Lakshanasangraha of Narottama Bhatta is a precious work because it has collected nearly four hundred definitions of logical terms. This is being published for the first time by the Shrutbhavan Research Centre, Pune. For this the institute and particularly the Editor of this critical edition are worthy of congratulations by the spectrum of Sanskrit scholars in general and scholars and students of Indian Philosophy in particular. We all are indebted to Munishree Vairagyarativijay Ganivar, for this publication.
The moment one reads the name of the work of Narottama Bhatta, namely, the Lakshanasangraha, one is reminded of the similar type of work by the great Acharya Udayana named Lakshanavali. But there is a marked difference between the two so far as the quantity and the quality of both these works are concerned. The Lakshanavali of Udayanacharya consists of sixty-one definitions of Indian Logical terms whereas the Lakshanasangraha of Narottama Bhatta consists of almost four-hundred definitions of technical terms used in the systems of Nyaya and Navya Nyaya. This is the quantitative difference between the two works. So far as the qualitative distinction between the two is concerned, one may observe that Narottama Bhatta records only definitions of technical terms as the very title of the work suggests, whereas the great Acharya Udayana seems to have been unable to stick to the definitions only as even the title of his work suggests. One observes this because Udayanacharya, while giving the definitions of the technical terms with reference to the seven categories of entities as accepted by the Nyaya-Vaisheshika system, has also discussed the Anumana Pramana in details. This indicates that he does not stick to the area of definitions alone and also enters the area of examination.
Vatsyayana, the Bhashyakara of the Nyayasutras states - त्रिविधा चास्य शास्त्रस्य प्रवृत्तिरुद्देशो लक्षणं परीक्षा च। This means this शास्त्र ( i.e. Nyayashastra) has three sections of say three aspects. The first is Uddesha, the second is Lakshana and the third is Pariksha. Uddesha means stating or enumerating the issues to be discussed. Lakshana means definition. So this aspect of the Shastra defines the issues, concepts enumerated in the Uddesha section. The third aspect examines the accuracy of the definitions. Thus one can see that Lakshana aspect aims at defining different conceptual terms of the Shastra. The Acharyas who collected, the definitions of the Shastra, together have done a great for our to the students of Shastra. Just because these collections have brought all the definitions of different conceptual terms together and this helps a student find all definitions in one place. Thus, these Acharyas must be given due credit for such a help.
It seems that Narottama Bhatta’s attempt has collected so many more definitions if compared with Udayanacharya. He might have been inspired by the work of Udayanacharya and might have realized that many definitions have not been included by Acharya in his Lakshanavali. To meet with this desideratum, Narottama might have taken up the work of collecting many definitions. Udayanacharya had taken the seven categories of entities accepted by the Nyaya-Vaisheshika school of Indian Philosophy as the basis of his work, whereas Narottama Bhatta has the basis of the sixteen categories of entities stated by the first Nyaya-sutra of Gautama the Nyayasutrakara. Therefore, the work deserve to see the light of the day. The laudable attempt to publish it by the Shrutbhavan Research Centre, Pune must be recognized by students and scholars alike.
Another important fact is, the Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies as well as the New Catalogues Catalogarum are unaware of both, Narottama Bhatta and his work Lakshana-sangraha. This fact brings to our notice another fact that in spite of the attempts to record names of valuable works of ancient India, lying in the form of manuscripts, many works remain unknown and unnoticed by the compilers of different catalogues. It is many a time a matter of sheer luck that a scholar stumbles upon such a valuable work which is not noticed by anyone before. In the editorial, Munishree Vairagyarativijay Ganivar has mentioned that in the manuscript of this work, unearthed from the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, there is another work named, ‘Padartha-Dipika’ by one Kaundabhatta.
It is again a matter of co-incidence that one of my students has worked on the Padarthadipika for his research. In this editorial, Munishree Vairagyarativijay Ganivar has nicely brought out the relevant points such as -
- the Introduction to the work, 2) the purpose of publication, 3) the Materials for the publication, 4) the Method of editing and 5) the Appendices.
The last among these i.e. the three Appendices added to the work are useful for referring to various definitions.
I heartily congratulate the Shrutbhavan Research Centre, and particularly Munishree Vairagyarativijay Ganivar for this publication which has added a feather into the cap of the contributions of this Institute.
4-7-2017 - Dr. Ujjwala Jha Centre for Advanced Study in Sanskrit, S. P. Pune University, Pune-411007