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 VADAVIDHI AND THE VADAVIDHANA OF VASUBANDHU By H. R. R. IYENGAR (Oriental Research Institute, Mysore) .. UDYOTAKARA mentions in his Vartika titles of three works without the author's name: a "Vadavidhi," while examining the definitions of Pratijna,' a " Vadavidhana" in connection with the refutation of the definition of Vada,' and a " Vadavidhanatika," while discussing the definitions of Paksa. Dr. Satischandra Vidyabhushana assumed "Vadavidhana" to be a different title of " Vadavidhi" and ascribed it to Dharmakirti, taking it to be identical with the " Vadanyaya." He, further, assumed " Vadavidhanatika" to be identical with the " Vadanyayatika" of Vinitadeva". In my article "Vadavidhi", contributed to JBORS", I contradicted his view and set forth evidences to support my view that " Vadavidhi " was a work of Acarya Vasubandhu, quite different from the "Vadanyaya " 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 Nyayabindu, pp. ix-x. \" Vadavidhi"-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 Vadavidhi" to Ing! Therein he examined the question in detail and arrived at the conclusion that "evidences were inadequate to overthrow the view of Vidyabhushana, though, unquestionably on chronological grounds, there is reason to doubt the use by Udyotakara of Vinitadeva. 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, "Vada. vidhi," to IHg and defended my view by adducing further evidences from the Chinese sources. I, too, wrote an article, " Vasubandhu and the Vadavidhi," as a rejoinder to Dr. Keith and explained why "Vadavidhi" should be regarded as a work of Vasubandhu, and " Vadavidhanatika" could not be considered as identical with " Vadanyayatika" of Vinitadeva. This conclusion has, no doubt, been drawn on the strength of the evidences available from the Tibetan sources, particularly the statements of Dinnaga. It is quite strange that Udyotakara, who has cited several fragments of the " Vadavidhi" should refer to the work only once. It is still more so that Vacaspati, in his tika, should ascribe only the definition of Pratyaksa to Vasubandhu and remark in the case of other fragments either 'Paresam laksnam' or 'laksanataram', without referring either to the text or its author. He does not, further, make any comment either on the definition of Pratijna ascribed by Vasubandhu and the Vadavidhi--IHQ Vol. IV. 221. ' Ibid., V. 81-86. 8 Ibid. p. 82,

Page #3
VADAVIDHI AND VADAVIDHANA OF VASUBANDHU 11 Udyotakara to " Vadavidhi," on the" Vadavidhana," or on the " Vadavidhanatika" mentioned by Udyotakara. Thus the evidences from the Sanskrit sources are apparently not sufficient to ascribe " Vadavidhi" 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 Vadavidhi and suggest the possibility of regarding "Vadavidhana" 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 Pratijna of the " Vadavidhi" and rejects it as being defective. His comments run as follows:-qara grafaat Angaura alaala afasiseutmuktam / tadubhayathAdoSAnna yuktam / kathamiti / yadi tAvat pUrvaprakRtamapekSyamANenedamucyate sAdhyAbhidhAnaM pratijJeti tadA sAdhyagrahaNAnarthakyam / prakRtaH pakSaH tacchabdenAbhisambhantsyata iti tadabhidhAnaM pratijJeti vaktavyam / atha pakSAnapekSaM svatantrametallakSaNaM tathApi yo naiyAyikapratijJAyAM doSa uktaH sa iha prasaktaH / (No doubt, Pratijna is defined in the "Vadavidhi " as "mention of the 'Sadhya."" But it is open to objection in whatever way it is interpreted. How? If this is said in reference to Paksa which has been previously spoken of, then the word, 'Sadhya' becomes superfluous, as the 'paksa' 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 'paksa,' then all the defects pointed out by you in the Nyaya definition could equally be attributed to your definition). It is interesting to compare this with what Dinnaga has said. in respect to the same definition. In the beginning of

Page #4
ADYAR LIBRARY BULLETIN the third chapter of the "Pramanasamiuccaya,"l Dinnaga first criticises the definition 'pratijna' of the Nyaya Sutra, Alsafacer: afatal as being defective, since by Sadhya, only Siddha is excluded, the statements of Hetu and Drstanta which are not fage will have to be regarded as pratijna. In the next Karika" he attributes the same defect to the definition sAdhyAbhidhAnaM pratijJA as evaM sAdhyAbhidhAne'pi / 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. sAdhyanirdeza ityatra siddha eva nivartate / evaM ceddhetudRSTAntAyasiddhokti: prasajyate // PSV-Rigs pa can rnaurs nare l bsgrub bya bstan pa zhes bya ba yiu no l bsgrub bya smros pal ni grub pa log pa tsan bstan pahi pbyir bsgrub byai 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 bstan pahi phyir dan bcah bar thal bar bgyur rol naiyAyikA AhuH-sAdhyanirdeza: prtijnyeti| sAdhyavacanena siddhasya nivRttireva pradarziteti asiddhayoH hetudRSTantayoH prasAH / yathA zabdo nityaH asparzatvAt buddhivat / cakSuSatvAdanitya iti ca / atrApi sAdhyanirdezAt pratijJA prsjyte| N.B:-These sentences are repeated by Udyotakara on p. 110. Cf: PVT (Pramapavartikatika) p. 469 nanu sAdhyanirdezaH pratikSeti pakSalakSaNaM naiyAyikAnAm / tatra ko dossH| 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 asiddhahetudRSTAntasyApi pksstvprsnggH| evaM sAdhyAbhidhAne'pi pakSAdhikyAdasaMbhavaH / vicAraNAyAmiSTo'yamaniSTasya nivartakaH // 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 pahi 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 Itar bsgrub byai khyad par go bar byed i glan tshigs

Page #5
VADAVIDHI AND VADAVIDHANA OF VASUBANDHU 13 in his Vritti, which is in Tibetan, may be rendered into, 'naiyAyikeSu yathA doSa uktaH evaM vAdavidhAvapi / hetudRSTAntAbhAsAbhidhAnamapi pratijJA prasajyate / ' Then the defect attributed to the Nyaya definition is equally attributable to the definition of the "Vadavidhi." It cannot be avoided, says he, by assuming the definition to be pakSadharmasAdhyAbhidhAnam , for pakSa is defined in the Vadavidhi, as vicAraNAyAmiSTo'rtha: or the thing that is desired in an enquiry, and the word, iSTa which denotes only one thing, cannot both exclude the aniSTa and indicate the sAdhyavizeSa. Evidently then, both Dinnaga and Udyotakara'are citing the definition from the same work Vadavidhi. But, while Dinnaga ascribes the work to Vasubandhu, Udyotakara and Vacaspati remain silent. The definition of Pratyaksa, 'aalseffeara 977277?, is a citation from the " Vadavidhi" according to Dinnaga'. Udyotakara quotes and criticises this in his Vartika, as 'apare punarvarNayanti tato'rthAdvijJAnaM pratyakSamiti | tanna'. He does not state, from what work it is cited as he has done in respect to the defiinition of Pratijna. But Vacaspati in his tika' ascribes dan glan tshigs ma yin par rnam par dpyad par hdod par nid ni mig gis gzhun bya xid bsgrub par bya ba la yan brjud par nus pa yin no. __ yathA naiyAyikeSu doSa ukta: evaM vAdavidhAvapi / hetusAdhyadRSTAntAbhAsavacanasyApi pratijJAsvaprasaGgaH / vAdavidhau na kevalaM sAdhyAbhidhAnaM pratijJA / api tu pakSadharmasAdhyasya / kaH pakSaH ? vicAraNAyAmiSTo'rthaH / tatra pakSaH sAdhya eva / tena hetudRSTAntayorasiddhayorapi pramazaH iti doSastatra nAstIti cet / kathaM sAdhyavizeSasya gamakaH? hetvahetuvicAraNAyAmiSTazcat cAkSuSatvasAdhyasyApi vaktuM shkyte| INV. p. 106. pakSo vicAraNAyAmiSTo'rtha iti cAbhidhIyate / avicAraNIyazcArthaH pakSe'ntarbhavatIti citram / NV. p. 115. evaM vicAraNAyAmiSTo'rthaH pakSa ityatrApi iSTagrahaNamanarthakam / / * 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 "tadevaM pratyakSalakSaNaM samarthya vAsubandha tAvat pratyakSalakSaNaM vikalpayitumupanyasyati-apare punariti / lakSaNaM vyAcaSTe-tato'rthAditi." The Jaina writer Mallavadin, author of the Nayacakrara, too, regards it as the definition of Vasubandhu. " fegrat ahbandhoH svagurostato'rthAdvijJAnaM pratyakSamiti bruvato yaduttaramabhihitaM paraguNamatsarAviSTacetasA tattvaparIkSAyAM0" 1 It may, thus, be concluded, by putting together the evidences from the Tibetan and the Sanskrit sources, that Vadavidhi 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 Vartika", Udyotakara cites and criticises the definition, "nAntarIyakArthadarzanaM tadvidonumAnaM." Vacaspati' prefaces it by "svalakSaNaM samAdhAya pareSAmanumAnalakSaNaM dUSayitumupanyafafa." It means that, having established his definition, Udyotakara proceeds to refute the definition of others that anumana 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, "na hi kiJcidasti vastu yannAntarIyakaM saddheturbhavati / tadanena diGnAgalakSaNaM dUSayitvA anyeSAM lakSaNaM dUSitam / saMprati diGnAgasya svakIyalakSaNaprapaJcAthai vAkyaM, "anumeye'tha tattulye" ityAdyupanyasya dUSayati / " attribute the definition to Dinnaga. But it is clear from the "Pramanasamuccaya" and its Vitti that it is a citation from the Vadavidhis. The phrase, 'anumeye'tha tattulye' 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, "tAdRgavinAmAvidharmopadarzanaM heta:." which is cited and criticised by Udyotakara immediately after it is also a frag. ment of the Vadavidhi. Cf. PSV. III. 36. ve zhig rtsed pa bsgrub par ni de Ita bahi med na mi hbyun bahi chos ne bar bstan pa ni glan tshigs so zhes bya ba vAdavidhau tAdRgavinAbhAvidharmopadarzana heturiti /

Page #7
VADAVIDHI AND VADAVIDHANA OF VASUBANDHU 15 anumeye'tha tattulye sadbhAvo nAstitA sati' is a half Couplet in the Pramanasamuccaya' meant to explain the nature of the 'trairUpya ' of the 'linga' or ' hetu' involved in Dinnaga's definition of the Inference for one's self as 'trirUpAliGgato'rthadRk ' ' stated by him in the first Karika of the second chapter of his work. It is, therefore, by confusion that Vacaspati has attributed this definition to Dinnaga. Arcata, in his " Hetubindutika," as commentary on the " Hetubindu " of Dharmakirti, cites this definition of svArthAnumAna. ' 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 (gamakarUpa ). He cites in support of his contention the view of an acarya : " pakSasapakSAdisaGketAparijJAne'pi na kiJcit plUyate / ata eva AcAryapAdaiH nAntarIyakArthadarzanaM tadvido'numAnamiti gamakarUpamAtrameva pakSAdisaGketAnapekSameva pratipAditam / svaprajJAparAdhAttu tatrApi kaizcidasanta eva doSAH prakIrtyanta iti kimatra brUmaH / " In commenting on this passage Durvekamis'ra in his "Aloka " on the " Hetubindutika " attributes this view to acarya + Vasubandhu : (AcArya pAdairityAcArya vasubandhumabhisandhAya uktam) and states that it has been expounded by him in his "Vadavidhi:""; gamakarUpamAtrasya svarUpaM darzayati vAdavidhau vAdavidhisaMjJake prakaraNe. " He further feels sorry that great thinkers, like Udyotakara, revel in finding 4 8 PS. and PSV. II. 5: rjes dpag bya dan de mtshuns la yod dan med la med la med nid pao | anumeye'tha tattulye sadbhAvo nAstitA sati / PSV. tshal gsum pahi rtags zhes gan byod pa de brjod par bya ste trirUpaM liGgamiti yaduktaM tadvAcyam / PS. II, 1. rjes su dpag ryam gfes rani donni tshul gsum rtags las don mthuri pao anumAnaM dvidhA svArthe trirUpA liGgato'rthadRk / #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 Vartika of Udyotakara on this fragment of the "Vadavidhi." No further proof is needed then to regard " Vadavidhi" as a work of Vasubandhu. tatrApi AcAryAMye lakSaNe / kaizcit udyotakaraprabhRtibhiH / kuta asanta eva doSAstaiH kIrtyanta ityAzaGkAyAM yojyaM svaprakSeti / svaprajJAyA doSo tasmAt / turavadhArayati / tathA hi udyotakareNa kilAnumAnasUtravArtike, 'apare tu nAntarIyakArthadarzanaM tadvido'numAnam ' iti paThitvA tasyArtha mAtrayA vivRtyaiva 'atrArthagrahaNamatiricyate' iti mAtrayaiva dUSaNamuktvA punarvipazcitaM nAntarIyakArtha iti / samastapadametat / tatra yadi SaSThIsamAsa: . . . . . . atastadvida ityapi na vaktavyam / (cf N. V. pp. 54-55). The correct title of the work, from which Dinnaga and Udyotakara quote, is "Vadavidhi." It has been so stated by Durvekamisra in his " Aloka ?." Manorathanandin, author of the " Pramanavartikatika?," too, regards "Vadavidhi" 'as a 'Prakarana.' The Tibetan title of the work " rtsod bsgrub pa" in the Pramanasamuccaya, should therefore be rendered into " Vadavidhi." It can no longer be identified either with the " Vadavidhana" or with the " Vadanyaya." 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 Dharmakirti with which it has been identified by Vidyabhusana has been published. It is concerned with the exposition of Nigrahasthanas and does not contain any of the definitions cited by Udyotakara. The definition of Pratijna 1 HBTA. p.317. ' PVT. p. 207. vAdavidhipraraNe indriyajJAnasya pratyakSasya gocare vicAryamANe mAnasasya vikalpasya ihAvasare kIdRzaH prastAva: yena paraMparayA tddheturindriymucyte|| * Vadanyaya with the Vipancitartha of Santaraksita-Ed. Rahula Sankrtyayana 1936.

Page #9
VADAVIDHI AND VADAVIDHANA OF VASUBANDHU 17 6 from which he deduced its identity with the "Vadavidhi" is rendered into Tibetan as 'dam bcah ba yan bsgrub bya bstan paiphyir.' It corresponds to 'pratijna ca sadhyanirdesat' and is quite different from the definition, Sadhyabhidhanam pratijna,' which is rendered into Tibetan as 'bsgrub bya bvjod pa ni dam bcah.' The former definition is of the Nyayasutra. It has been distinguished from the definition of the "Vadavidhi" by using in the Tibetan rendering, 'bstanpa,' and 'brjod pa.' How can the " Vadanyaya," then, be identified with the "Vadavidhi" cited by Udyotakara? The "Vadavidhana " 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 Vada cited by Udyotakara1 and ascribed by Vacaspati to Vasubandhu is a fragment of the "Vadavidhana." According to Chinese sources, we know that Vasubandhu wrote three works, "Lun Shih" or Vadavidhi, "Lun sin" or "Vadahrdaya" and "Lun Kuei " or "Vadavidhana" and the writers Shen Tai and Kueichi have ascribed the "Vadavidhi" and the "Vadavidhana" to Vasubandhu. This ascription to Vasubandhu has further been corroborated by the following statement of S'antaraksita at the end of his tika on the "Vadanyaya "" of Dharmakirti : nanu cAyaM vAdanyAyamArgaH sakalaloka nibandhanabandhunA vAdavidhAnAdAcAryavasubandhunA mahArAjapathIkRtaH / kaH punarasau atisAhasiko yo mahAnAgaiH kSuNNaM panthAnaM roddhumIhate ityAha / durvidagdhaH / samyak vivekarahitatathA jano'yaM udyotakara prIti candramA viviktaprabhRtiH / The Vada - vidhana must then, be another work of Vasubandhu. INV. p. 150. ' NVT. p. 218. tadevaM svAbhimataM vAdalakSaNaM vyAkhyAya vAsubandhavaM lakSaNaM dUSafuggqzazafa i See "Vadavidhi" by Tucci IHQ. IV. 630-636. Vadanyayatika, p. 142. 3

Page #10
18 . ADYAR LIBRARY BULLETIN Very little is known about the "Vadavidhanatika." It can be inferred from its title that it is the commentary of the mula' or the original text, "Vadavidhana." Udyotakara makes a casual reference to it when he refutes the definitions of Paksa' according to Dinnaga and Vasubandhu. 'The definition of Paksa is not essential to Dinnaga, since according to him, the statement of Paksa i.e., 'pratijna' does not form an integral part of his syllogism. Yet, following others, he defines it in his "Nyayamukha" and "Pramanasamuccaya." It is defined in the " Nyayamukha?" as "atsiraafcha: 987: faggryffartenia: " to which Udyotakara refers and which is considered as a definition of Bhadanta or Dinnaga by Vacaspati. In the "Pramanasamuccaya "" 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 Dinnaga that the former definition of Vasubandhu belongs to the "Vadavidhi." The latter definition is ascribed to Vasubandhu NV. p. 117. *NV. p. 116. Cf. PVT. p. 443. auge aruncat sprea: 987: viruvArthAnirAkRtaH iti pksslkssnne| Cf. NP (Nyayapravesa). ag 92: gfaat aaff afcarifastoufafersagt svayaM sAdhyatvenepsitaH / pratyakSAyanirAkRta iti vAkyazeSaH / PS.-ran gi no bo kho ha bstan bdag hdod ran gi chos lan la mion sum don dar rjesdpag dan yid ches grays pas ma bsal pah 1 svarUpeNaiva nirdezyaH svayamiSTaH sarmiNi / pratyakSArthAnumAnena cAptavAcA'nirA. 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. tathA pakSo ya: sAdhayitumiSTa ityatrApi vasubandhulakSaNe viruddhAnirAkRtagrahaNaM kartavyam / etaduktaM bhavati / na kevalamasmAkaM etadviruddhArthAnirAkRtapadamanarthakaM pratibhAti / samAnatIrthAnAmapi tathA vibhAti yatastai!pAttamiti / ata evaM vakavyaM pakSo yaH sAdhayitumiSTa iti /