Reviews Of Etienne Lamotte

Author(s): J W De Jong
Publisher: J W De Jong
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269263/1

Page #1

REVIEWS AND NOTICES OF BOOKS
105
Étienne Lamotte, Le Traité de la Grande Vertu de Sagesse de Nāgārjuna (Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra), avec une nouvelle Introduction. Tome III, chapitres XXXIXLII. Publié avec le concours de la Fondation Francqui. Publications de l'Institut Orientaliste de Louvain, Vol. II, pp. lxviii+1119-1733. Louvain, Institut Orientaliste, 1970. Fr. 1100.
In 1944 Professor Lamotte published the first volume of his translation of the Ta-chih-tu-lun (Taishō 1509) followed in 1949 by a second volume (cf. W. Baruch, AM, III, 1952-3, pp. 109-12). The third volume contains the translation of chapters 31-42 (chüan 19-26 and the beginning of 27). In the Taishō edition the Ta-chih-tu-lun occupies about 700 pages of which 200 have been translated by Professor Lamotte in these three volumes. One cannot possibly expect L. to translate the entire work. However, the most important part is the first 34 chüan which, according to the colophon, contain a complete translation of the first parivarta of the Sanskrit text. The other parivarta have been abridged by the translator (cf. P. Demiéville, JA, 1950, p. 388). It is to be hoped that L. will publish a fourth volume containing a translation of the final part of Kumārajīva's translation of the first parivarta (the remainder of chüan 27 and chüan 28-34). On completion of these four volumes only one desideratum would remain: a detailed index which would make this translation one of the most important reference works available to students of Buddhism and India.
The third volume is preceded by a long introduction (pp. v-lx) in which L. deals with several problems relating to the author and the sources of the Ta-chih-tu-lun. In his review of Volume II Demiéville had suggested that the original title must have been Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa (JA, 1950, p. 375, n. 1). In his subsequent publications L. has used this title but without discussing the arguments advanced by Demiéville. On pp. vii-viii he states his reason for assuming that the title must have been Prajñāpāramitopadeśa or Mahāprajñāpāramitāsūtropadeśa (cf. also his note in Jacques May's review of K. V. Ramanan's Nagarjuna's Philosophy, TP, LIV, 1968, pp. 334-5). Demiéville quoted a biography of Nagarjuna which is traditionally attributed to Kumārajiva: Lung-shu p'u-sa chuan (Taishō 2047). According to L., Kumārajīva is not the author of this biography (cf. pp. liv-lv). Already in his L'Enseignement de Vimalakirti (henceforth: Vk.), Lamotte mentions the "rocambolesque Biographie de Nagarjuna (Long-chou pou-sa tchouan, T 2047), attribuée abusivement à Kumārajīva" (p. 71). In his Early Madhyamika in India and China,1 Richard H. Robinson believes that "In so far as it is genuine, this Biography must consist of Kumārajīva's oral account as worded by his disciples" (p. 25; cf. also pp. 21, 22). This conclusion agrees with Demiéville's description of the biography as belonging to "les biographies chinoises de Nagarjuna, qui doivent émaner de Kumārajīva" (op. cit., p. 375, n. 1). The authorship of the biography is not without importance, because it says at the end that one hundred years have lapsed since Nagarjuna's death. If this statement is due to Kumarajiva himself, it would indicate that Kumārajīva believed Nagarjuna to have lived in the third century. However, even in this case it seems difficult to consider it as a decisive argument for
1 Lamotte does not refer to Robinson's book; neither is it mentioned in the "Supplément à la bibliographie" (pp. lxi-lxviii), although this lists many publications to which no reference is made in the text.

Page #2

106
REVIEWS AND NOTICES OF BOOKS
determining the date of Nagarjuna. Rather surprisingly, L. quotes this statement, although he attaches no value to the biography (cf. Vk., p. 76).2
The Upadesa has traditionally been attributed to Nagarjuna (cf. Demiéville, op. cit., p. 381, n. 1). In his preface to the first volume L. wrote as follows: "Il [=Nāgārjuna] vécut probablement au IIe siècle de notre ère et joua un rôle de premier plan dans la formation du bouddhisme du Grand Véhicule. Originaire du Sud (pays d'Andhra), il étendit son influence jusqu'au Nord-Ouest de l'Inde" (p. x). In an article, published in 1954: "Sur la formation du Mahāyāna" (Asiatica, Leipzig, 1954, pp. 377-96), L. had changed his point of view and wrote: "La critique moderne y va de sa légende à elle et propose de chercher les origines du Mahāyāna dans l'Inde du Sud, en pays Andhra" (p. 386). Nāgarjuna exercised his activity in the north-west of India and his role in the formation of Mahayana Buddhism is not primordial: "Nagarjuna est bien postérieur à l'éclosion des Mahāyānasūtra, car on trouve dans ses œuvres et notamment dans son Upadesa (T 1509) et sa Daśabhumivibhāṣā (T 1522) des références et des citations empruntées à une bonne cinquantaine de sutra et sastra mahâyânistes" (p. 391). L.'s change of opinion, which was characterized by Demiéville as a "volte-face" (OLZ, 1959, Sp. 248), is carried to a logical conclusion in his most recent discussion of the problem of the authorship. Whereas in 1954 he still considered Nagarjuna to be the author of the Upadesa, in the introduction to Volume III of this translation (henceforth: III, Intr.) the author is said to have lived after the first Madhyamika: Nāgārjuna, Aryadeva and Rahulabhadra, probably in the beginning of the fourth century (p. xl). L. even sketches in some detail the spiritual development of the author as a sarvästivädin converted to the Madhyamaka (cf. also Demiéville, JA, 1950, p. 382). The date of the author depends on two lines of argument. The first shows that Nagarjuna lived between A.D. 243 and 300. The second that the author of the Upadesa quotes not only Nagarjuna's works, but also those of his pupil, Aryadeva, and of his contemporary, Rahulabhadra. The date of Nagarjuna has been studied by L. in his Vk. (pp. 70-7). In III, Intr. L. quotes the same texts but the argumentation is not entirely the same (pp. li-lv). The texts, quoted by him, are well known (cf. Mochizuki, op. cit., p. 4996a-b). According to Tao-an of the Later Chou Kumārajīva adopted 637 B.C. as the date of Buddha's Nirvāņa (Vk. p. 73; III, Intr. p. li). Robinson rightly queries the authenticity of this passage which was written in A.D. 568, a century and a half after Kumārajīva (op. cit., p. 23). In the second place L. quotes a preface to the Satyasiddhiśästra, written by Seng-jui, a disciple of Kumārajīva. This preface is lost, but is quoted by Chi-tsang in his commentaries. According to this quotation Asvaghosa was born 350 years after the Nirvana of the Buddha and Nagarjuna in the year 530. L. explains that this can be understood in two ways: (1) Aśvaghosa and Nagarjuna were born, respectively, 350 and 530 years after the Nirvana; (2) Aśvaghoşa was born 350 years after the Nirvana and Nagarjuna 530 years after Asvaghosa. L. tries to prove that the second alternative has to be preferred. However, Mochizuki has already pointed out two other quotations of the same preface, in which the addition of hou or ch'i hou clearly indicates that 530 years after Asvaghosa are meant.3 Consequently Nagarjuna was born 880 years after the Nirvana of the Buddha (637 B.C.) A.D. 243. L. arrives at the date of A.D. 300 for his death by referring to the Lung-shu p'u-sa chuan, as mentioned above, and to the Tibetische Lebensbeschreibung Sakyamuni's (tr. A. Schiefner, St. Petersburg, 1848, p. 310) according to which Nagarjuna lived 60 years. Schiefner's work is an abridged translation of a text written in 1734 (cf. T'oung Pao, XLIII, 1955, PP. 317-18). Moreover, L. quotes as "un indice, permettant de contrôler l'exactitude de la date 243 p.C. proposée pour la naissance de Nagarjuna" the fact that
2 Thomas Watters already referred to the Biography: "If we regard his Life as having been composed by Kumārajīva, its professed translator, he lived in the latter part of the 3rd century of our era" (On Yuan Chwang's travels in India, Vol. II, 1905, p. 204). Cf. also Mochizuki Shinko's Bukkyōdaijiten, Vol. V, 1933, p. 4996b; Robinson, op. cit., p. 25.
3 Op cit., p. 4996b1-2. Mochizuki refers to Taishō 1855 (p. 119a21 ff.) and to Hui-ying's commentary on the Upadeśa (Dainihon bukkyō zensho, Vol. XCIV, p. 110b).

Page #3

107 according to two Chinese catalogues Dharmarakṣa translated between 265 and 313 a work described as an extract of the Daśabhumikaśāstra (cf. Vk., p. 76). It is difficult to see how this information, even assuming that it is correct and that Nāgārjuna is indeed the author of the Daśabhumikasastra, can confirm 243 as the date of birth of Nāgarjuna. Hikata, from whom L. has taken this indication, argues that the Daśabhumika must have reached Tun-huang before 265 (the date of Dharmarakṣa's departure from Tun-huang) and that the text must have come into existence by 250 at the latest. In that case Nagarjuna would have written the text at the age of seven at the latest! In III, Intr. L. does not refer any more to the Lung-shu p'u-sa chuan, the Tibetische Lebensbeschreibung Śākyamuni's and Dharmarakṣa's translation of an extract of the Daśabhumika, but he still seems to consider Tao-an's information concerning the date of Nirvāņa, accepted by Kumārajīva, and Seng-jui's preface to the Satyasiddhiśāstra, as indications sufficient to determine which dates Kumārajīva and his disciples adopted for the Nirvana of the Buddha and the lives of Asvaghosa and Nagarjuna. However, one must remark that Tao-an wrote in 568 and that Seng-jui's preface is only known from quotations. Even admitting that this information is reliable and that it originated in Kashmir where Kumārajīva studied in his youth, it is still difficult to attach much value to it. L. himself points out that the period of more than 500 years ("près de 500 ans" is probably a slip of the pen for "plus de 500 ans") between Asvaghosa and Nagarjuna is not acceptable. He continues: "On n'échappe pas à l'impression que toutes ces datations relèvent de vues théoriques sur les étapes successives de la Bonne Loi et que, en chronologie absolue, leur valeur est plutôt faible" (p. liii).
REVIEWS AND NOTICES OF BOOKS
Much more important is the internal evidence which can be gained from the Upadesa itself. On p. 1370 occurs the following passage: "Tous les dharma dépendent des causes et conditions: dépendant des causes et conditions, ils ne sont pas autonomes; puisqu'ils ne sont pas autonomes, il n'y a pas de Moi, et le caractère du Moi est inexistant, ainsi qu'il est dit dans le P'o-wo-p'in (Atmapratiṣedhaprakaraṇa) 'Chapitre de la réfutation du Moi'." This passage is followed by a long note (pp. 1370-5) in which L. maintains that P'o-wo-p'in refers to the tenth chapter of Aryadeva's Catuḥśataka: "Le Traité ne se réfère pas davantage ici à un chapitre des Mulamadhyamakakärikā (ou Madhyamakaśastra) de Nagarjuna car le chapitre XVIII qui y traite de l'Atman est intitulé 'Examen de l'Atman' (Atmaparikṣā en sanskrit, Bdag brtag pa en tibétain, Kouan-wo en chinois). Le seul chapitre entrant ici en ligne de compte est l'Atmapratiṣedhaprakarana du Catuḥśataka d'Aryadeva." L. continues: "Cette citation est d'importance car elle prouve que les premiers auteurs Madhyamika (Nāgārjuna, Aryadeva, Rahulabhadra) étaient connus de l'auteur du Traité et que par conséquent ce dernier leur est postérieur." There is not the slightest doubt that the author of the Upadesa quotes Nāgārjuna's Mulamadhyamakakārikā and Rāhulabhadra's Prajñāpāramitāstotra (cf. pp. 1060-5).4 However, this fact in itself does not prove that Nagarjuna cannot have been the author of the Upadesa. He may well have quoted his own work. As to Rāhulabhadra, his relation to Nāgarjuna is not well established. The Indian tradition seems to consider him as Nagarjuna's teacher (cf. Lamotte, "Sur la formation du Mahāyāna", p. 391; Upadesa pp. 1373-4). This is followed by the Tibetan tradition (cf. Bu-ston's History of Buddhism, tr. E. Obermiller, II, Heidelberg, 1932, p. 123; The Blue Annals, tr. George N. Roerich, I, Calcutta, 1949, p. 35). L. quotes two Chinese texts to prove that Rahulabhadra was a contemporary of Nagarjuna and a commentator of his works (ibid.), but not much value can be attached to texts written in China in the seventh and eighth centuries.5 In any case, there is not enough evidence to
4 On this stotra see Ui Hakuju, Indo tetsugaku kenkyu, I, Tokyo, 1924, pp. 339-54 (first published in 1920-1 in the Tetsugaku zasshi); W. Baruch, Asia Major, III, 1952, p. 112; Edward Conze (ed.), Buddhist Texts through the Ages (Oxford, 1954), pp. 147-9. Rahulabhadra is also the author of 20 slokas in honour of the Saddharmapundarika. The text of these verses has been published in the edition of the SP by Wogihara and Tsuchida (Tokyo, 1934-5, pp. 37-9).
5 Chi-tsang's Chung-kuan-lun shu (Taishō, 1824) was probably written in 602, cf. Sato Tatsugen, "Kichizō no senjutsusho ni tsuite," Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū, X, 1962, p. 566.

Page #4

108
REVIEWS AND NOTICES OF BOOKS
consider Rāhulabhadra "un successeur proche ou lointain" of Nāgārjuna. For this reason, the quotation from Aryadeva is much more important because in India, China and Tibet Aryadeva is unanimously considered to be a disciple of Nagarjuna. However, does P'o-wo-p'in really refer to the tenth chapter of the Catuḥsataka? The Upadeśa contains a long passage on the atman (pp. 734-40). L. remarks in a note (p. 734, n. I): "Il est à remarquer que le Mpps [=Upadeśa], attribué à tort ou à raison à Nāgārjuna, ne manifeste, dans sa réfutation de l'Atman, aucune ressemblance spéciale avec les Madh. kārikā de Nāgārjuna, et, pour tout dire, semble les avoir négligées, alors qu'en d'autres endroits il y a eu fréquemment recours." This passage it not based on the eighteenth chapter of the Mülamadhyamakakārikā, nor is it based on the tenth chapter of the Catuhsataka. The passage, quoted on p. 1370, is too short to enable us to determine its source, but I have not found any evidence in the tenth chapter of the Catuḥsataka to prove that it has been used by the author of the Upadeśa. L.'s only argument seems to be the title of the tenth chapter of the Catuhsataka in the Chinese translations (Taisho 1570-1). However, both translations were made by Hsüan-tsang in 650-1 (cf. p. 1371). The name of the Sanskrit version has not been handed down; that of the Tibetan version is * Ātmapratişedhabhāvanāsamdarśana (Bdag dgag-pa bsgom-pa bstan-pa).6 There is no evidence that the author of the Upadeśa was able to use a text of this chapter bearing the name * Ātmapratişedhaprakarana. Therefore, neither the contents of the tenth chapter of the Catuhsatáka nor its name confirm Li's hypothesis.
On the other hand, the possibility is not to be ruled out that P'o-wo-p'in refers to the eighteenth chapter of Nāgārjuna's Mülamadhyamakakārikā. In Sanskrit this text is transmitted together with Candrakīrti's commentary, the Prasannapadă. According to this commentary the title of the eighteenth chapter is Atmaparikṣā (in Tibetan: Bdag brtag-pa). Nägarjuna's Mülamadhyamakakärikā are transmitted separately in a Tibetan translation, but this version has been corrected with the help of the Tibetan translation of Candrakirti's commentary (cf. P. Cordier; Catalogue du fonds tibétain de la bibliothèque nationale. III, Paris, 1915, pp. 290-1: Mdo-grel, XVII, 1). Therefore the fact that, in this version, the name of the eighteenth chapter is * Atmapariksā does not prove that this was the original name of this chapter. The Tibetan Tanjur contains three other commentaries on the Mülamadhyamakakārikā: the Akutobhayā (Peking edn. -No. 5229; Cordier, op. cit., XVII, 6), Buddhapalita's commentary (Peking edn. No. 5242; Cordier, op. cit., XVII, 20) and Bhāvaviveka's Prajñāpradipa (Peking edn. No. 5253; Cordier, op. cit., XVIII, 8). Both Buddhapālita's and Bhāvaviveka's commentaries are quoted by Candrakīrti. In all these three commentaries the name of the eighteenth chapter is * Ātmadharmapariksa (Tib. Bdag dan chos brtag-pa). According to the Chinese versions of the commentary ascribed to Pin-lo-chieh (Taisho 1564) and of Bhāvaviveka's commentary (Taisho 1566) the name of this chapter is *Dharmaparikṣā (kuan-fa p'in W ). Therefore, only Candrakirti's commentary and the revised Tibetan version of the Mülamadhyamakakārikā give the name Atmaparikṣā to the eighteenth chapter. According to the other commentaries the title is either * Atmadharmapariksā or "Dharmapariksa. It is impossible to decide whether the original title was Atmapariksā, Atmadharmapariksā or Dharmaparikṣā. The chapter itself contains a refutation of the Atman. It is quite possible that the author of the Upadeśa has referred to it by the name * Ātmapratisedhaprakarana, even though the real name is probably different. Another possibility is that Kumārajīva translated *Atmaparikșaprakarana as P'o-wo-p'in. For a similar instance one may compare the Chinese translation of Pin-lochieh's commentary (Taisho 1564), in which the names of chapters three and five are *Şadindriyapariksa and *Şaddhātupariksa (Kuan-liu-ch'ing p'in
; Kuan liuchung p'in
A). However, the text itself refers to these two chapters as *Indriyapratişedhaprakarana (P'o-ken p'in * , p. 24624) and *Şaddhātupratişedhaprakarana (P'o liu-chung p'in
, p. 24a26). In this case, too, it is impossible to know
6 The fragments of the Sanskrit text, published by Haraprasad Sastri, do not contain the name of this chapter. The name Atmaśuddhyupāyasamdarśana, which is mentioned by L., is a rather fanciful reconstruction from the Tibetan by P. L. Vaidya. Probably Vaidya has misread dag-pa for dgag-pa.

Page #5

REVIEWS AND NOTICES OF BOOKS
109
if this is due to the author or to the translator. Therefore, it is certainly possible that P'o-wo p'in refers to the eighteenth chapter of the Mülamadhyamakakārika.
There is not enough evidence to support Li's supposition that the Upadeśa was written in the beginning of the fourth century in north-western India. According to Kumārajiva's biography, he studied in Kashmir between the age of nine and twelve (cf. Robert Shih, Biographies des Moines éminents, Louvain, 1968, pp. 62-3). Whichever dates we adopt for his life (344-413 or 350-409), Kumārajīva must have lived in Kashmir in the beginning of the second half of the fourth century, about half a century after the composition of the Upadeśa. It seems difficult to admit with L. that Kumārajiva did obtain reliable information on the dates of Nagarjuna but not on the authorship of the Upadeśa. If this work had really been written in the beginning of the fourth century in north-western India, Kumārajīva would almost certainly have met younger contemporaries of the author. For this reason, it seems preferable not to attach too much value both to the computation of the dates of Nāgārjuna and to the attribution of the authorship of the Upadeśa to him by Kumārajīva. From the Upadeśa itself it is obvious that the author was well-versed in the Abhidharma literature of the Sarvāstivādin and that he lived in north-western India. It does not seem necessary to assume that he was a former Sarvästivādin converted to the Madhyamaka. As L. indicates (III, Intr. p. xlii), even for a Mādhyamika the Abhidharma remained important as belonging to the samortisatya.
The author of the Upadeśa often quotes the Mülamadhyamakakārikā but, to my knowledge, he does not seem to refer to any of the other works attributed to Nāgārjuna. It is difficult to give a satisfactory explanation of this fact for it seems probable that Nāgārjuna is the author of several works. Some information about the works attributed to Nāgārjuna can be obtained from Candrakirti's Madhyamakaśāstrastuti to which L. refers twice (III, Intr. pp. xliii-xliv; pp. 1373-4). Candrakirti lived several centuries after Nāgārjuna, but if we compare the list of eight works mentioned by him to the long lists of works enumerated as Nāgārjuna's works by Tibetan and Chinese catalogues, it makes a much more reliable impression. It is not an exhaustive list of the works attributed to Nāgārjuna by Candrakirti. Recently, Uryûzu Ryushin has shown that, in his commentary on the Catuhsataka, Candrakirti refers twice to the Bodhisambhāra (Taisho 1660), a work also mentioned by Bu-ston (op. cit., II, p. 126 where Bodhigana must be corrected to Bodhisambhāra).' Bu-ston attributes six works to Nāgärjuna (op. cit., I, p. 51) as mentioned by L., but attention must be drawn to the fact that Bu-ston considers these six to be his logical works. Among other works of Nāgārjuna he enumerates the Ratnávali, stotras, works dedicated to the practical side of the doctrine: the Sūtrasamuccaya, the Swapnacintāmani parikatha and works on the conduct of householders and of monks: Suhrllekha and Bodhisambhāra (op. cit., II, pp. 125-6). The authorship of the Akutobhayā is disputed among the Tibetans. Obermiller refers to Mkhas-grub's discussion of the fact that the Akutobhayā quotes from the Catuḥśataka with the words: "It has thus been said by the venerable Aryadeva" (Acta Orientalia, XI, 1933, p. 4, n. 9). Walleser has already observed that the same quotation occurs at the same place in Pin-lo-chieh's commentary (tr. Walleser, Heidelberg, 1912, p. 189). L. considers Pin-lo-chieh's work to belong to the authentic works of Aryadeva (cf. p. 1373), but it seems more likely that both the Akutobhayā and the commentary attributed to Pin-lo-chieh have been written by authors who knew Aryadeva's works.10
? According to Seng-jui, Kumārajiva has taken great liberties with the text (cf. Robinson, op. cit., p. 29).
8 The dates 350-409 have recently been proposed by Tsukamoto Zenryü, cf. Robinson, op. cit., pp. 244-7. Robinson discusses in detail Tsukamoto's arguments.
Uryûzu Ryūshin, "Bodaishiryoron no Ryūju shinsen ni tsuite", Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū, XVII, 1969, pp. 513-19.
10 On Pin-lo-chieh and his commentary (Taisho 1564) see Mochizuki, op. cit., III, Pp. 2793b-4a; Robinson, op. cit., pp. 28-30. On the relation between chapters XXIIIXXVII of the Akutobhayā and the corresponding chapters of Buddhapalita's commentary,
-Continued on following page

Page #6

REVIEWS AND NOTICES OF BOOKS
The authenticity of Aryadeva's Satakaśāstra (Taisho 1569) is also open to grave doubts. Ui listed 17 quotations from Aryadeva in Chinese Buddhist texts. He was able to identify 9 with verses of the Catuḥsataka, but did not discover a single quotation from the Satakaśāstra (op. cit., pp. 277-81). The fact that Candrakirti often quotes the Catuḥśataka by the name Sataka seems also to indicate that Aryadeva did not write both a Catuḥsataka and a Sataka. 11
The uncertainty regarding the authenticity of the works attributed to Nāgārjuna makes it difficult to form a reliable picture of his philosophical and religious ideas. In his review of Frederick J. Streng's Emptiness, A Study in Religious Meaning (Nashville, New York, 1967) Jacques May rightly remarks that Nägarjuna has been studied until now chiefly as a philosopher or as a logician (Asiatische Studien Études Asiatiques, XXIV, 1970, p. 69). The interpretation of the sūnyată concept has given rise to many discussions among scholars. Perhaps it is necessary to study not only the Mülamadhyamakakārikā, but also the other works, attributed by Candrakirti to Nāgārjuna, in order to determine the place of this concept in Nāgārjuna's thought. In any case, one is rather surprised to see L. describe the sünyatā as "rien que ce soit (akimcid), 'une simple inexistence' (abhāvamātra)" (III, Intr. p. xxxi). L. does not give any references to texts and, as far as I have been able to ascertain, the Mülamadhyamakakārikā do not use these terms to characterize śünyatā.12 On page 1229 L. quotes a verse from Santideva's Bodhicaryāvatāra in which the words kimcin nāstīti are to be found; however, they do not describe the sünyatā. As the commentary explains, the practice of meditating on the idea that "nothing exists” brings about the cessation of all ideas of voidness and existence (cf. Bodhicaryāvatārapañjikā, ed. L. de La Vallée Poussin, Calcutta, 1901-14, p. 414). As to the expression abhāvamätra, this has been discussed by L. in his introduction to his translation of the Vimalakirtinirdeśasūtra (p. 57; cf. J. May, T'oung Pao, LI, 1964, p. 95), but the cittam acittam of the Prajñāpāramitāsūtra is not identical with the sūnyatā of the Madhyamaka.
It is impossible to discuss fully the many topics treated by L. in his introduction. Two points of minor importance have to be mentioned. On p. xiii L. states that the name Mahāyāna never occurs in inscriptions, but one finds the expression mahāyānikaSākyabhikṣu-ācāryya in an inscription from East Bengal dated A.D. 507-8 and inscriptions of the Pāla period mention mahāyāna-anuyāyin "followers of Mahāyāna" (cf. Shizutani Masao, Gupta jidai bukkyā himei mokuroku, Kyoto, 1968, pp. 12-13, where further bibliographical references are given). On pp. xxxviii-xxxix L. translates a
Continued from previous pagesee Hirano Takashi, "Muichū to Butsugo-chū to no ido ni tsuite", Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū, III, 1954, pp. 236-8. The biography of Nāgārjuna, attributed to Kumārajīva, attributes to him an Akutobhayaśāstra in 100,000 verses (cf. M. Walleser, "The Life of Nāgārjuna from Tibetan and Chinese Sources", Hirth Anniversary Volume, p. 447). L. does not believe that this work is identical with the Akutobhayā (III, Intr. p. lv), but the similarity in name and the fact that this work is said to contain the Chung-lun rather suggest a connexion between the two works. Walleser mentioned the possibility that Pin-lo-chieh's commentary was based upon the Akutobhayā, but ruled it out because, in that case, Kumārajīva would not have mentioned the Akutobhayaśāstra in the way he did in his biography of Nāgārjuna. However, if this biography is not written by Kumārajīva, but reproduces information obtained from Kumārajīva, the mention of an Akutobhayaśāstra may well indicate a connexion between Pin-lo-chieh's commentary and the Akutobhayā (cf. Walleser, Die Mittlere Lehre des Nāgārjuna, Heidelberg, 1912, pp. ix-x).
11 Richard R. Gard's discussion of the authenticity of the Satakaśāstra is conducted along different lines: “On the authenticity of the Pai-lun and Shih-erh-mênlun", Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū, II, 1954, pp. 751-42.
12 Candrakīrti rejects nihilistic interpretations of sūnya, cf. Prasannapadā, p. 495. 12-13: yadi tāvat sarvam idam śünyam sarvam nāstīti parikalpayet tadāsya mithyādņştir āpadyate; tr. J. May, p. 231: s'il suppose que "le donné empirique tout entier est vide" veut dire "tout est non-être", il tombe dans la vue fausse par excellence.

Page #7

REVIEWS AND NOTICES OF BOOKS
III
passage from the Hsi-yü-chih as quoted in the Fa-yuan-chu-lin (Taisho 2122). According to L. this passage is taken from Tao-an's Hsi-yü-chih and contains the oldest mention of Nāgārjuna. The same passage is quoted in Mochizuki (op. cit., p. 4996a), but he does not attribute this Hsi-yü-chih to Tao-an, because it is well known that the Hsi-yü-chih, quoted in the Fa-yuan-chu-lin, has nothing to do with Tao-an's Hsi-yüchih. Sylvain Lévi, who translated several passages of the Hsi-yü-chih from the Fa-yuanchu-lin, has given the following information on this work: "Les mémoires de Wang Hiuen-ts'e et de Hiouen-tsang servirent de base à une compilation officielle, le Si-iutchi (appelé aussi Si-kouo-tchi) en cent chapitres, soixante de textes, quarante de cartes et dessins, qui fut exécutée en 666" (JA, 1900, I, p. 298).
In this third volume of his translation of the Upadeśa L. shows his great knowledge of the Abhidharma literature. As shown in the table on pp. Ixvi-lxvii, chapters XXXIXLII deal with the dharmas of the Way of Nirvāṇa and with the attributes of the Buddha. The systematic nature of these chapters have made it possible for L. to add preliminary notes, in which useful information is given on the dharmas, their treatment in canonical literature, Abhidharma texts and Mahāyāna texts. One must admire Li's extensive knowledge of the Buddhist literature in Pāli, Sanskrit, Tibetan and Chinese. L. gives numerous references to the original sources but mentions only rarely secondary sources in Western languages. It is only by consulting these works that one realizes to what extent L.'s knowledge surpasses that of his predecessors. However, one cannot but regret the fact that L. does not seem to have made great use of the works of Japanese scholars apart from reference works. To mention only one example: chapter XLI of the Upadeśa treats in great detail of the eighteen avenikadharma of the Buddhas. L. mentions that the wording of these dharmas is not always the same and that their order varies according to the texts. He refers to many texts but does not indicate in which order they are listed in them (cf. pp. 1626-7). This problem has been examined very carefully by Mizuno Kögen in his study on the classification of the eighteen ävenikadharma (cf. Miyamoto Shōson, ed., Daijo bukkyo no seiritsushiteki kenkyū,
Tokyo, 1954, pp. 292-302).13 Mizuno points out, for instance, that the same list of dharmas is to be found in two biographies of the Buddha (Taisho 184, p. 47201-10; Taisho 185, p. 478b16-25) and in Dharmarakşa's version of the Lalitavistara (cf. Lamotte, p. 1627). He demonstrates that this list was copied from Taisho 184 by the translator of Taisho 185 which, in its turn, is the source for the list in Dharmarakşa's translation. In such and similar instances references to Japanese publications would have been very welcome. There is much to be learned from the excellent work done by Japanese scholars, just as Japanese scholars can derive much profit from studying the work of Western scholars. Probably, Japanese scholars could considerably facilitate the access to their publications, which are widely scattered in innumerable periodicals, by publishing regularly annotated bibliographies in a Western language.
Li's translation of this volume is superior even to that of the two preceding ones. Only rarely would one like to suggest a different rendering, as, for instance, in the following passages: P. 1140: Les êtres sont dignes de pitié; je dois les sauver et les attacher au séjour inconditionné (asamskytapada) *An . . ## HE (p. 197014-15). The beings are to be pitied. I must extirpate my attachment to the unconditioned place. Similar instances of the use of chu can be found in Gadjin M. Nagao's Index to the Mahāyāna-sutralamkāra (Tokyõ, 1961), Vol. II, p. 232b: 8 k bhoga-sakti; # # # bhavabhirama. P. 1144: les choses qu'ils aiment ou dont ils se détachent sont multiples br br ** of H (198a 14). The things which they like and which they understand are manifold. P. 1211: caravanier (sārthavaha) Ap(206a 16). Charioteer (sārathi).
13 One must add to Mizuno's references to Pāli texts the recently published Vimuttimagga (Colombo, 1963, p. 17), a text closely related to Upatişya's Chieh t'o tao lun (Taisho 1648). Some information on this text, mainly on the basis of the Sinhalese introduction, can be found in Mori Sodo, "Shin-shiryo Vimuttimagga", Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū, XVII, 1968, pp. 132-3.

Page #8
II2 REVIEWS AND NOTICES OF BOOKS P. 1263: Le bonheur (sukha) aime par tous les etres est important (guru) ** - * # * (211913). Happiness is liked and esteemed by all beings. P. 1377: Supposons un homme chaussant des sandales: si celles-ci etaient neuves des le premier jour, elles ne vieillirent jamais; apres coup, elles seraient toujours neuves et n'auraient pas de vieillissement. & E. * ici Etike. W: #ff E Hit (222010-12). Suppose that a man puts on sandals. If, on the first day, they were new and without aging, then later they would be always new and would not become old. This is explained in the preceding passage: "tout dharma dont on constate apres coup le caractere de destruction doit evidemment posseder des sa naissance ce caractere de destruction". P. 1511: qui n'a pas encore detruit les impuretes W (235b8). Who has not yet cut off his bonds (samyojana). P. 1601: le Buddha qui a atteint les felicites du Sommet de l'existence (bhavagra) y a renonce #15 #M E ME (245216). The Buddha has given up even the joys of the Summit of existence.-The expression nai chih 75 has presented difficulties to the translator, cf. p. 1691: le present qui ne dure qu'un instant EU # - MELE (254012). The present does not possess duration even during one moment (Vasumitra admits that samskaras possess duration during one instant but not the Sautrantikas, cf. L. de La Vallee Poussin, Melanges chinois et bouddhiques, V, 1937, p. 155); p.'1694: Ainsi des saints comme Avalokitesvara 5 E IL (255a29). Even saints such as Avalokitesvara. P. 1692: Des qu'il se trouverait dans des dispositions mauvaises (dustacitta) et transgresserait ses engagements (sila) anterieurs, ce religieux ne serait plus un bhiksu. # L#BC # # LE FC (255a6-7). If at the present moment [the monk] were in an evil disposition, in the past, too, he would be without morality. He could not be a monk [at all].--The Sarvastivadin argues that, if past and future were non-existent, all three times would be identical. Therefore, if somebody is sinful at the present moment, he is also sinful in the past. Consequently, it is impossible to be a monk. P. 1709: qu'est-ce que la petite bienveillance et la petite compassion? Apres ces petites, pourquoi parler des grandes? tp l i tt t. (256b 18). What are the small benevolence and the small compassion by reason of the smallness of which [the great benevolence and the great compassion] are called great? The Upadesa contains the following quotation from the Kasyapapariprccha: "L'Atman est un extreme, l'Anatman est un autre extreme: eviter ces deux extremes est nomme le Chemin du milieu" (p. 1684). In a note L. refers to Kasyapaparivarta $56 but he has overlooked $57: atmeti kasyapa ayam eko ntah nairatmyam ity ayam dvitiyo ntah yad atmaneratmyayor madhyam tad ... iyam ucyate kasyapa madhyama pratipad dharmanam bhutapratyaveksa. L. believes that the Upadesa quotes the Sutra of Katyayana. The Upadesa contains also a long quotation from Kasyapaparivarta 8882-4 (266c28-267015). Kuno Horyu has drawn attention to the interesting fact that the quotation in the Upadesa contains the beginning of $84, a passage which is missing in the three oldest Chinese translations of the Kasyapaparivarta (Bukkyo kenkyu, II, 3, 1938, p. 95). The publication of the third volume of the translation of the Upadesa is an important milestone in the history of Buddhist studies. To conclude we express the wish that Professor Lamotte may find the courage and energy to continue his admirable work on this important text! J. W. DE JONG