________________
-V]
NOTES
कृत्तिः कमण्डलुमौंण्डयं चीरं पूर्वाह्नभोजनम् ।
संघो रक्ताम्बरत्वं च शिश्रिये बौद्ध भिक्षुभिः ॥ (b) निर्यन्थकs or the Jains, and
(c) संसारमोचकs or the materialists. बालराम observesसंसारमोचका:-(संसारमोचकादेश्च हिंसा पुण्यत्वसंमता ) इत्याभिहिता हिंसादि. परायणाः घटभङ्गे तदन्तर्वर्तिसलिलविलयवद् देहभने तदन्तर्गतजीवभङ्ग एव मोक्ष इत्येवं बुवाणाश्चार्वाकविशेषाः॥ (p. 82 ).
'तु शब्देनानुमानाद् व्यवच्छिनत्ति-As pointed above, the Buddhists and the followers of the astra school do not recognise शब्द as a separate प्रमाण, but include it under अनुमान. वाच० says that the relation between a 4149 and its ps is not that of लिङ्ग and लिङ्गिन्, as between धूम and वहि. वाक्यार्थ, being only an object of cognition cognised by the atte, cannot be known by inference.
उपमान. According to the नैयायिकs (प्रसिद्धसाधात् साध्यसाधनमुपमानम्-न्या० सू० 1 1 6), उपमान is that sentence which esta blishes a relation between a word and its sense. But, ac: cording to the सांख्यs, a वाक्य is not a प्रमाण, but the knowledge (ज्ञान) derived from the वाक्य. It is the चित्तवृत्ति alone which is प्रमाण. So, उपमान cannot be a separate प्रमाण, but is included under अनुमान. According to the मीमांसकड, उपमान is the सादृश्यज्ञान (or the cognition of simlarity, as of गो residing in the directly perceived गवय). A man who saw a cow in the town, now observes a stay in the forest. At this moment he is reminded of the cow which is qualified by the similarity of may directly perceived. Ths is the फल of उपमान. वाच० replies that this उपमान and its फल are both included under प्रत्यक्ष. For, सादृश्य is like the सामान्य. Just as we have गोत्व in गो, so we have गोसादृश्य in गो. And as we directly perceive गोत्व along with गो, so we perceive गोसादृश्य and गवयसादृश्य along with गवय. Therefore, गोसादृश्यज्ञान (अपमान) and गवयसादृश्यज्ञान (उपमानफल ) both are प्रत्यक्ष. सादृश्य is not a relation ( like संयोग ) which should reside on two objects; it is only भूयोऽवयवसामान्ययोग, that is, the
