Part 9 - Vācaspati Miśra—his life, date and works

A. Life of Vācaspati Miśra:

Vācaspati Miśra was a versatile genious with an encyclopeadic knowledge who contributed a lot to Indian philosophy. Vācaspati Miśra had a wonderful expositional skill of presentation of whatever subject or system he chose to handle. He is considered to be one of the great literary geniuses that India has ever produced. He devoted his multisided philosophic genius in setting-forth authoritative commentaries on all the six orthodox philosophical systems. Vācaspati Miśra was an extra-ordinary model of intellectual objectivity. He represents the very soul of the various concepts of different systems of Indian philosophy. Very little information is found about the life of Vācaspati Miśra. According to tradition, this famous philosopher was a Maithil Brahmin who hailed from the region of Bihar and to have lived somewhere, near the Nepal frontier. Gaṅgānāth Jhā has mentioned that there is a village in Bihar named Bhāma which is supposed to have been named after Vācaspati’s Bhāmatī.^[1] On the other hand, Dinesh Chandra Bhattacarya mentions that he belonged to Badagāma in Pargana Niśśakapūrakūḍha, which is now situated on the eastern boundary of Darbhāṅgā.^[2] Umesh Misra, in his History of Indian Philosophy, maintains that Vācaspati’s village was Thāṛhī, in the district of Darbhāṅgā. Trilocana appears to have been his teacher from whom he learnt the theory of indeterminate perception or Nirvikalpakapratyakṣa.^[3]

B. Date of Vācaspati Miśra:

It is somewhat fortunate that unlike other philosophers of ancient India, Vācaspati Miśra has given a definite clue to his date. In the colophone of

Nyāyasūcīnibandha, Vācaspati Miśra gives us the date of that work as the year 898.^[4] However, the question arises about the era of this date. There is a great deal of debate whether this is Śāka era or Vikrama Saṃvat. If it is Śāka era then the date will be 976

A.D. On the other hand, if it is Vikrama Saṃvat, then the date will be 841 A.D. Hence, a study of external and internal sources is necessary for correctly determining the date of Vācaspati Miśra. In addition to the date provided by him in Nyāyasūcīnibandha, the following data are also provided by him in his works:

(i) The name of king Nṛga is mentioned by Vācaspati in his Advaita Vedāntic work Bhāmatī.^[5]
(ii) Vācaspati Miśra has referred to Nyāyamañjarī in his work.^[6]
(iii) He has refuted Bhāskara in his Bhāmatī.^[7] Bhāskarācārya belongs to 8^th or 9^th century A.D.
(iv) Vācaspati has quoted Dharmottara twice in his Tātparyaṭīkā.^[8] Dharmottara’s time is said to be 9^th century A.D.
(v) He has also referred to Nyāyabhuṣaṇa.^[9]

Nyāyabhuṣaṇa is a commentary written by Bhāsarvajña the writer of Nyāyasāra. The date of Bhāsarvajña is mentioned as 862 to 920 A.D.^[10]

On the other hand, Buddhist logician Ratnakīrti (about 1000 A.D.) quotes from Vācaspati Miśra. The name of Vācaspati’s teacher, to whom he paid his most devout respect, is mentioned by Rājaśekhara (about 917 A.D.)^[11] Udayanācārya (about 984 A.D.) commented upon Tātparyaṭī kā. Hence, the upper limit of Vācaspati’s date can not be later than 984 A.D. Coming to the reference of king Nṛga given by Vācaspati Miśra let us see what is the true identity of this king. According to Surendra

Nath Dasgupta, there is no epigraphical reference of a king named Nṛga. In his words,

“This king, so far as the present writer is aware, has yet been historically traced.”^[12]

But, Gaṅgānāth Jhā disagrees with Dasgupta. In his view, Nṛga was a real king of Mithila who was a predecessor of king Nānyadeva who rained the Mithila at about 962 A.D.^[13] This proof of king Nṛga may be regarded as conclusive since even Amalānanda in his Vedānta kalpataru mentions Nṛga as the petron of Vācaspati Miśra.^[14]

Now, the point that Vācaspati referred to Nyāyamañjarī is somewhat confusing. Jayanta Bhaṭṭa, the famous writer of Nyāyamañjarī belongs to the 10^th century A.D. As such, Vācaspati’s date can not fall before 10^th century A.D. But, actually the Nyāyamañjarī referred to by Vācaspati Miśra is not the Nyāyamañjarī written by Jayanta Bhaṭṭa, On the contrary, The Nyāyamañjarī was written by Trilocana who was his Guru.^[15] Rājaśekhara, belonging to about 917 A.D. mentions Trilocana.^[16]

From the above discussion it can be concluded that the year 898 mentioned by Vācaspati Miśra is of Vikrama era i.e., 841 A.D. In the words of V.N. Sheshagiri Rao, “All these go to show that Vācaspati lived in all approximate certainity not earlier or later than the period 841-900 A.D.”^[17]

C. Works of Vācaspati Miśra:

Vācaspati Miśra wrote commentaries on almost all orthodox philosophical systems of India. Vācaspati Miśra had a wonderful skill of exposition and his presentation of any of the systems, he chose to handle, is always genuine and authoritative. On whatever system he wrote commentaries or independent works, he was always faithful to that system. Because of his encyclopedic knowledge in almost all systems of Indian philosophy he came to be known as -sarvatantrasvatantra i.e., an adept of all systems. On Sāṃkhya system, Vācaspati wrote Sāṃkhyatattvakaumudī which is a commentary on Īśvarakṛṣṇa’s Sāṃkhya-kārikā. His Tattva-vaiśāradī, a commemtary on Vyāsabhāṣya of Patañjali’s Yogasūtra, is a work on Yoga philosophy. Bhāmatī and Tattvasamī kṣā are his Vedāntic works. Bhāmatī is a commentary on Śa ṅkarabhāṣya of the Brahmasūtra and Tattvasamī kṣā, a commentary on Maṇḍana Miśra’s Brahmasiddhi. On Nyāya system his famous work is Nyāyavārtikatātparyaṭīkā . He also wrote Nyāyasūcīnibandha, an index of Nyāyasūtra. In his works, Vācaspati has established the supremacy of Nyāya on other systems by refuting the opponents’ views.

His other works are: Nyāyakaṇikā, a commentary on Vidhiviveka of Maṇḍana Miśra and Tattvabindu, an independent work on Bhāṭṭa school of Mīmāṃsā. In epilogue of Bhāmatī, Vācaspati Miśra has given the list of his works in the following order: Nyāyakaṇikā, Brahmatattvasamī kṣā, Tattvabindu, Nyāyasūcīnibandha, Nyāyavārtikatātparyaṭīkā , Sāṃkhyatattvakaumudī, Tattva-vaiśāradī and Bhāmatī.^[18] A brief description of all his works are given below.

(i) Sāṃkhyatattvakaumudī: 

Sāṃkhyatattvakaumudī is the most illustrious commentary written by the great genius Vācaspati Miśra on Sāṃkhya system. It is an excellent exposition of Sāṃkhya philosophy. It is written on Sāṃkhyakārikā in which each and every kārikā is explained word by word and which supplies the comparative and critical notes and discussions as and when necessary. Vācaspati Miśra’s Sāṃkhyatattvakaumudī is a very important and indispensable commentary. 

The popularity of the Sāṃkhyatattvakaumudī can be estimated from the number of commentaries on it. These are as follows—

(i) Tattvakaumudīvākhyā of Bhāratī Yati,
(ii) Tattvārnava by Rāghavānanda Sarasvatī, disciple of Advayānanda,
(iii) Tattvacandra of Nārāyaṇa Tīrtha, who studied under Vasudhā Tīrtha and Rāmagovinda Tīrtha.
(iv) Sāṃkhya-vilāsa of Raghunāth Tarkavāgiśa Bhaṭṭācārya and
(v) Sāṃkhyatattvavibhākara of Vaṃśidhara.

(ii) Tattvavaiśāradī:

It is a commentary on Vyāsabhāṣya or Yogasūtrabhāṣya on Pātañjala-Yogasūtra. Tattva-vaiśāradī was written by Vācaspati Miśra probably at about the same time with the Sāṃkhyatattvakaumudī. It is a detailed and technically proficient treatment of Pātañjala system. This is an excellent work on Yoga philosophy dealing with the important topics of Yoga.

(iii) Bhāmatī:

Vācaspati Miśra’s Bhāmatī is a commentary on Saṅkara’s Śār īrakabhāṣya on Brahamasūtra to Bādarāyaṇa. It is a monumental work which helps in understanding the commentary of Saṃkara clearly. It provides us a clear account of main topics of Advaita Vedānta philosophy. Bhāmatī represents one of the three sub-schools of Advaita Vedānta. Vācaspati has always tried to explain the text as faithfully as possible. The lucidity of Vācaspati’s style has made this work very popular. The importance of Bhāmatī can be testified by the commentaries written on it. Some of these are Vedānta kalpataru by Amalānanda, Bhāmatītilaka by Allāl Sūri, Bhāmatīvyākhyā or Ṛjuprakāśikā by Śrīraṅganātha, Bhāmatībhāvoddīpikā by Acyuta Kṛṣṇatīrtha, Bhāmatīvilāsa and Bhāmatīyakli-saṃgraha by unknown writers.

(iv) Tattvasamīkṣā:

Tattvasamī kṣā is a commentary on Maṇḍana’s Brahmasiddhi. Vācaspati Miśra had great respect for Maṇḍana Miśra and he followed his views in many respects. Brahmasiddhi is an Advaita Vedāntic work on which Vācaspati has written this commentary. However, this work has not been published till date. Hence, nothing can be said in particular about this work.

(v) Nyāyakaṇikā:

Nyāyakaṇikā is a very lucid commentary on the Vidhiviveka of Maṇḍana Miśra. Vidhiviveka is a work on the Bhāṭṭa school of Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā. Vidhiviveka discusses the meaning of Vidhi. Maṇḍana differs from the views held in that regard by Śabarasvāmī, Kumārila Bhaṭṭa, Prabhākara and Bhartṛmitra.

Vidhiviveka is a learned exposition of Vidhivāda in a concise śāstra style which is difficult to follow by itself. Vācaspati Miśra’s explanation made it easy to understand. In this commentary he made detailed elucidation of the different points on Vidhiviveka. The work Nyāyakaṇikā is divided into two parts viz., -Pūrvakaṇikā and Uttarakaṇikā. The first part is on the pūrvapakṣa section of Vidhiviveka and the second part goes to its siddhānta section.

(vi) Tattvabindu:

Tattvabindu is an independent work written by Vācaspati Miśra on the Bhāṭṭa school of Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā. In this work he established Abhihitānvyavāda by refuting other views including the Anvitābhidhānavāda of Prābhākaras. The main theme of the work is what is the efficient cause of verbal knowledge (vakyārthabodha)? Regarding the efficient or nimitta cause of śābdabodha, Vācaspati Miśra includes five traditional views of which four are considered primafacie (pūrvapakṣa) views and the fifth siddhānta or uttarapakṣa. Vācaspati Miśra discussed the five views very elaborately in his Tattvabindu.

(vii) Nyāyasūcīnibandha: 

It is an independent work on Nyāya system. As the name suggests it is an index of Nyāya philosophy. Vācaspati attempts to fix the number and order of the Nyāyasūtras of Gautama in proper form and sequence. Vācaspati himself says that he has done this in order to restore the proper order of the sūtras from the distorations made by the Buddhists. This work is supposed to have been written as a supplement to Tātparya. After arranging the sūtras in the form in which Vācaspati Miśra approves of these, he sums up thus: The Nyāya philosophy is a sum of 5 Addhyāyas, 10 Āhnikas, 84 Prakaraṇas, or sections with specific theme. In it the total number of sūtras is 528.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

Vide, Potter Karl H., Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, Vol. 2, p.453

[2]:

Vide, Ibid.

[3]:

trilocana-guṛunnita-mārgānugamanonmukhaiḥyathā-manam yathā vastu vyākhyātaṃ idaṃ idṛśaṃ.Nyāyavārtikatātparyaṭīkā, p. i

[4]:

nyāyasūcīnibandho’savakari sudhiyaṃ mude śri-vācaspatimiśrena vasv-aṅka-vasu vatsare. Nyāyasūcīnibandha, colophone, as quoted in A History of Indian Logic, p. 133

[5]:

nareśvarā yaccaritānukāramicchanti kartuṃ na ca pārayanti. tasminmahīpe mahanīyakīrtau śrīmannṛge’kāri maya nibandhaḥ. Bhāmatī on Brahmasūtraśāṃkarabhāṣya, Vol. 2, p. 1020

[6]:

Nyāyakaṇikā, p. 257

[7]:

Vide, Potter, Karl H., Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, Vol . 2 , p. 454

[8]:

Vide, Vidyabhushana , S.C., A History of Indian Logic, p. 329

[9]:

Vide, Potter, Karl H., Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, Vol . 2 , p. 339

[10]:

Cf. Ibid.

[11]:

Vide, Vidyabhushana, S.C., A History of Indian Logic, p. 133-144

[12]:

Dasgupta, S.N., A History of Indian Philosophy, Vol. 2, p. 107

[13]:

Cf. Sanskrit Introduction to Sāṃkhyatattvakaumudī, p. 2

[14]:

Bhāmatī on Brahmasūtraśāṃkarabhāṣya, Vol. 2, p. 1021

[15]:

Vide, Potter, Karl H., Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, Vol. 2, p.396

[16]:

Vide, Vidyabhushana , S.C., A History of Indian Logic, p. 134

[17]:

Rao, V.N. Sheshagiri, Vācaspati’s Contribution to Advaita, p. 7

[18]:

yannāyakaṇikātattvasamīkṣātattvabindubhiḥ, yannyāyasāṃkhyayogānāṃ vedāntānāṃ nibandhanaiḥ. Bhāmatī on Brahmasūtraśāṃkarabhāṣya, Vol. 2, p. 1020