The Bhikṣuṇī Maṇimēkhalai

150 - The Authorship of the Nyāyapravēśa
logical and even eristical import can be safely represented by the
ordinary hētvābhāsas, treated under the topic of sādhanābhāsa, was
clearly shown by the disposition of Nyāyapravēśa, as well as by
Dharmakīrti in his Nyāyabindu. If we add the extreme lucidity of the
terminology and of the whole manner of exposition which
characterizes Nyāyapravēśa in contradistinction to Nyāyadvāra, their
belonging to different authors will be beyond doubt.’
The following are the external evidence:–
1. Chinese information must be reliable as the Nyāyapravēśa has
remained their basal text for logical studies.
2. Among the list of works of Dignāga in I’Tsing [Yi Jing], none of the
names could be regarded as corresponding to the name Nyāyapravēśa
according to Tubianski.
3. The Tibetans apparently made an error in equating the
Nyāyapravēśa and Nyāyadvāra as the Tibetans did not possess a
translation of the Nyāyadvāra.
4. The Tibetans seem almost aware of their error when they say in one
of their catalogues that the Nyāyapravēśa should not be confounded
with the Nyāyadvāra.