The sequence of opponents and discussants within the Pramāṇasamuccaya is difficult to reconstruct and one might need to gather informations from many different sources. In the following I will focus on a specific problem:

• is the example of the presence of horns as leading to “non-horse” an instance of the way apoha works (as with Yoshimizu, which supports in this way his analysis of Dignāga’s procedure as entailing a compositional analysis) or just an example about an inference, which works in a way similar as the apoha, i.e., does not need to exclude elements one by one (as with Kataoka, who thus supports his claim that Dignāga does not need any positive postulation).

More details on each reconstruction can be found below:

Pramāṇasamuccaya and svavṛtti 5.43 (Pind’s reconstruction)

yac coktam <ādyapratyayo> nāstīti, iṣṭisiddhir anāditvāt. [43a]

[…]. yasya tu […] na ca śakyaṃ jātimad vyāptum, na ca […]. yad apy uktaṃ pratyayavṛttir eva nāsti, tad apy ayuktam.

sāmānyena nirākṛteḥ. [43b]

na hi so ’nyāṃ jātiṃ pratidravyam apohate, kiṃ tarhi vyavacchedyavivakṣayaikena sāmānyadharmeṇa. uktaṃ cātra vijātīye ’darśanamātreṇānumānam. tavaiva tv eṣa doṣaḥ. yadi svajātīyavyāptyā <varteta, vyāpyasyānantyaṃ syāt>. tasmād yathā <viṣāṇitvād anaśva ity vacane ’śve viṣāṇitvādarśanena tadvyavacchedānumānam>, na tu <karkādīn> pratyekam apohate, <nāpy ekaikeṣu gavādiṣu vartate. tavāpi vyāvṛttyanuvṛttibuddhimatam>. tathā <cā>tra nyāyaḥ.

Kataoka

tavaiva tv eṣa doṣaḥ. yadi svajātīyavyāptyā <varteta, vyāpyasyānantyaṃ syāt>. tasmād yathā <viṣāṇitvād anaśva ity vacane ’śve viṣāṇitvādarśanena tad- vyavacchedānumānam>, na tu <karkādīn> pratyekam apohate, <nāpy ekaikeṣu gavādiṣu vartate. tavāpi vyāvṛttyanuvṛttibuddhimatam>. tathā <cā>tra nyāyaḥ.

NB: yathā connected with tathā: like it works in the case of inference, so here. Thus, yathā only introduces a diverging example, namely one about inference. atra means “like in the case of inference, so in our case (of apoha)”.

Yoshimizu

tavaiva [Mādhava] tv eṣa doṣaḥ. yadi svajātīyavyāptyā <varteta, vyāpyasyā- nantyaṃ syāt>. tasmād yathā <viṣāṇitvād anaśva ity vacane ’śve viṣāṇitvā- darśanena tadvyavacchedānumānam>, na tu <karkādīn> pratyekam apohate, <nāpy ekaikeṣu gavādiṣu vartate. tavāpi vyāvṛttyanuvṛttibuddhimatam>.

tathā <cā>tra nyāyaḥ.

NB: yathā connected with what precedes, since it is part of a larger quotation of Dignāga’s previous text. tathā out of the quote and disconnected.

The quote is found in Muni Jambuvijaya’s edition of the Jain Dvādaśāra Nayacakra:

yathāha dvādaśaśatikāyām: yad apy uktam aprasaktasya kimartham pratiṣedhaḥ iti naivaitat pratiṣedhamātram ucyate, kintu tasya vastunaḥ kaścid bhāgo ‘rthāntaranivṛttyā loke gamyate yathā viṣaṇitvād anaśva iti.

atra would thus mean, according to Yoshimizu, “here, in this treatise [like in the Dvādaśaśatikā, whence the quote come from]”. This would also explain why in the PS Dignāga did not need to dwell at length on componential analysis, because he could rely on what he had said already in the Dvādaśaśatikā.

What do you think? The yathā-tathā sequence seems appealing, all the more because a tasmāt separates the previous sentence from yathā, unlike in the reused text, but the reused text seems to point to a stricter relation between the yathā-clause and what precedes it.

These are only my reconstructions of Pind’s, Yoshimizu’s and Kataoka’s thought as represented in, respectively, Pind’s PhD thesis, Yoshimizu’s paper discussed here and Kataoka’s papers presented at the last IABS and IDhK conferences. All mistakes are mine. For the first part of my reconstruction, see here.