________________
.
102
पञ्जिका P. 81 b
vice in the opponent's argument may be pointed in a general way ( सामान्येन ) such as whether it exceeds or falls short of the requirements of a valid inference; or, the critic may proceed to specify the vice ( विशेषतः ), and say whether it contains a पक्षदोष, or a हेतुदोष or a दृष्टान्तदोष. Further, its particular variety may also be mentioned.
न्या. प्र. पक्षदोषः etc. --The reader may recall the दोषs defined, illustrated P. 8, 11 4-6, and discussed above in the N. Praves'a.
न्या. म. तस्योद्भावनं ete - Not only उद्भावन, but the उद्भावन (प्रकाशन ) which is P. 8,1168, also प्रानिकप्रत्यायन ( N. Pr. Vetti P 37, 110). The latter न्या. प्र.वृ. is thus explained in the Pañjika: प्रानिकाः प्रत्याय्यन्ते अवबोध्यन्ते P. 37,1.10. प्रत्यक्षविरुद्धत्वादिकं वायु ( बाह्य a misprint ) - पन्यस्तमर्थे येन वचनजान पञ्जिका. प्रतिवाद्युपन्यस्तेन तत्त्रानिकप्रत्यायनम् Further, the Pañjika explains why P. 80 b, mere is not enough: " नतूद्भावनमात्रमेवेति ननु etc. " दूषणम् -- 81 a. दूषणजातिः - - जातावेकवचनम् ( Pañjikā ). न्या. म. P. 8, 11 7-8. न्या. प्र. वृ. For जातिदूषणानि read जातित्वाद्दूषणानि - as found in the Panjikā, and P. 371. 13 the same is explained as follows: जातिशब्दः सादृश्यवचनस्ततो दूषणसादृश्यात् पञ्जिका सम्प्रसाधनेऽविद्यमानासिद्धता दिदोषोद्भावन ( not ना 88 printed ) वचनानि दूषणाभा
अभूतसाधन दोषोद्भावनानि दूषणाभासानि - The definition of दूषणाभास.
P. 81b सानि ।
अत्र भट्टः प्राह — Kumārila Bhatta holds that शब्द is नित्य and consequently he attacks the argument of the feta (the Buddhist, the Naiyāyika etc.); viz. यत्कृतकं तदनित्यं यथा घटः तथा च शब्दः as follows by raising a dilemma or trilemma (1) Is कृतकत्व which is advanced as a हेतु ' शब्दगतम् ' ? If so, it is असाधारण अनेकातिक, being found only in the पक्ष (2) Is the कृतकत्व • घटगतम् ' ? If so, this कृतकत्व is confined to घट ( the दृष्टान्त ) and not found in शब्द; consequently it is असिद्ध. ( 3 ) Is the कृतकरव 'उभयगतम् ' ! Im - possible, for मूर्त (e. g घट ) and अमूर्त ( e. g. शब्द ) cannot possess the same. This criticism which Kumārila Bhatta has directed against the Buddhist is a mere दूषणाभास - false criticism For such a criticism could be directetd even against an A which is universally acknowledged to be valid viz. अभिरत्र, धूमात् यथा महानसे Thus : Is the घूम which is advanced here as हेतु the on the mountain ? or (2) Is it the in the kitchen?
