Notes On Second Chapter Of Madhyanta Vibhaga Tika

This document, "Notes On Second Chapter Of Madhyanta Vibhaga Tika" by J. W. De Jong, is a critical scholarly examination of the Sanskrit text of Sthiramati's commentary (Tika) on Vasubandhu's commentary (Bhasya) on Maitreya's Madhyantavibhaga.

Here's a summary of its key points:

• Historical Context of the Madhyantavibhaga Text: The author begins by outlining the complex textual history of the Madhyantavibhaga, highlighting the efforts of scholars like Sylvain Lévi, Yamaguchi Susumu, Giuseppe Tucci, and Vidhusekhara Bhattācārya in obtaining, editing, and translating the Sanskrit and Tibetan versions of Vasubandhu's Bhasya and Sthiramati's Tika. He notes the challenges inherent in reconstructing Sanskrit texts from Tibetan translations, citing La Vallée Poussin's cautionary words.

• Critique of Existing Editions: De Jong then focuses on the specific challenge of editing Sthiramati's Tika, particularly the second chapter, which was primarily available through Yamaguchi's 1934 edition. He points out that Yamaguchi's restorations, while based on study, are not always acceptable and sometimes contain unidiomatic or incorrect Sanskrit. He then analyzes Ramchandra Pandeya's 1971 edition, noting that despite its preface claiming to use Tibetan versions, De Jong's examination suggests Pandeya primarily corrected Yamaguchi's work based on his own judgment, without a thorough engagement with the Tibetan translation of the Tika.

• Specific Textual Corrections and Restorations: The bulk of the "Notes" consists of detailed, line-by-line comparisons of Yamaguchi's edition of the Tika with the Tibetan translation (referred to as "P." for the Peking edition) and Pandeya's edition ("R.P."). De Jong proposes specific corrections and alternative readings for numerous passages, often citing parallel passages from the Bhasya or other relevant texts. These corrections often involve:

  • Grammatical accuracy: Adjusting verb forms, case endings, or word choices to reflect more idiomatic Sanskrit.
  • Lexical precision: Identifying and correcting mistranslations or misinterpretations of technical terms when comparing with the Tibetan.
  • Restoring lost words or phrases: Suggesting original Sanskrit words based on the context and the Tibetan translation.
  • Clarifying meaning: Explaining how certain phrases or grammatical structures in the Tika relate to the underlying Bhasya.

• The Importance of Tibetan Translations: Throughout his critique, De Jong strongly emphasizes the indispensable role of Tibetan translations in the study of Buddhist Sanskrit texts. He argues that relying solely on a single Sanskrit manuscript (especially a copy) is insufficient, and that Tibetan translations are crucial for verifying and correcting the Sanskrit text. He criticizes Pandeya's apparent disregard for Tibetan versions as a missed opportunity for a more accurate edition.

• Conclusion: De Jong concludes by reiterating that while it's possible to suggest alternative readings for other passages, the provided examples clearly demonstrate that Ramchandra Pandeya's edition has not significantly improved the establishment of a more correct Sanskrit text based on the Tibetan translation. He implicitly advocates for rigorous comparative scholarship that utilizes all available linguistic and textual resources to achieve a more accurate understanding of these complex philosophical works.