9058009364

132

MANGALA R. CIIINCHORE

18.    Hattori is concenlrating on the problem of Perception and Apoha indepcndently of other important concepts used by Dińn&ga in his philosophy. Whether the vicws with refercnce to Perception and Apoha have a bearing upon others in the domains of epistemology, logie and / or language or ontology is not madę elear.

19.    Hayes is attempting to argue in this manner.

20.    Frauwallner, for the First time, perhaps, attempts to aigue that Dirin&ga wrote Alambana - parfksś under the impact and influence of Vasubandhu, and later on this view was accepted and presumed to be correct by Hayes, Steinkellner, Vetter, etc. A critical study of AJambana-panksś from this point of view will be illuminative.

21.    Cf. M.R. Chinchore (1986).

22.    Please see Appendbc 1, karika 10.

23.    Ibid. kirikś 31.

24.    Ibid. karikś 13.

25.    Ibid. kinki 3-5.

26.    Perhaps it is to the second phase that T.P. bclongs to, where DińnSga is attempting to emphasise that the real objcct should belong to the extemal world. This view is contrary to Vasubandhu's. Vasubandhu, in his Abhidharmakośa is advocating a view that the object of pcrceptual congtiition need not exist outside in the external world, sińce cognition itself amounts to our sense-dala being intemalized. This view is further clarified in his Vijflaptimśtratasiddhi. Dińnaga has altempled to show inadequacies of this view by writing two independent treatises, viz. Alambana pariksa, in which he is attempting to explicate the naturę and proccss of perceptual cognition and T.P., devoled to clarification of the naturę of existential reality.

^# I am profoundly indebted to Prof. M.P. Marathe for his valuable suggestions and co-operalion which enabled me to complcie this paper both on the level of the reconstruction of the text and also at different stages in its writing. While reconstructing text of the T.P. into Sanskrit I havc tried to be as fair as possible. If any knowledgeable person brings inadequacies involved in it to my nolice, I shall be privileged to modify wherever necessary. I havc, howcver, reconstructed the text independently of Bhartrhari with the intention of making an humblc attempt in the direction of as much independent Dińnagian studics as possible.

I am also indebted to Shri V. B. Bhagwat for, in spite of his old age and indifferent health, correcting my Sanskrit reconstruction. I am thanklul to Mr. Omae for his kind co-operation.

I am also thankful to Dr. Baliram Shukla and Pandit Vamanshastri Bhagwat, Punę for their kind help in finalisation of the reconstruction of the Sanskrit text.

Bibliography

Abhyankar, K.V.; Vyakarana MahabhSsya, Prastavana Khanda, (In Maralhi), Deccan

Education Society, Punę, 1954.

Aryadeva; Cittaviśuddhi - prakarana, Palcl, P.B. (Tibetan and Sanskrit text ed.),

Visva Bharati, 1949.

Bhartrhari; Vakyapadfya₉ Abhyankar, K.V. and Limaye V.P. (ed.), University of