A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, so far as it illustrates the Primitive Religion of the Brahmans c8.6

c8.6

Many of these works go even further: they not only express their fundamental doctrines in this concise form of language, but they coin a new kind of language, if language it can be called, by which they succeed in reducing the whole system of their tenets to mere algebraic formulas. To understand these is quite impossible without finding first what each algebraic *x*, *y*, and *z*, is meant to represent, and without having the key to the whole system. This key is generally given in separate Sûtras, called *Paribhâshâ*, which a pupil must know by heart, or always have present before his eyes, if he is to advance one step in the reading of such works. But even then it would be impossible to arrive at any real understanding of the subject, without being also in possession of the laws of the so-called Anuvritti and Nirvritti. To explain the meaning of these technical words, we must remember that the Sûtras generally begin by putting forward one proposition (Adhikâra), which is afterwards never repeated, but always to be understood, till a new subject of the same kind is introduced. After the statement of a subject, the author goes on by giving a first rule, which may extend its influence over the next following rules, whether these be restrictions or amplifications of it. These restrictive rules exercise again their influence to a certain extent over other rules, so that the whole becomes one continuous chain, each link held and modified by the others, and itself holding to and modifying the rest. The influence of one rule over the others is called Anuvritti, its cessation, Nirvritti. Without knowing the working of these two laws, which can only be learnt from commentaries, the Sûtras become very much confused. This is particularly the case in those works where the so-called Mîmânsâ method of Pûrva-paksha (reasons contrà), Uttara-paksha (reasons pro), and Siddhânta (conclusion), is adopted. Here the concatenation of pros and cons is often so complicated, and the reasons on both sides defended by the same author with such seriousness, that we sometimes remain doubtful to which side the author himself leans, till we arrive at the end of the whole chapter. It is indeed one of the most curious kinds of literary composition that the human mind ever conceived; and though altogether worthless in an artistic point of view, it is wonderful that the Indians should have invented and mastered this difficult form, so as to have made it the vehicle of expression for every kind of learning. To introduce and to maintain such a species of literature was only possible with the Indian system of education, which consisted in little else except implanting these Sûtras and other works into the tender memory of children, and afterwards explaining them by commentaries and glosses. An Indian pupil learns these Sûtras of grammar, philosophy, or theology by the same mechanical method which fixes in our minds the alphabet and the multiplication-table; and those who enter into a learned career spend half their life in acquiring and practising them, until their memory is strengthened to such an unnatural degree, that they know by heart not only these Sûtras, but also their commentaries, and commentaries upon commentaries. Instances of this are found among the learned in India up to the present day.