The Bhikṣuṇī Maṇimēkhalai

134 - Other Views on the Philosophical Systems
applicable to the six recognized systems of the time, and according to
him one of the six recognized systems was Buddhism.
At the commencement of Book XXIX where he treats of Buddhist
logic, he treats of the Pramāṇas, Pratyakṣa and Anumāna, and winds
up with the statement that the other pramāṇas are capable of
inclusion in the second, i.e., Anumāna. In the Nyāyapravēśa and the
Pramāṇasamucchaya of Dignāga, Dignāga solemnly discusses the
four pramāṇas of the logicians rejecting the last two and accepting
the first two. To me it appears that Aṟavaṇa Aḍigaḷ’s position marks a
transition to what ultimately became Dignāga’s teaching. If a man of
the reputation of Aṟavaṇa Aḍigaḷ as a teacher taught the system in
Kāñcī, one may take it that serious students at Kāñcī had some
knowledge of it, and when one of them of the genius of Dignāga
systematized the teaching of Buddhist logic, he might have improved
upon it by [96] making a deliberate investigation of the whole
position including that of the most authoritative school of the time,
that of the Naiyāyikas, and laid it down that two are the pramāṇas
and not four, while Aṟavaṇa Aḍigaḷ merely says that there are other
pramāṇas, but they need not be considered separately, as all of them
could be included in the second, the all of them here being apparently,
the remaining four out of the six. It does not affect our position even
if Aṟavaṇa Aḍigaḷ were a mere creation of the poet, as it would then
be that Śāttaṉār incorporates in the Maṇimēkhalai what was the
prevalent notion among Buddhists at Kāñcī, or what is perhaps better,
in the Tamil country.
In regard to the Avayavas the same transition is indicated almost in
the same manner, that is, he discusses the three and leaves the other
two as capable of inclusion in the third. That is the reason why I