Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1’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. These few examples I have chosen will suffice to prove that the material of a Mah4vaipulya Satra is partly as old as that of any other sacred book of the Buddhists. The language of the prose part of those Sdtras does not differ from that used in the simple Sdtras of the Northern canon. Should the Sanskrit text prove to be younger than the Pali text, then we may say that we do not possess the Northern tradition in its original shape. That result, however, affords no criterion for the distinction between the simple Sdtras and the Mahavaipulya Satras, for both are written in the very same Sanskrit, if we except the Gathds. It would lead me too far, were I to enter into the heart of the question which of the three idioms, Sanskrit, PAli, and the so-called GAth4 dialect, was the oldest scriptural language of the Buddhists, and I will therefore confine myself to a few remarks. In the first place it will be granted 1 The reading aham sadrisim of the Calc. ed. is clearly a corrupt reading. 4 This word, which spoils the metre, has manifestly replaced an older expression, not unlikely 4ha#hi, or a similar form of the future tense of Ahan (Sansk. 4hanishye). 3 Lotus de la bonne Loi, p. 864. INTRODUCTION. XV
2ed. is clearly a corrupt reading. 4 This word, which spoils the metre, has manifestly replaced an older expression, not unlikely 4ha#hi, or a similar form of the future tense of Ahan (Sansk. 4hanishye). 3 Lotus de la bonne Loi, p. 864. INTRODUCTION. XV that the same person cannot have uttered any speech or stanza in two languages at the same time, and, further, that he is not likely to have spoken Sanskrit, when expressing himself in prose, and to have had recourse to a mere dialect, when speaking in poetry. One need not suppose that the common and every-day language of the god Brahma and the Buddha was P4li or Prakrit, in order to call it an absurdity that those persons would have spoken prose in Sanskrit and poetry in the Gath dialect, such as we find in some passages already quoted and in many others. Nor is it absurd, even if we do not believe that Pali is the original language of scripture, to contend that the Sanskrit text of the canonical works is at any rate a translation from some dialect. If the Sanskrit text of the Northern Satras, in general, were the original one, it would be impossible to account for occasional mistranslations and for the fact that the most palpable dialect forms have been left untouched, whenever the passage by being Sanskritised would have been spoilt. A striking instance is afforded in Lalita-vistara, p.145. There we read that the pronouncing of the letter ¢#a of the Indian alphabet is to be brought in connection with the word ¢Aapantyaprasna, i.e. a question that should be avoided, set aside, Pali ¢kapaniyapavho. Here the context absolutely opposed itself to the Pali or Prakrit ¢hapaniya being rendered by the Sanskrit sthapaniya, because the initial syllable of this form could not be made to agree with the letter ¢#a. On the same page of the Lalista-vistara we also meet with a word airapatha!, the initial syllable of which must needs harmonise with the diphthong ai, so that airapatha did not admit of being Sanskritised into 4ryapatha. From the occurrence of this airapatha I infer that the original text was composed in some kind of Prakrit, and not in regular Pali, because the latter has lost both the primary and secondary diphthong ai, though it may be asked whether forms such as kayira (Sansk. karya), payirupdsati 1 Written dirapatha, for the Vriddhi vowel denotes the sound of @i in Sanskrit, at least originally; from the same diphthong being used in the Asoka edicts in thaira (Sansk. sthavira), we must infer that the diphthong was, in the then Prakrit, sounded ai, not Ai. xvi . SADDHARMA-PUNDARIKA. (Sansk. paryup4sati), and the like are anything else but instances of inaccurate spelling’. This much is certain that thaira occurs in the inscriptions of Asoka, and in these the diphthong cannot but have the value of a short a followed by i.
3xvi . SADDHARMA-PUNDARIKA. (Sansk. paryup4sati), and the like are anything else but instances of inaccurate spelling’. This much is certain that thaira occurs in the inscriptions of Asoka, and in these the diphthong cannot but have the value of a short a followed by i. If we eliminate the Sanskrit, there remain two dialects, P4li and the Gatha idiom. Which of the two can lay claim to being the original language of the Buddhist scriptures or is the nearest approach to it? P4li is intelligible in its phonetics, the Gathd4s are not. Under ordinary circumstances the comparatively greater regularity of Pali would tend to favour its claims; the case before us is, however, so peculiar that it is not safe to draw inferences from the state in which the Gathas have come to us. It seems to me that the verses in the Northern books in general, as well as the prose of the Mahavastu 2, have been Sanskritised to a large extent, so that they ought to be restored, as much as possible, to a more primitive form, before a comparison with Pali can lead to satisfactory results. When we come across such words as hesh¢#4d (Sansk. adhast4d), guzebhiZ£, &c., we easily perceive that these forms are more primitive than Palihe?¢/4, guzehi; but what warrant have we of such forms being really in use at the time when the Gath4s were composed, if we observe that in a verse, Lalita-vistara 53, the syllable bhiz is reckoned as a short one in the words gumebhiz pratipdrza? In short, in their present state the Gathds afford no conclusive evidence that the language in which they were composed is older than Pali. Whatever may have been the phonetic aspect of the oldest standard dialect of the Buddhists, its vocabulary is unmistakably closely related to that of the Satapathabrahmava. The coincidences are so striking that the 1 That is, kayira was probably pronounced kaira, which cannot be exactly expressed by az because those who were acquainted with the rules of Sanskrit grammar would pronounce this and similar words with the sound of ai. 2 The able editor of this work, M. Senart, makes the following remarks on its language (p. xii): ‘Nous sommes ici en présence d’une langue irréguliére et instable, mélange singulier de formes diverses d’age et d’origine.’ INTRODUCTION. XVii
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.
1’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. These few examples I have chosen will suffice to prove that the material of a Mah4vaipulya Satra is partly as old as that of any other sacred book of the Buddhists. The language of the prose part of those Sdtras does not differ from that used in the simple Sdtras of the Northern canon. Should the Sanskrit text prove to be younger than the Pali text, then we may say that we do not possess the Northern tradition in its original shape. That result, however, affords no criterion for the distinction between the simple Sdtras and the Mahavaipulya Satras, for both are written in the very same Sanskrit, if we except the Gathds. It would lead me too far, were I to enter into the heart of the question which of the three idioms, Sanskrit, PAli, and the so-called GAth4 dialect, was the oldest scriptural language of the Buddhists, and I will therefore confine myself to a few remarks. In the first place it will be granted 1 The reading aham sadrisim of the Calc. ed. is clearly a corrupt reading. 4 This word, which spoils the metre, has manifestly replaced an older expression, not unlikely 4ha#hi, or a similar form of the future tense of Ahan (Sansk. 4hanishye). 3 Lotus de la bonne Loi, p. 864. INTRODUCTION. XV
2ed. is clearly a corrupt reading. 4 This word, which spoils the metre, has manifestly replaced an older expression, not unlikely 4ha#hi, or a similar form of the future tense of Ahan (Sansk. 4hanishye). 3 Lotus de la bonne Loi, p. 864. INTRODUCTION. XV that the same person cannot have uttered any speech or stanza in two languages at the same time, and, further, that he is not likely to have spoken Sanskrit, when expressing himself in prose, and to have had recourse to a mere dialect, when speaking in poetry. One need not suppose that the common and every-day language of the god Brahma and the Buddha was P4li or Prakrit, in order to call it an absurdity that those persons would have spoken prose in Sanskrit and poetry in the Gath dialect, such as we find in some passages already quoted and in many others. Nor is it absurd, even if we do not believe that Pali is the original language of scripture, to contend that the Sanskrit text of the canonical works is at any rate a translation from some dialect. If the Sanskrit text of the Northern Satras, in general, were the original one, it would be impossible to account for occasional mistranslations and for the fact that the most palpable dialect forms have been left untouched, whenever the passage by being Sanskritised would have been spoilt. A striking instance is afforded in Lalita-vistara, p.145. There we read that the pronouncing of the letter ¢#a of the Indian alphabet is to be brought in connection with the word ¢Aapantyaprasna, i.e. a question that should be avoided, set aside, Pali ¢kapaniyapavho. Here the context absolutely opposed itself to the Pali or Prakrit ¢hapaniya being rendered by the Sanskrit sthapaniya, because the initial syllable of this form could not be made to agree with the letter ¢#a. On the same page of the Lalista-vistara we also meet with a word airapatha!, the initial syllable of which must needs harmonise with the diphthong ai, so that airapatha did not admit of being Sanskritised into 4ryapatha. From the occurrence of this airapatha I infer that the original text was composed in some kind of Prakrit, and not in regular Pali, because the latter has lost both the primary and secondary diphthong ai, though it may be asked whether forms such as kayira (Sansk. karya), payirupdsati 1 Written dirapatha, for the Vriddhi vowel denotes the sound of @i in Sanskrit, at least originally; from the same diphthong being used in the Asoka edicts in thaira (Sansk. sthavira), we must infer that the diphthong was, in the then Prakrit, sounded ai, not Ai. xvi . SADDHARMA-PUNDARIKA. (Sansk. paryup4sati), and the like are anything else but instances of inaccurate spelling’. This much is certain that thaira occurs in the inscriptions of Asoka, and in these the diphthong cannot but have the value of a short a followed by i.
3xvi . SADDHARMA-PUNDARIKA. (Sansk. paryup4sati), and the like are anything else but instances of inaccurate spelling’. This much is certain that thaira occurs in the inscriptions of Asoka, and in these the diphthong cannot but have the value of a short a followed by i. If we eliminate the Sanskrit, there remain two dialects, P4li and the Gatha idiom. Which of the two can lay claim to being the original language of the Buddhist scriptures or is the nearest approach to it? P4li is intelligible in its phonetics, the Gathd4s are not. Under ordinary circumstances the comparatively greater regularity of Pali would tend to favour its claims; the case before us is, however, so peculiar that it is not safe to draw inferences from the state in which the Gathas have come to us. It seems to me that the verses in the Northern books in general, as well as the prose of the Mahavastu 2, have been Sanskritised to a large extent, so that they ought to be restored, as much as possible, to a more primitive form, before a comparison with Pali can lead to satisfactory results. When we come across such words as hesh¢#4d (Sansk. adhast4d), guzebhiZ£, &c., we easily perceive that these forms are more primitive than Palihe?¢/4, guzehi; but what warrant have we of such forms being really in use at the time when the Gath4s were composed, if we observe that in a verse, Lalita-vistara 53, the syllable bhiz is reckoned as a short one in the words gumebhiz pratipdrza? In short, in their present state the Gathds afford no conclusive evidence that the language in which they were composed is older than Pali. Whatever may have been the phonetic aspect of the oldest standard dialect of the Buddhists, its vocabulary is unmistakably closely related to that of the Satapathabrahmava. The coincidences are so striking that the 1 That is, kayira was probably pronounced kaira, which cannot be exactly expressed by az because those who were acquainted with the rules of Sanskrit grammar would pronounce this and similar words with the sound of ai. 2 The able editor of this work, M. Senart, makes the following remarks on its language (p. xii): ‘Nous sommes ici en présence d’une langue irréguliére et instable, mélange singulier de formes diverses d’age et d’origine.’ INTRODUCTION. XVii
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.