o is
so striking that, if not historically connected, they must at least be
regarded as expressions of similar philosophic needs. The Hindu
classification to which we specially refer is that of Kanada, who lays
down six categories, or classes of existence, a seventh being
generally added by the commentators. The term employed is _Padartha_,
meaning "signification of a word." This is in entire harmony with the
Aristotelian doctrine, the categories of which may with truth be
described as significations of simple terms, [Greek: tha katha
medemian sueplokhen legomena]. The six categories of Kanada are
Substance, Quality, Action, Genus, Individuality, and Concretion or
Co-inherence. To these is added Non-Existence, Privation or Negation.
_Substance_ is the permanent substance in which _Qualities_ exist.
_Action_, belonging to or inhering in substances, is that which
produces change, _Genus_ belongs to substance, qualities and actions;
there are higher and lower genera. _Individuality_, found only in
substance, is that by which a thing is self-existent and marked off
from others. _Concretion_ or Co-inherence denotes inseparable or
necessary connection, such as that between substance and quality.
Under these six classes, [Greek: gene tou hontos], Kanada then
proceeds to range the facts of the universe.[1]

Greek philosophy

Within Greek philosophy itself there were foreshadowings of the
Aristotelian doctrine, but nothing so important as to warrant the
conclusion that Aristotle was directly influenced by it. Doubtless the
One and Many, Being and Non-Being, of the Eleatic dialectic, with
their subordinate oppositions, may be called categories, but they are
not so in the Aristotelian sense, and have little or nothing in common
with the later system. Their starting-point and results are wholly
diverse. Nor does it appear necessary to do more than mention the
Pythagorean table of principles, the number of which is supposed to
have given rise to the decuple arrangement adopted by Aristotle. The
two classifications have nothing in common; no term in the one list
appears in the other; and there is absolutely nothing in the
Pythagorean principles which could have led to the theory of the
categories.[2]

Plato.

One naturally turns to Plato when endeavouring to discover the genesis
of any Aristotelian doctrine, and undoubtedly there are in the
Pl