________________
[2]
( FATTET), 13. fallacies (Barute ), 14. quibbic ( ar), 15. Siitility ( fe), and 16. occasion for rebuke (forma). Dignaga and Siddhasena on the other hand in their works took up only one of the sixteen categories, viz, pramana ( 14 ) and elaborated it in such a way that it might include other catogories as far as these were consistent with the science of general knowledge. Inference, a kind of pramana, which was very briefly noticed by Akmpada, received a full treatment at the hands of Dignaga and Siddhasena. Great subtleties were introduced by them into the theory of syllogism, definition of terms etc. They rejected prameya ( 2 ), in which Aksapada included sense-organs (free), objects of sense (), body (3), mind ( 4a:), soul ( ), birth ( 7 ), death (FRA, etc, on the ground that it was useless in Forks on Logic to specify the objects of knowledge. The science of Logic as modified in this way was called Medieval Logic which was almost entirely in the hands of the Buddhists and Jainas. During 500--1200 A 1), the Buddhist and Jaiva writers * produced numerous treatises on Logic in this new style while the Bralimavic writers suck as Vatsyayana, Udyotakara, Vacaspati and Udayana continued to follow the old system of Aksapada or whose Nyayasatra they wrote a series of glosses,
Among the Brahmanas there was only one person who imbibed the influence of the Buddhist and Jaina logiciars. This person was
Bhasarvaj itu the celebrated anthor of Nyarasara which Kyayasara, is published in this volume. Following the method a rare Brahmanie work current in his time Bhasarvajta treated in his Nyayaon Medieval Logic.
val sarı only one topic, viz. pramana which he divided
into three kinds--perception (ory!, inference ( T17 ) and verbal testimony (*** )---As a contrast to Aksa pada who recognised a fourth kind named comparison ( 3 7 ). This
* For the Jaina and Buddhist Logic vide my "History of the Medieval School of Indian Logic" published by the University of Caleutta, 1909.
Aho ! Shrutgyanam
