Book Reviews

Author(s): J W De Jong
Publisher: J W De Jong
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269702/1

Page #1
BOOK REVIEWS THE ESSENCE OF METAPHYSICS. Abhidharmahsdaya. Translated and annotated by Charles Willemen. Publications de l'Institut Belge des Hautes Etudes Bouddhiques, Serie "Etudes et textes" No. 4. Bruxelles, 1975. XXVII, 366 pp. et 25 pp. de texte chinois. LE COEUR DE LA LOI SUPREME. Traite de Fa-cheng. Abhidharmahydayasastra de Dharmasri. Traduit et annote par I, Armelin. Paris, Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1978. 388 pp. THE PUBLICATION of two translations of the Abhidharmahsdaya (T. no. 1550) testifies to the growing interest in Abhidharma studies in recent years. In 1977 Jose van den Broeck published a French translation of Ghosaka's Amotarasa (T. no. 1553) and Marcel van Velthem a French translation of Skandhila's Abhidharmavatarasastra (T. no. 1554).1 Mrs. Armelin's translation was already finished in 1963. Since then she has added a long introduction (pp. 3-48) in which she makes much use of Yamada Ryujo's Daija bukkyo seiritsuron josetsu (Kyoto, 1959). In her preface she announces a translation of Dharmatrata's Samyukta-abhidharmasara (T. no. 1552) and a book on the importance of the Abhidharma in Indian thought (L'importance de l'Abhidharma dans la pensee indienne). Willemen's introduction (pp. V-XXVII) is divided into two parts. The first deals with the three texts called (Samyukta) abhidharmahsdaya (T. nos. 1550, 1551 and 1552), their authors and the Chinese translations (pp. V-XXVII). The name of the author of I (T. no. 1550) is Fa-sheng. Western scholars assume that his Sanskrit name is Dharmasri but several Japanese scholars prefer Dharmasresthin. In his L'aide-memoire de la vraie loi (Paris, 1949, p. 51, n. I) Lin Li-kouang pointed out that Dharmatrata in his Ch'u-yao ching (T. no. 212, p. 643a) quotes the opinion of Tan-mo-shih-li on the importance of the 1 La saveur de l'immortel (A-p'i-t'an Kan Lu Wei Lun). La version chinoise de l'Amotarasa de Ghosaka (T.1553). Traduite et annotee par Jose van den Broeck. Louvain-la-Neuve, 1977. Le traite de la descente dans la profonde loi (Abhidharmavatarasastra) de l'Arhat Skandhila. Traduit et annote par Marcel van Velthem. Louvain-la-Neuve, 1977. Reviews of both works will be published in the Toung Pao. 151

Page #2
THE EASTERN BUDDHIST practice of kayanusmrti. According to Lin this transcription confirms the reconstruction Dharmasri proposed by Pelliot in 1930 (JA, 1930, II, p. 267 ff.). Willemen adds that it is most probable that this T'an-mo-shih-li is the author of the Abhidharmahsdaya. It is necessary to point out that the kayanusmyti is not mentioned in the Abhidharmahudaya (cf. Lin, p. 330). Dharmatrata quotes also two verses by Dharmasri (Tan-mo-shih-li) which obviously belong to a different work (T. no. 212, p. 626a 17-21). In both instances Dharmasri is called (sthavira, arya or bhadanta). It is therefore doubtful that the Dharmasri quoted by Dharmatrata is the author of the Abhidharmahsdaya. Willemen accepts Lin Li-kouang's theory according to which the author of the Ch'u-yaoching is identical with the Dharmatrata or Bhadanta mentioned in the Mahavibhasa. If Dharmatrata in his Ch'u-yao ching quotes Dharmasri, then he must have lived before the masters of the Mahavibhasa (second century A.D. according to Willemen). Willemen believes that it is possible to go back further because he accepts Frauwallner's theory that the Abhidharmahsdaya is older than the Jnanaprasthana. Frauwallner mentions in this connection Tao-yen's preface to Buddhavarman's translation of the Abhidharmavibhasa (T. no. 1546, p. Ibu-12). However, it does not seem likely that Tao-yen's testimony is more reliable than the other often conflicting statements on the date of Dharmasri in Chinese sources (cf. Lin, p. 51 and Willemen, pp. VII-VIII). As to the relation of the Abhidharmahsdaya to the Jnanaprasthana and the Mahavibhasa the opinions of scholars vary greatly. Willemen, who knows well the works of Japanese scholars, quotes those of Fukuhara (cf. p. VIII), Yamada and Sakurabe (p. XXII; read Sakurabe H., instead of Sakurabe T.). It is interesting to note that Willemen and Mrs. Armelin attribute different opinions. to Yamada. Willemen writes: "R. Yamada thinks that the Abhidharmahsdaya is a little earlier than the Jnanaprasthana, but that there is no direct relation between the two texts, and he goes on to say that the Abhidharmahsdaya was probably written at the same time as the Mahavibhasa." Mrs. Armelin writes: "Selon le Professeur Yamada, le Hsdayasastra compose de dix sections (dasavarga) est posterieur au Jnanaprasthana parce que son style est plus prolixe que celui des Astaskandha" (p. 12). Willemen refers to p. 113 of Yamada's book. Yamada indicates here as his provisional conclusion that the Abhidharmahrdaya is later than the Jnanaprasthana and roughly contemporary with the Mahavibhasa. However, on p. 428 of his book Yamada declares positively that the Abhidharmahsdaya is earlier than the Mahavibhasa. In his introduction Willemen carefully examines the problems connected with the Chinese translations of the three Abhidharmahsdaya texts. He has also consulted a Tun-huang manuscript, probably written in the beginning of the fifth century, of Samghadeva's translation of Dharmasri's Abhidharmahsdaya, and has been able to show that this text contains exactly 250 152

Page #3
BOOK REVIEWS stanzas. In the Taisho text several stanzas have not been distinguished as such. Willemen reproduces the Taisho text adding a continuous numbering of the 250 stanzas. Moreover, in a concordance he indicates the corresponding stanzas in the works by Upasanta and Dharmatrata (pp. 304-313). According to him Upasanta was a bahirdesaka, a master of Gandhara, and lived probably in the third century. Dharmatrata lived also in Gandhara but he relied heavily on the vaibhasika views as expressed in the Mahavibhasa. Willemen lists a number of doctrinal differences between Dharmasri and Dharmatrata (pp. XXIII-XXIV). He concludes that Dharmasri probably represents the early bahirdesakas. Upasanta almost always agrees with Dharmasri but his work shows traces of vaibhasika influence. Finally Willemen shows that Dharmasri's Abhidharmahsdaya and Dharmatrata's Samyuktabhidharmahsdaya were very important in China until the publication of Hsuan-tsang's translations of the Kosa and the Mahavibhasa. Mrs. Armelin's introduction deals with the following topics: 1. L'Abhidharma des Sarvastivadin, p. 3. 11. La date de composition de l'Abhidharmahidayasastra, . p. 7. III. Plan du Hsdayasastra, p. 12. Iv. Comparaison des chapitres des deux traites, p. 15. v. Le titre de l'ouvrage de Dharmasri, p. 19. VI. Positions doctrinales du Hsdayasastra, p. 20. VII. Dharmasri et l'ecole des Sarvastivadin, p. 34. VIII. Dharmasri, arhat ou bodhisattva? p. 45. Resume, p. 47. Whereas Willemen in his introduction pays much attention to the history of the Chinese translations, Mrs. Armelin is more interested in the doctrinal problems. As mentioned above, she has made much use of Yamada's work but does not mention at all the important abhidharma studies by Erich Frauwallner (WZKS 7, 8, 15, 16, 17). As to the relation between the Jnanaprasthana and Dharmasri's Abhidharmahsdaya she disagrees with Yamada and believes that Dharmasri was probably a contemporary of the author of the Jnanaprasthana. Both Willemen and Mrs. Armelin prefer the title Abhidharmahsdaya to that Abhidharmasara used by de La Vallee Poussin and other scholars. Willemen does not explain his preference. According to Mrs. Armelin hrdaya is to be preferred because Dharmasri wanted to reveal the hsdaya, the most important part of Buddha's doctrine. He did not want to extract the sara, the essence, from the abhidharma doctrines. Mrs. Armelin adds that the word abhidharmasara would imply that Dharmasri tried to extract the essence from the Abhidharma and especially from the, Satpadasastra which, from a doctrinal point, is not very likely. Her arguments are not entirely convincing. It is quite well possible that Dharmasri in his relatively short work wanted to present the essence of the abhidharma doctrines known to him. Mrs. Armelin compares the way of salvation as presented by Dharmasri with the brahmanical way of salvation as found in the Bshadaranyakopanisad. She writes: "Dharmasri ne cite pas les theories des Upanisad. Toutefois, son 153

Page #4
THE EASTERN BUDDHIST hmanicalfficult to discoverpose Buddhist Loadaranyaka-upa oeuvre trahit ses connaissances, et peut-etre meme ses origines brahmaniques" (p. 27). On p. 29 she remarks: "Dharmasri confronte l'enseignement du Buddha a celui des penseurs brahmaniques partisans de la Bshadaranyaka-upanisad." It is of course always possible to oppose Buddhist doctrines to Brahmanical doctrines but it is difficult to discover in Dharmasri's work such a specific reaction to Brahmanical doctrines as maintained by Mrs. Armelin. However, the comparisons made by Mrs. Armelin are instructive insofar as they help to bring out more clearly the nature of the Buddhist doctrines taught by Dharmasri. In a chapter on Dharmasri and the school of the Sarvastivadins (pp. 34-46) Mrs. Armelin examines the doctrinal systems of Dharmasri, Upasanta, and Dharmatrata. She remarks that although Vasubandhu has been influenced by the Sautrantikas and the Pascatyas, his doctrinal position is closer to that of the Kashmirians than to that of other Abhidharmikas. On several points he rectifies opinions expressed by Dharmasri and defends vaibhasika doctrines. As example, she mentions that according to Dharmasri the kayavijnapti is a movement (gati) but according to the Vaibhasikas a figure (samsthana). She adds that this is a doctrine of the Vatsiputriyas but without drawing attention to the fact that this is not said in the Kosabhasya but in Yasomitra's Vyakhya (p. 345. 16). With regard to the different Abhidharma schools of the Sarvastivadins much is still obscure. Of the great mass of texts only very few have yet been translated into Western languages and it is at present not possible to arrive at any definitive results. In a long and learned introduction to his translation of Ghosaka's Amptarasa Jose van den Broeck has pointed out the contradictions found in the sources. It will be a very delicate task to distinguish the different Sarvastivada schools to which the texts refer. The three works by Dharmasri, Upasanta and Dharmatrata and Vasubandhu's Kosa constitute an important stream in the development of abhidharma doctrines. The translation of Dharmasri's work by Willemen and Mrs. Armelin makes it possible to compare in detail his work with that of Vasubandhu. Mrs. Armelin has already announced a translation of Dharmatrata's work. It is to be hoped that Upasanta's work will also be translated in order to make it possible to compare in detail the three Abhidharmahsdayas and Vasubandhu's Kosa The Abhidharmahsdaya is a difficult text to translate. The verses especially create problems and a correct interpretation is often only possible with the help of the prose commentary and by comparing the renderings of the verses in the works by Upasanta and Dharmatrata. Willemen stresses his great debt to the Japanese version by Watanabe, Mizuno and Oishi in the Kokuyaku Issaikyo, Bidon-bu XXXI (Tokyo, 1932). It is a pity that Mrs. Armelin does not seem to have made any use of this excellent translation which contains also many helpful notes. Willemen seems to have made more use also of the other two Abhidharmahsdaya texts than Mrs. Armelin. He translates technical terms, 154

Page #5
BOOK REVIEWS and gives the Sanskrit equivalents only in his notes. Both in Mrs. Armelin's book and in that of Willemen the notes are printed after the translation, which makes the study of their works more difficult. Mrs. Armelin often refers to de La Vallee Poussin's translation of the Kosa. This work is rarely mentioned in Willemen's notes although it is obvious that he has studied it very carefully. De La Vallee Poussin's translation of the Kosa is accompanied by a detailed commentary in which he quotes extensively from Yasomitra's Vyakhya, the only Sanskrit text available to him. Since the publication of the Sanskrit text of the Abhidharmakosabhasya in 1967 it has become even more necessary to refer to the Kosa in translating abhidharma texts, and especially a text such as Dharmasri's Abhidharmahrdaya which has been an important source for Vasubandhu, if not directly, at least indirectly through the later adaptations by Upasanta and Dharmatrata. If for technical reasons it is not possible to add extensive notes at the bottom of the page, the best solution would probably be to publish the translation on the left-hand page and to reserve the opposite page for a detailed commentary. Two brief passages of Dharmasri's Abhidharmahrdaya were translated by de La Vallee Poussin in the introductory volume of his translation of the Kosa (Paris-Louvain, 1931), pp. LXV and LXVI-LXVII. The first deals with the three obstacles (dvarana): Bhagavat dit qu'il y a trois avaramas, karman, klesa et vipaka. Quelle est leur definition? "Les actes d'anantarya qui sont sans remede, les passions developpees, l'acte mauvais senti dans les mauvaises destinees, ce sont la les avaranas." Ces trois font obstacle au Dharma; ils empechent de prendre les dharmas d'Arya (T. 1550, p. 815a23-27). Willemen translates this passage as follows: Question: What about the characteristics of the three obstructions, as explained by the World-Honoured One: the obstruction of action, the obstruction of affliction, and the obstruction of retribution? Answer: (63) Let it also be known that the immediate and irredeemable actions, the afflictions one produces on a large scale, and the unwholesome retributions experienced in the woeful courses, are obstructions. With these three dharmas, the so-called obstructions, one surely will not experience the dharmas of the noble (Willemen, p. 46). Willemen's translation is more literal than that of de La Vallee Poussin. However, de La Vallee Poussin's interpretation of E. ZIE is to be preferred: "These three obstacles to the dharma make it impossible to receive the dharmas of the noble."2 It would have been helpful if Willemen 2 The Kokuyaku issaikyo translation has: "This obstacle to the three dharmas. . ."(!): kono sanbo no shoge wa kanarazu shobo o jusezu. 155

Page #6
THE EASTERN BUDDHIST had quoted the first half of Kosa iv. 96: anantaryani karmani tivrakleso 'tha durgatih, and had referred to de La Vallee Poussin, Kosa, iv, p. 201 ff. Mrs. Armelin's translation is as follows: Question: "Le Bienheureux a parle de trois empechements (nivarana): l'empechement des actes (karmavarana), l'empechement des passions (klesavarana) et l'empechement de la retribution (vipakavarana). Quels en sont les caracteres ?" Reponse : (111-31) "Les actes a retribution immediate (anantarya), irremissibles, peuvent produire des passions. Dans les mauvaises destinees (durgati) on ressent la mauvaise retribution. Tels sont les empechements, sachez-le." Ces trois essences (dharma) sont empechements: parce qu'elles rendent impossible la reception des essences saintes (aryadharma), on les appelle empechements (p. 95). Probably nivarana is an error for avarana. Mrs. Armelin translates HET one in the same way as Willemen. Her translation of the first half of the stanza does not bring out the fact that it deals with the first two obstacles and has to be rectified accordingly. The second passage translated by de La Vallee Poussin explains vijnapti and avijnapti: Pour l'avijnapti: quand on fait un acte d'une maniere ferme, la : pensee peut changer, le germe demeure. Si, par exemple, un homme prend les engagements de moralite, sa pensee peut ensuite etre mauvaise ou non-definie: la moralite continue cependant (T. 1550, p. 81203-4: * #EX . Pitill F. # . T* C*. 58. Willemen has: "Noninformation: when the actions one performs are firm. This element arises even though it takes place among thoughts which are different, e.g. even among unwholesome and indeterminate thoughts someone who is well ordained follows (the precepts)" (p. 28). Mrs. Armelin translates: "La 'non-information, c'est, lorsque l'acte accompli est ferme, ce qui continue a fonctionner dans d'autres pensees ou naissent des germes [d'essences mentales]. Ainsi, dans les pensees mauvaises et indefinies d'un homme vertueux, qui pratique les regles de discipline (sila), celles-ci continuent, les unes et les autres, a guider sa conduite" (p. 75). Both translations are not entirely satisfactory. It seems to me that this passage has to be rendered as follows: "As to non-information, if one has firmly performed an act, a seed of it is produced (and continues to exist] while his thought changes. Just as when a man has well taken upon himself the discipline, it continues to exist while his thought is bad or non-defined." De La Vallee Poussin's translation is excellent although it is somewhat free. Stanza 151 (T. 1550, p. 813b20-21) describes the first trance. Willemen's translation of the stanza is as follows: The one with five members, with adjusted and discursive thinking, and also with three feelings, different classes and four thoughts, they call it the first trance. 156

Page #7
BOOK REVIEWS Mrs. Armelin's translation of the first pada (Celle qui possede cinq membres comprend le "raisonnement" et la "reflexion," p. 158) is not correct because the commentary distinguishes between a trance with five members and a trance with vitarka and vicara. The commentary explains first the five members (anga). Then the following question is put: "Since we know the five members, what need is there for adjusted and discursive thoughts now?" (Willemen, p. 107). The answer is: # EAE. AT THE AC. F T TEX. (p. 823b29-ci). Willemen translates: "As for the members, the so-called wholesome ones are among the five members. They say that a defiled (trance) and an indeterminate one also have adjusted thoughts and discursive thoughts, but not the wholesome ones." Willemen explains in a note that the five argas are kusala in the kusala first dhyana. When klista or avyaksta, vitarka and vicara are not among the argas. Willemen's explanation is correct but I believe that his translation has to be rectified as follows: "The members are said to be wholesome. They [vitarka and vicara] are included in the five members. [With vitarka and vicara] refers to a defiled and an indeterminate trance. They also comprise vitarka and vicara but are not wholesome." Mrs. Armelin states in a note (547): "Toute cette reponse a la question ainsi posee est fort obscure. Vasubandhu n'est guere plus explicite." Indeed Vasubandhu does not deal with this problem but in the Mahavibhasa there is a long discussion on the problem of constituent elements of defiled dhyanas which do not possess the characteristics of argas (T. 1545, ch. 161, p. 814ab). In the Chinese translation of Dharmasri's Abhidharmahsdaya Dk is used to render vyanjana as explained in Dharmatrata's Abhidharmahsdaya, T. 1552, p. 943a (cf. Willemen, p. VII, note 225). This has been overlooked by Mrs. Armelin who translates DF (p. 825016 and c24) with 'saveur' (cf. n. 612). Vyanjana is defined as follows: Dk . 1872. (p. 831a3). Willemen translates: "Vyanjanas: the elements of a combination of sentences, etc. such as gathas and scriptural texts" (p. 158). Mrs. Armelin translates: "Les syllabes (vyanjanakaya): l'ensemble des phonemes dont la reunion forme un mot qui designe un objet; comme, par exemple, 'stance,' 'aphorisme, etc." (p. 216). This definition of vyanjana has been studied also by Jose van den Broeck who writes: "Dharmasri et Ghosaka interpretent le terme vyanjana comme signifiant "un discours": le vyanjanakaya est "une substance (dravya), consistant dans l'ensemble des phrases (pada)" (Abhidharmasara, T. 1550, ch. 4, p. 831a3); c'est "l'ensemble des enonces developpes" (Amrta)" (op. cit., p. 61; cf. also pp. 232 and 260). The Kokuyaku issaikyo translation does not follow the punctuation of the Taisho edition and puts a dot after : "Vyanjana, i.e., a detailed statement of a fact by a combination of padas, such as a gatha and a sutra." In a note the translators explain that of here has the meaning (bunsho) "literary composition." It seems to me that the interpretation of 157

Page #8
THE EASTERN BUDDHIST this definition in the Kokuyaku issaikyo translation is the correct one but it is difficult to understand how vyanjana came to be interpreted in this way by Dharmasri and Ghosaka. There are many more problems in Dharmasri's Abhidharmahsdaya which ought to be examined but this would far exceed the limits of a review. Thanks to the conscientious efforts of Willemen and Mrs. Armelin this text has become now much more accessible. Their translations as well as the Kokuyaku issaikyo translation will be of great help in the study of this important and difficult text. Very welcome also are the glossaries compiled by the translators. Mrs. Armelin's book contains a Sanskrit-Chinese glossary (pp. 327-352) and a Chinese-Sanskrit glossary (pp. 353-371). Willemen has added an index of Sanskrit terms (pp. 314-331), a Chinese-Sanskrit-English glossary (pp. 332-351) and an EnglishSanskrit glossary (pp. 352-366). J. W. DE JONG 158