Review: [untitled] Author(s): Leonard W. J. van der Kuijp Source: Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol.

114, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1994), pp. 304306 Published by: American Oriental Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/605865 Accessed: 13/07/2010 12:41
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aos. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the American Oriental Society.

http://www.jstor.org

304

Journal of the American Oriental Society 114.2 (1994)

Awliyai and their "stages" (mandzil); and the theme of the mysterious "Seal" (khatmor khatim)does occupy a prominentplace in it. The existence and identity of such a parallel to the "Seal of Prophethood"was undoubtedly the most sensitive issue, and evidently the one which appealed most to the Sufis. This being said, one can only concur with Radtke's severe if measured strictures on Yahya's edition of the Arabic text. To be sure, Yahya's has the merit of the pioneer work, and his introduction and historical annex on wilayah/walayah are still useful. But his text, and especially his unfortunate habit of supplying unnecessary words and forcing the whole into an artificial structure complete with descriptive chapter headings entirely his own, have misled more than one reader (witness an adventurous theory on the non-existent Awliyda al-zir as advanced in Encyclopaedia Iranica, s.v. Abddl, in addition to the sample mentioned by Radtke, p. 33) thus the need for a truly critical and reliable edition of this important text. In fulfilling this task, Radtke has done a superb job-not only because he has been able to use more and better manuscripts than Yahya, but because he has used them in a systematic, sensible and clear way. The two additional Arabic texts, which are edited here for the first time, have been selected from the vast corpus of Tirmidhian Masadil that have come down to us in various manuscripts. They represent two distinct collections of "answers"to "questions" supposedly raised by correspondents in Sarakhs and Rayy, respectively (cf. F. Sezgin, GAS 1:655, nrs. 7 and 5). The first one is a collection of twenty answers on various points of doctrine, addressed directly to an unidentified person whose questions are briefly summarizedeach time. Sarakhsas the place from where the questions issued is mentioned only in the title of one of the three manuscripts used (Radtke, p. 34; see the description in Yahya, p. 66). The word jawdb at the beginning of the title in Radtke (p. 135) appears to be pure conjecture, but is not identified as such. If anything, the plural ajwibah, which is in fact suggested by the text itself (cf. p. 168) as well as by the title as found in one manuscript (cf. Radtke, H.T., 44 and 47, nr. 6), would probably have been more appropriate. The German title, Ein Antwortschreiben . . ., seems therefore not quite right. The same reservation certainly applies to the second Antwortschreiben, i.e., the Jawib Kitdb min al-Rayy, as is recognized by Radtke himself who nevertheless decided to preserve this title, oddly enough, "in order to avoid complications of identification" (Radtke, p. 35). This collection consists of 31 Masd'il, among which the important letter to Abi cUthman alHiri (nr. 19, partially translated into German by Radtke, H.T., 117-19), and parts of the Kitab CIlmal-Awliyda (nr. 26). The title appears to be derived from nr. 1, which is addressed to a person who had expressed the desire to meet Tirmidhi, seeking his spiritual advice. Contraryto L. Massignon, Radtke does not believe that this person could be identical with the addressee of nr. 19, i.e., Abu cUthman al-Hiri; but then, who could the mys-

terious "man from Rayy" have been? Trying to find an answer to this question, Radtke, then, points to the Isma'ili Abu Hatim al-Razi (d. 322/933), without, however, suggesting seriously that this "propagandist of the Shi'ah" could really have been in Tirmidhi's good graces. What leads to this surprising rapprochement is the fact that Abu Hatim's Kitdb al-Zinah contains a quotation from an authority named al-Tirmidhi, who, as Radtke (p. 36) has been able to determine, must be "our" Tirmidhi, since the passage in question is, in fact, a quote from the Kitdb lIlm al-Awliya3. This is a most interesting observation, which certainly calls for furtherresearch. The book has four excellent indices (Qur'an, Hadith, proper names, and technical terms) plus two bibliographies (German, pp. 36ff.; Arabic, pp. 207ff.). Furthermore,an Arabic annex to the German part traces no less than 188 "Sira-Zitate" (i.e., Khatm quotes) in secondary sources ranging from Sulami's .Haqd'iqal-Tafsir to Ibn Taymiyyah's Fatawd, which are analyzed in the Germanintroduction(pp. 5-28) with a view to determiningthe textual traditionpriorto the available manuscripts. This remarkablepiece of philological scholarship leads to two complementaryconclusions: on the one hand, it shows that the authoritiesprior to Ibn al-'Arabi generally follow a text close to that of the British Museum manuscript, thus corroboratingits value; on the other hand, it also confirms the suspicion many of us have had with regardto the reliability of these secondary materials for the study of early Sufism in general, as Radtke (p. 6) demonstrateswith a particularlypervertedTirmidhi-quotefrom Sulami. Of course this does not mean that they should be disregardedaltogether.A few interestingquotes from Persian sources might have been added, for example, CAttar,Tadhkirat ulAwliyda, ed. Nicholson, 11:98,11.4-13 (ed. Estelami, 531, 1. -5 to 532, 1. 5) = Sirah, ed. Radtke, 58, 11.2-8; 64, 11.10-12; 64, 11.1-4 (in this order). HERMANN LANDOLT
McGILL UNIVERSITY

Tshad ma sde bdun rgyan gyi me tog. By BCOM LDAN RIGS PA'I RAL GRI. Edited by Rdo rje rgyal po. Pe cin: KRUNG GO'I BOD
KYISHESRIGDPESKRUN 1991. Pp. 521. Rmb 14. KHANG,

Our knowledge of the early development of Tibetan Buddhist epistemology and logic (tshad ma) is significantly hampered by the fact that many treatises alluded to in the later Tibetan literature still have to be located and published. The publication under review here fills one of these lacunae in a ratherexciting way, for not only does it concern two important contributions to tshad ma of the second half of the thirteenth

Reviews of Books

305

century, but it also brings to light for the very first time a portion of the voluminous oeuvre of one of Tibet's most creative (and therefore controversial) scholars. Both texts were first noticed in Sun Wenjing and Huang Mingxin, "Zangwen yinming shumu," Yinmingxintan, ed. Liu Peiyu et al. (Lanzhou: Gansu renmin chubanshe, 1989), 340. Contraryto what is suggested by the title, this volume actually consists of two fairly polemic treatises by Bcom ldan, where but the first (pp. 3-138) is entitled Tshad ma'i bstan bcos sde bdun rgyan gyi me tog. It is based on a possibly unique manuscript (it is slightly incomplete, fols. 13-18 are missing) in eighty-nine folios that is housed at the Cultural Palace of Nationalities (Minzu Wenhua Gong, Mi rigs rig gnas pho brang) in Beijing under catalogue number 004780(2). In this work Bcom ldan sets forth his own interpretationsof Dharmakirti's philosophy in thirteen chapters. Upon a comparison of this manuscript with the edition, we find that its editor, the late Rdo rje rgyal po, has unfortunatelychosen to omit the numerous glosses in an unknown hand which identify, rightly or wrongly, the individuals against whom Bcom ldan is arguing. The forthcoming study of this highly interesting text by my student, P. Schwabland, will to a great extent obviate the actual inspection of the manuscript-a cursory comparison of the readings of the main body of the latter with those of Rdo rje rgyal po's edition suggest very few problems indeed-as it will include a concordance of the two and a finding list of the glosses in the manuscript. The second text included in this volume is a commentary on Dharmakirti'sPramanaviniscaya and bears the title of Rnam par nges pa'i 'grel bshad chen po rgyan gyi me tog or Tshad ma rnam par nges pa'i 'grel bshad rgyan gyi me tog (pp. 141521). It, too, is based on a manuscript housed in the Cultural Palace of Nationalities, where it is catalogued under number 004827(2). The upper center of its title page has the notation phyi / zha / 9, where phyi suggests that it could be circulated "outside" the library in which it was originally housed, possibly one of the libraries of 'Bras spungs monastery, and where zha 9 would be the original Tibetan catalogue number. It consists of one hundred and fifty-two folios with seven lines per folio. This exegesis is called a 'grel bshad (Skt. tika), although, as far as the actual passages commented upon, it is perhaps better characterized as what the much later Tibetan literature refers to as a mchan 'grel, an "interlineary commentary." Bcom ldan also throws in several longer excurses of the kind that are often called spyi don, in which he addresses certain contentious points in greater detail. For the Tibetans, Dharmakirti'sPramdnaviniscaya is actually a composite of a versetext and autocommentary. Bcom ldan comments on both, although not on every single passage. A very useful feature of this publication is that Rdo rje rgyal po has marked off in bold print the original text of the PramdnaviniScayafrom the actual commentary. Neither text tells us anything about when they

were written. The latter was undoubtedly composed later since it quotes the former on p. 260. Its colophon on p. 521 first relates that Bcom ldan had received the transmission for this work plus Dharmottara's commentary (around the year 800) via Pan chen Sbyin pa tshul khrims and a little later observes that he was privy to the oral transmission anent the Pramdnaviniscaya that had issued from Danagila, who had sojourned in Tibet during the beginning of the thirteenth century as part of the entourage of the more famous SakyaSribhadra. The Tibetan sbyin pa tshul khrims is but the Sanskrit danagila, so that both names refer to nothing one and the same man. Both versions of Tshal pa Kun dga' rdo rje's (1309-64) Red Annals state that Skyel nag Grags pa seng ge, a disciple of this Danagila had founded a seminary for philosophical study (mtshan nyid kyi grwa sa) in Snar thang, the monastery with which Bcom ldan was most closely affiliated throughouthis long life; see the Deb ther dmar po (Gangtok, 1961), fol. 26b [Ibid., ed. Dung dkar Blo bzang 'phrin las (Pe cin: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1981), 63]. On the other hand, Yar lung Jo bo Shakya rin chen's chronicle of 1376 has it that Skyel nag taught logic and epistemology (tshad ma) in Snar thang, that Skyi ston Grags pa 'bum was his student and that Bcom ldan was a disciple of the latter; see the Yar lung jo bo'i chos 'byung, ed. Dbyangs can (Chengdu: Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1987), 133. It is this scenario that found its way into Stag tshang pa Dpal 'byor bzang po's compilation of 1434, for which see the Rgya bod yig tshang chen mo, ed. Dung dkar Blo bzang 'phrinlas (Chengdu: Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1985), 491. Contraryto the plethora of notes in the Tshad ma sde bdun rgyan gyi me tog, the Pramdnaviniscaya commentary is virtually unglossed, and where there are glosses, none of these attempt to identify the individuals or schools of thought against whom Bcom ldan was arguing. However, in connection with the rubric, "The need for vowing to write [a given text]," which occurs in its introduction, the manuscript has the following gloss on top of fol. 3b, which is omitted on p. 145 of the edition: gzhan don brtse ba can rnams srog phyir yang // rang gi nus pa Ihod par mi byed de // skyes bu dam pa khur Ici khur ba dag // nyam nga'i gnas su nam yang dor mi byed: ces gsungs pa chos kyi bshes gnyen kyi tl kar drangs pa Ita bu'o // The verses are evidently found in an unidentified commentary by a Dharmamitra.Two individuals with this name are known to us. One of them was the author of the large exegesis of the Vinayasutra and the other the author of the Prasphutapadd, itself a commentary of Haribhadra'sSphutarthd. There are two instances where Rdo rje rgyal po has incorporated a gloss or marginal note in the body of the text. Both of

306

Journal of the American Oriental Society 114.2 (1994)

collection consists of but a sample of the enormous holdings of Nor-bu gling-ga and the Potala, and a good portion of the one hundred and fifty-one pieces on the display were never published before. The captions to and descriptions of the individual items, some of which might have been a trifle more complete, are in Tibetan and Chinese, whereas the table of contents (pp. 2-11), the introduction (pp. 12-25) and the brief prefaces to each of the seven categories in which the exhibited pieces were divided are in Chinese, Tibetan and English. The introductionand prefaces to categories 1-3 and 6-7 were written by Mr. Ou Chaogui of the Management Committee of Cultural Relics of the Tibetan Autonomous Region-no. 6 jointly with Chimei Jigme, no. 7 jointly with Jungda-and translated into Tibetan by Dgra-lha Zla-ba bzang-po of the Research Institute of National Arts of the Tibetan Autonomous Region. The Chinese text of the prefaces of categories 4-5 was written by Mr. Cai Xianmin and translated into Tibetan by Mr. Tshe brtan dge legs. In every case, the Chinese texts were rendered into English by Messrs. Chen Guansheng and Li Peizhu. Fortunately, the Chinese text of the captions, though not free from some problems, is fully translatedinto English (with some additions drawn from the captions in Tibetan) on pp. 172-85. The work concludes with a trilingual postscript (pp. 186-87). The truly outstanding photography is owed to Messrs. Zhao Shan and Feng Hui of the Palace Museum. 1. Unearthed Cultural Relics (pp. 26-39, 172-73); sixteen items (1-16). This category ranges from microliths from the rich Mkhar-rosite of Chab-mdo to more modern items such as an iron-fortified saddle and a rattan shield-these are dated from the eleventh to the sixteenth centuries-excavated from the ruins of Gu-ge in Western Tibet. Exceptional specimens of pottery-ware, several of which are decorated, are also given a prominent place. Archeology in the Tibetan cultural area is still in its infancy and important discoveries continue to be made, especially in Mkhar-ro and Chu-gong in the vicinity of Lhasa. A useful survey of recent archeological work can be LEONARD W. J. VANDERKUIJP found in Hou Shizu, Xizang Kaogu Dagang (Lhasa: Xizang UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON renmin chubanshe, 1991), and his "Xizang Kaogu Gongzuo Shulue," Zhongguo Zangxue 1 (1992): 39-52. 2. Historical Cultural Relics (pp. 40-61, 173-75); eighteen items (17-34). The first two items should be of particular interest to those involved in Buddhist studies since they involve Sanskrit manuscripts. The first, no. 17, is a thick, square (16.1 Xizang WenwuJingcui [Bod kyi rig dngos snying btus, A WellSelected Collection of Tibetan Cultural Relics]. Edited by by 16.1 cm), "bound" birch bark manuscript with two leather The Management Committee of Cultural Relics of the covers. While not found in the captions of the book, the TiTibetan Autonomous Region. Peking: GUGONG BOWUYUAN betan description at the exhibit itself stated that this text is a ZIJINCHENG CHUBANSHE, 1992. Pp. 187. Rmb 280. Rnam nges kyi 'grel pa, that is, a "Commentary on the Rnam nges," which can only indicate an exegesis of Dharmakirti's This impressively and exquisitely produced book is a cata[Pramdna]viniscaya. One of the Tibetan curators informed me that its owner had been none other than the Indian scholar logue of an exhibit of Tibetan relics, works of art, and exemMkhan po Zhi ba 'tsho, Santaraksita,and that it is kept in the plary specimens of native crafts, held in the Fall of 1992 at the Nor-bu gling-ga. Judging from its size and pending a more Qianqinggong of the Gugong, Forbidden City, in Beijing. The

these are found in Bcom Idan's exegesis of the third and last chapter, on inference for others. Leaving aside any discussion of these, the first occurs on fol. 103b (= p. 394) anent Pramanaviniscaya III [Sde dge print], Tshad ma 1 (Tokyo, 1981), fol. 195b (p. 98/2/2) which has a parallel in Pramanavarttika IV:88. The gloss which occurs immediately after 'dir ni 'dod pa'i shad kyi dbyings la nista yan lag ma yin no reads: gnyis kar i sa la kta'i rkyen byin pas i tar song ba ni nistha khong na yod pa'i don yin no. On p. 460 we have: gang gi phyir grub pa la sgrub par thai ba dang rjes 'gro med par 'gyur ba de'i phyir zhes sbyar te kha na ma tho ba ni skyon yin no // bzhi pa sgrub byed la mi mtshungs pa ni / dngos po de'i khyad par rtags su bzung ba med par dngos po tsam zhig sgrub byed yin pa la ni rjes su 'gro ba nyams pa med do // gang zhe na. Apparently, this passage had originally been overlooked by the scribe of this manuscript and it is in fact found at the bottom of fol. 128b where mtshungspa ni was written mtshungspa ni, nyams pa med do as nyams pa med do, and gang gis zhe na as gang gis she na. Lastly, on p. 521, Rdo rje rgyal po reproduces the last part of the colophon as: . . rigs pa'i ral gris sbyar ba / 'di legs par rdgzogs shyo, that is, ". . composed by Rigs pa'i ral gri. This [text] is well completed." The corresponding text on fol. 152a of the manuscriptreads, however: . . rigs pa'i ral gris sbyar ba // shakya'i btsun pa dbang bkras kyis bris pa e ma ho // 'di legs par rdzogs sho, meaning: ". . composed by Rigs pa'i ral gri. Written [out or copied] by the Shakya monk Dbang [phyug] bkra [shis], E-ma-ho! This [text] has been well completed." I cannot identify this Dbang [phyug] bkra [shis]. Our gratitude must be expressed to the authorities of the Minzu Wenhua Gong, especially Prof. Sun Wenjing, the editorin-chief of this publication, and the Chinese Center for Tibetan Research (Zhongguo Zangxue Yanjiu Zhongxin), headed by Rdo rje tshe brtan, for having the foresight finally to place Bcom ldan on the map of Tibetan intellectual history.