Vol. I, No. 9.] Dignaga and his Pramina-samaccaya. 225 
[N.S. 
mony)! as separate forms of evidence, but included the former in 
perception and the latter in perception and inference. Di aga 
criticised Vatsyayana’s inclusion of manas (mind)? among the sense- 
organs, while his own theory of santaratva Gaterstice 0 or. inter val) § 
was = by pei ae es and Vacaspati 
we — from Parthasarathi Miéra’s iS on 59-60, Anumana- 
pariccheda of Kumarila’s vartika on the 5th sitra of Jaimini, 
Udyotakara and Vacaspati Misra too* criticise the same view of 
ignaga. 
Vatwaawafata ait west fesatn eifgufa ... 
wea fragi2afa | 
( araatfaan ateuey Sta, U-e-€, | Vay) | 
‘eintuaa sfa fea sfadafes at sfaraa 
Wetferte agra xfa | afe snare afadates Ufaurae 
FRGATAIA | @y wig aun: atsft yada) za 
way gagataws aat aunnaase sfauaa sfa i aq 
eaatsftaqrig | ae ear | water: we sta afy g 
ease a7e at wedteiea ofoufe: aia: | 
THizaragise fran: | : 
( araatfaa %-2-9, B €3 ) 
Ba We yamaeaaramn fecaaaqam faa 
Sifarufa : ( araarfdaaraaSlai %-1-9, B ess) 
*aeta Haale UIs] BMA | ae faa feestge— 
Shears Seafeaad Ta | 
( qraatfamataas lat 2-2-8, @ Eee) 
‘ amtet feemia | arnaged 7 eg UAT STasfuR FI 
( aqrearfanarerniatart -2-8, Ui 9¢-99 } | 
aq ua fecatta sqafaaguqamqzed aqraafa | 
Se gafafa | aan: wee Raney aelteafefa Farm: 
Weeeqaaiyanfa | 
( araatfamaiamastat 2-2-2, B By) 
