major texts before him had found away to translation in any western language), Matilal and others argue that Indian philosophy must not be overlooked but must be a part of mainstream philosophical discussion, he discards the position of Indian philosophy as merely a museum piece but consider it as thing to be looked upon for deep insights to modern philosophical problem and new ways, world views, perspective or creativity to analyse and understand things There had been efforts in translating the subsection of tattvacintamani by scholars like Ingall, Potter etc. But they face fierce criticism of not able to find a good English equivalence of highly complicated and technical terms and sentences, using some western tools of logic and analysis which fail to get the meaning intended, unable to represent the meaning and sometimes even the scholars themselves didn't understand the text (and also other works). The popularity of tattvacintamani in India can be measured by the fact that the original work only had 300 pages but the commentaries upon it amount to about a million pages (with a text completely devoted one line/sentence in inference section )! . In a try to introduce navya nyaya to the world of study of Indian philosophy and philosophy in general, When for the first time an entire perception section was translated Ganeri said But the time after gangesa didn't come without critical examination of tattvacintamani and new innovation in field logic, language and philosophy. Varanasi, Nabadvipa and Mithila became the cosmopolitan hub of intellectual discourse in India, there were many major logicians from these regions, to state one radical (as scholar calls him) thinker, philosopher and logician was definitely Raghunatha Siromani, a man of new innovation and insights, without him the system wouldn't have reached at its zenith and this description of navya nyaya remains incomplete. Jonardon Ganeri and considers him quite of a modern philosopher who transformed Indian philosophy in this period for the second time, despite the critical approach of his system gangesa had quite a conservative leaning but siromani wasn't the same kind, he wrote a critical commentary on tattvacintamani known as didhiti and a work on critical examination of his own system, if gangesa worked on epistemology siromani worked for metaphysics, for him any old idea which doesn't fit into the framework of rigorous and robust logic and proof was discarded and rejected at once and the one