________________
21
Nyāyāvatāra* of Siddhasena Divakara, a Jaina writer, (who lived in the sixth century A. D.) according to Dr. Satischandra, but in the latter half of the seventh a little after Dharmakirtiaccording to Jacobi ), and in its germ it can be traced to Vatsyayana Bhasya of the N. Sutras.t It would thus appear that long before Dharmakirti, Dinnaga had modified Vasubandhu's definition": arafugiaz: into साध्यत्वेनेप्सितः पक्षः विरुद्धार्था निराकृतः " and if the old definition was still repeated in substance in the N. Pr. it was only out of deference to the 'gafats, and further because the addition was not essencial and could easily be taken as understood. This is the only way in which I can reconcile the "fas fa ar" of the Sanskrit mss. with the omission of "fa" in the Tibetan and the Chinese. There is one point, however, in which I hesitate to accept the statement of Pars'vadeva. I do not think it was Vārtikakāra's criticism which was inserted in the Nyayapraves'a in the words प्रत्यक्षाद्यविरुद्ध इति " and this mixture of Sutra and Vartika was commented upon by Haribhadra. For, in that case we should have found Vārtikakāra's other criticisms also similarly attended to. I think प्रत्यक्षाविरुद्ध इति वाक्यशेषः " was introduced by Buddhists to meet Uddyotakara's criticism that "साध्यत्वेनोप्सतः पक्षः विरुद्धार्था निराकृतः " was in conflict with ": fa:" which does not contain the last word 'faifauga:' of the former. Consequently in restoring the original text of the N. Pr. not only, as in T', T. Ch. but the whole set of words "efève efa màq: " should be dropped.
66
(F
ck
To sum up our examination of the tradition recorded by Pars'vadeva :—
1. Dharmakirti may be responsible for "îâte: zfà areqão: but he was not the first to perceive the necessity of the addition.
2. Dinnaga has defined 'q' elsewhere in the Pramāṇasamucchya with the additional word.
#62
साध्याभ्युपगमः पक्षः प्रत्यक्षावनिराकृतः " Nyāyāvathra 14n.
+ " यत्पुनरनुमानं प्रत्यक्षागमविरुद्धं न्यायाभासः " स: – N. Bh. p. 3
