________________ iv INTRODUCTION can be inferred from these facts that A and B have been copied from different original MSS. MS. D is closer to B than A, whereas C resembles A more than B. There are certain variants in C that are not found in any MS. The same is the case with D. It is therefore permissible to conjecture that though D has a close similarity with B, it was not merely copied from it. Similar is the case of the relationship between C and A. I have prepared the present edition on the basis of the above-mentioned material. I have incorporated those readings in the text of Nyaya-bindu-tika, which are accepted by the Dharmottara-pradipa; other variants have been noted down in the foot-notes. I have adopted this method in view of the fact that. the main aim of present work is to edit the Dharmottara-pradipa. Where I could not find a pratika in the Dharmottara-pradipa, I have selected the most appropriate reading from various MSS. for the text, and the rest have been noted in the foot-notes. The readings that are not recorded in the MSS., but are available only in the printed editions, have been noted in the foot-notes and have not been included in the text. ' There is only one MS. of the Dharmottara-pradipa available to us; hence it has been adopted as it stands. To indicate corrections and additions I have used round brackets () and square brackets [] respectively. For example, in the case of the first leaf of the Dharmottara-pradipa which is mutilated, all my addition's to the text have been included in square brackets" [ ]'. Similarly, the words that are omitted or too faint to be deciphered have been added by me and enclosed in the same type of brackets [ ]. With regard to corrections, I have indicated them in round brackets (. For example, at eta has been replaced by (atsiya) 2. The portion that could not be read has been indicated with the mark............ . Since there is only one MS. of the Dharmottara-pradipa I have indicated its leaf-numbers by 1b, 2a etc. 1 p. 1-2. . p. 3.
