remarks on j w de jongs notes on Suvikrantavikramiparipraccha Prajnaparamita Text

Author(s): Hiromasa Tosaki
Publisher: Hiromasa Tosaki
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269552/1

Page #1

Remarks on J. W. de Jong's Notes on the SuvikrāntavikrāmiparipṛcchāPrajñāpāramita Text
Hiromasa Tosaki
J. W. de Jong wrote “Notes on Prajñāpāramitā texts : 2. The Suvikrāntavikramipariprccha," PRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀ AND RELATED SYSTEMS: Studies in honor of Edward Conze, ed. by Lewis Lancaster, BERKELEY BUDDHIST STUDIES SERIES 1, 1977, pp. 187-199 (again compiled in Buddhist Studies by J. W. de Jong, ed. by Gregory Schopen, Berkeley). It contains much useful information together with valuable suggestions. There are, however, some on which I do not agree with him. This paper is to remark on them. The abbreviations are same as used in de Jong's Notes. 1. (de Jong, p. 188. 14-p. 189. 1) Ataḥ sarad vatiputra durlabhatamas te:..... mahakusalamalasamanvāgataḥ. Naham Sasad vatiputra tan satvan mahasamsā. rasamprasthitan iti vadami, yeșām ayam prajnaparamitanirdeśaḥ...... (p. 59. 11-18). The Tibetan translation agrees with the Sanskrit text apart from two minor differences : 1. mahakuśalamalasamanvāgataḥ, T. dge-ba chen-po danIdan-pa = mahakusalasamanvāgataḥ; 2. ayam prajnaparamitanirdeśaḥ, T. sesrab-kyi pha-rol-pa (sic) 'di = iyam prajña paramita.......
(Remark) "2. ayam prajnaparamitānirdeśaḥ, T. śes-rab-kyi pha-rol-pa (sic) 'di = iyam prajnaparamita” is not correct, because T. (Peking ed. 65b 7) has bstan pa after ses rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa and thus
agrees with the Sanskrit text : ayam prajñaparamitanirdeśaḥ. 2. (de Jong, p. 190. 33–37) Su. 8. 4-5: nâjñānena jñānam ity ucyate, nåpi jñanena jñanam ity ucyate. Ti ye-ses-kyis ye-śes ses bya'o // ye-ses-kyis mi-sespa zes mi-bya'o // = jñānena jñānam ity ucyate, na jñanenâjñānam ity ucyate, C. najñānena jñanam ity ucyate, nåpi jñānenâjñānam ity ucyate, nâpi jnanena jñanam ity ucyate.
--- 976 —

Page #2

Remarks on J. W. de Jong's Notes (H. Tosaki)
(9) (Remark) C. (p. 1068a 14-16) has nå jñānenajñanam ity ucyate before napi jñanena jnanam ity ucyate. 不由非智說名為智 = ntjhanena jihaname y UCyate
OSTOSK## =napi jñanena jnanam ity ucyate T
=najñanenâ jnanam ity ucyate ITU Z =nåpi jñanena jnanam ity ucyate 3. (de Jong, p. 191. 15-28) Su. 8.12–14 (sic): Na hi jnanam vacaniyam napi jñanam kasyacid vişayaḥ sarvavişayavyatikrantam hi jñanam, na ca jñanam vişayam, ayam Suvikrāntavikramiñ jñananirdeśaḥ. Adeso 'pradeśaḥ, yena jñanenâsau jñaninam jnaniti samkhyām gacchati, yaivam...... Hikata's punctuation is not correct because a full stop must be placed between visayam (read viņayaḥ) and ayam, and the full stop between jñananirdeśaḥ and adeśo must be omitted. ......
(Remark) No decisive reason to say that Hikata’sl) punctuation is not
correct. Hikata seems to follow C. (p. 1068 a 26-28): O tom 宣說智相。如是智相實不可說不可示現。 According to Ti, a full stop must be placed between vişayam and ayam as de Jong does. But it is
impossible to determine the original reading. 4. (de Jong, p. 192. 36) Su. 15. 1: dhātuḥ samketena. Dhatuḥ is not found in Ti and c.
(Remark) Dhatuḥ is found in C. (p. 1070 a 23): L A BORT. C.
agrees with S.: dhātuḥ samketena vyavahārapadam gacchati. 5. (de Jong, p. 193. 2-4) Su. 15. 15-16: Tena tad. Tosaki suggests reading Naitad but according to Ti one must read te na (de ni ...... ma yin-no). Instead of te c. has 'the Buddhadharmas'.
(Remark) It cannot be said that Tibetan de must be te in Sanskrit. Tibetan de stands generally for tad or etad in Sanskrit. So Tosaki's2) suggestion naitad buddhadharmaņām adhivacanam agrees with Ti (Peking ed., 32b 2): de ni sans rgyas kyi chos kyi tshig bla dags ma yin no. C. (
W P W , p. 1070 b 9) probably means that the word) ‘Buddhadharma' is not a designation of the (real) Buddhadharma. 6. (de Jong, p. 193. 31-33) Su. 20. 3: te najñatacittena bodhim ca paśyanti.
- 975

Page #3

(10)
Remarks on J. W. de Jong's Notes (H. Tosaki) C. corresponds to: te 'nena jñanena citte bod him na paśyanti. C. does not translate na bodhau cittam paśyanti, na citte bodhim paśyanti (p. 20. 4-5).
(Remark) C. (p. 1071 c 24-26) translates na bodhau cittam paśyanti, na citte bodhim paśyanti, though the order of the sentences hereabout differs from S., as follows: (i) te
(i) t (=te 'nena jñanena) (ii) najñatacittena bodhim ca paśyanti (v) # CP T he (ii) na cânyatra bodheś cittam paśyanti (ii) K# OL (=nânya
ira cittad bodhim paśyanti) (iv) na bodhau cittam paśyanti
(iv) ##
O (v) na citte bodhim paśyanti
(i) ORL 7. (de Jong, p. 194. 3-10) Su. 22. 20: anulomam ca samdhayanti. Conze3) translates : "they explain their secret intent) in agreement with just the fact”. However, neither Ti nor C. support this explanation. Ti rjes-su mthun-par smra-bar byed-do; C. "they harmonize this and that so that there is no mutual opposition". Probably one must read samdhayanti as has been proposed by Matsumoto4). According to Edgerton dhayati and dhayate (from dha-) occur chiefly in comp. with antara-. C. is correct in translating samdhayati by 'to harmonize, to make agree'.
(Remark) It is not necessary to read samdhayanti in stead of samdhayanti, because samdhayanti (from samdhaya, Nominal verb, cf. Monier-Williams's Dic., to put or join together, unite) with anulomam can be rendered
by FA (p. 1072c 7) (to harmonize'). 8. (de Jong, p. 194. 32-34) Su. 43. 2: prajñaparamitanirdeśapadam câdhigacchati śravanaya. According to C. one must read: prajñaparamita nirdeśapadam câdhigacchati śravaņaya. (Remark) Even according to C. (p. 1084 c 10-11): *
* MET FW ("though as regards Prajñāpāramitā, various words are heard”), no emendation is necessary, because the Sanskrit text as it is conveys the same idea as C. S. means: the (various) words explaining Prajñāpāramitā reach the ear. Nirdeśaśravanaya gacchaty (p. 43. 3) should be read: nirdeśaḥ śravanaya gacchaty.
- 974 —

Page #4

Remarks on J. W. de Jong's Notes (H. Tosaki)
(11) (de Jong, p. 195. 7-8) Su. 43. 24: prajnaparamitaya nirdeśaḥ karyam ca karoti. C. tasya nirdesena karyam ca karoti.
(Remark) No word corresponding to tasya is found in C. C. (p. 1085a 2) abridged the word prajnaparamitaya, because the preceding prajnaparamitayaḥ (p. 43. 23) comes down in function to this passage.
And C. (m) agrees with S.: nirdeśaḥ karyam ca karoti. It seems that the preceding passage tasyah pattraiḥ karyam karoti (p. 43. 22) made de Jong read tasya nirdeśena karyam ca karoti. But is it necessary? While in the sentence tasyah pattraiḥ karyam karoti, the subject is pu rusaḥ (p. 43. 21), in the sentence prajnaparamitaya nirdeśaḥ karyam ca karoti, the subject is nirdeśaḥ.
10. (de Jong, p. 195. 11-14) Su. 47. 1-2: nâsyam kaścid upalabhyate yo 'bhisambuddhaḥ. (Ms. 'bhisambuddha). Read with C. 'bhisamboddha.
(Remark) It cannot be said that C. (p. 1085 e 21) stands only for abhisamboddhr. It may stand for abhisambuddha which has the active meaning. So C. does not necessarily make us read abhisamboddha. In other words, it is impossible to decide whether Ms. 'bhisambuddha is an error for 'bhisamboddha or 'bhisambuddhaḥ.
11. (de Jong, p. 195. 30-33) Su. 62. 24-25: Asangalakṣan (esu] hi Saradvattputra (sajanti) sarvabalapṛthagjanah. Ms. Asangalakṣaṇa. Read Asangasanga (or asangasakta] hi Saradvattputra sarvabalaprthagjanah, cf. Ti byis-pa soso'i skye-bo thams-cad ni chags-pa med-pa la chags so . C. agrees with Ti. (Remark) C. does not agree with Ti. C. BARE (p. 1089c 13)
=Asang alakṣaṇeşu sajanti balapṛthagjanah; Ti=Asangasangah [or Asangasaktaḥ sarvabalapṛthagjanah.
12. (de Jong, p. 196. 4-8) Su. 68. 14-16: Tad yatha "yuşman Saradvattputra dharmo nidarianam nopaiti kasyacid dharmasya, katham tasyaivodaharanirdeśo (Hikata tasya evo-, but Ms. tasyaivo-) bhavisyati. Tosaki omits dharmo but this is found both in Ti and in C.
(Remark) Hikata does not read tasya evo-, but tasya evo-. Hikata's reading tasya is correct, because from the context as well as according to C. (EAGERRES, p. 1091 b 10-11) the pronoun here must - 973
******

Page #5
(12) Remarks on J. W. de Jong's Notes (H. Tosaki) stand for Prajnaparamita. Tosaki5) does not omit this dharmo, but the dharmo in the 19 th line of the 70 th page in accordance with Ti. By the way, as regards my omission of dharmo (p. 70. 19) and emendation of pratyupasthitah (p. 70. 20) to pratyupasthita, I think at present that the passage should be read: dharmo na kasyacid dharmasya samyogaya va visamyogaya va pratyupasthitah, katham tasya nirdeso bhavisyati. (tasya = prajnaparamitaya). This reading agrees with C. (p. 1091 c 20-21): BAETEREA MIEJU. #TMERRE B LE. 13. (de Jong, p. 197. 29-34) Su. 98. 20-22: Yavat kalpana tavad vikalpana, nasty atra vikalpanasamucchedah. Yatra punah Suvikrantavikramin na kalpana na vikalpana, tatra kalpasamucchedah. Tosani (sic!) emends vikalpanasamucchedah to kalpana-. Ti has mi-rtog-pa which corresponds to vikalpana. For both vikalpanasamucchedah and kalpasamucchedah C. has kalpanavikalpanasamucchedah which is certainly the original reading. (Remark) Ti (Peking ed., 92 b 3) has no mi-rtog-pa, but rtog-pa, which made meh) emend vikalpana- kon De Jong should have mentioned the reason why he thought C. kalpanavikalpanasamucchedah is certainly the original reading. By the way, Peking ed., 93 a 8-b1: de ni rtog pa med do should be emended to de ni mi rtog pa med do (corresponding to na tatra vikalpana, p. 98. 15), and Peking ed., 93 b 3: ji srid du mi rtog pa de srid du to ji srid du rtog pa de srid du (corresponding to yavat kalpana tavad, p. 98. 20-21) as Sde-dge edition, 85a 1, 3. 1) Ryusho Hikata (ed.), SUVIKRANTAVIKRAMI-PARIPRCCHA PRAJNAPA RAMITA-SUTRA, Fukuoka, 1958. 2) Hiromasa Tosaki (Japanese tr.), "Zenyumyo Hannya-kyo," Daijo Butten, Vol. 1, Tokyo, 1973, p. 316. 3) Edward Conze (tr.), THE SHORT PRAJNAPARAMITA TEXTS, London, 1973, p. 19. 11-12. 4) Tokumyo Matsumoto (ed.), Aryasuvikrantavikramipariprccha-prajnaparamitani rdesasardhadvisahasrika-Bhagavatyarya-prajnaparamita, Tokyo, 1956. 5) Tosaki, op. cit., p. 315. 6) Ibid. (Assoc. Prof., Kyushu University) - 972 --