The Saddharma-Pundarîka, or Lotus of the True Law — SBE Vol. 21 (trans. H. Kern, 1884)
The translator’s English as printed (Hendrik Kern). The original-language text is not held; names are romanised as the translator printed them.
xxiv) ‘ was translated by Kumaragtva, of the latter Tshin dynasty, A.D. 384-417; and that of Gâthds 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.
At present we are far from the ultimate end which critical research has to reach; we are not able to assign to each part of our Sfitra its proper place in the development of Buddhist literature. We may feel that compositions from different times have been collected into a not very harmonious whole; we may even be able to prove that some passages are as decidedly ancient as others are modern, but any attempt to analyse the compound and lay bare its component parts would seem to be premature. Under these circumstances the inquiry after the date of the work resolves itself into the question at what time the book received its present shape.
There exist, as it is well known, various Chinese translations of the Saddharma-puzdarika, or parts of it, the dates of which are well ascertained. The above-mentioned Catalogue by Mr. Bunyiu Nanjio affords some valuable information about the subject, from which I borrow the following particulars?:
The oldest Chinese translation, known by the title of Kan-fa-hw4-éin, is from Ku Fa-hu (Dharmaraksha), of the Western Tsin dynasty, A.D. 265-316; in 28 chapters?.
Equally old is an incomplete translation entitled S4-thanfan-tho-li-#in, of an unknown author.
Next in time comes the Mido-fa-lien-hw4-2in, by Kum4ragiva, of the latter Tshin dynasty, A.D. 384-417°%. It agrees with the Tibetan version, and contains 28 chapters. Of one chapter (xxiv in the Nepalese MSS. and the English translation) Kumaragiva translated the prose only; the Gath4s were rendered by Giidnagupta, of the Northern Keu dynasty, A.D. 557-589.
The last translation in order of time, entitled Thien-phinmido-fa-lien-hw4-Ain, is from Gfanagupta and Dharmagupta, A.D. 601, of the Sui dynasty ; in 27 chapters.
We see that the older translations—and, consequently, their originals—counted one chapter more than our MSS.
1 Stra Piraka, col. 44 seqq.
2 In S. Beal, The Buddhist Tripitaka, p. 14, the name of the author Ku F4hu (Chu-fa-hu) is identified with Dharmagupta.
* Cf. Beal, Buddhist Tripisaka, p. 15.
INTRODUCTION. Xxl
1 Stra Piraka, col. 44 seqq.
2 In S. Beal, The Buddhist Tripitaka, p. 14, the name of the author Ku F4hu (Chu-fa-hu) is identified with Dharmagupta.
* Cf. Beal, Buddhist Tripisaka, p. 15.
INTRODUCTION. Xxl
The difference, however, does not affect the contents of the whole, because the matter divided over chapters 11 and 12 of the older translations is contained in chap. xi of our texts and the latest Chinese version. The order of the chapters is the same in all the texts, both original and translated, up to chap. xx (=21 older division); the discrepancies first begin at chap. xxi, on Dharazis. The subjoined comparative table, to begin with the chapter on Dharazis, exhibits the order of the last seven chapters in the various texts. The first column refers to the Nepalese MSS. and the Chinese translation by Gfanagupta and Dharmagupta; the second to the oldest Chinese translation ; the third to that of Kumfragiva.
1 - 4... 5
2 . » I. 2
3 ‘ © & ew ee 3B
4... a rn 4
5 » 5: 6
6....6., 7
7.2 ee FI I
A glance at this table will suffice to convince us that chapters xxi-xxvi (1-6) are of later growth, if we bear in mind that the order of the chapters down to the Dharamis is the same in all sources. This result is quite in harmony with what we would have guessed upon internal grounds. The last chapter, entitled Dharmapary4ya, must, from its very nature, have been the close, the epilogue of the whole. In the Chinese translation of Kuméragiva it occurs, as the table shows, immediately after chap. xx, by itself a clear indication that xxi-xxvi are later additions. It is somewhat strange that in the older translation of Ku Fa-hu the Dharmapary4ya has already taken its place after the additional matter, but this may be explained on the supposition that Kumaragiva, though living in a later time, made use of ancient manuscripts'. However that
' The preface to the Chinese translation of Gaanagupta and Dharmagupta says: ‘ The translations of Ku Fa-hu and Kumfragtva are most probably made from two different texts,’
XXii SADDHARMA-PUNDARIKA.
may be, I think that the following facts may be held to be established, both from internal and external evidence: 1, The more ancient text of the Saddharma-puvdarika contained 21 chapters and an epilogue, i.e. the matter of chaps. i-xx and of chap. xxvii; 2. The later additions, excepting probably some verses, had been connected with the work, in the way of Parisishfas or Addenda, about 250 A.D. or earlier. As the book, along with the Parisishéas, already existed some time before 250 A.D., we may safely conclude that the more ancient text in 21 chapters, the epilogue included, dates some centuries earlier. Greater precision is for the present impossible.
or earlier. As the book, along with the Parisishéas, already existed some time before 250 A.D., we may safely conclude that the more ancient text in 21 chapters, the epilogue included, dates some centuries earlier. Greater precision is for the present impossible.
We know that a commentary on the Saddharma-puzdarika was composed by Vasubandhu!. The date of that work, not yet recovered, it seems, must fall between 550 and 600 A.D., or at least not much earlier, for Vasubandhu’s pupil Guzaprabha became the Guru of the famous Sri- Harsha, alias Sifladitya, king of Kanauj, the friend of Hiouen Thsang*. The latter often mentions Vasubandhu and some of that great doctor’s writings, as well as Guzaprabha?. As both worthies at the time of Hiouen Thsang’s visiting India had already departed this life, and Vasubandhu must have been at least one generation older than Gumaprabha, we cannot be far amiss in assigning to Vasubandhu’s commentary the date above specified.
It appears from the above-mentioned preface to the Chinese translation of A.D. 601, that the text-differences in the MSS. current in those days were more important than such as we observe in the Nepalese MSS. from 1000 A.D. downward, with which the Tibetan closely agree. The Chinese preface is so interesting that it is worth while to
1 Wassiljew, Buddhismus, p. 322. This was written before the publication of my Cambridge Lectures, ‘ India, what can it teach us?’ and affords valuable, because independent, confirmation of the chronological system contained in Note G, ‘Renaissance of Sanskrit Literature,’ pp. 281-366.>-The Editor,
? Wassiljew, Buddhismus, p. 78; cf. pp. 64 and 219; Taranatha, Geschichte des Buddhismus (transl. Schiefner), p. 126.
* See especially Histoire de la vie de Hiouen Thsang, pp. 83, 93, 97,114; 106.
INTRODUCTION. XXili
copy a passage from it as quoted in the Catalogue of the Tripizaka!:
xxiv) ‘ was translated by Kumaragtva, of the latter Tshin dynasty, A.D. 384-417; and that of Gâthds 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.
At present we are far from the ultimate end which critical research has to reach; we are not able to assign to each part of our Sfitra its proper place in the development of Buddhist literature. We may feel that compositions from different times have been collected into a not very harmonious whole; we may even be able to prove that some passages are as decidedly ancient as others are modern, but any attempt to analyse the compound and lay bare its component parts would seem to be premature. Under these circumstances the inquiry after the date of the work resolves itself into the question at what time the book received its present shape.
There exist, as it is well known, various Chinese translations of the Saddharma-puzdarika, or parts of it, the dates of which are well ascertained. The above-mentioned Catalogue by Mr. Bunyiu Nanjio affords some valuable information about the subject, from which I borrow the following particulars?:
The oldest Chinese translation, known by the title of Kan-fa-hw4-éin, is from Ku Fa-hu (Dharmaraksha), of the Western Tsin dynasty, A.D. 265-316; in 28 chapters?.
Equally old is an incomplete translation entitled S4-thanfan-tho-li-#in, of an unknown author.
Next in time comes the Mido-fa-lien-hw4-2in, by Kum4ragiva, of the latter Tshin dynasty, A.D. 384-417°%. It agrees with the Tibetan version, and contains 28 chapters. Of one chapter (xxiv in the Nepalese MSS. and the English translation) Kumaragiva translated the prose only; the Gath4s were rendered by Giidnagupta, of the Northern Keu dynasty, A.D. 557-589.
The last translation in order of time, entitled Thien-phinmido-fa-lien-hw4-Ain, is from Gfanagupta and Dharmagupta, A.D. 601, of the Sui dynasty ; in 27 chapters.
We see that the older translations—and, consequently, their originals—counted one chapter more than our MSS.
1 Stra Piraka, col. 44 seqq.
2 In S. Beal, The Buddhist Tripitaka, p. 14, the name of the author Ku F4hu (Chu-fa-hu) is identified with Dharmagupta.
* Cf. Beal, Buddhist Tripisaka, p. 15.
INTRODUCTION. Xxl
1 Stra Piraka, col. 44 seqq.
2 In S. Beal, The Buddhist Tripitaka, p. 14, the name of the author Ku F4hu (Chu-fa-hu) is identified with Dharmagupta.
* Cf. Beal, Buddhist Tripisaka, p. 15.
INTRODUCTION. Xxl
The difference, however, does not affect the contents of the whole, because the matter divided over chapters 11 and 12 of the older translations is contained in chap. xi of our texts and the latest Chinese version. The order of the chapters is the same in all the texts, both original and translated, up to chap. xx (=21 older division); the discrepancies first begin at chap. xxi, on Dharazis. The subjoined comparative table, to begin with the chapter on Dharazis, exhibits the order of the last seven chapters in the various texts. The first column refers to the Nepalese MSS. and the Chinese translation by Gfanagupta and Dharmagupta; the second to the oldest Chinese translation ; the third to that of Kumfragiva.
1 - 4... 5
2 . » I. 2
3 ‘ © & ew ee 3B
4... a rn 4
5 » 5: 6
6....6., 7
7.2 ee FI I
A glance at this table will suffice to convince us that chapters xxi-xxvi (1-6) are of later growth, if we bear in mind that the order of the chapters down to the Dharamis is the same in all sources. This result is quite in harmony with what we would have guessed upon internal grounds. The last chapter, entitled Dharmapary4ya, must, from its very nature, have been the close, the epilogue of the whole. In the Chinese translation of Kuméragiva it occurs, as the table shows, immediately after chap. xx, by itself a clear indication that xxi-xxvi are later additions. It is somewhat strange that in the older translation of Ku Fa-hu the Dharmapary4ya has already taken its place after the additional matter, but this may be explained on the supposition that Kumaragiva, though living in a later time, made use of ancient manuscripts'. However that
' The preface to the Chinese translation of Gaanagupta and Dharmagupta says: ‘ The translations of Ku Fa-hu and Kumfragtva are most probably made from two different texts,’
XXii SADDHARMA-PUNDARIKA.
may be, I think that the following facts may be held to be established, both from internal and external evidence: 1, The more ancient text of the Saddharma-puvdarika contained 21 chapters and an epilogue, i.e. the matter of chaps. i-xx and of chap. xxvii; 2. The later additions, excepting probably some verses, had been connected with the work, in the way of Parisishfas or Addenda, about 250 A.D. or earlier. As the book, along with the Parisishéas, already existed some time before 250 A.D., we may safely conclude that the more ancient text in 21 chapters, the epilogue included, dates some centuries earlier. Greater precision is for the present impossible.
or earlier. As the book, along with the Parisishéas, already existed some time before 250 A.D., we may safely conclude that the more ancient text in 21 chapters, the epilogue included, dates some centuries earlier. Greater precision is for the present impossible.
We know that a commentary on the Saddharma-puzdarika was composed by Vasubandhu!. The date of that work, not yet recovered, it seems, must fall between 550 and 600 A.D., or at least not much earlier, for Vasubandhu’s pupil Guzaprabha became the Guru of the famous Sri- Harsha, alias Sifladitya, king of Kanauj, the friend of Hiouen Thsang*. The latter often mentions Vasubandhu and some of that great doctor’s writings, as well as Guzaprabha?. As both worthies at the time of Hiouen Thsang’s visiting India had already departed this life, and Vasubandhu must have been at least one generation older than Gumaprabha, we cannot be far amiss in assigning to Vasubandhu’s commentary the date above specified.
It appears from the above-mentioned preface to the Chinese translation of A.D. 601, that the text-differences in the MSS. current in those days were more important than such as we observe in the Nepalese MSS. from 1000 A.D. downward, with which the Tibetan closely agree. The Chinese preface is so interesting that it is worth while to
1 Wassiljew, Buddhismus, p. 322. This was written before the publication of my Cambridge Lectures, ‘ India, what can it teach us?’ and affords valuable, because independent, confirmation of the chronological system contained in Note G, ‘Renaissance of Sanskrit Literature,’ pp. 281-366.>-The Editor,
? Wassiljew, Buddhismus, p. 78; cf. pp. 64 and 219; Taranatha, Geschichte des Buddhismus (transl. Schiefner), p. 126.
* See especially Histoire de la vie de Hiouen Thsang, pp. 83, 93, 97,114; 106.
INTRODUCTION. XXili
copy a passage from it as quoted in the Catalogue of the Tripizaka!:
No commentary for this page under the selected tracks.
There is commentary on page 1.