However, Helmut Krasser (Bhavya and Dharmakīrti Relationship, forthcoming), thinks (out of stronger evidences too) that it is more likely to imagine that the Tarkajvālā has been written by (a) student(s) of Bhāviveka, taking notes during his teacher's explanations. Hence, ācārya would refer to his own teacher, against some evidences summed up in a previous post on this argument. Krasser further suggests that it would be worthwhile to examine whether even the Abhidharmakoṣabhāṣya has been “written down by Vasubandhu himself or explained to some students. Such a study certainly should include passages such as samāpta ānuṣaṅgikaprasaṅgaḥ”.
Last but not least, Krasser refers that “another example where the 'author' in the commentary refers to himself as ācārya is, as mentioned in Seyfort Ruegg ([On the authorship of some works ascribed to Bhāvaviveka/Bhavya in D.S.Ruegg and L. Schmithausen (eds.) Earliest Buddhism and Madhyamaka, Leiden] 1990:64 and n. 20) found in Haribhadrasūri's Anekāntajayapatāka”. The discussion should/might be enlarged in order to consider the numerous instances of autocommentaries where the author of the text is referred to as if it where someone else (see, e.g. Utpaladeva's Īśvarapratyabhijñākārikāvṛtti).
