Book Reviews

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

Page 20

246
REVIEWS
tantras' (vyākhyātantra), as well as outright commentarial texts (e.g. Tsongkhapa's mChan'grel). No-one would question the importance of these texts, and we must be grateful to Professor Wayman for making use of them to elucidate tantric terms and notions. However, it is by no means certain that the earlier texts should be interpreted in the light of the later commentaries at every stage of the process of study. However, this is what it would seem that Professor Wayman consistently does. I will quote only one example to show that this procedure may lead to an interpretation for which the basic text offers no justification.
p. 263
line 14, quoting the GST IX,14: dvayendriyaprayogena sarvāms tān upabhunjayet, which is translated thus: "By the union of the two organs... he would enjoy all those (goddesses)", the gloss 'goddesses' being supplied from the commentaries. However, sarvāms tān, being masc. (acc. pl.), cannot possibly refer to goddesses.
The commentarial tradition represents an exegetical effort, an effort to interpret the earlier and basic tantric texts in the light of later systematizations. The structure of the tantras, which often appears to be chaotic, is made intelligible by the commentaries by forcing the contents into certain more or less well-defined categories. Speaking of a particular tantric commentary, I have previously characterised it in the following words: "... this commentary represents a hermeneutical effort, in the course of which CG (i.e. the basic text in question) is subjected to a consistent exegesis. M (the commentary) seeks to discover... a relatively limited number of concepts and practices, forming a coherent system..." (An Anthology of Buddhist Tantric Songs. A Study of the Caryägiti, Oslo 1977, p. 17). An example of Wayman's reliance on later exegetical tradition is his analysis (p. 23) of chapters VI and XII of the GST in terms of utpattikrama and sampannakrama, an analysis for which, as far as I can see, the chapters in question offer no particular basis.
While fully aware of the dangers inherent in such a procedure, I would suggest that at the present stage of tantric studies, every effort should be made to understand and translate the basic tantric texts without reference to later tradition. Certainly many problems will remain unsolved; nevertheless, on the whole this should not be intrinsically more difficult than translating the Upanishads or a text like the Bhagavadgītā. Only then would it be possible to move on and ascertain to what extent a particular commentary interprets a basic text in terms of its own philosophic and ritualistic particularities. I grant that occasionally this ideal procedure simply becomes impossible because of the obscurity of a given text (I have personal experience of this from my study of the Caryagitikoa!) and that a commentary may occasionally be indispensable for elucidating details; still, I believe that working from the older to the newer texts (with due acknowledgement of the approximate nature of the chronology) one may be able to provide a study of a concept, a ritual, or (as in the present case) an entire textual cycle, with greater clarity and inner consistence. Thus, in spite of Wayman's imposing knowledge of tantric literature, his extensive use of the commentaries occasionally - as an unintended sideeffect - gives his book a somewhat unorganised look; his learning has tempted him to include simply too much explanatory and exegetical material.
To sum up, I would entirely agree with Wayman when he points out the difficulties of interpretation and understanding which beset the study of the tantras, and that 'unwarranted judgements' may ensue (p. 54). But to refer to the various tantric adepts of India and, later, of Tibet as 'eminent authorities' and 'later investigators' is misleading, to say the least. The basic tantras and the commentarial literature present a complex corpus of texts, presenting its own peculiar difficulties even at a very preliminary level of interpretation, but in this it is not different from many other groups of texts which have quite successfully been subjected to conventional scholarly study according to historical-philological principles. The Upanishads, or the various Gnostic traditions, or the Kabbalah, immediately come to mind, to mention but a few comparable instances. I believe that we would do a great disservice to Buddhist studies by placing the tantras in a category of their own, and accepting the attitude of esotericism,