is identical with “the scientific creed” of the modern Materialist. The Bauddha which teaches that “there is no one competent to explain the First cause” and that “life is a continual suffering” combines the Agnosticism and Pessimism of the present day.. The Sankhya which assumes a material First cause, but recognises no intelligent creator, has many points in common with modern Atheism.. The Nyaya which holds that matter and soul and god are eternal is almost the same as recent Theism. The Vaiseshika which does not mention a god, but believes that the universe is made of eternal atoms, and an eternal all-pervading soul, is very much like Naturalism allied to the atomic theory. The Mimansa which contains very little of philosophic discussion but is a dogmatic assertion of the authority of the Vedas, may be compared to the philosophy, of the Christian church which believes in the Bible and claims to be the only “revealed religion.”
The specimen of Hindu Logic given above, from the Manimêkalai, shows that the study of Logic had received considerable attention among the learned classes of the Hindus., It was not however pursued as a distinct science, in the early period which I describe, but only as a method for the correct conduct of philosophical enquiry. The Hindu syllogism of five parts is more complete than the Aristotelian syllogism of three parts. Their manner of stating the Major Premise avoids the use of general propositions; for instead of stating, for example, that “all smoke is accompanied by fire” they say “wherever there is smoke there is fire.” The argument is directly from a particular case to another particular case, which is the most usual and natural method of reasoning.[1] Hence there is no mention in their system of the various modes of syllogism, the discussion of which takes up a considerable portion of European treatises on Logic.
- ↑ English Logicians have quite recently adopted this view, It has been asserted by Mill, (system of Logic, Bk. II., Chap. iii.) and partially admitted by Mr. Fowler (Inductive Logic, pp. 13, 14) that we can argue directly from case to case. “Profeesor Bain has adopted the same view of reasoning. He thinks that Mill has extricated us from the deadlock of the syllogism and effected a total revolution in logic. He holds that reasoning from particulars to particulars is not only the usual, the most obvious and the most ready method, but that it is the type of reasoning which best discloses the real process.” (Deductive Logic, pp. 206, 208). “Doubtless” says Profeisor Jevons “this is the usual result of our reasoning, regard being had to degrees of probability.” (The Principles of Science, p. 227).
