Page:Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society - Volume 1.djvu/128



the preceding essay, the Sdnc’hya, theistical as well as atheistical, was examined. ‘The subject of the present essay, will be the dialectic philosophy of Gérama, and atomical of CanApr, respectively called Nydya “ reasoning,’ and Vaiséshica “ particular.” ‘The first, as its title implies, is chiefly occupied with the metaphysics of logic ; the second with physics : that is, with “ particulars” or sensible objects: and hence its name. They may be taken generally, as parts of one system: supplying each other’s deficiencies: commonly agreeing upon such points as are treated by both : yet on some differing ; and therefore giving origin to two schools, the Naiydyica, and Vaiséshica.

From these have branched various subordinate schools of philosophy ; which, in the ardor of scholastic disputation, have disagreed on matters of doctrine or of interpretation. The ordinary distinction between them is that of ancients and moderns; besides appellations derived from the names of their favourite authors, as will be more particularly noticed in another place.

The text of Gérama is a collection of séras or succinct aphorisms, in five books or “ lectures;” each divided into two “ days” or diurnal lessons; and these again subdivided into sections or articles, termed pracaranas, as relating to distinct topics. It isa maxim, that a section is not to consist of so little as a single sutra ; and to make good the rule, some stress is occasionally put upon the text; either splitting an aphorism, or associating it incongruously.

CanApe’s collection of sutras is comprised in ten lectures, similarly di- vided into two daily lessons, and these into pracaranas, or sections, containing two or more sétras, relative to the same topic.

Like the text of other sciences among the Hindus, the stéitras of Gorama and of CanApr have been explained and annotated by a triple set of com- mentaries, under the usual titles of Bhdshya, Vartica, and Tica. ‘These (the Bhdshya especially) are repeatedly cited by modern commentators, as well as by writers of separate treatises; but (so far as has come under my