At the beginning of the Nyāyakusumāñjali Udayana, the Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika philosopher, in his endeavour to prove the existence of God, declares all men to be theists at heart. Every school of philosophers and even non-philosophers like the craftsmen, he says, believe in Him in some form or the other, notwithstanding the difference in calling Him by various appellations. By way of example he refers to the Cārvāka-s who, according to him, consider ‘What is established in the worldly practice’ to be their God (lokavyavahārasiddha iti cārvākāḥ).

Commentators have tended to explain the term, lokavyavahāra in two ways. Varadarājamiśra, the earliest known scholiast, offers two alternatives: (i) the visible king and the like, or (ii) idols of gods in the form of having four arms.

He is followed by Kāmākhyānātha Tarkavāgīśa and T. Vīrarāghavācārya Śiromaṇi. Four other commentators, viz., Vardhamāna Upādhyāya, Rāmabhadra Sārvabhauma, Śaṅkaramiśra and Guṇānanda Vidyāsāgara, mention only the second interpretation. The point they wish to make is that one needs a visible entity for one's god, not an invisible one.

When does a commentator offer two or more alternatives in interpreting a word or a passage in the text? Instead of digressing into a long excursus, the question may be answered briefly as follows: If a commentator finds several interpretations equally appropriate to the context and/or equally logical but is not sure which of them corresponds to the author's intention, he records all the possible ones.