As I discuss in this question, by far the most popular school of Hindu philosophy is the Vedanta school, which bases its tenets on the doctrines laid out in the Brahma Sutras, a work by the sage Vyasa that summarizes and systematizes the philosophical teachings of the Upanishads. (You can read the Brahma Sutras here.) But the Vedanta school didn't always have the dominant position in Hindu philosophy; before the time of Adi Shankaracharya the dominant school of Hindu philosophy was the Purva Mimamsa school, which I discuss here. In contrast to the Vedanta school which is devoted to analyzing the Jnana Kanda of the Vedas, i.e. the Upanishads, Purva Mimamsa focused on analyzing the Karma Kanda of the Vedas, i.e. the Samhitas and Brahmanas.
Now the Manameyodaya is a Purva Mimamsa work by Narayana Bhattar, a mathematician, philosopher, and poet who is most famous for the Narayaneeyam, a poem summarizing the Srimad Bhagavatam. In any case, in this excerpt from the Manameyodaya, Narayana Bhattar discusses the question of whether Hindu stories, like the stories of Rama and Krishna, really happened or not. Now most Mimamsakas believed that the stories given in Hindu scripture are mere Arthavada, statements designed to glorify actions, particularly the performance of Yagnas. But given that Narayana Bhattar was a great devotee of Krishna, he argues that Hindu stories are true:
What is called Tradition is said to be a statement depending on common talk; for example "Vaishravana [Kubera] sits on every banyan tree". This is recognized to be not a means of valid knowledge, since, as a general rule, it has no foundation. Now if it be so, then, indeed, how do you take the story of Krishna, Rama etc.? Not so, because like the Codes, they can have a foundation, being well-known to be the words of reliable persons; and because there is no opposition to other valid means of knowledge, such things are certainly Authority. Further, the authenticity of the story of Krishna etc. has been firmly established by the author of the Nyayanirnaya in establishing the superiority of the Purusha.
I'm interested in the part in bold. The only work I know of called "the Nyayanirnaya" is Anandagiri's Nyaya Nirnaya, which is Anandagiri's subcommentary on Adi Shankaracharya's Brahma Sutra Bhashya. So my question is, where in that work does Anandagiri establish the authenticity of Hindu stories?
As far as I know Anandagiri's Nyaya Nirnaya has never been translated into English, but you can read it here in Sanskrit. I can't read Devanagari script, but even if I could I'm not sure it would make much of a difference; Adi Shankaracharya's Brahma Sutra Bhashya is already quite long, so Anandagiri's commentary is presumably be even long. So it would be like finding a needle in a haystack, since Narayana Bhattar doesn't specify a chapter number, he just says that Anandagiri discusses it "in establishing the superiority of the Purusha".
But I'm not sure what part of Adi Shankaracharya's Brahma Sutra Bhashya would be most relevant to "the superiority of the Purusha." In any case, has anyone read Anandagiri's commentary, and if so what is the argument he presents regarding the authenticity of Hindu stories?