Wolk 1, Nos10-] An Examination of the Nyaya-Sitras. 249 
[N.S.] ; 
Vedantins, the two really orthodox systems of Hindu philosophy. 
Why should Nyaya be so pessimistic? There is’ no reason 
for it, and it has been shown that the word sukha did at one 
time occur in the prameyasttra. The Buddhists are downright 
pessimists. To them everything is duhkha, and it is they who 
believed that sukha was, if properly analysed, duhkha. It seems 
that the Hindu logical treatise underwent the first stage of its 
philosophical transformation in the hands of some Buddhist phil- 
osopher, and became a gloomy and pessimistic science. The second 
Sutra of the first chapter, destroying so many things successively 
and reaching to apavarga, has the appearance of Buddhistic 
teaching. They enumerate a long series of effects from false 
knowledge, and teach us that as we destroy effects, we perceive 
the causes, that these causes are also effects; we destroy them and. 
gradually we come to the original cause of all these, namely, 
false knowledge ; when that is destroyed we come to nirvana. 
This is precisely the teaching of the second Sitra, though the 
enumeration is not go long. The Buddhist tradition, as we know 
it from China and Japan, distinctly says that the Logic of 
Aksapada was their handbook in logic, and that they added to and 
subtracted from it. The tradition is positive that Mirok mixed up 
Nyaya and Yoga, and we find in the present Nyayasttra a lone 
section on Yoga in IV. 2, and one is puzzled to know why it has 
been introduced. The grounds advanced by Hindu commentators 
for its introduction are of the flimsiest kind. But the fact 
comes from China that Mirok mixed the two up. So some other 
Buddhist philosophers might have introduced the second Sitra 
and changed the prameyasttra so as to suit his purpose. 
That the science of Aksapada was, for a long time, in the 
hands of the Buddhists, and, therefore, not in great favour with 
the Brahmanist, will’ appear from the following considerations. 
The Ramayana, the Mahabharata, the Puranas, and even the 
Dharmaastras dislike those who studied the Tarkasastra. 
The Vedantastitras distinctly say that this science was not 
accepted by the orthodox. They are known as little removed 
from the Buddhists—the Buddhists are nihilists, they are half 
nihilists (ardhavainasika). That there was an unholy alliance 
between the Nyaya and the Buddhists in the early centuries of 
Buddhism, is not open to grave doubts. The introduction of the 
second Sutra, the alterations in the prameyasitra, and the 
definitions of misery, birth or rebirth, activity, faults, and 
emancipation in the first chapter appear to be the work of Bud- 
dhists. The examination of these definitions occupy the whole of 
the first Lecture of the fourth chapter. 
The work underwent another transformation in the hands of 
a later Hindu sect who vigorously assailed some of the prominent 
suddhist doctrines, both Mahayanist and Hinaydnist. These 
assailed SarvadSinyatavada on the one hand, and Sarvastvada 
on the other. To know who they were not, one has simply to 
cast his eyes on the various theories that have been assailed 
in connexion with the examination of rebirth. These are 
