________________
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,
