Essay name: The Navya-Nyaya theory of Paksata (Study)
Author:
Kazuhiko Yamamoto
Affiliation: Savitribai Phule Pune University / Department of Sanskrit and Prakrit Languages
This essay studies the Navya-Nyaya theory of Paksata within Indian logic by exploring the Paksataprakarana on the Tattvacintamani of Gangesa Upadhyaya and the Didhiti of Raghunata Siromani. The term 鈥減aksa鈥� originally meant a subject or proposition but evolved to signify a key logical term, representing the subject of an inference or the locus of inference.
Section 1 - History and Development of the Concept of Paksata
27 (of 69)
External source: Shodhganga (Repository of Indian theses)
Download the PDF file of the original publication
32 4
. KESAVA AND SIVADITYA
It is not known whether Kesava Misra (ca. AD 1150) 1 belonged to
2 Mithila. But Umesha Mishra thought Kesava flourished in
3 Mithila. Kesava wrote Tarkabhasa. His definition of paksa is as
follows:
Subject is a property-possessor of property which is a
doubtful probandum.
4 He thought that doubt is necessary to establish the subject. He
held the doubtful theory of subject (samsayapaksa). Umesha Mishra
held the view that Gahgesa did not refer to Kesava in his
Tattvacintamani. But Gangesa criticized Kesava's definition of
paksa. Gahgesa's criticism of pak峁tva was:
There, however, "the state of having the property namely,
doubtful probandum" is not the subjectness because a doubt
5 cannot be a qualifier.
Kesava did not use the word pak峁tva but paksa. This does not
that he did not know the concept of paksatva, because
Kesava belonged to the post Udayana Navyanyaya period. Every
philosopher was influenced by Udayana. Moreover,
1. (Bhattacharya, D. C. 1958: 65).
2.
3.
4.
(Bhattacharya, D. C. 1958: 64) and (Matilal 1977: 102).
(Mishra, U. 1966: 231).
sandigdhasadhyadharma dharmi paksah. (TBh: 44).
5. tatra na tavat sandigdhasadhyadharmavattvam paksatvam,
sandeho hi na visesanam. Cf. text-2 of part two, chapter A (TC)
