Vol. VI, No. 6.] The Pramanas of Hindu Logic. 299 



[N.S.] 



the Mxmamsaka philosopher Kumarila (a follower of Jaimini) 

 has expressly refuted the claims of Pratibha to be regarded as 

 a separate source of knowledge in the Cloka-varlika . 



iv, 32, p. 143. 



Translation. — "Just as the pratibha of ordinary people is 

 not sufficient to establish any truth without a reference to 

 observation, etc., similarly the pratibha of the yogins (mystics) 

 is also insufficient to establish truth.' 9 



Parthasarathi Miqra, in commenting on the above verse, 

 says — 



Cloka-vartika , Chowkhamba series, p. 143. 



Translation. — u The Vaigesikas and others hold that 

 dharma and adharma are known by another pramaria, called 

 intuition (pratibha). . , . This faculty is possessed by the 

 seers much more than by ordinary men, and hence it is called 

 second-sight (arsa). This doctrine is refuted in the verse 

 beginning with the word " laukika." 



Thus according to Kumarila and Parthasarathi, it is not 

 Jaimini that admit: pratibha as a separate pramana, but it is 

 the opposed school of Kanada that hold this view. 



Now if we turn to the Vaicesika sutras, we find no men- 

 tion of pratibha or intuition. So Cankara says in his U pas- 

 ham (x. 2, 6) : 



Translation. — "Second-sight has not been separately 

 defined by the author of the Aphorisms, for it is included in 



lied) 



Pra&zstapada in the PadaHhadharmci-sawjraha mentions 

 and explains pratibha thus : 





