Reviews Of Different Books

Author(s): J W De Jong
Publisher: J W De Jong
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269283/1

Page #1

REVIEWS
297
Ludwig Alsdorf, Kleine Schriften. Herausgegeben von Albrecht Wezler (= Glasenapp-Stiftung, Band 10). Wiesbaden, Franz Steiner Verlag GmbH, 1974. XXII + 762 pp. Ln. DM 88,
Since 1967 the Glasenapp-Stiftung has published the Kleine Schriften of Oldenberg, Kielhorn', Jacobi, Thieme, Geiger and Lüders. On the occasion of his seventieth birthday the GlasenappStiftung has brought a very comprehensive selection of Alsdorf's articles together. The great variety of his scholarly interests is evident from the bibliography which is divided into thirteen sections: A. Veda-Exegese; B. Jainismus; C. Buddhismus; D. Asoka- und andere inschriften: E. Sonstige Beiträge zur Mittelindischen Philologie; F. Literatur., Kultur- und Kunstgeschichte; G. Geschichte; H. Einheimische Wissenschaften; 1. Neuindoarischen Sprachen; J. Modernes Indien: K. Geschichte der Indologie; L. Reiseberichte; M. Verschiedenes. All articles, listed in sections A, B, C, D, E, F and H, have been reprinted in this volume. The section on the Asokan inscriptions includes also his contribution on the edicts of Dhauli and Jaugada which was published in the Abhandlungen of the Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur in Mainz in 1962. Of the many reviews written by Alsdorf, only three have been reprinted in this volume.
As the editor, Albrecht Wezler, remarks in his preface, Alsdorf's principal publications deal with Middle-Indian languages and literatures. One of his main interests is the ancient narrative literature of the Jains and the Buddhists. He was the first to point out the importance of the Vasudevahindi which he considered to be the oldest non-canonical Jain prose work (p. 111). In several publications Alsdorf examined passages of this work which represents the oldest Jain version of the BỊhatkathā. In a paper, contributed to the 19th Congress of Orientalists, Alsdorf announced a study of the Brhatkathā problem on the basis of the Vasudevahindi together with a translation of selected passages (p. 106). Let us hope that freedom from official duties will make it possible for him to prepare his manuscript for publication. The Vasudevahindi bristles with difficulties and no one is better qualified to deal with them than Alsdorf.
The Vasudevahindi is only one of the many texts which have been subjected to a penetrating analysis by Alsdorf. Due to his great knowledge of Prākrit, Pāli and Apabhramsa, combined with an almost uncanny ability to discover and to correct metrical irregularities, many textual problems which eluded previous scholars have been brilliantly solved by him. It is only with the publication of this volume that we are able to see how much work has been done by Alsdorf in the field of textual criticism.
The indices, added to this volume, are not very comprehensive. The Index of words occupies only two pages. The index locorum is more detailed (6 pages), but the index of topics and names is also rather meagre (3 pages). For instance, it does not contain a reference to Homer, although Alsdorf in an interesting excursus to his article on the Vidhurapandita-jataka compares the description of the Manohara jewel with Homer's famous description of the shield of Achilles and raises in this connection the problem of an Indian translation of Homer (pp. 394-396).
The Glasenapp-Stiftung and the Franz Steiner Verlag deserve the gratitude of Indologists for the publication of this beautiful volume which contains a large part of the euvre of one of the leading Indologists of our times.
Canberra
J. W. DE JONG
! In IIJ, XI, p. 35, due to a regrettable oversight Kielhorn is said to have died in 1912 instead of 1908.

Page #2

298
REVIEWS
Raniero Gnoli (tr.), Luce delle Sacre Scritture (Tantrāloka) di Abhinavagupta (= Classici delle religione N. 25). Torino, Edizione U.T.E.T., 1972, 900 pp. L. 15.000.
Le Sivaïsme kashmirien a atteint son apogée dans l'euvre d'Abhinavagupta qui vécut du milieu du Xe siècle jusqu'au début du XIe siècle. Poéticien, philosophe et mystique, Abhinavagupta est l'auteur d'un grand nombre d'ouvrages. K. C. Pandey, auteur d'un ouvrage volumineux sur Abhinavagupta' et, à sa suite, d'autres savants ont divisé son activité en trois périodes: une période tantrique ou mystique, une période esthétique et une période philosophique. M. Raniero Gnoli, qui publia, il y a déjà presque vingt ans, un livre sur les théories esthétiques d'Abhinavagupta?, s'inscrit en faux contre cette tentative qu'il qualifie d'arbitraire. La longue introduction qui précède sa traduction du Tantrāloka fait ressortir clairement l'unité de la pensée d'Abhinavagupta. C'est certes un préjugé occidental que de vouloir séparer chrono logiquement des ouvrages qui traitent de sujets différents. En ce qui concerne Abhinavagupta, comme c'est le cas pour presque tous les penseurs indiens, il n'y a pas d'indications qui permettraient d'utiliser ses travaux pour tracer le développement de sa pensée. . .
Parmi les ouvrages de caractère tantrique ou religieux le plus important est sans doute le Tantraloka, ouvrage en trente-sept chapitres, qui, accompagné d'un commentaire de Jayaratha, auteur du XIIIe siècle, fut publié en douze volumes de 1918 à 1938 dans The Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies. Comme le relève M. Gnoli, le Tantrāloka n'est pas un ouvrage philosophique mais un manuel de mystique qui s'inspire de la tradition tantrique telle qu'elle est consignée dans des tantras anonymes. Le Tantrāloka est un ouvrage difficile mais M. Gnoli en facilite l'accès par son excellente introduction dans laquelle il esquisse l'histoire du Sivaïsme kashmirien et présente de manière très lucide les idées maîtresses de la pensée d'Abhinavagupta.
Ce sont ces mêmes qualités de clarté et de précision que l'on retrouve dans la traduction. Le Tantraloka traite d'un grand nombre de sujets, mais les notes qui accompagnent la traduction fournissent les renseignements dont le lecteur a besoin. M. Gnoli y cite aussi le commentaire de Jayaratha dont il ne partage pas toujours les opinions. Parmi les textes, cités par Abhinavagupta, l'ouvrage principal est le Mālinīvijayatantra dont M. Gnoli a traduit les chapitres I-IX et XI (cf. premier appendice, pp. 783-837).' Les autres appendices contiennent des passages de plusieurs textes et surtout de longs extraits du Parātrīśikāvivarana (pp. 165.3-192.7; pp. 45.1051.13: pp. 133.14-143.15 (appendices III-V, pp. 839-867). Le dernier appendice énumère les textes et les auteurs cités dans le Tantrāloka. Il n'y a pas d'index mais Abhinavagupta lui-même a résumé les arguments, traités dans les trente-deux premiers chapitres, dans les stances 287-328 du premier chapitre. M. Gnoli a utilisé ce sommaire pour indiquer le contenu des sections dans • lesquelles les chapitres se divisent.
Dans une note bibliographique M. Gnoli énumère les ouvrages d'Abhinavagupta, les traductions en langues occidentales, les travaux sur Abhinavagupta et le Śivaïsme kashmirien et," finalement, les traductions et commentaires d'autres textes du Sivaïsme kashmirien. Nous y apprenons que M. Gnoli a déjà publié en italien des traductions de deux autres ouvrages d'Abhinavagupta: le Tantrasāra qui se présente comme un résumé du Tantrāloka et la Parātrimsikālaghuvịtti (Torino, 1960 et 1965). M. Gnoli a également traduit d'autres textes du Sivaïsme kashmirien dans un volume intitulé Testi dello Sivaismo (Torino, 1962). Aucun autre
1 K. C. Pandey, Abhinavagupta, an Historical and Philosophical Study. Benares, 1935. Second revised edition, 1963 (cf. le compte rendu de Renou, JA, 1963, pp. 400-402). 2 The Aesthetic Experience according to Abhinavagupta, Rome, 1956. Second revised editon, Benares, 1968. 3 P. 833: corriger Capitolo X en Capitolo XI. 4 P. 61 lire L. D. Barnett pour L. D. Burnett. P. 62 la Somasambhupaddati a été traduite par Mme Hélène Brunner-Lachaux en français et non en anglais. Le deuxième volume a paru en 1968.

Page #3

REVIEWS
299
savant occidental n'a consacré autant d'efforts à la traduction et à l'étude de l'ouvre d'Abhinavagupta. Abhinavagupta se sert d'un vocabulaire qui lui est propre. Au cours de ses travaux M. Gnoli doit sans doute avoir accumulé beaucoup de matériaux à cet égard et il rendrait de grands services aux études indiennes s'il voulait bien un jour compiler un lexique des termes employés par Abhinavagupta dans le Tantraloka et autres ouvrages.
Quelques petites remarques pour terminer. Dans l'introduction M. Gnoli parle de kāla comme 'le mesureur' (il misuratore). Faute d'index il n'est pas possible de savoir si Abhinavagupta a qualifié le temps de mesureur mais dans le premier chapitre du Mālanīvijayatantra nous trouvons la stance suivante:
(1.29)
niyatir yojayaty enam svake karmani pudgalam kalo'pi kalayaty enam tutyadibhir avasthitaḥ
M. Gnoli traduit: "L'anima (pudgala) è poi dalle necessità fissata su di una determinata cerchia di azioni. Il tempo, il quale si presenta in forma di tuti [le huitième d'une seconde), etc., infine la limita e misura." Le pāda kālo'pi kalayaty enam rappelle une stance célèbre du Mok şadharma (Mhbh. éd. de Poona, 12.220.35):
kälena tvāham ajayam kalenāham jitas tvaya gantā gatimatām kālah kālah kalayati (v.1. kālayati) prajah
Ici kalayati a sans aucun doute le sens de 'pousser' (cf. BR kal 1: treiben, antreiben). Le dictionnaire de Pétersbourg cite Bhagavadgitā 10.30b: kalah kalayatām aham que Schlegel rendait ainsi: "tempus ego numeros modulantium". La traduction de Schlegel est suivie par d'autres savants. Ne citons que Senart: "Je suis Kala (le Temps) entre tout ce qui se compte", et Zaehner: "among those who reckon I am Time". Toutefois, d'autres traducteurs préfèrent interpréter kalayati comme signifiant ici pousser'. Edgerton traduit: "I am Time of impellent forces". Dans une note il renvoie à la traduction de l'iśvaragītā par P.-E. Dumont (BaltimoreParis, 1933) où se retrouve ce même päda (cf. chap. VII.16b). Dumont traduit: "Parmi les forces qui poussent (qui pressent, qui contraignent), je suis le Temps (qui inexorablement pousse les êtres vivants vers la mort)." Il justifie sa traduction par une note dans laquelle il cite la stance du Moksadharma, mentionnée ci-dessus, et la stance suivante (éd. de Poona, 12.220.40):
tvām apy evam sudurdharsam jvalantam parayā śriya kale parinate kalah kalayisyati (v.l. kalayisyati) mām iva.
Déjà Garbe, dans sa traduction parue en 1905, proposait la même interprétation: “die Zeit unter den treibenden (Kräften)." Il ne semble faire aucun doute qu'il ne faille traduire ce pada comme l'ont fait Garbe, Dumont et Edgerton.
L'interprétation de kalayati comme 'compter peut se prévaloir de l'autorité de Samkara et de Nīlakantha qui glose kalayatām par gananam kurvatām. Probablement les commentateurs indiens suivent le Dhātupātha qui a enregistré le sens de compter pour kalayati: kala gatau samkhyāne ca (Dhātupātha, éd. Böhtlingk X, 319). Néanmoins, ce sens ne semble pas être attesté dans les textes. En tous cas, il semble difficile d'interpréter kalayati dans Mälanīvijayatantra 1.29 autrement que dans la stance du Moksadharma citée ci-dessus.
5 Il se peut que d'autres traductions, parues avant et après celle de Garbe, donnent la même interprétation. Nous n'avons consulté plus au moins au hasard que quelques traductions seulement de la Bhagavadgitā. La première traduction européenne, celle de Charles Wilkins (London, 1785), suit l'interprétation traditionnelle: "I am kal (time) amongst computations."

Page #4

300
REVIEWS
Ce n'est que très rarement que l'on soit forcé de rejeter une traduction proposée par M. Gnoli. La stance XI.23 du Mālanīvijayatantra décrit comment le maître pose devant le disciple une oblation:
carukam dāpayet paścāt kharjūrādiphalodbhavam śaktyālambanām tanum krtvā sthāpayed agrataḥ śiśoh..
M. Gnoli traduit: "Il maestro, dopo di ciò, deve far sì che egli (i.e. le disciple] offra (alle dee) il riso sacrale. Fatto quindi coi frutti del kharjūra, etc., un corpo, sostegno della potenza, deve collocarlo di fronte al discepoto." Il est de toute évidence que kharjūrādiphalodbhavam se rapporte à carukam et saktyalambanām à tanum: "Ensuite, il doit le faire donner une oblation faite des fruits de kharjūra, etc. Il doit la placer devant le disciple après avoir soutenu son corps par la puissance (de Rudra)."
La traduction du Tantrāloka par M. Gnoli est un ouvrage qui marquera une étape importante dans le domaine des études du Sivaïsme kashmirien. Nous devons lui être reconnaissants de n'avoir épargné aucun effort pour traduire cet ouvrage difficile.
The Australian National University
J. W. DE JONG
Ludwik Sternbach, Mahā-subhasita-sangraha. Volume I: ao-anve. [= Vishveshvaranand Indological Series 64). Hoshiarpur, Vishveshvaranand Vedic Research Institute, Hoshiarpur, 1974. clxii + 424 pp. Rs. 100/-.
The first volume of Sternbach's Mahāsubhāṣitasamgraha contains 1873 subhāṣitas. The entire work will consist of some twenty volumes plus additional volumes. The only comparable work in a Western language is Böhtlingk's Indische Sprüche, first published from 1863 to 1865. The second edition (1870-1873; reprint 1966) contains 7613 subhasitas and 388 in the section , corresponding to Sternbach's first volume. In his introduction (pp. lxv-clxii) Sternbach gives a survey of the subhasita literature in India and in Greater India and points out its importance. In his work Sternbach has included all subhasitas found in the Subhasitasamgrahas and a selection of subhāsitas taken from other Sanskrit texts. He has divided the subhasitas into three groups: 1. wise sayings; 2. quotations from literary works; 3. subhāsitas which do not belong to these two groups but which are found in Subhasitasamgrahas. The sources are likewise divided into three categories: primary sources, secondary sources and sources from Greater India. Each subhasita has a serial number. The text is followed by an indication of the sources, variant readings and the name of the metre if it is not a sloka or a anustubh. Sternbach's original plan did not include an English translation but at the insistence of the publisher translations have been given for each verse. Sternbach has made use of existing translations. Some verses have been translated by himself and the remaining verses were translated by A. A. Ramanathan of the Adyar Library and Research Centre.
The first volume includes a list of abbreviations, an index of authors and sources of subhāsitas, an index of metres other than slokas or anustubhs and a subject index. Each volume will contain these four indices and on completion of the entire work a collective subject-index will be published.
The scope of Sternbach's enterprise is awe-inspiring. One must admire the untiring energy with which he has collected such a great amount of material. Sternbach's Mahāsubhasitasamgraha will be of fundamental importance for the study of the subhāsitas. If one compares

Page #5

REVIEWS
301
his work with that of Böhtlingk, it is obvious that the purposes of the two collections are entirely different. Böhtlingk's Indische Sprüche was a by-product of the Petersburg dictionary. Böhtlingk spared no efforts to establish a correct text and did not hesitate to make conjectures. With regard to the translations he tried to be as faithful as possible to the original text and at the same time to avoid renderings which would be difficult to understand for a reader who does not know Sanskrit. Böhtlingk's Indische Sprüche has rendered very useful services for the Petersburg dictionary, the last four volumes of which quote quite profusely from it.
Sternbach's main purpose has been to be as comprehensive as possible. According to his preface his edition of the text is critical. However, he has refrained from correcting wrong readings if there was not sufficient source material. In this respect, Sternbach is of course in a much more favourable position than Böhtlingk who had at his disposal far less material. Without conjectures it would in many cases have been impossible for him to produce an acceptable text. When more sources become available it becomes less necessary to take refuge in conjectures. However, even with the much greater amount of material at present available, conjectures can not be completely avoided. Sternbach has not always established a very satisfactory text even when this would have been quite possible. This would probably have become obvious to him if he would have translated himself all the subhasitas or if he would at least have critically examined the existing translations which he has utilized. Subhāsitas are not always easy to interpret because without a context a verse is more difficult to understand, especially when it is composed in a very ornate and intricate style. Böhtlingk realized the importance of translations and in the second edition he made many corrections, some of which are based upon critical remarks made by other scholars.
The translations contributed by A. A. Ramanathan, are in general pedestrian but correct. The same cannot be said of the translations taken from existing translations. Quite often these translations are based upon a text different from the one edited by Sternbach. Let us quote only a few examples:
No. 408: vāri bhojanānte visāpaham. Translation:'(water) is like poison when taken after a meal'. This translation is clearly based upon the reading visapradam.
No. 534: parapidā ca yā vrttir. Translation: 'a living with too much trouble in it'. The translation here must be based upon the reading atipīdā.
No. 605: nābhimanyet kathamcana. Translation: 'one should never in arrogance deem oneself superior to another', which is based upon the reading nābhimanyeta kamcana.
No. 1000 ma tvā kālo 'tyagād ayam. Translation: 'Let not this Death come to you', based upon the reading mā tvā kālo 'bhyagad ayam (?).
- No. 1292: akrcchrāt sukham apnoti. Translation: 'he will never come into great misery', implying the reading na krcchram mahad āpnoti.
No. 1611: antakah samano mrtyuh. Translation: 'Devastating wind, death'. The translation is based upon the reading antakah (?) pavano mrtyuh (cf. Indische Sprüche no. 338).
For the verses of the Mahabhārata Sternbach usually quotes Roy's translations, although they are often far from correct. It is instructive to compare the translations of the two following verses by Böhtlingk and by Roy:
anubandham ca sampreksya vipākam (Sternbach: vipākāms caiva karmanām / utthānam ātmanas caiva dhirah kurvīta vā na vā // (No. 1475)
Böhtlingk: 'Der Kluge erwäge, bevor er Etwas thut oder unterlässt, die Folgen und Früchte der Handlungen, so wie auch die eigene Anstrengung' (Indische Sprüche no. 318). Roy: 'He that is wise should either do an act or desist from it fully considering his own ability, the nature of the act, and the consequences also of success'.
anubandhān apekṣeta (Sternbach: avekseta) sānubandheșu karmasu / sampradhārya ca kurvīta na vegena samācaret // (No. 1476)

Page #6

302
REVIEWS
Böhtlingk: 'Bei Handlungen, die mit Folgen verknüpft sind, berücksichtige man die Folgen, schreite nach reiflicher Erwägung zur That und gehe nicht mit Uebereilung an's Werk' (no. 319). Roy: 'Before one engageth in an act, one should consider the competence of the agent, the nature of the act itself, and its purpose, for all acts are dependent on these. Considering these one should begin an act, and not take it on a sudden impulse'.
Sternbach's own translations are often far from adequate. For instance in no. 1286 he translates anavasthitacittānām prasado'pi bhayamkaraḥ with 'Even the brightness of men who are of unstable character brings danger'. Prasada means here of course 'favour', cf. Indische Sprüche no. 259: 'Bei Menschen unbeständigen Sinnes bringt sogar ihre Gunst Gefahr'. In no. 1307 Sternbach translates anāgatavighätäram with 'one whom reversal is due to befall in future' although in the preceding verse he correctly renders the same expression with 'one that provides for the future'. In some cases it seems doubtful that Sternbach translates the text edited by him. For instance:
anayavyayakarta ca anathaḥ kalahapriyaḥ/
āturaḥ sarvabhakși ca naraḥ sighram vinasyati // (No. 1332).
Translation: 'A lavish spender who is quarrelling undistinctly (!), who runs after all kinds of women will soon perish'. Not less surprising is Sternbach's rendering of no. 1348, a variant of no. 1332:
analokya vyayam kartta anathah kalahapriyah / aturaḥ sarvakṣetresu narah sighram vinasyati //
Translation: "The man who is prodigal, who is quarrelling undistinctly who runs after all kinds of women will soon perish'.
In several instances it would have been easy for the editor to establish a correct text if he had taken more trouble to compare text and translation. For instance no. 1318:
Canberra
anadar paro vidvän ihamanaḥ sthiram śriyam/ agneḥ seṣam rnaccheṣam satroḥ śesam na seṣayet //
Translation: 'A wise man who is solicitous about his property, will not suffer to exist any remnant of fire, of debt, or of an enemy' (J. Taylor's translation). The translation is based upon the reading atyādaraparo which is noted by Sternbach in his apparatus and which has been adopted by Böhtlingk (no. 172). It is obvious that anādaraparo is an impossible reading.
In no. 581 Sternbach translates: 'One should abandon that wife, even if a mother of ten children,... who causes scandals, etc.' but the text has: akrośabījām [probably a misprint for. akrośabījam]... tyajeta bharyam dasaputrasur api, although the apparatus mentions a variant dasaputrasum api.
A Mahāsubhāṣitasamgraha can only be a work of lasting value if it is compiled with great care. As the above mentioned examples selected more or less at random clearly show, both with regard to the establishment of the text and to the translation, this first volume does not come up to the standard which may reasonably be expected from a work of this kind. We can only hope that future volumes will be prepared with more care.
J. W. DE JONG

Page #7

REVIEWS
303
Volker Moeller, Symbolik des Hinduismus und des Jainismus. Tafelband (= Symbolik der Religionen, herausgegeben von Ferdinand Herrmann, Band XIX). Stuttgart, Anton Hiersemann, 1974. 172 pp., 121 pl. DM 74,
In 1959 Willibald Kirfel (1885-1964) published as volume four of this series a study on the Symbolik des Hinduismus und des Jainismus (cf. T'oung Pao, 47, 1959, pp. 160-162). According to the general plan of the series each text volume is followed by a volume of illustrations. In his preface Volker Moeller mentions the problem of how far images of deities can be considered as an expression of the divine. Kirfel had not hesitated to give a large place to the Hindu pantheon. With a reference to Gandhi, Moeller defends the inclusion of images in this volume. Moreover, their presence was required in order to illustrate Kirfel's descriptions of Indian gods.
The value of Kirfel's work is to some degree diminished by the fact that he did not refrain from putting forward some rather idiosyncratic theories which are far from being generally accepted. Moeller's work is free from personal bias and constitutes a reliable guide to the symbolism of Hinduism and Jainism. He has taken many illustrations from objects in the Museum für indische Kunst in Berlin. Moeller has clearly tried to avoid reproducing illustrations which are too well known. Each illustration is accompanied by a brief description which provides the necessary information. Particularly welcome are the sketch of the sacrificial ground according to the Srauta ritual (pl. 2) and the map of the holy places of the Jains (pl. 121) which is followed by a detailed explanation and by a bibliography.
Moeller's book contains a good bibliography which is much more comprehensive than the one found in Kirfel's book. As to Bosch's De Gouden Kiem (Amsterdam-Brussel, 1948), no mention is made of the English translation which has been thoroughly revised by the author: The Golden Germ. An Introduction to Indian Symbolism ('s-Gravenhage, 1960). A detailed analysis of Bosch's book has been given by Odette Viennot in a lengthy review: IIJ, 5, 1961, pp. 67-78. Moeller has added a detailed index (pp. 157-172) which greatly enhances the usefulness of this publication. Moeller's book which has been beautifully produced will undoubtedly be greatly appreciated by all those who are interested in Indian religions.
Canberra
J. W. DE JONG
Esther A. Solomon (ed.), Samkhya-Saptati-Vrtti (V). Ahmedabad, Gujarat University, 1973. '11 + 173 pp. Rs.6.00. Esther A. Solomon (ed.), Samkhya-Vịtti (V). Ahmedabad, Gujarat University, 1973,9 +111 pp. Rs. 5.00.
These two commentaries on the Sāmkhyakārikā, edited by Dr. Esther Solomon, were mentioned for the first time by Pulinbihari Chakravarti in the preface to his Origin and Development of the Samkhya System of Thought (Calcutta, 1952, pp. II-III). The edition of V, is based upon a complete palm-leaf manuscript in the Jesalmere Grantha Bhandāra copied in the first half of the twelfth century. According to the editor Mathara's Vịtti (M) is only a revised and enlarged version of V.. Three appendices list: 1. Passages found in V., but not in M; 2. Passages found in M but not in V,; 3. Noteworthy differences in expression in V, and M in certain passages. The purpose of these appendices is to show the conscious improvement in Māthara's Vịtti as compared to V. Moreover, the editor has compared in the notes several passages in V, and M and also in other commentaries. For a discussion of the authorship and the date of V, the editor refers to her forthcoming study The Commentaries of the Samkhya Karikā - A Study.

Page #8

304
REVIEWS
The edition of V, is also based upon a palm-teaf manuscript in the Jesalmere Grantha Bhandāra. It was copied in samvat 1176 and comprises 89 leaves of which leaves 57, 58, 60-63, 66-74 and 76-79 are missing. According to the editor this commentary is the earliest of the extant commentaries on the Samkhyakārika and the authors of V, Yuktidipikā and Gaudapădabhāsya, are indebted to it. Moreover, it has the fairest claim to be regarded as the original on which Paramartha's version is based. The editor adds that the kārikā text in V, seems to be the original one, and the later variants, if any, are at times based upon the expressions in V, in the course of the exposition of the kärikā concerned, or are a result of attempts to improve upon the text as found in V. Esther Solomon believes that Isvarakrsna himself might have been the author of Vz
The publication of two unknown commentaries on the SK (Sāmkhyakārikā) is to be highly welcomed even if the claims made for them by the editor might prove to be incorrect. The first editor of V2, Naomichi Nakada, drew attention to the fact that both V, and the Yuktidīpikā mention seven sources of knowledge which are included in aptavacana, whereas the Suvarnasaptati, translated by Paramartha, mentions only six sources of knowledge. V, and the Yuktidīpikā add cestā.' According to Nakada this seems to indicate that V, is later than the Suvarnasaptati. Moreover, Nakada pointed out that parallel passages to V, are to be found in the prakstiparīksā of the Tattvasamgrahapañjikā. Recently, Nakada published a Japanese translation of the pūrvapaksa of the prakrtipariksā and in the introduction and the notes he points out the correspondences in wording between V, and the prakrtipariksa.Nakada arrives here at the conclusion that V, was probably written shortly before the time of Kamalaśīla, the author of the Pañjikā and pupil of Säntaraksita (according to Nakamura Säntaraksita lived in the period 680-740). It is a pity that Esther Solomon has not been able to consult Nakada's edition, for although his edition is not based upon a photocopy of the manuscript but upon a transcript, he has carefully studied the commentaries on the SK in order to establish better readings.
The publication of Esther Solomon's forthcoming Study and Wezler's announced critical edition of the Yuktidipika' will be eagerly awaited. Without doubt, these two works will shed much new light on the mutual relationship between the different commentaries on the SK and on the history of the Sāmkhya school.
Australian National University
J. W. DE JONG
Jean Filliozat, Laghu-prabandhāḥ. Choix d'articles d'Indologie. Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1974. XXV + 508 pp. DGid. 75,--
Ces dix dernières années les publications des opera minora des indianistes se sont multipliées. En Allemagne ont paru ceux de Waldschmidt, Oldenberg, Kielhorn, Jacobi, Thieme, Geiger, Lüders
1 Samkhyavrttih. Edited by Naomichi Nakada under the guidance of V. V. Gokhale. 9+88+ 88 pp. Cyclostyled edition. The introduction is dated 16th December 1965. 2 'Shinriköyö oyobi sono chushakusho ni arawareta Sänkiya gakuha no konponshitsuryõin ni tsuite (wayaku narabini Sānkiya-buritti tono hikaku)' (English title: 'On a Primary Material Cause of Sārkhya Philosophy as Expounded in the Tattvasangraha and the Tattvasangrahapanjikā (Prakrtiparīksā) - Japanese Translation and Notes, Introduction Discussing the Relationship between Sāṁkhyavrtti and the Tattvasangrahapañjikā -1, Tsurumi daigaku kiyo, Dai 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 go - Hoiku-hoken shika hen (1974), pp. 161-188. 3 Cf. A. Wezler, 'Some observations on the Yuktidīpikā', Suppl. II. XVIII. Deutscher Orientalistentag (Wiesbaden, 1974), pp. 434-455.

Page #9

REVIEWS
305
et Alsdorf; en Italie, ceux de Tucci. Il faut mentionner aussi le Choix d'études bouddhiques par Paul Demiéville bien-qu'il soit en premier lieu sinologue. Cette fois-ci la maison Brill publie un choix des articles de M. Jean Filliozat. Le volume contient une bibliographie de ses ouvrages et articles. Les derniers sont groupés dans les catégories suivantes: histoire - épigraphie; histoire des religions; philosophie, psychologie, Yoga; histoire des sciences; histoire de l'astronomie; histoire de la médecine; archéologie; relations extérieures de l'Inde; langues, littératures; textes tamouls, résumés de cours; paléographie - manuscrits; sociologie et ethnologie; histoire des méthodes des études indiennes. Déjà cette énumération montre l'étonnante diversité de l'œuvre de l'auteur. La bibliographie qui occupe quinze pages n'inclut pas les comptes rendus sauf un, celui des travaux de Franklin Edgerton sur le sanskrit bouddhique hybride paru dans le t'oung Pao (vol. 43, 1954, pp. 147-171). Toutefois elle n'est pas complète. Par exemple, y font défaut 'Le Kumāratantra de Rāvana' (JA, 1935, I, pp. 1-66) et 'La civilisation tamoule dans l'Inde du Sud' (France-Asie, no. 99, 1954, pp. 5-19).
Le choix a été déterminé par le désir de réunir, parmi les articles les plus importants et les plus originaux, ceux qui étaient devenus d'accès plus difficile. Le livre s'ouvre sur un article intitulé 'La naissance et l'essor de l'Indianisme'. Les articles suivants, au nombre de trente-cinq, se répartissent en cinq catégories: histoire des religions et de la pensée; histoire des sciences; paléographie - bibliographie, études tamoules; relations extérieures de l'Inde. Le choix fait par les membres du comité de rédaction est représentatif de l'euvre de M. Filliozat et permet de se rendre compte de sa contribution aux études indiennes. Il n'est pas possible d'énumérer tous les titres des articles réunis dans ce volume. Néanmoins, il faut relever le fait que M. Filliozat a contribué à élargir le champs des études indiennes par ses travaux sur les sciences indiennes - sa formation de scientifique lui permet d'en parler avec autorité - et par l'intérêt qu'il porte aux études tamoules et au rôle que la civilisation tamoule a joué dans l'histoire de l'Inde. Ajoutons qu'en sa qualité de directeur de l'Institut français d'indologie de Pondichéry M. Filliozat s'est efforcé avec succès de développer les études indiennes comme en fait preuve la longue série des publications parues à Pondichéry.
Qu'il nous soit permis d'exprimer le veu que les indianistes français prendront l'initiative de publier les opera minora d'autres savants. Dans ce domaine il reste encore beaucoup à faire, car, à part les auvres de Barth (5 vols., Paris, 1914-1927) et le Mémorial Sylvain Lévi (Paris, 1937), il n'y a rien à signaler. Le Mémorial Sylvain Lévi est loin d'être complet car, par exemple, les articles, parus dans le Journal asiatique et le Bulletin de l'Ecole d'Extrême-Orient, ne s'y trouvent pas. En ce qui concerne Senart, Finot, Bloch et Renou, pour ne mentionner que quelques savants éminents, tout reste encore à faire.
Australian National University
J. W. DE JONG
R. O. Meisezahl, Smaśānavidhi des Lūyi. Textkritik nach der tibetischen Version des Kommentars Lüyīpādābhisamayavrtti Sambarodaya nāma von Tathāgatavajra', Zentralasiatische Studien 8 (1974), 9-127.
L'étude de M. Meisezahl donne beaucoup plus qu'une critique textuelle du Smasānavidhi, car c'est une contribution importante à l'étude de la littérature et de l'iconographie des huit cimetières. En 1934 Finot avait édité et traduit un petit traité, intitulé Smaśānavidhi, en 29 stances. Grâce à la découverte d'une version tibétaine des stances 4-28 (p. 10, 1.4 corriger 38 en 28) dans un commentaire de l'ouvrage de Lūyipa par Tathāgatavajra (Tanjour de Pékin,

Page #10

306
REVIEWS
Rgyud-'grel, vol. Pa, ff. 295-297) M. Meisezahl a pu apporter plusieurs corrections au texte et à la traduction. En outre, il a consulté plusieurs autres traités relatifs aux cimetières que l'on trouve dans le Tanjour tibétain. Tous les problèmes ne sont pas encore résolus, car le manuscrit fourmille de leçons corrompues. La première stance est écrite dans le métre Sragdharā. Dans la quatrième ligne M. Meisezahl lit: savyaih kartitriśūlaparasudamarukam bibhratam sambarākhyam. Une note indique que le MS porte karttrio, leçon qui paraît préférable à kartio. En lisant karttrītriśülam parasudamarukam l'irrégularité métrique disparaît. Dans 2d māya est sans doute une faute d'impression pour maya. Dans 7d au lieu de krtañjaliśirā natah il faut lire krtāñjalih śironatah. La confusion de o et ā est fréquente dans les manuscrits. Dans 14b il vaut mieux lire laksmyām vane dans la forêt Lakşmi' que lakṣmya vane. Dans c le MS. a rakto 'gringundakapāli et la version tibétaine: sku-mdog dmar-po thod-pa 'dzin.' M. Meisezaht cite d'autres textes qui mentionnent une cuiller ou une cruche (kunda; en tibétain gunda) et il propose de lire: rakto 'srggundakapali. Peut-être faut-il lire raktāngah kundakapalī, plus proche de la version tibétaine. Si l'on accepte la suggestion de M. Meisezahl, il faut lire 'srkkundao au lieu de 'srggundao car gunda n'est pas attesté en sanskrit. Dans 150 M. Meisezahl lit murdhanjaliputībhūya (tib.: spyi-bor thal-mo sbyar gyur-nas). Note 50 dit: P. murddhao. Probablement P. est une erreur pour F. (= Finot). Il nous paraît préférable de lire: murdhny anjaliputibhūya. Dans 17b M. Meisezahl corrige la leçon du MS. dhūmrānkāñguliko en dhūmrangakuliko (tib.: dud-mdog rigs-ldan). Il vaut mieux lire: dhūmrāngah kuliko. Dans 19b le MS. a putāñjalimasasthamah.' M. Meisezahl lit: putāñjalisamādarah d'après tib.: thal-sbyar gus-dan-bcas-pa'o. La leçon, proposée par lui, n'est pas possible car samādara ne peut pas signifier 'plein de respect (sa + ādara = sādara). Je propose de lire: putāñjalih sagauravah.
Dans la stance 21 le texte sanskrit et la version tibétaine ne se recouvrent pas:
ghanās ca jayabhadrākhyāḥ śrīnando vrstisupriyah drutaghoșo'pi candah syād varsah puranacāpalau
La traduction tibétaine a:
sprin-rnams rgyal-bzan dpal-stugs dan / de-búin char dan sin-tu mthug / myur-du-dbyans-ldan gtum-pa dan / char-pa rñin-pa tsa bkrol-lo.
M. Meisezahl note que P. a stug pour stugs et mkrol pour bkrol (Co-ne Tanjour: bkrel?) .
D'après le texte sanskrit les noms des nuages sont Jayabhadra, Śrīnanda, Vrstisupriya, Drutaghosa, Canda, Varsa, Purāņa et Capala. La version tibétaine est rendue par M. Meisezahl de la façon suivante:
Die Wolken rGyal bzan (Jayabhadra), dPal stugs (Śrīghana), De bzin char (Vrstipriya), Sin tu mthug (Ghana?), Myur du dbyans ldan (Drutaghosa), gTum pa (Canda), Char pa (Varsa) und : Nin-pa (Purāna) haben sich (vom Wolkenmeer) gelöst.
Il me semble que, en apportant quelques corrections au texte tibétain, on pourrait le mettre davantage en accord avec le texte sanskrit. Dpal-sdug au lieu de Dpal-stug correspondrait assez bien à Srinanda. Je ne comprends pas comment De búin char représente Skt. Vrstipriya. Il faut certainement lire: char dan sin-tu mthun = Vrstisupriya. De-bain (Skt. tatha) ne fait pas partie du nom. Dans la stance 43c du 17e chapitre du Sambarodayatantra M. Meisezahl lit puränaś ca tathāvarsas (Tib. gan-ba dan ni de-bzin 'bebs) qu'il traduit par 'Purāņa, Tathāvarsa'. Il faut évidemment comprendre 'Purāna et aussi Varsa'. En ce qui concerne bkrol que M. Meisezahl
1 Cf. p. 10, ligne 6: 2957-197a'. Il faut certainement corriger 197 en 297. Faut-il lire 295a ou 295b? 2 M. Meisezahl transcrit le tibétain d'après le système Pelliot. 3 D'après l'édition de Finot le MS. a -sastamah et non -sasthamah comme dit M. Meisezahl dans note 71.

Page #11

REVIEWS
307
interprète comme le parfait de 'grol-ba 'sich lösen, befreien' il faut corriger tsa-bkrol en tsab-hral qui traduit sanskrit cañcala, căpalya et capala. Enfin, dans le texte sanskrit, je propose de lire jayabhadrākhyaḥ pour jayabhadrākhyāḥ.
Dans 24d le texte sanskrit a vangapuspaphalānvitāh (Tib.: me-tog 'bras-bu phun-sum-tshogs). Vanga est probablement une corruption pour bahu. Dans 26a le MS. a olamba śūlabhinnais (Tib.: gsal-sin bskyon dan mdun-gis phug). Finot avait proposé de lire olambaih ou ullambaih. M. Meisezahl préfère ullambaih parce que cette leçon est plus proche du Tib. gsal-sin bskyon qui, d'après lui, rend Skt. śūlollambanaih. M. Meisezahl fait remarquer: "Vermutlich liegt hier die aus metrischen Gründen gebotene Kürzung ullambaih vor". Il traduit ullambaih avec 'Mit (Menschen), die auf einem Pfahl aufgespiesst sind'. On ne peut pas séparer olamba ou ullamba du mot ālamba (alambha dans l'édition de M. Meisezahl) que l'on trouve dans Sambarodayatantra XVII, 45: kankālaśūlabhinnālambhärdhadagdhasirah. M. S. Tsuda lit kankālaśūlabhinnalambao Selon son apparatus trois manuscrits ont bhinnoo et quatre bhinnā° et il aurait dû lire
bhinnālambao. La version tibétaine du Sambarodayatantra rend alamba avec 'phyan 'pendant'. Le traducteur tibétain du Śmaśānavidhi, en rendant olambaih ou ullambaih avec gsal-sin skyon 'empalé', s'est écarté du texte sanskrit. Il a probablement choisi une expression de trois syllabes pour pouvoir remplir le pāda. En tout cas, ullamba ou olamba ne peut pas signifier 'auf einem Pfahl aufgespiesst'. En pāli olamba signifie 'hanging down'. Que l'on lise olambaih ou ullambaih le sens est le même qu'en pāli. Dans 29c il faut corriger mayadayiva en mayādyaiva.
Si je me suis arrêté assez longtemps sur les problèmes que le texte du Smaśānavidhi pose au lecteur, c'est que les matériaux, présentés par M. Meisezahl, facilitent beaucoup l'étude de ce petit traité. Le travail de M. Meisezahl contient une introduction, une étude des textes tantriques sur les cimetières dans le Kanjour tibétain (texte sanskrit et version tibétaine de Sambarodayatantra XVII, 38-47; analyse de l'Adbhutasmaśānālamkara et du Śmaśānālamkāratantra), une nouvelle édition et traduction du Smaśāmavidhi et une étude iconographique de sept thanka (pp. 56-89; planches pp. 91-127). Dans la deuxième partie du troisième volume des IndoTibetica M. G. Tucci avait étudié la littérature liturgique sur les huit cimetières (pp. 173-181). M. Meisezahl signale que le texte sanskrit, édité par M. Tucci, est un passage d'un ouvrage intitulé Hevajrasādhanatippani Vajrapradīpā. M. Tucci avait attribué ce texte à Suratavajra mais, d'après le colophon que cite M. Meisezahl, l'auteur en est Sürata que la version tibétaine appelle dPal Ja-lan-dha-ri-pa. L'ouvrage de M. Tucci contient également une traduction d'un petit traité, intitulé Astaśmasāna (Tib.: Dur-khrod brgyad-kyi bśad-pa, cf. P. Cordier, Catalogue du fonds tibétain, II, p. 74), et une analyse de deux autres opuscules (Cordier, op. cit., p. 74, nos 13 et 14). M. Meisezahl montre que la littérature sur les huit cimetières est beaucoup plus riche. Nous devons lui être reconnaissants de l'avoir si bien explorée et d'avoir contribué ainsi à élargir nos connaissances de la littérature et de l'iconographie du tantrisme bouddhique.
The Australian National University
J. W. DE JONG
Karunesha Shukla (ed.), Srāvakabhūmi of Acārya Asanga (= Tibetan Sanskrit Works Series vol. XIV). Patna, K. P. Jayaswal Research Institute, 1973. CV + 511 pp. Rs. 45.00.
In 1961 Alex Wayman published an Analysis of the Srāvakabhūmi Manuscript in which he edited and translated many passages of the text. The first three chapters of Wayman's work deal
* Shinichi Tsuda, The Sarvarodaya-tantra. Selected Chapters (Tokyo, 1974), p. 124 (= Ch. XVII, 43). 5 Gli otto cimiteri nella letteratura liturgica.

Page #12

308
REVIEWS
?
with paleography, literary history and the language of the Srāvakabhūmi manuscript. Karunesha Shukla's edition contains the text of the Srāvakabhūmi and a long introduction. According to the editor a second volume will contain four appendices: 1. The lost portions of the text reconstructed from the Tibetan version; 2. A list of verses occurring in the text; 3. The text of Asariga's views on Hetuvidyā from the Cintamayībhūmi; 4. The text of the various gäthāvyavasthānas.
Shukla's edition is based on a unique manuscript and it is of course not possible to know how far the editor has correctly reproduced the readings of his manuscript. A request for photocopies of the manuscript (letter 15 May 1974) remained unanswered. However, it is possible to compare some passages, edited by Wayman, with the corresponding passages of Shukla's edition. Both Wayman and Shukla have pointed out that the photocopies of the manuscript are often difficult to read. Wayman has carefully compared the Tibetan translation which assisted him greatly in deciphering the readings of the manuscript. In his preface Shukla remarks that there are three translations of the Srāvakabhūmi into Tibetan. Shukla adds that “Prof. V. Bhattacharya informs us that Jinamitra also translated the work into Tibetan. We had, however, an access only to the portions of the version as preserved in the Tibetan Tripitaka (Tanjour, Vol. 110) through secondary sources". (p. xxii). It is obvious from the above remarks that the editor himself has not been able to use the Tibetan translation (not to mention the four translations invented by him!). In his foreword he expresses his thanks to Shri L. Jamspal for his help in reading the Tibetan version. Shri L. Jamspal's help seems to have been of little avail to the editor as will be shown below on the basis of some selected passages.
On the first page of his book Wayman quoted Johnston's words: “No Buddhist text in Sanskrit can be satisfactorily edited without detailed comparison with such Chinese and Tibetan versions as exist". Scholars such as Vidhusekhara Bhattacharya have been fully aware of the importance of the Tibetan versions of Buddhist texts and Bhattacharya's edition of the first five bhūmis of the Bahubhumikavastu of the Yogācārābhūmi is based upon a careful comparison of the manuscript with the Tibetan version. Bhattacharya had an excellent knowledge of Tibetan and he was not obliged to rely on the help of a Tibetan scholar. It is a great pity that his example seems to have had little impact in India.
In discussing a few passages of the text of the Srävakabhumi the following abbreviations have been used: T. = Tibetan translation (Peking edition, Mdo-'grel, vol. L); C. = Chinese translation (references are given to page, column and line of the Taisho edition, vol. 30, No. 1579, pp. 395-477); W. = Wayman's Analysis of the Srävakabhumi Manuscript; S. = Shukla's edition.
S. p. 9.18-19: tesām samvarāya pratipadyate [/] sa śrotrena sabdām (bdan); W. p. 61: tesam samvarāya pratipadyate raksati mana-indriyam sa śrotrena sabdān. The words raksati manaindriyam, which are found in Wayman's edition, are absent from Shukla's edition. From the Tibetan translation it is clear that the text of the manuscript is corrupt. T. 6a5-6: de-dag bsdam-par bya-ba'i phyir sgrub-par byed-cin / mig-gi dban-po yan srun-bar byed-la / mig-gi dban-pos kyan sdom-pa sgrub-par byed-pa dan / de rna-bas sgra-dag = tesām samvarāya pratipadyate / raksati caksurindriyam / caksurindriyena samvaram āpadyate / sa śrotrena sabdan. C. (397a24-25) agrees with T. The corruption of the manuscript is probably due to the fact that the scribe read the words raksati mana-indriyam in the following line of the manuscript (cf. S. p. 10.2), substituted them for raksati caksurindriyam and then omitted the words caksurindriyena samvaram āpadyate. Of course, this conclusion can be substantiated only if the manuscript does, in fact, contain the words raksati mana-indriyam as indicated by Wayman. Neither Wayman nor Shukla have indicated here any disagreement of the text of the manuscript with either the Tibetan or the Chinese version.
S. pp. 10.11-11.5: jāgarikānuyogah katamah / (sa divā camkramanişadyabhyām avaraniyebhyo dharmebhyas cittam pari) sodhayati sa divā camkramanisadyābhyām ävaranīyebhyo dharmebhyas cittam parisodhya, tato vihārān nirgamya, bahir vihārasya padau praksālya, daksinena pārévena simhasayyām kalpayaty alokasamjñi. W. p. 62: jāgarikānuyogah

Page #13

REVIEWS
309
katamah / [In the following, I have had to correct the partially illegible manuscript and fill it in by means of the later extended treatment of the same subject.] (sa(s)... ) divā cankramanişadyabhyām āvaranīyebhyo dharmebhyas cittam parisodhayati / rātryān prathame yāme cankrama-nisadyābhyām āvaranīyebhyo dharmebhyaś cittam parisodhayati / parisodhya tato vihārān nirgamya bahir vihārasya padau praksālya vihāram praviśya daksinena pārśvena sayyām kalpayati/pāde pādam adhāyālokasamini. I have quoted a large part of this passage because it shows clearly the importance of a comparison of the manuscript with the Tibetan translation. Shukla remarks: "MS. leaf blurred with ink, photo indistinct and illegible, construed from the text that follows (sic)". T. 663-5: nam-gyi cha-stod dan nam-gyi cha-smad-la mi-nal-bar sbyor-ba'i rjes-su brtson-pa ñid gań-ze-na / de-Itar zas-kyi tshod rig-par gyur-pa de nin-mo 'chag-pa dan 'dug-pa dag-gis sgrib-par 'gyur-ba'i chos-rnams las sems yońs-su sbyon-bar byed-cin mtshan-mo'i thun dan-po la yan 'chag-pa dan 'dug-pa dag-gis sgrib-par 'gyur-ba'i chos-rnams las sems yońs-su sbyon-bar byed-la / yońs-su sbyańs-nas de'i-'og-tu gtsug-lag-khań nas phyir-byun-ste gtsug-lagkhan-gi phyi-rol-tu rkan-pa bkrus-nas gtsug-lag-khan-gi nan-du zugs-te / glo g.yas-pas phab-nas rkan-pa rkan-pa'i sten-du gzag-ste / snan-ba'i 'du-ses. Wayman's edition agrees completely with
T. apart from the beginning: pūrvarātrāpararātram jāgarikānuyuktatā katamā / sa tatha bhojane "matrajño divā cankrama-nisadyābhām... Shukla's edition, however, differs greatly. Shukla points out in his notes that after [cittam pari) sodhayati Wayman reads: rätryāh prathame yāme camkramanisadyābhyām āvaraniyebhyo dharmebhyas cittam parisodhayati / parisodhya tato vihārān nirgamya. He also points out that after padau praksālya Wayman adds: vihāram pravisya and that Wayman omits simha in simhasayyām. Shukla omits to mention that Wayman adds after sayyām kalpayati the words pāde pādam adhāya. Shukla seems to have been guided in his readings by a parallel passage from the Vibhariga quoted by him.' This passage contains the expression sīhaseyyam. However, it contains also several expressions not found in Shukla's edition: rattiyā pathamam yāmam; pädena pādam accădhāya. C. agrees with T. and W. but omits the words vihāram praviấya (397b12). It would be important to know whether or not these two words are found in the Sanskrit manuscript.
S. p. 19.11-12: aksanopannah / apramattah. W. p. 64: aksanopapannaḥ ksanopannah / pramattaḥ apramattaḥ. T. (9b7-8) agrees with W.: mi-khom-par skyes-pa dan/khom-par skyes-pa dan / bag med-pa dan ldan-pa. C. (398c1-2) also agrees with W.
S. p. 35.8-10: sa tathādarśī tadbahulavihāri satkāyavairāgyam anuprāpnoti/prathamanca dhyānam samāpadyate / evam sarvvadhyānād urdhvam. W. pp. 66-67: sa tathā-darsi tadbahulavihāri samano (MS.: satkāma) vairāgyam anuprāpnoti/prathamam ca dhyānam samāpadyate / evam prathamadhyānad ürdhvam. T. 1767-8: de de-ltar Ita-zin de la lan man-du gnas-pa na 'dod-pa la 'dod-chags dan bral-ba thob-cin/bsam-gtan dan-po la yan snoms-par 'jug-par 'gyur-ro // de-bzin-du bsam-gtan dan-po'i gon-ma dag-nas. Wayman corrects satkāmavairāgyam to samāno vairāgyam. It seems more likely that the original reading is: san kāmavairāgyam. The only difference between C. and T. is that c. has kāmadhātuvairāgyam for kämavairāgyam (401c21). However, neither in T. nor in C. is there the slightest reference to satkāyavairāgyam. It is also difficult to imagine that the manuscript read sarvadhyānād for prathamadhyānād.
It is undoubtedly superfluous to examine any other passages. The differences between the readings given by Wayman and Shukla are so considerable that it seems as if they had consulted two different manuscripts instead of one and the same. It is, of course, theoretically possible that in each case Shukla's readings are based on the manuscript and those given by Wayman, on the Tibetan translation. Granted this most unlikely supposition, one would be obliged to conclude that Shukla was not aware of the fact that his manuscript contained some very
Shukla refers to Vbh. pp. 299-300. The abbreviation Vbh. is not found in his bibliography. The passage, referred to by Shukla, occurs in the edition of the Pali Text Society on p. 249.2232. One wonders whether Shukla quotes correctly from the edition used by him. For example, the P.T.S. edition has: utthānasaññam manasikaritvā but Shukla quotes: utthānasa manasikaritva.

Page #14

310
REVIEWS
incorrect readings which ought to have been checked against the Tibetan translation. However, I have not the slightest doubt that wherever Wayman's readings agree with the Tibetan version the manuscript has been correctly deciphered by him. The conclusion forces itself upon the reader that Shukla's edition is without any value for the following reasons: 1) It does not adequately reproduce the readings of his manuscript. 2) It is not based on a systematic and careful comparison with the Tibetan version.
For the edition of a Sanskrit Buddhist text the Tibetan version is of the greatest importance. This is a fact well-known to every serious student of Buddhism. However, Chinese versions cannot be entirely overlooked, even if, in general, they are much less literal. Hsüan-tsang, the translator of the Śrāvakabhūmi, had an excellent knowledge of Sanskrit and his interpretation, even if it does not adhere literally to the original text, can be quite helpful in understanding a difficult passage. An interesting example is to be found on p. 144.1-5 of Wayman's book where we read: tvag-māmsa-sonitam asmākam anuprayacchanti / yad utānukampās upādāya viseṣaphalarthinaḥ tasyāsmākam tatha pratilabdhasya pinḍapātasyāyam evamrūpa ta rūpaḥ paribhogaḥ syad yad aham tatha paribhūtam ātmānam / sthāpayitvā paribhumjīya yathā teṣām kārāḥ kṛtā... Wayman italicizes the words ayam evamrupa... paribhumjiya and adds in a note that this phrase is an intrusion. Wayman finds this phrase further on in the Tibetan version: de-ltar bdag-ñid bźag-ste / yons-su lons-spyod-par byed-na / de-ltar yons-su lons-spyod-par byed-pa de ni/bdag-gi tshul dan mthun-pa yin-te. However, Wayman's hypothesis is proved wrong by the Chinese version which contains a passage corresponding to the phrase italicized by Wayman: (409a25-27) "After having obtained this food I must enjoy it in the following way (by making use of) an expedient (upāya). I must put myself in the proper way, enjoy it not wrongly and recompense the kindness of the giver so that he reaps a very excellent and great fruit...." The Tibetan version agrees both with the Sanskrit text and the Chinese version but the Tibetan translator has put the phrase, mentioned above, at the very end of the entire passage (Wayman's edition p. 144.5-20 T. 39a3-3963). For utānukampas read utanukampām, for ta rupaḥ read 'nurupaḥ (cf. Shukla p. 82.14 and 16), for paribhūtam paribhuñjānam, and add a danda after viseṣaphalarthinaḥ.
A photocopy of the manuscript is available in Göttingen and we can only hope that a German scholar will prepare a proper edition of this important text.
The Australian National University
J. W. DE JONG
Robert Shafer, Introduction to Sino-Tibetan, Part 3. Wiesbaden, Otto Harrassowitz, 1968. pp. 217-312; Part 4, 1970, pp. 313-408; Part 5, 1974, pp. XVI + 409-525. DM 48.-, 64.-, 112.-.
The first two parts of Shafer's Introduction to Sino-Tibetan were published in 1966 and 1967 (see IIJ, XI, 1969, pp. 310-311). Parts three and four were published in 1968 and 1970. With the publication of part five the work is now completed. It contains a table of contents and reproduces on pp. IX-XVI a preface, a list of abbreviations, a list of symbols and a rough sketch of Sino-Tibetan, all of which had already been published in part one, pp. I-VII. Part five contains moreover a foreword by Helmut Hoffmann who has seen Shafer's work through the press beginning with the second half of the second part. This must not have been an easy task due to the 'extraordinarily desolate state of the original manuscript' mentioned by Hoffmann. A severe accident made it impossible for Hoffmann to see part five through the press. This has been done by Kamil Sedláček. The author, who died in 1969, was not to see the completion of his work, but he would certainly have been highly satisfied with the care bestowed upon his work by Hoffmann and Sedláček.

Page #15

REVIEWS
311
According to Sedláček, Shafer's Introduction will be for many years to come a reliable guide to all scholars in Sino-Tibetan linguistic studies. I am afraid that it is difficult to concur in this evaluation of Shafer's work. Shafer was a pioneer in a difficult field but, regrettably, he was insufficiently aware of the dangers which beset his path. Roy Andrew Miller has subjected the first two parts of this Introduction to a penetrating analysis (cf. Monumenta Serica, 27, 1968, pp. 398-435). Any user of Shafer's Introduction would be well advised to study carefully Miller's article which clearly exposes the weak points of Shafer's work.
Canberra
J. W. DE JONG
Takasaki Jikido, Nyoraizo shiso no keisei (The formation of the tathāgatagarbha theory). Tokyo, Shunjūsha, 1974. xxii + 779 + 106 pp. Yen 9.000.
In 1966 Takasaki published a translation of the Ratnagotravibhāga together with a lengthy Introduction: A Study of the Ratnagotravibhāga (Uttaratantra). In a review we expressed the wish that Takasaki would undertake a systematic treatment of the tathāgatagarbha theory and its history (IIJ, XI, p. 39). His voluminous book is not a complete history of the tathāgatagarbha theory in India. According to the English subtitle it is a study on the historical background of the tathāgatagarbha theory based upon the scriptures preceding the Ratnagotravibhāga.
Takasaki's book contains a detailed table of contents, an English translation of which is given on pp. 3-7. Moreover, the author has added a summary in English (pp. 9-14) which will be very helpful for Western readers. The same section of the book contains five indices: I. SinoJapanese (pp. 16-41); II. Sanskrit-Pāli (pp. 42-58); III. Tibetan (pp. 59-69); IV. Texts quoted (pp. 70-72); V. Names of scholars quoted (pp. 73-74). The bibliography is divided into a Japanese section (pp. 76-97) and a Western section (pp. 98-106). In the preface the author lists his own contributions to the study of the tathāgatagarbha theory: A Study of the Ratnagotravibhāga (Roma, 1966) and twenty-seven articles published during a period of twenty years (1953-1972).
Takasaki's book is based upon a careful study of Sanskrit, Pāli, Chinese and Tibetan sources. As is obvious from the extensive bibliography, the number of scholarly publications in Western languages and in Japanese consulted by the author is very considerable. Within the limited scope of a review it is clearly impossible to examine all the problems discussed by the author. We can only attempt to indicate the way in which the author has undertaken his task.
In his introduction Takasaki points out that in the past Japanese studies of the tathāgatagarbha theory were not based on the Ratnagotravibhāga, although this text was known in Chinese translation, but on such texts as the Fo-hsing lun (T. no. 1610), attributed to Vasubandhu and translated by Paramartha, and the Ta-ch'eng ch'i-hsin lun (T. nos. 16661667), attributed to Asvaghosa and translated by Paramärtha and Siksānanda. Already sixty years ago Mochizuki Shinko had tried to show that the Ta-ch'eng ch'i-hsin lun was not translated from an Indian text but had been compiled in China. Mochizuki's thesis has given rise to a heated controversy among Japanese scholars. In an article, published in 1929, Demiéville defended the authenticity of the text but in a note, added to a reprint of this article, he states without any hesitation that the text has been composed in China.' Demiéville lists the
! "Sur l'authenticité du Ta tch'eng k'i sin louen", BMFJ, II, 2 (Tokyo, 1929), pp. 1-78; Choix d'études bouddhiques (Leiden, 1973), p. XXXIII. Walter Liebenthal has arrived at the same conclusion, cf.'New light on the Mahāyāna-sraddhotpada Sastra', T'oung Pao 46 (1958), 155-216.

Page #16

312
REVIEWS
Japanese studies on this problem published before 1929. Japanese scholars have continued the discussion without coming to any agreement. In a note Takasaki raises doubts about the Indian origin of the text but adds that the apocryphal nature of the text has still to be proved (p. 774, n. 4). As to the Fo-hsing lun Hattori Masaaki has demonstrated that it was compiled by Paramartha on the basis of the Ratnago travibhāga and the Yogācārabhūmi.' In India and Tibet the Madhyamika and the Yogācāra are considered the only Mahāyāna schools. Fa-tsang (643711), the third patriarch of the Hua-yen school, recognized a third Mahāyāna school: the ju-lai-tsang yuan-ch'i tsung 'the school of dependent origination based on the tathāgatagarbha' but Fa-tsang's concept of this school is based upon texts such as the Lankavatārasūtra and the Ta-ch'eng ch'i-hsin lun which combine the garbha theory with the Vijñānavāda theory of the alayavijñāna. It is therefore not surprising that Japanese scholars, who follow the Sino-Japanese tradition and the traditional exegesis of the Sino-Japanese schools, were not able to form an adequate picture of the garbha theory as it existed in India.
Obermiller's translation of the Ratnagotravibhāga from the Tibetan (Acta Orientalia, LX, 1931, pp. 81-306) stimulated new studies on the garbha theory in Japan. Ui reexamined the Chinese materials and Tsukinowa Kenryū (1888-1969) compared Chinese and Tibetah texts. It also became more and more apparent that Paramartha (500-569) had played an important role in introducing the garbha theory in China. Paramārtha combined the garbha theory with Vijñānavada doctrines and composed texts (Anuttarasrayasūtra and the Fo-hsing lun) with the intention of giving authority to his theories. Moreover, he incorporated the garbha in his translation of Vasubandhu's Mahāyānasamgrahabhäsya. Takasaki explains that Paramartha by making use of the name of Vasubandhu, author of the Mahāyānasamgrahabhāsya and alleged author of the Fo-hsing lun, has deluded contemporary scholars.
The publication of the Sanskrit text of the Ratnagotravibhāga in 1950 gave increased impetus to the study of the garbha theory. In Japan Nakamura Zuiryū published in 1961 a synoptic edition of the Sanskrit text and the Chinese translation and in 1967 an edition of the Tibetan text together with a Japanese translation, a Sanskrit-Tibetan-Chinese index and a TibetanSanskrit index. Ui's study and translation of the Ratnagotravibhāga appeared in 1959 and Takasaki's English translation in 1966. Sanskrit and Tibetan materials have been studied in Seyfort Ruegg's magnum opus: La théorie du Tathāgatagarbha et du Gotra (Paris, 1969). Recently Lambert Schmithausen has published two important articles on the text of the. Ratnagotravibhāga and Takasaki's translation and on Ruegg's book. Numerous articles have been written in Japanese by Japanese scholars in recent years (cf. Takasaki's bibliography).
Takasaki defines the tathāgatagarbha theory as the theory which is propounded by the Ratnagotravibhāga. In the first place it is necessary to understand the structure of the
2 Takasaki points out that Ui Hakuju has defended the authenticity of the text. In an article in a recently published bibliographical dictionary Tamaki Koshirō says that the authenticity is defended by Tokiwa Daijo, Sakaino Koyo, Hatani Ryōtai, Matsumoto Bunzaburo and Hayashiya Tomojiro. As only supporter of Mochizuki's thesis, he mentions Murakami Sensho (Shin Butten kaidai jiten, Tōkyō, 1966, p. 158a). For a recent bibliography of the Ta-ch'eng ch'i-hsin lun (editions and studies) see Kashiwagi Hiroo's bibliographical appendix to Hirakawa Akira's Daijokishiron (Butten Köza, Vol. 22, Tokyo, 1973), pp. 390-413. 3 "Busshöron no ichi kosatsu', Bukkyo shigaku 4 (1955), 160-174 (cf. Revue Bibliographique de Sinologie, 2, 1956, no. 584). Cf. also Takasaki's article in the volume in honour of Yuki Reimon: Bukkyo shisoshi ronshū (Tokyo, 1964), pp. 241-264. * Ui Hakuju, Indo tetsugakushi (Tokyo, 1932), pp. 317-322, 407-416 and 418-433. Tsukinowa Kenryū, 'Kukyoichijohoshöron ni tsuite', Nihon bukkyo kyokai nenpo 7 (1935), 121-139 = Butten no hihan-teki kenkyū (Tokyo, 1972), pp. 364-381. S'Philologische Bemerkungen zum Ratnagotravibhāga', WZKSA 15-(1971), 123-177; 'Zu D. Seyfort Rueggs Buch "La Théorie du Tathāgatagarbha et du Gotra" (Besprechungsaufsatz)", WZKSA 18 (1973), 123-160.

Page #17

REVIEWS
313
Ratnagotravibhāga and the essence of its doctrine. Takasaki explains that the tathāgatagarbha theory is based upon the doctrines of several sutras just as the Madhyamika doctrine is based on the Prajñāpāramitāsutras, the Yogacara doctrine on the Samdhinirmocanasutra and other texts. The germ of the tathāgatagarbha doctrine can be seen in the concept of the original luminosity of the mind.
In China and Japan the most common synonym of tathāgatagarbha is the 'Buddha-nature' (fo-hsing; Jap. bussho). The Sanskrit terms which correspond to fo-hsing are according to the Ratnagotravibhāga buddhadhātu and buddhagotra. The first term is of special importance because it is used in the Mahaparinirvanasutra. Nevertheless, the author prefers the term tathāgatagarbha because it is found in the colophon of the Mahaparinirvanasutra (kevalatathāgatagarbhanirdeśasutra) and because the Lankavatarasutra uses the term tathāgatagarbhavāda. Moreover, the term buddhadhātu is not found in either the Srimäläsutra or the Lankavatārasūtra. Finally, the Tathāgatagarbhasutra is one of the most important sources for the tathāgatagarbha doctrine in the Mahāparinirvānasutra and the Ratnago travibhāga. The fundamental idea of the Tathāgatagarbhasutra is expressed in the formula: sarvasattvas tathāgatagarbhaḥ which Takasaki translates "all beings possess the tathāgatagarbha".
Takasaki formulates as working hypotheses: 1. The tathāgatagarbha theory has been systematized in the Ratnago travibhāga. 2. The tathāgatagarbha theory teaches that in all beings the tathāgatagarbha, i.e. the cause of potential Buddhahood is present. 3. It is necessary to trace the formation of this theory and of this theory only. 4. In Mahayana Buddhism the possibility for the beings to become Buddha is widely recognized but the tathāgatagarbha theory has arisen in opposition to the Sunyavāda.
The method adopted by the author consists of three parts: 1. Examination of the texts (sutras and sastras) which are quoted in the Ratnago travibhāga and which teach the tathāgatagarbha doctrine. Study of their doctrinal content, the place of the tathāgatagarbha theory in them and their relation to other texts. 2. Examination of texts which are not quoted in the Ratnagotravibhāga but which proclaim the tathāgatagarbha theory. In the case of these texts it is necessary to investigate whether they are earlier or later than the Ratnagotravibhāga. 3. Examination of texts, quoted or not in the Ratnagotravibhāga and which do not make use of the term tathāgatagarbha but which have nevertheless fulfilled an important function with regard to the formation of the tathāgatagarbha theory.
The first part of the book dealing with the formation of the tathāgatagarbha theory examines the texts in groups one and two. The study of the texts in the third group forms the second part dealing with the pre-history of the tathāgatagarbha theory. The first part is divided into four chapters. Chapter one deals with the three scriptures which are of fundamental importance for the formation of the tathagatagarbha theory: the Tathāgatagarbhasutra, the Anunatvāpūrṇatvanirdesa and the Śrīmālāsūtra. The second chapter studies the Mahāparinirvāṇasutra and related texts which use both the terms buddhadhātu and tathāgatagarbha. Chapter three is devoted to a study of the gotra theory in the Mahämeghasutra and the Mahāyānadasadharmaka. Chapter four deals briefly with the identification of the tathagatagarbha with the alayavijñāna. However, Takasaki points out that this topic does not belong to the first period in the history of the tathāgatagarbha theory from the beginning up to and including the Ratnagotravibhāga but to the second period which will be studied by the author in a forthcoming publication. The two appendices to this chapter deal with the chapter on the three kayas in the Suvarnaprabhāsottamasutra, and with the relation between the Śrīmālāsūtra and the Vijñānavāda.
6
Seyfort Ruegg has pointed out that in the texts the compound tathāgatagarbha is understood mostly as a tatpuruşa but sometimes also as a bahuvrihi (op. cit., pp. 507-513). Takasaki remarks that in the Ratnagotravibhāga it is analysed as (1) a tatpuruşa (tathāgatasyeme garbhāḥ sarvasattväh), (2) a karmadharaya (tathāgatas tathataiṣām garbhaḥ sarvasattvānām) and as (3) a bahuvrihi (tathāgatadhatur eṣām garbhaḥ sarvasattvānām), cf. p. 21. Seyfort Ruegg considers rightly (2) as a bahuvrihi.

Page #18

314
REVIEWS
The second part of the book deals with the pre-history of the tathāgatagarbha theory and investigates a great number of Mahāyānasūtras which contain concepts which are of essential importance for the formation of the tathāgatagarbha theory, such as gotra, dhātu and cittapraksti or concepts related to it such as dharmakāya, dharmatā, tathatā, tathāgata, ekayāna, etc. Among the sütras studied are the Prajñāpāramitāsūtras, the Saddharmapundarika, the Kāsyapaparivarta, the Vimalakirtinirdesasūtra, the Süramgamasamadhisútra, texts belonging to the Buddhāvatamsaka, the Jñānālokālamkārasūtra, the Dharanīśvararājasūtra and texts belonging to the Mahāsannipātasūtra.
A concluding chapter deals with three topics: 1. The history of the Chinese translations of texts relating to the tathāgatagarbha theory. The author distinguishes three periods: 1. The stage of the sūtras translated by Buddhabhadra, Gunabhadra and Dharmaksema. 2. The stage of the śāstras translated by Bodhiruci, Ratnamati, Paramartha, Hsüan-tsang and I-tsing. 3. The stage of the tantric texts beginning immediately after Hsüan-tsang. The first stage is the period of the formation of the sūtras which expound the tathāgatagarbha theory. The second is the period of the śāstras which combine the tathāgatagarbha with the alayavijñāna. The third is the period in which the tathāgatagarbha theory is combined with tantric ideas. The translations belonging to these three stages were made in 1. the fifth century; 2. the sixth and the first half of the seventh century; 3. from the middle of the seventh century onward. Takasaki adds that the original Indian texts were composed roughly a century earlier but that some texts must have been translated almost immediately after they had been composed. A table clearly illustrates the history of the Chinese translations. A second table illustrates the development of the basic concepts connected with the tathāgatagarbha theory: 1. gotra (vamsa, kula, buddhaputra, etc.); 2. citta (cittaprakrtiprabhāsvarata); 3. tathāgatagarbha; 4. dhātu (sattvadhātu, buddha - and dharma-); 5. dharmakāya (tathāgata and dharmakāya); 6. other items (guhya, samdhāvacana, uttaratantra). The historical development of these concepts with the exception of the tathāgatagarbha itself is briefly outlined by the author (pp. 751-771). The same section contains also a table illustrating the relations between the sūtras and śāstras which propound the tathāgatagarbha theory or which have fulfilled an important function in its formation (p. 769). The final section of this chapter is entitled "Remaining problems". Takasaki points out that his book deals mainly with the first period in the history of the tathāgatagarbha theory which concludes with the composition of the Ratnagotravibhāga in the beginning of the fifth century. The next task which lies ahead is the history of the tathāgatagarbha theory in the second period in which the tathāgatagarbha doctrine is combined with Vijñānavāda doctrines. The author remarks that this second period is important not only in itself, but also because it has exercised its influence in four directions. I. The tathāgatagarbha theory was completely absorbed by the Vijñānavāda and the existence of the Ratnagotravibhāga was almost entirely forgotten. After this period which is dominated by disputes between the Mādhyamika and Yogācāra schools, the tradition of the Ratnagotravibhāga was revived and both the Abhisamalalamkāra and the Ratnagotravibhāga are numbered among the five texts of Maitreya. II. The revival of the Ratnagotravibhāga and the formation of a group of five texts attributed to Maitreya must have taken place in recent times because both phenomena are unknown in China. However, they are of the greatest importance for the history of the exegesis of the tathāgatagarbha theory in Tibet. III. In China the idea that “All beings possess the Buddha-nature" has had an enormous influence since the beginning of the fifth century at which time two recensions of the Mahāparinirvānasūtra were translated by Fa-hsien (T. no. 376) and by Dharm aksema (T. no. 374). A striking feature of the history of the tathāgatagarbha theory in China is the popularity of texts the Indian origin of which is doubtful: the second part of Dharmaksema's translation of the Mahāparinirvanasūtra, the Fo-hsing lun, the Ta-ch'eng ch'i-hsin lun and the Vajrasamādhisūtra.' IV. The tathāgatagarbha theory is mentioned in tantric texts such as the
7 For this text see P. Demiéville, Le concile de Lhasa (Paris, 1952), pp. 54-58; Walter Liebenthal, 'Notes on the “Vajrasamādhi”, T'oung Pao 44 (1956), 347–386.

Page #19

REVIEWS
315
Prajñāpāramitānayasatapancasatikā.8 Takasaki points out that this theory has also influenced tantric theories in many respects as can be shown by tracing the history of the idea of the bodhicitta.
We hope that we have been able to give at least an idea of the scope of Takasaki's magnum opus. His main purpose has been to trace the formation of the tathāgatagarbha theory and its prehistory. According to Takasaki the first period in the history of this theory ends with its definite formulation in the Ratnagotravibhāga in the beginning of the fifth century. Takasaki's book has given the tathāgatagarbhavāda its proper place as the third Mahāyāna school. However, its importance is not limited to the early history of the tathāgatagarbha theory in India. This theory is so closely interrelated with the philosophical ideas expressed in many Mahāyānasūtras that it is no exaggeration to say that Takasaki's book is at the same time of fundamental importance for the history of Mahāyāna philosophy in general.
Canberra
J. W. DE JONG
Helmut Hoffmann, Symbolik der tibetischen Religionen und des Schamanismus (= Symbolik der Religionen, herausgegeben von Ferdinand Herrmann, Band XII). Stuttgart, Anton Hiersemann, 1967. DM 60,-.
Hoffmann's book consists of three parts: Symbolik des Lamaismus, Symbolik der Bon-Religion and Symbolik des Schamanismus. The first two are intended by the author as a supplement to his book Religionen Tibets, Freiburg 1956 (cf. CAJ 3 (1957) 79-80), in which the Tibetan religions are studied in their historical development. The chapter on the Symbolik des Lamaismus is subdivided into six parts: Einleitung, Buddhas und Bodhisattvas, die Götter, Makrokosmos und Mikrokosmos, Die Mysterienspiele, Kultsymbole und Kultzubehör. In discussing the symbolism of Lamaism it is difficult to separate those elements which are specific to Lamaism from those which it shares in common with the Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna. Hoffmann refers several times to Kirfel's Symbolik des Buddhismus which appeared in the same series (Band V, 1959). He does not always share his opinions, especially with regard to Iranian influences. According to Hoffmann, the Buddha of the Western Paradise, Amitābha-Amitāyus, has been created on the model of the Zoroastrian god of time, Zurvan. He also sees close relations between the Hellenistic concept of the Soter and the bodhisattva Avalokitesvara. The problem of Western influences on the Indian Amitabha literature has recently been examined in great detail by Fujita Kötatsu, who is inclined to deny any external influence. Further studies, especially of the early Mahāyāna literature, are required in order to bring more light into this matter, but it will perhaps always remain impossible to decide one way or the other, in that it is much more difficult to prove influences, than to demonstrate their probability and possibility. The same applies to the problem of Western influences on the systematized Bon religion as it is called by Hoffmann. Here again such a possibility cannot be excluded, but much more research will have to be carried out. The study of the Bon religion, both in its pre-Buddhist form and in its later systematized form, is still in its infancy. In recent years the Tun-huang documents have furnished important information, but the language of these texts is still insufficiently understood and it is not yet possible to translate and explain them with confidence.
Hoffmann has made good use of the original sources and is fully acquainted with the literature on his topic. His chapters on the symbolism of Lamaism and the Bon religion contain
# For references to the different versions see Takasaki, p. 774, n. 5. I Genshi jodo shiso no kenkyū, Tokyo, 1970. See our review, T'oung Pao 58 (1972) 352-366.

Page #20

316
REVIEWS
a wealth of information. Three detailed indices (general; Sanskrit; Tibetan) make it possible for the reader to easily find his way in Hoffmann's book. Very useful also is the bibliography on Tibetan religions which lists publications in Western languages.
The chapter on Shamanism (pp. 100-140) deals not only with symbolism, but with shamanism in general. In the first section Hoffmann examines recent studies on shamanism (Schmidt, Eliade, Schröder, Findeisen, Vajda, Jensen, Lommel) in which the concept of shamanism is defined in different ways. According to Hoffmann, shamanism has developed in archaic hunting communities. The shaman acts for the benefit of the community. He enters into a trance and, assisted by theriomorphic spirits, he journeys to other worlds. The remaining sections of this chapter are devoted to a description of the way in which one becomes a shaman, the initiation ceremony, the trance and the supernatural journeys of the shaman and, finally, to his costume and equipment. With regard to shamanistic elements in Tibet, Hoffmann mentions the good ritual, the state oracle in gNas-chur and the drum divination.
Hoffmann's book is a very welcome survey of the symbolism of Tibetan religions and shamanism. It is to be hoped that the volume of illustrations which is being prepared by Hoffmann and Ulla Johansen will be published before long.
Canberra
J. W. DE JONG
Heinz Zimmermann, Die Subhasita-ratna-karanda ka-kathā (dem Aryaśüra zugeschrieben) und ihre tibetische Übersetzung. Ein Vergleich zur Darlegung der Irrtumsrisiken bei der Auswertung tibetischer Übersetzungen. (= Freiburger Beiträge zur Indologie, Band 8). Wiesbaden, Otto Harrassowitz, 1975. VI + 273 pp.
The Subhasitaratnakarandakakathā (henceforth abbreviated SRKK) was mentioned for the first time by Sylvain Lévi in 1899. He stated that the SRKK consists of the verses which conclude the tales in the Dvāvimšatyavadana. The colophon attributes the SRKK to Aryaśūra. The SRKK was edited for the first time by A. C. Banerjee in 1959 in vol. 21 of the Buddhist Sanskrit Texts (pp. 275-307). This edition is based upon a Newari manuscript from the Durbar Library in Nepal in comparison with the Tibetan translation. Banerjee has not made use of the Dvāvimšatyavadāna (henceforth abbreviated Dvāv.) and the text, established by him, is very unsatisfactory. Zimmermann's edition is based upon three manuscripts: a manuscript of the SRKK belonging to the Royal Asiatic Society in London (R) and two manuscripts of the Dvāv. (Bibliothèque Nationale: Pa; Cambridge University Library: Ca). The Tibetan version is to be found in two different places in the Tanjur. Zimmermann has made use of the two versions in the Peking and Narthang Tanjurs (P1, P2, N1, N2) and of one version in the Derge and Cone Tanjurs (D ).
Zimmermann's study of the two manuscripts of the Dvāv. proves that Sylvain Lévi's assumption on the relationship between the SRKK and the Dvāv. is not correct. The Cambridge manuscript contains 97 verses of the SRKK and the Paris manuscript 107. The Paris manuscript does not give all the verses of the SRKK and, moreover, they are not always the concluding verses of the tales. Zimmermann shows that the text of the Paris manuscript is an expanded version as compared to the text of the Cambridge manuscript. He arrives at the conclusion that a critical edition of the Dvāv. on the basis of all the available manuscripts would be required in order to elucidate the composition and history of the Dvāv. and its relation to the SRKK. Zimmermann points out that our knowledge of the Dvāv. is due to three scholars: R. Mitra who described a manuscript of the Dvāv. in Calcutta,' R. Turner who has studied the language of the
1
The Sanskrit Buddhist Literature of Nepal (Calcutta, 1882), pp. 85-89.

Page #21

REVIEWS
317
Dvāv.2 and L. Feer who studied the relationship of the Dvāv. with other collections of Avadānas.? According to Zimmermann (p. 8, n. 1) reference is always made to one of these three scholars or to Sylvain Lévi in connection with the SRKK or the Dvāv. This is not quite correct with reference to Speyer who himself inspected the manuscript of the Dväv. in Paris (cf. his introduction to his edition of the Avadānaśataka).
In his analysis of the SRKK Zimmermann shows that the text consists of two parts: chapters 1-22 which conclude with three samgrahasloka-s, and chapters 23-27 which deal with five of the six paramita-s: sila, kşanti, vīrya, dhyāna and prajñā. The author of this supplement appears to have considered chapters 1-22 to be dealing only with the first of the pāramitā-s: dāna. Zimmermann remarks that although these 22 chapters have as a common theme punya in its manifold forms, many verses have no direct relation to the concept of dāna. According to him, however, even these 22 chapters do not constitute a unified whole. He considers chapters 1-4 to contain the oldest form of the SRKK. Consequently, Zimmermann is of the opinion that there must have been at least three different authors. He does not exclude the possibility that Aryaśūra was the author of the first four chapters even though four verses of the third chapter are to be found in the Bodhicaryāvatāra. Zimmermann points out that of these four verses a half-verse is also found in the Satapañcāsatka (5b: mahārnavayugacchidrakūrmagrīvārpanopamam). Zimmermann writes: “Dann wenn Santideva in diesem einen Falle als der Entleiher dasteht, so kann er sich auch den Rest der fraglichen Str. aus dem Schatz seiner bekanntlich ungewöhnlichen Literaturkenntnisse geholt haben." This argument has not much weight. D. R. Shackleton Bailey has rightly remarked that the simile of the tortoise and the yoke-hole was common property among Buddhist writers. To the references, given by him, others can be added. Recently this simile has been discussed by W. Bollée and K. R. Norman but without reference to the literature mentioned by Shackleton Bailey and myself. The simile is also found in the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvānasūtra.' There is no doubt that this half-verse was very popular and its occurrence in Säntideva's Bodhicaryävat ära does not prove anything with regard to his authorship of the other verses which are also found in the SRKK. There is therefore no conclusive argument to prove the existence of the SRKK before the time of Santideva. As to the terminus ad quem, Zimmermann mentions the ninth century since one of the two translators, the Tibetan monk Sākya 'od, is said to have lived in the ninth century. He refers for this date to W. Zinkgräf who stated that there have been two translators of the same name, an Indian and a Tibetan, but that both lived in the ninth century. This is not correct. The Indian Säkya 'od (Säkyaprabha) is mentioned as one of the translators of the Vinayasamgraha.' One of the two other translators is Sīlendrabodhi who is well-known as one of the compilers of the Mahāvyutpatti in the first quarter of the ninth century. The Tibetan monk Sakya 'od, however, is a contemporary of Rin-chen bzan-po (985-1055) as has been shown by Tucci." He must have been active in the middle of the eleventh century as can be shown by an examination of the many colophons in
2 'Notes on the language of the Dvavimśatvavadanakatha', JRAS (1913), pp. 289-304. 3 "Le livre des cent légendes', JA (1879), II, pp. 293-297, 305-306; Avadānaçataka (Paris, 1891), Introduction; Fragments extraits du Kandjour (Paris, 1883), pp. 544-552. * The Satapancasat ka of Matrceta (Cambridge, 1951), pp. 12-13. 5 Compte rendu de The Satapañcāsatka of Mātrceta, T'oung Pao, 42 (1954), p. 404. 6 Review of K. R. Norman, The Elders' Verses II. Therīgātha (London, 1971), JAOS, 93 (1973), p. 603; K. R. Norman, 'Middle Indo-Aryan Studies LX. The blind turtle and the hole in the yoke', JOIBaroda, XXI (1972), pp. 331-335. 7 The Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvanasastra. Transl. by Kosho Yamamoto. Vol. I (The Karibunko, 1973), p. 34. 8 Vom Divyāvadāna zur Avadānakalpalatā (Heidelberg, 1940), pp. 61-62. · P. Cordier, Catalogue du fonds tibétain de la Bibliothèque Nationale. Ille partie (Paris, 1915), p. 401. 10 Indo-Tibetica, II (Roma, 1933), p. 50.

Page #22

318
REVIEWS
11
the Tanjur in which he is mentioned as translator." The SRKK must therefore have been composed before the beginning of the eleventh century. It is quite possible that both the first part (chapters 1-22) and the second part (chapters 23-27) have come into existence in the period between Santideva and the eleventh century. Zimmermann refers to Bendall's introduction to the Sikṣāsamuccaya for Santideva's date (seventh century). It has to be pointed out, however, that this date is based entirely upon Taranatha who wrote his history of Indian Buddhism in the beginning of the seventeenth century. Bendall draws attention to the fact that the Sikṣāsamuccaya was translated by Jinamitra, Danasila and Ye-ses-sde and that, consequently, 800 A.D. has to be admitted as the latest possible terminus ad quem. The dates of Santideva are as uncertain as those of Aryaśura who is usually said to have lived in the third or fourth century. The translation into Chinese of a work by Aryaśura in 434 A.D. seems to be the main reason for putting him in the third or fourth century. However, Lin Li-kouang has shown that this work, the Fen-pieh ye-pao lüeh ching (Taishō no. 723), is another recension of the Fen-pieh shan-o so-ch'i ching (Taishō no. 729) of which the translation is attributed to An Shih-kao (148170 A.D.). Both the attribution of this recension to An Shih-kao and the attribution of the work itself to Aryaśūra are very doubtful. The only reliable date in connection with Aryaśūra is furnished by the quotations of his Jātakamālā in the inscriptions in Ajanța. According to Lüders these inscriptions are from the sixth century.13
Zimmermann has found thirteen verses of the SRKK in other texts. The fact that out of 160 verses 13 are found elsewhere seems to indicate that the SRKK is a compilation largely based upon other texts. In an article which has escaped Zimmermann's notice V. V. Mirashi points out that verse 6 is quoted in two grants of the Maitraka-s of Valabhi, dated Gupta year 248 (A.D. 567-568) and Gupta year 269 (A.D. 588-589). According to Mirashi this proves that the SRKK was composed before A.D. 550.14 He adds: "We know of no Buddhist writer named Aryasura who flourished before this date except the well-known author of the Jātakamālā. It is not therefore unlikely that the SRKK also was the work of Aryasura who flourished in the fourth century A.D." It is much more likely that this verse was well-known in the sixth century and that the SRKK was not the source of the quotations in the Valabhi grants.
Zimmermann's edition of the SRKK gives for each verse: 1. The text as published by Banerjee; 2. Variant readings from the manuscript used by Zimmermann; 3. Indication of the metre; 4. Translation of the verse; 5. Notes to the translation containing the readings proposed by the editor; 6. The Tibetan translation with indications of the corresponding parts of the Sanskrit verse; 7. Variant readings; 8. Translation of the Tibetan version containing comments on all points which require attention. His main object is to show that the Tibetan translation, though very imperfect and unsatisfactory, is based upon the same text. According to Zimmermann's English summary the frequent divergences between the Sanskrit and Tibetan versions are due to the following causes: 1. There were considerable deficiencies in the text used by the translators; 2. The Tibetan text is not free of corruptions. One may occasionally wonder whether that could not be the result of subsequent attempts at retouching, undertaken without help from the Sanskrit original; 3. The translators occasionally failed to understand the Sanskrit text. Zimmermann calls the risk which has its origin in the aforementioned discrepancies 'lexical risk'. The other uncertainty factor is, according to him, the 'syntactic risk' due to the fact that the Tibetan translators often stubbornly kept the order of words and/or lines of the Sanskrit version. Zimmermann points out that in several cases there would have been little chance of understanding the text correctly, had the Sanskrit text not been at hand.
Marcelle Lalou, Répertoire du Tanjur d'après le catalogue de P. Cordier (Paris, 1933), p. 213. 12 L'aide-mémoire de la vraie loi (Paris, 1949), pp. 102 and 313.
13 Arya-Śūras Jātakamālā und die Fresken von Ajanta', Gött. Nachr. Phil.-Hist. Kl. (1902),
pp. 758-762 [= Philologica Indica (Göttingen, 1940), pp. 73-77].
14 'A note on the Subhāṣitaratna-karaṇḍakakatha of Aryaśura', Adyar Library Bulletin, 25 (1961), pp. 304-307.

Page #23

REVIEWS
319
Zimmermann's exhaustive study of the Sanskrit and Tibetan versions of the SRKK is excellent from all points of view. The Sanskrit text, as established by him, leaves very few points in doubt. Banerjee's edition is very unsatisfactory. This is certainly partly due to the fact that he has used only one manuscript. It is, however, doubtful whether he has correctly reproduced the readings of his manuscript. His edition of the Prātimokṣa of the Mulasarvāstivādin abounds in wrong readings of the Gilgit manuscript which forms the basis of his edition. 15 This is obvious if one takes the trouble to compare his edition with the facsimiles of the manuscript published by Raghu Vira and Lokesh Chandra." It is a pity that Zimmermann has not been able to consult the Newari manuscript which has been used by Banerjee for his edition. He has also been unable to obtain a copy of the manuscript brought back by Sylvain Lévi. It is therefore not possible to know the relation of this manuscript with the Newari manuscript in the Durbar library. Nevertheless Zimmermann has been able to establish a text which leaves very little scope for uncertainties. It seems unlikely that the use of other manuscripts would result in more than some very minor changes in the text as established by him. The most important part of Zimmermann's work is undoubtedly his thorough examination of the Tibetan version which is probably one of the worst Tibetan translations in the whole of the Kanjur and Tanjur. The comments which Zimmermann has inserted in his translation of the Tibetan version constitute a kind of running commentary in which all peculiarities of the Tibetan translation are elucidated and, as far as possible, explained. The only work which can be compared to Zimmermann's study is Nils Simonsson's Indo-tibetische Studien, Die Methoden der tibetischen Übersetzer, untersucht im Hinblick auf die Bedeutung ihrer Übersetzungen für die Sanskritphilologie (Uppsala, 1957) which, as indicated by the subtitle, examines the methods of the Tibetan translators with regard to the importance of their translations for Sanskrit philology. The Tibetan translations are of essential importance for Buddhist philology. Zimmermann has been successful in showing that even such a deplorable translation as that of the SRKK can be helpful in the study of the Sanskrit original if it is examined carefully pada by pada in order to explain all its imperfections.
Zimmermann's edition and translation of the Sanskrit and Tibetan versions are of such excellence that only on a few minor points is it possible to suggest other interpretations. Let me conclude this review by giving the notes which I have made while reading Zimmermann's work. All references are to the number of the verses.
47c: rūpārūpyasamādhisampadakhilam bhuktvā ca sarvam sukham. Tr.: "Erfolgreich im Zustandebringen der formbehafteten und der formenfreien Versenkungsstufen, und nach dem Auskosten restlos aller Glückseligkeit." The translation is too free because rūpārūpyasamādhisampadakhilam refers to sukham: "a bliss which is complete through the attainment of concentrations endowed with form and without form".
67b: kriyotthapanam. Tr.: "das Ausführen des Beschlusses". In a note Zimmermann remarks that perhaps one must understand "Bewerkstelligung der Ausführung". Kriya has here undoubtedly the meaning 'rite'. The verse concerns the construction of a mandala.
105: Zimmermann has omitted the translation of line 3 of the Tibetan version: dbyans sñan rol mo dan mgrin 'debs. Four of the six Tibetan versions have bsdebs 'joined with'. The meaning of this pada probably is "having joined together sweet sounding music and song" (cf. mgrin gcig-tu "with one voice").
116: yadgarbhe paripustim eti sucibhiḥ pronniyamano rasaiḥ / balye yan madhusarpiși ca pibati kṣiram ca kāle punah. Tib. tr.: gan tig mnal du rdsogs par ni / gtsan zin yid 'on ro myan la/ mar dan sbran rtsi stobs dan ni / gan tig 'o ma 'thun thse yan. Zimmermann corrects the reading of the Tibetan versions stobs into stob and translates: "Wer, im Mutterleib gedeihend, (sich von) reinem Ghee und Honig von angenehmem Geschmack nährt; wer andrerseits zur Zeit Milch
15 'The Prātimokṣa-Sutra', IHQ, 29 (1953), pp. 162-174, 266-275, 363-377. 16 Raghu Vira and Lokesh Chandra, Gilgit Buddhist Manuscripts, part 1 [= Śatapitaka, vol. 10(1)], New Delhi, 1959.

Page #24

320
REVIEWS
trinkt." Tib. stob-pa is 'to feed' and not 'to nourish oneself'. I would prefer to read with two Tibetan translations myon instead of myan and to translate as follows: "He who, developing in the womb, enjoys pure and pleasant juices and, in his youth, ghee and honey." The position of thse is parallel to that of stobs which represents Skt. balye confounded with bale. It seems difficult to take ro myan as rendering 'taste' and to connect gtsan tin yid 'on ro myan with mar dan sbran rtsi in the following line.
146c: sampujanam sa labhate bahuratnajato (MS. -jätam). Tr.: "Der gewinnt hienieden, als Besitzer vieler Juwelen, immer hohe Ehrung." Zimmermann translates -jāto als 'Besitzer' which seems not possible in this context. It is preferable to read with Banerjee bahuratnajatair 'with masses of many jewels'. The Tibetan translation has: rin chen man dan bźon pas phyug. Probably the Tibetan translators rendered bahuratnayānair.
155a: dagdhasthūṇāsamucchrayāḥ. Tr. "mit Körpern wie flammende Säulen". Dagdhasthūņā is 'a burnt wooden post'. It is used in Buddhist texts to describe a pretī, cf. Avadānasataka (ed. Speyer, vol. I, p. 253.13): pretīm adrākṣam dagdhasthūnāsadṛśīm; Ratnamālāvadāna (ed. K. Takahata, p. 53.19): pretīm... dagdhasthuṇāmahākṛtim.
155c: duropadrutasārameyanivahā vyāvṛtya tisthanty api. Tr.: "und (dass sie, wie) ein von ferne angegriffenes Rudel von Hunden, auseinanderstieben und (wieder) stehen bleiben". The Tibetan translation has: khyi dan 'dra bar rin na gnas / kun tu rgyug (all versions: 'jug) cin slon ba la phyir ldog. Tr.: "wie ein Hund fernab stehenbleibt und, (wenn man) von überall her (auf ihn los-)rennt und (ihn) aufscheucht, wieder zurückkehrt". Tib. slon-ba does not mean 'verscheuchen'. According to Jäschke's dictionary it is used in the meaning 'to excite, cause, inspire (compassion, fear, passion)'. This meaning is derived from the primary meaning 'to cause to rise'. However, the Tibetan translators used here the verb slon-ba 'to ask, to beg': "as dogs they remain at a distance, run in every direction, beg, and turn back". The Tibetan translation has gan-źig but this can be used also for a plural. Undoubtedly the Tibetan translators made no effort to render the rather complicated Sanskrit compound düropadrutasārameyanivahā and gave a very free rendering.
190cd: jñātvā naraḥ svahitasādhanatatparasyām (MS. -paraḥ syām) / kuryān na kaḥ satatam asu drdham prayatnam. The first half of the verse mentions the six pāramitā-s. Zimmermann proposed to read tatparasyam and supposes that it refers to pāramitā as a unit comprising the six pāramitā-s. It is difficult to see why, in that case, he does not read tatparāyām. Probably one must read -tatparās tāḥ / kuryān na kaḥ satatam āsu drḍham prayatnam. The Tibetan translators have read asu (myur-du) but the confusion of s and s is a normal phenomenon.
Australian National University
J. W. DE JONG
Mikkyo jiten. Sawa Ryuken hen. Kyōto. Hōzōkan, 1975. VI + 730+176 pp. Yen 9.500
The most comprehensive Tantric dictionary is the Mikkyō daijiten published in three volumes in Kyōto in 1932-1933 and reprinted in 1968 in six volumes by Hōzōkan. This dictionary is of great importance, especially for the study of Tantrism in Japan.' It is, however, intended primarily for specialists. Moreover, it takes little account of Tantrism outside the Sino-Japanese tradition. Since 1932 much work has been done in Tantric studies by Japanese and foreign scholars. The chief editor, Sawa Ryuken, writes in the preface that the compilers of this dictionary felt the necessity of compiling a dictionary giving explanations written in gendaigo
1
Cf. P. Demiéville, JA, 1933, fasc. ann., pp. 97-98; Bibliographie bouddhique, VI (Paris, 1936), p. 16.

Page #25

REVIEWS
321
(contemporary language) and embracing Tantrism not only in China and Japan but also in India, Tibet, Nepal, etc. Finally, it was considered desirable to add a great number of illustrations. The editorial committee comprises six well-known specialists: Sawa Ryūken, Takai Ryūshū, Tamura Ryūsho, Matsunaga Yükei, Miyasaki Yusho and Yamasaki Taiko. The articles have been written with the help of many scholars and temples, the names of which are listed on p. III. The dictionary contains about 3500 articles and 5500 cross-references on 730 pages of two columns. It is comprehensive in scope and includes doctrinal terms, ceremonies, names of gods, persons and temples, religious objects, titles of books, etc. However, the introduction warns the reader that secret doctrines and ceremonies, which are transmitted from teacher to disciple, are excluded. Undoubtedly, the net has been cast wide. For instance, there are articles on Taoism (Dokyo), the Tibetan language (Chibettogo), Bon-po (Bonkyo), the Mahābhārata (Mahābārata), the Islam (Isurāmukyo), etc. Very welcome is the fact that all dates are given according to the Western calendar with the addition of characters in brackets. The head-words are printed in kana followed by characters within square brackets. Sanskrit and Tibetan words and equivalents are given wherever required. The appendix contains an index in Roman script of Sanskrit, Pāli, Tibetan and European words and an index of characters according to the number of strokes.
The authors of this dictionary show themselves well informed about Tantric studies in the West. An article on Tantric studies in Europe and America (Obei mikkyo) mentions the names of Hodgson, Burnouf, La Vallée Poussin, von Glasenapp, Tucci, Lalou, Snellgrove and Eliade. The articles are well written and informative. They constitute an excellent guide to the bewildering wealth of mandala-s, ceremonies, mudrā-s, divinities, etc. to be found in Tantric texts and schools. Only rarely does one look in vain for an important term. For instance, there is no article dealing with chakuji (choosing an appropriate place for the construction of a mandala). This term is fully studied in the Hõbõgirin (pp. 279-280), a work which seems not to have been consulted by the compilers of the dictionary. Chakuji is found in the Bukkyo jiten, a dictionary of limited size compiled under the supervision of Ui Hakuju. It is to be hoped that it and other important terms which may have been overlooked will be included in a future edition of this dictionary. Another desideratum, which could easily be satisfied without increasing greatly the number of pages is the addition of bibliographical references to recent publications. In the preface Sawa Ryūken rightly remarks that among the many books, published nowadays in Japan on Tantrism, there are both 'jewels and stones'. It would be useful to draw attention to the 'jewels' at appropriate places in the articles.
The dictionary contains a series of appendices which occupy no less than 176 pages: L A survey of Tantric schools in Japan; II. The Siddham alphabet and the bija-s; III. The two great mandalas (ryõbu mandara); IV. Bibliographical details on Tantric texts in the Taisho edition; V. List of Tantric texts in other collections of Buddhist texts published in Japan; VI. Tantric genealogies; VII. List of abridged characters; VIII. Index of words in Roman script; irfdex of characters according to the number of strokes. The usefulness of these appendices is enhanced by several indices and by the fact that the articles in the dictionary make constant references to them.
Sawa Ryūken and his collaborators deserve high praise for their work. The Mikkyo jiten is the first modern Tantric dictionary which takes into account recent scholarship both in Japan and abroad, and which at the same time is accessible to specialists and to readers who have only a general knowledge of Buddhism. Western scholars will find it very useful since it is much easier to consult than the Mikkyo daijiten. The publishers, Hõzõkan in Kyoto, have produced a book which is beautifully printed, bound and illustrated.
Australian National University
J. W. DE JONG

Page #26

322
REVIEWS
Ria Kloppenborg, The Pacce kabuddha. A Buddhist Ascetic. A study of the concept of the paccekabuddha in Pāli canonical and commentarial literature (= Orientalia Rheno-Traiectina, vol. 20). Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1974. XIV +135 pp. DGid. 40...
As the author remarks in her introduction the paccekabuddha has received little detailed attention. Louis de La Vallée Poussin's article in the Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics (vol. X, 1918, pp. 152-154) is based mainly on Sanskrit texts. According to him the pratyekabuddha embodies the old ideal of a solitary and silent life. R. K. remarks in the introduction that the concept of the paccekabuddha presented the opportunity to include pre-buddhist recluses and seers in Buddhism. This explains why paccekabuddhas are referred to by terms used to denote ascetics, e.g. muni, isi, samana, tāpasa, jatila. La Vallée Poussin's theory has been accepted by many scholars both in the West and in Japan. However, it must be pointed out that an entirely different theory on the origin of the concept of the paccekabuddha was proposed by Ui Hakuju (1882-1963) in volume IV of his Indo tetsugaku kenkyū (Tokyo, 1927). According to Ui this concept arose in connection with the tradition that the Buddha, after having obtained the bodhi, hesitated to preach the doctrine. The Buddha in obtaining the bodhi realised the truth of the doctrine of pratītyasamutpada. Therefore the pratyekabuddha is considered to have obtained the bodhi by meditating on the pratityasamutpäda. In his article on the origin of the pratyekabuddha Fujita Kötatsu remarks that Ui's theory has been followed by other leading Japanese scholars such as Kimura Taiken in his Shojo bukkyo shiso ron (Tokyo, 1937) and Sakaino Koyo ("Byakushibutsu ron', Gendai bukkyo, 1933).' However, Fujita shows clearly in his article that Ui's theory is not based upon early Buddhist texts and has to be rejected. According to him La Vallée Poussin's theory has been elaborated in Japan by Mochizuki Shinko ("Engaku', Bukkyodaijiten, vol. I, 1931) and Akanuma Chizen, (Bukkyo kyöten shiron, Nagoya, 1939). On the basis of a detailed study of early Buddhist texts in Pāli and Chinese, Fujita arrives at the same conclusion,
Ria Kloppenborg's work is based entirely upon Pāli texts. A study of this kind would certainly have been very useful if an attempt would have been made to trace the development of the concept of the paccekabuddha in the canonical texts and the commentaries. However, the author has not tried to differentiate between earlier and later texts. She remarks in the introduction: "The explanations of the commentary have simply been followed. To do otherwise would probably have proved an impossibility.” (p. 12). It is difficult to imagine a more defeatist point of view. It is certainly impossible to maintain. The author herself, in discussing the importance of the verses of the Khaggavisānasutta of the Suttanipāta, is forced to remark that the term pacce kabuddha is not used in these verses because at the time when they were composed, the concept of the paccekabuddha was not or had not yet developed within the Buddhist system (p. 11). It would certainly have been necessary to differentiate, not only between canonical texts and commentaries, but also between the earlier and later strata of the canonical writings as has been done, for example, by Sakurabe Hajime in an article on the pratyekabuddha.? Sakurabe draws attention to the fact that the word paccekabuddha is not to be found in texts which are considered to belong to the oldest stratum of Buddhist literature, such as the Suttanipāta, the Dhammapada, the Ittivuttaka, the Thera- and Therigāthā, etc., whereas it is
1 'Sanjo no seiritsu ni tsuite. Byakushibutsu kigen ko', Indogaku Bukkyogaku Kenkyu, V (1957), pp. 419-428. R. K. mentions Fujita's article as one of two Japanese publications about the concept of the pratyekabuddha and his position in the Mahāyāna schools which she has been unable to consult (p. 1, n. 1). This article does not deal at all with the concept of the pratyekabuddha in the Mahāyāna schools. As is indicated by the title itself Fujita studies the origin of the concept and its development in early Buddhism. 2 'Engaku ko', tani Gakuho, XXXVI, 3 (1956), pp. 40-51.

Page #27

REVIEWS
323
found in the Arguttaranikāya and more frequently in such younger texts as the Khuddakapātha, the Apadāna and the two Niddesas. The author limits herself to a systematic arrangement of the materials in three chapters: 1. The paccekabuddha; 2. The Way towards paccekabodhi; 3. The paccekabuddha's way of life. Chapter four contains a translation of the 41 verses of the Khaggavisānasutta together with parts of the commentary. An appendix gives a translation of the Pratyekabuddhabhūmi. The author fails to make mention of the fact that this text is a chapter of Asanga's Yogācārabhūmi and that the Sanskrit text has been published by Alex Wayman in the Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies (VIII, 1, 1960, pp. 376-375).
The author translates a number of passages from Pāli texts but their usefulness is greatly impaired by several serious blunders. A few examples may suffice. P. 19: "paccekabuddhas are born when no buddhas are found and in the time of the birth of a buddha"; Sn. A. p. 51: paccekabuddha buddhe appatvā buddhānam uppajjanakale yeva uppajjanti "pacce kabuddhas arise without having met buddhas and only at the time of the birth of buddhas". The author makes no comment on the fact that this passage mentions that pacce kabuddhas exist at the time of the births of buddhas although in the following chapter she quotes a passage from the Sāratthappakäsini according to which paccekabuddhas are said to exist only in periods when there are no buddhas (p. 37). Entirely misleading is the translation given of a passage twice quoted by the author (pp. 19 and 77). P. 19: "paccekabuddhas comprehend not the essence of the dhamma; because not causing (others) to ascend to the supra-mundane (i.e. nibbāna) they are able to teach the vague concept (paññatti)", cf. p. 77: "for, not causing to ascend to the supra-mundane state they are able to teach the notion (paññatti)”; Sn.A. p. 51: na hi te lokuttaradhammam paññattim aropetvā desetum sakkonti "for they are unable to put the supramundane doctrine into verbal concepts and to teach it."'. Pāli paññatti, BHS prajñapti is not a vague concept' but 'a verbal designation or concept'. The author seems to have experienced considerable difficulties in translating the word dassana 'seeing, view'. One of the conditions for the resolve to set out on the way towards paccekabodhi is "the seeing of one who has destroyed evil influences" (vigatāsavadassana). The commentary explains that this refers to either a buddha or a paccekabuddha or a disciple (buddhapaccekabuddhasāvakānam yassa kassaci dassanan to). R. K. translates vigatāsavadassana (Sn.A. p. 51) as "having the destruction of evil influences in view" and the explanation of the commentary as "whose view is (the same as the view) of buddhas, paccekabuddhas and disciples" (p. 39). On p. 114 R. K. translates nātakadassanam āgatam annataram kutumbikabhariyam (Sn. A. p. 115) "A certain landlord's wife who had come to see a dancer" as follows: "A certain landlord's wife, who resembled a dancer." The author is critical of the existing translations of the Suttanipāta but she does not hesitate to render anañña posi(n) with 'not nourished by others' (p. 116), a translation based upon the explanation given in the commentary: posetabbakasaddhiviharikādivirahita (Sn.A. p. 118.10). According to R. K. this means: "without a co-resident etc. who has to provide the food"! It is certainly heedless to continue this enumeration of elementary mistakes, but it is necessary to point out that the translation of the Pratyekabuddhabhūmi is, if possible, even worse. For instance, kalpasatam buddhotpadam ārāgayati is rendered as "in a hundred kalpas (he) acquires the resolution to become a buddha". This expression has been explained by Edgerton in his dictionary s.v. ārāgana: "buddhotpadārāganatā, attainment of the production of Buddhas, i.e. the privilege of being born when a Buddha is born".'R. K. translates asati ca buddhānām utpäde with "without (having made) the resolution of the buddhas". Translations of this kind of course make nonsense of the text of the Pratyekabuddhabhūmi.
It is obvious that the author does not possess the required knowledge of Pali and Sanskrit to translate the materials studied by her. This combined with the fact that no attempt has been made to arrange the materials in a historical perspective forces us to arrive at the sad conclusion
3 Weller proposes two different interpretations: "Entzücken über das Erscheinen eines Buddha" or "Einen erscheinenden Buddha erfreuen", cf. Zum Käsyapaparivarta (Berlin, 1965), p. 77, note 5.

Page #28

324
REVIEWS
that the author has been badly advised in publishing this book. A comprehensive and satisfactory study of the concept of the paccekabuddha is still outstanding. The best contribution published so far is undoubtedly the short article by Fujita mentioned above. An English translation would be very welcome.
Australian National University
J. W. DE JONG
The Sūtra on the Foundation of the Buddhist Order (Catusparişatsūtra) translated by Ria Kloppenborg (= Religious Texts Translation Series Nisaba, volume one). Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1973. XVI + 123 pp. DGid. 16.-.
The Catusparisatsūtra (henceforth abbreviated as CPS) is one of the most important Buddhist texts published in recent times. In 1951 Ernst Waldschmidt published a comparative analysis, followed in 1952 by a transcription of the Sanskrit fragments and in 1957 and 1962 by a synoptic edition of the Sanskrit text and parallel versions in Pāli, Tibetan and Chinese. The CPScontains the Sarvāstivāda version of the early history of the Buddhist order, beginning with the obtaining of the bodhi by the Buddha and ending with the conversion of his chief pupils Sariputra and Maudgalyāyana.
Ria Kloppenborg's translation is meant to provide text-material for students of Buddhism who do not know Sanskrit and is therefore as literal as possible. On the whole the translation is accurate but in some places other interpretations can be suggested. Several passages present difficulties because the text is not well established. In the following notes references are made to the chapters and sections into which the text has been divided by the editor.
Introduction. Section 3. For a parallel passage see Gilgit Manuscripts, vol. III, part IV (Calcutta, 1950), p. 216.3-11. R. K. renders jñanadarsana with "insight into knowledge" but jñānadarsana has to be interpreted as a dvandva. For the explanation of the terms jñāna and darsana by the Abhidharmakośavyākhyā, and for references see L. de La Vallée Poussin, Abhidharmakosa de Vasubandhu, VIII, p. 193, n. 2.
1.7: "O Thou of whom all pride is gone." In a note R. K. explains that she translates garvalopa instead of pürnalopa. Waldschmidt's restoration garvalopa is based upon Tibetan na-rgyal bcom but at p. 434, n. 16 he points out that the reading of the manuscript is more like rn than like rva. The Gilgit manuscript has parnalopa and MS. 42.3 rnalopa. It is not possible to read garvalopa since it is neither confirmed by the manuscripts nor attested elsewhere as far as I know. The parallel passages have been studied by Alsdorf, Die Aryā-Strophen des Pāli-Kanons: (Wiesbaden, 1968), pp. 54-55. Alsdorf arrives at the following conclusion: "Ein Vergleich dieser Texte zeigt sofort, dass pūrnabhāra, pürnalopa, parnalopa and prajñākāra sämtlich Entstellungen von pannabhāra sind, das allein einen wirklich guten Sinn gibt." It is not easy to see how bhāra could have been transformed into lopa, but perhaps this is due to the influence of Pāli pannaloma. Tib. bcom corresponds to lopa but Tib. na-rgyal 'pride' is unexplainable.
3.12: “Furthermore, the gods belonging to the train of Māra, who form a danger are not able to harm the virtuous";parato ye upasargā devatā mārakāyikāh / na saknuvanty antarāyam krtapunyasya kartu vai //. Paratas can mean 'further' or 'farther' but not 'furthermore'. Here it
1 See also Bhikṣuni-vinaya, edited by Gustav Roth (Patna, 1970), p. 122.5-7: bahuśrutam citrakatham Buddhasya paricārakam/parnabhāravisamyuktam. Read parnabhāram (= pannabhāram) visamyuktar, cf. bahussuto cittakathi buddhassa paricārako / pannabhāro visaññutto, Theragāthā 1021; pannabhāro visamyutto, Arguttaranikāya, vol. I, p. 162.21. -

Page #29

REVIEWS
325
certainly means 'from others': "Those disasters (coming) from others (such as) the gods belonging to the train of Māra."
4.6: "capable of speaking for themselves (on the dharma) and well-acquainted (with the dharma)"; alam svasya vādasya paryavadātāro: "capable of elucidating their own doctrine", cf. Tib. ran-gi smra-ba gsal-bar byed-nus-pa'i. See also Edgerton, Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Dictionary (henceforth abbreviated as BHSD) s.v. paryavadāpayitar: "one who purifies completely: svasya vādasya paryavadāpayitāro Divy. 202.13". Burnouf translates: "ils peuvent faire adopter aux autres tous leurs raisonnements” (Introduction à l'histoire du Buddhisme indien, Paris, 1844, p. 78).
4.7: "The ascetic Gautama will (not) enter complete extinction.” In a note the translator remarks that perhaps a negation has been left out of this sentence. A negation is found in the Tibetan translation and must be accepted into the text even if it is absent in the Gilgit manuscript. Cf. CPS p. 438, n. 2, in which Waldschmidt refers to 16.12 where the negation is of course absent.
8.2: “The dharma obtained by me is profound, of deep splendour." “Of deep splendour" renders gambhīrāvabhāso. Here avabhāsa has the meaning 'appearance' as the corresponding Pali obhāsa in the passage on the four pools (udakarahada) of which the first is said to be uttano gambhirobhāso (Ang. Nik., II, p. 105). Woodward translates: "The shallow which looks deep" (Gradual Sayings, II, p. 112).
10.8: "Conquerors like me who achieved the destruction of evil influences must be recognized"; jina hi madrsā jñeyā ye prăptă asravaksayam: “Those like me who achieved the destruction of evil influences must be acknowledged as Jinas."
10.10: "For correct people who know the ways of the world do not radiate": na hi santah prakäsante viditvā lokaparyayam. In the corresponding verse of Udänavarga 21.7 Bernhard reads prakāsyante. The Tibetan translator seems also to have read prakāsyante: skyes-bu dam-pa grags mi-srid "They cannot be celebrated as excellent people."
11.7: "men of delusion"; mohapuruşāh "stupid fellows", cf. BHSD s.v.
11.18: "The Tathāgata only ate in the morning at the proper time"; tathāgata pratiyaty' eva kalabhoji. In 16.2 R. K. translates pratiyaty'eva with 'immediately': "When his body was tired, he immediately went to sleep"; śrāntakāyaḥ prāgbhāraḥ pratiyaty' eva middham avakrāntah. The expression pratiyaty'eva has given rise to different explanations and translations, cf. Jean Filliozat, 'Fragments du Vinaya des Sarvāstivādin', JA, 1938, p. 45, n. 3 (= Laghu-prabandhāh, Leiden, 1973, p. 103): "On pourrait interpréter pratiyaty comme locatif absolu du participe présent pratiyant- et traduire "tout en répliquant"; Bernard Pauly, 'Fragments sanskrits de haute Asie', JA, 1957, p. 292: "le sens de "tout en répliquant" ne me semble pas absolument satisfaisant. On pourrait peut-être comprendre "tout en faisant cette réflexion" à moins qu'il ne s'agisse d'un sens temporel: "sur le champ, sans plus tarder", Louis Renou, compte rendu de Kusum Mittal, Dogmatische Begriffsreihen im älteren Buddhismus, I, JA, 1959, p. 261: "On relèvera, d'après l'éditeur, la forme pratiyaty eva, qu'il rend tantôt par “rapidement", tantôt par "au plus haut degré": double traduction qui n'est pas sans trahir quelque embarras. La seconde interprétation peut s'appuyer sur la racine yat- "faire effort" avec une évolution de sens analogue à sahasă "avec force", d'où "tout-à-coup"." Renou's interpretation has been accepted by Luise Schwarzschild, cf. 'Notes on some words meaning "Immediately" in Middle Indo-Aryan', JRAS, 1961, p. 39, n. 3. Waldschmidt translated pratiyat' eva in the same context as CPS 16.2 with "schnell", cf. 'Zu einigen Bilinguen aus den Turfan-Funden', NGAW, 1955, p. 19 [= Von Ceylon bis Turfan, Göttingen, 1967, p. 256). Waldschmidt pointed out that Pāli patigacc'eva or paţikacc' eva corresponds to pratiyaty'eva (ibid., n. 138). Edgerton considered pratyatya 'in advance to be a semi-Prakritic form of pratikrtya and Pāli patikacca (or "gacca). According to him the meaning quickly' is a result of specialization or distortion of the meaning 'in advance' (Review of Das Catusparisatsūtra, Language, 39, 1963, p. 491). The form pratiyatya has been correctly explained by Brough who remarked that Buddhist Sanskrit has the form pratikstya which corresponds to Päli patikacca or patigacca but that in addition it shows on occasion

Page #30

326
REVIEWS
pratiyatya due to a misunderstanding of a Prakrit padiyacca. As to the meaning Brough said: "For pratikrtya Edgerton gives the meaning 'in advance', and the word may indeed be translated in this way without undue distortion. In many places, however, it continues to carry the connotation of 'making preparations to meet a contingency'." (The Gāndhāri Dharmapada, London 1962, p. 278). The Tibetans translate pratyaty' eva with myur-du 'quickly' or with expressions meaning 'previously, before' (snon-chad, gon-ma bzin-du). From the meaning previously' (i.e. "sooner than usual", cf. Dines Andersen, A Pali Reader, glossary s.v. patigacca) the meanings 'quickly, immediately' have developed. Apart from the places quoted see further Udānavarga (ed. F. Bernhard) 4.16: pratiyatyeva tat kuryād, yaj jāned dhitam ātmanah; 27.8: etat tu salyam pratiyatya paśyato, hy adhyavasitā yatra prajāh prasaktāḥ; Gilgit Manuscripts, Vol. III, Part 2 (Srinagar, 1942), p. 86.10: amuko bhikṣuḥ sa bhagavatà pratiyatyeva (Ms. pratipatyeva; Dutt pratipadyeva!) vyākstaḥ (Dutt vyākstāh); p. 107.13: pratiyatyevāsau (Dutt pratipattyevāsau) vihāraḥ sobhane viviktasane ca bhūbhāge pratişthāpitah.
12.12: "I was not released ... nor did I leave this or was I separated (from it), free (from it), nor far removed (from it), with undeluded mind." The translation uses five expressions to render four Sanskrit words: mukto, nisto, visamyukto, vipramukto. As to "undeluded mind" the translator refers to aviparitena cittena which Waldschmidt had restored on p. 150 but the Tibetan translation (phyin-ci-log dan bral-ba'i sems-kyis) shows clearly that viparyāsāpagatena cetasā is the correct reading.
25.11: "method of the dharma"; dharmavinaya! Same mistake in 25b.9.
27b.10: "The man, hearing (this) from king Srainya Bimbasāra of Magadha, said: "Be it so, Your Majesty"; evam deveti sa puruṣo rājño māgadhasya śrainyasya bimbasārasya pratiśrutya. Pratisru- means here of course 'to consent to, agree, acquiesce'.
27c.20: "They speak of food, drinks and tastes, of sensual desires and women. Seeing that these impurities tend to attachment, therefore I was not delighted with regard to sacrifice and oblation"; annāni pānāni tathā rasāms ca, kamāms ca stris caiva vadanti haike / etām mulan upadhau samprapasyams, tasman na yaste na hute rato 'ham. In a note the translator remarks that 'they'refer to the sacrifices. The text has not 'they' but 'some here'. The manuscript reads vadantīhaike which Waldschmidt has changed to vadanti haike metri causa. It would be preferable to write vadant' ihaike (cf. Edgerton, Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar $ 4.25). In the second half the translation has to be corrected: "Seeing that in attachment there are these impurities.”
27c.21: "If your mind is not delighted by that, by sensual desires, by food, drinks and tastes, then, in the world of gods and men where does your mind delight in?"; kathan nu te devamanusyaloke ratam manah "How can your mind delight in the world of gods and men?”
27e.22: "The path (of worldly existence) being cut off, it does not proceed. Irreparably it comes to destruction." The translation of apratisandhi with 'irreparably' is based upon Waldschmidt's note but the meaning of Pāli appatisandhiya is 'not leading (or subject to) rebirth', cf. Critical Pali Dictionary s.v.; Edgerton, op. cit., p. 493: apratisamdhi (adv.) 'without rebirth'.
28b.3: "he was closely following the reverend Aśvajit"; āyuşmantam aśvajitam agamayamanah; "he was waiting for the venerable Asvajit".
27e.23: "In what is he who is completely released? In the opposite of suffering, the destruction of it..."; tatra bhiksavaḥ kaḥ parinirvítah/anyatra duḥkham tan niruddham. The text is not very well established, cf. CPS p. 362, n. 7. In the corresponding passage of the Nidānasamyukta (ed. Chandrabhāl Tripāthī, Berlin, 1962, p. 140) the editor reads anyatra yad duhkham. He translates: "Wer hat in einem solchen Fall, ihr Mönche, das volle Nirvana erlangt? Es ist nichts weiter als dass das, was leidvoll ist, vernichtet...." In a note he refers to BHSD s.v. anyatra (2). I believe that this translation is correct but that it requires a negation which is found in the Gilgit manuscript: tatra bhiksavaḥ kaḥ parinirvęto nānyatra yad duḥkham ...: "In this case, O monks, who is he who is completely released? There is nothing else except that suffering is destroyed ... (literally: "not except that which is suffering is destroyed..."). The

Page #31

REVIEWS
327
Tibetan translation confirms this interpretation: dge-slon-dag de-la yons-su mya-nan-las 'das-pa gan te-na/gźan med-kyi sdug-bsnal 'gags-pa gan yin-pa / de ni ñe-bar ti-ba /.
28e.7: The Sanskrit text is missing and R. K. translates in a note the Tibetan translation: "The teacher... saw the friends Upatisya and Kolita coming to the Veņuvana. Concerning those two, having come in this way in the middle of the excellent assembly, he taught with certainty: "Those two (will) become the best pair of my disciples in the doctrine"." Tib. ston-pa... 'od-ma'i tshal-du ma phyin-par/de-ltar mchi-ba (cf. p. 391, n. 5) gzigs gyur-nas/tshogs mchog dbus-su de gnis ni/'di gnis na-yi ñan-thos-kyi/zun-mchog 'gyur źes nes bstan-te /, "The teacher... having seen the two friends Upatisya and Kolita, who had not yet arrived at the Veņuvana, coming in this way, proclaimed: "In the excellent assembly these two, both of them, will be the best pair of my disciples", cf. Alsdorf, op. cit., p. 70 and IIJ, XIII (1971), p. 212.
28g.1-3: "1. In the morning then many monks dressed and taking (their) bowls and robes, entered Rajagṛha to collect alms. 2. Then the people of Rajagṛha, seeing these monks, acted contemptuously towards the (former followers of the) heretical school of Sañjayin, who were admitted and ordinated, and they uttered the verse:". "The Buddha arrived in Rajagṛha, the capital of the people of Magadha. All are guided by Sanjayin. Whom else will you guide?""; atha sambahula bhikṣavaḥ pūrvähne nivasya patracīvaram ādāya rājagṛham pindaya prāvisan. 2. atha rajagṛhakā manuṣyaḥ samjayinā tīrthyāyatanena pravrajitenopasampaditena tāms tān bhikṣün dṛṣṭvā avaspandayamānā gāthām bhāṣante. 3. prapto rajagṛhe buddho magadhānām purottame/sarve samjayino nītāḥ kim nu bhuyo nayiṣyatha //. The text in section two seems to be incomplete. According to the Tibetan translation the original text ran something like this: atha ye rajagṛhakā manuṣyaḥ samjayinā tīrthyāyatanenācirapravājitenopasampaditenānāttamanaso 'nabhinandinas te tāms tan...: "Then the people of Rajagṛha, furious and discontented because the (followers of the) heretical school of Sañjayin were recently admitted and ordained seeing all these monks.... Cf. Tib. de-na rgyal-po'i khab-kyi mi gan-dag yan-dag rgyal-ba-can-gyi mu-stegs-can-gyi gnas rab-tu phyun tin bsñen-par rdsogs-nas rin-po ma lon-pas yi ma rans-sin mnon-par mi dga'-ba de-dag-gis dge-slon de dan de-dag mthon-nas. In 3. samjayino designates the followers of Sañjayin: "All the followers of Sañjayin are lead (by the Buddha)", cf. Pāli sabbe sanjaye netvāna "Leading all Sañjaya's (followers)". (tr. I. B. Horner, The Book of Discipline, IV, p. 56). In 3d nayiṣyatha must be a mistake for nayisyati which is found in the Pali and in the Mahāvastu: "What more will he lead?" The parallel texts have kam instead of kim but kim is confirmed by the Tibetan translation (ci-źig) and may have been used to express more forcibly the contempt with which the people of Rajagṛha treated the monks.
The translator does not seem to have consulted Edgerton's review of Waldschmidt's edition in which he rejects, for instance, the spellings kunmāsa and Yaṣṭivana. Edgerton's suggestion to read apratibhānamātram in 28f.12 and 28g.6 is very attractive.
Australian National University
J. W. DE JONG
A. Kamatchinathan, The Tirunelveli Tamil Dialect. Annamalainagar, 1969. xvi+ 188 pp. Rs. 5.00.
Though the existence of dialectal differences in the ancient Tamilnad is attested in the classical Tamil texts and the later commentaries, a scientific study of the geographical and caste dialects started only a few decades ago. Grierson's Linguistic Survey of India, Vol. IV (1906) mentions some of the Tamil dialects. Among the first scholars one cannot miss the names of Robert Caldwell and J. Bloch which have become monumental through the pioneering study of the Tamil dialects though in a very modest way. Native scholars like R. P. Sethu Pillai, T. P. Meenakshisundaram and K. Kanapathi Pillai have spent some time studying the dialectal

Page #32
328 REVIEWS differences. The Nancilnad dialect of V. I. Subramoniam and the considerable number of dies of M. Shanmugam Pillai show the application of modern linguistic principles to the study of Tamil dialects. Last, but not the least, is the detailed study of K. Zvelebil. At present a number of young scholars are actively engaged in this endeavour around the centres in Tamilnadu and Kerala. The present work is part of the outcome of the project 'The Linguistic Survey of Tamilnadu' undertaken by the Centre of Advanced Study in Linguistics of the Annamalai University. It seeks to present a descriptive account of the linguistic structure of the Tirunelveli Tamil dialect spoken in the north-western part of Tamilnadu. This work, based on the author's field work, gives for the first time a full account of the phonology, morphology and vocabulary of this dialect. It is not necessary to deal in detail with the obvious positive contributions of this study. The discussion will be limited to a few conflicting cases where disagreement is unavoidable. Since the book misses an introduction and a highly desirable map, most of the readers are left in the dark regarding the exact location where this dialect is spoken, the number of speakers, the caste or castes to which the informants belong and the relationship of this dialect to the other dialects of Tamil. What we know at all about the informants is that they are all people belonging to the older generation of sedentry areas". The author has given a detailed description of the phonemics. No contrast is found between the voiced and the voiceless plosives even though a number of Sanskrit loan words are listed in the vocabulary. The phonemes lp, t,c,t,k/ have equal number of allophones such as voiced, long voiceless, voiceless and half-long voiceless. In order to maintain this artificial regularity, such phones as 0,8, s and h are treated as separate phonemes even though the author does not even offer a single minimal pair to justify his analysis. The artificiality is also evident from the absence of the word /veya/ 'boy' in the vocabulary which gives all the other words in phonemic writing. The description is over simplified when the author just mentions the well-known descriptions, such as /o/ as a bilabial voiceless fricative, /8/ as an interdental voiced fricative and /s/ as a palatal voiceless fricative. One would like to know rather the distribution of these phones than their description. While -pp-, -tt-, C-, -kk- and -ttare treated as long consonants, -mm-,-nn-, -nn-, -Il-, -!!-, -yy- and -vv- are described as geminated consonants. The suprasegmental features of Modern Tamil have been briefly dealt with in one of the articles of Rudin. Until now this remains an unfilled gap in any description of Tamil. The author has also relegated this task to a future publication. The sandhi rules and the rest of morphology have to be well coordinated in order to avoid confusion and redundancy. A case in point are the sandhi rules five and ten. According to five, for example, ali+nt +u would become alincu 'having perished' and according to ten, for example, kan+t+u would become kantu 'having seen'. Because of the sandhi rule five, the author does not mention a separate allomorph -nc- for the past tense. But contradiction arises when he posits an allomorph-t-in spite of the sandhi rule ten to account for instances like kantu. Lack of coordination is again visible in the sandhi rule C.2 which deals with the fricativisation of stops after relative participles. The author has taken // and /h/ as separate phonemes, although their occurrences are perfectly predicted by this rule, e.g., vanta +peya becomes vanta veya 'fellow who came' and vanta + kale becomes vanta hale 'bull which came'. This sandhi rule does not justify the author's decision to interpret and has separate phonemes. The most interesting part of the description is morphemics. Under this heading the author has set up six types of "morphemic words", namely verbs, nouns, adverbs, adjectives, postpositions and indeclinables. Word classification is still an unsolved problem in Tamil. The author defines five types of "words" but the definition for noun is missing. The definition of word types are based on different criteria. In the case of verbs, nouns(?) and indeclinables it is the capacity to take a particular suffix versus incapacity; in the case of adverbs, adjectives and postpositions the syntactic relationship forms the criterion. It goes without saying that these two yard-sticks are not mutually exclusive. For example, the relative participle vanta 'who came' is described under "verbs" because it takes a tense suffix -nt-, whereas on the basis of its syntactic relationship it comes under adjectives since it is a co-occurrent of a noun. Another extreme case