Reviews Of Etienne Lamotte

This document is a book review by J. W. De Jong of Volume III of Étienne Lamotte's translation of Nāgārjuna's Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra (also known as the Ta-chih-tu-lun). The review focuses on the introduction and the translated chapters (XXXIX-XLII) of this monumental work.

Here's a comprehensive summary of the review:

Overall Assessment of Lamotte's Work:

• De Jong praises Lamotte's translation as a significant contribution to Buddhist studies, highlighting his "great knowledge of the Abhidharma literature" and his "extensive knowledge of the Buddhist literature in Pāli, Sanskrit, Tibetan and Chinese."
• He notes that the third volume is superior to the previous two and expresses a strong desire for Lamotte to complete the translation of the entire work, along with a comprehensive index.

Key Points Discussed in the Review:

1. Translation Scope and Volume Completion:

   • Volume III translates chapters 31-42 of the Ta-chih-tu-lun.
   • Lamotte has translated approximately 200 pages out of the original 700 in the Taishō edition.
   • De Jong hopes for a fourth volume to complete the translation of the first parivarta (section) of the Sanskrit text and expresses the need for a detailed index to make the translation a key reference work.

2. Authorship and Dating of the Ta-chih-tu-lun (Upadesa):

   • A significant portion of the review is dedicated to the authorship and dating of the Ta-chih-tu-lun, particularly concerning the attribution to Nāgārjuna.
   • Lamotte's views on this matter have evolved. Initially, he considered Nāgārjuna to be the author and to have lived in the 2nd century CE.
   • In Volume III's introduction, Lamotte suggests the author lived after the first Madhyamika masters (Nāgārjuna, Āryadeva, Rāhulabhadra), possibly in the early 4th century CE.
   • Evidence and Arguments for Dating:
     • Chinese Biographies: Lamotte discusses the traditional attribution of a biography of Nāgārjuna to Kumārajīva. While Demiéville and Robinson suggest it originated from Kumārajīva's teachings, Lamotte disputes Kumārajīva's direct authorship. The biography's claim of Nāgārjuna's death being a century prior to its writing is discussed as a potential indicator of Kumārajīva's belief that Nāgārjuna lived in the 3rd century, but this is not considered decisive.
     • Seng-jui's Preface: Lamotte relies on a lost preface by Seng-jui (a disciple of Kumārajīva), quoted by Chi-tsang, which suggests Aśvaghoṣa was born 350 years after Buddha's Nirvana and Nāgārjuna 530 years after Aśvaghoṣa. This places Nāgārjuna's birth around 243 CE. De Jong, however, cites Mochizuki pointing out alternative interpretations of the Chinese text, suggesting Nāgārjuna's birth might be as late as 243 CE.
     • Tao-an's Information: Lamotte also considers Tao-an's date for Buddha's Nirvana, accepted by Kumārajīva. De Jong notes that Tao-an wrote in 568 CE, long after Kumārajīva, raising questions about the reliability of this information.
     • Internal Evidence (Citations): Lamotte argues that the Ta-chih-tu-lun cites Āryadeva's Catuḥśataka (specifically a chapter titled Ātmapratiṣedhaprakaraṇa in Chinese translations), which, as Āryadeva is considered Nāgārjuna's disciple, implies the Upadeśa's author is posterior to Nāgārjuna.
   • De Jong's Critique of Lamotte's Dating Arguments:
     • De Jong expresses skepticism about the dating arguments based on Chinese sources, particularly those attributed to Kumārajīva and his disciples, given the temporal distance and potential for misinterpretation.
     • He questions whether the Ātmapratiṣedhaprakaraṇa specifically refers to the tenth chapter of Āryadeva's Catuḥśataka, as the Sanskrit and Tibetan titles are different.
     • De Jong also suggests the passage cited might refer to the 18th chapter of Nāgārjuna's own Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, noting discrepancies in the chapter titles across various commentaries. He concludes there isn't sufficient evidence to definitively prove Lamotte's hypothesis.
     • The review points out that even if Nāgārjuna quoted his own work or Rahulabhadra (whose relationship to Nāgārjuna is debated), it wouldn't disprove his authorship of the Upadeśa.

3. The Concept of Śūnyatā (Emptiness):

   • De Jong challenges Lamotte's characterization of śūnyatā as "rien que ce soit (akimcid), 'une simple inexistence' (abhāvamātra)."
   • He states that the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā does not use these terms to define śūnyatā.
   • While acknowledging a reference to kimcin nāstīti in relation to meditating on "nothing exists," De Jong clarifies that this does not equate to śūnyatā. He also notes that abhāvamātra has been discussed by Lamotte elsewhere but distinguishes it from Madhyamaka śūnyatā.

4. Attribution of Nāgārjuna's Works:

   • De Jong notes that the author of the Upadeśa primarily quotes Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā and doesn't seem to refer to his other attributed works, which is considered unusual given the attribution of multiple works to Nāgārjuna.
   • He refers to Candrakīrti's Madhyamakaśāstrastuti as a more reliable source for listing Nāgārjuna's works than extensive Tibetan and Chinese catalogues.
   • The review also touches upon the authenticity of Āryadeva's Śatakaśāstra, expressing doubts due to a lack of identifiable quotations.

5. Minor Points and Other Observations:

   • Mahāyāna Inscriptions: De Jong corrects Lamotte's assertion that the term "Mahāyāna" never appears in inscriptions, citing examples from East Bengal and the Pāla period.
   • Hsi-yü-chih: De Jong points out that a passage Lamotte attributes to Tao-an's Hsi-yü-chih is likely from a different compilation, as the Hsi-yü-chih in the Fa-yuan-chu-lin is identified with a 666 CE compilation based on Wang Hiuen-ts'e and Xuanzang's accounts.
   • Use of Japanese Scholarship: De Jong expresses regret that Lamotte did not make more use of Japanese scholarship, particularly regarding the classification of the eighteen āveṇikadharma of Buddhas, where Japanese scholars like Mizuno Kögen have provided valuable detailed studies. He suggests that Japanese scholars could improve accessibility by publishing annotated bibliographies in Western languages.
   • Translation Nuances: De Jong offers alternative renderings for several passages, demonstrating a keen eye for translation detail and suggesting potential improvements or different interpretations of certain Chinese terms.

Conclusion:

The review concludes by reiterating the importance of Lamotte's work on the Ta-chih-tu-lun and expressing hope for its completion. De Jong's critique focuses primarily on the dating and authorship of the Upadeśa and the interpretation of śūnyatā, suggesting areas where Lamotte's arguments might be strengthened or revised. Despite these critical points, the overall tone is one of admiration for Lamotte's scholarly output.