________________ REVIEWS 147 ed upon the Vakyapadiya. If one combines Simhasuri's indications and the fact that Bhartshari is quoted by Dignaga, the following chronological sequence can be established: Vasurata - Bharthari - Dignaga - Mallavadin. Even if Mallavadin cannot be dated in the fourth century A.D., there is no doubt that Bhartshari must have lived long before the first half of the seventh century as had been generally agreed in the past on the strength of I-ching's testimony. 10 Moreover, if Punyaraja's commentary is understood to mean that Candragomin was the teacher of Vasurata, he must have lived in a period much earlier than any one of those proposed previously.11 However, the text of Punyaraja's commentary is not unambiguously clear. Even if the abovementioned interpretation is correct, how much credit has to be given to the testimony of an author who probably lived many centuries after Candragomin?12 According to Simhasuri's commentary Dignaga attacked his guru Vasubandhu (the author of the Vadavidhi). This tradition was already known from Taranatha's History. Frauwallner has pointed out that this alleged pupilship hails from the late and unsatisfactory Tibetan tradition. 13 Taranatha's work was written in 1608 and is not always a reliable source. However, it is clear from Simhasuri's commentary that the tradition of Dignaga's pupilship goes back to a much earlier period. Finally, the editor draws our attention to the fact that Dignaga's doctrines have been refuted by the Jain author Samantabhadra in his Aptamimamsa. The Prabhavakacarita attributes to Mallavadin the authorship of a Ramayana, called Padmacarita. According to the same text, the Nayacakra comprises ten thousand slokas fi.e. 320.000 syllables). Both indications do not seem very reliable. The second is inadmissible, because Simhasuri's commentary comprises eighteen thousand slokas and is several times longer than the text commented upon. More credible is the tradition which attributes to Mallavadin the authorship of a commentary upon Siddhasena Divakara's Sammati. The Nayacakra and its commentary are of great importance for the study of Indian philosophical systems, as is pointed out by the editor in his introduction (prakkathana, pp. 19-23). Simhasuri's commentary is of special interest for the information which it gives on the older Samkhya and Vaisesika literature and on Buddhist logic. One of the most important texts of the older Samkhya literature is the Sastitantra by Vssagana or Varsaganya.14 Quotations from it are to be found in the third chapter of Simhasuri's commentary. wamy Iyengar (op.cit., p. 149 n. 12), Nakamura Hajime ("Tibetan Citations of Bharthari's Verses and the Problem of his Date", Studies in Indology and Buddhology. Presented in Honour of Professor Susumu Yamaguchi, Kyoto, 1955, p. 134) and Frauwallner (WZKSO, V, 1961, p. 13) to Vakyapadiya II, 160 and 157. I have not been able to verify in the edition of the Benares Sanskrit Series which of the two indications is correct. Muni Jambuvijayaji points out that Dignaga has also quoted another verse of Bhartshari's Vak yapadiya (III. 14,8) in his vrtti on the second verse of the fifth chapter of the Pramanasamuccaya (prakkathana p. 16 n. 3). Quotations from Bhartphari's Vakyapadiya in other works have been studied by Nakamura (op.cit., pp. 122-136). * WZKSO, III (1959), pp. 107-116, 145-152. 10 See e.g. Louis Renou, La Durghatavrtti de Saranadeva, Vol. I, Fasc. 1 (Paris, 1940), p. 37: "Bharthari est l'un des rares noms de la litterature grammaticale exactement datable, depuis que Max Muller a eu reconnu en lui le grammairien mentionne par Itsing comme etant mort en 651." 11 See L. de La Vallee Poussin, Dynasties et Histoire de l'Inde depuis Kanishka (Paris, 1935), p. 64 n. 2; D. Seyfort Ruegg, op.cit., pp. 58-59. 12 For the date of Punyaraja see D. Seyfort Ruegg, op.cit., p. 63 n.1. 13 Cf. On the Date of the Buddhist Master of the Law Vasubandhu (Roma, 1951), p. 63. Cf. E. Frauwallner, "Zur Erkenntnislehre des klassischen Samkhya-Systems",
