________________
64
positively later than Dindāga, the latter had before him some earlier work of the same school. Another thiog worthy of note is that the illustration of an additional variety of Alamglie' discussed by Pras'astapādam which corresponds to the 'jaeloqaniz' of Diúnāga, but is not so named by bim, as Dr. Randle supposes, but by his commentator Sridhara, and which Pras'astarāds introduces as the view of ta is different both from that which occurs in the Nyāyapraves'a and that which Dharmakirti cites, presumably from some work of Dinnāga's other than Ngayapraves'a, as we have seen above. It runs as follows:—91 gacargados de HAA: क्रियाववास्पर्शत्वयोरिति "मूर्त मनः क्रियावत्त्वाच्छादिवत् ; अमूर्ते मनः भस्पर्शवत्वाFT419aičia (S'ridhara's Nyāyakandali p. 241.). In discussing the claim of this to be regarded as an additional variety of sferience Prasāstapāda points ont the possibility of construing it as a case of BeaTITUI, what the author calls Bazafaa' ( adaNICU एवाचाक्षषत्वप्रत्यक्षत्ववत । संहतयोरन्यतरपक्षासंभवात् । ततश्चानध्यवसित इति वक्ष्यामः...... ......यश्चानुमेये विद्यमानस्तत्समानासमानजातीययोरसव सोऽन्यतरासिद्धोऽनध्यवसायहेतुत्वाद729lhi--Pras'astapāda p. 239.); or as a case of Eation at ("steatrija Bitaati dana 4:"-Pras'atapada. ). Prasāstapāda's illustration is evidently taken from an earlier Vais'esika work, and not from any work of Dinnāgā’s; nor has Dinnāga, from whose work Dharmakirti has probably borrowed his illustration, taken it from Prasāstapāda. Both seem to have different Vajs'eșika originals before them. [ Dharmottara's mention of 19 and att supplies two of the missing links after Kaņāda and they are known in later books of the Vais'eşika system 89 formulators of the theories of 1991 and 2476 regarding the action of heat on bodies and their particles. ] To my mind anglaufraint as a special type of gramate does not seem to have originated with Dinnāgā, as is clear not only from the considerations set forth above but from the further fact that it does not harmonise with the terminology of the other varieties of fat% mentioned by him; bor does it appear to be peculiar either to the Brāhmaṇa or to the Buddhist school of Indian logic. There are Buddhists who reject it, for example,
