akara@nasambandhas'cavayavadbhavati_). The five premisses which are
called in Nyaya _pratijna, hetu d@r@s@tanta, upanaya,_ and _nigamana_
are called in Vais'e@sika _pratijna, apades'a, nidars'ana, anusandhana_,
and _pratyamnaya_. Ka@nada however does not mention the name
of any of these premisses excepting the second "apades'a." Pratijna is
of course the same as we have in Nyaya, and the term nidars'ana is
very similar to Nyaya d@r@s@tanta, but the last two are entirely
different. Nidars'ana may be of two kinds, (1) agreement in presence
(e.g. that which has motion is a substance as is seen in the case of
an arrow), (2) agreement in absence (e.g. what is not a substance has
no motion as is seen in the case of the universal being [Footnote ref l]).
He also points out cases of the fallacy of the example

___________________________________________________________________

{Footnote 1: Dr Vidyabhu@sa@na says that "An example before the time of
Dignaga served as a mere familiar case which was cited to help the
understanding of the listener, e.g. The hill is fiery; because it has
smoke; like a kitchen (example). Asa@nga made the example more serviceable
to reasoning, but Dignaga converted it into a universal proposition, that
is a proposition expressive of the universal or inseparable connection
between the middle term and the major term, e.g. The hill is fiery; because
it has smoke; all that has smoke is fiery as a kitchen" (_Indian Logic_,
pp. 95, 96). It is of course true that Vatsyayana had an imperfect example
as "like a kitchen" (_s'abda@h utpatvidharmakatvadanuya@h sthalyadivat_,
I.i. 36), but Pras'astapada has it in the proper form. Whether
Pras'astapada borrowed it from Dig@nnaga or Dig@nnaga from Pras'astapada
cannot be easily settled.]

351

(_nidars'anabhasa_). Pras'astapada's contribution thus seems to consist
of the enumeration of the five premisses and the fallacy of
the nidars'ana, but the names of the last two premisses are so
different from what are current in other systems that it is reasonable
to suppose that he collected them from some other traditional
Vais'e@sika work which is now lost to us. It however definitely
indicates that the study of the problem of inference was being
pursued in Vais'e@sika circles independently of Nyaya. There is
no reason however to suppose that Pras'astapada borrowed anything
from Di@nnaga as Professor Stcherbatsky or Keith supposes,
for, as I have shown above, most of P