________________
236
REVIEWS
that if the reference to Fco. were left out, the reader would assume that it was in agreement with K according to her system of presentation!
The emendations which Carol Meadows proposes are not always acceptable. For instance in 2.9d K and Fco. read etān prayatnena:
samāsataḥ śīlam idam vadanti yaḥ samvaraḥ kāyavacomanastah / kārtsnyena cātraiva yatah sa tasmad
etān prayatnena višodhayec ca // Carol Meadows reads etany ayatnena and translates: "In short, they call this morality (sila) restraint in body, speech, and mind; therefore, fixed in just this (morality) in its entirety, he would also effortlessly bring about the purification of these [the body, speech and mind)." In pāda c sa refers to samvara: “because it (i.e. restraint] resides entirely in them, one must purify them [body, speech, and mind) with effort." The Tibetan translation of cd is quite different: tshul-khrims ma-lus 'dul-ba'i gãi yin-pas / de-phyir 'di-dag rnam-par sbyan-bar gyis, "morality is the basis of the discipline; therefore one must purify them."
In 4.14b Ferrari emended phalam svamūni to phalantvamūni which is confirmed by K. Without any justification Carol Meadows changes this to phalanty amūni:
tathā hi karunyaviśuddhabuddhih sarvajñabhāvāya phalanty amūni/ punyāni lokasya caracasyety
evam sa tāny ārabhate susattvaḥ // In two instances Carol Meadows separates words connected in Ferrari's edition without mentioning this in the notes. The first case is 3.16:
loko 'yam ātmābhiniveśamudhah (not -niveśasamüdhah!) śesan parān ity abhimanyamanah / tad viprakārair abhibhūtacetā (h)
kşamāviyogāt parikhedam eti // Carol Meadows translates tad by 'therefore'. One must read tadviprakarair, i.e. tesām viprakārair, cf. Ferrari: "con l'animo sopraffatto dalle loro ingiurie." In 6.43d Carol Meadows separates prajñā and gunāmātyasanāthatā:
na yad virūpām prakrtim vrajanti
prajñā gunāmātyasanāthată să // One must read prajñāgunāmātya-: "this is due to the fact that they [i.e. the