Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Did not the Omniscient One once doubt? 35th Dilemma. Suicide 36th Dilemma. Love to all beings 37th Dilemma. Wickedness and prosperity . 38th Dilemma. Women’s wiles . 39th Dilemma. Did not the Arahats once show fear? . 4oth Dilemma. Did not the Omniscient One once change his mind? . Appendix. Devadatta in the Gatakas _ Addenda et Corrigenda Index of Proper Names Index of Subjects Transliteration of Oriental Alphabets adopted for the Translations of the Sacred Books of the East . PAGE 270 273 279 283 294 297 301 393 395 397 311 317 INTRODUCTION. THE work of which a translation is here, for the first time, presented to the English reading public, has had a strange and interesting history. Written in Northern India, at or a little after the beginning of the Christian era, and either in Sanskrit itself or in some North Indian Prakrit, it has been entirely lost in the land of its origin, and (so far as is at present known) is not extant in any of the homes of the various sects and schools of the Buddhists, except only in Ceylon, and in those countries which have derived their Buddhism from Ceylon. It is true that General Cunningham says! that the name of Milinda ‘is still famous in all Buddhist countries.’ But he is here drawing a very wide conclusion from an isolated fact. For in his note he refers only to Hardy, who is good evidence for Ceylon, but who does not even say that the ‘ Milinda’ was known elsewhere. Preserved there, and translated at a very early date into Pali, it has become, in its southern home, a book of standard authority, is put into the hands of those who have begun to doubt the cardinal points of Buddhist doctrine, has been long a popular work in its Pali form, has been translated into Simhalese, and occupies a unique position, second only to the Pali Pisakas (and perhaps also to the celebrated work of Buddhaghosa, the ‘Path of Purity’). From Ceylon it has been transferred, in its Pali form, to both Burma and Siam, and in those countries also it enjoys so high a repute, that it has been commented on (if not translated). It is not merely the only work composed among the Northern Buddhists which is regarded with reverence by the orthodox Buddhists of the southern 1 In his ‘ Ancient Geography of India,’ p. 186. xil THE QUESTIONS OF KING MILINDA. schools; it is the only one which has survived at all amongst them. And it is the only prose work composed in ancient India which would be considered, from the modern point of view, as a successful work of art.
2186. xil THE QUESTIONS OF KING MILINDA. schools; it is the only one which has survived at all amongst them. And it is the only prose work composed in ancient India which would be considered, from the modern point of view, as a successful work of art. The external evidence for these statements is, at present, both very slight and, for the most part, late. There appeared at Colombo in the year of Buddha 2420 (1877 A.D.) a volume of 650 pages, large 8vo.—the most considerable in point of size as yet issued from the Simhalese press—entitled MILINDA PRASWAYA. It was published at the expense of five Buddhist gentlemen whose names deserve to be here recorded, They are Karolis Piris, Abraham LiwerA, Luis Mendis, Nandis Mendis Amara-sekara, and ChArlis Arnolis Mendis Wijaya-ratna Amara-sekara. It is stated in the preface that the account of the celebrated discussion held between Milinda and Nagasena, about 500 years after the death of the Buddha, was translated into the Magadhi language by ‘teachers of old’ (purwa4rin wisin) ;—that that Pali version was translated into Simhalese, at the instance and under the patronage of King Kirtti Sri Raga-simha, who came to the throne of Ceylon in the year of Buddha 2290 (1747 A.D.), by a member of the Buddhist Order named Hina/fikumburé Sumangala, a lineal successor, in the line of teacher and pupil (anusishya), of the celebrated Weeliwita Saranankara, who had been appointed Samgharaga, or chief of the Order—that ‘this priceless book, unsurpassable as a means either for learning the Buddhist doctrine, or for growth in the knowledge of it, or for the suppression of erroneous opinions, had become corrupt by frequent copying—that, at the instigation of the well-known scholar Mohof¢i-watte Gundnanda, these five had had the texts corrected and restored by several learned Bhikkhus (kipa namak law4), and had had indices and a glossary added, and now published the thus revised and improved edition. The Simhalese translation, thus introduced to us, follows the Pali throughout, except that it here and there adds, in the way of gloss, extracts from one or other of the numerous Pitaka texts referred to, and also that it starts with a pro- INTRODUCTION. XHi phecy, put into the mouth of the Buddha when on his death-bed, that this discussion would take place about 500 years after his death, and that it inserts further, at the point indicated in my note on p. 3 of the present version, an account of how the Simhalese translator came to write his version. His own account of the matter adds to the details given above that he wrote the work at the Uposatha Ardma of the MahA Wih4ra near Sri-wardhana-pura, ‘a place famous for the possession of a temple containing the celebrated Tooth Relic, and a monastery which had been the residence of WeliwifaSaravzankara, the Samgha-raga, and of the famous scholars and commentators DaramiZi-pola Dhamma-rakkhita and Madhurasatofa Dhammakkhandha.’
3As Kirtti Sri Raga-sisha reigned till 17811, this would only prove that our Pali work was extant in Ceylon in its present form, and there regarded as of great antiquity and high authority, towards the close of the last century. And no other mention of the work has, as yet, been discovered in any older Simhalese author. But in the present deplorable state of our ignorance of the varied and ancient literature of Ceylon, the argument ex silentio would be simply of no value. Now that the Ceylon Government have introduced into the Legislative Council a bill for the utilisation, in the interests of education, of the endowments of the Buddhist monasteries, it may be hoped that the value of the books written in those monasteries will not be forgotten, and that a sufficient yearly sum will be put aside for the editing and publication of a literature of such great historical value *. At present we can only deplore the impossibility of tracing the history of the ‘Questions of Milinda’ in other works written by the scholarly natives of its southern home. That it will be mentioned in those works there can be ' See Turnour’s Mahavansa, p. Ixviii. ? I believe that none of the many vernacular literatures of India can compare for a moment with the Simhalese, whether judged from the point of view of literary excellence, variety of contents, age, or historical value. And yet a few hundreds a year for ten years would probably suffice, on the system followed by the Pali Text Society, for the editing and publication of the whole. xiv THE QUESTIONS OF KING MILINDA. but little doubt. For the great Indian writer, who long ago found in that beautiful and peaceful island the best scope for his industrious scholarship, is already known to have mentioned the book no less than four times in his commentaries; and that in such a'‘manner that we may fairly hope to find other references to it when his writings shall have been more completely published. In his commentary on the Book of the Great Decease, VI, 3, Buddhaghosa refers to the quotation of that passage made in the conversation between Milinda and Nagasena, translated below, at IV, 2,13. And again, in his commentary on the Ambattha Sutta (D. III, 2,12) he quotes the words of a conversation between Milinda and Nagasena on the subject he is there discussing. The actual words he uses (they will be found at pp. 275, 276 of the edition of the Sumangala Vilasini, edited for the Pali Text Society by Professor Carpenter and myself) are not the same as those of our author at the corresponding passage of Mr. Trenckner’s text (pp. 168, 169; IV, 3,11), but they are the same in substance.
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.
1Did not the Omniscient One once doubt? 35th Dilemma. Suicide 36th Dilemma. Love to all beings 37th Dilemma. Wickedness and prosperity . 38th Dilemma. Women’s wiles . 39th Dilemma. Did not the Arahats once show fear? . 4oth Dilemma. Did not the Omniscient One once change his mind? . Appendix. Devadatta in the Gatakas _ Addenda et Corrigenda Index of Proper Names Index of Subjects Transliteration of Oriental Alphabets adopted for the Translations of the Sacred Books of the East . PAGE 270 273 279 283 294 297 301 393 395 397 311 317 INTRODUCTION. THE work of which a translation is here, for the first time, presented to the English reading public, has had a strange and interesting history. Written in Northern India, at or a little after the beginning of the Christian era, and either in Sanskrit itself or in some North Indian Prakrit, it has been entirely lost in the land of its origin, and (so far as is at present known) is not extant in any of the homes of the various sects and schools of the Buddhists, except only in Ceylon, and in those countries which have derived their Buddhism from Ceylon. It is true that General Cunningham says! that the name of Milinda ‘is still famous in all Buddhist countries.’ But he is here drawing a very wide conclusion from an isolated fact. For in his note he refers only to Hardy, who is good evidence for Ceylon, but who does not even say that the ‘ Milinda’ was known elsewhere. Preserved there, and translated at a very early date into Pali, it has become, in its southern home, a book of standard authority, is put into the hands of those who have begun to doubt the cardinal points of Buddhist doctrine, has been long a popular work in its Pali form, has been translated into Simhalese, and occupies a unique position, second only to the Pali Pisakas (and perhaps also to the celebrated work of Buddhaghosa, the ‘Path of Purity’). From Ceylon it has been transferred, in its Pali form, to both Burma and Siam, and in those countries also it enjoys so high a repute, that it has been commented on (if not translated). It is not merely the only work composed among the Northern Buddhists which is regarded with reverence by the orthodox Buddhists of the southern 1 In his ‘ Ancient Geography of India,’ p. 186. xil THE QUESTIONS OF KING MILINDA. schools; it is the only one which has survived at all amongst them. And it is the only prose work composed in ancient India which would be considered, from the modern point of view, as a successful work of art.
2186. xil THE QUESTIONS OF KING MILINDA. schools; it is the only one which has survived at all amongst them. And it is the only prose work composed in ancient India which would be considered, from the modern point of view, as a successful work of art. The external evidence for these statements is, at present, both very slight and, for the most part, late. There appeared at Colombo in the year of Buddha 2420 (1877 A.D.) a volume of 650 pages, large 8vo.—the most considerable in point of size as yet issued from the Simhalese press—entitled MILINDA PRASWAYA. It was published at the expense of five Buddhist gentlemen whose names deserve to be here recorded, They are Karolis Piris, Abraham LiwerA, Luis Mendis, Nandis Mendis Amara-sekara, and ChArlis Arnolis Mendis Wijaya-ratna Amara-sekara. It is stated in the preface that the account of the celebrated discussion held between Milinda and Nagasena, about 500 years after the death of the Buddha, was translated into the Magadhi language by ‘teachers of old’ (purwa4rin wisin) ;—that that Pali version was translated into Simhalese, at the instance and under the patronage of King Kirtti Sri Raga-simha, who came to the throne of Ceylon in the year of Buddha 2290 (1747 A.D.), by a member of the Buddhist Order named Hina/fikumburé Sumangala, a lineal successor, in the line of teacher and pupil (anusishya), of the celebrated Weeliwita Saranankara, who had been appointed Samgharaga, or chief of the Order—that ‘this priceless book, unsurpassable as a means either for learning the Buddhist doctrine, or for growth in the knowledge of it, or for the suppression of erroneous opinions, had become corrupt by frequent copying—that, at the instigation of the well-known scholar Mohof¢i-watte Gundnanda, these five had had the texts corrected and restored by several learned Bhikkhus (kipa namak law4), and had had indices and a glossary added, and now published the thus revised and improved edition. The Simhalese translation, thus introduced to us, follows the Pali throughout, except that it here and there adds, in the way of gloss, extracts from one or other of the numerous Pitaka texts referred to, and also that it starts with a pro- INTRODUCTION. XHi phecy, put into the mouth of the Buddha when on his death-bed, that this discussion would take place about 500 years after his death, and that it inserts further, at the point indicated in my note on p. 3 of the present version, an account of how the Simhalese translator came to write his version. His own account of the matter adds to the details given above that he wrote the work at the Uposatha Ardma of the MahA Wih4ra near Sri-wardhana-pura, ‘a place famous for the possession of a temple containing the celebrated Tooth Relic, and a monastery which had been the residence of WeliwifaSaravzankara, the Samgha-raga, and of the famous scholars and commentators DaramiZi-pola Dhamma-rakkhita and Madhurasatofa Dhammakkhandha.’
3As Kirtti Sri Raga-sisha reigned till 17811, this would only prove that our Pali work was extant in Ceylon in its present form, and there regarded as of great antiquity and high authority, towards the close of the last century. And no other mention of the work has, as yet, been discovered in any older Simhalese author. But in the present deplorable state of our ignorance of the varied and ancient literature of Ceylon, the argument ex silentio would be simply of no value. Now that the Ceylon Government have introduced into the Legislative Council a bill for the utilisation, in the interests of education, of the endowments of the Buddhist monasteries, it may be hoped that the value of the books written in those monasteries will not be forgotten, and that a sufficient yearly sum will be put aside for the editing and publication of a literature of such great historical value *. At present we can only deplore the impossibility of tracing the history of the ‘Questions of Milinda’ in other works written by the scholarly natives of its southern home. That it will be mentioned in those works there can be ' See Turnour’s Mahavansa, p. Ixviii. ? I believe that none of the many vernacular literatures of India can compare for a moment with the Simhalese, whether judged from the point of view of literary excellence, variety of contents, age, or historical value. And yet a few hundreds a year for ten years would probably suffice, on the system followed by the Pali Text Society, for the editing and publication of the whole. xiv THE QUESTIONS OF KING MILINDA. but little doubt. For the great Indian writer, who long ago found in that beautiful and peaceful island the best scope for his industrious scholarship, is already known to have mentioned the book no less than four times in his commentaries; and that in such a'‘manner that we may fairly hope to find other references to it when his writings shall have been more completely published. In his commentary on the Book of the Great Decease, VI, 3, Buddhaghosa refers to the quotation of that passage made in the conversation between Milinda and Nagasena, translated below, at IV, 2,13. And again, in his commentary on the Ambattha Sutta (D. III, 2,12) he quotes the words of a conversation between Milinda and Nagasena on the subject he is there discussing. The actual words he uses (they will be found at pp. 275, 276 of the edition of the Sumangala Vilasini, edited for the Pali Text Society by Professor Carpenter and myself) are not the same as those of our author at the corresponding passage of Mr. Trenckner’s text (pp. 168, 169; IV, 3,11), but they are the same in substance.
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.