REVIEWS

Untersuchungen zur buddhistischen Literature. Bearbeit von Frank aa Bandurski, Bhikkhu Psdika, Michael Schmidt, Bangwei Wang  (Sanskrit-Worterbuch der buddhistischen Texte aus den Turfan-Funden,  Beiheft 5), pp. 203, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Gottingen, 1994. DM 75.00. A brief editorial introduction (pp. 56) by Heinz Bechert, the editor of the series, is followed by four contributions which have in common the fact that they are all concerned with some aspect of Buddhist literature.    In the rst (Ubersicht uber die Gottinger Sammlungen der von Rhula a Snkr tyyana in Tibet aufgefundenen buddhistischen Sanskrit-Texte, a_  a  pp. 9126), Frank Bandurski deals with the Gottingen collection of photographs of Buddhist MSS taken by the Indian Sanskritist Rhula a Snkr tyyana (=RS). RS made four journeys to Tibet in 1929/30, a_  a 1934, 1936 and 1938, searching for Sanskrit MSS. Conditions for photography cannot have been easy. There were difculties, either in his photographic equipment or the use he made of it, as is shown by the occasional blurring of the photographs which editors have commented upon.1 In addition, certain practices which RS adopted, presumably in the attempt to make the task of photographing the MSS easier, or to eke out his supplies, such as squeezing as many folios into one exposure as he could, overlapping folios, and holding the folios down with drawing pins, led to the loss of aksaras.2 . The negatives, on glass and lm, were brought back to the Bihar Research Society in Patna, and were later deposited in the Kashi Prasad Jayaswal Research Institute in Patna, and lists of the MSS which had been photographed were published in the Journal of the Bihar Oriental Research Society. The majority of the MSS are of texts in Buddhist Sanskrit and Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit, but there are also some Nyya a texts in Sanskrit, and texts in Tibetan, Sinhalese, Tamil, and one in Apabhrama (Sarahas Dohkoa). Some of the MSS are now in Peking, a s .s one or two are known to be elsewhere, but the fate of the majority is quite unknown. The difculty of getting information about the photographs and of obtaining prints from India has meant that full use has not been made of RSs collection but, thanks mainly to Dr Gustav Roth,

Indo-Iranian Journal 40: 157194, 1997. c 1997 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

158

REVIEWS

 there is now in Gottingen a complete set of photographs from the RS negatives. It is therefore a simple matter to obtain photographs of those photographs, and Bandurskis catalogue provides an invaluable guide to the collection. After a general introduction giving information about the materials on which the MSS are written, the scripts employed, and dating, full information is given about each MS, including the size, the number of folios, the number of lines per folio, the script, the clarity of the print, the identication, where possible, of the texts it contains, and anything which is known about its present whereabouts. Bandurski goes further than this, by giving information about any editions which exist of texts included in the collection, whether based upon RSs photographs or not. He also includes information about other ancillary material, e.g. studies of those texts. He gives some additions to this (p. 116), but further additions could be made. For example: Bandurski lists (pp. 81 82) the editions of the Dharmapada by Shukla, Roth and Cone, and Cones translation, but makes no reference to Roths corrections to his edition which are appended to the reprint of that edition in Roths Selected Papers,3 nor to the present reviewers paper Notes on the Patna Dharmapada.4 Other information could have been given more clearly. For example: he refers in an oblique way to the indexes which have been made to the editions of Shukla and Roth,5 but it might have been helpful to have given more complete bibliographical information,   since not everyone has easy access to the article in Bukkyo Kenkyu which he quotes. Similarly, readers who cannot nd Kvrnes 1986 Bangkok study of the Carygti (p. 48) in their local libraries might a have benetted from the information that this is merely a reprint of his 1977 Oslo publication.6 Bandurski concludes his catalogue with indexes of authors (p. 123) and of the titles of texts (pp. 12426). The latter could have been made even more helpful by adding symbols to indicate which texts have been published and which are now in Peking. In the second contribution (Abhidharma-Zitate aus der Abhidharmakoavykhy, der Abhidharmadpa-Vibhsprabhvr tti und s a a a.a a   dem Arthavinicayasutra-Nibandhana, pp. 12754) Bhikkhu Psdika s aa lists the citations from the Abhidharma in these three texts, and gives an index of the sources quoted. In 1920 Ridding and La Valle Poussin published an edition of a frage mentary Nepalese manuscript of a Bhiksun-Karmavcan which they a a . . condently asserted belonged to the Sarvstivdin school. On the basis of a a this proposed afliation material from this text continued to be included  in the Sanskrit-Worterbuch der buddhistischen Texte aus den Turfan-

REVIEWS

159

a a Funden (=SWTF), which since Part 4 has been restricted to Sarvstivdin  texts. In the third contribution to this volume (Zur Schulzugehorigkeit einer Handschrift der Bhiksun-Karmavcan, pp. 15564), Michael a a . . Schmidt, who has recently re-edited the text, gives clear evidence, based  upon a detailed comparison with the Mulasarvstivdin Prtimoksasutra, a a a .   that suggestions that the text belongs to the Mulasarvstivdin school a a are correct. Its material will therefore no longer be included in SWTF but, as the editor states (p. 5), will be included in a future dictionary  of Mulasarvstivdin texts. a a In the fourth contribution (Buddhist Nikyas through Ancient Chinese a Eyes, pp. 165203) Bangewei Wang (=BW) considers the evidence found in Chinese sources for knowledge of the nikyas, or schools, a into which Buddhism had already been divided in India before its introduction into China. He deals with the material in three sections. In the early period, up to the fth century A.D., the Chinese sources contain no direct references to the Buddhist nikyas, and it is probable that little if anything was known a about them at that time. The earliest information about the nikyas is a found in relation to the translations of Vinaya texts. Catalogues and the prefaces to translations, where still extant, sometimes give information about the afliation of these vinaya texts. It was not until about the beginning of the fth century A.D. that Chinese Buddhists began to try to obtain and translate all available vinaya texts. The newly translated texts shed light upon the nikya situation which until then had, because a of the limited range of translations, not been clear to the Chinese. Moreover, Chinese pilgrims in their accounts of their visits to India give a great deal of information about the nikyas, although some of their a statements are not entirely clear. BW deals (p. 177) with Xuanzangs statement that there existed in India and Sri Lanka a nikya called a Mahyna Sthavira. He refers to and rejects Lamottes explanation that a a they were [Sthaviras] inuenced to a certain degree by Mahynist a a theories, and explains that the Mahyna Sthavira is a Mahynist a a a a monastic community among the Theravdins, although this statement a seems too imprecise to clarify the position completely. He does not refer to Becherts explanation:7 The Mahyna-Sthaviravdin are those a a a sections of the Sthaviravda community who had accepted Mahyna a a a doctrines although they still belonged to Sthaviravda school as far a as bhiksu ordination and vinaya-karma was concerned. BW does, . however, go on to say (p. 179): All Buddhist monks, whether they are Mahynists or Hnaynists, always use, even today without exception, a a a the so-called Hnayna vinaya and lead their religious life basically a

160

REVIEWS

according to its rules. If this is so, then Mahyna-Sthaviravdin would a a a indeed mean one ordained into the Sthaviravda but holding Mahyna a a a doctrines. Properly speaking, therefore, every Mahynist could be a a designated as Mahyna-Sarvstivdin or Mahyna-Dharmaguptaka, a a a a a a or whatever, while every Hnaynist could be designated in a comparable a way. BW summarises (p. 179 note 57; cf. p. 194 note 22) Xuanzangs classication of the modes of Buddhism in India and Central Asia, which includes: (1) communities belonging to a certain nikya while their a members subscribe to Hnayna theories, e.g. Hnayna Sarvstivdins; a a a a (2) communities belonging to a certain nikya while their members a subscribe to Mahyna theories, e.g. Mahyna Sthavira. This situation a a a a would seem to be conrmed by the quotation from Yijing (p. 181): Among these four nikyas [: : : ] some belong to Mahyna and some a a a to Hnayna. The designation Mahyna Sthavira does not necessarily a a a imply a conversion to Mahyna, which Becherts denition might a a perhaps be interpreted to mean. BW notes (p. 181) that some modern denitions of Mahyna seem to be somewhat complicated, and he a a quotes with approval Yijings denition: If one worships Bodhisattvas and reads Mahyna scriptures, he will be called a Mahynist, otherwise a a a a a Hnaynist. Such a circular statement, however, seems hardly more a satisfactory than those which BW condemns. In the third section he deals with the establishment of the nikyas in China. Although from the fourth a to the sixth centuries the Sarvstivdin nikya tradition was strongest in a a a China, it seems that from the eight century onwards the Dharmaguptaka vinaya tradition achieved a dominant position throughout the country.  Despite the importance of the Mula-Sarvstivdin vinaya for Indian a a Buddhism, it seems to have come rather late into China and disappeared fairly soon after Yijing translated it in the eighth century. Some of the information which BW gives can be augmented. He states (p. 172) that the Uplipr cchsutra might have some relation a  a to Theravdin Buddhism. He does not refer to de Jongs review8 of a V. Stache-Rosens translation and study of this text, in which it is pointed out that there are closer parallels with the Prtimoksas of the a .  Sarvstivdins and Mulasarvstivdins than with the Pli version. a a a a a His reference to evidence for the existence of the Mahsmghikas a a. miyn also needs correcting and augmenting. His statement that at Ba a the discovery of its vinaya text in Sanskrit in Bmiyn (pp. 166 a a 67) should be corrected to : : : of a fragment of its vinaya text. It is worth noting that a re-examination of Lvis material by Oskar von e 9 has revealed that another fragment probably belongs to the  Hinuber Mahsmghika-Lokottaravda-Vinaya. a a. a

REVIEWS

161

In three appendices BW gives English translations of portions of the Chinese texts he has quoted: (1) The records of the four vinayas arriving in China; (2) An account of the Sarvstivda nikya; (3) Biographies a a a of prominent monks. In the footnotes to the third appendix (p. 195 note 22) he draws attention to the danger of determining the nikya a afliation of an individual monk on the basis of only one or two of his works. BW has not been well served by the person who is thanked by name for checking and correcting the English of his paper. Despite that checking, his translations include such infelicities as an Aokas s stupa (p. 191) and set back for home (p. 191); the use of articles is haphazard: cf. in foreign language (pp. 188 and 199) with in a foreign langauge (p. 188); the meaning of such sentences as His translation is meticulous which looks like the Vibhs was rst composed (p. 190) a. a and who : : : say there is an tman, not saying the phase of unyat a s a (p. 190) is not immediately obvious. There is no index of names, and no Chinese characters are printed in the paper due, BW regrets (p. 166 note 1), to some technical difculties. Even if they could not be included in the text, one might have thought that they could be given in an appendix. When anyone owning a personal computer with the appropriate software can print Chinese characters without difculty it is regrettable that a commercial publisher has to omit them, for whatever reason. 6, Huttles Green Shepreth, Royston, Herts, SG8 6PR, U.K.
NOTES As Dr M. Cone states of the Dharmapada: The photograph of the MS is not easy to read : : : and some of the leaves are blurred (Journal of the Pali Text Society XIII, 1989, p. 103). 2 Cone says (ibid.): Some of the leaves are overlapped by others: drawing-pins obscure some lines. Cf. Padmanabh S. Jaini, A few letters (two or three) of the rst line of a large number of folios are lost under the drawing pins used by the .   photographer in pinning the palm-leaves (Abhidharmadpa with Vibhasaprabhavr tti, Patna, 1977, p. 135). 3 G. Roth, Indian Studies (Selected Papers), Sri Satguru Publications, Delhi India, 1986, pp. 45255. 4  ~ In Amala Prajna: Aspects of Buddhist Studies (Professor P. V. Bapat Felicitation Volume), Delhi, 1989, pp. 43144. 5 Made by Tetsuya Tabata and published by the Abhidharma Research Institute, Kyoto, 1981 and 1982. 6  Per Kvrne: An Anthology of Buddhist Tantric Songs: A Study of the Caryagti.
1

K. R. NORMAN

162

REVIEWS

(Det Norske Videnskap-Akademi: II. Hist.-Filos. Klasse Skrifter Ny Serie No. 14), Oslo, 1977. 7 H. Bechert, Notes on the formation of Buddhist Sects and the origins of Mahyna, a a German Scholars on India, Vol. I, Varanasi 1973, pp. 618 (p. 13). 8 Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 49, 3, 1986, pp. 59192. 9 A fragment of the Mahsmghika-Lokottaravda-Vinaya from Bmiyn, Bulletin a a. a a a dEtudes Indiennes 4, 1986, pp. 295303.

Paul J. Grifths, On Being Buddha: The Classical Doctrine of Buddhahood, SUNY series, Towards a Comparative Philosophy of Religions, Albany, State University of New York Press, 1994, 261 pp. In his 1986 book, On Being Mindless: Buddhist Meditation and the Mind-Body Problem, Paul Grifths investigated the relationship between philosophical theory and meditative practice in Buddhism taking as a  case study the attainment of cessation (nirodhasamapatti). As well as offering a careful exposition of the position of several Buddhist schools Grifths offered a critical assessment of their arguments and premises thus moving beyond exegesis to normative evaluations through an exercise in cross-cultural philosophising. Part of the rationale behind this procedure was the desire to treat the material with a philosophical seriousness often missing in the historical-critical approach characteristic of much recent Western scholarship. In his recent book published in the SUNY series, Towards a Comparative Philosophy of Religions, entitled On Being Buddha: The Classical Doctrine of Buddhahood, Grifths adopts a similar approach. Here he takes as his subject matter the classical doctrine of Buddhahood expounded in the digests of the learned Buddhist doctors of Gupta and immediately post-Gupta India. In this book the concerns with crosscultural philosophising foreshadowed in the earlier work are clearly articulated. Early in the book he investigates the normative function of doctrine with a view to providing a cross-cultural category which could lead to a truly comparative philosophy. Grifths hopes thereby to avoid any kind of explanatory reductionism and, in some measure, to correct what he regards as an excessively historicist approach to Buddhist thought. After expounding his theoretical formulations Grifths investigates specically Buddhist doctrine and its exemplication in the classical formulations on Buddhahood understood as highest perfection or maximal greatness. The nal chapter is given over to