Part 3 - Relation with Śrīharṣa's Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya

A later date for Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) is based on the general view that Ānandajñāna belongs to the 13th century CE. As has been discussed previously, his date could begin with mid 12th century CE. In this way, he would become a contemporary of Śrīharṣa, who authored the Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) Mr. T. M. Tripathi has pointed out two instances due to which he thinks that Ānandajñāna was acquainted with Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) The first is his ṭīkā on the Taittirīyabhāṣya of Ādi Śaṅkarācārya, where he simply states the word 'khaṇḍanayukti'.^[1] However this does not prove Tripathi's point, because the word 'khaṇḍana' is not unique to Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) 

The other instance is when Ānandajñāna discusses anirvacanīyatā, where he assumes the position of the pūrvapakṣin and uses the phrase; 

'guravaḥ upāsyantāṃ yebhyo niruktayaḥ śikṣyante'.^[2]

This statement is also found in Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa)^[3] This similarity could as well be interpreted in the opposite manner. It could be said that the statement in Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) is taken from Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) T. A. Venkateshvara Dikshitar has spotted a verse from Ānandajñāna's pre-saṃnyāsa work Tattvāloka, which he thinks is from Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa)^[4] However it is not found in the latter. It is found in the Prakaṭārthavivaraṇa commentary on Brahmasūtraśāṅkarabhāṣya in the form of a quotation.^[5] Likewise it is found in Ānandabodha's Nyāyamakaranda as a quotation.^[6] It is also found in Bhāvasena's Viśvatattvaprakāśa in a similar manner.^[7] The original source of this verse could not be found.

One instance suggests that a portion of Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) takes an argument advanced in Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna), and further justifies it against counterarguments. The said justification is mentioned in the Tattvapradīpikā as well. Following are the excerpts.

Refutation of vyāpti

Tarkasaṅgraha	Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya	Tattvapradīpikā
jñeyatvasya kasyacit pratyakṣatvasya ca vyāptiṃ anusandadhānaḥ sarvajñaḥ syāt (Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna), p. 90)	prameyatvādivyāptiṅgṛhṇataḥ sārvajñaprasaṅgāt.. prameyatayā sarvaṃ tadā jñāyate eva natu rūpāntareṇa iti cenna yadi rūpāntareṇa tatprameyaṃ tadā rūpāntaravatopi prameyatvādhāratayā kathamagrahaṇam/ atha na prameyaṃ nāstyeva rūpāntareṇa tat yena tu rūpāntareṇāsti tena sarveṇa prameyamiti yāvadvidyamānākāreṇa jñātatvaprasaṅgaḥ... (Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa), pp. 345-347)	prameyatvābhidheyatvayor vyāptiṅgṛhṇataḥ sarvajñatvaprasaṅgāt/ nanu prameyatayā sarvaṃ jñāyate na tu rūpāntareṇeti cet maivam rūpāntarasyāpi prameyatvādhāratayā grahaṇaprasaṅgāt aprameyatve ca saptamarasādivattadasiddheḥ/ yena yena rūpeṇa yadyadasti tena tenākāreṇa tattatprameyamiti syādeva sarvajñatā... (Tattvapradīpikā, pp. 488-489)

The issue which Ānandajñāna stated merely in one statement, seems to have been expanded in Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa), from which the text of Tattvapradīpikā seems to be influenced. It does not seem to be the case that Ānandajñāna simply missed this important counterargument, because he has discussed the other parts of the topic in much detail. The counterargument seems to have originated after the authorship of Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna), which is why it seems that Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) takes the main argument and further justifies it against the counterargument.

The only difference is that Ānandajñāna talks of the vyāpti between jñeyatva and pratyakṣatva, whereas Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) takes prameyatva (and abhedheyatva?). Anything which is an object of jñāna (which could be either valid or invalid knowledge) is jñeya, whereas anything which is the object of pramā (valid knowledge) is prameya. But in the Padārthadharmasaṅgraha, it seems that both the terms 'prameya' and 'jñeya' hold somewhat similar meanings, because pramiti (or pramā) is equated with jñāna.^[8]

Although Ānandajñāna talks of the vyāpti between jñeyatva and pratyakṣatva, not everything is necessarily pratyakṣa. The options which Śrīharṣa and Citsukha pick, which are prameyatva and abhidheyatva, are common to all the padārthas of the Vaiśeṣika darśana and are equally distributed.^[9] If it were Ānandajñāna who had referred to Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa), he would have picked up such common characteristics of all the padārthas to hit at his opponent. There is a reason why Citsukha, while he refers to Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) many a time, takes the options of prameyatva and abhidheyatva (as understood by Citsukha and other commentators of Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa)) as provided in Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) Hence, it seems that Ānandajñāna gave the idea and the options in his Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) before Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa), and then Śrīharṣa in Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) chose better options for the demonstration of sarvajñatva. Along with this, the rejoinders against the jñeyatva or prameyatva, which may have been given by the opponents after getting acquainted with Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna), were then included in Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) Citsukha also included those rejoinders and the replies given by Śrīharṣa.

Another portion in both Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) and Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) seems to point to the same. This is from the refutation of dravya.

Tarkasaṅgraha	Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya	Tattvapradīpikā
saṅkhyaikārthasamavāyāt tatra saṅkhyābuddhirna mukhyā iti cet tarhi sattaikārthasamavāyāt tatra sattādhīḥ na mukhyā ityapi syāt/.. samavāyikāraṇatvaṃ tallakṣaṇaṃ iti cet na guṇādau ativyāpteḥ uktatvāt/ (Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna), pp. 19-20)	etena samavāyikāraṇaṃ dravyamityapi lakṣaṇaṃ nirastaṃ kathaṃ nirṇetavyamidaṃ samavāyikāraṇamidaṃ neti rūpādau ghaṭādau ca saṅkhyāsamavāyikāraṇatvayukt eḥ tulyatvāt saṅkhyaiva tu rūpādau nāstīti cet ghaṭādau kathamasti pratyayasyobhayatra tulyatvādityuktam anuṣañjanīyaṃ dravya eva saṅkhyāsvīkāre tatsaṃbandhāt guṇepi tadvyavahāropapattau kalpanālāghavād guṇe saṅkhyāsvīkāra iti cenna viparītameva kuto na syāt sattāsāmānyādyapi ca guṇādau kimartham aṅgīkriyate/ dravyadvāraiva tatra tadvyavahāropapatteḥ/ (Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa), pp. 585-586)	dravyagatasaṅkhyāpṛthaktvābhy ām eva tadekārthasamavāyalakṣaṇapratyāsatyā guṇādiṣvapi tadvyavahāropapattau vyarthā tatkalpaneti cet maivam viparyayasyāpi suvacatvāt/ atha guṇānām anekatve'pi dravyasyaikatvadarśanāt kathaṃ guṇasaṅkhyayā dravye tadvyavahāraḥ/ tarhīhāpi mādhyasthyam avalambya kimiti na dīyate dṛṣṭiḥ/ navaiva dravyāṇi caturviṃśatirguṇā iti saṅkhyāvaiṣamyāt athāvāntaradravyasaṅkhyāsaṃb hava-nimitto'yaṃ vyavahāraḥ tarhi parārddhasaṅkhyāvyavahāro'pi guṇeṣu syāt/ dravyeṣu tatsaṃbhavāt dravyagatasattāsāmānyādibhire va guṇakarmaṇorapi sadvyavahāropapattau tatra sattāsāmānyakalpanāvaiyarthyaprasaṅgācca/ etena samavāyikāraṇaṃ dravyamityapāstam/ jātamātrasya tadabhāvāt tadatyantābhāvānadhikaraṇatvas ya cātyantābhāve eva vyabhicārāt rūpādiguṇānāmapi saṅkhyāpṛthaktvasamavāyikāra ṇasva-saṃbhavāt/ (Tattvapradīpikā, pp. 457-458)

Here again, it looks as if the said portion of Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) has been explained in detail by Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) and Tattvapradīpikā The quoted portion of Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) removes doubts regarding the refutation of the definition of dravya as a 'samavāyikāraṇa'. The quoted portion of Tattvapradīpikā seems to have combined both Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) and Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa)

A closer look at the refutation of dravya in Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) and Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) reveals that unlike in Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna), in Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa), while refuting the basic definition of dravya, which is, 'guṇāśrayaḥ', Śrīharṣa does not spot the avyāpti fault regarding the freshly born dravya. He straightaway points to the idea that guṇas like rūpa and so forth possess saṅkhyā.^[10] During his time, the Vaiśeṣika idea that a freshly born dravya stays without a guṇa for a moment, was already known.^[11] Why then did Śrīharṣa miss this basic idea? It could be explained in the following manner. Even in Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna), where Ānandajñāna goes on to discuss the pratiyogitva of guṇavattvātyantābhāva and so forth, the central point of his whole argument is that the guṇas (and so forth) possess saṅkhyā.^[12] [1178] It seems that Śrīharṣa picked up this crux of Ānandajñāna's argument, which further became his argument against the definition of dravya as a samavāyikāraṇa.^[13] Interestingly, even Ānandajñāna took this crux as his argument against the same.^[14]

Once Śrīharṣa provides the argument of saṅkhyā against the definition of dravya as the guṇāśraya, he approaches the issue in a way which is quite similar to that of Ānandajñāna. Both show parasparāśraya fault in the idea that the knowledge of saṅkhyā in guṇas is secondary.^[15] One counterargument, which is missing in Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna), finds a mention in Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) The opponent in Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) says that there would be anavasthā in case there is saṅkhyā in saṅkhyā, and hence by calling saṅkhyā as being without saṅkhyā, it could be proved to be a guṇa.^[16] This is countered by him by stating the presence of pṛthaktva in saṅkhyā, and also that the pṛthaktva possesses saṅkhyā.^[17]

After this point, Śrīharṣa shifts the discussion to guṇas instead of dravyas, and after a short while of that discussion, he returns to the guṇāśraya definition. Here he discusses a detail regarding what the āśraya of guṇa would be. He presents his opponent as stating that the guṇasamavāyin is that where the guṇa is samaveta (resides with the samavāya relation).^[18] He puts forward some counterarguments against the idea of samavāya as 'ihapratyayahetu' and shows ativyāpti in the knowledge of yellow colour in conch.^[19]

After this short discussion, Śrīharṣa takes up the definition of dravya as 'samavāyikāraṇa', and just like Ānandajñāna, he returns to the point of guṇas like rūpa and so forth being the possessors of saṅkhyā.^[20] In Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna), there is a better continuity of argumentation, because it is within the issue of pratiyogitva that the issue of saṅkhyāvattva was being discussed and so is the issue of pratiyogitva of other guṇas like pṛthaktva and so forth. At the end of the short discussion on the pratiyogitva of those guṇas, Ānandajñāna takes to refute the definition 'samavāyikāraṇa', on the basis of the same ativyāpti in the case of saṅkhyāvattva.

Śrīharṣa comes again to the counterargument by his opponent as per which saṅkhyā resides only in dravya and it is due to the dravya's relation with the guṇa (rūpa and so forth) that the saṅkhyā is cognised in the latter.^[21] He replies to the opponent with a counterargument that if it is on the basis of kalpanālāghava that saṅkhyā is being said to reside only in dravya, through which it appears to reside in guṇas, then similarly sattāsāmānya and so forth can be said to exist in dravyas only, through which they could appear to reside in guṇas and so forth.^[22] This is very similar to the counterargument of Ānandajñāna against the Vaiśeṣika idea of secondary knowledge of saṅkhyā in guṇa and so forth.^[23]

In the case of Ānandajñāna, this counterargument appears in a better continuity, whereas in the case of Śrīharṣa, it appears after a long break. After entering into other discussions, Śrīharṣa goes back to the primary argument based on saṅkhyāvattva. Ānandajñāna's argument about the parasparāśraya fault in the idea that knowledge of saṅkhyā in guṇa and so forth is secondary, follows his counterargument about the secondary knowledge of sattā in guṇa and so forth. There seems to be a natural progression in Ānandajñāna's version, whereas in Śrīharṣa's version, there is some back and forth movement.

A question arises; why did Śrīharṣa mention his counterargument about the secondary knowledge of sattāsāmānya towards the end of his refutation of dravya? The answer could be that after countering the concepts of dravya and guṇa, the next in line to be countered, in Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) is sāmānya. So as per the plan that Śrīharṣa had made for his text, he needed a smooth transition from dravya to sāmānya. This could be the reason that he separated the said counterargument from its original and natural place, and placed it at the end. Hence it seems that Śrīharṣa may have referred to Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna), and because, as per his plan, he had only one single pariccheda to counter the whole of Vaiśeṣika darśana, he chose to stick to the crux of Ānandajñāna's argument against the two main definitions of dravya, which are 'guṇāśraya' and 'samavāyikāraṇa'. He rearranged the arguments to suit the design of his own text.

During the discussion on anirvacanīyatā, Śrīharṣa says:

"yadapi nirvaktumasāmarthye gurava upāsyantāṃ yebhyo niruktayaḥ śikṣyante ityupālambhavacanaṃ..."^[24]

Here he is seen citing a taunt which the opponents of anirvacanīyatā seem to have stated for those who believe in anirvacanīyatā. 

In a similar manner Ānandajñāna says in his Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna):

"kiṃ punaḥ anirvācyatvaṃ nāma nirvacanābhāvaḥ cet guravaḥ upāsyantāṃ yebhyo niruktayaḥ śikṣyante"^[25]

Towards the conclusion of this statement in both Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) and Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna), another similarity is seen:

"yastu vādī niruktyabhimānaṃ dhatte sa nirvaktuṃ natu śakṣyati vaktavyadoṣāt"^[26] —Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa)

"yena yena sattvādinā paro niruktyabhimānaṃ dhatte tena tena prāguktanyāyavaśāt nirvaktuṃ aśakyatvameva anirvācyatvaṃ ucyate"^[27] —Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna)

One implication of such a striking similarity of phrases is that Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) was composed while Ānandajñāna was referring to Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) Could there be another implication of this? In Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna), after discussing the various problems with calling the āropya (superimposed) as sat or asat, or even sadasat, Ānandajñāna says that via pāriśeṣya, anirvācyatva is to be accepted, because the various options of sattva, asattva and sadasattva stand invalidated.^[28] It is after this that Ānandajñāna asks the question; what even is anirvācyatva?^[29]  

Then he gives two options and replies about them from the standpoint of pūrvapakṣa:

"nirvacanābhāvaḥ cet guravaḥ upāsyantāṃ yebhyo niruktayaḥ śikṣyante nirvacanāyogyatvaṃ cet na tenatenātmanā tasya nirvacanadarśanāt iti cet maivam/"^[30]

At this point Ānandajñāna gives a verse as a refutation of the pūrvapakṣa and also as a decisive statement about what anirvācyatva is. 

He says:

"yenayena prakāreṇa paro nirvaktumicchati/ tenatenātmanā'yogastadanirvācyatā matā//"^[31]

It is at this point that Ānandajñāna says that in whatever way (sat, asat or sadasat) the opponent tries to define the āropya, on the basis of each of those ways, he shall be unable to define it, and this is what anirvācyatva is.^[32]  

Following is the sequence of Ānandajñāna's version:

i. If anirvācyatva is the absence of nirvacana, then serve the Gurus and learn niruktis from them.

ii. If anirvācyatva is taken to be the impossibility of nirvacana, it is unreasonable because it is seen that the āropya is defined either as sat or asat, and even as sadasat.

iii. (Ānandajñāna replies to the second) In whatever way one tries to define āropya, the inability of nirvacana in each of those ways is anirvācyatva.

Following is the sequence of Śrīharṣa's version, which comes after a brief introduction of the problem in nirvacanas of āropya as sat and asat:

i. The taunt, which is, 'if you are unable to define it, then serve the Gurus and learn niruktis from them', would suit them if the inability was told to be based on the fault of the speaker and not on nature of the meya (object) itself.^[33]

ii. The debater who thinks that he can define it, will not be able to define it, because the fault lies with the vaktavya (āropya).^[34]

It is to be noted that in Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa), the statement of taunt appears abruptly, because the discussion on anirvacanīyatā has merely begun, and just after a very basic demonstration of why āropya cannot be either sat or asat, Śrīharṣa straightaway states the taunt and responds to it. It must be noted that the statement which immediately precedes the quotation of the taunt, is that āropya cannot be either sat or asat, and that it is not about āropya being unable to be defined as sat or asat. If it were about the inability in defining āropya as sat or asat, it would have made more sense as to the placement of the quotation of taunt and the response to it.

Why does Śrīharṣa respond to the said taunt? May be because Ānandajñāna does not. Why does Ānandajñāna not respond to it? Because it is not the interpretation of anirvācyatva that he subscribes to (nirvacanābhāva). Ānandajñāna responds to the second option (nirvacanāyogyatva) and says that on the basis of the previous detailed discussion, the opponent, even though he thinks that he could define it, he shall be unable to do so. Similarly, even in Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa), the second statement (niruktyabhimānaṃ dhatte) is in response to the apparent ability of the opponent to define the āropya and not the taunt.

It can still be assumed that Ānandajñāna took these statements from Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) In his Nyāyavārttikatātparyapariśuddhi, Udayana similarly arranges the options of Ānandajñāna's pūrvapakṣa. 

He says:

"tathāhi kimidamanirvacanīyatvam kiṃ niruktiviraha eva āhosvinniruktinimittaviraha eva"^[35]

Citsukha mentions this portion of Udayana's counter against anirvacanīyatva and Pratyaksvarūpa notes while commenting on this, that this is what Udayana has stated in his 'Tātparyapariśuddhi'.^[36] It makes sense that as he has done elsewhere in Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna), Ānandajñāna took the options of anirvācyatva from Udayana, with a slight difference in words (nirvacanābhāva instead of niruktiviraha, and so forth). As Śrīharṣa has also only quoted the statement of taunt, and that too just at the very beginning of the discussion, and as Ānandajñāna's quotation of it as pūrvapakṣa appears after a long discussion, and also because the pūrvapakṣa's statement of the latter can be located in the text of an author whom Ānandajñāna has referred to many a time in Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna), it seems that the latter's version of the statement of taunt came before the one in Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa)

Ānandajñāna presents the statement of taunt as a response to 'nirvacanābhāva' (absence of definition), whereas Śrīharṣa presents it as a response to 'nirvaktum asāmarthya' (absence of the ability to define). Interestingly, Ānandajñāna loosely defines anirvācyatva as a kind of 'nirvaktum aśakyatva' (absence of the ability to define), which he states for his opponent who says that āropya can be defined in this or that manner. Śrīharṣa too winds up the issue of anirvācyatva as an inability. In Śrīharṣa's version, the response 'serve the Gurus, from whom niruktis are learnt' to 'the absence of ability of defining' does not seem to be a congruent response. The absence of the ability to define cannot be made up for by learning definitions. In Ānandajñāna's version, the said response is directed toward the 'absence of definition', which seems to be congruent, because the absence of definition can be made up for by learning definitions. For this reason also, it seems that the Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna)'s version of the statement of taunt is the original one, which was referred to by Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa)

If instead it is thought that it was taken from Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) into Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna), it does not seem to make sense because in any case Ānandajñāna does not respond to it directly, and instead responds to the second option. Had he copied it from Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa), it would have held some importance, and that Ānandajñāna would have directed some response against it. Instead Śrīharṣa targets it directly.

The question then arises, that if Śrīharṣa has referred to Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) for this portion in Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa), why does he not mention the definition of anirvācyatva as mentioned in Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna)?

The answer is that, he does not want to define it and incur the same fault. He says:

"parasyaiva vyavasthayaivaṃ paryavasyati nirvacanapratikṣepādanirvacanīyatvaṃ vidhiniṣedhayorekataranirāsasyetaraparyavasāyitāyāstenābhyupagamāt/ tataḥ parakīyarītyedamucyate anirvacanīyatvaṃ viśvasya paryavasyati iti"^[37]

This makes it clear that the reason why he did not mention the definition of anirvacanīyatva, is that it is not his endeavour. Instead his endeavour is to refute nirvacanīyatva and indirectly let anirvacanīyatva be established on its own. It seems that as per his own idea, had he defined it, he would have incurred the same fault, which is the impossibility of nirvacanīyatva. Defining anirvacanīyatva would make anirvacanīyatva nirvacanīya.

Hence, the preceding set of textual excerpts and their analysis seem to suggest that Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) could have come after Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) in chronology and that the former was authored while referring to Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) for certain portions. The case of Ānandajñāna's pre-saṃnyāsa guru Anubhūtisvarūpācārya composing a commentary on Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) called 'śiṣyahitaiṣiṇī', could simply mean that once Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) was authored, he read it and wrote a commentary on it, which could have been done even after the authorship of Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna)

In his commentary Vedāntaviveka on Nyāyadīpāvalī of Ānandānubhava, Ānandajñāna cites a verse from Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa)^[38] It could be the case that he authored this commentary after the authorship of Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) and Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) As mentioned in 5.2, in the said text he has called himself as Ānandagiri, whereas he has called himself as Ānandajñāna in Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) As has been already mentioned, he seems to have attained the name Ānandagiri toward the end of his lifetime. Hence, it is possible that he wrote the aforesaid commentary after composing Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) A citation of Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) in it does not seem to strictly imply that Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) was authored after Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa)

Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) being prior to Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) and Tattvapradīpikā, could further explain why Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) alone refutes all the categories and subcategories of Vaiśeṣika darśana (and Nyāya), including vitaṇḍā.^[39] Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) seems to have been the first attempt at least by an Advaita Vedāntin at comprehensively refuting the said darśanas, which was made further more precise and comprehensive by Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) and Tattvapradīpikā, where all categories and subcategories have not been refuted. It is to be noted that both Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) and Tattvapradīpikā have not refuted vitaṇḍā. Citsukha has referred to both Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) and Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) for authoring his Tattvapradīpikā

In Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa), guṇa has not been refuted individually, but only in relation with dravya. This method seems more precise than the method of Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna), where guṇa and guṇas have been individually refuted even after refuting dravya. However Tattvapradīpikā includes a separate refutation of guṇa and of some individual guṇas, which could be due to Citsukha's reverence toward Ānandajñāna, the latter being the former's Guru.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

etacca khaṇḍanayuktyasahamānamapi vyavahārāṅgaṃ bhavatīti nātīva sūkṣmekṣikā kāryā -Ānandajñāna's commentary on the Śāṅkarabhāṣya on Taittirīya Upaniṣad, Anuvāka 1. See Upaniṣadbhāṣya (Ādi Śaṅkarācārya), Vol. 1, p. 445

[2]:

Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 3), p. 135

[3]:

yadapi nirvaktumasāmarthye gurava upāsyantāṃ yebhyo niruktayaḥ śikṣyante ityupālambhavacanaṃ -Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) (Prathama Pariccheda), p. 69

[4]:

anyatheyamanālambā labhamānodayaṃ kvacit/ hanyādekaprahāreṇa bāhyārthaparikalpanām// -Vedāntatattvāloka (Janārdana) (Dvitīya Adhyāya), p. 31

[5]:

anyatheyamanālambā labhamānodayaṃ kvacit/ hanyādekaprahāreṇa bāhyārthaparikalpanam// Śārīraka Mīmāṃsā Bhāṣya (Ādi Śaṅkarācārya), Vol. 2 (Brahmasūtra 2.2.41), p. 663

[6]:

uktaṃ hi -"anyatheyamanālambā labhamānodayaṃ kvacid/ hanyādekaprahāreṇa bāhyārthaparikalpanām//" -Nyāyamakaranda (Ānandabodha) (Anirvacanīyatākhyātisthāpana), p. 121

[7]:

anyatheyamanālambā labhamānodayā kvacit/ hanyādekaprahāreṇa bāhyārthaparikalpanām// -Viśvatattvaprakāśa (Bauddhadarśanavicāra), p. 299

[8]:

prameyā dravyādayaḥ padārthāḥ pramātā''tmā pramitirdravyādiviṣayaṃ jñānam -Padārthadharmasaṅgraha (Praśastapāda) (Pratyakṣa Prakaraṇa), p. 160

[9]:

ṣaṇṇāmapi padārthānāmastitvābhidheyatvajñeyatvāni -Padārthadharmasaṅgraha (Praśastapāda) (Sādharmyavaidharmyaprakaraṇa), p. 6

[10]:

itopi guṇāśrayo dravyamityasaṅgatam/ tathāhi kathametallakṣaṇamavadhāraṇīyaṃ saṅkhyārūpaguṇavattayā rūpāderapi pratīteḥ/ -Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) (Caturtha Pariccheda), p. 581

[11]:

tatastatkāryavināśāt tatkāryasya vinaśyattā dvyaṇukasyotpādaḥ rūpādīnāmutpadyamānatā vibhāgakarmaṇorvināśa ityeṣāmekaḥ kālaḥ/ tata utpanne dvyaṇuke kāraṅguṇapūrvaprakrameṇa navame kṣaṇe rūpādyutpatiriti/ -Vyomavatī (Vyomaśiva), Part 2 (Pākajotpattiprakaraṇa), p. 28

[12]:

saṃkhyāvattvaṃ pratiyogitvena vivavakṣitaṃ iti cet na guṇādau ativyāpteḥ -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 1), p. [1178]

[13]:

etena samavāyikāraṇaṃ dravyamityapi lakṣaṇaṃ nirastaṃ kathaṃ nirṇetavyamidaṃ samavāyikāraṇamidaṃ neti rūpādau ghaṭādau ca saṅkhyāsamavāyikāraṇatvayuktestulyatvāt -Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) (Caturtha Pariccheda), p. 585

[14]:

samavāyikāraṇatvaṃ tallakṣaṇaṃ iti cet na guṇādau ativyāpteḥ uktatvāt -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 1), p. 20

[15]:

guṇādeḥ nirguṇatvasiddhau tatra saṅkhyābuddheḥ amukhyatvasiddhiḥ tatsiddhau ca tasya nirguṇatvasiddhāntasiddhiḥ iti parasparāśrayāt -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 1), p. 20 bhrāntirasau iti cenna parasparāśrayasaṅgāt saṅkhyāvattayā pratīterbhrāntitve guṇalakṣaṇasiddhistatsiddhau ca bādhena bhrāntivyavasthāpanaṃ -Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) (Caturtha Pariccheda), p. 582

[16]:

saṅkhyāyāḥ saṅkhyāvattve'navasthāprasaṅgānniḥsaṅkhyatvavyavasthau dṛṣṭāntatvaṃ bhaviṣyati iti cet -Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) (Caturtha Pariccheda), p. 582

[17]:

pṛthaktvenāpi tasyāḥ sambhāvitadravyakoṭipraveśāt/ evaṃ pṛthaktvasyāpi saṅkhyāvattayeti/ -Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) (Caturtha Pariccheda), p. 582

[18]:

guṇaḥ samaveto yatra sa guṇasamavāyīti vivakṣitam -Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) (Caturtha Pariccheda), p. 584

[19]:

iha śaṅkhe pītimeti pratyayācchaṅkhasya pītimādhikaraṇatvaprasaṅgāt -Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) (Caturtha Pariccheda), p. 584

[20]:

samavāyikāraṇatvaṃ tallakṣaṇamiti cet na guṇādau ativyāpteḥ uktatvāt -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 1), p. 20 rūpādau ghaṭādau ca saṅkhyāsamavāyikāraṇṭvayuktestulyatvāt -Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) (Caturtha Pariccheda), p. 585

[21]:

dravya eva saṅkhyāsvīkāre tatsaṃbandhād guṇepi tadvyavahāropapattau kalpanālāghavāt -Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) (Caturtha Pariccheda), p. 585

[22]:

viparītameva kuto na syāt sattāsāmānyādyapi ca guṇādau kimarthamaṅgīkriyate/ dravyadvāraiva tatra tadvyavahāropapatteḥ/ -Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) (Caturtha Pariccheda), p. 586

[23]:

saṅkhyaikārthasamavāyāt tatra saṅkhyābuddhirna mukhyā iti cet tarhi sattaikārthasamavāyāt tatra sattādhīrna mukhyā ityapi syāt/ -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 1), p. 19

[24]:

Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) (Prathama Pariccheda), p. 69

[25]:

Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 3), p. 135

[26]:

Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) (Prathama Pariccheda), p. 69

[27]:

Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 3), p. 136

[28]:

pāriśeṣyādanirvācyamāropyamupagamyatām/ sattvādīnāṃ prakārāṇāṃ prāguktanyāyabādhanāt// -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 3), p. 135

[29]:

kiṃ punaḥ anirvācyatvaṃ nāma -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 3), p. 135

[30]:

Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 3), p. 135

[31]:

Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 3), p. 136

[32]:

yenayena sattvādinā paro niruktyabhimānaṃ dhatte tenatena prāguktanyāyavaśāt nirvaktuṃ aśakyatvameva anirvācyatvaṃ ucyate -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 3), p. 136

[33]:

yadapi nirvaktumasāmarthye gurava upāsyantāṃ yebhyo niruktayaḥ śikṣyante ityupālambhavacanaṃ tattadā śobheta yadi meyasvabhāvā'nugāminīyamanirvacanīyateti na brūyuḥ vaktṛdoṣāditi ca vadeyuḥ -Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) (Prathama Pariccheda), p. 69

[34]:

yastu vādī niruktyabhimānaṃ dhatte sa nirvaktuṃ natu śakṣyati vaktavyadoṣāt -Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) (Prathama Pariccheda), p. 69

[35]:

Nyāyavārttikatātparyapariśuddhi (Udayana) (Trisūtrīprakaraṇa 1.1.1.2), p. 414

[36]:

evaṃ ca sati niruktivirahaḥ kiṃ vā niruktinimittasya ca viraha ityādivikalpo'kāṇḍatāṇḍavitam -Tattvapradīpikā (Prathama Pariccheda), p. 207 Pratyaksvarūpa notes on this: evaṃ ca sati yadudayanena tātparyapariśuddhau hi dvitīyasūtre viparyayavicārāvasare garjitaṃ... -Tattvapradīpikā (Prathama Pariccheda), p. 207.

[37]:

Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) (Prathama Pariccheda), p. 71

[38]:

upapādayituṃ taistairmatairāśaṅkanīyayoḥ/ anirvaktavyatāvādapādasevā gatistayoḥ// -Nyāyaratnadīpāvalī (Ānandānubhava) (Prathama Adhyāya), p. 67

[39]:

Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 2), p. 103