Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
12 Dessa, that is dreshya, from dvish. Compare diso, 'an enemy/ It occurs also at KanyS. Pi/aka I, 4, 7 ; 5, 3 ; 8,16 (quoted £ataka IV, 406); II, 4, 11; III, 1, 6 (quoted £ataka I, 46) ; III, 2, 16 ; 3, 10 ; 6, 18. The effect of the use of this rare poetical word is lost in the English version. 3 Maddi and Kawha^-ina, the names of Vessantara's wife and daughter, mean respectively l enthraller (of men's minds)/ and ' the dark conquerors (of hearts)/ As Vessantara is used in the Mag^ima (I, 386, line 5) as an adjective, not a name, and is applied to the Buddha, it too must have a special meaning. But it can scarcely be connected with Vai^ya, while we have a very famous epithet in vai^vanara, so often applied to the sacred fire as * common good to all men/ The insertion of the t would explain the shortening of the a, and though there seems to be no sufficient reason for any alteration at all of the older term, this is 126 THE QUESTIONS AND PUZZLES IV, 8, II. ii.1 Now at that time, O king, Vessantara, when he had given away his wife and children, entered the leaf hut, and sat down there. And heavy grief fell upon him distressed by his exceeding love for them, and his very heart 1 became hot, and hot breath, too much to find its way through the nose, came and went through his mouth, and tears rolled in drops of blood from his eyes. Such was the grief, O king, with which Vessantara gave to the Brahman his wife and children in the thought that his practice of giving should not be broken in upon. But there were two reasons, O king, why he thus gave them away. What are those two ? That his practice of giving should not be interrupted was one ; the other was that as a result of his so doing his children, distressed by living with him only on wild roots and fruits, should eventually be set free by their new master. [282] For Vessantara knew, O king : " No one is capable of keeping my children as slaves. Their grandfather will ransom the children, and so they will come back to me," These are the two reasons why he gave his children away to the Brahman. 12. 'And further, O king, Vessantara knew: " This Brahman is worn out, aged, well stricken in years, weak and broken, leaning on a stick, he has drawn near the end of his days, his merit is small, he will not be capable of keeping my children as probably the real derivation of Vessantara. And the whole legend may well be due to previous stories of the world-wide beneficence of Agni Vauranara, or of the sun as Vauvanara. 1 Hadaya-vatthu, Mike a broth-pot foaming over/ is Hina/i- kumbure's explanation of this phrase (pena ncegena mas sceliyak men hr/'daya wastuwa, p. 417). IV, 8, 12. OF MILINDA THE KING. I 27 slaves." Would a man be able, O king, by his ordinary power, to seize the moon and the sun1,
21 Hadaya-vatthu, Mike a broth-pot foaming over/ is Hina/i- kumbure's explanation of this phrase (pena ncegena mas sceliyak men hr/'daya wastuwa, p. 417). IV, 8, 12. OF MILINDA THE KING. I 27 slaves." Would a man be able, O king, by his ordinary power, to seize the moon and the sun1, 1 ^andima-suriye. We should say 'the sun and the moon/ and I cannot think the difference of phraseology is entirely without significance. While the Brahmans put their own caste and order first, the Buddhist texts talk of ' Samaras and Brahmans/ ' Khat- tiyas and Brahmans/ This has, and no doubt rightly, been held significant of the opinion of the authors. Why should the fact of their always referring, in similar compounds, to the moon before the sun, and to women before men, be less so ? Now it is almost always taken for granted that the Buddhists were reformers, as opposed to the Brahmans, who wanted to run still in the ancient grooves. But there is another side of the question that has been entirely overlooked. There is ample evidence in their literature that (at least in certain directions, more especially of religious thought) the Brahmans had been constantly progressive, and their Brah- mans are really the result of reform following on reform. To use a parallel drawn from modern politics, Buddhists are to Brahmans much more like Socialists to Liberals than like Liberals to Con- servatives. The Brahmans had worked out in their minds no new complete system, and when they reformed they left the roots of the old order of things in the ground. But in the momentous change from matriarchate to patriarchate they threw all their power and influence on the side of the newer conception. And when, like Kronos to Jupiter, the old gods gave place to the new, it was they who worked out the newer set of ideas — more especially heaven or sun-worship as against moon-worship and all that it involved. We must not forget that a change of dynasty, or of precedence, among the gods was of more importance to men in those times than a change of dynasty among earthly kings. And though the Buddhists it is true, as we ourselves now, cared for none of these things, and were busied with other discussions than the precedence of the sun and moon, they quite quietly and naturally, when they had to choose, adopted the form of words which did not imply an acceptance of the Brahman position, whose system in other matters they were trying, if not to storm, at least to turn. We are here in the midst of questions too vast to be discussed with profit in a note. But Buddhism certainly arose among those sections of the community least influenced by the reforms the Brahmans supported. And there is evidence, in the precedence the 128 THE QUESTIONS AND PUZZLES IV, 8, 13. mighty and powerful as they are, keeping them in a basket or a box, to use them, deprived of their light, as plates ? ' ' Certainly not, Sir/
3And there is evidence, in the precedence the 128 THE QUESTIONS AND PUZZLES IV, 8, 13. mighty and powerful as they are, keeping them in a basket or a box, to use them, deprived of their light, as plates ? ' ' Certainly not, Sir/ ' Neither, O king, could any one whatever keep in use, as his slaves, the children of Vessantara, who were to the world like the moon and the sun in glory. 13. 'And hear another reason, O king, for the same thing1. That wondrous gem, O king, of a sovran overlord, bright and beautiful, with its eight facets so well cut, four cubits in thickness, and in circumference 2 as the nave of a cart-wheel, could no man, wrapping it up in a cloth and putting it into a basket, keep and use as a hone 3 to grind his scissors 4 upon. And neither, O king, could any one soever keep in use, as his slaves, the children of Vessantara, like to the jewels of the lord of the world in glory. 14. 'And hear, O king, another reason. Just as the elephant king Uposatha5, gentle and handsome, eight cubits in height and nine in girth and length, showing the signs of rut in three places on his body, all white, sevenfold firm 6, could never by any one Buddhists gave to women and to the moon, that the older ideas had not, even then, died out. 1 These words are repeated before each of the following similes. 2 Pariwaha, which Childers is wrong in rendering 'breadth/ when not qualified by dyama (wa/a cettawu, says the Sinhalese, p. 418). 3 Nisana; karagal, says Hina/i-kumbure\ 4 Satthaka, see iTullavagga V, 11, 1. 5 The mythic fairy elephant of the ^akkavatti (not a snake king as Prof. E. Muller has it, * Journal of the Pali Text Society/ 1888, p. 16). See my note at 'Buddhist Suttas/ p. 254. 6 Sattappati/Mito. The Sinhalese merely repeats this am- biguous word (compare IV, 8, 57). IV, 8, 16. OF MILINDA THE KING. I 29 be covered up with a saucer ] or a winnowing fan *, could never be put into a cowpen like a calf, or made use of as one [283] ; just so could no one whatever keep in use, as his slaves, the children of Vessantara, who were, in the world, like Uposatha the elephant king. 15. ' And hear, O king, another reason. Just, O king, as the mighty ocean is great in length and breadth, and deep, not to be measured, and hard to cross, impossible to fathom or to cover up, and no one could close it in and make use of it as a single ferry, just so could no one whatever keep in use, as his slaves, the children of Vessantara, as esteemed in the world as the mighty ocean.
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.
12 Dessa, that is dreshya, from dvish. Compare diso, 'an enemy/ It occurs also at KanyS. Pi/aka I, 4, 7 ; 5, 3 ; 8,16 (quoted £ataka IV, 406); II, 4, 11; III, 1, 6 (quoted £ataka I, 46) ; III, 2, 16 ; 3, 10 ; 6, 18. The effect of the use of this rare poetical word is lost in the English version. 3 Maddi and Kawha^-ina, the names of Vessantara's wife and daughter, mean respectively l enthraller (of men's minds)/ and ' the dark conquerors (of hearts)/ As Vessantara is used in the Mag^ima (I, 386, line 5) as an adjective, not a name, and is applied to the Buddha, it too must have a special meaning. But it can scarcely be connected with Vai^ya, while we have a very famous epithet in vai^vanara, so often applied to the sacred fire as * common good to all men/ The insertion of the t would explain the shortening of the a, and though there seems to be no sufficient reason for any alteration at all of the older term, this is 126 THE QUESTIONS AND PUZZLES IV, 8, II. ii.1 Now at that time, O king, Vessantara, when he had given away his wife and children, entered the leaf hut, and sat down there. And heavy grief fell upon him distressed by his exceeding love for them, and his very heart 1 became hot, and hot breath, too much to find its way through the nose, came and went through his mouth, and tears rolled in drops of blood from his eyes. Such was the grief, O king, with which Vessantara gave to the Brahman his wife and children in the thought that his practice of giving should not be broken in upon. But there were two reasons, O king, why he thus gave them away. What are those two ? That his practice of giving should not be interrupted was one ; the other was that as a result of his so doing his children, distressed by living with him only on wild roots and fruits, should eventually be set free by their new master. [282] For Vessantara knew, O king : " No one is capable of keeping my children as slaves. Their grandfather will ransom the children, and so they will come back to me," These are the two reasons why he gave his children away to the Brahman. 12. 'And further, O king, Vessantara knew: " This Brahman is worn out, aged, well stricken in years, weak and broken, leaning on a stick, he has drawn near the end of his days, his merit is small, he will not be capable of keeping my children as probably the real derivation of Vessantara. And the whole legend may well be due to previous stories of the world-wide beneficence of Agni Vauranara, or of the sun as Vauvanara. 1 Hadaya-vatthu, Mike a broth-pot foaming over/ is Hina/i- kumbure's explanation of this phrase (pena ncegena mas sceliyak men hr/'daya wastuwa, p. 417). IV, 8, 12. OF MILINDA THE KING. I 27 slaves." Would a man be able, O king, by his ordinary power, to seize the moon and the sun1,
21 Hadaya-vatthu, Mike a broth-pot foaming over/ is Hina/i- kumbure's explanation of this phrase (pena ncegena mas sceliyak men hr/'daya wastuwa, p. 417). IV, 8, 12. OF MILINDA THE KING. I 27 slaves." Would a man be able, O king, by his ordinary power, to seize the moon and the sun1, 1 ^andima-suriye. We should say 'the sun and the moon/ and I cannot think the difference of phraseology is entirely without significance. While the Brahmans put their own caste and order first, the Buddhist texts talk of ' Samaras and Brahmans/ ' Khat- tiyas and Brahmans/ This has, and no doubt rightly, been held significant of the opinion of the authors. Why should the fact of their always referring, in similar compounds, to the moon before the sun, and to women before men, be less so ? Now it is almost always taken for granted that the Buddhists were reformers, as opposed to the Brahmans, who wanted to run still in the ancient grooves. But there is another side of the question that has been entirely overlooked. There is ample evidence in their literature that (at least in certain directions, more especially of religious thought) the Brahmans had been constantly progressive, and their Brah- mans are really the result of reform following on reform. To use a parallel drawn from modern politics, Buddhists are to Brahmans much more like Socialists to Liberals than like Liberals to Con- servatives. The Brahmans had worked out in their minds no new complete system, and when they reformed they left the roots of the old order of things in the ground. But in the momentous change from matriarchate to patriarchate they threw all their power and influence on the side of the newer conception. And when, like Kronos to Jupiter, the old gods gave place to the new, it was they who worked out the newer set of ideas — more especially heaven or sun-worship as against moon-worship and all that it involved. We must not forget that a change of dynasty, or of precedence, among the gods was of more importance to men in those times than a change of dynasty among earthly kings. And though the Buddhists it is true, as we ourselves now, cared for none of these things, and were busied with other discussions than the precedence of the sun and moon, they quite quietly and naturally, when they had to choose, adopted the form of words which did not imply an acceptance of the Brahman position, whose system in other matters they were trying, if not to storm, at least to turn. We are here in the midst of questions too vast to be discussed with profit in a note. But Buddhism certainly arose among those sections of the community least influenced by the reforms the Brahmans supported. And there is evidence, in the precedence the 128 THE QUESTIONS AND PUZZLES IV, 8, 13. mighty and powerful as they are, keeping them in a basket or a box, to use them, deprived of their light, as plates ? ' ' Certainly not, Sir/
3And there is evidence, in the precedence the 128 THE QUESTIONS AND PUZZLES IV, 8, 13. mighty and powerful as they are, keeping them in a basket or a box, to use them, deprived of their light, as plates ? ' ' Certainly not, Sir/ ' Neither, O king, could any one whatever keep in use, as his slaves, the children of Vessantara, who were to the world like the moon and the sun in glory. 13. 'And hear another reason, O king, for the same thing1. That wondrous gem, O king, of a sovran overlord, bright and beautiful, with its eight facets so well cut, four cubits in thickness, and in circumference 2 as the nave of a cart-wheel, could no man, wrapping it up in a cloth and putting it into a basket, keep and use as a hone 3 to grind his scissors 4 upon. And neither, O king, could any one soever keep in use, as his slaves, the children of Vessantara, like to the jewels of the lord of the world in glory. 14. 'And hear, O king, another reason. Just as the elephant king Uposatha5, gentle and handsome, eight cubits in height and nine in girth and length, showing the signs of rut in three places on his body, all white, sevenfold firm 6, could never by any one Buddhists gave to women and to the moon, that the older ideas had not, even then, died out. 1 These words are repeated before each of the following similes. 2 Pariwaha, which Childers is wrong in rendering 'breadth/ when not qualified by dyama (wa/a cettawu, says the Sinhalese, p. 418). 3 Nisana; karagal, says Hina/i-kumbure\ 4 Satthaka, see iTullavagga V, 11, 1. 5 The mythic fairy elephant of the ^akkavatti (not a snake king as Prof. E. Muller has it, * Journal of the Pali Text Society/ 1888, p. 16). See my note at 'Buddhist Suttas/ p. 254. 6 Sattappati/Mito. The Sinhalese merely repeats this am- biguous word (compare IV, 8, 57). IV, 8, 16. OF MILINDA THE KING. I 29 be covered up with a saucer ] or a winnowing fan *, could never be put into a cowpen like a calf, or made use of as one [283] ; just so could no one whatever keep in use, as his slaves, the children of Vessantara, who were, in the world, like Uposatha the elephant king. 15. ' And hear, O king, another reason. Just, O king, as the mighty ocean is great in length and breadth, and deep, not to be measured, and hard to cross, impossible to fathom or to cover up, and no one could close it in and make use of it as a single ferry, just so could no one whatever keep in use, as his slaves, the children of Vessantara, as esteemed in the world as the mighty ocean.
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.