________________ 124 REVIEWS V.) comments on both the Abhisamayalarkara (= AA) and the Pancavimsatisahasrika (= P) side by side. As for the first, it now becomes clear that Vimuktisena was Haribhadra's principal source and that the Aloka took from him much more than is indicated by the few occacions when Vimuktisena is actually quoted, and C. Pensa has everywhere noted numerous passages which have been absorbed by Haribhadra. Nevertheless the doctrine is, as one would have expected, here in a more undeveloped state, and, to give just one example, the elaborations of Haribhadra on the divisions of pratipattyalambanam (H 78-9) are here absent (pp. 78-9), as they are also in the Ta chih tu lun, and therefore constitute a late scholastic elaboration. As regards P, Vimuktisena has set himself three tasks: (1) He has coordinated the text of P not only with the divisions given in the AA itself, but with the hundreds of later subdivisions which must have developed at some time in the oral tradition and which agree in all details, except for a few trifling exceptions (e.g. at I, 2, 5), with the headings and sub-headings of the Nepalese manuscript of P.(2) He indicates the passage of P which corresponds to some item in AA by usually quoting its beginning and then summing up the remainder of its contents.(3) He picks out a number of individual terms and explains them. The commentary must have been addressed to an audience fairly familiar with brahminical Sanskrit and all the terms commented upon have some Buddhist flavour. In the present state of our knowledge these comments are the most valuable part of the work and teach us most about the thinking of the Prajnaparamita. Vimuktisena goes here often beyond Haribhadra, because he deals with words which occur in P, but not in the shorter Asta which Haribhadra had in view. Some of the lesser technical terms are treated at quite inordinate length and it is interesting that some of these uncalled-for excursions lead to the Yogacara tradition. At the end of a description of sastyargopetah svaro, two pages long (pp. 113-5), Asanga is expressly quoted as the source. Two pages on the five mithyajiva (pp. 23-6) are dragged in because, though absent in both P and AA, the explanation of the eight mahapurusavitarka (of P 21) contains the words alpeccha (cf. p. 23 1.19) and samtusta (cf. p. 25 1.19)8 and corresponds to the Bodhisattvabhumi and so does the explanation of the four dharmoddanani (p. 21), mentioned not in P, but in AAI 1, e 20. These observations do, as C. Pensa (p. XIV n. 2) points out, bode ill for A. Wayman's attempt to completely dissociate Asanga from the AA. There are a few very minor blemishes. Misprints have slipped through at 26,6; 40,21; 52,14; 60,25; 74,9; 77,8; 80,1 and 10; 90,11; 93,2; 106,14; 108,16; 112,7; 126,16 and 18. 126,15-18 should have been printed as verse. It is not quite correct to say at p. 70. n. 2 that "H ha vijnanam", when in fact one of two manuscripts, C, has the more probable vijnapanam. And in this age of microfilms, the quotations from later parts of P should have been made from one of the many Nepalese manuscripts of that text, and not from the Tibetan translation in the Tanjur. The long quotation on pp. 12-13, for instance, is from folio 476a-b of the Cambridge Ms Add 1628 and fits as V 6e, 1-3 into the scheme of the AA. We must hope that Dr. Pensa will soon bring out the second volume of Vimuktisena's work, which is such an important link in the unfolding of the Prajnaparamita literature in India. Edward Conze 1 See my The Prajnaparamita Literature (1960), p. 111. What I say there about Vimuktisena's vytti is only approximately true, based as it was on a few hasty glimpses of the Rome manuscript. : These are not just falsita, as C. Pensa says, but a monk's wrong ways of getting a living. In the lay-out of Pensa's text this far-fetched connection is not made very clear.
