English
Vadindra styles himself in the colophon at the end of the first chapter of his Maha-vidya-vidambana “* Hara-kinkara-nyayacarya-parama- pandita-bhatta-vadindra,” and in the concluding verse of his work refers to Yogisvara as his preceptor. The above epithets of Hara- kinkara, nyayacarya, etc. do not show however what his real name was. Mr Telang points out in his introduction to the Maha-vidya- vidambana that his pupil Bhatta Raghava in his commentary on Bhasarvajfia’s Nyaya-sara, called Nyadya-sara-vicara, refers to him by the name Mahadeva. Vadindra’s real name, then, was Mahadeva, x1] Maha-vidyd and Development of Logical Formalism 123 and the rest of the epithets were his titles. Bhatta Raghava says that the name of Vadindra’s father was Saranga. Bhatta Raghava gives his own datein the Saka era. Thesentence howeveris liable to two dif- ferent constructions, giving us two different dates, viz.a.D.1252 and 1352. But, judging from the fact that Vadindra was a religious coun- sellor of King Srisimha (also called Singhana), who reigned in Deva- giri A.D. 1210-1247, and that in all probability he lived before Venkata (A.D. 1267-1369), who refers to his Maha-vidya-vidambana, Mr Telang suggests that we should take a.p. 1252 to be the date of Bhatta Raghava; and, since he was a pupil of Vadindra, one may deduct about 27 years from his date and fix Vadindra’s date as A.D. 1225. Mr Telang points out that sucha date would agree with the view that he was a religious counsellor of King Srisimha. Vadindra refers to Udayana (a.p. 984) and Sivaditya Misra (A.D. 975-1025). Mr Telang also refers to two other works of Vadindra, viz. Rasa-sava and Kandada-siitra-nibandha, and argues from allusions contained in Vadindra’s Maha-vidya-vidambana that he must have written other works in refutation of mahd-vidya. Vadindra’s Maha-vidya-vidambana consists of three chapters. In the first chapter he gives an exposition of the maha-vidyd syllogisms ; the second and third chaptersare devoted to the refutation of these syllo- gisms. Vadindra’s Maha-vidya-vidambana has two commentaries, one called Maha-vidya-vidambana-vyakhyana, by Anandapirna (A.D. 1600), and the other, called Vyakhyana-dipika, by Bhuvana- sundara Siri (a.D. 1400). In addition to these Bhuvanasundara Siri also wrote a small work called the Laghu-maha-vidya-vidam- bana and a commentary, Mahda-vidya-vivarana-tippana, on a Maha-vidya-dasasloki-vivarana by an unknown author. The main points of Vadindra’s criticisms may briefly be stated as follows: He says that it is not possible that there should be a proper reason (hetu) which has no negative instances (kevalanvayt- hetor eva nirvaktum asakyatvat). It is difficult to prove that any particular quality should exist everywhere and that there should not be any instance or case where it does not occur. In the third chapter he shows that not only is it not possible to have kevalanvayt hetus, but that even in arguments on the basis of such kevalanvayt hetu there would be great scope for fallacies of self-contradiction (sva-vyaghata) and fallacies of illicit distribution of the middle term (anaikantikatva) and the like. He also shows how all these fallacies apply to all the maha-vidya syllogisms invented by Kularka Pandita. 124 The Sankara School of Vedanta [cH. It is needless for our present purposes to enter into any elaborate logical discussion of Vadindra; for the present digression on maha-vidya syllogisms is introduced here only to show that scholastic logicisms were not first introduced by Sriharsa, but had already come into fashion a few centuries before him, though Sriharsa was undoubtedly the most prominent of those who sought to apply these scholastic methods in philosophy. It will thus be seen that the fashion of emphasizing the em- ployment of logical formalism as a method in philosophy was inherited by the Naiyayikas and Vedantists alike from Buddhists like Nagarjuna, Aryadeva and others in the third and the fourth centuries and their later successors in the fifth, sixth and seventh centuries. But during the eighth, ninth and tenth centuries one notices a steady development on this side in the works of prominent Nyaya writers such as Vatsyayana, Uddyotakara, Vacaspati Misra and Udayana and Vedantic authors such as the great master Sankaracarya, Vacaspati Miéra and Anandabodha Yati. But the school of abstract and dry formalism may be said to have properly begun with Kularka Pandita, or the authors of the Mana-manohara and Pramana-mafjari in the latter part of the eleventh century, and to have been carried on in the works of a number of other writers, until we come to Gangesga of the early thirteenth century, who enlivened it with the subtleties of his acute mind by the introduction of the new concepts of avacchedakata, which may be regarded as a new turning point after vyapti. This work was further carried on extremely elaborately by his later successors, the great writers of this new school of logic (navya-nyaya), Raghunatha Siromani, Jagadisa Bhattacarya, Gadadhara Bhattacarya and others. On the Vedanta side this formalism was carried on by Sriharsa (A.D. 1187), Citsukha of about a.D. 1220 (of whom Vadindra was a contem- porary), Anandajiiana or Anandagiri of about a.D. 1260 and through a number of minor writers until we come to Nrsimhagrama and Madhusiidana Sarasvati of the seventeenth century. It may be surmised that formal criticisms of Sriharsa were probably largely responsible for a new awakening in the Naiyayikas, who began to direct their entire attention to a perfecting of their definitions and discussions on strict lines of formal accuracy and preciseness to the utter neglect of the collection of new data, new experiences or the investigation of new problems or new lines of enquiry, which is so essential for the development of true philo- xq] Vedanta Dialectic of Sriharsa 125 sophy. But, when once they started perfecting the purely logical appliances and began to employ them successfully in debates, it became essential for all Vedantists also to master the ways of this new formalism for the defence of their old views, with utter neglect of new creations in philosophy. Thus in the growth of the history of the dialectic of logical formalism in the Vedanta system of thought it is found that during the eighth, ninth, tenth and eleventh centuries the element of formalism was at its lowest and the controversies of the Vedanta with the Buddhists, Mimamsists and Naiyayikas were based largely on the analysis of experience from the Vedantic standpoint and its general approach to philosophy. But in the twelfth and the thirteenth centuries the controversy was largely with the Nyaya and Vaigesika and dominated by considerations of logical formalism above every- thing else. Criticisms became for the most part nothing more than criticisms of Nyaya and Vaisesika definitions. Parallel to this a new force was gradually growing during these centuries in the writings of Ramanuja and his followers, and in the succeeding centuries the followers of Madhva, the great Vaisnava writer, began to criticize the Vedantists (of the Sankara school) very strongly. It is found therefore that from the thirteenth or fourteenth century the Vedantic attack was largely directed against the followers of Ramanuja and Madhva. A history of this controversy will be given in the third and fourth volumes of the present work. But the method of logical formalism had attained such an importance by this time that, though the Vaisnavas brought in many new con- siderations and points of view in philosophy, the method of logical formalism never lost its high place in dialectic discussions. Vedanta Dialectic of Sriharga (a.p. 1150). Sriharsa flourished probably during the middle of the twelfth century A.D. Udayana, the great Nyaya writer, lived towards the end of the tenth century, as is evident from the colophon of his Laksanavali1. Sriharsa often refutes the definitions of Udayana, and therefore must have flourished after him. Again, the great logician Gangega of Mithila refers to Sriharsa and refutes his 2 tarkambaranka(go06)pramitesv atitesu sakantatah varsesiidayanas cakre subodham laksanavalim. Laksanavali, p. 72, Surendralal Gosvamin’s edition, Benares, 1900. ~ 126 The Sankara School of Vedanta [cH. views, and, since Gangega lived in A.D. 1200, Sriharsa must have lived before that date. Accordingly Sriharsa was after Udayana and before Gangeéga, i.e. between the tenth and twelfth centuries A.D. At the end of his book he refers to himself as honoured by the King of Kanauj (Kanyakubjesvara). It is probable that this king may be Jayacandra of Kanauj, who was dethroned about A.D. 1195!. In his poetical work Naisadha-carita he mentions at the end of the several chapters many works of his, such as Arnava- varnana, Gaudorvisa-kula-prasasti, Nava-sahasanka-carita, Vyaya- prasasti, Siva-sakti-siddhi, Sthairya-vicarana, Chandah-prasasti, and also [svarabhisandhi and Paficanaliya kavya*. The fact that he wrote a work eulogizing the race of the kings of Gauda leads one to suspect that he may have been one of the five Brahmans invited by Adistra of Bengal from Kanauj in the early part of the eleventh century, in which case Sriharsa would have to be placed at that time, and cannot be associated with Jayacandra, who was dethroned in a.D. 1195. Sriharsa’s most important philo- sophical contribution was the Khandana-khanda-khddya (lit. “‘the sweets of refutation”’), in which he attempts to refute all defini- tions of the Nyaya system intended to justify the reality of the categories of experience and tries to show that the world and all world-experiences are purely phenomenal and have no reality behind them. The only reality is the self-luminous Brahman of pure consciousness’.