1847.] Bhdsha Paricheda, or Division of Language. 175 



tional, be it in political institutions, in religion, or in science. The 

 Sutras, in which their ancient systems are expressed, have always re- 

 mained text-books, and any discovery that had been made in theory, did 

 not prompt them to attempt a new exposition of science, but gave only 

 occasion to a new interpretation of the ancient doctrines of the school. 



A comparison between the logic of Aristotle and that of the Hindus 

 would be neither interesting nor instructive, and we therefore beg to 

 decline it. With the Hindus, logic is a first attempt, marked with the 

 vestiges of rude workmanship and conception, while with Aristotle it 

 springs forth perfect at once. 



The Bhasha Paricheda itself is considered as a text-book in the 

 Brahminical schools. There is no Pundit of any repute who does not 

 know it well, and many know the whole work by-heart. And indeed it 

 is admirably adapted for the purpose of introduction into the study of 

 the Nyaya and Vaisheshika philosophies. It is a succinct exposition of 

 the principal topics of the whole system, and may easily be committed 

 to memory. It is written in the well-known Anustabh Sldkas. The 

 style, however, is not poetical at all, but that of the most sober prose, 

 and nowhere is the attempt made to combine the graces of imagination 

 with philosophical method. The language is as simple as possible, and 

 vastly different from the language of the commentary, which is extremely 

 difficult to understand, not only because it expresses the simplest ideas 

 in the most abstruse language, but also selects terms, which either belong 

 to the Nyaya philosophy alone, or have a different sense in other systems. 

 The difficulties a European first experiences in understanding a work of 

 this school, are less in the subject than in the mode, in which it is 

 treated, so remote from European ideas, and in fact it is only by tracing 

 the connexion of all the ideas that any one will be able thoroughly to 

 understand it. The commentary is certainly a valuable assistant to the 

 understanding of the work, and I have made ample use of it for the 

 interpretation of passages, which I generally did through the very words 

 of the commentary. 



The course followed in the work, is very simple. The author gives 

 first the leading ideas of the system, that is, the highest metaphysical 

 notions, which are gradually to be explained in his work. These are 

 the notions of substance, quality, action, generality, (class) particularity, 

 (species) intimate union and negation, 



