Reviews Of Different Books

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

Page 16

312
REVIEWS
Japanese studies on this problem published before 1929. Japanese scholars have continued the discussion without coming to any agreement. In a note Takasaki raises doubts about the Indian origin of the text but adds that the apocryphal nature of the text has still to be proved (p. 774, n. 4). As to the Fo-hsing lun Hattori Masaaki has demonstrated that it was compiled by Paramartha on the basis of the Ratnago travibhāga and the Yogācārabhūmi.' In India and Tibet the Madhyamika and the Yogācāra are considered the only Mahāyāna schools. Fa-tsang (643711), the third patriarch of the Hua-yen school, recognized a third Mahāyāna school: the ju-lai-tsang yuan-ch'i tsung 'the school of dependent origination based on the tathāgatagarbha' but Fa-tsang's concept of this school is based upon texts such as the Lankavatārasūtra and the Ta-ch'eng ch'i-hsin lun which combine the garbha theory with the Vijñānavāda theory of the alayavijñāna. It is therefore not surprising that Japanese scholars, who follow the Sino-Japanese tradition and the traditional exegesis of the Sino-Japanese schools, were not able to form an adequate picture of the garbha theory as it existed in India.
Obermiller's translation of the Ratnagotravibhāga from the Tibetan (Acta Orientalia, LX, 1931, pp. 81-306) stimulated new studies on the garbha theory in Japan. Ui reexamined the Chinese materials and Tsukinowa Kenryū (1888-1969) compared Chinese and Tibetah texts. It also became more and more apparent that Paramartha (500-569) had played an important role in introducing the garbha theory in China. Paramārtha combined the garbha theory with Vijñānavada doctrines and composed texts (Anuttarasrayasūtra and the Fo-hsing lun) with the intention of giving authority to his theories. Moreover, he incorporated the garbha in his translation of Vasubandhu's Mahāyānasamgrahabhäsya. Takasaki explains that Paramartha by making use of the name of Vasubandhu, author of the Mahāyānasamgrahabhāsya and alleged author of the Fo-hsing lun, has deluded contemporary scholars.
The publication of the Sanskrit text of the Ratnagotravibhāga in 1950 gave increased impetus to the study of the garbha theory. In Japan Nakamura Zuiryū published in 1961 a synoptic edition of the Sanskrit text and the Chinese translation and in 1967 an edition of the Tibetan text together with a Japanese translation, a Sanskrit-Tibetan-Chinese index and a TibetanSanskrit index. Ui's study and translation of the Ratnagotravibhāga appeared in 1959 and Takasaki's English translation in 1966. Sanskrit and Tibetan materials have been studied in Seyfort Ruegg's magnum opus: La théorie du Tathāgatagarbha et du Gotra (Paris, 1969). Recently Lambert Schmithausen has published two important articles on the text of the. Ratnagotravibhāga and Takasaki's translation and on Ruegg's book. Numerous articles have been written in Japanese by Japanese scholars in recent years (cf. Takasaki's bibliography).
Takasaki defines the tathāgatagarbha theory as the theory which is propounded by the Ratnagotravibhāga. In the first place it is necessary to understand the structure of the
2 Takasaki points out that Ui Hakuju has defended the authenticity of the text. In an article in a recently published bibliographical dictionary Tamaki Koshirō says that the authenticity is defended by Tokiwa Daijo, Sakaino Koyo, Hatani Ryōtai, Matsumoto Bunzaburo and Hayashiya Tomojiro. As only supporter of Mochizuki's thesis, he mentions Murakami Sensho (Shin Butten kaidai jiten, Tōkyō, 1966, p. 158a). For a recent bibliography of the Ta-ch'eng ch'i-hsin lun (editions and studies) see Kashiwagi Hiroo's bibliographical appendix to Hirakawa Akira's Daijokishiron (Butten Köza, Vol. 22, Tokyo, 1973), pp. 390-413. 3 "Busshöron no ichi kosatsu', Bukkyo shigaku 4 (1955), 160-174 (cf. Revue Bibliographique de Sinologie, 2, 1956, no. 584). Cf. also Takasaki's article in the volume in honour of Yuki Reimon: Bukkyo shisoshi ronshū (Tokyo, 1964), pp. 241-264. * Ui Hakuju, Indo tetsugakushi (Tokyo, 1932), pp. 317-322, 407-416 and 418-433. Tsukinowa Kenryū, 'Kukyoichijohoshöron ni tsuite', Nihon bukkyo kyokai nenpo 7 (1935), 121-139 = Butten no hihan-teki kenkyū (Tokyo, 1972), pp. 364-381. S'Philologische Bemerkungen zum Ratnagotravibhāga', WZKSA 15-(1971), 123-177; 'Zu D. Seyfort Rueggs Buch "La Théorie du Tathāgatagarbha et du Gotra" (Besprechungsaufsatz)", WZKSA 18 (1973), 123-160.