Indian Antiquary Vol 59

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Charles E A W Oldham, S Krishnaswami Aiyangar, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarka
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 158

TIIE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
(JOLS, 1930
(e) anumána.--Here also, as noted by the editors, two definitions of inference are referred to by Bhâmaha-(1) triri palingato jñana and (2) tadvido nántartyarthadarśana. This second definition is quoted by Uddyotakara. I have found in the Pramánceamucoaya the corresponding translation of this pageage, which is quoted by Diñnåga as being taken from V ddavidhi and refuted by him.13
As to the first definition we cannot be so precise as regards its identification; in fact we know that the definition of the anumana as given by Dinnåga in Pramanasamuccaya was: anumeye'tha tattulye sadbhavo nástila 'sati.14
But it is quite evident that here the essential and fundamental aspect of the anumána is contained, viz., its trairūpya : paksadharmata, sa paksasatira, vipakpdisattva. This theory of the trairdpya, as I have shown elsewhere, 16 does not represent an innovation due to Dinnaga, since it was certainly pre-existent, as is sufficiently proved by the fragments of the Turka-adstra preserved in Chinese.
Therefore, even in this case, the facts alluded to seem to point to an analogy with Dinnaga more than with Dharmakirti.
() pratijñadosas or pratijñabhasas, viz., thesis or proposition vitiated by errors. The definition of pakra and that of pratijfid imply that Bhâmaha considers pakra as different from pratijña, viz., paksa is the formulation of the probandum, quite independent of the 8ddhana, and pratijfia is this very pakpa enunciated as the first member of a sadhana. This doctrine (on which see Indian Historical Quarterly, vol. IV, p. 632) was accepted by Asanga and the Vädavidhi, but Dinnaga suppresses the pratijña and substitutes for it the very paksa. Bhåmaha in this place also seems, therefore, to follow doctrines anterior to Dinnaga. Bh&maha knows only six paksdbhasas -
(a) tadarthaviruddha. (6) hetuviruddha. (c) svasiddhantaviruddha. (d) sarvagamaviruddha. (e) prasiddhadharma.
() pratyakşavirudha.
Dinnaga also knew five pakşübháisas only, as is evidenced by his Nydyamukha and Pramanasamuccaya; while in the Nyayapraveśa by his pupil or follower, Sarkarasvåmin, we have a list of nine paksabhasas,16 which again Dharmakirti reduoes to four (anumánanirdkrta, pratyakşiniraksta, pratitiniraksta, svavacananiraksta). For Dinnaga the five pakşdbhasas are as follows:
(1) svavacanaviruddha : mata me bandhyd, sarvam vacanam mithya, (2) pratyakpaviruddha : anusno 'gnih. (3) anumanaviruddha : nityo ghatah. (4) lokaviruddha : sasi na candraḥ.
(5) dgamaviruddha.
Now it is evident that of the six pakşdbhasas quoted by Bh&maha, (a)=(1), (c)=(5), (d)=(4), (N=(2). The second-(6-cannot be so easily identified; but from the example given it seems that it consists in the assumption of a dharmin anyatardsiddha, that is, a subject not proved for one of the opponents; e.g., when a Sankhya discusses with a Buddhist he cannot state this proposition : "the alman is existent," or "prakyti is existent," because the prativddin does not admit of any alman or prakrti : so that the thesis would in fact ignore one of the
18 JRAS., 1929, pp. 474-475. 14 Nydyandrttika, p. 55. 16 JRAS., 1929, pp. 479. 16 Cf, JRAS., 1928, p. 12,