was The Buddha A Buddha

Author(s): Eli Franco
Publisher: Eli Franco

Page 10

REVIEW ARTICLE 98 99 WAS THE BUDDHAA BUDDHA? NOTES ICE E. Steinkellner, "The spiritual place of the epistemological tradition in Buddhism," Nanto Bukkyu 49, 1982, pp. 1-18. To the second category Steinkellner adds modern Indian scholars like Sukumar Dutt, who share Stcherbatsky's positive approach, but unlike the latter who made a case for the compatibility of Buddhist "atheism" with Marxism-Leninism, are motivated by nationalistic ideology, discovering in the epistemological tradition the dawn of a Western-like rational secularism within the monastic culture. ? Ibid., p. 6. ?Wien 1964. + Cf. Conze, The Memoirs of a Modern Gnostic, Part I, Sherborne 1979, p. 12: "... and one of the greatest benefits of my return to England has been that I have been able to do my Buddhist work in English and not in German, a language scarcely worth writing in any longer on scholarly matters concerning the East." Cr. Hattori, Dignaga, On Perception, Cambridge 1968, n. 1.2 (p. 74). "I cannot enter here the anuloma-pratiloma controversy in all the details which it implies. The conflicting positions of Devendrabuddhi and Manorathanandin have been clearly explained by M. Inami and T. J. F. Tillemans in "Another Look at the Framework of the Pramanasiddhi Chapter of Pramanavarttika", WZKS 30, 1986, pp. 123142. I believe they are methodologically right to prefer Devendrabuddhi's interpretation, according to which the pratiloma starts in v. 146, to Manorathanandin's who situates the break in v. 280. (The difference is not as big as it may seem; it depends on the answer to the question whether the section on the four noble truths is the last part of the anuloma or the first part of the pratiloma.) It seems to me, however, that in this particular case exception should be made, for Manorathanandin's division of the text is more elegant, and further, it is more natural to interpret v. 146b (tayo vi Catuhsatyaprakasanam) as an alternative to v. 145a (tavah svadrstamargoktih), rather than as a beginning of the pratiloma-part. As for Prajnakaragupta's interpretation, in order to accept the claim that it is quite possible that he situated the break in v. 146 and not in v. 280 (cf. ibid., pp. 125-126, n. 7), one has to have some reason why he should refer to this break while commenting on the latter and not on the former. 7 C1. Abhilharmakosabrasyn of Vasubandhu, ed. P. Pradhan, 2nd ed., Patna 1975, p. +15.141: tribhih karanaih scimum sarvabuddhanam. sariapumajnanasambharasamudagamato dharmakavaparinispatlito 'rthucuryaya cu lokaswa ... ctam ein ca trividham sumpadam manasikuramena vidusi sakyam buddhanam bhagavatam antike titrapremagaurarum cotpadayitum (perhaps: -premam gauravam col-) yaduta hetisampadam phalasampadam upakarasampadam ca. & Cf. The l'vikaruna-Mahabhusya of Patanjali, ed. Kielhorn, repr. Osnabruck 1970, vol. I, p. 39.10: pramanabhuta acuryah ... (as opposed to pramanikarana ibid., p. 39.4). I owe this reference to Professor A. Wezler. "Throughout this paper I follow Velter's numbering of the verses; the numbering in other editions differs slightly, but the correspondence is easily made: Vetter's 131cd132ab = Miyasaka's 132, Pramanavaruikularikara 133 and Pramunavartikari 134. "" Nor could this be a slip of pen for Vetter uses "feststellen" consistently thropighout the translation. 1. C1. PVT. p. 9.15-16: tadvad bhagavan pramanam; yathabhihitasya satyacatustayasyavisamvadanat, tasyaiva parair ajnatasya prakasanac ca. !! Cl. L'Abhidharmakosa de Vasubandhu. Paris/Louvain 1923--31, vol. 6, p. 82. 12 Abhidharmakosa and Bhusya of Acaria Vasubandhu with Spruturthi Commentary of Acarya Yasomitra, ed. D. Sastri. Varanasi 1981, vol. II, p. 1097.19. 1.3 Cf. Y. Mivasaka, "An Index to the Pramanavarttika-karika." Acta Indologica III, 1974, pp. 1-157. I Cf. E. Lamotte, Histoire du Bouddhisme Indien, repr. Louvain 1967. p. 18. More specifically, Prajnakaragupta may have had the first week in mind; cf. next note and Lalita Vistara, ed. S. Lesmann, Halle a. S. 1902 (repr. Tokyo 1977) vol. I, p. 351.151.: prathame saptahe bhiksar'as tathagatas tasminn eva bodhimande nisano sthit ... samanantaraprupte khali punar bhiksaro bodhisattvena sarujnane ... 15 Cf. Pramanavarurikalarikara (ed. R. Sankrityayana, Patna 1953) p. 110.20-2.3: lato vagvaigunyadikam api nivartavinum pratate ... atha ra vudi nima chukhaprahimam tathapi na sarvajnarvam bhavati... 16 Cf. also Devendrabuddhi's Vrili, Derge ed. No. 4217, fol. 56671.: ji srid dhui ma lus par thugs su chud pa med pa de srid du ston pa nid plum sum ishogs pa rdzogs pu dari Idun pa ma yin pa de ltar na skyes bu chen po dag gis dus rin por goms par mdzad pu 'bras bu med pa ma yin no ... grol bar bzed pa ( "muktikama) illis kuwi bdag med pa mihori bu dlus riri por ram pa du mar goms par bred pa vin no. Devendrabuddhi and Manorathanandin probably understood the practicing of means as one of the Bodhisattva's perfections, namely, the updvakausule (cf. H. Dayal. The Bodhisattin Doctrine in Buddhist Sanskrit Literature. London 1932. p. 24811.). This interpretation is quite possible for Dharmakirti as well. 17 As a matter of fact, Vetter does refer the reader to the above quoted passage (cf. p. 40, n. 1), but the reference is done in such a way that the reader is misled 10 assume that Manorathanandin supports Vetter's interpretation. 18 CA. PVA, p. 109.1: anumanigocare cugumah, atindriprav ahetuh. "" Ibid., p. 109.1-6. Cf. also G. Tucci, Minor Buddhist Texas. Part II, The First Bhavanakrama of Kamalasila. Serie Orientale Roma IX, 2. Roma 1958. 21 Cf. Milindaparhapali, ed. Dwarikadas Shastri. Bauddha Bharati Series 1.3. Varanasi 1979. pp. 150-157. (Rhys Davids' transl., vol. II, p. 1.31.). (1. also p. 27: "I: vident ist jedoch, dass das Gegenteil der sech chun falschen Aspekte geubt werden soll, cigentlich nur der vier ersten falschen Aspekte ..." (my emphasis). ! Cl. limsaliku lijnoprimotratusiddelhi, ed. S. Levi, Paris 1925. 1. 6 (on 10d): 10 bilair dharmanim subhiro grilogrilukinih parihalpitus tona hulpirenimand testim nairumam null nubhilprenumuni wo buddhinum visava ili. 2! (f. Frauwallner, "Devendrabuddhi." WZKSO 4. 1960). pp. 119 123 (reprint in Kleine Schriften, ed. by G. Oberhammer and E. Steinkellner, Wiesbaden 1982. pp. 842-846). 2+ In fact these two commentaries help us understand one another. Manorathanandin helps us to see how Prajnakaragupta's general comments can be read into Dharmakirtis verses, whereas Prajnakaragupta's deliberations provide the rational behind Manorathanandin's short glosses. I did not read enough of Devendrabuddhi's Vrtli in order to be able to generalize about it, but from the few cases I checked there seems to be a strong unity among all three commentaries. 25 TTP, vol. 132, Te 14268. Van Leer Jerusalem Institute ELI FRANCO