Book Reviews

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

Page 13

REVIEWS
229
taken from the Chung-lun and two from the Sunyata-saptati, and that therefore only seven original verses were to be found in the TGT, i.e. the verses in the beginning of chapters 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 11 and 12.6 Robinson attributed only one verse to the Sunyata-saptati (see Chapter VII, Cheng's translation p. 85) because a verse allegedly quoted from the Sünyata-saptati in Chapter I is not to be found in this text, cf. Cheng p. 56: “As it is stated in the Seventy Treatise, (Twelve chains of] causal conditions really have no production. If they have production, do they have it in one mind-moment or in many mind-moments?" However, very similar to this verse is verse 8 of the Sünyata-saptati: rten-'byun yan-lag bcu-gñis gan / sdug-bsnal 'bras-can de ma-skyes // sems-gcig-la yan mi-'thad-la / du-ma-la yan mi-'thad-do //: "The twelve members of the dependent origination which possess a fruit of suffering are not produced. It [production) is not possible in a single moment (citta (ksana]) and also not in several (moments]."7
Yasui's main argument against the attribution of the verses of the TGT to Nagarjuna relates to the first verse of Chapter VIII which Cheng translates as follows: "By observing that the characteristics (of all things) change / We know all things are devoid of nature. Things which are devoid of nature are also non-existent, so all things are empty" (p. 89). Cheng's rendering of the second half of this verse is too free. A more precise translation is: “Dharma-s devoid of nature are also non-existing because the dharma-s are all empty." This verse is found in a similar wording in two commentaries which exist only in Chinese translation: Ch'ing-mu's commentary (T 1564) and Sthiramati's commentary (T 1567). The Sanskrit text of this verse is verse XIII, 3 of the Middle Treatişe: bhāvānam nihsvabhāvatvam anyathabhāvadarśanat / asvabhavo bhāvo năsti bhāvānam śünyata yatah //. According to the Akutobhayā and the commentaries written by Buddhapalita, Bhavaviveka and Candrakirti this verse contains an argument advanced by an opponent of Nagarjuna. In the TGT, however, this verse expresses the opinion of the author himself. According to Yasui it seems probable that the author of the TGT explained this verse wrongly as rendering Nägarjuna's own opinion. Another argument against the authenticity of the TGT is, according to Yasui, the fact that, as far as is known, it is never quoted in the commentaries written by Buddhapälita, Bhāvaviveka and Candrakirti.
Ui pointed out that the first verse of Chapter I of the TGT is quoted as written by Nāgārjuna in * Sāramati's *Mahāyānāvatära. 10 Yasui remarks that the same verse is also quoted in the *Maitreyapariprcchopadeśa. 11 According to him, this verse was either quoted from the TGT or from some other source in which it was attributed to Nāgārjuna.
The TGT was translated in 411 A.D. by Kumārajiva, a fact which is not even mentioned by Cheng. Kumārajiva is also the translator of the Mahaprajñāpäramitopadeśa (T 1509) and the Daśabhumikavibhāsasästra, two works of which the attribution to Nāgärjuna is doubtful and which exist only in Chinese translation.
Although Cheng lists Ui's translation of the TGT in his bibliography he does not refer at all to Ui's introduction. Hatani Ryötai's translation 12 and Kõsai Yasui's article are not mentioned at all. In the introduction to a translation of the TGT one would have expected a study of the problems connected with its authenticity with reference to the Japanese works mentioned above. In his introduction Cheng sketches the history of Nagarjuna's teachings in China and the interpretation of the doctrine of emptiness by San-lun masters and mainly Chi-tsang. On p. 9 he mentions that Hui-wen (550-577), the founder of T'ien-t'ai Buddhism, is said to have been awakened to the truth while reading verse XXIV, 18 of Nāgārjuna's Middle Treatise. One wonders why Cheng considers Hui-wen to be the founder of T'ien-t'ai Buddhism because this honour is usually given to Chih-i (538-597). 13 Almost nothing is known about Hui-wen, not even his dates. It is not clear at all from where Cheng has taken the dates 550-577. According to Paul Magnin Hui-ssu became his pupil in 536 or 537.14 Finally, Cheng fails to point out that the story of Hui-wen's discovery of Nāgärjuna's Middle Treatise XXIV, 18 is found for the first time in a work written in the thirteenth century. 15
In the preface the author states that he has attempted to be as close as possible to the original text but has expressed the Chinese freely when the literal Chinese would convey little or no meaning in English. In many instances, it would certainly have been possible to adhere more