Reviews Of Diffeent Books

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

Page 51

REVIEWS
245
parakānkṣāvighātārtham yā mukhād abhinirhstā /
śaratsamdhyābhralekheva vaktracandrāvaghātini // Hartmann remarks that avaghātini is not found in the dictionaries but that ud-ghat "to open" occurs in the Petersburg dictionary. Probably avaghātini is a scribe's error for avagunthini due to the presence of vighāta in pāda a. In 12.10 avaghunthitah is rendered in Tibetan with khebs-pa which in 11.5 renders avaghātini. In 11.28 the subject which is not mentioned is Buddha's tongue (prabhūtā):
varnan alamkarotīva varnair mandayatīva gām /
ādeyataratām proktā mukham gamayativa te // The Tibetan translation of cd reads: bśad pa mdzad na khyod kyi zal lśin tu sba bar mdzad pa bzin //. Hartmann is puzzled by proktā and suggests tentatively changing it to praudha. He translates bśad pa mdzad na as "wenn eine Erklärung gegeben wird" without explaining why mdzad-pa would have a passive meaning here. It is not likely that Mātộceta would have used an incorrect form proktvā. Read ādeyataratām uktvā? As to Tibetan sba this is probably an error for spa, cf. Hartmann's note ad 12.14.
12.13-14 describe the glory of the pravacana. The text reads (square brackets and parentheses in 13b and 13d have been omitted):
nivrstta]man(d)a[p]e(yena) mlāyamānagunaujasaḥ / janitavranadoșasya kalpāntaramatāntaraiḥ // gată pravacanasyāsya tvadrte vyustir anyatām / hrtanagasya sarasaḥ śrir ivāciranāśini //
Hartmann's reconstruction of 13ab is based upon the Tibetan translation: 'tsham pa'i sñin po dan bral bas / yon tan gzi yan mi spa la / The meaning of 'tsham pa'i sñin po is not clear but it seems here to translate mandapeya. Tibetan bral-bas, however, does not justify the reading -peyena and it is certainly preferable to read nivrttamandapeyasya in line with the genitives in padas b and c.
Hartmann has edited the Tibetan translation on the basis of the Cone, Derge, Narthang and Peking Tanjurs. He points out that the Cone text is not based upon the Derge text (p. 45) as is the case for other texts. This shows that it is dangerous to make general statements on the relationships between the different recensions of the Tanjur after having compared the differences in a single text. In his notes Hartmann draws attention to differences between the Tibetan translation and the Sanskrit original and to