Reviews Of Diffeent Books

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

Page 18

REVIEWS
and many references to the Sanskrit text. Willemen has not contented himself with consulting Snellgrove's edition, but has also made use of three manuscripts in the Tokyo University Library (Nos. 510, 511 and 512). It is always possible to interpret such an often complicated text in some places in a different way, but on the whole the translation is not to be faulted.
The translator, Dharmapala, was born in Kaśmir in 963 A.D. and arrived in China in 1004 A.D. He translated the Hevajratantra in 1054-1055 A.D. and died in 1058 A.D. Together with Wei-ching he compiled a Compendium of Indian Writing of the Ching-yu Era. According to Willemen, the compilation of this book, the last long treatise on Siddham in China, clearly shows that Dharmapāla was a well-trained philologist, a fact which must be taken into account when judging his translations (cf. p. 28). Willemen remarks that the Indian text of the Hevajratantra is much more explicit than the Chinese translation. He continues: "I am convinced that Dharmapāla rendered the Indian original in a very tactful, deliberately abstruse way, but remaining true to the actual proceedings of the Indian original. The coherence of the Chinese 'mistranslations' only proves Dharmapala's sound philological abilities and his remarkable talent for tactfulness. It would be a mistake merely to discard the Chinese Hevajratantra as a faulty translation. Dharmapāla delivered a translation which was morally acceptable and in line with the existing Chinese esoteric texts, yet ambiguous enough to leave room for the right interpretation" (p. 29). In his preface Willemen declares himself unable to share the apparent surprise at the considerable differences noted between the Chinese texts and the Indian original of the anuttarayogatantras. He remarks: "Only an uncertain grasp of Chinese, when combined with a more thorough knowledge of both Sanskrit and Tibetan, would lead one to assume the answer to many of the problems raised, was to be found in the Chinese versions. A specific study of the relation between the Indian originals and the Chinese versions seemed urgently required to resolve some of the difficulties in this respect." I have quoted at length Willemen's remarks which seem to be directed against Snellgrove and others who accused Dharmapāla of mistranslations". In my review of . Snellgrove's work I pointed out that the Chinese version is very bad and that all the passages relating to sexual rites have been omitted, but that it can be useful for the textual study of the Sanskrit text of the Hevajratantra.? Let me quote an interesting example in which the reading of the Chinese version is confirmed by one of the manuscripts consulted by Willemen. In II.5,46e the Sanskrit text has adhyāntakrúracittaya. The Chinese transliteration is based upon a reading adhmătakrüracittaya.3 This reading is also found in manuscript no. 511 (cf. p. 109, n. 56). This makes it possible to correct a difficult passage in I. 2,20: paścādācāryo 'dhyātmakrūracetasā mantram japed vijane deśe. Snellgrove translates: "Then the master, his mind resolved in inmost wrath, should utter this mantra in that lonely spot." The manuscripts have adhyātara- (A, B), adhyātra- (C) and adhyāta- (K). The Tibetan translation (nan-gi) renders adhyātma- or abhyantara-. The corresponding Chinese text is rendered by Willemen as follows: “After that the ācārya with a harsh ritual voice should immediately utter this spell calling for rain" (p. 43). This translation represents a rather desperate attempt to make sense of the Chinese character fa (dharma). Without any doubt, the original Sanskrit text has ādhmätakrüracetasā. The same reading has to be adopted in II.9,2: heru kapratirüpenādhyātmakakrüracetasā, MS A adhyātakrüra-; MS Badhyātamakrüra-; MS C-adhyātākrūra. The Yogaratnamälä сommentary has adhyātam (Tib, 'khrugs-sin) = atyantadustam. The Chinese version did not translate II.9,1-2 (cf. Willemen, p. 116, n. 13).
Willemen's remarks suggest that Dharmapāla perfectly understood the Sanskrit text and that the divergences from the Sanskrit text are only caused by his desire to avoid both hurting the sensitivities of the Chinese and making too explicit the tantric rituals to those who are not initiated. However, there are many places in which it would have been possible to render the Sanskrit text exactly as it is. In his notes Willemen himself mentions instances in which Dharmapāla clearly mistranslated the Sanskrit text (cf. p. 45, n. 52; p. 78, n. 15; p. 88, n. 21; p. 94, n. 65; p. 104, n. 17). Other translations are completely nonsensical. For instance, in II.3,34cd the Sanskrit text has: pañcaskandhäś ca rūpādyā vijñānantā mahakrpa MS A has