by the great Mâdhavâkarya in his Sarvadarsanasamgraha, the compendium of all the systems of philosophy. The Nyâya-sâstra,' he says, 'consists of five books, and each book contains two daily portions or Ahnikas. In the first Ahnika of the first book the venerable Gotama discusses the definitions of nine subjects, beginning with "proof" (Pramâna), and in the second those of the remaining seven, beginning with discussion (Vâda). In the first daily portion of the second book he examines doubt (8), discusses the four kinds of proof, and refutes all objections that could be made against their being considered as instruments of right knowledge; and in the second he shows that " presumption" and other Pramânas are really included in the four kinds of" proof" already given. In the first daily portion of the third book he examines the soul, the body, the senses, and their objects; in the second, "understanding" (Buddhi) and mind (Manas). In the first daily portion of the fourth book he examines activity (Pravritti), faults (Dosha), transmigration (Pretyabhâva), fruit or reward (Phala), pain (Duhkha), and final liberation (Apavarga); in the second he investigates the truth as to the causes of the "faults," and also the subject of "wholes" and "parts." In the first daily portion of the fifth book he discusses the various kinds of futility (Gâti), and in the second the various kinds of objectionable proceedings (Nigrahasthâna).'

After having held out in the first Sûtra the promise of eternal salvation to all who study his philosophy properly, Gotama proceeds at once to a description of the steps by which the promised Nihsreyasa, or highest happiness, is to be attained,

namely by the successive annihilation of false knowledge, of faults, of activity, and, in consequence, of birth and suffering. When the last or suffering has been annihilated there follows ipso facto freedom, or blessedness (Apavarga), literally abstersion or purification. This process reminds us strongly of some of the links in the Patikka Samuppâda of the Buddhists. This is generally translated by Chain of Causation, and was meant to sum up the causes of existence or of misery, the twelve Nidânas. It really means origin resting on something else. The first step is Avidyâ or that cosmic Nescience which was so fully elaborated in the Vedanta-philosophy. According to the Buddhists there follow on Avidyâ the Samkhâras', all the varieties of existence; on these Vigñâna, sensation; on this Nâmarûpa, names and forms; on these the Shadâyatana, the six organs of perception. Then follow in succession Sparsa, contact, Vedanâ, sensation, Trishnâ, desire, Upâdâna, attachment, Bhava, state of existence, Gâti, birth, Garâmarana, decay and death, Soka, sorrow, Parideva, lamentation, Duhkha, suffering, Daurmanasya, grief, and Upâyâsa, despair 2.

This chain of successive states proclaimed by Buddha has formed the subject of ever so many commentaries, none of which seems quite satisfactory. The chain of Gotama is shorter than that of Gautama, but the general likeness can hardly be mistaken. Who was the earlier of the two, Gotama or Gautama, is still a contested question, but whatever the age of our Sûtras (the sixteen topics) may

1Cf. Garbe, Samkhya-Philosophie, p. 269 seq.
2 Cf. Childers, s.v.

be, a Nyâya-philosophy existed clearly before the rise of Buddhism.

I. Pramana.

Gotama proceeds next to examine each of the sixteen topics.

The first topic or Padârtha is Pramâna, which is said to consist of four kinds, all being means or measures of knowledge. They are in the Nyâya as in the Vaiseshika, (1) Pratyaksha, sense-perception; (2) Anumâna, inference; (3) Upamâna, comparison; and (4) Sabda, word.

Perception or Pratyaksha.

1. Perception (Pratyaksha) is explained as knowledge produced by actual contact between an organ of sense and its corresponding object, this object being supposed to be real. How a mere passive impression, supposing the contiguity of the organs of sense with outward objects had once been established, can be changed into a sensation or into a presentation (Vorstellung), or what used to be called a material idea, is a question not even asked by Gotama.

Inference or Anumana.

2. Inference (Anumâna), preceded by perception, is described as of three kinds, Pûrvavat, proceeding from what was before, i. e. an antecedent; Seshavat, proceeding from what was after, i. e. a consequent ; and Sâmânyato Drishta, proceeding from what is constantly seen together. Though, as we saw, the Kârvaka rejects every kind of Anumâna or inference, he, as Vâkaspati Misra remarks very acutely (Kârikâ 5), in attacking his antagonists for

their mistaken faith in inference, does really himself rely on inference, without which he could not so much as surmise that his antagonists held erroneous opinions, such erroneous opinions being never brought into contact with his organs of sense, but being supposed to exist on the strength of Anumâna.

The meaning of the three kinds of inference differs considerably according to different commentators. It is generally explained that a Pûrvavat, preceded by or possessed of a prius, refers to the mutual relation between a sign and what is signified by it, so that the observation of the sign leads to the observation or rather inference of what is universally associated with it or marked by it. This unconditional association is afterwards treated under the name of Vyâpti, literally pervasion of one thing by another. Examples will make this clearer. When we see a river rising we infer as its Pûrva or prius that it has rained. When we see that the ants carry their eggs, or that the peacocks are screaming, we infer as the Sesha or posterior that it will rain. (Nyâya S. II, 5, 37). It is true that in all these cases the reason given for an inference may what is called, wander away, that is, may prove too much or too little. In that case the fault arises from the conditioned character of the Vyâpti or the pervasion. Thus the rising of a river may be due to its having been dammed up, the carrying off their eggs by the ants may have been caused by some accidental disturbance of their hill, and the screaming of the peacocks may really have been imitated by men. The fault, however, in such cases does not affect the process of inference, but the Vyâpti only; and as soon as the relation between the sign and the

k k

thing signified has been rectified, the inference will come right. Each Vyâpti, that is each inductive truth, consists of a sign (Linga), and the bearer of a sign (Lingin). The bearer of the sign is called Vyâpaka or pervading, the sign itself Vyâpya, what is to be pervaded. Thus smoke is the sign (Linga, Vyâpya), and fire is what pervades the smoke, is always present when there is smoke, is the sine quâ non of smoke, is therefore Lingin or Vyâpaka.

But everything depends on whether the two are either absolutely or only conditionally related. These conditions are called the Upâdhis. Thus the relation between fire and smoke is conditioned by damp firewood; and there are other cases also where fire exists without smoke, as in a red-hot iron ball.

The third kind of inference, the Sâmânyato Drishta, based on what is constantly seen together, is illustrated by our inferring that the sun is moving because it is seen in different places, everything that is seen in different places being known to have moved. Here the Vyapti, on which the ancient logicians depended, had to wait till it was corrected by Copernicus.

Even a deaf man may infer the existence of sound if he sees a particular conjunction of a drumstick with a drum. It requires but a certain amount of experience to infer the presence of an ichneumon from seeing an excited snake, or to infer fire from perceiving the heat of water, nay to infer the existence of an organ of touch from our feeling any animated body. In all such cases the correctness of the inference is one thing, the truth of the conclusion quite another, the latter being always conditioned by the presence or absence of certain Upâdhis.