________________ REVIEWS 123 Frauwallner mentions Jacobi's translation of a small portion of the text and the complete translations by Otto Strauss and Ganganatha Jha. No mention is made of Madeleine Biardeau's Theorie de la connaissance et philosophie de la parole dans le brahmanisme classique (Paris-La Haye, 1964) in which many parts of this section of the bhasya are translated and discussed. Needless to say Frauwallner's translation is excellent. It is very convenient to have text and translation on opposite pages. It would be useful to have other important Indian philosophical texts edited and translated in the same way. Would it not be possible to publish a series of Fontes philosophiae indicae? The second part of this publication contains Dignaga's polemic against the Mimansa in Pramanasamuccaya I, 36-47 and II, 47-52. The text of both Tibetan translations is edited with the help of the editions of Derge, Narthang and Peking. As is well known, both translations are very unsatisfactory. Without an excellent knowledge of Indian philosophy it would be impossible to translate adequately the Pramanasamuccaya. It is very instructive to compare Frauwallner's translation of Pramanasamuccaya I, 36-47 with Hattori's translation which was published at the same time: Dignaga, On Perception (=H.O.S., vol. 47) (Cambridge, Mass.). There are only minor differences between the two translations. Hattori adds many words, in square brackets, whereas very few words have been added by Frauwallner. Hattori provides a detailed commentary (op. cit., pp. 161-172) which is extremely valuable. It is a good thing to have two such excellent translations of this text. Frauwallner's translation of Dignaga's polemic is followed by a study of his sources (pp. 94-103), in which he examines the theories of the Vsttikara quoted by Dignaga. According to Frauwallner this Vsttikara was Bhavadasa whose name is mentioned by Parthasarathinnisra and Sucaritamisra. On pp. 104-106 Frauwallner lists the quotations from the Vrttikara in the Pramanasamuccaya and the quotations from Bhavadasa in Sanskrit texts (see also Slokavartika I, 63 quoted by Hattori, op. cit., p. 166). According to him Bhavadasa probably lived in the first half of the fifth century. Jinendrabuddhi's tika mentions a Bhasyakara (bsad-'grel byed-pa). Hattori (op. cit., p. 167) thinks this Bhasyakara is identical with Sabarasvamin but from Frauwallner's remarks it is obvious that he must be a different person. In the last part of his work Frauwallner studies the doctrine of the Vrttikara mentioned by Sabara (pp. 107-113). According to him the doctrine of svatahpramanya was first proposed by the Vsttikara. He is also responsible for the long passage on the existence of the soul in the commentary on sutra 5. With other scholars (cf. Hattori, op. cit., p. 166) Frauwallner believes that Upavarsa is the Vsttikara. Finally Frauwallner supposes that Upavarsa's commentary is based upon the commentary by Bhavadasa. Australian National University J. W. de Jong Corrado Pensa, L'Abhisamayalamkaravrtti di Arya-Vimuktisena, primo abhisamaya. Testo e note critiche (= Serie Orientale Roma, XXXVII). Rome, Istituto italiano per il medio ed estremo Oriente, 1967. xv + 135 pp. 4.500 lire. This is a welcome and careful edition of approximately one half of a unique Nepalese manuscript of ca 1.000 A.D. The manuscript is rather corrupt, and the editor has regularly compared it with the Tibetan translation of the vrtti and the Sanskrit text of the first abhisamaya of the revised version of the Pancavimsatisahasrika as edited by N. Dutt in 1934. The result of his critical labours is a satisfactory text throughout. Vimuktisena (the Arya serves to distinguish him from the more shadowy Bhadanta
