No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011
Dr. rudolf hoernle's Manuscript Remains of Buddhist Literature Found in Eastern Turkestan (1916) contains the collected fragments of the two most celebrated works ascribed to the Buddhist hymn-writer Mātṛceṭa, generally known as the Śatapañcāśatka and Catuḥśataka Stotras. The editor pointed out (p. 76) that in the Catuḥśataka fragments the poem is twice called Varṇārhavarṇa Stotra and that the Tibetan translation in the Tanjur, parts of which were published by Professor F. W. Thomas in the Indian Antiquary, vol. xxxiv, pp. 145 ff., gives it the same title. Further perplexities are indicated in Dr. Hoernle's note on the first fragment of the Catuḥśataka (Stein MSS., Khora 005a) which begins in his edition as follows:—
Obverse
1. xxxxxxxx 
x ṁ prayātu citto jagati x (dhayu) x (matiḥ) ‖ 100 (śloka) ‖ Prasādapratibhôdbhavo nāma buddha 
stotram xxxxxx
page 55 note 1 Often incorrectly written Śatapañcāśatika.
page 55 note 2 According to Hoernle in the form Varṇanārhavarṇa; but this is a misreading borrowed from Professor Thomas.
page 55 note 3 Italics show more or less doubtful legibility.
page 55 note 4 x = missing akṣara.
page 57 note 1 Sic. Read bram ze rta.
page 57 note 2 Conjectural complement by Professor Thomas.
page 58 note 1 He himself seems to have gained a similar tribute; Nandapriya's commentary on the Śatapañcāśatika quotes a verse from a Spel maḥi spel ma by Śākya blo (Śākyabuddhi)—doubtless identical with the Śākyadeva mentioned by l-Tsing (Records, trans. , Takakusu, p. 158)Google Scholar.
page 59 note 1 It will be noticed that my translation of prasādapratibhodbhava differs from Dr. Hoernle's. It follows the interpretation of Nandapriya (Dgaḥ byed sñan pa) whose commentary on the Śatapañeāśatka was translated into Tibetan and may be found in the Tanjur immediately after the hymn itself. For the meaning of prasāda and pratibhā in Buddhist Skt. cf. Lévi, , Sūtràlaṁkāra, Vol. II, pp. 12 and 57Google Scholar.
page 59 note 2 The last four Vaṁśastha verses may have been omitted in some texts.
page 60 note 1 It may be suggested that both the Khora and the Pelliot colophons belong to the Śatapañeāśatka and that the second should read prasādapratibho(dbhavo) nāma. I do not regard this as impossible, but it seems unlikely that Dignāga's hymn should have borne precisely the same name, as, from the evidence of the Tibetan chapter colophons, would then follow.