1847.] Bhdsha ParicMda, or Division of Language. 159 



The name of logic, usually applied to the Nyaya, does not correctly 

 define it. It does not treat of the theory of syllogisms and the notions 

 connected with them, as its direct object, but only as a component part 

 of its investigation. It rather aspires to the distinction of giving a 

 complete system of philosophy, based upon the most elementary meta- 

 physical notions, and the division dedicated to the explanation of syl- 

 logistical forms, is not even more explicitly treated than other parts of 

 the system. To call the Nyaya logic, would be the same as to assign 

 this name to the philosophy of Aristotle. There is no doubt, however, 

 that the Nyaya has first among the philosophical systems of the Hindus 

 examined the art of reasoning, and shaped it into its present form. This 

 is generally acknowledged, and it has gained by this such ascendancy 

 among the learned Hindus, that all of them refer to it as to their stan- 

 dard in logic, and however they may deviate from other doctrines of the 

 Nyaya, they deem its study necessary for the purpose of giving a firm 

 basis to their reasoning. 



It is indeed one of the principal merits of the Nyaya, that its progress 

 is marked by an admirably exact division of the topics, discussed in it, 

 and in this respect it is not only superior to all other systems of the 

 Hindus, but even modern philosophy might, with advantage, study. 

 it on account of its clearness and exactness. Though none of its inves- 

 tigations have been carried on to a satisfactory end, the Nyaya has, with 

 the means at its command, fully described the circle within which it 

 moved. We must at the same time bear in mind, that notwithstanding 

 its exactness, there is one inherent fault in its exposition, viz. the neg- 

 lect of all analytical method, a fault of all systems of the Hindus, which 

 has perhaps, more than any thing else, contributed to the narrow limits 

 of their mental horizon. This fault, however, it shares with many 

 other expositions of philosophy ; for instance, to mention a celebrated 

 name, with Spinoza's system. It is a fault rather of exposition than of 

 the system itself. No synthesis (in science) is possible without analysis, 

 and having well understood the leading notions of a system, we can 

 easily trace the analytical way by which they were obtained. This ab- 

 sence of analysis in the construction of the philosophical systems of the 

 Hindus is the reason why so many enquirers have done injustice to their 

 philosophical talent. For want of a clear analysis, unable to understand 

 the aphorisms of the Hindu schools, composed in a language as well in 



