Indian Logic Forum

Plamen

In his Introduction to the Navya-Nyaya System of Logic, by D.Ch. Guha, Prof. Ingalls says:

A Western philosopher with whom I used to argue once expressed a prejudice in somewhat the following terms: "The Indians", he said, "were never really interested in philosophy. They were interested in religion. Their philosophy always leads to a religious or mystical goal, which is all very fine, I dare say, but it is not what I call philosophy; it is not at all the sort of things that I am interested in." He admitted that his knowledge of the subject was limited to translations of religious texts and to selections from Buddhist and Vedanta idealism, and he agreed to read any two books I should give him before reasserting his judgment. I gave him two translations of Navya-nyaya texts. Actually, they were the only translations of Navya-nyaya available at that time. My philosopher had hard work of it but persevered, until one day he said, "I admit I was hasty. Your Navya-nyaya is talking about problems of philosophy all right, problems that interest me greatly. My only trouble now is that I find their talk so difficult to understand."

The anecdote points to a common misconception. Even Indians nowadays for the most part are unaware of the extent of their rationalist literature, a literature which deals with mathematics, astronomy, grammar, semantics and logic. Even the many-faceted Vedanta has a strong complement of non-theological rationalists. Of special importance in this respect, however, is the literature of the Navya-nyaya, for that school specialized in epistemology, logic and semantics. Some would have the Navya-nyaya begin with Udayanacarya (1000 A. D.), some with Gangesa (1400 A. D.), some only with Raghunatha (1475-1550 A. D.). But even by the most restricted view the school can claim hundreds of texts. From the published texts of Navya-nyaya, which form less than a tenth of what lies buried in manuscripts, one may see that the Indian genius erected noble edifices of rationalism as well as the edifices of theology and mysticism that are better known to the cultural 'tourist trade'.

The anecdote points also to a failure in communications between parallel traditions in the East and in the West. There are striking similarities between Western symbolic logic and Navya Nyaya. They deal with similar problems and are often guided by a similar spirit of inquiry. Why then have they remained such strangers? One reason is that the palaces of logic are built by a very complicated system of architecture, designed to defend the buildings against the storms of contradiction and argument which assail them. It is well-known that Navya-nyaya is written in the most formidable style of Sanskrit, a style which seems to delight in technical terms and breathtaking compounds. What holds for India holds also for the West. The average Englishman cannot pronounce, let alone understand, a page of the Pricipia Mathematica. Furthermore, the complexities of the one tradition are not readily translatable into the other. For all the similarities of subject matter and spirit, the structures of symbolic logic and Navya-nyaya are radically different. They differ not only as wholes; the difference permeates each detail of the architecture. And so it comes about that whereas those who are religiously or mystically inclined in India and Europe have been able to communicate with a fair degree of success, the traditions of logic have long failed to communicate because of ignorance and lack of understanding.

What then is to be done? A great deal must be done, it seems to me. There is the task of making the Navya-nyaya texts available. There is the task of translating at least the more important texts into terms intelligible to members of the Western tradition. It would be well also, although the event is unlikely, to produce translations in the opposite direction. Then one must explain what one has translated. Finally, after all these preparations may come the feast of the philosophers, where the two rationalist traditions can trade theories, techniques and judgments, and so enrich one another.

Dr. Dinesh Guha in his Navya-nyaya System of Logic addresses himself to several of the tasks which I have mentioned. What he has done is to elicit a number of fundamental definitions and judgments from the great mass of Navya-nyaya literature. By translation and explanation Dr. Guha tries to render these definitions and judgments intelligible to the English speaking public. Navya-Nyaya System of Logic does not make easy reading, but one may defy any author to write easily on this subject. Despite the difficulties, Dr. Guha has explained a number of Navya-nyaya theories which can be understood from no other English-language book.

Of the individual chapters of the book the one which has most interested me and from which I have learned the most is Chapter VII on the techniques of the insertion of paryapti. Dr. Guha there gives the first Western-language explanation of the method by which Jagadisa and Gadadhara guarded against insufficient (nyunavaraka) and irrelevant (itaravaraka) terms in their logical formulas. The concept of the relation paryapti itself is also elucidated by Dr. Guha. For example, I see from his remarks on the distinction between dvitva in one context and dvitva in another that an analogy which I made some years ago in print between paryapti and Frege's theory of number should now be amended.

But each of the chapters of the book contains several points which have furthered my understanding of Navya-nyaya problems and texts. I would point out as especially useful the explanation of the various theories of the ontological nature of visayata. Dr. Guha goes on to expound the theory that the object of an invalid knowledge has no visayata1, an interesting symptom of Nyaya realism. He then gives the first explanation to be given in English (although the fainthearted may feel that even the explanation needs explaining) of the argument between Jagadisa and Gadadhara on whether the visayata and the prakarata in a single object of a complex knowledge are or are not identical.

Chapter X gives numerous examples of the peculiarities of grammar and style among the Naiyayikas. Finally, of great interest to me throughout the book are the references to the works of late and even modern Naiyayikas such as Kalisarikara Bhatta-carya, Harihara Sastri, Sivadatta Misra, etc., whose kroda-patras, even when published, are quite unknown to the West.

I refrain from itemizing all the points of interest in Dr. Guha's book lest I waste the time of the reader. He will need both time and attention to understand the pages which followвЂ¦
____________
1. The absence of visayata in the object of an invalid knowledge means the absence of a qualified visayata (visista-visayata).

D.Ch. Guha, Navya-Nyaya System of Logic. Second revised Edition. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1979, pp. 41-75.

Buy from MLBD - 175 Ru only, less than $5

Read the sample chapter

VNJha · Guest 100.00 points

I agree with the concern and comments of Dr. Gradinarov.
I just add:
For last five years my wife(Dr. Ujjwala Jha whose English Translation of Navya Nyaya Bhasha Pradipa with graphic annotations has been published by the Asiatic Society, Kolkata, India) and I have been conducting a short term course on Navya Nyaya Language and methodoloy in three levels - Level I,II, and III at different Institutions in India. Interested learners may contact us for details.
Through this course we want to bring all intellectuals to engage themselves in a meaningful discourse.
VNJha

Klaus · Guest 100.00 points

Sehr geherter Prof. Jha,

Would it be possible to post here the program of your course and provide some contact information?

Thank you!

Mukund Dhaygude

Dear Sir, Theory of Sambandha/relation leads us to RDBMS (Relational Data Base Management System). We also work on Entity-Relation diagrams. E-R diagrams is a common tool for us to represent relations. Various types of relations which are mathematically valid are accpeted in predicate logic. We also work in PROLOG (Programming Logic)/(Logic Programming). Prolog was developed by Alan Colmareur in France in 1973 or so. Subsequent work of Herbrand leads us to unification algorithms. Codd's rules on data bases help us to validate a database and thus remove any duplicate entries in it.