Book Reviews

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

Page 2

THE EASTERN BUDDHIST
practice of kāyānusmrti. According to Lin this transcription confirms the reconstruction Dharmaśrī proposed by Pelliot in 1930 (JA, 1930, II, p. 267 ff.). Willemen adds that it is most probable that this T'an-mo-shih-li is the author of the Abhidharmahşdaya. It is necessary to point out that the kāyānusmyti is not mentioned in the Abhidharmahụdaya (cf. Lin, p. 330). Dharmatrāta quotes also two verses by Dharmasri (Tan-mo-shih-li) which obviously belong to a different work (T. no. 212, p. 626a 17-21). In both instances Dharmasri is called (sthavira, ārya or bhadanta). It is therefore doubtful that the Dharmasri quoted by Dharmatrāta is the author of the Abhidharmahşdaya. Willemen accepts Lin Li-kouang's theory according to which the author of the Ch'u-yaoching is identical with the Dharmatrāta or Bhadanta mentioned in the Mahāvibhāṣā. If Dharmatrāta in his Ch'u-yao ching quotes Dharmaśrī, then he must have lived before the masters of the Mahāvibhāşā (second century A.D. according to Willemen). Willemen believes that it is possible to go back further because he accepts Frauwallner's theory that the Abhidharmahsdaya is older than the Jñanaprasthāna. Frauwallner mentions in this connection Tao-yen's preface to Buddhavarman's translation of the Abhidharmavibhāṣā (T. no. 1546, p. Ibu-12). However, it does not seem likely that Tao-yen's testimony is more reliable than the other often conflicting statements on the date of Dharmaśrī in Chinese sources (cf. Lin, p. 51 and Willemen, pp. VII-VIII). As to the relation of the Abhidharmahsdaya to the Jñānaprasthāna and the Mahāvibhāşā the opinions of scholars vary greatly. Willemen, who knows well the works of Japanese scholars, quotes those of Fukuhara (cf. p. VIII), Yamada and Sakurabe (p. XXII; read Sakurabe H., instead of Sakurabe T.). It is interesting to note that Willemen and Mrs. Armelin attribute different opinions. to Yamada. Willemen writes: "R. Yamada thinks that the Abhidharmahsdaya is a little earlier than the Jñānaprasthāna, but that there is no direct relation between the two texts, and he goes on to say that the Abhidharmahsdaya was probably written at the same time as the Mahāvibhāṣā.” Mrs. Armelin writes: “Selon le Professeur Yamada, le Hşdayaśāstra composé de dix sections (daśavarga) est postérieur au Jñānaprasthāna parce que son style est plus prolixe que celui des Aşțaskandha" (p. 12). Willemen refers to p. 113 of Yamada's book. Yamada indicates here as his provisional conclusion that the Abhidharmahrdaya is later than the Jñānaprasthāna and roughly contemporary with the Mahavibhāṣā. However, on p. 428 of his book Yamada declares positively that the Abhidharmahsdaya is earlier than the Mahāvibhāṣā.
In his introduction Willemen carefully examines the problems connected with the Chinese translations of the three Abhidharmahsdaya texts. He has also consulted a Tun-huang manuscript, probably written in the beginning of the fifth century, of Samghadeva's translation of Dharmasri's Abhidharmahsdaya, and has been able to show that this text contains exactly 250
152