Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1In the book itself we find it termed a Sdtra or Sftranta of the class called Mah4vaipulya. In a highly instructive discussion on the peculiar characteristics and comparative age of the different kinds of Sdtras, Burnouf arrives at the conclusion that the Mahdvaipulya Sdtras are posterior to the simple Satras in general’. As there are two categories of simple Sftras, 1. those in which the events narrated are placed contemporary with the Buddha, 2. those which refer to persons living a considerable time after his reputed period, e.g. Asoka’, it follows that the composition of the Mahavaipulya Sftras must be held to fall in a later time than the production of even the second category of simple Sfdtras. Now in one of the latter, the Asoka-Avadana, we read of Asoka using the word din4ra3, which leads us to the conclusion that the said Avadana was composed, not only after the introduction of dindra from the West, in the first century of our era or later, but at a still more modern time, when people had forgotten the foreign origin of the coin in question. The results arrived at by Burnouf may be right so far as any Mahavaipulya Sdtra, as a whole, is concerned; they cannot be applied to all the component parts of such a work. Not to go further than the Saddharma-puvdarika ' Introduction & histoire du Buddhisme indien, pp. 103-128. * Burnouf, Introd. p. 218 seq. > Burnouf, Introd. p. 423; cf. p. 431, where Pushyamitra is made to speak of Dinaras ; Max Miiller, History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature. p 245. INTRODUCTION. xi and the Lalita-vistara, it can hardly be questioned that these works contain parts of very different dates, and derived from various sources. The material discrepancies between the version in prose and that in verse are occasionally too great to allow us to suppose them to have been made simultaneously or even by different authors conjointly at work!, Further it can be shown that the Mahavaipulya Sdtras are partially made up of such materials as must be referred to the oldest period of Buddhism. Let me adduce some examples to render more clear what I mean. If we compare Lalita-vistara (Calc. ed.), p. 513, 13-p. 514, 2, with Mah4vagga (ed. Dr. Oldenberg) I, 5, 2, we perceive that the passages are to a great extent literally identical, and that the variations amount to little more than a varietas lectionis. The passage adduced is in prose; now let us take some stanzas. In Mahavagga I, 5, 3, the Lord utters the following slokas: kikkhena me adhigatam halam dani pakdsitum, ragadosaparetehi ndyam dhammo susambudho. padisotagami nipuzam gambhiram duddasam anum ragaratta na dakkhanti tamokhandhena 4vuta. This does not materially differ from Lalita-vistara, p. 515, 16 seq.: pratisrotag4miko margo gambhiro durdriso mama, na tam drakshya(n)ti? ragandha alam tasmat prakAsitum. anusrotam pravahyante kameshu patit4’ pragAk ; krikkhrena me’yam sampraptam(!) alam tasmat prakdsitum.
2This does not materially differ from Lalita-vistara, p. 515, 16 seq.: pratisrotag4miko margo gambhiro durdriso mama, na tam drakshya(n)ti? ragandha alam tasmat prakAsitum. anusrotam pravahyante kameshu patit4’ pragAk ; krikkhrena me’yam sampraptam(!) alam tasmat prakdsitum. Though there is some difference in the wording and arrangement of the verses, it is of such a kind as to exclude all idea of the compiler of the Lalita-vistara having composed the distichs himself. Even the words ayam dhammo susambudho and nipuzam of the Pali text were known to him, as appears from the passage in prose immediately preceding the slokas quoted: gambhirak 1 See e.g. the foot-note, p. 413. ? An erroneous Sanskritisation of the present tense dakkhanti. Xil SADDHARMA-PUNDARIKA. khalv ayam, Mahabrahman, maya dharmo ’bhisambuddha& sikshmo nipuzak. What follows, api Aa me, Brahman, ime gathe abhikshvzam pratibhasatah}, is but a slight, not very felicitous modification of what we read in the Mahavagga |.c.: api’ssu bhagavantam ima anakkhariya gathayo patibhamsu pubbe assutapubba. Evidently from the same source are the verses in Trishtubh uttered by the god Brahma, Mahdvagga I, 5, 7, and those found in Lalita-vistara, p. 517, 3 seq. The former text has: paturahosi Magadhesu pubbe dhammo asuddho samalehi Aintito, ap4pur’ etasz amatassa dvaram suzantu dhammam vimalenanubuddham ?. The other runs thus: vado babhiva samalair vifintito dharmo hy® asuddho Magadheshu pfrvam ; amritam mune tad vivvizishva dvaram svinvanti* dharma vipulam® vimalena buddham. On comparing the two texts we may infer that the Pali version is purer, that vado babhdva is a corruption of p4dad babhdva or something like it, answering to a Sanskrit pradur babhdva, but we cannot deny that the stanzas have the same origin. In Mahavagga I, 5, 12, the Lord addresses the god Brahma with the following Trishfubh: aparuta tesam amatassa dvara ye sotavanto, pamusi#antu® saddham. ' Obviously an unhappy attempt to Sanskritise a Pali or Prakrit patibhamsu; it ought to have been pratyabhdsish¢dm. 2 The text is corrupt; we have either to read vimalanubuddham, a Tatpurusha compound expressing the same as what the text exhibits, or vimalena buddham. . 3 Hi is meaningless, and only a clumsy device to satisfy the exigency of Sanskrit phonetical rules, which are not applicable to Prakrit. * Read srinvantu. 5 Read dharmam vimalena. Vipula probably owes its origin to a dittography. © I do not understand this pamuikantu, i.e. let them cast off, loose or emit. Perhaps we have to read payuzgantu, let them practise. INTRODUCTION. Xili vihissasa#if#i paguzam na bhasi dhammam pazitam manugesu, Brahma; iti. Then in prose: Atha kho Brahma Sahampati katavakaso kho ’mhi bhagavaté dhammadesanaya ’ti bhagavantam abhivadetva padakkhizam katva tatth’ ev’ antaradhdyi. The parallel passage in Lalita-vistara, p. 520, 19 seq., has: apavritas tesham! amritasya dvard Brahmann iti? satatam ye srotavanta,
3Then in prose: Atha kho Brahma Sahampati katavakaso kho ’mhi bhagavaté dhammadesanaya ’ti bhagavantam abhivadetva padakkhizam katva tatth’ ev’ antaradhdyi. The parallel passage in Lalita-vistara, p. 520, 19 seq., has: apavritas tesham! amritasya dvard Brahmann iti? satatam ye srotavanta, pravisanti sraddha na vihethasang#a srinvanti dharma Magadheshu sattvaz. Atha khalu Sikht Mahabrahm4 Tath4gatasy4dhivasan4m viditva tushfa udagra 4ttamand pramudita/ pritisaumanasyagatas Tathagatasya pdadau sirasdbhivanditva tatraivantaradhat. At the meeting of the Agivaka monk Upaka and the Buddha, the latter is represented as having pronounced the following slokas (Mahavagga I, 6, 8 and 9): na me 4kariyo atthi, sadiso me na viggati, sadevakasmim lokasmim n’ atthi me pa/ipuggalo. aham hi arahA loke, aham satth4 anuttaro, eko ’mhi samm4sambuddho, sitibhfto ’smi nibbuto. madisa ve Gina honti ye patté dsavakkhayam, gita me papaké dhammd tasmaham Upaka® gino. Materially the same slokas, albeit in somewhat different arrangement, occur Lalita-vistara, p. 526, 22 seq., as being spoken at the same meeting : akaryo nahi me kasfit, sadriso me na vidyate, eko ’ham asmi sambuddhaZ, sitibhdto nirdsravah. aham evaham‘ loke s4sta hy aham anuttaraZ, sadevdsuragandharve ndsti me pratipudgalas °. Read teshan, if not tesam, because a contraction of am and a following vowel into one syllable is a’ common as one of 4m is unheard of. * These words do not suit the metre, and have undoubtedly been transposed from their original place, which they have kept in the Pali text. ® Rather Upaka, a common Prikrit form of the vocative case. See Sukhivatt-vy(iha, p. xi, in Anecdota Oxoniensia, Aryan Series, vol. i, part ii. ‘ Read aham evaraham (Sanskrit arhan). 5 The Calc. ed. has wrongly “dharvo and °puigalah. XIV SADDHARMA-PUNDARIKA. Gina hi madvis4 gheya ye prapta Asravakshayam, gitaé me papak4 dharmas tenopa(ka) Gino [hy] aham. The following verses, taken from Mahavagga and Lalitavistara l.c., have likewise the same origin, notwithstanding some variations : dhammakakkam pavattetum gakkhami KAsinam puram, andhabhitasmi lokasmim Ahawihi amatadudrabhim. Compare: Varanasim gamishy4mi gatva vai K4sikam purim, andhabhitasya lokasya kartdsmy asadrisim}) prabham. Varanasim gamishyami gatva vai Kasikam purim, sabdahinasya lokasya tadayishye? ’mritadundubhim. Varanasim gamishydmi gatva vai K4sikas purim, dharmagakram pravartishye lokeshv aprativartitam. An important passage on the divine sight of the Buddha in Lalita-vistara, p. 439 seq., almost literally occurs in the Samajifiaphala-Sutta, as has been pointed out by Burnouf 3.
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.
1In the book itself we find it termed a Sdtra or Sftranta of the class called Mah4vaipulya. In a highly instructive discussion on the peculiar characteristics and comparative age of the different kinds of Sdtras, Burnouf arrives at the conclusion that the Mahdvaipulya Sdtras are posterior to the simple Satras in general’. As there are two categories of simple Sftras, 1. those in which the events narrated are placed contemporary with the Buddha, 2. those which refer to persons living a considerable time after his reputed period, e.g. Asoka’, it follows that the composition of the Mahavaipulya Sftras must be held to fall in a later time than the production of even the second category of simple Sfdtras. Now in one of the latter, the Asoka-Avadana, we read of Asoka using the word din4ra3, which leads us to the conclusion that the said Avadana was composed, not only after the introduction of dindra from the West, in the first century of our era or later, but at a still more modern time, when people had forgotten the foreign origin of the coin in question. The results arrived at by Burnouf may be right so far as any Mahavaipulya Sdtra, as a whole, is concerned; they cannot be applied to all the component parts of such a work. Not to go further than the Saddharma-puvdarika ' Introduction & histoire du Buddhisme indien, pp. 103-128. * Burnouf, Introd. p. 218 seq. > Burnouf, Introd. p. 423; cf. p. 431, where Pushyamitra is made to speak of Dinaras ; Max Miiller, History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature. p 245. INTRODUCTION. xi and the Lalita-vistara, it can hardly be questioned that these works contain parts of very different dates, and derived from various sources. The material discrepancies between the version in prose and that in verse are occasionally too great to allow us to suppose them to have been made simultaneously or even by different authors conjointly at work!, Further it can be shown that the Mahavaipulya Sdtras are partially made up of such materials as must be referred to the oldest period of Buddhism. Let me adduce some examples to render more clear what I mean. If we compare Lalita-vistara (Calc. ed.), p. 513, 13-p. 514, 2, with Mah4vagga (ed. Dr. Oldenberg) I, 5, 2, we perceive that the passages are to a great extent literally identical, and that the variations amount to little more than a varietas lectionis. The passage adduced is in prose; now let us take some stanzas. In Mahavagga I, 5, 3, the Lord utters the following slokas: kikkhena me adhigatam halam dani pakdsitum, ragadosaparetehi ndyam dhammo susambudho. padisotagami nipuzam gambhiram duddasam anum ragaratta na dakkhanti tamokhandhena 4vuta. This does not materially differ from Lalita-vistara, p. 515, 16 seq.: pratisrotag4miko margo gambhiro durdriso mama, na tam drakshya(n)ti? ragandha alam tasmat prakAsitum. anusrotam pravahyante kameshu patit4’ pragAk ; krikkhrena me’yam sampraptam(!) alam tasmat prakdsitum.
2This does not materially differ from Lalita-vistara, p. 515, 16 seq.: pratisrotag4miko margo gambhiro durdriso mama, na tam drakshya(n)ti? ragandha alam tasmat prakAsitum. anusrotam pravahyante kameshu patit4’ pragAk ; krikkhrena me’yam sampraptam(!) alam tasmat prakdsitum. Though there is some difference in the wording and arrangement of the verses, it is of such a kind as to exclude all idea of the compiler of the Lalita-vistara having composed the distichs himself. Even the words ayam dhammo susambudho and nipuzam of the Pali text were known to him, as appears from the passage in prose immediately preceding the slokas quoted: gambhirak 1 See e.g. the foot-note, p. 413. ? An erroneous Sanskritisation of the present tense dakkhanti. Xil SADDHARMA-PUNDARIKA. khalv ayam, Mahabrahman, maya dharmo ’bhisambuddha& sikshmo nipuzak. What follows, api Aa me, Brahman, ime gathe abhikshvzam pratibhasatah}, is but a slight, not very felicitous modification of what we read in the Mahavagga |.c.: api’ssu bhagavantam ima anakkhariya gathayo patibhamsu pubbe assutapubba. Evidently from the same source are the verses in Trishtubh uttered by the god Brahma, Mahdvagga I, 5, 7, and those found in Lalita-vistara, p. 517, 3 seq. The former text has: paturahosi Magadhesu pubbe dhammo asuddho samalehi Aintito, ap4pur’ etasz amatassa dvaram suzantu dhammam vimalenanubuddham ?. The other runs thus: vado babhiva samalair vifintito dharmo hy® asuddho Magadheshu pfrvam ; amritam mune tad vivvizishva dvaram svinvanti* dharma vipulam® vimalena buddham. On comparing the two texts we may infer that the Pali version is purer, that vado babhdva is a corruption of p4dad babhdva or something like it, answering to a Sanskrit pradur babhdva, but we cannot deny that the stanzas have the same origin. In Mahavagga I, 5, 12, the Lord addresses the god Brahma with the following Trishfubh: aparuta tesam amatassa dvara ye sotavanto, pamusi#antu® saddham. ' Obviously an unhappy attempt to Sanskritise a Pali or Prakrit patibhamsu; it ought to have been pratyabhdsish¢dm. 2 The text is corrupt; we have either to read vimalanubuddham, a Tatpurusha compound expressing the same as what the text exhibits, or vimalena buddham. . 3 Hi is meaningless, and only a clumsy device to satisfy the exigency of Sanskrit phonetical rules, which are not applicable to Prakrit. * Read srinvantu. 5 Read dharmam vimalena. Vipula probably owes its origin to a dittography. © I do not understand this pamuikantu, i.e. let them cast off, loose or emit. Perhaps we have to read payuzgantu, let them practise. INTRODUCTION. Xili vihissasa#if#i paguzam na bhasi dhammam pazitam manugesu, Brahma; iti. Then in prose: Atha kho Brahma Sahampati katavakaso kho ’mhi bhagavaté dhammadesanaya ’ti bhagavantam abhivadetva padakkhizam katva tatth’ ev’ antaradhdyi. The parallel passage in Lalita-vistara, p. 520, 19 seq., has: apavritas tesham! amritasya dvard Brahmann iti? satatam ye srotavanta,
3Then in prose: Atha kho Brahma Sahampati katavakaso kho ’mhi bhagavaté dhammadesanaya ’ti bhagavantam abhivadetva padakkhizam katva tatth’ ev’ antaradhdyi. The parallel passage in Lalita-vistara, p. 520, 19 seq., has: apavritas tesham! amritasya dvard Brahmann iti? satatam ye srotavanta, pravisanti sraddha na vihethasang#a srinvanti dharma Magadheshu sattvaz. Atha khalu Sikht Mahabrahm4 Tath4gatasy4dhivasan4m viditva tushfa udagra 4ttamand pramudita/ pritisaumanasyagatas Tathagatasya pdadau sirasdbhivanditva tatraivantaradhat. At the meeting of the Agivaka monk Upaka and the Buddha, the latter is represented as having pronounced the following slokas (Mahavagga I, 6, 8 and 9): na me 4kariyo atthi, sadiso me na viggati, sadevakasmim lokasmim n’ atthi me pa/ipuggalo. aham hi arahA loke, aham satth4 anuttaro, eko ’mhi samm4sambuddho, sitibhfto ’smi nibbuto. madisa ve Gina honti ye patté dsavakkhayam, gita me papaké dhammd tasmaham Upaka® gino. Materially the same slokas, albeit in somewhat different arrangement, occur Lalita-vistara, p. 526, 22 seq., as being spoken at the same meeting : akaryo nahi me kasfit, sadriso me na vidyate, eko ’ham asmi sambuddhaZ, sitibhdto nirdsravah. aham evaham‘ loke s4sta hy aham anuttaraZ, sadevdsuragandharve ndsti me pratipudgalas °. Read teshan, if not tesam, because a contraction of am and a following vowel into one syllable is a’ common as one of 4m is unheard of. * These words do not suit the metre, and have undoubtedly been transposed from their original place, which they have kept in the Pali text. ® Rather Upaka, a common Prikrit form of the vocative case. See Sukhivatt-vy(iha, p. xi, in Anecdota Oxoniensia, Aryan Series, vol. i, part ii. ‘ Read aham evaraham (Sanskrit arhan). 5 The Calc. ed. has wrongly “dharvo and °puigalah. XIV SADDHARMA-PUNDARIKA. Gina hi madvis4 gheya ye prapta Asravakshayam, gitaé me papak4 dharmas tenopa(ka) Gino [hy] aham. The following verses, taken from Mahavagga and Lalitavistara l.c., have likewise the same origin, notwithstanding some variations : dhammakakkam pavattetum gakkhami KAsinam puram, andhabhitasmi lokasmim Ahawihi amatadudrabhim. Compare: Varanasim gamishy4mi gatva vai K4sikam purim, andhabhitasya lokasya kartdsmy asadrisim}) prabham. Varanasim gamishyami gatva vai Kasikam purim, sabdahinasya lokasya tadayishye? ’mritadundubhim. Varanasim gamishydmi gatva vai K4sikas purim, dharmagakram pravartishye lokeshv aprativartitam. An important passage on the divine sight of the Buddha in Lalita-vistara, p. 439 seq., almost literally occurs in the Samajifiaphala-Sutta, as has been pointed out by Burnouf 3.
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.