It systematised all the Nyāya concepts into four main categories which are (sense-) perception ( pratyakşa), inference ( anumāna), comparison or similarity ( upamāna), and testimony (sound or word śabda). Navya-Nyāya developed a sophisticated language and conceptual scheme that allowed it to raise, analyse, and solve problems in logic and epistemology. The results, especially his analysis of cognition, were taken up and used by other darśanas. Tattvacintāmani dealt with all the important aspects of Indian philosophy, logic, set theory, and especially epistemology, which Gangeśa examined rigorously, developing and improving the Nyāya scheme, and offering examples. He held that, while Śrīharśa had failed to successfully challenge the Nyāya realist ontology, his and Gangeśa's own criticisms brought out a need to improve and refine the logical and linguistic tools of Nyāya thought, to make them more rigorous and precise.
In his book, Gangeśa both addressed some of those criticisms and – more important – critically examined the Nyāya darśana itself. Gangeśa's book Tattvacintāmaṇi ("Thought-Jewel of Reality") was written partly in response to Śrīharśa's Khandanakhandakhādya, a defence of Advaita Vedānta, which had offered a set of thorough criticisms of Nyāya theories of thought and language. It remained active in India through to the 18th century. Other influences on Navya-Nyāya were the work of earlier philosophers Vācaspati Miśra (900–980 CE) and Udayana (late 10th century). It was a development of the classical Nyāya darśana. The Navya-Nyāya or Neo-Logical darśana (view, system, or school) of Indian logic and Indian philosophy was founded in the 13th century CE by the philosopher Gangeśa Upādhyāya of Mithila and continued by Raghunatha Siromani of Nabadwipa in Bengal. ( May 2019) ( Learn how and when to remove this template message) Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. This article includes a list of references, related reading, or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations.
0 kommentar(er)
