Vasubandhu and the Vadavidhi

8/17/2019 Vasubandhu and the Vadavidhi

1/8

Vasubandhu and the Vadavidhi

By A. Berriedale Keith

The Indian Historical Quarterly

Vol.IV, No.2, 1928.06, pp. 221-227

p. 221

In a well-known article(1) Dr. Satis Chandra

Vidyabhusana expressed the view that Uddyotakara, the

famous Nyaya commentator, knew the Vadanyaya of

Dharmakirti which he cited in his Nyayavarttika on i,

1, 33 as Vadavidhi. He reinforced this view by

holding that Uddyotakara knew also the

vadavidhanatika, which he cites (on i,1, 33 and 41)

in respect of the definition of paksa and vada

respectively, and that the Tibetan translation of the

vadanyayatika of Vinitadeva proves to contain

passages substantially identical with those cited by

Uddyotakara. The result of this argument is, of

course, important in that it establishes, when taken

in conjunction with the fact that Uddyotakara seems

to be known to Dharmakirti, the contemporaneity of

the two writers, who may be referred to in immediate

proximity in a pun of Subandhu's in his

Vasavadatta.(2)

To this view exception is taken in an interesting

articles(3) by H.R. Rangaswamy Iyengar, who contends


2/8

that the reference to the Vadavidhi is to a work by

the well-known Vasubandhu. He holds that the

difference of name, Vadavidhi and Vadanyaya, tells

strongly against the identification, but this can

hardly be deemed a conclusive ground; there are far

too many cases known in which works bear more than

one title, and apart from that, even in modern days

of libraries and easy access to titles, errors in

citation of books by name are not rare. Nor can we

say that the definition of pratijna cited from the

Vadavidhi "bears only a semblance of similarity to

that given by Dharmakirti in his Vadanyaya." As the

author himself proceeds to slow, a literal rendering

of the Tibetan gives us the words pratijna ca

sadhyabhidhanat which

----------------------

1. JRAS., 1914, PP. 601-6.

2. Keith, JRAS., 1914, pp. 1102 f.

3. JBORS, xii. 587-91.

p. 222

for all purposes is identical with the

sadhyabhidhanam pratijna of the citation from the

Vadavidhi. It appears, therefore, that the attempt to

disprove the reference to the Vadanyaya is

inadequate. Mr. Iyengar adduces as a further argument

the fact that on this identification of the

Vadavidhi, the Vadavidhanatika must be identified

with the work of Vinitadeva, which is objectionableon the score of the late date of that author. He

seems not to know that Dr. Satis Chandra Vidyabhusana

definitely accepted this identification and supported

it by citation of the Tibetan renderings in the

Vadanyayatika; this is doubtless due to the fact that

this point is passed over in the History of Indian

Logic and is only set out in the article in the

Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. As a matter of

fact, we are not in a position definitely to

determine the date of Vinitadeva from any external

evidence; that brought forward in the History of

Indian Logic(p.320) claims no special value, and

before the theory of the use of Vinitadeva by


3/8

Uddyotakara can be definitely disposed of, it will be

necessary to deal with the two citations which Dr.

Vidyabhusana claimed to identify. It must be added

that it can hardly be doubted that the Vadavidh

anatika must be intended to be a comment on the

Vadavidhi, a point which illustrates the fact that

slight variants of name without essential change of

sense may be taken for legitimate in Indian works.

Mr. Iyenger's own view would see in the Vadavidhi

a work of Vasbandhu; on the question of the

Vadavidhanatika he is silent, though obviously it is

not advisable to seek to .separate the two issues;

his position would have been enormously strengthened

had he been able to point to a commentary on the

Vadavidhi of Vasubandhu which was referred to by

Uddyotakara. Moreover it must be admitted that, as

the author very fairly points out, the Tibetan title

of the work which he has adduced would normally and

properly be rendered Vadasiddhi, which is by no means

the same as

p. 223

Vadavidhi, and that the rendering Vadavidhi rests on

the translation of the Chinese title Ronki of a work

of Vasubandhu as Vadavidhi. But, this apart, the

evidence on which the claim is made that Vasubandhu's

work is referred to is wholly indirect. Mr. Iyengar

has not adduced any definition of pratijna ascribed

to Vasubandhu's Vadavidhi (Vadasiddhi); on thecontrary, all that he can point out is that

Uddyotakara criticises two definitions of pratyaksa

and anumana, which are apparently the same as those

criticised by Dignaga in his Pramanasamuccaya (to

judge from the Tibetan version), and the comment on

that work ascribes them to the Vadavidhi, without

naming any author. On the other hand, Vacaspati in

the case of the definition of pratyaksa ascribes it

to Vasubandhu. The argument, therefore, is:

Uddyotakara cites a definition of pratijna from a

Vadavidhi; he deals with definitions of pratyaksa and

anumana, which appear apparently in the same shape in

the Tibetan version of the Pramanasamuccaya and by


4/8

its comment are ascribed to a Vadasiddhi or possibly

Vadavidhi, and one of these definitions is definitely

ascribed to Vasubandhu by Vacaspati; therefore "we

can safely conclude" that the Vadavidhi referred to

by Uddyotakara is the work of Vasubandhu. There are,

it is clear, far too many gaps in this reasoning, and

nothing convincing can be adduced unless and until

the question of the Vadavidhanatika is faced at the

same time.

When we consider that text difficulties do not

lessen. The theory of Dr.Vidyabhusana is clear, and

is supported by the passages which he cites from the

Vadanyayatika, which has definitions of paksa and of

vada corresponding to those ascribed absolutely

clearly in the first case, and with much probability

in the second, to the Vadavidhanatika. Other

authorities do not recognise that the second

reference is to that work, but unquestionably, as

will be shown below, that is a legitimate inference

from the discussion, and it is very greatlystrengthened by the coincidence of the occurrence

p. 224

of the passage in the Vadanyayatika. As regards the

first passage, there is an interesting suggestion by

Dr. Randle in his Fragments from Dinnaga that the

author may be Dignaga; unfortunately he does not

appear to know the article in the Journal of the

Royal Asiatic Society. The position would then bethat Vasubandhu wrote the Vadavidhi, and that

Dignaga corrected it in the Vadavidhanatika, and this

view would, of course, have the great advantage over

that of Mr. Iyengar in that it would solve the whole

problem and not leave it but half answered. It is,

therefore, desirable to submit this theory to a

critical investigation as far as our scanty sources

permit.

There is, of course, one strong objection to any

such view, viz., the absence of any evidence of the

writing by Dignaga of a commentary on the Vadavidhi

of Vasubandhu, assuming that Vasubandhu did write a


5/8

treatise of that name. This point is not absolutely

decisive, but it prevents us feeling any certainty

regarding the proposed explanation, even if other

matters did not tell against it. Nor is the rest of

the evidence satisfactory. Dr. Ganganath Jha(1) holds

that the Vadavidhi referred to by Uddyotakara is a

work of Subandhu, and he finds another reference to

it in the Nyayavarttika (p.157, line l7) by reading

there sastratvena ca vadavidhanam abhyupagamyate for

the vadabhidhanam of the recorded text. The amendment may be tempting, but it is clearly illegitimate, for

as Dr. Randle (p.55, n.2) admits, the accepted text

makes sense, and, it may be added, the corruption

supposed has no obvious explanation, so that on any

sound principle of textual criticism this passage

must be ignored in this connection. The ground for

ascribing the Vadavidhi to Subandhu is thus gravely

impugned, for its justification rested(1) on the fact

that Vacaspati (p.218, line 9) ascribes the

definition of vada given by Uddyotakara (p.151, line

20) to Subandhu ( Saubandhavam laksanam) and (2) onthe amendment

---------------------

1. See his translation, i, 441 and 454 notes,

p. 225

of vadabhidhanam to vadavidhanam. If this conjecture

be laid aside, as it must properly be, the ascription

to Subandhu of the Vadavidhi is purely conjectural.Morever, as against Dr. Ganganath Jha's view must be

set the fact that he conjectures(1) that the

definition of paksa given in the Nyayavarttika

(p.116, line 14) as yah sadhayitum istah is that of

Subandhu, But the Vadavidhanatika, as cited by

Uddyotakara, is absolutely clear in indicating that

the word svayam was contained in the definition which

it defended, and, therefore , it is most improbable

that Subandhu was the author of the Vadavidhi, if Dr.

Ganganath Jha's ascription of the definition without

svayam to him is correct. It must be added that there

seems no ground for the ascription.


6/8

But one fact emerges from this mass of

conjectures. Vacaspati definitely refers to Subandhu

the definition of vada cited anonymously in

Uddyotakara (p.151), but by Dr. Vidyabhusana ascribed

to the Vadavidhanatika and identified with a passage

in the Vadanyayatika in its Tibetan rendering. On

this identification one doubt presents itself, which

should be noted; Uddyotakara (p.124, line 9) has an

almost identical definition of vada, in which

svaparapaksasiddhyasiddhyartham in p.151 is replacedby svaparapaksayoh siddhyasiddhyartham. It is just

possible that the Tibetan rendering could be made

applicable to this definition of p. 124 as opposed to

that of p.151, and it may be argued that the

occurrence of the phrase at p.124, in comparatively

close proximity to the citation of the

Vadavidhanatika at p. 120, is in favour of the view

that the citation at p. 124 rather than that at p.151

is from that work. However that may be, and it may be

presumed that Dr. Vidyabhusana decided against this

possiblity, though he does not mention the point,there remains the question of who Subandhu was. Both

Dr. Ganganath Jha(2) and Dr. Vidyabhusana(3) identify

him

----------------------

1. i, 331.

2. i, 441; but compare i, 394.

3. History of Indian Logic; p.128.

p. 226

with Vasubandhu, the former, it is true, with some

hesitation. Dr. Randle(l) holds that the reasonable

supposition is that "in these passages (i.e. those in

which Saubandhavam laksanam is referred to)

Vacaspati abbreviates Vasubandhu to Subandhu, just as

he invariably speaks of Dharmakirti as Kirti". The

parallelism is not complete, for admittedly Vacaspati

(p.99, line 13) cites as Vasubandhavam pratyaksa

laksanam the definition of pratyakas given in the

Nyayavarttika (p.42, line 15), and the question,

therefore, arises why in certain cases he should use

an abbreviated form. But far more serious is the

character of the abbreviated form. That Kirti should


7/8

be used for Dharmakirti, or Hari for Bhartrhari, or

Simha for Vikramasimha or Gupta for Candragupta, and

so forth is obvious and natural, but that without

reason a man's name should be reduced from Vasubandhu

to Subandhu is extremely hard to credit, and indeed

may be dismissed as out of the question. It remains

only for those who hold this view to suggest not an

abbreviation but a variant name, and it is, to be

frank, extremely implausible to urge that the same

author should in the same work use the regular nameof a famous author, and also a name which never is

elsewhere applied to him, and which, it must be

added, is not equivalent in sense.

It must, accordingly, in my opinion be admitted

that the evidence is lamentably inadequate to

overthrow the view of Dr. Vidyabhusana.

Unquestionably on chronological grounds there is some

reason to doubt the use by Uddyotakara of Vinitadeva,

but, if the matter is to be established in any other

sense than that adopted by Dr. Vidyabhusana, newevidence must be adduced, and this note has been

written in order to indicate the lacuna in the

existing evidence. It is hardly necessary to add that

no confirmation of the use of Subandhu for Vasubandhu

is to be found in Vamana's Kavyalamkarasutravrtti

(iii, 2, 2). If we wish to find Vasubandhu,

----------------------

1. Fragments from Dinnaga, p.26.

p. 227

there we have simply to alter the ca before Subandhu

into va, whereas no such correction is possible in

any of the passages where Vacaspati refers to

Subandhu(l) or Saubandhavam laksanam.

It may further be concluded that we have no

adequate evidence for the identification of Subandhu

with Vasubandhu, a result which is of importance

because, apart from this identification, Vasubandhu,

according to our present knowledge plays a much less

prominent part in the early history of Buddhist logic


8/8

than would be the case if we could securely(2) assign

to him the Vadavidhi, the definition of vada, and

pratijna, and assume that he was a predecessor of

Dignaga in his criticism of the views of proposition,

reason and exemplification given in the Nyayasutra.

All these things may be true, but for the time being

they are conjectures, which do not square with the

scanty evidence actually available. We do know his

definition of perception, and frankly it cannot be

said to reveal him as a profound logician. Dignagaseems to record that he did not specialise in this

topic, though he may largely have inspired that acute

logician. Professor Stcherbatsky's suggestion(3) that

he may have adumbrated the doctrine of the affinity

of perception to inference, and so have evoked the

polemic of the Nyayasutra (ii, 1, 30), can hardly be

regarded as convincing; assuming that the passage in

question formed part of the original text, there is

nothing whatever to induce us to fix on the exact

form of the doctrine against which the Nyaya,

contended. There was unquestionably in ancient Indiaa vast activity of thought which is only hinted at in

the tantalising brevity and obscurity of the Sutras

of the philosophic schools, and me run serious risks

of misconstruing the facts if we seek unduly to

simplify the history of thought.

----------------------

1. p. 205, line 26

2. Fragments from Dinnaga, pp.27, 28.

3. La theorie de la connaissance et de la logique chex

les Bouddhistes tardifs, p.197, n.3. For Dignaga's

view, ibid., p. 2,

Vasubandhu and the Vadavidhi

Documents

Transcript of Vasubandhu and the Vadavidhi