The name of the Autlior of the Nyayasara
By Dasharatha Sharma
Summary
The authorship of the *Nyāyasara*, a key Hindu logic text from the mid-tenth century, is attributed to Bha-Sarvajñia, though scholars like Vidyābhūsaṇa and Keith initially debated this. Analysis of Rimacandra and Candrakīrti’s *Nyāyadarpaṇa* (c. 1150 CE) clarifies that the author’s original name was Sarvajñia, with the prefix "Bha" added respectfully by contemporaries, as noted in the text’s commentary. Sarvajñia, identified as Mahedvara of the Pāśupata sect, diverged from earlier logicians like Gautama by rejecting *anumāna* (inference) as a valid means of knowledge and defining liberation (*mokṣa*) as attaining divine lordship, aligning with Pāśupata tenets. Separately, Vyomasiva, likely from the late tenth century, authored *Vyomavati*, a commentary on Prāstāpada’s *Iṣāṇaśāstra*. Gunaratna and Rājasekhara cite him, with possible ties to an undated Niroda inscription referencing a scholar critical of Mimāṃsā, Buddhist, and Jaina philosophies. The inscription compares him to major thinkers, suggesting expertise in Nyāya, Vaisheshika, and Sāṃkhya. While his exact timeline remains uncertain, contextual evidence aligns him with Vyomasiva the commentator. Both works reflect distinct scholarly traditions within medieval Indian logic and philosophy.
Conclusion
The identification of Sarvajna as the author of the Nyayasara resolves longstanding attributional uncertainties in Hindu logic scholarship. This conclusion, supported by Rimacandra and Bhamaha’s references to "Bha-Sarvajna," underscores the sectarian context of his work, linking his adherence to Pasupata tenets with doctrinal divergences from Gautama’s orthodoxy. The analysis of his omniscience claims further challenges traditional notions of scholarly infallibility. For Vyomasiva, the proposed equivalence with the Vyomasiva of Niroda’s commentary suggests a tenth-century timeline, though tentative due to limited evidence. Both cases highlight the dynamic interplay between textual attribution and sectarian identity in shaping philosophical discourse.