The Bhikṣuṇī Maṇimēkhalai

136 - Other Views on the Philosophical Systems
In this part the professor takes up the position of Śāttaṉār’s being later
than Dignāga on the basis of what is contained in Book XXIX of the
Maṇimēkhalai. His position would be less open to objection, and mine
perhaps less capable of justification, but for the fact that the position
taken by him is not altogether without its own weak points.
We agree in respect of the teaching of Buddhist logic in Book XXIX
of the Maṇimēkhalai and that of the Nyāyapravēśa and
Pramāṇasamucchaya being almost identical. Our difference is only
which is first and which is next. There are two points in the
professor’s criticism which challenge consideration. The first is that
the Nyāyapravēśa is ascribed to Śaṁkarasvāmin, the immediate
disciple of Dignāga himself. There is the further point that the
Nyāyapravēśa in regard to Pakṣa-ābhāsas improves upon the
teaching of Dignāga by adding four more Pakṣa-ābhāsas thus
bringing it into closer identity with the teaching of the Maṇimēkhalai.
Therefore the position comes to be that the Maṇimēkhalai copied not
the work of Dignāga himself but that of his disciple. But the
Nyāyapravēśa [98] is regarded by others, on equally valid evidence of
which the principal features have already explained by me above, as
the work of Dignāga himself and not of Śaṁkarasvāmin. Therefore
the addition of four Pakṣa-ābhāsas by Śaṁkarasvāmin to the
teaching of Dignāga would have no basis to stand on.
The question then would be the teaching of Dignāga according to
Nyāyapravēśa and the exposition of the Pakṣa-ābhāsas in Book
XXIX of the Maṇimēkhalai. Which is anterior and which is posterior
is the question. The main features of the argument upon which the
particular pramāṇa is ascribed to Dignāga have been indicated above
in summary, and the references given to where further information