Prolegomena to an English Translation of the Sūtrasamuccaya
From Bodhicitta
< ArticlesArticles/Prolegomena to an English Translation of the Sūtrasamuccaya
Prolegomena to an English Translation of the Sūtrasamuccaya
Journal Article
Please note that many items in our library are simply pages that represent a detailed library catalog entry and citation of someone else's work, presentation, or performance. Read our General Disclaimer for more information.
Description
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
The different versions and editions of the Sūtrasamuccaya (hereafter abbreviated as SS), as well as relevant commentaries, have been mentioned by A. Pezzali[1] and, recently, by D. Seyfort Ruegg[2]. Regarding the problem of the authorship of the SS, A. Pezzali has recorded important comments by a number of scholars, and remarks that the Sūtrasamuccaya is most often attributed to Nāgārjuna.[3] In the same context, Ruegg sums up:
- On the basis of what Śāntideva has written in verses v. 105-6 of the Bodhicaryāvatāra Buston and Tāranātha have ascribed to him a work entitled Sūtrasamuccaya. The passage in question is not altogether clear, however, and Nāgārjuna, the author of the well-known Sūtrasamuccaya, is also mentioned in it. At all events, no work entitled Sūtrasamuccaya attributable to Śāntideva is known to exist; and it has therefore been concluded that the above-mentioned ascription is erroneous.[7]
- On the basis of what Śāntideva has written in verses v. 105-6 of the Bodhicaryāvatāra Buston and Tāranātha have ascribed to him a work entitled Sūtrasamuccaya. The passage in question is not altogether clear, however, and Nāgārjuna, the author of the well-known Sūtrasamuccaya, is also mentioned in it. At all events, no work entitled Sūtrasamuccaya attributable to Śāntideva is known to exist; and it has therefore been concluded that the above-mentioned ascription is erroneous.[7]
Apropos Pezzali's monograph on Śāntideva, J. W. de Jong wrote a long article entitled "La Legende de Śāntideva,"[5] in which he also reviews Pezzali's work and completes her bibliographic information by enumerating what Japanese scholars published on the SS between 1965 and 1972.[6] In the same place he also discusses the question of attributing one Sūtrasamuccaya to Śāntideva. He mentions, in the section of Mahāyāna śāstras, the list of Dpal-brtsegs, which includes, inter alia, a Mdo-sde sna-tshogs-kyi mdo btus-pa/Viśvasūtrasamuccaya and the SS attributed to Nāgārjuna. Both these works consist of five sections (bam-po). Although the Viśvasūtrasamuccaya is not extant, de Jong says that "la possibility n'est pas exclue que cet ouvrage soit identique au Sūtrasamuccaya que les commentateurs indiens du Bodhicaryāvatāra et les historiens tibétains attribuent a Śāntideva." Before mentioning two points that may be of some relevance to further discussion of the problem in hand, I should first like to say a few words about modern translations and the quotations in our text. (Pāsādika, preliminary remarks, 101–2)
Citation
Pāsādika, Bhikkhu. "Prolegomena to an English Translation of the Sūtrasamuccaya." Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 5, no. 2 (1982): 101–9. https://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/jiabs/article/view/8580/2487.
