Part 5 - A probable mention by Bhaṭṭa Vādīndra

During the discussion on viśeṣaguṇas in his Rasasāra, a commentary on the guṇa padārtha of Udayana's Kiraṇāvalī, Bhaṭṭa Vādīndra mentions a counterargument against Udayana's definition of viśeṣaguṇas, and refutes it. The counterargument is not found either in Tattvapradīpikā or Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa), but is found in Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) Following are all the three stages; Udayana's explanation, Ānandajñāna's response to it, and Vādīndra's reply probably to that response.

Kiraṇāvalī	Tarkasaṅgraha	Rasasāra
viśeṣā eva vaiśeṣikaṃ tasya guṇāḥ svāśrayavyavacchedocitāvāntar asāmānyaviśeṣavanta ityarthaḥ/ naimittikadravatvaṃ pṛthivītejasoḥ sāmānyaguṇa ityata uktaṃ sāṃsiddhiketi/ tathāhi rūpaṃ bhāsvaratvādinā raso madhuratvādinā gandho gandhatvenaiva sparśa uṣṇatvādinā snehaḥ snehatvena yathoktaṃ dravatvaṃ tādrūpyeṇa buddhyādayo buddhitvādinā svāśrayamitarebhyo vyavacchindanti/ (Kiraṇāvalī (Udayana), p. 106)	na ca paramāṇvādigatarūpādivat tadgatapārimāṇḍalyādeḥ na viśeṣaguṇatvaṃ viśeṣābhāvāt svāśrayavyavacchedocitāvāntar asāmānyaviśeṣavattvasya tatrāpi sattvāt/ (Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna), p. 43)	svāśrayavyavacchedocitāvāntar asāmānyaviśeṣavanta iti/ navasu dravyeṣu madhye yasmin vartate tasyetarāṣṭadravyebhyaḥ svagatasāmānyopadhānena vyavacchedaheturviśeṣaguṇa ityarthaḥ/ tena parimāṇamapi paramāṇutvopahitasvāśrayapara māṇuvargasya paramamahattvopahitamākāśād ervyavacchedakamiti viśeṣaguṇaḥ syāditi nirastam paramāṇutvādiviśeṣitaparimāṇā der navānyatamamātravṛttitvābhāvā t/ (Rasasāra (Bhaṭṭa Vādīndra), p. 7)

Ānandajñāna attempts to apply the definition of viśeṣaguṇa given by Udayana on a sāmānyaguṇa like parimāṇa of paramāṇu, which is pārimāṇḍalya. Vādīndra specifically mentions this very counterargument regarding parimāṇa of paramāṇus and refutes it. If he has responded specifically to Ānandajñāna's counterargument, which is quite likely, then it again could imply the latter's relevance to the then criticism of Vaiśeṣika darśana. Gopīnātha Kavirāja accepts Vādīndra's date as 1252 CE.^[1] As discussed above, Ānandajñana's last year may have been around 1243 CE.

So this fits with his revised date. Based on a mention of the word 'mahāvidyāsu' in Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna), some scholars are of the opinion that Ānandajñāna has mentioned Bhaṭṭa Vādīndra's text Mahāvidyāviḍambana (Mahāvidyāviḍambana (Bhaṭṭa Vādīndra)) in his Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna)^[2] As per Bhaṭṭa Vādīndra's own words in the beginning of his Mahāvidyāviḍambana (Bhaṭṭa Vādīndra), it becomes clear that the mahāvidyā anumānas were already prevalent before Mahāvidyāviḍambana (Bhaṭṭa Vādīndra), and that Mahāvidyāviḍambana (Bhaṭṭa Vādīndra) was written to counter the criticism of mahāvidyā anumānas.^[3] Hence, it is possible that the mention of mahāvidyā by Ānandajñāna may not necessarily be that of Mahāvidyāviḍambana (Bhaṭṭa Vādīndra), but of mahāvidyā anumānas prevalent before the authoring of Mahāvidyāviḍambana (Bhaṭṭa Vādīndra) As is believed, before Bhaṭṭa Vādīndra, Kulārka Paṇḍita in around 11th century CE, composed his Daśaślokī, a text on mahāvidyā anumānas.^[4]

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

Rasasāra (Bhaṭṭa Vādīndra), Introduction to the first edition

[2]:

tarhi sarvāsveva mahāvidyāsu evaṃ ābhāsasamānatāsambhavāt ucchinnasaṃkathāḥ tāḥ syuḥ -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 1), p. 22

[3]:

samullasati vādīndracandre śaṅkarakiṅkare/ unmīlanti mahāvidyādoṣakairavakorakāḥ// -Mahāvidyāviḍambana (Bhaṭṭa Vādīndra) (Prathama Pariccheda), p. 3

[4]:

See bhūmikā of Mahāvidyāviḍambana (Bhaṭṭa Vādīndra), p. 5