At a time when his native country (present-day Sri Lanka) was under Tamil control, the Sinhalese teacher (sīhalācariya), the great Elder (mahāthera) Ānanda, while living in South India, wrote the Upāsakajanālaṅkāra. This 236-page compendium, written in Pali (edited in 1965 by H. Saddhatissa), is intended for the instruction of the laity (p. xi). It consists of nine chapters on: morality (1, 2), austere practices (3), livelihood (4), the ten bases of pure actions (5), faults that produce an impediment (6), mundane and supramundane achievements (7, 8), and the proof of merits and their fruits (9). It was compiled to replace the older, no longer sufficient Paṭipattisaṅgaha (only extant in manuscripts). Like other compendia it largely consists of reused text which Ānanda borrowed, most probably indirectly, from various genres of texts (law, discourses, philosophy, narratives) belonging to different chronological layers (canon, commentaries, subcommentaries and manuals).
The book under review is the first translation into a Western language. Giulio Agostini is well suited for this task because he is familiar with the subject, having published on various aspects of the Buddhist laity for more than a decade now. The book essentially consists of the translation (pp. 1–338), with fifteen pages for a list of contents, an introduction, a list of abbreviations, and a bibliography. In his introduction Agostini gives the twelfth century as the date of the Upāsakajanālaṅkāra, referring the reader to Saddhatissa for details (p. xi, n. 1). This date is improbable. Ānanda quotes from Sāriputta's Sāratthadīpanī (written after 1165 ce) and from Sumaṅgala's commentaries on the Abhidhammāvatāra and Abhidhammatthasaṅgaha, which presuppose Sāriputta's Abhidharmārthasaṅgrahaya, and thus date from the last quarter of the twelfth century at the earliest. As the colophon of the Upāsakajanālaṅkāra (pp. 337 f.) makes clear, it was written in a period when Lanka suffered from a Tamil invasion, and Lankan monks had fled to South India. After 1165 ce such a situation arose when the Tamil usurper Māgha invaded Lanka in 1215. The Lankan Theras were recalled from South India only by Vijayabāhu III (1232–36 ce). Thus, 1215 to 1232 ce seems the most probable date for the Upāsakajanālaṅkāra. Similar arguments were made by Liyanagamage in an article from 1978 listed in Agostini's bibliography. Saddhatissa's detailed discussion of the author mixes up multiple Ānandas and Buddhappiyas, and needs reconsideration in the light of Matsumura's findings (Junko Matsumura, The Rasavāhini, Osaka 1992, xxvi–xxxiv; and “Remarks on the Rasavāhinī”, Journal of the Pali Text Society 1999, 157 ff.).
Agostini bases his translation on Saddhatissa's edition, making use also of the Sri Lankan Tripiṭaka Project edition (p. xiii) and, as far as traced, the original sources from which the passages are borrowed. The variants he gives in the notes (unfortunately not in a separate list) are a substantial addition to Saddhatissa's edition. For the convenience of the reader Agostini adds headings (not characterized as additions). He furthermore often supplements text (clearly marked) to facilitate understanding. It would have been helpful if he had indicated passages that comment on earlier passages. For example, the words of the stanzas in §61 (p. 16) are commented upon on the subsequent pages. This is made explicit by chance (p. 27, n. 3). Probably for clarification of the text structure, Agostini characterizes objections and replies. These attributions are not always secure (see p. 322, n. 1). For example, he marks §89 as an objection to the statement in §88, and §90, which begins with “in addition” (api ca), as the answer (p. 23 f.). But §88 forms the basis for the question posed in §89, and thus belongs to the “objection”, and a first answer to an objection does not begin with “in addition” (api ca, §90). The idea that the second sentence in §89, “What is more …” (kiñ c’ ettha) also seems problematic: it continues the objection that begins with the kasmā sentence, because it only functions as an objection by a substantial supplement “What is more, [the formula of going for refuge] was explained according to this regular order by the Perfectly Awakened One himself, … [There must be a reason justifying the attested order directly]” (p. 24). The text here seems to be problematic in several points, ultimately because borrowings from several texts are merged with Ānanda's own creations.
All in all, Agostini's translation is well done, easy to read and on the whole reliable. He has succeeded in translating the many different styles of Pali assembled in this book, switching from canonical prose to commentarial style, etc. In a short review it is not possible to discuss individual points in detail, but let me add some minor observations. The problematic saraṇagamanamuñcitaṃ hinted at by Agostini (p. 23, n. 1) most probably stands for saraṇagamana<ṃ> muñcitaṃ, whereby muñcitaṃ may be understood as “uttered, stated” (Edgerton, Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Dictionary, s.v. muñcati “emits words, speech”). Instead of Agostini's “the act of going for refuge seems to correspond, albeit in reverse order, to the fact that the Blessed One first went forth” (p. 23), I would suggest “insofar as the Blessed One first saw the figure of a renunciant … the act of refuge seems to be stated (muñcitaṃ) even in reverse order”. Agostini's reflections about the meaning “oil” for madhu (p. 27, n. 1) can be abandoned, since all editions read tappabhavacandanaṃ, not °madhu in §111; Dīghaṭṭhakathā and Dīghanikāyaṭṭhakathā both may refer to the old or the new aṭṭhakathā (p. 89, n. 4), neither is specific for one of them; the “late definition of bhaṇḍadeyya” quoted from Kkh-ṭ (p. 122, n. 2) belongs to a reused passage borrowed from the Samantapāsādikā (II 319, 19–21), and thus is older by about seven centuries than assumed.
Agostini's translation is to be welcomed since first translations of Pali texts have become rare. It will certainly raise the interest of specialists, non-specialists and practitioners alike, and it is to be hoped that it will stimulate and initiate further research on this and similar works.
