A History of Navya-Nyāya Study and Its Future: Tathaivāsmābhir Viyogādāv Api Mantavyam / from the Methodological Point of View

Home , Indian logic

（34） From Rasa to Bhaktirasa（Okita） Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies Vol. 65, No. 3, March 2017 （35） atyuṣṇamadhuradugdhavan na tatra rasatvavyāghātaḥ / 19）Prītisandarbha, Anuccheda 111: kiṃ ca svābhāvikālaukikatve sati yathā laukikarasavidāṃ laukikebhyo ’pi kāvyasaṃśrayād alaukikaśaktiṃ dadhānebhyo vibhāvādyākhyāprāptakāraṇādibhyaḥ śokādāv api sukham eva jāyate iti rasatvāpattis A History of Navya-nyāya Study and Its Future: tathaivāsmābhir viyogādāv api mantavyam / From the Methodological Point of View

Primary Sources Kane, P. V., ed. 1923. The Sāhityadarpaṇa of Viśvanātha with Notes on Parichchhedas I, II, X and History of Alaṅkāra Literature. 2nd ed. Bombay: Pandurang Vamana Kane. Wada Toshihiro Purīdāsa Mahāśaya, ed. 1951. Śrī-śrīla-śrī-Jīva-gosvāmi-prabhupāda-viracite Ṣaṭsandarbhātmaka-śrī-śrī- Bhāgavatasandarbhe ṣaṣṭhaḥ. śrī-śrī-Prītisandarbha. Vṛndāvana: Haridāsa Śarmaṇa. 1. Method of Research Shastri, J. L., ed. 1983. Bhāgavata Purāṇa of Kṛṣṇa Dvaipāyana Vyāsa with Sanskrit Commentary Bhāvārthabodhinī of Śrīdhara Svāmin. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. In order to illustrate the history of Navya-nyāya study, I have focused upon the method Śivadatta, Paṇḍit, and Kāśīnāth Paṇḍurang Parab, eds. 1894. The Nāṭyaśāstra of Bharata Muni. of research employed by scholars in the field. There appear to be two major methods, Kāvyamālā 42. Bombay: Nirnaya-Sagara Press. which I have designated as the philosophical and historical. The former method Secondary Sources attempts to present a “rational interpretation” of Navya-nyāya texts based upon Hara, Minoru. 2009. “Divine Procreation.” Indo-Iranian Journal 52: 217–249. principles accepted by this school, 1) their commentaries, or traditional interpretation Lutjeharms, Rembert. 2014. “Can Devotion Become Rasa? Jīva Gosvāmī’s Prīti-sandarbha.” In still alive in India. Research employing this method sometimes lends itself to Caitanya Vaiṣṇava Philosophy: Tradition, Reason, and Devotion, ed. Ravi M. Gupta, 221–226. Farnham: Ashgate. comparative study, in particular a comparison between Navya-nyāya and Western Masson, J. L., and M. V. Patwardhan. 1970. Aesthetic Rapture: The Rasādhyāya of the Nāṭyaśāstra. Poona: schools of Logic. The latter method, on the other hand, attempts to investigate Deccan College. historical change and the development of concepts and theories. Pollock, Sheldon. 1998. “Bhoja’s Śṛṅgāraprakāśa and the Problem of Rasa: A Historical Introduction The study of Navya-nyāya 2) is said to begin with Ingalls (1951), who employed the and Translation.” Asiatische Studien / Études asiatiques 70 (1): 117–192. ———. 2016. A Rasa Reader: Classical Indian Aesthetics. New York: Columbia University Press. philosophical method working outside of India, though it is Sen (1924) who first Raghavan, V. 1978. Bhoja’s Śṛṅgāra Prakāśa. 3rd ed. Madras: Punarvasu. elucidated Navya-nyāya terms and translated part of the “Five Definitions of Invariable Concomitance Chapter” (Vyāpti-pañcaka) of the Tattva-cintāmaṇi-rahasya (TCR) of (This research was supported in part by the Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B) 2015–2018 from Mathurānātha (ca. 1650), 3) which is a commentary on the same-titled chapter of JSPS (15K16726)) Gaṅgeśa’s Tattva-cintāmaṇi (TC). Ingalls built upon Sen’s work, translating the entire Key words Abhinavagupta, Bengali Vaiṣṇavism, Jīva Gosvāmī, rasa, bhaktirasa Vyapti-pañcaka chapter of the TCR along with the same-titled chapter of the Tattva- （Assistant Professor, The Hakubi Center for Advanced Research, Kyoto University, PhD） cintāmaṇi-dīdhiti (TCD) of Raghunātha (ca. 1510). Ingalls’ work followed the same format as Sen’s with the translation accompanied by a chronology of Navya-nyāya authors found in the text and an analysis of technical terms and concepts. In comparison to Sen, Ingalls expanded his explanation of Navya-nyāya terms to include the basic terminology of the Vaiśeṣika school. He also made use of simpler symbolic notions, and the explanatory notes to his translations are more easily understood. Sen’s and Ingalls’ philosophical method and format were adopted by Potter (1957)

─ 1073 ─ （36） A History of Navya-nyāya Study and Its Future（Wada） A History of Navya-nyāya Study and Its Future（Wada）（37） and Matilal (1968). Potter illustrated Raghunātha’s innovative use of the ontological e.g., Staal, Philips, and S. Bhattacharyya, have compared Navya-nyāya with Western categories of Vaiśeṣika, while Matilal analyzed Gaṅgeśa’s and Raghunātha’s concepts of systems of Logic. A major disadvantage of the philosophical method is that it is not absence (abhāva), stimulating philosophical discussion on absence and negation among sufficient for constructing a history of Navya-nyāya. scholars. The second method of Navya-nyāya research, the historical, began with Frauwallner Staal (1960) used symbolic notations, which he borrowed from the modern Western (1966, 1967, 1970). Let us limit the scope of the discussion here to philological system of Logic, to illustrate the formal structure of the first five provisional definitions research. 6) Frauwallner attempted to interpret Raghunātha’s theory of inference and of invariable concomitance, or pervasion (vyāpti), given in the TC. Goekoop (1967) conclusive definition (siddhānta-lakṣaṇa) of invariable concomitance by comparing introduced symbolic notations to illustrate the logical structure of all the definitions in Raghunātha’s text with those of post-Gaṅgeśa and pre-Raghunātha Navya-nyāya translating the “Invariable Concomitance Chapter” (Vyāpti-vāda) of the TC, consulting authors, such as Yajñapati (ca. 1460), Jayadeva (ca. 1470), Vāsudeva (ca. 1480), and the TCR. Both scholars seem to say that any idea or thought expressed by the Rucidatta (ca. 1505). Frauwallner laid emphasis on the historical development of complicated structure of Sanskrit can be represented by logical principles or rules, theories and concepts rather than on the logical analysis of them. This method prevails which helps us to understand logicalness in Navya-nyāya. This is a definite advantage of most among modern scholars in the various fields of Indology but has only limited using such notations; a disadvantage is that no notation exists for the important Navya- application among scholars of Navya-nyāya. From Frauwallner’s standpoint the first nyāya terms such as delimitor (avacchedaka) and describer (nirūpaka). method is inappropriate. For him such a method appears to cut a long continuum into Of the many other Navya-nyāya scholars who have followed the philosophical small pieces and to look at each piece without seeing its relationship to the whole or a method, only a few can be mentioned here. Sarma (1960) analyzed a newly found certain range of the continuum. We may include under the historical approach K. manuscript of a Navya-nyāya manual, i.e., the Maṇikaṇa (MN). Mohanty (1966) Bhattacharya (1977, 1978, 1980, 1982, 1984), who analyzed Gaṅgeśa’s conclusive translated the “Truth Chapter” (Prāmāṇya-vāda) of the TC with a long explication of definition of invariable concomitance and Raghunātha’s and Jagadīśa’s interpretation. various theories of truth in Indian philosophy. Guha (1969) explained the meaning of G. Bhattacharya (1978) also belongs to this category. Vattanky (1984), who clarified the important Navya-nyāya terms such as delimitor (avacchedaka), counterpositiveness source of Gaṅgeśa’s proof of the existence of God by investigating pre-Gaṅgeśa theism, (pratiyogitā), and objectness (viṣayatā), and the Navya-nyāya usage of suffixes in specific may also be classified as this type. meanings. S. Bhattacharyya (1990) translated the “Discourse on Objectivity” (Viṣayatā- The two above-mentioned methods are adopted by Phillips (1997): more precisely, he vāda) of Gadādhara (ca. 1660) with a long introduction and detailed annotation of this attempted to avoid leaning on either method. He emphasized equally the historical text. 4) V. N. Jha (1987b) translated with annotation the Viṣayatā-vāda of Harirāma (ca. development of Navya-nyāya concepts and theories and the philosophical analysis of 1635), and a few chapters of the “Language Book” (Śabda-khaṇḍa) of the TC. 5) them. However, in Philips and Tatacharya (2002, 2004), he appears to be giving more Gerschheimer (1996) elucidated concepts and theories related to linguistic analysis in emphasis to the philosophical analysis on the TC. Although his research was not strictly Indian philosophy and translated Gadādhara’s Śakti-vāda with detailed notes. V. P. philological as in the case of the above scholars, we should also include here Ganeri Bhatta (2005, 2012) provided an annotated translation of the “Perception Book” (1999), who philosophically analyzed the linguistic views of Navya-nyāya, based upon (Pratyakṣa-khaṇḍa) and “Language Book” (Śabda-khaṇḍa) of the TC. the Śakti-vāda of Gadādhara as well as investigated them from a historical viewpoint by As noted earlier, the philosophical method sometimes lends itself to comparative referring to Vardhamāna (ca. 1345), Raghunātha, and Gadādhara (ca. 1660). studies, thus helping us to understand Navya-nyāya’s significance not only for Indian I do not wish to claim here that one method is superior to the other in its application philosophy but for philosophy in general. Of the above mentioned scholars, several, to Navya-nyāya research. Both methods have their inherent advantages and

─ 1074 ─ （36） A History of Navya-nyāya Study and Its Future（Wada） A History of Navya-nyāya Study and Its Future（Wada）（37） and Matilal (1968). Potter illustrated Raghunātha’s innovative use of the ontological e.g., Staal, Philips, and S. Bhattacharyya, have compared Navya-nyāya with Western categories of Vaiśeṣika, while Matilal analyzed Gaṅgeśa’s and Raghunātha’s concepts of systems of Logic. A major disadvantage of the philosophical method is that it is not absence (abhāva), stimulating philosophical discussion on absence and negation among sufficient for constructing a history of Navya-nyāya. scholars. The second method of Navya-nyāya research, the historical, began with Frauwallner Staal (1960) used symbolic notations, which he borrowed from the modern Western (1966, 1967, 1970). Let us limit the scope of the discussion here to philological system of Logic, to illustrate the formal structure of the first five provisional definitions research. 6) Frauwallner attempted to interpret Raghunātha’s theory of inference and of invariable concomitance, or pervasion (vyāpti), given in the TC. Goekoop (1967) conclusive definition (siddhānta-lakṣaṇa) of invariable concomitance by comparing introduced symbolic notations to illustrate the logical structure of all the definitions in Raghunātha’s text with those of post-Gaṅgeśa and pre-Raghunātha Navya-nyāya translating the “Invariable Concomitance Chapter” (Vyāpti-vāda) of the TC, consulting authors, such as Yajñapati (ca. 1460), Jayadeva (ca. 1470), Vāsudeva (ca. 1480), and the TCR. Both scholars seem to say that any idea or thought expressed by the Rucidatta (ca. 1505). Frauwallner laid emphasis on the historical development of complicated structure of Sanskrit can be represented by logical principles or rules, theories and concepts rather than on the logical analysis of them. This method prevails which helps us to understand logicalness in Navya-nyāya. This is a definite advantage of most among modern scholars in the various fields of Indology but has only limited using such notations; a disadvantage is that no notation exists for the important Navya- application among scholars of Navya-nyāya. From Frauwallner’s standpoint the first nyāya terms such as delimitor (avacchedaka) and describer (nirūpaka). method is inappropriate. For him such a method appears to cut a long continuum into Of the many other Navya-nyāya scholars who have followed the philosophical small pieces and to look at each piece without seeing its relationship to the whole or a method, only a few can be mentioned here. Sarma (1960) analyzed a newly found certain range of the continuum. We may include under the historical approach K. manuscript of a Navya-nyāya manual, i.e., the Maṇikaṇa (MN). Mohanty (1966) Bhattacharya (1977, 1978, 1980, 1982, 1984), who analyzed Gaṅgeśa’s conclusive translated the “Truth Chapter” (Prāmāṇya-vāda) of the TC with a long explication of definition of invariable concomitance and Raghunātha’s and Jagadīśa’s interpretation. various theories of truth in Indian philosophy. Guha (1969) explained the meaning of G. Bhattacharya (1978) also belongs to this category. Vattanky (1984), who clarified the important Navya-nyāya terms such as delimitor (avacchedaka), counterpositiveness source of Gaṅgeśa’s proof of the existence of God by investigating pre-Gaṅgeśa theism, (pratiyogitā), and objectness (viṣayatā), and the Navya-nyāya usage of suffixes in specific may also be classified as this type. meanings. S. Bhattacharyya (1990) translated the “Discourse on Objectivity” (Viṣayatā- The two above-mentioned methods are adopted by Phillips (1997): more precisely, he vāda) of Gadādhara (ca. 1660) with a long introduction and detailed annotation of this attempted to avoid leaning on either method. He emphasized equally the historical text. 4) V. N. Jha (1987b) translated with annotation the Viṣayatā-vāda of Harirāma (ca. development of Navya-nyāya concepts and theories and the philosophical analysis of 1635), and a few chapters of the “Language Book” (Śabda-khaṇḍa) of the TC. 5) them. However, in Philips and Tatacharya (2002, 2004), he appears to be giving more Gerschheimer (1996) elucidated concepts and theories related to linguistic analysis in emphasis to the philosophical analysis on the TC. Although his research was not strictly Indian philosophy and translated Gadādhara’s Śakti-vāda with detailed notes. V. P. philological as in the case of the above scholars, we should also include here Ganeri Bhatta (2005, 2012) provided an annotated translation of the “Perception Book” (1999), who philosophically analyzed the linguistic views of Navya-nyāya, based upon (Pratyakṣa-khaṇḍa) and “Language Book” (Śabda-khaṇḍa) of the TC. the Śakti-vāda of Gadādhara as well as investigated them from a historical viewpoint by As noted earlier, the philosophical method sometimes lends itself to comparative referring to Vardhamāna (ca. 1345), Raghunātha, and Gadādhara (ca. 1660). studies, thus helping us to understand Navya-nyāya’s significance not only for Indian I do not wish to claim here that one method is superior to the other in its application philosophy but for philosophy in general. Of the above mentioned scholars, several, to Navya-nyāya research. Both methods have their inherent advantages and

─ 1075 ─ （38） A History of Navya-nyāya Study and Its Future（Wada） A History of Navya-nyāya Study and Its Future（Wada）（39） disadvantages, as mentioned above. Dealing with linguistic analysis and shifting the focus from the manual texts to texts by individual authors, Kudō (1997) began an annotated translation of the Kāraka-cakra 2. Research in Japan of Bhavānanda (ca. 1600) in Japanese. Wada (2007a, 2012, 2013, 2014b) completed his Most of the Japanese scholars studying Navya-nyāya have adopted the philosophical annotated translation of the “Verbal Suffixes Chapter” (Ākhyāta-vāda) of the TC, 9) and method rather than the historical one. The focus of their research has been the so- Wada (2015, 2016) is currently carrying out a project to translate with annotation called manual texts (prakaraṇa-grantha), such as the Tarka-saṃgraha (TS), the Tarka-dīpikā Raghunātha’s independent work, i.e., the “Discourse on Verbal suffixes” (Ākhyāta-vāda). (TD), the MK, the Bhāṣā-pariccheda (BhP, also called the Kārikāvalī), the Nyāya-siddhānta- Iwasaki (2010, 2014) analyzed Gaṅgeśa’s theories of language, paying special muktāvalī (NSM, a commentary on the BhP), and the modern manual text entitled the attention to their historical background. Iwasaki (2015) includes his past investigations Navyanyāya-bhāṣāpradīpa 7) (NBhP: its English introduction is dated 1891). Uno (1971) of those theories and a translation of the first five chapters of the “Language Book” of translated with annotation part of the BhP and the NSM, which (part) deals with the the TC. It is noteworthy that, like Phillips, he adopts both methods of research, Navya-nyāya theories of inference, into Japanese. He also published Japanese annotated philosophical and historical. translations of the TS, the TD, and the NBhP, and reprinted them in Uno (1996). 3. Concluding Remarks Miyamoto and Ishitobi set about translating the MK into Japanese with annotation and combined their translations of separate sections of the text into one book in 1998. While it is the case that most Indian scholars of Navya-nyāya who follow the The historical method, on the other hand, was adopted by Marui and Yamamoto in philosophical method do not attempt a comparison of Navya-nyāya features 10) with dealing with Navya-nyāya texts other than the manual texts. Marui (1987, 1988) those of Western schools of logic, scholars of Navya-nyāya outside of India following clarified the concept of injunction (vidhi) and the structure of the discussion on this this method are likely to seek such a comparison. Scholars who adopt the historical concept found in Udayana’s text and the NSM. Yamamoto (2015) attempted to trace the method, on the other hand, generally avoid comparative study. historical development of the concept of liberation (mukti) from the Nyāyasūtras to the We are aware that we need more information on Navya-nyāya authors and texts to TC with a Japanese translation of the “Liberation Chapter” (Mukti-vāda) of the TC and a fully construct a history of Navya-nyāya. We cannot be sure when we have reached that critical edition of the Sanskrit text. Both scholars have shown little interest in the point where we have enough information to accomplish this task. In the meantime we logical theories of Navya-nyāya, unlike those who have dealt with the manual texts. should embrace all methods of research, including the philosophical and historical, Dealing with logical theories but moving the focus from the manual texts to texts recognizing the advantages and limitations of both, and aiming for the collaborative composed by individual authors, Wada (1990) analyzed basic Navya-nyāya concepts, effort of all scholars in the field. As Navya-nyāya research advances, the distinction such as delimitor and describer, and presented a clarification of Gaṅgeśa’s and between the philosophical and historical methods will become less rigid. It will become Raghunātha’s conclusive definitions of invariable concomitance with the annotated more and more the case that a scholar following one method will incorporate aspects of translation of the “Conclusive Definition of Invariable Concomitance Chapter” the other method in his/her research. (Siddhānta-lakṣaṇa) of the TC and the TCD. Wada (2007b) made clear the general trend Among the Navya-nyāya authors, Gaṅgeśa and Raghunātha have received the most of Navya-nyāya analysis by comparing Śaśadhara’s, Gaṅgeśa’s, and Mathurānātha’s attention of scholars, while Jagadīśa and Gadādhara have received less. Now would be definitions of invariable concomitance. Both Wada’s works introduce diagrams 8) to the proper time to focus our attention on those authors that belong to the period illustrate the logical structure of those definitions; such diagrams will prove useful in between Gaṅgeśa and Raghunātha. In order to shed more light on the origin of Navya- illustrating other concepts of the Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika schools. nyāya, we also need to do more research on post-Udayana and pre-Gaṅgeśa authors,

─ 1076 ─ （38） A History of Navya-nyāya Study and Its Future（Wada） A History of Navya-nyāya Study and Its Future（Wada）（39） disadvantages, as mentioned above. Dealing with linguistic analysis and shifting the focus from the manual texts to texts by individual authors, Kudō (1997) began an annotated translation of the Kāraka-cakra 2. Research in Japan of Bhavānanda (ca. 1600) in Japanese. Wada (2007a, 2012, 2013, 2014b) completed his Most of the Japanese scholars studying Navya-nyāya have adopted the philosophical annotated translation of the “Verbal Suffixes Chapter” (Ākhyāta-vāda) of the TC, 9) and method rather than the historical one. The focus of their research has been the so- Wada (2015, 2016) is currently carrying out a project to translate with annotation called manual texts (prakaraṇa-grantha), such as the Tarka-saṃgraha (TS), the Tarka-dīpikā Raghunātha’s independent work, i.e., the “Discourse on Verbal suffixes” (Ākhyāta-vāda). (TD), the MK, the Bhāṣā-pariccheda (BhP, also called the Kārikāvalī), the Nyāya-siddhānta- Iwasaki (2010, 2014) analyzed Gaṅgeśa’s theories of language, paying special muktāvalī (NSM, a commentary on the BhP), and the modern manual text entitled the attention to their historical background. Iwasaki (2015) includes his past investigations Navyanyāya-bhāṣāpradīpa 7) (NBhP: its English introduction is dated 1891). Uno (1971) of those theories and a translation of the first five chapters of the “Language Book” of translated with annotation part of the BhP and the NSM, which (part) deals with the the TC. It is noteworthy that, like Phillips, he adopts both methods of research, Navya-nyāya theories of inference, into Japanese. He also published Japanese annotated philosophical and historical. translations of the TS, the TD, and the NBhP, and reprinted them in Uno (1996). 3. Concluding Remarks Miyamoto and Ishitobi set about translating the MK into Japanese with annotation and combined their translations of separate sections of the text into one book in 1998. While it is the case that most Indian scholars of Navya-nyāya who follow the The historical method, on the other hand, was adopted by Marui and Yamamoto in philosophical method do not attempt a comparison of Navya-nyāya features 10) with dealing with Navya-nyāya texts other than the manual texts. Marui (1987, 1988) those of Western schools of logic, scholars of Navya-nyāya outside of India following clarified the concept of injunction (vidhi) and the structure of the discussion on this this method are likely to seek such a comparison. Scholars who adopt the historical concept found in Udayana’s text and the NSM. Yamamoto (2015) attempted to trace the method, on the other hand, generally avoid comparative study. historical development of the concept of liberation (mukti) from the Nyāyasūtras to the We are aware that we need more information on Navya-nyāya authors and texts to TC with a Japanese translation of the “Liberation Chapter” (Mukti-vāda) of the TC and a fully construct a history of Navya-nyāya. We cannot be sure when we have reached that critical edition of the Sanskrit text. Both scholars have shown little interest in the point where we have enough information to accomplish this task. In the meantime we logical theories of Navya-nyāya, unlike those who have dealt with the manual texts. should embrace all methods of research, including the philosophical and historical, Dealing with logical theories but moving the focus from the manual texts to texts recognizing the advantages and limitations of both, and aiming for the collaborative composed by individual authors, Wada (1990) analyzed basic Navya-nyāya concepts, effort of all scholars in the field. As Navya-nyāya research advances, the distinction such as delimitor and describer, and presented a clarification of Gaṅgeśa’s and between the philosophical and historical methods will become less rigid. It will become Raghunātha’s conclusive definitions of invariable concomitance with the annotated more and more the case that a scholar following one method will incorporate aspects of translation of the “Conclusive Definition of Invariable Concomitance Chapter” the other method in his/her research. (Siddhānta-lakṣaṇa) of the TC and the TCD. Wada (2007b) made clear the general trend Among the Navya-nyāya authors, Gaṅgeśa and Raghunātha have received the most of Navya-nyāya analysis by comparing Śaśadhara’s, Gaṅgeśa’s, and Mathurānātha’s attention of scholars, while Jagadīśa and Gadādhara have received less. Now would be definitions of invariable concomitance. Both Wada’s works introduce diagrams 8) to the proper time to focus our attention on those authors that belong to the period illustrate the logical structure of those definitions; such diagrams will prove useful in between Gaṅgeśa and Raghunātha. In order to shed more light on the origin of Navya- illustrating other concepts of the Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika schools. nyāya, we also need to do more research on post-Udayana and pre-Gaṅgeśa authors,

─ 1077 ─ （40） A History of Navya-nyāya Study and Its Future（Wada） A History of Navya-nyāya Study and Its Future（Wada）（41） such as Śaśadhara (ca. 1275–1325) and Maṇikaṇṭha (ca. 1275–1325). To understand the Bhattacharya, Gopikamohan. 1978. Navya-Nyāya: Some Logical Problems in Historical Perspective. Delhi: most advanced stage of Navya-nyāya, more research on Jagadīśa and Gadādhara is Bharatiya Vidya Prakashan. Bhattacharya, Kamaleswar. 1977. “Le Siddhāntalakṣaṇaprakaraṇa du Tattvacintāmaṇi de Gaṅgeśa required. avec la Dīdhiti de Raghunātha Śiromaṇi et la Ṭīkā de Jagadīśa Tarkālaṃkāra.” Journal Asiatique Apart from the above goals, we need to inquire into the significance of Navya-nyāya 265: 97–139. for the history of philosophy in general, seeking dialogue with those who belong to ———. 1978. “Le Siddhāntalakṣaṇaprakaraṇa du Tattvacintāmaṇi de Gaṅgeśa avec la Dīdhiti de other philosophical traditions outside of India. Raghunātha Śiromaṇi et la Ṭīkā de Jagadīśa Tarkālaṃkāra.” Journal Asiatique 266: 97–124. ———. 1980. “Le Siddhāntalakṣaṇaprakaraṇa du Tattvacintāmaṇi de Gaṅgeśa avec la Dīdhiti de Raghunātha Śiromaṇi et la Ṭīkā de Jagadīśa Tarkālaṃkāra.” Journal Asiatique 268: 275–321. *I wish to thank Dr. Charles Pain for correcting my English. ———. 1982. “Le Siddhāntalakṣaṇaprakaraṇa du Tattvacintāmaṇi de Gaṅgeśa avec la Dīdhiti de Notes Raghunātha Śiromaṇi et la Ṭīkā de Jagadīśa Tarkālaṃkāra.” Journal Asiatique 270: 401–413. ——— 1）In most cases these principles are acquired from the so-called manual texts of Navya-nyāya, . 1984. “Le Siddhāntalakṣaṇaprakaraṇa du Tattvacintāmaṇi de Gaṅgeśa avec la Dīdhiti de which are mentioned in the beginning of the second section of this paper. 2）On the question Raghunātha Śiromaṇi et la Ṭīkā de Jagadīśa Tarkālaṃkāra.” Journal Asiatique 272: 47–82. of who is the founder of this school, there are three views: Udayana (ca. 11th c.), Gaṅgeśa (ca. 14th Bhattacharyya, Sibajiban. 1990. Gadādhara’s Theory of Objectivity: Viṣayatāvāda. 2 vols. New Delhi: c.), or some author belonging to the period between them. Wada (2007b, 9–23) takes the view that Indian Council of Philosophical Research. ——— Udayana furnished the basis to Navya-nyāya, and that Gaṅgeśa established its system. 3）On . 1996. Gaṅgeśa’s Theory of Indeterminate Perception: Nirvikalpakavāda. New Delhi: Indian the dates of the Navya-nyāya authors dealt with in this paper, I have followed Potter (1977, 9–12); Council of Philosophical Research. Potter and Bhattacharyya (1993, 12–13); Bhattacharyya and Potter (2011, 9–20). 4）Following Bhattacharyya, Sibajiban, and Karl H. Potter, eds. 2011. Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies. Vol. 13, the method adopted in this book, S. Bhattacharyya (1996) presents an explication of terms related Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika Philosophy from 1515 to 1660. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. to indeterminate cognition and translates the Nirvikalpaka-vāda of the TC. 5）Jha (1986, Frauwallner, Erich. 1966. “Raghunātha Śiromaṇi.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Süd- und Ostasiens 1987a) presents a translation of the Vidhi-vāda and the Apūrva-vāda of the TC. 6）If we do 10: 86–204. ——— not limit the scope, we can mention Vidyabhusana (1921, 405–493), Mishra (1966, 147–479), etc., . 1967. “Raghunātha Śiromaṇi.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Süd- und Ostasiens 11: 140–208. ——— which give a general description of the Navya-nyāya authors. We should also mention here D. C. . 1970. “Raghunātha Śiromaṇi.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Süd- und Ostasiens 14: 161–208. Bhattacharya (1958), whose descriptions of Navya-nyāya authors from Udayana through 19th Ganeri, Jonardon. 1999. Semantic Power: Meaning and the Means of Knowing in Classical Indian century authors in Mithilā, provide a useful tool for those employing the historical method. Philosophy. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 7）The author of this text is Maheśa Chandra Nyāyaratna, and the text is published in Nyāyaratna Gerschheimer, Gerdi. 1996. La théorie de la signification chez Gadādhara: Le sāmānyakāṇḍa du (1973); Uno (1996, 120–135). For the Japanese translation of the NBhP and English introduction to śaktivādavicāra. 2 vols. Paris: Collège de France. this text, see Uno (1996, 77–119). 8）On the history of the diagrams, and the advantages and Goekoop, C. 1967. The Logic of Invariable Concomitance in the Tattvacintāmaṇi. Dordrecht: D. Reidel disadvantages of using them, see Wada (2007b, 38–46). 9）Depending upon the annotated Publishing Company. translation, Wada (2014a) arrived at Gaṅgeśa’s final view of the meaning of verbal suffixes. Guha, Dinesh Chandra. 1968. Navya Nyāya System of Logic. Varanasi: Bharatiya Vidya Prakasan. 10）On those features, see Wada (2007b, 20–23). Ingalls, Daniel H. H. 1951. Materials for the Study of Navya-Nyāya Logic. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Bibliography Iwasaki Yōichi 岩崎陽一. 2010. “Tattvacintāmaṇi ni okeru kotoba no datōsei no konkyo to kakutei における言葉の妥当性の根拠と確定方法 Bhatta, V. P. 2005. Word: The Śabdakhaṇḍa of the Tattvacintāmaṇi. 2 vols. Delhi: Eastern Book Linkers. hōhō” Tattvacintāmaṇi . Indo tetsugaku Bukkyōgaku インド哲学仏教学研究 ———. 2012. Perception: The Pratyakṣa Khaṇḍa of the Tattvacintāmaṇi. 2 vols. Delhi: Eastern Book kenkyū 17: 41–55. ——— ガンゲーシャの言葉補充説 Linkers. . 2014. “Gangēsha no kotoba hojū-setsu” . Indo ronrigaku kenkyū インド論理学研究 Bhattacharya, Dineshchandra. 1958. History of Navya-nyāya in Mithilā. Darbhanga: Mithilā Institute 7: 301–314. ——— ガンゲーシャの言 of Post-Graduate Studies and Research in Sanskrit Learning. . 2015. “Gangēsha no gengo jōhō riron: Kotoba no ‘tadashisa’ o megutte” 語情報理論: 言葉の「正しさ」をめぐって. PhD diss., The University of Tokyo.

─ 1078 ─ （40） A History of Navya-nyāya Study and Its Future（Wada） A History of Navya-nyāya Study and Its Future（Wada）（41） such as Śaśadhara (ca. 1275–1325) and Maṇikaṇṭha (ca. 1275–1325). To understand the Bhattacharya, Gopikamohan. 1978. Navya-Nyāya: Some Logical Problems in Historical Perspective. Delhi: most advanced stage of Navya-nyāya, more research on Jagadīśa and Gadādhara is Bharatiya Vidya Prakashan. Bhattacharya, Kamaleswar. 1977. “Le Siddhāntalakṣaṇaprakaraṇa du Tattvacintāmaṇi de Gaṅgeśa required. avec la Dīdhiti de Raghunātha Śiromaṇi et la Ṭīkā de Jagadīśa Tarkālaṃkāra.” Journal Asiatique Apart from the above goals, we need to inquire into the significance of Navya-nyāya 265: 97–139. for the history of philosophy in general, seeking dialogue with those who belong to ———. 1978. “Le Siddhāntalakṣaṇaprakaraṇa du Tattvacintāmaṇi de Gaṅgeśa avec la Dīdhiti de other philosophical traditions outside of India. Raghunātha Śiromaṇi et la Ṭīkā de Jagadīśa Tarkālaṃkāra.” Journal Asiatique 266: 97–124. ———. 1980. “Le Siddhāntalakṣaṇaprakaraṇa du Tattvacintāmaṇi de Gaṅgeśa avec la Dīdhiti de Raghunātha Śiromaṇi et la Ṭīkā de Jagadīśa Tarkālaṃkāra.” Journal Asiatique 268: 275–321. *I wish to thank Dr. Charles Pain for correcting my English. ———. 1982. “Le Siddhāntalakṣaṇaprakaraṇa du Tattvacintāmaṇi de Gaṅgeśa avec la Dīdhiti de Notes Raghunātha Śiromaṇi et la Ṭīkā de Jagadīśa Tarkālaṃkāra.” Journal Asiatique 270: 401–413. ——— 1）In most cases these principles are acquired from the so-called manual texts of Navya-nyāya, . 1984. “Le Siddhāntalakṣaṇaprakaraṇa du Tattvacintāmaṇi de Gaṅgeśa avec la Dīdhiti de which are mentioned in the beginning of the second section of this paper. 2）On the question Raghunātha Śiromaṇi et la Ṭīkā de Jagadīśa Tarkālaṃkāra.” Journal Asiatique 272: 47–82. of who is the founder of this school, there are three views: Udayana (ca. 11th c.), Gaṅgeśa (ca. 14th Bhattacharyya, Sibajiban. 1990. Gadādhara’s Theory of Objectivity: Viṣayatāvāda. 2 vols. New Delhi: c.), or some author belonging to the period between them. Wada (2007b, 9–23) takes the view that Indian Council of Philosophical Research. ——— Udayana furnished the basis to Navya-nyāya, and that Gaṅgeśa established its system. 3）On . 1996. Gaṅgeśa’s Theory of Indeterminate Perception: Nirvikalpakavāda. New Delhi: Indian the dates of the Navya-nyāya authors dealt with in this paper, I have followed Potter (1977, 9–12); Council of Philosophical Research. Potter and Bhattacharyya (1993, 12–13); Bhattacharyya and Potter (2011, 9–20). 4）Following Bhattacharyya, Sibajiban, and Karl H. Potter, eds. 2011. Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies. Vol. 13, the method adopted in this book, S. Bhattacharyya (1996) presents an explication of terms related Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika Philosophy from 1515 to 1660. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. to indeterminate cognition and translates the Nirvikalpaka-vāda of the TC. 5）Jha (1986, Frauwallner, Erich. 1966. “Raghunātha Śiromaṇi.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Süd- und Ostasiens 1987a) presents a translation of the Vidhi-vāda and the Apūrva-vāda of the TC. 6）If we do 10: 86–204. ——— not limit the scope, we can mention Vidyabhusana (1921, 405–493), Mishra (1966, 147–479), etc., . 1967. “Raghunātha Śiromaṇi.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Süd- und Ostasiens 11: 140–208. ——— which give a general description of the Navya-nyāya authors. We should also mention here D. C. . 1970. “Raghunātha Śiromaṇi.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Süd- und Ostasiens 14: 161–208. Bhattacharya (1958), whose descriptions of Navya-nyāya authors from Udayana through 19th Ganeri, Jonardon. 1999. Semantic Power: Meaning and the Means of Knowing in Classical Indian century authors in Mithilā, provide a useful tool for those employing the historical method. Philosophy. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 7）The author of this text is Maheśa Chandra Nyāyaratna, and the text is published in Nyāyaratna Gerschheimer, Gerdi. 1996. La théorie de la signification chez Gadādhara: Le sāmānyakāṇḍa du (1973); Uno (1996, 120–135). For the Japanese translation of the NBhP and English introduction to śaktivādavicāra. 2 vols. Paris: Collège de France. this text, see Uno (1996, 77–119). 8）On the history of the diagrams, and the advantages and Goekoop, C. 1967. The Logic of Invariable Concomitance in the Tattvacintāmaṇi. Dordrecht: D. Reidel disadvantages of using them, see Wada (2007b, 38–46). 9）Depending upon the annotated Publishing Company. translation, Wada (2014a) arrived at Gaṅgeśa’s final view of the meaning of verbal suffixes. Guha, Dinesh Chandra. 1968. Navya Nyāya System of Logic. Varanasi: Bharatiya Vidya Prakasan. 10）On those features, see Wada (2007b, 20–23). Ingalls, Daniel H. H. 1951. Materials for the Study of Navya-Nyāya Logic. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Bibliography Iwasaki Yōichi 岩崎陽一. 2010. “Tattvacintāmaṇi ni okeru kotoba no datōsei no konkyo to kakutei における言葉の妥当性の根拠と確定方法 Bhatta, V. P. 2005. Word: The Śabdakhaṇḍa of the Tattvacintāmaṇi. 2 vols. Delhi: Eastern Book Linkers. hōhō” Tattvacintāmaṇi . Indo tetsugaku Bukkyōgaku インド哲学仏教学研究 ———. 2012. Perception: The Pratyakṣa Khaṇḍa of the Tattvacintāmaṇi. 2 vols. Delhi: Eastern Book kenkyū 17: 41–55. ——— ガンゲーシャの言葉補充説 Linkers. . 2014. “Gangēsha no kotoba hojū-setsu” . Indo ronrigaku kenkyū インド論理学研究 Bhattacharya, Dineshchandra. 1958. History of Navya-nyāya in Mithilā. Darbhanga: Mithilā Institute 7: 301–314. ——— ガンゲーシャの言 of Post-Graduate Studies and Research in Sanskrit Learning. . 2015. “Gangēsha no gengo jōhō riron: Kotoba no ‘tadashisa’ o megutte” 語情報理論: 言葉の「正しさ」をめぐって. PhD diss., The University of Tokyo.

─ 1079 ─ （42） A History of Navya-nyāya Study and Its Future（Wada） A History of Navya-nyāya Study and Its Future（Wada）（43）

Kudō Noriyuki 工藤順之. 1997. “Shinronrigaku-ha no ‘kōishutaisei (kartṛtva)’ teigi: Bavānanda Staal, J. F. 1960. “Correlations between Language and Logic in Indian Thought.” Bulletin of the School Shiddāntavāgīsha Kārakachakura (Kārakacakra) dai 2 setsu” 新論理学派の「行為主体性 of Oriental and African Studies 23: 109–122. （kartṛtva）」定義: バヴァーナンダ・シッダーンタヴァーギーシャ『カーラカ・チャク Uno Atsushi 宇野惇. 1971. Shinshōrigaku ni okeru suiron: Siddhāntamuktāvalī o chūshin to shite 新正理ラ（Kārakacakra）』第 2 節. Bukkyōgakkai kiyō 仏教学会紀要 5: 29–74. 学に於ける推論: Siddhāntamuktāvalī を中心として. Hiratsuka, Kanagawa: Tōkai Daigaku Jha, V. N. 1986. The Logic of the Intermediate Causal Link. Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications. Bungakubu Bunmeigakka Ajia Kenkyūshitsu. ———. 1987a. The Philosophy of Injunction. Delhi: Pratibha Prakashan. ———. 1996. Indo ronrigaku インド論理学. Kyoto: Hōzōkan. ———. 1987b. Viṣayatāvāda of Harirāma Tarkālaṅkāra. Poona: University of Poona. Vattanky, John. 1984. Gaṅgeśa’s Philosophy of God. Madras: The Adyar Library and Research Centre. Marui Hiroshi 丸井浩. 1987. “Meireibun no imi o tou giron” 命令文の意味を問う議論. In Indogaku Vidyabhusana, Satis Chandra. 1921. A History of Indian Logic. Calcutta: The Calcutta University. Bukkyōgaku ronshū: Takasaki Jikidō hakushi kanreki kinen ronshū インド学仏教学論集: 高崎直道 Wada, Toshihiro. 1990. Invariable Concomitance in Navya-Nyāya. Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications. 博士還暦記念論集, 139–154. Tokyo: Shunjūsha. ———. 2000. “Liberation in Early Navya-Nyāya.” In vol. 1 of The Way to Liberation: Indological Studies ———. 1988. “Meirei kinō no ronriteki kaimei” 命令機能の論理的解明. Tōhōgaku 東方学 76: 123– in Japan, ed. S. Mayeda, 107–121. Delhi: Manohar. 134. ———. 2007a. “Gaṅgeśa on the Meaning of Verbal Suffixes (1).” In Expanding and Merging Horizons: Matilal, Bimal Krishna. 1968. The Navya-Nyāya Doctrine of Negation. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Contributions to South Asian and Cross-Cultural Studies in Commemoration of Wilhelm Halbfass, ed. University Press. Karin Preisendanz, 415–429. Vienna: The Austrian Academy of Sciences. Mishra, Umesh. 1966. History of Indian Philosophy. Vol. 2. Allahabad: Taribhukti Publications. ———. 2007b. The Analytical Method of Navya-nyāya. Groningen: Egbert Forsten Publishing. Miyamoto Keiichi 宮元啓一, and Ishitobi Michiko 石飛道子. 1998. Indo Shinronrigaku-ha no ———. 2012. “Gaṅgeśa on the Meaning of Verbal Suffixes (2).” In Saṁskṛta-Sādhutā: Goodness of chishikiron: Manikana no wayaku to chūkai インド新論理学派の知識論: 『マニカナ』の和訳と Sanskrit; Studies in Honour of Professor Ashok N. Aklujkar, ed. Chikafumi Watanabe, Michele 註解. Tokyo: Sankibō Busshorin. Desmarais, and Yoshichika Honda, 528–544. New Delhi: D. K. Printworld. Mohanty, Jitendranath. 1966. Gaṅgeśa’s Theory of Truth. Santiniketan: Centre of Advanced Study in ———. 2013. “Gaṅgeśa on the Meaning of Verbal Suffixes (3).” Nagoya Studies in Indian Culture and Philosophy Viśva-bharati. Buddhism: Saṃbhāṣā 30: 1–14. Nyāyaratna, Maheśa Chandra. 1973. Navyanyāya-Bhāṣāpradīpaḥ: Brief Notes on the Modern Nyāya ———. 2014a. “Gaṅgeśa’s Theory on the Meaning of Verbal Suffixes (ākhyāta).” Special issue for System of Philosophy and Its Technical Terms by Maheśa Chandra Nyāyaratna. Ed. Kalipada papers presented at the 15th World Sanskrit Conference edited by Kamaleswar Bhattacharya, Tarkāchārya. Calcutta: Sanskrit College. Nagoya Studies in Indian Culture and Buddhism: Saṃbhāṣā 31: 61–75. Phillips, Stephen H. 1997. Classical Indian Metaphysics. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. ———. 2014b. “Gaṅgeśa on the Meaning of Verbal Suffixes.” Sanskrit Studies 3: 178–209. Phillips, Stephen H., and N. S. Ramanuja Tatacharya. 2002. Gaṅgeśa on the Upādhi: The “Inferential ———. 2015. “The ‘Discourse on Verbal Suffixes’ (Ākhyātavāda) of Raghunātha Śiromaṇi (1).” Undercutting Condition.” New Delhi: Indian Council of Philosophical Research. Nagoya Studies in Indian Culture and Buddhism: Saṃbhāṣā 32: 35–45. ———. 2004. Epistemology of Perception: Gaṅgeśa’s Tattvacintāmaṇi, Jewel of Reflection on the Truth ———. 2016. “The ‘Discourse on Verbal Suffixes (Ākhyātavāda) of Raghunātha Śiromaṇi (2).” (about Epistemology), The Perception Chapter (pratyakṣa-khaṇḍa). New York: American Institute of Nagoya Studies in Indian Culture and Buddhism: Saṃbhāṣā 33: 47–72. Buddhist Studies. Yamamoto Kazuhiko 山本和彦. 2015. Indo Shinrorigaku no gedatsu-ron インド新論理学の解脱論. Potter, Karl H. 1957. Padārthatattvanirūpaṇaṃ of Raghunātha Śiromaṇi. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Kyoto: Hōzōkan. University Press. ———, ed. 1977. Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies. Vol. 2, Indian Metaphysics and Epistemology: The (The present research is carried out under the auspices of the 2016–2019 Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Tradition of Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika up to Gaṅgeśa. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Research (B) [Project number 16H03348] by JSPS.) Potter, Karl H., and Sibajiban Bhattacharyya, eds. 1993. Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies. Vol. 6, Indian Philosophical Analysis: Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika from Gaṅgeśa to Raghunātha Śiromaṇi. Delhi: Motilal Key words methodology, Ingalls, Frauwallner Banarsidass. （Professor, Nagoya University, PhD, D.Litt.） Sarma, Sreekrishna. 1960. Maṇikaṇa: A Navya-Nyāya Manual. Madras: The Adyar Library and Research Centre. Sen, Saileswar. 1924. A Study of Mathurānātha’s Rahasya. Wageningen: published by the author.

─ 1080 ─ （42） A History of Navya-nyāya Study and Its Future（Wada） A History of Navya-nyāya Study and Its Future（Wada）（43）

─ 1081 ─