________________
xi
S'lokavārtika and Parthasārathimis'ra's commentary thereon, Keith says that the references" are not conclusive evidence in the absence of any definite mention of that text [ Nyāyapraves'a ) and of any proof that the doctrines cited are not found in other parts of the writings of Dignāga.' This is just that weak link in the chain of Pandit Vidhushekhara's argument No. 2 which I have pointed out above (see p. ix). Mr. Keith concludes this part of his article with the characteristic remark "It appears to me, therefore, that from the evidence adduced by Mr. Vidhushekhara Bhattacharya and Mr. Tubianski alike no certain conclusion can be drawn." The external evidence which Mr. Tubionski has adduced to support his denial of Dirnāga's authorship of the Nyāyapraves's is that the Chinese who know of both the Nyäyudvara and the Nyāyapraves'a and who have made the Nyāyapraves'a the basis of their logical studies bad evidently larger materials for ascription than the Tibetans, and they have ascribed the latter to S'ankaraspāmin and not to Diónāga, although they know of both.
With all the arguments of Pt. Vidhushekhara, with the exception of No. 1., thus removed from the field, and those of Mr. Tubiangki shown to be inconclusive, the whole controversy reduces itself to a conflict between two traditions—the Tibetan and the Chinese. As against, Tubianski's plea of the greater reliability of the Chinese tradition in view of the Nyāyapraves'a being a work of special study in China, Mr. Keith observes that, as pointed out by Pt. Vidhusbekbara Bhattacharya, one of the two Tibetan versions (T2) was based on the Chinese version and this fact reduces mate. rially the strength of the arguement from the Chinese tradition. As Pt. Vidhushekhara cautiously observes "at least at the time of the ti ('T' from Chinese into Tibetan) S'ankaragvāmin as the author of the work was unknown not only in Tibet but also in China". The strength of the Chinese tradition in favour of S'ankarasvāmin's authorship is still further reduced if we accept Pt. Vidhusbekhara's argument that No. 4 of Itsiogis list of Dinnaga's works is to be identified with the Nyāsapraves's. Tubianski thinks that Itsing's list of Dinnāga's works contains nothing that can be identified with the Nyāyapraves'a. "But”, observes Mr. Keith, "that is hardly the case. No 4 of Itsing's list (The S'astra on the Gate of the Cause' appears to be the Hatudväras'astra or Hetudvāra "and he refuses to accept Tubianski's objection that "it cannot aswer to Nyayapraves'a, as the last docg pot treat exclusively of hetu." On the contrary, he sees " decidedly more
