No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
XXXI. The “Unknown Languages” of Eastern Turkestan
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011
Extract
IN the July number of this Journal, p. 836, I promised to publish the text of the Aparimitāyuḥ Sūtra. As I have not yet received the Cambridge manuscripts of that Sūtra, I must defer the fulfilment of my promise to a later issue of the Journal. In the meantime I have compared the Sanskrit text of the Vajracchedikā, in Max Müller's edition, with the “unknown language” text in Dr. Stein's manuscript; and I may now present two extended “bilingual” extracts from the two texts. So far as I am able to judge at present, the East-Turkestani text does not appear to be a translation, throughout, of the Sanskrit text, as published by Max Müller. It is so, however, quite clearly in certain portions; and it is some of these portions that I am now presenting as a preliminary contribution.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1910
References
page 1284 note 1 Lit. Skt. evam etad; see fol. 7a iii.
page 1284 note 2 Wrongly repeated; śe is loc. sg. of śau = Skt. eka; see fol. 5b ii.
page 1284 note 3 See Remark 11, below.
page 1284 note 4 Apparently lit. Skt. viharan abhūt; see vya in fol. 33a ii.
page 1284 note 5 Cf. Skt. mahiṣṭha= mistä, of which mistäna is the instr. case.
page 1284 note 6 Sägä= Skt. saṃghawith disaspirated gh, as in darma = Skt. dharma.
page 1284 note 7 Haḍāna, loc. sg. of haḍā, Skt. ahan; see below, in Remarks 7 and 13.
page 1285 note 1 The bracketed phrase is wrongly repeated.
page 1285 note 2 Apparently lit. Skt. caran bhūtvā, pratikrāman bhūtvā.
page 1285 note 3 Probably wrong for khāystä.
page 1285 note 4 Apparently Skt. dvau pādau.
page 1285 note 5 Nastä = Skt. nyaṣīdat is transplaced; see fols. 5a iv, b i.
page 1285 note 6 Ăpparently in the bracketed portion the two texts differ.
page 1285 note 7 Apparently āśirī sg., āśirya pl. = Skt. bhikṣuḥ, bhikṣavaḥ.
page 1285 note 8 Apparently vyeta = Skt. abhūt or some similar word; cf. fol. 4b iv; ante foot-note 4, infra foot-note 22.
9page 1285 note 9 The bracketed equations are doubtful.
page 1285 note 10 Hvaraṃ = Skt. dalcsinanh; cf. fol. 5b ii.
page 1285 note 11 Repeated from above.
page 1285 note 12 Hālaimi, loc. sg. of hāla, “locality” = Skt. anta = sthāna; cf. fol. 5a i hālai.
page 1286 note 1 The two texts differ; the E. Turk, may mean Skt. piṇḍapātam cāritvā; cf. fols. 4a iv, b i, ii.
page 1286 note 2 See fol. 5a ii, vara-hamya; Sanskrit equivalent unknown.
page 1286 note 3 Apparently vyitä = vyeta, fol. 5a i, foot-note 15.
page 1286 note 4 Here, and elsewhere, u = Skt. ca, resolving Skt. conj. participles into finite verbs.
page 1286 note 5 Probably śau-sve cīvarä prahausti lit. = Skt. ekārhsāc cīvaramapanīya, having withdrawn the robe from one shoulder.
page 1286 note 6 Hālaimi, loc. sg. of hāla, “locality” = Skt. anta = sthāna; cf. fol. 5a i, hālai.
page 1286 note 7 Perhaps Skt. ābhūt or āsīt; cf. āstä-vya, fol. 3b iv, and aśtä, fol. 32a iv.
page 1286 note 8 Probably wrong for aṃjalä.
page 1286 note 9 Apparently lit. Skt. hastāñjalirh. kṛtvā; cf. yuḍä-yude, fol. 4b i, and dastä = hasta.Regarding the whole passage, see ProfessorLeumann's, remarks in JGOS., lxii, p. 107Google Scholar.
page 1286 note 10 Perhaps sä = Skt. parama.
page 1286 note 11 Bracketed phrase omitted in E. Turk. text.
page 1286 note 12 The equivalence of the two bracketed texts is not intelligible.
page 1287 note 1 Here mistä-baysuṃ = Skt. mahā-sattvā, but the two texts really lo not agree. In the Sanskrit text mahāsattvāḥ goes with bodhisatlvāḥ, both being nom. plur., but in the E. Turk, text mistä-baysum navuysā seems to stand by itself, for some of the parallel passages haveonly baysum ñavuysä (fols. 6b iv, 7a iv, 8a i, b iii, 9a iii), though what the word navuysa may exactly mean is not clear. See ProfessorLeumann's, remarks in JGOS., lxii, p. 109Google Scholar, with which, however, I do not agree.
page 1287 note 2 Mye, or ma, is an inflectional suffix, like mī in hālaimī, fol. 5a iv.
page 1287 note 3 The equivalence of the two bracketed texts is not intelligible.
page 1287 note 4 Probably wrong for baysum.
page 1287 note 5 Apparently mara corresponds to the technical term Jāva, Skt. yāvat of Jaina texts, usedto indicate omitted standing formulæ, such as kulaputreṇa, etc. It means also Skt. iha, fols. 9a ii, 31b i.
page 1288 note 1 Apparently ṣi-härä = Skt. tasya, gen. of ṣi or ṣä, Skt. saḥ, demonstrative pron., corresponding to ci-härä = Skt. hasya, interrog. pron., fols. 10a iv, b i, 31b iv, 32a ii, 37a iv; the rel. pron. is cu = Skt. yaḥ, nom. sg., fols. 9b i, ii, iii, 32a iv, bii, iv, 33a i, ii.
page 1288 note 2 See n. 1, p. 1287.
page 1288 note 3 Mye, or ma, is an inflectional suffix, like mī in hālaimī, fol. 5a iv.
page 1288 note 4 Apparently by the copyist's carelessness this paragraph has been repeated from fol. 6a i, the only point of difference being nāsāñiä = Skt. pragrahītavyaṃ for baysaṃjäṃña, introduced from fol. 9a i.
page 1288 note 5 Read gyasta-baysāna, as above, fol. 7a iv.
page 1288 note 6 Apparently wrong for ysīnīyahauḍä; see fol. 6b iii.
page 1288 note 7 Probably wrong for baysumṃ.
page 1289 note 1 See n. 5, p. 1287.
page 1289 note 2 Mara, if it is =jāva = yāvat, seems to be here superfluous.
page 1289 note 3 The Sanskrit equivalent of the B. Turk, text would be evam etad sādhu.
page 1289 note 4 Probably wrong for baysum.
page 1289 note 5 See n. 1, p. 1287.
page 1289 note 6 Apparently nta has been wrongly repeated.
page 1289 note 7 Reading doubtful, folio damaged.
page 1289 note 8 The Sanskrit text has vā, but the E. Turk, cu would rather be = Skt. yaḥ, rel. pron.
page 1289 note 9 Lit. Skt. sārdhaṃ-rūpiṇaḥ.
page 1289 note 10 Wrongly repeated.
page 1289 note 11 Lit. Skt. vinā-rūpiṇaḥ.
page 1290 note 1 The two texts seem to differ in this passage; dädirä is hardly = Skt. evam, which is nta, and ku parinirvāye hamāti would mean Skt. kaḥ (or katham) parinirvāpitaḥ pravarteta; see fols. 10a iii, b i, 31b iv, 32a ii.
page 1290 note 2 The colophon of the MS. has haḍi = Skt. ārya, fol. 4b i.
page 1290 note 3 Lit. kāmujä ṣai śau = Skt. kaścit sa ekaḥ.
page 1290 note 4 Perhaps a mere clerical blunder for jīva; see fol. 32a i.
page 1290 note 5 See n. 5, p. 1287.
page 1290 note 6 Read mahāyāṃña; cf. fol. 7a i.
page 1291 note 1 Here the two texts do not quite agree; see fols. 6b iv, etc.
page 1291 note 2 The colophon of the MS. has haḍi = Skt. āryā, fol. 44b i.
page 1291 note 3 Read paranirvāye, as in fol. 10a iii; for paranirvāña = Skt. parinirvāpayitavya see fol. 10a iii.
page 1291 note 4 See n. 1, p. 1288.
page 1291 note 5 For the Sanskrit version see foot-note 1 on p. 21 of M. M. edition.
page 1292 note 1 See n. 1, p. 1288.
page 1292 note 2 This represents here Skt. samyak, and in fols. 6a iii, b iii, 7a iv, 8b i, Skt. parameṇaor paramayā; and biśä by itself represents Skt. sarve (properly viśvāḥ)in fol. 31b ii; hence biśä-pīrmāntama perhaps lit. = Skt. sarva-prakāreṇa, or some similar phrase.
page 1292 note 3 In the bracketed portion the two texts do not agree.
page 1292 note 4 Perhaps wrong for gyasta-baysä, for the form ending in na usually stands for the instrumental case.
page 1292 note 5 Vya cu = Skt. ahhaviṣyad yaḥ, missing in the Sanskrit text.
page 1293 note 1 Loc. sg. of śau = Skt. eka.
page 1293 note 2 Cf. ñlavuysaina in Vajracchedikā, fol. 31b ii; i.e. ñavuysai with instrumental suffix na or jsa.
page 1293 note 3 Hatsa = Skt. sārdham, placed earlier after saṃghena.
page 1293 note 4 Loc. sg. of nta = Skt. tat.
page 1293 note 5 The consonant (x) of the final syllable is broken off.
page 1293 note 6 Perhaps an error for aśtä; see fol. 32a iv.
page 1293 note 7 Guṇais placed differently in the two texts.
page 1293 note 8 Dāvara may be a clerical error for dātara, for v and t are not unfrequently confounded, and dāta = Skt. dhātu, see fol. 9b iv; dātara would seem to be the plural of dāta; see my “Report”, JASB., 1901, Extra No. 1, p. 34.
page 1295 note 1 See also No. iv, 1. 4, ṛä (formerly read by me cä) of pi. iv in my “Report on Three Further Collections” in the JASB., vol. lxvi, p. 234, 1897.
page 1295 note 2 See also fig. 4, 1. 3, wa (formerly read by me first as kha, afterwards as ṅa), of pi. iii in my “Report on the Weber MSS.” in the JASB., vol. lxii, p. 35, 1893, also in the same Journal, vol. lxx, Extra No. 1, Appendix, pp. 1, 15, leaf 33b iii, 1902.
page 1297 note 1 See my “Report” in JASB., lxx, ExtraNo. 1, pp. 34 ff. In Document5, 1. 4, p. 38, occurs trai-se paṃ-saya, i.e. three hundred (and) half-hundred (350); also 1. 5, śau, one; and in Document 8, 1. 3, paṃ-hsāro, halfthousand (500). In the list on p. 34, “500” should be “50”.