a views,
which a s embodied in his B h ä m a t i , are after-
wards k n o w n a s t h e Bhämatiprasthäna, just as
t h e views of P a d m a p ä d ä c ä r y a (one of the four
disciples of Sri S a n k a r ä c ä r y a and t h e a u t h o r of
t h e famous c o m m e n t a r y Pancapadika, on t h e
Brahmasütrabhäsya of Ö a n k a r ä c ä r y a ) and of
P r a k ä s ä t m a y a t i , t h e a u t h o r of t h e Vivarana,
came to be known as t h e views of t h e V i v a r a n a -
k ä r a or t h e Vivaranaprasthäna. On the indebted-
n e s s of V ä c a s p a t i m i s r a to M a n d a n a m i s r a , t h e

1. The Brahmatattvasamiksä is so far not known as

available even in Mss.
2. Several editions of the Bhämati appeared together
with Bhäsya and commentaries at Bombay, Benares and
Srirangam (Madras). In the Bibliotheca Indica it was published
separately. Its Catussütri with the Bhäsya in English
translation was published by Messrs. Dr. C. Kunhan Raja
and S. Suryanarayana Sastri. (T. P. H.)
 PÜRVA MIMÄMSÄ äÄSTRA 57

editors of the ' Bhämati—CatussütrV at t h e end

of their Introduction observe:—

, t" The thoughtful s t u d e n t of V ä c a s p a t i , may,

perhaps, find little t h a t is original in him. F o r
the v distinctive aspects of his teaching, he owes
much «to M a n d a n a : w h e r e he differs from M a n -
dana he elects to follow S a n k a r a , not perhaps
always wisely. B u t t h e r e have been very few
t o l ^ x c e l or .rival V ä c a s p a t i in t h e v e r s a t i l i t y
ana 1;he extent of his scholarship, his vigour of
||yle^and clarity of p r e s e n t a t i o n . The t h o u g h t s
tnat' so far we have been able to t r a c e to
M a n d ä n a , would have remained little known and
barren but for V a c a s p a t i ' s linking t h e m up w i t h
Öankara's teaching. About M a n d a n a ' s own
Advaita doctrines t h e r e h a s been as m u c h un-
c e r t a i n t y and speculation as about his personality
in spite of scraps of information vouchsafed h e r e
and t h e r e in t h e course of c o m m e n t a r i e s on
other works."

H
 Between V ä c a s p a t i m i s r a and Vedäntadesika,
i.e., A. D. 900-1300, a group of a u t h o r s appear to
have flourished and w r i t t e n m a n y important
works in both the schools of Mimämsä S ä s t r a .
Their dates cannot be definitely fixed in t h e
absence of sufficient l i t e r a r y or other evidences.

Devasvämin (C. A. D. 1000).

Devasvämin, according to the Prapanca-

hrdaya,1 h a s w r i t t e n a B h ä s y a on the 16 chap-
t e r s of t h e P ü r v a M i m ä m s ä S ü t r a s , which is
only a resume of U p a v a r s a ' s V r t t i thereon. He
says in his Sankarsakändabhäsya t h a t he h a s
reproduced B h a v a d ä s a ' s Bhäsya 2 in X I V . 11. 1.
H i s Bhäsya on t h e Dvädasalaksani h a s not y e t
seen t h e light of day. His Sankarsakända-
bhäsya* is probably the only extant standard
work which forms t h e most important source
for r e c o n s t r u c t i n g t h e lost S ü t r a s of the San-
karsakända.
I n t h e h i s t o r y of t h e K a l p a s ü t r a s one Deva-
svämin is known as t h e a u t h o r of the commen-
t a r i e s on t h e A s v a l ä y a n a S r a u t a and G r h y a
S ü t r a s and it is on these t h a t l a t e r commentators
have based their w o r k s . T h a t Devasvämin seems
to h a v e also w r i t t e n a digest of Smrtis w h e r e
he h a s discussed all topics relating to Dharma,

1. Vide the Prapancahrdaya, T. S. S. Edition, p. 39.

2. ' Asmin pdde * apürvät tathä somah ' ityärabhya äpäda-
parisamäpteh Bhävadäsameva bhäsyam' iti. See Bhavadäsa
above p. 20.
3. It is preserved in Ms. in the Madras Government
Oriental and Adyar Mss. Libraries.
 PÜRVA MIMÄMSÄ &ÄSTRA 59
such as äcära, vyavahara, äsauca and prayascitta
is evident from t h e references made by the
S m r t i - C a n d r i k ä k ä r a and o t h e r subsequent a u t h o r s
in t h e field. Mr. P . V. K a n e concludes t h a t
sufficient d a t a are not available to establish t h e
identity of t h e two D e v a s v ä m i n s ;x but we m a y
identify t h e m on t h e ground t h a t the D h a r m a -
s ä s t r a is only s u p p l e m e n t a r y to the M i m ä m s ä
Öästra. If this identity is accepted, his period
m a y be f a i r l y ' fixed t o w a r d s t h e close of the
10th c e n t u r y or t h e first half of t h e 11th cen-
t u r y ; in a n y case he cannot be l a t e r t h a n
A. D. 1050, since he is mentioned in t h e P r a p a n c a -
hrdaya, a work which can well be assigned
to the 11th century, if not earlier.
Sucarita Mum (C. A . D . 1000-1100).
Sucaritamisra, t h e famous c o m m e n t a t o r on
t h e S l o k a v ä r t t i k a of K u m ä r i l a , is another
important figure in this group. S o m a n ä t h a Diksita,
the famous c o m m e n t a t o r on t h e Sästradipikä of
P ä r t h a s ä r a t h i m i s r a , m a k e s us believe 3 t h a t he
w a s earlier t h a n P ä r t h a s ä r a t h i m i s r a , a n o t h e r
famous c o m m e n t a t o r on t h e Slokavärttika. His
work, Käsikä, is referred to by V e n k a t a n ä t h a
alias V e d ä n t a Desikäcärya 3 who flourished during
the last q u a r t e r of t h e 13th c e n t u r y and t h e

1. Vide Mr. P. V. Kane's ' History of Dharmasastra'

p. 281.
2. ' Värltikakärena prämänyavicärapürvakam gunavidhi-
nämadheyacintäpravartanena krstnasyädhyäyasya pramäna-
vyutpädanärthatvam Värttikakäräbhimatam ityavagamät Sucarita-
misramatam Värttikakäräsammatatvät na yuktamüyäha—i tada-
neneti'. ' tadanena ye manyan te te niräkrtäh '.
—Sästradipikä with the Mayükhamälikä, N. S. Edn., p. 53.
3. * tathä ca Käsikä Sesvaramimämsä '—Conjee-
varam Edition, pp. 64-65.
 60 INTRODUCTION

first half of t h e 14th c e n t u r y . Cidänanda, t h e

reputed a u t h o r of t h e N i t i t a t t v ä v i r b h ä v a , refers
to S u c a r i t a m i ä r a ' s K ä s i k ä (as P a r a m e s v a r a I I
states) -,1 and this Cidänanda m a y also be assigned
to t h e close of t h e 13th c e n t u r y . So S u c a r i t a m i ä r a
can be fairly placed between A. D. 1000 and 1100.
H i s c o m m e n t a r y on t h e S l o k a v ä r t t i k a called
Käsikä,2 is very lucid and a u t h o r i t a t i v e . In
certain places, it is more elaborate and polemic
t h a n even P ä r t h a s ä r a t h i m i s r a ' s N y ä y a r a t n ä k a r a .
About his personal history, no information
is so far available. F r o m his n a m e , it m a y be
conjectured t h a t he is a N o r t h e r n e r since all
' Misras' as a group, believed to be n o r t h e r n e r s ,
probably belonging to Mithilä.

Pärthasärathi Misra (C. A. D. 1050-1120).

To t h i s period also belonged P ä r t h a s ä r a t h i

Misra. H i s father is n a m e d Yajnätman, 3 who
w a s also his teacher. The earliest direct refer-
ence to this a u t h o r is found in t h e N y ä y a m ä l ä -
vistara* a n d t h e V i v a r a n a p r a m e y a s a n g r a h a of

1. ' aprayogasya siddhim Kdsikoktdm pariharannaha—''na

ca yaugikdndmiti'.—Nititattvävirbhävavyäkhyä—Yogarüdhi-
väda. Adyar Ms. p. 431.
2. A part of the Käsikä with the Slokavärttika was
published in Trivandrum Sanskrit Series.
3. See his Nyäyaratnamälä, Chaukhamba Edn., p. 212.
4
Bhuvanatrayavikhyätasrlrnadyajfiätmasünunä;
Tata eva srutam präpya visrutah Pärthasürathih.'
4. Vide his introductory remarks in the Nyäyamälä-
vistara: ' tjadyapi sästradipikädau kvacit kvacit sahgraha-
slokozsti, tathdpl na sarvatra vidyate. Yatrdsti tatrdpi visaya-
samsayayorasahgrahdnna slokapdtharndti'enddhikaranamupanya-
situm sakyate. Ato na kvdpi gatdrthatvam sahkaniyarn'.—
(London Edition, 1878, p. 4.)
 PÜRVA MlMAMSA SÄSTRA 61

M ä d h a v ä c ä r y a of t h e 14th century. 1 Parame-

ävara I I m a k e s us u n d e r s t a n d 2 t h a t Cidänanda
of t h e 13th c e n t u r y h a s referred in his Niti-
t a t t v ä v i r b h ä v a to P ä r t h a s ä r a t h i m i s r a and his
wprks.
.Pärthasärathi M i s r a is t h e a u t h o r of a
number of s t a n d a r d w o r k s . H i s two commenta-
ries, ' t h e T a n t r a r a t n a on K u m ä r i l a ' s T u p t i k ä
^ I f c h e N y ä y a r a t n ä k a r a on t h e S l o k a v ä r t t i k a ;
hispSästradipikä, a n independent c o m m e n t a r y on
the)twelve c h a p t e r s of J a i m i n i ' s P ü r v a m i m ä m s ä -
l i i t r a s ; his N y ä y a r a t n a m ä l ä , an independent
t r e a t i s e . discussing i m p o r t a n t topics in t h e
M i m ä m s ä S ä s t r a , — t h e s e bespeak t h e v e r s a t i l i t y
of P ä r t h a s ä r a t h i m i s r a ' s g e n i u s ; and from t h e s e
it will be seen t h a t in t h e field of Indian D a r s a -
n a s , he deserves to be well r a n k e d w i t h a u t h o r s
like V ä c a s p a t i m i s r a and U d a y a n ä c ä r y a .
H i s T a n t r a r a t n a , 3 unlike t h e N y ä y a r a t n ä -
k a r a , is not only a v e r y elaborate c o m m e n t a r y
on t h e T u p t i k ä but also an exhaustive t r e a t i s e
on M i m ä m s ä S ä s t r a w h i c h discusses m a n y topics
connected w i t h t h e adhikarana and pramäna
prasthänas. F r o m t h e references in his own
works, 4 t h i s can be said to be t h e earliest pro-
duction of t h e a u t h o r .
1. Vide the Vivaran aprameyasangraha, Vizianagaram
Sanskrit Series, Benares, No. 7, pp. 107, 124.
2. Vide Bhattasomesvara (below). Foot note.
3. A part of the Tantraratna was, for the first time,
published in the Sarasvatl Bhavana Text Series No. 31,
Benares, under the editorship of MM. Ganganatha Jha, (1930).
4. The Sästradipikä refers to the Tantraratna and
the Nyäyaratnamälä N. S. Edition, pp. 62, 471 ; the
Nyäyaratnäkara (p. 845) refers to the Nyäyaratnamälä
and the Sästradipikä.
62 INTRODUCTION

H i s n e x t important work is t h e Sästradipikä.1

I t is a nibandhana work in t h e adhikarana-
prasthäna based on t h e V ä r t t i k a of K u m ä r i l a .
I t is t h e first among t h e s t a n d a r d w o r k s of t h e
B h ä t t a school which do not a t all explain t h e
m e a n i n g of t h e S ü t r a s c o n s t i t u t i n g t h e various
adhikaranas, but elucidate fully t h e six impor-
t a n t c o n s t i t u e n t s of the adhikarana—Visaya
(subject or proposition under discussion), visaya
(doubtful point), pürvapaksa {prima facie argu-
ment), siddhänta (conclusion), prayojana (the
result or fruit of t h e discussion) and sangati
(relation between one a d h i k a r a n a and another, etc.) 2
I n t h e t r e a t m e n t of the subject-matter this w o r k
h a s a t t a i n e d a unique place and become a model
to l a t e r w r i t e r s like M ä d h a v ä c ä r y a , Khandadeva-
misra. The T a r k a p ä d a of t h i s w o r k 1-1. 1-8 is
a succinct s u m m a r y of K u m ä r i l a ' s S l o k a v ä r t t i k a
and forms a valuable guide for u n d e r s t a n d i n g
t h e siddhäntas of K u m ä r i l a which a r e obscure
in m a n y places. H i s m a n n e r of p r e s e n t a t i o n
especially in dragging t h e opponent into his n e t
is not void of h u m o u r and it is sometimes even
satirical. The whole work is c h a r a c t e r i s e d by
simplicity of language and vigour of style.
Generally he writes one or two v e r s e s to sum-
m a r i s e t h e prima facie and siddhänta views of
t h e a d h i k a r a n a , which he explains and supple-
m e n t s in e a s y prose. N e x t to S a h a r a ' s B h ä s y a
and K u m ä r i l a ' s V ä r t t i k a , t h e Sästradipika is the

1. The Sästradipika was first published at Benares.

A second edition appeared at Bombay (1915) together with
the Yuktisnehaprapurani for the Tarkapäda and the
Mayükhamälikä for the rest. The Tarkapäda with a very
recent commentary called Prakäsa was published at Benares.
2. The sixth is omitted by some authors.
 PÜRVA MIMÄMSA ÖÄSTftA 63
most a u t h o r i t a t i v e work in t h e adhikarana-
prasthäna representing t h e präcina views on t h e
Mimäihsä rules of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . I t contains
refutations of t h e P r ä b h ä k a r a views which h a v e
engendered m a n y impediments in t h e development
of t h e B h ä t t a school.
c.f. ' Nyäyabhäsatamacchanna -
sästratattvärthadarsikäm \
Kumärilamatenäham
Karisye ßästradipikäm' I)

Moreover, this work h a s led to a neglect of t h e

study of t h e M i m ä m s ä S ü t r a s t o g e t h e r with
t h a t of t h e B h ä s y a , t h e V a r t t i k a and o t h e r
commentaries thereon. T h e N i b a n d h a n a works
like t h e Sästradipikü, t h e Nyäyamalävistara and
t h e Bhattadlpikä are however fully studied by
s t u d e n t s of Mimäihsä. I n this respect this
S ä s t r a s t a n d s different from t h e V e d ä n t a S ä s t r a .

H i s N y ä y a r a t n a m ä l ä 1 is a n o t h e r i m p o r t a n t
work which deals with some of t h e fundamental
doctrines of t h e B h ä t t a school. I t is w r i t t e n
on t h e model of S ä l i k a n ä t h a ' s P r a k a r a n a p a n c i k ä
and a s such, is an advanced prakarana work
in t h e Mimäihsä S ä s t r a . I t s importance lies in
t h e fact t h a t in m a n y prakaranas it a n s w e r s t h e
views of P r ä b h ä k a r a as elaborated by Sälika-
n ä t h a in his P r a k a r a n a p a n c i k ä , and m a i n t a i n s
the views of Kumärila. In the prayuktitilaka
section of his work he offers a criticism of t h e
Sastramukha of t h e Prakaranapancikä and re-
establishes t h e Svadhyäyavidhi—" Svadhyayosdhye-
tavyah" as enjoining t h e v e d ä d h y a y a n a for t h e
arthajnäna—knowledge of the contents of the

1. The Nyäyaratnamälä was published at Benares,

64 INTRODUCTION
Vedas. The Väkyärthanirnaya section is p a r t l y
a refutation of the doctrine of t h e anvitäbhi-
d h ä n a v ä d a of t h e P r ä b h ä k a r a s as elucidated by
S ä l i k a n ä t h a in the V ä k y ä r t h a m ä t r k ä of his
P r a k a r a n a p a f i c i k ä and p a r t l y a s t a t e m e n t of t h e
doctrine of abhihitänvayaväda as elucidated by
K u m ä r i l a in his V ä k y ä d h i k a r a n a v ä r t t i k a and
by V ä c a s p a t i m i s r a in his Tattvabindu. In the
Vidhinirnaya section he gives us a complete
exposition of t h e import of t h e V i d h i p r a t y a y a
as accepted by the B h ä t t a s after a refutation
of t h e P r ä b h ä k a r a view. The svatahprämänya-
vada, t h e vyäptiväda and t h e nityakämyaviveka are
other i m p o r t a n t chapters elucidating the B h ä t t a
views. The last section—the anganirnaya—
chiefly deals with the- angängibhäva between two
kriyäs, dravyas, etc. as evidenced by Sruti and
five o t h e r pramanas, and gives a s u m m a r y of
the l a t e r chapters of the P ü r v a m i m ä m s ä s ä s t r a .
The whole work is in his u s u a l simple and
vigorous style not divorced from humour.

T h e l a s t but not the least of his w o r k s is

the Nyäyaratnäkara,1 a c o m m e n t a r y on t h e
Slokavärttika of K u m ä r i l a b h a t t a . I t gives in
m a n y places a lucid s u m m a r y of t h e contents of
the V ä r t t i k a and refers to various Ä c ä r y a s —
B h a v a d ä s a , Diimäga, D h a r m a k i r t i , Bhiksu and
B h a r t r m i t r a — w h o s e views a r e said to have been
refuted by the V ä r t t i k a k ä r a . This work is v e r y
brief and clear and as such, renders great help
in t h e elucidation of the obscure verses of t h e
Slokavärttika.

1. The Nyäyaratnäkara was published at Benares

together with the Slokavärttika.
 PÜRVA MlMÄMSÄ äÄSTRA 65

Srikara and Prakäsa (C. A. D. 1100).

S r i k a r a and P r a k ä s a a r e k n o w n only from

references in B h a v a n ä t h a b h a t t a ' s Nayaviveka.1
Both are t h e followers of P r a b h ä k a r a . Bhava-
n ä t h a mentions S r i k a r a by name, while he refers
to P r a k ä s a by the words ' anye', ' kecit' etc.,
which according to V a r a d a r ä j a refer to P r a k ä s a . 2

1. Nayaviveka, Adyar Ms. Vol. L, p. 264 : Srikaroktam—

Anvitesbhidheye anvayo gamyo näbhidhänivista iti na sakti-
gauravam iti; tanna.' (2) Ibid. Vol. II., p. 458: 'Srikarastu—
Präkaranikasesatvamätre dvaitiyasyäpürvabodhakasästrabheda-
syäpekseti hetutämäha; tanna/ (3) Ibid. Vol. II, p. 508: 'Sri-
karastu—Srutitah somärthakrayänvaye tanmukhena somasesat-
vät ärunyasya padärthäntarbhävät väkyata idam iti sahgati-
mäha; tanna.' (4) Ibid., Vol. II, pp. 529-30:—' Srikarastu—
kärakävasthäbhidhäne käranädibhyo nivartayitum kriyäphala-
bhägitopädhih anujneyah tadä gauravamityäha; tanna.' (5) Ibid.,
Vol. II, p. 544 :—* Srikarastu—Väjapeyena yüpasyopakäryopa-
yogakärakäsambandhät sasthityäha; tanna.'
2. (1) Nayaviveka, Adyar Ms. Vol. I, pp. 240-241:—
* Tadavasthe ca yäge trtiyärthasambhävaneti. Tatraike samä-
dadhati.' Dipikä, Adyar Ms. Vol. II, pp. 42-43:—
4
Asya codyasya Prakäsoktam samädhänamäha—Tatraike iti.'
(2) Nayaviveka, Vol. I, p. 248 .—-* Yattu Kecit samädadhati
—Kriyäkärye ato dharmamätre laksanä yukteti. Tada-
yuktam.' N. V. Dipika, Adyar Ms. Vol. II, pp. 62 and 63 :
4
na ca kriyäkärye mukhyatä linädeh, apürve tu laksaneti kuto
na inparitamiti codyam. Prakäsädayo anyathä samähitavantah.
Tadanubhäsate düsayitum—Yattviti.' (3) Nayaviveka, Vol. I,
p. 290:—' Kecittu vediprasangavaisamyam evamähuh.' Dipikä,
Vol. II, p. 152 :—* Prakäsädayastu anyathä vediprasahgamücuh ;
tadäha—Kecittviti.' (4) Nayaviveka, Vol. I, pp. 348-349 :—'Tatra
Pancikäyäm upämsuyäjädhikaranatrayasyäpavädakatayä sah-
gatiruktä. Tatra Kecittu paurnamäsyäm apavädakatoktä
ityähuh; Tadayuktam.' Nayavivekadipikä, Vol. II, pp. 361-
362 :—* Atra Prakäsena paurnamäsyadhikaranamälacintäyäm lya
evam vidvän' ityevam sajätiyaväkyänäm yat samudäyänuväda-
katvam uktam, tat * upämsuyäjamantarä yajali' üyasya na
I
 66 INTRODUCTION
Though t h e y a r e the exponents of t h e P r ä b h ä -
k a r a t e n e t s , B h a v a n ä t h a severely criticises t h e i r
views.
I n t h e history of t h e D h a r m a s ä s t r a one
S r i k a r a is known 1 as a S m r t i n i b a n d h a n a k ä r a ,
who is held to be anterior to D e v a n a b h a t t a , t h e
a u t h o r of t h e Smrticandrikä and to Vijnänesvara,
t h e a u t h o r of t h e M i t ä k s a r ä , t h e famous com-
m e n t a r y on the Y ä j n a v a l k y a s m r t i . H e is placed
by Mr. P . V. K a n e between A. D. 800 and 1050.
W h e t h e r t h e Mlmärhsaka S r i k a r a is identical
w i t h t h e S m r t i k ä r a S r i k a r a is not known. Since
our S r i k a r a is known to B h a v a n ä t h a b h a t t a , he
m a y well be assigned to a period not l a t e r t h a n
A. D, 1100. P r a k ä s a presupposed by B h a v a n ä t h a
m a y have belonged to the period, A. D. 1000-1100.
(See below). B u t P . V. K a n e assigns a Smrti
work Prakäsa2 mentioned by m a n y Smrtiniban-
d h a n a k ä r a s to t h e same period, w i t h o u t mention-
ing t h e a u t h o r ' s name. Since t h e a u t h o r and
t h e w o r k m a y be known by t h e same name,
it is not unlikely that the Mimämsaka Prakäsa
was identical with the author of the work,
Prakäsa.
Bhavanäthabhatta (C. A. D. 1050-1150).
B h a v a n ä t h a b h a t t a , t h e a u t h o r of the N a y a -
viveka, is t h e g r e a t champion of t h e P r ä b h ä k a r a
sambhavatityasya sädhyam. Tathä äghärägnihotranaye agni-
hoträghäraväkyayoh. atah upämsuyäjädhikaranatrayasya paur-
namäsyapavädakatayä sahgatih pancikoktetyuktam. Tadäha—
Tatra Kecidili. Tadayuktamiti, Paurnamäsyapavädakatve
petikäsahgatimalram syät, nädhyäyasahgatih. Näyam Pancikä-
granthärtha ityarthah.'
1. Vide Mr. P. V. Kane's History of Dharma !§ästra,
pp. 266-8.
fc Vide ibid., pp. 306-308.
 PÜRVA MIMÄMSA &ÄSTRA 67

school in t h e period u n d e r survey. H e occupies

a high place, n e x t only to t h a t of S ä l i k a n ä t h a .
H i s w o r k called t h e N a y a v i v e k a , is, as he says,
a r u n n i n g c o m m e n t a r y on the 12 c h a p t e r s of
t h e P ü r v a m l m ä m s ä s ä s t r a , following t h e Paiicikä
of Sälikanätha, 1 (L e.) t h e two commentaries,
Bjuvimala and Dipasikhä and t h e Prakarana-
pancikä. H e says in t h e introductory v e r s e s 2
t h a t his aim is n e i t h e r to indulge in l i t e r a r y
flourishes nor to a n s w e r adverse criticism, but
only to expound the subject fully and clearly.

The N a y a v i v e k a , t h e only e x t a n t w o r k of his,

can be considered as a s t a n d a r d c o m m e n t a r y on
the P ü r v a m i m ä m s ä s ü t r a s in t h e P r ä b h ä k a r a
school and occupies t h e same position t h a t
P ä r t h a s ä r a t h i m i s r a ' s S ä s t r a d i p i k ä does in t h e
K u m ä r i l a school. I t elucidates t h e a d h i k a r a n a s
in detail and t h e more i m p o r t a n t of t h e doctrines
regarding p r a m ä n a s and p r a m e y a s , and generally
refutes t h e doctrines of t h e B h ä t t a school. It
refers to t h e S ä b a r a b h ä s y a , K u m ä r i l a and P r a -
b h ä k a r a and t h e i r w o r k s , Umveka, 3 S ä l i k a n ä t h a
and his works, Mahodadhi, M a h ä v r a t a , V ä c a s -

1. ' Mahatä pranidhänena sakyameva vidhäntaram;

Lokänumitamityeva Sällkoktam prasddhyate '.
(Kayaviveka, Adyar Ms. Vol. I, p. I, verse 3.)
4
Pancikädvayatanträrthasammohavinivrttaye;
Udgrähinl Bhavenaisä vaksyate sesalaksanä''.
(Ibid. III-l. 1. Vol.* II, p. 455).
2. * Vihäya vistaram sabdasoundaryaparanindane;
Vyajyate Bhavanäthena tattvam Nayavivekatah.
Granthesmin vismayo bhävl na vä kirn tasya duskaram;
Yo dadäti sarvasvam sahasotpattisäsanam.'
{Ibid. 1-1. 1. verses 2 and 4).
3. See the Abhikramanädhikarana, III. 1.
 68 INTRODUCTION

patimisra, 1 S r i k a r a and P r a k ä ä a . The l a t e s t

limit of his date m a y be t h e l a t t e r p a r t of t h e
12th c e n t u r y . Possibly he is e a r l i e r t h a n Cidä-
n a n d a P a n d i t a also, for he is m a d e by his
commentator P a r a m e s v a r a I I to presuppose Bha-
v a n ä t h a ' s Nayaviveka. I n a n y case h e is earlier
t h a n V e d ä n t a Desika who in his S e s v a r a m l m ä i h s ä
quotes B h a v a n ä t h a and refutes his views.

Bhavadevabhatta (C. A. D. 1100).

To t h e period A. D. 1100-1250 m a y be assigned

t h e t h r e e great c o m m e n t a t o r s on K u m ä r i l a ' s
Tantravärttika, Bhavadevabhatta, Paritosamisra
and B h a t t a Somesvara. Of t h e s e , t h e earliest
is Bhavadevabhatta. H i s d a t e is given by
Mr. P . V . K a n e as A. D. 1100. H i s w o r k on
M i m ä m s ä is known as t h e Tautätitamatatilakä2—
a c o m m e n t a r y on t h e T a n t r a v ä r t t i k a of K u m ä r i l a .
The colophon 3 of this w o r k gives h i m a n o t h e r
n a m e ; Bälavalabhibhujanga'.

As- Mr. P . V. K a n e says in h i s ' H i s t o r y of

D h a r m a s ä s t r a '4, the earliest reference to Bhava-
d e v a b h a t t a in a l i t e r a r y w o r k is found in
H e m ä d r i ' s Caturvargacintamani (of t h e 14th cen-
tury). H e also refers to an inscription found in
t h e temple of A n a n t a v ä s u d e v a a t B h u v a n e s v a r a
1. See the Vakyädhikarana, I. 1. 7, Adyar Ms., pp.
270-272.
2. From this title we have to understand that Kumä-
rila—and not Prabhäkara—is known as ' tutdta' and his
school as ' tautdtitamata \ Vide Vidyäranya's Sankaradig-
vijaya, Canto X, Verse 119.
3. * Iti Sri Bälavalabhibhujahgäpamnämno BhaHasrl-
Bhavadevasya krtau tautätüamatatüake dvitiyasyädhyäyasya
prathamah pädah.'
4. P. 304.
 PÜRVA MlMÄMSÄ &ÄSTRA 69

in the P u r i District of Orissa, eulogising Bhava-

d e v a b h a t t a w i t h t h e epithet ' Bälavalabhibhujanga.1
F r o m t h a t inscription (according to Mr. P . V. Kane),
Bhavadeva is known to have belonged to t h e
Sävarnagotra of K a u t h u m i school of Sämaveda.
His family originally belonged to a village—
Siddhala grama in R ä d h ä (west of t h e Hugli
and south of t h e Ganges). Bhavadeva, one of
t h e remote a n c e s t o r s of our Bhavadeva, got the
gift of an a g r a h a r a of H a s t i n l b h a t t a from t h e
G a u d a King. T h e genealogy of our a u t h o r is
given t h u s :

B h a v a d e v a (Sävarnagotra)

R a t h a n g a (son)
i
Atyanga
B u d h (alias Spurita)

Ädideva (minister of peace and w a r

| of t h e king of Vaiiga)
Govardhana-m. Sängokä (daughter of
| a v a n d h y a g h a t i y a brahmin)
B h a v a d e v a (the a u t h o r of t h e Taut a-
titamatatilaka).

Our B h a v a d e v a w a s a protege and adviser

of K i n g H a r i v a r m a d e v a who reigned long in
prosperity. Besides being a n a u t h o r of w o r k s
on astrology, s m r t i and m i m ä m s ä , he is described
as t h e builder of a reservoir in R ä d h ä , and of
temples of N ä r ä y a n a , A n a n t a and N r s i m h a .
T h e title Bälavalabhibhujanga is explained by

4
1. Yasya khalu Bälavalabhibhujanga iti näma nädrtam
kena;
Mmämsayäpi sa pulakamäkarnitavarnitodgitam.'
(Epigraphica Indica, Vol. VI, pp. 203-5, verse 24).
70 INTRODUCTION
Mr. P . V. K a n e w i t h reference to t h e fact t h a t
B h a v a d e v a probably made some innovation in
the s t r u c t u r e of t h e roofs or balconies of t h e
temples he built and he w a s therefore styled
' a lover of little valabhls.'
Dr. Keilhorn conjectures from its c h a r a c t e r
t h a t this inscription belongs to t h e 12th c e n t u r y .
Mr. P . V. Kane 1 supports this date of Bhavadeva
(i.e.) C. A. D. 1100, by^internal evidences. He
cites a passage from the V i r a m i t r o d a y a which
m a k e s t h e P r a d i p a anticipate Bhavadeva. The
P r a d i p a w a s composed before A. D. 1150. So
B h a v a d e v a should have belonged to t h e closing
decade of t h e 11th c e n t u r y and t h e first decade
of t h e 12th c e n t u r y .
Bhavadeva 1 s other w o r k s are t h e Vyavahara-
tilaka, t h e Vyavahäratantra, the Karmanusthana-
paddhati and t h e Prayascittanirüpana.

Paritosamisra (C. A. D. 1200).

P a r i t o s a m i s r a , probably a n a t i v e of Bengal,
h a s composed t h e c o m m e n t a r y . on t h e T a n t r a -
v ä r t t i k a , n a m e d Ajita? I t is brief and more
helpful t h a n N y ä y a s u d h ä in u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e
V a r t t i k a w i t h its involved style. The earliest
reference to t h e work and its c o m m e n t a r y
Vijayä by A n a n t a n ä r ä y a n a , is found in P a r a -
mesvara Ill's Süträrthasangraha.3 The Ajita
is otherwise k n o w n as Tantratikanibandhana.
1. See History of Dharmasästra, p, 305.
2. This is preserved in the Madras Govt. Oriental
Mss. Library and in the Adyar Theosophical Mss. Library.
3. ' Jaimini-• Sahara-'KuTnärila-Sucarita-Paritosa-Pärtlia-
särathayah;
Umveka-Vijayahärau Mandana-Väcaspati ca vija-
yantäm.'
 PÜRVA MlMÄMSÄ SÄSTRA 71

Bhatta Somesvara (C. A. D. 1200).

B h a t t a S o m e s v a r a is t h e a u t h o r of t h e
N y ä y a s u d h ä or R ä n a k a , t h e only printed com-
m e n t a r y on t h e T a n t r a v ä r t t i k a . The earliest
reference to h i m and to his work is probably
made, according to P a r a m e s v a r a I I , t h e com-
m e n t a t o r on t h e N i t i t a t t v ä v i r b h ä v a , by Cidä-
nanda 1 in his work. L a t e r a u t h o r s like Soma-
n ä t h a D i k s i t a and K h a n d a d e v a m i s r a profusely
quote him in t h e i r w o r k s .

Some 2 seem to h a v e opined t h a t he is t h e

son of V i d y ä r a n y a M ä d h a v a of the 14th c e n t u r y
on t h e ground t h a t he h a s mentioned in a
colophon one M ä d h a v ä r y a as his father. Evi-
dently he is a different person. The only thing
t h a t suggests a l a t e r d a t e for him is his style
which is v e r y coarse and resembles t h a t of
a much later writer. B u t the reference by

1. ' Nyäyasudhäyämapi na prayoganirupyatvädatra nirä-

krtä evälaukikl preranä iti pak§assamarthüah. Evamanyai-
rapi* Ajüäyäm tu istasädhanatapaksam prathamam vyäkhyäya
pascät abhidhaivetyayamapi paksassamarthitah. Pärthasärathi-
misrena tu obhidhäpaksam ciramanusrtya pascädistasädhanatä-
paksozhgikrto Nyäyaratnamäläyäm. Sästradipikäyäntu svarga-
kämädhikarane abhidhäpaksa evähgtkrtah. Evanca satt sabda-
tadvyäpäravidhitvaparityäge ko hetuh, ata äha—Sabdatadvyä-
pärayoriti.'—(Nititattvävirbhävavyäkhyä, Adyar Ms., p. 237).
From this remark of Paramesvara II, it may be said
that Cidänanda, the author of the Nititattvävirbhäva, has
presupposed the Nyäyasudhä of Bhattasomesvara, the Ajitä
of Paritosamisra, and Pärthasärathimisra's Nyäyaratnamälä
and Sästradipikä.
2. Vide D. T. Tatacarya's Mimämsäbhyudaya, p. 50
and Appendix II, p. 22.
i& INTRODUCTION

Cidänanda suggests t h e period to which we

h a v e assigned him. 1

H i s chief work is the Nyäyasudhä,2 Besides

being an elaborate commentary, it is a critical
Nibandhana work in the M i m ä m s ä S ä s t r a which
l a t e r a u t h o r s like K h a n d a d e v a m i s r a , S o m a n ä t h a
D i k s i t a a n d S a m b h u b h a t t a , have quoted now and
t h e n and sometimes adversely criticised. A n o t h e r
work of his, t h e Tantrasara, is mentioned by
himself in t h e N y ä y a s u d h ä 3 and K h a n d a d e v a and
V ä s u d e v a D i k s i t a in their works, 4 b u t is not y e t
available.

Murarimisra (C. A.D. 1150-1220).

To t h e close of t h e 12th c e n t u r y and to t h e

beginning of t h e 13th c e n t u r y belonged M u r ä r i
Misra, who is supposed to have founded a new
school in t h e M i m ä m s ä S ä s t r a cf. 4 Murareh

1. The supposition that Bhatta Somesvara, the author

of the Nyäyasudhä, is identical with Somesvara Bhatta,
son of Vämana Bhatta and grandson of Mahädevabhatta
of Maura family, (who was mentioned in the Gadag and
other inscriptions as the dänädhikärin under the Cälükya
King Vikramäditya VI. Vide Epigraphica Indica, Vol. XV.
pp. 348-363) cannot be accepted, in view of the fact that our
author was (as the colophon in the Nyäyasudhä states) the
son of Mädhava Bhatta. Ifc is also known from the same
inscription that Somesvara (son of Vämana Bhatta) founded
an endowment for the popularisation of the Präbhäkara
school, and as such, he was a staunch Präbhäkara, while
our author, the Commentator on the Tantravärttika, was
a close follower of the Bhätta school.
2. The Nyäyasudhä was published at Benares.
3. Vide Nyäyasudhä, p. 1285.
4. Vide Bhättadipikä, IV. 3. 9 and Adhvaramimämsä-
kutühaiavrtti, I. 2. 4. Vani Vilas Edition, p. 46.
 PÜRVA MIMÄMSÄ ÖÄSTBA 73
trtiyah panthäh.' H i s Tripädinitinayana1 is an
exposition of his views on t h e basis of t h e
a d h i k a r a n a s , probably in t h e second, third and
fourth p ä d a s of t h e first a d h y ä y a of t h e M i m ä m s ä
S ü t r a s . I t is not exactly known w h e t h e r he
h a s commented on the whole of the Dvädasa-
J a k s a n i . Most probably he might have done s o ;
and his c o m m e n t a r y on t h e a d h i k a r a n a X I - 1 . P ,
lends support t o this v i e w ; or it is quite possi-
ble t h a t he chose to comment on certain adhi-
k a r a n a s only which he deemed n e c e s s a r y and
important.
F r o m a comparative s t u d y of t h e N i t i n a y a n a
and t h e N a y a v i v e k a of B h a v a n ä t h a b h a t t a , it can
be observed 3 t h a t M u r ä r i m i ä r a h a s in his work,
N i t i n a y a n a , refuted B h a v a n ä t h a ' s views as em-
bodied in his N a y a v i v e k a . Gangesopädhyäya,
t h e a u t h o r of t h e T a t t v a c i n t ä m a n i , has, accord-
ing to his c o m m e n t a t o r s , presupposed M u r ä r i -
m i s r a (who is generally known among t h e m as
4
Misra') 4 Guru' and ' Bhatta' ( P r a b h ä k a r a and
Kumärila), who r e p r e s e n t t h e t h r e e schools of
M i m ä m s ä S ä s t r a . G a n g e s o p ä d h y ä y a is assigned
by scholars to t h e first half of t h e 13th c e n t u r y ;4
and M u r ä r i m i s r a m i g h t h a v e therefore flourished
after B h a v a n ä t h a B h a t t a and before Gangeso-
p ä d h y ä y a , i.e., t o w a r d s t h e close of the twelfth
century.
1. The Arthavädädhikarana (I. 2. 1) and the Manträ-
dhikarana (I. 2. 4) were published in the J. 0. R. Madras,
Vol. II, pp. 270-278 (1928) and Vol. Y, Supplement pp. 1-5.
2. Vide ' Annals of Bhandarkar Research Institute \
Yol. X. (1930) pp. 238-45.
3. Vide J. O. R. Madras, Yols. II and Y (1928 & 1931).
4. See MM. Kuppuswami Sastri's * A Primer of Indian
Logic ', Introduction, p. XLVIII, and Kävyatlrtha Umesha
Misra's Note on * Ekädasädyädhikarana of Muräri Misra',
A- B. R. L, Yol. X, p. 236.
K
 U INTRODUCTION
I t is only after t h e discovery of t h e Tripädl-
m t i n a y a n a t h a t scholars have been able to
u n d e r s t a n d t h e t r u t h of t h e observation, ' M u r a -
reh trtiyah panthah\ t h a t M u r ä r i m i s r a is t h e
founder of a t h i r d school of t h e M i m ä m s ä
Sästra. Till t h e n t h e y held t h a t t h e above
observation applied to t h e a u t h o r of t h e Anargha-
raghava who differed considerably from t h e two
well-known d r a m a t i s t s , Kälidäsa and B h a v a b h ü t i
in d r a m a t i c technique.

T h e identity between M u r ä r i m i s r a (the Mi-

m ä m s a k a ) and M u r ä r i (the d r a m a t i s t ) cannot be
made, since t h e d r a m a t i s t belonged to a n earlier
period, i.e., t h e early p a r t of t h e 9th century. 1

Nandisvara (C. A. D. 1220-1300).

After B h a v a n ä t h a comes N a n d i ä v a r a who

h a s w r i t t e n a v e r y good P r a k a r a n a work, called
P r a b h ä k a r a v i j a y a , in t h e P r ä b h ä k a r a school.
H e s a y s in one of t h e i n t r o d u c t o r y verses—
4
Nathadvayattasäresmin §ästre mama parisramah \
Suktisramäyate sindhau harinoddhrtakaustubhe (f

t h a t t h e essential doctrines of P r ä b h ä k a r a h a v e
already been fully elucidated by two N ä t h a s —
S ä l i k a n ä t h a and B h a v a n ä t h a and t h a t his further
a t t e m p t h a s not m u c h of originality in it.
The upper limit of his period is about A. D. 1200.
H e is said to have been criticised by S u d a r s a n ä -
cärya, 2 t h e famous c o m m e n t a t o r on t h e Sri-
b h ä s y a of R ä m ä n u j ä c ä r y a and a contemporary
1. See Dr. A. B. Keith's Sanskrit Drama, p. 225.
2. See the Sanskrit Introduction to the Prabhäkara-
vijaya, p. 16, Samskrta Sähitya Pari?at Series, No. 11, (1926)
Calcutta.
 PÜRYA MlMÄMSÄ ÖÄSTRA 75
of V e d ä n t a Desika. So N a n d i s v a r a m a y fairly
be placed between A. D. 1200 and 1300. H e h a s
referred to and criticised P ä r t h a s ä r a t h i m i ä r a ' s
Nyäyaratnamälä. H i s work, Prabhakaravijaya,
deals w i t h 21 or more topics 1 most of which
bear on epistemology.

Cidänanda Pandita (C. A.D. 1200-1300).

Cidänanda P a n d i t a is certainly l a t e r t h a n
P ä r t h a s ä r a t h i m i s r a , B h a t t a Somesvara and Bha-
v a n ä t h a B h a t t a ; and so he probably flourished
in t h e 13th c e n t u r y . H e might be a Kerallya.
H i s only work so far k n o w n is the Nititattva-
virbhava? which h a s been commented by a host
of w r i t e r s of w h o m t h e earliest might be the
celebrated commentator, R s i p u t r a P a r a m e ä v a r a I I .
The very fact t h a t P a r a m e ä v a r a I I who h a s
commented on t h e s t a n d a r d w o r k s of two earlier
eminent a u t h o r s — M a n d a n a m i ä r a and Väcaspati-
mi§ra—has commented on Cidänanda's bespeaks
t h e g r e a t n e s s of both Cidänanda and his

1. The 21 topics are:—

1. Prayuktinirnayah 11. Paramänusamarthanam
2. Vaktrjnänänumänatä 12. Käryavyutpattisamar-
thanam
3. Akhyätisamarthanam 13. Arthäpattyanumäna-
vaisamyam
4. Pramänalak^anam 14. Abhävapramänaniräsah
5. Pratyaksalaksanam 15. Sattäsämänyaniräsah
6. Sariivitsvaprakäsatä 16. Vedäpauruseyatvam
7. Manassadbhäva- 17. Svarüpabhedasamartha-
tadanutvaprakaranam nam
8. Jnänänumeyatäniräsah 18. Isvaränumänikatäniräsah
9. Kriyänumeyatä 19. Ätmanah särirädibhedah
10. Atmdriyasakti- 20. Vyäptisamarthanam
samarthanam 21. Bhedäbhedaniräsah
2. This work is preserved in the Madras Government
Oriental and Adyar Mss. Libraries.
76 INTRODUCTION

Nititattvävirbhäva. A s he s a y s a t t h e beginning
of his work—
' Acäryakrtiprakrteh avirbhävaya nltitattvanam \
Ayamiha yatnah kriyate Santah pusyantu san-
tosam' II
he h a s completely based his composition on
A c ä r y a K u m ä r i l a ' s S l o k a v ä r t t i k a . H i s work can
be well said to be a unique production in t h a t
it contains on t h e whole 44 vädas, 1 topics for
discussion. A l t h o u g h these h a v e been already
elucidated in t h e Slokavärttika, this work throws
m u c h clearer light on those obscure and difficult
doctrines.

1. The 44 vädas into which the Nititattvävirbhäva is

divided are:—
1. Adhyayanavädah 23. Bhedavädah
2. Käryavädah 24. Advaitavädah
3. Svatahprämänyavädah 25. Anirvacaniyavädah
4. Kälapratyaksatävädah 26. Avidyävädah
5» Anyathäkhyätivädah 27. Mithyätvavädah
6. Säksätpratitiniräsavädah 28. Vijnänavädah
7. Kalpanäpodhaniräsavädah 29. Svayamprakäsavädah
8. Yogarüdhivädah 30. Jnänapratyaksaniräsa-
9. Indriyavädah 31. Präkatyavädah [vädah
10. Manovaibhavavädah 32. Yogipratyaksaniräsavädah
11. Ajasamyogavädah 33. Anumänapariks.ävädah
12. Pavanäkäsapratyak§atä- 34. Öabdaparlksävädah
vädah 35. Upamänaparlksävädah
13. Karmapratyaksatävädah 36. Arthäpattipanksävädah
14. Vise?aniräkaranavädah 37. Abhävapariksävädah
15. Samaväyaniräsavädah 38. Sphotavädah
16. Tädätmyavädah 39. Isvaravädah
17. Avayavavivädah 40. Sabdanityatvavädah
18. Paramänuvädah 41. Ksanikavädah
19. Tamovädah 42. Ätmavädah
20. Jätinin?ayavädah 43. Anvitäbhidhänaniräsa-
21. Mahäsämänyavädah vädah
22. Aväntarajätivädah 44. Vedäpauruseyatvavädah
 PÜRVA MIMÄMSÄ SÄSTRA 77

Gangädharamisra (C. A.D. 1230-1300).

To t h e middle of t h e 13th c e n t u r y belonged

Mahämahopädhyäya Gangadharamisra. As t h e
introductory verse in his c o m m e n t a r y on t h e
T a n t r a v ä r t t i k a shows, he belonged to t h e Säl-
maligrama and w a s t h e son of B h a t t a Somesvara
of the same g r a m a ;

" c./. ' Salmaligrämasambhüta-

Bhättasomesvarätmajah \
Gangadharoztigambhiram
vyavrnot Tantravärttikam' II

The name of t h e c o m m e n t a r y is Nyäyapäräyana1,

otherwise known as t h e Tantravärttikavivarana.

Vedänta Desika (C. A. D. 1269-1369).

Between t h e l a t t e r half of t h e 13th c e n t u r y

and the former half of t h e 14th c e n t u r y flourished
V e d ä n t a D e s i k a 3 alias V e n k a t a n ä t h a , t h e g r e a t
apostle of V i s i s t ä d v a i t a philosophy after R ä m ä -
nujäcärya. H e is t h e a u t h o r of more t h a n 120
works in t h e S y s t e m of V i s i s t ä d v a i t a philosophy
and in t h e epic, devotional and o t h e r b r a n c h e s
of l i t e r a t u r e and won t h e title 4 Kavitarkika-
simha\ H e h a s produced two works—the
Mimämsäpädukä in verse on t h e T a r k a p ä d a and
t h e Sesvaramlmämsä in prose on t h e r e s t of t h e

1. This work is preserved in the Madras Government

Mss. Libraries.
2. For Vedänta Desika's personal history, date and
works, see A. V. Gopalachari's Introduction to the Yäda-
väbhyudaya on 'the Life of Vedänta Desika' and * Vedänta
Desika as a Poet' (Vani Vilas Edn., Vois. I & III), and
V. Rangachari's ' the Life and Times of Vedänta Desika '
(J. B. B. R A. S. Vol. XXIV, 1917).
78 INTRODUCTION

Pürvamimärhsäsästra.1 A critic of very violent

temper, he h a s elucidated in t h e s e w o r k s t h e
siddhäntas of t h e B h ä t t a s and t h e P r ä b h ä k a r a s
in m a n y a d h i k a r a n a s , now and t h e n criticising
both. N a t u r a l l y , therefore, his explanations of
t h e s ü t r a s are not in m a n y i n s t a n c e s acceptable
to an orthodox student of Mimärhsä, in view of
t h e fact t h a t t h e y are deviations from t h e
siddhäntas of t h e two g r e a t Ä c ä r y a s of t h e
Mimärhsä Sästra. His aim seems to be not to
explain t h e siddhäntas of t h e Mimärhsä S ä s t r a
but to attempt a synthesis as far as possible,
of t h e doctrines of the two s y s t e m s of Mimämsä,
P ü r v a and U t t a r a . His work is rich in refer-
ences to m a n y A c ä r y a s and works, such as
V r t t i k ä r a Upavarsa, Bodhäyana, Sabarasvämin,
Kumärila, P r a b h ä k a r a , D r a m i d ä c ä r y a , Y ä m u n ä -
cärya, Öri Rämänuja, B h a v a n ä t h a b h a t t a , t h e
Käsikä, t h e Dipa and the Tattvaratnäkara.
His Personality and Date.
Born a t Tüppil, a village n e a r Conjeevaram
in 1269 A. D., Desika was the son of
A n a n t a s ü r i Somayäjin, an orthodox Vaisnavite
and a descendant of one of t h e seventy four
simhäsanädhipatis. His m o t h e r w a s Totarämbä,
t h e sister of Ä t r e y a Rämänuja, otherwise known
as R ä m ä n u j a Appullär, t h e successor of V a r a d ä -
c ä r y a as t h e Ubhayasimhasanädhipati. Tradition
says t h a t his p a r e n t s had no children for y e a r s ,
and while t h e y were at Tirupati on a pilgrimage,
t h e y saw God V e n k a t e s v a r a in a dream and got
a bell of t h e temple from H i m to be swallowed
by Totarämbä, which resulted in t h e birth of an
illustrious son to them. This story a t t r i b u t e s
1. The Mimämsäpädukä and a part of Sesvaramlmämsä
were published at Conjeevaram (1902).
 PÜRVA MIMÄMSÄ &ASTRA ?9

some divine origin to V e d ä n t a Desika. A s Prof.

V. R a n g a c h a r i , M.A., h a s observed, 1 " he (Vedänta
Desika) w a s t h r o u g h o u t his life a m a n of g r e a t
penance and p r a y e r and an extraordinarily p r e -
cocious genius. H e w a s a Hindu in his crusades
against t h e Mahomedan, a V a i s n a v a as a g a i n s t
Saivite (or Advaitin) and a Sanskrit-Tamilist a s
against practically exclusive Tamilist in t h e holy
studies More t h a n 120 works, he h a s left;
most of these are now extant, and prove how
thorough his teachings were, how fertile his
intellect w a s and how exalted his views of life
and conduct were. Humble and modest in his
deportment, profoundly learned, saintly in his
habits, he w a s t h e embodiment of all t h a t w a s
good and great, of t h e divinity in m a n and m a n ' s
devotion to t h e divinity." His g r e a t contempt
for riches or temporal supremacy is evident in
his blunt refusal of V i d y ä r a n y a ' s m a n y invita-
tions to t h e Court of t h e t h e n King of Vijaya-
n a g a r including an invitation to a discussion
with t h e chief Madhva scholar—Aksobhyamuni,
though he complied w i t h V i d y ä r a n y a ' s l a t t e r
request by sending him his judgment in w r i t i n g
in very ambiguous language. As a staunch
V a i s n a v a propagandist, he h a s considered it even
sinful to speak the advaita view of identifying
man—individual soul—with God—the Supreme soul.
I n most of his writings he h a s expressed h i s
faith t h a t t h e relation between God and m a n is
t h a t between a m a s t e r and a s e r v a n t and t h u s
he h a s inculcated his religious fervour a n d
devotion to god and p r a y e r s to H i m by m a n ,
besides imparting his religious fervour to his
readers.

1. J. B. B. R. A. S., Vol. XXIV, pp. 278-9.

80 INTRODUCTION

Madhaväcarya (C. A. D. 1297-1386).

After V e d ä n t a DeSika comes his younger

contemporary M a d h a v ä c a r y a . H i s time h a s been
fixed by scholars to be A. D. 1297-1386, and this
is in agreement with t h e tradition t h a t he lived
for 90 y e a r s . F r o m his own works, like the
Paräsaramädhaviya and from an inscription of
t h e Aruläla-perumäl temple at Conjeevaram, 1 it
is known t h a t M ä d h a v a w a s a b r a h m i n of Bha-
radvajagotra, of Bodhäyana s ü t r a and a student
of Yajuäsäkhä, t h a t M ä y a n a w a s his father and
Srimati, his mother and t h a t he had two b r o t h e r s
— S ä y a n a and B h o g a n ä t h a . c./.—

tSrimati janani yasya Suklrtih Mayanah pita \

Sayano Bhoganäthasca Manobuddhisahodarau u
Yasya Bhaudhayanam sütram
säkhä yasya ca Yäjusi \
Bhäradväjakulam yasya
sarvajnah sa hi Mädhavah \\

I t is also known t h a t he h a d a sister Singale

whose son L a k s m a n a or L a k s m i d h a r a w a s a
minister of t h e V i j a y a n a g a r king, Devaräja I.2
M a d h a v ä c a r y a is said to have had t h r e e gurus—
V i d y ä t i r t h a , B h ä r a t i - t i r t h a and S r i k a n t h a of
whom V i d y ä t i r t h a w a s considered by M ä d h a v a
(and Säyana) as an i n c a r n a t i o n of M a h e s v a r a .
Inscriptional evidences also show t h a t Vidyä-
t i r t h a alias V i d y ä s a n k a r a w a s highly esteemed
both a s t h e temporal and spiritual guide not
only of M ä d h a v a but also of B u k k a I, t h e famous

1. See Epigraphica Indica, Vol. Ill, p. 118.

2. See the Annual Report of Arch. Survey of India
for 1907-8, p, 245,
 PÜRVA MIMÄMSÄ äÄSTRA 81

king of Vijayanagar, whom M ä d h a v a eulogises

in his N y ä y a m ä l ä v i s t a r a and other works. 1

Mädhava-Vidyäranya Identity.

I t is still a m a t t e r of controversy 2 w h e t h e r
M ä d h a v ä c ä r y a is identical with V i d y ä r a n y a .
Tradition holds t h a t M ä d h a v ä c ä r y a in his fourth
ä s r a m a is known as V i d y ä r a n y a . MM. R. N a r a -
s i m h a c h a r i a r in his paper on 'Mädhaväcärya
and his Two Brothers' m a i n t a i n s t h e traditional
view w i t h t h e support of t h e inscriptional and
l i t e r a r y evidences. F r o m t h e introductory verses
of his N y ä y a m ä l ä v i s t a r a , 3 M ä d h a v ä c ä r y a (alias
V i d y ä r a n y a ) is also known as a minister of
B u k k a n a or B u k k a I.

Mädhavamantrin different from Mädhaväcärya.

There is a n o t h e r M ä d h a v a otherwise known

as M ä d h a v a m a n t r i n . H e belonged to Ä n g i r a s a -
gotra. H e w a s t h e son of C a u n d a or Caundi-
b h a t t a by M ä c h ä m b i k ä and w a s a disciple of
the Saiva t e a c h e r Käsiviläsa K r i y ä s a k t i and a
governor of B a n a v a s e under B u k k a I and H a r i -
h a r a I I . As this M ä d h a v a m a n t r i n belonged to a
different g o t r a and w a s a different p a r e n t a g e

1. See MM. R. Narasimhachariar's papers on 4 Mädhavä-

cärya and his Two Brothers '. Indian Antiquary, Vol. XLV,
(1916); also Gopinatha Rao's Introduction to the Madhurä-
vijaya of Garigä Devi.
2. Vide Indian Historical Quarterly, Vols. VI (1930),
VII (1931) and IX (1934), and the Journal of Indian History,
Vol. XII, Part II.
3. Vide Nyäyamälävistara—Introductory verses, 2-5;
the sixth verse runs thus :—
' Tarn prasasya sabhdmadhye vlrasri Bukkabhüpatih
Kur a vistaramasyästvamiti Mädhavamädisat'
h
 82 INTRODUCTION

he is distinguished from V i d y ä r a n y a Mädhava. 1

This M ä d h a v a m a n t r i n w a s a g r e a t w a r r i o r ,
4
bhuvanaikavira9 and is s u r n a m e d 4 Üpartisan-
margapratisthaguru\ H e is known also as t h e
a u t h o r of m a n y w o r k s like t h e c o m m e n t a r y on
the Sütasamhitü.

Madhavacarya's Works.
M ä d h a v ä c ä r y a {alias V i d y ä r a n y a ) is credited
w i t h t h e a u t h o r s h i p of m a n y w o r k s in S a n s k r i t
literature. H e has written the Nyayamalavistara?
a c o m m e n t a r y on the D v ä d a s a l a k s a n i of t h e
P ü r v a M i m ä m s ä S ü t r a s . The style of t h i s w o r k
is v e r y simple and flowing and as such forms an
easy text-book for a beginner in M i m ä m s ä . As
a rule, he first gives t h e Samsaya in a p a r t i c u l a r
vedic passage, t h e n t h e main pürvapaksa and
l a s t t h e siddhänta of each a d h i k a r a n a in one,
two or m o r e v e r s e s ; and in most a d h i k a r a n a s ,
he' supplements these verses w i t h explanation
in easy prose. H e says in one of t h e introduc-
t o r y v e r s e s t h a t in view of t h e fact t h a t P ä r t h a -
s ä r a t h i m i s r a ' s Sästradipikä h a s not in all adhi-
k a r a n a s given t h e p ü r v a p a k s a and s i d d h ä n t a
views in verse, h e proposes to do t h a t uniformly
in t h e N y ä y a m ä l ä v i s t a r a . I n t h i s work, he h a s
further given in t h e important a d h i k a r a n a s , t h e
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of G u r u alias P r a b h ä k a r a . For
this r e a s o n t h e w o r k occupies a unique place.

A m o n g his o t h e r works, t h e Para&aramadha-

vlya, a s t a n d a r d c o m m e n t a r y on t h e P a r ä s a r a
1. See MM. R Narasimhachariar's paper on * Mädhavä-
cärya and his Two Brothers '. Indian Antiquary, Vol. XLY.
2. This was edited by Theodor Goldstücker and
Edward B. Cowell, London (Trübner & Co.), 1878. It was
published also in the Anandasrama Press, Poona (1916).
 PÜRYA MlMÄMSÄ ÖASTRA 83

Smrti, is t r e a t e d even as a nibandhana work.

I n t h e i n t r o d u c t o r y portion of this work t h e
a u t h o r justifies his a t t e m p t to write a commen-
t a r y on t h e P a r ä s a r a s m r t i because t h a t smrti
is a b e t t e r and more reliable a u t h o r i t y on d h a r m a
in this Kaliyuga. cf. ' Kalau Parasarah smrtah';
and he pleads for t h e adoption of i £ m - a g r i c u l -
t u r e , F a n y y ä - t r a d e , etc. as t h e apaddharma for
b r a h m i n s in this Kaliyuga, though such profes-
sions a r e condemned in other smrtis. Similarly,
he explains in this w o r k t h e säpindya in such a
w a y as would permit one to m a r r y one's m a t e r n a l
uncle's d a u g h t e r as asapindä. The Vyavahära-
Madhava is a n o t h e r work of his, supplementing
the Parasaramadhavlya.

H i s w o r k s on Advaita philosophy a r e : — t h e
Vaiyasikanyayamalä, a c o m m e n t a r y in verse on
t h e four c h a p t e r s of the U t t a r a m i m ä m s ä S ä s t r a ,
with easy explanatory p r o s e ; t h e Pancadasi in
verse dealing w i t h all important topics of Advaita
Philosophy, both of which he h a s composed
along with his t e a c h e r B h ä r a t i t i r t h a ; t h e Viva-
ranaprameyasahgraha which, as t h e title goes,
is a succinct s u m m a r y of t h e P a n c a p ä d i k ä -
v i v a r a n a ; and his Anubhütiprakäsa which ex-
pounds t h e Advaita t e n e t s in a v e r y forcible
manner. H i s Jivanmuktiviveka is a n o t h e r g r e a t
work belonging to t h e U t t a r a m i m ä m s ä S ä s t r a .

H i s Kalanirnaya is a work on H i n d u astro-

logy. H i s unhistorical but y e t a v e r y popular
l i t e r a r y K ä v y a , t h e &ankaradigvijaya, written
in a v e r y lucid style, describes t h e life and
career of Sri S a i i k a r a ; t h e descriptions of M a n -
d a n a m i s r a ' s house and of the hot discussions of
M a n d a n a m i s r a and S a n k a r ä c ä r y a on m a n y a
84 INTRODUCTION
topic w h i c h finally ended in t h e former's defeat
are, indeed, highly picturesque and poetic.

M ä d h a v ä c ä r y a is also held to be the

author of the Sarvadarsanasangraha. But
MM. R. N a r a s i m h a c a r i a r in his paper on
1
M ä d h a v a and his b r o t h e r s ' h a s tried to prove
on t h e basis of i n t e r n a l and o t h e r evidences t h a t
Mädhava ( t h e a u t h o r of t h e S a r v a d a r s a n a -
s a n g r a h a ) who h a s called himself Sayanamadhava,
w a s t h e son of S ä y a n ä c ä r y a , t h e brother of
V i d y ä r a n y a Mädhava. Moreover, he h a s not
dealt w i t h t h e Sänkaradarsana, and he says at
t h e end of the P ä t a n j a l a d a r s a n a — ' i t a h param
sarvadarsanasiromanibhütam Sahkaradarsanam
anyatra nirüpitamiti atropeksitam'—that he does
not deal w i t h t h e most i m p o r t a n t s y s t e m of
S a n k a r a , since it is already dealt w i t h elsewhere;
and at t h e end of the Sänkaradarsana (now
available in t h e printed work) a colophon Hti
Sri Säyanäcäryaviracite sakaladarsanasirolahkära-
ratnam Srimacchähkaradarsanam samäptam' at-
t r i b u t e s i t s authorship to S ä y a n ä c ä r y a . These
facts m a k e clear t h a t S ä y a n a ' s thesis on t h e
S ä n k a r a d a r s a n a w a s appended to t h e body of t h e
S a r v a d a r s a n a s a n g r a h a by his son, Mädhava. The
references to some v e r s e s of V e n k a t a n ä t h a ' s
T a t t v a m u k t ä k a l ä p a in the S a r v a d a r s a n a s a n g r a h a
would be more justifiable if one t h i n k s t h a t t h e
a u t h o r of t h e S a r v a d a r s a n a s a n g r a h a is t h e son
of S ä y a n ä c ä r y a and not V i d y ä r a n y a M ä d h a v ä -
c ä r y a on t h e ground t h a t usually a u t h o r s quote
their predecessors removed from t h e m by one
or two g e n e r a t i o n s r a t h e r t h a n t h e i r contem-
poraries.
 PÜRVA MlMAMSÄ äÄSTRA 85

Bhatta Visnu (C. A. D. 1400).

Towards t h e close of t h e f o u r t e e n t h c e n t u r y
might have belonged B h a t t a Visnu, t h e celebra-
ted a u t h o r of the Nayatattvasangraha. The
earliest reference to this w o r k is found in t h e
N i t i t a t t v ä v i r b h ä v a v y ä k h y ä of P a r a m e s v a r a I I ;
so B h a t t a V i s n u is earlier t h a n P a r a m e s v a r a I I .
I n an i n t r o d u c t o r y verse 1 of t h e former he h a s
referred to B h a v a n ä t h a , t h e a u t h o r of t h e N a y a -
v i v e k a ; so he is l a t e r t h a n B h a v a n ä t h a . Para-
m e s v a r a ' s reference 3 to t h e N a y a t a t t v a s a n g r a h a
in his c o m m e n t a r y on Cidänanda's w o r k m a k e s
us even suppose t h a t B h a t t a v i s n u m i g h t be
subsequent to Cidänanda.
His work, Nayatattvasangraha3, contains a
succinct and lucid account of t h e i m p o r t a n t t e n e t s
of t h e T a r k a p ä d a , according to t h e P r ä b h ä k a r a
school and so, t h o u g h brief, it resembles Cidä-
nanda's work. I t is both a c o m m e n t a r y on
the S ü t r a s of t h e T a r k a p ä d a as well as a n
independent t r e a t i s e discussing i m p o r t a n t topics
like pratyaksapramäna, pratyayanirälambanatva,
(as held by Buddhists) a n u m ä n a , a r t h ä p a t t i ,
1 ' Bhavandthavioiktasya Nayatattvasya sahgrahah;
Yathdmati yathäbhyäsam varnyate Bltatia Visnund.'
2. ' Atra caitanmatarüpasphoranäya asmäbhih Nayatattva-
grantho likhyate—
4
Rapaprayuklakdryärthi rüpdvacchinnarüpml;
Cestate satyamühyälvasddhdranagatistviyam.'
(Nititattvävirbhävavyäkhyä, Anyathäkhyätiväda,
Adyar Mss., pp. 361-2).
In every probability this Nayatattva might be Visnubhattas
Nayatattvasangraha. In another place, Nayatattvasangraha
is quoted with the prefatory note—' Yathoktam Nayatattva-
sahgrahe'. [Ibid. Kdryavdda, p. 230.]
3. This work is preserved in the Madras Government
Oriental and Adyar Mss. Libraries.
86 INTRODUCTION

abhäva, Iävara, äabdanityatva, t h e k a r a n a of

v ä k y ä r t h a j n ä n a , p r a p a n c a m i t h y ä t v a , etc. I t ends
with the v e d a p r ä m ä n y ä d h i k a r a n a — t h e last adhi-
k a r a n a of the T a r k a p ä d a (1-1. 8).
Anantanäräyana (C. A. D. 1400).
To this period also m i g h t have belonged
A n a n t a n ä r ä y a n a or N ä r ä y a n a who h a s w r i t t e n
t h e Vijaya,1 a c o m m e n t a r y on t h e Ajitä of
P a r i t o s a m i s r a , already referred to as one of t h e
earliest commentaries on t h e T a n t r a v ä r t t i k a .
H e was well known as t h e Ajitäcärya. From
2
the introductory verse and colophon, it is known
t h a t this work is not only a c o m m e n t a r y on t h e
Ajitä but also a nibandhana w o r k which is
intended for t h e learned. H i s father's n a m e is
Süryavisnumisra.3 H i s full n a m e is A n a n t a -
n ä r ä y a n ä r y a or A n a n t a n ä r ä y a n a m i s r a after his
father's s u r n a m e ' Misra'.
The earliest reference t o this work is found
in the Süträrthasangraha of P a r a m e s v a r a I I I ,
where t h e v i j a y a k ä r a is eulogised as one of t h e
great a u t h o r s on t h e M i m ä m s ä s ä s t r a . c/.
" Jaimini-Sabara- Kumarila-
Sucarita-Paritosa - Parthasaraihayah \
Umveka- Vijayakarau
Mandana- Väcaspati ca vijayantäm u
L This work is preserved in the Madras Mss. Library.
2. * Atha buddhimatdm krtesjitdm
Paritosäryakrtim jigisatäm;
Vijaydkhyamidam vidhdsyate
nipunagrdhyagunam nibandhanam.'
4
iti Srimanmahopddhydyasya Ajitdcdrydparandmadheyasya
Anantandrdyandryasya krtau Ajitdnibandhane Vijaydkhye pra-
tharnasyddhydyasya trkiyah pddah samdptah.'
3. * Yosau Dinakrdivorvydmavatlrnah Suryavi§numisra iti.
Sunustasya kanlydnajitdmevam yathdmati vydkhyat'
 PÜRVA MlMÄMSÄ äÄSTRA 87
Eavideva (C. A. D. 1400).
Ravideva, or Ravi is a c o m m e n t a t o r on t h e
JSfayaviveka. N o t h i n g about his personality and
date is so far known. H i s c o m m e n t a r y is known
as t h e Vivekatattva (which also deals w i t h t h e
Tarkapäda) 1 is quoted a t l e n g t h by P a r a m e s v a r a I I
in his Tattvavibhävanä. 2 So he m a y be placed
between t h e 14th and t h e 15th centuries. H i s
c o m m e n t a r y is helpful in clearing up t h e obscu-
rities of Bhavadeva's style which is characterised
by careless s y n t a x .

The Three Paramesvaras of Kerala

(C. A. D. 1300-1550).

Probably between A. D. 1300 and 1550 just

before Sri A p p a y y a Diksita, t h e g r e a t l i t e r a r y
l u m i n a r y of S o u t h India in t h e 16th c e n t u r y ,
flourished t h e t h r e e famous P a r a m e s v a r a s and
one V ä s u d e v a of t h e P a y o o r B h a t t a t i r i family
in the P o r k u l a m village of K u n n a n k u l a m n e a r
G u r u v a y u r in t h e Cochin S t a t e . I n t h e P a y y u r
family of B h a t t a t i r i s (Malabar brahmins) flourished
one Rsi (Rsi I)—who h a d a son P a r a m e s v a r a
( P a r a m e s v a r a I) b y his wife G a u r i . This P a r a -
m e s v a r a h a s w r i t t e n two commentaries on t h e
N y ä y a k a n i k ä of V ä c a s p a t i m i s r a — t h e Jusadhvah-
karani and t h e Svaditankarani*—the former
1. This commentary together with the Nayaviveka
for the Tarkapäda is now in course of publication by the
Madras University.
2. See Tattvavibhävanä (below) pp. 134-136.
3. * Iti Srimadrsigaurinandana-Sri Bhavadäsapitrvya-Sri-
macchahkarap ujyapadasisya-Paramesvarakrtaii Svaditahkara-
nyam trtiyah slokah. (Madras Government Oriental Mss.
R No. 3595, p. 68. See also the Sanskrit Introduction to
the Sphotasiddhi (Madras).
88 INTRODUCTION
being his first production. H e had two p a t e r n a l
uncles, B h a v a d ä s a and Sankarapüjyapäda, t h e
l a t t e r being his guru. H e h a d five sons—Rsi I I ,
B h a v a d ä s a , Väsudeva, S u b r a h m a n y a and S a n k a r a .
Rsi I I h a d a son P a r a m e s v a r a I I by his wife
Gopälikä. P a r a m e s v a r a I I is t h e reputed a u t h o r
of t h e commentaries on t h e N i t i t a t t v ä v i r b h ä v a ,
the Tattvabindu, t h e V i b h r a m a v i v e k a and t h e
Sphotasiddhi. H e says 1 in his N i t i t a t t v ä v i r b h ä v a -
v y ä k h y ä , t h a t he was t h e disciple of his uncle,
Bhavadäsa, and t h a t his uncle, S u b r a h m a n y a ,
helped him to w r i t e t h e c o m m e n t a r y on t h e
section, K ä r y a v ä d a 2 (in t h e N i t i t a t t v ä v i r b h ä v a )
and t h a t he commented on the Svatah-
p r a m ä n a v ä d a as his uncle, V ä s u d e v a , explained
it to him. 3 F r o m these s t a t e m e n t s it is clear
t h a t t h e s e t h r e e uncles of P a r a m e s v a r a I I were
great scholars. I t m a y be surmised t h a t t h e y
were a u t h o r s of some w o r k s on t h e P ü r v a -
m i m ä m s ä s ä s t r a . I t can also be conjectured from
P a r a m e s v a r a ' s references t h a t B h a v a d ä s a and
V ä s u d e v a were more well-versed in t h e B h ä t t a
school, while S u b r a h m a n y a w a s in t h e P r ä b h ä k a r a
school. And it is doubtful w h e t h e r this V ä s u d e v a ,
son of P a r a m e s v a r a I, is t h e a u t h o r of t h e
4
Ju§adhvahkaranivydkhyd racitdSsmdbhirdditah ;
Svaditahkaranivydkhyd sampratlyam vitanyate.'
Ibid. p. 1.
1. 4 Iti Gopdlikdsi'muh Rseh pituranugrahdt ;
Anteväsi pitrvyasya Bhavadäsasya dhlmatah.'
(Nititattvävirbhävavyäkhyä: the end of the prathamaväda).
2. 4 Iti vydkhydpaydmdsa kdryavddamimam sudhih;
Subrahmanyo yaihdrthdkhyo bhrdtureva ca sünurid.'
(Ibid, the end of the Käryaväda).
4
3. Evam svatahpramdvddam vydkhyad Gopdlikäsutah ;
Vdsudevapitrvyoktantyd kevalayaiva tu.'
(Ibid, the end of the pramäväda).
 PÜRVA MIMÄMSÄ äÄSTRA 89

Kumarüayuktimäla,1 since in a colophon of t h a t

work, he calls himself a son of M a h a r s i and
Gopälikä. Most probably, therefore, Väsudeva,
the a u t h o r of t h e K u m a r ü a y u k t i m ä l a , might be
a brother of P a r a m e ä v a r a I I , whose father w a s
Rsi and mother, Gopälikä.

P a r a m e s v a r a I I , as h a s just been observed,

is t h e son of R s i I I by Gopälikä, the grandson
of P a r a m e s v a r a I (the c o m m e n t a t o r on V ä c a s -
patimisra's N y ä y a k a n i k ä ) and t h e reputed com-
m e n t a t o r on M a n d a n a m i s r a ' s Sphotasiddhi and
Vibhramaviveka, and on V ä c a s p a t i m i ä r a ' s T a t t v a -
bindu and on Cidänanda's N i t i t a t t v ä v i r b h ä v a .
To the credit of this a u t h o r it m u s t be said t h a t
all his c o m m e n t a r i e s a r e not only supplementary
to the text b u t are helpful in understanding t h e
difficult l a n g u a g e of M a n d a n a m i s r a and V ä c a s -
patimisra. J u s t like a good and reliable com-
m e n t a t o r on a K ä v y a , our author, in m a n y
instances, dissolves t h e compounds and explains

1. The Kumarüayuktimäla contains a narration of the

principles of interpretation as explained by Kumärila in his
Värttika. It contains verses beginning with Yararuci's
väkya.—cf.
' Girnassreyaskariyiha srutiriti pathaniyeti piträdiväcä
Vipram sähgasrutitam (?) gurunilayavatah snanato yatw
kamarn;
Äpätajnätadharmasrutivisayamrsirmärgamasyä vicäre
Vaidhe dharmasya rüpädisu ca vividisuh sütra ähetyatheti.'
* Bhadrakarozrthi nityo dosopeto hitassatäm mdnyah;
VedassaparikaroSyamprathamedhyäyepramänamiti siddham'
Colophon : " Iti srimacchrutikäntärävasthitavrsäbhütäryanan-
däyi (?) Maharsi-Gopälinandanakrtih Kaumärilayukti'
mäla ". This Yäsudeva is also credited with the
authorship of other works: (1) Devicarita, (2) Satyatapah-
kathd, (3) Sivodaya, (4) Achyutalild. Ail these are preserved
in the Madras Govt. Oriental Mss. Library, R. No. 3060 (a-d.)
M
 90 INTRODUCTION
t h e misleading p a r t s of t h e text, which would
not be otherwise clear. I n t h e commentary,
T a t t v a v i b h ä v a n ä , on t h e T a t t v a b i n d u , he gives
mostly at t h e end o£ each section a succinct
s u m m a r y of t h e discussions in verse which is
of immense use for readers.

Of his four commentaries, t h e one on t h e

V i b h r a m a v i v e k a i s t h e earliest, since it is men-
tioned by him in t h e other t h r e e commentaries. 1
N e x t comes t h e T a t t v a v i b h ä v a n ä — t h e commen-
t a r y on t h e Tattvabindu, 2 which is found men-
tioned in t h e N i t i t a t t v ä v i r b h ä v a v y ä k h y ä and t h e
Sphotasiddhivyäkhyä; 3 t h e t h i r d is t h e Niti-
t a t t v ä v i r b h ä v a v y ä k h y ä 4 and t h e last is t h e
Sphotasiddhivyäkhyä, otherwise known as t h e
Gopälikä, after t h e n a m e of t h e Goddess Gopälikä
in t h e temple of V e d ä r a n y a .

T h e T a t t v a v i b h ä v a n ä refers to t h e Nyaya-
samuccaya5 which h a s not been t r a c e d out.

P a r a m e s v a r a I I h a d a son named Ksi I I I

who h a d in his t u r n a son called Paramesvara
III. P a r a m e s v a r a I I I is t h e reputed a u t h o r of

1. ' Vistarena cäyam pakso Vibhramavivekavyäkhyävasare

Nayalattvasahgrahoktaprakärena dusita ityasmäbhiruparamyate '
Nititattvavibhävanävyäkhyä, Adyar Ms., p. 367. " Asmd-
bhisca Vibhramavivekavydkhydydm taduktasahksepo darsit a iti
na prakramyate "—see the Tattvavibhävanä, p. 43.
2. * Yathd ca padavadvdkyepi laksanasambhavah tathoktam
Tatlvavibhävanäyämasmäbhih.'— (Nititattvävirbhävavyäkhyä,
Adyar Ms» p. 55).
3. See the Sphotasiddhivyäkhyä (Gopälikä) (Madras
Edition), p. 266.
4. A part of this work is preserved in the Madras
Mss. Libraries.
5. See the Tattvavibhävanä (below), p. 76.
 PÜRVA MIMÄMSÄ äÄSTRA 91
t h e Mlmämsasütrarthasangraha1 and of a com-
m e n t a r y on t h e K ä ä i k ä of Sucaritamisra. The
Süträrthasangraha is a c o m m e n t a r y on t h e S ü t r a s
following t h e lines of t h e Säbarabhäsya. Its
T a r k a p ä d a is e x p l a n a t o r y of t h e contents of t h e
B h ä s y a according to K u m ä r i l a b h a t t a ' s Sloka-
v ä r t t i k a and as such, is a guide to the Bhäsya-
g r a n t h a . I t begins w i t h a eulogy of the impor-
t a n t Ä c ä r y a s of t h e P . M. Sästra 2 —Jaimini,
Sabarasvämin, K u m ä r i l a b h a t t a , M a n d a n a m i s r a ,
Vacaspatimisra, Sucaritamisra, Paritosamisra,
P ä r t h a s ä r a t h i m i s r a , U m v e k a b h a t t a and Vijaya-
k ä r a ( A n a n t a n ä r ä y a n a ) . H e also pays a t r i b u t e
to his t e a c h e r Väsudeva, 3 probably his own
p a t e r n a l uncle. H e refers to his grandfather
P a r a m e s v a r a I I as h a v i n g w r i t t e n commentaries
on four M i m ä m s ä w o r k s (already mentioned)
and s t a t e s t h a t he w a s considered an a u t h o r i t y
on the B h ä t t a school of t h e P . M. System, t h o u g h
he w a s equally well-versed in all t h e six Ästika-
darsanas.

The dates of these P a r a m e s v a r a s (and Rsis)

m a y cover n e a r l y a period about 250 y e a r s between
A. D. 1300-1550. P a r a m e ä v a r a I I h a s referred to
the work of B h a t t a v i s n u but not to a n y work of
Appayya D i k s i t a ; so we m a y conclude t h a t he
m u s t have lived between B h a t t a Visnu and
Appayya Diksita. Uddandakavi* in his Kokila-
sandesa h a s highly spoken of one Rsi and his
1. This work is preserved (a part only) in the Madras
Mas. Libraries.
2. See above under 'Anantanäräyana'.
3. 4 Pürriahgesdhyäpiti vah pranamämi Väsudeväcdryän'
' Süträrthasangraha \
4. See Pandit S. K. Ramanatha Sastri's Sanskrit Intro-
duction to his Edition of the Sphotasiddhi, p. XVII-XX.
92 INTRODUCTION

family in t h e P o r k a l a m village. I n his Mallika-

maruta he says t h a t he h a s received the appro-
bation of a P a r a m e s v a r a , son of Rsi, t h e
' Mimämsä-Cakravartin.' Uddanda is described
as a c o n t e m p o r a r y of N ä r ä y a n a , the a u t h o r of
t h e Tantrasamuccaya, which w a s completed in
t h e Kollam y e a r 602 or A. D. 1426. H e is again
said to be a contemporary of one Bälakavi who
flourished at t h e court of t h e King R a m a V a r m a
of Cochin and composed t h e d r a m a s of Ratna-
1
ketüdaya and Ramavarmavilasa. So the period
of t h e P a r a m e S v a r a s m a y fall between A. D. 1300
and 1550.

Varadaräja (C. A. D. 1500-1570).

J u s t before A p p a y y a Diksita we m a y consi-

der V a r a d a r ä j a , t h e famous commentator on the
N a y a v i v e k a of B h a v a n ä t h a b h a t t a . The earliest
reference to him is made by S o m a n ä t h a Diksita,' 2
t h e c o m m e n t a t o r on the Sästradipikä (who. is
to be assigned to t h e beginning of the 17th
century). H i s c o m m e n t a r y begins with the
second päda of t h e first a d h y ä y a . I n the intro-
ductory v e r s e s and colophons 3 he pays his res-
pects to his guru, Sudarsana, and to his p a r e n t s ;

1. See K. R. Pisharoti's paper on 'the Glimpses of

Cochin History'—J. O. R Madras, Vol. IV, pp. 142-151 (1930).
2. See his Mayükhamälikä, pp. 96, 183.
3. * Yatpädapahkajadvandvanirantaranisevanät;
Vidyäniihih sisyagano namämastam Sudarsanam.
Namämi pitarau vrddhävapi kalyänacetasau;
Yafprasädena mükopi bhavedväcaspatessamah.
Namämi Jaiminimunim Bhäsyakära-Prabhäkarau;
Nätham Bhavam nibandhrmsca candrädln samupüsmahe.
Purä Sukävagätlre Kidämbikuläbhüsanam;
Yäjnadroriät samabhavat Pranatärtiharäbhidhah.
 PÜRVA MlMÄMSÄ ÖÄSTRA 93

t h e n refers to S ü t r a k ä r a Jaimini, t h e Bhäsya-

k ä r a , P r a b h ä k a r a (the famous T i k ä k ä r a ) , Bhava-
n ä t h a and t h e N i b a n d h a n a k ä r a s like Candra.
Then he gives his genealogy and t h e place of
his birth. On t h e bank of t h e Sukäpagä in the
family of Kidambi w a s born one Pranatärtihara
belonging to t h e Ätreya g o t r a ; his son w a s
Devaraja whose son w a s t h e erudite Ranganatha-
dhvarin; and t h e l a t t e r ' s son was Varadaräja.

V a r a d a r ä j a ' s Dipikä1 is a v e r y lucid com-

m e n t a r y on t h e N a y a v i v e k a , which is very
obscure in exposition. I t is v e r y helpful for
t r a c i n g out t h e views of b o t h S r i k a r a and P r a -
käsa, the two a u t h o r s in t h e P r a b h ä k a r a school
before B h a v a n ä t h a b h a t t a . T h i s V a r a d a r ä j a should
not be identified w i t h V a r a d a r a j a , t h e a u t h o r of
t h e Tärkikaraksä and of a c o m m e n t a r y on Uda-
y a n a ' s Kusumänjali. The l a t t e r h a s not however
given his genealogy and t h e place of his birth,
though he calls himself in his T ä r k i k a r a k s ä a
g r e a t Mimämsaka—' Mimämsäpäradrsvä.' I n view
of the fact t h a t t h e T ä r k i k a r a k s ä is quoted by
t h e a u t h o r of t h e Sarvadarsanasangraha* and
by P a r a m e ä v a r a I I in his Gopälikä3 and h a s been

Tasrnat samabhavat prdjrio devardjo bahusmtah;

Tatra Sri Rahganathdkhyo vipascitsaUamoSja?ii.
Tatsununä Varadaräjabudhägrimena
Vyäkhyäyate Nayaviveka iti prabandhah.'
Colophon :—' Ityätreyasudarsanäcäryasi§ya$ya Sri-Bahga-
räjädhvarisünoh Varadaräjasya krtau Nayavivekadlpifcäyäm
prathamädhyäyasya caturthah pädah.'
1. It is preserved in the Madras Mss. Libraries.
2. See the Sarvadarsanasangraha, p. 152, V. S. Abhyan-
kar's Edition (Poona), 1924.
3. See the Sphotasiddhi with the Gopälikä (Madras Ed.),
p. 45.
94 INTRODUCTION
commented by M a l l i n ä t h a (the famous commen-
t a t o r on the five M a h ä k ä v y a s ) , V a r a d a r ä j a (the
a u t h o r of t h e T ä r k i k a r a k s ä ) m u s t be assigned
to about A. D. 1100,1 m u c h earlier t h a n t h e date
of the a u t h o r of t h e Nayavivekadipikä,

Appayya Diksita (C. A. D. 1520-1593).

To t h e 16th c e n t u r y belonged t h e g r e a t
literary genius Appayya Diksita who is
known to have w r i t t e n w o r k s on t h e M i m ä m s ä
S ä s t r a — t h e Vidhirasäyana in verse w i t h expla-
n a t i o n s in p r o s e ; t h e Upakramaparäkrama;
t h e Vadanaksatramala; t h e Mayükhavali; and
t h e Citrapata. H i s contributions t o t h e s y s t e m
of M i m ä m s ä philosophy as embodied in these
w o r k s are not so great and i m p o r t a n t as in t h e
Advaita and Saiva w o r k s . I n his Kalpataru-
parimala and Nyäyaraksamani and in his Sivärka-
manidlpika and Siväduaitanirnaya and in such
other works, he h a s in a most inimitable and
unassailable m a n n e r explained and systematised
m a n y i m p o r t a n t mlmäihsä rules of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n
as understood and elucidated by t h e B h ä t t a s .
I n some of his dialectical d i s s e r t a t i o n s he h a s
revealed certain t r u t h s which no a u t h o r on t h e
M i m ä m s ä Sästra, probably except K u m ä r i l a , h a s
so assiduously cared to investigate. F o r example,
in t h e Vedhädhikarana2 of t h e U t t a r a m i m ä m s ä
system, he h a s t a k e n up t h e question for dis-
cussion—how prakaranantara is a pramana of
t h e k a r m a b h e d a in t h e vedic proposition—
' masamagnihotram juhoti'. All M i m ä m s a k a s
h a v e accepted t h a t this proposition under t h e

1. Vide MM. S. Kuppuswami Sastrigal'8 4A Primer of

Indian Logic' Introduction, p. XLV.
2. See the Kalpataruparimala (Bombay Edition), p. 789.
 PÜRVA MlMÄMSÄ &ASTRA 95
p r a k a r a n a of t h e S a t r a sacrifice known as
Kaundapäyinämayana, enjoins a n e w sacrifice
called agnihotra which is accepted as different
from t h e nityagnihotra on t h e basis of t h e pra-
karanantara which consists in t h e existence of
an (1) anupädeyaguna, viz., kala in t h e proposi-
tion referred to and (2) the anupasthiti—non-
recognition (by w a n t of means) of t h e sacrifice
enjoined by t h e proposition in question, as its
namesake—the 1 ' naiyamikägnihotra.' But our
a u t h o r argues t h a t t h e prakaranäntara suggests
only t h e prayogabheda and not the karmabheda.
This is a bitter pill for all M i m ä t h s a k a s to
swallow. So as a M i m ä m s a k a , he is in his best
in his A d v a i t a and o t h e r w o r k s .
A p p a y y a D i k s i t a 1 hailed from t h e village
Adaiyapälam n e a r t h e historic city of Conjeeve-
ram, once a g r e a t c e n t r e of learning under the
Pallavas. H i s p a t e r n a l g r a n d f a t h e r is known as
Ä c ä r y a Diksita of Bhäradväja gotra who per-
formed m a n y vedic sacrifices. H e w a s much
patronised by t h e famous king of Vijayanagar,
Krsnadevaräya. W h e n t h e king, during his visit
to Conjeeveram, worshipped God V a r a d a r ä j a in
company w i t h his wife and retinues, Ä c ä r y a
Diksita composed t h e v e r s e —
" Kancit Käncanagaurähgim
vlksya säksädiva sriyam i
Varadah samsayäpannah
Vaksasthalamavaiksata w"
"Beholding a woman glittering like gold and
looking like L a k s m i , V a r a d a fell into a doubt

1. See Mr. A. V. Gopalachari's ' Life of Appayya Diksita '

—Introduction to the Yädaväbhyudaya, Vol. II, (Vani
Viias Edition, Srirangam).
 96 INTRODUCTION
and looked at H i s bosom (to see if L a k s m i were
t h e r e ) " . The God mistook t h e Queen for L a k s m i ,
suspected t h a t H i s consort h a d quitted h e r
p e r m a n e n t place in H i s bosom and looked at His
bosom to a s c e r t a i n w h e t h e r she w a s there. The
King w a s very m u c h pleased w i t h Ä c ä r y a Diksi-
t a ' s poetic description which is both original and
suggestive of his (the king's) g r e a t n e s s and
consequently honoured h i m w i t h t h e title 4 Vaksa-
sthaläcärya Diksita'. N i l a k a n t h a Diksita in his
d r a m a — N a l a c a r i t a — h a s referred to Ä c ä r y a Di-
k s i t a as Äccän Diksita, (Äccän in Tamil mean-
ing Äcärya) who w a s m u c h honoured by K r s n a -
devaräya. Ä c ä r y a D i k s i t a h a d two wives—the
first belonging to an orthodox Saiva family and the
second, to an orthodox V a i s n a v a family of repute
known as Sri Vaikunthäcäryavamsa. In the
d a y s of Ä c ä r y a Diksita, m o r e t h a n three cen-
t u r i e s ago, i n t e r - m a r r i a g e s between orthodox
smärtas and vaisnavas w e r e not unknown in
South India. H e had by his second wife Tota-
r ä m b ä four sons of whom t h e eldest w a s Appayya
Diksita's father, R a n g a r ä j ä d h v a r i n who, like his
father, performed m a n y vedic sacrifices. H e is
known t o have w r i t t e n m a n y w o r k s on A d v a i t a
V e d ä n t a — t h e Advaita Vidyamukura, the Viva-
ranadarpana, etc. H e h a d two sons, t h e elder
being A p p a y y a Diksita, t h e y o u n g e r Äccän
Diksita, t h e p a t e r n a l g r a n d f a t h e r of N i l a k a n t h a
Diksita. Appädiksita w a s t h e original n a m e of
our a u t h o r and t h e honorific ' a y y a ' w a s after-
w a r d s added to it in recognition of his g r e a t n e s s
as a l i t e r a r y prodigy.
A s regards his date, some controversy h a s
r e c e n t l y arisen. On t h e basis of Sivänanda-
y a t l n d r a ' s Diksitavamsävali and of N i l a k a n t h a
 PÜRVA MlMÄMSÄ ÖÄSTRA 97

Diksita's works, Mr. A. V. G o p a l a c h a r i a r 1 h a s

assigned him to t h e period A. D. 1552-1626. This
date h a s been accepted by most w r i t e r s on
A p p a y y a Diksita. But Mr. Y. M a h a l i n g a Sastri,
in his two papers on ' t h e Age of A p p a y y a
D i k s i t a ' 2 h a s recently endeavoured to o v e r t h r o w
it and place him between A. D. 1520 and 1593,
on literary and epigraphical evidences. L i k e his
grandfather Ä c ä r y a Diksita, A p p a y y a Diksita is
also known to .have come into contact w i t h t h e
V i j a y a n a g a r kings. I n t h e beginning of his
c o m m e n t a r y on V e d ä n t a Deäika's Y ä d a v ä b h y u -
daya, he has referred to t h r e e k i n g s 3 — R ä m a r ä y a ,
Timmaräja and Cinna Timma. R ä m a r ä y a h a d
a son, called T i m m a r ä y a , who h a d m a n y sons
of whom t h e most chivalrous and celebrated w a s
Cinna Timma. H i s a d v e n t u r o u s m i l i t a r y exploits
in t h e Cola, K e r a l a and P ä n d y a Kingdoms and
on the Coromandel coast, a r e graphically des-
cribed by A p p a y y a Diksita in his c o m m e n t a r y
on the Y ä d a v ä b h y u d a y a . This Cinna T i m m a
w a s a General and t h e V i c e r o y of t h e S o u t h
from A. D. 1542-1550; and probably by A. D. 1550
Appayya Diksita had been i n s t r u c t e d by him
1. See his introduction to the Yädaväbhyudaya,
Vol. II, p. II-IV.
2. Vide J. 0. R, Madras, Vol. II, pp. 225-237.
3. 4 Vamse mahati sudhämsoh Pändusutapravaracarita-
paripüte;
Äsidaparamahimä Mahisvaro Rämaraja iti.
Udapädi Timmaräjah tatombudheriva sudhämaydt
Maniräjah;
Hrdayahgamam Muräreh yamalancakre prabheva
Gopidevi.
* * * *
Tesu mahitesu jayati tridivädhlsesu padmabandhuriva ;
Sri Ciiwa- Timmaräjah pratäpaniräjitaksamävalayaK'
[The commentary on the Yädaväbhyudaya,
Verses 2, 3 and 5t Vani Vilas Edition, Srirangam.]
N
 98 INTRODUCTION
to w r i t e this commentary. So Cinna Timma
m u s t be considered as his first patron among
t h e V i j a y a n a g a r k i n g s ; and to w r i t e a v e r y
learned c o m m e n t a r y on t h e Y ä d a v ä b h y u d a y a ,
he, it is contended, m u s t h a v e been at least 25 or
30 y e a r s old, t h o u g h he is k n o w n to h a v e acquired
proficiency in all b r a n c h e s of knowledge by his
t w e n t i e t h year.

A p p a y y a Diksita's next patron w a s Cinna

Bomma Näyaka of Vellore who is well-known
in inscriptions dating from A. D. 1549 to 1578.
The A d a i y a p ä l a m inscription dated in A. D. 1582
h a s referred to him in t h e past t e n s e ; so he
m u s t have breathed his last before 1582. A p p a y y a
Diksita's chief l i t e r a r y activities especially in
t h e renaissance of Saivaism m u s t have been well
encouraged by Cinna Bomma, as h e himself h a s
expressly stated in his g r e a t Saiva work—the
iSivärkamanidipikä,1 the g r e a t c o m m e n t a r y on
Ö r i k a n t h ä c ä r y a ' s B h ä s y a on t h e V e d ä n t a s ü t r a s .
On t h e completion of this work, t h e king, himself
a g r e a t Saivite, b a t h e d A p p a y y a Diksita in gold.
N i l a k a n t h a Diksita says in t h e prologue to his
N a l a c a r i t a 2 t h a t this event h a s been described by
S a m a r a p u n g a v a Diksita in his Yäträprabandha—

1. * Bhäsyametadanagham vivrnviti
svapnajägaranayossamam prabhuh;
Cinna Bommanrparüpabhrtsvayam
rnäm nyayuhkta mahilärdhavigrahah.
Sri Cinna Bomma nrpatih sritapärijätah
sarvätmanä Pasupatim saranam prapannah;
Yah särvabhaumapadavimadhigamyadhira-
statpüjayaiva mannte saphalatvamasyäh.'
äivärkamanidipikä, verses 12 and 13,
2. Nalacarita Prologue, Balamanorama Edition, p. 4.
 PÜRVA MlMÄMSÄ &ÄSTEA 99
4
äivärkamanidipikävasänalabdhakanakasnanah
prasarasitah Samarapungavayajvanä yathä—
' Hemabhisekasamaye parito nisanna-
sauvarnasamhatimisät Cina Bommabhüpah i
Appayyadlksitamaneranavadyavidya-
Kalpadrumasya kurute kanakalavalam \\'
The A d a i y a p ä l a m inscription of A. D. 1582 s a y s
4
Yena Sri Cinna Bomma ksitipabalabhidah Rirti-
ravyähatäsit.1
Most probably t h e b a t h i n g in gold m i g h t
have been performed in A. D. 1582 and A p p a y y a
Diksita, a s t a u n c h Saivite, built a Siva temple—
t h e temple of Kalakanthesvara—with t h a t gold
in his birth-place.

H i s third patron is Venkatadevaräja or

Venkata / , who came t o t h e t h r o n e in about
A. D. 1585.1 A p p a y y a Diksita w r o t e his Kuva-
2 3
layänanda and t h e Vidhirasayana (with its
commentary) under t h e royal command and
patronage of Veiikatapati, who w a s described
by him as 'an embodiment of boundless
s y m p a t h y and c h a r i t y ' . This king h a d a V a i s n a v i t e
guru T ä t ä c ä r y a 4 under whose influence he became
a staunch Vaisnavite ; yet Appayya Diksita was

1. See also Heras' 'the Aravidu Dynasty of Vijaya-

nagar1, p. 303.
2. ' Ay am Kuvalaydnandamakarodappadlk§itah;
Niyogädvehkatapaternirupädhikrpänidheh.'
Kuvalayänanda, last verse.
3. Kintu vyäpäramesa prathayati
phalasamyojanärtham paresäm;
Präptah punyairaqanyairiva
vibudhagano Vehkataksonipälam.
Yidhirasäyana.
4. For a short account of Tätäcärya, see Heras' 'the
Aravidu Dynasty of Vijayanagar', pp. 304-306.
 100 INTRODUCTION
an influential protege of his court and he
defeated T ä t ä c ä r y a in religious and s ä s t r a i c
discussions.
I t is also presumed t h a t A p p a y y a D i k s i t a
had two more patrons in his earlier days—
N a r a s i m h a and C a n d r a s e k h a r a . This N a r a s i m h a
otherwise called V i r a n a r a s i m h a , or Cellappa or
Salva N ä y a k a , is identified w i t h V i r a n a r a s i m h a
who w a s raised by K r s n a d e v a r ä y a to governor-
ship in t h e Cola country. H e was a powerful
ruler and a thorough administrator, and so he
revolted against A c y u t a r ä y a , the successor of
K r s n a d e v a r ä y a , who defeated N a r a s i m h a and
kept him in prison in A. D. 1535. I t is not
exactly known w h e t h e r he w a s afterwards b r o u g h t
back to t h e position which he h a d enjoyed under
K r s n a d e v a r ä y a . I t is believed t h a t he lived till
A. D. 1545; and it is said t h a t during this period
he visited Cidambaram on t h e l a s t day (ava-
bhrtha) of t h e yaga performed t h e r e by A p p a y y a
Diksita, on h e a r i n g the miracle t h a t t h e pasus
had visibly ascended to heaven.
C a n d r a s e k h a r a w a s a P ä n d y a king a t M a d u r a
during t h e time of A c y u t a d e v a r ä y a of Vijaya-
nagar. W h e n he w a s a t t a c k e d by V i r a s e k h a r a
Cola of Tanjore, he got help from A c y u t a r ä y a .
N ä g a m a N ä y a k a , A c y u t a r ä y a ' s nominee, sub-
dued the Cola king in a battle and the P ä n d y a
King w a s restored to his old position. I n A. D.
1542 or so, t h e P ä n d y a King died w i t h o u t an
heir to t h e throne. The dying king willingly
nominated V i s v a n ä t h a Naik, son of N ä g a m a
Naik, as his successor. But till A. D. 1558 Visva-
n ä t h a w a s only a nominal ruler of M a d u r a ,
since V i t t h a l and Cinna Timma were powerful
Viceroys in t h e South.
 PÜRVA MIMÄMSÄ ÖÄSTRA 101

From Sivänandayatmdra's Biography of

A p p a y y a D i k s i t a and his family it is known t h a t
C a n d r a s e k h a r a P ä n d y a , on h e a r i n g t h e rising
reputation of A p p a y y a D i k s i t a as a g r e a t scholar,
asked his Court-pandits to m e e t him in disputation ;
t h a t R a t n a k h e t a S r m i v a s a Diksita, one of t h e
proteges of t h a t court, accepted the challenge
but eventually found no o t h e r m e a n s of m a k i n g
A p p a y y a D i k s i t a bow to him t h a n by offering
himself as his father-in-law. I t is t h u s believed
t h a t A p p a y y a Diksita, probably in his 20th y e a r
or earlier even, m a r r i e d M a n g a l a n ä y a k i , R a t n a -
k h e t a S r m i v ä s a Diksita's daughter.
T h a t A p p a y y a D i k s i t a w a s a contemporary
of T ä t ä c ä r y a and V i j a y m d r a t i r t h a and t h a t all
these t h r e e used to go to t h e Court of Sevappa
at T a n j o r e 1 for discussion in t h e t h r e e s y s t e m s
of V e d ä n t a — t h e Saivädvaita, Visistädvaita and
Dvaita, are well borne out by t h e two inscriptions
of Sevappa of A. D. 1580.
T h u s , from t h e foregoing account, it is clear
t h a t A p p a y y a D i k s i t a lived in t h e 16th c e n t u r y
between A. D. 1520-1592, t h u s living for 72 y e a r s .
I t is also k n o w n t h a t he spent m a n y y e a r s of
his y o u t h in n o r t h e r n India, probably at Benares,
and reached C h i d a m b a r a m for worshipping God
N a t a r ä j a in his last days. His last p r a y e r to
Lord N a t a r ä j a is t h u s k n o w n to posterity.
" Cidambaramidam pur am
prathitameva punyasthalam
Sutäsca vinayojjvaläh
sukrtaysca käscit krtah \
1. See the Report of the Mysore Archaeological Dept.,
(1917). See also Heras' 'the Aravidu Dynasty of Yijaya-
nagar,' pp. 521-2.
102 INTRODUCTION

Vayämsi mama sap täte-

rupari naiva bhoge sprhä
Na kincidahamarthaye
sivapadam didrkse param I)
Abhäti hätakasabhänatapädapadma-
Jyotirmayo manasi me tarunärunoyam i"
So saying he expired embracing and kissing the
lotus-feet of his Lord—God N a t a r ä j a .
L i k e Sri S a n k a r ä c ä r y a , A p p a y y a Diksita is
credited w i t h t h e a u t h o r s h i p of 108 w o r k s in
S a n s k r i t covering m a n y fields of l i t e r a t u r e .
Five 1 w o r k s of his in t h e field of t h e M i m ä m s ä
a r e so far known to us. T h e Vidhirasäyana2
is a dissertation on t h e n a t u r e and scope of t h e
three-fold vidhis—injunctions in vedic t e x t s —
giving suitable definitions of each of t h e m with-
out a n y overlapping. Though his exposition is
highly scholarly, he h a s overdone it, so t h a t his
definitions of t h e t h r e e vidhis a r e not generally
accepted by his younger contemporary, K h a n d a -
devamisra, 3 t h o u g h t h e l a t t e r paid his respects
t o h i m b y calling him ' Mimämsakamürdhanya \
H i s TJpakramaparakrama^ as t h e title indicates,
contains an elaborate and lucid exposition of t h e
Upakramanyaya in the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of proposi-
tions. H i s Vadanaksatramala5 contains in-
dependent expositions of t h e prima facie and
siddhänta views on some i m p o r t a n t a d h i k a r a n a s
in t h e P ü r v a and U t t a r a M i m ä m s ä S ä s t r a s .
1. Three more works of his in Mimämsä are said to be
available in Ms.: (1) Pürvamimämsävisayasangrahadipikä,
(2) Dharmamlmämsäparibhäsä, (3) Atidesalaksanapuna-
räksepa. Whether they are included in his 108 works
is not definitely known.
2. It was published at Benares.
3. See the Bhättadlpikä, I. 2. 4. (N. S. Edition), p. 41.
4. It was published at Benares.
5. It was published by the Vani Vilas Press, Srirangam.
 PÜRVA MlMÄMSA &ASTRA 103

I t is more useful for a n advanced student of

M i m ä m s ä for giving a vakyartha discourse in
t h e navy any ay a terminology. His Mayükhävali1
is a r u n n i n g c o m m e n t a r y on t h e Sästradipikä.
I t is, however, presumed t h a t one descendant of
A p p a y y a Diksita of t h e s a m e n a m e might have
w r i t t e n this w o r k ; b u t t h i s is also found inclu-
ded in t h e list of 108 w o r k s of A p p a y y a Diksita.
H i s Citrapata* is a s u m m a r y in verse of t h e
contents of t h e A d h i k a r a n a s of t h e 12 A d h y ä y a s
of t h e P ü r v a M i m ä m s ä S ä s t r a , like M a n d a n a -
miära's M i m ä m s ä ä ä s t r ä n u k r a m a n i . I t is called
;
by its c o m m e n t a t o r Laghuvarttika' as its com-
m e n t a r y is known as Laghunyäyasudhä.

Vijayindrabhiksu (C. A.D. 1539-1597).

V i t t h a l ä c ä r y a , in his fourth ä s r a m a known

as Vijayindrabhiksu or T i r t h a , is a contemporary
of A p p a y y a Diksita. H e frequented t h e Court
3
of Sevappa, t h e n t h e king of Tanjore and
held S ä s t r a i c discussions along w i t h A p p a y y a
Diksita and T ä t ä c ä r y a . U n d e r t h e instruc-
tions of Sevappa in 1574 R a n g a r ä y a I I of
V i j a y a n a g a r g r a n t e d 4 in (Saka 1499) A.D. 767
the village of Arivilimangalam alias Acyutappa-
samudra (in Tanjore district) to our author. H e
is known as t h e a u t h o r of 104 works, most of
which contain learned disquisitions on various
difficult topics in philosophy. H i s Paratattva-
prakasika contains a refutation of t h e Sivatattva-

1. A part of it is preserved in Ms. at Madras Govt.

Ms. Library.
2. It is now in course of publication in parts in the
J. 0. E. Madras (1934 and 1935).
3. See the Report of the Mysore Archaeological Dept.,
1917.
4. See Epigraphica Indica, Vol. XII t p. 357,
104 INTEODUCTIOtf
viveka of A p p a y y a Diksita. H i s Madhvamata-
kantakoddhära is a n o t h e r w o r k which a n s w e r s
the refutations of the views set forth against
the dualistic philosophy. T h a t he is also a good
poet is well a t t e s t e d by his Subhadrädhananjaya.

H i s M i m ä m s ä works, so far known, are

three—(1) t h e Nyäyädhvadipikä, (2) Mimämsä-
nayakaumudi, both being r u n n i n g commentaries
on t h e S ü t r a s , and as t h e a u t h o r claims, t h e first
of t h e s e is a n easier work t h a n t h e Sästradipikä
for t h e beginners of Mimämsä. H i s third work
in M i m ä m s ä is Upasamhäravijaya,1 which is an
a t t e m p t t o establish t h e upasamhärapräbalya
and as such, is a refutation of A p p a y y a D i k s i t a ' s
Upakramaparäkrama. I n his Nyäyädhvadipikä
he refers and p a y s his respects to P ü r n a b o d h a
( A n a n d a t i r t h a ) , J a y a y o g i n d r a , V y ä s a d e ä i k a (the
disciple of B r a h m a n y a g u r u ) and S u r e n d r a t i r t h a ,
t h e l a s t being V i j a y m d r a ' s teacher. Even
Vyäsadeäika, otherwise known as V y ä s a r ä y a ,
w a s his spiritual teacher. 2 H e is known to
posterity b y various honorific titles—Sarvatantra-
svatantra, catussastikalävallabha, etc.

Vehkatesvara Diksita (C. A. D. 1600).

After A p p a y y a Diksita comes V e n k a t e £ v a r a

Diksita. H e w a s the son of Govinda Diksita,
t h e l a s t of t h e series of t h e g r e a t Pandit-minis-
t e r s beginning w i t h K a u t a l y a . Govinda Diksita 3

1. The three works are preserved in the Mss. Libraries

at Madras.
2. See Epigraphica Indica, Vol. XII, p. 344. See also
Heras' * the Aravidu Dynasty of Vijayanagar', p. 521-2.
3» For Govinda Diksita, see Heras' 4The Aravidu
Dynasty of Vijayanagar \ pp. 288 and 522.
 PÜRVA MIMÄMSA SÄSTRA 105

w a s a Karnataka b r a h m i n of Bodhäyana gotra

and flourished in t h e 16th c e n t u r y as a contem-
p o r a r y of A p p a y y a Diksita. H e w a s t h e minis-
t e r of t h e t h r e e N ä y a k a kings of Tanjore—
Sevappa, A c y u t a p p a and R a g h u n ä t h a , and Ven-
k a t e s v a r a Diksita, his son, m i g h t h a v e been a
protege in t h e courts of A c y u t a p p a and R a g h u -
n ä t h a . H i s brother, Y a j i i a n ä r ä y a n a Diksita, h a s
referred to these kings in his famous K ä v y a ,
t h e Sähityaratnäkara, an encomiastic work
dealing w i t h t h e life and achievements of
Raghunätha Näyaka.

V e n k a t e s v a r a D i k s i t a w a s t h e t e a c h e r of
R ä j a c ü d ä m a n i Diksita and N i l a k a n t h a Diksita—
two g r e a t w r i t e r s of t h e 17th c e n t u r y — w h o have
referred to h i m in eulogistic t e r m s in their works.
R ä j a c ü d ä m a n i Diksita's reference in his Tantra-
sikhämani (a c o m m e n t a r y on t h e P . M. Sütras)
gives some details about our a u t h o r . ' V e n k a -
t e s v a r a D i k s i t a 1 w a s t h e son of Govinda Diksita
by N ä g a m ä m b ä . H e w a s well-versed in all
b r a n c h e s of learning. H e performed t h e Agni-
c a y a n a , Väjapeya and o t h e r sacrifices. He has
composed (1) an excellent K ä v y a called Sähitya-
sämräjya ; (2) t h e ßiilbamimämsä ; (3) t h e Kar-
mäntavärttika; and (4) t h e Värttikäbharana, a
c o m m e n t a r y on t h e Tuptika.'

1. " Asti Govindayajvendra-Nägamämbätapahphalam;

Sri Vehkatesvaramakhi sarvatantrasvatantradhih.
Yenestam sägnicüyäptaväjapeyädibhirmakhaih;
Krtam Sähityasämräjyanämakävyamanuttamam.
Vyatäni Sulbamimämsä tathä Karmäntavärtlikam ;
Tuptikäyäh krtä tikä Värttikäbharanäbhidhä."
Tantrasikhämani.
 iO6 INTRODUCTION
His great w o r k on M i m ä m s ä is t h e Värtti-
kabharana. I t is a v e r y lucid c o m m e n t a r y on
K u m ä r i l a ' s T u p t l k ä like t h e T a n t r a r a t n a of
Pärthasärathimisra. A m o n g his other works,
t h e Sulbamlmämsä deals w i t h t h e m e a s u r e m e n t
and other m a t h e m a t i c a l details regarding t h e
sacrificial vedi. I t is based on those portions
of Bodhäyana K a l p a s ü t r a s . H i s Karmäntavärtti-
l
ka is a c o m m e n t a r y on Karmanta Sutras (a
portion of t h e B o d h ä y a n a Kalpa Sütras). I n this
work he refers to his father Govinda Diksita
w i t h g r e a t reverence. 2 I n t h e colophon of this
work 3 it is s t a t e d t h a t his father—Govinda
Diksita—was an advaitavidyäcärya—a t e a c h e r of
t h e Advaita S y s t e m of philosophy and also one
who h a s performed m a n y vedic sacrifices—Agni-
citi, Sarvatomukha, Aptoryäma, Vüjapeya, etc.
To him is ascribed t h e Caturdandaprakasika
—a s t a n d a r d w o r k on time {tola) in music. His
contracted and little modified n a m e V e n k a t a -
m a k h i n is popularly k n o w n to students and
lovers of music as an a u t h o r i t y in t h e
technique of t h e South I n d i a n music. He
flourished in t h e l a t t e r half of t h e 16th century.
1. The Karmäntavärttika is described by the author
in this verse :—
' Kalpädyan uktärthavisesarüpa-
pravrttakarmäntanibandhadipaka m;
Mimämsayä mämsalitanca väritikam
Sri Vehkatesädhvarinä vitanyate.'
2. * Umäpatim Bamänätham Bodhäyanamunisvaram;
Govindädhvarinam tätam vande sarvärtliasiddhaye.'
Karmäntavärttika, First verse, T. M. S. S. M. Library-
Sanskrit Catalogue, Vol. IV, p. 1669.
3. 4 Iti Sriynadadvaitavidyäcäryasägnicityasarvatomukhäti-
rälrasägnicityäptaväjapeyayäji-Govindadiksitasya varananda-
nasya Sri Venkakesvaradiksitasya krtisw Karmäntasütravärttike
sämänyasütravärttikam samäptam,' (Ibid. p. 1672).
 PÜRVA MIMÄMSÄ SÄSTRA 107

Näräyanabhatta (C. A. D. 1560-1656).

After A p p a y y a D i k s i t a and V e n k a t e s v a r a
Diksita and before Äpadeva (the a u t h o r of the
Mlmämsänyäyaprakäsa) flourished t h e celebrated
N ä r ä y a n a b h a t t a of Kerala. 1 H i s full n a m e is
M e p p a t t ü r N ä r ä y a n a B h a t t a t i r i , a Nambudiri
B r a h m i n of K e r a l a belonging to t h e M e p p a t t ü r
Illam or family, which is k n o w n in Sanskritised
form as ' Uparinavagräma \ H i s father w a s
M ä t r d a t t a , a g r e a t scholar in Mimärhsä and his
m o t h e r belonged to t h e family of t h e B h a t t a t i r i s
of P a y y o o r to which t h e t h r e e famous P a r a m e -
s v a r a s and Väsudeva belonged. So both from
t h e p a t e r n a l and m a t e r n a l sides he inherited
highly scholarly mimämsäsampradäya, and he
h a s w r i t t e n a very good prakarana work—Mäna-
meyodaya—and a s t a n d a r d c o m m e n t a r y on t h e
T a n t r a v ä r t t i k a called Nibandhana.

According to t h e K e r a l a tradition, N ä r ä y a n a -
b h a t t a grew as an irresponsible y o u t h after his
traditional education in vedas and in S a n s k r i t
l i t e r a t u r e . I t is said t h a t he m a r r i e d a woman
belonging to the P i s h a r o t i Caste, t h e niece of
the then well-known astronomer-astrologer
T r k k a n d i y ü r A c y u t a P i s h a r o t i ; and he became
thereafter v e r y careless in t h e observance of his
daily duties. One day he happened to get up
late and he accidentally crossed t h e sacred plank
on which A c y u t a P i s h a r o t i w a s doing his daily
duties in connection w i t h his studies on astrology.
This infuriated t h e P i s h a r o t i w h o consequently
rebuked him, t h o u g h t h e l a t t e r , as a brahmin,
w a s of a higher social position and s t a t u s .

1. See Prof. Pisharoti's paper on 'Meppattur Närä-

yana Bhattatiri' I. H. Q., Vol. IX, 1933,
 108 INTRODUCTION
The B h a t t a t i r i coolly received t h e rebuke and
calmly requested him to t e a c h him higher books
in Sanskrit. The P i s h a r o t i gladly acceded to his
request and the B h a t t a t i r i w a s able to acquire
Kavya-vyutpatti very soon and became a recog-
nised scholar in Alaiikära and V y ä k a r a n a Säs-
t r a s . A s a descendant of an orthodox b r a h m i n
family, he had t h e desire to a t t a i n proficiency
in the S r a u t a l i t e r a t u r e ; so h e requested t h e
P i s h a r o t i to t e a c h t h a t b r a n c h of l i t e r a t u r e .
But the l a t t e r had to refuse it on t h e ground
t h a t he, a non-dvija, was not allowed to study
and t e a c h t h a t b r a n c h of l i t e r a t u r e . The
B h a t t a t i r i , on the other hand, w a s firm t h a t he
should not have more t h a n one teacher, and so
he insisted upon t h e P i s h a r o t i ' s t e a c h i n g h i m
the S r a u t a texts, t h o u g h both were afraid of
divine punishment for doing t h e prohibited thing.
The P i s h a r o t i being a first-rate scholar in more
t h a n one b r a n c h of knowledge, m a n a g e d easily
to m a s t e r t h e S r a u t a l i t e r a t u r e and t a u g h t it
to him, and the B h a t t a t i r i became a full-blown
scholar. B u t ere long t h e P i s h a r o t i h a d a n
a t t a c k of leprosy or r h e u m a t i s m owing to t h e
divine c u r s e and he fell a victim to h a r d suffer-
ing. The B h a t t a t i r i , out of s y m p a t h y and r e g a r d
for his guru, prayed to God t o free his guru
from the virulent and fatal disease by transfer-
ring it from the body of his g u r u to his own
body. Consequently his t e a c h e r w a s cured and
he became a leper (or a r h e u m a t i c patient). H e
spent thereafter all his time in p r a y e r to Lord
K r s n a in t h e sacred shrine at G u r u v ä y ü r (in
South M a l a b a r ) ; he sang his g r e a t devotional
lyric—the Näräyaniya—in 1000 verses—which
contains t h e devotional fervour and essence of t h e
 PÜRVA MIMÄMSÄ 6ÄSTRA 109
M a h ä b h ä g a v a t a p u r ä n a and which, as tradition
goes, took him 100 days to compose; and a t
t h e end of t h a t period he w a s completely and
miraculously cured.

T h u s tradition records t h a t N ä r ä y a n a b h a t t a
w a s a g r e a t devotee of L o r d K r s n a and a n
ideal devoted student of his only teacher—
A c y u t a P i s h a r o t i . B u t according to his Pra-
kriyäsarvasva—a r u n n i n g c o m m e n t a r y on P ä n i n i ' s
A s t ä d h y ä y i — h e had t h r e e gurus—Mätrdatta, his
father under whom he studied Mimämsä, Mädha-
v ä r y a from whom he l e a r n t T a r k a ä ä s t r a , and
the P i s h a r o t i who t a u g h t him V y ä k a r a n a (and
Alankära).

Besides being a versatile scholar and w r i t e r

of a good n u m b e r of P r a b a n d h a s on P u r ä n i c
t h e m e s in campü style which have been highly
popular among all classes of people, especially
t h e professional a c t o r s — C ä k y a r s in Malabar,—
N ä r ä y a n a b h a t t a h a s w r i t t e n two w o r k s on Mi-
m ä m s ä — t h e Mänameyodaya and t h e Tantra-
värttikanibandhana. The Mänameyodaya, as the
title indicates, w a s originally intended to elabo-
r a t e both mäna and meya; for r e a s o n s not
exactly known he h a s left t h e w o r k unfinished
at t h e end of t h e mäna section, which contains
an exposition of t h e six mänas or pramänas as
accepted by t h e Bhättas—pratyaksa, anumäna,
sabda, upamäna, arthäpatti and anupalabdhi.
As t h e i n t r o d u c t o r y verse goes, it is a n eluci-
dation of the six p r a m ä n a s as explained in t h e
S l o k a v ä r t t i k a by K u m ä r i l a b h a t t a . 1 I t m a y be

1. The Meya section now available is composed by another

Näräyana, a protege of King Mänaveda (of Calicut) in the
17th century. See the beginning and end of the Meya section.
110 INTRODUCTION
assumed from a verse cited by h i m t h a t he h a d
free access to Kumärila's B r h a t t l k ä , 1 which is
u n f o r t u n a t e l y lost. H e also cites Cidänanda 2 as
an a u t h o r i t y . H e also refers to one N y ä y a -
nirnayakära.3

The importance of t h e Mänameyodaya? lies

in t h e fact t h a t it is w r i t t e n in a clear and
flowing style in verse with explanations in prose
on nyäya terminology; and t h a t in m a n y places
it explains clearly the gurumata and refutes it.
Though t h e T a r k a p ä d a of t h e Sästradipikä and
Cidänanda's N i t i t a t t v ä v i r b h ä v a deal w i t h t h e
same subject more elaborately t h a n in this work,
t h e exposition in this w o r k h a s t h e unique
c h a r m of simplicity and clearness, w h i c h charac-
terise all t h e Sästraic w o r k s of N ä r ä y a n a b h a t t a .

H i s Nibandhana5 is a v e r y readable com-

m e n t a r y on t h e T a n t r a v ä r t t i k a . Like t h e Ajitä
and unlike t h e N y ä y a s u d h ä it explains t h e text
directly without u n n e c e s s a r y discussions and
digressions.
Among his other works, his Prakriyasarvasva6
is w o r t h mentioning. I t is a good c o m m e n t a r y
1. * Taduktam Brhattikäyäm—
Tasmädyo vidyamänasya grhäbhävovagamyate;
Sa hetuh sa bahirbhävam nägrhitvä ca grhyate.'
Mänameyodaya (Adyar Edition), p. 126.
2. Ibid. p. : 91. 3. Ibid. p. 146.
4. This was first published in the Trivandrum Sanskrit
Series No. XIX (1912) and was for the second time, pub-
lished with English Translation in the Theosophical Publi-
shing House Oriental Series (1933).
5. It is preserved in the Madras Mss. Libraries.
6. The first part of this work was published in the
Trivandrum Sanskrit Series. The commentary on the Unädi
Sütras was edited by Dr. T. R. Chintamani under the
auspices of the University of Madras (1933).
 PÜRVA MlMÄMSÄ SlSTRA lil
on P ä n i n i ' s A s t ä d h y ä y i following t h e examples
of E ä m a c a n d r a , (the a u t h o r of t h e Prakriya-
kaumudl) and his o t h e r predecessors. Tradition
s a y s t h a t N ä r ä y a n a b h a t t a had occasion to show
his Prakriyäsarvasva to his c o n t e m p o r a r y Bhattoji
Diksita (the reputed a u t h o r of t h e Siddhänta
Kaumudi, the Praudhamanoramä, the Kaustubha,
etc.), who, on a perusal of it, is said to h a v e
r e m a r k e d t h a t his commentary on dhätus is
v e r y m e a g r e ; a n d t h a t it w a s to m a k e up t h i s
defect t h a t he w r o t e t h e Dhätukävya which
deals w i t h n e a r l y 3000 roots.

A s r e g a r d s his date, a few Kali chronograms

a r e available in his works. T h e Narayaniya
w a s finished in A. D. 1587, as seen from t h e
Kali-väkya—'ayurärogyasaukhyam ', when he
might be supposed to have a t t a i n e d t h e age of
t h i r t y y e a r s . H i s P r a k r i y ä s a r v a s v a also gives
two c h r o n o g r a m s ' yatnah phalaprasüh syad' and
' Krtaragarasodya* which are equivalent- t o
F e b r u a r y - M a r c h A. D. 1617. One astrological
t r e a t i s e of his s a y s t h a t he lived for 106 y e a r s .
F r o m t h e available d a t a it m a y be said t h a t h e
m u s t h a v e completed his education before A. D.
1587 w h e n he finished his g r e a t devotional lyric,
the N a r a y a n i y a , and t h a t he m u s t have lived as
a g r e a t recognised scholar between A. D. 1587
and 1656, w h e n he breathed his last. 1 H e m u s t
have therefore flourished in the l a t t e r half of t h e
16th c e n t u r y and in t h e former half of t h e 17th
c e n t u r y as a younger contemporary of A p p a y y a
Diksita.

1. The Trivandrum Editor of the Prakriyäsarvasva

believes that Näräyanabhatta might have flourished between
A. D. 1560 and 1666, while Prof. Pisharoti places him 10
years earlier (i,e.\ A. D. 1550-1656.
112 INTRODUCTION

Laugäksibhäskara {C. A. D. 1600).

J u s t before Äpadeva might h a v e flourished

L a u g ä k s i b h ä s k a r a , the a u t h o r of t h e Artha-
sangraha.1 There is difference of opinion among
scholars 2 w h e t h e r Äpadeva's N y ä y a p r a k ä s a h a s
preceded t h e A r t h a s a n g r a h a or it is only an
elaboration of the latter. I n fairness to both
t h e t e x t s it m a y be observed t h a t t h o u g h t h e
A r t h a s a n g r a h a h a s preceded t h e N y ä y a p r a k ä s a ,
t h e l a t t e r has successfully elaborated m a n y
obscure topics of the P. M. System. Whether
t h e A r t h a s a n g r a h a is the chief source-book of
t h e N y ä y a p r a k ä s a is extremely doubtful. On t h e
other hand, Äpadeva, in t h e N y ä y a p r a k ä s a , h a s
u n m i s t a k a b l y followed the siddhäntas of P ä r t h a -
s ä r a t h i m i s r a as embodied in his N y ä y a r a t n a m ä l ä ,
T a n t r a r a t n a and Sästradipikä.

T h e other work of L a u g ä k s i b h ä s k a r a is t h e
Tavkakaumudi, which also, like t h e A r t h a s a n -
graha, is a good p r a k a r a n a w o r k in t h e N y ä y a
system. A n y h o w it is not as popular as t h e
A r t h a s a n g r a h a , probably owing to t h e g r e a t
popularity of t h e T a r k a s a n g r a h a of A n n a m b h a t t a .

1. Several editions of this work have appeared in

India; the earliest, probably, is that of Dr. G-. Thibaut
with his English Translation (Benares, 1882); another,
with the commentary Kaumudi by Rämesvara äivayogin
at Benares (about 1900) and at Bombay 1922; another with
a commentary by D. T. Tatachari (a reprint from his
Monthly Journal ' Udyänapatrikä' (1922); another with
the Kaumudi and English Translation of the Text by
D. V. Gokhale, B.A., Poona (1932).
2. See Pandit A. Chinnaswami Sastri's Sanskrit intro-
duction to his edition of the Nyäyaprakäsa with his com-
mentary, Benares (1925) and also Prof. F. Edgerton's
Introduction to hi a edition with English Translation, p. 20,
 PÜRVA MIMÄMSÄ äÄSTRA 113

Towards t h e close of t h e sixteenth c e n t u r y

belonged m a n y g r e a t w r i t e r s on M i m ä m s ä —
S a n k a r a b h a t t a , Apadeva, K h a n d a d e v a m i s r a , Räja-
cüdämani Diksita, V e n k a t ä d h v a r i n , S o m a n ä t h a
Diksita and Y a j n a n ä r ä y a n a Diksita.

• - Sankarabhatta (C. A. D. 1550-1620).

S a n k a r a b h a t t a is k n o w n as t h e a u t h o r of
four w o r k s : (i) a1 c o m m e n t a r y on t h e Sästradipikä
known a s Prakäsa? (ii) t h e Mimämsäbälapra-
käsa? a p r a k a r a n a w o r k containing a s u m m a r y
of t h e contents of t h e twelve A d h y ä y a s ; (iii) t h e
Mimämsäsärasangraha3 i n verse, and (iv) t h e
Vidhirasäyanadüsana*—a refutation of t h e theories
propounded by A p p a y y a Diksita in his Vidhi-
r a s ä y a n a . S a m b h u b h a t t a , t h e famous commen-
t a t o r on t h e B h ä t t a d i p i k ä , m a k e s K h a n d a d e v a
presuppose a work, called Prakäsa5; t h i s might
be in all probability S a n k a r a b h a t t a ' s S'ästra-
dipikä -prakäsa or Bälaprakasa. So S a n k a r a -
b h a t t a might be placed between A p p a y y a Diksita
and Khandadeva.

1. This work is preserved in the Madras Mss. Libraries.

2. This work was published by the Chaukamba Book
Depot, Benares (1902).
3. This was also published at Benares (1904).
4. This work is preserved in the Madras Mss. Libraries.
5. * Yattu prakäsakäräh Kalpasütraprämänyasädhanädhi-
karane ittham prämänyaprakäramähuh tat tadadhi-
karana Kaustubha eva düsitam drastavyam.' * Prabhävali',
(N. S. Edition), pp. 42-3. The Prakäsakära is identified
with the author of Vidhirasäyanakhandana. * Tadetat
prakäsakära na ksamante, ittham hi Vidhirasäyanakhandane
tairupapäditam' ibid, p. 36. See also ibid. pp. 102, 240, 305
where Sambhubhatta makes Khandadeva presuppose the
Prakäsa.
P
 114 INTRODUCTION

S a n k a r a b h a t t a is known as t h e son of one

N ä r ä y a n a b h a t t a , 1 t h e a u t h o r of t h e P r a y o g a -
ratna. This N ä r ä y a n a b h a t t a w a s t h e son of
R ä m e s v a r a b h a t t a whose father w a s one Govinda-
b h a t t a 2 of B e n a r e s . S a n k a r a b h a t t a h a d a b r o t h e r
R ä m a k r s n a b h a t t a who also is known as a com-
m e n t a t o r on Kumärila's T a n t r a v ä r t t i k a .

Äpadeva (C. A. D . 1580-1650).

Apadeva's pedigree can be known from t h e

account given b y his son, A n a n t a d e v a . In the
i n t r o d u c t o r y v e r s e s of his Smrtikaustubha?

1. ' Iti Srimatpadaväkyapramänapärävärapärznadhurina-

Mimämsäsämräjyadhurandhara Sri Bhattanäräyanätmaja Bhatta
Sahkarakrtam Vidhirasäyanadüsanam samäptam.' (Vidhirasä-
yanadüsana). See also P. V. Kane's History of Dharma-
sästra, pp. 300, 350 and 438.
2. See Kamaläkarabhatta in Mr. P. V. Kane's History
of Dharmasästra, p. 432.
3. See verses 13-18 :—
Ekanätha
I (son)
Äpadeva
I (son)
Anantadeva
_ I (son)
Apadeva (the author of the Nyäyaprakäsa)
| (son)
Anantadeva (the author of the Smrtikaustubha)
That Anantadeva II wrote the Smrtikaustubha in order
to please his royal patron Baig Bahadur Candra is known
from his verses at the end of the Smrtikaustubha:—
" Sribägabahaduracandranrpasya tasya
väcä himäcalagatävanidevatustyai.
YoSnantadevakrtamanthanasannibandha-
ksiräbdhijoztha satatam harinä dhrto yah;
Niiyam nije hrdi satäm pramudestu tasya
sarväbdadidhitirayam Smrtikaustubhasya.
See P. V. Kane's History of Dharmasästra, pp. 450-453.
 PÜRVA MIMlMSÄ &ASTRA 115

A n a n t a d e v a called himself t h e descendant of t h e

great M a h r a t h a Saint Ekanatha,. who lived on
t h e b a n k s of t h e G o d ä v a r i and performed m a n y
vedic sacrifices, worshipping God K r s n a . A n a n t a -
deva was t h e son of Äpadeva (our author) who
was again t h e son of one A n a n t a d e v a and t h e
grandson of Äpadeva and t h e great-grandson of
E k a n ä t h a (above described). A n a n t a d e v a I I ' s time
m a y be fixed at C. A. D. 1620-1690 and as
Mr. P . Y. Kane ( s a y s he m u s t have been p a t r o -
nised by Baig B a h a d u r Candra_between A.D. 1645-
1675. F r o m this t h e date of Äpadeva, (Ananta-
deva's father and t h e a u t h o r of the N y ä y a -
prakäsa) m a y be roughly fixed at C. A. D. 1580-
1650.

H i s Mimärnsänyäyaprakäsa1 is the standard

p r a k a r a n a w o r k elucidating t h e contents of t h e
D v a d a s a l a k s a n i ; it places g r e a t e r emphasis on
the contents of t h e first, t h i r d and fifth a d h y ä y a s .
No similar w o r k exists dealing with the im-
p o r t a n t topics—atidesa, üha, bädha, tantra and
prasanga—the c o n t e n t s of t h e l a t t e r half of t h e
P . M. S ä s t r a . The style of t h e work is v e r y
simple and clear. I t is polemic in some places,
but it cogently a r g u e s t h e points dealt with.
The dissertation on t h e injunction—' somena
yajeta'; t h e exposition of t h e arthabhävanä as
t h e chief import of t h e äkhyätapratyaya; the
elucidation of t h e prakaranapramäna on angatva,
t h e detailed exposition of t h e four pramanas on

1. The earliest edition of this work (along with the

Arthasangraha) was in Telugu script (Mysore). It was
afterwards published by the N. S. Press, Bombay (1911);
another with a commentary by Pandit A. Chinnaswami
Sastri at Benares. Later on, it was edited in Roman script
with English translation by Professor F. Edgerton.
116 INTRODUCTION

nämadheya and of pravartanäs as the linartha,—

these t h e a u t h o r h a s handled in this work in an
inimitable m a n n e r .

H i s o t h e r work is a c o m m e n t a r y on the
V e d ä n t a s ä r a , a p r a k a r a n a work in t h e s y s t e m
of A d v a i t a philosophy.

Khandadevamisra {C. A. D. 1575-1665).

J u s t like N ä r ä y a n a b h a t t a of Kerala, Khanda-

devamisra (probably of Bengal or Benares) w a s
a y o u n g e r contemporary of A p p a y y a Diksita,
whom he h a s referred to in his M i m ä m s ä -
k a u s t u b h a a s Mimämsakamürdhanya. A t least
for some t i m e he should have lived at B e n a r e s
w h e r e he h a d occasion to meet A p p a y y a Diksita
when he w a s t h e r e .

K h a n d a d e v a w a s the son of Rudradeva. 1

H e is k n o w n (from a reference m a d e by J a g a n -
n ä t h a P a n d i t a in his Rasagangädhara) as the
M i m ä m s ä t e a c h e r of P e r u b h a t t a , t h e father of
J a g a n n ä t h a P a n d i t a who flourished in t h e middle
of t h e 17th c e n t u r y (in the courts of S h a h J e h a n
and D a r a - s h u k h o a t Delhi and of P r ä n a n ä r ä y a n a
of K ä m a r ü p a , a vassal under t h e t h e n Mogul ruler,
and t h e L o r d of K a m a t ä , t h e modern Assam). 2 So
between A p p a y y a Diksita and J a g a n n ä t h a P a n d i t a
or his f a t h e r P e r u b h a t t a i.e., in t h e closing decade
4
1.Sasvadbodhatarahgä vidyägangottamähke yasya;
Srirudradevasamjnam Janakam vande sadä sphürtyai.'
Kaustubha, verse 3.
Vide also the colophon :—* Iti Srimatpürvottaramimämsä-
pärävärapärinadhurina-Sri-Rudradevasünu-Khandadevaviracüe
Mimämsäkaustubhe dvitiyasyädhyüyasya dviiiyah pädah.'
2. Vide the writer's paper on ' Jagannätha Pandita \
Annamalai University Journal, Vol. II, pp. 201-208.
 PÜRVA MIMÄMSÄ gÄSTEA 117

of t h e 16th c e n t u r y and in t h e first half of t h e

17th century, K h a n d a d e v a m u s t h a v e flourished.
Mr. P . V. K a n e s a y s 1 t h a t K h a n d a d e v a died in
A. D. 1665.

H e h a s w r i t t e n t h r e e i m p o r t a n t w o r k s on
M i m ä m s ä — t h e Bhättakaustubha, the Bhätta-
' dipikä and t h e Bhättarahasya. T h e y a r e epoch-
m a k i n g w o r k s in M i m ä m s ä l i t e r a t u r e in t h a t
t h e y clearly m a k e out the foundation of t h e
modern school—navina-mata—in t h e h i s t o r y of
the B h ä t t a school. T h e y are again epoch-making
in both language and t h e t r e a t m e n t of t h e
subject-matter. Such of t h e s t u d e n t s of M i m ä m s ä
who are not well-versed in t h e terminology of
the Navya-nyaya, introduced for t h e first time
into t h e h i s t o r y of Indian Philosophy by G a n -
gesopädhyäya, t h e a u t h o r of t h e T a t t v a c i n t ä -
mani, a r e apt to criticise t h a t w h a t is gained
by t h e precision of t h o u g h t is lost in l a n g u a g e
which is described as " spoiled by a huge over-
growth of inflated and hair-splitting logic-chop-
ping. 2 " B u t those who are well-equipped w i t h
the navya-nyäya terminology gain m u c h in t h e
precision of t h o u g h t t h a t such terminology
ensures.

I n m a n y places in his w o r k s K h a n d a d e v a
criticises t h e B h ä s y a k ä r a , t h e V ä r t t i k a k ä r a ,
P ä r t h a s ä r a t h i m i s r a , B h a v a d e v a b h a t t a a n d Some-
s v a r a b h a t t a , who, according to him, w e r e t h e
representatives of t h e pradnas* views in t h e
B h ä t t a school, and elucidates -his own views
which a r e to a g r e a t extent original I n giving

1. See the P. M. System, p. 19.

2. See MM. S. K. Sastrigal's 'A Primer of Indian
Logic '—Introduction, p. XLVII.
118 INTRODUCTION
the p ü r v a p a k s a s and siddhäntas of each adhi-
k a r a n a he almost follows t h e V ä r t t i k a k ä r a , y e t
in some details he differs from him and his
followers.
I n his Bhattakaustubha,1 (his first work,
which is a v e r y elaborate c o m m e n t a r y on t h e
s ü t r a s extending only to t h e Balabaladhikarana
I I I . 3. 7) he not only explains t h e s ü t r a s and
gives t h e adhikarana-svarüpa b u t also discusses
m a n y i m p o r t a n t questions. H i s method of t r e a t -
ment is almost perfect. H i s style is mostly
a r g u m e n t a t i v e like t h a t of a Navya-Naiyayika;
and in his explanation of t h e s ü t r a s and t h e
a d h i k a r a n a s he does not at all indulge in flowery
language. The result is t h a t his views can be
easily understood from this w o r k by a student
of M i m ä m s ä knowing n a v y a - n y ä y a . I t is v e r y
elaborate, for it deals w i t h t h e a d h i k a r a n ä r t h a s
and other topics like t h e Sabdabodhapaddhati
as accepted by t h e M i m ä m s a k a s .

According to his disciple S a m b h u b h a t t a (the

c o m m e n t a t o r on t h e Bhättadipikä) K h a n d a d e v a
h a s not commented on the T a r k a p ä d a 1-1. 1.-7,
both in his B h a t t a k a u s t u b h a and Bhättadipikä. 2
But t h e late editor of t h e B h ä t t a d i p i k ä (in
Mysore G o v e r n m e n t S a n s k r i t Series) h a s how-
ever published the T a r k a p ä d a of the B h ä t t a -
dipikä, t h e genuineness of which is questionable,
in view of t h e fact t h a t m a n y passages in t h e
Jijnäsädhikarana (1-1.1) and t h e Väkyädhikarana
(1-1. 7) a r e found repeated in t h e Arthavadadhi-
karana (1-2.1) and in the Manträdhikarana (1-2. 4).
1. It was published—three pädas at Conjeevaram
(1902, 1904, 1911), and the rest at Benares (1924, etc.).
2. See also MM. Ramasubba Sastrigal's Bhättakalpataru
—a gloss on the Bhättadipikä.
 PÜRVA MIMÄMSÄ ^ÄSTRA 119

B u t the o t h e r two c o m m e n t a t o r s on t h e B h ä t t a -
dipikä, B h ä s k a r a r ä y a and V ä n c h e s v a r a y a j v a n ,
have commented on t h e T a r k a p ä d a of t h e B h ä t t a -
dlpikä.
The Bhättadipikä1 is his second work and
is t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t of all, both from t h e
standpoints of t h e a u t h o r and of t h e students.
I t contains, on t h e model of t h e Sästradipikä,
elucidations of t h e a d h i k a r a n a s in a brief
and m e a s u r e d l a n g u a g e so t h a t in m a n y places
his views cannot be m a d e out w i t h o u t a
c o m m e n t a r y or without a reference to t h e
K a u s t u b h a . So it is a good s u m m a r y of the
K a u s t u b h a to t h e end of t h e Baläbalädhikarana.
Though t h e style in t h e w o r k is t e r s e and to
some extent obscure, it h a s a t t a i n e d t h e acme
of perfection as a n advanced w o r k in Mimärhsä
Öästra. N o advanced s t u d e n t would fail to
m a s t e r it. A s a n i b a n d h a n a w o r k it h a s super-
seded both t h e Sästradipikä and t h e N y ä y a m ä l ä -
vistara, t h o u g h t h e l a t t e r is still considered
as a guide for beginners. A m o n g his original
contributions special m e n t i o n m a y be made of
Khandadeva's elucidation of t h e original defini-
tions of t h e three-fold vidhis—apürvavidhi, niya-
mavidhi and parisankhyävidhi—and refutation of
the definitions as embodied in t h e V ä r t t i k a —
1. It was first published (in parts) by the Asiatic
Society of Bengal omitting the Tarkapäda; a second edition
appeared in the Mysore Government Oriental Library
Series in four volumes (with late Pandit Kasturirangacarya's
Sütravrtti Särävali from the beginning to the end of the fourth
päda of the third adhyäya) (1911, 1914, etc.); a third edition
appeared with Öambhubhatta's Prabhävali to the end of the
third päda of the third adhyäya, Bombay (1922); a fourth
edition appeared with Vänchesvara's Bhäüacintämani to the
end of the third päda of the third adhyäya (Madras, 1934).
120 INTRODUCTION

" Vidhiratyantamapräpte
niyamah päksike sati i
Tatra cänyatra ca präptau
parisankhyeti Kirtyate i)"

and also in the V i d h i r a s ä y a n a of his elder

c o n t e m p o r a r y Appayya Diksita. His jatisakti-
vada in t h e akrtyadhikarana; his explanation of
t h e tatsiddhipetikä—six conditions u n d e r which
gaunt, a sabdavrtti separate from laksana, is
to be employed; his exposition of pravartanä
and yatna as t h e chief imports of t h e liii-pratyaya
in its capacities as a vidhipratyaya and an
äkhyätapratyaya respectively; his definitions of
t h e six p r a m ä n a s on t h e karmabheda, angatva
and krama with suitable illustrations in t h e
second, t h i r d and fifth a d h y ä y a s ; his exposition
of purusärthatva and kratvarthatva together
w i t h t h e prayojakatva and prayojyatva in t h e
fourth a d h y ä y a ; his definitions and exposition
of atidesa, uha, bädha in t h e l a t e r a d h y ä y a s —
in t h e s e and other expositions K h a n d a d e v a
shows his originality, clearness of t h o u g h t and
freedom from bias.

H i s Bhättarahasya1 is a unique w o r k in
t h a t it is completely devoted to t h e sabda-
bodhapaddhati. So it stands on a p a r w i t h
G a d ä d h a r a B h a t t ä c ä r y a ' s Vyutpattiväda in t h e
n a v y a n y ä y a school and with K a u n d a b h a t t a ' s
Bhüsanasara and Nägesa B h a t t a ' s Manjüsä in
t h e N a v y a V a i y ä k a r a n a school. T h e topics
discussed in these works a r e more or less
t h e same, though each work follows its own
method in a r r a n g e m e n t and in t h e order of topics
discussed.
1. It was twice published at Conjeevaram.
 PÜRVA MIMÄMSÄ äÄSTRA i2l

The Bhättarahasya, a work on t h e D h a r m a -

mimämsä, rightly begins w i t h the nature
and definitions of dharma and adharma as
embodied in t h e Sütra— ; Codanälaksanosrtho
dharmah.' T h e n t h e chief question—the m e a n i n g
of t h e v i d h i p r a t y a y a in t h e affirmative and
negative propositions like ' agnihotram juhuyät
svargakämah' 'na kalanjam bhaksayet' is t a k e n
up. W h i l e elucidating pravartanä and nivartanä
as the m e a n i n g s of t h e V i d h i p r a t y a y a Hin* in
t h e affirmative and negative propositions respec-
tively, t h e N a i y ä y i k a view t h a t istasadhanatva,
krtisäddhyatva an d balavadanistananubandhitva
constitute generally t h e m e a n i n g of t h e Hin9 is
refuted on t h e m a i n ground t h a t t h e s e t h r e e
ideas cannot be uniformly explained as related
to their Visesyas in all propositions (both affirm-
ative and negative.) I t is conceded t h a t t h e r e is
läghava in explaining t h e relation of one idea t o
a n o t h e r in a s e n t e n c e if we accept pravartanä
as t h e m e a n i n g of Hin pratyaya.' After this t h e
most i m p o r t a n t topic—viz. t h e bhävanä as t h e
m e a n i n g of t h e Äkhyätapratyaya is t h e leading
concept in t h e säbdabodha. H e r e he points o u t
clearly t h a t in a s e n t e n c e t h e verb is t h e m o s t
i m p o r t a n t element and as such, it should convey
t h e leading concept of t h e säbdabodha; and t h a t
in t h e verb, t h e personal suffix conveys t h e
chief idea-—pradhänärtha—as t h e elders h a v e
explained in t h e i r dictum—' prakrtipratyayau
pratyayärtham saha brütah, tayostu pratyayah
prädhänyena'; and t h a t of t h e m a n y ideas
conveyed by t h e lih suffix—viz., pravrtti, pra-
varttanä, sankhyä (number), etc., t h e chief idea
is pravrtti which is in popular language known as
bhävanä (as i n s t a n c e s vary), cf. Y ä s k a ' s N i r u k t a —
Q
 122 INTRODUCTION

' Bhävapradhänamäkhyätam \ I n this connection

our a u t h o r refutes t h e N a i y ä y i k a and t h e Y a i -
y ä k a r a n a views t h a t t h e leading concepts of t h e
Sabdabodha are prathamäntärtha (idea conveyed
by a word in nominative case) and t h e dhatvar-
tha (idea conveyed by t h e root of t h e verb).
And t h e n , t h e lakärärtha, t h e dhätvartha, the
äkhyätärtha, the chief imports of the seven cases
(with t h e i r u s a g e s in a sentence) a r e most
scientifically elucidated in t h i s work.
This p a r t i c u l a r l i t e r a t u r e k n o w n as ' Vyut-
pattiväda1 developed in India even from ancient
d a y s ; b u t in t h e sixteenth and s e v e n t e e n t h
centuries and onwards it h a s been f u r t h e r deve-
loped and systematised as a s e p a r a t e p a r t of
dialectical l i t e r a t u r e in Mimärhsä, N y ä y a , and
V y ä k a r a n a . This b r a n c h of l i t e r a t u r e m a r k s
well also t h e development of t h a t p a r t of the
modern science of Comparative Philology—Se-
mantics—on the speculative side ; and its explana-
tions of t h e four kinds of words—yaugika, rüdha,
yogarüdha and yaugikarüdha and of t h e Sabda-
vrttis (significative potencies of words)—abhidhä,
laksanäj gauni, vyanjana, etc., a r e of immense
help for t r a c i n g t h e history of t h e m e a n i n g of a
word or words in language and for a successful
classification of t h e semantic changes under
t h e three well-known heads—specialisation (or
narrowing), generalisation (or widening) and
transference.

Rajacüdamani Dlksita (C. A.D. 1580-1650).

Räjacüdämani Diksita's genealogy and liter-

a r y w o r k s are fully described by a descen-
d a n t of his family, Bälayajnavedesvara, in
t h e i n t r o d u c t o r y verses of t h e l a t t e r ' s com-
 PÜRVA MIMAMSl &ÄSTRA 123
m e n t a r y on t h e former's Bukminikalyäna.1 One
of t h e r e m o t e a n c e s t o r s of Räjacüdämani Diksita
is one B h a v a s v ä m i n who h a d a son S r i k r s n a
and a grandson K u m ä r a b h a v a s v ä m i n . This
B h a v a s v ä m i n h a d a son S r i k r s n ä r y a who had a
son Bhavasvämin. This B h a v a s v ä m i n w a s the
-father of t h e famous R a t n a k h e t a S r m i v ä s a
Diksita whose m o t h e r w a s L a k s m i . This Srmi-
v ä s a Diksita had two wives and by the first
wife, he had two sons, K e s a v a Diksita and
A r d h a n ä r i s v a r a Diksita, and by t h e second wife,
Y a j i i a n ä r ä y a n a alias R ä j a c ü d ä m a n i . I t seems
t h a t Räjacüdämani lost his p a r e n t s in his earlier
days and his b r o t h e r A r d h a n ä r i s v a r a took care
of t h e boy Räjacüdämani. H e educated him
according to his family t r a d i t i o n and soon he
began to display his genius. I n t h e prologue
to his Nätikä—Kamalinlkalahamsa—it is said
t h a t he w r o t e it in his sixth year. I n his
Kavyadarpana he h a s mentioned 27 w o r k s of his.
H e w a s like N i l a k a n t h a Diksita, a n o t h e r g r e a t
l i t e r a r y celebrity of t h e age, a disciple of
V e i i k a t e s v a r a D i k s i t a (already referred to) whom
he h a s highly eulogised.

H i s w o r k s on M i m ä m s ä a r e t h r e e in num-
b e r 2 : — t h e Tantrasikhämani, the Sankarsamuktä-
vali and t h e Karpüravarttikü. The T a n t r a -
sikhämani is a c o m m e n t a r y on t h e Dvädaäa-
laksani, which w a s w r i t t e n by him a t t h e bidding
of his t e a c h e r V e n k a t e s v a r a Diksita. The date

1. Vide Dr. T. E. Chintamani's Introduction to the

Rukminikalyäna, pp. XXIII-XXXVI (Adyar Edition, 1929).
2. The Tantrasikhämani and the Karpüravarttikä are
preserved in the Madras Mss. Libraries, while the Sarikarsa-
muktävali is not available in those collections.
 124 INTRODUCTION
of composition of this work is given by t h e
a u t h o r a s 1559 S a k a which is equivalent t o
A. D. 1636.
' Dhimanmanye-sakasyabde
häyane cesvarabhidhe \
Cüdamanih kalayate
yajvä Tantrasikhamanim \\'
H i s S a n k a r s a m u k t ä v a l i otherwise known as
N y ä y a m u k t ä v a l i is a c o m m e n t a r y on the San-
k a r s a k ä n d a — t h e supplement to the Dvädasa-
l a k s a n i ; t h i s c o m m e n t a r y is a positive proof
of t h e genuineness of t h e S a n k a r s a k ä n d a as a
supplement to t h e D v a d a s a l a k s a n i . H i s other
work K a r p ü r a v a r t t i k ä is a c o m m e n t a r y on t h e
S ä s t r a d i p i k ä ; and this and other g r e a t commen-
t a r i e s of this period speak well of t h e popularity
of the Sästradipikä with all s t u d e n t s of M i m ä m s ä .

Venkatädhvarin (C. A.D. 1590-1660).

V e i i k a t ä d h v a r i n is known as a contemporary
of N l l a k a n t h a Diksita, t h e grandson of Ä c c ä n
DIksita, t h e b r o t h e r of t h e famous A p p a y y a
D i k s i t a ; so he m u s t be a contemporary of
R ä j a c ü d ä m a n i Diksita (just referred to). He
says in t h e introductory v e r s e s 1 of his famous
1. ' Käncvnandalamandanasya makhinah
Karnätabhübhrdguroh
Tätäryasya digantakäntayasaso
yam bhägineyam viduh;
Astokädhvarakarturappayaguro-
rasyaisa vidvanmaneh
Putrah Sri Raghunäthadiksitakavih
pürno gunairedhate.
Tatsutastarkavedäntataniravyäkrticintakah;
Vyaktam Visvagunädarsam vidhatte Vehkatädhvari.'
The colophon at the end of this work gives additional
matter that he belonged to the Ätreya Gotra and his
 PÜRVA MIMÄMSÄ ÖÄSTRA 125

l i t e r a r y work—the Visvagunädarsa Campü—that

he belonged to t h e family of t h e famous T ä t ä -
c ä r y a who w a s well-known a s t h e A c ä r y a of the
great king, V e n k a t a p a t i of Vijayanagar, and a
rival of A p p a y y a D i k s i t a ; t h a t his grandfather
was one A p p a y y a who is glorified as the nephew
of the famous T ä t ä r y a , o t h e r w i s e known as
T ä t ä c ä r y a , and as a g r e a t l i t e r a r y scholar
who performed m a n y sacrifices; and t h a t this
Appayya had a son called R a g h u n ä t h a Diksita
who was a poet of a v e r y high order. His son
w a s our a u t h o r — V e i i k a t ä d h v a r i n — w h o regarded
himself to be well-versed in logic, V e d ä n t a ,
Mimämsä and V y ä k a r a n a — t h e four g r e a t Säs-
t r a s . H e belonged to t h e village Arasanipäle
n e a r Conjeevaram in t h e N o r t h Arcot District
(Madras). 1 H i s two w o r k s on M i m ä m s ä are—
the Vidhitrayaparitrana and the Mimämsamaka-
randa? t h e former explaining t h e necessity of
the division of Vidhi into three—apürva, niyama
and parisankhyä—and t h e l a t t e r dealing w i t h
t h e a u t h o r i t a t i v e n e s s of t h e arthavadas on
dharma as understood by t h e M i m a m s a k a s . H i s
V i s v a g u n ä d a r s a deserves h i g h praise as a
standard work and is second only to t h e R ä m ä -
y a n a Campü.

mother was called Sitä :—*' Iti Sripancamatabhanjananiban-

dhanavikhyätaTätayajvabhägineya - Väjapeyasarvaprsthäptoryä'
mädiyäjyätreyavamsamauktikibhavadappayyäryatanübhava'slesa-
yamakacakravarti-Raghunäthäcäryatanayasya Sriniväsakrpäti-
sayasamviditanayasya Sitämbägarbhasambhavasya ßrimat-Kartei-
nagaravästavyasya Mahäkavi-ßri- Venkatßdhvarinah krtau Visva-
gunädarsacampüh samäptimagät.''
1. See the Sanskrit Introduction to the Visvagunä-
darsa, (N. S. Edition), p. 6, (1915).
2. Both the works are preserved in the Madras Mss.
Libraries.
 126 INTRODUCTION
Räghavendrayati (C. A. D. 1600-1670).

R ä g h a v e n d r a y a t i is known as t h e second
spiritual successor of V i j a y m d r a T i r t h a between
A. D. 1623 and 1671 (Saka 1545-93). 1 About fifty
w o r k s a r e ascribed to him, including commen-
t a r i e s on t h e V e d a s . One of t h e g r e a t e s t w o r k s
of his is t h e Parimala (on t h e model of A p p a y y a
Diksita's K a l p a t a r u p a r i m a l a ) , a c o m m e n t a r y on
Jayatirtha's Nyäyasudhä. H i s only work in
M l m ä m s ä is t h e Bhattasangraha, a commentary
on t h e P ü r v a m i m ä m s ä S ü t r a s 2 which w a s m u c h
appreciated by N U a k a n t h a Diksita.

H i s f a t h e r w a s T i m m a n n a b h a t t a r his mother,
Gopammä, his grandfather, Kanakäcalabhatta
and great-grandfather, K r s n a b h a t t a . H i s t e a c h e r
w a s S u d h m d r a g u r u p ä d a . H i s original n a m e w a s
Venkannabhatta. His g r e a t - g r a n d f a t h e r left
K u m b a k o n a m for V i j a y a n a g a r and w a s a famous
V a i y ä k a r a n a in t h e Court of V i j a y a n a g a r .
After t h e r u i n of Vijayanagar, he left for Käiici.
R ä g h a v e n d r a y a t i , alias Veni-(Vlnä ?) V e n k a n n a -
b h a t t a is said to have m a r r i e d a t Bhuvanagiri,
five miles from Chidambaram. H i s m o r t a l r e m a i n s
lie entombed at t h e M a n t r ä l a y a on t h e b a n k s
of t h e T u n g a b h a d r ä in t h e Bellary District.

Rämakrsna Diksita (C. A. D. 1600-1670).

To t h e s e v e n t e e n t h c e n t u r y might h a v e
belonged R ä m a k r s n a Diksita, who is known to
h a v e w r i t t e n a c o m m e n t a r y on t h e Pürva

1. See Epigraphica Indica, Vol. XII, pp. 344-7.

2. See colophon of this work:—" Iti Bhättasahgrahe
sarvatantrasvatantra'Sadhl7idragurupädasisya''Eäghavendrayati'
krte dvädasädhyäyasya caturthah pddah.' This work is pre-
' served in the Madras Mss. Libraries.
 PÜRVA MIMÄMSÄ älSTßA 12?

M i m ä m s ä Sütras—Mimärhsünyüyadarpana. 1 He
is t h e son of D h a r m a r ä j ä d h v a r m d r a , t h e celebrated
a u t h o r of t h e A d v a i t a V e d ä n t a P a r i b h ä s ä and
t h e T a r k a c ü d ä m a n i (a c o m m e n t a r y on t h e T a r k a -
c i n t ä m a n i and an adverse criticism of t h e Dasa-
tika.) 2 H e belonged to t h e Velangudi village n e a r
K u m b a k o n a m w h e r e flourished t h e g r e a t revered
scholar V e n k a t a n ä t h a , t h e t e a c h e r and father of
D h a r m a r ä j ä d h v a r m d r a . This D h a r m a r ä j ä d h v a r m -
dra is l a t e r t h a n A p p a y y a D i k s i t a since h e h a s pre-
supposed his P a r i m a l a and S i d d h ä n t a l e s a s a n g r a h a ,
and a n t e r i o r to Srlniväsadäsa, t h e a u t h o r of t h e
Y a t m d r a m a t a d i p i k ä which contains t h e refuta-
tions of some sections of t h e A d v a i t a V e d ä n t a
P a r i b h ä s ä . So D h a r m a r ä j ä d h v a r i n m i g h t have,
as a younger c o n t e m p o r a r y of A p p a y y a Diksita,
flourished towards t h e close of t h e 16th c e n t u r y
and at t h e beginning of t h e 17th century, and
his son R ä m a k r s n a Diksita, in t h e middle of
t h e 17th century. 3

R ä m a k r s n a D i k s i t a is k n o w n to p o s t e r i t y as
t h e famous c o m m e n t a t o r on his father's V e d ä n t a
P a r i b h ä s ä , w h e r e he plays t h e p a r t more of a
N a i y ä y i k a t h a n of a t r u e Advaitin.

1. This work is preserved in the Madras Mss. Libraries.

2. See the introductory verses of the Vedänta Pari-
bhäsä.
3. See MM. N. S. Anantakrishna Sastrigal's Sanskrit
Introduction to his edition of the Vedänta Paribhäsä, p. 64,
and also Sir S. Radhakrishnan's English Foreword (Cal-
cutta 1927),
128 INTRODUCTION
Somanätha Diksita (C. A. D. 1600).

S o m a n ä t h a D i k s i t a is a n o t h e r famous w r i t e r
of this period. H e is t h e r e p u t e d c o m m e n t a t o r
on the Sästradipikä, omitting t h e T a r k a p ä d a .
T h e earliest reference to h i m is made by
S a m b h u b h a t t a in his Prabhävali, 1 a c o m m e n t a r y
on K h a n d a d e v a ' s B h ä t t a d i p i k ä . From the
colophon, 2 t h e i n t r o d u c t o r y verse 3 and an uha
passage 4 it is clear t h a t he w a s t h e great-grandson
of S u r e s v a r a y a j v a ä a r m a n of N i t t a l a k u l a (gotra),
t h e grandson of S o m a n ä t h a y a j v a s a r m a n and t h e
son of S ü r a b h a t t a s a r m a n , otherwise known as
Sürabhattamahopädhyäya. His mother's name
is M a i r a m m a d ä . H i s t e a c h e r w a s his own elder
brother Venkatädriyajvan. H i s family is v e r y
famous for t h e performance of vedic sacrifices.
H e himself is k n o w n in t h e colophon as a
sarvatomukhayajvan. The t h r e e pravararsis of
his family a r e Yuvanäsva, Ambarlsa and Angiras.

1. See the Prabhävali, pp. 66, 88, 92, 95, 97, 108 (N. S.
Edition.)
2. 4 Iti Sri NittalakulaHlaka-Sürabhatta-mahopädhyäi/atanü'
bhavasya Vehkatädriyajvagurucaranänujasya Somanäthasarva-
tomukhayäjinah krtau ßästradvpikävyäkhyäyäm Mayükhamäli-
käsamjnäyäm prathamädhyäyasya caturthah pädah.' (p. 92,
N. S. Edition.)
3. 4 Athigatya kalämakhiläm-
agrabhaväd" Vehkatßdriyajvaguroh ;
Vacanaih anatipracuraih
vyäkurve Sästradipikäm visadäm.'—Verse 2.
4. * Agnirdevo hoteti mantre Yuvanäsvavadambarisavadah"
girovat ütham yajamänärseyam pravarah Subrahmanyänigade
Surabhattasarmanah putro yajate Somanäthayajvasarmanah
pautrah Suresvarayajvasarmano naptä yajate Mairammadäyäh
putro yajate ityevam praksipyamändni, etc. p. 113. It is likely
that the author has given his own gotrarsis and pravararsis
in the Üha passage when he had to illustrate it.
 PÜRVA MIMÄMSÄ äÄSTRA 129

H i s Mayükhamälikä1 is a s t a n d a r d commen-
t a r y on t h e Sästradipikä. H e refers to most of
t h e i m p o r t a n t a u t h o r s and w o r k s in t h e Mimärhsä-
sästra—the B h ä s y a k ä r a (Sabarasvämin), the
V ä r t t i k a k ä r a , t h e a u t h o r of the M b a n d h a n a , 2
Bhavadeva, 3 Bhavanätha, 4 t h e N y ä y a s u d h ä k ä r a , 5
Varadaräja, 6 A p p a y y a Diksita's V i d h i r a s ä y a n a , 7
t h e Käsikätikä, 8 the T a n t r a r a t n a , 9 and t h e
Nyäyaratnamälä.10

Yajnanärayana Dlksita {C. A. D. 1600).

To this period might also have belonged

Y a j n a n ä r a y a n a Dlksita, a n o t h e r g r e a t commen-
t a t o r on t h e Sästradipikä. I n t h e colophon and
t h e i n t r o d u c t o r y verses of t h e work 1 1 he h a s

1. This was published (together with the Sästradipikä)

in the Nirnaya Sagara Press, Bombay, in 1915.
2. See page 12. 3. P. 33, 52, 127. 4. P. 11, 183.
5. P. 86,106, 131, 274. 6. P. 75, 96, 183. 7. P. 728.
8. P. 50. 9. P. 105. 10. P. 110.
11. * Vandesmatprapitämaham
Tirumalasriyajvaräjam tathä
Yajnesam ca pitämaham
svapitaram Snkondubhattärakam;
Tacchi{syä)nujanim pürvyatüakam
Srilaksmanäryam gurum
Jyestham sresthagunänvitam
Tirumaläkhyänam varam yajvanäm.
Kadalikapotamahesapritiparipräptabhäratisrikau;
Äcärakürikulendünapi...naumi purusadhaureyän.
Nutyeha Gautamämbä tanayoSlankäranätakädikarah;
Vedänta-tarka-sabda-granthakr-däbhäti jagati Yajnesah.
Prabhinnatamasam Sästradipikärthaprakäsakam;
Prabhämandalanämänam prabandham sohamärabhe.'
>»
Colophon :— Iti Sri sakalapanditamandaläkhandalacala-Küri-
Kondabhattopädhyäyatanayena Sri-pitämaha-Yajnesvarabhatto-
 130 INTRODUCTION
described himself as the great-grandson of
Tirumalayajvan, t h e grandson and disciple of
Y a j n e s v a r a B h a t t o p ä d h y ä y a , and t h e son of
Kürikondabhattopädhyäya. His mother's name was
Gangämbikä. H e h a d a p a t e r n a l uncle L a k s m a n a
whom he calls his guru and h a d an elder brother,
Tirumala (yajvan). H e belonged to the Kasyapa
gotra and studied t h e Rg-Veda. H i s c o m m e n t a r y
on t h e Sästradipikä is known as t h e Prabha-
mandala. I t begins with the second päda of t h e
first A d h y ä y a . H e calls himself a g r e a t w r i t e r
of N ä t a k a s and t r e a t i s e s on A l a n k ä r a s ä s t r a ,
V e d ä n t a , T a r k a and Sabda ( V y ä k a r a n a ) . His
1
commentary is elaborate and is m u c h useful in
t r a c i n g out t h e t e n e t s of the P r ä b h ä k a r a school,
which P ä r t h a s ä r a t h i m i s r a h a s refuted in his
Sästradipikä.

Narayana {C. A. D. 1600).

N ä r ä y a n a (or N ä r ä y a n a b h a t t a ) h a s w r i t t e n
t h e meya section of t h e Mänameyodaya under
t h e benevolent patronage of King Manaveda of
Calicut. F r o m t h e i n t r o d u c t o r y and concluding
verses of his w o r k 3 his t e a c h e r s are known—
Subrahmanya (the son of t h e d a u g h t e r of one
famous Purusottama) and Rama for Mimämsa,
and Krsna for Sähitya.

pädhyäyasisyena Käsyapagotrabahvrcägresarena Ti?'umalayajva-

priyasodarena Gähgämbikeyena Sri Yajnanäräyanadlksitena
viracite Sästradlpikävyäkhyäne Prabhämandaläkhyäne pratha-
masyädhyäyasya dviüyah pädah.
1. This work is preserved in the Madras Mss. Libraries.
2. See the Meya Section of the Mänameyodaya, (T. P.
H.), pp. 146-147 ; 306-309.
 PÜRVA MIMÄMSÄ ÖÄSTRA 131
Kamaläkarabhatta (C. A. D. 1590-1660).

K a m a l ä k a r a b h a t t a 1 is t h e son of E ä m a -
k r s n a b h a t t a , brother of S a n k a r a b h a t t a (already
referred to). H e is k n o w n to have w r i t t e n two
w o r k s on Mimämsä, one, a c o m m e n t a r y i on t h e
T a n t r a v ä r t t i k a and another, on t h e Sästradipikä,
t h e l a t t e r known as Äloka? Besides t h e s e two
works, he is credited w i t h 20 more w o r k s on
different topics, mainly b e a r i n g on d h a r m a ä ä s t r a .
His famous w o r k is t h e Nirnayasindhu—a
n i b a n d h a n a work, or digest, in t h e D h a r m a ä ä s t r a
which is said to have been completed by t h e
a u t h o r in 1668 V i k r a m a e r a on t h e 14th day of
t h e d a r k half of the m o n t h M ä g h a in t h e R a u d r a
year, which is equivalent to 20th F e b r u a r y A. D.
1612. So his l i t e r a r y career might have been
between A. D. 1610 and 1640.

Dinakarabhatta (C. A. D. 1590-1660).

K a m a l ä k a r a b h a t t a ' s b r o t h e r is Dinakara-
b h a t t a who is also known as a g r e a t scholar
on M i m ä m s ä . H i s work on M i m ä m s ä 3 is a b r i e f
c o m m e n t a r y on t h e 12 c h a p t e r s of t h e M i m ä m s ä
S ü t r a s on t h e model of t h e Sästradipikä.

Anantadeva and Jivadeva (C. A. D. 1600-1670).

To t h e beginning of t h e 17th c e n t u r y belonged

t h e two sons of Ä p a d e v a — A n a n t a d e v a and
Jivadeva. A n a n t a d e v a is t h e a u t h o r of a com-
m e n t a r y on his father's N y ä y a p r a k ä ä a , called

1. See P. V. Kane's 'History of Dharma Öästra'

pp. 432 and 437. Vide also his P. M. System, p. 19.
2. Both the works are preserved in the Madras Govt.
Mss. Library.
3. This work is preserved in the Madras Mss. Libraries,
 132 INTRODUCTION

Bhättülankära, which S a m b h u b h a t t a h a s every

now and t h e n referred to and criticised. 1 This com-
m e n t a r y 2 is no doubt good but cannot be regarded
as his best work. His S m r t i k a u s t u b h a (already
referred to) gives him a higher place among t h e
g r e a t a u t h o r s of his time. Jivadeva, t h e y o u n g e r
son of Äpadeva, is the a u t h o r of t h e Bkätta-
bhäskara, which is also referred to by Sambhu-
bhatta. 3 I t deals with the p r a m ä n a s on d h a r m a
—the contents of t h e first Adhyäya. 4 H i s o t h e r
w o r k s are t h e Gotrapravaranirnaya and t h e
Asaucanirnaya bearing on the D h a r m a ä ä s t r a .

Kavindracarya (C. A. D. 1600-1670).

To t h e beginning of the s e v e n t e e n t h c e n t u r y
belonged K a v i n d r a c a r y a who is k n o w n t o h a v e
w r i t t e n a c o m m e n t a r y on t h e T a n t r a v ä r t t i k a .
H e is said to be a contemporary of V i s v a n ä t h a
P a n c a n a n a , t h e a u t h o r of t h e N y ä y a s i d d h ä n t a -
m u k t ä v a l i and other works in N y ä y a ä ä s t r a .
Besides being a g r e a t scholar and a n a u t h o r of
m a n y w o r k s including commentaries on t h e
Vedas, 5 h e is known to have possessed a good
collection of r a r e works carefully p r e s e r v e d ; and
t h i s list of books h a s been published in t h e
Gaekwad's Oriental Series, Baroda, No. 17.

1. See the Prabhävali, (N. S. Edition), pp. 3, 6, 15, 19,

21, 32, 80, 282.
2. It was published (together with the text) at
Benares.
3. See the Prabhävali, pp. 14, 18.
4. It is preserved in the Madras Mss. Libraries.
5. Vide the Introduction.
 PÜRVA MlMÄMSÄ älSTRA 133

Änantabhatta (C. A. D. 1630-1730).

A n a n t a b h a t t a , son of K a m a l ä k a r a b h a t t a , is
known to have w r i t t e n a work—Sästramälävrtti. 1
I t is a c o m m e n t a r y on t h e s ü t r a s on t h e model
of t h e Sästradipikä. I t is v e r y brief and sum-
m a r i s e s t h e contents of t h e a d h i k a r a n a s .

Gagabhatta (C. A. D. 1630-1700).

G ä g ä b h a t t a also k n o w n as V i s v e s v a r a b h a t t a ,
is t h e son of D i n a k a r a b h a t t a (already referred
to). H e is k n o w n as t h e a u t h o r of a commen-
t a r y on t h e 12 c h a p t e r s of t h e P ü r v a M i m ä m s ä
S ü t r a s , called Bhattacintämani? He adopts
every now and t h e n t h e navy a-ny ay a terminology
and his elucidation of m a n y topics in t h e T a r k a -
päda and o t h e r sections of his c o m m e n t a r y is
v e r y precise. H i s o t h e r w o r k s on M i m ä m s ä
a r e : a c o m m e n t a r y on t h e S l o k a v ä r t t i k a called
ßivärkodaya and a Sütravrtti called Kusumänjali
t h e l a t t e r h e h a s referred t o in his B h ä t t a -
cintämani. 3 Mr. P . V. K a n e s a y s 4 in his H i s t o r y
of t h e D h a r m a ä ä s t r a t h a t G ä g ä b h a t t a officiated
at the coronation of t h e g r e a t Shivaji in 1674
A. D. So he can well be assigned to t h e l a t t e r
half of t h e 17th c e n t u r y .

1. This work is preserved in the Madras Govt. Mss.

Libraries.
2. The Tarkapäda was published at Benares and the
rest are preserved at Madras and Tanjore Mss. Libraries.
3. See the Bhättacintämani, page 67, Benares, 1934.
4. See his History of Dharma Öästra, p. 437. See his
P. M. System, p. 19,
134 INTRODUCTION'

Kollür Naräyana Sästri (C. A. D. 1630-1700).

Kollür N a r ä y a n a Sästri is k n o w n 1 as t h e
disciple of S o m a n ä t h a Diksita, t h e famous com-
m e n t a t o r on t h e Sästradipikä. H i s f a t h e r w a s
Kollür Somayäjin and mother, Ä c c a m ä m b ä . He
is t h e a u t h o r of t h r e e works—(1) Mimämsä-
sarvasva which is a c o m m e n t a r y on t h e S ü t r a s
explaining t h e a d h i k a r a n a s in full; (2) Vidhi-
viveka—an independent t r e a t i s e possessing nine
m a i n s e c t i o n s 3 chiefly dealing w i t h t h e various
aspects of vidhi—(i) utpatti, viniyoga, prayukti,
and adhikära; (ii) nitya, naimittika and kamya,
etc.; (3) Vidhidarpana—another similar work
dealing w i t h t h e vidhis and its v a r i e t i e s . A s he
w a s t h e disciple of S o m a n ä t h a Diksita, he m a y
be fairly placed soon after him (i.e.) A. D. 1630-
1700.

8'ambhubhatta (C. A. D. 1640-1700).

To t h e l a t t e r half of t h e 17th century

belonged S a m b h u b h a t t a , t h e celebrated commen-

1. Vide the colophon in his Mimämsäsarvasva—' Iti

Sri Nitthalakulatilaka-Somanäthadiksita - mahopädhyäyacarana'
paricaranasamuditamanonairmalyaviscdikrtasakalamstratattva''
sya Kollüri - Somayäjitanübhavasya Äccamämbägarbhasanibha-
vasya Näräyanasästrinah krtisu Mimämsäsarvasvasamäkhyä-
yäm dvüiyasya caturthah pädah.' All his three works are
preserved in the Madras Mss. Libraries.
2. The nine main sections of this work are:—
1. Sästrärambhavicärah 5. Prayukticintä
2. Kämyanityavivekah 6. Kramapramänanirüpanam
3. ärutiviniyogavidhih 7. Vidhyadhikäranirüpanam
4. Lingädiviniyogavidhih 8. Atidesavicärah
9. Atidesabädhavicärah
Colophon of this work :—' Iti Sri Kollürikulatüaka-Soma'
yäjitanayasya Äccamämbägarbhasambhütasya Kollüri Naräyana
Sästrinah krtau Vidhivivekasamäkhyäyäm prathamah pari-
cchedah.' This work has also got a division of Pariccheda,
 PÜRVA MIMÄMSÄ SÄSTRA 135
1
t a t o r on t h e B h ä t t a d i p i k ä . H e is known as t h e
direct disciple of K h a n d a d e v a m i s r a himself. His
father w a s B ä l a k r s n a , who is described by him
as well-versed in t h e vedas and s ä s t r a s , as a
great sacrificer and an a r d e n t devotee of Siva.
S a m b h u b h a t t a ' s only work so far known is t h e
Prabhävali, t h e c o m m e n t a r y on t h e Bhättadipikä.
I t is v e r y elaborate and polemic. I t does not
in m a n y i n s t a n c e s explain t h e difficult t e x t of
the Bhättadipikä, t h o u g h it supplements it much.
As a direct disciple of K h a n d a d e v a m i s r a he had
the unique a d v a n t a g e of knowing fully t h e views
of his t e a c h e r w h o m he calls püjyapäda, and he
has s t r e n g t h e n e d f u r t h e r t h e n a v y a school in
M i m ä m s ä founded by Khandadeva. A s he
himself h a s said, 2 he w a s asked by his teacher
not to comment on t h e Bhättadipikä to t h e end
of t h e B a l ä b a l ä d h i k a r a n a on t h e ground t h a t
students of M i m ä m s ä could u n d e r s t a n d t h e terse
and brief l a n g u a g e of t h e Bhättadipikä by a
close s t u d y of t h e more elaborate B h ä t t a k a u s t u -
bha. B u t a g a i n s t t h e wishes of his revered
teacher he h a s commented on those portions also
with a fitting introduction dealing with the

1. See his introductory verses of his Prabhävali:—

* Yo vedasästrärnavapäradrsvä
yajnädikarmä ca raneztidaksah ;
Sadäsivärädhanasuddhacittah
tarn Bälakrsnam pitaram namämi.
Sri Khandadevam pranipatya sadgurum
Mimämsakasväntasarojabhäskaram.
The colophon of this work may also be noted with
advantage :—* Iti Srimatpürvottaramimämsäpärävärinadhurina-
Sri Khandadevänteväsi Kavimandana-SambhubhaUaviracitayam
Bhättadipikäprabhävalyäm prathamädhyäyasya caturthah pädah.'
P. 131, (N. S. Edition).
2. See the Prabhävali, p. 295, (N. S. Edition).
136 INTRODUCTION
i m p o r t a n t topics in the T a r k a p ä d a . I t is a very
elaborate c o m m e n t a r y on t h e B h ä t t a d i p i k ä and
it further establishes t h e navyamata by refuting
t h e views of t h e P r ä c m a s belonging to t h e B h ä t t a
school—Pärthasärathimigra, Bhattasomesvara,
K h a n d a n a k ä r a (?)* Appayya Diksita, Äpadeva and
his son A n a n t a d e v a , S a n k a r a b h a t t a and Soma-
n ä t h a Diksita. A t times he refutes also t h e
views of t h e P r ä b h ä k a r a s .

Appayya Diksita (C. A. D. 1650).

A p p a y y a Diksita is known as t h e a u t h o r
of the Tantrasiddhäntadipikä, a c o m m e n t a r y on
the Pürva Mimämsä Sütras. A s is stated
2
in t h e colophon he w a s t h e son of A p p a y y a
Diksita (the a u t h o r of K u k m i n i p a r i n a y a and
m a n y o t h e r works) and grandson of A y y ä
Diksita (the brother of t h e famous A p p a y y a
D i k s i t a ) ; so he m a y be assigned to t h e middle
of t h e 17th c e n t u r y . T h e r e is a n o t h e r work—
Visayasangrahadlpikä from t h e pen of one
A p p a y y a D i k s i t a who might be t h e same as t h e
a u t h o r of t h e T a n t r a s i d d h ä n t a d i p i k ä . The l a t t e r
work is only a succinct s u m m a r y of t h e contents
of t h e 12 A d h y ä y a s of t h e P ü r v a M i m ä m s ä
S ü t r a s , o m i t t i n g the T a r k a p ä d a .

1. See the Prabhävali, p. 41. Who is this Khandana-

kära (Sri Harsa?) is not known.
2. * Iti Srlmadbhäradväjakulajaladhikaustubha-Srikantha'
m^taprati§thäpanäcärya"Caturadhikasataprabandha-nirmäna"dhu'
randhara-mahävratayäji - Srimadappayyadiksitasodarya - ßrima-
dayyädiksitapautrena Bukminiparinayälahkäratüakädyaneka-
prabandhanirmätuh Appayyadiksitasya putrena Appayyadiksi-
tena krtäyäm Tantrasiddhäntadipikäyäm prathamädhyäyasya
caturthah pädah.' This and the Visayasangrahadlpikä are
preserved in the Madras Mss. Libraries.
 PÜRVA MIMÄMSÄ SÄSTRA 137

Annambhatta (C. A. D. 1700).

To the l a t t e r p a r t of t h e 17th c e n t u r y
belonged A n n a m b h a t t a , one of t h e l i t e r a r y cele-
brities of this c e n t u r y . H e is said to have
belonged to some Ä n d h r a district. H e is known
(from the colophons of his works) 1 as t h e son of
T i r u m a l ä r y a of R ä g h a v a Somayäji family. A
versatile scholar and a reputed polymath, he h a s
w r i t t e n works in almost all i m p o r t a n t b r a n c h e s
of Sästraic l i t e r a t u r e . H i s w o r k s on M i m ä m s ä
are (1) Subodhinl—a c o m m e n t a r y on t h e T a n t r a -
v ä r t t i k a ; (2) Ränakojjivini—a c o m m e n t a r y on
the K a n a k a otherwise k n o w n as t h e N y ä y a -
sudhä of B h a t t a s o m e s v a r a ; and (3) t h e Ränaka-
bhävanäkarikävivarana—containing 54 stanzas
with c o m m e n t a r y which investigates the import
of t h e vidhipratyaya from t h e M I m ä m s a k a stand-
point—probably a n e x t r a c t culled from B h a t t a -
somesvara's Kanaka. 0 A m o n g his other w o r k s
mention m a y be made of (1) his advaitic com-
m e n t a r y on t h e B r a h m a s ü t r a s ; (2) his commen-
t a r y on t h e A s t ä d h y ä y i of P ä n i n i ; (3) an
extensive c o m m e n t a r y called U d y o t a n a on Kai-
y a t a ' s B h ä s y a p r a d i p a ; (4) his learned commen-
t a r y called Siddhänjana on J a y a d e v a ' s M a n y ä -
l o k a ; (5) the Tarkasangraha—the most popular
primer in N y ä y a S ä s t r a ; and (6) his own com-
m e n t a r y Dipika on t h e T a r k a s a n g r a h a . These
works well prove t h e v e r s a t i l i t y of our a u t h o r .

1. ' Iti Srimahopädhyäyädvaitavidyäcärya-Bäghavasoma-

yäjikulävatamsa-Sri- Tirumaläryavaryasya sünoh Annambhaüasya
krtau Tantravärtükatikäyärn ßubodhinyäm trtiyädhyäyasya
prathamah pädah.'
2. The three works are preserved in the Madras Mss.
Libraries.
s
 138 INTRODUCTION

Rämakrsnabhatta (C. A. D. 1700).

R ä m a k r s n a b h a t t a , t h e a u t h o r of t h e Yukti-
snehaprapürani, might have belonged to this
period. H i s i n t r o d u c t o r y v e r s e s 1 give his genea-
logy. I n t h e Malwa c o u n t r y on t h e n o r t h e r n
b a n k of t h e N a r m a d ä (Revä) t h e r e flourished a
b r a h m i n family of Paräsara gotra where was
born one Sivadäsa who w a s well-versed in t h e
Vedas and S ä s t r a s . H e had a son M i t r a s a r m a n
who w a s m u c h revered by t h e scholars of his
day for his learning in all S ä s t r a s and for his
m a g n a n i m o u s personality. H e h a d in his t u r n
a son called J a n ä r d a n a , a g r e a t scholar and
devotee of Visnu. This J a n ä r d a n a begot a son
B h a i r a v a by his wife Gangä. This B h a i r a v a
w a s m u c h patronised by the c o n t e m p o r a r y king
of Sesavamsa. F r o m him and P ü n ä d e v l w a s
born N ä r ä y a n a who also w a s a reputed scholar
in S ä s t r a s and w a s patronised by t h e contem-
p o r a r y kings. H e h a d by his wife R a m a a son
called M ä d h a v a who is said to have left his
native place for B e n a r e s for his education.
There he h a d by his wife P r a b h ä v a t i a son
called R ä m a k r s n a (our author) who w a s m u c h

1. Yuktisnehaprapürani, verses 4-19, (N. S. Edn., 1915).

Öivadäsa (of Paräsara Gotra)
i
Mitrasarman
I (son)
Janärdana—m. Gangä
I (son)
Bhairava—m. Pünädevl
I
Näräyana—m. Kama
Mädhava—m. Prabhävati
| (who left to Benares)
Rämakrsna (the author of the Yuktisneha-
prapürani).
 PÜRVA MIMAMSA ÖlSTRA 139

devoted to his p a r e n t s and w a s known as an

adept in all t h e S ä s t r a s . H e got t h e title
4
Bhatta' in an assembly of learned pandits and
citizens and he made a n a m e for himself by
w r i t i n g m a n y w o r k s . B y t h e composition of his
Pratapamartanda he got t h e title Panditasiro-
mani from Balabhadra, t h e preceptor of the t h e n
king (of Benares) in t h e G-ajapatisadas. He
says also t h a t he w r o t e his c o m m e n t a r y on t h e
Sästradipikä ( T a r k a p ä d a only) in view of t h e
fact t h a t no c o m m e n t a r y h a d been so far w r i t t e n
on it.

His c o m m e n t a r y — Yuktisnehaprapuranl—with
his own Tikä (gloss) elucidates t h e t e x t of t h e
T a r k a p ä d a of t h e S ä s t r a d i p i k ä ; in addition, it
quotes U m v e k a , B h a r t r m i t r a — t w o obscure and
generally unknown authors in the Pürva
M i m ä m s ä S ä s t r a . I t refers to t h e B r h a t t i k ä as
belonging to t h e V ä r t t i k a k ä r a . I t helps consi-
derably in t h e establishment of t h e view t h a t
t h e V r t t i g r a n t h a in t h e S ä b a r a b h ä s y a on 1-1. 5
extends to t h e end of t h e b h ä s y a thereon. 1 I t
quotes profusely from K u m ä r i l a ' s S l o k a v ä r t t i k a
and from S u c a r i t a m i s r a ' s K ä ä i k ä .

I t is v e r y doubtful w h e t h e r this same

R ä m a k r s n a b h a t t a is identical w i t h R ä m a k r s n a ,
t h e a u t h o r of t h e Laghupürvamlmämsädhikarana-
kaumudi? for t h e l a t t e r contains m a n y apa-
siddhäntas; so it cannot h a v e been from t h e
pen of the a u t h o r of t h e Yuktisnehaprapuranl.

1. See the writer's paper on 4 Old Vrttikäras on the

Pürvamimämsä Sütras' I. H. Q., September 1934.
%. This work was published at Benarest
 140 INTRODUCTION
Bhäskararäya (C. A. D. 1700-1760).
To t h e beginning of t h e 18th c e n t u r y belonged
B h ä s k a r a r ä y a , the son of G a m b h i r a r ä y a and t h e
a u t h o r of t h e commentaries on t h e B h ä t t a d i p i k ä
{Candrodaya)1 and on the S a n k a r s a k ä n d a s ü t r a s ,
(Candrikäf t h e l a t t e r giving only t h e p ü r v a p a k s a
and Siddhänta views very briefly. I t is also
believed t h a t he is t h e a u t h o r of a paper entitled
*Matvarthalaksanavicara* Some scholars have
opined t h a t B h ä s k a r a r ä y a h a s based his com-
m e n t a r y on K h a n d a d e v a m i s r a ' s c o m m e n t a r y on
the Sankarsakända. But it is proved beyond
doubt from B h ä s k a r a r ä y a ' s own s t a t e m e n t s in
his Bhättacandrikä t h a t K h a n d a d e v a h a s not
w r i t t e n a n y c o m m e n t a r y on t h e S a i i k a r s a ; and
so it can be said t h a t his c o m m e n t a r y might
not have been based on t h a t of K h a n d a d e v a
but as references show, on t h e B h ä s y a of Deva-
svämin. 3
B h ä s k a r a r ä y a ' s c o m m e n t a r y on t h e B h ä t t a -
dipikä begins w i t h t h e T a r k a p ä d a of t h e B h ä t t a -
dipikä, t h e a u t h e n t i c i t y of which is however
questioned. H i s c o m m e n t a r y is b e t t e r and more
helpful t h a n t h e P r a b h ä v a l i in t h a t it explains
clearly t h e brief and enigmatic language of
Khandadeva in his Bhättadipikä.
B h ä s k a r a r ä y a seems to have been a prolific
writer. A m o n g his o t h e r w o r k s 4 m e n t i o n m a y
be made of h i s c o m m e n t a r y on t h e Lalitä-
sahasranäma a n d his Vaidikakosa w i t h his V r t t i .
1. It is preserved in the Madras Mss. Libraries.
2. It was published in the ' Pandit'.
3. See the writer's paper on ' The Sankarsakända—a
Genuine Supplement to the P. M. Sästra' I. H. Q.
4. Vide the English Introduction to the Lalitäsahasra-
näma Translation by R. Anantakrishna Sastri.
 PÜRVA MlMÄMSÄ SlSTRA 141

Krsnayajvan (C. A. D. 1700-1760).

Most probably in t h e beginning of t h e 18th

c e n t u r y flourished K r s n a y a j v a n w h o h a s w r i t t e n
a v e r y good prakarana w o r k called Paribhäsä.1
I t is of immense u s e for t h e beginners of
M i m ä m s ä in t h a t it succinctly s u m m a r i s e s t h e
most i m p o r t a n t t e n e t s of M i m ä m s ä such as
Vidhi w i t h i t s i m p o r t a n t varieties, t h e six pra-
manas of angatva, t h e division of Karma, the
two kinds of BMvana, etc. T h e style is simple
and lucid and t h e exposition, t h o u g h brief, is
to t h e point. T h e a u t h o r seems to be a Tamilian
and as such it is popular in t h e Tamil countries.

Vasudeva Diksüa (C. A.D. 1700-1760).

To this period belonged V ä s u d e v a Diksita,

t h e reputed a u t h o r of t h e Adhvaramimämsä-
kutühalavrtti. H e w a s t h e son of A d h v a r y u
Mahädevaväjapeyin by A n n a p ü r n ä . Mahädeva-
väjapeyin w a s t h e a d h v a r y u (one of t h e four
chief priests) in t h e sacrifices performed by
T r y a m b a k a r ä y a m a k h i n , t h e famous minister of
K i n g Sähaji (C. A. D. 1684-1710) and by Ä n a n d a -
r ä y a m a k h i n , t h e well-known minister and Dalavoy
of t h e M a h r a t h a kings of Tanjore—Serfoji I. and
Tukkoji (Tulaja I.) between C. A. D. 1711-1735.2
So he belonged to t h e 18th c e n t u r y . H i s chief
work is t h e Adhvaramimämsakutühalavrtti? a

1. It was published at Bombay. It was also published

with a commentary by Pandit D. T. Tatacharya, M. O. L.,
at Tanjore.
2. Vide the colophons in his Adhvaramimämsäkutü-
halavrtti and Bälamanoramä.
3. The first three adhyäyas of this work (with a
Summary by MM. Prof. S. Kuppuswami Sastrigal) was
published in the Yani Yilas Press, Srirangam (Trichy Dt.)
142 INTRODUCTION

voluminous and polemic c o m m e n t a r y on t h e

P ü r v a m i m ä m s ä s ü t r a s on t h e model of t h e B h ä t t a -
k a u s t u b h a of K h a n d a d e v a m i s r a ; and t h i s m a r k s
the last of t h e series of t h i s kind of commen-
taries in t h e h i s t o r y of t h e P ü r v a MImämsä
system. V e r y frequently he quotes t h e S a n k a r s a -
k ä n d a s ü t r a s together with D e v a s v ä m i n ' s B h ä s y a
thereon, which help one considerably for t h e
reconstruction of t h e lost s ü t r a s of t h e S a n k a r s a -
kända. This fact would also suggest t h a t he
might h a v e h a d a full access to t h e S a n k a r s a -
s ü t r a s (which are u n f o r t u n a t e l y lost to us)
and might have w r i t t e n a c o m m e n t a r y on t h e m
also.

I n m a n y places his i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of s ü t r a s
and vedic passages differ considerably from those
of t h e V ä r t t i k a k ä r a and his followers. His
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the Svädhyäyavidhi in t h e A r t h a -
v ä d ä d h i k a r a n a (I-2-1) is a d e p a r t u r e from those
of his predecessors in t h e field. H e s a y s t h a t
t h e svädhyäyavidhi enjoins V e d ä d h y a y a n a not
for Arthajnana but for Aksaragrahana; and he
argues t h a t if t h e former be t h e case, t h e n all
traivarnikas would not h a v e t h e necessity of
studying all portions of t h e vedas, in view of
the fact t h a t a b r a h m i n h a s n o t t h e utility of
the knowledge of t h e t e x t dealing w i t h t h e
R ä j a s ü y a sacrifice which a k s a t r i y a alone is
allowed to perform. And h e raises a technical
objection to t h e fact t h a t t h e arthajnana is t h e
phala (fruit) of t h e svädhyäyavidhi, i.e., t h a t t h e
phala would be t h a t which is a l r e a d y k n o w n to us
and t h a t nobody would desire to get a t h i n g
which is not known to him. So, on t h e a u t h o r i t y
of t h e Purusärthanusäsana sütras (quoted by
 PÜRVA MIMÄMSÄ ÖÄSTRA 143
S ä y a n ä c ä r y a in t h e introduction to his Rg-Veda
Samhitäbhäsya) 1 a n d of t h e sruti cited by
2
Pataiijali in his Mahäbhäsya, he concludes t h a t
t h e adhyayanavidhi enjoins a d h y a y a n a for aksara-
grahana, and t h a t t h e a r t h a j n ä n a is also made
nitya by t h e s m r t i s like * sthünurayam bhära-
härah küäbhüt' which condemn the person who
after committing t h e Vedic t e x t s to memory,
does not u n d e r s t a n d t h e m e a n i n g of t h e Vedas,
as a s t a t u e or pillar which bears a g r e a t burden
on its head w i t h o u t knowing its n a t u r e and
weight.

I n m a n y o t h e r places also he discards t h e views

of his predecessors—the V ä r t t i k a k ä r a and others.
I n t h e Abhyäsädhikarana (II-2. 2) he concludes
on t h e basis of a n a d h i k a r a n a in t h e S a n k a r s a -
k ä n d a t h a t t h e injunctions ' samidho yajati\
' Tanünapätam yajati \ etc., a r e gunavidhis.

A m o n g his o t h e r works, mention m a y be

made of (i) t h e Bälamanoramä, a good and
exhaustive c o m m e n t a r y on t h e Siddhäntakaumudi,
and (ii) t h e Bodhäyanasrautasütravyäkhya?

1. Vide Säyana's Upodghäta to his Rg-Vedabhäsya,

pp. 46-52. Dr. Pasupatinätha Sästri's Edition (Sanskrit
Sähitya Parishad Series No. 9).
2. Cf. Mahäbhäsya Paspasähnika, N. S. Edition, p. 21.
" Ägamah khalvapi—
4
Brähmanena niskärano vedah sadahgoSdhyeyo jneyasca.' "
3. Vide T. M. S. S. M. Library Descriptive Catalogue
Vol. IV, pp. 1664-1669.
144 INTRODUCTION
Rämänujacarya (C. A. D. 1750).

R ä m ä n u j ä c ä r y a is known from t h e intro-

ductory v e r s e s 1 of his Tantrarahasya to have
belonged to a place D h a r m a p u r i on the
b a n k s of t h e Godavari and as a worshipper
of God N a r a s i m h a , an incarnation of Visnu.
I n t h a t w o r k he salutes S ü t r a k ä r a J a i m i n i ,
B h ä s y a k ä r a Sabarasvämin, the Tikäkära' 2 alias
Guru, t h e a u t h o r of the two commentaries on
the B h ä s y a — t h e B r h a t i and t h e Laghvi. He
t h e n p a y s his tribute to S ä l i k a n ä t h a as a writer
of t h e two commentaries on t h e two w o r k s of
P r a b h ä k a r a — t h e Rjuvimalä on t h e B r h a t i and
the Dipasikhä on the Laghvi and of t h e p r a k a r a n a
w o r k — P r a k a r a n a p a n c i k ä . This reference sheds
considerable light on the contended question
w h e t h e r t h e B r h a t i is the same as t h e Niban-
dhana and t h e Laghvi is identical w i t h t h e

1. Vide verses 1-10 :—

' Goddvarlrodhasi sanniviqta
garlyasi dharmapuri cakdsti;
Tatrdvatlrnasya Nrsimhamurteh
Visnoh padam cetasi samsmardnvL—Verse (2)

2. Älocya sabdabalamarthabalam srutindm

tikddvayam vyaracayad Brhatim ca Laghvini;
Bhdsyam gabhiramadhikrtya mitdksaram yah
sopi Prabhdkaraguroh jayati trilokydm.
Brhatim tathaiva Laghvim
tikdmadhikrtya Sdlikdndthah;
Rjuvimaldm Dipasikhdm
visadärthämakrta Pancikdm krarnasah.
Tathdnyäm ßdlikdndtho nänäprakarandtmikdm;
Mdnameyavivekdrtham prabandham sarvasammatam.'
—Verses 5, 6 and 7
 PÜRVA MIMAMSÄ 6ÄSTRA 145

Vivarana. H e refers also to B h a v a n ä t h a 1 as

one who h a s s u m m a r i s e d in his N a y a v i v e k a t h e
doctrines of t h e P r ä b h ä k a r a school as embodied
in t h e two w o r k s of P r ä b h ä k a r a and t h e
P a n c i k ä s of S ä l l k a n ä t h a .
His w o r k Tantrarahasya* gives a s u m m a r y
of the i m p o r t a n t doctrines regarding mana and
meya as found in t h e w o r k s of his predecessors.
I t contains five paricchedas, t h e first and second
dealing w i t h t h e mänas and meyas respectively;
the third known a s Sästrapariccheda deals w i t h
the n a t u r e of sabda a n d t h e anvitäbhidhänaväda
in sabdabodha; t h e f o u r t h contains t h e exposi-
tion of apürva a s t h e import of t h e lin
suffix which is one of t h e fundamental doctrines
of the P r ä b h ä k a r a s ; t h e fifth summarises t h e
sästramukha section of t h e Prakaranapancikä
discussing t h e adhyayanavidhi. This work is,
therefore, a good p r a k a r a n a w o r k in t h e P r ä b h ä -
k a r a school, just as t h e Manameyodaya of
N ä r ä y a n a b h a t t a is in t h e B h ä t t a school. I t s
style is v e r y simple, lucid and sometimes argu-
mentative. I n m a n y places it refers to Kumärila-
b h a t t a as acarya and Värttikakärapäda. I t also
refers to a p r a k a r a n a w o r k Vimalänjana3 and
another work—Nyayasuddhi* about which nothing
is known.
' The Näyakaratna5 is a n o t h e r w o r k of his,
which is a c o m m e n t a r y on P ä r t h a s ä r a t h i m i s r a ' s
4
1. Tlkädvayam Pancikäm ca Bhavanäthastu sahksipan;
Cakre Nayavivehäkhyavi prabandham sarvasammatam.'
2. This was published in ' Gaekwad Oriental Series
No. XXIV ' (1923) under the editorship of Dr. R. Sama Sastri.
3. Ibid. p. 28. 4. Ibid. p. 27.
5. A transcript of this Ms. is preserved in the Anna-
malai University Library. It is also preserved in the
Madras Mss. Libraries.
T
U6 INTRODUCTION

Nyäyaratnamälä. Though this a u t h o r w a s a

follower of t h e P r ä b h ä k a r a school, he h a s com-
mented, as he says in one of t h e i n t r o d u c t o r y
verses, 1 on t h e N y ä y a r a t n a m ä l ä because of his
g r e a t reverence for t h a t g r e a t w r i t e r in t h e
B h ä t t a school of t h e Mimämsä S ä s t r a .

Vänchesvarayajvan (C. A. D. 1760-1830).

To t h e beginning of the 19th c e n t u r y belonged

V ä n c h e s v a r a y a j v a n , t h e a u t h o r of t h e Bhätta-
cintämani, a c o m m e n t a r y on Khandadeva's
Bhättadipikä. F r o m his i n t r o d u c t o r y v e r s e s 2 and
1. * Avibhaktavibhaktamdrgayoh
matayorbhattagurüpadistayoh ;
Ubhayorapi Pdrthasdrathih
prathitopyädyamatezbhiyogavän.
Aspastabhävamapariksakaduspravesam
äcäryatantramadhikrtya drdhaprakäsam;
Nyakkrtya Pärtharathasärathiranyatantrain
satprltaye grathitavän navaratnamäläm.
Gurutantraniyantrüopyaham
bahumänädiha Pärthasdratheh;
Vivrnomi matäntaräsritäm
sthirabhäväm Nayaratnamälikäm. *
—Käyakaratna, verses 3-5.
2. Vide the Bhättacintämani, verses 1-10:—
* Sri Saharäjendrapure Srisaharäjendravistapaih sadrse;
Krtaväso vimalamatih hosanikarnätakassudhlh srimän.
Cakre Mdhisasatakam Dhätisatakam tathäsisäm satakam ;
Sle§akavisärvabhaumah srimän Vänchesvarah svatantrosau.
Tasya naptd Mädhavärya-pautrah Srl-Narasimhatah;
Vedavedähgatattvajftät sarvasistägrapüjität.
Labdhajanmäsdhltasästro vedärthaikanivistadhih;
Mähisam satakam yena prapitümahanirmitam.
Vyäkhyätamatigambhiram pürproktena vartmanä;
Hiranyakesisütranca vyäkhyätam krstnameva hi.
Dattacintämanifbcaiva Sräddhacintämanim tathä;
Krtavän Brahmasüträ7'thacintämanimanuttamam.
 PÜRVA MIMÄMSÄ SlSTRA 147
1
colophon it is known t h a t his great-grandfather
V ä n c h e ä v a r a s u d h i (of V i ä v ä m i t r a gotra and of
A ä v a l ä y a n a sütra)—otherwise known as K u t t i -
kavi, w a s a g r e a t poet who h a s w r i t t e n t h r e e
famous s a t a k a s — t h e Mahisasataka, the Dhatl-
sataka and t h e Asissataka; and w a s sur-
named slesakavisärvabhauma (the emperor of t h e
poets who indulged in double entendre); that
his grandfather w a s one M ä d h a v ä r y a and his
father, N a r a s i m h a who w a s well-versed in
Vedas and V e d ä n g a s . H e studied Vedas and
S ä s t r a s under his revered father and wrote a
commentary on t h e M a h i s a s a t a k a of his g r e a t -
grandfather on t h e lines suggested by his own
f a t h e r ; he also commented on t h e H i r a n y a k e s i -
s r a u t a s ü t r a ; composed two s m r t i digests in t h e
D a t t a k a c i n t ä m a n i and t h e Sräddhacintämani,
a c o m m e n t a r y called Brahmasütrarthacintamani
on t h e B r a h m a s ü t r a s , and an independent t r e a t i s e
known as Kakataliyavadartha explaining t h e
significance of t h e popular y e t difficult käka-
taliyanyaya.
Käkatäliyavädärthah krto yenätidurghatah;
Sri Vänchesvaranämäsau tametedya yathdmati.
Sri-Bhättadipikävyäkhyäm Bhättacintamanim mudä;
Dosasattvepi krpayä gunam grhnantu panditäh.
—Verses 3-10.
. 1. Colophon:—u Iti Sn-Coladesägrapüjyavidvatsamäja"
viräjavfiäna'Sähajendrapuraniväsi'Kämakäyana'Visvämitragotra
jaladhikaustubha-Sriman -Nrsimhasürivarasünväsvaläycmasütra-
Hosani-Karnätakajatiya' Vänchesvarayajvanah krtisu Bhätta-
dipikävyäkhyäne Bhättacintämanau prathamasyädhyäyasya pra-
thamah padah." Ibid., p. 34.
This work (to the end of the first adhyäya) was
published by my revered teacher of Mimämsä» the late
MM. T. Venkatasubba Sastrigal (Madras, 1928); it is now
recently published by the Law Journal Press, Madras, to
the end of the third päda of the third Adhyäya,
 148 INTRODUCTION
V ä n c h e ä v a r a is known as a protege of Serfoji,
t h e last but one of the M a h r a t h a kings of Tanjore
in the first q u a r t e r of t h e 19th c e n t u r y . He
belonged to a karnätaka family, called Hosala,
and from his great-grandfather K u t t i k a v i , all
learned members of his family were protected
by t h e M a h r a t h a Court at Tanjore and t h e y
settled finally in t h e village Säharäjapura, the
modern Thiruvesanellore, near Kumbakonam—
a village which is believed to h a v e been gifted
a w a y to b r a h m i n s by t h e g r e a t Sahaji, t h e son
of Ekoji alias Venkoji, the first M a h r a t h a king
at Tanjore.

H e mentions in t h e i n t r o d u c t o r y v e r s e s 1 of
his Bhättacintämani and Hiranyakesisrautasütra-
vyakhya t h r e e gurus—Isvara, ßriniväsa and
Ahobala under whom he studied Mlmämsä,
N y ä y a and V e d ä n t a respectively. H e also gives
t h e date w h e n he began to w r i t e t h e commen-
t a r y on t h e H i r a n y a k e s i s r a u t a s ü t r a s t h u s —
" Vasvagnyadriksitimita-
sake Vänchesvarah sudhlh \
Hiranyakesinäm sütram
vyäkhyätumupacakrame u "a
I t comes to 1738 saka, i.e., A. D. 1816. So he
m a y be fairly fixed to a period between A. D.
1760 and 1830.

1. ' IsvaraßrlniväsäryähobaläkhyagurüUamän '—Verse 1.

2. Vide T. M. S. S. M. Library Descriptive Catalogue
of Sanskrit Mas., Vol. IV, Serial No. 2072, pp. 1682-1687.
In one of the introductory verses of his Hiranyakesisrauta-
sütravyäkhyä, Väfichesvara refers to one Mätrdatta, who,
most probably a commentator or a Nibandhanakara on the
Srauta Sutras, is not considered by this author as a reliable
authority, cf.—
* Mätrdattaprayogastu naitatsüträrthasammatah.'
 PÜRVA MIMÄMSÄ ÖÄSTRA 149

I n the fore-going pages I h a v e endeavoured

to give a brief survey of t h e h i s t o r y of t h e
P ü r v a M i m ä m s ä S ä s t r a and tried to notice
n e a r l y seventy a u t h o r s , more t h a n half of whom
are practically u n k n o w n to t h e s t u d e n t s of
Sanskrit. The reason for t h i s is obvious: their
w o r k s a r e not published. I n m a n y such cases
I have consulted t h e w o r k s of those a u t h o r s
preserved in t h e M a d r a s Govt. and A d y a r Mss.
Libraries and given a brief account of their n a t u r e
and value. N e a r l y fifty w o r k s more a r e noticed
in an alphabetical order in Appendices I and I I .
The a u t h o r s of m a n y works in t h e m a r e not k n o w n ;
nothing also is to be suggested about t h e i r dates.
Besides t h e descriptive catalogues of t h e S a n s k r i t
Mss. a t M a d r a s and Tanjore, I h a v e consulted
Mr. P . V. K a n e ' s paper on c The P ü r v a M i m ä m s ä
S y s t e m ' and ; The H i s t o r y of t h e D h a r m a S ä s t r a \
both serving g r e a t help to me. Dr. A. B. K e i t h ' s
K a r m a m i m ä m s ä , Sir S. R a d h a k r i s h n a n ' s Indian
Philosophy, Vol. I I and Prof. D a s G u p t a ' s ' A
H i s t o r y of Indian P h i l o s o p h y ' Vol. I and m a n y
i m p o r t a n t papers contributed by m a n y a scholar
in t h e field w e r e also of g r e a t avail to m e ;
and all these I have acknowledged either in t h e
body or in t h e footnotes of m y I n t r o d u c t i o n .
A s far as possible, I have made a note of t h e
publications of those w o r k s a l r e a d y printed.
The dates t h a t a r e assigned a r e n e c e s s a r i l y
to be v e r y t e n t a t i v e and a n y suggestion t o w a r d s
g r e a t e r a c c u r a c y will n a t u r a l l y be v e r y welcome.
A full discussion of t h e doctrinal side of t h e
h i s t o r y of the P ü r v a M i m ä m s ä S y s t e m I have
purposely omitted in this short Introduction.
 PART II.

ANALYSIS O F THE TATTVABINDU.

What is the nimitta or efficient cause of

sabdabodha is t h e main t h e m e of t h e Tattvabindu.
A full elucidation of t h i s question obliged
Väcaspatimiära to discuss elaborately t h e five
traditional views on sabdabodha: (1) The Vaiyä-
karanas (the sphotavädins) hold t h a t the Vakya-
sphota1 conveys the vakyartha (the m e a n i n g of
sentence); and t h e y describe t h e Sphota as being
devoid of parts (avayavas) though it is experienced
as possessing avayavas through our avidya
(Ignorance). (2) The old school of Mimämsakas
explain it t h u s 3 : The cognition of the last varna
(of the sentence) coupled with the impressions
produced by the experiences of the previous words
with their meanings is the cause of the Vakyartha-
jnäna. (3) Some* h o w e v e r a m o n g t h e m hold
t h a t the cause of t h e V ä k y ä r t h a j n ä n a is t h e
Varnamalä—the group of varnas which are re-
flected in the mirror of recollection produced by
the family of impressions generated by the ex-
periences of each varna, pada and the meanings
of loords. (4) T h e Tikakara (Prabhakara)1
m a i n t a i n s t h a t the cause of the Vakyarthapratiti
is the Cognition of the padas themselves which
convey meanings related to one another on the

1. See the Tattvabindu (below) p. 6.

2. See ibid., and the Tattvavibhävanä, p. 6.
3. & 4. See ibid., p. 7.
152 INTRODUCTION

basis of akahksa, yogyata and sannidhi. (5) Äca-

rya Kumarila1 whom V ä c a s p a t i m i s r a closely
follows in this work, suggests t h a t ivords convey
their meanings (padarthas) which, in their turn
(while mutually related) generate the sabdabodha
—the cognition of the vakyartha.

According to the Sphotavädins 2 t h e vakya-

sphota which is an akandavastu—an object devoid
of p a r t s and properties—is the efficient cause of
sabdabodha. The division of v ä k y a into v a r n a s
and padas is not real but is based on a super-
imposition caused by eternal I g n o r a n c e (anadya-
vidya).
I n t h e elucidation of this Sphotaväda V ä c a s -
patimisra first puts a question w i t h two alter-
natives 3 —whether t h e a k h a n d a s p h o t a is to be
accepted as t h e V ä k y ä r t h a v ä c a k a on t h e basis
of t h e time-honoured experience of t h e world,
or on t h a t of the difference of t h e imports of
words and sentences which cannot be otherwise
explained. Again, in the first a l t e r n a t i v e a n o t h e r
question is raised 4 —whether t h e v ä k y a is to be
considered as one unit possessing m a n y p a r t s

1. See the Tattvabindu (below), p. 8.

2. As he has observed in his Devatädhikaranabhäsya-
Bhämati (I. 3. 28)—* dihmätramiha darsitam, vistarastu Tattva-
bindävavagantavyah'—Väcaspatimisra has in this section of
the work dealt with and refuted the Sphotaväda in a most
elaborate and inimitable manner. Here he anticipates and
replies to (as the Tattvavibhävanä goes) many attacks made
by Mandanamisra in his Sphotasiddhi against Kumärila.
[See the Tattvavibhävanä (below) pp. 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23,
26, 29, 34, 36, 44, 49 & 50, 58, 59 & 60, 68, 70 & 71.]
3. & 4. See the Tattvabindu (below) p. 9.
 ANALYSIS OF THE TATTVABINDU 153

like v a r n a s and padas, or w h e t h e r it is com-

pletely devoid of a n y s u c h p a r t s . Of these t h r e e ,
t h e a l t e r n a t i v e t h a t the vakya possesses parts
is unsound,1 because it is accepted by t h e V a i y ä -
k a r a n a s even t h a t t h e v a r n a s are Vibhus (pos-
sessing paramamahattva), and t h a t no avayavin
(whole) bigger t h a n t h e paramamahat avayavas
(parts) can therefore be produced. E v e n accor-
ding to t h e N a i y ä y i k a t h e o r y t h a t äabda is a
quality (guna)' of äkasa? t h e v a r n a s or padas as
qualities c a n n o t be t h e material cause of t h e
v ä k y a , since it is held unanimously t h a t only
a substance (dravya) and not a quality {guna)
is a samaväyikärana (material cause). If one
t a k e s t h e view of t h e 8iksakarasz t h a t v a r n a is
produced from t h e particles of Vayu (wind),
these wind-particles a r e to be associated w i t h
one a n o t h e r for t h e production of väkya, b u t
since v a r n a s a r e experienced as perishing
after a m o m e n t ' s existence, 4 t h e contact or
association of one v a r n a w i t h another, cannot
be possibly conceived of; if t h e v a r n a s succeed
one a n o t h e r , t h e y cannot produce a n y avayavin
—kärya (effect); nor do t h e y possess t h e contact
which (as t h e asamaväyikärana (non-inherent
cause) is v e r y essential to t h e production of
effect. T h e supposition 5 t h a t t h e part is one
and produces t h e whole is absurd, in view of t h e
fact t h a t t h e r e is no karyadravya (substance as
effect) conceivable, if two or more parts do not

1. See the Tattvabindu (below) p. 9.

2. See ibid., p. 10. Cf. Kärikävali, verse 23. ' Sama-
väyikäranatvam dravyasyaiveti vijneyam,'
3. Cf. ' Väyuräpadyate sabdatämJ
4. See the Tattvabindu (below) p. 11.
5. Ibid., p. 12.
a
 154 INTRODUCTION

produce t h e effect. And it is not possible to

m a i n t a i n t h a t t h e cognitions of varnas, associa-
1
ted w i t h one another, become t h e m a t e r i a l cause
of t h e väkya, since t h e cognitions of v a r n a s or
v a r n a s themselves do not co-exist. So it cannot
be held that väkya is one avayavin with many
parts—varnas and padas.

The other alternative t h a t väkya is one unit

devoid of parts2 is equally unsound. According
to this view, v ä k y a conveys t h e meaning,
but v a r n a s or padas do not, as t h e y are not
u n i t a r y . Moreover, v a r n a s and padas h a v e no
real existence in language. V ä k y a (sentence)
alone really e x i s t s ; it t is nitya (eternal) and
as such is to be manifested. T h e successful
manifestation of this real element in speech—
t h e sonant substratum—is effected by dhvanis
which, due to their different places and modes
of articulation, generate an (invalid) cognition
of t h e real sabda—sphota—as possessing m a n y
p a r t s like v a r n a and pada. 3 This resembles t h e
experience of a person who looks a t his own face
t h r o u g h a gem or mirror of varied shape. 4
T h e question t h a t t h e second and succeeding
dhvanis in a pada or v ä k y a a r e superfluous
since t h e first dhvani itself is capable of mani-
festing t h e sphota, does not arise, in view of t h e
fact t h a t t h e manifestation by t h e first dhvani
is not so successful and complete as it would be
at t h e end of t h e series of manifestations by
different dhvanis. Similarly, it cannot be held

1. See the Tattvabindu (below) p. 13.

2. See ibid., p. 14 cf. The theory current among
Modern Philologists—* Sentence is the Unit of Language.'
3. Vide the Tattvabindu (below) p. 18.
4. Ibid., p. 19.
 ANALYSIS OF THE TATTVABINDU 155

t h a t the last dhvani manifests t h e u n i t a r y sphota

since the last dhvani h a s not t h e full capacity
to manifest it unless it is s t r e n g t h e n e d by t h e
samskäras (impressions) produced by t h e experi-
ences of t h e previous dhvanis. The manifesta-
tion of sphota by dhvanis bears comparison to
t h e examination of a gem by a n expert jeweller
who satisfies himself as to its genuineness,
after a series of detailed examination. 1

The question how t h e dhvani-cognitions

(which are invalid in t h a t t h e y present the non-
existing properties like hrasvatva of t h e varnas)
manifest sphota, can be easily answered by t h e
fact t h a t invalid cognitions sometimes lead one
to a valid knowledge.2

Again, t h e Sphotavädin advances his argu-

m e n t s in favour of t h e acceptance of sphota as
a unitary sabda.3 The u n i t a r y experience of
' a word" and ' a sentence' cannot be satisfac-
torily explained unless a unitary sabda called
sphota is accepted. H e asks—do t h e v a r n a s
each separately produce t h e cognition of the
u n i t a r y gabda or in their combination V The
first alternative is untenable, since it goes
against our ordinary experience and since it
m a k e s other v a r n a s superfluous. The second is
t r e a t e d as consisting of two alternatives—whether
v a r n a s are in reality associated w i t h one another
or t h e y are cognised together. Since t h e v a r n a s

1. See the Tattvabindu (below) pp. 20 and 21.

2. The (invalid) cognition of trees at a distance as a
row of green grass (haritapraväha) leads one to that of
green trees (which do not exist there). Ibid., p. 21.
3. Ibid., pp. 23 and 24.
4. Ibid., p. 25.
 156 INTKODUCTIOtf
are both nitya (eternal) and vibhu (all-pervading),
t h e y a r e not associated w i t h one a n o t h e r ; and
since t h e y are also to be cognised separately
and w i t h some time-sequence (due to the gene-
r a t i o n s of different cognitions), it is not possible
to m a i n t a i n t h a t v a r n a s are cognised together. 1

Again, t h e V a r n a v ä d i n m a i n t a i n s his position

by saying t h a t t h e last v a r n a in combination
with t h e impressions produced by t h e experiences
of t h e previous sounds in a word or sentence con-
veys the idea, and t h a t thus, t h e popular experience
of t h e unitary sabda as the conveyor of ideas—
'sabdat arthadhlh udiyate'—can be explained. 2
H e r e t h e Sphotavädin questions t h e n a t u r e of
t h e impression (samskära) cited by the V a r n a -
vädin—is it that samskära which produces a
smrti (recollection), or is it of that type which
one finds in corns (vrihis) by sprinkling (proksana)
on t h e basis of the Sruti—' Vrihin proksati' ?
The second is inexplicable 3 in view of the fact
t h a t t h e uncombined v a r n a s cannot produce in
themselves one samskära; nor can it be said t h a t
each varna produces a samskära and t h a t all
these samskäras of different v a r n a s and the experi-
ence of t h e l a s t v a r n a g e n e r a t e t h e arthapratiti,
for, it accepts m a n y adrstas which are not known
by popular m e a n s of knowledge like pratyaksa.
The citation of the well-known ägneya and other
vedic sacrifices, which, being enjoined by Srutis,
compel us to accept such adrstas in the instance
of vrihis does not favour our acceptance of m a n y
samskäras for t h e production of t h e a r t h a p r a t i t i ;
(for, here no such injunction is known to us.4)

1. & 2. See the Tattvabindu (below) p. 25.

3. & 4. Ibid., p. 26.
 ANALYSIS OF THE TATTVABINDU 157
The first a l t e r n a t i v e 1 t h a t t h e samskära other-
wise known a s väsanä, t h e cause of recollection,
helps m u c h t h e l a s t v a r n a in a pada not only
in recollecting t h e sabda b u t also in understand-
i n g t h e idea by t h e l a s t v a r n a , so m u c h so
t h a t t h e r e is no additional adrsta excepting t h e
assignment of a n additional function to t h e
existing s a m s k ä r a , is also untenable, on t h e
ground t h a t such a t h i n g (as described above)
goes against t h e v e r y n a t u r e of samskara; and
it also drags u s to accept a n o t h e r adrsta, for,
t h e s a m s k ä r a which r e s t s in atman produces
the recollection in him {atman) and in none
e l s e ; otherwise we will h a v e to accept t h a t all
will remember a n object w h i c h one alone h a s
previously experienced. Moreover, t h e sam-
skära, väsanä or bhävanä is only t h e capacity of
atman for recollecting a n object which he h a s
experienced; a n d t h i s capacity we h a v e prefer-
ably to posit in atman and not in t h e samskära
(according to t h e pürvapaksin), for, ' 2 its v e r y
existence is based on t h e cognition of ideas
(from t h e words in sentence) b y t h e same
atman. The a r g u m e n t t h a t no additional a d r s t a
is accepted except a n additional function for t h e
existing samskära, falls t o t h e ground, since it
also involves t h e acceptance of a n o t h e r adrsta-
sakti and so on ad infinitum?

The V a r n a v ä d i n again comes forward w i t h

his explanation 4 t h a t all v a r n a s in a pada or
v ä k y a being recollected t o g e t h e r convey t h e idea,
so t h a t t h e r e is no n e c e s s i t y for accepting t h e

1. See the Tattvabindu (below) p. 26.

2. & 3. Ibid., p. 28.
4. Ibid., p; 29.
158 INTRODUCTION
unitary sabda, viz., sphota. The Sphotavädin
r e j e c t s 1 this explanation as unsatisfactory, in
view of t h e fact t h a t t h e v a r n a s in words—
nadi, dina, etc.—being t h e same in one recollec-
tion, do not convey t h e same idea. I t cannot
also be held 2 t h a t t h e different samskäras
produced by t h e experiences of t h e various
v a r n a s produce one smrti which h a s all v a r n a s
as its object with the same sequence as t h e y
were in t h e previous experiences, so t h a t these
v a r n a s together with their individual t r a i t s
being bound by one recollection constitute differ-
ent padas and as such, convey different i d e a s ;
for, t h e bundle of t h e s a m s k ä r a s cannot produce
one recollection of different v a r n a s . Moreover,
v a r n a s , being vibhudravyas* do not possess a n y
krama (sequence), and if t h e y a r e spoken of
as possessing t h a t , it is only in reference to a
cognition which presents t h e m as s u c h ; and if
t h e cognition is one, how can one explain a n y
sequence to v a r n a s on t h e basis of cognitions ?

The Sphotavädin therefore concludes 4 t h a t

a unitary sabda called Sphota is to be accepted
for satisfactorily explaining t h e popular experience
t h a t 'sabda conveys idea\ and t h a t this sabda
cannot be t h e v a r n a s (as explained above) and
it being nitya (eternal) is to be accepted as
manifested by dhvanis.which we experience. The
successful manifestation and full experience of
Sphota is possible only when all dhvanis sepa-
r a t e l y manifest i t ; and a s t h e manifestation
or experience of Sphota being a perception

1. See the Tattvabindu (below) p. 30.

2. Ibid., p. 31.
3. Ibid., p. 32.
4. Ibid., pp. 35 & 36.
 ANALYSIS OF THE TATTVABINDÜ 159

(pratyaksa) can have various degrees, t h e r e is

no reason for placing t h e arthapratiti by
v a r n a s on a p a r with t h e manifestation of sphota
by dhvanis. So the unitary sphota is to be
accepted.

The V a r n a v ä d i n begins 1 his refutation of t h e

Sphotaväda by raising a question 2 —whether t h e
cognitions of v a r n a s present only those varnas
or a sound-element devoid of a n y form or pro-
p e r t y in addition to those v a r n a s . I n t h e former, 3
no sphota is known in addition to t h e v a r n a s ,
which, as different elements in themselves, cannot
be spoken of as t h e vivartas (manifestations) of
a n o t h e r sound-element. I n t h e l a t t e r , a sound-
element a p a r t from v a r n a s is to be accepted,
which, while cognised, is known as sabda—the
conveyor of ideas. What is this sonantal element ?
I s it sabdatva* (the generality of äabda) which
is to be considered as t h e conveyor of i d e a s ?
If so, sabdatva being a common p r o p e r t y of all
Sabdas, all ideas, it m a y be objected, m a y be
known to t h e h e a r e r s from each and every
sabda. B u t t h e experience of differences in ideas
is to be explained only by t h e differences in
their expressions, viz., sabdas. T h e explanation
t h a t sabdatva, though one and devoid of a n y
form or properties, h a s got its own different
vivartas (manifestations) like gakära, aukara
and visarga in t h e word ' g a u h \ which, however,
produce t h e cognitions of different ideas, is un-
satisfactory 5 on t h e ground t h a t t h e same can
be well explained by sabdas themselves, which

1. See the Tattvabindu (below) p. 36.

2. & 3. Ibid., p. 37.
4 Ibid., p. 38.
5. Ibid., p. 39.
160
a r e acceptable t o both parties. Moreover, just
like sabdatva, other generalities—satia, varnatva,
etc.—may be t a k e n as t h e conveyor of ideas
t h r o u g h their own vivartas. H e n c e t h e r e is
vinigamanaviraha—no m e a n s t o prefer one gene-
r a l i t y to others.

The V a r n a v ä d i n adds 1 t h a t sabdatva, being

a n eternal generality, exists in v a r n a s t h a t are
cognised previously in a word or s e n t e n c e ; it
m a y not necessarily depend on t h e anusamhara-
buddhi of the last v a r n a to convey t h e idea,
so m u c h so t h a t it will have t o be accepted t h a t
even t h e first sound or sounds in a word, while
cognised, m a y convey the idea. 2

Can t h e t e r m sabda t h e n m e a n srotra-

grahana*—that which can be experienced by
ear ? Since like varnas, grahanas (cognitions
of those varnas) also a r e different, nothing
can be said about t h e unitariness of sabda
(which is so experienced generally). The ear
also 4 (being ahäsa) is inferable and as such,
is beyond s e n s e s ; and the cognition of ear,

1. See the Tattvabindu (below) p. 41.

2. In this connection Väcaspatimisra hits the Präbhä-
karas who have denied the existence of sabdatvajäti, lest
they should have to attribute to it the function of convey-
ing ideas. He says that sabdatva never stands in the way
of the reality of the different varnas which are to be
accepted as eternal. Just as sdbalegatva (a narrower gene-
rality) is found along with gotva (a wider generality) in a
black cow, so in sabda properties like actva and haltva are
found along with sabdatva on the basis of the popular
experiences—* gakärah sabdah', etc. Nor can this experience
be explained without the generality—sabdatva. [See the
Tattvabindu (below) pp. 40 and 41.]
3. See the Tattvabindu (below) p. 41. 4. Ibid.% p. 44.
 AHALYSIS OF THE TATTVABINDU 161

like all cognitions, is inferable (according to t h e

B h ä t t a s ) , so t h a t nothing can be regarded as t h e
object of t h e u n i t a r y experience of &abda by t h e
ßenses (aparoksävabhäsa). If t h e ear (srotra)
and its cognition (grahana) in t h e body of sabda
(as explained above) are not cognisable by t h e
senses, how can t h e cognition of such a qualified
t h i n g (äabda) arise as conveyed by t h e word
sabda?

Is it t h e n t h e sphota1 which is cognised as

uniform in all v a r n a s in a word or sentence, b u t
different in different words and sentences ? A n d
a r e t h e v a r n a s , t h e seeming manifestations of
t h e u n i t a r y sphota, to explain t h e difference in
t h e cognition of s p h o t a ? The V a r n a v ä d i n again
p u t s a question to t h e Sphotavädin 2 —do t h e
cognitions of t h e previous v a r n a s help t h a t of
t h e last v a r n a in its combination w i t h t h e pre-
vious v a r n a s ? If so, t h e cognitions of t h e
previous v a r n a s do not exist when t h e cognition
of t h e last v a r n a arises, and so t h e non-existing
things a r e said to be helping in producing a real
thing 3 —a fact which always goes against popular
experience. I t is an accepted fact t h a t all cog-
nitions do arise, exist for a while, perish and a r e
never brought back to life. So even if t h e y a r e
supposed to be existing a t t h e time of t h e
cognition of t h e last v a r n a in a word, t h e y
do not function a t all in colloboration with t h a t
of t h e last varna. 4 The a r g u m e n t t h a t t h e
v a r n a s , while cognised, manifest s e p a r a t e l y t h e

1. See the Tattvabindu and the Tattvavibhävanä,

(below) p. 45.
2. Ibid., p. 46. 3. Ibid., p. 47.
4. See the Tattvabindu (below) pp. 47 and 48.
Y
162 INTRODUCTION

sphota w i t h o u t depending on their m u t u a l combi-

nation in one anusamharabuddhi, falls to t h e
g r o u n d 1 since it does not help u s to propound
the existence of an akhandapadärtha separate
from t h e experienced v a r n a s ; in o t h e r words, t h e
akhandasphota does not exist like t h e h o r n of a
m a n or rabbit. So it is to be accepted on t h e
basis of valid experience, the V a r n a v ä d i n contends,
t h a t t h e perceptions of different v a r n a s produce
a n anusamharabuddhi with those v a r n a s as its
object and none else.

Again, t h e Sphotavädin 2 raises m a n y objec-

tions to t h e V a r n a v ä d i n ' s view. T h e experience
— i gauh' is one word—well speaks of t h e u n i t a r y
aspect of t h e word ' g a u h \ a n d this u n i t a r i n e s s
cannot be satisfactorily explained 3 if we accept
only v a r n a s as its object {visaya). N o r can it
be argued t h a t this u n i t a r i n e s s is based on a n
upädhi^ (limitation) like t h a t of t h e experiences
of * a r m y ' , ' forest', etc., because n o t h i n g is to be
said as t h e upädhi in this instance. H e r e two
upädhis a r e suggested and r e f u t e d : (1) Eka-
vijnänavisayatä—being the object of one cogni-
tion, and (2) ekabhidheyapratyayahetuta—being
t h e cause of t h e cognition of one idea. T h e
former cannot be accepted, for, t h e cognition in
t h e body of upädhi m u s t be k n o w n 5 before t h e
delimited object is cognised t h r o u g h t h a t u p ä d h i ;
and t h a t cognition is not cognised when its
object is known and it is either to be cognised
by a perception called anuvyavasayajnana or by
inference. So t h e anusamharabuddhi does not

1. See the Tattvabindu (below) p. 48.

2. Ibid., p. 49.
3. Ibid., p. 50.
4 & 5, Ibid., p. 51.
 ANALYSIS OF THE TATTVABIKDU 163

bear t h e cognition as its object (visaya), m u c h

less its u n i t a r i n e s s . The second also is un-
t e n a b l e 1 since it involves t h e fallacy of inter-
dependence (itaretaräsraya). The a r g u m e n t t h a t
t h e distinction of a word from a n o t h e r is k n o w n
by t h a t of t h e idea conveyed by it leads to t h e
fallacy of interdependence between cause and
effect: t h e conception of one word is based on
t h a t of its conveying an idea and vice versa.
So t h e capacity of vacakatva of a word is t o be
explained only in reference to t h e unitary sphota.
Moreover, if we explain t h e cognition of unitari-
ness (ekävabhäsa) as due to some upadhi, n o t h i n g
would be possibly explained as a real and u n i t a r y
object, for, some upädhi m a y be invented to
explain t h e same. If so, it can also be suggested,
t h e Sphotavädin concludes, t h a t t h e r e will be no
plurality a m o n g objects, since t h e p l u r a l i t y of
objects is only a manifestation of one real object
or entity.

The V a r n a v ä d i n refutes t h e Sphota t h e o r y

t h u s 2 : — T h e cognition of u n i t a r i n e s s is not an
a u t h o r i t y to prove the existence of a u n i t a r y
object, viz., Sphotasdbda but only t h e possibility
of a usage which bears out t h e oneness of t h e
object cognised. Though elephants, horses,
chariots and foot-men are different entities a n d
t h o u g h t h e campaka, asoka, kimsuka, etc., a r e
different species of trees, 3 t h e y become objects
of t h e u n i t a r y cognitions—' It is an army \ ' it is
a forest \ etc., which (through some limitation)
present u n i t a r y objects like ' a r m y ' and ' f o r e s t ' .

1. Vide the Tattvabindu (below) p. 51.

2. Ibid., p. 51.
3f Ibid., pp. 52 and 53,
164 INTRODUCTION
I t cannot be held t h a t the experiences—' It is an
army \ ' it is a forest', ' it is a sabda'—have as
their objects another entity—a whole—separate
from t h e parts (avayavas); (for, no s e p a r a t e
e n t i t y is accepted in such cases). N o r can it be
argued t h a t for t h e lack of a limitation (upädhi)
as explained above, t h e u n i t a r y Sabda m a y be
accepted, for, it can be held t h a t t h e t h r e e
v a r n a s in the word ^gauh" while t h e y become
t h e objects of one recollection, become t h e cause
of t h e knowledge of one idea, just like t h r e e or
more stones supporting one pithara (oven). 1 The
fallacy of interdependence (cited above) does not
arise, in view of t h e fact t h a t t h e conception of
one word is based on t h a t of i t s capacity
to convey one idea. The word 'pada* connotes
t h a t p a r t i c u l a r käraka—karana—in relation to
t h e knowledge, since 2 it is derived from t h e root
pad—to know,—with the suffix lyut {ana) in t h e
sense of instrument ( k a r a n a ) ; and as it is a
käraka, it ought to be related to a kriya viz.,
knowledge. The difference between one word and
another found in the pairs (1) gauh and a§vah;
(2) vrsa and vrsabha; and (3) nadi and dina, etc.,
is not possible to explain before it becomes t h e
object of one cognition and conveys a u n i t a r y
idea. So it is maintained t h a t the unitary con-
ception of pada is based on that of the idea
conveyed by it?

Again t h e V a r n a v ä d i n criticises t h e concep-

tion of Sphota by pointing out some gross
absurdities involved in it. 4 The view t h a t t h e
previous dhvanis manifest sphota not so clearly
1. Vide the Tattvabindu (below) p. 54.
2. Ibid., p. 56. 3. Ibid., pp. 56 and 57.
4. Ibid., p. 58.
 ANALYSIS OF THE TATTVABINDU 165

as t h e last dhvani, does not hold good, in view

of t h e fact t h a t t h e sphota, devoid of a n y p a r t s ,
cannot be spoken of as being p a r t l y or fully
manifested by dhvanis. The full or clear
manifestation is possible only for a t h i n g which
h a s got p a r t s or qualities, both common and
special. The sphota cannot be said to have a
full or p a r t i a l manifestation. I t should or should
not be fully manifested and cognised. The
middle course i$ not possible.

The view t h a t t h e manifestation of sphota

is based on superimposition cannot be held, since
no superimposition can be explained in reference
to an object—the s u b s t r a t u m of it—previously
unknown. 1 E v e n if it is held t h a t t h e sphota
can be and is previously cognised, it is not
possible t o m a i n t a i n t h a t it is devoid of a n y
p a r t s . So t h e Sphotavädin's view t h a t t h e pada-
tattva (the essence or e n t i t y of sabda) is ex-
perienced as one devoid of p a r t s , contains no
t r u t h and as such, is not reliable. The popular
experience—we learn idea from sabda—has no
special significance in favour of t h e Sphotavädin's
view. 2 The popular experience is sometimes
acceptable and sometimes, unacceptable. If it is
argued t h a t t h e validity of t h e popular experience
is a n y w a y to be accepted, it can be m a i n t a i n e d
in one way only—that t h e u n i t a r i n e s s or oneness
of sabda (which conveys idea) belongs to t h e
v a r n a s themselves w h e n t h e y become t h e object
of one recollection, and as t h e y form one group
(with t h e n a m e ' p a d a ' ) , t h e y convey one idea.
This explanation is possible in t h e case of sabda,

1. Vide the Tattvabindu (below) p. 59.

2. Ibid., p. 60,
166 INTRODUCTION
since it is so experienced in t h e world, b u t it is
not possible in other instances (since no such
popular experience exists). 1

T h e V a r n a v ä d i n now begins to condemn t h e

second m a i n a l t e r n a t i v e of t h e Sphotavädin's
v i e w 2 — t h a t t h e u n i t a r y sphota is to be accepted
on t h e basis of the difference in ideas, which
cannot be otherwise explained. The Sphota
which is not perceptible, cannot be k n o w n by
inference from i t s function, viz., i t s conveying
an idea, for, it involves t h e fallacy of interdepen-
dence. 3 I t is t h i s : — t h e sabda by itself c a n n o t
convey t h e idea b u t only t h r o u g h i t s k n o w l e d g e ;
otherwise it being eternal, it m a y h a v e to be
accepted t h a t all people know for ever ideas
from äabdas. B u t its knowledge is derived, a s
h a s been already said, by inference from t h e
middle term, viz., t h e cognition of idea derived
from it, so m u c h so, t h a t t h e sabdajnäna is
depending on t h e arthapratyaya, w h i c h again
depends on t h e sabdajnäna.

Moreover, t h e r e is no need for accepting

a unitary sabda like sphota. T h e knowledge of
idea is well brought about by t h e single cognition
of v a r n a s (in words), which, a s t h e y appear
different on account of t h e order, sequence or
properties like hrasvatva, convey different ideas,
as in t h e instances—nadi, dlna, etc. 4 T h e V a r n a -
vädin mentions m a n y conditions—krama, nyünü-
tiriktatva, svara, vakya, sruti and smrti—for
differentiating one pada from another. If t h e

1. Vide the Tattvabindu, pp. 61-64.

2. Ibid., p. 64.
3. Ibid., pp. 65 and 66.
4. Ibid., pp. 67 and 68.
 ANALYSIS OF THE TATTVABINDU 167
v a r n a s or padas a r e u t t e r e d at a time by differ-
ent persons, t h e r e arises no cognition of the
idea {artha). So it is held t h a t these padas are
to be u t t e r e d in a p a r t i c u l a r sequence by one and
the same person, and t h a t this ekavaktrtva is
necessarily cognised by the person who knows
ideas from words. Moreover, this ekavaktrtva
is a jnapakahetu—cause of cognition, and so it
need not be necessarily cognised just like the
mind which, as uncognised, becomes the cause
of inference. 1

So t h e V a r n a v ä d i n concludes t h a t since the

sense or m e a n i n g of t h e sentence or word can
be well cognised from t h e knowledge of the words
in t h e combination of v a r n a s , it does not drive
one to t h e necessity of establishing t h e akhanda-
padatattva viz., sphota, devoid of a n y p a r t s
and properties. 2

II

After t h e refutation of t h e sphotavada, the

second view is t a k e n up for discussion. Its
superiority to t h e sphota doctrine lies in the
fact t h a t it does not postulate a t h i n g like
sphota which goes beyond one's easy compre-
hension ; and it l a y s 3 s t r e s s on t h e v a r n a s and
padas as t h e cause of t h e arthapratiti (i.e.), the
cognition of t h e m e a n i n g of sentence arises from
the cognition of t h e last v a r n a in it by the
sensory organ—ear, which is m u c h helped to do
its function by t h e impressions produced by the
cognitions of words and their meanings, just as

1. Vide the Tattvabindu, pp. 72 and 73.

2. Joed, pp. 74 and 76.
3. Ibid., p. 77.
168 INTRODUCTION
the cognition of t h e last v a r n a of a word coupled
with t h e impressions produced by t h e cognitions
of t h e preceding v a r n a s of t h e word generates
the recollection of t h e padärtha.

This view is rejected with t h e question 1 —

does t h e l a s t v a r n a generate t h e vakyartha-
pratiti after producing t h e recollection of t h e
relation between t h e last word (of t h e sentence)
and its sense ? If this is accepted, t h e Siddhäntin
says, at t h e time of the m e n t a l impression ready
to produce i t s effect, viz,, t h e recollection (of t h e
padärtha), t h e perception (of t h e pada), the cause
of t h e impression, does not e x i s t 2 ; and no one
can explain t h e existence of t h e cognition of t h e
last v a r n a in a pada or a v ä k y a w h e n one
recollects t h e relation between pada and padärtha,
(since it is to be explained t h a t t h e recollection
of t h e l a s t v a r n a arises first, t h e n that
of t h e pada containing t h e last v a r n a and
t h e n t h a t of t h e padärtha). I t cannot also
be a r g u e d 3 t h a t t h e väkyärthapratlti arises from
the cognition of t h e last v a r n a even without
the recollection of t h e relation between the pada
and p a d ä r t h a , for, t h e experience of t h e pada-
padärthasambandha is of no use if it does not
produce a recollection (of t h e same). H e n c e it
cannot be explained w h y one does not have t h e
verbal cognition if one does not get oneself suffi-
ciently acquainted w i t h t h e import of words which
one h e a r s . N o r c a n it be said t h a t these three—the
cognition of t h e l a s t v a r n a , t h e impression of t h e
p a d ä r t h a and t h e recollection of t h e p a d ä r t h a
are simultaneous, in view of t h e fact t h a t

1. Vide the Tattvabindu, p. 78.

2. Ibid., p. 79.
3. Ibid., p. 80.
 ANALYSIS OF THE TATTYABINDU 169

cognitions do arise in ätman only one succeeding

another. The cognition of t h e last v a r n a does
not arise a second time {i.e.) at t h e time of t h e
recollection of t h e p a d ä r t h a , for w a n t of its
cause, viz., t h e samskära (produced in t h e e a r
of t h e h e a r e r by t h e speaker) which is c h a r a c -
terised as so fleeting and transient as t h e flash
of lightning in a d a r k cloudy night. 1 I t cannot
also be said t h a t t h e l a s t v a r n a or sabda by
itself cannot coilvey t h e import of t h e sentence,
except t h r o u g h its c o g n i t i o n ; and since t h e
cognitional u n i t y of t h e l a s t v a r n a along w i t h
t h e impressions of t h e previous v a r n a s , padas
and p a d ä r t h a s cannot be explained, this view
also is described as wholly untenable.

Ill

T h e n t h e t h i r d view—the group of v a r n a s
or v a r n a m ä l ä in one mirror-like recollection
is t h e cause of t h e arthapratlti—is t a k e n up.
I t is explained t h u s 2 : T h e relation between pada
and p a d ä r t h a depends upon t h e time-honoured
usage. Our elders h a v e not used v a r n a s and
padas alone for t h e inter-communication and
exchange of ideas, but h a v e used väkya (sentence).
I t is not t h e sphota (already described) b u t
t h e v a r n a s . W h e n it becomes t h e object of one
recollection, it produces t h e verbal cognition (of
the v ä k y ä r t h a ) . The padärthasmrti arising from
t h e knowledge of padas in a v a k y a is a n acces-
sory to this v a r n a m ä l ä in t h e production of t h e
väkyärthapratiti.

1. Vide the Tattvabindu, p. 82.

2. Ibid., pp. 83 and 84.
W
170 INTRODUCTION

This view also is refuted on various grounds.

The first defect is gaurava.1 I t consists in t h i s :
if t h e v a r n a m ä l ä is accepted as t h e cause of
t h e v ä k y ä r t h a p r a t i t i , t h e n in t h e sentences—
'arbhaka! gäm änaya, arbhaka! gam badhäna,
siso! gam änaya, siso! gam badhäna, etc.\ each
of which possesses at least one different word,
one h a s to accept t h a t each v a r n a m ä l ä which
is a v ä k y a , possesses different saktis to convey
t h e v ä k y ä r t h a , so t h a t n u m e r o u s §aktis a r e
to be accepted. B u t for t h e padavädin t h e s a k t i
is to be accepted over t h e padas only and t h e sakti
of one word in different sentences is not different;
hence t h e r e is no anavasthä.

A n o t h e r defect described is visayabhava?

I t is explained t h u s : — t h e v a r n a m ä l ä cannot
express t h e v ä k y ä r t h a , viz., t h e padärthasam-
sarga, w i t h o u t p a d ä r t h a s , since t h e l a t t e r being
t h e s a m s a r g i n (the related object) is to be
known before t h e samsarga (relation) is cognised.
So t h e cognition of t h e p a d ä r t h a s as expressed
by t h e padas is indispensable for t h e cognition
of t h e relation of t h e padärthas. A n d since t h e
very s a m e padärthajnäna is capable of producing
väkyärthajnäna, t h e v a r n a m ä l ä is said to be
superfluous.
Moreover, it is very difficult to m a i n t a i n 3
t h a t t h e v a r n a m ä l ä in a long sentence becomes
t h e object of one anusamhärabuddhi. I t is
therefore possible to m a i n t a i n t h e abhihitänvaya-
väda as explained by K u m ä r i l a b h a t t a , viz., t h a t
words convey their ideas—padärthas—which how-
ever produce the cognition of väkyärtha.*
1. Vide the Tattvabindu, pp. 84 and 85.
2. Ibid., pp. 86-88.
3. Ibid., pp. 89 and 90. 4 Ibid., p. 90.
 ANALYSIS OF THE TATTVABINDU 171

IV

Now, t h e Anvitabhidhanavadin, t h e follower

of t h e T i k ä k ä r a alias P r a b h ä k a r a , p u t s forward
his view t h a t words themselves convey the
anvitapadarthas, viz., their meanings and their
mutual relation, so that the padarthas conveyed
by padas do not convey the väkyärtha (i.e.)
there is no abhihitanvaya.1

The V ä k y ä r t h a is said to be one and visista.

I t is related to m a n y subordinate ideas conveyed
by padas. So it can be well said t h a t t h e padas
themselves while t h e y convey t h e p a d a r t h a s ,
convey t h e m only a s r e l a t e d to one a n o t h e r on
t h e s t r e n g t h of t h e t h r e e well-known accessories
—akanksa (verbal expectancy), yogyata (congruity)
and sannidhi (proximity). 2 H e n c e t h e r e is no
necessity to accept t h e Sphotaäabda, t h e l a s t
v a r n a or t h e v a r n ä v a l i as t h e cause of t h e
cognition of t h e v ä k y ä r t h a .

Now t h e Abhihitanvayavadin comes forward

w i t h certain objections to t h e anvitabhidhanavada?
F i r s t h e p u t s a question t o t h e a n v i t ä b h i d h ä n a -
v ä d i n : w h e n a word, s a y t h e first, in a sentence
conveys its idea and t h e relation (to t h e o t h e r
ideas), a r e t h e other ideas conveyed or not by
their own expressions (in t h e sentence) ? If
other ideas a r e n o t conveyed b y their own
expressions, i t is to be admitted t h a t ideas t h a t
a r e to be generally conveyed b y words in a
sentence a r e conveyed b y t h e first word itself
and so, t h e r e is t h e superfluity of t h e second and

1. Vide the Tattvabindu (below) p. 91.

2. Ibid., p. 92. 3. Ibid., p. 93,
 172 INTEODUCTION
other words in t h e sentence. If it is argued
t h a t other words also convey their own ideas
and t h a t all words convey t h e m and t h e i r
relation as conveyed by other words, t h e n in t h e
sentence 'ukhäyäm pacef for example, till t h e
word 'paceV does not convey t h e idea 'cooking'
as related to ukhä, the word ukhäyäm does not
convey t h e adhikarana ukhä ; so also, t h e word
'paceV does not convey its idea till t h e word
'ukhäyäm' conveys its meaning. H e n c e the fallacy
of interdependence.1

The a r g u m e n t t h a t words first convey t h e i r

ideas (padärthasvarüpas) and then those padä-
rthas as related (anvitärthas), so t h a t t h e r e is no
fallacy of interdependence (parasparäsrayadosa),
involves t h e acceptance of two abhidhänasaktis
for words—a fact which is not w a r r a n t e d or
accepted on a u t h o r i t y . I t cannot also be argued
t h a t words convey only ideas with their relation
(anvitapadärthas) but those ideas were first
recollected by their mere juxtaposition (säha-
carya) (and not by words themselves w i t h a n y
significative potency), so t h a t t h e r e is no double
sabdasakti in w o r d s ; for, t h e recollection of t h e
meanings of words is to be based on their anu-
bhavas which p r e s e n t t h e m as not isolated b u t
as related to one another. So in t h e example
'gäm änaya* the gosabda conveying the go-
padärtha (cow) as related to the änayana-
kriyä (bringing) produces in t h e h e a r e r a re-
collection of änayanänvitagopadärtha (cow a s
related to t h e action—bringing) and not of a
mere cow.2 This explanation would land us in

1. Vide the Tattvabindu (below) p. 94.

2. Ibid., p. 95.
 ANALYSIS OF THE TATTVABINDU 173

the difficulty t h a t t h e same gosabda in t h e

sentence "gam pa'sya" would not convey darsa-
nanvita-go (cow as related to t h e action—seeing),
since it h a d been originally related to t h e
änayanakriyä. So also in t h e example—'präsä-
dam pasya\ t h e word pasya conveys darsana-
kriyä (seeing) as related to t h e präsädapadärtha
(palace), and it does not convey t h e same as
related to t h e gopadartha (cow). This would set
aside t h e possibility of explaining t h e p a d ä r t h a s
(and väkyärthas 1 ) in all verbal propositions. 1

The a r g u m e n t t h a t t h e gosabda on t h e basis

of avyabhicara (invariability) g e n e r a t e s in t h e
h e a r e r a recollection of i t s meaning only, viz.,
cow, and not t h e m e a n i n g s of other words, falls
to t h e ground since avyabhicara is not recogni-
sed as t h e cause of recollection. I t is bhävanä
(mental impression) t h a t w h e n it is deep-rooted
on account of t h e s t r o n g and c o n s t a n t previous
experiences (anubhavapaunahpunya), is roused and
produces smrti (recollection). And avyabhicara
h a s no place among t h e causes of bhävanodbodha
(rousing t h e m e n t a l impression), since among
t h e causes of bhävanodbodha, pranidhäna (medi-
tation) and o t h e r s are mentioned and not avyabhi-
cara.2 Sähacarya is however accepted as one of
t h e causes of t h e bhävanodbodha,3 since sambandha
in t h e list includes sähacarya and not avyabhi-
cara. A n d this sähacarya is common to both
svärtha and padäntarärtha (the m e a n i n g of one
word and those of others), so t h a t t h e r e arises
from words a recollection of anvitapadärthas
(i.e.) both svärtha and padäntarärtha. So

1. Vide the Tattvabindu (below) p. 96.

2. Ibid., p. 97. 3. Ibid., p. 98.
174 INTRODUCTION
t h e gopadartha cannot be said as related to
darsanakriyä by äkänksä. H e n c e t h e r e is no
possibility of cognising t h e v ä k y ä r t h a from a
verbal proposition, if a n v i t ä b h i d h ä n a is accepted. 1

So words, t h e A b h i h i t ä n v a y a v ä d i n contends,
convey only their own meanings, and those
meanings, incomplete and incoherent in their
isolation, are related to one a n o t h e r by t h e
threefold conditions—äkänksä, yogyatä and äsatti
—and convey the v ä k y ä r t h a .

The Anvitäbhidhänavädin answers 2 all charges

levelled against him by t h e A b h i h i t ä n v a y a v ä d i n .
H e s a y s first t h a t t h e r e is no fallacy of inter-
dependence (as explained above, if a n v i t ä b h i d h ä n a is
accepted), for, though t h e words t h r o u g h abhidhäna-
sakti convey t h e a n v i t a p a d ä r t h a s (their m e a n i n g s
and their m u t u a l relation), t h e m e a n i n g s of other
words are not invariably recollected from one
word for w a n t of abhyäsa, so m u c h so t h a t
t h e r e arises from a pada a recollection of i t s
own m e a n i n g (svärtha) and its anvaya (relation).
I t can be therefore said t h a t words invariably
convey only their own meanings (svärthas) along
with t h e anvaya and not the m e a n i n g s of other
words also.

I n support of this a r g u m e n t t h e Anvitäbhi-

dhänavädin puts a question to his opponent—
what kind of cognition is that which one derives
from words f Only four kinds of cognitions a r e
recognised—pramäna (valid experience), samsaya
(doubt), viparyaya (misapprehension) and smrti
(recollection). The cognition of t h e meanings

1. Vide the Tattvabindu (below) p. 99.

2. Ibid., p. 100.
 ANALYSIS OF TUE TATTYABINDTJ 175
from words is not a pramanajnana, since it does
not possess a s its object a n y t h i n g previously
unknown. To say t h a t it is a doubt or viparyaya
is out of place. 1 A s t h e r e is no fifth variety, it
is to be accepted t h a t it is a recollection and t h a t
words, like pranidhäna, are t h e conditions of
sarnskärodbodha (rousing m e n t a l impressions).
And this recollection of t h e meanings of words
p r e s e n t s both objects and their relation.
Again, t h e contention (of t h e A b h i h i t ä n v a y a -
vädin) t h a t t h e p a d ä r t h a s recollected by t h e
abhidhänasakti of words—and not by m e r e säha-
carya—become t h e objects of t h e v ä k y ä r t h a j i i ä n a ,
is of no avail, in view of t h e fact t h a t in
instances like ' Qangäyäm ghosah prativasati'
t h e ' b a n k ' which is only a secondary m e a n i n g
of t h e word gangä, is related to ' dwelling \ t h e
p r i m a r y meaning of t h e word 'prativasati.'
Moreover, one p a d ä r t h a recollected by t h e
abhidhänasakti of one word can be related to
another recollected by m e r e sahacarya on t h e
basis of äkähksä, so t h a t it m a y n o t be again
related to (the other or) last idea conveyed by
its own word w i t h i t s abhidhänasakti. If t h i s
is possible, t h e whole väkyärtha would not be
cognised a t all. So it is to be admitted t h a t
t h e r e arise first t h e recollection of t h e isolated
ideas (ananvitärthas) by t h e mere sahacarya of
2
words and then t h a t of t h e anvitapadärthas from
words. 3 I t cannot be said t h a t t h e p a d ä r t h a s
a r e not m u t u a l l y related for w a n t of äkänksäi
(verbal expectancy), for, expectancy is said to be
nothing but the knower's desire for knowledge.
1. Vide the Tattvabindu (below) p. 101.
2. Ibid., p. 102.
3. Ibid., p. 104. 4. Ibid.t p. 105.
ire INTRODUCTION

I t is explained on t h e basis of t h e incompleteness

of abhidhäna (abhidhänäparyavasäna) as in t h e
example—dväram,—which, being in nominative
case, does n o t convey a n y new idea other t h a n
t h a t of t h e stem {prätipadikä); so, t h e knower
seeks some o t h e r idea, which can be well related
to t h e padartha, viz., dvara} I t is also explained
on the basis of t h e incongruity or incompatibi-
lity of the idea already known from a word
(abhihitäparyavasäna). I n t h e vedic passage—
Visvajitä yajeta—the sacrifice Visvajit is known
by t h e i n s t r u m e n t a l case as t h e karana
(instrument) of t h e karya, which (an abhihita)
is incompatible with t h e karana without a
niyojya-purusa and as such, leads to t h e expla-
nation of a niyojya-visesa (like t h e svargakäma).2
The a r g u m e n t of t h e Abhihitänvayavädin 3
t h a t words convey their meanings without their
m u t u a l relation and t h a t those meanings produce
väkyärthajnäna on t h e s t r e n g t h of t h e threefold
accessories—äkänksä, etc., so t h a t words h a v e
no direct capacity to generate säbdabodha, falls
to t h e ground, in view of t h e fact t h a t unless
those ideas a r e conveyed by words, t h e y are not
considered a s t h e cause of t h e väkyärthajnäna^
The A b h i h i t ä n v a y a v ä d i n further argues t h a t
one w h o perceives a white object and h e a r s t h e
hesä sound (neighing) and t h e noise of galloping
experiences t h a t ' a white horse gallops' even
without t h e cognition of words expressing
them. T h e Anvitäbhidhänavädin a n s w e r s t h a t
this knowledge is arrived a t either from inference
{anumäna) or from presumption (arthäpatti) and
not from words {sabda). I n t h e explanation of
1. Vide the Tattvabindu (below) p. 106.
2. Ibid., p. 107. 3. Ibid., p. 108. 4. Ibid., p. 110.
 ANALYSIS OF THE TATTVABINDU 17?
t h e same he raises a question—whether in this
instance one experiences t h e hesä sound and the
noise of galloping as co-existing in t h e white
object, or w h e t h e r all t h e three are independently
known. I n the former, t h e knowledge is infer-
ential on the basis of probans; in the latter,
it is a knowledge from presumption, in case no
other object (possessing t h e s e qualities) is defini-
tely known.
Moreover, if gäbdabodha is generated by
p a d ä r t h a s , it would be asabda (i.e.) not based on
sabdas; and as it is not definitely known
w h e t h e r t h e arthas seek t h e help of t h e mind
which does not operate on t h e external objects,
it would result in t h e acceptance of a seventh
pramana (called padartha s e p a r a t e from t h e
six well-known p r a m ä n a s ) . I t is therefore to be
accepted t h a t t h e p a d ä r t h a s not conveyed by
words do not become t h e cause of väkyärtha-
jnäna, and t h a t t h e ideas conveyed by words
do possess t h e power to g e n e r a t e the same
(sabdabodha)} This would m e a n for t h e Abhi-
h i t ä n v a y a v ä d i n t h e acceptance of two saktis—
one over t h e p a d ä r t h a s to g e n e r a t e t h e vakyartha-
jnäna and other over words capable of creating
(the first) s a k t i over t h e p a d ä r t h a s . B u t for t h e
Anvitäbhidhänavädin, only one sakti is to be
accepted over words which convey p a d ä r t h a s
on t h e basis of t h e intention of t h e speaker, and
t h r o u g h t h a t s a k t i one word conveys its meaning
a s related to t h e m e a n i n g s of o t h e r words (in
t h e sentence) on t h e s t r e n g t h of t h e t h r e e
accessories—akahksa, etc. Hence it is appropriate
to say that words which convey padärthas are
the cause of the cognition of the väkyärtha.

1. Vide the Tattvabindu (below) p. 111,

X
178 INTRODUCTION

The A b h i h i t ä n v a y a v ä d i n begins t h e refuta-

tion of t h e anvitäbhidhänaväda w i t h an intro-
ductory r e m a r k t h a t it is a general rule t h a t
in t h e absence of a n y s t r o n g objection (bädhaka),
t h a t which stands v e r y n e a r to t h e effect
becomes t h e cause of i t ; hence, t h e recollection
of t h e padärthas which are n e a r e r to t h e
väkyärthajnäna t h a n t h e padas, can be well
considered as the cause of t h e väkyärthajnäna.
H e adds t h a t one would never know väkyärtha
from t h e m e r e knowledge of words without
recollecting t h e padärthas therefrom, but knows
it invariably after recollecting t h e padärthas
from t h e juxtaposed words.

On t h e basis of this observation he puts

forth his view of t h e a b h i h i t ä n v a y a v ä d a t h a t
t h e recollections of t h e p a d ä r t h a s associated
w i t h one a n o t h e r become t h e cause of the
väkyärthajnäna, on the s t r e n g t h of t h e t h r e e
accessories—äkähksä (expectancy), yogyatä (con-
gruity) and äsatti (proximity). 1

I t is again a r g u e d 2 (by the Anvitäbhidhäna-

vädin) t h a t t h e recollections of t h e meanings (of
words) which are in reality associated w i t h those
(of other words in a sentence) do not bear t h e m
as objects in their isolation. F o r example, if
one recollects a palace without its locality, viz.,
Pätaliputra and Mähismati (another place which
has nothing to do w i t h t h e palace referred to),
one is not capable of u n d e r s t a n d i n g these two

1. Vide the Tattvabindu (below) p. 112.

& Ibid,, p. 113,
 ANALYSIS OF THE TATTVABINDU 179
padärthas (—palace and Mähismati—) as related to
each other. So words have no i n h e r e n t capacity
to denote their meanings as u n r e l a t e d to one
another. This is considered to be t h e main
objection—bädhaka—viz., sämarthyäbhäva to t h e
assumption t h a t t h e padärthas (the immediate
neighbour of the väkyärthajnäna) a r e t h e cause
of t h e väkyärthajnäna.

The Abhihitänvayavädin a n s w e r s this easily.

H e s a y s 1 : t h e m e n t a l impression h a s no such
capacity to produce a valid recollection as would
invariably present those objects which had and
h a d not been previously experienced (as related
to one a n o t h e r ) ; but (it possesses a capacity)
to g e n e r a t e padärthasmrtis2 (recollections of t h e
m e a n i n g s of words) from t h e group of words in
juxtaposition. These padärthasmrtis have t h e
support of the t h r e e accessories—äkähksä, etc.,
and as such, become karana (of t h e väkyärtha-
bodha) in t h a t t h e y immediately produce t h e
valid cognition of t h e m u t u a l relation of t h e
padärthas, viz., t h e väkyärtha.

If such a väkyärthajnäna is not pramäna,

t h e n t h e cognition known as recognition (pra-
tyabhijnäy will never arise (valid, since it is
g e n e r a t e d by recollection or m e n t a l impression).
A n d it m a y be objected how a m e n t a l impression
or recollection produced by t h e impression which
owes its existence to an experience p r e s e n t i n g
an object w i t h certain limitations of space,
time, etc., would g e n e r a t e a n o t h e r cognition
p r e s e n t i n g the same object w i t h t h e limitations

1. Vide the Tattvabindu, p. 114.

2. Ibid., p. 115.
3. Ibid., p. 116.
180 INTRODUCTION
of different space, time, etc. To answer t h i s
objection it is to be accepted t h a t t h e m e n t a l
impressions or recollections do possess a n extra-
ordinary power to produce recognition which
would p r e s e n t objects uniformly existing at dif-
ferent times and places when t h e y a t t a i n new
features by their association w i t h t h e accessories
like t h e senses. 1 Such an explanation, viz., t h e
possession of a power by t h e padärthasmrtis and
samskaras, is possible here also if one views it
without a n y prejudice. 3 I t is also explained in
t h e N y ä y a k a n i k ä t h a t no object becomes varied
or different t h r o u g h the difference of time, space
and t h e various s t a g e s 3 of t h e object.

I t is a r g u e d again 4 by t h e Anvitäbhidhäna-
vädin t h a t as h a s been already said, t h e padä-
r t h a s , if t h e y a r e recollected from a n y source
(other t h a n words), do not possess the power
to produce t h e vakyarthajnana. If it is said
t h a t t h e y h a v e such a power, t h e y would be
recognised as t h e seventh pramäna (means of
knowledge); or agama (verbal testimony) would
merge in t h e padarthas. A n d t h e y (padärthas)
should h a v e been explained (by t h e Vrttikara and
others) along w i t h pratyaksa and other (means
of knowledge), and agama should not have
been mentioned (as a s e p a r a t e p r a m ä n a ) , since
it is only a sub-division of t h e p r a m ä n a , viz.,
padärtha. Experienced people do not use 5 words
denoting unequal divisions (in a dvandva com-
pound) a s ' Brahmana and Yudhisthira' (one a
caste-name and other t h e n a m e of an individual)
but use such words expressing equal divisions as

1. Vide the Tafctvabindu (below) p. 117.

2. Ibid., p. 118. 3. Ibid., p. 119.
4 Ibid., p. 120. 5. Ibid., p. 121.
 ANALYSIS OF THE TATTVABINDU 181
6
Brahmana and Rajanya' (two caste-names) and
4
Vasistha and Yudhisthira' b o t h being t h e n a m e s
of two persons. By t h e m e n t i o n of one sub-
division, a n o t h e r sub-division (of t h e same class)
cannot be t a k e n as mentioned. So t h e genus—
padarthas—should have been e n u m e r a t e d in the
list of pramanas. To s a y t h a t t h e V r t t i k ä r a
and the B h ä s y a k ä r a who began to elucidate all
m e a n s of knowledge, left out some little p r a m ä n a
unexplained would be a t t r i b u t i n g to t h e m un-
sound scholarship 1 ; so ( t o avoid t h a t ) it is
to be stated t h a t p a d a r t h a s which become
objects of experiences or recollections resulting
from words, do possess a special power to
generate t h e cognition of t h e v ä k y ä r t h a . If
2
this is accepted, three or two saktis are to be
explained—two saktis on words and one on their
m e a n i n g s 3 (if words g e n e r a t e t h e experience
(anubhava) of their meanings), or one sakti
over words and one over t h e i r meanings, 4 (if
words generate a recollection of t h e i r meanings).
But, if a n v i t ä b h i d h ä n a v ä d a be accepted, only one
sakti over words is to be a c c e p t e d ; and (as
t h e r e is no sakti over t h e p a d a r t h a s ) , t h e r e is
m u c h saving of labour. Hence the anvitabhi-
dhänaväda is acceptable.

1. Vide the Tattvabindu (below) p. 122.

2. Ibid., p. 123.
3. Words possess a sakti called abhidhäna to convey
their meanings; the meanings possess a sakti to convey
their mutual relations and words have another sakti to
give power to the padarthas (to convey their relation).
4. The padarthas have one sakti to convey the
väkyärtha, while words possess a sakti, which enables the
padarthas to generate the väkyärthajnäna. Vide the
Tattvabindu, p. 123.
182 INTRODUCTION
The Abhihitanvayavädin while replying to
this accepts first the principle of laghava enun-
ciated by his opponent and r e m a r k s t h a t in order
to find out t h a t , an impartial investigation is
to be made.

The one padasakti accepted by t h e Anvitäbhi-

dhänavädin h a s reference to the m e a n i n g s of words
as m u t u a l l y related {i.e.) words convey by t h e i r
abhidhänasakti both p a d ä r t h a s and t h e i r relation.
This sakti cannot be said as h a v i n g reference
to the anvaya only. If so, the anvaya—relation
—being one and the same, all words would
become synonymous.

Again, it is a r g u e d : words convey t h e related

things {vyatisakta)1 and do not convey t h e i r
relation also, just as words connoting generalities
do not convey the idea of individuals. The
relation is known when t h e related objects are
cognised, and since the related objects are
different, t h e r e is no fallacy of all words becom-
ing synonymous.

This is also refuted as inconclusive. I n the

refutation of t h e same a question is raised—
w h e t h e r by the word vyatisakta (related thing)
is to be understood only t h e object or t h e object
as well as the relation. W o r d s which convey
by abhidhana the concepts (padärthasvarüpa)
cannot convey the relation also, just as a word
connoting a generality by its abhidhasakti does
not convey t h e idea of individual. A quality like
colour cannot exist without a s u b s t a n c e ; so, a
word connoting a quality expresses its own asraya
(substance). Can a similar t h i n g be spoken of

1. Vide the Tattvabindu (below) p. 124.

 ANALYSIS Otf THE T A T T V A B I N D T J 183

padärthas ? N o ; it is held t h a t t h e p a d ä r t h a s
can be well known (by words) even w i t h o u t t h e i r
m u t u a l relation. If it is said t h a t t h e pada-
rthas a r e not known without their relation, it
will h a v e to be accepted t h a t t h e ling a {probans)
cannot be k n o w n 1 without t h e cognition of t h e
lingin (the major term) in t h e paksa (the minor
t e r m ) ; so also lihgatva (invariable concomitance)
cannot be known. H e n c e t h e whole domain of
inference would become very difficult to explain.
So to s a y t h a t t h e anvita is known by words
would m e a n t h a t both p a d ä r t h a s and t h e i r
relation a r e conveyed by words.

N o w t h e A b h i h i t ä n v a y a v ä d i n questions 2 —
w h e t h e r one is contented w i t h t h e fact t h a t on t h e
basis of laghava (labour-saving), words by t h e i r
§akti or samarthya do not convey t h e relation
b u t only t h e padärthasvarüpa, which however
g e n e r a t e s t h e cognition of the väkyärtha, (so
t h a t one would refrain from a t t r i b u t i n g to words
t h e power to convey t h e relation of t h e
p a d ä r t h a s ) , or w h e t h e r t h e y by their sakti con-
vey both t h e p a d ä r t h a s v a r ü p a and their relation,
w i t h o u t which no cognition of v ä k y ä r t h a would
possibly arise even t h o u g h one m a k e s a t h o u s a n d
and one efforts to obtain it.

Of these two, which is to be accepted ?

On t h e s t r e n g t h of samabhivyähära3 words
become capable of conveying t h e relation between
one p a d ä r t h a and a n o t h e r ; or t h e juxtaposition
or co-utterance would be of no avail. Any
object is said to possess a p a r t i c u l a r samarthya

1. Vide the Tattvabindu (below) p. 129.

2, Ibid., p, 130, 3. Ibid.t p. 131,
184 INTRODUCTION
(capacity) if its effect cannot t a k e place w i t h o u t
t h a t object. The knowledge of t h e relation (bet-
ween one p a d ä r t h a and another) arises from a
visible or invisible thing other t h a n w o r d s ; so
t h e r e is no a u t h o r i t y for us to a t t r i b u t e it to
words. The learned in t h e T h r e e V e d a s observe
t h a t t h e s a b d ä r t h a — t h e m e a n i n g of a word—is
t h a t which is not known from a n y o t h e r source.
On t h e basis of this observation t h e y have
held t h e view t h a t t h e personal t e r m i n a t i o n
(ükhyätapratyaya), etc., do not convey by
abhidhä, t h e agent (karta) of t h e action, etc.
On t h e basis of t h e juxtaposition or expectancy,
again, words by their secondary significative
power convey the m u t u a l relation of t h e i r mean-
ings {anvitävasthä), since t h e y a r e u t t e r e d by
t h e speaker with t h e intention of conveying t h e
anvaya. E v e n unjuxtaposed words do not stop
t h e i r functioning w i t h g e n e r a t i n g t h e knowledge
of their own meanings. The learned people in
t h e world do not use words for conveying the
padärthas merely; on t h e other hand, t h e y
u t t e r w o r d s 1 w i t h the intention of conveying (to
t h e hearers) their ideas t h r o u g h those words.
If words do not convey t h e intended ideas of
t h e speakers, t h e n those s p e a k e r s are to be
considered as m e n without t h e knowledge of the
world or t r u e judgment. Nobody seeks to know
p a d ä r t h a s which have a l r e a d y been known.
So t h e (learned) use words in a particular
order so as to m a k e others know a n idea already
unknown. H e n c e the p a r t i c u l a r order or juxta-
position of words which h a v e t h e sole object

1. See the Tattvabindu (below) p, 132.

 ANALYSIS OF THE TATTVABINDU 185

to convey an idea h i t h e r t o unknown, without

which t h e co-utterance of words in a p a r t i c u l a r
order or t h e sentence itself would be impossible,
helps (the words) to convey by t h e secondary
significative potency t h e relation t h a t subsists
between one p a d ä r t h a and another. To this
effect t h e V a r t t i k a s a y s t h a t t h e cognition of
t h e visistärtha, viz., t h e m u t u a l relation of the
p a d ä r t h a s , is g e n e r a t e d b y t h e samabhivyahrti
(co-utterance of words). 1

So on t h e basis of t h e recollection (of t h e

p a d ä r t h a s ) produced by words in juxtaposition
which cannot be otherwise explained and streng-
thened by t h e expectancy and congruity of the
p a d ä r t h a s , words, therefore, convey by l a k s a n ä
t h e anvitavastha (the relation between one padä-
r t h a and another), which does not therefore
impose on words a n y special sakti for its own
knowledge. 2

W o r d s t h a t are used by honest people w i t h

the intention of conveying certain ideas to t h e
h e a r e r s m a y bring out t h e u n k n o w n idea viz.,
väkyärtha by t h e secondary significative potency
which is generally adopted on t h e basis of t h e
incompatibility of t h e intended idea of t h e s p e a k e r ;
b u t words in t h e vedas which are believed to be
self-revelations, cannot convey t h e väkyärtha by
l a k s a n ä , s i n c e - t h e r e is no purusa (author) in t h e
case of t h e vedas and since t h e r e is no possibility
for t h e explanation of t h e tätparyänupapatti?
I t m a y be accepted t h a t (on t h e basis of t h e
lokavedädhikarana) t h e r e is no difference between
laukika and vedic words (so t h a t t h e r e will arise

1. Vide the Tattvabindu (below) p. 132.

2. Ibid.% p. 133. 3. Ibid., p. 135.
186 INTRODUCTION
valid säbdabodha from the vaidika words just like
from o t h e r words). This does not hold good
in view of t h e fact t h a t (if such a comparison
be held between t h e loka and the vedas), a n o t h e r
similar t h i n g would have to be accepted in t h e
laukika words used, i-e., t h a t the word ganga
(in the sentence ' gangäyäm ghosah') which m e a n s
bank by t h e secondary significative potency,
would h a v e to m e a n the same in t h e sentences—
' gangäyäm payämsi, yädämsi gangäyäm ' (waters
of the Ganges, animals in the Ganges). The
a r g u m e n t t h a t t h e r e is no anupapatti (incompa-
tibility of t h e p r i m a r y sense in t h e context,
so t h a t t h e r e is no basis for laksanä) does not
a n y w a y favour t h e position of laukika words
in as m u c h as the same might be said of t h e
vedic words. 1

The A b h i h i t ä n v a y a v ä d i n argues t h a t if
a n v i t ä b h i d h ä n a v ä d a be accepted, t h e vedic words
(in a sentence) would not generate an u n k n o w n
kind of jnäna, viz., väkyärthajnäna (since it
emphasizes only t h e recollection of anvitävastha
from words). To this Anvitäbhidhänavädin how-
ever replies t h a t just as laukika words (i.e.)
used in o r d i n a r y conversation convey even
ideas with t h e relation (of those ideas), so also
the vedic words convey both their ideas and
relation (since t h e laukika and vaidika words
are said to be identical). This is again refuted
by t h e A b h i h i t ä n v a y a v ä d i n on the main ground
of läghava (already explained) and also on t h e
ground t h a t words, while used by speakers, convey
invariably t h e intended ideas (on their individual
capacity) a n d as such, are not capable of conveying

1, Vide the Tattvabindu (below) p. 136,

 ANALYSIS OF THE TATTVABINDU 187

t h e anvitavastha, so t h a t t h e r e is no room for

a t t r i b u t i n g to words t h e power of conveying their
own ideas as associated w i t h t h e ideas of other
words {arthäntaränvitasvärthakalpanä) .l

Again, t h e Anvifcäbhidhänavädin contends 2

t h a t t h e a u t h o r i t a t i v e n e s s of t h e vedas cannot
be accepted in view of t h e fact t h a t the complete
understanding of t h e import of t h e vedas would
be impossible (if anvitäbhidhänaväda is not
accepted). A t this t h e Abhihitänvayavädin
coolly r e m a r k s : if such a t h i n g happens, well
and good! N o t h i n g is lost to t h e m who accept
everything on sound reason. 3 So it is to be
ascertained w i t h o u t a n y prejudice but following
the p a t h of a t r u e astika w h a t is acceptable as
an indispensable f a c t o r i which contributes to our
understanding of t h e m e a n i n g s of t h e vaidika
words. I t is a n admitted fact t h a t t h e m e a n s
of t h e knowledge of t h e relation between words
and their meanings is t h e beginningless tradition
of t h e old (who used words to convey certain
definite i d e a s ) ; so even w i t h o u t a person res-
ponsible for t h a t relation, t h e knowledge of t h e
meanings of words (padärthas) can arise. Hence
the relation between words and their meanings
is considered to be but natural.

I t is questioned—does t h a t relation (of words

viz., sakti p e r t a i n to) t h e m e a n i n g of one word
related to t h e m e a n i n g (of another) or to t h e
meaning of one word only ? I n t h e second, do
words convey (by t h e i r sakti) their meanings
alone or t h e m u t u a l relation also ? If words

1. Vide the Tattvabindu (below) p. 137.

2. Ibid., p. 149.
3. Ibid., p. 150. 4 Ibid., p. 151.
188 INTRODUCTION
convey their meanings only, t h e y do not produce
t h e cognition of t h e v ä k y ä r t h a , and as such,
cannot be considered to be t h e efficient cause of
t h e cognition of the padärthasamsarga {väkyär-
tha). Hence the two other alternatives are open
to explain that words have the utility for gene-
rating the cognition of the relation of the padä-
rthas.
Now t h e Abhihitänvay avädin * s a y s t h a t
t h o u g h words bear out the intention of conveying
t h e relation of p a d ä r t h a s , t h e y convey by their
abhidhänasakti t h e padärthasvarüpa only, and
since t h e relation of t h e p a d ä r t h a s is known
(by other m e a n s of knowledge), t h e r e is no room
for presumption (arthäpatti), on t h e a u t h o r i t y of
which words a r e said to possess a peculiar power
to convey (not only padärthas but also) t h e
väkyärtha. W h e n we h e a r a p a r t i c u l a r state-
m e n t from a reliable person, we a r e sometimes
prompted to action or to keep ourselves aloof;
sometimes we realise pleasure, pain or f e a r ;
and from this a careful observer infers our
knowledge—the cause of our m e n t a l s t a t e . H e
verifies also t h a t such a t h i n g does not t a k e
place in t h e presence of o t h e r t h i n g s but words.
And this knowledge does not present padärthas
merely to produce such effects as action but t h e
qualified padärthas—padärthas and t h e i r relation.
So words used by t h e learned b e a r out t h e
intention of conveying the qualified padärthas;
and this cannot be explained w i t h o u t t h e recol-
lection of t h e isolated padärthas (through words),
which m a y be inferred from t h e experience of
t h e visistaväkyärtha arising therefrom. The
capacity of words to produce a recollection of

1. Vide the Tattvabindu (below) p. 152.

 ANALYSIS OF THE TATTVABINDU 189
p a d ä r t h a s , does not dare to d e s t r o y (the power of)
t h e i r being t h e vehicle of t h e intended visistartha,
since nothing (in t h i s world) will destroy its
own nimitta (cause), m u c h less its own self.
So words do not convey by abhidhäna the quali-
fied p a d ä r t h a s . H e n c e as in t h e laukika words, 1
t h e vaidika words in a sentence do by laksana
g e n e r a t e a cognition of t h e qualified padärthas
on t h e basis of their conveying (by abhidhäna)
unqualified or isolated ideas. To s a y t h a t words
b e a r out t h e intention of conveying t h e isolated
ideas only, which by themselves do not bear
a n y fruit to t h e h e a r e r , would be denying one's
understanding of t h e v ä k y ä r t h a t h r o u g h the
cognition of words.
To this effect s a y s t h e revered Värttika-
käramisra—'Varnas (words) directly however
convey p a d ä r t h a s (concepts), y e t t h e y do not
stop w i t h them, t h e m e r e knowledge of which
is of no use to t h e h e a r e r . The conveying
of p a d ä r t h a s by words is indispensable for t h e
cognition of v ä k y ä r t h a , just like fire for cooking
by m e a n s of pieces of w o o d ' .
So also (says he)—
' T h a t väkyärtha is e v e r y w h e r e conveyed by
words by laksanä (secondary significative potency)
only is an accepted fact for us.'
I t cannot be argued t h a t words which bear out
t h e intention of conveying their meanings and
their relation, convey b o t h by abhidhäna; if this
be accepted, 2 one will h a v e t o accept t h a t t h e
word gangä in t h e sentence 'gangäyäm ghosah"
would on the basis of tätparya convey t h e idea
of bank by its abhidhäna. To s a y t h a t the idea
1. Vide the Tattvabindu (below) p. 153.
2. Ibid., p. 154.
190 INTRODUCTION

of bank is conveyed by t h e word gangä (by

laksanä) on t h e basis of its relation (proximity)
to the svärtha viz., current, and as such, is not,
in spite of the tätparya, conveyed by its abhidhäna,
is favourable to w h a t h a s been said w i t h reference
to words. So t h e tätparya does not invariably
prove t h e existence of a special padasakti for
conveying t h e v ä k y ä r t h a . The pieces of wood
though t h e y are intended for cooking, never
directly accomplish their f r u i t ; b u t fire alone
(accomplishes i t ) ; and t h r o u g h t h a t , t h e y also
accomplish it. The priority of words to mean-
ings in g e n e r a t i n g t h e väkyärthajnäna h a s no
special significance and as such, would not a n y -
w a y indicate t h e existence of a special pada-
sakti. T h a t both words and their meanings
stand on a different footing h a s been already
explained by t h e fact t h a t words convey by
abhidhäna their meanings and not their relation
too, for t h e objection of gaurava. I t need not be
said t h a t t h e p a d ä r t h a s even with the support
of the accessories like expectancy, do possess a
special power to g e n e r a t e t h e cognition of t h e
visistärtha, for, even without it, such a cognition
arises from t h e padärthas.

Not only t h e padärthas recollected t h r o u g h

words but also others (recollected) t h r o u g h other
means of knowledge a r e capable of generating
the visistärthabuddhi. Just as presumption
{arthäpatti) and inference (anumäna) produce a
1
visistärthabuddhi, so also p a d ä r t h a s recollected
t h r o u g h words which are considered as bearing
out the intention of the speaker, generate a
visistärthabuddhi. The tätparya which is known
from t h e incompatibility (of t h e p r i m a r y sense)
1. Vide the Tattvabindu (below) p. 155.
 ANALYSIS OF THE T A T T V A B I N D U 191

and the relation to t h e väkyärtha does not a n y

w a y explain or suggest t h e existence of a new
sabda-sakti, in view of t h e fact t h a t such an
•explanation would result in our acceptance of
the äakti over words like gangä and over
objects like kästha (pieces of wood), in the senses
of bank and cooking respectively.

Laksanä is not a l w a y s adopted in a sense

on t h e exclusion, of t h e p r i m a r y sense of a word;
but t h e r e are both acceptance and abandonment
of t h e p r i m a r y sense according to t h e n a t u r e of
the secondary sense. F o r example, in the sen-
tence—'gangäyäm ghosah1 t h e p r i m a r y sense of
t h e word gangä is abandoned on t h e adoption
of laksanä in t h e sense of bank capable
of locating a h a m l e t ; b u t in t h e example—
'dandino gacchanti\ t h e p r i m a r y sense of
t h e word dandin merges into the body of
t h e secondary sense—the group of both sets of
people w i t h and without sticks. I n t h e vedic
example also— 4 srstirupadadhäti ', t h e word srsti
by laksanä m e a n s the bricks t h a t are associated
with a group of mantras w i t h and without the
word srsti. Similarly, w h e n t h e relation of the
p a d ä r t h a s is conveyed by words by laksanä, the
p a d ä r t h a s (the p r i m a r y meanings) also are in-
cluded in t h e body of t h e secondary sense, for,
without them, t h e secondary sense is of no avail
and as such, will have to be discarded.

I t cannot be argued 1 t h a t words convey the

väkyärtha by laksanä in as m u c h as it, does not
satisfy its own definition; for, laksanä is to be
so defined as would include within its scope
t h e present i n s t a n c e also.

1, Vide the Tattvabindu (below) p. 156,

192 INTRODUCTION
Can this be t h e n the laksanä as explained by
one a u t h o r : — t h a t which is adopted to convey a
new sense t h a t can be related to t h e väkyärtha
t h r o u g h t h e cognition of its relation to the
p r i m a r y sense, w h e n t h e p r i m a r y sense (of t h e
word) is incompatible with t h e intended sense
of t h e sentence ? I n t h e sentence—' Odanam
pacati Caitrah pithäre' (Caitra cooks food
on an oven) t h e ideas of Caitra, pithära, etc.,
have n o t h i n g unrelated to t h e väkyärtha. Nor
h a s the anvitävasthä which is to be conveyed
by words by laksanä, been related to another
anvaya (just as t h e secondary sense of t h e word
ganga possesses t h e relation to t h e väkyärtha).
So no laksanä is to be adopted in words in the
sense of t h e anvitävasthä.

To this t h e Siddhäntin replies in a jeering

t o n e : if t h e r e be no l a k s a n ä , then, are t h e
things t h a t can be known by other m e a n s of
knowledge accepted to be conveyed by words ?
Nobody accepts abhidhänasakti in t h e word
agnihotra in t h e vedic passage— 4 Mäsamagni-
hotram juhoti \ though it cannot convey the idea
of t h e Mäsägnihotra by laksanä. If it is said
t h a t on t h e basis of similarity (between the
Nityägnihotra and t h e Mäsägnihotra) the word is
gauna (metaphorical) and t h a t , t h e r e is no
necessity for accepting abhidhäna in t h e sense
of Mäsägnihotra, it m a y be asserted even here
t h a t w i t h o u t a n y special abhidhäna t h e anvitä-
vasthä m a y be well cognised as explained
above. If t h e padavrtti (by which words convey
t h e anvitävasthä) does not satisfy t h e definition
of laksanä, a fourth kind of padavrtti1 may
be accepted on t h e basis of experience; or it
1, Vide the Tattvabindu (below), p. 157,
 ANALYSIS OF THE TATTVABINDU 193

m a y be asserted as laksanä itself which m a y be

given a different definition, simply t o avoid a n
unknown padavrtti. Two conditions of laksanä
as given in t h e definition cited above m a y be
well accepted, viz., (1) t h e incompatibility of t h e
p r i m a r y sense and (2) t h e relation of t h e secon-
d a r y sense to t h e p r i m a r y s e n s e ; b u t not other
conditions like t h e incompatibility of t h e p r i m a r y
sense with the vakyartha.

I t is experienced t h a t words t h a t a r e juxta-

posed or co-uttered w i t h t h e intention of t h e i r
conveying a visistärtha will h a v e no significance
if t h e y convey only t h e p a d ä r t h a s , so t h a t t h e y
convey (by laksanä) t h e anvitävasthä as related
to t h e p a d ä r t h a s . This definition is applicable
to both laukika and vaidika i n s t a n c e s w i t h o u t
a n y violence. Though words by abhidhäna
express t h e padärthasvarupas (concepts) only,
y e t t h e y do not stop w i t h t h e m ; t h e y directly
express the padärthas for t h e sake of t h e
väkyärthajnäna, and so t h e y convey t h e vakyartha
by laksanä.

The objection t h a t t h e anvitävasthä cannot

be t a k e n a s t h e secondary sense of words for
t h e reason t h a t it is not previously known as
associated with t h e p a d ä r t h a s , m a y be answered
easily. I t is said t h a t t h e a n v i t ä v a s t h ä is
previously known in its general capacity, t h o u g h
it is known afterwards in its special feature
at t h e time of its association w i t h t h e p a d ä r t h a s .
The anvitävasthä is said to be nothing b u t t h e
anvitapadärthas—concepts w i t h their relation,
so t h a t no duplication in t h e capacity {sämar-
thya)1 other t h a n t h a t to convey t h e p a d ä r t h a s

1. Vide the Tattvabindu (below) p. 158.

194 ItfTRODUCTIOH
is to be accepted. Words do not convey by
abhidhänasakti the anvaya also, since t h e anvaya
is cognised even when t h e p a d ä r t h a s alone are
known by abhidhänasakti.

If the cognition of the p a d ä r t h a s generated

by t h e potency of words does not come under t h e
kinds—valid cognition, doubt, and misapprehen-
sion, and if no kind of cognition other t h a n
recollection is recognised, it m a y be by all m e a n s
recollection itself, which however arises not
on merely rousing up t h e impressions, but on
those impressions roused up by words by abhi-
d h ä n a s a k t i . To say t h a t words h a v e utility in
rousing up t h e impressions (and as such, possess
a power to convey the relation of padärthas),
would lead us to accept a similar power over
arthas; for, t h e y also by their sakti become the
condition to rouse t h e impressions of their own
words and as such, m a y be well considered as
expressing t h e words also. I t is therefore to be
asserted t h a t words do not convey by abhidhäna
t h e anvaya which is not known by other m e a n s
of knowledge.

Now a question is raised (against t h e Anvi-

täbhidhänavädin)—what is t h a t abhidhä power of
sabdas which convey also t h e anvaya by it ?
I t is not movement {parispanda) which exists
in objects possessing form. And sabda either
as a vibhudravya or a vibhuguna does not possess
a n y form. The mürti (form) is defined by those
who have understood (the essence of) t h e pheno-
menal world as t h e measurement of a substance
not all-pervasive. And t h e r e is no a u t h o r i t y
to say t h a t it is an invisible kind of movement
like the volition. The cognition of anvaya (the
 ANALYSIS OF THE TATTYABINDU 195

relation of t h e p a d ä r t h a s ) will arise from t h a t

of s a b d a s 1 w h e n t h a t relation (between sabdas
and a r t h a s ) h a s been already known (and recol-
. lected). So this cognition presenting sabda as
such is t h e vyapara (immediate cause) of t h e
cognition of svarthas. To this effect says t h e
revered B h ä s y a k ä r a —

' S ä s t r a (verbal cognition) is t h e cognition

presenting an object having no contact w i t h
t h e senses by t h e cognition of äabda.'

T h a t alone is called abhidha in t h a t sabda

possesses a n inborn potency and generates t h e
cognition of t h e padärthas by t h a t power. It
does n o t independently produce t h e cognition of
arthas b u t t h r o u g h rousing t h e m e n t a l impressions
(of those a r t h a s previously known). So t h e r e is
no room for t h e presumption t h a t t h e cognition
of a r t h a s first rouses t h e impressions of words
and t h e n produces t h e recollection of words and
as such is called abhidhä. B u t it is t h e cogni-
tion of sabda, which invariably g e n e r a t e s t h e
recollection of t h e p a d ä r t h a s . So h a v e t h e ex-
perienced people in t h i s world explained t h e use
of words (for c o m m u n i c a t i n g one's t h o u g h t to
another).

I t m a y be objected t h a t sabda never rouses

t h e m e n t a l impressions, since it is not studied
in t h e list beginning w i t h pranidhana (medita-
tion). This is answered t h u s : äabda also m a y
be said to be included in t h e list. 2 The conditions
of recollection a r e e n u m e r a t e d by Pramänikas
(authoritative people)—pranidhana^ nibandhana,
abhyasa, lihga, laksana, sadrsya, parigraha,
1. Vide the Tattvabindu (below) p. 159.
2. Ibid., p. 160.
196 INTRODUCTION
äsraya, asrita, sambandha, anantarya, viyoga,
ekakärya, virodha, atisaya, prapti, vyavadhäna,
sukha, duhkha, icchä, dvesa, bhaya, arthitva, kriya,
räga, dharma, adharma. T h o u g h pada is not
found (in t h e list), sambandha (relation) is studied
in t h e list of t h e conditions of recollection; and
it includes well t h e padas (as t h e related object),
just as t h e pupil reminds one of t h e t e a c h e r
and t h e priest, of the sacrificer. The relation
between words and ideas is e t e r n a l and it is
n o t h i n g but vacyaväcakabhava—the relation t h a t
subsists between the conveyor and t h e conveyed.
T h e cognition of sabda coupled w i t h t h e im-
pression produced by the experience of t h e artha
will g e n e r a t e the recollection of t h e svärtha (its
concept), since sabda is u t t e r e d w i t h t h e intention
of g e n e r a t i n g the arthajnana (in t h e h e a r e r ) .
The relation between t h e conveyor and t h e
conveyed is nothing but t h a t between t h e cogni-
ser and t h e cognised, or strictly speaking, t h a t
between t h e recollector and t h e recollected.

I t is again objected t h a t t h e disciple reminds

one of his t e a c h e r t h r o u g h t h e relation between
the teacher and the pupil and not necessarily
by t h a t between the recollector and t h e recol-
lected, and t h a t , in the i n s t a n c e of äabda some
other relation should therefore be found o u t ;
t h a t since t h e r e is no other suitable relation,
viz., abhidheyasahacarya (the association w i t h t h e
abhidheyartha) and as such, t h e power or capacity
of sabdas for reminding the h e a r e r of t h e ideas
m a y be established.

Now t h e Siddhäntin r e t o r t s t h a t if anvitä-

b h i d h ä n a be accepted, is t h e r e a n y o t h e r relation
on t h e basis of which words would convey t h e
 ANALYSIS OF THE TATTVABINDU 197

anvitartha (ideas and their relation) ? The eye

and other (senses) and the smoke and other
(probans) a r e observed as generating cognitions
of such objects as invariably associated with
them, t h r o u g h t h e relations such as their contact
w i t h t h e objects in vision and t h e invariable
concomitance. 1 If it is said t h a t even without
a n y other relation t h e r e m a y arise from words
the cognition of ideas t h r o u g h the eternal signi-
ficative potency (sakti), t h e existence of which
is well inferred from their time-honoured usage,
t h e same m a y be said here also. The relation
between sabda and artha m a y be t h a t between
t h e recollector and the recollected, since it is
observed t h a t words do possess a potency to
g e n e r a t e a recollection of a r t h a s ; and t h a t
relation is n o t h i n g but the cognition of sabda
which is also known as abhidhä, as explained
above.

So t h e capacity of words to convey the ideas

(abhidhätrtva) cannot be satisfactorily explained
if a n v i t ä b h i d h ä n a be followed. I t is therefore
appropriate to s a y t h a t on t h e ground of laghava
(saving labour) v ä k y ä r t h a is known from words
by t h e i r secondary significative potency in t h a t
it is g e n e r a t e d by t h e padärthas recollected by
t h e m e a n s of words co-uttered or juxtaposed and
associated w i t h t h e accessories like expectancy.

So it h a s been well s a i d — " W o r d s convey

their ideas (concepts) and refrain from a n y
other functioning; and t h e n t h e padärthas
being cognised produce t h e cognition of t h e
väkyärtha."

1. Vide the Tattvabindu (below) p. 161.

 PÜBVA M l M l M S i älSTRA

0
Q0
O © O iö
CO

I
.3 oo
g§ CO
° o
a 1
I s
fa. lO
,3 S T3 ^JJ
ü °
©ü
.S CO

1°:
X 03
ü 8 §.sa
f
I I
IS 8^

I *
1*1
5»<
3 rOcö-+a

J2 "^

I g-
J8

i f i i i
d aa
i-fJ'i
^3 5
 APPENDIX I

of

P3 2©
i

33

' öo
o
 PÜRVA MlMÄMSA ÖASTRA
Ö !*Xm©

'S
s CO
co T—f
ft i^ 5

>& s«

^o.Sbß
11^
© <D O
8. 3
IS ICQ ^ rö(C-

o dö

,g 00 o fei.
I

fs. O ^
03 I
i •§
1 -IIS? a
 APPENDIX I
5 »g C
O
H l
.5 •cfi
'S
X
M
i
53 y ~
öS tö
^J ß
M<l
ß
J c6 ©
I M
<3 ^ O
©- o ^^>
s °
o H i

o ©
M T
vyäk

1 !

1§1 P I !
'S § ^Q C
2O•+»—
| ( ,4g
s© $ §
i H i
I U U

c3
M

4O
H
ä

11 5sj
5 I
I
IBU9S
 PÜRVA MIMÄMSÄ

I
s
5

I <3
JSL
 APPENDIX 1

cS i> I

o
<D
(2
g
p-i
as!
©c
,ö
| | I
©
|
o I»
©
C5 c3 "o
I" IM
i n

^•0 <D,S
<g i§
 PÜEVA MIMÄMSÄ ÖÄSTRA

cö O ©
00 •§*.!
g d §
2

o
P .S ©
.22
g.a

§
1
©
^C
O
DO .c3
"cö ci 8
© QQ o
C
O CQ
7-a
id ©
• S a> Ö
O
o Ü
o
'18 03
s I
C5r£3 .cö
-h ft I 'S ©
S cö p ü
I "
1«

«.2

Jo
S ^^ 'cö^
1
CO CD
CQ 22
 APPENDIX II.
[An Alphabetical Table of Works,
the authors and dates of which are not known.]

Adhvaramimämsäsutrdrtha- Preserved in the Madras

dipikä—(probably written Govt. Mss. Library. (R.
by a Keraliya)—a com- No. 3038). This work
mentary on the Jaimini- refers to Mädhaväcärya
yasütravrtti (see below) and Somanätha's Mayü-
khamälikä.
A msatrayavicdrah
Granthayojand—a commen- Preserved in the Madras
tary on the Tarkapäda Govt. Mss. Library.
of the Säbarabhäsya A transcript is available
in the Annamalai Uni-
versity Library. It ab-
ruptly breaks off in the
middle of L 1. 5.
Jaiminlyasutravrtti— (Kera- Preserved in part only to
liya)—a commentary on the end of 4th adhyäya
the Sütras of Jaimini in the Madras Govt. Mss.
Library. [R. No. 2973]
Prakaranapancikdvydkhyd Do. [R. No. 3237]. It
breaks off in the Nayar
vithi.
Do. Nydyasiddhi—(pro- Do. [R. No. 3647]. It
bably written by a Kera- breaks off in the anu-
liya) mäna of the Pramäna-
päräyana. It quotes a
Kärikä
4
from the Brhattikd:
Yathd lokaprasiddham ca
laksanairanugamyate;
Laksyam na laksanaireva
tadapürvam prasädhyate.'
Bälabhäskara with the com- Preserved in the Madras
mentary Prabhd Govt. Mss. Library.
[R. No. 2179]. It extends
to the sixth päda of the
Third Adhyäya.
10 APPENDIX II

Mänaratnävali—(by a Kera-Preserved in the Madras

liya)—dealing with meta- Govt. Mss. Library.
physical problem of the [R. No. 3747]
Bhätta Mimämsä System
as against the Bauddhas,
the Präbhäkaras, the Nai-
yäyikas and the Mäyä-
vädins (Advaita-vedän-
tins)
M imärhsadhikarananyäya- Do. [No. 4456]
vicära
Mimämsäbhäsyavivaranavyä- Do. [R. No. 3948].
khyänam—a commentary A fragment only.
on the Vivarana (already
described, Serial No. 11)
of the Säbarabhäsya
Mlmämsävisayah—a praka- Preserved in the Madras
rana work based on Govt. Mss. Library.
Cidänanda's Nititattvä- [Nos. 3593, 4463 & 4464]
virbhäva A fragment only.
Vädakutühalam—a contro- Do. [No. 4468 &
versial tract on Mimäih- R. No. 1375]

Sodasädhyäyi—a good com- Do. [R. No. 3400]

mentary on the 16 Chap-
ters of the Pürva and
Uttara Mimämsä Sütras—
by a Keraliya
Do. Tippanam Do. [R. No. 4387]

Siddhdntamusti (by one Mä- Do. [R. No. 2967]

dhava (?) or a disciple of
Mädhava)—a summary
in verse of the topics of
each adhikarana
APPENDIX IIL

300
 APPENDIX IV.

TI

1. %.
Ben. Ed. g.

M a d r a s Edn.
Benares
Edn., ü. **.
*rT*Rft N . S. Edn., 3. H.

• H.

HWT5HT ... ^Tf^f^q; (?)

, Benares
Edition, %.

0, 5
 QUOTATIONS 13

, Benares
Edition, 5. cc.
: (?)

M a d r a s Edition.
: (?)

1. 1.

:(?)

B e n a r e s Edition
14 APPENDIX IV

, Benares
Edition, g.

B e n a r e s Edition

111, 3.
1. 1. 3

B e n a r e s Edition

) '" M a d r a s Edition
 QUOTATIONS 15

. 5. \t\, Mad. Ed.

B e n a r e s Edition

, 3" * ° °
B e n a r e s Edition
(?) f^?t%fcr ^rrf^r
^n^)
1. 1. H,
300, 3.

1
ff :, 5.

23
 APPENDIX IV

(?)

M a d r a s Edition
1H, J. 1 ^

, 1. 1.

:, 3.

:, J.

3» 3°°i
B e n a r e s Edition

% vs :, 3. 1R*

3
B e n a r e s Edition

3.
3
M a d r a s Edition

ft
ft
ft
 QUOTATIONS 17

B e n a r e s Edition

TRf-

So® f^fSfl^q"; ^f ^
B e n a r e s Edn., 3. ^ ^

"s^HI^ ... ^4>1ldll^fl<«hlK'Hr ^j 3* ^3.

<"^ ... ^llTf«b*^ (?)
loo *\
s o ^ C <T^T*3rftra>T*r
/ ^TS^-^t. So®, 3. S^^

B e n a r e s Edition
I ... W3a3TfifeF£, S. S. ®,
%. s, 3. * s ^

S S ^ TT^kf-^r ^T
B e n a r e s Edition
®o M,,m^^,
18 APPENDIX IV

(?)
ng^r^)

Benares Edition

, 1. 9.

(?)

?)

T*t1 ilrs""^ ^ rv
<=t II "^^^ *^
B e n a r e s Edition

1.1.»,
QUOTATIONS 19

^ ) 1. 1.
(?)

Sarasvati Bhavana
Series, 3. ^

B e n a r e s Edition

B e n a r e s Edition.

(?)

1. 1.
20 APPENDIX IV
Fl

M a d r a s Edition

1. 1. H,

B e n a r e s Edition

, 1. 1.

T. T.
 QUOTATIONS 21

r ... *rf*«*(?)

( rs

^THT^^TT^^

a2 « ' r

~ 3-
99 9)

:, 3.

:, 3, ^^-^
APPENDIX IV

(?)
: (?)

Benares Edition
 APPENDIX V.

SUGGESTED READINGS.

Page. Line. Original. Suggested.

1 19
2 4 4
4 6
4 13
5 2
5 15
6 6
9 24
11 22
12 7 apprf^sr ßrerra1
fasrfci
13 26
61
13 S
33 4 s[fa ... Delete
37 7 snsrett ... Delete
41 16
41 24
Act i c IH^^»«^' viv^^i etc. s _Ä_w*r ^-.Ä^iu----<i_- .
42 24
43 4
43 6
44 18
44 19

48 6
48 7
10 ") ( « w a«« 18
11
i (l
24
24 APPENDIX V
Page. Line. Original. Saggested.
49 10 Hs^TTi^%Rr ... H'iin'TT'Tsn' %fo i
49 13 («T?rr) ... Delete
51 7,9
52 8
55 3
55 17
56 21
60 11 *nj^ ... Delete
61 7
63 18

bb lo < „„i._^_ o ^ •< vrT_r. , j

67 19 fo-sa<fifö ?
sift %fir) I
68 17 IJ^^TTT^ ... "3rä?TR*< I
69 13
74 21
74 26
77 13 srenr (before «ft) ... Delete
79 12

81 12
81 22

M S
,. 13

18

24
94 4
112 6
26
113 6
114 27
 SUGGESTED READINGS 25
Page. Line. Original. Suggested.
117 24
7, o
9

121 20 qffepr
123 26
131 21

134 12
„ 14 after ... Delete
135 19 after fir ... Delete
136 21
139 4
„ 7
140 7 (mmi ?) after - . Delete
142 10

146
147

149 19
 ERRATA.

Page. Line. Original. Corrected.

Introduction.
13 12 prtagjnänät ... prthagjnänät
14 1 (d) ... Delete
16 13 Laokäyatika ... Laukäyatikas
17 •j^g 1 Asvaghosädinäm ... Asvaghäsädmäm
25 4 phalarähityam., ... phalarähityam,
25 6 Karmans). ... Karmans,
29 31 Sruti ... Smrti
52 10 correspondence ... corresponds
»»11 is ... were
60 14 Insert * are ' before i believed '.
118 24 Bhättadipikä2 ... Bhättadipikä
118 26 Bhättadipikä ... Bhättadipikä2
141 34 was ... were
152 8 akandavastu ... akhandavastu
154 3 * material'. ... Delete
192 8 pithäre ... pithare
»t 9 pithära ... pithara
Text.
2 22 gTK% ctKqc4 ... g^EcUcH^
7 15 T after m%r ... Delete
11 . . . STTTTOFSTC
13 14 ^RirN" ... TTfr^
14 9 ^ ^ n ^ n ? *fcnn ... «frjjRrraT
16 4) „ ... ^ ^
is r ^
19 15 S^frE ... 5?TtH
21 ... «TI^T «rr^»T ^rfTdT
23 16 Hgf^r ... ngfer
31 15 «FRTgrfvH | ^ [ ... *Kuia*hq;—a*
1
32 9 JN I färe ... ^ r %
32 10 H^^TTÄrRT 1 T ... ^P^TT^—^fcf T
35 8 3f ß RI%H
 ERRATA 27

Page. Line. Original. Corrected.

39 11 ^
43 23 *f
44 17 ¥
45 11 «r; ^TcT 1

45 13 T*
45 19 w
57 11 <n
59 9 ?n
65 18 HI
<rt 1 «1 "=!» 11 ^«t»^ I
69 16 *n
69 20 v
70 10 f
70 19 sjJTET
71
O1 #•!»
" 21 ^r
,, 22 «««
74 24 H
79 15 si
82 14 ft
16
82 Ut
86 16 srVTTWTTJ[
88 13 «P
94 26 as 1 «1H
96 23 5T
AA "1 O
99 12 +*
107 20 5^
112 12 v
15 3*w
?> 27 *
120 8 *
122 14 <i
133 8 fl
134 25
28 ERRATA
Page. Line. Original. Corrected.
"' 17
136 6 •
140 21 J;
141 9 i
141 Jjj
,. 17
26)
" 27 5
149 8

150 1
152 l
156 11
157 4 '
160 6
Appendix.
14 20 simfofsre ... Delete
 ERRATA (Continued)
Page Line
XVIII 20 read setting for telling
Introduction
8 15 deals i» deal
9 19 >» references reference
n 36 JI and while
13 7 insert such after in
16 18 delete by
28 6 read dominant for dominent
31 27 )» translations n translation
34 7 is are
35 32 insert to after also
41 17 delete are
46 6 read in for on
51 18 insert as after work
53 27 read those for these
54 28 1» very much
75 13 insert on after commented
81 23 of was
85 2 read To for Towards
19 delete both
87 4 j> is after commentary
91 23 insert of ii period
94 1 on „ commented
95 14 read at for in
103 1 delete more
>> 5 read a for one
106 22 read on for in
107 20 delete as
113 1 read To for Towards
117 14 »» as who
130 14 delete much
131 21 read in for on
134 Last line J» into Paricchedas ii of Pariccheda
138 17 J» to ii from
149 19 »» affording ii serving
154 18 owing ii due
160 16 insert the after by
>? 29 read sabaleyatva for säbalegatva
164 19 delete with the suffix lyut (ana,)
190 20 insert there is after for
191 33 read to for would
 INDEX OF AUTHORS.

[NOTE:—References of Arabic numbers are to the pages of Introduction;

those with A to those of Appendix ;
and those-in [ ] brackets are to the Sanskrit text]

Ahobila, 2 A. Gägäbhatta, 133.

Aitisäyana, 6. Garigädharamisra, MM. 77.
Älekhana, 6. Garudadhvaja, 3 A.
Anantabhatta, 133. Govindabhatta, 3 A.
Anantäcärya, 1 A. Govindämrtamuni (* Deven-
Anantadeva, 131-132. dra Sarasvati), 3 A.
Anantanäräyana, 86.
Annambhatta, 137.
Armu Sästri, 1 A. Jaimini, 7-13.
Äpadeva, 114-116. Jayamisra, 47.
Appayya Dik?ita, (1) 94-104. Jlvadeva, 131-132.
(2) 136.
K
(3) 1 A.
Äsmarathya, 6. Kamaläkarabhatta, 131.
Ätreya, 6. Kämukäyana, 6.
B Kärsnäjini, 6.
Kavmdräcärya, 132.
Bädaräyana, 10. Kesava, 3 A.
Bädari, 6. Khandadevamisra, 116-122.
Bhartrhari, 27 fn. Kollür Näräyana Öästri, 134.
Bhartrmitra, 24-27. Krsnayajvan, 141.
Bhäskararäya, 140. Kumärilabhatta, 28-34.
Bhattasomesvara, 71-72.
Bhattavisnu, 85-86.
Bhavadäsa, 19-21.
Bhavadevabhatta, 68-70. Laksmanärya, 3 A.
Bhavanäthabhatta, 66-68. Laugäk§ibhäskara, 112-113.
IVI
Cidänanda Pandita, 75-76. Mädhaväcärya ( = Vidya-
ranya), 80-84.
D Mahädevavedäntin, 4 A.
Devasvämin, 58-59. Mahävrata, 48-49.
Dinakarabhatta, 131. Mahodadhi, 48-49.
30 INDEX OF AUTHORS
Mandanamisra, 40-44.
Mukundänandayati, 4 A.
Murärimisra, (1) 72-74.
(2) 4 A.
N Öälikanätha (MM.), 48-50.
Nandisvara, 74-75.
Näräyana, (1) 4 A.
(2) 4 A.
Näräyanabhatta, (1) 107-111.
" (2) 130.
Näräyanatirthamuni, 5 A.
Nilakantha, 5 A.
Paramesvara I, 87-88.
II, 88-89.
Ill, 90-91.
Paritosamisra, 70.
Pärthasärathimisra, 60-64.
Peddä Diksita, 5 A.
Prabhäkaramisra, 34-40.
Prakäsa, 65-66.
Räghavendra Sarasvati, 5 A.
Räghavendrayati, 126.
Räjacüdämani Diksita, 122-
124. *
Rämacandrärya, 5 A.
Rämakrsna, 139.
Rämakrsnabhatta, 138-139.
Rämakrsna Diksita, 126-127.
Rämakrsna Udlcyabhattä-
cärya, 6 A.
Rämänujäcärya, 144-146.
Rämänujadäsa, 6 A.
Rämesvara, 6 A.
Rämesvarasürin, 6 A.
Ravi, 5 A.
Ravideva, 87.
Sabarasvämin, 21-24.
Öambhubhatta, 134-136.
äarikarabhatta, 113-114.
Somanätha Diksita, 128-129.
Srikara, 65-66.
Srlniväsadäsa, 6 A.
Subrahmanya, 6 A.
Sucaritamisra, 59-60.
U
Udayapüjyapäda, 2 A.
Umvekabhatta, 44-48.
Upavarsa, 14-18.
Uttamaslokatirtha, 2 A.
Väcaspatimisra, 49-57.
Vaidyanätha, (1) 7 A.
(2) 7 A.
Vallabhäcärya, 7 A.
Vänchesvarasisya, 7 A.
Vänchesvarayajvan, -146-148.
Varadaräja, 92-94.
Väsudeva, 88-89.
Väsudeva Diksita, 141-143.
Vedänta Desika, 77-79.
Venkatädhvarin, 124-125.
Venkatanäräyana, 7 A.
Venkate svara Diksita, 104-
106.'
Y
Yajiianäräyana Diksita,
129-130.
Yallubhatta, 7 A.
 INDEX OF
Adhikaranamälä, 5 A.
Adhikaranaslokärthadipikä,
2 A.
Adhvaramimämsäkutühala-
vrtti, 141-143.
Adhvaramimämsäsüträrtha-
dipikä, 9 A.
Ajitä, 70.
Äloka, 131.
Amsatrayavicära, 9 A.
Angatvanirukti, 4 A.
^Arthasangraha, 112.
Bälabhäskara (with Prabhä),
9 A.
Bhättacandrikä, 132.
Bhättacintämani, (1) 133.
-— (2) 146, 148.
Bhättadipikä, 119-120.
Bhättakaustubha, 117-118.
Bhättälankära, 132.
Bhättanayodyota, 5 A.
Bhättaparibhäsä, 5 A.
Bhättarahasya, 120-122.
Bhättasangraha, 126.
Bhävanäviveka, 43.
Brhati (= Mbandhana), 36.
Brhattikä, 34.
Candrodaya, 140.
Commentary on—
(1) the Bhävanäviveka, 46.
(2) the Mimämsäsütras, 131.
(3) the Ölokavärttika, 46.
WORKS.
Commentary on—
(4) the Sutras, 7 A.
(5) the Tantravärttika,
i. 131.
ii. 132.
Dharmamimämsäparibhäsä,
102 fn.
Dipasikhä, 49.
Dipikä (on the ISTayaviveka),
93.
Durühasiksä, 1 A.
Gopälikä, 89-90.
Granthayojanä, 9 A.
Jaiminiyasütrabhäsya, 6 A.
Jaiminiyasütravrtti, 9 A.
Jusadhvankarani, 87.
K
Karpüravarttikä, 124.
Käsikä, 59-60.
Kumärilayuktimälä, 89.
Kusumänjali, 133.
Laghupürvamimämsädhi-
karanakaumudi, 139.
Laghuvärttikatikä ( - Laghu-
nyäyasudhä), 2 A.
Laghvi (= Vivarana), 36.
Madhyamatikä, 34.
32 INDEX OF WORKS
Mänameyodaya, 107, 109,
110, 130.
Mänaratnävali, 10 A.
Matvarthalaksanävicära,
140.
Mayükhamälikä, 129.
Mayükhävali, 94.
Mimämsäbälaprakäsa, 113.
Mimämsäbälaprakä sa-
vyäkhyä, 3 A.
Mlmämsäbhäsyaparisista, 50.
Mlmämsäbhäsyavivarana-
vyäkhyä, 10 A.
Mimämsädhikaranakaumudi,
6 A.
Mimäriisädhikarananyäya-
vicära, 10 A.
Mimämsämakaranda, 125.
Mlmämsänayakaumudi, 104.
M Imäm säny äy adarpati a,
(1) 127.
(2) 6 A.
Mimämsäny äy aprakä sa,
115-116.
Mimämsänyäyasangraha, 3 A.
Mimämsäpädukä, 77-78.
Mimämsäprameyasangraha,
5 A.
Mimämsäsärasangraha, 113.
Mlmämsäsarvasva, 134.
Mimämsäsütradipikä, 7 A.
Mimämsäsütränukramanl, 44.
Mlmämsäsüträrthadidhiti,
5 A.
Mimämsäsüträrthasangraha,
91.
Mimämsävisaya, 10 A.
Näyakaratna, 145-146.
Nayatattvasaiigraha, 85.
Nayaviveka, 67.
Nibandhana (on the Tantra-
värttika), 107, 110.
ISTititattvävirbhäva, 75-76.
ISTititattvävirbhävavyäkhyä,
(1) 89-90.
(2) 4 A.
(3) 5 A.
Nyäyädhvadipikä, 104.
Nyäyakanikä, 54-55.
Nyäyamälävistara, (Jaimi-
niya), 82.
Nyäyapäräyaria (= Tantra-
värttikavivarana), 77.
Nyäyaratnäkara, 64.
Nyäyaratnamälä, 63-64.
Nyäyasiddhi (= Prakarana-
pancikävyäkhyä), 9 A.
Nyäyasudhä (= Ränaka), 71.
Paribhäsä (Mimämsä), 141.
Prabhä, 7 A.
Prabhäkaravijaya, 74-75.
Prabhämandala, 130.
Prabhävali, 135-136.
Prakaranapancikä, 49-50.
Pr akaran apancikävyäkhyä,
9 A.
Prakäsa (on the Öästra-
dipikä), 113.
Pürvamimämsäkärikäs, 6 A.
Pürvamimämsäsütra, 7-13.
Pürvamimämsäsütra-
vyakhyä, 4 A.
Pürvamimämsävisayasan-
grahadipikä, 102 fn., 136.
Ränakabhävanäkärikäviva-
rana, 137.
Eänakojjivini, 137.
Rjuvimalä, 49.
Säbarabhäsya, 49.
Sankarsakändabhäsya, 58.
 INDEX OF WOEKS
Sankarsamuktävali (= Nyä-
yamuktävali), 123-124
Sästradipikä, 62-63.
Sästramälävrtti, 133.
&ästropanyäsamälikä, 6 A.
Sesvaramimämsä, 77-78.
Siddhäntamusti, 10 A.
Sivärkodaya, 133.
älokavärttika, 31-32.
Sodasädhyäyi, 10 A.
Sphotasiddhi, 44.
Subodhini, (1) 137. •
(2) 6 A.
Svaditankarani, 87.
Tantradarpana, 1 A.
Tantranitilahari, 6 A.
Tantrarahasya, 145.
Tantraratna, 61.
Tantrasära, 72.
Tantrasiddhäntadipikä, 136.
Tantrasiddhäntasarigraha,
(1) 3 A.
(2) 7 A.
Tantrasikhämani, 123.
Tantravärttika, 29, 30, 33.
Tantraviläsa, 3 A.
Tattvavibhävanä, 89-90.
Tautätitamatatilaka, 68.
Tattvabindu, 55-56.
Tippanam (on the Sodasä-
dhyäyi, 10 A.
Tripädinitinayana, 73-74.
Tuptikä, 34.
33
U
Upakramaparäkrama, 94,
102.
Upasamhäravijaya, 104.
Vädakutühala, 10 A.
Vädanaksatramälä, 94.
Väkyärtharatnamälä, 2 A.
Värttikäbharana, 105.
Vibhramaviveka, 43.
Yibhram a vi veka vy äkhy ä,
89-90.
Yidhibhüsana, 7 A.
Vidhicamatkäracandrikä,
4 A.
Vidhirasäyana, 94, 102.
Vidhirasäyanadüsana, 113.
Vidhitrayapariträna, 125.
Vidhiratnävali, 6 A.
Vidhisudhäkara, 1 A.
Vidhiviveka, (1) 42-43.
(2) 134
(3) 6 A.
Vijayä, 86.
Visamagranthabhedikä, 4 A.
Vivarana (on the &äbara-
bhäsya), 3 A.
Vivekatattva, 87.
Vrtti (Bhartrmitra's) (1) 25.
(Bhavadäsa's) (2) 20.
(Upavarsa's) (3) 14.
Yukti snehaprapüranl,
138-139.
 GENERAL
Abhidhävrttimätrkä, 26.
Abhihitänvayaväda, 38, 39,
55, 64, 170, 178.
Abhihitänvayavädin, 171,174
-179, 182, 183, 186, 188.
_ [93], [101].
Äcäras, 8.
Äcärya Diksita ( - Äccän Di-
ksita), 95-97.
Äcäryas (before Jaimini), 1,
6, 7, 10 fn., 11.
Äccän Diksita,
(1) See Äcärya Diks.ita.
(2) 96, 124, 136.
Äccamämbä, 134.
Acyuta(deva)räya, 100.
Acyutalilä, 89 fn.
Acyuta Pisharoti (Trkkandi-
yür), 107-109.
Adaiyapälam, 95.
Adaiyapälam Inscription,
Q Q <7Q
*/O, t7Q
.
Adhikaranamälä, 5 A.
Adhikaranaprasthäna, 61-63.
Adhikaranaslokärthadipikä,
2 A.
Adhvaramimämsäkutühalavrtti
72 fn., 141, 141 fn.
Adlivaramimämsäsüträrtha-
dipikä, 9 A.
Ädityadeva—see äabarasvä-
min.
Advaita Philosophy («Ad-
vaita Vedänta), 83, 96,106,
116.
Advaitavidyämukura, 96.
Advaya, 5 A.
INDEX.
A History of Indian Philo-
sophy, 7 fn., 51 fn., 149.
A History of Sanskrit Litera-
ture, 7 fn., 35 fn.
Ahobala, 148.
Ahobila (« Aubhala * aubala),
2 A.
Aitisäyana, 6.
Ajitd, 71 fn., 86, 110.
Ajitäcärya,—see Ananta-
näräyarta.
Alamelumangä, 3 A.
Alankära(sästra), 108, 139,
130.
Älekhana, 6.
Äloka, 131.
Akhan d asphota (= Unitary
Sphota), 152, 162.
Akhyäti, 39, 40.
Aksobhyamuni, 79.
Amara(simha), 22; [158].
Amsatrayavicära, 9 A.
Änandagiri, 40.
Änandaräyamakhin, 141.
Änandatirtha, 104.
Anantabhatta, 133.
Anantadeva, 114,115, 131.
Anantakrishna Sastrigal (N.
S. MM.), 25, 127 fn.
Anantanäräyana (ärya or
misra), 86.
Anantasomayäjin, 78.
Anantaväsudeva (temple),
68.
Anargharäghava, 74.
Angaivanirukti, 4 A.
Annambhatta, 112, 137.
Annapürnä, 141.
 GENERAL INDEX
Annusästri, 1 A.
Ändhras, 22.
Anti-Kumärila School (or
clique)— see Präbhäkara
school.
Anubhütiprakäsa, 83.
Anupalabdhi, 39, 50.
Anvitäbhidhänaväda, 39, 55,
64, 145, 178, 181, 187, 194.
Anvitäbhidhänavädin, 171,
174, 176, 178, 180, 182, 186,
187; [7], [100], [105}.
Äpadeva, 107, 112, 113; per-
sonality, date and works,
114-116, 131, 132, 136.
Äpastamba, 5, 6.
ÄpastambadharmasütraSy 5,22.
Appädiksita, 1 A.
Appayya, 125.
Appayya Dlksita, (1) 18 fn.,
87, 91, 92; personality,
patrons and date 94-102;
works 94, 102, 103; 104,
105, 107, 111, 113, 116, 120,
124-127, 129, 136. 1. A.
(2) 136.
(3) 136.
(4) 1 A.
A Primer of Indian Logic,
1 fn., 40 fn., 73 fn., 94 fn.,
117 fn.
Arasanipäle, 125.
Aravidu Dynasty of Vijaya-
nagar, the, 99 fn., I l l fn.,
104 fn., 117.
Ardhanarisvara Dlksita, 123.
Arivilimangalam (= Acyu-
tappasamudram), 103.
Aruläla-perumäl (temple), 80.
Arthasahgraha, 112, 115 fn.
English Transla-
tions (1-3), 112 fn.
Äryaprasiddhi, 7 fn., 37.
Äsaucanirnaya, 132.
35
Äsissataka, 147.
Äsmarathya, 6.
Assam, 116.
Astadhyäyi, 109, 111.
Ästikadarsanas, 53.
Äsvaläyanagrhyasütra, 12, 58.
Äsvaläyanasrautasütras, 58.
Ätmatusti, 33.
Ätreya, 6.
Ätreya Rämänuja, 78.
Ayyä Dlksita, 136,—see
Äccän Dlksita (2).
Bädaräyana, 1, 8 fn., 9 fn.,
10, 13, 25.
Bädari, 6.
Bähyas, [22], [70].
Baig Bahadur Candra, 114 fn.,
115.
Balabhadra, 139.
Bälabhäskara, 9 A.
Bälakavi, 92.
Bälakrsna, 135.
Bälamanoramä, 141 fn., 143.
Bälavalabhibhujanga, 68, 69.
Bälayajnesvara Dlksita, 122.
Banavase, 81.
Bauddhas, 16, 10 A.
Belvalkar (S. K., Prof.), 9 fn.
Benares, 101J 116, 138, 139.
Bengal, 52, 116.
Behar, 52.
Bhägavatapuräna, 11, 109.
Bhairava, 138.
Bhämati, 52, 53, 56, 57.
Bhämatiprasthäna, 56.
Bhärafcitirtha, 80, 83.
Bhartrhari, 22, 27 fn., 32, 39,
44.
Bhartrmitra, 21; a Vrfcti-
kära, 24-27 ; 64, 139.
36 GENERAL INDEX
Bhäskararäya(makhin), 13,
119, 140.
Bhäsya (on P. M. Sütras)—
(1) Bhavadäsa's, 58.
(2) Devasvämin's, 20, 58,
140, 142.
(3) Sahara's,—see Sahara-
bhäsya.
Bhäsya (on the Brahmasütras)
(1) Sarikara's, 14, 21, 56;
m.
(2) Srikantha's, 98.
Bhäsya (on the Sänkhya-
kärikäs), 54.
Bhäsyakära,—see Sabara-
svämin.
Bhäsyapradipa, 137.
Bhatta,—see Kumärilabhatta.
Bhättabhäsäprakäsa, 5 A.
Bhättabhäskara, 133.
Bhättacandrikä, 140.
Bhättacintämaniy (1) 119 fn.,
146, 148. ' (2) 133.
Bhättadipikä, 63, 72 fn., 113,
117-119, 128, 135, 136, 140,
146; 5 A.
Bhättakaustubha, 135, 142.
Bhättakalpataru, 118 fn.
Bhättälankära, 132.
Bhättanayodyota, 5 A.
BhäUaparibhäsä, 5 A.
Bhättarahasya, 117, 120, 121.
Bhättasahgraha, 126.
Bhätta School, 28, 29, 32, 37,
38*,' 40, 43, 49, 51, 62, 63, 64,
66, 67, 78, 88, 91, 94, 109,
117, 136, 145, 161; 1-3 A,
5 A, 7 A, 10 A.
Bhättas,—see Bhätta school.
Bhattatiris of Payyoor, 87,
107; 5 A.
Bhattasomesvara, 37, 61 fn.,
68; personality and date,
71, 72, 75, 77, 129,136,139.
Bhattavisnu, 85, 91; 4 A.
Bhattoji Diksita, 111.
Bhavabhüti, 35, 42, 44-46, 74.
Bhavadäsa, 13, a Vrttikära
19, date 20; 58, 64* 88.
Bhavadevabhatta, personality
and date 68-70, 117, 129.
Bhavanätha(bhatta), 36, 51,
65; personality and date
66-68; 73-75, 78, 85, 87,
92, 93, 126, 133, 145 ; [133].
Bhävanäviveka, 43, 46 ; [73];
4 A.
Bhiksu, 64.
Bhisma, 33.
Bhoganätha, 80.
Bhavasvämin, (1) 123.
(2) 123.
Bhuvanesvara, 68.
Bhuvanagiri, 126.
Bhüsanasära, 120.
Bodhäyana (Vrttikära), 14,
15, 16, 78.
Bodhäyanadharmasütra, 4, 22.
Bodhäyanakalpasütras, 106.
Bodäyanasrautasütravyäkhyä,
143.
Brahmänandabhärati, 42.
Brahmänanda Sarasvati, 39.
Brähmanas, 5.
Brahmasiddhi, 41, 44, 56.
Brahmasütra, 9 fn., 15, 147 ;
see also Uttaramimämsä-
sütra.
Brahmatattvasamlksä, 56.
Brahmasüirärthacintämani,
147.
Brahmanyaguru, 104.
Brhadäranyakopanisad) 41.
Brhati, 36, 49, 144.
Brhattlkä, 26, 34 fn., 110,
139*'; 9 A.
Buddhism ( - Buddhistic Phi-
losophy), 7, 22.
 GENERAL INDEX
Buddhistic doctrine, 7.
Bukka(na) I, 80, 81.
Campü, 109.
Candra, 93.
Candrodaya, 140.
Candrasekhara (Pändya),
100, 101.
Cafidrikä, 50, 51 fn.
Caturvargacintämani, 68.
Caturdandaprakäsikä, 106.
Caundibhatta ( = Caunda), 81.
Cellappa, 100.
Chandassdstra, 22.
4
Chändogya' Brahmasütra,
9 fn.
Chändogydnuvdda, 13.
Chändogyopanisad, 3, 9 fn.
Chidambaram, 100, 101.
Chinnaswami Sastri, A,
112 fn., 115 fn.
Cidänanda (Pandita), 47 fn.,
60, 61, 68, 71, 72; date
and work 75, 76 ; 85, 89,
110 ; [129]; 6 A.
Cinnabommabhüpäla, 1 A,
2 A.
Cinnabommanäyaka, 98, 99.
Cinnamämbä, 2 A.
Cinna Timma, 97, 98, 100.
Citrapata, 94, 103; 2 A.
Citsukhäcärya, 45, 45 fn.
Cokkanätha (king), 2 A.
Cola (kingdom), 97, 100.
Commentary—
on the Astädhyäyi, 137.
on the Bhdvandviveka, 46.
on the Brahmasutras, 137.
on the Kdsikd, 91.
on the Mimdmsdsiitras, 131.
on the Nyäyaprakäsa,
112 fn.
37
Commentary—
on the Pardsarasmrli, 41.
on the Sästradipikä, 3 A.
on the Slokavdrttika, 46.
on the Sutras, 7 A.
on the Tantravdrttika,
(1) 131.
(2) 132.
on the Yädaväbhyudaya,
97.
Comparative Philology, 122.
Conjeevaram, 78, 95, 120 fn.,
125, 126.
Dara-Shukko, 116.
Darbhavelubhatta, 71 A.
Darsanas {Indian), 61.
Das Gupta (Prof.), 7 fn.,
51 fn., 149.
Dasatlkd, 127.
Dattakacintdmani, 147.
Daitakamimdmsd, 22.
Delhi, 116.
Devanabhatta, 66.
Devaräja, 93.
Devaräja I, 80.
Devasvämin, 13, 20; person-
ality and date 58, 59; 140,
142.
Devatädhyäya, 12.
Devendrasarasvati, 3 A.
Devicarita, 89 fn.
Diksilavamsävali, 96.
Dinakarabhatta, 131, 133.
Dirmäga, 15 ft., 54, 64.
Dipa, 78.
Dipasikhd, 49, 67, 137, 144.
Dharmakirti, 54, 64.
Dharmäcäryas, 12.
Dharmamimämsä,—see Ml-
mämsäsästra.
Dharmapuri, 144,
 38 GENERAL INDEX
Dharmaräjädhvarmdra, 127.
Dharmasästra, 59, 131,132.
Dharmasütras, 4.
Dhätisataka, 147.
Dhätukävya, 111.
Dhruva (A.B.), 15 fn.
Dramidäcärya, 78.
Durühasiksä, 1 A.
Dusyanta, 33.
Dvädasalaksani,—see Mi-
mämsäsästra.
Dvaita (System), 101; 3 A.
Edgerton (F. Prof.), 112 fn.
Ekanätha, 114 fn., 115.
Ekoji, 148.
Gadädharabhattäcärya, 120.
Gägäbhatta, 133.
Gambhiraräya, 140.
Gangä, 138.
Gangädharamisra (MM.), 76.
Gangämbikä, 130.
Ganganath Jha (MM.), 23 fn.,
35, 43 fn., 46 fn., 54 fn.,
61 fn.
Gange sopädhyäya, 73, 117.
Garudadhvaja, 3 A.
Gaudapäda, 44, 56.
Gauri, 87.
Gautamadharmasutra, 5.
GaiUamasütra,—see Nyäya-
sütra.
Generalisation, law of, 122.
Giryambä, 3 A.
Gokhale, (D. V.), 112 fn.
Gopälabhatta, 3 A.
Gopälächari (A. V.), 77 fn.,
95 fn., 97.
Gopälikä, 88, 89, 90, 93.
Gopammä, 126.
Gopmätha, 3 A.
Gotrapravaranirnaya, 132.
Govindabhatta, (1) 114.
" (2) 3 A.
Govinda Dlksita, 104-106.
Govindämrtamuni ( - Deven-
drasarasvati), 3 A.
Granthayojanä, 9 A.
Guru,-see Prabhäkaramisra.
Gurumata,—see Präbhäkara
school.
Guruvamsakävya, 42.
Guruväyür, 108.
H
Harihara II, 81.
Hariscandra, 22.
Harivarmadeva, 69.
Hemädri, 68.
Heras, 99 fn., 104 fn., 111 fn.
Hiranyakesisrautasütra, 147,
148.
Vyäkhyä, 148.
History of Dharmasästra,
42 fn., 114 fn., 133, 59 fn.,
66 fn., 68 fn., 114 fn.,
131 fn., 133, 149.
Hosala, 148.
I
Indian Logic and Atomism,
51 fn., 52 fn.
Indian Philosophy, 7 fn.
Intuitionastic Tendency, 1.
Isvara, 148.
Isvara Krsna, 54.
Jacobi, Professor, 7 fn.
Jaimini, the P. M. Sütrakära,
1, 5, 6 ; date 7, 8 ; U. M.
Sütrakära 9; 10, 11; two
Jaiminis, 10 fn., 11; other
works 12, 13f; 14, 25, 61,
86, 91, 93, 144.
 GENERAL INDEX
Jaiminlyasutrabhäsya, 7 A.
Jaiminiyasütravrtti, 9 A.
Jagannätha Pandita, 116,
116 fn.
Janärdana, 138.
Jayadeva, 137.
Jayantabhatta, 26.
Jayatirtha, 126.
Jayayogmdra, 104.
Jivadeva, 131, 132.
Jivanmuktiviveka, 83.
Jnänanidhi, 45,
Jusadhvahkarani, 87.
K Kävyadarpana, 123.
Kaiyata, 137.
Kälanirnaya, 83.
Kälidäsa, 33, 74
Kdkatäliyavädärtha, 147.
Kalpataruparimala, 94, 126,
127.
Kalpasütrasy 7 fn., 8, 9 fn.,
58.
Kamaläkarabhatta, 114 fn.,
131, 133.
Kamalinikalahamsa(nätßka\
123.
Kamatä ( = Assam), 116.
Kämukäyana, 6, 6 fn.
Kämarüpa, 116.
Kanädatantra (or sütra), [10].
Käfici—see Conjeevaram.
Kane, (P. V.), 2 fn.-6 fn., 42,
59 fn., ^ 66 fn., 68, 70,
114 fn., 117, 131 fn., 133,
149.
Kärikävali, 153 fn.
Karmakända, 9 fn., 10.
Karmamimämsä, 13, 149;
3-7 A.
KarmäntasutraSy 106.
Karmäntavärltika, 105, 106.
Karpüravarttikä, 123, 124.
39
Kärsnäjini, 6, 6 fn.
Käsakrtsni, 6 fn.
Käsikä, 19 fn., 21, 31 fn., 59,
60, 78, 91, 131.
Käsikätlkä (=* Commentary
on the Käsikä), 91, 129.
Kätyäyana, 2 fn., 17, 21,
21 fn., 24.
Kaumudi, 112 fn.
Kaundabhatta, 120.
Kausitakibrähmana, 2.
Kaustubha (Vyäkarana), 111.
Kautalya, 104.
Kavmdräcärya, 132.
Keilhorn (Dr.), 6 fn., 70.
Keith (Dr. A. B.),7 fn.,10fn.,
13 fn., 35 fn., 51 fn., 52 fn.,
74 fn.; 149; 3-7 A.
Kenopanisad, 4.
Kerala (kingdom), 97,107,116.
Kesava, 3 A.
Kesava Diksita, 123.
Khandadevamisra, 37, 62, 71,
72, 102, 113; personality
and date 116 and 117;
works 117-122; 128, 135,
140, 142, 146; 3-5 A.
Khandanakära (?), 136.
Khyätivädas (Five), 43.
Kiranävali, [158].
Kiratas, 53.
King of Vijayanagar, 79, 81,
95, 97.
Kokilasandesa, 91.
Kollür Näräyana Sästri, 134;
6 A.
Koilür Somayäjin, 134.
Krishnaswami Iyengar (Dr.
S.), 14, 14 fn.
Kriyäsakti (Käsiviiäsa), 81.
Krtakoti, 14, 15, 16.
Krsna (God), (1) 33, 108, 109,
115.
(2) 130.
26
 GENERAL INDEX
Krsnabhatta, 126.
Krsnadevaräya, 95, 96, 100.
Krsnayajurveda, 1, 4.
Krsnayajvan, 141.
Kumärabhavasvämin, 123.
Kumärilabhatta, 12, 17-21,
23, 24, 26, "27; date 28;
Värttikakära 29, 30, 34-41,
44-48, 55, 58, 61-64, 67, 68,
73, 76, 78, 86, 91, 94, 106,
109, 110, 114, 117, 118, 129,
139, 142, 143, 145, 152, 170,
189 ; [43], [67], [108], [128],
[132], [153].
Kumärila school—see Bhätta
school.
Kumärüayuktimälä, 89.
Kumbakonam, 126, 127, 148.
Kuppuswami Sastrigal (Prof.
MM. S.), 1 fn., 14, 25, 26
fn., 40 fn., 43 fn., 44, 44 fn.,
48 fn., 73fn.,94fn., 117 fn.,
141 fn.
Kürikondabhattopädhyäya,
130.
Kusumänjali, (1) 133.
(2) 93.
Kuttikavi, 147, 148.
Kuvalayänanda, 99.
Läbukäyana, 6, 6 fn.
Lihgänusäsana, 23.
Laugäksibhäskara, 112.
Laukäyatika, 16, 25.
Lalitäsahasranäma, 140 fn.
Laksmi, 123.
Laksmana, (1) 7 A.
(2) 130.
(3) 80.
Laksmanärya, (1) 3 A.
" (2) 6 A.
Laksmidhara, 80.
Laksaimvaliy 51,
Laghucandrikä, 39.
Laghuvärttika (= Citrapata),
103 ; 2 A.
Laghuvärttikatikä (— Laghu-
nyäyasudhä), 103; 2 A.
Laghvi, 36, 49, 144.
Laghunyäyasudhä, 103.
Laghupürvamlmämsädhikara-
nakaumudi, 139.
m
Mächämbikä, 81.
Mädhava, (1) 138.
(2) 10 A.
Mädhavabhatta, 72 fn.
Mädhaväcärya (= Yidyära-
nya), (1) 37, 41, 61, 62, 71,
79; personality and date
80-82; works 82-84; 10 A.
(2) (= Mädhavaman-
trin), 81, 82, 84.
Mädhavärya, (1) 71.
(2) 109.
(3) 147.
Madhva System of Philoso-
phy—see Dvaita System.
Madhvamatakantakoddhära,
104.
Mädhavasarasvati, 31 fn.
Madhyamatikä, 31 fn., 34.
Madura, 100; 7 A.
Mahäbhägavatapuräna—see
Bhägavatapurän a.
Mahäbhärata, 22, 22 fn.
Mahäbhäsya, 6. 6 fn., 21,143;
[75].
Mahädevabhatta, 72 fn.
Mahädevaväjapeyin, Adh-
varyu, 141.
Mahädevavedäntin, 4 A.
Mahäkävyas (Five), 94.
Maharsi, ( = Ilsi), 89.
Mahäviracanta^ 46,
 GENERAL INDEX
Mahävrata, 50, 51, 67.
Mahisasataka, 147.
Mahodadhi, 50, 51, 67.
Mahratta Kings of Tanjore,
141, 148.
Malwa, 138.
Mallinätha, 94.
Mallikämäruta, 92.
Mälaümädhava, 45.
Mairammadä, 128.
Mänameyodaya, 34 fn., 107,
109, 110, 130, 145.
Mänaratnävali, 10 A.
Mänasolläsa, 42.
Mänaveda (king), 109 fn., 130.
Mandanamisra, 28, 35, 37;
personality and date 40-42 ;
works 42-44; 46, 48, 48 fn.,
55, 56, 57, 75, 83, 86, 89,
91, 103, 152 fn.; [17], [22];
4 A,
Mangalanäyaki, 101.
Manimekhalai, 14-16.
Manisära, 3 A.
Manjüsä, 120.
Manträlaya, 126.
Manu, 22 fn.
Manusmrti, 22, 22 fn.
Manyäloka, 137.
Mätayärya (?), 2 A.
Mätrdatta, (1) 107, 109.
(2) 148 fn.
Matvarthalaksanävicära, 140.
Mäyana, 80.
Mäyävädins, 10 A.
Mayükhamälikäy 59 fn., 62 fn.,
92 fn., 94, 103, 129; 9 A.
Mlecchaprasiddhi, 7, 7 fn.
Mimämsä, doctrine of, 5, 6.
Mimärhsäbälaprakäsa, 113.
• vyäkhyä, 3 A.
Mimärhsäbhäsyaparisista, 50.
Mimämsäbhäsyavivaranavyä-
khyäna, 10 A,
41
Mvmämsäbhyudaya, 71 fn.
Mlmämsäcäryas, 7.
Mimämsädhikaranakaumudi,
6 A.
Mimämsakas, 38, 125, 151;
[6], [7].
Mimämsäkaustubha, 116-119.
Mimämsämakaranda, 125.
Mimämsänyäyadarpana, 127.
Mimärnsänayakaiimudi, 104.
Mimämsänyäyasahgraha, 3 A.
Mimämsäpädukä, 77.
Mimäinsäprameyasahgrah a,
5 A.
Mimämsäsärasangraha, 131.
Mimämsäsarvasva, 134.
Mlmämsä &ästra (or System),
5, 11, 16, 33, 40, 44-46, 49,
58, 59, 61, 63, 72, 73, 74,
78, 86, 94,104, 106, 107,109,
113, 117-119, 121, 122-126,
129, 131, 133, 137,141, 146;
5 A., 7 A., 10 A.
Mimämsäsütradidhiti (= Nyä-
yävalididhiti), 5 A.
Mimämsäsütradipikä, 7 A.
Mimämsäsütränukramanikä,
44, 103.
Mimämsäsüträrthasahgraha,
86, 91.
Mimämsäsütras, 7 fn., 17, 63,
73.
Mmäkslvallabha, 7 A.
Misra (= Murärimisra), 73.
Mitäksarä, 66.
Mithilä, 52, 53, 60.
Mitrasarman, 138.
Modern Philologists, 154 fn.
Moksa, Eealisation of, 1.
Mogul Ruler, 116.
Mukundänandayati, 4 A.
Mukulabhatta, 26.
Muräri, 74.
Murärimisra, (1) 72-74.
(2) 4 A.
 GENERAL INDEX
N Nibandhana (1)
Nägamämbä, 105.
Nägamanäyaka, 100.
Nägesabhatta, 120.
Naiskarmyasiddhi, 8, 9 fn., 41.
Naiyäyikas, 16,39; [6]; 10 A.
Nalacarita (Nätaka), 96, 98.
Nalla Bomma, 2 A.
Nandisvara, 74, 75.
Nänyadeva, 53.
Narasimha, 147.
Näräyana, (1) 92.
(2) 86.
(3) 138.
(4) 4 A.
(5) 4 A.
Näräyanabhatta,
(1) Meppattür, 107-
111, 116, 145.
(2) 130.
(3) 114.
Näräyanasudhi, 5 A.
Näräyanämrtapüjyapäda, 3 A.
Näräyanatirthamuni, 5 A.
Näräyanlya, 108, 111.
Navya School of Mimämsä,
117, 135, 136.
Nataräja (God), 101, 102.
Nätha, (1)—see äälikanätha,
74
(2)—see Bhavanätha,
74.
Navya Vaiyäkarana School,
120.
Näyakaratna, 145, 146 fn.
Nayatattvasahgraha, 85; 4 A.
Nayaviveka, 36, 51, 65, 65 fn.,
66-68, 73, 85, 92, 93, 145;
6 A.
Nayavivekadipikä, 36, 65 fn.,
93, 94.
Nayavivekakrt, [133]—see
Bhavanätha.
(= Brhati),
36, 129, 144.
(2) A cornmen"
tary on the Tantravärttika»
107, 109, 110.
(3) [41].
Nibandhanakrt, ( = Väcas-
patimisra), [73], [129].
Nilakantha, 5 A.
Nilakantha Dlksita, 96-98,
105, 123, 124, 126.
Nilakantha Sastri (Prof. K.),
10 fn., 11 fn.
Nirnayasindhu, 131.
Nirukta, 121.
NUüattvavirbhäva, 47 fn., 60,
61, 71, 75, 76, 88, 89, 110.
Nitiiattvävirbhävavyäkhyä,
(1) 60 fn., 71 fn., 85,
88, 90.
(2) 4 A.
(3) 5 A.
Nyäyabhäsyakära, 54.
Nyäyädhvadlpikä, 104.
Nyäyakanikä, 48 fn., 54, 55,
87, 89, 180; [73], [120].
Nyäyamälävistara, 60, fn., 63,
81, 82, 119.
Nyäyamuktävali—see Sahkar-
samuktävali.
Nyäyamarijari, 26.
Nyäyanirnayakära, 110.
Nyäyaprakäsa, 107, 112, 115.
Nyäyapravesa, 15 fn.
Nyäyaraksämani, 94.
Nyäyaratnäkara, 19 fn., 21,
24, 25, 31 fn., 60, 61, 64.
Nyäyaratnamälä, 39, 60 fn.,
61, 63, 71 fn., 75, 112, 129,
145; [142].
Nyäyasamuccaya, 90; [76].
Nyäyasiddhäntamuktävali,132.
Nyäyasiddhi (— Prakarana-
pancikävyäkhyä), 9 A.
Nyäyasücinibandha, 51, 54.
 GENERAL INDEX 43
Nydyasuddhi, 145. Paräsara, 11.
Nyäyasudhä, (1) 126. Paräsaramädhavlya, 80, 82,83.
(2) 34 fn., 71, Paräsarasmrti, 41, 83.
72, 110, 137. Päräsaryavyäsa, 11.
Nyäyasudhäkära,—Bhatta- Paratattvaprakäsikä, 103.
somesvara. Paribhäsd, 141.
Nyäyasütras, ( = Gautama- Parimala, 126.
sütras), 54; [80], [160]. Paris uddhi, 51.
Nyäya System (or Sästra), Paritosamisra, 68, 71 fn., 86,
53, 54, 109, 112, 122, 125, 91.
130, 132, 137. Pärthasärathimisra, 19 fn.,
Nydyavdrttika, 54. 24, 25, 37, 39, 59; date
Nyäyavärttikakära (= Udyo- and personality 60-61;
takara), 54. works 61-64, 67, 71 fn., 75,
Nydyavdrttikatätparyatikd, 51, 32, 91, 106, 112, 117, 130,
53 fn., 54. 136, 145 : [125], [129], [142].
Nyäyavid, 6, 6 fn. Patanjali, 6, 6 fn., 17, 18, 21,
Nyäyavitsamaya, 6, 6 fn. 143.
Nyäyavivarana, 77. Peddädiksita, 5 A.
Peralam (village), I A.
Nrga, 53.
Perubhatta, 116.
Nrsimhärya, 6 A.
Pingala, 22, 22 fn.
Prabhä, (1) 7 A.
(2) 9 A.
Pancadasi, 83. Prabhäkaramisra (or bhatta),
Pancapddikd, 56. 25, 28 ; personality 34, 35;
Pancapädikdvivarana, 83. works 36 ; doctrines, 37-40,
Pancatantra, 10. 48, 63, 65, 67, 73, 74, 78,
Padavädin, 170. 82, 93, 144, 145, 151, 171;
Padaväkyaratnäkara, [7]. [7], [90], [126].
Padmapädäcärya, 56. Präbhäkara school, 28, 32,
Pallavas, 95. 38, 39, 40, 43, 49, 51, 63,
Pancikd, 67, 145. 64, 66, 67, 72 fn., 78, 85,
Pändavas, 33. 88,93,110,130,136,145,146,
Pändya (kingdom), 97. 160 fn.; [7], [40]; 2-3 A., 10 A.
(kings), 7 A. Präbhäkaras,—see Präbhä-
Pänini, 1, 2 fn., 17, 21, 21 fn., kara school.
23, 24, 109, 111. Prabhäkaravijaya, 25, 74, 75.
Paramesvara I, 89. Prabhämandala, 130.
II, 47 fn., 60, PrabandhaSy Puranic, 109.
61, 68t 71, 75, 85, 87-91, 93. Prabhävali, 113 fn., 119 fn.,
III, 86, 90. 128, 132 fn., 135, 140.
(Mimämsäcakravartin), Prabhävati, 138.
92. Prabodhacandrodaya, 50.
44 GENERAL INDEX
Präcinas (in Mimämsä), 117,
136.
Prakaranapancikä, 144, 145. Rädhäkrishnan, (Dr. Sir, S.)
Prakaranapa ncikävyäkhyä, 7 fn., 149.
9 A. Räghavasomayäjin, 137.
Prakäsa, (1) 65, 66, 68, 93. Räghavänanda Sarasvati, 5A.
(2) 66. Räghavendrayati, 126.
(3) 62 fn. Raghunätha, 105.
(4) 113. Raghunäthadesikädhvarin,
Prakäsätmayati, 56. 6 A.
Pramänaprasthäna, 61. Raghunätha Diksita, 125.
Pranatärtihara, 93. Räjacüdämarii Diksita, 13,
Prakriyäkaumudi, 111. 105, 113 ; personality and
Prakriyäsarvasva, 109, 111. date 122, 123 ; works 123,
Pränanäräyana, 116. 124.
Prapancahrdaya, 14 fn., 15, Räma, 130.
19, 58, 59. Ramä, 138.
Pratäpamärtända, 139. Rämabudha, 1 A.
Praudhamanoramä, 111. Rämacandra, (1) 111.
Prayogaratna. 114. (2) 7 A.
Pünädevl, 138. Rämacandräcärya, 5 A.
Puranas, 11, 12. Rämakrsna, 139.
Pürnabodha (= Änandatirtha), Rämakrsnabhatta,
104. ' (i) 47 fn., 138, 139.
Purusärthänusäsana, 142. (2) 114, 131.
Purusärthaprabodha, 42. Rämakrsna Diksita, 126.
Purusottama, 130. Rämakrsna Udicyabhattä-
Pürvamimämsäkärikäs, 7 A. cärya, 6 A.
Pürvamimämsäsästra (or Ramesvarabhatta, 114.
System), 1, 9 fn., 12,13 fn., Rämesvarasivayogin, 112 fn.
20, 23, 28, 29, 31, 32, 37, Rämänuja Appu|lär, 78.
38, 54, 64, 67, 78, 88, 102, Rämänujäcärya,
103, 112, 115, 139, 142, 149; (1) 15, 74, 77, 78.
5, 6 A. (2) Personality, date
Pürvamimdmsäsütras, 1, 5, 6, and works 144-146.
7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 25, Rämänujadäsa, 6 A.
27 fn., 29, 37, 44, 58, 61, Rämesvara, 6 A.
62, 67, 82, 91, 104,105, 126, Rämesvarasürin, 6 A.
127, 134, 136, 142; 1, 3, 6, Rämaräya, 87.
10 A.
Ramasubba Sastrigal (MM.),
Pürvamimämsäsütrakära,
10 fn. 118 fn.
Pürvamimämsävisayasahgraha- Rämatirtha, 42.
Rämavarma (king), 92.
dlpikä, 136; 2 A.
Eämavarmavüäsa, 92.
 GENERAL INDEX
Rämäyana Campu, 125.
Kanaka—see Nyäyasudhä.
Ränakabhävanäkärikävivarana,
137.
Ränakojjivini, 137.
Ranganäthädhvarin, 93.
Rangaräjädhvarin, 96.
Rangaräya II, 103.
Rasagahgädhara, 116.
Rationalistic tendency, 1.
Ratnaketüdaya, 92.
Ravi, 5 A.
Ravideva, 87.
Rg-Veda, 2, 130.
Rg-Vedasamhitäbhäsya, 143.
Rjuvimala, 48, 49, 144.
Rsi, 91, 92.
'- I, 87,
— II, 88, 89.
— III, 90.
Rudradeva, 116.
Rukminikalyäna, 123.
Rukminl'parinaya, 136.
SäbarabMsya, 10, 13 fn., 14-
17, 21, 22, 24, 25, 28 fn.,
31-33, 36, 37, 39, 49 fn., 50,
62, 63, 67, 91, 139, 144;
[1], [7], [8], [15], [159];
3 A., 9 A., 10 A.
äabarasvämin, (1) 13 fn., 14,
16-20 ; date and personali-
ty 21 & 22; 23, 24, 26, 29,
30, 32, 33, 78, 86, 91, 93,
117, 129, 144, 181, 195;
[15], [88], [121], [159].
(2) 22.
(3) 23.
Säbdabodhapaddhati, 118,120.
Sähaji, 141, 148.
Säharäjapura, 148.
Sähitya—see Alankära &äs-
tra.
45
Sähityaratnäkara, 105.
Sähüyasämräjya, 105.
äaivädvaita (System = Saivai-
sm), 98, 101.
Öälikanätha (misra), 25, 26,
28, 29, 32, 34 fn., 36, 37 ;
personality and date 48;
works 49, 50, 63, 64, 67,
74, 144, 145.
Sälvanäyaka, 100.
Samarapungava Diksita, 98.
Sämaveda, 2-4, 9 fn., 11, 12.
Kauthuma School, 69.
Sämaveda, Talavakära recen-
sion of, 4.
Sämavidhänabrähmana, 11.
Sambhubhatta, 72, 118, 119
fn., 128, 132 ; personality,
date and works 134-136.
Sankarabhatta, date and
works 113,' 114, 131.
Sankaräcärya, 14, 17, 21, 41,
44, 52, 56, 57, 83, 84, 88,
102.
äankaradigvijaya, (1) 40.
(2) 41, 83.
Sarikarapüjyapäda, 88.
Sahkarsakända (sütras), 12,
13, 13 fn.', 23, 58, 124, 140,
142, 143.
Sahkarsamuktävali, 123, 124.
Sänkhyakärikäs, 54.
Sänkhya (System), 16, 45, 54.
Sähkhyatattvakaumudi, 5£, 54.
Sanku, 22.
Sanskrit Grammar, History
of, 1, 16.
Säravali, 119 fn.
Särirakasütra—see Brahma-
sütra.
Sarvadarsanakaumudi, 31 fn.
Sarvadarsanasahgraha, 84, 93,
Sarvärthalakqani, 23,
 GENERAL
ßästradipikä, 59, 61, 62, 63,
67, 71 fn., 82, 92, 103, 104,
110, 112, 113, 119, 124, 128,
129, 130, 131, 133, 134,139;
6 A., 7 A.
ßästramälävrtti, 133.
ßästropanyäsamälikä, 6 A.
ßatapathabrähmana, 23.
Kanva recension, 3.
ßatyäsädhasrautasütras, 23.
Satyavati, 11.
Säyanäcärya, 80, 84, 143.
Semantics, 122.
Semantic changes, 122.
Serfoji I, 141.
Serfoji (the last), 148.
Sesavamsa, king of, 138.
Sesvaramimämsä, 68, 77.
Sevappa, 101, 103, 105.
Shah Jehan, 116.
Shivaji, 133.
Siddhdnjana, 137.
Siddhantabindutika, 39.
Siddhantakaumudi, 111, 143.
Siddhdntalesasahgraha, 127.
Siddhdntamuktdvali, 132; 7 A.
Siddhäntamusti, 10 A.
Siddhitraya, 25.
Öiksäkäras, 153.
Singale, 80.
Sivadäsa, 138.
Sivddvaitanirnaya, 94.
Öivänandayatmdra, 96, 101.
Sivärkamanidipikä, 94, 98.
ßivärkodaya, 133.
ßivatattvaviveka, 103.
Six Ästikadarsanas, 91.
Six pramänas, 109.
Slokavärttika, 19, 20, 24, 26,
28 fn., 37, 44, 45, 47, 55,
59, 60-62, 64, 76, 91, 109,
133, 139; [15], [26], [67],
[100], [116], [138], [153].
Smrticandrikä, 66.
Smrticandrikäkära, 59.
Smrtikaustubha, 114, 132.
Smrtis, 4, 5, 6, 8, 8 fn., 58 ;
[2].
Sodasädhyäyi, 10 A.
Tippanam, 10 A.
Somanätha Diksita, 59, 71,
72, 92, 113, 128, 129, 134,
136; 9 A.
Somanäthayajvasarman, 128.
Somesvarabhatta, (1)—see
Bhattasomesvara.
" (2) 72 fn.
South Indian Music, 106.
Specialisation, law of, 122.
Sonant Substratum—see
Sphota (sabda).
Sphota (sabda), 17, 44, 55,154,
155, 158, 159,161,168, 165,
166, 169, 171.
Sphotasiddhi, 37, 44, 88, 89,
152 fn.
Sphotasiddhivyäkhyä—see
Gopälikä.
Sphotaväda, 152, 159, 167.
Sphotavädin, 151, 152, 155,
156, 158, 161, 162, 163.
ßräddhacintämani, 147.
Srauta Literature, 108.
Srauta Sütras, 148 fn.
Sribhäsya, 15, 74.
&rikanthäcärya, 80, 98.
Örikara, (1) 65, 66, 68, 93.
(2) 66.
&rikrsna, 123.
Srikrsnärya, 123.
Srimati, 80.
Örmiväsa, (1) 4 A.
(2) 3 A.
(3) 3 A.
(4) 148.
Öriniväsadäsa, 6 A.
 GENERAL INDEX
äriniväsa Dlksita, Ratna-
kheta, 101, 123.
Srlniväsopädhyäya, 3 A.
Subhadrädhananjaya, 104
Subodhini, (1) 137.
(2) 6 A.
Subrahmanya, (1) 88.
(2) 130.
(3) 6 A.
(4) 6 A.
Subrahmaiiyasüri, 6 A.
Sucaritamisra, 19 fh., date
59 & 60; 86, 91,139.
Sudarsana, 92.
Sudarsanäcärya, 74.
Sudhindragurupäda, 126.
Sulbamimämsä, 105, 106.
Sumantu, 12.
Sürabhattasarman, 128.
Surendratirtha, 104.
Suresvaräcärya, 8, 9 fn., 41,
42.
Suresvarayajvasarman, 128.
Süryanäräyana, 3 A.
Süryavisnumisra, 86.
Suträrthasahgraha,—see Mi-
mämsäsüträrthasahgraha.
Suvarnamudrä, 2 A.
Sütras {Pürvamimämsä),—see
Pürvamimämsäsütras.
Svaditahkaram, 87.
Taittiriyabrähmana, [1].
Taittiriyasamhitä, 1.
Taittiriyopanisad, 3.
Tändyabrähmana, 2.
Tanjore, 148.
Tantradarpana, 1 A.
Tantranitilaharii 6 A.
Tantrarahasya, 144, 145.
Tantraratna, 61,106,112,129.
Tantrasamuccayüy 92.
Tantrasära, 72.
Tantrasiddhäntadipihä, 136;
1 A.
Tantrasiddhäntasahgraha,
(1) 3 A.
(2) 7 A.
Tantrasikhämani, 105, 123,
Tantravdrttika, 13 fn., 29, 31,
31 fn., 33, 34 fn., 62, 63,
64, 68, 71, 72 fn., 77, 86,
107, 110, 114, 131,132, 137 ;
[8].
Tantravärttikavivarana, 77.
Tantravüäsa, 3 A.
Tarkacintämani, 127.
Tarkacüdämani, 127.
Tarkakaumudi, 112.
Tarkasangraha, 112, 137.
Tarkasästra,—see Nyäya
System, 109.
Tärkikaraksäy 93, 94
Tätärya,—see Tätäcärya.
Tätäcärya, 99-101, 103, 125.
D. T. (2) 71 fn., 141 fn.
Tätparyaprakäsikä, (= Suvar-
nämrta), 2 A.
Tatsadämabhatta, 7 A.
Taüvabindu, 39, 47 fn., 55, 64,
88, 89, 90, 151, 151 fn.-
197 fn.; [1].
Tattvacintämani, 73.
Tattvamuktäkalüpa, 84
Tattvapradipikä, 45.
Tattvaratnäkara, 78.
Tattvavibhavanä, 87, 90, 151
fn., 152 fn., 161 fn.
Tautätitamataiilaka, 68.
Tikäkära (« Guru),—see Pra-
bhäkara.
Timmannabhatta, 126.
Timmaräja, 97.
Timmaräya, 3 A.
Tirumalärya, 137.
Tirumalayajvan, 130.
48 GEHERAL
Tirupati, 78.
Thibaut (Dr. G.), 112 fn.
Thirumaligai' (village), 6 A.
Thiruvesanellore, 148.
Three Näyaka Kings of Tan-
jore, 105.
Three Paramesvaras (of Ke-
rala), 87, 91, 92, 107.
Totarämbä, 78.
96.
Transference, law of, 122.
Tripädinitinayana, 73, 74.
Trivikrama, 53.
Tryambakaräyamakhin, 141.
Tukkoji (Tulaja I), 141.
Tüppil, 78.
fuptikä, 31, 31 fn., 34, 61,
* 105, 106.
Two Inscriptions of Sevappa,
101.
Ü Vaisesika (System), 16, 53,
Udayanäcärya, 51, 61, 93;
[158].
Udayapüjyapäda, 2 A.
Uddandakavi, 91, 92.
Udyotakara, 54.
Udyotana, 137.
Umvekabhatta, 35, 37, 42;
personality and date 44-46 ;
works 46-48; 67, 86, 91,
139.
Unddi Sutras, 110 fn.
Upakramaparäkrama, 94, 102,
104.
Upanisads, 1, 3, 9 fn., 45.
Uparinavagräma (= Meppat-
tür illam), 107.
Upasamhäravijaya, 104.
Upavarsa, 13, 14; personali-
ty and date 14-18; 19, 20,
21, 23, 24, 32, 58, 78, 181 ;
m.
Uttamaslokatlrtha, 2 A.
üttaramimämsäsutras (= Ve~
ddnta Sutras), 1, 9, 9 fn.,
14,15, 17, 27 fn,, 98 ; 10 A.
Uttaramimämsä System ( =
Vedänta Öästra), 32, 63,
78, 83, 94, 102, 125, 130.
Uttararäma Carita, 46.
Väcaspatimisra, 28, 37, 39,
48 fn.; date 51-52 ; per-
sonality 52 ; works 53-57 ;
58, 61, 64, 67, 75, 86, 87,
89, 91, 151, 152, 160 fn.;
[1].
Vädakutuhalam, 10 A.
Vädanaksatramälä, 94, 102.
Vaidikakosa, 140.
Vaidyanätha, (1) 7 A.
(2) 7 A.
Vaisampäyana, 12.
54.
Vaiyäkaranas, [6], [19]; 151,
153.
Vaiyäsikanyäyamälä, 83.
Vaksasthaläcärya Dlksita,96.
Vähyapadlya, 27 f n., 39 ; [6],
[10], [16], [25], [70].
Väkyärtharatnamälä, 2 A.
Väkyasphota, 151.
Vallabhäcärya, 7 A.
Vämanabhatta, 72 fn.
Vänchesvarasisya, 7 A.
Väiichesvarasudhl (* Kutti-
kavi), 147.
Vänchesvarayajvan, 146-148.
Varähamihira, 22.
Varadaräja, (1) 93, 94.
(2) 36, 65 ; per-
sonality, date and works
92-94; 129.
Varadäcärya, 78.
Vararuci, 89 fn.
 GENERAL INDEX
Varnamälä, 151, 169, 170.
Varnavädin, 44, 156, 157,
161-164, 166, 167.
Värttika—
(1) Kätyäyana's, 2 fn., 17.
(2) on the Brhadäranyako-
panisadbhäsya, 41.
(3) on the Taittiriyopa-
nisadbhäsya, 41.
(4) Kumärila's, [61], [116].
Värttikäbharana, 105, 106.
Värttikakära,—see Kumärila.
Värttikäkänyas, [1], [43],
[139].
Väsisthadharmasütras, 4.
Väsudeva, (1) 87, 89, 101.
(2) 88.
(3) 91.
Väsudeva Diksita, 72 ; per-
sonality, date and works
141-143.
Vätsyäyanabhäsya, [6].
Väyusamhitä, [3],
Vedäntäcärya, 6 A.
Vedänta Desika, 58, 59, 68,
75; personality, date and
works 77-79; 80, 84, 97,
127.
Vedäntaparibhäsä, 127 ; 5 A.
Vedäntasära, 116.
Vedänta äästra,—see Uttara-
mimämsä System.
Vedäntasülras,—see Uttara-
mimämsäsütras.
Vedäntasütrakäras, 8, 23 fn.,
25.
Vedäntins, Advaita, 16, 37;
10 A.
Vedaprämänya, 37, 50.
Vedäranya (temple), 90.
Vedas, 2, 9 fn., 10, 45, 49,
126, 132, 138, 142, 143, 147,
184, 185.
Veddhgas, 147.
49
Velangudi, 127.
Vellore, 98.
Venkannabhatta,—see Rä-
ghavendrayati.
Verikatädhvarin, 113, 124,
125. '
Venkatädriyajvan, 128.
Venkatanäräyana, 7 A.
Venkatanätha,—see Vedänta
Desika.
Venkatapati ( = Veiikata I),
99, 125.
Venkatesvara (God), 78.
Venkatesvara Diksita (=
Venkatamakhin), 104-107.
Venkate svarasüri, 5 A.
Venkoji ( = Ekoji), 148.
Vibhramaviveka, 43, 88, 89, 90.
Vyäkhyä, 88-90; [43].
Vidhibhüsana, 7 A.
Vidhicamatkäracandrikä, 4 A.
Vidhidarpana, 134.
Vidhirasäyana, 94, 99, 102,
113, 120, 129; [2], [4].
Vidhirasäyanabhüsana, 3 A.
Vidhirasäyanadüsana, 113,
114 fn.
Vidhiratnävali, 6 A.
Vidhisudhäkara, 1 A.
Vidhitrayapantränam, 125.
Vidhiviveka, 42, 55.
(1) 134.
(2) 6 A.
Vidhis, Three, 119, 125.
Vidyäranya,—see Mädhavä-
cärya.
Vidyäsankara, 80.
Vidyätlrtha, 80.
Vijayä,
Vijayakära,—see Ananta-
näräyana, 86, 91.
Vijayanagar, 126.
50 GENERAL INDEX
Vijayindratirtha (or bhiksu),
101, 103, 104, 126.
Vijnänesvara, 66.
Vikrama, 22.
Vikramäditya VI (Cälükya),
72 fn.
Vimalänjana, 145.
Viparitakhyäti, 40.
Viramürodaya, 70.
Viranarasiriiha, 100.
Virasekhara Cola, 100.
Visvagunädarsacampü, 125.
Visamagranthabhedikä, 4 A.
Visayasahgrahadipikä, 136.
Visistädvaita Philosophy (or
System), 77, 101.
Visnu (God), (1) 138, 144.
(2) 4 A.
Visnupuräna, [2].
Visvanätha, 3 A.
Visvanätha Naik, 100.
Visvanäthapancänana, 132.
Visvarüpäcärya, 41, 42.
Visvesvara, 5 A.
Vi sve s var abhatt a,—see
Gägäbhatta.
Vitthal, 100.
Vitthaläcärya, 103.
Vivarana, (1) 36, 145.
' (2) 56.
(3) 3, 10 A.
Vivaranadarpana, 96.
Vivaranaprameyasahgraha,
42, 60, 61 fn., 83.
Vivaranaprasthäna, 56.
Vivekaiattva, 87.
Vrttdntavüäsa, 42.
Vrtti (of the Vaidikakosa),
140.
Vrttikära,—see Upavar§a,
181.
Vyädi, 17.
Yyäkarana (&ästra), 8, 108,
109, 122, 125, 130.
Yyäsa, 33, 34.
Vyäsadesika (= Vyäsaräya),
104.
Vyäsadeva, [7].
VyavahäraTnädhava, 83.
Vyavahäratüaka, 70.
Vyutpatliväda, 120.
W
White Yajurveda, 2, 3.
Yädaväbhyudaya, 95 fn., 97,
98.
Yajiianäräyana (= Räjacüdä-
mani),—see Räjacüdämaru
Diksita, 123.
Yajnanäräyana Diksita, 105.
113, 129, 130.
Yajnätman, 60.
Yajnesvarabhattopädhyäya,
Yallubhatta, 7 A.
Yämunäcärya, 25, 78.
Yäjnavalkyasmrti, 66.
Yäska, 22, 22 fn., 121-
Yäträprabandha, 98.
Yatindramatadipikä, 127.
Yoga System, 45, 54.
Yogabhäsya, [7].
Yogabhäsyavisäradi, 54.
Yogasutrabhäsyoiy 54.
Yuktisnehaprapürani, 11 fn.,
47 fn., 62 fn., 138, 139.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. Original Texts in Sanskrit,

(a) Printed.
Anantadeva :—Bhättälankära (Benares Edition).
Smrtikaustubha (Nirnayasagara Edition).
Äpadeva:—Mimämsänyäyaprakäsa (N. S. Edn.) with F. Ed-
gertan's English Translation.
Appayya Diksita:—Vidhirasäyanadüsana with his gloss.
Upakramaparakrama (Benares Edition).
Citrapata (J. O. R.)
Kalpataruparimala (N. S. Edn.)
Bädaräyana:—Vedänta Sütra (Nirnaya Sagara Edition).
Bhartrhari ;—Väkyapadiya (Benares Edition).
Bhäskararäya:—Candrikä (on the Sankarsakända, Reprint
from the 4 Pandit').
BhaUasomesvara :—Nyäyasudhä (Benares Edition).
Bhavabhüti:—Mälatimädhava (IST. S. Edn.)
Brahmänandasarasvati :—
Nyäyaratnävali (Advaitamaiijari Series).
Cüsukhäcärya :—Tattvapradipikä (with Commentary—N. S.
Edition).
Dihnäga:—Nyäyapravesa (Gaekwad Series, Baroda).
Gägäbhatta :—Bhättacintämani (Benares Edition).
Gahgädevi :—Madhurävijaya (Trivandram Edition).
Jaimini:—Pürvamlmämsä Sütra (Benares Edition).
Jayantabhatta:—
Nyäyamanjarl (Vijayanagaram Sanskrit Series).
Krsnamisra:—
Prabodhacandrodaya with Candrikä (N. S. Edn.)
Krsnayajvan:—Paribhäsä (N. S. Edn.)
Kumärilabhatta:—
Ölokavärttika with the Nyäyaratnäkara (Ben. Edn.)
do. with Käsikä (T. S. S.)
Tantravärttika (Änandäsrama Edition, Poona).
Tuptikä (Benares Edition).
Khandadevamisra :—(1) Bhättadipikä (Mysore Edition).
(2) Bhättakaustubha (Benares Edition).
(3) Bhättarahasya (Benares Edition).
52 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Laugäksibhäskara :—
Arthasarigraha (with the Kaumudi—N. S. Edn.)
Mädhaväcärya:—
Nyäyamälävistara (Änandäsrama Edition).
Paräsaramädhaviya (Bombay Sanskrit Series).
Sankaradigvijaya (Änandäsrama Edition).
Sarvadarsanasangraha (Bhandarkar Research Insti-
tute Edition).
Do. Cowell's Translation.
Mandanamisra:—
(1) Vidhiviveka (Benares Edition).
(2) Bhävanäviveka (Saraswati Bhavana Series).
(3) Vibhramaviveka (J. O. R., Madras).
(4) Sphotasiddhi (Madras University Sanskrit Series).
Mukulabhatta :—Abhidhävrttimätrkä (ST. S. Edn.)
Murdrimisra:—Tripädmitinayana (J. O. R., Madras).
„ Angatvanirukti (Änandäsrama Edition).
Nandisvara:—
Prabhäkaravijaya (Samskrta Sähitya Parisad Series).
Näräyandbhatta :—Mänameyodaya (T. S. S. & T. P. H.)
Näräyaniya ( T. S. S. )
Prakriyäsarvasva ( Do. )
Paramesvara II:—Gopälikä (Madras University Series).
Pärthasärathimisra:—
(1) äästradlpikä with Mayükhamälikä (N. S. Edn.)
(2) Tantraratna (Saraswati Bhavana Series).
(3) Nyäyaratnamälä (Benares Edition).
Prabhdkaramisra :—Brhati (Madras Edition).
(?) Praparicahrdaya (T. S. S.)
JRäjacüdämani Diksita:—Rukminlkalyänam (Adyar Edition).
Bämakrsnabhatta:—Yuktisnehaprapürani (N. S. Edition).
Rämänujacärya :—-Tantrarahasya (Gaekwad Series).
Sabarasvdmin:—Pürvamimämsäsütrabhäsya (Benares Edn).
Sdllkandtha :—(1) Rjuvimalä (Madras Edition).
(2) Prakaranapancikä (Benares Edition).
Sambhubhatta:—Prabhävali (K S. Edition).
Sahkarabhatta :—Mlmämsäbälaprakä sa.
Suresvardcdrya:—Naiskarmyasiddhi (Bombay Skt. Series).
Tatachari, D. T.:—Mlmämsäbhyudaya.
Umvekabhatta:—
Bhävanävivekavyäkhyä (Saraswati Bhavana Series)
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 53
Vdcaspatimisra i—(1) Bhämati 0$. S. Edition).
(2) Nyäyakanikä (Benares Edition).
(3) Tattvabindu (Reprint from the 'Pandit').
(4) Nyäyavärttikatätparyatikä (Benares
Edition).
Vdnchesvarayajvan:—Bhättacintämani (Madras Edition).
Vdsudeva Diksita:—
Adhvaramimämsäkutühalavrtti (Yani Vilas Edition).
Veddntadesika:—
(1) Sesvaramimämsä (Conjeeyaram Edition).
(2) Mimämsäpädukä ( Do. ).
(3) Yädaväbhyudaya with Appayya Diksita's Vyä-
khyä (Vani Yilas Edition, Srirangam).
(b) Manuscripts (available in the Madras Govt.
and Adyar Oriental Mss. Libraries).
Annambhatta :—(1) Ranakojjlvini.
(2) Subodhini.
Bhdskarardya:—Candrodaya.
Bhattavisnu:—Nayatattvasangraha.
Bhavandthabhatta:—Nayaviveka with Varadaräja's Dipikä.
Ciddnandapandita :—Nititattvävirbhäva with three commen-
taries.
Devasvdmin:—Sankarsakändabhäsya.
Govinddmrfamuni :—Vivarana on the Säbarabhäsya.
Paramesvara II:—Tattvavibhävanä.
Paramesvara III:—Mimämsäsüträrthasangraha.
Paritosamisra :—Agitä (with Vijayä).
Bäjacüdämani Diksita :—Tantrasikhämani.
Edmdnujdcdrya:—Näyakaratna.
Eavideva :—Vivekatattva.
Sdlikandtha :—Mimämsäbhäsyaparisista.
Udayapüjyapdda:—Adhikaranärthamälä.
Vehkatesvara Diksita :—Värttikäbharana.
Yajfiandrdyana Diksita :—Prabhämandala.
? Gran thayo janä
? Socjasädhyäyi with its gloss.

II. Critical Works and Lectures in English.

Belvalker, Dr., S. K.:—Sree Gopal Basu Mallik Lectures.
Das Gupta, Dr.:—A History of Jndian Philosophy, Vols,
I & II.
54 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ganganath Jha, Dr., MM.:—
(1) Prabhäkara School of Mimämsä.
(2) Translations of Slokavärttika, Tantravärttika
and Säbarabhäsya.
Heras:—The Aravidu Dynasty of Vijayanagar.
Hirayanna, M.:—Outlines of Indian Philosophy.
Kane, P. V.:— (1) A History of the P. M. System.
(2) The History of the Dharmasästra.
Keith, Dr., A. B.:—(1) Karmamlmämsä.
(2) Sanskrit Drama.
(3) A History of Sanskrit Literature.
(4) Indian Logic and Atomism.
Krishnaswami Iyengar, Dr., S.:—Manimekhalai in its his-
torical setting.
Kuppuswami Sastrigal, MM., S.:—A Primer of Indian Logic.
Max Müller:—(1) Six Systems of Indian Philosophy.
(2) Indian, what can it teach us ?
Pasupatinätha Säsiri, Dr.:—Introduction to the P. M. Sastra.

III. Periodicals, Reports, Etc.

Annals of Bhandarkar Research Institute, Vol. X.

Annamaiai University Journal, Vols. I & II.
Annual Report of Arch. Survey of India for 1907-8.
Descriptive Catalogues of Sanskrit Mss. preserved in
the Madras Govt. Oriental Mss. Library, the Adyar
Library and T. M. S. S. M. Library, Tanjore.
Epigraphica Indica, Vols. Ill, XII, XV.
Indian Antiquary, Vols. XLV, L.
Indian Historical Quarterly, (1932, 1933, 1934).
Journal of American Oriental Society.
Journal of Bombay Branch of Royal Asiatic Society,
Vol. XXIV.
Journal of Oriental Research, Vols. II, III, V.
Proceedings of the Second and Third All-India Oriental
Conference (1922 & 1924).
Report of the Mysore Arch. Dept., 1917.
 SELECT OPINIONS

ON THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE EDITOR

A. The Tattvabindu :—

" I h a v e h a d t h e opportunity of looking into

Mr. V. A. R a m a s w a m i Sastri's edition of V a c a s -
patimiära's Tattvabindu. H i s Introduction to t h e
book gives a historical account of a large number
of M i m ä m s ä w r i t e r s who a r e not generally
mentioned in English t r e a t i s e s on t h e System.
H e h a s dealt w i t h t h e original t e x t s on t h e
subject, and t h e book is a v e r y valuable addition
to t h e l i t e r a t u r e on t h e subject."
SIR S. RADHAKRISHNAN.

B. ' Doctrine of Sphota'—(Annamalai University

J o u r n a l , Vols. I & II) :—

" Y o u r exposition of B h a r t r h a r i is v e r y help-

ful and a most useful contribution to t h e under-
standing of t h e difficult text, V a k y a p a d i y a . "
Dr. A. B. KEITH (Edinburgh).

" Concerning Sphota you expound clearly t h e

subtle divergences of views in the different
schools of philosophy and philosophical g r a m m a r . "
Dr. P. W. THOMAS (Oxford).
28