The Colas c11.200

c11.200

117. The grounds for this view may be briefly indicated here. The publication of the Sanskrit text of the *Nyāyapraveśa* makes the *Maṇimēkalai* account much more intelligible than it was when Dr. S. K. Aiyangar wrote his '*Maṇimēkalai in its Historical Setting*.' In reproducing almost word for word the treatment of fallacies in the *Nyāyapraveśa*, the *Maṇimēkalai* (xxix ll. 111-468) differs from it in some remarkable ways. It compresses the N. in parts and expands it sometimes as in the treatment of Ubhayavyāvṛtti in Vaidharmya Dṛṣṭāntābhāsa, (two lines and a half of the Sanskrit text being renderd into ll. 424-49). Again, some refinements are introduced by the Tamil author, which, though not found in the *Nyāyapraveśa*, are clearly suggested by it. The instance cited above is a good example of this also: and in discussing the example ākāśavat as an instance of avidyamāna-ubhayāsiddha-sādharmya-dṛṣṭāntābhāsa, the N. explains the example only as referring to the asattva-vādi; but the M. (ll. 383-4) applies it to the sattva-vādi as well. Again there are differences in terminology which can only be noted, without criticism, as some at least of them may be merely textual errors in the Tamil work: (a) In the enumeration of pakṣābhāsas the M. has aprasiddha-sambandha, the ninth category, in the place of prasiddhasambandha of the N.; (b) for anyatarasiddha and sandigdhā-siddha of the N. among hetvābhāsas, the M. substitutes anyathāsiddha and siddhāsiddha; (c) for viruddhāvyabhicāri of the N. we have viruddha-vyabhicāri in M; (d) in naming dṛṣṭāntābhāsas where the N. has sādhanadharma asiddha etc., the M. gives sādhana-dharma-vikala etc. It may be noted that Dharmakīrti too uses 'vikala' for 'asiddha.' See *JIH.* x pt. ii. for a review of the *Nyāyapraveśa* (ed. Dhruva) by S.S.S.