The present monograph by Johannes Schneider is an in-depth philological study of two Sanskrit texts of Buddhist apologetics, Śaṃkarasvāmin's Devātiśayastotra (“Praise of [the Buddha's] superiority over the gods”) and its commentary, the Devātiśayastotraṭīkā (DASṬ) by Prajñāvarman (eighth–ninth c.?). While only the first has been preserved in its original language, both works were translated at a comparatively early date into Tibetan and are now found in the first volume of the Tanjur. Schneider provides us here with a first critical edition and German translation of the Tibetan versions of the DAS (pp. 37–58) and the DASṬ (pp. 59–160). These are preceded by a substantial introduction (pp. 1–36) dealing with the establishment of the Tibetan text, the authors and the translators of the works, and their contents. This is followed by a new edition of the Sanskrit text of the DAS (pp. 163–7), which improves on the earlier versions of L. Norbu Shastri and M. Hahn, as well as an exhaustive set of indices (pp. 169–82) and a bibliography (pp. 183–95).

This study is the last in a series devoted to the works of Śaṃkarasvāmin and his brother Udbhaṭasiddhasvāmin, who both lived in Eastern India (Magadha, following an indication by Tāranātha) possibly in the first centuries of the first millennium ce (a detailed discussion of Śaṃkarasvāmin's dates is found on pp. 15–8). In two earlier publications, Schneider dealt with Udbhaṭasiddhasvāmin's two hymns: the Viśeṣastava, also commented upon by Prajñāvarman, and the Sarvajñamaheśvarastotra (see J. Schneider, Der Lobpreis der Vorzüglichkeit des Buddha. Udbhaṭasiddhasvāmins Viśeṣastava mit Prajñāvarmans Kommentar. Nach dem tibetischen Tanjur herausgegeben und übersetzt. Indica et Tibetica 23. Bonn: Indica-et-Tibetica-Verlag, 1993; J. Schneider, “Der Buddha als der wahre Śiva. Udbhaṭasiddhasvāmins Sarvajñamaheśvarastotra”, Berliner indologische Studien 8, 1995, 153–87). The present book, devoted to Śaṃkarasvāmin's work and its commentary, thereby brings to completion the study of this small but important corpus of early Buddhist polemical tracts, including their only known Indian gloss.

Śaṃkarasvāmin's text (21 stanzas composed in various Sanskrit meters) belongs, as do Udbhaṭasiddhasvāmin's Stava and Stotra, to the genre of Buddhist religious apologetics. It consists for the most part of a demonstration of the moral superiority of the Buddha over Hindu gods (Śiva, Brahmā, Viṣṇu, Skanda, Gaṇeśa, etc.) and religious teachers (Kaṇāda and Kapila, the founders of Vaiśeṣika and Sāṃkhya respectively, are mentioned in vv. 11 and 17). Although the title of the work makes it a “song of praise” (stotra) in honour of the Buddha, this aspect is by no means prominent in the text, which is written in the third person (unlike other stotras of the same period, like Udbhaṭa's Viśeṣastava or Mātr̥ceṭa's Śatapañcāśatka and Catuḥśataka) and better read as an attempt to justify Buddhist faith against Hindu beliefs. The possibility that Śaṃkarasvāmin and his brother converted from Śaivism to Buddhism, to which both Prajñāvarman and Tāranātha bear testimony, would explain, according to Schneider, this predominantly polemical nature of their works, as well as their acquaintance with Hindu epics and Purāṇas. Śaṃkarasvāmin's repeated protest of impartiality and good faith (see in particular vv. 10, 11 and 17) also makes it quite plausible that the hymn was used in a context of Buddhist proselytism. Whatever the case may be, Śaṃkarasvāmin's insistence on showing the Buddha's superiority from a strictly moral point of view (rather than through the intrinsic absurdity of Hindu dogmas) makes the DAS quite a unique work; it contrasts sharply with the overwhelmingly doctrinal character of religious polemics in later philosophical works. It is interesting to note, nevertheless, some similarity with certain passages of Bhavya/Bhā(va)viveka's Madhyamakahr̥dayakārikās (see for instance vv. 9.63–73 and 9.108–111), where the learned sixth-century Buddhist scholar also uses the alleged moral depravation in speech and behaviour of the Hindu gods as an argument against their trustworthiness, in a tone that is no less harsh than that of the old polemicists.

More than just a word-for-word gloss of Śaṃkarasvāmin's text, Prajñāvarman's commentary offers the reader a precious glimpse into the intellectual and religious life of eighth- and ninth-century Tibet. Being himself associated with the translation into Tibetan of almost 80 Sanskrit works (77 according to the catalogue of the Tibetan canon), the learned Bengali paṇḍit may have written his commentary – according to Schneider's hypothesis (p. 26) – for the benefit of the Tibetan scholars he was working with, and perhaps directly in Tibet. This indeed would explain the systematic manner in which Indian myths are narrated in the DASṬ, as well as the very purpose of writing a commentary on a set of relatively simple Sanskrit verses. If much of the material provided is admittedly familiar, the text also contains a wealth of little-known stories, making it as instructive to us perhaps as it was to his Tibetan contemporaries. It is in Prajñāvarman's commentary, for instance, that we find the first occurrence of the myth of the Indian origin of the Tibetan people from the defeated army of king Rupati. Readers interested in the early history of Indian philosophical systems will also appreciate the colourful account of how Akṣapāda founded Mīmāṃsā [sic] through a favour of Śiva for his careful watch over Umā and his withstanding her seductive moves by staring at his feet (whence the name akṣapāda, Tib. Rkang mig!).

These, of course, are only a few examples of what can be gleaned from these very rich and little-known Buddhist works, of which Schneider provides us here a masterful study. Let us finally note that the very readable German translation and insightful comments will satisfy both the specialist of Indian Buddhism and the general reader. With this work, Schneider aptly pursues the task of early Tibetan translators: leading the path to Indian Buddhist thought for those who, being remote in place or time, have only fragmentary knowledge of the world in which it arose.