Geen zoekvraag opgegeven

Onderstaande tekst is niet 100% betrouwbaar

sadevasuragandharve nasti me pratipudgalah. 1 Jina hi madrga jneya ye prapta asravaksayam,

jita me papaka dharmas tenopa(ka) Jino [hy] aham.

'I he following verses, taken from Mahavagga and Lalita-vistara 1. c., have likewise the same origin, notwithstanding some variations:

dhammacakkam pavattetum gacchami Kasinam puram, andhabhütasmi lokasmim ahanhi amatadudrabhim.


Varanasïm gamisyami gatva vai Kagikam purïm,

andhabhütasya lokasya kartasmy asadrgïm 2 prabham.

Varanasïm gamisyami gatva vai Kagikam purïm,

gabdahïnasya lokasya tadayisye 3 'mrtadundubhim.

Varanasïm gamisyami gatva vai Kagikam purïm,

dharmacakram pravartisye lokesv aprativartitam.

An important passage on the divinesightoftheBuddha in Lalita-vistara, p. 439 seq., almost literally occurs in the Samannaphala-Sutta, ashasbeen pointed out by Burnouf. 4

These few examples I have chosen will sufftce to prove that the material of a Mahavaipulya Sütra is partly as old as that of any other sacred book of the Buddhists. The language of the prose part of those Sfltras does not differ from that used in the simple Sütras of the Northern canon. Should the Sanskrit text prove to be younger than the Pali text, then we may say that we do not possess the Northern tradition in its original shape. That result, however, affords no criterion for the distinction between the simple Sütras and the Mahavaipulya Sütras, forboth are written in the very same Sanskrit, if we except the Gathas.

It would lead me too far, were I to enter into the heart of the question which of the three idioms, Sanskrit, Pali, and the so-called Gatha dialect, was the oldest scriptural language of the Buddhists, and I will therefore confine myself to a few remarks. In the first place it will begranted that the same person cannot have uttered any speech or stanza in two languages at the same time, and, further, that he is not likely to have spoken Sanskrit, when expressing himself in prose, and to have had recourse to a mere dialect, when speaking in poetry. One need not suppose that the common and every-day language of the god Brahma and the Buddha was Pali or

1 The Calc. ed. lias wrongly "dharvo and "pungalali.

3 The reading aham sadrsim of the Calo. ed. is clearly a corrupt reading.

3 This word, which spoils the metre, lias manifestly replaced an older expression, not unlikely ahanhi, or a similar form of the future tense of ahan (Sansk. ahanisye).

4 Lotus de la bonne Loi (1852), p. 864.