388 REVIEWS
of the story is thus specifically Buddhist (p. 244)
is less than certain, especially as the whole is
adjudged to be of Indian provenance in any
case.
A note on the introduction of Buddhist texts,
and hence of Sino-Sanskrit loanwords, into
Korean (Eung-Jin Baek), and a potted history
of Korean Buddhism that leads into an account
of Jung Kwang, a modern Korean Son
Buddhist and fashionable Bohemian artist and
poet (David Waterhouse), finally set the seal
on a well-planned volume that would be a
welcome birthday present for any philolo-
gically-minded scholar.
J. C. WRIGHT
JONATHAN A. SILK: The Heart Sutra
in Tibetan: a critical edition of two
recensions contained in the Kanjur.
(Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie
und Buddhismuskunde, Ht. 34.) xi,
204 pp. Wien: Arbeitskreis fur
Tibetische und Buddhistische
Studien, 1994.
There are very few disciplines within Indo-
Tibetan Buddhology where, over the past
twenty years, scholarship has made such signi-
ficant progress as in the field of bKa'-'gyur
research. In part, this is due to the far-reaching
neglect in which the history of the bKa'-'gyur
has previously been held. Generally, the initial
phases in any new field of study tend to be the
most productive, yielding provisional outlines
and working hypotheses based on vast amounts
of rapidly surveyed raw data. The other factor
is often the extraordinary resourcefulness, cour-
age and learning of scholars venturing into
hitherto unmapped territory. In the case of
bKa'-'gyur research, this role fell to Helmut
Eimer, who (following Hamm) during the 1970s
and 1980s, almost single-handedly established
the first genealogy of the stemma of more than
a dozen xylograph editions and manuscript
versions. In the late 1980s, several, mostly
younger, Buddhologists joined Eimer, who
through the inclusion of additional sources
began to put the discipline of bKa'-'gyur
studies on a broader, and thus more secure,
footing.
For a number of reasons, Silk's study of the
Heart Sutra represents a major step forward in
this process and must be warmly welcomed.
Part 1, which constitutes the introduction to
his critical edition of the Tibetan text, contains
numerous acute observations pertaining to
methodological issues and proffers interesting
ideas on the textual history of the Heart Sutra.
Among others, it discusses the application and
benefits of classical editorial technique to the
Tibetan manuscripts and blockprints
(pp. 6-17), touches on the disputed Chinese
origin of the Heart Sutra (pp. 61-2) and
establishes the stemma of its two bKa'-'gyur
recensions (pp. 17-27). Particularly useful is
his evaluation of the various editions used. He
warns, for example, of the composite nature of
the so-called Nyingma edition (p. 63) and
draws attention to amendments in Suzuki's
photomechanical reprint of the Qianlong edi-
tion (p. 64). Another positive feature of his
work is his caution in rejecting individual
editions as immaterial to the history of the
bKa'-'gyur. As a result, he also considers the
readings of the Cone and Lhasa editions,
which, in some quarters, are ignored as too
derivative or too conflated to be of relevance.
At present, we are clearly not yet in a position
to establish a priori which editions can be safely
excluded, since the situation differs from text
to text. In principle, every single available
edition should be considered, at least to begin
with, and only after its readings have turned
out to be inconsequential may it be eliminated
from the inner circle.
Somewhat disappointing is Silk's discussion
of the colophon, where he attempts to match
the names of the translators and revisers
(Vimalamitra, Jnanagarbha, Ye ses snin po,
dGe bio and Nam mkha') with historical
persons (pp. 47-56). Not all avenues appear to
have been fully explored, in particular with
regard to the identity of dGe bio and Nam
mkha', two names which he proposes to merge
into one person. There is an interesting parallel
to this problem in the colophon of the
Maitreyakevalaparivartabhasya (P 5535, D
4033), where as Steinkellner has shown (' Who
is Byan chub rdzu 'phrul?', Berliner
Indologische Studien, 4/5, 1989, 229-51), the
sDe dge readings are similarly ambiguous. Silk
does not seem to have been aware of
Steinkellner's treatment.
In part 2, Silk gives a detailed listing of the
various blockprints and manuscripts that he
has utilized in his study which includes, besides
bibliographic detail, notes on the condition of
the material, location and availability. This
information is extremely useful in a very
practical way, since it will facilitate access to
the material for colleagues and students who
intend to prepare critical editions of bKa'-'gyur
material in the future.
Part 3 contains the critical edition of
the Tibetan text of the Heart Sutra that is
based on 14 different xylograph editions and
manuscript versions. Inexplicably, Silk has
decided to exclude the Tunhuang fragments
(p. 62). Since these represent the oldest surviv-
ing Tibetan manuscript tradition and
have elsewhere been shown to be of funda-
mental importance to the stemmatical
analysis of the bKa'-'gyur (P. Harrison,
Drumakinnarardjapariprcchd, Tokyo, 1992),
this would seem to be a major omission.
Of the four principal options open to an
editor of Tibetan translation literature (that is,
(1) production of a grammatically and ortho-
graphically correct text based on canonical,
paracanonical (viz., independently transmitted)
and commentarial sources; (2) establishing a
text as it came from the hands of the translators;
(3) preparation of a critical text that goes back
as far as possible to the archetype, accounting
for all variants and recensions; and (4) prod-
uction of a critical edition that is based on the
earliest exemplar, listing recensional and trans-
missional variants in the footnotes), Silk
chooses the third approach and separates the
two major recensions of the Tibetan text. The
readings of the various editions and manuscript
versions of the Heart Sutra fall into the Them
 REVIEWS
spans ma and Tshal pa lines of transmission,
and thus confirm these two lineages as the
main Unes of transmission identified by earlier
studies. This recensional approach is appro-
priate in the current state of research, as it will
eventually lead to the disentanglement of the
various intertwining bKa'-'gyur branches. It is,
however, not completely unproblematic since it
may yield readings that are grammatically
indefensible and occasionally almost unintelli-
gible. In Silk's work, examples of this type of
difficulty are found mainly in Recension A
(rGyud). In § D, line 6, for example, we read
snoms par bzugs instead of snoms par zugs. In
other places, the Tibetan seems to deviate from
the Sanskrit. See, for example, § J, line 1, where
Silk gives ston pa Hid instead of ston pa, and §
O, line 2, where he has ye ses instead of ses pa.
In addition, on several occasions, the Tibetan
of Recension A plainly does not correspond
with the available Sanskrit (Conze, JRAS,
1948, 33-51). In § K, line 2, for example, it is
difficult to account for the continuative particle
de, or in § D, line 5, the inclusion of chos kyi
mam gratis (dharmaparyayd) is problematic
since bhasitva (Conze, 34.18-19) is not found
in the Tibetan and the prefix rnam par preceding
yan dag par rjes su blta'o (§ I, line 4) is difficult
to reconcile with vyavalokitavyam. Note, how-
ever, that these are not mistakes introduced by
Silk (in fact, he clearly indicates that he is
aware of these incongruities), but they are
primarily concomitants of the recensional
approach which, through its historical focus,
does not aim at grammatical and literary
correctness. Scholarship has yet to agree which
of the four editorial procedures, outlined above,
will reveal itself in the long term as the most
useful. In any case, already now it is clear that
the discipline of editing Tibetan texts must not
withdraw into a niche away from other textual
studies, producing highly specialized editions
so impenetrable as to becoming worthless to
mainstream philology and Buddhist studies.
While the editorial work itself is carried out
with great care and meticulousness, the explana-
tion of the principles of selection is inadequate
and requires further elucidation (see, in particu-
lar, p. 65). Equally confusing are those foot-
notes (e.g., p. 129, n. 1, n. 3) where Silk
proposes that Recension B (Ses phyin) has
been conflated with readings of the Lhasa and
sTog Palace bKa'-'gyur of Recension A
(rGyud). It is easy to see how a conflation in
Lhasa might have taken place, less so with
respect to the sTog variant, since the sTpg
Palace bKa'-'gyur is independent of the Sel
dkar rdzon line. Presumably, what is intended
is that sTog. 1 of Recension B has been conflated
with sTog.2 of Recension A. Apart from these
two points, Silk's editorial work is of a very
high standard, recording in the notes (thought-
fully placed at the bottom of each page) all
variant readings, including punctuation,
amendments and scribal peculiarities. This
review has substantially benefited from discus-
sions held at a series of seminars conducted by
David Seyfort Ruegg on current trends in
bKa'-'gyur research.
The author has conveyed to me the following
corrections, indicating that for many of them
he is indebted to Nobuyoshi Yamabe: p. 163,
line 10: insert 'According to a kind letter from
389
Prof. Ruegg (6.3.95), the library catalogued
here is at present kept in Halle'; p. 165, line
21: for 'Miyazaki' read 'Miyazawa'; pp. 172,
173, line 1: for 'Bhagavati' read 'Bhagavati';
p. 177, line 13: for 'disposition' read 'disposi-
tions'; pp. 178, 179, line 1: for 'emptiness is
without matter' read 'from the viewpoint of
emptiness, there is no matter'; p. 180, line 14:
for 'Sugatas' read ' Tathagatas'; p. 199, line
25: for ' Kosho' read ' Hiromasa'.
ULRICH PAGEL
WALTER SLAJE: Vom Moksopaya-
Sdstra zum Yogavdsistha-
Mahdrdmayana. Philologische
Untersuchungen zur Entwicklungs-
und Uberlieferungsgeschichte eines
indischen Lehrwerks mit Anspruch
auf Heilsrelevanz. (Osterreichische
Akademie der Wissenschaften,
Phil.-hist. Kl. Sitzungsberichte,
609. Bd. Verdffentlichungen der
Kommission fur Sprachen und
Kulturen Sudasiens, Nr. 27.)
338 pp. Wien: Verlag der oster-
reichischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften 1994.
The Yogavdsistha-rdmayana, counted as
Ramayana literature in a broader sense, though
it has little to do with it, and at some places
referring to itself as Moksopaya-sastra, is an
'Indian treatise with a claim to soteriological
relevance', which was later absorbed by the
Vedantic tradition based on Sankara (though
its teaching is markedly different from this
school of thought). So far it has been known
mainly in its printed Vulgate edition based on
Devanagari manuscripts; there exist, however,
Kashmirian and South Indian manuscripts
representing strands of transmission without
'orthodox' Vedanta influence. Slaje, who has
been able to study these manuscripts, is now
presenting the results of what he modestly calls
an attempt to establish, by a comparative
examination, criteria for the 'un-masking'
(' Enttarnung') of these later tendencies charac-
teristic of his 'Nagari' version (N), in order to
get one step nearer to a more original version
(cf. Einleitung, 51).
This original version, the Moksopaya-sastra,
is explicitly not based on (Vedic) tradition or
authority, but on rational argument only;
compassion is the motive for teaching the
means of salvation, more precisely, the ' eman-
cipation while still alive' (jivanmukti). Its
original author appears to have addressed it to
a group of listeners (attested by a few plural
forms in the Sarada version), before it was
reworked as a dialogue between Vasistha and
Rama (addressed in the singular). Around this
first framework other narrative strata were
added, introducing more and more orthodox
elements contradictory to the original anti-
orthodox point of view.
In this study, which opens with an extensive
bibliography, a detailed description of the