________________
viruddhāvyabhicărin of Dinnaga, with the illustration given in the Nyayapraves'a or in some other work to wbich Dharmottara was referring; and considering that Pras'astapada does not "refer to viruddhāvyabhicärin by name” one may
prenume that he was not aware of Diināga's terminology.* (4) Another small consideration weighing in favour of Pras'asta
pāda's priority is that Pras'astapāda does not subdivideiactèature, while the Nyāyadvāra and the Nyāyapraves'a both give a fourfold division. This, however, is open to the reply: "This may only show that the Bauddha logicians introduced formal development into the earlier Vais'esika logic which they borrowed, and that Pras’astapāda was not prepared to accept
the innovation." (Randle.) (5) From the clumsy terminology of the subdivision of the
fallacies of Exemplification (lagstar ) in Pras'astapāda as distinguished from Dinnāga one may naturally conclude that Dinnāga came after Pras'astapāda and improved on his terminology. But Randle would still place Diināgs after Pras'astapāda and credit Pras'astapāda with "unwillingness to
accept even gifts from the enemy. This is too ingenious."
In view of the evidence which has been collected and discussed above I am of opinion that the balance of probability is in favour of Pras'astapāda's priority to Diināga-, view which Stcherbatsky has urged against bis own thecry of an earlier date.
* I have discussed this question at more length in my Notes pp. 61-65. On P. 65, at the end of the first paragraph I have said "Bad the " "' been Buddhists Pras'astapāda would not have called the proposition 14 " which is another word for spe z ". But I think I ought to modify that statement by adding: "But it is possible that Pres'astapāda may be referring to Buddhists who had token their illustration from the earlier Vaišeşikas and consequently when Pras'asta pada asks the other party to call it'
3 ' he 1908 1 he Buddhist nomenclature and not bis Ow, bis own 79 bolog of different kind which is illustrated by " a at 91."
