________________
126
Jatn-Tarka-Bhāșă
the Yuktidīpikā on the Sankhyakārikä also mentions ten parts (Yuktidzpikā on Kārikā, 6) of inference. Besides the well-known five parts, the Yuktidīpikā says that curiosity ( jijñāsā), doubt (samsaya), purpose (prayojana), attainment of the possible (sakya-präpti) and removal of doubt (sañíayavyudāsa) are also the parts of inference. These five parts are said to be explanatory of the first five parts and as such serve the same purpose as the last five (the purity of the thesis etc.) parts, mentioned by Bhadrabāhu.
P. 16. Sub-topic 19 (Varieties of cause). Yaśovijaya has given 25 varieties of causes. The earlier authors, the Jainas as well as the non-Jainas, have given lesser number of varieties of causes. The most famous of these varieties are, in fact, the three varieties of inference. Compare Nyāyasūtra (1.1.5). Anuyogadvāra (p. 212 A), a Jaina scripture, also supports this view though other Jaina logicians like Abhayadeva criticise it. Compare Sanmatiţikā (p. 559). We have already pointed out that Tasovijaya preferred to keep silence on such a controversial point. Amongst the Jaina works, Sthānānga (p. 309-310) mentions only four varieties of cause. Amongst the Buddhists, Dharmakīrti mentions only three varieties of causes (Hetubindu, p. 54). All this goes to prove that the tendency to multiply the number of varieties of causes, is quite later. The first Jaina logician to give 15 varieties of causes was Akalanka (Praminasamgraha, 29-30). Vidyānanda raised this number to 28 (Pramānaparākṣā, pp. 72–75). Yasovijaya has followed Devasūri (Pramāņanayatattvälokalankāra, 3. 50-95) as far as the main varieties are concerned, but Devasūri gives some sub-varieties also, raising the total number of varieties to 41. Hemacandra and Dharmabhūşana have, however, kept the number only to 5 and 9 respectively. It may also be mentioned that rašovijaya has not shown any tendency to contradict the views of the opponents on this issue; though in other Jaina works like Nyāyakumudacandra, we do find a refutation of the vicw-point of the Buddhists, who hold only two varieties of causes, and of the viewpoint of the Naiyāyikas and Sankhyists who hold five and seven varieties of causes respectively; compare Jaina Nyāya of Kailash Chandra Shastri (pp. 218-224).
The basic fact regarding the J aina classification of the
