129. 126 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

126 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

were carried out and where they failed. It is not necessary to pursue this chapter further. I was probably the first Indian. to point out that Bhamaha quotes in this pariccheda the words of दिड्नाग and probably of ध्मकोर्ति. Great controversies have raged round the question of the works of दिङनाग and धर्मकीर्ति and on the question of arHE's relation to them. I cannot here go into these. I shall only mention those works that are rele- vant for the date of arHr. Those who desire to make a detailed study of भामह 's brief dissertation on logic in relation to other works may read Prof. Pathak in B. O. R. I. vol. 12 pp. 372- 387. भामह says 'प्रत्यक्षं कल्पनापोढं ततोऽर्थादिति केचन। कल्पना नामजात्या- दियोजनां प्रतिजानते' ।I' (V. 6). दिङनाग, the great Buddhist Logician, defines प्रत्यक्ष as प्रत्यक्षं कल्पनापोढं नामजाताद्यसंयुतम् ।' (in प्रमाएसमुच्चय chap. I. quoted in Vidyabhusana's 'History of the medieval School of Indian Logic', 1909 p. 85 and in History of Indian Logic, 1921 p.277). अकलक्कदेव quoted the latter half of the verse as 'असाधार सहेतुत्वादक्षैस्तद्व्यपदिश्यते1।' (vide Prof. Pathak in annals of B. O. R. I. vol. XII. at p. 378). The प्रमाणसमुच्चय and its वृत्ति by दिङ्नाग in its original Sanskrit are lost, but early Tibetan translations are extant. The न्यायबिन्दु (ed. by Peterson in B. I. series, 1889 p. 103) of धम कीर्ति defi- nes प्रत्यक्ष and explains it as follows : 'प्रत्यक्षं कल्पनापोढमभ्रान्तम् । अभिलाषसंसगयोग्यप्रतिभासप्रतीतिः कल्पना तया रहितम्। तिमिराशुभ्रमणनौयान- संक्षोभाधनाहितविभ्रमं ज्ञानं प्रत्यक्षम' ।2 भामह quotes दिङनाग's definition and also explains what दिङनाग meant by कल्पना in the latter half viz. 'attributing to a thing a name, a genus and the like.' It appears that दिङ्नाग detined प्रत्यक्ष as कल्पनापोढ and धर्मकोर्ति added अभ्रान्तं to that definition. In the न्यायप्रवेश, which according to the Tibetan tradition is a work of दिङ्नाग and according to the Chinese tradition is a work of शङ्करस्वामिन pupil of दिङनाग, the word अभ्रान्तं is absent. We may assume for this discussion that भामह is referring to the प्रमाणसमुच्चय of दिङनाग alone and not to 1. The न्यायप्रवेशवृत्ति (ed. by Prof. Dhruva in G. O. S. p. 35) also cites the latter half असाधारण ... दिश्यते. 2. The न्यायबिन्दुटीका explains 'कल्पनाया अपोढमपेतं कल्पनापोढम्। कल्पनास्वभावरहितमित्यर्थः। अभ्रान्तमर्थक्रियाक्षमे वस्तुरूपेऽ्विपर्यस्तमुच्यते। p.8 (B. I. series). The न्यायप्रवेश (p. 7 G. O. S. ed.) has तत्र प्रत्यकं कल्पनापोढं यज्जानमर्थेयथा रूपादौ नामजात्यादिकल्पनारहितम् on which हरिभद्र'8 वृत्ति (p.35) is नामकल्पना यथा डित्थ इति जातिकल्पना यथा गौरिति'.