Reviews Of Etienne Lamotte

SR No.: 269263
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: J W De Jong
Publisher: J W De Jong
Total Pages: 8
Language: English
Classification: Article
File Size: 827 KB

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.