Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Indian Literature v2.c27: Additions and Corrections

A History of Indian Literature v2.c27

Language
English

Additions and Corrections

v2.c27.1

P. 3, L. 16, read *pāṭimokkha*.

v2.c27.2

P. 8 note 2, add : That the canon was written down under Vaṭṭagāmani is not only related in the Dīpavaṃsa and Mahāvaṃsa, but also, with more details in the Nikāyasaṃgraha, composed at the end of the 14th or the beginning of the 15th century A.D. See G. P. Malalasekera, Pali Literature of Ceylon, London 1928, p. 43f. It is likely enough that some commentaries may have been written down even before Vaṭṭagāmani, but canonical texts were learnt by heart by the monks and transmitted orally, even in much later times; see *Malalasekera*, l.c., p. 44ff.

v2.c27.3

P. 9 note 2, L. 2, read *abhidhamma* for *abhdhamma*.

v2.c27.4

To p. 12ff. : On the value of the Pāli Canon for our knowledge of early Buddhism, see also Friedrich *Weller* in Asia Major 5, 1930, p. 149ff. ; *Winternitz* in Studia Indo-Iranica, Ehrengabe für Wilhelm Geiger, Leipzig 1931, p. 63ff. ; Bimala Churn *Law* in Ann. Bh. Inst. 12, 1931, p. 171ff.

v2.c27.5

P. 12, L. 1, read *not* for *oot*.

v2.c27.6

P. 16 note 3, L. 4, after *Barua* add : *and K. G. Singha.*

v2.c27.7

„ „ „ L. 5, after “Calcutta, 1926” add : *Cf.* J. Ph. Vogel in JRAS 1927, 592ff.

v2.c27.8

P. 21, L. 16, read *Bhikkhunīvibhaṅga*.

v2.c27.9

P. 21 note 1, L. 10f., instead of “*new edition in preparation*” read *second edition, 1929*.

v2.c27.10

P. 25 note 1, L. 6, read *Frankfurter* for *Frankfurier*.

v2.c27.11

P. 35 note 2, L. 2, read *translated by T. W. and C. A. F. Rhys Davids*.

v2.c27.12

P. 36, L. 21, read entertainments for *conversations*.

v2.c27.13

P. 39, L. 13, read *Nirvāṇa.* P. 41 notes, L. 6, read *Mahā-Parinirvāṇa-Sūtra,* *see* *Carlo.* To p. 42, L. 10: *Cf.* Friedrich Weller, Der chinesische Dharmasaṃgraha. Mit einem Anhang über das Lakkhaṇasuttanta des Dīghanikāya, Leipzig 1923. P. 48, L. 22, read *reins* for *reigns.* To p. 53, L. 3: An enlarged version of Majjhimanikāya No. 135 (Cūḷa-Kammavibhaṅga) which also exists in the Chinese Madhyama-Āgama and in two other Chinese recensions, is the Mahā-Karmavibhaṅga, discovered by S. *Lévi* in a Nepalese MS. See Annual Bibliography of Indian Archaeology for the Year 1929 (Leyden, Kern Institute, 1931), p. 1 ff. P. 53 note 2, L. 3, read *Bhābrū.* P. 54 note 1, L. 4, after 1925 add : *and Vol. I, 1930.* P. 59, L. 17, read *when I was she.* P. 78 note 2, add : On the relative date of the text cf. B. Ch. *Law* in Ann. Bh. Inst. 12, 1931, p. 176 f. P. 80 note 2, L. 5, read *L. von Schroeder.* ,, ,, , L. 8, read *GSĀI* for *JSAI.* P. 94, L. 7 from below, read *Vāseṭṭha-Sutta.* P. 98 note 3, add : See also Bimala Churn *Law* in Ann. Bh. Inst. 12, 1931, 173 ff. P. 116 note 3, L. 6 from below, read *Franke in Bezz. Beitr.*—At the end of the note add : See also Gokuldās *De* in Calcutta Review, June 1929, 265 ff.; August 1929, 246 ff. ; Jan. 1930, 78 ff. ; July 1930, 65 ff. ; Feb. 1931, 278 ff. P. 118 notes, L. 11, add : See *Winternitz* in Ind. Hist. Qu. 4, 1928, 1 ff. P. 119, L. 6, read *tally* for *tallies.* P. 120 note 2, add : and Oct. 1927, p. 56 ff. ; cf. J. Ph. *Vogel* in JRAS 1927, p. 592 ff. ; Gokuldās *De,* "Bharhut Jātakas" in a New Light, in Calc. Rev., August 1929, p. 246 ff.

v2.c27.14

P. 121 note 1, add : See also A. *Coomaraswamy* in JRAS, 1928, 390 ff.

v2.c27.15

,, note 2, L. 2, read *nordöstlichen* for *nordostlichen* and add : B. C. *Sen*, Studies in the Buddhist Jātakas, Calcutta 1930, still takes the whole of the Jātaka book as evidence for the "history" of the time of Buddha. Gokuldas *De*, Jātaka-Gleanings bearing on Ancient Indian Culture and Civilisation (Calcutta Review, Sept. 1931, p. 361 ff.; Oct. 1931, p. 106ff.), is more cautious, in taking his "gleanings" from the Gāthās only.

v2.c27.16

P. 131f. note 3, add : In the Saṃkha-Jātaka (No. 442) and the Mahājanaka-Jātaka (No. 539) we meet with a goddess of the sea, Maṇimekhalā, who saves shipwrecked seafarers. This goddess has a temple in Kāñchī (near Madras). See S. *Lévi* in Ind. Hist. Qu. 6, 1930, 597 ff.

v2.c27.17

P. 133 note 3, add : On the relation between the Jātaka and the Mahābhārata, see above Vol. I, p. 472 note 4 ; H. *Lüders* in SBA, 1929, 269 ; N. B. *Utgikar* in JBRAS, N.S., Vol. IV, nos. 1, 2.

v2.c27.18

P. 156 note 2, add : See also B. Ch. *Law* in Ann. Bh. Inst. 12, 1931, p. 173f.

v2.c27.19

P. 170 note, L. 2, after "pp. 6 and 16" add : Dwijendra Lal *Barua* in Ind. Hist. Qu. 7, 1931, 367ff.

v2.c27.20

P. 170 note 2, add : See also B. Ch. *Law* in Ann. Bh. Inst. 12, 1931, p. 177f.

v2.c27.21

P. 174 note 1, add : G. P. *Malalasekera*, Pali Literature of Ceylon, London 1928, and B. Ch. *Law* in Ann. Bh. Inst. 13, 1931-32, pp. 97-143.

v2.c27.22

P. 174 note 2, add : A new theory on the composition of the Milindapañha has been suggested by Mrs. *Rhys Davids*, The Milinda Questions—An Inquiry into its Place in the History of Buddhism with a Theory as to its Author, London 1930. She thinks that there is *one* author of the book who first edited the conversation between Milinda and Nāgasena, which she considers to have actually taken place, then—about ten years later—wrote the dialogues on the Dilemmas, and still later, as "a grey-haired man," the book of the Similes. I am not convinced, and see no reason to change my views expressed on pp. 174-83. For an analysis of the work see also *B. Ch. Law* in Ann. Bh. Inst. 13, 1931-32, pp., 105-22.

v2.c27.23

P. 177 note 1, L. 1, read *Milindapañho* for *Milindapaūho*.

v2.c27.24

P. 177 note 2, L. 1, read *F. O. Schrader* for *E. Schrader*.

v2.c27.25

P. 183 note 1, add: For an analysis of the contents of the Netti, see B. Ch. *Law* in Ann. Bh. Inst. 13, 1931-32, p. 97ff.

v2.c27.26

,, note 4, read *Fuchs* for *Fuch's*, and add at the end of the note: B. C. *Law* in Ann. Bh. Inst. 13, 1931-32, p. 105.

v2.c27.27

P. 190 note 1, add: *Cf.* *Maung Tin* in JRAS, 1923, 265ff.

v2.c27.28

P. 214 note 2, add: It is now probable that an older Thera Dhammakitti (I), who lived in the reign of Parakkamabāhu I, was the author of the first part of the Cūḷavaṃsa ending with the death of Parakkamabāhu I in 1186 A.D., while chapters 80ff. were written by another Dhammakitti (II), who may be the same who wrote the Dāṭhāvaṃsa in 1211 A.D. The second part of the Cūḷavaṃsa deals with the period 1186-1333 A.D. and the third part, probably composed by the Thera Sumaṅgala in the second half of the 18th century, with the period from 1333 to 1781 A.D. See *W. Geiger* in Ind. Hist. Qu. 6, 1930, 206ff.

v2.c27.29

P. 215 note 2, add: On the sources of the Mahāvaṃsa see also *W. Geiger* in ZII 7, 1929, 259ff., who shows that Mahānāma probably also used a chronicle of Rohaṇa, and puññapotthakāni (books containing lists of pious foundations), besides popular (oral) traditions.

v2.c27.30

P. 216f. note 2, add: On Mahāvaṁsa and Cūḷavaṁsa as sources of history, see also W. *Geiger* in Ind. Hist. Qu. VI, 1930, 208ff.

v2.c27.31

P. 220 note 1, L. 3, after “p. 96ff.” add: and Ann. Bh. Inst. 13, 1931-32, p. 122f.

v2.c27.32

„ note 1, add at the end: A paper on Buddhadatta, by S. *Jambunathan* in Journal of Or. Res., Madras, April 1928, pp. 111-17, is quoted in BB. I, No. 130.

v2.c27.33

P. 221 note 1, L. 7, read *Mrs. Rhys Davids*.

v2.c27.34

P. 222 note 1, add: See also B. C. *Law* in Ann. Bh. Inst. 13, 1931-32, p. 123ff.

v2.c27.35

P. 222 note 3, add: *Cf.* B. C. *Law* in Ann. Bh. Inst. 13, 1931-32, p. 141ff.

v2.c27.36

P. 224 note 1, add: *Cf.* B. C. *Law* in Ann. Bh. Inst. 13, 1931-32, p. 134ff.

v2.c27.37

P. 227 note 1, add: Buddhist texts are known to have been translated into Chinese already in the second century A.D., if not earlier. The earliest Tibetan translations date from the second half of the eighth century A. D.; see A. H. *Francke*, Antiquities of Indian Tibet, Vol. II, The Chronicles of Ladakh and Minor Chronicles (Archaeological Survey of India, New Imp. Series, Vol. 50), Calcutta 1926, p. 86.

v2.c27.38

P. 227 note 2, L. 2, read *Kucha* for *Kuchar*.

v2.c27.39

P. 229, L. 18, read *even the* for *even in the*.

v2.c27.40

P. 229 note 1, add: Nalinaksha *Dutt*, Aspects of Mahāyāna Buddhism and its Relation to Hīnayāna, London 1930 (Calcutta Oriental Series No. 23).

v2.c27.41

P. 230 note 1, L. 2, read *causality* for *cusality*.

v2.c27.42

P. 232 note 1, L. 3 and note 2, L. 1, read *Oldenberg* for *Oldenburg*.

v2.c27.43

P. 233 note 2, add: On the legendary matter, Jātakas and Avadānas, in the Mūla-Sarvāstivāda Vinaya, see also J. *Przyluski* in Ind. Hist. Qu. 5, 1929, p. 1ff.

v2.c27.44

P. 235 note 1, add: The Chung-Tsi-King (Chinese version of the Saṃgītisutta) of the Dīrghāgama has been translated into German and discussed by Siegfried *Behrsing* in Asia Major 7, 1931, pp. 1-149. *Cf.* above, p. 45 note 2.

v2.c27.45

P. 235 note 3, add: The Chinese Fan wang king or "Brahmajāla-Sūtra," a Vinaya work of the Mahāyāna, translated by Kumārajīva from an unknown Sanskrit text, has been edited and translated into French by J. J. M. *De Groot*, Le code du Mahâyâna en Chine son influence sur la vie monacale et sur le monde laique (Verhandelingen der Kon. Akademie van Wetenshappen te Amsterdam, Afd. Lett. Deel I, No. 2) 1893. Another Brahmajāla-Sūtra in the Chinese Dīrghāgama, as well as the Brahmajāla-Sūtra in the Tibetan Kanjur, corresponds to the Pāli text in the Dīghanikāya.

v2.c27.46

P. 237, L. 6, read *Dhammapada* for *Dharmapada*.

v2.c27.47

P. 237 note 4, add: Fragments of Udānavarga translations in Kucean language are discussed by E. *Sieg* and W. *Siegling* in BSOS VI, 2, p. 483ff.

v2.c27.48

P. 238 notes, L. 4, read *Schiefner* for *Schiefnen*.

v2.c27.49

P. 239 note 2, add: See now also Bimala Churn *Law*, A Study of the Mahāvastu, Calcutta and Simla 1930, and Supplement.

v2.c27.50

P. 240, L. 1, Mm. Haraprasāda *Śāstrī* (Calcutta Review, Sept. 1930, p. 441f.) would translate: "Vinayapiṭaka according to the text of the Mahāsaṅghikas who declare the Buddha to be lokottara." For, he says, all the Mahāsaṅghikas believe the Buddha to be lokottara, and in the list of the eighteen sects "Lokottaravādins" are not mentioned. But Vasumitra and Bhavya mention the Lokottaravādins as a sect of the Mahāsaṅghikas. See Mrs. *Rhys Davids*, Points of Controversy, p. xxxvi f. and Max Walleser, Die Sekten des alten Buddhismus, Heidelberg 1927, pp. 28, 78.

v2.c27.51

P. 240, L. 3, read *Mahāsaṅgha* for *Mahāsāṅgha*.

v2.c27.52

P. 243 note 2, L. 1: read *above* for *avove*.

v2.c27.53

P. 247 note 2, add: See also B. C. *Law*, A Study of the Mahāvastu, Supplement, p. 17f., and A. B. *Keith*, A Note on the Mahāvastu, *in Law's* book, p. vii.

v2.c27.54

P. 260 note 2, add: On the style and language of Aśvaghoṣa's poems *cf. Keith, HSL*, p. 56 ff.

v2.c27.55

P. 262 note 1, add: On the relation between Vālmīki and Aśvaghoṣa, s. Vol. I, p. 512 f., and C. W. *Gurner* in JASB, Vol. XXIII, 1927, p. 347ff. (BB I, no. 102).

v2.c27.56

P. 262 note 2, L. 4, after "1928" add: An English translation of the Saundarananda by E. H. *Johnston* has been published in the same series, London 1932.

v2.c27.57

P. 266 note 1, add: It seems to me quite impossible that such texts as the Nairātmya-paripṛcchā, the Gurupañcāśikā, and similar Mahāyāna and Tantra texts which are ascribed to Aśvaghoṣa (s. S. *Lévi* in JA 213, 1928, 201 ff.; 215, 1929, 255 ff.) could be works of the poet. Either they are apocryphal, or their author is another Aśvaghoṣa. *Cf.* J. *Przyluski* in Acad. roy. de Belgique Bulletins de la classe des lettres, 1930, 425ff.

v2.c27.58

P. 267 note 1, add: It is possible that Aśvaghoṣa is also the author of a lyrical drama treating the legend of Rāṣṭrapāla, s. S. *Lévi* in JA 213, 1928, 200ff.

v2.c27.59

P. 267 note 2, add: Pages 267ff. were already printed when I saw Joh. *Nobel's* paper "Kumāralāta und sein Werk" (NGGW, 1928, 295ff.; see also S. *Lévi* in JA 213, 1928, 193ff.; 215, 1929, 271ff., and L. de *La Vallée Poussin*, Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi (Buddhica I, 1) Paris 1928, p. 223f.) which makes it most probable that Kumāralāta's Kalpanāmaṇḍitikā Dṛṣṭāntapaṅkti is not identical with the Sūtrālaṃkāra, but an imitation of it prepared for the use of the Sautrāntikas, and that Aśvaghoṣa is the author of the "Sūtrālaṃkāra" translated by Kumārajīva. On the other hand the colophons of the Turfan fragments leave no doubt that Kumāralāta is the author of the Kalpanāmaṇḍitikā, s. J. *Przyluski* in Acad. roy. de Belgique Bulletins de la classe des lettres, 1930, 425ff. H. *Lüders* (Kātantra und Kumāralāta, SBA 1930, 531f.) has also discovered fragments of a grammar by Kumāralāta.

v2.c27.60

P. 270, last line, read *Catuḥśataka Stotra*.

v2.c27.61

P. 277 note 3, add: *Cf.* *Winternitz* in Comm. Wogihara, p. 7ff.

v2.c27.62

P. 285 note 4, add: J. *Przyluski* (Ind. Hist. Qu. 5, 1929, p. 5) does not think it probable that the Vinaya is the source of the Divyāvadāna. He holds that "the compilers of the Vinaya of the Mūlasarvāstivādins are likely to have borrowed......from the ancient collection of fables of which our Divyāvadāna is only a late recension."

v2.c27.63

P. 286 note 3, add: J. *Przyluski* in JA 210, 1927, p. 115ff.

v2.c27.64

P. 293 note 1, L. 2, read *JRAS* for *JARS*.

v2.c27.65

P. 294 note 4, add: On the Bodhisattvapiṭaka see also Hara-prasād *Śāstrī* in B. C. *Law*, Buddhistic Studies, 1931, p. 846ff.

v2.c27.66

P. 295, L. 4, add: As there is no Mahāyāna Canon, there is also no special Vinayapiṭaka of the Mahāyāna, though there are Sūtras which treat of Vinaya subjects. Such Sūtras are the Chinese *Brahmajāla-Sūtra* (translated into French by M. *de Groot*, Le code du Mahâyâna en Chine (see p. 622 above addition to p. 235 note 3) and the *Bodhisattva-Prātimokṣa-Sūtra* (edited by Nalinaksha *Dutt* in Ind. Hist. Qu. 7, 1931, 259ff.). See also N. *Dutt*, Aspects of Mahāyāna Buddhism and its relation to Hīnayāna, p. 290ff.

v2.c27.67

P. 305 note 4, add: On the great importance of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka in Japan, see M. W. de *Visser*, Ancient Buddhism in Japan Sūtras and Ceremonies in use in the Seventh and Eighth Centuries A.D., Paris 1928 (Buddhica, sér. I, t. III), pp. 1ff., 43.

v2.c27.68

P. 306 note 3, L. 1, read *Waddell.*

v2.c27.69

P. 307 note 1, L. 7, read *Śikṣā-Samuccaya.*

v2.c27.70

P. 307 note 3, L. 2, read *being in the hope.*

v2.c27.71

P. 315 note 1, add: See now also the valuable "Note on the Prajñāpāramitā" by Nalinaksha *Dutt*, Aspects of Mahāyāna Buddhism, London 1930 (Calcutta Oriental Series No. 23), p. 323ff., and the survey of the Prajñāpāramitā literature by Tokumyo *Matsumoto*, Die Prajñāpāramitā-Literatur nebst einem Specimen der Suvikrāntavikrāmi-Prajñāpāramitā (Bonner Orientalistische Studien Heft 1), Stuttgart 1932. N. *Dutt*, l. c., pp. 39f., 328 dates the Aṣṭasāhasrikā "as early as the first century B. C." According to *Matsumoto* (l. c., p. 22) the earliest Chinese translation of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Pr. dates 172 A. D. He thinks (l. c., p. 31) that the Prajñāpāramitās originated in Kashmir between the birth of Christ and the time of Kaniṣka.

v2.c27.72

P. 315 note 2, add: On a list of Prajñāpāramitās in the Tibetan Kanjur, see also Marcelle *Lalou* in JA 215 ₂ 1929, pp. 87-102.

v2.c27.73

P. 316 note 2, add: The Sanskrit text of the Saptaśatikā Prajñāpāramitā has been edited by G. *Tucci* (Memorie della R. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Vol. XVII), Roma 1923, and, together with Hsüan Tsang's Chinese version, by Jiryo *Masuda* in Comm. Wogihara, p. 185ff.

v2.c27.74

P. 316 note 6, add: N. *Dutt*, l. c., 328ff., by a comparison of the Prajñāpāramitā versions, comes to the conclusion that "the relation between the Aṣṭa. and the Śata.

v2.c27.75

can be hardly called that of abridgment or expansion, as it can be said between the Śata. and the Pañcaviṃśati." Verbal agreements show "that the Aṣṭa. and the Śata. deal with identical topics, but the arrangement and the emphasis laid on a particular topic are quite different. Besides this, the Śata. introduced new topics like bhūmis and expositions of the various śūnyatās, samādhis, etc., which were only enumerated or referred to in the Aṣṭa. So it may be said that the Śata. utilised the Aṣṭa. and not *vice versa*." On the other hand, "the Pañcaviṃśati is clearly an abridgment of the Śata. effected by an omission of set enumerations and repetitions." Dr. Dutt is certainly right in saying "that the generalisations regarding abridgment and expansion of the Prajñāpāramitās are not possible and that each book must be judged by its contents." About the Daśasāhasrikā and Aṣṭasāhasrikā in Chinese, s. *Dutt*, l. c., p. 323f. *Matsumoto*, in his list of Prajñāpāramitā texts (l. c., p. 2ff.). does not mention a Daśasāhasrikā at all.

v2.c27.76

P. 321, L. 4, read *Śatasāhasrikā*.

v2.c27.77

P. 322 note 1, add: N. *Dutt*, l. c., p. 332ff., would explain the tiresome repetitions in the Prajñāpāramitās as due to the desire of philosophical writers of first wiping out from the minds of the readers old ideas, in order to implant new ideas in their place, but who "sadly lacked the knowledge of *artful* repetitions," and therefore became tiresome. I think that the writers of the Pr. wrote for religious purposes rather than for philosophical teaching.

v2.c27.78

P. 326 note 5, L. 2, read *Sautrāntikas* for *Santrāntikas*.

v2.c27.79

P. 327 note 1, add: See also J. *Rahder*, Glossary of the Sanskrit, Tibetan, Mongolian and Chinese Versions of the Daśabhūmika-Sūtra, Paris 1928 (Buddhica, sér. 2, tome I) and The Daśabhūmika-Sūtra (Gāthā portion) Edited by Johannes *Rahder* and Shinryu *Susa* in EB 5, No. 4, July 1931.

v2.c27.80

P. 328 note 1, add: On the Bhūmis and the literature on them see now N. *Dutt*, Aspects of Mahāyāna Buddhism, p. 238ff.

v2.c27.81

P. 332 note 1, add: The Ugradatta·Paripṛcchā seems to have been a book of conduct for use by the lay Bodhisattvas, s. N. *Dutt*, Aspects of Mahāyāna Buddhism, p. 299.

v2.c27.82

P. 332 note 2, add: The Sanskrit text of a Nairātmyaparipṛcchā, formerly only known in a Tibetan and in a Chinese version, has been discovered by S. *Lévi* (see JA t. 213, 1928, p. 207ff.). A reconstruction of the Sanskrit text from the Tibetan version has been edited by Sujitkumar *Mukhopadhyaya* in Visva-Bharati Studies, No. 4, Calcutta 1931.

v2.c27.83

P. 332 note 3, add: See now also Daisetz Teitaro *Suzuki*, Studies in the Lankavatara Sutra, London 1930 (*cf.* EB V, 1929, pp. 1-79), also Haraprasād *Śāstrī* and S. N. *Dasgupta* in B. C. *Law*, Buddhistic Studies, 1931, pp. 840ff., 859ff.

v2.c27.84

P. 333, L. 9: The last chapter should not be called "Sagāthakam," but (if it had any title at all) it should be "Gāthāḥ." This is also the meaning of the colophon: ity āryasaddharma-Laṅkāvatāro nāma mahāyānasūtraṃ sagāthakaṃ samāptam. *Cf.* *Suzuki*, Studies in the Lankavatara Sutra, p. 22.

v2.c27.85

P. 335 note 3, add: Of the 884 Gāthās of Chap. X, 200 occur also in the main part of the work. *Suzuki*, Studies in the Lankavatara Sutra, p. 21ff., describes this Gāthā chapter as "nothing but a heap of rubbish and gems."

v2.c27.86

P. 336, L. 6, read ¹) for ²).

v2.c27.87

P. 336, L. 18, read ²) for ¹).

v2.c27.88

P. 339 note 2, add: The new edition of the Suvarṇaprabhāsa Sūtra, prepared by the late Professor Bunyiu Nanjio and after his death revised and edited by H. Idzumi, The Eastern Buddhist Society, Kyoto 1931, has since been published.

v2.c27.89

P. 341 note 2, L. 4, read: An Uiguric version of the Suvarṇa-prabhāsa has been edited by W. W. *Radloff* and S. E. *Malov* in Bibl. Buddh. XVII, 1913ff., and translated into German by the same in Bibl. Buddh. XXVII, 1930.

v2.c27.90

P. 343 note 2, add: A Sanskrit biography of the Siddhas, found by G. *Tucci* (JASB, N.S., XXVI, 1930, 138ff.), contains also some information on Nāgār-juna, or rather on the different authors and teachers of this name. On the confusion of the Mādhyamika Nāgārjuna and the Tāntrika Nāgārjuna s. also Nalinaksha *Dutt* in Ind. Hist. Qu. 7, 1931, 635ff.

v2.c27.91

P. 346, L. 3 from below, add: The Vigraha-Vyāvartanī is a polemical treatise; it has been translated from the Tibetan by Susuma *Yamaguchi* (JA 215, 1929, pp. 1-86), who also notes the differences of the Chinese translation. The Tibetan text and an English translation from the Chinese and Tibetan has been published by G. *Tucci* in Pre-Diṅnāga Buddhist Texts on Logic from Chinese Sources, GOS No. XLIX, 1929.

v2.c27.92

P. 346 note 1, L. 2, read *Materialien zur Kunde des Buddhismus*.

v2.c27.93

P. 346 note 4, add: A reconstruction of the Sanskrit text from the Tibetan and Chinese versions, and an English translation, with Introduction and Notes, has been published by Vidhushekhara *Bhattacharyya* in Visva-Bharati Studies No. 1, Calcutta 1931. The Pandit leaves it an open question whether the author of the work is the old Nāgārjuna of about 200 A.D., or the second Nāgārjuna who "is believed to have flourished in about the first half of the seventh century A.D."

v2.c27.94

P. 347 note 1, L. 2, after "Oxford 1885" add: Different from the Sanskrit Dharmasaṃgraha, but closely related to it is the Chinese Dharmasaṃgraha, see F. *Weller*, Der chinesische Dharmasaṃgraha, Leipzig 1923.

v2.c27.95

P. 348, L. 11, read *grounds* for *ground*.

v2.c27.96

„ L. 12, read *Sūtra* for *Sūtra*.

v2.c27.97

P. 350 note 4, add: See now also the Catuḥśataka of Āryadeva Sanskrit and Tibetan texts with Copious Extracts from the Commentary of Candrakīrti. Reconstructed and edited by Vidhushekhara Bhattacharya, Part II, Visva-Bharati Series, No. 2, Calcutta 1931. An English translation from the Chinese of Āryadeva's *Śataśāstra*, a work which is similar to the Catuḥśataka, though the subjects are differently arranged, has been published by G. *Tucci* in Pre-Diṅnāga Buddhist Texts on Logic from Chinese Sources, GOS No. XLIX, 1929. Another Madhyamaka text of Āryadeva, the *Akṣara-Śatakam*, has been translated after Chinese and Tibetan materials by Vasudev *Gokhale*, Heidelberg 1930 (Materialien zur Kunde des Buddhismus 14).

v2.c27.98

P. 351 note 4, add: See also *La Vallée Poussin* in BSOS VI, 2 (1931), p. 411ff.

v2.c27.99

P. 353 note 3, add: The Sanskrit text and Tibetan translation of the Abhisamayālaṃkāra-Prajñāpāramitā-Upadeśa-Śāstra have been edited by Th. *Stcherbatsky* and E. *Obermiller* in Bibl. Buddh. XXIII, 1929. It is, according to *Stcherbatsky*, "the fundamental work for the study of the Buddhist doctrine of the Path towards moral perfection and the attainment of the condition of a Buddhist Mahāyānistic Saint, and of a Mahāyānistic Buddha in the blessed Nirvāṇa.'' *Stcherbatsky* explains *abhisamaya* as a synonym of *mārga*, and says: "*Alaṃkāra* is the name for a literary form popular with the Buddhists. It means that the work in question contains no full and detailed exposition of the doctrine, it is not a mahāśāstra, like the Abhidharmakośa, but it is only a short summary of the salient points of the system contained in the prajñāpāramitā sūtras.'' The Alaṃkāras are always composed in memorial verses (kārikās) which, like the Brahmanical Sūtras, again require a commentary. See also *Tucci*, On some Aspects of the Doctrines of Maitreya(nātha) and Asaṅga, Calcutta 1930, p. 10ff., and in JASB N.S. XXVI, 1930, p. 127.

v2.c27.100

P. 354 note 1, add: See also Hakuju *Ui*, Maitreya as an Historical Personage, in Lanman Studies, p. 95ff. Here he says (p. 99) that it ''is still a question'' whether the authorship of the commentary on the Mahāyāna-Sūtrālaṃkāra belongs to Asaṅga or to Vasubandhu. He ascribes to Maitreya the works: Yogācārabhūmi, Yoga-vibhaṅga-śāstra (now lost), Mahāyāna-Sūtrālaṃkāra, Madhyāntavibhaṅga, Vajracchedikā-Pāramitā-śāstra, and Abhisamayālaṃkāra. G. *Tucci*, On some Aspects of the Doctrines of Maitreya(nātha) and Asaṅga, Calcutta 1930, and in JASB, N.S., XXVI, 1930, p. 125ff., supports, by new evidence, the view that Maitreya or Maitreyanātha is an historical personage and the author of six works, including the Mahāyāna-Sūtrālaṃkāra, and the Yogacaryā-bhūmiśāstra (this is the correct title). He is of opinion that Maitreya is the author of the Kārikās of all the six works, while Asaṅga, his chief pupil, wrote the commentaries on them. *E. Obermiller*, in the introduction to his translation of the Uttaratantra of Maitreya (The Sublime Science of the Great Vehicle of Salvation, being A Manual of Buddhist Monism, The Work of Ārya Maitreya with a Commentary by Āryāsaṅga. Translated from the Tibetan, in Acta Orientalia, Vol. IX, 1931, pp. 81-306), states that the following five works are ascribed to Maitreya by Tibetan tradition, *viz.*, Sūtrālaṃkāra, Madhyānta-vibhaṅga, Dharma-dharmatā-vibhaṅga, Abhisamayālaṃkāra, and Uttaratantra. *Obermiller* gives a summary analysis of all these works. As the commentary on the Abhisamayālaṃkāra is ascribed to Asaṅga, and as both text and commentary must have been composed by the same author, *O.* inclines to the opinion that all the 5 treatises which show a great resemblance with each other as regards style, though they are written from different points of view (1-3 from Yogācāra-Vijñānavāda, 4 and 5 from Mādhyamika point of view), were written by Asaṅga, and that the tradition of Asaṅga having heard them from Maitreya in the Tuṣita heaven is only meant to give a divine sanction to the works.

v2.c27.101

P. 354 note 2, add: An edition of the Bodhisattvabhūmi, being the 15th section of the Yogācārabhūmi, has been published by *Unrai Wogihara*, Tokyo 1930.

v2.c27.102

P. 355f. note 1, add: The question of Vasubandhu's date has recently been discussed by *J. Takakusu*, *Taiken Kimura*, and *Genmyo Ono* (in Lanman Studies, pp. 79ff., 89ff., 93f.) who agree in assigning the author of the Abhidharmakośa to the 5th century (420-500 A. D.). T. *Kimura* speaks here also of two Vasubandhus. *Takakusu's* chief arguments are *argumenta ex silentio*: Kumārajīva (383-414 in China) and Fa-hien (399-414 in India) know nothing of Vasubandhu and his Abhidharmakośa. The sources on which N. *Péri* relies, are declared by *Takakusu* to be "spurious." On the other hand, H. *Ui* (Lanman Studies, p. 101f.) gives the following dates: Maitreya 270-350, Asaṅga 310-390, Vasubandhu 320-400, which Takakusu considers too early by 100 years.

v2.c27.103

P. 357 note 1, Line 2, after "1918" add: Second Koçasthāna ed. by U. *Wogihara*, Th. *Stcherbatsky*, and E. *Obermiller*, Bibl. Buddh., 1931. The Tibetan version of the Abhidharmakośakārikāḥ and Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam has been edited by Th. *Stcherbatsky* in Bibl. Buddh. XX, 1917 and 1930.

v2.c27.104

P. 358 note 4, add: A similar work is the Śīlaparikathā, a moral treatise of 11 verses, which is ascribed to Vasubandhu, and preserved in the Tibetan Tanjur only; s. Anathanath *B asu* in Ind. Hist. Qu. 7, 1931, 28ff.

v2.c27.105

P. 360 note 5, add: A fragment of the Sanskrit text of the Commentary on the Pratītya-Samutpāda-Sūtra has been published by G. *Tucci* in JRAS, 1930, p. 611ff. Instead of "According to G. Tucci," etc. read: H. R. Rangaswamy *Iyengar* (JBORS 12, 1926, p. 587 ff.; Ind. Hist. Qu. 5, 1929, p. 81ff.) and G. *Tucci* (Ind. Hist. Qu. 4, 1928, p. 630ff.) have proved that the Vādavidhi also is a work of Vasubandhu, and not as A. B. *Keith*, in agreement with Satis Chandra *Vidyabhushana*, tried to prove (Ind. Hist. Qu. 4, 1928, p. 221ff:) the work of Dharmakīrti.

v2.c27.106

P. 362 note 1, add: The whole extremely complicated problem of the authenticity of the Ta Tch'eng K'i Sin Louen (this is the Chinese title of the Mahāyānaśraddhotpādaśāstra) has been fully discussed by Paul *Demiéville*, Sur l'authenticité du Ta Tch'eng K'i Sin Louen (Extrait du Bulletin de la Maison Franco-Japonaise, tome II, No. 2, Tôkyô 1929).

v2.c27.107

Mr. *Demiéville* sees no reason to deny the Indian origin of the work which (he thinks) must be later than the Laṅkāvatāra, but earlier than Asaṅga and Vasubandhu. Else it would be difficult to explain why they are never quoted in the work. On the other hand it is strange that the work, so famous in China and Japan, is never alluded to in any Sanskrit text, nor in any Chinese or Tibetan translations of Buddhist Sanskrit works.

v2.c27.108

P. 363, L. 10, read *Candrakīrti*.

v2.c27.109

P. 363 note 2, add : The Nyāyapraveśa has also been edited by N. D. *Mironov* in T'oung Pao, 1931, pp. 1-24.

v2.c27.110

P. 364, L. 5 and L. 11, read *Candrakīrti*.

v2.c27.111

P. 364, L. 7, add note to Prasannapadā : Chapters I and XXV of the Prasannapadā have been translated by Th. *Stcherbatsky* in his work The Conception of Buddhist Nirvāṇa (Leningrad 1927), pp. 79-212 ; Chap. X by St. *Schayer* in Rocznik Orjentalistyczny, Lwów 1930, VII, 26-52, and Chapters V, XII, XIII-XVI by St. *Schayer*, Ausgewählte Kapitel aus der Prasannapadā in Polska Akademja Umiejetności, Mémoires de la Commission Orientaliste Nr. 14, w. Krakowie 1931. An analysis of Chap. XXIV was given by *La Vallée Poussin* in Mélanges Charles de Harlez, Leiden 1896.

v2.c27.112

P. 364 note 2 : An edition of the Sanskrit text of the Madhyamakāvatara is now being published in the Journal of Oriental Research, Madras, Vol. VI, 1932 (Supplement).

v2.c27.113

P. 365, L. 7, read *Candrakīrti*.

v2.c27.114

P. 366 note 1, L. 15, read *Keith*.

v2.c27.115

P. 367, L. 4, read *neither* for *nither*.

v2.c27.116

P. 369, L. 2, read *Ākāśa-*

v2.c27.117

P. 369, L. 11, read *Vimalakīrtinirdeśa*, To p. 369, L. 12: The Avalokita-Sūtra in the Mahāvastu II, 363 ff., agrees with the Avalokana-Sūtra quoted by Śāntideva in general, but differs from it in so many details that Śāntideva's text cannot possibly be a quotation from the Mahāvastu.

v2.c27.118

P. 369, L. 19, read *Daśabhū-*

v2.c27.119

P. 369, L. 19, read *Tathāgataguhya-Sūtra*.

v2.c27.120

P. 370 note 1, add: A Mongolic translation of the Bodhicaryāvatāra ed. by B. J. Vladimircov in Bibl. Buddh. XXVIII, 1929.

v2.c27.121

P. 375 note 3, add: *Cf.* Vidhushekhara Bhattacharya in Ind. Hist. Qu. 6, 1930, 757ff.

v2.c27.122

P. 377 note 1, L. 1, read *The Tibetan text with a French translation*; and add at the end of the note: The first and the last of the four hymns, Sanskrit and Tibetan Texts, have been edited, with an English translation, by G. *Tucci* in JRAS, 1932, p. 309ff.

v2.c27.123

P. 385 note 2, add: The Mahā-Māyūrī has been translated into Chinese by Kumārajīva, and three times more. See also G. *Tucci* in JASB, N.S. XXVI, 1930, p. 129.

v2.c27.124

P. 391 note 2, add: See also P. C. *Bagchi* in Ind. Hist. Qu. 6, 1930, 576ff.

v2.c27.125

P. 392 note 2, L. 3, read *Sādhanamālā*, II.

v2.c27.126

P. 392 note 2, add: G. *Tucci* also (JASB XXVI, 1930, p. 129 ff.) is of opinion that the Tantras go back to the times of Harivarman and Asaṅga (4th century A.D.) because they allude to a "Somasiddhānta" which he identifies with the "Tantric sect" of the Kāpālikās. I am afraid, the use of the terms "Tantric" and "Tantras" is too vague to allow any safe dating of Tantra literature. In line 3 of the note read Sādhanamālā II (instead of III).

v2.c27.127

To p. 393, L. 9, Uḍḍiyāna is probably not Orissa, but the Swat country; s. P. C. *Bagchi* in Ind. Hist. Qu. 6, 1930, p. 580f.

v2.c27.128

P. 393 note 4, add: See also P. C. *Bagchi* in Ind. Hist. Qu. 6, 1930, 389ff. The Sandhā-bhāṣā is also used in the *Dohākośa*, Sahajayāna poems written in Apabhraṁśa, s. Les chants mystiques de Kāṇha et de Saraha. Les Dohā-Koṣa (en apabhraṁśa, avec les versions tibétaines) et Les Caryā (en vieuxbengali)...édités et traduits par M. *Shahidulla*, Paris 1928. Kāṇha lived about 700, Saraha about 1000 A.D.

v2.c27.129

P. 394 note 2, L. 1, read *C. Bendall*.

v2.c27.130

P. 395 note 3, add: None of the passages quoted from a Tathāgataguhya-Sūtra in the Śikṣāsamuccaya occur in the Guhyasamāja Tantra or Tathāgataguhyaka edited by Benoytosh *Bhattacharyya*, Baroda 1931 (GOS No. 53). The latter is a genuine Tantra. In the colophons it is called "Guhyasamāja Mahāguhyatantrarāja." It is a work belonging to the Yogatantra class. Dr. Bhattacharyya would ascribe this Tantra to Asaṅga, but his arguments are very weak indeed.

v2.c27.131

P. 397 note 1, add: See also Marcelle *Lalou*, Iconographie des étoffes peintes (paṭa) dans le Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa, Paris 1930 (Buddhica, sér. 1, t. VI). B. *Bhattacharyya* (GOS, Vol. LIII, p. xxxiii ff.) would ascribe the Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa in its original form to the second century A.D. But his arguments are by no means convincing.

v2.c27.132

To p. 399, L. 22: Some scholars (see *e.g.*, G. *Tucci* in JASB N.S. XXVI, 1930, p. 128ff.) claim a higher antiquity for the Tantras. But no real Tantra can be proved to have existed before the 7th century A.D. Neither the Suvarṇaprabhāsa nor the Mahāmāyūrī can be called "Tantras." Nor are the Kāpālikas a "Tantric sect." All we can say is that some of the elements of Tantrism are already found in earlier works.

v2.c27.133

P. 400 note 4, add : On foreign elements in the Tantra, see also P. C. Bagchi in Ind. Hist. Qu. 7, 1931, 1ff.

v2.c27.134

P. 401 note 1, L. 3, read *popular* for *oppular*.

v2.c27.135

P. 401 note 1, add: A goddess Lāmā often appears in Buddhist Tantras connected with the cult of Dākinīs and Yoginīs. Lāmā is the same as Tibetan Lhamo, “she-devil.” On this Lāmā and on Tibetan influence on the Tantras s. also G. Tucci in JASB N.S. XXVI, 1930, p. 155ff.

v2.c27.136

P. 406 f. note 2, add: See also W. Wüst, Buddhismus und Christentum auf vorderasiatisch-antikem Boden, in Zeitschrift für Missionskunde und Religionswissenschaft, 1932, 33ff.

v2.c27.137

P. 411, L. 1, read : *Vimalakīrti-Nirdeśa*.

v2.c27.138

P. 419 note 3, L. 2, read *Angelo de Gubernatis*.

v2.c27.139

P. 422 note 2, add : The Italian original was published in Milano in 1925.

v2.c27.140

P. 427 note 2, add: Also Franklin Edgerton, Notes on Jaina Māhārāṣṭrī, in Lanman Studies, p. 27ff.

v2.c27.141

P. 427 note 3, add : Also Bloomfield, On Diminutive Pronouns in Jaina Sanskrit, in Lanman Studies, p. 7ff.

v2.c27.142

P. 428, L. 7, read *Canon* for *Canons*.

v2.c27.143

P. 429, L. 21, read *Mahā-Pratyākhyāna*.

v2.c27.144

P. 430, L. 3, read *Ohanijjutti*.

v2.c27.145

P. 432, L. 20, read *Puvvas* for *Puvuas*.

v2.c27.146

P. 432, L. 2 from below, read Mahāvīra.

v2.c27.147

P. 443, L. 21, add : ¹

v2.c27.148

P. 443, L. 26, read “*Numerous parables, which* for “*Numerous parables*,” *which*.

v2.c27.149

P. 449, note 2, add: A new edition of the Uvāsagadasāo by P. L. Vaidya has been published at Poona 1930.

v2.c27.150

P. 470, L. 12, read *Ṣaḍāvaśyaka*- for *Saḍāvāśyaka*-.

v2.c27.151

P. 474, L. 16, read *Canon* for *Cannon*.

v2.c27.152

P. 489 note 2, read *pavvam* for *pevvam*.

v2.c27.153

P. 494 note 4, L. 4, read Stutterheim.

v2.c27.154

P. 498 note 1, L. 1, read *Glasenapp*.

v2.c27.155

After p. 503, L. 17, add: Another "Mahāpurāṇa" is the *Tisaṭṭhimahāpurisaguṇālaṃkāra* in Apabhraṃśa by the poet *Pupphayanta* or *Puṣpadanta*. This Mahāpurāṇa also consists of two parts, an Ādipurāṇa in 37, and an Uttarapurāṇa in 65 Chapters. It was completed in 965 A. D. Puṣpadanta is also the author of two other Apabhraṃśa works, a *Nāgakumāracariu*, and a *Jasaharacariu* (Yaśodharacarita).¹ The subject of the latter is the life of Yaśodhara, which has also been treated in Somadeva Sūri's Yaśastilaka and Vādirāja Sūri's Yaśodharacarita.

v2.c27.156

1) Jasaharacariu of Puṣpadanta. Critically edited with an Introduction, Glossary and Notes by P. L. *Vaidya* (The Ambādās Chaware Digambara Jain Granthamālā or Karanjā Jain Series edited by Hiralal Jain, Vol. I), Karanja, Berar 1931. On the Tisaṭṭhimahāpurisaguṇālaṃkāra, see Introduction, p. 19 ff. and also *Hiralal*, Catalogue, p. xliii ff.

v2.c27.157

P. 506 note 2: The Ādīśvaracaritra, the first book of the Triṣaṣṭiśalākāpuruṣacaritra, has been translated into English by Helen M. *Johnson*, Baroda 1931 (GOS No. 51).

v2.c27.158

P. 540, L. 8, read *Caritra* for *Charitra*.

v2.c27.159

P. 543 note 1, add: But No. 13 in *Grimm*, Kinder-und Hausmärchen, has more in common with the Kathākośa story, as A. *Wesselski*, Versuch einer Theorie des Märchens, Reichenberg i. B. 1931, p. 75 ff., has shown.

v2.c27.160

P. 548 note 4, add: Translated into German by H. *Jensen* in Das indische Schattentheater bearbeitet von G. *Jacob*, H. *Jensen*, H. *Losch*, Stuttgart 1931, p. 48 ff.

v2.c27.161

P. 558 note 2, add: As to the relative pronoun *yaka*, see M. *Bloomfield* in Lanman Studies, p. 9 ff.

v2.c27.162

P. 561, L. 3, read *There is also a S.* P. 561 note 3, L. 1, read *Āśādhara’s*. P. 561 note 5, Ll. 1 and 2, read *Ṣaḍdarśanasamuccaya*. P. 581, L. 15, read *Nyāyaviniścaya*. P. 581, L. 16, read *pasambodhana*. P. 583, L. 3, read *Jñānārṇava*. P. 586, L. 6, read *Cāmuṇḍarāya*. P. 594, L. 14, read *Dharma* for *Dhārma*. Addition to Appendix II: The latest discussions on the problem of Pāli and its home are those by R. *Siddhārtha*, Origin and Development of Pāli Language with special reference to Sanskrit Grammar, and by A. B. *Keith*, The Home of Pāli, in B. C. *Law*, Buddhistic Studies, p. 641 ff., and p. 728 ff.

Linked texts (80)