The Bhikṣuṇī Maṇimēkhalai

149 - The Authorship of the Nyāyapravēśa
question to decide therefore is who is the author of the Nyāyapravēśa,
and who of the Nyāyadvāra. The latter is correctly attributed,
according to Tubianski, to Dignāga, as this figures among the works
of Dignāga according to I’Tsing [Yi Jing] under the slightly different
names Hētu-Vidya-Nyāya-dvāra Śāstra abbreviated into Nyāyadvāra.
In this form it is also mentioned by Dignāga himself in his Pramāṇa
. Further the Chinese Nyāyadvāra contains ślokas
quoted by Vācaspati Miśra as from Dignāga, although they have been
found to be in the Pramāṇasamucchaya of Dignāga. The Nyāyadvāra
therefore becomes a work of Dignāga. Did he write the Nyāyapravēśa
also? Here it would be much better to quote Tubianski textually:–
‘But if it is true that Nyāyadvāra was written by Dignāga, it is
impossible that Nyāyapravēśa should be also written by him. For this
we have inner and outer grounds. The inner ground is, that both
works are not only different, but so different that they [110] could not
be produced by the same author. Sugiura pointed out already that in
Nyāyapravēśa there are added some types of fallacies of the thesis
which are not mentioned in Nyāyadvāra and that the fourteen types
of fallacies of refutation (dūṣaṇābhāsa) of Nyāyadvāra are omitted in
Nyāyapravēśa. But the absence of these fourteen dūṣaṇābhāsas
signifies a radical reform of the whole logical doctrine inside
Dignāga’s school, of course. These dūṣaṇābhāsas fill almost half of
the whole text of Nyāyadvāra, and represent a hardly justifiable
remainder of the ancient brahmanical Nyāya. Dignāga himself
ascribes their origin to Akṣapāda and though the question is not as yet
cleared historically, it seems that they correspond indeed to the
twenty-four varieties of jāti, expounded in the first chapter of the
fifth book of the Nyāyasūtras. They were reduced probably by
Dignāga to fourteen, and incorporated not only into his Nyāyadvāra,
but even in the Pramāṇasamucchaya, which must have been written
considerably later. That they are useless as such and that all their