Jain Nyaya Ka Punarviskshan - Book Summary

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "Jain Nyaya ka Punarviskshan" by Sangamlal Pandey, focusing on the core arguments and criticisms presented:

The article "Jain Nyaya ka Punarviskshan" (Re-examination of Jain Logic) by Dr. Sangamlal Pandey argues for a significant re-evaluation of how Jain logic (Jain Nyaya) is understood and studied, primarily by criticizing the prevailing scholarly approach, particularly that influenced by M.M. Satishchandra Vidyabhushan's "A History of Indian Logic."

Core Argument for Re-examination:

Pandey contends that logic, or Nyaya Shastra, is fundamentally a formal science, independent of any specific metaphysical system (metaphysics). Just as grammar serves all philosophical schools, logic should also be a universal tool. He criticizes the medieval trend of creating sectarian logic systems, arguing it hinders the true development of logic. While acknowledging that Buddhist and Jain scholars made unique contributions to logic, he asserts they did not succeed in making logic solely the property of their respective traditions. Logic's nature is, in fact, independent of all these schools.

Critique of Vidyabhushan's Influence:

The central thrust of the article is a critique of Vidyabhushan's historical approach to Indian logic, which Pandey deems outdated and flawed, yet still influential on contemporary Jain logicians.

Mischaracterization of Jain Logic: Pandey argues Vidyabhushan incorrectly categorizes Jain logic as "medieval Indian logic" that solely focuses on pramana (means of knowledge), contrasting it with ancient (Gautam's Nyaya) and modern (Gangesha's Nyaya) logic. He asserts that Jain logic is inherently ancient and deeply connected to the broader Indian logical tradition.
Inaccuracies in Vidyabhushan's Work: Pandey meticulously points out several factual errors in Vidyabhushan's history concerning Jain logicians and their works:
- Abhayadevasuri: Vidyabhushan mistakenly identified his commentary Tattvarthabodhavidhayini on the Sanmati-tarka-sutra as a separate work called Vadamaharnava, when they are indeed the same.
- Mallavadi: Vidyabhushan erroneously equated the Buddhist critic Bauddhavadivijeta Mallavadi with the commentator on Dharmakirti's Nyayabindu, Mallavadi. Furthermore, Vidyabhushan was unaware of Mallavadi's significant contributions like the Dvadasharanayachakra and his commentary on Sanmati-tarka-prakaraṇa.
- Siddhasena Divakara: Vidyabhushan conflated two distinct scholars named Siddhasena Divakara: the author of Sanmati-tarka and the author of Nyayavatara.
- Devasuri: Vidyabhushan treated Devasuri's Pramananyayatattvalokalamkara as the same work as his Pramananyayatattvaloka, when the former is a commentary on the latter.
Lack of Depth and Scope: Pandey criticizes Vidyabhushan's work for being a mere "directory" of logicians and their texts, lacking an exploration of logic's inherent nature, its developmental processes, or its fundamental principles. The book fails to provide a true understanding of the essence and evolution of Jain logic.
Misinterpretation of Key Jain Concepts: Vidyabhushan's understanding of crucial Jain doctrines like Syadvada and Nayavada is found to be superficial and incorrect. His translations of these terms are deemed inaccurate, and his explanations of Nayavada are inconsistent. He failed to explain the relationship between Nayavada, Syadvada, and pramana.
Omission of Key Contributions: The article highlights that Vidyabhushan's work completely omits the significant contributions of prominent Jain logicians like Vidyānanda (e.g., Ashtasahasri) and Prabhachandra (e.g., Prameyakamalamartanda), as well as the ideas of acclaimed logicians like Akalanka and Mallavadi.

The True Nature of Jain Logic:

Pandey emphasizes several points about the actual nature of Jain logic:

Not a Separate System: There is no independent "Jain Nyaya" or "Jain Logic" in the sense of a completely distinct system. Rather, it is the Jainian engagement with and development within the broader tradition of Indian logic.
Rooted in Ancient Indian Logic: Jain logic is essentially ancient Indian logic. Jain scholars engaged with and commented on Buddhist and Hindu logical works, often refuting Buddhist arguments and supporting Hindu ones. This indicates a strong connection to the ancient Hindu logical tradition.
Focus on Specific Problems: While Jain logicians contributed significantly to various logical problems, they did not establish a single, universally accepted foundational text or system that all Jain logicians followed.
Rejection of Sectarianism: Jain logicians strived for a non-sectarian approach to logic. Their engagement with different traditions demonstrates a liberation from sectarianism in the pursuit of logical truth.
Purpose: Proving Anekantavada: Jain logicians primarily used logic to prove Anekantavada (the doctrine of manifold aspects). Logic was not studied for its own sake but as a tool within their broader philosophical framework.
Universal Principles: The unique logical principles developed by Jain logicians, such as the critique of trilakshanaka-darshana (tri-characteristic view) and the definition of hetu (reason) as anyathanupannatva (non-occurrence in contrary circumstances), are pure logical principles that are not inherently "Jain" and can be developed by non-Jains as well.

Call for Re-examination:

Pandey concludes by urging a "re-examination" of Jain logic. This involves:

Discarding Sectarian Labels: Terms like "Jain Nyaya," "Jain Logic," and "Jain Pramana Shastra" are seen as emotional rather than analytical designations. They denote the commentary or exposition of logic by Jain scholars, not a fundamentally different logic.
Focusing on Pure Logic: The study of Jain logic should now be conducted in the context of the modern understanding of logic as a formal, metaphysics-independent discipline.
Correcting Misconceptions: The flawed sectarian approach initiated by Vidyabhushan must be eradicated.
Recognizing the Contribution: The significant, yet often overlooked, contributions of Jain logicians to the universal development of logic should be acknowledged.

In essence, Pandey's article is a call to de-sectarianize the study of Jain logic, to recognize its deep roots within the broader Indian logical tradition, and to analyze its contributions from the perspective of universal logic, free from outdated and flawed historical interpretations.