________________
THE SECOND CHAPTER OF THE MADHYĀNTAVIBHĀGAȚIKĀ
115
'dun-pa dan brtson-'grus dan sems dan / dpyod-pa rnams las ganyan run-ba zig ma-tshan-ba yons-su rdzogs-pa dan / spon-ba'i 'du-byed bsgom-pa ma-tshan-bas zes-bya-ba. This passage is a quotation from the bhāsya, cf. Nagao's edition p. 33.10: paripūryā ca cchandaviryacittamīmānsānām anyatamavaikalyāt / bhāvanayā ca prahānasamskāravaikalyāt. The Tibetan translation of the bhāsya has: 'dun-pa dan / brtson-'grus dan sems dan / dpyod-rnams las gan-yan run-ba zig ma-tshan-bas yońs-su rdzogs-pa dan / spon-ba'i du-byed bsgom-pa ma-tshan-bas (Yamaguchi's edition, p. 35.7). Sthiramati's tikā explains that samādhi can have two deficiencies (p. 91.21: samādher dvayahinatā āvaraṇam uktam): 1. Lack of completeness because of the absence of chanda, virya, citta or mīmāmsā (p. 92.1: tatra paripūrihinatā tāsām chandaviryacittamīmāmsānām anyatamavaikalyāt). 2. Absence of bhāvanā because
of the absence of one of the eight prahāṇasaņskāra (p. 92.2: bhāvanā · hiyata ity aşta prahānasamskārāņām anyatamavai kalyāt). R. P. reads
aparipūryā instead of paripūryā. The edition of the Madhyāntavibhāgabhäsya by Nathmal Tatia and Anantalal Thakur has apāripūryā. The instrumentals paripūryā and bhāvanayā depend on the preceding word in the bhāsya: dvayahinatā. In his edition Nagao adds a danda between-hinatā and paripūryā. This daņda is not to be found in the manuscript and has to be omitted.14
P. 95.16: upaśāntyā gaurava utpadyamāne sattvāḥ samjalparddhya prayatnena śāsanam pratipadyante. P.: ñe-bar zi-bas gus-pa skyeste sems-can kun-brjod-pa dan rdzu-'phrul-gyis (P. gyi) bsgrim midgos-par bstan-pa rtogs-par byed-do. Tibetan kun-brjod-pa translates ādesanā, cf. Abhidharmakośabhāsya (ed. P. Pradhan), p. 424.10; rddhicetahparyāyāsravakṣayābhijñās trīņi prātihāryāņi yathākramam rddhyādesanānusāsanaprātihāryāņi. Read : ādeśanayārddhyā cāyatnena ? MS. ... rādyāvāyatnena. R. P.: sañjalparddhyā'prayatnena.
P. 96.22: yathābhūtaśrutārthavicāraņā. P.: thos-pa'i don-la sgra
14 In an article in Japanese, 'Some Problems in the Madhyāntavibhāgabhāşya', Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies, XXII (1974), pp. 402-406, which came to my notice after having written these notes, Funahashi Naoya discusses this passage. I am glad to see that he has arrived at the same solution. Funahashi has also written two articles on the bhāsya in Japanese: 'Some Problems in the Madhyāntavibhāga-bhāşya - with special reference to the three chapters: laksana-pariccheda, āvarana-pariccheda and tattvapariccheda', Otani Gakuhö, LII, 3 (1973), pp. 50-66; Japanese translation and study of the Madhyāntavibhāga-bhāşya (ävarana-pariccheda)', Bukkyo. gaku Seminā, vols. 18-19. I have not yet been able to see the second article.
