________________ xxiv INTRODUCTION tyaksha in the form of svalakshana cannot be acceptable to the Yogachara. According to the position of the Yogachara pratyaksha is only kaalpnapodha. This shows that Durveka also supports the view that the Nyaya-bindu is written from the standpoint of the Sautrantika school only. It will be thus seen that the commentators are divided into two schools. One school holds that the work represents a synthesis between the viewpoints of the Sautrantika and the Yogachara schools. The other holds that it is composed purely from the standpoint of the Sautrantika. 6. Commentaries on the Nyaya-bindu The Nyaya-bindu, as has already been mentioned, is a brief exposition of Buddhist Logic. To explain it a good number of commentaries were composed. Unfortunately only the commentaries by Dharmottara and his followers are available in Sanskrit. Other commentaries are not available in original Sanskrit but are available in the form of Tibetan renderings. We propose to present a brief account of these commentaries. 1. The commentary by Vinitadeva The original Sanskrit form of the Nyaya-bindu-tika by Vinitadeva has been lost but its Tibetan translation is extant and has been published in the Bibliotheca Indica, Calcutta in 1913 Dharmottara has criticised at many places the views of Vinitadeva.2 It shows that Vinitadeva flourished before Dharmottara. Rahulji has placed Vinitadeva after Dharmottara in his Appendix to the Vada-nyaya, which is hardly tenable. The utmost that we can concede is that Vinitadeva was an elder contemporary of Dharmottara, and is therefore criticised by the latter. Vinitadeva has commented upon all the works of Dharmakirti excepting Pramanavartika and Pramana-vinischaya. All these commentaries are extant in Tibetan. 1 Dharmottara-pradipa, pp. 42-4. 2 Ibid; pp. 5, 31, 34; Tatparya, pp. 15, 16, 25.
