296 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. [June, 1910. 



if* 1 ! 



The first six words of this passage are almost identical 

 with the above citation from the Bhasya (I. 1, 35). The inter- 

 pretation of these words is to be determined in the light of 

 what follows. 



Translation (€rs^T3rrf^i€r*r: etc.). — The soul, etc., 

 are cited here as illustrations. These {i.e., the soul, etc.) do 

 not possess that quality [non-eternalnessj on account of their 

 want of producedness constituting a point of disagreement 

 with sound. Non-eternalness is an attribute of the subject of 

 the conclusion (sound) and it does not belong to that (the soul). 

 Here observing that non-eternalness does not belong to the soul, 

 etc., on account of the want of producedness, the contrary is 

 inferred with respect to sound, namely, that it is non-eternal 

 on account of " producedness." 



This translation, being literal, is rather cumbrous, and 

 scholars unacquainted with Sanskrit may find it difficult to 

 understand it. But one point is clear from the portion in 

 italics, namely, that c< want of producedness " has been taken 

 as the reason (hetu) for "want of non-eternalness," or in 

 other words 



" All non-produced things are eternal," 



which is the interpretation we put upon the text in LI, 35 

 (Nyayasutra Bhasya), and which has been shown to involve 

 the fallacy of undistributed middle. 



I have hitherto dealt with only Observation and Reason- 

 ing. These two are recognised in Indian as well as in European 

 Logic. In addition to these, the Indian logician deals with the 



upamana 



The 



following well-known verses bear upon this point : 



^fa^lT ^cTTfr xlf3T^T3?: RHl^T: 6 



izianagram 



