·COLLEGE
RATAA
PR
ov
S K !
2017AL
LIBRARY
Class NO
891.244
Bouk No.
115. V.lee
Accession No.
4080

·No text on this page.

·No text on this page.

·लौकिकन्यायाञ्जलिः॥
प्रथमो भागः॥
A HANDFUL OF POPULAR MAXIMS
CURRENT IN SANSKRIT LITERATURE.
Follected by
Colonel G. A. Jacob,
INDIAN STAFF CORPS.
Author of "Concordance to the Principal Upanishads,” “Manual
of Ilindu Pantheism" dc, dic.
SECOND EDITION-REVISED AND ENLARGED.
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED
BY
TUKÂRÂM JAVAJÎ,
PROPRIETOR OF JAVAJÎ DÂDÂji's “NIRNAYA-SAGARA" Press.
Bombay.
1907.
Price 6 Annas.

·5
1.1.4.!
40
20
[ All rights reserved by the Publisher. ]
Registered under Act XXV of 1867.

·EXTRACT FROM PREFACE TO FIRST EDITION In Dr. Bühler's well-known Kashmir Report of 1877, we read the following:-“A curious and very useful though modern treatise is the Laukikanyayasangrala of Raghunath, a Raj. put. This worthy has collected the nyâyas or 'inferences from familiar instances,' which occur in the S'âstras, especially those from the Vedantas'astra e. g. Dandapú pikânyâya, Dehali. dipanyâya &c. The collection is not complete, but contains a good deal more than that Professor Bâlas'âstri has given in his article in the Pandit.* P. Vâmanâchârya Jhalkikar is at present engaged on a still more extensive work on this subject, which will comprise about 900 such 9 yâyas.” Page 76. The information given in the concluding sentence raised our hopes to a high pitch, for the need of such a work was great, and Bâlas'âstrî bad explained only nine of those nyâyas. But alas ! there's many a slip between the cup and lip,' and though we have waited for this “more extensive work” for 22 long years, there are still no signs of its appearing. I have therefore determined to lay before the public the handful of popular maxims which I have collected durirg many years of reading, in the hope that they may become the nucleus of a very much larger collection. In Târâvâth Tarkavâchaspati’s Vâcaspatyam we bave a list of 151 nyâyas, popular and technical ; but references to works where they are to be found are few and far between, and this considerably lesseps their value. Thirty of these were reproduced in V. S. Âpte's dictionary, in 1890, but with the same defect. Again, in 1875, Pandit Satyavrata Sâmas'rami published & small pamphlet of 36 popular maxims together with a larger number of purely technical ones, and professed to give a reference for each of them. But a man who refers you to the “ Bhâgavata Purâna,” to “A commentary on the Vedantabhâshya,” or to “A commentary on the Kâvya- October and December 1807.

·II PREFACE. prakâs'a," and vouchsafes no further information whatever, is a worthless guide; and such mere semblance of guidance deserves nothing but reprobation. One can tolerate ambiguity of this kind in the ancient writings; but in modern times, when printed books of reference abound, such vagueness is inexcusable. My list comprises only 'popular' maxims, and therefore such purely technical ones as Adhyáropanyaya, kaimutikunyâya, gunopasamhäranyaya, and others of a similar nature, which abound in the philosophical and grammatical works, will not be found here. Moreover, I have rigorously excluded even popular inaxims which I have been unable to find in actual use in the literature, deeming an unverified maxiin with a mere dictionary-existence as of very little value. * * I may add that about 22 illustrative sayings, which are practically nyáyas, might be gathered from the fourth Book of the Sảnkhyasútras ; such as, for example, the well-known "aferaazaraq ” and others more or less useful. Some of them were published in the Pandit for December 1876, under the title of “Stories illustrative of the Sânkhya doctrine;" but the whole will be found translated in the volume of “Sânkhya Aphorisms” published in Trübner's Oriental Series. # In concluding this preface I must apologize to the reader for not giving him a bigger 'handful of maxims, and one of better quality. But what there is has been put together in defiance of the warnings of the skilful oculist in whose hands I have been for the last five years, and therefore at some risk to failing sight. May some younger scholar be provoked to the good work of giving us something fuller and better. Redhill, Surrey. G. A. J. July 1909.

·PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. Seven years have elapsed since the publication of this booklet, and, as my researches have been continued during tho whole of the interval, I have naturally collected much additional material. Part of this was published as a “Second Handful” in 1902, and that was succeeded by a "Third”in 1904 During my reading I frequently came upon older references to many of the nyâyas first published, and these have now been utilized; whilst other changes, some of them of a radical nature, have been made, and a few new nyâyas added. The discovery of MSS. of Raghunathavarman's works, as recorded in the preface to the “ Second Handful”, was of the utmost importance to me; but the student will find in my three small volumes some nyâyas which even he did not explain,-amongst which are the कृत्वाचिन्तान्याय and मणिमन्त्रन्याय here incorporated for the first time. I make no distinction now between what may be really called a 'popular' maxim, and one of a technical nature. Both need to be explained and illustrated, so both are freely admitted. I have thoroughly revised, and considerably evlarged, the “Second Handful” also, and hope soon to see it reprinted. It will contain, amongst much new matter, the story connected with the auth1997-914 which so long eluded me, and for which, as well as for several other valuable items of information, I am indebted to Mr. Govind Dâs, an Honorary magistrate of Benares. Another lover of Sanskrit has come to my help in the person of Mr. M. R. Telang, Head Shirastedar of the Bombay High Court, who has kindly supplied what was to me, at any rate, a novel interpretation of the legatury. I am anxious to revise as soon as possible the whole of the nyâyas which I have endeavoured to elucidate, before increasing infirmities compel the abandonment of the studies which have been my delight for forty-six years.

·IV
PREFACE.
I wish I could impart to some of my fellow countrymen resid.
ent in India, something of the enthusiasm which its grand
literature awakened within me in the early part of my career,
and which has never waned during this long intervening period.
Such a hobby not only provides delightful mental exercise, but,
better still, it draws one into sympathetic touch with the people
amongst whom one's lot is cast.
Redhill, Surrey,
October, 1907.
G. A. JACOB,

·List of Works quoted in the following pages. Advaitabrahmasiddhi, of Sadânanda Yati; Bib. Ind., 1890. Alankârasarvasva of Râjânaka Rayyaka; Nirnaya-sågar Press, Bombay, 1893. Åpastamba-Gșihyasútra, with the Com. of Sudars'anarya ; edited by Dr. Winternitz, Vienna, 1887. Âtmatattvaviveka of Udayana, edited by Pandit Jivanauda Vidyâsângara; Calcutta, 1873. Bhâmate of Vâcaspatimis'ra; Bib. Ind., 1880. Bhartřihari's S'atakatraya, with Com.; Nirņaya-sâgar Press, Bombay, S'aka 1813. Bháslâ pariccheda, with Com.; edited by L. N. Vasáka, Calcutta, 1871. Bliedadhikkâra of Nrisimhâs rama Muni; Benares Sanskrit Series, 1904. Brahmasútrabháşya of Sankarácârya, with Ânandagiri's Com.; Ânandâsérama Press, 2 vols, 1890-1. Translation by Dr. G. Thibaut in Sacred Books of East Series; 2 vols, 1890-6. A fine edition of the Bhâsya, with the Bhamati, and two other Commentaries, was issued from the Nimaya-sagar Press, in one volume, in 1904. Brahmasútratatparyavivarana, published in The Pandit for 1882. Brihadaranyalcopanişadbhúşyavârtika of Sures'varâcârya, with Ânandagiri's ţikâ, and full Index to verses; Âuandâsſrama Press, 2 vols, 1892.4. This is sometimes quoted as the large Vârtika. Citsulhi of Citsukhamuni, with his own vritti; published in the Pandit for 1882-3. Dlıvanyálokzce of Ânandavardhana, with Abhivavagupta's ţikâ; Nirnaya-sågar Press, 1801.

·VO LIST OF BOOKS. Ganaratnamahodadhi of Vardhamâna; edited by Prof. Eggeling, 1879-81. Index much needed. Hathayogapradipikâ of Svâtmârâin, with Brahmânanda's ţikâ; Nirnaya-sagar Press, S'aka 1811. History of Indian Literature, by Prof. Dr. Weber ; Tribner's Oriental Series, 1878. History of Sanskrit Literature, by Prof. A. A. Macdonell, London, 1900. Jaimini's Nimamsásútra, with Sabara's Bhâsya; 2 vols. Bib. Ind., 1873-89. Jivanmuktivircku of Vidyâranya; Âpandas'rama Series, S'aka 1811. Kámasútra of Vâtsyayana; Nirnaya-sâgar Press, 1891. Rothasaritsa gara of Somadevabhatta; Nirnaya-sågar Press, 1887. Translation by Prof. C. H. 'Tawney, 2 vols., Bib. Ind., 1880-4. Kúryadars'a of Dandin ; Bib. Ind., 1863. Kavyalankâra of Rurața, with Xamisadbu's tikâ ; Nirnayaságar Press, 1886. Kavyapradipa of Govinda, with Vaidyanatha's ţikâ; Nirnayasâgar Press, 1891. Kivyaprakas'a of Mammața and Allața; cuited by Mahes'itcandra Nyáyaratna, Calcutta, 1866. Khandarakhandakhádya of S'riharsa, with Sankaramis'ra's tika; Medical Hall Press, Benares, 1888. A new edition of this work, with the Com. entitled Vilyasô gari, is now appearing in the Chaukhambâu Sanskrit Series, Bevares, edited by Prof. Ganyânâtha Jhû who is also issuing a translation in the new Magazine Indian Thought. Klandanodilhûra, a criticism of the above, by Vâcaspati (not the celebrated philosopher, but a modern writer of about thrco centuries ago-so the learned Pandit Govind Dâs of Benares tells me); Medical Hall Press, Benares. Incomplete. Koumanini of hare with lia ·VII LIST OF BOOKS. 2 vols, Bib. Ind., 1890-95. The kârikâs of the same, with Haridâsa's ţikâ, edited and translated by Prof. Cowell; Calcutta, 1864. Kuvalayânında of Appaidîkşita, with Vaidyanâtha's tikâ, edited by Pandit J. Vidyâsâgara; Calcutta, Saka 1796. A very faulty edition. But an excellent one of the same two works, was published at the Nimņaya-sâgar Press, in 1903. Lavkikanyâyasangraha of Raghupâthavarman ; India office MS. 700. An inaccurate edition was published at the Medical Hall Press, Benares, in 1902. Dâgha’s S'is'vpâlavadha with Mallinâtba's comment, edited by Târânâth Tarkavâcaspati; Calcutta, Saka 1769. Mahâbhârata, 4 vols, Calcutta 1834-39. Also an oblong edition with Nilkantha Govind's țîkâ; Ganpat Krishnäji's Press, Bombay, S'aka 1799. Mahâbhâsya of Patanjali, edited by Dr. Kielhorn; 3 vols, Bombay Sanskrit Series, 1880-85. A new edition is now in course of publication; and let us hope that the learned edi. tor will add a complete index. Manusmțiti with 7 Commentaries; edited by Râo Sahib V. N. Maudlik, Bombay, 1886. Manual of Hindu Pantheism, by Colonel Jacob; Trübner's Oriental Series, 3rd edition, 1891. This edition was reprinted by the publishers, about two years ago, without the author's knowledge, and therefore without the revision necessary to bring it up to date. Molesworth's Marathi-English Dictionary; 2nd edition, Bombay, 1857. Mſicchakatikanáļaka, edited by N. B. Godbole; Bombay, 1896. Translation by Dr. Ryder; Harvard Oriental Series, 1905. Mudrarakşabanataka with Dhundhiraja's ţika, edited by K. T. Telang; Bombay Sanskrit Series, 1884. Naiskarmyasiddhi of Sures'vara, with the comment of Inânottama; edited by Colonel Jacob, 2nd. edition, Bombay, 1906.

·VIII LIST OF BOOKS. Nitisâra of Kamandaki, with ţika; Bib. Ind., 1884. Nyâyabindutikâ of Dharmottara, edited by Prof. P. Peterson ; Bib. Ind., 1889. Nyâyakanduli of S'ridhara, with the text of Pras'astapâda's Vais'eșikabháşya; Vizianagram Sanskrit Series, 1895. It is a lamentable thing that this fine series has come to a premature end. A translation of both works is now appearing in the Pandit. Nyâyakanika, a Commentary by Vâcaspatimiséra on Mandanamis'ra's Vidhiviveka, with which it is now being published in the Pandit. Nyayamakaranda of Ânandabodha, with comment by Citsukha Muni; Chaukhamba Sanskrit Series, Bepares. Incomplete. Nyâyamanjarî of Jayanta Bhatta; Vizianagram Sanskrit Series, 1895. Nyâyasiddhantadipa of S'esadharâcârya, with comment of S'esênanta; in course of publication in Pandit. Nyâyarârtika of Uddyotakara; Bib. Ind., 1907. The first fasciculus was issued in 1887; the title page, this year! Nyâyavârtikatátparyaţiků of Vacasputimiséra; Vizianagram Sanskrit Series, 1895. Often quoted as Tatparyaţika. When are we going to have an edition of Vilayana's Paris'uldhi? Padamanjuri, a Commentary on Kús'ékuivritti; published in the Pandit, 2 vols. Pancadas'î of Vidyâranya, with Râmkrishna's comment; edited by Pandit J. l'idyasagara, Calcutta, 1882. Panco pädikî of Padmapida; Vizianagram Sanskrit Series, 1891. Said to be the oldest comment on Sankara's bhâsya (sûtras 1.4 only) A translation of the first 14 pages of this work, by Mr. Arthur Venis, was published in the Pandit, but then, alas! it ceased!

·LIST OF BOOKS. IS Pancatantra, edited by Professors Bühler and Kielhorn; Bombay Sanskrit Series, 1885. Paris'istaparvan of Hemacandra, edited by Prof. H. Jacobi; Bib. Ind., 1891. Practical Sanskrit Dictionary by V. S. Âpte; Poona, 1890. Prasannarâghava Nataka of Jayadeva; Nirnaya-sâgar Press, 1893. Râjatarangini of Kalhana, edited by Pandit Durgâprasând ; Bombay Sanskrit Series, 1892-96. Ramayana of Vâlmiki; Nirnaya-sagar Press, 2 vols, 1888. Rasagangadhara of Jagannath Pandit, with Nâges'a Bhatta’s țîkâ; Nirnaya-sâgar Press, 1888. Rational Refutation of Hindu Philosophical Systems, by N. S'astrî Goreh, translated from the Hindi by Dr. Fitzedward Hall; Calcutta, 1862. Şaddars'anacintanikå of Mabâdeo Moreshwar Kunte, in Sanskrit, Marathi and English; Poona, 1877-82. Incomplete. $addars'anasamuccaya of Haribhadrasûri, with the comment of Manibhadra; Chaukhambâ Sanskrit Series, Benares, 1905. About half of the chapter on Jainism is found, word for word, in the Syâdvadamanjarê ! Which was the plagiarist, this man or Mallisena ? S'ankaravijaya of Ânandagiri; Bib. Ind., 1868. Sankhyasútravritti of Aniruddha, with Extracts from Vedantin Mahâdeva's Commentary, edited and translated by Dr. R. Garbe; Bib. Ind., 1888 and 1892. Sankhyatattvakaumudi of Vâcaspatimis'ra, edited by Pandit Târânâth Tarkavâcaspati ; Calcutta, 1871. Sankshepas'driraka of Sarvajnâtma Muni; The Pandit, vols., IV-X. New Series. Saptapadârthî of S'iyâditya, with comment by Madhava Sarasvati; Vizianagram Sanskrit Series, 1893.

·X LIST OF BOOKS. Sarvadors'anasangraha of Madhava ; Bib. Ind., 1858. An edition by Jivananda Vidyâsâgara, Calcutta, 1871. Translation by Professors Cowell and Gough, in Trübner's Oriental Series, 1882. This, too, was reprinted by the publishers, without the much-needed revision. An edition of the Text, with an additional chapter on S'ankara's system, and the text of Madhusûdana Sarasvati's Prasthanabheda, was published at the Ânandâs'rama Press in 1906. S'astradipilul of Parthasarathi Misſra ; Medical Hall Press, Benares, 1891. Satyavrata Sâmas'rami's Nyâyevali ; Calcutta, 1875. Siddhantales'a of Appaidiksita; l'izianagram Sanskrit Series, 1890. A translation by Mr. Arthur Venis is being published in the Pandit. So far, it extends to page 47 only of the text. I hope my learned friend will carry this on to completion; for his renderings and critical notes are always of the highest value. Syâdrâclununjari, a Commentary by Mallisena on Hemacandra's verses entitled Vitarâgastuti; Chaukhamba Sanskrit Series, Benares, 1900. This work is wrongly described by Rajendralâl Mitra, in his Notices of Sanskrit M88. vol. iv, paye 87, as “A Commentary in verse," and ascribed to Gayanadinamani. See the remarks, above, on Şaddars' anasamuccaya. Toittiriyopunisadbhûsyavartiku of Sures' varâcârya, with Ânandajnîna's tikî; Âuandâs'rama Press, Saka 1811. Tantravartika of Kumârila ; Benares Sanskrit Series, 1903. Prof. Canganatha Jhâ is bringing out a translation of this important work in the Bibliotheca Indica Series. He has already, through the same channel, published a complete translation of the first volume of Kumârila's work, the Sloka vârtika. Tárkikarakşd of Varadaraja, with the Commentary (in part) of Dallinâtha ; Medical Hall Press, Benares, 1903.

·XI LIST OF BOOKS, Tattvamuktakalápa of Venkatnátha, with his own comment; Medical Hall Press, Benares, 1900. In the Sarvadars'anasangraha it is quoted as Tattvamuktavali. Udânam, a Buddhist work, published by Pâli Text Society, 1885. Upamitibhava prapanca Kathé of Siddharsi, edited by Professors Peterson and Jacobi; Bib. Iud., 1899-1907. Incomplete. Upades'asâhasrî of Sankarâcârya, with Râmatirtha's tikân; edited by Krishna Sâstrî Navare, Bombay, 1886. Vâcaspatyam, a Sanskrit Lexicon, of 5442 pages, by Pandit Târânâtha Tarkavâcaspati, Calcutta. It is very full up to the end of g (page 4550 ), whilst the rest of the alphabet is squeezed into 900 pages! It is said that the Bengal Govt., which largely subsidized the undertaking, ordered it to be curtailed. If that is so, it did a very unwise thing! We ought to store up the knowledge of these old Pandits who are fast dying out! Veslántakalpataru of Amalânanda, a commentary on the Bhâmati; Vizianagram Sanskrit Series, 1895-7. Vedântalcalpataruparimala of Appaidiksita; Vizianagram Sanskrit Series, 1895-8. Sometimes quoted as Parimala. V'edantusâra of Sadananda, with the commentaries of Nộisimhasarasvati and Râmatirtha; edited by Colonel Jacob, and published at Nirnaya-sâgar Press, 1894. For the translation of the same, see Manual of Hindu Pantheism. Vedântasiddhantamuktavali of Prakâs'ânanda, edited and translated by Prof. Arthur Venis; Benares, 1890. Vidvanmandana of Vitthala Upadhâya, edited by Ratnagopâla ; Victoria Press, Benares, 1904. In Hall's Index this is described as “Strictures on the expositions of several expositors of the Vedanta doctrine." It ascribes to the same author a work entitled Bhaktihetunirnaya. Vivaranaprameyasangraha of Vidyâraṇya; Vizianagram Sanskrit Series, 1893. A translation by Dr. Thibaut is now appearing in the new Review, Indian Thought. с ·XII LIST OF BOOKS Yas'astilaka of Somadeva, with Sris'rutasângara's ţikâ; Nirnaya-sâgar Press, 2 vols, 1901-3. Yogasútra with Vyasa's bhâshya and Vacaspatimisra's tikâ, edited by Rajârâm Sâstri Bodas; Bombay Sanskrit Series, 1892. Yogavûrtika of Vijnâna Bhiksu; Medical Hall Press, Benares, 1884. Yogavêsistha with the Commentary of Ânandaboilhendra Saraswati; Ganpat Krislınâji's Press, Bombıy. This ought to be printed in modern style. The huge oblong tomes are most difficult to handle. ERRATA. Page 36, linc 7 from bottom. For “virtully” say "virtually".

·A HANDFUL OF POPULAR MAXIMS. अजाकृपाणीयन्यायः॥ The maxim of the she-goat and the sword. It is founded on some story of a goat's being suddenly killed by accidental contact with a sword, and is used to illustrate any surprising event happening altogether by chance. It therefore belongs to the same class as काकतालीय, खल्वाटबिल्वीय and others of a similar kind. An excellent illustration of its use is found on page 229 of S'riharsha's Khandanakhandakhâdya:-"oit va aratura कश्चित्पृच्छति कति वराटका इति । पृष्टश्चाजाकृपाणीयन्यायेन ब्रवीति पञ्चेति" ॥ In a footnote the maxim is thus explained :—"GTATÜ FAHIC शिथिलबन्धखड्ने छागी ग्रीवांप्रसारयति यदृच्छया च ग्रीवा छिद्यते तथाभूतोऽजाकृ- qofterara: 31971819TRAF:' || Vardhamâna puts it differently in his comment on Ganaratnamahodadhi iü. 196 :- "यथाजया भूमिं खनन्न्यात्मवधाय कृपाणो दर्शितस्तत्तुल्यं वृत्तं केनचिदात्मवि- Fara STHEquitra" Il For another variety, see Padamaijarî on Kâs'ika 5. 3. 106. The nyâya, with the samne illustration, is found also in the Khandanoddhāra, page 52; and the illustration, without the nyâya, in Siddhantales'a, page 95. Then on page 96, it is again referred to in the expression "काकतालीयसंवादिवराटकसंख्या- विशेषाहार्यज्ञानवत्." It is interesting to note that the Marathi-speaking folk of Western India have adopted the maxim, but with a changed meaning. Molesworth defines it as “The maxim of the sword upon the neck of the goat. Expressive of meekness and absolute helplessness."

·अन्तर्दीपिकान्यायः॥ The maxim of a lamp in a central position. Applied to something which fulfils a double purpose. It occurs in S'ankara's bhushya on the Mundalka Upanishad 3. 1. 5. ("सत्येन लभ्यस्त- पसा ह्येष आत्मा सम्यग्ज्ञानेन ब्रह्मचर्येण नित्यम्"। ) on which he say's:- "नित्यं सर्वदा। नित्यं सत्येन नित्यं तपसा नित्यं सम्यग्ज्ञानेनेति सर्वत्र नित्यशब्दो ऽन्तर्दीपिकान्यायेनानुषक्तव्यः " ॥ It is akin to देहलीदीपन्याय and मध्य- 19=714. Jivananda's edition of the Mundakabhashya reads अन्त्यदीपकन्यायेन. The rending given above is from the Anandusrama edition. V अन्धकवर्तकीयन्यायः॥ The maxim of the blind man and the quail. Like 3451- कृपाणीय and many others, it is used to express a wholly fortuitous occurrence. Vardhamana, on Ganaratnamahodaidhi üïi. 195, explains it thus :-" अन्धकश्च वर्तका च अन्धकवर्तकम् । अन्धकस्य वर्तकाया उपर्यतर्कितः पादन्यास उच्यते । तत्तुल्यमन्धकवर्तकीयम्" ॥ This authority brings the quail under the blind man's foot; but the commentator Srisrutasagara, who expounded the work Yasas. tilaka, and who in the colophon is described as " तर्कव्याकरण- छन्दोलंकारसिद्धान्तसाहित्यादिशास्त्रनिपुणमतिः प्राकृतव्याकरणाद्यनेकशास्त्ररच. नाचुञ्ज » brings the bird into the man's hands. And, surely, such a prodigy of learning must be right! The verse in which the expression अन्धकवर्तकीय occurs is Yasastilaka ii. 153. "संसार- सागरमिमं भ्रमता नितान्तं जीवेन मानवभवः समवापि दैवात् । तत्रापि यद्भुवन- मान्यकुले प्रसूतिः सत्सङ्गतिश्च तदिहान्धकवर्तकीयम्" ॥ “It is altogether by chance that a soul wandering about in this ocean of repeated births is born as a man; and that he should be born into a family of repute in the world, and enjoy the society of the good, is likewise as accidental as in the case of the blind man and the This important work, described by Dr. Peterson at considerable length in his Second Report, was published in the Kävyamala, a valuablo periodical isgucil luy the l'roprietor of the Nirnayasîgar Press, ·دن quail.” S'ris'rutasângara’s explanation of the last term is as follows:-" अन्धकवर्तकीयो दृष्टान्तः। यथा कश्चिदन्धकः पुमान् करतलेन करं ताडयन्वर्तते तस्य करद्वयमध्ये वर्तकः पक्षिविशेषः समायाति स तु दुर्लभस्तथा मानवभवे सत्सङ्गतिर्दुर्लभा वर्तते" ॥ अन्धगजन्यायः॥ The maxim of the blind men and the elephant. A number of blind men desired to form an idea of the shape of an elephant. One touched his trunk and thought he must be like a snake; another took hold of a leg and supposed that he was like a post, and so on. Târânâtha tells us that it is used to illustrate the divergence of views held by the ignorant in regard to Îs vara The story is found in the Buddhist work Udânam (vi. 4, pages 66-69) published by the Pâli Text Society in 1885. It is referred to in Sures'vara's large Vârtika 4. 4. 566 ( page 1813) as follows:-“एकमेवैकरूपं सदस्त्वज्ञातं निरञ्जनम्। जात्यन्धगजदृष्टयेव Hallaar: afraid an" l! Also in his Naiskarmyasiddhi ii. 93 :- "तदेतदद्वयं ब्रह्म निर्विकारं कुबुद्धिभिः। जात्यन्धगजदृष्टयेव कोटिशः परि- pretta” ll I have met with the nyâya again on pages 107 and 160 of Syâdvâdamanjarê. It occurs also in the Jainadars'ana of Saddars'anasumuccaya (page 46 ); but the passage in which it is found was taken verbatim from Mallisena's work, without any acknowledgment. STRUTTETS Crata: 11 The maxim of the blind man and the cow's tail. The story is that an evil-disposed fellow found a blind man who, having lost his way, was wandering about helplessly. Expressing great sympathy for him, and promising to help him, the man led him to a young and frisky cow, and putting her tail into his hand told ·him to hold on, and that she would certainly lead him to tho village to which he wished to go. The result was, of course, most disastrous. S'ankara, in his bhâshya on Vedantasıtra 1. 1. 7, applies the maxim to the case of a teacher who wrongly instructs his pupil in regard to emancipation and so leads him to destruction! These are his words:- " Tight mal Mahl- स्मानमात्मेत्युपदिशेत्प्रमाणभूतं शास्त्रं स श्रद्दधानतयान्धगोलाङ्गलन्यायेन तदात्मदृष्टिं न परित्यजेत्तव्यतिरिक्तं चात्मानं न प्रतिपद्यत तथा सति पुरुषार्था- Part13 Reja" || The nyâya is found, too, in Pancapâdikâvivarana, page 170. a ✓ अन्धपरम्परान्यायः ॥ The maxim of a continuous series of blind men. It would seem to be in this sense that Sankarâchârya uses it in his Brahmasutrabháshya 2. 2. 30, 37. The passages stand thus:-- 'अनादित्वेऽप्यन्धपरम्परान्यायेनाप्रतिष्ठैवानवस्था व्यवहारलोपिनी स्यानाभिप्रा- यसिद्धिः" "वर्तमानकालवदतीतेष्वपि कालेष्वितरेतराश्रयदोपाविशेषादन्धपरम्प- 7419199:" || In his rendering of the former passage, Dr. Thibaut has overlooked the maxim, but the latter he translates as follows: "For in past time as well as in the present, mutual interdependence of the two took place, so that the beginningless series is like an endless chain of blind men leading other blin men." I should add that, in the former case, Sankara is arguing against the Buddhist theory of a beginningless series of mental impressions, and, in the latter, against the Sânkhya notion of a similar chain of human actions and divine interpositions. Dr. Thibaut's explanation of the maxim is quite in accord with that of Dr. Garbe in his rendering of the Sankhya. sútra iii. 81 "TFT97:971" "Else there would be a tradition [ comparable to a row ] of blind men [ leading each other ].” A very apt quotation from one of Coleridge's Lay Sermons is given in that useſul work A Rational Refutation of Hindu Philosophicul Systems ( now quite out of print), from which I ·5 extract the following:-"The old man talked much and vehemently concerning an infinite series of causes and effects, which he explained to be a string of blind men, the last of whom caught hold of the skirt of the one before him, he of the next, and so on till they were all out of sight; and that they all walked infallibly straight, without making one false step, though all were alike blind. Methought I borrowed courage from surprise, and asked him, Who, then, is at the head to guide them? He looked at me with ineffable contempt, not unmixed with an angry suspicion and then replied, “No one; the string of blind men goes on for ever without any beginning, for although one blind man cannot move without stumbling, yet infinite blindness supplies the want of sight." In the opening part of the Padamañjari ( Pandit s. 248 ) we find the expression 3749719hs used with reference to testimony received through a series of blind men, and therefore of doubtful value. It is part of an interesting discussion regarding different forms of a word, why some are considered correct and others not. "तत्र ये साधवस्ते शास्त्रेणानुशिष्यन्तेऽसाधुभ्यो विविक्ताः प्रकृतिप्रत्ययविभागेन ज्ञाप्यन्त इमे साधव इति । कथं पुनरिदमा- चार्येण पाणिनिनावगतमेते साधव इति । आपिशलेन पूर्वव्याकरणेन । आपि- शलिना तर्हि केनावगतम् । ततः पूर्वेण व्याकरणेन । यद्येवमन्धपरम्पराप्रसङ्गः। तद्यथा शुक्लं क्षीरमित्यन्धेनोक्ते केनेदमवगतमिति पृष्टो यदान्धान्तरं मूलं निर्दि- शति सोऽप्यन्धान्तरं तदा नैतद्वचः शौक्लये प्रमाणं भवति तागेतत्" ॥ That the nyâya is in very general use will be apparent from the following additional references. Tantrarártika, pages 11, 72, 75, 232, 799, 877. Pancapâdikâ, page 98. Bhâmati, pages 254, 464. Nyayamanjarê pages 234, 249, 251, 425, 492. अरुन्धतीप्रदर्शनन्यायः॥ The maxim of the pointing out of the star Arundhati. The idea here is that of gradual instruction, on the principle of the zeniagar714 for which sec the Second Handful. Its ·6 usage is explained by Sankara in Brahmasútrabhashya 1.1.8, as follows:-" यथारुन्धती दिदर्शयिपुस्तत्समीपस्थां स्थूलां ताराममुख्या प्रथममरुन्धतीति ग्राहयित्वा तां प्रत्याख्याय पश्चादरुन्धतीमेव ग्राहयति तद्वन्नाय. मात्मेति ब्रूयात्" | Similarly, too, in 1. 1. 12, we read:-"यथारुन्धती- निदर्शने बहीष्वपि तारास्वमुख्यास्वरुन्धतीपु दर्शितासु यान्त्या प्रदर्श्यते सा मुख्यै- वारुन्धती भवत्येवमिहाप्यानन्दमयस्य सर्वान्तरत्वान्मुख्यमात्मत्वम्" ॥ The maxim is sometimes styled स्थूलारुन्धतीन्याय, and it appears under this name in Nrisimhasarasvati's commentary on section 20 of the Vedantusära—that section which gives the views of Chârvakas and others as to the atman, ' अर्के चेन्मधु विन्देत किमर्थ पर्वतं व्रजेत् ॥ If one can find honey on the Arke-tree ( close at hand] then why go to the mountain for it? That is, if an object can be accomplished by simple means, don't adopt a more complicated method. This is well illustrated by Sankara in his Vellinta. sutrabhashyal 3. 4. 3, as follows:- "केवलाञ्चेज्ज्ञानात्पुरुषार्थसिद्धिः स्यात्किमर्थमनेकायाससमन्वितानि कर्माणि ते कुर्युः । अर्के चेन्मधु विन्देत किमर्थ पर्वतं व्रजेदिति न्यायात्" ॥ Its source, however, is S'abara on Juimini 1. 2. t. Here, the purvapakshin, after taking exception to certain Tedic injunc. tions as useless says:- " तद्यथा पथि जातेऽर्के मधूत्सृज्य तेनैव पथा मध्वर्थिनः पर्वतं न गच्छेयुस्तादृशं हि तत् । अपि चाहुः । अर्के चेन्मधु विन्देत किमर्थ पर्वतं व्रजेत् । इष्टस्यार्थस्य संसिद्धौ को विद्वान्यनमाचरेत्" ॥ The same couplet is quoted by Aniruddha in his comment on Sinkhyasútra i. 1; also by V'îchaspati Mis'ra in his Sânkhyatattvakaumudi 1., and again in his Nyayavertikatiitparyatiki, page 220. Instead of अर्के, however, we have in the former instance and in the latter Raghunath reads are and explains it by tagiot. One more example of the application of this nyaya may be found in Kumärila's Tuntravertika 1.2.17:- ·7 " यद्यल्पान्महतश्च कर्मणः समं फलं जायेत ततोऽक्के चेन्मधु विन्देतेत्यनेनैव न्यायेनाल्पेन सिद्धे महति न कश्चित्प्रवर्तेत" ॥ 3tefratararat: 11 The maxim of the semi-senile woman. It is very difficult to fix on the exact force of this saying Authorities differ so much as to make it almost an instance of quot homines tot sententie. As expounded by Vardhamâna (iii. 195 ) it seems to imply in. definiteness, half-and-half-ness, the being neither one thing nor the other. He says:-"7911 a full styracara gulosat- त्वान्न जरती वक्तुं शक्यते तद्वसिद्धासिद्धं प्रयोजनम् ॥ This seems to accord with the meaning assigned to it by Marâțhas, as shown by Molesworth in his Marâthî dictionary where he defines it as “ Action of indeterminate character; speech vague and indefinite; a proceeding void of decided leaning or bearing.” The maxim is cited by Sankara in Brahmasútrabhashya, 1. 1. 19, and again in 1. 2. 8. In the former, after quoting Taittiriya-upanishad ii. 1-4 in regard to 37any, TTTAT &c. he says:-"इति विकारार्थे मयप्रवाहे सत्यानन्दमय एवाकस्मादर्धजरतीय- न्यायेन कथमिव मयटः प्राचुर्यार्थत्वं ब्रह्मविषयत्वं वाश्रीयत इति" || The commentators Ânandagiri and Râmânanda (erroneously styled Govindananda*) ignore the maxim entirely, and so does Dr. Thibaut in his translation. In the second instance, Sankara says:-"यथाशास्त्रं तर्हि शास्त्रीयोऽर्थः प्रतिपत्तव्यो न तत्रार्धजरतीयं लभ्यम्,” which is rendered by Dr. Thibaut, "Very well, then, it appears that the truth about scriptural matters is to be ascertained from scripture, and that scripture is not sometimes to be appealed to and on other occasions to be disregarded." Ânandagiri's comment is:-"न हि कुक्कुटादेरेकदेशो भोगाय पच्यत एकदेशस्तु प्रसवाय कल्प्यते विरो- gia", "You cannot take one part of a fowl for cooking and leave the other part to lay egge;" that is, you must take a * Sce Dr. Fitzedward Hall's Index, page 90.

·. thing in its entirety, or else leave it altogether. Râmânanda, on the other hand, says :-"अर्धे मुखमात्रं जरत्या वृद्धायाः कामयते नाङ्गानीति सोऽयमर्धजरतीयन्यायः स चात्र न युक्तः,” which seems to be based on Patanjali's words "न चेदानीमर्धजरतीयं लभ्यं । तद्यथा । अर्ध जरत्याः कामयतेऽध नेति", as found in Mahabhāsleya 4. 1. 78. Again we find the maxim in the Bauduha section of Sarvadars'anasangraha (page 14 of Bib. Ind., and 17 of Jivânanda's edn.), which reads thus:- "न चार्धजरतीयमुचितम् । न हि कुक्कुट्या एको भागः पाकायापरो भागः प्रसवाय कल्प्यतामिति कल्प्यते", and which is identical with  nandagiri's exposition. Prof. Gough, who translated this chapter, rendered the maxim by “ semi-effete"- “Nor is a semi-effete existence admissible." Another excellent illustration of the usage of this nyâya is given in the following passage of the Brahmasútratitparyarivarana 3. 4. 26. (The Pun lit vol. vi. page 220):-" ब्रह्मविद्या स्वफले कर्माणि नापेक्षते तथा स्वोत्पत्तावपि नापेक्षते । अन्यथा क्वचिदपेक्षा क्वचिन्नेत्यर्धजरतीयत्वापत्तिरिति प्राप्ते आह सर्वापेक्षेति । नार्धजरतीयन्यायो योग्यतावशादेवैकस्यैव कार्यविशेपेप्वपेक्षानपेक्षयोरुपपत्तेः । यथा लाङ्गलवहनेऽन- पेक्षितोऽश्वो रथवहनेऽपेक्ष्यते तद्वत्स्वोत्पत्तौ तु विद्या कर्मापेक्षते" ॥ Other references are the following :-Saptapadârthî, page 26. Vivaranaprameyasangraha, page 21. vydyamanjari, pages 248, 249. Advaitabrakmasiddhi, page 310. अशक्तोऽहं गृहारम्भे शक्तोऽहं गृहभञ्जने ॥ I an too weak to construct a house, but I am well able to destroy one. This is found in Dhundhirâ ja's commentary on Muddrārākshasa iii. 11. Chanakya says-"कथं स्पर्द्धते मया सह दुरात्मा राक्षसः" | and then follows the verse "कृतागाः कौटिल्यो भुजग * Vol. ii. page 231 of the edition by Dr. F. Kiclhorn, who himself most kindly gave me the reference.

·9 şa fareiz ata &c.," on which Dhundhiraja remarks: "HÀI नास्य बुद्धिबलं परंतु मत्सरमात्रेण अशक्तोऽहं गृहारम्भे शक्तोऽहं गृहभञ्जन इति न्यायेन मौर्यापकारमात्राय प्रयतमानः सन्केवलं पौरुषबलमवष्टभ्य मबुद्धेः प्रकर्ष- मतिशयितुं व्यवसित इत्यहो राक्षसस्य दुर्व्यवसितमिति" ॥ I am indebted for this passage to the late learned Librarian at the Indin Office, C. H. Tawney Esqr., who has also pointed out to me Pancatantra i. 363 as illustrating the nyâya. The verse reads thus :- घातयितुमेव नीचः परकार्य वेत्ति न प्रसाधयितुम् । पातयितुमेव शक्ति खोरुद्धर्तुमन्नपिटम्" ॥ 37371aafarretto: 11 The maxim of the grove of As'oka trees. Âpte says "Ravana kept Sîtâ in the grove of As'oka trees, but it is not easy to account for his preference of that particular grove to any other one; so when a man finds several ways of doing a thing, any one of them may be considered as good as another, and the preference of any particular one cannot be accounted for.” For the As'oka-grove see Ramayana 1. 1. 73. The only example of this nyâya that I have met with is in S'esânanta's ţikä on S'as'adhara’s Nyâyasiddhântadipa, page 11. This work was commenced in the Pandit for April 1903, but is still incomplete. अश्मलोष्टन्यायः॥ The maxim of the stone and clod of earth. Âpte, following the Vacaspatyam, explains it thus :-"A clod may be considered to be hard when compared with cotton, but is soft as compared with a stone. So a person may be considered to be very important as compared with his inferiors, but sinks into insignificance when compared with his betters.” Târânâtha adds that when it is intended to indicate that there is very little difference between two things or persons compared, the kindred 2 ·10 maxim पापाणेटकान्याय is used. With these Apte compares the Marathi proverb "दगडापेक्षां वीट मऊ” “Brick is softer than stone." The sense, however, is not quite the same; for, according to Molesworth, the Marathi saying is used "in ironical softening of a difficulty or hardship but barely surmountable or sufferable, by comparing it with a matter utterly impracticablo or intolerable." Is it not much more likely however that the maxim is based on Brihadurangeku Upanishad 1. 3. 7, “यथाश्मानमृत्वा लोष्टो विध्वंसेत" which Sankara expounds thus:- "यथा लोकेऽश्मानं पाषा.. णमृत्वा गत्वा प्राप्य लोष्टः पांसुपिण्डः पाषाणचूर्णनायाश्मनि निक्षिप्तः स्वयं विध्वंसेत विस्रंसेत विचूभिवेत् ” ? This is referred to in Braknasutrabhashya 3. 3. 6. as the "अश्मलोष्टनिदर्शन' and it seems to remind one of the Scripture saying "Whosover shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder." अस्त्रमस्त्रेण शाम्यति ॥ A weapon is silenced by a wrapon. Perhaps analogous to the saying "Diamond cuts diamond,” or, “Set a thief to catch a thief.” It occurs in Jnânottama's commentary on Sures'vara's Noişkarm yasiildhi i. 81, where hic says:-"Tahan simpatia न्यायेन काम्यैः काम्यानां निपिद्वैर्निपिन्द्धानां निवृत्तिरस्त्वित्यत आह न च काम्यैरिति” ॥ Compare with this Milisirce viii. 67:- "विषं विषेण व्यथते वज्र वज्रेण भिद्यते गजेन्द्रो दृष्टसारेण गजेन्द्रेणैव बध्यते" ॥ अस्नेहदीपन्यायः॥ The similc of « Lamp without oil [that is, from which the oil has burnt out). Raghunâthavarma explains it thus :- " अस्मिश्चाध्यासेऽज्ञानं कारणम् । तत्त्वज्ञानेन वातदीपन्यायेन तमिवृत्तावस्नेह- दीपन्यायेन तदध्यासोऽपि निवर्तते । न च ज्ञानेनैवोभयनिवृत्तिः कुतो न ·11 स्यात् । ज्ञानमज्ञानस्यैव निवर्तकमिति न्यायविरोधात् । द्विविधा हि निवृत्ति- विरोधिना सामग्रीनिवृत्त्या च । यथा वातादिना दीपनाशो यथा च तैलवादि- निवृत्त्या दीपनिवृत्तिः । तत्राद्या निवृत्तिरज्ञानस्य द्वितीया कार्यवर्गस्येति बोध्यम्"॥ I have met with the following example of the nyaya in Yogardsistlha 2. 1. 44, a chapter entitled शुकनिर्याणम् :- " तत्र वर्षसहस्राणि निर्विकल्पसमाधिना । दश स्थित्वा शशामासावात्मन्यस्नेहदीपवत्" ॥ For the nyaya ज्ञानमज्ञानस्यैव निवर्तकम् see the Third Hund. ful of Popular Maxims; and for fare CEATI sce Veilântul. súra, pp. 55, 57 &c., and Nanval of linalu Pantheism, pages 109, 110. अहिकुण्डलन्यायः॥ The maxim of the snake and its coils. The expression occurs in Brahmasttra. 3. 2. 27, and is explained in the bhashya. They read thus:- "उभयव्यपदेशात्वहिकुण्डलवत् ॥ ...अत उभयव्यपदे शदर्शनादहिकुण्डलवदन तत्त्वं भवितुमर्हति । यथाहि रित्यभेदः कुण्डलाभोग- प्रांशुत्वादीनीति च भेद एवमिहापीति" | Dr. Thibaut's translation is as follows:—“But on account of twofold designation, (the relation of the highest Self to the individual soul has to be viewed) like that of the snake to its coils.......We therefore look on the relation of the highest Self and the soul as analogous to that of the snake and its coils. Viewed as a whole the snake is one, non-different, while an element of difference appears if we view it with regard to its coils, hood, erect posture and so on." It is akin therefore to the expressions "a forest and its trees,” “a lake and its waters," so often used by the Vedantists as illustrations of identity. The explanation given by Târânàtha in the V áchaspatyam does not coincide with the above. He says: "अहेः सर्पस्य यथा कुण्डलाकृतिवेष्टनं स्वाभाविकं तथा यस्य स्वाभाविकधर्मो ध्यपदिश्यते तत्रास्य प्रवृत्तिः" ।

·12 आकाशमुष्टिहननन्यायः॥ The maxim of striking the sky with one's fist. A vain attempt at an impossibility. It occurs in the Jaimini chapter of Sarrolars'anasangraha (paye 133 of Bil. Ind. cdition, and p. 151 of Jivananda's ) as follows:-"atheq get gara प्रमाणसंभवात्स्वतःसिद्धं प्रामाण्यमित्येतत्पूतिकूष्माण्डायत इति चेत्तदेतदाकाशyertarà” , Prof. Cowell has rendered it thus:--“Therefore, as we can prove that authoritativeness is both produced and recognized by incans of something external, the Mimanisâ tenet `authoritativeness is self-proved' is like a gourd over-ripe and rotten. This long harangue of our opponent, however, is but a vain attempt to strike the sky with his fist." Much older instances of the employment of the nyâya are the following:—Tantrarårtika, page 170, "FREGAT91974 TÊIAI- अपरिग्रहात् । पटं कर्तुं समीहेत स हन्याव्योम मुष्टिभिः" ॥ [ iWith this compare the words of a great modern preacher-Dr. Maclaren- "Logic without Revelation is like a spinning-machine without cotton, busy drawing out nothing"]. Pancapodili page 43, line 19, "तद्यदि नाम ज्ञानं लोके सिद्धं तथापि निरस्तप्रपञ्चात्मविषयमसिद्धमा- #1 Styree71an faydi 7777.” Then, in Nyáyakandali, page 56, line 6, we find the cognate expression "991 falta rot- Auflazi afa 2191797”, and again in Vyayakunika, page 219, उपयन्नपयन्धर्मो विकरोति हि धर्मिणम् ।। The uppearance or disappearance of a quality (or characteristic ) produces a corresponding change in the subject oj it. This nyâya is the second line of Vaişkarmyasiddhi ii. 35, the first being “3174191fafauzarziteraldęſ: ” Although it is included in Raghunatha’s list, it ought not, strictly speaking, to find a place amongst popular maxime; but I insert it in order to make a necessary correction in the printed text of the Sarvodarsanasangraha where it is quoted. On page 161 ·1:8 of the Bibliotheca Indica edition, and on page 18:2 of that prepared by Jivananda Vidyâsâgara, we read"aaxiiqga kamraaf विकरोति हि धर्मिणमिति न्यायेन” and this bad reading of course affects the translation as it appears on page 244 of the volume prepared for Trübner's Oriental Series by Professors Cowell and Gough. The explication given in Vâchaspatyam is as follows:-"यथा पूर्वस्य रूपरसादिरूपधर्मपरावृत्तौ रूपरसाद्यन्तरोत्पत्तौ च घटादेर्धर्मिणो विकृतिरेवं यस्य धर्मिणः पूर्वधर्मस्यापगमेऽन्यधर्मस्योत्पत्तिस्तत्रायं न्यायोऽवतरति" ॥ उष्ट्रकण्टकभक्षणन्यायः- The maxim of a. camel's eating thorns. This is not in Raghunâtha's list, but in the Vacaspatyam it is explained thus :- "उष्ट्रस्य शमीकण्टकवेधजातदुःखकालेऽपि शमीपत्रभक्षणसुखलेशो यथा तथा- भीष्टविषयोपार्जनदुःखकाले तदुपार्जितद्रव्यजसुखलेशो यत्रोपदिश्यते तत्रास्य galai" 11 I regard this, however, as quite beside the mark. In Bralemastrabhashya. 2. 2. 1. Sankara, after combating at length the Sankhya theory, that objects are in themselves सुखदुःखमोहात्मक, says:-"शब्दाद्यविशेषेऽपि च भावनाविशेषात्सुखादिवि- शेपोपलव्धेः,” which Dr. Thibaut renders_" And, further, although the sense-object, such as sound and so on, is one, yet we observe that owing to the difference of the mental inpressions (produced by it) differences exist in the effects it produces, one person being affected by it pleasantly, another painfully, and so on." On which Anandagiri says:-"शब्दादीति । भावना तत्तज्जातियोग्या वासना तद्विशेषादुष्ट्रादीनां कण्टकादौ सुखादिदर्शनात् &c." Vacaspatimis'ra, explains the same passage in the Bhậmati, (pp. 380-1), pointing out that things are not in themselves essentially pleasant or uppleasant, and that what causes pleasure to one may be painful to another, and that even the same thing which at one time is agreeable may at another time be the reverse. Otherwise thorns would be as acceptable to men as they are to a camel. Here are his words:-"यदि पुनरेत एष सुखदुःखस्वभावा ·11 भवेयुस्ततः स्वरूपत्वाद्धेमन्तेपि चन्दनः सुख: स्यात् । न हि चन्दनः कदाचिद- चन्दनः। तथा निदाघेप्वपि कुंकुमपंकः सुखो भवेत् । न ह्यसौ कदाचिदकुंकुमपंकः। एवं कण्टकः क्रमेलकस्य सुख इति मनुष्यादीनामपि प्राणभृतां सुखः स्यात् । न ह्यसौ कांश्चित्प्रत्येवाकण्टक* इति । तस्मादसुखादिस्वभावा अपि चन्दनकुंकु- मादयो जातिकालावस्थाद्यपेक्षया सुखदुःखादिहेतवो न तु स्वयं सुखादिस्वभावा इति रमणीयम्". A camel, then, eats thorns because it likes them; å man does not eat them because he does not like them. May not the maxim, therefore, be the cquivalent of our "M'hat's one man's fool is another man's poison!" Mr. M. R. Telang has kindly pointed out Vikram inkadevacarita i. 29. as illustrating a camel's love of thorms. एकमनुसन्धित्सतोऽपरं प्रच्यवते ॥ Whilst seeking for one thing he loses another. The saying appears twice, in this form, in the Saruvdurg'unusongruhu. The first instance is in the Arhata Section (p. 27 of Bib. Ind. and 33 of Jivananda's çon. ), translated by Professor Cowell:- "एतद्दोपपरिजिहीर्पया ज्ञानं जडतां नानुकरोतीति ब्रूपे हन्त तर्हि तस्या ग्रहणं न स्यादित्येकमनुसन्धिरसतोऽपरं प्रच्यवत इति न्यायापातः”। “ If in your wish to cscape this difficulty, you assert that 'the perception does not follow the object in being insentient,' then there would be no perception that the object is insentient, and so it is a case of the proverb, While he looks for one thing which he has lost, another dropx" The second example, from the Akshapida section (pp. 118 and 134 ), is as follows:-"नन्वेकमनुसन्धित्सतोऽपरं प्रच्यवत इति न्या. येन दुःखवरसुखमित्युच्छिद्यत इत्यकाम्योऽयं पक्ष इति चेन्मैवं मंस्थाः" । "Nor may you retort on us that we have fulfilled the proverb of 'seeking one thing and dropping another in the search, since we have abolished happiness as being ever tainted with some incidental pain &c." • The printed text wrongly reads कण्टक for अकण्टक.

·15 In the Khandanakhandakhidya (page 417 ) and in Mallinátha on Tarkikarakşâ, pp. 7 and 25, we meet with the nyâya in another form, namely "gar AlanaSqë qezaà” which means “ Whilst trying to reunite one ( piece of a broken vessel] another falls off." एकवृन्तगतफलद्वयन्यायः ॥ The maxim of two fruits attached to one stalk. Used by writers on Alankâra to illustrate a particular kind of Paronomusia, namely the coalescence of two meanings under one word. It was first pointed out to me by Mr. F. W. Thomas, Assistant Librarian to the India Office, he having met with it in the commentary on Kávyâdars'a ii. 310. I have since found it in use in the Alankârasar rasva, Kavyapradipa, Såhityadarpana, Rasagangadhara, Alankârakaustubha, and Sahityakaumudi, in each case under the figure sia. The inaxim finds å place in Marathi literature also, and is regarded by Molesworth as equivalent to our proverb “Killing two birds with one stone." कदम्बकोरकन्यायः॥ The maxim of the buds of the Kodamba tree. They are said to burst forth simultaneously. As, for example, in Hemacandra's Paris'ishtaparvan i. 241 "पित्रा स्वपाणिपनेन स्पृश्यमानोऽवनीपतिः । उत्कोरककदम्बाभो बभूव पुलकांकुरैः” ॥ In the Nyâyamanjarê, pages 214 and 228, and in the Bhashậparichchheda (verse 166) this nyâya is given as an illustration of the way in which sound is produced. The lastmentioned reads thus:

·16 वीचीतरङ्गन्यायेन तदुत्पत्तिस्तु कीर्तिता । कदम्बकोरकन्यायादुत्पत्तिः कस्यचिन्मते ॥ The commentary, Siddhantamulitorali, however, explains कद- म्बगोलकन्यायात् and this is the form given to the maxim in the Vâchuspatyam which explains it as follows:-"rantaan गोलाकारकदम्बस्य सर्वावयवेषु यथा युगपरपुप्पोद्गम एवं सर्वप्रदेशेषु युगपद्यत्र प्रसरस्तत्रास्य प्रवृत्तिः”॥ In Velantin Mahideva's comment on Sanldhyastitra V. 103, we have a third form, namely कदम्ब. मुकुलन्याय. कफोणिगुडन्यायः॥ Tho maxim of treacle on the elbow. Used of something tantalizingly inaccessible. It is found in Udayana's Atmatattvaarireka, page 26 :-अस्तु तर्हि भावस्वरूपातिरिक्ता निवृत्तिर्नास्तीत्यस्य सोपा- ख्येति शेषः । नन्वयमपि क्षणभंगस्योद्धारः स च कफोणिगुडायितो वर्तते भवतु या निवृत्तिरसमर्था तथाप्यहेतुकत्वे तस्याः किमायातम्"॥ Then in the Akshapâda chapter of Sarvudarsanasangraha ( page 116 of Bib. Indica, and 132 of Jivananda's edition ) we read :- "ननु दुःखात्यन्तोच्छेदोऽपवर्ग इत्येतदद्यापि कफोणिगुडायितं वर्तते तत्कथं सिद्धवत्कृत्य व्यवहियत इति चेन्मैवम्”॥ which Prof. Cowell translates as follows:-"But is not your definition of the summum bonum, liberation, that is, the absolute abolition of pain, after all as much beyond our reach as treacle on the elbow is to the tongue ; why then is this continually put forth as if it were established beyond all dispute ?" In a footnote he says, pare the English proverb 'As soon as the cat can lick her ear. In the Vâchospatyam, however, the nyâya is explained as meaning the absence of a thing, not its inaccessibility. It says:- "कफोणौ गुडाभावेऽपि तदाशया यथा लेहनमेवं यत्र वस्त्वसद्भावेऽपि तत्प्रत्या- शया व्यापारभेदस्तनास्य प्रवृत्तिः”॥ The St. Petersburg Lexicon ( s. v. affilfoyer) renders it "like a ball on the elbow.” "Com- ·17 काकतालीयन्यायः॥ The maxim of the crow and the Palmyra fruit. A crow alighted on a Palmyra tree, and at the same moment some of the fruit fell on its head and killed it. The maxim is therefore used to illustrate a startling and purely accidental occurrence. It is well explained in the Kus'ilivritti on Punini 5. 3. 106 (as quoted by Dr. Eggeling in footnote to Ganaratnamalodadhi. iii. 195):--"काकतालीयम् । अजाकृपाणीयम् । अन्धकवर्तकीयम् । अतर्कितोपनतं चित्रीकरणमुच्यते । तत्कथम् । काकस्यागमनं यादृच्छिकं तालस्य पतनं च । तेन तालेन पतता काकस्य वधः कृतः । एवमेव देवदत्तस्य तत्रागमनं दस्यूनां चोपनिपातः । तैश्च तस्य वधः कृतः । तत्र यो देवदत्तस्य दस्यूनां च समागमः स काकतालसमागमसदृशः" ॥ ॥ We find the saying in Punchalust ix. 12 as follows:-"अय- थावस्तुविज्ञानात्फलं लभ्यत ईप्सितम् । काकतालीयतः सोऽयं संवादिभ्रम segà”. And again in Ânandavardhana's Dhvanyaloku ii. 16, and in Nyayarârtikatâtparyotikci, page 401. There is a capital example of it, too, in the following verses of the Vyayamanjari ( page 106):-"अपि चानागतं ज्ञानमस्मदादेरपि क्वचित् ॥ प्रमाणं प्रातिभं इवो मे भ्रातागन्तेति दृश्यते ॥ नानर्थजं न सन्दिग्धं न बाधविधुरीकृतम् । न दुष्टकारणं चेति प्रमाणमिदमिप्यताम् ॥ क्वचिद्वाधकयोगश्चेदस्तु तस्याप्रमाणता । यत्रापरेधुरभ्येति भ्राता तत्र किमुच्यताम् ॥ काकतालीयमिति चेन्न प्रमाणप्रद. र्शितम् । वस्तु तत्काकतालीयमिति भवितुमर्हति" ॥ In his commentary on Santipurva clxxvii. 11, Nilakantha Govind gives another', and less probable, definition of the maxim. He say's :- "ताल: करतलयोः शब्दजनकः संयोगस्तस्मिन् क्रियमाणे उत्पतन्काको दैवात्तत्र ताला- भ्यामाकान्तोऽभूत्तदेतत्काकतालीयमित्युच्यते । काकस्पर्शसमकालं तालफलस्य तालवृक्षस्य वा पतनं तदित्यन्ये" ॥ Molesworth explains it thus :- “ Said when any occurrence synchronizing with, or immediately following, soine other seems, however in truth independent of it, to have been occasioned by it;-as the fruit of a Palmyra falling at the alighting upon it of a crow, may appear to fall in consequence." 3 ·18 काकदन्तपरीक्षान्यायः॥ The maxim of the cramination of a crow's teeth. Used of any useless and manifestly fruitless enquiry. It occurs in the Buddhist treatise Nydyabindutikâ, page 1, and again on page 3, line 8. Also in Sankara’s bhâshya on Katha-Upanishad i. 25 ["नचिकेतो मरणं मानुप्राक्षीः"]:-"नचिकेतो मरणं मरणसंबद्धं प्रश्नं प्रेत्यास्ति नास्तीति काकदन्तपरीक्षारूपं मानुप्राक्षीमैव प्रष्टुमर्हसि" ॥ We find it too in Abhinavagupta on Dhranyáloka iii. 19 (page 163 of Pandit Durgaprasada's edition) as follows :-"व्यंग्योऽर्थो भवतु मा वाभूत् कस्तत्राभिनिवेशः । काकदन्तपरीक्षाप्रायमेव तत्स्यादिति भावः" | It appears also in Puncupadiked, pages 53 and 68, and in many works besides. In Nyayamanjarê, page 7, line 5, it takes the form of वायसदशनविमर्शन्याय. | काकाक्षिगोलकन्यायः॥ The maxim of the crow's eyeball. Crows are popularly supposed to have only one eye, which, as occasion requires, moves from the cavity on one side into that on the other. The maxim is used of a word which appears only once in a sentence but which applies to two portions of it; or of persons or things fulfilling a double purpose. I have met with it in the former sense in Svatmiram's Hathayojapradipika iv. 10, "विविधैरासनैः कुम्भर्विचित्रैः करणैरपि,” on which the commentator, Brahmānanda, says “विचित्रैरिति काकाक्षिगोलकन्यायेनोभयत्र संबध्यते.” Also in Abhinavagupta's comment on Dharconyālolsa iii. 1, "पदानां स्मारकस्वेऽपि पदमात्रावभासिनः", where he remarks "अपिशब्दः काकाक्षिन्यायेनो. 771 faza”ll Of its use in the second sense, wo havo an interesting example in Kîmandaki's Nitisira, a work ascribed to the third century before Christ. Chapter xi. 24 reads thus:- "बलिनोपितोर्मध्ये वाचारमानं समर्पयन् । द्वैधीभावेन वर्तेत काकाक्षिवदल- क्षितः."

·19 काशकुशावलम्बनन्यायः ॥ The maxim of catching at straws. The being driven from one argument or position to another equally untenable. Târânātha says:-"नद्यादौ पतितस्य संतरणानभिज्ञस्य यथा कुशकाशावलम्बनं निरर्थकमेवं प्रबलयुक्तिषु निराकृतासु दुर्बलयुक्त्यवलम्बनं निरर्थकमित्येव. मवलम्बनस्य निरर्थकत्वविवक्षायामस्य प्रवृत्तिः ॥ The expression "काश. कुशावलम्बनकल्पं" occurs in the Arhata chapter (p. 25 of Bilb. Ind. and p. 31 of Jivananda's edition) of the Sarvadars'anasangraha, and again in the Panini chapter (pp. 142 and 161 ); and in both places Prof. Cowell has rendered it " like a drowning man's catching at a straw.” We have the same, thouglı not as a compound, in Naishkarmyasiddhi i. 76,-"एवं निरा- कृतोऽपि काशं कुशं वावलम्ब्याह.” It appears also in Nyayamanjart page 183; and again, as follows, on page 551 :-"तस्मात्प्रमाणतोऽ. शक्ये शक्ये वा वस्तुनिर्णये। एवं प्रायमयुक्तं यत्कुशकाशावलंबनम्” ॥ In Tantrarartilka l. 3. 18 (page 213) we have the maxim in the following couplet:-"अर्थवत्त्वं न चेजातं मुख्यैर्यस्य प्रयोजनैः । तस्यानुप- ङ्गिकेवाशा कुशकाशावलंबिनी” ॥ In expounding Bralemasutrabhttsleya3. 3. 29, Anandagiri quotes Amaralsosa 2. 4 166 (अस्त्री कुशं कुशो दर्भः पवित्रमथ कत्तणम्) as follows:-"अत एवास्त्री कुशमित्यमरसिंहेनानुशिष्टम्.” Does this throw any new light on the date of Amara ? In his History of Indian Literature (page 230), Professor Weber tells us that the Amarakos'u cannot be widely separated from those dictionaries which we know to belong to the eleventh, twelfth, and following centuries; whilst Professor Macdonell, in his recently issued History of Sanskrit Literature ( page 433 ) assigns that work to about 500 A. D. कूपमण्डूकन्यायः॥ The maxim of a frog in a well. It is applied to an inexperienced person brought up in the narrow circle of home, and ·20 ignorant of public life and mankind. “Home-keeping youth have ever homely wits” ( Two Gentlemen of Verona i. 1). The following passage from Prasannaraghava-Nataka i. (page 13) illustrates the use of the term:-"कथं मामपि दशदिग्विलासिनी- कर्णपूरीकृतकीर्तिपल्लवं त्रिभुवनवीरनामधेयं कूपमंडूक इव सागरमविख्यातमप- दिशसि' ॥ So, too, Upamitibhavaprapancd, page 828:- "यो न निर्गत्य निःशेषां विलोकयति मेदिनीम् । अनेकाद्भुतवृत्तान्तां स नरः कूपदर्दुरः" ॥ कूपयन्नघटिकान्यायः॥ The maxim of the pots attached to the water-wheel of a well. As the wheel revolves, somo of the pots are going up and others are going down; some are full whilst others are empty; and so it is applied to illustrate the changes and chances of this mortal life. This is well put in Mrichchhakatika. x. 60 :- "कांश्चित्तुच्छयति प्रपूरयति वा कांश्चिन्नयत्युन्नति कांश्चित्पातविधौ करोति च पुनः कांश्चिन्नयत्याकुलान् । अन्योन्यं प्रतिपक्षसंहतिमिमां लोकस्थितिं बोधय- नेप क्रीडति कूपयनघटिकान्यायप्रसक्तो विधिः" । Taranatha's explanation of this maxim is extremely tame, not to say nonsensical! According to him, it is intended to teach that as a pot is raised by the water-wheel from a deep well, so, by means of instruction, the essence of the S'âstras is drawn up, deep though they are by reason of their complexity! See the cognate घटीयन्त्रन्याय in Seconal and Third Handful. कूर्माङ्गन्यायः॥ The maxim of the limbs of the tortoise. Its meaning and application will be apparent from the following passage taken from the Sankhya section of Sarvadars'anasangraha ( page 150 Bib. Ind. and 170 of Jivananda's edition):-"यथा हि कूर्म- ·21 स्याङ्गानि कूर्मशरीरे निविशमानानि तिरोभवन्ति निःसरन्ति चाविर्भवन्त्येवं कारणस्य तन्वादेः पटादयो विशेषा निःसरन्त आविर्भवन्त उत्पद्यन्त इत्युच्यन्ते निविशमानास्तिरोभवन्तो विनश्यन्तीत्युच्यन्ते । न पुनरसतामुत्पत्तिः सतां वा falt:" | Prof. Cowell renılers it thus:-“ As the limbs of a tortoise, when they retire within its shell, are concealed, and, when they come forth, are revealeil, so the particular effects, as cloth &c., of a cause, as threads &c., when they come forth and are revealed, are said to be produced; and when they retire and are concealed, they are said to be destroyed; but there is no such thing as the production of the non-existent, or the destruction of the existent.” Very similar language is used by Vâchaspati Misra, too, in his Sankhyatattvakuumudi 9 and 15. See also, Kshuriků-Upanishad 3. and Gitii ii. 58. Shacallarateare: 11 ted The nyâya stands thus in Tantrarârtilx 3. 4. 1 :—"ta भाष्यकारेणोपन्यासः कृतः स कृत्वाचिन्तान्यायेनेति द्रष्टव्यम्.” On applying to my friend Mr. Arthur Veuis for an elucidation of the nyaya he replied as follows:-“I have always understood it as the method of granting to your adversary what later you mean to refute, for which another common expression is 3yqtare. The word wat is elliptical for gfà acar, that is, having admityour adversary's point, you proceed to the farat or discussion of it." This view seems to be confirmed by the fact that in Sastradipikâ, pages 615, 666, 707, 710, and 739, it takes the form of “gfa gallargà,” and that in Sabara on Jaimini 11. 3. 16. and 12, 2. 11, we read at the close of each " कृस्वा चिन्त्यते । कृत्वाचिन्तेयम्.' In his șaddars'anacintanikî, Mr. M. M. Kunto gives three different renderings of the expression. On page 050 ( where it is attached to the title of the adhikarana ) its meaning is said to be " point already discussed,” and he claims for it the authority of Madhava; then, on page 1999, it ·22 is rendered “ an adjustment not founded on fact," and, finally, on page 2010, “the examination of a subject after merely granting an opponent's statement." This third rendering coincides with that of Mr. Venis. I may add that Prof. Gangânâtha Jhâ tells me that a pandit would explain the term thus:-"कृत्वा (यद्यप्येतद्विपयकसंशयो नोदेति तथापि तद्विषयगतसकल विचारस्योपन्यासार्थ कल्पनां कृत्वा) चिन्ता (विचारः)." Or, as the Professor himself puts it, "the bhâsya has introduced certain points of discussion simply for the sake of argument, in order to exhaust all possible alternatives with regard to the subject matter of the adhikarana.” I have not met with the nyaya anywhere but in works on Mimann sî. क्षीरं विहायारोचकग्रस्तस्य सौवीररुचिमनुभवति ॥ “Leaving the milk suitable to the dyspeptic, he enjoys the sour gruel.” The nyâya is found in this form in the Akshapada section of Suryadars'anasangraha (P. 118 of Bib. Iud. edition and p. 134 of Jivananda's cd.) as follows:-"ag genia- व्यक्तिर्मुक्तिरिति पक्षं परित्यज्य दुःखनिवृत्तिरेव मुक्तिरिति स्वीकारः क्षीर विहा. यारोचकग्रस्तस्य सौवीररुचिमनुभवतीति चेत्तदेतनाटकपक्षपतितं त्वच इत्युपेक्ष्यते" ॥ Prof. Cowell translates it tlus:--“But if you give up the view that liberation is the manifestation of leippiness, and then accept such a view as that which holds it to be only the cessation of pain, does not your conduct resemble that of the dys. peptic patient who refused swect milk and preferred sour ricegruel ? Your satire, however, falls powerless, as fitter for some speech in a play { rather than for a grave philosophical argument]." There can be little doubt however that Mâdhaya took the nyâya from Udayana's Åtmatattvaviveku where it appears ( on page 56, line 5,) as "fri fagra pfarta RET ALAR. I know of no other instance of it, and it is not in Raghunatha's Laukikanya ya sangrahu.

·:: खल्वाटबिल्वीयन्यायः॥ The maxim of the bald (or bare-headel) man, and the Woodapple. Vardhamâna ( iii. 195 ) explains it thus:- खल्वाटः पर्यटन्नतर्कितं श्रीफलतरोरधस्तादागतो दैववशाच बिल्वमुपरि पतितं तद्वदन्योऽप्युझ्यवस्तुसंयोग एवमुच्यते” ॥ Bhartxihari, in his Niti. s'ataka 90, brings the bald man under a palm tree:- "खल्वाटो दिवसेश्वरस्य किरणैः संतापितो मस्तके वाम्छन्देशमनातपं विधिवशात्तालस्य मूलं गतः। तत्राप्यस्य महाफलेन पतता भए सशब्दं शिरः मायो गच्छति यत्र माग्यरहितस्तत्रैव यान्त्यापदः" । This maxim belongs to the same class as अजाकृपाणीय and काक- तालीय, which see. गगनरोमन्थन्यायः॥ The maxim of ruminating on ether. Equivalent to beating the air. It is found twice in the Sarvodars'unasangrahu. First, in the Rámânuja section (page 57 of Jivananda's edition, and 47 of Bib. Ind.):-"तदेतद्गनरोमन्थायितम्", which Prof. Gough renders "All this is about as profitable as it would be for a ruminant animal to ruminate on ether.” Secondly, in the Panini section ( pages 162 and 143 respectively ):--"तदैतद्गगनरोमन्थ- कल्पम्", rendereal by Prof. Cowell by "All this is only the ruminating of empty ether.” In the Nyáyamenjari page 453, appears in a slightly different form, in the expression "व्योन्नि रोमन्थकेलिवत्;" and in Stalika p. 154, and Nyayamakarende, page 129, we meet with गगनग्रासकल्प. it गडरिकाप्रवाहन्यायः ॥ The maxim of a continuous rush of sheep. It is used to indicate the blind following of others like a flock of sheep. So the Vacleaeputyam, which says:-"गडलिकानामवीनां संघादेका ·21 चेन्नद्यादौ पतति तदा तत्संघान्तर्गताः सर्वेऽपि वार्यमाणा अपि तत्र पतन्तीति लोकप्रसिद्ध्या यत्र वार्यमाणानामपि अनिष्टमार्गे धावनं तत्रास्य प्रवृत्तिः" । The expression occurs in Chap. viii. (page 214) of the Kavyaprakâs'a where a very helpful note of Mahes'achandra's will be found ; and also in Chap. vi, page 188, of the Sahityadarpang, which however, Mr. Pramadâdâsa Mitra has rendered, " in pursuance of established custom." It is found, also, on pages 86 and 125 of Abhinavagupta's commentary on the Dhranyúloka, and in the opening part of Kavyapradipe viii (p. 327). There separato be much difference of opinion as to the correct forrn of the first word of the maxim, since it appears in the four varieties of गडरिका, गडलिका, गडारिका and गड्डालिका. गुडजिहिकान्यायः॥ The maxim of the tongue [smeared] with treacle [in order to dis. guise an unpalatable draught). The Vâchuspatyam thus explains its usc:-" यथा तिक्तताभिया निम्बपानमकुर्वाणस्य बालस्य जिह्वायां गुडलेप दरवा पित्रादिस्तं निम्बं पाययति एवमर्थवादवाक्यानि बह्वायाससाध्ये कर्मण्यप्रव- र्तमानं पुरुषं स्वर्गाक्षय्यादिकं श्रावयित्वा प्रवर्तयन्ति । फलश्रुतिरपि रोचनार्था"। An excellent example of this is found in Kavyapradips, p. 7:- "ये सुकुमारमतयोऽतिसुखिस्वभावा राजकुमारादयो नीरसे नीतिशास्त्र प्रवर्त- यितुमशक्यास्तान्काव्यं कान्तेव सरसतापादनेनाभिमुखीकृत्योपदेशं ग्राहयति गुडजिबिकया शिशूनिवौषधम् । यथाहुः । स्वादुकाव्यरसोन्मिश्रं वाक्यार्थमुपभुञ्जते । प्रथमालीढमधवः पिबन्ति कटु भेषजम्" ॥ It is employed in a similar manner by Abhinavagupta in his comment on Dhvanyaloka iii. 30, and by the author of Pudamanjart in the early part of his work (the Pandit x. 254); and, somewhat less clearly, in Bhamcti, pages 342, 534, and Nyayavârtikatât paryaţikâ, pages 438, 4+1.

·25 गोबलीवर्दन्यायः॥ The maxim of the cattle and the bull. In the Pandit for October 1867, Rijarāma Sastri expounded it thus:- "यत्र गाः कालय बलीव चेत्युच्यते तत्र गोपदेनैव बलीवर्दपदसिद्धौ बलीवर्दपदं दुर्द- म्यत्वज्ञापनपरत्वेन सफलमिति कल्प्यते ॥ That given in the ichespatyam is somewhat fuller:-"बलीवर्दस्य गोविशेषत्वेऽपि बलीवर्दस्य झटिति गोत्वेन बोधनार्थं यथा प्रयोगस्तथान्ययोः सामान्यविशेषरूपयोझटिति बोधनार्थ यत्र प्रयोगस्तत्रास्य प्रवृत्तिः”॥ In his exposition of Manu viii. 28, where six classes of women are enumerated as having a claim to the king's protection, Kullika Says:-"अत्र चानेक- शब्दोपादाने गोबलीवर्दन्यायेन पुनरुक्तिपरीहारः” ॥ The commentators Râghavânanda and Govindaraja also quote the maxim in the same connection, and we have it in Kavyapradipa vii. 11 (page 300). Vâcaspatimiséra, too, makes frequent use of it. It occurs in Bhamati, pages 518, 536; and in Nyayarartikatêtparyatilvi, pages 11, 118, 119 and 404. It belongs to the Bame class as ब्राह्मणवसिष्टन्याय and ब्राह्मणपरिव्राजकन्याय. गोमयपायसीयन्यायः॥ The maxim of coudung as a milky preparation. Some stupid person is supposed to argue that cowdung is made of milk, because it comes from the cow; hence it is used to denoto an utterly absurd argument or statement. It occurs in Vyasa's bhâshya on Yojasi.tra i. 32. He says:-"कथंचित्समाधीयमानमप्येतद्गोमय- पायसीयन्यायमाक्षिपति" ॥ On which the Yogavartika remarks:- "गोमयं पायसं गव्यस्वादित्यादिन्यायमतदूपणं समाधीयमानमप्याक्षिपति तिरस्करोति"n See, too, Nyayavartikutatparyatiktt, p. 435. It is found also in the Bauddha section of the Sarvailars'anasangraha (page 18 of Bib. Ind. and 22 of Jivananda's edition ) in the following sentence:- "एवं चायमभेदसाधको हेतुर्गोमय- पायसीयन्यायवदाभासतां भजेत्", which Professor Gough renders "Thus this argument which you adduce to prove that there is 4 ·26 difference between subject and object, turns out a mere absurdity, like milky food made of cowdung." The compound it is included in Ganaratnamalodadhi iii, 196, but Vardhamâna did not explain it. घट्टकुटीप्रभातन्यायः॥ The maxim of day-breuk in the vicinity of the toll-collector's hut. A man, anxious to avoid paying toll, takes another rond, but losing his way in the dark, finds himself, at day-break, in the vicinity of that very toll-gate! The saying is employel to illustrate GÈTIER, as Prof. Cowell puts it; that is, failure to accomplish a desired object. It occurs in the Pâņini section of Sarundars'anısangraha, as follows:—"73 स्फोटवाचकतापक्षेऽपि प्रागुक्त विकल्पप्रसरेण घट्टकुटीप्रभाताथितमिति चेत्तदेत. न्मनोराज्यविजृम्भणं वैषम्यसंभवात्', which is thus rendered by Prof. Cowell:—“But even on your own hypothesis that there is a certain thing called sphota which expresses the meaning, the same untenable alternative will recur which we discusscil before ; and therefore it will only be a case of the proverb that 'the dawn finds the smuggler with the revenile-oficer's house close by'. This, however, is only the inflation of the world of fancy from the wide difference between the two cases." Sriharsha, too, used the simile in his Khandanakhandit. khúilya ( paye 35):-"afe #RRUTET palaganahiahia afai ghafala àa”, See also Siddhantales'a, pages 40 and 116; Vivaranaprameyasangrahu, page 62; Advaitabrahmasiddhi, pages 03, 146, 219, 371; Citsukhi, i. 12; ii. 24 ( Panělit is. 518; v. 510 ), and Kusumainjali iii. 19 ( page 496 ). घुणाक्षरन्यायः ॥ The maxim of the letter made by the wood worm ghuna. This worm bores holes in wood and in books which sometimes assume the shape of a letter of the alphabet; hence its use to ·27 intimate the occurrence of something quite accidental. Here is Vardhamâna's ( ii. 195 ) description of it :-guilizarotezika- निष्पन्नमक्षरं घुणाक्षरम् । तदिव यदकुशलेन देवान्निप्पद्यते तद्भुणाक्षरीयम्" ॥ The simile is found in the opening part of Prasannaraghaza ( page 9 ) as follows:-"अहो घुणाक्षरन्यायो यदिदं भ्रमरद्वयं प्रति मयोक्तं बन्दिद्वयं प्रति फलितं वचः"॥ Also in Rijintaranjint iv. 167 :-" त्रीन्वारान्समरे जित्वा जितं मेने स मुम्मुनिम् । सकृजयमरेर्वीरा मन्यन्ते हि घुणाक्षरम्" | Migha. iii. 58 may also be referred to. चन्द्रचन्द्रिकान्यायः॥ The maxim of the moon and its light. Uscil of two inseparable things. It is found in Anandagiri's S'ankaruvijaya, page 124 :- " अतः सर्वदेवकारणस्य रुद्रस्य या शक्तिश्चन्द्रचन्द्रिकान्यायेन तदुद्दो- धरूपिणी स्वाधीनवल्लभेति प्रसिद्धा सैव भवानी" ॥ चौरापराधान्माण्डव्यनिग्रहन्यायः ॥ The maxim of the punishment of Mandarya for the crime committed by robbers. The story of the Rishi Ani-Mânda vya is told at length in Adiparva cvii, cviii. Whilst he was practising severe austerities, in conjunction with the mavna-vrata, some robbers concealed themselves and their plunder in bis Âs'rama. The king's guard found them there, and, believing the saye to be implicated in the affair, carried him off together with them and impaled them all together! Måndavya was eventually removed from the stake, but its point (अणी) remained in him; hence the name, given him by the people, of Ani-Mindavya. The maxim is found in the Purnaprajna chapter of Sarradars'anasangraha ( page 73 of Jivananda's edition, and 62 of Bib. Ind.):-" तस्मान्न भेदप्रत्यक्षं सुप्रसरमिति चेत्कि वस्तुस्वरूपभेवादिनं प्रति इमानि दूषणान्युश्रुप्यन्ते किंवा धर्मिभेदवादिनं प्रति । प्रथमे चौरापरा- धान्माण्डव्यनिग्रहन्यायापातः" ॥ But its earliest occurrence is in Atma. tattvaviveka, page 70, line 15, where we read "Da VÊ DITITIIa ॥

·28 व्यक्तमयं माण्डव्यनिग्रहः स्यात् "n and it was from this source that the Khandanakâra, too, derived the nyâya together with several pages of context! Compare pages 633-636 of Sriharsa's work with pages 70 and 71 of Udayana's. छत्रिन्यायः॥ The maxim of the men with umbrellas. The thought here is of a crowd of men, many of them with umbrellas up, and so all seeming to have them. Its application will be apparent from the examples which follow. We have one in Sankara's bhishya on Katha-Upanishad iii. 1 ( "ऋतं पिबन्तौ” &c.):- "एकस्तत्र कर्मफलं पिबति भुङ्क्ते नेतरस्तथापि पातृसंबन्धात्पिबन्तावित्युच्यते छत्रि- -2107" | Again, in his bhâshya on Vedantasútra 3. 3. 34, where the same text is expounded :—"#fafaifacin g sira पिबत्यशनायाद्यतीतः परमात्मापि साहचर्याच्छत्रिन्यायेन पिवतीत्युपचर्यते" ॥ On the former of these two passages, the commentator Gopâla Yatindra says:-"उत्रिन्यायेनेति । यथा लोके छत्रिणो गच्छन्तीति प्रयोगे सपरिवारे राज्ञि गच्छति छत्र्यछत्रिसमुदाये छत्रिशब्दो वर्त्तत एकसमूहवाहित्वे- नैवं पिबदपिबरसमुदाये पिबतिर्वर्त्तत इत्यर्थः ॥ I have met with the maxim in the Kuvalayananda also under the figure fia, and in Anandagiri on Brahmasútra. bhashya 1. 2. 11; 1. 4. 12. But the nyâya is found long before Sankara's time, and perhaps originated with Sabara, in whose bhâshya on Jaimini 1. 4. 28 we read "यथा छत्रिणो गच्छन्तीत्येकेन छत्त्रिणा सर्वे लक्ष्यन्ते"; and in Tantravârtika 1. 4. 13 तस्मादेकदेशस्थैरपि विश्वेदेवैरुपलक्षितानां छत्रिन्यायेन तत्प्रख्यतयैव सर्वेषां नामधेयत्वम्" ॥ तमोदीपन्यायः॥ The maxim of darkness and the lamp. This is found in the Vedântusiddhậntumuklůvali ( pago 125 ) where we read :- ·29 " तदयं तमोदीपन्यायः । तथाहि । अज्ञानं ज्ञातुमिच्छेद्यो मानेनात्यन्तमृढधीः । स तु नूनं तमः पश्येद्दीपेनोत्तमतेजसा" ॥ " Hence the well-known illustration of darkness and the lamp:– Thus that dullest of dullheads who would cognize Nescience by means of a pramana, would forsooth go looking for darkness with a brilliant lamp.” This verse is most probably based on that of Sures'vara in Taittiriyavartiko 2. 1. 177:- " प्रमाणोत्पन्नया दृष्टया योऽविद्यां द्रष्टुमिच्छति । दीपेनासौ ध्रुवं पश्येद्गुहाकुक्षिगतं तमः” ॥ दग्धपटन्यायः॥ The maxim of the burnt cloth. When a piece of cloth, or a leaf, is thrown into the fire and consumed, its outline is still visible in the charred remains; and this the Vedantists use to illustrate the unreality and unsubstantiality of all phenomena. It occurs twice in Nrisimhasarasvati's commentary on the Vedantastro, namely on pages 55 and 66, as follows:-"यहा सर्वं खल्विदं ब्रह्मैतदात्म्यमिदं सर्वमित्यादिश्रुतिबलात्सर्वमह मिति गिरिनदी- समुद्रात्मकं सर्व जगत्स्वाभिन्नसच्चिदानन्दब्रह्मत्वेनानुभूय तस्य दग्धपटन्यायेन प्रपञ्चभानेऽप्यद्वैतं सच्चिदानन्दलक्षणं वस्तु भासत एवेत्यर्थः” ॥ ( Page 55 ). "नन्वेतादृशस्य जीवन्मुक्तस्य देहेन्द्रियादिभानमस्ति न वेत्याशय दग्धपट- न्यायेनेन्द्रजालनिर्मितसौधसमुद्रादिवच्च बाधितानुवृत्त्या मिथ्यात्वेन भानेऽपि परमार्थतया भानं नेत्याह अयमित्यादिना न पश्यतीत्यन्तेन" ॥ ( Page 66 ). दण्डापूपिकान्यायः॥ The maxim of the stick and the cakes. If a number of cakes (chapatis) are attached to a stick, and the stick is carried off or eaten by mice, the inference is that the cakes have shared the same fate. The application of the maxim is obvious. In the Sahityakaumudi ( xi. 8), and in the Kuvalayananda ( page 244 ), it is used to illustrate the figure styfgift and काव्यापत्ति respectively.

·30 * "दण्डापूपिकयान्यार्थागमोऽर्थापत्तिरिष्यते ॥ ८ ॥ मूषिकेण दण्डो भक्षितश्चे- दिहस्थः पूपोऽपि तेन भक्षित इति न्यायो दण्डापूपिका । तयान्यार्थागमोऽर्थान्तर- प्रत्ययोऽर्थापत्तिरित्यर्थः" ॥ (Sih.) "कैमुत्येनार्थसंसिद्धिः काव्यार्थापत्तिरिष्यते । स जितस्त्वन्मुखेनेन्दुः का वार्ता सरसीरुहाम् ॥ अत्र स इत्यनेन पद्मानि येन जितानीति विवक्षितं तथा च सोऽपि येन जितस्तेन पद्मानि जितानीति किमु वक्तव्यमिति दण्डापूपिकान्यायेन पद्मजय- रूपस्यार्थस्य संसिद्धिः काव्यार्थापत्तिः । तात्रिकाभिमतार्थापत्तिव्यावर्त्तनाय का. व्येति विशेषणम्" ॥ ( Kuv.). Sec also Brihadê ranyakopanishad-bhâshyararlika, page 909, verse 135. देहलीदीपन्यायः॥ The maxim of a lamp on the threshold. A lamp so placed gives light both inside and outside the house, and is therefore used as an illustration of anything which fulfills a double purposo. Sabara refers to such a lamp in his blåshya on Jaimini 12. 1. 3 :-"यथा प्रासादे कृतः प्रदीपः सन्निधानाद्राजमार्गेऽप्यु: पकरोति". There is a similar expression, too, in Kualaystnanda, page 97. Another good example of the nyâya is found in the cominentary on Suptupadârthi, page 52. The text stands thus:-" द्रव्यानारंभकं कार्यद्रव्यमन्त्यावयवि ॥ प्रागभाव- वत्कार्यम् ॥ भोगायतनमन्त्यावयवि शरीरम्" ॥ on which Madhava Sarasvati remarks :- “शरीरलक्षणेऽन्त्यावयविपदज्ञानाय तल्लक्षणमाह द्रव्येति । यद्यप्युद्देशानन्तरं लक्षणस्य वक्तव्यत्वाच्छरीरलक्षणानन्तरं भोगादिवदन्त्यावयवी लक्षयितुमुचितस्तथाप्यत्र द्रव्यपदव्यवच्छेद्यत्वेन प्राप्तत्वादेहलीप्रदीपन्यायेनो- भयत्रोपकार्यतयात्रैव लक्षित इत्यदोषः" । My friend Professor Cowell pointed out another instance of the use of the nyâya in Ânandagiri's S'ankaravijaya xi, page 82. The maxim is akin to काकाक्षिगोलकन्याय und जामात्रथै श्रपितस्य सूपादरतिथ्युपकारकत्वम् ॥ * The anthor of lasagangduhura finds fault with this definitiou. See page 187 of Durgiprasidit's edition, Bombay 1888.

·31 TETRTIGTETTEPOTT: 11 The maxim of the lost horses and burnt chariot. This is based on the story of two men travelling in their respective chariots, and one of them losing his horses and the other having his chariot burnt, through the outbreak of a fire in the village in which they were putiing up for the night. The horses that were left were harnessed to the remaining chariot, and the two men pursued their journey together. Its teaching is-union for mutual advantage. That the story is very old is clear from the fact that the saying is quoted in the 16th cartikel ("T ar Ag\u7777777") to Pinini 1. 1. 50, and again in Sabara's thâshya 2. 1. 1. It appears also in Sures'vara's Brihadaranyavháshyarartika 2. 1. 38, which reads thus:-- ROMETT50101 चाश्रित्य भूमिपम् । प्राह मानुपवित्ताढ्यं देववित्तसमन्वितः"॥ On which Anandagiri says :-"अधिकारिणे विद्यां वक्तुं गार्ग्यश्चदुपचक्रमे तर्हि योग्य ब्राह्मणं हित्वा किमिति राजानमुपेत्य ब्रवीति । तत्राह नष्टेति । यथाहुर्युक्तः संयो- गोऽधिकारार्थन हेतुना नष्टाश्वदग्धरथवदिति” । Râmtirtha, too, quotes the maxim in his comment on the Vedûntusâra ( page 93, line 3):-"AglazyTA 'Figo पितृलोक ' इति श्रुतिरुपपद्यते", of which the following translation is found in The Pandit for May 1872:-" The l'edic text "The world of progenitors is attained by works, can be explained according to the analogy of two men, of whom the horses of the one are lost and the chariot of the other burut [ for the horses of the latter may be yoked to the car of the former, and they may travel together, and in like manner, constant and occasional works, though no special result has been recorded of them, may supply a cause for the attainment of the world of the progenitors, which requires some special works as a condition ).” See also Tantravârtika, pp. 15, 709, 832, and Bhậmati, page 81. नहि कठोरकण्ठीरवस्य कुरङ्गशावः प्रतिभटो भवति । A young fawn cannot stand up against a full-grown lion.

·32 This is found in the Akshapâda chapter of Sarvadars'ana- 8angraha. ( page 136 of Jivananda's, and 119 of Bib. Ind. ):- "नैतत्परीक्षाक्षममीक्ष्यते नहि कठोरकण्ठीरवस्य कुरङ्गशावः प्रतिभटो भवति", which Prof. Cowell renders, “ This pretented inference will no more stand examination than the young fawn can stand the attack of the full-grown lion.” Compare "नाल्पीयसा महतोऽभिभवः suara" ll of S'åliki, page 94, and see the nyâya "ang wala any: &c." in Second Handful. नहि खदिरगोचरे परशौ पलाशे द्वैधीभावो भवति ॥ The Paliis'a trce is not cleft when the are is applieil to the Khadira tree. The saying is used to indicate that two objects are essentially distinct. I have met with it in three of Vâcaspatimis'ra's works. It occurs in Blumati 2. 2. 28 ( page 438 ) in the following connection. "स्वरूपं विज्ञानस्यासत्याकारयुक्तं प्रमेयम् । प्रमेयप्रकाशनं प्रमाण- फलं, तत्प्रकाशनशक्तिः प्रमाणम् । बाह्यवादिनोरपि वैभाषिकसौत्रान्तिकयोः काल्पनिक एवं प्रमाणफलव्यवहारोऽभिमत इत्याह ‘सत्यपि बाह्येऽर्थ' इति । भिन्नाधिकरणत्वे हि प्रमाणफलयोस्तद्भावो न स्यात् । नहि खदिरगोचरे परशौ पलाशे द्वैधीभावो भवति । तस्मादनयोरैकाधिकरण्यं वक्तव्यम्" ॥ Then in Yogabhāsya tilt i. 7 we read :-ननु पुरुषवर्ती बोधः कथं चित्तगताया वृत्तेः फलम् । नहि खदिरगोचरव्यापारेण परशुना पलाशे छिदा क्रियत इति" ॥ And very similarly in Nyayavártikatatparyaţikâ, page 67:— "अथ प्रमाणफलयोभिन्न विषयत्वेन विप्रतिपत्त्या प्रमाणफलभावायोगात् । नहि पनसविपयेण परशुना खदिरे द्वैधीभावो भवति" ॥ But he is not the only writer who makes use of it, for in Advitabrahmasiddhi, page 93, we read:-"तयोभिन्नाधिकरणवृत्तित्वे खदिरगोचरे परशौ पालाशे द्वैधीभावो भवेत्" | For earlier references to this nyinya, see tho Superaddenda to the Third Handſul.

·33 न हि वरविघाताय कन्योद्वाहः ॥ The bride is not married for the destruction of the bridegroom. This is found in Brahmasâtrabhashya 4. 1. 2, and in the Purņaprajua chapter of Sarrudars'anasungraha ( page 63 of Bib. Ind, and 75 of Jivananda's edn. ). It occurs also in Jiranmuktiviveka, page 101 ( line 4 from bottom ). In the l'achaspatyam and in the Laukikunyayasangraha, the maxim is given in the positive form, viz. "aratara FAIT TOUTH with the other as a possible variant. Tåránâtha explains it thus:-"विषकन्यायां वृतायां यत्र वरस्य घातः संभाव्यते तत्र तां नोद्वहेदेवं विवक्षायामस्य प्रवृत्तिः । तथा चानिष्टान्तरपातादिसंभावनायामभीष्टहेतुरपि वस्तु न वरणीयमित्येवं तन्यायतात्पर्यम् । अयमेव न्यायः क्वचिन्न हि वरघाताय Parang alcantia 117a qaà”. We have a reference to “poison-damsels” in Kathúsaritságara xix. 82, which reads thus:-- "विदधे विषकन्याश्च सैन्ये पण्यविलासिनीः । प्राहिणोत्पुरुषांश्चैव निशासु znala:" || In a foot-note to his translation of the passage, Mr. Tawney says, “One of these poison-damsels is represented as having been employed against Chandragupta in the Mudrâ- Râkshasa. Compare the with tale in the Gesta Romanorum, where an Indian queen sends one to Alexander the Great. Aristotle frustrates the stratagein. पङ्कप्रक्षालनन्यायः॥ The maxim of the washing oii' of mud. It is evidently deduced from Panchatantra ii. 157, a verse intended to strengthen an argument against the possession of riches under any circumstances, and which reads thus" aku fagi arga a शुभावहा । प्रक्षालनाद्धि पङ्कस्य दूरादस्पर्शनं वरम्"॥ “If a man desires wealth for charitable purposes, even to him it will bring no good; for, better than the washing off of mud is the keeping away from it altogether." The nyâya is therefore the equivalent of our “Prevention is better than cure.” In his bhâshya on Brahmasútra 3. 2. 22. S'ankara twice quotes the second line of the above couplet; and, in commenting thereon, Anandagiri uses the maxim three times. It is again applied twice by him ·34 on Brahmasutrabhashya 4. 1. 16. as follows:-"अग्निहोत्रादीनामपि पुण्यान्तरवद्विनाश्यत्वात्पङ्कक्षालनन्यायापातादारुरुक्षुणापि तानि नानुष्ठेयानि"; धीनाश्यानामपि कर्मणामनुष्ठानस्य विद्योत्पत्त्यर्थतया पङ्कप्रक्षालनन्यायान- वकाशात्पूर्व ज्ञानादनुष्ठेयान्यग्निहोत्रादीनीति सिद्धान्तप्रतिज्ञा विवृणोति." See also Bhâmatî and Bhashyaratnaprabha on the same, and Vivarana prameyasangraha, page 97, line 14. पङ्गन्धन्यायः॥ The maxim of the lame man and the blind man. The conception is that of a lame man mounted on the shoulders of one who is blind, so that the former is furnished with the power of locomotion and the latter with sight. It is intended to illustrate mutual dependence for mutual advantage, as exemplified in Sankhyakárikå 21, the text of which, with Colebrooke's translation, is as follows:--'"पुरुषस्य दर्शनार्थ कैवल्यार्थ तथा प्रधानस्य । पङ्घन्धवदुभयोरपि संयोगस्तत्कृतः सर्गः” ॥ For the soul's contemplation of Nature, and for its abstraction, the union of both takes place, as of the halt and blind. By that union a creation is framed." Vâchaspati Mis'ra ignores the illustration, but Pandit Tiranatha has a helpful note on it. He say's:-"उक्तार्थे दृष्टान्तः पन्धवदिति । यथा गतिशक्तिरहितस्य पङ्गोर्गतिसाधनाय गतिमतोऽन्धस्या- पेक्षा, दृष्टिशक्तिरहितस्य चान्धस्य गतिशक्तिसत्त्वेऽपि स्वाभीष्टदेशगमनं दर्शक- मन्तरेण न संभवति तथा च यथा स्वस्वकार्याय तयोरन्योन्यापेक्षा तथा क्रियारहितस्य पुरुषस्य सक्रियप्रधानस्यापेक्षा दृष्टिशक्तिरहितस्य च प्रधानस्य दृष्टिशक्तियुक्तपुरुषस्यापेक्षेत्यत उभाभ्यामन्योन्यमपेक्ष्य स्वस्वकार्य निष्पाद्यत इ. त्यर्थः" The above kâriki is quoted on the last page of the Sânkhya section of Sarradars'anasangrahu, and is preceded by a very clear explanation of the maxim. पञ्जरचालनन्यायः॥ The maxim of the moving of the biri-cage. An illustration of the power of united effort. In a discussion on prøna, under Vedantasutra 2. 4. 9, Sunkarra introduces this maxim and ·Bi explains it thus:-"ननु पञ्जरचालनन्यायेनैतद्भविष्यति । यथैकपञ्जरवर्तिन एकादशपक्षिणः प्रत्येकं प्रतिनियतव्यापाराः सन्तः संभूयैकं पञ्जरं चालयन्ति । एवमेकशरीरवर्तिन एकादशप्राणाः प्रत्येकं प्रतिनियतवृत्तयः सन्तः संभूयैका प्राणाख्यां वृत्तिं प्रतिलप्स्यन्त इति ॥ Dr. Thibaut translutes the pas. sige as follows:—" But, an objection may be raised, the thing may take place in the manner of the moving ( of the? ] birdcage. Just as eleven birds shut up in one cage, may, although each makes a separate effort, move the cage by the comlination of their etiorts, so the eleven pranas which abide in one body may, although each has its own special fimction, by the combination of these functions, produce one common function called prâna." पाटञ्चरलुण्ठिते वेश्मनि यामिकजागरणम् ॥ The vigilance of the watchman after the house has been plundered by thieves. Equivalent to our proverb " Shutting the stable door after the horse is gone." It occurs in Khandanachandal-heidyu, page 45 :-"प्रयोजनानुपयुक्ते काले तस्य स्वरूपतो- ऽवस्थानं पाटच्चरलुण्ठिते वेश्मनि यामिकजागरणवृत्तान्तमनुहरति" ॥ पिण्याकयाचनार्थ गतस्य खारिकातैलदातृत्वाभ्युपगमः ॥ He went to crave the learings of the oil-sced, and liad instead to agree to give 16 measures of oil. Used of one completely worsted in argument. I render ſquare in accordance with its meaning in Paichatantra iii.99 ("श्रेयस्तैलं च पिण्याकात्"). The maxim is found in the Pârnaprajna section of the Sarvadars'anasangraha ( page 63 of Bib. Ind., and 75 of Jivananda):- "सोऽयं पिण्याकयाचनार्थ गतस्य खारिकातैलदातृत्वाभ्युपगम इव", which Prof. Gough renders:-" And thus it must be allowed that, in raising the objection, you leave begged for a little oilcake, and have had to give us gallous of oil. पिष्टपेषणन्यायः॥ The maxim of the grinding of that which is already ground. Fruitless reiteration, unproductive repetition. The oldest in- ·36 stance, known to me, of the employment of the nyâya, is by Sabara on Jaimini 9. 2. 3:-"न हि स्निग्धस्य स्नेहनं शक्यं कर्तुं पिष्टस्य वा पेषणम्". It occurs again in 12. 2. 16, and in Tantrarartika, pp. 54 and 477. We find it likewise in Sankara’s bhâshya on Kena-Upanishad 32 :-"यदि तावच्छ्रुतस्यार्थस्य प्रश्नः कृतस्ततः पिष्ट- पेपणवत्पुनरुक्तोऽनर्थकः प्रश्नः स्यात्" ॥, and in Sudarsanarya's comment on Apastamba-Grihyasutra xiv. 9 ("पुंसवनं व्यक्त गर्ने तिप्येण"), where he says " इदमपि सीमन्तवत्प्रथम एव न तु प्रतिगर्भ पिष्टपेपणन्यायात्" ॥ Compare तुपकण्डनन्याय in Second Handful. प्रदीपे प्रदीप प्रज्वाल्य तमोनाशाय यतमानः ॥ Trying to remove the dimness of a lamp by lighting another. Used of foolishly superfluous and misdirected effort. It occurs in Khandanakhandakhadya, page 294:-"Jategrant- त्साध्यसिद्धौ भवन्त्यां"गुरावुपाये प्रवर्तमानस्य तवैवेदं दोषोद्भावनं प्रदीपे प्रदीपं प्रज्वाल्य तमोनाशाय यतमानस्येव पुंसः” ॥ In a footnote, the editor says:-"प्रदीपं प्रज्वाल्य प्रदीपे तमोनाशाय यतमानस्य पुंस इवेत्यन्वयः." In Upatlesasahasri xvii. 41 ( page 215), we read:-"न हि दीपान्तरापेक्षा यदद्दीपप्रकाशने । बोधस्यात्मस्वरूपत्वान वोधान्यस्तथेप्यते" and, in Sures'vara's Brihadiranyuktrintila 4. 3. 501:-"ननु दीपः स्वमात्मानं स्वात्मनैवावभासयन् । दृष्टो दीपप्रकाशार्थ न हि दीपान्तरा- हृतिः" ॥ See also Nyayamanjart, page 625, on Nyayast. tra 5. 1. 10. प्रधानमल्लनिबर्हणन्यायः॥ The maxim of the destruction of the chief antagonist. The principle that when the most formidable enemy has been defeated, the less formidable are already virtully overcome. In the bhashya on Vedantastra 1. 4. 28 ("एतेन सर्वे व्याख्याता व्याख्याताः") we read:-"अतः प्रधानमलनिबर्हणन्यायेनातिदिशति । एते. न प्रधानकारणवादप्रतिषेधन्यायकलापेन सर्वेऽण्वादिकारणवादा अपि प्रतिषिद्ध- तया व्याख्याता वेदितव्याः » 11 Here, there is undoubtedly a play on the word gara, the Sânkhya theory of the Pradhâna being the chief antagonist met and overcome in the foregoing Sûtras ·37 and bhijshya. The same expression appears again in the bhâshya on Sutra 2. 1. 12, and the maxim is found, too, in the Râmânuja chapter of Sarradars'ana sangraha (page 56 of Jivananda's edition, and p. 45 of Bib. Ind. edition ). बीजाङ्कुरन्यायः॥ The maxim of an eternal series of seed and shoot. As the seed produces the shoot, so the latter in turn reproduces the former. Each therefore is a cause and an effect. The maxim is met with very frequently in the literature. We find it in Brahmasútrabhâshya 2. 1. 36 (on the eternity of the world ) as follows:-"न च कर्मान्तरेण शरीरं संभवति । न च शरीरमन्तरेण कर्म संभव- तीतीतरेतराश्रयत्वप्रसङ्गः । अनादित्वे तु बीजाङ्कुरन्यायेनोपपत्तेर्न कश्चिद्दोषो Halā", which is rendered thus by Dr. Thibaut:-"Without merit and demerit no body can enter into existence, and again, without a body merit and demerit cannot be formed ; so that, on the doctrine of the world having a beginning—we are led into a logical see-saw. The opposite doctrine, on the other hand, explains all matters in a manner analogous to the case of the seed and sprout, so that no difficulty remains.” It occurs again at the end of the bháshya on 3. 2. 9. Also in the Arhata section of Sarvadars'anasangraha ( page 31 of Bib. Ind., and 37 of Jîvânanda ), in Râmatîrtha's commentary on Vedanta- 8ára ( page 110 ), and in Pancapâdiki, page 12, line 12. ब्राह्मणपरिव्राजकन्यायः॥ The maxim of the Brahmans and the mendicants. In such a sentence as ब्राह्मणा भोजयितव्याः परिव्राजकाश्च the separate mention of the latter, who are really included in the former term, merely emphasizes their position as a special part of the general body. It is thus the exact parallel of the drag -2914 and of the ब्राह्मणवसिष्टन्याय. It is used by Sankara three times in his exposition of the Vedântasútras, namely under 1. 4. 16, 2. 3. 15, and 3. 1. 11; but I forbear to quote his words, for without a ·38 lengthy portion of context they would be unintelligible. It appears also in Tantravârtika, pages 423, 590. ब्राह्मणवसिष्ठन्यायः॥ The maxim of the Brahmans and Vasishtha. This is of the same type as ainakararapra, which see. Satyavrata gives as a reference "F**HTCH," i. e. Patanjali on Pånini 1. 3. 3. But the refereuce is a pure delusion; and I think I may safely say that the maxim is not to be found in any part of the Mohábhâshya. It would not be unreasonable, however, to infer that the author of the Padamuan jarî had this nyâya in view when he penned the following:-वैदिकानां लौकिकत्वेऽपि प्राधान्यख्यापनार्थ पृथग्ग्रहणं यथा ब्राह्मणा आगता वसिष्ठोऽप्यागत इति" ॥ ( The Pundit, vol. x, page 282 ). Compare angaar in Second Handful. STTETUTTHUPret: 11 The maxim of the Brahman-ascetic. The stau is a Buddhist ascetic, and therefore not a Bráhraan,—but the expression SATELOT PATUT implies that though now a Buddhist he was formerly a Brâhman. The maxim is used by the authors of the Kavyaprakas'u ( page 68 ) and the Sahityadurpana ( article 257 ) in exactly the same connexion. After giving an example of 'sug, gested meaning in the form of semblance of contradiction' (fariamA), the author of the latter work says:-"71a इत्यादावपिशव्दाभावाद्विरोधाभासो व्यङ्गयः । व्यङ्गयस्यालंकार्यत्वेऽपि ब्राह्मण- SHIPTARrayrala”, which Mr. Pramadâdâsa Nitra renders thus:-“Here, from the absence of the particle 319 after the words of a &c., the semblance of the ornament-named 'contradiction' is suggested. The suggested meaning, though strictly what is ornamented, is figuratively spoken of here ng the ornament, with reference to its being an ornament in another condition [ · e. when it is expressed, not suggested ), just as we use the word Brâliman-mendicant, which, though it ·39 etymologically means an absurdity, vis. it mendicant, or one not a Brâhman, who is a Brahman, tropically signifies one who was a Brâhman.” भक्षितेऽपि लशुने न शान्तो व्याधिः॥ Although the garlic has been eaten the disease is not cured. This proverb is applied as follows by Nrisimhasarasvatî in his comment on the opening verse of the Vedântusâre:—"77 भक्षितेऽपि लशुने न शान्तो व्याधिरिति न्यायन प्रपञ्चस्याधिष्ठानव्यतिरिक्त- तया प्रतीयमानत्वात्कथमद्वैतसिद्धिरित्याशङ्कां तृणीकुर्वन्नाह अखण्डमिति" It is found also in Vedantakalpataru parimala, page 37. ॥ भिक्षुपादप्रसारणन्यायः॥ The maxim of a beggar's obtaining a firm footing [in a patron's house]. Perhaps approaching our “Give him an inch and he will take an ell.” Taranatha explains it thus:- “यथा कश्चिदिक्षुर्य थेष्टभोजनाच्छादनवासगृहादिलाभार्थ कस्यचिद्धनिनो गृहे प्रविश्य युगपत्सर्वा- भीष्टालाभं मन्यमानः प्रथमं धनिगृहे मे पादप्रसारणमस्तु पश्चादनेन परिचयमु- त्पाद्य सर्वमभीष्टं संपादयिष्यामीति धिया स्वल्पामपि भिक्षां वहुमन्यमानः पश्चात्क्रमेण स्वाभीष्टं संपादयत्येवं यत्र विवक्षा तत्रास्य प्रवृत्तिः” ॥ It occurs in the Bauddha chapter of Sarvadors'anasangraha ( page 14 of Bib. Ind. edn.) as follows:-"माध्यमिकास्तावदुत्तमप्रज्ञा इत्थमचीकथन्भिक्षुपादप्रसारणन्यायेन क्षणभङ्गाद्यभिधानमुखेन स्थायित्वानुकूल- वेदनीयत्वानुगतसर्वसत्यत्वभ्रमव्यावर्तनेन सर्वशून्यतायामेव पर्यवसानम्" ॥ Here is Prof. Gough's rendering:-" The Madhyamikas, excellently wise, explain as follows, namely that the doctrine of Buddha terminates in that of a total void (universal baselessness or nihilism ) by a slow progression like the intrusive steps of a mendicant, through the position of a momentary flux, and through the ( gradual ) negation of the illusory assurances of pleasurable sensibility, of universality, and of reality." I bave met with one other example only, namely in Venkatanātha's Tattvamuletokalapa, page 254:-"अस्त्वेवमिति चेन्न भिक्षु- ·40 पादप्रसारणन्यायेन निरीश्वरवादावतारादतः क्रोधावश्यम्भावादीश्वरस्यापि दुःखा- agtata:" | The subject under discussion here is a HT- सिद्धि. For the cognate expression पादप्रसारिका see the Second Handful. मणिमन्त्रादिन्यायः॥ The nyâya of a gem or charm &c. ( as an obstructer or exciter of fire &c., by its presence or absence ). This obscure nyâya is not in Raghunâthavarma's collection, but is defined as follows in the Vdcaspatyam, page 4166 :-"ATA=Tai agate प्रति यथा स्वातत्र्येण प्रतिबन्धकत्वं लोकसिद्धं न च तत्र युक्त्यपेक्षा एवं कामिनीजिज्ञासाया अपि ज्ञानमात्रं प्रति प्रतिबन्धकत्वमित्येवं यत्र पृथक् प्रतिबन्धकत्वं तत्रास्य प्रवृत्तिः" ॥ I am much indebted to Mr. Arthur Venis for the following note elucidating the nyâya :-" In their analysis of the notion of cause and effect many Indian writers distinguish between those cases in which the processes that intervene (avântaravyâ pâra ) between the cause and its final product ( karya ) are known by ordinary experience (lokusiddha ), and those other cases in which the intermediate stages are not thus known. Of the latter cases, while we know as a fact ( sny these writers ) that, for example, a mani or a mantra will produce a certain effect or prevent it from coming into existence, wc are quite unable to explain the rationale of the process in terms of ordinary experience. All that can be said in such cases is that the mani or the mantre has the power ( s'ukti ) to produce this or hinder that result. This postulate of a power transcending ordinary experience is the APOTHEEF417, and its proper application ( pravritti ) is to the class of causes thus roughly described. If I remember rightly, another, and to us westerns a more interesting, example of this nyâya is the doui. ble fact of attention to something and attention away from something else. The lover, intent on discovering his mistress ( kâmini-jijnása ), is psychologically dead to all that does not ·41 concern her. But how should his attention to her cause attention away from all the world beside? Here, says the Indian psychologist, analysis of the how can proceed no further. The postulate of the मणिमन्त्र must be applied here; or, in other words, we can only say that attention to a thing has the power to cause (s'akti) attention away from something else.” This question is discussed in Kusumânjali i. 10, and Prof. Cowell's translation of the Kariki and Haridasa's comment will be found helpful. I have met with the nyâya in the Sanks'epasarirala iii. 87, 88, 91; in Tattvamuktakalipa iv. 103, and better still, in v. 99; and in Vidvanmandana, page 59. मण्डूकप्लतिन्यायः॥ The maxim of a frog's leap. Used by grammarians and others to express the passing from one rule to another over intervening ones. I noted it in the following portions of the Mahabha.shya :-1.1.3 (vart. 2); 5.2. 4 (2); 6. 1. 17 and 3. 49; and 7. 2. 117. I have met with it also in Jayaratha's commentary on Alankārasarrasva 20 ("विपयस्यापहवेऽपहतिः"), where he says:- "केचन मण्डूकप्लुतिन्यायेनानुवर्तनस्यानुचितत्वाड्रान्तिमदनन्तरमपह्नुतिर्ग्रन्थकृता लक्षिता उल्लेखश्चातिशयोक्त्यनन्तरमिति ग्रन्थं विपर्यासितवन्तः । न चैतत्" ॥ See, too, Bhâmati 1. 3. 39, and Ballantyne's Aphorisms of the Nyaya, ii. 80. मध्यदीपिकान्यायः॥ The maxim of the central lamp. The idea is of a lamp in a central position shedding its light on all sides. It occurs in the Mundaka-bhashya 1. 1. 3 (शौनको ह वै महाशालोऽङ्गिरसं विधिवदुपसन्नः पप्रच्छ ):-"शौनकाङ्गिरसोः संबन्धादर्वाग्विधिवद्विशेषणादुपसदनविधेः पूर्वे- पामनियम इति गम्यते । मर्यादाकरणार्थ मध्यदीपिकान्यायार्थ वा विशेषणम्" ॥ Also in Ramatirtha on Vedantasarca (page 129):-"मध्यप्रदीप- न्यायेनोत्तरत्रापि जाग्रद्वासनेत्यत्र कोशत्रयपदं संबध्यते", which is thus ren- 6 ·42 dered by Prof. Gough ( in the Pandit for Feb. 1873, p. 212):- “The term triad of sheaths has a double connection ( with both the preceding and following clauses), after the manner of a lamp placed in the middle of a door [ and throwing light both inwards and outwards.).” The following from Nyâyamanjari, page 212, further illustrates the nyaya :-"गृहे दधिघटीं द्रष्टुमानीतो गृहमेधिना । अपूपानपि तद्देशान्प्रकाशयति दीपकः" ॥ Akin to this is मध्यमणिन्याय, which is explained in the Pandit for Dec. 1867 as referring to the central ruby of a nosc-ring which casts a lustro on the pearl on each side of it. मानाधीना मेयसिद्धिः॥ To know the thing to be measured you must know the measure. This is quoted in the opening part of the Akshapâda section of Saradarsanasangrahu:-"मानाधीना मेयसिद्धिरिति न्यायेन प्रमाण- स्य प्रथममुद्देशे तदनुसारेण लक्षणस्य कथनीयतया प्रथमोहिष्टस्य प्रमाणस्य प्रथम लक्षणं कथ्यते"॥ Prof. Cowell's translation is as follows:-"In accordance with the principle that “to know the thing to be measured you must first know the mcasure,' proof ( pramana ) is first enunciated, and as this must be done by defining it, wo have first a definition of proof." We find it too, in Tattva prildipika (or Citsulcha) ii. 18, as follows: "मानाधीना मेयसिद्धिर्मानसिद्धिश्च लक्षणात् । तयाध्यक्षादिमानेषु गीर्वाणैरपि दुर्भणम्” | Compare also the following from *Sankshepas driraka (i. 487):- "मानेन मेयावगतिश्च युक्ता धर्मस्य जाड्याद्विधिनिष्टकाण्डे । मेयेन मानावगतिस्तु युक्ता वेदान्त- वाक्येश्वजदं हि मेयम्" ॥ See, too, Vivaranaprameyasangralit, page 86, and Sanshyakarikt 4 ("प्रमेयसिद्धिः प्रमाणाद्धि"). मुञ्जादिषीकोद्धरणन्यायः॥ The maxim of the extraction of the interior spile of the * Its author, Sarvajnåtmamuni, was a pupil of Sures'varâcàrya. Sco Mr. K. B. Pathak's valuable paper Bhartrihari and Kumarila ( 1802), page 24.

·43 Munja grass. The following verse from the Paincadast (i. 42), with an extract from Ramakrishna's comment thereon will fully explain the meaning and application of the saying:- "यथा मुआदिषीकैवमात्मा युत्तया समुद्धृतः । शरीरत्रितयाद्धीरैः परं ब्रह्मैव जायते" ॥ “यथा येन प्रकारेण मुञ्जादेतनामकात्तृणविशेषादिपीका गर्भस्थं कोमलं तृणं युक्त्या बहिरावरकत्वेन स्थितानां स्थूलपत्राणां विभजनलक्षणेनो- पायेन समुद्भियत एवमात्मापि...शरीरत्रितयात्...धीरैः...समुद्धृतः पृथक् कृतश्चेत्स परं ब्रह्मैव जायते”॥ The illustration is a very ancient one, since it is employed in Satapatha Brahmana 4. 3. 3. 16, and in Katha Upanisad vi. 17. The latter instance is as follows:- "तं स्वाच्छरीरात्प्रवृहेन्मुञादिवेषीकां धैर्येण." For the former, see this nyâya in the Superaddenda to Third Handful. It is found also in Brihadâranyakavartika 4. 4. 1277. याचितकमण्डनन्यायः॥ The maxim of borrowed ornaments. Appearing in borrowed plumes. It is well illustrated by Naişadhacarita vii. 56:- "अस्या मुखश्रीप्रतिबिम्बमेव जलाच्च तातान्मुकुराच्च मित्रात् । अभ्यर्थ्य धत्तः खलु पद्मचन्द्रौ विभूषणं याचितकं कदाचित्” ॥ On which Mallinâtha comments thus:-"याचितकं याचानिवृत्तम्। याजयाप्तं याचितकमित्यमरः । अपमित्ययाचिताभ्यां कक्कनाविति कन्प्रत्ययः ( Pan. 4. 4. 21)। विभूषणं कदाचिदभ्यर्थ्य धत्तो दधाते खलु । एतदीयमेव सुहृल्लब्धमनयोर्याचितं मण्डनं न स्वाभाविकमित्युत्प्रेक्षा". In the above form the nylya is found in Tarlikarakesd, page 46:-"तेनायथार्थस्यापि यथार्थानुभवजनितत्वेन यथा- र्थत्वव्यपदेश इति याचितकमण्डनकमनीयमेव स्मृतेर्याथार्थ्यम्.” As याचित- HET I have met with it in Khandanoddhâra, page 62, and in Kavyapradipattled of Vaidyanatha Tatsat, page 173. लोष्टप्रस्तारन्यायः॥ This occurs in Abhinavagupta's comment on Dhvanyaloka iii. 16 (page 159) in the following sentence:-"तेन लोटप्रस्तार- न्यायेनानन्तवैचित्र्यमुक्तम्," and in the first edition I said that it ·44 could only mean the maxim of an expanse of clods of earth ( as in a roughly ploughed field). Regarding however that as a mislection for that it would mean the maxim of a stone and a clod of earth, and would be synonymous with hig=717 of the dictionaries. Mr. M. R. Telang (of the Bombay High Court) has however kindly suggested the following, with which I was quite unfamiliar. He says :-" og means a pebble and share a table showing the varieties of metres &c. formed by different arrangements of the short and long syllables in prosody, music &c. The Indians make use of this process to find out the number of varieties of any number of given things. So the meaning of the nyâya can be better explained by the expression the maxim of the process of permutations and combinations. It may be asked what zie (a pebble) has to do with permutations and combinations. In finding out the number of varieties of any number of given things, a pebble is used for marking certain figures according to the Indian process with the help of प्रस्तार, खण्डमेरु, नष्टोहिष्ट &c. These processes are well known to any one conversant with books on Indian music or prosody. The following references to books on the subject will support my statement. Vide ariaza197 Chap. i verses 61 to 69 (pages 57-60 ); hitagea Chap. i ver. 144 to 154." वरं सांशयिकान्निष्कादसांशयिकः कार्षापणः ॥ Better is a certain lirshậpana than an uncertain nishku. This and the proverb inmediately following are found in the second chapter of Vâtsyâyana's Kamasutra (page 19 ), and are the equivalents of our saying "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." श्वो मयूरात्॥ वरमद्य कपोतः श्वो Better is a pigeon to-day than a peacock tomorrow. Seo above, ·45 विपुलकदलीफललिप्सया जिह्वाच्छेदनम् ॥ Cutting off the tongue while trying to get a ține plantain. This is found in the Pùrnaprajna section of Sarradars'unasangraha (page 64 of Bib. Ind., and 75 of Jivananda's edn.) as follows:- "एवं च परमेश्वराभेदतृष्णया विष्णोगुणोत्कर्षस्य मृगतृष्णिकासम- त्वाभिधानं विपुलकदलीफललिप्सया जिह्वाच्छेदनमनुहरत्येतादृशविष्णुविद्वेपणा- दन्धतमसप्रवेशप्रसङ्गात् u Prof. Gough renders it thus:-“ Thus the statement of those (Advaita-vàdins) in their thirst to be one with the Supreme Lord, that the supreme excellence of Vishnu is like a mirage, is as if they were to cut off their tongues in trying to get a fine plantain, since it results that through offending this supreme Vishņu they must enter into the hell of blind darkness.” विषकृमिन्यायः॥ The maxim of worms bred in poison (or, in manure ). Âpte's Dictionary alone gives us this nyâya which he describes as follows:-“It is used to denote a state of things which though fatal to others, is not so to those who, being bred in it, are inured or naturalized to it.” In this case it might represent our “What is one man's food is another man's poison.” Âpte gives no reference to a passage where the maxim is used, and I an indebted for one to that veritable ratnákara, Dr. Böhtlingk's Indische Sprüche ( 6164 ). It consists of a quotation from Vriddha-Câ nalchya, a work which appears to exist in MS. only. It runs thus:- विप्रास्मिन्नगरे महान्कथय कस्तालद्रुमाणां गणः को दाता रजको ददाति वसनं प्रातर्गृहीत्वा निशि । को दक्षः परदारवित्तहरणे सर्वोऽपि दक्षो जनः कस्माजीवसि हे सखे विषकृमिन्यायेन जीवाम्यहम् ॥ The Doctor renders the last line by “Wozu lebst du, o ·46 Freund? Ich lebe nach Art des Mistkäfers ( d. i. Ich suche das Beste heraus ).” If this is correct, the nyâya must be expressive of “living in clover,” or, amidst “marrow and fatnoss!" विषवृक्षन्यायः॥ The maxim of the poisonous tree. This appears to be based on the second half of Kumarasambhara ii. 55 (or Paincatantra i. 24:3 ), which runs thus:--"विषवृक्षोऽपि संवर्य स्वयं ÈTharna.” “It would be improper to cut down even a poisonous tree, after cultivating it oneself.” This is used as a maxiın by the author of Khandanakhandakhâtlya ( page 727) in the following sentence:-"एते सर्वे तर्काः...अस्माभिरेव तर्कपदव्याम- भिषिक्तास्ततो न प्रबन्धेन निरस्यन्ते । विषवृक्षोऽपि संवर्ध्य स्वयं छेत्तुमसाम्प्रत- मिति" ,,॥ There is another capital instance of it in Upamiti. bheraprapance. Kathi, page 715:-" हा हा मयेदं नो चारु कृतं यत्सुतभर्त्सनम् । विषवृक्षोऽपि संवर्ध्य स्वयं छेत्तुमसाम्प्रतम् ॥ वीचीतरङ्गन्यायः॥ The maxim of wave-undulation. This is used by the author of the Bhashitpatriccheda ( verses 165, 166) to account for the production of sound. He says-"सर्वः शब्दो नभोवृत्तिः श्रोत्री- स्पन्नस्तु गृह्यते । वीचीतरङ्गन्यायेन तदुत्पत्तिस्तु कीर्तिता । कदम्बकोरकन्यायादु- पत्तिः कस्यचिन्मते "॥ Almost the same words are used by Ielintin Mahadeva ( latter part of 17th century ) in his comment on Sankhyasutra V. 103:- किंतु शब्द एव वीचीतरङ्गन्यायेन कदम्बमुकुलन्या- येन वा श्रोत्रदेशं गतः श्रोत्रेण गृह्यते". “But sound comes to the seat of hearing in the same manner as the undulating waves of water ], or as the anthers of a [globulous] Kadamba-flourer and is thus apprehended by the car." The translation, is Dr. R. Garbe's.

·47 वृद्धकुमारीवाक्यन्यायः॥ The maxim of the request of the ageil spinster. This is recorded in Muhabhisya 8. 2. 3 as follows :- "अथवा वृद्धकुमारी- वाक्यवदिदं द्रष्टव्यम् । तद्यथा। वृद्धकुमारीन्द्रेणोक्ता वरं वृणीप्वेति सा वरमवृणीत पुत्रा मे बहुक्षीरघृतमोदनं कांस्यपान्यां भुञ्जीरन्निति । न च तावदस्याः पतिर्भवति कुतः पुत्राः कुतो गावः कुतो धान्यम् । तत्रानयैकेन वाक्येन पतिः पुत्रा गावो धान्यमिति सर्व संगृहीतं भवति"॥ This would be applied to a sentence having a variety of meanings In Tantravârtiku 2. 2. 2 (page 452) we meet with it as वृद्धकुमारीवरप्रार्थन; and in the Pandit for December 1867 (page 156 ) we find esactly the same kind of thing under the heading वृद्धब्राह्मणवरन्यायः. This worthy was not only old but blind, and his request was "स्वपौत्रं राजसिंहासनस्थितमीक्षितुमिच्छामीति." वृद्धिमिष्टवतो मूलमपि ते नष्टम् ॥ Wishing to grow, you have destroyed your root. This is Prof. Cowell's rendering of the saying as it appears in the Sarvadars'anasangraha ( page 27 Bib. Ind., p. 33 Jivananda ):- "तथा च वृद्धिमिष्टवतो मूलमपि ते नष्टं स्यादिति महत्कष्टमापन्नम्" । In the Vacaspatyam, however, we have the literal and more usual meaning of the nyâya, namely “Whilst seeking to obtain interest, the creditor loses [ that and ] the capital too.' "वृद्धिमिष्टवतो मूलमपि विनष्टमिति न्यायः । वृद्धिर्धनप्रयोगेऽधमर्णात्प्राप्यांश- भेदलाभः। तामिष्टवत उत्तमर्णस्याधमर्णदौष्टयाद्यथा मूलं नश्यत्येवं यत्राभीष्टान्त- रसंपादनाय प्रयतमानस्य मूलं नश्यति तत्रास्य प्रवृत्तिः"See also Khandanakhandakhâdya, p. 31; Pancadas'i, vii. 81; Vecântakalpataru, page 321; and Syâdvádamanjari, page 19. An amusing illustration of this saying is found in Kuvalayananda, under the figure विषम. “इष्टार्थमुद्दिश्य किंचित्कर्मारब्धवतो न केवलमिष्ट- स्थानवाप्तिः किन्तु ततोऽनिष्टस्यापि प्रतिलंभश्चेत्तदपि विषमम् । यथा भक्ष्यप्रे- प्सया सर्पपेटिकां दृष्ट्वा प्रविष्टस्य मूपकस्य न केवलं भक्ष्यालाभः किन्तु स्वरूप- ·48 हानिरपीति "॥ Raghunatha has two other maxims of the same kind, namely, " पुत्रलिप्सया देवं भजन्त्या भर्तापि नष्टः", and " चर्म- तन्तौ महिपी हन्ति.” शरपुरुषीयन्यायः॥ The maxim of the man and the arrow. Vardhamâna explains this, as follows, in his comment on Ganaratnamahodadhi iii. 196 :-"शरश्च क्षिप्तः प्राकाराच्च पुरुष उत्थितः स तेन हतः। तत्तुल्यं शरपुरुषीयम् "॥ An arrow is discharged from a bow, and at the same moment a inan rises up from behind a wall and is killed by it. It illustrates, therefore, a purely accidental and unforescen occurrence, and must be classed with the Barngruita, खल्वाटबिल्वीय, and others of a like nature. शर्करोन्मज्जनीयन्यायः॥ The maxim of the pebble and the [man's] cmerging [from the water ]. This, like that immediately preceding, is found in Vardhamâna's work, and on the same page. He explains it thus :-" शर्करा च क्षिप्ता पुरुषस्य चोन्मजनं तत्तुल्यं शर्करोन्मजनीयम्" ॥ At the moment that the pebble is thrown, a man who has been diving or swimming emerges from the water and is struck by it. This, too, therefore, belongs to the अजाकृपाणीय and काकतालीय category. शिरश्छेदेऽपि शतं न ददाति विंशतिपञ्चकं तु प्रयच्छतीति शाकटिकन्यायः॥ The maxim of the carter who would be beheudel rather than pay a hundred, but will at once give fire score! It ·49 occurs in the Pûrņaprajna section of Sarvadars'anasangraha ( page 71 of Bib. Ind. and page 83 of Jivananda's) as follows:- "ननु प्रपञ्चस्य मिथ्यात्वमभ्युपेयते नासत्त्वमिति चेत्तदेतत्सोऽयं शिरश्छेदेऽपि शतं न ददाति विंशतिपञ्चकं तु प्रयच्छतीति शाकटिकवृत्तान्तमनुहरेन्मिध्यात्वा- सत्वयोः पर्यायत्वादित्यलमतिप्रपञ्चेन" ॥ “If you say that you accept the falsity of the universe, but not its unreality, you are simply acting like the carter who would lose his head rather than pay a hundred pieces of money, but at once gives five score! For falsity and unreality are synonymous. But enough of prolixity.” It is found also in Atmatatlaviveka ( page 31 ), from which Madhava probably took it. In Tattvamuktakala pa ii. 71 (page 244 ) it takes the form of “शतमदित्सतः शतार्धद्वयदानम्", and there is still another variety of it in Khandanoddhôra, page 74, namely “शिरश्छेदेऽपि काकणी न ददाति पञ्चगण्डकांस्तु ददाति.'' Compare with this the following from Nyayamanjari, page 432:-" अथो. च्यते न प्रत्यक्ष आत्मा किंत्वपरोक्ष इति नेदमर्थान्तरवचनं शिशव एवं प्रतार्यन्ते न प्रामाणिकाः" ॥ शीर्षे सर्पो देशान्तरे वैद्यः॥ A snake in the head, and the doctor in another country! This occurs, in Prakrit, in Karparamanjari iv: ( page 100 ). It is found in somewhat similar form in Mudrardlishasa i. 21, also in Prakrit. The chhaya is as follows. “उपरि घनं घनरटितं दूरे दयिता किमेतदापतितम् । हिमवति दिव्यौषधयः शीर्षे सर्पः समाविष्टः” ॥ शुकनलिकान्यायः॥ The maxim of the parrot and the Nalika tree. Illustrntive of causeless fear. In Udyoga-Parva xcvi. 42 we read "काकुदीकं शुकं नाकमक्षिसंतर्जनं तथा"। on which the commentator Nilakantha says :- “काकुदीकमित्यादयोऽष्टावस्त्रजातयः ।...येन शुकन- लिकान्यायेन अभयेऽपि भयदर्शिनो हयरथादिपादेषु गाढं श्लिप्यन्ति तच्छुक- ·50 मोहनं नाम"॥ I have met with it also in a MS. (No. 233 of 1882-83 in Deccan College, Poona ) of Nârânyaņa's commentary on Gopalottaratâpanîya-Upanishad 8 ( corresponding with 21 and 22 of Bib. Ind. edition ), where, expounding the words यो हि वै कामेन कामान्कामयते &c.,” he says :-. " वास्तवं कर्तृभोक्तृत्वं बन्धमोक्षादिकमात्मनो नास्ति किंतु स्वकामपरिकल्पितं शुकनलिकान्यायेन" ॥ शृङ्गग्राहिकान्यायः॥ The maxim of rising oven by their horns. That is, by way of specification, and not in the sense of our prorerb 'Taking the bull by the horns! This is very clearly put in Râmakrishna's commentary on Sankarinanda's Atmapurana iv. 561-2. The text runs thus :-"शास्त्रं चात्र प्रवृत्तं सत्प्रवृत्तिं कुरुते द्विधा । विधानेन निषेधेन लोकदृष्टिसमाश्रयात् ॥ ५६१ ॥ शृङ्गग्राहिकया यद्धि योधयेत्तद्विधायकम् । यथा लोके करे तेऽस्ति फलमित्यादिभाषणम् ॥ ५६२ ॥" On the latter verse, Ramakrishma says:-"तत्र विधायकशास्त्रस्य लक्षणं लौकिकमुदाहरणं चाह शृङ्गेति । शृङ्गस्य ग्रहणं यस्यां क्रियायां सा शृङ्ग- ग्राहिका । संज्ञायामिति ण्वुल् । ( Pan. 3. 3. 108-9 ) । यथा गोव्रजे का मदीया गौरिति गोपः पृष्टः शृङ्गं गृहीत्वा गां प्रदर्शयेत्तथाबोधकं शास्त्रं विधायकमुच्यà ” ,, So too, in Sures'vara's vârtika on Brihadâranyakopanishadbhashya 1. 4. 866:-"शृङ्गग्राहिकया श्रुत्या ब्रह्मतापोदिता स्फुटम् " on which Anandagiri says :-" यथा गोमण्डलस्थां गां शृङ्गं गृहीत्वा विशेषतो दर्शयत्येषा बहुक्षीरेति &c.” The same sense is attached to the maxim in Nilakantha on Udyoga-Parra XLY. 9 ("मदोऽष्टादशदोपः स स्यारपुरा योऽप्रकीर्तितः") where we read:-"अप्रकीर्तित इति दमविरो धिन एव प्रातिकूल्यादयो मददोपत्वेन सूचिता अपि शृङ्गग्राहिकया प्रकर्षण विधिमुखेन न प्रोक्ता इत्यर्थः"॥ A fourth instance of the employment of this maxim in the same sense is found in the metrical conment on Stondilya-pitra 87:-"न तावत्समवायेन भेदसंबन्धगौरवात् । शब्दानां समयोऽप्येवं शृङ्गग्राहिकया लघुः" ॥ The passage is translated by Prof. Cowell as follows:-" It will not do to hold that the connexion between the cause and its effect may be that ·51 called 'Intimate relation, and not that called 'Identity, - because it is a much more cumbrous assumption than ours and involves the connexion of difference;' and by our own we easi. ly get at the true meaning of the various S'ruti passages,- seizing them one by one, as oxen by their horns.” In a footnote he adds : “ That is, such passages as 'Uktha is Brahman, • Prâna is Brahman' &c. Sringagrâhikûnyâya is a proverb sometimes explained as 'catching an unruly bull first by securing one horn and then the second, and sometimes, 'driving many oxen into a stall, by seizing them one by one by their horns'.” In Bhâmati 3. 2. 22 ( page 566 ) we have the phrase again :-" यथा गवादयो विषयाः साक्षाच्छृङ्गग्राहिकया प्रतिपाद्यन्ते प्रती- tra gota TN" Mr. F. W. Thomas has pointed out to me the aidagu2114 which is quoted in the commentary on Dandin's Kavyadars'a ii. 368. I think its usage must be similar to that of the above. श्येनकपोतीयन्यायः ॥ The maxim of the hawk and the pigeon. Vardhamana, in Gunaratnamahodadhi iii. 195, explains it in the following way :-" श्येनकपोतयोरिव श्येनकपोतीयो दुयोगः । यथा कपोतोऽतर्कितमाग- तेन श्येनेन गृहीतस्तथाकस्मिको यो दुर्योगः स एवमुच्यते" ॥ This must be classed therefore with gent and others of a similar kind. We have a staircayqreyri given in the table of contents which forms the opening part of the Mahabharata, and the story will be found in Vanaparvu cxcvi. There is another in chapter cxxxi. saffrathrin:11 The maxim of the mother-in-law who said, 'Be of: This quaint illustration appears in Sures'vara's Naishkarmyasiddhi ·52 i. 28, as follows:-"377fmany THT safarreytenant facgarna: 9509" | "And since you now express agreement with that which we also acknowledge, your protracted discussion was as unreasonable as was the mother-in-law's saying (to the mendicant ] 'Be oft?” The commentator, Jnânottama, explains this in the following manner :-"भिक्षामटते माणवकाय मिक्षा FATTTTAKAA: ETTİ Håforcat 27: GARAIE7 A mà affhafen faran fartafa à tarte" 11 "After abusing her daughter-inlaw for refusing to give alms to a wandering mendicant, the mother-in-law called him back, and, when he had come, said to him, There are no alms, be off, thus refusing also herself : ' सिंहावलोकनन्यायः॥ The maxim of a lion’s glance. This is based on a lion's habit of looking in front and behind, after killing its prey, to sec if there is any rivai to dispute possession! It is applied, says Târânâtha, where a word in a sentence is connected with what precedes and with that which follows it. It is not, hour. ever, restricted to this. The expression occurs four times in the Taittiriya-Průtis'ikh ya, namely in ii. 51, iv. 4, xii. 3 and 15. Prof. Whitney remarks as follows on the first instance of its occurrence : -" The 'and’ of this rule [astaang), the commentator says, brings forward, on the principle of the lion's look'(a distant glance backward ), the already defined organs of production of the various mute series." It is found also in Nilakantha's comment on Vanaparvu ccxxi. 1 (TeiufTharat atat नाम पावकः):-" सिंहावलोकनन्यायेन शंयोः पौत्रमूर्जपुत्रं भरतं स्तौति सा- a Tahitia", ll It was a favourite maxim of lîcaspatimisra's, and I have met with it eight times in three of his writingt It occurs in Bhêmuti 2. 3. 6 (page 473 ); in Sankhyatattvakall. muli, 7 ( page 36 ); and in Myciyarârlika-túlparyatika, pages 97, 199, 230, 322, 403, 405. An example of a different kind is found in Hemachandra's Paris'ishta parvan, i. 63:-"fagras147 न्यायेनालीढः क्षत्रतेजसा । प्रत्यक्षानिव सोऽद्राक्षीत्तानमात्यान्सुतद्विपः " ॥

·53 सूचीकटाहन्यायः॥ The maxim of the needle and the builer. It is esplained as follows in Moleswortli's Marathi dictionary :-"A phrase used as an illustration upon the occasion of two matters of which the one is superlatively simple and easy, or altogether insignificant, and the other indefinitely greater, more difficult, or more important, arising at once to be done ; and of which it is intended to intimate that the trifling one should be despatched first.” It occurs in the opening part of chapter iv of Kavyapradipa, and again on page 70. Also in the commentary on Sühityakaumudi iv. 1, where the same kârika is expounded. The following is from the Saptapadârthi, page 21. The text runs thus :- अनुभवोऽपि द्विविधः । प्रमाऽप्रमा च । अप्रमापि संशयो विपर्ययश्च । प्रमा प्रत्यक्षमनुमितिश्च" ॥ On which the commentator remarks :-"प्र. मानिरूप्यत्वात्परस्ताद्विभक्तामप्यप्रमा सूचीकटाहन्यायेन प्राग्विभजतेऽप्रमापी. fa" There is another good example of the maxim, with a lucid translation by Dr. Ballantyne, in the introduction to Book ii of his Aphorisms of the Nyâya. स्थालीपुलाकन्यायः॥ The maxim of the rice in the cooleing-pot. “ In a cooking-pot all the grains being equally moistened by the heated water, when one grain is found to be well cooked the same may be inferred with regard to the other grains. So the maxim is used when the condition of the whole class is inferred from that of a part." (Apte's Sanskrit Dictionary). It is therefore equivalent to “ Ex uno disce omnes." Patanjali seems to have laid the foundation of thc nyâya in the following words, in Mahâbhâsya 1. 4. 23 ( vart. 15):-"पर्याप्तो ह्येकः पुलाकः स्थाल्या निदर्शनाय."॥ Then wo find it in Jaimini 7. 4. 12, the sutra with a portion of Sabara's bhasya being as follows:- “ लिङ्गस्य पूर्ववत्त्वाच्चोदनाशब्दसामान्यादेके- नापि निरूप्येत यथा स्थालीपुलाकेन ॥ ...एतन्यायपूर्वकं लिङ्गमेकत्रापि दृ- श्यमानं तुल्यन्यायानां सर्वेषां धर्मवत्तां ज्ञापयति । यथा स्थाल्यां तुल्यपाकानां पुलाकानामेकमुपमृद्यान्येषामपि सिद्धतां जानाति." ॥

·51 Other instances of its occurrence are Tantravartikri. 3. 5. 19; Vedúntakulpaturu, page 416; Kalpataru parimala, pages 115, 468, 667, 685; and Tuttvanuktókalapu, 293. Of similar import is the following line from Hemachandra's Parisistaparua vii. 94:-"सिक्थेनापि द्रोणपाकं जानन्ति हि मनीषिणः" ॥ स्थूणानिखननन्यायः॥ The maxiin of the driving in of a post. As a post is driven into the ground by repeated efforts, so a position is strengthened by the bringing forward of a succession of facts or arguments. It occurs three times in Sankara’s bhâslıya on the Vedantasútras, as follows:- "पुनश्च जगजन्मादिहेतुत्वमीश्वरस्याक्षिप्यते स्थूणानिखननन्या- येन प्रतिज्ञातस्यार्थस्य दृढीकरणाय" 2. 1. 34. “आक्षेपपूर्विका हि परिहारो. क्तिर्विवक्षितेऽर्थे स्थूणानिखननन्यायेन दृढां बुद्धिमुत्पादयति" 3. 3. 53. “सत्यं प्रसाधितं तस्यैव तु स्थूणानिखननवत्फलद्वारेणाक्षेपसमाधाने क्रियेते दाढाय 3. 4. 2. But Sabara seems to have originatod it in his blâshya on Jaimini 7. 2. 1. as स्वाङ्गं स्वव्यवधायकं न भवति ॥ One's own boily does not hinder one. It is found at the end of the Akshapâda section of the Survollurs'anasangraha, follows :- “न च स्वातच्यभङ्गः शङ्कनीयः स्वाङ्गं स्वव्यवधायकं न भवतीति न्यायेन प्रत्युत तन्निर्वाहात्" "Nor need you object that this would interfere with God's own independence [as He would thus seeni to depend on others' actions ], since there is the well-known saying, 'One's own bouly does not hinder one ;' nay rather it helps to carry out one's aims." This is Professor Cowell's trans. lation. Other instances of its employment arc Dhamati :3. 4. 20 (page 682 ); Tấtparyatéka, pp. 72. 90; Türkikuraksadiki, page 50; Nyâyamakarandațilui, pp. 201, 215; aud Khandanuddharu, pages 58,62.

·No text on this page.