Reviews Of Different Books

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

Page 23

REVIEWS
319
Zimmermann's exhaustive study of the Sanskrit and Tibetan versions of the SRKK is excellent from all points of view. The Sanskrit text, as established by him, leaves very few points in doubt. Banerjee's edition is very unsatisfactory. This is certainly partly due to the fact that he has used only one manuscript. It is, however, doubtful whether he has correctly reproduced the readings of his manuscript. His edition of the Prātimokṣa of the Mulasarvāstivādin abounds in wrong readings of the Gilgit manuscript which forms the basis of his edition. 15 This is obvious if one takes the trouble to compare his edition with the facsimiles of the manuscript published by Raghu Vira and Lokesh Chandra." It is a pity that Zimmermann has not been able to consult the Newari manuscript which has been used by Banerjee for his edition. He has also been unable to obtain a copy of the manuscript brought back by Sylvain Lévi. It is therefore not possible to know the relation of this manuscript with the Newari manuscript in the Durbar library. Nevertheless Zimmermann has been able to establish a text which leaves very little scope for uncertainties. It seems unlikely that the use of other manuscripts would result in more than some very minor changes in the text as established by him. The most important part of Zimmermann's work is undoubtedly his thorough examination of the Tibetan version which is probably one of the worst Tibetan translations in the whole of the Kanjur and Tanjur. The comments which Zimmermann has inserted in his translation of the Tibetan version constitute a kind of running commentary in which all peculiarities of the Tibetan translation are elucidated and, as far as possible, explained. The only work which can be compared to Zimmermann's study is Nils Simonsson's Indo-tibetische Studien, Die Methoden der tibetischen Übersetzer, untersucht im Hinblick auf die Bedeutung ihrer Übersetzungen für die Sanskritphilologie (Uppsala, 1957) which, as indicated by the subtitle, examines the methods of the Tibetan translators with regard to the importance of their translations for Sanskrit philology. The Tibetan translations are of essential importance for Buddhist philology. Zimmermann has been successful in showing that even such a deplorable translation as that of the SRKK can be helpful in the study of the Sanskrit original if it is examined carefully pada by pada in order to explain all its imperfections.
Zimmermann's edition and translation of the Sanskrit and Tibetan versions are of such excellence that only on a few minor points is it possible to suggest other interpretations. Let me conclude this review by giving the notes which I have made while reading Zimmermann's work. All references are to the number of the verses.
47c: rūpārūpyasamādhisampadakhilam bhuktvā ca sarvam sukham. Tr.: "Erfolgreich im Zustandebringen der formbehafteten und der formenfreien Versenkungsstufen, und nach dem Auskosten restlos aller Glückseligkeit." The translation is too free because rūpārūpyasamādhisampadakhilam refers to sukham: "a bliss which is complete through the attainment of concentrations endowed with form and without form".
67b: kriyotthapanam. Tr.: "das Ausführen des Beschlusses". In a note Zimmermann remarks that perhaps one must understand "Bewerkstelligung der Ausführung". Kriya has here undoubtedly the meaning 'rite'. The verse concerns the construction of a mandala.
105: Zimmermann has omitted the translation of line 3 of the Tibetan version: dbyans sñan rol mo dan mgrin 'debs. Four of the six Tibetan versions have bsdebs 'joined with'. The meaning of this pada probably is "having joined together sweet sounding music and song" (cf. mgrin gcig-tu "with one voice").
116: yadgarbhe paripustim eti sucibhiḥ pronniyamano rasaiḥ / balye yan madhusarpiși ca pibati kṣiram ca kāle punah. Tib. tr.: gan tig mnal du rdsogs par ni / gtsan zin yid 'on ro myan la/ mar dan sbran rtsi stobs dan ni / gan tig 'o ma 'thun thse yan. Zimmermann corrects the reading of the Tibetan versions stobs into stob and translates: "Wer, im Mutterleib gedeihend, (sich von) reinem Ghee und Honig von angenehmem Geschmack nährt; wer andrerseits zur Zeit Milch
15 'The Prātimokṣa-Sutra', IHQ, 29 (1953), pp. 162-174, 266-275, 363-377. 16 Raghu Vira and Lokesh Chandra, Gilgit Buddhist Manuscripts, part 1 [= Śatapitaka, vol. 10(1)], New Delhi, 1959.