বাঙালির সারস্বত অবদান: বঙ্গে নব্যন্যায়চর্চা (Bangalir Saraswat Avadan: Bange Navyanyaya Charcha)

This is perhaps the most authentic history of Navya-Nyāya scholarship in Bengal with special emphasis on Navadvipa. In this book, the author presents a detailed description of the biographies and the works of the philosophers of Navadvipa. The author divides his work in the following chapters: 1. The Pre-Śiromaṇī age, 2.Raghunātha Śiromaṇī, 3. Bengali Commentators on Śiromaṇī, 4. The Post-Gadādhara Era, 5. Bengali Naiyāyikas in Kāśidhāma, 6. Nyaya Schools of Bengal. The author, with sufficient historical evidence, determines the time of many of the Navya-Nyāya scholars and he also proposes his views on the authorship of many of the Navya-Nyāya commentaries.

নদিয়ার সংস্কৃতি চর্চা (Nadiyar Samskriti Carca)

The present book contains several essays on the history of Nadia. Some of the essays focus on the history and archaeological importance of Nadia. Some other essays focus on the cultural activities in Navadvipa. There are some other essays that describe the literacy and library in Nadia. Folk theaters (jātrā) and modern theaters in Nadia have also been talked about in some essays.

मुक्तिबादबिचारः (Muktivādavicaraḥ)

This book is an essay on Nyāya theory of liberation. Harirāma Tarkavāgīśa, in this book, critically assesses the generally accepted definition of liberation as permanent (ātyantika) cessation (nivṛtti) of suffering (duhkha). The debate revolves around explaining the terms like ‘atyanta’ and ‘nivṛtti’. Harirama argues that the widely accepted understanding of these words fails to cover all the different kinds of liberation that philosophers talk about. Harirama proposes to describe liberation as the destruction of final suffering and the idea of finality could be understood as a universal inhering in suffering. Harirama argues that if knowledge of reality is to be regarded as the cause of liberation, then liberation is to be regarded as the permanent post-negation of sin and not of misery.

प्रामाण्यवाद: (Prāmāṇyavādaḥ)

The original  text of Gaṅgeśa, called Tattvacintāmaṇi, has been commented on by  both Raghunātha Śiromaṇi and Gadāhara Bhattācārya. If knowledge is gained through the ways of knowing, then the very nature of knowledge rests on the nature and veridicality of these recognised ways of knowing. An examination of the veridicality of the ways of knowing is known as pārāmānya. In this book, both Raghunātha and Jagadīśa offer a detailed analysis of the debate concerning the nature and veridicality of the very idea of pramāṇa.

तर्कामृत (Tarkāmṛta)

In this book, Jagadīśa Tarkalaṃkāra expounds on all the major issues that one finds in Navya-Nyāya. It is a compendium of Navya-Nyāya philosophy.

शब्दशक्तिप्रकाशिका (Śabdaśaktiprakāśikā (Vol-3))

The third volume of Śabdaśaktiprakāśikā contains an analysis of samāsa. The book starts with a presentation and analysis of the definition of samāsa in general. Jagadīśa distinguishes nitya samāsa from anitya samāsa. The present work contains an analysis of six kinds of samāsa, viz, 1. Dvigu, 2. Tatpuruṣa, 3. Avyaībhāva, 4. Bahubrīhi, 5. Dvandva. The author accepts another samāsa viz. Upapada. The Grammarians hold that the vigraha vākya and the samasta vākya do not have the same śakti and so the nature of understanding the meaning of the vigraha vākya does not amount to understanding the meaning of the samāsa. Jagadīśa refutes this view of the Grammarian and argues that both the vigraha vākya and the samāsa do possess the same meaning. While the traditional Pāṇinian grammar includes karmadhārāya samāsa in tatpuruṣa samāsa and dvigu samāsa in karmadhāraya samāsa, the Katantra Grammar includes dvigu samāsa in tatpuruṣa samāsa. Jagadīśa intervenes in this debate and holds that karmadhāraya and dvigu are independent samāsas and so he thinks that there are six kinds of samāsas viz. tatpuruṣa, avyaībhāva, bahubrīhi, dvandva, karmadhārāya and dvigu. In this book one finds a detailed analysis of all these six kinds of samāsa. Even if Jagadīśa does not accept upapada samāsa as an independent samāsa, still he offers an analysis of upapada samāsa on behalf of those who accept upapada samāsa.