Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
12 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 interval separating the younger parts of the Satapatha and the beginnings of Buddhist literature can hardly be supposed to have been very great. Among those coincidences I cite sarvavat, a word which as yet has not been discovered in the whole range of Sanskrit literature except Satap. XIV, 7, 1,10, and in Northern Buddhist writings, as well as in Pali (sabbAv4). The maf Acyduevov ekoti Satap. XII, 2, 2, 4 recurs in ekoti-bh4va, Lalita-vistara, p- 147, 81; p. 439,6; Pali ekodi-bhava*. The expression samirita in the sense of ‘equipped, furnished with’ occurs in Satapatha thrice 5, in Atharva-veda once, in Saddharma-puvdarika several times, e.g. in paftfaghaztasamirita, chap. xxii. We may add the Prakritism irg in samifgayati, Brzhad-4razyaka VI, 4, 23, the usual form in Buddhist works in Sanskrit, Gatha dialect, and Pali; further manku, Satap. V, 5, 4,11; mazda in the compound naumazda, Satap. II. 3, 3,15; cf. bodhi-mazda. An archaic trait in the stanzas is the expletive use of the particle u, e.g. in teno, yeno, tasyo, adyo, for tena, yena, tasya,adya. Both in prose and poetry * we meet with no, sometimes in the sense of Sansk. no, which etymologically of course is identical with it, at other times in that of Sansk. na. An analogous case is Sansk. atho, almost imperceptibly differing from atha. Perhaps the most curious of similar forms in the Gathds is £0, in meaning exactly coinciding with a; this 0 I take to be the older form of the M4gadhi £u in the Asoka edicts. From the occurrence of peculiar old words and forms we may draw inferences as to the age of certain compositions in ordinary cases ; but it is not safe to apply the same test, if there is sufficient reason to suppose that the work, the date ' Ekabhibh4va of the Calc. text is a clerical blunder. 3 See Childers’ Pali Dict. p. 134, where the Thero Subhiti’s etymology eko udeti proves that he does not know the origin of the word; nor is it likely that the writer of the Pali passage cited by Childers knew more, for had he recognised the word, he would have written ekoti, because a Prakrit d between two vowels, if answering to a Sanskrit t, usually requires a t in Pali. * 11, 5,1, 31; VIII, 2,6; XIV,1, 3, 31. Also in the inscriptions of Asoka. (21] b XVili SADDHARMA-PUNDARIKA. of which we wish to determine, has been carefully moulded upon time-honoured models. In such a case new words prove a good deal!, old ones next to nothing. Therefore it would be an abuse of the argument ex silentio to infer from the total absence of such new words in our Saddharma-puvdarika that the bulk of the Sdtra must date from the earlier period of Buddhism.
2In such a case new words prove a good deal!, old ones next to nothing. Therefore it would be an abuse of the argument ex silentio to infer from the total absence of such new words in our Saddharma-puvdarika that the bulk of the Sdtra must date from the earlier period of Buddhism. Ihad already occasion to notice that the two versions, the prose and the metrical one, in our Sdtra show here and there material discrepancies. The question arises to which of the two we must award the palm of priority. Repeatedly, both in prose and poetry, the Sdtra is spoken of as consisting of stanzas; e.g. chap. vii, st. 82; chapters x and xxii in the prose portion, several times. As the term of stanza (g4th4), for aught I know, is never used to denote a certain number of syllables, there is a strong presumption that the ancient text consisted of verses, with an admixture of short prose passages serving as introduction or to connect the more solemn poetical pieces. The idea to expand such passages into a regular prose version would especially recommend itself at a period when the poetical dialect began to become obsolete and obscure. Without being a formal commentary, the prose version would yet tend to elucidate the older holy text. It will not be objected that, because not all chapters in the Saddharma-puzdarika have a poetical version added, the original cannot have been a poem. For the chapters containing but one version, viz. xxi, xxii, xxiii, xxv, and xxvi, show decided traces of being later additions; and as to the final chapter, it may be held to be a moderate amplification of a short prose epilogue. In contending that the original text of our Sdtra was probably, in the main, a work in metrical form, I do not mean to say that the poetical version in all the chapters must be ' As e.g. the word dinra in the Asoka Avadana ; the passage on the Greeks YonAs, in Assalfyana Sutta (ed. Pischel), p. 10; cf. the editor's remark, p. 6; the word karama for kalama, calamus to write with, in K4randa-vyiha (Calc. ed.), p. 69. a 7 ~. INTRODUCTION. (us Mista 3) considered to be prior to the prose’, The China ofthe «Sad-
3Pischel), p. 10; cf. the editor's remark, p. 6; the word karama for kalama, calamus to write with, in K4randa-vyiha (Calc. ed.), p. 69. a 7 ~. INTRODUCTION. (us Mista 3) considered to be prior to the prose’, The China ofthe «Sad- dharma-puvdarika are nowhere very brilliant, but in some chapters they are so excessively clumsy and mechanically put together that involuntarily we are led to the assumption of their having been made by persons to whom the old dialect was no longer familiar. The stanzas, e.g. in chapters xi and xiv, are abominable in form, and unusually silly; those in chap. xxiv are a pattern of mechanical verse-making, and give the impression as if they were intended rather to stultify than to edify the credulous reader. Now it is a curious fact that in a Chinese preface to the translation of our Sitra by Gfanagupta and Dharmagupta, A.D. 6017, we meet with the following notice: ‘The omission of the GAath4s in No. 134, chaps. 12 and 25%, have since been filled in by some wise men, whose example I wish to follow *.’ Here we have a direct proof that the Gath4s of some chapters have been added in later times. Had we similar notices concerning all the chapters in which the Gath4s are of a comparatively modern date, and could we prove that the prose of such chapters belongs to a later period, then the supposition of the ancient text of the Saddharma-puadarika ‘having been in the main a metrical one would seem to lose in strength. For, reasoning by analogy, one might say that just as some later chapters have notoriously been enriched with a metrical version in later times, so the ancient parts also will have gradually received their Gathas. Still the fact remains that those chapters in which the metrical portion is wanting clearly belong to a later period, so that it is questionable whether their case is entirely analogous to that of the more ancient part of the whole work. 1 Isolated stanzas, as in chapters xxii, xxv, and elsewhere, are wholly left out of question. ‘7 Catalogue of the Tripitaka (Oxford), by Mr. Bunyiu Nanjio; Sfitra Pitaka, Col. 45. 3 In the English translation chapters xi and xxiv. * Another notice in the above-mentioned Catalogue, col. 44, runs thus: ‘The portion of prose’ (of chap. xxiv) ‘ was translated by Kumaragtva, of the latter Tshin dynasty, A.D. 384-417; and that of G&thds by Gidnagupta, of the Northern Keu dynasty, 4.0. 557-589.’ So it seems that the Gathas have been added, and, not unlikely, been composed, between 417 and 557 A.D, b2 XX SADDHARMA-PUNDARIKA.
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.
12 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 interval separating the younger parts of the Satapatha and the beginnings of Buddhist literature can hardly be supposed to have been very great. Among those coincidences I cite sarvavat, a word which as yet has not been discovered in the whole range of Sanskrit literature except Satap. XIV, 7, 1,10, and in Northern Buddhist writings, as well as in Pali (sabbAv4). The maf Acyduevov ekoti Satap. XII, 2, 2, 4 recurs in ekoti-bh4va, Lalita-vistara, p- 147, 81; p. 439,6; Pali ekodi-bhava*. The expression samirita in the sense of ‘equipped, furnished with’ occurs in Satapatha thrice 5, in Atharva-veda once, in Saddharma-puvdarika several times, e.g. in paftfaghaztasamirita, chap. xxii. We may add the Prakritism irg in samifgayati, Brzhad-4razyaka VI, 4, 23, the usual form in Buddhist works in Sanskrit, Gatha dialect, and Pali; further manku, Satap. V, 5, 4,11; mazda in the compound naumazda, Satap. II. 3, 3,15; cf. bodhi-mazda. An archaic trait in the stanzas is the expletive use of the particle u, e.g. in teno, yeno, tasyo, adyo, for tena, yena, tasya,adya. Both in prose and poetry * we meet with no, sometimes in the sense of Sansk. no, which etymologically of course is identical with it, at other times in that of Sansk. na. An analogous case is Sansk. atho, almost imperceptibly differing from atha. Perhaps the most curious of similar forms in the Gathds is £0, in meaning exactly coinciding with a; this 0 I take to be the older form of the M4gadhi £u in the Asoka edicts. From the occurrence of peculiar old words and forms we may draw inferences as to the age of certain compositions in ordinary cases ; but it is not safe to apply the same test, if there is sufficient reason to suppose that the work, the date ' Ekabhibh4va of the Calc. text is a clerical blunder. 3 See Childers’ Pali Dict. p. 134, where the Thero Subhiti’s etymology eko udeti proves that he does not know the origin of the word; nor is it likely that the writer of the Pali passage cited by Childers knew more, for had he recognised the word, he would have written ekoti, because a Prakrit d between two vowels, if answering to a Sanskrit t, usually requires a t in Pali. * 11, 5,1, 31; VIII, 2,6; XIV,1, 3, 31. Also in the inscriptions of Asoka. (21] b XVili SADDHARMA-PUNDARIKA. of which we wish to determine, has been carefully moulded upon time-honoured models. In such a case new words prove a good deal!, old ones next to nothing. Therefore it would be an abuse of the argument ex silentio to infer from the total absence of such new words in our Saddharma-puvdarika that the bulk of the Sdtra must date from the earlier period of Buddhism.
2In such a case new words prove a good deal!, old ones next to nothing. Therefore it would be an abuse of the argument ex silentio to infer from the total absence of such new words in our Saddharma-puvdarika that the bulk of the Sdtra must date from the earlier period of Buddhism. Ihad already occasion to notice that the two versions, the prose and the metrical one, in our Sdtra show here and there material discrepancies. The question arises to which of the two we must award the palm of priority. Repeatedly, both in prose and poetry, the Sdtra is spoken of as consisting of stanzas; e.g. chap. vii, st. 82; chapters x and xxii in the prose portion, several times. As the term of stanza (g4th4), for aught I know, is never used to denote a certain number of syllables, there is a strong presumption that the ancient text consisted of verses, with an admixture of short prose passages serving as introduction or to connect the more solemn poetical pieces. The idea to expand such passages into a regular prose version would especially recommend itself at a period when the poetical dialect began to become obsolete and obscure. Without being a formal commentary, the prose version would yet tend to elucidate the older holy text. It will not be objected that, because not all chapters in the Saddharma-puzdarika have a poetical version added, the original cannot have been a poem. For the chapters containing but one version, viz. xxi, xxii, xxiii, xxv, and xxvi, show decided traces of being later additions; and as to the final chapter, it may be held to be a moderate amplification of a short prose epilogue. In contending that the original text of our Sdtra was probably, in the main, a work in metrical form, I do not mean to say that the poetical version in all the chapters must be ' As e.g. the word dinra in the Asoka Avadana ; the passage on the Greeks YonAs, in Assalfyana Sutta (ed. Pischel), p. 10; cf. the editor's remark, p. 6; the word karama for kalama, calamus to write with, in K4randa-vyiha (Calc. ed.), p. 69. a 7 ~. INTRODUCTION. (us Mista 3) considered to be prior to the prose’, The China ofthe «Sad-
3Pischel), p. 10; cf. the editor's remark, p. 6; the word karama for kalama, calamus to write with, in K4randa-vyiha (Calc. ed.), p. 69. a 7 ~. INTRODUCTION. (us Mista 3) considered to be prior to the prose’, The China ofthe «Sad- dharma-puvdarika are nowhere very brilliant, but in some chapters they are so excessively clumsy and mechanically put together that involuntarily we are led to the assumption of their having been made by persons to whom the old dialect was no longer familiar. The stanzas, e.g. in chapters xi and xiv, are abominable in form, and unusually silly; those in chap. xxiv are a pattern of mechanical verse-making, and give the impression as if they were intended rather to stultify than to edify the credulous reader. Now it is a curious fact that in a Chinese preface to the translation of our Sitra by Gfanagupta and Dharmagupta, A.D. 6017, we meet with the following notice: ‘The omission of the GAath4s in No. 134, chaps. 12 and 25%, have since been filled in by some wise men, whose example I wish to follow *.’ Here we have a direct proof that the Gath4s of some chapters have been added in later times. Had we similar notices concerning all the chapters in which the Gath4s are of a comparatively modern date, and could we prove that the prose of such chapters belongs to a later period, then the supposition of the ancient text of the Saddharma-puadarika ‘having been in the main a metrical one would seem to lose in strength. For, reasoning by analogy, one might say that just as some later chapters have notoriously been enriched with a metrical version in later times, so the ancient parts also will have gradually received their Gathas. Still the fact remains that those chapters in which the metrical portion is wanting clearly belong to a later period, so that it is questionable whether their case is entirely analogous to that of the more ancient part of the whole work. 1 Isolated stanzas, as in chapters xxii, xxv, and elsewhere, are wholly left out of question. ‘7 Catalogue of the Tripitaka (Oxford), by Mr. Bunyiu Nanjio; Sfitra Pitaka, Col. 45. 3 In the English translation chapters xi and xxiv. * Another notice in the above-mentioned Catalogue, col. 44, runs thus: ‘The portion of prose’ (of chap. xxiv) ‘ was translated by Kumaragtva, of the latter Tshin dynasty, A.D. 384-417; and that of G&thds by Gidnagupta, of the Northern Keu dynasty, 4.0. 557-589.’ So it seems that the Gathas have been added, and, not unlikely, been composed, between 417 and 557 A.D, b2 XX SADDHARMA-PUNDARIKA.
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.