Buddhist Studies: The Journal of The International Association of
Buddhist Studies: The Journal of The International Association of
Buddhist Studies: The Journal of The International Association of
BUDDHIST STUDIES
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
Roger Jackson
Dept. of Religion
Carleton College
Northfield, MN 55057
USA
EDITORS
Peter N. Gregory
University of Illinois
Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, USA
Jikido Takasaki
University of Tokyo
Tokyo, Japan
Alexander W. Macdonald
Universite de Paris X
Nanterre, France
Robert Thurman
Columbia University
New York, New York, USA
Steven Collins
University of Chicago
Chicago, Illinois, USA
Volume 16
1993
Number 1
CONTENTS
I. ARTICLES
1. Religion, Kinship and Buddhism: Ambedkar's Vision of a Moral
Community
by Anne M. Blackburn
2.Vasubandhu on samskarapratyayam vijMnam
by Robert Kritzer
24
183
202
245
183
184
REVIEWS
185
sense of nimitta, this could refer to a buddha who was awakened by an external
cause as opposed to those buddhas who were self-awakened. Norman discusses the
assimilation of the pratyeka-buddha conception into Buddhism and Jainism and
suggests that it was originally borrowed from another sect and then used to fill in
the gap between buddha and savaka. His examination sheds light on a new meaning
of the concept of the pratyeka-buddha, who is not just an individual buddha, but
originally was considered as a buddha who was enlightened in a certain way.
In "Four Etymologies of the Sabhiya Sutta," Norman considers the etymologies of the four words viriyava, ariya, kusala and ajaniya to determine the history
of the sutta. He maintains that it was originally composed in a Prakrit and by means
of a comparison with Tibetan texts indicates that the Sutta tradition was quite
different from the commentarial tradition. He suggests that a study of the Sabhiya
Sutta and its commentary across traditions shows evidence of a commentarial
tradition that may have crossed sectarian boundaries. He urges caution in using
metrical analysis alone to determine the dating of a text, since in the case of the
Sabhiya Sutta this is obviously misleading.
In "Magadhisms in the Kathavatthu" Norman examines the nominative and
vocative singular masculine "e" forms in the atthakathas and in the KathSvatthu.
He indicates that these forms were known and recognized by Buddhaghosa. He
demonstrates that the language of the KathSvatthu and the Eastern Ashokan
inscriptions share affinities and indicates that the KathSvatthu was first uttered in
Magadha. He suggests that the close relationship between the language of the
KathSvatthu and Sinhalese arose from the colonisation of Ceylon by people from
Eastern India and that is likely that the "e" forms of the KathSvatthu are due to the
influence of Magadhi, rather than Sanskrit or Prakrit.
The volume includes four essays on the Ashokan pillars. In "Middle IndoAryan Studies XII" Norman examines recensions of the Ashokan edicts in order
to ascertain the procedure for the transmission of exemplars. He shows that the
majority of Ashokan inscriptions are based on just two "master" exemplars. In the
"Notes on the so-called the Queen's Edict of Ashoka," he provides a new and
corrected version of the inscriptions and shows that the main purpose of this edict
was to give instruction about the accounting procedure involved concerning gifts
made by the second queen. In "Ashokan Sil5-thambas and dhamma-thambas," he
emphasizes the importance of discerning the difference between the two types of
pillars. He shows that Ashokan inscriptions give no indication that stone pillars did
not exist before his time and thatin the light of the paucity of evidence available
to the linguistthe art historian and the archeologist may be helpful. In "Notes on
The Ahraura Version of Ashoka's First Minor Rock Edict," Norman discusses the
unusual words buddhasc salile, "the body of the Buddha," found in this version
only, and also discusses the numerals 256 which are missing form this version, but
appear in most others. He shows that a particular sentence in the edict including
these discrepancies was misread by the scribe, who made conjectures and added
his own meanings when he inscribed the edict. Thus Norman's philological critique
clarifies the significance of miswritten aksaras and presents a clarification of this
186
Nirmala S. Salgado