Problem of Inherence in Indian Logic

Email

Whatsapp

Facebook

Pinterest

Twitter

Copy link

There are a number of controversies in accepting Samavaya as a relation. Three different streams of thoughts coming from different schools are prominent. On the one side stands the extreme realist amongst whom the Naiyayika is the chief, who holds clearly an objective view of the relation in general and the relation of Inherence in particular. On the other side we have the idealists, the Buddhists followed by the Vedantins who hold a subjective view of the relation of Inherence. Still there is a third group, which stands in the middle keeping the realists on the one side and the idealists on the other, maintaining a relative view of Inherence.

Gangesa who flourished in 13 cen. A.D. has devoted a full chapter entitled Samavayavada in his monumental treatise the Tattvacintamani and the entire discussion in the present work is made in the light of his arguments. The Book is divided in two parts. The first part is a general introduction where the findings of the present study are incorporated. In the second part an English translation of the text Samavayavada is presented along with explanatory notes.

Dr. Bata Kishor Dalai is presently working as reader in Centre of Advance Studies in Sanskrit (CASS), University of Poona, Pune.

This is the revised version of my Ph. D. thesis "The relation of Inherence in Indian Logic" approved by the University of Pune for the award of Ph.D. degree in Sanskrit in 1986. There are a number of controversies in accepting Samavaya as a relation. Three different streams of thoughts coming from different schools are prominent. On the one side stands the extreme realist amongst whom the Naiyayika is the chief, who holds clearly an objective view of the relation in general and the relation of Inherence in particular. To them the relation of Inherence is a real entity intervening between two terms as a tertium quid. On the other side we have the idealists, the Buddhists followed by the Vedantins who hold a subjective view of the relation of Inherence. To them any relation is a conceptual fiction fabricated by our mind having no objective reality. Still there is a third group, which stands in the middle keeping the realists on the one side and the idealists on the other, maintaining a relative view of Inherence. According to them, Inherence is neither absolutely subjective as hold the Buddhists etc., nor absolutely objective as hold the Naiy5yikas. They call this relation as identity-in-difference or identity-cum-difference. From ealry times scholars have made great efforts to tackle this problem and to give it a correct and convincing solution. Gaftgea who flourished in 13 cen. A.D. has devoted a full chapter entitled Samavagavada ["A Discourse on the Nature of Inherence"] in his monumental treatise the Tattvacintamani and the entire discussion in the present work is made in the light of his arguments. It is presented in two parts. The first part is a general introduction where the findings of the present study are incorporated. In the second part is given an English translation of the text Samavayavada of Tattvacintamani along with explanatory notes. We have made use of Pandit KamakshanathaTarakavagisa’s edition of Tattvacintamani published by the Asiatic Society of Bengal.

It is my pleasure to record now the help I have received from various scholars in preparing this work. I express my respect and gratefulness to my teacher Dr. V.N. Jha, Director, CASS, University of Pune, who was my guide. I am obliged to Dr. S.D. Joshi, then Director of CASS for giving me an opportunity to work in the Centre.

The manifold helping hand of Dr. S.M. Shaha had contributed a lot in my career making. I take the opportunity to convey my obligation to him.

I am obliged to all the members of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the department for the help I have received during my study here. I thank all my friends, particularly 'Dr. Banamali Biswal, Reader, Ganganath Jha Kendriya Vidyapeeth, Allahabad for his sincere help.

I convey my immense debt of gratitude to my brother Mr. Nanda Kishore Dalai and my sister-in-law Mrs. Hemalata Dalai, who once dreamt me to be at this stage. It is they and their blessing that alone made me reach what I am. I do not know how much I owe to both of them.

Finally I thank Dr. Radhey Shyam Shukla, Pratibha Prakashan for accepting this work for publication.