________________
12
Other scholars opinion that the refutation of the doctrines of Carvāka and Bauddha which are found in the ancient treatises prior to Tattvacintāmaņi should be considered as belonging to Prācina Nyāya and the works after Tattvacintāmaņi and its commentaries where the refutation of the views of other orthodox systems like Mimāmsa, Nyāya (H14141, ) etc. is undertaken such works are to be considered as belonging to Navya Nyāya. But this view also is not quite correct as in the more ancient works also there is the criticism of the tenets of the orthodox systems of the Indian Philosophy.
The term “Navya Nyāya” is a technical term. Gangesa who was an exceptionally great logician after the study of Nyāyabhāśya and its commentaries and sub-commentaries and also after the study of works by Dignāga (Fern) etc., wrote “Tattvacintāmani” in the form of the essence of all these treatiese. From this work Nyāyaśastra was named as Navya Nyāya. The treatises prior to “Tattvacintāmaņi” are known as Prācinanyāya.
Some scholars do divide the Nyāya philosophy into three trends: Prācina, Navya and Navya-Navya. The period from Gautama sutras to Udayana is considered to be Prācina Nyāya. From Udayana to Dīdhitikāra the trend is considered to be Navya Nyāya. From Dīdhitikāra onwards it is Navya-Navya Nyāya. But in fact there is no ground for a such division in ancient new and modern Nyāya. Because almost in all these works we find a novelty of some issues. If the division is made in such a way then even more multiple divisions are possible and it may lead to the regresses and infinitude. Therefore it is better if we stick to the division accepted earlier.
