Review

Reviewed Work(s): Entrance into the Supreme Doctrine: Skandhila's Abhidharmāvatāra,

2nd rev. ed. by K.L. Dhammajoti
Review by: Robert Kritzer
Source: Indo-Iranian Journal , 2010, Vol. 53, No. 3 (2010), pp. 265-274
Published by: Brill
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24665340

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Brill is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Indo-Iranian
Journal

This content downloaded from

54.79.19.212 on Sun, 24 Mar 2024 10:41:51 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Book Reviews /Indo-Iranian Journal 53 (2010) 251—296 265

Dhammajoti, K.L., Entrance into the Supreme Doctrine: Skandhila's

Abhidharmâvatâra, 2nd rev. ed. (Hong Kong: Centre of Buddhist Stud
ies, University of Hong Kong, 2008), x + 294 pp., $25.00, ISBN 978 9
889 92963 3.

The *Abhidharmävatära is a short abhidharma manual, generally dated

to the fifth century. No Sanskrit text is extant, but there is a Chinese
translation (Ju A-p'i-ta-mo Lun À H T. 1554) by Hsüan-tsang
and a Tibetan translation (Rab tu byedpa chos mnon La 'jug, Tohoku 4098,
Peking 5 599) by Jinamitra, Dinaslla, and Ye ses sde, as well as fragments of
a Tocharian translation. In addition to Japanese translations by Yamagami
Sögen in the series Kokuyaku Daizökyö [iiaf (Ron-bu i3)(Mizuno
1988: 70; I have not seen Yamagami's actual translation) and by Mizuno
Kögen in the series Kokuyaku Issaikyö [Höf—XßM (Ronshû-bu 2), there is
a modern Japanese translation from the Tibetan by Sakurabe Hajime and
a French translation from the Chinese by Marcel van Velthem.
Entrance into the Supreme Doctrine: Skandhila's Abhidharmävatära, by
Dhammajoti, is the first English translation of the text. It was made from
the Chinese translation, but Dhammajoti has also consulted the Tibetan,
as well as the commentary, *Sârasamuccaya-nàma-Abhidharmàvatàra-tikâ
{Chos mnon pa la 'jugpa rgya cher 'grelpa shin po kun las btus pa, Tohoku
47, Peking 5 598). This is the second edition ofDhammajoti's work, the first
edition of which was, according to its preface, based on his M.A. thesis at
the University of Kelaniya.
This volume consists of an introduction, the translation, and the Chi
nese and Tibetan texts, all with extensive notes, and I begin with a brief
description of each part. The introduction has eleven sections, averaging
three or four pages in length, on topics such as the date and authorship
of the text, its position in abhidharma literature, the various translations,
and a number or important doctrinal discussions in the text, including
those on avijnaptirùpa, the caitasikas, the cittaviprayuktasamskâras, and the
samskrtaUksanas. In all of these sections, Dhammajoti makes frequent ref
erences to other texts, most notably the *Nyâyânusâra (T. 1562) and the
*Samayapradipikâ of Samghabhadra and the Abhidharmadipa. One of his
main themes is the similarity between the Abhidharmâvatâra and those
three works, especially the Abhidharmadipa, which suggests to him that
the Abhidharmâvatâra is somewhat later than the Abhidharmakosabhâsya,
not contemporary with it or earlier, as Sakurabe maintains. Dhammajoti
also often refers to the Vibhâsâ to illustrate another of his main themes,

) Koninklijkc Brill NV, Leiden, 2010 DOI: 10.1163/001972409X12645171001893

This content downloaded from

54.79.19.212 on Sun, 24 Mar 2024 10:41:51 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
266 Book Reviews /Indo-Iranian Journal 55 (2010) 251-296

that opinions in texts like *Nyäyänusära and Abhidharmadïpa that are

commonly designated as "Neo-Sarvâstivâda" can in fact be traced back to
standard Vaibhäsika doctrine.
rue translation uegins witn a section entitled rrenminanes, contain
ing some verses and a statement of the purpose of the text. There follow
ten numbered sections, the first of which (o) consists of a list of the eig
categories {paddrtha) to which the text assigns all existents. Sections
VIII contain definitions and discussions of these categories (the trans
tions are Dhammajoti's, p. 72): matter (rüpa), sensation (vedanä), ideati
(samjnâ), conditionings (samskära), consciousness (vijnäna), space (äkäs
cessation through deliberation (pratisamkhyänirodha), cessation indep
dent of deliberation (apratisamkhyänirodha). Finally, Section IX is en
tled "Concluding remarks." Following the translation proper are numerou
notes (76 pages of them, for 57 pages of translation), containing referenc
to the Tibetan translation, particularly when it differs from the Chinese,
well as text and translations of related passages in other works.
The final part of the book consists of the Chinese and Tibetan text
divided and numbered according to the sections of the translation. For ea
section, the Tibetan text is given first, followed by the Chinese, whi
according to Dhammajoti, is based on the Taishö edition, but to whi
he adds modern punctuation, such as colons, semi-colons, and questio
marks. "The Tibetan text seems to have been based on the Peking edition,
and indications of the first line of each folio side are provided in bra
ets. But Dhammajoti has also consulted the edition that he refers to
Zhong Hua Da Zangjing TPublication of this edition starte
in Beijing in 1994, and according to Dhammajoti, it is based on the Der
edition and contains variant readings from the Narthang edition (for mor
bibliographical information on this edition, see below). In the case of vari
ant readings, Dhammajoti includes all the readings in the notes, with
abbreviations "PEK," "SNAR," and "ZH." Therefore, "ZH" seems to in
cate the Derge reading, while "SNAR" indicates the Narthang one, as given
in the notes to Zhong Hua Da Zangjing. (Dhammajoti states that he ha
not examined the Narthang text himself.)
Dhammajoti's translation of the Abhidharmâvatàra is most welcome. As
the author observes in his introduction, few abhidharma works of what h
calls the "Northern Schools," by which he presumably means texts that wer
not written in Pali, have been translated into modern European languages
Although the text has already been translated into French, there is certainl
room for another translation, particularly into English. However, a sparse

This content downloaded from

54.79.19.212 on Sun, 24 Mar 2024 10:41:51 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Book Reviews /Indo-Iranian Journal 5} (2010) 251—2ç6 267

annotated one would not be very useful since the Abhidharmävatära is a

generally terse and unpolemical text, which would tend to be uninteresting
and unmeaningful to readers who approach it without a comprehensive
knowledge of abhidharma.
Dhammajoti might not agree with the above characterization of the
Abhidharmävatära. In the introduction, he states, "What we desperately
need, then, is an English translation of an abhidharma manual which ade
quately summarizes the whole of the Sarvâstivâda doctrines in reasonably
simple but accurate terms. Abhidharmävatära appears to have such merits"
(p. 2). He contrasts the Abhidharmävatära with the Abhidharmakosabhäsya,
which he thinks is too argumentative and complicated to be suitable for a
beginner. However, it is precisely Vasubandhu's polemics that allow us to
see the significance of the myriad lists of items and definitions that consti
tute an abhidharma text. In the case of manuals like the. Abhidharmävatära,
on the other hand, there is little or nothing to signal that a particular pas
sage is of special importance or varies in some way from standard Vaibhäsika
doctrine.

Fortunately Dhammajoti's extensive notes, including many passages

from *Nyäyänusära and the Vibhäsä that are not available elsewhere in
English translation, provide context for the generally simple definitions in
the text. They introduce the relevant controversies, and they show how
the Abhidharmävatära differs from other abhidharma works. In addition
to Sarvâstivàda texts, the translator refers occasionally to âgama and more
frequently to Yogäcära abhidharma as found in the Yogäcärabhümi, Abhi
dharmasamuccaya, Pancaskandhaka, and Ch'eng ivei-shih Lun. These notes
are perhaps Dhammajoti's most important contribution, and they make
this volume indispensable to students of abhidharma.
There are, however, some shortcomings that make this book less useful
than it might otherwise be. These involve not so much the accuracy of
his translation or the validity of his interpretations as a certain failure to
take into account the needs of his reader. It is true that the author of the
Abhidharmävatära claims: "In order that beginners (ädi-karmika) may take
a keen interest in their studies, this treatise has been composed succinctly"
(p. 128). However, that does not mean that the readers of this translation
will primarily be looking for simple definitions of basic abhidharma terms.
The fact that Dhammajoti has annotated his translation so fully is a sign that
he realizes this. But those among his readers who will appreciate his detailed
comments and references also will want to know more about previous
scholarship on the text, will expect arguments to be clearly and logically

This content downloaded from

54.79.19.212 on Sun, 24 Mar 2024 10:41:51 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 2.68 Book Reviews /Indo-Iraniati Journal 53 (2010) 251-296

presented, and will appreciate accurate and precise citations so that they
can examine for themselves the basis for his comments. In these respects,
Dhammajoti sometimes disappoints. Below, I discuss a number of specific
problems.
At the beginning of his introduction, before explaining the virtues of the
Abhidharmävatära and why it deserves to be translated again, Dhammajoti
mentions six English and French translations of Sarvästiväda abhidharma
texts published since 1975. Among them one can find "Van's Le Traité de
la Descente dans la Profonde Loi De L'Arhat Skandhila." It seems clear that
"Van's" is nothing more than a typographical error for "van Velthem's,"
but the omission of the Sanskrit title is more difficult to explain: the full
title of the French translation is Le traité de la descente dans la profonde loi
(Abhidharmävatärasästra) de l'arhat Skandhila. Subsequently, van Velthem
is only cited in the notes, generally to dispute his translation or interpre
tation. Finally, one can find the correct title in the bibliography. Nowhere
in his introduction does Dhammajoti discuss the strengths and weaknesses
of van Velthem's work or even acknowledge it, despite the fact that he has
made many of the same observations as van Velthem, albeit at much greater
length. Examples include discussions of: the awkwardness of including top
ics such as hetu, pratyaya, and phala in a fiv&-skandha framework (p. 7; van
Velthem 1977: xv); differences in items included in the list of caitasikas
and in their order (p. 29; van Velthem 1977: xvii); evidence concerning
the school to which Skandhila belonged (pp. 55-59; van Velthem 1977:
xiii—xiv).
Similarly, although he includes Sakurabe Hajime s translation in his bib
liography and cites it twice in the notes to his own translation, Dhamma
joti does not mention it in his introduction. Sakurabe is one of the most
accomplished Japanese specialists in abhidharma, and his translation is par
ticularly noteworthy since it is the only translation of the Tibetan text.
Dhammajoti does cite and discuss an earlier (i960) article by Sakurabe
("Abhidharmävatära by an Unidentified Author—Some Introductory
Remarks"), a Japanese version of which serves as the introduction for
Sakurabe's translation (1975), mainly to dispute Sakurabes dating of the
Abhidharmävatära, mentioned above, and to insist on its being later than
the Abhidharmakosabhäsya. Here, Dhammajoti seems to misrepresent
Sakurabe somewhat. Although Sakurabe does indeed use the phrase, "con
temporary with or a little earlier than Vasubandhu s Abhidharmakosa," as
Dhammajoti quotes him (Sakurabe 1975: 365), his main point is to show
that the Abhidharmävatära could not be a work of "early date such as

This content downloaded from

54.79.19.212 on Sun, 24 Mar 2024 10:41:51 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Book Reviews / Indo-Iranian Journal 33 (2010) 231-296 269

the Sangîtiparyàya, the Dharmaskandha, etc. or with those of middle date

such as the Jnänaprasthäna etc." Dhammajoti goes on at length to exam
ine and criticize Sakurabe's argument, but in only one of the five points
(regarding the meaning of nikäyasabhägata) adduced by Sakurabe to estab
lish the date of the Abhidharmävatära is there any suggestion that it is
earlier than the Abhidharmakosabhäsya: there Sakurabe (1975: 367) tenta
tively speculates, "It may suggest the Abhidharmävatära's possibly preceding
Vasubandhu."
A final point along these lines is Dhammajoti s dismissal of the Japanese
translations in the Kokuyaku Issaikyö series. In a note at the beginning of
his introduction, Dhammajoti says about the series, "But in most cases,
the translations are not so helpful, being basically a transposition of of (sic)
all the Classical Chinese passages directly into the Japanese format" (p. 60
n. 2). Certainly this is sometimes true, but often it is not. Some of the
individual translations, for example, the translation of the Abhidharma
kosabhâsya by Nishi Giyü, have been made by scholars most knowledgeable
about the text and contain useful introductions and a wealth of information
in the notes. Even the less helpful ones, like Akanuma Chizen's translation
of the *Nyäyänusära, should not be ignored. As for Mizuno Kögen's trans
lation of the Abhidharmâvatâra, it is fully annotated and is accompanied
by a brief introduction that mentions many of the points that Dhammajoti
examines in greater detail. Certainly, its existence at least should have been
noted and a reference given for the interested reader.1
Another problem in the introduction is that Dhammajoti sometimes
fails to make his argument explicit enough or provide enough informa
tion for the reader to follow it easily. As I mentioned above, throughout
his introduction he emphasizes similarities between the Abhidharmâvatâra
and the Abhidharmadipa. In section 8, "Avatâra on the citta-viprayukta
samskâra-s," he gives examples of definitions of cittaviprayuktasamskàras in
the two texts in order to show how close they are. He begins the section
with a brief account of the development of the category in the abhidharma
literature and then gives a chart, with definitions from the two texts side
by side. The Abhidharmadipa is extant only in Sanskrit, which he supplies
from Jaini's edition, while for the Abhidharmâvatâra, he gives the Tibetan,
a reasonable decision since, as he indicates, it is often easier to get an idea

" Kokuyaku Issaikyö IM si—WM., Ronshü-bu 2: 69-109. This translation is not easy to find
without a reference since, unlike most abhidharma texts which are translated in the section
on abhidharma (Bidon-bu), it is in the section on collected treatises (Ronshü-bu).

This content downloaded from

54.79.19.212 on Sun, 24 Mar 2024 10:41:51 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 27° Book Reviews /Indo-Iranian Journal 33 (2010) 231-296

of the Sanskrit original from the Tibetan than from the Chinese. This is
followed by comments about prdpti, jivitendriya, and nikäyasabhägatä.
Unfortunately, Dhammajoti does not always make it very clear to the
reader how the definitions of these terms in the Abhidharmadipa and
Abhidharmâvatâra are particularly close to each other while differing from
other abhidharma definitions of the same items. He seems to think that
the texts speak for themselves. For example, in the case of jtvitendriya, he
quotes from Ave. Abhidharmadipa a rather long Sanskrit passage (more than
one entire column on a page)2 and from the Abhidharmâvatâra, a some
what shorter Tibetan one (about two-thirds of a column). Altogether, the
original texts occupy about one page. However, his comment is very short,
consisting of two sentences, an eight-line passage from the Abhidharma
kosabhâsya (with ellipsis indicated in three places),3 and a final sentence.
Below, I reproduce everything but the Sanskrit:

Among the examples quoted above for comparison, the lengthy description
on jivitendriya is perhaps the best illustration of the very close resemblance
between Avatära and the ADV. In fact as the editor of the ADV has pointed
out, the statement "jîvitendriyam gatiprajnäptyupädänam astîti dravyam" with
the issuing argument found in both works is a rejoinder to the following view
of the Kosakära:

(Sanskrit passage)

This is then a very clear indication that Avatära is post-AKB, being in some
places at least, a response to the Kosakäras challenge, (p. 41)

This may well be the indication that Dhammajoti says it is, but it is any
thing but clear. In order to judge, one would first have to read the very
long passage from the Abhidharmadipa, a difficult Sanskrit text that has
not been translated into a western language. Then one would have to locate
the passage in Dhammajoti s translation (Dhammajoti does not provide the
reference, but it is on pages 114—115). Since Dhammajoti does not say oth
erwise, we will assume that the Chinese, which he translates, is close enough
to the Tibetan, which is given in the chart that I have described above. But

2) Dhammajoti omits the question, "And how is it understood to exist?" (tat punar astiti
katham gamyate), which is asked in the middle of the passage, presumably because the
Abbidharmâvatâra does not include such catechistic questions. The ellipsis is indicated by
three dots.
31 The actual passage quoted consists of the following: Abhidharmakosabhäsya 73.15-16,
73,22, 74.3-5, 74.9.

This content downloaded from

54.79.19.212 on Sun, 24 Mar 2024 10:41:51 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Book Reviews / Indo-Iranian Journal (2010) 251—296 271

in order to really understand and evaluate the authors assertion that these
passages show the chronological precedence of the Abhidharmakosabhàsya,
one would have to read Vasubandhu's Sanskrit or find the passage in La
Vallée Poussins French translation from the Chinese or Pruden's transla
tion from the French, citations to neither of which are given. This is too
much to ask of the reader, particularly of the beginner who is "apt to get
frustrated with" the intricacies of abhidharma and for whom Dhammajoti
thinks the Abhidharmävatära would be especially useful (p. 2).
As can be seen in the passage quoted above, Uhammajoti rerers to his
text by a shortened but easily understood title, Avatara. For the titles of
other texts, however, he follows the custom, particularly popular in Europe
and Japan, of using an initialism instead. Although this practice saves some
space, it can be very inconvenient, particularly to the non-specialist, for
whom the full titles of texts are difficult enough to keep track of. And while
in the example above, the reader only has to remember two abbreviations,
ADV and AKB, both of which appear frequently, if one looks at a typical
page in the notes, one can find not only AKB but also Ny, SPrS, MVS, JPS,
M, MA, and DKS (p. 65). Unless one has a prodigious memory, then, one
must read with one's thumb on the notes on page 65, one's index finger on
the main text on page 24, one's little finger at the beginning of the three
page Abbreviations section on page viii, and one's ring finger on page ix.
And MA is nowhere to be found on the list of abbreviations, although it
is not hard to guess that it is a mistake for MAg (.Madhyamàgama). Clarity
would be better served by giving full or shortened titles instead of initialisms
such as these.41 refrain from making the reader's eternal plea to publishers,
to provide footnotes instead of endnotes or section notes.
Another simple way in which citations could be made much more help
ful to the reader would be to give precise line numbers for the passage being
cited; this fortunately is becoming standard practice, not only in Europe
and North America, but also in Japan. In at least one citation (p. 140 n. 86),
Dhammajoti refers to fascicle 3 of the *Vijnaptimâtratâsiddhi, which con
sists of six dense Taishô pages, while he generally gives page and column,
but not line numbers for Taishô texts and page numbers only for San
skrit texts. Another work that Dhammajoti frequently cites, for which more
detailed references would be very helpful, is the Shuo i-ch'ieh-yu pu wei-chu
lun-shuyu shih chih yen-chiu of Yin Shun, to whom Dhammajoti's volume

4) I am indebted to Elizabeth Kenney for pointing out to me for many years the advantages
of spelling out titles in full.

This content downloaded from

54.79.19.212 on Sun, 24 Mar 2024 10:41:51 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
272 Book Reviews / Indo-Iranian Journal 75 (2010) 251—296

is dedicated. Yin Shuns book is a classic study of Sarvästivädin abhidharma

with which many of Dhammajotis readers will not be acquainted, and
bringing Yin Shun s scholarship to the attention of western readers is an
important contribution. However, non-native readers of Chinese would
appreciate complete citations, with beginning and ending page numbers,
instead of ones like " 164 f."
Despite these criticisms, I want to emphasize that Entrance into the
Supreme Doctrine is a valuable book. Dhammajoti has not only produced a
careful translation, but has also gone to considerable lengths to place it
in context and explore the meaning of the myriad technical terms that
constitute an abhidharma manual. By far the largest portion of abhidharma
literature is extant only in Chinese, and Dhammajoti, in his translation and
notes, especially with his translations of many long and difficult passages
from the *Nyäyänusära, adds considerably to the amount accessible in
English.

Finally, there are a number of small points, mostly bibliographical or typo

graphical, that should be addressed if a revised edition of this book is
ever undertaken. This is not an exhaustive list: the bibliographic appara
tus should be gone over carefully, and the text should receive a thorough
proofreading.

page i : The author mentions what seems to be La Vallée Poussin s transla

tion of "the beginning portions of the Vijnänakäya-sästra," but he gives no
citation.

page 24: In a translation from the *Nyäyänusdra, we read, Furthermore,

[the vijnapti] projected by samädhi does not continue as a series in the
viksipta and acittaka states—it would then not be avijiiapti." Surely, "the
vijnapti ' is a misprint for "the avijnaptu

page 69 n. 219: Taishö 2156 is mentioned, but it does not appear in the
bibliography. The title is Ta t'ang chen-yuan hsu-k'ai-yuan shih-chiao Lu j\

page 70 n. 233: A quotation from van Velthem's introduction begins:

"Skandhila; crivit sur le Prakarana ..." It should read: "Skandhila écrivit
sur le Prakarana ..." Also, the page number, xii, should be added.

page 80; page 138 n. 77: Dhammajoti translates as follows from the Chi
nese: "This \samjnäpadärtha\ is that which comprehends, by combining

This content downloaded from

54.79.19.212 on Sun, 24 Mar 2024 10:41:51 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Book Reviews /Indo-Iranian Journal 55 (2010) 251—296 273

conceptually {sam-^Jjnà) the appearance (nimitta), name (ndma) and the

signified (artha) [of a dharma:]" Officii#,, ni H e #1 ## ffl IS IS ft# ). In the
note, he states that the Tibetan reads brda ses pa, for which he gives sam-^Jjnä
as the Sanskrit equivalent, and he quotes the commentary as explaining
brda as geig tu bsdus pa'i gnas. However, on page 218, where he gives the
Tibetan text, we find brda zes pa. I have confirmed that this reading is
found in both the Derge and the Peking editions, and from Dhammajoti's
explanation of his procedure for establishing the Tibetan text (see above),
we can assume that it is identical in the Narthang, since he gives no footnote
indicating a variant reading. (Van Velthem's text also reads brda zes pa [85]).
The commentary, on the other hand, reads brda ses pa (Peking 331hl,
Derge 25oa7), and Dhammajoti might be justified in accepting it as a better
reading. However, he is either unaware of the fact that the reading in his
note is different from the one in the text, or he has corrected the text in his
note without indicating that he has done so.

page 143 n. 96: The conjectural title *Abhidharma-hrdaya-vyäkhyä is given

for the Tsa-a-p'i-t'an hsin lun SIP"!® SUSm (T. 1552). There is no con
sensus regarding the title of this text. Usually, it is given as *Samyuktäbhi
dharmahrdaya, while several other possibilities are listed in Sarvästiväda
Buddhist Scholasticism (Willemen et al 1998: 260). However, I have been
unable to find *Abhidharma-hrdaya-vyäkhyä elsewhere. If this title is
Dhammajoti's own reconstruction, it seems appropriate that he either ex
plain here how he decided on it or give a reference to a publication in which
it is explained.

page 209: I have described above the rather confusing process by which
the Tibetan text was established. The author refers to the edition as the
ZhongHua Da Zangjing but gives no further bibliographical information.
According to the Library of Congress, the main title is Bstan 'gyur / Krun
go'i Bod-kyi Ses-rig Zib-'jug Lte-gnas-kyi Bka' Bstan Dpe-sdur-khan gis dpe
bsdur zus, and this seems to be the best title under which to search for it in
library catalogues.

page 2i 8: At the beginning of the Tibetan text of the definition of samjnä

padärtha, we find the phrase mtshan ma dang mid ming dang don. Clearly,
mid is added erroneously; the text should read mtshan ma dang ming dang
don.

page 277: The bibliography contains a reference: Yogäcärabhümi (San

skrithandschriften aus den Turfanfiinderi). Ed., Waldschmidt, E. (1965).

This content downloaded from

54.79.19.212 on Sun, 24 Mar 2024 10:41:51 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
274 ßoo£ Reviews ! Indo-banian Journal 74 (2010) 2$i-2p6

(Dhammajoti does not seem to cite this work in his text or notes.) This
reference is mysterious. I know of no Yogäcärabhümi manuscript or frag
ments from Turfan. The only other reference I can find to this is in
Sarvästiväda Buddhist Scholasticism (Willemen et al 1998: 293), about
which von Hinüber (2002: 272-273) remarks in a review that it does not
provide adequate information on primary sources and cites this as an exam
ple. Von Hinüber finds it strange that this is the only reference there to the
Yogäcärabhümi, and he inserts a question mark in parentheses. I suspect
that Dhammajoti's reference here was somehow copied from Willemen et
al.

page 283: The bibliography contains a reference to a work by Miyashita,

H. It should read "Miyashita, S."

References

Hinüber, Oskar von. Review of Willemen et al., Sarvästiväda Buddhist Scholasti

cism. Wiener Zeitschrift fiir dte Kunde Südasiens 46 (2002): 272—275.
Mizuno Kögen (tKTP'jA./g). "Nyüabidatsumaron kaidai" ( A P[1J dIS Iff rÉM- 'M) ■
Kokuyaku issaikyö WM.. Ronshü-bu 2. Revised edition (first edition
1934) Tokyo: Daitö shuppansha, 1988. 69-70.
Sakurabe, Hajime. "Abhidharmävatära by an Unidentified Author: Some Intro
ductory Remarks." Nava Nälanda Mahävihära Research Publication 2 (i960):
361-369.
Sakurabe Hajime fëcnPjtÈ. "Nyüabidatsumaron (Chibetto bun yori no wayaku)"
F APôJ^iSliléJ (L ^ 7 f n WD?)- Bukkyögo no kenkyû {Alfrin n fpf
%. Kyoto: Buneido, 1975. 121-177.
Velthem, Marcel van. Le traité de la descente dans la profonde loi (Abhidharmà
vatârasâstra) de l'arhat Skandhila. Publications de l'Institut Orientaliste de Lou
vain 16. Louvain-la-Neuve: Institut Orientaliste de l'Université Catholique de
Louvain, 1977.
Willemen, Charles, et al. Sarvästiväda Buddhist Scholasticism. Handbuch der Ori
entalistik. Zweite Abteilung: Indien, Elfter Band. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998.

Robert Kritzer

Notre Dame University, Kyoto

This content downloaded from

54.79.19.212 on Sun, 24 Mar 2024 10:41:51 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms