________________
( 159 )
(i) whatever is sat, is ksauika ( Pakşadharmatva ). (ii) the pot is sat, therefore it is ksaņika ( sapakşdsatva ). (iii) because all entities are sat (vipaksavyavrtattva ).
Thus, here the Paksa and Nigamana are denied and Drstanta and Upanaya are indirectly accepted. Hetu is the main feature according to the Buddhist view (vidus imvācyo hetureva hi kevalari ).184
On the other hand, the Jainas accept only two organs, Pratijña proposition ) and Hetu ( middle term-reason ). They urge in support of this theory that without accepting the pratijñi or pakļa what is the use of the hetu, and for what would it be utilized. 165 Hence, they say that Udaharana is necessary and deny that Upanaya and Nigamana are conclusive factors. 186 For instance :
(i) there is a fire on the mountain (pakşa ). (ii) since there is smoke (hetu ).
The above view of the Jainas is recorded in Buddhist literature. Both Dharmakirti and Santarakṣita criticised this theory, Dharınakırti examines the Jain propositions with the following example :
(i) trees are sentient beings-cetanás taravah (pratijña). (ii) because they sleep (hetu ).
He then refutes this theory stating that this instance is fallacious, since sleep which is manifested by closing of the leaves at night is found only is some trees, not in their totality.187 The same thing is explained in the Darmottarapra. dipa by Dharmottarara.
Santaraksita referred to a view of Pätrakeśari with regard to the conception of types of hetu. He puts a number of exam. ples to establish his own view showing that there are only two organs, Pratijna and hetu. For instance : 1. (a) the hare marked (śasa-lañchana ) is the Moon ( paksa
or pratijña ), (b) because it is spoken of as the Moon (hetu). Likewise :
