________________
wellknown work of Dinnāga's. I had, therefore, to turn for evidence to those famous works of Indian Logic which contain direct or indirect references to Dinnāga, viz., the Nyāyabindu and its Tika, the Nyāyavārtika and its Tîkā, and the S'lokavārtika and its Tikā. In the years which have elapsed since then, the results of my investigation have been largely anticipated by scholars who have worked upon these and other materials with the help of the Tibetan version. This was only natural. The Mas which could have been easily put into print in less than two years had been lying with me for ten, and although this was mainly due to causes beyond my control it was impossible to expect that the tide of research should wait for the personal convenience of any man. Today, therefore, my task consists merely of holding the scales even between two contending parties and exercising the privilege of a judge in criticising the evidence of both.
On the question-Who is the author of the Nyāyapraves'a?-scholars are ranged in two groups, which may be termed the Tibetan school and the Chinese school in accordance with the source of the evidence on which they rely. Dr. Satischandra Vidyābhūşaņa, Pandit Vidhushekbara Bhattacharya and Dr, Keith (the last somewhat cautiously) belong to the former ; Prof. Ui, Sugiura, Tucci, Tubianski and Mironov to the latter. The first group depending upon Tibetan evidence regard the Nyayapraves'a as a work Diināga's, while the second on the strength of Chinese evidence attribute it to Sankarasvāmin, a disciple of Diánāga.
Some years ago, as a result of his study of the Tibetan Moe Dr. Satischandra Vidyābhuşaņa mentioned the Nyayapraves'a as a work on Logic by Diināgs, and the Sanskrit text which is now being published was found to agree 60 completely with the Tibetan version as translated into English by Dr. Vidyabhūsaņa that Mr. Dalal, who had acquired the Mas of the Sanskrit text for the Baroda State, was also led to believe that the work was Diināga's. This prima facio view has been subBequently supported with considerable external and internal evidence by Pandit Vidhushekhara Bhattacharya in the Introduction to his Tibetan edition of the work recently published as “ Nyāyapraves'a Part II ” in the G. 0. S. His evidence is as follows: