Tarkatarangini

Author(s): Gunratna, Vasant G Parikh
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 20

19
however, are not convincing. Because parts (avayavas) are not separately seen from the whole (avayavi). In fact he has not considered the full account of the problem. 48
(X) Vyāpti
Gv. starts neo-logical discussion of the definition of Vyāpti, but does not go deep into it and stops abruptly saying-विस्तरो न लिख्यते बालानामनुपयोगात् ।४९
But Gn. is not satisfied with this. Following Gangesa, he presents no less than five definitions of Vyāpti. He examines, criticises and modifies some of them.50 In course of this discussion he suggests to refer to Śiromani tippana, perhaps his own work. (XI) Hetvābhāsas
Gn. explains in detail the significance of the definition of hetvābhāsa as given by Gv.,51 and shows how it can be applicable to all of the five hetvābhāsas. He also quotes Gangesas' definition of hetvābhāsa and showing its limitations he rectifies the definition.52
Gn. shows the mutual difference between all the hetvābhāsas with one another. Curiously enough he tries to show the difference between satpratipaksha and sandeha, though this point is not even suggested either by Km, or by Gy. This is quite a new point that he discusses. According to him the second variety of Saṁsaya resembles much with satpratipaksha.53 (XII) Śabda
While Gv. is satisfied with the simple explanation of KM's definition of Sabda,54 Gn. enters into a detailed discussion of the various aspects related to this Pramāna. He deals with some other problems also-e.g. the eternity of Śabda, the role of memory, the power of Sabda, Laksanā etc.
During the discussion he suggests to refer to Śiromaniprakāśaprobably a commentary on some work of Raghunātha.55 (XIII) Cārvāka on Pramāņa
Gn. examines the Cārvāka's view about pramāna. Cārvāka thinks that only the perception is the valid and independent pramāņa. Inference (anumāna) is based on induction (vyāpti). Later is only a probability. Its