Vadavidhi And Vadavidhana Of Vasubandhu

Author(s): H R Rangaswamy Iyengar
Publisher: H R Rangaswamy Iyengar
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269388/1

Page #1

THE VĀDAVIDHI AND THE VĀDAVIDHĀNA
OF VASUBANDHU
By H. R. R. IYENGAR (Oriental Research Institute, Mysore)
..
UDYOTAKARA mentions in his Vārtika titles of three works without the author's name: a "Vādavidhi,” while examining the definitions of Pratijñā,' a " Vādavidhāna” in connection with the refutation of the definition of Vāda,' and a “ Vādavidhānatīkā,” while discussing the definitions of Pakşa. Dr. Satischandra Vidyābhūshana assumed “Vādavidhāna" to be a different title of “ Vādavidhi" and ascribed it to Dharmakirti, taking it to be identical with the “ Vādanyāya." He, further, assumed " Vādavidhānatīkā" to be identical with the “ Vādanyāyatīka" of Vinītadēva". In my article “Vādavidhi", contributed to JBORS", I contradicted his view and set forth evidences to support my view that " Vādavidhi " was a work of Ācārya Vasubandhu, quite different from the “Vādanyāya " of Dharmakirti. Prof. H. Jacobi, to whom I had sent an offprint of my article, wrote to me that he "perfectly agreed with me that Udyotakara was much earlier than Dharmakirti."
*NV. p. 117, on NSI. i. 33. 'NV. p. 154-55 on N6I. ii. 1. *NV. p. 117 on NSI. i. 33.
* HIL: p. 320; JRAS 1914. p. 601-606. Introduction to the Bilingiual Index to the Nyāyabindu, pp. ix-x.
\" Vādavidhi"-JBORS Dec. 1926. pp. 587-591.

Page #2

10
ADYAR LIBRARY BULLETIN
But Dr. Keith, who also read my article, wrote to me as follows: "I have now had time to investigate the question and there are certain difficulties in your view which have occurred to me, though, in itself, it is attractive. I think that it is satisfactory that the matter should be re-examined, though I have been unable to arrive at decisive results.” He wrote an article, under the caption, "Vasubandhu and the Vādavidhi" to Ing! Therein he examined the question in detail and arrived at the conclusion that "evidences were inadequate to overthrow the view of Vidyābhūshana, though, unquestionably on chronological grounds, there is reason to doubt the use by Udyotakara of Vinītadēva. But, if the matter has to be established in any other sense new evidence must be adduced." Prof. G. Tucci contributed an article under the title, “Väda. vidhi,” to IHg and defended my view by adducing further evidences from the Chinese sources. I, too, wrote an article, “ Vasubandhu and the Vādavidhi,” as a rejoinder to Dr. Keith and explained why "Vādavidhi" should be regarded as a work of Vasubandhu, and " Vādavidhānatīkā" could not be considered as identical with " Vādanyāyatīkā” of Vinītadēva. This conclusion has, no doubt, been drawn on the strength of the evidences available from the Tibetan sources, particularly the statements of Dinnāga. It is quite strange that Udyotakara, who has cited several fragments of the “ Vādavidhi” should refer to the work only once. It is still more so that Vācaspati, in his tīkā, should ascribe only the definition of Pratyakşa to Vasubandhu and remark in the case of other fragments either 'Pareşām lakṣṇam' or 'lakṣaṇātaram', without referring either to the text or its author. He does not, further, make any comment either on the definition of Pratijñā ascribed by
Vasubandhu and the Vadavidhi--IHQ Vol. IV. 221. ' Ibid., V. 81-86. 8 Ibid. p. 82,

Page #3

VĀDAVIDHI AND VĀDAVIDHĀNA OF VASUBANDHU 11
Udyotakara to “ Vadāvidhi," on the" Vādavidhāna," or on the " Vādavidhānatīkā” mentioned by Udyotakara. Thus the evidences from the Sanskrit sources are apparently not sufficient to ascribe " Vādavidhi" to Vasubandhu.
But, fortunately, new works, Buddhist and Jaina, which have been discovered and published, throw considerable light on the problem. They contain statements which prove beyond doubt Vasubandhu's authorship of the Vădavidhi and suggest the possibility of regarding “Vādavidhāna" as a different work by Vasubandhu. This article is written to bring together these statements and explain how they help to solve the problem.
Udyotakara examines the definition of Pratijñā of the " Vādavidhi” and rejects it as being defective. His comments run as follows:-qara grafaat Angaura alaala afaşiseutमुक्तम् । तदुभयथादोषान्न युक्तम् । कथमिति । यदि तावत् पूर्वप्रकृतमपेक्ष्यमाणेनेदमुच्यते साध्याभिधानं प्रतिज्ञेति तदा साध्यग्रहणानर्थक्यम् । प्रकृतः पक्षः तच्छब्देनाभिसम्भन्त्स्यत इति तदभिधानं प्रतिज्ञेति वक्तव्यम् । अथ पक्षानपेक्षं स्वतन्त्रमेतल्लक्षणं तथापि यो नैयायिकप्रतिज्ञायां दोष उक्तः स इह प्रसक्तः । (No doubt, Pratijñā is defined in the “Vādavidhi ” as "mention of the 'Sādhya."" But it is open to objection in whatever way it is interpreted. How? If this is said in reference to Pakṣa which has been previously spoken of, then the word, 'Sādhya' becomes superfluous, as the 'pakşa' could be referred to simply by the word 'tat.' The definition would then be agfara afagit. If, on the other hand, the definition has no reference to the 'pakşa,' then all the defects pointed out by you in the Nyāya definition could equally be attributed to your definition).
It is interesting to compare this with what Dinnāga has said. in respect to the same definition. In the beginning of

Page #4

ADYAR LIBRARY BULLETIN the third chapter of the "Pramāṇasamiuccaya,"l Dinnāga first criticises the definition 'pratijñā' of the Nyāya Sūtra, Alsafacer: afatal as being defective, since by Sādhya, only Siddha is excluded, the statements of Hetu and Drstānta which are not fage will have to be regarded as pratijñà. In the next Kārikā” he attributes the same defect to the definition साध्याभिधानं प्रतिज्ञा as एवं साध्याभिधानेऽपि । His comment,
IPS III 3:-bsgrub bya bstan pa zhes bya hdir grub pa med ladon byas did de Itar na yan dpe dan rtags ma grub byod pa thal bar hgyur.
साध्यनिर्देश इत्यत्र सिद्ध एव निवर्तते ।
एवं चेद्धेतुदृष्टान्तायसिद्धोक्ति: प्रसज्यते ॥ PSV-Rigs pa can rnaurs nare l bsgrub bya bstān pa zhes bya ba yiu no l bsgrub bya smros pal ni grub pa log pa tsan bstān pāḥi pbyir bsgrub byãi bye brag fid ni ma yur par gnas so I dper na sgra rtag stel reg par bya ba ma yur pahi phyir blo bzhin no zhes bya ba dan l de bzhin du miggi grhun bya yin pahi phyir mi rtag zhes bya ba hdi yan bsgrub bya bstān pahi phyir dan bcah bar thal bar bgyur rol
नैयायिका आहुः-साध्यनिर्देश: प्रतिज्ञेति। साध्यवचनेन सिद्धस्य निवृत्तिरेव प्रदर्शितेति असिद्धयोः हेतुदृष्टन्तयोः प्रसाः । यथा शब्दो नित्यः अस्पर्शत्वात् बुद्धिवत् । चक्षुषत्वादनित्य इति च । अत्रापि साध्यनिर्देशात् प्रतिज्ञा प्रसज्यते।
N.B:-These sentences are repeated by Udyotakara on p. 110. Cf: PVT (Pramāpavārtikațikā) p. 469
ननु साध्यनिर्देशः प्रतिक्षेति पक्षलक्षणं नैयायिकानाम् । तत्र को दोषः। also cf. PSV on III-4 and PVT p. 473.
PS. III 5: de bzhin bsgrub byed brjod pa hlan phyogs na lhag phyir nir srid do I rnaur par dpyod pahi hdod pa hdi mi hdod pa las log pa tsam II
असिद्धहेतुदृष्टान्तस्यापि पक्षत्वप्रसङ्गः। एवं साध्याभिधानेऽपि पक्षाधिक्यादसंभवः ।
विचारणायामिष्टोऽयमनिष्टस्य निवर्तकः ॥ de bzhin du rigs pa can rnams la skyon brjod pa de bzhin du rtsod pa bsgrub ba la yan lrtagl besgrub par bya ba dan 1 dpe Itar snan ba brjed par yan dam bcah par thal bar hgyur rol
rtsod pa sgrub par ni bsgrub par brjod pa tsam dam bcah bar hgyur pa ma yin gyil bona kyan phyogs kyi chos besgrut byahol phyogs de ci cig rnam par dpyed pähi hdod pahi don tel de phyogs yio pas bsgrub bya tsam de rtges ma grub pa la sogs par brjod pa yan dam bcah par hgyur ro zhes pahi skyon no med do zhe na I skyon ji Itar na med de I de la yan l de ni mi hdod pa ldig pa la I don byas pa yin na 1 ji Itār bsgrub byải khyad par go bar byed i glän tshigs

Page #5

VĀDAVIDHI AND VĀDAVIDHĀNA OF VASUBANDHU 13
in his Vritti, which is in Tibetan, may be rendered into, 'नैयायिकेषु यथा दोष उक्तः एवं वादविधावपि । हेतुदृष्टान्ताभासाभिधानमपि प्रतिज्ञा प्रसज्यते ।' Then the defect attributed to the Nyaya definition is equally attributable to the definition of the “Vādavidhi.” It cannot be avoided, says he, by assuming the definition to be पक्षधर्मसाध्याभिधानम् , for पक्ष is defined in the Vadavidhi, as विचारणायामिष्टोऽर्थ: or the thing that is desired in an enquiry, and the word, इष्ट which denotes only one thing, cannot both exclude the अनिष्ट and indicate the साध्यविशेष. Evidently then, both Dinnāga and Udyotakara'are citing the definition from the same work Vādavidhi. But, while Dinnāga ascribes the work to Vasubandhu, Udyotakara and Vācaspati remain silent.
The definition of Pratyakşa, 'aalseffeara 977277?, is a citation from the " Vadavidhi" according to Dinnaga'. Udyotakara quotes and criticises this in his Vārtika, as 'अपरे पुनर्वर्णयन्ति ततोऽर्थाद्विज्ञानं प्रत्यक्षमिति | तन्न'. He does not state, from what work it is cited as he has done in respect to the defiinition of Pratijñā. But Vācaspati in his tīkā' ascribes dan glån tshigs ma yin par rnam par dpyad par hdod par ñid ni mig gis gzhun bya xid bsgrub par bya ba la yan brjud par nus pa yin no.
__ यथा नैयायिकेषु दोष उक्त: एवं वादविधावपि । हेतुसाध्यदृष्टान्ताभासवचनस्यापि प्रतिज्ञास्वप्रसङ्गः । वादविधौ न केवलं साध्याभिधानं प्रतिज्ञा । अपि तु पक्षधर्मसाध्यस्य । कः पक्षः ? विचारणायामिष्टोऽर्थः । तत्र पक्षः साध्य एव । तेन हेतुदृष्टान्तयोरसिद्धयोरपि प्रमशः इति दोषस्तत्र नास्तीति चेत् । कथं साध्यविशेषस्य गमकः? हेत्वहेतुविचारणायामिष्टश्चत् चाक्षुषत्वसाध्यस्यापि वक्तुं शक्यते।
INV. p. 106. पक्षो विचारणायामिष्टोऽर्थ इति चाभिधीयते । अविचारणीयश्चार्थः पक्षेऽन्तर्भवतीति चित्रम् ।
NV. p. 115. एवं विचारणायामिष्टोऽर्थः पक्ष इत्यत्रापि इष्टग्रहणमनर्थकम् ।।
* PSVI. 15-rtsod pa bsgrub par ni don de las skyes ryam pa s'es pa mfion sum yin zhes lya ba. INV. p. 40.
• NVT. p. 99.

Page #6

14
ADYAR LIBRARY BULLETIN it to Vasubandhu "तदेवं प्रत्यक्षलक्षणं समर्थ्य वासुबन्ध तावत् प्रत्यक्षलक्षणं विकल्पयितुमुपन्यस्यति-अपरे पुनरिति । लक्षणं व्याचष्टे-ततोऽर्थादिति." The Jaina writer Mallavādin, author of the Nayacakrāra, too, regards it as the definition of Vasubandhu. “ fegrat ahबन्धोः स्वगुरोस्ततोऽर्थाद्विज्ञानं प्रत्यक्षमिति ब्रुवतो यदुत्तरमभिहितं परगुणमत्सराविष्टचेतसा तत्त्वपरीक्षायां०" 1 It may, thus, be concluded, by putting together the evidences from the Tibetan and the Sanskrit sources, that Vådavidhi is a work of Vasubandhu.
This conclusion is further confirmed by Arcata and Durvekamisra in their statements in respect to the definition of Inference. In his Vārtika”, Udyotakara cites and criticises the definition, "नान्तरीयकार्थदर्शनं तद्विदोनुमानं." Vacaspati' prefaces it by "स्वलक्षणं समाधाय परेषामनुमानलक्षणं दूषयितुमुपन्यfafa." It means that, having established his definition, Udyotakara proceeds to refute the definition of others that anumāna is the experience of a thing which is inseparably connected with another for one who knows the said concomitance. His later statements - in this context, "न हि किञ्चिदस्ति वस्तु यन्नान्तरीयकं सद्धेतुर्भवति । तदनेन दिङ्नागलक्षणं दूषयित्वा अन्येषां लक्षणं दूषितम् । संप्रति दिङ्नागस्य स्वकीयलक्षणप्रपञ्चाथै वाक्यं, “अनुमेयेऽथ तत्तुल्ये" इत्याद्युपन्यस्य दूषयति ।" attribute the definition to Dinnāga. But it is clear from the “Pramāṇasamuccaya” and its Vịtti that it is a citation from the Vadavidhis. The phrase, 'अनुमेयेऽथ तत्तुल्ये' to which he refers and which has been quoted in full by Udyotakara as
INCA p. 50. INV. p. 54. INVT. p. 126. . • NVT. p. 126-27.
.PSV. II. 27. rstod pa sgrub pa nas ni med na mi hbyun bahi don mthon ba de rig pa rjes su dpag paho zhes brjod do.
• NV. p. 55. The definition of hetu, "तादृगविनामाविधर्मोपदर्शनं हेत:." which is cited and criticised by Udyotakara immediately after it is also a frag. ment of the Vādavidhi. Cf. PSV. III. 36. ve zhig rtsed pa bsgrub par ni de Ita bahi med na mi hbyun bahi chos ñe bar bstän pa ni glān tshigs so zhes bya ba
वादविधौ तादृगविनाभाविधर्मोपदर्शन हेतुरिति ।

Page #7

VĀDAVIDHI AND VADAVIDHANA OF VASUBANDHU
15
अनुमेयेऽथ तत्तुल्ये सद्भावो नास्तिता सति' is a half Couplet in the Pramānasamuccaya' meant to explain the nature of the 'त्रैरूप्य ' of the ‘linga' or ' hetu' involved in Dinnāga's definition of the Inference for one's self as 'त्रिरूपालिङ्गतोऽर्थदृक् ' ' stated by him in the first Kärikā of the second chapter of his work. It is, therefore, by confusion that Vacaspati has attributed this definition to Diǹnāga.
Arcata, in his " Hetubindutīkā,” as commentary on the “ Hētubindu ” of Dharmakīrti, cites this definition of स्वार्थानुमान. ' It is unnecessary, he argues, to know the use of Paksa etc. to draw an inference. It is enough, if one knows the nature of the reason (गमकरूप ). He cites in support of his contention the view of an ācārya : " पक्षसपक्षादिसङ्केतापरिज्ञानेऽपि न किञ्चित् प्लूयते । अत एव आचार्यपादैः नान्तरीयकार्थदर्शनं तद्विदोऽनुमानमिति गमकरूपमात्रमेव पक्षादिसङ्केतानपेक्षमेव प्रतिपादितम् । स्वप्रज्ञापराधात्तु तत्रापि कैश्चिदसन्त एव दोषाः प्रकीर्त्यन्त इति किमत्र ब्रूमः । " In commenting on this passage Durvēkamis'ra in his "Aloka " on the “ Hētubindutīkā ” attributes this view to ācārya + Vasubandhu : (आचार्य पादैरित्याचार्य वसुबन्धुमभिसन्धाय उक्तम्) and states that it has been expounded by him in his "Vādavidhi:""; गमकरूपमात्रस्य स्वरूपं दर्शयति वादविधौ वादविधिसंज्ञके प्रकरणे. " He further feels sorry that great thinkers, like Udyotakara, revel in finding
4
८
PS. and PSV. II. 5: rjes dpag bya dan de mtshuñs la yod dan med la med la med ñid pão |
अनुमेयेऽथ तत्तुल्ये सद्भावो नास्तिता सति ।
PSV. tshal gsum pähi rtags zhes gan byod pa de brjod par bya ste त्रिरूपं लिङ्गमिति यदुक्तं तद्वाच्यम् ।
PS. II, 1. rjes su dpag ryam gfes rani doññi tshul gsum rtags las don mthuri pão
अनुमानं द्विधा स्वार्थे त्रिरूपा लिङ्गतोऽर्थदृक् ।
#HBT. p. 69 [Hetubindutika with the Aloka of Durvekamisra-Publish • ed by the Oriental Institute, Baroda.]
HBTA. p. 317-19;

Page #8

16
ADYAR LIBRARY BULLETIN
defects due to their own ignorance, in a definition which is free from defects and quotes verbatim the entire Vārtika of Udyotakara on this fragment of the “Vādavidhi.” No further proof is needed then to regard " Vādavidhi" as a work of Vasubandhu.
तत्रापि आचार्यांये लक्षणे । कैश्चित् उद्योतकरप्रभृतिभिः । कुत असन्त एव दोषास्तैः कीर्त्यन्त इत्याशङ्कायां योज्यं स्वप्रक्षेति । स्वप्रज्ञाया दोषो तस्मात् । तुरवधारयति । तथा हि उद्योतकरेण किलानुमानसूत्रवार्तिके, 'अपरे तु नान्तरीयकार्थदर्शनं तद्विदोऽनुमानम् ' इति पठित्वा तस्यार्थ मात्रया विवृत्यैव 'अत्रार्थग्रहणमतिरिच्यते' इति मात्रयैव दूषणमुक्त्वा पुनर्विपश्चितं नान्तरीयकार्थ इति । समस्तपदमेतत् । तत्र यदि षष्ठीसमास: . . . . . . अतस्तद्विद इत्यपि न वक्तव्यम् । (cf N. V. pp. 54-55).
The correct title of the work, from which Dinnāga and Udyotakara quote, is “Vādavidhi.” It has been so stated by Durvekamisra in his " Āloka ?." Manorathanandin, author of the " Pramāņavārtikatikā?,” too, regards “Vādavidhi” 'as a 'Prakarana.' The Tibetan title of the work " rtsod bsgrub pa" in the Pramāṇasamuccaya, should therefore be rendered into " Vadavidhi." It can no longer be identified either with the “ Vādavidhāna" or with the “ Vādanyāya.” If it were identical with the former is it not strange that Udyotakara should refer to the same work under different titles? The " Vadanyaya 8" of Dharmakīrti with which it has been identified by Vidyābhūşana has been published. It is concerned with the exposition of Nigrahasthānas and does not contain any of the definitions cited by Udyotakara. The definition of Pratijñā
1 HBTA. p.317.
' PVT. p. 207. वादविधिप्ररणे इन्द्रियज्ञानस्य प्रत्यक्षस्य गोचरे विचार्यमाणे मानसस्य विकल्पस्य इहावसरे कीदृशः प्रस्ताव: येन परंपरया तद्धेतुरिन्द्रियमुच्यते।।
• Vådanyāya with the Vipancitārtha of Santarakṣita-Ed. Rahula Sankrtyayana 1936.

Page #9

VADAVIDHI AND VADAVIDHANA OF VASUBANDHU
17
6
from which he deduced its identity with the "Vādavidhi" is rendered into Tibetan as 'dam bcah ba yan bsgrub bya bstan paiphyir.' It corresponds to 'pratijñā ca sãdhyānirdēsāt' and is quite different from the definition, Sādhyābhidhānam pratijñā,' which is rendered into Tibetan as 'bsgrub bya bvjod pa ni dam bcah.' The former definition is of the Nyāyasūtra. It has been distinguished from the definition of the "Vādavidhi" by using in the Tibetan rendering, 'bstanpa,' and 'brjod pa.' How can the " Vadanyāya," then, be identified with the "Vādavīdhi" cited by Udyotakara?
The "Vādavidhāna " to which Udyotakara refers and which he regards as a' sastra,' should, therefore, be regarded as a different work. It is not improbable that the definition of Vāda cited by Udyotakara1 and ascribed by Vacaspati to Vasubandhu is a fragment of the "Vādavidhāna." According to Chinese sources, we know that Vasubandhu wrote three works, "Lun Shih" or Vādavidhi, "Lun sin" or "Vadahṛdaya" and "Lun Kuei " or "Vādavidhana" and the writers Shen Tai and Kueichi have ascribed the "Vādavidhi" and the "Vādavidhāna" to Vasubandhu. This ascription to Vasubandhu has further been corroborated by the following statement of S'antarakṣita at the end of his tīkā on the "Vādanyāya "" of Dharmakīrti : ननु चायं वादन्यायमार्गः सकललोक निबन्धनबन्धुना वादविधानादाचार्यवसुबन्धुना महाराजपथीकृतः । कः पुनरसौ अतिसाहसिको यो महानागैः क्षुण्णं पन्थानं रोद्धुमीहते इत्याह । दुर्विदग्धः । सम्यक् विवेकरहिततथा जनोऽयं उद्योतकर प्रीति चन्द्रमा विविक्तप्रभृतिः । The Vada - vidhāna must then, be another work of Vasubandhu.
INV. p. 150.
' NVT. p. 218. तदेवं स्वाभिमतं वादलक्षणं व्याख्याय वासुबन्धवं लक्षणं दूषfuggqzazafa i
See "Vådavidhi" by Tucci IHQ. IV. 630-636. Vadanyāyatikā, p. 142.
3

Page #10

18
.
ADYAR LIBRARY BULLETIN
Very little is known about the “Vādavidhānatīkā.” It can be inferred from its title that it is the commentary of the
mūla' or the original text, “Vādavidhāna." Udyotakara makes a casual reference to it when he refutes the definitions of Pakşa’ according to Dinnāga and Vasubandhu. 'The definition of Pakṣa is not essential to Dinnāga, since according to him, the statement of Pakṣa i.e., 'pratijñā' does not form an integral part of his syllogism. Yet, following others, he defines it in his “Nyāyamukha" and "Pramāṇasamuccaya.” It is defined in the " Nyāyamukha?" as "atsiraafcha: 987: faggryffartenia: ” to which Udyotakara refers and which is considered as a definition of Bhadanta or Dinnāga by Vācaspati. In the “Pramāṇasamuccaya "" it is defined as "Abecada Faulhe: 927&CATETTATeffaccrna:." Vasubandhu, too, seems to have defined it in one of his works, as "aiutinresef: ” and in another as “ent a: ArufaafAT: The main contention is whether the qualifying word " Falcon should form an integral part of the definition. We know from Dinnāga that the former definition of Vasubandhu belongs to the “Vādavidhi." The latter definition is ascribed to Vasubandhu
NV. p. 117.
*NV. p. 116. Cf. PVT. p. 443. auge aruncat sprea: 987: विरुवार्थानिराकृतः इति पक्षलक्षणे।
Cf. NP (Nyāyapravesa). ag 92: gfaat aaff afcarifastoufafersagt स्वयं साध्यत्वेनेप्सितः । प्रत्यक्षायनिराकृत इति वाक्यशेषः ।
PS.-ran gi no bo kho ha bstān bdag hdod ran gi chos lan la mion sum don dar rjesdpag dan yid ches grays pas ma bsal pah 1
स्वरूपेणैव निर्देश्यः स्वयमिष्टः सर्मिणि । प्रत्यक्षार्थानुमानेन चाप्तवाचाऽनिरा. 671: 11
Cf. PVT.-P. 424.

Page #11
VADAVIDHI AND VADAVIDHANA OF VASUBANDHU 19 by Vacaspatil: It may, in all probability, be a fragment of the " Vadavidhana." It is appropriate, therefore, that this definition should be discussed in its tika. Thus a re-examination of the whole problem, in the light of the new evidences from Sanskrit, Tibetan, and Chinese sources, has resulted in suggesting the " Vadavidhi" and the " Vadavidhana" as two different works of Vasubandhu and the "Vadavidhanatika" as a commentary of the " Vada. vidhana." INVr. p. 186. तथा पक्षो य: साधयितुमिष्ट इत्यत्रापि वसुबन्धुलक्षणे विरुद्धानिराकृतग्रहणं कर्तव्यम् / एतदुक्तं भवति / न केवलमस्माकं एतद्विरुद्धार्थानिराकृतपदमनर्थकं प्रतिभाति / समानतीर्थानामपि तथा विभाति यतस्तै!पात्तमिति / अत एवं वकव्यं पक्षो यः साधयितुमिष्ट इति /