La Legende De Santideva

This document is a critical review by J. W. De Jong of Amalia Pezzali's book on Santideva, a Buddhist mystic of the 7th and 8th centuries. De Jong's review is largely critical, pointing out numerous inaccuracies, typographical errors, and omissions in Pezzali's work, particularly concerning her synthesis of existing scholarship.

Here's a breakdown of the key points:

Overall Critique:

• De Jong states that Pezzali's work, while aiming to synthesize existing knowledge on Santideva's life, works, and doctrine, fails to meet the essential conditions of accuracy and completeness. He notes many errors in Sanskrit and Tibetan readings, printing mistakes, and serious gaps in information. He explicitly states he won't list all errors but will focus on the documents concerning Santideva's life presented in Pezzali's first chapter.

Sources for Santideva's Life:

• De Jong identifies the primary Tibetan historians who recount Santideva's legend: Bu-ston (1290-1364), Taranatha (1575-?), and Sum-pa mkhan-po (1704-1788).

Critique of Pezzali's Use of Sources:

• Bu-ston:

  • Pezzali reproduces a Tibetan text of Bu-ston's "History of Buddhism," but De Jong finds it inaccurate and states she reproduces the text of only one edition, despite others being available.
  • He points out several specific reading errors in the Tibetan text that Pezzali reproduces.
  • He notes that Pezzali's translation closely follows Obermiller's excellent translation but that she copies rare errors from it.
  • Pezzali's biographical details regarding Santideva's origins (son of King Kalyāṇavarman of Surāṣtra) are presented.

• Taranatha:

  • Pezzali reproduces Schiefner's text but introduces further errors.
  • Crucially, De Jong states Pezzali did not consult any Tibetan editions of Taranatha's work, relying solely on Schiefner's text and translation.
  • He notes that Pezzali's attempts to improve Schiefner's translation are largely unsuccessful.

• Sum-pa mkhan-po:

  • Pezzali uses an edition of Sum-pa mkhan-po's Dpag-bsam ljon-bzan, but De Jong finds this edition almost unusable due to numerous printing errors.
  • He emphasizes that in this case, consulting the original xylograph (woodblock print) was essential, which Pezzali did not do.
  • He agrees with Pezzali that Sum-pa mkhan-po adds nothing new regarding Santideva.

• Nepalese Manuscript:

  • Pezzali presents a 14th-century Newari manuscript from the Nepalese tradition, initially reported by Haraprasād Sāstri.
  • De Jong finds the text to be quite corrupt and notes that Sāstri's corrections were minimal.
  • Pezzali reproduces the text with additional printing and reading errors, and her proposed corrections are limited, with only one being valid. He highlights an obvious correction (mātuvādeśam to māturādeśam) that Pezzali did not mention.

The Tanjur Text and Vibhūticandra:

• A significant point of contention is Pezzali's failure to mention a closely related text found in the Tibetan Tanjur. This text is part of a commentary on the Bodhicaryāvatāra by Vibhūticandra.
• De Jong notes that Yasunari Ejima has discussed this biography, dating Vibhūticandra's commentary to the latter half of the 12th or early 13th century.
• De Jong argues that Ejima did not adequately consider that the manuscript itself is 14th century, but the text could be much older. He states Ejima clearly did not compare the Sanskrit and Tibetan texts, otherwise, he would have seen their shared origin.
• He then provides details about Vibhūticandra, his origins from Jagaddala, and his arrival in Tibet with Śākyaśrībhadra.
• De Jong analyzes a colophon of Vibhūticandra's commentary, discussing potential authorship issues (mentioning Yogacandra) and the meaning of "ran-'gyur" (self-translation).

Critique of Pezzali's Use of Secondary Sources and Comparative Analysis:

• De Jong disputes Pezzali's claim that fragments of the Višeşadyotanī (also called Bodhicaryāvatārațippaṇī) were used by L. de La Vallée Poussin. He states Poussin mentions a țippaṇī found in Kathmandu but doesn't equate it with Vibhūticandra's work. De Jong doubts Pezzali found this information in a source she cites.
• He compares the beginning of the țippaṇī with the beginning of the Višeşadyotanī and finds no commonality.

Presentation of Sanskrit and Tibetan Texts:

• The review includes a comparative presentation of the Sanskrit text (as edited by Haraprasad Sāstri) and the Tibetan text from the Peking edition.
• De Jong provides his own translation of the Tibetan text and offers numerous corrections and observations on both the Sanskrit and Tibetan readings and translations.

Discussion on Santideva's Dates:

• De Jong examines two main hypotheses regarding Santideva's dating.
  • The first, from Bendall using Taranatha, places Santideva in the mid-7th century, based on a connection to King Harsha's son, Śila. De Jong refutes this, highlighting the unreliability of Taranatha's account and the contradictory information regarding Dharmapāla.
  • The second hypothesis, by B. Bhattacharya, places Santideva after I-tsing's departure and before Śāntirakṣita's citation of the Bodhicaryāvatāra. Pezzali refines this to suggest Santideva's productive period was between 685 and 763. De Jong finds this reasoning problematic if the attribution of Tattvasiddhi to Śāntirakṣita is incorrect and points out the weakness of argumentum ex silentio (arguments from silence).
• He also discusses the Tibetan translation of the Śikṣāsamuccaya and Bodhicaryāvatāra as termini ad quem (latest possible dates), noting the translators' work in the 9th century.

Other Scholarly Issues:

• De Jong discusses the problem of the Sūtrasamuccaya's attribution to Santideva and the connection with Nāgārjuna's Sūtrasamuccaya.
• He criticizes Pezzali's monograph for not providing a clear overview of previous research.
• He concludes that Santideva is a major figure and much remains to be clarified regarding his life and works, hoping for new discoveries to shed light on these ambiguities.

In essence, De Jong's review is a scholarly dismantling of Pezzali's book, highlighting significant methodological flaws and factual errors in her critical analysis of Santideva's life and textual sources.