The feeling that I had after completing the book was that of discovery. What I have presented in course of this work is often of expository nature, though it became necessary on my part to offer interpretation at places. I have, however, written the book from the point of view that a student of Western philosophy may develop in getting exposed to it. Not everything that I have written in this book was known to me before I wrote it, because a good many of the things treated do not find any place in the syllabus either at the graduate or postgraduate level. In a sense it was a labour of love for me. I think the materials presented in this book will be immensely useful to those who may like to undertake any programme of reinterpretation of Indian philosophy in the light of what we have been able to learn about Western philosophy in the post-independence years.
Interest in Indian philosophy was kindled in me by my teacher Professor Gopinath Bhattacharya. I shall deem my efforts rewarded if what I have done is not considered un-worthy by him. I always received encouragement and help from my colleague Professor P. K. Mukhopadhyaya. I discussed many subtle and difficult points with him in course of writing the book. He went through almost the whole of the work in its draft form and suggested improvements at many places. Without his help it would not have been possible for me to present what I have presented in the book. I am grateful to my teacher and colleague Pandit Visvabandhu Bhattacharya for clarifying a few definitions contained in Udayana's Lakşanavali. Professor P. F. Strawson read an earlier draft of a few chapters and was kind enough to point out some inaccuracies in my presentation. He gave me opportunities of discussion with him on many points contained in this book and gave his reactions to some of the doctrines of the Vaisesikas and to quite a few theses of Nyaya logic and epistemology. I am grateful to him for all the kind help I received from him. I am also grateful to Professor Bimal Krishna Matilal and Mr. Alexis Sanderson of Oxford for kindly going through a few portions of the manuscript and suggesting corrections at some places.
Dr. Arindam Chakraborty of Calcutta University and Smt. Srilekha Datta of my department went through earlier drafts of two chapters of the book and helped me with a few suggestions for improvement for which I am grateful to them. I am indebted to Professor Debabrata Mukhopadhyaya of the Department of English of our University for suggesting stylistic improvements at many a place. My colleague Smt. Sutapa Saha who has specialised in Western logic and epistemology was kind enough to listen to many of the passages that I have written in interpretation of Nyaya philosophy. I changed my views at many places where she differed and gained in conviction where she agreed. But for her help at home and this intellectual support, the publication would not have seen the light of the day. I also got opportunities of discussion on epistemological problems with Professor R. M. Chisholm and Dr. James Van Cleve at Brown University, and with the latter also at Jadavpur when he came here as a Visiting Fellow in 1980-81. They ungrudgingly spared much of their valuable time for me and I am grateful to them for this. Professor H. N. Gupta of the University of Regina, Canada went through the draft of a few later chapters and suggested improvements at some places. I am indebted to him for this kind help.
I am grateful to Wolfson College, Oxford for providing me with a fellowship that enabled me to spend a term there and to get opportunities of discussion with the Oxford academics who helped me in many ways in writing this book. I also thank the Indian Council for Cultural Relations for providing me with a travel grant that made my visit to Oxford and Brown in 1984 possible.
India was never before intellectually so unproductive in the field of philosophy as it is now. Except for the contribution of Krishna Chandra Bhattacharya, we could produce little of merit during a period of roughly 50 years of philosophising in pre-independence India. The post-independence years, too, do not offer any brighter picture. A student of philosophy in a university in India has to read both Western philosophy and Indian philosophy-the former occupying roughly three-fourth and the latter one-fourth of the total course materials. While covering Western philosophy, we teach what the teachers in the West have produced in course of teaching the subject to their students. We have not made any advances in the subject. The picture is no different for what we call Indian philosophy. We teach what was produced in the remote past by philosophers of good old days. We do not make advances even in this field. This lack of creativity is a serious phenomenon which demands careful analysis by us if the study of philosophy is to continue in India.
For an objective study I would like to restrict the field of analysis to Nyaya logic and epistemology which I propose to deal with in this work. I begin with a short description of creative works in this area and then describe the state that obtains now and also offer my analysis and suggestions for improvement.
In the very first of the aphorisms called Nyayasutras, Gautama (Third Century), the founder of the Nyaya system of philosophy, enumerates sixteen items which are treated by him as topics for philosophical discussion and except the second one, namely, prameya (object of knowledge), all others come within the purview of logic and epistemology. The first of the sixteen items is pramana (source of knowledge).
Hindu (1765)
Philosophers (2327)
Aesthetics (317)
Comparative (66)
Dictionary (12)
Ethics (44)
Language (350)
Logic (80)
Mimamsa (58)
Nyaya (134)
Psychology (497)
Samkhya (60)
Shaivism (66)
Shankaracharya (233)
Send as free online greeting card
Email a Friend
Manage Wishlist