Sāṃkhya, in its commentary Yuktidīpikā, responds to the Buddhist claim that a means of valid cognition (pramāṇa) and a valid cognition (pramā), its result (phala), are identical. The response of Sāṃkhya was pioneering: it is one of the two earliest responses to the Buddhists in the lively polemic on the relationship between a pramāṇa and its result. (The other of these two earliest responses is in the Ślokavārttika by Kumārila Bhaṭṭa.) Sāṃkhya’s voice in this polemic is earlier than that of Nyāya, which is, as well as Mīmāṃsā, the main rival of the Buddhists in addressing this issue. This study provides a translation and detailed reconstruction of the Yuktidīpikā’s polemic with the Buddhist opponent, which has not been researched before, as well as a critical assessment of the Sāṃkhya position. The Yuktidīpikā polemicizes against Dignāga. It aptly questions the standpoint of the Buddhist opponent and presents an alternative standpoint, contrasting its own view with that of the opponent. Though the Sāṃkhya position formulated in the Yuktidīpikā evokes several critical remarks, the Yuktidīpikā’s response is an important contribution to Indian thought.

Sāṃkhya 在其注释Yuktidīpikā中回应了佛教的说法，即有效认知的方式 ( pramāṇa ) 和有效认知 ( pramā ) 及其结果 ( phala ) 是相同的。Sāṃkhya 的回应是开创性的：它是在关于pramana及其结果之间的关系的热烈辩论中对佛教徒最早的两个回应之一。（这两个最早的回应中的另一个是Kumārila Bhaṭṭa 在 Ślokavārttika 中提出的。）Sāṃkhya 在这场争论中的声音早于 Nyāya 和 Mīmāṃsā，后者是佛教徒在解决这个问题上的主要竞争对手。这项研究提供了Yuktidīpikā的翻译和详细重建与佛教对手的论战，以前没有研究过，以及对 Sāṃkhya 立场的批判性评估。Yuktidīpikā论战反对 Dignanaga 。它恰当地质疑佛教对手的立场，并提出另一种立场，将自己的观点与对手的观点进行对比。尽管在Yuktidīpikā中阐述的 Sāṃkhya 立场引起了一些批评，但Yuktidīpikā的回应是对印度思想的重要贡献。