Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Thus I say. All past, present, and future Arhats have taught and declared, teach and declare, will teach and declare these four kinds of speech; and they have ‘explained all those things which are devoid of intellect, which possess colour, smell, taste, touch, which are subject to decay and increase, which possess various qualities. (4) A monk (or a nun should know that) before (the utterance) speech is speech in (antecedent) nonexistence’; that while uttered, it is (real) speech; 1 Pakkakkhavayanam, parokkhavayanam. 2 The first, second, and third cases refer to assertions, the fourth (asatyamrzsha) to injunctions. ® Literally, non-speech. The commentary has the terms used in the translation, which are taken from the Vaiseshika philosophy. But it is well known that many Gainas have adopted and written on the Vaiseshika philosophy, and that the Gainas themselves maintain BOOK II, LECTURE 4, LESSON I. 151 that the moment after it has been uttered, the spoken speech is speech in (subsequent) non-existence. (5) A monk or a nun, well considering, should not use speech whether truth or untruth, or truth mixed with untruth, if it be sinful, blamable, rough, stinging, coarse, hard, leading to sins, to discord and factions, to grief and outrage, to destruction of living beings. (6) A monk or a nun, considering well, should use true and accurate speech, or speech which is neither truth nor untruth (i.e. injunctions); for such speech is not sinful, blamable, rough, stinging, &c. (7) A monk or a nun, if addressing a man who, if addressed, does not answer, should not say: ‘You loon! you lout?! you SQdra! you low-born wretch ! you slave! you dog! you thief! you robber! you cheat! you liar! &c.; you are such and such! your parents? are such and such!’ Considering well, they should not use such sinful, blamable, &c., speech. (8) But in that case they should say: ‘N. N.! O longlived one! O long-lived ones! O layman! O pupil! O faithful one! O lover of faith!’ Considering well, they should use such sinless, blameless, &c., speech. (9) A monk or a nun, if addressing a woman who, if addressed, does not answer, should not say: ‘You hussy! you wench! &c.’ (repeat the above list of that one of their own creed, KAuluya-Rohagutta, is the author of the Vaiseshika Darsanam; see Kalpa Sfitra, p. 119. 1 The original has hole, gole, which are said by the commentator to have been used, in another country, as abusive words. My conjectural translation is based on the meaning of the Sanskrit words hod, gola. 2 It is well known that the Hindus include the parents of the abused party in their maledictions. 152 AkARANGA SOTRA. abusive words adapted to females). Considering well, they should not use such sinful, blamable, &c., speech. (10)
22 It is well known that the Hindus include the parents of the abused party in their maledictions. 152 AkARANGA SOTRA. abusive words adapted to females). Considering well, they should not use such sinful, blamable, &c., speech. (10) A monk or a nun, if addressing a woman who, if addressed, does not answer, should say: ‘O longlived one! O sister! madam! my lady! O lay-sister ! O pupil! O faithful one! O lover of faith!’ Considering well, they should use such sinless, blameless, &c., speech. (11) A monk or a nun should not say: ‘The god! of the sky! the god of the thunderstorm! the god of lightning! the god who begins to rain! the god who ceases to rain! may rain fall or may it not fall! may the crops grow or may they not grow! may the night wane or may it not wane! may the sun rise or may it not rise! may the king conquer or may he not conquer!’ They should not use such speech. (12) But knowing the nature of things, he should say: ‘The air; the follower of Guhya; a cloud has gathered or come down; the cloud has rained.’ This is the whole duty, &c. Thus I say. (13) Seconp Lesson. A monk or a nun, seeing any sort (of diseases), should not talk of them in this way: ‘He has got boils, or leprosy, &c. (see I, 6, 1, § 3); his hand is cut, or his foot, nose, ear, lip is cut.’ For as all such people, spoken to in such language, become ? This prohibition to use the word god in such phrases as the god (deva) rains, is a curious instance of the rationalism of the early Gainas. As they were allowed to speak nothing but the truth, they were enjoined not to say, ‘the god rains,’ but ‘the air (amtalikkham) rains,’ BOOK II, LECTURE 4, LESSON 2. 153 angry, hence, considering well, they should not speak to them in such language. (1) A monk or a nun, seeing any sort (of good qualities), should speak thus: ‘He is strong, powerful, vigorous, famous, well-formed, well-proportioned, handsome.’ For as all such people, spoken to in such language, do not become angry, they should, considering well, speak to them in such language. (2) A monk or a nun, seeing any sort of such things as walls or ditches, &c. (see II, 3, 2, § 14), should not speak of them in this way: ‘This is well-executed, finely executed, beautiful, excellent, (so done) or to be done;’ they should not use such sinful, &c., language. (3) A monk or a nun, seeing walls, &c., should speak about them in this way: ‘This has been executed with great effort, with sin, with much labour; it is very magnificent, it is very beautiful, it is very fine, it is very handsome;’ considering well, they should use such sinless, &c., language. (4) A monk or a nun, seeing food, &c., prepared, should not speak about it in this way: ‘ This is well executed, finely executed, beautiful, excellent, (so done) or to be done;’ considering well, they should not use such sinful, &c., language. (5)
3(4) A monk or a nun, seeing food, &c., prepared, should not speak about it in this way: ‘ This is well executed, finely executed, beautiful, excellent, (so done) or to be done;’ considering well, they should not use such sinful, &c., language. (5) A monk or a nun, seeing food, &c., prepared, should speak about it in this way: ‘ This has been executed with great effort, with sin, with much labour; it is very good, it is excellent, it is well seasoned, it is most delicious, it is most agreeable ;’ considering well, they should use such sinless, &c., language. (6) A monk or a nun, seeing a man, a cow, a buffalo, deer, cattle, a bird, a snake, an aquatic animal of 154 AKARANGA SOTRA. increased bulk, should not speak about them in this way: ‘He (or it) is fat, round, fit to be killed or cooked ;’ considering well, they should not use such sinful, &c., language. (7) A monk or a nun, seeing a man, a cow, &c., of increased bulk, should speak about them in this way : ‘He is of increased bulk, his body is well grown, well compacted, his flesh and blood are abundant, his limbs are fully developed ;’ considering well, they should use such sinless, &c., language. (8) A monk or a nun, seeing any sort of cows (or oxen), should not speak about them in this way: ‘These cows should be milked or tamed or covered, should draw a waggon or car ;’ considering well, they should not use such sinful, &c., language. (9) A monk or a nun, seeing any sort of cows (or oxen), should speak about them in this way: ‘It is a young cow, a milch cow, she gives much milk, it is a short or a large one, a beast of burden;’ considering well, they should use such sinless, &c., language. (10) A monk or a nun, seeing big trees in parks, on hills, or in woods, should speak about them in this way : ‘ These (trees) are fit for palaces, gates, houses, benches, bolts, boats, buckets, stools, trays, ploughs, mattocks(?), machines, poles, the nave of a wheel(?), gana", seats, beds, cars, sheds ;’ considering well, they should not use such sinful, &c., language. (11) A monk or a nun, seeing big trees in parks, on hills, or in woods, should speak about them in this way: ‘ These trees are noble, high and round, big; * The Guzerati commentator explains gazdi by a kind of utensil. The Sanskrit commentaries give no explanation. BOOK II, LECTURE 4, LESSON 2. 155 they have many branches, extended branches, they are very magnificent,’ &c. (see § 4); considering well, they should use such sinless, &c., language. (12) A monk or a nun, seeing many wild fruits, should not speak about them in this way: ‘They are ripe, they should be cooked or eaten, they are just in season, or soft, or they have just split ;’ considering well, they should not use such sinful, &c., language. (13)
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.
1Thus I say. All past, present, and future Arhats have taught and declared, teach and declare, will teach and declare these four kinds of speech; and they have ‘explained all those things which are devoid of intellect, which possess colour, smell, taste, touch, which are subject to decay and increase, which possess various qualities. (4) A monk (or a nun should know that) before (the utterance) speech is speech in (antecedent) nonexistence’; that while uttered, it is (real) speech; 1 Pakkakkhavayanam, parokkhavayanam. 2 The first, second, and third cases refer to assertions, the fourth (asatyamrzsha) to injunctions. ® Literally, non-speech. The commentary has the terms used in the translation, which are taken from the Vaiseshika philosophy. But it is well known that many Gainas have adopted and written on the Vaiseshika philosophy, and that the Gainas themselves maintain BOOK II, LECTURE 4, LESSON I. 151 that the moment after it has been uttered, the spoken speech is speech in (subsequent) non-existence. (5) A monk or a nun, well considering, should not use speech whether truth or untruth, or truth mixed with untruth, if it be sinful, blamable, rough, stinging, coarse, hard, leading to sins, to discord and factions, to grief and outrage, to destruction of living beings. (6) A monk or a nun, considering well, should use true and accurate speech, or speech which is neither truth nor untruth (i.e. injunctions); for such speech is not sinful, blamable, rough, stinging, &c. (7) A monk or a nun, if addressing a man who, if addressed, does not answer, should not say: ‘You loon! you lout?! you SQdra! you low-born wretch ! you slave! you dog! you thief! you robber! you cheat! you liar! &c.; you are such and such! your parents? are such and such!’ Considering well, they should not use such sinful, blamable, &c., speech. (8) But in that case they should say: ‘N. N.! O longlived one! O long-lived ones! O layman! O pupil! O faithful one! O lover of faith!’ Considering well, they should use such sinless, blameless, &c., speech. (9) A monk or a nun, if addressing a woman who, if addressed, does not answer, should not say: ‘You hussy! you wench! &c.’ (repeat the above list of that one of their own creed, KAuluya-Rohagutta, is the author of the Vaiseshika Darsanam; see Kalpa Sfitra, p. 119. 1 The original has hole, gole, which are said by the commentator to have been used, in another country, as abusive words. My conjectural translation is based on the meaning of the Sanskrit words hod, gola. 2 It is well known that the Hindus include the parents of the abused party in their maledictions. 152 AkARANGA SOTRA. abusive words adapted to females). Considering well, they should not use such sinful, blamable, &c., speech. (10)
22 It is well known that the Hindus include the parents of the abused party in their maledictions. 152 AkARANGA SOTRA. abusive words adapted to females). Considering well, they should not use such sinful, blamable, &c., speech. (10) A monk or a nun, if addressing a woman who, if addressed, does not answer, should say: ‘O longlived one! O sister! madam! my lady! O lay-sister ! O pupil! O faithful one! O lover of faith!’ Considering well, they should use such sinless, blameless, &c., speech. (11) A monk or a nun should not say: ‘The god! of the sky! the god of the thunderstorm! the god of lightning! the god who begins to rain! the god who ceases to rain! may rain fall or may it not fall! may the crops grow or may they not grow! may the night wane or may it not wane! may the sun rise or may it not rise! may the king conquer or may he not conquer!’ They should not use such speech. (12) But knowing the nature of things, he should say: ‘The air; the follower of Guhya; a cloud has gathered or come down; the cloud has rained.’ This is the whole duty, &c. Thus I say. (13) Seconp Lesson. A monk or a nun, seeing any sort (of diseases), should not talk of them in this way: ‘He has got boils, or leprosy, &c. (see I, 6, 1, § 3); his hand is cut, or his foot, nose, ear, lip is cut.’ For as all such people, spoken to in such language, become ? This prohibition to use the word god in such phrases as the god (deva) rains, is a curious instance of the rationalism of the early Gainas. As they were allowed to speak nothing but the truth, they were enjoined not to say, ‘the god rains,’ but ‘the air (amtalikkham) rains,’ BOOK II, LECTURE 4, LESSON 2. 153 angry, hence, considering well, they should not speak to them in such language. (1) A monk or a nun, seeing any sort (of good qualities), should speak thus: ‘He is strong, powerful, vigorous, famous, well-formed, well-proportioned, handsome.’ For as all such people, spoken to in such language, do not become angry, they should, considering well, speak to them in such language. (2) A monk or a nun, seeing any sort of such things as walls or ditches, &c. (see II, 3, 2, § 14), should not speak of them in this way: ‘This is well-executed, finely executed, beautiful, excellent, (so done) or to be done;’ they should not use such sinful, &c., language. (3) A monk or a nun, seeing walls, &c., should speak about them in this way: ‘This has been executed with great effort, with sin, with much labour; it is very magnificent, it is very beautiful, it is very fine, it is very handsome;’ considering well, they should use such sinless, &c., language. (4) A monk or a nun, seeing food, &c., prepared, should not speak about it in this way: ‘ This is well executed, finely executed, beautiful, excellent, (so done) or to be done;’ considering well, they should not use such sinful, &c., language. (5)
3(4) A monk or a nun, seeing food, &c., prepared, should not speak about it in this way: ‘ This is well executed, finely executed, beautiful, excellent, (so done) or to be done;’ considering well, they should not use such sinful, &c., language. (5) A monk or a nun, seeing food, &c., prepared, should speak about it in this way: ‘ This has been executed with great effort, with sin, with much labour; it is very good, it is excellent, it is well seasoned, it is most delicious, it is most agreeable ;’ considering well, they should use such sinless, &c., language. (6) A monk or a nun, seeing a man, a cow, a buffalo, deer, cattle, a bird, a snake, an aquatic animal of 154 AKARANGA SOTRA. increased bulk, should not speak about them in this way: ‘He (or it) is fat, round, fit to be killed or cooked ;’ considering well, they should not use such sinful, &c., language. (7) A monk or a nun, seeing a man, a cow, &c., of increased bulk, should speak about them in this way : ‘He is of increased bulk, his body is well grown, well compacted, his flesh and blood are abundant, his limbs are fully developed ;’ considering well, they should use such sinless, &c., language. (8) A monk or a nun, seeing any sort of cows (or oxen), should not speak about them in this way: ‘These cows should be milked or tamed or covered, should draw a waggon or car ;’ considering well, they should not use such sinful, &c., language. (9) A monk or a nun, seeing any sort of cows (or oxen), should speak about them in this way: ‘It is a young cow, a milch cow, she gives much milk, it is a short or a large one, a beast of burden;’ considering well, they should use such sinless, &c., language. (10) A monk or a nun, seeing big trees in parks, on hills, or in woods, should speak about them in this way : ‘ These (trees) are fit for palaces, gates, houses, benches, bolts, boats, buckets, stools, trays, ploughs, mattocks(?), machines, poles, the nave of a wheel(?), gana", seats, beds, cars, sheds ;’ considering well, they should not use such sinful, &c., language. (11) A monk or a nun, seeing big trees in parks, on hills, or in woods, should speak about them in this way: ‘ These trees are noble, high and round, big; * The Guzerati commentator explains gazdi by a kind of utensil. The Sanskrit commentaries give no explanation. BOOK II, LECTURE 4, LESSON 2. 155 they have many branches, extended branches, they are very magnificent,’ &c. (see § 4); considering well, they should use such sinless, &c., language. (12) A monk or a nun, seeing many wild fruits, should not speak about them in this way: ‘They are ripe, they should be cooked or eaten, they are just in season, or soft, or they have just split ;’ considering well, they should not use such sinful, &c., language. (13)
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.