Book Reviews

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

Page 12

228
REVIEWS
H. W. Schomerus will stimulate further research on the SJS, and the commentaries and the sources used both by Arunanti and his commentators. We must be grateful to Hermann Berger, Ayyadurai Dhamotharan and Dieter B. Kapp for having prepared this posthumous manuscript for publication.
NOTES
1 A. M. Pjatigorskij, Materialy po istorii indijskoj filosofii (Moskva, 1962), p. 218; Muneo Tokunaga, 'CIVAÑANACITTIYAR, Parapakkam sts. 264-301', Indogakuhō (Indological Review), No. 3 (Kyoto, 1981), p. 3.
2 Hélène Brunner, 'Importance de la littérature âgamique', Indologica Taurinensia III-IV (Torino, 1977), p. 114.
3 Cf. H. W. Schomerus, Der Çaiva-Siddhanta, p. 31; Muneo Tokunaga, op. cit., p. 12, n. 31. 4 Op. cit., pp. 217-246.
5
Op. cit., pp. 1-18.
Hsueh-li Cheng, Nagarjuna's Twelve Gate Treatise. Translated, with Introductory Essays, Comments and Notes (Studies of Classical India, Vol. 5). D. Reidel Publ. Co., Dordrecht, Holland, 1982. XV, 151 p. Dfl. 85,
The Chinese tradition attributes the Twelve Gate Treatise (Shih-erh-men-lun) to Nagarjuna. In his introduction Cheng remarks that recently a few scholars have questioned the authenticity of this treatise. According to him "the Twelve Gate Treatise is most likely an authentic Nāgārjuna book" because of its resemblance to the Middle Treatise (Chung lun). However, Cheng does not discuss the objections raised by scholars against its authenticity. In an article to which Cheng refers in a note, Richard A. Gard quotes a statement by Chōzen (1227-1307) in his Sanrongengikennyūshū: "the Shih-erh-men-lun verses were composed by Lung-shu [Nagarjuna] whereas the prose was a commentary by Ch'ing-mu [Pingala]. However, another opinion says that both the verses and the prose were written by Lung-shu himself."1 According to Gard the Shih-erh-men-lun is a Chinese translation by Kumarajiva of a commentary by Pingala which quotes verses selected by Pingala and attributed to Nagarjuna, and the whole work is thus a compilation by Pingala and not Nägarjuna. The authenticity of the verses has been discussed in an important article by Yasui Kōsai.2 Yasui points out that already at the time of Chi-tsang (549-623), some people believed that the verses were written by Nagarjuna but the commentary by Ch'ing-mu. Chi-tsang himself believed that both the verses and the commentary were written by Nagarjuna but he added: "It is difficult to know this matter. If there is definitely a clear proof that the prose was written by a later author, I can not contradict it."3 It is also interesting to note that Chi-tsang quotes two theories as to be composition of the Shih-erh-men-lun by Nagarjuna: "Nagarjuna wrote himself three treatises. First he composed the Wu-wei-lun (Akutobhaya) in one-hundred thousand slokas. Thereupon he selected from it the main ideas in five hundred slokas called Chung-lun (Madhyamakasastra). As to the Shih-erh-men-lun there are two explanations. The first states that like the Chung-lun it derives from the Wu-wei. The second states that he took the essence from the Chung-lun and composed the Shih-erh-men."
114
Indo-Iranian Journal 28 (1985).
The Twelve Gate Treatise (TGT) contains twenty-six verses and a prose commentary. Richard H. Robinson examined the relation of the verses to those in other texts by Nagarjuna and arrived at the following conclusion: seventeen are identical with verses of the Chung-lun; four are similar to Chung-lun verses. One verse is identical with verse 19 of the Sunyatasaptati, and four verses are unidentified.5 In the introduction to his translation H. Ui wrote that seventeen verses were