 Namo Jinnaya, thank you, Chairperson. As stated by him, my topic is an appraisal of gene epistemology and logic. I have to discuss in this paper, epistemology and logic in canonical literature, gene logicians, historical development of classification of Praman, and meant contributions of gene logicians as definition of Praman, recollection as Praman, recognition Pratyabha Jnana is Praman, inductive reasoning Tarki is Praman, definition of province, Hethu, new province, such as Karan, et cetera, theory of standpoints, Naivad, and after the conclusion. It is true that general philosophers entered into the panorama of Indian philosophy, Indian epistemology and logic later than Nayaikas and Buddhists, but they have contributed a lot by developing new definition of Praman, types of indirect Pramanaj, nature of Hethu and its kinds, et cetera. Gene logicians developed their epistemological doctrines on the basis of five types of knowledge found in the canonical literature. In gene philosophy, Praman has been accepted as a definitive cognition of knowable thing and knowledge itself. The logicians are almost unanimous on this characteristic of Praman. Tatwar Sutra, who Umaswati, or Umaswamin, is the first work of gene system which propounds the knowledge as Praman and divided it into two types of Pratyaksha and Paraksha. The cognition which occurs directly through, through the soul was considered as Pratyaksha, perception and the cognition which occurs through sense organs and quasi-sense was accepted as Paraksha Praman, indirect knowledge. Hence, from the five-fold knowledge, Umaswati kept Mati Gyan and Shrut Gyan under the category of Paraksha and the other three types of knowledge that is Awadhi Gyan, Manapariya Gyan and Keval Gyan in the category of Pratyaksha. Here a question arises, what is the difference between Samyak Gyan and Praman? Acharya like Hari Bhadrasuri also defines Praman as Samyak Gyan. Buddhist philosopher Dharmakirti in his Nyai Vindu mentioned Praman as Samyak Gyan. But he here in the gene tradition, we should understand the difference between two uses of Samyak Gyan word. One of them leads to liberation from all sorrows and that is a spiritual form of Samyak Gyan which depends on the occurrence of Samyak Darshan or Samyaktva. Whereas in the case of Praman, its consistent empirical aspect is needed. Hence Praman has been defined by the gene logicians as a kind of knowledge which is devoid of doubt, illusion and indetermination. It is, it does not need Samyak or Samyak Darshan before its commencement. Praman is useful for Vibhara or consistent behavior. All the five kinds of knowledge are meant valid in our behavior, hence incorporating them into Praman or organ of valid cognition is a proper step of Jain Acharyaj. Thus all the descriptions made in Jain canons regarding knowledge come under the scope of Pramana. Here I have told previously that there are four dimensions of epistemology, Jain Mimansa, Praman Mimansa, Nay Mimansa and Nikship. And logic mainly deals with inference but it includes all the Pramanas also. And logic is a science which deals with an examination of an object with valid cognitions. Pramanair Artha Parikshanam Nyaayaha. As Nyaayasutrakara Gautam says, Vatsayan Bhash Srikara says on Nyaayasutra Pramanair Artha Parikshanam Nyaayaha. And he also says, after Panchavayava Soyam Parmo Nyaayaha. Panchavayavakkam Pratigyaa Hetu Udharan Upanayya Nygaman. These five sentences are told as Param Nyaay. In the logic, in the canonical literature, we don't have a developed form of epistemology and logic. But five types of knowledge are a specific contribution of gene canonical literature to Indian philosophy. We don't find such five types of knowledges in other systems of India. Matiyan, Shrutiyan, Abhidhiyan, Manaparyayan, and Keval Gyan. There is no such mention in other systems. But in the respective Pramanaj, there is no mention of Pratikshan Paroksh Praman in canonical literature but they adopted four types of Pramanaj, Pratikshan, Anuman, Upman, and Agam from Nyaayasutra or Charakshin Gita. They adopted it, as told by Teotr Balserovis yesterday. And Sthanang Sutra also mentions these four in the name of Hetu. And Sthanang Sutra also mentions three types of Vavasaya, Pratiksh, Pratyayik, and Anugami. Dalsukh Bhai Malavaniya says that these three types of Vavasaya were developed as three types of Pramanaj by Haribhadrasuri in Anikant Jayapattaka as Pratiksh, Anuman, and Agam and by Siddhasen in his Nyaayavatar. Nyaayavatar accepts only three Pramanaj. As told by Peter Flughel, in his time consciousness that there is a Praman, there is a Kaal Praman which is measured, Kaal Praman. So there are four types of Pramanaj in Aniyogdwar Sutra, Dravya Praman, Kshetra Praman, Kaal Praman, and Bhav Praman. These are in the term of measurement. Dravya Taha measure, Kshetra Taha measure, and Kaal measurement from the point of view, Kaal. But in the Bhava Praman, there is a detailed account of Anuman and it is divided in three types, Purvat, Sheshvat, and Dhristasadhar Mivat. And there are a few instances about Sheshvat Praman and Purvat Praman. These are not found in any other literature of India which were mentioned by Aniyogdwar Sutra Kaur Arya Raksit. As he mentions for Purvat Anuman, Maya Puttam Jaha Natham Jumanam Purna Raghayam Kahi Pachchabh Bhi Jaane Jaa Pobalingena Ke Nahi. A person, a son of a mother goes to foreign country and he comes after many years, after 20 or 25 years, bake. Then how she can recognize her son? She sees any such indication on his body. It may be of any type of heart or any type of till or any signal, any symbol is there to recognize. Then she recognizes her. This is Purvat Anuman. This example has been given for Purvat Anuman and it is different from other systems which give Purvat Anuman in a different way. And Sheshvat Anuman, it has five types, panch bhi he pan nath te kim te, kim tam se savam panch bhi he pan nath te tan jaha, kajji anam, karan enam, gunenam, avyav enam, asayenam. There are five types of Sheshvat Inference. One first is karya, other is karan, third is guna, fourth is avyav, and fifth is ashraya. Kim tam kajji anam, what is karya Anuman? There are the examples like sankham sadyanam. A shankha is inferred by its voice. It is shankha and a peacock is inferred by its voice and we know it is peacock. A crow is inferred by its voice and it is peacock. It is karya Anuman. It is karya Anuman. Kim se tam karan enam, what is karan Anuman? Tantavo padassa karanam, napado tantu karanam. Tantu, I don't know the English word for tantu. Threads, these threads are the cause for cloth. And cloth is not a cause for threads. So it is a karya Anuman, karan Anuman. In this way, se kim tam gunenam, suvannam indikasenam, pappam gandhenam. It is a flower, it is a lotus flower, it is a rose flower by its smell. We can know by smell, it is guna Anumana, guna inference by guna. Another example, se kim tam lavnam rasena. It is namak, salt, it is salt. It is known by its taste. We can know it is salt by its taste. It is guna Anumana. Se kim tam avyavanam, when we know a buffalo by its horns, then it is avyavanumana. We know a peacock by its feathers. It is also avyavanumana. So there are so many examples for avyavanumana. And in this way, there is one, and the last anumana is asrayanumana. Asrayanumana, aggimdhumenam, salilam balagenam, bhutthim abhavikarenam. If there is a swan, then we can infer that there is a pond or there is a water. If we see smoke, then we can infer that there is a fire. It has been given in asrayanumana, not in karyanumana. Later on, it is found, this example is found in karyanumana. Smok is an effect of fire. So it was kept in the example of karyanumana. But in Anuagdwar Sutra, we find it in asrayanumana. So these five types of sheshvatanumana are, I think, new examples for Indian epistemology, which were not followed by even Jain philosophers also and not even other systems. This was my point that there was a detailed account of Pramana Mimansa in Anuagdwar Sutra. These four types of Pramanas are found in a Buddhist text, Upayaharde also. Buddhist text Upayaharde mentioned these four Pramanas. It sounds that Buddhist and Jain philosophers developed their own Pramanasastra after Naya philosophy. In the Sthanang Sutra, in the Anuagdwar Sutra, Nandi Sutra perceptual knowledge is divided into two types, Indriya Prataksha and No Indriya Prataksha. This division is found in Anuagdwar Sutra and Nandi Sutra. But there is no mention of Pramana. This division is of knowledge. And it was the basis for Jinnabhadra Gani who evolved a new terminology in Jain epistemology as Samyavarika Prataksha. He developed the concept of Samyavarika Prataksha on the basis of above mentioned division as found in the Nandi Sutra and Nisthanang Sutra. Jain epistemology regarding Pramanas was actually systematized by Bhattakalanka. In the 8th century C, the Jain contribution of Bhattakalanka was to establish Smriti recollection, Pratyavidhyan recognition and Tark inductive reasoning as independent Pramanaj under the category of Paroksha. This is also one of the main contributions of Jain epistemology to Indian philosophy. Before the advent of Akalanka, Umaswati, Pujya Paddevanandin, Siddhasen Diwakar, Samantabhadra, Mallavadik, Shamashraman, Jinnabhadra Gani, Surya, Sumati, Patraswami, Sridhatta, Kumaranandin and Haribhadra Surya also contributed their might to the Jain epistemology to some extent. Acharyakundakunda attempted to prove the nature of knowledge illuminating itself and the object. Siddhasen Diwakar, a great logician, flourished before Bhattakalanka in 5th century C and in the view of Piyotrabalserobis Siddhasen Mahamati wrote an independent work on Jain logic known as Nyayavatar. It is a systematic work comprising 32 Karikas presents a brief description of Jain Pramana Shastra. As Sividya Bhushan mentioned Siddhasen Diwakar as a father of Jain logic and recognized his Nyayavatar as the first work of Jain logic, Siddharth Shiganin, a philosopher of the 9th century C, wrote a comprehensive commentary on it Siddhasen Diwakar tells about the Pramanapramayi Vyavastha that although it is an eternal and famous for all its users though it is presented again to remove ignorance about its nature. Pramanadi Vyavastha Anadi Nidhanatmika Sarvasam Vyavaratri Prasiddhapi Prakirti Prasiddhanam Pramananam Lakshanukta Priyojanam Tad Vyamo Hanivritya Udhamana Samiha Here a thing has been told that Praman is Anadi Nidhanatmika its Vyavara is Anadi Nidhanatmika means it is used by the persons before its Shastra also when its Shastra was evolved when its philosophy was evolved before that it was used by the people and Nyaibhashyaka Vatsayan says What is the pragmatic value of Pramanan? What is the pragmatic value of Pramanan? He says We know the object by Pramanaj by valid cognition and after that we decide to accept the acceptable things and to reject the undesirable things or rejectable things This is the pragmatic value of Pramanaj and this pragmatic value was the main motive motivational element for gen logicians to evolve their Pramanashastra and they went in empirical view leaving the spiritual view leaving the spiritual view they adapted empirical view to evolve their epistemological doctrines that's why they accepted prathiyas praman they accepted karanej hetu purvachar uttarchad and sahachar hetu they adapted empirical view as told by dharmakirti also pramanam vibharen so due to emphasis on empirical behavior or the use of pramanaj and empirical empirical behavior the jaina acharyas devotee to evolve their pramanashastra in this aspect 20 minutes are gone oh at this time I want to show you the evolvement of pramanaj see praman there are 4 types and 2 types of prattaksha 3 types of anuman and 2 types of and 2 types of agama and in tattvarsutra praman is 2 types prattaksha and paroksha avadhi prattaksha is of 3 types paroksha is of 2 types and also their subtypes naya avatar there are only 3 pramanas but siddhasen in his naya avatar propounds prattaksha as swarth and pararth it is his only contribution that he mentions it prattaksha as pararth also and inference is swarth and pararth swarth and pararth are the contribution are the word included by every philosophical system in India but takalanka gives the old evolved form of pramanaj as prattaksha and paroksha prattaksha is 2 types samyavarik and mukhe indriya prattaksha anindriya prattaksha is samyavarik and mukhe prattaksha is avadhi manapariya and keval paroksha is of 5 types there are 2 types of anuman swarth and pararth the main contribution of genealogicians about the definition of pramanas establishment of recollection as an independent pramanas establishment of recollection as independent pramanas establishment of inductive reasoning definition of province establishment of new province such as karan purvachar uttarcha and satchar particular view about the members of syllogism theory of efficient points naiyavad and sevenfold predication nature of prame i have discussed all these points in my paper about pramanas, recollection recognition inductive reasoning definition of province new province, theory of efficient points and nikshya also and conclusion the jana philosophers of both the sects joined their hands to develop the gene epistemology and logic they constantly established recollection recognition and inductive reasoning as independent pramanas they are very precise in defining the province but they are elaborately conceived kinds and sub-kinds of province they establish the nature of pramanas illuminating itself and the object if the works of sumathi, kumarnandin and patra kesari are found available then the history of the development of gene epistemology may be rewritten these are not available their works are not available umaswati or umaswami was the first philosopher who recognized right knowledge as pramanas and classified the pramanas into two protection paroksh kundakund proved the nature of knowledge as eliminating the self and the object although naiyavad is the first systematic work on gene epistemology and logic Bhattakalank has contributed a lot he included recollection, recognition and reasoning as pramanas under the category of pramanas, he introduced karan purvachar uttarcha nisachar hetu as valid province the knowledge occurring through sense organs was first included as empirical perception by jindabhadrganin earlier it was mentioned as indriya prateksh in the nandi sutra the mukhe prateksh was given a new name as paramarthik prateksh by vadidev suri, he further divided it into two types as sakal and vikal prateksh on the basis of a division found in the nang sutra as keval no keval my topic is very lengthy I took it so it was not possible to include all the points in this paper but I have given a few among them to you and thank you, thank you very much