Notes On Second Chapter Of Madhyanta Vibhaga Tika

Author(s): J W De Jong
Publisher: J W De Jong
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269286/1

Page #1

NOTES ON THE SECOND CHAPTER OF THE
MADHYANTAVIBHĀGATĪKĀ
by
J. W. DE JONG
Canberra
In 1928 Sylvain Lévi obtained in Kathmandu a copy of an incomplete manuscript of Sthiramati's Madhyāntavibhāgatikā, a commentary on Vasubandhu's Madhyāntavibhāgabhāşya which explains the kārikā-8 written by Maitreya. Sylvain Lévi entrusted the edition of the text to Yamaguchi Susumu who first edited the Sanskrit text of the first two chapters in several issues of the Otani Gakuho in the years 1930–1932.1 In 1934 Yamaguchi published an edition of the complete text in which the missing parts were restored with the help of the Tibetan translation. In 1930 Tucci announced an edition with a complete restoration into Sanskrit from the Tibetan of all missing passages, by himself and Vidhusekhara Bhattācārya. The first and only chapter of this edition appeared in 1932. Yamaguchi published a complete Japanese translation of the Madhyāntavibhāgatīkā in 1935.5 The first chapter was rendered into English simultaneously by Th. Stcherbatsky and D. L. Friedmann. 1 Vol. XI (1930), pp. 576–602; Vol. XII (1931), pp. 24-67; 307-335; 719– 775; Vol. XIII (1932), pp. 59–99. Cf. L. de La Vallée Poussin, Mélanges chinois et bouddhiques, I (1932), pp. 400-403 (on p. 400 correct Shukyokenkyu to Otani Gakuho). : Sthiramati, Madhyāntavibhāgaţikā. Exposition systématique du Yogācāravijñaptivāda. Tome I. Texte. Nagoya, Hajinkaku, 1934. Reprinted by the Suzuki Research Foundation, Tokyo in 1966. 3 'Animadversiones Indicae', JASB, 26 (1930), pp. 195–196. • Madhyāntavibhāgasūtrabhāşyaţikā of Sthiramati, being a subcommentary on Vasubandhu's Bhāşya on the Madhyāntavibhāgasūtra of Maitreyanātha. Part I, 1932 (Calcutta, Oriental Series, no. 24). Cf. Obermiller's review, IHQ, IX (1933), pp. 1019-1030. 5 Anne ashariya zo Chūbenfunbetsuron shakusho. Nagoya, Hajinkaku, 1935. Reprinted by The Suzuki Research Foundation, Tokyo in 1966. • Th. Stcherbatsky, Madhyāntavibhanga. Discourse on Discrimination between Middle and Extremes ascribed to Maitreya and commented by Vasubandhu and Sthiramati. Moscow-Leningrad, 1936 (Bibliotheca Buddhica, XXX). Cf. L. de La Vallée Poussin, Mélanges chinois et bouddhiques, V (1937),

Page #2

112
J. W. DE JONG
In 1937 Yamaguchi published a synoptic edition of the Tibetan translation and the two Chinese translations by Paramārtha and Hsüan-tsang of Vasubandhu's bhāsya.? A translation of the third chapter of the bhāsya was published by Paul Wilfred O'Brien S. J. in 1953-1954.8 In 1934 Rahula Sanskrityāyana discovered a manuscript of the bhāsya in the Nor Monastery in Tibet. The text was published by Gadjin M. Nagao in 1964.9 Nagao also translated chapters 1 and 3 of the bhāsya10 and a complete translation is due to appear in vol. 15 of the Daijo butten. Another edition of the bhāsya appeared in 1967.11 Vasubandhu's bhāsya contains the complete text of the kārikā-s. Parts of both the kārikā-s and the bhāsya are quoted in Sthiramati's tīkā. The publication of the text of the kārikā-s and the bhāsya makes it possible to correct the text of the quotations in the tikā. This is of course especially important for the quotations which have been restored from the Tibetan by the editors of the tikā.
The restoration of a Sanskrit text from the Tibetan is. a difficult undertaking. I believe that in the case of a philosophical text such as the Madhyāntavibhāgaţikā, which has been carefully translated into Tibetan, it is justified to attempt to reconstruct at least the technical terms. With the help of parallel passages it is also sometimes possible to restore the original Sanskrit text. However, it is certainly impossible to reconstruct the original text in its entirety. La Vallée Poussin, quoting Tucci's words: "by the combined efforts of myself and of Vidhuśekhara Šāstri, it is hoped to be restored completely in its Sanskrit original form”, comments as follows: "Magnanime pensée ! Car il est rare qu'on puisse restituer avec confiance ne fût-ce qu'une strophe estropiée ou lacuneuse.”'12 How different the results of attempted restorations can be is clearly pp. 271-273. D. L. Friedmann, Sthiramati, Madhyantavibhāgaţikā. Analysis of the Middle Path and the Extremes. Utrecht, Utr. Typ. Ass., 1937. 7 Kanzo taisho Benchūbenron. Nagoya, Hajinkaku, 1939. Reprinted by the Suzuki Research Foundation, Tokyo in 1966. 8 'A Chapter on Reality from the Madhyântavibhâgaçâstra', Monumenta Nipponica, 9 (1953), pp. 277-303; 10 (1954), pp. 227-269. 9 Madhyāntavibhāga-bhāşya. A Buddhist Philosophical Treatise Edited for the first time from a Sanskrit Manuscript. Tokyo, Suzuki Research Foundation, 1964. 10 Sekai no meicho, vol. 2: Daijo butten (Tokyo, 1967), pp. 397-426. 11 Madhyānta-vibhāga-bhāşya. Deciphered & Edited by Nathmal Tatia & Anantalal Thakur. Patna, K. P. Jayaswal Research Institute, 1967 (Tibetan Sanskrit Works Series, vol. X). 12 Mélanges chinois et bouddhiques, V (1937), p. 401.

Page #3

THE SECOND CHAPTER OF THE MADHYANTAVIBHĀGAȚIKĀ
113
shown by the two editions of the first chapter and Stcherbatsky's translation of the same chapter in which many passages have been restored in the notes. Until recently the only text available for chapters 2 to 5 of Sthiramati's tīkā was that published by Yamaguchi in 1934. Yamaguchi's restorations are based upon a careful study of the Sanskrit text of the tīkā and the Tibetan and Chinese translations of the kārikā-s, the bhāsya and the tīkā. However, Yamaguchi's restorations are not always acceptable and, in several cases, the restored text is written in unidiomatic or even incorrect Sanskrit. In 1971 Ramchandra Pandeya published the Sanskrit text of the kārikā-s, the bhāsya and the tīkā.13 According to the preface his edition corrects the text of the missing parts of the tikā with the help of the Tibetan version and the text of the bhāsya. Pandeya has noted the readings of the bhāsya, but his claim to have made use of the Tibetan translation of the tīkā is not borne out by an examination of several passages of the second chapter. He seems to have done nothing more than to correct Yamaguchi's restorations according to his own light without any recourse to the Tibetan version.
In the following notes all references are to page and line of Yamaguchi's edition. P = the Peking edition of the Tibetan translation of the tīkā in volume 109 of the Japanese reprint. R.P. = Ramchandra Pandeya's edition. Sanskrit words which have been restored by Yamaguchi are printed in italics.
P. 67.28-68.1: yan-na ji-ltar Dkon-mchog-brtsegs-pa chen-polas / de'i bsam-pa mya-nan-las 'das-pa yan gnas-la / 'khor-ba-na yan sbyor-bar gnas-pa zes bstan-pa Ita-bu ste. Yamaguchi's restoration: atha vā yathoktam Mahāratnakūte | tasyāśayaś nirvāṇe ca tisthati samsāre caprayogena tişthatīti (p. 267.4-6). In his translation Yamaguchi refers to von Staël-Holstein's preface to his edition of the Kāśyapaparivarta (Shanghai, 1926), p. XV: "The assumption that Sthiramati himself regarded Ratnakūta as the title of the work he had commented upon seems also to be supported by the concluding verse of the commentary." Yamaguchi adds that he has not been able to trace the quotation in the Chinese translations of the Kāśyapaparivarta. However, it is to be found in section 16 of the Sanskrit text: nirvāṇagataś cāsyāśayaḥ samsāragataś ca prayo
13 Madhyānta-vibhāga-śāstra. Containing the Kārikā-s of Maitreya, Bhāşya of Vasubandhu and Tikā by Sthiramati. Critically Edited by Ramchandra Pandeya. Delhi-Varanasi-Patna, Motilal Banarsidass, 1971.

Page #4

114
J. W. DE JONG
gah. The Tibetan translation of the Kāśyapaparivarta has: de'i bsam-pa mya-nan-las 'das-pa la yan gnas-la sbyor-ba 'khor-ba-na yan gnas-pa. R. P.: sa āśayena nirvāṇe tişthati, samsāre ca prayogeņa tişthatīti.
P. 72.7: ātmātmaśūnyatāyāḥ P.: bdag dan bdag-gir (P. gis) stonpa-ñid. Read: ātmātmiyaśūnyatāyāḥ. Cf. p. 72.16: tatra satkāyadrstiḥ pañcasūpādānaskandheşv ātmata ātmiyato (Yamaguchi -ta) veti darsanam. R. P. ātmany ātmaśūnyatāyāḥ.
P. 73.21: sarvaguņadoşasya prakrstāpanitasya paryantāśrayatvena buddharatne parijñānam. P. sans-rgyas dkon-mchog-la yon-tan dan ñes-pa thams-cad phul-du phyin-pa dan / bsal-ba'i mthar-thug-pa'i gnas-su yons-su šes-pa'o. Cf. p. 189.22: sarvagunadoşaprakarşāpakarşanişthādhişthānatvād buddhasya, P.:yon-tan dan ñes-pa thamscad phul-du phyin-pa dan bsal (P. brtsal)-ba'i mthar-phyin-pas-na sans-rgyas-su grub-pa ste. Read: sarvaguņadoşaprakarşāpakarsanişthādhişthānatvena buddharatne parijñānam. R. P. prakarşeņā'panītasarvaguņadoşasya paryantāśrayatvena buddharatne parijñānam.
P. 79.16: kujano hi pratipattiyuktam api bodhisattvopamitam na jānīte. P.: skye-bo nan-pa ni sgrub-pa dan-ldan-pa'i byan-chub sems-dpa' la 'di'o zes mi ses-pa'o. Read: kujano hi pratipattiyuktam api bodhisattvo 'yam iti na jānīte. R. P. has the same text as Yamaguchi.
P. 80.1: sarvatragadharmadhātubodha pratibaddhasya. Read: -pratibandhasya. P.: chos-kyi dbyins thams-cad-du 'gro-bar khondu chud-par bya-ba'i bgegs-su gyur-pa. R. P. has the same text as Yamaguchi.
P. 85.12: bodheḥ sthitiviyātam kurvantīti. P.: byan-chub-kyi gnas-pa-la gnod-pa byed-pa'i phyir. Read: bodheḥ sthitivighātam kurvantīti. R. P.: bodheḥ sthitim kurvantīti.
P. 89.17: tatra sādhāraṇam bodhipakşāḥ śrāvakabodhisattvayor avišeşeņa tatrāvikārāt. P.: der gtogs-pas ñan-thos dan byan-chub sems-dpa' gñi-ga'i bya-ba bye-brag med-pa'i phyir de-la byan-chubkyi phyogs ni thun-mon-ba'o. Read: tatrādhikārāt. In the Tibetan translation of the Triņķikā gtogs-pa is used to translate adhikāra (ed. Sylvain Lévi p. 29.18), cf. Nagasawa Jitsudo, 'Bonzõkan taisho Yuishiki sanjūjushaku goi', Taisho daigaku kenkyū kiyo, 40 (1955), p. 17. R. P. has the same text as Yamaguchi.
P. 91.22: a pari pūrnena cchandaviryacittamīmāmsānām anyatamavaikalyād [vikala ]bhāvanayā ca prahānasamskāravaikalyād iti. P.:

Page #5

THE SECOND CHAPTER OF THE MADHYĀNTAVIBHĀGAȚIKĀ
115
'dun-pa dan brtson-'grus dan sems dan / dpyod-pa rnams las ganyan run-ba zig ma-tshan-ba yons-su rdzogs-pa dan / spon-ba'i 'du-byed bsgom-pa ma-tshan-bas zes-bya-ba. This passage is a quotation from the bhāsya, cf. Nagao's edition p. 33.10: paripūryā ca cchandaviryacittamīmānsānām anyatamavaikalyāt / bhāvanayā ca prahānasamskāravaikalyāt. The Tibetan translation of the bhāsya has: 'dun-pa dan / brtson-'grus dan sems dan / dpyod-rnams las gan-yan run-ba zig ma-tshan-bas yońs-su rdzogs-pa dan / spon-ba'i du-byed bsgom-pa ma-tshan-bas (Yamaguchi's edition, p. 35.7). Sthiramati's tikā explains that samādhi can have two deficiencies (p. 91.21: samādher dvayahinatā āvaraṇam uktam): 1. Lack of completeness because of the absence of chanda, virya, citta or mīmāmsā (p. 92.1: tatra paripūrihinatā tāsām chandaviryacittamīmāmsānām anyatamavaikalyāt). 2. Absence of bhāvanā because
of the absence of one of the eight prahāṇasaņskāra (p. 92.2: bhāvanā · hiyata ity aşta prahānasamskārāņām anyatamavai kalyāt). R. P. reads
aparipūryā instead of paripūryā. The edition of the Madhyāntavibhāgabhäsya by Nathmal Tatia and Anantalal Thakur has apāripūryā. The instrumentals paripūryā and bhāvanayā depend on the preceding word in the bhāsya: dvayahinatā. In his edition Nagao adds a danda between-hinatā and paripūryā. This daņda is not to be found in the manuscript and has to be omitted.14
P. 95.16: upaśāntyā gaurava utpadyamāne sattvāḥ samjalparddhya prayatnena śāsanam pratipadyante. P.: ñe-bar zi-bas gus-pa skyeste sems-can kun-brjod-pa dan rdzu-'phrul-gyis (P. gyi) bsgrim midgos-par bstan-pa rtogs-par byed-do. Tibetan kun-brjod-pa translates ādesanā, cf. Abhidharmakośabhāsya (ed. P. Pradhan), p. 424.10; rddhicetahparyāyāsravakṣayābhijñās trīņi prātihāryāņi yathākramam rddhyādesanānusāsanaprātihāryāņi. Read : ādeśanayārddhyā cāyatnena ? MS. ... rādyāvāyatnena. R. P.: sañjalparddhyā'prayatnena.
P. 96.22: yathābhūtaśrutārthavicāraņā. P.: thos-pa'i don-la sgra
14 In an article in Japanese, 'Some Problems in the Madhyāntavibhāgabhāşya', Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies, XXII (1974), pp. 402-406, which came to my notice after having written these notes, Funahashi Naoya discusses this passage. I am glad to see that he has arrived at the same solution. Funahashi has also written two articles on the bhāsya in Japanese: 'Some Problems in the Madhyāntavibhāga-bhāşya - with special reference to the three chapters: laksana-pariccheda, āvarana-pariccheda and tattvapariccheda', Otani Gakuhö, LII, 3 (1973), pp. 50-66; Japanese translation and study of the Madhyāntavibhāga-bhāşya (ävarana-pariccheda)', Bukkyo. gaku Seminā, vols. 18-19. I have not yet been able to see the second article.

Page #6

116
J. W. DE JONG
ji-bźin-du spyod-pa. Yamaguchi indicates that yathābhūtaśrutārtha is quoted from the bhāṣya, cf. Nagao's edition p. 34.17: ayathārutaśrutārthavabodhāt. Read: yatharutaśrutārthavicāraņā. R. P. has the same text as Yamaguchi.
P. 101.9: visiṣṭārthaprārthanayā sutarām ātmamātrīkaraṇāt. P.: khyad-par-du 'phags-pa'i don-la smos-pas bdag śin-tu snod-du byed-pa'i phyir-ro. Read: ātmapātrikaraṇāt. R. P. has the same text as Yamaguchi.
P. 102.11: śrutārtham sarvakleśasahanadibhir apy abhedyat. P.: thos-pa'i ched-du ñon-mons-pa thams-cad la yan mi 'byid-pa'i phyir-ro. Yamaguchi adds in a note that sahana is not rendered into Tibetan. His restoration is clearly based upon a misreading: mi'byed-pa'i instead of mi-'byid-pa'i. The Tibetan translation has translated sarvakleśasahanāt rather freely: "because he does not slip in all impurities". Read: sarvakleśasahanād iti. R. P.: sarvakleśasahanadibhir apy abhedyatvāt.
P. 107.3: samadhisamapattyadikam uttarottarabhumivisistam sarvākāram nānāvasānam phalam. P.: tin-ne-'dzin brgya-la sñomspar 'jug-pa la sogs-pa sa gon-nas gon-du khyad-du 'phags-pa mchogrnams-kyi ye-ses-kyi mthar-thug-pa'i 'bras-bu. Read: sarvākārajñānāvasānam. R. P. has the same text as Yamaguchi.
It would certainly be possible to propose a different text for other passages restored by Yamaguchi, but there is not much to be gained by correcting Yamaguchi's restorations unless they can be shown to be wrong or improved by making use of parallel passages. From the examples given above it is obvious that Ramchandra Pandeya has not made any contribution towards the establishment of a more correct Sanskrit text on the basis of the Tibetan translation. In his introduction he accuses Yamaguchi of having failed to read the MS. correctly and of possessing insufficient familiarity with the complicated grammar of Sanskrit.15 Elsewhere in his preface he states that "many scholars, like Yamaguchi, have committed serious mistakes because of their preference for Tibetan or Chinese versions over original Sanskrit". Pandeya adds that "when the original Sanskrit is available, not much reliance should be placed on Tibetan
15 Pandeya does not seem to have had access to the manuscript used by Yamaguchi. For a well-founded opinion of Pandeya's carefulness in reading manuscripts see Wezler's remarks in his article: 'Some Observations on the Yuktidipika', Supplement II. XVIII. Deutscher Orientalistentag. Vorträge herausgegeben von Wolfgang Voigt. Wiesbaden, 1974, pp. 434-455.

Page #7
THE SECOND CHAPTER OF THE MADHYANTAVIBHAGATIKA 117 or Chinese translations", but he seems to be unaware of the fact that a single manuscript (in this case a recent copy of a manuscript) does not represent the original Sanskrit text and that its value can only be judged with the help of Tibetan and Chinese translations. If Pandeya had carefully studied the Tibetan translation of Sthiramati's tika, his edition would have been welcome. In the study of Buddhist Sanskrit texts the Tibetan translations cannot be neglected without harmful consequences.