________________
Preface
are in Tohoku University, Sendai (Japan). All the reprinted works of the Peking edition, having been recently published from Tokyo (Japan), have become available in one hundred and fifty volumes. All the relevant informations about the contents and their authors taken from the Derge edition were published many years ago in the form of a big catalogue edited by Yensho Kanakura, of Tohoku University, Japan.
Vidhushekhar Bhattacharya published this translation on the basis of the Narthang edition in the Roman script. Our old Japanese friend Prof. Fujinaga Sin (c/o Miyakonojo Kosen, Miyakonojo, Miyarzaki, Postal Code 885-8567, Japan) has sent to us this translation (according to the Narthang and the Peking edition) in Tibetan script.
These Buddhist works were translated by Indian and Tibetan scholars in Bhota language so that the Tibetans might understand them. Sometimes these translations were literal, and sometimes on the basis of sense only. If the translator has no good knowledge, he might have even made some mistakes. Sometimes mistakes in the original manuscript also resulted in mistakes in the translation. However, many people feel that the Bhota translations of the Buddhist works were normally done very carefully.
From the two verses quoted by Sri Haribhadrasūri in the beginning of the commentary (p.13), it is apparent that many commentaries had been written on the Nyāyapraveśakaśāstra. In this work (p. 2, line 4) a sentence reads as pratyakṣādyaviruddha iti vākyaseșah. This sūtra is not from Nyāyapraveśakaśāstra, because the translation of this sentence is not available in the two Bhota and a Chinese language translations of this text. Again in the Nyāyapraveśakavrttipañjikā (p.70, lines 1-6) it is clearly stated that this sentence belongs to some other vārtikā.
While preparing this work two textual traditions of the commentary, written by Sri Haribhadrasuri, has been alluded on p.14, line 20. One of the textual traditions has been placed along with the text and the second one has been mentioned as foot-note.
Of Pañjikā also two textual traditions are available, (see p. 56, line 18) but there is no big difference between them. However, whenever there is any significant difference that has been shown in the foot-note.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
