Book Reviews

Author(s): J W De Jong
Publisher: J W De Jong

Page 21

REVIEWS
159
n. 1). However, it is not possible to read 'virodhad instead of virodhad in the following passage: (ChUBh p. 495.18-20): ya eso 'ksini puruso drśyata iti cchāyāpurusa eva prajāpatinoktan/ svapnasusuptayoś canya eva/na paro 'pahatapāpmatvādilaksano virodhad iti kecin manyante. P. 211: "Mit [der Aussage] Der purusa, den man im Auge sieht (ChU VIII, 7, 4) ist von Prajāpati nur der Reflexions-purusa gemeint. Und das ist ein anderer als der des Traumes und der des tiefen Schlafes. Es ist nicht der Höchste, der durch die Tatsache gekennzeichnet ist, dass er das Ubel abgeschlagen hat usw., weil (dann) kein Gegensatz bestünde." According to Sankara's opponents the reflection purusa is not the supreme self because there is a contradiction between the two, cf. Anandagiri's commentary (p. 496.5-6): apahatapāpmatväder avasthāvattvasya ca mitho virodho hetvarthaḥ. On p. 209, n. 1 the author proposes to read nivartitavijñānam and translates "dessen Erkennen... abgebracht worden ist." According to her, a variant reads nivartitāvijñānam. However, the text has nivartitāvivikejñānam and the variant reads nivartitāvivekavijñānam. Both the reading adopted by the author and her rendering are unacceptable.
It is, however, necessary to make one important reservation in recommending Dr. Brückner's book. Both the BĀUBh and the ChUBh have been translated by Indian scholars, the former by Svāmī Mādhavānanda, and the latter by Ganganatha Jha. Although the translations are listed in the bibliography, the author does not seem to have made sufficient use of them. Svāmī Madhavananda's translation is in general very good. Jha's English is less readable and his translation is not always very careful. Nevertheless, it is wrong not to take notice of his interpretation which is based upon a long experience of Indian philosophical texts. There are several passages which were undoubtedly better rendered by these two scholars than by Dr. Brückner. It is only possible to point this out by quoting the Sanskrit texts and the translations given by Dr. Brückner and the above mentioned scholars.
The expression -vyatirekena, 'apart from, over and above', has been misunderstood by the author, who renders it as 'verschieden' or 'unterschieden'. For instance BĂU Bh 623.25-26: na ca svaccha svābhāvyavyatirekena haritanīlalohitādilaksaņā dharmabhedāḥ sphatikasya kalpayitum sakyante. P. 92: "nicht eine Vielfalt von Attributen des Kristalls, bezeichnet als grün, blau, rot usw., angenommen werden darf, die von seiner Transparenz-Natur verschieden wären." Svāmī Madhavananda translates (p. 680): "yet no one can imagine that crystal has any other attribute but its natural transparency, such as green, blue or red colour." BAUBh $66.10-12: nanu nästy eva dhiyā samanam anyad dhiyo 'vabhāsakam ātmajyotih (dhivyatirekena pratyaksena vänumănena vānu palambhāt. P. 183: "Ist es nicht so, dass es ein anderes, der Vorstellung ähnelndes ātman-Licht, das der Erheller der Vorstellung wäre, gar nicht gibt? Denn mittels einer von der Vorstellung unterschiedenen Wahrnehmung oder Schlussfolgerung erkennt man nichts." Svāmī Madhavananda (p. 617): "We say there is no such thing as the light of the self similar to the intellect and revealing it, for we experience nothing by the intellect either through perception or through inference." BAU Bh 570.22-23: ghatavac caksurgrāhyatve 'pi pradīpasya cakşuh pradipavyatirekena na bāhyam alokasthānīyam kimcit kāranāntaram apeksate. P. 186: "Obwohl die Lampe – wie der Topf - Gegenstand der Sehkraft ist, erfordert die Sehkraft, da sie von der Lampe verschieden ist, keinerlei anderes, äusserliches Mittel, das an Stelle des Lichtes (im anderen Falle) stünde.” Swāmī Mādhavānanda (p. 622): “But though the lamp, like the jar, is perceived by the eye, the latter does not require any external means corresponding to the light, over and above the lamp (which is the object)." The meaning of vyatirikta is not 'getrennt' but different from, other than'. According to the Buddhist idealist a pot or a lamp is nothing but consciousness, cf. BĂU Bh 571.10: tasmān nästi bāhyo rtho ghatapradīpadir vijnanamätram eva tu sarvam. In the beginning of this passage he remarks: nanu nästy eva bahyo 'rtho ghatādih pradīpo và vijñanavyatiriktah (571.5). P. 187: "Ist es nicht so, dass ein äusserer Gegenstand, ein Topf usw. oder eine Lampe, getrennt vom Bewusstsein gar nicht existiert?" Swami Madhavananda (p. 622): "We say there is no external object like the jar etc. or the lamp apart from consciousness."
In translating three passages of the Chāndogyopanişadbhāşya the author has not sufficiently