Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
170, if not before, there was in India a work known as Buddhaéfarita (Fo-pen-hing). As to the origin of such a work, it seems likely to have sprung from an enlargement of the Mahaparinirvaza Sdtra. We know that the record of the history of Buddha’s last XXxli FO-SHO-HING-TSAN-KING. days was extant under this title from early times, and nothing would be simpler than the gradual enlargement of such a record, so as to include in it not only his last days, but his work throughout his life. Each district in which Buddha taught had probably its own recollections on this point, and to any zealous writer the task of connecting these several histories would be an easy one. Such a man was Asvaghosha. Brought up in Central India, travelling throughout his life as a preacher and musician, and finally a follower of Kanishka through his Northern campaigns ; such a man would naturally be led to put together the various tales or traditions he had gathered as to the birth and life of his great master, and connect them with the already recognised account of his end or last days on earth. The detailed account of Buddha’s death, recorded in the Mahdparinirvawa Satra, finds a place at the end of the present work; this account being well known to Asvaghosha, there can be no difficulty in understanding how he came to write an entire poem on the subject of the master’s life and death. I am told by Professor Max Miiller that the Sanskrit versions of the Buddhafarita break off at the end of varga 17, that is, after the account of the conversion of the great K4syapa. Whether this is accidental, or whether it indicates the original extent of the poem, I have no means of judging. One thing is certain, that at the time when the translation was made by Dharmaraksha (viz. about A.D. 420), the work was of the size of the present volume. There is no a priori reason for supposing the later portion to have been added by a writer subsequent to Asvaghosha. A poem does not easily admit of ‘a continuation’ by another author; nor can we think that a distinguished writer like Asvaghosha would omit in his biography the account of the death of his hero, especially as the materials were at hand, and the dramatic effect of the poem would be undoubtedly increased by the addition of such a popular record. It seems therefore more natural to suppose that the Sanskrit MSS. are incomplete copies of the original, and that the Chinese version before us is in INTRODUCTION. XXXill fact a translation of the entire poem as it came from its author’s hands.
2It seems therefore more natural to suppose that the Sanskrit MSS. are incomplete copies of the original, and that the Chinese version before us is in INTRODUCTION. XXXill fact a translation of the entire poem as it came from its author’s hands. There is little to add, with respect to the history of Asvaghosha, to the few notices I have given elsewhere (Abstract, &c., p. 95 sqq-) One or two allusions to him will be found in the work of Wong pdh (Shing tau ki, §§ 186 and 190). These only confirm the general tradition that he was originally a distinguished Brahman and became a convert to Buddhism!. The Buddhaéarita contains sufficient proof of his acquaintance with and hostility to Brahmanical teaching, and the frequent discussions found therein relative to the non-existence of ‘I’ (an individual self) illustrate the record contained in § 190 of the work (Shing tau) named above, ‘that Vira, a writer of Sastras (Lun sse), a disciple of Asvaghosha Bodhisattva, wrote a treatise in 100 gathas on the subject of “non-individuality” (wou ’ngo lun), which the heretics were unable to gainsay.’ With reference to this doctrine of the non-existence of the individual subject, it is not possible in such a work as this to say much. I shall be glad to place on record, however, my belief that in Buddhism this question is much more than a speculative question of philosophy. It touches the skirt of the highest moral truth. For the individual self in Buddhism is the evil or carnal self, the origin of sorrow. This, the Buddhist says (at least as I read his confession of faith), does not exist; the evil self is not a separate reality, it is the delusion of ‘sense ;’ it is ‘nothing.’ Destroy this idea of self and there will be light. If we regard the question thus, it assumes a form more interesting and vital than that of any philosophical enquiry. As I said above, it touches the skirt of the highest truth ; and in this approach to truth lies the power of the Buddhist doctrine. THE FAITHFULNESS OF CHINESE TRANSLATIONS. It is wonderful to look through the large collection of Buddhist books translated into Chinese from the dialects ! Mr. Rockhill has kindly given me an extract from a Tibetan work, Masgusrim@latantra, in which Asvaghosha is identified with Matrigata or M&trigita, conceming whom, see Abstract, &c., p. 141. [19] c XXXIV FO-SHO-HING-TSAN-KING,
3Mr. Rockhill has kindly given me an extract from a Tibetan work, Masgusrim@latantra, in which Asvaghosha is identified with Matrigata or M&trigita, conceming whom, see Abstract, &c., p. 141. [19] c XXXIV FO-SHO-HING-TSAN-KING, of India, principally by Indian or Indo-Scythian priests. I use this last expression to indicate the nationality of those translators who came to China from Cabul and regions north of the Indus. For 600 years and more a succession of Buddhist teachers and preachers followed one another from India and Central Asia towards China with little interruption. The result is, that the Buddhist Tripitaka (canon) as we have it in that country is a collection of translations without connection of parts, denoting the Buddhism of India and neighbouring countries, in every period of its development. Hence side by side with the early teaching of the faith found in such books as the Dharmapada (Tan poh), we have the gross form of Tantra worship contained in the ‘Dharani of Kanda, Kanda being in fact the same as K4lf or Durga or Gagatmatr?. Nevertheless this collection of translations is a most important one. Its importance has yet to be realised. To the student of Buddhism it is an inexhaustible mine of wealth. And to the student of history some knowledge of it is indispensable. The question presents itself, therefore, can we rely on the truthfulness of the work done by these men in China? To this question only a qualified answer can be given; we may rely on the work of men of known ability. And in other cases we may test the work done by comparison with the originals. We should have no reluctance, I think, in accepting the translations of men like Kuméragiva, to whom both Chinese and Sanskrit must have been familiar, and whose work may be tested by comparison with Sanskrit texts. And if he may be trusted, so may others also who worked with him or in his time. Amongst these was Dharmaraksha, the translator of the Buddhafarita of this volume. He was a man of Mid-India, and became a disciple at six years of age, and daily recited 10,000 words of Scripture. At first he belonged to the school of the lesser development, and was well acquainted with the discourses of the five Vidy4s. Afterwards he became a follower of the greater development. He arrived in China in the year 412 A.D. and worked at translations till A.D. 454. Now INTRODUCTION. © XXXV we can hardly suppose that a man of such natural gifts as Dharmaraksha could have laboured for forty-two years at translations, without being worthy of trust. Moreover we find that Kumaragiva was working at this period in China, and that he translated the work of Asvaghosha called Ta-#wang-yan-king-lun, which appears to be related to the Ta-Awang-yan-king, another name for the Life of Buddha (Lalita Vistara). Is it likely that the two translators were unknown to one another?
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.
170, if not before, there was in India a work known as Buddhaéfarita (Fo-pen-hing). As to the origin of such a work, it seems likely to have sprung from an enlargement of the Mahaparinirvaza Sdtra. We know that the record of the history of Buddha’s last XXxli FO-SHO-HING-TSAN-KING. days was extant under this title from early times, and nothing would be simpler than the gradual enlargement of such a record, so as to include in it not only his last days, but his work throughout his life. Each district in which Buddha taught had probably its own recollections on this point, and to any zealous writer the task of connecting these several histories would be an easy one. Such a man was Asvaghosha. Brought up in Central India, travelling throughout his life as a preacher and musician, and finally a follower of Kanishka through his Northern campaigns ; such a man would naturally be led to put together the various tales or traditions he had gathered as to the birth and life of his great master, and connect them with the already recognised account of his end or last days on earth. The detailed account of Buddha’s death, recorded in the Mahdparinirvawa Satra, finds a place at the end of the present work; this account being well known to Asvaghosha, there can be no difficulty in understanding how he came to write an entire poem on the subject of the master’s life and death. I am told by Professor Max Miiller that the Sanskrit versions of the Buddhafarita break off at the end of varga 17, that is, after the account of the conversion of the great K4syapa. Whether this is accidental, or whether it indicates the original extent of the poem, I have no means of judging. One thing is certain, that at the time when the translation was made by Dharmaraksha (viz. about A.D. 420), the work was of the size of the present volume. There is no a priori reason for supposing the later portion to have been added by a writer subsequent to Asvaghosha. A poem does not easily admit of ‘a continuation’ by another author; nor can we think that a distinguished writer like Asvaghosha would omit in his biography the account of the death of his hero, especially as the materials were at hand, and the dramatic effect of the poem would be undoubtedly increased by the addition of such a popular record. It seems therefore more natural to suppose that the Sanskrit MSS. are incomplete copies of the original, and that the Chinese version before us is in INTRODUCTION. XXXill fact a translation of the entire poem as it came from its author’s hands.
2It seems therefore more natural to suppose that the Sanskrit MSS. are incomplete copies of the original, and that the Chinese version before us is in INTRODUCTION. XXXill fact a translation of the entire poem as it came from its author’s hands. There is little to add, with respect to the history of Asvaghosha, to the few notices I have given elsewhere (Abstract, &c., p. 95 sqq-) One or two allusions to him will be found in the work of Wong pdh (Shing tau ki, §§ 186 and 190). These only confirm the general tradition that he was originally a distinguished Brahman and became a convert to Buddhism!. The Buddhaéarita contains sufficient proof of his acquaintance with and hostility to Brahmanical teaching, and the frequent discussions found therein relative to the non-existence of ‘I’ (an individual self) illustrate the record contained in § 190 of the work (Shing tau) named above, ‘that Vira, a writer of Sastras (Lun sse), a disciple of Asvaghosha Bodhisattva, wrote a treatise in 100 gathas on the subject of “non-individuality” (wou ’ngo lun), which the heretics were unable to gainsay.’ With reference to this doctrine of the non-existence of the individual subject, it is not possible in such a work as this to say much. I shall be glad to place on record, however, my belief that in Buddhism this question is much more than a speculative question of philosophy. It touches the skirt of the highest moral truth. For the individual self in Buddhism is the evil or carnal self, the origin of sorrow. This, the Buddhist says (at least as I read his confession of faith), does not exist; the evil self is not a separate reality, it is the delusion of ‘sense ;’ it is ‘nothing.’ Destroy this idea of self and there will be light. If we regard the question thus, it assumes a form more interesting and vital than that of any philosophical enquiry. As I said above, it touches the skirt of the highest truth ; and in this approach to truth lies the power of the Buddhist doctrine. THE FAITHFULNESS OF CHINESE TRANSLATIONS. It is wonderful to look through the large collection of Buddhist books translated into Chinese from the dialects ! Mr. Rockhill has kindly given me an extract from a Tibetan work, Masgusrim@latantra, in which Asvaghosha is identified with Matrigata or M&trigita, conceming whom, see Abstract, &c., p. 141. [19] c XXXIV FO-SHO-HING-TSAN-KING,
3Mr. Rockhill has kindly given me an extract from a Tibetan work, Masgusrim@latantra, in which Asvaghosha is identified with Matrigata or M&trigita, conceming whom, see Abstract, &c., p. 141. [19] c XXXIV FO-SHO-HING-TSAN-KING, of India, principally by Indian or Indo-Scythian priests. I use this last expression to indicate the nationality of those translators who came to China from Cabul and regions north of the Indus. For 600 years and more a succession of Buddhist teachers and preachers followed one another from India and Central Asia towards China with little interruption. The result is, that the Buddhist Tripitaka (canon) as we have it in that country is a collection of translations without connection of parts, denoting the Buddhism of India and neighbouring countries, in every period of its development. Hence side by side with the early teaching of the faith found in such books as the Dharmapada (Tan poh), we have the gross form of Tantra worship contained in the ‘Dharani of Kanda, Kanda being in fact the same as K4lf or Durga or Gagatmatr?. Nevertheless this collection of translations is a most important one. Its importance has yet to be realised. To the student of Buddhism it is an inexhaustible mine of wealth. And to the student of history some knowledge of it is indispensable. The question presents itself, therefore, can we rely on the truthfulness of the work done by these men in China? To this question only a qualified answer can be given; we may rely on the work of men of known ability. And in other cases we may test the work done by comparison with the originals. We should have no reluctance, I think, in accepting the translations of men like Kuméragiva, to whom both Chinese and Sanskrit must have been familiar, and whose work may be tested by comparison with Sanskrit texts. And if he may be trusted, so may others also who worked with him or in his time. Amongst these was Dharmaraksha, the translator of the Buddhafarita of this volume. He was a man of Mid-India, and became a disciple at six years of age, and daily recited 10,000 words of Scripture. At first he belonged to the school of the lesser development, and was well acquainted with the discourses of the five Vidy4s. Afterwards he became a follower of the greater development. He arrived in China in the year 412 A.D. and worked at translations till A.D. 454. Now INTRODUCTION. © XXXV we can hardly suppose that a man of such natural gifts as Dharmaraksha could have laboured for forty-two years at translations, without being worthy of trust. Moreover we find that Kumaragiva was working at this period in China, and that he translated the work of Asvaghosha called Ta-#wang-yan-king-lun, which appears to be related to the Ta-Awang-yan-king, another name for the Life of Buddha (Lalita Vistara). Is it likely that the two translators were unknown to one another?
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.