Vadavidhi And Vadavidhana Of Vasubandhu

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "The Vādavidhi and the Vādavidhāna of Vasubandhu" by H. R. Rangaswamy Iyengar, focusing on the core arguments and evidence presented:

The article by H. R. Rangaswamy Iyengar addresses a scholarly debate concerning the authorship and identity of philosophical works attributed to Vasubandhu, specifically the "Vādavidhi" and "Vādavidhāna." The author aims to present new evidence from Sanskrit, Tibetan, and Chinese sources to clarify these attributions.

The Core Debate and Iyengar's Position:

• Initial Scholarly Views: The article begins by referencing Udyotakara's Vārtika, which mentions a "Vādavidhi" in relation to the definition of Pratijñā (proposition/thesis), a "Vādavidhāna" regarding the refutation of the definition of Vāda (debate), and a "Vādavidhānatīkā" concerning the definition of Pakṣa (minor term in syllogism).
• Vidyābhūshaṇa's Theory: Dr. Satischandra Vidyābhūshana previously proposed that "Vādavidhāna" was a different title for "Vādavidhi" and attributed both to Dharmakīrti, identifying them with Dharmakīrti's "Vādanyāya" and its commentary by Vinītadeva.
• Iyengar's Contention: Iyengar strongly refutes Vidyābhūshana's view. He argues that "Vādavidhi" is a distinct work by Vasubandhu, separate from Dharmakīrti's "Vādanyāya." He also contends that "Vādavidhānatīkā" cannot be identical with Vinītadeva's commentary.
• Support from Other Scholars: Professor H. Jacobi agreed with Iyengar's chronological assessment, finding Udyotakara to be earlier than Dharmakīrti. Professor G. Tucci further supported Iyengar's view with evidence from Chinese sources.

Evidence for "Vādavidhi" as Vasubandhu's Work:

• Udyotakara's Citations: Udyotakara cites fragments from the "Vādavidhi" when examining definitions of Pratijñā and Pratyakṣa (perception). For example, the definition of Pratijñā as "mention of the Sādhya" (that which is to be proved) is attributed to the "Vādavidhi" by Udyotakara.
• Dinnāga's Criticism: Dinnāga, in his Pramāṇasamuccaya, criticizes the same definition of Pratijñā ("Sādhyābhidhānam pratijñā") from the "Vādavidhi" for the same defect that Udyotakara points out in the Nyaya definition (i.e., it could include Hetu and Drstanta, which are not Sādhya). Crucially, Dinnāga explicitly attributes this definition to Vasubandhu.
• Vācaspati's Commentary: Vācaspati, in his commentary, also attributes the definition of Pratyakṣa ("Tato'rthādvijñānam pratyakṣam") to Vasubandhu, citing it from the "Vādavidhi."
• Mallavādin's Agreement: The Jaina writer Mallavādin also views this Pratyakṣa definition as Vasubandhu's.
• Definition of Inference (Anumāna): Udyotakara cites and criticizes the definition of Anumāna as "nāntarīyakārthadarśanaṁ tadvidō'numānam" (inference is the perception of an inseparably connected thing by one who knows the connection). While Udyotakara initially attributes this to others and then to Dinnāga, Iyengar, through analysis of Dinnāga's Pramāṇasamuccaya and its commentary, concludes that this definition is actually from the "Vādavidhi."
• Durvekamisra's Clarification: Durvekamisra, in his commentary on the Hetubindu, explicitly attributes the definition of inference discussed above to "ācārya Vasubandhu" and states that it is expounded in his "Vādavidhi." This is further supported by Durvekamisra's clarification of Udyotakara's Vārtika, indicating Udyotakara was critiquing Vasubandhu's definition from the "Vādavidhi" due to his own misinterpretation.
• Conclusion on "Vādavidhi": Based on these cumulative evidences, Iyengar concludes that "Vādavidhi" is definitively a work of Vasubandhu.

Evidence and Possibility for "Vādavidhāna" as Vasubandhu's Work:

• Distinction from "Vādavidhi": Iyengar argues that "Vādavidhāna" is a separate work from "Vādavidhi."
• Udyotakara's Reference: Udyotakara refers to "Vādavidhāna" as a śāstra (treatise) in connection with the refutation of the definition of Vāda.
• Chinese Sources: Chinese sources list three works by Vasubandhu: "Lun Shih" (Vādavidhi), "Lun sin" (Vadahṛdaya), and "Lun Kuei" (Vādavidhana). Writers like Shen Tai and Kueichi specifically attribute "Vādavidhi" and "Vādavidhāna" to Vasubandhu.
• Śāntarakṣita's Statement: Śāntarakṣita, in his commentary on Dharmakīrti's "Vādanyāya," states that the "Vādanyāya" path was pioneered by "ācārya Vasubandhu from Vāvidhāna" (Vāvidhānādācāryavasubandhunā mahārājapathīkr̥taḥ). This suggests that "Vādavidhāna" was a significant precursor or related work by Vasubandhu.
• Possible Fragment: Iyengar suggests that the definition of Pakṣa ascribed by Vācaspati to Vasubandhu ("Pakṣaḥ svayaṁ sādhya-bhāvena-ipsitaḥ" or similar variants) might be a fragment from the "Vādavidhāna."

Addressing "Vādavidhānatīkā":

• Commentary on "Vādavidhāna": Based on its title, it is inferred to be a commentary on the "Vādavidhāna."
• Udyotakara's Reference: Udyotakara makes a passing reference to it while discussing the definitions of Pakṣa.

Rejection of Identification with "Vādanyāya":

• "Vādanyāya" published: The article notes that Dharmakīrti's "Vādanyāya" has been published.
• Content Mismatch: It does not contain the definitions cited by Udyotakara and attributed to Vasubandhu. Specifically, the definition of Pratijñā mentioned by Udyotakara from the "Vādavidhi" is distinct from the one cited from the Nyāyasūtra in the Tibetan rendering of "Vādanyāya." The subtle difference in Tibetan rendering (bstanpa vs. brjod pa) further differentiates the texts.

Conclusion:

The article strongly advocates for the recognition of "Vādavidhi" as a distinct and important work by Vasubandhu. It also posits that "Vāvidhāna" is likely another separate work by Vasubandhu, with "Vāvidhānatīkā" being its commentary. This conclusion is supported by a synthesis of evidence from various linguistic and historical sources, overturning earlier scholarly assumptions.