 Good morning, everyone. I am a graduate student at Kyoto University, Japan. I'm really glad to be here today. Thank you. Let us start. Ethmologically speaking, the word niksipa may mean to put down. In giant tradition, however, this word has a unique meaning and definition. As of state that niksipa is the system of focusing keyword by applying a format of fixed viewpoints. He also pointed out the importance of making clear its significance in order to understand the text which represent the earliest post-canonical development of giant doctrine and exegesis. Paying attention to two types, niksipa, which appears in Utradiana Sutra, he examined which is an old form. As he mentioned that he had not yet seen a study which would explain the details of niksipa technique and make clear its general significance and practical use. No, practical use. Indeed, this is one of the starting points of the full-scale research on niksipa. However, we must not overlook another important research presented at the same time at this. Dixit defines anyoga duvara as the point of investigation of the meaning of the words in canons and niksipa as a particular set of anyoga duvaras. He classified the history of giant salt into two ages, namely the age of agamas and the age of logic besides each ages into three, the beginning, medieval, and the end of the age, and explained the theory of Pramana, Naya, and Anacant Vada, including niksipa, belonging to each historical part. After this works, several studies have been made on niksipa so far. Though this research is, it has been recognized that niksipa is basically fourfolded, namely Nama, Stapana, Drava, and Baba, in explaining the general definition of niksipa. An example of Raja is often quoted. The name Raja, which is given to the son of the, son of a catchman, for instance, is Nama Niksipa. A portrait or statue of the king, Raja, is Stapana Niksipa, a prince who will be the king in future or the former king who has already retired or the dead body of the king, Drava Niksipa. The king, Raja, who are engaged in political activities at present is Baba Niksipa. As shown above, there may be fairly general agreement in the definition of the concept of niksipa so far. However, there seems to be no study that try to focus in detail on niksipa, especially in the age of logic. There is no disagreement on this point that Akaneka plays a very important role among the authors belonging to the age of logic. From the point of view of Niksipa also, which constitute his philosophical system, his significance cannot be overlooked. Therefore, in this view of his significance for Niksipa, this paper is concentrated on the concept of niksipa in Akaneka's works. First of all, we will focus our attention on the niksipa in Tatovarta Varitika, Tatovarta Raja Varitika, which is the commentary on Tatovarta Sutra of Masvati. This is because it is pointed out by Mahendra Kumarjain that Tatovarta Raja Varitika is an earlier one among his works. Therefore, it is quite likely that his understanding of niksipa in Tatovarta Varitika serves as the foundation of niksipa in other works. In this part, while clarifying the fundamental definition of niksipa, I would like to especially observe a common future with Sarvarata city of Pujapada, which is earlier commentary on Tatovarta Sutra than Tatovarta Varitika of Akaneka. This will be a good example that Sarvarata city affected the diffusion in Tatovarta Varitika. Next, I will proceed to the comparative study of niksipa in his original works. Among his works, Laguio Strayer and the city in Shia, where Akaneka defines the four niksipas clearly, will be treated in this paper. This refers these two are indispensable to examine the concept of niksipa in the sort of Akaneka. Comparing description between Tatovarta Varitika and his original works, I would like to clarify the description common among them and the description different from each other. Common part would show that the understanding of niksipa in Tatovarta Varitika serves the basis of description of niksipa in his foreign works and different one will prove how his comprehension of niksipa changed throughout his works. So niksipa in Tatovarta Varitika, a general definition of niksipa. Nama, Stapana, Drabea, Barbatas, Tan, Niasat. This is the aphorism about niksipa in Tatovarta Sutra. On this aphorism, the explanation about four Niasats, namely Nama, Stapana, Drabea, and Barbat is made as follows first. Nama, Niksipa is defined as following. The act of naming without any other causes, limitant is Nama. Although the meaning of other causes is not explained clearly in Tatovarta Varitika, as in later in his original works, they are explained as a characteristic with which certain thing is equipped. That is, it is naming to give something a name without being based on its future character. In Sarbatas city, naming is also described as the act of naming something regardless of the meaning which the word originally has. Therefore, although each and every word explaining name are not completely same as in Sarbatas city, it is possible that the definition of Nama Niksipa in Tatovarta Varitika is fundamentally based on the definition in Sarbatas city. By connecting something a and b with linguistic expression, this a is that b. Substituting something a for the original thing b is Stapana Niksipa. As we say, Indra, which is the husband of Shachi and highest one, this is that Indra. That description in here mostly for Sarbatas city as well as in the case of Nama Niksipa. Next, Dravya. In the matter of Dravya, there are some problems. In Tatovarta Varitika, at first Dravya Niksipa is defined as the aspect of the meaning of a word which denotes the preceding state being confronted with the essential state, Baba. The problem is here. This definition focuses only on the future aspect of the state. For example, a prince who is not the king right now but will be the king in future. This definition does not focus on the past aspect of the state. For example, the former king who has already retired or the dead body of the king. The set of the two aspects, future and past aspect is mentioned not only in Sarbatas city but also in Shibetambara text, Anuradwara Sutra, Bisheshavashikavashya. Therefore, it was the standard orthodox way to focus on both two aspects. Yet, it seems that Akanaka abandoned one of these two aspects. Why Akanaka decided to do so? With this question in mind, we will now take a look at following characteristics of Dravya Akanaka described. Dravya is also a qualified entity namely Dravya which is concerned with cannons and that is not concerned with cannons. The former is the person who knows only canonical words without contemplating the meaning of these words. The latter is further classified into three. The first is the body of the person who knows the meaning of the word. It is a material aspect of the body lasting throughout three tenses, perfect, present, and future. The second is previous state being confronted with the particular state. What has been noticed is that the quite similar phrase as the definition mentioned above applies to this case. It can be interpreted as Akanaka repeats the same definition twice. The Akanaka's intention is unclear and we cannot have enough evidence to decide this matter but it may be that Akanaka confused in these points. Anyway, let us now continue to follow his description again. The third is things accepted too. This is further divided into karma and no karma but Akanaka indicated that only these names and did not explain these meanings in detail. Such is an outline of Dravia in Tatwata Vertica. This diffusion of Dravia given above is not a material aspect of the meaning of the word as we have seen in the example of Raja but a unique aspect paying attention on the material aspect of the person who knows the meaning of the word. This aspect is also seen in Salvatte City, Anuagadwara, Bisheshava, Shukabasha, and so on. Therefore, there are the traditional way to interpret Dravia Nick Shepa and Baba Nick Shepa is the aspect of the meaning of the word which denote something identified with its present and essential state. This is also classified in the two which is concerned with canons and which is not concerned with canons. The form signifies something identified with its present and essential state which is defined in canon. The latter signifies something identified with its present and essential state which is experienced in general, not in canon. In the case of Baba, these definitions are common with Salvatte City. As seen above, in the matter of this definition of Nick Shepa in Tatovalda Vartica, we may say that Akarenka follows the definition in Salvatte City. After the definition of Four Nick Shepas, a total of eight arguments about their characteristic are follows. The following arguments do not appear in Salvatte City except for the last one. Furthermore, they are not seen in Tatovalda Sutra, Sutra Varsha by Umasavati himself or Aniyoga Dupara Sutra, Bishesha Varshaka Varsha. Therefore, in conclusion, it can be understood that these are the arguments which he invented uniquely. Mahendra Kumar Jain indicates that Akarenka was also a grammarian. Among following discussions, Akarenka focused on the linguistic features of Nick Shepa and quoted Janendra Vyakarana of Fujapada and Mahavarsha several times. This fact could be a good example which supports Jain's opinion. We do not have enough time to examine all of them. So I would like to pick up a couple of topics I've seen in heart out. There is one objection as following. Generally speaking, all into the order that between the common use and the technical use of the word, the technical one should take precedence over the common one. Name in Nick Shepa may be the technical use of the word. Accordingly, in the theory of Nick Shepa, name takes priority over those three elements of Nick Shepa so that there is no space for other three. Akarenka offers the answer for this. We usually experience both case. For example, one is said, bring Gopala. He may interpret two ways. One is that he interprets Gopala as a cattleman. It is common use of the word. In this case, he will bring a cattleman. The other is to interpret Gopala as a proper name. This is technical use of the word. In this case, he will bring a person whose name is Gopala. We experience this both case by Jain's, thus that objection is not correct. Akarenka also said, furthermore, each elements of Nick Shepa belongs to two knights. Among these two, there is no priority. Thus, that objection is not valid. Next, relationship with Pramana, Naya and Nick Shepa. In Tattvartasutra, the aphorism on Nick Shepa appears just before that on Pramana and Naya. Assuming that the intention of the author, Umasavati is represented in the order of every aphorism in Tattvartasutra, we can see that Nick Shepa is the previous step to Pramana and Naya. Indeed, at the beginning of the commentary of the aphorism on Pramana and Naya, Akarenka state that the object of Pramana and Naya the seven Tattvart and correct view Samyakudarsana that have been recognized by Nick Shepa. In other words, in the matter of Tattvart and Samyakudarsana, we have to specify the meaning of these words by means of Nick Shepa at first and then recognize correctly then by Pramana and Naya. It should also be added that after the aphorism of Pramana and Naya, two Anuyogas follows. In Tattvartasutra, Nick Shepa, Pramana, Naya and the two Anuyogas are defined as the way of way to recognize Tattvart and Samyakudarsana. Nick Shepa in Akarenka's original works. Nick Shepa in Pramana and Pramayakudarsana, Agiyasura. In Agiyasura, Shepa appears in the last part. The first noteworthy point is that Akarenka mentioned that the word meaning has to be analyzed at least in four ways. That is, Nick Shepa is defined as originally more than four fold. This feature is important since not seen in Tattvartavartika or Saravartasidi. We can find this in Anuyogasutra. In Anuyogasutra, this topic is described following. If we can, we have to analyze the meaning of the word as in many ways as we can. However, if we cannot, we have to do so at least in four ways, namely, Nama, Stapana, Dravia, Nick Shepa, Baba. In this respect, Akarenka refers to Shwetambara text, Anuyogadwara. After that, the definition of Nick Shepa follows. Nama, Nick Shepa is defined as the act of naming without any other causes, nimitantara. The description here is fairly common with that of Tattvartavartika, but it's different in that the meaning of other causes, nimitantara, are explicit here as Jati, Dravia, Guna, Kuria. Sometimes people give someone a name after a characteristic which the word originally has, but with regard to Nama, Nick Shepa, the act of naming without this characteristic is indicated. And it is Stapana, Nick Shepa that substituting something A for the original thing B in the true picture of it, Sat Baba or in symbolized form, Asat Baba. The important point to note is the terms true picture, Sat Baba or symbolized form, Asat Baba, here, are not seen in Tattvartavartika nor Sarbat City. Then it may be regarded as Akarenka's invention, but that is not true. It is pointed out in the footnote of Mahendra Kumar Jain that this type of definition about Stapana can be traced to Visheshavashika Abhashya, Brihat-Kalpavashya, Aniyoga-Dubhara Sutra, Abhashyaka-Nilukti. Although it is simplistic to think that only because this phrase is common among these texts, Akarenka knows these old texts, yet all into the example above, it seems quite likely that at least he notes Aniyoga-Dubhara Sutra and refers to it. Judging from this fact that the phrase Nimi-Tantra, which is a characteristic phrase in the Diffusion of Namaniksepa, is not seen in these texts, it is possible that based on the understanding in Tattvartavartika, Akarenka corrects the appropriate expression from other texts and put them together here. Based on the definition in Tattvartavartika, Dravya and Baba are briefly described here. Thus, we may shortcut them. Significance of Niksepa. Now, the significance of Niksepa is described following. Niksepa is fruitful that it eliminate the unnecessary meaning of the word and adapt the intended meaning of the word. This kind of expression discussing about the significance of Niksepa did not appear in Tattvartavartika, however, we can find it in Sarabhata city. The texts before Sarabhata city, such as Aniyoga-Dubhara Sutra and Vesesha Vashakavashya, do not discuss about this topic. Therefore, Puja father can be regarded as the first through pay attention to the significance of Niksepa. Relationship with Pramana, Naya and Niksepa. In Lagya Sura, the significance of Pramana, Naya and Niksepa are given as below. Pramana is the way to recognize the general characteristic of an object throughout three tenses and Naya makes clear the intended part of the object. Moreover, Niksepa analyzed the meaning of the word. Although Akalaka himself does not express the relationship in view of time, the commentary Naya Kunda Chandra analyzed that Niksepa works after Naya. That is at first a person recognize an object or a word and then he starts to consider the meaning of the word. As in Tattvara Sutra, Niksepa, Pramana, Naya and two Aniyogas are defined as the way to recognize to correct meaning of every word. Not mentioned about inclusion property with Naya. The Niksepa in Siddhivinshchaya, in short, defintions, significance and the number of the elements that we have seen in Lagya Sura are common. With regard to the relationship, Niksepa is defined to work after Naya. It is not described that Niksepa, Pramana, Naya and two Aniyogas are the ways to recognize the meaning of the word. It can be said that he abandoned such system of knowledge as seen in Tattvara Sutra and Lagya Sura. So conclusion. In the matter of the defintions of Niksepa in Tattvara Valtika, we may say that Akalanka followed the defintions in Sarabata city. On the other hand, regarding the linguistic arguments which is not seen in Sarabata city, they are likely Akalanka's invention. As has been pointed out by Hujinaga, Niksepa cannot be discussed beyond the narrow limit of linguistic view. Therefore, it is difficult to discuss in the same level as Pramana and Naya, which is related with the epistemological topic. From what has been said before, it can be concluded that recognizing Niksepa as the means of understanding Tattvara, Akalanka noticed its linguistic characteristics as seen in Tattvara Valtika and clearly distinguished it from Pramana and Naya as the epistemological causes. This defintions in Tattvara Valtika are adapted in Lagya Sura. However, it is likely that beside this defintions, the ideas in other works, namely, Aniyoga Devara or Bishashagashashaka Vashya, et cetera, are corrected and put together there. Furthermore, in Lagya Sura, he also adapted the notion in Tattvara Valtika that Niksepa, Pramana, Naya, and two Aniyogas are the means of cognition of seven Tattvars. But regarding Niksepa as walking after Naya, this is likely because that from the epistemological point of view, he admits that at first, a person recognized an object or word and then he starts to consider the meaning of it. In Siddhminisha, it was not discussed, the structure that Tattvars are recognized by means of Pramana, Naya, Niksepa, and two Aniyogas. This may indicate that he abandoned such system of knowledge as seen in Tattvara Sutra or in Lagya Sura. And we miss it that he took paints with application, the traditional doctrine to his own works. Thank you.