Professional Documents
Culture Documents
In volume one1 the author had surveyed in great detail the Sanskrit
grammatical literature found in translation in one of the two large
Tibetan canonical text-collections, the Bstan-’gyur, and in manuscripts
found in Dun Huang. In this second volume he studies in equal detail
non-canonical translations, improved versions of canonical translations,
original Tibetan works on Sanskrit grammar, and finally the application of
Indian linguistics to the Tibetan language. The study of Sanskrit grammar
supported the extensive translation activity (many thousands of Indian
texts were translated into Tibetan), and Tibetan scholars went beyond a
passive reception of Indian texts and pursued the study of various aspects
of Sanskrit grammar in the tradition of Pān.ini’s, Śarvavarman’s, and
Candragomin’s works. They kept in touch with developments in India by
visits to Indian Buddhist centers (Nālandā and Vikramaśilā were the most
prominent) and later – when Buddhism had faded in India – with visits
to Buddhist centers in Nepal. One cannot but admire the industriousness
of the monastic community that from the seventh century on into modern
times not only translated such a large body of literature but through critique
and revisions improved the original translations and elucidated them in
commentaries.
An example is Bu-ston’s (seventh or eighth century?) detailed explana-
tion of the formation of te ’tra “these [men] here” in Durgasim.ha’s
commentary on the Kātantra I 2,17, where the formation of both words
and the sandhi between them are explained with references to the rules of
the Kātantra (pp. 83–87). Si-tu Pan.-chen (eighteenth century) occasion-
ally offered severe criticisms of translations by Bu-ston and others; his
new commentaries contain many improvements over these earlier works
(pp. 107f., 121f., 169–178). Though his magnum opus, a commentary on
the Cāndra-vyākaran. a, is primarily a commentary, it attempts a wide and
comparative overview including several Sanskrit grammatical systems.
Si-tu went to great lengths to gather all available literature, and even
traveled to Nepal to obtain manuscripts and personal instruction from
Indian pandits living there (pp. 121, 174, 177). That the connections
with India were not totally interrupted is clear from Si-tu’s references to
Rāmacandra’s Prakriyā-kaumudı̄ (fourteenth or fifteenth century). Either
this work or one similar to it was the source for Si-tu’s curious chapter “The
1 Cf. J.W. de Jong, IIJ 38 (1995), pp. 296–299.
2 Also P.C. Verhagen, in Tibetan Studies. Proceedings of the 5th Seminar of the
International Association for Tibetan Studies, Narita 1989, Narita 1992, p. 838.
3 W.D. Whitney, American Journal of Philology 14 (1893), p. 171.
BOOK REVIEWS 159
4 See note 2.
160 BOOK REVIEWS
statements about the six kāraka-s: The Nyāyakośa5 refers to the Śabda-
śakti-prakāśikā, and Carudeva Śastri speaks of the six kāraka-s in his
Pān.ini: Re-interpreted:6 “There are six Kārakas.”
One may ask what motivated Candragomin to make this change. The
motive may lie in Buddhist philosophy. Nāgasena denied in a famous
dispute in the Milindapaňha that there is something like a chariot: “Chariot
is a mere empty sound. It is on account of having all these things – the
pole, and the axle, the wheels, and the framework, the ropes, the yoke,
the spokes, and the goad – that it comes under the generally understood
term, the designation in common use, of ‘chariot’ ” (II 1,1). One might also
consider the later distinction of nirvikalpaka-jñāna and savikalpaka-jñāna
of which only the former, the first sense perception, puts us in touch with
“absolute reality,” while the latter contains mental constructs of uncertain
value. I have to leave it to experts in Buddhist thought, if such concepts
could explain Candragomin’s innovation which would mark his grammar
truly as a “Buddhist” grammar. We cannot, perhaps, totally dismiss the
possibility that Candragomin made his changes for the sake of a simpler
grammatical description.
Other influences of Buddhist thought have been identified by Verhagen
(pp. 240–251 and 330–333) in the early treatises on Tibetan grammar:
instead of the build-up from roots with the help of suffixes, to words
and sentences, these texts follow a concept inspired by philosophical
Abhidharma texts that take phonemes as their starting point, proceeding
to words and sentences (Note the similar notions in Nyāya texts!). The
common linkage with Tantrism invited mystical speculations on the values
of various sounds. While the complicated derivation of verbs and nouns
from roots in Sanskrit has thus no counterpart in these Tibetan grammars,
they copied features of case grammar and the descriptive technique of
terse formulations, dittoing of terms into following rules, use of headings,
etc. (p. 329). In several appendices Verhagen gives excerpts of relevant
sections from Tibetan grammatical texts. A detailed bibliography and
several indices (regrettably no topical index) complete the book. Verhagen
has produced a very learned book, full of valuable insights, that raises
expectations of further investigations in an interesting topic.
5 Nyāyakośa ed. Bhı̄mācārya Jhalakı̄kar, revised ed. Vāsudev Shāstrı̄ Abhyankar, Poona
1978, p. 221.
6 Charu Deva Shastri, Pānini: Re-interpreted, Delhi 1990, p. 2.
.