________________
(2) The OHAS, fourteen in aumberaus enumerated in the
Nyāyādvara and the Pramāṇabapuccaya, are not found in
the Nyāyapraves's. (3) The terminology of the Nyāyapraves'a is more lucid than that
of Dinnāga's works. (4) Dharmakirti, the author of the Nyāyabindu and known as a
Vārtikakāra of Dinnāga, uses the term iaalase instead of
धर्मविशेषविपरीतसाधन of Nyayapraves'a.
From these data Mr. Tubianski concludes that the Nyāyapraves'a is not a work of Dilināga.
Reviewing these arguments, Dr. Keith thinks that none of them is conclusive, the discrepancies between the Nyāyadpāra and the Nyāyapraves'a being such as can be satisfactorily accounted for on the hypothesis that the Nyāyapraves'a was later than the Nyāyadvāra. Though both of them were works of the same author. Thus, in the Nyāyapraves'a Diināga, As a result of further cogitation, has discovered more types of eat than he bad done before ; and, if he has dropped the fourteen nias in the Nyāyapraves'a, it is because he has seen no valid ground for continuing the Brahmanicai tradition of 'stlas' (the equivalent of ago129 in Bräbmana Logic ) wbich be had followed in his earlier works; that the Nyāyapraves'a is written in a more lucid style than the Nyāyadvära only proves that it is a later, and therefore more polished, work than the Nyāyadvāra. Mr. Keith, however, while tbus disposing of Mr. Tubianski's argument against Dinnāga's authorship of the Nyāyapraves'a, differs from Pandit Vidhushekhara in 80 far as the latter regards the Nyāyadvāra to be the same as Ngāgapraves'a according to & Tibetan tradition. “There is no real doubt, * says Mr. Keith, "that the Nyāyadvāra (not to be identified with the Nyāyapraves'a) was used in the Pramāṇasam uccaya, and the definition (of 76] wag taken thence.” At the same time he suggests that the word 'Bil of * 1914ginię' in '98677741EU:4:' in the Pramāṇasad uccaya-Vrtti of Dionāga and elsewhere may well include 1991, and thus not exclude the possibility of the Nyāyapraves'a being one of the works composed by Dinnāgs. This position of Mr. Keith, however, destroys the value of Pandit Vidbushekhara Bhattacharya's ground No. 1.
Dealing with the other grounds of Pandit Vidhushekbara, which consist of certain supposed references to the Nyāyapraves's in Kamärila's
