________________
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.
