LANDMARKS IN THE HISTORY OF INDIAN LOGIC

By Erich Frauwallner
In the field of Indian philosophy reigns even at present great uncer
tainty

regarding

chronological

questions.

Again and

again

widely

different dates are given to different authors, so that it becomes almost

impossible for a man unacquainted with the problems to form a clear
judgement for himself. In the following pages I shall, therefore, endea
vour to show for a small section of this field how things stand, and on
what our knowledge is based. Should I have overlooked some important
points or gone wrong, I shall be grateful for suggestions and corrections,
which will be published in a later issue of this journal.
Let me at the very outset make a few methodological observations.
These are, in fact, to a great extent self-evident principles. But they
are so often violated that it is necessary to make some mention of them.

1. In determining the date of the authors of the earlier period we

have often to depend upon a relative chronology, that is to say, we
can only state that they are older

or

younger than certain authors,

and so deduce in which period they must have lived. We can reach an
absolute chronology only if we succeed in ascertaining for certain
authors undisputed dates with the help of reliable testimonies. Only
on the basis of these dates can we proceed to establish the chronology
of others. But to base an uncertain date on another uncertain date
only creates confusion.

2. For ascertaining the clue-dates it is necessary to go back to the

original sources. Second-hand sources, even excerpts and translations,
can mislead us. The opinions of experienced scholars may be of value
even when they are not based on firm evidence. But to quote mere
unfounded suppositions as authority only leads us astray. Data from
works such as Satis Chandra Vidyabhusana's History of Indian Logic,
Calcutta 1921, which abound in errors and inaccuracies, must not be
utilised without a thorough examination.

3. In the case of the souces themselves we must distinguish between

the different accounts. To our most valuable sources for the older
period belong the Chinese and Tibetan accounts. But we have to distin-

125

guish carefully whether a Chinese pilgrim speaks of his own experience

or whether he reproduces what he heard from others. When he speaks
from his personal experience he deserves to be believed to a very great
extent. If he reproduces what he heard from others, then we must
inquire whether he bases himself on reliable informants. If these infor
mants are not known, the information has to be used with caution. But
it is completely to misjudge th state of affairs and deprive ourselves of
one of our most important and best sources if we deny all value to the
Chinese testimonies, as has happened, on ccount of the fact that
Yi-tsing allowed himself to be deceived by incorrect information regar
ding the year of death of Bhart-rhari.
The same is to be said concerning the Tibetan sources. Contempo
rary Tibetan accounts or accounts going back to contemporary sources
deserve our credence to the greatest extent. But the information given
by Bu-ston or Taranatha based on Indian sources which are not precisely
known are to a very great extent valueless and to be used only with
the greatest precaution.
4. There is little use in basing oneself on unpublished sources. The
utilisation of such sources is possible only if the relevant portions of the
mentioned sources are proposed at least in such a way that the scholars
working in the same field can examine them and form an opinion of
their own. For it has too often been found that such information is based
on mistakes. In general, it can be said that references to unpublished
sources, instead of furthering research, only hinder it. And in most of
these cases the best thing to do is to leave such information asid e for

the time being.

5. Special attention is to be paid to certain sources of error which

lead again and again to the distortion of the tradition. For example,
we observe very often that in course of time unimportant person s are
'
forgotten and only the memory of really important personalities is
preserved. The gaps in the tradition thus created are bridged in such

a.

way that the persons who are still remembered are brought into relation
with each other. In our field this is especially observed in the relation
of teacher and pupil. If, therefore, a famous uthor is said to be the

pupil of another famous man, it is a priori suspiciou . And such distor126

tions of the tradition are wont to happen, in most cases, already in the
earlier stages. But if we find an otherwise unknown person mentioned
as teacher of a famous man, then it is most probably a genuine tradition.
To the same phenomenon, namely that unimportant personalities
cease to be remembered, is also to be attributed the fact that a whole
lot of works are ascribed to a famous name, while broad gaps lie in
between. In many cases the names of unimportant authors are thereby
forgotten and their works are ascribed to a famous name. Here, too,
when there are two traditions, the name that is less known has greater
claim to our credence.
6. Attention is to be - paid to the frequent confusion of authors
bearing the same name. The traditions regarding the earlier period
of Indian philosophy are so poor, that we often know only a few authors
and works for a period of several centuries. This,of course, does not
correspond to reality. Where the tradition is more abundant, as in
the case of the Jains, we not only come across a greater number of
available works, but we also get to know the names of numerous
lost works and authors. At the same time we often meet with the same
name. And at present, it has become a self-evident important task to
distinguish between the different authors of the same name, while
working on Jain literature. But we have no reason to suppose that the
conditions were different in other fields where the tradition is less
favourable. If we, therefore, assume different authors of the same name
for explaining contradictions of the tradition, it is, as things are, in
no way a solution arrived at merely to get out of a difficulty, though,
of course, in doing so no misuse must be allowed. It seems to be much
more questionable to jump to the conclusion, as it was formerly the
custom to do, that the same name appearing in totally different strata
of tradition must refer to- the same person.
7. In ascertaining the relative chronology of different authors we
are often left to conclude the dependance of one author on another
from the mention or refutation of certain doctrines, since in the earlier
period names are rarely mentioned. While doing so the rule that such
conclusions are valid only if the alleged doctrines are typical of the
author in question, is often not paid attention to. If one adduces doctrines
127

in which he follows the opinions of another, then nothing is proved

regarding him.

8. Special care has to be taken if one intends to prove from the

omission of an author's name in a source that the author is younger than
the source. In this case, a comprehensive acquaintance with and use
of the literature by the author of the source is presupposed" a fact in
no way self-evident. Again, the more abundant tradition of the Jains
shows that often authors o;f the same time know and use quite different
sections of the extant literature. This may be due to diversity of places
or some other incidental fact. In any case, the best thing to do will be
to set store by the omission of an author's name only if some additional
reasons can be brought forward.
Finally, I should like to observe that it would be better for research
if things already said are not repeated again and again. For, by doing
so, the general view is lost, facts already ascertained are overlooked,
and it even happens that things already recognised as true are again
supplanted by wrong ones.
As for the following exposition, I choose as startng-point the field
of logic, especially that of Buddhist logic, since the conditions here are
particularly favourable. For it is in this field that Cese and Tibetan
accounts come to our aid in greater numbers 1. I have, of course, also
brought in authors of other fields where it seemed necessary or desirable.
In particular, I proceed in the following way. I begin with authors
about whom evidence is available so that we can fix their date defulltely.
This evidence is put forward in a concise form. If in a certain case an
elaborate discussion is necessary, I bring it as an excursus at the end of

Waph.

the para

Thereafter I deal with those authors whose relative

chronology can be ascertained through their relation with those already

spoken of. In order to facilitate the working with the different dates I
give them in round numbers; for thus they are more easily retained
d
1 Some works frequently quoted are listed in a bibliography at the en
of this article. I shall quote them by the number of the bibliography pre ceded
e
by a B; thus B I, B 2 etc. Tr mea n s translation. For the chronology of th
too
e
us
beca
older period I have not made use of the J aina documents,
much material is still to be published and much seems doubtful to me.

128

in the memory and more easily compared with each other. Where
nothing is mentioned about the duration of life of an author, I assume
an average of sixty years, and I calculate the time-distance between
master and pupil to about twenty to thirty years. All this is, of course,
only a reckoning of probability and allows a certain latitude 2. But
first of all a useful working basis must be established. Then we will be
able gradually to arrive at greater correctness and accuracy, since a
great amount of material still remains to be published and utilized to
its full extent. In a few cases I shall point out the way how, in my opi
nion, one could make further advance. I do hope that my exposition
will contribute to facilitate and foster the scientific work in this field.

1. Vasuband1llu (c. 400-480)

The first clearly ascertainable personality in the field of Buddhist
logic is Vasubandhu. As I have dealt with the problem of his date in
a special publication

3,

I shall not here deal with it at length.

The difficulty in determining the date of Vasubandhu lies not

so much in the lack of data as in the fact that data, which deserve
equal credibility, lead one to two different dates. I have tried to solve
the difficulty in the following way.
The ordinary tradition knows of a famous Vasubandhu, a brother
of Asanga, who, at first as a Hinayana teacher composed the Abhidharma
kosah, was then converted to Mahayana by his brother, and now entered
into an extensive literary activity on its behalf. But as we know from
reliable authorities, especially through the testimony of Yasomitra in

his Sphu artha Abhidharmakosavyakhya

4,

there were two persons

with the name ofVasubandhu, the author of the Abhidharmakosah and

an older Vasubandhu (vrddhacarya-Vasubandhu). I have assumed that
the data concerning these two Vasubandhus in the ordinary tradition
have been mixed up, and that not the author of the Abhidharmakosah
2 Cf. the remarks in my monograph on the date of Vasubandhu (cf. the
following note) .
3 E. Frauwallner, On the date of the Buddhist Master of the Law Vasu
bandhu (Serie Orientale Roma ill), Roma 1951.

, Cf. loco cit. p. 21ff.

129

was the brother of Asanga, but this older Vasubandhu. Thus the difficul

ties arrising from the divergence of traditions concerning the date of

Vasubandhu are eliminated. The informations which speak for an
earlier date refer to the brother of Asailga, the older Vasubandhu. The
accounts that lead us to a later date concern the author of the Abhi
dharmakosab, the younger Vasubandhu.

In favour of this solution is also the fact that we can find traces of
this confusion of the two Vasubandhus even in the tradition regarding
the life of Vasubandhu 5. In te biography of Vasubandhu handed
down under the name of Paramartha 6, we are at first told of the ancestry
of the three brothers, Asailga, Vasubandhu and Virificivatsa. Then
follows a long account of the origin of the Abhidharmakosab and of
the other events in the life of its author Vasubandhu, up to the time
when he declined a debate with Sal!1ghabhadra owing to his old age.
In this whole section Asailga is not mentioned at all. Then all at once
the activity of Vasubandhu for Hinayana is taken up again in general
terms, and we are told how he was converted by his brother Asailga to
Mahayana on behalf of which he wrote extensively. The account is
clearly divided into three heterogenous parts, and we are forced to
assume that we have here a biography of the older Vasubandhu, into
the middle of which an account of the younger yasubandhu, the author
of the Abhidharmakosab, is inserted. In fact an axcerpt of the biography
of the older Vasubandhu is preserved in Ki-tsang's commentary on
Aryadeva's Satasastram

7,

in which this middle section is missing.

On the contrary, the activities of the older Vasubandhu for the Hinayana
are recounted. Here it is related that he composed 500 Hinayana works
which were later lost and are not handed down, a fact on which the
biography of the younger Vasubandhu is silent. But no mention what
ever is made of the Abhidharmakosab.
On the strength of these facts I have tried to fix the dates of both
Vasubandhus: for the older Vasubandhu, the brother of Asailga, about

6
8
7

130

Cf. loco cit. p. 14ff.

P'o-seou-p'an-teou fa che tchouan, T 2049.
Po louen chou, T 1827; cf. lac. cit. p. 49ff.

320-380 A. D., and for the younger Vasubandhu, the author of the
Abhidharmakosa.b-, about 400-480 A. D.
The logician Vasubandhu, the author of Vadavidhib,. Vadavidhanam
and Vadasarab- is the younger Vasubandhu

8.

We have, therefore, to

fix his period of activity between 400 and 480 A. D.

Against this distinction between the brother of Asailga and the
composer of the Abhidharmakosa.b., P. S. Jaini has raised, in a lecture
given at the 24th International Congress of Orientalists, Munich 1957,
and later in a special paper

9,

the objection that, according to the

testimony of a newly discovered Abhidharma work, namely the Vibha

prabhavrttib-, the author of the Abhidharmakosab- later changed over
to the Mahayana, which, according to the tradition, was the case with
Asanga's brother.
This objection does not affect my statements, since I had already
earlier expressed the opinion 10 that also the junior Vasubandhu in
his old age had completely changed over to the Mahayana. This is in
no way improbable, for it was a trend of the time in which the Maha
yana became increasingly prominent, while the schools of Hinayana
were to a great extent already extinct or in decline. Besides, in this
way, the confusion of the two persons becomes all the more under
standable.
Nevertheless, there is one essential difference to be taken into
account. While the senior Vasubandhu was converted relatively early
to Mahayana and still composed plenty of Mahayana works

11,

the

conversion of the junior Vasubandhu took place only in his advanced

Cf. my article on "Vasubandbu's Vadavidhi.\:l" in Vol. 1 of this journal.

9 P. S. Jaini, On the theory of. the two Vasubandhus (Bulletin of the

School of Oriental and African Studies, Vol. 21/1958, p. 48-53).

10 Di
e Weltliteratur, biographisches, literarhistorisches und biblio
graphisches Lexikon, herausg. von E. Frauwallner, H. Giebisch und E.
Heinzel, 3. Band, Wien 1954, S. 1849; E. Frauwallner, D ie Philosophie des
.Buddhismus, Berlin
11 T he tradition

1956, S. 351.
handed down by Ki-tsang speaks of 500 Mahayana
works, in a ddition to the 500 Hina y ana works. This was the reason why he
was called the Master of the Thousand Manuals.
9*

131

age

12

and his literary actjvity for the Mahayana was limited to a few

works.. Accordingly, also the writings handed down under the name
of Vasubandhu are to be divided between both the bearers of this
name. In my opinion, the mass of commentaries on the Siitras and on
the older Mahayana works belongs to the older Vasubandhu. Only a
few works, especially the ViIpsatika and TriIp.Sika Vijiiaptimatratasid
dhih can claim the junior Vasubandhu as their author

13.

Further, I

think that we can trace differences in the doctrine of the senior and
the junior Vasubandhu

14.

Still further researches are, of course, to be made here. But the

time for it has not yet come, as important material is yet to be published.
The Sanskrit originals enable us to make more exact ascertainments
than the Chinese and Tibetan translations. But only a small portion of
the Sanskrit works discovered by R. Saillqtyayana has been published.
The edition of Abhidharmakosah by Prahlad Pradhan has not yet
appeared, nor has the edition of Abhidharmapradipah and Vibh
prabhavrt;tih by P. S. Jaini. Also the Bhal?yam on the Madhyanta
vibhagah, likewise discovered by R. Saillqtyayana, still awaits publi
cation. Only when these texts are published can the foundation for
new successful researches be laid.

2. Dharmapala (c. 530-561)

The next date that can be decided with certainty is that of the
famous Yogacara teacher Dharmapala. H. Ui calculates it in the fol
lowing way

15.

12 One should keep in mind the fact of his refusing to take part in a.
debate with Sa!p.ghabhadra on account of his old age.
13 The TrimSikii. is said to have been his last work. Death prevented
him from writing a commentary on it, as he had planned (cf. K'ouei.ki,
T'cheng wei che louen chou ki, T 1 83 0, p. 232 a 14ff.).
14 Cf. my "Philosophie des Buddhismus" p. 3 51ff.
15 Indo tetsugaku kenkyii, Vol. V, Tokyo 19 29, p. 1 2 8 -13 0. (I owe
these data to the kindness of Prof. Demieville, since, unfortunately, the
work of H. Ui is not accessible to me). Cf. the similar calculation in the
article "A propos de Ill. date de Vasubandhu" by Noel Peri (BEFEO Vol.
11/1911, p. 3 83f.).

132

According to the Chinese tradition 16, the Chinese pilgrim. Hiuan

tsan g was, at his arrival in Nalanda in the year 633 A. D. 17, warmly
receive d by the oldest personage of the monastery there, a very old
monk by name Silabhadra (Kiai-hien), and he received instructions
from h im for a year or two. This Silabhadra was at that time 106 years
old 18. In his youth he had been a pupil of Dharmapala. Hiuan-tsang
relates the following incident which took place at that time 19. Dharma
pala w as once challenged to a debate by a learned Brahmin from South
India. He, however, assigned in his place Silabhadra, who won a brilliant
victor y over his opponent and with the rich reward given by the ruler
found ed a monastery. Silabhadra was at that time 30 years old 20.
Be sides, it is also related of Dharmapala 21 that he was the son of
a min ister of Kallcipura in South India, that he became a Buddhist
monk and that he went to Nalanda where he obtained the greatest
fame as a scholar. At the age of 29, he retired to the Bodhi-tree and
spen t the rest of his life in meditation and in the composition of several
work s. He died at the age of 32.
T he above-mentioned debate of Silabhadra with the Brahmin took
plac e, as we said, in his 30th year, namely in 558 A. D. If we suppose
that Dharmapala assigned Silabhadra to take his place in the debate
b eca use he had the intention of retiring under the Bodhi-tree, it follows
t hat he was at that time in his 29th year, that is to say, one year younger

16

To. t>ang ta ts>eu ngen sseu san tsang fa che tchouan, T 2053, k. 3,
B 4, p. 1 44ff.); cf. To. t>ang kou san tsang hiuan tso.ng
fa che hing, T 2052, p. 21 6 a 28ff.; Siu kao seng tchouan, T 2060, k. 4, p.
45 lc 27ff. ; Fo tsou Ii tai t>ong tsai, T 2036, k. 1 1 , p. 5690. 26ff.
17 The Chinese sources mention this year. New calculations based on
the data. of Si-yu-ki would show this year to be 637 A. D.
18 His nephew Buddhabhadra (Kio-hien) too was already more then 70
yea rs old.
19 B 5, k. 8, p. 914c 2-91 5a 2 (Tr
B 6, vol. I, p. 451 -455; cf. B 7,
vol. II, p. 1 09f.).
2 0
B 5, k. 8, p. 914c 20 f.
B 4, p. 190 f.); B 5, k. 10, p . 931 c 7-1 7
21 B 3, k. 4, p. 241 c 1 3-24 (Tr
(Tr
B 6, vol. II, p. 1 1 9f. ; cf. B 7, vol. II, p. 226 & 228); Tch>eng wei
che louen chou ki, T 1 830, k. 1, p. 231 c 7-16; Tch>eng wei che louen tch>ou
yao , T 1831, p 608a 24ff.

P . 236 c 13ff. (Tr

133

than 8ilabhadra. Thus we can fix the date of his birth as

death as

530 and of his

561 A. D.

The data which fOT'm the basis of these calculations go back, in the
final analysis, to Hiuan-tsang and 8ilabhadra themselves, and therefore
constitute first-hand information which must be held as valid as long
as no convincing arguments are brought forward against it. Slight
inaccuracies or variations in the numerical data are not of much impor
tance in the present state of things.

3. Authors between Vasubandhu and Dharmapala: Vasurata (c. 430-490),

Bhartrhari (c. 450-510) and Dignaga (c. 480-540)
From the dates of Vasubandhu and Dharmapala, it is possible to
determine the period of Dignaga, the real founder of the Buddhist
school of logic and epistemology. Dignaga mentions Vasubandhu by
name and attacks his views 22. Besides, Dharmapala wrote a commentary
on Dignaga's AIambanaparika 23. Hence Dignaga must have lived
between Vasubandhu and Dharmapala. This relatively long period can
be further narrowed down on account of the relation of Dignaga to the
grammarian Bhartrhari.
Formerly, Bhartrhari was believed to be dated with certainty on
the strength of a statement of the Chinese pilgrim Yi-tsing, who wrote
in the year

691/2 A. D.

24

that Bhartrhari had died

the year of his death was calculated as

40 years ago. Hence

651 A. D. But this statement

has proved to be false, either on account of an error in the tradition or

owing to a mistake of Yi-tsing himself or of his informant. Dignaga
quotes at the end of the 5th chapter of his Prama-'.lasamuccayah two
verses from Bhartrhari's Vakyapadiyam

(II

v.

160 and 157) 25. Besides,

22 H
e wrote commentaries on Viidavidhih and Viidavidhanam. Furth er
he mentions the doctrines of Vasubandhu all the chapters of his Pr8.
maI}.asamuccaya1;l and refutes them.
23 Kouan so yuan che, T 1625, Besides, the Alambanaparikt;la by Dignaga.
was translated into Chinese by Paramartha, who came to Kanton in 546 A. D.
(Wou siang sseu tch)en louen, T 1619).
24 B 8, k. 4, p. 229b If. (Tr
B 9, p. 180).
ga
25 Cf. especially H. R. Rangaswamy Iyengar, Bhartrhari and Di ima
(JBBRAS, New Series, vol. 26(1950) p. 147-149); Hajime Nakamu:a,
Tibetan Citations of Bhartrhari's Verses and the Problem of his Date (StudIes
=

134

his Traikalyaparika is based on Bhart!hari's PrakirI.1am 26. Further,

Dharmapala wrote a commentary on Bhartrhari's PrakirI.1am, as the
Chinese tradition and, above all, Yi-tsing himself informs us 27. Hence
Bhartrhari must have lived before Dignaga and Dharmapala.
We can determine Bhart!hari's date still more exactly in the fol-
lowing way. At the end of the second chapter of his Vakyapadiyam,
v. 490, Bhartrhari makes mention of his teacher (guruh), and the
commentator PUl).yaraja gives his name as Vasurata

28.

This fact has

been confirmed by the Jain author SiI!lhasiiri, who in his commentary

on Mallavadi's Nayacakram also designates Vasurata as the teacher of
Bhartrhari 29. A grammarian by name Vasurata is known to us from
the biography of Vasubandhu by Paramartha. Paramartha narrates.

30

that Vasubandhu, after the completion of his Abhidharmakosab, was

attacked by a renowned grammarian named Vasurata (P'o-sieou-lo-to),
the brother-in-law of the young Gupta king Baladitya, on account of
the language of his work, and that he refuted him in a detailed rejoinder.
In all probability this VlJ,surata was the teacher of Bhartrhari. Since,
according to the account of Paramartha, the above-mentioned incidents
Dceured in the later period of Vasubandhu, and the brother-in-law of
the young king Bliladitya could not have been an old man, we can
assume the life-time of Vasurata to be about 430-490 A. D. Thus it
follows that his pupil Bhartrhari lived about 450-510 A. D.
Dignaga must, therefore, have lived between this time and the time
of Dharmapala. But the following fact speaks against too early a date.
Dignaga attacks in his Pramal).asamuccayah, among other things, the
in Indology and Buddhology. Presented in honour of Professor Susumu
Yamaguchi on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, Kyoto 1955, p. 122136).
26
Cf. my article "Dignaga, sein Werk und seine Entwicklung" in Vol. 3
of this journal, p. 83 -164.
21 B 8, k. 4, p. 229 b 5 f. Durvekamisra
gives the title of this commentary
as PrakirJ)avrttil). in his Dharmottarapradipa l)., p. 35, 28'
28
In the edition of the Benares Sanskrit Series p. 286, s; cf, p. 284, 19;
285, 24 and 290, 23'
29 The
Dvadasharanayachakram, ed. by Acharya Vijaya Labdhi Suri,
Part III (Shri Labdhisurishwar Jain Granthamala No. 35), Chhani 1957,
p. 780, 17 and 802'4 (in the edition by Jambuvijaya p. 581, 1 and 595, 1)'
30

B 1, P. 190 b 22-29 (Tr

B 2, p. 44 f.).

135

views of the Sahya teacher Madhava

31.

Hiuan-tsang in his travels

tells of a monastery in Magadha, which was erected to commemorate

the victory of the Buddhist master GU:Q.amati over Madhava, and
gives detailed information as to how this discussion was carried on

32.

The date of GU:Q.amati, in its turn, is known to us through his pupil

Sthiramati.
Sthiramati,

the

most

important

among

the

contemporaries

of

Dharmapala within the Yogacara school, was, according to the Chinese

accounts, somewhat older than Dharmapala and his field of activity
was in Valabhi

33.

For a more exact computation of his time we have

the following data. First of all, we know from inscriptions

34

that king

Guhasena of Valabhi, who is known to have ruled from 558-566 A. D.,

had a monastery erected for him. Further, Hiuan-tsang tells us

35

that

while he was at Nalanda, he visited a famous master Jayasena, and

that he studied with him for some time. The latter had been in his
youth a pupil of Bhadraruci and Sthiramati, but later he had gone
to NiiJanda to become a pupil of Silabhadra. Evidently Dharmapala
was already dead by that time. At the time of Hiuan-tsang Jayasena
was about 100 years old. Moreover, at the same time there was living
in Valabhi an old monk named Prajiiagupta, who had been the teacher
of three generations of kings of Valabhi. He too-had been in his youth
a pupil of Sthiramati, though later on he changed over to the school
of Sal'!1matiyas 36 Taking all this into account we can say that Sthiramati
81 PramaQasamuccayavrtti:Q. I, f. 24a 5
(Derge).
32 B 5, k. 8, p. 913 c 13-914 c 1
B 7, vol. II, p. 108 f.).
33

(Tr

107 a 7 (Nahartng); f. 23 b 1

B 6, vol. II, p. 441-451; cf.

Tch'eng wei che louen chou ki, T 1830, k. 1, p. 231 c 16-19.

Cf. Sylvain Levi, Les donations religieuses des rois de Valabhi (Biblio
theque de l'EcoIe des Hautes-Etudes, sciences religieuses, etudes de criti
que et d'histoire, 2e serie, 7e vol., p. 75-100).
35 B 3, k. 4, p. 244 a 7-24 (Tr
B 4, p. 212-214); cf. B 5, k. 9, p. 920 a
15-b 3 (Tr
B 6, vol. II, p.llf.; cf. B 7, vol. II, p.146).The same Jayasen a
is also mentioned as a pupil of Nanda (Tch'eng wei che louen chou ki, T 1830,
34

k. 1, p. 231 c 26f.).

36 Tch'eng wei che louen chou ki, T 1830, k. 4, p. 351 a 21ff.; cf. k_ 7,
p . 500 cff.; B 3, k. 4, p_ 244 c 21ff. and p. 245c 2ff. (Tr
B 4, p. 220ff.
and 226f.).
=

136

must have been still active about 560 A. D. The statement that he was
older than Dharmapala does not, therefore, mean that he died earlier,
but that he was born earlier. His lifetime can thus be fixed as 510-570
A. D.

If we assume that there was no exceptional difference of age between

him and his teacher GUI.lamati, then GUI.lamati's victory over Madhava
hardly falls before 510 A. D. Nor can the polemics of Dignaga, under
these circumstances, be put as earlier than 500 A. D. Taking into con
sideration all these facts, I would suggest as a working hypothesis the
life-time of Dignaga to be about 480-540 A. D. 36&.

4. Dharmakirti (c. 600-660)

The next clue is offered by the great logician Dharmakirti, whose
life-time can be inferred from Chinese sources. Though the Tibetan
works of Bu-ston 37 and Taranatha

38

contain descriptions of the life of

Dharmakirti, the Indian tradition in them is so much distorted that

only in rare cases can anything useful be gleaned from it.
The following considerations might help us in establishing the
period of Dharmakirti's life. He is not mentioned by Hiuan-tsang,
who otherwise informs us of all teachers of any importance he had
come to know of. As Hiuan-tsang left India in the year 644 A. D. Dharma
kirti cannot have achieved any renown at that time. On the contrary,
Yi-tsing, who stayed at Nalanda from 675 till 685 A. D., mentions him
in his Nan hai ki kouei nei fa tchouan 39, where he remarks that Dharma
kirti brought about further progress in the field of logic after Dignaga

40.

In enumerating the famous teachers Yi-tsing classifies them under

different periods: the older, the middle, the recent and the present.
While doing so he mentions Dharmakirti among recent teachers. Hence
38& Serious difficulties could be raised against this date if the KrfRlacaritam
ascribed to Samudragupta should prove genuine. But I have not yet had

the opportunity of having a look at it, nor has, as far as I know, a serious
discussion been started concerning it.
37
38
39
40

B
B
B
B

11, vol. II, p. 152-155.

12, p. 134-144 (Tr
B 13, p. 175-188).
8, k. 4, p. 229b 16 (Tr
B 9, p. 181).
8, k. 4, p. 229b 20 (Tr
B 9, p. 182).
=

137

Dharmakirti was no longer alive when Yi-tsing was staying at NiUanda.

But his death cannot have been very much earlier, since, still in Yi-tsing's
time, logic in Nalanda was not studied according to the works of Dharma
kirti, but those of Dignaga

41.

Therefore Dharmakirti had at that time

not yet fully made his way, while later on his works had almost comple
tely replaced those of Dignaga. Further, if we take into consideration
that Dharmakirti, according to his own statement, failed to achieve
recognition for many years, then we may fix his life-time from about

600 to 660 A. D.
Against this date it may be argued that, according to Taranatha,

42

Dharmakirti was ordained a monk by Dharmapala. But Taranatha's

statements are totally unreliable especially when it is a question of
linking together famous personalities. Besides this, the silence of Hiuan
tsang would have to be explained if the date of Dharmakirti is pushed
back. However, the arguments brought forward by R. Saillqtyayana 43
as an explanation are inconclusive. He enumerates the following possibi
lities: 1. that at the time of Hiuan-tsang's stay in NaIanda Dharmakirti
was already dead, 2. that Hiuan-tsang's knowledge of Buddhist logic
was not so deep and that he was not much interested in that subject,

3. that the compilers of the life of Hiuan-tsang purposely avoided the

mention of Dharmakirti, since it would occupy the chief place in the
picture und Hiuan-tsang's glory would grow dim.
To these we answer as follows: 1. Most of the renowned teachers
mentioned by Hiuan-tsang were at his time already dead. We do not
see why on this ground he should have omitted just Dharmakirti.

2. That Hiuan-tsang had quite a good knowledge of Buddhist logic is

shown by his translation of the Nyayamukham, which is a difficult
work and not at all just "a small manual", and further by the knowledge
he communicated to his pupils K'ouei-ki, Chen-t'ai and Houei-tchao.
41

B 8, k. 4,

p.

230a 6 (Tr

B 9, p. 186f.).

42 B 12, p. 135 (Tr

B 13, p. 176).
43 Dharmakirti's Vadanyaya with the commentary of Santaraita ed.
by Riihuia Sailkrtyayana (Appendix to JBORS, Vols. 21 & 22), I ntro
=

duction p. VIf.

138

Besides, we are told that, while at Nalanda, he twice went through

thoroughly the Nyayamukham (yin ming louen)

44

and the Pramaasam

uccayah (tsi leang louen) 45. Moreover, he used every occasion to per
fect himself in the field of logic. Thus he studied in Mahakosala the
Prama1).asamuccayah under the guidance of a Brahmin who knew this
work especially well 46. In his travels Hiuan-tsang not only gives details
about Dignaga

47,

but alo mentions Bhadraruci, a logician of renown

at his time 48. Further, he brought with him to China thirty-six works
on Logic from India 49. That he did not translate them all is quite
understandable. For, though he was an astonishingly assiduous "trans
lator, yet to translate more than a part of the works he brought with
him from India was above human capacity. Hiuan-tsang, therefore,
cannot be reproached either for not knowing or not taking sufficient
interest in logic 50. 3. The supposition that the authors of the life of
Hiuan-tsang had purposely omitted the mention of Dharmakirti for
fear of dimming the glory of Hiua n-tsa ng is utterly ridiculous. All the
famous personalities of the past and present are mentioned in the
travels and the biography of Hiuan-tsang with admiration and praise;
why should Dharmakirti alone be ignored 1 Again, a witness who has
in other respects always been considered as reliable and conscientious
is not lightly to be suspected of dishonesty. Such arbitrary arguments
far from doing science a service, only create greater confusion. It is
only gratifying to note that R. Sankrtyayana himself rejects this last
supposition.
44 Where the words "yin ming louen" designate not logic in general,
but a particular work of Dignaga (cf. B 5, k. 10, p" 930c 7 f.; Tr
B 6,
vol. II, p. 109), most probably the Nyayamukham is meant.
45 B 3, k. 3, p. 239 a 1 (Tr
B 4, p. 164).
46 B 3, k. 4, p. 241 b 10f. (Tr
B 4, p. lS7).
47 B 5, k. 10, p. 930b 12-c 9 (Tr
B 6, vol. II, p. 106-110).
48 B 5, k. 11, p. 936a Sff. (Tr
B 6, vol. II, p. 15Sff.).
49 B 3, k. 6, p. 252 c 10 (Tr
B 4, p. 295).
50 That Hiuan.tsang was well versed in Indian logic is shown, for instance,
by the account of K>ouei.ki, wherein we are told how cleverly Hiuan-tsang
corrected a faulty syllogism of Jayasena (Yin ming jou tcheng Ii louen chou,
T lS40, p. 121 b 20ff.).
=

139

5. Author8 between Digniiga and Dharmakirti: Sankarasviimi (c. 500-560),

Bhadraruci (c. 510-570) and Isvarasena (c. 580-640)
Only a few names are known to us from the period between Dignaga
and Dharmakirti. The Chinese tradition mentions SailkarasvamI and
Bhadraruci, while the Tibetan tradition tells us of lavarasena. None
of them is of great importance, and, therefore, a few words on each
should suffice.
The oldest of them is Sailkarasvami, the author of the Nyayapra
vesakasutram. The importance of this work lies in the fact that it
was a convenient handbook for teaching purposes, for Dignaga had left
no work of this kind, and his works were too difficult for a wider teaching
activity. K'ouei-ki says 51 of Sailkarasvami, on the basis of the infor
mation of Hiuan-tsang, that he was a personal pupil of Dignaga, and
that his work closely followed the teachings of his master. In any case,
for Hiuan-tsang he already belonged to the remote past. We may,
therefore, fix his life-time in the first half of the 6th century, namely
about 500-560 A. D.
Bhadraruci is known to us only through the Chinese accounts.
According to the data of K'ouei-ki, which are based on the information
of Hiuan-tsang, he lived 60 years before the latter's arrival in Nalanda
and was the most remarkable logician of his time 52. Thus it follows
that his life-time extended from about 510 to 570 A. D. This is in agree
ment with the fact that the already-mentioned Jayasena 5S, who was
about 100 years old when he met Hiuantsang, had him as his first
teacher. Besides, Hiuan-tsang, while describing Miilava, speaks of
Bhadraruci's victory over a renowned Brahmin teacher 64. None of the
writings of Bhadraruci have come down to us.
S
About Iavarasena we are told that he wrote a commentary on the
PramaJ.lasamuccayah of Dignaga 55. He was, in his turn, attacked by
51 Yin ming jou tcheng Ii louen chou, T 1840 , p. 91c 26- 92a 1 .

52 Ibid. T 1840, p . 94 b 23- 25.

53 See above p. 136.

54 B 5, k. 11, p. 935c 23- 93680 28 (Tr

B 6, vol. II, p. 156-160 ) .

65:B 11, p. 152, 15' Further he is mentioned by Durveka in his A rca
ii.lokal). p. 40, 19 by the side of Jinendrabuddhi, the author of ViSalama.l
vati, a commentary on Dignaga's Pra.mii.I).asamuccaya:Q, preserved m
Tibetan translation.

lO

Dharmakirti

.;e.

Tradition mentions him as a pupil of Dignaga 57 and

as the teacher of Dharmakirti 58. Considered from the point of view

of time, these two things are not possible at the same time. Yet his
relation to Dignaga as a pupil is a mere external linking together of
famous teachers, which is in itself a highly suspicious procedure. On
the contrary, in the accounts of the life of Dharmakirti he appears
as very closely connected with him. Besides, his teachings are, in some
respect, similar to those of Dharmakirti

59.

Hence it is proba.ble that he

was really the teacher of Dharmaklrti, and thus his life-period can be
calculated to be about 580-640 A. D .

6. Siintarakl}ita (c.725-788) and KamalaSila (c. 740-795)

The information on the great apostle of Tibet Santaraita (or
Sii.ntiraklilita)

60

and his pupil Kamalaaila provides us with specially

valuable data: for important events of their lives are connected with
the introduction of Buddhism in Tibet, and are, therefore, related
in Tibetan sources, which go back to contemporary records and merit
credence to a great extent.
Accounts of Sii.ntarata are extant in two works accessible to
all, namely, in Bu-ston's Chos-cbyun 61 and in GZon-nu-dpal's Deb-ther
anon-po 62. Taranatha'a History of Buddhism contains only a few
remarks which need not be taken into consideration here.

In the above-mentioned accounts is the following related: The

Tibetan king Khri-sron-lde-btsan ascended the throne after his father's
death at the age of thirteen. At the beginning he was under the influ58

Cf. Kan:.mlmgomi, Pramal].a.varttikattla p. 12, 21; Arcata, Hetubindu12, S.

ika p.

57 B 11, p. 152, 13f.; B 12, p. 135, 1& (Tr = B 13, p. 176, lsf.).
B 11, p. 152, 17ff.; B 12, p. 135, 18ft". (Tr = B 13, p. 176, lSti.).
5 D I shall discuss this point at greater length in another place.
58

&0
Gl

The manuscripts suggest the form Santaraita.

B 11, vol. II, p. 186-191. According to G. Tucci, Minor Buddhist
Texts, Part II, (Serie Oriental Roma IX/2), Roma 1958, p. 10: "the pages

of Buston on the events which prepared the advent of Santaraita and

Padmasambhava are more or less condensed from the sBa bzed."
83 G.
Roerich, The Blue Annals, Part I-II (The Asiatic Society
Monograph Series Vol. VII), Calcutta 1949-1953, p. 40-44.

N.

141

ence of mighty ministers who were opposed to Buddhism. Later on

he shook off this influence, and at the same time, invited Santarakita
to Tibet. Though he had to dismiss him after a short time on account
of indigenous opposition, he called him back again after a few years,
In any case Santarakita was in Tibet when the king started to build
the temple and monastery of Bsam-yas. When the construction was
over, Santarakita became the first abbot of the monastery and ordained
the first Tibetan monks. He died, in due course, several years before
the controversies with the Chinese line of Buddhism in Tibet and its
protagonist, the Hva-san Mahayana, made it necessary to call his
pupil Kamalasila to Tibet.
The date of these events can be established as follows: Khri-sron
lde-btsan was born in the horse year 742 A. D.63. He ascended the
throne at the age of thirteen, that is to say, in the sheep year 755 A. D. 64.
The events which caused the change over of Khri-sron-Ide-btsan to
Buddhism took place in his twentieth year according to one of the
edicts preserved in Dpao-gtsug-phren-bacs Chos-cbyun 65. The changes
in the government related in the Annals of Touen-houang under the
hare year 763 A. D. may be connected with this 66.
As regards the date ,of the foundation of Bsam-yas, the statements
show considerable discrepancies 67.According t!> the majority of sources
the construction was started in a hare year, which was in all probability
the year 775 A. D. The ordination of the first Tibetan monks which
took place on the completion of the monastery was performed according
63

B 11, p. 186; B 10, p. 26 (Tr p. 51): bean po sron ide brean brag mar

du) bltam.

64 B 11, p. 187; Gion.nu.dpal p. 51; B 10, p. 56 (Tr p. 63) this event

is recorded under the monkey year 756 A. D.: Btsan-polJi-mtsan-Khri-sron
Lde-brtsan-du-lJ,ond j eab-srid-phyag-du-bzes
The Btsan-po's name was
published as Khri-sroil Lde-brtsan; he took the government in hand.
65 cr. G. Tucci, The Tombs of the Tibetan Kings (Serie Orientale Roma I ),
Roma 1950, p. 47f.
66
B 10, p. 60 (Tr p. 66).
67 The question of the date of its foundation has often been dealt with.
The last one to deal with it in great detail was G. Tucci in Minor Buddhist
Texts, Part II (Serie Orientale Roma IXj2), Roma 1958, p. 28-32 and
p.285.
=

142

to reliable old accounts in a sheep year by which only the year 779 A. D.
can be meant 68. If the account that Santarakita died after a thirteen
years' stay in Bsam-yas deserves to be believed, his death would fall
in the year 788 A. D. , which is quite possible and may be accepted as a
working hypothesis.
Thus we obtain the following dates concerning Santaraita. He
came to Tibet for the first time in about 763, came back a second time
after a short interruption, and lived from 775 till 788 in Bsam-yas.
Since he was at the time of his first call to Tibet no longer a young man
but already a renowned teacher, we may fix his birth as about 725 A. D.
Of his greater works, TattvasaIp.grahah and VipancitartM Vada
nyayatika alone have been published so far 69. Of these the Tattva.
saIp.grahah is the older one, since a reference to it is made in the Vipan
citartha 70. And since the greater part of Santarakita's literary activity
falls in all probability before his first call to Tibet, it may have been
written before 763. We may, therefore, assume that the works quoted
in the TattvasaIp.grahah fall before 760 A. D. 71. More exact data will
possibly be obtained when the other works of Santarakita are published
and his philosophical career is ascertained.
About Kamalasila, the pupil of Santarakita, we are told that he
was called to Tibet after the death of Santarakita, when the Chinese
line of Buddhism in Tibet threatened to gain supremacy over the
ndian trend 72. A great religious debate took place with the chief
representative of the Chinese trend, the Hva-san
68

(upiidhyayaM

MaM-

Cf. G. Tucci, loco cit., p. 25 and 285.

G9 Tattvasarpgraha of Santaraita with the Commentary of Kamalaaila,

ed. by Embar Krishnamacharya (Gaekwad's Oriental Series Nos. 30-31),

Baroda 1926. Dharmakirti's Vadanyaya with the Commentary of Santa
raita, ed. by R. SaIilqtyayana (Appendix to JBORS, Vols. 21 & 22),
Patna 1935-36.
70 Cf. Vipaiicitartha p. 84, 28: yathii tu para'l1'liitvaoom aindriyakatvam
anityatva'1]l ca tad vistare1)-oktam anyatramnabhiJ.!,. This reference can refer
only to the detailed discuSsion in the Dravyapadarthapara of Tattvasarp
graha!)..
71 As far as I see ,neither in the Vipaiicitartha nor in Kamalaaila's
Tattvasarpgrahapaiijika other works are. quoted than in the Tattvasarp
graha!)..
72
B 11, p, 191-196.

143

yana, in the so-called Council of Lha-sa or Bsam-yas 73, in which Kama

lasila came off victorious. Thereafter Kamalasila composed under the
title of Bhavanakramah three works dealing with the topic on whioh
the controversy was principally centred, namely the process of medi
tation that leads towards enlightenment 74. Shortly afterwards he was
murdered75.
In ascertaining the life-period of Kamalasila it is important, first
of all, to fix the date of the Council of Bsam-yas. According to the
thorough researches of P. Demieville this took place between 792 and
79476 Further, Kamalasila was already a pupil of Santarakl?ita in
India, before the latter went to Tibet. He may, therefore, have lived
from about 740 to 795 A. D.
73 P. Demieville has dealt with it elaborately, utilising the documents
from Touen.houang, in his excellent book: Le concile de Lhasa. Une contro
verse sur Ie quietisme entre bouddhistes de l'Inde et de Is; Chine au VIlle
siecle de l'ere chretienne (Biblioth6que de l'Institut des Hautes Etudes
chinoises, vol. 7), Paris 1952. Since the debate took place not in Lha-sa but
in Bsam-yas, it is better to speak of the council of Bsam-yas (cf. G. Tucci,
Minor Buddhist Texts, Part II, p. 32).
74 The first and the third Bhavanakramai}. are preserved in Sanskrit.
4567,
Besides, there are Tibetan translations of all three (Nos. 3915, 3916
3917), and a Chinese translation of the first one (T 1664). The Sanskrit text
of' the first Bhavanakramai}., together with the Tibetan translation, has
been edited by G. Tucci, Minor Buddhist Texts, Part II (Serie Orientale
Roma IX/2), Roma 1958; a brief sketch of the contents of the Chines,
translation was given by P. Demieville in his book on the council of Lha-sa
p. 333-335. The Sanskrit text of the third Bhavanakramai}. is preserved in
Leningrad, but has not yet been published (cf. E. Obermiller, A Sanskrit
Ms. from Tibet - Kamalasila's Bhavanakrama, Journal of the Greater
India Society II/1935, S. 1- 11). The Tibetan translation has been edited
by Sh. YoshimW'a, Tibetan Buddhistology; the' Basic Original Texts of
Historical Lamaism: Bhavanakrama by KamalaSila with Illustrations and
an Introductory Note, Kyoto 1953. A French translation, following the
Tibetan, by Et. Lamotte is contained in the book of P. Demieville, p. 336353.
75 Cf. G. Tucci, Minor Buddhist Texts, Part II, p. 45.
78 Le concile de Lhasa, p. 177.
=

144

7. Authors between Dharmakirti and Siintarakita : Devendrabuddhi

(c. 630 -690) , Siilcyamati (c.660-,720) und Ka'Y'TJakagomi
Although Santarakl}ita and Kamalasila make mention of many
authors, they do not speak of even a single :Buddhist logician whose
life-time falls between Dharmakirti and Santarakl}ita. This is not
without good reason. The first noteworthy Buddhist logician after
Dharmakirti is Dharmottara, who lived after Santarakl?ita. Those who
went before him are more or less good commentators of Dharmakirti,
but are, from the philosophical point of view, without significance. A
brief mention of a few of the most important should, therefore, be
sufficient.
The oldest of these commentators is Devendrabuddhi. who following
closely Dharmakirti's own commentary on the 1st chapter of the Prama
J).avarttikam, wrote a commentary on the following three chapters 77.
He is said to have been a personal pupil of Dharmakirti, 78 a fact which
is in itself worthy of credence. He must, therefore, have lived about
630-690 A. D.
On Dharmakirti's and Devendrabuddhi's PramaJ).avarttikavrttib.
was composed a sub-commentary by Sakyamati (or Sakyabuddhi) 79.
He is usually mentioned as a disciple of Devendrabuddhi 80, which may
be accepted as worthy of belief. In any case he belongs to quite an
early time, and we might fix his life-period from 660 to 720 A. D.
In this connection is also to be mentioned KarJ).akagomi, the author
of a sub-commentary on Dharmakirti's Vrt;tib. on the first chapter
of PramaJ).avarttikam, which has been discovered and published by
R. Sankrtyayana 81 . R. Gnoli has shown the close agreement of Sakya-

7 7 Tshad-ma-rnam-<grel gyi-<grel pa (Pramal)avarttikavrttil).), No. 4217.

'Cf. m y article on Devendrabuddhi in Vol. 4 of this journal, p. 119- 123.
7 S B 11, p. 154, Bo ff. ; B 12, p . 143, s ff. (Tr
B 13, p. 186, 19 ff.).
79 Tshad-ma-rnam- <grel-gyi-'grel-bsad (Pramal)avarttikaika), N:o. 4220.
so B 11, p. 155, 10 ; B 12, p. 143, 1
B 13, p. 187, 10)' Now and
7 (Tr
then S akyamati is called a personal pupil of Dharmakirti, cf. B 12, p. 143, 8 f.
(Tr
B 13, p. 186, luff.).
S1 Acaryadharmakirtel). Pramal)avarttikarp. svopajiiavrttya Karl)aka
gomi viracitaya taWkaya ca sahitam, Ilahabad 1943.
=

10

145

mati with KarJ;lakagomi, and has hence drawn the conclusion that
Sakyamati was dependent on him 82 . Thus KarJ;lakagomi also belongs
to this early period.
More interesting than these commentators of the earlier period
are the authors contemporary with Sii.ntaraita or living immediately

after his time. But before we speak of them, we must still mention
another source which is important for the determination of their dates,
namely the "Catalogue of Translations of Ldan-kal'''.

TM Catalogue oj Translations oj Ldan-kar : SUbhagupta (c. 720- 780).

Arcata (c. 730-790) and Dharmottara (c. 750 - 810)
In the Tibetan Bstan-(gyur is preserved a small work with the
title "Catalogue of the Transiations of the Holy Scriptures and Dootrinal
Tracts kept in the Palace Ldan-kar in Stod-than" (pJw bran 8tod than

Ulan kar gyi bka( dan b8tan bC08 (gyur ro

cog

gi dkar chag, No. 4364),

composed by Dpal-brtsegs, Nam-mkha<i-s:iii-il po and others

83.

It is

a list of works which were translated into Tibetan during and immedia
tely after the reign of king Khri-sron-Ide-btsan. The list itself dates
from the year 800 or 812 A. D.

84.

I have endeavoured in a separate paper to identify the works which

are catalogued in the section on logic (tark08 phyOg8 la), and have
thereby arrived at the following result

85 :

Apart from a few wdrks of

Dignaga and Dharmakirti and several unidentifiable works, the following

authors are therein represented through their works :
82 R . Gnoli, The Pramfu}.avarttilQun of Dharmakirti (Serie Orientale
Roma. 23), Roms. 1960, p. XIXff.
83 Edited by Shyuki Yoshimura, The Denkar-ma, an oldest catalog ue
of the Tibetan Buddhist Canons, with introductory notes, Ryukoku Univer
sity. Kyoto 1950. Another edition was published by M. Lalou, Les textes
bouddhiques au temps de Khri-sron-Ide-bcan, Journal Asiatique, tome 241/
1 953, p. 313- 353.
8& In my article to be mentioned in the following footnote I have decided
in favour of 800 A. D. G. Tucci in a substantial excursus in his Minor Bud
dhist Texts, Part II (Serie Orientale Roma. IX/2), Roms. 1958, p . 46, n. I,
advocates 812 A. D.
85 "Zu den buddhistischen Texten in der Zeit Khri-sron-Ide-btsan's", in
Vol. 1 of this journal, p. 95- 103.

146

Vinitadeva through his Nyayabindu1iika, Sa,l!lbandhaparatika,

Alambanaparikl?atika and Santan.ntarasiddhitika ;
BUbhagupta through his Anyapohasiddhib, Sarvajiiasiddhib, Nairatmyasiddhib, Bahyii.rthasiddhib and IsvarabhaIigab ;
Arcata through his Hetubindutika ;
Kamalasua through his Nyayabindupiirvapakasaepab ;
Dharmottara through his Nya.yabindutika and Paralokasiddhib(

1}.

Of these Vinitadeva is a mere commentator without any significnce

of his own. Important, on the contrary, are Bubhagupta, Arcata. and
Dharmottara, especially the last. For it was he, as I have already
observed, who was the first important personality after Dharmakirti
in the field of Buddhist logic

86.

His life-time can be determined in the

following way. He is not referred to by Bantaraklfita and Kamalasila,

and, therefore, he is obviously junior to them. Moreover , we know from
KalhaJ;la's Rajatarangini

(IV

v. 498), that he came to Kashmir during

the reign of king Jayapi<;la (c. 775-806 A. D.). Finally it seems to me

worthy of note that in spite of the high reputation he enjoyed in Tibet,
he has very few works to his credit in the catalogue of Ldan-kar compared
with Vinitadeva and Bubhagupta. This, in my opinion, can be easily
explained by the fact that at the time of the working out of the cata
logue he was still alive and at work, and that at this time only his earlier
works were presented in translation. Taking into account all these
circumstances, I would assume the life-period of Dharmottara to be
about 750-810 A. D.
This also gives us a clue for the determination of the dates of Bu
bhagupta and Arcata. For according to the testimony of Bu-ston, Dhar
mottara was the pupil of Bubhagupta and Dharmakaradatta

87.

Su

bhagupta is repeatedly quoted and attacked by Santarakl?ita in the

TattvasaIp.grahab (p. 551 ff.). He must, therefore, have been his senior
contemporary, and thus his life-time falls about 720-780 A. D. Again,
86
I hve tried to describe his personality in my edition of his Apohapra
kar (WZKM 44/1937, p. 233- 287).
87
B 1 1, vol- II, p. 155, lOff. Unfortunately, I cannot trace the source

of this statement. According to the translation by Obermiller Bu-ston

says : "But in the Commentary it is said that Dharmottara was the pup il
of Dharmiikaradatta and Subhagupta."
10

147

Dharmakaradatta was, according to the testimony of Durveka 88 the

name in religion of the logician Arcata. We can therefore assign him
to about 730-790 A. D. 8 9.
(To be continued)
Bibliography
(Chinese texts I quote according to the Taisho edition of the Tripiaka

by J. Takakusu and K. Watanabe by the number of the work preceded by

a T (e. g. T 2049). In quoting Tibetan texts I add the number of the work
according to the Complete Catalogue of the Tibetan Buddhist Canons
(Bkal:t.l:tgyur and Bstan.l:tgyur), ed. by H. Ui, M. Suzuki, Y. Kamakura,
T. Tada, Sendai 1 934 (e. g. No. 4364). Tr means translation.)

1. Paramartha, P'o-seou-p'an-teou fa che tchouan, T 2049.

2. J. Takakusu, The Life of Vasubandhu by Paramartha (A. D. 499-569)
(T)oung Pao, Serie II, vol. 5/1 904, p. 269- 296 & 620).
3. Ta t)ang ta ts)eu ngen sseu san tsang fa che tchouan, T 2053.
4. St. Julien, Histoire de la vie de Hiouen-thsang et de ses voyages dans
l'Inde par Hoei-li et Yen-thsong (Voyages des pelerins Bouddhistes,
vol. I), Paris 1853.

5. Hiuan-tsang, Ta t)ang si yu ki, T 2087.

6. St. Julien, Memoires sur les contrees occidentales par Hiouen-thsang
(Voyages des pelerins Bouddhistes, vol. II -III), Paris 1857 - 1858.
7. Th. Watters, On Yuan Chwang's Travels in India, 629- 645 A. D. (Royal
Asiatic Society's Publications,
Series 14- 15), London 1 904-5.

Oriental

Translation Fund,

New

8 Yi-tsing, Nan hai ki kouei nei fa tchouan, T 2125.

9. J. Takakusu, A Record of the Buddhist Religion as practised in India
and the Malay Archipelago (A. D. 671 - 695) by I-tsing, Oxford 1896.
10. J. Bacot, F. W. Thomas, Ch. Toussaint, Documents de Touen-houang

relatives a l'histoire du Tibet (Annales du Musee Guimet, BibliothSque

d'etudes, tome 51), Paris 1940- 1 946.
1 1. E . Obermiller, History of Buddhism (Chos-l:tbyung) by Buston, Part
I - II (Materialien zur Kunde des Buddhismus, hg. von M. Walleser,
Heft 18- 1 9) Heidelberg 1931- 32:
1 2. Taranathae de doctrinae Buddhicae in India propagatione narratio .

Contextum Tibeticum ed. A. Schiefner, Petropoli 1 868..

1 3. A. Schiefner, Taranatha's Geschichte des Buddhismus in Indien, aus
dem Tibetischen iibersetzt, St. Petersburg 1869.

88 Cf. Arcaalokal:t (Gaekwad's Oriental Series No. U 3), p. 233, 3 and 7 '
8 9 Since, according t o Taranatha ( B 12, p. 166, 20-22 ; Tr = B 1 3, p.
2 1 9, ' - 6 )' Arcata was a native of Kashmir, Dharmottara could only be
come acquainted with him after coming to Kashmir.

148