________________
103
In the former cese, it woald be RU afat being found only in the 97. In the latter, it would be safat, being not
found in the 929 ( ale TANSAAT 1. ) -091. . Biqet nga &c. Particular cases of or are: (1) si ma
P. 8. 1999an (qaraciddiana-Vrtti) (2) 2gec 942199944 (3) FACE11. 9-13 SETT TERHEL (4) #legas14177 (5) marece faran
104 79 and (6) NGEEL GREY175199774. No (1) is a fallacious allegation of a general character regarding the component parts of an Inference; No (2) is a fallacious allegation of that is gemana, that is, sammale; Nos (3), (4), and (5) are fallacious allegations of 1979 and No (6) is a fallacious allegation
of घटान्ताभास. न्या. प्र. पदार्थमात्रमाख्यातमादौ दिङ्मात्रसिद्धये । P.8 यात्र युकिरयुफिसान्यत्रसुविचारिता ॥
"Mr. Mironov suggests," says D'. Keith, "in Dinmatrasiddbaye we have an allusion to Duināya's name, and he thinks this may be supposed by the fact that Haribhadra in his comment on anyatra writes Pramānaramucayāda uz " " The remark is specially apposite", Dr. Keith adds," if the author really were Dinnāgs......nor is it quite legimate to pass over the possible play in dirmātrasiddhaye; it can carry no great weight but it certainly improves Mr. Mironov's arguraent." If or other grounds it is necessary to doubt Dinnāga's authorship of the Nyayapraves'a, neither of the two grounds above mentioned, viz., the word 'at' in hrafish' nor
a '=' A s ie as explained by Haribharasūri will be a bar. (See Introductiou, where the points are fully discussed ). ang=8449 la order that the reader may be just introduced to the subject before he reads the larger works such as 941989 etc. -714993, whosoever be its auther, may con
sequently supposed to be later than amagu. gla. P
u tafwislazy04. Mark that Haribbadragūri-the P. 37 1 20. commentator did not see any suggestion of the name of
the suthor ( विनाग) in the word 'दिङ्मात्रसिद्धये' Had he done BO, me a commentator be vould not have failed to note it, as
