Disputed Dharmas

·期刊原文

Disputed Dharmas: Early Buddhist Theories on Existence; An Annotated Translation of the Section on Factors Dissociated from Thought from Sanghabhadra's Nyayanusara

by COLLETT COX

Review by Davidson, Ronald M.

The Journal of the American Oriental Society

Vol.118 No.4 (Oct 1998) pp.549-550

COPYRIGHT 1998 American Oriental Society

By COLLETT COX. Studia Philologica Buddhica Monograph Series XI.
Tokyo: THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR BUDDHIST STUDIES, 1995.

Collett Cox has given us one of those books that every specialist in
Indian Buddhism will need to possess but seldom will read, by virtue
of the subject matter's inherent opacity. A reworking of her 1982
doctoral dissertation from Columbia University, Disputed Dharmas is
a fine piece of philological scholarship which investigates the
questions and controversies of phenomena dissociated from thought
(viprayukta-samskara-dharmah). This category of events (dharmas,
which Cox calls factors) was developed by the Abhidharma doctors
partly in response to philosophical challenges from their
Brahmanical antagonists, partly to gloss over internal doctrinal
difficulties. Incredibly, this category was at one time among the
sexiest of topics within the Abhidharma schools of Buddhist
intellectuals in monastic India. As an arena of disputation, the
category brought into fine focus the disparity between the two
leading factions of Abhidharma advocates in north India. Cox has
done yeoman's service by patiently outlining the circumstances and
ideas of the two major disputants - Vasubandhu for the Sautrantikas
and Sanghabhadra for the Vaibhasikas - and translating relevant
portions from Xuanzang's Chinese rendering (T.29.1562) of the lost
Sanskrit of Sanghabhadra's Nyayanusara. Executing this strategy,
Disputed Dharmas is divided into three principal sections:
"Historical Introduction" (pp. 1-63), "Introductory Commentaries"
(pp. 65-171), and "Translation" (pp. 173-411), followed by an
abbreviated list of Chinese characters, bibliography, and a very
useful index (pp. 413-79).(1)

The "Historical Introduction" is an excellent summation of the
received wisdom of philological enquiry on the corpus of Abhidharma
literature, although modern Abhidharmikas will inevitably quibble
over some of the representations given. Cox presents the two
standard hermeneutical etymologies of the term abhidharma and
discusses the methods of exegesis found in this variety of
literature, including differences of opinion on how the form began.
Moving to the background of the controversy at hand, she delineates
the circumstances surrounding the formation of the orthodox Kashmiri
Vaibhasika tradition from the larger corpus of Sarvastivada texts
and the challenges to the Vaibhasika doctrines by the Sautrantikas.
She finally specifies the debate in the related works of Vasubandhu
- the most notorious Sautrantika, whose Abhidharmakosa and Bhasya
are the most important surviving Sanskrit representatives of the
massive Abhidharma corpus - and Sanghabhadra, who both imitated and
attacked the Abhidharmakosa and Bhasya.

Part II, "Introductory Commentaries," is a necessary attempt to
explain to the uninitiated the nature of the "factors dissociated
from thought" and something of the background. Quickly the reader
finds himself in a world in which the nomenclature and jargon are at
war with normative English comprehension. Thus, "Ontological
Perspective Underlying Possession and Nonpossession" (pp. 87-88) is
not a rigorous analysis of the nature of shamanic states and of
healing from the action of spirits by exorcists on behalf of the
possessed, but an examination of the ideas concerning
"acquisition/obtainment," or however the term prapti is translated.
Cox's introduction of the nomenclature is essential, because it
dominates the entire second half of the book, part III, which is
devoted to the translation of an extended refutation of Vasubandhu's
section on the dissociated phenomena in Sanghabhadra's Nyayanusara.
I have found myself occasionally quibbling with Cox's
interpretations of specific items, such as her attempt to extend the
identity of lists (matrka) to both the Vinaya as well as the
Abhidharma, thereby calling it into question as one of the important
mnemonic methods feeding the movement that was to become Abhidharma.
Certainly, the term matrka was applied to Vinaya summaries - and
even infrequently extended to other summaries, as well. Yet the
identity of those who memorize these lists as different from those
who memorize the Vinaya or the Sutras is too well established to
admit of such an interpretation. In all likelihood, the "upholders
of the lists" (matrkadhara) represented the class of monks from whom
the Abhidharma developed as an institutionalization of mnemonics,
their standardization and exegesis. She is certainly right in
pointing out that these lists were far more important to the genre
among Theravada authors, but that does not preclude their
contribution to Sanskrit literature.

This brings me to more substantive qualms. I continue to find myself
uneasy with the historical or philosophical representations of those
wedded exclusively to philological methodology. For example, Cox's
historical introduction could have been markedly improved by a
broader representation of Adhidharma within the culture of the
Iranian language speakers (Kusana, Sassanian) who dominated the
Gandhara area and continually threatened Indian orthodoxy in
Kashmir. The reality of such threats was ultimately to materialize
with the Ephthalite invasion of the upper Jhelum around 520 C.E.
However, in Buddhist studies today, those who account themselves
exclusively philologists seldom venture into issues proposed by
mainstream historians. The unfortunate consequence of this
proclivity is for specialists in sastras to operate in a curiously
sealed environment in which "historical" discussions unaccountably
avoid much of the stuff of history. For example, the quantity of
Abhidharma literature combined with its very arcaneness simply begs
the obvious question: why on earth did otherwise presumably sane
Buddhist monks dispense extraordinary amounts of their time in
pursuit of this material? We might observe that questions of
authority and authenticity seem to come into play in selected areas,
but Cox's allusions to these issues leave the reader less than
satisfied.

Similarly, the topical treatment in part II is an accurate
philological statement of the material. It requires, though,
extended initiation into the arcane literature of the Abhidharma to
be of value and, even then, leaves the reader wandering in a dimly
lit field. Part of the problem, to be sure, simply comes from the
materials' lack of wider treatment - were we more frequently
presented with Abhidharma texts, familiarity would offset some of
the opacity. Yet such facts simply indicate that a more thorough
philosophical treatment of Abhidharma doctrines would be in
everyone's best interests. Traditionally, philologists have done
spade work in translation and representation, while philosophically
inclined specialists have taken the material thus rendered and
unpacked it for a wider reading audience. This method, however,
frequently ensures that the philosophers questioning the material in
some depth do so with blind spots as to ramifications within other
areas of the doctrinal corpus. When the received language of the
material remains its original Sanskrit (whatever the textual
vicissitudes), then the process is to some degree justifiable, or at
least comprehensible. When the language, though, is as specialized
as Chinese translations of Abhidharma, then the onus of
interpretation bears more heavily on the specialist. For example,
chapter 10, "Name, Phrase, and Syllable," begins and ends with the
suggestion that Abhidharmikas participated in the larger discourse
of the Grammarians and may have contributed to the discussion on
sphota. This is an intriguing suggestion, but it is dropped almost
as soon as it is broached, disposed of with a few references to some
older literature on the Grammarians instead of granting it the
treatment Cox evidently believes it deserves. So, while Cox employs
the diction approved in the sphere of philological enterprise, she
could have extended her discussion of the central topics in clearer
language for the benefit of all her readers.

These qualms need not detract from the fine quality of the
fundamental text, and it remains true that any book that tries to be
all things to all people does little for anyone. Cox treads a
well-worn path in her method, and if some Indologists might wish
philologists to pursue a more thorough historical treatment of their
authors, few could question the excellence of her philological work
per se. While stiff going, Disputed Dharmas will reward those with
the courage and time to read it - it reveals some of the more
important discussion of late Gupta Buddhist scholasticism. Professor
Cox must be admired for her own fortitude in bringing this valuable
material before us.

RONALD M. DAVIDSON FAIRFIELD UNIVERSITY
1 Without being obsessive, I must call attention to the privileging
of German and Japanese authors in the bibliography. Cox's list of
English language contributions to Buddhist studies seldom climbs out
of the immediate post-World-War-II period - unless done by German or
Japanese authors - and are not an entirely accurate reflection of
more recent activity. On a lighter note, Etienne Lamotte's corpus
has been inadvertently merged with that of Louis de La Vallee
Poussin (p. 432).