Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Wassiljew, 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!: ‘The translations of Ku Fa-hu, No. 138, and Kumaraiva, No. 134, are most probably made from two different texts. In the repository of the Canon, I (the author of the preface) have seen two texts (or copies of the text, of the Saddharma-pudarika) ; one is written on the palm leaves, and the other in the letters of Kwei-tsz’, or Kharagar, Kumiragiva’s maternal country. The former text exactly agrees with No. 138, and the latter with No. 134. No. 138 omits only the Gathas of the Samantamukha-parivarta, chap. 24. But No. 134 omits half of the Oshadhiparivarta, chap. 5, the beginning of the Pa#abhikshusatavy4karava-parivarta, chap. 8, and that of the Saddharmabhavaka-parivarta, chap. 10, and the Géth4s of the Devadatta-parivarta, chap. 123, and those of the Samantamukha-parivarta, chap. 25. Moreover, No. 134 puts the Dharmapary4ya-parivarta (the last chapter of the Stra) before the Bhaishagyaraga-parivarta, chap. 23. Nos. 138 and 134 both place the Dharazi-parivarta next to the Samantamukha-parivarta, chaps. 24 and 25 respectively. Beside these, there are minor differences between the text and translation. The omission of the Gath4s in No. 134, chaps. 12 and 25, have since been filled in by some wise men, whose example I wish to follow. In the first year of the Zan-sheu period, A.D. 601, I, together with Gianagupta and Dharmagupta, have examined the palm-leaf text, at the request of a Sramaza, Sh4n-hhin, and found that the beginning of two chapters, 8th and roth, are also wanting in the text (though No. 138 contains them). Nevertheless we have increased a half of the 5th chapter, and put the 12th chapter into the 11th, and restored the Dharamiparivarta and Dharmaparydaya-parivarta to their proper order, as chaps. 21 and 27. There are also some words and passages which have been altered (while the greater 1 Stra Pitaka, col. 45. ® In the Nepalese MSS. and the European translations the latter part of XXIV SADDHARMA-PUNDARIKA. part of No. 134 is retained). The reader is requested not to have any suspicion about these differences.’ According to the opinion of an eminent Chinese scholar, the late Stanislas Julien, the translation of Kuméragiva widely differs from Burnouf’s. He gives utterance to that opinion in a letter dated June 12, 1866, and addressed to Professor Max Miiller, to whose obliging kindness it is due that I am able to publish a specimen of Kuméragiva’s version rendered into French by Stanislas Julien. The fragment answers to the stanzas 1-22 of chap. iii, As it is too long to be inserted here, I give it hereafter on page xl.
2The fragment answers to the stanzas 1-22 of chap. iii, As it is too long to be inserted here, I give it hereafter on page xl. On comparing the fragment with the corresponding passages in Burnouf’s French translation and the English version in this volume, the reader cannot fail to perceive that the discrepancies between the two European versions are fewer and of less consequence than between each of them and Kuméragiva’s work. It is hardly to be supposed that the text used by Kumaragiva can have differed so much from ours, and it seems far more probable that he has taken the liberty, for clearness sake, to modify the construction of the verses, a literal rendering whereof, it must be owned, is impossible in any language. It is a pity that Stanislas Julien has chosen for his specimen a fragment exclusively consisting of Gath4s. A page in prose would have been far more useful as a test of the accuracy of the Chinese version. Proceeding to treat of the contents of our Sitra, I begin by quoting the passage where Burnouf, in his usual masterly way, describes the general character of the book and the prominent features of the central figure in it. The illustrious French scholar writes?: ‘La, comme dans les Satras simples, c’est Cakya qui est le plus important, le premier des étres; et quoique l’imagination du compilateur l’ait doué de toutes les perfections de science et de vertu admises chez les Buddhistes; quoique Cakya revéte déja un caractére mythologique, quand il * Igtroduction, p. 119. INTRODUCTION. XXV déclare qu'il y a longtemps qu'il remplit les devoirs d’un Buddha, et qu’il doit les remplir longtemps encore, malgré sa mort prochaine, laquelle ne détruit pas son éternité ; quoiqu’enfin on le représente créant de son corps des Buddhas qui sont comme les images et les reproductions idéales de sa personne mortelle, nulle part Cakyamuni n’est nommé Dieu; nulle part il ne recoit le titre d’Adibuddha.’
3To this I have nothing to object, only something to add. It is perfectly true that Sakya does not receive the simple title of Deva; why? Because that title is far too poor for so exalted a personage who is the Devatideva, the paramount god of gods. So he is called in the Lotus, chap. vii, st. 311, and innumerable times in the whole range of Buddhist literature, both in Pali and Sanskrit?. It is further undeniable that the title of Adibuddha does not occur in the Lotus, but it is intimated that SAkya is identical with Adibuddha in the words : ‘From the very beginning (Adita eva)haveI roused, brought to maturity, fully developed them (the innumerable Bodhisattvas) to be fit for their Bodhisattva position?” It is only by accommodation that he is called Adibuddha, he properly being an4di, i.e. existing from eternity, having no beginning. The Buddha most solemnly declares (chap. xv) that he reached Bodhi an immense time ago, not as people fancy, first at Gaya. From the whole manner in which Sakya speaks of his existence in former times, it is perfectly clear that the author wished to convey the meaning that the Lord had existed from eternity, or, what comes to the same, from the very beginning, from time immemorial, &c. Sakya has not only lived an infinite number of AZons in the past, he is to live for ever. Common people fancy that he enters Nirvaza, but in reality he only makes a show of Nirvaaa out of regard for the weakness of men. He, the 1 Bumonf’s rendering is ‘ Déva supérieur aux Dévas.’ 2 Less frequent than devatideva is the synonymous devadhideva, e.g. Lalita-vistara, p. 131; essentially the same is the term sarvadevottama, the highest of all gods, ib. p. 144. > See chap. xiv, p. 295. Xxvi SADDHARMA-PUNDARIKA. Father of the world?, the Self-born One, the Chief and Saviour? of creatures, produces a semblance of Nirvana, whenever he sees them given to error and folly®. In reality his being is not subject to complete Nirvaza; it is only by a skilful device that he makes a show of it ; and repeatedly he appears in the world of the living, though his real abode is on the summit of the Gridhrakfaa‘. All this is, in other words, the teaching of Narayama in Bhagavad-gita IV, 6 seqq.: ° Ago ’pi sann avyayatma bhitAndm isvaro ’pi san, prakritim svim adhish¢#4ya sambhavamy 4tmamayaya. yad4-yada hi dharmasya glanir bhavati, Bharata, abhyutthénam adharmasya tad4tmanam srigimy aham. paritrazdya sadhOnam vindsdya 4a dushk7tam, dharmasamsth4panarthaya sambhavami yuge-yuge.
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.
1Wassiljew, 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!: ‘The translations of Ku Fa-hu, No. 138, and Kumaraiva, No. 134, are most probably made from two different texts. In the repository of the Canon, I (the author of the preface) have seen two texts (or copies of the text, of the Saddharma-pudarika) ; one is written on the palm leaves, and the other in the letters of Kwei-tsz’, or Kharagar, Kumiragiva’s maternal country. The former text exactly agrees with No. 138, and the latter with No. 134. No. 138 omits only the Gathas of the Samantamukha-parivarta, chap. 24. But No. 134 omits half of the Oshadhiparivarta, chap. 5, the beginning of the Pa#abhikshusatavy4karava-parivarta, chap. 8, and that of the Saddharmabhavaka-parivarta, chap. 10, and the Géth4s of the Devadatta-parivarta, chap. 123, and those of the Samantamukha-parivarta, chap. 25. Moreover, No. 134 puts the Dharmapary4ya-parivarta (the last chapter of the Stra) before the Bhaishagyaraga-parivarta, chap. 23. Nos. 138 and 134 both place the Dharazi-parivarta next to the Samantamukha-parivarta, chaps. 24 and 25 respectively. Beside these, there are minor differences between the text and translation. The omission of the Gath4s in No. 134, chaps. 12 and 25, have since been filled in by some wise men, whose example I wish to follow. In the first year of the Zan-sheu period, A.D. 601, I, together with Gianagupta and Dharmagupta, have examined the palm-leaf text, at the request of a Sramaza, Sh4n-hhin, and found that the beginning of two chapters, 8th and roth, are also wanting in the text (though No. 138 contains them). Nevertheless we have increased a half of the 5th chapter, and put the 12th chapter into the 11th, and restored the Dharamiparivarta and Dharmaparydaya-parivarta to their proper order, as chaps. 21 and 27. There are also some words and passages which have been altered (while the greater 1 Stra Pitaka, col. 45. ® In the Nepalese MSS. and the European translations the latter part of XXIV SADDHARMA-PUNDARIKA. part of No. 134 is retained). The reader is requested not to have any suspicion about these differences.’ According to the opinion of an eminent Chinese scholar, the late Stanislas Julien, the translation of Kuméragiva widely differs from Burnouf’s. He gives utterance to that opinion in a letter dated June 12, 1866, and addressed to Professor Max Miiller, to whose obliging kindness it is due that I am able to publish a specimen of Kuméragiva’s version rendered into French by Stanislas Julien. The fragment answers to the stanzas 1-22 of chap. iii, As it is too long to be inserted here, I give it hereafter on page xl.
2The fragment answers to the stanzas 1-22 of chap. iii, As it is too long to be inserted here, I give it hereafter on page xl. On comparing the fragment with the corresponding passages in Burnouf’s French translation and the English version in this volume, the reader cannot fail to perceive that the discrepancies between the two European versions are fewer and of less consequence than between each of them and Kuméragiva’s work. It is hardly to be supposed that the text used by Kumaragiva can have differed so much from ours, and it seems far more probable that he has taken the liberty, for clearness sake, to modify the construction of the verses, a literal rendering whereof, it must be owned, is impossible in any language. It is a pity that Stanislas Julien has chosen for his specimen a fragment exclusively consisting of Gath4s. A page in prose would have been far more useful as a test of the accuracy of the Chinese version. Proceeding to treat of the contents of our Sitra, I begin by quoting the passage where Burnouf, in his usual masterly way, describes the general character of the book and the prominent features of the central figure in it. The illustrious French scholar writes?: ‘La, comme dans les Satras simples, c’est Cakya qui est le plus important, le premier des étres; et quoique l’imagination du compilateur l’ait doué de toutes les perfections de science et de vertu admises chez les Buddhistes; quoique Cakya revéte déja un caractére mythologique, quand il * Igtroduction, p. 119. INTRODUCTION. XXV déclare qu'il y a longtemps qu'il remplit les devoirs d’un Buddha, et qu’il doit les remplir longtemps encore, malgré sa mort prochaine, laquelle ne détruit pas son éternité ; quoiqu’enfin on le représente créant de son corps des Buddhas qui sont comme les images et les reproductions idéales de sa personne mortelle, nulle part Cakyamuni n’est nommé Dieu; nulle part il ne recoit le titre d’Adibuddha.’
3To this I have nothing to object, only something to add. It is perfectly true that Sakya does not receive the simple title of Deva; why? Because that title is far too poor for so exalted a personage who is the Devatideva, the paramount god of gods. So he is called in the Lotus, chap. vii, st. 311, and innumerable times in the whole range of Buddhist literature, both in Pali and Sanskrit?. It is further undeniable that the title of Adibuddha does not occur in the Lotus, but it is intimated that SAkya is identical with Adibuddha in the words : ‘From the very beginning (Adita eva)haveI roused, brought to maturity, fully developed them (the innumerable Bodhisattvas) to be fit for their Bodhisattva position?” It is only by accommodation that he is called Adibuddha, he properly being an4di, i.e. existing from eternity, having no beginning. The Buddha most solemnly declares (chap. xv) that he reached Bodhi an immense time ago, not as people fancy, first at Gaya. From the whole manner in which Sakya speaks of his existence in former times, it is perfectly clear that the author wished to convey the meaning that the Lord had existed from eternity, or, what comes to the same, from the very beginning, from time immemorial, &c. Sakya has not only lived an infinite number of AZons in the past, he is to live for ever. Common people fancy that he enters Nirvaza, but in reality he only makes a show of Nirvaaa out of regard for the weakness of men. He, the 1 Bumonf’s rendering is ‘ Déva supérieur aux Dévas.’ 2 Less frequent than devatideva is the synonymous devadhideva, e.g. Lalita-vistara, p. 131; essentially the same is the term sarvadevottama, the highest of all gods, ib. p. 144. > See chap. xiv, p. 295. Xxvi SADDHARMA-PUNDARIKA. Father of the world?, the Self-born One, the Chief and Saviour? of creatures, produces a semblance of Nirvana, whenever he sees them given to error and folly®. In reality his being is not subject to complete Nirvaza; it is only by a skilful device that he makes a show of it ; and repeatedly he appears in the world of the living, though his real abode is on the summit of the Gridhrakfaa‘. All this is, in other words, the teaching of Narayama in Bhagavad-gita IV, 6 seqq.: ° Ago ’pi sann avyayatma bhitAndm isvaro ’pi san, prakritim svim adhish¢#4ya sambhavamy 4tmamayaya. yad4-yada hi dharmasya glanir bhavati, Bharata, abhyutthénam adharmasya tad4tmanam srigimy aham. paritrazdya sadhOnam vindsdya 4a dushk7tam, dharmasamsth4panarthaya sambhavami yuge-yuge.
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.