This analytical monograph has widely endeavoured to enclose Gotama's aphoristic theorem, which has recognised 'Transcendental Reasoning' by contrast Aristotelian syllogism. It precisely emphasises the comparative logical components between ancient Indian Nyāya School founded by the Gotama and European systematised logical stream significantly influenced by the Aristotle. Notably, both of this exegesis has relied upon the deductive arguments on logical discipline. Here it has mainly utilised the Gotama's Nyāyasūtra and a few of other relevance. In contrast, this might exclusively be intelligible unless it does not have a careful concern on the numerous commentaries contributed by Vātsyāyana, Uddyotakara, and Vācaspati Miśra. Hence, I have gone across these literal and philosophical exegeses in spite of the fundamental resource. On the other hand, I made problematic attempts to scrutinise the Aristotelian syllogism instead of Gotama's transcendental reasoning in terms of inference-Pañcāvayavanyāya, or the reasoning: five steps having a deductive core-hetvābhāsa, or fallacies of nyāya-śesavat anumāna, or disjunctive syllogism-arthāpatti, reasoning: having only one premise which may be either categorical or compound-validity and invalidity of propositional terms or connectives. Overall, this comparative study would remark the aphoristic theorem a priori introduced by the Gotama has significantly contained praiseworthy technical and formative prospects on the deductive logical system rather than the Aristotelian syllogism. Then, the Gotama would be the most sophisticated and matured logician than the Aristotle.
