REVIEWS

IJimal Krishna Matilal, The Navya-ny~ya Doctrine of Negation. The Semantics and Ontology of Negative Statements in Navya-nyffya Philosophy (= Harvard Oriental Series, vol. 46). Cambridge, Mass., 1968. xiii, 208 pp. The deeper we penetrate into Indian civilization the more it becomes apparent that we require special skills. This of course is not surprising. No one would attribute to a Slavicist the professional competence to expound the Periodic Table of Mendeleyev. Yet there are people who expect Indologists and Sanskritists to discourse authoritatively on Indian astronomy, Indian medicine, Indian grammar and Indian what-not. And this despite the fact that such subjects survive only because of the Indian pao~lits who continue to cultivate highly specialized traditions. Fortunately, expectations are beginning to change and several of these subjects are beginning to come into their own. Navya-ny~ya or Modem Logic was first dealt with in a logical spirit in A Study on Mathurdnatha's Tattva-cintdma.ni-rahasya (Wageningen 1924) by Saileswar Sen, who had studied under Pandit Sitanath Siddhantabhusana at Calcutta and under Barend Faddegon at Amsterdam. The next landmark was Materials for the Study of Navya-nyaya Logic (Cambridge, Mass. 1951; reviewed in these pages: 1960b, 68-73) by Daniel H. H. Ingalls, who had studied under Pandit Sri Kalipada Tarkacharya at Calcutta. The book under review falls into this tradition (though Saileswar Sen is not mentioned even once). Professor Matilal studied Navyany~ya first at Calcutta under several pa.n.dits, and then under Ingalls at Harvard, where he wrote the dissertation upon which this book is based. Four comparable books on Navya-ny~ya since Ingalls' work have come to the notice of the present reviewer, and these and Matilars work all seem to be independent of each other: Potter (1957), Srcekrishna Sarma (1960; ef. review Staal 1962b), Mohanty (1966; of. review Matilal 1968) and Goekoop (1967). For Barlingay (1965) cf. this reviewer's review (1968). Matilars book consists of three parts and an appendix. Part I deals with the basic concepts of Navya-ny~ya, and corresponds to Ingalls' chapter "An examination of some theories and techniques of Navya-nyhya logic", which it sometimes refines and extends. Part II gives a translation of the Abhavavdda (Discourse on Absence) of Ga~gew Tattvacint~ma.ni, together with a sketch of the background, an introduction and explanatory notes. Part III gives a translation of Raghun~tha's Nafi-vada (Discourse on Negative Particles), together with an introduction and explanatory notes. The appendix provides the Sanskrit texts translated in parts II and III, reproduced photographically from the Bibliotheca Indica edition of the Tattvacintama.nL A bibliography, a Sanskrit and an English index conclude the book, which is well-produced in accordance with the unfailingly high standards of the Harvard Oriental Series.

200

REVIEWS

The exposition of basic concepts is excellent and contains much material that is not elsewhere available in a Western language. There are very few flaws, but as it is the reviewer's thankless job to concentrate on some of these, the reader is advised to keep in mind this overall excellence. Matilat's exposition starts with an analysis which appears to be epistemological (because its object is ~dna "cognition") but which on closer inspection turns out to be semantic. According to the Navya-naiyayikas, cognitions are "qualificative" and are of the form "x is qualified by y", where x is the qualificand (vi.sdya) and y the qualifier (vi~e.saea). Matilal is careful to distinguish this distinction from the Western grammatical distinction between subject and predicate (to which we shall return), and relate it to the distinction between substance and quality in earlier Ny~ya. In the analysis he proposes for this relation, he makes use of a binary predicate Q(x,y). Accordingly, nilo ghat.ah. "a pot is blue", which the Indian logicians analyze as "a pot is qualified by blue-color', is written as Q(Pot,Blue-color) (I have supplied and shall continue to supply the comma for clarity). This is a useful representation (which in fact is closely related to the expression B(x,y) introduced by this reviewer in 1960a), but Matilal's applications of it are marred by an unfortunate confusion between terms and propositions. What is interesting about this confusion is that it probably reflects a similar or identical confusion sometimes made by the NaiyAyikas themselves. Thus Matilal says (p. 15) that "a pot" is represented by Q(Pot,Pot-ness), and "a pot is blue" by Q(Pot,Blue-color). Furthermore, combining these two, "a pot is blue" may according to Matilal also be represented by: Q(Q(Pot,Pot-ness), Q(Blue-color,Blue-ness))

(1)

But it is clear that Q(x,y) must either stand for the proposition "x is qualified by by" (thus conforming to the usage of modern logicians), or for the term "x which is qualified by y". On the first assumption, Q(Pot,Pot-ness) can only mean "a pot is qualified by potness" or "a pot is a pot", and (1) has no meaning at all since the arguments of Q, which must be terms, are themselves Q's, i.e., propositions. On the second assumption, Q(Pot,Blue-color) can only mean "a blue pot" and (1) something like "a blue pot which is qualified by blueness". The best way out of this tangle seems to be to adopt the first assumption and use restricted-variables (as was done by this reviewer in 1960a) to stand for terms. Accordingly, Q(x,y) stand for "x is qualified by y" and uxQ(x,y) for "x which is qualified by y" (literally, "x such that x is qualified by y"). Hence nflatva-vi~ist.a-nila-rapa-vdn ghafatva-vi~i~t.ab ghat.a~ will not be represented by (1) but by: Q(GtxQ(x,potness), 0txQ(x,blueness))

(2)

This is well-formed, unambiguous and stands in very close correspondence to the Sanskrit original. The very interesting discussion of the Navya-nyAya metalanguage which Matilal presents on pages 29-30 makes, as it stands, no sense either and must also be stated in different terms. According to Matilal, the analysis of rakta-pur latd "the creeper possesses a red flower" may be represented by: Q(Q(a,b),Q(Q(c,d),Q(e,f))

(3)

where a, b, c, d, e andfrepresent, respectively, creeper, creeper-ness, flower, flower-ness, red-color and red-ness (similarly in Matilal 1966). But (3) again is meaningless since none but the innermost Q's have terms as their arguments. A possibly appropriate logical expression should be of the form: Q[ctzQ(z,b),~y{Q(y,d) A Q(y, ctxQ(x,f))}]

(4)

Notice that the individuals a, c and e are missing from (4), just as "pot" and "blue"

REVIEWS

201

were missing from (2). But this precisely illustrates the point of the Navya-naiy~yika attempt at an analysis of individuals in terms of universals and of the relation Q. A simple fact about the Sanskrit language appears to underlie the confusion between terms and propositions: optional (and in fact widespread) absence of the copula. Accordingly, nilo ghat.a.h can either function as a term (meaning "a blue pot") or as a proposition (meaning "a pot is blue") (I disregard here the considerable problems arising from the absence of definite or indefinite articles in such expressions). These expressions are disambiguated in larger contexts: for example, kha.nd.ate nilo ghat.a.h can only mean "a (or: the) blue pot breaks". This is a fairly superficial fact about Sanskrit syntax, however, and I do not mean to imply that the distiction between terms and prositions does not obtain in Sanskrit. On the contrary, it is clearly fundamental to Sanskrit syntax and semantics, and was also clearly recognized as such by Indian logicians (and of course by the grammarians). But this superficial ambiguity nevertheless seems to have generated some confusion. Matilal looks at these semantic analyses by the Navya-naiyfiyikas largely from a logical and philosophical point of view. This in fact constitutes one of the great merits of his work. Still, a linguistic analysis should also be rewarding, as the following few remarks may show. In transformational grammar, noun phrases such as "the blue pot" are generally derived by a transformation from expressions containing embedded sentences (actually corresponding to restrictive variables in logic), viz., from expressions such as: the pot [the pot is blue] (5) s

s

In Sanskrit this transformation could be formulated in a particularly simple manner, yielding derivations such as: gha~ah. [ nilo gha~ah ] ~ nllo ghatah. (6) s

$

(disregarding word-order). This is a typically linguistic transformation, for both sides of (6) correspond to the same restricted variable. The Naiyfiyika analysis of individuals in terms of universals appears to parallel a similar process, involving transformations by which nouns are derived from relative clauses where they occur in predicate position (see Bach 1968; cf. Staal, forthcoming). Thereby "red" is derived from "red x", itself derived with the previous transformation from x [ x is red]. Similarly, "a flower" is s

s

derived from "a flower x", itself derived from x [ x is a flower]. Combining these s

s

processes, the underlying structure of the noun phrase "a red flower" might be of the form: NP I I I NP S

I

NP I I NP

I

i

S I NP

i

VP

I

(7)

t

is red I VP

I

is a flower Various alternative underlying structures have been suggested by contemporary linguists. But structures such as (7) may at any rate suffice to show that linguistic

202

REVIEWS

analyses (themselves in part corresponding to the uses of restricted variables in logic) have much in common with the Navya-naiy~yika analysis of expressions by recursive applications of a binary relation. Matilal's remark that the distinction between qualificand and qualifier is different from the subject-predicate distinction in grammar can now be seen to be appropriate only with respect to the surface distinction between subject and predicate. However, the corresponding distinction in transformational grammar, i.e., the NP-VP distinction, obtains not only at the surface level but also at deeper levels. The underlying NP-VP relation, which may be itself semantic or very close to a semantic relation, is therefore quite similar to the relation Q manipulated by the Navya-naiyayikas. These considerations relate to the general analysis of the conceptual apparatus of Navya-nyfiya, and though Matilal is fully justified in devoting much attention to them, they are not specific to the central topic of the book, i.e., negation. The Naiy~yikas regarded negation not as a psychological feature of negative judgments, but as a component of cognitions of the kind described before. Though this was a good move (as Matilal rightly stresses), it also opened the door for further confusion between terms and propositions. Matilal describes the Ny~.ya argument in terms which lead to results that can only be described as meaningless (p. 94): in order to negate propositions of the form "a (is) P", the latter are first reduced to existential statements of the form "there is an a (which is) P", then to assertions from which the existential operator has been dropped, i.e., "someone asserts a (which is) P" and finally to complex terms from which the assertion part has been dropped, i.e., "a (which is) P". Negations of propositions therefore pertain ultimately to these complex terms, and since terms apparently are not negated (this link is missing in Matilal's associative chain), the negation must attach to the predicate. Hence the negation of "a (is) P" is "a (which is) not-P'. On this analysis, the negation of a proposition is a term. This result is reached by arguing in tune with what can only be regarded as a meaningless string, viz. : (Ex)P(x) -~ ct xP(x)

(8)

and arriving at an equally ill-formed jumble, viz.: -] P(a) --~ ct x(-1 P) (x)

(9)

I think the situation is not quite that bad. It seems that the Navya-naiy~yikas were merely trying to state that a proposition of the form (Pa) is negated by negating its predicate, while at the same time maintaining the distinction between a proposition and its propositional content or ~dbdabodha, a notion which Matilal rightly relates to Frege's notion of content (p. 92-93). Let us consider an actual example, provided by Matilal in his translation and notes on the Na~-v~da (p. 150-151). The proposition:

caitra~ pacati "Caitra is cooking"

(10)

has for its negation the proposition:

caitro na pacati "Caitra does not cook".

(11)

The dabdabodha of (10) is:

pakdnukfdakrti-mtin caitra.h "Caitra possessing an effort conducive to cooking"

(12)

and that of (11):

pdkanuk~lak.rty-abhava-vdn caitrab "Caitra possessing an absence of such an effort as is conducive to cooking". (13) Matilal's description of the Ny~ya argument suggests that the gabdabodha (13) is the

REVIEWS

203

negation of the proposition (10). But this is quite unnecessary, for (12) and (13), as we have seen, are ambiguous and may also be construed as propositions, i.e.: "Caitra possesses an effort conducive to cooking" (12') "Caitra possesses an absence of such an effort as is conducive to cooking" (13') But now it is obvious that (13') must be regarded as the analysis of the negation of (10). All undesirable consequences vanish obligingly. The notion of abh~tva "negation", which is the cornerstone of the Nyfiya analysis, is introduced by the gSbdabodha. In linguistic terms, a gSbdabodha is arrived at by nominalization; abhava may accordingly be regarded as a nominalization of the negative dement na. The logical analysis itself may be formalized along the following lines. Let rE1 express the gSbdabodha of E, which is either a proposition or a predicate; conversely, let the proposition I-- S express the assertion that the ~Sbdabodha S of a proposition obtains. Accordingly, P(a) and r-- rP(a)l are equivalent expressions. Let f~ stand for the negation with occurs in a gSbdabodha and which corresponds to the negative element in the corresponding negative proposition. Lastly, let the binary predicate B(x,y) stand for "x possesses y". Then, if (10) and (11) are represented by (Pa) and -1 P(a) respectively, their respective gabdabodha's (12) and (13) are rB(a, rp1)l and ~B(a, ~ P1)L Consequently, (12') and (13') have for their respective representations ~- rB(a, rp1)~ and ~- rB(a,rf2P~)l. The Naiyfiyikas, then, analyze -1 P(a) as ~- ~B(a, ~ P1)~. This is at worst a harmless exercise. There is at least one other kind of negation which is analyzed along similar lines: mutual absence or the negation of identity. Matilal shows that this negation, which is of the form x ~ y and which in the early Ny~ya was sharply distinguished from the negation of a relation, which is of the form -1 A(x,y), are analyzed in similar terms in Navya-ny~iya. This is of course a step forward, since identity is also a relation and can very well be written in the form A(x,y). In the previous discussions we have only met with negative propositions and, by implication, with negative predicates. But Indian scholars also evolved a very interesting theory of negative terms (which has nothing to do with the confusion dealt with before). This theory is actually due to the grammarians and to the ritualist philosophers of the Mimfi.ms~, not to the Naiy~yikas. But it was discussed at length in the Nyfiya and Navya-ny~ya, and Matilal reveals interesting comments on it from the hand of Raghun~tha (pp. 156-161). The distinction itself is generally illustrated by the ambiguity of yajati~u ye yajSmaha iti karoti nSnuyajes.u which can mean either: "in sacrifices one utters ye yajSmahe, but one does not utter it in anuyaja sacrifices" (14) or: "in sacrifices which are not anuyaja sacrifices one utters ye yajamahe"

(15)

The former contains what is called a prasajya-prati~edha (verbally bound negative), the latter what is called a paryudasa (nominally bound negative) (p. 156). A formalization was proposed by the present reviewer in 1962a (p. 59-60). Let a stand for "sacrifices", b for "anuySja-sacrifices", c for "ye yaySmahe" and F(x,y) for "at x one says y". Disregarding the fact that we are really dealing with injunctions (which would complicate the following expressions in inessential ways), prasajyaprati~edha may then be expressed by F(a,c) A "-I F(b,c), which corresponds to (14), and paryud~sa by F(a A --1 b,c), which corresponds to (15). Notice that such expressions are only well-formed if the negation sign and other expressions for logical connectives are defined in combination with terms as well as propositions. It is of course easy to use different signs for term and for proposition negation; but in the present context there is no ambiguity.

204

REVIEWS

Matilal's translations and notes show that Raghunfitha argued that the paryudasa interpretation is not due to the fact that the negative is construed with the following term (which is the traditional view), but to the fact that there is mutual absence between sacrifices and anuydja sacrifices. This suggests an alternative formalization for paryud~sa, viz., F(a,c) A (a # b). Matilal discusses several grammatical objections to this view, together with Raghunfitha's rebuttals. At the beginning of this review I said that the overall excellence of Matilal's expositions should be kept in mind throughout the following discussion. I should like to stress this once more and add, that in the preceding pages only very few aspects of Matilal's work could be discussed adequately - - mainly passages, moreover, which are open to criticism within the perspective of formal logic. But Matilal's book contains much more. For example, the sketch of the background of Gaflge~a's views includes translations from Gautama's Ny~yasf~tra and from Vfitsy~yana's Nyayasatrabh~.sya. This sketch and the notes on Gafige~a's Abhava-vada contain translations from several famous works which until now have been hardly or not at all made available or translated: e.g., Nyfiya works such as ~ridhara's Nyayakandaliand Jayanta's Nyayama~jari; but also several Buddhist treatises and ~r~ar.sa's Kha.nd.a.nakhan.dakh~dya, a celebrated Ved~inta work. Professor Matilal is obviously completely at home in the very vast and rich traditions of Indian logic and philosophy, and he combines this knowledge with a very thorough grasp of the problems and methods of contemporary Western logic and philosophy. May the criticisms voiced in the course of this review be taken for no more than what they purport to be: tributes to a scholar who has made some of the thorniest technical texts in Sanskrit more intelligible; and challenges to continue to provide us with more to chew on from these "clich6s of Navya-nyfiya" as Ingalls called them (1951, p. 2), which "if they are cumbrous in comparison with the symbols of modern logic, are certainly superior as a logical instrument to the language of ordinary discourse". Berkeley

J.F. Staal

References Bach, E. (1968), "Nouns and noun phrases" in E. Bach and R. T. Harms (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory (New York etc.), 90-122. Barlingay, S. S. (1965), A Modern Introduction to Indian Logic (Delhi). Goekoop, C. (1967), The Logic of Invariable Concomitance in the Tattvacintffma.ni.

Gaftgega's Anumitinir@a~a and Vy@t&ffda with Introduction, Translation and Commentary (Dordrecht). Ingalls, D. H. H. (1951), Materials for the Study of Navya-Nyaya Logic ( = Harvard Oriental Series, vol. 40) (Cambridge, Mass.). Matilal, B. K. (1966), "Indian Theorists on the Nature of the Sentence (vakya)", Foundations of Language, 2.377-393. (1968), Review of Mohanty 1966, Philosophy East and West, 18.321-333. Mohanty, J. (1966), Gaagega's Theory of Truth (Santiniketan). Potter, K. (1957), The [email protected] ofRaghunatha ~iromani (Cambridge, -

-

Mass.). Sen, Saileswar (1924), A Study on Mathuranatha's Tattva-cint~ma.ni-rahasya (Wageningen). Sreekrishna Sarma, E. R. (t960), Ma.nikana. A Navya-ny~ya Manual (Adyar). Staal, J. F. (1960a), "Correlations between Language and Logic in Indian Thought", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 23.109-122. (1960b), Review of Ingalls 1951, Indo-Iranian Journal 4.68-73. -

-

R~VIEWS

205

- - - - (1962a), "Negation and the Law of Contradiction in Indian Thought: A Comparative Study", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 25.52-71. -(1962b), Review of Sreekrishna Sarma 1960, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 82.237-241. -(1968), Review of Barlingay 1965, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 33.603-604. -(forthcoming), "Performatives and Token-Reflexives", Linguistic Inquiry.

Jean Jacquot, Ed., Les Thddtres d'Asie, l~tudes de Jeannine Auboyer,

A.A. Bake, Jeanne Cuisinier, Anne-Marie Esnoul, Liang Pai-tchin, Li Tche-Loua, Ma Hiao-tsiun, Arimasa Mori, Gaston Renondeau, Louis Renou, Rend Sieffert, R.A. Stein, Philippe Stern, Tran Van Khe, Andrd Travert, E.H. de Tscharner, K.M. Varma, Charles Virolleaud. Paris, l~ditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1961. vii, 308 pp. 28 plates. This valuable collection of papers is based on a series of lectures given in 1958 and 1959 at the Th6fttre Sarah-Bernhardt, Paris, under the auspices of the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. It forms one of a series of similar collections on various aspects of the theatre. The section on the Indian theatre includes contributions by the late Professor Renou, Dr. Jeannine Auboyer, Dr. Anne-Marie Esnoul, Dr. K.M. Varma, the late Dr. A.A. Bake and Professor Philippe Stern. All these articles concern the classical Sanskrit theatre, and nothing is said about the folk theatres of various regions of India, which have been little studied, but which are well worthy of consideration, since they represent a tradition owing something to the classical one, and have helped to inspire the modern theatre and film, especially in Bengal. The brief contribution of Professor Renou gives a sympathetic factual account of Sanskrit dramatic literature. His statement that the surviving monologues and farces belong to a relatively recent period 'et sont 6vit6es ou inconnues des auteurs classiques' (19.7) surprisingly overlooks the well known Mattavilasa of the Pallava king, Mahendravikramavarman, which must have been written in the first half of the seventh century A.D., about a century before Bhavabhfiti. The longer contribution of Dr. Jeannine Auboyer develops this theme further. It is rather over compressed, and hence some of her arguments are not as clear as they might be. For instance we do not see why the discovery of the A~vagho~a fragments in Chinese Turkestan should necessarily invalidate the theory of L6vi and Konow that the Sanskrit drama first took literary form under the patronage of the ~aka satraps of Mathur~ (la. 14), who were reigning at least 150 years before A~vagho.sa. Faulty proof reading is probably responsible for placing Har~avardhana in the eighth century (p. 14), and for Bh6rata Ndya (sic) (~stra (p. 15 n. 2). On the strength of the use of the term s~tradhara for both we are told "le directeur de la troupe 6tait en m~me temps l'arehitecte du th6~tre" (p. 16), which seems intrinsically improbable. On the next page we read: "I1 n'existait nulle part de th6atre monumental." Dr. Esnoul's contribution, entitled "Les trait6s de dramaturgie indienne" consists chiefly of a summary of the contents of the text called by her indiscriminately Daga R~pa and Dada Rapaka. We doubt whether 'bouffon' is a satisfactory translation of vid~aka (p. 25) since in several dramas the vid~aka possesses elements of nobility in his character, and is by no means a mere clown or fool. Dr. Varma's paper, "La base du th6fttre classique indien" deals with themes such as bhava, rasa, v.rtti and abhinaya, mainly depending on the Bharata Ndt.ya ~astra for their definition and treatment. Very interesting and original is the contribution of Dr. Bake, which links the raising

206

~wEws

of the Indradhvaja at the ancient spring festival, which was the occasion of dramatic performances, with a similar ritual still performed in Nepal. Perhaps the most valuable article of those concerning India is that by Professor Stern, who finds striking echoes of scenes from Sanskrit drama in the murals of Ajant~, though he admits that the latter cannot be deliberate illustrations of actual plays. Also relevant to the Indo-Iranian Journal is the contribution of Dr. Charles Virolleaud, who gives a lucid and sympathetic account of the sacred drama of the Shi'~t Muslims, commemorating the death of the martyr Husain at the battle of Karbala, which he compares to the mystery plays of medieval Europe. This book is interesting and valuable. It does not, however, replace more specialized works on the subject, though much of its contents is not likely to be of great interest to the intelligent reader without background knowledge. Australian National University

A.L. Basham

Y. Ojihara et L. Renou, La Kdgika-Vftti (adhy~ya I, p~da 1) traduite et comment~e, 2e partie ( = Publications de l'l~cole Franr d'Extr~meOrient, volume XLVIII). Paris, 1962, 133 pp. Y. Ojihara, La Kdgika-V~tti (adhyaya I, pdda 1) traduite et commentde, 3e partie ( = Publications de l'l~cole Francaise d'Extr~me-Orient, volume XLVIII). Paris, 1967. 187 pp. These two volumes are the continuation of the first one published in 1960, and they bring to a close this important work which in effect provides, in the form of translations, r6sum6s and commentaries, a conspectus of a large part of the exegetical tradition relating to the first Pfida of the first Adhyfiya of P~irjini's A~t.adhyayi covering chapters 3-9 of Patafijali's Mahabhar (i.e. the 'Navahnika' less the Paspa~. and the chapter on the ~ivasQtras). The second volume, which was produced jointly by the coauthors, contains sfttras 1.1.45-59 and five pages of Addenda et Corrigenda relating to the first two volumes; the third volume, for which Professor Ojihara is chiefly responsible and which appeared shortly after L. Renou's untimely death in 1966, contains satras 1.1.60-75 along with further Addenda et Corrigenda to the first two volumes (pp. 119-123), an index of grammatical forms quoted in the first Pfida of the Kagikav~tti (pp. 125-176), and a detailed table of contents of the three volumes (pp. 177-187). For the scope and overall significance of this publication reference may be made to the review of the first volume which appeared earlier in this Journal (I1J, 6 [1962], pp. 72-73). These last two volumes, and especially the third one, differ from the first to the extent that Professor Ojihara has added much material not included in the original scheme of the work, which tended to be restricted to the purely grammatical aspect to the exclusion of semi-philosophical theoretical developments; and as a consequence of this expansion the whole work now comprises three parts instead of the two originally planned. The reader will be grateful for this additional material drawn from important commentaries from the Mahabha~ya onwards; attention may be drawn in particular to the discussions included under satras 1.1.46, 56, 59, 62, 63, 68, 69, 70, and 72. The present publication, which is a milestone in the history of Indology, constitutes a monument to the great learning of the late L. Renou and of his collaborator and continuator. Leiden

D. Seyfort Ruegg

REVIEWS Dayanand Bhargava, Yaina Ethics. Delhi-Varanasi-Patna, Banarsidass, 1968. xvi + 296 pp. Rs. 20.

207 Motilal

This work, a thesis approved for the degree of Ph.D. by the University of Delhi, is an attempt to describe and explain the ethical principles and practices of the Jainas. The book presents itself as a series of eight chapters (I-VIII) but in fact comprises two different sections. The first four chapters (pp. 1-99) discuss a number of general questions concerning ethics (I), the metaphysical background of ethics (II), the conception of morality (III) and the relative values of right knowledge, faith and conduct (IV). In these chapters the attitude of Jainism has been continuously confronted with that of Buddhism and other Indian doctrines, esp. the six darganas. The second section, chapters V-VIII (pp. 100-224), is almost exclusively devoted to the description of the Jaina ethical praxis, viz. to the conduct of a Jaina householder (V) and a Jaina monk (VI), the 'penances' scil. twelvefold tapas (VII) and the fourteen 'stages of spiritual development' (gu.nasthana, VIII). "The Jaina ficaryas", as the author says (19.73), "have a tendency to go on enumerating the varieties and subvarieties of a single fact" and indeed chapters II (pp. 39-73 on the seven tattvas, see Um.~sv~.ti's Tattvdrthadhigamas~tra I, 4) and V-VIII, in the main, consist of such enumerations. As a rule Bhargava quotes them from comparatively young treatises and commentaries, although many of these categories are found already in the Svethrnbara canon. (Among several hundreds of quotations less than forty refer to the canonical works, esp. Uttaradhyayana and Dagavaikdlika.) It is, in my opinion, rather a pity that the author did not take more advantage of such western works as (for the later literature) R. Williams, Jaina Yoga and (for the canon) W. Schubring, Die Lehre der Jainas. He only twice or thrice refers to them for some minor point. With their help he would probably have been able to approach his subject from a more historical point of view. In an appendix (pp. 225-255) we are given a synopsis of the ethical literature of the Jainas, both gvethmbara and Digambara, starting with a survey of the complete gvet~nbara canon and including such late commentators as Yagovijaya (seventeenth century). The author added a substantial bibliography (pp. 256-265) in which, however, the western reader will miss important German and French works as H. von Glasenapp, Die Lehre yore Karman in der Philosophie der Jainas (Leipzig, 1915) and C. Caillat, Les Expiations dans le rituel ancien des religieux faina (Paris, 1965), and three indices, one of them a very useful index of technical terms and the like. Although the work, or at least part of it, does not lay claim to originality (p. vii), it certainly may be profitable for the general reader who wants to get acquainted with the lofty ethical ideals of Jainism, the more so as the author, in his 'Conclusions' at the end of each chapter, has endeavoured to expound what one might call 'the answer of the Jainas' to the ethical problems of society. Gent

J. Deleu

Ludwig Alsdorf, Les dtudes jaina, l~tat prdsent et t6ches futures. Paris, Coll6ge de France, 1965. iv + 96 pp. 10 N.F. Ludwig Alsdorf, Die .~ryff-Strophen des Pali-Kanons metrisch hergestellt und textgeschichtlich untersucht ( = Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Abh. d. Geistes- u. sozialw. KI., Jahrgang 1967, Nr. 4). 89 pp. D M 14,--. Les conf6rences, faites par M. Ludwig Alsdorf au printemps 1965 au Coll~ge de France, sont d'un tr~s grand int6r~t, non seulement pour le cerele restreint des spbcialistes du

208

REVIEWS

jainisme qui lisent le franqais mais aussi pour tous les indianistes. En particulier, les spdcialistes du bouddhisme ont beaucoup h apprendre de cet expos6 lucide off il est souvent question de problrmes de la philologie bouddhique. M. Alsdorf commence par souligner rimportance de la comparaison du bouddhisme et du jainisme, deux religions nres dans les mrmes conditions et ~ la mrme 6poque. I1 montre ~t l'aide de quelques exemples --phasu(ya), 5sava, mdlavihdra, t d i - que la mrme terminologie se retrouve dans les textes jainas et bouddhiques. Aprrs avoir brirvement caractrris6 la littrrature jaina et sa contribution h la religion, la philosophie et la litt&ature de l'Inde, M. Alsdorf esquisse son importance pour l'dtude du pr~krit, de l'apabhram. ~a et des langues dravidiennes. Ensuite il examine le problrme que pose la langue des textes anciens du canon et la possibilit6 de drceler les traces d'une langue prr-canonique, la 'vrritable' ardhamfigadhi qui se caractrrise par l's occidental comme seule sifflante, I oriental pour r et -e au lieu de -o ~t partir de -as. Selon lui, la traduction ou radaptation linguistique des textes jainas en prakrit canonique a dO avoir lieu longtemps avant le concile de Valabhi au cinqui~me sircle, probablement ~t l'dpoque mrme off le canon bouddhique primitif 6tait traduit en pfili. Le paralldlisme avec les travaux de Liiders sur la langue du canon bouddhique primitif est 6vident. Comme Liiders, M. Alsdorf fait appel au tdmoignage des inscriptions d'Agoka pour ddterminer les caractrristiques des dialectes occidental et oriental. De mrme que Liiders avait d~couvert un abl. sing. en -arp en p~li, M. Alsdorf en drmontre rexistence dans un texte canonique jaina: Uttarddhyayana 23,46. x Esprrons que M. Alsdorf entreprendra lui-m~me d'6crire "Les considrrations sur la langue du canon jaina primitif" qu'il considrre comme une des tfiches les plus irnportantes des 6tudes jaina. En passant ensuite en revue les 6ditions des textes canoniques jainas dont on dispose prrsent M. Alsdorf constate clue, pour 21 des 48 textes canoniques, il existe des dditions de style europren mais que la plupart devraient &re refaites. M. Alsdorf attire rattention sur les dditions du canon publides par les Sthanakvfisin, une secte rrformatrice du drbut du dix-huitirme sircle, et l'intrrrt que prdsente le hombre et l'ordre des textes dans ces 6ditions. I1 examine ensuite la valeur des commentaires en prfikrit (niryukti et cf~r.ni) et en sanskrit (.tika) pour rdtablissement d'6ditions critiques. M. Alsdorf montre que des fautes mrtriques et des fausses sanskritisations trmoignent du fait que, malgr6 une tradition orale et 6crite ininterrompue, les textes canoniques n'ont pas 6t6 prrservrs de la ddformation et de la corruption. 2 Scion lui, il faudrait manifester encore plus d'indrpendance h leur 6gard que l'on a fair jusqu'b, prdsent. M. Alsdorf s'rtend plus en drtail sur 1'importance de la mdtrique pour rdtude de la chronologie du canon jaina. C'est surtout l'dryd qui permet de drterminer l'~ge relatif d'un texte ou d'un passage d'un texte: "les textes en arya sont ipso facto r~cents, des firy~s h l'intdrieur de textes en mrtres anciens, ou bien en vieille prose, sont des adjonc1 M. John Brough fait remarquer que r o n peut aussi expliquer des formes p~lies en -ar~ comme dues ~, une erreur graphique, le scribe ayant 6crit -a.m au lieu de -a (The G~ndharf Dharmapada, London, 1962, pp. 79-80). M. Alsdorf ne discute pas cette possibilit~ et s'appuie sur la tradition pour maintenir la forme visabhakkhan, arv (Uttar~dhyayana 23,46). Pourtant il n'h6site pas pour corriger ailleurs le texte de l'Uttar~dhyayana ~tl'encontre de la tradition (cf. p. 41 off, dans Utt. 25,7, il propose de lire janna-jat, t.ha au lieu de jannattha). 2 A propos du p~li bh~naha ou bhftnahu M. Alsdorf remarque clue Baburam Saksena a indiqu6 la borme ~tymologie en 1936 (BSOS, VIII, p. 713). Drj~t H. Kern avait propos6 la mrme dtymologie, cf. Bijdrage tot de verklaring van eenige woorden in Pali-geschriften voorkomende (Amsterdam, 1886), pp. 52-53; Toevoegselen op 't woordenboek van Childers, I (Amsterdam, 1916), pp. 5-6. Kern avait aussi d~j~t propos~ de lire mu~cantu au lieu de pamu~cantu darts Jataka 111, p. 179 (BUdrage, p. 79; el. L. Alsdorf, Die ,ffrya-Strophen des Pali-Kanons, p. 24).

REVIEWS

209

tions plus r&~entes ou des citations". M. Alsdorf d6crit la forme classique de l'arya ainsi qu'une forme archaique qui ne se rencontre que dans trois chapitres des textes canoniques et une variante semi- prosa~que, le ve(lha. Avant d'6tudier l'drya dans le canon jaina et, en particulier, darts l' Uttaradhyayana, M. Alsdorf examine l'emploi de l'drya daus les textes phlis. L'dry8 archaique s'y rencontre surtout dans le Suttanipdta eta elle avait 6t6 signal6e d6jh par Jacobi en 1895 (Jaina Sutras, Part 2, SBE, 45, p. 271, n. 2) et dans quelques autres textes. L'dryd classique se trouve dans six ]~taka (Nos. 542, 525, 485, 479, 358 et 301). En 6tudiant cesj~taka M. Alsdorf montre que leur contenu confirme leur caract6re r~.,ent par rapport h des j~taka dent les vers sent en gloka ou en tri#.ubh. Cette conclusion est corrobor6e par l'examen des ffrya dans les jt~taka du Mahavastu et dans les Therfgathd. Apr~s les jdtaka et les Therigathti c'est le d6but du Mahavagga qui contient le plus grand nombre d'arya. M. Alsdorf constate que 'Tutilisation relativement fr6quente et visiblement originale de l'ary~i 61oigne consid6rablement ce texte dans le temps du deuxi~me fragment ancien de biographie de Bouddha, le Mahaparinibbanasutta". Quelques arya se trouvent encore dans les Theragath~, le Sagathavagga, le Vim~navatthu, le Petavatthu et l'Apad6na. Le hombre total des arya archaiques s'61~ve/t 46, celui des arya classiques h environ 450. Alors que chez les jainas l'~rya pr6domine dans la litt&ature postcanonique, le m6tre normal de la litt6rature postcanonique en phli est le gloka. M. Alsdorf constate deux exceptions: le Nettipakara.na et le Petakopadesa et les pr6faces et les 6pilogues des commentaires de Buddhaghosa. Selon M. Alsdorf, ces exceptions s'expliquent par le fait que l'6migration du p~li au Ceylan a arr~t6 l'emploi de l'dryd dans la litt6rature p~ilie. Le Nettipakara.na a dfi ~tre 6crit par un indien du nord de l'Inde dent Buddhaghosa est aussi originaire. Le Petakopadesa est une suite du Nettipakara.na et son auteur l'a pill6 largement. Apr~s avoir 6tudi6 l'aryd dans la litt6rature p~lie M. Alsdorf revient au canon jaina. I1 d6montre que 1' Uttar~dhyayana contient environ 129 ary6 dent 109 se trouvent dans six chapitres du demier tiers du texte. Plusieurs passages, 6crits dans ce m6tre, contiennent des d6veloppements scholastiques et dogmatiques d'origine plus r6cente. En outre, 45 de ces 109 drya se retrouvent dans des textes canoniques r6cents. D'tm int6r~t particulier est tm passage, r6dig6 en ~rya, relatif au gof~t, h l'odeur et au toucher des legya. Ce passage t6moigne d'une 61aboration scholastique de la th6orie karmanique des /egy~ "couleurs de l'~ar~e". Dans la derni6re partie de ce petit livre l'auteur mentionne eomme une des t/iches futures des 6tudes jaina la reprise du travail sur l'.~va~yaka par Ernst Leumann et, en premier lieu, une 6dition critique de l'Xvagyakaniryukti. Pour terminer M. Alsdorf attire l'attention sur la litt6rature des digambara et, en particulier, sur les probl~mes que suscite la publication r6cente de textes anciens, le ~at.khan(lagama et le Ka~6yapr6bh.rta avec les commentaires qui s'y rattachent. M. Alsdorf montre que ces textes contierment des passages qui se retrouvent dans des textes des gvetambara. Le ph6nom~ne s'observe en plus grande mesure dans d'autres textes des gvetambara: le Mfddcara de V a ~ k e r a et la Mfdaradhana de ~iv~rya. J'esp~re avoir r6ussi/t montrer l'int6r6t que pr6sente l'ouvrage de M. Alsdorf pour tous ceux qui s'int&essent de loin ou de pros aux &udes jaina. Esp&ons que de jeunes indianistes seront inspir6s par les perspectives trac6es, de mani6re magistrale, par rauteur. II constate avec regret une certaine r6cession des &udes jaina dans l'indologie du pr6sent. Peut-Stre ce phbnom~ne s'explique par le fait que les &udes jaina sent d'un acc6s assez difficile et se sent d6velopp6es dans un certain isolement. M. Alsdorf montre bien que les difficult6s ne sent pas insurmontables et ClUel'isolement doit &re rompu dans l'int6r6t aussi bien des 6tudes jaina m6mes, que d'autres branches de l'indianisme et surtout des 6tudes bouddhiques. Sur un seul point l'argumentation de M. Alsdorf ne me parait pas tout/t fait convaincante. I1 est hers de doute clue l'ffrya est un indice qui permet de dater un texte par rapport ~t d'autres textes. M. Alsdorf effectue le passage d'une chronologic ~t une

210

P~V~EWS

chronologic absolue en adoptant comme terminus ante quem le milieu ou la deuxi~me moiti6 du troisi~me si~cle avant J.-Chr.: "la suite de l'6volution de l'arya en pfili est 6videmment arr~t6e par son 6migration vers Ceylan, qui date du milieu ou de la deuxi~me moiti6 du IIIe si~cle avant J.-Chr. Tout ce qu'il y a en fait d'~ryfis dans le canon pfili doit 6tre plus ancien" (p. 70). C'est le m~me terminus ante quem que M. Alsdorf propose pour la traduction du canon bouddhique primitif en pfdi: "Pour cette dernitre, le stir terminus ante quem est l'introduction de textes p~lis au Ceylan, c'est-~-dire selon l'opinion courante au milieu du IIIe si~cle avant J.-Chr." Je ne sais pas si c'est l'opinion courante mais, en tout cas, cette opinion doit se baser surtout sur la tradition singhalaise selon laquelle Mahinda, le ills d'Asoka, a introduit ~ Ceylan le canon p~li. M. l~t. Lamotte a bien montr6 l'invraisemblance de cette tradition (Histoire du Bouddhisme lndien, I, Louvain, 1958, p. 339). U n autre probl~me qui se pose est le suivant. Est-ce que des passages plus r6cents, r6dig6s en ary~, se sont d6jgt adjoints au canon primitif ou est-ce qu'ils se sont produits seulement apr~s sa transposition en p~li? En ce qui concerne l'ary6 archa'ique la conclusion de M. Alsdorf est la suivante: "Que l'~ry~ ancienne n'apparait nettement que dans des textes anciens du canon p5li, que la plupart des exemples se rencontrent dans un texte comme le Suttaniphta - - cela correspond tout ~ fait au rfle qu'elle joue dans le canon jaina." I1 y a dans le canon pfdi aussi de nombreuses (try~ qu'il faut consid~rer comme des formes de transition entre l'~ryff archaique et l'arya classique (cf. p. 68). Malheureusement, M. Alsdorf ne donne pas un inventaire des passages qui contiennent de telles ~rya. Ces formes de transition qui semblent 6tre bien plus rares chez les jainas compliquent les probl6mes chronologiques. Je ne peux que signaler ici ces probl6mes qui m6ritent d'6tre 6tudi6s plus en d6tail. Darts Die ,~rya-Strophen des Pali-Kanons metrisch hergestellt und textgeschichtlich untersucht M. Alsdorf 6tablit un texte correct du point de vue m6trique pour toutes les ~ry~idu canon p~li ~tl'exception de celles qui se trouvent dans les Thera- et Therigatha.3 La premiere partie donne les textes en ~rya archa'iques. En ce qui concerne la louange du Buddha par Upfili (MNI 386,3-32) on s'6tonne que l'auteur ne fasse pas mention du fragment de la recension sanskrite publi6e par Hoernle (Manuscript Remains, pp. 27-35). La publication de Hoernle contient aussi une 6tude de la version chinoise par Watanabe. Ce dernier travail n'est pas exempt d'erreurs et il y aurait lieu d'6tudier de nouveau les diff6rentes recensions de ce texte en tenant compte des corrections que M. Alsdorf propose pour le texte pfili. Parmi les textes en ary6 classique le plus int6ressant est sans doute le d6but du Mahavagga dans lequel M. Alsdorf a retrouv6 dix-neuf strophes 6crites dans ce m~tre. 4 a Cf. The Thera- and Theri-Gdtha, ed. H. Oldenberg and R. Pischel. Second edition with Appendices by K. R. N o r m a n and L. Alsdorf (London, Pali Text Society, 1966), pp. 233-250. 4 Selon M. Alsdorf le grand hombre de strophes ary~ dans ce texte n ' a pas 6t6 pris en consid6ration jusqu'h maintenant. Toutefois il faut faire remarquer que ces strophes ont retenu l'attention de plusieurs savants. D6j~t Jacobi avait reconnu clue la c616bre strophe ye dhamma hetuppabhava ... (Vin. I, p. 40) 6tait une aryd (ZDMG, 38, 1884, p. 602). M. Alsdorf rejette les corrections propos6es par Jacobi (cf. p. 66) comme l'avait fait avant lui Helmer Smith dans un travail que M. Alsdorf ne mentionne pas (Analecta Rhytmica, Studia Orientalia XIX:7, Helsinki, 1954, p. 13). Remarquons en passant que Jacobi est le premier ~t avoir trouv6 des strophes en gtryd dans le Suttanipata (Jaina Sutras, SBE, vol. 45, Oxford, 1895, p. 271, n. 2). En ce qui concerne les neuf strophes qui d6crivent la victoire du Buddha sur le n~iga(Vin. I, p. 25, 18-34) Oldenberg a bien reconnu que ce passage est 6crit en vers, bien qu'il n'ait pas pu en d6terminer le m6tre (cf. le passage de "Zur Geschichte der indischen Prosa" cit6 par M. Alsdorf, pp. 56-57; plus loin M. Alsdorf dit: "Nur weil er die Verse nicht als solche erkannte,

REWEWS

211

M. Alsdorf ne se contente pas de r6tablir un texte correct pour ces strophes mais il discute aussi en d6tail les probl6mes qui r6sultent de la comparaison avec des textes parall61es en sanskrit et, avant tout, avec le Catu~par#atsatra (CPS). I1 nous avertit que la relation de la version p/ilie avec les autres versions (M. Alsdorf parle de versions plus tardives) et, en premier lieu, le CPS ne peut 6tre d6fmitivement d&ermin6e qu'apr~s une comparaison d&aill6e des textes entiers. Toutefois, i1 lui semble vraisemblable clue la version p~lie est la plus ancienne qui soit eonserv6e et aussi la source la plus importante des autres versions. Que la version p~_liesoit plus authentique que celle, repr6sent~e par le CPS, n'a pas de quoi nous surprendre, car celui-ci appartient au Vinaya des MQlasarv~stiv/idin qui est "clos ~ une 6poque tardive" (Lamotte, op. tit., p. 187). I1 est regrettable que M. Alsdorf n'ait pas consult6 les textes parall61es, traduits du chinois, par Ebbe Tuneld (Recherches sur la valeur des traditions bouddhiques pdlie et non-palie, Lund, 1915), M. Andr6 Migot, ("Un grand disciple du Buddha, g/iriputra", BEFEO, XLVI, 1954, pp. 405-554) et M. Andr6 Bareau (Recherches sur la biographie du Buddha dans les Satrapit.aka et les Vinayapitakaanciens, Paris, 1963). Surtout ce dernier travail est de la plus haute importance pour l'6tude du d6but du Mahdvagga car M. Bareau a traduit les passages parall61es des Vinaya des Mahig~asaka et des Dharmaguptaka, Vinaya plus anciens que celui des MQlasarv/istiv/idin. Pour terminer qu'il me soit permis d'ajouter quelques remarques de d6tail b. propos du Mahdvagga. M. Alsdorf constate que la phrase anupahacca .... (Vin. I, pp. 24-25) est emprunt6e au Pdydsi-suttanta (corriger en D II 326.2 326 en 336). I1 signale aussi que A. P. Buddhadatta a corrig6 la traduction fautive de ce passage par Rhys Davids. D6j~. Leumann avait bien interpr6t6 ce passage ("Beziehungen der Jaina-Literatur zu anderen Literaturkreisen", Actes du sixikme congrks international des orientalistes tenu en 1883 Leide, III, 2, Leide, 1885, p. 479) comme, apr6s lui, Neumarm (Die Reden Gotamo Buddhos, II, Ztirich-Wien, 1957, pp. 760-761) et le Critical Pali Dictionary (p. 198b). La strophe appa.m va bahu.m.... (Vin. I, p. 40, 24-25) se retrouve dans le Mah~vastu III, p. 60, 20-21) et le CPS (ed. E. Waldschmidt, p. 378). Dans ce dernier le texte sanskrit est tr~s fragmentaire. D'apr6s la traduction tib6taine, le premier p/ida est r6tabli par M. Waldschmidt comme mahyam eva arthena karyam. M. Alsdorf remarque: "Das Tibetische hat in der Tat kho bo la ni don dgos kyi, aber allein sinnvoll w/ire doch mayham arthenaiva karyam! Irrtum oder Nachl~sigkeit des tibetischen ~bersetzers?" Remarquons que le tib&ain ne traduit pas eva et que l'ordre des roots en tib6tain n'est pas n6cessairement le m~me qu'en sanskrit. C'est pourquoi je propose de r6tablir: arthena mahya.m kdryam (cf. Mahdvastu: arthena mahya.m kdriya.m). Les trois autres p~da du CPS correspondent 6troitement au texte pall mais darts un ordre diff6rent (les p/ida a,b et d du p/ili correspondent aux p/ida c, d et b du CPS). On ne peut donc pas dire que la strophe du CPS correspond h la strophe du Mahavastu o~a les p/ida c et d sont tout h fait diff6rents (el. Alsdorf, p. 66). Dans une strophe qui se retrouve deux lois darts le CPS M. Waldschmidt a r6tabli a(mara)m (cf. Alsdorf, p. 67; CPS, pp. 380 et 384). Cette reconstruction ne repose pas sur la traduction tib&aine qui a rjes-su rtogs (anugatam?). Dans deux strophes, corrig6es par M. Alsdorf, il garde la forme anupatte ~ l'eneontre kormte Oldenberg..."I). Deux autres strophes en aryd (Vin. I, p. 40, 24-25 et 33-34; cf. Alsdorf, pp. 64-71) ont 6t6 signa16es par E. J. Thomas (The Life of Buddha, London, 1927, p. 94, n. 1). C'est surtout Helmer Smith qui, h plusiers reprises, a 6tudi6 les strophes en dryd du Mahdvagga (Saddaniti, vol. IV, Lund, 1949, pp. 1161-1165; Les deux prosodies du vers bouddhique, Lund, 1950, pp. 38-40; Analecta Rhytmica, Helsinki, 1954, pp. 13-15). M. Alsdorf ne cite que le deuxi6me de ces trois travaux. Dans une note (2o. 52, n. 2), il d6clare que, h bien des 6gards, il ne partage pas les id6es de Helmer Smith sur la m6trique p~ie et moyen-indienne. Esp6rons que M. Alsdorf trouvera l'occasion de les soumettre h u n examen syst6matique.

212

REVIEWS

de la tradition orientale et de la traduction tib6taine ( Vin. I, p. 42, 33-37; Alsdorf, p. 69, n.2; p. 70, n. 2). M. Alsdorf traduit ces deux strophes de la mani6re suivante: "Als die beiden im Ve.hvana angekommen waren ... da prophezeite der Meister von ihnen: 'Hier kommen zwei Gef'ahrten'". J'ai mis en italique les mots "angekommen" et "kommen" pour faire ressortir que la lemon appatte doit 6tre pr6f6r6e. Dans la traduction de la version tib6taine il vaudra mieux traduire 'gyur par le futur: "Ces deux-lh seront ta meilleure paire de rues Auditeurs" (Alsdorf p. 70: "sind diese beiden das beste Paar meiner H6rer"). Australian National University

J. W. de Jong

Lalmani Joshi, Studies in the Buddhistic Culture of India (During the 7th and 8th Centuries A.D.). Delhi-Patna-Varanasi, Motilal Banarsidass, 1967. xii + 538 pp. Rs. 30/--. The seventh and eighth centuries constitute an important period in the history of Buddhism in India. Great monasteries as N~land~ were centres of Buddhist learning. Several famous authors and philosophers were living at that time and many of their works have been preserved in Sanskrit. During the seventh century two Chinese Buddhists, Hsiian-tsang and I-ching, visited China. From their extensive records much information can be obtained on many aspects of Buddhism. Many other sources, archaeological, epigraphical, literary, philosophical, etc. are available for the study of Buddhism during this period, which is certainly better documented than any other in the history of Indian Buddhism. Surprisingly enough, Dr. Lalmani Joshi is the first scholar to have attempted a comprehensive survey of Buddhist culture in India during the seventh and eighth centuries. Dr. Joshi's book bears witness to the growing interest in Buddhism among Indian scholars. He rightly protests against all attempts to consider Buddhism as a variant of Hinduism (cf. especially notes 144, 178 and 185 on pages 415-418). Undoubtedly, this increasing awareness of the nature of Buddhism will contribute greatly towards a better appreciation of Buddhism in India. Dr. Joshi states that "in no other country of the world today Buddhist studies receive so negligible and scant a treatment as in the homeland of Buddhism" (p. xii). Perhaps this picture is a little too pessimistic, as much excellent work has been done by Indian scholars. However, it is true that Buddhism has not yet received the attention it merits. Apart from an imperfect appreciation of Buddhism, this is perhaps also due to the fact that for the study of Indian Buddhism, Indian sources alone are not adequate. More Indian Buddhist texts are transmitted in Tibetan and Chinese translation than in Sanskrit. Moreover, Tibetan and Chinese sources provide much information on Indian Buddhism. Lastly, many important studies on Indian Buddhism have been written in German, French and Japanese. The author honestly confesses his ignorance of these languages. As to Tibetan and Chinese sources, he has been able to avail himself of existing translations. Even without knowing Chinese, however, it would have been possible to find out that Hsfian-tsang is the proper form of the name of the famous Chinese pilgrim and not Yuan Chwang, the form used by Thomas Watters. The author studies many aspects of Buddhist culture without pretending to an exhaustive treatment. In his preface he notes several subjects which he has not been able to study: such as the inter-relations between Brahmanism and Buddhism; Buddhism in contemporary Nepal, Tibet, Burma and Ceylon; a more detailed treatment of Buddhist art and iconography; a fuller evaluation of the thought of Dharmakirti; a comparative study of Brahmanical and Buddhist Tantras. These subjects are better suited for monographic treatment, and I believe the author is justified in not

REVIEWS

213

attempting to include them in this book. Dr. Joshi has certainly been successful in showing the richness and variety of Buddhism in India during these two centuries. Many aspects of Buddhism are studied in the twelve chapters and five appendices of his book. A detailed table of contents (pp. xxv-xxxvii) shows clearly the great number of topics treated by the author. Dr. Joshi has made use of a very wide range of publications in English and Hindi and has quoted the most important literary and epigraphical sources in Sanskrit. One of the welcome features of the book is its extensive annotation. More than 2500 notes give exact references to the publications and sources used by the author. For this reason the book will be of great value for reference purposes. As is inevitable in a work of this kind, for the greater part it summarizes and synthesizes the results of research by many scholars. On several subjects, however, the author has brought forward new points of view, which are briefly discussed in his foreword (pp. xvi-xviii); but I am afraid he has not been very successful in this respect. For instance, his attempts to show that a king Vikramfiditya of ~rfivasti, identifiable with Skandagupta, was instrumental in causing Manoratha, the Sarv~stivfida teacher, to commit suicide (pp. 402-403), and that a ~tavfihana prince, identifiable with Gautamiputra ~fitakar0i, was responsible for the murder of the M~dhyamika philosopher Nfigarjuna (p. 414, n. 93), are far from convincing. A more critical attitude towards legends of this kind, narrated by Hsfian-tsang, is certainly required. The author adduces five considerations in order to support his suggestion that Siddha N~g~rjuna, who lived in the eighth century, is the author of the Guhyasamaja (pp. 333-334). However, his arguments are entirely inadequate to show that a Siddha N~g~juna lived in the eighth century, that the Guhyasam~ija was written at that time, and finally, that it was composed by Siddha Nfigfirjuna. Characteristic of the author's uncritical attitude towards his sources is the fact that in this voluminous book there is no separate chapter discussing the sources available for the study of the seventh and eighth centuries and their usefulness for the reconstruction of the history of Buddhism during that period. The author quotes many Sanskrit texts, but his own translations are often far from precise. For example: p. 349 "it [i.e. bodhicitta] is beginningless, of void nature, like all objects which are devoid of substance" is a rendering of the following text: dharmanair~tmyasamatay~ svacittam ddyanutpanna~ gfmyat~bh~vam. This translation does not render anutpannar~ and misinterprets samataya. The Sanskrit quotations in the notes are disfigured by many errors. Also the entire book teems with misprints of which only a small selection has been corrected in the list of errata at the end of the book (pp. 535-538). Dr. Joshi's book is certainly not without its merits, for it contains a mass of material which is not to be found conveniently brought together in any other publication. The author has a sympathetic attitude towards Buddhism and he is keenly aware of its importance as an essential element of Indian culture and as a religion of universal value. It is to be hoped that he will develop a more critical approach towards his sources and concentrate his efforts upon a more thorough investigation of the many problems which confront the historian of Buddhism, and then attempt a new and entirely rewritten version of this book. One must appreciate his courage for having written the first comprehensive work on Indian Buddhism in the seventh and eighth centuries, although he has failed to achieve entire success. Australian National University

J . W . de Jong

214

REVIEWS Tilak Raj Chopra, The Kuga-j6taka, A critical and comparative study ( = Alt- und Neu-Indische Studien, Bd. 13). Hamburg, Cram, de Gruyter & Co., 1966. 210 pp. DM 25,--.

The Kugaj6taka is undoubtedly one of the most interesting Buddhist tales but up to now no detailed study had been made of its various versions. Dr. T. R. Chopra has undertaken a critical and comparative study of the three earliest versions, two of them in the Mah6vastu (one predominantly in prose, Mahavastu II, 419.16-496.18, and one predominantly in verse, id. III, 1.1-27.21) and one in the P~,li J6taka (no. 531; ed. V. Fausboll, vol. 5, pp. 278-312). Although Chopra is mainly concerned with the three earliest versions, he briefly examines twelve later versions and adaptations and presents a survey of the research work done with regard to the versions of the Ku~;ajdtaka. The only omission in this survey seems to be J. Przyluski's theory according to which the Ku~aj6taka originally was part of an ancient R6java.mga (cf. IHQ, XV, 1939, p. 290). As to the version in the mDsat~s-blun, it would be more appropriate to consider it as a Chinese version because the Tibetan text is translated from the Chinese. 1 The greater part of the book is devoted to a study of the Mahavastu versions (pp. 34153). Chopra critically examines the text as edited by Senart and suggest many corrections. As the Kugaj6taka in its two versions occupies more than a hundred pages in Senart's edition, Chopra's study is an important contribution towards the textual criticism of the Mah6vastu. According to Chopra a new critical edition of the Mah6vastu is long overdue. Undoubtedly nobody would question the fact that Senart's edition, excellent though it is and certainly one of the major works in the field of Indology, does not meet the exacting standards to be expected today from an edition of a text in Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit. The publication of Edgerton's Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary has rendered obsolete most of the existing editions of Buddhist Sanskrit texts. Both Edgerton's work and, to a lesser extent, Jones's translation of the Mahavastu have already contributed much towards a future new edition. However a satisfactory edition of the Mah6vastu would still be a very difficult undertaking even though much progress has been made since the last quarter of the last century when Senart was working on his edition. By subjecting the text of the Kugajataka to a close examination, which he has carried out with great critical acumen, Chopra has been able to suggest many new readings, especially in the metrical parts of the text. The readings which he proposes are in many instances excellent, and they deserve to be taken seriously into consideration in reading the Kugajataka. Nevertheless it is obvious that the extremely corrupt nature of the two manuscripts, of which the readings have been recorded in the critical apparatus of Senart's edition, make it very difficult to solve the many problems which arise. Chopra tends to favour the manuscript readings to a much greater extent than Senart who, in the first place, tried to establish a text which makes sense. As Jones's translation shows, Senart's efforts have not been entirely in vain. A future editor would have to consult again all the manuscripts, used by Senart, and also others which were not available to him (a manuscript in the Tokyo University Library has been recently described by Seiren Matsunami in A Catalogue of the Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Tokyo University Library, Tokyo, 1965, p. 108: no. 297). ~ However, it is doubtful whether the materials available at present would be of much assistance in establishing a significantly better text. Probably the time is not yet ripe for an undertaking of this nature. Much more work needs first to be done with regard to the comparative study of parts of the Mahavastu before it will be possible 1 For some bibliographical references see my Buddha's Word in China (Canberra, 1968), p. 23. For the manuscripts of the Mah6vastu see A. Yuyama, "A Bibliography of the Mahavastu-Avadana", 11,1, XI (1968), pp. 11-14.

REWEWS

215

to embark upon a new edition with any degree of confidence. Although Edgerton has taken great pains to examine the grammar and the vocabulary of the Mah~vastu, a more detailed grammatical analysis and a word index would also be extremely welcome. The importance of Chopra's work is not at all limited to his critical remarks upon the text of the Mahdvastu. Mention must also be made of his corrections of the text of the P~li Jataka and of the existing translations of all three versions of the Kudajataka. As a comparative study Chopra's work is a model of careful and judicious investigation comparable to the work done in this field by LfJders. One cannot but hope that Dr. T. R. Chopra will not abandon the study of Buddhist narrative literature, a field from which many a rich harvest is still to be gathered. Australian National University

J . W . de Jong

Klaus Sagaster, Subud Erike. Ein Rosenkranz aus Perlen. Die Biographie des 1. Pekinger l~ah skya Khutukhtu fi[ag dbah blo bzan ?' os Idan, verfasst yon )qag dbati ?'os ldan alias Ses tab dar rgyas. Herausgegeben, tibersetzt und kommentiert von K.S. ( = Asiatische Forschungen, Band 20). Wiesbaden, Otto Harrassowitz, 1967. 433 pp., 164 pl. D M 96,--. Le Subud Erike est une biographic du premier 1Cafl-skya Khutukhtu (1642-1714), 6crite par son 616ve dKa'-bcu Nag-dbafl chos-ldan ou ges-rab dar-rgyas. Le premier 1Cafl-skya Khutukhtu ainsi que sa r6incarnation, le c616bre Rol-pa'i rdo-rje (17171786), ont jou6 un r61e important dans les relations des empereurs mandchous avec les mongols. En 1693 il rut convoqu6 h P6kin et, depuis lors, son sort 6tait intimement 1i6 avec la politique cbinoise envers l'6glise lamaiste en Mongolie. M. Klaus Sagaster a pris pour but l'6tude de la vie et l'importance historique du premier Khutukhtu, rel6guant au second plan sa place darts l'6glise lama'iste de l'6poque et ses oeuvres. Le travail de M. Sagaster consiste en deux parties. La premi6re est consacr6e ~t l'6tude de la vie du 1Cafi-skya Khutukhtu (pp. 17-139), la deuxi~me contient une traduction annot6e du Subud Erike (pp. 141-336). Le livre se termine par plusieurs appendices, une bibliographie et des index (pp. 337-433). Le texte du Subud Erike est reproduit sur 164 planches. La reproduction est excellente mais il est regrettable que le texte n'ait pas 6t6 publi6 s6par6ment car il n'est gu6re possible de consulter en m6me temps la traduction et le texte. Une des sources les plus importantes du Subud Erike est rantobiographie du premier 1Cafi-skya Khutukhtu. M. Sagaster l'a 6tudi6e dans la premiere partie de son travail (pp. 28-36) et l'a cit6e souvent dans les notes de sa traduction du Subud Erike. Cette autobiographic se trouve dans le Gsuh-'bum du premier 1Cafl-skya Khutukhtu. M. Sagaster signale deux 6ditions de la version originale tib6taine du Gsu~i-'bum. Le volume ra du Gsu~-'bum du Klofl-rdol bla-ma Nag-dbafi blo-bzati (1719-1794; cf. Ariane Macdonald, BEFEO, LVII, p. 169) contient une liste des ouvrages du premier 1Cafl-skya Khutukhtu (cf. Tibetan Buddhist Studies of Kloti-rdol bla-ma, vol. 2, Mussoorie, 1964, pp. 420-424). Klofi-rdol s'est servi d'une 6dition imprim6e au monast6re 'Bras-spufis (cf. p. 424: 'Bras-spufls par-ma ltar-du'o). Cette 6dition se compose de cinq volumes et est peut-6tre identique h l'6dition rapport6e par Cybikov en 1902, cf. No. 35 de la liste de Cybikov: 1Cafi-skya lqag-dbafi chos-ldan-gyi gsufl-'bum, 1-401, II-396, III-399, IV-400, V-393, Izvestija imp. Ak. Nauk, 5e s~.r., XXI, 1904, p. 04.1 1 Comme le relive M. Sagaster, selon Vostrikov l'autobiographie se trouve darts le cinqui~me volume du Gsu~-'bum rapport~ par Cybikov. Toutefois, Klofl-rdol ne la mentiorme pas darts son 6num6ration des ouvrages qui constituent le cinqui~me volume du Gsu~-'bum. Seule une comparaison, de la liste de Klofi-rdol avec le Gsuti'bum, rapport6 par Cybikov, peut r6soudre ce probl6me.

216

REVIEWS

Selon M. Sagaster, la plus grande partie de l'autobiographie fut termin6e en automne 1710. Le texte de l'autobiographie dit: 'tshams-'dir nas le-tshan 'ga'-s chad'dug-pa dpar-brko-skabs slob-tu khri-zur fiag-rgyam-pas bsabs-pa yin; ene jabsar-tur nigen kedtin tasuraTsan ajuTu keb-t[tr seyilekiii u~ir-tur tidsi qaTu~in siregetti vagindr-a samudr-a selbigsen bui. M. Sagaster traduit ce passage ainsi: "Hier (w6rtlich: in diesem Zwischenraum) waren einige Kapitel (too. nur: einige) abgeschlossen. Ftir den Blockschnitt hat sie (mein) Schiller, der ehemalige Siregetii Nag rgyam (d.h. Nag dbal~ rgya mc'o, in Ca Vagindra sarnudra) vorbereitet." (p. 36). I1 me semble que cette traduction ne rend pas correctement chad (mo. tasura?san) et bsabs (selbigsen). Je ne sais pas tr6s bien comment interpr6ter la premi6re pattie de cette phrase. Faut-il lire 'tshams-'dir 'ici', et omettre nas ou lire 'tshams-'di-nas 'h partir d'ici'? La version mongole s'accorde avec 'tshams-'dir. On peut interpr4ter chad comme 'interrompu' ou comme 'coup6, enlev6'. En tout cas, il est 6vident que ce passage veut dire que lqag-dbafi rgya-mtsho a combl6 des lacunes au moment de la gravure des planches (cf. J/ischke s.v. gsob-pa: 'to fill out or up, to supply, complete, make up'). Dans l'exemplaire du Subud Erike que M. Sagaster a utilis6, une moiti6 des deux derniers feuillets manque. On ne peut donc savoir si le colophon donne des renseignements sur la traduction du texte mongol d'une version originale en tib6tain. Selon M. Sagaster, le colophon a probablement contenu un passage qui se rapporte h la traduction du tib6tain en mongol. D'autre part, le Hor-chos-'byu~ semble avoir cit6 une version tib~taine de l'autobiographie. Toutefois, M. Sagaster ajoute que ces remarques ne suffisent pas pour arriver ~t tree d6cision d6finitive (cf. p. 48). I1 est int6ressant de voir que M. Sagaster d6clare que le texte m6me ne perrnet pas de tirer une conclusion h cet 6gard. Faut-il admettre que, dans la litt4rature lamaiste mongole, il n'y a pas de diff4rences entre des textes, traduits du tib6tain, et des textes originaux? Bien que la langue mongole soit mieux cormue que la langue tib4taine, la terminologie lama'iste mongole n'est pas encore bien 4tudi6e. I1 faudra soigneusement comparer des textes tib6tains, traduits en mongol avec l'original pour 6tablir un dictionnaire de la terminologie lama'fste. En m~me temps, il faudra 6tudier les m4thodes de traduction, employ4es par les traducteurs mongols. C'est alors seulement que l'on pourra comparer des textes, traduits du tib6tain, avec des textes originaux mongols du m6me genre afin de d6terminer si ces derniers comportent autant de 'tib6tanismes' que les premiers. En comparant quelques textes, traduits du tib6tain, avec les originaux je ne puis me soustraire h l'impression que les mongols n'ont pas 6t6 d'aussi savants traducteurs que les tib6tains. Souvent le texte mongol ne se comprend qu'h la lumi~re du texte tib6tain original. D'autre part, les traducteurs mongols ont une tendance h omettre des expressions difficiles. Mon impression est corrobor6e par ce clue M. J. E. Bosson dit de la traduction du rNam-thar de Milar6pa par Siregetfl Gtifisi Corjiva: "a number of places where the Tibetan text is extremely difficult and even incomprehensible have been either simplified or entirely passed over in the Mongolian version" (Mila-yin Namtar, Taipei, 1967, p. 23). Le probl6me se complique par le fait que, souvent, on ne peut gub,re comprendre un texte mongol, m~me s'il rend correctement l'original tib6tain, sans avoir recours au texte original. Pour citer tin exemple. Le Subud Erike cite le passage suivant du Dad-pa'i 'jug-hogs: bcom-ldan-'das-kyi gsufi-rab dag-las / gafi-gi rgyud-la mthofi-ba'i lam skyes-pa daft / dgra-bcom-pa rnfion-du byas-pa la-sogs-pa'i sgo-nas bdud-rtsi thob-par gyur-pa na [ dba6-po yofs-su gsald'ifi / b~in-gyi mdog ni dag-la / pags-pa'i mdog ni dkar-pa la-sogs-pa lus-kyi mdafis sflar-las gnas gyur-pa 'byufi-ba du-ma Zig gsufis-te (The Biography of Tsong-kha-pa by the Ven. Lama Kha-dub-je, Varanasi, 1966, p. 149). M. Sagaster traduit ainsi le d6but de la version mongole de ce passage: "In den vortrefflichen Lehrworten des Siegreich v611ig Dahingegangenen heisst es: 'Wet die Heiligkeit eines (solchen Menschen), der auf dem Weg der Einsicht in die Wurzel geboren ist und 'die Feinde iiberwunden hat', erreicht hat usw., hat hiermit

a~V~WS

217

den G6ttertrank ertangt" (p. 319). Aussi bien le texte tib~tain que le texte mongol doivent ~tre interpr~t6s ainsi: "Dans la pr6dication (pravacana) du Tathggata il a ~t6 d6clar6 souvent: 'Quand cluelclu'un a obtenu l'ambroisie (amrta) au moyen de la naissance du chemin de la vision (darganamarga) dans sa s~rie (sa.mtana) et par Fobtention (sak~Otkara.na) de l'6tat d'Arhat..." Le tib. rgyud (too. iindiisiin) rend skt. saeat~na ou sa~tati 'la sdrie', cf. Edgerton, Buddhist HybrM Sanskrit Dictionary ss.w. sarptati et sar~tana. Pour darganamarga il faut consulter la traduction du Ko~a par de La ValiSe Poussin. II est ~vident que, quand on ne salt pas le sens technique de iindiisiin - rgyud - samtati et de iijekii yin m & - mtho~-ba'i lain - dardanamtirga, la traduction du texte mongol, cit6 ci-dessus, pr6sente des difficult~s insurmontables. Le Subud erike contient plusieurs citations de l'autobiographie. Ces citations ne sont pas emprunt~es ~ la traduction mongole de l'autobiographie, mais h l'original tib~tain comme il ressort de la comparaison des textes reproduits par M. Sagaster dans les notes. Dans un passage du Subud erike se rencontre les expressions ejileJii ab- et ejele/iiJala- (cf. p. 180, n. 381). M. Sagaster rend ejilekii par 'in Obhut nehmen', mais des passages tib~tains de l'autobiographie qu'il cite ici en note, il est ~vident que too. ejilekii est un calque du tib. bdag-rkyen (bdag - ejen; bdag-rkyen - ejelekii), cf. Subud erike 17r: ejileyii abubasu jokiqu, autobiographie 190v5: bdag-rkyen byas-pa 'gab que M. Sagaster rend par "Es ist recht, (ihn9 Gfite zu beweisen." La traduction mongole de l'autobiographie a qayiralan deberlekii ]okistai, "Es ist recht, (ihn) g0tig zu reinigen (?)". Je suppose que le traducteur mongol a lu bya~-ba 'purifier' au lieu de byas-pa. La version mongole de l'autobiographie rend bdag-rkyen byed-pa par qayiralaqu (cf. Kowalewski, p. 713: qayiralaqu, tib. gce-ba, bdag-rkyen byed-pa 'aimer, 6tre bien dispos6, ~tre attach6 h qc., faire grfice, gratifier, etc.'; Sumatiratna: bdagrkyen, qayira, kesig). 2 L'auteur du Subud erike a ici rendu bdag-rkyen par ejileJii / eJele]ii alors que qayiralan aurait 6t6 l'6quivalent correct. Dans un autre passage du Subud erike eJelen est employ6 dans le contexte suivant: ene keyid-i e]elen tedkiin qayiralaqu keregtei, "er miisse unbedingt diesen Kloster gn~idigst leiten und in seine Obhut nehrnen" (p. 216). Ici le texte correspondant de l'autobiographie (197b4) a phan-dogs au lieu des trois verbes en mongol. Je suppose qu'ici aussi e]elen a dO traduire bdag-rkyen byed-pa. L'emploi ici de e]elen sugg6re l'existence d'une version tib6taine du Subud erike. Pour arriver ~ une conclusion d6finitive il faudrait examiner si e]elekii au sens de qayiralaqu est employ6 exclusivement dans des textes traduits o/1 l'original a bdag-rkyen byed-pa, ou si cet emploi s'est 6tendu h des textes originaux. Dans un autre passage du Subud erike (102r3) tayalaTsan-dur probablement correspond h bdag-rkyen qui se trouve dans le passage correspondant de l'autobiographie (208a34). M. Sagaster traduit gegen ten-e tayalaysan-dur par " n a h m sich so des Verehrungswfirdigsten (wieder) an (.9)" (p. 264). Ici tayalaqu doit signifier 'montrer son affection'. Pour remplacer les deux premiers feuillets manquants du Subud erike M. Sagaster cite les textes tib6tain et mongol du d6but de l'autobiographie. Ici ~ussi la terminologie bouddhique a caus6 des difficult6s au traducteur. Ces difficult6s s'expliquent en partie par les erreurs de la traduction mongole. Dans 1 tib. 'dren-mchog go-'phah 'la place (pada) du guide excellent' est rendu en mongol par qo?orli iigei uduriy?id-un degedii-yin qutuy, "die W0rde des besten unter den alles leitenden (Buddhas)". Mo. degedii sedkil-i egiiskeged, tib. thugs-mchog bskyed ne peut se traduire par "seine erhabene Gesinnung bewiesen" mais se rapporte h la pens6e de b o d h i : "il a produit la pens6e (de bodhi) excellente". Dans 2 'die Zwei Ansammlungen' (qoyar diyulyan, tib. tshogs-g~is) ne sont pas le dvivarga mais les deux sa.rnbhara, ]~inasar~bh~ra et pu.nya-. Dams 3 qoligal iigei kiidiin (tib. ma-'dres stobs) ne signifie pas 'Einbildungs2 Selon le dictionnaire de Das bdag-rkyen s'emploie seulement pour la reconnaissance d'un service par un sup6rieur. Le passage de l'autobiographie, cit6 ici, montre que cette d6finition est trop ~troite.

218

REVIEWS

kraft' mais 'la force propre (au Buddha)'; qoli~al iigei, tib. ma-'dres rend sanskrit ave.nika, cf. Edgerton, op. cit., s.v. Dans 10 M. Sagaster expliquefiriiken-i yuliduysan comme 'die im Herzen zusammengeflossen' alors que cette expression traduit littfralement tib. s~iti-po dril-ba 'rfunir l'essence, rfsumer'. Le texte tibftain mentionne les enseignements qui rfunissent l'essence des pratiques (~ams-len sgin-po dril-ba'i man~ag). Dans 11 il faut comprendre: "les sfitra, les dhftra0i et les classes de Tantra" (cf. Das, p. 318b). Tib. sde, mo. ayirna), ne se rapporte qu'~t rgyud, mo. dandaris. Un long passage du Dad-pa'i 'jug-~ogs est cit6 par le Subud erike au feuillet 5. Pour faciliter la comparaison du texte tibftain avec le texte mongol je reproduis ci-dessous ce passage d'aprfs l'fdition du Dad-pa'i 'jug-nogs, citfe ci-dessus (pp. 3,1.16-5,1.2)? de-yafi bdag-cag-gi dpal-ldan bla-ma dam-pa safis-rgyas bcom-ldan-'das-kyi rif-lugspa chen-po / 'jig-rten thams-cad-la rgyu med-par yah gcig-tu mfies-g~in-pa'i fiafitshul-can / rift-too ~ig-nas byafi-chub-sems-dpa'i spyod-pa rlabs-po che-dag-gi pharol-tu byon-pa / rje-btsun 'Jam-pa'i dbyafis-kyi thugs-kyi 'od-zer-gyis blo-gros-kyi padmo kha-phye-bas ~es-bya'i dkyil-'khor mtha'-dag la gzigs-pa dag-pa'i spyan dafildan-pa / thun-mof daft thun-mofi ma-yin-pa'i nation-par rtogs-pa'i yon-tan rin-poche'i tshogs-kyis thugs-kyi bafi-mdzod yofs-su gtams-pa'i bdag-fiid chen-po mtshan brjod-par dka'-ba 'di ni bskal-pa dpag-tu med-pa'i sfa-rol-nas sa-bcu yofs-su rdzogspar mdzad-de / ma-dag-pa'i 'jig-rten-gyi khams rnams-su yafi la-lar ni 'khor-los sgyurba daft / la-lar ni khams-gyi rgyal-po dafi / 'ga'-2ig-tu ni brgya-byin daft tshafs-pa'i gzugs daf / de-biin-du byaf-chub-sems-dpa' khyim-pa daf rab-tu byufi-ba'i tshul la-sogs-pa gdul-bya daf 'tsham-pa'i sku'i rnam-par 'phrul-pa dpag-tu med-pa ji-ltar nam-mkha'i lam-la (les deux textes: tas) zla-ba'i dkyil-'khor gcig-fiid-kyis sa'i-stefi-du chu-snod tha-dad-pa sna-tshogs-pa ~ig-gi-naf-du cig-car raf-gi gzugs-brfian ston-pa de-b2in-du 'bad-rtsol reed-par fie-bar bstan-pa las / bdag-cag rnams-la ni 'u-bu-cag raft daft 'gro-ba rigs-mthun-par skye-ba b~es-pa'i dge-ba'i b~es-gfien fiid-kyi naampar bstan-pas don mdzad-do //. La traduction mongole rend rgyu med-par 'sans cause, spontanfment' par u?ir siltayan '#gel M. Sagaster traduit 'ohne Verhaftung'. Le Buddha se manifeste dans d'innombrables manifestations conformfment aux capacitfs spirituelles des ~tres h convertir (vaineya) de m~me que le cercle de la lune se reflfte simultanfment (eig-ear; qamtu nigen-e) dans des eaux difffrentes. La traduction de M. Sagaster ne rend pas tout/t fait justice hce passage. Dans une citation de l'autobiographie le texte mongol traduit bien le texte tibftain: chos-sbyin ei-rigs byed khul-byas na yan, "bien que je feignis de faire toutes sortes de dons religieux (dharmaddna)". M. Sagaster traduit ainsi le texte mongol correspondant: "obwohl ich das Beispiel der Gabenspendung verschiedener Lehrschriften gab" (p. 280). Pour diirimlekii voir Kowalewski, p. 1938: 'dissimuler, prendre l'aspect de qc.'; voir aussi Lessing p. 282: diirim ii]egiilkii, 'to feign, simulate, pretend, sham, to threaten'. A quelques er~droits le texte mongol ne peut 6tre interprft6 qu'h la lumifre du texte tibftain original. Le fait que ce texte n'est pas h notre disposition nous empfche de bien comprendre un passage tel que le suivant, traduit par M. Sagaster ~ la page 229 (Subud erike 69v): "geschmfickt mit der Lehre fiber das richtige Zuteilen der WeiheZeichen fiir jeden einzelnen und in der Weise, dass sowohl Lesungen und Regeln nicht leicht gemacht wurden und, abgesehen davon, dass die Bticherw/insche jedes einzelnen berficksichtigt wurden, auch tatsfichlich noch die Handregeln der erhabenen Heiligen gr~indlich studiert worden." Je ne sais pas comment interprfter correctement ce passage. Certainement sudur bi?ig-iin tayalal ne signifie pas 'B/icherw/lnsche' mais 'les thfories des sfitra et des textes'. M. Sagaster traduit mutur-un qouli par 'Handregeln' mais probablement eette expression traduit tib. phyag-len 'pratique' bien que, dans a Le m~me passage est cit6 par Blo-bzafl phrin-las rnarn-rgyal dans le Rje rnam-thar chen-mo (Sarnath, 1967), pp. 21-22, auquel j'ai emprunt6 quelques variantes.

REVIEWS

219

le texte correspondant de l'autobiographie on trouve "don-pa phyag-len ofa la traduction mongole a ungsilya yosun qouli. Dans 94r7 et 18]arliT]iiblel est rendu par M. Sagaster par 'Obereinstimmung' (pp. 255-256). Probablement il faut comprendre 'discussion' (cf. Kowalewski, p. 2411: 'dflibfrer, consulter') mais l'expression tib&aine, employfe dans le texte original, m'fchappe. P. 302, n. 1343: M. Sagaster 6tudie le mot phyag-mtshan. Le sens en est 'attribut', par exemple: vajra, clochette, etc. (cf. Chos-grags s.v. phyag-mtshan). P. 307, n. 1388: mthun-rkyen legs sbyar-te signifie 'rfunissant tout le nfcessaire' (cf. Das s.v. mthun-pa'i rkyen). I1 ne s'agit pas d'une 'gtinstige Gelegenheit'. Le Subud erike mentionne un grand nombre de textes qui sont souvent difficiles identifier puisque le titre n'est donn6 qu'en abrfgf. I1 faudrait de longues recherches pour arriver ~t une identification de tous ces textes. Pour complfter quelque peu les indications, donnfes par M. Sagaster, j'ajoute quelques remarques. Dans 24 v le texte ne mentionne pas le Bodhimargapradipa (note 409) mais le Lam-rim (Bodhi mfr) de Tsoft-kha-pa et des guides pour le grand et petit Lam-rim (cf. note 1141). P. 187, n. 431: les seize vacuitfs sont expliqufes darts la troisifme partie du sixifme chapitre du Madhyamakdvatara. P. 188, n. 435: probablement il s'agit d'un commentaire (spyi-don) du premier sujet (padartha; skabs; iiye) de l'Abhisamaydla.mkdra. P. 192, n. 479 : pour le bKa'-gdams glegs-bam voir J. Bacot, "Titres et colophons d'ouvrages non canoniques tibftains", BEFEO, XLIV (1954), pp. 284-286. P. 197: le "Ver/inderungs-Leitfaden" est un ouvrage de Tsoft-kha-pa, cf. T~hoku, II, No. 5359 : Rnam~es goft-du 'pho-ba'i rgya-cher-b~ad-pa, Gser-gyi sgo-'byed-pa. P. 202: pour le commentaire du vinaya Erdeni erike et l'ouvrage suivant voir Tfhoku, II, nos. 5523 et 5525. P. 203: "Desgleichen disputierte er fiber (die Werke des) .~ryadeva und des Sems dpa' ~'en po." Le texte correspondant de l'autobiographie a: 'phags-pa Lha daft Chab-mdo rje-druft daft//Sems-dpa' chen-po rnams la chos-'brel s "il demanda des enseignements religieux ~ ~,ryadeva, au seigneur Cham-mdo et h Sems-dpa' chenpo"; tib. chos-'brel est rendu en mongol par nom-un barildul?a; 128v3 olan nom-i soyuryahty-a correspond h chos-'brel byas dans l'autobiographie (215b2). C'est pourquoi je traduits chos-'brel (littfralement 'connection de Dharma') par 'enseignements religieux'. L'expression ne se trouve pas dans les dictionnaires tibftains ~t ma disposition..~wyadeva peut dfsigner une de ses incarnations. Elles sont 6numfrfes par Kloft-rdol (op. cit., pp. 310-311). P. 206, n. 592: pour le Zus-lan nor-bu'i phre~-ba voir Bacot, op. cit., p. 285; T'oung Pao, XLIII (1955), p. 312. P. 273, n. 1106: le Drireed 'grel-ba est la Vimalaprabhd, cf. P. Cordier, Catalogue dufonds tib@tain, IIe partie (1909), p. 15. P. 299, n. 1315: il s'agit de l'Avaddnakalpalatd, un ouvrage dont les peintres tibftains se sont souvent inspirfs, cf. G. Tucci, Tibetan Painted Scrolls (Roma, 1949). Dans les textes tibftains, citfs dans les notes, il faut corriger les fautes suivantes: p. 29, n. 18, 1.4: kyen - gyen; p. 218, n. 679, 1.4: gaff ba - gaff bab, 1.5: ma'ft - ma'afl; p. 256, n. 990, 1.2: dftas - dafls; p. 271, n. 1097, 1.2: na'ft - na'aft; p. 272, n. 1097, 1.1: ba'ft - ba'afl; 1.3: raft go - raft gi; 1.6: da la - fta la; 1.12: sped - sbed; p. 280, n. 1156: fii sgrob - fii sgrol; p. 294, n. 1273, derni~re ligne: 'joms - 'joms; p. 298, n. 1307: gSuft 'dus - gSaft 'dus; p. 303, n. 1351, 1.2: gsal bo - gsal po; 1.3: gfiad gnad; p. 312, n. 1433: bu'ft - bu'aft. A p r o p o s des prf-incarnations du 1Caft-skya khutukhtu, 6tudifes par M. Sagaster dans le premier appendice (pp. 337-342), il faut signaler qu'une liste se trouve aussi dans les oeuvres de Kloft-rdol (op. tit., pp. 308-309). L'ouvrage de M. Sagaster est destin6 en premier lieu aux historiens comme il le souligne darts sa prfface. Nfanmoins, le bouddhologue y trouvera beaucoup ~t apprendre. C'est pourquoi il m ' a paru intfressant de l'ftudier du point de vue des 6tudes bouddhiques. I1 reste encore beaucoup h faire pour l'ftude du lama'isme. Les mongolisants ne peuvent rendre de plus grands services ~t cet 6gard que, par l'ftude et la

220

REVIEWS

traduction de textes aussi int6ressants que le Subud erike. C'est surtout de l'6tude des textes que l'on peut esp6rer de pr6cieux renseignements sur la terminologie, les doctrines et l'organisation du lamaisme. On doit ~tre recolmaissant h M. Sagaster d'avoir apport6 une si importante contribution h l'6tude du lama'isme. Australian National University

J. W. de Jong

D. L. Snellgrove, The Nine Ways of Bon. Excerpts from gZi-brjid edited and translated ( = London Oriental Series, volume 18). London, Oxford University Press, 1967. vii + 312 pp. s Of the voluminous Bon-po literature only very few texts have been studied. The excerpts of the gZi-brjid, which are edited and translated by Dr. D. L. Snellgrove, are taken from a legendary biography of g~en-rab, the founder of the Bon religion. Of this biography three different versions exist: one long, one of medium length, and one short. The gZi-brfid comprising twelve volumes is the long version. Dr. Snellgrove enumerates the titles of its sixty-one chapters in English and Tibetan in order to give an idea of the contents of this work (pp. 5-8). The medium version in two volumes, called gZer-m(y)ig, has been partly edited and translated by A. H. Francke. The text of the first seven chapters, and an English translation of the first six chapters, were published in volumes 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Asia Major (1924, 1926, 1927, 1930). A further instalment appeared in Volume I, part 2 of Asia Major, New Series (1949, pp. 163-188). 1 The work consists of eighteen chapters, of which a survey has been given by Professor Helmut Hoffmann in his Die Religionen Tibets (Freibfirg/Mfinchen, 1956), pp. 77-90. A complete edition and translation have been announced by him (of. op. e/t., p. 186, n. 106; Quellen zur Geschiehte der tibetisehen Bon-Religion, Wiesbaden, 1950, p. 216). Finally, the short version, in one volume, called mDo-'dus, seems to be unknown outside Tibet. According to oral information, obtained by Dr. Snellgrove from his Bon-po assistants, the gZi-brfid was compiled in its present form by Blo-ldan sfiifl-po, who was born about A.D. 1360. This date is based upon a chronological work, the bsTan-rtsis of lqi-ma bstan-'dzin, published in 1964 at the Lahore Press (p. 3, n. 2). In his preface Dr. Snellgrove states that "the present work is an attempt to provide a survey of the whole range of their teachings, as formulated certainly not later than the twelfth century and may be even two or three centuries earlier". Judging from the excerpts of the gZi-brfid, presented in this book, the text must certainly have been compiled at a time when Indian Buddhism had been absorbed by the Bon-pos; but this does not allow us to say, as Dr. Snellgrove does, that the contents of the gZi-brfid bear out the tradition of its compilation towards the end of the fourteenth century. With the help of the geneaology of the lamas of Samling, from where comes the manuscript of the gZi-brfid, Dr. Snellgrove calculates its age at about four hundred years. If this calculation is correct, the gZi-brfid must have been composed sometimes between the tenth and sixteenth centuries. Perhaps Bon-po tradition is correct in connecting the name of Blo-ldan sfiifi-po with this work, but one need not necessarily assume that he compiled it in its present form. Probably such a voluminous work as the gZi-brfid is an amalgamation of texts composed at different times by different authors. 1 It contains the translation of chapters seven and eight and the text of the eighth chapter. It is not stated here if Franeke has left behind an edition and translation of other chapters. Dr. Snellgrove wrongly remarks that Francke has edited and translated the first seven chapters. In referring to Asia Major, 1939 for the last part of Francke's work, he probably repeats a misprint in Hoffman's Die Religionen Tibets (p. 191) where 1939 should be corrected to 1949.

REVIEWS

221

The introduction gives a short survey of the 'Nine Ways' of Bon (pp. 9-11), but the greater part of it is devoted to some reflections on the history and nature of the Bon religion. Dr. Snellgrove believes that Indian teachings and practices had penetrated western Tibet from north-western India before Buddhism was formally introduced by the Tibetan kings. Both the Bon-pos and the rlqifi-ma-pas adopted Buddhist doctrines, though the former without acknowledging the fact. Dr. Snellgrove points out that in early Tibetan works the word bon only designates one class of priests. The word Bon as referring to a whole set of religious practices would seem to have come into use at a later stage. Dr. Snellgrove concludes: "Thus there is probably no such thing as pre-Buddhist Bon, for from the start the followers of Bon were anxious to accept and readapt religious teachings and practices of all kinds, whether indigenous or foreign." It is quite likely that before the introduction of Buddhism there was no organised Bon religion, but the real problem is to discover which religious practices and beliefs existed in Tibet at the time of the introduction of Buddhism and to what degree they were incorporated later in Bon and Buddhism. If Bon adopted and systematized the essential part of the pre-Buddhist practices and beliefs, but Buddhism only some elements, it would not be improper to consider pre-Buddhist Tibetan religion as the old Bon religion. According to Dr. Snellgrove the Bon-po literature contains much information on the whole range of pre-Buddhist Tibetan religion. It can therefore be expected that further study of the Bon-po literature will help to throw light on the history of Bon and on its relations with Buddhism. The manuscript is written in dbu-med. In editing the text Dr. Snellgrove has made emendations and has noted the original spellings of the 'main words' but not of the 'particles'. Moreover, he has retained certain incorrect spellings which occur regularly. However, emendations are not always noted. For example p. 212.22: zad-pa med-cih .hgrib-pa med-payiis rendered by "infinite and immaculate", translating sgrib-pa instead of bgrib-pa. On p. 230.2, zad-pa med-cin .hbri-ba med is correctly translated by "it cannot be exhausted and it does not lessen". The parallelism of these two passages shows that it would have been better to maintain .hgrib-pa and to render zad-pa med-cih by "inexhaustible". Although Tibeta~a texts, especially manuscripts, usually contain many mistakes, the number of emendations is not very great. As far as one can judge, the text has been very carefully edited. I have noted only a few misprints: p. 92.8: read bbyuti for bbuyti; p. 92.32: read pa.hi forpani; p. 136.10: read dpah for dpan; p. 218.13: read sda~ for ldat~; p. 228.25: read chad for ched; p. 244.20: read bbras bu for Obras by. The text is almost completely in verse, a fact which makes interpretation even more difficult. Dr. Snellgrove has been greatly helped by the explanations given him by two Bon-po monks. As he states in his preface, it has been his intention to let the texts speak for themselves as much as possible. Some explanations are given in eight pages of notes but one would have welcomed a more detailed commentary. The text abounds in concepts derived from Buddhism. Only some of them are explained in the notes or the glossary. The information given is usually very brief, and probably not very helpful to those not acquainted with Tibetan Buddhist terminology. In some cases, also, Dr. Snellgrove translates a term, known from Buddhist texts, in a different way, without any further explanation. For instance khams is several times mentioned together with rtsa and chu, cf. p. 38.29: dpyad la rtsa dah chu dwi khams. Dr. Snellgrove translates: "In diagnosis we have the connecting channels, the urine and the general appearance." In Buddhist medical texts khams always translates dhatu, "the elements of the body." In his extremely useful and detailed glossary Dr. Snellgrove notes the terms and meanings which are not given in J/ischke's dictionary. In some instances, these meanings are to be found in the Mahavyutpatti, which is not listed among the works consulted in compiling the glossary. For example, ~es-drnigs is translated as 'disadvantage' with the remark "deduced from the context". However, ftes-dmigs

222

REVIEWS

usually renders Sanskrit adinava (of. Mahavyutpatti 7309) for which see Edgerton's Dictionary. The meaning 'gentle' for des-pa is also from its use as equivalent for Sanskrit s~rata (Mahavyutpatti 2360; cf. Edgerton's dictionary) and pe~ala (Mahavyutpatti 2361). The fact that the gZi-brjid is so saturated with Buddhist terms justifies us in inquiring as to the Sanskrit terms which correspond with those Tibetan words whose meaning is not clearly defined in Jfischke's dictionary. Also, more information about Bon ritual would have been welcome. For instance, the text mentions in connection with the four actions of pacifying, prospering, empowerment and destroying which are well-known from Buddhist texts, a fifth action, called rgyun, 'Flow'. It would have been interesting to hear what Dr. Snellgrove's informants know about this rite. If they did not know about it, it would have been helpful to be told so, for it is also useful to know what can not be explained by a well-informed Bon-po priest. For the reviewer, who has no special knowledge of Bon-po texts, it would be presumptuous to try to find errors in the translation; though here and there one has the impression that a different interpretation could have been given. For instance, p.230.16-18: ma-g.yos dbyi~s-chen h.byams-yas la / cir-ya~ snati-baOi rlabs g.yos-pas / sto~-pah, i bcud las rig-pa .hbyuti/. Dr. Snellgrove translates: "and in this infinite unmoving expanse waves appear somehow and by their movement knowledge arises from this essence of emptiness." As often, the void (sto~-pa) and the appearance (snan-ba) are opposed, and 1 wonder whether this pair of antonyms is not referred to here: "and in this infinite unmoving expanse somehow the waves of appearance are moving and knowledge arises from the essence of the void." In some rare instances Dr. Snellgrove's translation is incomprehensible. Why is rwi-grol dug-hiah,i gdan-thabs (p. 206.16) rendered as "the five animal thrones"? However, almost everywhere one is impressed by the fluency and clarity of his translationY We are greatly indebted to Dr. Snellgrove for having undertaken the translation of such a difficult Bon-po text. As this is only one of the many texts which he has studied with the Bon-po monk Tenzin Namdak, we may be confident that the veil which still covers the Bon-po literature will soon be lifted. Let us above all express the wish that Dr. Snellgrove may give us a survey of Bon-po literature, for at present our knowledge is almost entirely limited to the list of titles enumerated in the chapter on Bon in the Grub-mtha' gel-gyi me-loti (cf. Hoffmann, Quellen zur Geschichte der tibetischen BonReligion, pp. 207-209). Australian National University

J. W. de Jong

R. E. Emmerick, Tibetan Texts concerning Khotan (= London Oriental Series, volume 19). London, Oxford University Press, 1967. xiii + 160 pp. s 4. 4s. The "Prophecy of the Li country" (Li-yul luti-bstan-pa) has been translated by F. W. Thomas in Tibetan Literary Texts and Documents concerning Chinese Turkestan, Part I: Literary texts (London, 1935), pp. 89-136. F. W. Thomas referred to it as "The annals of the Li country" (Li-yul-gyi lo-rgyus) but Dr. Emmerick follows H. W. Bailey (BSOAS, XIII, 2, 1950, p. 392) in adopting the title which is given to the work in the colophon. Thomas's translation is based on the version in the Narthang Tanjur. In editing the text Emmerick has collated the Narthang, Peking, Cone and Derge editions. In his preface he remarks that there is a close agreement between the Narthang Probably in the course of retyping the manuscript, several lines of the translation have been dropped. The following lines of the text are left untranslated: 82.2, 88.23, 132.13 (sgrib-g~is byati-~ih tshogs-g~is rdzogs-pa), 212.10-13, 226.29.

REVIEWS

223

and the Peking versions on the one hand and the Cone and the Derge on the other. The agreement between the Cone and Derge editions of the Tan]ur has been pointed out before and is probably to be explained by the fact that the Cone edition is based on the Derge edition (see I1J, X, 4, 1968, p. 296). As to the other two editions, the Peking Tanjur is certainly older than the Narthang Tanjur but the exact relation between them is still obscure (loc. cir.). Emmerick's edition of the "Prophecy of the Li country" confirms once again the excellence of the Derge edition of the Tan]ur. The text is accompanied by a new translation on facing pages. It contains a great number of proper names in Khotanese, Chinese, Sanskrit and other languages. A detailed index provides full information on all the proper names occurring in the text (pp. 93-107). Except for a few common particles, all the words of the text are listed and explained in a word index (pp. 108-160). The translation is not annotated, but the index discusses at length all words of which the meaning is uncertain or unknown. Both indexes include also the proper names and words of a second text relating to Khotan, "The religious annals of the Li country" (Li-yul chos-kyi lo-rgyus), which has also been translated by F. W. Thomas (op. cir., pp. 303-325). The manuscript of this text belongs to the "Fonds Pelliot tib6tain" in the Biblioth~que Nationale: see M. Lalou, Inventaire des Manuscrits tibdtains de Touen-houang conserves ~ la Biblioth~que Nationale, vol. ii, 1950, no. 960. Emmerick's edition of this text is a welcome addition to the slowly growing corpus of editions of Tibetan Tun-huang manuscripts. Although the text is relatively short (114 lines) Emmerick has refrained from adding a new translation, referring to the word index for differences in interpretation from that of F. W. Thomas. In this case, too, it would have been preferable to have both an edition and a translation of the text. Emmerick's translation of the "Prophecy of the Li country" marks a great improvement on that by F. W. Thomas. It is at the same time more correct and more precise in its wording. It is obvious from the index or glossary that not all difficulties have been solved, but Emmerick has taken great care to point out precisely where the translation must remain hypothetical since the meaning of a number of words has not been definitely ascertained. In reviewing recently an edition and translation of a Tibetan Tun-huang manuscript I expressed the wish that future publications would apply much more rigorous methods than those used in the book under review (see llJ, IX, 3, 1966, pp. 234-235). The present work comes up to the highest expectations which can be formulated for the publication of a Tibetan text. Emmerick, who is primarily a specialist in Khotanese, has done an excellent service to Tibetan studies in treating Tibetan texts in the same way as Khotanese texts. This publication sets an example for future editions of difficult Tibetan texts. I believe that in a few places the text admits of an interpretation different from that given by Dr. Emmerick, and the following remarks are intended as a tribute to his scholarly work, which I have read with great interest and benefit. 172 b 3: g~u~-la brten-te lugs-su s6al-nas, "It being according to a custom supported by the book"; perhaps better "In accordance with the book it was made a custom". 173 b 2-3: bcom-ldan-hdas ... padmahi gdan-la b~ugs-nas phyogs bcuhi sans-rgyas-kyi

~in so-so-nas de-b~in-gs'egs-pa-rnams-kyis li yul byin-gyis brlab-pahi slad-du bskul-bahi hod-zerphyogs-su khyab-par bta~, "The Lord... sat on a lotus-throne. From the various Buddha-fields in the ten directions, the Tath~gatas, in order to take control over the Li country, sent forth, filling the quarters, rays of admonition." - It is certainly the Lord who sent forth the rays of admonition: "The Lord... sat on a lotus-throne and in all directions he sent forth rays of admonition in order that from the various Buddhafields in the ten directions the Tath~gatas take control over the Li country." 174 a 4: r6jagramahi satis-rgyas-kyi sku-gzugs tias kandan-gyi na~-du skuhi grib ma-nub-par byin-gyis brlabs-te byas-pa 2ig, "an image of the Buddha of R~jagr~ma, made with my controlling that bodily defilement should not sink into the sandal". -

224

REVIEWS

Perhaps one must understand grib-ma nub-par: "... with my controlling that the shadow of the image should sink into the sandal." 175 a 7 - b 1 : khyehu.., mi g~an-dag-la yati lo-rgyus smras-na yah de-ltar gyur-nas /

rgya-rje-la bdag thog-ma skyes-pahi yul 6hol / sa dhol-du mchi-bar ci gnah ~es gsol-ba-las, "The child ... spoke to other people about his history. Since this had so happened, he besought the Chinese king: 'Let me seek the country where I was born originally. Permit me to go and seek out the place'." - "The child spoke to other people about his history. Since (according to them) it was so, he besought the Chinese king: 'Permit me to go and seek out the country, to seek out the place where I was born originally'." 177 a 6: bairodanas nam-mkhah-la de-b~in-gs'egs-par sprul-te / ~an-thos chen-po bcudrug daJi thabs cig-tu dar-mar de-b~in-ggegs-pahi 6hul bstan-nas, "Vairocana appeared in the air as the Tath~gata. When the sixteen great disciples, being all together in (~ar-ma, had expounded the way of the Tathfigata." - "Valrocana appeared in the air as the Tathfigata. When together with the sixteen great disciples he had expounded the way of the Tath~gata." 179 a 4: dehi slad-du, "Therefore". - In this context it is better to translate "thereafter"; not only with verbs but also with nouns slad-du can mean both "after" and "because of". 181 a 3-4: sum-cu-rFa gsum gnam-du ggegs-nas / ... nole ~es bgyi-ba dati / zlos-chos li yul-du mi-bgyir mi-ruh ~es lha-rnams-la gsol-nas, "He (i.e. the abbot ,~rya Samantasiddhi) besought the gods: '... it would be fitting that the thirty-three should come in the sky and perform in the Li country plays and dramatic shows.'" - "He went to the heaven of the thirty-three and he besought the gods: '... it would be fitting to perform in the Li country plays and dramatic shows.'" 181 b 2: gFug-lag-khati rdig-pa-la rjes-su yi-rah-nas yon phul, "Afterwards, being glad, he gave gifts for the building of the vihSra." - "Approving of the building of the vihara he gave gifts." Tib. rjes-su yi-rati-ba renders Sanskrit anu-mud-. In two places the text has perhaps to be corrected: 173 a 6 read chab phyu~-nas instead of chab byuh-nas; 175 a 1 read gul byun-nas instead of gul phyuti-nas (E. : "having removed the empty space"); the expression dul byuh occurs several times in the Li-yul chos-kyi lo-rgyus (see word index s.v. gul), In 180a occurs twice the word pha-bi which Emmerick considers as part of a proper name: 180 a 1 ljotis pha-bi-na "the province of Pha-bi-na"; 180a3 ~hal chuh-~upha-bi-na "the small wood Pha-bi-na". It is surprising to have Pha-bi-na as name of a province and of a small wood. I suppose that pha-bi is equivalent to pha-gi "yonder". The word dku (175 b 2), translated with "wiles" by Emmeriek, occurs in a Tibetan version of the Ram~ya.na (Thomas' document A; see F. W. Thomas, "A R~tm~yaoa Story in Tibetan from Chinese Turkestan", Indian Studies in Honor of Charles Rockwell Lanman, Cambridge, Mass., 1929, pp. 193-212) lines 196-197: mGrin-bzahs rgyal-po

Ra-ma-na la / 'kha~i-ste // khyod-ko bdag-la mtsho-'tsham mam / dku' byed-pa 'dra-ste /. Here it probably has the same meaning. In the Li-yul chos-kyi lo-rgyus a few difficult expressions are to be found. In 24 rgya-rjehi gnwi-cen hdhal-~#i mchis-mchis-pa-las the meaning of gnali-cen is not clear. In the Tibetan version of the RamSya.na, edited and translated by J. K. Balbir (L'histoire de R~ma en tibFtain, Paris, 1963), btsun-mo gnaft-cen is used several times as a designation of the chief queen (see lines 98, 103, 106 and 108). This gna~-cen has probably to be connected with Jfisehke's gnahs-che which he renders with "rather (too) large". In rgya-rjehi gnwi-cen it means perhaps "greatness" ("desiring the greatness of the king of China"). In 87-88 one must keep the readings of the manuscript: nor-phyugs dab bral-kol yah bas-nas; has is equivalent to zad, see DivySvadana 295.27 parik~i.na, Tib. yons-su

bas-so. According to Ernmeriek in 91-92 de-lta-bu ge-dag la skyo-ma ges-nas [ rgyun-chad

REWEWS

225

ma-myo~-ste, the expression ~e-dag is to be explained as ged-bdag "oneself", skyo-ma means "blame, slander" and rgyun-chad "interruption of progress". I prefer to explain ge-dag with the Dictionnaire thibOtain-latin-franr (Hongkong, 1899), p. 992 as da-stag, ga-dag "plerique, tantummodo, purus; la plupart, seulement, sans m61ange". See Rdmdyana, document A line 18 yul-'di-na srin-po ge-dag gnas-te / 'di 'i rgyal po ... As to skyo-ma ~es one must certainly read skyo ma.ges, see J/ischke s.v. skyo-ba: skyo mi-ges-par "without being tired". Skyo-ba is used to render Sanskrit nirveda or sa.mvega (see for this word Johnston's translation of the Buddhacarita, Calcutta, 1936, p. 32, n. 4). Finally rgyun-chad here means 'interruption of transmigration'. In 102 Emmerick explains bsla~s as "to raise" but it means of course "to ask for": klu.las gdug-lag-kha~-gi sa-gki bsla~s-nas "having from the N5ga requested a site for a vihdra". Australian National University

J. W. de Jong

Buddhist Yearly 1966. Jahrbuch fiir Buddhistische Forschungen. Halle, Buddhist Centre, 1966; 68 pp.; Buddhist Yearly 1967, Jahrbuch fiir Buddhistische Forschungen. ibid., 1967; 126 pp. ; Bibliography of Literature on Buddhist topics published on the territory of the G.D.R. since 1945 ( = Supplement to "Buddhist Yearly" 1966). ibid.; 71 pp.; Studia Asiae. Festschrift fiir Johannes Schubert, Part I ( = Supplement to "Buddhist Yearly 1968", ibid. 1969; 334 pp. A Buddhist Centre (Arbeitsgemeinschaft ffir Buddhistische Forschungen in der DDR) was inaugurated at Halle on March 10th 1966. Director is Professor Heinz Mode. From this newly founded Buddhist Centre (Universit~itsplatz 12, 402 Halle, Saale) we received two volumes of the Buddhist Yearly and two supplements (for the contents of these volumes see "Publications received", IIJ, XIII, pp. 67-68). The Bibliography of Literature on Buddhist Topics is divided into two parts, the first listing books and articles (nos. 1-229), the second reviews (nos. 230-543). It is a very valuable bibliography; it lists also several items which are not Buddhist in the strict sense of the word. Both volumes of the Buddhist Yearly contain interesting articles. We can mention only a few of them. In Buddhist Yearly 1966 Heinz Mode discusses "German Studies on Indian Buddhist Art" (pp. 19-34). Johannes Mehlig examines some aspects of Friedrich Weller's work: "Friedrich Weller - - ein Leben fflr die buddhistische Forschung" (pp. 35-58). The article deals mainly with Weller's work on the Buddhacarita and the Brahmajalasf~tra. In Buddhist Yearly 1967 we find an article by H. Plaeschke: "Ha~l~ta und die sp/ite Ornamentik der Gandh~ra-Schule" (pp. 59-73). Useful bibliographies are to be found in the following two articles: T. Thilo, "Die Bearbeitung der buddhistischen Texte der Berliner Turfan-Sammlung" (pp. 74-85); A. N. Kotschetow, "Die buddhistische Forschung in der UdSSR" (pp. 86-118). The volume in honour of Johannes Schubert contains several important articles in the field of Tibetan studies. We are looking forward to the future publications of this active Buddhist Centre. Australian National University

J. W. de Jong

Punya Sloka Ray, Muhammad Abdul Hai, Lila Ray, BengaR Language Handbook (= Language Handbookseries ed. by F. A. Rice). Washington, Center for Applied Linguistics, 1966. XIII q- 137 pp. At a time when students of modern Indian languages have not yet given up the hope that a revised and enlarged edition of S. K. Chatterjee's monumental work on 'The

226

REVIEWS

Origin and Development of the BengaR Language' (Calcutta, 1926) would bestow upon the interested readers new and recent informations, the linguistics of Bengali 'as a discipline' (iii) is busy with reformulating and rearranging the already known facts in order to achieve a synchronic grammar. Thus, in place of a phonetic transcription P. S. Ray, in the book under review, speaks about 'segmental phonems' (p. 4 sq.), but he differs from Chatterjee's description (p. XX sqq. and p. 267 sqq.) only in one but very noteworthy detail, namely, that he does not mention the existence of a voiced h in Bengali. His new arrangements, however, do not always necessarily result in a greater clarity, as can be observed e.g. in chapter 4 on 'verb words'. Although Chatterjee brings forward a very useful classification of Bengali verbs (p. 893), P. S. Ray starts with a mere enumeration of twenty-nine traditional 'stem classes', but instead of explaining the criteria which are at the basis of this table, he continues with a representation of the Bengali verb arranged according to verbal sufixes. A cumbersome repetition of rules of vowel mutation under the headings of the various suffixes and constant cross references are the results of such a procedure. Into this tangled scheme he squeezes also remarks about function and meaning of suffixes and tenses. So the basic principles of 'Umlaut' and mutations of vowels - - clearly represented in terms of a synchronic grammar by E. C. Dimock (Dimock, S. Bhattacharji, S. Cbatterjee, Introduction to Bengali, I, Honolulu, 1964), p. 76 sqq. - - have to be found out by the reader of this handbook by painstaking comparisons of the verbal suffixes and the specific rules connected with them and by setting up general rules and restrictions. But even the result of such an effort is far from satisfying. E.g. verbal suffix 14 (VS) ]-en] is, according to the author to be used by following the rules of VS 12. This would result in a form *daen, in place of the actually used/d~en/. - - The rules for Vs-16 produce a form /habi/, which should be /hobi/ (cf. Dimock, p. 167). - - Vs-7/-o/ (imperative present) is connected with rules which would result in a form /boSo/. This, however, is imperative future. There is no provision made for the actual 2nd pers. imp. present/boSo/, covered by the rules for Vs-12 (2nd. pers. present). - - Chatterjee states on p. 393, "the native speakers of Standard Colloquial say .. karbar .. instead of *[korbar..]", whereas Ray has for Vs-2 (/ba/) a rule just in the opposite sense: "/O/before consonant changes t o / o / ... /..korba/". - His cross reference under Vs-2: "the meanings are the same as of Vs-l" (/-a/) would give the sutflX/ba/among other the meaning of a "completed action attributed to an object". But such a meaning never occurs with forms like/dekhiba/ (cf, Chatterjee, p. 1017). This misleading statement is due to the fact that Ray does not make a difference between verbal nouns in -a and (passive)verbal adjectives in -a under Vs-1 (/-a/). An incorrect meaning is also attributed to Vs-5 (/el), the 'conjunctive', if Ray states "the meaning is that of a past" and at the same time identifies the suffix with that of the first member in compound verbs like/die deWa/(p. 25). Wrongly represented is also the meaning of the imperative future ("imp. with attention on the state after completion of the action" p. 27), although Dimock has already more appropriately expressed it ("The future imperative is used to indicate that a command or wish is to be carried out at some future time", p. 346) and has given examples which show that this imperative is used after the conjunctive in -e. Among the suffixes of verb words (4.3.) one does not come across the -i of the imperative present, the -ben of imperative future and the -lem which, according to Chatterjee (p. 400), is the "Standard Colloquial pronunciation of -lain". On p. 24 under V-3 (last para) one has to read: /e/ before semivowel /W/ changes to /i/ m place of "/el before consonant...". In chapters 5 and 6 ("Noun words" and "Auxiliary words") I missed the 'determiner suffix' -dig and noted the restriction that/-der/"cannot occur before any further case suffix", although Chatterjee (p. 728) has a manuS-der-te and other forms. The description of "Aspectives" (i.e, auxiliary verbs) under 6.5. shows clearly how much the

REWEWS

227

studies of Bengali syntax lag behind the researches in the field of compound verbs of Hindi carried out in the last ten years. The chapters 7 (phrase structure) and 8 (sentences and clauses) confront the reader with a mass of well known constructions in a purely descriptive, but rather sophisticated, representation; nothing, however, is said about the pattern of correlative sentences, a very characteristic construction in Bengali. In chapters 9-13 one gets summarised descriptions of contrasts of Bengali with American English (9), of Sadhu Standard (10), of the Dacca Dialect (12, written by M. A. Hai) and of the Chittagong Dialect (13). The chapters 14-17 on Bengali literature by Lila Ray, the mother of P. S. Ray, form, on account of the traditional method that is followed in them, a striking contrast with the appearance of scientific approach in the chapters 4-18. For the older periods the authoress follows rather faithfully the outlines given by S. K. Sen (History of Bengali Literature, New Dehli, 1960); for the latest developments she only enumerates some names of writers together with a few remarks at random about the contents of their books. The absence of an index is felt as an obstacle, because the unconventional representation and a rather indistinct form of printing hide the information from readers of this handbook "who wish to have a concise and condensed general picture of the language" (if) in place of making it more easily accessible. The very short bibliography does not refer to any publication other than in English. Utrecht

P. Gaeffke