similar ones developed later inthe northernplains, as well as the emergence of a landscape governed by thelaw of perspective.
As thefirstattemptin a Westernlanguageto analyzethe sixth-centuryproduction of this genre interms ofcontentandstyle, Wong’s Chinese Steles is awelcome and accessible book, in spite of the shortcomings indicated above. Thecomplexityand vastness of theevidence athand help explain both thestrengths and weaknesses of this work. As a positive aspect, I indicate her valuable inquiry into therise and evo lution ofsteles, a monument rooted in ancient China’s rituals. Also commendable are her summaries of the veryintricatehistorical events of the Nanbeichao period (317-589) andheranalysis of Indian Buddhism’s adaptation and evolution inMedi eval China.
A Few Good Men: The Bodhisattva Path According to the Inquiry of Ugra (Ugrapariprccha). Jan Nattier. Studies in the Buddhist Traditions. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2003. xvi + 383 pages. $24.00 paper, ISBN 0- 8248-3003-2.
Hiraoka Satoshi
Jan Nattier’s workis alwaysstimulating and instructivenot only to Western but also toJapanese scholars ofBuddhism. Thisbook is no exception.This is a study and an annotated English translationof the Ugrapariprccha (hereafter, Ugra), one of the most important early Mahayanasutras. In this work, Nattiersheds new light on the bodhisattva figure.
SinceBuddhism, particularly MahayanaBuddhism,first took firm root in Japan, theorigin of theMahayana has been widely debated. In his attempt to discover these origins,AkiraHirakawa,one of Japan’smost eminentBuddhistscholars,suggested that “Mahayanaarose not within atraditionalmonasticenvironment,butin lay-cen teredcommunities of bodhisattvaswho congregated at stupas” (p. 89). For thetime, it seemed asifhis theory offered asolutionto this long-discussed,knotty question, and it was widely accepted. However, inthelast twentyyears it has been questioned bya younger generationofscholars, both Easternand Western, inattemptstounder stand the origins of the Mahayana within the context of traditional monastic Bud dhism.Nattier’s research challengesustorethink Hirakawa’s theory.
Thisbook consists oftwoparts: PartOne is astudyand analysisof the Ugra,and Part Two, an annotated English translation. I will first introduce the translation potionof the text. As is thecasewith most Mahayanasutras, no Indian language ver
sion of the Ugra is extant, otherthanafewpassages preserved in the Siksasamuc- caya. Instead,we have threeChinesetranslations(1-3,below) and a Tibetan one (4):
(1)Fa-ching ching SSl® (Dharma-Mirror Sutra),translated during the period 180-190C.E.
(2) Yii-ch’ieh chia-lo-yiteh wenp’u-sahsingching
(The Sutra ontheInquiry of Ugrathe GrhapatiConcerning Bodhisattva- Conduct), translated duringthe latethirdorearlyfourthcentury C.E. (3)Yii-ch'ieh chang-che hui (The Section on Ugra theGrhap ati),translatedintheearlyfifthcentury C.E. orlater.
(4) ’Phags-pa Drag-shul-can-gyis zhus-pa zhes-bya-ba’i theg-pa chen- po 'i mdo (The Noble Mahayana Sutratitled The Inquiryof Ugra), trans
latedduring thelateeighthorearlyninthcentury C.E.
Thesetranslations are separatedbymorethan just a few centuries,hencethehistor ical and cultural background of each translation must be considered individually. Moreover, and perhaps as a natural consequence, their contents are not the same. Nattier,then, is facedwith aserious problem: Which text is the Ugra? Whichone shouldshe translate and study? Given that Tibetantranslations aregenerallytruer to the Indianoriginal, but were also donemuchlaterthantheChinese ones, onecould, for instance,takethe Tibetan asthe maintext, detailing divergences in the Chinese in footnotes. Others mighttranslate theoldest Chinese translation asthe main text, giving top priority to its antiquity. Some might even choose to combine passages frommultipletexts ina single translation, as EdwardConze did. The styleNattier has come up with, however, is quite remarkable. She has devised a new style of translationthat allows readers to envision therelationship among the texts. Under Symbols and Conventions, she writes: “Smalltype (nine-point font) indicates sen tences,phrases,orwordsfound inlatertranslation(s), but missing from at least one early version of the text (andthuspresumably an interpolation).Small type inbraces indicates words found in one ormore of the early versions, but absent from later ones,andwhichmayeitherhave dropped out in thecourse oftransmission ormay bea peripheral development in onebranch of thetextualfamilytree. Full-size type indicatesportionsofthe text that are found in all extantversions ofthe text. Where variants inwording occur inoneormoreversions, these differencesare indicatedin the notes” (adaptedfrom pp. 205-206). This helpsthe reader differentiate multiple texts in a single translation at a glance, and may well become the standardfor a translationof this kind oftext.
On the basis of her translation, Nattier analyzes this sutra from various stand pointsinPart One. Following thestudy of theformation of the Ugraand itspossi bilities as a historical source, she discusses the institutional setting (Chapter 4), bodhisattvapractices: guidelines forthe Path (Chapter 5), thestructure of the bod hisattvacareer: implicitassumptions(Chapter 6), telling absences:whatis not inthe 234
Ugra (Chapter7), andfinally the Mahayana inthe mirror of the Ugra (Chapter 8). The main topic ofher studyisthebodhisattvapathand thedepiction of bodhisattvas inthe Ugra.
Theterm bodhisattva istraditionally applied to Sakyamuni before his enlighten ment inhislast life. Hehadundertaken difficultpractices,repeating onereincarna tion after anothersince makingavowto become a Buddha in front oftheBuddha Dipamkara. Thismuch is generally accepted bymostscholars. In Japan, however, mainly based on thestudies by Hirakawa andShizutani, thenotion of bodhisattvas in Mahayana Buddhism has been understood as follows: After the death of the Buddha,hisrelicswereenshrinedinstupasandlaymen began toworship them. The stupa-cult is said tohavebeen carriedout by lay followers, not by monks. The lay followers congregating atstupas called themselves bodhisattvas and theyoriginated MahayanaBuddhism. Here,therewasanoteworthyshiftintheconceptionof abod hisattvafrom a proper nountoacommonnoun,or, in otherwordsfrom singular to plural. These common bodhisattvas constituted a group distinct fromthe monastic community, and were critical of traditional monastic Buddhism. In sum, since Hirakawaand Shizutani, we, Japanese,havegenerallyunderstood bodhisattvas ex plained in Mahayana texts as follows:
(1) Thestupa-cult is extremelyimportantforbodhisattvas.
(2) The lay group of bodhisattvasexistedoutside the traditionalmonastic community.
(3) Calling themselves Mahayanists, bodhisattvascriticized the Sravakas andPratyekabuddhasas Hinayanists.
(4) Bodhisattvas are commonbodhisattvas different fromthe great bod hisattva as a proper noun.
Thebodhisattvas that Nattier finds inthe Ugra,however,provideastrikingcontrast to the bodhisattvas so far conceived. First of all, she points out that the Ugra
describesneither thestupa-cultnor thebook-cult. Inshort,theUgra does not put any emphasis on devotion to religious objects like stupas, sutras, or celestial Buddhas (forexample, Amithabha/Amitayusin theWestandAksobhyainthe East).
Moreover, this sutra containsno descriptionof the three vehicles, andtherefore criticizes neither the Sravaka nor the Pratyekabuddhapath. While it is certain that the bodhisattvas are to be differentiated from the Sravakas, the differenceis not the quality of enlightenment but thepaththey choose in attaining it. Thebodhisattvas exist within the traditional monastic community, and try to undergo austere prac tices, following exactlyin the footsteps of the Buddha. Here, the Buddha is not an object of worship or faith but amodeltobeemulated. The Ugra does mention lay bodhisattvas, but they are held in less regard than the monastic bodhisattvas and urgedto renounce lay life.
Insum, thebodhisattvas described in the Ugra are definitelynotthe type of bod hisattvas that any laypractitioner could become, but are individualsengagedinvery difficult monasticpractice. Theydaredto followthesamehardpath as Sakyamuni, whobecameenlightenedin hislastlifeafterninety-onekalpas of reincarnationsince making hisvowbefore Dipamkara. Becausesuch a pathcannot befollowed by all bodhisattvas, but onlybyaverylimitednumber,theyarereferredto as “a few good men.” Howdifferent is this imageofbodhisattvas fromwhat we havehad!
Accurately readingthis text, Nattier presents uswithanewunderstanding of bod hisattvas. The presentationofthisnewimageof bodhisattvas,however, gives riseto new questions. First, bodhisattvas as “afew good men” are supposedto follow the samepath as the Buddha. Theirhard practices include the four “noble traditions”
(aryavamsa), wilderness-dwelling, avoiding contact with others, and maintaining humility,which are reminiscent of asceticsor pratyekabuddhasliving and practicing in solitary places. Inthis sutra, however, we do not findaltruistic acts such as the self-sacrifices performedbytheBuddha when hewas abodhisattva. Whydid they notdevote themselves to such practices in spite oftheir determination to followin thepath of the Sakyamuni?
While Nattier discussesthebodhisattvapath“accordingto”theInquiry of Ugra,
the question remains how universal was this image of bodhisattvas in Mahayana Buddhism. Howmany Mahayanatexts share this image with the Ugral Ifwe can confirmtheexistence of manytexts that sharethesameidea of the bodhisattva as the Ugra,wecould call the bodhisattvaimagepresentedthere relatively universal. If, on the other hand, this image of bodhisattvas wereunique only to the Ugra, it would havetobe admittedthattherewere various—and perhapseven competing—images of bodhisattvas atthe sametime.
While bodhisattvasas “a fewgoodmen” existed, as Nattier pointsout,there are alsomanybodhisattvasinMahayanasutraswho are purported tohavebeeninatten dancewhentheBuddhapreached theDharma. The Ugra, for example, explains in its opening thatfive thousand (“five hundred” in theoldestChinese translation) bod hisattvas attendedtheassembly when theBuddhapreachedtheDharma.
In addition, many bodhisattvas appear in various situations in the Mahayana sutras. The oldest Chinese translation of the Larger Sukhavatlvyuha, for example, describes countless bodhisattvas intheLandofBliss. Theyare not a few good men, but manygoodmen. How should this gap be bridged? Eveninthe Ugra itself,we find somegapsamong threedifferenttypes of bodhisattvas,namely,the five thou sand bodhisattvasexplainedin the opening of thissutra,thelay bodhisattvas, and the monasticbodhisattvasworthyof being called a fewgoodmen. They areall called bodhisattvas. How, then, canwedefinethe term“bodhisattva”?
Clearly, we still have a long way to go in clarifying a numberof problems in Mahayana Buddhism. Thereis no doubt,however, that Nattier’s study of the Ugra
brings us much closer to a fuller and more nuanced understanding of Mahayana Buddhism. Nattier has once again distinguished herself as one of “a few good scholars.”
Discourse and Ideologyin Medieval Japanese Buddhism. Richard K. Payne and Taigen Dan Leighton, eds. New York: Routledge (Routledge Critical Studies in Buddhism), 2006.288 pages. $120.00cloth, ISBN 0-415-35917-1.
Michael Conway
Discourseand Ideology in Medieval Japanese Buddhism provides glimpses at the contours of religious discourse in medieval Japan from a variety of perspectives. This collection of essays, consciously moving away from an explication of the fundamental doctrines of both the established and the newly-arising schools of Buddhism of the Heian and Kamakura periods, examines boththerole and the con ception of language inthe doctrinal innovations oftheperiod. Becauseofthe broad range of topics coveredbythe authors of thework, it is difficulttomakeastatement that accurately reflectsthe concerns and arguments of each essay presented there. The authors seem to share a constellation of concerns—includingthemodes of dis course,thelinguistic innovations, andthe philosophies of languagein thereligious thought of theperiod—which each bringstobear on theirdisparateobjects of study. In theintroduction,Richard Payneand Taigen Dan Leighton attempt tolay out the theoretical foundations that inform all the essays in the work. Drawing on the thought of Kocku von Stuckrad, Robert Wuthnow, and other theorists, Payne sketches the outlines of the terms “discourse” and “ideology” as employed in the text,taking up both concepts as essentialto amethod that transcendsthe limitations of theone-dimensional, formulaic constructionsthathaveinformedmuch of the pre cedingscholarship on the religious landscape of medievalJapan. Describingthevast aspirationthatunderliesthework, Paynestates, “One of our goals forthiscollection istofocus on whatBuddhism—its practices anddoctrines, its traditions and institu tions—meant for Japanese peoples themselves, ratherthan what it means for our selves inthepresent day. . . . [This] means attempting to view medieval Japanese Buddhist praxis in terms ofits own social, historical, and cultural location” (pp. 5-6).Although this isanenormoustask that asinglebookcannot possibly complete, Discourse andIdeology inMedievalJapanese Buddhism is anecessary first step in this process of interpreting medieval Japanese Buddhism from a perspective that emphasizestheconcerns of thehistorical actors themselves,rather thantheconcerns of modem scholars.
