Kindly sent by the author.
Himalayan Encounter: The Teaching Lineage of the Marmopadeśa.
manuscript cultures, newsletter, no. 1, autumn/winter 2008, pp. 2--6.
(Hamburg: Research Group Manuscript Cultures in Asia and Africa)
系譜に登場する祖師の一人，本来の名前がドゥルジャヤチャンドラが，チベットに訳されMi thub zla baとなり，さらに，それを耳で聞いたヴァナラトナが間違ってMi thubをMi thobと聞き，サンスクリットに還元する際にAprāptaとしたとアイザクソン教授は推理されています．
Durjayacandra >>> Mi thub zla ba >>> Mi thob zla ba >>> Aprāptacandra
The so-called ``department of Indian philosophy'' in a Japanese university covers not only Indian (philological) studies but also Buddhist studies.
Junjiro Takakusu came back from Oxford and was appointed for the first time to the Chair of Sanskrit at the University of Tokyo in 1901.
It is, however, hasty to conclude that Indian and Buddhist studies in Japan were a mere import from the West.
In the beginning the main focus was on the doctrinal aspects of Buddhism.
Such early studies were oriented towards the apologetics of Buddhist doctrine that ``reached a climax in Japan''.
Buddhist texts in classical Chinese were compared with Sanskrit, Pali and Tibetan sources by the western philological method.
This comparative method, which is most typically observed in the works by Hakuju Ui, was followed by his successors as one of the most promising ways for Japanese scholarship.
Essentially, ``Indian philosophy'' in Japan consisted (and still consists) of Indology, Tibetology and Sinology/Japanology.
In 1943, Hajime Nakamura was appointed to the chair of Indian philosophy at the University of Tokyo.
Unlike his predecessors and colleagues in the department, he was not a Buddhist monk.
His appointment clearly marks a new era.
Diversification of topics and methods are clearly observed in his works.
In addition to philology, linguistics and philosophy, which were the core methods of ``Indian philosophy'' in Japan, other perspectives such as historical study, anthropology, art history, archaeology and religious studies were introduced into the field.
In Kyoto, the influence of French Indology was particularly salient.
Susumu Yamaguchi (Otani University), who studied under Sylvain Lévi, also taught at Kyoto University as a lecturer.
His style was inherited by Gadjin M. Nagao.
The famous ``three Munis'' in Kyoto University — i.e. Yutaka Ojihara, Masaaki Hattori and Yuichi Kajiyama — brought up many scholars who sustain Japanese Indology today.
Many of them studied and got degree in western universities.
Ojihara's dream of ``participating in the western Indology on an equal footing'' is a reality today.
Whereas rigid philology and specialization in each topic have yielded international fame in the Academy, interest in contemporary India as well as the urge to return scholarly fruits to society and other disciplinary areas seem to have diminished among Japanese indologists, in particular, after the deaths of Hajime Nakamura (in 1999), Katsuhiko Kamimura (in 2003) and other promising scholars.
(This is an English summary of my Japanese essay which appeared in Minami Asia Kenkyu, Journal of the Japanese Association for South Asian Studies, No. 20. The paper was originally written for a symposium held in the 20th meeting of the Japanese Association for South Asian Studies at Osaka City University, on Oct 7th, 2007.)
A party at a Japanese restaurant, Tori-ichi, Muromi, Fukuoka, along the Muromi river, for
Prof. TANI Ryuichiro (philosophy)
Prof. ASAI Kenjiro (German literature).
Their recent publications are a study on Maximus and a translation of Kafka's contes.
Both professors never used a computer. This is rare these days even in the faculty of letters.
Another "fieldwork" professor with a camera on the left is collecting materials for his study on Japanese style drinking parties, so he insisted. (I am not sure whether his claim is true.)