________________
98
4294. But this position which is identical with that of the Buddhist, would be open to the criticism, which the Nyāyavārtika passes upon the latter, that in that case it could not be even characterised as TRTET'; and this bas led to the later view of the Brahmana Nyaya that निर्विकल्पक is not प्रत्यक्ष but अनुमेय. (6) " vaidiza, " quoted by Uddyotakara and attributecl by Vācaspatimis'ra to Dinnāga occurs in the latter's Pramāna-Samuccaya (cf. "TREESYAITÉ 714715gah "-P. S. ch. I, Vidyabhūsana's H. I. L. p. 277), and consequently it does not necessarily imply that the Nyāyapravea's, in which it also occurs, is to be attributed to Dingāga according to Vācaspatimisra, Subject to verification from the Tibetan mas, I surmise that the further quotation--"1 a FIETSFuiya na जात्यादिभिर्व्यपदिश्यते विषयावरूपानुविधायि परिच्छेदकमात्मसंवेद्यं तत्प्रत्यक्षमिति"-is from Divāga's own Vịtti on the Pramāna-Samuccaya; the 'algunen' in Vâcaspatimira's note is 'the framer of the definition' himself-viz, Dinpāga, and the quotation lower down 52718. 539914e sada faszlet" is also from the samo author's Pramāņa-Samuccaya, on which "fastevige R ENTA ARTA” is probably his Virtti. Even if the passages which I have surmised to be quotations from Dinnāga's Virtti are as a matter of fact not found there, the rest of the argument regarding Pramāņa-Samuccaya being the
source of Uddyotakara's quotation will still remain unaffccted. *49.4. stue Hogangre FRÁ &c.-With a as part of the definition, P. 7 1. 13 Uddyotakara's criticism “ 372 erat a anuntat gegaralegale: ?
Häsyl: aft Fat: gaan would fail (See Randle's note, p. 8 of his " Fragments from Dinnāga" ). This shows that Uddyo takara's criticism was directed against the definition of Re ng given in the Pramāņa-Samuccaya where the word 'mat' does not occur, and not from Nyāyapraves'a where it does occur. This section in the Vārtika therefore, capnot be taken 48 an indication that the Nyāyapraves'a was a work of Dinuāga's. On the contrary, it distinctly points to a definition which had not the word 'n' in it, that is to say, the reference is to the definition in the Pramāņa-samuccaya. Read the lines is the
