Supercommentary on portion dealing with the concept of authenticity of proofs and logic (Prāmāṇyavāda) of Tattvacintāmaṇyāloka of Jayadevamiśra, commentary on Tattvacintāmaṇi, work on Navya-Nyāya by Gaṅgeśa, 13th cent.; based on rare manuscript; includes text of Prāmāṇyavāda and Tattvacintāmaṇyāloka.

Compendium of the basic concepts and terminology of the Nyaya and Vaiśeṣika philosophy; includes auto commentary with English translation.

Aphoristic work on Nyaya and Vaiśeṣika school of Hindu philosophy; Sanskrit auto commentary with Hindi interpretation and translation.

Treatise on Nyaya and Vaiṣeṣika philosophy with Hindi and Sanskrit commentaries.

Text on the fundamentals of Nyaya and Vaiśeṣika school in Hindu philosophy; includes autocommentary.

In Tarkasaṁgraha (TS), Annaṁbhaṭṭa defines inferential cognition (anumiti) as that cognition which results from parāmarśa. In his own commentary on TS, namely Tarkasaṁgraha-dīpikā (TSD), Annaṁbhaṭṭa shows an over-coverage of the TS definition of anumiti in ‘perception after doubt.’ And then in TSD, he moves on to remove the over-coverage by qualifying the definition (of anumiti) with pakṣatā. In this article, we will raise an objection against the strategy Annaṁbhaṭṭa chooses to remove the above-mentioned over-coverage. We will argue that qualifying the (...) definition (of anumiti) with pakṣatā does not remove the over-coverage in question. Following that an alleged solution to the over-coverage will be presented, and subsequently, we will show why the alleged solution is also flawed. Next, we will return again to defend Annaṁbhaṭṭa’s strategy of eliminating the over-coverage. Despite the defense, eventually, it will be suggested that qualifying the definition of anumiti with pakṣatā does not remove the over-coverage. Hopefully, this article will bring to light one controversial aspect of the definition of anumiti (as rendered in TS and TSD) which perhaps remains unnoticed. (shrink)

To understand the history of Advaita Vedānta and its rise to prominence, we need to devote more attention to what might be termed “Greater Advaita Vedānta,” or Advaita Vedānta as expressed outside the standard canon of Sanskrit philosophical works. Elsewhere I have examined the works of Niścaldās (ca. 1791–1863), whose Hindi-language Vicār-sāgar (“The Ocean of Inquiry”) was once referred to by Swami Vivekananda as the most influential book of its day. In this paper, I look back to one of Niścaldās’s (...) major influences: Sundardās (1596–1689), a well-known Hindi poet and a direct disciple of Dādū Dayāl (d. 1604). Sundardās is typically classified as a bhakti poet rather than an Advaita Vedāntin; certainly he is not included in existing surveys or histories of Vedānta. In his youth, however, he studied Sanskrit and Vedānta in Banaras, and his poems present us with a mind that found no contradiction in claiming Dādū as his master and at the same time embracing the teachings of Advaita Vedānta. I argue that not only should Sundardās be included in histories of Advaita Vedānta, he should be credited for his originality: not only did he “Vedānticize” the Dādū Panth, he “Dādūized” Vedānta. I conclude by comparing Sundardās to two Sanskrit intellectuals from roughly the same period: Mahādeva Sarasvatī Vedāntin and Annambhaṭṭa, both of whom, like Sundardās, had commitments to Advaita Vedānta as well as to other intellectual traditions. (shrink)

To understand the history of Advaita Vedānta and its rise to prominence, we need to devote more attention to what might be termed “Greater Advaita Vedānta,” or Advaita Vedānta as expressed outside the standard canon of Sanskrit philosophical works. Elsewhere I have examined the works of Niścaldās, whose Hindi-language Vicār-sāgar was once referred to by Swami Vivekananda as the most influential book of its day. In this paper, I look back to one of Niścaldās’s major influences: Sundardās, a well-known Hindi (...) poet and a direct disciple of Dādū Dayāl. Sundardās is typically classified as a bhakti poet rather than an Advaita Vedāntin; certainly he is not included in existing surveys or histories of Vedānta. In his youth, however, he studied Sanskrit and Vedānta in Banaras, and his poems present us with a mind that found no contradiction in claiming Dādū as his master and at the same time embracing the teachings of Advaita Vedānta. I argue that not only should Sundardās be included in histories of Advaita Vedānta, he should be credited for his originality: not only did he “Vedānticize” the Dādū Panth, he “Dādūized” Vedānta. I conclude by comparing Sundardās to two Sanskrit intellectuals from roughly the same period: Mahādeva Sarasvatī Vedāntin and Annambhaṭṭa, both of whom, like Sundardās, had commitments to Advaita Vedānta as well as to other intellectual traditions. (shrink)

To understand the history of Advaita Vedānta and its rise to prominence, we need to devote more attention to what might be termed “Greater Advaita Vedānta,” or Advaita Vedānta as expressed outside the standard canon of Sanskrit philosophical works. Elsewhere I have examined the works of Niścaldās, whose Hindi-language Vicār-sāgar was once referred to by Swami Vivekananda as the most influential book of its day. In this paper, I look back to one of Niścaldās’s major influences: Sundardās, a well-known Hindi (...) poet and a direct disciple of Dādū Dayāl. Sundardās is typically classified as a bhakti poet rather than an Advaita Vedāntin; certainly he is not included in existing surveys or histories of Vedānta. In his youth, however, he studied Sanskrit and Vedānta in Banaras, and his poems present us with a mind that found no contradiction in claiming Dādū as his master and at the same time embracing the teachings of Advaita Vedānta. I argue that not only should Sundardās be included in histories of Advaita Vedānta, he should be credited for his originality: not only did he “Vedānticize” the Dādū Panth, he “Dādūized” Vedānta. I conclude by comparing Sundardās to two Sanskrit intellectuals from roughly the same period: Mahādeva Sarasvatī Vedāntin and Annambhaṭṭa, both of whom, like Sundardās, had commitments to Advaita Vedānta as well as to other intellectual traditions. (shrink)