Book Reviews

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

Page 24

162
REVIEWS
Peter Zieme und György Kara, Ein uigurisches Totenbuch. Nāropas Lehre in uigurischer Übersetzung von vier tibetischen Traktaten nach der Sammelhandschrift aus Dunhuang British Museum Or. 8212 (109) (Asiatische Forschungen, Band 63). Wiesbaden, Otto Harrassowitz, 1979. 347 pp. DM 88,-.
MS British Museum Or. 8212 (109) contains four Uigur texts translated from Tibetan originals. The texts belong to the cycle of Cakrasamvara and are based upon traditions connected with the teachings of Näropa (1016-1100). The first text (A, lines 1-236) deals with the existence between death and rebirth (antarābhava, Tib.bar-do), death, the path to buddhahood and rebirth. The title of the Uigur version is rendered as "Der Dharma, der von den mit einfältigem Sinnesvermögen ausgestatteten Lebewesen der Reihenfolge nach verwirklicht und verstanden werden kann." The third text (C, lines 1012-1297) is entitled "Das zu befolgende Ritual der sechs dhyānas der Candāli" (Tib. *Gtum-mo'i bsam-gtan drug-la 'khrid-pa'i cho-ga) and describes the first five of the six doctrines (Chos-drug) of Náropa (1.gtum-mo; 2. sgyu-lus; 3. rmi-lam; 4. 'od-gsal; 5. 'pho-ba; 6. bar-do). The fourth text (D, lines 1 298-1430) deals with the six offerings (mchod-pa) to Cakrasamvara. The most interesting text is the second, entitled "Die Instruktion der tiefen Lehre, die vier Arten von Reihen dem Weg entsprechend zu befolgen" (B, lines 236-1011). The name of the author is mentioned in the colophon: Dharmadhvaja or Chos-kyi rgyal-mchan (1108-1176) from Cog-ro (cf. George N. Roerich, The Blue Annals, Part one, Calcutta, 1949, pp. 386-387). The original Tibetan text does not seem to have been handed down but the authors were able to discover a parallel text written by Sa-skya chen-po Kun-dga' sñin-po (1092-1158). According to them the title is Rim-pa bži lam-du slon-ba and the text is nr. 7 in the first volume of the Sa-skya-pa'i bka'-'bum (Tokyo, 1968). However, the title is Rim-pa bži-pa'i gdams-rag and the text is nr. 42 (pp. 249-254).
The third text was translated by Arya Acārya from Qamil (Hami) and written down in 1350 by Sarïy Tutung from UX-lük Cüng (Lukchun near Turfan). The other texts have no colophon but according to the authors the first three texts were written by the same scribe. Zieme and Kara have already published two volumes with Uigur texts translated from the Tibetan (Fragmente tantrischer Werke in uigurischer Übersetzung, Berlin, 1976; Die uigurischen Übersetzungen des Guruyogas "Tiefer Weg" von Sa-skya Pandita und der Manjusrināmasamgiti, Berlin, 1977). The present volume is of great interest not only to specialists in Uigur, but also to students in Tibetan Buddhism, because it contains translations of original Tibetan texts which must have been popular in the fourteenth century. The second text was written in the twelfth century by Chos-kyi rgyal-mchan and, most probably, the other three texts belong to the same period. It is to be hoped that it will be possible to discover the Tibetan texts translated by the Uigur translators. However, the text of the Rim-pa bži lam-du slon-ba must have been very close to the text used by the Uigur translator and it is therefore possible to compare the Uigur translation with it, as has been done by the authors. The text of the Rim-pa bži lam-du slor-ba is reproduced in the notes to the translation of the Uigur texts and partly translated. It would have been very useful if the authors had given a complete and annotated translation of the Tibetan text. Of course, the main purpose of this publication is the edition and translation of the Uigur text, but it is not easy to see how the Tibetan text was translated into Uigur without comparing the Tibetan text in its original wording, or in translation, with the Uigur version. In many instances, the authors reproduce the corresponding Tibetan text but do not translate it. Specialists in Uigur who do not know Tibetan will be unable to compare the Tibetan original with the Uigur translation. However, they will not even obtain sufficient help from the passages translated, because the Tibetan text has often been misunderstood by the translators. In several instances the Uigur translation is closer to the original than the translation of the Tibetan text would suggest. Sometimes one has the impression that in translating the Uigur text the translators have not taken sufficient account of the Tibetan text. It is, of course, a hazardous undertaking for somebody who is not a specialist in Uigur to criticize the translation of the Uigur text, but it may be useful at least to indicate that, in some