Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1If 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 must regard the most archaic spellings as representing the pronunciation at or shortly after the epoch of the composition of the sacred books, and the most modern one as representing the pronunciation at or shortly before the redaction of the Siddh4nta'. Now on comparing the Gaina Prakrit especially in the oldest form attainable with the Pali on one side, and the Prakrit of Hala, Setubandha, &c. on the other, it will appear to approach more the P4li than the later Prakrit. We may therefore conclude that chronologically also the sacred books of the Gainas stand nearer those of the Southern Buddhists than the works of later Prakrit writers. But we can fix the date of the Gaina literature between still narrower limits by means of the metres employed in the sacred books. I am of opinion that the first book of the Af4ranga Sdtra and that of the Sdtrakritanga Sitra may be reckoned among the most ancient parts of the Siddh4nta ; the style of both works appears to me to prove the correctness of this assumption. Now a whole lesson of the Satrakr#tanga Satra is written in the Vaitaliya metre. The same metre is used in the Dhammapadam and other sacred books of the Southern Buddhists. But the Pali verses represent an older stage in the development of the Vaitaliya than those in the Sdtrakritanga, as I shall prove ~ in a paper on the post-Vedic metres soon to be published in the Journal of the German Oriental Society. Compared with the common Vaitdaliya verses of Sanskrit literature, a small number of which occur already in the Lalita Vistara, the Vaitaliya of the Sdtrakrvztanga must be considered to represent an earlier form of the metre. Again, ancient Pali works seem to contain no verses in the Arya metre; at least there is none in the Dhammapadam, nor have I found one in other works. But both the A#4raaga and Satrakrstanga ! It might be objected that archaic spellings are due to the influence of the knowledge of Sanskrit ; but the Gainas must always have been so well acquainted with Prakrit that they needed not any help from the Sanskrit to understand their sacred books. On the contrary, in their Sanskrit MSS. we frequently meet with words spelt like Prakrit words. Besides, some spellings cannot be explained as Sanskriticisms, e.g. ddraga for ddraya, the Sanskrit prototype being daraka, xlii GAINA SUTRAS.
2On the contrary, in their Sanskrit MSS. we frequently meet with words spelt like Prakrit words. Besides, some spellings cannot be explained as Sanskriticisms, e.g. ddraga for ddraya, the Sanskrit prototype being daraka, xlii GAINA SUTRAS. contain each a whole lecture in Ary4 verses of a form which is decidedly older than, and probably the parent of the common Arya. The latter is found in the younger parts of the Siddhdnta, in the Brahmanical literature, both in Prakrit and in Sanskrit, and in the works of the Northern Buddhists, e.g. the Lalita Vistara, &c. The form of the Trishfubh metre in ancient Gaina works is younger than that in the PAli literature and older than that in the Lalita Vistara. Finally the great variety of artificial metres in which the greater number of the Gathas in the Lalita Vistara, &c., is composed and which are wanting in the Gaina Siddhanta, seems to prove that the literary taste of the Gainas was fixed before the composition of the latter works. From all these facts we must conclude that the chronological position of the oldest parts of the Gaina literature is intermediate between the Pali literature and the composition of the Lalita Vistara. Now the Pali Pifakas were written in books in the time of Vatfa Gamani, who began to reign88B.c. But they were in existence already some centuries before that time. Professor Max Miiller sums up his discussion on that point by saying: ‘We must be satisfied therefore, so far as I can see, at present with fixing the date, and the latest date, of a Buddhist canon at the time of the Second Council, 377 B.c.!’ Additions and alterations may have been made in the sacred texts after that time; but as our argument is not based on a single passage, or even a part of the Dhammapada, but on the metrical laws of a variety of metres in this and other Pali books, the admission of alterations and additions in these books will not materially influence our conclusion, viz. that the whole of the Gaina Siddhanta was composed after the fourth century B. C. We have seen that the oldest works in the Gaina canon are older than the G4thds in the Lalita Vistara. As this work is said to have been translated into Chinese 65 A.D., we must place the origin of the extant Gaina literature before the beginning of our era. If we may judge about 1 Sacred Books of the East, vol. x, p. xxxii. INTRODUCTION. xliii
3As this work is said to have been translated into Chinese 65 A.D., we must place the origin of the extant Gaina literature before the beginning of our era. If we may judge about 1 Sacred Books of the East, vol. x, p. xxxii. INTRODUCTION. xliii the distance in time of the questionable date from either limit by the greater or less resemblance of the oldest Gaina works in verse with such of the Southern and Northern Buddhists as regards metrical or stylistic peculiarities, we should place the beginning of the Gaina literature nearer the time of the Pali literature, rather than that of the Northern Buddhists. This result agrees pretty well with a tradition of the Svetambaras. For they say! that after the twelve years’ famine, while Bhadrabahu was the head of the church, the Angas were brought together by the Sangha of PAéaliputra. Now Bhadrabahu’s death is placed 170 A.V. by the Svetambaras, and 162 A.V. by the Digambaras; he lived therefore, according to the former, under Kandragupta, who is said to have ascended the throne 155 A.V. Professor Max Miiller assigns to Kandragupta the dates 315-291 B.C.; Westergaard prefers 320 B.C. as a more likely date for Kandragupta, and so does Kern? However this difference matters little: the date of the collection or, perhaps more correctly, the composition of the Gaina canon would fall somewhere about the end of the fourth or the beginning of the third century B.c. It is worth noticing, that according to the above-cited tradition, the Sangha of Pasaliputra collected the eleven Angas without the assistance of Bhadrabahu. As the latter is claimed by the Digambaras for one of their teachers, and as the Svetambaras, though doing the same, still continue the list of Sthaviras from Sambhfatavigaya, Bhadrabahu’s fellow Sthavira, not from Bhadrabahu himself, it seems to follow that the Angas, brought together by the Sangha of Pa¢aliputra, formed the canon of the Svetambaras only, not that of the whole Gaina church. In that case we should not go wrong in placing the date of the canon somewhat later, under the patriarchate of Sthdlabhadra, i.e. in the first part of the third century B.C. If the result of our preceding inquiry deserves credit— and I see no counter arguments entitling us to mistrust our conclusion—the origin of the extant Gaina literature cannot be placed earlier than about 300 B.C., or two centuries after ! Parisishta Parvan IX, §5 seqq. ? Geschiedenis van het Buddhisme in Indie, ii, p. 266 note. xliv GAINA SUTRAS.
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.
1If 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 must regard the most archaic spellings as representing the pronunciation at or shortly after the epoch of the composition of the sacred books, and the most modern one as representing the pronunciation at or shortly before the redaction of the Siddh4nta'. Now on comparing the Gaina Prakrit especially in the oldest form attainable with the Pali on one side, and the Prakrit of Hala, Setubandha, &c. on the other, it will appear to approach more the P4li than the later Prakrit. We may therefore conclude that chronologically also the sacred books of the Gainas stand nearer those of the Southern Buddhists than the works of later Prakrit writers. But we can fix the date of the Gaina literature between still narrower limits by means of the metres employed in the sacred books. I am of opinion that the first book of the Af4ranga Sdtra and that of the Sdtrakritanga Sitra may be reckoned among the most ancient parts of the Siddh4nta ; the style of both works appears to me to prove the correctness of this assumption. Now a whole lesson of the Satrakr#tanga Satra is written in the Vaitaliya metre. The same metre is used in the Dhammapadam and other sacred books of the Southern Buddhists. But the Pali verses represent an older stage in the development of the Vaitaliya than those in the Sdtrakritanga, as I shall prove ~ in a paper on the post-Vedic metres soon to be published in the Journal of the German Oriental Society. Compared with the common Vaitdaliya verses of Sanskrit literature, a small number of which occur already in the Lalita Vistara, the Vaitaliya of the Sdtrakrvztanga must be considered to represent an earlier form of the metre. Again, ancient Pali works seem to contain no verses in the Arya metre; at least there is none in the Dhammapadam, nor have I found one in other works. But both the A#4raaga and Satrakrstanga ! It might be objected that archaic spellings are due to the influence of the knowledge of Sanskrit ; but the Gainas must always have been so well acquainted with Prakrit that they needed not any help from the Sanskrit to understand their sacred books. On the contrary, in their Sanskrit MSS. we frequently meet with words spelt like Prakrit words. Besides, some spellings cannot be explained as Sanskriticisms, e.g. ddraga for ddraya, the Sanskrit prototype being daraka, xlii GAINA SUTRAS.
2On the contrary, in their Sanskrit MSS. we frequently meet with words spelt like Prakrit words. Besides, some spellings cannot be explained as Sanskriticisms, e.g. ddraga for ddraya, the Sanskrit prototype being daraka, xlii GAINA SUTRAS. contain each a whole lecture in Ary4 verses of a form which is decidedly older than, and probably the parent of the common Arya. The latter is found in the younger parts of the Siddhdnta, in the Brahmanical literature, both in Prakrit and in Sanskrit, and in the works of the Northern Buddhists, e.g. the Lalita Vistara, &c. The form of the Trishfubh metre in ancient Gaina works is younger than that in the PAli literature and older than that in the Lalita Vistara. Finally the great variety of artificial metres in which the greater number of the Gathas in the Lalita Vistara, &c., is composed and which are wanting in the Gaina Siddhanta, seems to prove that the literary taste of the Gainas was fixed before the composition of the latter works. From all these facts we must conclude that the chronological position of the oldest parts of the Gaina literature is intermediate between the Pali literature and the composition of the Lalita Vistara. Now the Pali Pifakas were written in books in the time of Vatfa Gamani, who began to reign88B.c. But they were in existence already some centuries before that time. Professor Max Miiller sums up his discussion on that point by saying: ‘We must be satisfied therefore, so far as I can see, at present with fixing the date, and the latest date, of a Buddhist canon at the time of the Second Council, 377 B.c.!’ Additions and alterations may have been made in the sacred texts after that time; but as our argument is not based on a single passage, or even a part of the Dhammapada, but on the metrical laws of a variety of metres in this and other Pali books, the admission of alterations and additions in these books will not materially influence our conclusion, viz. that the whole of the Gaina Siddhanta was composed after the fourth century B. C. We have seen that the oldest works in the Gaina canon are older than the G4thds in the Lalita Vistara. As this work is said to have been translated into Chinese 65 A.D., we must place the origin of the extant Gaina literature before the beginning of our era. If we may judge about 1 Sacred Books of the East, vol. x, p. xxxii. INTRODUCTION. xliii
3As this work is said to have been translated into Chinese 65 A.D., we must place the origin of the extant Gaina literature before the beginning of our era. If we may judge about 1 Sacred Books of the East, vol. x, p. xxxii. INTRODUCTION. xliii the distance in time of the questionable date from either limit by the greater or less resemblance of the oldest Gaina works in verse with such of the Southern and Northern Buddhists as regards metrical or stylistic peculiarities, we should place the beginning of the Gaina literature nearer the time of the Pali literature, rather than that of the Northern Buddhists. This result agrees pretty well with a tradition of the Svetambaras. For they say! that after the twelve years’ famine, while Bhadrabahu was the head of the church, the Angas were brought together by the Sangha of PAéaliputra. Now Bhadrabahu’s death is placed 170 A.V. by the Svetambaras, and 162 A.V. by the Digambaras; he lived therefore, according to the former, under Kandragupta, who is said to have ascended the throne 155 A.V. Professor Max Miiller assigns to Kandragupta the dates 315-291 B.C.; Westergaard prefers 320 B.C. as a more likely date for Kandragupta, and so does Kern? However this difference matters little: the date of the collection or, perhaps more correctly, the composition of the Gaina canon would fall somewhere about the end of the fourth or the beginning of the third century B.c. It is worth noticing, that according to the above-cited tradition, the Sangha of Pasaliputra collected the eleven Angas without the assistance of Bhadrabahu. As the latter is claimed by the Digambaras for one of their teachers, and as the Svetambaras, though doing the same, still continue the list of Sthaviras from Sambhfatavigaya, Bhadrabahu’s fellow Sthavira, not from Bhadrabahu himself, it seems to follow that the Angas, brought together by the Sangha of Pa¢aliputra, formed the canon of the Svetambaras only, not that of the whole Gaina church. In that case we should not go wrong in placing the date of the canon somewhat later, under the patriarchate of Sthdlabhadra, i.e. in the first part of the third century B.C. If the result of our preceding inquiry deserves credit— and I see no counter arguments entitling us to mistrust our conclusion—the origin of the extant Gaina literature cannot be placed earlier than about 300 B.C., or two centuries after ! Parisishta Parvan IX, §5 seqq. ? Geschiedenis van het Buddhisme in Indie, ii, p. 266 note. xliv GAINA SUTRAS.
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.