Hiraoka Satoshi 平岡聡, Budda no kusushiki jiseki: Bonbun Konponsetsu issai uburitsu hasōji ブッダの奇しき事跡: 梵文根本説一切有部律破僧事 (Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 2023, 2024). 2 vols. x, 333, viii, 441, 22 pp. ISBN 978-4-8318-2481-3, 978-4-8318-2482-0. ¥ 7,000, ¥ 8,000.

It is fitting that we begin our survey with a work concerning the hagiography of the Buddha. Hiraoka Satoshi is well known to scholars of Indian Buddhism as the courageous translator of both the Divyāvayāna and the Mahāvastu.² He now continues his digvijaya with a complete translation of the Saṁghabhedavastu of the MÅ«lasarvāstivāda Vinaya, from Sanskrit. As he did in his previous work, especially on the Divyāvadāna, he meticulously compares the available Sanskrit, based on a single manuscript and the edition of Gnoli, which does not always report it quite precisely or accurately (see below), with the Tibetan and Chinese translations, in order to arrive at the best possible base text. The translator himself remarks (vol. 1, p. ii) that the lack of any previous translation is perhaps due to the acknowledged problems with Gnoli’s edition, the length of the text, and various difficulties in understanding. He addresses in a preliminary way the first of these not by an examination of the extant manuscript, but on internal grounds, suggesting a number of emendations to the published text, based largely on reference to the Tibetan translation, with occasional notice of the Chinese (vol. 2, pp. 14–22, from the back). The brief discussions of each emendation are not given in the table, but instead in the chapter-end notes to the translation, making cross-reference somewhat inconvenient. In a eventual second edition, adding to each suggested correction a reference to the note in which the change is justified would be a boon to readers. However, rather than a list of corrections to Gnoli’s edition, what is really needed is a new critical edition, based on the (photographs of the) manuscript.³ In fact, Hiraoka remarks (vol. 1, p. ii) that he has heard of plans for a critical edition, which appears to be a reference to the aspirations of Yao Fumi 八尾史, now professor of Tokyo University, to prepare precisely such an edition.⁴ Yao is the ideal person to do so, given her vast experience with another section of the same Vinaya, namely the Bhaiá¹£yavastu, the topic of her PhD thesis, an English translation from Tibetan, and a recent remarkable edition of all available Sanskrit materials.⁵

Ueki Masatoshi 植木雅俊, Bonbun Yuimakyō honyaku goiten 梵文『維摩経』翻訳語彙典 . Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 2019. x, 1275 pp. ISBN 987-4-8318-7023-0. ¥ 28,000. & Ueki Masatoshi 植木雅俊, Bonbun Hokekyō honyaku goiten 梵文『法華経』翻訳語彙典 . Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 2020. xii, 1370, ii, 1456 pp. ISBN 987-4-8318-7026-1 (set of 2 volumes). ¥ 48,000.

Ueki Masatoshi 植木雅俊 certainly cannot be accused of shying away from a challenge. He published one of the first modern translations from Sanskrit of the VimalakÄ«rtinirdeśa in 2011.⁶ This followed not long after his 2008 translation from Sanskrit of the Lotus SÅ«tra,⁷ perhaps less remarkable, however, in that this publication followed in the train of a large number of such Japanese translations, remarkable for us only in that to this day the only published translation from Sanskrit of the Lotus SÅ«tra in English is that of Hendrik Kern, from 1884!⁸ Now Ueki comes in quick succession with two massive publications, intended to guide students to read those two Buddhist sÅ«tras directly in their Sanskrit versions. Both constitute, he tells us, essentially his working notes from his own translation projects. The volumes follow the same format. A small portion of the text is given (in romanized Sanskrit, therefore with word divisions already made), a translation, the corresponding Chinese location in KumārajÄ«va’s translation, in kakikudasi, and then analytical notes for every single word and form. Everything is repeated for every single sentence. As a result, every single ca is glossed, every single na is glossed, every time tat kasmād dhetoḥ appears it is glossed word for word again, identically. This approach does not seem to me to be the best use of space, nor the best pedagogically. It would be better to present material once, and then remind readers by a simple cross-reference. This would encourage learning.

The Sanskrit text references for the VimalakÄ«rtinirdeśa volume cite by page and line number Ueki’s own 2011 publication, which will be inconvenient for those who do not own the volume, but they do provide the standard chapter and section numbers established for the sÅ«tra by Étienne Lamotte, and thus even without Ueki’s first book to hand one can navigate one’s way, though it is laborious, since the numbering is not found, for instance, in the running heads, and one has to search carefully for the notations of section number. Although there is indeed a considerable amount of repetition, the work is not a mere repetitive slog. In a number of places—I have not attempted to compare them systematically—at which textual problems were identified by Gómez and Harrison in their translation, and emendations proposed,⁹ these issues were identified and discussed by Ueki, generally in the supplementary notes which are found at the end of each chapter. His remarks no doubt will repay careful reading, although, again, getting to this material is not quite as easy as it could have been.

This is not a volume that anyone would be likely to sit down to read cover to cover, nor is it convenient for casual reference to the text (or translation). But especially for students who wish to work through the text, even those not in command of Japanese, a great deal of use could be made of the grammatical analyses of words, although to be sure, the explanations and suggested translations, not to mention longer discussions, may not be immediately accessible to a student unable to read Japanese relatively well. That said, with the easy availability of translation apps which allow one to take a snapshot of a page and have it automatically translated, I suspect that more than enough could be understood to make reference to this volume worthwhile, and profitable, for learners. For philologists already comfortable with reading Buddhist scriptures in Sanskrit, the work is probably of less utility, although as noted, the textual observations of the author will be of occasional interest. Libraries will probably find this a worthwhile acquisition.

The Lotus Sūtra volumes, which weigh in, according to my bathroom scale, at 5 kilograms, follow essentially the same approach as does the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa contribution, save that the base text is that of the so-called Kern-Nanjio edition of the Sanskrit. The problems of this edition are well known, but in the absence of another viable alternative, it remains the standard reference, and no doubt Ueki was right simply to rely on it in the first place. The benefits of this edition are the same as those mentioned for the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa volume, though the greater popularity of and attention given to the Lotus Sūtra suggest that more students will be interested in reading the text in Sanskrit. As with its companion volume, libraries will probably find this a worthwhile acquisition, though individual scholars already reasonably familiar with Buddhist Sanskrit will be unlikely to find it of great utility.

Kanō Kazuo 加納和雄, Zōbun wayaku Daijō Angurimāra-kyō 蔵文和訳 大乗アングリマーラ経. Kamakura: Kishin shobō 起心書房, 2024. vii, 506 pp. ISBN 978-4-9070-2230-3. ¥ 11,000.

The figure of Aṅgulimāla is very well known; he is the notorious thug whose mission it was to collect 1000 human fingers (aṅguli), which he strings together on a rosary (mālā) (there is, of course, disagreement over how many persons would have to be mutilated—or as seems to be always assumed, killed—to achieve this end, and the usual interpretation is that he sets out to kill 1000 persons). One finger shy of his goal, Aṅgulimāla meets the Buddha, who, needless to say, converts him. In addition to Pāli Majjhima Nikāya 86 and its commentary (attributed to Buddhaghosa), the story is found in the Saṁyuktāgama (SĀ 1077 [T. 99], SĀ² 16 [T. 100]),¹⁰ Ekottarikāgama (EĀ 38.6 [T. 125]), T. 118–119, and numerous references are made to the story in many sources.¹¹

Completely different from this is the Mahāyāna sÅ«tra called the AṅgulimālÄ«ya. This is known so far only from its translations into Tibetan (D 213/Q 879) and Chinese (T. 120).¹² The text has drawn attention for its concern with the tathāgatagarbha, the body of a buddha, and, as Radich says, “tathāgatagarbha/buddha nature preached as explicitly connected with ātman (ātmadhātu [wojie (我界)]) and concealed by defilements, the eternity of the Tathāgata, the secret teachings, the promotion of faith (xin [ä¿¡]) toward the teaching of tathāgatagarbha, and concern with the worst sinners, including the icchantika.” Heretofore no complete translation of the Tibetan version had been published, although we do have an English translation of the Chinese version, curiously not mentioned by Kanō.¹³ Furthermore, portions of the Tibetan translation were also translated into English by Stephen Hodge, and published online, although apparently not the complete sÅ«tra; this is also not noted by Kanō.¹⁴

Kanō’s book consists of a lengthy introduction (pp. 3–157), followed by an amply annotated translation (pp. 161–456), and three very short appendices. It is impossible to do justice to the richness of Kanō’s treatment in a few words, and all certainly should urge him to publish his results in English (and be it noted, he has a long and distinguished record of English publications).¹⁵ Kanō briefly explains the sources upon which he relied, and excuses himself for not having consulted all of what appear to be the oldest Tibetan manuscripts (omitting some Mustang sources, Phug brag, and others), but expressing his desire to return to these later. I very much hope that this should be understood to mean that he will prepare a true critical edition of the sÅ«tra, and I further presume that in fact the lion’s share of the work toward such a goal has probably already been accomplished. As a matter of the logic of working procedure, a translation should indeed precede an edition, although this at first glance seems counterintuitive. But the question at the heart of any edition is, what does the text mean, what is it trying to say? If one is not sure of this, it is impossible to establish a reliable text. Therefore, preparing an edition without a translation is in some sense putting the cart before the horse (this does not, obviously, mean that one is obliged to publish one’s translation, or even necessarily to write it down, but at least in my experience, the latter certainly helps).

The sūtra is divided into twelve chapters, of unequal length; pp. 13–25 offer a brief synopsis.

Chapters 2–5 of the Introduction explore the background of the sÅ«tra, its motifs, how they are developed in this version of the Aṅgulimāla story, the sÅ«tra’s ideas of the tathāgatagarbha, and an attempt to explore for whom the sÅ«tra was composed. Chapter 6 is devoted to the Chinese translation, and Chapter 7 to the Tibetan. Among the interesting discussions is that concerning whether the Tibetan translators made use of the Chinese translation in their efforts to render their Sanskrit Vorlage, this question raised by the wording of the Tibetan colophon. It is a pity in this regard that Kanō makes no reference to recent work on this very topic by Channa Li who, however, does not mention the AṅgulimālÄ«ya.¹⁶ However, on the basis of his comparison of the two versions, in the end Kanō concludes (pp. 144, 152) that the Tibetan translation was made from a Sanskrit original, with minimal if any use made of Chinese.

Shirasu Jōshin 白須淨眞, Kodai Indo no Angurimāra denshō: Tannishō jūsanjō, kan’yaku kyōten, butsuden zuzō kara yomitoku 古代インドのアングリマーラ伝承: 歎異抄十三条・漢訳経典・仏伝図像から読み解く. Kyoto: Hōzōkan 法藏館, 2023. 458, 16 pp. ISBN 978-4-8318-7760-4. ¥ 13,000.

Only slightly before Kanō’s book was published appeared a substantial volume also concerned with “Traditions of Aṅgulimāla in Ancient India,” a book whose subtitle clarifies that the editor’s aim is to explore the background of Shinran’s expression in the thirteenth chapter of the Tannishō stating that whether one may commit an evil deed, such as killing a thousand persons, is entirely a matter of one’s karma.¹⁷ The allusion to the murder of a thousand persons certainly must remind one of Aṅgulimāla. The editor Shirasu in his own initial contribution surveys the evidence from different versions of the basic story, including visual evidence from Gandhāra, and textual parallels to the sÅ«tra, all oriented around his goal of exploring the context and background of Shinran’s expression. He offers, nonetheless, a valuable collection of source materials. The short second chapter, by Dunhuang experts Arami Hiroshi 荒見泰史 and Gui Hong 桂弘, investigates Chinese translations of the name Aṅgulimāla. The third chapter by Yang Liu 楊柳 deals with Gandhāran reliefs, exploring possible relations with materials preserved in Chinese translations. She further deals with wall paintings from Kucha and Kizil. It is slightly surprising that the only Western scholarship she refers to is Alt-Kutscha of 1920 by Grünwedel (whose name she writes without the umlaut). I do not feel it is necessary for IIJ readers that I summarize the remainder of the book, which, after all, while a valuable collection of materials for the study of the East Asian reception of the Aṅgulimāla story, is not likely to be of direct use to those whose primary focus is on India.

Miyazaki Tenshō 宮崎展昌, Zōbun wayaku Ajaseōkyō 蔵文和訳 阿闍世王経. Kamakura: Kishin shobō 起心書房, 2023. xi, 371 pp. ISBN 978-4-9070-2227-3. ¥ 8,100.

The AjātaśatrukaukrÌ¥tyavinodana (AjKV) has drawn the attention of Miyazaki since his doctoral study; the first half of his 2010 PhD thesis (University of Tokyo) was published as a monograph on the text in 2012.¹⁸ In the English preface to that work (p. vi; the study itself is in Japanese), the author says, “Part II of my thesis is a collated texual study of the extant versions of the AjKV, including a critical Tibetan version and the annotated Japanese translation of Chapters V to X of the AjKV. This aspect of my work is ongoing and I hope to publish the textual study of the sutra in the near future.” In the event, this has not yet taken place,¹⁹ but after serialization of his Japanese translations of several chapters—interestingly, not those mentioned by the author but instead I–IV and XI,²⁰ of a total of XIII—now the author has published a complete translation from Tibetan, with a relatively brief (29 page) introduction.

The author begins by explaining that much of this introduction is a corrected and expanded version of what he published as the first chapter of his 2012 monograph. Here he discusses technical details of the Tibetan and Chinese translations. This treatment, while extensive, misses out some important relevant scholarship. For instance, in the brief discussion of one of the Chinese renderings, the Wenshushili Puchao sanmei jing (文殊師利普超三昧經, T. 627), translated by Dharmaraká¹£a (竺法護) in 287, no mention is made of what is by far the oldest manuscript evidence for the text, a fragment which demonstrates that attempts to trace the lineage of Chinese translations solely on the basis of otherwise known sources is drastically incomplete.²¹ I know that the author is aware of this paper, since he generously contributed to its creation. Reference to other relevant previous scholarship is also partial, including omission of reference to a fair number of Miyazaki’s own contributions. I am unsure why Miyazaki was so parsimonious in providing contextual information in his introduction. Be that as it may, beyond background studies, the sÅ«tra has published translations into English from Chinese,²² and from Tibetan,²³ which also pass unmentioned. Furthermore, while important Sanskrit materials are mentioned,²⁴ at least one significant contribution was overlooked.²⁵ It will remain to be seen what, if anything, these new materials can contribute to the hypothesis of two lineages of the text, one of which is represented by the Tibetan translation and Fatian’s Chinese version, the other by the Sanskrit materials, and the Chinese translations of Lokaká¹£ema and Dharmaraká¹£a.

While the translation will, perhaps needless to say, be of utility primarily to Japanese scholars, the dense annotation should not be ignored even by those for whom reading Japanese remains a challenge. I should, however, both hope and expect that significant portions of this annotation would also find a place in the annotations of the (“currently under preparation”) critical edition, or perhaps editions, since I think that we can fully expect Miyazaki not only to present an edition of the Tibetan translation, with relevant Sanskrit fragments, but also of the Chinese versions, given his well-known and well-documented interest in Chinese Buddhist translations.²⁶

Abe Takako 阿部貴子, Yugagyōha no yōga taikei: Yugashijiron Shōmonji no kenkyū 瑜伽行派のヨーガ体系: 『瑜伽師地論』「声聞地」の研究. Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 2023. x, 568 pp. ISBN 978-4-8318-6396-6. ¥ 12,000.

Turning from scripture to śāstra, we note that recent years have seen much attention paid to the Yogācāra tradition, investigating among other topics its roots and connections with various meditation traditions. Among the newest contributions is one that, like a number of the books treated here, also started life as a PhD thesis, in this case in 2020 from Waseda University. The author, who concentrates on the ŚrāvakabhÅ«mi of the massive YogācārabhÅ«mi, and related studies, is already known for a number of other contributions, some in English.²⁷ She gives her book the English title “Formation of Yoga Theories in Early Yogācāra: A Study of the ŚrāvakabhÅ«mi,” which very concisely outlines her focus.

The book may be considered a slightly old-fashioned investigation of doctrinal influences and articulations. The author states her goal as follows: “The Yogācāra-Vijñānavāda school, in general, is said to have developed among yoga practitioners belonging to the (Mūla‑)Sarvāstivāda school or people closely related to it. … I would like to investigate the authors’ or editors’ sources and the process by which they established their theories. It should be noted that by ‘yoga theories’ I include not only the practical methods of meditation but also broadly the yoga practitioners’ path to liberation.” She articulates as follows her themes which, she explains, do not follow the chapter-wise divisions of her book:

1. Relationship to the meditation manuals

2. Relationship to the early Abhidharma literature

3. Relationship to the Saundarananda

4. Problems concerning the śrāvakabhūmi and Dārṣṭāntika/Sautrāntika

5. āgamas cited in the śrāvakabhūmi

6. Distinctive features of the śrāvakabhūmi

7. Textual layers and the formation of the four Yogasthānas

In terms of her conclusions, she agrees with a number of other scholars in finding “that the meditative system of the Śrāvakabhūmi is consistent with the Xiuxing daodi jing (修行道地經, *Yogācārabhūmi) and is also associated with the Damoduoluo chan jing (達磨多羅禪經) and the Zuochan sanmei jing (坐禪三昧經).” She goes on, however, to state that “regarding the detailed explanation of the five meditative practices, we can find few similarities between the Śrāvakabhūmi and the Xiuxing daodi jing.” By the five practices she refers to five visualizations of aśubhā, maitrī, idaṁpratyayatāpratītyasamutpāda, dhātuprabheda, and ānāpānasmr̥ti, whose canonical sources relevant to the discussion in the śrāvakabhūmi she has also traced.

As far as her second theme, she states that “My most significant finding is that the Śrāvakabhūmi has much in common with the Dharmaskandha. We can find similarities to the Dharmaskandha in the structure of Yogasthāna I and the section on bodhipakṣa in Yogasthāna II. Further, most of the theories regarded as characteristic of the Śrāvakabhūmi can be found in the Dharmaskandha in a primitive form.” However, she adds: “as some parallels are also found in the *Saṁgītiparyāyapādaśāstra [meaning 阿毘達磨集異門足論, T. 1536—JAS], it may be more accurate to say that the Śrāvakabhūmi was influenced by the practical system found in the oldest Abhidharma literature.”

Regarding Aśvaghoá¹£a’s Saundarananda, she suggests that “the idea of śamatha-pragraha-upekṣā, which largely underlies the yogic system of the ŚrāvakabhÅ«mi, is also found in the Saundarananda.” The set (which does not seem to appear as a compound as such) refers to three mental states, namely something like calm, excitement (Abe translates it here and elsewhere as “encouragement”) and equanimity.²⁸

Regarding her fourth theme, Abe offers a detailed synopsis, difficult to briefly summarize. Her main thrust is to investigate “how the theories in the Śrāvakabhūmi are associated with the statements of Harivarman and Śrīlāta in the *Tattvasiddhi and the Nyāyānusāra, respectively.” A partial conclusion is that “in terms of meditative practices, such as the fivefold visualization and śamatha-vipaśyanā, the Śrāvakabhūmi did not strongly influence the Abhidharmakośa. Furthermore, the Śrāvakabhūmi and the Tattvasiddhi have hardly anything in common. Regarding yogic theory, the Yogācāra, the Sarvāstivāda, and the Dārṣṭāntika/Sautrāntika traditions take separate directions.”

Regarding scriptural sources, after acknowledging earlier work which established that “canonical citations in the Cintamayībhūmi and the *Vastusaṁgrahaṇī belong mostly to the Sarvāstivāda Saṁyuktāgama,” Abe states that “Most of the sources listed in this book belong to the Madhyamāgama and the Saṁyuktāgama, and some are more closely similar to the passages cited in the Dharmaskandha, the Upāyikā, and the Saṅghabhedavastu. This indicates that the authors of the Śrāvakabhūmi were familiar with the scriptures inherited from [the] (Mūla‑) Sarvāstivāda school.” She finally observes that “we can see that the Śrāvakabhūmi and Vasubandhu rely on the sūtras cited in older, pre-Vibhāṣā Abhidharma literature.”

Abe’s sixth theme revolves around the āśrayaparivrÌ¥tti. She accepts Sakuma’s hypothesis that the idea appeared first in the ŚrāvakabhÅ«mi, and she sets out to investigate its development there. Referring to what she calls the three-fold concentration, she states that “the concept of tranquility (śamatha), encouragement (pragraha), and equanimity (upekṣā) … had a great impact on the theory of āśrayaparivrÌ¥tti.”²⁹ Her second topic here is the theory of bÄ«jas, and her third a theory of two-fold causation. As her fourth topic here, she states “Perhaps the most important new contribution of the ŚrāvakabhÅ«mi is the fivefold visualization (vipaśyanā) achieved by the six ways of visualizing objects (á¹£aḍvastu), namely, in terms of meaning (artha), things (vastu), characteristic (laká¹£aṇa), category (paká¹£a), time (kāla), and principle (yukti).” Her treatment of all of these very technical topics would be difficult to summarize here. She next deals with adhimukti and pratibimba, before finally adding some comments on the background of the development of the ālayavijñāna theory.

Abe’s seventh and final theme deals with the historical formation of the four Yogasthānas. She finally closes her English abstract with the following:³⁰

To summarize, the authors or the practitioners involved in the Śrāvakabhūmi belonged to the (Mūla‑)Sarvāstivāda tradition/school and had abundant knowledge about Sarvāstivāda canons and Abhidharma. In addition, they seemed to share literary and oral transmissions of their doctrines and yogic methods with Vibhajyavādins as well as with Dārṣṭāntikas and yoga practitioners who were outside the mainstream of Sarvāstivāda. This hypothesis is not very different from those of Aramaki and Deleanu. However, a slight difference is that, while these scholars see the Śrāvakabhūmi as having been heavily influenced by the meditation manuals, I would tentatively conclude that this influence was only one aspect of the composition of the Śrāvakabhūmi. We can suppose that the authors of the Śrāvakabhūmi, as a whole, were keenly aware of the process of becoming a monk and performing yogic practices that are described in the Saundarananda and the Dharmaskandha while they tried to systematize a new path for yogācāras.

I believe that only a very careful analysis of Abe’s book by specialists will reveal its true value. That said, it certainly seems to be a significant and important contribution, and much to be welcomed.

Wakahara YÅ«shō 若原雄昭, General editor, Daijō shōgon kyōron dai yon shō no wayaku to chÅ«kai: Bosatsu no hosshin 『大乗荘厳経論』第 IV 章の和訳と注解: 菩薩の発心. RyÅ«koku Daigaku bukkyō bunka kenkyÅ« sōsho 龍谷大学仏教文化研究叢書 44. Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 2023. vi, 465 pp. ISBN-13: 978-4-8318-7767-3. ¥ 3,000. & Hayashima Satoshi 早島慧, General editor, Daijō shōgon kyōron dai san shō no wayaku to chÅ«kai: Bosatsu no shushō 『大乗荘厳経論』第III章の和訳と注解: 菩薩の種姓. RyÅ«koku Daigaku bukkyō bunka kenkyÅ« sōsho 龍谷大学仏教文化研究叢書 49. Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 2024. iv, 384 pp. ISBN 978-4-8318-7780-2. ¥ 3,000.³¹

The MahāyānasÅ«trālaṁkāra is unquestionably one of the most important early formative doctrinal texts of Indian Buddhism, and especially, of course, of the Yogācāra tradition. Attributed to Maitreya, whomever that might refer to, we have a work of 21 chapters, along with a commentary by Vasubandhu, the MahāyānasÅ«trālaṁkārabhāṣya. Further subcommentaries are attributed to (some) Sthiramati, the *MahāyānasÅ«trālaṁkāravrÌ¥ttibhāṣya, and to *Asvabhāva, the *MahāyānasÅ«trālaṁkāraá¹­Ä«kā. These are, for the most part, available only in Tibetan, although some Sanskrit materials have been discovered in recent years. Following the editio princeps of Sylvain Lévi, published in 1907, attempts have been made to improve and interpret the text, sufficient in number that a nice little booklet of bibliography could be compiled (or of course, better, a website established). Beginning in 2009, a team at RyÅ«koku University has been issuing volumes treating single chapters, such that we now have new editions of chapters I, II, III, IV and XVII, the two most recent of which are introduced here, III and IV (they are not necessarily appearing in order).³² These are listed above under the names of their general editors, but it should be made clear that these volumes are team efforts; the covers list, respectively, 16 and 15 names of team members.

Each volume contains a critically edited text of the Sanskrit verses and commentary, with facing Japanese translation. This is followed by an edition, with translation of the commentaries of Vasubandhu, Asvabhāva and Sthiramati, all extant only in Tibetan. For Chapter IV, the volume also contains Kazuo Kanō’s edition and translation of Vairocanarakṣita’s subcommentary (pp. 196–203). A second appendix deals with a 11–12th c. Kashmiri commentary, apparently that of Mahājana, son of Sajjana, titled *Sūtrālaṁkāraparicaya. It is studied and edited by Kanō, along with Ye Shaoyong and Li Xuezhu, who frequently collaborate on the study of Sanskrit materials held in the PRC. Other ancillary materials fill out the volume.

Most recent to appear is the edition and study of Chapter 3. Its contents closely parallel those of the volume containing Chapter IV. Appendices again contain the relevant materials from Vairocanarakṣita’s subcommentary (pp. 168–174), and the *Sūtrālaṁkāraparicaya (pp. 192–238). An addition here is Kanō’s edition and study of several verses of Sajjana’s versified Sūtrālaṁkārapiṇḍārtha.

This brief sketch can hardly do justice to the importance of these volumes, which lay the groundwork for any future study of, in the first place, the Mahāyānasūtrālaṁkāra itself, but further for the study of Yogācāra thought in India. They are, as if this were not enough, very carefully produced, on fine paper, well printed and bound, and at a price so low it is hard to account for it. They are to be most warmly welcomed.

Sakuma Hidenori 佐久間秀範, Butsuji kyōron: Kaiken to Genjō to no taishō tekisuto 仏地経論: 戒賢と玄奘との対照テキスト. Tokyo: Daitō shuppan, 2025. ISBN 978-4-8043-0601-8. pp. xvii, 632 pp. ¥ 5,000.

The BuddhabhÅ«misÅ«tra and its commentary, the Tibetan translation of which gives the Sanskrit title as BuddhabhÅ«mivyākhyāna, have long been considered important works of the Yogācāra traditions. The commentary is attributed in its Chinese translation by Xuanzang to one *Bandhuprabha (Qinguang [親光]), and in Tibetan to Śīlabhadra. The Chinese translation as we have it contains material not found in the Tibetan, as is easily and conveniently visible in the presentation of Chinese and Tibetan texts on facing pages in Sakuma’s new book. The additional material appears to have been drawn from the Chinese composite treatise titled Cheng Weishi lun (成唯識論, *Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi), a collection of commentaries on the Triṁśikā, likewise due to Xuanzang, although Sakuma does not mention this intertextuality.³³ The best hypothesis is that Xuanzang augmented the text in translation, rather than that we have to do with some sort of close intertextuality existing already in some Indian Vorlagen.³⁴ I should certainly have expected an edition to at least minimally note such instances, with reference to the parallel passages.

The text has drawn some scholarly attention, including editions of the sÅ«tra and commentary in Tibetan, with a Japanese translation, and glossary, already 85 years ago by Nishio Kyōo 西尾京雄.³⁵ More recently (but still 45 years ago), in a study for his doctorate, later published as a book, and in a translation, both based exclusively on the Chinese versions, John Keenan brought the text to the attention of English readers.³⁶ Now Sakuma has published a bilingual edition, though it is difficult to discern what new it might offer, besides a certain convenience. The reason for this harsh judgement is that in the first place the translation from Tibetan printed here is that of Nishio;³⁷ the Chinese text for its part is rendered in kakikudashi, the mechanical transformation of a Chinese text into a form of Classical Japanese, rather than being translated into modern Japanese. It is difficult to understand why Sakuma did not venture a modern Japanese translation of either version (although he claims, p. 632, that he prepared one), the only way to really reveal one’s understanding of the text, all the more so as there are unlikely to be many—or even any—readers of a book such as this who would profit from the kakikudashi version, even in Japan. In point of fact, the overall goal of Sakuma’s book is hard to discern; the key, I think, is found in his Afterword (atogaki, pp. 631–632), which confirms the sense I had while looking through the book. The published volume represents, he tells us frankly, the notes he assembled as a master’s student (he refers to this time without giving a date, but since he received his PhD in 1990, presumably some time during the 1980s), consisting of 1700 hand-written pages. He tells us that he decided to publish it after receiving encouragment from foreign scholars. He does not explain why, then, he decided to publish his book in Japanese, making it almost inaccessible, both linguistically and physically, to most such foreign scholars. But there is more. This same Afterword claims that since the time of Nishio, little attention has been paid to the text, a statement possible only if Sakuma were unaware of Keenan’s studies, as well as other Japanese studies (see above note 33, for a few examples). So what is the value-added of the Sakuma publication? He prints a Chinese text, the variants of which merely repeat the readings reported in the Taishō edition, and he prints a Tibetan edition. While this is valuable, and may here and there improve on Nishio’s text (I have not checked, but at least theoretically this is possible), it is not his own, as we learn only when we read the fine print of the Afterword. The collation of readings from the Peking, Derge, Narthang and Cone Tanjurs and comparison with Nishio’s edition, and the input of this data, was carried out entirely by Horiuchi Toshio 堀内俊郎; should Horiuchi consequently not have been credited, if not as co-author at least as collaborator, on the title page of the book? But there is more. In the Foreword (maegaki), Sakuma (p. iv) notes that just before the book’s publication Kanō Kazuo discovered what he terms “borrowings” (shakuyō 借用) in the Munimatālaṁkāra of Abhayākaragupta; Kanō himself terms these rather “fragments” (itsubun 佚文).³⁸ These citations are the first Sanskrit evidence for the text so far discovered, and it is hard to understand why Sakuma did not attempt to make more of this remarkable new evidence, although certainly it arrived very late in the game—but at least in the place at which Sakuma mentions it, in the forematter, he could have said more. In fact, of the two passages introduced by Kanō, one, covering seven full folia of the Sanskrit manuscript, as he says, offers a veritable digest of the core discussion of the BuddhabhÅ«mivyākhyāna. Its importance cannot be overestimated.

What can we say in sum of this book? It is convenient, and it is inexpensive (at the current exchange rate, less than € 30, a remarkable low price for a book so physically well-constructed and so large; furthermore, it is beautifully printed). Probably the collation of the Tibetan witnesses—not Sakuma’s work, as noted above—is reliable, although I have not checked, and for quick reference to the text in both its Chinese and Tibetan versions, the book is sure to be useful. But a certain amount of thought, and the courage to include modern translations, as well as the provision of cross-references to parallel materials, already documented in the scholarship, including in the extensive notes already presented by Nisho in his 1940 translation, would have significantly increased the value of this work.

Yamasaki Kazuho 山崎一穂, Kushēmendora no Bukkyō bibunshi no kenkyū クシェーメーンドラの仏教美文詩の研究. Tokyo: Sankibō busshorin 山喜房佛書林, 2024. xxviii, 530 pp. ISBN 978-4-7963-1506-7. ¥ 16.500.

The Bodhisattvāvadānakalpalatā (BAK) by the Kashmiri poet Ká¹£emendra, a work completed in 1051, has long drawn the attention of scholars, recently more than ever.³⁹ The work, a collection of 108 versified stories of various lengths (from 8 stanzas to 338), raises a great many questions, including why an avowedly non-Buddhist author would create such a work, and what his sources were. Yamasaki Kazuho may already be known to some scholars specialized in the Buddhist avadāna literature, thanks to his many publications in English, although since they all appear to have been published in Japan, they are perhaps not yet as well known as they should be.⁴⁰ Now he has presented us with a monograph, a revision of his 2012 Hiroshima University PhD thesis. It consists of a general introduction to the BAK, studies of the episodes of Kuṇāla, Aśoka, and several elders (Mādhyantika, Śāṇavāsin, and Upagupta), a discussion of the author’s poetics, and editions with annotated translations of chapters 59 (Kuṇālāvadāna), 69 (Dharmarājikāpratiṣṭhāvadāna), 70 (Mādhyantikāvadāna), 71 (Śāṇavāsyāvadāna), 72, Upaguptāvadāna), 73 (NāgadÅ«tapreá¹£aṇāvadāna), and 74 (PrÌ¥thvÄ«pardānāvadāna). The main sources for the Sanskrit text are Cambridge manuscripts A (Bendall add. 1306) and B (Bendall add. 913), and a Nepalese manuscript filmed by the NGMPP (reel B95/5), with due notice of the editio princeps of Dās and VidyābhÅ«á¹£ana (1888–1918), and its source in a bilingual (Sanskrit–Tibetan) blockprint, and the editorial suggestions of de Jong (1979).⁴¹ As far as I can tell, the author has made excellent use of all relevant previous scholarship.⁴² However, it is a pity that he was apparently unaware of newly available (that is, ideally available in one way or another) materials from Tibet.⁴³ According to Zhen Liu, “There are two Sanskrit manuscripts of Ká¹£emendra’s Bodhisattvāvadānakalpalatā preserved at Drepung Monastery in Tibet. The earlier one (according to the colophon) contains all the 108 avadānas comprising the whole text, while the later one only includes the last 61 avadānas.” There is no doubt that moving forward these will become crucial sources for a better establishment of the Sanskrit text of BAK.

Yamasaki’s book contains a brief English “Abstract,” pp. 511–525, and an English Table of Contents, pp. 527–530. The “Abstract” contains brief synopses of the studied stories, and remarks about their possible sources. The author finds that the Kuṇālāvadāna in BAK is most closely related to the Ku na la’i rtogs pa brjod pa, a Tibetan translation contained in the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya. He finds, that is, that the BAK version is closer to this than to the versions of the story in the Divyāvadāna, Ayuwang jing 阿育王經 (T. 2043) or Ayuwang zhuan 阿育王傳 (T. 2042; note that this is probably how the title is to be read, not the author’s chuan). For the Dharmarājikāpratiṣṭhāvadāna, Yamasaki concludes that the BAK version cannot be directly connected with the Divyāvadāna, Ayuwang jing or Ayuwang zhuan, nor with the version in the Za ahan jing 雜阿含經 (Saṁyuktāgama, T. 99). It is closest to the version related by Tāranātha in his Dgos ‘dod kun ‘byung, that is, his History of Buddhism in India, though the accounts differ somewhat. In the end, Yamasaki suggests that Kṣemendra drew on a now lost *Caityāvadāna, also the source of Tāranātha’s version.

For the Mādhyantikāvadāna, Yamasaki finds that Kṣemendra based himself on a version similar to that recorded in the Ayuwang jing or in the Kṣudrakavastu of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya. He traces the Śāṇavāsyāvadāna to a version close to the common archetype of the story as preserved in the Ayuwang jing and Ayuwang zhuan. The Upaguptāvadāna, in contrast, appears to be closest to the version preserved in the Fu fazang yinyuan zhuan 付法藏因緣傳 (T. 2058; again, not chuan, as Yamasaki has it) or in the Xianyu jing 賢愚經 (T. 202, the so-called Sūtra of the Wise and the Fool). The Nāgadūtapreṣaṇāvadāna Yamasaki traces to the Sanskrit version of the story that stands behind the Mya ngan med pa’i sgo nas klu btul ba’i le’u, that is, *Aśokamukhanāgavinayapariccheda, now preserved only in Tibetan. Finally, for the Pr̥thvīpardānāvadāna, Yamasaki concludes that its source lay in the archetype behind the versions preserved in the Divyāvadāna and Ayuwang jing versions.

Having determined that Kṣemendra offered two types of verses (at least in the body of materials examined by him here), “those giving accounts that can be traced back to the textual sources of the [BAK] and those devoted to a series of descriptions of the seasons, sunset, moonrise, etc, that court poets have used over and over again,” Yamasaki asks in his final chapter what the “essence of poetry” is for Kṣemendra. Here he examines both śleṣas and various sound repetitions, with close attention to definitions and descriptions in texts such as the Kāvyālaṁkārasārasaṁgraha and Kāvyālaṁkāra, but perhaps equally importantly he lo0ks at Kṣemendra’s own Aucityavicāracarcā. Yamasaki concludes, “Kṣemendra did not keep strictly to the rules laid down by poetic theorists. This fact does not necessarily meant that Kṣemendra failed to meet the requirements of the theorists. A reasonable interpretation would be that, at the time when he wrote the [BAK], Kṣemendra inclined to the view that the soul of poetry lay not in the display of linguistic virtuosity but in the suggestion of a particular sentiment.”

To offer our own brief conclusion, Yamasaki’s book makes a major contribution to the ongoing studies on the Bodhisattvāvadānakalpalatā, and to the particular stories, especially those of the Aśoka cycle, that are examined herein. Although full use of the book will be impeded for those who cannot read Japanese, even simply for the editions contained herein, without any doubt libraries, and interested scholars, will want to obtain a copy.

Yazaki Chōjun 矢崎長潤, Chandoragōmin kenkyÅ« josetsu: Bukkyōtō no mita Sansukuritto bunpōgaku チャンドラゴーミン研究序説: 仏教徒の見たサンスクリット文法学. Kyōto: Hōzōkan 法藏館, 2022. vi, 302 pp. ISBN: 978-4-8318-6395-9. ¥ 6,000.⁴⁴

Candragomin the grammarian may be identical with the author of the drama Lokānanda and the epistle Śiá¹£yalekha.⁴⁵ Yazaki Chōjun is well known among specialists of Sanskrit grammar, the author of a number of papers in English, and one of the editors of a recent edition of a portion of the Cāndravyākaraṇa.⁴⁶ Much of the present book, which is a revision of his 2019 Nagoya University PhD thesis, has already appeared in other forms, as one would expect of the results of ongoing research. The chapters here, which are expanded versions of the earlier papers, sometimes substantially, are:

Finally, almost half the book (pp. 169–271) consists in a lavishly annotated Japanese translation of Cāndravyākaraṇa 1.3, the topic of the book mentioned above in note 46. Among the results of interest to those not specifically focused on the details of Sanskrit grammatical traditions is the author’s conclusion that there is nothing particularly Buddhist at all about Candragomin’s grammar. In no way is it a grammar of anything other than strictly Pāṇinian Sanskrit, and it certainly does not deal with the form(s) of the language which have been labled “Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit.” In this respect, there seems little, or perhaps no, reason to consider Candragomin a “Buddhist grammarian,” other than the fact that he was quite evidently—assuming the correct identification of the grammarian with the author of at least two Buddhist texts, a drama and an epistle—a Buddhist, and a grammarian.

Mitsukawa Toyoki 光川豊藝, ed. by Inoue Hirofumi 井上博文 & Kanazawa Yutaka 金澤豊, Monju bosatu no kenkyū 文殊菩薩の研究. Kyoto: Hōzōkan 法蔵館, 2024. xix, 876 pp. ISBN: 978-4-8318-7770-3. ¥ 16,000.

No one would deny that the idea of the bodhisattva lies at the very core of Mahāyāna Buddhism, nor that there have been, through the history of Indian Mahāyāna, a number of individually identifiable bodhisattvas, that is, individuals who could be said to have a specific “personality,” rather than being, as it were, generic types. Among these bodhisattvas one could quickly name in the first rank at the very least Avalokiteśvara, Maitreya, and MañjuśrÄ«. While it is true that we still lack reliable, comprehensive and detailed studies even of Avalokiteśvara and Maitreya,⁵² MañjuśrÄ« has remained the poor cousin, at least as far as his Indian identity is concerned,⁵³ since he is less overlooked in East Asian contexts. This is true both for Western but also for Japanese scholarship.⁵⁴ Until now.

The present volume is divided into two major sections, preceded by an introduction from the editors (pp. 3–24), and concluded by Prof. Mitsukawa’s retirement lecture (pp. 853–871), and the editors’ Afterword (pp. 872–876). The first major section of content (pp. 29–236) reproduces six papers published by Mitsukawa Toyoki, who died in the first weeks of 2009. These chapters and their original publication information are as follows:

The bulk of the remainder of the volume is a historically arranged (according to traditional attributions of translator) classified list of Chinese translation scriptures dealing with Mañjuśri (pp. 239–849). In total 270 scriptures are dealt with, according to my count. It should be noted that not all of these—the so-called Kāśyapaparivarta is one example—necessarily have anything to say about MañjuśrÄ«, and I am not quite sure why it is listed (see also the remark of the editors on this point, p. 24n17). Although the scriptures are arranged in the order of their translation, and according to the attributed translator, in fact Mitsukawa made full use of Tibetan translations as well, citing the Peking Kanjur. However, he did so without recourse to published editions, even when available, a choice which is not explained. Titles can also, as a result of apparently sole reliance on the Peking edition, be odd: One of the first texts cited is what is known as the Lokānuvartanā, which however is given the Sanskrit title Lokānusamānāvatāra, as in the Peking edition. Things like this, of course, should cause few problems, but do require of anyone who would use the material slightly more work in checking references. (Further, I do not know why, but while Taishō serial numbers are given for Chinese texts, no reference numbers are given for Tibetan translations.) Overall, although provided in much greater detail here, the project is reminiscent of—and may indeed have been inspired by—what Fujita Kōtatsu 藤田宏達 did in providing a listing of more than 250 texts in Chinese and Sanskrit that contain references to either or both of Amitābha and SukhāvatÄ«, although again, a great many of these, if not the vast majority, are not substantial references.⁵⁵

Although the volume is, unfortunately, not furnished with an index, given that anyone interested in a particular sūtra will be able to locate it by knowing to which translator it is attributed, it can easily serve as an essential reference work for those who might work in the future on Mañjuśrī in India.

As an indication of the necessity of continual updating, we might refer to the information provided about the MañjuśrÄ«buddhaká¹£etraguṇavyÅ«ha (pp. 321–325). Not long after Mitsukawa’s death, Nakamikado Keikyō 中御門敬教 published several papers on the text, including a complete Japanese translation from Tibetan.⁵⁶ There is, moreover, a complete published English translation from Tibetan, and another, much earlier, from one of the three Chinese translations.⁵⁷

In sum, this is a very useful volume which will be an essential resource for all future research on Mañjuśrī in his Indian textual context. It is certainly to be recommended.

Finally, briefly only because I expect a full review to be forthcoming in the IIJ, mention should be made of an important complete, and deeply annotated, translation of all three of the Bhāvanākrama texts of Kamalaśīla:

Ichigō Masamichi 一郷正道, Ozawa Chiaki 小澤千晶, Ōta Fukiko 太田蕗子, Zenyaku Kamarashīra Shujūshitai: Shohen, Chūhen Kōhen 全訳カマラシーラ 修習次第: 初篇・中篇・後篇. Kamakura: Kishin shobō 起心書房, 2025. xiii, 351 pp. ISBN 978-4-9070-2234-1. ¥ 7,800.

The above sketch of recent Japanese contributions to the study of Indian Buddhism—which is, of course, very incomplete, being limited to some volumes I was able to obtain physically—should be more than enough to convince us of the necessity of paying careful attention to the research results of our Japanese colleagues. I look forward in the future to further opportunities to introduce the works of their labors to those who may find them less accessible.