Buchbesprechungen Comptes Rendus

This document is a book review by Johannes Bronkhorst of the book "Aus gutem Grund" by Claudius Nenninger. The review, titled "Buchbesprechungen Comptes Rendus," focuses on Nenninger's work on the anumāna (inference) doctrine of Prasastapāda, a key figure in the Vaiśeṣika school of Indian philosophy.

Here's a breakdown of the review's key points:

Overall Impression and Contribution:

• Bronkhorst finds Nenninger's book to be a significant contribution that breaks new ground in the interpretation of early Indian logic.
• He believes it offers valuable insights for scholars primarily interested in early Vaiśeṣika, even though Nenninger's primary focus is on logic itself, not the Vaiśeṣika system per se.

Nenninger's Core Argument:

• Nenninger challenges the common Western assumption that Indian logic is primarily deductive.
• His analysis of Prasastapāda's anumāna doctrine, particularly the three conditions of the inferential sign (linga), leads him to conclude that Indian logic is not solely deductive. Instead, it incorporates inductive reasoning to ensure the sign is inseparably connected to the property being inferred.

Methodology and Analysis:

• Nenninger meticulously translates and analyzes the section of Prasastapāda's Bhāṣya dealing with anumāna.
• He subjects the text to rigorous dissection, using formal logic to represent the arguments.
• The review highlights Nenninger's careful consideration of different possible formalizations when the original text allows for multiple interpretations. He often uses other parts of the text to narrow down the likely meanings.

Key Sections and Observations:

• Methodology (pp. 12-20): Bronkhorst praises Nenninger's insightful observations on the use of formal logic to analyze ancient Indian texts. Nenninger acknowledges that formal analysis can sometimes introduce distinctions that the original author might not have intended. He also touches upon the importance of assuming a shared core of rationality for cross-cultural dialogue, countering relativistic tendencies.
• Analysis of the Three Conditions of the Inferential Sign: This is the central focus of Nenninger's work. He examines the precise interpretation of these conditions, which are crucial for establishing valid inferences.
• Philological Analysis (pp. 52 ff.): Nenninger provides a detailed philological analysis of the opening lines of Prasastapāda's anumāna section. This passage defines the correct inferential sign in both verse and prose.
• Verse vs. Prose Paraphrase: Nenninger argues that the two verses in this passage are likely quotations from another work, while the prose paraphrases are Prasastapāda's own.
  • He suggests that Prasastapāda's paraphrases offer an "improved" interpretation of the verse, aligning with the ideas of Dignāga, a later Buddhist logician.
  • Specifically, Nenninger demonstrates how the meaning of the term anumeya (that which is to be inferred) differs between the verse and the prose paraphrase, with the paraphrase adopting Dignāga's view of inferring a property-possessor characterized by a property.
  • Bronkhorst supports Nenninger's view by pointing out that one of the verses is metrically imperfect, suggesting it might have originally used the term sādhya (that which is to be achieved), a term criticized by Dignāga. This further reinforces the idea that Prasastapāda, influenced by Dignāga, reinterpreted and possibly altered the quoted verses.
• Influence of the Kaṭandi: Nenninger's findings necessitate an adjustment to Bronkhorst's previous hypothesis that the verses and their paraphrases constituted an unacknowledged quotation from the Kaṭandi. While the verses might still be from the Kaṭandi, the paraphrases are likely Prasastapāda's own work, influenced by Dignāga. The strong influence of the Kaṭandi on Prasastapāda remains a significant point.

Criticisms and Editorial Points (from a previous, unrelated review in the same document):

• The review begins with some editorial criticisms, which are not related to Nenninger's book but are about another publication mentioned at the beginning of the "Buchbesprechungen/Comptes Rendues" section. These include the lack of a bibliography (all information in footnotes), no author introductions, and no index in the preceding volume. The only author mentioned with additional information is "Kulkarni (Hyderabad)." There are also minor editorial errors.

Mistake in Nenninger's Work:

• Bronkhorst points out a notable mistake in Nenninger's book: the assumption that every expression ending in the suffix "-tva" refers to a universal (sāmānya) in the Vaiśeṣika system. Bronkhorst clarifies that universals in Vaiśeṣika reside only in substances, qualities, or movements, and words like prayatnāntariyakatva (belonging to the category of consequence of effort) and dhūmavatva (having smoke) are not universals. This error stems from Nenninger's focus on logic rather than a deep engagement with Vaiśeṣika ontology.

Conclusion:

Bronkhorst concludes that Nenninger's "Aus gutem Grund" is a valuable and original work that advances the understanding of early Indian logic and has relevance for Vaiśeṣika studies.