Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1There is reason to suppose that one of the + 1 Cf. Wassiljew, Buddhismus, p. 124. 3 B. H. Hodgson, Essays, p. 62. Cf. Stanislas Julien, Voyages des Pélerins bouddhistes, II, p. 436 note. 3 See especially the whole of chapter x. * Lotus, chap. x, st. 27 seq. c2 XXXVI SADDHARMA-PUNDARIKA. honorific titles given to the preachers or interpreters of the law was ‘wise’ or ‘learned man,’ Pandita, for the word is so often applied to them that it looks more like a title than a common epithet!. Tdrandtha knows Pazdita to be a title’, and considers it to be the equivalent of the older Mahdabhadanta; he distinguishes ‘ Bodhisattvas’ from ‘common Panditas’ and ‘Arhats.’ How does this agree with the data in the Lotus? As it has been intimated in a foregoing note, the three Vehicles are imitations of three Asramas or stages in the model life of an Arya, in the first place of a Brahman. The stages are that of a student, of a hermit living in the forest, and of a Sanny4sin, Yati, or Mukta, who has wholly given up the world. The second stage, that of a householder, does not exist, of course, for those who vow themselves to a monastic life. Our Stra does not prescribe that the three stages must be gone through by the same persons, no more than the Bhagavadgita l.c. requires that one should pass the stages of study, knowledge, and meditation before resolving upon complete renunciation (ty4ga); what follows from the context is only this, that the Vehicle of Bodhisattvas, alias those who strive for the weal of all creatures, is superior to the two preceding Vehicles. The Vehicle of the Bodhisattvas being the loftiest of the three, they themselves must be considered as occupying the highest rank. Now T4ranatha places the Arhats above them, and with the Nepalese also the first class of the monastic order is that of Arhat®. The question is, how are we to judge of the relation between Arhats and Bodhisattvas in the Lotus? As far as I am able to see, the compiler* of the Sitra describes facts, or supposed facts, which he knew from oral or literary tradition, as having occurred in the past, whereas the actual state of things in his own time and shortly before is represented as that of the future. His Arhats are sages of the past, canonized gaints; his human Bodhisattvas are sages, } E.g. Lotus, chap. x, st. 4, cf. 6; 23, 333 xiii, 13, 16, 24, 26, 30, 32, 39,44 3 Geschichte des Buddhismus, p. 60. * Hodgson, Essays, p. §2 ; cf. p. 30. * The reader should not lay stress upon this singolar, INTRODUCTION. XXXVIi
2Lotus, chap. x, st. 4, cf. 6; 23, 333 xiii, 13, 16, 24, 26, 30, 32, 39,44 3 Geschichte des Buddhismus, p. 60. * Hodgson, Essays, p. §2 ; cf. p. 30. * The reader should not lay stress upon this singolar, INTRODUCTION. XXXVIi wise men of the present, most reverend worthies who should live a saintly life and generally do so, but who, however sanctimonious, are not acknowledged saints. Of an antagonism between Arhats and Bodhisattvas there is no trace in the book; the Arhats being dead, they cannot be active ; \the Bodhisattvas as living persons, can’. In a certain respect, then, the remark of Professor Rhys Davids holds good; the Bodhisattvas represent the ideal of spiritual activity, the Arhats of inactivity. It must be admitted that the Lotus, as a whole, breathes a less monastic and ascetic? spirit ; it does not go the length to speak of ascetism and mortification in such scornful terms as the Bhagavadgita® does, but at the same time it never extols it. There are in the book many indications that the art of preaching was made much of and highly developed, and it may be supposed that a greater proficiency in hermeneutics combined with superior mental activity has enabled the Mahayana to supplant its rival, the Hinay4na, and to extend its spiritual conquests once from the snows of Siberia to the luxuriant islands of the Indian Archipelago. After having touched upon such points in the text of the Saddharma-puxdarika as seemed to require more special notice, it behoves me to say a few words about the translation and its resources. In the first place, I must declare that I cannot speak in too warm terms of the benefit I have derived from the French translation by the illustrious Burnouf. I have taken that work throughout for my model, without having been able to reach its excellency. The material discrepancies between his translation are partly due to my having followed other MSS., partly to another interpretation, especially of frequently corrupt and difficult Gath4s. If some reader not acquainted * Something of contempt for the Arhats is shown in the story communicated by Hiouen Thsang in Voyages des Pélerins bouddhistes, II, p. 176, where the editor inadvertently writes Vasubandhu instead of Vasumitra ; his index affords the means of correcting the mistake; cf. Wassiljew in Taranatha, p. 298. ? See chap. xiii, 28, where the eighth commandment of the Dasasfla, forbidding the use of ointment, is slighted. ® See there xvii, § seqq., and cf. 14 seqq., where we are taught what the true tapas should be. XXXVili SADDHARMA-PUNDARIKA.
3Wassiljew in Taranatha, p. 298. ? See chap. xiii, 28, where the eighth commandment of the Dasasfla, forbidding the use of ointment, is slighted. ® See there xvii, § seqq., and cf. 14 seqq., where we are taught what the true tapas should be. XXXVili SADDHARMA-PUNDARIKA. with the peculiar difficulties of those Gathas should wonder at the occurrence of numerous discrepancies, I would repeat the words of the preface to the Chinese version from A.D. 601, and request him ‘not to have any suspicion about these differences.’ Let him compare the fragment from Kumfragiva’s rendering on page xl with the corresponding passages in the French and English translations, and he will observe that the difference between the work of the learned Buddhist of the fourth century and the two European versions is far more considerable than between the latter. The base of my translation has been an old manuscript on palm leaves, belonging to Dr. D. Wright’s collection, in the University Library of Cambridge. The manuscript is dated Newar, era 159 (=A.D. 1039), and was written in the reign of the king KAmadeva/(?), in the bright half of the month Vaisékha, on a Thursday!. It is one of the most ancient Sanskrit MSS. existing in Europe, and therefore I thought that it was advisable to follow its readings as much as possible, except in such passages as were evidently corrupt. A second MS., unfortunately incomplete, from the same collection, is of unknown date, since the latter part of the codex is lost; from the form of the characters it may be inferred that it is not much more modern than the other codex*. The difference between both is not very great; yet there can be no doubt that the second MS. belongs to another family. The varietas lectionis is strikingly similar in kind to what we find in the different texts of the Vagrakkhedika, edited by Professor Max Miller. The former manuscript has much in common with the London codices, from which Burnouf in the notes on his translation has derived numerous various readings; it stands farther off from the Paris MS. that has formed the base of Burnouf’s version, but not so far as the second 1 Samvat 159 Vaisikhasukle (illegible the Tithi) Gurudine, Kamadevasya vigayaragye likhitam iti. There seem to be wanting two syllables before kama. ? The two Cambridge MSS. are marked Add. 1682 and 1683. ° INTRODUCTION. XXXIX Cambridge MS., which shows the greatest number of peculiar readings. The text of chapter iv in Professor Foucaux’s edition of the Parabole de l’enfant égaré is comparatively modern and bad. In general it may be said that all the known copies of the Saddharma-pumdarika are written with a want of care little in harmony with the holy character of the book.
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.
1There is reason to suppose that one of the + 1 Cf. Wassiljew, Buddhismus, p. 124. 3 B. H. Hodgson, Essays, p. 62. Cf. Stanislas Julien, Voyages des Pélerins bouddhistes, II, p. 436 note. 3 See especially the whole of chapter x. * Lotus, chap. x, st. 27 seq. c2 XXXVI SADDHARMA-PUNDARIKA. honorific titles given to the preachers or interpreters of the law was ‘wise’ or ‘learned man,’ Pandita, for the word is so often applied to them that it looks more like a title than a common epithet!. Tdrandtha knows Pazdita to be a title’, and considers it to be the equivalent of the older Mahdabhadanta; he distinguishes ‘ Bodhisattvas’ from ‘common Panditas’ and ‘Arhats.’ How does this agree with the data in the Lotus? As it has been intimated in a foregoing note, the three Vehicles are imitations of three Asramas or stages in the model life of an Arya, in the first place of a Brahman. The stages are that of a student, of a hermit living in the forest, and of a Sanny4sin, Yati, or Mukta, who has wholly given up the world. The second stage, that of a householder, does not exist, of course, for those who vow themselves to a monastic life. Our Stra does not prescribe that the three stages must be gone through by the same persons, no more than the Bhagavadgita l.c. requires that one should pass the stages of study, knowledge, and meditation before resolving upon complete renunciation (ty4ga); what follows from the context is only this, that the Vehicle of Bodhisattvas, alias those who strive for the weal of all creatures, is superior to the two preceding Vehicles. The Vehicle of the Bodhisattvas being the loftiest of the three, they themselves must be considered as occupying the highest rank. Now T4ranatha places the Arhats above them, and with the Nepalese also the first class of the monastic order is that of Arhat®. The question is, how are we to judge of the relation between Arhats and Bodhisattvas in the Lotus? As far as I am able to see, the compiler* of the Sitra describes facts, or supposed facts, which he knew from oral or literary tradition, as having occurred in the past, whereas the actual state of things in his own time and shortly before is represented as that of the future. His Arhats are sages of the past, canonized gaints; his human Bodhisattvas are sages, } E.g. Lotus, chap. x, st. 4, cf. 6; 23, 333 xiii, 13, 16, 24, 26, 30, 32, 39,44 3 Geschichte des Buddhismus, p. 60. * Hodgson, Essays, p. §2 ; cf. p. 30. * The reader should not lay stress upon this singolar, INTRODUCTION. XXXVIi
2Lotus, chap. x, st. 4, cf. 6; 23, 333 xiii, 13, 16, 24, 26, 30, 32, 39,44 3 Geschichte des Buddhismus, p. 60. * Hodgson, Essays, p. §2 ; cf. p. 30. * The reader should not lay stress upon this singolar, INTRODUCTION. XXXVIi wise men of the present, most reverend worthies who should live a saintly life and generally do so, but who, however sanctimonious, are not acknowledged saints. Of an antagonism between Arhats and Bodhisattvas there is no trace in the book; the Arhats being dead, they cannot be active ; \the Bodhisattvas as living persons, can’. In a certain respect, then, the remark of Professor Rhys Davids holds good; the Bodhisattvas represent the ideal of spiritual activity, the Arhats of inactivity. It must be admitted that the Lotus, as a whole, breathes a less monastic and ascetic? spirit ; it does not go the length to speak of ascetism and mortification in such scornful terms as the Bhagavadgita® does, but at the same time it never extols it. There are in the book many indications that the art of preaching was made much of and highly developed, and it may be supposed that a greater proficiency in hermeneutics combined with superior mental activity has enabled the Mahayana to supplant its rival, the Hinay4na, and to extend its spiritual conquests once from the snows of Siberia to the luxuriant islands of the Indian Archipelago. After having touched upon such points in the text of the Saddharma-puxdarika as seemed to require more special notice, it behoves me to say a few words about the translation and its resources. In the first place, I must declare that I cannot speak in too warm terms of the benefit I have derived from the French translation by the illustrious Burnouf. I have taken that work throughout for my model, without having been able to reach its excellency. The material discrepancies between his translation are partly due to my having followed other MSS., partly to another interpretation, especially of frequently corrupt and difficult Gath4s. If some reader not acquainted * Something of contempt for the Arhats is shown in the story communicated by Hiouen Thsang in Voyages des Pélerins bouddhistes, II, p. 176, where the editor inadvertently writes Vasubandhu instead of Vasumitra ; his index affords the means of correcting the mistake; cf. Wassiljew in Taranatha, p. 298. ? See chap. xiii, 28, where the eighth commandment of the Dasasfla, forbidding the use of ointment, is slighted. ® See there xvii, § seqq., and cf. 14 seqq., where we are taught what the true tapas should be. XXXVili SADDHARMA-PUNDARIKA.
3Wassiljew in Taranatha, p. 298. ? See chap. xiii, 28, where the eighth commandment of the Dasasfla, forbidding the use of ointment, is slighted. ® See there xvii, § seqq., and cf. 14 seqq., where we are taught what the true tapas should be. XXXVili SADDHARMA-PUNDARIKA. with the peculiar difficulties of those Gathas should wonder at the occurrence of numerous discrepancies, I would repeat the words of the preface to the Chinese version from A.D. 601, and request him ‘not to have any suspicion about these differences.’ Let him compare the fragment from Kumfragiva’s rendering on page xl with the corresponding passages in the French and English translations, and he will observe that the difference between the work of the learned Buddhist of the fourth century and the two European versions is far more considerable than between the latter. The base of my translation has been an old manuscript on palm leaves, belonging to Dr. D. Wright’s collection, in the University Library of Cambridge. The manuscript is dated Newar, era 159 (=A.D. 1039), and was written in the reign of the king KAmadeva/(?), in the bright half of the month Vaisékha, on a Thursday!. It is one of the most ancient Sanskrit MSS. existing in Europe, and therefore I thought that it was advisable to follow its readings as much as possible, except in such passages as were evidently corrupt. A second MS., unfortunately incomplete, from the same collection, is of unknown date, since the latter part of the codex is lost; from the form of the characters it may be inferred that it is not much more modern than the other codex*. The difference between both is not very great; yet there can be no doubt that the second MS. belongs to another family. The varietas lectionis is strikingly similar in kind to what we find in the different texts of the Vagrakkhedika, edited by Professor Max Miller. The former manuscript has much in common with the London codices, from which Burnouf in the notes on his translation has derived numerous various readings; it stands farther off from the Paris MS. that has formed the base of Burnouf’s version, but not so far as the second 1 Samvat 159 Vaisikhasukle (illegible the Tithi) Gurudine, Kamadevasya vigayaragye likhitam iti. There seem to be wanting two syllables before kama. ? The two Cambridge MSS. are marked Add. 1682 and 1683. ° INTRODUCTION. XXXIX Cambridge MS., which shows the greatest number of peculiar readings. The text of chapter iv in Professor Foucaux’s edition of the Parabole de l’enfant égaré is comparatively modern and bad. In general it may be said that all the known copies of the Saddharma-pumdarika are written with a want of care little in harmony with the holy character of the book.
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.