An interview with
Lambert Schmithausen
Position & Affiliation: Professor Emeritus at University of Hamburg
Date: August 29, 2019 in Hamburg, Germany
Interviewed by: Anna Sehnalova
Transcript by: Rachael Griffiths
Cite this archive
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this interview are those of the interviewee and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Oral History of Tibetan Studies project.
List of Acronyms: LS=Lambert Schmithausen, IN= Interviewer
Family and background
IN: Thank you Prof Schmithausen for agreeing to this interview, it is a great pleasure. Could I start by asking about your family and background?
LS: My father was a sculptor, and my mother organised the selling and buying, and we lived in Cologne.
When I went to high school, I had a teacher who was a specialist in Semitic languages. During the war he had been kicked out of the university because he was not a National Socialist. After the war he became a high school teacher. He gave classes in History, and when he talked about the Crusaders, he also sometimes wrote things in Arabic on the blackboard. This fascinated me, and so I started learning Arabic, just for adventure.
In this way, I became interested in Oriental languages and also learnt a little bit of Chinese and Sanskrit. Later on, my interest shifted from languages to Oriental religions. In this connection I came to read one of Edward Conze’s books on Buddhism, which somehow fascinated me and made me choose Indology as my main subject at the university.
Living in Cologne, I could study at the universities of Cologne and Bonn at the same time. In Cologne, Indology was newly installed, and the professor, Robert Birwé, was a specialist in Sanskrit grammar and middle Indic. In Bonn, Indology was traditionally well established. The professors were Paul Hacker and Hans Losch. This was a lucky coincidence because Prof Hacker was an authority in Indian philosophy and religious systems, whereas Prof Losch trained me in Sanskrit poetry.
As for Prof Hacker, in my first term I was lucky to be allowed to participate in his class on a Buddhist text, the Bodhicaryāvatāra. In the following terms, I received a solid training in various fields of Indian philosophy, especially Advaita Vedānta, Purāṇas, Old Hindi (Tulsīdās), and other areas. Besides, I learned some Tibetan by myself.
After three years, Prof Hacker advised me to go to some other university “in order to not become the magnifying glass of the mistakes of your teacher”, as he said. So, together with my wife I went to Vienna, to Prof Erich Frauwallner, a famous scholar of Indian Philosophy. Under his guidance, I wrote my dissertation on Maṇḍanamiśra’s Vibhramaviveka and the Indian theories of error (or misperception) and did my PhD in 1963.
During my stay in Vienna, I had excellent fellow students: Tilmann Vetter (who later became professor of Buddhist Studies in Leiden) and Ernst Steinkellner (who became professor of Buddhism and Tibetology in Vienna). We always collaborated very fruitfully and became friends for the rest of our life.
After one more year in Vienna I returned to Prof Hacker, and we moved to Münster where he had accepted a chair in the meantime. After completing my habilitation thesis on basic problems of Yogācāra Buddhism in 1966, I was granted the venia legendi (Latin for “permission for lecturing”) for Indology and became a teacher (Dozent), and later (1970) a professor at Münster University. In this way, I could continue with my work quite well for a couple of years.
From 1973 onward, I held the chair for Buddhist Studies at the University of Hamburg until my retirement in 2005.
High school and early interests
IN: Could you tell me a bit more about your teacher at high school? What was his name?
LS: Dr Kindermann. He was a specialist in Semitic languages but knew many other languages, too. He had studied Chinese and Sanskrit as well.
IN: Was he a teacher at the university in Cologne?
LS: He had a teaching assignment at the university, where he gave lectures on Semitic languages including Cuneiform texts.
IN: What did you find so fascinating about the languages and the cultures?
LS: For a child of 12 or 13 years, being confronted with words in Oriental scripts is a kind of adventure, something enigmatic.
Later on, the content became the important point. When I was 17, I had some problems with explaining the world. The Buddhist answer was something new and something worth studying more closely. My old fascination for languages had become secondary. Even so, as a Buddhologist you are free to learn as many languages as you like.
IN: How did you become interested in languages?
LS: I think that was mainly due to Dr Kindermann, though even before languages were something that interested me. To be sure, I am not such a genius in learning languages as some other persons I know, who just keep everything they read in their mind. My memory is not that good. Even so, learning languages was something that I liked. But as I told you, later on my main interest shifted from the languages to the content, especially the philosophical and religious ideas, and in this perspective studying Indology was most promising. Dr Kindermann, with his insight into the respective focus of the main Asian cultures, once said: “If you’re interested in these things then you should study Indology.” And he was right, I think.
IN: Did you also learn European languages as a child?
LS: Yes, of course, I learned some Spanish, Italian, and French, and a little Portuguese and Russian, mainly for the sake of reading. Between the ages of 15 and 18, when I travelled with friends to Italy and Spain, and in 1963 when I went to Italy with my wife, I fairly managed to speak these two languages.
IN: Was it common at the time to study many languages at high school?
LS: The high school I went to was a grammar school, so we had to learn Latin and Greek. And English, of course. French and Hebrew were optional.
IN: How was it growing up in post war Germany?
LS: I was fairly lucky. We lived somewhat outside the city. We had a garden with fruit trees, vegetables and chicken and thus managed to survive.
IN: Did you have siblings?
LS: No, I was alone.
University education and the development of Tibetan studies at the University of Hamburg
IN: Could you tell us a bit more about your university education? What did it look like?
LS: As I told you, in Cologne I studied with Prof Birwé. Especially native Sanskrit grammar, though only on the basis of comparatively easy sources, not enough for me to become thoroughly familiar with this field. Besides, we read some poetry as well as Vedic texts, and I was introduced by him into Middle Indic (Prakrit and Pali).
I have already given some information on my study with Prof Hacker and Prof Losch. Let me add that Prof Losch expected me to prepare rather long pieces of difficult texts for each session and thus made sure that my fluency in reading Sanskrit improved considerably. Prof Hacker, on the other hand, introduced me into the technical language of Indian philosophical texts and into the methods of textual analysis in order to discover stratification and doctrinal nuances and developments.
While studying in Bonn and Cologne, I also participated in classes on Arabian sources, but after moving to Vienna I mainly concentrated on Brahmanical and Buddhist philosophy. Like Prof Hacker, Prof Frauwallner, too, taught us to explore the texts in terms of textual history and history of ideas.
IN: Was it mostly textual studies?
LS: Mainly, yes. But the texts were, above all, read and studied as vehicles of ideas. Our interest was, in the first place, to understand these ideas, their relations and their development.
As for spoken language, in Bonn there was a lecturer for Hindi, and Prof Hacker also read modern Hindi and Bengali literature with us, but speaking these languages was not my main aim since at that time I had no plan to travel to India. It is only much later that I visited India and/or Sri Lanka, twice with my family and once alone. From a scholarly point of view, it became much more important for me to go to Japan, where we have been six times for a period of one to three months.
IN: You mentioned you studied Tibetan by yourself. How did you do that?
LS: By buying the grammars of H.A. Jäschke and Marcelle Lalou, which were the most accessible grammar books at that time, and by trying to read Tibetan texts translated from Sanskrit. In Vienna sometimes such Tibetan texts were used in class. So, you got accustomed to this kind of Tibetan. I don’t think Prof Frauwallner had worked much with autochthonous Tibetan literature; he was, after all, an Indologist who used Chinese and Tibetan in order to be able to include those parts of the Indian Buddhist tradition which had been lost in their original language and had only survived in Tibetan and/or Chinese translations.
As for myself, I had no access to autochthonous Tibetan sources but only to Tibetan translations of Indian texts. In Münster I was just an Indologist. My special field was the Indian Buddhist tradition, but I also gave other classes. My chair in Hamburg, too, was for Indology, but with the addition, in brackets, of Buddhology and Tibetology. In the advertisement it was specified that the applicant was expected to study and teach Indian Buddhism on the basis of its sources both in their original languages and in the form of their non-Indian transmissions. Tibetology should be cared for. Thus, to apply for this position didn’t pre-suppose that you were a Tibetologist, but it was expected that you were interested in Tibetology and would care for Tibetology as a subject. This was possible thanks to the presence of a native Tibetan lecturer, Geshe Gendün Lodrö, and excellent library facilities.
The introduction of Tibetology as a special course of studies at Hamburg university dates back to 1959, when Prof Ludwig Alsdorf was head of the department. The competent scholar at that time was Dr Frank-Richard Hamm. But when, in 1964, Dr Hamm had left Hamburg for a chair in Berlin, Prof Alsdorf managed to establish, at his institute, a second chair for Indology, dedicated to Indian Buddhism, including its non-Indian transmissions in Tibetan, Chinese and Central Asian languages, and also Tibetology.
In 1966, the newly established chair was offered to Prof Franz Bernhard. He was precisely this kind of Buddhologist who was well equipped to read translations of Buddhist texts in all kinds of languages. In order to fully establish Tibetan Studies, he consulted the Dalai Lama and asked him to send a firstclass traditional Tibetan scholar to Hamburg. In response, Geshe Gendün Lodrö was sent to Hamburg and was employed as a lecturer. He was a Gelugpa monk but thoroughly familiar with all the different traditions of Tibetan Buddhism.
From 1968 to 1972, Tibetan Studies were substantially promoted also by Prof Bernhard’s assistant, Dr Michael Hahn. In his new position, Prof Bernhard had dedicated himself to an exploration of the area of Tibetan culture in the Himalaya, which he visited repeatedly. Unfortunately, on his third journey (to Mustang) in 1971, he fell ill severely and died at the age of just forty – a tremendous loss for Buddhist and Tibetan Studies.
In 1973, I had the sad honour to become his successor. Being familiar merely with Indian Buddhist texts and their Tibetan and Chinese translations but completely ignorant of the autochthonous Tibetan literature, I was eager to get at least some idea. So, what I did was to give classes together with Gendün Lodrö Rinpoche for some years. We had two of them a week where we read autochthonous Tibetan texts, like Tuken Chökyi Nyima’s Drupta Shelgyi Mélong (Grub mtha’ shel gyi me long) or Longchenpa’s Chöying Rinpoché Dzö (Chos dbyings rin po che’i mdzod). Reading the latter was particularly fascinating for me. Had I been a student, Dzokchen (rdzogs chen) would certainly have become one of my special fields of study.
In the beginning, we had only two or three students. One of them was Felix Erb, who later became our Institute’s librarian. The second person was Burkhard Quessel (now British Library), followed by Franz-Karl Ehrhard (now Prof. em. of Tibetology at Munich University), Christoph Cüppers (who became the director of the Lumbini International Research Institute in Nepal), Leonard van der Kuijp (now professor of Tibetology in Harvard), and others – the audience increased considerably over the years.
This positive development came to an end by Rinpoche’s sudden death in 1979, just a few days before his already scheduled appointment as a professor of Tibetology. In order to recognize Rinpoche’s extraordinary qualification and commitment, the institute had successfully applied for promoting him from the position of a lecturer to that of a professor, and Rinpoche had already been congratulated by the president of the university, but it was not for him to live to the appointment.
Even though Rinpoche’s untimely death deprived us of an exceptional colleague, the transformation of the lecturer’s post into the position of a professor of Tibetology was stable. In this way, Tibetology had been established independently, no longer under the care of Indology, and I now could concentrate on my own field which is Indian Buddhism.
We first tried to fill the vacant post with another native Tibetan scholar, but we did not find a suitable person. So, we had to announce the position. Fortunately, in 1983 we succeeded in attracting a famous specialist of both Indo-Tibetan and autochthonous Tibetan Buddhism, Prof David Seyfort Ruegg, and we enjoyed several years of most fruitful cooperation. After Prof Seyfort Ruegg’s early retirement in 1990, Prof David Jackson became his successor, a scholar whose field covers not only the ideas and history of Tibetan Buddhism but also Tibetan art.
When in 2007 Prof Jackson decided to abandon his post and to go back to America, he was succeeded by Prof Dorji Wangchuk, a Bhutanese trained in traditional Tibetan Buddhist scholarship, who had come to Hamburg because he wanted to study the background of his culture, i.e., Indian Buddhism in the original languages. He became my student and wrote his PhD dissertation on the concept of bodhicitta in Indo-Tibetan Buddhism (2007). He thus combines, in his person and in his work, traditional Tibetan scholarship with modern Western scholarship. His wife, too, Dr Orna Almogi, is an excellent Tibetologist. As a student of Prof Jackson, she wrote her PhD thesis on ‘Rong-zom-pa’s Discourses on Buddhology’.
IN: Can you tell us a bit about Rinpoche? Which year did he arrive?
LS: In 1967 he came from Drepung. In 1974, he published a book, Geschichte der Kloster-Universität Drepung, which is a unique documentation, in Tibetan, of his memories about this monastery-university. He had accompanied the Dalai Lama to India when he had to escape. I think he was a member of the Dalai Lama’s closest circle.
Rinpoche was very good with students, they liked him. He was a kind of real guru for them in a positive sense. Somebody whom they admired, both personally and as a scholar. For me, he was a real friend.
Position at the University of Hamburg
IN: What responsibilities did you have when you were the head of the institute in Hamburg?
LS: Most of the time, my colleague Prof Albrecht Wezler, the successor of Prof Alsdorf, was the head of the institute, while I had to represent the institute in the department committee (Fachbereichsrat).
Apart from this, my main duty, besides research work, was of course teaching, and advising young scholars writing their MA thesis or dissertation. I usually spent some time on looking at dissertations before they were handed in and to give some advice or suggest improvements. I sometimes also had to assess Tibetological dissertations, especially before Tibetology had its own professor, or, later, as a second examiner.
IN: Which subjects did you teach?
LS: Mainly Indian Buddhism, mostly on the basis of reading texts in Sanskrit, Pāli or Tibetan, sometimes also Chinese, but also by giving lectures, e.g. on Buddhist philosophy or Buddhist ethics, or more special subjects like “Buddhism and violence”. Still, I sometimes also gave classes on Hindu and Jaina sources. I had a period when I was particularly interested in Kashmir Shaivism, which is Prof Alexis Sanderson’s area. He once came as a visitor and gave a brilliant lecture.
IN: Who would you say were your most important students?
LS: I had the privilege of being the supervisor of 20 excellent and important PhD students, not only from Germany but also from Sri Lanka, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. One of them (Prof Michael Zimmermann) became my successor. From the point of view of Tibetology, I may refer to those mentioned above in connection with my classes together with Gendün Lodrö, but I should add Kodo Yotsuya (professor at Komazawa University, Tokyo) and, as at least partly Tibetologists, Achim Bayer (professor at Kanazawa Seiryo University) and Jowita Kramer (professor at the University of Munich).
IN: When you were learning and teaching languages, how did you read Tibetan?
LS: To pronounce Tibetan as Tibetans now do, I learnt from Rinpoche. Before that time, I read old Tibetan as it was probably pronounced by the Tibetans in the early period.
Position at the University of Münster
IN: Could you say a bit more about your time at Münster?
LS: On the one hand, I had sufficient time to continue my Yogācāra studies. In my classes, I read texts, both Buddhist and non-Buddhist, with a small number of students. For example, we read parts of the Ratnagotravibhāga. With a student of Prof Hacker who was working on Dvaita-Vedānta (a theistic, dualistic system of interpreting the Upaniṣadic tradition) I read texts of Madhva, the main author of this strand. Apart from this, I also continued to participate in classes of Prof Hacker, and also in classes of Prof Claus Haebler (chair of Indo-Germanic languages) on Vedic texts, but we also had a common class on the old Indian treatise on politics (Arthaśāstra) ascribed to Kauṭilya.
Towards the end of my time in Münster (1971/72) I had to act, for one year, as the dean of the sub-faculty (Classical Philology, Oriental Studies, Ethnology). At that time, the university was in disorder: students and assistants stood against the ordinary professors. Therefore, the job of a dean was passed on to persons that stood in between, like me, a “supernumerary professor”. That year was not really fruitful for my scholarly work, but after all a useful experience.
Doctorate research at the University of Vienna
IN: Could you tell us about your studies in Vienna?
LS: There were two classes a week with Prof Frauwallner at his home, where he had all his books at hand. We – four or five students – went there in the morning for two hours to read texts with him. The texts concerned were usually determined by the dissertations his students were working on. Since several of his students were working on works of the Buddhist philosopher Dharmakīrti, these had top priority. But on occasion we also read Brahmanical texts, among others Maṇḍanamiśra’s Vibhramaviveka when this text had been decided to become the starting point of my own dissertation. If there were Tibetan or Chinese translations, Prof Frauwallner took for granted that we made use of them. Later on, when a Japanese scholar had come to Vienna for some time, Prof Frauwallner read Abhidharma texts with us, Indian texts that were existent in the form Chinese translations only.
When reading texts with us, Prof Frauwallner usually translated himself, but of course we were allowed to ask questions. Sometimes he asked one of us to translate, but if you stopped for too long then he would take over again. Anyway, in the end we became thoroughly familiar with the material and learnt how to understand the texts and put the right questions. I was indeed very fortunate with my teachers, both in Bonn and Cologne and in Vienna.
Apart from Prof Frauwallner’s classes, I also participated, together with my friend Tilmann Vetter, in the highly stimulating philosophical lectures and seminars of Prof Erich Heintel.
IN: How were the studies organised?
LS: There was no BA or MA at that time. You just had to write your dissertation, and if it was found acceptable and you succeeded in passing the viva voce, you were awarded your PhD.
In Germany, you had to choose a main subject and either a second main subject or two secondary subjects. In Vienna, in addition to the main subject, one secondary subject was enough, but in addition you had to pass two examinations in philosophy.
In the last 10 years of my teaching period in Hamburg, we organised a lecture series for a wider public, i.e., for persons who were not registered as students or auditors. They subscribed and paid a moderate amount. We could use that money for inviting foreign scholars to give a lecture. There was one lecture a week, then a discussion — these people sat together and discussed — and finally a discussion with the lecturer and with us.
Each term, there were about 50 people who subscribed and came. Many of them came year after year to participate in this series of lectures. For me, too, it was interesting to listen to different scholars, discuss with them, and have questions from outsiders. The initiator of this lecture series was a mathematician who was interested in Buddhism and had very good contacts with the university administration. Thus, the whole organization of the event was done by the university. We only had to select the thematic framework of each lecture series and to find suitable lecturers.
Development of research interests
IN: You have worked on a number of topics within Buddhist Studies, how and why did your interests develop?
LS: In the beginning, as a student in Bonn, I was just interested in Indian culture as a whole, but, as I have already stated before, particularly in Buddhism. In the course of studying with Prof Hacker, I also came to be fascinated by Advaita Vedanta. In Vienna, it was perhaps the philosophy classes of Prof Heintel and my discussions with Tilmann Vetter that aroused a special interest in Yogācāra Buddhism. Thus, I started to read Yogācāra texts, like Asaṅga’s Mahāyānasaṁgraha, helped by Étienne Lamotte’s French translation.
Still, I was also very much interested in the various currents of Brahmanic philosophy, and thus I took up Prof Frauwallner’s suggestion to choose, for my doctoral dissertation, a critical re-edition of Maṇḍanamiśra’s Vibhramavivekaḥ, a Mīmāṁsā text on the Indian theories of perceptual error, along with an introduction discussing the development of these theories in the different schools. As I had already studied most of the relevant textual sources, the completion of the dissertation did not take too much time.
Things turned out to be essentially different in the case of the thesis I submitted for getting the venia legendi (i.e. the Habilitationsschrift), which was on the basic Yogācāra concepts of ālayavijñāna and vijñaptimātratā. Though the thesis was accepted, when revising it for publication I found that basic presuppositions from which I had started required reconsideration. Especially the status of doctrinal developments in the Yogācārabhūmi, the basic text of the Yogācāra school, had to be reconsidered. Therefore, I kept the thesis unpublished, and it is only after thoroughly studying the sources for a longer time that I could publish my results in a completely revised form in several articles and in my book on ālayavijñāna (Tokyo 1987).
Around 1980, I became very alarmed by what now seems to be widely recognized: the environmental problems. Not so much climate change – this was not yet the central issue at that time – but rather the destruction of eco-systems and the extermination of species. I realized that there were tremendous problems.
In the beginning, this insight had no connection with my scholarly work. But later on I thought it might be meaningful to explore how these developments and the human attitudes responsible for them would be evaluated from the perspective of traditional Buddhist texts. So, I started to study Buddhist texts from a new point of view, namely from the point of view of an environmental ethics. The results of my investigation have been published in several papers.
In connection with the problem of the Buddhist attitude towards nature, I came to be confronted with more special problems. One of these was the question of the sentience or insentience of plants in Buddhism, finally dealt with in my book, Plants in Early Buddhism and the Far Eastern Idea of the Buddha-Nature of Grasses and Trees (Lumbini 2009).
Another issue was the question of meat eating and vegetarianism in the Buddhist tradition, addressed in a couple of papers and now in my last book, Fleischverzehr und Vegetarismus im indischen Buddhismus (Hamburg Buddhist Studies 12, 2020). For the sake of a sound philological basis, this book also includes a critical edition and extensively annotated translation of three text portions from Mahāyānasūtras against meat eating: one from the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra, one from the Aṅgulimālīyasūtra, and one from the Laṅkāvatārasūtra.
IN: Why was the environment important to you in the first place?
LS: Well, since my childhood I’ve liked animals and plants. A world without animals, plants and unspoilt nature wouldn’t suit me.
I admit that even in wild nature animal life is not free from suffering. In this regard, Buddhists are right. But would there be less suffering in a world with nature destroyed, provided that it remains habitable at all?
IN: Has your insight into Buddhist philosophy influenced your life?
LS: Perhaps the emphasis on impermanence. And, of course, Buddhist ethics. Like Buddhists, I respect animals as sentient beings and try my best not to hurt them as far as possible. Perhaps, Buddhism also motivated me to try to be a bit less greedy, ill-willed and conceited.
IN: Do you have a favourite Buddhist philosopher?
LS: Not particularly. The text that took most of my time, the Yogācārabhūmi, though traditionally ascribed to Asaṅga or Maitreya, is almost certainly a compilation.
IN: Could you summarise the development of Buddhist Studies, Indian Studies, and Tibetan Studies in Germany and Austria over the years? Perhaps the major changes?
LS: That would need more preparation, so I must confine myself to a few hints. Around 1960, at the time when I was a student, there were only a limited number of chairs for Indology. Scholars were working in various fields of Indian Studies, including Indian Buddhism. Prof Helmut Hoffmann in Munich was also a Tibetologist. In the 1960s, Tibetology developed in Bonn, and a chair for Buddhist Studies including Tibetology was established not only, as has already been described, in Hamburg, but also in Vienna (Prof Ernst Steinkellner). At the same time, several universities established new positions for Indian Studies, but since ca. 2000 there has been an increasing tendency to reduce their number dramatically. Still, among the remaining Indologists, the percentage of those who study Buddhism is comparatively high.
IN: Were you part of the International Association for Tibetan Studies (IATS) or International Association of Buddhist Studies (IABS)?
LS: I was only part of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, but I participated in the meetings only once.
Reflections on career, biggest challenges, achievements, and contributions
IN: What has your career in Buddhist and Tibetan Studies given you?
LS: Studying Buddhism has taught me that the world and our fellow sentient beings could be understood in a way decisively different from the one I had been accustomed to in the context of our own culture.
IN: What topics might you like to pursue in the future?
LS: I have not yet decided. First, I would like to quietly read some books and texts I had no time to read so far.
IN: Looking back, what did you find the most interesting in your work, and what did you find the most challenging?
LS: Well, this depends on the age. In my younger years, it was the way the Yogācāra system explains the world in way completely different from an ordinary person’s world view, and the basis on which this was done, viz., meditative experience. Later, the most interesting and at the same time the most challenging work was that on the developments of the Buddhist view of the nature of plants, and the problems involved.
IN: What do you see as your most significant academic contribution(s) and why?
LS: I should like to leave the answer to my colleagues. From my point of view, my most significant academic contribution was perhaps that I was fortunate to have a great number of excellent students and that I somehow succeeded in training them well.
A message for future generations of students and researchers
IN: What would you say to current and future generations of Tibetologists and Buddhologists?
LS: Keep your eyes and mind open. Be ready to change or give up your position if you find that it might not be the right or best one. And do not get involved in endless disputes if neither party is able to convince the other, for in such cases it may be better to leave the decision the later, unprejudiced scholars.
Additional info
Books and booklets
1. Maṇḍanamiśra’s Vibhramavivekaḥ, mit einer Studie zu Entwicklung der indischen Irrtumslehre. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, 247. Band, 1. Abhandlung. Wien 1965.
2. Der Nirvāṇa-Abschnitt in der Viniścayasaṃgrahaḥ der Yogācārabhūmiḥ . Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, 264. Band, 2. Abhandlung. Wien 1969.
3. Ālayavijñāna. On the Origin and Early Development of a Central Concept of Yogācāra Philosophy. 2 vols. Studia Philologica Buddhica, Monograph Series, 4a and 4b. Tokyo 1987.
4. The Problem of the Sentience of Plants in Earliest Buddhism. Studia Philologica Buddhica, Monograph Series, 6. Tokyo 1991.
4a. Plants as Sentient Beings in Earliest Buddhism. The A. L. Basham Lecture for 1989. Canberra 1991.
5. Buddhism and Nature. The Lecture delivered on the Occasion of the EXPO 1990: An Enlarged Version with Notes. Studia Philologica Buddhica, Occasional Paper Series, 7. Tokyo 1991.
6. Maitri and Magic. Aspects of the Buddhist Attitude Towards the Dangerous in Nature. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, 652. Band. Wien 1997.
Articles
1. Vorstellungsfreie und vorstellende Wahrnehmung bei Śālikanātha.
In: Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Süd- und Ostasiens 7 (1963), 104–115.
2. Sautrāntika-Voraussetzungen in Viṃśatikā und Triṃśikā .
In: Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Süd- und Ostasiens, 11 (1967), 109–136.
2a. “Nijūron” to “Sanjūron” ni mirareru Kyōryōbu-teki zentei [übers. von Y. Kaji].
In: Buddhist Seminar 37 (1983), 73–96. [Jap. Übers. von 2.]
3. Zur advaitischen Theorie der Objekterkenntnis.
In: Beiträge zur Geistesgeschichte Indiens. Festschrift für Erich Frauwallner, Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Süd- und Ostasiens 12–13 (1968–1969), 329–360.
4. Some Remarks on the Problem of the Date of Vācaspatimitāra.
In: Journal of the Bihar Research Society 54 (1968), 158–164.
5. Ich und Erlösung im Buddhismus.
In: Zeitschrift für Missionswissenschaft und Religionswissenschaft 53 (1969), 157–170.
6. Zur Literaturgeschichte der älteren Yogācāra-Schule.
In: Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft. Supplementa I: Vorträge des XVII. Deutschen Orientalistentages in Würzburg, Wiesbaden 1969, 811–823.
7. Zu den Rezensionen des Udānavargaḥ -.
In: Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 14 (1970), 47–124.
8. Zur Lehre von der vorstellungsfreien Wahrnehmung bei Praśastapāda.
In: Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 14 (1970), 125–129.
9. Philologische Bemerkungen zum Ratnagotravibhāga-.
In: Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 15 (1971), 123–177.
10. The Definition of Pratyakṣam in the Abhidharmasamuccaya-.
In: Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 16 (1972), 153–163.
11. Zu D. Seyfort Rueggs Buch “La théorie du tathāgatagarbha et du gotra” [Besprechungsaufsatz].
In: Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 17 (1973), 123–160.
12. Spirituelle Praxis und philosophische Theorie im Buddhismus.
In: Zeitschrift für Missionswissenschaft und Religionswissenschaft 57 (1973), 161–186.
13. On the Problem of the Relation of Spiritual Practice and Philosophical Theory in Buddhism.
In: Cultural Department, Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany, New Delhi (ed.), German Scholars on India. Contributions to Indian Studies, Vol. II, Bombay 1976, 235–250.
14. Die vier Konzentrationen der Aufmerksamkeit. Zur geschichtlichen Entwicklung einer spirituellen Praxis des Buddhismus.
In: Zeitschrift für Missionswissenschaft und Religionswissenschaft 60 (1976), 241–266.
15. Zu Rahula Walpolas Übersetzung von Asaṅgas Abhidharmasamuccaya [Besprechungsaufsatz].
In: Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 20 (1976), 111–122.
16. Zur buddhistischen Lehre von der dreifachen Leidhaftigkeit
In: Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft. Supplementa III: Vorträge des XIX. Deutschen Orientalistentages in Freiburg, Wiesbaden 1977, 918–931.
17. Textgeschichtliche Beobachtungen zum 1. Kapitel der Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā .
In: Lewis Lancaster (ed.), Prajñāpāramitā and Related Systems. Studies in Honor of Edward Conze, Berkeley Buddhist Series 1, Berkeley 1977, 35–80.
18. Zur Struktur der erlösenden Erfahrung im indischen Buddhismus.
In: Gerhard Oberhammer (ed.), Transzendenzerfahrung, Vollzugshorizont des Heils, Wien 1978, 97–119.
19. Some Aspects of the Conception of Ego in Buddhism: Satkāyadṛṣṭi, Asmimāna and Kliṣṭamanas [ins Japanische übers. Von K. Yokoyama].
In: Bukkyō-gaku 7 (1979), 1–18.
20. On some Aspects of Descriptions or Theories of “Liberating Insight” and “Enlightenment” in Early Buddhism.
In: Klaus Bruhn und Albrecht Wezler (eds), Studien zum Jainismus und Buddhismus. Gedenkschrift für Ludwig Alsdorf, Alt- und Neu-Indische Studien 23, Wiesbaden 1981, 199–250.
21. Versenkungspraxis und erlösende Erfahrung in der Śrāvakabhūmi .
In: Gerhard Oberhammer (ed.), Epiphanie des Heils, Wien 1982, 59–85.
22. Die letzten Seiten der Śrāvakabhūmi.
In: L. A. Hercus et al. (eds), Indological and Buddhist Studies. Volume in Honour of Professor J. W. de Jong on his Sixtieth Birthday, Canberra 1982, 457–489.
23. The Darśanamārga Section of the Abhidharmasamuccaya and its Interpretation by Tibetan Commentators (with Special Reference to Bu ston Rin chen grub).
In: E. Steinkellner und H. Tauscher (eds), Contributions on Tibetan and Buddhist Religion and Philosophy. Proceedings of the Csoma de Körös Symposium held at Velm-Vienna, Austria, 13–19 September 1981, Vol. 2, Wien 1983, 259–274.
24. On the Vijñaptimātra Passage in Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra VIII.7.
In: Studies of Mysticism in Honour of the 1150th Anniversary of Kobo-Daishi’s Nirvāṇam, Acta Indologica 6 (1984), 433–455.
25. Buddhismus und Natur.
In: R. Panikkar und W. Strolz (eds), Die Verantwortung des Menschen für eine bewohnbare Welt in Christentum, Hinduismus und Buddhismus, Freiburg/Basel/Wien 1985, 100–133.
26. Once again Mahāyānasaṃgraha I.8.
In: Buddhism and Its Relation to other Religions. Essays in Honour of Dr. Shōzen Kumoi on his Seventieth Birthday, Kyoto 1985, 139–160.
27. Critical Response.
In: Ronald W. Neufeldt (ed.), Karma and Rebirth, Albany 1986, 203–230.
28. Zur Liste der 57 “kleineren Fehler” in der Ratnāvalī und zum Problem der Schulzugehörigkeit Nāgārjunas.
In: Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik 11/12 (1986), 203–232.
29. Beiträge zur Schulzugehörigkeit und Textgeschichte kanonischer und postkanonischer Materialien.
In: Heinz Bechert (ed.), Zur Schulzugehörigkeit von Werken der Hīnayāna-Literatur, 2. Teil, Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, philologisch-historische Klasse, 3. Folge, Nr. 154, Göttingen 1987, 304–406.
30. Buddhism and Nature.
In: Buddhism and Nature — Proceedings of an International Symposium on the Occasion of EXPO 1990, Tokyo 1991, 22–34.
30a. Budismo y naturaleza.
In: Revista de Estudios Budistas 1 (1991), 63–85. [Span. Übers. von 30.]
31. Yogācārabhūmi: Sopadhikā and Nirupadhikā Bhūmi-.
In: Papers in Honour of Prof. Dr. Ji Xianlin on the Occasion of His 80th Birthday, Vol. 2, Peking 1991, 687–709.
32. A Note on Vasubandhu and the Laṅkāvatārasūtra .
In: Études bouddhiques offertes à Jacques May, Asiatische Studien 46.1 (1992), 392–397.
33. An Attempt to Estimate the Distance in Time between Aśoka and the Buddha in Terms of Doctrinal History.
In: Heinz Bechert (ed.), The Dating of the Historical Buddha/Die Datierung des historischen Buddha, Part 2, Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, philologisch-historische Klasse, 3. Folge, Nr. 194, Göttingen 1992, 110–147.
34. Zur Textgeschichte der Pañcāgnividyā.
In: Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 38 (1994), 43–60.
35. On the Status of Plants in Earliest Buddhism.
In: Buddhism into the Year 2000. International Conference Proceedings, Bangkok/Los Angeles 1994, 49–65.
36. Buddhism and Environmental Ethics. Some Reflections.
In: Buddhism into the Year 2000. International Conference Proceedings, Bangkok/Los Angeles 1994, 181–201.
37. Mensch, Tier und Pflanze und der Tod in den älteren Upaniṣaden .
In: Gerhard Oberhammer (ed.), Im Tod gewinnt der Mensch sein Selbst. Das Phänomen des Todes in asiatischer und abendländischer Religion, Wien 1995, 43–74.
37a. Man, Animals and Plants in the Rebirth Passages of the Early Upaniṣads .
In: Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Sri Lanka, New Series 38 (1993/1994) [1995], 141–162. [modifizierte engl. Fassung von 37.]
38. Buddhism and Ecological Responsibility.
In: Lawrence Surendra, Klaus Schindler, Prasann Ramaswamy (eds), Stories they tell — A dialogue among philosophers, scientists and environmentalists, Madras 1996, 57–75 und 83–93.
39. Buddhismus und Glaubenskriege.
In: Peter Herrmann (ed.), Glaubenskriege in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart, Veröffentlichungen der Joachim-Jungius-Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, Hamburg, Nr. 83, Göttingen 1996, 63–92.
40. The Early Buddhist Tradition and Ecological Ethics.
In: Journal of Buddhist Ethics 4 (1997), 1–74.
40a. Buddhismus und ökologische Ethik. Teil 1
In: Bodhiblatt 6 (1997), 33–40; Teil 2 in: Bodhiblatt 7 (1997), 16–24. [deutsche Fassung von 40.]
41. Das Jñānaprasthāna-Fragment SHT III 823.
In: Petra Kieffer-Pülz und Jens-Uwe Hartmann (eds), Bauddhavidyā sudhākaraḥ . Studies in Honour of Heinz Bechert on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, Indica et Tibetica 30, Swisttal-Odendorf 1997, 559–569.
42. Tier und Mensch im Buddhismus.
In: Paul Münch in Verbindung mit Rainer Walz (eds), Tiere und Menschen — Geschichte und Aktualität eines prekären Verhältnisses, Paderborn 1998, 179–224. [zusammen mit M. Maithrimurthi]
43. Das Jñānaprasthāna-Fragment SHT VII 1752.
In: Paul Harrison u. G. Schopen (Hsg.), Sūryacandrāya, Essays in Honour of Akira Yuyama. On the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, Swisttal-Odendorf 1998
44. Heilsvermittelnde Aspekte der Natur im Buddhismus.
In: G. Oberhammer u. M. Schmücker (Hsg.), Raum-zeitliche Vermittlung der Tranzendenz. Zur “sakramentalen” Dimension religiöser Tradition. Wien 1999
45. Aspects of the Buddhist Attitude towards War.
In: J. E. M. Houben u. K. R. van Kooij (Hsg.), Violence Denied, Leiden 1999
46. A further Note on ‘Hetucakraḍamaru’ 8–9.
In: Journal of Indian Philosophy 27, 1999,79–82.
Reviews
1. K. Cammann, Das System des Advaita nach der Lehre Prakāśātmans.
In: Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 117 (1967), 430–433.
2. F. Bernhard, Udānavarga, Bd. II.
In: Oriens 23–24 (1970/71), 620–623.
3. R. E. Emmerick, The Book of Zambasta.
In: Central Asiatic Journal 15.1 (1971), 75–77.
4. W. Rau, Bhartṛharis Vākyapadīya.
In: Kratylos 23 (1978), 179–181. 5. E. Conze, The Gilgit Manuscript of the Aṣṭadaśasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā (Chs. 70 to 82).
In: Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 23 (1979), 244–246.
6. E. Conze, Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā.
In: Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 23 (1979), 246f.
7. J. F. Fischer (ed.), Himalayan Anthropology: The Indo-Tibetan Interface.
In: Mitteilungen der Koordinierungsstelle für gegenwartsbezogene Ost- und Südasienforschung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Ost- und Südasienkunde 34 (1980), 86–90.
8. H. Bechert (ed.), Sanskrit-Wörterbuch der buddhistischen Texte aus den Turfan-Funden, 1. Lieferung.
In: Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 132 (1982), 407–411.
9. H. Bechert (ed.), Sanskrit-Wörterbuch der buddhistischen Texte aus den Turfan-Funden, 2. Lieferung.
In: Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 137 (1987), 151–157.
10. Herman W. Tull, The Vedic Origins of Karma. Cosmos as Man in Ancient Indian Myth and Ritual.
In: Indo-Iranian Journal 37 (1994), 151–158.
11. Samten Gyaltsen Karmay, The Great Perfection (rDzogs chen).
In: Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 90.3 (1995), 334–336.
Anzeigen und Kurzbesprechungen
1. N. K. Devaraja, An Introduction to Śankara’s Theory of Knowledge. In: Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 61 (1966), 74f.
2. F. Bernhard, Udānavarga, Bd. I. In: Oriens 20 (1967), 257f.
3. A. Gail, Bhakti im Bhāgavatapurāṇa . In: Zeitschrift für Missionswissenschaft und Religionswissenschaft, 54 (1970), 317.
4. T. Vetter, Maṇḍanamiśra’s Brahmasiddhiḥ, Brahmakāṇḍaḥ. In: Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 122 (1972), 427f.
5. D. I. Lauf, Das Erbe Tibets. In: Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 98 (1973), 301f.
6. H.-D. Evers, Monks, Priests and Peasants. A Study of Buddhism and Social Structure in Central Ceylon. In: Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 98 (1973), 304.
7. N. Hein, The Miracle Plays of Mathurā. In: Zeitschrift für Missionswissenschaft und Religionswissenschaft 58 (1974), 66f.
8. P. Olivelle, Vāsudevāśrama, Yatidharmaprakāśa. A Treatise on World Renunciation. In: Zeitschrift für Missionswissenschaft und Religionswissenschaft 63 (1979), 314f.
9. L. Joshi, Studies in the Buddhistic Culture of India. In: Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 130 (1980), 443f.
10. H. Bechert (ed.), Buddhism in Ceylon and Studies on Religious Syncretism in Buddhist Countries. In: Mundus 19.3 (1983), 191.
Verschiedene Kurzrezensionen und Anzeigen in der Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Süd(- und Ost)asiens, 6 (1962)-11 (1967), 14 (1970), 15 (1971) und 20 (1976).
Contributions to Dictionaries and Encyclopaedias
1. Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie, ed. J. Ritter und K. Gründer (Basel: Schwabe): “Advaita”; “Ātman”; “Avidyā”; “Brahman”; “Māyā”; ” Nirvāṇa ” u.a.
2. Enciclopedia Europea, Milano 1976: “Buddha”; “buddhismo” (621–626).
3. Lexikon der Bioethik, Wilhelm Korff, Lutwin Beck u. Paul Mikat (eds), , Bd. 3, Gütersloh 1998: “Buddhismus”.
Herausgebertätigkeit
1. Paul Hacker, Kleine Schriften. Wiesbaden 1978.
2. Studies in Earliest Buddhism and Madhyamaka. Panels of the VIIth World Sanskrit Conference, Vol. II, Leiden, 1990. [zusammen mit D. Seyfort Ruegg]
Nachrufe
1. Paul Hacker. In: Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 131 (1981), 1–8.
2. Wolfgang Helck. In: Jahresbericht 1993 der Joachim-Jungius-Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, Hamburg, 82–83.
Lambert SCHMITHAUSEN, born 17.11.1939 in Cologne, Germany.
1949–1958 highschool (Gymnasium) in Cologne.
1958–1963 study of Indology, Philosophy and Islamic Studies at the universities of Bonn, Cologne and Vienna.
1963 Dr. phil. at the university of Vienna.
1966 venia legendi (Habilitation) at the university of Münster.
1970 associate professor for Indology at the university of Münster.
1973–2005 chair for Indian and Buddhist studies at the university of Hamburg.
since April 2005 professor emeritus (university of Hamburg).
1979 offered chair for Indology at the university of Münster (declined).
Visiting professor at the Australian National University (Canberra) 1989, at Kyoto University (1999 and 2005) and at the International College for Postgraduate Buddhist Studies, Tokyo (2006, 2012). Corresponding member of the Austrian Academy of Sciences since 1996 Senior member of the Academy of Sciences in Hamburg (founded 2005).
Married since 1960 to Helga Schmithausen; 2 children.
