________________ 510 BUCHBESPRECHUNGEN I COMPTES RENDUS es in diesem Zusammenhang allein ankommt). In other words, it is always possible that someone else will, in spite of one's best efforts, find an even better interpretation. Presenting an interpretation that can be corrected by others is not in itself a sign of methodological shortcomings; bad methodology is not responsible for Newton's failure to discover the theory of relativity. Comparing interpretations is of the essence of textual scholarship. It is useless to criticize an interpretation if one has nothing better (or at least equivalent) to offer. Oetke does not seem to realize this: at the very least he would have eased the task of his readers considerably if he had made clear at every step that he criticizes other interpretations because he thinks he can offer a better one. Simply criticizing other interpretations not only makes for tedious reading, it is even methodologically indefensible. It is not possible to discuss Oetke's ideas here in further detail. One general observation must however be made. Whereas most philologists will see it as their task to interpret texts in their historical and cultural context, Oetke has the tendency to abstract the statements he seeks to interpret from any context whatsoever. He is primarily interested in logically possible interpretations, much less in interpretations that fit best the cultural and historical context. Such a procedure may perhaps occasionally rectify interpretations that have been too heavily influenced by contextual, at the expense of textual considerations. Unfortunately Oetke presents no example where this can be shown to be the case. This takes us to the contrast that exists between the two books here reviewed. In an important sense they represent two opposite extremes. For Tuck, there is no way to break away from one's own cultural universe and enter into that of the Indian authors whose texts we study; not even detailed textual scholarship can help us cross the barrier. Oetke, on the other hand, comes close to denying the very existence of such a barrier. Accordingly, he seeks to provide a mechanical method to get at the meaning of the text. In reality there is no justification, neither for Tuck's hopelessness nor for Oetke's methodological optimism. We can in many cases get close to the intended meaning of a text, yet success is not guaranteed by simply applying a supposedly right method. There is a creative element in reading any text, even, or especially, a sutra. But our creativity is not limited, it is no prison. It can get us closer to the meaning of a text if we confront it, as strictly as we can, with the letter of the text concerned. Johannes Bronkhorst
