Book Reviews

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

Page 21

REVIEWS
217
corresponding Tibetan text. There are two Tibetan versions (one made from the Sanskrit, the other from the Chinese) and three Chinese versions, the so-called Northern version translated by Dharmakşema (Taisho no. 374), the so-called Southern version which is based upon this version (Taisho no. 375) and Fa-hsien's version (Taisho no. 376).2 FUSE Kõgaku compared the Southern and Northern versions but no detailed study of all five versions has been made. The text of the fragments agrees almost entirely with that of the Tibetan version made from the Sanskrit, but differs considerably from that of the Chinese translations made by Dharmaksema and Fa-hsien. It is of course not possible to examine each fragment in detail, but a few remarks will probably suffice to show some of the problems connected with the study of these fragments. Bongard-Levin has carefully transliterated the texts of the fragments, but it is not clear why he does not always transcribe the vigraha which is written in the manuscripts by h. For instance, he writes vainayikavasahaitoh (fragment 1 R 1), but mahānāga: (R 4). The scribe did not observe the samdhi rules very carefully and the fact that mahānāgāh is followea by mahā- is no reason not to write mahānāgah. Aksaras which are missing are added in square brackets but Bongard-Levin does not indicate aksaras which are for the moșt part legible. For instance, in fragment 1 (V 7) he reads parigrhītacāryāscarinah), but one can clearly read the ca and i of carinah. Moreover, the n is written nn.
In R 7 of the first fragment, Bongard-Levin writes (maha] yanaparamaguhyaka(sünyatā] vacana and in a note he remarks that sūnyatā is restored on the basis of the Tibetan translation. The aksara which Bongard-Levin thinks to be -tā or tva is for the most part legible. The top part is undoubtedly an n and not a t. Probably one must read ndhā because a part of the loop of the dh can still be seen. Most probably the text has sandhāvacana, a term which is often to be found in the Mahāparinirvanasūtra. The Tibetan translation has dgons-pa'i tshig.
A more detailed study of the fragments requires not only a comparison with Dharmaksema's version but also with that of Fa-hsien. For instance, in R 4 of the first fragment one reads mahāšūnyatadhigatasvārtha, which Bongard-Levin renders as follows: "they had obtained their goal – the great sünyatā.” Dharmaksema's translation has: "they possessed completely the wisdom of the void” (p. 366a22), but Fa-hsien's translation is more detailed: "they possessed completely the wisdom of the void. They had obtained their own advantage" (p. 852a24–25). Fa-hsien's translation seems to be based upon a Sanskrit original which must have been something like: mahāšūnyatadhigamasamanvaga tā adhigatasvārthah.
Toda remarked that in the Kashgar manuscript of the Saddharmapundarīkasūtra, anusvāra is often omitted and many wrong anusvāras are found.5 Fragment 1 V1 has: bhagavanta satasahasrakrtvah pradaks sini] krtya ... Bhagavanta is certainly a careless spelling for bhagavantam. In a note Bongard-Levin refers to Edgerton's Grammar (18.7), but this paragraph relates to a nom. sg. masc. -nta in verses and