Book Reviews

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

Page 15

REVIEWS
233
According to the preface this catalogue has been arranged in accordance with the principles adopted in the first four volumes. However, the information given in the earlier volumes is more detailed. One regrets in particular the fact that colophons have not been reproduced. Even though all important details from the colophons are said to be included in the description of each text, this is certainly not the case. The catalogue describes two blockprints of the bKa'than sde-Ina, both printed in the Potala, and consisting of five parts (53, 95, 48, 81 and 77 ff.), cf. nos. 243 and 244. Although according to the catalogue the dimensions are slightly different (no. 243. Format 56 x 9 cm; Druckspiegel 48 x 7 cm; no. 244. Format 55 x 9 cm; Druckspiegel 49 x 7 cm), they must both be copies of the same edition. The catalogue does not indicate the date of publication, although this is mentioned in the colophon of the first part, the Lha-'dre bka'-than. Mrs. A.-M. Blondeau, who has made use of a copy of the same edition, informs us that according to the colophon it was published in 1889 by the order of the sridskyon De-mo chos-kyi rgyal-po, the teacher of the Thirteenth Dalai Lama ('Le Lha-'dre bka'than', Études tibétaines dédiées à la mémoire de Marcelle Lalou, Paris, 1971, pp. 29 and 117). Even if the compilers of this catalogue had given all the information contained in the colophons, it still would have been desirable to reproduce their complete text.
The bibliographical information in this volume is often inadequate. For instance, Mrs. Blondeau's important article on the Lha-'dre bka'-than is not mentioned at all. Sections of the bKa'-than sde-Ina have been edited and translated by F. W. Thomas (Tibetan literary texts and documents concerning Chinese Turkestan I, London, 1935, pp. 264-288) and G. Tucci (Minor Buddhist Texts II, Roma, 1958, pp. 68-102). There are many references to it in the works of R. A. Stein (Recherches sur l'épopée et le barde au Tibet, Paris, 1959; Les tribus anciennes des marches sino-tibétaines, Paris, 1959) and G. Tucci (Tibetan Painted Scrolls, Roma, 1949, pp. 110-115, etc., cf. Index p. 779). Very important is the recent discovery by Obata Hironobu that a section of the Blon-po bka'-than is based upon Chinese Ch'an texts ('Chibetto no zenshū to rekidaihōbōki', Zenbunka kenkyūjo kiyō VI, 1974, pp. 139-176). The compilers of this catalogue have not even made sufficient use of the bibliographical works which they consulted. For instance, with regard to the chronicle of the Fifth Dalai Lama (no. 245) there is a reference to p. 78 (a mistake for 62) of Vostrikov's book but no reference to the table of contents of the chronicle on pp. 196-197. mKhas-grub's Dus- 'khor tīk-chen was analyzed by Vostrikov (p. 239), who also indicated the dates of the Zan-zun-pa Chos-dban grags-pa (14041469) and Blo-gros chos-skyon (1389-1463) who completed mKhas-grub's work. No. 246 is the dKar-chag of the Derge Kanjur. This is not mentioned by the compilers, although they refer to p. 127 of Vostrikov's book. Their description contains the following passage: "Verfasser gCug lag 'os kyi snan ba, im Wasser-weibl. Rind Jahr. Die letzten neun Blätter enthalten einen kurzgefassten Index zum Derge bka' 'gyur und bstan 'gyur, Verfasser: Si tu pa (vermutlich ein anderer Name für gCug lag 'os kyi snan ba), im Holz-männl. Tiger-Jahr." It is strange that the compilers have any doubt about the identity of the author for Vostrikov has already given his name as Si-tu gtsug-lag chos-kyi snan-ba. When Situ was recognized as the Si-tu incarnation by the 8th Źva-dmar, the name Chos-kyi 'byun-gnas phrin-las kun-khyab ye-ses dpal-bzan-po was bestowed upon him. When he received the vows of an upasaka, he was given the name Karma bstan-pa'i ñi-byed gtsug-lag chos-kyi snan-ba. He was born in 1700 and died in 1774, according to Gene Smith in his foreword to The Autobiography and Diaries of Si-tu pan-chen (Satapitaka, vol. 77, New Delhi, 1968, pp. 9-11). Recently Josef Kolmas mentioned 1775 as the year of his death, but without indicating his source (The Iconography of the Derge Kanjur and Tanjur (Sata-pitaka, vol. 241, New Delhi, 1978, p. 19). The contents of the Derge Kanjur dKarchag were described briefly by Vostrikov (pp. 127-8) and in more detail by Kolmaš (op. cit., pp. 20-21). These descriptions do not tally with the information given here. The Derge Kanjur dKar-chag has 171 folios and the catalogue proper is found on ff. 113-157, whereas the Derge blockprint described has 269 folios of which the last nine contain a brief index of both the Kanjur and Tanjur. In order to explain these discrepancies it would be necessary to compare this blockprint with a copy of the Derge Kanjur dKar-chag.