________________
Notes.
T1.5. lius74-A question arises: Was the Nyāyapraves'a called 'par' P. 1 Title because Haribhadra's work was a 'f' i.e. a commentary on 78' and II 1.3 or was it already known as 'z' and consequently Haribhadra
calls his own work''? The latter would seem to be more probable, because Haribhadra speaks of the passages of the text of the Nyāyapraves'a as 'Fla' on which he is writing his commentary. The problem of the original title of the work seems upaffected by this fact. For the exact title of the work see Principal V. S. Bhattacharya's Introduction to Nyāyapraves's Part II p. xi (G. 0. S.), Prof. Tucci's article in J. R. A. S. January 1928, p 7, and my own observations thereon contained in the Introduction of this book. Pañjikā speaks of
ur altas a' gle' and aleo as a ' ' (cf. " U gausia aan dià faj gre XTA 1891 derat " and "ailera pa
Hola STEHT F1474:"-Panjikā p. 38 a.). 11 1-2 2198 cgui 294, etc. Demonstration and Refutation together with
their Fallacies are useful in arguing with others; Perception and Inference together with their Fallacies are useful for one's own illumination. The rest of this book is an exposition of this
fundamental text. 1. 3. xlà Question:-Is it the author's own short statement of the giarening: Science of Logic, or is it an older text wbich he is going to
inake the basis of his work ? While a summary at the end of a chapter by the author himself is not unknown (see e. g. Fallast of Jayanta ), such a thing at the beginning would be surprizing. The author of the Yrtti, and following him that of the Pañjikā, discuss the question why this couplet is placed at the beginning of the work, thereby apparently implying that the couplet is unquestionably the author's own. Such an implication, however, does not seem to have been intended. For, all that the commentators discuss is why should the S'loka
