stcherbatsky, th. - papers of th. stcherbatsky (ed. gupta,1975)

5/19/2018 Stcherbatsky, Th. - Papers of Th. Stcherbatsky (Ed. Gupta,1975)

1


2


3


4

S O V I E T I N D O L O G Y S E R I E S N o . 2

P A P E R S

O F

T h . S T C H E R B A T S K Y

Translated for the first time into Eng lish by

' H A R I S H C . G U P T A

Edited with an Introduction by

D E B I P R A S A D C H A T T O P A D H Y A Y A

I N D I A N

S T U D I E S

PAST & PRESENT


5

Printed by A. Gu ha from Q uality Printers &

Binders , 84 Ra sh B ehari Avenue, Calcutta 26

and published by R. K . M aitra on behalf of

Indian Studies : Past and Present,

3 Sambhunath Pandit Street , Calcutta-700020

Price Rs. 35.00

Date of Publication

November 30, 1969

Reprinted^

November 25, 1975


6

in this volume

Translator's Preface

Acknowledgement

Introduction

P AP E R S OF S T C HE R B AT S KY

A BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHER ON MONOTHEISM

Text, Translation with Critical Introduction of Ngrjuna's

Isvara-kartrtva-pirakrtih-visnofy-ekakartrtva-nirkarana l

ON THE HISTORY OF MATERIALISM IN INDIA 12

THEORY OF POETRY IN INDIA 18

SCIENTIFIC ACHIEVEMENTS OF ANCIENT INDIA 42

'ESTABLISHMENT OP THE EXISTENCE OF OTHER MINDS'

Free Translation of Dharm akirti's

Santanantara-siddhi

with Vinltadeva 's ,' .?

Santriantara-siddhi-ka,'

- 55^

AP P E NDI C E S

A. Select Bibliography 93

B.

Arehive Materials ' 97


7

T RANS L AT O R' S P R E F A C E

Thanks to Dr. I . D. Serebryakov, we now possess a fine selection of the outstanding

con tributio ns of the Ru ssian IndologiSts of

t h e r 19th and early 20th centuries, wh ich,

as edited and anno tated by him is published und er the t i tle

Izbrannye trudy russkikh

Indologov-filologov

(Mosco w, 1962). Stcherbatsky's paper on

Scientific Achievem ents

of Ancient India

has been translated by me from this^y^J^e^^.^s^.jjregards the othe r

papers included here, thank s are due toProf. D ebiprasad Chat topadhyaya wh o,

on his last visit to Russia, had the vision and the initiative to procure th e microfilms of

their Russian originals with a view to study and publish them.

In translating these papers; I have been fully aware of the presumptuousness of the

task. A nd I migh t n ot have take n it up , if it were no t for the boun dless enco uragem ent

and learned guidance of Professor De biprasad Cha ttopadhy aya himselfw ho, with

his first-hand know ledge of th e wo rk of Soviet Indo logists, was the m ost ap pro pria te

per son to guide such a project. In th e m idst of his manifold activities, he very kindly

scrutinised th e m anu script, rectified my erro rs and suggested su itable revisions. An d

for this , I canno t adequately express my profound grati tude to him. Th e errors , which

still survive, are obviously due to my own inade quac ies. * . . '*

Professor Ch attop adh yay a wa s also kind eno ugh to accede to my reque st for a

comprehensive Introduction to this volume.

. I am also indebted to Professor M rinalk anti G ango padh yaa of Vidyasagar College,

Calcutta, for kindly going through the entire mauscript and making very useful suggestions.

Calcutta

No vem ber 30, 1969 ' Harish C. G upta

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Among the innumerable Soviet friends and scholars from whom I have received

help and active support in this venture, I am particularly anxious to express my deep

gratitude to Professor V. V. B alabush evich, Professor V. I. KaV yanov, Dr. I. D. Sere-

bryakov, Dr. E. E. Tyomkin, Dr. A. D. Littman, Dr. G M. Bongard-Levin and Dr. N P.

Anikeev. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the mem bers of the Institute

of Philosophy. Academ y of Scinces US SR, on whose kind invitation I had the opportunity

of visiting the Soviet Union in 196$ and of meeting the Soviet philosophers and Indologists.

". .

9

Apart from Sri Harish C. Gupta

who insists on putting some highsounding words

abou t me in his Translator's Preface and thereby makes it most embarrassing for me even

to acknow ledge the elementary fact that withou t his help it wou ld have been simply absurd

for me to work on this project / am most gratefi to Ifypfe$$or -Mrinalkanti Gango-

padhyaya

9

Dr. Ma hadevprasad Saha and Dr. Alaka\ Chattopadhyaya for help in various

forms.

Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya


8

I N T R O D U C T I O N

Theodore Stcherbatsky

1

was bo rn on O ctobe r 1 [September 19,o.s.] , 1866,

at Kielce, Po lan d, where his father was then wo rking . He died on Ma rch 18, 1942,

at Borovoi in N or th Ka zakh stan. His epitaph , translate d into English, reads : "H e

explained to his country the wisdom of the ancient Indian thinkers ."

A n epitap h is, of cou rse, only an epita ph and it is no t intended to be an

exhaustive description of the total contr ibu tion of the pe rson whose m emory i t

cherishes. So are the w ords inscribed on Stche rbatsky 's to m b, which are mo reover

chosen specially from the poin t of view of his cou ntrym en. T o the In dia ns ,

however,and part icularly to those of our countrymen who want to make a serious

study of ou r own philosoph ical tradition- the urge to say a great deal m ore ab ou t

Stcherbatsky is alm ost irresistible. The ir gratitud e to him is imm ense. In an

im po rtan t sense, Stcherba tsky did help us the Indians-to discover our own past

an d to restore the righ t perspec tive of our own philosop hical heritage. Yet this

was only one aspect of his grand contr ibution to Indology, though at ths same t ime

one cann ot also help won dering how immensely the impo rtance of this part icular

aspect of his con tribu tion would have increased bu t for his perso nal fascination for

the p hilosophy of Im ma nuel K an t and his consequent eagerness to read K antia n

philosoph y or the pote ntials thereof---in medieval India n texts where these could

no t have histo rica lly be lon ged. ,-.-

Th us for example^ the greatest tribute Stcherbatsky could think of paying to

D ha rm ak lrt i [c. 7th century A.D.] , his favourite Indian philosopher, was to

describe him as "th e Indian K an t." Tho ugh eloque nt was his personal adm iration

for both D ha rm ak irt i and K an t, such a description has not even a figurative value

for those for wh om K an t is not the me asure of philosop hical g reatness. Tak en in

its literal sense, on the other hand , it is likely to interfere with an objective unde r-

standing of D ha rm ak irt i 's actual p hilosophical posit ion in i ts conc rete his torical

con text. But m ore of this later.

N otw ithstan ding this, how ever, it is impossible to underestimate^ in any way

the significance of Stcherbatsky's recogn ition-r-and even a passio nate defence of th e

stupendous imp ortance of D ha rm ak irt i or , mo re s trictiy, of the epistemological and

logical tradit ion associated with the nam es of D ha rm ak irt i and his grand preceptor

1. According to Russian orthograp hy Fedo r Ippoli tovich Shcherbatskoi.

The Russ ian name

Fedo

(Fe od or) is derived from the Greek

Theodor.

Stcherbatsky himself used the form Theodore, which is retained here.

SInt.1


9

ii . Introduction

Di gng a [c. A .D . 500] in the development of Ind ian philosophical activity in its

m ature st phase. Per haps in default of a mo re satisfactory description of it and also

for the pur pos e of a convenient form of reference, Stcherb atsky called this the

tradition of "Buddhist logic", though, rightly enough, without attaching any

lop-sided religious significance to the word "Buddhist" in this particular context.

2

Ou r knowledge of "Bu ddh ist logi c" is inextricably connected with the wo rk

of Stche rbatsky an d we could have called him its only discoverer bu t for the fact

tha t when he was wo rking on the subject, the Indi an historian of Indian logic,

S. C. Vidyab husana, quite independently of Stcherbatsky bu t following the same

line as followed by Stcherbatsky himselfworked as ano ther pioneer worke r on the

subject.

3

W hile speaking of the discovery of "Bu ddh ist logic ", therefore, we have

2. Steherbatsky, Buddhist Logic i. 2 : "The Buddhists themselves call this their

science a doc trine of logical reas ons ( hetu-vidy ) or a doctrine of the

sources of right knowledge (pramna-vidy) or simply, an investigation of

right knowledge

{samyag-jfina-vyutpdan).

It is a doctrine of trut h and

erro r. In the intention of its pro m ote rs the system had apparen tly no

special conn ection w ith Bu ddh ism as a religion, i.e. a s a teaching of a path*

towards salvation".

3.

I t may be useful to have here a brief account of the work s on the same

subject by Satischandra Vidyabhusana.

" I n 1901", w rote Sir A shuto sh M ukherjee, " I had come across a

monograph on Hindu Logic as preserved in China and Japan by Sadajiro

Sug iura w ho ha d offered it as a disse rtation for the Deg ree of D oc tor of

Philoso phy at the University of Pennsylvania. This work seemed to me of

fascinating interest as opening up

\

new field of inv estigation full of unt old

possibilities. I suggested to Satis cha ndra , wh o at tha t time was engaged

in the study of Tibe tan, tha t he should undertake to explore the materials

available from Tibetan sou rces." (Fore wo rd to

A History of Indian Logic

by S. C . Vidyabh usana , Ca lcutta, 1921, pp . xix-xx). Evidently, Sir

As huto sh did no t know at tha t time tha t this possibility was already

being extensively explored by Stcherbatsky 1902 being the date of the

publication of his first paper on the subject. How ever, Vidy abhusan a,

trained in Tibeta n by no less a Tibetologist tha n Sarat Ch and ra D as

himself, too k up the suggestion of Sir Ashutpsh. in right earnest and ,

thoug h showing no awareness of S tcherbatsky's wo rks (perhaps because

the earlier of these were in the Ru ssian language), started reconstructing

the "B udd hist Lo gic" from the Tibe tan sources. His first m onog raph

on the subject, History of the Medieval School of Indian Logic appeared


1

Introduction ill

to add the nam e of Vidyabh usana t o that of Stcherbatsky, thoug h there had been

some basic differences in the app roa ch as well as in the outco m e of the wo rks of

these two scholars . W hile Vidyb husana's a pproa ch had on the whole been tha t of

a dry historian, Stcherbatsky wanted to rat ionalise "B udd hist logic" in mo dern

termino logy and to offer a vigorou s philosop hical defence of it . H e severely

crit icised those Europ ean scholars wh o claimed "t ha t the ancient Indians were

incapab le of exact thinkin g an d lucid pres enta tion an d attribu ted these qualities

exclusively t a ancient Greek and m odern science" .

4

"T he re is a widely spread

prejudice", he argued "t ha t positive philosophy is to be found only in Euro pe. I t

is also a prejudice tha t A ristotle's treatm ent of logic was final; tha t having had in

this field no predece ssor, he also ha d n o need of a co ntin ua tor. Th is last prejudice

seems to be; on the wane . Th ere is as yet no agreed opin ion on wha t the future logic

will be , bu t ther e is a general dissatisfaction with wh at it a t presen t is. W e are on

the eve of a reform. The consideration at this junctu re of the independent an d

altogether different way in which the problem s of logic, forma l as well as epistem o-

logical , have been tackled by Digng a an d D ha rm ak lrt i will possibly be found of

some impor tance".

6

In thu s trying to discover

and ^defend

"Budd his t logic" .

Stcherbatsky perh aps wen t to th e extent of reading too mu ch of later philosop hical

in 1909, and his magnum opus, A History of Indian Logic in 1921nine

years earlier tha n Stche rbatsky 's m ature st wo rk on the subject, viz. the

Buddhist Logic,

in which therefore, Stcherbatsky freely used Vidyabhusana's

rusults . Vidyabhu sana also wrote a con siderable num ber of ar t icles on

"Bu ddh ist Lo gic" before the publication of his m ono graph s. Thu s : in

the "Jo uo na l of the Asiatic Society of Bengal"

Dignga and his Pramna-

samuccaya

(1905),

Indian Lo gic as preserved in Tibet

(1907),

Nyya-pravesa

or the earliest work extant on Buddhist Logic by Dignga (1907), Hetu-

cakra-hamaru...of Dignga (1907) ; in the "Jo urn al of the Budd hist Text

Society" The Philosopher Dignga

9

a contempo rary of poet K lidsa

( iv. 3, 1896

) , The influence of Buddhism on the development of Nyya

Philosophy (v L 3 , 1898) , The Buddhist version of the Nyya Philosophy

( v i i .

1 , 1 9 0 0 ) ; in the "Jou rnal of the M ahabo dhi Society"

Life of

Dignga

(1899 ) ,

Influence of Buddhism on the development of the Hindu

Nyya Philosophy

(1902 ) , e tc .

4. Stcherbatsky's , Theory of knowledge and L ogic According to the Later

Buddhist ( i n Russ ian ) , quoted by N . P . Anikeev, Mod ern Ideological

Struggle.:. 34.

5.

Stcherbatsky,

Buddhist Logic,

i. perface xii.

SInt. I/a


1

iv , Introduction

significance in the writings ofDigngaand hisfollowers*but thefact remains t h at

this produced an impacton the academic world whichit would have ben otherwise

difficult to produce. Secondly, as we shall presently see,Stcherbatsky trained a

generation

of

briliant scholars

to

follow

up his

line

of

research, while

in

India there

had practically been

no

outstanding scholar

to

cont inue Vidyabhusana 's work,

at

least

n o t in any big way.

The word

discovery

is being deliberately used, for thegrand tradit ionof

"Bud dhis t log ic" was lost ancK orgotten in Ind ia. Exceptingfor a solitary text along

with a commentary on i tabout #h ich we shall presently speaknothingof the

enorm ous l i terature produced by these logiciansis so far known to have survied in

India . Evert th is text remained

as

some kind

of a

sealed work

at the

t ime

of its

discovery

and,

after being discovered,

it

drew

a

desultory at tention

of the

scholars

then specialising

in

Indian philosophy.

In the

India n philosophical trandit ion

itself,

the namesof these Budd hist philosophers were remem bered vaguelyand often not

without a stigma attached to them prompted by an intense sectarian animosity

against theBud dhists . Onlya few scraps of their statements remained qouted in

the writings of their]*opponents ; but since these were quo ted invariably for the

purposeft>eing refuted and ridiculed, the statements^ to rnout of their actualcon-

texts, were presented in the m ost adverse settingsandnecessarily not without the

tendency

of

attaching some perverse significance

to

these.

Sucha deplorable condit ionof the survival of "Buddhis t logic" had the most

serious repercussion

on the

unders tandihg

of the

Ind ian philosop hical situation

as

such, inasmuch as even thewritingsof the rival philosophers that survivedin the

country couldnot be fully understood in default of the knowledgeof thew ritingsof

the / 'Budd his t logicians" .

In

other words,

the

loss

of

"Buddhis t logic" meant much

more than amere insufficiency of the knowledgeof theBudd hist t radit ion itself. It

meant also a serious insufficiency of theund ers tandingof the other philosophers

belonging particularly to the more developed phase of the history of Indian

philosophy.

The reason

for

this

is not

difficult

to see. In the

more sophist icated period

of thehistory of Indian philosophy, the significant tex ts of tbe r ival philosophers

were largely inspired by the zealto refute theviewsof these "Buddhist logicians".

O r,in Indian terminology, they represented the main purvapaksa ( the posit ionof

the opponent" )

of the

other philosoph ers . Evidently,

it is

iippssible

to

unders tand

fully

any

philosophical text without also having

an

adequate idea

of the

views which

itis aboveall intended to refute. '

Here

is

jus t

an

example. Ud dyotak ara

[c.

6th-7th century

A.D.]

wrote

his

Nyya-vrtika with the ostensible purpose of expounding the significance of

Vtsyyana 's [c. 4thcenturyA.D.]comm entaiyon theN yya-sutra. But the book

was polemical throught and the polemics ,directed m ainly against D igng a,who


1

. Introduction .v

ha d m ade a ' bold effort to set up a new system of logic an d epistemology by

dem olishing the position of V tsyyan a. In such a circum stance, one cann ot hope to

un der stan d the full significance of U dd yo tak ara's w ork by depend ing on it alone.

One has also to study Dignga in ordr to understand w hy Ud dyotak ara w as taking

so much pain to refute certain views, often digressing long and even apparently going

o u t of his way for this pu rpo se. Incid entall y, from this text itself it is even difficult

to form an ade qua te idea of the actual views he wa nted to refute, for U ddy ota kara

himself did not maintain an exemplary objectivity in his writings, or, as Steherbatsky

put it, ihe "does not mind at all to distort the opinion of his adversary and to answer

him with some bluffing sophistry".

0

/

It follows, therefore, that not even the acutest analysis of Uddyotakara's work

is by itself eno ugh to und ers tan d it,~not to speak of arriving at an actu al idea of the

philosophical situation of his. As Rah ulla Sankrityay an puts the poin t : "Th e

old ma sters are . to be re-edited, giving the full qu ota tion s or references from their

predecessors, where the hints are not clear enoug h. F o r Exam ple, if an edition of

th& Nyya-vrtika is published with copious quo tation s from the Pramn-samuccay

and the

Nyyamukhd,

or if the student has already studied these tw o masterpieces of

Dignga before going to Uddyotakara, the study of the Nyya-yrtik will become a

joy an d no t a cause of headache to the teacher and to 4he stu dent".?

W ha t is said of Ud dyo taka ra 's text is on the whole true of the stupendous

works f Kumrila [c. 8th eeiltury A . D . ] , Ak alank a [c. 750 JD.'j, VcaspBti MiSra

[c.

9th century

A .D. ] ,

U dy ana [c. 10th century A.D .] and other s, which owe one of

their main im pet us to the vital clash of ideas with the later Bud dhist philo sophe rs.

Of these philosophers, Kumrila represented the Mimms view, Akalanka the Jaina

viewy Udayana the Nyya-Vai&esika view, while Vcaspati MiSra was supposed to be

a master of all the (Brahm anical) philosophies thou gh perhap s with a prono unced

bias for the Ve dnta. Their nam es are specially men tioned, because durin g the

m atur est period of Ind ian philos oph ical activity, ma inly these views retained full

vigour. I t was interaction and interconnection of these views with the philosophy

of the later Buddhists- th at im parted real life a nd vigour to the p hilosophical situation

as a whole. The re was, therefore* n o chance of unders tanding this philosoph ical

. situation in spite of rem aining almo st completely igno rant of the Ja te r Buddist

philoso phers. But the fact is tha t "on ly a few decades ago Vas uban dhu , Dignga

and D ha rm ak irti were mere legendary nam es, which were only hear d, when the long

forgotten tomes of the old masters were dusted on ceremonial occasipns".

8

6.

7.

8.

Ib. i. 49.

Rahula Sankrityayan,

p . 10.

Ib . p. 8-9.

preface of th e

Pramana-vrtika

(Allahabad 1943)


1

vi Introduction

W e can now see the stupend ous significance of the discovery of "Budd hist

logic ". Of the five living comp onen ts of the comp aratively later phase of the Indian

philosophical thought as a whole, only fourviz. the M im m s, Vedn ta, Jaina and

the Nyya-V aiSesikaactually survived in the country. But the fifth i.e. the one

N

represented by the later Buddh ist philosoph ers did not. As a result, even the

surviving trends cou ld at best be incom pletely understood an d there was no question

of arriving at a picture o f th e total ph ilosoph ical situation. Stcherbatsky, alon g

with Vidyabhusana, lifted the veil of oblivion on "B uddhist logic". It was by itself

the discovery of a long-forgotten but by the far the most vigorous aspect of the Indian

ph ilosoph ical activity. But it wa s som ething more than that. It created the first

real possibility of restoring the correct perspective of the Indian ph ilosophica l

situation.

Since I have been using the word

discovery

rather freely, I may as well try to

be clearer about it.

Neither Stcherbatsky nor Vidyabhusana discovered any original text of

Dign ga or Dh arm akiti. As for Dign ga, the modern scholars have practically

given up the ho pe of ever finding the Sanskrit original of his

magnum opus,

th e

Pramna-samuccaya beyond some fragments of it.

9

A few decades after the major

wo rks of Stcherbatsky and Vidyabhu sana surveying "Budd hist logic", efforts were

made to reconstruct some other logical treatises of Dignga.

10

W e are a little more

fortunate with regard to the original works of Dh arm akirti. The honour of first

finding a copy of his

Nyya-bindu

belongs to Bhagvandas Kevaldas,

11

though it was

first edited and published by P. Peterson in 1889 as an appendix to Dharm ottara's

commentary on the text itself.

13

And the much greater honour of finding the

Sanskrit original of Dharmakirti's

magnum opus,

th e

Pramna-vrtika,

belongs to

Rahula Sankrityayana, who discovered it during his expeditions

13

to Tibet (1934 and

1936) and published it in 1943. Besides these, some other writings of Dharm akirti

9. H. N. Rndle, Fragments from Dignga (Pram na-samucca ya), London ,

1926. "

10.

G. Tucci, Nyya-m ukha, the oldest B uddhist text on Logic after Chinese

and Tibetan Materials, Heidelberg 1930; Nyya-pravesa (ed. Part I

Anandasankar B. Dhruva ; Part IIV . Bhattacharyya). GO S N o . 38-39,

Baroda 1927-30.

11.

P. Peterson,

Nyya-bindu-tik%..

9

Calcutta 1889, preface p. xiv.

12 .

P.Peterson, Nyya-bindu-tik..., to which is added the Nyya-bindu.

Calcutta 1889.

13 .

For the account of Rahula's Tibetan expeditions and of the discovery by

him of the Buddhist manuscripts, seeJournal of Bihar and Orissa Research

Society, 1935 & 1937.


1

Introduction vii

- 0

are published by the mo dern scholars ,

14

thou gh com pared to the literally staggering

b u l k

1 5

of the actual output of the "Buddhist logicians", their original writings so far

recovered are really insignificant.

W ha t is m ost rem arkab le abo ut Stcherbatsky is that long before Ra hu la's

discovery of the

Pramna-vrtika,

practically the entire tradit io n of "Bu ddh ist logic "

was reconstructed by him and this based no t only on the thorou gh study of Dignga

and Dharmakirt i but also of a large number of commentators and sub-commentators

on them.

Ho w could this be at al l po ssib le? Fo r a n answer to this , we have to

remem ber an old controversy am ong the Europ ean Indologists and this is perha ps

best retold in the words of Stcherbatsky

himself.

"A t the dawn of European

Indo logy ", he observed, "th ere has been a controversy between the great French

scholar E. Bournouff an d the great Ru ssian scholar V. Vasil 'ev on the question

whether Buddh ism could be better und erstood from the Indian or also from the

Chinese an d Tib etan source s. Ac cording to the first, only Ind ian sources provide d

evidence on genuine Bu ddh ism ; according to the second, Bud dhism in the totality

of its development ean be best understood only from the Chinese and Tibetan sources

in addi t ion to the Indian on es " .

1 6

And he added that working on the tradit ion of

Vasil 'ev an d Mina ev excellent results had already been reached by himself as well as

his talented pup il O. Ro zen berg [1888-1919], who se early dea th m ean t a great loss

to the world of Indology.

Th is con troversy is now date d, of cou rse, an d it is generally adm itted tha t no

study of Buddhismparticularly of the later phase of its historycan be satisfactory

withou t depending on the Chinese and Tibetan ma terials . Several thousan ds of

wo rks prod uce d by the later Bu ddh ists are lost in their Indian originals bu t rem ain

preserved mainly in Chinese and Tibetan translat ions.^ Of these translat ions, a gain,

the Tibetan ones have a special im portanc e. W hiie the Chinese translat ions are

com paratively free, the Tibe tan ones are no t so. As a result, it is com paratively

easier and even safer to retu rn back to the lost Indian texts from their surviving

Tibetan translat ions.

14. L. de la Vallee Pou ssin,

Nyaya-bindu with commentary of Vinitadeva

(Tibetan) , Calcut ta 1907; Sukhalal Sanghavi and J inavi jaya Muni ,

Hetu-bindu'prakarana with commentary of Arcata Bhatta, Baro da 1949 ;

Dalasukha Bhai Malavaniya Svrthnumna-priccheda with author's ow n

commentary , Be nare s 1959.

15.

See Vidya bhusana,

A History of Indian Logic,

270-346.

/ .

16.

Stche rbatsky , Preface to the

Madhynta-vibhahga p.

iv-v.


1

viii Introduction

It is im por tant to emphasise this poin t, particularly because in India to-day

the study of classical Tib etan is on the decline and its bearin g on the know ledge of

Bud dhism somew hat ignored. It will, therefore, be relevant here to have a few

words on this.

Since the t ime of the f irst imp ortant Tibetan king Sro n-btsan -sgam -po

1 7

, the

entire Tibe tan culture was sought to be consciously modelled on Indian culture : the

Tib etan script was fashioned after the Indian sc rip t

1 8

, the Tibetan grammar was

model led on Indian grammar

1 9

, the academic ambition of the advanced Tibetan

scholars was to be trained in some Indi an centre of learning, the Tibe tan centres of

learning were simply the imitations of the Indian centres

5 0

and even Tibetan history

was sough t to be explained as a contin uation of Indian history.

5

* W hen , a few

centuries later, translatio n work on a grand scale of th e Indian textsspecially

Bud dhist texts was taken u p by the Tibetan s unde r the patrona ge of the

monk-ru ler Ral-pa-can ,

2 2

absolutely rigid and me chanica l principles for choo sing

Tibe tan equivalents for India n words were legally enforced by the State, so that

the supreme sanctity

2 3

of the Ind ian texts was no t to be affected in any way. As

a result, the Tibetan trans lations are some kind of mechanical replica of the

Indi an originals. As Stcherbatsky himself explained, "T he imp ortance of Tib etan

17. A. Chattopadhy aya, Atlsa and Tibet, Calcutta 1967, 180ff.

18. Ib .

198ff.

19.

Ib .

20.

Even the names of some of the Tib etan m onasteries Hke Potala and

'Bras-spuns (= Dhnyakataka) are simple imitations of Indian names.

21. A. Chat topadhyaya, op-cit. 152ff.

22. Ib .

250ff.

23. Bu t the negative result of such a reverential attitude to the Budd hist texts

mu st not be overlooked. See Ra hula Sankrityayana in

Journal of Bihar &

Orissa Research Society,

1935, 22-3 : "T he dev out peop le consider it a great

me ritorious deed to enshrine the palm-leaf MS S inside a stupa or image.

In this w ay, hun dreds of bo oks are now beyond our reach. I heard at

Sa-skya that a palm-leaf M S copy of Dh arm ak irti 's great work Pramana-

vartika is enshrined in an image of him , kep t in one of the chapels of the

Lh a-khan -chen-m o of Sa-skya. A few years back , and old stucco image

in bSam-yas had fallen down and inside it ma ny such MS S were found.

Th e image was reconstructed and the MS S were pu t back into it again.

Th e other practice is mo re atroc ious. In some of these mo nasteries, La ma s

cut the MS S in pieces a nd offer the m to tho se pilgrims wh o bring rich

presents. These small pieces are said to possess the miraculous power of

healing all kin ds of diseases when a dr op of wa ter in which the piece has

been dipped is administered to the patient."


1

Introduction ix

tran slatio n for the righ t in terpre tation of the ancient Bud dhist texts is generally

adm itted. These translat ions were always prepa red by a com mittee compo sed of

Indian

pan dita-s

an d a learned Tibetan transla tor

{lo-tsa-ba).

Th e greatest care was

bestowed on the right und erstan ding of the original. Special expeditions were sent

ou t to India for search of old and trustw orthy m anu scrip ts, translatio ns were then

corrected by the comm ittee accord ing to the new finds. Needless to say tha t both the

Indianpandit as and Tibetan lo-tsa-ba-s were profoundly versed in the technical

difficulties of San skrit gra m m ar, poe tics, philoso phy and other medieval India n

sciences. Fo r the sake of uniformity, bilingual dictiona ries were prep ared at an early

date . The terminology established by them had been authorised by the T ibetan

government and severe punishments were proclaimed against trespassers to the

renderings enforced by the state law. U nd er these circum stances, the Tibe tan

transla tions afford invaluable assistance for establishing the text of every ancien t

Buddhist work of which insufficient or corrupt manuscripts are available' ' .

2 4

W e can now easily see how Stcherbatsky could reconstruct "B udd hist logic"

in spite of the dep lorable con dition of the availability of the original texts on it.

His first article on the subject, Logic in Ancient India, app eared in 1902 and it was

soon followed by the two volum es of The Theory of Knowledge and Logic According

to the Later Buddhists, pub lished durin g 1903-9. D urin g these years, excepting for

Dh a r mak i r t i ' s

Nyya-bindu

and D ha rm otta ra 's com men tary on i t , no original work

on "Bu ddh ist logic" was know n to the academic world, and , thoug h Peterson's

edition of these app eared in 1889, in the wo rds of Stcherb atsky

himself,

i t "did

no t prov e sufficiently reliable to allow a clear com prehe nsion in ma ny im po rtan t

passages. Th e task of an English tran slatio n attem pted by the learned editor himself

and after him by the late Professor C. Bend all, had to be given up for wa nt of a

sufficiently reliable text. Ad dition al great help was then derived from the Tibe tan

tran slatio ns. Acc ordingly, an edition of the Tib etan text and a new edition of the

San skrit original were beg un by m e in this series [i.e. the Bibliotheca Buddhica

Series] and at the same time a translation (in Russian) and an

analysis of the system

were publ ished".

2 5

The expression analysis of the system was of course a modest one. W hat it

actually meant was much more than a mere exposit ion of Dharmakirt i 's

Nyaya-bindu.

It me ant the expo sition of the entire traditio n of epistemology and logic associated

24. Preface to Obermiller 's

Index Verborum

(Bibl iotheca Buddhica 1927)

p . i. Ital. added.

25.

Ib .

p. ii .

SInt. 2


1

x Introduction

with the names of the later Buddhists based on the writ ings of Dignaga, Dharmaklrt i

and a ho st of their com m entato rs a reco nstructio n which received its final form in

the first'volme of the

Buddhist Logic.

Th ank s to the magnif icent tradit ion of Sanskri t , Tibetan and M ongolian

studies already set up in St. Petersburg an d largely inspired by I. P . M inaev

[1840-1890], Stcherbatsky acquired a gran d proficiency in Tib etan , M ong olian an d

othe r languages and thus became mu ch inore tha n a first-rate San skritist. H e mor e-

over extensively toure d M ongo lia w here, und er the guidance of the learned Lam as,

he vastly improv ed the knowledge of the Tibe tan languag e and read the Bud dhist

texts preserved in the mo nasteries, It w$s a pity that the political consid erations of

of the t ime led the then Dalai Lama to refuse him the permit to vis i t Tibet ,

2 6

though

this could no t preven t Stcherbatsky from acquiring the ma stery of Tibe tan langu age

an d thu s to have a free access to the eno rm ous literature on logic an d epistemo logy

produced by the later Buddhists .

N ot tha t Stcherbatsky was the f irst InJo logist who worked for the recons-

tructio n of later Bud dhism on the basis of the Tib etan ma terials. ' Already before

him , Alexander Csom a de K oro s, H . A. Jaschke, Sarat Ch and ra D as, I . J . Schm idt,

W . V. Vasil 'ev, A. Schiefner and othe rs magnificently con tributed to this recon s-

truc tion . W ha t was nevertheless distinctive of Stcherbatsky was tha t while others

before him used the Tibe tan sources mainly for the purp ose of und erstand ing later

Bu ddh ism in its religious, metaph ysical an d - mystical aspects, Stcherbatsky was the

first to be seriously dra w n to the essentially ration al and logical con tribution s of the

late r Bu ddh ists. In this he differed no t Qnly from the Tibetologists preceding him

bu t also from the general run of the Europ ean thinkers taking notice of Ind ian

philosophy , or , mo re broadly, of the Indian cultural heritage from Schope nhaur,

Heg el, De ussen, M ax Mller and others who were al l building up a somewh at

perverted picture of India n wisdom by way of em phasising only the religious,

"s pi rit ua l" *and the mo st extravagan tly idealistic tendency of the

Upanisads

an d

S amk ar a Ved n t a .

2 7

Fo r them , the growth of these tendencies in Indian culture

was so overpowering that the Indian mind could pay at best a desultory at tention to

the problem s of logic and ratio nal analysis, i .e. philosop hy as fully em ancipated from

ma gic, my thology and religion. Of course , Stcherbatsky did no t go to the other

extreme of denying these trends in the Ind ian philosophical heritage. Ackno wledging

the fact tha t all these were there , he cam e out with a bold protest against the

26. See infra note 43.

27. I need no t go here into m uch detafls of this, because N . P. Anikeev in his

Mod ern Ideological S truggle for the Ancient P hilosophical H eritage of

India,

Calcutta 1969, has discussed it.


1

introduction xi

essentially unscientific an d non-objective- tende ncy th en pre vailing in Eu rop e of

seeing only these in Ind ian wisdom . Th us he insifted th at "th er e is a struggle

between th e purely religious an d philosop hical tre nd s"

2 8

in Indian thought and he

was happy that the Russian Indologists "we re able to dis tinguish Budd hism prope r

from various alien, mystic and even fanatic theories which in the course of time

fused into Buddhism and enwrapped i t".

2 9

But the impo rtance of Stcherbatsky's wo rk on "Bu ddh ist logic" does by

no means m ean that he was disinterested in Buddh ism in i ts total i ty. His adm iration

of the con tributio ns of the later Bnd dhists to logic and e pistemology was of course

very great. But he did not at all ignore the theological, metaphysical and even mysti-

cal views developed by the followers of this creed. Tw o of his w ork s, The Central

Conception of Buddhism and the Meaning of the word

6

Dharma\ and The Conception

of Buddhist Nirvana

still rem ain for us am ong the illuminating expositions of the

theology and metaphysics of the so-called H ina y na and M ah yn a Buddh ism.

His translat ion and exposit ion of the

Madhyntavibhahga

at tr ibuted to Ma itreya

[c .400 A .D.] is for us an in di sp en sa bl e work for the s tudy of the philosophy of

the Yog cra school of Buddh ism. So also are his edit ion of M aitreya's

Abhisamaylahkra'prajn-pmmit-sstra

and , his expo sition and trans lation of

Dh a r mak l r t i ' s Santnntara-siddhi. An d how vague indeed would have been our

knowledge of Budd hist niysticism but for his work on Va suba ndh u's Abhidharma-

kosa

along w ith Ya^ om itra 's com men tary on i t . Incidentally^ when the greatest

historian of Indian philosophy S. N . Dasgupta was w orking on the f irst volume

of his

History,

he had to rely on the ma terials supplied by Stcherba tsky for the

discussion of Vasubandhu's

Abhidharma-kosa.

As Da sgupta acknowledged, " I am

indebted for the above account to the unpublished translat ionirom Tibetan of a small

port ion of the

Abhidharma-kosa

by my esteemed friend Professor Th eo dor e

Stcherbatsky of Pe trog rad. I am grateful to h im th at he allowed me to utilise

it .

3

; . - ' '' ''. - ' '

All these give us some idea of the bre adth of Stche rbatsky 's interest in

Bud dhism . Surprisingly, how ever, his first published pap er ha d no thing to do

28.

Stcherbatsky, Theory of Knowledge and Logic of the Later Buddhists ( in

Russ ian) i i . p . ix .

29. Stcherbatsky, S, F. OVdenbu rg as ah Indologisf ( in Russ ian ) , Leningrad

1934, p . 80. Qu oted by Anikeev , op, cit.

9

35.

30. S . N . Dasgupta ,

History of Indian Philosophy,

Cam bridge 1922-55,

i. p, 117n.

SInt. 2/a


1

xii Introduction

with the Bu ddhist religion and p hilosop hy. It was instead a technical study of an

Indian inscription, published in the

Epigraphia Indica,

as a joint work with V. G.

Ojha, who is now know n as one of the foremost authori t ies on Indian pa leography.

And here are a few more examples to show what a broad range of the Indian cultural

her itage he wanted to cover. H e w ro te on

The Theory of

*

Poetry in India,

on

The

Categorical Imperative in the Brahmanas,

on

The Scientific Achievem ents of Ancient

India, and he was one of the first am ong the m ode rn scholars to discuss The History

of Ma terialism in India a subject to which he later engaged his pupil M . Tubya nsky

[1893-1943] to wo rk more intensively and by utilising the hitherto unutilised Tibetan

mater i a l s .

8 1

Besides these, he translated D and in's Dasakiimara-carita, led a tea m

of translators of Kauti lya's

Arthasastra

rand edited with a Ge rma n translat ion the

poetical work of Hari Kvi,

alias

B hn ud atta. An d, notwithstanding the scope to

differ on ma tters of evaluation a nd interpretation -which inevitably exists am ong th e

leading scholarsnowhere in this wide range of Indian studies covered by

Stcherba tsky is there any scope of grading his co ntrib utio n as second-rate or to view

it as being based on secondary sources. T ha t is why , n o tribute paid to him as an

Indo logist funs the risk of exagg eration. An d great tribute s had indeed been paid

to him by some of the leading scholars of our time . Th us , for exam ple, Ra hu la

Sankrityayana wro te, "I n 1929, w hen I asked Professor Lude rs of Berlin, whom I

me t in Cey lon, 'W ho is the greatest scholar in Eu rop e of Indian particularly

Buddh ist philosophy ? ' , he, withou t a m om ent 's hesitat ion sa id , 'D r. Stcherbatsky' .

In 1932, Sylvain Levi also told me the same th in g ".

3 2

Rahula

himself,

while

dedicatinghis edit ion of the

Pmmana-vartika

to the me mo ry of Stcherbatsky, des-

cribed him as "the greatest Orientalist of his time", adding in Sanskrit verse :

akarnitamtavayasovahusahsuhrdbhyo

\dhltasca vismitatayakrtayastvdlyah

vaidusyamiksitamaho nitarmgabhiram

lokottareva vidit tvayik vibhtih...%s

31. Stch erba tsky refers t o this in his Buddhist Logic i. 15n, though I have not

been able to ascerta in wh ether the w ork is pub lished so far. If it still

remains unpublished, the Soviet colleagues would to do an excellent service

to Indian studies by making it available in print.

32. Rahula Sankr i tyayana,

Jin-ka main krtajna{

in Hind i

j

Allahabad 1957,

;

.P .

195. ' . ^ ' ';; .'" . . . / ' . . / . . '.. . "

:

\-

3

J V ', '

33.

In English tran slatio n : " I have hea rd of you r fame again and again from

the friends. I have studied your works with great amazement and am struck

by you r extremely profoun d scholarship. I wo nder if you acquired some

supper-normal faculty. . ."


2

Introduction . xiii

Bu t perh aps the greatest tribute to Stcherbatsky is the accom plished fact th at

after him it has becom e impo ssible to discuss Ind ian philosop hy adeq uately and at

the same t ime to remain innocent of his contr ibutions to our understanding of i t .

But the trib ute paid to Stcherb atsky is also a tribtfte to his teache rs, for he

could acqu ire such an all-round proficiency in India n studies largely because he ha d

the fortune of being trained by som e of the foremo st scholars of his time. Am ong

his teachers three m ust be mentioned in pa rt icular . They were I .P. M inaev, G.

Bhler and H. Jacobi.

M inaev was one of the pion eers of Ind ian studies in Russia and it will be

specially relevant to qu ote wh at Stcherb atsky himself said ab ou t him in 1934.

"T he study of Sansk rit began in Russia in the early forties^of the last centu ry. Th e

first teacher was Kossovich.

34

H e was succeeded by I.P. M inaev. H e (Minaev)

was no t only a first-class Pali and S ansk rit schola r, to wh om science is indeb ted for

many valuable editions of texts and works on the history and geography of

Ind ia, bu t he also was a great traveller and an authori ty on historical geography of

the cou ntries lying between India and the Russian em pire. H e visited India three

times and only a prem ature death s topped his prepa rations for a fourth long journey

to India thro ug h Afgha nistan a jou rney which if realised wo uld have lasted four

years. U nd er the cover of a rigid scho larship, with a rath er sceptical, sarcastic tur n

of mind, I .P. M inaev concealed a wa rm heart , which was deeply concerned with the

pas t, presen t an d future destinies of India as well as with the destiny of his own

c o u n t r y " .

3 5

A t ab ou t the age of eighteen (in 1884), Stcherbatsky joine d the Unive rsity of

St. Petersbu rg and became a pupil of M inaev. Th is was a turn ing po int of his life.

Before joining the Universi ty, he s tudied Gothic, Anglo-Saxon and Ge rma nic

languages under Professor F . A- Braun and the Chu rch Slavonic an d Serbo-Croatian

languages under* Professor I. V. Y agich . U nd er Professor M inaev he ha d his first

lessons in Pali an d San skrit an d this in a sense determ ined the major interest for th e

rest of his life. Professor V. I. K aPy ano v, the seniorm ost of Stche rbatsky 's perso nal

disciples now living, ob se rv es : " It is no t kno w n if the scientific interests of

Stcherbatsky wou ld still h ave been directed to the study of Ind ian philology an d

34, Sri H , C. G up ta tells me th at, evidently eno ugh , Stcherba tsky here has in

mind only his

alma-mater,

the University of St. Pete rsburg , where in the

Faculty of Oriental Languages, Kaetan Kossovich [1815-1883] was the first

Professor of Sanskrit.

35.

Stcherbatsky in

Indian Historical Quarterly,

Vol. x, pp.81-Iff;


2

xiv Introduction

philoso phy ha d he no t come in con tact with Professor M inaev in the faculty of

comparative linguistics in the very early years of his student life".

3 6

In 1889, Stcherbatsky com pleted his course at St. Petersb urg Un iversity and

wen t to Vienna to study und er G. Bhler [1837-1898], ano ther veritable giant in the

field of Indo logy . I am tem pted to qu ote here wh at M ax Mller said a.bout Bhler,

part icularly because the same words apply perhaps with an addit ional emphasis to

Bhler 's pupil Stcherbatsky : "I t was the fashion for a tim e" , said M ax M ller, "t o

imagine that if one had learnt Sanskrit grammar and was able to construe a few texts

th at ha d been published and transla ted before, one was a Sansk rit scholar. Bhler

look ed up on this kind of scholarship as good enou gh for the

vulgus profanum,

b u t

no o ne was a real scholar in his eyes wh o could not stand on his own feet, and fight

his own way through new texts and comm entaries , who could not publish what had

not been published before, wh o could not translate what had not been translated

b e f o r e" .

3 7

Inde ed, Stcherbatsky too could stand on his own feet and fight his own way

throug h not only new texts and comm entaries bu t even throug h those the originals

of which were? long lost to the Ind ians themselves. Of cou rse, he could do this

prim arily because of his mastery of the Tib etan , witE the know ledge of which his

studies und er Bhler had little to d o . But this study was vitally im po rta nt , for th e

shaping of Stcherbatsky into an all-round Indologist. Under Bhler he studied Indian

poetics , Pan im's gram ma r, the Dharmas stras'and Ind ian palaeography:in sho rt,

thos e branc hes of Ind ian studies in which Bhler was the n considered the mo st ou t-

standing scholar in Europe.

Professor Kal 'yanov

3 8

says tha t the study of Ind ian poetics und er Bhler

helped Stcherbatsky to have a stable foun dation for his subsequ ent research in

Indian philosophy and that the intense interest he developed in Indian gram ma r

adde d to his interest in Ind ian logic, the two being organically related. Ho wev er,

for the technical ap pa ratu s which enabled him to mov e freely thro ugh the ma ze of

the abstru se argum ents and coun ter-argum ents of the Ind ian philosophical texts>

which mo reover were written in a peculiarly laconic form Stcherbatsky m ust have

been mo st indebted to H . Jaco bi, the m aker of a generation of specialists in Ind ian

philosophy. " In Professor Jaco bi", says Professor Kal 'yan ov, "Stcherbatsky

found a scholar w h o w as closer to h im in spirit. T o Professor Bhler, India n

36. V. I . Ka l 'yanov in Izvestiya AN SSR ( i n Russian ) 1946, Vol. 5, N o . 3,

p . 245.

37.

M ax Mller in JR A S 1898. Reprinted in

Indian Studies : Past & Present,

Vol. i , p. 2.

38. Kal 'yanov, op, cit;

9

245-6. v I


2

Introduction xv

philosop hy was a supplem ent to the historical an d literary studies, whereas to

Jacob i it was an object of study in itself. . ..By his studies und er Professor Jaco bi, he

had a solid foundation for the s tudy and interpretat ion of the Indian phiolosophical

sastra-s *

9

M inae v, Bhler, Jacobihow soever im posin g such a list of teachers may

ap pe ar to us, S teherbatsky's hu nger for the know ledge of India was apparently

insatiable and so in 1910 he m ade his long desired trip to Ind ia. W e know some -

thing about i t f rom his paper, A Short Report on the Trip to India, "T he object of

my tour of In di a" ,-sa id he , "i s , besides a general acquaintance with the country,

prim arily the quest of the relics of the Bud dhist philosop hical literature in th e

writings of the Bud dhists themselves and also in' those of the Bra hm ana s and J aina s,

inasm uch as these throw light on the period of the flourish of Bud dhism in the

history of the Bu ddh ist civilization (5th to 10th centuries A .D .). At the same tim e,

I intended to familiarise myself with the prQsnt pos ition in Ind ia of the study of

Sansk rit language and literatu re, specially of those branc hes of literature which till

now have not been taken up by European scholars and are for them mo re or less a

r i d d l e " .

4 0

Th e best way to accom plish this, second purp ose , Stcherbatsky evidently k new ,

was to study some Indian philosop hical text in the traditio nal Ind ian style and un der

a tradit ional Indianpandita. Th e languag e of these texts is often extremely cryptic

while the, po ints an d c oun ter-po ints raised particu larly in their polemical par ts

are often m ost difficult to follow. It is only thro ug h the trad itio n of direct oral

transm ission from teacher to studen t prevalen t in the cou ntry for centuries tha t the

subtle significance of these texts ha s someho w or other survived. He nce , am ong the

many other things Stcherbatsky wanted to do in India , one was to s tudy Indian

phiolosophy under an Indian

pandita.

How ever, when Stcherbatsky came to India,

this tradit ional mo de of s tudy had already m uch disintegrated and i t was not

easy to find a really competentpandita who fully retained the age-old tradition.

Fortun ately for Stcherbatsky, he could f ind one in Bom bay, wh om he mentioned as

the Maithilapandita. "H e hailed f rom D urbh ang a", said Stcherbatsky, "a nd was

in Bom bay only by chan ce, because of the famine in his own prov ince. Th is famine

had mad e almost half the popula tion to leave his province. The autho ri ty of this

pandita

am ong the local Ind ian castes was so high tha t with ou t prejudicing his own

position in any way he could freely live with m e. W e lived in a com pletely India n

atm osph ere in a locality whe re there was no t a single Eu rope an and w here the only

language of co m mn ication was San skrit. Everyday, from m ornin g till evening, w e

39.

Ib .

246.

40.

Quoted by Kal 'yanov,

op.cit.,

248.


2

xvi v Introduction

spent our time in philosophical discussions with only two breaks in a mo nth the

days of the new moon and full moon".

4 1

This shows how keen Stcherbatsky was to establish a real rap por t with the

Ind ian mind for the purpose of unde rstandin g traditio nal India n thou ght. But his

mission was also tha t of a scientific Investig ator. H enc e, he tou red Ind ia exten-

sivelyvisited Ben aras, C alcutta, M ahaba leshw ar and other placesand collected

materials for his own studies. In Calcutta, for example, he found a new m anuscript

of his m ost favourite subject. As he said in the Preface to his Tibetan edition of

the Nyaya-bindu, " A t the time of my stay in Ca lcutt a in 1910, I also discovered

another manuscript of the

Nyya-bindu-tlk

not used by Peterson in the library

of the Asiatic Society. D ue to the kindn ess of the Secretary of th e Society, D r.

De nison Ro ss, this m anusc ript was sent to us for my use in the Asiatic M useu m,

Academy of Sciences".

4 2

H e also went to Darjeeling in search of the Budd hist ma nuscripts and to

collect inform ation abo ut the Bud dhist monasteries there. Because of some political

developm ents in Tibe t, the D alai Lam a was at tha t time staying at Darjeeling. F ro m

the writings of Sir Charles Bell

4 3

wh o referred to Stcherbatsky simply as "t he

Ru ssian professor" we learn how Stcherbatsky took the opp ortun ity of meeting the

Da lai La m a and entreated his best for a perm it to visit Tib et. But th e Da lai La m a

could no t gran t him the permission, because of the then political considerations

concerning the relation between Chin a and Tibet.

v

W ha t is unfortun ately lacking in our knowledge of Stcherbatsky's relations

with India is an adequate informa tion of his personal India n friends and colleagues.

W e have only some stray hints of this. T hu s, from the description of Stcherbatsky's

collection preserved in the Archives of the Academ y of Sciences, US SR , we

know of mo re tha n thirty eminent Indian s whose persona l letters to Stcherbatsky

are preserved ift the archives. These correspo nden ts included R abi ndr an ath

Tago re, S. N . asg upta, D . R. Bha ndarkar, V. Bhattacharyya, D . Ko samb i, B. C.

Law, N . N . Law , G. Jha , Ragh u Vira, P. L. Vaidya, N . D utta , S. K. C hatterji ,

Ra hu la S ankrityayana and other s. Stcherbatsky w as certainly keeping himself

in close touch with the eminent Indian s of his time and with their progress in the

rediscovery of Ind ia. H e mu st also have been writing back to his India n friends,

thou gh we know of such letters only in scraps. S. N . Da sgup ta qu ot es

4 4

one at

length in his History of Indian Philosophy, in which Stcherbatsky wanted to explain

4L Quoted by Kal 'yano v,

op. cit.,

248.

42.

Stcherb atsky, Preface ( in Rus sian ) to

Nyaya-bindu,

p. ii.

43. C. Bell, Portrait of the Dalai Lama, London 1946, p. 106.

44.

S. N . Dasgu pta,

History of Indian Philosophy,

i. 409n.


2

Introduction xvii

how he proposed to unders tand D harm aklr t i ' s concept ion of the svalaksana. B ut

there is no reaso n to thin k tha t his letters to the Ind ian friends were necessarily

impersona l . The last let ter received by Ra hu la Sa nk ritya yan a

4 5

from him shows

how deeply Stcherba tsky was mo ved by the purely perso nal conc ern for his Ind ian

friend. It was written in 1941, wh en Ra hu la was in th e British jail and Stcherbatsky

would not simply believe the senselessness of indefinitely detaining such a fine

scholar : "A re you still in jail ? H ave you been informed how long you will be k ep t

in detention ? Ho w is your health ? Y ou have writ ten nothing abou t your health in

your letter, Y ou m ust kno w w hat is going to hap pen hereafter. Is it really possible

that nothing has been intimated to you about the future ? Did you enquire?>

Th e Archives also con tain letters to Stcherbatsky from the leading Euro pea n

scholars like L de la Vallee Pou ssin, M . W intern itz, W . Ru be n, R G arb e, S. Levi,

P . Pell iot , E. Senart and many others . I t thus app eals that he worked in his own

way to build up some sort of international coordina tion in Indology, aud though w e

do not fully know wh at he w rote back to his corresponden ts , there is enough

indication to think tha t one of his po ints was to help his colleagues ab roa d with the

materials of his own researches. Th us, when W internitz was working on the second

volume of his History of Indian Literature, very little was really kn ow n ab ou t the

actual writ ings of Dign ga. But the auth or wanted to assure his readers that more

knowledge was forthcoming. "Tra nslat io ns of D ign ga's w or ks ", he said, "a re to

appear shortly

by Professor Stcherbatsky, who wrote t o m e on

26

th A pril 1929 :

'Y ou will be astonished to f ind am ong the Indian s, specially Dign ga, a comp rehen-

sive system of cr i tical philosoph y. I t has long been m y conviction tha t w eh e re

hav e before us a m ost excellent achievem ent of the Ind ian m ind ; this conviction

has now grown stronger than even before, and I hop e to be in a posit ion to presen t

i t c l ear ly ' " .

4 6

Correspondences apart , Stcberbatsky worked in direct collabomtion with

some of the leading Indo logists of his time. After return ing from India , he under*

took a systematic s tudy in Yasubandhu's

Abhidharma-kosa

( as preserved in Tibeta n

translat ion ) along with Ya Som itra 's com mentary on i t This s tudy was facil itated

by an Uigur translation of the work discovered by A* Stein in Central Asia.

45.

Qu oted by Rah ula Sankrityayana in

Jin-ka Mem Krtajna,

Al lahabad

1957,

195.

46. M . W interni tz , History of Indian Literature, Vo l. ii , ( Eng , Tr . C alcutta

1933 ) 363 n.

SInt. 3


2

xviii Introduction

S. Levi, L. de la Vallee Poussin, U . W ogihara, O. Rozenberg and D . Ross

joine d him in this great project. Th e result was the magnificent edition of the tex t

p u b l i s h e d i n t h e Bibliotheca Buddhica series.

This ser iesthe

Bibliotheca Buddhica

had indeed been a landm ark in

mo dern Indplogy and i t cann ot but remind us of anoth er imp ortan t colleague of

StQherbatsky though a little senior one and, in a sense, one of his early te ac he rs,

4 7

H e was S. F . Ol'de nbu rg [ 1863-1934 ], th e original architect of the

Bibliotheca

Buddhica, which was started by the Acad emy of Sciences of Russia in 1897 to

coordinate the work of the scholars all over Ihe world devoted to the history, culture,

literature of Ind ia, China , Tibet a nd M ong olia. A large num ber of significant

wo rks came out in this series during the lifetime of O l'denb urg and it is well kn ow n

th at shortly after tlie series was started , Stcherba tsky too k an intense interest in it

and worked jointly with Ol 'denburg to make i t a grand internationalsuccess.

Ol 'de nburg 's own wo rk was primarily on the folk-lore, ethnology and art of

the peoples of Russia, W estern E urope and a num ber of eastern c ountr ies l ike

Indo nesia, China and Afghanistan and the subject of his doctora te dissertat ion was

Bu ddh ist legend s. F or twentyfive years [ 1904-1929 ], he rem ained the perp etual

secretary of the Russian A cadeny of Sciences and in 1917 he beeam e the M inister of

Edu cation of the Provisional Gove rnm ent.

Ho we ver, from the po int of view of the con tem pora ry Soviet Indo logists,

one of the m ost im porta nt things to remem ber abo ut Ol 'den burg is that i t was

largely throug h him tha t Lenin himself maintained his connection with the Ind o-

logists of his time. "L en in repeatedly too k interest in the developm ent of Ru ssian

Orie ntal studies and extended active help to the wo rkers on his field. It is

well kn ow n th at L enin received th e senior Ru ssian Orientalist S. F . O l'den burg

an d discussed with him the significance of Orien tal st ud ie s" .

4 8

W hat Lenin

is rep orte d to have said to O l'denb urg still rem ains the ma in source of inspiratio n

of the Indologists in the Soviet U nion to-day. "W ell" , said Lenin, "he re

is your subject. It seems far aw ay. Y et it is close. G o to the m asses, to the

w ork ers, an d tell them ab ou t the history of Indiaand see how they will resp on d

to it. An d you yourself draw inspiration from it for fresh research, w ork and study

of great scientif ic importance".

4 9

; 47. Ka l 'yanov , op.cit,, 245.

48 . N . P. Anikeev, op.cit., 57.

49.

V. V. Bonch-Bruevich,

V. I. Lenin in Petrograd and Moscow

( in Russian) ,

M oscow 1956, p. 32. Qu oted by Anikeev,

op. cit.,

60-1.


2

Introduction xix

In the Soviet period, when Indological s tudies in USS R took a new turn

u n d e r the guidance and inspirat ion of Lenin, Stcherbatsky, along with a num ber of

other

(A d

guardsMVv V. Ba rtol 'd, I . Y u. Krach kovsky , N . I . K n rad an d others

ethusiastically resp on de d to the call of the new tasks envisaged by Len in and too k

active part in organising the new Institutes;

-

M x in r G ork y initiated the idea of set ting up a new Insti t ute for an al lround

study of the Orien t an d Lenin^ imm ediately decreed tha t the Pe ople s' Co m m issaria t

of N ationa lities should take urge nt steps t o set up such an Institu te. Acco rdingly

Were set up the Moscow Insti tute of Oriental Languages and the Petrogra d Ins ti tute

of M ode rn Oriental Languag es. In the m ature st period of his l ife, Stcherbatsky

himself used to lecture in this new Lenin grad Institu te an d thu s wo rked to build np

the new generation of Soviet Indologists.

F ro m w hat is discussed it is allready obviou s tha t the im age of Stcherbatsky

we have is mu ch mo re than that of an individual scholar . Stcherbatsky became an

institu tion, as it were. This becom es all the m ore obviou s whe n we consider the

num ber of brilliant scholars trained up by him . In this , his con tribution differed

significantly from th at of S. C. Vid yab husa na, w ho , like Stcherbatsky, was one of

the earliest scholars to have worked o n "Budd hist logic" based on Tibetan materials

bu t wh o, unlike Stch erbatsk y, left practically no im po rtan t scholar in India to

continue the wo rk in the same l ine. Fo r the unde rstanding of Steherbatsky's full

statu re, therefore, it is essential to have a few wo rds on the outstan ding studen ts he

prod uce d, w ho , mo reover, quite early in life, w orked their way up to becom e his

able colleagues and collaborators.

Th e mo re significant nam es from this po int of view are those of Professor

O. Rozenberg, whose Problems of Buddhist Philosophy Stcherbatsky so much

admired ; Academ ician B. Y a. Vladim irtsov, wh o worke d mainly in the f ield of

M ong olian studies an d wro te extremely significant wo rks on the langua ge, history

atad culture of the M o n g o ls ; P. V. Ernshted t , w ho specialised in the Cop tic an d

Classical languages ; A. A . Friem an, who worked in the f ield of Indo -Iranian

languages ; V . I. K al'ya no v, w ho is now the Professor of Sansk rit in the Len ingrad

Un iversity an d is continu ing to prod uce first-rate studies on the different aspects of

ancient Indian history and culture.

Stcherbatsky reared up indeed a whole generation of Russian Indologists .

Bu t I am specially anx ious to speak here ab ou t the activities of two of them ,

becau se, thou gh bo th of the m died in their early thirties, bo th becam e so m uch

proficient in Indian studies that Stcherbatsky himself substantially depended on them

even in the ma turer ph ase of his own activities. They were E. Obermiller [1901-1935]

and A. Vostrikov [1904-1937].

S - - I i i t .3 /a : -->:> \ .

:* ,-'

^

* .*

' -

{ >

i


3

A Buddhist Philosophen oni Monoth&sm

hu m an souls . Th e divine at tr ibutes are a s fo llow s: H e is on e, , .omniscient ,

om nipresent, om nipotent . H e is the eternal creator and designer of the world. The

feelings of jo y and sorrow are unk now n to H im . Of all these qualities, theJhu m an

souls po ssess "only tw o, nam ely e ternality a nd all-pervasiveness.

Log ic and dialectics being the specialities of this scho ol, it devo ted itself to

the special task of offering proofs of the existence of G od . , .Uda ya na -c ry a, one of

the later w riters, enu me rated eight such special proo fs. W e need no t re-enu me rate

all these. Instead of tha t, we shall m ention only that wh ich is im po rtan t for

- following th e Buddhist polem ic against G od .

The first of these corresponds to the cosmological argument of the Vedantists

an d is form ulated a s follows : The world mu st have its cause , because noth ing com -

posite can exist with out a cause ; bu t the cause of the who le wo rld mu st be an

omniscient , omnipresent and omnipotent being.

Th e second argum ent is of part icular impo rtance because of i ts wide pre-

valence. It is to be found in the writings of the Greek and M uslim writers and also

in the writings of the rationa lists of m ode rn philo soph y. Th e argum ent begiiis with

the con sideration of the law of cau sation . A cause is something

1

indep end ent, i .e.

existing indepe nden tly of the effect. In order to com bine the cause with the effect;

a special pow er is necessary, because it can no t be there in th e cause itselfT If this

special pow er existed in the cause , the cause wou ld have com e ou t of itself as it Were

and would have turned into an effect. Ho wev er, as contrasted with the Ved nta

view, it is assum ed in this system th at the cause is alwa ys a cau se an d the effect is

always an effect. Fu rth er, accordin g to this schoo l, the ma terial cause of the wo rld

consists of the ato m s, which unite with ,each other foi: forming a body . But w ho

unite s them with each othe r ? Being unc on sciou s, they themselves are no t in a

po sition to unite with each oth er in special form s. The refore, each fact of the causal

rela tio n in the world is the result of the direct influence of the all-powerful will of

God. \

}

Ac cording to this theo ry, the influence of G od on the wo rld is no t expressed

only in the original act. Everything tha t takes place in the wo rld is the result of

direct and continuo us intervention of the will of G od ; A similar theory, und er the

name of occasionalism, was widely popular in Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries,

until K an t r finally dem olished it. H e showed th at a reference to Go d in this sense

is n ot an exp lanatio n bu t the denial? of all exp lana tipns. f ^

In India^ occasionalism was rejected by bo th the V eda ntists and Buddhists

Ac cord ing to the forme r, the relation between the cause an d the effect is analytical

while according to the latter it is an a

priori

relation existing only in our consc ious-

ness. . " . . . ~ ' - . , . '

From all these it is clear that India was not merely familiar with monotheism*;

m onothe ism wa& rather the supreme form of the Indian ideology. Fr om the

Sem itic particularly the Jewish world, India differed in having at different times


3

A Baddhist :PMosopher

on

IMonotheism

other form s of rel igion besides mo notheism, and am ong these even the atheist ic

religion.

Th e m ost anc ient a nd originally atheistic system of India was knoxro as the

Sm khya system. Its representatives decisively held tha t the existence of G od w as

absolutely unprovable.

10

The decisiveness with which this iinprovability was

emp hasised indicates how m uch significance was assigned to the prob lem by their

contemporaries and how strong was the opinion against which this school s truggled.

The m ain argumen t of the

x

Sm khyas was that if Go d existed as personal

being and had a free will, He could never have created this world because that would

have been pointless. W hy create"a wo rld in which there is so mu ch of evil ?

Th e Ved ntisjs held tha t G od , as a merciful being, created the world for th e

love of creation . To^this the Sm khy as replied tha t if H e was really kind , H e wou ld

have created only the goo d. Th e un do ub ted fact, nevertheless, is tha t there is evil

in th is wor ld .

1 1

Besides the Smkhya, the Crvakas

1 3

or the Indian material is ts were

renow ned for their atheism . They denied the prima cy of consciousness an d did no t

consider the human soul as different from organised matter.

Finally the Bud dhists also were ath eists. It is difficult to find out w hat

opinion the founder of Buddhismand in general ear ly Buddhism or the Hinayana-

held on this que stion. In the serm ons said to have been delivered by the Bu ddh a

himself,

there are m any pieces in which the existence of the soul is denied. It is

no t clear, how ever, how consciousness was explained and wha t was the real attitu de

to the doctrine^of transm igration. The mo dern scholars have no t ye t arr ived at any

agreed view on these po ints . O n the othe r ha nd , the pos ition is quite clear in later

Buddh ism or the so-called Mah y na . Of the two schools into which the M ahy na

was split, one denied the reality of the external as well as of the interna l w orld. Th e

othe r school denied the reality only of the external objects an d considered the w hole

wo rld as consisting of our ideas only. Only these ideas were acknowledged to be

fully real.

1 8

10 . cf, Smkhy-sutra i. 92.

11 . cf. K. Garbc, Die Samkhy

12 . F o r an acc oun t of their teaching s, see

Sarvadarsanasrngraha,ch.l the

additional factor distinct from the material or basic cause.

Vinitadeva explains to us tha t D ha rm ak irti uses here alien terminolog y. Fo r the

Va ibhs ikas, wh o acknow ledge the existence of the ma ss of individua l elemen ts in each

m om ent of life, this term den otes , in gene ral, the relatio n of each elemen t to all oth ers

existing at the time. In case of D ha rm ak irti to o, as we have seen, there is no mu tual

influence of individual stream s of consciousn ess at all, an d everything is explained by

the inter-action of basic consciousness and the power of transcendental illusion.

Since the composing of this book was done some years back , it is being printed

as per old orthography.

1

1.

By a decree of Octoqer 10, 1918, the Soviet Government introduced some reforms in the spellings

of Russian words. These included, inter

alia,

complete purge of three letters of alphabet from the

Russian script.-^-Tr.


9

62 Establishment of the Existence of Other Minds

TEXT

Dharmakfrti's SNTNNTAR-SIDDHI With Vimtadeva'sCOMMENTARY

1. INTRODUCTION

If by observing the purposeful action s outsid e ourselv es, we infer the existence of

other mind s on the analogy of wh at we observe in ourselves,this inference does

not contradict the idealistic outlook.*

Commentary

"Everything real is a thought",

So said the Teacher of the world.

I invoke him and proceed

To comment on the treatise

Establishment of the Existence of Other Minds,

In the abve introductory wo rds, D ha rm ak lrt i , the auth or of the present treatise,

poin ts out the conte nt and aim of h is w ork and also the relation between them . Its

con tent is devoted to the existence of othe r m ind. Th e aim is to prove it. An d the

relation betwee n the m is self-evident, for th is wo rk is the m eans for attai nin g the

present aim.

Th e controversy between realism and idealism on this question is well kno wn .

Th e Realist con tends tha t from the po int of view of idealism, the existence of other

mind can not be prove d. This is how he argues : On e, for w hom there exist only some

represe ntation s and there are no externnl thing s, can no t consider percep tion to be the

me ans of cognizing other m ind, because the objects of percep tion lie exclusively in ou r

consciousn ess, or because there are generally no real [extra-mental] objects of perception.

In this case, inference also is n ot possible. It would have been possible to infer the

existence of other min d from its external m arks, viz. oth er 's speech and purposive

action s. Bu t from the po int of view of idealism, the latter do no t exist. N o inference

based on these is, therefore, possible.

Th e auth ority of the scripture too is of no help ; for wh at is this scripture bu t

an external ma terial object ? Th e scripture is compo sed of word s or of individual

* Translator's Note :

H. Kitagawa ( in "Journ al of the Greater India Society", xiv, 57n ) mentions that theslokain

its Sanskrit original is quoted by Rmakantha inNaresvara-parik'sa-vrtti. It reads-

huddhUpurvarn

knyam drstva

svadehe 'nyatra tad-grahanat/

jnayate yadidhYscitta-matre

9

py esa nayahsatnah 11

Literal translation of thisslokaas made by Stcherbatsky from Tibetan is as under :

"Seeing the actions,which are preceded by [our own] thoughts,in our own body, if we

cognize the thoughts in another [person] on the ground that this (actions) are perceived, this way

[of inferring] is the same even in the case of one who (acknowledges) thought a lone."

[ Translated from Russian ]


9

Establishmentof the Existence of Other Minds 63

sounds that form a word. And both theseare external ma terial objects, w hich do not

exist

for an

idealist.

For him,

even

the

existence

of the

scripture itself

is not an

idealist. For him,eventhe existenceof the scripture itself is not an authori tat ive proof

of their existence. As a result ,he cannot know about other mind evenin thisway.

Our reply

to

this attack

of the

Realists

is

this

:

There is no doubt that o ther mind cannot be perceived by thesenses. We agree

to this . And this isbased on the fact thatwe do not possess transcendental perception.

As regards thescripture,we do not recognize that its essence consists of the articulate

sounds .

It

lies

in the

representations which appear

to us in

part icular sentences, wo rds,

and sou nds. These representations belong to our consciousness, although they a ppear

in us under the influence of the builders of philosophical systems : Buddha, Kapi la ,

K a n a d a . On this basis, these representations of ours aregiventhe titleof the words

of Buddha,

etc. All of us

Buddhists agree that

the

word

by itself, as an

individual

sound, expresses nothing ; but when we say tha t the word expresses something, we

mean our representation containing the general concept associated with theword. An

individual sound cannot contain whatwas there earlier ; but thegeneral con cep t, which

it supposedly denotes, unitesin it the past arid thepresent. On this basis, we deny the

capacity

of

such individual sounds

to

serve

as

symbols

of

thought .

1

Ne vertheless, even

we do not claim that our knowledge of other mind is basedon the evidenceof the

scripture. But we assert that it is based on inferenc e. W ha t form this inference will

assume in spiteof the fact that the external marks are not considered existent, is what

the author tells

us in his

in troductory w ords .

In

this lies their gene ral significance.

In

part icular , the author tells us about the thoughtsthat is, about the consciousness

which precedes actions. Bythesearemeant the volitional acts, the tendencies to come,

togo, to speak. They are thecausesof purposive actions. If the Realist, acknowledging

the existence of external objects, infers the existence of such tendencies in another

[person]

on the

basis that

he

sees

his

purposive actions,

and

does

it

because

he, in his

veryself, directlyand by inference, sees the relation between the intentions and the

actionsthis conclusion then does not contradict idealism. The marksof [inferring]

mind

are not

only

the

actions

but

also

the

expressions

of the

face

:

[rush

of]

blood,

etc.

The word if indicates that the inference mentioned on behalfof the Realists is not

actually offered [bythem].

2

2. THE

PROBLEM STATED

After pointing out that both the sides acknowledge thesignificance of inference

[in pro ving the other mind] the author says:

1. The author probably has in view thetheoryofMimUrps school, which holds thatthesoundsof

speech constitute essence

of

scripture

and

that they exist eternally

and

express thoughts directly

by themselves. .

2. Probably because they allowed even direct cognisabilityofother mind.


9

64 Establishment of the Existence of Other Minds

1. Realism infers the existence of the othe r mind o n the basis of analogy with

itself.

Observing , in oth ers, exactly the same physical mo vem ents and speech as he him -

self has , the Realist infers tha t they m ust be preceded by the same internal m otivation s

as he observ es in himself. Bu t this inference is poss ible even from th e po int of view of

idealism. Th e Idealist also can, therefore, infer the existence of other mind .

H ere , by mo tivation is m eant the tendency to activity ; by physical mo vem ents

and speech the physical and verbal m arks of m ind. Th e me aning, therefore, is this :

If it is noticed in one's own self that the mo vem ents and speech are preceded by a desire

to act and to speak, and an inference is then draw n abou t the existence of such m otiva-

tions also in an othe r perso n on the grou nd tha t similar physical move men ts and speech

are observed in him , the Idealist also can possibly have a similar train of thou ght.

Hence, even he can infer the existence of other mind.

Th e question arises : Th e basis of this inference is the external speech and mo ve-

m ents, which serve as the external m arks of othe r mind. Th e Realist ackno wledges the ir

existence. Fo r the Idealist, how ever, they do no t exist. H ere , wh at so rt of analogy can

be possible ?

2. Th e Id ealist also a ccepts tha t th ose repre senta tions, in which oth er's actions

an d speech app ear to us, would no t have existed, if the special processes of

other consciousness were not there.

The representations containing images of external ma rks of other mind the ones

which appear to us in the form of other 's movements and speechdo not, in the opinion

of the Idealist, exist independently of the special processes of other consciousness.

Consciousness, which is distinct from our own, is called

the other.

The

processes

com prising it are the prese ntation s of oth er consc iousness. By

special processes

is meant

the motivation to actions and the desire to speak.

3.

REALISM REFUTED BRIEFLY

The Realist objects :

3.

If you do no t

v

accept the perceptibility of the activity of othe r c onsciousn ess,

you do not then have the right to infer its existence [i.e. of other consciousness].

The Idealist :

You too do not have this right, since you are also in the same position.

Th e Re alist says : "Y ou , the Idealist, never perceived such represe ntation s

con tainin g images of mo vem ents and speech as preceded by the activity of oth er

consciousness* Ho w can yo u, therefo re, infer its existence ?"


9

Establishment of the Existence of Other Minds 65

The Idealist replies : "T his is no objection, for you too can be reproach ed for

this" In fact

4.

Th e Realist also has never directly observed other mind. It means that he has

not seen such movements and speech as preceded indeed by other consciousness.

That is why he cannot know it.

If the Idealist never perceived such repr ese ntatio ns, the Re alist also did never

directly perceive such mo vem ents a nd speech a s prece ded by th e proces ses of othe r

consciousness. Th at is why he can not know it.

How ever, this m utua l altercation is no t of much im portan ce. It is rather very

unple asant even to listen. In a philosoph ical debate , a set of related concepts generally

acceptable to bo th the parties should first be determined and the desired thesis should

then be derived from it.

But in this case, the antag onis t 's objetions stand refuted by the simple fact tha t

these are also equally applicab le to himself. This is w hy the auth or has the same

limitations here.

4.

DETAILED CONTROVERSY BEGINS. FIRST ARGUM ENT

OF THE REALIST AND ITS INADEQUACY

Assum ing tha t he has found out a meth od for proving the existence of other

mind, the Realist launches his attack :

5.

Since one 's own consciousness cann ot be the cause of wh at exists in ano ther

pe rson ,

3

we shall thereby know of the existence of yet another consciousness.

Since our own consciousness cann ot be the cause of those physical mov emen ts

and speech tha t belong to ano ther perso n, we also infer the existence of ano ther

consciousness.

Th e Id ea lis t: " W hy can it not be ? Please show why our consciousness can not

be the cause of other 's movements".

The Rea l i s t :

6. Because we do no t clearly experience in ourselves the individual pers ona l

intentions which precede other's movements.

He re we are faced with a dilemm a. The cause of othe r's movem ents and speech

exists either in ou r own consciousn ess or in ano the r. Th e first assu m ptio n is eliminated*

because we do not experience in our consciousness such thoughts as would have provoked

other 's movements.

3

e

Dandar explains it differently. See literal translation.

S t c , 9


9

66 Establish xen t of the Existence of Other Minds

Why ?

7. A nd because wh at results from o ur consciou sness is also perceived as belonging

to our own person.

stcherbatsky, th. - papers of th. stcherbatsky (ed. gupta,1975)

Documents

o g y s e r i e s n

s t c h e r b

e t i n d o

r i s h c

t t o p

o r s p r e f

kindlyscrutinised th

introduction byd e b