Reviews Of Diffeent Books

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

Page 50

244
REVIEWS
III, pp. 1378–1381). This quotation is written in prose and does not entirely agree with the wording of Mātrceta's verses. The Upadeśa usually seems to quote verses in the form of verses and it is therefore possible that both Mātrceta's verses and the passage in the Upadeśa are based upon another text. Verse 5.22 which states that the Buddha speaks with a single sound (ekasvara) is quoted both in the Upadeśa and in the Mahāvibhāsā, but in the latter text this verse is quoted as a gātha. It is a pity that it is very difficult to determine the date of the Mahāvibhāsā. In his Histoire du bouddhisme indien (Louvain, 1958, p. 424) Lamotte placed it in the second century, but in volume III of the Traité (Louvain, 1970, p. XXI) he writes that all we know is that the Mahāvibhāsā was composed after the time of Kaniska who is mentioned in it.
In the introduction (p. 52) and in his commentary on VAV 8.23 Hartmann writes that this verse does not prove that Mātộceta was a follower of Mahāyāna. He disagrees with Shackleton Bailey who saw in this verse clear proof of it (BSOAS XIII, p. 947; The Satapañcāśatka of Mātrceta, Cambridge 1951, p. 237). Hartmann remarks that this verse only shows that Mātrceta knew the concept of Mahāyāna. However, it is difficult to imagine that somebody who does not adhere to Mahāyāna would use the expression mahāyānayauvarajye as in this verse: abhisiktà mahāyānayauvarajye 'pare vare. In an article mentioned in Hartmann's bibliography NARA Yasuaki has studied the doctrinal position of Mātrceta. As indications of his belonging to Mahāyāna he mentions apart from this verse the treatment of the six pāramitās (PPU chapter two), the praise of sūnyatā as the chief of the tattvas (VAV 3.21) and its mention in VAV 2.37 and 5.28. Nara concedes that in other respects Mātrceta's ideas are closer to those of Hīnayāna schools such as the Mahāsāmghikas as, for instance, in his references to Buddha's dharmakāya. Nara remarks that Mātrceta was a poet and not a thinker and that he reflected the ideas of his epoch. He characterizes him as belonging to a Buddhastotra Vehicle.? Probably Mātrceta belongs to an early stage of Mahāyāna.
Hartmann's edition of the text is excellent. He is very careful in not trying to reconstruct missing pādas and his additions do not go beyond one or two syllables. Only in very few cases is it possible to suggest another reading. In 7.1cd Hartmann reads: yām sarve nātivartante prthaglokah sadevakāh. In a note he remarks that Tib. separates prthag and lokāḥ, but that here prthaglokāh is used in the meaning of prthagjanāḥ. I believe that it is necessary to separate prthag and lokāḥ. The expression prthagloka is entirely unknown whereas the texts often mention the lokah sadevakah (see Hartmann's note ad 11.13). The text of 11.5 reads: