Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1I make no doubt that the Gaina opinion is much more primitive and INTRODUCTION. XXXVIi belongs to an older stage in the development of philosophical thought than the Vaiséshika assumption of four kinds of bodies. Though I am of opinion that between Vaiséshika and Gainism no such connection existed as could be proved by borrowings of the one system from the other, still I am ready to admit that they are related to each other by a kind of affinity of ideas. For the fundamental ideas of the Védantins and SAnkhyas go directly counter to those of the Gainas, and the latter could not adopt them without breaking with their religion. But they could go a part of their way together with the Vaiséshika, and still retain their religious persuasion. We need, therefore, not wonder that among the writers on the Nydya-Vaiséshika some names of Gainas occur. The Gainas themselves go still farther, and maintain that the Vaiséshika philosophy was established by a schismatical teacher of theirs, K/aluya Rohagutta of the Kausika Gétra, with whom originated the sixth schism of the Gainas, the Trairdsika-matam, in 544 A.V.1(18 A.D.) The details of this system given in the Avasyaka, vv. 77-83, are apparently reproduced from Kan4da’s Vaiséshika Darsana; for they consist in the enumeration of the six (not seven) categories with their subdivisions, among which that of qualities contains but seventeen items (not twenty-four), and those identical with Vaiséshika Darsana I, 1, 6. I believe that in this case, as in many others, the Gainas claim more honour than is their due in connecting every Indian celebrity with the history of their creed. My reason for doubting the correctness of the above Gaina legend is the following. The Vaiséshika philosophy is reckoned as one of the orthodox Brahmanical philosophies, and it has chiefly, though not exclusively, been cultivated by orthodox Hindus. We have, therefore, no reason for doubting that they have misstated the name and Gétra of the author of the Sitras, viz. Kanada of the Kasyapa Gétra. No trace * See Indische Studien, vol. xvii, p. 116 ff. C3 XXXVIli GAINA SOTRAS. has been found in Brahmanical literature that the name of the real author of the Vaiséshika was Réhagupta, and his Gétra the Kausika Gétra ; nor can Réhagupta and KanAda be taken as different names of the same person, because their Gétras also differ. KAms4da, follower of KamAda, means etymologically crow-eater, owl; hence his system has been nicknamed Auldkya Darsana, owl-philosophy1. In Réhagupta’s second name, KAuluya, which stands for Shaduldka’, allusion is made to the ‘ owl,’ probably to the KanAdas; but the Gainas refer ulika to the Gétra of the Réhagupta, viz. Kausika’, which word also means owl. As the unanimous tradition of the Brahmans deserves the preference before that of the Gainas, we can most easily account for the latter by assuming that Réhagupta did not invent, but only adopted the Vaiséshika philosophy to support his schismatical views.
2Kausika’, which word also means owl. As the unanimous tradition of the Brahmans deserves the preference before that of the Gainas, we can most easily account for the latter by assuming that Réhagupta did not invent, but only adopted the Vaiséshika philosophy to support his schismatical views. About the two works translated in this volume, the Uttaradhyayana and Sftrakritanga, I have little to add to the remarks of Professor Weber in the Indische Studien, vol. xvi, p. 259 ff., and vol. xvii, p. 43 ff. The Sdtrakrztanga is probably the older of the two, as it is the second Anga, and the Angas obtain the foremost rank among the canonical books of the Gainas, while the Uttaradhyayana, the first Malasftra, belongs to the last section of the SiddhAnta. According to the summary in the fourth Anga the object of the Sdtrakritanga is to fortify young monks against the heretical opinions of alien teachers, to confirm them in the right faith, and to lead them to the highest good. This description is correct on the whole, but not exhaustive, as will be seen by going over our table of contents. The work opens with the refutation of heretical doctrines, and the same object is again treated at greater length in the 1 See my edition of the Kalpa Sfitra, p. 119. ® Literally Six-owl. The number six refers to the six categories of the Vaiséshika. * Part i, p. 290. But in the legend translated by Professor Leumann, lc, p. 121, his Gétra is called XKAafld. INTRODUCTION, XXXIX First Lecture of the Second Book. It is followed in the First Book by Lectures on a holy life in general, on the difficulties a monk has to overcome, especially the temptations thrown in his way, the punishment of the unholy, and the praise of Mahavira as the standard of righteousness. Then come some Lectures on cognate subjects. The Second Book, which is almost entirely in prose, treats of similar subjects, but without any apparent connection of its parts. It may therefore be considered as supplementary, and as a later addition to the First Book. The latter was apparently intended as a guide for young monks". Its form, too, seems adapted to this purpose; for it lays some claim to poetical art in the variety of the metres employed, and in the artificial character of some verses. It may, therefore, be considered as the composition of one author, while the Second Book is a collection of tracts which treat on the subjects discussed in the first.
3It may, therefore, be considered as the composition of one author, while the Second Book is a collection of tracts which treat on the subjects discussed in the first. The Uttaradhyayana resembles the Sdtrakritanga with regard to its object and part of the subjects treated ; but it is of greater extent than the original part of the Sdtrakritanga, and the plan of the work is carried out with more skill. Its intention is to instruct a young monk in his principal duties, to commend an ascetic life by precepts and examples, to warn him against the dangers in his spiritual career, and to give some theoretical information. The heretical doctrines are only occasionally alluded to, not fully discussed ; apparently the dangers expected from that quarter grew less in the same measure as time advanced and the institutions of the sect were more firmly established. Of more importance to a young monk seems to have been an accurate knowledge of animate and inanimate things, as a rather long treatise on this subject has been added at the end of the book.—Though there is an apparent plan in the selection and arrangement of the single Lectures, still it is open to doubt whether they were all composed by one 1 According to an old tradition (see Indische Studien, vol. xvi, p. 223) the Sitraky#téiga is studied in the fourth year after the ordination of a monk. xl GAINA SOTRAS., author, or only selected from the traditional literature, written or oral, which among the Gainas, as everywhere else, must have preceded the formation of a canon. I am inclined to adopt the latter alternative, because there is a greater variety of treatment and style in the different parts than seems compatible with the supposition of one author, and because a similar origin must be assumed for many works of the present canon. At what time the works under discussion were composed or brought into their present shape is a problem which cannot be satisfactorily solved. As, however, the reader of the present volume will naturally expect the translator to give expression to his personal conviction on this point, I give my opinion with all reserve, viz. that most parts, tracts, or treatises of which the canonical books consist, are old; that the redaction of the Angas took place at an early period (tradition places it under Bhadrabahu) ; that the other works of the Siddhanta were collected in course of time, probably in the first centuries before our era, and that additions or alterations may have been made in the canonical works till the time of their first edition under Devardhiganin (980 A.V.= 454 A.D.) I have based my translation of the Uttaradhyayana and Sftrakztaénga on the text adopted by the oldest commentators I could consult. This text differs little from that of the MSS. and the printed editions. I had prepared a text of my own from some MSS. at my disposal, and this has served to check the printed text.
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.
1I make no doubt that the Gaina opinion is much more primitive and INTRODUCTION. XXXVIi belongs to an older stage in the development of philosophical thought than the Vaiséshika assumption of four kinds of bodies. Though I am of opinion that between Vaiséshika and Gainism no such connection existed as could be proved by borrowings of the one system from the other, still I am ready to admit that they are related to each other by a kind of affinity of ideas. For the fundamental ideas of the Védantins and SAnkhyas go directly counter to those of the Gainas, and the latter could not adopt them without breaking with their religion. But they could go a part of their way together with the Vaiséshika, and still retain their religious persuasion. We need, therefore, not wonder that among the writers on the Nydya-Vaiséshika some names of Gainas occur. The Gainas themselves go still farther, and maintain that the Vaiséshika philosophy was established by a schismatical teacher of theirs, K/aluya Rohagutta of the Kausika Gétra, with whom originated the sixth schism of the Gainas, the Trairdsika-matam, in 544 A.V.1(18 A.D.) The details of this system given in the Avasyaka, vv. 77-83, are apparently reproduced from Kan4da’s Vaiséshika Darsana; for they consist in the enumeration of the six (not seven) categories with their subdivisions, among which that of qualities contains but seventeen items (not twenty-four), and those identical with Vaiséshika Darsana I, 1, 6. I believe that in this case, as in many others, the Gainas claim more honour than is their due in connecting every Indian celebrity with the history of their creed. My reason for doubting the correctness of the above Gaina legend is the following. The Vaiséshika philosophy is reckoned as one of the orthodox Brahmanical philosophies, and it has chiefly, though not exclusively, been cultivated by orthodox Hindus. We have, therefore, no reason for doubting that they have misstated the name and Gétra of the author of the Sitras, viz. Kanada of the Kasyapa Gétra. No trace * See Indische Studien, vol. xvii, p. 116 ff. C3 XXXVIli GAINA SOTRAS. has been found in Brahmanical literature that the name of the real author of the Vaiséshika was Réhagupta, and his Gétra the Kausika Gétra ; nor can Réhagupta and KanAda be taken as different names of the same person, because their Gétras also differ. KAms4da, follower of KamAda, means etymologically crow-eater, owl; hence his system has been nicknamed Auldkya Darsana, owl-philosophy1. In Réhagupta’s second name, KAuluya, which stands for Shaduldka’, allusion is made to the ‘ owl,’ probably to the KanAdas; but the Gainas refer ulika to the Gétra of the Réhagupta, viz. Kausika’, which word also means owl. As the unanimous tradition of the Brahmans deserves the preference before that of the Gainas, we can most easily account for the latter by assuming that Réhagupta did not invent, but only adopted the Vaiséshika philosophy to support his schismatical views.
2Kausika’, which word also means owl. As the unanimous tradition of the Brahmans deserves the preference before that of the Gainas, we can most easily account for the latter by assuming that Réhagupta did not invent, but only adopted the Vaiséshika philosophy to support his schismatical views. About the two works translated in this volume, the Uttaradhyayana and Sftrakritanga, I have little to add to the remarks of Professor Weber in the Indische Studien, vol. xvi, p. 259 ff., and vol. xvii, p. 43 ff. The Sdtrakrztanga is probably the older of the two, as it is the second Anga, and the Angas obtain the foremost rank among the canonical books of the Gainas, while the Uttaradhyayana, the first Malasftra, belongs to the last section of the SiddhAnta. According to the summary in the fourth Anga the object of the Sdtrakritanga is to fortify young monks against the heretical opinions of alien teachers, to confirm them in the right faith, and to lead them to the highest good. This description is correct on the whole, but not exhaustive, as will be seen by going over our table of contents. The work opens with the refutation of heretical doctrines, and the same object is again treated at greater length in the 1 See my edition of the Kalpa Sfitra, p. 119. ® Literally Six-owl. The number six refers to the six categories of the Vaiséshika. * Part i, p. 290. But in the legend translated by Professor Leumann, lc, p. 121, his Gétra is called XKAafld. INTRODUCTION, XXXIX First Lecture of the Second Book. It is followed in the First Book by Lectures on a holy life in general, on the difficulties a monk has to overcome, especially the temptations thrown in his way, the punishment of the unholy, and the praise of Mahavira as the standard of righteousness. Then come some Lectures on cognate subjects. The Second Book, which is almost entirely in prose, treats of similar subjects, but without any apparent connection of its parts. It may therefore be considered as supplementary, and as a later addition to the First Book. The latter was apparently intended as a guide for young monks". Its form, too, seems adapted to this purpose; for it lays some claim to poetical art in the variety of the metres employed, and in the artificial character of some verses. It may, therefore, be considered as the composition of one author, while the Second Book is a collection of tracts which treat on the subjects discussed in the first.
3It may, therefore, be considered as the composition of one author, while the Second Book is a collection of tracts which treat on the subjects discussed in the first. The Uttaradhyayana resembles the Sdtrakritanga with regard to its object and part of the subjects treated ; but it is of greater extent than the original part of the Sdtrakritanga, and the plan of the work is carried out with more skill. Its intention is to instruct a young monk in his principal duties, to commend an ascetic life by precepts and examples, to warn him against the dangers in his spiritual career, and to give some theoretical information. The heretical doctrines are only occasionally alluded to, not fully discussed ; apparently the dangers expected from that quarter grew less in the same measure as time advanced and the institutions of the sect were more firmly established. Of more importance to a young monk seems to have been an accurate knowledge of animate and inanimate things, as a rather long treatise on this subject has been added at the end of the book.—Though there is an apparent plan in the selection and arrangement of the single Lectures, still it is open to doubt whether they were all composed by one 1 According to an old tradition (see Indische Studien, vol. xvi, p. 223) the Sitraky#téiga is studied in the fourth year after the ordination of a monk. xl GAINA SOTRAS., author, or only selected from the traditional literature, written or oral, which among the Gainas, as everywhere else, must have preceded the formation of a canon. I am inclined to adopt the latter alternative, because there is a greater variety of treatment and style in the different parts than seems compatible with the supposition of one author, and because a similar origin must be assumed for many works of the present canon. At what time the works under discussion were composed or brought into their present shape is a problem which cannot be satisfactorily solved. As, however, the reader of the present volume will naturally expect the translator to give expression to his personal conviction on this point, I give my opinion with all reserve, viz. that most parts, tracts, or treatises of which the canonical books consist, are old; that the redaction of the Angas took place at an early period (tradition places it under Bhadrabahu) ; that the other works of the Siddhanta were collected in course of time, probably in the first centuries before our era, and that additions or alterations may have been made in the canonical works till the time of their first edition under Devardhiganin (980 A.V.= 454 A.D.) I have based my translation of the Uttaradhyayana and Sftrakztaénga on the text adopted by the oldest commentators I could consult. This text differs little from that of the MSS. and the printed editions. I had prepared a text of my own from some MSS. at my disposal, and this has served to check the printed text.
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.