Reviews Of Diffeent Books

Author(s): J W De Jong
Publisher: J W De Jong

Page 16

210
REVIEWS
that Jayarasi seems to have played a role in the development of the vikalpa reasoning in the Jaina school and that this is probably the reason which saved him from oblivion.
Franco points out that the difficulty of the TUS resides in the fact that Jayarasi is extremely laconic in referring to the theories he is criticizing. An additional difficulty is that he often uses texts which have not survived. The Nyaya philosophy is represented by the Acaryas, a group of commentators on the Nyayavärttika, the Mimämsä school by the Bṛhattikä and the commentaries thereupon, and the Sankhya by the Sastitantra of Värṣaganya and Vindhyaväsin's commentary on it. As to the Buddhists his main opponent is Dharmakirti and he refers often to his Pramāṇaviniscaya. In the compendious notes to the translation (pp. 299-551) Franco identifies and quotes Jayarası's sources, discusses difficulties of interpretation, etc. with great learning and penetration. Franco has also re-edited the text, with the help of a microfilm of the manuscript. In many places he has arrived at establishing better readings.
In his introduction Franco examines the arguments advanced against scepticism by its opponents and tries to demonstrate that "sceptics both in India and in Europe were charged with certain forms of the fallacy of selfrefutation, and that in both traditions this charge is mainly due to a misunderstanding of the sceptic's use of language and of his frame of mind" (p. 37). He remarks that the argument of practical impossibility of scepticism seems never to have been employed in Indian philosophy, whereas in European philosophy it is even more common than the argument of selfrefutation (p. 41). Franco has a high regard for scepticism and places the TUS in a larger context with the following remarks: "It is my firm belief that the study of the sceptics and their influence on the so-called dogmatic philosophers will improve and deepen our understanding of the historical development of Indian thought, and that the evaluation of its role in India, compared to and contrasted with its role in Western philosophy, may turn out to be one of the most gratifying tasks for comparative philosophy" (p. 2). It is to be hoped that Franco's book will be read not only by the students of Indian philosophy but also by all those interested in the study of scepticism.
The TUS ends with the words: tad evam upapluteşv eva tattveṣv avicaritaramaniyaḥ sarve vyavahārā ghaṭanta iti, of which Franco gives the following translation: "Thus, when the principles are completely annihilated, all every day practice (or: all thinking, speaking and acting) can be delightful in as much as it no [longer has to be] deliberated" (p. 44). Franco does not comment upon the expression avicăritaramaniya apart from remarking that