Buddhist Sanskrit

H. W. Bailey

doi:10.1017/S0035869X00106975

Buddhist Sanskrit

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011

H. W. Bailey

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

Professor Edgerton has offered us in his recent work on Buddhist Sanskrit (a monument to almost twenty years' labour) a material of delightful richness. It required both courage to undertake such a work and great persistence to carry it through. No doubt each reader will at first look eagerly to see how the cruces which have long baffled him have been resolved here; then to see how much new matter is offered in the elucidation of texts where he has himself after long searching been able to gather up some small amount of the widely scattered evidence. He may even venture to estimate how much of the harvest has been garnered and how much still remains to be brought in.

Type: Articles
Information: Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Volume 87 , Issue 1-2 , April 1955 , pp. 13 - 24

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00106975 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1955

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 13 note 1} Edgerton, Franklin, Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit, Grammar and Dictionary, 2 vols.Google Scholar; Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Reader, 1953, Yale University Press (London: Geoffrey Cumberlege). Price 97s. 6d. and 16sGoogle Scholar.

^{page 14 note 1} The reading with -rda- not -rna in the Krorayina texts has been confirmed by an examination of the facsimile, where T. Burrow had left it uncertain in BSOS. 7.780.

^{page 14 note 2} See Burrow, T., BSOS. 7.509 ff., 779ff.Google Scholar; H. W. Bailey, BSOAS. 10.917; Pelliot, P., Mélanges Linossier ii 426–430Google Scholar; Tavadia, J., Indo-Iranian Studies i 69–85Google Scholar.

^{page 15 note 1} This udranga- is quoted in the compound mahodranga- from the Kuṭṭanī-mata 936

abhyantara-vyayārthaṃ na vilabdho yo mayā mahodrangaḥ

tatrāpi te' nubandho no jāne kiṃ, karomīti

by Burrow, T., Language of the Kharoṣṭhī Documents, p. 99Google Scholar. The commentator explained by nagarī “town”, and understood the “income from a town”. He quoted the following verse from the lexicon Vācaspati-koia:—

Karvaṭādhamo drangaḥ pattanād uttamaś ca saḥ

udrangaś ca niveśaś ca sa eva dranga ity api.

In my copy of the Kuṭṭanī-mata there is a marginal note by J. J. Meyer giving a variant reading mahādrangaḥ.

^{page 15 note 2} See W. B. Henning, BSOAS. 12.605, note 4.

^{page 15 note 3} Ghilain, A., Essai sur la langue parthe, p. 51Google Scholar; Henning, W. B., BSOAS. 11.485Google Scholar.

^{page 15 note 4} Siddha-sāra 126 v 5; IIFL 2, 464.

^{page 15 note 5} As évasti for svasti in Krorayina, see Burrow, T., Language, p. 21Google Scholar.

^{page 16 note 1} Burrow, T., Language, p. 79Google Scholar, Translation, nos. 340, 637; H. Luders, Acta Oriental. 18.40 ff.

^{page 16 note 2} Lüders, H., Bhārhut und die bud. Literatur (1941), p. 45Google Scholar, wrongly opposed this view.

^{page 16 note 3} Morgenstierne, G., Report on a Linguistic Mission to Afghanistan, p. 72Google Scholar.

^{page 16 note 4} Facsimile by J. Bacot, cited below as Lex. Bacot.

^{page 16 note 5} Jātaka-stava 11 r 1, 12 v 3, in Khotanese Texts i.

^{page 17 note 1} Khotanese Texts i, p. 236 (haṃdramä only here).

^{page 17 note 2} In Kharoṣṭhi script, see most recently Whitehead, R. B., Numismatic Chronicle 1947, 1 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 17 note 3} Transactions of the Philological Soc. 1946, 150 ff.

^{page 17 note 4} G. Morgenstierne, Indo-Iranian Frontier Languages 2.268.

^{page 17 note 5} The details can be seen (Sanskrit, Tibetan, Khotanese) in BS0AS. 13.922 ff.

^{page 17 note 6} Khotanese Texts i 238, 54 v 4.

^{page 18 note 1} 199 r 5 and 215 v 7. These Tibetan words are not in the three dictionaries of Jäschke, Desgodins, and Das. For the use of li before plant names see the note of Laufer, B., Loan-words in Tibetan, p. 55, note 1Google Scholar. In the Siddhasāra the Tib. li doṅ-gra is rendered by ttāṃgare (= ttuṃgare) “ginger” (Khotan. 12 v 2 = Tib. 143 r 7).

^{page 18 note 2} Hobson-Jobson, s.v. Zedoary.

^{page 18 note 3} Greater Bundahišn 116.7; 118.8.

^{page 18 note 4} Siddhasāra 122 v 2 ysuma-, Tib. śa-khu “flesh broth”, quoted earlier in BSOS. 8.141.

^{page 18 note 5} Miscell. Acad. Berolinensia 1950, A Kharoṣṭhī Document and the Arapacana Alphabet, p. 197.

^{page 18 note 6} See BSOAS. 14.531.

^{page 18 note 7} See P. Pelliot, T'oung Pao 26.261.

^{page 18 note 8} Khotanese Texts ii 54, Ch. 1.0021 a, a 15; Sanskrit text P 2855 verso 1; 2 (unpubld).

^{page 19 note 1} Ed. M. A. Stein, 8.2216 putrau dattavato nīviṃ.

^{page 19 note 2} Freiman, A., Khorezmijskij Jazyk, pp. 87–8Google Scholar, fī nibāk “with pledge” and banibāk “without pledge”.

^{page 19 note 3} This word he had received from W. B. Henning.

^{page 19 note 4} namani is found also in no. 769, edited by T. Burrow in BSOS. 9.113.

^{page 19 note 5} The closer i- vowel may have been opened before the labial v or m, as happened in NPers. namūnah “specimen”.

^{page 20 note 1} Khotanese Texts i, p. 178, 97 v 3.

^{page 20 note 2} Hoernle, A. F. R., Manuscript Remains, p. 13Google Scholar.

^{page 20 note 3} Indian Hist. Quarterly 7.274–5.

^{page 20 note 4} Bagchi, P., Deux lexiques i 336Google Scholar; ii 446, text 63 a 1.

^{page 20 note 5} Lüders, H., Weitere Beiträge, p. 21, note 1, as paryyanaGoogle Scholar.

^{page 20 note 6} Müller, F. W. K., Uigurica 3.35Google Scholar; von Gabain, A., Biographie Hüen-Tsangs, p. 21Google Scholar.

^{page 20 note 7} Such a meaning for pari-cay- can be seen in the Iranian Yidya paržīn “enclosure for sheep”, for which and other connected words see G. Morgenstierne, Indo-Iran. Frontier Languages 2.240.

^{page 20 note 8} Khotanese Buddhist Texts 49 and 103.

^{page 20 note 9} 315 b 5 and Tocharische Grammatik, p. 59.

^{page 21 note 1} Sylvain Lévi, 3 A. 1915.1.113; Lüders, H., Weitere Beiträge, p. 40Google Scholar.

^{page 21 note 2} Recognized by Pelliot, P., Mélanges Linossier ii 429 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 21 note 3} Khotanese Buddhist Texts, p. 141, line 1001.

^{page 21 note 4} BSOAS. 13.937.

^{page 21 note 5} BSOAS. 11.497, O 2; 17. I take this opportunity to explain the verse O 5. Here parikirya'i represents paricaryaya “service” with -k- secondarily introduced for -y- replacing -y- from -c-. In pada d we have to read udakaruḍhu “descending into the water, bathing” from udaka- and avaruḍha- (with -ā- from -ava-) to agree with Pali references to udakorohana- as in Dīgha-Nikāya i 167. The sign earlier read -rka- certainly does not contain -r-, but stands for -kā-, the only case of the mark of length so far noted here. I have also found misreadings of c for j in 12 muje'a, mujadi, 23 kaji, 25, 26 ja, which need to be corrected.

^{page 21 note 6} The -y- of -vaṭya is not certain. The Gilgit Manuscript (2.142.9) rājavadya is probably a misreading for -vaṭya.

^{page 22 note 1} In Das's Dictionary.

^{page 22 note 2} Pali saṃvaṭṭa and vivaṭṭa come from saṃvarta and vivarta-; in Bud.Sanskrit vaṭṭa- “round” corresponds to vṛtta-.

^{page 22 note 3} Finot, L., Les lapidaires indiens, p. xviiiGoogle Scholar, with the short -a-; on p. 201 with the long -ā-.

^{page 22 note 4} The Indianizing etymology is given in Rāja-nighaṇṭu, 13.214–16, ed. Garbe, R., p. 28, where rāja- taken as “king” is replaced by nṛpa-Google Scholar.

^{page 22 note 5} JA. 1936.1.228; F. W. K. Müller, Uigurica 4.31.

^{page 22 note 6} The vowels are found in Armen. lazvart', lažvard, lažurd.

^{page 22 note 7} Pašai keeps older w- and b- distinct, as in waḍḍ- “grow” vardh-, but buḍai from “old” from *bṝḍha-. Khowar keeps -rt-.

^{page 22 note 8} For these words for “stone” see G. Morgenstierne, NTS. 7.12; NTS. 13.279; Report on a Linguistic Mission to North- Western India, p 50; Report … to Afghanistan, p. 71; Notes on Phalūṛa, 11FL2. 549.

^{page 22 note 9} Siddhasāra 148 v 5, translating Tib. mchiṅ-bu, Sansk. kāca- “crystal”.

^{page 22 note 10} Variation of vū- and ū- (and uyy-) is known in vūy-, ǔy-, uyy- “survey”, see BS0AS. 10.910, and JRAS. 1953.

^{page 23 note 1} In the Lex. Bacot 112 b 1 bahoḍa is put in error for baheḍa. For p'i-li-lo, see Bagchi, P., Deux Lexiques i, no. 1008, p. 303Google Scholar.

^{page 23 note 2} Ch. c. 001.

^{page 23 note 3} cukra- is miswritten ćakra-, and yona- (? yonra-) is written for lona.

^{page 23 note 4} In Krorayina the adj. śuki in the phrase 169 śuki masu we have a derivative by suffix -ya- from suka- from śukta-, with the -k- = -kk- as in Prak. mukka- from mukta-. In 387 śukha masu represents śukta madhu, that is, “vinegar”.

^{page 23 note 5} G. Morgenstierne, NTS. 2.280.

^{page 24 note 1} Lidén, E., Zeit.f. vgl. Sprachf. 61 (1934)Google Scholar, Zur indogerm. Terminologie der Milchwirtschaft, assumed a form *silu- and proposed to trace the base śar- “break” in it, as in Old Ind. śara- “sour cream”. But the Digor sulu makes it more likely that the base is su-. This could be traced to a base Indo-Eur. ken- “swell”, just as Avestan tūirya- “made into cheese” can be traced to teu- “swell”. Yidya silyo “cream” <*sidakā IIFL 2.246.

^{page 24 note 2} See Lüders, H., Weitere Beitrüge, p. 21, note 1Google Scholar. The prahāṇa-śālā is evidently the equivalent of the Khotan. jāya-śāṣṭaa- discussed in BSOAS. 14.532.

^{page 24 note 3} Bharhut und die buddhistische Literatur (1941), p. 174; and ZDMG. 99 (1945–1949)Google Scholar, Vidhurapaṇḍdita, Jātaka, p. 112.

^{page 24 note 4} NTS 14.27.

Article contents

Buddhist Sanskrit

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests