From 1947-1950, he lived in Paris, studying at both the Sorbonne and the Collège de France, where he began studying Tibetan. While still in Paris, he met his future wife Gisèle Bacquès, whom he married in 1949. That same year, he was awarded his PhD from the University of Leiden; his doctoral thesis was a critical translation of Candrakīrti's Prasannapadā. He also began studying Mongolian.
He returned to the Netherlands in 1950 to act as senior research assistant (1950–1954) and continuing academic employee (1954–1956) at the Univ. of Leiden, working at the university's Sinologisch Instituut; in 1956, he became the first Chair of Tibetan and Buddhist Studies when the position was created at the Insituut Kern (the Indological institute at the Univ. of Leiden). In 1957, de Jong founded the Indo-Iranian Journal with Univ. of Leiden colleague F. B. J. Kuijper in 1957 in order to facilitate the publishing of scholarly articles in Indology. In 1965, he moved to Australia to become professor of Indology at the Australian National University in Canberra, a position he held until his retirement in 1986.
De Jong became a corresponding member of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1978.
De Jong is well known for his amazing linguistic ability having had a command of Dutch, French, English, German, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, Danish, Mongolian, Sanskrit, Pāli, and Tibetan, as well as the rather acerbic quality of his reviews. His scholarly publications number more than 800; 700 of these are reviews. He made major contributions to the field of Tibetan studies, including a study of an account of the life of Milarepa by Tsangnyong Heruka Rüpägyäncän (Gtsang-smyon he-ru-ka rus-pa'i-rgyan-can) (1490), and the editing and translation of all Dunhuang fragments apropos of the Rāmāyaṇa story in Tibetan. Furthermore, his work on Madhyamaka philosophy in the 1940s is some of the earliest to treat that topic in detail.
De Jong died in Canberra. In April 2000, some 12,000 items from his personal library (which itself contained over 20,000 volumes) was purchased from his family in Canberra by the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand. (Source Accessed Mar 17, 2020)
Library Items
In 1931 E. Obermiller published a translation of the Ratnagotravibhāga from the Tibetan: "The Sublime Science of the Great Vehicle to Salvation", Acta Orientalia, Vol. IX, Part II.III, pp. 81-306.'"`UNIQ--ref-000001E2-QINU`"' His interpretation of the text is based upon a commentary by Tsoṅ-kha-pa's pupil and successor rGyal-tshab Dar-ma rin-chen (1364–1432)'"`UNIQ--ref-000001E3-QINU`"' The Sanskrit text has been edited by E. H. Johnston and published by T. Chowdhury: The Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra (Patna, 1950). This edition is based upon two manuscripts found in Tibet by Rāhula Sāṁkṛtyāyana. The edition of the Sanskrit text has given a new impulse to the study of the Ratnagotravibhāga. Several passages of the Ratnagotravibhāga have been translated by E. Conze (Buddhist Texts through the Ages, Oxford, 1954, pp. 130-131, 181-184 and 216-217). In Die Philosophie des Buddhismus (Berlin, 1956, pp. 255-264) E. Frauwallner has given a summary of the ideas contained in this text and a translation of several verses.'"`UNIQ--ref-000001E4-QINU`"' In 1959 Ui Hakuju published a detailed study on the Ratnagotravibhāga (Hōshōron Kenkyū) which contains a complete translation (pp. 471-648), together with a Sanskrit-Japanese glossary (pp. 1-60 with separate pagination).'"`UNIQ--ref-000001E5-QINU`"' Professor Takasaki's translation was undertaken during his stay in India (1954-1957) and continued afterwards. Apart from this book he has published between 1958 and 1964 ten articles relating to the Ratnagotravibhāga (a list is given on pp. xii-xiii).'"`UNIQ--ref-000001E6-QINU`"' . . .
The translation of the Ratnagotravibhāga by Professor Takasaki is the first to be based on the Sanskrit text and the Chinese and Tibetan translations. Obermiller utilized only the Tibetan version and his translation, excellent as it is, contains a number of mistakes which are obvious in the light of the Sanskrit text. Ui utilized both the Sanskrit text and the Chinese translation, but he was unable to consult the Tibetan translation directly. His knowledge of it was based upon a Japanese translation, made for him by Tada Tōkan, and upon Obermiller's English translation. It is clear from many indications that the Chinese translation is closer to the original than both the Sanskrit text and the Tibetan translation. However, as concerns the interpretation of the text, the Chinese translation is now always a reliable guide. There are several places where Professor Takasaki has been too much influenced by it but in general he indicates very well the wrong interpretations which are to be found in the Chinese translation. For the Tibetan translation Professor Takasaki has consulted only the Derge edition. A comparison of the passages quoted in the notes with the corresponding passages in the Peking edition (the only one at my disposal) shows that the Derge edition does not always give a satisfactory text. An edition of the Tibetan translation based on the Derge, Peking and Narthang editions would be highly desirable. In view of the importance of the vocabulary of the Ratnagotravibhāga for both Buddhist Sanskrit and Mahāyāna terminology, it would also be very useful to have indexes, on the lines of those compiled by Professor Nagao for the Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra.
Read more here . . .
