________________
xiy
सपक्षकदेशयति विपक्षन्यापिन् , विपक्षकदेशति सपक्षव्यापिन् , उभयेकदेशति and विरुखा. aparata.; and the third into four viz. agrasafrattagra6, sarana
विपरीतमाधक, पर्मिस्वरूपविपरीतसाधक, and धर्मिविशेषविपरीतसाधक. . (6) The five arzierannas, viz., apyras, aequif46a, 789vhhaa,
24227 and fantajan ; and five mimarathias, viz., greqia|TET,
साधनाव्यावृत्ति, उभयान्यावृत्ति, अव्यतिरेक and विपरीतव्यतिरेक. (7) Mention. of विरुद्धाव्यभिचारिन् and इष्टविघातकृत् (विरुद्ध ) अनैकान्तिक, which
Dharmakîrti drops.
From the extraordinary coincidence of definitions, illustrations, and even order of enumeration in several instances between this chapter of the Manimekhalai and the Nyagapraves'a, Prof. Kappuswami S'āstri concludes that the former is based upon the latter and that "while section XXIX of the Manimekbalai cannot be assigned to pre-Diinaga period of Buddhist logic, there are sufficient indications to place it in the post-Dinnaga period, close to the transition to certain departures advocated by Dharmakirti by way of improvement."
As against this view stands that of Dr. Krishnaswami Aiyangar who regards the chapter XXIX of the Manimekbalai as belonging to the pre-Divnaga period of Buddhist logic. His contention is that in several respects it takes up a halting position between the old Brabmanical Nyaya and the Nyāya of Diñoaga. Thus:--
(1) In the Manimekhalai the pramānas are said to be only two,
others being regarded as capable of inclusion in the seccond ; whereas "Dinnaga, who seems to have no such qualms and actually deals with the four pramāṇas of the Naiyãyikas, rejects the first two, after examination positively" (see the Promāna.
sumuccaya of Dirināga). (2) Similarly in the discussion of the avayavas, the Manimekhalai
seems to mark a transition. It mentions the five arayavas, accepts three and does not consider the other two as they are capable of inclusion in the third. There is nothing like
rejection of them as invalid as in Dinnaga." Prof. Krishnagwami next points out that, (3) "Diânāga solemnly lays himself out to consider the Srartha
and Parärtha forms of syllogism............ After a serious
