Book Reviews

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

Page 11

REVIEWS
229
for the thesis adopted by him but in the opinion of the opponent this rule is not valid. As he is unable to advance reasons and examples, he tries to prove his own thesis only by clinging to it. By adopting a thesis which is not based on logical arguments he is only contradicting himself and is not capable of convincing his opponents. The fact that he is not capable of proving his own thesis is certainly the clearest refutation of him.” The Tibetan translator probably found it necessary to be more explicit in translating na cāyam param prati and added the word gtsantshigs reason, argument': 'di ni gźan-la gtan-tshigs kyan ma yin-no "but according to the opponent this is not an argument.” However, it is wrong to add hetu or another word in the Sanskrit text because ayam clearly refers to the general rule (nyāya).
Since the publication of Stcherbatsky's book in 1927 considerable progress has been made in the study of Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit and it is therefore possible to correct in several instances his renderings of passages written in Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit. On p. 91 Candrakirti quotes the following verse:
yo na pi jayati na cupapadyi / no cyavate na pi jīryati dharmah / tam jinu deśayati narasimhah / tatra niveśayi satvasatäni //
Stcherbatsky renders this as follows: "This one Reality (eternal) has been revealed by the Victorious (Buddha), the lion of this mankind: it is not born, it does not live, it does not die, does not decay, and merged in it are all the beings!” Stcherbatsky explains dharma here as dharmakaya, dharmată, tathata. This is again an example of his tendency to interpret Nägārjuna and Candrak irti as proclaiming an absolute reality. It is preferable to translate dharma here as
doctrine'. The last pada has been misunderstood by Stcherbatsky because he did not see that niveśayi is a 3 p. sg. aor. of niveśayati 'to establish'. The meaning of this päda is: "In it (i.e. this doctrine) he established hundreds of beings." The last päda of the following stanza has to be interpreted in the same way: tatra niveśayi nāthah "The Lord established (the beings) in it." Stcherbatsky translates: “But everywhere is present our Lord." Sprung closely follows Stcherbatsky in his translation of these two pādas: "In it are merged all living beings" and "the lord is realized everywhere."
It is not possible to discuss other passages in the first chapter which were misunderstood by Stcherbatsky. Although his translation contains a number of errors and tendentious renderings, it is far superior to Sprung's translation. Stcherbatsky was a great scholar who had an excellent knowledge of Indian and Buddhist philosophy. His translations of difficult philosophical texts both Brahmanical and Buddhist will always be of the greatest assistance to serious students.
In translating the twenty-fifth chapter on Nirvana, Sprung enjoyed the assistance of T. R. V. Murti, the author of a book entitled The Central Philosophy of Buddhism (London, 1955). However, Murti's collaboration, which is expressly mentioned on the title-page of this book, has not produced a good translation. It is superfluous to point out all the wrong renderings found in it. Well-known Buddhist terms have been completely misunderstood. For instance anavarágra (p. 535.6) is rendered as "the highest existence". On p. 523 the Sautrāntikas are said to deny the existence of the avijnapti and the viprayuktasamskāra-s. The text has vijñapti but already Stcherbatsky has indicated that one should read avijnapti. Sprung translates (a) vijnaptivi. prayuktasamskäras as innate dispositions which are meaningfully related and intelligible." These well-known Abhidharma terms were explained by Stcherbatsky in his Central Conception of Buddhism (London, 1923) to which he refers in the notes to his translation (p. 189, notes 5 and 6). Also very strange is the rendering of avyabhicarita (p. 525.15; cf. p. 607) by impropriety'. On p. 541 we find the expression svākhyāte dharmavinaye pravrajya "having taken up the religious life in the doctrine and discipline which are well-taught." This expression is well-known from the Pāli texts, cf. Vinaya, vol. I, p. 187.23: svākkhāte dhammavinaye. Sprung translates “having taken up the spiritual life in some popular religious order." Probably he was misled by Stcherbatsky who seems to have misunderstood sv-ākhyåta as sva-ākhyāta