Book Reviews

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

Page 27

REVIEWS
253
mas in the line of transmission of the Guhyasamaja... his commentaries on the Kalacakra are of equally fundamental importance; and, as the author of the rNam thar intimates, his expositions of the Hevajra and Samputa Tantras are of particular significance for the Sa skya pa tradition descending through Grags pa rgyal mtshan." (Ruegg p. XII). And, "Bu ston was responsible for the final compilation and the manuscript 'editio princeps' of the bsTan 'gyur (Ruegg p. 35), while he was at Ža lu. Of course, his famous history (chos 'byun) needs no reminder excepting that a new translation needs to be undertaken replacing the pioneer, but defective, translation made by Obermiller.
What is not so well studied is the 'doctrine' taught by Bu ston. "According to some authorities, Bu ston is to be connected doctrinally with the Yogacara-Madhyamika-Svātantrika school which descends in Tibet from Säntarakṣita and his disciple Kamalasila. Bu ston is said to resemble this school which, having determined that all dharmas are nothing but appearance of the Mind, nevertheless held that the mind (blo) as the subjective aspect (grahaka) is not established in reality.' Klon rdol bla ma however points out that, although he considers that Bu ston may resemble Santarakṣita in this respect, it is in fact difficult to be certain since Bu ston did not clearly make a general exposition of his own method." (Ruegg p. 12). Indeed, while he founded no 'school' as such, he can well be viewed as a reformer of corrupt doctrine and his attitude was to restore proper emphasis to the doctrine of the trikaya. In this respect he resembles Klon chen pa the famous master of rDsogs chen.2 His activity has three main areas: art (sku rten), religious writings (gsun rten), and building (thugs rten), (v. Ruegg p. 39). Indeed, one crucial aspect that needed further elaboration in Ruegg's important study is precisely this: Bu ston's philosophical position regarding the doctrine of the trikaya. Since Bu ston was so active as a builder of stupas one could say that he outwardly built what was inwardly felt: rten or "support" for the Buddhist dharma.
The personal tone of this biography reminds one of the Songs of Milarepa, or the poems of the Sixth Dalai Lama.3 The ill and old Bu ston says: "He is not a man of religion who does not know that unfavourable circumstances (rkyen nan) are the friend of the bodhi; when the time has come, nothing is of any use... Though prayers are offered, death will come; and if not, if one have lived virtuously, what is the difficulty?" (Ruegg p. 124). Or, compare the pangs of Sgra tshad pa when asked to follow Bu ston as abbot at Ža lu: "I had then to accept the post, the load of a zebu being (thus) laid on a goat. The see is not for one of mediocre virtue who knows only Tibetan. How can one be asked in the Kaliyuga (rtsod dus) to occupy the seat of such a second Omniscient One - this is not a dream! I have no wide knowledge of the precepts (bslab pa), no experience of meditation (bsgoms pa'i ñams myon), no accumulated wealth and so forth as recommended by the omniscient Arya; if I consider carefully, I wonder whether the vows have been kept; my mind is confused, and the fancies of body and mind separated are awkward. But, like a torrent on a precipitous mountain, this (call) was not reversed!" (Ruegg p. 147). How would you like to follow Bu ston as a professor of Buddhism? I wouldn't. We in our century can feel close both to Bu ston and his student when reading such passages.
It is true that Ruegg's translation has some dubious readings as pointed out by Stein (BEFEO, vol. 54, 1968, pp. 635-639) and de Jong (TP, 2nd ser., 1968, vol. liv, 1-3, pp. 168-172), but we should be happy that Ruegg was able to complete this translation of Bu ston's rnam thar. Since the Serie Orientale Roma has made available the Tibetan text in Ruegg's volume, anyone that thinks he can do so is free to bring out a better translation. I agree with Stein that a technical list of terms would have increased the value of this work, but since the arrogance of most scholars keeps them from agreeing with each other anyway I doubt that it would have done any good. I would like to note in closing that the list of translations and revisions made by Bu ston, found on pp. 181 ff of Ruegg's work, is important and should be gone into by some enterprising young scholar with time on his hands.
Indiana University at Kokomo
G. W. HOUSTON