________________
changes of things. It seems that by that time these scholars belonging to all the schools of thought were already realizing the difficulty of expressing their thoughts in the traditional way of argumentation. Therefore after the introduction of the terminology of Navya Nyāya it was readily accepted by all the systems of the Indian learning instead of the previous patterns used till now. In this way the Navya Nyāya school increased the capability of valid and precise argumentaion. Even though there was the discussion in Prācina Nyāya from the nature of reasoning to nigrahasthāna (FUETTA) which also were the aspects of argumentation, but still the main aim of Prācina Nyāya was prameya, not pramāņa.
The categories mentioned by Gautama (tilah) were widely used by this later trend of Navya Nyāya. Unfortunately later Navya Nyāya texts became very difficult to understand because this extensive usage of the technical terms like pratiyogitā, avacchedakatā etc. which were totally incomprehensible for a layman. This might be also the reason why so few persons also nowadays choose to study the Navya Nyāya systems. To become master in this system there is a necessity of intellectual hard work opens the entrance in this field. This also is the reasons why Navya Nyāya was criticized by other schools. The opponents had told that the Naiyāyikās are making simple things difficult by using formula and technical phrases. But their objections are not correct as without the using of the terminology of Navya Nyāya we are unable to differentiate even between the absence of only a jar from the ‘absence of a jar and a cloth both.' We do realize the difference between these two types of absences but we cannot express this difference without using the technical terms of Navya Nyāya. Similarly there is the difference between the
