Reviews Of Different Books

Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269332/1

Page #1
REVIEWS 137 Rosane Rocher, La theorie des voix du verbe dans l'ecole panineenne (le 14e ahnika) (= Universite libre de Bruxelles, Travaux de la Faculte de Philosophie et Lettres, tome XXXV). Bruxelles, 1968. 350 pp. Panini a insere dans la large portion de son Astadhyayi consacree a la derivation (adhyaya 3 a 5) son enseignement des desinences personnelles du verbe. Il en distingue nettement deux series. Le premier adhyaya qui contient tant de propositions, paribhasa, definitions de noms techniques, etc., destinees a regler le maniement des injonctions des chapitres subsequents, attribue les noms techniques atmanepada et parasmaipada a ces deux series de desinences ainsi qu'a quelques suffixes verbaux (participes). Ces noms memes "mot pour soi", "mot pour autrui" nous indiquent que nous avons la la distinction entre voix moyenne et active. Dans ce meme adhyaya, Panini consacre 82 sutra (ahnika 14) a repartition de ces deux series de desinences, selon le sens a exprimer et dans l'ensemble des racines, faisant ainsi le lien avec l'enseignement connexe du Dhatupatha. L'ouvrage de Mme Rocher consacre a ce quatorzieme ahnika vise principalement a montrer comment les grammairiens les plus anciens de l'ecole de Panini ont traite la question des voix du verbe sanskrit. C'est une presentation detaillee, claire des faits que ces grammairiens ont mis en evidence, ainsi que de leurs procedes d'exposition. Mme Rocher reconnait chez eux deux demarches fondamentales, l'une d'analyse de la forme en elements, racine, affixe, etc. l'autre d'analyse des faits de la realite exprimes par chacun de ces elements. Panini ne traite pas dans l'abstrait des voix du verbe. Il part des desinences et montre quel sens elles apportent a l'action signifiee par la racine. Elles suffisent a definir les voix active et moyenne. Elles ne suffisent pas a faire apparaitre le passif, un affixe yak etant requis. De plus elles sont identiques au moyen et au passif. Aussi ne trouve-t-on pas ici une presentation de plusieurs voix, ni une classification des formes sous plusieurs rubriques, actif, moyen, passif, reciproque, reflechi. Panini part de l'existence de deux series de desinences et c'est quand il en precise le sens qu'il fait entendre en meme temps a laquelle de nos voix leur emploi correspond. Les desinences parasmaipada, dit-il, servent a exprimer l'agent (ce qui correspond a notre voix active), les desinences atmanepada a exprimer l'objet (cas de notre passif), l'action ou l'etat (cas de l'impersonnel) et l'agent quand il y a echange d'action (cas du reciproque) ou quand ledit agent est beneficiaire du fruit de l'action (sens du moyen). Le sens n'est pas la seule cause de l'emploi de l'une ou l'autre serie de desinences. Il est nombre de cas ou l'on doit constater un emploi qui n'est pas fonction des sens definis. Le Dhatupatha, en connexion avec une information du sutra, note l'existence de ces emplois. Ainsi, comme l'enseigne le sutra 1.3.12, toute racine qui porte dans le Dhatupatha en indice un accent atone ou r recoit les desinences atmanepada; une racine qui porte en indice un accent module ou n prend les memes desinences avec la nuance de sens que l'agent est beneficiaire du fruit de l'action; toute autre racine prend les desinences para maipada. Tel est le cadre de la description de Panini. Elle est poursuivie par un releve de particularites, complete par le varttika. Ainsi avons-nous un precieux repertoire de formes particulieres avec definition precise des circonstances de leur emploi, presence de certains preverbes, acceptions particulieres, emploi transitif ou intransitif, temps ou formes speciales. Mme Rocher passe en revue avec beaucoup de soin toutes ces regles particulieres et ceci constitue la part la plus importante de son puvrage. L'etude de Panini etant evidemment inseparable de celle des commentaires et developpements qu'il a suscites, elle presente aussi toute la somme d'explications, justifications, exemples, contre-exemples, excursus contenus dans le Mahabhasya et son commentaire, le Pradipa, dans la Kasika et ses deux commentaires, Nyasa et Padamanjari, dans la Durghatavrtti, dans les ouvrages specialises consacres aux racines, Madhaviyadhatuvrtti, etc. A la fin de son chapitre de conclusions elle tente de caracteriser chacun de ces commentateurs. Particulierement interessante et vivante est, chez ces auteurs, la confrontation qu'ils font entre

Page #2
138 REVIEWS l'usage et la lettre de la regle. Y a-t-il divergence, ils s'empressent en reinterpretant l'enonce de la regle de montrer que ce n'est qu'apparence. La Durghatavrtti se signale par son effort en ce sens. Elle resout un desaccord en reinterpretant un enonce de la regle, un ca par exemple. Ou bien elle reconnait a certains textes (purana, epopee, etc.) une independance legitime par rapport a Panini. Parfois elle rend un verdict d'incorrection. Ou, souvent, au lieu de reinterpreter la regle, elle reinterprete le vers cite, tel ce vers du Kiratarjuniya (17.63) ou pour justifier un ajaghne on propose quatre constructions differentes et fort inattendues (8 505). On voit dans ces debats comment la grammaire est un instrument d'explication pour le commentateur de kavya. Dans le vers 2.35 du Kiratarjuniya, cite $754, on trouve une forme nayanti qui est mise en question, parce qu'une desinence atmanepada est requise en vertu du sutra 1.3.37 qui la prescrit quand l'objet se situe dans l'agent, sans pour autant etre partie de son corps. Or, ici, l'objet est la force qui appartient aux ambitieux, agents de l'action signifiee par nayanti, verbe que Mme Rocher traduit par "deploient" et traite comme ayant un seul objet. Mallinatha entend la phrase autrement et propose une solution grammaticale originale. Le verbe nayanti a le sens de prapanam "faire atteindre" et se construit avec un double objet. Mallinatha construit nayanti avec paurusam "le courage" et sivam aupayikam"un moyen favorable", au lieu de faire de ce second terme un objet de viganayya. Or le moyen favorable est un objet qui n'appartient pas a l'agent et Mallinatha peut dire que c'est en raison de la presence de cet objet que la desinence atmanepada n'a pas ete employee. Ce faisant, il donne a la stance le sens: "apres s'etre assure de l'heureuse obtention d'un fruit considerable, ils joignent leur courage au moyen favorable, maitres de la precipitation de la colere, ceux qui desirent vaincre". Au $817, dans sa traduction obscure de sens, Mme Rocher ne rend pas justice a la stance etanmanda ... attribuee a Vallana par le Saduktikarnamsta (donnee aussi dans le subhasitaratnakosa, no. 1664, ed. Kosambi-Gokhale, citee Vakroktijivita, Kavyaprakasa, etc.). Une traduction litterale nous semble pouvoir etre (voir aussi la traduction de M. Ingalls dans An anthology of sanskrit court poetry, HOS, 44, Harvard, 1965): "ce couple de tes seins au teint legerement clair, au centre sombre, comme le fruit tinduka lent a murir, apparait bon pour la caresse de la main des beaux jeunes chasseurs; ainsi, o fille du chef du hameau, le troupeau d'elephants priant desesperement pour la protection de sa vie, te demande-t-il: ne couvre pas ta poitrine d'un vetement de feuilles (de plumes de paon, selon Sridhara)". Jhalakikar place cette stance dans la bouche d'un amoureux (voir son commentaire sur Kavyaprakasa, Poona, BORI, 1950). La scene se passe dans une tribu de chasseurs ou habitants de la foret, d'ou un effet de couleur locale particulier. L'amoureux prend comme pretexte un troupeau d'elephants qui s'enfuit devant les chasseurs. Il figure cette fuite comme signifiant une priere des elephants adressee a la jeune fille: si la beaute de tes seins attire et retient les jeunes chasseurs, ils nous oublieront et nous laisseront vivre tranquillement; devoile-donc ta poitrine. Et ainsi l'amoureux a indirectement manifeste son desir. Le Kavyaprakasa donne ce vers comme exemple du defaut cyutasamskyti, faute de grammaire. Anunathate selon la regle recoit la desinence atmanepada, quand le sens est celui de souhait, asih. Or ici le sens est yacanam "demande". Nagesa precise quelle peut etre la difference entre ces deux sens. Il y a asih, "souhait", quand il y a simple desir; il y a yacanam, "demande", quand il y a une demarche provoquee par un desir, mais qui vise a produire chez quelqu'un d'autre un desir de donner l'objet desire. Jhalakikar marque la distinction plus simplement: il y a asih quand l'objet du verbe anunathest seulement la chose desiree, le sens de souhait n'etant pas possible si la personne a qui le desir s'adresse est donnee comme objet. Dans le cas present, l'accusatif tvam interdit le sens de souhait. Le commentaire de Sridhara (ed. Sivaprasad Bhattacharyya, Calcutta, Sanskrit College, 1961, p. 188) rejette qu'il y ait incorrection et invoque la these du caractere facultatif de l'emploi dans les sens autres que celui de souhait, these qu'il attribue a Maitreya et au Jnapakasamuccaya de Purusottamadeva.

Page #3
REVIEWS 139 Apres la confrontation avec l'usage, une autre tache des commentateurs de Panini est d'assurer la logique interne, le mecanisme d'application des regles. On connait le caractere quasi algebrique des formules panineennes dont on s'attend a ce qu'une application mecanique fournisse toutes les formes desirables. Le Mahabhasya, et deja le varttika avant lui, ont montre des incoherences, des irregularites. Le Mahabhasya s'est attache a corriger les sutra deficients, a rattraper leur efficacite, plus d'ailleurs, en les reinterpretant qu'en en changeant la teneur. Les sutra de l'ahnika 14 posent nombre de problemes de cette sorte: caractere limitatif des injonctions, objet sur lequel porte la restriction, interposition d'affixes entre racine et desinence, ordre d'application des regles, traitement du bhava-karty "reflechi", identification des racines, etc. On connait l'intelligence que Patanjali a mis dans les solutions et les debats qu'il construit a partir de quelques postulats tels que la non-inutilite d'aucun enonce de Panini, etc., inaugurant par la une discipline rigoureuse encore cultivee de nos jours. Dans la premiere partie de son livre, Mme Rocher analyse ces problemes tels qu'ils sont presentes dans le Mahabhasya, le Pradipa et les commentaires de la Kasika. Elle se declare quelquefois deconcertee devant les procedes de raisonnement. Peut-etre faut-il recourir aux explications des commentateurs plus tardifs, en particulier s'aider de l'intelligence de Nagesa pour mieux comprendre la validite logique des discussions du bhasya. Ce dernier est souvent elliptique et ce sont les commentateurs qui se mettent en devoir de fournir une demonstration rigoureuse manquante. A titre d'exemple nous citerons le raisonnement que Mme Rocher a evoque $153-154 de facon un peu floue. Le sutra 1.2.4 autorise le transfert de l'application d'une operation determinee par un enonce nit a un element qui n'est pas rit. Ce terme nit peut se comprendre soit comme un bahuvrihi "qui a pour indice ri", soit comme un karmadharaya "indice r". Pour montrer que le sutra 1.3.12 ne s'applique pas dans le cas ou un theme verbal est nit par ledit transfert, Patanjali dit que l'econce nit dans 1.3.12 est un karmadharaya, non un bahuvrihi. Comment la forme en karmadharaya empeche-t-elle l'application vicieuse? Patanjali ne le dit pas. Nagesa laisse entendre le raisonnement suivant. Il est d'autres operations determinees par un enonce nit, par exemple celle qui est prescrite par kriti ca 1.1.5. Or dans ce sutra l'on a, comme nous le verrons ci-dessous, un enonce en bahuvrihi, de meme que dans l'injonction du transfert sarvadhatukam apit (nit). On concluera de la conformite de kniti ca, etc., avec la regle de transfert, que l'operation transferable ne l'est que si elle est determinee par un enonce en bahuvrihi. Enfin il faut montrer pourquoi il faut lire dans 1.3.12 un enonce en karmadharaya. Pour cela Kaiyata recourt a l'argument de l'antarargatva du karmadharaya. Dans le cas de 1.2.4 seule l'analyse en bahuvrihi est possible. Dans celui de kniti ca, on etablit que le sens du locatif est celui de cause, le sens du sutra etant: le guna et la vyddhi causes par nit n'ont pas lieu. Or ce sont des affixes qui selon 7.3.84 sont cause de guna, non des indices; l'on doit donc entendre ce nit comme un bahuvrihi "(affixe) qui a pour indice ri". La demonstration peut etre poursuivie pour d'autres enonces que celui de kniti ca. Pierre-Sylvain Filliozat S. N. L. Shrivastava, Sankara and Bradley. A Comparative and Critical Study. Delhi-Varanasi-Patna, 1968. 272 pp. The topic of colonialism and its evils, though not normally within the scope of this Journal, sometimes encroaches upon even such lofty subjects as the study of Indian and comparative philosophy. Here we are facing such an intrusion, ultimately due to the fact that colonial rulers tend to set up a system of education partly in order to implant

Page #4
140 REVIEWS their own values and cultural prejudices. But by the time this system takes root (perhaps after foreign rule has ended), it may fail to do anything but evoke the fashions of a bygone generation in a distant country. Thus Indian students of English are made to study Wordsworth, and Indian students of philosophy Bradley. This leads in turn to comparative studies, often written in the spirit of apologetics. Only a sizeable bookcase would be large enough to accommodate all the Indian theses and dissertations on such topics as "Kalidasa and Wordsworth" or " Sankara and Bradley". Since this state of affairs conforms to a general pattern, merely drawing attention to it does not constitute valid criticism of an individual author, except in so far as it may serve as a mild reproach for conformity. Though Professor Shrivastava observes that the dominant note today is "Scientiffc (sic) Empiricism", he adheres throughout to the view that "it can be said without fear of contradiction that in the history of philosophical thought, Sankara and Bradley have certainly been two of the most outstanding philosophers..." (p ,3). It is true that this is not a contradiction; but it is a falsehood. It just isn't truc that Bradley was an outstanding, or even a moderately original philosopher, though he was regarded as such by some people in England during the first decade of the twentieth century. He therefore is no match for Sankara, who not only was a great philosopher by any standards (not excluding contemporary and presently fashionable ones) but who has also had the advantage of some twelve centuries in which his worth has been established beyond any doubt. Thus, comparing Bradley with Sankara is like comparing a Victorian imitation of French Regency with a Greek temple. As to Bradley, Dr. Shrivastava engages in a rather Quixotic fight: having set him up first as a great philosopher, he then draws attention to his errors and confusions. As to Sankara, he does not teach us anything new, but he is at any rate on firmer ground. Dr. Shrivastava makes use of several sources other than the Brahmasutrabhasya, e.g., the Bhamati and the Istasiddhi. He unquestioningly accepts the authenticity of such works as the Gitabhasya, the Mandukyakarikabhasya and the Vivekacudamani. As far as interpretation is concerned, mention may here be made only of his efforts to establish that Sankara did not mean to say that the world is unreal. I think that on our vyavaharika level this is largely a matter of words, altough it appears to be a simple matter of logic (given that the meaning of "real" is fixed) to infer from Sankara's axiom that only Brahman is real, that the world is real in so far as it is identical with Brahman and unreal in so far as it is different from it. - Misprints are comparatively few and the transliteration used (in addition to the devanagari footnotes) is generally consistent (exceptions are bhootadarsana, p. 117 and dviroopam, p. 127). Berkeley J. F. Staal Ratna Handurukande, Manicudavadana being a Translation and Edition and Lokananda, a Transliteration and Synopsis (= Sacred Books of the Buddhists, vol. XXIV). London, Luzac & Company Ltd. 1967. IV, 300 pp. PS 4.15 s. Volume 24 of the Sacred Books of the Buddhists contains an edition and translation of a prose text of the Manicudavadana, an edition of a metrical version of the same text, and a transliteration and synopsis of the drama Lokananda which has been preserved in a Tibetan translation. We must be grateful to the Pali Text Society for including in this series, in which translations of the Jatakamala and the Mahavastu had already appeared, Sanskrit and even Tibetan texts. Let us hope that by pursuing this course the Pali Text Society will increasingly become a Buddhist Text Society!

Page #5
REVIEWS 141 Hanauet free it in Edge In collections of Buddhist Sanskrit manuscripts there is a great number of metrical and prose avadanas of which, to date, only very few have been published. The prose text of the Manicudavadana is to be found both as a separate text and as a chapter of the Divyavadanamala. Dr. Handurukande has used five manuscripts of the Manicudavadana and two manuscripts of the Divyavadanamala. In his recent book on the avadana literature Iwamoto enumerates twelve manuscripts of the Manicudavadana (Bukkyo setsuwa kenkyu josetsu, Kyoto, 1967, pp. 142 and 162). Among these twelve manuscripts are three belonging to the Tokyo University Library: Nos. 277, 278 and 279 (see Seiren Matsunami, A Catalogue of the Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Tokyo University Library, Tokyo, 1965, pp. 103 and 235). Matsunami notes that in the colophons of No. 277 and No. 278 it is stated that this avadana is the 31st chapter and that consequently this avadana may be part of some avadana collection. In a manuscript of the Divyavadanamala, belonging to the Kyoto University, the Manicudavadana is also the 31st chapter (see Iwamoto, op.cit., pp. 141 and 147). However, in two other manuscripts of the Divyavadanamala (in Paris and Calcutta) it is respectively the 7th and 16th chapter (Iwamoto, op.cit., p. 147). The introduction deals in detail with the manuscripts, their mutual relation, and the linguistic characteristics of the text (pp. ix-xxvi). Handurukande shows clearly that all manuscripts go back to a common archetype which is not free from errors. According to the introduction, the Manicudavadana falls into the third group in Edgerton's classification of Buddhist Sanskrit texts, in which non-sanskritic forms are not common while the vocabulary is the clearest evidence that they belong to the BHS (= Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit) tradition. In establishing the text Handurukande has tried to retain grammatical forms proper to BHS as far as the manuscripts show evidence of them. Although she has been aware of the danger of applying too mechanically Edgerton's principles, one cannot escape the impression that too many BHS forms have been introduced into the text. On pages xv-xvi the editor lists some of the grammatical features of BHS which are to be found in the Manicudavadana. Many of these features hardly occur in texts of Edgerton's third group. However, manuscript evidence does not always support the readings selected by the editor. For the use of an adjective in the accusative plural qualifying a noun in the accusative singular the reader is referred to p. 5.2: prapnoti tustim paramam yasas ca. It is of course not necessary to relate paramam to yasas instead of to tustim. Four features (use of a past passive participle with active meaning; transfer of a masculine ending to a feminine noun; use of a masculine modifier with a feminine noun; accusative plural endings in am) occur in a single sentence p. 4.15-16: Tatas sa Bodhisatvasyanubhavenasrutapurvam imam gatham pratibhasita. As is obvious from the variant readings, one has to read: Taya ... purva ima gathah pratibhasitah (tatas sa; A tata tasya corrected to tatas sa, B C tasya, D tatasya, E tatasma, F tatah saimam gatham; A Bruimam gatha, CDE ima gatha - pratibhasita, CF 'bhasitah, D bhavita, G pratibhakhito). Perhaps one must read purva-m-ima with -m- as 'hiatusbridger' (F Rpurvam; ABCDEG purvam); purvam can easily have been corrupted to purvam. The reference given to Edgerton's Grammar 10.51 for the use of an accusative singular ending in i (see p. 14.4-5: Tvayaisam agramahisi sthapayitva ...) is clearly wrong for here Edgerton is discussing occurrences of an accusative singular in -i. Moreover, he only deals with occurrences of this form in verses belonging to the first and second groups in his classification. As to the use of a neuter modifier with a masculine noun (Edgerton 6.14) the editor has failed to see that in kimvikaro 'yam 1 The author refers to the sections into which she has divided the text. Some sections comprise more than two pages. For this reason I think it more convenient to refer to page and line. It is a pity that in the editions of the Pali Text Society the lines are not numbered in the margin by adding the figures 5, 10, 15 etc. as has been done in the edition of the Pali Jatakas from volume 2 onwards.

Page #6
142 REVIEWS udaro 'vabhaso bhavisyati kimanusamsa (p. 22.5-6) kim is part of a compound (see Speyer, Sanskrit Syntax, $408, Rem.), though her translation is correct. Apart from the examples mentioned above, the text is very well edited. In a few places another reading could be suggested: p. 2.12 - read degdamaram taskarao (cf. IIJ, I, 1957, p. 312); p. 16.7 istopacayakah?; - read istopacarakah? p. 18.3 and p. 25.2 read dhanajatam instead of dhanam jatam; p. 36.8 karunayamanam uvaca - read karunayamana (sic MSS. CDEG) or karunayamana-m- uvaca; p. 39.9 dhairyam samuttamam - read dhairyam anuttamam?; p. 48.4 abhisiktva - read abhisikta (aham in 48.3 is probably a scribal error for maya); p. 53.13-14 parsatmandalam anayanti tam - read parsanmandalamadhyapatitam? p. 75.3 maitrim paribhavitasya - read maitriparibhavitasya; p. 75.8 degupasargotsrste - read oupasargopasrste (cf. p. 76.15); p. 85.11 'balena vivarya - read balenadhivasya? (cf. 82.11); p. 98.1 kayesu kamacchandam prahaya tad bahuyatnavihari - read kamesu kamacchandam prahaya tadbahulavihari (cf. Divy. p. 225,28: kamesu kamacchandam vyapahaya tadbahulaviharino). I have noted the following printing errors: p. 13.7 read atikranta for atikranta; p. 15.13 read paripacanartham for pariparanartham; p. 74.5 read vakyasakhilyena for vakao; p. 102.2 read tathagatagunan anusmrtya for tathagatagunanusmrtya. I do not understand p. 34.13 akarayam asa (translated as 'he took') and p. 42.13 samakarayam asa ('he appeared'). The translation which follows the text is excellent apart from a few minor points. P. 14.7: na hi punyam apunyam va parasamtanam samkramati, "neither merit nor demerit finds continuance in others" - rather: "neither merit nor demerit passes over to an other series (i.e. individual; see Edgerton's Dictionary s.v. samtati and samtana)"; p. 39.8: kstsnam jagat paritratum udyatasyadya te ksamam, "It is possible for you to save the whole world now, for which you are ready..." - "It is now proper for you, who are ready to save the whole world..."; p. 42.15 vrkkam va hrdayamamsamedomastiskam va, "the heart or the flesh and fat of the heart" - "the kidneys or the heart, the flesh and the fat" (there is no justification for giving the meaning 'heart' to vrkkam as is done in p. 42, n. 32); p. 59.11: smrtyapramose,"mindfulness, abstinence from theft" - "non-loss of memory" (see BHS Dictionary s.v. asampramosana); p. 59.15: samasan, "on occasions"-"concisely"; p. 63.6: sukhasamjnam tu ma karsih kada cid grhacarake, "Do not ever designate the word 'happiness' in relation to one who leads a household life" - "... in relation to the prison of the house". This verse of the Jatakamala is translated in the same way by all translators: Speyer "one who lives in the house"; Barannikov (1962) "o zizni v dome" ["life in the house']; Gnoli (1964)"uno che vive la vita di casa". In classical Sanskrit (Kaut. Arth. and Dasak.) and in Buddhist Sanskrit caraka often occurs in the meaning 'prison' (see BHS Dictionary s.v. cara; Lalitavistara, ed. S. Lefmann, p. 204.9; Divyavadana, pp. 365.4; 377.16, 23: Dharmasamuccaya IV, 4a); p. 66.7: hartum, "to kill" - "to take away"; p. 82.10: kamavairagyat parihinah, "disregarded (the pain), through (the power of) his detachment from sensuality" - "deprived of his detachment from pleasures"; p. 89.4-5: 'pidanim satvah svakam api bahum grhitam na pasyanti, "people could not see others, even those who held their own arms" "People could not even see their own arms which they grasped". In the second part of the introduction (pp. xxxiii-xlv) the editor studies a metrical version of the Manicala story which is contained in the fourth chapter of the Svayambhuvamahapurana, of which the only known manuscript is in the Bibliotheque Nationale. This version has been analysed and studied by de La Vallee Poussin ("Maniculavadana, as related in the fourth chapter of the Svayambhupurana (Paris, dev. 78)", JRAS, 1894, pp. 297-319). It is surprising that this article is not mentioned in the introduction although references in notes show that it was known to the editor. This 2 The Tibetan translator renders caraka by btson-ra "prison', cf. Tanjur (Peking edition), Mdo-'grel, XCI, p. 68 a 5: btson-ra 'dra-ba'i khyim-la nams-yan bde-bar ma sems-sig.

Page #7
REVIEWS 143 metrical version of the Manicudavadana comprises 473 verses, and, inserted between verses 78 and 79, a very corrupt prose section of which a translation is given in the introduction (pp. XXXV-Xxxix). This version contains a few sections which have no parallels in the prose avadana. For establishing the text the editor has been able to use only one manuscript. In several places the text is incomprehensible, which is probably due not only to the corruption of the manuscript but also to the fact that some parts were written by an author who did not know Sanskrit very well. Nevertheless, in quite a few places the text can be emended without too many difficulties. In the following remarks I refer to the verses by their number and to the prose section by page and line. 2d: datavadatasayah - danavadatadeg; 25b: odanagamyabhisamgame - odanagamyabhisamgamam; 63d: vicerur - virecur (cf. 149d); p. 154.17: sarvam darsayami - sarvadarsini (MS. sarvadarsimi); p. 155.10: mahimam - mahimanam (sic MS.): p. 155.24: aprabadhito - aprabodhito; p. 155.26: bhavad asrayat (MS. atrayat) - bhavadasrame?; p. 156.22: jvara-uddharena kamukam - jagaduddharanakamuka (MS. jagaduddharenakamuka); 80a: svam sisyam - svasisa (MS. svasisya); 149a: purodhasa - purodhaso: 152c: mukhair - makhe (MS. makhai); 188a: asayam - asaya (sic MS. cf. 193b: nairasam); 221 a: ghoram - ghoro (MS. ghora); 224cd: avijnaya jijnasitam - abhijnaya jijnasitum?; 228c: ksudhartayapyalam - ksudhartayaparam (MS. degtayapalam); 260d: va salilam rodadhim tatha - va salilam va darim (sic MS.) tatha; 312d: bhumikam panah - bhumikampanam; 335d: gamanam - gaganam; 345c: osamasina - samasino; 380c: preritam.- parito (MS. peritom). The third text published in this book is the Tibetan text of the drama Lokananda which is based on the Manicuda legend. One must be grateful to the editor for having published the text of this drama together with a detailed introduction and a synopsis. She stresses the desirability of a reconstruction of the Sanskrit original (p. 203). An English translation would probably be more useful, and one must hope that the editor, who has taken such pains in studying this text, will herself undertake its translation. I have not been able to compare the text, which was transliterated from the Peking and Narthang editions, with one or more editions of the Tanjur. However, a quick look at the text shows that quite a few misprints and erroneous readings have to be corrected, for instance, p. 210.12: mk'a - mk'as; p. 210.23: becas - bcas; p. 213.21: mt'on bdul-ba'i - mt'or-ba dul-ba'i; p. 225.13, 17: bkra-ses - bkra-sis; p. 227.7: btun - btud; p. 229.9: spon - gton (PN ston), etc. Australian National University J. W. de Jong Edward Conze, Thirty Years of Buddhist Studies. Publishers: Bruno Cassirer, Oxford. Distributors: Faber and Faber, London. 1967. xii + 274 pp. 42/. Professor Edward Conze is certainly one of the most productive scholars in the field of Buddhist Studies. The number of books, articles and reviews he has published since World War II is considerable. His greatest achievement is undoubtedly his contribution to the study of the Prajnaparamita literature, of which little was known until Edward Conze undertook to explore it. However, other branches of Buddhist studies have not been neglected by him as is testified by his numerous publications relating to 3 In several places de La Vallee Poussin quotes readings which are preferable to those by the editor: p. 70.10, pravyavartayitukamo - pracyavayitukamo; p. 103.9, pravrajino - pravrajito; p. 156.2, tvam - tvam; p. 182 (387a), dharmaprabhavat - dharmaprabhavan (JRAS, 1894, p. 311: "vois les sept makaras, issus du dharma").

Page #8
144 REVIEWS Mahayana philosophy, meditation in the Theravada school, etc. His translations of Buddhist texts are taken from a great variety of Pali and Sanskrit scriptures. Being inspired by an awareness of the relevance of Buddhist thought to modern man, Conze has brought a new tone of personal engagement to Buddhist studies, which have greatly benefited from his approach. It is to be welcomed that a selection of his articles, hitherto scattered in many places, has been published. The contents of this volume reflect the richness and variety of Conze's scholarly work. The first article, "Recent Progress in Buddhist Studies" (pp. 1-32), is a survey of Buddhist studies between 1940 and 1960 (first published in The Middle Way, 34, 1959, pp. 6-14; 1960, pp. 144-150; 35, 1960, pp. 93-98, 110). It is, as far as I know, the only recent and detailed survey of Buddhist studies. The concept of saviours in Buddhism is treated in "Buddhist Saviours" (pp. 33-47; first published in The Saviour God, Manchester, 1963, pp. 67-82). His comprehensive survey of "Mahayana Buddhism" is certainly the best introduction available at present (pp. 48-86; first published in The Concise Encyclopaedia of Living Faiths, 1959, pp. 296-320). The next two articles are translations. The first translates a passage of the Visuddhimagga (ed. H. C. Warren, chapter VIII, sections 3-17 and 25-41) in which Buddhaghosa treats of the meditation on death: "The Meditation on Death" (pp. 87-104; first published in The Middle Way, 29, 1955, pp. 159-163; 30, 1955, pp. 15-18, 54-57). The second is a translation of chapter 5 of the Saddharmapundarika: "The Lotus of the Good Law, ch. 5: On Plants" (pp. 105-122; first published in The Middle Way, 37, 1962, pp. 95-96; 1963, pp. 157-160; 38, 1963, pp. 15-17, 49-51). The following six articles all relate to Prajnaparamita literature: "The Development of Prajnaparamita Thought" (pp. 123-147; first published in Buddhism and Culture, Kyoto, 1960, pp. 2445); "The Prajnaparamitahtdaya Sutra" (pp. 148-167; first published in JRAS, 1948, pp. 33-51); "The Composition of the Astasahasrika Prajnaparamita" (pp. 168-184; first published in BSOAS, 14, 1952, pp. 251-262); "Hate, Love and Perfect Wisdom" (pp. 185-190; first published in The Mahabodhi, 62, 1954, pp. 3-8); "The Perfection of Wisdom in Seven Hundred Lines" (pp. 191-206; first published in Kalpa, I, 2, 1963, pp. 4-10; I, 3. 1963, pp. 11-12); "Prajna and Sophia" (pp. 207-209; first published in Oriental Art, I, 4, 1948, pp. 196-197); parallels, true and spurious, between Buddhist and European philosophy are treated in the two articles that follow. "Buddhist Philosophy and its European Parallels" (pp. 210-228; first published in Philosophy East and West, 13, 1963, pp. 9-23); "Spurious Parallels to Buddhist Philosophy" (pp. 229-242); first published in Philosophy East and West, 13, 1963, pp. 105-115). The final article deals with "The Iconography of the Prajnaparamita" (pp. 243-268; first published in Oriental Art, II, 4, 1949, pp. 47-52; III, 3, pp. 104-109). Thirty Years of Buddhist Studies is a book which is of great interest both to the general public and to the specialist. May it soon be followed by a second volume, to be called Further Buddhist Studies, mentioned by Professor Conze in his foreword! Australian National University J. W. de Jong Dvadasaram Nayacakram of Acarya Sri Mallavadi Ksamasramana With the Commentary Nyayagamanusarini of Sri Simhasuri Gani Vadi Ksamasramana, Part I (1-4 Aras). Edited with critical notes by Muni Jambuvijayaji (=Sri Atmanand Jain Granthamala, Serial, No. 92). Bhavnagar, Sri Jain Atmanand Sabha, 1966. 8+4 +6 +98 +375 +166 pp. Rs. 25.00. Mallavadin's Nayacakra is one of the most important of the older Jaina philosophical works. It is of very great interest not only for the light it throws on Jaina philosophy,

Page #9
REVIEWS 145 but also for the information on other philosophical schools which can be obtained from it. It is regrettable that the Nayacakra itself has not been preserved. However, the Nyayagamanusarini, a commentary on the Nayacakra by Simhasuri, has been handed down. Editors of this text have tried to reconstruct the text of the Nayacakra. An edition of the first four ara-s (the Nayacakra consists of three marga-s; each marga comprises four ara-s) appeared in the Gaekwad Oriental Series in 1952.1 Another edition has been published in the Shri Labdhisurishwar Jain Granthamala. E. Frauwallner has pointed out the shortcomings of both editions. In the same article Frauwallner announced a new edition by Muni Jambuvijayaji. The first volume, comprising the first four ara-s, has now appeared as volume 92 of the Sri Atmanand Jain Granthamala. The first part contains an English introduction by E. Frauwallner (pp. 1-6), a Sanskrit introduction (prakkathana) by the editor (pp. 7-43) and a Gujarati introduction (prastavana) by the same (pp. 44-89). The Sanskrit and Gujarati introductions are not identical, which is clear from the fact that the first refers to the second. However, my ignorance of Gujarati prevents me from indicating which additional information can be found in the prastavana. The prakkathana discusses not only many important problems, but it also relates in detail the rather complicated history of this edition and the methods employed by the editor in overcoming the difficulties which confronted him. In Vikrama 20014 Muni Jambuvijayaji planned to edit Jinabhadra's Visesavasyakamahabhasya, but at the request of his Guru Sri Bhuvanavijayaji Maharaja, he abandoned this plan and undertook to edit the Nyayagamanusarini and to reconstruct the original text of the Nayacakra. Although six manuscripts were at his disposal, he soon recognized that a correct text could not be established without studying the many works quoted by Simhasuri. Of special importance for this purpose were Buddhist works which had been preserved in Tibetan translation. In order to be able to read these works Muni Jambuvijayaji undertook the study of Tibetan. The discovery of an older manuscript of Simhasuri's commentary also greatly facilitated the establishment of a correct text. After having finished preliminary studies the editor prepared his edition of the text and commentary for the press. First the text of ara-s 1-7 (pp. 1-552) was printed after delays due to several causes. The printing of this part of the text was completed before the death of his guru and father on 16th February 1959.5 Subsequently the eighth ara (pp. 553-737) was printed. In the introduction and appendices references are given to the pages of the printed text of the first eight ara-s, although the present volume only comprises the first four. On p. 11, n. 1, the editor lists the sources which inform us on the life of Mallavadin. 1. Bhadresvarasuri's Kahavali (Vikrama second half of the twelfth century); 2. Prabha was printed. In the cloth February 1959.6 sm was completed before 1 Dvadasaranayacakra of Srimallavadisuri, with the commentary Nyayagamanusarini of Sri Simhasuri, ed. by the late Muni Caturvijayaji and Lalcandra B. Gandhi (=GOS, No. CXVI) (Baroda, 1952). - 2 The Dvadasharanayachakram of Sri Mallavadi Kshamasramana with the Nyayagamanusarini Commentary by Sri Sinhasurigani Vadi Kshamasramana, ed. by Acharya Vijayalabdhisuri (=Shri Labdhisurishwar Jain Granthamala, No. 20 & 26) (Chhani, 1948 & 1951) (see WZKSO, 1, 1957, p. 147 n. 1). Part 111 was published in 1957 (see WZKSO, III, 1959, p. 100 n. 33). I have not been able to consult this edition. 3 "The Editions of Mallavadi's Dvadasaranayacakram", WZKSO, I (1957), pp. 147151. 4 Muni Jambuvijayaji quotes all dates according to the Vikrama era. 5 This date is given by Anantalal Thakur in his Introduction to Muni Jambuvijayaji's edition of the Vaisesikasutra of Kanada with the Commentary of Candrananda (= GOS, No. 136) (1961). The date, indicated by Muni Jambuvijayaji (prakkathana p. 7 n.1), is Vikrama 2015, the eighth day of the white half of the month Magha.

Page #10
146 REVIEWS vacandrasuri's Prabhavakacarita (Vikr. 1334); 3. Merutunga's Prabandhacintamani (Vikr. 1361); 4. Rajasekharasuri's Prabandhakosa (Vikr. 1405); 5. Sanghatilakacarya's Samyaktvasaptati (Vikr. 1422). In the same note the editor reproduces the text of the life of Mallavadin in the Kahavali and in Amradevasuri's commentary on Nemicandrasuri's Akhyanamanikosa (Vikr. 1190). The text of the Kahavali is also reproduced in the introduction of GOS vol. 116. This introduction quotes passages from many texts relating to Mallavadin (pp. 9-29). It also refers to a manuscript, written in Vikr. 1291, and containing a life of Mallavadin in Prakrit (cf. GOS, vol. 76, pp. 194-195). However, the manuscript itself was not available to the editor. According to the Prabhavakacarita, Mallavadin defeated the Bauddhas (i.e. Buddhananda) in Vira 884 (= Vikr. 414). The Nayacakra discusses the doctrines of many philosophers such as Varsaganya, Vasurata, Bhartshari, Vasubandhu (the author of the Kosa!) and Dignaga. According to the editor, the date mentioned by Prabhavacandra does not conflict with the dates of these philosophers who accordingly must have lived before Mallavadin or in the same period (ca. 350 A.D.). If this is the case, the traditionally assumed dates of many Indian philosophers would have to be revised. However, such a late text as the Prabhavakacarita is not an authoritative source for the date of Mallavadin. More evidence is certainly needed before this date can be allowed. In the second place, the names of the above-mentioned philosophers seem to occur only in Simhasuri's commentary. In the case of each of them it must be proved beyond all doubt that Mallavadin really refers to the philosophers mentioned by Simhasuri. One must not be misled by the fact that the editor has printed in bold type in the text of the commentary not only the quotations from the Nayacakra, but also proper names which are absent from it. Only after the publication of the second volume of this edition will it be possible to consider the available evidence and to examine the reliability of Simhasuri's indications. Muni Jambuvijayaji has already published several articles on the dates of Mallavadin, Bharthari and Dignaga. According to the passages of Simhasuri's commentary quoted by him (pages 15 and 16, notes 2 and 3) Vasurata was the teacher of Bhartphari. As is pointed out by the editor, the same tradition is found in Punyaraja's commentary on Bhartshari's Vakyapadiya II, 486, 489 and 490. Several scholars agree also that, according to Punyaraja's commentary on Vakyapadiya II, 489, Candracarya =Candragomin was the master of Vasurata. The dates of Candragomin and Bharthari have been discussed by many scholars.? Of great importance for determining the date of BhartThari is the recent discovery of two verses from the Vak yapadiya (II, 160 and 157) in the fifth chapter of Dignaga's Pramanasamuccaya. This discovery seems to have been made simultaneously by H.R. Rangaswamy Iyengar and Muni Jambuvijayaji. Frauwallner has recently shown that Dignaga's Traikalyapariksa is . "Mallavadi ane Bhartpharino samay", Jaina Satyaprakasa, Vol. 17, No. 2 (Nov. 1951), pp. 26-30; Buddhiprakasa, vol. 98, No. 11 (Nov. 1951), pp. 332-335; "Bhartshari aur Dinnaga ka samay", Nagaripracarini Patrika, Vol. 60, Nos. 3-4 (Samvat 2012), pp. 227-233; "Bharthari ane Dinnaga", Jaina Atmananda Prakasa, Vol. 50, No. 2 (15 Sept. 1952), pp. 22-27 (see prakkathana pp. 15 and 16 notes 2 and 3). I have been unable to consult these articles. . 7 See the references given by Sadhu Ram, "Bhartphari's Date", Journal of the Ganganatha Jha Research Institute, Vol. IX (1952), pp. 135-151. See also David Seyfort Ruegg, Contributions a l'histoire de la philosophie linguistique indienne (Paris, 1959), pp. 57-64 and the literature quoted by him. 8 H. R. Rangaswamy Iyengar, "Bharthari and Dinnaga", Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, New Series, Vol. 26 (1951), pp. 147-149. According to Sadhu Ram (op.cit., p. 142 n. 25) the same verses have been traced by Muni Jambuvijayaji in the first two articles mentioned in note 6. Sadhu Ram and Muni Jambuvijayaji (prakkathana p. 16 n. 3) refer to Vak yapadiya II, 156 and 157, Rangas

Page #11
REVIEWS 147 ed upon the Vakyapadiya. If one combines Simhasuri's indications and the fact that Bhartshari is quoted by Dignaga, the following chronological sequence can be established: Vasurata - Bharthari - Dignaga - Mallavadin. Even if Mallavadin cannot be dated in the fourth century A.D., there is no doubt that Bhartshari must have lived long before the first half of the seventh century as had been generally agreed in the past on the strength of I-ching's testimony. 10 Moreover, if Punyaraja's commentary is understood to mean that Candragomin was the teacher of Vasurata, he must have lived in a period much earlier than any one of those proposed previously.11 However, the text of Punyaraja's commentary is not unambiguously clear. Even if the abovementioned interpretation is correct, how much credit has to be given to the testimony of an author who probably lived many centuries after Candragomin?12 According to Simhasuri's commentary Dignaga attacked his guru Vasubandhu (the author of the Vadavidhi). This tradition was already known from Taranatha's History. Frauwallner has pointed out that this alleged pupilship hails from the late and unsatisfactory Tibetan tradition. 13 Taranatha's work was written in 1608 and is not always a reliable source. However, it is clear from Simhasuri's commentary that the tradition of Dignaga's pupilship goes back to a much earlier period. Finally, the editor draws our attention to the fact that Dignaga's doctrines have been refuted by the Jain author Samantabhadra in his Aptamimamsa. The Prabhavakacarita attributes to Mallavadin the authorship of a Ramayana, called Padmacarita. According to the same text, the Nayacakra comprises ten thousand slokas fi.e. 320.000 syllables). Both indications do not seem very reliable. The second is inadmissible, because Simhasuri's commentary comprises eighteen thousand slokas and is several times longer than the text commented upon. More credible is the tradition which attributes to Mallavadin the authorship of a commentary upon Siddhasena Divakara's Sammati. The Nayacakra and its commentary are of great importance for the study of Indian philosophical systems, as is pointed out by the editor in his introduction (prakkathana, pp. 19-23). Simhasuri's commentary is of special interest for the information which it gives on the older Samkhya and Vaisesika literature and on Buddhist logic. One of the most important texts of the older Samkhya literature is the Sastitantra by Vssagana or Varsaganya.14 Quotations from it are to be found in the third chapter of Simhasuri's commentary. wamy Iyengar (op.cit., p. 149 n. 12), Nakamura Hajime ("Tibetan Citations of Bharthari's Verses and the Problem of his Date", Studies in Indology and Buddhology. Presented in Honour of Professor Susumu Yamaguchi, Kyoto, 1955, p. 134) and Frauwallner (WZKSO, V, 1961, p. 13) to Vakyapadiya II, 160 and 157. I have not been able to verify in the edition of the Benares Sanskrit Series which of the two indications is correct. Muni Jambuvijayaji points out that Dignaga has also quoted another verse of Bhartshari's Vak yapadiya (III. 14,8) in his vrtti on the second verse of the fifth chapter of the Pramanasamuccaya (prakkathana p. 16 n. 3). Quotations from Bhartphari's Vakyapadiya in other works have been studied by Nakamura (op.cit., pp. 122-136). * WZKSO, III (1959), pp. 107-116, 145-152. 10 See e.g. Louis Renou, La Durghatavrtti de Saranadeva, Vol. I, Fasc. 1 (Paris, 1940), p. 37: "Bharthari est l'un des rares noms de la litterature grammaticale exactement datable, depuis que Max Muller a eu reconnu en lui le grammairien mentionne par Itsing comme etant mort en 651." 11 See L. de La Vallee Poussin, Dynasties et Histoire de l'Inde depuis Kanishka (Paris, 1935), p. 64 n. 2; D. Seyfort Ruegg, op.cit., pp. 58-59. 12 For the date of Punyaraja see D. Seyfort Ruegg, op.cit., p. 63 n.1. 13 Cf. On the Date of the Buddhist Master of the Law Vasubandhu (Roma, 1951), p. 63. Cf. E. Frauwallner, "Zur Erkenntnislehre des klassischen Samkhya-Systems",

Page #12
148 REVIEWS Simhasuri's commentary on the sixth and seventh ara-s is of very great interest for the study of the older Vaisesika literature and of the text of the Vaisesika sutras. The text of the Sutrapatha quoted by Simhasuri is different from the one in Sankaramisra's Upaskara but agrees with the Sutrapatha which has been transmitted together with a commentary by Candrananda. When the text of the first five ara-s of the Nayacakra had already been printed, the editor obtained a manuscript containing both a separate text of the Vaisesikasutras and the Sutras together with Candrananda's vrtti (MS. PS/P, cf. GOS, No. 136, Baroda, 1961, Introduction, p. 1). This manuscript has been used by him for reproducing the complete text of the Sutras and the commentary in the notes of this edition (see p. 141: "Vaisesikasutrasambandhi parisistam" for a list of the relevant notes). Subsequently, the editor obtained a copy of another manuscript, written in Sarada script (MS. O).15 On the basis of these two manuscripts (PS/P and O) he has edited the Vaisesikasutra of Kanada with the Commentary of Candrananda (GOS, No. 136, Baroda, 1961).16 This edition contains appendices comparing the Sutrapatha with those found in the Upaskara and in an anonymous commentary, edited by Anantalal Thakur.17 Another appendix examines in detail the readings of the Sutrapatha according to the two manuscripts and quotations from the Sutras in other texts (pp. 227234: Vyddhipatrakam). Simhasuri quotes several Vaisesika works which have not been handed down to us. These quotations have been brought together by the editor in an appendix to his edition of the Vaisesikasutras (pp. 146-152). The problems relating to these works have been dealt with by him in his prastavana (pp. 6-8) to the same edition. Simhasuri gives several references to Aryadeva's Catuhsataka and to Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakosa but his main contribution to the study of Buddhist philosophy is to be found in his discussion of Dignaga's philosophy in the first and eighth ara-s. In order to enable the reader to understand better Dignaga's doctrines, the editor has translated into Sanskrit large sections from the Pramanasamuccaya, Dignaga's vstti and Jinendrabuddhi's tika (cf. Bhotaparisistam, pp. 95-140). Other sections of these works have been translated in notes to the eighth ara (cf. prakkathana, p. 39 n. 8 for a list of references). The editor had already used the same works for the study of Vaisesika and Nyaya doctrines (cf. GOS, nr. 136, pp. 153-219). 18 The editor points out that in the eighth ara Mallavadin discusses the apohavada, but does not seem to refer to the fifth chapter of the Pramanasamuccaya. He advances the hypothesis that Mallavadin has taken the purvapaksa from Dignaga's Samanyapariksa mentioned on pages 627-628 of the text. I-ching has translated a short work by Dignaga (T, nr. 1623), of wich the Sanskrit title has been reconstructed as Samanyalaksanapariksa by Frauwallner (WZKSO, III, 1959, p. 139). In a letter to Muni Jambuviyajaji, Frauwallner gives some information about this text (cf. GOS, No. 136, p. 153, n. 2). It is possible that Dignaga had written a commentary upon this text which consists of WZKSO, II (1958), pp. 84-139; G. Oberhammer, "The Authorship of the Sastitantram", WZKSO, IV (1960), pp. 71-91. Important for the date of Varsaganya is the discovery of a reference to him in Asanga's Yogacarabhumi, cf. D. Seyfort Ruegg, "Note on Varsaganya and the Yogacarabhumi", IIJ, VI (1962), pp. 137-140. 15 As this manuscript was not at the disposal of the editor for the establishment of the text of the Sutras and the vrtti in the notes of his edition of the Nayacakra, a list of better readings to be found in MS. O is given in a special appendix (pp. 158-161). 16 Cf. E. Frauwallner's review, WZKSO, VI (1962), pp. 184-185. 17 Vaisesikadarsana of Kanada with an anonymous commentary, ed. by Anantalal Thakur (Darbhanga, 1957). 18 GOS, No. 136 reproduces the Tibetan text in Tibetan characters (cf. pp. I-LI). In the Bhotaparisista Tibetan texts are transliterated in devanagari. Would it not have been possible to use romanization?

Page #13
REVIEWS 149 eleven verses. Probably he had studied the apohavada in this commentary. It seems difficult to imagine that Dignaga would have written both a Samanyalaksanapariksa and a Samanyapariksa." Simhasuri refers also to a commentator of a work by Dignaga. According to the editor, the commentator is not Dignaga himself nor Dharmakirti nor Jinendrabuddhi who both belong to a later period. Isvarasena is known to have written a commentary on the Pramanasamuccaya, but his work is lost. 19 According to Frauwallner, he was probably the teacher of Dharmakirti.20 The identity of the commentator to whom Simhasuri refers, is a problem the solution of which must be left to future research. Obviously, Simhasuri's work quotes many Jain texts. The editor points out that the quotations from the Agamas often give a text different from the one established in Vira 980 (= Vikr. 510). He admits that both Mallavadin and Simhasuri must have lived before that date. Further he remarks that the quotations from the Nandisutra in the eighth ara prove that originally this work consisted of two parts, sutra and bhasya, which were later amalgamated into one work. Little is known about Simhasuri. A verse from another work by him is quoted by Kottarya in his commentary upon the Visesavasyakabhasya. Kottarya quotes Dignaga, the Avasyakacurni and Simhasuri's commentary, but not Kumarila and Dharmakirti. Simhasuri quotes three verses which also occur in the Visesavasyakabhasya, but according to the editor the source of this quotation is a different work. He supposes that Simhasuri lived shortly after Mallavadin, because he refers to Dignaga as a "contemporary Bauddha" (adyatanabauddha) and quotes the Agamas according to a tradition different from the one established in Vikrama 510. As mentioned above, the editor first used six manuscripts. All these manuscripts go back directly or indirectly to a manuscript written by Yasovijayaya (MS. YA) in Vikrama 1710. Only when the first seven ara-s had been printed, did this manuscript come to the notice of the editor. In establishing the text of these ara-s, the editor gives the variant readings of these six manuscripts. In an appendix he lists the readings of MS. YA for those places where the six manuscripts have not the same readings (pp. 142-146). In editing the text of the last five ara-s, the editor does not give the variant readings of the six manuscripts, but only refers to MS, YA. As mentioned earlier, the discovery of an older manuscript was of great help to the editor. This manuscript, referred to by the editor as MS. BHA, was written by Punja at the order of Dharmamurti who lived from Vikrama 1585 to 1670. It gives many correct readings not to be found in the six manuscripts derived from MS. YA. The editor assumes that it has been written about Vikrama 1650 and consequently is sixty years older than MS. YA. MS. YA seems to be more correct than MS. BHA, but both share several incorrect readings. For this reason the editor believes that both manuscripts descend from a common archetype. 21 The editor does not provide us with a palaeographic description of the manuscripts, but gives a useful list of aksara-s which have been misread by the scribes (prakkathana, p. 37). The numbers in the margin of the text refer to MS. BHA (e.g. recto and verso of f. 4 are indicated by 4-1 and 4-2). In quoting the text of the Nayacakravrtti in his notes 19 Cf. Ernst Steinkellner, "Bemerkungen zu Isvarasenas Lehre vom Grund", WZKSO, X (1966), pp. 73-85. 20 Cf. WZKSO, V (1961), p. 141. 11 The edition of the Nayacakra published in GOS, No. CXVI is based upon two manuscripts, MS. PA (one of the six manuscripts based upon YA) and MS. BHA (MS. BHA of Muni Jambuvijayaji's edition). These two manuscripts seem to have been used only by the second editor Lalacandra B. Gandhi (cf. prastavana, pp. 37-38). In the first part of the text references are given to MSS. KA, KHA, GA and GHA, but no information is given about these manuscripts. A few readings from PA and BHA are quoted on pages 1-10. Probably they were added later by the second editor.

Page #14
150 REVIEWS at the bottom of the pages, the editor always refers to the folios of this manuscript. The reconstructed text of the Nayacakra is printed at the top of each page in bold type. The commentary is printed below and is separated from the reconstructed text by a line. Quotations from the Nayacakra in the commentary are also printed in bold type. The notes at the bottom of the page record variant readings and quotations which are helpful for the establishment of the text. Extensive notes and quotations from many texts are to be found in a separate appendix (pp. 1-94). It will probably be useful for the reader to indicate briefly the contents of the three parts which constitute this volume. Part I. Introduction by E. Frauwallner: pp. 1-6; Sanskrit introduction (prakkathana) by the editor: pp. 7-43; Gujarati introduction (prastavana) by the editor: pp. 44-89; detailed table of contents of parts II and III: pp. 90-98. Part II. Text of the first four ara-s: pp. 1-375. Part III. A. Tippanani: pp. 1-94; B. Bhotaparisistam: pp. 95-140; C. Vaisesikasutrasambandhi parisistam: p. 141; D. YA pratipathaparisistam, pp. 142-146; E. Nayacakre vsttau va catursv aresullikhitanam vada-vadi-grantha-granthaksnnamnam sucin: pp. 147-148; F. Sampadanopayuktagranthasucih sanketadivivaranam ca: pp. 149-157; G. Candranandaracitavsttiyutasya Vaisesikasutrasya adhyayakramena 0. pustake suddhapathah: pp. 158-161; H. Nayacakraprathamavibhagasya suddhipatrakam: pp. 162-166. The editor announces that the second volume, containing the remaining eight ara-s, will be published in the near future. This edition will be of the greatest importance for the study of the older period of Indian philosophy which is relatively unknown because many works have not been preserved. It would be difficult to mention another edition of an Indian philosophical text which has been edited with so much care. Already from the long list of books, consulted by the editor (cf. Part III F), it is obvious that he has spared no pains in preparing this edition. How many works, some only existing in manuscript form, have been consulted by him in order to trace the quotations in the text! The translation of complicated logical texts from Tibetan into Sanskrit must have demanded great efforts as the editor states in his introduction: anekavarsani bhrsam parisramyasmabhih sankalitam idam bhotaparisistam (p. 40). The reconstruction of the Nayacakra was perhaps even more difficult. In the first place the pratika-s have to be. traced in the commentary. In many places the commentator quotes only the first and last words of a passage. Sometimes no explanation is given by the commentator who, in such cases, contents himself with stating that the text is spastam or sugamam. An entirely correct reconstruction of the original is perhaps impossible, as long as no other materials are available. As Frauwallner remarks in his preface, the reconstruction has been carefully considered and deserves our full attention. We are looking forward to the second volume of this magnum opus which does great honour to the scholarship of Muni Jambuvijayaji. Australian National University J. W. de Jong Hermann Goetz, Studies in the History and Art of Kashmir and the Indian Himalaya (= Schriftenreihe des Sudasien-Instituts der Universitat Heidelberg, Band 4). Wiesbaden, Otto Harrassowitz, 1969. 8vo, viii & 197 pp., xlix pls. It was a congenial idea of the staff of the South Asia Institute of the University of Heidelberg to honour the seventieth birthday of Professor Hermann Goetz by a re-edition of a number of scholarly articles he wrote on the history and art of those parts of the Indian Himalaya he knows so well from personal visits as well as from

Page #15
REVIEWS 151 profound scholarly research. Many of those articles had been published in Indian journals and are hardly accessible to-day outside the specialized institutes in the main centres of Orientalistic research. It is not without reason that the editors of this volume could only achieve their object by inviting Professor Goetz' cooperation, and even more than that. Nobody could have obtained a satisfactory result without his active assistance. Only a small number of Indian archaeologists of to-day, I believe, have met Dr. Goetz at Baroda in the years the articles were composed. I remember how he took me from the train one morning in May 1952 before sunrise, and brought me to his bungalow when the day came to life, and with it the almost unbearable heat of the period in that part of India. It was his wife who came to my rescue when I had listened for hours to his long monologues about his research and his theories. I felt hopelessly incompetent to keep up even an appearance of interest in a climate which neither suited him nor me. But I realised that here was a man who had worked well and worthily for many years, but almost without contact with competent scholars. He had spent every hour to the research that was dear to him; he had collected an enormous amount of information, and he had reason to believe in theories he had formed for himself and by himself. Afterwards I read many of his articles, and more and more I became convinced of his qualities, but also of the fact that he had worked without the benefit of a close cooperation with other scholars, never having a proper chance of an exchange of opinions, nor receiving the useful criticism every scholar needs. His style of writing remains difficult and sometimes even cumbersome. It takes time to adjust oneself to this style, and to learn to justify the work he did. He habitually packs his articles with information, using long sentences which compel the reader to a perusal of the text when he really wants to understand all the details given. The studies of Dr. Goetz are based on an extensive knowledge of the history and art of those parts of the Himalayas which offered a refuge likewise to the remnants of defeated former conquerors and of their cultural traditions. His researches are mainly founded upon observations made on the spot during many travels by all means of transport, on horseback and on foot in the course of many summers between 1937 and 1960, when the oppressive heat of the Indian plains forced a retreat into the cooler climate of the hills. Accompanied by his tireless and most sympathetic wife Goetz travelled across the hills, searching for antiquities and monuments, spending long days in noting down all kinds of details, and at the same time always about to arrange his material into new schemes and patterns of culture. So I met him and his wife in Kulu valley in 1952. I do not remember of ever having seen him relaxing; always busy noting, measuring, making photographs with an inexpensive camera which he never managed to use to the best of its possibilities , and wherever possible expounding his theories when meeting people willing to listen. Now, at the age of retiring, Goetz has offered us his collected studies in the form of ok, the papers having been recast in part where recent research had made them obsolete. The book is of a major interest to those specializing in the history and culture of Northern India in its widest sense and with special emphasis on Kashmir, Chamba, Kulu, Kumaon, and some parts of Nepal. No scholar working in this line can afford to discard the book when studying this highly interesting, but also rather complicate subject. The index to the volume will prove to be of great help to them, and this is a major asset of the book, its style of writing remaining heavy. It will be used as a book of reference mainly, and many scholars in the line of Indian archaeology will make use of it with much profit, and will probably forget how this mine of information was formed by hard days' work of a man swotting for many years in the loneliness of a Baroda bungalow. Leiden P.H. Pott