Scholarlink

<p>Annambhaṭṭa’s <i>Tarkasaṅgraha</i> is a primer for introducing students to Nyāya philosophy. More than twenty-five commentaries have been published on this text. Annambhaṭṭa defines colour as the quality that can only be grasped by the visual sense faculty. In this paper, I present an intellectual thread across these commentaries by illustrating the evolution of perspectives on <i>Tarkasaṅgraha</i>’s definition of colour. Cases are shown where insertions were added to the definition, either to avoid logical inconsistencies, or to further develop philosophical thought. The commentary, <i>Nīlakaṇṭhaprakāśikā</i>, presents an interpretation that leads to an invalid conclusion and then provides a correction. <i>Tarkasaṅgrahasarvasvam</i>, <i>Śaktisanjīvinī</i> and <i>Āloka</i> expand the definition in the <i>navyanyāya</i> style. <i>Ṭippaṇi</i> shows how the definition has implications in other theories. Lastly, I analyse <i>Nṛsiṃhaprakāśikā’s</i> evaluation and refinement of definitions on the basis of parsimony, and its argument on why <i>Tarkasaṅgraha</i>’s definition is equally sufficient.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Defining Colour in Tarkasaṅgraha and its Commentaries

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年1月3日

查看全文
  • Joshua Fernandes

摘要

Annambhaṭṭa’s Tarkasaṅgraha is a primer for introducing students to Nyāya philosophy. More than twenty-five commentaries have been published on this text. Annambhaṭṭa defines colour as the quality that can only be grasped by the visual sense faculty. In this paper, I present an intellectual thread across these commentaries by illustrating the evolution of perspectives on Tarkasaṅgraha’s definition of colour. Cases are shown where insertions were added to the definition, either to avoid logical inconsistencies, or to further develop philosophical thought. The commentary, Nīlakaṇṭhaprakāśikā, presents an interpretation that leads to an invalid conclusion and then provides a correction. Tarkasaṅgrahasarvasvam, Śaktisanjīvinī and Āloka expand the definition in the navyanyāya style. Ṭippaṇi shows how the definition has implications in other theories. Lastly, I analyse Nṛsiṃhaprakāśikā’s evaluation and refinement of definitions on the basis of parsimony, and its argument on why Tarkasaṅgraha’s definition is equally sufficient.