Jérôme Ducor, Le Sûtra d’Amida prêché par le Buddha

Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland http://journals.cambridge.org/JRA Additional services for Journal

of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland: Email alerts: Click here Subscriptions: Click here Commercial reprints: Click here Terms of use : Click here

Le Sūtra d'Amida prêché par le Buddha. By Jérôme Ducor. (Schweizer Asiatische Studien Monographien, Band 29/Etudes asiatiques suisses monographies, Volume 29). pp. 215. Bern, Peter Lang, 1998. James A. Benn Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland / Volume 9 / Issue 02 / July 1999, pp 337 339 DOI: 10.1017/S1356186300011342, Published online: 24 September 2009

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S1356186300011342 How to cite this article: James A. Benn (1999). Review of M. Adams, and V. Guillemin 'Measure theory and probability' Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland, 9, pp 337-339 doi:10.1017/ S1356186300011342 Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/JRA, IP address: 130.113.111.210 on 24 Apr 2015

Review of Books

337

things as the pencil note Dhatuk-niss on a leaf (p. 43 below), the wrong spellings Nisaya (pp. 68, 116), Nissayya (pp. 4, 116), Padimok nissayya (pp. 83, 116), Viban (instead of Vibhari, pp. 77, 118) should be restricted to the manuscript description itself. Otherwise such quotations lead to absurd results: nobody would look for Thatukatha, Kadna- and Lokanitthi for example when he wants tofindthe texts Dhatukatha, Kathina- and Lokaniti. Instead of the correct title Abhidhammatthasarigaha one finds the defective tide Abhidhammasangaha (pp. 114, 122, 124) and also variations and wrong spellings in the tides Abhidhammasangruil, Abhidhammathasangruih, Abhidhammattasangntiv and Abhidhammatthasangmi. One reference from the standard Burmese title Abhidhammatthasangruih to the Pali version would be sufficient and would help to avoid the unnecessary clutter in indices. In Burmese-Pali 30.7 the unclear Burmese script on some leaves is nothing but the note about the contents of the manuscript bundle with the total number of folios in angas plus the rest of folios with text and blank leaves with the help of special signs around figures. In Burmese-Pali 93 (p. 76 line 2) the correct reading of -senapitisana-pru seems to be -senapati-sasana-pru. In Burmese-Pali 98 third para, ni should be nam and this is the abbreviation for nak = anak = nissaya (cf. p. 116 Pacit). In Burmese 4.1 -kom is the abbreviated form of-kok, the quotation in Burmese script akokam should be akom or arakom). Finally some mistakes and misprints are mentioned. The information about the material and number of folios is missing in Burmese-Pali 71. Burmese-Pali 54 deviates from the rule to write author, tide and other short information under the manuscript number. Mom: Rve: should be Mum Rve: (pp. 88, 119). Misprints: Bhikkhuni and Bhikkhuni (pp. 29, 54, 79, 114) instead of Bhikkhuni; Mahaniddessa and Nidessa (p. 115, 121) instead of Mahaniddesa and Niddesa; Rhue (pp. 92, 120) instead of Rvhe; Upasampada and -pada (pp. 113, 118) instead of Upasampada; Vidhura (pp. 84, 118) instead of Vidhura; Vmaya (p. 121) instead of Vinaya. Some discrepancies between Burmese script and its transliteration are not quoted here. The critical annotations should in no way diminish the appreciation of the diligent efforts of the two compilers W. Pruitt and R. Bischoff, nor should they affect the value of this very helpful and precious work. HEINZ BRAUN

LE SOTRA D'AMIDA PRECHE PAR LE BUDDHA. By JEROME DUCOR. (Schweizer Asiatische Studien

Monographien, Band 29/Etudes asiatiques suisses monographies, Volume 29). pp. 215. Bern, Peter Lang, 1998. This slim and elegant volume packs an impressive punch. It contains not only a French translation of the most commonly used Chinese version of the Amitabha sutra (Chin. Foshuo Amituojing), but also a translation of the Sanskrit version, editions of the Chinese, Sanskrit and Tibetan versions of the text, an integrated exegesis of die sutra which draws on commentaries written by major figures in the Buddhist traditions of China and Japan, and a discussion of the transmission of the text. While this is not the first translation of the text itself into a European language it easily supersedes all previous attempts by the quality of scholarship which is brought to bear on it. All of this material is clearly laid out, fully annotated and cross-referenced, and lavishly provided with Chinese characters making this everything one could possibly hope for in a scholarly translation. Ducor is to be congratulated for having produced one of the most useful and practical studies of any major sutra in the East Asian tradition. Every technical term receives a precise and workable translation, the structure and content of the sutra and its commentaries are laid out with utmost clarity, every figure mentioned is properly identified, making this an essential purchase for every self-respecting scholar working in Buddhist studies. The work commences (pp. 13-17) with a running translation of the Chinese text as originally

338

Review of Books

translated by Kumarajiva (344-413). Of the two later Chinese translations of the sutra, the first by Gunabhadra (393—468) was lost as early as the seventh century, and the second by Xuanzang (602-64) never seems to have enjoyed much success. Later Sino-Japanese commentators have always referred to Kumarajiva's translation. Notes on the life of Kumarajiva and his translation follow the text (pp. 21-5). Here, Ducor introduces the significant fact that this surra has been transmitted not only in its canonical form, but also in the form of a "vulgate" (Jap. rujubon, literally "expanded version") which is reproduced towards the end of the book (pp. 151—8). It is the vulgate version which has been universally adopted in Japan; it was the basis for all Japanese exegesis on the text and continues to be recited by all the schools ofJapanese Buddhism. Quite how this vulgate became the standard version of the text in Japan is still unclear, but it does seem to have been adopted fairly early on, and the transmission to Japan may derive ultimately from its use by the Chinese master Shandao (613-681) in his work Fashi zan ("Liturgical hymns"). But, not only did the vulgate version become orthodox in Japan, it seems also to have been the version used in China until about the middle of the eleventh century. The commentaries of Tang monks such as Shandao, Huijing (578-645), Kuiji (632-682) and Zhiyuan (976-1022) are based on it, and the text of the vulgate survives on a stele of Tang date (p. 116). The canonical reading seems to have been adopted only by Chinese commentators from Yuanzhao (1048-1116) onwards, and in his commentary the Japanese monk Genshin (942-1017), while basing his reading on the vulgate, cited the canonical version, and admitted that he did not know which of the two was the true text of Kumarajiva. The canonical version and the vulgate differ by a matter of only seven or eight characters, but doctrinally speaking, this is of some significance. To be brief, the vulgate stresses the benefits of hearing the name of "Amida", while the canonical version (more conventionally) speaks of the benefits of hearing the sutra, keeping it, and hearing the names of the Buddhas. Pure Land practice as it developed in East Asia did of course become primarily a matter of recitation of the name "Amida", and the implication is that Shandao may have discreetly altered scripture for the purposes of propagating his own soteriological practice (p. 116). Certainly other medieval Chinese Buddhists were not above twisting genuine surras to suit their needs, and Shandao also seems to have played a decisive role in propagating the Kumarajiva translation above those of Gunabhadra and Xuanzang (p. 121-2), and in fixing the very title of the text as the "Sutra of Amida" rather than the "Sutra of the Buddha of Infinite Life" (Chin. Wuliangshou fo jing, rather than " Wuliangshu" as it appears throughout this book), (p. 118). Ducor lays this out with consummate skill, but given that Pure Land practice was an East Asian phenomenon, not solely a Sino-Japanese construct, I cannot help but notice the rather surprising absence of Korean monks in Ducor's discussion, save for a rather brief mention of Wonhyo (617-686) on page 38. Many Korean monks produced commentaries on the Foshuo Amituojing and while most of these works now seem to be lost it might be possible to determine from citations in other sources whether the vulgate was the orthodox version in Korea. Perhaps some enterprising scholar of Korean Buddhism might like to take up this problem. Ducor's work is especially strong on matters of doctrine and in tracing the twists and turns of textual transmission, but he does not eschew the performative aspect of the text. For instance, he notes that the sutra was particularly favoured in Japan for recitation at ceremonies for the dedication of new buildings, because the character for "fire" does not appear in the text (p. 137). The recitation of the sutra during funeral ceremonies owes more to its message of personal salvation by rebirth in the Pure Land. The author has drawn on his own extensive knowledge of the text and the development of Pure Land doctrine in China and Japan, and his mastery of the sources is evident. There is an extensive bibliography (pp. 177-206) of primary and secondary sources which is itself annotated. A full index combined with extensive cross-references within the text and footnotes makes it remarkably easy to find things. Indeed while this book should be read from cover to cover it has a second function as a

Review of Books

339

remarkably compact reference work, and deserves a place on the shelves of all scholars working on East Asian Buddhism. We should all be most grateful to Ducor for what he has done here, and hope that he continues to produce work of such high quality and precision. The publishers have treated Ducor's work with the care it deserves, producing a reasonably priced paperback which is nicely laid out and free from all but the most trivial errors. JAMES A. BENN

SARVASTIVADA BUDDHIST SCHOLASTICISM. By CHARLES WILLEMEN, BART DESSEIN and COLLET COX

(Handbook of Oriental Studies II/i 1). pp. xvii, 341. Leiden, Brill, 1998. Research into the Sarvastivada school of Hinayana Buddhism is very important for Buddhology in China and Japan. Perhaps even more important for the history of Indian Buddhism in general and of the Sarvastivada school in particular is research into Chinese Buddhist sources. Many Sarvastivada sources have been preserved only in Chinese (and Tibetan) translations, and only some fragments and incomplete works are extant in Sanskrit, mostly in its so-called Hybrid Buddhist variety. According to the most likely scenario, the Sarvastivada school branched off from the old tradition favoured by Asoka (a 270-230 B.C.), probably during his reign, after doctrinal disagreements about the nature of experienced reality. It then established itself in the North East of India from where its ideas and scriptures spread into Central Asia and into the Far East along the Silk Road. The old tradition, known after the split as Sthaviravada (Pali: Theravada), developed the basic Buddhist teaching of impermanence into a doctrine of "momentariness" according to which physical and psychical phenomena (dharmah) are constantly arising and passing away. The dissenters maintained that everything exists (sarva-asti, hence their name) in some way, including past and future phenomena (as causes of present existing results and future results in the process of ripening, respectively). While the code of discipline (Vinaya Pi(aka) and the bulk of the discourses of the Buddha (Sutra Pifaka) handed down in dissenting groups underwent relatively small alterations despite disagreements about some points, doctrinal interpretations of the teaching (Dharma) gave rise to a new type of texts called Abhidharma which soon differed from school to school and over time underwent changes even within schools. While Sthaviravada consolidated its version, preserved in Pali as Abhidhamma Pifaka, relatively early (possibly in the first century B.C.), Sarvastivada Abhidharma Pitaka, although it existed in some form in the second century A.D. since it is mentioned in an inscription of that time, turned, in a way, into an open-ended process with a growing number of works and commentaries. Referred to by the title of this book as "scholasticism", Abhidharma is the main subject of its investigation, but it is set within wider context of the formation of the Buddhist canon of scriptures and of the historical development of the scene of early Buddhist sectarianism. The timescale adopted for this purpose is based on the recently propagated "short chronology" for the life-time of the Buddha: 448-368, as advocated by J. Bronkhorst and supported by Heinz Bechert, which is controversial. It is strongly opposed e.g. by Alex Wayman who brilliantly advocates the "long chronology" and tentatively accepts the date 566-486 ("Date and Era of the Buddha," in: Untying the Knots in Buddhism, pp. 37-58, Delhi, 1997), while most scholars still appear to prefer the date 563-483 proposed by Geiger in 1912. The adoption of the short chronology brings the authors to the rather awkward conclusion that Asoka supported Mahasarighikas against Sthaviravadins while all his rock inscriptions show him as a traditionalist and his mission to Lanka established the Theravada tradition there. This, however, does not affect the presumed time of the formation of the Sarvastivada Abhidharma. At least two of its seven books show similarities with corresponding books of the Pali Abhidharma and point to a common source and therefore to the time before Asoka's missions,