首 页  |  中国禅学  |  禅学三书  |  慈辉论坛  |  佛学论文  |  最新上传  |  文学频道  |  佛缘论坛  |  留言簿   |

 管理登陆        吴言生 创办              图片中心    关于本网     佛教研究所 主办


  • 十分钟读完汉传佛教史[124]

  • 随缘是什么意思?与因果有什么[115]

  • 用这样的方式,续写思念[103]

  • 学佛修行要具备两个要求 缺一不[124]

  • 佛前供朵花,福报有多大?[135]

  • 清明该如何追思故人?师父说,[123]

  • 一个故事告诉你:原来能念佛的[137]

  • 佛弟子清明如何祭祖?这样做才[196]

  • 佛法中的十条建议,超度亡魂,[170]

  • 遇到灾难或不如意,就这样向菩[130]

  • 虚云老和尚:能在动中不动 才是[252]

  • 人生天地间 忽如远行客[153]



  • 本站推荐

    生和死有多少的种类

    心静,灵魂得以安放

    深刻:年轻人的焦虑


       您现在的位置: 佛学研究网 >> E3英文佛教 >> [专题]e3英文佛教 >> 正文


    Vasubandhu and the Vadavidhi
     
    [ 作者: H.R. Rangaswamy Iyengar   来自:期刊原文   已阅:4479   时间:2007-1-15   录入:douyuebo


    ·期刊原文
    Vasubandhu and the Vadavidhi

    By H.R. Rangaswamy Iyengar
    The Indian historical Quarterly
    Vol.V, No.I, 1929, pp.81-86

     

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

                                 p. 81

                In his recent article, Vasubandhu and the Vada-
            vidhi.(1)  Dr.  Keith has been pleased  to review  my
            position  in detail  and point  out  reasons  why  it
            cannot  be accepted  as conclusive.  In the course of
            the article  he has also  examined  the views  of:Dr.
            Ganganath  Jha and Dr.  H.  N.  Randle  and found  it
            irresistable  to  conclude  "that  the  evidence  is
            lamentably  inadequate  to overthrow  the view of Dr.
            Satisacandra Vidyabhusana."  But on re-examination of
            the question in the light of new facts, I am inclined
            to believe that the theory of Dr. Vidyabhusan has not
            a single fact for its support.

                Uddyotakara in his  Nyayavartika  mentions  two
            treatises  on  logic,  viz.  the  Vadavidhi  and  the
            Vadavidhanatika(2)  and also quotes the definition of
            Pratijna  found in the Vadanyaya,(3) now extant  only
            in Tibetan. Dr. Vidyabhusana, according to Dr. Keith,
            has  "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
            version of the Vadanyayatika  of Vinitadeva proves to
            contain passages substantially  identical  with those
            cited by Uddyotakara, and is therefore identical with
            the  Vadavidhanatika.(4)  On the basis  of these  two
            identifications  the  Doctor  has further  drawn  the
            conclusion  that  Uddyotakara  and  Dharmakirti   are
            contemporaries  as is believed  to have been referred
            to by a pun of Subandhu in his Vasavadatta.(5)

                In   my     previous   article   contributed  to
            JBORS(6) I took exception to the views of the  Doctor
            and pointed out, that  the  definition of Pratijna of
            the Vadavidhi cited by Uddyotakara is similar to, but
            not  identical   with  that   of  the  Vadanyaya   of
            Dharmakirti, and that it is not safe to establish  on
            bare similarity the contemporaneity of the authors of
            the two works.  In pleading  for the view, Dr.  Keith
            takes  substantial   identity   of  the  passages  as
            sufficient  ground  for  identifying  the  texts  and
            explains  away  the difference  in the  title  of the
            texts  as  "errors  in  citations."  But  substantial
            identity cannot
            ---------------------
            1  IHQ, vol.IV, 2.
            2  NV, I,i, 33 (Benares edition, p. 117).
            3  dam bcah pa yin bsgrub bya bstaan pahi phyir ro
               (Mdo, ce, fol. 399).
            4  JRAS, 1914, pp.601-6.
            5  JRAS, 1914, p.1102.
            6  JBORS, xii, 587-91.

            I.H.Q., MARCH, 1929

                                 p. 82

            by itself  be taken  as a safe ground  for supporting
            the identity of the texts. Any definition of Pratijna
            has  to be substantially  identical  with  any  other
            definition  of Pratijna  in any treatise on logic.(1)
            There ought to be literal identity as well.  Both the
            conditions  are satisfied  in the case  of one of the
            definitions  of Pratijna quoted and criticised in the
            Pramanasamuccaya of Dinnaga.(2) "Sadhyabhidhanam"  is
            the  definition  of  Pratijna,  which,  according  to
            Dinnaga's    comments    in   his   Vrtti    on   the
            Pramanasamuccaya, is alleged to be a fragment  of the
            Vadavidhi   of  Vasubandhu, (3)   and   is  the  very
            definition  cited  by  Uddyotakara  as  belonging  to
            Vadavidhi.  In  addition  to this  fragment  we  come
            across  many  others, which  have  been  noticed  for
            criticism  by Uddyotakara  in his  Vartika  like  the
            definitions  of pratyaksa,(4)  anumana,(5)  paksa,(6)
            hetu(7) and drstanta,(8) identified
            ----------------------
            1  Cf.,   for  instance,  the  definition,  Sadhyani-
               rdesah pratijna of the Nyayasutra with the Sadhya-
               bhidhanam pratijna of the Vadavidhi.
            2  PS (= Pramanasamuccaya), iii, 5:  de bshin  byed
               brjod pa lahn.
            3  PS-Vrtti:-de bshin te rigs pa can rnams la skyon
               brjod pa de bshin du vtsod pa sgrub pa la yin=evam
               naiyayikesu dosa uktah tatha Vadavidhav [api].
            NV, p.118: yo naiyayikapratijnayam dosa uktah sa iha
            prasaktah.

            4  PSV, I, 15:don de las skyes rnam pa ces pa mnon
               sum yin shes bya ba.
            Cf.NV, 40: Apare punar varnayanti tato'rthad vijnanam
            pratyaksam iti.

            5  PSV, ii, 74:rtsod pa sgrub pa nas ni med na mi
               hbyun bahi don mthon ba de rig pa rjes su dpag paho
               shes brjod do

            Cf, NV, 54: Apare tu bruvate nantariyakarthadarsanam
            tadvido'numanam iti.

            6  PSV : rtsod pa bsgrub par ni bsgrub bya brjod pa
               tsam dam bcah ba ma yin gyi hon kyan phyogs kyi
               chos bsgrub byaho phyogs gan yin pa rnam pa dbye
               par hdod pahi don phyogs yin te //

            Cf. NV, p.115 (NV 106)--evam vicaranayam isto'rthah
            paksa ity atrapi istagrahanam anarthakam.

            7  PSV,III, 36:  re shig rtsod pa bsgrub par ni de
               Ita bahi med na mi hbyun bahi chos ne bar bstan pa
               ni gtan tshigs so snes bya ba/
            Cf. NV, p.55: tadrg avinabhavi dharmopadarsanam hetur
            ity anye.

            8  rtsod  pa sgrub pa nas de dag hbrel ba nes par
               ston ni dpe ste bum pa bshin no shes brjod pa Ita
               baho/
            Cf. NV, p. 137:  etena tayoh  sambandhanidarsanam
             drstanta iti pratyuktam.

                                 p. 83

            as  fragments  of  the  Vadavidhi  of  Vasubandhu  by
            Dinnaga  in his  Vrtti  on the Pramanasamuccaya  and
            some  of  his  identifications  are  corroborated  by
            Vacaspati  in his tika on the Vartika of Uddyotakara.
            This indicates that Uddyotakara  had really access to
            and made use of the Vadavidhi of Vasubandhu. Explicit
            references, then, to the Vadavidhi  in the Vartika of
            Uddyotakara  can  only  be  to  the  Vadavidhi  of
            Vasubandhu and never to the Vadanyaya of Dharmakirti.
            It is highly improbable  and strange that one who had
            access  to the  Vadavidhi  would  cite  Vadanyaya  as
            Vadavidhi.

                It may, however, be argued that, though Vadavidhi
            and  Vadanyaya   are  different   from   each  other,
            Vadavidhi  may itself  be a work of Dharmakirti.  But
            there is hardly any evidence to support it. Vadavidhi
            is nowhere  mentioned  as a work  of Dharmakirti.  We
            learn, on the other  hand, from the Chinese  sources,
            that  it is there  known  as Ronki  and  ascribed  to
            Vasubandhu.  Dinnaga, a disciple of Vasubandhu  (this
            we have shown more than once) regards it as a work of
            Vasubandhu.  If  it were  a work  of Dharmakirti, why
            should  Vacaspati, who is familiar  with the works of
            both   Dharmakirti   and   Vasubandhu,  ascribe   the
            fragments cited by Dinnaga as belonging to Vadavidhi,
            to Vasubandhu and never to Dharmakirti? (1)

                No doubt the question  of  the  Vadavidhanatika
            still remains unsettled. Dr. Keith complains that I
            am silent  on this  question  and  believes  that  my
            position would he strengthened by "facing the problem
            at the same  time".  But  it may be stated  that  the
            object of my paper was to dispel the illusion created
            by Dr. Vidyabhusana regarding the identity of the two
            texts,  the  Vadavidhi  and  the  Vadanyaya,  and  to
            establish the authorship  of Vadavidhi by Vasubandhu.
            The reference: to the Vadavidhanatika  by Uddyotakara
            was only  used  as an argument  against  the Doctor's
            conclusions,  Now  that  Dr. Keith  attaches  much
            importance  to the  problem  it is  indispensible to
            investigate it in detail.

                In criticising Dinnaga's definition  of  paksa(2)
            Uddyotakara   extracts   a   passage   from   the
            Vadavidhanatika   which   is  clearly  an  improved
            definition  of  paksa(3)  on those  of  an  anonymous
            writer  and of a Bhadanta.  The author of the Vartika
            refers to the improvement on the definition
            ---------------------
            1  NVTT, I.1,4 (p.99): tadevam  pratyaksalaksanam
               samarthya Vasubandhavam tavat pratyaksalaksanam
               vikalpayitum upanyasyati.
            2  NV, p.116.
            3  NV, p.117: sadhayatiti sabdasya svayam parena ca
               tulyatvat svayam iti visesanam.

                                 p. 84

            by the addition  of svayarn as visesana, and proceeds
            to refute  the explanation  and finally  falls  back
            upon the original  definition  without  the suggested
            improvement. A few lines above Uddyotakara quotes and
            criticises in his Vartika certain passages(1)  of the
            Vadavidhi which is a work of Vasubandhu. Next appears
            the definition  of paksa as cribed to 'apara'.  It is
            unquestionably   a  legitimate  conclusion  from  the
            discussions that the Vartikakara is here referring to
            the definition of Vasubandhu and is further supported
            by Vacaspati  in his comments on the passage.(2)  But
            the passage  in question  has not  been  ascribed  to
            Vadavidhi either by Uddyotakara or by Dinnaga.  It is
            not   therefore   clear    what   relation    the
            Vadavidhanatika bears to the Vadavidhi referred to by
            Uddyotakara.  But this  much is certain  that  it has
            nothing to do with the Vadanyayatika of Vinitadeva.

                The identification of the  two texts, the Vadavi-
            dhanatika  and the Vadanyayatika, is beset with great
            difficulties.  There  is   at   the   outset   the
            insurmountable  chronological  difficulty  which  Dr.
            Keith  has not lost sight  of.  If the two texts  are
            one,  not  only  Dharmakirti,  but  even  Vinitadeva,
            author   of  the   Vadanyayatika,  would   become   a
            contemporary  of  Uddyotakara This  is  against  all
            facts and accepted conclusions.  Prof.  Tucci(3)  has
            pointed out why Dharmakirti  cannot be regarded  as a
            contemporary  of Uddyotakara.  It, therefore, goes
            without   saying   that   Vinitadeva   cannot   be  a
            contemporary  of Uddyotakara.  The passage(4)  in the
            Vadanyayatika, which is
            ---------------------
            1  NV, p.115-116.
            2  NVTT, p.273 (Benares edition) : pakso yas sadhayi-
               tum ista ity atrapi Vasubandhulaksane.

                The Vijayanagaram edition of the text, however,
            reads Subandhu for Vasubandhu.  Evidently ca Subandhu
            is either  the printer's  or the scribe's  error  for
            Vasubandhu;   the  more  so,  because   ca  would  be
            superfluous  after api.  It is this simple error that
            has given occasion  for various  explanations  by Dr.
            Ganganath  Jha and  Prof. Randle.  I agree  with  Dr.
            Keith  that  the  ascription   of  the  Vadavidhi  to
            Subandhu  is purely conjectural  and that there is no
            justification  in taking Subandhu either as a variant
            or as an abhreviation of Vasubandhu as  Kirti  is  of
            Dharmakirti.

            3  JRAS, April, 1928, pp, 377ff.
            4  bdag nid ma yin pahi no bo ni bdag nid kyi no bo ni
               gshan gyi no  bo  ma  yin no shes bya bahi don to,
               Mdo. Ze, fol.50 (according to Dr. Vidyabhusana).

                                 p. 85

            taken  to be substantially  identical  with  the  one
            cited by Uddyotakara from the Vadavidhanatika, may be
            restored  into Sanskrit  as "Anatmarupam  atmarupam
            pararupam  na bhavatity  arthah," and  it is, on  the
            face of it, absurd to identify  it with the citation,
            "sadhayatiti  sabdasya svayam  parena  ca tulyatvat
            svayam iti visesnam."(1)

                The definition of vada from the  Vadanyayatika,
            (2) however, if restored into Sanskrit  would read as
            Vadiprativadinoh svapararthasid-dhyasiddharthavadanad
            (or  vacanad)  vadah'  and  is, as  Dr.  Vidyabhusana
            holds, substantially identical with the definition of
            vada,(3) cited by Uddyotakara at I, ii, I. But it has
            been clearly ascribed  to Vasubandhu  by Vacaspati(4)
            and nowhere  is it stated that it belongs to the Vada
            vidhanatika.  It would indeed  be a too bold argument
            if   one   were   to   identify    the   two   texts,
            Vadavidhanatika  and  Vadanyayatika, on the basis  of
            substantial  identity of a passage and establish  the
            contem   poraneity   of  their   authors.   The  only
            explanation  that  would  be offered  for substantial
            identity  is  that  the  definition of vada  of Vasu-
            bandhu became a stock definition  and appeared in the
            same form in later works on vada.

                The pun of Subandhu in his Vasavadatta, 'Nyayata-
            ttvam  iva  Uddyotakarasvarupam  bauddhasangitim  iva
            salankaram', which is taken  by Dr.  Vidyabhusana  in
            support  of  his  contention, appears  in a different
            garb  in some  versions(5)  the  text, and  therefore
            gives   the   impression    that   the   passage   is
            interpolated.  Even if it be an integral  part of the
            text, it can  only  be taken  to refer  to two  works
            whose authors need not necessarily be contemporaries.
            ---------------------
            1  NV, p.117.
            2  rgol ba dan phyir rgol ba dag gis (Read gi) ran
               dan gshan gyi don grub par byed pa dan (ma) grub
               pahidon du brjod nas rtsod pa yin no// Mdo, Ze,
               fol, 41 (according to Dr, Vidyabhusana).
            3  Apare  tu  svaparapaksayoh  siddhyasiddhyartham
               vacanam vadah-- NV, P.150 (cf, NV, p. 121).
            4  NVTT, p.317: tadevam svabhimatam vadalaksanam vya-
               khyaya Vasubandhavam laksanam dusayitum upanyasyati.

                Here also the Vijayanagaram edition reads: sauban-
            dhavam for Vasubandhavam (p.218). Cf, also I-I-37
            (P.207), and Benares edition, p. 298

            5  Satkavikavyaracanam ivalankaraprasadhitam. See S.K.
               De: Sanskrit Poetics, vol. I, p.20.

                                 p. 86

                The pun has been variously interpreted by scho-
            lars. Prof.  Levi  believes  that  alankara  in  the
            passage does not refer to any work of Dharmakirti.(1)
            Prof. Luiders, on the authority of the discoveries in
            Central  Asia,  contends   that  it  alludes  to  the
            Kalpanamanditika   of  Kumaralata,  otherwise   known
            through Chinese translations as the Alankarasastra of
            Asvaghosa.(2)  The passage  may, however, be taken to
            allude either to the Sutralankara  of Asvaghosa or to
            the Mahayana  Sutralankara  of Asanga, the brother of
            Vasubandhu.

                From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that
            the  position  of  Vidyabhusana  is  untenable.   The
            Vadavidhi  is not the Vadanyaya of Dharmakirti, but a
            work  of Vasubandhu  and  that  on no ground  can the
            contemporaneity  of  Uddyotakara  and  Dhamakirti  be
            established.
            ----------------------
            1  Bulletin de l'Ecole d'Extreme Orient, 1903, p.18.
            2  Keith, History of Sanskrit Literature, Preface, viii.


     

     【关闭窗口
    相关文章:
  • 中国古代没有哲学阐释学吗?[210]

  • 圣人求心不求佛,凡人求佛不求心[401]

  • 佛教与哲学的区别 你真能分得清?[1218]

  • 弘一法师总结常人对佛法的十大误解,你中招了吗?[834]

  • 论中国哲学智慧[711]

  • 略论盂兰盆节的印度文化因素 [体恒][1038]

  • 重温“取代宗教说”——从科学、美育、道德、哲学到文化 [张志刚][1054]

  • 印度圣牛观解析:基于宗教、历史、理性选择与文化唯物主义[905]

  • 从印度到中国:佛教僧人是如何彻底摆脱肉食的?[1000]

  • “中国佛教文化遗产图片展” 在印度孟买隆重举行 [李星海][857]

  • 印度非“佛国”:从法显《佛国记》说起[1100]

  • 道教“生生”的哲学意蕴[2001]

  • 中华原创禅茶音乐会绽放印度[1537]

  • 禅是一种沉默的哲学[4266]

  • 古代印度观音信仰起源的探讨 [会闲法师][2134]

  • 小茶杯大哲学[1581]

  • 万里丝路行记:墙里开花墙外香的印度佛教[1322]

  • 西方哲学的智慧学说与佛教的般若智慧之比较 [李恭胜][1636]

  • 走出西方语境的中国哲学 [江怡][2193]

  • “一带一路”战略背景下加强我国与印度的宗教生态文化交流的重大作用和意义[1756]

  •  
    设为首页 | 加入收藏 | 联系站长 | 友情链接 | 版权申明 | 管理登录 | 
    版权所有 Copyright© 2005 佛学研究        站长:wuys
    Powered by:Great Tang Hua Wei & XaWebs.com 2.0(2006)