F R A G M E N T OF A N U N K N O W N M A N U S C R I P T OF T H E

SADDHARMAPUN. .DARiKA
F R O M T H E N. F. PETROVSKY C O L L E C T I O N

by
G. M. BONGARD-LEVIN and E. N. TYOMKIN

Moscow

Leningrad

An unidentified fragment of a manuscript, written in upright Central Asian Br~hmi, is kept in the manuscript collection of the Leningrad Branch of the Institute of Asia of the USSR Academy of Sciences (Code: SI 6-~). The text is written in black Indian ink on a piece of yellowish paper 22 x 9.5 cm. The spacing is 1.5 cm. The size of characters is within the 1 x 1 cm limits, as a rule. The po.thi-type folio is only partially preserved and torn diagonally from the left to the top right angle. Along with other Buddhist texts this fragment was handed over to the former Asiatic Museum of the Russian Academy of Sciences by N. F. Petrovsky, who had acquired it in Kashgar in the 1890's. The text reads as follows: Recto: ... ... (III) ... (iv) ... (v) ... fro ... Verso:
(1~ . . .

(i) 0I)

ya.m k~gyapa buddhu bhe.syati, an~gate dhv~ni asa.mkhyi ip~rn.ako.tin~m, jin~nayam, drak.syati kggyapo hna pOj~.m dvipadottam~n~ .m sa te apratimo mahars.i.h iya.m suva ndha .m

(II~ ... hasrakot.a

(III) (IV) (V) (VI)

... ... ... ...

h~ni bhe.syam, ti sa dharmar~jina.h pramS.ha ye ~a antarakalpa sth~syati parip~rn.a vim. prabh~sasya viyQha bhes.yati 9 // atha khalv~yu

FRAGMENT OF AN UNKNOWN

Saddharmapun..darika-Ms.

269

270

G.M. BONGARD-LEVIN

and

E. N, TYOMKIN

FRAGMENT OF AY U ~ K N O W N

Saddharmapu.n.dar?ka-Ms.

271

,<
cq >-,

~A

',::1"

~2

d~

272

G.M. B O N G A R D - L E V I N

and E.

N. T Y O M K I N

t'q

t3

FRAGMENT OF AN UNKNOWN Saddharmapun..dafika-Ms.

273

In our opinion the text is a part of the Saddharrnapu~.dar~ka (chapter

v0.
The editors of the Saddharmapu.n.darika were not familiar with this fi'agment, which is a part of an unknown manuscript, and did not inelude it in their edition. The editors, H. Kern and Bunyiu Nanjio, along with other manuscripts, used the Kashgar manuscript of this text from the N. F. Petrovsky collection. 1 However, Prof. H. Kern, the well-known D u t c h scholar, overlooked some materials, among them folio 142 coinciding in its content with the fragment under review. H. Kern and Bunyiu Nanjio pointed out the absence of this folio in the Kashgar manuscript. 2 We were fortunate enough to discover, among the undescribed materials of the N. F. Petrovsky collection, a folio of the manuscript whose number was not preserved but which, as we have succeeded in establishing, is precisely folio No. 142 which was absent from the Kashgar manuscript? The size of the folio is 18 57.5 cm. The text is written in black Indian ink on a dark-yellow primed ruled piece of paper containing seven lines on each page. The size of characters is normally 1.5 1.5. The distance between the rules 2.5 cm. The left edge of the manuscript is damaged. Several initial characters are absent on each line. P Fragment SI 6-~' which, as has been mentioned above, is a part of an unknown manuscript of the Saddharmapu.n.dar~ka, and folio No. 142 of the Kashgar manuscript from the N. F. Petrovsky collection provide new readings for the verse part of the beginning of Chapter VI of the Saddharmapun..dar~ka. It appears relevant here to collate these texts with the critical edition of H. Kern and Bunyiu Nanjio taking into consideration the later Japanese edition as well? In spite of some differences between the readings of the Kashgar texts and those of the existing editions, the Kashgar manuscripts add a number of new, heretofore unknown variants important for the study of the 1 See Saddharmaput.~d.ar~ka (= Bibliotheca Buddhica, X), edited by Prof. H. Kern and Prof. Bunyiu Nanjio (St.-Pt., 1912), p. V. 2 Saddharmapu.n.darfka, p. 145. 3 Besides this folio, the undescribed materials of the N. F. Petrovsky collection contain more than 100 unnumbered folios of the Kashgar manuscript which, unfortunately, escaped the attention of H. Kern and other scholars who studied the text. 4 Wogihara U. and Tsuchida C., Kaitei Bonbun Hokeky6, Saddharmapu.nd.arikasgttram, Romanized and Revised Text of the Bibliotheca Buddhiea Publication (Tokyo, 1934-1935). Photomechanically reprinted in 1958. Thanks to the courtesy of Prof. J. W. de Jong we could familiarise ourselves with the necessary excerpt of the Japanese edition of this text. We are very grateful also to Mr. Akira Yuyama for his remarks on the readings of the text and on the notes.

274

G.M. BONGARD-LEVINand E. N. TYOMKIN

Saddharmapu.n.darika. The new variants are particularly valuable because the Kashgar manuscripts of the Saddharmapu.nd.ar~ka are much older than the Nepalese ones which were chiefly used by Prof. H. Kern and Prof. Bunyiu Nanjio in their edition. They contain a number of Prakritisms and cases of wrong Sanskritisation which are important for the study of the original text of the Saddharmapu.n.darTka. The influence-of Apabhram. ~a on the language of the Kashgar manuscripts can be traced. According to Prof. H. Kern, the Kashgar versions are more original than the Nepalese ones? It is quite evident that the scientific study of the Saddharmapun..darika should be based on the Kashgar manuscript from the N. F. Petrovsky collection and on the facsimile edition which the authors of the present note intend to publish in the nearest future. The first publisher of the text, Prof. H. Kern, considered the fulfilment of this task most desirable.

5 See Saddharmaputl.darika, ibid., p. IX.

T h e t e x t according to H . Kern a n d B u n y i u Nanjio's edition The p a g e s 141B a n d 1 4 2 A , B o f the K a s h g a r manuscript f r o m the N. F. P e t r o v s k y collection Fragment SI&

pagyfimyaham, bhik.sava buddhacak.sus.~ s t h a v i r o h y a y a m k ~ @ a p a b u d d h a bhes.yati / pagy~,myaha .m bhik.savaksava ~ buddhacaks.u.sS, s t h a v i r o hyayam, k~tgyapa b u d d h u ~ bhe.syate anO_gate dhv~ni 4 ... s a m k h y P k a l p e k r t v h n a b a h u ptija 6 t a t h f i g a t h n g m 7 tri .mga.msahasr~h. paripfirn.akot.i.., s ~m. j i n ~ n aya.m drak.syati k ~ g y a p o h y a y a m cari.syate 9 t a t r a ca b r a h m a c a r y a .m b o d d h a s y a ~ j f i g n a s y a . . . t e n a bhik.suh, n / 2 / k r t v ~ n a pf@.m dvipadottam~nO_mm ~ s a m u d ~ n i y a ~ j f i ~ n a m i d a .m h y a n u t t a r a m ~ sa ... fi~cayi 1~ l o k a n ~ y a k o ~6 bhavis.yat? r a p r a t i m o mahar.si? s [2/~ ks.etram, ca e t a s y a va ~ ... bhavis.yati vicitra p a r i g u d d h a ~a s u d a r g a n i y a m manojfiart~pa .m s a d a pren.maniyam. ~ s u v a . . , sgtrai s a m a l a m k r t a m ca /4/ r a t n g m a y ~ vrk.sa bahfininek59 ~ a.s.tgpadasmi tahi e k a ... m m a n o j f i a g a n d h a .m s a d a room. cam~nfi bhe.syamti k.setrasmi i m a s y a za b h i k s o ~s /5/ pus.paphale ~ p r a p h t a g v a b h r a ~s n a b h a v a .mti k.setre p r t h i v i ~9 s a . . . s y a t i darganiy~.h /6/ tahi b o d h i s a t t v f i n a s a h a s r a k o t . a y a ~. sudfintacitt~na ... h a r d d h i k f i n o vaitulyaZ~sOtrgntadhar~n.a t~yin~m b a h a n P z b h e s y a n t i sahasranekfi ... n~srav~ a n t i m a d e h a d h g r i . n o b h e s y a t i ss ye g r a v a k a dharmar~jina.h sa pramg.na ye za . . . h a kad~ci v i d y a t e d i v y e b h i cak.sObhi a6 gan. itva k a l p a ~7/8/ sa d v g d a g a as a n t a r a k a l p a sth~syati p a ... p~r.na z9 vi .mgac ca s a d d h a r m a sthasyati prasthfisyati a pratirfipakan.a chparavim, ga s t M s y a t i r a . . . p r a b h ~ s a s y a viytqha bhes.yati /9/ a t h a k h a l v ~ y u s m ~ .mt al s t h a v i r a / / //. ...hasrako.ta ... hfini a2 bhe.sya .mti sa . . . . . . dharmar~jina.h ~ pram~,n, a ye 3~ ... malam, krta.m ca v i c i t r a p u s p h e b h i ~v s u g o b h a m ~ n a . m ...ndham. .... iyam. s u v a

... ya.m k g @ a p a b u d d h u z bhe.syati a n g g a t e d h v ~ n i asam. k h y i ~ .... ipf~rn, ako.tingm s j i n g n a y a m drak.syati k~gyapo . . . g n a paj~m, d v i p a d o t t a m ~ n ~ m , sa ...te 17 a p r a t i m o mahar.si.h

a n ~ g a t e 'dhvfini a s a g t k h y a k a l p e k r t v g n a p~j~ .m d v i p a d o t t a m ~ n g m // 1

t r i m gatsahasr~.h parip~rn.akot.yo jinfinaya .m d r a k s y a t i k h g y a p o h y a y a m /

cari.syati t a t r a c a b r a h m a c a r y a m , b a u d d h a s y a jfifinasya k.rtena b h i k . s a v a h / / 2

krtvfina paj~m, d v i p a d o t t a m ~ n a m samud~.niya jfi~namidam, a n u t t a r a m / sa pa~cime c o c c h r a y i l o k a n ~ t h o b h a v i s y a t e a p r a t i m o m a h a r . s i h / / 3

k.setra .m ca t a s y a pravaram, bhavi.syati vicitra g u d d h a m g u b h a d a r g a n i y a m /

manojfiarfipam, s a d a premat3iya.m suvar.nasfitraih, samalam, k.rtam c a / / 4

r a t n ~ m a y ~ vrk.sa tahi .m vicitr~ a st.apadasmi .m tahi e k a m e k e /

m a n o j ~ a g a n d h a .m ca v i m u f i c a m g n ~ b h e s y a n t i ks.etrasmi i m a s m i b h i k s . o / / 5 pu.spaprakhrai.h samala.mk.rtam ca vicitrapus.pairupa~obhitam, c a /

g v a b h r a p r a p a t h n a ca t a t r a santi s a m a .m givam, bhe.syati d a r g a n i y a m / / 6

tahi b o d h i s a t t v ~ n a sahasrako.tyal) s u d h n t a c i t t h n a m a h a r d d h i k h n ~ m /

vaipulyast~trfintadharg~)a tfiying .m bahfi b h a v i s y a n t i s a h a s r a n e k e / / 7

an~sravfi antimadehadh~rin, o bhe.syanti ye gr~.vaka d h a r m a r ~ j f i a . h /

pramg.nu tesgm, n a kadfici v i d y a t e d i v y e n a jfifinena ga.nitva k a l p ~ n / / 8

so d v h d a g a a n t a r a k a l p a I sthhsyati s a d d h a r m a vi .mg~,ntarakalpa s t h f i s y a t i /

... ga~s a n t a r a k a l p a sthfisyati paripfirn.a 3s vi.m ... p r a b h f i s a s y a viyt~ha b h e s y a t i 9 // atha khalvayu

pratirf~paka~cgntarakalpavi.mgati r a g m i p r a b h ~ s a s y a v i y ~ h a b h e . s y a t i / / 9

a t h a k h a l v a y u . s m g n m a h f i m a u d g a l y ~ y a n a . h sthavira ...

According to the Errata on page 492. Bhik.savak.sava instead of bhik.yava. Most probably, a copyist's mistake. Buddhu instead of buddha. It is noteworthy that this reading, characteristic of Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit (BHS), is repeated in the two different manuscripts from Kashgar. Such a form is possibly a result of the influence of Apabhra .toga. H. Kern failed to note this reading and referred only to the manuscript of the Royal Asiatic Society. On forms like buddhu see F. Edgerton, Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary, vol. 1.8.20. Folio 141 ends here. The dots before the text that follows designate the beginnings of lines which were not preserved on folio 142AB. " ~ In both Kashgar manuscripts asamkhyi is irregular Loc. Sg. of asa~.nkhya characteristic of BHS. The edition of H. Kern and B. Nanjio notes asamkhyeya and asa.mkhyeye (according to the manuscripts of the Royal Asiatic Society and Watters' manuscript). U. Woglhara and C. Tsuchida give no variants. See Edgerton, BHS, 1.8.59. Paja instead of classical p~jd.m. A BHS form, common in verses. See Edgerton, 1.9.19. with a reference to Mv. III. 140.23 : k!'tva ... p~tjajine.su; puja karoti; Gv. 215.3 : pravartayi pgja jindndm, 231.18. 7 The Kashgar manuscript of N. F. Petrovsky has tathdgata instead of dvipadottama. Judging by the absence of indications relating to this variant, the editors did not come across this reading in the manuscripts at their disposal.

~ Samuddniya; the long final a is obviously determined by the metre. The length of final a (d) is possible in BHS. ~4 Hyanuttaram instead of anuttaram is evidently caused by the metre; a.m is already long in BHS. 1~ ,,1-gcayi - ? in The Kashgar manuscript of N. F. Petrovsky has lokandyaka instead of lokandtha. In the manuscripts used by H. Kern and B. Nanjio this reading did probably not occur. The footnotes give no reference to other variants. The same in the Japanese edition.

Inst.P1. pu$pehi, Vedicpu.spebhis); divyebhi (in 8th ~loka) instead of divyena (according to H. Kern). This must be divyehi after Sanskritization: divyebhi. ~s Prapdtagvabhra instead of gvabhraprapdta must be a copyist's mistake. 2~ P.rthivi Nora. Sg. Fern. It is possible to restore sa[ma bhe]syati and dar~aniyd[.h]. In that case the translation would be slightly different from that based on the text of Kern's and Wogihara's editions: "And the land will be smooth and beautiful". ~0 The visarga is absent which is either due to the influence of the Prakrit which underlays the Gftthfts (see Kern, ibid., pp. X-XI) or to a copyist's mistake. The form kot.aya[.h] instead of the more regular kot.ya.h is most interesting and occurs in both Kashgar manuscripts. See Edgerton, 1.10.152-153; 10.162 with reference to kot.ya.h. 3i Vaitulya instead of the equivalent vaipulya adopted by H. Kern and B. Nanjio. H. Kern cited this reading in the list of variants characteristic of the Kashgar manuscript, p 32 The text of Fragment SI ~ coincides with the Kashgar manuscript. Bah~ni instead of bah~ adopted by H. Kern and U. Wogihara, Bah~ni is the restored Sanskritization of the regular bah~. Probably this reading has been chosen in order to restore the metre. 8a Bhesyati instead of bhe~yanti. This could have been possible in Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit, but is contrary to the metre. Probably a mistake of the copyist. 34 The texts of tile Kashgar manuscripts coincide. The form dharmardfina.h is a Prakritic form, evidently a North-Western one. Both variants are metrically possible. a~ In our opinion it is necessary to restore pramd.na ye[sdm] na kaddci vidyate. The final a in pramS.ha instead of u is possible. See footnote 3. s~ The translation is: "divine eyes" instead of "divine knowledge". The metre is correct. 37 Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit kalpd instead of regular kalpdn. 38 Instead ofdvdda~a in the edition of H. Kern and B. Nanjio. The Japanese scholars have suggested dvdda~o. The manuscript of Petrovsky and Fragment SI ~ confirm the variant adopted by H. Kern and B. Nanjio. 62A
39

8 Thanks to Fragment SI 6@Athe reading in folio 142A: kot.indm which " different from that accepted by H. Kern and U. Wogihara is restored. Both variants are possible in the context, although the agreement of the numerals with the adjoining words is different. The fact that both manuscripts textually coincide ctearly indicates that kot. indm must be the right reading. Cari~.yate instead of eari.syati results from the mixing of the middle and active voices in the Middle Indian period. H. Kern and U. Wogihara have i which is possible for BHS (see Edgerton 1.26.2) and which corresponds to the metre. The variant of the Kashgar manuscript atso corresponds to the metre. ~o Boddha instead of bauddha according to the editions of H. Kern and U. Wogihara. ~ The reading bhik.su.h corresponds to the metre. ~ The superfluous ~.n is a copyist's mistake.

17 In Fragment SI ~ -[bhavisya]-te which corresponds to the metre. The variants of H. Kern and U. Wogihara are correct. ~8 The absence of visarga, which is present in H. Kern's edition and in the fragment, is possibly a copyist's mistake. ~9 Sic in the manuscript. Possibly, a copyist's mistake. Should have been Numeral 3. ~0 The reading etasya allows to restore va[ra.rn], which corresponds to the metre. 2~ The edition of H. Kern and B. Nanjio points out that dubha is left out in the manuscript belonging to Ekai Kawaguchi (just as in the present manuscript). The authors of the Japanese edition follow the reading of H. Kern. In the N. F. Petrovsky manuscript the metre is correct. 2~ The copyist's mistake is evidently to be explained by a dialectal pronunciation. 23 BahOni instead of vieitrd. The second n in bahaninekd may be an intervocal prothetic consonant or bahfminekd is bahfmi " ~k24 hnasya (gen.) instead of Prakrit ima.mhi (loc.); the translations are slightly different: k.setrasmi imasmi "in this field"; k.setrasmi imasya "in his field". The first variant is preferable. Both variants are possible as far as the metre is concerned. 2~ Bhiks.o in both editions. See Edgerton, 1.12.63 for this place. A Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit form resulting from the coincidence of the a- and u- declensions. In their comments on the word, H. Kern and B. Nanjio cited other possible emendations: bhik.sa.h or bhiksavo. The Kashgar manuscript of Petrovsky confirms the adopted variant. z6 It is possible to restore pu.spaphale[bhiO] [sa]mala.mk.rta.m by analogy, although it does not correspond to the metre. ~7 Irregular form pusphebhi from puspebhi. Pu.spebhi instead of puspais (Cf. Prakritic

Thanks to the text of Fragment SI ~ we can restore in the ninth line of folio 142B of the Kashgar manuscript parip~roa which corresponds to the metre. 4a Repetition: sthdsyati prasthdsyati. Probably a copyist's mistake. 41 So in MSS.