ABSTRACT
After this statement of what Indian logic is not, it might seem that there is little left for it to be, at any rate as an ' a r t ' ; and it might seem that it can have no content worth mention. How could such a logic provide Eules and Canons of syllogism or any criteria for distinguishing valid from invalid subsumption ? The doubt may seem to find confirmation in memories of the Indian syllogism as quoted (quite correctly) in some of our manuals of logic-a cumbrous affair of five propositions, two of which seem vain, repetition, while the 'major premise ' is stated in an apparently unnecessary double positive-negative form, and supported by examples always-apparently-superfluous, and sometimes puerile.
