Some Remarks on the Textual Transmission and Text of Bu ston

128
Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines
35
in terms of their philological reliability, but several, almost rhetorical,
questions naturally emerge of their own account: Did the printing
of the first rather than the second have something to do with the
perceived and actual differences in the quality of their translations?
Was it because Rgyal tshab Dar ma rin chen (1364-1432), who had
used this particular translation as the basis for his own commentary
on the text, was in particular good standing with the political powers
that were in Rtsed thang? 35 Or did other still to be disclosed factors,
such as, more mundanely, ready access to the manuscript of their
translation, play a role in this decision? To be sure, there was already
in place a longstanding tradition in Tibetan learning of philological
and text-critical scholarship, itself a function of the presence in mind
of the possible vicissitudes and various forms of contamination that
can and do occur in the process of translation from Sanskrit to Tibetan
and that can and do occur during the transmission of handwritten
manuscripts and their repeated copying. Among many other possible
examples, we may single out the following as important witnesses
to the Tibetan philological and text-critical spirit: Bu ston's studies
of the Saṃputatantra of 1336 and the Vajrodaya of 1342, the critical
edition of the Tibetan translation of Candrakīrti I's (?9 th c.) Pradīpoddyotana-commentary
on the Guhyasamājatantra, which Tsong kha pa
completed in the 1410s, and Mkhas grub's undated study of Dhartemology,"
Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 16 (1993), 289-
90. The much later Sku 'bum print of the Pramāṇasamuccaya was also based on
their translation, see the detailed paper of H. Yaita, "On the Sku 'bum Version of
the Pramāṇasamuccaya [in Japanese]," Journal of the Naritasan Institute for Buddhist
Studies, 21 (1998), 19-50, and also his "The Tibetan Text of Dignāga's Pramāṇasamuccaya,
Sku 'bum Edition [in Japanese]," Journal of the Naritasan Institute for
Buddhist Studies, 27 (2004), 77-113.
See his Tshad ma mdo’i rnam bshad [Tshad ma kun las btus pa’i rnam bshad mthar
‘dzin gyi tsha gdung ba ‘joms byed rigs pa’i rgya mtsho], Collected Works [Lhasa Zhol
print], vol. Nga (Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, 1981), 333-
588, a work that he wrote between 1424 and 1432. By contrast, Dge ba rgyal
mtshan (1387-1462) is much less enthusiastic about Vasudhararakṣita's and Zha
ma Seng ge rgyal mtshan's rendition, for which see, for example, his Tshad ma
kun las btus pa zhes bya ba'i rab tu byed pa'i rgyan, The Collection (sic) Works of the
Ancient Sa skya pa Scholars, vol. 1 (Dehra Dun: Sakya College, 1999), 406. The forty-two-folio
dbu med manuscript of the Tshad ma kun las btus pa'i rgya cher bshad
pa rgyan gyi me tog by Dar ma rgyal mtshan (1227-1305), alias Bcom ldan Rig[s]
pa'i ral gri, that has recently come to light shows that the author's exegesis is
based on Vasudhararakṣita's and Zha ma Seng ge rgyal mtshan's text as well, but
at the same time shows some significant departures from it. Dar ma rgyal
mtshan's study is so far the oldest Tibetan commentary, if not the oldest one
überhaupt, on Dignāga's tract that is currently available. For the latter in particular,
see my and A.P. McKeown's forthcoming Bcom ldan ral gri (1227-1305) on Indian
Buddhist Logic and Epistemology: His Commentary on Dignāga's Pramāṇasamuccaya.