Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1with the help of another Indian called Tsiangsin. After the translation was finished, thirteen sections were added, making up the whole to 752 verses, 14,580 words, and 39 chapters!. If the Chinese translation is compared with the Pali text, it appears that the two agree from the 9th to the 35th chapter (with the exception of the 33rd), so far as their subjects are concerned, though the Chinese has in these chapters 79 verses more than the Pali. But the Chinese translation has eight additional chapters in the beginning (viz. On Intemperance, Inciting to Wisdom, The Srdvaka, Simple Faith, Observance of Duty, Reflection, Loving-kindness, Conversation), and four at the end (viz. Nirvaza, Birth and Death, Profit of Religion, and Good Fortune), and one between the 24th and 25th chapter of the Pali text (viz. Advantageous Service), all of which are absent in our Pali texts. This, the most ancient 1 Beal, Dhammapada, p. 30. The real number of verses, however, is 760. In the P4li text, too, there are five verses more than stated in the Index; see M. M., Buddhaghosha’s Parables, p. ix, note; Beal, loc. cit. p. 11, note. d 2 lii DHAMMAPADA. Chinese translation of Dharmatrdta’s work, has not been rendered into English by Mr. Beal, but he assures us that it is a faithful reproduction of the original. The book which he has chosen for translation is the Fa-kheu-pi-ii, i.e. parables connected with the Dhammapada, and translated into Chinese by two Shamans of the western Tsin dynasty (A.D. 265-313). These parables are meant to illustrate the teaching of the verses, like the parables of Buddhaghosa, but they are not the same parables, nor do they illustrate all the verses. A third Chinese version is called Kuh-yan-king, i.e. the Sitra of the Dawn (avad4na?), consisting of seven volumes. Its author was Dharmatrata, its translator Ku-fo-nien (Buddhasmriti), about 410 A.D. The MS. of the work is said to have been brought from India by a Shaman Sanghabhadanga of Kipin (Cabul), about 345 4.D. It is a much more extensive work in 33 chapters, the last being, as in the Pali text, on the Brahmava. A fourth translation dates from the Sung dynasty (800 or goo A.D.), and in it, too, the authorship of the text is ascribed to Arya-Dharmatrata.
2It is a much more extensive work in 33 chapters, the last being, as in the Pali text, on the Brahmava. A fourth translation dates from the Sung dynasty (800 or goo A.D.), and in it, too, the authorship of the text is ascribed to Arya-Dharmatrata. A Tibetan translation of a Dhammapada was discovered by Schiefner in the 28th volume of the Sdtras, in the collection called Udanavarga. It contains 33 chapters, and more than 1000 verses, of which about onefourth only can be traced in the Pali text. The same collection is found also in the Tangur, vol. 71 of the Satras, foll. 1-53, followed by a commentary, the Udanavargavivarava by the Af#arya Prag#dvarman. Unfortunately Schiefner’s intention of publishing a translation of it (Mélanges Asiatiques, tom. viii. p. 560) has been frustrated by his death. All that he gives us in his last paper is the Tibetan text with translation of another shorter collection, the Gathdsangraha by Vasubandhu, equally published in the 72nd volume of the Sitras in the Tangur, and accompanied by a commentary. INTRODUCTION, hii SPELLING OF BUDDHIST TERMS. I had on a former occasion! pleaded so strongly in favour of retaining, as much as possible, the original Sanskrit forms of Pali Buddhist terms, that I feel bound to confess openly that I hold this opinion no longer, or, at all events, that I see it is hopeless to expect that Pali scholars will accept my proposal. My arguments were these: ‘ Most of the technical terms employed by Buddhist writers come from Sanskrit ; and in the eyes of the philologist the various forms which they have assumed in PAli, in Burmese, in Tibetan, in Chinese, in Mongolian, are only so many corruptions of the same original form. Everything, therefore, would seem to be in favour of retaining the Sanskrit forms throughout, and of writing, for instance, Nirvaza instead of the Pali Nibbana, the Burmese Niban or Nepbh4n, the Siamese Niruphan, the Chinese Nipan. The only hope, in fact, that writers on Buddhism will ever arrive at a uniform and generally intelligible phraseology seems to lie in their agreeing to use throughout the Sanskrit terms in their original form,instead of the various local disguises and disfigurements which they present in Ceylon, Burmah, Siam, Tibet, China, and Mongolia.’ )
3I fully admitted that many Buddhist words have assumed such a strongly marked local or national character in the different countries and in the different languages in which the religion of Buddha has found a new home, that to translate them back into Sanskrit might seem as affected, nay, prove in certain cases as misleading, as if, in speaking of priests and kings, we were to speak of presbyters and cynings. The rule by which I meant mainly to be guided was to use the Sanskrit forms as much as possible ; in fact, everywhere except where it seemed affected to do so. I therefore wrote Buddhaghosha instead of the Pali Buddhaghosa, because the name of that famous theologian, ‘the Voice of Buddha, seemed to lose its significance if turned 1 Introduction to Buddhaghosha’s Parables, 1870, p. 1. liv DHAMMAPADA,: into Buddhaghosa. But I was well aware what may be said on the other side. The name of Buddhaghosa, ‘ Voice of Buddha,’ was given him after he had been converted from Brahmanism to Buddhism, and it was given to him by people to whom the Pali word ghosa conveyed the same meaning as ghosha does to us. On the other hand, I retained the Pali Dhammapada instead of Dharmapada, simply because, as the title of a Pali book, it has become so familiar that to speak of it as Dharmapada seemed like speaking of another work. We are accustomed to speak of Samanas instead of Sramamzas, for even in the days of Alexander’s conquest, the Sanskrit word Sramaza had assumed the prakritized or vulgar form which we find in Pali, and which alone could have been rendered by the later Greek writers (first by Alexander Polyhistor, 80-60 B.C.) by capuaveiou4, As a Buddhist term, the Pali form Samana has so entirely supplanted that of Sramavza that, even in the Dhammapada (v. 388), we find an etymology of Samana as derived from sam, ‘to be quiet,’ and not from Sram, ‘to toil.’ But if we speak of Samanas, we ought also to speak of Bahmazas instead of Brahmazas, for this word ‘had been replaced by bahmaza at so early a time, that in the Dhammapada it is derived from a root vah, ‘to remove, to separate, to cleanse 2’ I still believe that it would be best if writers on Buddhist literature and religion were to adopt Sanskrit throughout as the linguafranca. For an accurate understanding of the original meaning of most of the technical terms of Buddhism a knowledge of their Sanskrit form is indispensable; and nothing is lost, while much would be gained, if, even in the treating of southern Buddhism, we were to 1 See Lassen, Indische Alterthumskunde, vol. ii. p. 7oo, note. That Lassen is right in taking the Sappava:, mentioned by Megasthenes, for Brahmanic, not for Buddhist ascetics, might be proved also by their dress, Dresses made of the bark of trees are not strictly Buddhistic.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1with the help of another Indian called Tsiangsin. After the translation was finished, thirteen sections were added, making up the whole to 752 verses, 14,580 words, and 39 chapters!. If the Chinese translation is compared with the Pali text, it appears that the two agree from the 9th to the 35th chapter (with the exception of the 33rd), so far as their subjects are concerned, though the Chinese has in these chapters 79 verses more than the Pali. But the Chinese translation has eight additional chapters in the beginning (viz. On Intemperance, Inciting to Wisdom, The Srdvaka, Simple Faith, Observance of Duty, Reflection, Loving-kindness, Conversation), and four at the end (viz. Nirvaza, Birth and Death, Profit of Religion, and Good Fortune), and one between the 24th and 25th chapter of the Pali text (viz. Advantageous Service), all of which are absent in our Pali texts. This, the most ancient 1 Beal, Dhammapada, p. 30. The real number of verses, however, is 760. In the P4li text, too, there are five verses more than stated in the Index; see M. M., Buddhaghosha’s Parables, p. ix, note; Beal, loc. cit. p. 11, note. d 2 lii DHAMMAPADA. Chinese translation of Dharmatrdta’s work, has not been rendered into English by Mr. Beal, but he assures us that it is a faithful reproduction of the original. The book which he has chosen for translation is the Fa-kheu-pi-ii, i.e. parables connected with the Dhammapada, and translated into Chinese by two Shamans of the western Tsin dynasty (A.D. 265-313). These parables are meant to illustrate the teaching of the verses, like the parables of Buddhaghosa, but they are not the same parables, nor do they illustrate all the verses. A third Chinese version is called Kuh-yan-king, i.e. the Sitra of the Dawn (avad4na?), consisting of seven volumes. Its author was Dharmatrata, its translator Ku-fo-nien (Buddhasmriti), about 410 A.D. The MS. of the work is said to have been brought from India by a Shaman Sanghabhadanga of Kipin (Cabul), about 345 4.D. It is a much more extensive work in 33 chapters, the last being, as in the Pali text, on the Brahmava. A fourth translation dates from the Sung dynasty (800 or goo A.D.), and in it, too, the authorship of the text is ascribed to Arya-Dharmatrata.
2It is a much more extensive work in 33 chapters, the last being, as in the Pali text, on the Brahmava. A fourth translation dates from the Sung dynasty (800 or goo A.D.), and in it, too, the authorship of the text is ascribed to Arya-Dharmatrata. A Tibetan translation of a Dhammapada was discovered by Schiefner in the 28th volume of the Sdtras, in the collection called Udanavarga. It contains 33 chapters, and more than 1000 verses, of which about onefourth only can be traced in the Pali text. The same collection is found also in the Tangur, vol. 71 of the Satras, foll. 1-53, followed by a commentary, the Udanavargavivarava by the Af#arya Prag#dvarman. Unfortunately Schiefner’s intention of publishing a translation of it (Mélanges Asiatiques, tom. viii. p. 560) has been frustrated by his death. All that he gives us in his last paper is the Tibetan text with translation of another shorter collection, the Gathdsangraha by Vasubandhu, equally published in the 72nd volume of the Sitras in the Tangur, and accompanied by a commentary. INTRODUCTION, hii SPELLING OF BUDDHIST TERMS. I had on a former occasion! pleaded so strongly in favour of retaining, as much as possible, the original Sanskrit forms of Pali Buddhist terms, that I feel bound to confess openly that I hold this opinion no longer, or, at all events, that I see it is hopeless to expect that Pali scholars will accept my proposal. My arguments were these: ‘ Most of the technical terms employed by Buddhist writers come from Sanskrit ; and in the eyes of the philologist the various forms which they have assumed in PAli, in Burmese, in Tibetan, in Chinese, in Mongolian, are only so many corruptions of the same original form. Everything, therefore, would seem to be in favour of retaining the Sanskrit forms throughout, and of writing, for instance, Nirvaza instead of the Pali Nibbana, the Burmese Niban or Nepbh4n, the Siamese Niruphan, the Chinese Nipan. The only hope, in fact, that writers on Buddhism will ever arrive at a uniform and generally intelligible phraseology seems to lie in their agreeing to use throughout the Sanskrit terms in their original form,instead of the various local disguises and disfigurements which they present in Ceylon, Burmah, Siam, Tibet, China, and Mongolia.’ )
3I fully admitted that many Buddhist words have assumed such a strongly marked local or national character in the different countries and in the different languages in which the religion of Buddha has found a new home, that to translate them back into Sanskrit might seem as affected, nay, prove in certain cases as misleading, as if, in speaking of priests and kings, we were to speak of presbyters and cynings. The rule by which I meant mainly to be guided was to use the Sanskrit forms as much as possible ; in fact, everywhere except where it seemed affected to do so. I therefore wrote Buddhaghosha instead of the Pali Buddhaghosa, because the name of that famous theologian, ‘the Voice of Buddha, seemed to lose its significance if turned 1 Introduction to Buddhaghosha’s Parables, 1870, p. 1. liv DHAMMAPADA,: into Buddhaghosa. But I was well aware what may be said on the other side. The name of Buddhaghosa, ‘ Voice of Buddha,’ was given him after he had been converted from Brahmanism to Buddhism, and it was given to him by people to whom the Pali word ghosa conveyed the same meaning as ghosha does to us. On the other hand, I retained the Pali Dhammapada instead of Dharmapada, simply because, as the title of a Pali book, it has become so familiar that to speak of it as Dharmapada seemed like speaking of another work. We are accustomed to speak of Samanas instead of Sramamzas, for even in the days of Alexander’s conquest, the Sanskrit word Sramaza had assumed the prakritized or vulgar form which we find in Pali, and which alone could have been rendered by the later Greek writers (first by Alexander Polyhistor, 80-60 B.C.) by capuaveiou4, As a Buddhist term, the Pali form Samana has so entirely supplanted that of Sramavza that, even in the Dhammapada (v. 388), we find an etymology of Samana as derived from sam, ‘to be quiet,’ and not from Sram, ‘to toil.’ But if we speak of Samanas, we ought also to speak of Bahmazas instead of Brahmazas, for this word ‘had been replaced by bahmaza at so early a time, that in the Dhammapada it is derived from a root vah, ‘to remove, to separate, to cleanse 2’ I still believe that it would be best if writers on Buddhist literature and religion were to adopt Sanskrit throughout as the linguafranca. For an accurate understanding of the original meaning of most of the technical terms of Buddhism a knowledge of their Sanskrit form is indispensable; and nothing is lost, while much would be gained, if, even in the treating of southern Buddhism, we were to 1 See Lassen, Indische Alterthumskunde, vol. ii. p. 7oo, note. That Lassen is right in taking the Sappava:, mentioned by Megasthenes, for Brahmanic, not for Buddhist ascetics, might be proved also by their dress, Dresses made of the bark of trees are not strictly Buddhistic.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
No commentary for this page.