No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 December 2009
One point only in Dr. Barnett's vivacious article in the last number of this Bulletin (pp. 519–22) seems to merit further examination, because it deals with an issue which is capable of definitely objective treatment, namely the reference in the Pratimānāṭaka to the Nyāyaçāstra of Medhātithi. Dr. Barnett, despite the brief refutation of his view given by me above (Vol. III, Pt. II, p. 295), still insists that the Nyāyaçāstra can only mean the Manubhāṣya, a work of the tenth century a.d.
page 624 note 1 See Sacred Books of the Hindus, viii, pp. xiv, xv.Google Scholar
page 624 note 2 See, e.g., Macdonell, , Sanskrit Literature, p. 264Google Scholar; Hopkins, , Great Epic, p. 7Google Scholar (the term Nyāyaçikṣā, wrongly rendered at p. 14, n. 4, is correctly given at p. 96).
page 625 note 1 History of Indian Logic, p. 18.
page 625 note 2 i, 70, 42 ff.
page 625 note 3 ii, 5, 3.
page 625 note 4 The name may have been suggested to the author by the Pracetaḥsmrti, a work well known from legal citations. It may be noted that a Çrāddhakalpa ascribed to Prajāpati exists (Calcutta Sanskrit College. Catalogue, ii, 325), and that Pracetas is a Prajāpati (Manu, i, 35). The epic (xii, 350. 65) makes Hiraṇyagarbha the author of Yoga.