Philosophical Review

Le Compendium des Topiques (Tarka-Samgraha) d'Annambhatta by A. FoucherReview by: Constantin RegameyThe Philosophical Review, Vol. 60, No. 3 (Jul., 1951), pp. 413-415Published by: Duke University Press on behalf of Philosophical ReviewStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2181886 .

Accessed: 24/06/2014 21:35

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Duke University Press and Philosophical Review are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to The Philosophical Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.76 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:35:39 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REVIEWS OF BOOKS

seems ill-conceived, and though the author's philosphical technique is rather immature, nevertheless there are scattered throughout the book many remarks of great penetration, and philosophers will certainly not read this book without considerable profit.

J. J. C. S MART

Adelaide University

LE COMPENDIUM DES TOPIQ UES (TARKA-SAMGRAHA) D'ANNAMBHATTA. Texte et traduction et un commentaire par A. FOUCHER. Paris, Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1949. Pp. xiii, i84. $6.82.

The Tarka-Samgraha is a short Sanskrit compendium written by a South Indian author Annambhatta (XVI, XVII A.D.) in order to summarize the essential points of the Nyaya and Vaiseshika schools. It is one of the most renowned "primers" of Indian philosophy, which was long ago translated into English (The Nydya Philosophy: A Translation of the Tarka-Samgraha, with Notes, by J. R. Ballantyne; a New Edition with Additions and Corrections, by K. S. Macdonald [Calcutta, i894]) and German (Annambhattas Tarka-Samgraha, ein Kompendiur der Dialektik und Atomistik, mit des Verfassers eigenern Kornrentcr genannt Dlpika, aus dem Sanskrit iibersetzt von E. Hultzsch, Abhandl. der Kbnigl. Ges. der Wiss. zu Gbttingen, Phil.- hist. Klasse, Neue Folge, IX, 5 [Berlin, I907]). Now, A. Foucher, the senior of the French indologists, publishes a new translation of this text; his purpose, however, goes far beyond the simple task of render- ing the Tarka-Samgraha accessible to his countrymen. The difficulties of Indian philosophy are for the occidental reader not limited to the incommensurability of Indian and European philosophical -notions and to the divergent methods of reasoning; they are also concerned with the language. It is true that Sanskrit is in philosophical works easier than in literary ones: the vocabulary is poorer, aiad the grammar is limited to a small number of usual patterns. Yet the philosophical and scientific treatises are in India intended to be learned by heart, and consist of short mnemotechnical formulae (mnila) which on account of their conciseness are almost unintelligible; they are consequently pro- vided with a commentary (bkcWishya), composed often by the author himself, the schematic style of which, however, needs further sub- commentaries. The understanding of the technical jargon of such texts requires a special training not only for the students of indology, but also for the readers of the translations. The aim of A. Foucher was to provide his students with a textbook allowing him to initiate them in the arcana of this peculiar mode of exposition.

For this purpose he could not have chosen a more suitable text than the Tarka-Samgraha. Though the schools of Nyaya and Vaiseshika are usually presented as actual philosophical systems, they do not de-

4I3

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.76 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:35:39 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE PHILOSOPHICAL REVIEW

serve this denomination: they are nothing else than auxiliary dis- ciplines; viz., Nyaya represents the traditional logic of the Brahmans, and Vaiseshika supplies this logic with a kind of realistic ontological frame. This frame is often denoted as Indian atomism, but this de- scription covers only partially the contents of the doctrine; the char- acteristic features of this discipline consist rather in the method of explaining reality by means of classifications, of finding out the specific differences between the elements of reality (visesha means "charac- teristic differences" and vaiseshikca can be translated as "specificator"), and of establishing the categories such as substance, quality, inherence, existence, etc. Such a classification cannot claim to give an ontological explanation of reality; but, thanks to its generality, it fits all the systems. Thus, the disciplines, the combined exposition of which Tarka-Sargraha consists, are logic (Nydya) and systematics (Vacisel- shika). Tcarka in this title does not denote exclusively "logic," as it is usually translated, but means in general any "subject of discussion," both scientific notions and usual modes of reasoning. The term "topics" adopted by Foucher renders this general meaning very well.

Consequently, the work of Annambhatta gives a compendium of commonplaces of Indian philosophy, presented in what is possibly the easiest form. The author himself states in the introductory stanza that his manual is destined for "children" (bala), i.e., beginners who al- ready know grammar and literature, but have not yet studied philoso- phy. It gives them the a, b, c of philosophical notions and methods. Yet the "children" to which the Tarka-Samgrhcha applies are Indian be- ginners, whose mental habits and education differ essentially from ours. And the aim of Foucher would not be attained, if he had con- fined his work to the simple translation of the text with its commen- taries. He adds to this translation a commentary of his own, which introduces the reader into the very procedure of Indian discussion. This part of the l3ook is the most useful one, and constitutes a real "novelty." Thus, not only do students of indology learn, on easy sub- jects, the Indian philosophical style; but also nonspecialized scholars can without difficulty get acquainted with the peculiar Indian methods of scientific exposition and demonstration. Usually, nonspecialists learn to know Indian philosophy through vague and enthusiastic books, which tell many things about oriental "wisdom," but give no precise idea of the technical aspect of this philosophy. No wonder that, when these readers attempt to read the tranlations of the genuine texts, they are completely lost in the scholastic intricacy of Indian reasoning. The work of Foucher gives them an excellent preparation. Both students of indology and scholars in the field of comparative philosophy are there- fore greatly indebted to the eminent French indologist for having shared with them the results of his long experience, and for having

414

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.76 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:35:39 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REVIEWS OF BOOKS

given in his commentary to the Tarka-Samgraha a remarkable vade mecum to the study of Indian philosophy.

CONSTANTIN REGAMEY Lausarnne, Switzerland

PLOTINUS' SEARCH FOR THE GOOD. By JOSEPH KATZ. New York, King's Crown Press, I950. PP. ix, io6. $2.50. One chief key to Platonism is to read its levels of reality as levels of value....

This book then deviates from the usual approach to Plotinus in that it is less concerned with the interrelation of his ideas... than with the experiential refer- ence of his ideas. It treats Plotinus' dialectic less for its own sake than to show its function in bridging the inevitable inconsistencies that arise when valuational and existential considerations are not clearly distinguished (p. vii).

This approach of necessity would lead to an external and somewhat unsympathetic criticism of any system. Modern philosophic opinion is taken as normative and the ancient author is judged by it. For ex- ample, "Ultimately of course any categories expressed in discursive language can be applied only to sense reality" (p. 47). This type of criticism is legitimate, but one must decide whether the critic is merely disagreeing with the text or whether he has uncovered actual incon- sistencies. To substantiate a charge of inconsistency one must pay attention more to the interrelation of ideas than to their experiential reference.

Professor Katz admits that "Many of Plotinus' arguments become much more plausible if his hypostases are regarded as formal 'causes' rather than as efficient or quasi-material causes" (p. 95, n. 20). Now, the fact that one interpretation preserves consistency whereas a second does not would seem to be a good reason for adopting the former. If a particular definition of moral evil (p. 52) and a conception of lib- erty (p. 53) make Plotinus' words inconsistent, then probably these are not Plotinus' meanings; and for my part, I question the assertion that they are implied in the text (p. 96, n. 38). One who holds with Faust that "In the beginning was the Act" (p. 65) should try to cor- rect for the momentum of external criticism by doing everything grammatically possible to preserve the author's consistency.

An unsympathetic or modern approach to Plotinus is entirely legiti- mate, but it has its dangers not only with respect to consistency but even in the case of disagreement. With a distaste for mysticism that I also share, Katz asserts that the claim to have experienced super- sensible realities in the mystic trance is a false claim (p. 24). He notes that the experience and the description of the experience are not identi- cal. Plotinus was subjectively sincere, but his interpretation was mis- taken. He was mistaken because, first, the assumption of supersensible realities can be made on conceptual grounds without a mystic experi-

415

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.76 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:35:39 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions