The Bhikṣuṇī Maṇimēkhalai

24 - Introduction
pramāṇas of the Naiyāyikas, retains the first two, and rejects the
other two, after examination, positively.
Similarly in the discussion of the Avayavas, the Maṇimēkhalai seems
to mark a transition. It mentions the five Avayavas accepts the three,
and does not consider the other two as they are capable of inclusion in
the third. There is nothing like the rejection of these as invalid as in
the case of Dignāga. Then there is a third point. Dignāga solemnly
lays himself out to consider the Svārtha and Parārtha form of
syllogism, that is, syllogistic ratiocination with a view to convincing
oneself, and with a view to convincing others. After a serious
discussion, he comes to the conclusion that the latter being included in
the former, it is superfluous to treat of it separately. To the
Maṇimēkhalai, it does not seem necessary to discuss the latter at all.
In regard to the Pakṣa-ābhasas discussed, the Nyāyapravēśa is
supposed to make a new classification and describes nine which are
found described almost in the same terms in the Maṇimēkhalai itself.
Here comes in a discussion which may seem alien to the course of this
argument, but which, as will be noticed, has an important and vital
bearing on the question itself. Who is the author of the Nyāyapravēśa?
The text of the Nyāyapravēśa not having been available, there were
two clearly divided schools of thought, one of them regarding the
Nyāyapravēśa, both in the Tibetan and Chinese version as well as the
now available Sanskrit version, is the work of Dignāga; another
school, basing itself chiefly on an examination of the Chinese
originals, regards it as the work of Dignāga’s immediate disciple
Śaṁkarasvāmin. Without going into the arguments [xxvi] which will
be found elsewhere, we may state here that although Buddhist
tradition had known of Śaṁkarasvāmin as the disciple of Dignāga, no