The Yogācārabhūmi Corpus
The Yogācārabhūmi Corpus
ERRATA ET ADDENDA (3rd version, 2020)
p. 511, l. 15 and n. 51 instead of “*Yogacārabhūmivyākhyā ” read “*Yogācārabhūmivyākhyā”
p. 511, l. 16 instead of “Q 5543, D4042” read “Q5544, D4043”
p. 511, n. 51 A second passage (T1602.487a3ff.) is quoted in a text that is preserved in Sanskrit, namely in the ASBh (61,1ff.); see SCHMITHAUSEN 1987b: 315, n. 297.
p. 525, n. 135 instead of “(§2.1.9.1)” read “(§2.1.9.3)”
p. 529, n. 159 delete the whole note
p. 533, l. 6 instead of (kleṣa) read (kleśa)
p. 534, lines 1–3 In the pertinent chapter of the Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī, it seems to be the tract on kingship (Q5539.zi.158a4-168a1 = T1579.638a19-642a5) rather than the portions unrelated to it, which does not fit into the larger context.
p. 534, §2.2.4, first sentence It should be added that SCHMITHAUSEN (1987b) has not provided a complete edition or translation of the short Sacittikabhūmiviniścaya (Q5539.zi.189a7-190b6), but has dealt with its contents extensively in various passages of his monograph (see the pertinent section of his Index on p. 673). p. 555, entry SAKUMA 1996 instead of “°samucca°” read “°samuccaya°”
Introductory Remarks
0.1 In the following pages, an attempt will be made to give a critical overview of
the basic research tools relating to the Yogācārabhūmi(śāstra) which we have at
our disposal, including, among others, the extant textual witnesses and the
available editions and translations into modern languages. Such an undertaking
seems to be useful, since the Yogācārabhūmi (henceforth: YoBh ), the fundamental
work of the Indian Yogācāra school of Buddhist thought, is both extraordinarily
important and bulky.1 Moreover, publications that are aiming at its
systematic exploration by means of critical editions and the like are typically
numerous, confined to small parts of the text and scattered over many different
independent publications like scholarly journals, festschriften or book-length
monographs that are, as regards their subject-matter, often not limited to the
YoBh alone.
0.2 There are some excellent bibliographical sources available which have an objective that is related to the present endeavor. YŪKI's (1962) catalog is still an important reference work on Indian, Tibetan, and East Asian primary Yogācāra literature, especially because this is the only pertinent publication that gives not only a survey of the extant works but also gathers all the information on those The present contribution is the greatly enlarged version of a paper I gave during the conference "The Yogācārabhūmi and the Yogācāra s" (Seoul, October 2008). I am grateful to the participants for helpful suggestions. I am indebted to Prof. Dr. Kazuo KANŌ, Prof. Dr. Birgit KELLNER, Dr. Kenichi KURANISHI, Prof. Dr. Lambert SCHMITHAUSEN, and to
Prof. Dr. Francesco SFERRA for providing me with some of the materials dealt with in this
study. My revered teacher Lambert SCHMITHAUSEN was so kind to read the penultimate
draft of the present article and to communicate very helpful comments, suggestions, and
corrections to me. – Technical notes: The equals sign (=) is used to denote corresponding
passages in different sources, regardless of the question whether there are minor or even
major differences in their wording. – East Asian names are treated exactly like Western
names as regards the order of the family name and the given name, if they appear in
transcription. – Sanskrit terms and titles are given in the stem-form except for terms consisting
of more than one word. – In some places, Korean characters and romanization are
used; they have been inserted by the editors of this volume. The same holds true for many
of the conventions used in the present article, like, for instance, the use of the siglum Q for
bstan 'gyur texts. 1 As regards its comprehensiveness, the YoBh is, if I am not mistaken, among the
extant Indian Buddhist dogmatical works only eclipsed by the *Mahāvibhāṣā (T1545).
sources that are lost. 2 HAKAMAYA's bibliographical notes in the Tokyo edition of the sems tsam section of the Derge bsTan 'gyur (HAKAMAYA, notes) contain very valuable references to older Japanese scholarship on the Yogācāra literature (up to ca. 1980).3 The section on the YoBh in SUGAWARA's contribution to the third volume of Bongo Butten no Kenkyū (SUGAWARA, 1990:318-329) gives an excellent overview of the extant textual sources and the basic research work done on them (with special reference to Sanskrit sources and editions). Jonathan A. SILK provided the most up-to-date list of Sanskrit editions (SILK, 2001:153-158) and much valuable information and observations on reference works relating to the YoBh
(ibid.:150-168). But even this rather recent publication is already dated. Moreover, his list was never meant to be an exhaustive bibliography of Sanskrit editions.4 SILK also abstains, save for very few remarks, from reviewing the editorial work critically. 2 In my view, attempts like these should be made far more often in the different fields of Buddhist textual studies than it has been done up to now. It can prevent us from drawing premature conclusions regarding an immediate and linear dependence of one source upon another, if we have a clear idea of how many lost works might have been composed in between. 3 One may also consult an article on the Yogācāra texts by the same author which has been written at roughly the same time (HAKAMAYA, 1982). A reprint of this article contains an addendum where many references to pertinent publications from the 1980s and '90s are given (HAKAMAYA, 2001:103-107). 4 This has explicitly been stated by SILK (2001:152 and 158) himself. Nevertheless, there are only very few gaps in his list. Some additions to SILK's contribution are included in DELHEY (2009:15 n. 45). These additions are, however, superseded by the present article. – One might also mention the publications of the
ŚRĀVAKABHŪMI STUDY GROUP
which usually contain very comprehensive bibliographical pieces of information, especially regarding editions which are based on the Śrāvakabhūmi MS. – Other bibliographical sources are for various reasons less useful for the present undertaking, although the present contribution owes something to all of them. NAKAMURA's (1980) bibliographical survey is a mine of information, but contains, at least in the pertinent section (NAKAMURA, 1980:256-258), so many misleading statements – and at times even serious errors (see n. 55 for an example) – that it can only be used with the utmost caution and is entirely useless when one tries to get an overview of the preserved textual witnesses of the YoBh . The service which POWERS (1991) has rendered to the scholarly community with his Yogācāra bibliography has duly been acknowledged in a lot of reviews (e.g., TILLEMANS, 1993). However, other more problematic aspects of this bibliography come clearer to the fore, if one consults the more critical reviews by DE JONG (1994) and, especially, by WYZLIC (1995). More serious than the numerous omissions – which are to a certain extent certainly inevitable, if one compiles such a bibliography – are the countless errors which occur with regard to those items which have found their way into this book. DE JONG (1994) and WYZLIC (1995) have only listed some of them. Many of these errors suggest that POWERS has never seen the respective publications. Unfortunately, he does not mark these entries accordingly. BANDURSKI (1994:61-66) only contains bibliographical information on those YoBh manuscripts of which there are photographs in Göttingen. PFANDT (1986) is a reference work which is restricted to providing information on translations into Western languages (see ibid.:21f., 89, 120, 140 for relevant entries.) This bibliographical source is already dated. POTTER's continuously updated bibliography of the Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies (URL: http://faculty.washington.edu/kpotter/) is certainly an important reference work for anyone who is doing research on any given area of Indian philosophy and has accordingly also been used with profit by the present author. However, the relevant sections contain many gaps and errors – which is understandable enough, if one considers
0.3.1 There are, as is well known, already many studies available that try to
elucidate aspects of the complex dogmatic and philosophical teachings of the
YoBh or of its literary history. It might have been desirable to include a bibliography
and discussion of these secondary sources in the present survey, but this was
for several reasons impossible: First of all, the writer of the present article devotes
most of his time at present to entirely different areas of buddhological research.
Secondly, such a comprehensive state-of-the-field report would probably require
book-length dimensions. Thirdly, there are countless relevant scholarly contributions
that are written in Japanese, and the present writer feels due to his rather
limited proficiency in this language unable to study all of them. Fourthly, it is still
very hard, sometimes even impossible to gain access to all these Japanese materials,
if one does not live and work in Japan.5 Finally, it should be noted that at least
some of the major problems of YoBh research have recently been extensively and
reliably summarized in an easily accessible Western language publication
(DELEANU, 2006). A thorough knowledge of the available textual sources and
editions is, in my view, indispensable for any further research on the abovementioned
problems. Therefore, it has within the framework of the present contribution
been considered as especially useful to give an overview of these basic
materials rather than summarizing the state of the field regarding problems of
textual and philosophical history (see, however, §0.4 for some brief pertinent
remarks).
0.3.2 Unfortunately, the present writer felt, due to time constraints, not even
able to give a truly complete overview of editions, translations, and reference works
regarding the YoBh . It is, however, hoped the present contribution contains a complete
critical survey of all editions that are based on at least one of the extant
Sanskrit manuscripts or fragments. As a matter of fact, it is only with regard to the
Sanskrit editions that the present writer has already systematically collected the
relevant materials before writing this contribution.6 Regarding partial translations
as well as partial critical editions of the Tibetan and Chinese texts, certainly major
gaps remain, especially when it comes to publications written in Japanese.
Moreover, the present writer has abstained from collecting any information on
translations into modern Korean or Chinese. Nevertheless, the present writer decided
to limit himself not only to a discussion of the Sanskrit editions, since he is
confident the other bibliographical notes contained in the following pages are of
some help for many researchers, at least for those scholars who are not mainly
preoccupied with research on early Yogācāra literature. Moreover, the informathat
POTTER is performing a Herculean labor. MARTIN (2009) is, strictly speaking, simply
the author's own working bibliography on Indian Buddhist authors and their works;
nevertheless, it is an extremely worthwhile reference tool; some of the countless entries and
remarks contained therein also proved to be helpful for the present paper. SUEKI (2008) is
an extraordinarily useful meta-bibliography and has accordingly been used quite often by
me while writing this contribution. 5 This holds true regardless of the fact that nowadays the contents of some of the
countless Japanese journals in which such contributions have been published have become
available on the internet (see GeNii, the National Institute of Informatics academic
content portal; URL: http://ge.nii.ac.jp/genii/jsp/index-e.jsp). 6 In my survey of editions, I have also included some unpublished M.A. theses which
have not (or not yet) been (completely) superseded by published versions but which are
freely accessible in the library of the Asia-Africa-Institute of the University of Hamburg.
tion collected here is hopefully comprehensive enough to give the reader a general
idea of the present state of the systematical exploration of the extant YoBh texts.
0.3.3 One more remark on the scope of the present contribution is necessary.
Pre-modern translations of the YoBh have been studied in the course of the
centuries very intensively and extensively outside India, especially in Central Asia
(in particular, as it seems, in Dūnhuáng), China, Korea, and Japan. As an outcome
of these studies, many traditional commentarial texts have been produced, which
are partly still extant. However, the present contribution is concerned with the
YoBh as a work of ancient Indian Buddhism and with those materials that are of
immediate relevance for uncovering the message and wording of the YoBh in its
original historical context. Therefore, hardly anything will be written here on the
later reception and history of the YoBh in Asian Buddhism.
0.4.0 The literary history and character of the YoBh as well as its place within
the larger framework of early Yogācāra literature and the Indian Buddhist history
of ideas have been much debated during recent decades. Although these problems
belong, as mentioned above, not to the subject-matter of the present contribution,
it might not be out of place to make some very brief general remarks on the YoBh
as seen in modern scholarship to provide the reader with some background
knowledge on the textual sources and the context in which much of the research
work cited below has been written.
0.4.1 The name YoBh can be understood either as meaning "Treatise on the Levels of Spiritual Training" or as "Treatise on the Levels of Those Who Engage in Spiritual Training" (DELHEY, 2009:3 and n. 2). In some recent publications, the latter alternative has been preferred (DELHEY, ibid.; SCHMITHAUSEN, 2007b:213). The YoBh was by far the most bulky and certainly also the basic work of the Indian Yogācāra school. In spite of the fact that this school represents one of the two main branches of Indian Buddhist Mahāyāna thought, there are many parts of the YoBh that confine themselves exclusively to a description of the conservative Buddhist world-view of the Śrāvakayāna. Sometimes the Mahāyāna seems to be
referred to in a neutral tone as one possible way to salvation in the latter sections; in other places of the YoBh , a certain tension between the different approaches is recognizable. The very title of the YoBh as well as the designation of the adherents of this school as Yogācāras suggest a special emphasis laid on spiritual practice; there are indeed many passages of the YoBh that can serve as examples for these practical concerns. However, in many other places dogmatic and exegetical concerns are predominant, and often the different topics of the Buddhist worldview are dealt with in the same dry and scholastic way as it is known, for instance, from abhidharma works of the Sarvāstivādin. As a matter of fact, the later tradition 7 For all further references to the Sino-Japanese traditional YoBh literature, see the pertinent sections in YŪKI (1964) and DELEANU (2006:251f.). 8 The reader might be reminded once again that the state of the field regarding many problems of YoBh research has recently been comprehensively summarized in DELEANU (2006); I will only refer to some of the important sections in that monograph in the following brief overview.
regarded the YoBh as a whole as an abhidharma work.9 There are even clear indications
in the YoBh itself that strongly suggest that already the authors and
compilers of the YoBh held this view regarding their text (see DELHEY, 2009:3f.
n.3).
The YoBh has been ascribed to Asaṅga in the later Indian10 and the Tibetan traditions, and to the Bodhisattva and future Buddha Maitreya in the East Asian tradition. Both ascriptions seem to be based on legendary accounts in which both above-mentioned figures make their appearance; therefore, the difference between the two traditions is in my view not as great as it appears at first sight. Nevertheless, this matter is for the following reason a rather complex one: In the early Yogācāra school – that is, in the pre-Vasubandhu tradition – a second historical person and great Buddhist master besides Asaṅga seems to have been at work who might have been called Maitreya(nātha). For this reason, there was, at least in earlier scholarship, a controversy about which of these two persons composed the YoBh . However, it seems that nowadays most, though certainly not all, YoBh experts subscribe to the view that the YoBh is a compilation rather than the work by a single author.11 References to and discussions of publications, wherein these two basic views are advocated – each of them occurs, by the way, in many different varieties –, are easily accessible (see SCHMITHAUSEN, 1987b:13f. and 183ff.; and DELEANU 2006:154); hence, most pertinent scholarly contributions will not be listed here. The present writer is of the opinion that SCHMITHAUSEN's hypothesis according to which the YoBh came into being as the result of a complex process of compilation and redaction of heterogeneous materials is the most convincing.12
This hypothesis is closely linked with a certain viewpoint on the more general literary history of the early Yogācāra texts. According to this opinion, the YoBh contains a large amount of materials that predate all other early Yogācāra works, including even the most important sūtra of the Yogācāras, viz. the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra. 13 The latter text came, however, into being, before the compilation 9 See, e.g., the citation from *Śamathadeva's Abhidharmakośabhāṣya commentary in n. 10. Another example is Sthiramati's commentary (Q5567, D4066) on Vasubandhu's Pañcaskandhaka . In the beginning, the objection is raised why Vasubandhu wrote this short Abhidharma manual, in spite of the fact that works which examine the characteristics of dharma s had been written earlier, namely, the YoBh and so on. 10 See, e.g., *Śamathadeva's *Abhidharmakośaṭīkopāyikā (Q5595.(tu )146a3f.): "The Elder Asaṅga has said in the authoritative treatise on the abhidharma of the Great Vehicle which is called Yogācāra (!), in the chapter on the major and minor bodily characteristics (Lakṣaṇānuvyañjanapaṭala ) of the Bodhisattvabhūmi …" (gnas brtan thogs med kyis theg pa chen po'i chos mngon pa'i bstan bcos rnal 'byor spyod pa zhes bya ba las byang chub sems dpa'i sar mtshan dang dpe byad kyi le'u las … bshad pa … ); Patna MS of the BoBh (no. 4 in §1.2) as edited in BoBhD 28228: kṛtir iyam ācāryāryāsaṅgapādānām . 11 SUGAWARA (1990:318 n. 5) stated already two decades ago that explanations according to which the YoBh is rather a compilation than a work by a single author are predominant among Japanese researchers. This is remarkable, since there can be no doubt that the vast majority of YoBh specialists are working in Japan. 12 The most important pertinent publications of this scholar are: SCHMITHAUSEN (1969a:812-819); SCHMITHAUSEN (1987b, the most relevant passages can easily be found in the index of texts appended to these volumes); and SCHMITHAUSEN (2000). 13 SCHMITHAUSEN (1969a:819-823); SCHMITHAUSEN (1987b:11-13 with many references to pertinent publications by Japanese scholars, 183ff.); SUGURO (1989: Summary, esp. p.
and redaction process of the YoBh had come to an end; it has even been nearly
entirely incorporated into the YoBh in the form of extensive citations (see
§2.2.5.3). Finally, it should be noted that the formation of the Yogācāra school and
the gradual development of its most characteristic doctrines obviously manifest
themselves in this multi-layered corpus of early materials. Regarding the problem
of absolute chronology, it should be mentioned that we have a terminus ante quem
for some parts of the YoBh in the form of an early 5th century Chinese translation
of the BoBh , which contains cross-references to some other chapters of the entire
work. It is more difficult to find a fixed terminus post quem for the YoBh , since it
is not yet quite clear which of the extant Indian Buddhist materials can be regarded
as manifestations of the prehistory of the Yogācāra school. Moreover, only some of
these possible candidates can themselves be assigned with more or less certainty to a fixed point in time. But some very promising attempts to elucidate the pre-history of Yogācāra doctrines have been made (see DELEANU, 2006:157-162 for all further references). The present writer has argued on another occasion (DELHEY, 2009: 10-13) that a recent attempt by Florin DELEANU (2006:183-196) to assign fixed dates to the different parts of the YoBh is somewhat problematic for methodological reasons. It should, however, be noted that DELEANU himself did not fail to mention the very tentative and conjectural character of his chart (ibid.:195). The canonical texts which the authors and compilers of the YoBh transmitted were obviously those of the so-called Mūlasarvāstivāda recension.14 This is, among others, for two reasons very important to note: To begin with, text-critical work on the numerous exegetical portions of the YoBh texts can profit to a certain degree from consulting other texts belonging to this recension. Moreover, there seem to be quite a few instances in which doctrinal innovations of the compilers of the YoBh only become fully understandable against the background of this recension of the canonical texts.
0.4.2 Finally, some remarks on the structure of the YoBh corpus seem not to
be out of place here, the more so as the systematic overview of YoBh materials in
§2 of this contribution is ordered in accordance with certain presuppositions
regarding this problem. It is more than likely that the division of the corpus into
five parts, as it appears in the Chinese translation, is more original than the division
into eight parts of the Tibetan bstan 'gyur .16 Accordingly, §2 of the present article is
subdivided in §2.1-5. Regarding the order of the third to fifth part of the corpus,
the historical sources are widely at variance; however, in the present contribution
12f.); SCHMITHAUSEN (2000); and DELEANU (2006:172-176). Most recently, BUESCHER
(2008) has tried to refute SCHMITHAUSEN's hypothesis on the origin and early doctrinal
history of the ālayavijñāna concept. However, in terms of literary history his stratification
seemingly only differs in relatively few, though important, details. 14 See DELEANU (2006:159) for references to the most important pertinent research
contributions. Cp. also DELHEY (2009:74f.). 15 See, e.g., SCHMITHAUSEN (1987b:19f.) and DELHEY (2009:68 n. 188). 16 In the Tibetan translation of the Basic Section, the ŚrBh and the BoBh , which are
the two most bulky chapters, are omitted; instead they have been transmitted as separate parts of the YoBh . The same omission can be observed in the YoBh MS (No.2 in §1.2). However, it is very likely that in both cases rather practical reasons than different viewpoints on the structure of the YoBh are to be held responsible for this procedure. Regarding the separation of the *Vinayasaṃgrahaṇī from the Vastusaṃgrahaṇī in Tibet, see §2.5 of the present contribution.
the testimony of the Chinese translation has been followed regarding this problem
as well.17 The first and second part of the YoBh are both structured in accordance
with the fixed set of seventeen levels (bhūmi ); their number and sequence is,
among others, well attested by their enumeration in the very beginning of the first
part (Bh. 3). This does, however, not entail that each of the first two parts is further
subdivided into seventeen sections . Instead, in both parts sometimes two or three
levels (bhūmi ) are dealt with together in one and the same section. The sections
within the different parts are sometimes further subdivided into smaller units that
even receive their own colophons (like, for instance, the so-called yogasthāna s of
the BoBh , which are again subdivided into chapters [paṭala ]). The numbering of
the subsections within §2.1 to §2.5 of the present contribution very often deviates
for certain practical reasons from the structure – but not from the sequence –
within the five parts of the YoBh .
0.5 It is not my intention to provide a history of modern scholarship on the
YoBh here. However, a short historical sketch concerning the discovery and
exploration of the Sanskrit manuscripts might be useful. A dim knowledge about
the YoBh and its importance was already present in Western scholarship by
roughly the middle of the 19th century.18 At that time, scholars had to rely on
Tibetan and Chinese sources and their translations into Western languages for
gaining some knowledge about the YoBh . This situation did not change fundamentally
until the year 1904 when the Japanese scholar Unrai WOGIHARA (= Unrai
OGIWARA [荻原雲来]) traveled from Strasbourg to Cambridge in order to study
and transcribe a very old Nepalese manuscript of the BoBh , which was the only
Sanskrit codex of the YoBh known at that time (No. 3 in §1.2).19 WOGIHARA's
preoccupation with this Sanskrit text probably marked the beginning of serious
modern scholarship on the YoBh as an Indian Buddhist text. The fate of YoBh
studies continued to be firmly linked to the discovery and availability (and also the
legibility ) of Sanskrit manuscripts in the one hundred years to come, although
important and influential publications relying exclusively or predominantly on the
translations have already been published when no Sanskrit texts or only a small
part of them was available.20 During the 1930s, WOGIHARA published his edition
of the BoBh at last. By that time, a second BoBh manuscript of very late origin had
been found, which WOGIHARA also used in his edition (No. 6 in §1.2).
At about the same time, Rāhula SĀṄKṚTYĀYANA discovered no fewer than
three fairly old different Sanskrit manuscripts containing parts of the YoBh during
his heroic and extraordinarily successful travels to Tibet in search of Sanskrit
17 For details on this problem, see DELEANU (2006:47) and DELHEY (2009:4 n.6). 18 In 1859, for instance, Carl Friedrich KOEPPEN already referred to the work as
"famous" and cited older publications on this subject. He identified Asaṅga as its author
and stated that this Buddhist scholar had written this work probably in the fourth or fifth
century, thereby laying the foundation for the Yogācāra school as a scholastic system of
Buddhist thought. He confuses, however, the Yogācāra school with Tantric Buddhism
(KOEPPEN, 1859:32). 19 It is not necessary to go into any further detail here. The early history of the
reception of the BoBh in modern scholarship is well known and has, moreover, been
described before. See especially WANGCHUK (2007:357-359). 20 For instance, TUCCI's studies on pre-Dignāga texts on Buddhist logic including the
Hetuvidyā section of the YoBh (especially in his journal article TUCCI 1929 on this subject)
or UI's (1958) book-length study on the YoBh .
manuscripts.21 Two of them he found in Zha lu (No. 1 and 4 in §1.2), and a third one was discovered in Sa skya by him (No. 2 in §1.2). He took photographs of all three codices. Back in India, he obviously handed all his negatives over to the Bihar Research Society in Patna (BANDURSKI, 1994:13).22 Shortly afterwards, Giuseppe TUCCI visited the same places as SĀṄKṚTYĀYANA and took his own photographs of the three manuscripts containing parts of the YoBh . Unfortunately, until very recently these materials in the possession of TUCCI remained unknown to the scholarly public.
In the following decades, several Indian scholars published editions on the
basis of SĀṄKṚTYĀYANA's YoBh photographs. Paul DEMIÉVILLE already complained
in 1954 about the fact that these important materials had – except for a
very short excerpt – not yet been published.24 However, even decades later a
considerable amount of text contained in these manuscripts remained unedited. In
1991, J. C. JHA of the K. P. Jayaswal Research Institute in Patna mentioned that
there is a program in this institution to publish all these texts (see SHUKLA, 1991:
11). Still, as regards editions by Indian scholars the situation has not changed until
the present day. Access to the photographs has always been very restricted; only
very few prints found their way to other parts of the scholarly world. The largest
collection of materials gathered by SĀṄKṚTYĀYANA, which also included prints of
the photographs mentioned above, was acquired in the 1960s and '70s by the
Seminar für Indologie und Buddhismuskunde of the University of Göttingen and
later handed over to the Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek in
Göttingen (see BANDURSKI, 1994, for a catalog of these materials). Other prints of
the manuscripts under consideration here are in the private possession of Prof. Dr.
Lambert SCHMITHAUSEN. The late Prof. Dr. Alex WAYMAN managed to obtain
prints in the 1950s; however, it seems that he only possessed the photographs of
one of the MSS (No. 1 in §1.2). SCHMITHAUSEN received the first copies of these
MSS in 1969 (see SCHMITHAUSEN, 1969b:9), and immediately started to make use
of them; he did not, however, start to prepare full-fledged critical editions or to
entrust his pupils with these tasks until quite a few years later, when he received
21 The impact his discoveries had on YoBh studies is enhanced by the fact that he also
found manuscripts of some closely related Yogācāra texts, especially of the Abhidharmasamuccaya
(incomplete MS) and Abhidharmasamuccayabhāṣya . 22 Later on, the negatives were for some time stored in the K. P. Jayaswal Research
Institute (see, e.g., BANDURSKI, 1994:13), before they were returned to the Bihar Research
Society (ibid.:15 n. 17). 23 A decade ago, Francesco SFERRA published a first preliminary report on TUCCI's
collection (SFERRA, 2000). At the time when that article was written, only the photographs
of one BoBh MS (No. 4 in §1.2) had been found (see SFERRA, 2000:410). In the meantime,
photographs of the other two MSS have been identified as well, as becomes clear from the
thoroughly revised and enlarged version of the preliminary report (see SFERRA, 2009:41, 46,
47). In August 2009, Prof. Dr. Francesco SFERRA informed me about this discovery and
sent me electronic copies of all these photographs together with a preliminary table of
contents. I am deeply indebted to this scholar for his kind help. For more general information
on TUCCI's collection and his expeditions to Tibet and the Himalayas, see SFERRA
(2009:passim) and NALESINI (2009:passim). 24 DEMIÉVILLE (1954:340 and n. 1). At that time, only a very small portion of the YoBh
MS was available in a critical edition (namely, BHATTACHARYA, 1946). Later on, CONZE
(1963:226) lamented the slowness of the process of editing these materials in his review of
BHATTACHARYA's (1957) and WAYMAN's (1961) partial editions.
permission to prepare such editions (on the condition that they are published in romanized transcription rather than in Devanagari characters).25 Most of the editions and translations of his pupils have been published quite recently, that is, within the last ten or twelve years.
The best set of prints has been made in the 1950s in Patna where they are still stored.26 Nevertheless, one can be quite certain that all scholars alike, whether they are from India or from other parts of the world, had to struggle with the problems posed by the partly very unsatisfactory quality of SĀṄKṚTYĀYANA's photographs. These difficulties are also responsible for the fact that those prints that are accessible have never been made widely available, for instance in a facsimile edition, since secondary copies, including electronic ones, tend to be even harder to read than the primary prints on which they are based.
In the meantime, a few new materials have been discovered and some of the manuscripts from Tibet have reappeared. In 1970, the Nepalese German Manuscript Preservation Project microfilmed another MS from Nepal, which contains only the BoBh (No. 5 in §1.2). Kazunobu MATSUDA made important discoveries of further fragments of the YoBh in Nepal (No. 9a and 9b in §1.2) and in Leningrad (now Saint Petersburg; No. 8 in §1.2) during the 1980s. Among the MSS photographed by SĀṄKṚTYĀYANA and TUCCI, the two MSS from Zha lu (No. 1 and 4 in
§1.2) were, together with many other Sanskrit texts, brought to Beijing in 1960 –
obviously from Sa skya where they seemingly had been kept for longer time –, and
stored for some decades in the "Palace of Culture of the Nationalities" (民族文化
宫 Mínzú wénhuàgōng) in Beijing before they were returned to Tibet in 1993
where they are now kept in Lhasa.27 Before this was done, microfilms were made
to facilitate further research in Beijing (see HU VON-HINÜBER 2006 for all details).
Early in the 1980s, at about the same time when in Hamburg SCHMITHAUSEN
and his pupils began to prepare critical editions, some scholars from Taishō
University in Tokyo started to publish new partial editions of the Śrāvakabhūmi on
the basis of one of the two Zha lu MSS (No. 1 in §1.2). This study group first had to
rely on prints from SĀṄKṚTYĀYANA's photographs as well. However, in the early
1990s they gained access to the microfilm stored in Beijing. As a further result of
the cooperation with colleagues in China, a beautiful facsimile edition of the MS
was published in 1994. In Hamburg as well as in Tokyo, the Tibetan and Chinese
translations (see below) have generally been taken into full account. A typical
feature of most editions prepared in Germany are parallel editions of the Tibetan text (on the basis of at least two textual witnesses), while the Sanskrit editions
associated with the ŚRĀVAKABHŪMI STUDY GROUP are generally accompanied by
Japanese translations on facing pages.
25 Oral communication by Prof. Dr. Lambert SCHMITHAUSEN. 26 This collection of photo-prints is, for instance, mentioned in ROTH (1970:XVIII).
Some years ago, the now late Dr. ROTH explicitly told me in personal conversation that
these are the best prints which have ever been made. It is, however, at present unclear to
me whether this set also contains prints made from those negatives which are relevant for
the present article. 27 It is somewhat unclear at which place in Lhasa the original manuscripts are kept now.
According to HU-VON HINÜBER (2006:286), they are stored in the Nor bu gling kha.
GYURME (2009:303), however, states that they are kept in the Tibet Museum.
Overview of the Extant Primary Sources
1.1 We have two complete and primary premodern translations of the YoBh at our disposal.28 Both texts are not only extremely worthwhile for the study of the ancient Indian original work, because the Sanskrit text is only partly preserved (see §1.2 below). They also provide us with important information regarding the critical evaluation of the wording as preserved in the extant Sanskrit manuscripts and the interpretation of its meaning. The rendering into Chinese is called Yúqié shīdì lùn (瑜伽師地論; T1579) and has been provided by Xuánzàng's (玄奘, 602?-664) translation bureau.29 The bstan 'gyur contains one complete Tibetan translation of the work, which dates from the beginning of the ninth century.30 Premodern translations into other languages besides Tibetan and Chinese are generally of very limited relevance for recovering the original text of the YoBh . All of them seem to be secondary translations from Tibetan or Chinese.
28 As regards their completeness, it should, however, be noted that the two translations are at variance regarding the presence or absence of some sections of the Vastusaṃgrahaṇī . See below, §2.5. 29 On the production of this translation, its textual witnesses and the relative use of consulting other editions of the Chinese canon than the Taishō edition, see the comprehensive discussion in DELEANU (2006:106-146). – No less than ten other Chinese texts are enumerated as partial translations (see the convenient overview in YŪKI, 1962:61). Seven of these correspond to the BoBh as a whole or to its Śīlapaṭala ; the other three translations correspond to parts of the Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī (SUGAWARA, 1990:319 note 7). See ibid. and the appropriate places of §2 for details. – The problem of a lost Chinese translation, the so-called *Saptadaśabhūmiśāstra by Paramārtha, has been extensively dealt with in DELEANU (2006:196-201). 30 This fact is well known. See, e.g., DELEANU (2006:73-77) for more details and references. As regards the testimony of the oldest Tibetan catalogs, the reader may now also be referred to the new Lhan kar ma edition by HERRMANN-PFANDT (2008). It is especially
noteworthy that recently another early Tibetan catalog which has for a long time been considered to be lost, namely the 'Phang thang ma , has been discovered and published. This ancient document lists the YoBh as well. See HERRMANN-PFANDT (2008:346[ff.]). See ibid.: LXXIII for references to editions of this catalog. – The Tibetan translation of the YoBh is preserved in all five editions of the bsTan 'gyur known to be extant. As regards the text of the YoBh , these are clearly distinguished into two groups, namely, in the textual witnesses Peking (Q5536-5543), Narthang and Ganden (the "Golden Tanjur"; G3535-3542), on the one hand, and the block prints Derge (D4035-4042) and Cone, on the other hand (see DELEANU, 2006:78ff.; KRAMER, 2005:67; WANGCHUK, 2007:381). For studies on fragments from Dūnhuáng of the Tibetan YoBh , see FUJITA, 1979; HAKAMAYA, 1985:220-224; ISHIKAWA, 1992, 1993, 1994. Cp. also the remarks on the Śrāvakabhūmi fragments in DELEANU (2006:77f.). 31 DELEANU (2006:17f. n. 1) only mentions a Mongolian translation made from the Tibetan version and traditional Japanese kundoku translations made from the Chinese version. See ibid. for further details and ibid.:61 for additional remarks on the traditional Japanese renderings (in the bibliography of the present contribution only one of the kundoku translations is listed, i.e., Seishin KATŌ, 1930-1935). There is, however, seemingly also a Uighur translation of the YoBh extant (see VON GABAIN, 1961:509; VON GABAIN, 1963:222). I assume that this is also only a secondary rendering from the Chinese translation, although the publications mentioned above do not explicitly state this. I am neither aware of any publications devoted to a study of this manuscript nor have I found a reference regarding its whereabouts. – NAKAMURA (1980:257 n. 24) also states that "fragments of the Old Khotanese translation of the Bodhisattvabhūmi " are extant. However, I suspect
1.2 Roughly 50% of the whole YoBh are preserved in the Sanskrit original.32
The extant manuscripts (or photographs of manuscripts) are:33
1) The so-called Śrāvakabhūmi MS (ŚrBh MS). Nowadays stored in
Lhasa (see n. 27 for details). Cat. Beijing no. 20-22. Material: palmleaf.
Date: no date given in MS; perhaps 11th century CE (see
DELEANU, 2006:54-58). Reproductions: a) Facsimile edition,
CHINA LIBRARY OF NATIONALITIES and THE INSTITUTE FOR
COMPREHENSIVE STUDIES OF BUDDHISM (TAISHŌ UNIVERSITY)
1994. b) A microfilm copy stored in Beijing. c) Photographs taken
by Rāhula SĀṄKṚTYĀYANA (No. 350 and 351 in SĀṄKṚTYĀYANA,
1938:144f.); the negatives are stored at the Bihar Research Society,
Patna. Photo-prints of these negatives are, among others, in the possession
of the Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek
in Göttingen (No. 26 [Xc 14/27] in BANDURSKI, 1994:61ff.).
d) Photographs taken by Giuseppe TUCCI; stored in the Oriental Department of the Library of the Istituto Italiano per l'Africa e l'Oriente in Rome (see SFERRA 2009:46 and 51).34 2) The so-called Yogācārabhūmi MS (YoBh MS). Present location: Sa skya?35 Material: palm-leaf. Date: no date given in MS; perhaps approximately 1000 CE (see DELHEY, 2009:78-80). Reproductions: a) Photographs taken by Rāhula SĀṄKṚTYĀYANA (No. 199 in SĀṄKṚTYĀYANA, 1937:24); the negatives are stored at the Bihar Research Society, Patna. Photo-prints of these negatives are, among others, in the possession of the Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek in Göttingen (no. 27 [Xc 14/28] in BANDURSKI,
1994:64f.). b) Photographs taken by Giuseppe TUCCI; stored in the Oriental Department of the Library of the Istituto Italiano per that NAKAMURA simply alludes, albeit in a somewhat misleading way, to the Old Khotanese adaptation of the Śīlapaṭala of the BoBh (for which see below, §2.1.9.3). At any rate, it is indeed interesting to note that such a paraphrasis of one section of the YoBh is preserved in Khotanese, since the extant texts in this language are, in contrast to the traditional Japanese and Mongolian renderings, usually directly based on Indian sources (see, e.g., EMMERICK, 1992:17). 32 The news I have just heard regarding the Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī manuscript (see n. 44), are not yet taken into consideration in this estimate. 33 Cp. also n. 136 on the possible existence of a further BoBh manuscript, which has not been listed here. 34 There are a few cases in which the photographs still have to be used, since there has been a further loss of akṣara s on the damaged leaves of this manuscript in the roughly 50 years between SĀṄKṚTYĀYANA's original discovery of the manuscript and its reappearance in Beijing. – On SĀṄKṚTYĀYANA's photographs and the rediscovery of the original manuscript, see also MATSUNAMI (1992), ŚRĀVAKABHŪMI STUDY GROUP (1992b), ŚRĀVAKABHŪMI
STUDY GROUP (1994), and DELEANU (2006:51f.). – A very useful research tool for this MS is SUZUKI's (1995) table of the characters used in its script. The detailed collation table of the contents of this MS and the Tibetan (Peking block-print) and Chinese translations in ŚRĀVAKABHŪMI STUDY GROUP (1994:7-22) is indispensable, and this holds even good if one wants to study only the Sanskrit text contained in this codex. 35 Until one or two years ago, the manuscript was considered to have been lost. However, according to a recent oral communication by Prof. SCHMITHAUSEN it is probably still preserved and kept in Sa skya. But it has definitely not yet become available to the public. The Yogācārabhūmi Corpus
l'Africa e l'Oriente in Rome (see SFERRA 2009:41).36 The whereabouts
of a hand-written transcript of the whole codex, which
SĀṄKṚTYĀYANA made under extremely difficult circumstances
while still being in Tibet, are regrettably not known.37
3) The Cambridge MS of the BoBh . Stored at the Cambridge University
Library (no. Add. 1702 in BENDALL, 1883).38 Material: palmleaf.
Date: no date given in MS; approximately 9th century (see
WANGCHUK, 2007:363)?
4) The so-called Patna MS of the BoBh . Nowadays stored in Lhasa (see n. 27 for details). Cat. Beijing no. 19. Material: palm-leaf. Date: no date given in MS; 12th-14th century CE (see ROTH, 1975- 1976:404)? Reproductions: a) A microfilm copy stored in Beijing. b) Photographs taken by Rāhula SĀṄKṚTYĀYANA (No. 352 in SĀṄKṚ- TYĀYANA 1938:145); the negatives are stored at the Bihar Research Society, Patna. Photo-prints of these negatives are, among others, in the possession of the Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen (no. 28 [Xc 14/29] in BANDURSKI, 1994:65f.). c) Photographs taken by Giuseppe TUCCI; stored in the Oriental Department of the Library of the Istituto Italiano per l'Africa e l'Oriente in Rome (see SFERRA 2009:47).39 5) A BoBh MS. Stored in the National Archives, Kathmandu (accession no.: 3/681). Material: palm-leaf. Date: no date given in MS.40 Reproductions: Microfilmed by the NGMPP in 1970 (reel no.: A 38/3).
6) The Kyoto MS of the BoBh . Stored in the Faculty of Letters, University of Kyoto.41 Cataloged in GOSHIMA & NOGUCHI (1983: 20-21); serial number 74 / E 263. Material: paper. Date: no date given in MS; very recent, probably from the 19th century (see DE JONG, 1987:165).
36 SĀṄKṚTYĀYANA's photographs of this MS are in some places especially problematic. Moreover, on most folios some akṣara s are covered by pushpins. Therefore, it is to be expected that TUCCI's newly discovered photographs, though they are certainly not perfect in themselves, will render much help in future editions of the MS. 37 See SUGAWARA (1990:322). Cp. also MUCH (1988:12). – SĀṄKṚTYĀYANA produced this handwritten copy, because he already anticipated that the photographs might not be of a very good quality (SĀṄKṚTYĀYANA 1937:19 and 55). The transcript was still available when BHATTACHARYA prepared his edition of the first chapters of the YoBh (see BHATTACHARYA, 1957: Foreword, p. 3; cp. also BHATTACHARYA, 1946:28, and PANDEY, 1987:228). YONEZAWA (1998:10) states that PANDEY (1987) prepared his edition of the Pratyekabuddhabhūmi on the basis of the transcript. It is true that PANDEY does not mention the photographs in the introduction to his edition (PANDEY, 1987:228). However, he also mentions the transcript only when he talks about BHATTACHARYA's edition. Therefore, it seems that it is not at all sure that PANDEY still had access to the transcript – at least if YONEZAWA's assumption is only derived from this remark of PANDEY. 38 This MS is generally abbreviated as C. 39 Sigla used for this manuscript include P, B, and R. 40 It has, to the best of my knowledge, also not been dated on the basis of paleographical features so far. 41 Generally abbreviated as K. – Recently, a copy of this manuscript was made available in the library of the Asia-Africa-Institute in Hamburg.
7) A short Central Asian BoBh fragment (SHT III 964)42 from the German Turfan collection. Material: paper. Date: no date given in MS; probably written approximately between the 7th and 10th century.43 8) A comparably long fragment of the Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī stored at the Saint Petersburg branch of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Leningrad Ms. Ind. VII.23 [421]).44 Material: paper.
9) A compilation of single folios taken from eight different manuscripts.
Stored in the National Archives in Kathmandu (accession
no.: 1/1697). Material: palm-leaf. Date: no date given in MS; certainly
fairly old (see MATSUDA & STEINKELLNER, 1991:140 for details).
Reproductions: Microfilmed by the NGMPP (reel no. A 39/3).
Two of the single folios contain text from the YoBh :45
a) one folio of the Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī .46
b) one folio of the Paryāyasaṃgrahaṇī .47
Only the fragments no. 8 and 9 contain text belonging to the second to fifth part of the work. The other manuscripts cover, taken together, nearly the whole Basic Section.48 The codices nos. 3 to 6 as well as the small fragment no. 7 contain only text belonging to the BoBh (see §2.1.9 below for some more remarks on these MSS). The remaining two manuscripts no. 1 and 2 both contain no passages of the BoBh , but cover, taken together, the rest of the Basic Section nearly completely. While the greater part of no. 1 contains nearly49 the complete text of the Śrāvakabhūmi , no. 2 contains all chapters of the Basic Section with the exception of the BoBh and the Śrāvakabhūmi .
Since the ŚrBh MS also contains quite a few other chapters and parts of other chapters, the contents of no. 1 and no. 2 overlap to some degree. Therefore, even 42 Transcribed in WALDSCHMIDT et al. (1965ff., vol. III, p. 225). 43 My estimate is exclusively based on SANDER's (1968:46f.) remarks concerning the date of MSS which have been found in Šorčuq and are written in "nordturkistanische Brāhmī, Typ a." – See below (§2.1.9.4) for further details on this fragment. 44 See MATSUDA (1988) for details. See also below, §2.2.1.2. According to an e-mail
communication by Prof. Jonathan SILK dated April 19, 2010 (in which he cites from an e‑mail message he has received from Prof. Kazunobu MATSUDA in November 2009), further folios of the same manuscript seem to be stored at the Potala Palace in Lhasa. They are, however, seemingly unaccessible to the scholarly public. 45 See MATSUDA (1990) for further details. Some pieces of information can also be gathered from his publications written in English; see MATSUDA & STEINKELLNER (1991: 139-141) and MATSUDA (2002). The news of this discovery came too late to be included in SUGAWARA (1990). 46 This fragment belongs to the passage where the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra is cited. See below (§2.2.5.3) for details. 47 See below (§2.4). 48 See n. 49 and 50 for information on missing folios and lost akṣara s, respectively. 49 Three small parts of the Śrāvakabhūmi , corresponding roughly to seven to eight folios in the Peking edition of the Tibetan YoBh are missing (see ŚRĀVAKABHŪMI STUDY GROUP, 1994:3 n.7). 50 Only in the beginning and the end of the manuscript, small amounts of text are missing, since a few folios are damaged in the margin. Cp. also n. 36.
quite a few chapters other than the BoBh are completely or partly preserved in
more than one manuscript. Neither of them is the copy of the other (ENOMOTO,
1989: 21; see also DELHEY, 2006:130).
1.3 The relatively few citations of YoBh passages in other preserved Sanskrit texts will be dealt with at the appropriate places in §2. There is one Indian51 text, the Xiǎnyáng shèngjiào lùn (顯揚聖教論; T1602), which consists to a large part of sometimes very lengthy quotations from the YoBh .52 Although this work has – apart from one or two citations53 – only come down to us in Xuánzàng's Chinese rendering, it can be very helpful in recovering the original text of the YoBh .54 1.4 No Indian commentaries on the YoBh are preserved in the original language. There is one short Chinese text, the Yúqiéshīdìlùn shì (瑜伽師地論釋; T1580),55 which is generally regarded as an Indian commentary, while there are five commentaries in Tibetan language that are counted as translations from Indian texts.56 Four of these are exclusively devoted to the BoBh (as a whole or only to parts of it),57 while the fifth text, the *Yogacārabhūmivyākhyā (Rnal 'byor spyod pa'i sa rnam par bshad pa ; Q5543, D4042) was presumably originally – or
was at least intended to be – a commentary on the whole work (or on the whole
Basic Section). In its transmitted form, however, it remains a torso.58 The Chinese
text mentioned above (T1580) seems to be a related yet different commentary.59
51 There is at least one short quotation in the *Yogacārabhūmivyākhyā (see SCHMITHAUSEN,
1987b:261 n. 99, who refers to Kazunobu MATSUDA). This is one of the reasons
why there can be no doubt that this text originated in India and was not compiled by
Xuánzàng himself. 52 For a concordance of parallels between the YoBh and the Xiǎnyáng lùn , see HAYASHIMA
& MŌRI (1990:54-68). This table collects the relevant information contained in
earlier pertinent Japanese publications, but also contains additions by HAYASHIMA and
MŌRI themselves. For a bibliography of this text, see ibid.:79-82 and HAYASHIMA (1997).
More recently, CHOI (2001) has published an important book-length study on this text. 53 See n. 51. 54 This holds especially good in those cases where the respective part of the YoBh is
only preserved in a few better textual witnesses. It goes without saying that much critical judgment is needed to evaluate which deviations in the Xiǎnyáng lùn may point to a different reading in the original YoBh and which readings are peculiarities of the original text of the Xiǎnyáng lùn . 55 NAKAMURA's (1980:258 n. 29) remark that the Sanskrit text has been found and edited is quite obviously a (rather strange) mistake. 56 SUGAWARA (1990:318f. and 320 n. 8). 57 For some details on these texts, see below (§2.1.9). 58 It stops abruptly in the commentary on the Savitarkādibhūmi of the Basic Section (Bh. 137; see HAKAMAYA, notes, vol. 10, p. 3.) 59 The Chinese commentary consists merely of a correspondence to the introductory section of the *Yogācārabhūmivyākhyā . MUKAI (1979:42) has pointed to the similarities between these sections in the two texts. SILK has even suggested that both texts are renderings of the same Indian commentary (SILK, 1997:240 n. 44). However, the many differences between both texts render this assumption extremely unlikely (see also DELEANU, 2006:265, who also cautions against a premature identification of the two texts). It is true that quite a few passages seem to be translations of the same, or nearly the same, Sanskrit text. But there are far too many deviations – e.g., statements or even whole topics dealt with that can be found only in one of the two texts or elements which are found in
Both works are of special importance when one is interested in the YoBh as a whole and how it was conceived in later Indian Buddhism.60 It seems that quite a few more commentaries on the YoBh have been written in India, however, these commentaries have not come down to us.61
Detailed Survey of Sources, Editions, and Modern Translations
2.0 In the following pages, an overview regarding the materials available for each part, section, and subsection of the YoBh will be presented. It should be noted that there are countless publications wherein very short passages from different parts of the YoBh are translated or dealt with in a text-critical way. For obvious reasons, hardly any of these brief citations will be mentioned.62 An extraordinarily high amount of such passages – which, above all, are dealt with in a philologically extremely sound way – are contained in SCHMITHAUSEN (1987b). These can be found quite easily by using the indices of the monograph.63 Before we begin a detailed overview, some more remarks on editions, modern translations, and reference works pertaining to the work as a whole should be made. The Chinese text of the YoBh is available in modern editions, in which variants from different textual witnesses are collated and, at least partly, also critically evaluated. The so-called Taishō edition, which is by far the most widespread version of the Chinese canon, also contains such features. However, one
must be aware of the fact that this edition, though it certainly is impressive, does not fulfill the highest standards of textual criticism (see, e.g., YUYAMA, 1994:231); moreover, in the meantime some more textual witnesses have become available.64 Recently, a collated edition of the Tibetan YoBh has been published within the framework of an on-going publication of the whole bsTan 'gyur (ZT). However, both texts but are filled with different contents – to make SILK's assumption likely. In my view, there are only two possible explanations for the differences. Either both texts are renderings of different commentaries. In this case, the literal agreements can easily be explained by the fact that both texts belong to the same (partly certainly oral) commentarial tradition handed down from generation to generation amongst the Yogācāra scholars. A second possibility is probably less likely, but can maybe not be excluded outright: Xuánzàng might have compiled a mixed commentary from different written (and perhaps also oral?) sources for his Chinese pupils. 60 Therefore, they certainly deserve more scholarly attention than they have, to the best of my knowledge, received so far. This has already been stated by SILK (1997:240 n. 44). 61 See YŪKI (1962:61-77), but compare now DELEANU (2006:249f. and 263f.). 62 I have, however, decided to list all partial editions (Sanskrit [if available], Tibetan, Chinese) and translations contained in SAKUMA (1990), although quite a few of them are limited to very tiny text portions as well. 63 Another monograph containing numerous text passages from all over the YoBh is KRITZER (2005). The original wording is given in Tibetan (with text-critical remarks) and Chinese throughout. If the Sanskrit text is extant, it is given as well (he also makes use of some earlier emendations, e.g., by SCHMITHAUSEN regarding these passages). However, this holds only good for the Sanskrit text as contained in the older book-length editions like BHATTACHARYA, 1957, although KRITZER is well aware of the fact that many other editions are available (see KRITZER, 2005:XV, n. 8). This is rather strange. Did he have no access to any of these materials? See also TAKAHASHI (2005b) regarding this monograph. 64 Cp. the reference at the beginning of n. 29.
this edition can by no means be called a critical one.65 A complete English translation
of Xuánzàng's Chinese rendering is scheduled to be prepared within the
framework of the BDK English Tripiṭaka Series.66 The Japanese kundoku renderings
of the entire Chinese YoBh (see n. 31 for references) can, without denying
their merits and usefulness, not really be called translations into modern Japanese,
since they merely reproduce the Chinese characters in the Japanese word order
and with the addition of Japanese grammatical particles.
A very comprehensive trilingual index of the YoBh has been published in Japan (YOKOYAMA & HIROSAWA, 1996 and 1997). However, SILK (2001:150-168) has severely, and rightly so, criticized these two volumes. One major point of criticism regards the fact that the editors have only taken very few of the edited Sanskrit texts into account. As a result, no Sanskrit equivalents are given for passages that are already available in Indian language and unreliable ones for other passages, since bad editions have even been chosen as a basis when better ones are available (ibid.). Nevertheless, the index is certainly helpful, if one uses it with due caution.67 SILK (ibid.) has also mentioned other published indices of the YoBh .68 The most noteworthy addition to Silk's discussion is the index by CHOI (2002).69 This index is especially important for two reasons: Firstly, it is, unlike 65 On ZT, which as a matter of fact does not pretend to be critical, see DELEANU (2006: 90f.). Cp. on this edition – which is sometimes referred to as the Sichuan or Chengdu edition – also WANGCHUK (2007:19). According to the bibliographical details contained in the volumes of this edition, the place of publication is Beijing. Accordingly, my esteemed friend and colleague Prof. Dr. Dorji WANGCHUK asked me to correct the pertinent bibliographical detail given in WANGCHUK (2007:392). Nevertheless, the designation as the Sichuan edition certainly makes some sense, since the collation bureau that is in charge of preparing this edition is located in Chengdu, Sichuan (oral communication by Dorji WANGCHUK). 66 Since this rendering has been announced as part of the first series of this gigantic project which aims at the translation of the complete Chinese Buddhist canon, one can be confident that it will be published in the foreseeable future. Many of the volumes which have appeared so far have not only been produced by serious scholars but even by experts in the respective texts. Therefore, there is good reason to look forward to this publication with great anticipation. However, it would be very naive to assume that such a project can render translations from the extant Sanskrit texts superfluous (the same holds, by the way, even good for translations from the usually more literal Tibetan version; see YUYAMA, 1994:230f., on this topic). And even regarding the parts of the YoBh that are not extant in the original language, a translation based on both the Tibetan and Chinese versions is certainly more desirable, if one wants to come as close as possible to the thoughts expressed in the lost Sanskrit original. Moreover, the translators of the BDK series are explicitly discouraged by the editors from including extensive annotations for scholarly use in the volumes. 67 Its usefulness has been enhanced by the decision to make an electronic searchable version of the index freely available in the Internet. It seems, however, that nowadays only an archived version from 2002 remains available at the Internet Archive (URL: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.buddhist-term.org/yoga-table/). 68 In the present contribution, they are briefly mentioned at the appropriate places of'
§2. An older index of the YoBh (INABA, 1952), which seems to include Sanskrit equivalents from the BoBh , has not been available to me. See SILK (2001:166f.) and SUGAWARA (1990:328 n. 56) for this item. 69 An earlier form of the same index can be found in CHOI (2001:213-360). The only differences between the older and the newer versions seem to consist in the facts that in the
YOKOYAMA & HIROSAWA (1996 and 1997), based on a very reliable edition.
Secondly, it is methodologically praiseworthy since it takes grammatical and
syntactical features (also of the Chinese versions!) into consideration. It is,
however, based on a limited amount of text, namely on some sections of the
Śrāvakabhūmi and their parallels in the Xiǎnyáng lùn . Therefore, we urgently
need more such indices. Recently a Chinese-Tibetan Index has been published in
China (HUANG et al., 2001), which is, however, of no practical value – at least, if
one wants to deal with the YoBh as an Indian text.
It goes without saying that a significant amount of the vocabulary of the YoBh is not covered by the general dictionaries of the Sanskrit language. Regarding the BoBh , however, some help is available, most notably in the form of EDGERTON's Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Dictionary (EDGERTON, 1953), but the second part of UI's Bodhisattvabhūmi Index (UI, 1961:313-591) is helpful as well, at least for those scholars who read some Japanese (DE JONG, 1987:164). Other pertinent references are WOGIHARA (1904 and 1908) or DE JONG (1987:166-171). Insofar as the BoBh shares much of its peculiar vocabulary with other parts of the YoBh , the publications mentioned above are also useful, though not sufficient, for the study of the latter texts. The SWTF is another dictionary that can be helpful at times; its scope has, however, been defined in such a way that only very few texts associated with the Mūlasarvāstivādin recension of canonical materials are taken into account (see SWTF, vol. 1, p. XXIV-XXVIII). Further corrections and additions to EDGERTON (1953) can, of course, also be found in editions of certain text portions of the YoBh or in studies of selected dogmatic problems written on a philologically sound basis. There are considerably less problems with regard to the grammar of the preserved Sanskrit texts, since they largely follow the rules of classical Sanskrit. However, deviations from this standard do occur once in a while, particularly, as it seems, in the earliest texts like the Śrāvakabhūmi and the Bodhisattvabhūmi . Moreover, problems with regard to the syntax occur quite frequently in certain parts of the text.
In recent years, electronic searchable texts of primary sources have become a very important research tool. The Chinese72 and Tibetan73 translations of the YoBh are already available in such a format. latter one a Sanskrit-Chinese-Index and a Pinyin-Index have been added to the original Chinese-Sanskrit-Tibetan-Index, which is arranged according to the Japanese pronunciation of the Chinese characters. 70 No Sanskrit equivalents or locations of the entries are given. 71 For recent discussions of the language of the Śrāvakabhūmi and the Samāhitā
Bhūmiḥ , see DELEANU (2006:58-59, with further references) and DELHEY (2009:97-104), respectively. 72 There are at least two different electronic versions of the Chinese Buddhist canon available: 1) The version of the Chinese Buddhist Electronic Text Association (CBETA, Taipei) as available in the Internet (URL: http://www.cbeta.org/) and regularly updated CD-ROM versions; 2) The SAT Daizōkyō Text Database by the SAT Daizōkyō Text Database Committee (University of Tokyo); URL: http://21dzk.l.u-tokyo.ac.jp/SAT/ index_en.html. Both versions are based on the Taishō edition of the canon, and both have in recent years even entered the variants which are given at the bottom of the latter edition. The Yogācārabhūmi Database (URL: http://ybh.chibs.edu.tw/) by the Dharma Drum Buddhist College (Jinshan, Taiwan) collects source texts in Chinese, Sanskrit, and Tibetan and enables the user to jump between the parallel passages in the different texts and to read them side by side. Although the database is in its present state far from being
The summary of the YoBh (and YoBh research) that has been contributed by Karl H. POTTER (1999:398-433) to his own Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies is for understandable reasons only of limited helpfulness.74 Very detailed synoptic presentations of the whole contents of the YoBh in East Asian languages are available; they are based on the traditional Sino-Japanese way of analyzing the structure of the text (see, e.g., [Huimin] SHI, 1986:137-199, or the tables of contents in Seishin KATŌ, 1930-1935).
A. The Basic Section
2.1.1 The first of the five parts of the YoBh is the so-called Basic Section75 (Q5536-5538, D4035-4037).76 The introduction and the first six bhūmi s are only extant in the YoBh MS. The bhūmi s one to five have been edited in BHATTACHARYA (1957)(Bh.).77 In this edition, the Sanskrit text has been compared with the Tibetan translation. One must, however, take into consideration that BHATTACHARYA prepared this edition at a time when far less reference works for the study of the Tibetan versions were available. Moreover, he did often not decipher his manuscript correctly or emended the text unnecessarily or even tacitly. Finally, already DEMIÉVILLE (1958) noted that the Chinese translation should also have been taken into consideration.
There is neither a new edition nor a complete translation of the Pañcavijñānakāyasaṃprayuktā Bhūmiḥ (YoBh MS 1b-3b2) available.78 The same holds true for complete or perfect, it is already a useful tool for those researchers who read some Chinese. On this database, see also BHIKKHU et al. (2002). 73 Release VI of the Asian Classics Input Project (URL: http://aciprelease.org/r6web/) contains the whole Tibetan text; earlier releases of this project contained only parts of it. Basis of the input project was obviously an edition of the Derge block print. 74 Some of the problems are mentioned by POTTER himself in his preface to the pertinent volume. Other certainly not unimportant reasons are the scope of his Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies and the fact that Buddhist philosophy does not belong to POTTER's fields of specialty. 75 It remains still somewhat unclear how this part of the YoBh has been called in the Indian Buddhist tradition. Recently, Florin DELEANU (2006:45f.) suggested to reconstruct the title as *Maulyo Bhūmayaḥ ("Basic Levels"), since the singular expression Maulī Bhūmiḥ is attested in a Sanskrit fragment of the Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī as one way to refer to one of the seventeen bhūmi s. However, in the beginning of the Basic Section itself as well as in the colophons of the Sanskrit manuscripts, this section is simply referred to as YoBh , which might point to the fact that this section was the historical nucleus of the larger compilation referred to as YoBh today. See DELEANU ibid. for all further references. 76 On the division of this section into three parts in the Tibetan translation see the
beginning of n. 16. 77 The headings added in brackets by this editor often obscure the real structure of the
text (CONZE, 1963:228; see ibid. for an adequate overview of the contents of the third
chapter, which deals with bhūmi s three to five). Moreover, at least in the last 30 pages or so
of the edition something went wrong in giving the folio numbers of the manuscript. –
BHATTACHARYA (1946) had already edited one passage from the third chapter dealing
with wrong views regarding the ātman roughly a decade before his book-length publication.
This edition was, to the best of my knowledge, the first publication that utilized one of the
YoBh manuscripts discovered and photographed by Rāhula SĀṄKṚTYĀYANA. The edited
passage has been incorporated with slight variations in Bh. 1296-1378. 78 The section has, however, been discussed by SCHMITHAUSEN (1987b:110-117),
mainly from the viewpoint of higher textual criticism.
the second chapter, the Manobhūmi (YoBh MS 3b2-21a3).79 SCHMITHAUSEN
(1987b:127-132), however, contains a new edition, translation and discussion of Bh.
241-10, and a very tiny piece (Bh. 271-3) has been edited and translated in SAKUMA
(1990:145f.). KAJIYAMA (2000) has rendered a cosmological portion of this
chapter into English (= Bh. 3021-4414). On this occasion, KAJIYAMA also gives a list
of corrections to the Sanskrit edition (ibid.:83f.) and discusses variant readings
derived from the Tibetan and Chinese translations in the notes to his translation.80
The list of 64 categories of living beings (sattvanikāya ) occurring in Bh. 487-493 has
been very comprehensively dealt with in HAKAMAYA (1999).
The third chapter (YoBh MS 21a3-63a6) deals with the bhūmi s three to five, namely the Savitarkā Savicārā Bhūmiḥ , the Avitarkā Vicāramātrā Bhūmiḥ , and the Avitarkāvicārā Bhūmiḥ . CHAN (2007:146-184) translates and discusses much of a passage concerned with causation theory (Bh. 105-112). A long section (Bh. 1181- 1609) is devoted to the refutation of 16 heterodox Buddhist and non-Buddhist doctrines (paravāda ). Among these, the first two sections, which refer to Sāṃkhya views (Bh. 11814-1226), have been partly emended (on the basis of the MS), translated and discussed in WEZLER (1985). The first (Bh. 11814-12011) and the second Sāṃkhya section (Bh. 12022-1226) have been translated and discussed by FURUSAKA (2001) and MIKOGAMI (1969), respectively. HAYASHIMA (1991a, 1991b) has dealt with the Buddhist no-self doctrine as it appears in the Xiǎnyáng lùn ; in this context he has also translated at least parts of the Sanskrit text of the ātmavāda section (Bh. 13213-1342 [in HAYASHIMA 1991a]).81 MIKOGAMI (1967) has translated and discussed large parts of the section which is devoted to a refutation of the doctrine that the Self and the World are eternal (śāśvatavāda ; Bh. 137-142); CHEMPARATHY (1968-1969:94-96) rendered the section on the erroneous belief in a creator of the universe (īśvarādikartṛvāda ; Bh. 1447-14518) into English.82 79 It seems that Kairyū SHIMIZU has translated (parts of?) this chapter into Japanese, accompanied by textual notes. I have not seen this series of articles; see the entry SHIMIZU (1985) in the bibliography; cp. also the reference in SCHMITHAUSEN (1987b:605). 80 It is somewhat unclear to what extent KAJIYAMA made use of a copy of the MS as
well. I vaguely remember that the late Prof. KAJIYAMA mentioned his use of the MS when I
was talking to him ten or twelve years ago, and Prof. SCHMITHAUSEN was so kind to tell me
that he definitely gave Prof. KAJIYAMA some copies of the respective folios. However,
more corrections to the edition could be added on the basis of the MS, and in at least one
case KAJIYAMA even proposes an emendation which turns out to be wrong if one takes a
look at the manuscript (sa eca in Bh. 3117 should be emended to sa ca , which is the
manuscript reading, rather than to sa eva , which is KAYIJAMA's suggestion). 81 Unfortunately, the second part of this article, viz. HAYASHIMA (1991b), was not
available to me. –The way in which SHUKLA (1969) is cited in POTTER's bibliography (see n.
4) suggests that this publication contains an English translation of the ātmavāda section.
However, it is rather a paraphrase than a translation. Cp. also HAKAMAYA, notes, where
SHUKLA's treatment of this text is designated as an analysis. 82 His translation is very good. Only in a few places does one gain the impression that
CHEMPARATHY was not familiar with every feature of the idiom in which the YoBh is
written. In n. 44b he suggests to emend sa cet to sā cet because a feminine pronoun is
needed. However, sa cet has become petrified in this text and can even be understood as a
single word meaning "if." On p. 95 (end of first paragraph), CHEMPARATHY translates: "…
by whom this happens to them" instead of "… that is why these (living beings) think: …."
(… | yenaiṣām evaṃ bhavati…, Bh. 14415). – SCHMITHAUSEN (2000:254-259) has examined
the refutation of the nihilist view (nāstikavāda ; edited in Bh. 15119-1555) from the viewpoint
The only partial new edition of a large amount of text contained in Bh. that is
available in published form and is based on the Sanskrit MS covers the kleśasaṃkleśa
section (AHN, 2003:56-87; = Bh. 16010–17010). This edition marks a
tremendous progress83 and shows clearly that BHATTACHARYA's pioneering work
must be superseded by a better one. The Sanskrit text is also accompanied by an
annotated German translation (ibid.:158-214). Another, unfortunately unpublished,
new edition and German translation covers roughly the first half of the
section on karmasaṃkleśa (= Bh. 17011-18222) contained in the chapter on the
third to fifth bhūmi s (AYMORÉ, 1995). KRITZER (1999:83-86) cites and translates
a relatively long passage from the pratītyasamutpāda section (Bh. 2006-20113) as
well as many other shorter passages elsewhere in his monograph. KRITZER always
compares the Tibetan and Chinese versions and suggests some emendations; he
has, however, not made first-hand use of the MS. HARADA (2004) translates parts
of the pratītyasamutpāda section as well (Bh. 19813-20320 and 2146-14). He also gives
a revised version of the Sanskrit text on the basis of Tibetan, Chinese, and the
Vastusaṃgrahaṇī parallel (for which, see §2.5 and n. 201), but he obviously did not
have access to the MS, either.
The text of the sixth bhūmi , the Samāhitā Bhūmiḥ (YoBh MS 63a6-82b6), remained for a very long time nearly84 completely unpublished. Most recently, a critical edition of the whole Sanskrit text has appeared (DELHEY, 2009).85 The beginning of the text and several short passages from all over the chapter are translated into German.
2.1.2 The short Asamāhitā Bhūmiḥ (YoBh MS 82b6-83a5) is extant in both the
ŚrBh MS and the YoBh MS. A critical edition on the basis of both manuscripts is
available (DELHEY, 2006:134-136). 86 Recently, the ŚRĀVAKABHŪMI STUDY
GROUP (2007:275-280) published a revised version of its own earlier Asamāhitā
Bhūmiḥ edition,87 in which most, though not all, of the variants contained in the
other edition mentioned above have been incorporated.88 Translations of the
of higher textual criticism, but many remarks regarding different readings are also included
in his discussion. 83 To give just one example: Two very important definitions, namely, those of ignorance
(avidyā ) and doubt (vicikitsā ), appear in a completely garbled form in Bh. while they
appear correctly in the manuscript and in AHN's edition. See DELHEY (2007) for further
details. 84 A few very short citations can be found mainly in the works of Lambert
SCHMITHAUSEN, including, among others, the famous "Initial Passage" of his monograph
on ālayavijñāna (SCHMITHAUSEN, 1987b:276, n. 146). 85 See Internet, URL: http://www.istb.univie.ac.at/wstb/WSTB_73_errata.pdf for a first
errata slip. Moreover, it should be noted that TUCCI's photographs of the YoBh MS (see
§.1.2) were not yet available when the final draft of this book was sent to the publishers. 86 This publication contains a couple of mistakes which might create some confusion,
though they do not concern the critical editions and translations themselves. The corrections
have been included in the errata slip mentioned in n. 85. 87 The first edition is contained in ŚRĀVAKABHŪMI STUDY GROUP (1992a). The YoBh
MS has not been utilized in either edition. 88 This happened in spite of the fact that the before-mentioned edition reached the
members of the Study Group only shortly before they finalized their book draft.
chapter into German (DELHEY, 2006:140-144) and modern Japanese (ŚRĀVAKABHŪMI STUDY GROUP, 2007:275-280)89 have been published. 2.1.3 Alex WAYMAN (1960:378-376) has edited the Sacittikā and Acittikā Bhūmiḥ on the basis of the ŚrBh MS.90 This edition is superseded by Lambert SCHMITHAUSEN's (1987b:220-222) very reliable version, wherein all relevant textual materials, including the pertinent part of the YoBh MS (83a5-83b5), have been taken into account. WAYMAN (1984:329-330) has translated the chapter into English.
2.1.4.1 The Śrutamayī Bhūmiḥ (YoBh MS 83b5-102b4) is divided into five sections, which have the five "branches of knowledge" (vidyāsthāna ) as their subjectmatter. The text of the whole chapter can be found in the YoBh MS, while in the ŚrBh MS section one dealing with the knowledge of Buddhist doctrine (adhyātmavidyā ) is missing except for its end. The quite long part only preserved in the YoBh MS remains nearly completely unedited. A short passage from this part has been critically edited and discussed in SCHMITHAUSEN (2000:246-254)(= Q5536.184a6- 185b6 = T1579.345b4-c16).91 The end of section one has been edited critically and translated into Japanese, but only on the basis of the ŚrBh MS (ŚRĀVAKABHŪMI STUDY GROUP, 2007:281-305).92 The same holds true for the very short second section, which deals with the art of healing (cikitsāvidyā ) (ŚRĀVAKABHŪMI STUDY GROUP, 2007: 304-305).93
2.1.4.2 Quite in line with the extraordinarily great interest scholars have always taken in that section of this chapter which deals with the art of logical reasoning (hetuvidyā )94, no fewer than four scholars have published editions of the Sanskrit text. However, none of these publications are based on both of the extant manuscripts. While PANDEY (1986:334-348) took the YoBh MS as his basis, SHUKLA (1991: Appendix III, pp. 14-25), YAITA (1992:511-546),95 and WAYMAN (1999:3- 41) relied on the ŚrBh MS. YAITA's edition additionally makes use of a very broad range of other textual materials.96 Moreover, YAITA compensated for the fact that he did not use the YoBh MS to a certain extent by incorporating PANDEY's readings.97 However, unfortunately PANDEY's edition contains numerous mis- 89 Revised version of the pertinent passage in ŚRĀVAKABHŪMI STUDY GROUP (1992a). 90 The Sanskrit text has been reproduced without alterations in WAYMAN (1984:327-
328), where, however, the text-critical notes have been omitted. 91 Very short citations from the manuscript can be found in some other publications,
for instance, in the introduction of Jong-Nam CHOI's monograph on the seventh chapter of
the Xiǎnyáng lùn (CHOI, 2001:40-41) and in SAKUMA (1990:147-148). 92 Revised version of the pertinent parts in ŚRĀVAKABHŪMI STUDY GROUP (1992a and
1993). 93 Revised version of the pertinent part in ŚRĀVAKABHŪMI STUDY GROUP (1993). 94 See WAYMAN (1958:29) for some references to older literature on the subject. 95A recent revised version of this edition will be dealt with further below. 96 He made full use of the Tibetan and the Chinese translations and also compared the
citation of the hetuvidyā in the Xiǎnyáng lùn , which is only preserved in Xuánzàng's
Chinese rendering. – Some corrections to YAITA's edition can be found in YAITA &
TAKANO (1995:218). 97 It should be noted that most of these readings are not included in his footnotes but in
additional notes at the end of his edition, since PANDEY's article became accessible to
readings of his MS as well as misprints. In most cases, the Sanskrit text presented by YAITA is not affected by this problem, because YAITA only gives PANDEY's bad readings in the notes. There are, however, also cases where PANDEY's readings create more confusion.
SHUKLA's edition, which was published roughly at the same time as YAITA's
edition, is by far inferior in quality. SHUKLA obviously took only the (photographs
of the) ŚrBh MS into account, without the help of any other relevant materials.
Moreover, he very often deciphered his manuscript wrongly. WAYMAN (1999),
who four decades earlier had been the first who cited parts of a Sanskrit MS while
dealing with this section (WAYMAN, 1958), took, in addition to the ŚrBh MS, at
least the Tibetan translation and the editions of PANDEY and YAITA into account.
Nevertheless, his edition is of inferior quality when compared to YAITA's.99 Finally,
it is important to note that OBERHAMMER (1991-2006) contains numerous, sometimes
very long citations from the Hetuvidyā accompanied by text-critical notes
and German translations. In the second and the third volume, YAITA's readings
are most often adopted; there are, however, in the two latter volumes as well as in
the first one, quite a few places where different, and obviously often superior,
readings are proposed.100 Recently, the present writer has gained access to a book
written by YAITA, which contains, among others, his hetuvidyā edition (YAITA,
2005:95-124). This revised version marks a certain progress regarding both the arrangement
of the notes and the variants given or adopted as primary.101 However,
there are also several obvious mistakes (e.g., the two examples mentioned in the
beginning of n. 99) that have not been corrected. Moreover, quite obviously YAITA
YAITA only very late in the process of preparing his article for publication (see YAITA,
1992:511; also cp. ibid.:576). 98 See, e.g., §3.21 in YAITA's edition, where PANDEY's reading tattvābhisaṃdhānato
(PANDEY, 1986:336, 2nd line from the bottom) has been adopted by YAITA, since the word
has accidentally been omitted in his MS. The YoBh MS (97a2), however, has definitely the
reading tattvābhisaṃbodhanato , which makes, of course, much more sense than PANDEY's
reading. 99 It is true that there are a few passages in which WAYMAN offers a better text than
YAITA. By checking a few selected passages mainly from the beginning of the Hetuvidyā , I
discovered two readings in WAYMAN's (and PANDEY's) text that almost certainly are
correct and which can even be found in the ŚrBh MS. YAITA did not decipher his
manuscript correctly in these two places. In YAITA (1992:1*9), lokāśraviko is certainly
wrong for lokānuśraviko . As a matter of fact, the akṣara nu , which is missing in YAITA's and
SHUKLA's editions, has been added in the margin of the ŚrBh MS. In YAITA (1992:1*13)
naṭā° has to be changed to naṭa° . YAITA does, however, not fail to mention PANDEY's
readings in his notes. Moreover, there are far more passages where it is WAYMAN who
presents an ungrammatical or unidiomatic text or a reading that simply makes no sense,
although PANDEY and especially YAITA had already chosen the right reading before him. 100 OBERHAMMER states in the prefaces to the volumes (see, e.g., OBERHAMMER, 1991-
2006: vol. 3, p. 10) that the text-critical remarks have been contributed by Lambert
SCHMITHAUSEN. 101 In this version, YAITA has rearranged his notes in such a way that now all of them
can be found below the edited Sanskrit text. This is, of course, much more convenient than
the earlier arrangement (for which cp. n. 97). Moreover, obviously he has added readings
from the new edition by WAYMAN in his notes. The Sanskrit text itself seems to contain
quite a few minor – and once in a while also major – corrections as well (including, of
course, those which are contained in YAITA & TAKANO, 1995).
still has to rely on PANDEY's edition for variants from the YoBh Ms. The reference to OBERHAMMER (1991-2006)(see above) also remains valid. The hetuvidyā has been translated into Hindi (PANDEY, 1986), modern Japanese (YAITA, 1992:547-576; revised version id. 2005:22-41), and English (WAYMAN, 1999:3-41). YAITA & TAKANO (1995) have published a trilingual index of this section.
2.1.4.3 The last two sections of the Śrutamayī Bhūmiḥ , which deal with the knowledge of language (śabdavidyā ) and of various practical skills (śilpakarmasthānavidyā ), respectively, have only been edited critically and translated into Japanese on the basis of the ŚrBh MS (ŚRĀVAKABHŪMI STUDY GROUP, 2007:306- 313).102
2.1.5 The fairly long Cintāmayī Bhūmiḥ is completely preserved in the YoBh MS (102b4-139a1). And in the ŚrBh MS only the last 10-20% seem to be missing. However, fairly large parts have not yet been edited at all and only two of the existing partial editions103 are based on both manuscripts. The text is divided into three sections. The first two sections of the text have been edited and translated into Japanese on the basis of the ŚrBh MS (ŚRĀVAKABHŪMI STUDY GROUP, 2007:315-336).104 The third section, which is called "Analysis [of the meaning] of canonical texts" (dharmapravicaya ), is much longer than the first two. Basically, it consists of three sets of verses, which are all accompanied by a commentary. The introduction of the third section and the Paramārthagāthā and its commentary have been edited and translated first in WAYMAN (1961:163-185). Later, WAYMAN presented a slightly corrected version (WAYMAN, 1984:333-352). SHUKLA (1991: pp. 26-29 of the appendices) edited merely the canonical verses. The only partial (verses 28-41 with commentary) edition and translation of this subsection on the basis of both manuscripts has been published by SCHMITHAUSEN (1987b:223- 241).105 The second set of verses, the Ābhiprāyikārthagāthā , has been edited by WAYMAN (1984: 354-357) and (partially) by SHUKLA (1991: Appendix IV, p. 29- 31). Much progress has been made by a critical edition of the verses and the commentary that has been published by the ŚRĀVAKABHŪMI STUDY GROUP (2007:337-370; with accompanying Japanese translation).106 However, none of the three editions takes the YoBh MS into account. WAYMAN (1984:357-366) has translated this second set of verses into English and summarized the commentary. The only complete edition of the third and longest set of verses, which is called 102 These are revised versions of the pertinent parts in ŚRĀVAKABHŪMI STUDY GROUP (1993). 103 Namely, SCHMITHAUSEN (1987b:223-241), and ENOMOTO (1989) (see below for some more details on these two editions). The beginning of the chapter is dealt with in SCHMITHAUSEN (2000:259-263); the discussion includes several citations of the Sanskrit text on the basis of both manuscripts. 104 These are revised versions of the pertinent parts in ŚRĀVAKABHŪMI STUDY GROUP (1993). 105 See SCHMITHAUSEN (1987b: n. 1394) for corrections regarding those verses which have not been included in his new edition. However, as SCHMITHAUSEN (ibid.) points out, the parts of the commentary not re-edited by him contain many more unacceptable readings than the verses. Therefore, a new edition of the entire commentary is certainly an important task for the future. 106 This is a revised version of MAEDA (1991).
Śarīrārthagāthā , is ENOMOTO (1989).107 It has been produced with much care and is based on both manuscripts. Unfortunately, the accompanying detailed commentary remains completely unedited, and a translation is not yet available of this section.
2.1.6 The Sanskrit text of the Bhāvanāmayī Bhūmiḥ is only preserved in the YoBh MS (139a1-153a3) and has not been published so far. The original Sanskrit titles of its main sections are contained in a short article by SUGAWARA (1998) who is working on a critical edition of this chapter. For more details, see SUGAWARA's article in the present volume.
2.1.7 WAYMAN (1961) was the first scholar who presented an analysis of the
text of the Śrāvakabhūmi (Q5537, D4036) on the basis of the Sanskrit manuscript.
He edited numerous passages of varying length from the codex and translated
them into English.110 His monograph represented, in spite of its many shortcomings,
a truly pioneering effort.111 The many deficiencies of the only complete
edition of the Śrāvakabhūmi by Karunesh SHUKLA (1973) are well known.112 The
first half, that is, the first two yogasthāna s (Sh. 1-166 and 167-348, respectively), of
this text is now available in far more reliable editions, which are also accompanied
by Japanese translations (ŚRĀVAKABHŪMI STUDY GROUP, 1998 and 2007).113 The
partial editions of these chapters by some of SCHMITHAUSEN's pupils (SAKUMA,
1990 [= Sh. 19221-2022; 27015-20; 27115-2726; 2832-2843; 3203-5]), CHOI (2001 [= Sh.
141-158; 377-519; 585-6011; 190, 8-21; 26313-2644; 2652-8; 27015-27223; 27523-27723]),
MAITHRIMURTHI (1999 [= Sh. 2077-2102]) should, however, always be taken into
consideration as well, although some of them appeared early enough to be taken
107 Only one verse is given in SHUKLA (1991: appendices, p. 31); some verses are
contained in SCHMITHAUSEN (1970:50-54, cp. also ibid.:114f.; and 1987a:382-387). 108 ENOMOTO (1989:21) has stated his intention to translate the verses. 109 Moreover, Alexander VON ROSPATT's article in the present volume deals with this
chapter as well. KWON (2003) has obviously dealt extensively with this chapter in his Ph.D.
dissertation. If I understand the pertinent sections of his summary correctly (the thesis
itself was not available to me), he has appended a critical or collated edition of the Tibetan
and Chinese texts of this chapter as well as a Japanese translation to his dissertation. He
did seemingly not use the original Sanskrit text of the chapter. 110 Chapter 5 (pp. 135-162), which contains an edition and translation of the section on
the ascetic rules regarding the ingestion of food (āhāra ), is reprinted in WAYMAN
(1997:335-368) with apparently unchanged wording. The text has only been reformatted.
Many passages from the ŚrBh have been translated or/and cited from the MS in other
publications by WAYMAN, including passages which are not contained in WAYMAN (1961),
see, e.g., WAYMAN (1978:31-42). 111 On the whole, the reviewers received his monograph very well, although criticism
was also voiced (see DELEANU, 2006:59f.). DE JONG (1976a) seems to regard WAYMAN's
edition at least as superior to SHUKLA's text, although his review also contains some examples
of mistakes in WAYMAN's book. 112 See, e.g., DE JONG (1976a), SCHMITHAUSEN (1982a:457), and DELEANU (2006:60). 113 These publications also supersede this group's own earlier editions published
successively in the form of articles (ŚRĀVAKABHŪMI STUDY GROUP, 1981-1991 and 1994-
2006, respectively), although SILK (2001:159f.) cites a passage in ŚRĀVAKABHŪMI STUDY
GROUP (1998) where the earlier right reading has been replaced by a wrong one. At any
rate, many true corrections have been entered in their revised editions in book-form.
into account by the members of the ŚRĀVAKABHŪMI STUDY GROUP.114 The same, of course, holds true for the German translations115 that accompany them. JOST (1990) represents another, though unpublished, partial edition of the Śrāvakabhūmi (= Sh. 2915-3075) produced at the University of Hamburg. Up to now, only small parts of the third chapter have been edited again: SAKUMA (1990 [= Sh. 3952-3986; 4027-20; 4044-4059; 40613-4073; 4324-43318]); MAITHRIMURTHI (1999 [= Sh. 37710-38015; 42620-4299]). All these passages are accompanied by a German translation. It seems that very recently the ŚRĀVAKABHŪMI STUDY GROUP (2008, 2009) has started to systematically re-edit the third chapter.116 It is finally important to note that SHUKLA (1973) has omitted one folio of Sanskrit text belonging to this section from his edition. It has to be inserted after Sh. 4323. KIMURA (1992) represents the editio princeps of the missing folio.117 MŌRI (1986) is a Japanese translation of the beginning of the third yogasthāna .118 Roughly one half of SHUKLA's text of the last and fourth yogasthāna has already been replaced by excellent new editions:119 DELEANU (2006) has edited the first of the two sections of this chapter (= Sh. 437-4706)120 and translated it into English; parts of this section are also available in the earlier editions CHOI (2001 [= Sh. 4394-44512; 4471-4481; 4497-10]) and SAKUMA (1990 [= Sh. 44914-4553]), both accompanied by German translations.121 SCHMITHAUSEN (1982a) has edited the last pages of the second section (= Sh. 50610-5116).
114 The editions of the Study Group seem to exhibit at times a certain reluctance to
apply the rules of textual criticism so rigorously that all obvious corruptions of the
manuscript are eliminated. Therefore, the text of the strictly critical partial editions
mentioned above is sometimes superior as compared to the two books mentioned above
(see DELEANU, 2006:71 n. 60 for an example). 115 CHOI translates, strictly speaking, these passages as they appear in the Xiǎnyáng lùn .
See CHOI (2001:50) for a description of his exact procedure. 116 Moreover, there are several publications in which text-critical notes regarding parts
of this chapter are included. See especially SCHMITHAUSEN (1982b). – A pupil of David
SHULMAN (Boaz AMICHAY) is at present also preparing a critical edition of the third
yogasthāna and hopes to include the whole edition already in his Ph.D. thesis on which he
is working (e-mail communication by Boaz AMICHAY, dated 27th November 2007). 117 KIMURA gives the text without any critical apparatus, translation etc. He has
announced that he intends to publish a more sophisticated edition sometime in the future
(KIMURA, 1992:166). It is interesting to note that the Śrāvakabhūmi MS contains two
copies of this text passage. 118 The title of this article suggests that this was meant to be the beginning of a series of
partial translations of this yogasthāna , but I was unable to find any further pertinent
publications by him. 119 Florin DELEANU has expressed his intention to publish the rest of the fourth
yogasthāna in the years to come (DELEANU, 2002:69; DELEANU, 2006:647 n. 1). – For the
time being, many text-critical notes regarding the hitherto not newly edited parts of this
yogasthāna can be found in SCHMITHAUSEN (1982b). Moreover, VON ROSPATT (1995:219-
248) cites and emends many passages corresponding to Sh. 475-489 in the notes to his
translation of a section from the Xiǎnyáng lùn (T1602.548c18-549b21) which is partly based
on this ŚrBh passage. 120 Full-fledged critical editions of the corresponding passages in the Tibetan and
Chinese translations accompany DELEANU's diplomatic and critical Sanskrit texts. 121 Compare n. 115.
2.1.8 The short Pratyekabuddhabhūmi (YoBh MS 153a4-154b2) is again preserved in two manuscripts. There are three editions of the Sanskrit text, but, like in the case of the Hetuvidyā , none of these is based on both codices. WAYMAN (1997:191-193)122 and YONEZAWA (1998) rely on the ŚrBh MS,123 while PANDEY (1987)124 takes the YoBh MS as his basis. YONEZAWA, however, takes WAYMAN's and PANDEY's editions as well as the Tibetan and Chinese translations into consideration. YONEZAWA's edition is the most accurate. However, YONEZAWA has obviously only cited some of PANDEY's readings, although they are based on a different textual witness and are at times even superior to those adopted by YONEZAWA.125 Three English translations of this bhūmi are available. KLOPPENBORG's (1974:126-129) rendering has for good reasons been severely criticized by DE JONG (1976b:323). WAYMAN's (1997:193-196) translation can hardly be considered better.126 YONEZAWA's (1998:19-25) rendering is certainly much more reliable, although even his English text is at times misleading.127 122 The text presented by WAYMAN in this publication is, except for some very slight changes, obviously merely a reproduction of his own earlier edition WAYMAN (1960:376- 375). 123 YONEZAWA was, however, in contrast to WAYMAN able to use the new facsimile edition of the Śrāvakabhūmi . 124 Unfortunately, I did not have access to PANDEY (2009). Judging from its title, this article might be a new edition or translation of this text. 125 To give some examples: 1) The fifth and last subsection of the Pratyekabuddhabhūmi deals with the behavior of the pratyekabuddha s when they leave their hermitage to beg for alms and the like. According to YONEZAWA, this behavior is called cāritra . The word occurs twice in the Sanskrit text: once in the beginning of the bhūmi and once in the beginning of the subsection dealing with this term. Both times it occurs with the suffix °taḥ and both times it has only been gained by WAYMAN's emendations, which have been adopted by YONEZAWA. In the ŚrBh MS, the readings are cāratataḥ and vihārataḥ (the latter one has probably been erroneously inserted, because the immediately preceding subsection is designated with this term). PANDEY gives in both cases the reading cārataḥ ,
and at least in the first occurrence this is definitely the reading transmitted in the YoBh MS.
cārataḥ is certainly the correct variant. vihāra and cāra as a pair of technical terms occur
also in other places of the YoBh . 2) Section I, line 1: read tat trilakṣaṇaṃ instead of tatra
trilakṣaṇaṃ . 3) Section V, line 4: read praviśanti instead of praviśati . – The colophon of
this bhūmi has a different wording in both manuscripts. In this case, YONEZAWA mentions
PANDEY's reading in a note. However, the colophon as it appears in the ŚrBh MS (samāptā
ca pratyekabuddhabhūmiḥ ) is certainly of very late origin: To begin with, it has obviously
been added by a second hand. Moreover, such a wording with ca is in the YoBh normally
used when a colophon follows on another one marking the end of the last subsection of a
given section, as, e.g., seen at the end of the Śrāvakabhūmi . Obviously, a scribe felt the need
to add the missing colophon and simply followed the pattern he found at the end of the
immediately preceding bhūmi . 126 To give just a few examples: 1) WAYMAN's rendering for gotra (which can be
translated as "spiritual disposition" or the like) is "birthright" which is, to say the least,
idiosyncratic. 2) WAYMAN translates prāg evābhisaṃbodhāt as "having previously been
manifestly awakened." However, this does not make good sense in view of the fact that this
paragraph is dealing with the natural disposition of the pratyekabuddha . We have to
understand the expression as preposition prāk with ablative and translate this as "even
before awakening" (cp. Tibetan: mngon par byang chub pa'i snga rol nyid nas ; also cp.
Chinese [T1579.477c7] "… previously, when he had not yet attained that awakening …" [先
未證得彼菩提時]). 3) WAYMAN translates kalpaśataṃ buddhotpādam ārāgayati as "For a
2.1.9.1 Regarding the BoBh (Q5538, D4037),128 it should be noted that more
textual witnesses are available for this chapter than for any other part of the YoBh .
In addition to the Tibetan129 and Chinese translations of the entire YoBh (see
§1.1), there are two much earlier Chinese renderings of this bhūmi as a whole,
namely the Púsà dìchí jīng (菩薩地持經; T1581) by Dharmakṣema130 and the Púsà
shànjiè jīng (菩薩善戒經; T1582, T1583)131 by Guṇavarman132 (431 CE).133
thousand eons took pleasure in becoming a buddha." I cannot judge whether it is stylistically
better in the English language to render the present verb form of the Sanskrit text as
past tense. The subject of this English sentence has obviously erroneously been omitted,
which might merely be a misprint. Instead of "thousand", however, one has of course to
translate "hundred." But most important of all, it makes in the context of YoBh dogmatics
no sense that a person who has the natural disposition to become a pratyekabuddha takes
pleasure in becoming a buddha . buddhotpāda refers here as usual in Buddhist literature to
the birth of buddha s. This enables the person destined to become a pratyekabuddha (in
one of his future existences) to make progress on the way to salvation in their presence.
Finally, ārāgayati has here, of course, the well known Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit meaning "to get, attain, acquire" and does not mean "to take pleasure." As a matter of fact, ārāgayati can, to the best of my knowledge, never take the intransitive meaning "to take pleasure." It is true that ārāgayati can have the related meaning "to propritiate, gratify, please", but this alternative hardly makes sense in the present context. 127 Examples: 1) prāg evābhisaṃbodhāt is rendered by him as "[From] the previous enlightenment …" (see n. 126). 2) ārāgayati is seemingly understood in a similar way as in WAYMAN's translation (see n. 126), but see YONEZAWA's note (YONEZAWA, 1998:21 n. 1) where he gives the correct interpretation of the whole sentence. 3) The relative clauses beginning with yena which are put after the main clause in section no. I rather have the function to give the consequence (cp. also Tibetan … te/ des na … and Chinese [T.1579.477c8] 由此因緣) than the reason (see YONEZAWA's rendering "because …"). 128 The BoBh contains three parts which receive the name yogasthāna and are again
subdivided into chapters (paṭala ). The last chapter, the Anukramapaṭala (on which see
below), which is added in some textual sources after the third yogasthāna is sometimes
counted as a fourth yogasthāna . In the following pages, I adopt this division for purely
practical purposes and use Roman numerals for the four parts and Arabic numerals for the
chapters. 129 It may be noted in passing that the Bodhisattvabhūmi section of the Tibetan YoBh
translation has recently been separately published in Beijing. See WANGCHUK (2007:380
n.12) for more details and for the evaluation of this edition as having "no historical and
philological value." 130 Many scholars date this translation to 418 CE (e.g., DEMIÉVILLE, 1957:110;
DELEANU, 2006:183). Note, however, that recently CHEN (2004) has dealt at length with
the problem of when Dharmakṣema produced his translations. After a thorough-going
discussion of the conflicting evidence of the Chinese sources, he arrives at the conclusion
that Dharmakṣema's translation activity should rather be placed between 422 and 431 CE. 131 Both texts are not only often referred to by the same name but do, as a matter of fact,
represent the same translation (SUGAWARA, 1990:319 n.7). However, T1582 only contains
the beginning of the Śīlapaṭala , while the text beginning from BoBh D 1054 = BoBh W 15218
has been extracted from T1582 and has been transmitted as a separate text (T1583; see
SCHMITHAUSEN, 2007a:435 n. 36; cp. also SUGAWARA, 1990:319 n.7). Cp. also Hôbôgirin,
fasc. 2, p. 145 on the latter text. See DELEANU (2006:231 n. 196) for a further reference on
the relation between the two texts. 132 The Chinese sources for Guṇavarman's biography have been dealt with at length in
STACHE-ROSEN (1973). 133 DEMIÉVILLE (1957:110). Guṇavarman's rendering is of rather poor quality (ibid.).
Therefore, its helpfulness for lower textual criticism of the Sanskrit text is very limited.
Moreover, a partial BoBh commentary by Guṇaprabha (Byang chub sems dpa'i sa'i 'grel pa , Q5545, D4044)134 and a complete one by *Sāgaramegha or *Samudramegha (rNal 'byor spyod pa'i sa las byang chub sems dpa'i sa'i rnam par bshad pa ; Q5548, D4047) are preserved in Tibetan translation.135 Even more sources are available for the Śīlapaṭala (see below). The main sources for the BoBh are, however, the four Sanskrit codices of the whole bhūmi already mentioned above (No.3-6 in §1.2), which have come down to us in varying degrees of completeness.
There are three complete editions of the Sanskrit text. On HADANO (1975), see below (n. 161). WOGIHARA's (1930-1936) editio princeps 137 is based on the very old Cambridge MS and the very recent Kyoto MS. DUTT's (1966) new BoBh Dharmakṣema's translation is much better, though it certainly cannot compare to Xuánzàng's exact and literal rendering (ibid.). Still, it should be utilized, since it predates the latter translation by more than two centuries; therefore, it has the potential to offer some clues regarding higher textual criticism. The same holds possibly good for Gunavarman's rendering which exhibits major differences as compared to all other versions. Most notably, this rendering has sūtra format; accordingly, it has an introduction and conclusion to the text that are typical for this literary genre and cannot be found in the other versions. The introduction has been translated into French in PYTHON (1973:141- 153). It is in my opinion very likely that this peculiarity of Guṇavarman's version is the result of a secondary change; this was seemingly already the opinion of DEMIÉVILLE (1957:110). However, SUEKI (1980) has cited many instances of other peculiarities (in particular, missing items and text portions) in Guṇavarman's version from all over the text of the BoBh and suggested that his translation might represent the oldest version of the BoBh . DELEANU (2006:230, n. 191), also refers to SUEKI's study; however, if I have understood him correctly, he is somewhat more cautious in this regard and suggests that the matter should be investigated in more detail. 134 On this commentary, see also below (n. 153). 135 See DELEANU (2006:248f.) for more details on these commentaries. On *Sāgaramegha's
commentary, see also below (§2.1.9.1). 136 It should be noted that at least until World War II there seemingly was a fifth manuscript
of the BoBh , which had been brought to Japan. See UI (1961:VIf.). Cp. Buddhist Text Information 5, p. 1, where a letter written by Akira YUYAMA is cited: "… In his
'Introductory Remarks' […] Ui mentions the so-called Kimura MS destroyed by air raids".
Cp. also SUGAWARA (1990:326f.) and TAKAHASHI (2005:10 n. 33). There seems to be no
reason to doubt that the Kimura MS has indeed been destroyed during the war. However, if
I have understood the above-mentioned Japanese sources correctly, this manuscript was
only a Devanagari transcription of yet another BoBh MS. KIMURA seems to have transcribed
the latter MS into Devanagari while being in Calcutta. SUGAWARA (1990:326f.)
probably refers to the latter MS when he states that it is unclear whether the "Calcutta MS"
is still extant. Therefore, there seems to be a possibility that there is yet another BoBh MS
in Calcutta, and it would certainly be interesting to investigate this matter a little bit further. 137 Strictly speaking, it is the first edition of the whole text. Two chapters, namely, the
Vihārapaṭala (II.4) and the Bhūmipaṭala (III.3) had already been edited earlier on the
basis of WOGIHARA's second transcript of the Cambridge MS and the Tibetan and Chinese
translations in RAHDER (1926b: appendix, 1-28). The edition in RAHDER (1926a: appendix,
1-28) is identical (YUYAMA, 1996:266f., n. 9). According to RAHDER (1926b: appendix, 28),
WOGIHARA's second transcript was often very difficult to decipher. Other scholars, esp.
Louis DE LA VALLÉE POUSSIN (e.g., in DE LA VALLÉE POUSSIN, 1928, where he quotes
passages from the Tattvārthapaṭala [= BoBh W 4522-4813 and 4823-507]), also made use of
this transcript quite often before WOGIHARA's edition became available.
edition is mainly based on the fairly complete and worthwhile138 Patna MS.139 Thanks to the different manuscript basis, DUTT was able to fill the gaps that remained in WOGIHARA's Sanskrit text, since both the MSS available to WOGIHARA were incomplete, but DUTT's edition is of rather mediocre quality.140 This is also the reason why WOGIHARA's editio princeps , which had been produced with more care and philological acumen, is still widely used. Quite a lot of other partial new editions have been produced during recent decades. Many of these publications made, among others, use of the fourth BoBh manuscript, the National Archives MS (No. 5 in §1.2), which was not yet available in the times of WOGIHARA and DUTT. It is important to note that recently TAKAHASHI (2005a:10f., cp. 76) has pointed out that the Kyoto MS is a mere apograph of the National Archives MS, since it uses symbols denoting lost akṣara s whenever in the latter manuscript some text is lost due to damage of the manuscript. In the long run, the Kyoto MS can possibly be disregarded in critical editions of the BoBh .141 As regards the relationship between the remaining manuscripts, it should be noted that the Patna MS and the National Archives MS often agree in their readings, while the Cambridge MS has different variants (TAKAHASHI 2005a:11).
There seem to be no complete translations of this bhūmi into a modern – or, at any rate, into a Western – language.142 UI (1961:1-312), however, provides a Japanese translation of numerous selected passages from all over the text. The same publication by UI (1961) also contains a Sanskrit-Chinese index of the 138 DE JONG (1987:164) asserts that the readings of this MS are often superior to those found in the Cambridge MS and the Kyoto MS. 139 See WANGCHUK (2007:364) for further details regarding the materials utilized by DUTT. 140 See DE JONG (1987:164f.). Cp. also WANGCHUK's (2007:364f.) observations regarding the Cittotpādapaṭala and SUGAWARA (1990: 327). 141 However, it might be too early to eliminate the Kyoto MS as a textual witness. To begin with, it is very well possible that more akṣara s or even folios of the National Archives MS were preserved earlier when the Kyoto MS was written. And even the possibility that the scribe of the Kyoto MS consulted a second manuscript in parts which have not been scrutinized up till now cannot be excluded, although this is quite unlikely. In the colophon, the scribe of the Kyoto MS only mentions one manuscript as basis of his own copy. 142 An English translation of the entire BoBh has recently been declared to be in
preparation in the preface to a translation of the Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra (THURMAN et al.,
2004:viii-ix). The BoBh is already sometimes referred to in the notes to the Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra
translation, but unfortunately more than once in such a way that the meaning
of the Sanskrit text is seriously distorted, although the respective passages referred to are
perfectly intelligible and unambiguous (see, e.g., THURMAN et al., 2004:270 n. 68; ibid.:303
n. 32). Hopefully, the BoBh translation will, if it appears some time in the future, exhibit a
better understanding of the language and teachings of this part of the YoBh than these
references. In his Ph.D. thesis, which is entirely devoted to the BoBh , MULLENS (1994:31
and 286 n. 68) probably refers to (an earlier incarnation of) the same draft translation when
he states that he has in most chapters used an incomplete rendering of the BoBh handed
over to him by Prof. THURMAN "as primary source" (!) for his (relatively numerous)
citations from this text. MULLENS' translations of the original Sanskrit text are very often
inaccurate; at times they even go completely astray; cp. e.g. MULLENS' (1994:81) rendering
of the third condition or motive for the generation of the resolve to become a buddha
(cittotpāda ) with WANGCHUK'S (2007:80) perfectly correct translation. MULLENS' Ph.D.
thesis is certainly interesting and has its merits; it is a pity that it suffers from basic
methodological and philological flaws.
BoBh .143 The annotated summary of the BoBh by BENDALL & DE LA VALLÉE
POUSSIN (1905, 1906, 1911) is still useful. It covers, however only the chapters I.1-8
of the text.
2.1.9.2 The very beginning of the first chapter of the text (I.1) has only been transmitted in the Patna MS; therefore, it is not contained in WOGIHARA's edition. After Dutt's first edition of this passage, ROTH (1975-1976) published a new version (= BoBh D 11-23) and translated this short section.144 The Cittotpādapaṭala (I.2) has been critically edited in WANGCHUK (2007).145 The first three chapters of the BoBh have been translated in SŌMA (1986b = I.1-2; 1987 = I.3). The Tattvārthapaṭala (I.4) has been critically edited in TAKAHASHI (2005a:83-117). If I am not mistaken, TAKAHASHI's BoBh edition is the only one that is based on all four BoBh MSS. The chapter has been translated into modern Japanese in SŌMA (1986a) and TAKAHASHI (2005a:151-179). A partial, yet very fine translation for a wider audience (preceded by introductory explanations) of the Tattvārthapaṭala has been published by FRAUWALLNER (1969:264-279). The unsatisfactory character of the complete English translation of the same chapter published by WILLIS (1979:67-175) has already been described elsewhere.146 YAITA (2010) has published a translation of the Prabhāvapaṭala (I.5) which is also accompanied by a new critical edition. A new edition (accompanied by a German translation) of the Bodhipaṭala (I.7) is contained in an unpublished M.A. thesis by NAKAMURA
(2004).147 Regarding the Balagotrapaṭala (I.8), LEUMANN's (1931) partial edition
143 Cp. also SILK (2001:162f.) on this index and see also the discussion of indices of the
YoBh in §2.0 above. 144 ROTH's edition contains quite a few substantial improvements. However, it is not
completely free from (minor) mistakes: folio 1b1: pratiṣṭā might very well be the MS
reading; it should, however, have been corrected to pratiṣṭhā ; 1b1f.: read tatrādhāraḥ (=
MS); 1b6: read bodhipakṣyeṣu dharmmeṣu (= MS) instead of bodhipakṣyeṣu ; 2a1: read
samāśraye 'pi (= MS) instad of samāśraye ; 2a5: read yathā gotram instead of yathā-gotram .
One might also discuss the division into paragraphs and the punctuation in a couple of
places. The English translation is at times helpful, but cannot be considered to be a
definitive one. The late Dr. ROTH was an admirable and versatile indologist, but certainly
no expert in Yogācāra Buddhism. 145 The editions of the Sanskrit and Tibetan texts in the appendices are not
accompanied by an English translation. However, significant parts of the chapter have been
translated at the appropriate parts of WANGCHUK's study on the bodhicitta in the main
part of his book. A complete annotated translation of the chapter is contained in his M.A.
thesis (WANGCHUK, 2002:27-70). 146 DE JONG (1987:166) states that it "abounds in elementary errors," thereby summarizing
the findings of his own detailed review of WILLIS' book (DE JONG, 1985). – There
seems to be an apparently partial reprint of her translation in KOLLER (1991:308-330). 147 Ayako NAKAMURA is at present working on a Ph.D. thesis on the nature of
Enlightenment (bodhi ) in the early Yogācāra School wherein, among others, a revised
version of this edition will be included.
of the Sanskrit text must – for completeness' sake – also be listed here.148 The
Dānapaṭala (I.9) has been critically edited and translated in YAITA (2008).149
2.1.9.3 The fairly long Śīlapaṭala (I.10) has arguably been the most popular and
influential part of the BoBh in East Asian Buddhism and perhaps also in Indo-
Tibetan Buddhism. Accordingly, there are quite a few additional sources available
for this chapter, which became one of the most important classical sources for
Mahāyāna ethics.
To begin with, in addition to the translations by Xuánzàng (T1579), Dharmakṣema (T1581), and Guṇavarman (T1582) already mentioned above (§1.1 and §2.1.9.1), there are five Chinese texts that are counted as translations of this chapter:150 The Púsà jiè jiémó wén (菩薩戒羯磨文; T1499), two texts entitled Púsà jièběn (菩薩戒本; T1500, T1501), the Yōupósè wǔjiè wēiyí jīng (優婆塞五戒威儀 經; T1503) and, finally, the Púsà shànjiè jīng (菩薩善戒經; T1583). The reason why we have such a wealth of short Chinese texts dealing with this chapter is certainly a practical one: The Śīlapaṭala serves as a manual for the Bodhisattva precepts and the so-called Bodhisattva ordination. As a matter of fact, most of the mentioned texts simply seem to be extracts from the three translations that contain the whole BoBh . T1583, for which Guṇavarman is given as the translator, has already been dealt with above.151 T1499 (= T1579.514b14-515c28) and T1501 (= T1579.515a17-22; T1579.515b21-521a16) are (as it seems, slightly modified) extracts from Xuánzàng's translation of the Śīlapaṭala . T1500 (= T1581.913b-917a) agrees literally with Dharmakṣema's translation of the entire BoBh . The translation T1503 is ascribed to Guṇavarman, but this ascription has been contested (see LUNG-LIEN, 1972:241). Only the first half of this text contains passages corresponding to the Śīlapaṭala (T1503.1116c-1119b = T1579.515b-521a). It is true that these short texts certainly are interesting in themselves and have been very important for the history of East Asian Buddhism. Yet, at least those texts that agree more or less literally with the three Chinese translations of the entire BoBh are of very limited value for lower textual criticism of the Sanskrit text with which we are mainly concerned in the present article. It would nevertheless be interesting to know whether really all of the above texts have been secondarily created on Chinese soil as has been suggested above or whether at least one or two of them are based on Indian models of such brief manuals.152 At any rate, it should be noted that DUTT (1931) has published an edition of a Sanskrit manuscript that forms a Bodhisattvapratimokṣa- 148 It gives the same text as WOGIHARA (1930-1936:951-11013). LEUMANN simply presents the text more clearly by adding paragraph numbers, different punctuation marks, and the like. 149 YAITA has placed his text-critical notes below his Japanese translation rather than below the Sanskrit text. This is a quite unusual and inconvenient way of arrangement. Luckily, YAITA has at least cross-referenced his translation with the pages and lines of his Sanskrit text. YAITA's edition is based on the Tibetan and Xuánzàng's Chinese translation, the two previous editions by WOGIHARA and DUTT, the Cambridge MS, the Patna MS, and the Kyoto MS. 150 For general information in Western languages on these texts, see LUNG-LIEN (1972) and Hôbôgirin, fasc. 2, pp. 142-146. 151 See especially n. 131. 152 The East Asian secondary literature on these texts and other important Chinese sources for the Bodhisattva precepts is extraordinarily rich. I frankly confess that I feel at present unable to give an overview of this research.
sūtra . A high percentage of the first part (DUTT, 1931: 269-277) of this text agrees almost literally with passages in the Śīlapaṭala (BoBh W 152-155 = BoBh D 105-106). There are also two commentaries that are exclusively devoted to this chapter of the BoBh preserved in Tibetan translation, namely the Byang chub sems dpa'i tshul khrims kyi le'u bshad pa by Guṇaprabha (Q5546, D4045)153 and the more extensive Byang chub sems dpa'i tshul khrims kyi le'u'i rgya cher 'grel pa by Jinaputra (Q5547, D4046), which seems to be a sub-commentary based on Guṇaprabha's earlier text (TATZ, 1986:29; DELEANU, 2006:249). It should be noted that the pertinent section in *Sāgaramegha's BoBh commentary is more or less identical with Jinaputra's text. 154 Candragomin's Bodhisattvasaṃvaraviṃśikā (preserved in
Tibetan: Q5582, D4081),155 a versified summary of the Bodhisattva ordination and precepts,156 and its commentaries by Śāntarakṣita (Q5583, D4082)157 and Bodhibhadra (Q5584, D4083)158 are also based on this chapter of the BoBh (see SUGAWARA, 1990:320 n. 8, and TATZ, 1986:29f.). Śāntarakṣita's commentary has even been characterized as being "virtually a copy of the passages of the Bbh [TATZ's abbreviation for BoBh ] that are summarized by Candragomin" (TATZ, 1986:29).159 Finally, it is also interesting to note that there is a paraphrasis of the greater part of this chapter in a Khotanese book that was for the first time edited by LEUMANN (1933-1936) and that is nowadays usually called the Book of Zambasta .160 This text, which obviously enjoyed a great popularity in Khotan (EMMERICK, 1992:40), should perhaps not be dated before the 7th century (ibid.).
153 The BoBh commentary by the same author mentioned above covers only the text of the Gotrapaṭala through the Dānapaṭala (SUGAWARA, 1990:320 n.8). The latter section immediately precedes the Śīlapaṭala . Therefore, the two works might form one set (DELEANU, 2006:248). 154 See TATZ (1986:29) and SUGAWARA (1990:320 n. 8 with reference to FUJITA). – For some more information on these commentaries, cp. DELEANU (2006:248f.). 155 KANŌ (2009a:983; 2009b:383) has recently noted that the first two verses are preserved in a fragmentary Sanskrit manuscript. See ibid. for the wording of these verses. – Critical editions of Candragomin's text are contained in TATZ (1978:545-549) and FUJITA (2002:210-207). English translations are included in TATZ (1978:265-268), TATZ (1983, together with a Tibetan commentary) and TATZ (1985). 156 For the present purposes, it is not necessary to deal with the thorny issue of Candragomin's identity, dates, and authentic works. See HAHN (1999:xxxix-liii) and, for many further references to the debate on Candragomin, also VERHAGEN (1994:185). 157 A Sanskrit fragment of this commentary has been found in Tibet (see LINDTNER,
1991:651, Cat. Beijing no. 10; and, especially, KANŌ, 2009a:983 and KANŌ, 2009b:383; for a
facsimile edition of the extant folio, see ibid.:399). Critical editions of the Tibetan text are
contained in TATZ (1978:550-602, see ibid.:268-440 for a richly annotated translation) and
FUJITA (2002:206-164). 158 For a critical edition of this commentary, see FUJITA (2002:163-84). 159 A Sanskrit fragment of this commentary has been found in Tibet (see LINDTNER,
1991:651, Cat. Beijing no. 10; and, especially, KANŌ, 2009a:983 and KANŌ, 2009b:383; for a
facsimile edition of the extant folio, see ibid.:399). 160 The paraphrase and its German translation can be found on pp. 144-164 of
LEUMANN's posthumously published book. For a new edition accompanied by an English
translation, see EMMERICK (1968:164-185). For further literature on the Book of Zambasta ,
see EMMERICK (1968:ix; 1990; and 1992:39-41).
In recent decades, a whole series of partial editions of the BoBh has been published in Japan.161 In these publications, the Sanskrit and Tibetan texts as well as all three Chinese BoBh translations texts are very conveniently presented synoptically sentence by sentence. One of these books is devoted to an edition of the Śīlapaṭala (HADANO et al., 1993). The Sanskrit text of this chapter is based on three of the four manuscripts, on both previous editions, on the Tibetan and Chinese translations, and on other secondary materials. The great merits of this edition are obvious.162 One can, however, entertain some methodological doubts regarding the decision to give the Cambridge MS a privileged status in the Sanskrit edition. This has, among other problems, resulted in leaving many scribal mistakes and idiosyncrasies in the text.163 Moreover, it was certainly not a very good idea to disregard the National Archives MS in favor of the Kyoto MS.164 The Śīlapaṭala has been translated into English by TATZ (1986:47-89)165 and into modern Japanese by FUJITA (1989; 1990; 1991).166 LEUMANN (1933-1936:368- 384) contains an analysis of nearly the entire chapter and an abbreviated translation of selected parts.167
161 HADANO et al. (1993), ISODA et al. (1995), FURUSAKA (2007). – I have not seen HADANO (1975). It seems to be a preliminary, not officially published version of the new edition of the whole BoBh , which circulated only in a few copies. Cp. SILK (2001:157, n. 30), TAKAHASHI (2005a:6, n. 19), and SUGAWARA (1990:327) for this item. From the latter publication, it becomes clear that this preliminary edition was already very similar as described below for the edition of the Śīlapaṭala (TAKAHASHI's description of the contents of HADANO 1975 is, however, somewhat different from the one given by SUGAWARA). SUGAWARA also states that it constitutes an "almost perfect laborious task." 162 It should also be noted that variant readings are given not only for the Sanskrit text
but also for the other versions. Moreover, the corresponding parts of *Sāgaramegha's
commentary (on which see §2.1.9.1 and the present paragraph above) are edited on facing
pages. However, not only in terms of the quantity of utilized materials but also in terms
of quality, this edition seems to be extra-ordinarily good. 163 Very often in these cases, the "Classical Sanskrit" reading is given in the notes,
thereby creating the impression that the reading adopted in the text is "Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit." But the language of the YoBh , and even of the Bodhisattvabhūmi , is certainly far
less hybrid than the editors seem to assume (see §2.0). 164 The National Archives MS has been checked but has not been utilized for
corrections because of its similarity with the Kyoto MS (HADANO et al., 1993:xii). See the
remarks on the relationship of these two codices above (§2.1.9.1). – These editions are by
the way quite expensive; I therefore doubt that they will gain wide currency in the Western
libraries. 165 According to DE JONG'S detailed review (1989), the translation is very useful, since
TATZ in general understands the text correctly, although his rendering regrettably also
suffers from many minor blemishes. I completely agree with DE JONG's balanced judgment. 166 It should be noted that Kōkan FUJITA during roughly the last three decades has
published many more contributions relating to the Śīlapaṭala and its later adaptations in Indo-Tibetan tradition than have been mentioned here. Recently, he has (in accordance with the Japanese tradition of writing one's doctoral dissertation when one is already a senior scholar) also submitted a Ph.D. thesis on this topic (FUJITA, 2001). 167 Recently, SPARHAM (2009) has translated small parts of the chapter into English. The translation has been produced for a lay audience and for undergraduate students rather than for academic specialists in Indian or Buddhist studies. Still, it is deplorable that this contribution is seriously flawed. To give just two examples: 1) In the beginning, SPARHAM (2009:405) translates the enumeration of nine different kinds of śīla into English
2.1.9.4 Much less material is available for the next chapters. MARKERTBRAHAM (2005) has edited and translated the Kṣāntipaṭala (I.11) within the framework of her M.A. thesis. The Dhyānapaṭala (I.13) has been translated into French by DEMIÉVILLE (1957). The Sanskrit fragment SHT III 964 (No.7 in §1.2) contains text from the beginning of the Pūjāsevāpramāṇapaṭala (I.16). 168 MAITHRIMURTHI (1999:305-316) has edited and translated the second half of this chapter (BoBh D 1661-17017 = BoBh W 24115-2496). LAMOTTE (1976:1857-1859) has translated the greater part of the short but important section on dhāraṇī (BoBh D 1855-18610 = BoBh W 27212-2747) found in the Bodhipakṣyapaṭala (I.17). FURUSAKA (2007) and ISODA & FURUSAKA (1995) are synoptical editions of the last chapter of the first yogasthāna (I.18) and of the second to fourth yogasthāna s of the BoBh (II-IV), respectively.169 The old partial editions (II.4, III.3) by Johannes RAHDER have already been mentioned above (n. 137). HARADA (2010) has started to translate the Vihārapaṭala (II.4). The Japanese title of this publication contains the information that the Sanskrit text is given as well. Three very short passages from the third yogasthāna (III.3 and III.6) have been edited and translated in
SAKUMA (1990:149-152). Translations of the Upapattipaṭala and the Parigrahapaṭala
(III.1-2; FURUSAKA, 1985:93-99) are available. NASU (2010) has just begun
to publish a translation of the section on the Ten Powers of a Buddha (daśa
tathāgatabalāni ) in the Pratiṣṭhāpaṭala (III.6). The Anukramapaṭala (IV) has been
rendered into modern Japanese (FURUSAKA, 1996:118-123) as well. The lastmentioned
chapter is missing in some of the textual sources, namely in the two old
Chinese BoBh translations and in all MSS except the Cambridge MS. It has been
argued that this chapter represents a secondary addition to the BoBh (DUTT,
1966:3 and 6-7; FURUSAKA, 1996).170
(BoBhD 956-8 = BoBhW 1379-13). However, he obviously did not recognize that his translation
only contains eight of these nine kinds. 2) Later in his rendering (SPARHAM,
2009:407), we read "… and [in the presence of] the single member of the highest sangha
who constitutes [the necessary quorum] …" This is obviously his translation of Sanskrit
ekāṃsam uttarāsaṅgaṃ kṛtvā (!) in BoBh D 10513= BoBh W 1535-6, a well known phrase
which means "having put the upper robe over one shoulder." 168 The fragment has been identified by Noritoshi ARAMAKI (see WALDSCHMIDT et al.,
1966ff., vol. V; 1985:271). The two pages A and B of the fragmentary folio must obviously
be read in reverse order and seem to correspond to BoBh D 15923-1611 = BoBh W 2322-23316;
in WALDSCHMIDT et al. (1966ff., ibid.), however, the reference is to BoBh D 15924-16015. 169 For general information on these two books, see the remarks on the synoptical
Śīlapaṭala edition above. As regards ISODA & FURUSAKA (1995), it should be noted that it
is at present not available to me. I have, however, seen this edition some years ago during a
stay in Japan. In FURUSAKA (2007), the tendency to leave omnipresent scribal mistakes like
the omission of a visarga or anusvāra in the text is perhaps even stronger than in the
Śīlapaṭala edition. Moreover, in this particular edition there seem to be very many places
where other clearly secondary readings have been given preference to the correct one, e.g.,
sentence no. 47 jñena for BoBhW 2889 jñānena , no. 50 °prayogo for BoBhW 28823 °prayoga° ,
no. 59 °prasaṃyukta for BoBhW 2899-10 °pratisaṃyukta , no. 96 sarvasadharmeṣu for BoBhW
2941 sarveṣu dharmeṣu (the textual sources mentioned by FURUSAKA in his note can also
be interpreted as pointing to an original reading sarvadharmeṣu ). 170 It is also interesting to note that *Sāgaramegha's commentary simply cites the whole
chapter without commenting on it. The Tibetan translation of the BoBh does contain this
chapter; however, immediately before it commences, the BoBh is – in both Q and D –
stated to have been completed (rdzogs so ). Both these facts make it likely that the chapter
2.1.10 The Sanskrit text of the Sopadhikā Bhūmiḥ (YoBh MS 154b2-156a1) and the Nirupadhikā Bhūmiḥ (YoBh MS 156a1-156b) is only preserved in the YoBh MS.171 A very fine edition has been published (SCHMITHAUSEN, 1991).
B. The Four Saṃgrahaṇī Sections
2.2.0 The Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī ("Collection of Clarifications;" Q5539, D4038) constitutes the second part of the YoBh . It represents the result of an attempt to compile all available additional materials that are more or less related to the subject-matter treated in the corresponding sections of the Basic Section into one volume.173 Therefore, it is somewhat misleading to designate this part as a commentary on the Basic Section, as it still is often done in secondary literature. More than 90% of the Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī are only available in Tibetan and Chinese translations (but see now n. 44). Only a few sections or passages of this part of the YoBh are already available in critical editions and translations. 2.2.1.1 The first chapter of the Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī deals with the first two of the seventeen bhūmi s. Roughly the first half (Q5539.zi.1a1-60b7 = T1579.579a- 601a) is also preserved in a 6th-century Chinese translation by Paramārtha, namely the Juédìngzàng lùn (決定藏論; T1584). UI (1930: 543-707) has provided a very useful synoptical edition of the two Chinese versions. This chapter starts with the so-called "ālayavijñāna Treatise ," which has received quite a lot of attention in scholarship. The first portion of this treatise is preserved in Sanskrit, since it is cited in the Abhidharmasamuccayabhāṣya (ASBh 1116-1320 = Q5539.zi.2b2-4a4 = T1579.579a14-c22). HAKAMAYA (1978) has critically edited this citation together with relevant Tibetan and Chinese texts. In a subsequent publication (HAKAMAYA, 1979), the same scholar has prepared a synoptical critical edition of the Tibetan and Chinese texts of the other parts of the ālayavijñāna Treatise (Q5539.zi.4a5- 10b6 = T1579.579c23-582a12).174 Both editions are accompanied by annotated Japanese translations. SCHMITHAUSEN has discussed this section at length (see SCHMITHAUSEN, 1987b:671f.). GRIFFITHS (1986:129-138) has translated and annotated the first portion mentioned above; he has also given the Sanskrit text with some very slight emendations derived from HAKAMAYA's (1978) edition.175 WALDRON (2003:178-189) has recently published an English translation of the remaining portions of the treatise.
is a commentarial appendix and that the transmitters of the text were well aware of this
character. The version contained in *Sāgaramegha's commentary represents, by the way,
the same translation as that one contained in the Tibetan BoBh . 171 The folios containing these bhūmi s are partly broken at the margins. Therefore,
small parts of the text are lost in the Sanskrit original. 172 A very small section had been edited and translated in SAKUMA (1990:153-154).
Earlier on, SCHMITHAUSEN (1969b) had cited and discussed various passages from the MS. 173 See SCHMITHAUSEN (1969a:813-816); cp. also SCHMITHAUSEN (1969b:17-37, esp.
18f.). As regards the structure of this part of the YoBh , compare the remarks in §0.4. 174 Small parts have also been edited and translated in SAKUMA (1990:155-161 = Q5539.zi.9a3f. = T1579.581b22f. = T1584.1021a28f.; and Q5539.zi.9a8-10a3 = T1579.581c3-22 = T1584.1021b8-24). 175 See SAKUMA (1996:7-8) for some further corrections of the Sanskrit text. 176 See SCHMITHAUSEN (1987b:300 n. 226) for some more details regarding this treatise and the pertinent publications (up to 1986).
2.2.1.2 Regarding the other portions of this first chapter of the Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī , it should be noted that the long Sanskrit fragment mentioned above (no. 8 in §1.2) belongs to these parts (= Q5539.zi.31a5-59b2 = T1579. 589b19-600c10). It has not been published yet.177 The Tibetan translation of yet another portion of this chapter (Q5539.zi.65a3-68b7 = T1579.602a9-604b9) dealing with spiritual defilements (kleṣa ) has been critically edited and rendered into German by AHN (2003:88-95 and 215-230, respectively). KRITZER (1999:225-281) discusses at length two other sections of this chapter, which concern the cittaviprayuktāḥ saṃskārāḥ (Q5539.zi.21b1-29b1 = T1579.585c9-588c9; and Q5539. zi.76a5-78a3 = T1579.607a23-608a6) and cites (with text-critical remarks) many short passages contained therein. Another, rather tiny section from this chapter (Q5539.zi.30a5-30b7 = T1579.589a9-b2) can be found in SAKUMA (1990:161-165, edition and German translation).
2.2.2 Regarding the second chapter of the Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī , the critical edition (AHN, 2003:96-155) and annotated German translation (ibid.:231-372) of two further sections on spiritual defilements (Q5539.zi.112b2-137b1 = T.1579. 621a26-630a5) is especially noteworthy.178 A very short passage from another part of this chapter (Q5539.zi.152a4-6 = T1579.635c6-11) can be found in SAKUMA (1990: 171-173).
Towards the end of this chapter (Q5539.zi.158a4-173a5 = T1579.638a19-644a6)
the royal ethical code is dealt with. The greater part of this section (Q5539.zi.158a4-
168a1 = T1579.638a19-642a5; Q5539.zi.169a5-173a5 = T1579.642b20-644a6) has in
China also been transmitted as an independent text, the Wángfǎ zhènglǐ lùn (王法
正理論; T1615), which is said to be a translation by Xuánzàng. As a matter of fact,
both Chinese versions agree literally with each other, apart from some minor
variants (ZIMMERMANN, 2006:230 n. 52) – at least if one disregards the fact that
one portion in the middle (Q5539.zi.168a1-169a5 = T1579.642a6-b19) is missing in
T1615. JAN (1984) has summarized the whole section as it appears in the Chinese
YoBh and translated parts thereof; on the same occasion, he pointed out its
importance as an authoritative Buddhist text on kingship. Furthermore, JAN
(1984:222-223) suggests that the independent text simply came into being, because
Xuánzàng during the year 649 CE made an extract from his own earlier translation
of the YoBh in order to influence the new Chinese emperor.
There are, however, some interesting further problems involved in this section
of the YoBh that are quite typical for the heterogeneous character of the work as a
whole. JAN (1984:229-230) has already noted that the section under consideration
also contains elements "which are not directly related to the ideal of kingship." It
seems, however, – after an admittedly cursory examination – that they rather have
no connection with such a topic at all. This might also be the reason why the
passage already mentioned above (Q5539.zi.168a1-169a5 = T1579.642a6-b19) is
missing in the separate treatise T1615. It is dealing with different kinds of suffering
or unsatisfactoriness (duḥkha ). However, the next section of the YoBh (Q5539.zi.
169a5-173a5 = T1579.642b20-644a6) – which does appear in T1615 as well – also
contains quite a lot of shorter passages that seem to be completely unrelated to the
177 Kazunobu MATSUDA (1988:19), who discovered this fragment, has stated his
intention to publish it. A few passages are cited in MATSUDA (1988), VON ROSPATT (1995,
see his index locorum s.v. Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī ), and KRITZER (2005:5, 187, 189). 178 Two small portions of this section are already contained in SAKUMA (1990:165-171).
subject-matter. Only the first section (Q5539.zi.158a4-168a1 = T1579.638a19-642a5) is a neatly arranged tract on kingship. It consists in a quotation of a dialogue between the Buddha and a certain king. There is yet another Chinese text that corresponds partly to the YoBh section under consideration, namely, the Fó wéi yōutián wáng shuō (wáng fǎzhèng lùn ) jīng [佛為優填王說(王法政論)經; T524], which has been transmitted as a sūtra and is said to be a translation by the famous Tantric Buddhist master Amoghavajra (8th century). YŪKI (1962:65) has stated that there likewise only are minor differences between this sūtra and T1615. It is true that the similarities are great, not only regarding the contents but also the Chinese wording. The agreement is, however, clearly not as strong as between the YoBh and T1615. Moreover, a major difference between T1615 and Amoghavajra's text consists in the fact that the latter only contains the first section mentioned above (Q5539.zi.158a4-168a1 = T1579. 638a19-642a5). This restriction results in a much more satisfactory text in terms of coherence. The last lines of the text have, by the way, no correspondence in the parallel texts dealt with above. These additions are, interestingly enough, Tantric in nature. This sūtra and its relation to the YoBh section dealt with here and to the text T1615 has, as it seems, for a long time not received as much attention in the secondary literature as it deserves. Recently, however, MAEDA (2007) has dealt with all these materials. His article contains, among others, a partial critical edition of the Tibetan text of this YoBh section accompanied by a Japanese translation and a comparison with the pertinent Chinese sources.179 2.2.3 The *Samāhitabhūmiviniścaya has seemingly not received very much attention till now. A synoptical edition and annotated German translation of the
- Asamāhitabhūmiviniścaya is available (DELHEY, 2006:136-140 and 144-150,
respectively).
2.2.4 No editions or translations of large amounts of text regarding the next
chapters up to and including the *Śrāvakabhūmiviniścaya are known to me.
However, some very short passages from the *Bhāvanāmayībhūmiviniścaya
(Q5539.zi.236b1-237a1 = T1579.669a8-21; and Q5539.zi.237a4-5 = T1579.669a29-b3)
as well as two tiny pieces from the *Śrāvakabhūmiviniścaya (Q5539.zi.242b8-243a5
=T1579.671b14-21; and Q5539.zi.255a7-255b2 = T1579.676b9-16) have been edited
and translated in SAKUMA (1990:173-182). The Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī section on
the Pratyekabuddhabhūmi consists merely of the brief remark by the compiler that
he was unable to find additional materials on this topic.
2.2.5.0 The situation is quite different as regards the *Bodhisattvabhūmiviniścaya , which is the longest chapter of the Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī . Obviously, the compiler has tried to arrange his materials in accordance with the chapter division of the Bodhisattvabhūmi . Sometimes (like in the case of the Tattvārthapaṭala , see below), though not very often, he even states that he has not found any further materials on a certain paṭala , thereby marking the transition to another subsection. WANGCHUK (2007:263-266) has translated and edited a short section from the beginning of this chapter (Q5539.zi.300a7-300b8). 179 Since this publication came to my attention only very recently, I had no opportunity to study it in any detail. Moreover, another short article on this topic by the same author (MAEDA, 2005) has not been accessible to me.
2.2.5.1 The subchapter *Tattvārthapaṭalaviniścaya has because of its relevance
for understanding the dogmatics and philosophy of early Yogācāra Buddhism
aroused the interest of many scholars. KRAMER (2005) has devoted a whole
monograph to the first part of this subchapter, namely the section on the five
categories of reality (vastu ) (Q5539.zi.302b1-'i.19b6 = T1579.695c26-703a25),
including a critical edition of the Tibetan text on the basis of all five textual
witnesses and an annotated German translation.180 WILLIS (1976:186-257) has
edited and translated selected passages of the second part of the
- Tattvārthapaṭalaviniścaya . Her edition, however, is hardly more than a transcription
of the Peking block-print; emendations have only very rarely been suggested. TAKAHASHI's recent monograph (2005a) contains a critical edition (ibid.:119-149) and Japanese translation (ibid.:181-212) of selected passages from both parts of this subchapter.
2.2.5.2 SAKUMA (1990:190-201) has edited and translated a section on the
nature of the awakening of a buddha (mahābodhi ; Q5539.'i.30a6-31b5 = T1579.
707a5-b23). Another, relatively long section (Q5539.'i.40a1-43a5 = T1579. 710c29-
712a17) is cited completely, though in a piecemeal fashion, in one of Tsong kha pa's
works. See TATZ (1986:132-136) for a translation of the passage containing the
quotation.
2.2.5.3 Later in the *Bodhisattvabhūmiviniścaya , nearly the entire Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra 181 is cited, only interrupted by an introductory sentence at the beginning of each chapter (Q5539.'i.47b7-108b8 = T1579.713c28-736c12). The single folio fragment of the Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī mentioned above (no. 9a in §1.2) belongs to this part of the chapter (Q5539.'i.87b7-92a3 = T1579.728c16-730b21 = Saṃdh VIII.39-IX.6).182 The fragment has been published in facsimile and the passage belonging to Saṃdh IX has been edited (in transcription and as a critical edition) and translated into Japanese (MATSUDA, 1995). A very tiny part of the citation in the YoBh (Q5539.'i.100b8-101a4 = T1579.733c19-24) has been edited and translated in SAKUMA (1990:201-203).
Many more materials and modern publications are available. It is true that they
usually refer mainly or exclusively to the Saṃdh transmitted as an independent
work. However, it goes without saying that they are relevant for the study of the
citation in the YoBh as well. Therefore, some bibliographical notes are certainly
useful. It should, however, be noted that no claim is made here to give an exhaustive
account of relevant materials.183 Quite a few Sanskrit fragments of the sūtra in
180 A small section was already contained in SAKUMA (1990:183-190). 181 Only the introduction (LAMOTTE, 1935:31-34) and the concluding sentence of the
sūtra (ibid.:165-166) are missing from this citation. 182 MATSUDA (1995:62 n. 11); location of the passage in the Peking bKa' 'gyur :
Q774.(ṅu ).42a5-46a1 (MATSUDA & STEINKELLNER, 1991:141). 183 For some older pertinent Japanese publications which will not be mentioned here,
see YAMADA (1959:198). See also POWERS (1991) and the monographs by the same author
mentioned below for further references, but note that the bibliographical details given
there are at times unreliable. Regarding HAKAMAYA'S pertinent publications, see SUEKI
(2008:38 [§B185]). Compare also MATSUDA's contribution in the present volume for more
details on the textual witnesses of the Saṃdh .
the form of Central Asian manuscripts and citations are known.184 There is a
Tibetan translation of the sūtra contained in the bka' 'gyur (Q774, D106).185 Large
fragments of another, earlier rendering have been unearthed in Dūnhuáng.
HAKAMAYA (1984, 1986, 1987a, 1987b) has undertaken a comparative study of the
two translations and edited them synoptically on facing pages.186 There are several
(partial and complete) Chinese translations of the sūtra (T675-T679), including a
complete translation produced by Xuánzàng (T676).187 LAMOTTE (1935) has
edited the Tibetan translation of this sūtra as contained in the bKa' 'gyur and
translated it into French. NOZAWA (1957) has inserted the text of Saṃdh VIII at
the appropriate places of his critical edition of a commentary on this chapter (for
which see below). YOSHIMURA (1959) is a hand-written synoptical edition of the
Tibetan text of Saṃdh VIII and the corresponding portion in Xuánzàng's Chinese
translation. Both versions contain some text-critical notes. POWERS (1995) gives
the Tibetan text of the entire sūtra ; it is, however, merely reproduced from the
Derge block print (see ibid.:XXI).188 LAMOTTE's edition is based on only one
textual witness of the Tibetan translation of the sūtra ;189 his (relatively few)
variants are derived from the commentaries and Chinese versions. As is well
known, nowadays we have – in contrast to LAMOTTE – access to many different
textual witnesses of the Tibetan bKa' 'gyur . Moreover, LAMOTTE did not take the
Tibetan (or Chinese) text contained in the YoBh into account, either.190 Furthermore,
it must be noted that according to recent research (POWERS, 1993b; KATO,
2006) the later Tibetan translation contained in the different bKa' 'gyur editions is
184 Central Asian Fragments: SHT III 923, SHT III 981. Noteworthy fragments in the
form of citations can be found in the Triṃśikābhāṣya (LÉVI, 1925:3325-345 = new edition by
BUESCHER, 2007:*3317-344 [from Saṃdh V]); moreover, one verse (TUCCI, 1971:1 [from
Saṃdh III]) and one sentence (TUCCI, 1971:22 [from Saṃdh VII.15]) are found in
Bhāvanākrama III; further, another sentence (from Saṃdh VIII.7) occurs in the
Jñānaśrīmitranibandhāvalī (see SCHMITHAUSEN, 2005:14 n. 13). 185 For a comprehensive listing of other textual witnesses for this Tibetan translation,
consult the online database Resources for Kanjur Studies (URL: http://www.istb.univie.ac.
at/kanjur/). 186 These articles seem to have been reprinted in HAKAMAYA (2008). 187 For more information on these texts, see, e.g., LAMOTTE (1935:9-11) and Yūki
(1962:19-22). 188 POWERS (ibid.) also states that his translation is based on this block print, since the
Derge edition "is highly esteemed by Tibetan scholars." Immediately before, POWERS
(ibid.:XX) states that "[i]n my studies, I have consulted ten different Tibetan editions […]."
It is true that the volume is obviously meant to be a popular edition for a rather wide public.
Nevertheless, I wonder whether one does such an important and difficult text any favor
when one deliberately decides to disregard nine textual witnesses in editing and translating
it. Cp. also n.192. 189 There can be no doubt that LAMOTTE's edition is based on the Narthang block print
(as it has also been stated in HAKAMAYA, 1984:2 n. 6), although LAMOTTE does not explicitly
refer to his source text in this way. Strangely, in his review of LAMOTTE's book, WARE
(1937:124) gives a list of variant readings which according to him are derived from the
Narthang edition. I have not investigated this matter any further. 190 LAMOTTE was, however, seemingly aware of the fact that the Saṃdh is extensively
quoted in the YoBh , since he cites a long passage from an earlier publication by OBERMILLER, wherein this information is given (LAMOTTE 1935:16). – LAMOTTE's edition is, by the way, also accompanied by extensive reconstructions into Sanskrit. It is only natural that nowadays many of these Sanskrit equivalents can be corrected.
not only different from the older Tibetan translation from Dūnhuáng (on which see above) but has itself been transmitted through two clearly distinguishable recensions. The differences between the two versions are so great that they seemingly may even be labeled as two separate translations. Finally, one can hardly overstate the importance of text-critical problems and the attempt to reconstruct the lost Sanskrit wording for the philosophical interpretation of this sūtra (as an illustration of this point, the reader may be referred to SCHMITHAUSEN, 1984). Therefore, it is certainly good news that in Japan work on a new critical edition of the Saṃdh on a very broad textual basis is in progress (see KATO, 2006:94).191 Recently, three complete English translations of the sūtra have been published. POWERS (1995) translated the Tibetan text; KEENAN (2000) rendered Xuánzàng's Chinese text into English. Another English translation by CLEARY (1995) is seemingly also based on Xuánzàng's version. All three monographs are obviously rather written for a general audience than for the specialists.192 The same holds true for a recent French translation of the Tibetan version (CORNU, 2005). An excellent partial German translation (Saṃdh VI and parts of Saṃdh VII) with introductory explanations is available in FRAUWALLNER (1969:279-295), which likewise was written for a wider educated audience. HAKAMAYA (1994:75-225) provides a Japanese translation of Saṃdh VI and VII, accompanied by very extensive comments. NOZAWA (1957) has translated Saṃdh VIII into Japanese.193 It is a matter of debate how many of the Saṃdh commentaries preserved in Tibetan originated in India. Regarding a very short commentary ascribed to Asaṅga (Q5481, D3981), its Indian origin has, to the best of my knowledge, not been questioned. This does, however, not hold true for the ascription of this text to Asaṅga.194 LAMOTTE (1935) has transliterated and translated parts of this text; POWERS (1992a) has rendered it into English. STEINKELLNER (1989:231-233) argued that Jñānagarbha's commentary (Q5535, D4033) on Saṃdh VIII (i.e., the Maitreyaparivarta, Tib. Byams pa'i le'u ) has probably been written by a Tibetan (who has variably been referred to under his Sanskrit monastic name Jñānagarbha as well as under the Tibetan names Ye shes snying po and Shes rab snying po).195 191 POWERS (1993a:27 n. 59) has earlier announced a critical edition of the Tibetan translation, which he characterized as "forthcoming" and "completed" (POWERS, 1993b:203, cp. also 222 n.36) but seemingly this work has not been published till now. 192 POWERS' translation has been very critically reviewed by TILLEMANS (1997). TILLEMANS points out that POWERS' translation tends to be unreliable in many places. One of the reasons for these shortcomings is the insufficient use of important primary sources and earlier modern translations. 193 Regarding translations into Japanese, see also the reference to HAKAMAYA's book in n. 183. 194 See WAYMAN (1961:34f.), who mainly refers to a statement by Tsong kha pa. However, more recently, POWERS (1992a:13-22) has dealt with this problem at length and comes to the conclusion that there is no cogent reason to reject the authorship of Asaṅga. 195 If I understand POWERS (1998:3-9; very similarly already in POWERS, 1992a:56-63)
correctly, he does not think that the evidence provided by STEINKELLNER is conclusive,
although it seems that he also does not want to exclude the possibility that STEINKELLNER's
hypothesis is right. At any rate, the only counter-evidence which POWERS seems to adduce
(at least in the passages of his books specified above; compare the end of this note) is the
fact that dGe lugs masters have identified the author with the Indian Madhyamaka master
Jñānagarbha. In my opinion, the arguments put forward by STEINKELLNER are
considerably stronger than this rather late traditional ascription. Regarding the question
The text has been edited by NOZAWA (1957) and POWERS (1998); both scholars have also provided translations of this commentary (NOZAWA, 1957; POWERS, 1992a and 1998).196 A very extensive Saṃdh commentary (Q5517, D4016) contained in the bstan 'gyur was – as is well known – written by the Korean Woncheuk (圓測 Yuáncè, 613-696 CE) and translated into Tibetan from the original Chinese by 'Gos Chos grub (a.k.a. Fǎchéng 法成, ca. 755-849)(see, e.g., STEINKELLNER, 1989:233-235; POWERS, 1992b), and is therefore not of Indian origin. The 'Phags pa dgongs pa nges par 'grel pa'i mdo'i rnam par bshad pa (Q5845, D4358) is quite obviously a Tibetan composition.197 NOZAWA (1957) has translated the portion which deals with Saṃdh VIII into Japanese.
2.2.5.4 For two passages from the later sections of the *Bodhisattvabhūmiviniścaya , see WANGCHUK (2007:140-142 = Q5539.'i.127b3-129b2) and – again a very tiny piece – SAKUMA (1990:203-204 = Q5539.'i.134b8-135a1 = T1579.746c14-18). These three passages belong to a long section (Q5539.'i.115a1-136b7 = T1579. 738c28-747b25) that seems to be inspired by the Kāśyapaparivarta . At any rate, the section is definitely very closely related to a commentary on that mahāyānasūtra ascribed to Sthiramati (Q5510, D4009; T1523).198
2.2.6 The last chapter of the Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī contains additional material
on the last two items of the set of 17 bhūmi s and deals with nirvāṇa . SCHMITHAUSEN
(1969b) has published a critical edition of the Tibetan text together with a
heavily annotated German translation and analysis of this chapter. In the edition,
not only all four textual witnesses for the Tibetan rendering known at that time but
also the secondary Mongolian translation have been collated, and in the translation
not only Xuánzàng's Chinese rendering but also an East Asian commentary
(T1828) have been taken into account.
whether the ideas put forward in this work are reconcilable with a Madhyamaka viewpoint,
see POWERS' discussion (ibid.) and his references to earlier contributions by other scholars
who, unlike POWERS, deny this possibility. Elsewhere, POWERS (1992a:5 n.1) leaves the
question whether the Indian master Jñānagarbha is the real author of the work completely
undecided, instead claiming that the style and syntax of the commentary "clearly mark it as
an Indian text." He does, however, not give any examples to illustrate his point. 196 POWERS' second translation contains obviously only very minor changes as
compared to his first one. This even holds good for his notes. – POWERS (1998) has been
very harshly criticized in the review by WEDEMEYER (2003) to which the reader may be
referred, although the present author does not subscribe to every point of criticism
adduced there. 197 For a discussion of the question of who exactly the author of this Tibetan text was,
see STEINKELLNER (1989:237-241). STEINKELLNER comes to the conclusion that probably
the Tibetan translator Klu rgyal mtshan rather than Byang chub rdzu 'phrul (who can be
identified with the king Khri srong lde btsan) authored this work. 198 See POTTER (2003:526-532) and, more importantly, SILK'S (2009) article on this
fascinating subject. The latter contribution contains two useful tables regarding the
correspondences between the two texts, a summary and discussion of Japanese scholarship
on this topic, and many further references.
2.3 The *Vivaraṇasaṃgrahaṇī or (somewhat more likely) *Vyākhyā(na)saṃ- grahaṇī 199 (Q5543, D4042) is a short manual of exegetical hermeneutics and can therefore be regarded as an early forerunner of Vasubandhu's Vyākhyāyukti (Q5562, D4061, critical edition by LEE, 2001). According to MUKAI (1996:578), a glance at the table of contents of this part of the YoBh strongly suggests that Vasubandhu was acquainted with this text when he wrote his own manual. While the Vyākhyāyukti has become quite popular in Buddhological research during the last decade, this part of the YoBh has seemingly not yet received very much attention. It has, however, been recognized that a close comparison of the two works is desirable (HORIUCHI, 2008:1130 n.3). No Sanskrit fragments of this part of the YoBh are known to be extant. For a survey of the structure and contents of this chapter with references to the Tibetan block print edition of Peking, to the Taishō edition of the Chinese translation, and to the parallel chapter in the Xiǎnyáng lùn , see MUKAI (1996:575-573).
2.4 MUKAI's publication (1996: 572-569) also contains a synopsis of the
Paryāyasaṃgrahaṇī . The Paryāyasaṃgrahaṇī (Q5542, D4041) deals with canonical
sets of synonyms (paryāya ) presented in such a manner that the individual words
are differentiated from one another by assigning a distinct meaning to each. The
single folio Sanskrit fragment of this part of the YoBh 200 (= Q5542.47b7-49b7 =
T1579.768c20-769c9) amounts roughly to 5-10% of the whole text of this section.
The folio has already been edited diplomatically and critically by MATSUDA (1994).
2.5 The Vastusaṃgrahaṇī consists – at least according to the Chinese version –
of a scholastic and systematic treatment of each of the three baskets of the
Buddhist canon. There seem to be no manuscript or manuscript fragment of this
part of the YoBh .
The first section (Q5540 = D4039 = T1579.772b-868b) deals with the Basket
of Sermons (sūtrapiṭaka ) and can be regarded as a kind of systematic commentary
on the *Saṃyuktāgama . One passage of this part of the Vastusaṃgrahaṇī (Q5540.
285a3-287b6 = T1579.827c3-828c12) has also been incorporated into the Savitarkādibhūmi
of the Basic Section (Bh. 19817-2035) and can therefore be regarded as the
only passage of the Vastusaṃgrahaṇī that has been preserved in Sanskrit.201 A concordance
of the Peking, Derge, and Taishō editions and of the sūtra s of the
Saṃyuktāgama , on which this first part of the Vastusaṃgrahaṇī comments, can be
found in MUKAI (1985:27-41).
199 The Tibetan title is Rnam par bshad pa bsdu ba . The original Sanskrit title is not
preserved (SCHMITHAUSEN, 1969b:18). MUKAI (1996:579-578) has given several reasons
why *Vyākhyā(na)saṃgrahaṇī seems to be the more probable reconstruction. See ibid.:
569 n. 1 for further references. 200 See §1.2, no. 9b. 201 See, e.g., KRITZER (1999:157). KRITZER also discusses the difficult question of the
direction in which the borrowing of the text passage took place (ibid.:158f.).
The second section of the Chinese Vastusaṃgrahaṇī (T1579.868b-878a24) has the vinaya as its subject-matter. In the transmitted Tibetan translation, this section forms a separate part of the YoBh , which is called *Vinayasaṃgrahaṇī (Q5541 = D4040). There can hardly be any doubt that this is a secondary development (see, e.g., DELEANU, 2006:46f.). Another, more substantial difference between the two translations consists in the fact that the Tibetan *Vinayasaṃgrahaṇī contains a treatment of the topic in verses (Q5541.1a1-5a8) that is followed by a more detailed exposition of the same content in prose. The verses are missing in the corresponding section of the Chinese Vastusaṃgrahaṇī (KRITZER, 2005:XVIf.). Finally, there are also deviations at the end of the prose section: The definitions contained in T1579.877c2-17 are in the Tibetan rendering (Q5541.26b7-27a2) only represented by a short general remark. T1579.877c18-878a24 is obviously missing completely in the Tibetan translation (see KRITZER, 2005:XVI).
The same complexity applies to the entire third part of the Vastusaṃgrahaṇī ,
which deals with mātṛkā 202 (T1579.878a25-881c2). MUKAI (1985:4-8) has discussed
this textual problem at length. He has pointed out that the absence of the third part
in the Tibetan translation is inconsistent from a structural point of view, since there
are at least two passages in the YoBh – one of them being the beginning of the
Vastusaṃgrahaṇī itself – which clearly suggest that this text should contain all
three parts. KRITZER (1999:157 n. 412) suggests that the third part is a later
addition to the Vastusaṃgrahaṇī. However, what he probably intends with this
statement is that it was added later during the compilation process of the YoBh
rather than after the final redaction.
Partial critical editions of the Vastusaṃgrahaṇī seem to be extremely rare.
SAKUMA (1990:204-208) contains the edition and translation of two short passages
from its first part (Q5540.221a2-5 = T1579.802a5-12; and Q5540.312b2-5 = T1579.
839a25-b4).
Concluding Remarks
3.1 Far more than 80% of the extant Sanskrit text of the YoBh is already available in edited form.203 If one, however, considers that most manuscripts had already been discovered by the late 1930s and that the YoBh is one of the historically most important treatises of Indian Buddhism, this is certainly not a very good quota. The most urgent task in YoBh studies is to prepare editions of the remaining sections.
Regarding those parts of the text that already are available in one or more editions, the situation is more complex. It has, hopefully, become clear that they vary widely in quality. Some editions are only based on a minimal amount of textual sources and are, above that, very unreliable regarding the readings of the MS on which they rely. Some of these especially poor editions have already been replaced by better ones. But much work still remains to be done. This especially holds true for those sections of the ŚrBh that are still only available in SHUKLA's version and for parts of the Paramārthagāthā and its commentary. A new edition 202 The Mūlasarvāstivādin, and consequently also the authors of the YoBh , used the term mātṛkā (originally designating the exegetical lists that formed the basis for the Abhidharma) rather than the designation Abhidharma(piṭaka) in the threefold classification of the Buddhist teaching (see SCHMITHAUSEN, 1970:96). 203 In this estimate, I disregard the news on additional manuscript leaves of the Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī which are communicated in n. 44.
of more sections of the first five bhūmi s would certainly also be very useful.
Regarding the passages of the ŚrBh MS that have counterparts in the YoBh MS
and which have been edited by members of the ŚRĀVAKABHŪMI STUDY GROUP
merely on the basis of the first-mentioned codex, it is certainly desirable that
variant readings from the latter MS are communicated and emendations are
suggested. It makes a huge difference whether one uses one fairly old Sanskrit
manuscript or two of them, the more so since the ŚrBh MS contains relatively
many mistakes.
Regarding the parts that are only preserved in Tibetan and Chinese, we also
need far more critical editions, especially of the Tibetan text. The editions
available so far cover only a small percentage of the whole texts. For faster results,
editions based on only two Tibetan textual witnesses – each representing one of the
two lines of canonical transmission of this translation –, and on the Chinese
translation seem acceptable.204 Synoptical editions of the Tibetan and Chinese text
would, of course, also be very helpful. They facilitate the task of making conjectures
regarding the lost Sanskrit original even when one of the translations is faulty
or based on a faulty Sanskrit manuscript.
3.2 Regarding translations into modern languages, the state of the field is certainly worse than in the case of Sanskrit editions. There are only a few good renderings available and most of them only cover small amounts of text. The situation becomes far worse, if one is not able or willing to study the translations into German and modern Japanese. At any rate, we need far more annotated translations on strict scholarly principles in order to solve, or at least to discuss, the 204 For a survey of the Tibetan textual witnesses, cp. n. 30. – One might, of course, argue that it is for methodological reasons necessary to collate all five textual witnesses. However, if one is mainly interested in the ancient Indian original of the YoBh , it is certainly more important to consult the Chinese translation than to collate all Tibetan textual witnesses in trying to come as close as possible to the wording and meaning of the lost Sanskrit text. As a matter of fact, all Tibetan textual witnesses share a significant common stock of corruptions. In view of the history of bstan 'gyur transmission, this fact can hardly be considered surprising. The Chinese text can be helpful in detecting and eliminating such early corruptions in the process of the tramsmission of the Tibetan text. This method can, of course, only prove fruitful when one is aware of all the possible methodological pitfalls. In editing the Tibetan text, one must carefully resist the temptation to correct the text when it is equally possible that the Tibetan translators relied on a faulty Sanskrit text or did not understand the Indian original properly. There are often cases where it is very difficult to say which of the three possibilities is the right one. Moreover, in passages where the Chinese text itself is suspicious of being corrupt, it might be very difficult or simply impossible to draw safe conclusions from it for the constitution of the Tibetan text. Finally, the Chinese translation can only be helpful in recovering the Tibetan urtext when one assumes that the text transmission of the Tibetan translation has not been contaminated by Xuánzàng's version. I see, however, no indications for such an influence. – It is possible that Dūnhuáng manuscripts of the Tibetan translation can solve some of these problems in much easier ways. I have not yet checked such fragments in any detail. However, it does not seem that the fragments which are already known to exist, cover, taken together, a significant part of the text of the YoBh . For references to pertinent publications, see n. 30. 205 In this connection, projects like the Yogācārabhūmi database (see n. 72) are especially interesting.
many problems regarding the syntax, meaning, and textual history of the respective passages.
3.3 It should be stressed once again that we are dealing here with one of the
most influential śāstra s in Buddhist history, a text that induced Xuánzàng, the
arguably most eminent pilgrim in world history, to make the long and dangerous
journey to India. Much progress in creating basic research tools has been made
during recent decades. Nevertheless, huge gaps are remaining in this regard. The
YoBh certainly deserves to fill them.
Abbreviations and Sigla
ASBh Nathmal TATIA, ed.: Abhidharmasamuccaya-Bhāṣyam , Tibetan Sanskrit Works Series 17, Patna: K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute, 1976. Bh. the YoBh text contained in BHATTACHARYA, 1957. BoBh Bodhisattvabhūmi . BoBh D DUTT's (1966) edition of the BoBh . BoBh W WOGIHARA's (1930-1936) edition of the BoBh . Cat. Beijing Sen WANG's catalog of the 259 Sanskrit manuscripts once kept in the Palace of Culture of the Nationalities in Beijing (reproduced in HU-VON HINÜBER, 2006:297-334). D Derge block-print of the Tibetan Canon. Text numbers according to: A Complete Catalogue of the Tibetan Buddhist Canons (Bkaḥ-ḥgyur and Bstan-ḥgyur) , edited by Hakuju UI et al., Sendai: Tōhoku Imperial University, 1934.
G the Ganden manuscript bsTan 'gyur (a.k.a. the "Golden Tanjur"). Text numbers according to: Shin'ichiro MIYAKE, "Comparative Table of the Golden Manuscript Tenjur in dGa'-ldan Monastery with the Peking Edition of Tenjur" in (Ōtani Daigaku ) Shinshū Sōgō Kenyujō Kenkyū Kiyō (真宗総合研究所研究紀要)(Annual Memoirs of the Otani University Shin Buddhist Comprehensive Research Institute ) 17 (n.d.[2000 according to SUEKI, 2008: §D.054]), pp. 1-65. HAKAMAYA, Noriaki HAKAMAYA's bibliographical notes on Yogācāra texts in the benotes ginnings of the volumes of the following publication: Deruge ban chibetto daizōkyō: ronsho bu, yuishiki bu (デルゲ版チベット大蔵経: 論疏部, 唯 識部)(sde dge Tibetan Tripiṭaka Bstan 'gyur — preserved at the Faculty of Letters, University of Tokyo: Sems-tsam section ), 16 vols., ed. by Jikidō TAKASAKI (高崎直道), Zuihō YAMAGUCHI (山口瑞鳳), and Noriaki HAKAMAYA (袴谷憲昭), Tokyo: Sekai Seiten Kankō Kyōkai, 1979- 1981.
Hôbôgirin 法寳義林 (Hôbôgirin: Dictionaire encyclopédique du Bouddhisme d'après les sources chinoises et japonaises ), ed. by Sylvain LÉVI et al., Tokyo: Maison Franco-Japonaise, 1929ff. IBK Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū (印度学仏教学研究)(Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies ). NGMPP Nepalese-German Manuscript Preservation Project. Title list: Preliminary List of Manuscripts, Blockprints and Historical Documents Microfilmed by the NGMPP . Part I (excluding Tibetan Material and Historical Documents). CD-ROM. Version 1.0. University of Hamburg, Asia- Africa Institute, Department of Indian and Tibetan Studies, 2003. Cp. now also the online title list (accessible from the URL: http://www.unihamburg. de/ngmcp/indexe.html), which already contains catalog entries for many MSS.
Q the Peking block-print of the Tibetan Canon as reproduced in The
Tibetan Tripiṭaka (Peking Edition) , edited by Daisetz T. SUZUKI, Tokyo,
Kyoto: Tibetan Tripiṭaka Research Institute, 1955-1958. Text numbers
according to the accompanying Catalogue & Index (1961).
Saṃdh Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra . References to this text are given according to
chapter and paragraph numbers in LAMOTTE's (1935) edition.
Sh. SHUKLA 1973.
SHT the Sanskrit manuscript fragments from the German Turfan collection as
cataloged in WALDSCHMIDT (1965ff.).
SWTF Sanskrit-Wörterbuch der buddhistischen Texte aus den Turfan-Funden
und der kanonischen Literatur der Sarvāstivāda-Schule , ed. by Heinz
BECHERT et al., Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994ff. [Single fascicles of vol. 1 had already appeared before 1994.] T Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyo (大正新修大藏經)(The Tripitaka in Chinese ), edited by Junjirō TAKAKUSU (高楠順次郎) and Kaikyō WATANABE (渡 邊海旭), 85 vols., Tokyo: Taishō Issaikyō Kankōkai, 1924-1932. TSN Taishō Daigaku Sōgō Bukkyō Kenkyūsho Nenpō (大正大学綜合佛教研 究所年報)(Annual of the Institute for Comprehensive Studies of Buddhism, Taisho University ).
Xiǎnyáng lùn Xiǎnyáng shèngjiào lùn (顯揚聖教論; T1602) YoBh Yogācārabhūmi
ZT Zhōnghuá Canon (Tibetan bstan 'gyur). Zhōngguó zàngxué yánjiū zhōngxīn "Dàzàngjīng" duìkān jú (中国藏学研究中心《大藏经》对勘 局)(Tripiṭaka Collation Bureau of China Tibetology Centre), Zhōnghuá dàzàngjīng, dānzhū ěr (duìkān běn )(Zàngwén )(中华大藏经 丹珠尔 （对勘本）（藏文)[The Great Canon of China, Tanjur, (collated edition)( in Tibetan language)], Beijing: Zhōngguó zàngxué chūbǎnshè (中 国藏学出版社), 1994f
Bibliography
Publications that I have not seen are marked by an asterisk (*). East Asian titles of journals, books, and articles are given in original characters and in English translation. If I have found English titles in the respective publications themselves, I cite them in parentheses. My own English translations are enclosed in brackets. Only journal and book titles are accompanied by a romanized transcription of the original Japanese title. AHN, Sungdoo (2003): Die Lehre von den kleśas in der Yogācārabhūmi , Alt- und Neu- Indische Studien 55, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.
AYMORÉ, Fernando Amado (1995): Die zehn Arten von gutem und bösem Karma nach der Savitarkādi-Bhūmi der Yogācārabhūmi , M.A. thesis, University of Hamburg. BANDURSKI, Frank (1994): "Übersicht über die Göttinger Sammlungen der von RĀHULA SĀṄKṚTYĀYANA in Tibet aufgefundenen buddhistischen Sanskrit-Texte (Funde buddhistischer Sanskrit-Handschriften, III)" in Frank BANDURSKI et al.: Untersuchungen zur buddhistischen Literatur [1. Folge], Sanskrit-Wörterbuch der buddhistischen Texte aus den Turfan-Funden, Beiheft 5, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, pp. 9-126.
BAREAU, André (1962): Review of WAYMAN 1961 in Journal Asiatique 250.1, pp. 149-152. BENDALL, Cecil (1883): Catalogue of the Buddhist Sanskrit Manuscripts in the University Library, Cambridge: With Introductory Notices and Illustrations of the Palaeography and Chronology of Nepal and Bengal, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Reprinted with a foreword by A. WEZLER, Verzeichnis der orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland , Supplementband 33, Publications of the Nepal- German Manuscript Preservation Project 2, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1992.] BENDALL, Cecil & Louis DE LA VALLÉE POUSSIN (1905): "Bodhisattva-Bhūmi: A Textbook of the Yogācāra School, an English Summary with Notes and Illustrative Extracts from Other Buddhistic Works" in Le Muséon 6, pp. 38-52.
____________________________________________ (1906): "Bodhisattva-Bhūmi: A Textbook of the Yogācāra School, an English Summary with Notes and Illustrative Extracts from Other Buddhistic Works" in Le Muséon 7, pp. 213-230. ___________________________________________ (1911): "Bodhisattva-Bhūmi: Sommaire et notes" in Le Muséon 12, pp. 155-191. BHATTACHARYA, Vidhushekhara (1946): "Ātmavāda as in the Yogācārabhūmi of Ācārya Asaṅga" in Dr. C. Kunhan Raja Presentation Volume: A Volume of Indological Studies , edited by the Dr. C. Kunhan Raja Presentation Volume Committee, Madras: The Adyar Library, pp. 27-37. The Yogācārabhūmi Corpus 545
_____________________________ (1957): The Yogācārabhūmi of Ācārya Asaṅga : The Sanskrit Text Compared with the Tibetan Version, part 1, Calcutta: The University of Calcutta. [Further parts have never been published.] BHIKKHU, Huimin, et al. (2002): "A Study on Creation and Application of Electronic Chinese Buddhist Text: With the Yogācārabhūmi as a Case Study" in IBK 50.2, pp. (1)-(5) [=1036-1032].
Buddhist Text Information , nos. 1-78, edited by Richard A. GARD, New York: Institute for Advanced Studies of World Religions, 1974-1994. BUESCHER, Hartmut (2007): Sthiramati's Triṃśikāvijñaptibhāṣya: Critical Editions of the Sanskrit Text and Its Tibetan Translation , Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philos.-hist. Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, 768. Band, Beiträge zur Kulturund Geistesgeschichte Asiens 57, Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
_________________ (2008): The Inception of Yogācāra-Vijñānavāda , Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philos.-hist. Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, 776. Band, Beiträge zur Kultur- und Geistesgeschichte Asiens 62, Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. CHAN, Ngan Che (2007): A Study of Yogācāra Theory of the Ten Causes , Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Hong Kong.
CHEMPARATHY, George (1968-1969): "Two early Buddhist Refutations of the Existence of Īśvara as the Creator of the Universe" in Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südund Ostasiens 12-13 (1968-1969) (= Beiträge zur Geistesgeschichte Indiens : Festschrift für Erich Frauwallner, aus Anlaß seines 70. Geburtstages , edited by G. OBERHAMMER, Vienna: Gerold etc.), pp. 85-100. CHEN, Jin-hua (2004): "The Indian Buddhist Missionary Dharmakṣema (385-433): A New Dating of His Arrival in Guzang and of His Translations" in T'oung Pao 90, pp. 215-263.
CHINA LIBRARY OF NATIONALITIES and THE INSTITUTE FOR COMPREHENSIVE STUDIES OF BUDDHISM (TAISHŌ UNIVERSITY)(1994): Yúqié shīdì lùn Shēngwén dì fànwén yuánwén yǐngyìnběn (瑜伽師地論聲聞地梵文原文影印本)[English title generally given as: Facsimile Edition of the "Śrāvakabhūmi" Sanskrit Palm-leaf Manuscript ], Beijing.
CHOI, Jong-Nam (최종남, 崔鍾男)(2001): Die dreifache Schulung (Śikṣā) im frühen Yogācāra: Der 7. Band des Hsien-yang shêng-chiao lun , Alt- und Neu-Indische Studien 54, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. ______________________ (2002): 顯揚聖教論索引: 梵藏漢對照 (Der Index zum Hsienyang shêng-chiao lun: Skt.-Tib.-Chin. & Chin.-Skt.-Tib. ),206 Seoul: Hanguk jeontong bulgyo yeonguwon (한국전통불교연구원)(韓國傳統佛敎硏究院)(Institute for Traditional Korean Buddhism). CLEARY, Thomas (1995): Buddhist Yoga: A Comprehensive Course , Boston: Shambhala, reprint 1999.
CONZE, Edward (1962): Review of WAYMAN 1961, in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 1962, pp. 163f. ______________ (1963): Review of WAYMAN 1961 and BHATTACHARYA 1957, in Indo- Iranian Journal 7, pp. 226-231. [Reprinted in Edward CONZE: Further Buddhist Studies: Selected Essays , Oxford: B. Cassirer, 1975, pp. 198-204.] CORNU, Philippe (2005): Soûtra du dévoilement du sens profond: Sandhinirmocanasûtra , Trésors du bouddhisme, Paris: Fayard.
DELEANU, Florin (2002): "Some Remarks on the Textual History of the Śrāvakabhūmi" in Journal of the International College for Advanced Buddhist Studies (Tokyo) 5 = Shigeo Kamata Memorial Volume , pp. 67-111. 206 Exceptionally, a German rather than an English title is given, since this procedure is chosen in the publication itself. 546 Martin DELHEY
_______________ (2006): The Chapter on the Mundane Path (Laukikamārga) in the Śrāvakabhūmi: A Trilingual Edition (Sanskrit, Tibetan, Chinese), Annotated Translation, and Introductory Study, 2 volumes, Studia Philologica Buddhica Monograph Series 20, Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies of The International College for Postgraduate Buddhist Studies. DELHEY, Martin (2006): "Asamāhitā Bhūmiḥ: Zwei Kapitel der Yogācārabhūmi über den von meditativer Versenkung freien Zustand" in Jaina-Itihāsa-Ratna: Festschrift für Gustav Roth zum 90. Geburtstag , edited by Ute HÜSKEN, Petra KIEFFERPÜLZ, and Anne PETERS, Indica et Tibetica 47, Marburg: Indica et Tibetica Verlag, pp. 127-152.
_______________ (2007): Review of AHN 2003, in Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 157.2, pp. 503-507. _______________ (2009): Samāhitā Bhūmiḥ: Das Kapitel über die meditative Versenkung im Grundteil der Yogācārabhūmi , 2 vols., Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 73, Vienna: Arbeitskreis für tibetische und buddhistische Studien, Universität Wien. DEMIÉVILLE, Paul (1954): "La Yogācārabhūmi de Saṅgharakṣa" in Bulletin de l'Ecole Française d'Extrême-Orient 44.2, pp. 339-436. ________________ (1957): "Le chapitre de la Bodhisattvabhūmi sur la Perfection du Dhyāna" in Rocznik Orientalistyczny (Warsaw) 21, pp. 109-128. [Reprinted in Paul DEMIÉVILLE: Choix d'Études bouddhiques (1929-1970), Leiden: Brill, 1973, pp. 300-319.]
________________ (1958): Review of BHATTACHARYA 1957, in T'oung pao 46, pp. 411-416. DUTT, Nalinaksha (1931): "Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa Sūtra" in The Indian Historical Quarterly 7.2, pp. 259-286. _______________ (1966): Bodhisattvabhūmiḥ: Being the XVth Section of Asaṅgapāda's Yogācārabhūmiḥ , Tibetan Sanskrit Works Series 7, Patna: K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute, reprint 1978. EDGERTON, Franklin (1962): Review of WAYMAN 1961 in Language 38.3, pp. 307-310. ENOMOTO, Fumio (1989): "Śarīrārthagāthā: A Collection of Canonical Verses in the Yogācārabhūmi, Part 1: Text" in Fumio ENOMOTO et al., Sanskrit-Texte aus dem buddhistischen Kanon: Neuentdeckungen und Neueditionen, Erste Folge , Sanskrit- Wörterbuch der buddhistischen Texte aus den Turfan-Funden, Beiheft 2, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, pp. 17-35.
EMMERICK, Ronald E. (1968): The Book of Zambasta: A Khotanese Poem on Buddhism , London Oriental Series 21, London etc.: Oxford University Press. ___________________ (1990): "Book of Zambasta" in Encyclopaedia Iranica Online , available at www.iranica.com. ___________________ (1992): A Guide to the Literature of Khotan , 2nd thoroughly revised and enlarged edition, Studia Philologica Buddhica, Occasional Paper Series III, Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies. FRAUWALLNER, Erich (1969): Die Philosophie des Buddhismus , 3rd revised edition, Berlin: Akademie Verlag, reprint 1994. FUJITA, Kōkan (藤田光寛)(1979): 敦煌出土瑜伽論チベット語遺文Ⅰ("The Literary Remains in Tibetan of the Yogācārabhūmiśāstra from Tunhuang (Ⅰ)") in Mikkyō Bunka (密教文化)(The Mikkyo Bunka: Quarterly Reports on Esoteric Buddhism ) 126, pp. 80-63.
_______________________ (1989):〈菩薩地戒品〉和訳 (I) ("A Japanese Translation of the "Śīla-paṭala" in the Bodhisattvabhūmi (I)") in Kōyasan Daigaku Ronsō (高野 山大学論叢)(Journal of Kōyasan University ) 24, pp. 1-20. _______________________ (1990): 〈菩薩地戒品〉和訳 (II) ("A Japanese Translation of the "Śīlapaṭala" in the Bodhisattvabhūmi (II)") in Kōyasan Daigaku Ronsō (高野 山大学論叢)(Journal of Kōyasan University ) 25, pp. 127-147. The Yogācārabhūmi Corpus 547
_______________________ (1991): 〈菩薩地戒品〉和訳 (III) ("A Japanese Translation of the "Śīla-paṭala" in the Bodhisattvabhūmi (III)") in Kōyasan Daigaku Ronsō (高野 山大学論叢)(Journal of Kōyasan University ) 26, pp. 1-20.
- _____________________ (2001): インド・チベット仏教における瑜伽戒の思想とその
展開 [The Yogācāraśīla Thought in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism and Its Development ], Ph.D. dissertation, Tōhoku University. [I have only seen the summary (博士学位論文の要旨及び審査結果の要旨) of this thesis as available at the Tohoku University Repository; URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10097/14538.] _____________________ (2002): Candragomin 著〈菩薩律儀二十〉とその注釈書2 種: 校訂テクスト ["The Bodhisattvasaṃvaraviṃśikā by Candragomin and Two Commentaries on it: Revised Text"] in Kōyasan daigaku mikkyō bunka kenkyūsho kiyō (高野山大学密教文化研究所紀要)(Bulletin of the Research Institute of Esoteric Buddhist Culture ) 15, pp. 214-84.
FURUSAKA, Kōichi (古坂紘一)(1985): インド大乗仏教における菩薩行の社会的一側面 ―『瑜伽師地論』菩薩地「生品」・「摂受品」における― ("A Social Aspect of the Bodhisattva-caryās in Indian Mahāyāna Buddhism: Especially in the Upapatti- and Parigraha-paṭala of Bodhisattvabhūmi in the Yogācārabhūmi"), in Ōsaka Kyōiku Daigaku Kiyō, Daini Bumon: Shakai-kagaku, seikatsu-kagaku (大 阪教育大学紀要 第II 部門：社会科学・生活科学)(Memoirs of Osaka Kyoiku University, Second Series: Social Science and Home Economic ) 34.2, pp. 89-102. __________________________ (1996): 『瑜伽師地論菩薩地』の最終章をめぐって ("A Study on the Last Chapter of the Bodhisattvabhūmi") in Ōsaka Kyōiku Daigaku Kiyō, Daiichi Bumon: Jinbun-kagaku (大阪教育大学紀要 第Ｉ部門: 人文科 学)(Memoirs of Osaka Kyoiku University, First Series: Humanities ) 44.2, pp. 117- 129.
__________________________ (2001): 『瑜伽師地論』に見る因中有果論批判: その思 想史的意義 ("The Criticism on the Doctrine of the Effect Being Present in the Cause (hetu-phala-sad-vāda) Found in the Yogācārabhūmi: Its Significance on the History of Thoughts") in Ōsaka Kyōiku Daigaku Kiyō, Daiichi Bumon: Jinbunkagaku (大阪教育大学紀要 第Ｉ部門: 人文科学)(Memoirs of Osaka Kyoiku University, First Series: Humanities ) 49.2, pp. 133-147. __________________________ (2007): Yuga shiji ron Bosatsu ji: bosatsu kudoku hon (瑜伽 師地論菩蕯地: 菩薩功徳品)(The Bodhisattvabhūmi of the Yogācārabhūmi: 207 Bodhisatva-guṇa-paṭalaṃ, Comparative Edition of Tibetan, Sanskrit and Chinese with the Tibetan Commentary of Rgya-mtsho sprin ), Publications of the Institute of Tibetan Buddhist Textual Studies II, 9, Kyoto: Hōzōkan (法蔵館). VON GABAIN, Annemarie (1961): "Der Buddhismus in Zentralasien" in Religionsgeschichte des Orients in der Zeit der Weltreligionen , with contributions by Johannes LEIPOLDT et al., Handbuch der Orientalistik 1.8.2, Leiden, Cologne: E. J. Brill, pp. 496-514.
_____________________ (1963): "Zentralasiatische türkische Literaturen I: Vorislamische alttürkische Literatur" in Turkologie , with contributions by Annemarie VON GABAIN et al., Handbuch der Orientalistik 1.5.1, reprint with supplements, Leiden, Cologne: E. J. Brill, 1982, pp. 207-228. GOSHIMA, Kiyotaka & Keiya NOGUCHI (1983): A Succinct Catalogue of the Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Possession of The Faculty of Letters, Kyoto University, Kyoto: The Society for Indic and Buddhistic Studies, Kyoto University. GRIFFITHS, PAUL J. (1986): On Being Mindless: Buddhist Meditation and the Mind-Body Problem , first Indian edition, Bibliotheca Indo-Buddhica Series 196, Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications. 207 According to the front cover; the text on the English title page is faulty.
GYURME, Tsewang (2009): "Protecting the Sanskrit Palm-leaf Manuscripts in the Tibetan Autonomous Region – A Summary" in Sanskrit Manuscripts in China: Proceedings of a Panel at the 2008 Beijing Seminar on Tibetan Studies, October 13 to 17 , edited by Ernst STEINKELLNER et al., Beijing: China Tibetology Publishing House, pp. 303-305.
Bodhisattvabhūmi of the Yogācārabhūmi ], Sendai: Chibetto Butten Kenkyūkai (チベット仏典研究会). HADANO, Hakuyū (羽田野伯猷), et al. (1993): Yuga shiji ron Bosatsu ji (瑜伽師地論菩薩 地)(Bodhisattvabhūmi: Comparative Edition of Tibetan, Sanskrit and Chinese with the Tibetan Commentaries of Rgya-mtsho sprin and Yon-tan ḥod ),208 Publications of The Institute of Tibetan Buddhist Textual Studies II, 1, Kyoto: Hōzōkan (法蔵館).
HAHN, Michael (1999): Invitation to Enlightenment: Letter to the Great King Kaniṣka by Mātṛceṭa, Letter to a Disciple by Candragomin , Tibetan Translation Series, Berkeley: Dharma Publishing. HAKAMAYA, Noriaki (袴谷憲昭)(1978): アーラヤ識存在の八論証に関する諸文献 ("Materials on the Eight Proofs of the Existence of Ālaya-vijñāna") in Komazawa Daigaku Bukkyōgakubu Kenkyū Kiyō (駒澤大學佛教學部研究紀要) (Journal of the Faculty of Buddhism of the Komazawa University ) 36, pp. 1-26. [Reprinted with a long addendum in HAKAMAYA, 2001:321-361.] ____________________________ (1979): Viniścayasaṃgrhaṇī (sic ) に おけるア―ラや 識の規定 ("The Definition of Ālayavijñāna in the Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī") in Tōyō Bunka Kenkyūsho Kiyō (東洋文化研究所紀要)(Memoirs of the Institute for Oriental Culture ) 79, pp. 1-79. [Reprinted in HAKAMAYA, 2001:362-445.] ____________________________ (1982): 瑜伽行派の文献 ["Literature of the Yogācāra School"] in Kōza daijō bukkyō ( 講座大乗仏教)[Lectures on Mahāyāna Buddhism ], vol. 8: Yuishiki shisō (唯識思想)[[[Vijñaptimātra]] Thought ], edited by Akira HIRAKAWA et al., Tokyo: Shunjūsha (春秋社), reprint 1990, pp. 43-76. [Reprint with additions in HAKAMAYA, 2001:72-107.] ____________________________ (1984): "The Old and New Tibetan Translations of the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra : Some Notes on the History of Early Tibetan Translation" in Komazawa Daigaku Bukkyōgakubu Kenkyū Kiyō (駒澤大學佛教學部研究紀 要)(Journal of the Faculty of Buddhism of the Komazawa University ) 42, pp. 1-17 [= 192-176]. ____________________________ (1985): 敦煌出土チベット語唯識文献 ["Vijñaptimātra Literature in Tibetan Language Unearthed in Dunhuang"] in Kōza Tonkō (講座 敦煌)[Lectures on Dunhuang ], vol. 6: Tonkō kogo bunken (敦煌胡語文 献)[[[Wikipedia:Literature|Literature]] from Dunhuang in Languages Other than Chinese ], ed. by Zuihō YAMAGUCHI (山口瑞鳳), Tokyo: Daitō Shuppansha (大東出版社), pp. 207-264. [Reprinted with an addendum in HAKAMAYA, 2001:108-163.] ____________________________ (1986): "A Comparative Edition of the Old and New Tibetan Translations of the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra (I)" in Komazawa Daigaku Bukkyōgakubu Ronshū (駒澤大学佛教学部論集)(Journal of Buddhist Studies, Komazawa University ) 17, pp. 1-17 [= 616-600]. ____________________________ (1987a): "A Comparative Edition of the Old and New Tibetan Translations of the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra (II)" in Komazawa Daigaku Bukkyōgakubu Kenkyū Kiyō (駒澤大學佛教學部研究紀要)(Journal of the Faculty of Buddhism of the Komazawa University ) 45, pp. 1-35 [= 354-320]. ____________________________ (1987b): "A Comparative Edition of the Old and New Tibetan Translations of the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra (III)" in Komazawa Daigaku 208 This publication does not contain an edition of the whole Bodhisattvabhūmi as suggested by the Japanese and English title pages, but only of its Śīlapaṭala . The Yogācārabhūmi Corpus 549 Bukkyōgakubu Ronshū (駒澤大学佛教学部論集)(Journal of Buddhist Studies , Komazawa University ) 18, pp. 1-35 [= 606-572]. ____________________________ (1994): Yuishiki no kaishaku gaku ・『Gejinmikkyō 』o yomu (唯識の解釈学・『解深密経』 を読む)[The Hermeneutics of Vijñaptimātratā: Reading the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra ], Tokyo: Shunjūsha (春秋社). ____________________________ (1999): Yogācārabhūmi における64 種の有情分類リ ストについて ("On a List of the 64 Classifications of Sattvas in the Yogācārabhūmi") in Komazawa Tanki Daigaku Kenkyū Kiyō (駒沢短期大学研究紀 要)(Journal of Komazawa Junior College ) 27, pp. 139-172. ____________________________ (2001): Yuishiki shisō ronkō (唯識思想論考)[Studies on Vijñaptimātra Thought ], Tokyo: Daizō Shuppan (大藏出版).
- ___________________________ (2008): Yuishiki bunken kenkyū (唯識文献研究)[Studies
on Vijñaptimātra Literature ], Tokyo: Daizō Shuppan (大藏出版). HARADA, Wasō (原田和宗)(2004): 『瑜伽師地論』「有尋有伺等三地」の縁起説(1): テキストと和訳 ("The Pratītyasamutpāda Theory in the Savitarkādi-Bhūmi of the Yogācāra-Bhūmi, Part 1" [subtitle: "Text and Japanese Translation"]), in Kyūshū Ryūkoku Tanki Daigaku Kiyō (九州龍谷短期大学紀要)(Bulletin of Kyusyu Ryukoku Junior College ) 50, pp. 141-179.
- HARADA, Wasō (原田和宗)(2010): 『菩薩地』「住品」和訳(1)[含 梵文] ("A Japanese
translation of the vihāra chapter of the Bodhisattvabhūmi (part 1)”), in Kyūshū Ryūkoku Tanki Daigaku Kiyō (九州龍谷短期大学紀要)(Bulletin of Kyusyu Ryukoku Junior College ) 56, pp. 37-67. HAYASHIMA, Osamu (早島理)(1991a): 人無我論－「顕揚聖教論」第6 章「成空品」 の解読研究－ ("On Pudgalanairātmya, in the 6th chapter 'śūnyatā' of the
Shakaikagaku Ronsō (長崎大学教育学部社会科学論叢)(Bulletin of Faculty of Education, Nagasaki University: Social science ) 42, pp. 27-46.
- _________________________ (1991b): 人無我論－「顕揚聖教論」第6 章「成空品」
の解読研究-承前－ ("On Pudgalanairātmya, in the 6th chapter 'śūnyatā' of the
Kyōikugakubu Shakaikagaku Ronsō (長崎大学教育学部社会科学論叢)(Bulletin of Faculty of Education, Nagasaki University: Social science ) 43, pp. 37-56. __________________________ (1997): 『顕揚聖教論』研究序 ("An Introductory Study of 『顕揚聖教論』") in Nagasaki Daigaku Kyōikugakubu Shakaikagaku Ronsō (長 崎大学教育学部社会科学論叢)(Bulletin of Faculty of Education, Nagasaki University: Social science ) 54, pp. 23-38 and pp. 39-52. HAYASHIMA, Osamu (早島理) & Toshihide MŌRI (毛利俊英)(1990):『顕揚聖教論』の 科文 ("A Synopsis of the *Āryadeśanā-Vikhyāpana or Śāsanodbhāvana") in Nagasaki Daigaku Kyōikugakubu Shakaikagaku Ronsō (長崎大学教育学部社会 科学論叢)(Bulletin of Faculty of Education, Nagasaki University: Social science ) 40, pp. 51-88. HERRMANN-PFANDT, Adelheid (2008): Die Lhan kar ma: Ein früher Katalog der ins Tibetische übersetzten buddhistischen Texte, kritische Neuausgabe mit Einleitung und Materialien , Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophischhistorische Klasse, Denkschriften, 367. Band, Beiträge zur Kultur- und Geistesgeschichte Asiens 59, Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. HORIUCHI, Toshio (2008): "How to Interpret and Preach the Buddha's Teaching: The Discussion in Chapter 5 of the Vyākhyāyukti" in IBK 56.3, pp. 1126-1130 [= (90)- (94)]. HUANG, Xianming (黄显铭) et al. (2001): rnal 'byor spyod pa'i sa las btus pa'i tha snyad bod rgya shan sbyar / Zàng Hàn duìzhào Yúqié shī dì lùn cíhuì (藏汉对照瑜伽师地论 辞汇), Ziling (茲令) / Xining (西寧): Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang / Qīnghǎi mínzú chūbǎnshè (青海民族出版社). 550 Martin DELHEY HU-VON HINÜBER, Haiyan (2006): "Some Remarks on the Sanskrit Manuscript of the Mūlasarvāstivāda-Prātimokṣasūtra Found in Tibet" in Jaina-Itihāsa-Ratna: Festschrift für Gustav Roth zum 90. Geburtstag , edited by Ute HÜSKEN, Petra KIEFFER-PÜLZ, and Anne PETERS, Indica et Tibetica 47, Marburg: Indica et Tibetica Verlag, pp. 283-337.
- INABA, Shōju (稲葉正就)(1952): Yuishiki gaku jutsugo sakuin (唯識学術語索引)[An
Index to the Technical Terms of Vijñaptimātra Studies ], Kyoto: Ōtani Daigaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyūshitsu (大谷大学仏教学研究室). ISHIKAWA, Mie (石川美恵)(1992): 燉煌本『瑜伽師地論・声聞地』(1) S641,642 校訂 ("A Revision of 'Yogācārabhūmī; śrāvakabhūmi' [sic] in Tun-Huang Manuscript (1): Stein No.641 & 642") in Tōyō Daigaku Daigakuin Kiyō, Bungaku Kenkyūka (東洋大学大学院紀要 文学研究科)(Bulletin of the Graduate School, Toyo University, Graduate program of liberal arts ) 29, pp. 166-152. ________________________ (1993): 燉煌本『瑜伽師地論・声聞地』(2) S676 校訂 ("A Revision of 'Yogācārabhūmi; śrāvakabhūmi' [sic] in Tun-Huang Manuscript: Stein No.676 (2)") in Tōyō Daigaku Daigakuin Kiyō, Bungaku Kenkyūka (東洋大学大 学院紀要 文学研究科)(Bulletin of the Graduate School, Toyo University, Graduate program of liberal arts ) 30, pp. 152-139. ________________________ (1994): 敦煌本『瑜伽師地論・声聞地』(3) ペリオ蒐集写 本 目録No.836 校訂 ("A revision of 'Yogācārabhūmi, Śrāvakabhūmi' in Tun- Huang Manuscript: Pelliot No.836 (3)") in Tōyō Daigaku Daigakuin Kiyō, Bungaku Kenkyūka (東洋大学大学院紀要 文学研究科)(Bulletin of the Graduate School, Toyo University, Graduate program of liberal arts ) 31, pp. 242-231. ISODA, Hirofumi (磯田煕文) & Kōichi FURUSAKA (古坂紘一)(1995): Yuga shiji ron Bosatsu ji: zuihō・kukyō・shidai yugasho (瑜伽師地論菩薩地: 随法・究竟・次 第瑜伽処)(Bodhisattvabhūmi of the Yogācārabhūmi: 2・3・4 yogasthāna ), Publications of The Institute of Tibetan Buddhist Textual Studies III, Kyoto: Hōzōkan (法蔵館). JAN, Yün-hua (1984): "Rajadharma Ideal in Yogācāra Buddhism" in Religion and Society in Ancient India: Sudhakar Chattopadhyaya Commemoration Volume , edited by Pranabananda JASH et al., Calcutta: Roy & Chowdhury, pp. 221-234. DE JONG, J.W. (1976a): Review of SHUKLA 1973 in Indo-Iranian Journal 18, pp. 307-310. [Reprinted in J.W. DE JONG: Buddhist Studies , edited by G. SCHOPEN, Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press, 1979, pp. 597-600.] ____________ (1976b): Review of KLOPPENBORG 1974 in Indo-Iranian Journal 18, pp. 322- 324. ____________ (1985): Review of WILLIS 1979 in Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 80, columns 195-198. ____________ (1987): "Notes on the Bodhisattvabhūmi" in Hinduismus und Buddhismus: Festschrift für Ulrich Schneider , edited by Harry FALK, Freiburg: Falk, pp. 163- 172. ____________ (1989): Review of TATZ 1986 in Indo-Iranian Journal 32, pp. 215-219. ____________ (1994): Review of POWERS 1991, in Indo-Iranian Journal 37.4 (1994), pp. 371-372. JOST, Otmar (1990): Die Vier Achtsamkeiten in der Śrāvakabhūmi , M.A. thesis, University of Hamburg. KAJIYAMA, Yūichi (2000): "Buddhist Cosmology as Presented in the Yogācārabhūmi" in Wisdom, Compassion, and the Search for Understanding: The Buddhist Studies Legacy of Gadjin M. Nagao , edited by Jonathan A. SILK, Studies in the Buddhist Traditions, Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, pp. 183-199. KANŌ, Kazuo (加納和雄)(2009a): ツッチ・コレクションにおいて新たに比定された 梵文写本テクスト断片 ("Newly Identified Sanskrit Text Fragments in the Tucci Collection") in IBK 57.2, pp. 986-980 [= (157)-(163)]. The Yogācārabhūmi Corpus 551 ______________________(2009b): "A Preliminary Report on Newly Identified Text Fragments in Śāradā Script from Źwa lu Monastery in the Tucci Collection" in Sanskrit Texts from Giuseppe Tucci’s Collection: Part I , edited by Francesco SFERRA, Manuscripta Buddhica 1, Rome: Istituto Italiano per l'Africa e l'Oriente, 2008 [appeared in 2009], pp. 381-400. KATŌ, Kojirō (加藤弘二郎)(2006): "On the Tibetan Text of the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra: Towards a Comparative Study of Manuscripts and Editions which belong to the East and West Recensions" in IBK 54.3, pp. (93)-(99) [=1205-1211]. KATŌ, Seishin (加藤精神)(1930-1935): Kokuyaku issaikyō: yuga bu (國譯一切經: 瑜伽部), vol.1-6, Tokyo: Daitō Shuppansha (大東出版社). KEENAN, John P. (2000): The Scripture on the Explication of Underlying Meaning , BDK English Tripiṭaka 25-IV, Berkeley: Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research. KIMURA, Takayasu (木村高尉)(1992): 声聞地梵文の欠落とその補填 ("On an Omission in the Text of the Śrāvakabhūmi and its Supplementation") in IBK 40.2, pp. (165)- (168) [= 922-919]. KLOPPENBORG, Ria (1974): The Paccekabuddha: A Buddhist Ascetic , A Study of the Concept of the Paccekabuddha in Pali Canonical and Commentarial Literature , Orientalia Rheno-Traiectina 20 ["volumen vicesimum"], Leiden: E. J. Brill. KOEPPEN, Carl Friedrich (1859): Die Religion des Buddha , vol. 2: Die lamaische Hierarchie und Kirche . Berlin: Ferdinand Schneider.
- KOLLER, John M. and Patricia Joyce (1991): A Sourcebook in Asian Philosophy , New York etc.: Macmillan.
KRAMER, Jowita (2005): Kategorien der Wirklichkeit im frühen Yogacara: Der Fünf-vastu- Abschnitt in der Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī der Yogācārabhūmi , Contributions to Tibetan Studies 4, Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag. KRITZER, Robert (1999): Rebirth and Causation in the Yogācāra Abhidharma , Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 44, Vienna: Arbeitskreis für tibetische und buddhistische Studien, Universität Wien. KRITZER, Robert (2005): Vasubandhu and the Yogācārabhūmi: Yogācāra Elements in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya , Studia Philologica Buddhica, Monograph Series 18, Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies of The International College for Postgraduate Buddhist Studies.
ron 』Shu shojō ji ni tokareru jū sō to sono haikei ni kansuru kenkyū (古代インド 仏教における観想法: 『瑜伽師地論』修所成地に説かれる十想と その背景 に関する研究)[[[Meditation]] in Ancient Indian Buddhism: The Ten saṃjñā-s dealt with in the Bhāvanāmayī Bhūmiḥ of the Yogācārabhūmi and Research Relating to Their Background ], Ph.D. dissertation, Tōhoku University. [I have only seen the summary (博士学位論文の要旨及び審査結果の要旨) of this thesis as available at the Tohoku University Repository (TOUR); URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10097/ 14339] LAMOTTE, Étienne (1935): Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra : L'explication des Mystères , Recueil de travaux; Sér. 2, 34, Louvain: Bureaux du Recueil and Paris: Adrien Maissoneuve. ________________ (1976): Le Traité de la Grande Vertu de Sagesse , vol. 4: Chapitres XLII (suite)-XLVIII , Publications de l'Institut Orientaliste de Louvain 12, Louvain: Université de Louvain, Institut Orientaliste. DE LA VALLÉE POUSSIN, Louis (1928): "Notes on (1) Śūnyatā and (2) the Middle Path" in The Indian Historical Quarterly 4, pp. 161-168. LEE, Jong Cheol (2001): The Tibetan Text of the Vyākhyāyukti of Vasubandhu , Bibliotheca Indologica et Buddhologica 8, Tokyo: The Sankibo Press. LEUMANN, Ernst (1931): "Asaṅga's Bodhisattva-bhūmi 181-4 [sic! ] nach Wogihara's Ausgabe des Werkes: Übersichtlicher neu herausgegeben" in Studia Indo-Iranica: 552 Martin DELHEY Ehrengabe für Wilhelm Geiger , edited by Walther WÜST, Leipzig: Harrassowitz, pp. 21-38. _______________ (1933-1936): Das nordarische (sakische) Lehrgedicht des Buddhismus: Text und Übersetzung, posthumously edited by Manu LEUMANN, Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 20, Leipzig, reprint Nendeln: Kraus Reprint Ltd., 1966. LÉVI, Sylvain (1925): Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi: Deux traités de Vasubandhu, Viṃśatikā et Triṃśikā , Bibliothèque de l'École des Hautes Études, fasc. 245, Paris: Libraire Ancienne Honoré Champion. LINDTNER, Christian (1991): "Textcritical Notes on Sanskrit Texts: 1. Bodhi(sattva)- caryāvatāra" in Jì Xiànlín jiàoshòu bāshí huádàn jìniàn lùnwénjí (季羨林教授八 十華誕記念論文集)(Papers in Honour of Prof. Dr. Ji Xianlin on the Occasion of His 80th Birthday ), edited by Zheng LI (李錚) et al., 2 vols., Nanchang: Jiāngxī rénmín chūbǎnshè (江西人民出版社), vol. 2, pp. 651-660. LUNG-LIEN (1972): "Bodhisattva-prātimokṣa" in Encyclopaedia of Buddhism , vol. III, fasc. 2: Bode–Budalaviṭṭhi , ed. by G.P. MALALASEKERA, [[[Wikipedia:Colombo|Colombo]]]: Government of Ceylon, pp. 240-246.
- MAEDA, Ryōdō (前田亮道)(2005): 瑜伽論における国王論["The Treatise on the
Monarch in the Yogācārabhūmi"] in Tendai Gakuhō (天台学報)( Journal of Tendai Buddhist Studies ) 48, pp. 7-13. MAEDA, Ryōdō (前田亮道)(2007): 梵文研究：瑜伽論における国王論 (資料編) ["Sanskrit Studies: The Treatise on the Monarch in the Yogācārabhūmi (Edition of Materials)"] in Bon Bungaku Kenkyū Ronshū: Matsunami Yoshihiro Sensei Koki Kinen (梵文学研究論集 松濤誠達先生古稀記念)(Essays on Sanskrit and Buddhist Culture: Professor Yoshihiro MATSUNAMI's Felicitation Volume Presented to Him on His Seventieth Birthday ), edited by the Matsunami Toshihiro Sensei Koki Kinenkai, Tokyo: Taishō Shoseki (大祥書籍), pp. 259-304. MAEDA, Takashi (前田崇)(1991): 瑜伽論梵文研究: Ābhiprāyikārthagāthānirdeśa (釋意 趣義伽他) ["Studies on the Sanskrit text of the Yogācārabhūmi: Ābhiprāyikārthagāthānirdeśa"] in Bunka (文化)(Culture ) 55.1-2, pp. 62-92 [= 101-71]. MAITHRIMURTHI, Mudagamuwe (1999): Wohlwollen, Mitleid, Freude und Gleichmut: Eine ideengeschichtliche Untersuchung der vier apramāṇas in der buddhistischen Ethik und Spiritualität von den Anfängen bis hin zum frühen Yogācāra, Alt- und Neu-Indische Studien 50, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. MARKERT-BRAHAM, Dietlind (2005): Über die Geduld: Textbearbeitung und kommentierte Übersetzung des 11. Kapitels der Bodhisattvabhūmi , M.A. thesis, University of Hamburg. MARTIN, Dan (2009): Tibskrit Philology , edited by Alexander CHERNIAK, version: October 12, 2009, INTERNET (see URL: https://sites.google.com/site/tibetological/ for links to the files). MATSUDA, Kazunobu (松田和信)(1988): ダライラマ13 世寄贈の一連のネパール系写 本について 『瑜伽論』[摂決択分]梵文段簡発見記 ("On Leningrad Ms. Ind. VII. 23 Presented by the 13th Dalai Lama – The Identification of the Sanskrit Fragment of the Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī Section in the Yogācārabhūmi"), in Nihon Chibettogakkai Kaihō (日本西蔵学会会報)(Report of the Japanese Association for Tibetan Studies ) 34, pp. 16-20. _____________________________ (1990): ネパール系古層写本の新比定 ("Newly Identified Buddhist Sanskrit Fragments in the National Archives Collection, Kathmandu") in IBK 39.1, pp. 389-386 [=(117)-(120)]. _____________________________ (1994): 『瑜伽論』「摂異門分」の梵文断簡 ["Sanskrit Fragments from the Paryāyasaṃgrahaṇī of the Yogācārabhūmi "] in Indo-Tetsugaku Bukkyōgaku (印度哲学仏教学)(Hokkaido Journal of Indological and Buddhist Studies ) 9, pp. 90-108. The Yogācārabhūmi Corpus 553 _____________________________ (1995): 『解深密経』 における菩薩十地の梵文資料 『瑜伽論』 [摂決択分] の カトマンドゥ断片より ("Sanskrit Text of the Bodhisattva's Ten Stages in the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra: Based on the Kathmandu Fragment of the Yogācārabhūmi") in Bukkyō Daigaku Sōgō Kenkyūjo Kiyō (佛教 大学総合研究所紀要)(Bulletin of the Research Institute of Bukkyō University ) 2, pp. 59-77. _____________________________ (2002): "A Brief Survey of the Bendall Manuscripts in the National Archives, Kathmandu" in Buddhist and Indian Studies in Honour of Professor Dr. Sodo MORI , edited by The Publication Committee for Buddhist and Indian Studies in Honour of Professor Dr. Sodo MORI, Hamamatsu: Kokusai Bukkyoto Kyokai, pp. 259-265. MATSUDA, Kazunobu & Ernst STEINKELLNER (1991): "The Sanskrit Manuscript of Dharmakīrti's Pramāṇaviniścaya: Report on a Single Folio Fragment from the National Archives Collection, Kathmandu" in Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 35, pp. 139-149. MATSUNAMI, Yasuo (1992): "On the Sanskrit Manuscript of the "Śrāvakabhūmi"" in IBK 40.2, pp. (29)-(34) [=1058-1053]. MIKOGAMI, Eshō (紳子上恵生)(1967): 喩伽師地論に於ける極微説批到 ("A Refutation of the Theory of paramāṇu in the Yogācārabhūmi") in IBK 15.2, pp. 735-738. __________________________ (1969): "A Refutation of the Sāṃkhya Theory in the Yogācārabhūmi" in Philosophy East and West 19.4, pp. 443-447. MŌRI, Toshihide (毛利俊英)(1986): 声聞地第三喩伽処和訳 (1) ["Japanese Translation of the Third yogasthāna of the Śrāvakabhūmi (1)"] in Ryūkoku Daigaku Daigakuin Bukkyōgaku Kenkyūshitsu Nenpō (龍谷大学大学院仏教学研究室年報) 2, pp. 38-32. MUCH, Michael Torsten (1988): A Visit to Rāhula Sāṅkṛtyāyana's Collection of Negatives at the Bihar Research Society: Texts from the Buddhist Epistemological School , Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 18, Vienna: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien, Universität Wien. MUKAI, Akira ( 向井亮)(1979): 『顕揚聖教論』と『瑜伽師地論』 ("On the
- Śāsanodbhāvana and the Yogācārabhūmi"), in Bukkyōgaku (佛教學)(Journal of
Buddhist Studies ) 8 (October 1979), pp. 39-68. _____________________ (1985): 『瑜伽師地論』摂事分と『雑阿含経』("The Vastusaṃgrahaṇī of the Yogācārabhūmi and the Saṃyuktāgama"), in Hokkaidō Daigaku Bungakubu Kiyō 北海道大學文學部紀要 (The Annual Report on Cultural Science, The Faculty of Letters, Hokkaido University ) 33.2, pp. 1-41. _____________________ (1996): 『瑜伽師地論』「摂釈分」「摂異門分」の結構 ─ uddāna 頌による科判 ─ ("On the *Vyākhyāsaṃgrahaṇī and the Paryāyasaṃgrahaṇī of the Yogācārabhūmi "), in インド思想と仏教文化: 今西順 吉教授還暦記念論集 (Indian Thoughts [sic] and Buddhist Culture: Essays in Honour of Professor Junkichi Imanishi on His Sixtieth Birthday ), Tokyo: Shunjūsha (春秋社), pp. 580-569 [=(369)-(380)]. MULLENS, James G. (1994): Principles and Practices of Buddhist Education in Asaṅga's Bodhisattvabhūmi , Ph.D. thesis, McMaster Univ. NAKAMURA, Ayako (2004): Das Kapitel über das Erwachen des Buddha in der Bodhisattvabhūmi: Kritische Edition mit annotierter Übersetzung und Einleitung , M.A. thesis, University of Hamburg. NAKAMURA, Hajime (1980): Indian Buddhism: A Survey with Bibliographical Notes , Intercultural Research Institute Monograph 9, Hirakata: KUFS Publication. NALESINI, Oscar (2009): "Assembling Loose Pages, Gathering Fragments of the Past: Giuseppe Tucci and His Wanderings Throughout Tibet and the Himalayas, 1926- 1954" in Sanskrit Texts from Giuseppe Tucci's Collection: Part I , edited by Francesco SFERRA, Manuscripta Buddhica 1, Rome: Istituto Italiano per l'Africa e l'Oriente, 2008 [appeared in 2009], pp. 75-112. 554 Martin DELHEY NASU, Enshō (那須円照)(2010): 『瑜伽師地論』 「菩薩地」 における如来の十力の研 究(1) – 和訳と註解 – [A Study of the Ten Powers of the Tathāgata in the Bodhisattvabhūmi of the Yogācārabhūmi (1): Japanese Translation with Explanatory Notes], in Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū (仏教学研究) (The Studies in Buddhism ; Ryūkoku University, Kyoto) 66, pp. 31-50. NOZAWA, Jōshō (野澤靜證)(1957): Daijō bukkyō yugagyō no kenkyū: Gejinmikkyō seija Jishi shō oyobi sho no yaku chō (大乘佛教瑜伽行の研究 : 解深密經聖者慈氏章 及び疏の譯註)[Study of the Mahāyāna Buddhist Yogācāra: Translation and Annotation of the Maitreya Chapter of the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra and Its Commentaries ] (Āryamaitreya-kevala-parivarta-bhāṣyam : saṃdhinirmocanasūtre , Tibetan Text, Edited and Collated, Based upon the Peking and Derge Editions ), Kyoto: Hōzōkan (法藏館). OBERHAMMER, Gerhard (1991-2006): Terminologie der frühen philosophischen Scholastik in Indien: Ein Begriffswörterbuch zur altindischen Dialektik, Erkenntnislehre und Methodologie , 3 volumes, Beiträge zur Kultur- und Geistesgeschichte Asiens 9, 17, 49, Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. PANDEY, Jagadīśwar (1986): "Bauddhācārya Asaṅgakṛta Yogācārabhūmiśāstra meṃ Hetuvidyā" in Homage to Bhikkhu J[agdish?] Kashyap , edited by P. N. OJHA, Nalanda: Srir Nava Nalanda mahavihara, pp. 315-350. __________________ (1987): "Pratyekabuddhabhūmi" in Philosophical Essays: Professor Anantalal Thakur Felicitation Volume , ed. by Rama Ranjan MUKHOPADHYAYA et al., Calcutta: Sanskrit Pustak Bhandar, pp. 228-237.
- __________________ (2009): "Pratyeka-Buddhabhūmi" in Dimensions of Buddhism and
Jainism : Professor Suniti Kumar Pathak Felicitation Volume , ed. by Buddhadev BHATTACHARYA and Ramaranjan MUKHERJI, 2 vols., Kolkata : Sanskrit Book Depot. PFANDT, Peter (1986): Mahāyāna Texts Translated into Western Languages: A Bibliographical Guide, revised edition with supplement, Cologne: in Kommission bei E. J. Brill. POTTER, Karl H. (ed.)(1999): Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies , vol. 8: Buddhist Philosophy from 100 to 350 A.D. , Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. POTTER, Karl H. (ed.)(2003): Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies , vol. 9: Buddhist Philosophy from 350 to 600 A.D. , Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. POWERS, John (1991): The Yogācāra School of Buddhism: A Bibliography, ATLA Bibliography Series 27, Metuchen, N.J., and London: The American Theological Library Association and The Scarecrow Press. _____________ (1992a): Two Commentaries on the Samdhinirmocana-Sutra by Asanga and Jnanagarbha (sic), Studies in Asian Thought and Religion 13, Lewiston etc.: Edwin Mellen Press. _____________ (1992b): "Lost in China, Found in Tibet: How Wonch'uk Became the Author of the Great Chinese Commentary" in Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 15.1, pp. 95-103. _____________ (1993a): Hermeneutics and Tradition in the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra , Leiden: E.J. Brill, reprint 2004, Buddhist Tradition Series 53, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. _____________ (1993b): "The Tibetan Translations of the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra and Bka' 'gyur Research" in Central Asiatic Journal 37.3-4, pp. 198-224. _____________ (1995): Wisdom of Buddha: The Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra , Tibetan Translation Series 16, Berkeley: Dharma Publishing. _____________ (1998): Jñānagarbha's Commentary on Just the Maitreya Chapter from the Saṃdhinirmocana-Sūtra: Study, Translation and Tibetan Text , New Delhi: Indian Council of Philosophical Research. PYTHON, Pierre (1973): Vinaya-Viniścaya-Upāli-Paripṛcchā: Enquete d'Upāli pour une exégèse de la discipline , Collection Jean Przyluski 5, Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve. The Yogācārabhūmi Corpus 555 RAHDER, Johannes (1926a): Daśabhūmikasūtra : Academisch Proefschrift ter Verkrijging van den Graad van Doctor in de Letteren en Wijsbegeerte aan de Rijksuniversiteit te Utrecht, op Gezag van den Rector-Magnificus Dr. J. Ph. Suyling, Hoogleraar in de Faculteit der Rectsgeleerdheid, volgens Besluit van den Senaat der Universiteit Tegen de Bedenkingen van de Faculteit der Letteren en Wijsbegeerte te Verdedigen op Vrijdag 9 Juli 1926, des Namiddags te 3 Uuur door Johannes Rahder, geboren te Loeboeg Begalong (Sumatra), Leuven: J. B. Istas. _________________ (1926b): Daśabhūmikasūtra et Bodhisattvabhūmi: Chapitres Vihāra et Bhūmi , Paris: Paul Geuthner. VON ROSPATT, Alexander (1995): The Buddhist Doctrine of Momentariness: A Survey of the Origins and Early Phase of this Doctrine up to Vasubandhu , Alt- und Neu- Indische Studien 47, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. ROTH, Gustav (1970): Bhikṣuṇī-Vinaya: Including Bhikṣuṇī-Prakīrṇaka and a Summary of the Bhikṣu-Prakīrṇaka of the Ārya-Mahāsāṃghika-Lokottaravādin , Tibetan Sanskrit Works Series 12, Patna: K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute. _____________ (1975-1976): "Observations on the First Chapter of Asaṅga's Bodhisattvabhūmi" in Indologica Taurinensia 3-4 (1975-1976), pp. 403-412. [Reprinted in Gustav ROTH: Indian Studies: Selected Papers , edited by H. BECHERT and P. KIEFFER-PÜLZ, Bibliotheca Indo Buddhica 32, Delhi: Sri Satguru, 1986, pp. 165- 174.] SAKUMA, Hidenori S. (佐久間秀範)(1990): Die Āśrayaparivṛtti-Theorie in der Yogācārabhūmi , 2 vols., Alt- und Neu-Indische Studien 40, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. [All references in the present contribution are to vol. II.] _______________________________(1996): Tatia kōtei ban Abidatsumashū ron bongo sakuin oyobi korigenda (タティア校訂版『阿毘達磨雑集論』梵語索引および コリゲンダ) (Sanskṛt Word-Index to the Abhidharmasamuccabhāṣyam edited by N. Tatia with the Corrigenda ), Tokyo: Sankibō Busshōrin (山喜房佛書林). SANDER, Lore (1968): Paläographisches zu den Sanskrithandschriften der Berliner Turfan- Sammlung , Verzeichnis der orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland, supplement volume 8, Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag. SĀṄKṚTYĀYANA, Rāhula (1937): "Second Search of Sanskrit Palm-Leaf Mss. in Tibet [with Plates]" in Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society 23.1, pp. 1-57. _____________________ (1938): "Search for Sanskrit Mss. in Tibet" in Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society 24.4, pp. 137-163. SCHMITHAUSEN, Lambert (1969a): "Zur Literaturgeschichte der älteren Yogācāra-Schule" in XVII. Deutscher Orientalistentag: Vorträge , edited by Wolfgang VOIGT, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Supplementa I.3, Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, pp. 811-823. ______________________ (1969b): Der Nirvāṇa-Abschnitt in der Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī der Yogācārabhūmiḥ , Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philos.-hist. Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, 264. Band, 2. Abhandlung, Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Sprachen und Kulturen Süd- und Ostasiens, Heft 8, Vienna: Hermann Böhlaus Nachf. ______________________ (1970): "Zu den Rezensionen des Udānavargaḥ " in Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 14, pp. 47-124. ______________________ (1982a): "Die letzten Seiten der Śrāvakabhūmi" in Indological and Buddhist Studies in Honour of Prof. J.W. de Jong on his Sixtieth Birthday , edited by L.A. HERCUS et al., Canberra: Faculty of Asian Studies, pp. 457-489. ______________________ (1982b): "Versenkungspraxis und erlösende Erfahrung in der Śrāvakabhūmi" in Epiphanie des Heils: Zur Heilsgeschichte in indischer und christlicher Religion , edited by Gerhard OBERHAMMER, Publications of the De Nobili Research Library 9, Vienna: Universität, pp. 59-85. ______________________ (1984): "On the Vijñaptimātra Passage in Saṁdhinirmocanasūtra VIII.7" in Acta Indologica 6, pp. 433-455. 556 Martin DELHEY ______________________ (1987a): "Beiträge zur Schulzugehörigkeit und Textgeschichte kanonischer und postkanonischer Materialien" in Zur Schulzugehörigkeit von Werken der Hīnayāna-Literatur , edited by Heinz BECHERT, 2. Teil, Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, philologischhistorische Klasse, 3. Folge, Nr. 154, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, pp. 304-406. ______________________ (1987b): Ālayavijñāna: On the Origin and the Early Development of a Central Concept of Yogācāra Philosophy , 2 vols., Studia Philologica Buddhica, Monograph Series 4a + b, Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies (of The International College for Postgraduate Buddhist Studies), reprint with some addenda 2007. ______________________ (1991): "Yogācārabhūmiḥ: Sopadhikā and Nirupadhikā Bhūmiḥ" in Jì Xiànlín jiàoshòu bāshí huádàn jìniàn lùnwénjí (季羨林教授八十華誕記念論 文集)(Papers in Honour of Prof. Dr. Ji Xianlin on the Occasion of His 80th Birthday ), edited by Zheng LI (李錚) et al., 2 vols., Nanchang: 江西人民出版社, vol. 2, pp. 687-711. ______________________ (2000): "On Three Yogācārabhūmi Passages Mentioning the Three Svabhāvas or Lakṣaṇas" in Wisdom, Compassion, and the Search for Understanding: The Buddhist Studies Legacy of Gadjin M. Nagao , edited by Jonathan A. SILK, Studies in the Buddhist Traditions, Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, pp. 245-263. ______________________ (2005): On the Problem of the External World in the Ch'eng wei shih lun , Studia Philologica Buddhica, Occasional Paper Series 13, Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies of The International College for Postgraduate Buddhist Studies. ______________________ (2007a): "Zur Frage, ob ein Bodhisattva unter bestimmten Voraussetzungen in einer neutralen Geisteshaltung (avyākṛta-citta ) töten darf" in Indica et Tibetica: Festschrift für Michael HAHN , edited by Konrad KLAUS and Jens-Uwe HARTMANN, Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 66, Vienna: Arbeitskreis für tibetische und buddhistische Studien, Universität Wien, pp. 423-440. ______________________ (2007b): "Aspects of Spiritual Practice in Early Yogācāra" in Journal of the International College for Postgraduate Buddhist Studies 11, pp. 213-244. SFERRA, Francesco (2000): "Sanskrit Manuscripts and Photos of Sanskrit Manuscripts in Giuseppe Tucci's Collection: A Preliminary Report" in On the Understanding of Other Cultures: Proceedings of the International Conference on Sanskrit and Related Studies to Commemorate the Centenary of the Birth of Stanislaw Schayer (1899-1941), Warsaw University, Poland, October 7-10, 1999 , edited by P. BALCEROWICZ and M. MEJOR, Warsaw: Oriental Institute, Warsaw University, pp. 397- 447. _________________ (2009): "Sanskrit Manuscripts and Photograhss of Sanskrit Manuscripts in Giuseppe Tucci's Collection" in Sanskrit Texts from Giuseppe Tucci's Collection: Part I , edited by Francesco SFERRA, Manuscripta Buddhica 1, Rome: Istituto Italiano per l'Africa e l'Oriente, 2008 [appeared in 2009], pp. 15-78. SHI, Huimin (釋惠敏)(1986): Zhōngguān yǔ Yúqié (中觀與瑜伽)[[[Madhyamaka]] and Yogācāra ], Taibei. [For another publication by the same author, see BHIKKHU 2002.]
- SHIMIZU, Kairyū (清水 海隆)(1985): 『瑜伽師地論』の原典研究(Ⅲ) 意地第2 の和
訳(その2) ["Studies in the Original Text of the Yogācārabhūmiśāstra III: Japanese Translation of the Manobhūmi 2"] in Ōsaki Gakuhō 大崎学報 (Journal of Nichiren Buddhist Studies ) 140, pp. 9-28. The Yogācārabhūmi Corpus 557 SHUKLA, Karunesha (1969): "Buddhist ātmavāda and Asaṅga" in Journal of the Ganganatha Jha Research Institute (Allahabad) 23.1-4 (Jan. 1967-Dec. 1967 [appeared 1969]), pp. 29-50. __________________ (1973): Śrāvaka-Bhūmi of Ācārya Asaṅga , Tibetan Sanskrit Works Series 14, Patna: K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute. __________________ (1991): Śrāvaka-Bhūmi of Ācārya Asaṅga, Part II: Containing Introduction, Appendices, Indices , Tibetan Sanskrit Works Series 28, Patna: K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute. SILK, Jonathan A. (1997): "Further Remarks on the yogācāra bhikṣu" in Dharmadūta: Mélanges offerts au Vénérable Thích Huyên-Vi à l'occasion de son soixantedixième anniversaire , edited by Bhikkhu Tampalawela DHAMMARATANA and Bhikkhu PĀSĀDIKA, Paris: Editions You-Feng, pp. 233-250. SILK, Jonathan A. (2001): "Contributions to the Study of the Philosophical Vocabulary of Mahāyāna Buddhism" in The Eastern Buddhist n.s. 33.1, pp. 144-168. SILK, Jonathan A. (2009): "Remarks on the Kāśyapaparivarta Commentary" in Pāsādikadānaṁ
- Festschrift für Bhikkhu PĀSĀDIKA , edited by Martin STRAUBE et al.,
Indica et Tibetica 52, Marburg: Indica et Tibetica Verlag, pp. 381-397. SŌMA, Kazui (相馬一意)(1986a): 「菩薩地」真実義章試訳 ("A Japanese Translation of the Tattvārthapaṭala, the Fourth Chapter of the Bodhisattvabhūmi") in Nanto Bukkyō 南都仏教 (Journal of the Nanto Society for Buddhist Studies ) 55, pp. 105- 126. ________________________ (1986b): 梵文和訳『菩薩地』(1): 種姓の章、発心の章 ("A Japanese Translation of the Bodhisattvabhūmi (1)") in Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū (仏教学研究) (The Studies in Buddhism ; Ryūkoku University, Kyoto) 42, pp. 1- 26. ________________________ (1987): 梵文和訳「菩薩地」(2): 自利・利他の章 ["A Japanese Translation of the Bodhisattvabhūmi (2): Svaparārthapaṭala"] in Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū (仏教学研究) (The Studies in Buddhism ; Ryūkoku University, Kyoto) 43, pp. 20-43. SPARHAM, Gareth (2009): "Asaṅga's Bodhisattvabhūmi: The Morality Chapter" in Buddhist Philosophy: Essential Readings , edited by William EDELGLASS and Jay L. GARFIELD, Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press, pp. 400-408. ŚRĀVAKABHŪMI STUDY GROUP (声聞地研究会)(1981-1991): 梵文声聞地 [[[Śrāvakabhūmi]] in Sanskrit][1] in TSN 3 (1981), pp. 228-185 [= (1)-(44)]; [2] in TSN 4 (1982), pp. 286-260 [= (1)-(27)]; [3] in TSN 6 (1984), pp. 164-135 [= (1)-(30)]; [4] in TSN 7 (1985), pp. 196-161 [= (33)-(68)]; [5] in TSN 8 (1986), pp. 221-180 [= (60)-(101)]; 6 in TSN 9 (1987), pp. 221-168 [= (87)-(139)]; 7 in TSN 10 (1988), pp. 177-148 [= (58)-(87)]; 8 in TSN 11 (1989), pp. 344-260 [= (1)-(85)]; 9 in TSN 12 (1990), pp. 364-317 [= (1)-(48)]; 10 in TSN 13 (1991), pp. 336-292 [= (1)-(45)]. _________________________________________ (1992a): 梵文声聞地 (十一) 本地分中非 三摩呬多地・聞所成地 (1), 和訳・科文 ("The Results of a Joint Study on the Śrāvakabhūmi (XI): Asamāhitā and Śrutamayībhūmi-s Sanskrit Text and Japanese Translation"), in TSN 14, pp. 212-188 [= (15)-(39)]. _________________________________________ (1992b): 梵文声聞地写本について ["On the Sanskrit Manuscript of the Śrāvakabhūmi"], in TSN 14, pp. 226-213 [=(1)- (14)]. _________________________________________ (1993): 梵文声聞地 (十二): 本地分中聞 所成地(2)・思所成地,和訳・科文 ("The Results of a Joint Study on the Śrāvakabhūmi (XII): Sanskrit Text and Japanese Translation of Śrutamayī Bhūmi and Cintāmayī bhūmi"), in TSN 15, pp. 334-286 [= (1)-(49)] . _________________________________________ (1994a): Introduction to the Facsimile Edition of the "Śrāvakabhūmi" Sanskrit Palm-leaf Manuscript , Tokyo: The Institute for Comprehensive Studies of Buddhism, Taishō University. 558 Martin DELHEY _________________________________________ (1994-2006): 梵文声聞地 ( 十三) ("Sanskrit Śrāvakabhūmi 13"), in TSN 16 (1994), pp. 288-232 [= (73)-(129)]; 14 in TSN 17 (1995), pp. 348-296 [= (19)-(71)]; 15 in TSN 18 (1996), pp. 360-326 [= (1)-(35)]; 16 in TSN 23 (2001), pp. 330-270 [= (77)-(137)]; 17 in TSN 24 (2002), pp. 478-438 [= (1)-(41)]; 18 in TSN 25 (2003), pp. 584-542 [= (19)-(71)]; 19 in TSN 26 (2004), pp. (75)-(119); 20 in TSN 27 (2005), pp. (1)-(49); 21 in TSN 28 (2006), pp. (1)-(53). [part 21 not seen ] _________________________________________ (1998): Yuga ron Shōmon ji ・Daiichi yugasho – sansukuritto go tekisuto to wayaku – (瑜伽論 声聞地・第一瑜伽処 ー サンスクリット語テキストと和訳 ー) (Śrāvakabhūmi: Revised Sanskrit Text and Japanese Translation, The First Chapter ), Taishō Daigaku Sōgō Bukkyō Kenkyūjo Kenkyūsōsho 4, Tokyo: Sankibō Busshōrin (山喜房佛書林). _________________________________________ (2007): Yuga ron Shōmon ji ・Daini yugasho (Fu: Hisanmakita ji, Mon shōjo ji, Shi shojō ji ) – sansukuritto go tekisuto to wayaku – (瑜伽論 声聞地・第二瑜伽処 付 非三摩呬多地・聞所成地・ 思所成地 ー サンスクリット語テキストと和訳 ー) (Śrāvakabhūmi: The Second Chapter, With Asamāhitā bhūmiḥ; Śrutamayī bhūmiḥ, Cintāmayī bhūmiḥ, Revised Sanskrit Text and Japanese Translation ), Taishō Daigaku Sōgō Bukkyō Kenkyūjo Kenkyūsōsho 18, Tokyo: Sankibō Busshōrin (山喜房佛書林).
- _________________________________________ (2008): 梵文声聞地(22)第三瑜伽処(1)
和訳・科文[含 サンスクリット語文] ("The Śrāvakabhūmi (part 22): Sanskrit text, analysis, and translation of the Tṛtīyaṃ Yogasthānam (1)") in TSN 30 (2008/3), pp. 1-79.
- _________________________________________ (2009): 梵文声聞地(23)第三瑜伽処(2)
和訳・科文[含 サンスクリット語文] ("The Śrāvakabhūmi (part 23): Sanskrit text, analysis, and translation of the Tṛtīyaṃ Yogasthānam (2)") in TSN 31 (2009/ 3), pp. 1-81. STACHE-ROSEN, Valentina (1973): "Gunavarman [sic ] (367-431): A Comparative Analysis of the Biographies found in the Chinese Tripitaka [sic ]" in Bulletin of Tibetology 10.1, pp. 5-54. STEINKELLNER, Ernst (1989): "Who is Byaṅ chub rdzu 'phrul? Tibetan and non-Tibetan Commentaries on the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra - A Survey of the Literature" in Berliner Indologische Studien 4/5, pp. 229-251. SUEKI, Yasuhiro (末木康弘)(1980): Bodhisattvabhūmi の研究: 成立過程の考察 ["A Study of the Bodhisattvabhūmi: An Inquiry into the Process of its Formation"] in Bukkyōgaku Ronshū 仏教学論集 15, pp. 37-52. ______________ (2008): Bibliographical Sources for Buddhist Studies from the Viewpoint of Buddhist Philology , Bibliographia Indica et Buddhica 3, Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies. SUGAWARA, Yasunori (菅原泰典)(1990): 第3 章 喩伽行・唯識論書 (付 如来蔵思想) ["Chapter 3: Yogācāra and Vijñaptimātra Treatises (with an Appendix on Tathāgatagarbha Thought)"] in Bongo butten no kenkyū III: ronsho hen (梵語仏典の 研究 III 論書篇)(A Descriptive Bibliography of the Sanskrit Buddhist Literature , vol. 3: Abhidharma, Madhyamaka, Yogācāra, Buddhist Epistemology and Logic ), ed. by Keishō TSUKAMOTO (塚本啓祥) et al., Kyoto: Heirakuji Shoten (平 楽寺書店), pp. 313-390. ____________________________ (1998): 『瑜伽師地論』 修所成地のSanskrit 写本 [The Sanskrit Manuscript of the Bhāvanāmayī Bhūmiḥ in the Yogācārabhūmi], in Hōsen Gakuen Chūgaku Kōtō Gakkō Gakuen Kiyō 宝仙学園中学高等学校学園 紀要 (Research Bulletin of Hosen Gakuen High School [[[Tokyo]]]) 10, pp. 41-50. SUGURO, Shinjō (勝呂信静)(1989): Shoki yuishiki shisō no kenkyū (初期唯識思想の研 究)(Studies on Early Vijñaptimātra Philosophy ), Tokyo: Shunjūsha (春秋社). SUZUKI, Kōshin (1995): "The Script of the Śrāvakabhūmi Manuscript" in Bongo bukkyō bunken no kenkyū (梵語佛教文献の研究)(Studies on the Buddhist Sanskrit LiteThe Yogācārabhūmi Corpus 559 rature ), edited by the 声聞地研究会 (ŚRĀVAKABHŪMI STUDY GROUP) and the 密 教聖典研究会 (BUDDHIST TANTRIC TEXTS STUDY GROUP), Taisho University, Tokyo: Sankibō Busshorin (山喜房佛書林), pp. 21-38. TAKAHASHI, Kōichi (高橋晃一) (2005a):『Bosatsu ji 』「shinjitsu gi hon 」 kara 「Shō ketchaku bun chū Bosatsu ji 」 e no shisō tenkai – vastu gainen o chūshin to shite – (『菩薩地』「真実義品」から「摂決択分中菩薩地」への思想展開─vastu 概念を中心として─)(Philosophical Developments from the Bodhisattvabhūmi to the Bodhisattvabhūmiviniścaya: With Special Reference to the Concept of Vastu as Used in the "Tattvārtha" Chapter ), Bibliotheca Indologica et Buddhologica 12, Tokyo: Sankibō Busshōrin (山喜房佛書林). ___________________________ (2005b): Review of KRITZER 2005 in The Eastern Buddhist 36 (2004 [appeared 2005]), pp. 236-242. TATZ, Mark Joseph (1978): Candragomin and the Bodhisattva Vow , Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of British Columbia. TATZ, Mark (1983): Candragomin's Twenty Verses on the Bodhisattva Vow and Its Commentry by Sakya Dragpa Gyaltsen , Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan Works & Archives. __________ (1985): Difficult Beginnings: Three Works on the Bodhisattva Path (Candragomin) , Boston and London: Shambhala. __________ (1986): Asanga's Chapter on Ethics with the Commentary of Tsong kha-pa, The Basic Path to Awakening, The Complete Bodhisattva , Studies in Asian Thought and Religion 4, Lewiston/Queenston: The Edwin Mellen Press. THURMAN, Robert A.F. et al. (2004): The Universal Vehicle Discourse Literature (Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra) by Maitreyanātha/Āryāsaṅga: Together with Its Commentary (Bhāṣya) by Vasubandhu , Treasury of the Buddhist Sciences series, New York: American Institute of Buddhist Studies at Columbia University. TILLEMANS, Tom J. F. (1993): Review of POWERS 1991, in Asiatische Studien 47, pp. 518- 519. __________________ (1997): "On a Recent Translation of the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra" in Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 20.1, pp. 153-164. TUCCI, Giuseppe (1929): "Buddhist Logic before Diṅnāga (Asaṅga, Vasubandhu, Tarkaśāstras)" in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 1929, pp. 451-488, pp. 870-871. _______________ (1971): Minor Buddhist Texts , part 3: Third Bhāvanākrama , Serie Orientale Roma 43, Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente. UI, Hakuju (宇井伯壽)(1930): 決定藏論の研究 in Indo tetsugaku kenkyū (印度哲学研 究)[Studies in Indian Philosophy ], Hakuju UI, vol. 6, Tokyo: Kōshisha Shobō (甲 子社書房), reprint 1965, Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten (岩波書店), pp. 541-790. _____________________ (1958): Yuga ron kenkyū (瑜伽論硏究)[A study of the Yogācārabhūmi ], Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten (岩波書店). ____________________ (1961): Bon-kan taishō Bosatsu ji sakuin (梵漢対照菩薩地索 引)(An index to the Bodhisattvabhūmi, Sanskrit and Chinese ), Tokyo: Suzuki Gakujutsu Zaidan (鈴木学術財団). VERHAGEN, Pieter C. (1994): A History of Sanskrit Grammatical Literature in Tibet, vol. 1: Transmission of the Canonical Literature , Handbook of Oriental Studies 2.8, Leiden, New York, Cologne: E.J. Brill. WALDRON, William S. (2003): The Buddhist Unconscious: The ālaya-vijñāna in the Context of Indian Buddhist Thought , RoutledgeCurzon Critical Studies in Buddhism, London and New York: RoutledgeCurzon. WALDSCHMIDT, E. et al. (1965ff.): Sanskrithandschriften aus den Turfanfunden , Verzeichnis der Orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland 10,1ff., Wiesbaden, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. WANGCHUK, Dorji (2002): The cittotpāda Chapter of the Bodhisattvabhūmi. Textual Introduction, Annotated Translation and Critical Editions of the Sanskrit and Tibetan Texts , M.A. thesis, University of Hamburg. 560 Martin DELHEY WANGCHUK, Dorji (2007): The Resolve to Become a Buddha: A Study of the Bodhicitta Concept in Indo-Tibetan Buddhism , Studia Philologica Buddhica, Monograph Series 23, Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies of the International College for Postgraduate Buddhist Studies. WARE, James R. (1937): Review of LAMOTTE 1935, in Journal of the American Oriental Society 57.1, pp. 122-124. WAYMAN, Alex (1958): "The Rules of Debate According to Asaṅga" in Journal of the American Oriental Society 78.1, pp. 29-40. _____________ (1960): "The Sacittikā, Acittikā, and the Pratyekabuddhabhūmi (Sanskrit Texts)" in IBK 8.1, pp. 379-375 [=(30-34)]. _____________ (1961): Analysis of the Śrāvakabhūmi Manuscript , University of California Publications in Classical Philology 17, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. _____________ (1978): Calming the Mind and Discerning the Real: Buddhist Meditation and the Middle Way , From the Lam rim chen mo of Tsoṅ-kha-pa , Translations from the Oriental Classics, New York: Columbia University Press. _____________ (1984): Buddhist Insight: Essays , edited by George ELDER, Religions of Asia series 5, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, reprint Buddhist Traditions 7, Delhi: Motilal Banarssidass, 1990. _____________ (1997): Untying the Knots in Buddhism : Selected Essays , Buddhist Tradition Series 28, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. _____________ (1999): A Millennium of Buddhist Logic , volume one, Buddhist Tradition Series 36, Delhi: Motilal. WEDEMEYER, Christian K. (2003): Review of POWERS 1998, in Journal of the American Oriental Society 123.3, pp. 681-684. WEZLER, ALBRECHT (1985): "A Note on Vārṣagaṇya and the Yogācārabhūmi" in Journal of the Asiatic Society 27.2, pp. 1-17. WILLIS, Janice Dean (1976): A Study of the Chapter on Reality: Based upon the Tattvārtha- Paṭalam of Asaṅga's Bodhisattvabhūmi , Ph.D. thesis, Columbia Univ. ________________ (1979): On Knowing Reality: The Tattvārtha Chapter of Asaṅga's Bodhisattvabhūmi , translated with Introduction, Commentary and Notes, New York: Columbia University Press; first Indian edition Delhi: Motilal, 1982. WOGIHARA, Unrai (1904): "Bemerkungen über die nordbuddhistische Terminologie in Hinblick auf die Bodhisattvabhūmi" Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 58, pp. 451-454. _________________ (1908): Asaṅga's Bodhisattvabhūmi: Ein dogmatischer Text der Nordbuddhisten, nach dem Unikum von Cambridge im allgemeinen und lexikalisch untersucht , Leipzig: G. Kreysing. [Without title page and with different pagination also appended to WOGIHARA 1930-1936.] _________________ (1930-1936): Bodhisattvabhūmi: A Statement of Whole Course of the Bodhisattva (Being Fifteenth Section of Yogācārabhūmi) , Tokyo. [Reprint in one volume, Tokyo: Sankibo Buddhist Bookstore, 1971.] WYZLIC, Peter (1995): Review of POWERS 1991, in Zentralasiatische Studien 25, pp. 188- 196. YAITA, Hideomi (矢板秀臣)(1992): 瑜伽論の因明 梵文テキストと和訳 ["The Hetuvidyā of the Yogācārabhūmi: Sanskrit Text and Japanese Translation"], in Naritasan Bukkyō Kenkyūjo Kiyō (成田山仏教研究所紀要)(Journal of Naritasan Institute for Buddhist Studies) 15.2, pp. 505-576. __________________________ (2005): Bukkyō chishiki ron no genten kenkyū: Yugaron Inmyō, Darumottaratippanaka, Tarukarahasuya (仏教知識論の原典研究 : 瑜伽 論因明, ダルモッタラティッパナカ, タルカラハスヤ)(Three Sanskrit Texts from the Buddhist Pramāṇa-Tradition: The Hetuvidyā Section in the Yogācārabhūmi, the Dharmottaraṭippanaka, and the Tarkarahasya ), Monograph series of The Yogācārabhūmi Corpus 561 Naritasan Institute for Buddhist Studies 4, Narita: Naritasan Shinshōji (成田山新 勝寺). __________________________ (2008): 菩薩の布施– 『菩薩地』布施品の研究 ("Generosity of the Bodhisattvas: A Study of the Chapter of Generosity (dāna) in the Bodhisattvabhūmi") in Naritasan Bukkyō Kenkyūjo Kiyō (成田山仏教研究所紀 要)(Journal of Naritasan Institute for Buddhist Studies) 31, pp. 157-207. __________________________ (2010): 菩薩の偉力– 『菩薩地』威力品の研究 ("Power of the Bodhisattva") in Naritasan Bukkyō Kenkyūjo Kiyō (成田山仏教研究所紀 要)(Journal of Naritasan Institute for Buddhist Studies ) 33, pp. 77-123. YAITA, Hideomi & Masahiro TAKANO (1995): "Index to the Hetuvidyā Text in the Yogācārabhūmi" in Bongo bukkyō bunken no kenkyū (梵語佛教文献の研究)(Studies on the Buddhist Sanskrit Literature ), edited by the 声聞地研究会 (ŚRĀVAKABHŪMI STUDY GROUP) and the 密教聖典研究会 (BUDDHIST TANTRIC TEXTS STUDY GROUP), Taisho University, Tokyo: Sankibō Busshorin, pp. 217-284. YAMADA, Ryūjō (山田龍城)(1959): Bongo butten no sho bunken: Daijō bukkyō seiritsu ron josetsu shiryō hen (梵語仏典の諸文献：大乗佛教成立論序説 資料 編)[[[Sanskrit]] Buddhist Literature: Materials for a Primer on the Development of Mahāyāna Buddhism ], Kyoto: Heirakuji Shoten (平楽寺書店), reprint 1977. YOKOYAMA, Kōitsu (横山紘一) & Takayuki HIROSAWA (広沢隆)(1996): Yuga shiji ron sōsakuin: Kan-Bon-Zō taishō (瑜伽師地論総索引: 漢梵蔵対照)(Index to the Yogācārabhūmi: Chinese-Sanskrit-Tibetan ), Tokyo: Sankibō Busshorin (山喜房 佛書林). ______________________________________________________(1997): Bukkyō go jiten: Yuga shiji ron ni motozuku Bon-Zō-Kan taishō ・Zō-Bon-Kan taishō (仏教語辞 典: 瑜伽師地論に基づく梵蔵漢対照・蔵梵漢対照)(Dictionary of Buddhist Terminology: Based on Yogācārabhūmi, Sanskrit-Tibetan-Chinese and Tibetan- Sanskrit-Chinese ), Tokyo: Sankibō Busshorin (山喜房佛書林). YONEZAWA, Yoshiyasu (1998): "Pratyekabuddhabhūmi, Sanskrit Text and Annotated Translation" in Sankō Bunka Kenkyūjo Nenpō (三康文化研究所年報)(Annual of the Sanko Research Institute for the Studies of Buddhism ) 29, pp. 9-25. YOSHIMURA, Shūki (芳村修基)(1959): Gejinmikkyō Funbetsu yuga hon (解深密經分別 瑜伽品) (Comparative Study in Chinese and Tibetan Texts of the Yoga-vibhangaparivarta in the Samdhinirmocan-sutra [sic]), Kyoto: Ryūkoku Daigaku Tōhō Seiten kenkyūkai (龍谷大学東方聖典研究会). YŪKI, Reimon (結城令聞) (1962): Yuishiki gaku tenseki shi (唯識學典籍志)[A Catalogue of the Literature of the Vijñaptimātra School ], Tokyo: Daizō Shuppan (大蔵出 版). YUYAMA, Akira (1994): "The Need for Philological Research in the Field of Buddhist Studies" in Buddhism into the Year 2000: International Conference Proceedings , Bangkok and Los Angeles: The Dhammakaya Foundation, pp. 219-236. _____________ (1996): "A Critical Survey of Philological Studies of the Daśabhūmikasūtra " in Suhṛllekhāḥ: Festgabe für Helmut Eimer , edited by Michael HAHN et al., Indica et Tibetica 28, Swisttal-Odendorf: Indica et Tibetica Verlag, pp. 263-282. ZIMMERMANN, Michael (2006): "Only a Fool Becomes a King: Buddhist Stances on Punishment" in Buddhism and Violence , ed. by Michael ZIMMERMANN with the assistance of Chiew Hui HO and Philip PIERCE, LIRI Seminar Proceedings Series 2, Lumbini: Lumbini International Research Institute, pp. 25-63. HARVARD ORIENTAL SERIES Edited by MICHAEL WITZEL VOLUME SEVENTY-FIVE The Foundation for Yoga Practitioners The Buddhist Yogācārabhūmi Treatise and Its Adaptation in India, East Asia, and Tibet Edited by Ulrich Timme KRAGH PUBLISHED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF SOUTH ASIAN STUDIES HARVARD UNIVERSITY DISTRIBUTED BY HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS AND LONDON, ENGLAND 2013 Copyright © 2013 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College and the President of Geumgang University All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews For information write to Editor, Harvard Oriental Series, Department of South Asian Studies, 1 Bow Street, Cambridge MA 02138, USA 617-495 3295; email: witzel@fas.harvard.edu Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication Data The Foundation for Yoga Practitioners: The Buddhist Yogācārabhūmi Treatise and Its Adaptation in India, East Asia, and Tibet Harvard Oriental Series; v. 75 ISBN 978-0-674-72543-0 I. Ulrich Timme Kragh 1969-
