ras'astapada's apparent innovations
are all definitely alluded to by Ka@nada himself, and
Professor Keith has not discussed this alternative. On the
question of the fallacies of nidars'ana, unless it is definitely proved
that Di@nnaga preceded Pras'astapada, there is no reason whatever
to suppose that the latter borrowed it from the former [Footnote ref 1].

The nature and ascertainment of concomitance is the most
important part of inference. Vatsyayana says that an inference
can be made by the sight of the li@nga (reason or middle) through
the memory of the connection between the middle and the major
previously perceived. Udyotakara raises the question whether it
is the present perception of the middle or the memory of the
connection of the middle with the major that should be regarded
as leading to inference. His answer is that both these lead to
inference, but that which immediately leads to inference is
_li@ngaparamars'a_, i.e. the present perception of the middle in the
minor associated with the memory of its connection with the major,
for inference does not immediately follow the memory of the connection,
but the present perception of the middle associated with
the memory of the connection (_sm@rtyanug@rhito li@ngaparamars'o_).
But he is silent with regard to the nature of concomitance.
Udyotakara's criticisms of Di@nnaga as shown by Vacaspati have
no reference to this point The doctrine of _tadatmya_ and _tadutpatti_
was therefore in all probability a new contribution to
Buddhist logic by Dharmakirtti. Dharmakirtti's contention was
that the root principle of the connection between the middle and
the major was that the former was either identical in essence
with the latter or its effect and that unless this was grasped a
mere collection of positive or negative instances will not give us

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Pras'astapada's bha@sya with _Nyayakandali_, pp. 200-255.]

352

the desired connection [Footnote ref 1]. Vacaspati in his refutation of
this view says that the cause-effect relation cannot be determined as a
separate relation. If causality means invariable immediate antecedence
such that there being fire there is smoke and there being
no fire there is no smoke, then it cannot be ascertained with
perfect satisfaction, for there is no proof that in each case the
smoke was caused by fire and not by an invisible demon. Unless
it can be ascertaine