Book Reviews

Author(s): J W De Jong
Publisher: J W De Jong

Page 31

REVIEWS
217
writes: yada yayesu dhammesu. Pāli Dhammapada has: yadā dvayesu dhammesu. One wonders whether it is not possible to read payesu and to suppose the following development: dvayesu > bayesu > payesu. Roth reads ñāpyā (1106, 147, 190b), but elsewhere hayyā (31 2a, 313a) and nyāyyā (338d). One wonders whether it is really possible to distinguish between -py- and -yy- in the manuscript. Certainly difficult to distinguish are ma and sa. In 376e Roth reads tatha-m-iccheya, whereas Shukla reads tathā siccheya which corresponds to Udanavarga XXIX. 40e tatra śikṣeta
One could give many more examples of the problems one encounters in reading these two editions of the Patna Dharmapada. Some can probably easily be solved by consulting the manuscript. For instance, does the manuscript have in 116a: vānijena va bhayam mārggam (Roth) or vāņio va bhayam māggam (Shukla)? Roth has carefully indicated parallels which are very useful for the study of the text. No parallel is given by him for 212: samyattă sugatim yanti / doggatim yanti asamyyatā // mässu višśāsam āpādi / iti bindu (Shukla: viññu) samam care; but see Gāndhāri Dharmapada 325: sañadu sukadi yadi / drugadi yadi asañadu // ma sa vispasa avaja / ida vidva samu cari.
Ernst Waldschmidt's contribution (Central Asian Sūtra Fragments and their Relation to the Chinese Agamas, pp. 136-174) consists of three parts: (I) General Remarks on the Agamas. Re-edition of the Mahāsamājasūtra; (IT) The Language of the Ch'ang-a-han-ching and Dharmaguptaka texts; (III) Two different Versions of the Ekottarikāgama.
In the Gilgit manuscript of the Bhaisajyavastu there are eight references to sūtras in the four āgamas. Of these eight references five indicate chapters (nipāta) of the Madhyamāgama. Waldschmidt shows that these five sūtras are found in the corresponding chapters of the Chinese translation of the Madhyamāgama. A Sanskrit fragment of the Samyuktāgama contains the end of a sutra, an uddana with six Sūtra titles, and the beginning of a sūtra. All eight sūtras are found in the same order in the Bhikṣuṇisamyukta of the two Chinese translations of the Samyuktāgama. In his Bruchstücke buddhistischer Sūtras aus dem zentralasiatischen Sanskritkanon (Leipzig, 1932, pp. 149-206) Waldschmidt published an edition of the Mahāsamājasūtra. In the last twenty years a number of Ms. fragments have been identified as belonging to this sūtra. In the introduction to the revised edition and translation of the sūtra, Waldschmidt points out that the Chinese Dirghāgama contains a version of the sūtra and that the introduction is also found in the two Chinese Samyuktāgamas. The version of the sūtra in the Chinese Dārghā gama agrees with the Pāli text, but the correspondence between the Chinese Samyuktāgamas and the Sanskrit text is much closer.
In II, Waldschmidt studies the language of the Dharmaguptaka texts on the basis of transcriptions of it found in the translation of the Mahāsamājasūtra in the Ch'ang-a-han ching, and of two Sanskrit fragments from Central Asia. The first of these contains a small fragment of the Prātimoksa. The language shows some prakritic elements. The second one is written in a much more sanskritized language. Waldschmidt concludes: "An older linguistic stage is perhaps perceptible in the metrical parts of the Chinese translation of the Mahāsamājasūtra in the Dīrghāgama and in the scarce remnants of the Dharmaguptaka Prātimokşa, whereas the Dharmaguptaka Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra fragment reads almost like Buddhist Sanskrit."
In III, Waldschmidt compares Central Asian fragments of the Ekottarikāgama with the corresponding texts in Pāli and in Chinese. He shows that "the Sanskrit text is conform with the Pāli text in substance, only in wording there are differences. On the other hand, there is a considerable contrast with the corresponding Sūtras of the Tsêng-i-a-han-ching."
In 'Bu-ston on the Languages Used by Indian Buddhists at the Schismatic Period' (pp. 175-181) Akira Yuyama examines a passage in Bu-ston's History of Buddhism on the languages used by the different Buddhist schools. His translation is not an improvement on Obermiller's translation and his remarks on the meaning of rgya-chen-po'i skad and bar-mar 'don-pa' tshig are nothing more than gratuitous speculations.
Heinz Bechert, the editor of this volume, has contributed an introduction in English (pp. 11-16) and methodological reflections (Allgemeine Bemerkungen zum Thema "Die Sprache