________________
न्या. प्र. वृ. P. 9, 13.
1. 4.
2
be placed at the beginning?-a question which can be raised and discussed irrespective of the question of the authorship. Even if the S'loka be the author's own, it may still well be a summary of a logical doctrine which was older, and so it sems to be. The question which is really important is not that of the authorship of the S'loka, but that of the date of the logical doctrine which it formulates, and this was demonstrably older. श्री सर्वज्ञाय नमः -- This ' सर्वज्ञ' should be understood to be जिन and not बुद्ध ; for Haribhadra is a Jains.
सम्यग्ज्ञानस्य &c. v. 1. सम्यङ्न्यायस्य - the reading of Panjika. It is remarkable how the Bauddhas and the Jainas have made a common property of the science of Logic.
11 6-7 रचितामपि सत्प्रज्ञैः &c. Haribhadra seems to be aware of older commentaries on the न्यायप्रवेश, to some of which he refers in the course of his own Vṛtti.
Read--- इत्यतो for इति । अतो.
प्रवृत्त्यर्थमिति. Construe: प्रवृत्त्यर्थमादावुपन्यास इति .
1. 13.
1. 14.
1. 15. नारब्धव्यमिति &c. The possible अनुपन्यासहेतुs which a 'पर' might raise are three :--
( 1 )
( 2 )
(3)
Because the work is useless ( प्रयोजनरहितत्वात् )
Because there is no such Shastra of न्याय or logic (निरभिधेयत्वात् ) Because it is a hotchpotch of unconnected matters. ( असंबद्धत्वात् ).
1. 16. काकदन्तपरीक्षावत्: A stock illustration, which is here given as one of निरभिधेयत्व and not प्रयोजनरहितत्व ( ' तथा निरभिधेयत्वात् काकदन्तपरीक्षावत् - Vṛtti) as done by Dharmottara, who like many other Indian writers, says “काकदन्तप्रयोजनाभावात्...” ( N. B.T. ) Pañjika supports the वृत्ति ( see below ).
17. दश दाडिमानि &c. " लोके ह्यर्थवन्ति चानर्थकानि च वाक्यानि दृश्यन्ते । अर्थवन्ति तावत् देवदत्त गामभ्याज शुकादण्डेन देवदत्त गामभ्याज कृष्णामिति । अनर्थकानि दश दाडिमानि षडपूपा: कुण्डमजाजिनं पललपिण्डः...... । " Patañjali's M. Bhāsya I. 1. 3. under वृद्धिरादैच् N. S. p. 140; also “ लौकिकानि वचनान्युपपन्नार्थानि अनुपपन्नानि च दृश्यन्ते । यथा देवदत्त गामभ्याज इत्येवमादीनि दश दाडिमानि षडपूषा इत्येवमादीनि च ।
