________________
INTRODUCTION.
I The Author of the Nyāya-pravesia.
When nearly ten years ago my lamented friend and pupil, Mr. C. D. Dalal, asked me to undertake some publication for the G. 0. S., and on my consenting to do so wanted me to choose beween Tattvasañgraha and
Dinnāga's Nyāyapraves'a,' my choice fell upon the latter. A Tibetan version of the work bad been noticed by Dr. Satischandra Vidyābhūsana in his ‘History of Medieval Indian Logic,' but its Sankrit original, he thought, "was lost", and therefore the discovery of the Sanskrit Mss was expected to be hailed as a valuable find. Moreover, Diināga, to whom the work was attributed, was one of the greatest figures in the bistory of Buddhist philosophy, and consequently in editing his work, I imagined I would be bringing to light the next great milestone in the history of Buddhist logic
the history of Buddhist logic in the journey backwards from Dharmakarti, to whose work I was introduced in 1890 ip Dr. Peterson's room in the Elphinstone College, Bombay, when that scholar was engaged in editing Dharmakarti's Nyāyabindu with Dharmottara's
Tikā. Furthermore, I had a lurking hope that the Tibetan version might turn out to be & mere summary, in which case this new find might very well prove to be 'a peak of Darien' revealing a vast stretch of some new land of philosophical thought.
On looking into the Mas I was not a little disappointed. The Sanskrit text was found to be the exact original of the Tibetan version which had been translated into English by Dr. Vidyābhūşaņa; and so far although a valuable find, it made no addition to our knowledge of Buddhist logic. Moreover, to my great surprise I saw that in the Mas the name of Dinnāgs was nowhere given as the author of the Nyāyapraves'a ! A gleam of hope that I might still be able to show that the work was Dinnāga's burst upon me when I read the word ' FFHET' in the concluding verse. But my faith in the surmise that this might be suggestive of Dirnāga's authorthip was very much shaken when I found that the Sanskrit commentator of the work - although usually Sanskrit commentators are very keen-sighted and speculative in this respect--AW do such suggestion even though he bad referred, just a line before, to Pramānaaamuccaya which is a