Recent Scholarship on the Lalitavistara

Indo-Iranian Journal 65 (2022) 267–301 brill.com/iij Serious Play Recent Scholarship on the Lalitavistara Jonathan A. Silk | orcid: 0000-0002-9796-1021 Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands j.a.silk@hum.leidenuniv.nl Abstract The Lalitavistara is one of the most influential hagiographies of the Buddha. It has been known in Sanskrit since the early days of modern studies of Buddhism, but was long available only in inadequate editions. That has now changed with the publica- tion of the edition of K. Hokazono, now complete in three volumes. The present paper discusses something of the history of the study of the text, Hokazono’s edition, and another recent book by G. Ducoeur that deals with the text, as well as touching on a contribution by Xi He on the poetics of the text. It includes a concordance of a recent translation from Tibetan published by the 84000 project, aligning its sections with the Sanskrit editions of Lefmann and Hokazono. Keywords Lalitavistara – Sanskrit Buddhist literature – sūtra – text criticism Hokazono Kōichi 外園幸一, Raritavisutara no kenkyū (chūkan) ラリタヴィス タラの研究 (中巻). Tokyo: Daitō Shuppansha 大東出版社, 2019. isbn 978-4- 500-00771-4. iv, 670 pp. ¥25,000; Raritavisutara no kenkyū (gekan) ラリタヴィ スタラの研究 (下巻). Tokyo: Daitō Shuppansha 大東出版社, 2019. isbn 978- 4-500-00772-1. vi, 614 pp. ¥24,000.1 1 When it is necessary in the following to distinguish these volumes I refer to the first as 2019a, the second as 2019b, though in most cases the intended reference will be obvious. © jonathan a. silk, 2022 | doi:10.1163/15728536-06503004 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the cc by 4.0 license. 268 review articles Guillaume Ducoeur, La Vie du Buddha. Lalitavistara sūtra ou Sūtra du dével- oppement des jeux [du Bodhisattva], iie–viie siècle après J.-C. Strasbourg: Presses universitaires de Strasbourg, 2018. isbn 979-10-344-0010-2. 156 pp. € 18.–. As long ago as 1836, Robert Lenz (4 February 1808–11 August 1836)2 published, in the first volume of the Bulletin Scientifique publié par l’ Académie impériale des Sciences de Saint-Pétersbourg, his “Analyse du Lalita-Vistara-Pourana, l’ un des principaux ouvrages sacrés des Bouddhistes de l’ Asie centrale, contenant la vie de leur prophète, et écrit en Sanscrit.”3 Although I am not certain, this may have been the first modern scholarly mention of the text.4 Whether or not this is so, the article (published serially) is remarkable for its thoroughness, offering a close summary over twenty or so double-columned pages of the contents of the text, chapter by chapter, based directly on a Sanskrit manuscript, now held in 2 Lenz was the first to teach Indian languages and literature at Saint Petersburg University (and apparently also the first to teach Sanskrit in Russia: https://whowaswho‑indology.info/3753/​ lenz‑robert), though his untimely death meant that he was able to do so only for a short time. To judge by the work I have seen, his early death was a serious loss for Indian studies. 3 This was pointed out already by de Jong 1997b, 247 with n. 1, with incorrect page references. 4 We can probably leave aside casual mentions, such as those which simply note that the text exists, or otherwise do not treat it in an understandable way. Lenz refers to Ward (perhaps in the second edition of 1815, 422–426, although there are later editions as well, a third in 1817 [the relevant vol. 2 in 1820] etc.), but characterizes this work saying, p. 50, “Un petit abrégé de l’ouvrage a été publié en anglais par M. Ward au second vol. de son ouvrage On the history, literature etc. of the Hindoos; mais cet abrégé est fait avec autant de légèreté que toutes les autres traductions de ce savant.” In fact, looking toward the history of the modern study of the Lalitavistara, Ward first published this material a bit earlier in his first edition of 1811, 231– 240, although under a slightly different title (Committee of Publication 1828, 14), Account of the Writings, Religion, and Manners of the Hindoos: Including Translations from their Principal Works. While I have not compared the two versions in detail, they are noticeably different, and Ward himself stated the second edition to have been revised and abridged. The fact remains, in any event, that although he did not use the title (calling it “the Booddhŭ Pooranŭ”), already in 1811 Ward had offered an extracted summary of the Lalitavistara, in English. That he had access, directly or indirectly, to the text in Sanskrit is clear from the use of terms such as Boodhalŭnkarŭ-vyoohŭ, transparently buddhālaṁkāravyūha. We may simply note in passing that the title Lalitavistara is also used in two apparently unique Śivadharma texts, in which context it has been translated by De Simini and Mirnig 2017 as “Detailed Account of the Play- ful [Conversation];” as the authors note in discussing the difficult history of their text (p. 596), “the title Lalitavistara itself may have called into mind the popular Buddhist work of the same title, and caused further confusion.” William Ward (1769–1823) is an interesting figure. Trained as a printer, he went to India as a missionary and in addition to his role as such, established and ran a printing press. A great deal of information can be found at www.wmcarey.edu/carey/wmward/index.html. Indo-Iranian Journal 65 (2022) 267–301 review articles 269 the British library (io san 688),5 renowned among other things for two images of its patron and donor, Captain William Douglas Hunter Knox (24 Novem- ber 1763–1 December 1829), first British resident in Nepal and an officer in the army of the East India Company.6 Knox commissioned the manuscript and had himself depicted therein receiving a copy of the very manuscript itself from its scribe, the famous Amr̥tānanda (d. 1835), who wrote it out in 1803.7 One 5 According to de Jong 1997b, 247 with n. 2, Lefmann 1902 in his edition used two manuscripts copied from the Knox manuscript. See Lefmann 1908, x. The relevant passage in Lefmann reads: “Unsere Kenntnis vom L. V. datiert vom Jahre 1807, da der englische Major Will. Duglas [sic] Knox während seines amtlichen Aufenthalts als Regierungs-Entsandter in Nepal eine erste Abschrift erhielt, die er von dort nach Kalkutta zu händen H.T. Colebrookes gebracht (Ess.2 178). Dieß ist der selbe Knox (naxa), der im Kolophon unserer Hss. ll., einer Kopie jener ersten nepalesischen, so gar hoch und überschwenglich gefeiert wird. Auch ist es wieder nach einem dieser mss. (des India Office), dass Rob. Lenz in den Bulletins der Akademie von St. Petersburg, 1836, eine freilich sehr lückenhafte Analyse des Werkes gegeben, das Jahr zuvor, ehe B.H. Hodgson seine Sendung nepal Hss. nach Paris gerichtet, wo sie in Eug. Burnouf ihren ersten Bearbeiter erhielten.” Colebrooke mentioned the work in 1837, 199 under the title Lalita puráńa (Lefmann referred to the second edition of 1873, 178). See also Hokazono 1994, 222. 6 Knox commanded the Fifth Bengal Light Cavalry. See further Mason 1870, who, however, does not mention Nepal. 7 This is not the only example of Knox’s patronage. As recorded in Blumhardt 1899, 49–50 (item 87), Knox commissioned of one Hengā K̲ h̲ān a Hindi translation of the Persian ‘Iyar i dānish (ʿEyār-e dāneš [ʿIār-e dāneš]), one of the several versions of what we perhaps know better as the Pañcatantra. Inspired by this, Mizrā Mahdī, who was in the service of Knox, essayed his own translation, “Mirzā Mahdī, fired by a spirit of competition, began at the same time to translate the Anvār i Suhaili [Anwār-e Sohayli, a 15th c. Persian version, and the source of the ʿEyār-e dāneš]*. When Hengā K̲ h̲ān had translated about a fourth part of the ‘Iyar i dānish, [a friend] invited Mirzā Mahdī to attend on a certain day to hear a specimen of his work read out for the approval of Captain Knox. He accordingly presented himself on the appointed day, taking with him a portion of his own translation. The two translations were read out and criticized by Captain Knox and other gentlemen assembled for the purpose, and that of Mirzā Mahdī was unanimously declared to be the best, whereupon his rival, Hengā K̲ h̲ān, was so annoyed that he tore in pieces the fair copies of the portion of his translation which he had brought with him. Mirzā Mahdī concludes [his lengthy preface to the extant work] by saying that Captain Knox urged him to complete the translation of the whole work, but he apparently failed to do so.” Amr̥tānanda was the extremely prolific paṇḍit who, among other things, “completed” the Buddhacarita, some portions of which still today remain lost in their original form. He is perhaps best known as the Residency paṇḍit for the British in Kathmandu who famously guided Brian Houghton Hodgson (1800–1894), thereby becoming (among other things) one of the formative influences on the modern study of Indian Buddhism. In his biography of Hodgson, Hunter 1896: 273–274 says: “[Hodgson] had the good fortune to attract the friend- ship of the greatest pandit in Nepal—a friendship which grew into a reverential affection on both sides. This erudite Buddhist, Amrita Nanda by name, was himself the author of Indo-Iranian Journal 65 (2022) 267–301 270 review articles should keep in mind that this was some eight years before the publication of the work which may justly be considered the first significant philological study of Indian Buddhism, Eugène Burnouf’s 1844 Introduction à l’ Histoire du Bud- dhisme Indien,8 and one year before the Sanskrit manuscripts sent from Nepal by Brian Houghton Hodgson even arrived in Paris.9 several treatises in Sanskrit and of one in the Nepalese dialect. He presented the highest type of the ancient native scholar, courteous, dignified, a well of learning, and with a memory so capacious and so perfectly trained as almost to do away with the need of manuscripts. The questions which Hodgson put to him, and Hodgson’s commentaries on his replies, opened up unknown regions of research to the Western world.” This passage was drawn to my attention by its quotation in Vogel 1972: 210n5. Vogel (p. 217) concludes, incidentally, that Amr̥tānanda “finalized his recension of Aśvaghoṣa’s Buddhacarita on … 7/8 December 1829.” See also Hoka- zono 1981a. Getting back to the topic of the present review, in Hokazono 1981b the author suggests that Amr̥tānanda based his supplementation of the Buddhacarita on the Mahāvastu and the Lalitavistara, with differences between chapters: 14 (from vs. 33) and 16 based on the Lalitavistara, 15 on both texts, 17 on the Mahāvastu. Brough 1948: 668–669 offers a short appraisal of Amr̥tānanda’s knowledge of Sanskrit. * See https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia‑iranica‑online/anwa r‑e‑sohayli‑COM_5518#. See also more broadly https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entrie s/encyclopaedia‑iranica‑online/kalila‑wa‑demna‑COM_10658?lang=de. 8 As far as I can see, Burnouf does not directly refer to Lenz, but he does cite the Lalitavistara a number of times from a manuscript he owned. Two manuscripts are listed in Cabaton 1907, 13 (#97–98 and 99–100) with the designation “Burnouf 86” and “Burnouf 87,” and I suppose these refer to manuscripts once owned by him, but as far as I can see Cabaton does not explain this designation. Hokazono 1994, 265 states that he used the manuscript 97–98, which he calls “B,” stating that it belongs to the Bibliothèque nationale de France. Hokazono 1994, 223, points to Lefmann’s observation, 1908, xi, that 87 is a bad copy of 86; Lefmann distinguished them as Ba and Bb, but Hokazono only used 86. One should note that no additional manuscripts beyond those employed in 1994 are used in Hokazono’s 2019 volumes. Burnouf—whose energy and breadth of interests never cease to amaze and humble— began to translate the Lalitavistara, and proceeded partway into the second chapter. The cat- alogue of the Bibliothèque nationale de France, under Papiers Burnouf 59, says the following (https://archivesetmanuscrits.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cc112537d): “Lalitavistara. sans date. Un vol. in-folio, 215 feuillets, 360×240mm. Demi-reliure parchemin,” with the notation: “Traduction française du chapitre I et d’une partie du chapitre ii. Table des chapitres. Puis diverses obser- vations et copies sur la littérature du buddhisme du Nord comparée à celles du buddhisme du Sud, et nombreuses notes reliées confusément et vraisemblablement destinées au second volume de l’Introduction à l’histoire du Buddhisme indien.” A transcription of these valuable notes would be wonderful, but as Burnouf crossed out and emended as he worked, decipher- ment would be a difficult task (but see below note 23). Unfortunately, as with their black and white scan of Burnouf’s translation of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā (the scans are not of great quality), the color photos provided by the Bibliothèque nationale in this case too are somewhat out of focus throughout. 9 de Jong 1997a, 19, and see above n. 5. Indo-Iranian Journal 65 (2022) 267–301 review articles 271 figure 1 Illustration from British library Sanskrit manuscript io san 688 depicting Captain William Douglas Hunter Knox receiving the La- litavistara from its scribe Amr̥tānanda As is well known, the Lalitavistara has attracted considerable scholarly attention since the earliest days of Buddhist studies in Europe, now almost two hundred years ago.10 Despite this (or perhaps, indeed, because of it), to date no complete and reliable translation of the Sanskrit text has appeared in 10 One might be misled by the comment in the introduction to the 84000 translation of the Indo-Iranian Journal 65 (2022) 267–301 272 review articles a western language. (A recent complete translation of the canonical Tibetan translation, itself evidently based on a text reasonably close to the available Sanskrit,11 cannot entirely fulfill the same role.12 It is discussed below.) While it is certainly true that, strictly speaking, the same could be said for nearly all San- skrit Buddhist texts—and we may recall with, I feel, continuing embarrassment that this is the case even for the renowned Saddharmapuṇḍarīka13—it may be that the absence of any such translation is due both to the sheer amount of available scholarship on the text, and the existence of parallel and related ver- sions, on the one hand, and on the other hand to the fact that the heretofore available edition of the Sanskrit text by Salomon Lefmann (25 December 1831– 14 January 1912) notoriously suffers from a reputation which since early on was generally far from positive.14 text (Dharmachakra Translation Committee 2013; I used version 4.48.3), which states in section i.17 that “hardly any new research on this sūtra has been published during the last sixty years.” This is perhaps not entirely wrong if one limits oneself to publications in English, but especially if one takes into account Japanese scholarship, as one must, it is clearly very much mistaken. 11 In fact, de Jong 1997b, 254 suggests that “the text has been better preserved in the Tibetan translation than in the Sanskrit manuscripts and in the texts used by the Chinese trans- lators.” While there may be some evidence for this in some cases, we cannot, without comprehensive evaluation, apply such a conclusion to the text in its entirety. 12 It is perhaps necessary here, to avoid misunderstanding, to mention that the author of a relatively recent attempt (Goswami 2001, vi) herself confesses, “I realise that despite my best effort, the work emerges as a second-rate attempt, for which I crave the indulgence of the reader.” 13 An exception to this may be the just published translation of the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa by Paul Harrison and the late Luis O. Gómez (Gómez and Harrison 2022). Gómez’s own 1996 translations of the two Sukhāvatīvyūha sūtras were avowedly free, and his “technical trans- lations” have yet to appear. Certainly a few other examples could be noted, but any critical list would remain rather short, I fear. 14 See for instance Speyer 1903, which despite the obscurity of its publication has been noticed more than once. In fact, it is rather likely that unhappiness with available editions is also the reason for the reluctance of any competent scholar to undertake a translation of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka from Sanskrit—the best candidate would likely still be the edi- tion of Kern and Nanjio 1908–1912, but its faults are so well known, and the textual history so complex, that it certainly appears like a nearly hopeless task to essay an integral trans- lation on its basis. (I should clarify that numerous Japanese translations from Sanskrit do exist, but I am not aware of any I would consider critical.) At the same time, it is essential to acknowledge that too many scholars remain insen- sitive to such things, as witnessed by the continual citation of the philologically virtually worthless “editions” published by P.L. Vaidya. Indo-Iranian Journal 65 (2022) 267–301 review articles 273 This situation began to change in 1994 when Hokazono Kōichi (外薗幸一) published the first volume of his well-sourced and careful edition, consisting of text, notes and Japanese translation of chapters 1 through 14, accompanied by a lengthy introduction.15 While this edition was welcomed with appreci- ation by de Jong (1997b, 1998), it has remained far from universally accessi- ble outside Japan, and moreover, covering only a portion of the text, it could not be adopted as a standard reference. The situation has now, most happily, changed in crucial respects (though accessibility remains an issue). Although there was a long gap between the appearance of the first and then the sec- ond and third volumes, Hokazono had continued working on the text, despite the adverse conditions he describes in the Preface (maegaki) to the second (chū) volume (and again mentions in the final volume as well), in which he also speaks lovingly of his life’s work, now brought to fruition, truly a life-work as it was begun some four and a half decades earlier when he was a second year graduate student. While these recent publications complete the text in elegant (though expensive) volumes, in the years after 1994 Hokazono had in fact continued to publish chapters in the form of journal articles, beginning in 1996 with chapter 15 and finishing in 2017 with chapter 27.16 He further- 15 It is hard to understand how this edition could have remained unknown to the translators and editors of the 84000 translation, who refer only to Lefmann. They have, further, con- fused Lefmann’s 1902 edition (printed already in 1882; in any event, the publication date is not, as the 84000 reference has it, 1883), listed under “Secondary Sources,” with his par- tial translation with extensive notes, itself listed under “Source Texts.” Their claim (i.24) to “have also compared the Tibetan translation line by line with the Sanskrit (Lefmann 1874),” is therefore hard to credit. In fact, this is not the only oversight: their understand- ing of the history of the scholarship on the text is almost hopelessly confused. They write in their introduction (i.23), “In the West, the first mention of The Play in Full occurred in 1839 when Alexander Csoma de Koros gave a summary in his Analysis of the Mdo (Calcutta, pp. 288–296). Eugène Burnouf also mentioned this text in his Introduction à l’histoire du Bouddhisme Indien published in 1844. The first efforts toward a translation of The Play in Full did not occur, however, until 1874 when Salomon Lefmann published a Sanskrit edition of the text, as well as a partial translation into German. Shortly there- after further translations appeared, including an English translation by R.L. Mitra in 1875, and most influentially a full French translation by Édouard Foucaux in 1892.” As we saw above, Lenz’s work preceded that of Csoma de Kőrös by three years; Lefmann’s 1874 book is not an edition; Mitra’s translation began to appear in 1881, and his edition dates to 1853–1877; Foucaux’s edition of the Tibetan dates to 1847, his translation of this appear- ing in 1848, while his translation from Sanskrit dates to 1884, with a second volume of notes appearing in 1892. One simply has to wonder how this could all have gone so very wrong. 16 Following the 1994 book, Hokazono began the continuing edition in Kagoshima Keizai Indo-Iranian Journal 65 (2022) 267–301 274 review articles more has serially published a revised Japanese translation, also in article form.17 That these are mostly available for free download (see note 17) eases the access problem in some respects, although if scholars were to cite the article pub- lications rather than the books this could create confusions and obstacles to the establishment of a standard rational system of reference (regarding which, see below on the necessity of standardized reference systems for such litera- tures). With his two 2019 volumes, Hokazono has now published in book form the remainder of the text, the first of which (the chūkan 中卷) contains chapters 15–21, the third and final volume (gekan 下卷) containing chapters 22–27. The former also contains a short series of introductory essays (pp. 3–34) on general aspects of Buddha hagiographical literature and the Mahāyāna, and the latter a much more substantial series (pp. 3–202) on a variety of more focused topics. These are: 1. From Buddha hagiographical literature to Mahāyāna (pp. 3–15) 2. The bodhisattva idea (pp. 15–29) 3. The six perfections (pp. 29–42) 4. The ten bhūmis (pp. 42–62) 5. The idea of prediction to buddhahood (pp. 62–74) Daigaku’s Ronshū (Kagoshima keizai ronshū 鹿児島経済論集): 37.1 (1996), 77–118; 37.2 (1996), 1–36; 37.3 (1996), 33–69; 38.1 (1997), 55–88; 38.2 (1997), 19–57; 38.3 (1997), 59–90; 39.2 (1998), 21–54; 39.3 (1998), 15–54. This reached chapter 15. I am not sure where Hoka- zono published chapter 16; he continued with chapter 17 in a journal of the International University of Kagoshima, Kagoshima Kokusai Daigaku 鹿児島国際大学, the Kokusai bunkagakubu ronshū 国際文化学部論集, 8.2 (2007), 59–111; 8.3 (2008), 171–217; 9.2/3 (2008), 89–141; 12.3 (2011), 187–229; 12.4 (2012), 315–358; 13.1 (2012), 1–55; 15.3 (2014), 241– 295; 15.4 (2015), 395–449; 16.1 (2015), 39–101; 16.2 (2015), 137–182; 16.3 (2015), 229–277; 16.4 (2016), 337–380; 17.1 (2016), 29–77; 17.2 (2016), 95–140; 17.3 (2016), 167–211; 17.4 (2017), 253– 297; 18.2 (2017), 133–160. It is to be noted that the earlier chapters 1–14 had also, at least in part, been published in journals, but I do not have access to these, which I presume are in any event superseded by the 1994 volume. 17 These also appeared in the Kokusai bunkagakubu ronshū 国 際 文 化 学 部 論 集: 19.1 (2018), 45–73; 19.2 (2018), 91–118; 19.4 (2019), 237–284; 20.1 (2019), 47–87; 20.2 (2019), 125–165; 20.3 (2019), 275–312; 20.4 (2020), 371–404; 21.1 (2020), 77–101; 21.2 (2020), 145– 182; 21.3 (2021), 263–285; 21.4 (2021), 333–364; 22.1 (2021), 43–77. All the contributions in this journal, editions and translations, are freely available at https://iuk‑repo.repo.nii​ .ac.jp. Since the Japanese translation is likely to be of interest to comparatively few English readers, I will have little to say about it here, either in its original or later revised form. Indo-Iranian Journal 65 (2022) 267–301 review articles 275 6. Transfer of merit (pp. 75–95) 7. Vows (pp. 95–110) 8. The idea of multiple buddhas (pp. 110–131) 9. Skillful means (pp. 131–202) Regarding the essay on the Mahāyāna there is little to say, other than that its author seems more receptive toward the ideas of Hirakawa Akira than many others these days would be. Although it is touched on, little is said in the essay about the relationship between the rise of Mahāyāna Buddhism and the hagio- graphical literature. This is a topic somewhat more fully engaged in the essays in the third, final volume. However, truth be told the discussion feels rather old-fashioned, and it is not likely that a scholar who has kept current with the publications in the field would find much new here. Furthermore, although there is sufficient reference to the classic Japanese studies, and occasional ref- erence to more recent Japanese work, there is virtually no engagement with non-Japanese scholarship. This said, perhaps a more attentive reading than I have been able to give these essays would indeed reveal important ideas I have overlooked, and I hope that if this is the case, our Japanese colleagues will share these insights and ideas with us. As noted above, we still have no reliable English translation of the Sanskrit of the Lalitavistara. In the meanwhile, the translation made from Tibetan by the 84000 project (above note 15) may serve as a guide, although its source dif- fers in some respects from the Sanskrit (but overall the Tibetan translation is extremely close to the—in the form in which we have it, fairly late—Sanskrit). Moreover, as a translation it is imperfect, in the sense that even in rendering the Tibetan text, closer attention to the Sanskrit might have resulted in dif- ferent understandings on more than one occasion. Since, however, it is most likely to be among the first sources that at least English readers will consult to orient themselves in the rather large scripture, I offer below as an Appendix a table listing the section numbers imposed on the text by the 84000 translators and the corresponding page numbers in the editions of Hokazono and Lef- mann. It should be acknowledged with gratitude that the numbering imposed on the text by the 84000 translation, although it does not always agree with the paragraphing of Hokazono’s edition, is an extremely helpful addition. In the future more detailed systematic numbering should be imposed not only on the Lalitavistara in its various versions (by which I mean that finer divi- sions could be imposed on the text than have been applied so far) but on all (at least Indian) Buddhist texts, since this is the best way to provide for accuracy of cross-referencing. This is obviously also the best (and perhaps only rational) way to avoid the chaos that ensues when different editions are Indo-Iranian Journal 65 (2022) 267–301 276 review articles referred to. As is quite obvious, when one wants to cite, let us say, Exodus 12.14, there is no need to ask to which edition reference is being made: the numer- ation is standard, and such a system should be applied to Buddhist texts as well. Be that as it may, as noted, it must be very clearly stated here that there are a number of issues with the 84000 translation, beyond the obvious one that it renders a Tibetan rather than a Sanskrit version, and aside from some very odd translation choices.18 There are a number of misunderstandings and misrepre- sentations obvious to even casual perusal, and a more careful reading would be sure to reveal more.19 Therefore, despite its utility, one very important conclu- 18 84000 translates bde bar gshegs pa (Sugata) as “Bliss-Gone One,” which at least has the merit of being original, if not unique. However, sometimes this is wrong even on its own terms, as in 26.59 (200a3) which has instead de bzhin gshegs pa (= Tathāgata), which is elsewhere rather reasonably rendered Thus-Gone One (at least if one’s touchstone of reasonableness is Buddhist Hybrid English). In any event, aside from its intrinsic weird- ness, the translation “Bliss-Gone One,” unlike some other renderings from Tibetan which adhere more to Tibetan than Indian understandings or “pseudo-etymologies” of a cer- tain term, does not follow any of the several traditional interpretations put forth in the commentary to the Mahāvyutpatti, the Sgra sbyor bam po gnyis pa. See Ishikawa 1990: 9 (item §7; see also the trans. Ishikawa 1993: 11–12): sugata zhes bya ba gcig tu na | śob- hanaṅgata sugata surūpavat ces bya ste | legs par gshegs pas na legs par gshegs pa ste | gzugs legs pa bzhin | apunar āvr̥ tyagata sugata sunaṣṭajvaravat ces bya ste | phyir mi ldog par gshegs pas na legs par gshegs pa ste | rims nad legs par byang ba bzhin | yāvadgan- tavyagamanāt sugata | supūrṇaghaṭavat ces bya ste | ji tsam du ’gro bar bya ba ma lus par phyin pas na legs par gshegs pa ste | bum pa legs par gang ba bzhin no zhes ’byung | yang gcig tu na | dharmaskandha las ’byung ba sugata iti sukhito bhagavān | svargita avy- athita avyathitadharmasamanvāgata | tad ucyate sugata zhes ’byung ste | bcom ldan ’das bde bar gyur cing mtho ris kyi bde ba dang ldan la gnod ba mi mnga’ zhing gnod pa med pa’i chos dang ldan pas na bde bar gshegs pa ’am bde bar brnyes pa la yang bya ste | ’dir sngar grags ba dang | dharmaskandha las ’byung ba dang sbyar te bde bar gshegs pa zhes btags |. 19 Without subjecting the translation to any sort of careful reading I have noticed a number of issues. I note them here to give readers some impression of the nature of the trans- lation. Most of the following are from the latter parts of the text, but this is genuinely random; I simply did not take notes earlier. To begin, the translators missed that the text contains two verses in chapter 5 (D 95, mdo sde, kha, 24b2–3 = Foucaux 1847: 43, who throughout his edition does not graphically distinguish prose from verse), although the Tibetan, also by its orthography with double shads and the regular 9 syllable lines, is clear. The text corresponds to Hokazono 1994: 348, which Hokazono identifies as verses in āryā and āryāgīti, though it was not so understood by Lefmann or others (Hokazono 1994: 349, note). At 10.10, verses 6–10 in Hokazono 528 are omitted by the 84000 transla- tors, although they are found in the Tibetan text (D 95, mdo sde, kha 67a2–5). At 17.35 a verse is unrecognized = ii.206 verse 10. On the other hand, at 22.37–38, the text, although Indo-Iranian Journal 65 (2022) 267–301 review articles 277 sion to be strongly emphasized is that scholars (such as Sanskritists interested in the Lalitavistara as a poetic work, on which see below) who cannot indepen- dently control the Tibetan translation should draw no conclusions about it on the basis of this translation. We can briefly illustrate how far Hokazono’s edition brings us from the ear- lier efforts of Lefmann by looking at a short passage. I have chosen an example from chapter 2 because it was dealt with in one of the very few studies to look at the Lalitavistara’s poetics, a paper by Xi He (2011). In arguing for the poetic qualities of the Lalitavistara, He cites this short passage, extracted from a longer sequence of items praising the Bodhisattva, that is, Śākyamuni before his attainment of buddhahood.20 The text of Lefmann (1902: 8.18–9.2) is on the left, that of Hokazono (1994: 282.24–284.3) on the right; differences are marked in bold:21 printed in the translation as verse, is not metrical either in Tibetan (169b4–6) or San- skrit (2019b: 228.17–19). At 24.86 (Tib 181a6–7 = Skt. 304.7–10), although again printed as verse the text is not metrical. At 25.53 (Tib 192a7–b1 = Skt. 372.18) Tib. has snga ma bzhin du (Hokazono 373n73, pūrvavat), but 84000 gives an expanded passage. The same is done elsewhere (I have not made a list, but note for instance 26.25). There are other places (eg 200b5ff.) in which Tib. abbreviates its translation but the 84000 translators have filled in the text without note. The Sanskrit as printed by Hokazono (2019b: 416) also contains a number of indications of abbreviations. At 26.45 the text is metrical (13 syllable lines), as in Skt. 404.18, where verses are recognized but the metre is uniden- tified by Hokazono (see below). At 26.96–99 (202a2ff.) again the ornate Tibetan metre of 15 syllables was not recognized by the translators, and thus they treat the verses as prose. At 26.130, 84000 has “and the one who has reached the other shore.” As Hokazono 437n38 correctly notes, Tib. 205a5 has no equivalent for the pāraga ity ucyate of earlier editions. The 84000 translators thus here do not present the text they are ostensibly trans- lating. 20 She says of the portrayal (p. 89), “when the Bodhisattva is identified with a lotus, this is no superficial identification. Rather, he is a lotus, in every part and aspect.” Unless I am mistaken, this is the definition of a metaphor. 21 I have given all of Lefmann’s variants, which he lists by page and line, with footnote num- bers; for Hokazono I have been selective since many of his notes record information not essential here; his notes are sequential by page but here I renumber for ease of com- prehension, and I consolidate notes when separate notes refer to elements of the same compound. Indo-Iranian Journal 65 (2022) 267–301 278 review articles bodhicittamūlamahākaruṇādaṇḍā- bodhicittamūlamahākaruṇādaṇḍā- dhyāśayodgatasya gambhīravīryasali- dhyāśayodgatasya gambhī- lābhiṣiktasya upāyakauśalakarṇika- ravīryadharmasalilābhiṣyanditasya1 sya bodhyaṅgadhyānakeśarasya1 upāyakauśalakarṇikasya bodhyaṅga- samādhikiñjalkasya guṇagaṇavi- dhyānakeśarasya samādhikiñjalkasya malasarasisujātasya vigatamadamā- guṇagaṇavimalasarasisujātasya naparivāhaśaśivimalavistīrṇapattra- vigatamadamānaparidāhaśaśivi- sya2 śīlaśrutāprasādadaśadigaprati- malavistīrṇapattrasya2 śīlaśrutāpra- hatagandhino3 loke jñānavr̥ddhasyā- mādadaśadigapratihatagandhino3 ṣṭābhir lokadharmair anupaliptasya loke jñānavr̥ddhasyāṣṭābhir lokadha- mahāpuruṣapadmasya puṇya- rmair anupaliptasya mahāpuruṣapa- jñānasaṁbhāravisr̥tasurabhigandhi- dmasya puṇyajñānasaṁbhāravi- naḥ4 prajñājñānadinakarakiraṇair sr̥tasurabhigandhinaḥ prajñājñānadi- vikasitasuviśuddhaśatapattrapadma- nakarakiraṇair vikasitasuviśuddhaśa- tapanasya5 tapattrapadmanayanasya4 1. k dhyānakuśalasya 1. T2, T4–6 omit ‘dharma’ (N3, N4; R, L. V.); 2. A śasī° T3 °vīryamarma°. cf. Tib. brtson ḥgrus 3. Hk śrutapra° kyi chos kyi chu (= vīryadharmasalila). 4. k vistr̥° T2, T4–6 °bhiṣiktasya (N3, N4; R, L. V.); T3 5. αHk °kaśita° k °tāpa° °bhisyanditasya. cf. Tib. mṅon par blan pa A =Royal Asiatic Society ms; H = ; Oxford (= abhiṣyandita). Hodgson 7; k = Calcutta ed.; α = A and one 2. All mss. °parivāha° (R., L., V.). cf. Tib. gduṅ India office ma ba (= paridāha; paritāpa); S. p. 32 [fn. 23]. 3. All mss. °prasāda° (R., L., V.). cf. tib bag yod pa (= apramāda). 4. T4 °padmatāpanasya (T2?; R.): T5, T6 °padmatapanasya (L., V.). cf. N4 °pad- manayanasya; Tib. mig (= nayana). While we should not assume by any means that the last word has been said on the establishment of the text—de Jong 1998: 49, almost certainly correctly, already suggested reading °kauśalya° for °kauśala°, for instance22—Hoka- zono’s edition is certainly a considerable improvement over that of Lefmann (which was, again, virtually copied by Vaidya). Now, as just mentioned, this pas- sage drew the attention of Xi He, who translated it as follows:23 22 Another example: He 2011 renders dhyānakeśara “meditation is his stamen.” While Edger- ton bhsd s.v. keśara offered an interpretation as the powder of pollen, He much more reasonably seems to have understood kesara, and the text should be so read. Hokazono 1994: 713 has [七]覚支と禅定とを花弁となし. I confess I do not understand this well; he seems to have taken keśara as to mean flower petals. 23 As points of comparison, here are several other translations of the passage. First, that of Indo-Iranian Journal 65 (2022) 267–301 review articles 279 Arising from determination that has the enlightened mind as its root and great compassion as its stem, sprinkled by the water of profound heroic energy, skillful means is his pericarp, meditation is his stamen, and Foucaux from 1884 (p. 10): né de l’intention supérieure qui est la grande tige de la miséricorde produite par la racine de la pensée de l’intelligence suprême; sacré avec l’ eau profonde de l’ héroïsme; ayant l’oreille de celui qui est habile à se servir des moyens possédant les degrés de l’intelligence suprême et les filaments de la méditation; possédant les fibres de la con- templation; bien né du lac sans tache d’une foule de qualités; ayant les feuilles dével- oppées et pures d’une lune dégagée du flot de l’ orgueil et de l’ arrogance; possédant le parfum qui va sans obstacle aux dix points de l’ espace, de la bonne conduite, de la révélation et de la sérénité; doyen de la science dans le monde; non imprégné des huit lois du monde; lotus des grands hommes; répandant le doux parfum des mérites et de l’accumulation de la science; ayant l’œil aussi parfait et pur que le lotus à cent feuilles épanoui par les rayons du soleil de la sagesse et de la science; Here is what we find in Bays 1983: 19 (based on Foucaux’s French translation from Tibetan): From the wellspring of the enlightened mind, the stream of mercy, issuing from the higher intentions, flows forth strong and deep. Steeped in the waters of the heroism of the Dharma, the Bodhisattva arises like a lotus from the boundless lake of many qual- ities. The essence of skillful means flows within him, coursing through the stems of awakening, forming stamens of contemplation, anthers of meditation. Untouched by pride or arrogance, his broad unblemished leaves unfurl in the pristine moonlight. The fragrance of awareness, revelation, morality, and serenity lift toward the ten points of space. Elder of knowledge in the world, yet unstained by the eight worldly dharmas, he is the Lotus of Great Men. The sweet perfume of merit and the accumulation of wisdom wafts forth; the sun’s rays of knowledge and wisdom shine upon the extended blossoms of the hundred-petaled lotus of his vision, perfect and pure. Finally, it is now possible to quote the draft translation of Burnouf (see above note 8). While I was able to identify the relevant location in his manuscript, I was unable to read Burnouf’s handwriting well enough to decipher his translation. But thanks to the great kindness and keen eyes of Vincent Tournier, I can here cite what Tournier read on folia 21r24–23r4: Il s’est élevé jusqu’à la possession du sceptre de la xxxx grande compassion qui est la base des Bodhisattvas. [f. 6b.] Son corps xx a été oint d’ une énergie profonde. Il possède le cœur du lotus qui est l’habileté des moyens, les filaments du x lotus que sont la contemplation{s} des éléments constitutifs de l’état de Bôdhi, les pétales du étamines du lotus qui sont les méditations, les purs lotus de la foule des qualités. Comme un lotus, les Il est comme un lotus dont les purs pétales se sont développés à la aux rayons xxxxx de la lune débarrassée de la masse de l’orgueil et de l’ enivrement, qui répand, sans que rien ne l’arrête, dans les dix points de l’ espace le parfum de la bienveillance, de la connaissance des écritures, et de la morale. Il est vieux dans Il a cru en science dans le monde. Il est affranchi du contact des huit conditions du monde. Il x est le lotus des grands hommes, qui possède l’odeur délicieuse qui s’ échappe de la [illegi- ble] formée par ses connaissances et ses xxx vertus. Il est le soleil du ⟨pur⟩ lotus aux cent feuilles qui s’épanouit aux rayons de l’auteur du jour de la connaissance de la sagesse. Indo-Iranian Journal 65 (2022) 267–301 280 review articles profound meditation is his filament; rising from the pure lake of count- less qualities, free from the inundation of pride and arrogance, his broad leaves spread out, unblemished as the moon; the fragrance of moral- ity, revelation, serenity of disposition (spread out) unobstructed into ten directions of space; learned in knowledge in the world, yet unstained by the eight worldly dharmas, the bodhisattva is the lotus of great men; the sweet fragrance of merits and the accumulation of wisdom wafts forth; the sun’s rays of wisdom and knowledge shine upon the blossomed pure hundred-petaled lotus. And here we confront a problem: in her article He correctly printed the text established by Hokazono, but evidently translated that of Lefmann (perhaps via Vaidya?).24 As a result, in the expression gambhīravīryadharmasalila, dharma is missing in the translation.25 “[F]ree from the inundation of pride and arrogance” is structurally equivalent to the printed text’s vigatamadamānapari- dāha but rather renders a version with the reading °parivāha. “[S]erenity of dis- position” renders prasāda rather than the printed apramāda.26 Finally, “shine upon the blossomed pure hundred-petaled lotus” renders not the printed vika- sitasuviśuddhaśatapattrapadmanayanasya but instead °padmatapanasya. It is quite obvious that the real difference in the last example is only one in graphic confusion (and see above for keśara/kesara): in many Indian scripts, ta and na are very similar as are pa and ya. The Bodhisattva’s eye (nayana), which I sup- pose is also meant to be open and pure, is like the open (vikasita), pure, and 24 Not all errors are due to following a worse text: where in the translation are the bodhy- aṅgas? The rendering “the sweet fragrance of merits and the accumulation of wisdom wafts forth” botches the syntax of the compound puṇyajñānasaṁbhāravisr̥ tasurabhigand- hinaḥ: we must understand puṇyasya ca jñānasya ca saṁbhāra~, that is, a dvandva of merit and knowledge, and the accumulations of these two. I am well aware that at the time the contribution was published its author was a grad- uate student, and thus I do not refer here to He’s 2012 unpublished PhD thesis (though the passage here is presented identically in the thesis). What is more concerning is what the quality of the translation says about the care exercised by the editors of the volume in which it appeared, Yigal Bronner, Whitney Cox, and Lawrence McCrea (see below), none of whom, quite evidently, took the basic step of checking a graduate student’s translation against the text printed right alongside it. 25 For some of the points which follow, one might consult Hokazono’s notes 1994: 719–720. 26 Regarding the following word, although not directly relevant to He’s treatment of the pas- sage, we may note that for °daśadigapratihatagandhino, de Jong 1998: 49 seems to suggest reading daśadigapratihatavāggandhino, or perhaps he is simply indicating his impression that this is what was read by the Tibetan translators? Indo-Iranian Journal 65 (2022) 267–301 review articles 281 hundred-petaled lotus flower.27 I cite these examples only to show, first, the superiority of Hokazono’s text, and second the need to take into account all evidence, including that of the Tibetan translation, as appropriate. Hokazono, while he might have been willing to emend conjecturally and contextually, in all instances here relied on the information offered by the Tibetan translation, with the result at the very least of a Sanskrit text which conforms more closely to the evident Vorlage of the Tibetan translators. Now, certainly not every passage in Lefmann’s edition is defective. But the superiority of Hokazono’s edition is manifest. What, then, is the way forward with Hokazono’s text? This question is motivated by the issues mentioned above, in the first place, that of access, both in terms of physical access but also given that the three volumes have a list price—without shipping costs—now equivalent to more than €500. Second, while the textual apparatus is written in English, many valuable remarks accompany the translation, and these are in Japanese. The first thing we would like to see, then, is an edition published in a fashion that would make it more accessible to scholars outside Japan. From another aspect, as mentioned above, I believe that this text, like all such texts, should be numbered analytically, as are Bibles, to make cross-references trans- parent. As it is, in fact, not only are there no line numbers in the edition itself (something remarked already by de Jong in response to the first volume), mak- ing it laborious to provide exact references, but even Hokazono’s own Japanese translations are not linked to his edition. This absence sometimes, in longer chapters with dense content, makes it nearly impossible to find the location in his translation of a particular part of the text without simply starting reading at the beginning of the chapter. But of course for most non-Japanese scholars, it will be the Sanskrit text and not the Japanese translation that will be of inter- est. I would hope, therefore, that Prof. Hokazono will find a way to publish in a 27 Harunaga Isaacson, to whom I am in debt for several suggestions elsewhere as well, men- tions a Mahāvastu parallel for the compound viśuddhaśatapatrapadmanayanasya, in an Āryā verse (Senart 1882–1897: i.201.2; ii.4.18, and Marciniak 2020: 6.1). When I was wonder- ing if the entire compound could be meant to compare the Bodhisattva’s eye to a open, pure and hundred-petaled flower, while expressing his doubt, Péter-Dániel Szántó sug- gested that perhaps the iris is meant. Isaacson opined that there is no need to let the śata- patra here correspond to the iris or anything particular in the Bodhisattva’s eye. Assuming, Isaacson says, “the Lalitavistara to be borrowing an older formulation (the Mahāvastu verse may be older, though that is not certain), viśuddhaśatapatrapadmanayanasya has the advantage over simply viśuddhapadmanayanasya not only of fitting nicely into the second quarter of an Āryā or Āryāgīti (u - u | u u - | u - u | u u - |–) but also of a very pleasing sound-effect: the śa of śata- chimes with śuddha, and the pa(t) of -patra chimes with padma.” Such keen observations emphasize how much scope there is for further text critical and indeed poetic investigation of the text. Indo-Iranian Journal 65 (2022) 267–301 282 review articles single volume his critical edition, with its textual notes, in a manner that would allow it the wide dissemination it so richly deserves. This edition should con- tain the text he has established, perhaps even taking account of suggestions made, for instance, by de Jong in his comments on the first volume, and with the addition of a good numbering system. With it, critical studies of the Lali- tavistara will be able to move forward even more dynamically. Now, Hokazono’s work, while beyond doubt the most significant and valu- able, is not the only interesting contribution in recent years. For one hint at the broader state of the field, we may consider a small but interesting introduction. The short book (or even booklet) of Guillaume Ducoeur is an entirely different work from that of Hokazono, though one unfortunately likewise, though for different reasons, likely to remain below the radar of most of those to whom it could potentially be of interest.28 However, it is based on a good familiarity with the relevant literature (although here and there somewhat out of date, and not always as critical as it might have been), makes use not only of Hokazono’s 1994 edition but also of subsequently published materials, including a num- ber of papers in Japanese by Okano Kiyoshi, and presents a number of ideas of interest even to specialists, despite the fact that the book was evidently not written for them. Ducoeur very helpfully in fact tells us for whom he intends his book (p. 9): “Nous espérons que ce petit ouvrage permetta aux enseignants, aux étudiants et à tout lecteur curieux de la doctrine bouddhique de mieux saisir les difficultés que pose un tel texte à l’historien.” In light of his global aim, a sum- mary even of this slim volume would effectively therefore also tend to become a sort of introduction to the text and context of the Lalitavistara, which is not appropriate here. We may nevertheless pay attention to some of the suggestive ideas presented. Some idea of the book may be gained from its chapter-wise structure: i. Contextualisation historique. L’empire Kuṣāṇa et l’ essor du Mahā- yāna. ii. L’auteur et son oeuvre. Le Bodhisattvayāna et ses prêcheurs de la doctrine iii. Le genre et la Structure. Du héros épique à l’ allégorie de la doctrine 28 Couture 2018 is an appreciation of Ducoeur, with a number of valuable suggestions about intertextuality as well. Though I fear that the publication of Ducoeur’s book in French by a regional university press will conspire to hide it from many who might otherwise profit from it, I, based in the Netherlands, was easily able to buy a copy, and it is happily inexpen- sive to boot. On the other hand, it is not a physically robust volume, and will not tolerate much handling. Indo-Iranian Journal 65 (2022) 267–301 review articles 283 iv. Les sources et les thèmes. Courants dévotionnels et figure du bod- hisattva Les sources littéraires et mythologiques Les thèmes v. La poétique. Sotériologie bouddhique et métaphores La poétique de la guérison La poétique de la traversée vi. La langue. Gāndhārī ou Sanskrit ? vii. La réception et la postérité. De Borobudur à Little Buddha Perhaps most interesting in Ducoeur’s fourth chapter are the sections on bhā- gavatism and the Mahābhārata. Ducoeur sees a devotional bhakti attitude in the text (pp. 78–83), going on to posit a close connection also with the epic. He says (pp. 84–85), “le Lalitavistara suit un mode d’ expression épique qui correspond au développement des grandes compositions brāhmaniques post-aśokéenes et antibouddhique, à savoir Mahābhārata et Rāmāyaṇa. … le relecteur du Lalitavistara [this seems to refer to a putative fifth century redactor–jas] connaisait au moins le chapitre sur ‘les origines [divines des héros]’ (saṁbhava) du livre (Ādi parvan) du Mahābhārata … et livra son senti- ment sur cette extrapolation théologique.” While I am not sure how much con- fidence should be placed in Ducoeur’s quest for parallelisms in the hagiogra- phies of the Bodhisattva and Kr̥ṣṇa, the latter as seen in the Harivaṁśa and Bhāgavatapurāṇa (e.g. p. 103), and for me his reference to the speculations of Senart (who, like Kern, was sometimes prone to wild speculations, for instance about solar worship and the like) is not necessarily a recommendation, the notion that we might read the text more broadly as an example of Indian lit- erature is something that has been absent from most approaches to Indian Buddhist literature in recent memory. Put another way, the suggestion that we treat Indian Buddhist literature both as Indian and as literature should cer- tainly be taken seriously! This said, Ducoeur’s extremely short fifth chapter, “La poétique,” in fact con- tains nothing about the poetics of the text. Regarding the language of the text, we can probably agree with the author’s conclusions, namely (pp. 121–122), “Dans l’état actuel du texte sanskrit, rien n’invite à suppose qu’ il fut originelle- ment écrit en gāndhārī puis par la suite sanskritisé. Il faut certainment plutôt voir dans ce sūtra mahāyānique une oeuvre sanskrite dans laquelle le rédac- teur, puis plus tard le relecteur, ont introduit des parties versifiées en prākrit déjà plus ou moins sanskritisées, ou en les sanskritisant chacun à son tour.” While the book is a quite good one, and much to be recommended, there do remain points which one might want to query, though these queries can Indo-Iranian Journal 65 (2022) 267–301 284 review articles themselves be profitable. Ducoeur’s remarks (p. 48) regarding ideas that the Lalitavistara was originally composed in verse and a subsequent redactor (in the fifth century) added prose are out of date, though the fact remains that we know very little about the process of composition of such scriptures. Be that as it may, the verses are a very important element of the text. As Ducoeur says, all chapters contain verses, and he offers a total of 1541 for the work as a whole; my count based on Hokazono’s edition is 1515. I am not sure of the reason for this discrepancy, though perhaps some verses have been divided and numbered dif- ferently, but be that as it may, by either count the total is a not inconsiderable number to be sure. Following the identifications of Hokazono, one may enu- merate the variety of metres found in the Sanskrit text:29 atijagatī? nārāca rucirā atyaṣṭi pañcacāmara vaṁśapattrapatita anuṣṭubh puṣpitāgrā vaṁśasthā āryā pramitākṣarā vaṁśamālā āryāgīti praharṣiṇī vasantatilakā upajāti bhujaṅgaprayāta vegavatī aupacchandasika bhujaṅgavijr̥mbhita vaitālīya candravartman bhramaravilasita śaśikalā toṭaka mahāmālikā śārdūlavikrīḍita triṣṭubh mātrāsmaka? śālinī daṇḍaka mālinī skandhaka dodhaka modaka? drutavilambita? rathoddhatā Another example of an illustrative difficulty comes with the citation and trans- lation (p. 25) of a sentence for which, given that Hokazono’s edition was not yet available for chapter 27, Ducoeur made use of the text published by Vaidya (why he did not refer to Lefmann is left unstated30). The passage is cited by Ducoeur as follows: 29 There are in addition a number of verses in unidentified metres: Chpt. 15 vss 31–33; Chpt. 21 vss 100–109, 131, 139–162 (called “gāthā gadyagati; prosaic verse”); Chpt. 22 vss 6–25, Chpt. 26 vss 19–26. This last noted may be paripoṣakam, six repetitions of laghu-laghu-guru syl- lables (that is, six sa-gaṇas, as Hokazono recognized). This seems to be a quite rare metre, if indeed it is anything other than wholly theoretical. (Harunaga Isaacson writes to me: “I’m inclined to think that we should consider this as a mātrāvr̥tta, with a Middle-Indic flavour.”) Finally, Hokazono’s note to Chpt. 21 vss 90–99 says: “Mixture of more than two rhythms: toṭaka, mālinī, moṭaka, citragati, sumukhī, aṅgaruci, aśvagati etc.” 30 In fact the reading in Lefmann 1902: 438.19–439.1 is the same. Indo-Iranian Journal 65 (2022) 267–301 review articles 285 ayaṁ sa mārṣā lalitavistaro nāma dharmaparyāyasūtrānto mahāvai- pulyabodhisattvavikrīḍitaḥ buddhaviṣaye lalitapraveśa31 ātmopanāyika tathāgatena bhāṣitaḥ This Ducoeur translates: Ô honorables, cet achèvement des sūtra exposant la doctrine, nommé Développement des jeux, qui [relate] les jeux du Bodhisattva avec force détails, qui est l’entrée des jeux dans le domaine de buddha, qui est un guide pour soi-même [vers l’éveil], a été raconté par le Tathāgata. It does not require access to a better edition to realize that something is wrong here,32 and it is slightly surprising that the author did not simply make the obvi- ous correction, one in fact found in Hokazono’s edition (468.7), namely to read mahāvaipulyaḥ. The term is a common adjunct to sūtra, or as here sūtrānta. If nothing else, this serves again as a small example of the superiority of Hoka- zono’s new edition. I have referred a moment ago to the poetics of the Lalitavistara, and given a list of its metres, without entering into what is surely the required discus- sion of the literary qualities of the text. In this light a word might be added about a contribution by Xi He, already referred to above. Although she devoted her 2012 PhD thesis to the text (He 2012), the only published result so far appears to be the abovementioned paper, on varṇaka (He 2011).33 I mention this primarily to illustrate an unfortunate lack of accurate knowledge about the Lalitavistara among some otherwise well informed Indologists. For, in a review of the book in which He’s paper appeared,34 Fredrick M. Smith (2012: 1172) characterized her paper saying “This study represents a departure in the study of this important text, which has so far been studied only because of 31 Hokazono 2019b: 468.7–8 reads buddhaviṣayalalitavistarapraveśaḥ. 32 And not only the translation “cet achèvement des sūtra,” which on p. 32 is “fin des sūtra.” 33 A note on the university webpage of the author (https://history.appstate.edu/faculty‑staff/​ xi‑he) states “Dr. He is currently working on two books. Entitled In Praise of the Buddha: Literary Design and Religious Emotions in the Lalitavistara, the first focuses on the Lali- tavistara, an early biography of the Buddha, and explores how emotions such as joy and gratitude have shaped Buddhist history prefiguring and transforming people through lit- erary and emotional forces.” I presume that this refers to a revision of her PhD thesis. 34 A book reviewed by Slaje 2014. As far as He’s contribution is concerned, Slaje’s reaction is fully justified: He praises Pollock for insights that are in fact basically commonsensical. He’s suggestion that Pollock has “supplied a completely new methodology for checking the ‘pulse’ of the texts and the tradition” is hardly defensible. Indo-Iranian Journal 65 (2022) 267–301 286 review articles its religious content.” Although the sentiment is understandable, it is, in fact, not accurate. Amongst other things, a considerable amount of attention was devoted to the language of the Lalitavistara especially in the first periods of modern Buddhist Studies. Already in 1876 Eduard Müller (later Müller-Hess) (14 April 1853–9 July 1923) published the thesis he had written under Ernst Kuhn (7 February 1846–21 August 1920), “Der Dialekt der Gâthâs des Lalita-Vistara.”35 Perhaps slightly better known is Friedrich Weller’s (22 July 1889–19 November 1980) short Zum Lalita Vistara. Über die Prosa des Lalitavistara,36 his thesis in Leipzig under August Conrady (28 April 1864–4 June 1925). Thus, although it is true that the majority of attention has come from those interested in its presen- tation of the life story of the Buddha, and consequently “its religious content,” from early on the Lalitavistara has also been the object of philological and lin- guistic attention.37 It is however correct—and this I suspect was rather Smith’s point—that the text has not always been appreciated for its literary qualities. Arthur Berriedale Keith (5 April 1879–6 October 1944), whose judgements could at times be harsh, went so far as to write (Keith 1928: 58), “the Lalitavistara is written in the main in Sanskrit prose of the plain type, intermingled with bal- lads of the so-called Gāthā-style; at best it is confused, at worst incoherent.” Without reference to any such judgement, He essayed to argue for the poetic qualities of the text. While we may be willing to grant that portions even of the prose of the Lalitavistara are poetic by classical Indian standards,38 and we 35 It appeared in Beiträge zur vergleichenden Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der arischen, celtischen und slawischen Sprachen 8.3 (1876): 257–292, but had been separately issued earlier as his disseration (Weimar: Hof-Buchdruckerei, 1874), with wholly identical type- setting. 36 Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1915. 37 At the same time, we should not forget—and the scholars whose works are considered here do not forget—that art historians have also paid close attention to the text, primarily in the context of its illustrations on Barabaḍur. Probably the best known publication is a book of Nicolaas Johannes Krom (5 September 1883–8 March, 1945) on the life story of the Buddha (Krom 1926). The text is now available with illustrations online at https://www​ .photodharma.net/Indonesia/05‑Lalitavistara‑Krom/Lalitavistara‑Storyboard‑1‑Concepti on.htm. As evidence of interesting new work from different perspectives, see Ashari et al. 2021, and Metusala et al. 2020. The influence of the text on Tibetan visual art can be seen for instance in Kalantari and Allinger 2020. On the other hand, Revire 2019 seems unclear about whether the Lalitavistara itself shows its influence in Angkor and (p. 81) clearly states “It is doubtful … that the Lalitavistara was present at Pagan, thus inspiring directly the artistic production of the birth. A more nuanced correlation between texts and images should be sought.” 38 Yet, in a volume of almost 800 pages devoted to kāvya, which shares one of its editors with the volume in which He’s paper was published (Bronner, Shulman and Tubb 2014), the Lal- itavistara is barely mentioned. In Bronner’s own contribution (Bronner 2014) he says only Indo-Iranian Journal 65 (2022) 267–301 review articles 287 have above noted the metres employed in the text, many of which are certainly poetic and typical of kāvya, to work toward a better appreciation of those poetic qualities, the sine qua non is a well-established text, consideration of all sources (such as the Tibetan translation, and perhaps also the Chinese translations, not mentioned here), fundamental philological rigor, and poetic sensibilities. The Lalitavistara deserves precisely this sort of attention. It cries out for a reading at the same time philologically accurate and poetically sensitive. The existence of Hokazono’s now complete edition provides for the first time the basic mate- rials to make this now more possible than ever before. But it is a beginning as much as it as ending. It is more than praiseworthy that Prof. Hokazono, working alone, as he tells us, was able to bring his edition to completion, and his pub- lications are a suitable ending for his solo effort. To go further, however, will almost certainly require a good team of specialists, with broad knowledge of the relevant philologies (Sanskrit, Middle Indic, Tibetan, Chinese), doctrines, poetics and so on. Let us hope that we need not wait as long as we waited for a reliable edition—from Lefmann’s 1902 publication, until 2019, more than a century!—for a good, comprehensive, reliable translation that puts the text in its proper contexts, and appreciates its literary qualities. (237n1), “The poetic nature of the prose in the anonymous Buddhist work the Lalitavistara, potentially a crucial link in the evolution of belletristic prose in Sanskrit, is one of the top- ics of He 2012.” Elsewhere in the volume the work is mentioned in the editors’ comment (234) regarding prose poetry, namely that Subandhu’s “predecessors included Buddhist texts such as the Lalitavistara and the elegantly crafted Jātakamālā of Āryaśūra, along with the ornate prose of the inscriptions,” and otherwise only in the context of Indonesia and the influence of the Lalitavistara on the Old Javanese Rāmāyaṇa (Hunter 2014). Such remarks show that despite such aspirational claims for the importance of the text, what- ever its true influences on and place within traditions of Sanskrit poetics may have been, they remain to be carefully evaluated. Despite its poetic qualities, the urge to “irrational exuberance” should be tempered to some extent. At least some of the Lalitavistara’s verses were not judged as good verse by Michael Hahn, a reader very experienced in Sanskrit poetry in general and Buddhist kāvya in particular, as can be seen from the evaluation in Hahn 2010 of the portion drawn from the Lalitavistara and appended to the Śākyasiṁhajātaka. Indo-Iranian Journal 65 (2022) 267–301 288 review articles Appendix The following are tables of the section numbers in the 84000 translation of the Tibetan version of the Lalitavistara with the corresponding pages numbers in the editions of Hokazono and Lefmann indicated by, respectively, H and L. Each table has the chapter number indicated in roman numerals. Note that Hokazono’s text is split over three volumes, containing chapters 1–14, 15–21, and 22–27. 51 322 29 i H L iii H L 52–57 324 29 1–2 268 1 1–2 296 13 3 268 2 3 296 14 4 270 2 4 298 14 iv H L 5–6 270 3 5–6 298 15 7–9 272 3 7 300 15 1 326 29 10–12 272 4 8–9 300 16 2–5 326 30 13–15 274 4 10–11 302 17 6–11 328 31 16 276 5 12 302 18 12–17 330 32 17–19 276 6 13–15 304 18 18 330 33 20 278 6 16 304 19 19–24 332 33 21–26 278 7 17–19 306 19 25 332 34 27–29 280 7 20–21 306 20 26–28 334 34 22 308 20 29 334 35 23–25 308 21 30–34 336 35 26 310 21 35–36 336 36 ii H L 27 310 22 37–40 338 36 28 310 22 41 338 37 1 282 7 29 310 23 42–47 340 37 2–5 282 8 30 312 23 48–51 342 37 6–10 284 9 31 314 24 52–53 342 38 11–13 286 10 32 314 25 54–57 344 38 14–16 288 11 33 316 25 17–21 290 11 34–36 316 26 22 290 12 37 318 27 23–28 292 12 38–39 320 27 29–32 294 12 40–44 320 28 33–35 294 13 45–50 322 28 Indo-Iranian Journal 65 (2022) 267–301 review articles 289 v H L vi H L vii H L 1–2 346 38 1–2 386 54 1 428 76 3–4 346 39 3–6 386 55 2–3 428 77 5 348 39 7–8 388 55 4–6 430 78 6–7 350 40 9–11 388 56 7–9 432 78 8–9 350 41 12 390 56 10–12 432 79 10 352 41 13–17 390 57 13–14 434 79 11–16 352 42 18 392 57 15–18 434 80 17–21 354 43 19–24 392 58 19 436 80 22 354 44 25 394 58 20–23 436 81 23–25 356 44 26–30 394 59 24–25 438 81 26–27 356 45 31 396 59 26 438 82 28–33 358 45 32–35 396 60 27–28 440 83 34–36 360 45 36–37 398 61 29 442 83 37–39 360 46 38–39 400 62 30–31 442 84 40–45 362 46 40–42 402 63 32–33 444 85 46 364 46 43–44 404 64 34 446 85 47–50 364 47 45–46 406 65 35–36 446 86 51–52 366 47 47–49 408 66 37 448 86 53–56 366 48 50–52 410 67 38–39 448 87 57–58 368 48 53 412 68 40 450 87 59–62 368 49 54 414 69 41–43 450 88 63–67 370 49 55 414 70 44–46 452 89 68 370 50 56 416 70 47–48 454 90 69–74 372 50 57 416 71 48–51 456 91 75 374 50 58 418 71 52–56 458 92 76 374 51 59–60 418 72 57–63 460 93 77 376 52 61–63 420 73 64 462 93 78 378 52 64 422 73 65–67 462 94 79–83 378 53 65–68 422 74 68–69 464 94 84–89 380 53 69 424 74 70–72 464 95 90–95 382 54 70–74 424 75 73–74 466 96 96–98 384 54 75 426 75 75–82 468 97 76–77 426 76 83 470 97 84–86 470 98 87–88 472 99 89 474 100 90 476 100 Indo-Iranian Journal 65 (2022) 267–301 290 review articles (cont.) 32–33 546 135 ix H L 34–36 548 135 vii H L 37–39 548 136 1–3 516 121 91 476 101 4–6 518 122 92–93 478 102 7 520 122 94–95 480 103 8–11 520 123 xii H L 96–97 482 104 98–99 484 105 1 550 136 100–101 486 106 2 550 137 102 488 106 x H L 3–6 552 137 103–104 488 107 7–8 552 138 105–108 490 108 1 522 123 9–11 554 138 109–114 492 109 2 522 124 12–14 554 139 115–119 494 110 3–4 524 124 15–16 556 139 120 494 111 5–7 524 125 17–18 556 140 121–125 496 111 8–9 526 125 19–20 558 140 126 496 112 10* 528 126 21 558 141 127 498 112 11 528 127 22 560 141 128 498 113 12–16 530 127 23–24 560 142 129–130 500 113 17–18 530 128 25 562 142 131–133 500 114 19–20 532 128 26 562 143 134–136 502 114 27–28 564 144 137–139 502 115 29–31 566 145 140–141 504 115 32–34 568 146 142–145 504 116 xi H L 35 570 146 146–147 506 116 36–38 570 147 148–150 506 117 1 534 128 39 572 147 2–3 534 129 40 574 148 4 536 129 41–42 576 149 5–6 536 130 43 578 150 viii H L 7–8 538 130 44 580 150 9–12 538 131 45–46 580 151 1 508 117 13–15 540 131 47–49 582 151 2–3 508 118 16–18 540 132 50–51 582 152 4 510 118 19–20 542 132 52–54 584 152 5–7 510 119 21 542 133 55 584 153 8 512 119 22–25 544 133 56–58 586 153 9 512 120 26–27 544 134 59–60 586 154 10–12 514 120 28–31 546 134 61 588 154 Indo-Iranian Journal 65 (2022) 267–301 review articles 291 (cont.) 64–68 626 171 4–5 672 186 69 628 171 6–7 672 187 xii H L 70–73 628 172 8 674 187 74 630 172 9 674 188 62 588 155 75–78 630 173 10–12 676 188 63 590 155 79–83 632 173 13–14 676 189 64–65 590 156 84–85 632 174 15–16 678 189 66 592 157 86–91 634 174 17–18 678 190 67–70 594 157 92–94 636 174 19–20 680 190 71–72 594 158 95–98 636 175 21–22 680 191 73–76 596 158 99–104 638 175 23–24 682 191 77–78 596 159 105 640 175 25–26 682 192 79–81 598 159 106–110 640 176 27 684 192 111–116 642 176 28–29 684 193 117–122 644 177 30–32 686 193 123–127 646 177 33–34 686 194 xiii H L 128 646 178 35–37 688 194 129–134 648 178 38 688 195 1 600 159 135–138 650 178 39–44 690 195 2–3 600 160 139–140 650 179 45–46 692 195 4 602 160 141–144 652 179 47–50 692 196 5–6 602 161 145–150 654 180 51–54 694 196 7–9 604 161 151–153 656 181 55 694 197 10–12 604 162 154 658 181 56–60 696 197 13–16 606 162 155–160 658 182 17–20 608 163 161–162 660 182 21 608 164 163–166 660 183 22–27 610 164 167–171 662 183 xv H L 28–30 612 164 172 662 184 (vol. 2) 31–33 612 165 173–179 664 184 34–36 614 165 180–182 666 184 1–4 40 198 37–39 614 166 183–185 666 185 5–9 42 199 40–41 616 166 186–191 668 185 10–12 44 200 42–44 616 167 13–14 46 201 45–47 618 167 15–18 48 201 48–49 618 168 19–20 48 202 50–52 620 168 xiv H L 21–24 50 202 53 620 169 25–27 52 203 54–58 622 169 1 670 185 28 54 203 59–63 624 170 2–3 670 186 29–31 56 204 Indo-Iranian Journal 65 (2022) 267–301 292 review articles (cont.) 118–120 102 220 121–123 104 220 xvi H L xv H L 124–126 106 221 (vol. 2) 127–128 108 221 1 158 237 129 108 222 2–3 158 238 32 56 205 130–131 110 222 4 160 238 33–35 58 205 132–136 112 222 5 160 239 36 58 206 137–138 114 223 6 162 239 37–40 60 206 139–143 116 223 7–8 162 240 41 62 206 144–148 118 224 9–13 164 240 42–44 62 207 149–151 120 225 14 164 241 45–46 64 207 152 122 225 15–19 166 241 47 64 208 153–154 122 226 20–24 168 241 48–50 66 208 155–156 124 227 25 168 242 51 66 209 157 126 227 26–30 170 242 52–53 70 209 158 126 228 31–34 172 242 54 70 210 159–160 128 229 35 172 243 55–59 72 210 161–162 130 229 36–40 174 243 60 74 210 163 130 230 61–64 74 211 164–167 132 230 65–66 76 211 168 132 231 67–68 76 212 169–173 134 231 xvii H L 69–71 78 212 174–178 136 232 72–75 80 213 179–183 138 233 1–2 176 243 76 82 213 184 140 233 3–4 178 244 77–80 82 214 185–186 140 234 5 180 245 81–84 84 214 187–191 142 234 6 182 245 85–90 86 215 192 144 234 7 182 246 91 88 215 193–196 144 235 8 184 246 92–95 88 216 197–201 146 235 9–10 186 247 96–97 90 216 202–203 148 235 11–12 188 248 98 90 217 204–206 148 236 13–14 190 248 99–102 92 217 207–211 150 236 15–17 192 249 103 94 217 212–214 152 236 18–19 194 249 104–106 94 218 215–216 152 237 20 194 250 107 96 218 217–221 154 237 21–22 196 250 108 96 219 222–223 156 237 23 198 250 109–112 98 219 24 198 251 113–116 100 219 25–26 200 251 117 100 220 27–29 202 252 Indo-Iranian Journal 65 (2022) 267–301 review articles 293 (cont.) 38 246 268 76–78 294 287 39–41 248 270 79 294 288 xvii H L 42 250 270 80–81 296 288 43–45 250 271 82–84 298 289 30 204 252 46–48 252 271 85–86 300 289 31–34 204 253 49–50 252 272 35 206 253 36 206 254 37 208 254 xx H L 38–39 210 255 xix H L 40–41 212 255 1–3 302 290 42–43 214 256 1–3 254 272 4–5 304 291 44 214 257 4–6 256 273 6–7 306 291 45–47 216 257 7 258 274 8 306 292 48 218 257 8–9 260 274 9–11 308 292 49–55 218 258 10 260 275 12–13 310 293 56–59 220 258 11–13 262 275 14–17 312 293 60–64 220 259 14–18 264 276 18–19 314 294 65–70 222 259 19–20 266 277 20–21 316 295 71–72 222 260 21 268 277 22 318 295 73–78 224 260 22–23 268 278 23–24 318 296 24 270 278 25–27 320 296 25–29 272 279 28–29 320 297 30–39 274 280 30–33 322 297 xviii H L 40 276 280 34 322 298 41–44 276 281 35–38 324 298 1 226 260 45–47 278 281 39 324 299 2–7 226 261 48 278 282 40–42 326 299 8–11 228 261 49–52 280 282 12–16 228 262 53 282 282 17–22 230 262 54–56 282 283 23–24 230 263 57–58 284 283 xxi H L 25 232 263 59–61 284 284 26–27 234 264 62 286 284 1 328 299 28–29 236 265 63–65 286 285 2 328 300 30–31 238 266 66–67 288 285 3–5 330 300 32 240 267 68 288 286 6 330 301 33–34 242 267 69–70 290 286 7 332 301 35 242 268 71 290 287 8–9 336 302 36–37 244 268 72–75 292 287 10–11 336 303 Indo-Iranian Journal 65 (2022) 267–301 294 review articles (cont.) 106 380 316 193 424 333 107 380 317 194–197 424 334 xxi H L 108–109 382 317 198 426 334 110 382 318 199–201 426 335 12–14 338 303 111–113 384 318 202 428 335 15 338 304 114 386 318 203–205 428 336 16–18 340 304 115 386 319 206–207 430 336 19–21 342 305 116–118 388 319 208–209 430 337 22 344 305 119–120 388 320 210–211 432 337 23–24 344 306 121–123 392 321 212 434 337 25 346 306 124–127 394 322 213–216 434 338 26–29 348 307 128–129 396 322 217 436 338 30 350 308 130–131 396 323 218–220 436 339 31–36 —39 — 132–134 398 323 221–222 438 339 37–38 350 308 135 398 324 223–225 438 340 39–43 352 308 136–139 400 324 226–228 440 340 44 354 308 140 400 325 229–230 440 341 45–46 354 309 141–144 402 325 231–233 442 341 47–49 356 309 145 404 325 234–235 442 342 50 356 310 146–149 404 326 236–239 444 342 51–53 358 310 150 406 326 240–242 446 342 54–56 360 310 151–153 406 327 57–61 360 311 154 408 327 62–64 362 311 155–157 408 328 65–67 364 312 158–159 410 328 xxii H L 68–69 366 312 160–161 410 329 (vol. 3) 70–71 366 313 162–164 412 329 72–74 368 313 165–166 412 330 1–2 208 343 75–77 370 313 167–169 414 330 3 208 344 78 370 314 170 414 331 4–5 210 344 79–82 372 314 171–174 416 331 6–7 210 345 83–85 374 314 175 418 331 8–9 212 345 86–87 374 315 176–181 418 332 10–15 214 346 88–95 376 315 182–184 420 332 16 216 346 96 376 316 185–186 420 333 17–21 216 347 97–105 378 316 187–192 422 333 22 218 347 39 This omission, noticed by the 84000 translators in their note 7 (of a grand total of 15 notes for the entire translation) is noted by Hokazono 2019a: 351n**, with reference to Hokazono 2018. See also the earlier Yamagishi 1985. Indo-Iranian Journal 65 (2022) 267–301 review articles 295 (cont.) 33–35 256 362 76 298 377 36–37 258 362 77 300 377 xxii H L 38–39 258 363 78–79 300 378 (vol. 3) 40–41 260 363 80–84 302 378 42 260 363 85–89 304 378 23–25 218 348 43 260 364 90–91 306 380 26 220 348 44–45 262 364 92–94 308 380 27–28 220 349 46–49 264 364 95–96 310 381 29–31 222 349 50 264 365 97–98 312 382 32–33 224 350 51–54 266 365 99 314 383 34 226 350 55 268 365 100–103 316 383 35–36 226 351 56–57 268 366 104–105 318 384 37–38 228 352 58–61 270 366 106–107 320 384 39–40 230 352 62 272 366 108 320 385 41–42 230 353 63–64 272 367 109–111 322 385 43–45 232 353 65–69 274 367 112–115 324 385 46–47 232 354 70–72 276 368 116 324 386 48–56 234 354 73–74 278 368 117–120 326 386 57–64 236 355 75–76 278 369 121–122 328 386 65 238 355 123–125 328 387 66–69 238 355 126–131 330 387 70–71 240 355 132 330 388 72–73 240 357 xxiv H L 133–141 332 388 74–75 242 357 142–150 334 389 1–2 280 369 151 336 389 3 280 370 152–159 336 390 4–8 282 370 160–161 338 390 xxiii H L 9 284 370 162–167 338 391 10–16 284 371 168–171 340 391 1 244 357 17–20 286 371 172–173 340 392 2–8 244 358 21–25 286 372 174 342 392 9–12 246 358 26–31 288 372 13–14 246 359 32–34 288 373 15–18 248 359 35–42 290 373 19–20 250 359 43–44 290 374 xxv H L 21–23 250 360 45–53 292 374 24–26 252 360 54–61 294 375 1–2 344 392 27 254 360 62–64 296 375 3 344 393 28–30 254 361 65–70 296 376 4–7 346 393 31–32 256 361 71–75 298 376 8–11 348 393 Indo-Iranian Journal 65 (2022) 267–301 296 review articles (cont.) 23 392 409 145–152 444 429 24–26 394 409 153 446 429 xxv H L 27–28 396 410 154–158 446 430 29 398 410 159–162 448 430 12–14 350 394 30 398 411 164–164 448 431 15–16 352 394 31 400 411 165–168 450 431 17–19 352 395 32–36 400 412 169–170 450 432 20–23 354 395 37–42 402 412 171–173 452 432 24–25 356 396 43 402 413 174–184 454 433 26–27 358 397 44–45 404 413 185–186 456 433 28–31 360 397 46–47 406 414 187–191 456 434 32 360 398 48 408 414 192–202 458 434 33–35 362 398 49–50 408 415 203–208 458 435 36 364 398 51–53 410 415 209–213 460 435 37–40 364 399 54–58 412 416 214–215 460 436 41–45 366 399 59 414 416 216–222 462 436 46–47 368 399 60–65 414 417 223–232 464 437 48 368 400 66–68 416 417 233 466 437 49 370 400 69–76 416 418 234–240 466 438 50 370 401 77–78 418 418 51–54 372 401 79–80 418 419 55–57 374 402 81–84 420 419 58 376 402 85 420 420 xxvii H L 86–89 422 420 90–97 424 421 1–2 468 438 98 426 421 3–4 468 439 xxvi H L 99–102 426 422 5 470 439 103–105 428 422 6 470 440 1 378 402 106–108 428 423 7 472 440 2–5 378 403 109–113 430 423 8–9 474 441 6 380 403 114 430 424 10–11 476 442 7 380 404 115–120 432 424 12 478 442 8 382 404 121–123 434 425 13–14 478 443 9–10 382 405 124–125 436 425 15–18 480 443 11–12 384 405 126–131 436 426 19 482 443 13–18 386 406 132–133 438 426 20–23 482 444 19 388 407 134–136 438 427 24–27 484 444 20 390 407 137–138 440 427 21 390 408 139 440 428 22 392 408 140–144 442 428 Indo-Iranian Journal 65 (2022) 267–301 review articles 297 References Ashari, Hidayat, Rusdianto Rusdianto and Ibnu Maryanto, 2021. “Birds Iconography in the Lalitavistara Relief of Borobudur Temple: A Study from Biological and Cultural Perspective.” Tropical Natural History 21.3: 380–409. Bays, Gwendolyn. 1983. The Voice of the Buddha: The Beauty of Compassion. Tibetan Translation Series 9 (Berkeley: Dharma Publishing). Blumhardt, J[ames] Fuller. 1899. Catalogue of the Hindi, Panjabi And Hindustani Manu- scripts in the Library of the British Museum (London: British Museum). Bronner, Yigal. 2014. “The Nail-Mark That Lit the Bedroom: Biography of a Compound.” In Yigal Bronner, David Shulman, and Gray Tubb, eds., 2014. Innovations and Turning Points: Toward a History of Kāvya Literature (New Delhi: Oxford University Press): 237–262. Bronner, Yigal, David Shulman, and Gray Tubb, eds., 2014. Innovations and Turning Points: Toward a History of Kāvya Literature (New Delhi: Oxford University Press). Brough, John. 1948. “Nepalese Buddhist Rituals.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 12.3–4: 668–676. Burnouf, Eugène. 1844. Introduction à l’Histoire du Buddhisme Indien (Paris: Imprimerie Royal). Cabaton, Antoine. 1907. Catalogue Sommaire des Manuscrits Sanscrits et Pālis. 1er fas- cicule: Manuscrits Sanscrits (Paris: Ernest Leroux). Colebrooke, H[enry] T[homas]. 1837. Miscellaneous Essays. Vol. i (London: Wm. H. Allen and Co.). Colebrooke, H[enry] T[homas]. 1873. Miscellaneous Essays. A New Edition, with Notes by E[dward] B[yles] Cowell. Vol. ii (London: Trübner & Co.). Committee of Publication. 1828. Memoir of the Rev. William Ward, one of the Seram- pore Missionaries. American Sunday School series, 5th series, no. 159 (Philadelphia: American Sunday School Union). Couture, André. 2018. “Une brève étude d’une biographie du Buddha, le Lalitavistara sūtra.” Laval théologique et philosophique 74.2: 267–276. Csoma de Kőrös [Csomo Körösi], Alexander. 1839. “Notices on the Life of Shakya, extracted from the Tibetan Authorities.” Asiatick Researches 20.2: 285–317. Dharmachakra Translation Committee 2013. The Play in Full. version (4.48.3, 2021). https://read.84000.co/translation/toh95.html. De Simini, Florinda and Mirnig, Nina. 2017. “Umā and Śiva’s Playful Talks in Detail (Lal- itavistara): On the Production of Śaiva Works and their Manuscripts in Medieval Nepal: Studies on the Śivadharma and the Mahābhārata 1.” In Vincenzo Vergiani, Daniele Cuneo and Camillo Alessio Formigatti, eds., Indic Manuscript Cultures through the Ages: Material, Textual, and Historical Investigations (Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter): 587–654. Indo-Iranian Journal 65 (2022) 267–301 298 review articles Foucaux, Phillipe Édouard. 1847. Rgya Tch’er Rol Pa ou Développement des Jeux, Con- tenant l’Histoire du Bouddha Çakya-mouni. Première Partie—Texte Tibétain (Paris: Imprimerie Royale). Foucaux, Phillipe Édouard. 1848. Rgya Tch’er Rol Pa ou Développement des Jeux, Contenant l’Histoire du Bouddha Çakya-mouni. Traduit sur la version Tibétaine du Bkahhgyour, et revu sur l’original Sanscrit (Lalitavistara) (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale). Foucaux, Phillipe Édouard. 1870. Étude sur le Lalita Vistara pour une édition critique du texte sanskrit, précédée d’un coup d’oeil sur la publication des livres bouddhiques en Europe et dans l’Inde (Paris: Maisonneuve). Foucaux, Phillipe Édouard. 1884. Le Lalitavistara: L’histoire traditionnelle de la vie du Bouddha Çakyamuni. Annales du Musée Guimet 6. Foucaux, Phillipe Édouard. 1892. Le Lalita vistara: Développement des jeux contenant l’histoire du Bouddha Çakya-Mouni depuis sa naissance jusqu’à sa prédication. 2 Notes, variantes et index (Paris: Leroux). Gómez, Luis O[scar]. 1996. Land of Bliss: The Paradise of the Buddha of Measureless Light. Sanskrit and Chinese Versions of the Sukhāvatīvyūha (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press). Gómez, Luis, and Paul Harrison, with members of the Mangalam Translation Group. 2022. The Teaching of Vimalakīrti: An English Translation of the Sanskrit Text Found in the Potala Palace, Lhasa (Berkeley: Mangalam Press). Goswami, Bijoya. 2011. Lalitavistara. Bibliotheca Indica 320 (Kolkata: The Asiatic Soci- ety). Hahn, Michael. 2010. “On Some Late Records About the Buddha’s Birth and Genealogy.” In Christoph Cüppers, ed., The Birth of the Buddha: Proceedings of the Seminar Held in Lumbini, Nepal, October 2004 (Lumbini: Lumbini International Research Insti- tute): 129–156. He, Xi. 2011. “The Prose Varṇaka in the Lalitavistara.” In Yigal Bronner, Whitney Cox, and Lawrence McCrea, eds., South Asian Texts in History: Critical Engagements with Sheldon Pollock (Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Asian Studies, 2011): 83–102. He, Xi. 2012. Experiencing the Graceful and the Joyful: A Study of the Literary Aesthetics and Religious Emotions of the Lalitavistara. PhD thesis, Univ. of Chicago. Hokazono Kōichi 外園幸一. 1981a. “Amr̥tānanda ni yoru Buddhacarita no fuka bubun (1) dai 14 shō” Amr̥tānanda による Buddhacarita の付加部分 (1) 第 14 章 [Additional Parts to the Buddhacarita by Amr̥tānanda (1): Canto 14]. Kagoshima keidai ronshū 鹿 児島経大論集 22.2: 127–147. Hokazono Kōichi 外 園 幸 一. 1981b. “Buddhacarita no fuka bubun to Lalitavistara” Buddhacarita の付加部分と Lalitavistara [= Amr̥tānanda’s Additions to the Bud- dhacarita and the Lalitavistara]. Indogaku Bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度學佛教學研究 30.1: 410–413 (95–98). Indo-Iranian Journal 65 (2022) 267–301 review articles 299 Hokazono Kōichi 外園幸一. 1994. Raritavisutara no Kenkyū ( Jōkan) ラリタヴィスタ ラの研究 (上巻) (Tokyo: Daitō Shuppansha 大東出版社). Hokazono Kōichi 外園幸一. 2018. “Raritavisutara Gōmahon ni okeru ketsuraku geju no kanbon ni tsuite” ラリタヴィスタラ「降魔品」における欠落偈頌の還梵に ついて [Sanskrit reconstructions of the lost gāthās in the Lalitavistara’s chap. 21]. Kokusai bunkagakubu ronshū 国際文化学部論集 18.4: 317–333. Hunter, Thomas M. 2014. “A Constant Flow of Pilgrims: Kāvya and the Early History of the Kakawin.” In Yigal Bronner, David Shulman, and Gray Tubb, eds., 2014. Innova- tions and Turning Points: Toward a History of Kāvya Literature (New Delhi: Oxford University Press): 195–231. Hunter, William Wilson. 1896. Life of Brian Houghton Hodgson (London: John Murray). Ishikawa, Mie, 1990. A Critical Edition of the sGra sbyor bam po gnyis pa: An Old and Basic Commentary on the Mahāvyutpatti. Studia Tibetica 18 / Materials for Tibetan- Mongolian Dictionaries (Tokyo: Toyo Bunko). Ishikawa Mie 石 川 美 恵. 1993. Sgra sbyor bam po gnyis pa nikanbon yakugoshaku: Wayaku to chūkai Sgra sbyor bam po gnyis pa 二巻本訳語釈: 和訳と註解. Studia Tibetica 28 / Materials for Tibetan-Mongolian Dictionaries 3 (Tokyo: Toyo Bunko). de Jong, Jan Willem. 1997a. A Brief History of Buddhist Studies in Europe and America (Tokyo: Kōsei Publishing Co.). de Jong, Jan Willem. 1997b. “Recent Japanese Studies on the Lalitavistara.” Indologica Taurinensia 23–24: 247–255. de Jong, Jan Willem. 1998. “Notes on Lalitavistara, chapters 1–4.” Journal of the Interna- tional College for Advanced Buddhist Studies 1: 254–237 (39–56). Kalantari, Christiane, and Eva Allinger. 2020. “The spiritual quest of the Buddha in the Dungkar cave temple—Indian sources and Western Tibetan image-making. Part 1: the narrative cycle from Tuṣita heaven up to the Enlightenment.” Études mongoles et sibériennes, centrasiatiques et tibétaines 51 (online doi: https://doi.org/10.4000/​ emscat.4308). Keith, Arthur Berriedale. 1928. A History of Sanskrit Literature (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Kern, Hendrik, and Bunyiu Nanjio. 1908–1912. Saddharmapuṇḍarīka. Bibliotheca Bud- dhica 10 (St. Pétersbourg: Imperial Academy. Repr. Osnabrück: Biblio Verlag, 1970). Krom, Nicholas Johannes. 1926. The Life of Buddha on the stūpa of Barabudur according to the Lalitvistara-text (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff). Lefmann, Salomon. 1874. Lalita vistara: Erzählung von dem Leben und der Lere des Çâkya Siṁha. Aus dem Original des Sanskrit und des Gâthâdialects zuerst ins Deutsche uebersetzt und mit sachlichen Erklaerungen versehen (Berlin: Ferd. Dümmler). Lefmann, Salomon. 1902–1908. Lalita Vistara: Leben und Lehre des Çākya-Buddha (Halle: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses. Repr. Tokyo: Meichō-Fukyū-kai, 1977). Indo-Iranian Journal 65 (2022) 267–301 300 review articles Lenz, Robert. 1836. “Analyse du Lalita-Vistara-Pourana, l’ un des principaux ouvrages sacrés des Bouddhistes de l’Asie centrale, contenant la vie de leur prophète, et écrit en Sanscrit.” Bulletin Scientifique publié par l’Académie impériale des Sciences de Saint-Pétersbourg i.7: 49–51; i.8:57–63; i.9: 71–72; i.10: 75–78; i. 11: 87–88; i.12: 92–96; i. 13: 97–99. Marciniak, Katarzyna. 2020. The Mahāvastu. Volume ii: A New Edition. Bibliotheca Philologica et Philosophica Buddhica xiv, 2 (Tokyo: International Research Insti- tute for Advanced Buddhology). Mason, Charles. 1870. “Lieut-Col. Knox.” Notes and Queries: A Medium of Intercommuni- cation for Literary Men, General Readers, Etc. Fourth series, Volume 5 (issue of 2 April 1870): 350. Metusala, Destario, Fauziah, Dewi Ayu Lestari, Janis Damaiyani, Shofiyatul Mas’ udah, Hari Setyawan, 2020. “The identification of plant reliefs in the Lalitavistara story of Borobudur temple, Central Java, Indonesia.” Biodiversitas 21.5: 2206–2215. Mitra, Rajendralal. 1853–1877. The Lalita Vistara or Memoirs of the Early Life of S’a’kya Siñha. Bibliotheca Indica: A Collection of Oriental Works, Old Series, Nos. 51, 73, 143, 144, 145, 237 (Calcutta: The Asiatic Society of Bengal). Mitra, Rajendralal. 1881–1886. The Lalita Vistara or Memoirs of the Early Life of S’a’kya Siñha, Translated from the Original Sanskrit. Bibliotheca Indica: A Collection of Ori- ental Works, New Series, Nos. 455, 473, 575 (Calcutta: The Asiatic Society of Bengal). Revire, Nicolas. 2019. “‘The Birth of the Buddha’ at Angkor.” Journal of the Siam Society 107.2: 63–90. Senart, Émile Charles Marie. 1882–1897. Le Mahāvastu, Sociéte Asiatique, Collection d’Ouvrages Orientaux, Seconde Série. 3 vols. (Paris: Imprimerie National; Reprint Tokyo: Meicho Fukyūkai, 1977). Slaje, Walter. 2014. Rev. of Yigal Bronner, Whitney Cox, and Lawrence McCrea, eds., South Asian Texts in History: Critical Engagements with Sheldon Pollock (Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Asian Studies, 2011). Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 164.2: 574–578. Smith, Fredrick M. 2012. Rev. of Yigal Bronner, Whitney Cox, and Lawrence McCrea, eds., South Asian Texts in History: Critical Engagements with Sheldon Pollock (Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Asian Studies, 2011) [see He 2011, above]. Journal of Asian Studies 71.4: 1171–1174. Speyer, Jacob Samuel. 1903. Rev. of Lefmann 1902 (that is, only vol. 1). Museum: Maand- blad voor Philologie en Geschiedenis 5: 145–151. Vogel, Claus. 1972. “On the Exact Date of Amr̥tānanda’s Recension of Aśvaghoṣa’s Bud- dhacarita.” Indo-Iranian Journal 14.3/4: 210–217. Ward, William. 1811. Account of the Writings, Religion, and Manners of the Hindoos: Including Translations from their Principal Works. Vol. ii (Serampore: The Mission Press). Indo-Iranian Journal 65 (2022) 267–301 review articles 301 Ward, William. 1815. A View of the History, Literature, and Religion, of the Hindoos: Including a minute Description of their Manners and Customs, and Translations from their Principal Works (Seampore: The Mission Press). Yamagishi Shungaku 山 岸 俊 岳. 1985. “Lalitavistara Gōmahon no kenkyū: Chibetto- goyaku to no hikaku” Lalitavistara 降 魔 品 の 研 究: チ ベ ッ ト 語 訳 と の 比 較 [A Comparative Study of the Tibetan Translation of the ‘Māradharṣaṇa-parivarta’ of the Lalitavistara]. Indogaku Bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度學佛敎學硏究 33.2: 134–135 (549–550). Indo-Iranian Journal 65 (2022) 267–301