Reviews Of Different Books

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

Page 15

REVIEWS
311
According to Sedláček, Shafer's Introduction will be for many years to come a reliable guide to all scholars in Sino-Tibetan linguistic studies. I am afraid that it is difficult to concur in this evaluation of Shafer's work. Shafer was a pioneer in a difficult field but, regrettably, he was insufficiently aware of the dangers which beset his path. Roy Andrew Miller has subjected the first two parts of this Introduction to a penetrating analysis (cf. Monumenta Serica, 27, 1968, pp. 398-435). Any user of Shafer's Introduction would be well advised to study carefully Miller's article which clearly exposes the weak points of Shafer's work.
Canberra
J. W. DE JONG
Takasaki Jikido, Nyoraizo shiso no keisei (The formation of the tathāgatagarbha theory). Tokyo, Shunjūsha, 1974. xxii + 779 + 106 pp. Yen 9.000.
In 1966 Takasaki published a translation of the Ratnagotravibhāga together with a lengthy Introduction: A Study of the Ratnagotravibhāga (Uttaratantra). In a review we expressed the wish that Takasaki would undertake a systematic treatment of the tathāgatagarbha theory and its history (IIJ, XI, p. 39). His voluminous book is not a complete history of the tathāgatagarbha theory in India. According to the English subtitle it is a study on the historical background of the tathāgatagarbha theory based upon the scriptures preceding the Ratnagotravibhāga.
Takasaki's book contains a detailed table of contents, an English translation of which is given on pp. 3-7. Moreover, the author has added a summary in English (pp. 9-14) which will be very helpful for Western readers. The same section of the book contains five indices: I. SinoJapanese (pp. 16-41); II. Sanskrit-Pāli (pp. 42-58); III. Tibetan (pp. 59-69); IV. Texts quoted (pp. 70-72); V. Names of scholars quoted (pp. 73-74). The bibliography is divided into a Japanese section (pp. 76-97) and a Western section (pp. 98-106). In the preface the author lists his own contributions to the study of the tathāgatagarbha theory: A Study of the Ratnagotravibhāga (Roma, 1966) and twenty-seven articles published during a period of twenty years (1953-1972).
Takasaki's book is based upon a careful study of Sanskrit, Pāli, Chinese and Tibetan sources. As is obvious from the extensive bibliography, the number of scholarly publications in Western languages and in Japanese consulted by the author is very considerable. Within the limited scope of a review it is clearly impossible to examine all the problems discussed by the author. We can only attempt to indicate the way in which the author has undertaken his task.
In his introduction Takasaki points out that in the past Japanese studies of the tathāgatagarbha theory were not based on the Ratnagotravibhāga, although this text was known in Chinese translation, but on such texts as the Fo-hsing lun (T. no. 1610), attributed to Vasubandhu and translated by Paramartha, and the Ta-ch'eng ch'i-hsin lun (T. nos. 16661667), attributed to Asvaghosa and translated by Paramärtha and Siksānanda. Already sixty years ago Mochizuki Shinko had tried to show that the Ta-ch'eng ch'i-hsin lun was not translated from an Indian text but had been compiled in China. Mochizuki's thesis has given rise to a heated controversy among Japanese scholars. In an article, published in 1929, Demiéville defended the authenticity of the text but in a note, added to a reprint of this article, he states without any hesitation that the text has been composed in China.' Demiéville lists the
! "Sur l'authenticité du Ta tch'eng k'i sin louen", BMFJ, II, 2 (Tokyo, 1929), pp. 1-78; Choix d'études bouddhiques (Leiden, 1973), p. XXXIII. Walter Liebenthal has arrived at the same conclusion, cf.'New light on the Mahāyāna-sraddhotpada Sastra', T'oung Pao 46 (1958), 155-216.