365bet娱乐

36. Anandabodha's Authorship of Nyayadipika and Limits for his Date I In his illuminating article on the date of Istasiddhi of Vimuktatman, Mr. C. Hayavadana Rao' makes the following cautious statement about the authorship of the Nyayadipika, a commentary on the Sabdanirnaya of Prakasatman :- "If this Anandabodha is the same person as the one of that name who was the author of Pramanaratnamala, a treatise on the Advaita system and the Sabdanirnayavyakhya (or Dipika or Nyayadipika), etc." The above remarks appear to contain a doubt about Anandabodha's authorship of Nyayamakaranda and Nyayadipika. I have pointed out in my note on the date of Anandabodha 2 that the author of the Nyayamakaranda and Nyayadipika appears to be identical for the following reasons:- (1) Anandabodha in his Nyayamakaranda refers to the Nyayadipika, which was presumably composed by him earlier as the following lines will show :- 66 dinmatramatra sucitam vistarastu nyayadipikayamavagantavyah " (2) The manner in which the above reference is made by Anandabodha shows that to save much labour in exposition he is pointing his finger to a detailed exposition of the topic under discussion in the Nyayamakaranda. (3) In the Madras MS of Nyayadipika, the following statement proves that the author of the treatise was Anandabodha :- 66 dustarkadhvamtapatalaprapatanapatiyasi iyamanamdabodhena racita nyayadipika Prima facie, therefore, the above facts appear to clear up the Journal of the Mythic Society, Vol. XXVI, pp. 153-156. 1. Journal of the Mythic Society, Vol. XXIV, pp. 278-279. 2. Calcutta Oriental Journal, Vol. II (1935). 226

doubt of Mr. Hayavadana Rao about Anandabodha's authorship of of both the (1) Nyayamakaranda and (2) Nyayadipika, though I have not verified the reference to Nyayadipika found in his Nyayamakaranda in the text of the Madras MS of the Nyayadipika. Another point which I want to bring to the notice of Mr. Hayavadana Rao is the reference by Candupandita in his commentary on the Naisadha composed in A. D. 1297. He quotes a long passage from the Nyayamakaranda' of Anandabodha as follows:- "asati pratyaksavisayatve bhedasya anumanasyapi vyapyavyapakabhedajnanadhinasya bhedavabhase pramanyam nirastam .. ittham nirastanikhila pratikulatarkamt vedanta- vakyanikarannikhilo'pi bhedah | sakyo nisedumiti siddhamanadyavidya, tadvasana- viracitabhramamatrasiddhih iti srimadanandabodhacaryairapi nyayamakaramde bhedam nirakurvadbhiruktam | this A. D. 1297 is, therefore, one sure terminus to Anandabodha's date and it is in harmony with the inscriptional evidence brought forth by Mr. Hayavadana Rao for the date of Citsukha, who commented Anandabodha's Nyayamakaranda. According to inscriptional evidence, Citsukha's literary activity may fall between A. D. 1220 and 1284, the dates of the two inscriptions in which Citsukha is styled as Citsukha Somayajin and Citsukha Bhattaraka alias Narasimhamuni. If the Citsukha mentioned in the inscriptions is identical with the commentator of Anandabodha's Nyayamakaranda, it would appear that Candupandita, the author of the Naisadhatika and Citsukhacarya were almost contemporaries, Candu being possibly a younger contemporary. Mr. Hayavadana Rao rightly looks upon the date of Prakasatman as the other terminus to the date of Anandabodha. If this date of Prakasatman is finally fixed, we shall be in a position to clinch the issue with some certainty. At present, two dates for Prakasatman are put forward. They are:- 2 (1) A.D. 1200 - According to Dr. Das Gupta, this date is given 1. Naisadha Carita, edited by Handiqui, 1934 (Punjab Ori. Series), p. 480. 2. History of Indian Philosophy, Vol. II, p. 17, foot-note 2 and at other places in the volume.

to Prakasatman several times in the History of Indian Philosophy but in all these references the grounds for this date are not mentioned. I had requested Dr. Das Gupta to let me know his grounds for this date but have not yet heard from him in reply. Dr. T. R. Chintamani of the Madras University writes to me in a private communication dated 22 nd March 1935, as follows:- 'The date of Prakasatman adopted by you from Dr. Das Gupta is not correct for it is very well and widely known that Ramanuja who lived between A. D. 1015 and 1137 has criticized in his Bhasya the syllogism of Prakasatman. In view of this fact, it is impossible to bring down Prakasatman to any period later than A. D. 1000. The date 1200 for Prakasatman is definitely wrong. The date of Citsukha is fairly correct (A. D. 1200) and Anandabodha who preceded him cannot be later than at least A. D. 1150. He was propably slightly older." I have not examined the grounds of Dr. Chintamani's criticism of the date A. D. 1200 for Prakasatman as given by Dr. Das Gupta but have quoted his view to enable Mr. Hayavadana Rao to survey his facts in the light of this criticism. (2) A. D. 1000.-Prof. M. Hiriyanna' Prof. M. Hiriyanna' as quoted by Mr. Hayavadana Rao assigns Prakasatman to A. D. 1000. This view appears to come nearer to Dr. Chintamani's view stated above that Prakasatman is not later than A. D. 1000. The chronological order of the several writers mentioned above may now be represented as under- (1) Prakasatman 1200 A. D. ( Dr. Das Gupta). -1000 A. D. (Prof. Hiriyanna ). -not later than A. D. 1000. - (Dr. Chintamani ). (2) Ramanuja. Between A. D. 1015 and 1137. - (3) Anandabodha Before A. D. 1297 (Candupandita). (4) Citsukha - Between A. D. 1220 and 1284 ( Inscriptions). 1. Outlines of Indian Philosophy, (London, 1932), p. 340.

In the present state of the above chronology, for want of a more definite date for Prakasatman I am inclined to agree in general with Mr. Hayavadana Rao in his remarks about Anandabodha's date, viz. Anandabodha should be assigned to a date somewhat later than A. D. 1000 say circa A. D. 1050" but may go a step further and conclude that he may have flourished between 1050 and A. D. 1100. H