________________ INTRODUCTION Xxii repudiated dvichandradi illusions by using the term kalpana podha, inasmuch as these illusions are mental and not sensory in character. That is the reason why the author did not include the term abbranta in his treatise Pramana-vartika while defining pratyaksha (perception). The author has used the term abbranta in the Nyayabindu to refute the misapprehension of these people. The commentator Dharmottara has also maintained the same purpose in holding that the term abhranta will reject illusions like dvichandradijnana in case of their being sensory in nature. Thus, it is evident that both the afore-said commentators have tried to prove the fact that the Nyaya-bindu has been composed to represent both the Yogachara and Sautrantika schools. In the printed Nyaya-bindu-tika-tippan7,2 a purvapaksha of some one has been presented to the effect that the inclusion of the term abbranta in the definition of pratyaksha is inconsistent with the Yogachara position. This shows that the Nyaya-bindu should have been composed according to him from the viewpoints of both the Yogachara and the Sautrantika. The author of the tippani has clearly put forth his opinion that this definition is formulated from the Sautrantika standpoint. From the standpoint of the Yogachara the term abbranta is superfluous.3 The Dharmottara-pradipa also quotes a purvapaksha to the effect that the meaning of the term abhranta should be understood in the sense of avisamvadi ; otherwise the Yogachara view would not be included in this definition. It further maintains that Dharmottara intends to repudiate this purvapaksha.4 After a long discussion it has concluded that the definition befits the Sautrantika system and not the Yogachara one. Durveka admits that some views of the Nyaya-bindu are in harmony with the Yogachara tenets ; but he points out that in some cases at least the work propounds theories. not reconciliable with those of the Yogachara. For instance, the opinion regarding the object of pra Tatparyanibandhana-tippana p. 20. 2 The Editor believed that it was composed by Mallavadi. He has, however, rejected this view in his Buddhist Logic. . 3 Nyaya-bindu-tika-tippani, p. 19. * Dhasmottara-pradipa, p. 42.
