question on the volume: Dharma-nīrājanā: A Volume Dedicated to the Memory of Dr. D.N. Shastri

[Marek Łyczka]

Dear All,

Could anyone kindly help me with this book?

https://books.google.pl/books?id=LuUvAAAAIAAJ&source=gbs_ViewAPI&redir_esc=y

I just need a scan of a paper by Gopikamohan Bhattacharya (pages 182-189).

I appreciate your help in advance,

Kind regards from Poland

Marek Lyczka
(a researcher on navya-nyaya)

[Ram Kanshi]

Madam,

We are sending scanned eight pages. I hope this will help you.

Sincerely

Kanshiram

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJRHc6R2fOdGiTd1wQOz5HSyB2pZq%3Dgru7H%3Dttf6yS8tw8HDLw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ram Kanshi]

Sorry if I have addressed wrongly because I am familiar with the language.

However these scanned pages will definitely help you.

Kanshiram

[Ram Kanshi]

Anyway I am tired at night and I took the help of my grandson to scan the article. Please tell me if it has helped you. Excuse for wrong usages.

[Ramanath Pandey]

Dear Scholar,

The argument is a fundamental epistemological critique of Navya-Nyāya, articulated from a standpoint close to Buddhist pramāṇa theory (Dignāga–Dharmakīrti).

1. Core Claim

 Navya-Nyāya commits a subtle form of pseudo-reasoning (kutarka) because it treats bhūmi (locus), kāla (time), and sambandha (relation) as if they were objective limiters (avacchedas), whereas in reality they are conceptual constructions that cannot be understood independently of context.

In other words:

What Navya-Nyāya presents as precise logical delimiters are in fact context-dependent conceptual projections, not real features of the object itself.

2. Epistemological Ground of the Critique

According to my view:

Reality (the real) cannot be directly known through the senses.

Sense-perception gives access only to indeterminate, momentary particulars, not to structured entities like “ground,” “time,” or “relation.”

Bhūmi, kāla, and sambandha arise only through conceptual construction (kalpanā) and linguistic practice.

Therefore:

If the limiters themselves are kalpita (constructed), they cannot legitimately function as determinants of truth.

This undermines the epistemic authority of avaccheda.

3. Context vs. Formal Delimitation

Meaning is intelligible only within context.

Context cannot be fully formalized or frozen into technical categories.

Navya-Nyāya, however:

Attempts to replace lived, pragmatic context with formal delimiters.

Treats these delimiters as if they were logically sufficient and self-standing.

The objection is that:

Formal precision does not equal ontological or epistemic reality.

4. Philosophical Principle Behind  Sanskrit Statement

Your concluding line—

“Dharmino aneka-rūpasya na sarvathā gatiḥ”

means:

A thing (dharmin), appearing in multiple forms, can never be fully grasped in its entirety.

This expresses a deep epistemic humility:

Reality exceeds conceptual capture.

No system of delimiters can exhaust the object.

Thus, any attempt—such as that of Navya-Nyāya—to fully stabilize meaning through avaccheda inevitably overestimates the reach of conceptual thought.

5. Final Characterization of the View

 position can be summarized as follows:

Navya-Nyāya does not truly clarify reality;

it clarifies only the grammar of discourse about reality.

When this grammatical clarity is mistaken for epistemic or ontological truth, it becomes kutarka.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAEdOMxgbjYicCt6PW7DVpRRVPo7jtUktXC8%3DBkacgbVksNShOQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Marek Łyczka]

Dear Sir,
Thank you so much for kindly sending me the scan of the article. I truly appreciate your thoughtfulness and the time you took to share it with me. I also thank your grandson. It was very helpful, and I am sincerely grateful for your support.  

PS. There is no problem at all with addressing me that way. However, "Marek" is a male name.

[Marek Łyczka]

Dear Sir, 

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on avacchedaka with me. Before I respond, please allow me a little time to consider the matter carefully.

Kind regards,

Marek

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKL3qBCochZW16SeDS3o2TxQs-oNVUQ-L65%2BYLML6CKTLw-jHQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Marek Łyczka]

Dear Sir, 

Thank you so much for kindly sending me the scan of the article. I truly appreciate your thoughtfulness and the time you took to share it with me. I also thank your grandson. It was very helpful, and I am sincerely grateful for your support.  

sobota, 20 grudnia 2025 o 06:25:24 UTC+1 Ram Kanshi napisał(a):

[Marek Łyczka]

Sir, No problem at all.  Correct, "Marek" is a male name.