Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Devarddhi Ganin, says the tradition, perceiving the Siddh4nta in ' It is possible, but not probable, that the date of the redaction fell sixty years later, 514 (§27) A.D.; see Kalpa Sitra, introduction, p. 15. XXXVIIL GAINA SOTRAS. danger of becoming extinct, caused it to be written in books. Before that time teachers made no use of written books when teaching the Siddh4nta to novices, but after that time they did use books. The latter part of this statement is evidently true. For in olden times books were not used, it being the custom of the Brahmans to rely rather on the memory than on the MSS., and in this they were, almost without doubt, followed by the Gainas and Buddhists. But now-a-days Yatis use MSS. when teaching the sacred lore to their novices. There is no reason why we should not credit the tradition that this change in the method of instruction was brought about by Devarddhi Gazin; for the event was of too great importance not to be remembered. To provide every teacher or at least every Upasraya with copies of the sacred books, Devarddhi Gavin must have issued a large edition of the Siddhanta. This is probably the meaning of the traditional record that Devarddhi caused the Siddhanta to be written in books, for it is hardly credible that the Gaina monks should never before have attempted to write down what they had to commit to memory; the Brahmans also have MSS. of their sacred books, though they do not use them in handing down the Veda. These MSS. were intended for private use, to aid the memory of the teacher. I make no doubt that the same practice was observed by the Gaina monks, the more so as they were not, like the Brahmans, influenced by any theory of their own not to trust to MSS., but were induced merely by the force of the prevalent custom to hand down their sacred lore by word of mouth. I do not maintain that the sacred books of the Gainas were originally written in books, for the same argument which has been brought forward to prove that the Buddhist monks could have had no MSS., as they are never mentioned in their sacred books, in which ‘every movable thing, down to the smallest and least important domestic utensils, is in some way or other referred to', the same argument, I say, holds good with regard to the Gainas as long as the * Sacred Books of the East, vol. xiii, introduction, p. xxxiii. INTRODUCTION. XXXIX monks led a wandering life; but when.the monks were settled in Upasrayas exclusively belonging to themselves, they may have kept there their MSS. as they do nowa-days.
2xiii, introduction, p. xxxiii. INTRODUCTION. XXXIX monks led a wandering life; but when.the monks were settled in Upasrayas exclusively belonging to themselves, they may have kept there their MSS. as they do nowa-days. Devarddhi’s position relative to the sacred literature of the Gainas appears therefore to us in a different light from what it is generally believed to have been. He probably arranged the already existing MSS. in a canon, taking down from the mouth of learned theologians only such works of which MSS. were not available. Of this canon a great many copies were taken, in order to furnish every seminary with books which had become necessary by the newly introduced change in the method of religious instruction. Devarddhi’s edition of the Siddhdnta is therefore only a redaction of the sacred books which existed before his time in nearly the same form. Any single passage in a sacred text may have been introduced by the editor, but the bulk of the Siddhanta is certainly not of his making. The text of the sacred books, before the last redaction of the Siddhanta, did not exist in such a vague form as it would have been liable to if it were preserved only by the memory of the monks, but it was checked by MSS. On this premise we now proceed to inquire into the date of the composition of the sacred books of the Gainas. Their own dogmatical theory that all sacred books were revealed by the first Tirthakara, shall only be noticed to be dismissed. We must try to discover better grounds for fixing the age when the chief works of the Siddhanta were composed. . As single passages may have crept into the text at any time, we can draw no valid inferences from them, even if they be sanctioned by Devarddhi’s receiving them into his revised text. I attach therefore no great weight to the lists of barbarous or un-Aryan tribes!, nor to the mention of all seven schisms, the last of which occurred 584 A.V? Nothing is more common than that such details should be 1 Among the latter Arava may denote the Arabs, as Weber thinks, or, as I prefer to think, the Tamils, whose language is called Aravamu by the Dravidians, 2 See Weber, Indische Studien, XVI, p. 237. xl GAINA SUTRAS.
3Nothing is more common than that such details should be 1 Among the latter Arava may denote the Arabs, as Weber thinks, or, as I prefer to think, the Tamils, whose language is called Aravamu by the Dravidians, 2 See Weber, Indische Studien, XVI, p. 237. xl GAINA SUTRAS. added as a gloss, or be incorporated even in the text, by those who transmitted it either in writing or in instructing their pupils. But an argument of more weight is the fact that in the Siddhanta we find no traces of Greek astronomy. In fact the Gaina astronomy is a system of incredible absurdity, which would have been impossible, if its author had had the least knowledge of the Greek science. As the latter appears to have been introduced in India about the third or fourth century A.D., it follows that the sacred books of the Gainas were composed before that time. Another argument which offers itself for fixing the period of the composition of the sacred books, is the language in which they are written. But, unfortunately, it is not at all clear whether the sacred books have been handed down in that language in which they were composed, or in that in which they were pronounced, and transcribed in later generations, according to the then current idiom, till Devarddhi’s edition put an end to the modernising of the language of the sacred books. I am inclined to believe the latter view to be correct,and look upon the absence of a self-consistent orthography of the Gaina Prakrit as the effect of the gradual change of the vernacular language in which the sacred books were recited. In all MSS. of Gaina texts, the same word is not always spelt in the same way. The differences of spelling refer chiefly to the retention, omission, or attenuation of single consonants between vowels, and the retention of the vowels e,o, before two consonants, or their change ini, u. It is hardly possible that the different spellings of a word should all correctly represent the pronunciation of that word at any given time, e.g. bhdta, bhOya; udaga, udaya, uaya; lobha, loha', &c.; but probably we must regard these methods of spelling as historical spellings, that is to say, that all different spellings presented in the MSS. which formed the materials for Devarddhi’s edition of the Siddhanta, were looked upon as authentical and were preserved in all later copies of the sacred texts. If this assumption is correct, we 1 Ido not contend that no double forms of any word were current at any time, for there must have been a good many double forms, but I doubt that nearly every word should have existed in two or three forms, INTRODUCTION. xli
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.
1Devarddhi Ganin, says the tradition, perceiving the Siddh4nta in ' It is possible, but not probable, that the date of the redaction fell sixty years later, 514 (§27) A.D.; see Kalpa Sitra, introduction, p. 15. XXXVIIL GAINA SOTRAS. danger of becoming extinct, caused it to be written in books. Before that time teachers made no use of written books when teaching the Siddh4nta to novices, but after that time they did use books. The latter part of this statement is evidently true. For in olden times books were not used, it being the custom of the Brahmans to rely rather on the memory than on the MSS., and in this they were, almost without doubt, followed by the Gainas and Buddhists. But now-a-days Yatis use MSS. when teaching the sacred lore to their novices. There is no reason why we should not credit the tradition that this change in the method of instruction was brought about by Devarddhi Gazin; for the event was of too great importance not to be remembered. To provide every teacher or at least every Upasraya with copies of the sacred books, Devarddhi Gavin must have issued a large edition of the Siddhanta. This is probably the meaning of the traditional record that Devarddhi caused the Siddhanta to be written in books, for it is hardly credible that the Gaina monks should never before have attempted to write down what they had to commit to memory; the Brahmans also have MSS. of their sacred books, though they do not use them in handing down the Veda. These MSS. were intended for private use, to aid the memory of the teacher. I make no doubt that the same practice was observed by the Gaina monks, the more so as they were not, like the Brahmans, influenced by any theory of their own not to trust to MSS., but were induced merely by the force of the prevalent custom to hand down their sacred lore by word of mouth. I do not maintain that the sacred books of the Gainas were originally written in books, for the same argument which has been brought forward to prove that the Buddhist monks could have had no MSS., as they are never mentioned in their sacred books, in which ‘every movable thing, down to the smallest and least important domestic utensils, is in some way or other referred to', the same argument, I say, holds good with regard to the Gainas as long as the * Sacred Books of the East, vol. xiii, introduction, p. xxxiii. INTRODUCTION. XXXIX monks led a wandering life; but when.the monks were settled in Upasrayas exclusively belonging to themselves, they may have kept there their MSS. as they do nowa-days.
2xiii, introduction, p. xxxiii. INTRODUCTION. XXXIX monks led a wandering life; but when.the monks were settled in Upasrayas exclusively belonging to themselves, they may have kept there their MSS. as they do nowa-days. Devarddhi’s position relative to the sacred literature of the Gainas appears therefore to us in a different light from what it is generally believed to have been. He probably arranged the already existing MSS. in a canon, taking down from the mouth of learned theologians only such works of which MSS. were not available. Of this canon a great many copies were taken, in order to furnish every seminary with books which had become necessary by the newly introduced change in the method of religious instruction. Devarddhi’s edition of the Siddhdnta is therefore only a redaction of the sacred books which existed before his time in nearly the same form. Any single passage in a sacred text may have been introduced by the editor, but the bulk of the Siddhanta is certainly not of his making. The text of the sacred books, before the last redaction of the Siddhanta, did not exist in such a vague form as it would have been liable to if it were preserved only by the memory of the monks, but it was checked by MSS. On this premise we now proceed to inquire into the date of the composition of the sacred books of the Gainas. Their own dogmatical theory that all sacred books were revealed by the first Tirthakara, shall only be noticed to be dismissed. We must try to discover better grounds for fixing the age when the chief works of the Siddhanta were composed. . As single passages may have crept into the text at any time, we can draw no valid inferences from them, even if they be sanctioned by Devarddhi’s receiving them into his revised text. I attach therefore no great weight to the lists of barbarous or un-Aryan tribes!, nor to the mention of all seven schisms, the last of which occurred 584 A.V? Nothing is more common than that such details should be 1 Among the latter Arava may denote the Arabs, as Weber thinks, or, as I prefer to think, the Tamils, whose language is called Aravamu by the Dravidians, 2 See Weber, Indische Studien, XVI, p. 237. xl GAINA SUTRAS.
3Nothing is more common than that such details should be 1 Among the latter Arava may denote the Arabs, as Weber thinks, or, as I prefer to think, the Tamils, whose language is called Aravamu by the Dravidians, 2 See Weber, Indische Studien, XVI, p. 237. xl GAINA SUTRAS. added as a gloss, or be incorporated even in the text, by those who transmitted it either in writing or in instructing their pupils. But an argument of more weight is the fact that in the Siddhanta we find no traces of Greek astronomy. In fact the Gaina astronomy is a system of incredible absurdity, which would have been impossible, if its author had had the least knowledge of the Greek science. As the latter appears to have been introduced in India about the third or fourth century A.D., it follows that the sacred books of the Gainas were composed before that time. Another argument which offers itself for fixing the period of the composition of the sacred books, is the language in which they are written. But, unfortunately, it is not at all clear whether the sacred books have been handed down in that language in which they were composed, or in that in which they were pronounced, and transcribed in later generations, according to the then current idiom, till Devarddhi’s edition put an end to the modernising of the language of the sacred books. I am inclined to believe the latter view to be correct,and look upon the absence of a self-consistent orthography of the Gaina Prakrit as the effect of the gradual change of the vernacular language in which the sacred books were recited. In all MSS. of Gaina texts, the same word is not always spelt in the same way. The differences of spelling refer chiefly to the retention, omission, or attenuation of single consonants between vowels, and the retention of the vowels e,o, before two consonants, or their change ini, u. It is hardly possible that the different spellings of a word should all correctly represent the pronunciation of that word at any given time, e.g. bhdta, bhOya; udaga, udaya, uaya; lobha, loha', &c.; but probably we must regard these methods of spelling as historical spellings, that is to say, that all different spellings presented in the MSS. which formed the materials for Devarddhi’s edition of the Siddhanta, were looked upon as authentical and were preserved in all later copies of the sacred texts. If this assumption is correct, we 1 Ido not contend that no double forms of any word were current at any time, for there must have been a good many double forms, but I doubt that nearly every word should have existed in two or three forms, INTRODUCTION. xli
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.