Reviews Of Different Books

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

Page 12

308
REVIEWS
?
with paleography, literary history and the language of the Srāvakabhūmi manuscript. Karunesha Shukla's edition contains the text of the Srāvakabhūmi and a long introduction. According to the editor a second volume will contain four appendices: 1. The lost portions of the text reconstructed from the Tibetan version; 2. A list of verses occurring in the text; 3. The text of Asariga's views on Hetuvidyā from the Cintamayībhūmi; 4. The text of the various gäthāvyavasthānas.
Shukla's edition is based on a unique manuscript and it is of course not possible to know how far the editor has correctly reproduced the readings of his manuscript. A request for photocopies of the manuscript (letter 15 May 1974) remained unanswered. However, it is possible to compare some passages, edited by Wayman, with the corresponding passages of Shukla's edition. Both Wayman and Shukla have pointed out that the photocopies of the manuscript are often difficult to read. Wayman has carefully compared the Tibetan translation which assisted him greatly in deciphering the readings of the manuscript. In his preface Shukla remarks that there are three translations of the Srāvakabhūmi into Tibetan. Shukla adds that “Prof. V. Bhattacharya informs us that Jinamitra also translated the work into Tibetan. We had, however, an access only to the portions of the version as preserved in the Tibetan Tripitaka (Tanjour, Vol. 110) through secondary sources". (p. xxii). It is obvious from the above remarks that the editor himself has not been able to use the Tibetan translation (not to mention the four translations invented by him!). In his foreword he expresses his thanks to Shri L. Jamspal for his help in reading the Tibetan version. Shri L. Jamspal's help seems to have been of little avail to the editor as will be shown below on the basis of some selected passages.
On the first page of his book Wayman quoted Johnston's words: “No Buddhist text in Sanskrit can be satisfactorily edited without detailed comparison with such Chinese and Tibetan versions as exist". Scholars such as Vidhusekhara Bhattacharya have been fully aware of the importance of the Tibetan versions of Buddhist texts and Bhattacharya's edition of the first five bhūmis of the Bahubhumikavastu of the Yogācārābhūmi is based upon a careful comparison of the manuscript with the Tibetan version. Bhattacharya had an excellent knowledge of Tibetan and he was not obliged to rely on the help of a Tibetan scholar. It is a great pity that his example seems to have had little impact in India.
In discussing a few passages of the text of the Srävakabhumi the following abbreviations have been used: T. = Tibetan translation (Peking edition, Mdo-'grel, vol. L); C. = Chinese translation (references are given to page, column and line of the Taisho edition, vol. 30, No. 1579, pp. 395-477); W. = Wayman's Analysis of the Srävakabhumi Manuscript; S. = Shukla's edition.
S. p. 9.18-19: tesām samvarāya pratipadyate [/] sa śrotrena sabdām (bdan); W. p. 61: tesam samvarāya pratipadyate raksati mana-indriyam sa śrotrena sabdān. The words raksati manaindriyam, which are found in Wayman's edition, are absent from Shukla's edition. From the Tibetan translation it is clear that the text of the manuscript is corrupt. T. 6a5-6: de-dag bsdam-par bya-ba'i phyir sgrub-par byed-cin / mig-gi dban-po yan srun-bar byed-la / mig-gi dban-pos kyan sdom-pa sgrub-par byed-pa dan / de rna-bas sgra-dag = tesām samvarāya pratipadyate / raksati caksurindriyam / caksurindriyena samvaram āpadyate / sa śrotrena sabdan. C. (397a24-25) agrees with T. The corruption of the manuscript is probably due to the fact that the scribe read the words raksati mana-indriyam in the following line of the manuscript (cf. S. p. 10.2), substituted them for raksati caksurindriyam and then omitted the words caksurindriyena samvaram āpadyate. Of course, this conclusion can be substantiated only if the manuscript does, in fact, contain the words raksati mana-indriyam as indicated by Wayman. Neither Wayman nor Shukla have indicated here any disagreement of the text of the manuscript with either the Tibetan or the Chinese version.
S. pp. 10.11-11.5: jāgarikānuyogah katamah / (sa divā camkramanişadyabhyām avaraniyebhyo dharmebhyas cittam pari) sodhayati sa divā camkramanisadyābhyām ävaranīyebhyo dharmebhyas cittam parisodhya, tato vihārān nirgamya, bahir vihārasya padau praksālya, daksinena pārévena simhasayyām kalpayaty alokasamjñi. W. p. 62: jāgarikānuyogah