Vol. I, No. 9.) Diynaga and lis Pramana-samaccaya. 225. 
[ENE S=)| 
mony)! as separate forms of evidence, but included the former in 
perception and the latter in perception and inference. Dignaga 
eriticised Vatsyayana’s inclusion of manas (mind)? among the sense- 
organs, while his own theory of sdntaratva (interstice or interval) 3 
was criticised by Udyotakara and Vacaspati. 
Dignaga is said to have cited an instance of inference contrary 
to perception, and his view was criticised by Kumarila Bhatta, as 
we learn from Parthasarathi Misra’s gloss. on 59-60, Anumana- 
pariccheda of Kumarila’s vartika on the 5th stitra of Jaimini. 
Udyotakara and Vacaspati Misra too* criticise the same view of 
Dignaga. 
aitwarastafs writ wert fesan aifaqufa ... 
Hematiaagienfa | 
( qraattaen ates Star, Y-e-¢, BW Vay) 
Lerman sfa faamima sfadafes at sfauaa 
setfaeie ayia sfa | afe sraata wfawafes ufautaa 
qeqaig | By wie aun: atsfe yada) aur 
Gaia yaamasya aet auntie yfauaa sfa | aq | 
aaraiefeaiatg | ate ears: | sraluem: wee sft | fag 
tiqieaeaqey aye at wete@a ofauta: aad: | 
qwaizaraatse fraren: | 
( ataarfia 3-7-9, B ¢2 ) 
Ba We yawmiaeaaramat feguaaaqaa fanaa 
saifauta | ( araatfamaraaeya 1-1-9, Bi wes) 
2 qed HARB Ula Bela | aefaa fesatata— 
afiguicuid Seafeaad Ta | 
( qraattarRaTaeS tA 2-0-8, Bi €9-es ) | 
saute fesaitia | arated a wig wet sasha a 
( mraatfimreaaint 7-2-8, Bi O¢-99 ) | 
aq ua fecatta vadfaasaquigqered acuta | 
aut uafafa | aatam wee Ramate veifeafefa sata 
weqeqaqqauta | 
( araarfrmaimeaetat 2-2-2, B32 ) | 
