REVIEWS 75

Sanskrit and in Tibetan translation. Since Conze not much attentionhas been paid to the AA and its commentaries by Western scholars andwe must be grateful to Makransky for having drawn attention to thefundamental role played by the AA in the development of Mah�ay�anaBuddhism.

4 Jansz Crescent J.W. DE JONG

Manuka ACT 2603Australia

A Guide to the Bodhisattva Way of Life (Bodhicary�avat�ara) by �S�antideva.Translated from the Sanskrit and Tibetan by Vesna A. Wallace and B.Alan Wallace. Ithaca, New York, Snow Lion Publications, 1997. 151 pp.$12.95,$8.95, ISBN 1-55939-061-1

The Bodhicary�avat�ara (BCA) has been translated many times, cf.bibliography pp. 147–8 which even mentions the translation of onechapter into Dutch by Ensink but omits a complete translation into thesame language by Ria Kloppenborg:De weg tot het inzicht(Amsterdam,Meulenhoff, 1980). According to the translators (WW) their version isthe first to be based upon the Sanskrit text, the Sanskrit commentary byPraj~n�akaramati, the Tibetan translation and two Tibetan commentaries.However, there is already a translation from the Tibetan by StephenBatchelor (Dharamsala, 1979) of which they have made use withoutacknowledging it.

According to the translators they have primarily based their transla-tion on the Sanskrit version and its commentary. However, it is obviousthat often their translation is based rather upon the Tibetan version.For instance, Chapter I, verse 4a reads:ks.an. asam. pad iyam. sudurlabh�a.WW translate: “This leisure and endowment, which are so difficult toobtain, have been acquired.” This rendering is based upon the Tibetanequivalent foraks.an. a dal-’byor which Batchelor translated as “leisureand endowment.” The translation “leisure” forks.an. a is particularlyinappropriate and is due to the fact that the Tibetan equivalentsdal-baandkhom-paare rendered by “leisure” in Tibetan dictionaries. In theAmerican Tibetological school of the Foe Destroyers the rendering“leisure” is generally adopted (cf.IIJ 20, 1978, p. 138). In this schoolit seems to be a rule never to translate a Sanskrit text when there is aTibetan translation available. In this case WW seem not to have con-sulted the Sanskrit commentary from which they could have learned

Indo-Iranian Journal42: 75–78, 1999.

76 REVIEWS

thatks.an. asam. pad is not a dvandva compound. Edgerton rendered it by“the good luck of (this) favorable birth”, cf.Buddhist Hybrid Dictionary,s.v.ks.an. a. According to WW “endowment” refers to the conjunction ofcircumstances deemed essential for the successful practice of Dharma(p. 18, n. 4). Perhaps they have found this information in a Tibetancommentary which wrongly tookdal-’byor to be a dvandva compound.In the same note WW state that the Pa~njik�a specifies the eight non-leisures (sic) in the order in which they are listed in�S�antideva’s quotationof the Gan.d.avy�uha in his�Siks.�asamuccaya. However, this quotation doesnot list the eightaks.an. asbut ten items which are difficult to obtain. Thefirst of them isas. t. �aks.an. avinivr. ttih. . The eightaks.an. as are mentionedfurther on in the Sanskrit commentary, cf. ed. L. de La Vall�ee Poussin(Calcutta, 1901–1914), p. 10, lines 14–15:narakapretatirya~nco, etc.

In I, 11c the Sanskrit text hasgatipattanaviprav�asa�s�ıl �ah. but theTibetan version’gro-ba’i gnas da_n bral-bar ’dod-pa rnams. WWtranslate “You who are inclined to escape from the states of mundaneexistence”, a translation which is based upon the Tibetan version butnot on the Sanskrit text. In their recent translation (Oxford, 1995) KateCrosby and Andrew Skilton render thisp�adavery well: “You who areaccustomed to travelling abroad among the trading towns of the realmsof rebirth.” WW refer to this translation but do not seem to have studiedit carefully.

It is not possible to list all the mistakes made by WW in theirtranslation due to their poor knowledge of Sanskrit. Another exampleis their translation of I.31ab:kr. te yah. pratikurv�ıta so ’pi t�avat pra�sasyate“Even one who repays a kind deed is praised somewhat.” Sanskritt�avatused as a particle means: “at once, now, just, first” and often indicatesthat later something else is stated (cf. J.S. Speijer,Sanskrit Syntax,Leiden, 1886, p. 319). For instance, N�ag�arjuna’s Madhyamakak�arik�asII.1ab: gatam. na gamyate t�avad agatam. naiva gamyate“Tout d’abord,le mouvement accompli ne comporte pas mouvement; pas davantage lemouvement non accompli” (tr. Jacques May,Candrak�ırti Prasannapad�aMadhyamakavr. tti, Paris, 1959, p. 52). The meaning oft�avat in thisplace has been completely misunderstood by Alex Wayman who rendersit by “to that extent” (Untying the Knots in Buddhism, Delhi, 1997,p. 306.

In the notes WW often quote the Pa~njik�a but without havingunderstood the text. Verse 17 opposes thebodhipran. idhicitta and theprasth�anacetas, “the spirit of aspiring for Awakening” and “the spiritof venturing” in WW’s translation (cf. Batchelor “the mind that aspiresto awaken” and “the venturing mind”). The commentary explains

REVIEWS 77

that thepran. idhicitta brings a great fruit even though it is devoid ofpractice (pratipattivik�alam api), i.e. it is only an intention devoid ofactivity. WW translate “Even when the Spirit of Awakening is devoidof good conduct.” According to note 17 the Pa~njik�a states that thesource of verse I.34 is to be found in the Gunaratnasamuccaya (sic).The commentary says nothing about a source but that the bodhisattvawho is “an accumulation of jewels of virtue” must guard carefully hismind.

In their preface WW state that the recension incorporated into theTibetan canon is significantly different from the Sanskrit version editedby Louis de La Vall�ee Poussin and P.L. Vaidya. In several instances,WW exaggerate the differences. For instance, in I.25 the Sanskrit texthassattvaratnavi�ses.a and the Tibetan translationsems-kyi rin-chenkhyad-par. This does not mean that the Tibetan translation is basedupon a different text but thatsemsis an abbreviation forsems-can, justas inbya_n-chub-sems semsstands forsems-dpa’(cf. II.25a and 27b). Itis nevertheless true that there are places where the Tibetan translationis probably based upon a different text. The Tibetan translation in theTanjur is the endproduct of several revisions. The text was first translatedin the beginning of the ninth century from a Kashmir manuscript bySarvaj~nadeva and dPal-brtsegs, revised in the eleventh century byDharma�sr�ıbhadra and Rin-chen bza_n-po with the help of a manuscriptfrom Madhyade�sa and a commentary, and again later in the samecentury revised by Sumatak�ırti and Blo-ldan�ses-rab. In 1986 AkiraSaito pointed out the existence of a different Tun-huang version. Wehave to await the publication of this version in order to know whetherdifferences between the Sanskrit text and the Tanjur translation go backto it or not. It will also be necessary to study in more detail the elevencommentaries on the BCA in the Tanjur of which, according to Saito,two are based upon the Tun-huang version. Kate Crosby and AndrewSkilton remark that Praj~n�akaramati’s commentary “appears to havesuperseded any pre-existing commentaries” (p. xxxiii). However, theydo not give any evidence for this assertion.

The bibliographical information given by WW would have beenuseful if it were not disfigured by many misprints and errors. A goodsurvey of recent publications on the BCA is to be found in an articleby Akira Saito:�S�antideva in the History of M�adhyamika Philosophy,Buddhism in India and Abroad(Mumbai – New Delhi, 1996), pp. 257–8,262–3.

The translation of the BCA by Kate Crosby and Andrew Skilton isexcellent and by far superior to the work of WW. As to translations

78 REVIEWS

in English of the Tibetan version the only one available is Batchelor’stranslation which is however not free from mistakes.

4 Jansz Crescent J.W. DE JONG

Manuka ACT 2603Australia

Mauro Maggi:The Khotanese Karmavibha_nga. Serie Orientale Roma.Vol LXXIV. Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente. IstitutoUniversitario Orientale. Dipartimento di Studi Asiatici. Roma 1995.130 pp., 16 plates. L 40.000,-/DM 49,-.

Der (Mah�a-)Karmavibha_nga (Mh-karmav) ist der westlichenBuddhologie durch die bis heute grundlegende mehrsprachige Ausgabevon Sylvain L�evi aus dem Jahre 1932 bekannt gemacht worden. Aufdie khotan-sakische Fassung, die S. L�evi noch nicht zug�anglich war,hat zuerst H.W. Bailey in den Khotanese Texts V (1963) kurz hinge-wiesen (S. 21). Die damals identifizierten Materialien haben durchNeufunde in verschiedenen europ�aischen Sammlungen erheblichenZuwachs erfahren, so daß heute 29 Fragmente von 21 Bl�attern aus dreiverschiedenen Handschriften bekannt sind.

Die Ausgabe der gesammelten sakischen Fragmente zeichnet zun�achstdie Forschungsgeschichte nach, bietet dann wie in den Turfan-Editionenvon Ernst Waldschmidt den Text in einer diplomatischen und ineiner bearbeiteten Ausgabe mit�Ubersetzung, erschließt das Materialdurch einen sakisch-englischen Index und diesen wiederum durch einsanskrit-sakisches Wortverzeichnis. Am Ende werden alle Fragmenteals Faksimilia abgedruckt.

Die Bearbeitung des Textes ist mit großer Umsicht erfolgt, wobeiweder die inhaltliche noch die sprachliche Seite vernachl�assigt wird.Mit Hilfe des neuen Materials gelingt es dem Verf., die Kenntnis dessakischen Wortschatzes voranzutreiben, etwa durch die Untersuchungder bisher angenommenen drei Verbalwurzelnb�ır-, von denen er1b�ır-“s�agen” als eine irrt�umliche Annahme erweist (S. 96–98), und mitsakischah�ıvya-n�asaa- (S. 106 zux7.1) “Nehmen, was nicht sein Eigenesist” als Wiedergabe des Vinaya-Terminus aus dem 2. P�ar�ajika desPr�atimoks.as�utra skt.adatt�ad�ana-, P�ali adinn�ad�ana- “Nehmen von nichtGegebenen”, vgl. auch Hobogirin s.v. ch�ut�o, macht er eine f�ur dieBuddhologie interessante Lehn�ubersetzung bekannt.

Indo-Iranian Journal42: 78–79, 1999.