Vada in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c6.s5.t13.1

c6.s5.t13.1

Arcaṭa wrote a commentary on *Hetubindu* of Dharmakīrti, presenting an exhaustive analysis of the text along with references to the proponents and opponents. Pt. Sukhalal Singhavi has compared him with Vācaspati Miśra. He gave a rejoinder to Kumārila’s objections on Dharmakīrti’s treatment of the *pramāṇas*. Kumārila had said that there would be *regressus ad infinitum* (*ānantyadoṣa*) the way Dharmakīrti has enumerated the theory of inference (*anumāna*). According to the Buddhists, when fire is inferred due to the presence of smoke, the smoke is the inferential mark (*liṅga*) for fire which is *sādhya*. The orthodox Naiyāyika would find the smoke cognized through direct perception — it is an object visible through eyes therefore there is contact between this object and the sense-organ (*indriyārthasannikarṣa*). But in Buddhist epistemology, the object smoke is not cognized through perception, it is only the *sāmānya lakṣaṇa* of the smoke that is inferred. But for having the inference of this smoke, some other mark of inference (*liṅga*) will be required and for that other mark of inference again one more inference mark will be needed — this chain will continue in an unending way.