100% found this document useful (2 votes)
316 views294 pagesHinüber, Oskar Von - KLSCHR 2 (2009) The Vocabulary of Buddhist Sanskrit - Problems and Perspectives
The vocabulary of Buddhist Sanskrit - Problems and perspectives
Uploaded by
111-365340Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
100% found this document useful (2 votes)
316 views294 pagesHinüber, Oskar Von - KLSCHR 2 (2009) The Vocabulary of Buddhist Sanskrit - Problems and Perspectives
The vocabulary of Buddhist Sanskrit - Problems and perspectives
Uploaded by
111-365340Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
/ 294
VEROFFENTLICHUNG!
DER HELMUTH VON GLASENAPP-STIFTUNG.
Herausgegeben von Oskar von Hinuber
in Verbindung mit Heidrun Brickner. Harry Falk,
‘Walter Slaje, Heinrich von Stietencron
Band 47
OSKAR VON HINUBER
KLEINE SCHRIFTEN
2009
HARRASSOWITZ VERLAG - WIESBADEN
OSKAR VON HINUBER
KLEINE SCHRIFTEN
TEIL II
HERAUSGEGEBEN VON
HARRY FALK UND WALTER SLAJE
2009
HARRASSOWITZ VERLAG - WIESBADEN Biiogrfsche tnfrmation der Detschen Nation
ie ease tonalite erect ese Polk n dr Destchen
Xatonigrafe detailer iblngrfshe Daten sd nee,
Sitigrphicinfrmason plated he Dash Natit
‘The Deuscke Natal sts hs plea nthe Detse
Informationen zum Verlagsprogramm finden Sie unter
dutpufwww harrassowitz verlag de
© Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co, KG, Wiesbaden 2009
Das Werk einschlieBlich aller seiner Toile ist urbeberrechtlich geschitzt,
Jede Verwertung augerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechisgesetzes ist ohne
bar. Das gilt insbesondere
fir Vervielfatigungen jeder Art, Chersetzungen, Mikroverftmungen Und
fur die Einspeicherung in elektronische Systeme.
Gedruckt auf alterungshestindigem Papier.
Druck und Verarbeitung: Hubert & Co, Gottingen
Printed ia Germany
ISSN 0170-3455
ISBN 978.3.447-05850.6
Inhalt des zweiten Bandes
III. Sprachwissenschaft (Fortsetzung)
The Vocabulary of Buddhist Sanskrit: Problems and Perspectives
i: Indo-Iranian Languages and Peoples, Procedings ofthe British
Academy 116. 2002, 151-166...
Te Ghost Word shit and the Description of Famines in Early
Buddhist Literature, IPTS 9. 1981, 74:86...
A Vedic Verb in Pili: adja, in: Ludwik Stembach elicitation
Volume. Part two, Lucknow 1979, 819-822
{A Dificult Verb Form in Pali and Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit: ast,
in: K.P. Jayaswal Commemoration Volume, Patna 1981, 197f,
Tuvattati / twvatieri Again, SPTS 26. 2000, 71-75 enn
‘The Last Meal ofthe Buddha. A Note on stitaramaddava (Appen-
dix to: Mettanando Bhikkhu, MD: The Cause of the Buddha's
Death), JPTS 26. 2000, 112-117 s
Notes on the e-preterite in Middle Indo Aryan, MSS 36. 1977, 39-48
Zu cinigen iranischen Namen und Titeln aus Brahmi-Inschriften
am oberen Indus, in: Studia Grammatica Iranica, Munchen 1986,
147-162 .
Indische Namen in Zentralasen bis. 1000 n.chr, in Namen
forschung. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Onomastik. 1, Teil
band, Berlin 1995, Nr. 97, 657-665
IV. Gilgit
Die Bedeutung des Handschrifienfundes bei Gilgit, in: XXI. DOT,
Wiesbaden 1983, 47.66....
Die Kolophone der Gilgit-Handschriften, Sill 5/6, 1980, 49-82.
Namen in Schutzzaubern aus Gilgit, StI 7, 1981, 163-171
Royal Inscriptions from North Pakistan, Papers Presented at the
International Conference on Karakorum Culture at Gig 198,
Vol. III, Islamabad 1985, 59-68.
The Patola Sahis of =. Forgotten Dynasty JOIB 36 “19860,
221-229 es
589
603
616
620
622
627
633
643
659
668
688
72
BI
740 VI Verzeichnis der nachgedruckten Schriften
Buddhism in Gilgit Between India and Central Asia, in: The
Countries of South Asia: Boundaries, Extensions, and Interrelations,
Philadelphia 1988, 40-48
V.Kulturgeschichte
Probleme der Technikgeschichte im alten Indien, Sueculum 29,
1978, 215-230
Zur Technologie der Zackrhrasng inv allen Indien, ZDMG
121. 1971, 93-109 .
Das nandydvarta-Symbol, in: XVII. DOT, Wiesbaden 1974, 356-
365
Kulturgeschichtiches aus dem Bhiksunt-Vinaya: die samkaksik
ZDMG 125. 1975, 133-139
Inscribed Vessels from Buddhist Monasteries in Termez and Sal
hhundam, Pakistan Archaeology 29. 1991, 120-124
Old Age and Old Monks in Pali Buddhism, in: Aging. Asian
Concepts and Experiences. Past and Present, Wien 1997, 65-78
Der bhumiechidranyava, ZDMG 155. 2005, 483-495 .
Les documents épigraphiques indiens: Difficulté de leur interpréta
tion — Examples concemant Firrigation, in: Académie des Inscr
tions & Belles-Lettres. Comptes Rendus des Séances de Année
2004. Avril-Juin, Paris 2004, 989-1011
Everyday Life in an Ancient Indian Buddhist Monastery, ARIRIAB
9, 2006, a 2
VI. Varia
Die Situation der kleinen Ficher in den Geisteswissenschaften am
Beispiel der Orientalistik, in: Nischen der Forschung? Zur Situa-
tion und Perspektive der kleinen Ficher in Deutschland, 0. O. 0. J
[Mainz 2000}, 33-43
aciruf auf Wilhelm Rav, in: Akademie der Wissenschaien und
der Literatur. Jahrbuch 1999, 138-141
749
758
74
791
805
814
819
833
846
869
898
909
Verzeichnis der nachgedruckten Schriften
VII. Besprechungen
1. Lit
Ratnapala, Nandasena: The Katikavatas. Laws of the Buddhist Order
of Ceylon trom the 124 Century tothe 18th Century, Minchen
1971, OLZ 71. 1976, 499-501...
Dertett, John Duncan Martin: Bhiruc’s Commentary onthe Man-
smrti. Il Vols, Wiesbaden 1975, Erasmus 28. 1976, 648-682.
Roth, Gustav (Hrsg.): Bhiksuni-Vinaya including Bhiksuni-Pra
kimaka and a summary of the Bhiksu-Prakimaka ofthe Arya-Maha-
samghika-Lokottaravadin, Patna 1970, OLZ 72. 1977, 526-529
once, Edvard: The Prajparami Literatur, Tokyo 1978 I) 23
1981, 736...
Bhartghais Vakyapadiya: Die Milakdrikis Nach den Handschriften
hg. x. Wilhelm Rau, Wiesbaden 1977, WZKS 26. 1982, 208f.
de Jong, .W: Texteritical Remarks on the Bodhisattvavadina
kalpalata, Tokyo 1979, OLZ 79, 1984, 586-588
‘The Samyuttanikaya of the Suttapitaka. I: The Sagathavagga. A
Critical Apparatus by G.A. Somaratne, Oxford 1998, OLZ.95. 2000,
88.94 se —— :
Bollé, Willem B: Bhadrabahu Brhat Kalpa-Niryukti and Saigha-
dasa Byhat-Kalpa-Bhasya. 3 Bde., Stuitgart 1998, OLZ 96. 2001,
436-440 SS
Salomon, Richard: Ancient Buddhist Scrolls from Gandhara, The
British Library Kharogtt Fragments Seale 1998 1AOS 121, 2001
519-521
Cail, Timothy C: An Annotated Bibliography ofthe Alamkara-
Sastra, Leiden 2001, III 45, 2002, 287-289
Brockington, John: The Sanskrit Epics, Leiden 1998, WZKS 46.
2002, 2685.
Willemen, Charles, Dessein, Bar, Cox, Collett: Sarvitivada
Buddhist Scholasticism, Leiden 1998, WZKS 46, 2002, 272-275,
Salomon, Richard: A Gandhari Version of the Rhinoceros Sotra: Bri-
tish Library Kharosthi Fragment SB, Seattle 2000 Allon, Mark: Three
Gandhari Ekottarikigama-Type Sutras. British Library Kharosthi
Fragments 12 and 14, Seattle 2001, JAOS 123, 2003, 221-224
von Simson, Georg (Hg.): Pratimoksashtra der Sarvastivadins, Teil
I, Gottingen 2000, OLZ. 98. 2003, 577-583 rn
aturwissenschaft
vl
913
gis
918
921
923
925
927
931
934
937
940
942,
946
950 vat Verzeichnis der nachgedruckten Schriften
Vetter, Tilman: The *Khandha Passages’ in the Vinayapitaka and
the four main Nikayas, Wien 2000, OLZ. 99. 2004, 93-100
Lenz, Timothy: A New Version of the Gandhari Dharmapada and
Collection of Previous Birth Stories: British Library Kharostht
Fragments 16 + 25, Seattle 2003, JAOS 124. 2004, 803-805
Chung, Jin-it: Das Upasampadavastu: Vorschriften fir die bud-
histische Monchsordination im Vinaya der Sarvastivada
Tradition: Sanskrit-Version und chinesische Version, Géttingen
2004 / Die Pravarana in den kanonischen Vinaya-Texten der
Milasarvastivadin und der Sarvastivadin, Gottingen 1998, JAOS
124, 2004, 806-810 —Es
Sanskrit-Texte aus dem buddhistischen Kanon: Neuentdeckungen
und Neueditionen. Bearbeitet_ von Chung, Jin-il; Vogel, Clau
Wille, Klaus, Gottingen. 2002, 11) 47, 2004, 140-142
Sanskrithandschriften aus den Turfanfunden. hg. von Heinz Bechert
besehrieben von Klaus Wille. TI. 8 Stuttgart 2000s TI. 9, Stuttgart
2004, IH 48. 2005, 297-312 :
2, Sprachwissenschaft
Gonda, J.: Old Indian, Leiden 1971, OLZ 72. 1977, 205-207
Die Sprache der altesten buddhistischen Uberlieferung hg.v, Heinz
Bechert, Géttingen 1980, IF 88. 1983, 307-312 und JSS 70. 1982,
102.
Allon, Mark: Style and Funtion, Tokyo 1997, W2KS 43 "1999, 260-
262.
3. Lexikographie
Sanskrit-Wérterbuch der tuddhistischen Texte aus den Turfan-
Faden. Liferang, Gstingen 1973 Kraylos 18. 1973) [1978)
207F.
Sanskrit Worterbuch der tuddhisischen Texte aus. den Torfan-
Funden, 2. Lieferung, Gottingen, 1976; 3. Lieferung, Gonuingen
1982, Kratylos 29. 1984) [1985], 166-169
{An Eneyclopaedic Dictionary of Sanskrit on Historieal Primes ‘h
1, Poona 1976, ZDMG 128, 1978, 420...
‘An Encyctopaedic Dictionary of Sanskrit on Historical Principles I,
1-3, Poona 1976-1978, III 23, 1981, 41-44
954
958
961
966
969,
985
987
993
996
998
1002
1004
Verzeichnis der nachgedruckten Schriften
An Encyelopaedic Dictionary of Sanskrit on Historical Principles 1,
2-3: IL, 1-2, Poona 1977-1980, ZDMG 132. 1982, 224
‘An Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Sanskrit on Historical Principles
HL, 1-3, Poona 1979, 1980, 1981, II 28. 1985, 135f.
‘An Encycopaedie Dietionary of Sanskrit on Historical Principles
Il, 3, Poona 1983; III, 1, Poona 1982, ZDMG 134. 1984, 383
An Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Sanskrit on Historical Principles
IML, 1-3, Poona 1982, 1988, 1989, II) 37, 1994, 47-50 ....
‘An Eneyclopaedic Dictionary of Sanskrit on Historical Principles
IV, 1-3, Poona 1990, 1991, 1992/3; V, 1-3, Poona 1994, 1994/5,
1997 11) 42. 1999, 157-163
Vogel, Claus: Zum Aufbau altindischer Sanskritworterbiicher der
vorklassischen Zeit, Opladen 1996, OLZ 93. 1998, 97-100...
Pant, Mahes Raj: Jatardpa’s Commentary on the AmarakoSa, Delhi
2000, IU) 45. 2002, 365-368 ...
4, Epigraphik
Schneider, U.: Die groBen Felsen-Edikte ASokas, Wiesbaden 1978,
WZKS 25. 1981, 2331. a a
Salomon, Richard: Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of
Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrt and other Indo-Aryan Languages,
New York 1998, JAOS 121. 2001, 517-519
Willis, Mchae: Buddhist Reliquaries from Ancient India, London
2000, 44, 2001, 367-370 snnnncnsnnnnrnrennn
5. Geschichte und Kulturgeschichte
ad-Din, Wien 1980,
Hai em Die Taleo oor
WZKS 31. 1987, 200f.
Scarfe, Hartmut: The State in Indian Tradition, Leiden (wa. 1989,
Scharfe, Hartmut Investigations in Kautaly’s Manual of Polit
Science, Wiesbaden 1993, WZKS 39. 1995, 239.
Lienhard, ‘Siegfried: Diamantmeister und Hausviter. Buddhi-
stisches Gemeindeleben in Nepal, Wien 1999, IJ 44, 2001, 355-358
Bechert, Heinz u.a.: Der Buddhismus. 1, Stuttgart 2000, 1) 45. 2002,
77-86 sn
1x
loll
1012
1016
1023
1025
1029
1031
1034
1038
1040
1042
1044
1048, x Verzeichnis der nachgedruckten Schriften
Njammasch, Marlene: Bauern, Buddhisten und Brahmanen. Das
frihe Mitelalter in Gujarat, Wiesbaden 2001, IL) 47, 2004, 308-320 1058
Riddick John F: Who vas who in Britis India, Wesport, Conn.
1998, ZDMG 156. 2006, 522-524... 1071
Scharfe, Hartmut: Education in Ancient India, Leiden (u.a.] 2002,
WZKS 50. 2006, 218-221 1074
6. Sakisch
Asmussen, Jes Peter: The Khotanese Bhadracaryaidesana, Kaben-
havn 1961, Erasmus 22. 1970, 711-713, 1078
Emmerick, R. E:: Saka Grammatical Studies, London (ua | 1968
OLZ 68. 1973, 182-185 .. 1079
Emmeriek, R. E.: The Khotanese ragemesant London,
[ua] 1970, OLZ 69. 1974, 491-493, 1081
Bailey, Harold Walter: Dictionary of Khotan Saka, Camis 97
OLZ 78. 1983, 599-601 ss 1082
Bailey, Harold Walter: Khotanese Buddhist Texts, Camis 198,
OLZ 80. 1985, 407.
Bailey, H.W: Khotanese Texts Vik. Indo-Seythian Studies,
Cambridge (u.a.} 1985, OLZ 82. 1987, SOBE. wn ow 1084
Emmerick, Ronald E.: The Tumshugese Karmavacand Text, Mainz
1985, OLZ 83, 1988, 619F.
Degener, Almuth: Khotanische Suffixe, Wiesbaden 1988 II 36
1993, 372
Maggi, Mauro: Pelliot Chinois 2928. A Khotanese Love Story, Rom.
1997, OLZ 95. 2000, 207F.
Fin Meilensein in der Erforschung des zentalasiatischen Budahis-
mus. Zu einem neuen Katalog khotan-sakischer Handschriften
(Skjerve, Prods Oktor: Khotanese Menuscripts from Chinese
‘Turkestan in the British Library: a complete catalogue with texts
and translations, London 2002), ZDMG 157. 2007, 385-394 1088
1083
1084
1085
1087
The vocabulary of Buddhist Sanskrit:
Problems and perspectives
0. VON HINUBER
AN INTEREST IN THE VOCABULARY of the Buddhist texts and its problems is
‘almost as old as Buddhism itself. The obvious reason for these problems is the
well-known linguistic diversity which prevailed in the vast area of India in
ancient times as it does today. The first to experience them were most likely the
‘early Buddhist monks, when they propagated their faith and tried to make them-
selves understood beyond Magadha, the original home of Buddhism, and then in
the course of time even beyond India. Thus these problems were gradually
exported from India, as Buddhists in Central Asia and finally in China started to
struggle with strange Sanskrit—or even worse Giindhri—words in ther attempt
to translate new and alien concepts into Chinese and other languages."
Eventually, about two centuries ago, these problems even reached Europe,
‘where this struggle was taken up with quite different aims. For westem scholars
hhave been trying to disentangle the history of the Buddhist vocabulary since the
first half of the 19th century by applying the methods developed at that time by
the emerging science of historical linguistics in order to reach a better understan-
ding of the texts through tracing the history of words
Inthe west, Eugene Burnouf (1801-1852) seems to have been the first to mas-
ter the Buddhist Sanskrit vocabulary.* He successfully initiated the modem study
of the subject, culminating about a century later in the dictionary of Buddhist
"The problem experienced by the erty Chinese talon ae discussed. by Sethi Karahi,
‘A Glassary of Dharmarals's Translation ofthe Lous Sra. Biblioteca Police Pilasphica
‘Buddha Tokyo 1998 (Rev: B.Desen, Asarsche Snuen/BnuesAslaigus, 2, 1998: 97881
"ToH, Bare, JRAS, 3d se, 10, 200: 133) (and in eater studies by the same nator); by asl
arson, "The Exofarigama Trasaios of As Shiga. in Bauddhavidyasudhatarah Suds in
Honour of Hein: Bechert on the Occasion of Ms 85th Birthday. Indica et Teta, 30, Swistl-
(dendorf 1997 26-83; o by Daniel Boucher, ‘Gandhir and the Eatly Chinese Budshisr Tras
lations Reconsidered: The Case ofthe Saddbarmapundartast', AOS, 118, 1996 471-506 (hase
laring-pla she work of Karahi).
For comprehensive references sce Akiea Yuyams, Eugdne Burnowf. The Background to His
Research mo the Laas Stra. Bibles Pilologca et Pilosophica Baddhic, TD, Takyo 2000,
[589] 182 0..von Hinitber
Hybrid Sanskrit by Franklin Edgerton (1885-1963). Needless to say, Sir Harold
Bailey (1899-1996) also contributed considerably tothe understanding of the
Buddhist vocebulary in his review of Edgerion’s dictionary and elsewhere.* All
this, however, was almost half a century ago. Consequently, it may be useful to
look back atthe quite impressive progress which has been made in recent years,
largely a5 a result of Edgerion’s work, and to look forward in orerto get an im-
pression ofthe huge amount of work which sill remains tobe done
‘What, then isthe Buddhist Sanskrit vocabulary? A comprehensive definition
othe particular section of the vast ocean of Sanskrit words which might be des-
cribed as ‘Buddhist vocabulary” would include all words found in Sanskrit texts
ever composed by Buddhists, at least in so far as they are preserved today and
accessible either as edited books or atleast in the form of facsimiles
‘We sil today see less than we might, because many texts ae not yet edt
and many more have disappeared completely, atleast in their original language,
50 that they are (oa large extent, though of eouse by no means completly, lst
to the study of the Buddhist Sanskrit vocabulary. On the the other hand, we pro-
bly see more of the Buddhist vocabulary than the Buddhists themselves ever
id, For no Buddhist using his texts for religious purposes, forthe study of
Buddhist philosophy or for Keeping the monastic rues in everyday life, or simply
reading Buddhist narratives for pleasure, had accesso, or perhaps even wished to
have access to, s0 many texts fom so many periods and so many places as we do
today. Obviously, a Newar Buddhist inthe 19h century saw and used Buddhist,
‘Sanskrit literature in quite a different way from a Mahasarpghika monk in Bami-
yin, who again would know othe texts than did NSgazjuna in South india. There-
fore, any one Buddhis’s understanding of whet the Buddhist Saskrt vocabulary
really was would necessarily have differed both from tat of snother Buddhist at
another time and place and even mere so from our present-day perception. At the
present time the Buddhist vocabulary can for the first cime be seen as a whole
{hough with enormous gaps due othe well-known heavy losses of text). I is
largely de tothe vast panorama now opened before our eyes that this array of
words of very mixed origin and various linguistic shapes reveals itself asa still
‘more complex ensemble than it would have appeared toa Buddhist in the past. n
4 way itresembles a town heavily damaged by decay, neglect and destruction, in
‘which a Roman temple is located next t a Norman cathedral overbuil in Gothic
Style, and in whieh the railway station is Indo-Saraceni, ot perhaps rather in
which the Bhishut sta stands side by side with those of Takt-i-BAht, Amass-
‘atl and Svayambhnath witha! their architectural alterations made in the course
3 Frain Edgerton, BuddhinHybrid Santi Grammar and Dictionary, New Haven 1953
4 HL W. Bales, “Budi Sanaa, JRAS, 1955: 1526
5 Among the more inyoruntconribations, Heimer Smith, ‘En marge du vocabulaice sansrit des
boudahines' OrienalaSuecan, 2, 1953 119-238; 3, 1984 31-8; 4, 1985 109-13, perhaps desevee
vw besinged
[590]
‘THE VOCABULARY OF BUDDHIST SANSKRIT 153
of time. In the same way as these monuments were built and rebuilt time and
dain, ou texts were composed and edited in different tyes, periods, and places.
Ta contrast to these monuments, however, which stil stand on the spot where
they were buil—even if a large part of the Amaravatlstpa is of course better
seen inthe British Muscum today—our texts are never found atthe place where
they were actually composed, rarely even in the place where the surviving manu-
scrips were copied. Consequently, any investigation of their vocabulary is ham
‘ered in the first place by the absence of reliable information about the exact pro-
‘enance ofthe manuserits in respect ofboth the time and the Place of copying.
‘We could be much beter informed about the origin of our manuscripts if more
attention had been paid to this aspect of the Buddhist tradition. For example, a
systematic collection and edition of the numerous colophons to Buddhist man-
Scripts from the Pil period, which frequently mention the monasteries to which
they once belonged, would certainly yield interesting results, even if quite a few
‘monasteries might be dificult to locate However, we can only establish the pro-
‘Yenance ofa manuscript fit has a colophon containing the pertinent information
tras in the exceptional case ofthe Gilgit manuscripts, if it was found on the spot
where it was copied. Very often, when neither type of information is availabe,
palacography provides a last chance to trace the origin of a manuscript in ime
and space, pointing to mediaeval Bengal, for instance, in the case of the unique
Bhikgunf-Vinaya manuscript discovered in Tibet.
"A further crcial pot isthe number of copies extant. A single undated copy
such a the Bhikgun-Vinaya manuseript provides only an uncertain point in time
very roughly determined by palacography. For reasons unknown, and of course
{ite accidental, the surviving information on the manuscript tradition thus
begins and ends atthe same time. In such a case the content ofthe tex, pat-
culrly references to reali, to the environment of an author or redactor, may
Under favourable circumstances, allow at least a blurred view of ahistorical back-
‘round.
"Although the Bhiksunt-Vinaya? was copied in Bengal, norhwestem traces can
be observed when such atypical item as a bhdrjachatra, BRVin §226 = 258.5,
© Only afew clophons wee wie, by Inunu Bagchi, The Mistry and Culture of the Plas of
‘england Bihar, Deh 199; many?) mre me preserved, bt nacesible presen in Pla ma
‘cris in Chie. resins a open qoeston What impact these would have ox our anderstanding of
the history ofthe Pils dyoany for which ee Gouriswar Bhatachays, ‘Newly Discovered Copper
‘Plate Grants ofthe Pala Dynasty’ in Festa Klaus Brahn, Rinbek 1994 195-224,
‘Gast Roth (et) Bhikun-Vineya incuding the Bhigun-Prairaka and o Surnary of the Bhi-
Ic Prato ofthe dry Mahdsimghike Lotonaravadin. Tibetan Sask Werks Sene, 12, Pama
1970 (er. 3 W de Jon, "Notes on he Baikgur-vnay ofthe Mahdsknghika’ in Buddhist Sues
I Honour of B. Horner, Dock 1914 370, oe inBudzhi Sraies by J W. de Jog. Bee
ley 199.297 304. v. Hinder, OLZ, 72, 1977: 5269, 1. Brough, BSOAS, 3, 1973: 675-1] andG.
Roth, Nachrag nur Eton dea Baikpl-Viays et Arya-Mabasghite Lokotaavadin' in St
‘den ar Indologie nd Budabimustande Fesiabe fr H. Becher. Indica et Tie 2, Bora 1993,
229-38 Nolo) Reples de diciptine des monet bouddhisies,Pabiations de Ving de Cv
[591] 1s 0. von Hiniber
“birch-bark umbrella’ is mentioned inthe definition of chatra, when aj and ust,
BhiVin §252 = 294.4 are enumerated amongst the animals giving milk for pro-
‘ducing curds, o when a drdksdvana, BhiVin §233 = 268,20 ‘vineyard’ is listed as
‘one of the possible forms of groves. These items are missing in the Mahi-
‘lmmghika parallel as preserved in Chinese translation."
Funbermore, when considering the famous comparisons? given by the Buddha
‘when he—erroncously as we know today—described the disastrous effects onthe
‘duration of his teaching once women are admitted, the Theravidavinaya has the
‘words seynathd pi. sampanne sdlikthete... Vinayapitaka (Vin) 1 256,21 ‘as in
‘ripe rice field’ and seyyathd pi. taldkassa. im bandheyya .. Vin Tl 256,29
“as one would build a dam for a tank’, where the Bhiksuni-Vinaya uses yava-
Jarane, BhiVin §8 = 10,1 ‘in a harvest of barley" and parvatasamksepe setum
‘bandheyya, BhiVin §12 = 16,18 ‘would build a dam in «gorge in the mountains”
‘This clearly points to an area where barley is grown and where there are moun-
tains and, taken together with the information on umbrellas etc, points to north-
westem India. Consequently, the wording of the Bhiksuni-Vinaya as we have it
was at some point shaped inthis part of india, certainly not in Bengal, where the
single extant manuscript was copied to be later exported to Tibet.
‘Observations ofthis kind, however, never provide any information on the time
when such northwester features intruded into our text. Although the chronology
ofthe textual tradition isa crucial point also forthe history of the vocabulary, the
palacography only helps us to guess the age ofthe extant copes, leaving usin no
position 1o draw any conclusions about the age of the text as such. This is so even,
if we are lucky enough to know an early dated version such as Dharmaraksa's
(Chinese translation ofthe Saddharmapundarikasitra (dated 286 A.D.), which at
least fixes a point in time. This text is of course exceptionally well documented
cover a period beginning with Central Asian manuscripts such as the recently pub-
lished Lishun manuscript" of the Sth century A.D. and ending as recently as
during the last century in Nepal. In spite of these unusually lucky circumstances
Usain indienne, fac, 6, Pais 191 (Ret: 1 Flor, BEFEO, 79,1992 298; . Chojaek,
SOAS, $6,199: ISAT; J, W.de Song, 11,37, 1984: 375-8, Rosh, OFZ, 90, 1995: 207-15}: Beis
(Oguibénine, "Lexicon and Graranar i he Tess of he Mabtstraghika-Lokotar Ain’ Leo
‘raphy rhe indian and Budahit Cura il Proceedings ofthe Covference athe University of
‘Srmaburg 25 27 April 1995, Seas Tbe. Quellen und Siden 2a sbeicen Lexcopaphie,
44 Monich 1998: 75.87; Yomi Ousaks and Moric Yaruzaka, Bhibuy:-Vinaya, Word Indes and
‘Reverse Word Inder, Pilogca Asiaica Monograph Series, 18, Tokyo 2002.
Akin Hirakawa .) MonaticDicipine forthe Budhit Nuns. Tibetan Sanskrit Woks Series, 21,
Pata 1982, p. 327 where only ‘snihads of bac’ ae mentioned), 338 and 37 respectively.
9 "Tyee ae no found inthe Mattaaghita veo bere, Hiram [se previous nt) p48 m3
10 A map showing the area in which baley is growa in India oday may be found in The Imperial
Gaver of indi, Vol. XXVI: Ata, London 1931, PL. 17, el: Ashok K, Dut and M. Margret
(Geib, Fully Amotaed Ala of South Aaa, Londen 1987 SS.
TP fang Zhongain (ed) Sanstrit Lon Sutra Fragment rom the Lichun Museum Collection
Facsinde Edition and Romanized Tet, Lish and Tokyo 1997
[592]
‘THE VOCABULARY OF BUDDHIST SANSKRIT 155
‘we are nevertheless completely in the dark about the place and the time of the
‘original composition ofthis text!”
Tks, of couse, a very general feature ofthe Indian and Buddhist text tradition
that neither the dte of the eriginal, the ‘Urtext’ nor the geographical area where
it was composed and developed are known for ceria, This is true not only inthe
realm of anonymous literature, but perhaps more often than not also for works by
wellenown, even famous, authors such as ASvaghosa. The degre to which
such erucial historical data ae absen in India becomes only 00 obvious once one
compares te situation in ancient and mediaeval Europe. * Here, i is not unusual
to find fast large number of manuscripts surviving with a well-documented
crigin and chronology. Moreover, the ‘density’ of the tradition is usually much
higher i the West than in India, both in terms ofthe longer sequence of manu
scripts containing a specific text and in terms of the much smaller area over
which the texts are transmitted.
Even this superficial comparison suggests thatthe Buddhist texts on which we
are working do indeed offer an exxremely rich vocabulary, but one which is very
poorly documented in various ways, forcing us to connect spots on the map sepa-
fated by hundreds if not thousands of miles, and very often several centuries in
‘edition, 0 that our work has to bridge frightful distances in bo space and time.
In tis somewhat desperate situation, conclusions based on the history of the
Buddhist vocabulary are almost inevitably rather speculative. However, before
abandoning the study ofthe Buddhist Sanskrit vocabulary altogether as result of
‘methodological serupes, we should consider another aspect ofthis vocabulary
which helps to make up for these obvious deficiences. This isthe quite special
approach of Buddhists tothe linguistic form oftheir canonical texts. AS is well
known, these are to a large extent ultimately based on Middle Indic originals,
which later were gradually assimilated to Sanskrit.
‘This process primarily affected canonical or paracanonical texts rather than
the Buddhist fdsiras. The language of the later is very close to, if not identical
‘with, classical or standard Paninian Sanskrit, so that this part of the Buddhist
‘vocabulary is in most respects much nearer 10 the general Indian philosophical
tradition than to the Tripitaka. Consequently, the task of describing and tracing
the typically Buddhist Sanskrit words inthe Buddhist Sdsras requires a different
approach, In ths aca, our interest will be focused on semantics, neither the pho-
‘etc shape of individual words nor their morphology being in any doubt as they
2 Cf. te perient remarks of G. Fussman, “Histoire du monde inden. Cours: Les Saturn.
pagar indica [et I, Annuaire du Collige de France. Resund des Cour et Teva, 1995-6:
"79-86; 1996-7. 769-83, exp, 7S, where ter important obervations are alio ade on this txt.
13-The problems of dering he tne and plac of Abvaghoya are biel cused by O. v. Hinder,
“ovige and Vanes of Buddhist Sasi in C, Calla (68) Dales dan les intratwes Ido
Aryennes, Paris 1989 381-67, 9p. 388
esc, es he aces "Hundsctifen’ (1989) an “Skspciam’ (1995) in Leiton des Mitelaiers,
Manic
[593] 156 0. von Hinder
‘are in the case of the canonical vocabulary. I is because of its Middle Indic con-
nections and the lack of grammatical standardisation that the vocabulary of the
‘canonical texts offers such a broad and fruitful basis for a study of linguistic his-
tory, though of course here too semantics must not be neglected,
‘These special features of the canonical Sanskrit vocabulary as well as of the
‘canonical language as a whole, was observed long ago by the Buddhists them-
selves! and even defended:'® yogi Sabdapaiabdena dharmam grhnati yatnatah
“A yogi zealously grasps the Dharma through grammatical and ungrammatical
words’ (Paramadibuddha); apaiabdad artham api yogi grhndti desabhdgatah |
‘oye payo nivistam pibanti hamsas tad uddhrtya ‘A yogi grasps the meaning even,
from vernaculars and ungrammatical words. Geese draw out and drink milk
‘mixed with water’ (Vimalaprabha). Stil, they were criticised occasionally also by
‘Hindus such as the philosopher Kumari inthe 7th century, who scomtfully com-
‘mented on Buddhist and Jaina texts alike in his statement asddhufabdabhiyisthah
‘Sdlya-jaindgamadayah, Tantravartika 1.1.12," hinting atthe lack of standards
tion pervading Buddhist canonical texts as perceived from the perspective of
Paninian grammar. '* Having cast off the feters of Panini's rules, the Buddhists
‘were no longer bound by any limits, but free to create new words and forms.
‘This freedom opened up a rich opportunity to mould texts linguistically in
various ways and for various purposes. The Buddhists naturally availed them
selves of these opportunities in a creative manner and soon seem to have found
the linguistic freedom useful as a way of marking the identity of their various
schools. The linguistic shape of Buddhist Sanskrit words is largely determined by
the school which used (even if it did not create) a particular text. In order to cha-
‘acters the affiliation of a text to one particular school, a Buddhist author was
able to utilise a variety of linguistic means. In addition to specific words typical
of and formed in his own school, he had at his disposal particular literary style,
typical formulae, oF even a characteristic form of literary composition. '9 All this
5 Cf the remarks of D.SeyforRoegs, ‘Allusivenes and Obiqsenes in Bada Ten: sand,
sah, sandy and abhisamdh’, nC Calla (04) Dialects dans les Litéranres Ind Aryenes,
Pars 1985: 295328, ep. 296, where atenin is drava ote erm dra wed by Kurs ©
designate specifi forms found in Budi language. BY wing the ten “Baddhise Ana’ following
[Newman (sep. 123 ofthe work cited in the next ote, one can avoid the misediog “Boddhist,
ton whichis patlary awkward for ets of Edgens “Group which ee
eral nt Saki but rater “Hyd Pa ef sso D.SeyfonRuegg. AOS. 118, 1998: S53.
1S Quote fom ihe Kalscaka litera nd tale by Jokin Newnan on pp. 1280 of “Buddhist
Sanssit inthe Kalsakra Tata JABS, 11/1988: 123-40, p. 464 of Naayan Hermanas
Seman, “Arhavinieayenibandhana. A Say of Some Badaist Saket Wont’ a Kameshvar
[Nath Misr (et Apert of Budi Sati, Sarnath 1995: 46074
"owe mi rference omy fend Albrecht Weaker, Harbury
"8 ako Jotumnes Broskhor, “Boda Hybrid Sansrit The Original Language’, o Kameshwar
ah Mite (e) Apects of Bur Sanit, Sarah 1993: 36-414
0, v. Hinder, Enaehang und Aifba der Jasta Sammlung. (Suen tur Literatur des Thera
da Buddhism 2) AAWLM, 198, No.7: 210,
[594]
‘THE VOCABULARY OF BUDDHIST SANSKRIT 157
‘means that besides specific ways of wearing the monastic robes and carrying the
‘alms bowl, or using a staff of a characteristic shape.” the texis—and not only
their contents but also their vocabulary—were an important part of the identity of
any Buddhist school.
‘The unique freedom enjoyed by Buddhist authors in forming new words
originated in the idea of recasting the originally Middle Indic texts in Sanskrit
instead of translating them. The motive behind this choice is hard to guess! For
the results produced by this procedure are quite mixed, On the one hand we have
Pali, which was very loosely approximated to Sanskzit by replacing words such
as *bahana by brdkmana or by using absolutives ending in -rvd, and on the other
texts from Edgerton's group II such as the Jtakamali, in which almost P&ninian
Sanskzt prevails. Therefore we cannot be sure whether the intention from the
very beginning was the creation of a true Sanskait text.
It is however certain that the guiding principle was not to achieve a true trans-
lation, but a phonetic transposition, if not a mere graphic assimilation to Sanskrit.
For even where the metre obstructed a straightforward transposition into Sanskrit,
the graphic appearance of a Sanskrit word was chosen. The following line from
the Udinavarga is one of almost innumerable examples: =
‘na tena thero {so} hoti, Dip 260 : na tavada theru bhodi, KDp? X11
sthero na tdvatd bhavati, Gv XI 118%: sthaviro na tavata bhavati, Uv XI la,
‘The text of the Udanavarga vulgate isto be read metrically as
showing the Middle Indic thero and hoti behind the respective Sanskrit words.
Although the fundamental principle of ‘phonetic’ transposition could result in
Middle Indic words in Sanskrit disguise, asin this verse, where the correspon
because it corresponds to either varga or, asthe opposite to samagga/ samagra,
also to vyagra. Now, in the Eleventh Samghidisesa dealing with monks follow-
ing a samghabhedaka monk in his vicious activities, Pali anuvattakd vagga-
vadaka, Vin I 175, 14*°f., corresponds to anuvartino yyagravddina in the
Sarvistivada,® sahdyakd anuvartino vyagravaditdydm in the MUlasarvastivada2?
but to vargavddakd anuvartakdh in the Mahdstmghikalokottaravida”* Prati-
moksasitras. This confirms the observations of Oldenberg, in whose time, of
‘course, only the Theravadavinaya was known. The Theravadins explain the word
as tassa .. pakkhdya thitd honsi, Vin I 175, 33, which points to an under-
standing vargavddaka ‘partisan’ rather than to vyagravddaka ‘preaching discord’
in contrast to samagga *harmony'
‘The second word is the non-technical praghhara, which was discussed by
‘Theodor Zachariae (1851-1934) in 1883, when he discovered the true origin of
Pali pabbhdra ‘slope’ in the Vedic word hvara ‘bent, crooked’. This explanation
‘was, unfortunately, overlooked by F. Edgerton in his dictionary, as it was earlier
by T. W. Rhys Davids (1834-1922) and W. Stede (1882-1958) in the Pali Text
Society's Pali English Dictionary in 1925. Both refer only to Pali pabbhara as
the basis of Buddhist Sanskrit prdgbhara, not to its Vedic origin This, however,
is crucial to understanding why the Buddhists committed an obvious mistake
here! They Sanskrtised their texts long after the Vedic vocabulary ceased to be
current, and thus can hardly be blamed for failing to recognise the correct
*sprakvdra.
Both these words, vyagra / varga and pragbhdra, were clearly created by
deliberate choice, particularly in the Pratimoksastitra They were both attempts,
25 Hermann Oldenberg, Bemerkungen eur Pili Grammat, 18: 324 [ope in Kleine Scefen,
Wiesbaden 1967; 1720)
28 See Georg v. Simecr (ed) Prisimokyasitra der Sarvstvadins, Te I. Abhandlongen der
‘Akademie de Wasenachaten in Gotingen. Pil-hst KE, Deine Folge, 238, Gotingen 2000; 172
27h isthe reading of the anpoblaed Peking maruseript, The et preserved in Gilgit hat only
sohiyl » Te ost potion ofthe text was wrongly reconstructed by AC. Banerjee, Two Buddhist
Vinay Texts in Sans, Prtimokya Sutra ond Bhitabarmay kya, Cleat 197: 19 (et rom
49.29, 1983: 1.
2 Namal Tati, Présimokgasrram, Tibetan Sanssit Works Series, 1, Pana 1975; 10
2 Theodor Zacurae, Beige tur indchen Lsicographe, Bern 1883: 60.
0 See ano M. Maytoler, Epmolopiches Warerback das Aldoarschn, I, Lig. 25, Heidelberg
1958, 5. prigbhra.
317s Snlar ease of misunderstood Vedic vocabulary i the wellown pédjita, corey and
‘fice explaiced by E Borooat a long ago a8 1844, bot ll discus tie and apn without
‘bw ig, forte (0 flat ime by A. Hetoman "On praia’ Buddhist Sues Review. 6),
1999: 519: sapone i ping 08 pues AE mph ny put Sa. (er
pce ad Lae See's rr Shand).
Simi, hisadharome, Vin V 11222 Paci LM (hasodhame, Sp 860.0) tuned into
Sarvrivadin wdatoharand,Paaysna LXIV v. Smson (sen. 26 above, p. 25) = MALaarvis-
[596]
‘THE VOCABULARY OF BUDDHIST SANSKRIT 159
attended by varying degrees of success, to reverse historical developments. At the
same time, this manipulation of the vocabulary interfered with its natural linguis-
tic development and thus resulted necessarily in the development of a language
with strong artificial components. This is particularly clear in morphology, where
‘a grammatical monster such as prddufcakarst could be introduced, as a specific
expression of the general past, by crossing aorist and perfect, the opposition of
‘orist and perfect having in any case ceased to exist.
‘Al the examples discussed so far show one common feature: they are words
‘or forms shaped deliberately. This means that we can outline their origin and
‘development by reconstructing the thoughts of the Buddhists who created them.
In other cases, where accidental changes are responsible for shaping the Buddhist
vocabulary it becomes a very difficult and at times controversial matter to draw 2
line of demarcation between those forms which must be recognised as part ofthe
Buddhist vocabulary and those which musi be considered as mere scribal mis-
takes and eliminated from the manuscript tradition as corruptions.
Immediately after Franklin Edgerton’s dictionary appeared, this important
aspect of Buddhist vocabulary and morphology was pointed out by John Brough
in a masterful review article. While setting an example of respectful criticism,
Brough provided an indispensible companion to Bdgerton’s work and to the study
of Buddhist Sanskrit in general with his remarks on the manuscript tradition of
Buddhist Sansirit texts, particularly those from Nepal. It may be recalled that one
of Brough's main examples demonstrating the fallacies of the manuscript tradi-
tion isthe aorist ending -etsuh, Edgerton had assumed that this ending genuinely
‘existed in Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit (or Buddhist Arsa) morphology. However, as
‘Brough rightly pointed out, the form is o be read and interpreted as the common
‘Middle Indic ending -ensuh. Consequently, it must be dropped from the descrip-
tion of Buddhist Sanskrit morphology.
[Errors ofthis kind based on a misinterpretaion of the script are of course by
‘no means limited to modem editors or readers of manuscripts. Not long ago,
Siegftied Lienhard discovered an excellent example of a new word which had its
crigin in a palaeographical error.» As a result ofthe similarity of the aksaras ra
and va in Newar script, the word varttikara ‘wick’ was changed into ratikara,
which became firmly rooted in the Nepalese manuscript tradition of the Karanda-
vyha, Although there can be no doubt that ratikara was a corruption. in accor-
dance with Lienhard’s brilliant argument, nevertheless, as he himself observes,
the ‘new word’ ratikara was so persistently used that it seems that it must have
‘Adin (Peking manuscrp), bot Mack hlaloorareviinwdataharytsonmardani, Pacaika
LXV! (eo red he photo nt cler fre second prof he word).
336.0. Hinder, “Orgin and Varies of Bad San” (cere 13),
4 Joka Brough "Te Langsage of Buddhist Sarat Texts’, BSOAS, 16,
Collected Paper, London 195: 130-54
5 Spfied Leah, “Avalkitevara inthe Wick ofthe Night Lamp’ I, 36,198: 93-408.
[597] 160 0. von Hiniiber
come to be accepted as a word ofthe Buddhist vocabulary. The context, which is
slightly erotic—Avalokilefvara waming the merchant Simhala that his beloved is
2 wilch—ceraily favoured the acceptance of ratikara, which could be interpre-
ted as ‘giving amorous pleasure’. Ths, context and pelacography worked happily
together to tum corruption into vocabulary. Subsequently, scribes and of course
‘also the Nepalese readers ofthe Karandavytha seem to have accepted the comrup-
tion asa new word. This necessarily resulted ina considerable alteration in the
meaning of the passage, although we ae a a loss to guess exactly how a reader
might have understood the new text. The coruption occurred too late to be really
made use of, ata time when new Buddhist Sanskrit texts, which might have
demonstrated the meaning of ratkara in diferent contexts, were no longer being
composed, and nobody so far has done any “field research’ by simply asking
Newar Buddhists ther opinion on rattara.
‘The development of ravikara is well documented and the number of manu-
scripts is crucial in demonstrating that this word really intruded into the accepted
Buddhist Sanskrit vocabulary. The situation is much more difficult when com-
parable developments are met with in fragmentary texts. Recently, during the
“Twelfth Conference ofthe Intemational Association of Buddhist Studies at Lau-
sanne, some fragments ofthe Scheyen collection were introduced by Kazunobu
Matsuda, among them a Fraviranstra fragment ™ In this text the Buddha is said
to have lived during the rains ‘niradbhute Bhiksusamghe’ tentatively translated
boy Matsuda a ‘in the rare community of monks". Of course nir-adbhuss at once
suggests a meaning connected to adbhuta, although no nir-adbhute seems to be
ested so far according tothe standard dictionaries. Sil, there is @ raze though
‘commonplace an-adbhuta ‘not wonderful’ listed in the Poo Dictionary.”? Thus
‘one could speculate that this nir-adohuta being apparendy synonymous with an-
‘adbhuta, might show the same strange semantic development as an-acchariya,
‘which supposedly means “very wonderful.%* However, in this particular case,
Sanskrit alone does not really give usa clue. For the wording niradbhuta Dhiksu
‘samgha is obviously built on an older expression preserved in Pali: nirabbuda
Dhitbusameho, Vin I 18,34
‘The meaning of Pali abbuda or Sanskrit arbuda i clear and well documented
in Buddhist texts, Originally, arbuda isa technical term for some sort of ulcer. It
is found in Sanshit medical literature and elsewhere inthis and other meanings,
36 This refers toe panel ‘New Discovery of Buddhist Manuscript’ organised by Jens Brag
‘26th August 199: Jens Brag, Jen Uwe Harman, Kazanoba Matsa, Lore Sander, “Budaist
‘Manusctsfom the Schayen Collection: Report on he New Discoveries fromthe Bamiyan Valley
in Afgunsta’s cf: also Jee Braarvig (ed) Buddh Manuserip Marusrgs ie Sehayen
{Gallecion, Oso 2000: 790.3.
STAM, Otaage etal, (ek) An Enyclpandic Dictionary of Sansrit on Historical Printpes, 1
{970- ¥ (9580 arama Pons»
8 Seep. 8 of ©, v. Hintber, “qthd anacchariyd asutopubba’ Zeuschef fir Verlechende
Spracforschung, 4, 170.10 (=. 22 of Selected Papert on Pall Studies, Oxford 1991724)
[598]
‘THE VOCABULARY OF BUDDHIST SANSKRIT 161
bout only Buddhists seem to use the word metaphorically to refer to moral impu-
rity, Thus, the community of monks is fee from impurities, which, according to
the Abhidharmakosa, is one of the preconditions for preventing a division ofthe
community (samphabheda)” Consequently, the Pravranisttra does not mention
2 rare community of monks’ bat ‘the community free from impurities
Although we can trace the origin ofmiradbhura quite easily, it remains
call to explain the Seaskritsation. First ofall there is again the problem of the
transmission of the tet: does niradbhuaa realy exist? For, the ligature rb being
rather remotely similar to dba, might simply have been misread by the scribe of
our single exant fragment. This explanation, however, is perhaps unlikely since
4 simultaneous change of ba to bha bas to be assumed.
‘Onthe other hand, asthe Abhidharmakosa shows, Sanskrit arbuda was known
to the Buddhists and sed also in its metaphorical sense, though this isnot ates-
ted as nirarbuda but in the phrase arbuddt parvam, Abhidh-k 262, 14, explained
by the AbhidharmakoSavyakhy8® as doso‘roudam. fit was rally the redactor
of the Pravaranisitra who resorted tothe Sanskrtisaton niradbhuta, why did he
do so and how did he understand his own creation? Neither question can be
answered a8 a result of lack of evidence. Unfortunately, the Chinese translation
does not help: the word was not included in the Chinese texts, perhaps because
the translators did not understand it. This assumption, of course, presupposes the
acceptance of the word niradbhuta by the tradition. The lack of any further e
dence precludes a solution ofthis problem.
in contrast, a well-documented word demonstrates how the Buddhists occa-
sionaly failed to make sense of a Middle indie word and atempled to establish
‘Buddhist Sanskrit frm in various ways in different traditions. The differing Bud-
dist Sanskrit shapes ofthe word mahesathya, with its rare variant mahetakya
and its opposite alpefdthya, are discussed at length by Edgerton, who also draws
attention to the Pali equivalent. An Buddhist Sanskrit the word i explained inthe
‘AbhidharmakosavyAkhy8 on alpeSdthyas iu durgandhihdro mahesakhyah
sugandhéharah, Abhidh-k 114 (Pradhan 21975: 125, 20) as alpedthyo‘nudaro
hinajtiya ity arthah pt titah.alpa ito ‘Ipesah.alpesa ity dkkya yasya so ‘pe
ryah. viparyaydn mahesalhyah, Abhidh-k-vy 279, 25-27 ‘alpeSakhya means
“oot high, ofa low cast. “Owning, ruling” means “he owns, rules”. "Owning,
ruling lite” isalpesa. He whose designation is “owning, ruling litle” is one who
is called “owning, ruling litle". The opposite is called “owning, ruling much”
‘Already in 1926 Louis de La Vallée Poussin: drew attention to this explanation,
2 Lous de La Vallée Pousin, L'Abhidharmatofe de Varubandh, I, Bruxelles 1927211 m5
OY Wogihas (od) Sphutrtha Abhidammakotany ath he Work of Yakamra, Tokyo 1936: 428,
192541. Tit explanation is als accept by he
Mabivyupati No 641: dbar-che-ba a bach bor ara
[599] 162 0. von Hiniber
which ix duly referred to in the Critical Pali Dictionary sv. appesaktha. Unfor-
tunately it was not heeded by any other scholar, again including Egerton. **
‘Although this interpretation may look a bit strange, there doesnot seem a fist
sight to be any need for funher discussion, because the overall meaning fis well
into the contexts quoted in Edgerton's dictionary. However, the slightly different
{form mahefakya found in two manuscrips ofthe Mahiparinirvanasttra® is obvi-
ously a variant of mahedakhya, though the relationship between the two forms is
difficult to explain The meaning seems to be mahagakya ‘very powerful’, which
also makes sense. Moreover, this latter form also occurs as a variant in the
Saddharmapundaritasita (SP 180,12) in he manuscripts found in Kashgar and
in Ni = No. All this reqizes some explanation, because variants such as this
usualy point to a problem of Sanskriisaton.
In PAL we find the same pair appesabha and mahesakiha explained quit dif-
ferenlly by the Theravada commentaries as appesatho ti appapatkho appa
parivéro, Papafcasidani V 14, 23 (on Maijhimanikiya Il 204, 35); appesaktha
#1 appaparivré, Manorathaptrani IM 10 (on: matugdmo ..appassako appabhogo
appesaktho, Aiguttaranikiya If 203, 3 (formula: 4+4+4)); and, slightly differ-
enily, appesabkha 1 bho pabbajid ndma appayasa.. Sumaigalaviltsint 669,
19 (on: pabbajid appesabthd, Dighanikaya Il 248, 20). Obviously, the Majhima-
‘bhinakas! understood the word ax ‘having few followers’, while to the Digh
‘bhagakas it meant ‘of litle fame". The Arigutarabhtnakas, finally, also seem to
Jenow the second meaning, as can be seen from the explanation yasavasena téva
‘ahesaktha devata, Manorathapirant 1 137,17. The later is indeed the explana-
tion followed, most likely correctly, by the Critical Pali Dictionary, where
‘appesaktha is derived from alpayasaska (a form which provided the -e- for
‘mahesaktha instead of the expected *mahdsaktha).If this is correct, the Digha-
bhinakas and Adguttarabhanakas preserve or at least minor the original and
correct derivation, while the Majhimabhtnakas merely give a meaning without
‘etymological background. At any rate this derivation, whichis also accepted in
the Critical Pali Dictionary, makes much more sense than the one suggested by
‘Yasomitra in his Abhidharmakofavyakhya,
2-74e word alto acute by Richard Gombich, How Buddhism Began, London 1996: 1S1f
wit ut 7 (comments by A. Seder.n)
‘B"gras Wallschmt (ed) Das Mahdparinirdnastira, INL. Aphandlungen der Deutschen
‘Atademie der Wisenschafon, PR-Ais. Kl, 190, No.1, Beri 1980, 1990, No.2, 1951; 1980, No
4 151 Rev: F. Eager, JAQS, 7, 1957: 227-32, $5.3 (Cf. 58. Te Tibetan elation che-bo
muh corresponds closely tothe Sans: cE. however Mayuipat, NO. G41 (xe note I above,
‘hich may india ifleret usages in cifeet shoots.
Tien Toda, Saddharmapundarilastra, Cental Avian Manuscript, Romanized Test, Tak
shina 1981 74a [Rew 1,25, 1985: 137-9
‘S Meauscript wed inthe facile eon, Sans Manuscript of Saddharmapundarta Collected
‘from Nepal, Kashmir and Central Ai, 12 vos, Tokyo 1977-1982 The confusion whereby the sg
fam Ny refer tothe manascrp described a Naw vice vers haben oie Ou ne tas once
Om he bhinatas tO. Hiner, A Handbook of Pall Leramre, Bet 1996, 9.
[600]
‘THE VOCABULARY OF BUDDHIST SANSKRIT 163
‘The variants maheSahya ! maheéakya moreover demonstrate a certain hesita-
tion as to the correct Sanskritisation of this word. The true meaning of both words
was always vaguely remembered, but their derivation was forgotten. The fact that
the derivation was not self-evident explains why Buddhist traditions, in Pali on
the one hand and in Sanskrit on the other, differ in their opinion. Its difficult to
tell whether there was a second split within the Sanskait tradition between make:
4ikhya and mahefakya, since the evidence does not seem sufficient to allow one
to draw any conclusions on the schoo! affiliation of the two forms. In this case, a
‘rather exact observation ofthe opinions of Buddhists at diferent times and places
is possible only because some relevant commentaries happen to be preserved.
Looking back over the few examples discussed here, we can get a picture of
the various kinds of evidence which would be required for a truly comprehensive
study of a Buddhist word, in an ideal philological environment, as it were. The
word should be attested in the only older Buddhist language which we possess,
that is, in Pali. In Buddhist Sanskrit it should preferably occur in several text,
‘These texts should have a variety of well-defined geographical origins, should
belong to different schools and should be attested by an long and unbroken line of
