________________
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
