wile Nov 10) An Hxamination of the Nyaya-Satras. 247 
[N.S. ] 
of chapter fifth. It enumerates the various Points of Defeat and 
defines them. 
One of the most cogent reasons for considering these trea- 
tises as separate, and also for considering them to be composed by 
different authors, is the fact that the same technical terms have 
been used and defined in all the three, but im very different senses. 
The Definition of Jati, as given in the first, does not cover all the 
subdivisions enumerated in the second. The terms prakaranasama 
and s@dhyasama are defined among the “‘Semblances of Reason ” 
in the first treatise, but these two have been differently defined as 
subdivisions of Jatis. The term matanujna@ has been defined one 
way in the second and another way in the third. If all the 
three had been written by one and the same person, the same 
technical terms would not receive at his hands two such wide 
definitions. 
It is difficult to say whether the composition of the second 
and third treatises preceded or followed that of the first treatise, 
_ which is a comprehensive work on the Science of Debate. Many 
scholars hold that such comprehensive treatises generally follow 
separate and partial treatises on parts, just as the unidi-sttras 
and the gana-satras preceded Panini, and that these separate treatises 
after the composition of the comprehensive treatise, formed its 
appendices. 
One would be tempted to believe that all the sections of the 
first lecture of chapter second, with the exception of the last, 
and the first and last sections of the second Daily Lecture of that 
chapter, may be included in the Logical part, because they have a 
direct bearing on pramana or the instruments of true knowledge, 
which forms the first essential topic in the Science of Debate. 
The commentators and modern pandits, in order to make 
this incoherent collection of Stitras a harmonious whole, are 
obliged to say that the Nyayasttras consist of the enumeration, 
the definition and the examination of the sixteen topics. The 
enumeration is complete in the first Stitra, the definition in the 
first chapter, and the examination in the other chapters. There 
would have been no cause of complaint if all this were a fact. 
The examination is, however not complete. It does not comprehend 
all the sixteen topics. The topics examined in fact are the Ist, 
2nd, 3rd, 15th, and 16th. The examination of others have been 
altogether omitted. If there is any, itis of a very nebulous charac- 
ter. So a complete examination of the sixteen topics is not to be 
found in the Siitras, and this is exceedingly suspicious. The 
examinations are, as a rule, examinations of the definitions given in 
Chapter L., at least so the commentators say. If so, the examina- 
tion of Jati and of the Points of Defeat are not really the examina- 
tion intended by the commentators. On the other hand, in the 
case of Jati, we find that the definition as given in Chapter I., 
depending simply upon homogeneity and heterogeneity, does 
not apply to a number of the subdivisions of Jatis as given in 
Chapter V. The examination of other three topics, too, contains so 
much of heterogeneous matter, besides an examination of the 
