（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