The Bhikṣuṇī Maṇimēkhalai

148 - The Authorship of the Nyāyapravēśa
Both Murakami and Sugiura, on an examination of the Chinese texts,
but without any knowledge of Tibetan sources, came to the
conclusion that the two Chinese works, Nyāyapravēśa and
Nyāyadvāra were different. S. C. Vidyabhushan working from the
Tibetan side alone and relying chiefly upon an examination of one of
the two works, Nyāyadvāra, reduced these to three, the two Tibetan
works being regarded by him as one. [109] Mironov was able since to
compare the Tibetan Nyāyadvāra with the Sanskrit Nyāyapravēśa and
found the two to be the same work, the Tibetan apparently being a
translation from the Sanskrit. Mironov also considered the
Nyāyapravēśa as also identical with the two works relying on the
remark of Haribhadra, the Jain commentator. According to
Tubianski, Haribhadra’s comment cannot bear the inference drawn
from it that the Nyāyapravēśa was a work of Dignāga.
H. Ui in his Vaiśēṣika philosophy (1917) was in a position to compare
the two Chinese texts, Nyāyapravēśa and Nyāyadvāra, and the
Tibetan work Nyāyadvāra. His conclusion was that the Tibetan
Nyāyadvāra or Nyāyapravēśadvāra was quite different from the
Chinese Nyāyadvāra, but is the same as the Chinese Nyāyapravēśa.
This reduces the position of there being only two works, the Tibetan
Nyāyapravēśadvāra being a translation of the Chinese Nyāyapravēś,
the two constitute but one work, and the Chinese Nyāyadvāra stands
distinct.
S. C. Vidyabhushan in his latest work on the History of Indian Logic
was able to prove that the Tibetan Nyāyapravēśa was identical with
the Tibetan Nyāyadvāra. So the two Tibetan versions come to be
versions of the same work and get to be the equivalent of the Chinese
work Nyāyapravēśa, the Chinese Nyāyadvāra standing distinct. The