130. BHẨM AHA AND DANDIN 127

BHẨM AHA AND DANDIN 127

any other work. ततोर्थात् refers to another definition of अत्यस given by बसुबन्धु. The न्यायवार्तिक of उद्बोतकर (B. I. ed. 1887 p. 42) states 'अपरे पुनवसयन्ति ततोर्थादिज्ञानं प्रत्यक्षमिति'. On this the न्यायवा- र्तिकतात्पर्यटीका of वाचस्पति (who is deemed to have written his न्याय- सूचिनिबन्ध in 841 A. D. and who composed authoritative works on many sastras) says 'वासबन्धवं तावत्प्रत्यघलक्षणं विकल्पयितुमुपन्यस्यति अपरे पुनरिति।' (p. 150). The न्यायवार्तिक of उद्योतकर again states (p. 44) 'अपरे तु मन्यन्ते प्रत्यक्षं कल्पनापोढमिति। अ्रथ केयं कल्पना। नामजातियो- जनेति। यत्किल न नाम्नाभिधीयते न जात्यादिभिर्व्यपदिश्यते।'. On this the न्यायवार्तिकतात्पर्यटीका (p.153 of the Kashi S. Series संवत् 1982) re- marks संप्रति दिङ्नागस्य लक्षणमुपन्यस्यति अपरे इति। दूर्षययतुं कल्पनास्वरूप पृच्छति भथ केयमिति। लक्षणवादिन उत्तरं नामेति।'. लक्षणवादिन् is दिङूनाग who defines प्रत्यच as above. From these quotations it is clear that most eminent and early logicians like वाचस्पति ascribed the definitions of प्रत्यक्ष given by भामह to दिङनाग and वसुबन्धु (ततोर्थाद) respectively. For the present I shall leave धर्मकीर्ति aside. Two of दिङ्नाग's works were translated into Chinese between 557- 569 A. D. Vide Dr. Vidyabhusan's 'Medieval School' &c. p. 80-81 and History of I. L. p. 272. So दिडूनाग flourished before 550 and as he was a pupil of वसुबन्धु Dr. Vidyabhusan places दिङूनाग's earlier limit at 480 (ibid pp. 81 and 273 respe- ctively). Dr. Randle in 'Indian Logic in early school's (pp. 31-32) says that Vasubandhu's date is uncertain and that दिङ्नाग's date shares the uncertainty attaching to that of his master Vasubandhu and that Dingnaga may fall anywhere between 420 and 500 A.D. (ibid p.27). Therefore भामह's reference to दिङनाग does not help any one much. There are certain other indicia which have been relied on for saying that भामह refers to धर्मकीर्ति. In V. 5 भामह says 'सत्त्वादयः प्रमाखाम्यां प्रत्यक्षमनुमा च ते। असाधारखसामान्यविषयत्वं तयोः किल ॥'. This may be compared with न्यायबिन्दु 'द्विव्रिधं सम्यग्ज्ञानं प्रत्यक्षमनुमानं च । ... तस्य (प्रत्यक्षस्य) विषयः स्वलक्षणम्। ... अन्यत्सामान्यलक्षयं सोनुमानस्य विषयः' (परिच्छेद I.p.103 Peterson). Similarly, भामह V. 11 (त्रिरूपालनिकतो ज्ञानमनु- मानं च केचन I) may be compared with न्यायबिन्दु 'अनुमानं दविया स्वार्थ परार्थ च। तत्र स्वार्थ त्रिरूपाल्लिकाबदनुमेये ज्ञानं तदनुमानम्ं' (परिच्छेद II p. 104); so also the words 'दूषयं न्यूनतापुक्तिः' (भामह V.28) are the same as न्यायबिन्दु (परि० III. p. 118) and 'जातयो दूषणामासाः' (भामह V.29) are the same as न्यायबिन्दु 'दूषखाभासास्तु जातयः' (III p. 118). It looks likely that भामह may be quoting from धर्मकीर्ति, though he may not agree with him in some details. No one has found